Sprut-SD Russian Multi-Role Light Tank: Should the U.S. counter?

2015-07-24T19:39:43-04:00

Should the US develop a multi role system that can do Anti tank, tank, and Artillery capabilities for light units?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-CNASN-G1U

Sprut-SD. The 125 mm air-droppable tank.

Sprut-SD. The only air-droppable & floatable tank in the world. (Exepting M113 in some mean) Crew 3 - Cross Country Speed 11 mps (22 kt) - Height 3.6 m - Len...

Response by TSgt David L. made Jul 24 at 2015 8:03 PM

2015-07-24T20:03:50-04:00

The Soviets, I mean Russians, must be planning on something specific if they are spending money on this sort of tank. MAYBE it is in response to the controversy about cutting the A-10!

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jul 24 at 2015 9:26 PM

2015-07-24T21:26:29-04:00

The Russians know that their conventional forces are substandard. Their tank technology in the past has been inferior to ours. They are currently experimenting with robotic turrets on the Armata. This appears to be the case with the Sprut.

Light and slightly armored vehicles aren't survivable on today's conventional battlefields. The Stryker/MGS systems are our attempt at a light armored vehicle and although they have worked well in a COIN environment, there is some doubt how well they'd fare in a conventional conflict.

This Sprut can't outrun a 120mm..

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Jul 24 at 2015 10:30 PM

2015-07-24T22:30:00-04:00

If it's so great, maybe we should buy a bunch of them..?

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jul 25 at 2015 1:27 AM

2015-07-25T01:27:27-04:00

Russians are still lame, and wanna bees.... So no... That is neither a tank, nor a 125mm. I would like to a single M1 vs. this silly thing...

Response by Sgt Ken Prescott made Jul 25 at 2015 1:57 AM

2015-07-25T01:57:29-04:00

No.

The tank is becoming obsolete. It's too slow at the operational and strategic levels to chase down an enemy that isn't willing to stand and fight; it's too big to hide; and in an era of cheap top-attack munitions, you can't make it tough enough to survive.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2018 3:51 PM

2018-01-06T15:51:44-05:00

We don't need to copy them or their light tank. All we need is to be able to do is to kill it everytime it sticks its nose into our ops. If you kill it as often as humanly possible, the crews will be very afraid. I don't know anyone who would wish to be burned alive. A terrified crew is a far less effective crew.

If it is air deployable the armor cannot be too heavy so we need to ensure that there is ongoing product improvement to the FGM-148 Javelin (especially to the seeker array) and overall weight (if possible). We also need to provide more training opportunities in its tactical application as well as range training. You cannot expect soldiers to be fully effective in the application of a weapon system without a lot of range time with at least dummy missles. They must also be allowed to fire enough live rounds to experience how the system actually works in real life. Yes it's very expensive, but a lot less expensive that developing a new tank that IMHO is useless. In addition, all personnel in units to which this systen is assigned need at least didactic training in its use since crew served weapons are always high priority targets. AND let us not forget the M3 Weapon System (MAAWS) known to many as RATS ....

Response by SGT Frank Pritchett made Jan 6 at 2018 4:14 PM

2018-01-06T16:14:28-05:00

I thought that was the role of the M-2 Bradly, but then the Wort Hog does a really good job at it too as well as the Air Force with smart bombs. I think we have them covered in most aspects.