Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The M8 and M113 Combination

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The M8 and M113 Combination

    Just some interesting stuff you may want to see, if you have not seen it already, that I've been reading on the net...

    At least tacticians within XVIII Airborne corps are starting to see
    the light:


    Inside The Army
    February 16, 2004
    Pg. 1
    Paratroopers' Needs Rekindles Talk Of Defunct Armored Gun System

    The 82nd Airborne Division at Ft. Bragg, NC, still needs a rapidly
    deployable vehicle with firepower, a requirement some say could be
    met sooner rather than later if the Army is willing to shake the
    mothballs from its defunct Armored Gun System, sources say.

    "They want an air-droppable platform for forced entry," said a
    service source, and "they want it now."

    As a result, the division recently passed along an "operational needs
    statement" to Army Forces Command that outlines the unfulfilled
    requirement, said Maj. Rich Patterson, a spokesman for the 18th
    Airborne Corps, which oversees the division. The Army's operations
    and plans office, or "G-3," is reviewing the requirement with
    Training and Doctrine Command, but no decision has been reached,
    Patterson said.

    While Army leadership may determine AGS is not the solution, the idea
    of moving the system back into the limelight, at least in a limited
    way, has caught the attention of a lawmaker who represents the Ft.
    Bragg area.

    The requirement for an air-droppable platform has existed at least
    since the late 1990s, when the division disbanded one of its
    battalions -- the 3rd Battalion of the 73rd Armored Regiment, which
    was equipped with an aging armored reconnaissance vehicle called the
    Sheridan. At the time, service officials thought other capabilities
    would become available to the Paratroopers once the M551 Sheridan
    retired.

    When the division deactivated the armored battalion in 1997, however,
    Army officials had already terminated AGS, which had been regarded as
    the Sheridan's replacement. Proposed in the 1980s as a lightweight
    combat vehicle that could fit aboard a C-130, AGS featured a 105 mm
    cannon, an ammunition autoloader and options for armor protection.
    United Defense LP had produced a handful of prototypes of the vehicle
    in 1996, when then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Dennis Reimer terminated
    the program. Eliminating AGS freed more than $1 billion over the
    service's outyear funding plan -- money that was badly needed for
    other cash-strapped programs, officials said at the time.

    What was not eliminated was the need to equip light forces with an
    air-droppable platform that had enough firepower to hold off opposing
    forces until heavier forces arrived, sources said.

    According to the Army's program executive office for ground combat
    systems, five AGS prototypes exist today. Four systems reside at
    UDLP's manufacturing facility in York, PA; one is at a UDLP facility
    in San Jose, CA.

    Herb Muktarian, a spokesman for UDLP's ground systems division in
    York, said the four M8 AGS vehicles there have been regularly
    maintained.

    "They are in a standard configuration and are in excellent
    condition," he said. "We are prepared to provide the vehicles and any
    required support if we were to receive an official request from the
    Army."

    The unmet requirement has caught the attention of Rep. Robin Hayes (R-
    NC), a member of the House Armed Services Committee whose district
    includes Ft. Bragg. Hayes contacted the Army's legislative liaison
    office last December requesting specifics on the ongoing "discussion
    about getting the AGS" into Army "tactics, techniques and
    procedures."

    "What is your assessment of the immediate operational need for a
    system to support airfield seizure, forced entry and other missions
    of the 82nd Airborne Division?" Hayes asked in a Dec. 15, 2003, e-
    mail. "Can the AGS serve as a near-term solution to an immediate
    operational need?"

    Hayes requested several other details from the Army, including the
    cost of reviving AGS, spare parts needs and the status of the 82nd
    Airborne's needs statement. Hayes' spokesman, Jonathan Felts, said
    Feb. 10 that the congressman has not yet received a response from the
    Army.

    "Congressman Hayes' top priority is that we help our Soldiers in the
    field as quickly as possible," Felts wrote in a statement.

    "Let me be very clear to say that this is not a matter of advocating
    one system over another," he added. "Rather, the congressman knows
    that there is an existing technology presently sitting unused, and he
    is simply inquiring if it is feasible to utilize the capabilities
    while awaiting future technologies that are in production."

    The division's interest in an AGS-like system is nothing new. The
    division's 17th Cavalry Regiment expressed a desire for such a system
    several years ago, according to the Army source.

