U.S. Army getting its first light tanks in more than 50 years.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...AAZ384v?cvid=cdbcc91bab314be6badef35d25752a1e

No the U.S. Army won't even call them "tanks" but that is what they are. I was always disturbed that units like the 82nd Airborne had no vehicular mounted response to any tank threat.

This is a good thing in my opinion.

 

Actually, they are not.

In the modern terminology, "tanks" are heavy vehicles intended to fight other heavy vehicles. These are infantry support vehicles, not intended to go after tanks but to support infantry in their mission.

To use WWII terminology, today's tanks are "Tank Destroyers", and these are "tanks". The M10 was a "Tank Destroyer", with the mission to go after German tanks. The M4 Sherman was primarily to support infantry. A lot of Sherman's did indeed engage in tank battles, but that was not their mission. If given a choice, a Sherman would withdraw when meeting a "German Tank" and call in the Destroyers. They could do it, but not well as that was never really their mission.

And while the MPF can not be "air dropped" like the older but similar vehicles, it can still be air lifted by a C-130. But this is much more akin to an up-armored M2 Bradley than a light tank of past eras. Because in reality almost nobody uses "light tanks" anymore, other than smaller third world militaries who use half century old relics of other nations.

Tank:



Tank Destroyer:



FYI, the tank behind the M10 is a late war M4A3. You can tell that by how the barrel meets with the turret. That was from lessons learned during the war, and put into later models starting in late 1944. By the end of the war and after a great many modifications including a more powerful 75 or 76mm gun, thicker and improved angles on the armor, superior ammunition storage, and more powerful diesel engines. Unlike the earlier models which had gasoline engines, earning them the nickname of "Ronson" (after a cigarette lighter company of the time that used the slogan "lights up the first time, every time"). But seeing how the gun meets the turret is an easy way to show if an M4 is an early or late war model.

Military equipment is classified after the mission and not what it looks like. That is why an LPH is not a "carrier", an IFV is not a "tank", and the F-117 was not a "fighter".

 

Light tanks are useless.

 

Doesn't that depend on how they are used?

 

The pic in the OP just looks like a lighter version of 1980's era self-propelled artillery. Putting a 105 on a turret doesn't really change its function as mobile artillery for infantry support.

 

Not as an air transportable infantry support platform.

Hence, the Army is not calling them "tanks", that is not their role at all.

 

If they can't carry infantry troops, then they're useless.

We've been through the "infantry tank" and "tank destroyer" thing during WW2. No need to repeat history.

Artillery and aircraft can support infantry. Direct fire platforms that can't go head-to-head with enemy armor, or enemy anti-armor weapons are rolling coffins.

 

Right.

Exactly how many enemies have we faced since 2003 that used tanks?

Yet how many of those enemies used technicals or heavy bunkers?

 

Not if employed properly.

 

The only proper way to deploy them is to employ indirect fire from miles away, out of the range of enemy armor.. This platform can't do that.

 

How many used anti-armor weapons?

How can you predict we'll never be in a war with a mechanized army again?

This is going backwards in armored warfare doctrine and it'll get soldiers killed.

 

A hell of a lot, actually.



Do you even know what a "technical" is?

What in the hell does that even mean? These are not made to go off chasing after tanks. They are made to support the infantry.

And once again, what in the hell does this even mean? These are not designed to take part with an Armored unit, they are made to support the infantry.

Do you even know what you are talking about? Because it seems you really have no clue at all.

 

105's were first used on SP arty; they already have indirect fire capabilities, and were often used in the same battalion units as the SP 150's, at least in the 2nd Armored they were in the 1980's. It was not originally used on tanks but as artillery' the Abrams used them for a while but then went with the 120 mm, iirc.


https://www.google.com/search?source=univ&tbm=isch&q=105mm+self-propelled+artillery&client=firefox-b-1-d&fir=hjxW4zTcukRfRM%2CtvPTV4BbQu2mEM%2C_%3ByehEXS7yxVNnFM%2CprnLQs_Ol_s0zM%2C_%3BXipUX2CN5S-O1M%2C2-g11ZuL92qD3M%2C_%3B9swYz0TGvT4W-M%2Cox7N0mlwLe4rUM%2C_%3BMcQbEacfburiIM%2CuYtr4ftjGwQzDM%2C_%3BVqkiaNDZA9WmzM%2CUNTfVP9V8O-BOM%2C_%3BrP_ypwn7BilQiM%2CqZM6PUNMsuxjDM%2C_%3BPPNgHHD8EyI-MM%2CXTPhU484ZzhVYM%2C_%3BGv7ywlJmrPkXoM%2CR4wwNn1rhmWNtM%2C_%3Bvrh0vi53VyuyWM%2Ch0lgXXdy2G1JCM%2C_&usg=AI4_-kRgi_YyQMdXr7HLqMnBrnxuwWV_SA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj3rJuWtd34AhVVnGoFHew4AQcQjJkEegQIAxAC&biw=1600&bih=719&dpr=1


There were also some 105 mm recoilless rifles, and the Israelis up-gunned some Shermans in the 1967 war with French 105's.

