Canada's tanks

[KevinB]

And a couple of other interesting tidbits from the article:

The M10 hull is at least common with the GDLS XM-30 MICV variant.

 

[Kirkhill]

You wonder why I kept railing against it…

It flew in the face of our doctrine and the original requirements.

You mean it didn't fly.

At least the Stryker delivered an airportable cannon.

 

[KevinB]

You mean it didn't fly.

It has a lot more issues than that as far a MPFPV goes for Light Infantry.

At least the Stryker delivered an airportable cannon.

I still firmly believe the Bison and LAV-25 (LAV 2.0 family) are the best options for a Medium force to support Light Operations.
The LAV-25 is pretty much the largest WAPC that can be moved by the C-130.

When you get beyond those weights, then IMHO you should get into tracks.

The LAV 6.0 series (which included the current Double V Hull Stryker variants) is too large and heavy for C-130 movement. While we have a very large fleet of C-17's and still have some C-5's, the bulk of theatre tactical airlift is still the Hercules - so it makes sense to have Hercules compatible vehicles for those roles.

US Army doctrine for Light forces has them for Complex Terrain, and QRF purposes - both of which generally rule out heavy large vehicles.

 

[Kirkhill]

Way back when the earth was cooling and dinosaurs roamed I found out about an Israeli gun which I have mentioned before: the Israeli Military Industries 60mm High Velocity Medium Support gun. IMI developed it in conjunction with Oto-Melara and created a turreted version with a auto-loader comparable to the Bofors 40 system. It was prototyped in three versions - single shot, 2x3 round clips and 4x7 round clips. It fired two rounds, HE and APFSDS and had equivalent penetrating power to the RO 105mm L7 APDS of the day. 120mm RHA at 60 at 2000 m. The gun used a 76mm case necked down to 60mm to launch a 17mm penetrator of 2.9 kg.

The rounds were able to penetrate the armor of a T-62 from any angle as well as the side armor (15–79 millimetres (0.59–3.11 in) thick) of two T-62s arranged side-by-side at 2,000 metres (2,187 yd) and was highly accurate at distances of over 2,500 metres (2,734 yd)

The gun was trialled on a bunch of vehicles including the Piranha 6x6 (known to Canadians as the Cougar/Grizzly) and the Centauro 8x8.

The gun features a barrel with a bore of 60 millimetres (2.36 in) and a length of 70 calibers (4.2 metres), with a fume extractor approximately halfway down its length. The barrel is fabricated using the autofrettage method to allow the wall to be thin but extremely strong. A hydro-spring recoil system employs a spring surrounding the breach-end of the barrel which is protected by a shroud and a truncated rubber sleeve, allowing quick barrel changes as the gun and recoil system can be removed/installed as a single unit.

In my World of Tanks playground I would have loved to have seen the Stryker MGS with the 105 swapped out for this 60 mm. Lower recoil forces and larger magazine capacities, potentially with a HESH round and a Bofors 3P modeled on the 57mm round issued at the original scale of issue found in the Stryker Battalions.




Fun and Games time?

Stryker/Bisons with the XM914 30/113 Bushmasterr (3 per platoon) and one EOS Slinger C-UAS turret with the same gun.
MGS platoon with the 60mm HVMS instead of the 105mm L7
Mortar Section with the NEMO 120 / C3 81mm

And a battalion Overwatch Platoon armed with a mix of Brimstones and APKWS 70s.
UAVs for all.

LAMs provided by the CS artillery.

 

[Kirkhill]

I wonder if this feed system could be cut down a bit to comply with a Bison/Stryker vehicle limitations.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Way back when the earth was cooling and dinosaurs roamed I found out about an Israeli gun which I have mentioned before: the Israeli Military Industries 60mm High Velocity Medium Support gun. IMI developed it in conjunction with Oto-Melara and created a turreted version with a auto-loader comparable to the Bofors 40 system. It was prototyped in three versions - single shot, 2x3 round clips and 4x7 round clips. It fired two rounds, HE and APFSDS and had equivalent penetrating power to the RO 105mm L7 APDS of the day. 120mm RHA at 60 at 2000 m. The gun used a 76mm case necked down to 60mm to launch a 17mm penetrator of 2.9 kg.



The gun was trialled on a bunch of vehicles including the Piranha 6x6 (known to Canadians as the Cougar/Grizzly) and the Centauro 8x8.

View attachment 92986



In my World of Tanks playground I would have loved to have seen the Stryker MGS with the 105 swapped out for this 60 mm. Lower recoil forces and larger magazine capacities, potentially with a HESH round and a Bofors 3P modeled on the 57mm round issued at the original scale of issue found in the Stryker Battalions.

View attachment 92987


Fun and Games time?

