ARMORED WARFARE: Airborne Tank Returns from the Dead

[scoone]

March 17, 2004: The U.S. Army has taken four M8 Armored Gun Systems out of storage and assigned them to the 82nd Airborne Division. Often described as an "airborne tank", the M8 project was cancelled in 1996 in order to use the money saved (over a billion dollars) for other uses (like paying for peacekeeping duty). The M8 was a 1980s project, whose purpose was to provide light infantry forces with a tracked vehicle, equipped with a 105mm tank gun, that could be dropped by parachute or delivered via C-130 transport. The M8 has a three man crew and can be fitted with two different sets of add-on armor. The basic M8 weighs 19.3 tons and has armor that will protect the crew from shell fragments and some bullets. Three tons of additional armor will provide protection from all bullets and some small caliber cannon shells. Add another 2.5 tons of armor (creating a 24.8 ton vehicle) provides protection cannon shells up to 30mm. The M8 looks like a tank, but it isn't. It's best armor protection will not stop the least capable anti-tank round currently in use. The M8 is more like the World War II ear American "tank destroyers," which proved more useful as infantry support vehicles. The Germans and Russians had many similar vehicles which were accurately described as "assault guns." The M8 has an autoloader with 21 rounds, plus another nine rounds for reloading the autoloader. In practice, the M8 usually functions as self-propelled artillery system for light infantry. Missiles and air power are more likely to be used against enemy tanks and armored vehicles.

If the M8 had gone into mass production, each one bought would have cost about five million dollars. The army says it does not plan to resume development of the M8, it just needs some mobile artillery for the 82nd Airborne Division and the M8s were available. Cancelled weapons systems usually have working prototypes into storage in case the project is revived or, in this case, the weapon is actually needed. The new chief-of-staff of the army is said to be in favor of the M8, so putting the four prototypes to use might create enough positive feedback from the battlefield to get the M8 back in the procurement budget. The army originally wanted to buy 237 of them. The 25 ton version would be well protected against RPGs and would provide the kind of direct fire artillery support light infantry find very useful. At the moment, only tanks can provide this kind of support. But the 25 ton M8 can be flown to distant battlefields much more easily than the 65 ton M-1 tank. Development on the M8 has not stopped completely, there's now a version that carries a 155mm howitzer, whose development was paid for by the manufacturer, not the government.


March 15, 2004: The U.S. Armys hummer vehicle was not meant to be a combat vehicle, or a power generator, but that's what it is turning into during the continued Iraq operations. Of the 10,000 hummers in Iraq, over 40 percent of them will be armored. Moreover, it has become more common for troops to run numerous electronic devices off the hummers power supply. As a result, a growing number of the vehicles are breaking down. The engines are being worn out prematurely, and the extra weight of armor, and additional weapons, is doing more damage to suspensions and tires. Nearly ten percent of the hummers in Iraq are out of action waiting for repairs. Getting sufficient spare parts to Iraq is also a problem. Moreover, the hummer was not designed to be quickly repaired, especially for things like engine replacement. It takes 62 man hours to replace the engine. The M-1 tank, which was designed for ease of repair, can have its engine replace much more quickly. As a result of this experience, the first time hummers have been used in a sustained combat operation, design changes for the vehicle are being made for the future models.

March 12, 2004: Some 300 of the U.S. Army's Stryker LAV (wheeled Light Armored Vehicle) were sent to Iraq last Fall as part of the first "Stryker Brigade." The Stryker has proven durable (not wearing out it's tires, as the M-2 Bradley does its tracks, after 1300 kilometers on the road) and able to protect itself. The two times an RPG rocket has hit a Stryker, the damage was minor because of the additional "slat armor." Two Strykers were hit by roadside bombs, but only one soldier was wounded. Moreover, Iraqi attackers have learned to be wary when Strykers are about, because they accelerate faster than armored vehicles, and come at the source of the hostile fire with guns blazing. The army brass are pleased, so far, with Stryker's performance so far and are planning to continue buying them and forming Stryker brigades. The Stryker has had a 90 percent readiness rate (which is higher than tracked vehicles.) The height of the vehicle has caused some stability problems and there have been at least two roll overs.
http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTARM.HTM

[Marsuitor]

Think i saw this thing in the Jane's guide, seems like a very interesting concept IMO.

