New replacement for AMX-13SM1
-
I have recently come across a new version of light tank from the US in the Tom Clancy book titled "Armoured Warfare". However, the book is a bit old so the info may be a bit out-dated. He talk about the experimental XM8 Armoured Gun System by FMC. The XM8 has an aluminium hull and turret, and is armed with a soft-recoil 105mm gun, which can fired the same ammunition as the early versions of the M1 Abrams. It have an autoloader adapted from the US Navy's 5" Mk-45 gun mount to handle and load the shells in the AGS. It will be capable of loadind a fresh round every 5 seconds, and should be quite reliable,based on the history of the naval gun mount and initial tests. Because of the autoloader the crew is being reduced from 4 to 3. It is powered by a 550-hp diesel enginewith a hydromechanical automatic transmission. XM8 will be capable of speeds up to 45mph/74kph, depending on the terrain and the installed armour package. What do you guys think? Sounds pretty good to me!
-
This AGS is old news already. Not sure what is the current status? Is it canned?
Actually on a singapore context better to get a 105mm-guned BX than to pursue this.
Actually I rather doubt the ability of the 105mm gun to defeat Modern MBTs such as the improved Polish T-72s. -
Just wondering about something - does the US XM8 and the Bionix use similar engines, wheels, drive sprockets and tracks?
-
Seems to me that we might have a version of the M109 Paladin howitzer that looks like a tank..Anyone care to comment
-
I think you mean our version of the M109 SPH. Basically, it is a M109 chassis mounting a new turret with a version of the FH88/2000 gun. Saw this back in Sungei Gedong trg. area back in Feb 2001 during my ICT. Can't remember whether it is 39 or 52 caliber though. Wonder when they will unveil this to the public...
-
The XM8 is very old news and has indeed been canned.
Cost were too high for a tank that was not going to deliver.
The tank's amour was suppose to be modulated.With mod 1 being a super striped down version of some 20tons i think.It would have been soft skinned and suvive ammo of up to 7.62 caliber ffrom the front.Baically anything bigger then an AK-47 could kill it.In mod 2 it weights 24 tons i think.It will be able to suvive up till 20mm on the front.Mod 3 would be able to handle up a recoil anti tank gun 30mm i think not too sure about this.
With the mod 1 you can fit 8 into the hull of a C-5...with Mod 2...6 and mod 3 will have 4 into the hull.All this includes all supporting gear.
With Anti-tank weapons becoming more powerful the US saw that the tank was obsolete and canned the project as a mere RPG-7 could penetrate.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m8-ags.htm -
Aiyoh, you anyhow wack your info one. The canning of the XM-8 AGS is prehaps one of the stupidest moves US Armed Forces red tape can come up with. No, the AGS is not an obsolute or flawed design. And by any measure it is actually the among most advanced light tanks ever developed. The reason it was canned was not because of cost overruns or any flaws on its part (which were well within limits compared to other sexier, but much less needed weapons programs). But criminally bad planning.
Your idea on AGS protection demostrates your heavy lack of understanding of the actual capabilities of this system. On level one protection, it can protect the crew from all kinds of small arms fire and limited exposive devices. It can certainly survive small arms larger then an AK-47, and most certainly protect from soviet 14.7mm heavy machine guns.
What's more the level of protection rises dramatically when the modular armor packages are installed. On level 3 armour, the AGS actually packs more survivability then a M60 Patton tank. It can certainly survive an RPG on level 3.
And project cost overruns are insane. If anything, the AGS was a dirt cheap program. The very tank itself used mainly off the shelf parts and even the same powerpack as their 5 tonner truck.
And your idea of the AGS role seems to be badly flawed as well. It is not supposed to fight MBTs, but rather, provide high mobile, deployable supporting armoured firepower to rapid deployment units. With the canning of the AGS and retirement of the Sheridan, US airborne troops are left without any kind of heavy firepower on their own. Unless you have any idea of getting 70 ton Abrams tanks halfway across the world overnight and use it with full fuel and ammo, you can see why the AGS was so useful, and it's canning unjustified.
If anything, scrapping the AGS program in the defence budget buys the US armed forces, 15 heavily invested in, overly expensive (and not really needed) Super Hornets for the marines (which they would likely end up crashing anyway). The same amount of cash which can buy over 50 XM-8 tanks providing rapid deployment units with their much needed firepower. -
Anyone can provide pictures of this vehicle?
-
Here a link -Originally posted by tankee1981:Anyone can provide pictures of this vehicle?
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m8-ags.htm -
It's a mobile gun system mah and yes i admit i did make mistakes cause of my bad memory sorryOriginally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Aiyoh, you anyhow wack your info one. The canning of the XM-8 AGS is prehaps one of the stupidest moves US Armed Forces red tape can come up with. No, the AGS is not an obsolute or flawed design. And by any measure it is actually the among most advanced light tanks ever developed. The reason it was canned was not because of cost overruns or any flaws on its part (which were well within limits compared to other sexier, but much less needed weapons programs). But criminally bad planning.
Your idea on AGS protection demostrates your heavy lack of understanding of the actual capabilities of this system. On level one protection, it can protect the crew from all kinds of small arms fire and limited exposive devices. It can certainly survive small arms larger then an AK-47, and most certainly protect from soviet 14.7mm heavy machine guns.
What's more the level of protection rises dramatically when the modular armor packages are installed. On level 3 armour, the AGS actually packs more survivability then a M60 Patton tank. It can certainly survive an RPG on level 3.
And project cost overruns are insane. If anything, the AGS was a dirt cheap program. The very tank itself used mainly off the shelf parts and even the same powerpack as their 5 tonner truck.
And your idea of the AGS role seems to be badly flawed as well. It is not supposed to fight MBTs, but rather, provide high mobile, deployable supporting armoured firepower to rapid deployment units. With the canning of the AGS and retirement of the Sheridan, US airborne troops are left without any kind of heavy firepower on their own. Unless you have any idea of getting 70 ton Abrams tanks halfway across the world overnight and use it with full fuel and ammo, you can see why the AGS was so useful, and it's canning unjustified.
If anything, scrapping the AGS program in the defence budget buys the US armed forces, 15 heavily invested in, overly expensive (and not really needed) Super Hornets for the marines (which they would likely end up crashing anyway). The same amount of cash which can buy over 50 XM-8 tanks providing rapid deployment units with their much needed firepower.
But the program was quite flawed.It was never intended as a tank but more of a moblie gun.It was cancelled caused of cost cutting needs.....sorry pai sei pai sei -
Does anyone know if RM 105mm smoothbore guns fire kinetic energy or tandem charged warheads?
Many MBTs offered by East European countries like Poland, Russian and the Ukraine offer tanks fitted with reactive armor blocks. Although Israeli in origins, the East Europeans have had a good deal of experience with RA and produce amongst the best in the world.
There are APFSDS-T rounds available for Rheimtall 105 mm guns, so piercing conventional sloping armor is not a problem. but RA is. Any 105 mm tank gun that cannot fire RA defeating rounds is not worthy of consideration in the Singapore context. -
APFSDS rounds don't have a problem penetrating conventional RA, however the ruskies have developed next gen RA which can be more effective against APFSDS, however, with a subsquent decrease in HEAT protection. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
-
It depends on your definition of conventional and special RA. Like I said before, east european MBTs now come with the best RAs in the world and a Sabot isn't going to do much damage to it.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:APFSDS rounds don't have a problem penetrating conventional RA, however the ruskies have developed next gen RA which can be more effective against APFSDS, however, with a subsquent decrease in HEAT protection. There's no such thing as a free lunch. -
it has an aluminium hull. Aluminium burns.......nuff said