I don't think a 70 ton tank meets that requirement. And we still haven't talked about keeping it in action once its on the battlefield.
The Rapid Deployment Tank project of the 80's would be welcome even today. These photos are all from Viggen's Blog.
If you want a refresher on the "looming" weight issue with Marine Corps and Army vehicles when it comes to strategic/tactical mobility then check out this article by Roger Galbraith.
It looks like a tank, probably sounds like a tank, but it isn't a tank.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of a tank is firepower and survivability, only then is mobility important. Something like this is neither fish nor fowl, it doesn't have the firepower nor the protection to go up against a modern armoured threat and against anything less, well a capable and modern auto-cannon such as Bushmaster II/III, 25-30mm generally provides overmatch anyway.
The USMC uses the M1A1 because it can survive and even generally dominate tank on tank battles AND it can get in close beside the infantry in urban environments and soak up those RPG, IED and heavy machine gun/light cannon hits that you WILL take in an urban battlespace, whether you are USMC, US Army or the Australian Army.
Something like this can not. Which is why they have been largely abandoned as a concept. Modern auto-cannons are also heading towards 40mm gats anyway, so the firepower advantage of something like this is reducing constantly. Add to which there is a much greater availability of portable anti-armour/bunker weapons these days making the medium calibre weapons less and less necessary.
Personally, if you don't require the capability of an M1A1 in a particular battlespace, then I'd suggest an IFV with a good modern auto-cannon, plus co-ax and RWS weapons is probably enough (besides the other weapons available of course).
When you DO need the capability of an M1A1, something like this simply won't cut the mustard...
Regards,
AD
Wrong, as a matter of fact tank is designed to combine firepower, survivability and mobility in one package. Which of these characteristics receive more and which less emphasis depends on tank's role... but would you say that the PzKfw.I and PzKfw.II were not tanks?
DeleteAnd main usage of light tanks like this is not to go against enemy tanks (dedicated attack aircraft, heavy tanks and infantry are all far better suited for that) but to exploit any opportunities for maneuver, bypassing enemy strongpoints and cutting off enemy's supply lines, leaving them to "wither on the vine". And you need tracked vehicles for that.