They want armoured divisions, but cheaper. Seriously. An infantry division isn't supposed to be spearheading a fucking offensive. They're supposed to be sitting in trenches playing cards and smoking cigarettes. That's what infantry divisions are for. You have tanks and shock troopers for shock actions and you put them together in your armoured divisions. Your infantry divisions are the ones stuffed with conscripts who just exist to fill space on the battlefield, you don't DO anything with them really.
But the US army wants every infantry division to be able to operate like an armoured division and be able to participate in or conduct offensives.
Which would be fine, if they were willing to equip infantry divisions like shock divisions but they're not. So they keep doing this stupid dance of "well we'll just pay for the firepower and ignore the armour" which is essentially what the Booker is and of course this instantly falls apart the moment it encounters the real world.
>They want armoured divisions, but cheaper
infantry divisions get a battalion of them
they arent meant to create a radical new change in capability, just give infantry a longer hand to deal with dug-in targets
> They're supposed to be sitting in trenches playing cards and smoking cigarettes
infantry divisions have never been used as a purely static role
>Armoured
So you're not American. >Infantry divisions aren't supposed to be spearheading a fucking offensive
They're damned sure meant to be part of one. >Sitting in trenches playing cards
FUUUUUUCK NO. Static warfare is how everyone dies in a modern peer conflict. Maneuver warfare is key, mandatory, expected, and anything short of that is considered a colossal fuckup, save for rear-echelon stuff. >That's what infantry divisions are for
Not in the last twenty years if you haven't been paying attention, or closer to forty years if you have been paying attention. >Tanks and shock troops
No, that's why the US has uncontestable air supremacy. Air is bleach, ABCTs are the mops, IBCTs are the detail clean or when you need to squat on a spot, SBCTs are the spot-cleaners. This is of course a highly reductionist analogy, but one that fits within this context. A >Stuffed with conscripts
If you're a third worlder. >Don't DO anything with them
Holy fuck, I really hope you never have a position of consequence in the military in your country.
Honestly speaking, we should've experimented with the idea of a Sherman Tank from WWII to be equipped with something similar to a 122mm Gun (like what The Yugoslavs did in the SO-122). Picrel is what I mean.
>And that did that at first with the MGS and then stopped doing it because they didn't want to develop a doctrine with it as a infantry support weapon.
MGS was never used as a tank, it was used in stryker brigades
it was retired because it had an unreliable autoloader, they couldnt build enough of them, and the ones they did build were still flat bottomed
it ended up being replaced by the stryker dragoon, with the force structure altered so that regular stryker platoons could have some or all of them be dragoons rather than having a few guns in their own battalion
>Then they put them all together similar to an armored division and then got mad that they couldn't be used like a regular armored division.
the stryker MGS was never used in the tank role and was never used in armored divisions
NTA you're talking to, just wanted to correct one thing. Strykers are in armored divisions. 1/1AD is an SBCT in an armored division.
That said, the MGS weren't being used as tanks on the rare occasions they ran long enough to be used. Armor was supposed to be engaged by the ATGM Strykers or dismounts with javelins.
Yep, because doctrinally and internal-politics will have all those spurs&stetsons-wearing Armored "Cavalry" retards bitching that they have to drive along with the trucks and IFVs full of boring infantry , and being ordered where to go by Blue-cord Infantry commanders that they'll bitch and whine until they get made into seperate "not-Tank" Units and once they're 'free' of infantry, they start trying to do tank-stuff... then bitch that it needs to be 'upgraded' to become a real tank... while the infantry bitch that now they need another "Fire-Support Gun that is definitely not going to get used as a fake-tank this time"
The same as they did with MGS.
Rinse.... repeat...
And there you have it - Infantry/Armor Corps eternal rivalry since the days of horses etched into expensive plates of not-tank armor.
Yep, because doctrinally and internal-politics will have all those spurs&stetsons-wearing Armored "Cavalry" retards bitching that they have to drive along with the trucks and IFVs full of boring infantry , and being ordered where to go by Blue-cord Infantry commanders that they'll bitch and whine until they get made into seperate "not-Tank" Units and once they're 'free' of infantry, they start trying to do tank-stuff... then bitch that it needs to be 'upgraded' to become a real tank... while the infantry bitch that now they need another "Fire-Support Gun that is definitely not going to get used as a fake-tank this time"
The same as they did with MGS.
Rinse.... repeat...
And there you have it - Infantry/Armor Corps eternal rivalry since the days of horses etched into expensive plates of not-tank armor.
M10s go in a dedicated MPF (name pending) battalion
the M10 battalion goes in an infantry division, which is composed of 3 M10 companies, their HQ, and a support company
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I understand that. But IBCTs have a cavalry squadron, despite being infantry brigades. So have they announced which branch is going to operate the M10?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
the M10 will be driven by tankers due to one of the design requirements being cross-compatibility with M1 abrams systems to make it easier to train
though this still wont make it a tank
MGS wasn't retired because it was being used a pseudo-tank and found insufficient. It was retired because it was a maintenance pain-in-the-ass and didn't have a mine-resistant hull. And IBCTs never used the Stryker MGS (or any other type of Stryker either).
Do they even know what they want or for what purpuse they're doing it anymore?
This thing came about specifically because they couldn't do what they wanted to do with the MGS. There is top-down doctrinal instruction that it is not a tank, don't use it like one.
The Striker continues to deliver disappointment, even if it's great at its intended role. They might just be giving up on a do-everything vehicle concept.
tl;dr >Order Striker as a battle taxi, command vehicle, signals vehicle, general logistics, etc >Hey what if we try to make them infantry support vehicles? >Well, that didn't work. Draft us up a dedicated infantry support vehicle.
>we've made a tank that isn't a tank and are going to use it "nothing like how tanks are used" (distributed in penny packets to support the infantry)
What's this autism that every tank is either FRONTLINE TOP END MAIN BATTLE TANK or can't be a tank at all? You're describing an Infantry Tank. Yes the term is ancient, because so is the concept. They've made a poor tank to fit an outdated doctrine and insist it's neither.
"outdated"
Bro it's being used in Airborne divisions. Airborne doesn't have access to this kind of fire power at the moment the M10 gives these divisions the ability to put heavier firepower on target. That's the entire point. Kind of like a Stryker MGS if it were good.
So it's taking the role previously occupied by the Sheridan Tank, which us why it uses a gun not too dissimilar from the one used by the original Abrams Tank and has identical controls to an Abrams Tank.
Sort of. The M10 abandons airdrops in favor of being just light enough for 2/C-17, and isn't designed to be a cavalry vehicle like the Sheridan. It really fills a niche that hasn't been seen since WWII with the M4 (105) or the Stug, partly because most conventional infantry formations have gone mechanized, with multiple integrated tank battalions. Again, remember that this is only going to the specialized foot-infantry divisions, the guys who have nothing heavier than a JLTV (if even that).
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Honestly, what if The M4 Sherman was outfitted with an Autoloader and was up-calibered for 122mm? That'd be based.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It'd need such an extensive redesign that it'd not be a sherman any more
You'd just end up with a modern tank destroyer
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
That's pretty based though. Know what, I've been ignoring it for a while, but I will try to learn to CAD and CAD me up that concept - Modern Tank Destroyer 122mm (i.e. Sherman up calibered for 122mm with an Autoloader).
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
And maybe perhaps such a Tank would be better than the M10 Booker for Airborne Divisions and Light Infantry Divisions...
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Again, remember that this is only going to the specialized foot-infantry divisions, the guys who have nothing heavier than a JLTV (if even that).
its being used for all infantry divisions, both motorized and all-foot
IBCTs are being re-categorized as either LBCTs (bare minimum number of JLTVs/humvees) and MBCTs (fully motorized) but this wont affect the M10 battalion, which is held above the brigade level
so the M10 is being distributed fairly widely and even light non-motorized units will be able to count on M10s as an option
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
What niche would the M10 Booker fulfill? Also, could these units also benefit from a 122mm Autoloading Tank Destroyer built off of a M4 Sherman?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>What niche would the M10 Booker fulfill?
heavier firepower when desired
IBCTs often had no direct-fire artillery and would have to use AT4s and carl-gustafs to reduce dug-in enemies and had limited options to deal with enemies outside the range of either weapon
while they had their own artillery spotters to call in fire missions, this could result in severe backlogs and result in delays after being called in
>Also, could these units also benefit from a 122mm Autoloading Tank Destroyer built off of a M4 Sherman?
the US has no active-duty 122mm guns and hasnt had shermans in 70 years
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>the M10 battalion, which is held above the brigade level
Wait, WHAT? Sauce?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11859
subject to change, though this was published recently last june
the M10 is under divisional command rather than organic to each brigade
so that they can either spread each of the M10 companies equally to each brigade, or commit 2 companies to a single brigade with the third in reserve, or any combination of numbers depending on each situation
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
IBCT=foot infantry brigade. Not mech infantry or armored, which will use ABCTs.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
the brigades dont have the M10s, but the division does
they will usually assign a company of M10s to each brigade in combat, but they could scale it up or down depending on the mission
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
My point is, 1-4ID will *not* be receiving M10s. 7/10/25/82/101 will be receiving a battalion of M10s apiece. That's 5 battalions plus a few more for reserve/NG units.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
looks like they dialed their order back from 2000 MPFs own to just 500 M10s
jokes on me for not reading that
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Why does America have non-mechanized foot infantry? Do they perform a niche that mechanized infantry cannot, or is it simply not being able to fund vehicles for every brigade?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
IBCTs will be re-organized into either MBCTs or LBCTs
so motorized or light
they are effectively the same structure, just with fewer trucks
the lack of trucks is to make them a leaner structure at the cost of less operational mobility
their use case is for stuff like mountains, jungles, or urban terrain where they wont be able to effectively use wheeled vehicles
they still have trucks in the divisional sustainment brigade for non-combat use, they just leave them behind for their maneuver units
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Each one has a very specific reason for existing; that said, some of them could probably be reduced to a short brigade or two and still accomplish their missions as training schools for troops (a la the Rangers).
Let's go through the light divisions:
7th ID: Became a "Light" division in 1985, along with the 6th (now gone). For the late Cold War and after, it was used to train infantry on pure "foot infantry" tactics, and was valued for that reason. In 2012, it got "upgraded" to a short Stryker division (only two brigades).
10th ID (Mountain): What it says on the tin. It's been a high-altitude-focused unit since its inception in 1943. Blame the Finns for giving us the idea during the Winter War.
25th ID: Tropical specialists based out of Hawaii. These are the guys you go to if you need somebody to crawl through a jungle.
82nd Airborne Division: I don't have to explain this one, do I?
101st Airborne Division (Air Assault): The chopper guys.
11th Airborne Division (Who?): US Army Alaska was a grab-bag of units stationed in... Alaska. Last year, supposedly to increase morale, the Army decided to reflag them as the 11th. Doesn't make much sense, and I am skeptical that they would ever receive a battalion of M10s.
In short, each of the Light divisions is actually a bunch of specialists in a specific type of inhospitable terrain or a rapid-response unit that uses aircraft or helos to get around quickly.
Everything else in active service is Strykers or Abrams/Bradley.
Light Infantry: Armed and Armored enough to only be able to square up against Infantry. Not to be so heavily armed and Armored to where they participate in Offensive Operations.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
the brigades dont have the M10s, but the division does
they will usually assign a company of M10s to each brigade in combat, but they could scale it up or down depending on the mission
Huh. I'm just a bit surprised to see anything become a divisional asset after decades of the *BCT program. Hell, most divisions don't even have DIVARTY
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
The US Army is switching from a brigade-based to a division-based structure.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Whoops. Meant to post this one instead.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Fuck it, might as well post the other three. Here's Armor
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Airborne
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Air Assault.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Fuck it, might as well post the other three
thanks bro
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>The MPF Battalion is intended to reinforce LBCT/MBCTs at 1 MPF Company per maneuver brigade. It is not intended to fight as a divisional battalion, and it relies on maneuver brigade staffs in combat. Its staff is more oriented towards training & sustainment.
