It is not the current/popular opinion, but I firmly believe that a Medium Tank like CV90-120 is a better match for our Heavy Cavalry role than a "traditional" MBT...
Likewise, I think an 8x8 LAV, upgunned to say a 40mm CTAS turrrt is a better fit for MCAV.
Why? Because mobility... Operational mobility, will trump armour in a UxV infested battlespace. The battlespace for a Brigade or Div is getting so deep/wide/dispersed tyat tracked platforma, especially heavy tracked platforms just won't have the speed & mobility to travel to/from/within the FEBA. We will need MCAV to be mobile enough to get there, & exploit opportunities. They just need "good enough" off-road chops, not necessarily excellent.
Medium Tanks with rubber tracks will have just enough operational speed & mobility to push forward (on primary, secondary, tertiary or no roads) & do the tank things they need to, once we get UxV superiority.
Anyways... My $.02, that I have, & will continue to share with anyone listening....
I read the old Op research summary for the CAF MGS program (before 2006). It assessed suitability of a fire support vehicle like Stryker MGS in tank roles against Main Battle Tanks (I can't remember if it ever stated 45t T-72s... Or 60t+ Abrams )
Either way, the conclusion was that a 105mm LAV would get trounced by 125mm or 120mm armed tracked MBTs. (Duh).
Equip the MGS with a 120mm like the L44A1 or the 120 on Centauro 2.... & I'm quite certain the gap would narrow considerably.
Put that L44A1 on a medium tank like CV90-120 & that gap will mostly disappear.
ARV, AEV, Bridgelayer... IFV if we wanted expand the Army to include a proper heavy Brigade. You could also do a Medium Cavalry vehicle based on the IFV, but with UAS & surveillance kit instead of troops.
Really, you can use the base platform to build almost whatever you want using the space in the back.
I would definitely build at least the ARVs, AEVs & bridgelayers though... It gives the mechanised elements the ability to breach obstacles / cross gaps on an assault, & recover damaged vehicles.
It is not the current/popular opinion, but I firmly believe that a Medium Tank like CV90-120 is a better match for our Heavy Cavalry role than a "traditional" MBT...
Likewise, I think an 8x8 LAV, upgunned to say a 40mm CTAS turrrt is a better fit for MCAV.
Why? Because mobility... Operational mobility, will trump armour in a UxV infested battlespace. The battlespace for a Brigade or Div is getting so deep/wide/dispersed tyat tracked platforma, especially heavy tracked platforms just won't have the speed & mobility to travel to/from/within the FEBA. We will need MCAV to be mobile enough to get there, & exploit opportunities. They just need "good enough" off-road chops, not necessarily excellent.
Medium Tanks with rubber tracks will have just enough operational speed & mobility to push forward (on primary, secondary, tertiary or no roads) & do the tank things they need to, once we get UxV superiority.
Anyways... My $.02, that I have, & will continue to share with anyone listening....
https://www.armyrecognition.com/news/army-news/2025/new-cv90120-with-l44a1-120-mm-gun-brings-full-tank-firepower-at-half-the-weight
Im telling you. Always a day after I talk about stuff do people decide to do things. 🥲
I read the old Op research summary for the CAF MGS program (before 2006). It assessed suitability of a fire support vehicle like Stryker MGS in tank roles against Main Battle Tanks (I can't remember if it ever stated 45t T-72s... Or 60t+ Abrams )
Either way, the conclusion was that a 105mm LAV would get trounced by 125mm or 120mm armed tracked MBTs. (Duh).
Equip the MGS with a 120mm like the L44A1 or the 120 on Centauro 2.... & I'm quite certain the gap would narrow considerably.
Put that L44A1 on a medium tank like CV90-120 & that gap will mostly disappear.
Mark, do you see potential roles for other CV90 variants if we went with the CV90120?
ARV, AEV, Bridgelayer... IFV if we wanted expand the Army to include a proper heavy Brigade. You could also do a Medium Cavalry vehicle based on the IFV, but with UAS & surveillance kit instead of troops.
Really, you can use the base platform to build almost whatever you want using the space in the back.
I would definitely build at least the ARVs, AEVs & bridgelayers though... It gives the mechanised elements the ability to breach obstacles / cross gaps on an assault, & recover damaged vehicles.
Also... Noah knows all too well that I can't resist this question.... 😒
love tracks
can AOPS get to the point where it can play with helicopters?
GCAP = nice
FCAS = France
Germany/Sweden/Spain = ?? Canada ??