Jump to content

GDLS to build new light tank for army


bfng3569

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Austria and Spain seem to be quite happy with their respective versions. Not sure what went wrong in the UK, but hopefully they learned from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However did they manage to fit the awesome firepower of a 105mm gun into a vehicle weighting only 38 tons!  

 

 

(This is sarcasm)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

However did they manage to fit the awesome firepower of a 105mm gun into a vehicle weighting only 38 tons!  

 

 

(This is sarcasm)

Agree.  Also I don't see the logic of a 38 ton vehicle: am I missing something or would anything that would carry one 38 ton vehicle also carry one M1 and then what's the point?  For USAF lift you're one to a C17 either way, but does the US use landing craft or military bridges that happily take a 38 ton vehicle but not an M1?

At around 25-30 tons, you could start having two fire support vehicles in a C17 instead of one M1, and even then you lose helicopter or C130J lift, i.e., you can only be air lifted by strategic assets that are far too precious to assume any risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think 38 tons might be excessive. 

But there is at least the aspect of protection. Yes, light tanks are supposed to be lightly armored, which means little protection. But we've seen Russian light tanks and AFVs butchered by very common, very simple, very light weapons. They may be excessively fragile for the modern battlefield at least until some new innovations come along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither of the options the army was presented with seemed very appealing to me.  Oh well, at least no one tried to present this terrible idea.  

image.thumb.jpeg.c486217e99365e2ba66e7adf7d4f0d87.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I also think 38 tons might be excessive. 

But there is at least the aspect of protection. Yes, light tanks are supposed to be lightly armored, which means little protection. But we've seen Russian light tanks and AFVs butchered by very common, very simple, very light weapons. They may be excessively fragile for the modern battlefield at least until some new innovations come along.

This is about the same weight as the M109A7 which is 39 tons.  Maybe that is a magic number for some type of logistics constraint?

I hope it is designed for the installation of the Israeli Trophy system or equivalent. Maybe the spots behind the front turret armor? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dawes said:

During World War II would this have been classified as a medium tank? 

To be fair, the M24 (the heaviest-armed light tank of WW2?) weighs just about as much as a Stryker...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, AETiglathPZ said:

This is about the same weight as the M109A7 which is 39 tons.  Maybe that is a magic number for some type of logistics constraint?

I hope it is designed for the installation of the Israeli Trophy system or equivalent. Maybe the spots behind the front turret armor? 

Some form of APS is almost guaranteed. I've heard a while ago GD's proposal is intentionally larger and heavier to accommodate for more equipment along the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US saw Russians introducing T-62Ms and needed vehicle of the similar combat value. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this video to be of some value when trying to figure out the role of this new light tank.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can not transport it in C-130 and can not drop it out of any plane, why not just use M1? I can understand (stretched) logic for Sheridan, 2S25 and such, since even theoretical air-drop ability adds whole another threat to an enemy planners. But if you are not gonna use that capability, and can only transport it in the airplanes that can transport M1 (and realistically speaking, air transportability will not even be used).... Why bother?

As Ssnake noted, it is a vehicle with poor protection that is overweight.

Oh, and welcome back to non-separated ammo.

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2022 at 3:01 PM, CaptLuke said:

At around 25-30 tons, you could start having two fire support vehicles in a C17 instead of one M1, and even then you lose helicopter or C130J lift, i.e., you can only be air lifted by strategic assets that are far too precious to assume any risk.

Maximum capacity of the C-17 is 77.5 tons, so I suspect the threshold is indeed driven by the requirement to lift two at once. Of course then your range drops to 4,500 km, or else you have to throw additional air refueling capacities at the problem, all for delivering twice as many tanks which are probably less than half as useful. As noted, if they had at least stuck a 120 mm gun on it for commonality and sufficient firepower, I could see the sense, not least due to the capacity of many bridges etc. in Eastern Europe and other possible areas of deployment.

Edited by BansheeOne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2022 at 12:03 PM, Walter_Sobchak said:

Neither of the options the army was presented with seemed very appealing to me.  Oh well, at least no one tried to present this terrible idea.  

image.thumb.jpeg.c486217e99365e2ba66e7adf7d4f0d87.jpeg

A Brad could probably handle that turret better than a Stryker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...