US Army to acquire new light tank

[gsd2053]

I think the money would be better spent on drones

[Averageman]

35 years in Army Armor.
I've seen this multiple times, even almost got lassoed in on one of the iterations of the light Tank.
When it comes to fighting Tank you need the support of other Tanks and some Infantry for security.
It really shouldn't be as big a deal as you might think to take on a T90. HEAT brings all it's energy to the target when it impacts. 1000 to 4000 meters, it just doesn't matter, that warhead is a bad, bad MF'er. I'm talking lifting Turrets of T72's off and depositing them 20 feet away.
I like the idea, but would like to see the design because if it's anything like the 105 Stryker they can keep it, pos.

[vicious_cb]

35 years in Army Armor.
I've seen this multiple times, even almost got lassoed in on one of the iterations of the light Tank.
When it comes to fighting Tank you need the support of other Tanks and some Infantry for security.
It really shouldn't be as big a deal as you might think to take on a T90. HEAT brings all it's energy to the target when it impacts. 1000 to 4000 meters, it just doesn't matter, that warhead is a bad, bad MF'er. I'm talking lifting Turrets of T72's off and depositing them 20 feet away.
I like the idea, but would like to see the design because if it's anything like the 105 Stryker they can keep it, pos.

Well thats the problem right there. You are pretty much operating these things like a Stryker MGS, doling out a company to each IBCT for support. Now you are working with light infantry who have no clue how to operate with tanks. Its not like the mech guys who habitually train on their Bradleys in conjunction with the Abrams. I doubt the airborne guys will get to do any serious cross training with the tanks so are you are literally writing the books as you go. This is a just a doctrinal and logistical trainwreck waiting to happen.

Firstly MPF should have been the 19 ton XM8 instead of this 38 ton monstrosity that GDLS came up with(what happened to the air deployable requirement?). By the way the chassis is the based off the ASCOD II, you know the one the Brits are having so many problems with under the Ajax designation. And secondly this should have replaced the Stryker MGS shitshow in the SBCT that already has maintenance and support companies that are used to dealing with heavier this instead of shoving this monstrosity down the light infantries throat who never had anything heavier than a Maxxpro. Another example of a good idea with dumpster fire levels of execution.

[eodinert]

Active protection is the future of armor. Tanks will get a lot lighter, faster, with more tech, and fewer people. Probably no people.

[pinzgauer]

You are pretty much operating these things like a Stryker MGS, doling out a company to each IBCT for support.

Now you are working with light infantry who have no clue how to operate with tanks. Its not like the mech guys who habitually train on their Bradleys in conjunction with the Abrams.

I would be very surprised if the true light IN (true airborne) guys got this due to weight.

My understanding is it's intended for the traditional infantry to give them a capability similar to the MGS or the Bradley gun.

Likewise, my impression is it would not be one company per IBCT, it should be one per BN. One per IBCT would not be worth bothering with, for the logistics reason you pointed out.

As to understanding how to use the different tool, lately the Army has been big on junior IN officers spending time in both light and mech units. Do one as LT, they send you to the other as CPT. Of course exceptions and needs of the army apply. But that has been the approach the CCC detailers use lately.

Seems like a reasonable idea, so that probably means the Army will change it. :-)

Don't know how they would handle for NCOs.

[Slater]

The Italians have managed to fit a 120mm gun on a wheeled chassis. Although this may be more of a tank destroyer than an infantry support vehicle:

https://www.iveco-otomelara.com/wheeled/centauro8x8.php

[Wake27]

I would be very surprised if the true light IN (true airborne) guys got this due to weight.

My understanding is it's intended for the traditional infantry to give them a capability similar to the MGS or the Bradley gun.

Likewise, my impression is it would not be one company per IBCT, it should be one per BN. One per IBCT would not be worth bothering with, for the logistics reason you pointed out.

As to understanding how to use the different tool, lately the Army has been big on junior IN officers spending time in both light and mech units. Do one as LT, they send you to the other as CPT. Of course exceptions and needs of the army apply. But that has been the approach the CCC detailers use lately.

Seems like a reasonable idea, so that probably means the Army will change it. :-)

Don't know how they would handle for NCOs.

If you remove 82nd and 173rd, there aren’t many regular IBCTs left. You’ve got 10th MTN, 101st (maybe?), and 25th and I think that’s it for the active side.

Also one per BN wouldn’t even seem worth it.

Not debating anything you’re saying as I haven’t paid any attention to this and you probably have better insight but this whole thing just confuses me.

On the O/NCO stuff, the Logistics side does it the same way. Army logistics is comprised of the ordnance, quartermaster, and transportation branches that as an officer, all combine into LG at CPT. So HRC and units typically like to rotate officers through jobs of all of those flavors. There are pros and cons as you can imagine. I think it mostly works though because the enlisted side doesn’t get moved around. The Army would lose a lot of the SME aspects if every NCO rotated through the various “infantry” realms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[vicious_cb]

I would be very surprised if the true light IN (true airborne) guys got this due to weight.

My understanding is it's intended for the traditional infantry to give them a capability similar to the MGS or the Bradley gun.

Likewise, my impression is it would not be one company per IBCT, it should be one per BN. One per IBCT would not be worth bothering with, for the logistics reason you pointed out.

Uh guess who is getting the first batch of MPFs

If you remove 82nd and 173rd, there aren’t many regular IBCTs left. You’ve got 10th MTN, 101st (maybe?), and 25th and I think that’s it for the active side.

Also one per BN wouldn’t even seem worth it.

Not debating anything you’re saying as I haven’t paid any attention to this and you probably have better insight but this whole thing just confuses me.

C'mon man! Do you really think the Army would do anything logical when it comes to procurement these days.

[Harpoon]

I think the money would be better spent on drones

This^

[Averageman]

The last place these things ever needed to go was light Infantry.

Absolutely 0 ability to maintain anything beyond a pair of boots and an M4.
I supported a Stryker unit for the 3rd ACR. Not exactly light, bit the mindset was why spend the time checking the oil when it breaks I will walk to the fight.
No way you could get them to open a TM or a tool bag. A big old box of rocks