Might be, it ran against the Stryker during trials or whatever.

I think I've seen that on an internet video.  Shouldn't be a big deal to put a turret on a Toyota and just use it...

Those look like four deuce.  That's a serious pocket artillery right there.  Of course you might be able to have a better result with a towed 120 behind a badass ATV/4 wheeler.

SIMPSON'S DID IT
ASU-57




ASU-85

Nick

Shockingly martial idealogies predicated on the principle of killing mass amounts of people are more effective then martial idealogies based on getting people to like you.

Some folks bring up the TOW missile system or Recoiless Rifles as all that's needed to defeat heavy armor for ground units that enter the fight via airborne ops.  This is a flawed assumption.

The TOW has severe tactical limitations.  While it has a range of 3,750 meters, that's well within the range of the main gun of an MBT.  A TOW gunner has to track his target during the entire flight of the missile, and he's very vulnerable to fire from the target after he launches that missile.  He's completely exposed, and if the crew of that tank is paying attention, they'll see the back blast from the missile launch when it leaves the tube.  It's very easy to "ground" the missile from a flinch or something that causes you to over steer the missile one way or the other.  The missile is VERY sensitive to movement by the gunner.  The furthest out I've fired a TOW missile at was over 2,800 meters (training), and it took every ounce of concentration I had to hit the truck-an old "deuce and a half"-I was aiming at.  

Try doing that in combat, under fire.

A battalion commander once told me that when you use your TOW assets, consider them gone.  Once the enemy detects them, they're very easy to kill off.  The TOW was developed specifically to give U.S. and NATO forces the ability to defend West Germany against the numerical superiority of Soviet armor against a smaller number of NATO defenders.  There's nothing "offensive" about it.  

A recoiless rifle has all the significant firing "signature" liabilities of the TOW (if not worse), without the top attack capability that the TOW offers.  They're simply outdated for taking on modern armor, although it would be much cheaper than using a Javelin for non-armor targets.

A light tank would offer the airborne at least some offensive capability.  Tanks offer mobility, firepower, and armor protection in ways no other weapon system can.  Tracked vehicles can carry more armor than wheeled types, and can maneuver in terrain that wheeled vehicles cannot.  I was told by a captain years ago that during our initial operations in Afghanistan, USMC units using LAVs were wearing out tires so often that this condition dictated LOAs, while CH-53s were flying in replacement tires as quickly as they were being worn out.  A Lt Col. John Long (U.S. Army) that was TAD from TACOM told me while we were both at Ft. Knox in 2003, that a requirement for a 30-ton tank grew out of the Marine Corps's experiences there in the early phase of OEF.

The Army has wanted a light tank since before the M551 was retired.  They've been hobbling along without one for all these years, but they need a light tank.  Whether they can procure one on a timely basis is a completely different question.      

Sorry for quote tree, I'm on my phone.  That last quote is sig line worthy.


Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

A 'light tank', that will at best have some protection against 25/30mm rounds, from the front only, is not going to fair any better.

Based on the aritcle...

...they are only looking for protection from heavy mg's.

A 'light tank' used in the anti-tank role, had better not be up against a group of T-72's that have anything close to a modern FCS.

You all seem to be missing the point. Airborne tanks work in close concert with their supporting infantry. In fact, they exist to support the infantry. They are for mobile fire support. If the infantry runs into a platoon of T72's, they have multiple assets to dispatch them, for example Javelin, TOW, and then the light tank. A light tank also brings a number of sensors into the fight in terms of FLIR and such. A light tank or two should not be taking on a platoon of tanks by itself. It will lose that fight, but that's why we have tactics, to mitigate these factors. In the military we do not fight one on one unless something has gone horrifically wrong.

*There is a reason that non turreted assault guns fell out of favor. Turreted armor gives you flexibility and situational awareness that you lack in a casemate platform. If I am in a situation where I know I'm surrounded, which is pretty much expected for an air dropped force, I want the ability to quickly get on target.

As far as offensive capability, light tanks also give you a bit of an extra edge when counter attacking.

*Except for this, because 2 120mm cannons really say fuck you with authority.

Like this?

Bundeswehr's little Wiesel strikes me as a neat little tank.  20mm turret, antitank missiles, even an air defense and mortar version.  Of course, it wasn't built here, so they'd NEVER buy it.

Tracks do not a tank make. The Wiesel is not a light tank. More of a tracked armored weapons carrier than anything else. Also don't think it meets the protection threshold.

Looks like a stuart turret stuck on a 113 chasis.

