"Here’s BAE Systems’ Proposal for a New Light Army Tank " Topic
9 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article Another episode of Identity That Figure!
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile Article The first of a series of reports from sargonII, who is currently traveling in the Middle East.
Current Poll
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
| Tango01 | 20 Oct 2016 9:29 p.m. PST |
" BAE Systems, responding to the US Army's call for a new light tank, has brought back a vehicle that was scheduled to go into service in the 1990s. The M8 Armored Gun System is meant to provide a firepower boost to light infantry forces, particularly paratroopers. It was originally set to go into service in the 1990s after the retirement of the U.S. Army's M551 Sheridan. The Sheridan, which was never really considered a success, was retired after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. But the M8 lost funding and the Sheridan was never replaced…"
Main page
link Amicalement
Armand |
| Noble713 | 21 Oct 2016 4:30 a.m. PST |
I think the M8 would be ideal for the Marine Corps. |
| Major Mike | 21 Oct 2016 4:49 a.m. PST |
|
| Apache 6 | 21 Oct 2016 8:59 a.m. PST |
Has the Stryker Mobile Gun System not proven to be effective? It has the same firepower (I think) and is in service. I'd think it would be easier to sustain that. It's airlandable from a C-130. I'm not 100% certain it's been airdropped but it should be able to? Seems like that would be the cost effective way to provide firepower support for light infantry? |
| Lion in the Stars | 21 Oct 2016 11:48 a.m. PST |
MGS turret sucks ass, a full team of engineers from GD couldn't keep it working in Afghanistan when the 25ID was deployed there. |
| carne68 | 21 Oct 2016 4:00 p.m. PST |
|
| Maggot | 21 Oct 2016 4:15 p.m. PST |
This thing is back? I was actually part off the test group for this tank when they tested it at Ft. Pickett VA in 1995. I was part of an infantry company that was deployed there to guard the test site and do combined ops testing with the tankers from the 82D tank battalion (they still had the Sheridan). I'd have to agree with Lion, the unit broke down frequently and basically the unit really is no more armored than a Bradley, just with an auto loader 105. I'd assume the gun would be great as an assault gun, and good against IFVs and APCs but useless against any new generation tanks. Again, another pet project of some retired Colonel or General to earn easy money for a vehicle that really has no practical purpose or is a role that can be fielded by any number of current vehicles already on the market. |
| SouthernPhantom | 22 Oct 2016 6:04 p.m. PST |
They'd be hard pressed to make it worse than the MGS. |
|
experiments at 11x.
