Overview:
This is my long overdue list of what I would consider ideal expeditionary/infantry support tanks. Expeditionary is self explanatory. The ease of transport...whether by air, sea, rail, truck or self deployment (in the proper tactical/strategic environment). Infantry support is the ability of the squad, platoon or company commander to communicate with the armor crew and for them to be able to put down the types of fires that will facilitate the accomplishment of the objective.
Desired characteristics:
Mobility - As far as mobility is concerned, I'm agnostic when it comes to the wheels versus tracks debate. I will state at the outset however that the US Army has found that their Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicles DO NOT have the same level of mobility as their tracked counterparts. Having said that, wheels do provide some advantages. Lower maintenance and operating costs. Ability to travel at high speed over roadways used by civilian vehicles etc...
Firepower - This is an old fashioned infantry support tank. Heavy armor will be engaged by attached infantry using TOW, Javelin, artillery (at extended range preferably using both cannon, precision shells and MLRS) and finally with rotary/fixed wing aircraft.
Weight - Putting a weight limit on this vehicle is essential for it to fulfill its expeditionary role. We are sacrificing armor for speed and firepower. This will not be a frontline vehicle but will be deployed just behind it. Supporting infantry in the assault and the defense, blasting fortifications, engaging enemy IFVs...those are the tasks. But to do that it has to be there. 40 tons is the max weight limit that the USAF will waive to do LAPPES or a heavy air drop (NOTE: this vehicle if pursued would be used by both the USMC and 82nd Airborne so being airborne capable is a must....additionally I could even MARSOC and Army Rangers to clamor for it once it enters service).
My selections.
The list is five to one. It could be expanded but that would just cloud the issue. Additionally the self imposed weight limit of 40 tons rules out purpose built tanks currently in service. That leaves us with Infantry Fighting Vehicles that mount weapons of between 75mm to 120mm. It should also be noted that the concept will probably be pushed more by budgets than operational necessity. With manufacturers offering turrets that mount large caliber guns that can be mounted on IFVs currently in service, it will be too tempting to standardize combat fleets to one vehicle that fulfills a variety of roles.
Number 5. Textron Commando Select w/90mm Turret
Number 4. Japanese Maneuver Combat Vehicle
Number 3. Polish PL-01
Number 2. B1 Centauro
Number 1. CV90-120
You could argue against any of these choices...But the overall trend is clear. IFV based infantry support tanks are the wave of the future. I personally feel that the trend is based more on budgets and the desire to standardize on one vehicle that fulfills a variety of roles, thereby reducing operating and training costs more than any operational need.
This is my long overdue list of what I would consider ideal expeditionary/infantry support tanks. Expeditionary is self explanatory. The ease of transport...whether by air, sea, rail, truck or self deployment (in the proper tactical/strategic environment). Infantry support is the ability of the squad, platoon or company commander to communicate with the armor crew and for them to be able to put down the types of fires that will facilitate the accomplishment of the objective.
Desired characteristics:
Mobility - As far as mobility is concerned, I'm agnostic when it comes to the wheels versus tracks debate. I will state at the outset however that the US Army has found that their Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicles DO NOT have the same level of mobility as their tracked counterparts. Having said that, wheels do provide some advantages. Lower maintenance and operating costs. Ability to travel at high speed over roadways used by civilian vehicles etc...
Firepower - This is an old fashioned infantry support tank. Heavy armor will be engaged by attached infantry using TOW, Javelin, artillery (at extended range preferably using both cannon, precision shells and MLRS) and finally with rotary/fixed wing aircraft.
Weight - Putting a weight limit on this vehicle is essential for it to fulfill its expeditionary role. We are sacrificing armor for speed and firepower. This will not be a frontline vehicle but will be deployed just behind it. Supporting infantry in the assault and the defense, blasting fortifications, engaging enemy IFVs...those are the tasks. But to do that it has to be there. 40 tons is the max weight limit that the USAF will waive to do LAPPES or a heavy air drop (NOTE: this vehicle if pursued would be used by both the USMC and 82nd Airborne so being airborne capable is a must....additionally I could even MARSOC and Army Rangers to clamor for it once it enters service).
My selections.
The list is five to one. It could be expanded but that would just cloud the issue. Additionally the self imposed weight limit of 40 tons rules out purpose built tanks currently in service. That leaves us with Infantry Fighting Vehicles that mount weapons of between 75mm to 120mm. It should also be noted that the concept will probably be pushed more by budgets than operational necessity. With manufacturers offering turrets that mount large caliber guns that can be mounted on IFVs currently in service, it will be too tempting to standardize combat fleets to one vehicle that fulfills a variety of roles.
Number 5. Textron Commando Select w/90mm Turret
Number 4. Japanese Maneuver Combat Vehicle
Number 3. Polish PL-01
Number 2. B1 Centauro
Number 1. CV90-120
You could argue against any of these choices...But the overall trend is clear. IFV based infantry support tanks are the wave of the future. I personally feel that the trend is based more on budgets and the desire to standardize on one vehicle that fulfills a variety of roles, thereby reducing operating and training costs more than any operational need.
I feel a flood of comments comming here.
ReplyDeleteBut on the Mobility front Solomon, would you like them to be Amphibious ?
