Close combat vehicle-Light

MacArther · 12-11-2006, 09:03 AM

I have some information I would like to share. Its not likely to be the best out there, but this was the most I could gather. If any military personnel could lend their opinions on how this vehicle might do in service based off of the performance sheet, I would be very appreciative.

Source: Armored Fighting Vehicles p.84 "Close Combat Vehicle-Light"
Author: Philip Trewhitt
Publishers: Friedman/Fairfax

Quote:

The CCV-L was designed as a private venture by the FNC Corporation, manufacturer of the M113 and Bradley Armored Fighting Vehicle and was destined for the US Army's Light Divisions. When the prototype appeared in 1985 it created interest because it only required a three-man crew, allowed for by an automatic loading system for the main armament. This gave a rate of fire of 12 rounds per minute. The CCV-L borrowed many parts from various other vehicls, such as the M113 Armored Personnel Carrier, in order to reduce developement time. The CCV-L has a hull of all welded aluminum construction with bolt on steel to enhance balistic protection. Additional armor can be applied to the outside of the tank if required, including explosive reactive armor

Country of Origin: USA
Crew: 3
Weight: 19,414 kg (42,710lb)
Dimensions: Length 9.37m (30ft 9in); width 2.69m (8ft 10in); height 2.36m (7ft 9in)
Range: 483km (300 miles)
Armor: classified
Armament: one 105mm gun*
Powerplant: One Detroit Diesel Model 6V-92 TA 6 cylinder diesel engine developing 552hp (412kW)
Performance: Maximum road speed 70km/h (43.5mph); fording 1.32m (4ft 4in); vertical obstacle .76m (2ft 6in); trench 2.13m (7ft)

*I have not seen any other armaments listed for this vehicle other than this, so its interesting that it is called a Close Combat vehicle.

the lancaster kicks ass · 12-11-2006, 11:53 AM

haha, the gun looks hugely disproportionately large compared to the rest of the machine, i take it it's not air dropable?

MacArther · 12-11-2006, 01:19 PM

Actually, I think that it is meant to be dropped. Then again, I can't confirm it because there is little to no information relavent to such things. Most information I found was basically repeating what I have already written.

mkloby · 12-11-2006, 05:05 PM

I have that book. haha. It's an okay book - came across a lot of grammatical errors - makes me think it wasn't proofread. That goes for the whole series of those books.

Wasn't that a private venture that never caught on w/ any foreign services?

Matt308 · 12-12-2006, 10:49 AM

Yeah air droppable in the least armoured configuration. Once you bolted on all the armour, it was quite the beast. I don't think it ever went anywhere.

Glider · 12-12-2006, 10:14 PM

Argentina use a similar tank the TAM but based on the Marder APC. These have a significant punch but like the CCV-L would not be able take much damage from inf anti tank weapons.
Its probably fair to say no tank can stand up to a 120mm gun as mounted in the M1, Challanger or Leopard 2.

HealzDevo · 01-07-2007, 05:29 PM

It wouldn't be very practical in an urban setting. For that something more like the main gun on the Strumtiger might be better...

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-08-2007, 10:03 AM

That idea never took off and would not in this modern day and age anyway.

Matt308 · 01-08-2007, 11:55 AM

Too slow, ponderous and overgunned. And without armour upgrades, to vulnerable for having the prior characteristics.

Adler's right. Might as well buy a real tank.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-08-2007, 02:37 PM

The US allready has its light airborne droppable tank anyhow.

The M-551 Sherridan. It packs a huge punch with its 152mm Cannon, is fast and maneuverable and can be dropped from tanks. It was designed in the 60s and used in Vietnam, Panama, and Desert Storm.

It however is very vulnerable. The turret is made of steel but to save on weight the hull is made of alluminum and would allow large caliber machine gun rounds to penetrate the hull.

the lancaster kicks ass · 01-09-2007, 01:08 PM

well you can only ever see them being used in the short term anywar until rear armoured units catch up to the position the airbornes are being used to hold, of course in that time though the enemy might be bringing in heavier tanks too.........

Matt308 · 01-09-2007, 05:34 PM

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

Glider · 01-09-2007, 06:12 PM

I don't know for sure but I would be suprised as overseas makets would have found it very expensive and complicated. The cannon didn't just fire a large HE shell, it also fired an anti tank missile called the shilaleigh.

I believe it was designed for recce units as it was very fast, had a large punch and a low ground pressure.

Matt308 · 01-09-2007, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

I don't know for sure but I would be suprised as overseas makets would have found it very expensive and complicated. The cannon didn't just fire a large HE shell, it also fired an anti tank missile called the shilaleigh.

I believe it was designed for recce units as it was very fast, had a large punch and a low ground pressure.

Overseas markets did not want it after US the cancelled program. They did not have the need for a lightly armoured vehicle that was air droppable and the performance was lacking against other vehicles with much better protection.

The missile that was slated for it was the LOSAT anti-tank missile. But I don't recall that it ever made it into development. Only planned I think. It was only an infantry support vehicle and the writeups always went out of their way to emphasize that it was NOT a tank. I think with the highest protection bolt on armour it was only protected up to 25-30mm cannon.

Neat technology. I also recall that it could not be airdropped with this highest protection as this made the vehicle prohibitively heavy. However, this armour could be bolted on once in feild.

Glider · 01-10-2007, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt308

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

The missile that was slated for it was the LOSAT anti-tank missile. But I don't recall that it ever made it into development.

Neat technology. I also recall that it could not be airdropped with this highest protection as this made the vehicle prohibitively heavy. However, this armour could be bolted on once in feild.

I am confident that the project wasn't cancelled and the Sheridan did enter service in some numbers (around 1600) although not for that long. The Missile was the Shillelaugh (apologies for previous spelling which was from memory) and it was used.
The 152mm/Shillelaugh weapon system was also used on the M60A2 of which around 560 were purchased. This was one of the first tanks with a laser rangefinder.

The problem was the complexity of the system and it was sometimes known sarcastically as the Starship.