Infantry tanks were supposed to be better protected.
Matilda requirements were to have all around protection against AT guns of that times.
Name me one IFV that has all around protection against ATGMs.
The Mathilda didn't even have all around protection against all AT when it was first produced. And it wouldn't have protection against most AT a year later.
Missions of the infantry tank was to support infantry with firepower. It's mission meant it could be better armored because of the supposed pace of infantry. Increasing it's survivability and making it's use easier when supporting the attack of strong points of well equipped fortifications.
As armour was proven to be useless and infantry still need fire support, IFV took the role of the infantry tank. Of you want to split hairs, you could say the Israeli IFV and any IFV based on a tank chassis is a spiritual successor to the IFV but neither them nor any tanks can survive atgm so if this is the line you draw:
Infantry tanks never existed and most probably can't exist because it's armor's fate to be penetrated.
>The Mathilda didn't even have all around protection against all AT when it was first produced
it did, being able to resist the most common german guns of the time the 37mm and 5cm guns
>The Mathilda didn't even have all around protection against all AT when it was first produced.
Duuuuude....
Pak 36 had 34-63mm pen (AP-HVAP) at 100m.
British Ordnance QF 2-pounder had 58-105mm pen (AP-HVAP) at 100m.
Matilda was very tough target for standard AT guns at the time of it's development.
>The Mathilda didn't even have all around protection against all AT when it was first produced.
Duuuuude....
Pak 36 had 34-63mm pen (AP-HVAP) at 100m.
British Ordnance QF 2-pounder had 58-105mm pen (AP-HVAP) at 100m.
Matilda was very tough target for standard AT guns at the time of it's development.
Doesn't the Bradley have armor about as thick as the Matilda's? It's certainly tougher than any other APC that isn't derived from a tank chassis.
Yeah I did that for the first half of my twenties, along with unrestrained alcoholism.
I have regrets about some of my decisions, but I don't regret it as a whole. Just give yourself an exit strategy that doesn't involve your death.
Packing and moving stuff to storage and/or the dump because I have to move out of my house and sell it ASAP because fricking strikes last year fricking fricked me. At least I'll make a pretty good wad of cash selling and can move somewhere that sucks less though.
gonna drink 26 ounces of Alberta Premium and find new ways to make fun of the new wave of IDF Black folk and /misc/estinians infesting /k/ since Nakbah 2k23
>going to a newborn training class for my daughter who's due to be born in ~5-6 weeks >need to get the alternator fixed on my wifes car: debating on taking it to a shop and paying $500 in labor + 250 for the part or trying to do it myself >going to visit my parents who just got back from hawaii >playing vidya sometime in between
Not exactly as envisioned back then, but the US just adopted a new tank that fills pretty much exactly the same tactical role, so clearly at least the Army think the basic concept of armor specifically designed to move with and support infantry is still valid.
>fills pretty much exactly the same tactical role
Wrong
Infantry tanks were supposed to be better protected.
Matilda requirements were to have all around protection against AT guns of that times.
Name me one IFV that has all around protection against ATGMs.
I can’t find a single reason the Booker’s existence. With the shit that’s been going on in Ukraine, how could a lighter armored tank every make sense? At this point a drone carrier makes more sense.
did you bother to look up what the US Army had to say about the Booker's doctrinal employment?
>The Mathilda didn't even have all around protection against all AT when it was first produced
it did, being able to resist the most common german guns of the time the 37mm and 5cm guns
>>5cm guns >only frontally
Pak 5 cm Pak 38 had APC penetration at 100-500m of 96-79mm. It may penetrate side at 100m but would struggle at several hundred meters.
APCR had 149-108mm pen at 100-500m but it should be noted that German APCR were very bad vs spaced armor. It would pen turret but would fail at the side that is protected by spaced armor.
In practice German AT guns failed against Matilda and real Matilda stopper was 88mm. (Until they got Pak 40).
>did you bother to look up what the US Army had to say about the Booker's doctrinal employment?
What, that the US army is fricking moronic? >lets adopt a "light" tank that is the weight of our MBT competitors with less firepower and armour >then let's give it to our infantry BCTs and overload their logistical capability because now they have to support a fricking MBT >oh btw, it's not a tank it is a (insert X) even though 100% of the time it will be used as a tank and is the weight of a tank
Pic related is similar to what the US army should have adopted
>a "light" tank
it's not a light tank, moron >the weight of our MBT competitors
nobody cares, moron >less firepower and armour
sensors and networking is what makes the modern battlefield, moron >overload their logistical capability
you don't know jack fricking shit about an IBCT's logistics capability, moron >now they have to support a fricking MBT
it's not an MBT, moron >it will be used as a tank
no it won't, moron >the US army should have adopted this ancient non-networked piece of shit
no, moron
we have had daily wrecked tank threads for over 2 years now. i think its safe to say tanks are worthless.
to become viable again they would have to be able to eat modern atgms, drones and mines, which is a difficult task.
