NationStates Jolt Archive

We are currently in the process of upgrading our light reconnasissance tanks for the following Battalions:

1st Armoured Reconnaissance battalion
2nd Armoured Reconnaissance battalion

This means we need to purchase about 400 light reconnasissance tanks. We are looking for top of the range but not too expensive.

We are also looking into purchasing Heavy tanks.

- John Williams
Ministry of Defence.

A good case could be made for using APCs as your recon vehicles instead, but I sell what would have been the replacement for the M551 Sheridan light tank.

:arrow: M-8 Ridgeway Armored Gun System

Named after WW2 General Matthew Ridgeway of the 82nd Airborne Division, the M-8 was a US Army experimental design that never saw production. Do not be fooled by its appearance - it's not a tank. The M-8 is similar to the M551 Sheridan, the vehicle it was intended to replace, in many ways. The purpose of this AGS is to provide an air-droppable "light tank" for airborne forces. Once on the ground, the M-8 functions as a support weapon for the paratroopers - it engages bunkers, light vehicles, infantry and fortifications with its Rhinemetall 105mm cannon. It cannot stand toe to toe against modern tanks; its armor is simply too thin.

The M-8's titanium armor is fully customizable and comes in three easily added levels: Level 1 protects against shrapnel, Level 2 protects against direct fire from small arms and small cannon fire, and Level 3 protects against anything up to a 30mm cannon/chain gun (such as that mounted on an Apache). Level 3 armor is a significant improvement over the Sheridan, the standard armor of which could be pierced by .50 caliber machine gun fire.

The M-8 can also be fitted with Reactive Armor, but it then loses the ability to be air-dropped.

The low-recoil 105mm direct-fire gun uses an autoloader and features a digital day/night/thermal fire control system with a laser rangefinder similar to that of the M1A2 Abrams. It also features an NBC overpressure system and fire suppression systems. The turret is stabilized so shooting on the move is easy.

A C-130 can hold one M-8, a C-141 two, a C-17 three, and a C-5 can hold five AGSs.

The M-8 program was cancelled in 1996 not because it was a failure, but because of cutbacks in the Army budget.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m8ags-001-s.jpg

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m8ags-003_s.jpg
The M-8 fitted with ERA.

Weight: 19.25 tons - Level 1, 22.25 tons - Level 2, 24.75 tons - Level 3
Length: 210 inches - Hull 331 inches - overall
Width: 106 inches
Height: 100 inches
Speed: Maximum 45 mph, Cross Country 30 mph
Engine: 550 hp diesel
Cruising Range: 300 miles @ 2 mpg
Fording Depth: 40 in
Main Gun: M35 105mm cannon [30 rounds]
Coaxial machinegun: M240 7.62mm
Commander's machinegun: Browning M2 .50 caliber
M-8 - $1.75 million
M-8 with ERA - $2 million (no paradrop)

I think the base model should be sufficient for your recon needs.

FT-4 'Thorin' Light Tank:

http://www.meatballs.terminator.org.uk/crookfur/images/FC/thorin.jpg

To be pretty quick, fire a 95mm gun and have a .50 cal on top. Has to be amphibious and air lift able. To be used in urban situations, tanks battles and anti infantry.

Weight: 32tons
Crew: 2 (driver, gunner/commander)
Engine: CFPW T442
Water drive: 2 water jet systems (steer able)
Max speed: 120kph
Range: 700km
Weapons:
Main gun: 105mm Electro Thermal gun (can fire M9 ATGMs at up to 6km) with auto loader capable of 15RPM (slower for ATGMs)
Co-axial: 20mm Grenade launcher
External: 1 universal MG mounting
Ammo: 20main gun rounds, 10 ATGMs and 500 grenades in armoured isolated emergency vented boxes inside turret, up to 800 rounds for MG
Armour:
Turret: 300mm advanced armour composite
Body: Front: 450mm. sides/ rear: 285mm
Electrical reactive armour
Survivability: Fully integrated defensive counter measures system including threat detection and active counter laser system, heat signature obscured by cool air mixing in exhaust and advanced engine cooling system (mixture of exhaust water and small amounts of fuel), radar absorbing paint
Systems: Full digital fire control with fully stabilized gun and suspension system, fire direction system for GL and target detection radar, full thermal/IE vision systems for all weather/night time operation, full tactical and command level data/ coms systems

USES THE LATEST ETC Technology

..edited

Recon usually means quick.

Those M-8's, are slow lumbering giants.