Sound like how DIVARTY worked back before the pulled the guns back under direct control. There will probably be some stupid Mommy and Dadddy games between the MPF BN and IBCT staff, but it should be functional structure.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
One of the under appreciated thoughts behind the MPF is that it needs a lot less support infrastructure than an M1 Abrams which means maintenance can be done at the battalion level and not require a separate battalion-sized sustainment unit. >There will probably be some stupid Mommy and Dadddy games between the MPF BN and IBCT staff
Of course. It's the army.
No, Alaska wasn’t a battlecruiser because it was laid out and built closer to a heavy cruiser that’s rat. Whereas a battlecruiser is closer to a battleship with less armor.
No, they'll just build 100 then cancel the contract because congress changed their mind about funding. Then the 100 they do have will never be upgraded or retrofitted with new features and will be hopelessly oudated in 10 years. Then they'll design a new assault gun and do ut all over again.
These are required for EPA purposes, whether you have a leak or not.
I was a Paladin/CAT driver, you wouldn't believe how anal the sergeants and W.Os in the motor pool can be.
>spot the neverserved
All army vehicles are autistically required to have drip pans when parked. No they don't leak but the privates are forced to put pans there anyway.
The US has almost never used a casemate. Compare US/German TD/SPAGs in WWII; the US ones used open-topped turrets, the Germans used casemates. This is nothing new.
Also, because this thread is becoming very silly, I feel that I should remind everyone that the M10 is intended for the highly-specialized *light* divisions. The Airborne divisions, the Mountain division, the Tropical division; all get a single battalion of M10s, akin to the Independent Tank Battalion of WWII (which used a proper tank, because the US didn't *build* SPAGs back then). The guys who have no ground combat vehicles heavier than a Humvee or JLTV, and no self-propelled guns at all. The M10 gives them some supporting fire when they need it, and is light enough that 2 can fit on a C-17. Doctrinally, it is not a tank, but more of an assault gun (although the Army has declined to use that term). It *can* fight tanks if it has, but then, so could a short-barreled Stug.
The "heavy" divisions (really just another name for mech infantry, which is what they essentially are) get multiple battalions of M1s. So do the whatever-they're-calling-the-armored-divisions-right-now. That's one key to understanding this decision: the M10 is only going to the specialized light divisions, where tanks would be too logistically "heavy" to support using nothing but an air bridge.
So? You know what else didn't exist since WW2? Buzz bombs and flak. Yet here we are, watching ZSU-23s and fancy western 30mm systems slap down flying lawnmowers. "We haven't used the term in a while" isn't an argument. If something changed in the balance of naval combat that enabled large, well armored, big gun combatants, we'd still call them battleships, not Protected Mobile Naval Artillery Platforms for a Connected System of Systems Fleet Architecture
Correct, so we call the M10 a light tank because it fits the characteristics of a light tank lke how ZSUs fit the definition of flak even though they aren't called that.
Still seething?
I'm starting to understand what happened to Sparks that made him such an easy target for Russian corruption.
Somebody must have btfo him in public and the pure seethe never left him for the rest of his life.
No, foreign lobbies (You) told Polish politicians to sabotage and destroy most of the homegrown Polish MIC, so that most of the future Polish weapons procurement programs would line the pockets of the fat cats over the Atlantic as well as from the EU instead.
No, foreign lobbies (You) told Polish politicians to sabotage and destroy most of the homegrown Polish MIC, so that most of the future Polish weapons procurement programs would line the pockets of the fat cats over the Atlantic as well as from the EU instead.
>If a tank isn't an MBT then it isn't a tank
There is some leftist wordplay bullshit going on.
Has tracks, has an enclosed turret with a basket, only carries a direct fire gun, its a tank.
You are being autistically dishonest with yourself by insisting that a tank is not tank.
A 155mm howitzer is not a direct fire gun. It can used as one, but a 125mm tank gun can used as an indirect fire weapon. That doesn't mean a T-72 is a SPG, though.
You didn't say "has tracks, has an enclosed turret with a basket, only carries a direct fire gun AND doesn't carry infantry". And the BMP-1 is armed with a smoothbore 73mm gun.
Now this is the semantic nitpicking I expect from Bookerfags. >only carries a direct fire gun
Means what it means, that it's primary and only "cargo" is the gun, nothing else.
Let me rephrase for you then >Uses tracks(unless French) >Has an enclosed turret with a basket(Unless Swedish) >Only combat asset carried is a direct fire gun(Unless Israeli)
You are free to nitpick about coax machine guns
It does. It's just very small, about the size of a commander's cupola on a tank. But it mounts the vehicle's primary weapon and rotates 360 degrees, which makes it a turret.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
The guns appear to be carried outside of the turret, though.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Where does it say a tank's gun has to be internally mounted?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Being intellectually dishonest is what I expect from people insisting that the new M10 isn't a tank.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Not being able to say why the M10 is a tank is what I expect from people who insist the M10 is a tank.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
If it has stronger armor than most vehicles in the army then it is a tank.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
The Bradley has more armor that most vehicles in the Army.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
But it has been stated over and over again.
It looks like a tank and has all the characteristics expected of a tank.
The only argument people have for "not a tank" is "it's not an MBT".
If you really have to resort to >You specified having a turret and having gun, but never said anything about the gun being inside the turret! >I will ignore the fact that having a gun in the turret has been an expected characteristic of a tank since 1920s >Gotcha with a tractor that has some recoilless riffles welded onto a turret that can't even rotate fully
>abandon Abrahams because tanks are le bad >adopt a thing that totally isn't a tank guise we swear
Marines are retarded as usual
Marines aren't getting the Booker, knowing American procurement they will probably get their own not-tank sooner than later. Maybe after the finally successfully replace AAV
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It has full tracks.
So do tanks.
It has a 105mm main gun intended for direct-fire engagements.
So do tanks, and the original M1 Abrams had a similar cannon.
Its turret can traverse 360 degrees.
So can those of tanks.
Its controls mimic those of the M1 Abrams main battle tank.
It doesn’t carry infantry into battle. Neither do tanks.
It’s protected enough to withstand attacks from enemy armored vehicles.
So are tanks.
Is it a Main Battle Tank?
No, no it is not.
It is a Light Tank, which is part of a doctrine the U.S previously had.
Up until the 90's we even had Sheridan Medium Tanks.
Doctrines shift as the battlefield does and understanding this is part of how we stay on top.
Our leaders were calling it "Mobile Protected Firepower".
Do you know what's a tracked vehicle mobile, protected and has a lot of firepower?
A damn tank.
The reason it is not being called what it is (a Light Tank) is because we are led by dipshits who then attempt to misuse it in accordance to MBT doctrine instead of the LT that it actually is.
It's a damn tank.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Light tanks in US nomenclature are for scouting and performing traditional cavalry roles. The M10 Booker isn't that. >Do you know what's a tracked vehicle mobile, protected and has a lot of firepower?
A Gun Motor Carriage?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Are there any images with the turret turned or some blueprints?
Everything I can find has the rifles pointed forward.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I checked. It did have a rotating turret, but the original could only traverse about 15 degrees, though later models changed this to 40 degrees in either direction. It's still a turret though.
But it has been stated over and over again.
It looks like a tank and has all the characteristics expected of a tank.
The only argument people have for "not a tank" is "it's not an MBT".
If you really have to resort to >You specified having a turret and having gun, but never said anything about the gun being inside the turret! >I will ignore the fact that having a gun in the turret has been an expected characteristic of a tank since 1920s >Gotcha with a tractor that has some recoilless riffles welded onto a turret that can't even rotate fully
[...]
Marines aren't getting the Booker, knowing American procurement they will probably get their own not-tank sooner than later. Maybe after the finally successfully replace AAV
>A tank is something that has all the characteristics expected of a tank. >Except for these tanks that don't have those characteristics >And all the vehicles they do have those characteristics but aren't tanks.
>Except for these tanks that don't have those characteristics
S-tank wouldn't be considered a tank under the same criteria used to discount the Booker.
T-54 lacked a basket, but the closet turret is more than enough for it to be a shitty tank.If I had not specified that, you would have posted an M18 with the top welded shut. >And all the vehicles they do have those characteristics but aren't tanks.
I was shown >BMP-1
which carries infantry into battle >M109
which doesn't have a direct fire gun >LAV-1
which I claimed to be an amphibious tank >Ontos
which has weapons mounted outside the turret.
https://i.imgur.com/ZJse6Q1.jpg
So this isn't a tank?
It is a historic tank during a period when the concept of what a tank was novel and most constructive solutions experimental.
Now this is the semantic nitpicking I expect from Bookerfags. >only carries a direct fire gun
Means what it means, that it's primary and only "cargo" is the gun, nothing else.
Let me rephrase for you then >Uses tracks(unless French) >Has an enclosed turret with a basket(Unless Swedish) >Only combat asset carried is a direct fire gun(Unless Israeli)
You are free to nitpick about coax machine guns
>but the M10 definitely isn't one for reasons
what are you saying
>But I did?
But the T-54, which didn't meet your definition is a tank, while the M50 Ontos which did meet your definitions (until you tacked something on to retroactively disqualify it) isn't a tank.
you fucking retarded, intellectualy dishonest moron idiot
fucking have a nice day
it is a tank you retard its literally almost the same thing as a leopard 1 just with modern electronics
no amount of your gay semantics can change this
[...] >A tank is something that has all the characteristics expected of a tank. >Except for these tanks that don't have those characteristics >And all the vehicles they do have those characteristics but aren't tanks.
Well, an open topped turret is a major concern when it comes to exposure of both crew and the internal system.
I don't have anything against the idea of open-topped tanks, but considering the sacrilege it is to call American WW2 tank destroyers tanks, I decided to specify the need for a basket as a distinguishing trait.
>But I did?
But the T-54, which didn't meet your definition is a tank, while the M50 Ontos which did meet your definitions (until you tacked something on to retroactively disqualify it) isn't a tank.
>But the T-54, which didn't meet your definition is a tank
T-54 did lack a basket, but as I mentioned it was rectified very quickly, implying that Soviets perceived as a major issue for T-54/55s ability to perform it's duties as a tank. >until you tacked something on to retroactively disqualify it
I didn't tack on anything that I believed would be understood by parties arguing in good fate. As initally I also believe that people will understand "only carries a direct-fire gun" to imply "doesn't carry infantry", but that caused issues almost immediately.
I believe that when a turret is specified and carrying a gun, that it is understood that the gun is carried within the turret as it has been done in most vehicles recognized as tanks since the deployment of the Renault FT.
My definitions aren't important considering I am a nobody, but the definitions I gave can be applied to almost all tanks with very few specific exceptions, and while it can be applied to vehicles that aren't perceived as tanks(which Ontos is not one to anyone with a pair of eyes), the booker is in it's construction comparable to modern tanks and the only two arguments I have seen for it not being a tank are >It is not a tank because it is not an MBT
Or >It is not a tank because US Army says it is not a tank
Neither of which are relevant to the fact that for all intends and purposes from the layout to general construction, the M10 Booker is a modern tank
>It's a tank because it has a turret!
Bradley is a tank >It's a tank because it has a big gun!
Paladin is a tank >It's a tank because it has a big gun on a turret!
BMP-1 is a tank >It's a tank because it has a bigger gun meant to kill armored vehicles on a turret!
M1128 MGS is a tank >It's a tank because it has a bigger gun meant to kill armored vehicles on a turret on a tracked chassis!
Sprut is a tank
How does that disprove the statement that IFVs are a subcatagory of tanks?
Does the Merkava shatter your worldview?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>How does that disprove the statement that IFVs are a subcatagory of tanks?
Tanks are a subcategory of AFV, IFVs are a subcategory of AFVs. They are not tanks. >Does the Merkava shatter your worldview?
I don't know how the Israelis employ them doctrinally.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
If an AVF has tracks, armor, and is primarily designed for direct fire support, it is a tank >IFV
subcatagory of tank >Assault gun
subcatagory of tank >Tank destroyer
subcatagory of tank
It's really that simple.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
IFV is a subcategory of AFV, not of a tank. They drew their evolutionary lineage from "how do we get more firepower on an APC" not "how do we put the infantry inside a tank".
