_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: AA/AT/Artillery
For discussions about artillery and anti-aircraft or anti-tank guns.
Hosted by Darren Baker
M8 Armored Gun System?
Whiskey
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: May 30, 2002
KitMaker: 1,038 posts
Armorama: 377 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 04:46 PM UTC
Never heard of this but this is a very interesting read.


Quoted Text

March 17, 2004: The U.S. Army has taken four M8 Armored Gun Systems out of storage and assigned them to the 82nd Airborne Division. Often described as an "airborne tank", the M8 project was cancelled in 1996 in order to use the money saved (over a billion dollars) for other uses (like paying for peacekeeping duty). The M8 was a 1980s project, whose purpose was to provide light infantry forces with a tracked vehicle, equipped with a 105mm tank gun, that could be dropped by parachute or delivered via C-130 transport. The M8 has a three man crew and can be fitted with two different sets of add-on armor. The basic M8 weighs 19.3 tons and has armor that will protect the crew from shell fragments and some bullets. Three tons of additional armor will provide protection from all bullets and some small caliber cannon shells. Add another 2.5 tons of armor (creating a 24.8 ton vehicle) provides protection cannon shells up to 30mm. The M8 looks like a tank, but it isn't. It's best armor protection will not stop the least capable anti-tank round currently in use. The M8 is more like the World War II ear American "tank destroyers," which proved more useful as infantry support vehicles. The Germans and Russians had many similar vehicles which were accurately described as "assault guns." The M8 has an autoloader with 21 rounds, plus another nine rounds for reloading the autoloader. In practice, the M8 usually functions as self-propelled artillery system for light infantry. Missiles and air power are more likely to be used against enemy tanks and armored vehicles.

If the M8 had gone into mass production, each one bought would have cost about five million dollars. The army says it does not plan to resume development of the M8, it just needs some mobile artillery for the 82nd Airborne Division and the M8s were available. Cancelled weapons systems usually have working prototypes into storage in case the project is revived or, in this case, the weapon is actually needed. The new chief-of-staff of the army is said to be in favor of the M8, so putting the four prototypes to use might create enough positive feedback from the battlefield to get the M8 back in the procurement budget. The army originally wanted to buy 237 of them. The 25 ton version would be well protected against RPGs and would provide the kind of direct fire artillery support light infantry find very useful. At the moment, only tanks can provide this kind of support. But the 25 ton M8 can be flown to distant battlefields much more easily than the 65 ton M-1 tank. Development on the M8 has not stopped completely, there's now a version that carries a 155mm howitzer, whose development was paid for by the manufacturer, not the government.



http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTARM.HTM
DRAGONSLAIN
Visit this Community
Distrito Federal, Mexico
Joined: February 22, 2004
KitMaker: 779 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 05:23 PM UTC
I had not realized how expencive a tank could be, five miilion dolars? thats too much.
War_Machine
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Joined: February 11, 2003
KitMaker: 702 posts
Armorama: 385 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 06:57 PM UTC
Actually, compared to most large modern weapons systems, $5 million isn't that bad.
matt
Staff MemberCampaigns Administrator
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: February 28, 2002
KitMaker: 5,957 posts
Armorama: 2,956 posts
Posted: Friday, March 19, 2004 - 12:26 AM UTC
It's actually pretty close to the "replacemet" cost of a M1 abrams @ 4.3 Mil.
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Friday, March 19, 2004 - 12:34 AM UTC
This was brought up and discussed three days ago: Its back....M8 Buford AGS
Smoke86
Visit this Community
Vermont, United States
Joined: February 20, 2004
KitMaker: 33 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Friday, March 19, 2004 - 01:16 PM UTC
I never fully understood the logic behind that cancellation. I remember reading about the M8 (then XM8) in Tom Clancy's 'Armored Cav' and thought "Now theres a system that makes sense for light forces" Since then you've had not only the Stryker, but the LOSAT HMMWV and an over relaince in light forces on ATGMs. ATGMs, at least man portbale units, don't give you punch and manuver like the M8 would have, even mounted on M996s and M1046s. This system was not only destined for the 82nd but Also 2nd ACR which would have given the 18th Airborne Corps a true ACR.

I wonder if Gen Schoomaker will also come to a revalation to purchase a couple of Cesar 155mm Mobile Artillery Systems from Giat? I remeber the 18th Airborne Corps wanted those too a few years ago, when Gen. Shinseki(sp) was in love with NETFIRES and wanted to hold on the M198 until then. Ahh to dream..............
bf443
Visit this Community
Idaho, United States
Joined: May 16, 2003
KitMaker: 895 posts
Armorama: 283 posts
Posted: Friday, March 19, 2004 - 03:06 PM UTC
Smoke86 There was no logic involved in the cancellation. Everything points to egos, pet projects and branch jealousy within the Army that doomed the M8 the first time around. Hopefully if all goes well with these four maybe production will restart so the AB can have more than a token force. I also think the AB should be issued M113A3's to Battle-Taxi the troopers around instead of foot work or unarmored trucks.

Brian
Whiskey
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: May 30, 2002
KitMaker: 1,038 posts
Armorama: 377 posts
Posted: Friday, March 19, 2004 - 03:22 PM UTC

Quoted Text

This was brought up and discussed three days ago: Its back....M8 Buford AGS



Im always behind the powercurve.
 _GOTOTOP