A lot of the tank destruction in Ukraine comes down to a lack of proper combined arms, particularly a lack of infantry support. The Booker is explicitly and soley intended to operate in close cooperation with infantry.
both the ukies and the russkies send their tanks with mechanized infantry support. that does nothing against mines, drones or atgms. the infantry just gets wasted along side the tanks.
>that does nothing against mines
mines are cleared by brigade-level assets
>drones or atgms
infantry can keep eyes pointed up
infantry can assault positions holding ATGMs to force them off or reveal their position
>. the infantry just gets wasted along side the tanks.
infantry act as additional eyes and ears for tanks so that the tank is free to maneuver and engage heavy threats
this results in both the infantry and tank surviving
>mines are cleared by brigade-level assets
yeah nobody is going into a mine field that is covered by enemy snipers, mortars, drones, machine guns, dont be delusional.
>infantry can keep eyes pointed up
yeah we see that in the drone videos daily. infantry stares at drones dropping grenades or fpvs flying into their asses, yeah that surely helps.
>infantry can assault positions holding ATGMs to force them off or reveal their position
infantry will get mowed down by mortars, machine guns, artillery, mines and enemy infantry and not atgm will even fire.
>infantry act as additional eyes and ears for tanks. this results in both the infantry and tank surviving
how? infantry doesnt see incoming fpvs and atgms until its too late and they dont see mines either unless dismounted and advancing at crawl speed which then in turn makes them an ideal target for artillery.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>yeah nobody is going into a mine field that is covered by enemy snipers, mortars, drones, machine guns, dont be delusional.
thats why they send the people in the brigade whose job it is to take care of it
>infantry will get mowed down by mortars, machine guns, artillery, mines and enemy infantry and not atgm will even fire.
infantry travel in things called IFVs that protect them from mortar and artillery fire and allow them to travel quickly
engaging enemy ATGMs will force them to reveal their position by firing at them instead of tanks and enable them to be held in place to be destroyed by artillery
or the ATGMs pack up and relocate
>how? infantry doesnt see incoming fpvs and atgms until its too late and they dont see mines either unless dismounted and advancing at crawl speed which then in turn makes them an ideal target for artillery.
mines are detected ahead of time by recon
infantry will attack positions that can harbor enemy weapons to force them to react and be engaged with artillery or force them to retreat
infantry in general can keep eyes pointed in several directions even while moving and greatly increase situational awareness
literally read the mech infantry manual, every thing you say could happen has already been addressed and trained for
>The Booker is explicitly and soley intended to operate in close cooperation with infantry.
*Operate with unmechanized infantry because the US army wants to go back to the 1930s and use the doctrine of people who got their shit hard by the Nazis
the hardest fighting was carried out by the armored divisions, which consisted of equal mixtures of tanks and armored infantry mounted in half-tracks
while separate tank battalions supporting infantry divisions were numerous than armored divisons they were heavily dispersed rather than concentrated and werent capable of independent maneuver
which always relied on the armored divisions to create the breakthrough necessary for the rest of the army to follow
3 months ago
Anonymous
>always relied on the armored divisions to create the breakthrough necessary
not "always", from what I've read, especially in the urbanised terrain of Europe but also in the North African campaign
typically, infantry divisions attacked first and armoured divisions exploited the breakthrough
the US operates both armored brigades and infantry brigades
the former will stick with mechanized infantry and main battle tanks the latter will be reinforced with M10s
>I can’t find a single reason the Booker’s existence.
Assault gun. 35/40 mm airburst shells work well, but a single 105 mm programmed-burst does the job of 10x 40 mm ones. Plus, the larger the shell, the more tricks it can do, for cheaper. Ex. switch between trench sweeper (airburst) and demolition (point impact) at the push of a button. It's proportionally cheaper to make a 105mm MP-HE compared to a 40 mm one (more miniaturization required, less effective warhead).
merkava is used identically to other MBTs
in an armored brigade where a set number of tanks are supported by mech infantry in troop carriers
they do not support infantry at all, they work in tandem with mech infantry to accomplish their own tasks while infantry are in a separate unit
No and they never were. The idea of separating the infantry support and cavalry roles of tanks to optimize designs fell apart in the real world where those optimized designs were never where they need to be when they were needed. It's another one of those ideas that sound great on paper but don't work out.
the reason the Germans beat the French so fast in WW2 was that the French were totally unprepared to fight, gave up too fast, the Luftwaffe had air superiority and CAS, and the Wehrmacht infantry were able to keep up with the Panzers
Yes, infantry need fire support of all sorts. Anti tank, bunker, soft, air... Line of sight or indirect, high velocity gun for KE, low velocity for payload, from autoloading medium caliber to big ass spigot mortar.
>assault gun armored as well or better than MBTs for dedicated organic deployment with infantry
No, just shoot and scoot things like Booker. AFV mortars in similar or smaller unmanned vehicles would probably be more useful. Boston Dynamics robo-dog trench clearers might be capable of being up armored to the point of being immune to small arms enough to be a problem.
Sort of.
I think a heavily armored, mine resistant remote controlled vehicle would be of great help. We all saw those vids of soldiers stepping on a mine 5 seconds after leaving the APC.
The way orks mined everything is insane, and UK losses to mines are gigantic.
But they would have to be relatively small and built in great numbers.
>infantry tanks were slow and heavily armored because they were meant to move with infantry to provide support >IFV's are fast and lightly armored to move the infantry and then provide support at the destination
the mission is a the same, an armored vehicle dedicated to infantry support, but the concept has almost inverted.
They became IFVs.
Infantry tanks were supposed to be better protected.
Matilda requirements were to have all around protection against AT guns of that times.
Name me one IFV that has all around protection against ATGMs.
The Mathilda didn't even have all around protection against all AT when it was first produced. And it wouldn't have protection against most AT a year later.
Missions of the infantry tank was to support infantry with firepower. It's mission meant it could be better armored because of the supposed pace of infantry. Increasing it's survivability and making it's use easier when supporting the attack of strong points of well equipped fortifications.
As armour was proven to be useless and infantry still need fire support, IFV took the role of the infantry tank. Of you want to split hairs, you could say the Israeli IFV and any IFV based on a tank chassis is a spiritual successor to the IFV but neither them nor any tanks can survive atgm so if this is the line you draw:
Infantry tanks never existed and most probably can't exist because it's armor's fate to be penetrated.
>The Mathilda didn't even have all around protection against all AT when it was first produced
it did, being able to resist the most common german guns of the time the 37mm and 5cm guns
>The Mathilda didn't even have all around protection against all AT when it was first produced.
Duuuuude....
Pak 36 had 34-63mm pen (AP-HVAP) at 100m.
British Ordnance QF 2-pounder had 58-105mm pen (AP-HVAP) at 100m.
Matilda was very tough target for standard AT guns at the time of it's development.
Doesn't the Bradley have armor about as thick as the Matilda's? It's certainly tougher than any other APC that isn't derived from a tank chassis.
Name one MBT that has all around protection against ATGMs.
Object 770
Bradley with Iron fist APS? or any APS equipped IFV
really there isn't a vehicle with all around passive protection against ATGMs
wrong image FRICK
welp, this thread was finished quickly.
you guys doing anything fun this weekend?
jerk off, play vidya until my head aches, and cry while thinking of how much of a pathetic loser i am.
jesus christ anon
unfrick your shit
are you at least a neet
Start going out moron, even anime/game conventions and gym are a good start. You can unfrick your shit if you try
Don't bother. If he wanted to improve his situation he would have by now.
nta, but I do all that shit and nothing changed.
Just do what makes you happy man.
It did for me.
Yeah I did that for the first half of my twenties, along with unrestrained alcoholism.
I have regrets about some of my decisions, but I don't regret it as a whole. Just give yourself an exit strategy that doesn't involve your death.
Neat.
Packing and moving stuff to storage and/or the dump because I have to move out of my house and sell it ASAP because fricking strikes last year fricking fricked me. At least I'll make a pretty good wad of cash selling and can move somewhere that sucks less though.
gonna drink 26 ounces of Alberta Premium and find new ways to make fun of the new wave of IDF Black folk and /misc/estinians infesting /k/ since Nakbah 2k23
I was thinking of seeing a hooker, but I'm too stingy with my money, it's a inherited trait.
gonna go see a girl in another city, you?
I'm prepping for my internship which starts next week, so mostly doing that, getting drunk and jerking off.
