# Close combat vehicle-Light



## MacArther (Dec 11, 2006)

I have some information I would like to share. Its not likely to be the best out there, but this was the most I could gather. If any military personnel could lend their opinions on how this vehicle might do in service based off of the performance sheet, I would be *very* appreciative. 

Source: Armored Fighting Vehicles p.84 "Close Combat Vehicle-Light"
Author: Philip Trewhitt
Publishers: Friedman/Fairfax



> The CCV-L was designed as a private venture by the FNC Corporation, manufacturer of the M113 and Bradley Armored Fighting Vehicle and was destined for the US Army's Light Divisions. When the prototype appeared in 1985 it created interest because it only required a three-man crew, allowed for by an automatic loading system for the main armament. This gave a rate of fire of 12 rounds per minute. The CCV-L borrowed many parts from various other vehicls, such as the M113 Armored Personnel Carrier, in order to reduce developement time. The CCV-L has a hull of all welded aluminum construction with bolt on steel to enhance balistic protection. Additional armor can be applied to the outside of the tank if required, including explosive reactive armor



Country of Origin: USA
Crew: 3
Weight: 19,414 kg (42,710lb)
Dimensions: Length 9.37m (30ft 9in); width 2.69m (8ft 10in); height 2.36m (7ft 9in)
Range: 483km (300 miles)
Armor: classified
Armament: one 105mm gun*
Powerplant: One Detroit Diesel Model 6V-92 TA 6 cylinder diesel engine developing 552hp (412kW)
Performance: Maximum road speed 70km/h (43.5mph); fording 1.32m (4ft 4in); vertical obstacle .76m (2ft 6in); trench 2.13m (7ft)

*I have not seen any other armaments listed for this vehicle other than this, so its interesting that it is called a *Close Combat* vehicle.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 11, 2006)

haha, the gun looks hugely disproportionately large compared to the rest of the machine, i take it it's not air dropable?


----------



## MacArther (Dec 11, 2006)

Actually, I think that it is meant to be dropped. Then again, I can't confirm it because there is little to no information relavent to such things. Most information *I* found was basically repeating what I have already written.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 11, 2006)

I have that book. haha. It's an okay book - came across a lot of grammatical errors - makes me think it wasn't proofread. That goes for the whole series of those books.

Wasn't that a private venture that never caught on w/ any foreign services?


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 12, 2006)

Yeah air droppable in the least armoured configuration. Once you bolted on all the armour, it was quite the beast. I don't think it ever went anywhere.


----------



## Glider (Dec 12, 2006)

Argentina use a similar tank the TAM but based on the Marder APC. These have a significant punch but like the CCV-L would not be able take much damage from inf anti tank weapons.
Its probably fair to say no tank can stand up to a 120mm gun as mounted in the M1, Challanger or Leopard 2.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 7, 2007)

It wouldn't be very practical in an urban setting. For that something more like the main gun on the Strumtiger might be better...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2007)

That idea never took off and would not in this modern day and age anyway.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 8, 2007)

Too slow, ponderous and overgunned. And without armour upgrades, to vulnerable for having the prior characteristics.

Adler's right. Might as well buy a real tank.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2007)

The US allready has its light airborne droppable tank anyhow.

The M-551 Sherridan. It packs a huge punch with its 152mm Cannon, is fast and maneuverable and can be dropped from tanks. It was designed in the 60s and used in Vietnam, Panama, and Desert Storm.

It however is very vulnerable. The turret is made of steel but to save on weight the hull is made of alluminum and would allow large caliber machine gun rounds to penetrate the hull.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2007)

well you can only ever see them being used in the short term anywar until rear armoured units catch up to the position the airbornes are being used to hold, of course in that time though the enemy might be bringing in heavier tanks too.........


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 9, 2007)

As I recall, the vehicle was developed for foreign markets, (South America, Central America) and was never intended for US procurement.


----------



## Glider (Jan 9, 2007)

I don't know for sure but I would be suprised as overseas makets would have found it very expensive and complicated. The cannon didn't just fire a large HE shell, it also fired an anti tank missile called the shilaleigh.

I believe it was designed for recce units as it was very fast, had a large punch and a low ground pressure.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 9, 2007)

Glider said:


> I don't know for sure but I would be suprised as overseas makets would have found it very expensive and complicated. The cannon didn't just fire a large HE shell, it also fired an anti tank missile called the shilaleigh.
> 
> I believe it was designed for recce units as it was very fast, had a large punch and a low ground pressure.



Overseas markets did not want it after US the cancelled program. They did not have the need for a lightly armoured vehicle that was air droppable and the performance was lacking against other vehicles with much better protection.

