"The way forward- Low weight" Topic

All the recent spate of light weight armed vehicles does raise interesting questions? In our own recent and ongoing campaign we have one key route that has a practical weight limit on it 15 tonne wich is quirte low. This is not just the road bridges but over large stretches due to limited capability of the drainage system and small culverts etc. that we would not model on a wargames table. Are there lighter weight vehicals just here because they are cheaper, or are they there because nowdays large tracts of even the UK are effectively inaccessible to a 70 tonne tank. With a bridge every few miles re-enforceing all the bridges/culverts etc to take such a weight is impractical. Failure to do so would stop any reasonable supply vehicle from using the roure for sustainment. Sustainment by air not being very practical for all but the shortest of times.

So the question is are these vehicals desighned to access power whare a tank cannot praectically be sent?

Some of it is for strategic mobility (rather than tactical as you suggest) maintenance costs another. It's important to note that most light armoured vehicles are actually rapidly increasing in weight. The upgraded Cdn LAV is now up to 25 tons.

Yes, it's about force projection/strategic mobility. Since generally there are not the larger MBT/Mech battle which occurred in the past. Lighter AFVs/vehicles that are easy to transport by aircraft and easier to maintain have moved increasingly into inventory. Plus more and more of the world is getting improved road infastructures. Regardess, most of these light vehicles still have good cross country mobiity. In some cases the lighter weight gives it an advantage. [Try moving some heavier AFVs across some roads or brigdes in the very rural countryside of the ROK !] That being said, light rapidly deployable forces has the advantage to get there quickly with a modicum of firepower as well as mobility. However, heavier follow on forces like MBTs and Mech units still have their place and come in later to support the lighter forces. And if you note many of the light AFVs do have some good AT capabilites with light cannons and missiles. Many of the families of light wheeled vehicles like Strykers and LAVs, etc., have versions with AT cannon and missiles. Which by the way, these weapons can be very useful on some structures. Like sand/mud brick structures found in many areas which we are in conflict today. Plus an M2 .50 Cal HMG can chew up a varity of cinder block bricks very effectively. In the 101 we had an entire AT Company with TOW Hvy AT Launchers mounted on Jeeps and later HMMWVs. Even my M113 Mech Co. had an M901 ITV Section and the Bn had an entire AT Co. … And along with lighter wheeled AFVs. There is a family of wheeled cargo vehicles from the Hvy to Med transport capabilities. My Support Plt in the ROK had both 2&1/2 and 5 ton cargo trucks. On another point, if cossing bridges is a problem, that is where heavier AVLBs or other lighter bridging assets from CE units come into play. But again, some of those assets may not be available with initially. And yes resupply by air may not always be available. But both air dropped and helicopter resupply can be useful if you have the assets and know how to do it. I was an Air Ops officer with the 101. And we used those options often if not daily. Sometimes with lighter forces that may be your only option at times …

The US Future Combat System was built around strategic mobility, not tactical. But because they all had to fit inside a C130, that meant they were down to ~20 tons at full combat weight.

The MRAPs had issues because of their weight (up to 30 tons!), and the Ground Combat Vehicle (Bradley successor) really ran into troubles because of the weight (~70+ tons).

I've always thought the concept of something like this baby would be handy:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX_10_RC

Relatively heavy firepower without a lot of weight.

Make the turret modular so weapon systems can be swapped out and it'd be a good light support vehicle for the back of nowhere.

So with all this fresh view on the way the world works are you not tempted to look harder at the mundane scenarios most often played and look for interesting actions where the simple presence of a few hundred bridges prevents the march of the massive and allows the light weight to reign supreeem. I most certainly am. It looks like a commision to Shipyards may be in order but what?

The vehicles we have now are designed to fight the last war, as always.

There did not appear to be any great difficulty operating extremely heavy tanks over very cut up ground with lots and lots of waterways in either WW2 or the Cold War. As Patton observed, tanks can, and do, operate anywhere.

So, call me cynical, but light vehicles designed for global force projection and counter insurgency are all very well and jolly (and of course, are very cheap), but may prove a bit less useful against a Soviet/Russian tank army rolling over Ukraine.

But yes, it is certainly possible to conceive of light vehicle actions in cut up country, RNAS armoured cars in Belgium in WW1 immediately spring to mind, as do recce regiment operations south of Rimini in Italy in WW2, or even operations to link up with the Poles on The Island during Market Garden (although of course the same ground also saw the employment of Shermans and Tiger Is and IIs).

Well, it's not really fair comparing Western Europe (where the bridges were (re)built to handle 70-ton M1s) with the Ukraine (where bridges were built to handle ~50-ton T72s and uparmored T64s).

The extreme weight of the Ground Combat Vehicle IFVs is what doomed the program. 70 ton APCs will cause all sorts of problems in cities, and most roads in the US aren't even built to handle that much weight.

I'm honestly expecting a compromise fairly soon, bringing tanks and APCs back down to ~50 tons or less. More advanced armor layers plus hard-kill active protection systems.

lots of bridges in the UK will not take even 30 tonne. main highways yes but not lots of secondaries. Battles of wide flanking can't happen if every mile there is an unsuitable bridge or road.