>going to a newborn training class for my daughter who's due to be born in ~5-6 weeks
>need to get the alternator fixed on my wifes car: debating on taking it to a shop and paying $500 in labor + 250 for the part or trying to do it myself
>going to visit my parents who just got back from hawaii
>playing vidya sometime in between
isn't that basically what the Bradley is?
Not exactly as envisioned back then, but the US just adopted a new tank that fills pretty much exactly the same tactical role, so clearly at least the Army think the basic concept of armor specifically designed to move with and support infantry is still valid.
>fills pretty much exactly the same tactical role
Wrong
I can’t find a single reason the Booker’s existence. With the shit that’s been going on in Ukraine, how could a lighter armored tank every make sense? At this point a drone carrier makes more sense.
did you bother to look up what the US Army had to say about the Booker's doctrinal employment?
>37mm
yes
>5cm guns
only frontally
>>5cm guns
>only frontally
Pak 5 cm Pak 38 had APC penetration at 100-500m of 96-79mm. It may penetrate side at 100m but would struggle at several hundred meters.
APCR had 149-108mm pen at 100-500m but it should be noted that German APCR were very bad vs spaced armor. It would pen turret but would fail at the side that is protected by spaced armor.
In practice German AT guns failed against Matilda and real Matilda stopper was 88mm. (Until they got Pak 40).
>did you bother to look up what the US Army had to say about the Booker's doctrinal employment?
What, that the US army is fricking moronic?
>lets adopt a "light" tank that is the weight of our MBT competitors with less firepower and armour
>then let's give it to our infantry BCTs and overload their logistical capability because now they have to support a fricking MBT
>oh btw, it's not a tank it is a (insert X) even though 100% of the time it will be used as a tank and is the weight of a tank
Pic related is similar to what the US army should have adopted
>a "light" tank
it's not a light tank, moron
>the weight of our MBT competitors
nobody cares, moron
>less firepower and armour
sensors and networking is what makes the modern battlefield, moron
>overload their logistical capability
you don't know jack fricking shit about an IBCT's logistics capability, moron
>now they have to support a fricking MBT
it's not an MBT, moron
>it will be used as a tank
no it won't, moron
>the US army should have adopted this ancient non-networked piece of shit
no, moron
You are much MUCH stupider than you think.
A lot of the tank destruction in Ukraine comes down to a lack of proper combined arms, particularly a lack of infantry support. The Booker is explicitly and soley intended to operate in close cooperation with infantry.
both the ukies and the russkies send their tanks with mechanized infantry support. that does nothing against mines, drones or atgms. the infantry just gets wasted along side the tanks.
>that does nothing against mines
mines are cleared by brigade-level assets
>drones or atgms
infantry can keep eyes pointed up
infantry can assault positions holding ATGMs to force them off or reveal their position
>. the infantry just gets wasted along side the tanks.
infantry act as additional eyes and ears for tanks so that the tank is free to maneuver and engage heavy threats
this results in both the infantry and tank surviving
>mines are cleared by brigade-level assets
yeah nobody is going into a mine field that is covered by enemy snipers, mortars, drones, machine guns, dont be delusional.
>infantry can keep eyes pointed up
yeah we see that in the drone videos daily. infantry stares at drones dropping grenades or fpvs flying into their asses, yeah that surely helps.
>infantry can assault positions holding ATGMs to force them off or reveal their position
infantry will get mowed down by mortars, machine guns, artillery, mines and enemy infantry and not atgm will even fire.
>infantry act as additional eyes and ears for tanks. this results in both the infantry and tank surviving
how? infantry doesnt see incoming fpvs and atgms until its too late and they dont see mines either unless dismounted and advancing at crawl speed which then in turn makes them an ideal target for artillery.
>yeah nobody is going into a mine field that is covered by enemy snipers, mortars, drones, machine guns, dont be delusional.
thats why they send the people in the brigade whose job it is to take care of it
>infantry will get mowed down by mortars, machine guns, artillery, mines and enemy infantry and not atgm will even fire.
infantry travel in things called IFVs that protect them from mortar and artillery fire and allow them to travel quickly
engaging enemy ATGMs will force them to reveal their position by firing at them instead of tanks and enable them to be held in place to be destroyed by artillery
or the ATGMs pack up and relocate
>how? infantry doesnt see incoming fpvs and atgms until its too late and they dont see mines either unless dismounted and advancing at crawl speed which then in turn makes them an ideal target for artillery.
mines are detected ahead of time by recon
infantry will attack positions that can harbor enemy weapons to force them to react and be engaged with artillery or force them to retreat
infantry in general can keep eyes pointed in several directions even while moving and greatly increase situational awareness
literally read the mech infantry manual, every thing you say could happen has already been addressed and trained for
>mech inf manual
name of the FM?
