Armored vehicle preference
- Thread starter tabernac
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
A new Tank ? I would say the latest version of the Merkava , ( But I don‘t they will export it.) , the M1A2 HA , ( it has seen action , but how about a different engine?) , and or the Leopard 2A5(A6). But first we need " OUR OWN" ,heavy lift capabilities , to get these vehicles, overseas , without having to rely on anyone else. But then take a look at our Budget.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
How many RPG hits would that low milage Abrams have? And would the Yanks clean the sand out of it before they give it to us?
This is a gay post...
Take it to the Armour section for more imput from those who know something about it.
This is a gay post...
Take it to the Armour section for more imput from those who know something about it.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Sorry to piss you off medic but it IS an EQUIPMENT topic as well as an Armoured topic.(I chose to post it here) I mean low milage Abrams as in "the Abrams the Australians" bought. I‘m defenitely sure that the Aussies knew exactly what they were doing when they bought the Abrams. What I was suggesting was that we should buy (if possible) the tanks from the same battalion/regiment/etc. as the the Aussies(depending on the state their in). No this post is not gay. So far only you have voiced that this topic is gay. I think that an M1A1 with RPG hits would be more effective than buying hundreads of 9 million dollar SUVs with tank guns on top. 
:tank:
:tank:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I‘d take the M8 Thunderbolt Armoured Gun System with bells and whistles...
120mm gun = increased firepower
RPG armour = sufficient protection
Band tracks = good on and off road mobility
Around half as heavy as a Leo = cheaper and easier to deploy
Plus room for troops in the back.
120mm gun = increased firepower
RPG armour = sufficient protection
Band tracks = good on and off road mobility
Around half as heavy as a Leo = cheaper and easier to deploy
Plus room for troops in the back.
RNW I must contradict you, the vehicle is called the XM8 Buford (I‘ve also encountered the name Ridgeway) Armoured Gun System. It started out in 1983 as the CCVL intended to replace the air-droppable M551A1 Sheridan tank.
It is armed with a 105 mm low recoil, auto-loading cannon (M35) produced by Rheinmetall of Germany. The vehicle has two basic levels of protection that defeat splinters and AP 7,62 mm rounds. Level 3 provides protection from 30 mm cannon fire.
As you pointed out, it is tracked, and offers the same advantages as other tracked vehicles do. The M8 cannot accomodate any soldiers beyond it‘s own crew. The AGS was never successfully developed, as it did not provide the capabilities envisioned by the original concepts.
Although, I would prefer this vehicle over an SUV with a M2HB MG on top (Stryker).
It is armed with a 105 mm low recoil, auto-loading cannon (M35) produced by Rheinmetall of Germany. The vehicle has two basic levels of protection that defeat splinters and AP 7,62 mm rounds. Level 3 provides protection from 30 mm cannon fire.
As you pointed out, it is tracked, and offers the same advantages as other tracked vehicles do. The M8 cannot accomodate any soldiers beyond it‘s own crew. The AGS was never successfully developed, as it did not provide the capabilities envisioned by the original concepts.
Although, I would prefer this vehicle over an SUV with a M2HB MG on top (Stryker).
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
The M8 Thunderbolt is the latest incarnation of the M8 Buford. I‘m not sure of its development/production status (I‘m pretty certain it is not in production at this point) but there are pics and details via Google. It‘s been up-gunned to 120mm and a few other improvements have been made, including the allocation of space for four troops in the back. Everything I have read states that successful RPG protection has been produced for the M8 series. Interestingly enough, the 82nd Airborne are deploying the four M8 Bufords that have been held in stock since the project was cancelled in ‘96. Hopefully there is a future for the system.
Can you please provide us with your sources on this matter, I find it hard to believe that it was upgunned to 120 mm, since a vehicle in this weight class would be seriously damaged by its own cannon fire due to large recoil forces.
Here is a post on the Warfare HQ Discussion Board that alleviates any doubts: http://www.warfarehq.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6129
P.S. I stand corrected, it is in fact now called a Thunderbolt, but so far only 4 prototypes have been pushed into service with the 82nd.
