[url]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/665964/posts[/url]



What this means, is our troops will be shorn of their M1 Abrams for
deathtraps like the 25mm armed LAV, in favor of such buzzwords as
'deployability', and 'mobility'.

We didn't have to go this course, for in 1996, we had a heavily armed and armoured
weapon system fully funded and ready to enter series production. It had already
been type-classified by the US Army. But, SecDef William Perry cancelled it by
forcing the US Army to either take a cut of 20,000 troops or cancel some programs.

It's name:

[img]http://home11.inet.tele.dk/blackice/AGS.jpg[/img]
The M-8 Buford Armored Gun System.

Designed to be airdropped from transport planes and still be able to slug it out
with main battle tanks by dint of it's 105mm gun and separate bolt-on armor plates
that would be airdropped separately, the M-8 would have transformed our armored
brigades into a lethal weapon capable of being moved halfway across the world in
days, yet still capable of fighting it out with the best tanks the enemy had
with NO COMPROMISE AT ALL IN PROTECTION OR FIREPOWER!

In fact, in it's lowest form of armor protection, it
could have been air dropped from C-130s!

[url]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m8-ags.htm[/url]
Fact File on the Buford AGS program

The AGS is a good idea. Of course it got cancelled...

Scott

P.S. I couldn't be expected to make a manly response to a tank thread on the OTHER forum...

Or we could always cut spending in other areas (say, BATF, IRS, EPA, etc, operating funds and payrolls) and build enough C17s to move an entire brigade-sized armored/mech infantry formation to a trouble spot in no more than 2 sorties per aircraft. That, along with increasing the size of our fast sealift fleet and getting the military back to the good ol' Reagan days when ANYTHING you needed to put your vehicle at a higher state of readiness was bought, would be better than depending on a lighter-armed "tank." I can't help it, I think brute force is better than finesse, and a LOT of brute force is a LOT better than a LOT of finesse! [:D]

That M-8 is one goofy vehicle.  It looks like the turret from a WWII Tiger tank grafted onto an APC. [:D]


That thing is as heavily armored as an Abrams? [>:/]

That thing looks rather top-heavy, I like this one here better :)

[img]http://www.kmweg.de/img/pzh2000_titel.jpg[/img]

bolt on armor = bad
if a shell doesnt penetrate the armor, it will knock the bolts off and send them flying around the inside of the tank like bullets.

Here are some excerpts from [url]www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m8-ags.htm[/url]



Hmmm...I think that I'd rather have the M1 Abrams covering my ass.

Errr...That is a German PzH2000 Self Propelled Gun, not an MBT like the Leopard.

The M8 AGS was designed for quick deployability.  A C-5 could carry 5 with the Level III armor package installed.  Equipped with Level II armor, they could be air dropped by parachute.  Only 30 minutes would be required to prepare them to fight.  The plan was to equip the 82nd and 101st with this vehicle.

No, it is not a M1, but there was/is a role for this vehicle.

Correct, good call.



Somehow I assumed the M8 AGS was supposed to fulfill a similare role as the PzH2000 (Panzerhaubitze 2000, Armored Howitzer 2K): self-propelled heavy arty. I should have read the text instead of just looking at the picture.

I am absolutley apauled at the current program looking for an Abrams replacement. They are designing a vehicle to get to the middle east in 12 hours, not a comba unit.

My question is are tanks still the best way to fight land wars? With the onset of shoulder fired missiles tanks can be destroyed by small units in hiding that the tankers will likley never see.

This is the same theory that was put forth in the '73 war when Israel lost many tanks to Sagger AGTMs.  The tank had also been perviously doomed by the nuclear bomb.  Neither one has come to pass.  Tactics, doctrine, portections, and weapons are developed at the same time.  When someone comes up with something, someone else comes up with a counter to it.  The tank provides what it provides, high mobility, high armor, and high firepower.  It is just one part of a combined arms team.  As a part of that team, it's other team elements are what cover it's weaknesses.  Just as it covers the weaknesses of the other team elements.  

The answer to your question is that tanks have never been the "best way" to fight land wars.  They are just a part of a combined arms team that IS the best way to fight land wars.

