User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:19:27 PM EDT
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?List=7c996cd7-cbb4-4018-baf8-8825eada7aa2&ID=1294&RootFolder=%2Fblog%2FLists%2FPosts
Army paratroopers gave up their tanks in 1997. Now they want them back. "The infantry needs more protection and more firepower,” says Col. Ed House, Army Training and Doctrine Command manager for the infantry brigade combat team. Even in these times of deep budget cuts and a projected steep decline in purchases of military hardware, senior Army officials believe that a light tank is a high priority that should be funded. In a future war, they contend, Army airborne forces would parachute into a warzone equipped with only light weapons and might have to confront more heavily armed enemies. Army leaders understand that, after 12 years of war, the infantry brigades have a "capability gap,” House says in an interview from Fort Benning, Ga. "The forcible entry forces we put in harm’s way lack sufficient protected firepower platform.” The current plan is to provide the XVIII Airborne Corps — a fast-to-the-scene 911 force — a flotilla of light tanks that can be flown by C-130 cargo planes and parachuted into the warzone. More at the link above. Any Arfcom treadheads wants to chime in on this? Personally, I support the idea. I think it was absolutely boneheaded for them to stand down 3-73 when they did (yay Clinton  ). There are a number of very interesting choices available that would meet their needs, and I am curious as to which they will pick - assuming of course that it doesn't get killed by 0bama/Hagel in the meantime. The M-8 Buford that was already chosen to replace the M-551 is is a no-brainer I think, though the CV90/105/120 are also interesting offerings in they meet the weight and air drop requirements. I don't think the Stryker MGS would work out though. -K |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:21:41 PM EDT
[#1]
Gen III Bolo
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:23:54 PM EDT
[#2]
Getting rid of them was silly to begin with.
But i wonder what kind of hell the procurement and development for a new light tank will be like  . |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:24:35 PM EDT
[#3]
M8 AGS comeback tour?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:25:58 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Getting rid of them was silly to begin with. But i wonder what kind of hell the procurement and development for a new light tank will be like .Getting rid of the M551 Sheridan was a smart move it was always a booger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:26:23 PM EDT
[#5]
why they got rid of the Sheridans is anyones guess. it had the largest bore for a scout vehicle and the army has tons of them
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:27:37 PM EDT
[#6]
Bring back Ontos!
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:28:08 PM EDT
[#7]
Anywhere you want a light tank is probably somewhere it is tough to bring a C-130 into. Advanced man portable air defense systems, advanced tactical SAMs, modernized air defense artillery, etc all pose significant threats, and any adversary that has those probably also has pretty decent anti-armor capabilities (mines, ATGMs, etc). So I kind of question the entire premise. If anything, light infantry need mobility, not protection, so that we can drop them close but just outside the heaviest air defenses and have them zip the last few klicks with some sort of transport, at least for logistics support.
Also, designing for the C-130 seems like a significant self-imposed limitation. We have a substantial C-17 fleet, and the C-17 brings a lot more capability to the table. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:32:54 PM EDT
[#8]
An up armored Bradley wont fill this roll?? I though that I read that Brads were taking out Iraqi tanks in GW1.
This is going to be a trillion dollar black hole. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:34:10 PM EDT
[#9]
I can't help but think of the Striker with a 105mm cannon.
LAV III but with a cannon. It's already here. I can understanding upgrading the systems and all, just don't go nutz. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:34:16 PM EDT
[#10]
Quit spending money!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:34:29 PM EDT
[#11]
Why in gods name are we still hung up on the C130 requirement?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:36:55 PM EDT
[#12]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:38:06 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why in gods name are we still hung up on the C130 requirement? God forbid I give any credence to Sparky, but I do think that a large mobile gun can be of use to the infantry in LIC, not for anti-tank combat, but for the reduction of obstacles to the infantry.....like bunkers, machine guns etc.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:38:15 PM EDT
[#14]
Tagging the heck out of this thread.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:42:52 PM EDT
[#15]
Why the hell are we stuck on a 2-battalion requirement? That would be what, 2-73 and 3-73, and (maybe) 17 Cav?
Somebody, somewhere makes a light/fast tank/recce vehicle for the forced entry mission until a 3rd ID brigade can be airlifted in (as an organic XVIIIth Airborne Corps unit). The Brits used the Scorpion in the Falklands. The Sheridan wasn't a true tank, either. Tanks mean weight and fuel. "My Tigers don't run on spit!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:43:17 PM EDT
[#16]
I agree with having a light tank, but I don't see it having enough armor if it can be flown in by C-130. Set a weight limit of 30 tons, with the same gun and fire control as the Abrams. Do NOT make it turbine powered and NO aluminum armor.