Here is a post on the Warfare HQ Discussion Board that alleviates any doubts: http://www.warfarehq.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6129
P.S. I stand corrected, it is in fact now called a Thunderbolt, but so far only 4 prototypes have been pushed into service with the 82nd.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Page 118 of this report has some good detail:
http://www.cochraneinstitute.com/Reports/preventdeaths43a.pdf
Almost sounds too good to be true, and to be honest I‘m unsure if this latest incarnation has been comprehensively field tested with the 120mm. If it functions like they claim though I think it would be a pretty cool system. Unfortunately I think there‘s no stopping the MGS purchase, seeing as the vehicle will be produced in Canada.
http://www.cochraneinstitute.com/Reports/preventdeaths43a.pdf
Almost sounds too good to be true, and to be honest I‘m unsure if this latest incarnation has been comprehensively field tested with the 120mm. If it functions like they claim though I think it would be a pretty cool system. Unfortunately I think there‘s no stopping the MGS purchase, seeing as the vehicle will be produced in Canada.
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
Totally off the wall response: a modernized PT-76
This is a light amphibious tank used by the Soviet and many Warsaw Pact armies, and saw action in some of the India-Pakistan wars. It is fairly fast, amphibious with minimal preparation, quite large and roomy (so it can float), and has room on the back deck for almost a platoon worth of Infantry (getting across those water obstacles in a pinch)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/pt-76.htm
http://www.ifrance.com/ArmyReco/CD_vente/CD_001/pt-76/page_01.htm
http://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/ArmorMag/mj01/3pt76-01.pdf
While the PT-76 is obsolete in its initial issue form, it could be up gunned to a 105mm, given new fire control and sight systems, engine and running gear upgrades (maybe an M-2 engine and suspension, for example), and modest armour upgrades like the RPG fence.
This is a different take on Armour (the speed and shock effect would be more a result of showing up in unexpected places than blasting through the opposition at the head of a combat team), but it may be the way to go if affordability and logistics are the overriding considerations for the New Model Army.
This is a light amphibious tank used by the Soviet and many Warsaw Pact armies, and saw action in some of the India-Pakistan wars. It is fairly fast, amphibious with minimal preparation, quite large and roomy (so it can float), and has room on the back deck for almost a platoon worth of Infantry (getting across those water obstacles in a pinch)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/pt-76.htm
http://www.ifrance.com/ArmyReco/CD_vente/CD_001/pt-76/page_01.htm
http://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/ArmorMag/mj01/3pt76-01.pdf
While the PT-76 is obsolete in its initial issue form, it could be up gunned to a 105mm, given new fire control and sight systems, engine and running gear upgrades (maybe an M-2 engine and suspension, for example), and modest armour upgrades like the RPG fence.
This is a different take on Armour (the speed and shock effect would be more a result of showing up in unexpected places than blasting through the opposition at the head of a combat team), but it may be the way to go if affordability and logistics are the overriding considerations for the New Model Army.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
While I like the Thunderbolt, as I detailed above, it occurs to me that a LAV battlegroup needs a vehicle that is as fast as a LAV to achieve effective direct fire support. Would this be as major a concern as I think it is? I would think a LAV would need to exploit its speed to survive, so slow tracked armour would theoretically not function well within a LAV-only formation, unless the LAVs move relatively slowly, making them easy, "unprotected" targets.
As MGS is burdened with serious shortcomings and problems, It seems to me that a platform like the Italian Centauro LAV would be a better choice: similar weight, speed, double the 105 ammo, add-on armour already developed and in use, considerable operational experience, superior situational awareness; essentially it is a tried and tested system used by both the Italians and the Spanish. The MGS LAV 111 parts-commonality, coupled with the fact that it is built locally are key factors in its favour, but my understanding is that an MGS only has 10-15% parts commonality with a LAV 111, so that argument in favour of MGS doesn't seem to hold much water. Any NDHQ Generals listening?
As MGS is burdened with serious shortcomings and problems, It seems to me that a platform like the Italian Centauro LAV would be a better choice: similar weight, speed, double the 105 ammo, add-on armour already developed and in use, considerable operational experience, superior situational awareness; essentially it is a tried and tested system used by both the Italians and the Spanish. The MGS LAV 111 parts-commonality, coupled with the fact that it is built locally are key factors in its favour, but my understanding is that an MGS only has 10-15% parts commonality with a LAV 111, so that argument in favour of MGS doesn't seem to hold much water. Any NDHQ Generals listening?
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,954
- Points
- 1,010
I would also go with M8 Thunderbolt (II ?)..
By the way if you go to the united defense web site the newest version of the M8 has 120mm gun, compressed engine and therefore crew space in the back for 4 troops (small ones mind you!) and an all rubber track.