Ross

Which shoulder-fired missile can destroy an Abrams?

[url]http://www.knox.army.mil/armormag/ja97/4fcs97.pdf[/url] Adobe required

There are some major advances coming like electromagnetic armor, Hypervelocity Rail Guns, and Complete Situational Awareness Sensor Systems that will revolutionize the MBT concept.  The above article goes into some detail.

The current issue of ARMOR magazine has an article about this exact subject. On page 31, the author sums up the "tank is dead" argument this way:

"Those who predict the tank will die due to increases in lethality are wrong.  Top attack and chemical energy weapons can and will be countered by defensive measures-tactical and technological.... Those who say the Abrams is too heavy -well they may have a point...

But you can lighten a tank without making it something else.  A tank, after all, is defined by its function-a direct fire weapon with sufficient protection to move over open ground in relative safety.  The tank is still too versatile and powerful to disappear.  It can kill anything, while it is protected from a wider variety of weapons than any other system on the battlefield.   That protection gives it more tactical mobility than anything else stuck on the ground.  And the next big war will be won by attrition-not maneuver."(Subject of article.).  

No, it doesn't.  The vehicle has a base armor level.  The bolt-on armor are just plates bolted onto the OUTSIDE of the armor.  This isn't a WWII Sherman with rivets that go all the way through.  It's basically the same type of system used on the Bradley, some M113's, The M60 series, etc.  The extra protection is simply hung on the outside of the base armor of the vehicle.  

Ross

How much does a Merkava weigh? We should see if those will fit in a C-17.

I think that M-8 has problems just by looking at it, large target, top heavy.

Bolt on armor, is different than a tank that has all of it's armor attached by bolts. Meaining bolt on armor is added over a layer od welded armor, so flying bolts should be less likely.

All of the former-USSR's tanks were air droppable. Kinda scary huh?

We need a force that can be inserted and fight with minimum support needed for 1-7 days. Of course some will say we have 'em they are called United States Marines. But the Army wants to reinvent the wheel. Maybe we should work harder at get more fast sea-lift, and having "caches of armor" on ships ready to be deployed.

Then again sea-lift to the Navy is like A-10's to the Air Force, not near sexy enough....... Logistics wins wars.

I thought it used to work good, Navy puts up sea-lift, and aircover from carriers. Then they launch the USMC, who get a big enough toe hold for the US Army to hit the beach and land with enough area for supplies and heavy assets, armor, arty, etc. The USMC refits, and get back on the Navy ships. Then the Army fights far enough inland to build the Air Force an airbase.

Then the Navy drives the USMC someplace, and they hit the beach again.

Seriously, the Army has to work on being more "deployable". That may mean more sealift and airlift ability, Or it may mean tha Army has to "downsize" some of it's weapons systems. If you look at our equipment, we have the newest most capable, biggest heaviest, most complicated, and needing the most support in the world. I like capable, heaviest, biggest, most support intesnive may need some work.

Of course the "heavy" division needs to evolve too. Someone said "the firstist with the mostist" Well If they have to make 2 trips, deadly and light, followed by very deadly and very heavy...........

This is way off topic, but I like building military models when I've got the time.

Somebody said it could be air droppable(sp?) by a C130.  Does anybody have any pix of this?  It would make one hell of a neat diarama.  Also, does anybody know how it would have been mounted on the pallet, etc?  Guess I'd need to find a loadmaster/quartermaster for this info.

Like I said, way off topic, but thanks anyway.
VinceU1

[url]http://www.geocities.com/militaryplanner/m8agsairdrop.jpg[/url]

Here is a site devoted to the M8.  Includes a pic of the Level 3 Reactive Armor installed.

[url]http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2116/armored.htm[/url]

I agree with you - it seems that many of today's weapons systems are designed and then have scenarios for their use tailored to them, instead of designing a weapon to fill a certain role.

Infantry and tanks are meant to work together and cover each other - the infantry protect the tanks from ATGMs and the tanks protect the infantry from enemy armored vehicles. Dismounted infantry is more effective, but unless you're fighting in dense forest or urban areas dismounts won't be able to keep up. Mounted infantry is much more heavily armed and armored, but not quite as efficient because they're back to scanning for ATGM teams through periscopes/gun sights.

