Re: "Tanks, for the Memories"

>> I don't know I didn't write the specs, probably lighter, cheaper,
less
>> maintenance headache and nearly as manueverable as tanks.
>
>Definately a combination of all of these. Probably add the fact that it

>would be very rapid deployment capable. Easily air transportable and is

>self deploying on roadmarch without all the extra maintenance that a
tank 

That's nailing a big one of the reasons on the head. 
Self-deployability.

The LAV III that we're introducing here in service in Canada (as with
all
our other wheeled combat vehicles) is not only light enough to deploy in
a
C130, but it can deploy itself over long distances without any of the
infrastructure that you need to deploy tanks.  I read somewhere that it
is
so expensive to run the M1 that at their bases when moving distances
greater than 2 or 3 miles, they put the tank on a truck.  This of course
doesn't include training exercises, but the point is important.  The LAV
III can drive on regular highways (the Canadian ones are fully "road
legal"
with proper lights, and licence plates) and fill up at a regular gas
station if needed.  Deploying a tank two or three hundred miles to get
to a
battle will wear out the tank - high attrition 'cause of thrown treads,
etc.  These wheeled vehicles don't blink at that kind of thing.  For an
"Armoured" brigade using all wheeled vehicles, the brigade logistical
train
will be quite a bit smaller.

As to the "big guns" issue - why replace an M1 with a wheeled vehicle
with
a 25mm cannon? - as Los said, the Candian vehicles are on loan to allow
the
US to have something close to what they're going to eventually get, to
develop tactics and doctrine.  But you can get some pretty big guns on
these things.  The Italian Centauro B1 is an 8 wheeled armoured vehicle
that carries a 105mm cannon (same type of gun as the M1 was initially
fielded with).	That's a lot of punch.	Sure they don't have anywhere
near
the armour of a vehicle like the M1, but for a rapid deployable force,
it's
a lot better than a HMMWV for survivability...	In an emergency, they
could
go toe-to-toe with an enemy tank force (especially if the enemy is of
the
Iraqi/North Korean kind with 1950's and '60's vintage Russian armour in
the
majority).

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what the US ends up deciding on.  I
think a lot of armies will be moving toward this kind of unit and
vehicle.

Adrian