Posted: 11/15/2008 9:29:48 PM EDT
|
Is the 20-ton Mounted Combat System meant to actually replace the 60-ton M-1 Abrams as our main battle tank? Or is it just supposed to be another direct fire support weapon, like the Mobile Gun System of the Stryker Brigade Combat Team?
pics to entertain those with short attention spans: Mounted Combat System 
M-1 
Mobile Gun System 
|
| From what is often released, range and firepower have finally beaten armor, so I'd assume just have a modular gun system would be the next big thing. But just in case, I'd keep the Abrams around. Never know when you'll need the armor. Cutting down on fuel and maintenance would be a good plus for the new system. |
|
Quoted:
Unfortunately, the Abrams is dog meat against the latest generation of top attack fire and forget ATGMs. Fortunately very few countries can even theorize about such a weapon, let alone field it. I suspect there will be MBT's for years to come. There may be lighter vehicles with heavy cannon and advanced ammo out there, but MBT's will be around for a while. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Unfortunately, the Abrams is dog meat against the latest generation of top attack fire and forget ATGMs. Fortunately very few countries can even theorize about such a weapon, let alone field it. I suspect there will be MBT's for years to come. There may be lighter vehicles with heavy cannon and advanced ammo out there, but MBT's will be around for a while. Yeah, I thought about expounding on that a little bit, but refrained on the initial pass. The problem with future AFV/MBT systems is that any anti-armor countermeasures that are cutting edge today will be common place tomorrow and it will be significantly cheaper. The issue really isn't whether or not MBTs are useful today, or whether or not they are useful tomorrow, it's whether or not it's useful to build a next generation MBT to replace the Abrams or is it more useful to build a light armor gun system instead. You have to remember, it'll probably take 10 years of development and then you can expect the system to serve for 20-30 years after that, so we're talking about a system that could be around until 2050 if it's not an interim system, and if it's an interim system, we shouldn't be spending that much money on it. |
|
To me, it looks like a light, tracked self-propelled gun. Wheeled vehicles like the Stryker make more sense for urban stuff. Tracked is good for cross-country.
I can see where both platforms have a use. It is FOOLISH to replace tanks with SP guns. Hitler tried... |
|
Quoted:
Yeah, I thought about expounding on that a little bit, but refrained on the initial pass. The problem with future AFV/MBT systems is that any anti-armor countermeasures that are cutting edge today will be common place tomorrow and it will be significantly cheaper. The issue really isn't whether or not MBTs are useful today, or whether or not they are useful tomorrow, it's whether or not it's useful to build a next generation MBT to replace the Abrams or is it more useful to build a light armor gun system instead. You have to remember, it'll probably take 10 years of development and then you can expect the system to serve for 20-30 years after that, so we're talking about a system that could be around until 2050 if it's not an interim system, and if it's an interim system, we shouldn't be spending that much money on it. When you start talking about fire and forget = $$$$ Top attack = $$$$ Warhead to defeat ERA and compoiste armor = $$$$ You are talking about very expensive complex weapons, that have very limited usage. RPG-7 has lasted so long because it's CHEAP. I suspect MBT's will also change to counter the threat. Reduced IR signatures Powered armor etc, etc. Because even if top attack, fire and forget, weapons become standard to first line military TO+E, that still means most of the world won't have them. |