Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles

Scorpion and Scimitar hull size was originally defined by the distance between trees on some colonial plantations. This requirement limited Scorpion size and weight, making it much easier to rapidly-deploy by air ... even air-drop. Light-weight also limited ground pressure, allowing Scorpions to cross soft ground that was difficult for poor, bloody infantry (e.g. Falkland Islands).
Because of low cost, Scorpions were widely exported and their turrets were even more widely exported (e.g. LAV). Scorpions were affordable for many small nations too poor to afford MBTs. As long as they out-gunned potential enemies, Scorpions were "good enough." That they could cross softer ground than many heavier and fancier vehicles meant that Scorpions could fight in more areas.
 
Last edited:
If you still want a large gun (120 mm or more) may I suggest starting with a 155 mm HEAT round already used by artillery.#
Then mate the 155 mm projectile with a small powder charge and a new tail. The reduced powder charge is wrapped in a brass or polymer cartridge with a conventional primer. The reduced powder charge is barely big enough to fire the projectile 100 metres, ergo low recoil. Then the booster rocket ignites to increase speed and flatten trajectory similar to an M549 rocket-assisted projectile. High velocity might flatten tragectory enough to rely on conventional tank sights.

# Yes, we know that artillery hate to see their targets, but enemy have an annoying habit of appearing where not scheduled. Wise red-legs always keep a few AT rounds handy.
 
Last edited:
GARGEAN said:
HEAT is same: caliber allows for higher pen due to caliber, but original round was quite unimpressive with less than 500mm pen, so lower than most 125mm and 120mm HEAT round. Granted, you don't need really MUCH penetration to deal with concrete, its penetration is roughty x3 of steel, but in whole HEAT is not really optimal for that work.
Click to expand...

The typical rule of thumb for non-rotating HEAT rounds is that armor penetration is four times the charge diameter.
M551 was strange in that it had a non-fin stabilized HEAT round so armor penetration was lost due to centrifugal force.

A modern 152mm round would not suffer from these problems.

The 120mm M908 obstacle reduction round is an interesting split the difference approach; it's a sub-caliber HEAT round with an AP nose and delay fuze.

Some of the claims of excessive recoil for the M551 seem to the triumph of anecdote over data (from Kathe: "Rarefaction Wave Gun Propulsion")
With modern recoil management techniques the M8 AGS isn't much different; I'm sure for crews converting from the M41
or other vehicles the recoil did come as a shock. But it's not at all clear this had much impact on mission accomplishment.


recoil-light-vehicle-gun.png

30 rounds on the 551 was mixed AT missile and HEAT; from memory they could get closer to 40 with just HEAT.
 
Last edited:
marauder2048 said:
The typical rule of thumb for non-rotating HEAT rounds is that armor penetration is four times the charge diameter.
Click to expand...
That's... Quite wrong. Penetration varies greatly starting from 3-4 cones for older warheads, going up to 7-8 with modern and up to 10 with lab ones.
And why are you insisting so much on comparing HEAT from M81 with HE-MP rounds?..
 
GARGEAN said:
That's... Quite wrong. Penetration varies greatly starting from 3-4 cones for older warheads,
Click to expand...
Which was exactly the rule of thumb of I was using. You said the 152mm HEAT was dinky
by modern standards in terms of performance; I was explaining why.

GARGEAN said:
And why are you insisting so much on comparing HEAT from M81 with HE-MP rounds?..
Click to expand...
I'm not. You are. You brought up late Sprut 125mm HE-FRAG and HEAT. But it doesn't change the fact that bigger diameter is better.

I only brought up the claimed obstacle breaching capability from the "Armor" article.

Given that MPF has as part of its core mission obstacle, bunker and barrier removal it's particularly relevant.
 
Last edited:
jsport said:
Crewman said even the sights were effected everytime it was fired. Litterally rendering the whole system questionable in fast moving combat.
Click to expand...

Yes. I've read the anecdotes. Trying to trace it back to data is tricky; it doesn't tend to show up on the list of complaints/suggested improvements
I've seen to date. Now that could just be due to the fact that the crews (outside of Desert Storm) didn't face fast moving combat.
 
The vehicle was almost unverisally disliked by the troops almost as much as the Gama Goat and therefore it had few updrades even offered. The RDF tank was the heralded hope to replace. Airborne troops could, for instance, not be anywhere near the 152mm gun only discharge as it was so loud, likewise the crew had to suffer thru this.

Reports are written to satisfy brass and not offend contractors as the contractors would never offer any tank to the AB. The AB knew they were speedbumps during the Cold War.
 
