Is there any sort of Armor equivalent of the 160th SOAR? A sort

Why in the world would they?

Armor's best when together, in coordination. Having elite weeaboo tank units would just end up on one of those ISIS videos of a lone tank getting ATGM'd.

>>34633842

And neither is the 160th sent in on their own, they're always supporting and being supported by other units.

>>34633831
>Rangers
>Tanks
I think you don't quite understand what light infantry are all about.

>>34633960
the Rangers have used Gavins in Iraq on occasion. As far as OPs question about some sort of eliet armor unit, there is nothing like that in the armor or mech infantry world. lots of armor units or mech Infantry units will beat their chest and say they are the best, but they are all the same.

>>34634004
>Gavins

Get the fuck out

>>34633960

Rangers have zero vehicles?

>>34634379
Light infantry is not designed to operate in cooperation with heavy mechanized formations. That's what ordinary mechanized infantry is for.

>>34634004
>Gavin
Really, anon?

t. 3/73AR GW1 vet. I really like the idea of airborne armor. The Army did a study after Urgent Fury and determined that the operation would have been shortened by 30 day had Division decided to actually deploy their Sheridans. They did bring the Sheridans to Just Cause with spectacular effect. One HEAT round into the first floor of a building would usually pancake the whole structure. The infantry loved it. Plus, in classic infantry/armor warfare, the grunts could hitch a ride on the tank, hop off on contact, and support the tank.

Sadly, that peace dividend killed the M-8 AGS (the Thais have some). Yes in perfect world we would have a true light cavalry (Airborne). The AGS and M113 are easy choices. Of the top of my head, you could sell this idea a a rapid deployment Bde in support of NATO.

I believe the 1st SS Panzer Battalion was used like a special operations unit during the Battle of Bulge. Platoons of tanks were dispersed across the battlefield with the purpose of conducting raids and raising general chaos. A battalion of tanks is fairly easy to target. But dispersed platoons would be nearly impossible to find.

File: MGS 2.jpg (720KB, 1600x1065px) Image search: [Google]

720KB, 1600x1065px

>>34634483

Why not use the MGS?

>>34633831
I know that tank units have occasionally been assigned to JSOC when they were specifically requested but those were just regular units. For now at least there is no dedicated tank force for those kind of missions.

>>34634584
Not against it. I am total track fag, but the MGS would be a good bet too. I am pretty skeptical on the life expectancy of wheeled main guns. Most armies that use them don't fire nearly the amount of training ammunition that the US Army does. Wheels have their pros, especially maintenance and road endurance. One thing I dislike about the Styrker is you have to air down the tires to get it low enough to fit in a C-130. Not a deal breaker with CTIS but an additional consideration. At the end of the day, you are putting armor up your enemies ass where he least expects it to come from.

>>34634584
not air droppable from a C-130, and to even get into the belly of a C-130 you have to remove the gun
>this is what happens when a SF general thinks he knows about armored vehicles

File: 1885539.jpg (326KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 1600x1067px

>>34634483
Later this year the army is going to airdrop some LAV-25's in a test as a prelude to getting some for airborne units.

>>34634584
There is no rigging currently qualified to carry something of the M1128's weight, and even then there are only enough M1128's for the Stryker BCT's.

>>34634004
>Gavins
Go to bed Sparks.

File: 2S23.jpg (163KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1024x768px

>>34634584
because its not airdrop-able like a nona is

>>34635154
if the army decides to start airdropping LAV-25s, I wonder if they'll incorporate any of the modifications that were made in the Canadian army's LAV-6 program. Of course not the extra armour because it has to be airdroppable, but the better engine and modernized systems?

>>34636511
The LAV 6 improvements to the LAV III are the same improvements going into Strykers. The LAV-25A2 has its own set of upgrades from older LAV II's.

>>34636511
We had air dropped LAV-25 in the 3/73. They were in the Bn scout platoon. We got them as a test bed. Their was a concept floated of replacing all of the Sheridans with LAV.

