Light Tanks - Page 7




 
--
 
November 2nd, 2004  
rocco
 


are these any good,

"The HVMS gun was a small 60mm gun that provided high velocity kinetic energy projectiles to penetrate unheard of amounts of armour at considerable ranges."

i assume its ligher than a 105 mm turet, and u can attath a coaxial mg for infantry.
November 2nd, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 
I assume that is qouted from Israeliweapons.com?

Well, the 60mm HVMS is good for these purposes...Acctually could make an intretin main weapon for a light tank.
November 2nd, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Runflat is lovely and all, but if a group of enemy soldiers unload a few AK-47 clips on nothing but the tires, how opperational is the Stryker thereafter? That's the dilema I'm seeing but I don't feel I know enough to call it a fatal flaw. Seems to be a weakness.

As far as the Javelin, I guess I figured it had a mobile vehicular model as well, or that one could easily be developed if it didn't already exist. In terms of supporting the Airborne units, I'd say let the people on foot carry the handheld Javelins and the Armored vehicle can be equipped with the TOW-2 or LOSAT (whichever is preferred). That way, you carry more options going in.
Well they'd have to hit what, 5 tyres before runflat would really have an impact? I don't think the guys in the Stryker will be sitting idly by either unless you're thinking of them being ambushed as part of a convoy. I'm sure the potential weaknesses of air-filled tyres have been thoroughly evaluated for more than one country to adopt an 8 wheel, air-filled tyre design. Having 8 wheels helps with redundancy too.

And as for weapons systems onboard I'd say LOSAT or maybe HATM.
--
November 2nd, 2004  
Kozzy Mozzy
 
LOSAT missiles cost so much you can't even fire them in training. They're only for the airborne.
November 2nd, 2004  
Missileer
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kozzy Mozzy
LOSAT missiles cost so much you can't even fire them in training. They're only for the airborne.
I don't get it. What does Airborne have to do with anti-tank missiles?
By the way I prepared a system at the end of October for live fire. As far as I know they fired only one missile but the missile itself has very few if any problems, the interfacing and guidance electronics is the main problem. We redesigned circuitry from another platform and not all the bugs are out yet. The laser and receiver are antiquated and are being redesigned as we speak. To designate and track multiple targets is not extremely easy to do cheaply.
November 2nd, 2004  
Kozzy Mozzy
 
LOSAT equipped Humvees are going to be deployed with the 82nd airborne. I haven't heard anything about any other units going to receive them.

I would assume the reason the LOSAT is so expensive is not because of it's electronics, which are already established but because accelerating something to 5000f/s is pretty freakin' hard
November 2nd, 2004  
Missileer
 
 
I misunderstood about the airborne part. I thought you were referring to the platform for the missile. You're probably right, I can't see high production rates on LOSAT. I've talked with the LockMart people down in Grand Prairie when I was there for fault testing and they quoted a number to me that sounded pretty high but since they are prime contractors, it may be wishful thinking on their part.

I do know that supersonic speed used for a kinetic kill vehicle uses very expensive motors and improved fuel.
November 2nd, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
I just don't understand sticking it on a Humvee, even a decently armored one. It makes the LOSAT easier to take out than it would be on a better armored chasis. Sticking it on top of the Stryker or something similar seems a lot more reasonable to me. Kill the Humvee and you kill the LOSAT.
November 2nd, 2004  
Missileer
 
 
There were a lot of problems with the stability of the HUMVEE at first because the force of the missile leaving the tube moved the vehicle enough to break lock for another shot. I can't see having time to set up outriggers every time you stop to take a shot.
November 3rd, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
The Stryker is a better chassis for deploying the LOSAT then. The have a lot more weight than a hummer, so they're inherently more stable. I don't know enough about the LOSAT to say for sure, but it's a lot less likely to need to stop and setup outriggers in order to fire.

Seems that the Stryker pretty well fills the role of a 'light tank' for all intents and purposes that I can think of other than size. Its a pretty big "light" but that thing can move and I can't see it having a problem with any terrain that a tracked vehicle could do any better in. Its an inherently a highly adaptable chassis with multiple configurations already designed. I don't know why they seem to be either or. Only MGS or only TOW or only Stinger ... etc.