GDLS unveils new light tank for US army

[MilEME09]

https://militaryleak.com/2020/04/25/general-dynamics-land-systems-unveils-new-light-tank/

Designed to fill the gap left when the M551 was retired, and not replaced by the cancelled M8 AGS program. Details in the article, if it is accepted, I foresee videos on YouTube within a year of a failed paradrop.

 

[tomahawk6]

There isn't a lot of support for a light tank so don't be surprised when this program is quietly shelved.

 

[FJAG]

I tend to agree. The only place where I see a need for a lighter direct fire support vehicle is within the Stryker BCT cavalry squadron for the reconnaissance support roles to which the MGS has been relegated to. The MGS, notwithstanding its weaknesses, may even be a more suitable piece of equipment because the squadrons won't try to use an MGS as a mini-tank (not to mention its maintenance compatibility with the rest of the vehicles in the SBCT).

There really is not role for this vehicle in an ABCTs and I seriously wonder if it fits into the role that the IBCTs have. On top of that I don't see this as a priority item under the Army's Big Six program so it's chances are slim at best.

:cheers:

 

[GR66]

I'm thinking it's maybe intended more to provide support for the Airborne and Air Mobile IBCT's?

 

[MilEME09]

I'm thinking it's maybe intended more to provide support for the Airborne and Air Mobile IBCT's?

Yes it is suppose to  be an air mobile tank, to provide support for US airborne units.

 

[FJAG]

I'm thinking it's maybe intended more to provide support for the Airborne and Air Mobile IBCT's?

True enough although an IBCT is an IBCT. It's just how they are delivered and the amount of ammo reloads they can carry. Quite frankly for the weight of one of these tanks you could deliver/carry etc a whole hockey sock full of mortar and anti-tank reloads which might be of a lot more use to an IBCT than a light tank that only weighs 38 tons and which, while almost twice as heavy as the MGS (and accordingly better armoured) is some 22 to 35 tons less than an M1 (depending on model and accordingly significantly less protected)

I don't want to judge the vehicle and its purpose based on this short article but it strikes me that this vehicle is undoubtedly very vulnerable to many of the OPFOR light-weight, infantry-borne, anti-armour weapons that proliferate these days. Since an IBCT offers none of the protective capabilities that Bradley mounted armoured infantry and armoured artillery do when accompanying M1 tanks I really wonder under what tactical circumstances you would employ one of these things.

:cheers:

 

[Kirkhill]

The MPF light tanks would provide the firepower to breach heavily-fortified defensive positions, potentially in an area, such as Russian and Chinese anti-access zones, where the U.S. might not be able to achieve absolute air superiority.

To me it sounds to me as if it is intended to be used in the same manner as one of these (Stug IV)

It is unfortunate that it looks like a tank.  An up-engineered MGS might be a better solution for the intended task.

BAE is offering an up-engineered M8 AGS - which also looks like a tank.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a23455/bae-us-armys-light-tank-program/

 

[daftandbarmy]

To me it sounds to me as if it is intended to be used in the same manner as one of these (Stug IV)

It is unfortunate that it looks like a tank.  An up-engineered MGS might be a better solution for the intended task.

BAE is offering an up-engineered M8 AGS - which also looks like a tank.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a23455/bae-us-armys-light-tank-program/

A 'light' tank to breach 'heavy' defenses.. does anyone see the problem with that? Anyone?

 

[FJAG]

A 'light' tank to breach 'heavy' defenses.. does anyone see the problem with that? Anyone?

Ooh! Ooh! Ask me! Ask me!  :blah:

;D

 

[daftandbarmy]

Ooh! Ooh! Ask me! Ask me!  :blah:

;D

No chance... you always have your hand up at the back of the room!

It's a dumb idea. If you want to breach heavy defenses, get heavier artillery plus some fearsome Assault Engineer resources. And lots and lots of Infantry....

 

[Rifleman62]

".... fearsome Assault Engineer resources...." , The Forlorn Hope.

 

[FJAG]

No chance... you always have your hand up at the back of the room!

It's a dumb idea. If you want to breach heavy defenses, get heavier artillery plus some fearsome Assault Engineer resources. And lots and lots of Infantry....

An oldie but a goodie:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOS-1

:cheers:

 

[MilEME09]

An oldie but a goodie:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOS-1

:cheers:

Here have the new version about to enter production.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/tos-2_new_concept_of_heavy_flamethrower_system_based_on_armata_platform.html

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I have wondered if a Centauro turret could be fitted to a modified LAV chassis? That would give them roughly the same effect without adding more types and solve most of the MGS issues.

 

[tomahawk6]

A Russian entry. With 125mm gun.

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/sprut_sd.htm

video

https://youtu.be/-CzBz_bPe5M

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It would be cheaper to buy them from the Russians along with a mountain of spare parts.

 

[Kat Stevens]

It would be cheaper to buy them from the Russians along with a mountain of spare parts.

... because you're really going to need them.

 

[NavyShooter]

So....the question in my mind is, what's the intended role? 

The air-portable with 2x fitting in a heavy lifter seems to be a key consideration (though I don't see the exact contractual clause list to see what the 'must haves' are) so I am inferring that the goal is to be able to get some 'heavy' stuff in quicker in support of deployed operations.

Example - I think it was the 82nd Airborne div that responded in 1991 as a part of Desert Shield.  About all they had that could stop a tank was the M47 Dragon Anti-Tank rocket.  If the Iraqi Army had decided to push through them - they would have been hard pressed to hold the line.

If they had been able to fly in a battalion's worth of 'light tanks' (note - these seem to be about 2/3 the size/weight of an Abrams) they'd have been, well, a slightly bigger speedbump. 

It's not an Abrams - but the Abrams is almost at the point where the only way to move it is by ship or rail - the latest versions of it you can still (I think) move by C-5, but only one at a time.

If you need troops, with some tanks (and the firepower/resiliency that they bring) then this is a good way to get a few on the ground quickly to form that speedbump.

NS

 

[PuckChaser]

82 Airborne Div can deploy a BCT (3000 pers) to Kuwait in 18 hours though. I think we'd be hard pressed to get just a single C-17 there in that time frame.

 

[brihard]

So....the question in my mind is, what's the intended role? 

The air-portable with 2x fitting in a heavy lifter seems to be a key consideration (though I don't see the exact contractual clause list to see what the 'must haves' are) so I am inferring that the goal is to be able to get some 'heavy' stuff in quicker in support of deployed operations.

Example - I think it was the 82nd Airborne div that responded in 1991 as a part of Desert Shield.  About all they had that could stop a tank was the M47 Dragon Anti-Tank rocket.  If the Iraqi Army had decided to push through them - they would have been hard pressed to hold the line.

If they had been able to fly in a battalion's worth of 'light tanks' (note - these seem to be about 2/3 the size/weight of an Abrams) they'd have been, well, a slightly bigger speedbump. 

It's not an Abrams - but the Abrams is almost at the point where the only way to move it is by ship or rail - the latest versions of it you can still (I think) move by C-5, but only one at a time.

If you need troops, with some tanks (and the firepower/resiliency that they bring) then this is a good way to get a few on the ground quickly to form that speedbump.

NS

I don't think it's intended to do much in a surge capacity against a peer or near-peer adversary, but if you have a less capable national power threatening some of your key interests, the ability to, say, seize an airfield and then put a bunch of these on the ground alongside infantry and under your own airpower would be compelling.