And, they carry to much weaponary, adn are too heavy. I prefer 105mm ETC's, with 120 kph top speed.

You've got a point there, didn't pick up on the speed. Freedom Country you've swung my judgement, I'll buy your tank, 400 of them please.

FC: I really don't know offhand how KPH stacks up against MPH so I can't comment on the speed thing, but the M8 is definitely lighter than your tank. Your tank carries more weaponry than the M8 does anyway - a 105mm gun and a pair of MGs compared to a 105mm gun/missile launcher and a grenade launcher.

Split 'em 75:25 towards FC:R

That might work, to keep us happy.

Anyway, 300 FT-4's will be $600,000,000

400 FT-4's are $800,000,000

Split 'em 75:25 towards FC:R

That might work, to keep us happy.

Anyway, 300 FT-4's will be $600,000,000

400 FT-4's are $800,000,000

We'll go for that, if thats ok with Remiesia, either way $600,000,000 wired to Freedom Country

We respectfully withdraw our offer.

Sorry Remiesia.

What was our cannon fodder, is good for Airborne and Recon.

Since he withdrew your offer, we expect 200 Million more for the remaining 100 tanks.

200 Million more on the way

Just a couple of things I'd like to point out:

1. The FT-4 is roughly 7 tons heavier than the M8.
2. The FT-4 has much more armament than the M8.

How FC managed to convince you to buy those is beyond me.

The work of words my friend.

It is quick, more heavil armed and more usefu.

That, my friend, is why the M-8 is a forgotten weapon :wink:

Order Confirmed. Tanks will be with you soon.

The work of words my friend.

It is quick, more heavil armed and more usefu.

That, my friend, is why the M-8 is a forgotten weapon :wink:

Order Confirmed. Tanks will be with you soon.

Actually the M8 is a forgotten weapon because Congress slashed the Army's budget.

The work of reading, my friend.

Something I have not yet learnt :wink:

Oh well,a t least they slashed it for a good reason :lol:

Har har har har har.......erm.....no.

Not mean to be funny, it was designed to be lame :wink:

Just a couple of things I'd like to point out:

1. The FT-4 is roughly 7 tons heavier than the M8.
2. The FT-4 has much more armament than the M8.

How FC managed to convince you to buy those is beyond me.
1. That's a bad thing. The value of a light tank is in greater strategic mobility. In that area, M8 exceeds your unit by a significant margin.
2. Not everyone wants to use ETC guns. Some prefer less futuristic weapons.
Also, the armor is utterly absurd for a light tank, unless you're at least a century or two in the future. Light tanks have less armor than MBTs, not more. I can't think of one with even 10% of the armor protection you're claiming.

Oh

Sorry, that was pre modification.

That was the FT-4A1, I sell the FT-4A2.

You know, ETC, less armor, bigger engine, sleeker.

Sorry, old version, back when it WAS an MBT.

And even after all of that, it has a top speed of 74 mph.......?

Thank you, someone, for seeing my point.

Oh

Sorry, that was pre modification.

That was the FT-4A1, I sell the FT-4A2.

You know, ETC, less armor, bigger engine, sleeker.

Sorry, old version, back when it WAS an MBT.

Why Don't you use a M3 Bradley Cavalry Scout?

It isnt a tank, more a heavily armored APC.

Only a 30mm gun, see.

It isnt a tank, more a heavily armored APC.

Only a 30mm gun, see.

ahh but it can perform the same duties, have troops that can dismount to sneak up on enemy positions. And engage tanks with its TOW missile Launcher. Plus the 25mm Bushmaster is nothing to sneeze at.

Yeh, but no modern MBT is gonna fear a piddly little 25mm cannon, or TOW's.

In fact, I dont think it would even penetrate the OUTER armor :)

Yeh, but no modern MBT is gonna fear a piddly little 25mm cannon, or TOW's.

In fact, I dont think it would even penetrate the OUTER armor :)

a recce tank isn't supposed to engage enemy forces, just gather information and cause some havock. And if you hit any modern tank from behind with a TOW or even the 25mm you'll probably disable its engine at the very least. which will knock it out of action.

Yeh, but recon doesnt go for BEHIND.

And becide, recon is often used for hit and run, and if its hit and run, you want to HIT and run, not pepper the tanks with piddly little 25mm shells and run away.

Yeh, but recon doesnt go for BEHIND.

And becide, recon is often used for hit and run, and if its hit and run, you want to HIT and run, not pepper the tanks with piddly little 25mm shells and run away.

