Haha, I really got pretty excited when I found the CV-90, as it
was light enuff to suit our specs, and had the firepower to knock
out heavy tanks. Of course, it wont have the capability to take
hits, but its survivability is based on NOT taking hits in the
first place, through the pretty liberal use of sensors and enemy
targeting-disrupting countermeasures.
What Shotgun said is true that there may come a time when our
forces may come in close contact with tanks. In that case, of
course, we would need tanks, and survivable tanks at that. (the
CV-90s fit the bill, IMO)However, the LSVs are still very useful in
that their extreme meneuverability and fire-and-forget capability
gives tham a guerilla like capability, with the ability to
'shoot-and-scoot', to borrow an arty term. This will probably not
stop an armour onslaught, but it will blunt an attack, and decrease
the enemy's morale, cause they are only able to absorb hits without
fighting back. However, this can only be done with good information
on the enemy's whereabouts (ISR) , without which the LSVs may find
themselves cornered. This is why I find getting the European ASTOR
so attractive, and why a good link network to transfer needed info
so important.
What Shotgun said about wheels not being suitable for jungle
warfare is also true, and the US Army knows it. The reason why the
LAV III (wheel) was chosen over our Bionix(track) still eludes me
:-) Its also true that armoured vehicles are NEVER intended or
suitable for FIBUA warfare. ATGMs and RPGs just make it too risky.
Soldiers are needed and better suited.
Shotgun however, has the misconception that ERAs provide complete
protection from ATGMs. Well, no. The Spike, Javelin and Tow-2B are
some of the ATGMs that feature tandem warheads which are specially
designed to handle the prospect of encountering ERAs. Also, the
Spike, like the Javelin, can attack from the top of the tank
because of its terminal dive profile. Thus penetration is virtually
ensured.
Another misconception Shotgun seems to have is that lighter tanks
are there so that they are more maneuverable and so thats supposed
to keep them from being hit by tank rounds. If so, then you have
missed the whole point of why lighter tanks are sought after.
Lighter is better in the sense that its more DEPLOYABLE (and less
restricted by terrain too), of course, maneuverability increases
quite a bit, but the increase is never meant for it to dodge a
shot. Why Shinseki wanted light brigades was that they could be
deployed to the theater of operations in a MUCH shorter time
through the use of airlift. The 70 ton Abram just cannot be
deployed through airlift because its not feasible, and sealift
would take months. The Light interim brigades comprising the LAV
IIIs are never intended to replace the Abrams. What is intended to
replace the Abrams is the FCS. The FCS, (which will consist of
sub-40 ton vehicles) while still in concept phase, will make use of
info tech to allow it to attck from stand-off, non-LOS engagements,
thus ensuring survivability. Contact with the enemy is avoided as
far as possible. Of course, full situational awareness is the
bedrock on which this concept is based on, without which, this
concept will never work.
Ok, after all these is said, we come back to how to survive the
contact with enemy armour. Getting a Leo 2 just isn't feasible, as
our land just isn't 'tank country'. Jungles are where we operate
in, not rolling fields and plains. Even the Malaysians understood
that, which was why they required a tank no more than 50 tons.
Getting a bigger tank just ain't gonna cut it. Even my earlier
proposal of the 50 ton K1A1 was found to heavy by Joe, and he was
right. (BTW, the K1A1 was offered by the Malaysians, but was
rejected)