The missile that was slated for it was the LOSAT anti-tank missile. But I don't recall that it ever made it into development. Only planned I think. It was only an infantry support vehicle and the writeups always went out of their way to emphasize that it was NOT a tank. I think with the highest protection bolt on armour it was only protected up to 25-30mm cannon.

Neat technology. I also recall that it could not be airdropped with this highest protection as this made the vehicle prohibitively heavy. However, this armour could be bolted on once in feild.


----------



## Glider (Jan 10, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Overseas markets did not want it after US the cancelled program.
> 
> The missile that was slated for it was the LOSAT anti-tank missile. But I don't recall that it ever made it into development.
> 
> Neat technology. I also recall that it could not be airdropped with this highest protection as this made the vehicle prohibitively heavy. However, this armour could be bolted on once in feild.



I am confident that the project wasn't cancelled and the Sheridan did enter service in some numbers (around 1600) although not for that long. The Missile was the Shillelaugh (apologies for previous spelling which was from memory) and it was used.
The 152mm/Shillelaugh weapon system was also used on the M60A2 of which around 560 were purchased. This was one of the first tanks with a laser rangefinder.

The problem was the complexity of the system and it was sometimes known sarcastically as the Starship.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Overseas markets did not want it after US the cancelled program.



The program was not cancelled. It was and is still used by the US Army. 1562 were built between 1966 and 1970.

The 82nd Airborne kept there M-551s until 1996, because it was the only airborne capable Tank that the US had. The 82nd used them in Operation Just Cause in 1989 and used 51 of them in Desert Storm.

Now they are used at the NTC at Fort Erwin to simulate enemy tanks during training events.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 10, 2007)

I was referring to the CCV-L. It went the wayside like the Cadillac-Gage Stingray.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2007)

Oh I thought you were talking about the M-551.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 11, 2007)

I love the Sheridan. That and the Walker Bulldog are two of my favorites.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2007)

I woudl not like the Sheridan. The Alluminum hull that it has allowed even larger caliber machine gun fire to get through. Not a fan of it at all.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 12, 2007)

It serves its purpose. Aluminum hull is the tradeoff that Sheridan, Cadillac Gage, CCV-L, and Bradley all make use of to minimize weight and maximize speed/maneuverability. As you know all tanks/AFV have to constantly trade protection vs speed/maneuverability vs armament. Can't have it all.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 12, 2007)

> As I recall, the vehicle was developed for foreign markets, (South America, Central America) and was never intended for US procurement.



one problem with that, unless she can fit in a C-130 how many of the target nations have the transporters to carry these things? no point in buying an air-portable tank if you've got nothing that can carry it, and if you want something that can carry it you'll need to buy it from the US more than likely... very clever, do you do discounts on package deals


----------



## mkloby (Jan 12, 2007)

I believe part of the logic behind the vehicle was that modern anti-tank rounds fired from a tank, or weapons such as tows and hellfires have made and will continue to make ridiculously heavily armored tanks impractical - hence the WEAK armor. I think this thought guided both stingray and ccvl development.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 12, 2007)

Very true. Originally both were bid for US adoption and overseas purchases a bonus. Without US procurement, individual costs and recurring costs were not economical.


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 19, 2007)

All you would do with a Strumtiger type mortar is fire at potential enemy hiding places, and then wait for the enemy to come out hurting at you and then gun them down with something like a Humvee with an anti-personnel turret that could destroy the enemy...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 19, 2007)

When you have mortors coming down on you, you dont go hunting for the enemy. You take cover, trust me I know, I have had mortors coming down on me.


----------



## Glider (Mar 19, 2007)

mkloby said:


> I believe part of the logic behind the vehicle was that modern anti-tank rounds fired from a tank, or weapons such as tows and hellfires have made and will continue to make ridiculously heavily armored tanks impractical - hence the WEAK armor. I think this thought guided both stingray and ccvl development.



I would second the logic as proposed above. Its worth noting that the French have always believed in this argument and their tanks have had very poor armour compared to other nations. 
The early German Leopard 1 also followed this argument but later Mk 1's were uparmoured to defeat man portable HEAT weapons but were open to Tank guns. Of course the Leopard 2 as we know, has followed the UK/USA preference for heavy armour.


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 20, 2007)

It would certainly make clearing an urban setting that much easier. Just level it and see what comes running out...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2007)

Does not work that way. The only way to clear an urban setting is to go in and clear it door to door. There are too much hiding spaces in an urban setting.


----------



## mkloby (Mar 21, 2007)

It does have some uses though. There's always a time and a place for the 120mm sniper fire. But the job is mostly left up to boots clearing blocks house by house.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2007)

Exactly


----------



## HealzDevo (Mar 24, 2007)

Okay.


----------

