The Armored Vehicle Thread

The US military may be giving the Carl Gustav a laser-guided projectile for general purpose use against hard targets like bunkers, LAV/IFV/AFV, and general anti-vehicle use. While I like the SMAW Serpent and think it has a lot of potential the SMAW still has that problematic backblast from hell. May as well make the jump 100% complete and rework the ammo for the Gustav to boost range, accuracy, and efficacy. Give it other abilities like sensor fused fragmentation ammo as well.

As it is if the guided round succeeds and is adopted it will give platoon level for the Army and if the Corps Adopts it Squad Level guided anti-armor capability short of tanks.

It just gets harder to be an armor driver every year.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Oct 17th 2018 at 6:31:47 AM

Guided MAAWS rockets....are we sure we didn't somehow end up in Far Cry 5?

The projectile will apparently be very similar to gun fired missiles if the rumors are true.

The US Army 82nd Airborne has activated an armor support unit. The unit will be fielding the same LAV-25A2 as is used by the USMC It was officially drop certified by the Army.

However, this is intended as a stop gap until they can get a purpose-built vehicle.

Watch the Stryker Dragoon and Stryker MGS on the firing range.

The US military is also apparently eyeballing the 40mm CTA gun system again possibly for use in future systems. There was a demo for them to consider back in March.

m8

u wot?

...The companies are still required to build 12 prototypes when the M8 was ready to enter full production status before the congress critter bullshit parade killed it last time. They even bothered to keep it updated with no additional development time down the line. It is a COTS option...fucking idiots.

Relevant.

Either a resurrected M8 or a Griffin II/III type vehicle will win if shenanigans don't ensue.

I find it odd there's a demand for a manned turret when remote turrets are a thing. We even have one in the M1128 Mobile Gun System.

M1128 was a shit sandwich. It ran so hot that at one point crews had IV's for patrols.

A T-55 would take it apart. At least the M8 could actually fight.

What's the current verdict on the whole SBCT concept? I think I read something somewhere citing the company-level SP mortars as a plus, but if the M1128 is that bad then that sounds like a pretty huge weakness.

^^ The point being, we had a remote (and autoloaded) turret available as an off the shelf solution in the M1128, we could've just slapped that onto the new light tank instead of a manned turret.

There are very few advantages to manned turrets anymore, and with a vehicle less than 30 tons in weight, a manned turret creates a bigger profile and thus a disadvantage in terms of crew survivability.

A T-55 would break a Bradley apart, what makes you think M8 would survive a direct hit from that?

Taira: You do know they fixed that long before it cycled out right? Both the internal AC and giving the crew active cooling suits that worked quite well. That the current ones function a lot better and don't have the joyous hiccups of the first line units because that was the point of fixing them in the first place.

You also do know there is a world of difference in Light armor vs MBT's? These vehicles are not intended to be going toe to toe with enemy tanks. They have an optional anti-armor capability. There isn't a light armored vehicle in the world that can safely eat an MBT round. Considering the best light armor IFV, in general, can eat even some of the RPG-7 rounds and is resistant to 30mm AP. A 100mm high-velocity main gun is going to be a lot worse than either of those. The M8 wouldn't fare much better even with the level III armor add-on. To do better you pretty much have to modify a tank into an IFV. Not a LAV but a damned MBT hull into an IFV.

Are you channeling the infamous USAF wonk Col. James Burton now?

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Dec 19th 2018 at 6:30:49 AM

The M1128 was overheating itself and it's crews in Iraq. I stand by the T-55 comment, it's supposed to defend against tanks, a mission given to it by one of the worst chiefs of staff Big Army ever had.

Between the M8 and General Dynamics Griffon, the coins for the ferryman are on the eyes of the M1128.

The Stryker had teething troubles, if the Army had just let the M8 serve along side it, they could have spent more time and money giving the Strker the fixes it needed.

Fun fact - the Stryker was part of the bridge to the Future Combat Systems.

Given that Big Army expects to be squaring off against heavy metal from Russia and China, I hope they pick the right replacement.

The M1128 may join the MRAP's in the National Guard or the DOD may pawn it off on our allies.

Taira: Again they fixed the issue, not a hard thing to understand. And no there mission was never direct toe to toe with tanks they operated just like any Light Armor Vehicle fighting tanks, not directly and to shoot and scoot because they can't ever eat the hit. The recommended method was ambush if they had to engage the tank preferably from the side or back.

I wouldn't lean at all on your very poor statement of even attempting to go toe to toe with a T-55 given even its WWII APBC ammo for the gun it used could slag triple digit mm of armor at 3 km. That is WWII ammo. The bulk of the ammo for the T-55 was more modern HEAT and AP Sabot and gun fired Bastion missiles packing even more modern warheads. So no Taira, no Light Armor Vehicle is going to be doing any serious fighting against tanks outside of ambush oriented attacks at the rear or sides. And again not even the M-8 could eat it. At the highest level of protection provided by its modular armor system would have made it roughly on par with the Bradley. That is 30mm AP at best. If you are expecting any Light Armor to eat those hits you will be massively disappointed.

There's nothing that isn't in an MBT's weight class that can slug it out with a T-55.

Even the heaviest armor and ERA packages for the BMP-3, which by all measures are pretty extensive upgrades on already pretty respectable IFV, don't let it have a stand-up knockdown fight with a proper tank.

You just can't get that level of protection without making a tank in the first place.

And that's why the Army is going with a "light tank" as opposed to a truck with a gun.

Once the kinks were ironed out with the Stryker, it's a fine APC. It's not going to be a tank destroyer, hence the two vehicles that will replace the 105mm M1128.

Given that the Russians and the Chinese have (and sell) APC's with 100/105mm guns, it makes sense to overmatch them with a light tank (okay "Mobile Protected Firepower" as the Army wants to call it).

They're not trying to overmatch APC's with a light tank. They're trying to fill the role of mobile fire support for infantry and scout/airborne forces either on point with them or following right behind. And it needs to be a vehicle light enough to go to places an MBT might not be able to or might not be best suited towards.

It would also fill the role of armored cavalry theoretically. There are many potential uses for a light tank.

Personally I'd fill the light tank role with a dedicated vehicle like M8 but instead armed with a 40-57mm autocannon with missile supplement for bunker busting/tank busting/point anti-aircraft defense as opposed to a baby Abrams.

Edited by MajorTom on Dec 24th 2018 at 9:35:28 AM

So basically a BMPT?

The BMPT is still using a T-72 chassis as a base so it might be a bit heavy but its certainly got the right sort of armament for the job.

^^ Conceptually that's close but I'd want it lighter.

Really though it just sounds like they want a BMP-3 but with comfier seats and more legroom

And hatches that don't double as fuel tanks.

Taira: Again no one is going to try and make any light armor, including light tanks, fight an MBT head on. As for the Stryker not being a TD, I hope you are taking notes.◊ That is what they use to smack MBT's.

They don't want an excessively heavy vehicle they want something air transportable, quite likely some form of amphibious capability, and having either a 105mm or 120mm gun. The Griffin is already heading well into too heavy at 41 + tons. The target for MPF (Mobile Protected Firepower) is 25-30 tons.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Dec 24th 2018 at 1:03:05 PM

I remember reading an article on the 1995 Budyonnovsk hospital siege a while back. Apparently a Chechen bullet fired from the hospital's balcony ricocheted into a BMP's backdoor fuel line, causing a jet of fire that detonated the ammo it was carrying.

Edited by eagleoftheninth on Dec 24th 2018 at 11:05:59 AM