GDLS wins US Army's ‘light tank' competition

This is a general forum for all types of posts related to Military models.

Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1

7.62
E5
Posts: 1640
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 10:52 am

GDLS wins US Army's ‘light tank' competition

Post by 7.62 »

Here we go! A new tank for the US.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/land ... early-2024

Nice 105mm, nice and light so can be flown around by the Air Force.
Pulls pin, rolls under Panzer's desk, runs away quick.

panzergator
E5
Posts: 3188
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:44 am

Re: GDLS wins US Army's ‘light tank' competition

Post by panzergator »

Light tank, NOT a Sheridan. Next question... who will crew it, Armor guys or Infantry guys. It's supposedly an INFANTRY tank for INFANTRY support in INFANTRY units, so... Was never exactly my life's ambition to follow walking guys around town to bust bunkers THEY could bust with a 90m recoiless rifle or an AT4. Neither was "Combat in Cities." I can think of no worse Hell than serving in one of those except for having to go to Infantry school to learn about it.

I don't know whose desk you blew up, but MINE is still at FORT KNOX, where Armor people SHOULD be.. If it WAS mine, thank you. Now, I don't have any paperwork to do. The Nurse platoon (I'm old, it's permanently assigned, all female, lieutenants and a captain) will now lift me up to the back deck and into my cupola, load up a couple kegs of Licher bier and some schnitzel and home-fries in mermites, and my crew and I will be off to Graf for some shootin'!
All blessings flow from a good mission statement.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Give credit. Take responsibility.

Hoth_902
E5
Posts: 1197
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:08 am
Location: Pacific Northwest
Contact:

Re: GDLS wins US Army's ‘light tank' competition

Post by Hoth_902 »

When I saw this article, I thought of good old panzer and what he would say. LOL. You did not disappoint. I look at this and think it just seems to be a track version of the Stryker MGS. I get the MGS could not field a 120, because of size constraints.. or at least I thought I read that. But really, they could not put a 120 on this, so it could knock out some tanks? I know panzer.. too lightly armed to go toe to toe... Maybe they should add some Javelins on it.. LOL I like the look of it.. but that does not win battles.
Quantity has a Quality all its own.

http://warriorbear.weebly.com/

panzergator
E5
Posts: 3188
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:44 am

Re: GDLS wins US Army's ‘light tank' competition

Post by panzergator »

It is SO much better than Stryker! It is also heavier. And they COULD have put a 120 on it, but it's an Infantry thing, sooo. Maybe we still have a lot of 105mm ammo left, particularly HEP. It would be nice if they developed a caseless round for it.

I understand it's the ASCOD chassis, so it might develop into a mech vehicle, as well. And Javelin and TOW.

Maybe a good cavalry vehicle. Bring back REAL ACRs!

I never understood Stryker AGS, unless they were lying and the Infantry really wanted a tank they could call their own. There were already plenty of LIGHTER weapons for what they said they wanted the MGS for.

We COULD have put the MGS turret on the ASCOD and brought it out quicker, too.

I think it might be an Infantry plot to do away with Armor altogether. "Just leave the heavy tanks in the States. We'll take the light ones by air and make do.". SUCH A MISTAKE to move Armor School to Benning. Infantry officers bound for mech assignments should have been sent to Knox for an "Armored Infantry" add-on at the Armor School.
All blessings flow from a good mission statement.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Give credit. Take responsibility.

Hoth_902
E5
Posts: 1197
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:08 am
Location: Pacific Northwest
Contact:

Re: GDLS wins US Army's ‘light tank' competition

Post by Hoth_902 »

Hmm... But didn't the whole infantry support weapon not work in WWII? I though that went away really quick.. or maybe its because Germany was hurting so much for armor they could not afford to build something that was just for infantry support.

I don't think the 105 is such a bad idea. I would imagine, with my limited knowledge, that most nations operate stuff that could be knocked out by a 105. I could be wrong. So until a full war starts with a near pear, maybe that handles most things.

Funny you should say Cavalry use. I thought of that right away.
Quantity has a Quality all its own.

http://warriorbear.weebly.com/

panzergator
E5
Posts: 3188
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:44 am

Re: GDLS wins US Army's ‘light tank' competition

Post by panzergator »

We need light armor. My issue is with WHEELED armor. Can't carry enough armor to make it useful and it is not agile enough to avoid trouble. Look at the M18 TD and M551. Great flotation and speed. -flotation referring to cross-country capability, not water-crossing. Good power-to-weight ratios. The difficulty is still the gun. Has to be able to take on a main battle tank, but good tactics helps and tracks enable that, where wheels drag it down.

If Griffin is light, fast, air-portable, (it would be nice if it could float a little, too), and has a good-enough gun, we have a cavalry vehicle. Let's mount up 3 ACRs, well, maybe 5, to support expeditionary units and quick reactio.
All blessings flow from a good mission statement.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Give credit. Take responsibility.

panzergator
E5
Posts: 3188
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:44 am

Re: GDLS wins US Army's ‘light tank' competition

Post by panzergator »

We should not design units to fight smaller nations. Can't afford that. Our units must be designed for peer opponents. We then can adapt them to fight less-capable opponents. As the Russians are demonstrating, war is a "come-as-you-are" affair (Donn Starry's favorite phrase).

Much organic infantry support in WWII was towed and therefore less capable. The heavier tracked tank destroyers morphed into infantry support roles, as did independent tank battalions assigned to infantry divisions or attached from corps pools.

