US Army to get a new light tank

Unless they are of Russian heritage :face_with_raised_eyebrow:
Just kidding! Just playing on the rumors that the Soviets used to air drop their BMD’s crewed.

1 Like

I was referring to TriSaw’s post: The Stryker MGS was the loser to the tracked M8 AGS and the US Army tested Centauro, Rookiat, and a lot of other light tank contenders a long time ago. The M8 AGS won the competition, but no Army general cared to push to fund and build it outside of the Airborne generals. So politics got in the way and the loser MGS was built and fielded instead because General Shinsheki pushed for Strykers after Bosnia as a Quick Reaction Force that HMMWVs couldn’t suit that well. Maybe we’re at cross purposes? I acknowledge you’d know way more about this than I ever will, but politics does inhibit good outcomes.

2 Likes

It is more changing policy and requirements than politics. What is envisioned as new force posture and design changes when policies change. Additionally, the Service Chiefs of Staff (Army COS - Shinsheki) are tasked with looking into the future and designing the force to fit the future battles and wars. At the time, the future fight was seen as more Bosnia-type situations where we needed quick, wheeled vehicles to respond - hence the Stryker was born. Unfortunately, the future wars didn’t pan out to be what was projected.

Yes, but it’s all about how well they bounce!

So I’m wondering what this new beast will be doing. The 105 suggests knocking out tanks and other nasty targets, but at less than 40 tons it can’t be protected enough to survive the inevitable return fire. Nor will it stand up to all those man-portable AT weapons. Maybe the lighter hull is about resisting small-arms while supporting infantry? But if it’s more about close support and bunker-busting then surely a big howitzer would be better main armament?

Well, British military procurement has nothing to be proud about that’s for sure. I hope it works out well for the US Army, although to me, sometimes it’s almost a case of aesthetics (always an important AFV design criteria!) and it just looks a bit of a mess; that said, I actually like the appearance of M60A2 so what the hell do I know?(!)

People replying to this thread have to understand that we don’t know much about the MPF at all. The US Army and GDLS did a remarkable job of keeping the information lid tight on this MPF 105mm. The Griffin II prototype with 120mm cannon has more info released than the MPF. Many articles were written on the GDLS 105mm MPF, but none have details not already known.

Is the 105mm MPF welded steel with steel applique? Is it welded aluminum with steel applique? Is it all-steel armor? Is it composite armor? Is there an armor sandwich? How many rounds or ammo? Does it have 360-cameras? Does it have a turret basket? What Generation FLIR is the CITV and GPS? What is its range, speed, dimensions, performance, and and capabilities? Will it carry Iron Fist APS and Boomerang Anti-Sniper? Will it carry DUKE Anti-IED antennas? Does it have a V-Hull? Is there Anti-IED belly armor? US Army and GDLS aren’t divulging. The MPF was developed during GWOT and peer nation challenges, not the Cold War. That small photo I posted DOES show DUKE (mmmmaybe), Boomerang, and Iron Fist APS, but is it official?

As for the applique armor, I doubt that the US Army will take it off, meaning “What you see is what you get.” No one wants to heft heavy steel plate and install that in the field via crane. Tank crews want RO/RO off a C-17.

A C-17’s maximum payload weight is 85.45 tons. At 38 tons each GDLS MPF, that is 76 tons for two MPFs so nine tons left over for crew, some ammo, and gear = doable!

The Marines don’t seem interested in the MPF. The USMC did away with anything tracked.

I think the politics is that the MPF, being tracked is slower than the GM Defense ISV, LAVs, JLTVs, and HMMWVs. Airborne tactics need to be developed so as not to outrace your tank fire support so “Wheels were popular.” But FINALLY, the US Airborne has a tracked “light tank” to field and this one seems to be the winner.

The Stryker MGS lost to the BAE M8 AGS a long time ago. The BAE M8 AGS lost to the GDLS MPF. Ironically, the Cadillac Gage Stingray II 105mm has always been an option, as is the M1117 ASV with 90mm Cockerill turret so the US Airborne did have fire support options that didn’t require developing a whole new MPF. However, Stingray II has been known to be 23mm AP front and 14.5mm armor all around survivable. I think MPF’s armor is more than that…perhaps 30mm AP all around if it weighs 38 tons each. Yet if it has a composite armor sandwich frontal faces, then the armor rating is more.

