US Army looking at Pacific MBT

[uk 75]

Found this on Yahoo

The US Army needs tanks to win a war in the Pacific, but it knows the Abrams isn't the right tank for the job

Russia and China have studied the US Army's tanks, and they're fielding new weapons that present more potent threats to US armor.

uk.news.yahoo.com

 

[GregoryUSSR]

The article is strange. For a war in the Pacific, it would be nice to have a fleet. Not tanks. The Abrams tank, in our opinion, is one of the three best Western tanks. Along with Merkava and Leclerc. What's wrong with him?

 

[Scott Kenny]

The article is strange. For a war in the Pacific, it would be nice to have a fleet. Not tanks. The Abrams tank, in our opinion, is one of the three best Western tanks. Along with Merkava and Leclerc. What's wrong with him?

Too heavy to be carried in an LCAC anymore, especially after you add the Trophy APS.

 

[GregoryUSSR]

Too heavy to be carried in an LCAC anymore, especially after you add the Trophy APS.

It's a tank. It won't get any easier. Wheel Stryker then.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It's a tank. It won't get any easier. Wheel Stryker then.

That's basically what the Marines have gone with, but still explicitly amphibious (strykers are too heavy to float).

 

[Foo Fighter]

The problem in the Pacific as I see it, is the mission. If an island incursion is requred, MBT pretty much rule themselves out. Mainland conflicts are likely to happen in locations where there are a poo stick load of MBT already so pre locate some M1 there and the job is jobbed. Just send crews in that case, this was done back in the pre soviet union collapse.

What to use alongside the MBT is the question. They have faffed for so long on this very question that, if they do not know what they want byt now, they must truly deserve the loony tune merit badge.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What to use alongside the MBT is the question. They have faffed for so long on this very question that, if they do not know what they want byt now, they must truly deserve the loony tune merit badge.

The planing hull EFV took so long to develop that coastal artillery and AShMs had the range to threaten the Gator Freighters even with them being some 25nmi off the coast, completely over the horizon from the beach.

Further aggravated by the fact that when they finally did get EFVs ready to go, the US was in a COIN fight with huge IEDs going off, and people were (falsely) claiming that the flat bottom of the EFV was excessively vulnerable to IEDs.

 

[GregoryUSSR]

By the way, I only recently saw Abrams with an Trophy APS from Merkava. This is already an old system of the КАЗТ Дрозд type, which the T-55AД and T-62Д tanks had. The problem with the active protection of the tank is that it does not see drones and quadrocopters. She does not perceive them as a danger and therefore does not work.

 

[Scott Kenny]

By the way, I only recently saw Abrams with an Trophy APS from Merkava. This is already an old system of the КАЗТ Дрозд type, which the T-55AД and T-62Д tanks had. The problem with the active protection of the tank is that it does not see drones and quadrocopters. She does not perceive them as a danger and therefore does not work.

Trophy should be updateable to be able to deal with drones at relatively close range. You'd need an APS like Quick Kill for drones at longer range.

 

[uk 75]

The US does not have a happy record of warfare in Asia. Korea and Vietnam suggest that China will prevail in any drawn out land war (not sure where this might be, but Korea and Vietnam might be possible theatres as well as Taiwan).
Detering Chinese threats to its neighbours requires the right combination of air, naval and nuclear force able to intervene to make Chinese military action too costly.

 

[GregoryUSSR]

In general, one thing needs to be understood here. The amphibious operation now, in any case, will not be like an amphibious operation, say, to take the island of Iwo Jima or Shumshu. Then it was possible to land the heavy machinery. Now in order to do this, it is necessary to have full initial control over the landing site. And it is incredibly difficult to do this in the case of approximate equality of forces. Aviation in modern warfare can practically not act. And if you load the tanks into the LCAC and send them to the coast...... When there are 1-2 kilometers left to the shore just one or two old rusty T-55s come out and after a few tens of seconds all the LCACs are at the bottom. For this reason, we are no longer building new БДКs. This is a positional deadlock by analogy with the 1st World War

 

[GregoryUSSR]

The US does not have a happy record of warfare in Asia. Korea and Vietnam suggest that China will prevail in any drawn out land war (not sure where this might be, but Korea and Vietnam might be possible theatres as well as Taiwan).
Detering Chinese threats to its neighbours requires the right combination of air, naval and nuclear force able to intervene to make Chinese military action too costly.

China won't do anything like that. The wrong nation. Not that character. The only thing they can beat Japan. In memory of Nanjing.

 

[sferrin]

The US does not have a happy record of warfare in Asia. Korea and Vietnam suggest that China will prevail in any drawn out land war (not sure where this might be, but Korea and Vietnam might be possible theatres as well as Taiwan).
Detering Chinese threats to its neighbours requires the right combination of air, naval and nuclear force able to intervene to make Chinese military action too costly.

There was a small war in the Pacific back in the 40s. . .

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

The planing hull EFV took so long to develop that coastal artillery and AShMs had the range to threaten the Gator Freighters even with them being some 25nmi off the coast, completely over the horizon from the beach.

That was already the case even before the EFV began development, and was also that case before it's abortive predecessor the Landing Vehicle Assault began development in the early 1970s. 4K44B Redut/SSC-1B Sepal entered service in the 1960s.

 

[GregoryUSSR]

That was already the case even before the EFV began development, and was also that case before it's abortive predecessor the Landing Vehicle Assault began development in the early 1970s. 4K44B Redut/SSC-1B Sepal entered service in the 1960s.

It's already old. There have been new ones for a long time. The Бал for long distances:

And A-222 for short distances:


But even if there is nothing, it doesn't change much. Tanks of any type (including the oldest) and anti-tank missile systems AT GM still exclude the approach to the shore of ships and vessels. There is only one way. Or small groups on boats, fill up with corpses. Or try to clean up the landing area with heavy missile systems. There is nowhere to take a squadron of battleships like on Iwo Jima now.

 

[Josh_TN]

Too heavy to be carried in an LCAC anymore, especially after you add the Trophy APS.

Buy M10 and call it a day.

 

[shin_getter]

US Army must have learned of Chinese Sekrit tech

https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/14ec686

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/14ec686/type_59_tank/

 

[Scott Kenny]

Buy M10 and call it a day.

That's my recommendation, yes. But USMC are likely to be at the very end of the deliveries unless a war starts.

 

[apparition13]

Buy M10 and call it a day.

If you'd said Type 10 I'd be with you.

 

[Scott Kenny]

If you'd said Type 10 I'd be with you.

Don't think the Japanese are exporting that.