Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III

[kato]

The official term we're talking about is Battle Tanks and Heavy Armament Combat Vehicle:

A Battle Tank is any tracked or wheeled armoured vehicle with at least 16.5t weight and at least a 75mm direct-fire gun that does not fulfill a primary troop transport function.

A Heavy Armament Combat Vehicle is any armoured vehicle with at least 6.0t weight and at least a 75mm direct-fire gun that does not fulfill a primary troop transport function or, while wheeled or tracked, weighs more than 16.5t.

And yes, the 16.5t is not a typo. The weight differentiation at that point was chosen to include vehicles such as French (e.g. AMX-10RC) or Soviet (e.g. PT-76) light recce tanks as HACVs while firmly setting traditional "light tanks" and "medium tanks" (such as the 22t M41 Walker Bulldog or the 26t T-34/76) in the Battle Tank category. The limit was set at around the weight of a ASU-85.
A hover vehicle of any weight above 6t with at least a 75mm gun is always classified as a HACV btw.

Joint definition by NATO and Warsaw Pact under the CFE treaty.

[sadlerbw]

Heavy? Light? All I want to know is, could you do this with it?



or this?

[Cannonshop]

Heavy? Light? All I want to know is, could you do this with it?



or this?

I guess the only questions I'd have, are "can it take a hit when you do that?"  when the Stryker was adopted, they had to get add-on packs to get the armor up to where the contract spec said it should be-which made both those activities you've pictured impossible with it installed.

[DoctorMonkey]

I guess the only questions I'd have, are "can it take a hit when you do that?"  when the Stryker was adopted, they had to get add-on packs to get the armor up to where the contract spec said it should be-which made both those activities you've pictured impossible with it installed.

That seems to be the problem - a vehicle is made light enough to deploy easily generally means it lacks the armour to withstand impacts from the sort of things that may be thrown/fired at them. This has only been exacerbated in the last decade and a half where the threat of IEDs/mines as well as the proliferation of RPGs has been shown which are hard for hard-kill active protection systems to protect against and impossible for soft-kill ones.


In many ways I think the direction of travel might have been better if the same solution as was reached with the Centurion (allegedly) that it may be better to improve the transportation assets to allow faster transportation of suitably heavy and armoured units rather than try to cut corners to fit the transport assets.


I do find the shift from tracks to wheels interesting though.

[Fat Guy]

Last week the Italian Leonardo group unveiled its upgrade for the M-60A3 in Bahrain, at the local international defense exhibition (BIDEC). The  upgrade is based exclusively on Italian subsystems. Notable changes include additional protection for the frontal arc (turret, hull, and skirts), 120/45 mm cannon and Hitrole Remotely controlled system replacing the commander’s HMG.

[Daryk]

Honestly, IEDs are too hard to defeat with armor alone.  It's just too easy to wire in yet another artillery shell (or 100kg of other explosives).  Soft kill is really your only option for those.

[sadlerbw]

I guess the only questions I'd have, are "can it take a hit when you do that?"  when the Stryker was adopted, they had to get add-on packs to get the armor up to where the contract spec said it should be-which made both those activities you've pictured impossible with it installed.

Oh absolutely. Didn’t mean to imply anything HAD to be air transportable, just that the weight limit for doing so is more of a meaningful difference than the bore of the gun, or whether it has wheels for deciding if an armored vehicle is light or not. Logistically speaking, once you are too heavy to be deployed by air, it makes no difference if you are 30t or 60t; your only option to get into hostile territory is to drive there on your own, or have a boat drop you off. You need a road (or at least fairly navigable terrain) or a nice, flat beach to get where someone doesn’t want you to be. If a helo can drag you around, your options are significantly greater.

However, as you pointed out, given the current limits of air transport and armor, that usually means a vehicle that isn’t all that well protected. Is it worth it to get the flexibility of air deployment? I can’t say for sure, but the answer is probably, “Sometimes.”

[Sabelkatten]

Hmm... Hypothetical question; how heavily armored can you make a vehicle and still keep the weight "air-droppable" (~15 tons?)?

If you make it as small as possible, two-man crew, keeping the top speed to just 30-40 kph and arm it with a MG plus and AGL.

Would it be possible to bring the armor up to the point where the enemy would need to bring heavy anti-armor weapons to take it out?

[glitterboy2098]

depends on the motive system (and speed) your using and the gun you mount, i'd suspect. and the type of armor plate your using. like any combat vehicle, it would be a balancing act between mobility, protection, and firepower.

one of the reasons that non-armor protections are catching on now. active defense systems liek Trophy, and Explosive Reactive Armor blocks can boost the protection against certain threats at a lower mass cost than just more armor.

[Kidd]

The US MPF will not be air droppable.

Friend of mine called it a "halal Magach" ::)

[Sharpnel]

Halal? Shouldn't that be 'kosher'?

[Cannonshop]

Halal? Shouldn't that be 'kosher'?

not if you're selling to the non-Israeli middle-east.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Hmm... Hypothetical question; how heavily armored can you make a vehicle and still keep the weight "air-droppable" (~15 tons?)?