Stryker/Bisons with the XM914 30/113 Bushmasterr (3 per platoon) and one EOS Slinger C-UAS turret with the same gun.
MGS platoon with the 60mm HVMS instead of the 105mm L7
Mortar Section with the NEMO 120 / C3 81mm

And a battalion Overwatch Platoon armed with a mix of Brimstones and APKWS 70s.
UAVs for all.

LAMs provided by the CS artillery.

My favorite was the RDF 75 / HTVL.
Still think it's a workable system, given improvements in both metallurgy and propellants.

 

[Genetk44]

The Army made a tank it doesn’t need and can’t use. Now it’s figuring out what to do with it.

The M10 Booker busted its requirements from the beginning. It’s a case study in how Army procurement wants to change.

www.defenseone.com

roughly 38–42 tonnes (37–41 long tons; 42–46 short tons)

[th]
Mass

[/th]​

From Wikipedia M10 entry.

C-130 load max 20.4 tonnes delivered to a runway.

Airdroppable - the Sheridan was airdroppable and weighed 15.24 tonnes.

CVRT Scorpion - 8.1 tonnes (two per C130). Available with a 90 mm cannon.

 

[Kirkhill]

My favorite was the RDF 75 / HTVL.
Still think it's a workable system, given improvements in both metallurgy and propellants.

I remember that one. Also impressive.

 

[KevinB]

I remember that one. Also impressive.

Missiles tended to put the medium cal HV guns out of business.
Pretty much anything you want to/can hit with the HV guns can be hit further away with a missile.

Honestly a stabilized 84mm Carl G turret would be better for anti-bunker/structure work, and you could have an under armor relatable Javelin as well that would give you both options in a smaller turret

 

[GK .Dundas]

Missiles tended to put the medium cal HV guns out of business.
Pretty much anything you want to/can hit with the HV guns can be hit further away with a missile.

Honestly a stabilized 84mm Carl G turret would be better for anti-bunker/structure work, and you could have an under armor relatable Javelin as well that would give you both options in a smaller turret

I'm looking at it as a recce vehicle just enough firepower to get you out of a situation not enough not to try anything stupid.
Low silhouette enough speed to get you out of trouble and very important in my eyes tracks.

 

[KevinB]

I'm looking at it as a recce vehicle just enough firepower to get you out of a situation not enough not to try anything stupid.
Low silhouette enough speed to get you out of trouble and very important in my eyes tracks.

SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar, not search and rescue), UGV’s and UAS have put a major crimp into the Armored Recce concept.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Honestly a stabilized 84mm Carl G turret would be better for anti-bunker/structure work, and you could have an under armor relatable Javelin as well that would give you both options in a smaller turret

So something like the bastard lovechild of a wiesel 1 and a scorpion?

 

[ueo]

I'm looking at it as a recce vehicle just enough firepower to get you out of a situation not enough not to try anything stupid.
Low silhouette enough speed to get you out of trouble and very important in my eyes tracks.

The Ferret lives!

 

[Kirkhill]

SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar, not search and rescue), UGV’s and UAS have put a major crimp into the Armored Recce concept.

The Ferret lives!

Maybeeee.

Russia forming motorbike columns to escape Ukraine’s drones

Soldiers practise offensive and defensive combat on dirt bikes after Russia lost high numbers of armoured vehicles in 2024

www.telegraph.co.uk

https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/27/europe/russian-military-motorbikes-ukraine-drones-intl/index.html

Vladimir Putin's 'motorbike army' being blown to pieces on Ukraine frontline

Russian soldiers sent to try and make advances using motorbikes in the fronline with Ukraine have been blown to pieces in disturbing new video footage of drone strikes

www.mirror.co.uk

...

I think the counter to "light aircraft" kamikaze squadrons is lots of light anti-aircraft artillery - both guns and missiles. I don't think you can outrun, or out-armour, drones.

...

I also think that the ARES/RDF-Lt and the HVMS 60 (which was trialled by Poland relatively recently and considered for its domestic IFVs) were killed by two things: The Conventional Forces in Europe downsizing with the end of the Cold War and; The reluctance of the US Army to add new ammunition stocks when it had large stocks of 105 that were made redundant when the Abrams upgunned to 120.

....

While I can see the utility of an 81/84mm round, perhaps launched from something like the Hotchkiss 60mm used on some Panhards I like the mix of 30x113 for wheeled platoons and something in the 57-60mm range for a medium support, exploiting the Naval Arsenal.

Add in the 70mm missile (which was originally an anti-air munition and which formed the basis of the Stinger) and you have a solid base for an anti-air coverage which can be effective against a broad range of surface targets.

The 57mm has an effective range of 8.5 km (equivalent to a VSHORAD missile like Stinger and Starstreak) and a maximum range of 17 km at 45 elevation. The 3P round is effective against aircraft out to 12 km. If the HVMS 60 barrel and round could be added to the mix then you would have a very effective ADATS system capable of covering a battalion area of interest.