    As Inside the Army reported in the fall of 1999, service officials
    then were looking at all vehicles that could serve as a near-term
    solution for light forces -- including AGS, the marine corps' Light
    Armored Vehicle, the Pandur lightweight vehicles used by the Kuwait
    National Guard and a variant of the M113 armored personnel carrier
    (ITA, Oct. 4, 1999, p1; Sept. 27, 1999, p1).

    The PEO for ground combat systems, which had overseen the AGS
    program, was directed to conduct a review of the various candidates.
    For AGS, the office provided Army leaders information on three
    options: field AGS in the state it was in when the program was
    terminated; revamp the system with newly developed technologies, then
    field it; or field AGS in the condition it was in when terminated,
    but with plans to retrofit the system with new technologies.

    Past inquiries into AGS and other systems, however, have failed
    to "go anywhere," the service source said.

    Pulling AGS out of storage might be a more tenable idea today,
    however, than in 1999 when then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric
    Shinseki announced plans to invest heavily in a lighter, more lethal
    future force. After years accepting considerable risk in its current
    force to fund transformation goals, the Army once again shifted gears
    last year to focus on ensuring the current force -- stretched thin
    across the globe -- is adequately equipped. Gen. Peter Schoomaker,
    who took over Shinseki's job last August, told reporters in October
    2003 that he had directed his staff to scrub the force and its
    transformation plans for existing technologies and equipment that
    could be used by troops in Iraq or Afghanistan (ITA, Oct. 13, 2003,
    p1).

    -- Anne Plummer

    FYI the Army has already a field manual online outlining how to
    employ a light armor platoon using M8 Buford Armored Gun System light
    tanks, called FM 17-18 Light Armor Operations:

    Army Digital Library

    http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/at...7-18/f1718.htm

    However the Airborne will need infantry to accompany and escort the
    M8 AGS light tanks and these can moved in conjunction by employing 11-
    ton M113A3 Gavin light tracked armored personnel carriers which were
    flown into Northern Iraq by 3D maneuver and were very effective
    during the 2D maneuver drive into Baghdad:

    www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/m113combat.htm

    The Army has thousands of M113 Gavins in storage and they are
    certified for parachute airdrop. The easiest way to employ M8 AGS
    light tanks and M113 Gavins would be by designating an infantry
    battalion's "Delta" Weapons company to use M8s/M113s instead of
    vulnerable HMMWV trucks. Details:

    http://www.geocities.com/equipmentsh...abattalion.htm

    Lastly, the reason the Airborne desperately needs light tracked
    armored vehicles is best shown in the power point show we made for
    the Airborne Combat Engineers:

    www.geocities.com/lightmechsappers

    FCS-NOW: Replace HMMWV trucks in all Army Airborne, and Light
    Infantry Division Delta Companies with hybrid-electric M113A4 Gavin
    light tracked AFVs upgraded affordably from the thousands of surplus
    M113A2s the Army has in storage; integrate a Combat Engineer platoon
    and call an ECAV Troop. ECAV Troops can give A, B, C infantry
    companies a "ride" as needed without them becoming stuck in motor
    pool and losing infantry skills. C4ISR package

    The 101st Air Assault Division ECAV troop would have 7-ton M973A2
    armored SUSV (Bv206Ss) Ridgways that are CH-47D internal load-able
    and UH-60 split-load-able
    "To know the weapons the enemy has is already to beat them!"

    http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-photo-vf213-01l.jpg

  • #2
    Inside The Army
    March 15, 2004
    Pg. 1
    Army To Transfer Four Armored Gun Systems To 82nd Airborne Division

    The Army last week approved the transfer of four M8 Armored Gun
    Systems from contractor storage facilities to the 82nd Airborne
    Division at Ft. Bragg, NC, sources say, marking the first time the
    vehicles will be used by the service since the program was terminated
    in 1996.

    Proposed in the 1980s as a lightweight combat vehicle that could fit
    aboard a C-130, the AGS was canceled as the Army struggled to pay for
    other priorities. Contractor United Defense LP, which fought the
    cancellation decision, has five M8 AGS vehicles in stock -- four in
    York, PA, and one in San Jose, CA.

    The 18th Airborne Corps at Ft. Bragg recently passed along
    an "operational needs statement" to Army Forces Command that spells
    out the division's need for a rapidly deployable vehicle with
    firepower that could be dropped from an aircraft (Inside the Army,
    Feb. 16, p1). The Army's operations and plans office, or "G-3," has
    been reviewing the requirement with Training and Doctrine Command.