Has armor technology advanced enough to provide decent protection in that weight range? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:43:41 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why in gods name are we still hung up on the C130 requirement? Hell the c-130j is quite a capable beast.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:44:57 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Strateegery!!! God forbid I give any credence to Sparky, but I do think that a large mobile gun can be of use to the infantry in LIC, not for anti-tank combat, but for the reduction of obstacles to the infantry.....like bunkers, machine guns etc. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why in gods name are we still hung up on the C130 requirement? God forbid I give any credence to Sparky, but I do think that a large mobile gun can be of use to the infantry in LIC, not for anti-tank combat, but for the reduction of obstacles to the infantry.....like bunkers, machine guns etc. Or... how about a semi-autonomous driver-optional robotic Gator ATV with a pile of mortar rounds, Javelins, and precision-guided goodies on the bed. Make a pure cargo version, a light engineering version (for quicker entrenchment in difficult terrain and basic obstacle clearing/road construction), and a light armored version (rated for small arms fire and maybe the RPG-7 and light fragmentation type grenades/IEDs if it can be done without too much weight). Done. That would provide the necessary firepower, be more mobile, be harder to find (and thus knock out), and be more versatile. You could probably deliver them with many more platforms including Ospreys or helos, as well as fixed wing, which let you get closer to the objective despite air defenses. You could probably mass a ton of small, light, unmanned "mules" or gators instead of delivering a handful of vulnerable light armored vehicles. Something like this thing: Unmanned Mule |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:44:59 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can't help but think of the Striker with a 105mm cannon. LAV III but with a cannon. It's already here. I can understanding upgrading the systems and all, just don't go nutz. I've seen a couple strykers running around harmony church with a very large main gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:45:39 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
An up armored Bradley wont fill this roll?? I though that I read that Brads were taking out Iraqi tanks in GW1. This is going to be a trillion dollar black hole. You can't drop a Bradley from a C-130 via parachute.. which is what they want to be able to do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:46:14 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because other countries do not fly the c-17. You would kill the export market on this if it's c-17 only. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Why in gods name are we still hung up on the C130 requirement? Hell the c-130j is quite a capable beast. Who would buy the new light tank anyway, and would the US even export it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:46:41 PM EDT
[#22]
Can you retro fit a large bore onto an MRAP? I hear they are free.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:46:52 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Getting rid of the M551 Sheridan was a smart move it was always a booger. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Getting rid of them was silly to begin with. But i wonder what kind of hell the procurement and development for a new light tank will be like .Getting rid of the M551 Sheridan was a smart move it was always a booger. .Automotive-wise it was fine. The gun/missile system is a dud, and basically died with the M60A2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:47:37 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
An up armored Bradley wont fill this roll?? I though that I read that Brads were taking out Iraqi tanks in GW1. This is going to be a trillion dollar black hole. Can they fly Brads in a C-130 and drop them by parachute 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:49:08 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tagging the heck out of this thread. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Yep. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:51:07 PM EDT
[#26]
They will gift them to FEMA.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:51:29 PM EDT
[#27]
I've argued that here many, many times. We've got 100's of thousands of those "Dumb-but-effective" rounds (That've
been paid for for decades!) sitting around in depots all over the states. Bring back the '106 "Recoil less" (Big, cheap...effective "Dumb rounds") rifle. 106mm HEP="Hulk-Smash" for the win!..lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:51:37 PM EDT
[#28]
You guys are going to give KA3B a stroke if you keep commenting and not fully reading and understanding the article posted in the OP.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:51:50 PM EDT
[#29]
M113 air droppable fucking GAVIN! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:52:03 PM EDT
[#30]
Times are tight
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:52:31 PM EDT
[#31]
Bring back the tank destroyer concept. Armored just enough to support infantry, with a heavy enough gun, and range to engage armor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:52:51 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why in gods name are we still hung up on the C130 requirement? Because with out it, the airborne has a hard time explaining why they are not duplicative of the USMC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:52:56 PM EDT
[#33]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:55:31 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
M113 air droppable fucking GAVIN! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 6:56:04 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hell the c-130j is quite a capable beast. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why in gods name are we still hung up on the C130 requirement? Hell the c-130j is quite a capable beast. Who would buy the new light tank anyway, and would the US even export it? Who would by a 60t main battle tank? These people did.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 7:00:35 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote Historyi'm prettQuoted: M113 air droppable fucking GAVIN! I'm happy as hell with the 'A3..... I dig the external tanks. The whole "Gavin" thing just gets ugly! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 7:00:44 PM EDT
[#37]
We could just go right to the source for air-deliverable armor:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 7:01:26 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys are going to give KA3B a stroke if you keep commenting and not fully reading and understanding the article posted in the OP. Sorry, didn't realize it was a tech forum, thought I was in GD there. I was just going to post the Good cat, I swear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 7:05:38 PM EDT
[#39]
Times are tough, gotta economize
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 7:07:26 PM EDT
[#40]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 7:08:00 PM EDT
[#41]
WTF I thought we were shutdown. These asshats.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 7:08:15 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryHell yeah!   |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 7:11:18 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
M113 air droppable fucking GAVIN! WTF is a Gavin? Are you a dynamicpara fan or something? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 7:12:55 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: An up armored Bradley wont fill this roll?? I though that I read that Brads were taking out Iraqi tanks in GW1. This is going to be a trillion dollar black hole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting 2ACR kicked major ass and didn't know it until the dust settled. Some guys here have pics from that little get together. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 7:14:45 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistorySomething like that, remote control with like 6 TOW tubes stacked on the Turret instead of a gun. A modern Tank-Destroyer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 7:15:04 PM EDT
[#46]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 7:18:52 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Something like that, remote control with like 6 TOW tubes stacked on the Turret instead of a gun. A modern Tank-Destroyer. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Something like that, remote control with like 6 TOW tubes stacked on the Turret instead of a gun. A modern Tank-Destroyer. Well, close: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 7:21:25 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Getting rid of them was silly to begin with. But i wonder what kind of hell the procurement and development for a new light tank will be like . |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 7:24:30 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: M113 air droppable fucking GAVIN! Fuck "air drop." Put wings on it and make it an assault glider that you can tow with an A-10. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2013 7:27:44 PM EDT
[#50]
 Should be able to stuff a few of these in the back of the C130! |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
