early reply
Have been asked about an inconsistency in my views: “ why upgrade rear-engined Abrams with a diesel instead of expanding GCV project to include a front-engined gun-armed vehicle or MBT ? “
That's a good question and it will probably be asked again so here is an early answer. A ‘best’ path for US heavy armour development could seem to be a new front-engine chassis - incorporating some Abrams components and sub-systems - as a common basis for AEV, ARV, AVLB, BW and MBT variants. But an alternative ‘ one step at a time ’process reduces the risk of creating a Gordian knot such as doomed the FCS.
The monstrously heavy concept that seems to have been adopted for the GCV will result in lengthy delay before the project is revised to be something more objective and manageable. That will require at least two major changes. One, the proposed scale of issue will have to be reduced and directed to companys (rather than battalions) of assault infantry and combat engineers. Two, the large turret and armament will have to be supplanted by something smaller and less heavy that is still able to deliver intense prophylactic fire. Hence the definitive vehicle will be smaller and probably less weighty. Eventually the chassis of that smaller ‘GCV’ (in other words Battle Wagon) could become the basis for future mobility support variants and also a MBT successor. That process would approximate ‘ one step at a time ‘ and might be described as sequential or familial development.
But for an interim period - possibly into the 2030s – believe US force structure would be better served by upgrading what exists today. And that means the Abrams, almost certainly in its current rear-engined form.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks