MBT's

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

John: First, good to hear from you, though I know you "lurk in the background" most times.

Global Security is one site I've used in the past. The link below will take you directly to their munitions tab.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...ons/index.html

This will be a "live" post as I try to recover a couple of more sites for you.
The next is very limited but none the less might still be useful. It has been more useful to me dealing with some MBT/APC issues to include some I just "resubmitted" in my Patch Post. Again linked directly to ammo section.
https://weaponsystems.net/menu/74
https://panzerworld.com/anti-tank-ammunition

A little Industry sites I've found useful in my research...
https://elbitsystems.com/media/Catalog-Tanks_16_Web.pdf
http://www.mecar.be/content.php?lang...nus=1156856627
https://www.gd-ots.com/munitions/lar...er-ammunition/
https://rheinmetall-defence.com/en/r...ants/index.php

Again I've used most if not all of these over the years. I have deferred most of the ammo issues to Don over the years as well for my submissions, mainly because I feel he has some very good resources of his own to use.

However that doesn't excuse me from doing "my due diligence" before I offer my thoughts and to have an intelligent "conversation" on the matter.

I dig and read all I can because you can't "BS" this crowd!?!

But Global Security is at top for a reason.

Back to my "normal watch routine" tomorrow-Thank God!

Hope this helps John!

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

John, sorry I went back to your post and reread it. Unfortunately I've never come across a site that tracks ammunition sales like SIPRI tracks armament sales.

Military-Today/Tank Encyclopedia do a real good job in noting ammo types used for the equipment they list.

Take the above and combine it with the manufacturers (And their Press/or News releases.) I posted in my last post, that might get you closer.

Otherwise I just normally see that type of data posted randomly on the various websites I use on a daily basis.

I did try for over an hour to find something of more value to you than what I just posted above, however, I was unsuccessful.

The only one I think covers that is Janes in their "Sustainment & Procurement" publication which, as you know comes with a "hefty" price tag.

Sorry.



Regards,
Pat

[zovs66]

Pat,

Could you shed some light on why the USMC is going to shred their Tanks?

I am biased and just can't imagine the Marines with Tanks...

Thanks

[DRG]

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/mari...years-1.623471

and

https://taskandpurpose.com/

Just FYI.......

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by zovs66

Pat,

Could you shed some light on why the USMC is going to shred their Tanks?

I am biased and just can't imagine the Marines with Tanks...

Thanks

Currently each USMC Division has one (yes one) tank battalion.

The "problem" is they're big and HEAVY, thus hard to transport. None of the LCMs can carry one, the WW II LSTs (Landing Ship Tank) have pretty much gone the way of the Dodo. The only thing currently available to ferrying them ashore is the LCAC (Landing Craft Air Cushion) and it can barely carry an M1A1 (60 ton cargo capacity, 75 tons if the sea is calm).

So you pretty much need a cargo ship, and a port facility to get them ashore.

This doesn't mesh well with the USMCs mission as a rapid reaction/deployment force. The USMC has ALWAYS seen tanks as an infantry support unit not an anti-armor one. They have Helos and ATGMs for dealing with vehicles simply because they have so few tanks chances are they won't be where they're needed to counter opposition armor.

So the plan is to disband three of the four tank battalions; keeping one (probably with 1st MarDiv in California, they're the "desert" division). The money saved not buying/maintaining tanks can be used for other things (keep in mind the USMC has a tiny budget compared to the other US service branches).

As to cutting back on artillery, well, as much as Don HATES it the USMC has relied on "flying artillery" since WW II. The US Navy (and it's carriers) is suppose to achieve local air superiority (without it amphibious landings are impossible) so Marine Air is ground attack, necessary SEAD and escort aircraft, NOT "air superiority fighters". This is why the USMC is so insistent on the Harrier and F-35B (STOVL), we don't expect to have access to the nice huge paved runways the US Air Force needs. And we can (and do) land on any old road (or flat field) and refuel/rearm off trucks, no fixed facilities for the opposition to target.

The other piece of this is helos, for the size of it's ground combat formations the USMC has a very high proportion of helos (only pure AirCav formations have more). Each infantry battalion is generally supported by four AH-1Zs and two UH-1Ys (primarily observation) and enough MV-22s and CH-53s to helolift an infantry company plus it's (non-tank/AAV) assets, so there's always a helo close at hand to deal with armor or dump a load of rockets on a soft target. Again, land anywhere, drive fuel and ammo trucks up, refuel/reload, and you're back in the fight.

[Imp]

Thanks Pat I thought as much. I have a feeling higher end ammo is more readily sold nowadays to selected friends but its hard to verify.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

I think we're closer to "Apples to Apples" in relation to equipment sales and ammo sales as you've suggested.

A recent example as I submitted is a single item further revision to the OPLOT-T as compared to the OPLOT-M. Or T-90M versus T-90MS. These are things I have to keep in mind constantly in dealing with equipment issues.

A more practical one would deal with the ABRAMS, the last thing we need is to have a country running around with one of our tanks and it would fall into the hands of the enemy opposing that government. We saw this happen in Iraq when some of those ABRAMS got into the Iranian backed militias.

I'm sure Iran benefitted from those tanks however, but they didn't get our DU Armor tech, FCS etc. and they also didn't get our latest (Or near to.) ammo types either. I f I had to guess they probably got something on the level of mid to late 90's or early 2K tech.

We have enough of those tanks stockpiled to support our needs for modernization or export sales.

So yes "friends to friends" but not always including ammo.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well time to get the ball "rolling" if a little slowing.

Brazil after aggressively starting a military modernization program in the mid-2000's that continued for a little over ten years (Which we've kept pace with in the OOB.), seems ready to do it again with a focus on a new MBT in the 50 ton or less category and as outlined in the first ref. below.

I have taken the liberty of first reading this article, then going to the military-today website that as most know has a pretty robust list of modern and current tanks.

I have culled from that website the following tanks that fit the weight and MG (120mm) requirements plus most of the other requirements per ref 1. which is from JANE's and is thus perishable.
https://www.janes.com/article/95218/...ew-mbt-project

The tanks.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/type_90.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/oplot_m.htm
(There seems to be discussion that it can be retrofitted to a 120mm MG.)
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t84_yatagan.htm
(As you might recall I posted articles this past Fall showing them on military parade. It is estimated they operate 13 to 15 of these tanks at this time which is about the same number when we entered the OPLOT-M. Also these are modernized from the time this article was first posted.)

I feel Japan would consider such an opportunity if it arose, however I feel the odds are against it but, I'm definitely not saying it couldn't happen either. I t would provide added income to help support their continuing modernization program as well if the order was large enough.

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

I've had a few people, and posts on other forums, question why Japan went with the Type 10 (48 tons fully loaded) as their MBT.

The answer is very simple: Roads, bridges, and sealift.
Japan is a VERY mountainous nation, narrow roads, lots of bridges, and like the US they won't be able to drive to the battle (unless they're invaded) so any, and everything needs to be transported, probably via ship.

[Imp]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

I've had a few people, and posts on other forums, question why Japan went with the Type 10 (48 tons fully loaded) as their MBT.

The answer is very simple: Roads, bridges, and sealift.
Japan is a VERY mountainous nation, narrow roads, lots of bridges, and like the US they won't be able to drive to the battle (unless they're invaded) so any, and everything needs to be transported, probably via ship.

Also remember it’s a defence force Japan does not fight overseas.so it’s a sensible idea they can deploy in the majority of places mainly as infantry support. Should someone try to land normal MBT they could probably meet them on the beaches. Around half the bridges in Japan cannot support a 60 ton vehicle.