Toe-to-toe with tanks is not their intent as they sit at their desks in relative peacetime, so they are thinking they can just tailor the doctrine to keep the out of trouble. That is NOT what WILL HAPPEN in combat. Just ask the M4 crews, who were not supposed to fight other tanks (that was a tank destroyer job) or the British battlecruiser crews at Jutland or the crew of HMS Hood. When it hits the fan, you throw in whatever you have and nobody cares whether you were designed for it.
All blessings flow from a good mission statement.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Give credit. Take responsibility.

Hoth_902
E5
Posts: 1197
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:08 am
Location: Pacific Northwest
Contact:

Re: GDLS wins US Army's ‘light tank' competition

Post by Hoth_902 »

All good points Sir. Thanks for the added technical understanding of the MGS issues. Still love those tanks.. :wink:
Quantity has a Quality all its own.

http://warriorbear.weebly.com/

chrisswim
E5
Posts: 5754
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:22 pm
Location: Jacksonville, FL

Re: GDLS wins US Army's ‘light tank' competition

Post by chrisswim »

The Griffin is built on an ASCOD/Ulan hull… So is the AJAX. Apparently the AJAX has some issues, it vibrates, crew members get sick in these. I do not know of any issues with ASCOD/Ulan.
I thought that the 105 was ‘obsolete’, so the 120 was needed to deal with enemy armor. With the issue(s) of the AJAX and needing better capability of a 120mm cannon, I think an option to consider is the CV90-120 as a light tank option.

What say you?
Chris

Hoth_902
E5
Posts: 1197
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:08 am
Location: Pacific Northwest
Contact:

Re: GDLS wins US Army's ‘light tank' competition

Post by Hoth_902 »

Here is a first look of how the MPF TO&E could look like. I have found that this you tube channel has seemed to be pretty accurate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfVeoI3euvQ
Quantity has a Quality all its own.

http://warriorbear.weebly.com/

panzergator
E5
Posts: 3188
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:44 am

Re: GDLS wins US Army's ‘light tank' competition

Post by panzergator »

I wouldn't call the 105mm obsolete. Evidence so far in Ukraine indicates it might be adequate, but I prefer to overmatch.

Over the last 70 years, the evidence has been pretty clear that the best use of RESOURCES is to fight tanks with tanks, performance of Javelin and other ATGMs notwithstanding. We have not seen much of the maneuver aspect of armored warfare in Ukraine.

We did away with gunned tank destroyers after WWII for good reason - We got more from resources and bucks by building tanks - one specialized vehicle rather than two.

Granted, airborne troops need anti-tank weapons. If, as the Youtube video asserts, the plan for the anti-tank role is TOW and Javelin, I contend they could double their ATGMs rather than haul light tanks in, which require more logistcs support, too. It looks to me like the airborne mafia wanted their own tank. A small tracked vehicle like WIESEL carrying ATGMS would do the job.

Don't misunderstand. I'm in favor of this vehicle for CAVALRY units. And cavalry units could be chopped to airborne units for a mission. I would like to see 5 armored cavalry regiments raised.
But the airborne argument for this vehicle is specious. In their case, it's a half-*ssed tank with a fake mission.
All blessings flow from a good mission statement.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Give credit. Take responsibility.

recon110
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2015 7:16 pm
Location: Rochester Hills Michigan

Re: GDLS wins US Army's ‘light tank' competition

Post by recon110 »

Folly. The Capabilty Developer missed one point. Whar soldiers gonna man it. We are currently at 40% of FY2022 recruitment goals which ends in Sept 30. So are we drawing down other tank units to transfer those.positions to fill this baby Assault Gun. Stug was successfully produced in WW2 by Germans and used widely. The US never had an assault gun produced in wide numbers either till now. This thing will go by way of Dodo bird. Cheaply made Drones will render this thing obsolete. You ask. The US is investing heavily in attack drones. All US Div 4th BDE Aviation Brigades are getting organic attack drone battalions. Its another failed system ressurected to keep GDLS afloat instead of the going back to Bufford we have the Milley. Over weight, outdated, less fire power, cant stop a peaceful protest, no IED defeat, and not logistical friendly. No cross system compatability. Its a Dodo. Will set in back of motor pool and waste away while low budgeted leg units ruck march on the dime.
David Farrell

Tanker Mike
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 11:51 pm
Location: Indiana

Re: GDLS wins US Army's ‘light tank' competition

Post by Tanker Mike »

Hoth_902 wrote:
Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:48 am
Hmm... But didn't the whole infantry support weapon not work in WWII? I though that went away really quick.. or maybe its because Germany was hurting so much for armor they could not afford to build something that was just for infantry support.
Germany did field AFVs for infantry support all through WWII. The Sturmgeschütz being the most common. Interestingly enough, an assault gun with a 105mm, the Sturmhaubitze, gun was issued from 1942 through 1945. In ten gun batteries, there was one platoon with 3 Sturmhaubitze.

recon110
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2015 7:16 pm
Location: Rochester Hills Michigan

Re: GDLS wins US Army's ‘light tank' competition

Post by recon110 »

And Germany lost with far superior technology against inferior high density equipment.
David Farrell

Hoth_902
E5
Posts: 1197
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:08 am
Location: Pacific Northwest
Contact:

Re: GDLS wins US Army's ‘light tank' competition

Post by Hoth_902 »

recon110 wrote:
Sat Jul 02, 2022 11:36 pm
And Germany lost with far superior technology against inferior high density equipment.
Quality has a quality all its own.
Quantity has a Quality all its own.

http://warriorbear.weebly.com/

Post Reply