Close combat vehicle-Light

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Matt308

Overseas markets did not want it after US the cancelled program.

The program was not cancelled. It was and is still used by the US Army. 1562 were built between 1966 and 1970.

The 82nd Airborne kept there M-551s until 1996, because it was the only airborne capable Tank that the US had. The 82nd used them in Operation Just Cause in 1989 and used 51 of them in Desert Storm.

Now they are used at the NTC at Fort Erwin to simulate enemy tanks during training events.

[Matt308]

I was referring to the CCV-L. It went the wayside like the Cadillac-Gage Stingray.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Oh I thought you were talking about the M-551.

[Matt308]

I love the Sheridan. That and the Walker Bulldog are two of my favorites.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I woudl not like the Sheridan. The Alluminum hull that it has allowed even larger caliber machine gun fire to get through. Not a fan of it at all.

[Matt308]

It serves its purpose. Aluminum hull is the tradeoff that Sheridan, Cadillac Gage, CCV-L, and Bradley all make use of to minimize weight and maximize speed/maneuverability. As you know all tanks/AFV have to constantly trade protection vs speed/maneuverability vs armament. Can't have it all.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

As I recall, the vehicle was developed for foreign markets, (South America, Central America) and was never intended for US procurement.

one problem with that, unless she can fit in a C-130 how many of the target nations have the transporters to carry these things? no point in buying an air-portable tank if you've got nothing that can carry it, and if you want something that can carry it you'll need to buy it from the US more than likely... very clever, do you do discounts on package deals

[mkloby]

I believe part of the logic behind the vehicle was that modern anti-tank rounds fired from a tank, or weapons such as tows and hellfires have made and will continue to make ridiculously heavily armored tanks impractical - hence the WEAK armor. I think this thought guided both stingray and ccvl development.

[Matt308]

Very true. Originally both were bid for US adoption and overseas purchases a bonus. Without US procurement, individual costs and recurring costs were not economical.

[HealzDevo]

All you would do with a Strumtiger type mortar is fire at potential enemy hiding places, and then wait for the enemy to come out hurting at you and then gun them down with something like a Humvee with an anti-personnel turret that could destroy the enemy...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

When you have mortors coming down on you, you dont go hunting for the enemy. You take cover, trust me I know, I have had mortors coming down on me.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by mkloby

I believe part of the logic behind the vehicle was that modern anti-tank rounds fired from a tank, or weapons such as tows and hellfires have made and will continue to make ridiculously heavily armored tanks impractical - hence the WEAK armor. I think this thought guided both stingray and ccvl development.

I would second the logic as proposed above. Its worth noting that the French have always believed in this argument and their tanks have had very poor armour compared to other nations.
The early German Leopard 1 also followed this argument but later Mk 1's were uparmoured to defeat man portable HEAT weapons but were open to Tank guns. Of course the Leopard 2 as we know, has followed the UK/USA preference for heavy armour.

[HealzDevo]

It would certainly make clearing an urban setting that much easier. Just level it and see what comes running out...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Does not work that way. The only way to clear an urban setting is to go in and clear it door to door. There are too much hiding spaces in an urban setting.

[mkloby]

It does have some uses though. There's always a time and a place for the 120mm sniper fire. But the job is mostly left up to boots clearing blocks house by house.