Marine Corps sees justification in Russian tank losses

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

In WWII, we did a lot with Tank Destroyers, and the Germans with their Jadpanzers. I wonder what a modern re-imaging of that would look like?

Something with a vertical launch cell for switchblade type kill drone? Take out the turret with its height and complexity. M1A1 has what, 40 main gun rounds? Also, that Irish Armor guy says that the real 'main gun' is the co-ax machine gun because it can tear up most stuff, and the 100mm+ gun is just to take out near peers. Plus, Switchblades would give you some anti-air capability.

[1168]

In WWII, we did a lot with Tank Destroyers, and the Germans with their Jadpanzers. I wonder what a modern re-imaging of that would look like?

Something with a vertical launch cell for switchblade type kill drone? Take out the turret with its height and complexity. M1A1 has what, 40 main gun rounds? Also, that Irish Armor guy says that the real 'main gun' is the co-ax machine gun because it can tear up most stuff, and the 100mm+ gun is just to take out near peers. Plus, Switchblades would give you some anti-air capability.

Given modern armor and main gun tech, (and the fact that I’m not a Tanker), I can’t really envision what a modern TD would look like, but I can definitely envision a light tank. Something that maybe can’t face off against MBTs in the open with equal numbers, but could be used to provide Infantry support. But, I dunno, perhaps the Brad is already good enough for that role. Maybe AFVs with autocannons are the modern light tank. But perhaps we could still use a medium one with like a 105 on it.

[pinzgauer]

what would the modern equivalent of the jagdpanzer look like?

The striker with the big gun that never really got deployed is pretty close, allthough wheeled. Or that same gun on a bradley?

I'm thinking Bradleys do fill some of that role (tank killer) now.

They even got a surprising number of kills with their cannon in the Gulf war against older Soviet era tanks.

But you'd really need the big gun to be a true equivalent of the jagdpanzer. But the JP only had gun over match over the other German armor early on in ww2, later German tanks had the same 75mm (panther) or the 88 (tiger).

Nominally the panther had the best penetration of all the world war II era tanks, even more than the Jagdpanzer due to its longer barrel.

But but you could look at it in other way, the jagdpanzer brought roughly the same 75 mm in the cheaper/older panzer IV chassis rather than the panther. So make sense in that regard.

Personally, I think modern atgm capability has largely eliminated the justification for a dedicated tank killer.

But I also see some merit in the main gun striker, and a theoretical equivalent on bradley's. My understanding from reading older articles regarding the striker main gun variant is the Bradley's still don't have the power capability to handle the turret of the main gun from the striker.

[1168]

We did actually field some of those Strikers with the tank gun on them. No idea how many. I remember the first time I saw them overseas; I didn’t know they were a thing before that. I was like “holy shit, what is that crazy thing”. I think airdrop problems are why we haven’t gone all-in on it.

I think during the Gulf War, the Brads had 25mm cannons, not 30mm. Still a pretty badass gun. We got support from them in ar Ramadi, and they bring the hurt, although the vehicle itself was undewhelming. We were using speed for security, and had to slow down when those dudes got loaned to us. In retrospect thats probably a good thing. It actually has more max elevation than the tank-with-autocannons vehicles the ruskies developed for urban combat, and it, too can select ammo types on the fly.

I remember reading about a project to upgrade the Brads to Bushmaster II 30mm cannons, but I don’t remember what happened with that. The Bushmaster II is a bad MFer, utilizing the same round as the GAU-8 on the A10. It can be equipped on a variety of vehicles, including Strykers, boats, and aircraft. It can also use a 40x180 (or 173?) round to bring more payload to the party. I think that requires only a barrel change.

[mack7.62]

They also developed a 50mm Bushmaster Chain Gun

https://www.overtdefense.com/2019/10...n-gun-at-ausa/

Northrup-Grumman has unveiled the XM913 50mm Bushmaster at this year’s AUSA (Association of the United States Army) trade show and conference. The XM193 is based on the proven Bushmaster III 35/50 design and is intended to provide increased capability against Russian infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) designs along with counter-UAS (unmanned aerial systems).

The XM913 was designed expressly for the US Army’s original Next Generation Combat Vehicle programme seeking to replace the Bradley IFV currently under the guise of the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) programme. The OMFV has been reduced to just one contender with the General Dynamics Griffin III as previously reported by Overt Defense. The Griffin will mount the XM193 in an unmanned, remote control turret.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

The sabot round for the middle gun looks like a butt-plug. It the right most round…

[pinzgauer]

We did actually field some of those Strikers with the tank gun on them. No idea how many.

I was not sure, I had just read something when researching strikers a while back that they had not been officially deployed. Context being they were not in wide use. Cool that some units actually got them!

The rationale behind the strikers made a lot of sense to me pre-IED war. Even with the upgraded survivability stuff now making them non-air portable they still seem to be useful as an IFV, especially in more urban environments where raw speed is more important than tracked off-road capability.

Even just a third of the way through the 2nd Gulf war I saw a report that strikers had patrolled more than a million miles in iraq. Something that never could have been done with tracked vehicles.

The key is for leaders to understand that they are not light tanks (also a concern with bradleys), it's really more along the Russian model of motorized infantry.

They can still be air deployed in a pinch, it's just not the original roll off and fight concept.

I think during the Gulf War, the Brads had 25mm cannons, not 30mm. Still a pretty badass gun.

I misspoke, they still have 25 mm. It would be cool if they got the a-10 gun though.

My understanding from reading is probably the closest thing to a light tank capability that the US will see is the army's proposed Mobile Protected Firepower battalion (MPF). Kind of an up armored sheridan, or like a cross between a Sheridan and an Abrams. (But the size of a Sheridan)

These would be attached to and controlled by the IBCTs. It's not clear to me if the army's made a final decision on this, but I know from news blurbs it was still in active discussion and testing with units as of February this year.

[1986s4]

We did actually field some of those Strikers with the tank gun on them. No idea how many. I remember the first time I saw them overseas; I didn’t know they were a thing before that. I was like “holy shit, what is that crazy thing”. I think airdrop problems are why we haven’t gone all-in on it.

I think during the Gulf War, the Brads had 25mm cannons, not 30mm. Still a pretty badass gun. We got support from them in ar Ramadi, and they bring the hurt, although the vehicle itself was undewhelming. We were using speed for security, and had to slow down when those dudes got loaned to us. In retrospect thats probably a good thing. It actually has more max elevation than the tank-with-autocannons vehicles the ruskies developed for urban combat, and it, too can select ammo types on the fly.

I remember reading about a project to upgrade the Brads to Bushmaster II 30mm cannons, but I don’t remember what happened with that. The Bushmaster II is a bad MFer, utilizing the same round as the GAU-8 on the A10. It can be equipped on a variety of vehicles, including Strykers, boats, and aircraft. It can also use a 40x180 (or 173?) round to bring more payload to the party. I think that requires only a barrel change.

How feasible is putting a GAU-8 on a medium tank?

[mack7.62]

How feasible is putting a GAU-8 on a medium tank?

Why would you want to? The GAU-8 is a top attack weapon not gonna work against MBT frontal or side armor and would be a ammo waster on a ground vehicle.

[Diamondback]

Why would you want to? The GAU-8 is a top attack weapon not gonna work against MBT frontal or side armor and would be a ammo waster on a ground vehicle.

Works well as ground-based air defense though, google "Goalkeeper."