By the way if you go to the united defense web site the newest version of the M8 has 120mm gun, compressed engine and therefore crew space in the back for 4 troops (small ones mind you!) and an all rubber track.
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,954
- Points
- 1,010
I tried to post a pic of the newest M8 however the file was too big. I was also going to show a pic of the rear interior, again same problem.. I will see if I can find the United Def. web site URL.. Cheeers..
Its called capability demonstration platform or something weird like that. No one has picked it up yet.
Its called capability demonstration platform or something weird like that. No one has picked it up yet.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
I'll throw out a couple of problems with a couple of the vehicles you all have suggested. First off, the all rubber track or Band track is very dangerous on a vehicle the size of an AFV. It may be okay on a skidoo, but not on a tank.
Second: Don't let the "speed" of the LAV fool you. It may be fast on todays highways, but is not so fast going across open terrain and very slow to "stuck" in rough terrain. How will it handle in Total War when the enemy blows bridges and craters roads? How long do road networks remain in good condition during an armed conflict, when road crews are not able to maintain them? Will the next war be fought on a paved parade square to accommodate this family of vehicles?
GW
Second: Don't let the "speed" of the LAV fool you. It may be fast on todays highways, but is not so fast going across open terrain and very slow to "stuck" in rough terrain. How will it handle in Total War when the enemy blows bridges and craters roads? How long do road networks remain in good condition during an armed conflict, when road crews are not able to maintain them? Will the next war be fought on a paved parade square to accommodate this family of vehicles?
GW
P
pappy
Guest
Merkava's are pretty slow, the IDF doesn't have to travel far for trouble, Crew protection was the number one design feature. Speed wasn't.
What Tank should Canada buy? What will your allies use? better to look like the friendlies.... easyier on the supply chain if the really big turd hits the fan....
Something mass-produced (as much as tanks can be) will help lower costs...
Challanger 2 or M1A2 would be my choice, proven designs.
Something light and fast, is a great idea, but once the RPG's start to fly, something with a tad thicker skin might be the better choice.
I did see some APC design a few years back that was kelar/plactics/carbon fiber that was pretty impressive for being strong and light weight with still lots of crew protection.
in any new design, crew protection should be key, much easyier to replace a vehical then the trained crew...
But another factor you all are aware of is getting it to the battlefield, both the US and Canada will have to move thier AFV's overseas fast. Planes are cool, but s new desgined fast surface ship for the navy that can deliever AFV's fast with little to no dock facilities on the recieveing end it key. One C5A / one M1A2 just isn't a proper use or recorces.
If your going to go light infantry protection is key, as well as close air and arty and UAV's...... any old other old farts out there think we should bring back the Vietnam era Skyradiers, those where some fine close-air support planes, simple, cheap, and they could carry hugh loads, and best of all fly low and slow on the attack and stick around for hours, dropping ordance right where you need it. Granted the A10's are great too so maybe just more of these. F16's/F18's are cool, but too fast for Close air. But in todays age of smart bombs....
But you gotta admit the B-52s in Afgainestian where some pretty interesting close air support, not bad for a place built in the 1950's.
If your gonna go light for a AFV, you'd better have better combined arms....
What Tank should Canada buy? What will your allies use? better to look like the friendlies.... easyier on the supply chain if the really big turd hits the fan....
Something mass-produced (as much as tanks can be) will help lower costs...
Challanger 2 or M1A2 would be my choice, proven designs.
Something light and fast, is a great idea, but once the RPG's start to fly, something with a tad thicker skin might be the better choice.
I did see some APC design a few years back that was kelar/plactics/carbon fiber that was pretty impressive for being strong and light weight with still lots of crew protection.
in any new design, crew protection should be key, much easyier to replace a vehical then the trained crew...
But another factor you all are aware of is getting it to the battlefield, both the US and Canada will have to move thier AFV's overseas fast. Planes are cool, but s new desgined fast surface ship for the navy that can deliever AFV's fast with little to no dock facilities on the recieveing end it key. One C5A / one M1A2 just isn't a proper use or recorces.
If your going to go light infantry protection is key, as well as close air and arty and UAV's...... any old other old farts out there think we should bring back the Vietnam era Skyradiers, those where some fine close-air support planes, simple, cheap, and they could carry hugh loads, and best of all fly low and slow on the attack and stick around for hours, dropping ordance right where you need it. Granted the A10's are great too so maybe just more of these. F16's/F18's are cool, but too fast for Close air. But in todays age of smart bombs....