For a C-130, the typical measure of a 'tactical transport' you've got clearance for a box 8'6" tall and 9 feet wide, which gives 5-6 inches on each side and the top as extra wiggle room.  That doesn't include any kind of drop-sled or whatever you park your vehicle on, I should note.  Lengthwise, 40 feet or 55 on the -30 extended model, so if you build stubby you can park two onboard.  Masswise, 22 tons is a very hard limit, so either you get two stumpy 20,000 pound vehicles or one big 42,000 pounder.

Something like the Sheridan does fit those criteria - just past 9 feet wide, 7'6" tall, not quite 21 feet long, and 17 tons.  You're gonna want spare weight to account for ammunition, gear, crew, fuel, and other such things, and I'm not kidding about that hard limit of 22 tons on the Hercules.  Then again, it's hard to call the Sheridan armored...

It comes down to how likely you are to encounter enemy armor or fixed hardened positions.  Do you go with a 90-105mm gun, with a primary focus of defeating tanks and bunkers, or do you go with a lighter autocannon like a 30mm for anything short of a tank, with a couple hellfires or TOWs for the occasional hard target?  How much armor protection do you want onboard - and how much active protection can you fit in that physical space? 

[Sharpnel]

But Magach is a Hebrew word and is used for Israeli updates to the M48/M60

[Cannonshop]

Hmm... Hypothetical question; how heavily armored can you make a vehicle and still keep the weight "air-droppable" (~15 tons?)?

If you make it as small as possible, two-man crew, keeping the top speed to just 30-40 kph and arm it with a MG plus and AGL.

Would it be possible to bring the armor up to the point where the enemy would need to bring heavy anti-armor weapons to take it out?

anything is air-droppable...once.

[Sharpnel]

anything is air-droppable...once.

giggle

[Kidd]

But Magach is a Hebrew word and is used for Israeli updates to the M48/M60

Exactly. A Muslim equivalent therefore would be a halal Magach :D think "kosher bacon" :D

[Sabelkatten]

For a C-130, the typical measure of a 'tactical transport' you've got clearance for a box 8'6" tall and 9 feet wide, which gives 5-6 inches on each side and the top as extra wiggle room.  That doesn't include any kind of drop-sled or whatever you park your vehicle on, I should note.  Lengthwise, 40 feet or 55 on the -30 extended model, so if you build stubby you can park two onboard.  Masswise, 22 tons is a very hard limit, so either you get two stumpy 20,000 pound vehicles or one big 42,000 pounder.

Something like the Sheridan does fit those criteria - just past 9 feet wide, 7'6" tall, not quite 21 feet long, and 17 tons.  You're gonna want spare weight to account for ammunition, gear, crew, fuel, and other such things, and I'm not kidding about that hard limit of 22 tons on the Hercules.  Then again, it's hard to call the Sheridan armored...

It comes down to how likely you are to encounter enemy armor or fixed hardened positions.  Do you go with a 90-105mm gun, with a primary focus of defeating tanks and bunkers, or do you go with a lighter autocannon like a 30mm for anything short of a tank, with a couple hellfires or TOWs for the occasional hard target?  How much armor protection do you want onboard - and how much active protection can you fit in that physical space?

I was just musing on the difficulty of transporting a heavily armored vehicle. Generally light AFVs (logically) put mobility and transport capacity/armament first. Which means they have to be pretty large and thus lightly armored to keep the weight in check.

So my idea was to make something about the size of a Wiesel but with much wider tracks and a bit larger engine. I guesstimate you could add about 5 tons of armor to the frame which would be quite thick given the small size.

Essentially a modern version of the old infantry tanks to "assault" towns or other places where you can expect to be ambushed.

[Feenix74]

Hmm, I am trying to figure out what the problem is?



A M1A2 being loaded into a C-17

You cannot parachute them or LAPES them but a C-17 can pretty much land on any airfield that a C-130 can. So just seize a small/medium GA airfield as your airhead and away you go  O0

[ANS Kamas P81]

a C-17 can pretty much land on any airfield that a C-130 can

Mmm, don't be so sure about that...

Hmm, I am trying to figure out what the problem is?
So just seize a small/medium GA airfield as your airhead and away you go  O0

Also, just because you can bring in one M1 by C-17 doesn't mean you can bring ENOUGH in.  Globemaster IIIs are big damn aircraft; your airport is going to fill up extremely fast with aircraft that are trying to offload cargo - which is going to take a while.  Then you have to clear your transports out and bring in new ones, each aircraft bringing one(1) M1 Abrams.

Good thing you won't need fuel or ammo!  Oh wait...

[Kidd]

You cannot parachute them or LAPES them but a C-17 can pretty much land on any airfield that a C-130 can. So just seize a small/medium GA airfield as your airhead and away you go  O0

That IS the problem - C-17s are expensive and rare. The UK has eight, the rest of NATO THREE.

A medium transport like the A400M, which is about half the size/capacity of a C-17, is a little more common, and that's what NATO has been working around: a single Puma IFV at basic STANAG Level 4 protection (14.5mm proof all-around) can fit in one A400M. A flight of 4 A400Ms can carry 3 Puma IFVs and armour kits to upgrade them to STANAG Level 6 (medium caliber AC proof all-around).