Last edited:
I've spoken with a former Sheridan tanker and he wasn't quite so negative about the vehicle. Flawed? Sure. A completely failure? Doesn't seem that way.
 
jsport said:
Reports are written to satisfy brass and not offend contractors as the contractors would never offer any tank to the AB. T
Click to expand...
The deficiency reports I read don't look like that at all; they were incredibly candid and comprehensive.
 
The RDF tank was much heralded given the failure that Sheridan was. A 152mm conventional gun shot from such a short barrel and light vehicle speaks for itself.
 
jsport said:
A 152mm conventional gun shot from such a short barrel and light vehicle speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

Yeah but that's the one thing all of the after action reports praise: canister/HEAT/HE effects on target
were outstanding and superior to contemporary projectiles.
 
marauder2048 said:
jsport said:
A 152mm conventional gun shot from such a short barrel and light vehicle speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

Yeah but that's the one thing all of the after action reports praise: canister/HEAT/HE effects on target
were outstanding and superior to contemporary projectiles.
Click to expand...
Despite what others have said on this forum, if the recoil could be mitigated a short barrel 155mm to even launch Excaliber and a new direct fire missile from a light tank that would be optimal for many operational scenarios especially for light formations.
 
Why are you keeping insisting on plain advantage only on basis of HEAT round? There are no more 50s behind the window, and many prospective tanks don't even have dedicated HEAT round in their ammo load anyways.
 
GARGEAN said:
Why are you keeping insisting on plain advantage only on basis of HEAT round? There are no more 50s behind the window, and many prospective tanks don't even have dedicated HEAT round in their ammo load anyways.
Click to expand...

With only HV guns out there, it's just been easier to scale KE darts for the AP role.

And since main gun calibers haven't really moved, that whole "HEAT performance scales with charge diameter"
thing comes into play. So you have to play other tricks like penetrating HE rounds with sophisticated fuzes
to handle the other target sets.

I'd would point out though that the last time there was a serious rethink and competition for MBT armament,
the HEAT round (MRM-CE) won.
 
marauder2048 said:
So you have to play other tricks like penetrating HE rounds with sophisticated fuzes
to handle the other target sets.
Click to expand...
It's quite other way around: evolving HE-FRAG is superior to just scaling HEAT to bigger penetration. HEAT is useless against properly armored AFVs and worse against lighly armored AFVs and brick/concrete structures of adequate thickness. You want to kill enemy MBTs? You go for APFSDS. You want to destroy that machinegun nest/sniper position/building corner? You go for HE-FRAG. Only possible thing where HEAT is really might be preferred is penetration of concrete structures of EXTRA thiccness (meter and above). Are those really will be your aim point when developing modern AFV armament?..
 
GARGEAN said:
It's quite other way around: evolving HE-FRAG is superior to just scaling HEAT to bigger penetration.
Click to expand...
The modern rounds are totally velocity and AoO dependent; having the utility of your round dependent on temperatures
and striking angle (and surface composition) isn't a great idea.

GARGEAN said:
HEAT is useless against properly armored AFVs and worse against lighly armored AFVs and brick/concrete structures of adequate thickness.
Click to expand...
You should let the world's ATGM designers know this immediately.
If you look at the current evolution they've been able to create quite capable multipurpose warheads capable of killing
troops in the open to machine guns nests all built around HEAT.

Of course, they have bigger (greater than 125mm) diameters to play with.

GARGEAN said:
Only possible thing where HEAT is really might be preferred is penetration of concrete structures of EXTRA thiccness (meter and above). Are those really will be your aim point when developing modern AFV armament?..
Click to expand...

Which fundamentally misunderstands the goal of obstacle penetration; it's about width not depth; the standard MOUT wall is only 8 inches thick.
The way you can choose liners and SC geometries to achieve greater coupling at the surface is very difficult to achieve with HE penetrators.
And the latter are completely dependent on fuze survivability in tough media.
 
Yeah, this is going into same dead end again and again. I think we should agree to disagree.
 
Good point about electrifying light vehicles.
By the time diesel fuel has been trucked to a remote outpost - in the Afghan mountains - it costs something like $5,000 per gallon!
Anything that can reduce that logistics cost is an advantage.
Also consider reducing human casualties along that long logistics chain.
 
marauder2048 said:
GARGEAN said:
HEAT is same: caliber allows for higher pen due to caliber, but original round was quite unimpressive with less than 500mm pen, so lower than most 125mm and 120mm HEAT round. Granted, you don't need really MUCH penetration to deal with concrete, its penetration is roughty x3 of steel, but in whole HEAT is not really optimal for that work.
Click to expand...

