Light Tanks - Page 2




 
--
 
October 28th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 
Quote:
tank-like thingies
That is the technical term.... Dvarimim Tankyim in hebrew... LOL
October 28th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Having fun with the fact that somebody said that the Bradley isn't a tank. Somebody else said its not an AFV, yet its not a true IFV.

Thus, the Bradley is a "Tank-like thingy". :P
October 29th, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
Well there was a light tank in US Army service, the Sheridan but it's been put out of service. There is a replacement coming up called the M-8.

The key advantage of the light tank is that they are air transportable. The problem is, they're not very good tanks. In fact, the M-8 is more like a mobile gun system.
--
October 29th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Well, the future of light tanks as I see it is to take all the advantages of the tank or AFV's and build it into a system that is etremely fast and mobile and more rapidly and/or easily deployable. They are not expected to fill the role of the MBT, but should be capable if absolutely necessary. The should be very potent against infantry and very resilient against small arms fire.

Its possible that tracked vehicles would not be able to fill the role.

the_13th_redneck do you have any data on the M8 that you mentioned?
October 29th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/...uford,,00.html
October 29th, 2004  
CavScout
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Having fun with the fact that somebody said that the Bradley isn't a tank. Somebody else said its not an AFV, yet its not a true IFV.

Thus, the Bradley is a "Tank-like thingy". :P

Well when I was in, they were called CFV (Cavalry Fighting Vehicle) or also BFV (Bradley Fighting Vehicle). I was always nervous about the noise factor because when the engines rev'ed high like in a pivot stear, you could hear the whine a mile away and the slightly higher than a M1 profile didn't make me sleep to good in the turret.
October 30th, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
Yup that's a great article on it.
I think what really needs to change are the transport planes.
October 30th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Looking at the M8 Buford, I'm seeing some things I like and some things I hate. Buford ... WTF??? Terrible name.

The main gun is huge for a tank that size. I don't think its 100% necessary to have such a big gun, but its certainly reassuring to the crew that if they run into a ... lets say a T-90, they can probably kill it if they can shoot and hit first. I think the way that the design forms around the gun can be a problem. Overall, its great to be packing that kind of punch, but its a drawback in other areas. Also, a reconaissance platform probably doesn't need such an enormous gun. This guy wasn't build with recon in mind.

Speed? Its top speed is exactly that of a Bradley or an earlier M1 Abrams version. 45 mph. (Comes out to about 73 kph BTW.) So "faster and more agile" than your MBT come in as a big fat "NO".

Profile? Too high, probably due to the recoil dampening needs for that monster 105mm main gun. I love the narrow front profile for a couple of reasons. The M8 presents less to target from the front or back. The M8 would be able to maneuver into tighter terrain types than current designs. Its a bit worrisome that recoil might knock you over when firing with the turret turned to the side in unfavorable terrain. Armor sloping exists but it appears to have been largely sacrificed for compactness. A bit disappointing.

Secodary weapons? Poor overall. Doesn't pack bigger machine gun, probably to accomodate the space requirements 105mm main. The need for lots of diverse firepower options is crucial for Airborne and recon ops.

Armor? They seem to have build a real winner on this one. Fine, its no M1 but it has better protection available than you ought to be able to hope for in a Light. It just stands up off the ground higher than I think it ought to.

Adaptable Chasis? Looks like a winner on adaptability. I have to wonder what it looks like with LOSAT setup on there. That would be a much better platform that the Humvee for survivability of course. That version of the Buford becomes very appealing for overall use.

My overall take of the M8 Buford? Its an M1 on a massive weightloss and shrinkage program, so it can go join the US Army Airborne units. I think the engineers involved were too focussed on the 105mm than anything else on it. Hurray for the airborne, you've got yourself a mini-M1! It looks to have been made with nothing and nobody else in mind.
October 30th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 
I get what you are asying, but Id like to make a few notes:


The secondary weapon is sufficiant. The 7.62 CMG is the best Coaxile tank weapon in the world. Its relaible, and very leathal to infantry. The 0.50 cannot serve i the coaxile role cause it is very poor on relaybilty. Ever seen those vids of tank commanders in 'Iraq having to unjamm the 0.50 after every burst they fire... ? I agree with you on the profiel and speed though. This is not what Id like to see.
October 30th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
The role of the light tank or scout is changing. Rapid response forces need air portable armor that can fulfill the MBT role. Therefore the M8 Buford seems to be designed along those lines. It has to be able to take and help hold objectives/territory until M1s can arrive by sea and take over I'd guess.

PS I'm assuming that Buford is the name of a famous US General of yesteryear?