U.s. Army In The Market For ‘Light’ Tanks

[Special-K]

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.

 

 

I'm curious about the opinions of all you here who are so much more knowledgable than I.

 

 

What's the chance of the US Army actually fielding these and not having the program killed like so many others under this 'administration'?

 

Also, what would the likely candidates be? The M-8 Buford seems to be a no-brainer, either as is(was?) or updated in armor/electronics/etc. Wold a CV90-105/120 meet weight and air drop requirements? The Stryker MGS is mentioned in the article, but I'm not sure how well that would work - can it be airdropped?

 

Any opinions on the utility of such a vehicle? Personally, I think it's a good idea, and I still think getting rid of the 3/73 was a bad idea back then, and filling that capability gap may be a wise move. Am I wrong?

 

 

 

-K

[Kiwi Gunner]

Updated AML-90 (Yeah yeah yeah I know I like this little car)

 

Or another small and light 4x4/6x6 or 8x8 Armoured car would be fine.

[AETiglathPZ]

Not a chance of this happening outside of a MGS or variant of.

 

What is the obsession with the C-130 anyway? A C-17 can drop a vehicle also, right? What is the maximum payload droppable?

Edited October 10, 2013 by AETiglathPZ

[demosthenes]

They use the words light tank alot but it sounds more like they want a paratrooper fighting vehicle - something like the BMD series with a low pressure gun for close support. It doesn't make any sense to use a high velocity gun unless you need a KE kill capability against armor. The only reason the Russians have their Sprut light tank is so it can be used as the anti tank reserve of the regiment and division.

[BLAH]

M8 AGS?

Already designed and all that, and seems to be enough tank for a light. I'd go with the 105mm version.

[Gavin-Phillips]

What about a light tank designed for HE/close support work but fitted with an ATGM (or equipped to in case the need arises). Can't ATGM launch tubes be used to fire more than just an anti-tank guided munition, thinking along the lines of an FAE/thermobaric warhead or whatever. It could provide a very capable multi-role platform?

 

Like the BMD, not equipped to slug it out with MBT's but the missile capability would at least give it some element of self defence.

[BLAH]

105mm APFSDS can handle most MBT threats out there though (in many ways better than non-top attack heavy ATGMs). I mean, anything but the relative latest is vulnerable on the front (not to mention that everything is vulnerable on the sides). 105mm HEAT technically can be pretty good too.

 

Then you have a fairly decent load capacity, with the majority of your rounds being HE, HESH and/or HEAT, with the odd premium DU round for the odd T-72 (which HEAT can handle too).

 

You get pretty much everything with the one gun here.

 

If you were worried about your first on the scene/behind enemy line vehicles facing the latest MBTs, then there's the 120mm M8 (at the expense of less overall capacity), which can handle anything.

 

Throw on TUSK/Bradley/modern ERA, and you're close to being HEAT proof (modern RPGs and ATGMs).

[methos]

 

105mm APFSDS can handle most MBT threats out there though (in many ways better than non-top attack heavy ATGMs). I mean, anything but the relative latest is vulnerable on the front (not to mention that everything is vulnerable on the sides).

 

The "relative latest" means every tank made since the mid 1980s.

[BLAH]

Personally, I don't see the US banging heads with any country with modern MBTs soon. NK has old stuff. Most of the ME that are potential enemies don't have anything modern. When you add the most probable actions, you don't see 120mm as bringing anything over 105mm (if you're killing people in structures, the odd light vehicle and the rare tank, the greater number of 105 rounds seems like a large positive).

 

But, there's nothing stopping someone putting a 120 on a light tank (the M8 variant after all). Just in case the Taliban mount a counter offensive with their Leopard 2s....

[Archie Pellagio]

Even all the touted "C130 transportable" vehicles like M8 and Stryker are only capable of doing that with minimal armour packages, that, in reality wouldn't be sent into battle without, not these days.

 

Set the bench at C17 carriage of two and go from there.

 

At the end of the day, when you put down the crack pipe and go with air-LANDED as opposed to air-BORNE (hooaah!!!) you get something more effective, cheaper and available now.

 

What will this proposal do that couldn't be done with any of the hundreds of Stryker MGS already in service with trained, combat experienced crews and battle tested doctrine?

If you want tracks you've already got Bradley with an auto cannon and TOW2 for armour killing.

If you want tracks and a big boom CV90-120.

 

Going for some super niche requirement like parachute droppable, or even LAPSE just adds that 10% 'improvement' that adds 90% the cost, just like LCS and the stupid speed requirements.

[baboon6]

Not a chance of this happening outside of a MGS or variant of.

 

What is the obsession with the C-130 anyway? A C-17 can drop a vehicle also, right? What is the maximum payload droppable?

 

Agreed.

[Richard Lindquist]

US Army tankers have labored since the 1970s to kill anything resembling a light tank.