[Ian H]

I did too. Has the M8 been given a 120mm gun and redesignated (as was in Jane's), or is that a different project?

On an unrelated note, have the Army put extra machine guns (or mounting points for the dismount sections' M249s) around the rear hatch of the Stryker, sort of like the M113 ACAV had, cos it seems like a good idea, to me at least.

[Operation Ivy]

M8 sounds pretty awsome!!! woot

[zenmaster]

If the M8's armor won't stop an RPG, what good is it? Why not save the time and money and put the 105mm on a chassis that will handle RPG rounds? The Sheridan was a total failure- what makes them think the M8 will be different?

[YankeeDeVallecas]

Seems to be a little old but I think this guy may be an advocate of the M8...

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2116/armored.htm

[FallenAngel]

If the M8's armor won't stop an RPG, what good is it? Why not save the time and money and put the 105mm on a chassis that will handle RPG rounds? The Sheridan was a total failure- what makes them think the M8 will be different?

The Sheridan IDEA was not a failure...the tank was. The gun was too big. Everytime it fired...it damn near shook the tank to pieces. Also...they were being intended to be used against Soviet tanks (hence the option of firing a TOW through the barrel).

The M8 will be used in an infantry support role probably in urban areas. It doesn't stand up to an RPG, true, but then again, nothing does short of an Abrams.

Found some pics of the M8.

http://www.checkpoint-online.ch/CheckPoint/Images/N-M8AGS.jpg

http://www.army.lt/armor/gallery/M43.jpg

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m8ags-001.jpg

More Info:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m8-ags.htm

[Rakki]

The Stryker's armor won't stop RPGs either, but they can be fitted with slat armor. Anyway, the airborne troops have not had a decent easily transportable/droppable self propelled gun for fire support in ages. Maybe they can mix and match Strykers and M8s to field "light" rapid reaction units.

[Beowulf]

If the M8's armor won't stop an RPG, what good is it? Why not save the time and money and put the 105mm on a chassis that will handle RPG rounds?

That would probably keep it from being airdrop capable, in terms of weight....although that's just a guess.

[Backis]

Also...they were being intended to be used against Soviet tanks (hence the option of firing a TOW through the barrel).


No such option. The missile was called Shillelagh, and was not related to TOW. The 152mm gun-launcher system was the same as that put on the M60A2 (aka "Starship"), and was not a success.

[FallenAngel]

Also...they were being intended to be used against Soviet tanks (hence the option of firing a TOW through the barrel).


No such option. The missile was called Shillelagh, and was not related to TOW. The 152mm gun-launcher system was the same as that put on the M60A2 (aka "Starship"), and was not a success.

Ah, thanks. I didn't think it was a TOW, but couldn't think of the actual name of the damn thing. Its one one of my books....I was just too busy to look it up.

[Lysander]

Is this tank related to the Stingray?

[Ian H]

Not as far as I'm aware. The Stingray is a true light tank, not a gun platform that happens to look like one. Also I think it was made by a different company, (Cadillac-Gage) than the M8 (United Defence).

****, if it gets adopted again they'll need a new designation, could be embarrassing when some poor pinned down sod calls for 'M8 support' and gets handed an assault rifle. :D

[Rakki]

Not as far as I'm aware. The Stingray is a true light tank, not a gun platform that happens to look like one. Also I think it was made by a different company, (Cadillac-Gage) than the M8 (United Defence).

****, if it gets adopted again they'll need a new designation, could be embarrassing when some poor pinned down sod calls for 'M8 support' and gets handed an assault rifle. :D

I'm sure the troopers will come up with something other than M-8 or Buford for the AGS. :)

[GazB]

The VDV have had airborne armoured vehicles for quite some time... I really don't think just because the US didn't have much in the way of airborne armour that it was dead as a concept...

