"US Army Plans New Tank After Abrams - 2030s" Topic
14 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
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
Tango01 | 13 Jan 2017 9:47 p.m. PST |
"The Army is now performing concept modeling and early design work for a new mobile, lethal, high-tech future lightweight tank platform able to detect and destroy a wider range of targets from farther distances, cross bridges, incinerate drones with lasers and destroy incoming enemy artillery fire – all for the 2030s and beyond. The new vehicle, now emerging purely in the concept phase, is based upon the reality that the current M1A2 SEP Abrams main battle tank can only be upgraded to a certain limited extent, senior Army officials explained. The Army's Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center, or TARDEC, is now immersed in the development of design concepts for various super high-tech tank platforms, Maj. Gen. David Bassett, Program Executive Officer, Ground Combat Systems, told Scout Warrior in an exclusive interview…." Main page link This is a lot of time…(smile) Amicalement Armand
|
Mako11 | 14 Jan 2017 5:26 a.m. PST |
"….Lightweight….", eh? Sure………… Seems all the faults of the Sheridan have been forgiven, or much more likely, forgotten. I imagine some don't even know what a Sheridan light tank is – young whippersnappers……….. |
Legion 4 | 14 Jan 2017 10:00 a.m. PST |
It's good to have a plan … |
Tango01 | 14 Jan 2017 11:04 a.m. PST |
Have we seen them…? (smile) Amicalement Armand
|
Lion in the Stars | 14 Jan 2017 2:07 p.m. PST |
The problem is that an Abrams is not rapidly strategically deployable. How long after the Invasion of Kuwait before US armor units started showing up? No, the Sheridans deployed by the 82nd Airborne don't count. A vehicle in the ~35-ton class still needs a C5 or C17, but you can put two of them into each bird. Something light enough to fly in a C130 (~18-20 tons) is probably too light for a direct replacement of the Abrams, barring massive improvements in materials science for armor. |
Legion 4 | 14 Jan 2017 3:52 p.m. PST |
No, the Sheridans deployed by the 82nd Airborne don't count. I'd think many of those are much older than their crews. Don't know how long those will still in the inventory … |
Apache 6 | 14 Jan 2017 7:12 p.m. PST |
Lion in the Stars asked: "How long after the Invasion of Kuwait before US armor units started showing up?" The 7th Marine Regiment was declared combat ready on 16 August. Marines from Southern California married up with equipment and munitions offloaded from Maritime Prepositioning Ships. They had one battalion of MBT (the M-60), one battalion of LAVs, and sufficent AAVs to mechanize two infantry battalions. I understand that a single tank battalion is not the heaviest force, but… |
Lion in the Stars | 14 Jan 2017 11:17 p.m. PST |
So two weeks for the Marines to arrive. (that's actually surprisingly slow, they're usually on-scene in less than a week) Pretty rough for the Jarheads, considering that there were 5 divisions of Iraqi troops in the Kuwait invasion force alone… How long before the Army tankers arrived? No, the Sheridans deployed by the 82nd Airborne don't count. I'd think many of those are much older than their crews. Don't know how long those will still in the inventory …
The Sheridan was finally retired without a replacement from the 82nd in 1996. Though there might be a few left at NTC as VISMOD vehicles… |
Legion 4 | 15 Jan 2017 10:09 a.m. PST |
Yes, I've seen the NTCs VISMODs. Too many times(!) … So now the 82d has no Armor Bn … But like the 101, HMMWV mounted TOWs and AH-64s are their real tank killers. |
doug redshirt | 15 Jan 2017 11:12 p.m. PST |
There is no getting around the fact that armor travels by sea. Also there is a dirty little fact that the Air Force uses their heavy transports to move their air wings to the combat zone. There are no plans to ship armor by air and never was. Not unless the Army starts ordering several hundred transports and they would never waste money on that even if they could. |
Legion 4 | 16 Jan 2017 8:43 a.m. PST |
That is always the rub. Heavy equipment may take too long generally to get to the "front". But in many cases in modern warfare, being there, to paraphrase a famous CSA commander[and yes racist] N B Forrest – " Getting there first with the most" … Gave you an advantage … And even that was generally true way beck then during the ACW. Another option as we saw with NATO, etc. The prepositioning of heavy equipment. Near the possible battle site locations. And MBTs, etc., may not have "the clout" they may have had in the past. But they still are very useful in many/most situations. So it will always come down to getting what, where and on time, etc. |
Wolfhag | 16 Jan 2017 8:16 p.m. PST |
Lion, The 7th Marines arrived from Camp Pendleton. Typically the Marines have a MEU/BLT on float in the Med, Mid East and West Pac. It's like a combined arms reinforced regiment/battalion complete with air power (Harriers & Choppers) on an LHD. Depending on their location when called it can be hours or a few days to hit the beach or vertical assault without the help of other services. They are like a QRF whose mission is to evacuate embassies, seize a beachhead or raids, not prolonged operations. I was on a BLT in the Med in 1974. We had the M48A3 (90mm gun) and our Battalion level AT weapon was a 106mm RR mounted on a Mech Mule. At the time the Marines were one generation behind the Army with equipment. That changed after Desert Storm. We were trained to fast rope down from a chopper, go in Amtracks or "assault" in rubber boats (I was our Scout Swimmer). I think even if the 7th Marines got there sooner it would just be a longer period to wait for everyone else. Wolfhag |
Lion in the Stars | 16 Jan 2017 9:51 p.m. PST |
@Wolfhag: Yeah, I'm generally familiar with MEU capabilities. Including the fact that they only deploy a single PLATOON (yeah, 4 freaking tanks) per battalion of infantry. Woulda sucked to be 7th Marines if the Iraqis had crossed into Saudi, that's for sure, what with ~44 M60s to face down 4 armored Divisions! ===== The original design brief for the FCS was an armored vehicle light enough to be air-transportable by C130, so 18-20 tons. I think that's a bit light (crud, even basic Shermans were 33 tons!), but something in the 35-45 ton range is certainly reasonable and about as survivable as you're going to get versus IEDs. Though I'm sure beefing up the original FCS designs is crossing a lot of people's minds right now. |
Apache 6 | 18 Jan 2017 10:34 a.m. PST |
A MEU was on station, earlier, but did not land, being kept afloat as a theater reserve. Despite the small size of the force, it was pretty important part of the information operations. I believe the threat of a landing by the US Marines deployed off the coast may have had more impact then their employment would have, but in the first days, their psychological impact was not insignificant. The 7th Marine Expeditionary Brigade (including 7th Marine Regiment) were ordered to deploy on 7 August, so it took them 9 days to move from California, download the equipment from the MPS ships, and conduct the necessary preparations (uploading ammo, op-checking radios…) to fight. They were delayed somewhat due to the reactions from the Saudi government, and the abilities (and the need to use) the third country nationals at the Port of Jubayl. Source is US Marines in the Persian Gulf. Available at: link |
|