 

When they were preparing the tactical doctrine package for the Buford, it said that doctrinally it would never be used in formation larger than a section of two tanks.

 

I have been to numerous working groups at Ft Knox and Ft Monroe to create requirements documents for a variety of vehicles with names that were euphemisms for "light tanks" and the Armor School guys sabotaged every single one. The rationale was they didn't want Congress or the procurement authorities any alternative to buying more and better "main battle tanks". No one wanted the term "light tank" to be bandied about.

 

Congress critter at hearing: "Gee, general, you could buy these here light tanks a whole lot cheaper then those M1s."

[CaptLuke]

Yet another in a long string of disasters: why don't they just pair it with a new scout helicopter in one program and get it all out of the way at once?

 

As a thought experiment though:

• The 'biggest thing we can fit in a C-130' approach always fails: it get's up-armored and can't be carried anymore, a fully laden C-130's range is way too short, and just because you can fit it into a C-130 doesn't mean you can shove it out the back in flight
• Even parachuting a 15 ton Sheridan was quite the to-do. Practical parachuting imposes a lower weight limit than C-130 or especially C-17 carry
• Going 'just light enough to parachute' dooms you to being a niche vehicle with one and only one customer: the one tank battalion of the 82nd. This kills the entire concept for economies of scale

So lets go smaller instead of bigger: pick something that at least sling loads and preferably goes internal into a CH-47F. If it fits in a 47F it will also go into a CH-53E and all of sudden you have a lot more potential uses. It's useful for all of 18th Airborne Corps and the USMC.

 

If the Italians could put a low pressure 90mm turret on the Puma 6x6, you'd have a decent fire support vehicle and the 4x4 version fits internally in a CH-47. If you could drop a Bradley turret on to it, up gunned with the 30 to 40mm supershot conversion of the 30mm chain gun, you'd probably have something pretty supportable and close to off the shelf but with a useful infantry support and anti-tank capability.

[BabyOlifant]

What will this proposal do that couldn't be done with any of the hundreds of Stryker MGS already in service with trained, combat experienced crews and battle tested doctrine?

 

Fire sideways?

[Marek Tucan]

Just call it "Combat Car"... The Armor for sure forgotten its origins by now

[BLAH]

I don't see why people would be hesitant to use a light tank due to its lack of protection.

 

Sure, you'll lose some, but you'll also lose MBTs all the same. Generally, who sees and fires first is often the winner, no matter how much armor you're sitting behind. You'll be able to accomplish far more if your light infantry have attached small arms/autocannon proof tanks with powerful main guns. Even being "just" proof to .50 SLAP/14.5mm AP and similar is a zillion times better than not being that; your cannons can silense those threats easily too. It's also something that will be there in time (the "light" designation).

 

Light infantry by itself gets bogged down without armor support and fails to accomplish anything when meeting similar light infantry. Sure again, it may not be able to take an ATGM, but neither can a squad hiding in a building; the light tank allows the squad to move. If you lose a couple of tanks but wipe out the opposing light infantry and take the objective, you've won. If they have light vehicles, your light tanks will massacre said light vehicles.

 

Not to mention the onboard sensors such as thermal sights.

Edited October 10, 2013 by BLAH

[dobrodan]

What about a modernized S-tank with ATGMs for firing while moving?

 

Should easily be compact enough to airlift, and because of the compact size, also either lighter than similarily protected vehicles, or better protected than similarily weighing vehicles.

[Paul G.]

Depends what they want them for.

 

Traditional light tank? Re-animate the XM8 program.

 

SP gun? Stick with the Stryker MGS.

 

Paratrooper FIRE SUPPORT? Stick a 106mm RCL on a Gavin and call it done!

[dobrodan]

Well, I noticed Sparky had incorporated it in his portfolio....

 

Still, I think it is a good idea, as it is more or less a tank-killer with a bigger gun than you would be able to fit on a classic design.

 

And with ATGMs, you dont even have to stop to fire upon the enemy.

[Gavin-Phillips]

Wasn't there a version of the tiny little Wiesel airportable armoured vehicle equipped with a rear-mounted mortar? I recall seeing a video of it on this site quite recently. What about such a variant fitted a low pressure gun and an ATGM mount?

[TonyE]

http://www.military-today.com/apc/panhard_sphinx.htm

[Colin]

With the right power point presentation....

[Mikel2]

With the right power point presentation....

 

 

As long as it fits in a C130...

[EchoFiveMike]

Thunderbolt was the upgraded version of M8. 120mm, electric drive and capable of carrying infantry too. Designed without USG stupidity. S/F...Ken M

[Corinthian]

http://www.military-today.com/apc/panhard_sphinx.htm

 

Mama mia I want one for Christmas!

 

Will make my commutes interesting. VERY interesting.