But you gotta admit the B-52s in Afgainestian where some pretty interesting close air support, not bad for a place built in the 1950's.
If your gonna go light for a AFV, you'd better have better combined arms....
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
I was pointed to the CV 90 family of vehicles in another thread (Future use of the Leopard as an APC) Idea Feasibility? http://army.ca/forums/threads/22005.0.html. This seems to have a good balance of protection, mobility and firepower, great flexibility (everything from an IFV to a 120mm gun tank), and is reasonably light for an AFV, although somewhat heavier than a LAV derivative.
As long as we recognize airlift is not a really feasible way to insert medium/heavy forces, at least not unless we want to really increase the size of the air force (estimated 25 C-17 "Chalks" to transport ONE combat team with all its men and supplies), then something like this may be the way to go. IF you want to air insert forces, recreate the Canadian Parachute Battalion (Airborn Regiment might be politically incorrect), and give them something like Hummers or German "Weasel" vehicles to provide platforms for ATGM's, mortars and 106mm recoilless rifles. They can drop in and secure a beach head/ rail head/road head for the medium/heavy forces to arrive.
As long as we recognize airlift is not a really feasible way to insert medium/heavy forces, at least not unless we want to really increase the size of the air force (estimated 25 C-17 "Chalks" to transport ONE combat team with all its men and supplies), then something like this may be the way to go. IF you want to air insert forces, recreate the Canadian Parachute Battalion (Airborn Regiment might be politically incorrect), and give them something like Hummers or German "Weasel" vehicles to provide platforms for ATGM's, mortars and 106mm recoilless rifles. They can drop in and secure a beach head/ rail head/road head for the medium/heavy forces to arrive.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
CV 90's look pretty fancy, the firepower of that M8 (CV90120), but lighter, faster, 70+kmh's, and the European community is expected to have over 2000 vehicles of different configurations (25mm upto dual 120mm mortars and everything in between) There is an AD version and a FOO/FCS version, a recovery and probably one that will sell ice cream with whistles, other than the hummer, I can't think of a more versatile unit, and the ones not armed with tank guns (105 and 120) carry 8 troops plus 3 crew. But, a way to get them there? BC Ferries perhaps? Read more about these ships and you will see that they were developed by the same company that did the HMAS Jervis Bay (High Speed Catamaran) of East Timor fame and they have been working with the American's to make the HSX ferry? Or something like that? Anyway, 1000 soldiers and 250 vehicles moving at almost 80 kmh across the Ocean is pretty impressive. Just a thought.
www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-navalsc3.htm
www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-navalsc3.htm
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
GW:
Given the choice, I would take a tracked and well armoured Canadian Army over a wheeled one, or perhaps our current structure with one tracked and armoured, single-rotation, pure warfighting brigade for emergency use, as our LAV BGs are probably ideal for the majority of our current missions; I suppose my focus on a LAV army in my post above was more a case of dealing with what we have and what we are being given, and it that context I think at the very least we should take a better wheeled 105 platform over the MGS. I'm also curious if band track technology will eventually turn out succesful rubber tracked AFVs; I think there is a serious effort underway to make this happen. If I'm not mistaken I think I have read that the US FCS may employ some sort of future band track.
Given the choice, I would take a tracked and well armoured Canadian Army over a wheeled one, or perhaps our current structure with one tracked and armoured, single-rotation, pure warfighting brigade for emergency use, as our LAV BGs are probably ideal for the majority of our current missions; I suppose my focus on a LAV army in my post above was more a case of dealing with what we have and what we are being given, and it that context I think at the very least we should take a better wheeled 105 platform over the MGS. I'm also curious if band track technology will eventually turn out succesful rubber tracked AFVs; I think there is a serious effort underway to make this happen. If I'm not mistaken I think I have read that the US FCS may employ some sort of future band track.
- Reaction score
- 13,141
- Points
- 1,010
Bomber said:
The question I always have is: 80Km/h in what sea state? 0? 1? 2? They won't be pounding through the North Atlantic or Pacific in December in anything like that speed (if at all) is my guess. And what is the range of the ship at that speed? Fuel consumption usually rises exponentially as a ship's speed goes up. Can it cross 5000Nm of ocean at 80km/h?
The Torres Strait (where the Aussies operate HMAS Jervis Bay) is a lot more benign than our stretch of ocean...
Similar threads
