The Tank is dead

[Suhiir]

I think the "West" assumes air superiority so area air defense systems aren't a real priority. And to be honest since that has always been the case since about 1942 I can see why. One could argue if that would have been true had there been a NATO vs Warsaw Pact war, but since it never happened we'll never know.

I do think that the US in particular tends to neglects local air defense as well. Stingers are all well and fine but there are never enough of them around to deal with more then 4-6 (if that many) aircraft/helos.

The only ATGM under armor the USMC has ever had is the LAV-AT (we'll discount the "armored" HUMMWVs), and that's more of a side effect of wanting ATGM's that could keep up with the LAV units. Since the advent of the ATGM equipped Attack Helicopter the USMC has tended to rely on them as it's primary anti-armor system. One could argue if that's a good idea or not, but again, up until this point it has worked just fine.

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

I think the "West" assumes air superiority so area air defense systems aren't a real priority. And to be honest since that has always been the case since about 1942 I can see why. One could argue if that would have been true had there been a NATO vs Warsaw Pact war, but since it never happened we'll never know.

I do think that the US in particular tends to neglects local air defense as well. Stingers are all well and fine but there are never enough of them around to deal with more then 4-6 (if that many) aircraft/helos.

The only ATGM under armor the USMC has ever had is the LAV-AT (we'll discount the "armored" HUMMWVs), and that's more of a side effect of wanting ATGM's that could keep up with the LAV units. Since the advent of the ATGM equipped Attack Helicopter the USMC has tended to rely on them as it's primary anti-armor system. One could argue if that's a good idea or not, but again, up until this point it has worked just fine.

Agree with everything you say. Two things I have heard current British Army types most wanting (besides a pay raise) is some sort of area SAM and some sort of ATGM under armour to support Warrior, etc.

For myself, I worry a bit that the whole light armoured, 8x8 APC thing has become very overblown. Light armour is useful if you are fighting a second or third rate enemy, - ie, South Africa v Cuba and Angola 1987-88- especially if you can move it, in useful numbers, quickly by air. Other than that, training etc being roughly equal, it is worse, in most respects, than having heavier armour.

So given they could put a low velocity 90mm gun on a Scorpion/Scimitar CVR(T) 'light tank' export varient, why not put the excellent 40mm gun from Ajax and Warrior 2000 on something like Scimitar Mk2 rather than a big heavy Ajax that is next to non air portable?

What I suspect is it was about 'force protection', especially from IED's that ends up giving one a over large and heavy Ajax that is neither fish nor fowl and does not deliver a whole lot that Warrior 2000 does not provide, beyond the ability for it to be crewed by the Royal Armoured Corps (ie, the Cavalry and the Royal Tank Regiment)...

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by IronDuke99

For myself, I worry a bit that the whole light armoured, 8x8 APC thing has become very overblown. Light armour is useful if you are fighting a second or third rate enemy, - ie, South Africa v Cuba and Angola 1987-88- especially if you can move it, in useful numbers, quickly by air. Other than that, training etc being roughly equal, it is worse, in most respects, than having heavier armour.

So given they could put a low velocity 90mm gun on a Scorpion/Scimitar CVR(T) 'light tank' export varient, why not put the excellent 40mm gun from Ajax and Warrior 2000 on something like Scimitar Mk2 rather than a big heavy Ajax that is next to non air portable?

What I suspect is it was about 'force protection', especially from IED's that ends up giving one a over large and heavy Ajax that is neither fish nor fowl and does not deliver a whole lot that Warrior 2000 does not provide, beyond the ability for it to be crewed by the Royal Armoured Corps (ie, the Cavalry and the Royal Tank Regiment)...

It really comes down to - "Are they APCs or IFVs?"

If you try to make every vehicle an IFV of course you're going to have mass and firepower issues. The only time the USMC had an IFV was late WW II/Korea with the amphibious "tanks" made out of LVT3s and 4s, and even those didn't carry troops they only operated in close support of them.

With the current world situation of "low intensity" conflicts vs guerilla type forces IEDs have become the major casualty inflictor and thus the "need" for transports that are less vulnerable to them. But that of course means more mass and since it's now capable of withstanding mines and small arms it needs a weapon capable of taking out it's equal.

I totally agree a 40mm AGL or 25-30mm chaingun is more then adaquite to the task, I've never really seen the need for a 50/75/90mm weapon in the first place. Too small to deal with real tanks, larger then needed to deal with APC/IFVs.

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

It really comes down to - "Are they APCs or IFVs?"

If you try to make every vehicle an IFV of course you're going to have mass and firepower issues. The only time the USMC had an IFV was late WW II/Korea with the amphibious "tanks" made out of LVT3s and 4s, and even those didn't carry troops they only operated in close support of them.

With the current world situation of "low intensity" conflicts vs guerilla type forces IEDs have become the major casualty inflictor and thus the "need" for transports that are less vulnerable to them. But that of course means more mass and since it's now capable of withstanding mines and small arms it needs a weapon capable of taking out it's equal.

I totally agree a 40mm AGL or 25-30mm chaingun is more then adaquite to the task, I've never really seen the need for a 50/75/90mm weapon in the first place. Too small to deal with real tanks, larger then needed to deal with APC/IFVs.

The British Army has ended up with a lot of kit, in the form of light protected APC's purchased especially for Afghan, that it cannot yet afford to replace, although how useful they will be outside a COIN campaign is highly debatable.

The British Army also wants an 8X8 APC , after all every other army (US,Germany, France, Israel, etc) has them. The funny thing is I recall a time when nobody was all that impressed with the Russian BTR 60 series, that seems to have a very close resemblance to an 8x8 APC...

on the 90mm gun: 90mm SADF Elands (Based on a French Panhard) etc, did pretty well against, generally poorly handled, Angolan/Cuban T54/55-T62's 1970's-late 80's, although I am sure that would not be the case with more modern Russian tanks. Hence an ATGM under armour might be a good idea, especially if you cannot be certain of heaps of good anti tank helicopters overhead most of the time.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

By way of an update...Have been long tracking and posting on this from the start. Getting here sooner than some of you might realize in fact for the sake of argument 1 Oct. 2016 for the USA, for the CORPS they'll start getting theirs in 2018.
http://www.janes.com/article/63662/j...n-in-september

Others in my files...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/us_ar...ctures_te.html
http://asc.army.mil/web/tag/jtlv/
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...rotests-05147/
https://oshkoshdefense.com/jltv/?utm...FdcVgQodQecEKA
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...r-leaders.html

Also if you read the last ref. from military.com you'll have noticed how fast the weapons issue was addressed from the more recent JANE's ref. at the top. We're talking ref. dates here to be clear. Remember as well that the JTLV is only considered to be an interim vehicle for both services.

I hear you...Most others on the topic I believe I put into the MRAP Thread already over the years.

Regards,
Pat