The typical rule of thumb for non-rotating HEAT rounds is that armor penetration is four times the charge diameter.
M551 was strange in that it had a non-fin stabilized HEAT round so armor penetration was lost due to centrifugal force.

A modern 152mm round would not suffer from these problems.

The 120mm M908 obstacle reduction round is an interesting split the difference approach; it's a sub-caliber HEAT round with an AP nose and delay fuze.

Some of the claims of excessive recoil for the M551 seem to the triumph of anecdote over data (from Kathe: "Rarefaction Wave Gun Propulsion")
With modern recoil management techniques the M8 AGS isn't much different; I'm sure for crews converting from the M41
or other vehicles the recoil did come as a shock. But it's not at all clear this had much impact on mission accomplishment.


View attachment 642019

30 rounds on the 551 was mixed AT missile and HEAT; from memory they could get closer to 40 with just HEAT.
Click to expand...
So whatever happened to the FCS FOOB?
 
Image
US Army had conducted trial of GDLS MPF light tank at Aberdeen Test Center. Mobile Protected Firepower light tank will undergo Pre-Production Test and Soldier Vehicle Assessment soon. The 3BCT, 82AB Div. will test MPF during the Limited User Training in the future (around FY21).
 
jsport said:
marauder2048 said:
GARGEAN said:
HEAT is same: caliber allows for higher pen due to caliber, but original round was quite unimpressive with less than 500mm pen, so lower than most 125mm and 120mm HEAT round. Granted, you don't need really MUCH penetration to deal with concrete, its penetration is roughty x3 of steel, but in whole HEAT is not really optimal for that work.
Click to expand...

The typical rule of thumb for non-rotating HEAT rounds is that armor penetration is four times the charge diameter.
M551 was strange in that it had a non-fin stabilized HEAT round so armor penetration was lost due to centrifugal force.

A modern 152mm round would not suffer from these problems.

The 120mm M908 obstacle reduction round is an interesting split the difference approach; it's a sub-caliber HEAT round with an AP nose and delay fuze.

Some of the claims of excessive recoil for the M551 seem to the triumph of anecdote over data (from Kathe: "Rarefaction Wave Gun Propulsion")
With modern recoil management techniques the M8 AGS isn't much different; I'm sure for crews converting from the M41
or other vehicles the recoil did come as a shock. But it's not at all clear this had much impact on mission accomplishment.


View attachment 642019

30 rounds on the 551 was mixed AT missile and HEAT; from memory they could get closer to 40 with just HEAT.
Click to expand...
So whatever happened to the FCS FOOB?
Click to expand...

The FCS FOOB gun is still very much around in one form or another.

Hawkeye and Brutus are both great. Realistically, with the other advances Being made as well as in consideration of the prevailing threats artillery is the proper place to focus foob stuff first.

It would be quite nice if eventually the MPF gets it too, but there's other areas that need it first.

In the interim especially for breaching Pele and Pele ALP style rounds are nearly ideal for breaching if it's called for. Especially where there is no or minimal explosives involved in the warhead.
 
roguetechie said:
The FCS FOOB gun is still very much around in one form or another.

Hawkeye and Brutus are both great. Realistically, with the other advances Being made as well as in consideration of the prevailing threats artillery is the proper place to focus foob stuff first.

It would be quite nice if eventually the MPF gets it too, but there's other areas that need it first.

In the interim especially for breaching Pele and Pele ALP style rounds are nearly ideal for breaching if it's called for. Especially where there is no or minimal explosives involved in the warhead.
Click to expand...

Not clear why a 30 ton vehicle would need FOOB; the 105mm round isn't particularly "hot"

And I would think they would just scale AMP down to 105mm; PELE leaves the rebar substantially intact.
 
jsport said:
Image
US Army had conducted trial of GDLS MPF light tank at Aberdeen Test Center. Mobile Protected Firepower light tank will undergo Pre-Production Test and Soldier Vehicle Assessment soon. The 3BCT, 82AB Div. will test MPF during the Limited User Training in the future (around FY21).
Click to expand...
Thread with more. Not sure its all accurate, but a good summation.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1313754070138515456
View: https://twitter.com/nimingtuite/status/1313754070138515456?s=19
 
We really need to get Ian McDiarmid to record a: "Now witness the mobile protected firepower of this fully armed and operational mini M1"
 
Or rather Mike Myers: "Mini M1, you complete me."
 
Looks like someone has stuck a Abrams turret on the hull of a Marder to me....


Regards
Pioneer
 
Pioneer said:
Looks like someone has stuck a Abrams turret on the hull of a Marder to me....


Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
It essentially is an Abrams turret, just made out of aluminum instead of steel and without the armor package.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom