The Marines should just build a Light Tank.

[Sailor.X]

This has been on my mind for while now. I have read that the Marines want to get rid of Armor because the M1A2 is too much of a hassle for them. But instead of scarping Armor altogether. Why not just build a 30 ton light tank that can meet the Corps needs. It won't have to be able to float from a Gator. It can be deployed by LCAC just like the Abrams were. I mean we all know how to make tanks and making a small tank can't be that hard. What are your thoughts on the matter?

 

[Marduk]

No one likes light tanks anymore due to the frontline combat role of a tank being a tank, combined with the poor survivability of being *light* tank, in western casualty averse climate especially.
The closest thing to the concept you get are their NOT!tanks aka fire support vehicles like Stryker MGS, or IFV chassis based "medium tanks" like CV90120 (23 to 40 tons depending on version and modular armor setup), which kinda have the same weight issue as Bradleys, which USMC also isn't using. So the logistically easiest to have a gun armed vehicle would be to get more or less off the shelf cannon armed LAV variant. Which is what the USMC wanted in the 90's, and 2 programs were done, with 105mm and then 90mm guns, and both eventually got canned, gun recoil being given among issues. A 90mm variant, dunno if the same, was procured in small numbers by Philippines, Kuwait and Panama.
Stryker MGS also has issues with recoil for the same reasons but somehow it got kept anyway.
There is also a New Zealand variant of LAV called Cougar with short barreled 76mm that has no recoil problems.

My guess would be that some recent war experiences followed with introduction of multi purpose warhead missiles for Javelins and anti-fortification ones for TOW have made the niche for gun armed fire support vehicles less important.

 

[Zachowon]

Because making a Light tank negates what MOdern armor is made to do. Withstand hits form AT weaponry or at least hope too.
The Marines cant be the assault breakthrough force they claim to be if they don't have vehicles which can take a shot or two. They will rely on air support.

That is why the Army will always be better. We have everything we need and only rely on the Air Force for when we need extra.
If anything the Army will be the ones to create a light tank and the Marines would adopt it. Since we are looking to make an Airborn tank again

 

[Tryglaw]

This has been on my mind for while now. I have read that the Marines want to get rid of Armor because the M1A2 is too much of a hassle for them. But instead of scarping Armor altogether. Why not just build a 30 ton light tank that can meet the Corps needs. It won't have to be able to float from a Gator. It can be deployed by LCAC just like the Abrams were. I mean we all know how to make tanks and making a small tank can't be that hard. What are your thoughts on the matter?

If you want to deploy from landing craft that ferry to the shore, you might as well deploy "full" MBT.
For the Marines "to go with the theme", an amphibious vehicle would make a lot of sense. Not just for landing, but also crossing water obstacles.

Amusingly enough, something like the Russian Sprut amphibious light tank, that just happens to pack a "proper", MBT-grade 125mm tank cannon.

2S25 Sprut-SD - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Marduk]

If you want to deploy from landing craft that ferry to the shore, you might as well deploy "full" MBT.
For the Marines "to go with the theme", an amphibious vehicle would make a lot of sense. Not just for landing, but also crossing water obstacles.

Amusingly enough, something like the Russian Sprut amphibious light tank, that just happens to pack a "proper", MBT-grade 125mm tank cannon.

2S25 Sprut-SD - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Yeah, it is a great show in the consideration of necessary traits and designated use.
This is a glorified weapon carrier, and you are supposed to be happy it has any armor. Protection from 23mm (which is anemic by current ground vehicle autocannon standard, as anyone bothers with anything less that 25mm with subcaliber rounds) from the front, and only through very aggressive armor shaping so angles matter a lot, and 7.62 from everywhere else, so an ol' DShK from the side can turn it into swiss cheese.
But hey, that vehicle is supposed to be deployed by surprise, and not face much enemy ambushes and intense opposition. Its an anti tank gun that's supposed to drive itself around and be immune to small arms suppression, ideally firing its gun from beyond their range anyway, as a fire support or ambush vehicle.
Mine protection? How, and what for?

Western armies generally have demand for far more generalist vehicles, preferably able to safely take part in "peacekeeping" operations, not just fight a few operations in WW3 until one goes wrong and they get shot at with some even half-assed anti tank weapons more than a few times.

Then there is also the mentioned fact that western armies are far more comfortable throwing money around and relying on 40-60k USD a pop ATGMs for any job a vehicle like this may be needed for than Russia, with the side bonus that these are far easier to move around, in Humvee, LAV and even portable formats.

 

[Sailor.X]

If you want to deploy from landing craft that ferry to the shore, you might as well deploy "full" MBT.
For the Marines "to go with the theme", an amphibious vehicle would make a lot of sense. Not just for landing, but also crossing water obstacles.

Amusingly enough, something like the Russian Sprut amphibious light tank, that just happens to pack a "proper", MBT-grade 125mm tank cannon.

2S25 Sprut-SD - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I was suggesting the Light Tank because the current Commandant of the Corps is listening to the Good Idea Fairy a bit to much and wants to scrap all of the Marines Armor. Something is better than nothing.