    TRADOC completed its analysis on Feb. 19, and the G-3 approved the
    needs statement on March 8, authorizing transfer of the existing
    vehicles to the 82nd Airborne Division, sources say. By press time
    (March 11), the Army had not released a copy of the approval
    documents.

    According to one source, officials made it clear in the documents
    that the transfer in "no way should be construed as support for an
    AGS program." Instead, it is an attempt to meet the immediate
    requirement with an interim solution and allow the division to begin
    developing and refining tactics, techniques and procedures.

    The unit expects to receive the vehicles by the end of March, the
    source said.

    Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC), a member of the House Armed Services
    Committee whose district includes Ft. Bragg, said he is pleased with
    the decision, but does not want the transfer to be misconstrued as a
    move to revive the terminated program.

    "To be clear, I am not endorsing one system over another," Hayes told
    ITA in a March 12 statement. "I simply believe that, if these
    existing AGS are combat-worthy, then they should be fully utilized
    while we await the future technologies that are already in
    production.

    "My priority on this matter is simple -- what can we do to help our
    soldiers in the field the fastest?" he added. "If our soldiers can
    utilize these existing systems, then I want these systems in Baghdad
    rather than in a manufacturing facility in Pennsylvania."

    Hayes asked the Army last December to provide him information on the
    matter, including how much the transfer would cost and whether spare
    parts are available to maintain the gun systems. Last week, a
    spokesman for Hayes said the congressman was told government and
    contractor costs are estimated at approximately $1 million for one
    year of support for AGS.

    The funding, however, is not as much of a concern to the Army as the
    availability of parts for a system that was terminated eight years
    ago. Sources say UDLP can sustain the systems for a limited amount of
    time, but many of its components are now obsolete or unavailable.
    Supporting the system beyond one year poses high risk, sources said.

    Herb Muktarian, a spokesman for UDLP's ground systems division in
    York, said the systems are ready to go.

    "We have not received any official requests from the Army regarding
    AGS, but the four AGS vehicles stored in York remain in excellent
    condition and we're ready to provide support if asked to do so,"
    Muktarian said.

    Maj. Rich Patterson, a spokesman for the 18th Airborne Corps, said
    officials at Ft. Bragg have been notified and are assembling the
    necessary manning documents, additional equipment and training
    plans, "with the intent to integrate the AGS into division operations
    as soon as possible."

    The vehicles will go to the 1st Battalion of the division's 17th
    Cavalry Squadron, Patterson said. AGS will provide its assault
    teams "mobility, firepower and shock effects" within the "drop zone,"
    he added.

    "It gives us a capability we could deploy if we need it," Patterson
    said.

    AGS features a 105 mm cannon, an ammunition autoloader and options
    for armor protection.

    The division's requirement for an air-droppable platform has existed
    at least since the 1990s, when the division disbanded one of its
    battalions -- the 3rd Battalion of the 73rd Armored Regiment, which
    was equipped with an aging armored reconnaissance vehicle called the
    Sheridan. At the time, service officials thought other capabilities
    would become available to the paratroopers once the M551 Sheridan was
    retired.

    When the division deactivated the armored battalion in 1997, however,
    then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Dennis Reimer had already terminated
    AGS, which had been regarded as the Sheridan's replacement.
    Eliminating AGS freed more than $1 billion over the service's outyear
    funding plan -- money that was badly needed for other cash-strapped
    programs, officials said at the time.

    Two years after the program was canceled, service officials said they
    continued to review options for all light forces that wanted more
    firepower. Vehicles reviewed included AGS, the marine corps' Light
    Armored Vehicle, the Pandur lightweight vehicles used by the Kuwait
    National Guard and a variant of the M113 armored personnel carrier
    (ITA, Oct. 4, 1999, p1; Sept. 27, 1999, p1).

    That effort, however, went nowhere, and the 82nd Airborne Division
    resubmitted its request for such a vehicle, eventually attracting
    Hayes' attention.

    "Let's find out as soon as possible if AGS can serve effectively as a
    short-term solution for an immediate operational need," Hayes told
    ITA last week.
    "To know the weapons the enemy has is already to beat them!"

    http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-photo-vf213-01l.jpg

    Comment


    • #3
      120mm upgunned M8 called Project THUNDERBOLT

      York, PA, October 6, 2003 - United Defense Industries, Inc. (NYSE: UDI), today unveiled Thunderbolt, an advanced armored gun system demonstrator with a 120mm main armament on a light chassis featuring a rugged hybrid electric drive package, an enhanced band track system, and a lightweight ballistic composite armor package at the Association of the U. S. Army’s annual meeting.

