That ratio only works if they aren't sending tanks at you at a 5-1 or more ratio. Quantity has a quality all its own.

IIRC, the cost difference was something like 10k per missile vs 100k per missile. Training would have been very expensive.

Baby tankers??

So they created a new MOS for the Stryker guys?  I would have thought they would have just rolled them over from the Bradleys.

MOS 11M and 11H folded into 11B years ago.  Now there are only two IN MOSs, 11B and 11C.  The Initial entry feeder MOS is 11X.

That article talks a lot about the fuel pumps but doesn't mention much about the injectors themselves needing some lubrication.  In any event, I don't see how having to use a special fuel is logistically better than using commercially available fuel if the special fuel causes the diesel powered stuff to be unreliable.  

As far as operating in the cold, they could use what ever these guys were using an use #2 diesel elsewhere.  
http://www.thecoldestjourney.org/the-expedition/equipment/mobile-vehicle-landtrain-aka-ice-train/modifying-the-caterpillar-d6ns/

USAREUR, not the Joint Staff or Army Staff.

Which sucked for the TOW companies that now had to train their troops from scratch, and often got the last pick of incoming 11B soldiers into the unit; but was good for those former 11Hs that wanted to go somewhere other than Bragg, Campbell, Drum and Hawaii.





IMHO they should have rolled 11H and 19D together and had the best of both; both use the same equipment; just a different spot on the battlefield (recon vs. fire support).





 

Well, it was one brief article, I'm sorry it was not all encompassing, it was intended to give you ideas so that you could do more research on your own if you were interested.



There's a lot more that was not in that article.



 

Ahem. 11A and 11Z, Sergeant Major.

Buddy of mine was a 19D in the 1990s and did that.

Meh, they don't count.

Exactly right-acquisition is often unrealistically ambitious, with a "we'll throw everything out there for capability, and see what sticks" mentality.

That was the case with the MBT-70, especially with the gun / missile argument that raged at time between West Germany and the U.S.  When it was cancelled (along with the austere version called the XM803), someone in the Army (it may have been Gen. William DePuy) finally said something to the effect that "enough is enough with the extra bells and whistles like guided missiles and coffee makers for the crews (!), so just give me a  @#$damn basic tank to replace the aging M60".

Still, the follow-on Abrams program pushed the integration of technological innovation for MBTs of that era, with a fully digitalized FCS incorporating thermal NV, a gas turbine engine, the ability to accurately engage targets while on the move with high "first round hit" capability, and advanced composite armor all designed into the tank from the ground up.  Yes, the M60A3 had the TTS, an LRF, and a digitalized FCS, but lacked true "fire on the move" capability, and had very thin armor.  A hit from an enemy tank would most likely kill or severely injure the crew.  The Israelis found out the hard way just how vulnerable their M60A1s were in 1973 to RPGs, ATGMs and tank main gun fire from T-55s and T-62s.  

In the XM1, crew surviveability was considered of paramount importance, and the personalities involved in driving the development of what became the Abrams (many of which were young armor officers in Europe in WWII) were key to that feature.  It was felt that a crew that knew it could survive getting hit by an enemy tank, would fight more aggressively and make winning battles more likely-a lesson literally payed for in blood.  

Not long after the positive effects of this design philosophy became apparent to all in the first Gulf War, Armor magazine was full of proposals by young armor officers advocating for lighter tanks with less armor be fielded, because enough armor to guarantee crew surviveability was too costly in tax dollars, fuel, and  tactical mobility.  The incredible success of the M1 / M1A1 Abrams against Iraqi armor was apparently lost on them.  IMHO, you don't "fix" what isn't broken, but that's just me.

For our Airborne forces, the M551 needs to be replaced, but it will be a very delicate balance between firepower, weight and crew surviveability in ways that an MBT like the Abrams doesn't have to contend with.  It should be tracked, and it should be armed with at least a 105mm main gun, as the 4th generation 105mm M900 APFSDS-T KE tank main gun ammunition has already been developed and fielded in substantial numbers.  The max effective range of anything less would be problematic.  This in itself is yet another trade-off:  the 120mm main gun of the M1A1 Abrams can penetrate over 18 inches of armor at 4,000 meters with older M829 series APFSDS-T tank main gun ammunition.  A light tank that incorporated a 120mm main gun would have much longer range than one equipped with the 105mm, but would not carry as much ammo, and the tank itself would be heavier.  In the deserts of SWA, a light tank firing M829A3 / A4 APFSDS-T could probably fight and win with less armor, simply because of the "stand off" range offered by that round means U.S. crews could destroy enemy armor before the enemy would be able to fire back, but in a war fought in Europe or Asia, that same lack of armor would be a problem once such an AFV found itself being attacked at close range from older, less advanced AT weapons.  Logistically speaking, matters are simplified with the use of 120mm tank main gun ammunition for any new tank fielded.

One option is adding an existing ATGM launcher to any proposed light tank, as this could be done with little weight penalty, and give the tank the ability to engage enemy targets beyond the range of the 105mm main gun if that caliber of gun is retained for main gun armament.  Like the M8 AGS, the hull and turret should be capable of mounting additional modular armor once in-theater as a concession to the inevitable changing mission requirements.  

Does such a "lightweight" armored vehicle incorporate an autoloader, or use a fourth crewman?  If the tank utilizes a "conventional" layout of the driver in the hull, and gunner and TC in the turret, then the retention of a human loader may offer lighter weight and be less prone to mechanical malfunction requiring the attention of a Maintenance Contact Team to address the problem.  That fourth crewman is an extra mouth to feed, but he's also an extra hand available for PMCS.