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>What is an isn't a tank depends on doctrine and what was going through the minds of designers
Retarded >what is and isn't a tank depends on what physical features the vehicle was designed with
correct.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Doctrine and design are inseparable and the M10 was DESIGNED to be an assault gun for the infantry.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Churchill tank.. isn't le tank?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It was designed to be heavily armored and armed so it could break through defensive lines. Then lighter cruiser tanks would move in behind it and exploit the breakthrough.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
And assault guns are a sub-catagory of tanks. Unless you're going to tell me the 105mm sherman wasn't a tank.
IFVs might have evolved from APCs, which are not tanks. but in creating the IFV, they created a light tank that could carry infantry.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>assault guns are a sub-catagory of tanks
This is actually a fair argument. >in creating the IFV, they created a light tank that could carry infantry
“In the [U.S.] Army, the historical use of light tanks has been to perform reconnaissance functions. This is not a reconnaissance vehicle,” Dean said. “It’s not actually a mission match [for a light tank].” - Gen'l Glenn Dean
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>“In the [U.S.] Army, the historical use of light tanks has been to perform reconnaissance functions. This is not a reconnaissance vehicle,” Dean said. “It’s not actually a mission match [for a light tank].” - Gen'l Glenn Dean
First of all, Bradleys are absolutely used in the light tank reconnisance role in the real world
Second, basing definitions of something off of subjective standards like doctrine or missions is extremely retarded. the definition of "tank" is based off of physical features a vehicle has.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>First of all, Bradleys are absolutely used in the light tank reconnisance role in the real world
This is talking about the M10 but the Army calls the M3 a Cavalry Fighting Vehicle regardless. Not that I agree with that specific case entirely. >Second, basing definitions of something off of subjective standards like doctrine or missions is extremely retarded. the definition of "tank" is based off of physical features a vehicle has.
see
That is a very silly way of looking at things. A vehicle's classification is determined by its doctrinal role and its construction parameters exist only to facilitate that role. Form < Function.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
In that case this whole thread is pointless, because every country will have its own special definition of "tank", regardless of what the vehicle actually looks like.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Exactly, arguing classification is stupid because words mean different things to different people in different contexts. The M113 ACAV was a defacto tank in the early half of Vietnam, then got pushed out of the role by M-48s when they arrived. The Renault FT was a tank in 1918, but would be closer to an IFV today. The M10 isn't a tank because by US standards it isn't.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Merkava is not designed to carry infantry, it has a storage are that can be used to carry an infantry garden gnome or two, but it is not the purpose of said storage space
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Does the Merkava shatter your worldview?
merkava cant carry any dismounts
soldiers popping out the back is just a parade trick to dramatically showcase the rear hatch, not a battlefield tactic
the actual purpose of the hatch is just to resupply in the field without using a crane or to bail out of the tank without getting machine gunned
the only time the merkava carries people is in the battle ambulance configuration, but this isnt a troop carrier but a heavily armored medevac vehicle to carry wounded out of battle when fighting enemies who dont respect the red cross
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I mean Bradley barely carries any dismounts either at the end of the day.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
the bradley carries 7 dismounts only 2 less than a stryker
in practice this basically means 4 brads carry 3 squads, compared to 4 strykers carrying 4 squads
the deleted squad is the weapons squad, with the M240s being stowed in the bradley to be handed out to riflemen
but for the loss of 2 tripod mounted machine guns, you get 4 autocannons and the 4 co-axial machine guns
The M113 ACAV was designed for fire support and was used as armored cavalry. Often filling the same role as the M41 tanks used by the South Vietnamese.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
In that case, the M113 ACAV is a retrofitted. kinda shitty light tank, while the base M113 is not a tank.
One is made by a poorfag nation to do tank stuff, the other is made by a richfag nation so that our actual tanks can go do tank stuff instead of lobbing HE rounds at entrenched infantry.
Okay, but what about the constructional differences I asked?
The fact that some people believe an M41 becomes an MBT in the hands of the Cartel is clear to me, but what are the constructional justification for claiming that TAM is a tank while M10 Booker is not?
An assault gun is already a multirole vehicle.
So is a tank?
The general classification of a vehicle and the role it is employed are separate and the whole point.
Trannies fail to perform the single most basic function of real women, so it doesn't even support the fundamental logic of your own argument.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Many real women fail to perform the most basic function of real women.
Just stop, man. There's no reason to have your ego wrapped up in this. Tracks and armor do not make something a tank, lest you start counting engineering vehicles as tanks.
Tracks, armor, direct fire weapon, these make a tank.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Cool tank
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Sure, why not?
Pic related has the same capabilities, except with less space in the back. Are you going to say this isn't a tank either?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Many real women fail to perform the most basic function of real women.
Yes, and? Almost every T-72 fails to preform the most basic functions of a tank, but that's because it's a shitty tank, not because of a category failure.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>These make a tank
No, it fucking doesn't, as myriad examples ITT have shown you.
Not least of which is that you seem to think armor = armor. Making something stand up to machine guns or even autocannons is fuckall compared to armoring against 100+mm penetrators.
You are autistically hung up on forcing a definition that clearly doesn't fit, and acting like your world would fall apart at any deviance.
English is descriptive, not prescriptive, and military equipment is especially descriptive.
Beyond that, your criteria for what makes a tank, a tank, is just flat wrong. You are asserting your own assumptions from surface level observations.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
So the "definition" of tank is entirely subjective and theoritical and dependent on whoever is writing the doctrinal paper?
So if I take an M1A1, and tweak the fire control so it can take indirect fire missions, it must now NEVER be called a tank and only an SPG, because the holy doctrine says so?
Kinda dumb tbh.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Resorting to hyperbole and context-wrenching
I'm out of patience for your willful retardation, especially because you're 80% of the way there and being dumb and wrong on purpose because you need to double down because you're too immature to acknowledge being wrong.
A tank is a military vehicle with a large caliber direct-fire weapon, yes, but is also expected to stand up to that same level of firepower and/or dedicated AT weapons, and features whatever is required to make that happen. A tank does not necessarily need to be armored, if you can find some other means for the vehicle to reliably protect itself, but armor is the best, most reliable, and easiest way to do that at present.
The Booker is not a tank because it isn't meant to stand up to other tanks, flat out. It will never be a tank no matter how badly you need it to be considered one.
Dude... you realize basically every tank in WW1 and many tanks in WW2 were not designed to stand up to anti-tank weapons, right? The Panzer I is still a tank even if they only have a machinegun and resistance to enemy small arms.
>Nothing changes over the course of a century
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
What you are describing is a Main Battle Tank, and for some reason you think all tanks must meet those standards to be called "Tank"
Just say "MBT" in the future.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yes, anon, you are correct. There are MBTs, and there are not-tanks.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>"Tank" is just short for "Main Battle Tank"
Do you realize how retarded you sound?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
"Tank" has referred specifically to MBTs for the last 50 years. No amount of seethe on your part will change that, but that's pretty immaterial to you having an existential need to not be proven wrong on something.
>If it's not meant to hold up to anti-tank weapons, it's not a fucking tank.
By that logic, AMX-30, 40, Leo 1, and M48 are all non-tanks because they couldn't stand up to contemporary AT weapons. You're fucking stupid.
>Another episode of "I have to dig up examples of tanks or the MBT concept still in their infancy because I cannot accept that language evolves over time"
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
No, it logically follows (according to you) that there are whole classes of Anti-tank weapons that cannot knock out tanks.
Which begs the question of how IN THE FUCK they qualify as "AT".
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
> TFW MBTs are just Medium Tanks with flair > TFW Light Tanks, Heavy Tanks, Infantry Tanks, Cruiser Tanks are still relevant
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Dude... you realize basically every tank in WW1 and many tanks in WW2 were not designed to stand up to anti-tank weapons, right? The Panzer I is still a tank even if they only have a machinegun and resistance to enemy small arms.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Tracks, armor, direct fire weapon, these make a tank.
Tank?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
No tracks.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It's a halftrack.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>functions
Human beings are not meant to be cogs in a machine.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Ynbaw
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
That's fine, but you'll be miserable until you realize that decency, respect, and love aren't weaknesses. I don't know who or what broke you, but I'm sorry, because your society has failed you.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>He's philosophy posting to cope with the fact that people have basic biological functions that partially determine their identity.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Sterile men aren't men >Sterile women aren't women >Genitalia determines one's entire identity and personality
You need education like Russians need socks, holy shit. Does any part of your worldview go deeper than surface level assumptions? I wonder how badly you'd handle learning about Mediterranean or SEA cultures.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>this example within the category doesn't function correctly >therefore the category doesn't exist
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
That was the argument made. >Only those who can perform the reproductive function of their [sex] count as [gender].
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Except its not. In the original example you are attempting to convert something from outside the category, and failing because you forgot to include key functionality. In the counter example, you have something that was designed from the outset to include a certain function, but doesn't because of poor QC and bad manufacturing processes.
The same way a T-72 can be a "tank" despite the fact that most of them fail in their stated role.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
No, anon, that was what was said. >Only those who can carry a child and give birth are women
Now you're stuck trying to shoehorn something that fits because you're ideologically unable to accept that your understanding is juvenile and retarded, like it's a moral imperative that we cling to bad ideas with no merit.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Except that sterile women, again, are designed to fulfill that role just as much as fertile women, but don't because of bad QC or manufacturing processes. Hence being assigned their own separate subcategory.
Like i get that you'll literally have a nice day the moment you're capable of accepting the argument as presented, but that's no excuse to be disingenuous.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
But that's not what was said. The argument made relied wholly on 'function.' It doesn't hold up, so now you have to double-down, backpedal, and shoehorn some bullshit in because you are ideologically bound to disavow anything that doesn't jive with your antiquated and flatly incorrect worldview.
You don't realize that your concept of feminine and masculine, or the roles men and women are expected to perform outside of reproduction, are largely cultural. You are incapable of accepting any research or evidence that suggests otherwise, because you've built your entire identity on juvenile observations and the defense of such, thinking it some moral imperative.
You're in a cult.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
You used a whole lot of words to say absolutely nothing, and I noticed that you haven't actually disputed the fact that sterile people have bodies designed to do something, but they can't do it due to a loss of function. It's no different from saying that humans are supposed to have two legs. I also haven't made any claims about morality because nothing I've said is prescriptive, it's only descriptive. The reason you're malding is because this is the single obstacle you can never overcome, and you know it.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
People, unlike tanks, have chromosomes.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
> Talks about "decency, respect, and love" > LITERALLY is part of a group of people that ultimately engage in THE MOST Sociopathic/Psychopathic behavior simply because people are Normal
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
What fiction are you spinning up now?
No, it logically follows (according to you) that there are whole classes of Anti-tank weapons that cannot knock out tanks.
Which begs the question of how IN THE FUCK they qualify as "AT".
Anon, genuine question, is English your second language? I'm not even trying to be a dick anymore, it seems that you're just confused, and I've had this exact same problem with people who were raised with very strict languages.
List of constructive differences that, when given to a person unfamiliar with vehicles and presented with a TAM and M10 in front of them, can determine which one is a tank and which one is not.
Still waiting.
>If it's not meant to hold up to anti-tank weapons, it's not a fucking tank.
Neither is the booker.
Ctrl+f >stug 0/0
Why are you people ignoring the most obvious analogue for its doctrinal role >it has a turret
The only reasons the original stug didn't have a turret was to save time and money and because of the technical limitations of the Panzer III it was based on.
Hell, stug just means 'assault gun'
It's similar in a lot of ways to the m10 wolverine, yes, but doctrinally that had a different role (practically, of course, they used it where ever they needed it)
Because the argument is about construction taking precedent over doctrine when it comes to general classification of a vehicle.
Americans are building a light/medium tank and placing in the role of infantry support.
That is a very silly way of looking at things. A vehicle's classification is determined by its doctrinal role and its construction parameters exist only to facilitate that role. Form < Function.
>Classifying things based on shared physical characteristics is "silly"
Are you being genuinely seriously right now?
Doctrinal role determines vehicles role because based on the characteristics of a vehicle it can perform various roles, while other ones will fall outside of it's formal capabilities.
Function is a derivation of the Form, even if it served as the guiding design principle for it.