      The Thunderbolt demonstrator illustrates the ability to deliver devastating firepower in a light package, and features transformational technologies that can be quickly integrated into current platforms to enhance soldier capabilities.

      “United Defense designed, integrated and built Thunderbolt in 7 months by applying unmatched capabilities in the rapid design and prototyping of new platforms and technologies,“ said Elmer Doty, vice president and general manager. “Thunderbolt demonstrates that we can deliver significantly enhanced capabilities to soldiers quickly through the modernization of existing platforms.”

      The company, which is currently developing manned ground vehicles for the Army’s Future Combat Systems, emphasized that Thunderbolt demonstrates near-term transformational technologies complementary to the current force.

      “Thunderbolt combines United Defense’s unsurpassed expertise and focus on transformational technology development to increase the mobility, lethality and survivability of our forces,” Doty said. “It’s an exciting package that showcases our strengths and exemplifies our desire to support the Army’s mission, now and in the future.”

      Prior to AUSA, United Defense fired Thunderbolt repeatedly from stationary and on-the-move positions, the first time a 120mm main armament has been successfully fired off a 20-ton weight-class chassis. Thunderbolt’s XM291 main gun is backed by an autoloader that handles both HEAT and SABOT rounds. The autoloader handles 120mm rounds with combustible casings and rounds of varying weight distributions, and it can eject stubcases. Thunderbolt delivers firepower that can defeat heavy enemy armor and destroy enemy targets such as bunkers and buildings.

      “We believe that a 120mm gun integrated on a light chassis would provide unprecedented firepower, able to effectively defeat heavy enemy armor,” Doty said.

      Thunderbolt Features Transformational Technology

      Thunderbolt integrates a durable hybrid electric propulsion system that provides improved performance and fuel economy, enhanced reliability and reduced emissions. The propulsion system utilizes generator, inverter and traction motor components that have performed well in testing on the United Defense Transformation Technology Demonstrator.

      Thunderbolt’s drive power is transferred through an advanced band track system developed for 20-ton weight class vehicles. The advantages of band track include improved ride quality, longer life, and reduced noise and thermal signatures.

      The mobility package integrated on Thunderbolt delivers a range of 600 miles on gravel roads, with four miles of silent mobility capability. Conversion of a standard chassis to hybrid electric drive generates significant additional interior space that can seat additional soldiers, increase the quantity of stowed ammunition, or be applied to other mission requirements.

      Thunderbolt is the latest United Defense platform to feature hybrid-electric propulsion, following the Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon platform, the Transformation Technology Demonstrator and two demonstrators that were unveiled at AUSA last year: the Future Combat Systems-Tracked and Future Combat Systems-Wheeled platforms.

      Thunderbolt’s advanced ballistic composite armor design offers enhanced survivability while reducing overall vehicle weight. The composite turret armor package is designed to provide 14.5mm protection all around, with 30mm frontal arc protection.

      “We set out to demonstrate what critics said can’t be done – providing heavy firepower on a light platform, and quickly and effectively upgrading an existing platform with transformational technologies that can modernize the current force,” Doty said.

      “United Defense developed Thunderbolt to demonstrate that we can quickly and effectively upgrade existing platforms with transformational technologies that can modernize the current force,” Doty said. “We believe we owe it to the soldier to demonstrate combat vehicle technologies that can support and enhance the Army’s ability to complete its missions.”

      Thunderbolt was designed and built at the company’s research facilities in Santa Clara, California.
      "To know the weapons the enemy has is already to beat them!"

      http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-photo-vf213-01l.jpg

      Comment


      • #4
        Based on this info alone I would loudly advocate for termination of the enitre Stryker farce and bring in both the M8 and the M113.

        It would be nice if the upgunned Thunderbolt version of the XM8 Buford actually makes it into production and service. I could see an improved M113 variant with a hybrid engine serving alongside the T-Bolt in the Airborne.

        What do you guys think?
        "To know the weapons the enemy has is already to beat them!"

        http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-photo-vf213-01l.jpg

        Comment


        • #5
          Nope

          From USA Today, Thursday, April 29, 2004, Page 6A, More armored vehicles being sent to troops in Iraq by Tom Squitieri

          "US military commanders have sent additional tanks and armored personnel carriers to Marine and Army units in Iraq, and more are on the way.

