Posted on 11/13/2017 6:00:26 AM PST by C19fan
Two decades ago, the U.S. Army phased out its last light tank. Now the Pentagon has decided its infantry could use some lightweight armored firepower, and is looking to choose between at least three off-the-shelf designs by 2019.
This initiative, called Mobile Protected Firepower, intends to outfit infantry brigades with their own 14-vehicle companies of armored fire support vehicles. That way, they no longer depend on separate heavy armored battalions to detach tanks to help them. The new light tanks would assist the infantry by blasting bunkers, fortified houses, machine gun nests and the occasional armored vehicle.
(Excerpt) Read more at warisboring.com ...
Please do NOT undergun it they way they did with the Sherman.
“There are existing vehicles that might serve the role.”
Come now, buying some existing vehicle does little to fuel the military-industrial complex Ike so correctly warned us about in 1961.
From the article the Stryker can’t handle the recoil.
USMC at one time had a nify ‘Lik tank Killer called ONTOS (The Thing).............think i still got some info stashed away online somewhere...........
So does it end up on its side with the gun in the AA role?
"The Sheridan’s light frame often leaped upwards into the air with each shot from its heavy main gun."
From my experience firing the 152mm main gun, also jumping backward.
Yeh!
Here!
Skip to comments.
M50A1 The Ontos at Hue: 1968- 4ea 106 recoiless rifles [video 1:31 min]
youtube. ^
Posted on 1/3/2014, 10:27:33 PM by virgil283
‘The Ontos, possibly the most downright eccentric armored vehicle ever concocted for the U.S. Military. It was a tiny tank, armed with six M40 recoilless rifles, which were mounted externally on its tiny turret. The Ontos fought in countless skirmishes, but where it became part of Marine legend was in the battle for Hue during the Tet Offensive. There it was involved in some of the fiercest urban fighting in the Corps history. According to one source, the only reason the Fifth Marine Regiment survived Hue was because of the Ontos and the 106mm recoilless rifle.’
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Which means that ANY vehicle light enough to meet Army requirements would not have the mass to cope with a tank gun's recoil.
Light Tank. That’s a misnomer.
Years ago Oto Melara and the Israelis developed a very high velocity 60mm gun that fired discarding sabot and HE. Possibly a weapon like this could be used on Strykers and Marine LAVs. 60mm with a 2 lb charge should be effective with mg nests and the like. The APDS could deal with armor. The recoil should be within limits.
My brother was in armored cavalry, and he HATES anything made of aluminum in a war fighting vehicle.
Technology has changed but the laws of physics don't move often.
1. Is there a reason that the Army is looking to field a 105mm gun in a self defined “light tank”? Is it the ready availability of munitions, or is there a 90mm gun that would suffice? Even if the 90mm is "obsolete".
2. Whatever happened to making things from Steel? There are several new versions that are strong but light.
3. Please don't design a Light Tank, expect to up-armor it to survive modern battlefield missiles, then complain that it is not as survivable as an M1.
If the idea is to design a vehicle that can survive heavy machine gun fire, but also be airlifted and fight at altitude, then you have your design envelope.
Stop trying to build with unobtainium to have the perfect weapon.
That is exactly what I was thinking.
The Sherman wasn’t undergunned when it was designed and put into production. The german panzers invading france sported 37mm guns and 75s with very short barrels. The Panzer IV didn’t get a decent 75mm anti-tank gun until 1942 after the T-34s were hitting them hard in the east.
Those undergunned sherman stories are mostly late 44 and 45, when they were going up against German tank guns that didn’t exist in 1940-41. Even then it wasn’t that our guys were morons. Production was so overwhelming that they cranked them out even when it was outgunned and upgraded the 75 we had on it.
The Sherman kicked ass in one area, speed and mobility. The German tanks were wretched in that regard.
Then instead of trying to design a new super tank like the blockheads did, we simply cranked out 15,000 P-47 Thunderbolts and played a different game.
Also: reliability and rebuildability. They could do field depot work on a company or 2 of Shermans and get it back into action before they could get the transmission out of ONE Panther or Tiger.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.