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/ho...rget=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!!!

[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/Qu...16/armored.htm

[FallenAngel]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.







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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

[Backis]

Originally Posted by 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.

[FallenAngel]

Originally Posted by Backis

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.

[Rakki]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.