          The heavier, tougher vehicles are meant to offer better protection against roadside bombs and ambushes, which have taken a heavy toll among U.S. troops."

          The problem with the M8, M113, and the Stryker vehicles comes down to weight. When designing an armored vehicle, you have three basic considerations; speed, armor, and firepower. The M8, M113, and Stryker vehicles all sacrafice armor for speed. This not only includes their own speed on the ground, but the ability to move vehicles quickly from area to area.

          Everyone makes so much out of the M1s ability to move fast and shoot accurately, that they tend to ignore the fact that an M1 is very hard to kill. I'm not saying that you can't kill an M1. With a lot of luck, a modern anti-tank weapon, and the right situation, you can destroy an M1. If you use a big enough bomb, you can destroy an M1. However, most of the crews of the M1s that have been destroyed by hostile fire have survived to fight another day.

          Insurgents have real trouble knocking out tanks. In addition, firing a 120mm HE shell into a building tends to ruins everyone's day. If I was on the ground in Iraq, I would want more M1s.

          I'm not saying that the M8 and M113 would not be good systems to back up an air assault or rapid deployment. However, if you would ask me what they could use in Iraq right now, I would say more M1s Abrams and M2 Bradleys. That seems to be happening already.

          {Edit: My wife's uncle works for the company that builds the AGS auto-loader. The same company builds the auto-loader for the Stryker gun version. I would love to see the AGS go into full production.}

          Comment


          • #6
            Sorry, let me make it clear that I was really thinking more about the Airborne Forces in general, not just about Iraq.

            I'm not in anyway belittling the M1 Abrams and the perceived need of these types of heavily vehicles, especially in long duration operations (particularly in an urban environment) such as what is going on in Iraq.

            Sure the M1 is survivable, though not invincible. But clearly in terms of Deployability and logistics the M1 is a big burden. You cannot parachute drop it, you cannot airtransport it (for airlanding at airheads) in any significant numbers and it uses alot of fuel. It cannot be used in force in a timely manner, and that could mean a few days or even hours, deployed to anywhere on the globe.

            Though the RRC is on hand to support the 82nd Abn, you need to airland this force, which means the Airborne must first seize an airport or airfield...predictable stuff for the enemy.

            Last Time I heard, both the M8 and the M113 have the ability to accomodate additional armor modules, and there are heaps of module products out there, already available commercially. In a flight of Transport planes, most could carry the vehicles while a few carry the add-on armor modules, and all these loads are airdroppable.

            I think the Airbone light infantry forces are in desperate need of these vehicles as a whole. The use of these vehicles does not necessarily endanger the position of the M1 Abrams in the Army's OOB at all, as evidenced by requests for more of them for Iraq.

            But the position of the Airborne itself as a viable tactical/strategic reserve/deterrent is underminded by its lack of proper cross country ground mobility, protection and firepower, and the old belief that airborne force operations depend upon link up with a heavy 2D ground force, especially for its ultimate salvation. With these vehicles the Airborne can be much more harder hitting, flexible, versatile and hard to destroy.

            A worry of mine is that even if the Airborne did get these vehicles despite their small size and weight there still would be an airtransport shortage caused by the USAF not funding for a larger then planned number of C-17's. They are pouring huge sums of money onto that gold-plated fighter known as the F/A-22 Raptor.
            "To know the weapons the enemy has is already to beat them!"

            http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-photo-vf213-01l.jpg

            Comment


            • #7
              FCS

              I was thinking about the present and future. This goes back to what do you do with airborne forces after the initial phases of a conflict. Right now, we have ports and the transportation to move as many M1s and M2s into Iraq as necessary. After the 82nd, 101st, or 10th Mountain is established, they could really use heavy armor.

              Perhaps something along the lines of the seperate Armor Battalions we used during WWII to beef up our infantry divisions would be in order. I could see this units being National Guard and permently attached to their respective divisions. When the units are deployed overseas, their seperate heavy armor unit could be activated and prepared as a follow-up force to the light divisions. I could even see an entire armor brigade with only M1s, M2s, and M3s plus their maintenance units being available to each light division. When deployed, the armor brigade would be responsible for providing direct fire support and transporting light infantry.