Otherwise certain vehicles wouldn't have been refocused for other applications, such as pointed out by
The M113 ACAV was designed for fire support and was used as armored cavalry. Often filling the same role as the M41 tanks used by the South Vietnamese.
"Things" >A vehicle's classification
You agree trying to broaden a narrow argument to weaken it. I said what I said, and I didn't say what I didn't say.
You said nonsense is what you said.
Any one vehicle can perform various combat roles, how much and what roles it can perform depends on it's form.
Even if the form is designed after requirements for a certain role, the real world implementation of any design typically lead to some sort of multirole capacity.
Ladies, you're both right. You both have a litmus test but imo, you need both to classify something properly. >What are its features? >How is it intended to be used? >How does it actually get used?
But also, trying to make English a prescriptive, rather than descriptive language, especially when it comes to military equipment, is doomed to failure and brain pain.
My point was already stated here
Because the argument is about construction taking precedent over doctrine when it comes to general classification of a vehicle.
Americans are building a light/medium tank and placing in the role of infantry support.
Ladies, you're both right. You both have a litmus test but imo, you need both to classify something properly. >What are its features? >How is it intended to be used? >How does it actually get used?
But also, trying to make English a prescriptive, rather than descriptive language, especially when it comes to military equipment, is doomed to failure and brain pain.
>You see that man wearing a dress and lipstick? Doctrine says that is a WOMAN, it is to be treated like a WOMAN, and fill the role of a WOMAN, just because she has all the physical features of a man doesn't make her a man. All documentation and press releases will now refer to her as a WOMAN.
>A machine gun isn't direct firepower because... because it just can't!
-Direct firepower = Line of sight weapon -> Machine gun => Epitome of line of sight weapon -> Direct firepower weapon
This is wrong and stems from misunderstanding.
Tank crews are not taught to rely on their armor protection. The best defense is not getting hit in the first place, but tanks are expected to stand up to all but the heaviest of firepower.
Having a plate carrier doesn't mean you suddenly stop trying to avoid bullets.
BTR literally means ARMORED TRANSPORTER, and it's based on a TANK chassis. The BTR-50 is a tank.
If it's not meant to hold up to anti-tank weapons, it's not a fucking tank.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>If it's not meant to hold up to anti-tank weapons, it's not a fucking tank.
Neither is the booker.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Exactly.
Shit, I might have gotten lost in the reply chain.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>If it's not meant to hold up to anti-tank weapons, it's not a fucking tank.
By that logic, AMX-30, 40, Leo 1, and M48 are all non-tanks because they couldn't stand up to contemporary AT weapons. You're fucking stupid.
The direct fire weapon is not protected by armor, so it's not a tank. If the BTR-50's machine guns had a basic turret, it would be a really shitty light tank.
>Me and the boys see some kind of enemy vehicle we've never seen before rolling down our street >"GUYS, THERE'S SOME KIND OF TANK COMING OUR WAY" >Everybody understands what I'm saying >Nobody says "Acthcually how do you know it's not an armored infantry fighting assault gun destroyer?"
You should differentiate between a fucking BMP and a T-90 if it's coming your way, that's your fault for not making the distinction. That IS important.
Just stop, man. There's no reason to have your ego wrapped up in this. Tracks and armor do not make something a tank, lest you start counting engineering vehicles as tanks.
>Just saw this rolling down my street. Why does my police department have a literal TANK!?!?!?!?!?!?! Last time I checked we were a DEMOCRACY, and not a Fascist Regime, but okay.
>weighs the same as a T72 >light tank tier protection >105mm gun
Is it just that since Americans themselves are fat they have to make everything they produce fat as well? Same as with their cars?
It is not designated as a light tank because it's made for infantry support. Could be used as a light tank, not meant for that role (move with troops, not in front of them).
So why *can't* it be used as a tank? I understand it is not supposed to, and is not going to be used as a tank. But what does it lack that prevents it from being used that way if it had to?
Basically it isn't as heavily protected as a M1 Abrams and also it's meant specifically to give Light Infantry and Airborne Divisions some means of "additional firepower" - or to put it memewise - "Moar Dakka!"
The word tank implies tank duel combat in the minds of the masses, because their concepts are rooted in the WW2-Cold War era when tanks rose to prominence because other weapons sucked so the best counter to a tank was another tank.
It's simply a way of avoiding swarms of ill-informed critics.
So it can be used as a tank even though it's not designed for that role, and would perform worse at that role than something like an Abrams?
Am I overestimating the capabilities of American vehicle design to assume this Light Infantry "not a tank" would still wreck the shit out of Chinese or Russian actual tanks if it had to be forced in to the role? I'm not suggesting it should be forced in to that role. I just think it's fun to daydream about combat vehicles performing above what they were intended to do. It seems like this could function as a tank if it needed to at the moment.
Example - Bradleys shitting on russian tanks despite them not being designed to do that. It's fun to see.
This would struggle to pierce any MBT's armor from the front, although it might pack a few sabots for emergency which would pen sides; and their cannons would obliterate it from any angle with the oldest ammunition.
It's not a great vehicle. It's not crap, and it fills a useful specialty, but it's ferociously mediocre.
>but it's ferociously mediocre.
Sounds disappointing honestly. What would it need to not be a mediocre vehicle overall? Not just talking about it's lack of ability to kill enemy MBTs, which isn't what it was designed for.
What is it missing that would make it go from a mediocre vehicle to something amazing at its intended role?
Resist tandem HEAT, be 20 tons lighter, and have a crew of 2 or 3 instead of 4 (use a bustle autoloader), add rubber tracks and an APS.
That's all technically viable off the shelf, but the army wanted something familiar fast and they were willing to accept the gross weight penalty for it.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I wonder why the army cut so many corners. It's not like they're about to get in a major war soon. They had time to wait for something better. Not being sarcastic either, I don't think China is going to move on Taiwan after seeing how badly russia is getting thwarted by a trickle of Western tech, so what's the rush?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Get it in inventory first, then fix the problems with a1 model later.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Those requirements sound suHispaniciously like FCS. Which failed utterly, taking a couple hundred billion dollars with it.
>Am I overestimating the capabilities of American vehicle design to assume this Light Infantry "not a tank" would still wreck the shit out of Chinese or Russian actual tanks if it had to be forced in to the role?
M900 can frontally defeat T-72As up to effective range but can only partially defeat T-72Bs frontally, and has only marginal performance if a T-72B has anti-long rod ERA on it
flank performance is adequate if it can ever get to it, but this would require the enemy making mistake or flawless tactical execution on your side
they are intended to carry a small number of M900 rounds for self-defense, but its not their main role
if they ever fought enemy tanks, and for some reason air cover and friendly armored brigades arent available, then the M10 is more likely to fire HE or HEAT at enemy infantry to clear a path for the javelins
or just fire M900 as a supplement to the javelins, perhaps to funnel enemy tanks towards the javelins or just to finish off damaged but not destroyed tanks
perhaps the only time the M10 might actually enter into tank combat is if thousands of T-55s and T-62s are stealthily inserted into the battlefield and the javelin teams are all focused on the T-72s and T-90s, and only then will the M10 actually have to fire off more than a handful of anti-tank rounds
The word tank implies tank duel combat in the minds of the masses, because their concepts are rooted in the WW2-Cold War era when tanks rose to prominence because other weapons sucked so the best counter to a tank was another tank.
It's simply a way of avoiding swarms of ill-informed critics.
>USA had to call a few armoured cars to get funding.
The term "combat car" was invented because the National Defense Act of 1920 assigned tanks to the infantry, which meant the Cavalry Branch couldn't have tanks of its own. But the National Defense Act of 1920 didn't say shit about 'combat cars', so the cavalry could have them. Become ungovernable.
Incidentally, that's the reason why the US Army has an "Armor Branch" and not a "Tank Branch". They wanted a separate tank corps to keep the infantry and cavalry branches from interfering with tank development, but if they used the word 'tank' it would have legally subordinated it to the infantry. Hence, "Armor Force" (notionally only a temporary, experimental formation as permanent branches could only be established by act of Congress) and later "Armor Branch"
Another tiny detail is that the Tank Corps insignia of 1918 used the crossed muskets of the infantry branch (reflecting their role as infantry support), but the modern day Armor Branch features the crossed sabers of the cavalry.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
BUT the Armored Forced of WW2 used neither as it was formed to keep the infantry and cavalry branches from having control (and jurisdictional disputes) over US tanks.
I don't know why American TDs mind break people so much. Show them picrel and tell them it's not a tank and they're ok with it. It's a self propelled howitzer. Its even in the offical nomenclature: 155mm Howitzer Motor Carriage M41. Just a motorized carriage for the howitzer on it so that it can keep up with the speed of advancing units.
But show them an M10 or M18 and all of a sudden they just go straight to "TANK". They see the doctrine and spout "IT FIGHT TANK IS TANK." Look at the actual name of an M18 Hellcat: 76mm Gun Motor Carriage M18. All the vehicle is is a motorized cart to haul the gun around so that it keeps up with (in this case enemy) advancing units. Its a self propelled AT gun, but people can't fucking think that up for themselves. Its annoying as fuck.
It's the same thing with the Stryker MGS. People can accept it's a support gun, but stick a 105mm turret on an tracked chassis and they insist "it tank!"
Any mobile vehicle with armor immune to all small arms fire and has completely enclosed cannon-caliber firepower is a tank. Yes, an L-ATV with that 30mm cannon on it is a tank. Just a very, very light one.
one more condition; it's cannon must be capable of direct fire. If it's an "SPG" that can do direct, fully enclosed fire, then it's a tank. If, by design, its gun cannot fire at 0 degress elevation, then it's not a tank.
It's a CV90 that can shoot at a T-72 and befuddles tacticians because it should be designated as a light tank, but command would rather use it to accompany infantry instead of spearheading operations because it doesn't have sufficient armor to do so. I just imagine that the team that they consulted thought it would be funny to shoot cannister shot at enemy infantry instead of mowing them down with 30mm.
It will be around for ~10 years before it gets retired.
Army will attempt to use it as a tank and then get mad that its not a tank even after asking to get it designed the way it is.
why would there be controversy?
the army doesnt call it a tank and its not going to be used in armored divisions like a tank
so it isnt a tank
the army is putting them in small battalion sized elements embedded in infantry divisions
which is nothing like how tanks are used
And that did that at first with the MGS and then stopped doing it because they didn't want to develop a doctrine with it as a infantry support weapon.
Then they put them all together similar to an armored division and then got mad that they couldn't be used like a regular armored division.
M10 will go through the same process.
Do they even know what they want or for what purpuse they're doing it anymore?
They want armoured divisions, but cheaper. Seriously. An infantry division isn't supposed to be spearheading a fucking offensive. They're supposed to be sitting in trenches playing cards and smoking cigarettes. That's what infantry divisions are for. You have tanks and shock troopers for shock actions and you put them together in your armoured divisions. Your infantry divisions are the ones stuffed with conscripts who just exist to fill space on the battlefield, you don't DO anything with them really.
But the US army wants every infantry division to be able to operate like an armoured division and be able to participate in or conduct offensives.
Which would be fine, if they were willing to equip infantry divisions like shock divisions but they're not. So they keep doing this stupid dance of "well we'll just pay for the firepower and ignore the armour" which is essentially what the Booker is and of course this instantly falls apart the moment it encounters the real world.
>They want armoured divisions, but cheaper
infantry divisions get a battalion of them
they arent meant to create a radical new change in capability, just give infantry a longer hand to deal with dug-in targets
> They're supposed to be sitting in trenches playing cards and smoking cigarettes
infantry divisions have never been used as a purely static role
You are so fucking stupid it hurts. Fuck this board is a mockery of what it was in 2019
Bruh. 2019 is such a niche year to choose.
it was prior to the covid babies and war tourists
The fuck are you on about. It's as shit now as then.
>2019
Newfag. Lurk moar.
>He wasn't here for boof-posting.
>He wasn't here for good draw-threads
>He wasn't here for shotgun up the ass.
>conscripts
Anon, I don't know how to tell you this but you've been in a coma since 1973
I think you misunderstand Shock Troops, which pretty much ALL U.S Infantry is; we just don't call them that.
American infantry divisions tend to be mechanized unless they're airborne
>Armoured
So you're not American.
>Infantry divisions aren't supposed to be spearheading a fucking offensive
They're damned sure meant to be part of one.
>Sitting in trenches playing cards
FUUUUUUCK NO. Static warfare is how everyone dies in a modern peer conflict. Maneuver warfare is key, mandatory, expected, and anything short of that is considered a colossal fuckup, save for rear-echelon stuff.
>That's what infantry divisions are for
Not in the last twenty years if you haven't been paying attention, or closer to forty years if you have been paying attention.
>Tanks and shock troops
No, that's why the US has uncontestable air supremacy. Air is bleach, ABCTs are the mops, IBCTs are the detail clean or when you need to squat on a spot, SBCTs are the spot-cleaners. This is of course a highly reductionist analogy, but one that fits within this context. A
>Stuffed with conscripts
If you're a third worlder.
>Don't DO anything with them
Holy fuck, I really hope you never have a position of consequence in the military in your country.
This is written out like a 1945 Soviet Generals analysis of American tactics
Honestly speaking, we should've experimented with the idea of a Sherman Tank from WWII to be equipped with something similar to a 122mm Gun (like what The Yugoslavs did in the SO-122). Picrel is what I mean.
>And that did that at first with the MGS and then stopped doing it because they didn't want to develop a doctrine with it as a infantry support weapon.
MGS was never used as a tank, it was used in stryker brigades
it was retired because it had an unreliable autoloader, they couldnt build enough of them, and the ones they did build were still flat bottomed
it ended up being replaced by the stryker dragoon, with the force structure altered so that regular stryker platoons could have some or all of them be dragoons rather than having a few guns in their own battalion
>Then they put them all together similar to an armored division and then got mad that they couldn't be used like a regular armored division.
the stryker MGS was never used in the tank role and was never used in armored divisions
NTA you're talking to, just wanted to correct one thing. Strykers are in armored divisions. 1/1AD is an SBCT in an armored division.
That said, the MGS weren't being used as tanks on the rare occasions they ran long enough to be used. Armor was supposed to be engaged by the ATGM Strykers or dismounts with javelins.
t. spent 3 years in 1/1AD
1st BDE converted to an ABCT in 2019
Wild. I got out in 2017. That's my bad then.
Yep, because doctrinally and internal-politics will have all those spurs&stetsons-wearing Armored "Cavalry" retards bitching that they have to drive along with the trucks and IFVs full of boring infantry , and being ordered where to go by Blue-cord Infantry commanders that they'll bitch and whine until they get made into seperate "not-Tank" Units and once they're 'free' of infantry, they start trying to do tank-stuff... then bitch that it needs to be 'upgraded' to become a real tank... while the infantry bitch that now they need another "Fire-Support Gun that is definitely not going to get used as a fake-tank this time"
The same as they did with MGS.
Rinse.... repeat...
And there you have it - Infantry/Armor Corps eternal rivalry since the days of horses etched into expensive plates of not-tank armor.
Have they announced which branch will operate the M10?
Army.
shut the fuck up boomer
>Army
But which branch?
M10s go in a dedicated MPF (name pending) battalion
the M10 battalion goes in an infantry division, which is composed of 3 M10 companies, their HQ, and a support company
I understand that. But IBCTs have a cavalry squadron, despite being infantry brigades. So have they announced which branch is going to operate the M10?
the M10 will be driven by tankers due to one of the design requirements being cross-compatibility with M1 abrams systems to make it easier to train
though this still wont make it a tank
MGS wasn't retired because it was being used a pseudo-tank and found insufficient. It was retired because it was a maintenance pain-in-the-ass and didn't have a mine-resistant hull. And IBCTs never used the Stryker MGS (or any other type of Stryker either).
This thing came about specifically because they couldn't do what they wanted to do with the MGS. There is top-down doctrinal instruction that it is not a tank, don't use it like one.
The Striker continues to deliver disappointment, even if it's great at its intended role. They might just be giving up on a do-everything vehicle concept.
tl;dr
>Order Striker as a battle taxi, command vehicle, signals vehicle, general logistics, etc
>Hey what if we try to make them infantry support vehicles?
>Well, that didn't work. Draft us up a dedicated infantry support vehicle.
IBCTs don't use Strykers.
>why would there be controversy?
Morons don't like it when there's more to things than what an eight year old could tell from a picture.
>small battalion sized elements embedded in infantry divisions
Like the old TD's?
>we've made a tank that isn't a tank and are going to use it "nothing like how tanks are used" (distributed in penny packets to support the infantry)
What's this autism that every tank is either FRONTLINE TOP END MAIN BATTLE TANK or can't be a tank at all? You're describing an Infantry Tank. Yes the term is ancient, because so is the concept. They've made a poor tank to fit an outdated doctrine and insist it's neither.
"outdated"
Bro it's being used in Airborne divisions. Airborne doesn't have access to this kind of fire power at the moment the M10 gives these divisions the ability to put heavier firepower on target. That's the entire point. Kind of like a Stryker MGS if it were good.
So it's taking the role previously occupied by the Sheridan Tank, which us why it uses a gun not too dissimilar from the one used by the original Abrams Tank and has identical controls to an Abrams Tank.
Sort of. The M10 abandons airdrops in favor of being just light enough for 2/C-17, and isn't designed to be a cavalry vehicle like the Sheridan. It really fills a niche that hasn't been seen since WWII with the M4 (105) or the Stug, partly because most conventional infantry formations have gone mechanized, with multiple integrated tank battalions. Again, remember that this is only going to the specialized foot-infantry divisions, the guys who have nothing heavier than a JLTV (if even that).
Honestly, what if The M4 Sherman was outfitted with an Autoloader and was up-calibered for 122mm? That'd be based.
It'd need such an extensive redesign that it'd not be a sherman any more
You'd just end up with a modern tank destroyer
That's pretty based though. Know what, I've been ignoring it for a while, but I will try to learn to CAD and CAD me up that concept - Modern Tank Destroyer 122mm (i.e. Sherman up calibered for 122mm with an Autoloader).
And maybe perhaps such a Tank would be better than the M10 Booker for Airborne Divisions and Light Infantry Divisions...
>Again, remember that this is only going to the specialized foot-infantry divisions, the guys who have nothing heavier than a JLTV (if even that).
its being used for all infantry divisions, both motorized and all-foot
IBCTs are being re-categorized as either LBCTs (bare minimum number of JLTVs/humvees) and MBCTs (fully motorized) but this wont affect the M10 battalion, which is held above the brigade level
so the M10 is being distributed fairly widely and even light non-motorized units will be able to count on M10s as an option
What niche would the M10 Booker fulfill? Also, could these units also benefit from a 122mm Autoloading Tank Destroyer built off of a M4 Sherman?
>What niche would the M10 Booker fulfill?
heavier firepower when desired
IBCTs often had no direct-fire artillery and would have to use AT4s and carl-gustafs to reduce dug-in enemies and had limited options to deal with enemies outside the range of either weapon
while they had their own artillery spotters to call in fire missions, this could result in severe backlogs and result in delays after being called in
>Also, could these units also benefit from a 122mm Autoloading Tank Destroyer built off of a M4 Sherman?
the US has no active-duty 122mm guns and hasnt had shermans in 70 years
>the M10 battalion, which is held above the brigade level
Wait, WHAT? Sauce?
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11859
subject to change, though this was published recently last june
the M10 is under divisional command rather than organic to each brigade
so that they can either spread each of the M10 companies equally to each brigade, or commit 2 companies to a single brigade with the third in reserve, or any combination of numbers depending on each situation
IBCT=foot infantry brigade. Not mech infantry or armored, which will use ABCTs.
the brigades dont have the M10s, but the division does
they will usually assign a company of M10s to each brigade in combat, but they could scale it up or down depending on the mission
My point is, 1-4ID will *not* be receiving M10s. 7/10/25/82/101 will be receiving a battalion of M10s apiece. That's 5 battalions plus a few more for reserve/NG units.
looks like they dialed their order back from 2000 MPFs own to just 500 M10s
jokes on me for not reading that
Why does America have non-mechanized foot infantry? Do they perform a niche that mechanized infantry cannot, or is it simply not being able to fund vehicles for every brigade?
IBCTs will be re-organized into either MBCTs or LBCTs
so motorized or light
they are effectively the same structure, just with fewer trucks
the lack of trucks is to make them a leaner structure at the cost of less operational mobility
their use case is for stuff like mountains, jungles, or urban terrain where they wont be able to effectively use wheeled vehicles
they still have trucks in the divisional sustainment brigade for non-combat use, they just leave them behind for their maneuver units
Each one has a very specific reason for existing; that said, some of them could probably be reduced to a short brigade or two and still accomplish their missions as training schools for troops (a la the Rangers).
Let's go through the light divisions:
7th ID: Became a "Light" division in 1985, along with the 6th (now gone). For the late Cold War and after, it was used to train infantry on pure "foot infantry" tactics, and was valued for that reason. In 2012, it got "upgraded" to a short Stryker division (only two brigades).
10th ID (Mountain): What it says on the tin. It's been a high-altitude-focused unit since its inception in 1943. Blame the Finns for giving us the idea during the Winter War.
25th ID: Tropical specialists based out of Hawaii. These are the guys you go to if you need somebody to crawl through a jungle.
82nd Airborne Division: I don't have to explain this one, do I?
101st Airborne Division (Air Assault): The chopper guys.
11th Airborne Division (Who?): US Army Alaska was a grab-bag of units stationed in... Alaska. Last year, supposedly to increase morale, the Army decided to reflag them as the 11th. Doesn't make much sense, and I am skeptical that they would ever receive a battalion of M10s.
In short, each of the Light divisions is actually a bunch of specialists in a specific type of inhospitable terrain or a rapid-response unit that uses aircraft or helos to get around quickly.
Everything else in active service is Strykers or Abrams/Bradley.
Basically. IBCT = Light Infantry, ABCT = Airborne BCT (Light Infantry Paratrooper).
Light Infantry: Armed and Armored enough to only be able to square up against Infantry. Not to be so heavily armed and Armored to where they participate in Offensive Operations.
Huh. I'm just a bit surprised to see anything become a divisional asset after decades of the *BCT program. Hell, most divisions don't even have DIVARTY
The US Army is switching from a brigade-based to a division-based structure.
Whoops. Meant to post this one instead.
Fuck it, might as well post the other three. Here's Armor
Airborne
Air Assault.
>Fuck it, might as well post the other three
thanks bro
>The MPF Battalion is intended to reinforce LBCT/MBCTs at 1 MPF Company per maneuver brigade. It is not intended to fight as a divisional battalion, and it relies on maneuver brigade staffs in combat. Its staff is more oriented towards training & sustainment.
Sound like how DIVARTY worked back before the pulled the guns back under direct control. There will probably be some stupid Mommy and Dadddy games between the MPF BN and IBCT staff, but it should be functional structure.
One of the under appreciated thoughts behind the MPF is that it needs a lot less support infrastructure than an M1 Abrams which means maintenance can be done at the battalion level and not require a separate battalion-sized sustainment unit.
>There will probably be some stupid Mommy and Dadddy games between the MPF BN and IBCT staff
Of course. It's the army.
>You're describing an Infantry Tank.
A categorization the United States Army has never used.
>Alaska wasn't a battlecruiser because they made up a new name to avoid that word!!
ok
No, Alaska wasn’t a battlecruiser because it was laid out and built closer to a heavy cruiser that’s rat. Whereas a battlecruiser is closer to a battleship with less armor.
Drach covered the issue in depth:
No, they'll just build 100 then cancel the contract because congress changed their mind about funding. Then the 100 they do have will never be upgraded or retrofitted with new features and will be hopelessly oudated in 10 years. Then they'll design a new assault gun and do ut all over again.
At what point will Congress be held responsible for sabotaging the army and the navy at every turn for the past 30 years?
>Past 30 years
Anon, they've been doing it for the past 247 years. They're never getting held to account.
>Fucking door like its interwar french tank
By ww2 standard its heavy tank, by modern its spg
Is that a fucking pan underneath it to catch leaking oil?