>The Booker is explicitly and soley intended to operate in close cooperation with infantry.
*Operate with unmechanized infantry because the US army wants to go back to the 1930s and use the doctrine of people who got their shit hard by the Nazis
Supporting infantry battalions with tanks was the winning meta from 1942 to 1945 that shit on the Nazis, moron
the hardest fighting was carried out by the armored divisions, which consisted of equal mixtures of tanks and armored infantry mounted in half-tracks
while separate tank battalions supporting infantry divisions were numerous than armored divisons they were heavily dispersed rather than concentrated and werent capable of independent maneuver
which always relied on the armored divisions to create the breakthrough necessary for the rest of the army to follow
>always relied on the armored divisions to create the breakthrough necessary
not "always", from what I've read, especially in the urbanised terrain of Europe but also in the North African campaign
typically, infantry divisions attacked first and armoured divisions exploited the breakthrough
the US operates both armored brigades and infantry brigades
the former will stick with mechanized infantry and main battle tanks the latter will be reinforced with M10s
>I can’t find a single reason the Booker’s existence.
Assault gun. 35/40 mm airburst shells work well, but a single 105 mm programmed-burst does the job of 10x 40 mm ones. Plus, the larger the shell, the more tricks it can do, for cheaper. Ex. switch between trench sweeper (airburst) and demolition (point impact) at the push of a button. It's proportionally cheaper to make a 105mm MP-HE compared to a 40 mm one (more miniaturization required, less effective warhead).
we have had daily wrecked tank threads for over 2 years now. i think its safe to say tanks are worthless.
to become viable again they would have to be able to eat modern atgms, drones and mines, which is a difficult task.
There's been daily gore threads too, so Infantry is useless, right?
where are the wrecked planes threads? Oh that's right, planes are too pretty to crash. Bunch of homosexuals...
The evidence speaks for itself, anon. Soldiers and tanks are out, wars are planes only from here on out.
A modern MBT is an infantry tank that can also fulfill the role of a cruiser tank.
Luv me open tracks
Infantry tanks were replaced by universal tanks.
All land combat vehicle that lack infantry will get infantry.
All land combat vehicle that lack armor will get field armor additions
All land combat vehicle that tanks guns will get field weapons additions
the world pretty much learned that its better to make infantry as fast as tanks than it is to make tanks as slow as infantry
merkava is probably the closest to a modern infantry tank
merkava is used identically to other MBTs
in an armored brigade where a set number of tanks are supported by mech infantry in troop carriers
they do not support infantry at all, they work in tandem with mech infantry to accomplish their own tasks while infantry are in a separate unit
No and they never were. The idea of separating the infantry support and cavalry roles of tanks to optimize designs fell apart in the real world where those optimized designs were never where they need to be when they were needed. It's another one of those ideas that sound great on paper but don't work out.
>The idea of separating the infantry support and cavalry roles of tanks to optimize designs fell apart
it was the reason germans beat france so fast
the reason the Germans beat the French so fast in WW2 was that the French were totally unprepared to fight, gave up too fast, the Luftwaffe had air superiority and CAS, and the Wehrmacht infantry were able to keep up with the Panzers
and german tanks could easily flank the french, something french tanks couldn't.
all tanks is infantry
they have the phone 🙂
Yes, infantry need fire support of all sorts. Anti tank, bunker, soft, air... Line of sight or indirect, high velocity gun for KE, low velocity for payload, from autoloading medium caliber to big ass spigot mortar.
>assault gun armored as well or better than MBTs for dedicated organic deployment with infantry
No, just shoot and scoot things like Booker. AFV mortars in similar or smaller unmanned vehicles would probably be more useful. Boston Dynamics robo-dog trench clearers might be capable of being up armored to the point of being immune to small arms enough to be a problem.
Shoot and scoot is dead in the age of the drone.
We have infantry tanks now. They're called "Bradleys".
Sort of.
I think a heavily armored, mine resistant remote controlled vehicle would be of great help. We all saw those vids of soldiers stepping on a mine 5 seconds after leaving the APC.
The way orks mined everything is insane, and UK losses to mines are gigantic.
But they would have to be relatively small and built in great numbers.
>infantry tanks were slow and heavily armored because they were meant to move with infantry to provide support
>IFV's are fast and lightly armored to move the infantry and then provide support at the destination
the mission is a the same, an armored vehicle dedicated to infantry support, but the concept has almost inverted.