Tanks!!

[haroldeye]

Tanks are funny things. They are a compromise between mobility, protection and fire power. Fitting a bigger gun to a Striker will not improve protection and probably affect mobility.

As for FRES. A pipe dream by planners totally devolved from reality.

[dlnhank]

I have always admired the Tiger tank. It was the first modeltank I built (1:35).
It is also the standard german tank Hollywood shows in movies and TV-series. German forces also has MG42´s and Ju87 stukas ready at all time...
Anyway;: the Tiger tank is my favourite tank, but I do NOT support, or agree with; in any way, the nazi regime who made it.

[curveslover3]

Anyone who likes Soviet stuff will love Engines of the Red Army in WWII

hope it's OK to link to this site..

[lothian]

The Israeli Sho't Kal . An upgraded Centurion. which despite being at every possible disadvantage during the Yom Kippur war gave the Syrian T55's a pasting on the Golan heights.

[deefer]

[QUOTE=mjm1963;2063675]Another debate going on in the tank world


Following the recent announcement of US defense spending cuts. It's probable that the USMC will loose their Abrams they are now considering a "Marine" version/alternative Stryker with 105mm. Photo to follow[/

i give you the m1128 mobile gun system again another of the worlds on again off again weapons system projects.







The Italians proved the worth of a wheeled heavy armoured car apc system with the centauro apc




fast as wheeled infantry but with almost the punch of a tank there have been a few but none as ungainly as the french panhard ebr heavy amoured car

[

[deefer]

Originally Posted by haroldeye

Tanks are funny things. They are a compromise between mobility, protection and fire power. Fitting a bigger gun to a Striker will not improve protection and probably affect mobility.

As for FRES. A pipe dream by planners totally devolved from reality.

protection is only as good as the tactical use, elephants from ww2 were invulnerable to tank fire but easy meat to infantry, a lighter apc may suffer light armour but its infantry can protect it and be protected by the vehicle.

fres was a great idea in theory, if you can use as many common parts as possible, engines transmissions axles wheels etc it brings massive commonality gains. Silly things like common oil filters (how many get changed through out the british military fleet every day) makes logistic supply behind the front line so much easier, as it is the British army now have, from the bottom ford transits then land rovers then iveco's in the form of the panther then MAN trucks then the iveco trakker then the het American m1070 Oshkosh all with little or no commonality. FRES started as an attempt at commonality but was quickly infected with a rotten case of politics.

[Trintron]

Originally Posted by deefer

Another debate going on in the tank world

Following the recent announcement of US defense spending cuts. It's probable that the USMC will loose their Abrams they are now considering a "Marine" version/alternative Stryker with 105mm. Photo to follow

i give you the m1128 mobile gun system again another of the worlds on again off again weapons system projects.

I know that many Armies around the world have been using Wheeled Gun Systems for many decades now and with great success. But the US Army has been really slow to adopt Wheeled Fighting Vehicles in the past.

During the defense downsizing of the early 1990's using a wheeled tank like the AMX-10RC and Centario was talked about, but back then the idea never really took hold in the US Army.

A number of aquaintances over they years who have served in the US Army and Marine Corp considered themselves Tracked Vehicle purist really hated the idea that the US Armed Forces would use Wheeled APCs at all...

I wonder if these weapon systems will gain widespread adoption in the US Army this time around.

[deefer]

Originally Posted by Trintron

I know that many Armies around the world have been using Wheeled Gun Systems for many decades now and with great success. But the US Army has been really slow to adopt Wheeled Fighting Vehicles in the past.

During the defense downsizing of the early 1990's using a wheeled tank like the AMX-10RC and Centario was talked about, but back then the idea never really took hold in the US Army.

A number of aquaintances over they years who have served in the US Army and Marine Corp considered themselves Tracked Vehicle purist really hated the idea that the US Armed Forces would use Wheeled APCs at all...

I wonder if these weapon systems will gain widespread adoption in the US Army this time around.

with costs being evermore important and more conflicts than ever being "urban", wheels make more sense. They need less logistic support being able to travel long distances with only fuel resupply required, require less maintenance(tracks are a bugger for splitting or getting thrown) and if a wheel does fails most multi-wheel afv can carry on with it removed. The other advantage is wheeled vehicles are easier to use in and around an urban environment as they don't wreck road surfaces collapse sewers and as they often weigh less than a mid size hgv all but the narrowest of roads is accessible. The cost of these is also a big factor, we're facing less sophisticated enemies so high tech weapons are less desirable, often simply solutions stop attacks better than expensive weight of armour, Kremlin armour being a perfect example. The US military has always appeared to be behind the curve on mid weight technical systems as there is little development money in them and the arms industry wants big money on development not sales. But, as you said, simply too many die hard tracked fans can kill newer and/or better options.

Mind you as a Brit the way were going we'll have 6 land rovers, 2 challengers and JCB left at the end of these cutbacks.

[curveslover3]

Originally Posted by deefer

with costs being evermore important and more conflicts than ever being "urban", wheels make more sense.

True enough, I wouldn't mind seeing a mobility test in Russian Spring / Autumn mud? Also, I reckon metal tracks probably have greater survivability when being hit from a variety of infantry weapons?

It's healthy to ask questions of the tank in the 21st century, I remember reading about a tracked multi type rocket launcher the British army was looking at. Able to fire AA AT HE plus loads of other munitions type, it was intended as an armour support weapon, I would put the wheeled guns into the same category?

Bit of this, bit of that, hey, we've got a panzer division

[Staffsyeoman]

Thank goodness we are back to talking about tanks, rather than the means of destroying them. Had that remained the case, I would have had to go back to looking ( ) at pictures of naked women. And I've just spent the day reading the war diary of an Armoured Brigade (British) which a. underperformed b. got shot up in the week after D-Day.