Light Tanks - Page 4




 
--
 
October 31st, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Yeah, I noticed that. The truth of the matter is, its not really a "Light Tank" in the same terms that you normally think of them in. Its perfect for the Airborne except that its high profile makes it an easier target than it should be. Take the same chasis and throw a half Stinger, half Tow or Javelin turret design with a 25mm or 30mm gun similar to the Bradley's. Make both designs available to the Airborne and I think they're doing really well in the armor department.

What does the USA have right now that fits this role: Fast, good on all terrain, well protected from small arms fire and has a broad assortment of weapons options available?
October 31st, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
For the Stryker fans. There is a Stryker MGS (Mobile Gun System) that the Canadians are showing big interest in.
October 31st, 2004  
Shadowalker
 
 
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-vehlavmgs1.htm
it looks good but it doesnt have the armour, but then again its not being used right if it goes straight up against a tank, it should be sniping from cover.
--
October 31st, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
I suppose that the Stryker fits the role I'm thinking of unless anyone can think of a problem. The only potential problem I'm seeing is the wheels. Are they solid rubber or filled with air? If filled with air, small arms fire can take the legs ouf from under the Stryker. The rest of its looks pretty well protected from small arms though. How good is the armor?

I must say that 100kph -- 62mph is more the sorts of speed I'm thinking of. I wonder if tracked vehicles uare just incapable of that sort of speed? I'd been mostly ignoring the Stryker and its kind because of the what I mentioned about the wheels.
October 31st, 2004  
Missileer
 
 
For the past couple of years, I have been working with the LockMart LOSAT team and have seen the missile do some serious hurt to armor, any armor. The system is a little touchy to set up and keep accurate. When that problem gets worked out, I would not want to be in a tank of any design. There is also the danger of the small,one man, shoulder fired missile called the Javelin. I've seen one hit an old Russian tank over the horizon and the turret parts were about all that was immediately distinguishable.

As great as I thought the Javelin is, most of our contacts say they like the elderly but somewhat updated TOW better. As long as a man or small team can do the same damage to armor as an A10, I don't know which vehicle I could say I felt reasonably safe in. I think the Israeli reactive armor is about as good as it gets right now. Just my thoughts.
October 31st, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
I was thinking the armor might be more of a problem.
Wheels... yeah but they can run on flat for a long time.
I guess it just makes sense that wheels travel faster than tracks.
October 31st, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Was the Russian tank equipped with some reactive armor perchance? Anything along those lines? I wonder why the TOW is considered better. The Javelin is certainly easier to carry by all accounts I've seen.
October 31st, 2004  
Kozzy Mozzy
 
Why is the TOW being compared to the Javelin? They fit two different roles. The TOW being a heavy anti-tank weapon while the Javelin is a medium anti-tank weapon.

The tank is question was not fitted with reactive armor. The tank was packed with explosives as well which greatly increased the effect of the Javelin.
November 1st, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kozzy Mozzy
Why is the TOW being compared to the Javelin? They fit two different roles. The TOW being a heavy anti-tank weapon while the Javelin is a medium anti-tank weapon.
Not sure. Maybe cuz I mentioned both of them or something.

Quote:
The tank is question was not fitted with reactive armor. The tank was packed with explosives as well which greatly increased the effect of the Javelin.
CHEATERS!!
November 1st, 2004  
Big_Z
 
 
Isnt America working on a light tank at the moment?