via Shepard Media.
Textron is contracted to deliver 627 Mobile Strike Force Vehicles (MSFVs) to Afghanistan by the end of 2014 and 344 have been delivered or are in transit to date. The mortar variant will comprise 50 of the total number.The new mortar variant vehicle has a base platform that can house any mortar system that can fire rounds up to 120mm through open hatches in the roof and it can hold 82 rounds. The mortar mount can fire at an azimuth of up to a 360-degrees and a firing elevation of 45 to 85 degrees. Feser said that a 90mm direct fire variant is also in development for the ANA.Interesting.
Another Infantry Support Vehicle (or Light Tank) is soon to hit.
I think we're seeing a trend.
Hmm, I think it's a stretch to call that 4x4 a "light tank". It's an armored truck with a gun.
ReplyDeletei noted that it would more properly be called an infantry support vehicle or a light tank but to call it a truck is also a misnomer. according to todays standards wheeled vehicles can be anything from APC's to IFV's so to add a large caliber gun and call them tanks isn't too much of a stretch.
DeleteIt is a factory built, high tech, technical.
ReplyDeleteThe Afgan's ain't got the brains to use them correctly and inside five years after we pull out these Technicals will be scattered across Afganistan as are the BMD"s and BMP's Jet aircraft , tanks and other debris from Russia/ American wars there.
If not they will be bought/stolen or given to war lords to protect their drug shipments.
Once upon a time vehicles like this were called armored cars. It's actually rather interesting that instead of purpose built armored cars we continually see larger APC derived vehicles turned into fire support vehicles. There was a long history of armored car development from before WWI which I'd argue peaked with the AMX-10RC.
ReplyDeleteCalling any wheeled vehicle a tank in my view can make things confusing. Many definitions of the tank include it being tracked. The USMC describes 5 capabilities of the tank within Marine Corp Tank Employment one of which is shock effect. An armored car often provides far less shock for a variety of reasons.
Consider the British Fox armored car and Scimitar light tank with similar weights and using the exact same turret with 30mm cannon. Both were also introduced in 1973. The Fox has been gone now for 20 years but the Scimitar is still in service. Why exactly is the purpose built armored car less desired than a light tank, by the British, and yet we continually see more fire support versions of existing wheeled APC's? Certainly there are various answers here but I'm not convinced at all it's the right trend in AFV development. There's a reason every MBT in the world is tracked, among other factors.
your example isn't exactly kosher. consider the fact that the brits also have the Bronco and the Foxhound. the Foxhound will continue in service while the Bronco is going to be withdrawn. the Bronco has greater mobility over a wider range of conditions but the Foxhound provides better protection.
Deletethe real issue that we should have isn't the definition of a tank...i really believe that any vehicle mounting a cannon greater than 75mm falls into that category, but what is the true definition of an APC.
but that's another discussion. back to the tank. remember that tanks also had many variants in the past. light, medium, heavy, cruiser, infantry support etc...by the definition of the past the Bradley, Puma and vehicles like them should be considered light tanks. with the ability to transport troops instead of IFVs. but in the end does it really matter?
big guns on vehicles...but less than 120mm are now in vogue. i expect to see more of it.
Actually it does matter. The evolution of the tank, through all the various types, quickly through combat led to the MBT. The simple reason for this was doctrine failed the reality test with the meeting engagement being so common tanks ended up fighting tanks so often that whatever other role envisioned the tank has to be capable of dealing with other tanks. The one exception might be the light tank though even here you see 105mm armed light tanks.
ReplyDeleteIt's not the definition that matters but the role. The essential aspect of what makes a tank is the mix of protection, mobility, and firepower that enables shock. Since the dawn of warfare we've seen infantry, cavalry, and artillery (archers) and the tank unit today as part of the combined arms team provides shock just like heavy cavalry used to do. An APC with a 105mm on top is not a tank. Trying to use it as such isn't going to work out very well.
My example attempted to point out that the British Army operated two very similar vehicles with the same turret and decided to retire the armored car long ago and keep the tracked light tank and illustrate that the armored car is both not a new concept and not always the answer.
Far as I know the Brits are not retiring the Warthog/Bronco but I believe replacing the BvS-10/Viking. That aside I'm not sure why a tracked amphibious APC (2+12) has any relationship to a light MRAP being used as a patrol vehicle with 4 dismounts?
South Africa was producing, and using in combat, the Ratel with a 90mm since the 1970s. I'm not really sure this 40 year old trend is "new". South Africa couldn't build it's own tanks and under the embargo developed the Ratel. Today more nations are drastically reducing the amount of heavy armor in their armies. These wheeled AFV's with tank guns can certainly be useful and versatile but they are not tanks.