US Army to get a new light tank

Armor/AFV 1:1 Tank Talk
21

And seriously, it should be capable of being carried by C-130. A C-17 can already carry an Abrams. For air delivery, parachute assault has only been tried once under combat conditions and of the 8-10 M-551s dropped, one had a chute failure and burned in, and another missed the runway and landed in a swampy area alongside, ending up mired so deep it could not be recovered and was demoed in place after being stripped of usable equipment. That aside, LAPES is alternate method of rapid aerial delivery.

image

2 Likes
22

I’m assuming the crew jump in separately? (just kidding)

1 Like
23

Was the tank able to be driven away, once crewed? That is incredible footage, watch how far the tank skids before coming to rest.

Too bad politics manages to stymie good projects, the M8 looked a good vehicle on paper and in practice, too.

24

It was not politics at all. The M8 and the MPS were tested side-by-side and the MPS won out.

25

when the Sheridan was just a piece of paper there were three directions going on at the same time. Marines were real interested in it, and armored CAV as well. The stick in the mud was the 82nd as the had a max weight limit to make it air dropable. (never worked). Marines and Armored Cav wanted a steel hull with about 33% more horse power (There was a power pack already designed and tested that used an 8-53 Detroit engine instead of the 6-53) . MAC went with the 82nd’s grand scheme of affairs. That one used the 6-53 power pack. Marines walked away from it early on. Plus the CAV and Marines were not fond of the gun launcher system.

Fast forward a decade and a half and we see Cadillac Gauge showing a new light tank. The U.S. just was interested in it and Carter killed off over seas sales. Then along comes the Bradley. Nice idea, but a bad design that was under constant revision for the next ten years. Some how BAE gets their hands on it, and then the rumor mill starts of a new light tank. There’s been talk about a forty ton tank as well. This new tank fits right into the forty ton slot and not the light weight slot. Makes a lot of sense. Then with GDLS running the show, you can rest assured that some of the Abrams stuff will end up inside it. That 105mm gun worked well in Iraq, but don’t think they used reactive armor. The way the turret is designed, I could see two and maybe three different turret designs with perhaps one employing a missile battery. I honestly think we may see two and maybe as much as three different types on main guns on that hull. Perhaps a short barreled 140mm to be used as an infantry . A bee hive out of a Sheridan was pure evil, and way better than the one out of an M48

1 Like
26

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
27

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
28

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.

29

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?

30

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?(!)

31

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.

32

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.

33

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

Anecdotally, it didn’t go well.

34

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:

35

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.

36

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
37

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

38

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

39

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:

40

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