25mm depleted uranium slugs can do a little more then pepper. Say the tank has ERA, well not anymore. Also if your good enough you can knock out the tank commander if he's exposed as well as the loader. And besides the idea of Cavalry Scouts and Recon is being taken over by helicopters and Unmanned vehicles these days that carry Hellfire missiles that can cause a bit more damage.

Yeh, but recon doesnt go for BEHIND.

And becide, recon is often used for hit and run, and if its hit and run, you want to HIT and run, not pepper the tanks with piddly little 25mm shells and run away.

No, 99% of the time recon has nothing to do with engaging the enemy. If you're foolish enough to send recon units after tanks, I hope you've got enough body bags in your inventory.

Recon shouldnt really be done with tanks.

It should be done with helos, satellites or light vehicles.

Anyway, Recon Tanks are often used for hit and run. You really want to hit 'em hard (105mm ETC) and run quick (120 kph).

And, in case you do get hit while running, you dont want to be hit be something thats toasted by a 40mm shell :wink:

And the exposed Commander and Loader is the same in any vehicle, aswell as the M3. Even more so, as turret armor is normally huge.

Your idea of "recon tanks" = tank destroyers.

Your idea of "recon tanks" = tank destroyers.

which is something entirely different.

No, tank destroyers are slow, lumbering things that are best used in defensive positions.

Really, there shouldnt be any recon tanks as they arent fitted to the role.

Thank you for making the point i've been trying to make.

Well the point I have been proving is that my tank is the best tank that fits that role :wink:

Yeh, but no modern MBT is gonna fear a piddly little 25mm cannon, or TOW's.

In fact, I dont think it would even penetrate the OUTER armor :)
The 25mm gun can take out an MBT, even head on. It requres an extremely lucky shot, but it has been done.
New versions of the TOW are feared by all tank crews. It's still powerful enough to defeat any armor with the attack profile used, and its guidance means that the launch has to be seen (not likely in a buttoned up tank) for it to be countered.
300mm is still MBT protection. I challenge you to find 1 vehicle that's not an MBT (or based on one) with even 100mm armor.
32 tons isn't what I'd call a "light" tank. All the vehicles I know of with such a designation weigh less than 25, generally in the 14-21 ton range.

Recon units would strike against things like supply convoys and depots. A piddly little 25mm gun would slaughter those, and then the tanks would be dead because they have no fuel or ammunition. They don't fight tanks directly.

No, tank destroyers are slow, lumbering things that are best used in defensive positions.

Really, there shouldnt be any recon tanks as they arent fitted to the role.

?????????????

No no no no no....TDs are fast, lightly armored, and are designed to shoot and scoot. Look at the US Army's TDs during WWII - they fit that description exactly, but the idea's been dropped since we have stuff like helicopter gunships and generally better AT weapons.

Look here

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/usa/m18_tankdestroyer.html

Well the point I have been proving is that my tank is the best tank that fits that role :wink:


and it would get ripped apart by any MBT as would a bradley. Hell between the TOW and the Bushmaster the Bradley would shred it


The nice thing about a Cavalry Dismount on a bradley is they could probably observe the enemy forces without being seen. I guess it all comes down to the tactics. if you want to go out in something knock out a single tank and get shredded by the return fire go with Freedom Country, but if you want to go out and observe the enemy then report back on its position go with something like the Bradley.

No, tank destroyers are slow, lumbering things that are best used in defensive positions.

Really, there shouldnt be any recon tanks as they arent fitted to the role.
The role of a tank destroyer is loosely defined. The definiton you're giving only applied to WWII heavy TDs. The US had lightly armored, but heavily armed units (with turrets) that actively hunted tanks. Of the gun-armed TDs in around today, most have full turrets (I know of only three that don't, and one is being phased out of service, one hasn't entered, and one is used more as a light airborne fire support platform). Many are also quite fast, often being able to outpace tanks they serve with. In fact, many double as recon units. How about that?

No light tank should be fitted with ERA, too heavy.

And TOW missiles can destroy tanks. Especially with the new TOW-2, it can defeat modern tanks with heavy armor. Not mentioning Javelin.

You dont even want to see an M3 when it gets hit.

And dont ask me about all this stuff, I didnt design it, Crookfur did.

You dont even want to see an M3 when it gets hit.

And dont ask me about all this stuff, I didnt design it, Crookfur did.
You are the seller. People got concerns, you gotta deal with it :P

No no no no no....TDs are fast, lightly armored, and are designed to shoot and scoot. Look at the US Army's TDs during WWII - they fit that description exactly, but the idea's been dropped since we have stuff like helicopter gunships and generally better AT weapons.

TDs are alive and well, but most double as recon units.
The Centauro, Rooikat, AMX-10RC, and a number of other wheeled units are used as tank destroyers (the Centauro is designated as one, actually). In addition, ATGM vehicles like the ITV, Striker, and Jaguar, are tank destroyers as well.

I haven't :)

In reality, ground vehicles shouldnt even be used in Recon.

Floiage, worms eye view, tiny periscopes. Something like a helo is much better.

You dont even want to see an M3 when it gets hit.

And dont ask me about all this stuff, I didnt design it, Crookfur did.

Hit by what? Small arms don't really phase it but .50 cal and larger are a problem. But I'd like to see your "light Tank" survive a 120mm HEAT or 40mm SABOT round. And besides, I personally KNOW some Cavalry Scouts. from the 1-107th Armored Battalion of the OANG that saw action in Persian Gulf I.

So....

Not amny tanks, especially the piddly armor o the M3, are gonna survive 120mm HEAT.

But most tanks are gonna survive HEAT, with ERA, or even armor. HEAT was designed for anti APC use, not AT.

That is what SABOT is for. And with light tanks, the idea is that it will survive anyhting up to 30mm SABOTand 80mm HEAT.

In reality, ground vehicles shouldnt even be used in Recon.

Floiage, worms eye view, tiny periscopes. Something like a helo is much better.
They don't have "worms eye view" in the 50es.

If your tank is that strong, it shouldn't be called a "light tank". Typically historically light tanks can be destroyed by infantry weapons: my grandmother's unit in the Korean war destroyed several American tanks.

wooo, 10,000 posts.....

Well, a light tank historically was a APC, IFV or the like. But that was WW2.

Now, a vehicle that cant survive small arms is useless. (Minus a truck/jeep, but they are small and cheap).

Now, small tanks at least should be bushwhacked by a 30mm-50mm shell, which and APC/IFV couldnt do.

Now, a vehicle that cant survive small arms is useless. (Minus a truck/jeep, but they are small and cheap).

Believe it r not, my grandmother destroyed several light tanks or something using machine guns.

So, that was 50 years ago....

So, that was 50 years ago....
The concept still remains :wink:

So....

Not amny tanks, especially the piddly armor o the M3, are gonna survive 120mm HEAT.

But most tanks are gonna survive HEAT, with ERA, or even armor. HEAT was designed for anti APC use, not AT.

That is what SABOT is for. And with light tanks, the idea is that it will survive anyhting up to 30mm SABOTand 80mm HEAT.

my point was, both the bradley and your light tank would die in that situation. while the bradley has the option of ofloading a fire team to observe the enemy position without exposing itself. Your extra armor and guns don't mean much at all.

Yes it does.

It means that that tank will be able to destroy the enemy before it destroys them :wink:

So....

Not amny tanks, especially the piddly armor o the M3, are gonna survive 120mm HEAT.

But most tanks are gonna survive HEAT, with ERA, or even armor. HEAT was designed for anti APC use, not AT.

That is what SABOT is for. And with light tanks, the idea is that it will survive anyhting up to 30mm SABOTand 80mm HEAT.
Wrong
The HEAT warhead was designed for engaging tanks back in the 1950s. It proved so effective against Israeli M48s and M60s in the 1967 6-Day war that many experts beleived that tanks had been rendered completely obsolete!
Composite armor was designed specifically to counter HEAT warheads, which is why it's more effective against them than penetrators like SABOT rounds. Since composite armor is so effective against HEAT, we went pack to heavy penetrators to defeat tanks (hmmm, notice a cycle here?), hence the APFSDS round.

Yes it does.

It means that that tank will be able to destroy the enemy before it destroys them :wink:

ok, there is one of your tanks, there are typically 4 of theirs (recce units usually operate indepently) you blow up one, your blown up yourself.

Yes it does.

It means that that tank will be able to destroy the enemy before it destroys them :wink:
No, a common tactic by infantry (used by the Chinese side in the Korean War) is the infantry hides. When tanks come, they rush up and attack, which is deadly.

And you arent really gonna carry soldiers on a recce mission, since they are slow and and are gonna be left behind. And still, you have 6 troops BHL, gonna die.

And you arent really gonna carry soldiers on a recce mission, since they are slow and and are gonna be left behind. And still, you have 6 troops BHL, gonna die.

you still don't understand the concept of the Cavalry scout do you, i give up.