 

[Bacle]

I was suggesting the Light Tank because the current Commandant of the Corps is listening to the Good Idea Fairy a bit to much and wants to scrap all of the Marines Armor. Something is better than nothing.

Drone 'light tanks' with armored command vehicles would probably sell better than a 'traditional' light tank.

 

[Tryglaw]

@Marduk
Well, you can have it amphibious or you can have big / heavy / well armoured.

The Sprut is meant to fling HE (like the BMP-3 with the 100mm piece) plus have the ability to hit armour as hard as an MBT plus have the ability to snipe with gun-launched missiles. It's not an MBT replacement, but it's a product of assumption that having light tank / light armour beats having no tank / armour at all. Same with the air-droppable BMD series.

If you look at Polish army for example, our Patria variant is made amphibious at cost of armoured protection, and the next planned battlefield taxi with a gun (tracked IFV, BMP replacement) is likewise required to be amphibious (just like BMP is). And that's our Army expected to cross rivers and lakes, not the Marines meant to do deploy around the seven seas doing Marine things.

For the US Marines and their expected change in mission profile (containment of China) amphibious vehicles make a lot of sense, while heavy vehicles do not.

Namely the Marines won't be duking it out with Guards Armies in Fulda Gap, they are to focus on supporting expeditionary operations of the Navy, with specific focus on the Pacific islands - in short to go back being, well, marines. So more amphibious / near shore ops, less pretending to be an Army sub-branch of the Navy.

Pacific theatre isn't exactly well suited for heavy tank ops, the T-72 variant we sold Malaysia seems to be about the heaviest that can be useful, otherwise you get the Indonesia situation with the Leopards they bought, that can't really go anywhere since they are too bloody heavy and the soil won't support them.

Also, as the ongoing Azeri-Armenia conflict shows, loitering munitions can give a lot of mileage in anti-tank ops, esp. as they don't need LOS at launch as most ATGMs do. And even "full" MBTs don't take well to top-side hits, while increasing mass of the tank by up-armouring isn't all that suitable for the theatre.

 

[Marduk]

@Marduk
Well, you can have it amphibious or you can have big / heavy / well armoured.

The Sprut is meant to fling HE (like the BMP-3 with the 100mm piece) plus have the ability to hit armour as hard as an MBT plus have the ability to snipe with gun-launched missiles. It's not an MBT replacement, but it's a product of assumption that having light tank / light armour beats having no tank / armour at all. Same with the air-droppable BMD series.

If you look at Polish army for example, our Patria variant is made amphibious at cost of armoured protection, and the next planned battlefield taxi with a gun (tracked IFV, BMP replacement) is likewise required to be amphibious (just like BMP is). And that's our Army expected to cross rivers and lakes, not the Marines meant to do deploy around the seven seas doing Marine things.

For the US Marines and their expected change in mission profile (containment of China) amphibious vehicles make a lot of sense, while heavy vehicles do not.

Namely the Marines won't be duking it out with Guards Armies in Fulda Gap, they are to focus on supporting expeditionary operations of the Navy, with specific focus on the Pacific islands - in short to go back being, well, marines. So more amphibious / near shore ops, less pretending to be an Army sub-branch of the Navy.

The way i'm thinking, is that with the wide use of ATGMs in Syria, even against relatively minor targets like technicals and bunkers, not just by rich armies but even by guerilla proxies, they are starting to think that they don't need to bother with tricky ways to put a big gun on a light vehicle so that their light expeditionary forces can have something that makes a big boom.
Instead, they realize that they already have these:

For obvious reasons they have to carry them around anyway, and keep modernizing and improving their capabilities anyway, so they may aswell stop thinking of them as specialist anti tank vehicles that are sitting there uselessly all the time they have no tanks to fight, but instead switch half the number of stored missiles to anti-fortification TOW variant and use it effectively like a light missile tank, with bonus of not needing the logistical tail of a additional specialized vehicle and weapon.

Also they already carry around Javelins, which also already have a missile variant that's not anti tank only... and those are fire and forget, unlike typical ATGMs.

Pacific theatre isn't exactly well suited for heavy tank ops, the T-72 variant we sold Malaysia seems to be about the heaviest that can be useful, otherwise you get the Indonesia situation with the Leopards they bought, that can't really go anywhere since they are too bloody heavy and the soil won't support them.

The other problem in Pacific theatre is that many countries there consist of a large number of islands of varying sizes... Which means they are going to have to move these bloody things between the islands both during war and peace, and the heavier they are, the harder are they going to be to load/unload, and the more burdened their landing craft will be.

Also, as the ongoing Azeri-Armenia conflict shows, loitering munitions can give a lot of mileage in anti-tank ops, esp. as they don't need LOS at launch as most ATGMs do. And even "full" MBTs don't take well to top-side hits, while increasing mass of the tank by up-armouring isn't all that suitable for the theatre.