The Shillaghlagh missile was a huge failure, as was the French 142mm equivelent, but the Soviets made a success of their system. The real difference was that the west designed the missile first and then designed a unique gun to fire it. They therefore created a missile tank as the other rounds the weapon fired were low pressure and not greatly effective. TOW missiles on a M113 would have made more sense and been much cheaper.
The Russian approach was not to make super missile tanks but to add capability to existing tanks.

[fantassin]

The last "special issue"' of RAIDS (#13) is dedicated to light tanks; there are 6 pages and plenty of pics on the M8.

In the same issue of 82 pages, there are also articles on the Stingray, the RDF-LT and the AGS to name a few.

When I tell you RAIDS is a good magazine...

:D

[Haiw]

Sometimes I wonder if you have stocks in RAIDS... :lol:

[fantassin]

yeah, unofficial RAIDS salesman on the web !

[Ian H]

Do you have a scanner? ;)

[fantassin]

Nope, sorry....

[Backis]

The VDV have had airborne armoured vehicles for quite some time... I really don't think just because the US didn't have much in the way of airborne armour that it was dead as a concept...

No Russian airborne tanks though... The closest facsimiles to the M8 would have been the ASU-57 and ASU-85 gun carriers.

The BMD was/is an interesting airborne IFV concept, but probably don't have much better crew ergonomics than the BMP.

Note that the Russian airborne IFV's aren't even armored for 7.62mmN AP all over as well.


The Shillaghlagh missile was a huge failure, as was the French 142mm equivelent, but the Soviets made a success of their system. The real difference was that the west designed the missile first and then designed a unique gun to fire it. They therefore created a missile tank as the other rounds the weapon fired were low pressure and not greatly effective. TOW missiles on a M113 would have made more sense and been much cheaper.

Actually the rounds were pretty good for what they were. The 152mm HEAT round could frontally penetrate anything existant at the time, albeit hard to hit with since it was slow. The HE round was very potent (40+ kilo), and the beehive round utterly devastating to anything unarmored in a huge area. The problem was that every time the gun/missile-system fired anything exccept the missile they literally shook the targeting system to bits.


The Russian approach was not to make super missile tanks but to add capability to existing tanks.

More like the Russians needed something to make up for sighting systems and ammunition that was less than adequate for long range engagements.

When an Abrams can have a first shot pk of 90% against a T-72M1 at 4-5km with SABOT, what need is there for a 5km range missile doing the same at twice the cost while at the same time preventing the gunner from reengaging during the whole time of flight, wich is a lot longer than that of a SABOT anyway? If the gunner is distracted (by SABOT impacting on his tank?) and loses track of the target=wasted missile.

Emergence ranges of 5km or greater probably won't be that common either...

[GazB]

No Russian airborne tanks though... The closest facsimiles to the M8 would have been the ASU-57 and ASU-85 gun carriers.

There is a Russian airborne tank... the 2S25.

A crew of 3, a 125mm smoothbore main gun from the T-80 series tanks based on the BMD-3M chassis. It is also fully amphibious. And uses the full range of 125mm tank rounds including the laser guided munitions.

The BMD-3M with a 100mm rifled gun and 30mm cannon and is able to carry troops.

The BMD was/is an interesting airborne IFV concept, but probably don't have much better crew ergonomics than the BMP.

I am sure travelling by truck is much safer...

The problem was that every time the gun/missile-system fired anything exccept the missile they literally shook the targeting system to bits.


Not to mention the logistics problems of supplying a whole new type of rounds. Ballistically they were poorly designed as the gun was designed to fire the missile. On paper it was very powerful... in practise it was crap... and expensive crap at that.

More like the Russians needed something to make up for sighting systems and ammunition that was less than adequate for long range engagements.


No, they couldn't fit 125mm guns to all of their tanks (like the T-54s/-55s and T-62s which used 100mm guns and 115mm guns respectively). The upgrade to add the missiles included laser rangefinders and ballistic computers and could hardly have been because adding laser rangefinders and ballistic computers was considered too expensive...

When an Abrams can have a first shot pk of 90% against a T-72M1 at 4-5km with SABOT

When has an Abrams ever engaged a Soviet T-72M1 let alone one at 5km under real engagement conditions?

what need is there for a 5km range missile doing the same at twice the cost while at the same time preventing the gunner from reengaging during the whole time of flight, wich is a lot longer than that of a SABOT anyway?