 

This platform isn't designed for indirect fire. I understand that tanks are capable of indirect fire, but it's purely an ad hoc mission for the platform.

 

Of course not, it is not artillery. Nor is it a tank. It is for Infantry Support.

Armored Vehicles, bunkers, machine gun nests, technicals, things like that.

Any infantry unit from Company level on up has its own indirect fire. Be it 60 or 81mm mortars at the Company and Battalion level, all the way up to the artillery of a Brigade or Division level. This is never intended to be taking that role. Consider it more of the original role of tanks during WWI.

Purely infantry support.

Yes, we can do many of those roles now with Javelin. But at 50 pounds each, a 2 man Javelin team only goes into combat with 2 of them. That means they can knock out 1 or 2 targets, then have to pull back to get more ordinance. This would not have that issue, as it would likely have at least 50 rounds in the magazine (I assume more, but have seen no stats on that so 50 is a good "educated guess" for a minimum).

It is also replacing the recently retired M1128 Stryker Mobile Gun System. Which was wheeled, and much more lightly armored. But in many ways it is similar, and nobody ever confused that with an anti-tank system. Or thought it would go running around trying to do indirect fire or engaging actual tanks. Of course, it also had wheels and not tracks.



Oh, and even this platform (or any other) could do indirect fire. There is nothing magical in that, it is just a matter of training, math, and observers to help them redirect fire. We were doing that as early as the Korean War with our tanks. But I could see that being done only say in a firebase, which would essentially be their laager when not on the move.

You have to realize, many of the current (and future) changes in the military are going to be having the effect of removing tanks from Infantry units. Most particularly the Marine Corps. This means that unless those kinds of units can "borrow" them from an armored unit, they will not have any. We already have some pretty good "tank killers" at that level, including things like Copperhead, TOW, and JAVELIN. But what tends to be lacking is anything with more armor than an APC to give them direct fire and cover in an advance against static targets. And it is a huge waste of logistical assets if each time they need a bunker busted open or a heavy technical destroyed, they have to call in and wait for tanks that belong to somebody else to arrive.

This gives Regimental-Brigade sized units that capability.

You have to realize, I spent a decade as a "Grunt", primarily at the Battalion level, but also sometimes at the Regimental level. And as such, I am entirely looking at it in the role it is intended. Not anti-tank, not indirect fire, those units already have assets in place that can do that. But what they lack is anything to do the roles I just described.

 

'ad hoc' happens a lot in the field; look what the Germans did with the 88, designed for anti-aircraft defense but was used as anti-armor very successfully.

 

Well it certainly looks cool, but I bet every time they send one of these in, the guys are gonna be thinking 'awe, why didn't they send us an abrams?'

 

~ Joe Biden said all military vehicles should be solar/battery powered by 2024 ...

 

Maybe because they can't send an M1 tank on a C-130.

 

It does happen a lot, but ad hoc weapons systems aren't a realistic policy.

The German 88 had anti-armor sights and anti-aircraft sights. There was nothing ad hoc, or field expedient about it's use as an anti-armor weapon.

A tank doesn't have any kind of fire control system for employing indirect fire.

 

looks good, I was in when they went from the Sheridan to the M60

 

And once again, you are just throwing out random talking points, and not actually discussing the system or the use for it.

 

Actually, I am discussing the use of the system.

I'll say it again: light tanks are useless because they can't go head-to-head with enemy tanks and tanks aren't indirect fire platforms. The U.S. military has already learned this lesson in WW2 and Korea.

The MPF would be more useful if it was able to elevate it's gun tube to 70° - 80° and give it the ability to provide fire support without getting within range of enemy armor.

 

Those 'anti-armor sights' came along quite a bit later, after the guns proved themselves many times over.

 

But, they had them. The MPF can't elevate enough to engage indirect fire