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4488.html

BINGO.... Tube change takes 30 mins and add a sub des for the CCP for the rd. All good. Caliber change does not require a vehical change

Australian FSV (Fire Support Vehicle)
They took old Saladin armored car turrets and mounted them on M113's for mobile fire support. They were used in Vietnam. They stuck with the concept upgrading them later with Scorpion light tank turrets and renaming them MRV's. (Medium Reconnaissance Vehicle)

Active Defense doesn't defeat 14.5mm rounds. It also only carries auto cannon or missiles. The biggest asset to a light tank IMHO is a regular good old fashioned cannon/gun system. That thing is too small to handle anything over what it currently has. There is something to be said for a low cost, direct fire gun.

You can kill a 5 million dollar MBT with a 150,000 dollar Javelin, that a single company of Light Infantry carry upwards ot 10-15 of them.
The days of Tanks being the ultimate ground killing machine are over.



OPFOR commanders at JRTC and NTC have all said their biggest fears on the battlefield was a squad of guys sneaking around with Javelins then a company of M1 Abrams.

They actually made one.

They said that in 1973, they were wrong then too.

They aren't wrong, nothing on steel treads can survive a top attack from a Jav.



And as I added on earlier. When we got to be attached to JRTC OPFOR, their commander said his biggest worry on the battlefield of all the weapon systems the army brings in. The squad running around with Javelins was his biggest headache.



 

Your infantry with javs will get some kills, but in open terrain they are going to be brutally coaxed and then run over.

Smoke screens, 40 MPH armored assaults across open desert or the fulda gap isn't going to be stopped by infantry with javelins.
that only works in urban areas or constrained terrain.

We already did that in open terrain. Climbed up mountains. Watching OPFOR formations on the ground and picking them off, one by one with our Javs. I think we were the most casualty producing elements at NTC. Not to mention all the IDF fire missions.





 

The Wiesel's main defense is that it can take pretty decent cover behind 2-3 HESCO barriers due to its tiny size.

Absolutely correct... honestly... would anything small and light enough to drop out of a C-130 do any better?  Serious question.

Did you Jav simulations have the same problems mentioned earlier in the thread which make you incredibly visible after firing?

Nope.

If it's only protected against 51 and 14.5 it really shouldn't be called a tank.
I don't think Benning has really nailed what they want (again).

The 82nd and the Ranger Battalions are for forced entry and strategic targets.  US doctrine is to NEVER throw them against known heavy divisions and formations.

No. There is a VERY small report from shooting a Jav and it has no back blast. The missile shoots out about 15 meters in front of you and then the rocket motors kick in and it's gone. It's not like a big puff of smoke that gives away your position when you fire. if an enemy is scanning his sector and you are a mile out, I would very seriously doubt he'd see you shooting the missile if he was looking DIRECTLY at you.





 

Desert Shield invalidated that doctrine.

Honestly, that was the most strategic and most useful employment of para units since the drop on Los  Banos.

How many missiles can you carry?  I have no idea how Javelins are deployed, but I would think that "running out of bullets" would be a problem for a light force doing anti-armor in the forward area.

Which is why it should be dug in.  Any actual light tank should have a blade so it can self-emplace.

If you are only up against IFVs - charge, manuever, fight on.

If actaul-factual real-deal TANKS are in the enemy OOB, better get a two-tier fighting position dug, ricky-tick.

Javelins weren't the only option. As I said, we called in IDF missions with LRMS and 155s all the time as well. Though, because he battles were so big, it wasn't always easy getting IDF missions. We had about 6 or 7 Javelins. We had a squad of guys who were responsible for shooting the Javelins but all throughout the Company, each squad had a guy carrying a Javelin on his ruck. So we had 4 Platoons, and each platoon had 3 or 4 squads. So we had enough to do alot of damage, just with Javelins alone.
 

Cool, thanks for the intel.

Mark xxx Bolo

I thought the US Army used Tank Destroyers to great effective in WW2?



Which were basically very lightly armored tanks with big guns.



 

How about if a tank is covered in reactive armor on the top? Wasnt some type of applique armor developed to withstand top attacks?

Javelin is specifically designed to defeat reactive armor. Anything more then that, I won't go into.





 

They're really a defensive weapon.  Big gun with thin armor and no protection in the form of a turret roof.  Best employed from prepared battle positions.

When used like a tank in the offense, they didn't do to well at all.

The war invalidated the entire concept.

You'll notice after the War, our tanks went heavy and slow (comparitively.)