but keep same concept
get rid of alum body, all steel.
make the gun a low pressure but now 155mm shell design, maybe with auto-loader, and if auto-loader make fully unmanned a possibility. Being fully unmanned would make its thin armor less of a handicap. Add RWS in place of M2. Maybe re-issue the ATGM or just strap some TOW tubes on turret. give in Hybrid power plant.
bolt on package like picrel, also serve as anti-HEAT spacer. 🙂 Make it double hull with about 6" chamber on outside and fill with water for extra protection when not swimming. Every little bit helps.
put big top hatches on the floats and when not in combat grunts or gear could ride inside.
Or an inflatable system of same general shape, maybe will a few structural members so even if it gets shot up it will only be a few bullet sized holes in the material. Bounce House/Air Mattress for extra grunts and off duty crew.
M551 was designed to be PARACHUTE drop-able.
You're moronic
sir, I'm not the engineering GROUP and DEPARTMENT that put a Gas Turbine in the Abraham without checking to see how it would handle a bit of dust, like if it ever had to operate outside of soggy Northern Europe. They got specs for any car or mini-van for dusty duty (ever been to rural Colorado, 5 minutes after a light rain even in the mountains even in winter you will be sucking big dust if any car was 1/2 mile or 2 minutes, which ever is worse) ahead of you, or crosses your path.
I'm not the guy who put an A/T in the Bradley that didn't work for 10yrs, after the Germans told them exactly why it would be shit and barely roll out of the show room.
The whole point of the aluminum was to make it under 10 tons, so it could be light enough to be dropped by parachute and be able to swim.
If you don't need that, then you just have the new M10 booker. There's no reason to update the Sheridan, it's too specialized
I fig paradrop is heavier in 2020 than it was in 1965, and everyone is all about add-on armor anyways. In theory, with CAD etc, they should be able to shave some tons in 2020 VS 1965 just like a 2020 Caddy weighs less than 1965 Land Yacht, but is still (sorta) "stronger" or at least better.
Booker is supposed to be worth its millions due to its smaller logistics, but its still around 2/3 of weight of Abrams, depending on model. 551 at 16 tons is about 1/3 weight of Booker and thus in a whole other class as far as logistics and transport. IIRC for civilian heavy equip transport there is a big Class division at 20tons, not just for road trailers but also dock side cranes for 20ft Shipping Containers, etc. Under 20tons is "normal" and anyone and anything can do it, just put "WIDE LOAD" and a couple flags. Over 20 is weirdness and needs planning.
Don't got measurements for specs but the still very heavy Booker's rather narrow tracks look like a problem waiting to happen, especially if its all about getting into hard to get to locations. I'm not seeing any slick way to swing the side skirts up and out of the way for fat grousers. Maybe the side skirt bolts can slide out in place and still carry the plates, but I think I'd be giving them too much credit.
And WTF were they thinking to not figure out a way to give the Booker a 120mm with all sorts of new cool 120mm ammo coming on line? Just give it a slightly longer recoil track and softer spring or something.
I'm thinking a 155mm capable gun, even if weak on FPS would be much better for infantry support, non-MBT use.
>And WTF were they thinking to not figure out a way to give the Booker a 120mm
Because it's an infantry support gun. 105mm is plenty and can carry more ammo
not really because they use 155mm for "infantry support", and main thing is all these crazy new rounds for 120mm with various super-powers, including IIRC anti-personal and anti-helocopter and bunker buster and top attack. All very geared to "infantry support" AKA everything except MBT rock-em-sock-robots.
Face it we got morons running the show. Exactly zero of Lloyd Austin's bio makes him legit at a firm like Raython, not even as a troony in the HR Dept. Pretty sure even HR c**ts at a place like Raython have some techish background, just to be able to read resumes. Lloyd's background might qualify him to be a Probation Officer or Welfare Office assistant manager.