              The future of the Army and Army Transformation Plans sees the US Army being totally equipped with the Future Combat System (FCS). FCS would equip Units of Action (UA) and these UAs would be combined into Units of Employment (UE. You would consider the UA to be a light brigade and the UE to be a division size unit. The heart of the Future Combat System is a series of wheeled vehicles in the 18 ton range. The requirement is that all FCS vehicles be deployable by C-130.

              You can fit a large cannon on an 18 ton vehicle. You can make an 18 ton vehicle fairly fast. You can not make an 18 ton vehicle shrug off a main gun tank round or even light anti-tank weapons.

              In other words, the Army plans to do away with the M1 and M2. I believe this would be a huge mistake.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: FCS

                Originally posted by Gepard
                I was thinking about the present and future. This goes back to what do you do with airborne forces after the initial phases of a conflict. Right now, we have ports and the transportation to move as many M1s and M2s into Iraq as necessary. After the 82nd, 101st, or 10th Mountain is established, they could really use heavy armor.

                Perhaps something along the lines of the seperate Armor Battalions we used during WWII to beef up our infantry divisions would be in order. I could see this units being National Guard and permently attached to their respective divisions. When the units are deployed overseas, their seperate heavy armor unit could be activated and prepared as a follow-up force to the light divisions. I could even see an entire armor brigade with only M1s, M2s, and M3s plus their maintenance units being available to each light division. When deployed, the armor brigade would be responsible for providing direct fire support and transporting light infantry.

                The future of the Army and Army Transformation Plans sees the US Army being totally equipped with the Future Combat System (FCS). FCS would equip Units of Action (UA) and these UAs would be combined into Units of Employment (UE. You would consider the UA to be a light brigade and the UE to be a division size unit. The heart of the Future Combat System is a series of wheeled vehicles in the 18 ton range. The requirement is that all FCS vehicles be deployable by C-130.

                You can fit a large cannon on an 18 ton vehicle. You can make an 18 ton vehicle fairly fast. You can not make an 18 ton vehicle shrug off a main gun tank round or even light anti-tank weapons.

                In other words, the Army plans to do away with the M1 and M2. I believe this would be a huge mistake.
                Yeah I agree, definitely. After the initial phases with a medium force you have to get heavy.

                It would be stupid I think for the US Army to get rid of heavy vehicles, to equip the Army entirely with FCS. Balance is needed.

                Though you can move in bulk heavy equipment with sea transportation, there is still I believe a requirement for a sizeable airborne armored force to be dropped anywhere on the globe for certain senarios. Instead of days we would be talking hours...a very rapid response.

                Take the 173rd Abn Bde. It paradropped up north in Iraq but was not used agressively because of its difficency in light tracked armored vehicles and firepower. They did not pose that serious a threat to Iraqi forces.
                "To know the weapons the enemy has is already to beat them!"

                http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-photo-vf213-01l.jpg

                Comment


                • #9
                  The only problem that I have with the M-8 is that if you use anything besides level 1 armour that it's ability to be transported and airdropped are negated.

                  Cheers!


                  Eagles may fly; but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines!

                  "I'm not expendable; I'm not stupid and I'm not going." - Kerr Avon, Blake's 7

                  What didn't kill us; didn't make us smarter.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    M8

                    If I understood correctly, the level 2 and 3 armor were bolt on. In other words, after you landed your M8 in Level 1 armor, you could ship in the Level 2 or 3 armor. Your maintenance guys could then bolt on the heavier armor package. I could be wrong about that since has been a while since I read about the M8.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I don't know what our light forces will end up with after the dust settles, but I hope they get a vehicle that will give them more firepower than what is currently available. The technology is there, lets get it to the forces that need it.
                      Lance W.

                      Peace through superior firepower.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: M8

                        Originally posted by Gepard
                        If I understood correctly, the level 2 and 3 armor were bolt on. In other words, after you landed your M8 in Level 1 armor, you could ship in the Level 2 or 3 armor. Your maintenance guys could then bolt on the heavier armor package. I could be wrong about that since has been a while since I read about the M8.
                        Unfortunately; I am not aware of how level 2 and level 3 armour are applied. I'll do some web research.

                        Cheers!


                        Eagles may fly; but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines!

                        "I'm not expendable; I'm not stupid and I'm not going." - Kerr Avon, Blake's 7

                        What didn't kill us; didn't make us smarter.

                        Comment

                        Latest Topics

                        Collapse

                        Working...
                        X