Wait, BAE is using the M8 Buford configuration instead of the Thunderbolt?

Two APC-based light tanks and one that won the last program before it got cancelled. Hmm.

That said, I recall hearing that the M1128 was fairly popular in Iraq once they sorted out the bugs.

Nicked from Stimpy on Sturgeon's House:

Someone in Ukraine returreted a T-64◊. So now it's very Terminator-like, with twin 2A72/2A42s and quadruple missile launchers.

Same, if not similar turret on the BMP-2◊.

The 120mm Advanced Multi-Purpose round in action.

Seems like it's very high subsonic.

Or they just used a demonstration level propellant charge. HEAT/Multipurpose rounds like that don't really care if you fire em super fast or super slow, all that matters is the timing of when to go BANG.

The History of the Imperium: Tanks of Old Terra.

^

That website is rather amusing. Spent a bit reading through the other articles for fun.

There are various reworkings to breathe more life into the old M-60 Patton's including the introduction of a reduced recoil 120mm gun. There are a host of other modifications as well. They work when you don't have MBT"s but I wouldn't count them on the same level for rather obvious reasons.

^ I've heard of similar programs in old Soviet bloc countries doing or offering similar upgrades for its counterpart the T-55.

Then again, both upgrade systems are stopgaps at best. Neither the M60 nor the T-55 are a match for a good T-90 or Abrams.

The Army Desperately Wants A Pint-sized Tank With A Big Gun: Here's What We Know.

To be fair, a light tank or a vehicle derivative thereof that is neither an IFV nor an MBT that can support infantry and defend armor from additional threats be they land or air is a very necessary proposition.

Although personally I'd be interested in the program ultimately having the goal of a chassis. One that could be adapted/built with different armaments to do the light tank role, cavalry role, IFV fire support role and potentially even SPAAG role.

So, a CV90 then?

Incorrect. It would be a dedicated AFV, no transport capabilities. If we wanted a Bradley, we'd get a Bradley, especially with the AMPV hull upgrades.

Instead it would do fighting for less weight than an MBT but different capabilities than an MBT. More like that modernized PT-76 with the S-60 anti-aircraft gun.

Tom: The CV90 fits your requirement fairly well as a chassis for a basis of other systems including big gun armed units.

The only downside is the CV90 is as roughly heavy as the M2 Bradley depending on configuration.

edited 2nd Nov '17 7:12:55 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Clearly, this is foolish, because it's not a modernized M4 Sherman.

Going Israeli?

Except it's still designed as an APC/IFV first, there's the problem. A light tank should not be designed as or from anything designed to carry infantry. A CV 90 carries 6 guys like a Bradley, the hull would be too tall, too large using that as a basis. Conceptually it might be closer, but then again so is the Bradley.

Just take the M4 Sherman, add modernized weapons, powerplant, and targeting system. Maybe slap some extra armor on it. Boom, ideal tank. You might not like it, but this is what peak armor looks like.

I think we've reached peak Freedom, guys. It doesn't get any more 'Murica than reanimating the corpse of a WW 2-era tank with EVEN MOAR DAKKA.

I'm just saying, if we can minaturize that Navy rail gun to fit in a Sherman turret, we'll have something real here. Alternately, put it in a M3 Grant sponson mount if you need a bit more room.

[Freedom Boner Intensifies]

I've got it! The railgun goes in the sponson mount of the M3, where there's more room. The turret mount will get a laser gun. Gotta give it a new name. Base model was the Lee, expanded turret was the Grant, any other Civil War generals need tanks named for them?

I don't want to name it for any of the ones on the losing side, obviously, and Mc Clellan isn't the best option either since he got fired. Does Mead have a tank yet?

Actually, now I'm amusing myself with the idea of naming armored vehicles for various Air Service/Air Corps/Army Air Forces generals. Would the Mitchell tank be a really impressive looking vehicle which pitched fits whenever you tried to get it to do something it didn't like?

edited 3rd Nov '17 7:28:39 AM by AFP

Ike.

^^ The Moore Tank. Named after Colonel Hal Moore of the 7th Cav.

"We need more Moore tanks!"

Also remember to upgrade the armor cabron! 1940s steel doesn't cut the mustard anymore. Maybe it'll be made of that triple hardened nano-crystal steel stuff they use in the Japanese Type 10 MBT.

Tom: Except being an IFV has nothing to do with height. There have been IFV designs around 6-7 feet tall and light tanks up to 9 feet tall with no room for passengers. Passengers do not dictate height, deliberate design choices do. The Bradley also has a light armor armed scout variant that exchanges passenger space for more ammo.

That and the CV90 Chassis and hull design are already proven to be able to field multiple equipment and configurations including larger caliber gun systems such as the lighter and smaller 105mm and 120mm gun systems.

edited 5th Nov '17 7:27:49 AM by TuefelHundenIV

BTR's are teeny tiny compared to a lot of other IFVs and I'm pretty sure they actually have a larger troop capacity compared to our bigger vehicles.