Re: TUSKs now in Iraq.
I don't think there would be any significant engineering problems fitting a M2 .50 cal as a co-ax on the M1. There is a fair bit of room on either side of the breech. The reducaction in ammo capacity would effectively be negligable, as the 11,000 round capacity 7.62mm ammo box is almost never filled to even a fraction of it's capacity (who wants to sit around linking 110 100 round belts and feeding them in? Not me.) It might be tight, but I think it's defintely do-able without any major re-design - but it's still money that the Army doesn't want to spend right now =)
As a former tanker my "dream" TUSK secondary armament would be:
Coax: .50 cal GAU-19/A It would give the gunner some serious fire power versus infantry, slow moving helos, light skinned vehicles and troops under cover. Using API or especially SLAP rounds and you could give most lightly armored vehicles a bad time, and literally distinigrate cover like masonry block or brick walls.
Commander: Either 25mm M307 OCWS or 40mm MK47 AGL. Either weapon mounted in an improved RWS with magnified thermal & day optics, LRF and stabilizer (perhaps slaved to the CITV) would give the commander the ability to engage and kill or suppress infantry (and espcially ATGM/RPG teams) accurately at ranges out to 2000m. Both weapon systems also have a light anit-armor capability. The loss of the commanders .50 cal's AA function is irrelevant, since against fast movers or modern heavily armored attack helos, the M2 .50 cal's effectiveness is highly limited.
Loader: Keep the M240 7.62mm w/gunshield and thermal sight as on the current TUSK variant.
I'd also like to see an active defense system (like the Isreali TROPHY system.
Adrian
|
Linear Mode