And you arent really gonna carry soldiers on a recce mission, since they are slow and and are gonna be left behind. And still, you have 6 troops BHL, gonna die.
All recon vehicles have portable equipment for dismounted troops, which means that someone is expected to leave the vehicle and observe. In most, these are the crew that operate the vehicle, so it sits by idly (and hidden), as the crew sneak up and observe the enemy. The vehicle itself is too large and noisy to observe without being seen itself.
The difference with the M3 is that the vehicle can still be operated without the scouts, which is why it's a better recon unit than most.

And you arent really gonna carry soldiers on a recce mission, since they are slow and and are gonna be left behind. And still, you have 6 troops BHL, gonna die.
All recon vehicles have portable equipment for dismounted troops, which means that someone is expected to leave the vehicle and observe. In most, these are the crew that operate the vehicle, so it sits by idly (and hidden), as the crew sneak up and observe the enemy. The vehicle itself is too large and noisy to observe without being seen itself.
The difference with the M3 is that the vehicle can still be operated without the scouts, which is why it's a better recon unit than most.

finally someone that understands....

It still an IFV....

And all this argument started was because someone said tanks arent good for recon. Guess what!!!

READ THE THREAD NAME

Yes, it was I that said they weren't good for recon, i was trying to advise the author of the thread to go with an IFV to fullfil that duty, or maybe even a Helicopter or UAV.

my grandmother's unit in the Korean war destroyed several American tanks.


grandmothers???

Ok as the original designer of the tank i suppose i should i should make soem comments:

Armor: its 300-400mm of advanced armor composites, basically a lot of that is spacing, it isn't 300 of RHA (as found on the cheiftan before the stillbrew addon) 300mm of spaced armor isn't too bad as modern MBTs carry at least 800mm of it... this isn't big badass gun stopping stuff it should give some protection aaginst upto 40mm APDS and light HEAT war heads (although the electrical reactive armor should help with those).

Originally it had a pretty bog standard L7 style 105mm gun that was adapted to use an autoloader and a tube launched missile system (if the russians can do it in with the 100mm gun on the BMD and BMP series...) the 20mm GL system is based on the OCSW so is perhaps about the weight of a GPMG.


As to intended role, originally a light tank capable of urban operations was called for so i designed a tank that just about can be classed as light with a useful gun, OK armor and an interesting secondary weapon(mediums seem to be the 35-50ton rnage these days with heavies at 50tons plus), this isn't truely a recon tank, if he had wanted that i would have gone for a Scorpion/scimitar concept.




As to my view on recon, soemtimes actually having men on the ground does the job better than a helo, so i use a coverted IFV, with a muffled engine, reduced thermal sig and radios/coms gear replacing most of the troop compartment leaving just enough room for a 4 man fireteam of scouts.


As for cannons versus tanks, the 2 gulf wars have shown that 30mm RARDEN vs T55= dead T55 and RARDEN vs T72= a dead T72 if you get lucky (there are a couple of stories about warriors taking out T72s).

As for cannons versus tanks, the 2 gulf wars have shown that 30mm RARDEN vs T55= dead T55 and RARDEN vs T72= a dead T72 if you get lucky (there are a couple of stories about warriors taking out T72s).

On a nonrelated matter, I've also heard some stories about a M1A2 got hit by Sabot rounds fired from T-72s a few times and survived without damage.

So you may consider to get rid of some more armor if possible, and ERA, to make this more lighter.

The Iraqis didnt have DU, therefore didnt have SABOT.

They would have sold it or used it for nukes.

There isn't any conventional ERA on this, it uses electrical reactive armor which is a rather light weight system the brits designed for their lighter units (warrior, scimitar, stormer, etc).

Oh and FC i believe the russian systems largely used tungsten for thier sabot rounds (the term refers to the sabots or shoes that fit around the penetrator) and yes the iraqs did use them in both gulf wars to minimal effect (there are notes concerning an Abrams inability to sucessfully penetrate another abram's glacis).

Great way to reduce friendly fire though :wink:

The Iraqis didnt have DU, therefore didnt have SABOT.

They would have sold it or used it for nukes.
Actually, they do have Sabot rounds. They could have bought it :P

At least, TOm Clancy said that the Iraqi T-72s fired Sabots at M1A1s.

Yes, but thats Tom Clancy.

Yes, but thats Tom Clancy.
They don't have uranium or nuke technology doesn't mean that they don't have Sabot rounds for their T-72s.