Horrido

OOE, I wasn't suggesting that the M-8 should replace real armor at all. I'm just saying that if you want some form of C-130 deployable vehicle to keep enemy armor from rolling over you with impunity, the M-8 seems to be the best available option. The M-8 should COMPLEMENT the M-1 for airborne units, and hold the area until C-17s can bring REAL armor in.

__________________
The black flag is raised: Ban them all... Let the Admin sort them out.

I know I'm going to have the last word... I have powers of deletion and lock.

Anon

The M-8 would be great as a Sheridan replacement for the 82d Airborne.

Officer of Engineers

If you want to hold against real armour using infantry. Give me two bulldozers and 10 hours (out of the 96 insert time frame) and I'll stop any armour from steamrolling anyone. If you need fast, give me two engr coys and 4 minelayer vehs (hell, just give me a two ton and I'll have my engrs toss the mines out).

Earthworks, gentlemen, is the better armour, surpassing anything man can put on track or wheels.

However, you guess it, there ain't no bulldozer in this light bde crap.

__________________
Chimo

Officer of Engineers

My apologies for not being cleared. Why have tank destroyers when you can have real tanks? Capt Seft's assertion is that the Leo C1 is of equivlent weight and size to the Centauro and yet, it beats that AGS. Why develop the M-8 when you still have M-60s around (those can fit into a C-130 albeit with the same permission slips from the AF for the Stryker).

Horrido

Supposedly you can airdrop an M-8. Got any documents saying you can carry (much less airdrop or LAPES) a M60 Patton in a C-130? That would certainly be an impressive accomplishment for a Herc!

Anon

"Earthworks, gentlemen, is the better armour, surpassing anything man can put on track or wheels.

However, you guess it, there ain't no bulldozer in this light bde crap."

Nice deep fighting holes with interlocking fields of fire and a vast AT/AP minefield will make any grunt sleep better at night.

If you'll note, i suggested a heavy engineering company in my version of the ideal force structure for a 'light bde'(mine would not be very light though).

Anon

"Supposedly you can airdrop an M-8. Got any documents saying you can carry (much less airdrop or LAPES) a M60 Patton in a C-130? That would certainly be an impressive accomplishment for a Herc!"

The M-8 is claimed to be air droppable. I have an uncle that was attatched to the 101st when it was still a real airborne unit(he was an enginequeer too ).

He said that there are few sights on earth like 105mm cannons slamming into the ground all around you, lol. Apparently, not all of them land too soft...

The Herc can actually carry a LOT more than what it's cleared for Evan(Especially with RATO). I don't know that an M-60 would physicly fit though, they are pretty tall vehicles....much taller than an M-1.

CERTAINLY, a purpose built DU/Chobham armored, tracked, dedicated light tank that would fit in herc could be developed.

IF they really were serious about the best way to deal with the problem(besides actually buying more C-17's to move real armor into theater), that's what they would build.

A 105mm Hv gun, autoloader, two man turret/three man crew, very low silhouette, very heavily armored light tank.

There is no reason a light tank could not have MUCH, MUCH better levels of protection than the crap they're bandying about now.
Team those up with a one man turret 25mm armed M-113A3 with ERA, problem solved.

I'd STILL rather see more C-17's though.


And one other thing...

This talk about the 82d being only a speed bump, and unable to hold off an armored attack....it's ********.

Just ask the 101st airborne, who did just that against overwhelming odds at Bastogne.

You deploy the 82d in rough/broken terrain or MOUT, they would bleed an armored column dry.

Tanks have no business fighting infantry in close quarters. It is in fact, quite stupid to even try if you are facing a competent infantry force. Since i would rate the 82d as vastly superior to a 'competent' fighting force, i judge that they could do quite well in such terrain, particularly since the oppenent is most likely to be anything BUT competent...

With the USAF and USN flying topcover, the 82d could've held a city like Riyahd(desert storm days) against Sadomy insane's armor for many weeks, if not months.

Sending in an armored force only makes sense if you are going to conduct aggresive manuever operations. To do that with light armor, to me, seems rather foolish.

lurker

Interesting...

As I see the original article ;

-- Marines want to get much lighter vehicles (10-30 tons as compared to existing 25-60 tons) than they have now.

-- They are not satisfied with the 120 mm gun performance, and want to get a new one, that will be able to penetrate T-90 (the only strange thing being that Iraqis had no T-90).

__________________
Long time we thought that a million monkeys in front of a million typewriters would eventually type William Shakespeare's complete works.
After invention of the Internet, we understand that it's not true.

Anon

There is absolutely no evidence that the 120mm smoothbore won't penetrate the T-90, just as there is no evidence it will.

Threat nations do not allow us to test our weapons on their stuff unless there's a war on, and then we'll all find out soon enough.

The 105mm rifled gun of the M-60A3TTS had no problems killing Iraqi T-72's, you might note.

BTW, the Germans are fielding the new 140mm Hv smoothbore to the Leo IIA6. I suspect that gun will be fitted to the eventual M-1A3.

Officer of Engineers

My apologies, I was thinking C-17 and typed C-130. Air dropping is not a requirement and frankly, a dubious technique. Not everything works afterwards.

lurker

Thats true, but if something replaced -- it means that somenody is unsatisfied with it.
Talking about the gun, or development of M1AHA instead of M1A1.

Quote:

The 105mm rifled gun of the M-60A3TTS had no problems killing Iraqi T-72's, you might note.

The same i can say about Iran-Iraq war, when T-72 easily killed Iranian Chiftains, comparing to the last one M-60 is just a paper box.

Quote:

BTW, the Germans are fielding the new 140mm Hv smoothbore to the Leo IIA6. I suspect that gun will be fitted to the eventual M-1A3.

I know that, but it will surely add some more weight to already overweight vehicle.

Anon

The Leo II isn't overwieght, it is MUCH lighter than the Abrams or Challenger II iirc.

I would say the switch to 140mm(just as was the switch to 120mm) is a preventive measure, forseeing potential OPFOR armor advances.

Much better to install a bigger gun before it is anticipated to be needed, than waiting until you know your current gun aint getting it done.

I know the M-60 was a deathtrap. That's why i wasn't a tanker....lol.

Praxus

Actually the Leo IIA5 and A6 weigh the same as the Abrams.

Anything before that will weigh 55 tons and lower.

Is the Army even planning on building an M1A3?

If there is this is what I would put on it...

1.) Hybrid Electric Drive(Deisel Engine)
2.) 140mm Main Gun
3.) Turret armor should have greater slant
4.) Incorpirate Active Defense Systems(Like the electric one being developed in Great Britian)
5.) Make the armor out of newer and light composites(so it can have the same weight but with greater protection)
6.) A munition similar the Mid-Range Munition but 140mm
7.) Sleeker/Smaller Profile

bigross86

So you want a bigger gun and more slanted armor for less size and weight? I'd like to see you pull that one off...

__________________
You're a naughty girl, go to my room!

Praxus

Actually I said "Make the armor out of newer and lighter composites(so it can have the same weight but with greater protection)"

It would have a turret that is shorter (taking away the added weight) but has a greater slant. The tank would be made out of lighter composites instead of having that heavy depleted uranium in it.