The M10 is a replacement for the Stryker MGS. 105mm is plenty for what it's intended to do, mostly level houses
>The M10 is a replacement for the Stryker MGS.
stryker MGS has no direct replacement, IBCTs never had stryker MGSs in them
the stryker MGS is being retired with no successor, with the replacement being a re-organization of the stryker platoon
instead of a platoon of MGSs that are held at the brigade level and handed out to stryker company, they will instead replace 2 strykers in each platoon with a stryker dragoon
SBCTs will also be organized under armored divisions, so they will never operate far from an ABCT with actual tanks
M10 is replacing the M8 scott from WW2, the position had been filled by divisional tank companies throughout the cold war, and the M551 was only used in cavalry regiments and was never issued to rifle units
>Don't got measurements for specs but the still very heavy Booker's rather narrow tracks look like a problem waiting to happen,
MPF program specified off road performance without the need for dedicated engineering units, so it shouldn't be sinking into the ground
>give the Booker a 120mm with all sorts of new cool 120mm ammo coming on line? Just give it a slightly longer recoil track and softer spring or something.
Program specified either the 105 or the 120, and programmable ammo
None of the competitors offered a 120mm armed variant and the 105mm is getting the same programmable ammo anyways making it a moo point
Too late, they already dumped them all into the ocean.
Thats why I said "same concept, clean sheet design". 551 did have a few issues like weird caseless 152mm ammo gun that don't sound fixable with tweaks.
I'll say one thing about the Russians, they are wise enough to keep shit around "just in case" and quite frankly that is giving them the Big Win in Ukraine, and not just on battlefield but "strategically" not burning their top tier gear, and Economically and domestic policy and regime popularity. If they didn't have vast stocks of old IRVs, APCs and MBTs they'd be forced into some new Stalinist forced labor crash program that would shutdown rest of economy and create "dissatisfaction" among the slaves, I mean the Slavs.
Given American propensity to get into wars everywhere but actually defending the USA, with mostly remote Turd World or "low intensity", I'd think light extremely mobile tanks would be something to keep handy, even if its a glorified armored car HMG carrier.
Ford MGM-51 Shillelagh
Produced 88,194 from 1964 to 1971[1]
yeah
Notice how men don’t look like that any longer? Even rake skinny nerds tended to have thicker necks and more square facial structure. I have no idea what’s changed, it’s not just obesity. Maybe micro-plastics?
Naw we sticking with Aluminum armor.
Best APS we can produce.
Replace main battery for 120mm mortar.
Add integrated tow mount.
>Protected (especially against ATGM) armor
>Direct Hi-Ex firepower
>Mobile Protected Airdropped Direct and Indirect Firepower
Pay me b***h
Slap on the NEMO mortar system from Finland. 120mm autoloader with direct fire capabilities. It's small enough to fit on a Patria.
>gun-mortars with paper armor
Russia did it first with the VDV's Nona. Artillery shredded them in Ukraine about 2 years ago. You may have heard of it.
Don't let Russians use it. Problem solved.
Don't let Russians use what, artillery? I think every country on the planet has stuff that'll pen those tinderboxes. Stray shrapnel from WW2 era Nigerian mortars is going to pop your top.
Yeah, don't use it like Russians use it. Problem solved. And, btw, it's not artillery.
>it's simple
>we just don't let the enemy use artillery!
>or IEDs either, thirdies don't have those!
Keep it off the battlefield and in a safe display where it belongs.
Artillery fricks up strykers too doofus. Read the memo on what we're building here.
https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/combat-studies-institute/csi-books/WhenFailureThrives.pdf
Let's see Paul Allen's memo. Oh my god, it even has vertical envelopment.
>vertical envelopment of leg troops on parachutes fail
that is true but we are talking about mechanized forces here.
Thanks, read it cover to cover.
That's crazy, didn't know the Nona had state of the art APS and integrated ATGMs. Or are you talking out of your well used butthole while your step dad takes a smoke break?
Neither of those are protection against basic artillery shrapnel. If it's not STANAG4549 level 4 (level 5 tbh) rated on vehicle armor, it's not artillery resistant.
The point of being air-mobile is you drop out of the engagement range of artillery, or just by possessing the capability force the dispersion of artillery and weaken the front line. You're not going to be able to drop a tank which can face-tank a 152mm shell and if you're not dropping it out of an aircraft then why not just use a regular fricking tank you absolute brainlet.
Bring gliders back too.
BTR-D hulled nona is less half of the weight and tread width of Sheridan.
not bad, Nona seems pretty close to 551 concept and didn't get tangled up in weirdness.