Tanks are two dimensional weapons systems, and asking them to operate in the three-dimensional urban environment is foolish. Tanks are about mobility and survivability, and being mobility restricted to 2/3 of the battlespace, with your most vulnerable areas exposed to the 1/3 you cannot engage...well, think about it. Tanks are not suited to urban combat, and never will be. That is why fighter jets look so different, because they are optimized to the three-dimensional environment. Too bad the A-10 isn't slower...

Anyway, any discussion of the medium tank has to start with WHY? do you need it. What is it intended to do? The M1 is designed to slug it out with Threat tanks, with a 10:1 or better kill ratio. This requirement drove the design. So what is the medium for? How survivable? Air deployable, and if so, what are you willing to sacrifice to keep the weight down? What threats, in what environment, with what mission requirements? All these things ( and many more) drive the multiple compromises that occur with any AFV design. Survivability, mobility, firepower, crew protection, etc. are all issues that are often mutually antagonistic, and require some basis for striking a balance between them.

Right now, I'm not sure the Army really knows what it is looking for, because I haven't heard anyone articulate what the requirement is. Air deployability seems to be driving the bus, but no one seems to want to talk about the compromises that are being struck to attain this. I haven't heard anyon describe the combat environment that the medium will fight in, so I can't say if it is good or bad, needed or unneccessary. Time will tell I suppose.

(BTW, the M-8 Gun system went away because of concerns for crew survivability. The Defense of Western Europe involved large amounts of artillery, and the lack of protection for the M-8 crew was obvious. Coincidentally, wasn't there a kit of the M-8 Gun System (Achilles?) a long time back. I remember building one in the misty past.)

And I kind of like the beret. Impractical, but jaunty-looking!

Boy there is a bunch of stuff here:
What I am about to say comes from experience as a light infantryman and as a tanker and from reading history.
1. Airpower had never conquered anything and cannot hold anything!!! They can blow the crap out of an area, for sure,and they can deny areas to an enemy, bur it still takes men on the ground to hold it. Don't get me wrong, I like as much friendly close air as I can get. First thing I want the air forces to do is gain air superiority, then hunt down the enemy artillery systems, chemical/bio assets and cut his lines of communications. I can get by with friendly artillery (an American speciality, nobody has better arty than the US Army) and gunships. US & allied bombers and fighters have killed more US troops, by accident, than all enemy airpower had ever hoped to do. Remember, urban combat is CLOSE combat. The only close air support out there is the A-10 and the AV-8. The Air Force wants out of CAS business.
2. Tanks can certainly operate in urban areas. It just takes well trained combined arms teams to survive in urban combat. The Russians in Chechnya forgot lessons of WW2 and lost most of a brigade in urban warfare before they changed tactics, very similiar to what the Israelis did in the Siani in 1973. . Wasn't the tank proclaimed dead in 1973!!! The US Marines made sure they had armor when they went in to recapture HUE during TET. WW2 American tankers in Shermans had a perfect method for urban warfare - heavy infantry support and HE rounds into three corners of a building which collapsed the whole building on its occupants - perfect for typical European buildings. In a major urban area, those fighter jocks at 10-20,000 feet are not going to be able to identify the occupied buildings to drop their smart bombs. There will be too much dust and debris for laser designators to work. It will take grunts with their special weapons and tactics to dig the enemy out of their reinforced basements. Urban combat is CLOSE-QUARTERS combat, remember Mogadishu.
3. The light, airborne and air assault infantry NEED an armored platform that can fire a SABOT round (that generally means a high velocity gun, which usually means a heavy vehicle, although some soft-recoil systems can fire SABOT). Why SABOT? Most tanks now have armor or add-on armor than can defeat HEAT and HEP rounds, primarily to defeat guided missles that the Soviets had out the ass. Only one currently deployed tank, maybe two, can defeat both HEAT and SABOT - that tank is the heavy-armor ABRAMS. (I may be wrong on the LeClerc, and any Russian systems are too few in number) I can't completely rule out the Challenger 2. I spent 30 months at the NTC and the 82nd & 101st Airborne task forces that fought there could never stop the OPFOR Regiment except by occupying the best possible terrain and then having the OPFOR, against there better judgement, drive thru the ambush. The light forces were hors'de combat after these engagements. These forces need a highly mobile tracked platform with a SABOT-capable gun that can survive small caliber cannon fire and artillery, while being transportable by C-130. The M8 met these requirements (though I don't have my references to see if it fired a good SABOT round) with ability to uparmor, as required. The problem for these light divisions is having to provide ammo & fuel handling capabilities for the M8. How much can you airdrop or LAPES, along with everything else? The 82nd ABN DIV had no idea how to handle the 1-73rd Armor, they were always squandered in unsupported counterattacks.

Sorry for the rant, hope I didn't step on too many toes. I'll go back in defilade now.

Ranger74

[quote]


Your wrong about this....the reason that the M8 was canned was that the Army need cash to go into Bosina back in late 1995. The M8 with Gen3 armor package on it was equal to a M60A3 armor wise.

Scott

First, apologies to all if I was a bit pedantic (good word, eh?) with my post last night. I can only plead tired and rushed. I stand by what I wrote, but regret if I was abrupt or rude.




We may be talking about two different items, here. I used M8, and this may be in error (see item #1, above). I was referring to a previous post, that I understood to be wondering about a Mobile Gun System from the 60s, similar to the AGS but with the gun crew exposed on top behind a ballistic shield on the gun. I followed a lot of the newer AGS shenanigans and agree that the reason it died was budgeting. That said, I still don't believe that the role of the AGS was adequately defined while it was being developed. It may be a solution to the Medium (hah!) Weight gun System problem right now, but when it was being developed it was sort of an orphan without a mission.