Standard sop for when you take a vehicle out, EPA assholes WILL call out violations
>sop
Standard standard operating procedure?
yeah it's extra standard so you never forget to do it.
yeah like the cac card.
Nah that's where it pisses, vehicles have to go too
thats for cummies that seeps from its barrel
That's just juice leaking from its tankussy.
These are required for EPA purposes, whether you have a leak or not.
I was a Paladin/CAT driver, you wouldn't believe how anal the sergeants and W.Os in the motor pool can be.
>spot the neverserved
All army vehicles are autistically required to have drip pans when parked. No they don't leak but the privates are forced to put pans there anyway.
>No they don't leak but the privates are forced to put pans there anyway
What's the point of this then? Humiliation ritual for privates?
Making money for Big Pan
But they do leak
Apparently this is an assault gun made by general dynamics, even the wiki says its not a tank.
assault gun with a turret? heresy.
The US has almost never used a casemate. Compare US/German TD/SPAGs in WWII; the US ones used open-topped turrets, the Germans used casemates. This is nothing new.
Also, because this thread is becoming very silly, I feel that I should remind everyone that the M10 is intended for the highly-specialized *light* divisions. The Airborne divisions, the Mountain division, the Tropical division; all get a single battalion of M10s, akin to the Independent Tank Battalion of WWII (which used a proper tank, because the US didn't *build* SPAGs back then). The guys who have no ground combat vehicles heavier than a Humvee or JLTV, and no self-propelled guns at all. The M10 gives them some supporting fire when they need it, and is light enough that 2 can fit on a C-17. Doctrinally, it is not a tank, but more of an assault gun (although the Army has declined to use that term). It *can* fight tanks if it has, but then, so could a short-barreled Stug.
The "heavy" divisions (really just another name for mech infantry, which is what they essentially are) get multiple battalions of M1s. So do the whatever-they're-calling-the-armored-divisions-right-now. That's one key to understanding this decision: the M10 is only going to the specialized light divisions, where tanks would be too logistically "heavy" to support using nothing but an air bridge.
Why are you implying this might be a tank?
Even wiki says it is an armored fighting vehicle
>M10 Bonker
>M10 Chonker
>M10 BUCKer
>repetitive slide thread
>4 out of 9 posts are reposts of old debunked shit
>9 separate posters, ostensibly
Smells like Armatard
Still making your fake anti-Armatard false flag posts, schizo?
Are retards seriously incapable of comprehending the concept of an assault gun?
Why do you even bother asking that? Like, how long have you been on PrepHole?
>concept of an assault gun
Doesn't exist since WWII.
So? You know what else didn't exist since WW2? Buzz bombs and flak. Yet here we are, watching ZSU-23s and fancy western 30mm systems slap down flying lawnmowers. "We haven't used the term in a while" isn't an argument. If something changed in the balance of naval combat that enabled large, well armored, big gun combatants, we'd still call them battleships, not Protected Mobile Naval Artillery Platforms for a Connected System of Systems Fleet Architecture
Correct, so we call the M10 a light tank because it fits the characteristics of a light tank lke how ZSUs fit the definition of flak even though they aren't called that.
I'd accept light tank, medium tank, infantry tank, even "motor gun carriage, tracked, M10".
You know what else the US hasn't had since the beginning of the Cold War? A light tank.
m den booger :D:D:D
This is the only M10 you need.
hello brother, where are we going
no one is gonna notice
>new marketing term used by mic brainlets
that's a tank
>THIS IS A BOMBER!!!
>drops bombs
Yeah
Still seething?
I'm starting to understand what happened to Sparks that made him such an easy target for Russian corruption.
Somebody must have btfo him in public and the pure seethe never left him for the rest of his life.
>It's not a tank because it can't bumrush everything
tanks have never existed
Imagine being a M10 crew and being made fun of by gigachad M1A3 and M1A2 tankers
>Sorry pal this table is for TANKERS only why don't you go sit with the bradleys
More like being thanked by grateful infantryman for saving them from a hard target during an assault.
Hmm... HMM...
SEX
Did this go anywhere?
No, foreign lobbies (You) told Polish politicians to sabotage and destroy most of the homegrown Polish MIC, so that most of the future Polish weapons procurement programs would line the pockets of the fat cats over the Atlantic as well as from the EU instead.
This is why we cannot have good things...
:/
yeah its a modified ascod ifv with an ugly ass turret on it
I mean it's not, but China plans to use their to fight pajeet T-90's, so... maybe is it?
>If a tank isn't an MBT then it isn't a tank
There is some leftist wordplay bullshit going on.
Has tracks, has an enclosed turret with a basket, only carries a direct fire gun, its a tank.
You are being autistically dishonest with yourself by insisting that a tank is not tank.
>Behold, a tank!
Or this
A 155mm howitzer is not a direct fire gun. It can used as one, but a 125mm tank gun can used as an indirect fire weapon. That doesn't mean a T-72 is a SPG, though.
>only carries a direct fire gun
I can count 8 bros hitching ride and am pretty sure that is not a direct fire gun.
Maybe read the post next time
You didn't say "has tracks, has an enclosed turret with a basket, only carries a direct fire gun AND doesn't carry infantry". And the BMP-1 is armed with a smoothbore 73mm gun.
Now this is the semantic nitpicking I expect from Bookerfags.
>only carries a direct fire gun
Means what it means, that it's primary and only "cargo" is the gun, nothing else.
Let me rephrase for you then
>Uses tracks(unless French)
>Has an enclosed turret with a basket(Unless Swedish)
>Only combat asset carried is a direct fire gun(Unless Israeli)
You are free to nitpick about coax machine guns
>with a basket
So this isn't a tank?
Of course not. Neither is picrel.
But this one is.
>I can count 8 bros hitching ride
Behold! Not a tank!
Would you kindly show me a ground vehicle that can not carry infantry on top of it?
Looks like an amphibious tank to me.
Something that was rectified within couple of years of introduction.
Tank?
I think the Ontos doesn't have a turret.
It does. It's just very small, about the size of a commander's cupola on a tank. But it mounts the vehicle's primary weapon and rotates 360 degrees, which makes it a turret.
The guns appear to be carried outside of the turret, though.
Where does it say a tank's gun has to be internally mounted?
Being intellectually dishonest is what I expect from people insisting that the new M10 isn't a tank.
Not being able to say why the M10 is a tank is what I expect from people who insist the M10 is a tank.
If it has stronger armor than most vehicles in the army then it is a tank.
The Bradley has more armor that most vehicles in the Army.
But it has been stated over and over again.
It looks like a tank and has all the characteristics expected of a tank.
The only argument people have for "not a tank" is "it's not an MBT".
If you really have to resort to
>You specified having a turret and having gun, but never said anything about the gun being inside the turret!
>I will ignore the fact that having a gun in the turret has been an expected characteristic of a tank since 1920s
>Gotcha with a tractor that has some recoilless riffles welded onto a turret that can't even rotate fully
Marines aren't getting the Booker, knowing American procurement they will probably get their own not-tank sooner than later. Maybe after the finally successfully replace AAV
It has full tracks.
So do tanks.
It has a 105mm main gun intended for direct-fire engagements.
So do tanks, and the original M1 Abrams had a similar cannon.
Its turret can traverse 360 degrees.
So can those of tanks.
Its controls mimic those of the M1 Abrams main battle tank.
It doesn’t carry infantry into battle. Neither do tanks.
It’s protected enough to withstand attacks from enemy armored vehicles.
So are tanks.
Is it a Main Battle Tank?
No, no it is not.
It is a Light Tank, which is part of a doctrine the U.S previously had.
Up until the 90's we even had Sheridan Medium Tanks.
Doctrines shift as the battlefield does and understanding this is part of how we stay on top.
Our leaders were calling it "Mobile Protected Firepower".
Do you know what's a tracked vehicle mobile, protected and has a lot of firepower?
A damn tank.
The reason it is not being called what it is (a Light Tank) is because we are led by dipshits who then attempt to misuse it in accordance to MBT doctrine instead of the LT that it actually is.
It's a damn tank.
Light tanks in US nomenclature are for scouting and performing traditional cavalry roles. The M10 Booker isn't that.
>Do you know what's a tracked vehicle mobile, protected and has a lot of firepower?
A Gun Motor Carriage?
Are there any images with the turret turned or some blueprints?
Everything I can find has the rifles pointed forward.
I checked. It did have a rotating turret, but the original could only traverse about 15 degrees, though later models changed this to 40 degrees in either direction. It's still a turret though.
>abandon Abrahams because tanks are le bad
>adopt a thing that totally isn't a tank guise we swear
Marines are retarded as usual
The USMC hasn't expressed interest in the M10.
>A tank is something that has all the characteristics expected of a tank.
>Except for these tanks that don't have those characteristics
>And all the vehicles they do have those characteristics but aren't tanks.
>Except for these tanks that don't have those characteristics
S-tank wouldn't be considered a tank under the same criteria used to discount the Booker.
T-54 lacked a basket, but the closet turret is more than enough for it to be a shitty tank.If I had not specified that, you would have posted an M18 with the top welded shut.
>And all the vehicles they do have those characteristics but aren't tanks.
I was shown
>BMP-1
which carries infantry into battle
>M109
which doesn't have a direct fire gun
>LAV-1
which I claimed to be an amphibious tank
>Ontos
which has weapons mounted outside the turret.
It is a historic tank during a period when the concept of what a tank was novel and most constructive solutions experimental.
You've yet to define what a tank is, but the M10 definitely isn't one for reasons, right?
>You've yet to define what a tank is
But I did?
>but the M10 definitely isn't one for reasons
what are you saying
>But I did?
But the T-54, which didn't meet your definition is a tank, while the M50 Ontos which did meet your definitions (until you tacked something on to retroactively disqualify it) isn't a tank.
you fucking retarded, intellectualy dishonest moron idiot
fucking have a nice day
it is a tank you retard its literally almost the same thing as a leopard 1 just with modern electronics
no amount of your gay semantics can change this
meant for
>which I claimed to be an amphibious tank
But the LVT A4 isn't because of the open-topped turret and the open-topped turret alone?
Forgot the photo.
Well, an open topped turret is a major concern when it comes to exposure of both crew and the internal system.
I don't have anything against the idea of open-topped tanks, but considering the sacrilege it is to call American WW2 tank destroyers tanks, I decided to specify the need for a basket as a distinguishing trait.
>But the T-54, which didn't meet your definition is a tank
T-54 did lack a basket, but as I mentioned it was rectified very quickly, implying that Soviets perceived as a major issue for T-54/55s ability to perform it's duties as a tank.
>until you tacked something on to retroactively disqualify it
I didn't tack on anything that I believed would be understood by parties arguing in good fate. As initally I also believe that people will understand "only carries a direct-fire gun" to imply "doesn't carry infantry", but that caused issues almost immediately.
I believe that when a turret is specified and carrying a gun, that it is understood that the gun is carried within the turret as it has been done in most vehicles recognized as tanks since the deployment of the Renault FT.
My definitions aren't important considering I am a nobody, but the definitions I gave can be applied to almost all tanks with very few specific exceptions, and while it can be applied to vehicles that aren't perceived as tanks(which Ontos is not one to anyone with a pair of eyes), the booker is in it's construction comparable to modern tanks and the only two arguments I have seen for it not being a tank are
>It is not a tank because it is not an MBT
Or
>It is not a tank because US Army says it is not a tank
Neither of which are relevant to the fact that for all intends and purposes from the layout to general construction, the M10 Booker is a modern tank
you're so fucking dumb it hurts, the army isn't getting rid of the m1 and the marines arent adopting the m10
If you were any more retarded you’d be a houseplant
She does not identify as a tank and there's nothing wrong with that, she's cute and valid
>It's a tank because it has a turret!
Bradley is a tank
>It's a tank because it has a big gun!
Paladin is a tank
>It's a tank because it has a big gun on a turret!
BMP-1 is a tank
>It's a tank because it has a bigger gun meant to kill armored vehicles on a turret!
M1128 MGS is a tank
>It's a tank because it has a bigger gun meant to kill armored vehicles on a turret on a tracked chassis!
Sprut is a tank
>Bradley is a tank
Yes
>Paladin is a tank
No, indirect fire gun
>BMP-1 is a tank
Yes
>M1128 MGS is a tank
No, no tracks
>Sprut is a tank
Yes.
