Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RoosterRedux

In theory then one could reduce the armor thickness and have cheaper(more)and faster tanks.


10 posted on 03/01/2018 12:41:59 PM PST by alternatives? (Why have an army if there are no borders?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: alternatives?

Yeah, but then things that can’t be shot down by the countermeasures system could get through the armor. Hypervelocity antitank rifles could be viable again.

There is still a role for the main battle tank with its heavy armor. What it does (and has) open up is the survivability of a light airdroppable tank, which the US Airborne is currently starting to pursue. Something with light armor and a big gun that can be paradropped from an aircraft. It can’t stand in the line like an MBT, nor could it spearhead a conventional infantry advance (or be used as a patrol vehicle as in the Sandbox or Syria) but with active defenses it could at least provide point firepower for airborne troops until the heavy armor can get there.


15 posted on 03/01/2018 3:29:49 PM PST by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson