a casemate is not a requisite to be an assault gun
germans just preferred it on the grounds that fortifications dont move, therefore a turret is an unnecessary expense
american assault guns had turrets in WW2, the M8 scott and M4 105mm come to mind
>America now has a Modern STuG
No it does fricking not. Its not an assault gun and its going to run into the same problem as the M1128 which is said vehicle isn't going to be used as an assault Gun its going to be used as a Tank because the Army is fricking moronic and doesn't understand what an assault gun is.
>M1128 fails (Besides maintenance issues) because of the Army's doctrine with it >IE we aren't going to use it to support infantry, It will not be deployed along side Stryker brigades because for what ever reason to the army "105mm gun = ITS A TANK!!!!!" >So we crew it with people who are trained to kill enemy tanks! >WTH Isn't this vehicle functioning like our Abrams???
M10 will suffer the same issues unless the Army is actually going to develop a doctrine to use Assault guns and deploy it along side infantry and not do the standard "Oh its got a big gun so its a tank off to the Armored Company you go!"
>Army gets a new Assault gun >Army does not have nor develop a doctrine for said Assault gun >It fails >Army gets new Assault gun >1. They don't develop a doctrine for assault guns and it fails >2. They develop a doctrine for assault guns and it works
Is it that fricking hard for you to understand?
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Army gets a new Assault gun >some guy used it wrong once in NTC >IT'S A FAILURE IT'S JOEVER WE'LL NEVER RECOVER IT'S IMPOSSIBLE WE'RE DEAD WE'RE SO DEAD
yes, it's really quite difficult for me to understand how lesser life forms think
11 months ago
Anonymous
>some guy used it wrong once in NTC
No the army treated it as a Tank... I don't know why you don't understand that. They never deployed them like they were designed to do.
>IT'S A FAILURE IT'S JOEVER WE'LL NEVER RECOVER IT'S IMPOSSIBLE WE'RE DEAD WE'RE SO DEAD
Again they were given a Tool and didn't develop a way to use it correctly.
And now they are given a similar tool and if they don't develop a way to use it correctly they'll just withdraw it from service like they've done with pretty much every assault gun they were given for the past 80 years.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>the army treated it as a Tank... I don't know why you don't understand that. They never deployed them like they were designed to do
[citation needed]
>So he didn't even knock out the MG nests?
He "silenced" one according to the citation. This could be as little as temporary suppression, but is worded to sound like a kill. Knowing how combat accounts usually go, it's probably even less than that.
Wounded Knee fricked him up good too. Guy could never quite pay his debts after that. It's a good thing he never had any kids or anything. Who knows what the debt collectors might have wanted to take.
>Tfw bongs were ahead of their time with the centurion, they just needed the engine in the front and turn it into an IFV
I can't be the only one seeing a comparison here
TAM justifies it's existence because Argentina is at least poor.
M10 exists because the IBCT wants main gun support, but the idiots in charge won't put M1s back into infantry units like it was in the 80s, or with the USMC until they retired them
>M10 exists because the IBCT wants main gun support
a reasonable request
>but the idiots in charge won't put M1s back into infantry units like it was in the 80s
M1s were prioritized to mechanized units, where they fought alongside bradleys
and attaching a vehicle designed for maneuver war and optimized for hunting enemy tanks and demolishing enemy operational depths to a slow moving, foot mobile force firing HEAT rounds at bunkers is a short-term solution at best
the M10 is a continuation of the regimental tank battalion from the cold war
but due to a lack of legacy vehicles to fill them with, they might as well just use a new vehicle designed specifically for the purpose instead of just adjusting the HE loadout slider on a cold war MBT
>TAM justifies it's existence because Argentina is at least poor.
Back when the TAM was made Argentina was a rich as Japan and Italy...
>M1s back into infantry units like it was in the 80s, or with the USMC until they retired them
well, the M1 is heavy, the M10 can be deployed anywhere in the world in less than 24 hours by airlift, and the USMC is gearing up for an island hopping campaign, hope they develop a new find flamethrower to burn the chink insects.
>well, the M1 is heavy, the M10 can be deployed anywhere in the world in less than 24 hours by airlift
Wow
2 vs 1 in a C-17!, 3 vs 2 in C-5! The airlift capability advantage is a joke.
The USMC will regret ditching it's tanks (saying muh tanks have no use in island warfare is plainly wrong looking at the last time such a campaign was conducted)
Best part is, the LCAC can't even carry more M10s then it can M1 (both are 1) for a landing when the Army will inevitably have to take part in an amphibious assault operation to support the USMC
11 months ago
Anonymous
let's see how you supply an company of abrams in a saipan tier island
11 months ago
Anonymous
It's irrelevant. Both IBCT and ABCT use the HEMMTT
Iirc the medium tank version was actually designed by Argentines off of a German hull. The Germans thought the TAM as a concept was dumb and wanted Argentina to buy the Leopard 1. The newest version of the TAM is actually heavier than thr original Leopard 1 and had a 120mm gun. It's supposedly better protected now too but is pigfat af.
Yes it does. There are multiple upgeade versions of the TAM. Some with 105mm some with 120mm
11 months ago
Anonymous
>There are multiple upgeade versions of the TAM
Maybe in paper, but they are all virtually obsolete anyways.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Funny shit how the TAM could be quite relevant since the M10 Booker and the ZTQ-15 is a thing nowadays. Shame the country needs 100% focus on economy instead of ordering shit up.
No he wasn't. He thought something like this would be sufficient as a main battle tank. He was wrong for reasons that have been proven many, many times in wars since the 1970s, particular in the Gulf War and Arab-Israeli wars. This tank is designed solely to support infantry, which ironically puts it within the historical role of an infantry tank. The Army won't call it a light tank because a light tank is mainly used as a recon tank, but also because the Army loves dumb jargon and needs to make up stupid new names for things to justify their procurement budgets.
>the army went through all this trouble to make a new tank instead of firing up those old assembly lines and making m60s with m1 internals instead
shaking my head
>implying tanks weren't made on assembly lines
troonkari you do know that once an older tanks turret and hull were hatched from the casting sands it was sent to be assembled no?
Tripgay is correct you're actually fricking moronic.
11 months ago
Anonymous
What do you think those old production lines are doing these days?
All of these non arguments defending wasteful government spending. You must FSB shills trying to stir the pot
11 months ago
Anonymous
>All of these non arguments defending wasteful government spending. You must FSB shills trying to stir the pot
If I was an FSB shill I would be arguing for making the most expensive bullshit possible to drain the United States of its money.
11 months ago
Anonymous
You say that like a new tank isn't also expensive and draining the US of money it doesn't even have. How's the weather in Moscow, Pidor?
11 months ago
Anonymous
A little chilly ))
11 months ago
Anonymous
Please tell me what you think a tank factory might possibly be making in 2023. I'll give you a hint because I'm nice.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>only having one tank factory
that isn't the W you think it is m8
11 months ago
Anonymous
And yet that's how it is. There's more Abrams than the Army wants right now but they keep making more because shutting it down would get rid of a lot of expertise.
11 months ago
Anonymous
They should go ahead and shut the plant down if it will save some dollars. We can just outsource procurement to China and pick up some of their tanks in a pinch.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Shill detected who knows nothing of preserving industrial base.
Sheridan still suffers from the problems of
1. Damaging itself when it uses its gun
2. Being able to be perforated by anti-tank rifles in the 21st century
Last Sheridans weren't even scrapped, they were dumped into the ocean.
>light tank is mainly used as a recon tank
This is not true, especially since none of the "recent" light tank programms the US has made have been for recon as the primary purpose of the light tank (AGS, RDFLT, MPF, Sheridan), but rather direct fire support for light infantry.
The last light tank the US made for recon was the M41 Walker Bulldog
sheridan was never called a light tank
its officially called an airborn recovery vehicle/airborne assault vehicle
had the cold war gone hot, it would have been been deployed far forward to harass enemy units
making it a light tank/tank destroyer hybrid
the actual infantry gun duty, as in attached tank battalions supporting infantry, were the M60s
armored divisions would have split their tank units to reinforce infantry divisions
so the M10 booker is to replace the sheaden. thank frick.
I like light tanks yes it will be good for the pacific
105mm round is the most common round tons of these things after world war 2 and korea
most common rounds. using old stock up.
and those bridges can't handle most modern tanks anyway they where desgined for WW2 tanks 20~40tons.
any heavier and the bridges would fail.
they are all over the pacific
and the runways a real short as well.
the pacific is hard place to fight.
because its both mudy and sandy
and the mud gets real soft exspecially the soloman islands.
Oh and take alot of malria pills and mosquito nets you think the biting insects are bad on the mainland you haven't seen shit.
and get alot banages there isn't much cover on the islands.
and a ton of sand bags
no doubt all the world war two junk is all over those islands.
most of the bunkers have been blown up and became death traps and alot of them are flooded now might want to take water pumps with you as well.
>105mm round is the most common round tons of these things after world war 2 and korea
The 105mm is so common that the US had to procure more M393 and M456rounds for the meager amounts of vehicles in the MGS program.
The "muh ammunition is so common" doesn't work in the context of what the US actually have stockpiled. Probably the only decently stockpiled round is M900 funnily enough
I'm pretty sure most of the US 105mm stockpile has been sold to countries like Greece, Turkey and South Korea
No. They are armored fighting vehicles (AFV) with 105-120mm guns.
I bet you are also one of those dumb Black folk that call a 8x8 wheeled vehicle with 30-120mm gun, a infantry fighting vehicle (IFV).
If it looks like a tank then its a tank, anything else is semantics. Its got tracks, its got a turret, its got a big gun, those arent pre-requisites for being a tank, but theyre tank features which suggest that it is. Frankly as far as most people are concerned, AFV+gun=tank, even if it has wheels or is a casemate (if they still existed), you wont care if its shooting at you or you cant see it properly and autistically analyse it. A hull down wheeled TD 2km away will still be a tank to you even if it moves and you see the wheels.
No, they used them as tanks. They equipped armored battalions with them, fitted them out with three-man crews and operated independently of infantry units
You're too deep up your ass in meaningless semantics to see the obvious. A tank can be used as a tank. An IFV can be used as a tank. An APC can be used as a tank. An SPG can be used as a tank. A bulldozer with armor plating bolted onto it can be used as a tank.
It all depends on the environment it's in and what you've got.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>operated independently of infantry units
This part is new to me, I admit.
So what do we actually *know* about this thing so far? I watched the chieftan interview with the army representative, but he kept being unable to disclose certain things due to it being classified. I guess the new thing we know so far is the name. Honestly its a good name, but naming things after old civil war generals like Sheridan is pretty badass and black metal.
>A leo 1 is an MBT.
Technically yes, in actuality it's the carbon copy of this from 60 years earlier.
Designed for very much the same reasons (need something mobile against subhuman zerg rushes).
the M10 is based on the M60 so should be a match its just got more modern gear and should have twice the range of the M60.
as they fixed most of the M60's over heating issues and made it more resistant to emp.
emps will now have less effect on this vehicle.
thanks to the new lead lined casings
it should alot stronger than a bradley or BTR or any armored car.
its light based on weight.
because of composites.
its not 100% steel.
unlike the M60 it has modern composite armor so now the RPg7 should have little effect on it now.
think of this light tanks as just a mobile field gun on tracks.
it still can't fight off a T62 in a head to head though. but blow up bunkers and cold war tech no problem. and no the 50cal won't do shit on cosposite armor.
it just needs something to fight off drones.
and modern rockets and other field guns
and yes anon its still prone to mortor fire.
and artillery. but should be a ton tougher. and be more radation resistant and biological weapon resistant.
decent all rounder.
No.58548660
no moron the sheraden was comprising 1/3 of the us homeland security in 1999
it can't of changed that much and no those weapons are not even the 1/3 of the strenght of the M60 production unless you sold it to south america.
there more mnore M60's than there are abarms.
you can't get rid of hat many tanks that quickly
they are openly lying to you.
also canada still has those rounds if you want to "borrow" some
and so does mexico. and your neibour britain still has a ton of stuff and france as well, morrco and tisnisa you just lazy american.
the 105mm is extemely common.
no the 120MM was made during and after the gulf war it was never in high production.
once the M1A2 stop being made and was upgraded to the later M1A3 they stopped all together.
the striker was a 1990 vehicle and was always in low numbers.
not even a arguement.
the m60 was used in the first gulf war but not in the second.
so it had quite the run
now its just homeland security
>Jews
Interesting way to spell "Turks." Israel sells the Sabra upgrade package to Turkey. Tracks not included. Israel hasn't used the M60 as a tank in almost 20 years, all of its former M60s have been converted to heavy APCs, missile carriers, engineering vehicles, and other non-tanks.
>"This is a combat vehicle," he said, answering a question from a reporter during the briefing. "The historic task of light tanks has been to perform reconnaissance functions. [The M10] isn't a mission match, even though [it] sort of looks like, smells like, feels like [a light tank]."
It's more like historic role of the light tank of the 1920s-30s that we saw being used by the Soviets, Americans and French lmao, which was penny packets in infantry divisions.
"Booker" isn't a very awe-inspiring name
They could even have called it the Geronimo and I wouldn't have minded
>light tank of the 1920s-30s
that's just "tank"
https://i.imgur.com/LzflKOb.jpg
You know, the point of this being similar to cold war MBTs has me thinking of the battlecruiser evolution. What would have once been called a battleship gets called a battlecruiser simply because its contemporaries are so much bigger than it.
frick off, Alaska were hardly even WW1 battleship grade
Germany's first dreadnoughts had thicker armour
>frick off, Alaska were hardly even WW1 battleship grade >Germany's first dreadnoughts had thicker armour
I could have just as easily posted Scarnhorst or something but I knew Alaska would piss someone off
If you wanted a controversial but true take, you should have pointed out that the final evolution of battlecruisers was actually better or equal in just about every metric compared to contemporary battleships, and in the shape of the "fast battleships" of WW2 represent the final evolution of the big gun capital ship
11 months ago
Anonymous
That's encroaching on "Iowa was a battlecruiser" territory. I should have done that.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Iowa WAS a battlecruiser.
11 months ago
Anonymous
lol it's not actually a hot take, even by WW1 standards. The last "true" battlecruisers built by the RN and the IGN were Hood and Ersatz Yorck, they had big guns sure but also battleship-standard armour. "Fast battleship" is a nomenclature to differentiate these from the likes of Renowns, Lexingtons and Kongos.
I'd have preferred it to be air-droppable, Would have been worth the reduction in weight, especially if we have better active protection systems in the pipe.
The Sheridan was air droppable at the expense of needing to retreat if it ran into a heavy machine gun.
Much better to have a support vehicle capable of fighting BTRs and infantry armed with RPGs.
>A leo 1 is an MBT.
Technically yes, in actuality it's the carbon copy of this from 60 years earlier.
Designed for very much the same reasons (need something mobile against subhuman zerg rushes).
Yeah no. The Leo 1 was designed for MBT stuff. Even if it lacked the armor for it. This is an FSV while the Abrams does MBT stuff.
>The Leo 1 was designed for MBT stuff
Ugh, not really, no. >Even if it lacked the armor for it
It was specifically designed as a mobile 105mm gun first and foremost since commies would have six zillion more tanks per square inch of West Germany in case of invasion.
I'd be astonished if they didn't design in allowances for an aps. The DoD has been sitting on an aps for ages now waiting for it to mature. I'd bet this will get it when they start becoming standard
>unveiled with a drip pan
lmao. i'm just going to assume it's for stupid environmental reasons and not because the vehicle is a leaking mess already. looks great though. i like our little assault gun already
You know, the point of this being similar to cold war MBTs has me thinking of the battlecruiser evolution. What would have once been called a battleship gets called a battlecruiser simply because its contemporaries are so much bigger than it.
Alaska was a battlecruiser because it was designed to the original British battlecruiser doctrine, an overgrown armored cruiser designed to crush enemy cruisers with minimal viability in the line of battle
>original British battlecruiser doctrine, an overgrown armored cruiser designed to crush enemy cruisers [and kite enemy battleships at range] in the line of battle
FTFY
since Alaska doesn't have battleship-class guns and wasn't designed to snipe enemy battleships, it's not a battlecruiser
I'm baffled by how this piece of shit weighs 42 tons when the light weight Abrams idea from the 1990s weighed 46 tons. The 4 ton weight difference is probably solely due to Lightweight Abrams having a steel turret and this has an aluminum turret, the LT Abrams however has all crew members in the hull (similarish to AbramsX) and composite armor in the hull front.
What a lazy fricking design.
The original XM1 was extremely poorly protected for an MBT by modern standards, as was the LWAC.
https://i.imgur.com/s4wNZL6.jpg
Please tell me what you think a tank factory might possibly be making in 2023. I'll give you a hint because I'm nice.
You're a fricking moron.
The last m60 was built using the 80s, the production stopped and tooling sold off.
The last M60s being used as range targets were scrapped last year.
There's a better chance we bring back the M4 Sherman than the M60.
>There's a better chance we bring back the M4 Sherman than the M60.
How many companies can even make major castings like a sherman hull nowadays anyways?
Mexico was stilll using Sherman derived mortar carriers until 1991. They had modern Detroit Diesel engines. They still put them on display and on parades for independence day.
the M10 officially has "composite spaced armor" and "add-on armor" on its turret, which is vague but assumed to be a smaller version of the M1 abrams turret
so in combat, we could expect the turret to have NERA arrays or something depending on the situation
There is no magic composite armor fitted on any of the vehicles we have seen so far.
It's turret base + applique bolted on (similar to what we see on Bradley, probably high hardness steel) and then a sheet metal covering.
>105mm round is the most common round tons of these things after world war 2 and korea
The 105mm is so common that the US had to procure more M393 and M456rounds for the meager amounts of vehicles in the MGS program.
The "muh ammunition is so common" doesn't work in the context of what the US actually have stockpiled. Probably the only decently stockpiled round is M900 funnily enough
I'm pretty sure most of the US 105mm stockpile has been sold to countries like Greece, Turkey and South Korea
Wrong.
The cold war ammo was partially compromised due to age and poor storage. That's not the case now.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah, which is why the Army wants to bring a new round which is a downscaled 120mm AMP round, to replace (near non-existant stockpiles) HEAT,HEP and CAN rounds.
A new 105mm round that there are zero stockpiles for because it doesn't exist.
The stockpile argument doesn't fricking work especially when you add on top the Army had ~140 Stryker MGS and they want to order just over 500 M10s.
11 months ago
Anonymous
I mean, there is a shortage but from URK war. So much so that they might need to procure more.
Ah yes the famous 105mm guns in Ukrainian service..
11 months ago
Anonymous
"The provision of existing 105 mm
ammunition to Ukraine as part of current and future
Security Force Assistance efforts might also have an impact
on 105 mm ammunition availability for MPF systems."
11 months ago
Anonymous
On the Leopard 1A5 and T-55MS they operate the L7 gun. They also operate a bespoke French 105mm on the AMX-10RC, and 105mm light artillery.
>tank >assault gun
yeah you're right. the classes are different. only anti tank missiles can take down a tank. an assault gun is completely immune. likewise for the tank if they started using anti assault gun missiles against it.
It's the wrong type of missile for the job anyway. So of course the assault gun will be fine. You're not going to use a law against a hind are you? Just ridiculous
>So of course the assault gun will be fine
It's not going to be fine, because it's a fricking assault gun, and it is not designed to resist against anti tank missiles because it's not a tank.
11 months ago
Anonymous
The anti tank missile will go straight through, sparing the crew. Simple as.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>at 35 tonnes its too lightly armored to resist anti tank missiles
11 months ago
Anonymous
>35tons >41 tons >42 tons
make up your mind my dude. which weight is it?
11 months ago
Anonymous
that is the m2a4 bradley you fricking moron
11 months ago
Anonymous
>talking about the booker and assault guns >here's a bradley
now you're just trying to one-up me in the moron competition
11 months ago
Anonymous
>now you're just trying to one-up me in the moron competition
It's also around 35 tonnes and doesn't stand up to anti-tank missiles
Because, like the Booker, it is not a tank.
11 months ago
Yukari
It's 38 metric tons / 42 long(US) tons
Again, this is the same weight as the newest Bradley. While not needing a troop compartment - so it could be more heavily armored. Could.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>so it could be more heavily armored. Could.
Which I'm sure you know, being an armored officer and design manager on the Booker.
11 months ago
Yukari
11 months ago
Anonymous
We've already established that it's good against anti tank missiles since it's not a tank
11 months ago
Anonymous
>While not needing a troop compartment
It does "have" a troop compartment though, probably filled with ammunition instead. It's based off an IFV hull so that volume used for the troop compartment in the rear is not going to disappear, and that's the issues with these IFV tanks. They are very volume innefficient
the 30-ton ASCOD it uses as a base for its hull has 30mm APDS protection with add-on composite armor
the ceramic/steel composite used in the ASCOD has x0.8 protection compared to steel of the same thickness but x3.5 the protection for a given weight
>What is the point of this?
lighter vehicle for use in IBCTs
its 20 tons lighter, has more compact dimensions, and is intended to be used in battalion sized elements spread out across infantry divisions
unlike an ABCT, which has organic engineering and sustainment units to keep them operational at all times, a MPF battalion has to rely on itself for maintenance and engineering
> Dont the amerimutts have like 4k M1s in storage?
M1s are used in ABCTs for maneuver and breakthrough
using them in the infantry support role is a highly inefficient strategy
The M1 MBT is an all purpose.vehicle though, it can maneuver, perform infantry support, or take on armour, if the argument was to get these at the same time as procuring the M10 then i'd get it, but the mutts already have thousands of M1s lying around, i dont see why they cant use an objectively better armoured vehicle with better firepower, and presumably similar speed and maneuverability (unless this M10 goes like 100 km/h), it just would seem to do anything an M10 can do better, and cheaper as they already exist. If its purely a matter of logistics, then is an M1 really that much logistically more burdensome than the M10, of which we know almost nothing? Also if this is for an IBCT then surely thats on a brigade level and should have its own support company for armour anyways?
>The M1 MBT is an all purpose.vehicle though, it can maneuver, perform infantry support, or take on armour,
M1s are concentrated into ABCTs
the infantry they support are mech inantry, though more likely the mech infantry are supporting them
their strategic role is to be used as an offensive arm
>Also if this is for an IBCT then surely thats on a brigade level and should have its own support company for armour anyways?
an entire infantry division gets a MPF battalion
just a battalion, to be split up and used to reinforce IBCTs as needed
this means that they are going to need to be lighter, easier to maintain, and require smaller sustainment units
So this is just for these independent battalions not the standard ICBTs? Surely if these battalions are being split up and attached to ICBTs, then they are probably within the same division for an extended period of time, if not permanently, and could rely on the brigade or divisional maintenance units? Couldnt issues just be resolved by expanding the brigade/divisional maintenance? And wont there be the problem of creating yet another supply chain except this time its for many small units which each need to individually be supplied?
>The M1 MBT is an all purpose.vehicle though, it can maneuver, perform infantry support, or take on armour,
M1s are concentrated into ABCTs
the infantry they support are mech inantry, though more likely the mech infantry are supporting them
their strategic role is to be used as an offensive arm
>Also if this is for an IBCT then surely thats on a brigade level and should have its own support company for armour anyways?
an entire infantry division gets a MPF battalion
just a battalion, to be split up and used to reinforce IBCTs as needed
this means that they are going to need to be lighter, easier to maintain, and require smaller sustainment units
MPF battalions were made by the requirements of the army for a direct fire vehicle to support infantry
and thats why its smaller and lighter than an M1, its not intended to fight enemy tanks but needs to easily fit into the leaner structure of an infantry division
not requiring a engineering brigade to set up bridging solutions and provide the necessary sustainment for a heavy vehicle was what they wanted, and assigning an M1 battalion to infantry would necessitate that
back in the cold war, they could just use legacy vehicles like the M60 or M4 sherman for infantry tank battalions so they could free up M1s or M46s for mechanized units, but now that M60s are no longer stocked in any appreciable quantity, they kind of need a new vehicle to fit that niche
>now that M60s are no longer stocked in any appreciable quantity, they kind of need a new vehicle to fit that niche
there's also only so far you can stretch a chassis
baking in the new electronics and shit into a new chassis can be way more efficient
So this is just for these independent battalions not the standard ICBTs? Surely if these battalions are being split up and attached to ICBTs, then they are probably within the same division for an extended period of time, if not permanently, and could rely on the brigade or divisional maintenance units? Couldnt issues just be resolved by expanding the brigade/divisional maintenance? And wont there be the problem of creating yet another supply chain except this time its for many small units which each need to individually be supplied?
>standard IBCTs
they get them as well, and also Stryker BCTs in place of the MGS >they are probably within the same division for an extended period of time, if not permanently, and could rely on the brigade or divisional maintenance units
theoretically yes except now that divisions are the operational unit of manoeuvre, the division commander will want the option to task allocate them en masse as well >Couldnt issues just be resolved by expanding the brigade/divisional maintenance
it's not about who has the maintenance assets, it's about who has ultimate control over where they're deployed >wont there be the problem of creating yet another supply chain except this time its for many small units which each need to individually be supplied
why should there be? what's the alternative?
It's also 70 tons and has a fuel efficiency of gallons per mile. It is still the "main" battle tank, but one has to conceit it's simply too big for many types of terrain and bridges where the infantry the M10 would be attached to operate.
I don’t know why so many anons struggle with this. The MPF program was to fulfill a capability gap the Army has been struggling with for decades, heavy fire support for light infantry reaction forces. No, that’s not the Stryker which ended up forming an intermediate force (the Stryker BCT). The infantry BCTs needed something and that’s where the M10 is going.
I have a question. One of the many reasons the Chally gets shat on is it's 120mm rifled cannon, with many people saying there's now no difference in accuracy between rifled and smoothbore cannons and how they have a longer life.
But now both the Booker and Type 15 use rifled cannons, not to mention the MGS. My question is why are the lighter vehicles using rifled cannons? What are the advantages over smoothbore?
HESH had a valid use during its era when tanks had primarily monolithic steel turrets that readily spalled, it's outdated now but there's no need for exaggeration.
HESH was never the main anti-tank round when at the same time HEAT and APDS existed.
It's a meme pushed by the British. I bet the only reason we "regard" HESH's anti-armor performance was because it has had extensive armor tests done it vs HE . The only comparative performance of HESH of captured Chieftain 120mm ammo vs HE was done by the Soviets, but they didn't note down after-armor effect, instead the energies at various frequencies, where 120mm HESH is better vs 125mm HE-Frag at low angle but worse vs angled plate
HESH main purpose is anti-fort, since it will knock large holes in walls
and has a significant concussive effect due to oversized HE filler
effect on steel armor is just considered a bonus
>HESH main purpose is anti-fort
Which is funny since delayed fuze HE is much better vs fortifications
11 months ago
Anonymous
smart HE shells are better at clearing rooms of people by detonating inside it
but HESH is better at physically destroying the building, since it transfers all of its energy directly into the point of impact
11 months ago
Anonymous
>smart
variable fuzed has existed for a long time >HESH >better at damaging the building
Which is why 120mm M908 (which is a 80mm saboted delayed-fuzed HEAT frickup of a shell is equal to 165mm HESH vs dual reinforced concrete.
Your logic clearly doesn't work, because the best way to destroy the structure is for the shell to explode either inside the structure or inside the wall, that way the pressure wave does the most damage.
11 months ago
Anonymous
HEAT is useless against buildings due to low HE charge from the shaped charge using up all the internal space
if you want to knock a building down, HESH is still the go to because it has a larger payload and better energy transfer
11 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah M908 is an M830A1 with the programmable fuze replaced with a steel penetrating cap and a delayed fuze for structures. It retains the HEAT warhead even if it's functionally useless and just has HE effect and to US testing was equal vs the 165mm HESH round used by the M728.
As I say >HESH >still the way to go >better energy transfer
Fricking lmao
>M908
L32 HESH has 25% more explosive fill
>Hurr durr the amount of boom you have is the ONLY thing that matters, nothing about the casing, nothing about the fuzing
This shows the level of intelligence i'm dealing with
Shows the level of troglodyte I'm evidently dealing with
11 months ago
Anonymous
I was just stating a fact, frickface
11 months ago
Anonymous
You've stated an irrelevant factoid that shows your stupidity.
Yeah HESH has a huge amount of explosive for it's weight. Good job moron, doesn't mean it performs good. HESH is garbage that rides of 60 years of Bong propoganda coping on why they kept HESH on Challenger 2. >Against homogenous armor
HEAT is better
HE-F is equal or not much worse >Against infantry in the open
HEAT is better
HE-F is MUCH better >against infantry in trenches >HEAT is also garbage >HE-F set to delay (+ supersensitive) is much better (either ricochet of hard ground or explode in tree canopies if set to supersensitve.) >against bunkers
HEAT is worse
HE-F set to delay is much better (when a 80mm delay fuzed HEAT warhead smekalka'd as a Semi-armor piercing round performs better then 165mm HESH, you know it's fricking shit
If HESH was garbage then GBR wouldnt have used it for like 70 years and still want to use it going forwards, theyre not stupid (aside from whoever designed the warrior's turret-but thats being replaced). HE is better for anti infantry but for destroying buildings/fortifications HESH has more explosive and transfers force better.
https://i.imgur.com/CN34cco.png
Yeah M908 is an M830A1 with the programmable fuze replaced with a steel penetrating cap and a delayed fuze for structures. It retains the HEAT warhead even if it's functionally useless and just has HE effect and to US testing was equal vs the 165mm HESH round used by the M728.
As I say >HESH >still the way to go >better energy transfer
Fricking lmao
[...] >Hurr durr the amount of boom you have is the ONLY thing that matters, nothing about the casing, nothing about the fuzing
This shows the level of intelligence i'm dealing with
Shows the level of troglodyte I'm evidently dealing with
'Performs better', it doesnt tell us by what metric or how they decided this
>theyre not stupid
Stupid sums up British armored vehicle development as a whole (Challenger 2 is an amazing example of this) and HESH is the result of 70 years of sunk-cost.
HESH is worse then delayed fuze HE, always has been, always will be.
HE has the option of being immediate impact for anti-infantry or delayed impact for buildings and light armor and non of this is "smart"
Almost all the ammo in our inventory that is 105mm were optimized for a rifled gun. We've essentially been using the same concept since the 105 was first adopted.
If most of what you're doing is being a support weapon system, the types of ammo you're using is better with a rifled gun. The 105 inventory is pretty varied.
There really isn't much of a reason to adopt a smooth bore variant when we already have a stockpile of 105.
https://i.imgur.com/29oPIi0.jpg
What happened to naming vehicles after famous generals?
Or animals. Like the Hellcat. I think we should name it after an animal. I was thinking about calling it the M10 Wolverine. Sounds catchy.
Feels like it has the same role as the AMX-10, but with tracks. Probably because the Stryker MGS didn't work out very well. Like that Polish CV-90 variant that looked like it was from C&C Generals.
>The M10’s name honors two soldiers killed in combat, including one from the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003. Staff Sgt. Stevon A. Booker was a tank commander posthumously awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for his actions during the ‘Thunder Run’ raid on Baghdad that opened the Iraq war. Pvt. Robert D. Booker was an infantryman in World War II who was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for heroism in combat in Tunisia in 1943.
Neat
>Why aren't tube-launched ATGMs a thing anymore?
russians still use them
israelis developed one for their 120mm guns
the niche it fills in russian armies just isnt really a thing yet in US armies
russians use it to give extra stand-off range, since it has better accuracy at max range than sabot rounds and so can force enemy tanks to respect that range
US forces would prefer to just close the distance and engage them with sabot if its a target they need to engage
or if its something they can afford to keep at arms length, then they can leave it to get hit by air power or bypass it entirely
>Why aren't tube-launched ATGMs a thing anymore
Russhits use them, although the AFU reported that captured T-72s don't actually have many of those missiles (big surprise) in stock
they're not as popular as in WGRD because tanks can play hide and seek much more easily when micro'd full time
Longer/harder to reload, longer time on target (have to guide it in, and its not very fast compared to a KE round). Missiles also did (do?) have a much shorter shelf life than KE munitions, and are each more expensive.
Probably a better example is the m8 Scott, I realized after I posted that. That was just straight up a fire support vehicle rather than a combat tank, unlike the Sheridan
its 90% the weight of a t-90 and has higher ground pressure than a t-90 while having worse armor, worse gun, worse mobility, better reverse speed, and presumably better sensors
it doesn't fit in a c-130
it cant be airdropped
and US ground force commanders dont know how to use assault guns
and it will be forced to fight MBTs if an IBCT comes up against them
it's not meant to fight T-90s
nothing fits in a C-130 any more, not even a fricking IFV
nobody cares that it can't be airdropped, airdropping was never the requirement
US ground commanders have been crying for assault guns because they've been using Bradleys as assault guns, inadequately
an IBCT has gajillions of Javelins to engage that T-90 with
anything else, you fricking boomer?
ABCTs have javelins too....
do you seriously think the ground force commander is going to have his infantry get mushed by tanks when a perfectly good tank shaped assault gun is available to go die for him instead
again exactly what happened in training and exactly what will happen agian. just painting the words 'assault gun' on it and constantly reminding people that its an assault gun by doctrine is not going to stop it dying fighting tanks
>no shit
so why are you bringing this up, dipshit >it fought tanks and got mauled
and now those commanders know not to use it to fight tanks with
do you want to exhaustively list all the other shit that people learn at NTC? >infantry fight at NTC, get mauled >HURR DURR THE AGE OF INFANTRY IS DEAD
>US ground commanders have been crying for assault guns because they've been using Bradleys as assault guns, inadequately
Why don't they just upgun the Bradley then?
it's not meant to fight T-90s
nothing fits in a C-130 any more, not even a fricking IFV
nobody cares that it can't be airdropped, airdropping was never the requirement
US ground commanders have been crying for assault guns because they've been using Bradleys as assault guns, inadequately
an IBCT has gajillions of Javelins to engage that T-90 with
anything else, you fricking boomer?
11 months ago
Anonymous
well, that's the result of >Why don't they just upgun the Bradley
any more bright ideas?
so its a very poorly designed assault gun with fricked up requirements that is not very capable for its weight or size....
yes I really want the infantry to have assault guns and I think its an awesome capability. I just dont think the M10 brooker is the best way to do it...
how the MGS fit into the SBCT was a closer match for what it should have been (technical issues asside that could have been fixed instead of divesting it completly)
BUT given that toy, they eventually had to take it away
so now they're just repeating the same thing with the IBCT, but with an even worse vehicle for its job than the MGS is
the MGS fits smoothly into an SBCT by being a common chassis with the exact same mobility characteristics and spare parts as its parent unit
vs a completly new chassis, in an airborne unit thats heaviest vehicle is some humvees in a single company. and it does not share the mobility characteristics of the rest of the brigade or even the deployability characteristics.
its not even more deployable than an MBT. they could just cross attach MBTs if they're going to logistically support the M10.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>they could just cross attach MBTs if they're going to logistically support the M10.
thats literally what they wanted to avoid doing
the solution to "we need a lighter vehicle to slip into infantry divisions than an MBT" is not to slap an MBT in there
11 months ago
Anonymous
>"we need a lighter vehicle to slip into infantry divisions than an MBT"
yes and the one they went with is just as logistically demanding as an MBT and has the same strategic and tactical mobility
11 months ago
Anonymous
>yes and the one they went with is just as logistically demanding as an MBT
the M10 is lighter than an M1 abrams and does not need a dedicated engineering battalion to support it
>and has the same strategic and tactical mobility
strategic mobility is better, due to not needing an engineering battalion
11 months ago
Anonymous
what makes the M10 inherently more self-recoverable than the abrams.
I imagine the answer is that they want the abrams to do things like breach obstacles so it needs engineering support. and they can also much easier support an engineering unit inside a mech unit. obviously an ibct cannot support a mechanized engineering unit...
11 months ago
Anonymous
>what makes the M10 inherently more self-recoverable than the abrams.
for starters, its more than 10 tons lighter
>bviously an ibct cannot support a mechanized engineering unit
you could attach M1s, an enginering unit to an infantry division
and then why not add M2 bradleys so the infantry can best make use of the M1s mobility
and now that its a very heavy unit, we should commit it to the heaviest fighting
and now we need to raise a lighter division to replace it without all that equipment
and we shall give them the M10 in place of the M1, since its a lighter, less demanding unit, that was made according to the criteria an infantry division asked for
11 months ago
Anonymous
>its a very poorly designed assault gun
once again, I wonder if you're just a moron or disingenuous
>fricked up requirements
go on smart boy, what are your requirements? >is not very capable for its weight or size
you try doing better >how the MGS fit into the SBCT was a closer match
except it didn't work. next. >given that toy, they eventually had to take it away
WRONG
it was decommed because of its technical shortcomings, nothing to do with its tactical conops >by being a common chassis with the exact same mobility characteristics and spare parts as its parent unit
except it turned out that they couldn't properly fit a 105mm into that requirement set >an airborne unit thats heaviest vehicle is some humvees in a single company
JLTVs, and irrelevant >it does not share the mobility characteristics of the rest of the brigade or even the deployability characteristics
also irrelevant
they're an option not a fricking requirement >its not even more deployable than an MBT
WRONG >they could just cross attach MBTs
WRONG
in all the patrols ive ever done in the infantry that weren't COIN barely any of them could have an M10 trundling alongside us. apart from setpiece raids and defenses where we would have had to coordinate and have it meet us via the road which means that it might as well have been an abrams
>which means that it might as well have been an abrams
WRONG
>"we need a lighter vehicle to slip into infantry divisions than an MBT"
yes and the one they went with is just as logistically demanding as an MBT and has the same strategic and tactical mobility
>just as logistically demanding as an MBT and has the same strategic and tactical mobility
WRONG
what makes the M10 inherently more self-recoverable than the abrams.
I imagine the answer is that they want the abrams to do things like breach obstacles so it needs engineering support. and they can also much easier support an engineering unit inside a mech unit. obviously an ibct cannot support a mechanized engineering unit...
>what makes the M10 inherently more self-recoverable than the abrams
weight alone is already a significant advantage, idiot
11 months ago
Anonymous
>weight alone is already a significant advantage, idiot
but it weighs as much as a t-90, who also role around with dedicated engineering support lol
11 months ago
Anonymous
why are you disingenuously equating a T-90 with an Abrams?
11 months ago
Anonymous
>>just as logistically demanding as an MBT and has the same strategic and tactical mobility >WRONG
errrm yes you need a C-17 to get it in theater just like an abrams : )
why are you disingenuously equating a T-90 with an Abrams?
>why are you disingenuously equating a T-90 with an Abrams?
im comparing and contrasting it to the M10 because they weight the same. except the T-90 has less elbow room. but higher fuel range, lower ground pressure, better tactical mobility (sans reverse speed), better gun, and better armor
>what makes the M10 inherently more self-recoverable than the abrams.
for starters, its more than 10 tons lighter
>bviously an ibct cannot support a mechanized engineering unit
you could attach M1s, an enginering unit to an infantry division
and then why not add M2 bradleys so the infantry can best make use of the M1s mobility
and now that its a very heavy unit, we should commit it to the heaviest fighting
and now we need to raise a lighter division to replace it without all that equipment
and we shall give them the M10 in place of the M1, since its a lighter, less demanding unit, that was made according to the criteria an infantry division asked for
>for starters, its more than 10 tons lighter
see
>weight alone is already a significant advantage, idiot
but it weighs as much as a t-90, who also role around with dedicated engineering support lol
>what makes the M10 inherently more self-recoverable than the abrams.
for starters, its more than 10 tons lighter
>bviously an ibct cannot support a mechanized engineering unit
you could attach M1s, an enginering unit to an infantry division
and then why not add M2 bradleys so the infantry can best make use of the M1s mobility
and now that its a very heavy unit, we should commit it to the heaviest fighting
and now we need to raise a lighter division to replace it without all that equipment
and we shall give them the M10 in place of the M1, since its a lighter, less demanding unit, that was made according to the criteria an infantry division asked for
>and we shall give them the M10 in place of the M1, since its a lighter, less demanding unit,
barely
>except it turned out that they couldn't properly fit a 105mm into that requirement set
technical issues could have been solved by moving to the V hull chassis. they divested the capability because they weren't using it properly EVEN THOUGH it fit much much more smoothly into an SBCT than a m10 will ever fit into an IBCT seeing as the M10 is a completly new class of vehicle that weighs 4 times as much as a JLTV
11 months ago
Anonymous
>you need a C-17 to get it in theater
that's not the only measure of mobility, and anyway everything heavier than a JLTV basically needs C-17s >im comparing and contrasting it to the M10
no you're not, you're disingenuously saying "the T-90 is better than the M10 so why not just use an M1" >the T-90 has less elbow room. but higher fuel range, lower ground pressure, better tactical mobility (sans reverse speed), better gun, and better armor
and far worse sensors and optics which you conveniently left out >who also role around with dedicated engineering support
not as much as an M1 does >barely
WRONG >moving to the V hull chassis
debatably, but a V-hull would also need a C-17 to ship and isn't air droppable either, so point your own criticism at your own stupid idea >they divested the capability because they weren't using it properly
WRONG >the M10 is a completly new class of vehicle that weighs 4 times as much as a JLTV
so what? a Stryker MGS DVH would clock in at near 30 tons as well, so once again, direct your own criticism at yourself
you can't come up with a better idea sweaty so frick off
the T-90 is so light because it sacrificed as much internal space as possible to reduce the surface area that needs protecting
it would be a sub-optimal infantry support vehicle if used in that manner because it has very little elevation, gun depression, and would tire the crew out quickly in combat due to reduced elbow room
the cramped interior is less of a hindrance in its intended role of breaking through enemy lines as it will be replaced by a fresh platoon once its reached its destination
but if its trundling along with infantry on extended missions then crew fatigue will be a major issue
11 months ago
Anonymous
in all the patrols ive ever done in the infantry that weren't COIN barely any of them could have an M10 trundling alongside us. apart from setpiece raids and defenses where we would have had to coordinate and have it meet us via the road which means that it might as well have been an abrams
>its not meant to fight T-90s
Ok but that doesnt mean it wont, or even that it likely wont, the battalion is (theoretically) going to face enemies, those enemies might have tanks. If its a soviet style mechanised formation then at the battalion level they almost inevitably will have at least a squadron of tanks attached to a given battalion, iirc they have 34 tanks in a tank regiment-plus one MR battalion, and 41 tanks in a MR Regiment''s tank company, attached to 3 motor rifle battalions in IFVs/AFVs, Then a Motor rifle division has usually.2 motor rifle regiments and 1 armoured regiments, as well as an AT battalion.i.e. there is almost always a tank. Those tanks might be T-90s, and they'll engage the battalion and its assets, including the M10. In turn the M10 is itself a tank, which is a large target, and has a 105mm gun, which is an obvious threat which stands out from the IFVs or wheeled vehicles, and will be the priority target both for enemy armour and enemy AT teams, therefore as its going to be a priority target and its going to be engaged by enemy tanks if it is ever involved in a near-peer conflict, it ought to just be an MBT. Yes it could be pulled back while AT teams try and engage enemy armour, but that leaves enemy armour able lay down supporting fire while the M10 is absent, or even if the tanks are destroyed its still more vulnerable to AT than an MBT, which is hard to completely avoid.by positioning alone while trying to support the infantry at the same time If its lighter weight and lack of firepower/protection is for deployability reasons, then it would need to be much lighter than it has been stated to be. As it is, it seems to be a cool project to build a new tank, but not really an improvement in any way.
>those enemies might have tanks
if an infantry brigade meets tanks, its first option is not not to deploy the M10s to fight those tanks head on
they will instead use their javelins as the main defense and use the M10s as a supporting arm for the javelins
because thats what the M10 is, an attached unit to provide additional firepower to infantry, not an MBT
it is not meant to radically alter the way an infantry unit fights, especially not against enemy tanks, its meant to give them more tactical options in combat
>As it is, it seems to be a cool project to build a new tank, but not really an improvement in any way.
it fills a tactical niche that the army wanted filled, regimental infantry tank battalions
they arent replacing M1 abrams in any role, they are adding a anti-fort/anti-infantry weapon to a formation that usually gets no such vehicle
If the M10s cant effectively engage tanks, and the infantry are relying exclusively on javelins, doesnt that require a certain ability to acquire targets and not get shot while doing so? Because one of the big advantages of a modern NATO MBT over an infantryman with a rocket launcher are the; high magnification/quality thermals+commander hunter-killer, the ability to very rapidly reposition, the ability to rapidly put multiple shots on target, and being bulletproof+resistant to many anti materiel or even anti tank weapons from the right aspect. The ability to set up and hope for the enemy to oblige is also not always an option, especially if the infantry is assaulting a position, and the team is at a closer range with obstructing terrain and in range of enemy infantry+IFVs. There is also the issue that people will slip up sometimes, and getting the drop on an M10 will be more lethal than on an M1. I understand that javelins etc are powerful and meant to be the 'primary' AT solution, but really an MBT can both provide additional firepower for the infantry, and much more potent AT abilities, while being more surviveable for the crew, i dont understand why the M10, which seemingly isnt actually light enough to be appreciably easier to deploy (i could be wrong about this?), or faster than a 70 km/h M1, is a choice over just using an M1 or a stripped down version of it, does it even have blowout panels?
I get they arent replacing the M1 in a role, but why not just give them an M1 for the role? They already have them.
You have to go back to the foundational Army understanding of 21st century combat to know how the MPF requirements came about.
>that leaves enemy armour able lay down supporting fire while the M10 is absent
Nope
In modern combat, dug-in infantry beats everything
>while trying to support the infantry at the same time
It's not going to
The MPF is for digging said enemy dug-in infantry out of bunkers
The Army specced 105mm precisely because Bushmaster wasn't doing this job well, and missiles are too expensive
>not really an improvement in any way
It's not meant to supplant Abrams in firepower and protection
it's meant to be more mobile than Abrams, which it is
[...]
this
Idk, whats dug in infantry going to do when it needs to move? Or vs artillery? Or CAS? Or a tank at 3km using the terrain and its thermals to harass them with HE while screened by its own infantry?
If its just a bunker/position buster, and nothing more, isnt that something the javelin can do too? Or an IFV? Bradleys have missiles. Shouldnt it be easier to use a javelin on a static position than using a javelin on a tank?
infantry want tanks
M1 abrams too heavy and needs a dedicated support battalion
so they get M10 instead, basically M1 that weights less
do you get it?
of they wanted M1s to be in an infantry division they would have asked for M1s
11 months ago
Anonymous
What weight is too heavy, and by which metric does too heavy become too heavy? The 105 M1s were like 50ish tonnes, which seems to be the same as the heavier end of the M10s.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>What weight is too heavy
look up why the Russians tried to keep their T-64s/72s/80s down to ~45 tons
11 months ago
Anonymous
What governs the weight limit tho? And the M10 goes to like 48 tonnes so is that too heavy? I understand heavy=inconvenient to move, but arent even the russian tanks on like 55 tonnes these days anyways? Perhaps its a matter of logistics improving as well?
11 months ago
Anonymous
>What governs the weight limit
civvy road infrastructure
Infantry never assault a position? What exactly is the role of an attached infantry battalion in a modern ICBT? Tanks are integrated at battalion level in many militaries, and the battalion is generally the smallest operational unit, so it seems like they are going to have to face equivalent or near-equivalent enemy units with advantages in firepower, all other things being equal?
True but when it comes to tanks thats whats lead to modern MBT design, the aim is see first+shoot first, and keep screened with infantry, but the reality is that doesnt always happen, so now we have the technology to do so, we have 68 tonne MBTs which can take an apfsds to the ufp and an rpg blast to the skirts.
How fast does an infantry brigade move? I was under the impression that many infantry brigades had IFVs, and only certain 'light' ones did not. Isnt the 72 km/h max speed of an M1 actually much faster than a bradley? On that topic, how fast is the M10 supposed to go? If its less than 70 then surely its less suitable?
I get the logic behind the exercises which justify MPF, it just seems to me that racing to a position uncontested, then digging in, and winning in one scenario on a clock is not the whole picture, do you have a link or something to a study from these exercises?
I've seen a lot of ranges of weight, i'd admit a 38 tonne MPF is significantly lighter, but less so the 48 tonne one. What is the weight limit for deployability? Doesnt it pretty much need to be a C-17 or C-5 anyways? Unless the limit is for railways or flatbeds?
Ok fine ammo cheaper, but javelins were used in afghanistan for this kind of thing by infantry alone.
>role of an attached infantry battalion in a modern ICBT
hold ground >Tanks are integrated at battalion level
yes, but what kind of battalion? 😉 >they are going to have to face equivalent or near-equivalent enemy units with advantages in firepower, all other things being equal?
and the US Army determined that a dug-in infantry brigade beats all comers, all else being equal
this finding was not without controversy I assure you, but from it stemmed the Stryker program and all the other 8x8s and 8x8 doctrine of NATO and even the JGSDF >How fast does an infantry brigade move?
Operationally, faster than every other kind of formation
2nd Cavalry Regiment has been demonstrating its ability to quickly reinforce the NATO front line from Germany for nearly a decade now
Infantry never assault a position? What exactly is the role of an attached infantry battalion in a modern ICBT? Tanks are integrated at battalion level in many militaries, and the battalion is generally the smallest operational unit, so it seems like they are going to have to face equivalent or near-equivalent enemy units with advantages in firepower, all other things being equal?
True but when it comes to tanks thats whats lead to modern MBT design, the aim is see first+shoot first, and keep screened with infantry, but the reality is that doesnt always happen, so now we have the technology to do so, we have 68 tonne MBTs which can take an apfsds to the ufp and an rpg blast to the skirts.
How fast does an infantry brigade move? I was under the impression that many infantry brigades had IFVs, and only certain 'light' ones did not. Isnt the 72 km/h max speed of an M1 actually much faster than a bradley? On that topic, how fast is the M10 supposed to go? If its less than 70 then surely its less suitable?
I get the logic behind the exercises which justify MPF, it just seems to me that racing to a position uncontested, then digging in, and winning in one scenario on a clock is not the whole picture, do you have a link or something to a study from these exercises?
I've seen a lot of ranges of weight, i'd admit a 38 tonne MPF is significantly lighter, but less so the 48 tonne one. What is the weight limit for deployability? Doesnt it pretty much need to be a C-17 or C-5 anyways? Unless the limit is for railways or flatbeds?
Ok fine ammo cheaper, but javelins were used in afghanistan for this kind of thing by infantry alone.
