• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

New MBT(Leo 2, M1A2, or Challenger 2), new light tank (Stingray), or new DFSV (M8 or MGS)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wm. Harris
  • Start date Start date
I know this is about the LAV III and what not but what about the other assault gun the US Army was planning to use before the project got cancelled-the M8 Buford. Everywhere I go on the web sites say it would be pretty good in its role. Anyone know anything about this piece of machinery? Is it garbage or what cause im sure if it was all that and a bag of chips theyd be out there right now.
 
The M8 was to be the replacement for the M551 Sheridan in the 82d Abn Div.  It was an amazing piece of kit that was tracked, could fit on a Herc complete with it's up-armour package and had a power pack that could slide out on rails like a high quality kitchen drawer.

Unfortunately, it was a victim of the 'tracks versus wheels' debate that saw the US build Stryker Brigades instead.  I think only six M8s were built. Theory being that a tracked light tank was a threat to the Abrams fleet.

A civilian academic writing in a Canadian defence journal in the 1990s recommended Canada buy 300 M8s for our Army and reserves and scrap the Leopard C1.  Unfortunately, we were in the process of justifying the Leo C1/C2 turret swap, and the very idea of getting out of the REAL tank business seemed prepostorous.

Little did we know...
 
While the M8 seemed to be a super piece of kit, it did have its drawbacks.  To keep its base weight at 19.3 tons (mandated by the US Air Force), it was super thinly armoured.  Less than the LAV....and did not provide protection from anything except splinters.  The base vehicle was made of aluminum.  The add on armour package weighed in at slightly over three tons, bringing its weight up to 22.5 tons.  And it was not a small vehicle, it was just about as tall as our Leo 1's.

It was powered by the same engine as the Coyote, a Detroit Diesel, and was considered under powered, but that was fine.  It was supposed to give Airborne forces some punch, and did not have to have a lot of tactical mobility.

The biggest drawback, I think, was its price.  Projected cost was over 5 million per copy.  To buy a hundred or so of what was, essentially, a niche vehicle, was considered to be a tad to expensive.  Especially when it was seen at the time that the light brigades equipped with the Striker family of vehicles would be deployed on overseas taskings, and the US Army at the time could not envision a scenario where the Airborne would be dropped without support and would require 105 mm punch.

A lot of people in the US are crying that the US should have bought the M8 instead of the Striker, but they seem to forget that it was designed solely for the Airborne.  To give it the armour protection that it would require for general army use, I dare say it's weight would be now around 30 tons, and the hull, suspension and drive train were not designed for anything more than 25 tons.

Having said all that, it would be far better received in the airborne than the TOW equipped Humvees they ended up with instead of a gun platform!
 
Tom and Lance

Are we confusing some of the facts here?  I was under the impression it was the LAV/Stryker MGS that had numerous armour and design cuts required to be made in order to have it fit into the Air Transportable parameters. 

I am not sure the M8 filled the Herc transport criteria when it was full Cbt Loaded.
 
George, Ive heard some people say that up armour had to be removed as well others saying it could have its "Level 3" armour on and still be transportable by C-130's.

A post off wikipedia SUGGESTS:

The Level I (basic) armor package is designed for the rapid deployment role and can be airdropped from a C-130 Hercules and protects the vehicle against small-arms fire and shell splinters. The Level II armor package can still be carried by C-130, but must be airlanded and is designed for use by light forces in a more serious threat environment, while level III armor is designed for contingency operations and is supposed to provide protection against light handheld anti-tank weapons. Level III armor cannot be carried by C-130. All versions are air-transportable by C-5 Galaxy and C-17 Globemaster III (five and three respectively).

Some people though suggest that it can be carried by Herc with all its armour on. Im not sure the capacity of the Herc but apparently with Level 3 armour on it weighs just under 25 tons, though combat loaded weights 25.5 tons.

They also made a variant of the Buford I saw mentioned here the Thunderbolt, that had a hybrid diesel-electric engine, and the space made in the back was made into a small roughly 4 person troop compartment. As well it carried a 120mm gun. Murdoc online seems to be eccentric about this piece of machinery.
 