>>34633831

Yes, it's called the ACRs

File: tachikoma gits.jpg (122KB, 900x637px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 900x637px

They wouldn't use MBTs.

They'd be pic related

File: DARPA GXV-T.jpg (67KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1280x720px

It would be unmanned pic related.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2NXSgD_INY

It wouldn't make sense because armour is dictated by mechanical limitations, not physical ones

>>34633831
>Surely the Rangers would like to have tanks from time to time, yeah?
Considering that armor is largely obsolete and too slow/big for the kinds of jobs they already do - no.

Unless you meant the traditional scouting job, which is what ACRs used to do.

>>34636349
its soooo cute omgosh

>>34633831
Reup bonuses to go to SOAR are fucking nuts right now. They offered me 3k for 4 years for regular reup or 25k for 4 years of soar

File: I hope my eyes deceive me.jpg (44KB, 540x300px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 540x300px

>>34639013
>Considering that armor is largely obsolete

>>34642850

The joke is that you probably wouldn't get in anyways.

That's how they get you to re-enlist for no bonus, because when you wash out of SOAR selection, you go back to your line unit with four more years on your contract but no bonus because it was dependent on you getting into SOAR

>>34638842

Man, this is like Iranian-propaganda levels of bad

>>34633831

I'm sure the idea has been bandied about before, but a hypothetical special operations tank crew would have to be distinguished by an unconventional application of armor for which those soldiers have been specifically trained. Just as the Rangers, Green Berets, CAG, SEALs, SAS, etc. have specific functions that make their mission distinct from that of normal infantry, so too would SOF tankers need a niche.

The only thing that comes to mind is the possible resurgence of airborne tanks in the 82nd Airborne. Since the M551 Sheridan was retired nearly twenty years ago, we haven't had any air-droppable armor. Apparently, the Army is in the early stages of procuring an airborne tank or tank destroyer, but we won't see that until the 2020s. The crews that operate these tanks will likely be made up of exceptional Abrams crewmen, given that expertise will be needed to compensate for an airborne tank's inferior armor, engine, and weaponry.

>>34643644

If I was an Abrams crewman, you'd have to force me at gunpoint to trade down to a fucking airborne tank.

Tanks are either air-droppable or they're well armored, they can't be both at once.

>>34638818

>Huge body
>Only has two tiny machine guns for armament

I don't understand

>>34634004
>Gavin

Oh you poor fool...

File: M113_APC_at_Camp_Bucca,_Iraq.jpg (1MB, 3008x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3008x2000px

>>34634167
>>34634483
>>34635329
>>34646364

Get triggered

>>34634483
Yoooo. I was 3/73 Cav, after they got rid of the Sheridans. Thunderbolts!

>>34634379
Of course we have vehicles. Hell, We used the shit outta strykers

>>34647603
>I was merely pretending.

File: 1498440582674.jpg (86KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 750x750px

>>34639013
>armor is largely obsolete
>at the same time all of the world's militaries continue to develop and procure more and more armoured vehicles, and unarmoured tactical vehicles pretty much dont exist anymore

what did he mean by this?

>>34650982
Can you not read English?

>>34651533
let me try one more time

>anon says armor is obsolete
>literally every military in the world is increasing the average amount of armour on their tactical vehicles

what DID he mean by this?

>>34651652
He was talking about airborne armor you fucking cockgobbling mogoloid.

>>34644776
it was meant for urban usage so the guns weren't a drawback and useful for most purposes. it has a grenade launcher on it if you need explosions. damn thing can turn invisible and jump on buildings too.

>>34651691
Plus they're cute as fuck and they can do choreographed dance numbers.

>>34651652

That second bit isn't true Anon

>>34633831
That's what the Armata is meant to be, in theory. US doesn't practice elite armor because being in armor already puts you a cut above the grunts: what more do you want?

>>34651691
>>34651767

>Anime

You wasters should be banned from posting on this board.

File: If this bitch don't shut the fuck up....jpg (121KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1280x720px

>>34652106

>>34652092
>Armata
>Elite

Anon...

>>34652106
You should probably suck my dick, faggot.