Canada's tanks

[Kirkhill]

Also @FJAG,

Further to the multi-functional argument. The 76mm and 57mm guns are both used by navies. They are selected by navies because they are multi-purpose guns. Their gunners train to engage aircraft, moving targets on the surface and beyond visual range targets on land. Same gunners. Same gun. And with smaller magazines than are available to their landlubber cousins.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Also @FJAG,

Further to the multi-functional argument. The 76mm and 57mm guns are both used by navies. They are selected by navies because they are multi-purpose guns. Their gunners train to engage aircraft, moving targets on the surface and beyond visual range targets on land. Same gunners. Same gun. And with smaller magazines than are available to their landlubber cousins.

But what was the likelihood that they would ever be faced with surface and aerial threats simultaneously?

 

[PrairieFella]

I am really impressed by your faith in the tank, both in its capabilities and its availability.

Cheers.

As to the Dart launcher? The Darts are cheaper and reload faster.

As a crewman for over a decade, I have an opinion or two on AFVs.

Define cheaper. The round itself sure. The crew, hull, FCS and inevitable casualties by trying to use vehicles far too light and underarmoured to be assaulting as assault guns? Nevermind the fact that that cost is compunded by being an orphan fleet globally? Maybe not.

 

[KevinB]

Also @FJAG,

Further to the multi-functional argument. The 76mm and 57mm guns are both used by navies. They are selected by navies because they are multi-purpose guns. Their gunners train to engage aircraft, moving targets on the surface and beyond visual range targets on land. Same gunners. Same gun. And with smaller magazines than are available to their landlubber cousins.

A 3000+ tonne ship is a lot different than a 70t tank, or a 45t IFV, or let alone a few ton light vehicle.
The ship can have larger ammunition storage, a extremely effective FCS system, and doesn't notice the recoil.

 

[MilEME09]

perhaps we need something akin to what the plan was for the M8 AGS program for our cav units? a 16t tank bare bones, but additional up armour kits giving it that level 4+ protection after you fly it in theatre?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

At which point just use a tank. What the Israelis were doing out of necessity a half century + ago is irrelevant. What we need are tanks and some sort of divisional cavalry vehicles. My two cents are K2 and Jaguar, if we want tracked cav, AJAX or CV9035. What role does an orphan fleet of 60mm armed AFVs actually bring that a conventional tank doesn't? If it's supporting light forces, why commit light forces where enemy armour is expected? If the armour surprises you on the ground, what does a single role 60mm dart launcher bring to the table that a Spike LR (AT and Anti- Structure) with a 4km range doesn't?

Challenge with that is what happens when the local infrastructure won't support a MBT? That is why you see a number of countries staying with the light tank, they might have some MBT's for the lowlands, but have the light tanks to get up jungle/mountain tracks.

 

[KevinB]

Challenge with that is what happens when the local infrastructure won't support a MBT? That is why you see a number of countries staying with the light tank, they might have some MBT's for the lowlands, but have the light tanks to get up jungle/mountain tracks.

Generally unserious countries or countries that are solely looking at self-defense situation internally to their own country.

No one, these days actually thinks a light tank is viable in jungle or mountains really anywhere. Those people who still believe that have not accepted changes in warfare since World War II.

 

[KevinB]

perhaps we need something akin to what the plan was for the M8 AGS program for our cav units? a 16t tank bare bones, but additional up armour kits giving it that level 4+ protection after you fly it in theatre?

View attachment 93017View attachment 93018

Please for the love of God no!

Even the newest Light Weight tanks are in the 50t range. That is before all the add ons, to deal with the problem of UAS and UAS dropped munitions, etc

 

[PrairieFella]

Challenge with that is what happens when the local infrastructure won't support a MBT? That is why you see a number of countries staying with the light tank, they might have some MBT's for the lowlands, but have the light tanks to get up jungle/mountain tracks.

I like K2 for that purpose. At the point those can't be supported, ATGM will handle any enemy armour handedly. They would have next to no mobility anyways since their tanks would have the same constraints as ours.