But put a 105mm gun on top of a Puma (as was suggested by some US military lobbyists) AND make it air-transportable by a medium airlifter? You are probably gonna have to thin the armour down even more, and that ain't gonna work. That ain't a medium tank.

Air-droppable, in the immortal words of the Book of Armaments, "is right out."

P.S. And not C-130s neither. Basic Strykers are C-130 transportable, the double-v-hull Strykers (enhanced IED survivability) not.

[kato]

So my idea was to make something about the size of a Wiesel but with much wider tracks and a bit larger engine. I guesstimate you could add about 5 tons of armor to the frame which would be quite thick given the small size.

A Wiesel is not built to carry any sort of armour. It's pretty much a - underpowered - car with some sheet metal slapped on it to the full extent that the frame allows without breaking down. You'd need to redesign the entire frame and suspension, basically a new vehicle. A Wiesel outsized to 7-8t weight probably would break down before you could roll it off an aircraft...

Successor model in Germany will likely be a 4x4 armoured vehicle either in the 7-8t or in the 10-12t region, armed with ATGM and/or a 40mm AGL, somewhat comparable to either Eagle IV/V or Fennek respectively; introduction around/after 2025. Design Armour would probably be STANAG 4569 Level 2 or 3, much like those named. Depends a bit on which new helicopters they'll buy.

You cannot parachute them or LAPES them but a C-17 can pretty much land on any airfield that a C-130 can.

Not with a M1 onboard.

[Weirdo]

And of course, there's the nontrivial task of doing all that offloading and mustering at a recently captured airbase, with the other guy doing his level best to shut down what is essentially a spawn point for main battle tanks. I wonder how many artillery shells you have to drop on a runway before it's no longer part of a C-17's comfort zone?

Let's just say there's a lot of reasons why even modern first-tier armies still march/drive for most of their movements.

[ANS Kamas P81]

I wonder how many artillery shells you have to drop on a runway before it's no longer part of a C-17's comfort zone?

He said one.

[chanman]

He said one.

You only need to hit one fully fueled air lifter on the runway to make one heck of a mess

[Charlie 6]

...I wonder how many artillery shells you have to drop on a runway before it's no longer part of a C-17's comfort zone?

Any hole is disruptive but most NATO fuzes are set to "super quick" detonation which means they will go off by hitting anything short of water density.  Unlike the shells that altered the landscape of Verdun today's rounds don't make much of a dent.  Moving earth that way is inherently ineffective and easily fixed with a quick setting concrete if you are trying to breakup an airfield.  Making a lot of holes is a pain to fix but blowing up aircraft, ordnance, or fuel has a bigger impact.  A case of "hit the right thing" vs. "hit anything".

Note, that doesn't make armor immune to artillery.  Armor and dirt are two different things.

[Feenix74]

Also, just because you can bring in one M1 by C-17 doesn't mean you can bring ENOUGH in.  Globemaster IIIs are big damn aircraft; your airport is going to fill up extremely fast with aircraft that are trying to offload cargo - which is going to take a while.  Then you have to clear your transports out and bring in new ones, each aircraft bringing one(1) M1 Abrams.

Good thing you won't need fuel or ammo!  Oh wait...

But those are exactly the same problem if you have a lighter airmobile Armoured Fighting Vehicle which is short of an M1 or another MBT. Ok you might get one in a C-130 or a A400M or even two into a C-17, but you will run into the same logistics issues at the airhead which make the M1 on a C-17 an issue. So back to my original question, what is the problem?

I.E. What is the scenario that you are planning for? What is the objective you are trying to achieve and what forces do you need to achieve them? Is it a contested airhead or an uncontested airhead? If contested, what are the OPFOR equipped with? Are the OPFOR insurgents armed with technicals, IED and RPGs? Are the OPFOR special forces armed with 50-cal anti-materiel rifles? Are the OPFOR conventional forces with MBTs and SP 155mm Arty?  How strong and long is the runway? How much air movement areas do you assume you will have to work with? What do you need to secure the airhead?

No point in designing a new hammer if the problem is a screw not a nail.

[DaveMac]

as Britain is only just getting around to replacing their 1960s CVR(T) not-a-light-tank-really-it's-just-like-a-tank-but-lighter they don't seem to be investing thought in a replacement for the Challenger 2

Won't be replacing Challenger II for decades

But are updating it

http://www.baesystems.com/en/product/challenger-2

[DoctorMonkey]

Won't be replacing Challenger II for decades

But are updating it

http://www.baesystems.com/en/product/challenger-2

Now that I've followed that link, do you think my Facebook targeted ads are going to get a bit more interesting? the last thing I have got slammed with is ads for those sunrise/SAD lamps. Now I might get offers on refurbished T-55s or a brand new Leopard 2A6?

[Luciora]

Sooo...pastrami?

Exactly. A Muslim equivalent therefore would be a halal Magach :D think "kosher bacon" :D