Say the U.S. wanted to gather a group of combat effective light tanks (300 or so minimum) to provide some armor for the 82nd and 101st Divisions. The only factors the tanks need to have in common are 1) traced 2) diesel fueled 3) 30 tons or lighter 4) be armed with standard 105 mm cannon (plus one or two secondary machine guns). If they didn't want to wait for a U.S. manufacturer to produce them how many could the U.S. obtain by purchasing those in the inventories of other nations?
Why would the 82nd and 101st want them? Armor isnt their thing. And why a 105mm? 120mm is the standard tank gun these days. We havnt used 105mm since the old M1 Abrams. I think they got rid of it with the M1A1. Or is the lighter gun part of your requirements you are thinking of? Just wondering what prompted the question.
At one time the M551 Sheridans that the 82nd Airborne used for decades were going to be replaced by 50 or so of the M-8 Armored Gun System which mounted a 105 mm gun. Almost every light tank I've seen in service around the world or proposed uses a 105 mm main gun. Not to mention the assault gun version of the Strykers use a 105.
Is the Army talking about bringing a light tank back for airborne/ air assault units? I didn’t realize the Stryker had a 105. I thought it was a 120. I never worked much with them. I was in a Bradley equipped unit.
Yes. It is my understanding that they've narrowed it down to a pair of competitors. Both with 105 mm guns. Estimated size of the buy is as much as 500 units.
The 82 doesn't need suicide boxes, but the Taiwanese could use them for mobile artillery in case of an invasion.
The 82nd Airborne deployed fifty some odd Sheridan light tanks for decades. They seemed fairly well pleased even with the greviously flawed vehicles. Used them in combat in Panama and Kuwait.