>Bradley/BMP-1 are tanks
>What does Boyevaya Mashina Pekhoty mean
>FIGHTING VEHICLE, INFANTRY, M2A3 (NSN2350-01-436-0005)
Infantry Fighting Vehicles are a subcatagory of tanks.
>Infantry Fighting Vehicles are a subcatagory of tanks.
All tanks are armored fighting vehicles, but not all armored fighting vehicles are tanks.
How does that disprove the statement that IFVs are a subcatagory of tanks?
Does the Merkava shatter your worldview?
>How does that disprove the statement that IFVs are a subcatagory of tanks?
Tanks are a subcategory of AFV, IFVs are a subcategory of AFVs. They are not tanks.
>Does the Merkava shatter your worldview?
I don't know how the Israelis employ them doctrinally.
If an AVF has tracks, armor, and is primarily designed for direct fire support, it is a tank
>IFV
subcatagory of tank
>Assault gun
subcatagory of tank
>Tank destroyer
subcatagory of tank
It's really that simple.
IFV is a subcategory of AFV, not of a tank. They drew their evolutionary lineage from "how do we get more firepower on an APC" not "how do we put the infantry inside a tank".
>What is an isn't a tank depends on doctrine and what was going through the minds of designers
Retarded
>what is and isn't a tank depends on what physical features the vehicle was designed with
correct.
Doctrine and design are inseparable and the M10 was DESIGNED to be an assault gun for the infantry.
>Churchill tank.. isn't le tank?
It was designed to be heavily armored and armed so it could break through defensive lines. Then lighter cruiser tanks would move in behind it and exploit the breakthrough.
And assault guns are a sub-catagory of tanks. Unless you're going to tell me the 105mm sherman wasn't a tank.
IFVs might have evolved from APCs, which are not tanks. but in creating the IFV, they created a light tank that could carry infantry.
>assault guns are a sub-catagory of tanks
This is actually a fair argument.
>in creating the IFV, they created a light tank that could carry infantry
“In the [U.S.] Army, the historical use of light tanks has been to perform reconnaissance functions. This is not a reconnaissance vehicle,” Dean said. “It’s not actually a mission match [for a light tank].” - Gen'l Glenn Dean
>“In the [U.S.] Army, the historical use of light tanks has been to perform reconnaissance functions. This is not a reconnaissance vehicle,” Dean said. “It’s not actually a mission match [for a light tank].” - Gen'l Glenn Dean
First of all, Bradleys are absolutely used in the light tank reconnisance role in the real world
Second, basing definitions of something off of subjective standards like doctrine or missions is extremely retarded. the definition of "tank" is based off of physical features a vehicle has.
>First of all, Bradleys are absolutely used in the light tank reconnisance role in the real world
This is talking about the M10 but the Army calls the M3 a Cavalry Fighting Vehicle regardless. Not that I agree with that specific case entirely.
>Second, basing definitions of something off of subjective standards like doctrine or missions is extremely retarded. the definition of "tank" is based off of physical features a vehicle has.
see
In that case this whole thread is pointless, because every country will have its own special definition of "tank", regardless of what the vehicle actually looks like.
Exactly, arguing classification is stupid because words mean different things to different people in different contexts. The M113 ACAV was a defacto tank in the early half of Vietnam, then got pushed out of the role by M-48s when they arrived. The Renault FT was a tank in 1918, but would be closer to an IFV today. The M10 isn't a tank because by US standards it isn't.
Merkava is not designed to carry infantry, it has a storage are that can be used to carry an infantry garden gnome or two, but it is not the purpose of said storage space
>Does the Merkava shatter your worldview?
merkava cant carry any dismounts
soldiers popping out the back is just a parade trick to dramatically showcase the rear hatch, not a battlefield tactic
the actual purpose of the hatch is just to resupply in the field without using a crane or to bail out of the tank without getting machine gunned
the only time the merkava carries people is in the battle ambulance configuration, but this isnt a troop carrier but a heavily armored medevac vehicle to carry wounded out of battle when fighting enemies who dont respect the red cross
I mean Bradley barely carries any dismounts either at the end of the day.
the bradley carries 7 dismounts only 2 less than a stryker
in practice this basically means 4 brads carry 3 squads, compared to 4 strykers carrying 4 squads
the deleted squad is the weapons squad, with the M240s being stowed in the bradley to be handed out to riflemen
but for the loss of 2 tripod mounted machine guns, you get 4 autocannons and the 4 co-axial machine guns
IFVs are tanks because the original tanks were meant to engage infantry.
>Bradley is a tank
Is this a tank?
Forgot pic
No, the M113 was not designed to provide direct fire support, so it is not a tank. The .50 turret was an afterthought.
The M113 ACAV was designed for fire support and was used as armored cavalry. Often filling the same role as the M41 tanks used by the South Vietnamese.
In that case, the M113 ACAV is a retrofitted. kinda shitty light tank, while the base M113 is not a tank.
Yeah, it's an assault gun.
Is TAM a tank and if no then why and if yes what is the chief difference in construction between TAM and M10 that makes one a tank and the other not?
I am still waiting
One is made by a poorfag nation to do tank stuff, the other is made by a richfag nation so that our actual tanks can go do tank stuff instead of lobbing HE rounds at entrenched infantry.
Okay, but what about the constructional differences I asked?
The fact that some people believe an M41 becomes an MBT in the hands of the Cartel is clear to me, but what are the constructional justification for claiming that TAM is a tank while M10 Booker is not?
So is a tank?
The general classification of a vehicle and the role it is employed are separate and the whole point.
>what are the constructional justification for claiming that TAM is a tank while M10 Booker is not?
The army didn't build them to do tank things.
>Army politics decide which vehicle counts as a tank
The chud analogy is more and more appropriate.
Trannies fail to perform the single most basic function of real women, so it doesn't even support the fundamental logic of your own argument.
Many real women fail to perform the most basic function of real women.
Tracks, armor, direct fire weapon, these make a tank.
Cool tank
Sure, why not?
Pic related has the same capabilities, except with less space in the back. Are you going to say this isn't a tank either?
>Many real women fail to perform the most basic function of real women.
Yes, and? Almost every T-72 fails to preform the most basic functions of a tank, but that's because it's a shitty tank, not because of a category failure.
>These make a tank
No, it fucking doesn't, as myriad examples ITT have shown you.
Not least of which is that you seem to think armor = armor. Making something stand up to machine guns or even autocannons is fuckall compared to armoring against 100+mm penetrators.
You are autistically hung up on forcing a definition that clearly doesn't fit, and acting like your world would fall apart at any deviance.
English is descriptive, not prescriptive, and military equipment is especially descriptive.
Beyond that, your criteria for what makes a tank, a tank, is just flat wrong. You are asserting your own assumptions from surface level observations.
So the "definition" of tank is entirely subjective and theoritical and dependent on whoever is writing the doctrinal paper?
So if I take an M1A1, and tweak the fire control so it can take indirect fire missions, it must now NEVER be called a tank and only an SPG, because the holy doctrine says so?
Kinda dumb tbh.
>Resorting to hyperbole and context-wrenching
I'm out of patience for your willful retardation, especially because you're 80% of the way there and being dumb and wrong on purpose because you need to double down because you're too immature to acknowledge being wrong.
A tank is a military vehicle with a large caliber direct-fire weapon, yes, but is also expected to stand up to that same level of firepower and/or dedicated AT weapons, and features whatever is required to make that happen. A tank does not necessarily need to be armored, if you can find some other means for the vehicle to reliably protect itself, but armor is the best, most reliable, and easiest way to do that at present.
The Booker is not a tank because it isn't meant to stand up to other tanks, flat out. It will never be a tank no matter how badly you need it to be considered one.
>Nothing changes over the course of a century
What you are describing is a Main Battle Tank, and for some reason you think all tanks must meet those standards to be called "Tank"
Just say "MBT" in the future.
Yes, anon, you are correct. There are MBTs, and there are not-tanks.
>"Tank" is just short for "Main Battle Tank"
Do you realize how retarded you sound?
"Tank" has referred specifically to MBTs for the last 50 years. No amount of seethe on your part will change that, but that's pretty immaterial to you having an existential need to not be proven wrong on something.
>Another episode of "I have to dig up examples of tanks or the MBT concept still in their infancy because I cannot accept that language evolves over time"
No, it logically follows (according to you) that there are whole classes of Anti-tank weapons that cannot knock out tanks.
Which begs the question of how IN THE FUCK they qualify as "AT".
> TFW MBTs are just Medium Tanks with flair
> TFW Light Tanks, Heavy Tanks, Infantry Tanks, Cruiser Tanks are still relevant
Dude... you realize basically every tank in WW1 and many tanks in WW2 were not designed to stand up to anti-tank weapons, right? The Panzer I is still a tank even if they only have a machinegun and resistance to enemy small arms.
>Tracks, armor, direct fire weapon, these make a tank.
Tank?
No tracks.
It's a halftrack.
>functions
Human beings are not meant to be cogs in a machine.
Ynbaw
That's fine, but you'll be miserable until you realize that decency, respect, and love aren't weaknesses. I don't know who or what broke you, but I'm sorry, because your society has failed you.
>He's philosophy posting to cope with the fact that people have basic biological functions that partially determine their identity.
>Sterile men aren't men
>Sterile women aren't women
>Genitalia determines one's entire identity and personality
You need education like Russians need socks, holy shit. Does any part of your worldview go deeper than surface level assumptions? I wonder how badly you'd handle learning about Mediterranean or SEA cultures.
>this example within the category doesn't function correctly
>therefore the category doesn't exist
That was the argument made.
>Only those who can perform the reproductive function of their [sex] count as [gender].
Except its not. In the original example you are attempting to convert something from outside the category, and failing because you forgot to include key functionality. In the counter example, you have something that was designed from the outset to include a certain function, but doesn't because of poor QC and bad manufacturing processes.
The same way a T-72 can be a "tank" despite the fact that most of them fail in their stated role.
No, anon, that was what was said.
>Only those who can carry a child and give birth are women
Now you're stuck trying to shoehorn something that fits because you're ideologically unable to accept that your understanding is juvenile and retarded, like it's a moral imperative that we cling to bad ideas with no merit.
Except that sterile women, again, are designed to fulfill that role just as much as fertile women, but don't because of bad QC or manufacturing processes. Hence being assigned their own separate subcategory.
Like i get that you'll literally have a nice day the moment you're capable of accepting the argument as presented, but that's no excuse to be disingenuous.
But that's not what was said. The argument made relied wholly on 'function.' It doesn't hold up, so now you have to double-down, backpedal, and shoehorn some bullshit in because you are ideologically bound to disavow anything that doesn't jive with your antiquated and flatly incorrect worldview.
You don't realize that your concept of feminine and masculine, or the roles men and women are expected to perform outside of reproduction, are largely cultural. You are incapable of accepting any research or evidence that suggests otherwise, because you've built your entire identity on juvenile observations and the defense of such, thinking it some moral imperative.
You're in a cult.
You used a whole lot of words to say absolutely nothing, and I noticed that you haven't actually disputed the fact that sterile people have bodies designed to do something, but they can't do it due to a loss of function. It's no different from saying that humans are supposed to have two legs. I also haven't made any claims about morality because nothing I've said is prescriptive, it's only descriptive. The reason you're malding is because this is the single obstacle you can never overcome, and you know it.
People, unlike tanks, have chromosomes.
> Talks about "decency, respect, and love"
> LITERALLY is part of a group of people that ultimately engage in THE MOST Sociopathic/Psychopathic behavior simply because people are Normal
What fiction are you spinning up now?
Anon, genuine question, is English your second language? I'm not even trying to be a dick anymore, it seems that you're just confused, and I've had this exact same problem with people who were raised with very strict languages.
List of constructive differences that, when given to a person unfamiliar with vehicles and presented with a TAM and M10 in front of them, can determine which one is a tank and which one is not.
Still waiting.
Neither was the fucking Leopard 1
Ctrl+f
>stug 0/0
Why are you people ignoring the most obvious analogue for its doctrinal role
>it has a turret
The only reasons the original stug didn't have a turret was to save time and money and because of the technical limitations of the Panzer III it was based on.