George Wallace said:
Tom and Lance

Are we confusing some of the facts here?  I was under the impression it was the LAV/Stryker MGS that had numerous armour and design cuts required to be made in order to have it fit into the Air Transportable parameters. 

I am not sure the M8 filled the Herc transport criteria when it was full Cbt Loaded.

No, no confusion at all, George.  Same facts for both pieces of kit.  The Air Force wanted the M8 to be under 19.5 tons.  Which seems to be the magical number for Hercs. 
 
Lance Wiebe said:
While the M8 seemed to be a super piece of kit, it did have its drawbacks.  To keep its base weight at 19.3 tons (mandated by the US Air Force), it was super thinly armoured.  Less than the LAV....and did not provide protection from anything except splinters.  The base vehicle was made of aluminum.  The add on armour package weighed in at slightly over three tons, bringing its weight up to 22.5 tons.  And it was not a small vehicle, it was just about as tall as our Leo 1's.

It was powered by the same engine as the Coyote, a Detroit Diesel, and was considered under powered, but that was fine.  It was supposed to give Airborne forces some punch, and did not have to have a lot of tactical mobility.

The biggest drawback, I think, was its price.  Projected cost was over 5 million per copy.  To buy a hundred or so of what was, essentially, a niche vehicle, was considered to be a tad to expensive.  Especially when it was seen at the time that the light brigades equipped with the Striker family of vehicles would be deployed on overseas taskings, and the US Army at the time could not envision a scenario where the Airborne would be dropped without support and would require 105 mm punch.

A lot of people in the US are crying that the US should have bought the M8 instead of the Striker, but they seem to forget that it was designed solely for the Airborne.  To give it the armour protection that it would require for general army use, I dare say it's weight would be now around 30 tons, and the hull, suspension and drive train were not designed for anything more than 25 tons.

Having said all that, it would be far better received in the airborne than the TOW equipped Humvees they ended up with instead of a gun platform!

I got to crawl around the AGS at Littlefields, thin armour was understatement. Apparently the US army wanted it back before war but Littlefield said no. They would do alright supporting Airborne troops, holding an airfield, but would be very vulnerable to mines and RPG's.
 
soo... guess everyone is saying that the M8 had about as much armour as the M109 ?
good enough to stop 5.56mm & shell splinters but not much more
 
Well it's been a long time since I crawled around an M109 but my gut feeling is the armour is thicker on a M109, however the material may be different.
 
I read that back when the MGS competition was on going in the US the AGS makers entered it and it was the only tracked entry....guess it lost for the reason of the armour on my Saturn being thicker.
 
Rayman said:
I read that back when the MGS competition was on going in the US the AGS makers entered it and it was the only tracked entry....guess it lost for the reason of the armour on my Saturn being thicker.

- All decisions have to be seen through the eyes of Larry Lunchbox and Susie Sewingkit - the voters.  If the M8 looks like a tank and the Abrams looks like a tank and there is a funding crunch between the AFVs that look like tanks, which tank will the peasants listening to AM talk radio pick?

- Why give them a chance to make a mistake?

- The M8 died to save the Abrams upgrades.  That's part of my theory - the other part being the 1990s was a bad time to be a tracked vehicle.
 
TCBF said:
- All decisions have to be seen through the eyes of Larry Lunchbox and Susie Sewingkit - the voters.  If the M8 looks like a tank and the Abrams looks like a tank and there is a funding crunch between the AFVs that look like tanks, which tank will the peasants listening to AM talk radio pick?

- Why give them a chance to make a mistake?

- The M8 died to save the Abrams upgrades.  That's part of my theory - the other part being the 1990s was a bad time to be a tracked vehicle.

Hmm obviously the M1. For better or for worse though. As well to add to your point about the 1990s being a bad time to be tracked wasn't the Cretchein Liberal government for going to all wheeled forces for us too?

 
Colin P said:
I got to crawl around the AGS at Littlefields, thin armour was understatement. Apparently the US army wanted it back before war but Littlefield said no. They would do alright supporting Airborne troops, holding an airfield, but would be very vulnerable to mines and RPG's.