 

[MilEME09]

Please for the love of God no!

Even the newest Light Weight tanks are in the 50t range. That is before all the add ons, to deal with the problem of UAS and UAS dropped munitions, etc

In your opinion is a tank less than 50t a dead concept?

 

[KevinB]

In your opinion is a tank less than 50t a dead concept?

Maybe 45t.

Heck many IFV’s are getting in that range now too.

The tank requires firepower, mobility and protection. At the current technology levels you ended up with NATO 70t MBT’s that can clobber Russian tanks with relative impunity.

However all the survivability built into them has made them heavier than ideal from a transport standpoint, and some AO’s, but also now having to add APS, Anti-Drone cages etc is putting them over the weight that their chassis can carry, and transports and infrastructure struggles.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Please for the love of God no!

Even the newest Light Weight tanks are in the 50t range. That is before all the add ons, to deal with the problem of UAS and UAS dropped munitions, etc

Perhaps a stupid question/stance. But to me 50 tonnes isn't a "light" tank, it's a main battle tank at the lighter end of the MBT spectrum.

When I see the M8, or think about a 12-16t, 3 man crew vehicle designed from the ground up to balance and optimize the triangle (no compromizes or wasted space), I dont think of a vehicle trying to do an MBT's job but worse, I think of one trying to do a JLTV HGC's, but better.

 

[FJAG]

A 3000+ tonne ship is a lot different than a 70t tank, or a 45t IFV, or let alone a few ton light vehicle.
The ship can have larger ammunition storage, a extremely effective FCS system, and doesn't notice the recoil.

@Kirkhill and to add to that, the gun goes where the ship goes. A brigade is spread out over a large area of varied terrain with different threats emerging from different sectors.

Your desire to double-hat stuff is akin to having a tank squadron assault an objective and then, in the last fifty yards, they all stop, dismount and clear the slit trenches with their pistols. Yeah, it can be done but why on earth would you? If you're engaged in one task you become pretty much ineffective at the other.

 

[Underway]

A 3000+ tonne ship is a lot different than a 70t tank, or a 45t IFV, or let alone a few ton light vehicle.
The ship can have larger ammunition storage, a extremely effective FCS system, and doesn't notice the recoil.

Our computing power is astronomical comparatively. We track our own rounds and the system automatically adjusts the fire control solution for us based on their performance. Wind, weather, air pressure, gun heat, muzzle velocity changes, ships pitch, roll, yaw, course, speed and type of round information is all fed into the solution. The rounds are programable and designed to work in 10 round bursts. (which come out in about 4-5 seconds).

So yah, our guns are better one for one. Army's advantage is you can get about 400 IFV for the price of a single warship.

 

[FJAG]

I always used to chuckle about the Napoleonic wars and the field artillery of the day which, in battles, was counted in the dozens of batteries. At Waterloo, Wellington had 156 guns.

OTOH, Nelson's first-rate ship, Victory, alone had 121 guns and he had 3 first rates, 4 second rates and 20 third rates and a few lesser ships for a total of 2,148 guns, almost 14 times what Wellington had.

Sea power!

 

[KevinB]

Perhaps a stupid question/stance. But to me 50 tonnes isn't a "light" tank, it's a main battle tank at the lighter end of the MBT spectrum.

When I see the M8, or think about a 12-16t, 3 man crew vehicle designed from the ground up to balance and optimize the triangle (no compromizes or wasted space), I dont think of a vehicle trying to do an MBT's job but worse, I think of one trying to do a JLTV HGC's, but better.

I think your balance was for around 70 years ago.

The JLTV was a last war vehicle it got designed for COIN. It’s not a Light vehicle.

But in the same vein, the M8 is one of those idiot systems like the M551 Sheridan and M10 Booker. If you put a tank even a ‘light’ tank somewhere, your formation isn’t light anymore, and someone wants to use it as a tank.

 

[Kirkhill]

@Kirkhill and to add to that, the gun goes where the ship goes. A brigade is spread out over a large area of varied terrain with different threats emerging from different sectors.