Hell, stug just means 'assault gun'
It's similar in a lot of ways to the m10 wolverine, yes, but doctrinally that had a different role (practically, of course, they used it where ever they needed it)
sug was a tank too, saw it in girls und panzer
Because the argument is about construction taking precedent over doctrine when it comes to general classification of a vehicle.
Americans are building a light/medium tank and placing in the role of infantry support.
That is a very silly way of looking at things. A vehicle's classification is determined by its doctrinal role and its construction parameters exist only to facilitate that role. Form < Function.
>Classifying things based on shared physical characteristics is "silly"
Are you being genuinely seriously right now?
Doctrinal role determines vehicles role because based on the characteristics of a vehicle it can perform various roles, while other ones will fall outside of it's formal capabilities.
Function is a derivation of the Form, even if it served as the guiding design principle for it.
Otherwise certain vehicles wouldn't have been refocused for other applications, such as pointed out by
"Things"
>A vehicle's classification
You agree trying to broaden a narrow argument to weaken it. I said what I said, and I didn't say what I didn't say.
*are
Not agree
You said nonsense is what you said.
Any one vehicle can perform various combat roles, how much and what roles it can perform depends on it's form.
Even if the form is designed after requirements for a certain role, the real world implementation of any design typically lead to some sort of multirole capacity.
My point was already stated here
An assault gun is already a multirole vehicle.
Ladies, you're both right. You both have a litmus test but imo, you need both to classify something properly.
>What are its features?
>How is it intended to be used?
>How does it actually get used?
But also, trying to make English a prescriptive, rather than descriptive language, especially when it comes to military equipment, is doomed to failure and brain pain.
▶▶59539495
>Infantry fighting vehicles are a subcategory of t-ACK!
>You see that man wearing a dress and lipstick? Doctrine says that is a WOMAN, it is to be treated like a WOMAN, and fill the role of a WOMAN, just because she has all the physical features of a man doesn't make her a man. All documentation and press releases will now refer to her as a WOMAN.
>I literally cannot stop thinking about trannies for even one minute
>no womb
Can't perform its doctrinal role.
>Tracks
>Armor
>Direct firepower
This is a tank.
>But muh political doctrinal theoretical classification says it's not a tank
Don't care, it's a tank
>BTR 50 is a tank
>Direct firepower
>A machine gun isn't direct firepower because... because it just can't!
-Direct firepower = Line of sight weapon -> Machine gun => Epitome of line of sight weapon -> Direct firepower weapon
A tank uses its direct firepower while protected by armor. A BTR-50 cannot use its direct firepower while protected by armor.
BTR literally means ARMORED TRANSPORTER, and it's based on a TANK chassis. The BTR-50 is a tank.
This is wrong and stems from misunderstanding.
Tank crews are not taught to rely on their armor protection. The best defense is not getting hit in the first place, but tanks are expected to stand up to all but the heaviest of firepower.
Having a plate carrier doesn't mean you suddenly stop trying to avoid bullets.
If it's not meant to hold up to anti-tank weapons, it's not a fucking tank.
>If it's not meant to hold up to anti-tank weapons, it's not a fucking tank.
Neither is the booker.
Exactly.
Shit, I might have gotten lost in the reply chain.
>If it's not meant to hold up to anti-tank weapons, it's not a fucking tank.
By that logic, AMX-30, 40, Leo 1, and M48 are all non-tanks because they couldn't stand up to contemporary AT weapons. You're fucking stupid.
The direct fire weapon is not protected by armor, so it's not a tank. If the BTR-50's machine guns had a basic turret, it would be a really shitty light tank.
>Me and the boys see some kind of enemy vehicle we've never seen before rolling down our street
>"GUYS, THERE'S SOME KIND OF TANK COMING OUR WAY"
>Everybody understands what I'm saying
>Nobody says "Acthcually how do you know it's not an armored infantry fighting assault gun destroyer?"
You should differentiate between a fucking BMP and a T-90 if it's coming your way, that's your fault for not making the distinction. That IS important.
>some kind of enemy vehicle WE'VE NEVER SEEN BEFORE rolling down our street
Does it have tracks and armor? It's a tank by default.
BEHOLD! A TANK!
You bet your ass that's a tank, if you want to volunteer to be shot at by it be my guest.
Except it isn’t. It has no weapons because it’s a firefighting vehicle.
Okay, now stand in front of the not-weapons and let them peel your skin off.
I have. Jet blast isn’t that bad if you’re prepared for it and not a stick.
Just stop, man. There's no reason to have your ego wrapped up in this. Tracks and armor do not make something a tank, lest you start counting engineering vehicles as tanks.
>PRIIIIIIIIVATE MAAAACLEEETUS!
>DID YOU JUST MISCLASIFY THE EMM PEE EUF AS A TANK?
It’s not a tank.
It’s a GMC
>Just saw this rolling down my street. Why does my police department have a literal TANK!?!?!?!?!?!?! Last time I checked we were a DEMOCRACY, and not a Fascist Regime, but okay.
>no weapons
not a tank sweetie.
It doesn't even have an autoloader.
This is a tank. Is everyone retarded?
I see two heavy tanks and some containers
Okay, so it's a Mobile Gun System then?
>weighs the same as a T72
>light tank tier protection
>105mm gun
Is it just that since Americans themselves are fat they have to make everything they produce fat as well? Same as with their cars?
It is not designated as a light tank because it's made for infantry support. Could be used as a light tank, not meant for that role (move with troops, not in front of them).
>turret
>large main gun
>treads
TANK.
So why *can't* it be used as a tank? I understand it is not supposed to, and is not going to be used as a tank. But what does it lack that prevents it from being used that way if it had to?
Basically it isn't as heavily protected as a M1 Abrams and also it's meant specifically to give Light Infantry and Airborne Divisions some means of "additional firepower" - or to put it memewise - "Moar Dakka!"
So it can be used as a tank even though it's not designed for that role, and would perform worse at that role than something like an Abrams?
Am I overestimating the capabilities of American vehicle design to assume this Light Infantry "not a tank" would still wreck the shit out of Chinese or Russian actual tanks if it had to be forced in to the role? I'm not suggesting it should be forced in to that role. I just think it's fun to daydream about combat vehicles performing above what they were intended to do. It seems like this could function as a tank if it needed to at the moment.
Example - Bradleys shitting on russian tanks despite them not being designed to do that. It's fun to see.
This would struggle to pierce any MBT's armor from the front, although it might pack a few sabots for emergency which would pen sides; and their cannons would obliterate it from any angle with the oldest ammunition.
It's not a great vehicle. It's not crap, and it fills a useful specialty, but it's ferociously mediocre.
>but it's ferociously mediocre.
Sounds disappointing honestly. What would it need to not be a mediocre vehicle overall? Not just talking about it's lack of ability to kill enemy MBTs, which isn't what it was designed for.
What is it missing that would make it go from a mediocre vehicle to something amazing at its intended role?
Resist tandem HEAT, be 20 tons lighter, and have a crew of 2 or 3 instead of 4 (use a bustle autoloader), add rubber tracks and an APS.
That's all technically viable off the shelf, but the army wanted something familiar fast and they were willing to accept the gross weight penalty for it.
I wonder why the army cut so many corners. It's not like they're about to get in a major war soon. They had time to wait for something better. Not being sarcastic either, I don't think China is going to move on Taiwan after seeing how badly russia is getting thwarted by a trickle of Western tech, so what's the rush?
Get it in inventory first, then fix the problems with a1 model later.
Those requirements sound suHispaniciously like FCS. Which failed utterly, taking a couple hundred billion dollars with it.
>Am I overestimating the capabilities of American vehicle design to assume this Light Infantry "not a tank" would still wreck the shit out of Chinese or Russian actual tanks if it had to be forced in to the role?
M900 can frontally defeat T-72As up to effective range but can only partially defeat T-72Bs frontally, and has only marginal performance if a T-72B has anti-long rod ERA on it
flank performance is adequate if it can ever get to it, but this would require the enemy making mistake or flawless tactical execution on your side
they are intended to carry a small number of M900 rounds for self-defense, but its not their main role
if they ever fought enemy tanks, and for some reason air cover and friendly armored brigades arent available, then the M10 is more likely to fire HE or HEAT at enemy infantry to clear a path for the javelins
or just fire M900 as a supplement to the javelins, perhaps to funnel enemy tanks towards the javelins or just to finish off damaged but not destroyed tanks
perhaps the only time the M10 might actually enter into tank combat is if thousands of T-55s and T-62s are stealthily inserted into the battlefield and the javelin teams are all focused on the T-72s and T-90s, and only then will the M10 actually have to fire off more than a handful of anti-tank rounds
The word tank implies tank duel combat in the minds of the masses, because their concepts are rooted in the WW2-Cold War era when tanks rose to prominence because other weapons sucked so the best counter to a tank was another tank.
It's simply a way of avoiding swarms of ill-informed critics.
>track
>turret
>gun
its a tank
Yes, its a light tank.
>THIS IS NOT A TANK!!!
Correct. This is an armored mobile gun platform.
It's a tank.
I'm not going to elaborate or even wait to read a reply
Do you guys think there were people in 1942 who were autistically reeee'ing that the (other) M10 was a tank?
With how silly tank design got pre-1945 yes. USA had to call a few armoured cars to get funding.
>USA had to call a few armoured cars to get funding.
The term "combat car" was invented because the National Defense Act of 1920 assigned tanks to the infantry, which meant the Cavalry Branch couldn't have tanks of its own. But the National Defense Act of 1920 didn't say shit about 'combat cars', so the cavalry could have them. Become ungovernable.
Incidentally, that's the reason why the US Army has an "Armor Branch" and not a "Tank Branch". They wanted a separate tank corps to keep the infantry and cavalry branches from interfering with tank development, but if they used the word 'tank' it would have legally subordinated it to the infantry. Hence, "Armor Force" (notionally only a temporary, experimental formation as permanent branches could only be established by act of Congress) and later "Armor Branch"
Huh fascinating. Semirelated but Turtledove's alt history books make me wish we called tanks, barrels
I prefer the term (from another Harry Turtledove book) "trackfort"
Another tiny detail is that the Tank Corps insignia of 1918 used the crossed muskets of the infantry branch (reflecting their role as infantry support), but the modern day Armor Branch features the crossed sabers of the cavalry.
BUT the Armored Forced of WW2 used neither as it was formed to keep the infantry and cavalry branches from having control (and jurisdictional disputes) over US tanks.
It wasn't.
I don't know why American TDs mind break people so much. Show them picrel and tell them it's not a tank and they're ok with it. It's a self propelled howitzer. Its even in the offical nomenclature: 155mm Howitzer Motor Carriage M41. Just a motorized carriage for the howitzer on it so that it can keep up with the speed of advancing units.
But show them an M10 or M18 and all of a sudden they just go straight to "TANK". They see the doctrine and spout "IT FIGHT TANK IS TANK." Look at the actual name of an M18 Hellcat: 76mm Gun Motor Carriage M18. All the vehicle is is a motorized cart to haul the gun around so that it keeps up with (in this case enemy) advancing units. Its a self propelled AT gun, but people can't fucking think that up for themselves. Its annoying as fuck.
It's the same thing with the Stryker MGS. People can accept it's a support gun, but stick a 105mm turret on an tracked chassis and they insist "it tank!"
Any mobile vehicle with armor immune to all small arms fire and has completely enclosed cannon-caliber firepower is a tank. Yes, an L-ATV with that 30mm cannon on it is a tank. Just a very, very light one.
one more condition; it's cannon must be capable of direct fire. If it's an "SPG" that can do direct, fully enclosed fire, then it's a tank. If, by design, its gun cannot fire at 0 degress elevation, then it's not a tank.
it is a light tank
No that’s booker dewitt
It's a CV90 that can shoot at a T-72 and befuddles tacticians because it should be designated as a light tank, but command would rather use it to accompany infantry instead of spearheading operations because it doesn't have sufficient armor to do so. I just imagine that the team that they consulted thought it would be funny to shoot cannister shot at enemy infantry instead of mowing them down with 30mm.