>What is the weight limit for deployability
~45 tons >but javelins were used in afghanistan for this kind of thing by infantry
from which experience they decided it really was too damn expensive
they also used the Bradley's Bushmasters as assault guns and found them incredibly inefficient, using up entire vehicle-loads just to blast out one bunker
all this is nothing new by the way, it's documented in all the reasons put forward for 105mm support guns
>What exactly is the role of an attached infantry battalion in a modern ICBT?
infantry arent attached to an IBCT
they are the main component
>Tanks are integrated at battalion level in many militaries, and the battalion is generally the smallest operational unit, so it seems like they are going to have to face equivalent or near-equivalent enemy units with advantages in firepower, all other things being equal?
the MPF is going to be attached at the divisional level
this is more or less how its done in other countries that have attached tank units, either divisional or regimental tank units
> I was under the impression that many infantry brigades had IFVs, and only certain 'light' ones did not
an armored brigade has IFVs
an ABCT carries 3 companies of tanks and 3 companies of mech infantry riding in IFVs
they are deployed in combined armes teams consisting of varying numbers of tanks to mech infantry depending on the situation
an IBCT consists of battalions of infantry who are footmobile
their trucks are for operational mobility and they dismount before entering combat and are only armed for self-defense (if at all), though they are authorized to equip JLTVs for combat if needed
an infantry division will be composed primarily of 3 IBCTs along with their associated support like recon, artillery, etc
one of these supporting units is a tank battalion consisting of the M10s
divisional command will commit the battalion to the battle as needed to reinforce units that need them
and before we got to forming infantry divisions, all this also applied to IBCTs
nothing very new here IOW
>if the infantry is assaulting a position
infantry will NOT assault a superior enemy
that's for the Armoured Divisions to do >people will slip up
so equip the whole damn army with Abrams MBTs and Namer-type Abrams IFVs? not going to work >an MBT can
not move as fast as the infantry brigade can, and that's that
an M10 that's present can do all that better than an M1 that's left behind >i could be wrong about this
you are >why not just give them an M1
M1s are too slow
>whats dug in infantry going to do when it needs to move
move, and faster than it would if it had Abrams to carry along >isnt that something the javelin can do too? Or an IFV?
reread the comment you replied to, if you're too lazy to, I won't bother writing
Through exercises, the US Army determined that given two brigades of equal strength with equal supporting assets (artillery, radar, CAS, etc), one infantry and the other mechanised, the infantry brigade will win if it can dig in. if you give both units the same objective, the one who can get there faster and dig in first wins.
on that basis the Army designed its infantry to move fast and dig in, which is where the mobility requirement becomes especially important. you can't wait around all day for bridging and POL to do their thing. on the same basis it also designed its units to blow dug-in enemy out of their bunkers efficiently and effectively.
see where the MPF fits in that doctrine?
Missiles are expensive for sure, but are they more expensive than commissioning 500 new tanks, it isnt like the missiles arent going to be procured anyways, esp with how many are being given to ukraine. Expense is part of the reason for KE guns on MBTs, but in this case they could just use an MBT, if they really want the 105 on a 50-60 tonne chasis then surely they could just drag the 105 M1s out of storage?
>50-60 tonne chasis
MPF is significantly lighter
>Missiles are expensive for sure, but are they more expensive than commissioning 500 new tanks
Yes
ANY NATO AFV costs north of 10 million dollars now. So forget all that "what if Bradley, M60, M1" bullshit, the chassis alone will all cost at least that much. Now let's talk ammo. 105mm is likely 7-10x cheaper than a Javelin missile. Do the math.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>infantry will NOT assault a superior enemy
assaulting positions is literally infantry's main job, moron >that's for the Armoured Divisions to do
no it isn't. armored divisions are exploitation forces. they might be able to break through weak defensive lines, but against a full multi-layered defense clearing a path for them is and always has been the job of the infantry.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Not true since 1991, dipshit
11 months ago
Anonymous
>but against a full multi-layered defense clearing a path for them is and always has been the job of the infantry.
thats the job of the reinforced heavy division
for when no flank is available and forcing your way directly through a defender area is the only option left, the reinforced heavy division is the main use
it trades a stryker brigade for a third armored brigade and adds an additional engineering brigade to ensure no obstacle can stop them for long
they bring heavily concentrated firepower to create a breakthrough and then maneuver within the enemy battle space to force the defenders to abandon their current positions to react to them
then heavy divisions come in and relieve the reinforced heavy division and to defeat each defending unit in detail and complete the encirclement
infantry divisions are meant to both attack and defend, but at a smaller scale than the armored divisions
11 months ago
Anonymous
not a good description >at a smaller scale
ie bullying a weaker enemy force, or flanking to take and hold unprotected terrain
they're only intended to fight against an equivalent enemy force on the defensive, preferably dug in
Suck a wiener chang
he's not a chang, he's repeating US fringe right bullshit
11 months ago
Anonymous
Infantry never assault a position? What exactly is the role of an attached infantry battalion in a modern ICBT? Tanks are integrated at battalion level in many militaries, and the battalion is generally the smallest operational unit, so it seems like they are going to have to face equivalent or near-equivalent enemy units with advantages in firepower, all other things being equal?
True but when it comes to tanks thats whats lead to modern MBT design, the aim is see first+shoot first, and keep screened with infantry, but the reality is that doesnt always happen, so now we have the technology to do so, we have 68 tonne MBTs which can take an apfsds to the ufp and an rpg blast to the skirts.
How fast does an infantry brigade move? I was under the impression that many infantry brigades had IFVs, and only certain 'light' ones did not. Isnt the 72 km/h max speed of an M1 actually much faster than a bradley? On that topic, how fast is the M10 supposed to go? If its less than 70 then surely its less suitable?
I get the logic behind the exercises which justify MPF, it just seems to me that racing to a position uncontested, then digging in, and winning in one scenario on a clock is not the whole picture, do you have a link or something to a study from these exercises?
I've seen a lot of ranges of weight, i'd admit a 38 tonne MPF is significantly lighter, but less so the 48 tonne one. What is the weight limit for deployability? Doesnt it pretty much need to be a C-17 or C-5 anyways? Unless the limit is for railways or flatbeds?
Ok fine ammo cheaper, but javelins were used in afghanistan for this kind of thing by infantry alone.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>What exactly is the role of an attached infantry battalion in a modern ICBT?
infantry arent attached to an IBCT
they are the main component
>Tanks are integrated at battalion level in many militaries, and the battalion is generally the smallest operational unit, so it seems like they are going to have to face equivalent or near-equivalent enemy units with advantages in firepower, all other things being equal?
the MPF is going to be attached at the divisional level
this is more or less how its done in other countries that have attached tank units, either divisional or regimental tank units
> I was under the impression that many infantry brigades had IFVs, and only certain 'light' ones did not
an armored brigade has IFVs
an ABCT carries 3 companies of tanks and 3 companies of mech infantry riding in IFVs
they are deployed in combined armes teams consisting of varying numbers of tanks to mech infantry depending on the situation
an IBCT consists of battalions of infantry who are footmobile
their trucks are for operational mobility and they dismount before entering combat and are only armed for self-defense (if at all), though they are authorized to equip JLTVs for combat if needed
an infantry division will be composed primarily of 3 IBCTs along with their associated support like recon, artillery, etc
one of these supporting units is a tank battalion consisting of the M10s
divisional command will commit the battalion to the battle as needed to reinforce units that need them
You have to go back to the foundational Army understanding of 21st century combat to know how the MPF requirements came about.
>that leaves enemy armour able lay down supporting fire while the M10 is absent
Nope
In modern combat, dug-in infantry beats everything
>while trying to support the infantry at the same time
It's not going to
The MPF is for digging said enemy dug-in infantry out of bunkers
The Army specced 105mm precisely because Bushmaster wasn't doing this job well, and missiles are too expensive
>not really an improvement in any way
It's not meant to supplant Abrams in firepower and protection
it's meant to be more mobile than Abrams, which it is
>those enemies might have tanks
if an infantry brigade meets tanks, its first option is not not to deploy the M10s to fight those tanks head on
they will instead use their javelins as the main defense and use the M10s as a supporting arm for the javelins
because thats what the M10 is, an attached unit to provide additional firepower to infantry, not an MBT
it is not meant to radically alter the way an infantry unit fights, especially not against enemy tanks, its meant to give them more tactical options in combat
>As it is, it seems to be a cool project to build a new tank, but not really an improvement in any way.
it fills a tactical niche that the army wanted filled, regimental infantry tank battalions
they arent replacing M1 abrams in any role, they are adding a anti-fort/anti-infantry weapon to a formation that usually gets no such vehicle
Missiles are expensive for sure, but are they more expensive than commissioning 500 new tanks, it isnt like the missiles arent going to be procured anyways, esp with how many are being given to ukraine. Expense is part of the reason for KE guns on MBTs, but in this case they could just use an MBT, if they really want the 105 on a 50-60 tonne chasis then surely they could just drag the 105 M1s out of storage?
there was a limit on how small it could be made due to ergonomic requirements
and the turret could not be made smaller due to requiring rear bustle ammo placement and having minimum elevation/depression that precludes a short turret
while it could be made far lighter than a T-90 or be given a much larger gun, these were seen as acceptable compromises to meet all of its requirements
>and it will be forced to fight MBTs if an IBCT comes up against them
then the javelin missiles of the infantry will be used instead of the tanks
or they can simply be deployed defensively to stall the enemy MBTs until a proper armored brigade can be used to cut the enemy off
if enemy MBTs are expected they wont be sending in an infantry division
if MBTs are being encountered despite that, then they werent going to be offensively hunting them but rather just trying to divert their advance, and the presence or absence of a light tank is not an issue
its a gun for providing fire support to beef up infantry units not an MBT
>if enemy MBTs are expected they wont be sending in an infantry division
there are 100 war college papers you can read right now about how because of kosovo and desert shield we need light rapidly deployable forces so SBCT and IBCT that are yes going to face MBTs just like in desert shield
you should also have read those papers about how infantry are going to defeat those MBTs
>if enemy MBTs are expected they wont be sending in an infantry division
and again, we rotate IBCTs to be tripwire forces in europe constantly. to face down mechanized formations so no just saying WE DONT DO IT is stupid
[...] >and now those commanders know not to use it to fight tanks with
no they had to take their toy away (MGS) and now they're giving them the same thing again lol...