At the time the missiles were being introduced how many M1A1s were there? What is the PK of a M60 at 5km against a T-72M1 with ERA? For a T-55 the PK is 90% against an M60 if it is using a missile and these missiles are beam riding and can be fired on the move, unlike TOWs.

Emergence ranges of 5km or greater probably won't be that common either...

Quite true and that is why only 6 or so missiles are carried. The Russians didn't want missile tanks, it was just another option for the tank commander. If a target appeared at 1,000m a APFSDS round would be used instead.

[Marmot1]

REAL AIRBORNE TANK!!!
http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/rafaq_kt40.jpg


KT-40: Flying tank

The first association with "Flying tank" would be Soviet WWII close support aircraft: Il-2 Sturmovik. It was hard to kill and it was efficient tank buster. However, in this case I mean literally: flying tank.

In late 30's idea of an airborne insertion of combat vehicles behind enemy lines appealed to the military commanders of several countries. Light tanks "falling" from the skies would be unexpected and nasty surprise for enemy and perhaps that little extra push which make a difference between a victory and defeat. Russians were experimenting with large bombers: combat vehicles were embedded into bomb bay of the aircraft, so it has enough clearance to take off. German approach was different: they were building large gliders, capable of hauling small combat vehicles and even light tanks.

An original idea came from A. N. Tupolev Bureau: a T-60 light tank was fitted with wings and control surfaces, so that body of the tank was a backbone of the resulting glider.Amazingly, this project advanced beyond paper and was flown in 1940.

The glider had an unorthodox control system: an inclination of the gun was slaved to the tail surface (pitch control) and rotation of the turret was used to change the roll. Prior to landing, a pilot/tankist would start the engine and speed up the caterpillar, so that KT-40 can land.

No KT-40 went into production.

[Haiw]

Didn't the Americans or the Brits use some special small airborne tanks in WW2? Some small thingie with a 2 pounder cannon... I just can't remember the name of it.

[Backis]

There is a Russian airborne tank... the 2S25.

Honest mistake, forgot the Sprut-D. Sorry.


I am sure travelling by truck is much safer...

Actually, if hitting a mine, it probably is...


Not to mention the logistics problems of supplying a whole new type of rounds. Ballistically they were poorly designed as the gun was designed to fire the missile. On paper it was very powerful... in practise it was crap... and expensive crap at that.

YES, The Russians should have stayed with the 45mm ATG, everything new is bad since it takes an effort to implement logistically... :roll:

The system was a failure, therefore never implemented in large numbers, therefore more expensive logistics...

Please try to put the horse in front of the cart in your logic reasonings...


No, they couldn't fit 125mm guns to all of their tanks (like the T-54s/-55s and T-62s which used 100mm guns and 115mm guns respectively). The upgrade to add the missiles included laser rangefinders and ballistic computers and could hardly have been because adding laser rangefinders and ballistic computers was considered too expensive...

Err, rough timeline for Russian missile capable tanks are

T-64B, T-80, late seventies.
T-62M1, T-72M1, early eighties.
T-55AM2PB, early nineties.

In what way were the Russian gun launched missiles developed to upgrade old tanks? They were all first put on and developed for the premium tanks, T-64's and T-80's...


When has an Abrams ever engaged a Soviet T-72M1 let alone one at 5km under real engagement conditions?

And how many AT-11 has been used under "real engagement conditions"? :roll:


At the time the missiles were being introduced how many M1A1s were there? What is the PK of a M60 at 5km against a T-72M1 with ERA? For a T-55 the PK is 90% against an M60 if it is using a missile and these missiles are beam riding and can be fired on the move, unlike TOWs.


M1's started entering service in 1980 just a few years after the introduction of effective gun launched missiles. Of course these lacked true hunter-killer capability and carried the M68 gun, not the M256, giving shorter engagement range.