THAT'S A GIVEN!!!! what i foresee though and hope will happen is that the USMC and US Army can work together to an extent...if the Army goes for the concept and the base platforms will be different but the turret, electronics and weapons will be the same. the Stryker MGS has to be redone. that will give the US Army and Marines to maybe standardize on a turret along with cannon size. the USMC vehicle will be the MPC/ACV and will float while the Stryker / expeditionary tank for the Army will fly.
Deleteadditionally both vehicles should be C-5 flyable and maybe just maybe even get a waiver for the C-130.
The Stryker MGS has to be redone ?
DeleteThough i am not at all familiar with the on the ground product, whats wring with it or what needs to be changed ?
It was a flawed systems based on the Teledyne Expeditionary Tank. While it looked cool, the unmanned turret system was a disaster. It couldn't fire more than a handful of times before it jammed and to unjam, the operator would need to expose himself by climbing on to the turret. It also couldn't be reloaded from inside and the coaxial MG wasn't mated to the main gun so it wasnt coaxial or accurate.
DeleteAnd what does the Army do? Adopt it for the MGS Stryker. Morons. That thing is a piece of shit and needs to be canned.
I think the Canadians had the Centauro with them in servise and they still prefered to get Leapord 2's in Afghanistan for what basically was Infantry support and Pacification. Offcourse they ignored the Air Transportability factor, but their mission was Infantry Support a Thousand miles away.
ReplyDeleteThe CV 90 seems to be my Choice then. Amphib. With lots of room to grow which can be testified by its ever growing Main Gun. Can carry Infantry. And I bet its lends itself to endless modifications, turrets, V-Shaped Hulls, Armaments, Load capacities, Engines, Levels of Protection etc.
ReplyDeleteI should be fighting with bare teeth's for PL-01 but it's still only a concept, very nice but only a concept. Then I agree with CV-90 choice, tested and proven design with many modifications. I speak one time with boys that take part in testing of CV90-120 (I'm not sure but it was in 2012... I think) and they were very impressed. No wonder that PL-01 is build on many CV90 parts and design ideas. The single problem was that he can't swim...
DeleteVBCI can be fitted with Gun over 90mm, and active protection. It has GALIX antipersonnal system too.
ReplyDeletethe VBCI is a mystery vehicle to me. i tried to keep an eye on it in Mali but info was sparse, and it really didn't have a chance to show its stuff.
Deletei know its done work in peacekeeping missions but for a vehicle that has been in service a number of years and to not have much of a record to point to is kinda troubling. the MCV is new. the Centauro is almost tank like, the Commando served well in the ASV role for the US Army and the CV90 is the CV90.
The VBCI ? What about the AMX 10 RC ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX_10_RC The first concept of a light vehicle with a tank gun in years, and the best one during years although now is in it's last 10 years of service. Used in combat in the Gulf War, in Africa and Afghanistan. Will be replaced be another vehicule (EBRC program) equiped with the franco british 40mm gun with case telescoped ammo.
DeleteThe south african Rooikat came as a close second in firepower (I think it's was better in others arears) until the Centauro,
i thought that vehicle was already being phased out of service along with its tracked counterpart. i'm more familiar with the "Marine" vehicle but like i said. i thought it was already out to pasture.
Deleteone more thing. the Rooikat is also being replaced.
Personally, I would have ranked the 105mm equipped Dardo IFV and Rooikat in there to supplement the polish wunder tank, although not a bad selection imho. The CV90-105/120 is a badass vehicle.
ReplyDeleteThe MGS is a immensely useful niche vehicle.
Of course amphibious capability is immensely important, although, given the protection requirements, it will be something difficult to attain. Since the patria amv/havoc is amphibious, im curious if a 105mm MGS variant can maintain the same capability?
With additional pretty large weight of cannon system and ammo... rather hard to do. Maybe with additional displacement package. Full mod Afgan version of Rosomak/Patria with "only" 30mm gun lost ability to swim and cannon turret is a lot more heavy.
Deleteah i was wondering when this would pop up. quite simply because it doesn't tick the boxes for me. i'm sure its a capable vehicle if its used in the roles it was designed for but from what i've read of Russian tactics its designed purely as an IFV. the Russians aren't following what i consider to be the ext trend and are heading in a direction i can't quite make out. they're working on the Boomerang, and the Terminator.
ReplyDeletethe vehicle that i had considered was the BTR-90 but i haven't seen a large caliber gun on it.
thanks for the info...so the BTR-80 continues to soldier on? also, you convinced me. time to do a Russian armored vehicle post.
ReplyDeletethanks for the info
ReplyDeleteAlways welcome. I’m your fan in someway)))
And by the way (please, do not take it as a challenge but an advice) in your post about Russian-French Atom you confused Atom and Boomerang. Atom – is just an export concept for Russia.
so the BTR-80 continues to soldier on?
Of course, the main work-horse, I’ve used it myself))).
time to do a Russian armored vehicle post.
Excellent! Feel free to ask me anything you want.
Infantry support tank, mobile, air transport, light...
ReplyDeleteI miss the German Wiesel 2 Advanced Mortar System (MrsKpfSys).
Capable of direct fire, tracked, milage: 8.4 MPG, two will fit inside one CH-53K!