Your desire to double-hat stuff is akin to having a tank squadron assault an objective and then, in the last fifty yards, they all stop, dismount and clear the slit trenches with their pistols. Yeah, it can be done but why on earth would you? If you're engaged in one task you become pretty much ineffective at the other.

No.

My assertion is that there is advantage in having one weapon that can be used in multiple actions by various crews. Either a crew can be dedicated to a particular style of combat with the system or the crew can be tasked, assuming training, to a particular role at the beginning of an operation. Simplest example is using the C6 as an LMG Or in the SF role as an artillery surrogate.

Not quite the same as dismounted tankers wielding cups of hot soup.

....

As to the Navy. It has more rounds on the gun but it is considerably harder to replenish those mags.

And, to your point about one ship, many threats, those gunners have to switch between threats on the enemy's timetable.

They do have to switch from missiles, to helicopters, to jets, to ships, to boats, to surface and aerial swarms, at high and low altitude, at distance and in knife fighting range.

...

I continue to hold the 88mm as an exemplary model for a multi purpose weapon.

 

[FJAG]

I continue to hold the 88mm as an exemplary model for a multi purpose weapon.

Even the 8.8cm Flak (anti-aircraft gun in several versions) had limitations. In the air defence role it needed a "fire control computer", radar, and or range finder/predictor to properly orient on aircraft targets. In the ground role it was as high as a barn needed careful positioning to be effective and protected. Early on that protection came from its superior range but that faded with time. The 8.8cm Flak led to the development of the highly efficient high velocity ammunition to be used in several versions of armoured vehicles like the Tiger, Tiger 2, Nashorn, Jagdpanther, and the 8.8cm Pak 43 (anti-tank gun). None of these could be used in the air defence role.

The 8.8cm Flak wasn't the only gun that early on had dual roles. The American 90mm and the Brit 3.7 inch (94mm) QF AA gun all had the same characteristics - a high velocity flat trajectory round that could outshoot the early anti-tank guns (40mm 2 pdr, 37mm US) and 57mm 6 pdr). The 90mm found a place in the M36 tank destroyer and in various versions in post war tanks. The 3.7 inch didn't cross over to anti-armour because of the existence of the already very good 17 pdr (76.2mm). It was experimented with in the ground role as the 32 pdr anti-tank gun.

I think that you have to look at the 8.8cm Flak used in the anti-armour role as an emergency response to the inadequacy of early version German anti-tank guns (the 3.7cm, 5.0cm) until the arrival of the 7.5cm, in large quantities, and purpose built 8.8cm anti-tank guns. In the latter part of the war the original Flak 8.8s were employed mostly their anti-air role as Germany was swamped by tactical and strategic bombing campaigns. The dreaded "88s" that the allies encountered when they hit Europe were by that time mostly purpose built 8.8cm Pak versions and often the mistaken, but ubiquitous, 7.5 cm Paks.

The point here is that while the 8.8cm Flak initially served well in the ground role, it was eased out of the dual role (albeit never completely) as better more purpose built systems came on line.

It's the same for modern weapon systems. Air defence systems for the most part are highly networked and integrated systems that depend on a number of ancillary equipment such as radars and computer systems that deconflict weapon effects from friendly air resources. Anti-armour systems, not so much. They're basically cheaper, are probably better served with a separate vehicle configuration, and that's even before you get to the very different tactical deployment of the systems and the skill sets required of their crews.

 

[KevinB]

NVM @FJAG beat me to the punch

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The 8.8cm was only ever truly used in an emergency during the Spanish Civil War, where they had to stop Soviet supplied T-26's, which they were able to do with the HE rounds they had. But the Germans learned the lessons and had 8.8cm AP rounds at the battle of Arras. Otherwise they might have not done as well against the Matilda II

A few time the Brits used their 3.7" as AT guns, but mostly in desperate situations as the 3.7" was very much a AA gun with a much heavier carriage than the 8.8cm. Likely performed better in the AA role, but have never been able to confirm that point. The 8.8cm was also used on naval ships as well.