bfng3569 Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 (edited) https://www.defensenews.com/land/2022/06/28/us-army-unveils-contract-to-build-new-light-tank-for-infantry-forces/ Edited June 29, 2022 by bfng3569 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan W Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 Looks awfully like a scaled up Scorpion/Scimitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R011 Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 Lets hope the ASCOD variant chosen by the US Army doesn't have similar issues to the ASCOD variant chosen by the British. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssnake Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 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 More sharing options...
Walter_Sobchak Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 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 More sharing options...
CaptLuke Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 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 More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 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 More sharing options...
Ssnake Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 There's - adequately protected (aka "heavy") - unprotected (aka "light") - unprotected, with excessive weight (aka "medium") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter_Sobchak Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfng3569 Posted June 29, 2022 Author Share Posted June 29, 2022 seems like it would be nothing more than a replacement for the Stryker Mobile Gun System? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AETiglathPZ Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 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 More sharing options...
Dawes Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 During World War II would this have been classified as a medium tank? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogDodger Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 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 More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 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 More sharing options...
bojan Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 US saw Russians introducing T-62Ms and needed vehicle of the similar combat value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R011 Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 Modern variants of Soviet tanks don't weigh much more and have 125 mm guns. Leopard 1 with a 105 mm weights about 42.5 tonnes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urbanoid Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 6 hours ago, bojan said: US saw Russians introducing T-62Ms and needed vehicle of the similar combat value. /thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKTanker Posted June 30, 2022 Share Posted June 30, 2022 It isn't really a thing until it sports rainbow camouflage. Got to keep up with the times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter_Sobchak Posted July 2, 2022 Share Posted July 2, 2022 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 More sharing options...
lucklucky Posted July 2, 2022 Share Posted July 2, 2022 Why the 105? could they not put in a 120 like the Italians made for new Centauro 8x8? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted July 2, 2022 Share Posted July 2, 2022 (edited) 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 July 2, 2022 by bojan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BansheeOne Posted July 2, 2022 Share Posted July 2, 2022 (edited) 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 July 2, 2022 by BansheeOne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted July 2, 2022 Share Posted July 2, 2022 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. A Brad could probably handle that turret better than a Stryker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burncycle360 Posted July 2, 2022 Share Posted July 2, 2022 There have been options for decades if we actually wanted a light tank. The whole point of this program is to convert taxpayer dollars into contractor profits. Results are optional, it's lucrative regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EchoFiveMike Posted July 3, 2022 Share Posted July 3, 2022 Yep, if you never deliver the product, you always have incentive to keep selling the solution. The purges of Stalin won't even be a starting point. S/F...Ken M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now