 

[KevinB]

I think the counter to "light aircraft" kamikaze squadrons is lots of light anti-aircraft artillery - both guns and missiles. I don't think you can outrun, or out-armour, drones.

I would also add DE systems.

...

I also think that the ARES/RDF-Lt and the HVMS 60 (which was trialled by Poland relatively recently and considered for its domestic IFVs) were killed by two things: The Conventional Forces in Europe downsizing with the end of the Cold War and; The reluctance of the US Army to add new ammunition stocks when it had large stocks of 105 that were made redundant when the Abrams upgunned to 120.

Agreed

....

While I can see the utility of an 81/84mm round, perhaps launched from something like the Hotchkiss 60mm used on some Panhards I like the mix of 30x113 for wheeled platoons and something in the 57-60mm range for a medium support, exploiting the Naval Arsenal.

I used the 84mm as there are a lot of Carl G's around, and ammo is available, as for an anti-material/anti-structure system you don't need a HV gun. It is a low velocity system that could be put even on MRZR's

The Naval guns are a non starter on light vehicles - the 57mm would require a tank like vehicle to be able to be used effectively, or else you are in to a lower pressure system, that takes away all commonality, so why bother.

I'm not significantly against the 30x113, but an AD FCS system is significantly more expensive than a standard Ground FCS

Add in the 70mm missile (which was originally an anti-air munition and which formed the basis of the Stinger) and you have a solid base for an anti-air coverage which can be effective against a broad range of surface targets.

The 57mm has an effective range of 8.5 km (equivalent to a VSHORAD missile like Stinger and Starstreak) and a maximum range of 17 km at 45 elevation. The 3P round is effective against aircraft out to 12 km. If the HVMS 60 barrel and round could be added to the mix then you would have a very effective ADATS system capable of covering a battalion area of interest.

ADATS and MMEV died for a reason.
The 57mm isn't going to be able to be put on a LAV, and I am honestly not sure if the Leo 2 hull would support it being used effectively.

 

[FJAG]

ADATS and MMEV died for a reason.

Yes they did but it had little to do with a failure of concept. There are numerous ADATS/MMEV equivalents in service around the world.

The 57mm isn't going to be able to be put on a LAV, and I am honestly not sure if the Leo 2 hull would support it being used effectively.

Obviously not in the naval configuration set out above. OTOH, the WW2 six-pounder (a 57mm gun) was frequently mounted on vehicles both as an ersatz portee and as a main weapon system in everything from trucks to light tanks. The current 57/L70 is obviously a longer more powerful gun, but there is nothing there that recoil improvements can't handle. It seems to have a weight of around 14 tons (with 1,000 rounds), which could probably be reduced for a land configuration (while accepting some limitations in its reload functions). That sounds doable.

The question that I have is whether or not there is a capability gap in the current and future layered ground that you absolutely need a 57mm for. For air defence, a Skyranger 35 does 4 kms compared to the 8+km of the 57 but, unlike at sea where the visible horizon extends to maybe 8 to 10 kms depending on high up the gun is placed, on land the terrain frequently is much less than that. Is the juice worth the squeeze here? And bear in mind that I favour solutions that are generally cheaper per engagement than a missile.

But this is a tank thread. Once again, 35mms, and even 25mms, are defeating everything just short of an MBT (and in some cases including an MBT) The 120s will take on everything. Are we trying to design another "light tank" to put up against MBTs? - cruiser tanks to take on Tigers? I'm happy with the current 120mm and ATGM mix we have - what we need is to put some effort into LM development and incorporation for over-the-horizon precision attack capabilities.

 

[Kirkhill]

I would also add DE systems.

Agreed.

Agreed

Glad.

I used the 84mm as there are a lot of Carl G's around, and ammo is available, as for an anti-material/anti-structure system you don't need a HV gun. It is a low velocity system that could be put even on MRZR's

Also agreed. The reason I referenced the 81 is that it is also a ubiquitous round of similar carrying capacity and although it is a mortar round the Hotchkiss Brandt 60mm was a mortar that could be used in low angle direct fire and was popular on light vehicles like the Panhard and Timoney families (AML-60 - 5 to 6 tonnes). If I am being allowed to play around with the what-ifs then what if the CG-84, the 81mm mortar and the Brandt Gun-Mortar were melded? That could give you the Low Pressure solution you are looking for. I would note that Brandt also makes a rifled mortar in 120mm.

The Naval guns are a non starter on light vehicles - the 57mm would require a tank like vehicle to be able to be used effectively, or else you are in to a lower pressure system, that takes away all commonality, so why bother.

Yes. No. Maybe. I don't know. I'd like the opportunity to explore it.

The Bofors 40 is a naval system also employed on land.

The Germans created a 34 tonne 57mm prototype, contemporaneous with the twin 35 Gepard.