I got some feedback from my friend who has open access to the Littlefields collection, here is what he had to say:

The Littlefield CCVL had separate bolt on boxes which one could insert different armor packages into them. IIRC very thin outer skin and about 8 inches thick across the depth of the boxes. These boxes were mounted on the turret. the hull was about 3/4 inch thick aluminum. I ruffled the feathers of an FMC engineer when I told him his "Armored" boxes were useless. He tried to explain the advantages of mix and match armor packages that could be inserted into the boxes. I asked him why such an elaborate system was only held on the turret sides by 1/2" bolts?
 
This argument is somewhat moot anyway, the FCS tank variant will have a similar size/weight as the M-8 (or the earlier RDF "light tank" concepts), so if it gets into production, then it will probably show up in light and medium UA's to provide the armoured "punch".

In terms of protection, it is probably better than the RDF light tank or M-8, but only marginally better, and certainly not in the same class as even a CV90120, much less the 3rd generation MBTs like the Challenger, Leopard 2 or M-1.
 
The current NLOS C model that is supposed to begin production is 23 tonnes. The NLOS C is in the same family of vehicles (MGV) as the Mounted Combat System (The "FCS tank variant") will probably be 21-22 tonnes (my guess).
 
This from the UK House of Commons Defence Committee - calling into question the ability of the Mythical A400M to lift the FRES.

FRES started at under 20 tonnes and the A400M started at 37 tonnes.  Now (as of November last year at least) the FRES is creeping up through 25 tonnes to 32 tonnes and the A400M is slipping in range terms - at 25 tonnes the A400M will have a range of 2000 miles

83. The Government Response to our Report, published on 11 May 2007, said that:

The decision to remove the requirement for C-130 Hercules deployability reflects the anticipated change in the balance of the air transport fleet in favour of A400M. It also reflects the increased protection levels required for FRES which cannot be accommodated within the C-130 load limit. Transportability by A400M is recognised as a risk to the programme but is being carefully managed.[123]

84. The memorandum from the Royal Aeronautical Society stated that the A400M will be able to carry FRES "as currently defined (a 37 tonnes payload)", but points out that "vehicular weight, airborne or ground based, tends to creep upwards during design, as well as once in service—20% growth is not unusual. Clearly it would be sensible to ensure that the FRES specification is consistent with A400M performance".[124]

85. AVM Leeson acknowledged that there had been a trend for armoured vehicles to become heavier to provide improved protection. He said that, given the security situation currently faced by UK Service personnel, it was a "considerable worry that with each threat change there is an inexorable rise in the weight of armour or protection that our various vehicles are carrying". As a consequence "it will constantly stress the ability to lift these vehicles around". AVM Leeson considered that, so far, the design of the A400M was "living up to the FRES demands". However, he recognised that, if the threat situation changed further, this issue would have to be looked at very carefully.[125]

86. We asked whether the A400M aircraft could cope with the increasing weight of FRES. Mr Rowntree said that the floor strength of the A400M had been recently strengthened. He said that the A400M was at a more advanced stage of development compared with FRES. FRES was "working to around a 25 tonne total size" which would enable A400M to transport it about 2,000 miles which "would be a very useful lift capability". However, if the weight crept up to 32 tonnes, this would reduce the distance that an A400M could transport FRES.[126]

87. Mr Rowntree emphasised that the FRES and A400M teams were in very close dialogue and the FRES team knew where "the bounds are" for the A400M.[127] The MoD did not know to what extent the A400M could be upgraded through life. However, if FRES weight increased through life it would "create problems".[128] Mr Thompson said that the floor reinforcements and the ramp reinforcement for the A400M was a "UK-unique configuration".[129] He added that it was more difficult to retrofit aircraft than incorporate a change while it was being built. He thought that with the A400M "we have probably reached the end of the easy modifications".[130]

88. We asked about the implications if the weight of FRES went above 32 tonnes. General Figgures told us that as threats changed, the protection for FRES would have to be adjusted, and would have to be tuned to a particular threat. This could mean that there would be different mixtures of armour for different threats which could be taken on and off the vehicle. He considered that if FRES went above 32 tonnes, the MoD would be "able to fly the base vehicle with a base level of protection and then we would increase that protection once we got into theatre".[131] We asked whether this would mean that more aircraft would be required to transport the same number of FRES vehicles. General Figgures said that would be the case if the MoD deployed all its FRES vehicles by air:

but the proposition would be that we would fly FRES, if necessary, for say a small scale focused intervention where speed of reaction was important, and we would have sufficient air fleet to be able to air land the appropriate sub-unit and framework of the battlegroup that was going to be deployed.