While the late M60's weren't carrying as good sights as the Abrams, they were still quite a bit better than Russian sights at the time, giving an advantage in long-range engagements. Russian gun barrels were cheap, but wore extremely fast, making it very expensive to train live fire. lacking simulators this is a very bad thing. Bad quality control on barrels also impacted on accuracy. Russian ammunition at the time was notoriously bad. Theoretical metallurgy was an a strong point, but quality control was bad also here, giving erratic ballistic properties. Even if the sight was good at predicting an aiming point, the round may well decide to go somewhere else. As for penetration, Cold War autoloaders limited the length of the penetrator, preventing the use of optimal long-rod penetrators, diminishing the penetrating gun theoretically equal to the German 120mm.


Quite true and that is why only 6 or so missiles are carried. The Russians didn't want missile tanks, it was just another option for the tank commander. If a target appeared at 1,000m a APFSDS round would be used instead.

And the lack of reliable capability to hit an enemy tank with anything except missiles at longer ranges entailed the develpoment of gun-launched missiles. Wich was my statement...

Don't get me wrong. The Russiann CAN produce quality ammunition, they just can't afford to issue it in large scale to their troops as of now.

[Backis]

Didn't the Americans or the Brits use some special small airborne tanks in WW2? Some small thingie with a 2 pounder cannon... I just can't remember the name of it.

Yup, the Locust and the Tetrarch. 2# and a 7.92mm BESA for the tetrarch, and a 37mm M6 or even a 3" howitzer and a .30 cal M1919 for the Locust.

Both had to be disassembled for airborne transport (gliders) though.

[Merit]

Reminds me of the Sheridan
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m-551-dvic348.jpg
M551A1 Armored Reconnaissance Airborne Assault Vehicle (Sheridan)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/sheri-1.gif

BTW, are the "Mock up" Sheridans still with OPFOR?

[FallenAngel]

^ Yes, I believe they are. 11th Armored Cav (OPFOR at Ft. Irwin California) has modified them to similate the T series of russian tanks, specifically the T-80.

Pics:

http://www.nc.ngb.army.mil/pao/NTC/photogallery/galleryimages/jun14images/web%20-%20Battle%20-%20Sheridan%20head%20on%20-%20DSC_6044.jpg

http://www.nc.ngb.army.mil/pao/NTC/photogallery/galleryimages/jun14images/web%20-%20Battle%20-%20Sheridan%20in%20profile%20-%20DSC_6045.jpg

[GazB]

Actually, if hitting a mine, it probably is...

Ummm, we are talking about airborne forces... If the area is mined then it is probably the target and the paratroopers would not be on board their vehicles. If all the rear areas of an enemy force are going to be mined then you really don't need a paratroop force. the effect on your logistics tail and the civilian refugees would be disruptive enough without them.

YES, The Russians should have stayed with the 45mm ATG, everything new is bad since it takes an effort to implement logistically...

Amusing sarcasm but why add 152mm ammo that is not related to any other weapon system to add a capability that already exists in the form of TOW ATGMs that is available and much cheaper. Was the 152mm HE round that effective? It certainly couldn't be used in direct fire with every other Commie armed with RPGs and HMGs like the KPV able to penetrate the Sheridans armour. Not to mention the recoil problems and the fact that under real conditions the missiles performace left a lot to be desired.

In what way were the Russian gun launched missiles developed to upgrade old tanks? They were all first put on and developed for the premium tanks, T-64's and T-80's...


The T-54/-55s, and T-62s were stationed in rear areas and low readiness brigades. They were hardly likely to get new equipment and sighting systems first. The Systems went on some new build tanks and were designed first on those vehicles that could exploit the range the new missiles gave them.

The earler guided anti tank missiles used radio control systems that required a control box to be fitted to the turret. Making a hole in the roof of all your tanks is not something you do lightly. Later missiles were designed to be laser beam riding and when they were perfected they were added with laser rangefinder and FCS computers to the older vehicles and for the newer systems the only change to add ATGM capability was to change the gunner sight and add a control box inside the vehicle which is difficult from the outside.

Their choice of using existing calibres rather than creating a missile first and then developing a special gun to fire it was for the reasons I stated above and was not my opinion but the words of the designers themselves.

The Shillaghlah is on paper much more capable than a laser beam riding 100mm round fired from a T-55, but in practise the later is much more effective and practical.