This is why Trophy and similar systems are becoming a default option for newest, top of the line MBTs.

 

[Aldarion]

No one likes light tanks anymore due to the frontline combat role of a tank being a tank, combined with the poor survivability of being *light* tank, in western casualty averse climate especially.
The closest thing to the concept you get are their NOT!tanks aka fire support vehicles like Stryker MGS, or IFV chassis based "medium tanks" like CV90120 (23 to 40 tons depending on version and modular armor setup), which kinda have the same weight issue as Bradleys, which USMC also isn't using. So the logistically easiest to have a gun armed vehicle would be to get more or less off the shelf cannon armed LAV variant. Which is what the USMC wanted in the 90's, and 2 programs were done, with 105mm and then 90mm guns, and both eventually got canned, gun recoil being given among issues. A 90mm variant, dunno if the same, was procured in small numbers by Philippines, Kuwait and Panama.
Stryker MGS also has issues with recoil for the same reasons but somehow it got kept anyway.
There is also a New Zealand variant of LAV called Cougar with short barreled 76mm that has no recoil problems.

My guess would be that some recent war experiences followed with introduction of multi purpose warhead missiles for Javelins and anti-fortification ones for TOW have made the niche for gun armed fire support vehicles less important.

What about recoilless rifles? Cheaper than TOW, can be put on APC chassis with no need for much modification, and can probably hold quite a supply of ammunition compared to ATGMs?

 

[Marduk]

What about recoilless rifles? Cheaper than TOW, can be put on APC chassis with no need for much modification, and can probably hold quite a supply of ammunition compared to ATGMs?

Extremely tricky to design in such a way that they can be reloaded from under armor.
Now they are mostly phased out of any rich militaries except for compact portable weapons like Carl Gustav, due to lower effective range, accuracy and armor penetration than both cannons and ATGMs.

 

[Zachowon]

Carl Gustav is the really only useful recoilless rifle used because it can penetrate modern tanks.

 

[Aldarion]

Carl Gustav is the really only useful recoilless rifle used because it can penetrate modern tanks.

I wouldn't say that. Recoilless rifles are still useful against APCs and light vehicles, as well as for anti-bunker / demolition work. You don't need a system to be useful against top-end stuff to be useful.

 

[Zachowon]

I wouldn't say that. Recoilless rifles are still useful against APCs and light vehicles, as well as for anti-bunker / demolition work. You don't need a system to be useful against top-end stuff to be useful.

The next recoilless rifle i know of, is the 82mm and perhaps 90mm ones out there.

You don't want something that isn't useful against armor. Also having something that you can't reload from the armor is not good.

If one carries a Carl Gustav you won't need a vehicle with a long barreled recoiless rifle when you can have a smaller target with a better one.

 

[Marduk]

I wouldn't say that. Recoilless rifles are still useful against APCs and light vehicles, as well as for anti-bunker / demolition work. You don't need a system to be useful against top-end stuff to be useful.

They can work...
But hey, a WW2 era 75mm anti tank gun also works against them. And still its not considered a good weapon choice.
The fact is that recoilless rifles are pretty limited in terms of accuracy, range, use in buildings, while the longer range ones are huge and heavy, needing disassembly or wheel carriages to move around.
You can use any other anti armor weapons against light vehicles, most of them are more mobile than a heavy recoilless rifle and far longer ranged than the compact ones.
And if you don't care about fighting modern MBTs much, you can use light ATGMs like this Ukrainian one:

RK-3 Corsar - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Aaron Fox]

Drone 'light tanks' with armored command vehicles would probably sell better than a 'traditional' light tank.

That is until those drones get subverted by even podunk militants with a communications kit, a laptop, and a program.

This is why Trophy and similar systems are becoming a default option for newest, top of the line MBTs.

It should also be noted that Electromagnetic Reactive Armor (EMRA) is starting to become available. They'll need a hefty backing because of kinetics, but they'll be extremely useful against shaped charge warheads. I wouldn't be surprised that EMRA would later become something similar to E-WEB from B5.

 

[Zachowon]

That is until those drones get subverted by even podunk militants with a communications kit, a laptop, and a program.

It should also be noted that Electromagnetic Reactive Armor (EMRA) is starting to become available. They'll need a hefty backing because of kinetics, but they'll be extremely useful against shaped charge warheads. I wouldn't be surprised that EMRA would later become something similar to E-WEB from B5.

It isn't that easy to hack drones.

It takes someone that actually knows what they are doing and be able to practice.

 

[Aaron Fox]

It isn't that easy to hack drones.

It takes someone that actually knows what they are doing and be able to practice.

Given that an Irani Proxy did so a while back...

 

[Zachowon]

Given that an Irani Proxy did so a while back...

It was not AS simple as you make it out to be. It still is not easy to hack a drone.

 

[Tryglaw]

It was not AS simple as you make it out to be. It still is not easy to hack a drone.

Hack a drone, no. Spoof GPS so that it "thinks" it's too high and slams into the ground trying to adjust altitude, much easier...