The Italians created a 46 tonne 76mm prototype, also contemporaneous with the Gepard, the Otomatic

Take another read of the 60mm HVMS system. It used a 76mm cartridge to drive a 57mm round, either an HE round or a saboted 17 mm APFSDS penetrator with enough umph to punch through a T62 (or two if they were parked side by side). That gun was mounted in the Cougar/Piranha (10.7 tonnes) and the M113 (10.9 tonnes). The autoloader was derived from the Bofors 40 (currently effectively employed by the Swedes on the CV9040) and the gun and recoil system were designed to manage the recoil from a high pressure round on a light vehicle. The test bed for the gun was the old towed 6 pdr anti-tank gun (wheels, trails and trunnions). 60mm HVMS - Wikipedia.

Poland tested the OtoMelara T60/70A on its BWP-2000 (30 tonne IFV). The turret, incorporating the IMI 60mm HVMS, was marketed by OtoMelara as the HitFist 60/70.



Also, your own studies are driving north to 50mm cannons for IFVs.

50x228mm Bushmaster® Chain Gun® | Northrop Grumman

The largest medium caliber chain gun we produce provides increased lethality, accuracy, and range for stationary and fire on the move capability.

www.northropgrumman.com

I'm not significantly against the 30x113, but an AD FCS system is significantly more expensive than a standard Ground FCS

I understand. That is why I proposed only one EOS Slinger per platoon and the other vehicles using the same main gun for commonality. I could even suggest one further possibility based on Common Engagement principles - when in convoy or collocated slave the other three guns in the platoon to the Slinger.

ADATS and MMEV died for a reason.

And seem to be resurrected as C-UAS systems that can also engage ground targets. What is MSHORAD but MMEV? How about all the missiles that are being converted to multi-target warheads and seekers so as to be effective against stationary and moving targets in and beyond line of sight?

ADATS died along with the rest of the Anti-Aircraft suite of arms for exactly the same reasons the rest of them did: hubris and lack of interest. Now we are resurrecting the concept, but with better and cheaper technology.

The 57mm isn't going to be able to be put on a LAV, and I am honestly not sure if the Leo 2 hull would support it being used effectively.

See above.





The technology is not the problem. The project didn't proceed because there was no perceived need with the "End of History".

 

[MilEME09]

meanwhile at GD, trying to drum up that medium CAV force, Though I think many of these turrets and options we could throw on the M10 hull for a tracked medium force.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes they did but it had little to do with a failure of concept. There are numerous ADATS/MMEV equivalents in service around the world.

Obviously not in the naval configuration set out above. OTOH, the WW2 six-pounder (a 57mm gun) was frequently mounted on vehicles both as an ersatz portee and as a main weapon system in everything from trucks to light tanks. The current 57/L70 is obviously a longer more powerful gun, but there is nothing there that recoil improvements can't handle. It seems to have a weight of around 14 tons (with 1,000 rounds), which could probably be reduced for a land configuration (while accepting some limitations in its reload functions). That sounds doable.

Thumbs up.

The question that I have is whether or not there is a capability gap in the current and future layered ground that you absolutely need a 57mm for. For air defence, a Skyranger 35 does 4 kms compared to the 8+km of the 57 but, unlike at sea where the visible horizon extends to maybe 8 to 10 kms depending on high up the gun is placed, on land the terrain frequently is much less than that. Is the juice worth the squeeze here? And bear in mind that I favour solutions that are generally cheaper per engagement than a missile.

Set your mind back on your days at Shilo and Suffield and ask what the horizon was then.

Bofors created a land version of the 57 that was adopted by the Swedes, Belgians and Russians.
NORINCO also has this

But this is a tank thread. Once again, 35mms, and even 25mms, are defeating everything just short of an MBT (and in some cases including an MBT) The 120s will take on everything. Are we trying to design another "light tank" to put up against MBTs? - cruiser tanks to take on Tigers? I'm happy with the current 120mm and ATGM mix we have - what we need is to put some effort into LM development and incorporation for over-the-horizon precision attack capabilities.

I know that multi-purpose weapons are not fashionable on this board. Except when talking about the infantry, the mortar, the howitzer and the CG-84.

Which is going to be more commonly engaged? Drones? Or Tanks? And as much as I am a big fan of missiles bullets are still cheaper. As a gunner of my ken keeps reminding me.

 

[Kirkhill]

meanwhile at GD, trying to drum up that medium CAV force, Though I think many of these turrets and options we could throw on the M10 hull for a tracked medium force.

View attachment 93007

30 tonnes is not Medium in my opinion. That is heavy. As evidenced by the inability of the bridges at Fort Bragg to support the M10. 60 to 70 tonnes is Super Heavy.

15 tonnes is the upper limit of medium.

5-7 tonnes is, again in my opinion, the upper limit of light.