OTOH, past concepts such as the 2nd prototype AAI Corp. RDF/LT may offer the only viable solution, as a light tank built around a traditional layout of a four, or even three-man crew with a turret mounted prominently above the hull may not be able to realistically meet weight requirements without sacrificing crew protection to unacceptable levels.

One option that really needs to be explored here is the use of non-autonomous, unmanned RGVs in place of manned AFVs.  An RGV can sacrifice armor to stay within weight limitations, without risking the loss of crews should the RGV take a catastrophic hit from enemy fire.  Less armor, less weight, less cost, and less political consternation as a result of consequences in terms of policy decisions back in DC because of WIAs / KIAs.  "Crews" could operate in close proximity to their RGV, and the day / night sensors such as 3X, 10X, and 50X thermal sights could be tied into the BN TOC all the way down to the platoon and squad level.  While RGVs aren't a perfect solution, they may allow for a more "uncluttered" RFP since concerns for crew survival are completely removed from the picture to begin with, and the associated weight that accompanies such considerations.

Hence why the Russians won.

THIS!

Yeeees! Battlemech FTW.

If you're going to use it against emplacements what about an armored car with a 120mm mortar capable of direct fire?

If you're going to put a 105mm on it, you don't need a missile launcher, just a laser designator system.
IAI has already developed and deployed a gun launched missile system called LAHAT that can be fired from a  standard 105 or 120mm tank gun.

Semi active laser homing so anybody with the appropriate designator could guide it, range of something like 8km, already in service in a few places.



As for what size gun you mount on the vehicle, if the vehicle is not going to have a separate, armored storage compartment with blow off panels like the M1 has, I'd feel safer being surrounded by 105mm rounds rather than 120mm rounds.  At least the 105mm rounds aren't made with a combustible/flammable/explosive case, so they are a bit less sensitive to fire and stuff.  You can mitigate this a bit by storing the rounds in individual tubes like the Leopard 2 does with it's stored 120mm ammo, but if you want to use an auto-loader like the M8 does then I imagine that's just not possible.

The Army is retarded... This is the Uniform Boondoggle all over again. The Sheridan was classified as a Armored Reconnaissance vehicle, not a tank. With way to big a gun on way too small of a hull ( The conventional 152mm HEAT rd would lift the hull off it;s first 3 road wheels when fired, and knock the Rangefinder out of its mount).

There are already plenty of systems that could be  used.  Hell, Spend the money on R&D for Mech suits if your want to keep Airborne relevant.

So we are all agreed on the requirements then.

It should be an air-droppable Mk4 Merkava.

thread reminds me of this badass trailer with a T-80 air dropped into a car dealership:

World in Conflict

I'm willing to write the JUONS that it also needs Link 16/CEC and the ability to fire SM-6 and Harpoon.

The 76mm was enough of an improvement in dealing with the Panther that it basically replaced the 75mm.  The final Easy 8 version of the Sherman used through Korea had the 76mm gun as well.  You are correct that the short 75mm was better for infantry support, but the Army decided that the trade off wasn't worth it.
 
 

AirSea Battle compliant.

I like where your head is at.

Better yet, we can put wings and a propeller on it so that it can fly itself to the drop zone.

ETA: For some reason, I feel the need to point out that I was being sarcastic...

What would the MOS be for tank pilot?

Barring that it can be carried under an A-10







 

Hah!  But the real question is, is that image a parody, or is it a serious proposal from that guy?

I can't tell.  



87K?  

The problem with light tanks is sooner or later they run into heavy tanks and bad things happen.

If you have to ask...



 

nevermind

Tracked Iowa class.  Or a wheeled F-35B.

 

M113 with the troop compartment converted into a VLS battery of Javelin missiles.  

CV90 with AMOS would be nice

When did they start using Cav Scouts to crew the Sheridan? In the 80's (at least up to 1988) they were crewed by 19E's (M60 Armor crewman) who received OJT on the M551's  when they got in unit.

Um,the guy who had that brilliant idea wanted to take Baghdad by swimming M113s out the back of C130 float planes which landed in the Tigris.


Yes,really

Bring back the rail road guns!

AIRBORNE!!!!

It should be a standard Navy VLS for interoperability and cost savings.



Plus it would give us a rapid-deployment Tomahawk or SM-3 launch system.



 

It will also need to float so we can have a cost effective alternative to the LCS.  Did I mention that we're making this an amphibious-flying joint strike tankboatjet?



 

Does 82nd Abn have 120mm mortars?

Would make getting under bridges and power lines interesting.



 

It also needs orbital capabilities for full spectrum combat from LIC to orbital bombardment.  But per unit cost can't be more than $1,000,000,000.

 

Going with "yes".

Plenty of them.

ETA:  beat by the 4.2 guy

Bunches and bunches of them. They also have FA.

Hmm, good point. Lift fan?






TruckBoatTruckPlane





 

I swear I saw that thing when I was at Bliss last year...



If that wasn't it...it looked like a Brad chassis with a big gun on it and same camo pattern.



 

I wish I could find it, but somebody posted a photo of that same......................Whatever the hell is going on there......From the side.

IIRC you could see the guy standing on the base plate floating in mid air as the base plate was getting pushed down.

And HIMARs....



Holy fuck are 120s loud btw...they set those fuckers up not too far from our tents at Kalsu. Thought we were taking incoming when they registered them No one told us we had 120s around...we were used to the 81s...