The only other option to the 105mm MPF in the future is the Remote Control Vehicle-Heavy (RCV-H) that is rumored to carry a 120mm gun. That is akin to the OMFV, but the OMFV might replace the Bradley and carries rear troops. The RCV-H will be “all tank” but it won’t replace the M1 Abrams—that is the Next Generation M1 Abrams. https://forums.kitmaker.net/t/the-next-generation-m1-abrams-mbt-gdls-teaser/21122

Looks like the US Army is finally getting its act together to make programs that actually succeed and don’t get canceled.

Airborne always wanted a Tank Killer and the Airborne generals were often shoved off for Heavy Mechanized Armor.

A classic example is LOSAT on a HMMWV…and then it became compact KEM (CKEM) on a HMMWV with a trailer…and then it was tested to work and then became nothing…it was canceled. That was many years ago and was one of the first true US hypersonic missiles at Mach 6.5 out to around five miles. Why it wasn’t resurrected is beyond me…perhaps CKEM wasn’t guided.

At the time, the US Army envisioned a lot of small Brush Wars in Second and Third World countries that need QRF and SCBTs. But with CROWS II limited to .50cal and 40mm AGLs, that’s pretty weak armament with the SCBT troops performing heavy duty and “Peacekeeping.” You know more about this than I do. :grinning:

Getting back to armored warfare, Airborne is rising up because speed is of the essence and SCBTs aren’t the end-all answer, not to mention the Army hates the Stryker MGS.

I think the US National Security Defense Strategy has changed from involving the US in Brush Wars to more about National Defense and National Security of bigger targets and larger threats. What’s more, NATO and other nations do have light tanks…and so do peer nations.

They did, in fact, try this - using crews from punishment battalions.

Anecdotally, it didn’t go well.

Surely it’s about doctrine… is this envsaged as a true A/T platform or direct, high moblity FS with some AT capablity?
The reversion to 105mm does seem a bit stange for AT in ths day and age. But this is coming from a guy who has NO experience in the field of armour outside of styrene :thinking:

The real problem the military has is the time between Need concept and a procurement. The process is so long that needs change before procurement. The military does not fancy single purpose items so once a need concept gets created such as a light armor vehicle for the airborne, alternative uses are explored, That requires additional changes to adapt to the alternative uses. Soon the vehicle becomes a jack of all things and a master of none. It may be adaped enough to no longer fit the original concept and the project gets dropped.

True Greg. They do say the camel is a horse designed by committee!

Of course if they were serious about AT and bunker-busting they’d fit a 155mm - that way penetration can be sacrificed to the simple explosive forces of dis-assembly!

1 Like

Well, for bunker busting I’d say the 165mm M135 (Royal Ordnance L9A1 Demolition Gun) although it might be a tad short in range (about 2,500 Yards) for A/T work…
:smiling_imp:
Cheers,

M

That would make for an intersting video.
Serious question- has this ever been tried on a range against a Modern(ish) MBT ?

Do you mean a 105mm tank cannon against a MBT? If so, the US Army had the Stryker MGS to test that concept years ago. :grin:

Nope - I meant the 165mm demo charge from the AVRE.
Wasn’t the Stryker AGS primarily for DF against light armour and fortifications?

I wonder if they could come up with a new missile to work in the 152mm gun/launcher that was used on the M60A2/M551. That 6” gun packs a wicked punch, and surely the missile technology now exists to do what was promised in the Shillelagh missile for long range engagements.

1 Like

Mount a Javelin in an armored box on each side of the turret with the Javelin fire controls inside the turret. That would give you two antitank missiles and the 152mm for everything else.

1 Like

1 Like

the classic one five five round with the right fuse will penetrate close to twenty inches of concrete, so it’s claimed. Actually about sixteen to seventeen inches on a good day. Yet if it were twenty four inches, and the round has a good hit, you’re pretty much jello from the concussion. Or at best; extremely loopy! The real advantage of the big bore is with canister munitions. A Sheridan could clear out a foot ball field with one round. The HE round from a big bore is total distruction on buildings with very deep penetration.

I do see an issue with the new tank right away. The track (over all width of the tank) is wider than a Bradley or just about anything but an M1 tank. This is not good, as the new tank can’t break trail for the folks following him and vice versa. I see a lot of walking out front
gary

honestly, your rarely shooting at more than 1200 yards, and often in the 300 yard area
gary