Why shouldn't there be a very basic low-tech tank in production?

Because mudslimes with IEDs made of fertilizer would destroy the shitty steel coffins.

It's even easier to upgrade old shit like T-55's, Centurions, M60's etc. than to build a whole new tank.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqup8giz7Nw

There was a program known as tge XM8 Buford. It was pretty much an air deployable 105mm gunned tank on a modular aluminium chassis using mostly Bradley parts meant as a replacement for the M855. It was ready for production but never adopted. I think it's cool but it probably would have been a beer can in any actual fighting.

>>31745424

Eventually they are going to run out of those things to upgrade.

That role is fufilled by Infantry Fighting Vehicles.

You can purpose build a vehicle for infantry support if you don't expect it to have to fight against any tanks, and that is exactly what some IFVs are.

>>31745440
and by then there'll be tons of surplus Abrams and T90's.

>>31745424
This. Lots of unused Cold War era hulls lying around. Give one an overhaul and viola el-cheapo tank.

>>31745396
Because the crew is more expensive than the vehicle

>>31745396
It would be cool as shit to see random third world countries do their own take on WW2 technology but sadly it would be cheaper to just buy some BMPs.

>>31745424
/thread

>>31745396
Because any costs savings you have by leaving out the good shit is vastly outweighed by the cost of having to replace you're entire armor force + personel because they got panzershrekt by dunecoons with RPG-7's

>>31745481
This.

>>31745396
Cheap tanks get taken out easily by cheap weapons.