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 ...
Thanks for your post #31.
Why does the Army want to field another set of target markers?
Yeah, and when is the last time we needed 20,000 tanks? The Atmy keeps buying these things, and then park them in a California boneyard.
Here are those numbers built:
I totally sympathize with the Army's desires for a lighter, more mobile & capable vehicle and, it turns out, there may be new technologies in both guns & armor that could make that possible.
Cobra64: "The Atmy keeps buying these things, and then park them in a California boneyard."
Nothing lasts forever:
You cite the numbers built. Just where are these 20,000 tanks in service? I have a dozen spare batteries in a drawer... they are not powering anything, thus, they are not in service.
Think about it.
When is the last time we had US tanks in action on a battle field?
“When is the last time we had US tanks in action on a battle field?”
*******************
Depends on your definition of “tanks”.
We here are talking about “light tanks” which can include most anything, tracked or wheeled, less than 60 tons.
You yourself posted a helpful list of such light tanks, from which I’ve made now a number of posts.
So I’d say, and be sure you’d agree, that such vehicles are required in virtually every US military operation, right?
I myself was never a tanker, instead mostly served a few miles behind front lines.
But one of my daughters married a tanker and for his sake, and hers, I'd want to be d*mn certain our guys have the best equipment possible.
So even if the ideal "light tank" may be a contradiction in terms, we still need to do the best we can for our guys.
There was an active decision not to put a high velocity 76mm cannon on the Sherman in 1943. The 76mm gun wasn’t deemed ready and it’s high explosive shells were not as effective as those of the shorter-barreled 75mm on the Sherman. This policy was reconsidered in light of Tigers in Tunisia and Italy and in January 1944, Shermans with the 76mm gun were produced, but not in high numbers, as was the M18 Hellcat, a tank destroyer. The other issue, is taht the Army doctrine was to have out thin-0skinned and fast tank destroyers take on tanks.
Isn’t the Centuro an 8x8?
Father of a good friend growing up was a West Point Armor Branch O-6 (bird colonel) with 2-3 Vietnam tours. This in the mid-70s. He *hated* the Sheridan. There were still some of them around at Fort Knox in that era, more in Germany in the Fulda Gap.
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.