Given there is at least one account of an PG-7VR penetrating the side. That hit also looks like it hit a really bad angel.

edited 2nd Jan '18 10:34:25 PM by TairaMai

Seems like the sort of thing that'd be tailor-made for a UGV, or am I overestimating how far that kinda tech has come?

You have the wrong idea in general. The Light Tank is supposed be to support troops more directly and move with them. UGV's are still somewhat limited for the time being. That and the US hasn't exactly fielded an armed UGV.

UGVs are certainly that far along, the Russians have a number of different models of various sizes and configurations.

We just don't have any.

No they really aren't. The Russians have one or two models largely for show and export. Let me know when they actually stand up units equipped with them.

Dude they've got like four common ones that are already in use domestically around strategic sites and have been spotted all over testing grounds and in exercises.

Admittedly only within the past year or so but still.

Again let me know when an actual military unit stands up with them.

Guarding a static domestic site is hardly ready for prime time and again they only have a couple full out military models.

Also being an exercise means squat unless the military has suddenly formally adopted them and begun fielding them. By that measure the US is leaps and bounds ahead with nearly a dozen different machines including automated fire support.

In theory UGV should be much easier then UAV to manufacture and deploy, so I see no reason to say there not ready yet considering the later is already in use all around the world.

Your comparing apples and oranges there Immy. Easier compared to what? Last I checked the history and constant development of UAV and UCAV is much longer than anything done for UGV or UCGV by any measure. There is no war where their use is notable facet of any operation outside of bomb robots and scouts.

For the record the Russian UGV's built so far, don't appear to have any better protection than shrugging off fire from an M16. HMG's, autocannons, explosives of any kind, they'll all wreck the crap out of em.

Which is kinda something you don't want in the light tank role. You want some protection, not as heavy as an MBT, but better than that.

Easier in general, there is much less problems facing a remote controlled ground vehicle, then there is a remote controlled air vehicle.... your right that no one has been trying but that doesn't make it harder.

The control system is easier to rig up, and they are more tolerant of problems then air vehicles..... some one just actualy has to try.

Immy: There is nothing about it that makes it somehow easier. Instead it has its own set of difficulties and challenges ranging from having to contend with conditions on the ground to the limiting effects of various terrain on ground travel. Also physical obstructions at ground level that can block or distort a signal are a lot more common. If anything the challenges are quite different including the control set ups because your not trying to fly around an armored vehicle unless your Mike Sparks. There is nothing easier about it but definitely quite a bit that is different.

To be fair, nothing but an MBT class vehicle can withstand off any sort of autocannon fire these days.

Even 14.5mm is gonna make any light tank start sweating and that's not even getting into any sort of AT rocket or any sort of mine or IED.

Defending against those types of weapons while remaining light and mobile is a tall order.

edited 11th Jan '18 6:13:16 AM by LeGarcon

I'd say it is much more harder to make a UGV than an UAV.

Remote controlled vehicles have inherent issues with ground clutter and signal range, flying in the air means you can pre-program routes without having to worry with obstacle collision or with something obstructing the signal.

Meanwhile UGV will have to be closer to the signal source, worry all the time with the plethora of obstacles in their path and the difficulties attached with navigating on the ground relying on cameras alone and being outright too difficult to put in auto-pilot mode.

Then you have things like signal lag and you can't really automate things like fire control on a ground unit that will certainly have civilians, friendly troops and enemies as well you can do the same for UCA Vs.

Garcon: Not quite true. The more heavily armored IFV's can hold up to some auto-cannon fire. Nothing heavier than 30mm but it is there. Some have it built in others can use applique/bolt on kits to do similar if needed. Though a lot of smaller and lighter vehicles are not going to take auto-cannon fire all that well.

The light tank sits in an odd place right now. Smack between the heavier IFV's which we may as well start calling the auto-cannon armed light tanks or actual purpose built tank designs with heavier armor and equipment.

^ A Bradley can withstand itself, at least from the front anyways. It can take straight HE autocannon ammo all the way up to 57mm. (The AP/HEAT stuff starts breaking through beyond 30mm.)

The Bradley is rated for 30mm AP resistance all around and some RPG shot resistance all around that is pretty much it. 57mm would quite likely punch through not only the spaced armor composite but clean through the Bradley itself. Especially any sort of AP ammo.

A raw non-shaped charge 57mm wouldn't. Like anti-aircraft blast fragmentation HE wouldn't. It'd make quite the mess and it wouldn't last against many of em, but it'd survive at least one hit by it.

I doubt it would weather a direct 57mm hit all that well. The difference in both weight, and blast power and fragmentation of the shell at point blank range is going to do bad things to something only rated to eat at most 30mm projectiles. Your talking the difference of being hit by at most a half lb round and being hit by something weighing around 4 to 5 lbs and with the AA gun velocities around 3,000 FPS. HE-Frag or not that is going to fuck up a Bradley. The shells kinetic energy will quite likely have begun pushing through the armor by the time the fuse clicks off. That is a lot of blast force point blank against armor that is only expected to eat much lighter weight HE blasts.

edited 11th Jan '18 9:00:34 PM by TuefelHundenIV

They make HEAT shells in 57mm?

I mean, the likelihood of an IFV picking a fight with a destroyer is in of itself rather slim, but it doesn't look good for the IFV. Because why is it even doing that?

There are land based 57mm systems as well. However almost all of them can fire some variety of AP even the AA gun variety. The Bofors 57mm can fire the 3P shell which has a delayed detonation to allow it to pierce more heavily protected targets before detonating. There is also the issue of not all of the shell is blast and frag and said blast will help propel chunks into the target.

edited 11th Jan '18 9:01:20 PM by TuefelHundenIV

They come as small as 35mm, sometimes smaller. Such ammunition is typically a "better than nothing" approach to autocannon armed vehicles dealing with tanks.

There are upgunned BTR models with 57mm autocannons as well.

And do whatever few of those being tested even have HEAT shells?