And how many AT-11 has been used under "real engagement conditions"?

The only claims for penetration for the AT-11 have been in mm of rolled hardened armour RHA or steel plate.

While the late M60's weren't carrying as good sights as the Abrams, t <snip>g the penetrating gun theoretically equal to the German 120mm.

All very true but the point remains that at the time these ATGMs were well in service by a few years and starting to mature as a technology (ie better guidance and higher flight speeds as well as better warheads) the vast majority of western tanks were Leopard 1s, M60s, and AMX-30s, and Chieftains. Not bad tanks... in fact I rather like the Chieftans, but none of them able to destroy an enemy tank a 5km unless from perhaps a rear turret hit or some other lucky shot. Remember we are talking about day engagements as at the time (Mid 70s) Night fighting was a short range affair with Image Intensifiers when these weapons entered service.

Don't get me wrong. The Russiann CAN produce quality ammunition, they just can't afford to issue it in large scale to their troops as of now.

Good. At least I am not talking to a "everything the Russians make is crap or a copy of something the west makes" Zealot.

From the information I have read it seems they don't see their tanks as being purely tank hunters but something that supports the troops and attacks all sorts of targets on the battlefield. That is why they carry so many HE-FRAG rounds.

BTW the new turret bustle designs (both the Black Eagle and T-95 use turret Bustles) should solve the penetrator length problem. The fact that T-55s have been modified to have a turret bustle suggests that any new technology for which ever tank they choose might be able to be retrofitted to older models as well. I think the T-95 with an external gun would make retrofitting difficult but as that seems to have been the most secret model it was probably also the favourite. (the same as the Mi-28 was made public very early while the Hokum was kept secret because the Hokum had been selected and they wanted export orders for the Havoc). It would make sense that the Black Eagle design is best for upgrading existing vehicles to that standard, while the T-95 might be used as the next gen tank but with little to be used to upgrade previous models (as previous models wouldn't be able to accomodate all the crew in them).

[Ian H]

Reminds me of the Sheridan
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m-551-dvic348.jpg
M551A1 Armored Reconnaissance Airborne Assault Vehicle (Sheridan)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/sheri-1.gif



If you mean the M-8 does, that's because it was projected to replace it. If you mean the Russian systems, its because they're roughly equivalent.
If you mean the Tetrarch and Locust, its because the Sheridan is a historical descendant of that concept.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Has anybody come up with a weapon's system that's better suited to what's needed over there? It seems to me that they don't need the firepower of a tank, but they do need something that can take RPGs up the wazoo?

They're not facing anything bigger than RPGs & roadside bombs. A 120mm gun is a bit of overkill in a downtown area (plus we already have tanks there). Has anybody built an air transportable, relatively small very heavily armored vehicle with say, 20mm cannon?

Or is an RPG so bad-ass that you really can't build a vehicle tough enough to survive it?

[Ian H]

Up armoured Bradleys/Warriors could be a solution, but they're pretty big and heavy. I can't think of anything like what you mentioned, largely because if you have heavy armour, which appears to be needed, it makes the vehicle too heavy to easily airdrop.

Research into lightweight, powerful armour will hopefully get a kick up the arse from the military because of the current situation.

[Backis]

Has anybody come up with a weapon's system that's better suited to what's needed over there? It seems to me that they don't need the firepower of a tank, but they do need something that can take RPGs up the wazoo?

They're not facing anything bigger than RPGs & roadside bombs. A 120mm gun is a bit of overkill in a downtown area (plus we already have tanks there). Has anybody built an air transportable, relatively small very heavily armored vehicle with say, 20mm cannon?

Or is an RPG so bad-ass that you really can't build a vehicle tough enough to survive it?

For worthwhile gun support you need at least a 105... maybe you can make due with a 90mm gun, but its nearing the lower end of effective HE there. Even the 40mm on the CV9040 wont do much more than poke holes in walls. A 120mm would only really be necessary to go tank-hunting though...

The difficulty is armoring the thing from RPG's all over, even the old outdated PG-7 warheads can penetrate armour equivalent to about 30cm of RHA steel...

