Search results for query: *

Except that "this specific image" is a rather unique artillery system, that is 105 mounted on a light truck, allowed by the new recoil system. Normally guns like this are on larger trucks, like MOBAT, or further in the past, a tracked chassis even, like Priest and Abbot...

Any quick deployment artillery carriage is, in effect, a very compact trailer. Of course you don't want to put an artillery cannon on a "normal" high trailer, the recoil of firing at low angles would knock it over because of high center of gravity.

Yeah... But USA is not most countries. And if you do that for cheapness, you also may want to use a bigger truck, and either slap a much more effective 155 on it (like Ukrainian Bohdana) or use the spare space to carry ammo for it too. This thing is new because it includes some fancy hi tech...

Eh.... That would add weight and volume, hurting airmobility, which is one of main reasons for having something like that at all. As it is, it "double uses" the suspension of the light truck for the gun. Comparing to M119, a conventional modern 105, not having a separate towing carriage may be...

More senseless bureaucracy? It's still half a meter less width than Abrams so should not be tricky like that. Also Japan's crazy legal restrictions on arms exports are a thing.

Insensitive explosives deflagrate or burn instead of exploding properly without the right detonator. These days it's the propellant that is the real explosion threat.

I think CV90105 would be an interesting off the shelf alternative. Similar weight, size and protection level (new ones even better due to APS already intergrated!), more modular armor allowing it to be made even lighter for transport (might be able to even fit 3 in C-17 with just basic armor)...

Most MBTs would be... but this tank has to meet the quite annoying requirements regarding fitting into planes.

No one in their right mind will be supplying either vehicle by air *while anywhere near combat*. Which makes a larger ammo reserve more important for those than normal tanks, because without the full logistical tail of a heavy division and a set, obvious frontline they may need to go on longer...

Isn't a C-17 cargo compartment big enough for even wider Abrams with much room to spare, and if not for the weight limit could even take more? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III#Design Perhaps the weight restriction is for C-130, which couldn't take anything MBT width...

It's meant for fire support, not fighting tanks. That means generously slinging HE rounds at buildings. Compared to VDV support vehicles, who don't have that much ammo capacity.

3 man crew, little ammo, compare dimensions, may be too wide for some air transport options.

And it still is a niche use that needs to be served by something, plenty of hotspots in Middle East and Africa and it's better than lugging whole heavy armor units there.

Well it is meant for airborne and the like, which practically are meant for being quickly deployed to deal with other also light forces, sacrificing capabilities for deployability, not to be used in armor and mech alongside Abrams and Bradley.

That's an organizational-bureaucratic problem. There's plenty of Bradley hulls to go around compared to the low numbers for MPF, already built. Horrible autoloaders are a great ad for the 4 man crew option and manned turrets. Until then, they should however consider building better autoloaders...

23mm protection from front, 7.62 from sides. Get it to 30mm APDS from front and 14.5 from sides and it's gonna be at least at 30 ton mark. Also no info on ammo storage and no 4th crew member.

You can also fit 2 Bradleys in a C-17... Still, cost wise, it's a bad artifact of the contracting process that "take a modern IFV and stick a 105 turret on it" ended up with an ASCOD based vehicle, which is a hull US military doesn't use otherwise, instead of using AMPV hull, which is not really...

Look at every other nation's light tanks, many also with a 105, some even bigger guns. The cost vs Abrams is a fruit of far worse economy of scale in production... Perhaps it shouldn't have a dedicated hull, just slap the turret on an AMPV and call it a day. The weight though... It's either...

True... Still 5 tons gets you quite a bit of more turret volume. The trick is to have a decently expandable design, usually "stretching" the turret to the rear, and logically leading towards an Abrams style isolated ammo compartment in a long bustle. Then you only extend the area of relatively...

True... but let's keep things in proportion. Is doubling ammo storage space going to fatten a tank by 50% or more? Hell no. 5 tons, likely, 10 tons, maybe, 15 tons, that's getting sus.