The Army picked its two traditional armored vehicle manufacturers, General Dynamics and BAE Systems, to build contending prototypes for its Mobile Protected Firepower light tank, the service announced today.
Why, good God, why?
The Mobile Protected Firepower vehicle is essentially a 30-ton light tank to accompany airborne troops and other light infantry where the 70-ton M1 Abrams heavy tank can’t go. ...
Now, MPF is not required to be droppable by parachute the way the Sheridan and the original Armored Gun System were, nor capable of fitting on an Air Force C-130 turboprop transport the way the cancelled Future Combat Systems vehicle was supposed to be. But it is small enough to fit two on a C-17 jet transport for landing on a dirt airstrip — or to drive over rickety bridges and down narrow streets where a M1 might not fit.
No worries, we don't intend to send our infantry brigades to fight the Russians who have little but armored hordes:
These aren’t units intended to take on Russian armored hordes — and if they do, their best bet is to go to ground and take potshots from hiding with shoulder-fired Javelin missiles. Normally, the light brigades are expected to face light armored vehicles, bunkers, and dug-in infantry. To help them, each light brigade will get a modest and logistically manageable contingent of 14 MPFs.
If all the Army is worried about is enemy light armor, use up-gunned Strykers.
And what bridges or city streets can't handle an Abrams but can handle an MPF? The Abrams worked very nicely in Iraqi cities in the COIN fight there.
Given that the Chinese and Russians have infantry support vehicles (the Chinese have the QN-506/ZPT 99, which--with small drones for example--is an improvement on the Russian BMPT 72 Terminator 2 model) based on the hulls of tanks, why couldn't we do something like that with our existing stockpile of older Abrams tanks?
Wouldn't a relatively small force of independent company-sized teams built around an Abrams infantry support vehicle that could be attached to infantry brigades headed for cities if attached tanks aren't appropriate work nicely?
If the Army is worried about airlifting armored support, why is having 2 MPF for every Abrams tank that a C-17 could carry significant? I'd rather have 7 M-1s if I had a choice than the 14 light tanks an infantry brigade will get. There is a reason our tankers accept the logistics price of the Abrams! Nothing short of those behemoths have a chance of surviving on the battlefield.
Even with active protection systems, there's more than one way to skin one of those light cats.
If the Army is worried about fighting Russia or China, use Abrams tanks.
Because I have no idea what enemy is going to be sporting enough to send light infantry with only light armor up against our MPS-equipped infantry so we'll have dominance.
The light tank fantasy world is insane. Kill it now before these Future Burned Out Hulks are killed en masse on a future battlefield.
