- Reaction score
- 10,583
- Points
- 1,160
Yup. I wasn't blaming you. I just thought the article might be off base.
When I looked at the photos in the first article I thought I saw a typical tank back deck on the tank which simply can't work with a personnel carrier of any type (unless you have them dismount from the front). so I looked for other articles and they didn't talk about common chassis.
You're right - and I agree - you can't tell commonality from a few pictures. The Leo chassis and the PzH 2000's are frequently touted as being the same chassis, just reversed back to front. They're actually a bit different but it's always possible that's what we're seeing here.
I've always been of the view that one should have a common tracked chassis for one's tank, IFV and SP (and related admin vehicles). That's hard to do when you look at weight differences and the need for a more powerful engine on a tank, in general (unless you go the middle weight, lowered armour route). If nothing else, needless fuel consumption becomes an issue.
I wasn't too fond of Booker. It's just asking to be used as a tank. Bill Owen suggests a cavalry model that uses lighter medium-like AFVs with a 105 or 120 as the "heavy cavalry" component of an army but stresses that "you can't use them like tanks." There's a cost reason for going to "mediums." But, "mediums" may make a decent tank destroyer during a defensive phase operation, but you loose out on offensive capability that can't be replaced well by other things in the inventory. I can see a "medium" as a direct-fire support vehicle to a predominantly infantry-based force (like an infantry division) but even there, much of a "medium" tanks role, in the defence, can now be performed just as well with a Javelin or other lighter weapons. In the offense . . . ???
I still see a role (nay a need) for a "heavy" tank (although maybe 10-15 tons lighter would be nice) together with a heavier IFV (for extra armour and to share a common power plant). Whether the "tank" goes to a front engine or the IFV goes to a reversed tank chassis is immaterial to me - that's an engineering issue and may be decided by something as mundane as heat/exhaust shimmer from the front engine of a front-engine tank creating issues for the tanks optics/sensors. But you need a tank to do offensive tanky things and not just a tank destroyer/direct fire support things.
I'm looking forward to more info on these Chinese vehicles to see if there is something worth copying here.
Actually, isn't that the reverse of the pre-war British plan? IIRC the Matilda was the infantry support tank and it was more heavily protected than the cavalry's cruisers.
