Light Tanks - Page 3




 
--
 
October 30th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
The 7.62 isn't my main complaint. It would be nice to see a stinger/javelin/whatever you need missile system more or less built into the turret design. .50 cal having problems with jamming up? Well, you fix the gun design then. The .50 is a nice addition once you sort out that problem. Much rather that than the .... M2?? M-60 would be better if the .50 cal is not feasible.
October 30th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 
Yes, a TOW or othe rATGM launcher seems to be almost obvious.
October 30th, 2004  
Pollux
 
I think that there is no need at the moment for light tanks.....
in my opinion vehicles like the bradley or our Puma and recon vehicles like our fennek share the job for now
--
October 30th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pollux
I think that there is no need at the moment for light tanks.....
in my opinion vehicles like the bradley or our Puma and recon vehicles like our fennek share the job for now
The reason the Bradley does not fit the role of "Light Tank" is simple. For one, its huge. That makes it a big target and makes it less useful for Airborne and recon. The only thing light about the Bradley is its main gun. Its also not much faster than the USA's M1 Abrams MBT so the Light Tank concept of greater mobility isn't there. The Bradley fits beautifully into the up and coming concept of the "all in one" armored vehicle role.

I don't know enough about the Puma to say one way or the other how well it fill the role. To my knowledge, most of what the USA has that moves fast is often poorly armored.

The Light Tank is a concept that is at least worth exploring. Gimme a change to redesign the M8 and I think I could give you on helluva light tank, but I'd pretty much have to start from scratch.

The M8 at least fills the Airborne's needs fairly well. Even for them, I think it should be a bit faster.
October 31st, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Can it be any faster without sacrificing something somewhere? The M8 has to be able to perform a stopgap MBT role if required.
October 31st, 2004  
rocco
 
the bradley is like a multi purpose fighting APC

as for light tanks, id say those stykers etc are light tanks, sure tracks have been changed for wheels... but thats what they are supposed to be... personally i reckon an up-armored hummer is good eneugh... fast, smaller target and can be armed with 50 cals, tows etc... im sure that an up armored apc can take more of a beating than a stryker or bushmaster...
October 31st, 2004  
CavScout
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocco
the bradley is like a multi purpose fighting APC

as for light tanks, id say those stykers etc are light tanks, sure tracks have been changed for wheels... but thats what they are supposed to be... personally i reckon an up-armored hummer is good eneugh... fast, smaller target and can be armed with 50 cals, tows etc... im sure that an up armored apc can take more of a beating than a stryker or bushmaster...

Well the 25MM Bushmaster on the Bradley always served me damn well and had a rate of fire that was exactly what was needed with both the rate of fire and reliability using HE or Sabo, that was necessary.
October 31st, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
Big disagreement.
The US Military is in huge demand for a light vehicle that can be transported by a C-130. Rapid deployment for a vehicle that is a substitute for a real tank. The Bradley hasn't got the firepower of a tank and it's too bulky and heavy for rapid deployment troops.
The M-8 does just that. The 105mm should be sufficient to take on and destroy most of the world's tanks, not to mention it's useful to take out fortified positions.
The M-8 is more mobile and has more firepower than the Bradley. That's why it's neccessary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pollux
I think that there is no need at the moment for light tanks.....
in my opinion vehicles like the bradley or our Puma and recon vehicles like our fennek share the job for now
October 31st, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
I can see the M8's usefulness for Airborne and its huge. They essentially have a MBT that is small enough for the 82nd to carry around with them on a jump into hostile territory. Lovely for the Airborne!

Now, lets focus on the rest of the picture. The M8 is useless to non-Airborne units - why have a miniturized version of the M1 Abrams when you can just have the Abrams? Its not any faster, has less firepower, less armor, it's an automatic loader and has a smaller main gun. So, there's no good reason to deploy it with anything but the Airborne.

Now we know that the UK's Scimetar tops out at 80kph, so we know that 73kph -- 45mph -- is not some unbreakable ceiling that no tracked vehicle can surpass. We know that a tank can potentially go faster than the M8. The United States just hasn't made one yet. I imagine that much has to be sacrificed, but consider -- right now the United States doesn't need another MBT nor do they need another all-in-one, yet they most definitely COULD use a fast moving tank with reasonably strong armor and a good mix of firepower. If you want to focus on speed and very little protection, the Humvee works. Then again, the Humvee isn't that great at running over/smashing through small trees and brush -- making its own path where a path doesn't exist. Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm perceiving an unfilled role here. That or the Brits are just stupid for coming up with the Scimetar --- unlikely.
October 31st, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
This is designed specifically with Airborne and other rapid deployment units in mind. It's not for anyone else.