I have read that the military of the post cold war prefers wheeled APC's over tracked vehicles due to higher road speeds, increased range, and less maintenance. I have a soft spot for tracks myself.

It seems that an lav with a 25mm main gun would be lacking as compared to a light tank with a 105mm cannon.

Air drop a T-80?!? I think you're pulling my leg...

When I was active Army, 83-86, they had data that ALL Soviet armor was air-droppable.

Soviet tanks are smaller than US tanks, less armor, esp. in the turret, 3 man crew (max hieght 5'6" or so). I think  their tanks weigh  like 35-40 tons, appx 50% of an Abrams and just a bit more than a Bradley IFV.

The Soviets would put their tanks on large platforms and rig them with multiple parachutes, that also had a rocket powered auto decceleration system that fired up just before touch down. I saw a film of the system in use, very interesting.

That being said their tanks are less capable and less armored. Our's, Germany's, and Great Britian's are much more capabale. But also more complicated, expensive, and just plain heavy.

Baradley's and M1's can move very quickly. I have'nt seen real road damage from tanks, but treads don't neccesarily like the road, and most raod marches with armor have set top speeds, usually something fairly low like 25 mph.

Wheeled vehicles are better for areas that have terrain that is fairly even, flat(tish), not too muddy, or overgrown. They require much less support in the way of fuel. The also have "run flat" or armored, inflatable on the go tires. Much easier to deal with a messed uop wheel/rim than a tank with track problems.

Wheeled vehicles have limitations though, and will get stuck much more easily while going "cross country".  

The problem could be solved with predeployment... let's extort permanent airbases and large facilities from every 2-bit country in the world and make them pay us for our services.  "Better living through MBTs"  [:D]

I think the solution to this problem is in the transport end, not the tank end. Keep the Abrams as it is, even give them all depleted uranium armor. Our concern should be soley on the lives of the men in the tank, not the weight of their vehicle.

To side step this problem we should build a fleet of 'ground effect' transports, that can be built huge, but still travle at 100 to 200 miles per hour. Such vehicles are viable with surrent technology, would cut the transport time of a regiment of armor to a franction of what it is and be more survivable then traditional transport since they wouldn't be effected by mines when in flight. (if you could call it that since maximum altitude would be less then 40-50 feet)

If you don't think such a thing can be built look to the former soviet union, they built a GEC (ground effects craft) called the caspian sea monster in the 80s and it work rather well!

"make them pay us for our services."


That'll be the day.

A couple questions from somebody who has met Murphy.

Separating the tank from it's armor might solve transport problems, but are we sure they can get back together in the heat of battle?

Who gets to "bolt" on that armor?  We are presuming there is a safe area in which to do this?

The level 3 armor is only good for 30mm??

Is that accurate?  So any main gun on any armored vehicle on the planet could penetrate the vehicle?  Or just the add on?  

Is it truly airdropped, or is it LAPESd?

I agree, the problem is one of transport, not battlefield capability of the M1.

One side effect of buying C17s, which can only carry "twice as much" of their predecessors (C141/C5) is that, of course, Congress will only buy HALF as many.

But this CUTS your capability.  Think about it.  Maybe a 141 can only carry 1/2 as much, but you COULD send one 141 to Africa and one to Asia AT THE SAME TIME.

If you have only one C17 to do the work of the former 2 replaced planes, it's only going to one place.

One last thing, change that name.  I can't imagine sending our boys into harm's way in something called the Buford.  

OLY-M4gery said
The Soviets would put their tanks on large platforms and rig them with multiple parachutes, that also had a rocket powered auto decceleration system that fired up just before touch down. I saw a film of the system in use, very interesting.

From what I've read the Soviet tankers airdropped seat belted _inside_ the tanks.  Sounds like a real E-ticket thrill ride.  

What do you think of the argument that the Abrams is unsuitable for street fighting because the engine turbine would roast any infantrymen trying to use the tank for cover?

Didn't the British attempt to make us pay for their services during and after the Indian War?