[Burncycle]

IMO larger bores with lower velocity rounds would be better for support, with a secondary anti tank capability.

I don't mean resurrect the 152mm on the sheridan, as the missile/gun concept had plenty of bugs, and the gun had other bugs (bagged ammo and shock damage). But a 152mm with thermobaric rounds would be pretty devistating!

In any case, I suppose they went with 120mm for logistics reasons, and commonality. I still think it's too much gun for too little vehicle. Even the CV90-120 had some problems with it IIRC, and last I checked it was heavier.

The 105 is sufficient for nearly all threats but the most modern ones. It's lighter, softer recoil, you can carry more ammunition, and would be "better" than the 120 on this chassis IMO.

A 120mm mortar would be nice, although I'd like to see a 155mm low velocity round developed for direct fire support, with a secondary anti tank capability (TOW or javelin pack).

Personally? I really like the CVR(t) series of vehicles. Too bad they're getting old.... I'd like to see a version with a 60mm HVG and a version with a breech loading mortar

[GazB]

If you mean the M-8 does, that's because it was projected to replace it. If you mean the Russian systems, its because they're roughly equivalent.


No.

The Russians don't have a Sheridan type vehicle. The 2S25 has a real tank gun that fires tube launched ATGMs but also full power 125mm APFSDS and HEAT rounds... the same as the T-90 and T-80 use. The other Soviet and Russian airborne vehicles are armoured troop carriers with BMP-1, BMP-2 or BMP-3 type turrets and are not intended as "missile tanks" as such.

Has anybody built an air transportable, relatively small very heavily armored vehicle with say, 20mm cannon?


Depends upon what you mean by air transportable. The BTR-T is a T-55 redesigned as an APC and with third gen ERA has the equivelent frontal and side armour to stop RPGs plus grill armour for the rear. It weights about as much as a bradley though at about 35 tons.

The BMP-4 on the other hand is not an APC but an urban fire support vehicle. It is based on the T-72 and has 3rd gen ERA and about 800mm Equivelent frontal armour plus grill side and rear addon armour. the turret has a 30mm cannon plus 30mm grenade launcher for plunging fire plus four laser guided antitank missiles with HE warheads for taking out rooms in buildings with snipers or MG nests at ranges of up to 5.5km. There are two crew in the mini turret, and in the front hull three more crew members... a driver in the centre and two gunners, one on either side of the driver. These gunners operate the hull mounted weapons in the front corners of the hull, which can be PKT MGs or 30mm grenade launchers. The weapons are aimed by Fibre optic sights.

The 105 is sufficient for nearly all threats but the most modern ones. It's lighter, softer recoil, you can carry more ammunition, and would be "better" than the 120 on this chassis IMO.


It really depends upon what you want. The M8 is an airportable tank... not an infantry support vehicle so it needs to be able to tackle other tanks even if it only meets them occasionally. A 90mm gun with a long rod penetrator would be fine for engaging T-55s and exported T-72s but some forces are now equipped with T-90s and T-80s with non steel armour and other advanced bits and pieces (ie 3rd gen ERA, ARENA etc).

Considering it is American and therefore you should have air support if the US AF and US army really could work together then you could arm the vehicle with MGs, light cannon and a few laser rangefinders/target markers. Lase the targets and call in the Paveways... like the Germans did during WWII with their Stukas use the airforce as the most mobile artillery. Of course the tide turned and air cover couldn't be guaranteed so they needed their tank guns too, but the US could probably get away with just using a decent cannon (ie 30-35mm).

BTW knocking down walls isn't the job of fire support vehicles. A decent HESH round would do a great job of that though... a 77mm model for the RPG series would be ideal for that...

[Ian H]

If you mean the M-8 does, that's because it was projected to replace it. If you mean the Russian systems, its because they're roughly equivalent.


No.

The Russians don't have a Sheridan type vehicle. The 2S25 has a real tank gun that fires tube launched ATGMs but also full power 125mm APFSDS and HEAT rounds... the same as the T-90 and T-80 use. The other Soviet and Russian airborne vehicles are armoured troop carriers with BMP-1, BMP-2 or BMP-3 type turrets and are not intended as "missile tanks" as such.




