daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 47,558
- Points
- 1,160
unlimited ammo, in what reality?
Compared to what the light infantry can carry, tanks have unlimited coax

unlimited ammo, in what reality?
4000 in the Abrams. I thought the Leo2 had the same.Is it 880 in the can on a Leo 2? That’s what @KevinB is getting at. Obviously it’s not unlimited. It just represents substantially more sustained fire power than a section.
110%. It is an emergency evacuation shelter, and mainly as a rear egress route.Does that matter? Is it material to their understanding of how their Meekavs employed the small space they have? Because what it has is a small space meant primarily for ammunition storage that can - in extremis - be used to carry soldiers. It is not some tank / IFV hybrid. It’s a crawl space.
It’s 4000 in the Leo, but that’s for both and I believe the bin itself is only 4 belts but I could t find details and am probably wrong.4000 in the Abrams. I thought the Leo2 had the same.
110%. It is an emergency evacuation shelter, and mainly as a rear egress route.
It wasn’t intended as an IFV. Furthermore the space only really existed because when the IDF looked at crew losses, the majority where from engine fires - so they put the engine up front to also provide protection to the crew (rounds need to into it first) and the rear was designed to allow the crew to exit the vehicle. When they realized they had more room, it was then setup to accommodate being able to shelter a lost crew from another tank. The entire IFV aspect is a myth that has been popularized from folks not understanding the concept.
I’ve admittedly never dug into that deep.It’s 4000 in the Leo, but that’s for both and I believe the bin itself is only 4 belts but I could t find details and am probably wrong.
nextgendefense.com
![]()
One Weapon, Two Roles: New System Adds Drone Control to the Rifle
LADRS uses a 250-gram rifle-mounted interface to control drones through weapon orientation, laser designation, and integrated buttons.nextgendefense.com
"LADRS uses a 250-gram rifle-mounted interface to control drones through weapon orientation, laser designation, and integrated buttons."
"Frontline troops may now be able to pilot drones without reaching for a handheld controller, thanks to a rifle-mounted system developed by US firm Pyrrhus Aeronautics.
"Called the Laser Aiming & Drone Remote System (LADRS), the 250-gram (0.55-pound) device replaces tablets and joysticks by turning a soldier’s rifle into the drone’s control interface.
"Instead of lowering the weapon to operate a separate controller, troops can aim the rifle toward a target or area of interest, using the weapon’s orientation, laser designator, and integrated button controls to point, designate, and execute drone missions."
![]()
Pyrrhus Aeronautics
PYRRHUS builds LADRS - a joystick-free drone control system that lets warfighters operate unmanned aerial systems without breaking weapon readiness.pyrrhusaero.com
This is not the CUAS system. This is a UAS control system.
I’m utterly agnostic on track/wheel on the ‘micro’ vehicles.
The biggest issue with so many of these UGV ‘enablers’ is that they are primarily suited to fixed defensive positions.
The infrastructure requirements to keep them charged, maintained and in position makes them suited for large fixed defensive works.
Which for Korea the DMZ checks all that.
But I tend to think that most of the firepower or sensing envisioned roles in the fixed defensive could be done by actually fixed systems - and the logistical support by underground subway.
As for expeditionary operations, the logistic demand for power is far more significant that most consider. The footprint increases required from adding even a section/squad vehicle is exponentially higher to a Bn that one that was previously considered foot borne.
Adding UGV’s for most setups does not decrease personnel requirements, it just shuffles them into a support role. In some models it actually has increased requirements for manpower at the Bde level to support the systems.
Think about how big Taiwan is -- one may actually wonder why they have Abrams - as if it ever becomes a ground offensive they are in trouble.I agree with you. Defence is the strong suit for UGVs. I particularly like them for domestic VP work.
I also like them for the Combat Support company because I have always seen it as a primarily defensive element. It provides a firm base from which a minority of the battalion can dominate ground by fire and supply a secure position from which the rest of the battalion can sally forth and to which it can recover. It is the "one foot on the ground" that permits bite and hold tactics.
I also agree with the point about manoeuvre being necessary but the scale of manoeuvre is debatable, And I debate the utility of the tank in long range offensives.
The Taiwanese are using their tanks to thicken their airfield security forces.
![]()
Taiwan’s Abrams tanks train to defend key airport
Taiwan's Army deployed M1A2T Abrams tanks to Taoyuan International Airport for the first time during the third day of the Han Kuang No. 42 exercise, Taiwan's annual live combat drill, joining Yunpao wheeled armored vehicles in a defense exercise builtdefence-blog.com
Same reason why so many Arab states bought US MLRS - to buy favour with Washington. Taiwan supports good jobs, cant have that disappearing.Think about how big Taiwan is -- one may actually wonder why they have Abrams - as if it ever becomes a ground offensive they are in trouble.
While many countries have similar needs from their militaries - there are quite a lot of situations due to geography where one is pretty unique.
Buying stuff helps.Same reason why so many Arab states bought US MLRS - to buy favour with Washington. Taiwan supports good jobs, cant have that disappearing.