He added that for a small scale focused deployment "we require that rapidity. For a more deliberate intervention….the Strategic Lift could well be provided by sea".[132]

89. It has recently been reported in the media that the MoD had asked Airbus whether a FRES vehicle weighing 36 tonnes could be transported on A400M aircraft and that, while the company considered this achievable, it was not within the current price and schedule terms of the UK's A400M contract.[133]

90. It is intended that the MoD's Future Rapid Effect System (FRES), a family of medium-weight armoured vehicles, are to be transportable to operational theatres by A400M aircraft. However, the increased weight of FRES could lead to it becoming too heavy to be transported by A400M or could substantially reduce the distance that the vehicles could be transported. The weight of FRES must be carefully monitored and managed, both during development and when in-service, to avoid a situation where the UK Armed Forces will have a new generation of armoured fighting vehicles which cannot be deployed rapidly overseas.

According to AirForce Technology these WERE the specs for the A400M:

....
Maximum Payload 37t
....
Performance
....
Range at Maximum Payload 1,800nm
30t Payload Range  2,600nm
20t Payload Range 3,750nm 

Now they are down to 2000 miles at 25t.  According to the above profile the range should have been somewhere around 3000 nm (between 2600nm and 3750nm).

Nor are the FRES people lily white on this one.  A classic case of expanding to fit the space available - much like work (which expands to fit the time available).

 
If  FRES were canceled that may actually be a good thing as far as the Army/defense budget is concerned.
 
I just thought of a wacky idea. What about a troop of LEO 2 or LEO 1 at each area trg center. You assign a small cadre of maintainers and instructors and for reservist you simply run continious tank driver and gunner courses throughout the year. Keeping a small, small fleet of tanks centralized (minimize deployment cost or flatbedding them) would be cheaper and it would give the armoured reserves a base level of skills in ACTUAL armoured warfare.

Now guys that deploy in Tank crews would have to get a refresher on tanks but at least they would have the base skills.

Thinking back on it, its too bad we didn't simply assign a platoon of cougars to each inf coy equipped with grizzly AVGP as a DFS platoon. We could have made it similar to another PCF course like mortars and TOW. Oh well, hind sight is 50/50.

I did happen to read some old armoured school bulletins and I beleive there was a plan at one time to have our army buy a whole bunch of scorpion recce vehicles and replace all the armoured (Tank) regts as armoured recce. George, where you around for that? Obviously it didn't happen. Some years later we end up with the Cougar.

The way I see it, Tanks fight tanks the best and should be crewed by 011s. The CF has limited capabilities and its in our best interest to stick with MBT. BUT if we ever did get MGS (Look out maybe Liberals will change everything if they ever win another election, yikes!) then maybe assigning them as organic DFS fire power to LAVIII equipped companies would be the way to go. If grunts can leanr and handle LAVIII gunnery, I am sure they would handle MGS gunnery too.
 
Another thought to go with CF sticking with tanks is that we should get on board with the newer 120mm rounds out there. Yes there is APFSDS and HEAT, but also add in new HE/HEP rounds, canister, smoke and gun launched missiles in 120mm tank (yes all these rounds are out thwere and exist). 

This would make the MBT a more versatile vehicle for operations these days.
 
Yes and no.  The philosophy of "armour protection" in the AVGP family, was the "Swiss cheese" philosophy: a lightly armoured vehicle for Aid to Civil Power type of Ops, that would stop small arms up to 7.62 mm and allow larger calibre rounds to penetrate and pass right through, as opposed to penetrate and ricoche around inside.  

I do believe that Tracks are more mobile and we need a fully Tracked Mech Force, but the LAV fleet also has its role.  Unfortuanately, unlike many of our Allies, we have a small Armed Forces and do not have the luxury, manpower, nor budget to maintain both types of fleets and Unit formations.

This has been the topic of discussion in other threads, so I will leave it at that.
 
Back
Top