True, but I meant in general conceptual terms, ie an air delivered vehicle with decent fire power intended to support paratroopers

[hedgehog]

Don"t know if this was posted already

here is the German version which seems to be very popular as it fits in a regular 53 and can easily navigate streets and back alleys in older towns. In Kabul and Prizren it has shown its effectivness. they have versions with 20mm, tow, 120mm mortar, stinger, and a 30mm has been tested

http://www.rheinmetall-ls.de/fahrzeuge_komponenten/leichte_fahrzeuge/pages_englisch/wiesel1.htm

http://www.rheinmetall-ls.de/fahrzeuge_komponenten/leichte_fahrzeuge/pages_englisch/wiesel2.htm

http://www.rheinmetall-ls.de/download/wiesel_e.pdf

[deutschersoldat]

http://www.home.fh-karlsruhe.de/~akpe0011/bilder/wiesel.jpg

[GazB]

The Weisel is a very light recon type vehicle with an Anti tank model fitted with TOW. To be quite honest I doubt it has the amour to be used in a real war.

Most 50 cal Anti material rifles would likely punch holes in it very easily.

It is very small and light and aparantly quite mobile, but I would prefer an 8 or 6 wheel version that was very fast and cheap and simpler to maintain than the little track it seems to have... I doubt it would be much good in snow or very soft ground.

In such a case give it wheels and make it fast and manouverable for police type operations.

True, but I meant in general conceptual terms, ie an air delivered vehicle with decent fire power intended to support paratroopers

I think the missile was the primary focus and the missile was designed to kill tanks. It seems to me that they had resigned themselves to the fact that a serious tank gun could not be fitted to a light airportable vehicle with enough power to take on enemy tanks. In that sense the ASU-57 and ASU-85 probably were evidence of that, of course when they were in service the vehicles they would expect to meet in the enemies rear areas would most likely be trucks, light APCs and perhaps the odd obsolescent tank. In such a situation an 85mm gun supported by man portable missiles like AT-3 or later AT-4 would have been perfectly adequate.

The only real potential to make the Sheridan worthwhile would have been if the missiles were self guided... ie fire and forget. With IIR and MMW radar technology now that might be viable but then it wasn't.

It was perhaps a case of making decisions based on the technology at the time but not looking at the requirements to see if the project was still viable every time these decisions were made. With Hindsight an M113 with TOWs would have been much more capable in reality if not so on paper. Also much cheaper.

[Backis]

The Weisel is a very light recon type vehicle with an Anti tank model fitted with TOW. To be quite honest I doubt it has the amour to be used in a real war.

Most 50 cal Anti material rifles would likely punch holes in it very easily.



Actually, it has problems even with 7.62mmN AP, and I believe that is so also frontally (this may have changed with the Wiesel 2). It's more of a tracked utility vehicle, but as you said, also used in scouting. There are air defence variants, mortar and atgm carriers as well as the usual gun armed variant (Rh202 20mm cannon) and transport/utility and ambulance versions.

As far as I know the narrow tracks make it unsuitable for deep snow, but I'd bet it beats the hummer hands down regarding mobility since its tracked.

I'd still go with the bv309 for a mobile armored tracked amphibious utility vehicle though. ;)

[Kellhound]

M22 Locust
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/images/usa/m22_locust_06.jpg
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/images/usa/m22_locust_01.jpg
Problem with pics.
Go to this link:
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/usa/m22_locust.html

[aktarian]

Anything with sufficient protection (RPG and above) and with good gun (105mm or more) will be too heavy to be air dropable. and anything air dropable will be under protected.

[Pandy]

Why don't they put the Stryker's in the Airborne hands and let the commanders and parachute specialist fix something up to airdrop these machines of death on the battlefield. I can't image in my mind an Airborne Stryker falling from the air, with crew near by... :D

Then again, this might be a bad idea... heh, would have kick ass in Northern Iraq to see 400 Strykers drop from the air with 2000 Combat Ready men, instead of the 173rd Airborne... but that's just me.

Now, that would be something... but if you guys hate it... flame me! :D