I disagree that tanks do fine in urban combat. (BTW, I was a tanker too, and am very fond of the whole idea of heavy steel monsters.) There are some advantages to tanks, however these are more than offset by the risks to the tanks and crews. The example you cite for the Shermans in Europe is only valid in full-on, total devastation warfare. Modern conflicts are likely to be more like Mogadishu and Bosnia than WWII Germany. Ethics, long-term goals, and press coverage will likely not allow us to destroy every building to protect our armor. The fact is that the mobility advantage that tanks have is lost when fighting in an environment that includes the vertical dimension. Tanks are vulnerable from the top and the bottom, and cannot maneuver to engage that threat (down in the ground, or up in the air). The restricted street environment also limits the two-dimensional mobility of the tank, and allows threats that are not otherwise serious to become so. The close-quarters engagements in this environment is not what tanks were designed for. A mobility kill from an RPG or satchel charge takes the tank out of the battle, since fields of fire/observation are limited, and a fight on the next street over is out of reach. The immobile tank is at risk if the battle moves away from it, leaving it to be destroyed at the bad guys leisure.

I believe that the ultimate urban combat vehicle is a properly equipped and prepared infantry soldier, working in close coordination with other soldiers, shaping and altering the battlespace to create opportunities and conditions for victory. Having said that, I do not believe that our soldiers are currently equipped or trained sufficiently for this purpose. they need better body armor and protective equipment, better breeching equipment/charges, better heavy weapons (that are suited to use in urban combat, and would satisfy the firepower argument you made). Leave the tanks outside of town to deal with any heavy reinforcements, and let the infantry clear out the bad guys inside the town.

There was a long thread a few weeks back on the AFV News forum on just this topic (you may have to search for it). Check it out if the discussion interests you. I, too, am going back into defilade on this topic, since we have deviated a bit from the original discussion.

Wow! You guys get emotional. I just finished my M-8 HMC as the base piece in a diorama I envision taking form. Got some great stuff to make grass to put in the drive sprockets and as use in the ground work. Now, to take some photos and write a brief article for consderation.....so many, many models, so very little time.
Cheers
DJ :-)

ARENGCA - your points on armor in urban areas are very valid. I just don't support a blanket exclusion of their use. I definitely woulf not want to drive down Wall Street. It does take highly trained combined arms teams to conduct urban warfare and tanks have their place: during intial entry whrn direct fire suppression is useful to get the infantry into the front edge, where large open ares have to be crossed, again high velocity, flat trajectory cannons are great to blow holes in walls and heavy machine can suppress enemy small arms (the way the Israelis used armor in Beruit). At my advanced course we conducted a terrain walk in E-town Kentucky. Here TOWS, Dragons and Javelins would be useless. Too many overhead wires and trees blocking flight paths of missles and snagging or shorting out wires. Perfect place for the infantry to use old 90mm &106mm reckless rifles. But tanks could provide overwatch from hills overlooking town and could provide long range fires down streets. Again, this is not a major urban area. The entire US Army and Marine Corps is not big enough to support combat in a major urban area. I, like most tankers, suffer from claustrophobia, the better the fields of fire and teh longer the engagement ranges the better :-)

Now back into my hide position.

Lets keep this in context . Everyone has a valid point.The battlefields we have seen
since WWll has been combined arms infantry armor arty, each country weighted
these differenty .Control of the air is a must ongoing battlefield close airsupport
be helos or A10s . Do we need a medium tank , can it be used? yes is the
answer. A medium tank could be deployed in a mech infantry unit to up gun
the unit. It would be nice if they could be air dropped.Remember any weapon
has to be deployed correctly supported properly , in context of the mission
the soldiers must be trained to the highest degree the training must be continual
It's not one thing.
Besides you have to convince the guys on the hill of need of the equipment
that boils down to money.



THE HORSE THE GUN THE MAN.


PONYSOLDIER

Canadian Experience in Kosovo with Leopard C1

Canada came close to buying the M1A2 MBT a dozen years or so ago but decided tit wasn't needed after the Berlin wall came down. (A lot of zipperheads were crying in their beer that day) We were heavily commited to Europe at the time and it was planned to relegate the Leopards to a heavy recce role (that's recon in Canadian eh?) We brought all our leopards home in 1992/93 and they were spread pretty thin. (Canada only has 114 gun tanks). A squadron's worth were uparmoured for a potential combat role in Bosnia but never deployed. However a troops worth went over to Kosovo with KFOR. These were found to be quite useful and could manouvre along tight roads without problems. The real PK manouevreability came with the ability to cross a lot of bridges that the 70 ton M1'a and Challengers could not cross.
We have since bought a bunch of 1A5 s from the Germans and rebuilt our fleet to the Leo C2 versions with the cast turrret. I believe most of the welded turrets went down under as spares and target practice.
Are they an act of war? Better than a lot of 3rd world stuff (T55/62/64 etc) Not sure about a T72. Certainly better choice than a LAV III FSV with a 105mm. It has a bigger signature both visually and thermally than a Leopard. If I were a zipperhead rather than a thumperhead, I think I'd prefer the Leopard over the LAV FSV. But any force needs to have the flexibility that a mix of medium and heavy tanks offer depending on the mission.
At least the Leo C2 gives me another batch of conversions to work up.