Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank
Hot Breath said:
ynm said:
Hot Breath said:
Why have a "tank" at all? Why not go for a light armoured vehicle which carries a large number of ATGWs? Seeming to attempt the impossible in building a light tank than a C-130 can carry (and still be armoured enough to take on a real MBT) is rather pointless when it would be much, much cheaper and easier to build a light armoured vehicle which could carry an ATGW powerful enough to knock a tank out.
IMO, there are problems for light armored with ATGW. Light armored vehicle limits the tactical and strategical use, e.g. you can use it in some roles but not other. I think it is good in defense but not good in offense. To be offensive you need armored enough to take surprised and unavoidable attacks
ATGW also has it own limits, expensive, limited number of round, and shaped charge ATGM is limited against modern armor and active protection system. Even kinetic ATGW may be defeated in near future. To be offensive, you need hi capacity of rounds for different types of target.
ATGWs don't have to be expensive and if manufactured in sufficient numbers, can be even cheaper. Electronics are becoming cheaper and cheaper, every year. While a shaped charge warhead has it's limitations if fired directly against an MBT's armour, a top attack method would allow most of the armour to be bypassed. If a hyper-velocity round it utilized, then it utilizes kinetic energy, not chemical energy to defeat the armour.
It is all a question of commitment and of course, resources. If you can manufacture (and deploy) 25 light armoured vehicles to each MBT that the enemy can deploy, his MBTs have to defeat 25+ rounds to each that it fires. Time and density of fire would in the end lead to the defeat of the MBT. Sure, you'd lose some light armoured vehicles but that is just the cost of battle.
The easiest way to achieve light armored vs MBT is active + reactive + light weight base armor, and IMO, C 130 is very possible. I think there are other methods as well. The real advantage of air deployable is numerous, one is that you have strategic mobility, flank or surprised deployment to take high value target. With light armored vehicle, it is very hard to be offensive other than sabotage and retreat.
Easiest way to achieve an air deployabled light armoured vehicle is to either ditch the C-130 in favour of something with a bigger hold and a larger lifting capacity or you end up delivering the light armoured vehicle in several packages which require assembly. As you're basically paying for the recoil of that big gun, which an ATGW negates by being rocket and hence recoilless. You're also paying for the armour and everything else, if you're going to try and take MBTs on head on. ATGW equipped light vehicles rely on flank attacks, so don't require the same level of armour!
Currently composite armor comes to the point that it is lighter than ERA (50kg/sqr m) against shaped charge. Even if you want, you can be protected from top attack, let say 10m2, you only need about 500 kg which is insignificant for MBT. Composite armor is tandem resistant by its nature. That didn't even count APS, so to kill tank and AFV, KE is required.
Currently, no KE missile in service, and it seems KE missile will be very expensive, much more than shaped charge ATGM. So big gun is the only option.
OTOH, if you fight against on par enemy, then victory at all cost is the only option. And out number enemy, if that enemy is not well prepared, then it is easy. But if enemy is well prepared, then battle will be fought at worst condition, e.g. at extreme range, with cover, smoke, constantly retreat and change location... so concentrating fire is not easy and may deplete ammo very quick. And if you fight against weaker enemy, armored vehicle has its own value, it will decrease the cost of war (both in materiel and lives, political cost...) Armor is often not the most expensive part of vehicle. So armor can be used to trade for other things, like lives. Now a day, if you fight on par enemy, you use nuke, not tank. Weapons are used to fight weaker enemy and should be design with that mindset.
IMO, mobility on land will be useless against modern fire control system and guided munition. Only strategic mobility is good for war planning, e.g. flank, surprise attacks... But if you rely on mobility and firepower, then air force + special force/ recon is the best option. The point of fighting on land is not total annihilation, but to control, capture and hold territories, which will inevitably face unavoidable attack, which will require armor.
Light armored vehicle can do sabotage operation, fire and retreat, but will have higher risk in other operations. OTOH, you have armor doesnt mean you must use it, as lightweight heavily armored vehicle can use flank, too. Heavy armor brings more option to the table, which will change the strategics and tactics of war. You can flank, but what if your plan fails and forced to fight head on? Armor allows you to have more option between death and life.
Gun allows more rounds than ATGM but I think ATGM + autocannon (30-40mm) is a good option instead of big gun. But armor is a must. Armor is similar to stealth in air warfare. Stealth brings more option but you still can do it with normal airplane but with higher escort price. After all, lives are precious, and it should be protected (with armor).
