The Armored Vehicle Thread

The gun computer on the various modern tanks take external temperatures in terms of accuracy into account but a 5% decrease in performance for a round with that much mass moving that fast is unlikely to be just air temperature affecting air density especially for a projectile that is built to be notably more aerodynamic than your average sniper round.

Snipers are also operating in a different manner than a tank. Their entire weapon system and ammo stowage is a lot less protected from the weather extremes often with little or no protection at all.

I think it is far more likely to be an overall combination of factors from tank to tank involving everything from propellants, how long a round has been kept in a comparatively colder chamber vs kept in comparatively warmer stowage, how cold and/or humid the outside air is, how much the exposed ERA may have been impacted by local conditions and how old it is.

edited 30th Apr '18 8:25:50 PM by TuefelHundenIV

When did the Type 96 get a gun mount version? I can't remember it ever being anounced..... but here it is, clearly existing....

Immy: Did some quick digging around that may be a variant of the Type 16 maneuver combat vehicle which looks very similar and even has the same muzzle brake.

I also noticed in the image shared the placard on the ground has a big 16 on it so I am thinking it is the Type 16 MCV.

edited 14th May '18 5:12:00 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Huh, your right that would explain how I missed it, it is only 2 years old.

That chassis very much looks like a Type 96 though.

That's definitely a Type 16. [1]◊ You can see that distinctive grille in between the first and second wheels, and the shape of the turret sides.

Edit:

edited 14th May '18 5:15:40 PM by archonspeaks

Immy; There is a steady increase in more heavily armed 6 and 8 wheeled IFV/APC type vehicles in the last decade. Especially in terms of larger auto-cannon calibers and out right artillery like 105mm variants. They are basically a soft revive of the light tank concept which may be coming back in other capacities.

I will say, that's a good looking piece of armor. Not sure why but I find it very aesthetically pleasing.

^ Is it the cute lady standing in front of it?

Immy: They look alike partly because they like share a number of design goals and principals. The vehicles are basically a soft come back of light tanks and are armed with everything from increasingly larger auto-cannon calibers to light artillery weapons.

Wouldn't they more be a modern armored car then a light tank? Just with both the size and the weapon scaled way up like just about every thing else of modern warfare?

Not really. They are better protected and far better armed and built for superior mobility. They are also largely used in the roles of light tanks.

They don't carry people do they? They can't be IFVs.

What would you call them?

The Type 16 is categorized as a tank destroyer by the Japanese. I'd say a catchall term like AFV or MICV would probably cover it.

Do they fit the old classification of assault guns?

Maybe, though assault guns were usually classified as such since they fired extremely large-caliber HE shells for busting fortifications. I could see them loosely fitting the category.

The M1128 Mobile Gun System can carry a couple guys in a pinch emergency. I'd imagine the Type 16 MCV can do the same if it absolutely needed to.

edited 15th May '18 5:29:30 AM by MajorTom

Meanwhile, in Syria.

Lol, what the fuck was that?

Looks like Abu Hajaar strikes again.

edited 15th May '18 4:15:49 PM by TuefelHundenIV

TBH, it looks like they are either trying to make a video for social media, or lure enemy combatants into the tanks firing path.

Those are the only two options that make sense.

I am surprised this hasn't happened yet.

Lol.

Back more on topic. Like Tom noted they may have small capacity for troops but they are primarily used as fire support platforms in manner far closer to WWII tanks. That is the roll with the infantry and hammer hard points and light armor. It is also of note that Israeli Merkava's have capacity for 6 passengers they are kind of unique in that regard. IFV's are built to haul and support the infantry directly. APC's are just basically another form of battle taxi.

Iron Curtain is still around and may find use on vehicles that can't support Trophy. Basically Trophy is fine for our tanks but something lighter is needed for vehicles like the JLTV and Humvee. Part of the additional interest is that Iron Curtain can also be installed on non-vehicle objects like buildings.

The US Army Wants To Spend Billions Of Dollars On A Tank It Doesn't Need.

Personally, I must vehemently disagree with this article. Yes it possibly could be run better from a fiscal and procurement standpoint, but a light tank or a vehicle like it is definitely a role missing in modern US doctrine and tactics.

Specifically, a lighter but dedicated combat vehicle on tracks is crucial to supporting infantry, scouting ahead of tank forces proper and covering for weaknesses in either tanks, APC's or IFV's.

Does it need to be a big gun unit? Probably not, but just tossing in a few Bradleys isn't going to cut it. Bradley would be a fat bastard for the role and not just in weight. It's too tall, too built for being an IFV and doesn't have sufficient firepower reserves (ammo) to be in that role. We could design a vehicle for the same weight as Bradley but it'd be a lot smaller what with lacking the whole troop compartment thing, be more protected for the same weight and have more and more dedicated stowage for ammunition. Ideally we'd arm it with long range medium-bore autocannon such as the CTA 40mm currently being peddled or similar to the Navy's Mk 110 and missile supplement (Stinger, Javelin, TOW, whatever.). Personally, I'd put the 40mm CTA gun, if we had a dedicated vehicle built on an MBT chassis though, I would expect nothing less than the Mk 110 or similar unless there are significant performance benefit differences in favor of the 40mm beyond ammunition capacity.

Now should it be light enough to be amphibious? Maybe.

But ultimately, the light tank or Mobile Protected Firepower or whatever you want to call it is a legitimate need. The entire world of our nearest peers both ally and potential enemy fields light tanks or similar vehicles alongside MBT's, it's not a one or the other proposition.

I.... agree and disagree, a light tank is a valid desire, but the US military isn't ready for it.

A light tank needs an active defence system to be compeditive, a feature which the US Armed Forces are still missing.

Grab an ADS, slap it on a light tank, and you have a monster.

Yeah the US could use a light tank or light tank like vehicle. We have discovered that they are really handy to have in urban fire fights and other scenarios.

Something closer to the EBRC Jaguar. Still a bit chunky but it is a dedicated platform. The turret is an RWS mount with 40mm CTA and internal pop up missile launcher to protect the ATGM's.

More of a fan of the Ajax myself, if you want wheels they are right in that the striker could pull it.

But nothing beats treads for bad terrain.

edited 29th May '18 7:51:47 PM by Imca