>no they had to take their toy away
not sure if moronic or disingenuous
they took the MGS away because it was a shit design even for its job of blowing up bunkers
and if they fight enemy MBTs they will not be sending their M10s
or their M10s will just play a supporting role in fighting them
the M10 is not the primary offensive unit in an infantry division
its a very specific usecase of giving increasing the firepower of infantry
why would its performance against MBTs be the deciding factor in its use when it is not expected to be fighting them 1v1 in the first place?
if infantry encounter tanks they will not send their sole M10 company to fight them head on, they will just use them to support javelin teams
>if enemy MBTs are expected they wont be sending in an infantry division
and again, we rotate IBCTs to be tripwire forces in europe constantly. to face down mechanized formations so no just saying WE DONT DO IT is stupid
>no shit
so why are you bringing this up, dipshit >it fought tanks and got mauled
and now those commanders know not to use it to fight tanks with
do you want to exhaustively list all the other shit that people learn at NTC? >infantry fight at NTC, get mauled >HURR DURR THE AGE OF INFANTRY IS DEAD
>and now those commanders know not to use it to fight tanks with
no they had to take their toy away (MGS) and now they're giving them the same thing again lol...
No.5854932
tactical nuclear attack. and radioactive fire.
clearly dopn't knowe shit about 1963 doctines of wars.
in a hyperthetical war tactical weapons would be used to make cerain roads unpassiable.
when a nuke hits it makes a emp pluse disabling all vehicles.
modern milltary should have counters for such attacks so that if not directly hit they can still operate even in a hostile radioactive enviroment.
unless things have some how slacked since those times.
the m60 was built on that premise.
the M10 is a simular beast built on survival
unlike the abrams its mearly a support assest for small units.
yes i was differncing the 10,000
i would love to see the sales.
because as far as i know only the scopian was exported.
and limited numbers to korea and taiwan
but that might be too old for some of you fine folks.
no way you going to export all 10,000 of them.
half at max, then again you haven't studied war readiness doctrine.
the only think i'm aware is that mostly light vehicles where exported.
and only a few times the abarams and itwas usually the old M1A1 not the M1a2 or M1a3
also M1's are too heavy for island combat.
the bridges can't take the weight.
Your lacking hard.
and you don't know fricking nothing scrub
we are talking about islands here not the us fricking a
m1's where only useful on the mainlandand the desert. you would never have a MTB on the islands the roads can't cope with that much weight.
this isn't like europe where the mud is some what frim even when wet.
in the pacific is way more wet and the storms are 5 times worse.
also you couldn't air drop a M1 on the drop of a hat
you would need a C5 galaxy and not even one of these could land as the runways are too damn short for them.
and no there not plenty of M1's to around.
and beside you never use a MTB in infantry units.and you do not use them in the fricking island jungles.
>i would love to see the sales.
5400 M60A3s were built,1600 built the rest conversions
this was all the pattons the US ever had in service at one time at the end of the cold war
of which, only about 3000 ever had US crewmen in them
1000 were sole to saudi arabia
1000 to egypt
900 sold to spain
300 to greece
about 100-ish to taiwan
smaller countries would get about a few dozen to a hundred of them
and the rest to israel
No.58550176
listen jack ass the T90 is 65 tons.
the M10 is 38 tons
that's not 90% moron that's only 60%
you clearly cannot into math.
>americans.
*eye roll*
ande no dumb ass its not a MTB
its a field gun on tracks.
no way is anyone believing a 105mm round is going to destory a modern tank.
let alone a t90 and that isn't made out of paper like in your video games young man.
you would be lucky to even destroy a T62 before it blows you up.
hell the M60 coulod bearly fight off a T55B let alone the modern tank.
and this M10 is almost the same armorment
its not going to go toe to toe with any modern vehicle that would be literal stupidity.
and no one in their fight mind is going to send a T90 to stop a M10 when anti tank commet rockets exist.
and you will never surive those even in a MBT
this isn't world war two anymore tanks don't face other tanks anymore.
those days are very much over.
The thing about it not fitting in a C-130 makes me wonder, is there going to be a need for something only slightly bigger than it but not C-17 sized just to carry these vehicles?
No.58550456
your thinking of the persing.
the M45
this M60 has not been exported
the only thried world country i can rtemeber getting these weapons was veitnam because it was too hard to get them back home that was under carter.
most of the M60A3's are with the homeland security as i pointed out before.
and it was as recent as 1999
unless something big happened since then things haven't changed they just are not mainstream
as the for the other vehicles I think they where 60 and 70's vehicles mostly low numbers and all on the coastal cities.
as far as i'm aware the M1 is still the mainstay of america even the M1A1's abandoned in afcanistan where somewhat on purpuise to clear old stock for the newer abarams but i'm not allowed to talk about anything newer than the M1A3's
so the M10 its a mobile field gun.
its uses is on fixed implacements.
the 105 round is more then capiable of blwoing up bunkers and casemates and so on.
light tanks are ideal for island combat and jungle warfare for as anon said its turret elvation and depresation there is alot of very steep hills and mountians in island combat and many of the roaqds have cliffs and shallow streams to cross
this is not ideal for a MTB who is built to be low to the ground.
the point here is to illusrate the need for light vehicles.
most MTB's are too wide for world war 2 era roas remeber that m,ost of the pacific is even lower then the third world teir
most of these roads haven't been touched since 1920
in fact most precollonial houses where in the pacifc and mostly tin huts with no doors or windows
its 35+ degrees C or 90fenthight on most days.
and therefore doors and windows are no longer needed.
I didn't see that many houses.
and island folks tend to live in small villiages anyway.
and no roads.
its mostly just jungle or grassy plains
there are roads yes but not many of them are sealed.
and they are only just barely useful to a modern 4x4 and not a modern car even.
>this M60 has not been exported
the heck are you talking about?
the M60 was sold as part of FMS as the E60
they couldnt get rid of them fast enough because they didnt want 5000 obsolete tanks cluttering their warehouses
the last 3000 M60A3s converted never had a single US crew member, they went straight to FMS, the only reason they were even made were to fill a contractual obligation and wanted them the hell out of sight ASAP
>most of the M60A3's are with the homeland security as i pointed out before.
last national guard M60 was retired in the 90s
any M60s that arent target drones or musuem pieces are being used for spare parts to sell to the people who do have M60s
Waste of resources while thousands of Abrams sit in storage. These things are also supposed to cost nearly $13 million each. The money should have been put into the development of the replacement for the Abrams instead by 2030.
No.58550633
this its most likely exported to south america
No i don't see any M60's in operations but as you said third world.
like i said its been in operation since 1999
not 1990
maybe iun your state idk
one assumed they where perhapps melted down.
again i don't see any proof of them ebing exported in mass.
the persing M45 was exported
again i think your being confused.
and that and the sorpain which looks somewhat like a m60 but it isn't.
it has a 120MM gun much bigger then the M10
the sorpain looks very much like a M60 but its the export version without the nightvision tech
unless the phipines has them idk.
but i doubt i hav eseen a M60 in active use for a really long time.
as for the 105mm round.
idk that's opinion and i would rather not entertain more of it.
most tanks ise the 120, 125 and 150mm rounds at anyrate.
but that's just MTB's support weapons are allowed to be much smaller for mobitly reasons.
again. I see the reason for the M10.
I just don't think its a mainland weapon.
You're less fat than your sister
>America now has a modern STuG specifically for knocking down houses/fortifications
Goodbye GWOT. Hello China.
M10 has a turret you mong.
doesn't change what the fricking thing is used for
a casemate is not a requisite to be an assault gun
germans just preferred it on the grounds that fortifications dont move, therefore a turret is an unnecessary expense
american assault guns had turrets in WW2, the M8 scott and M4 105mm come to mind
What's with this racist anti china shit. Frick you butthole. Ukraine is much more important, don't worry about china, china is not a threat.
Suck a wiener chang
>America now has a Modern STuG
No it does fricking not. Its not an assault gun and its going to run into the same problem as the M1128 which is said vehicle isn't going to be used as an assault Gun its going to be used as a Tank because the Army is fricking moronic and doesn't understand what an assault gun is.
>Give Army something that functions like an M60 Patton
>Expect Army to not use it like an M50 Patton
give it up, you're wrong, frick off
>M1128 fails (Besides maintenance issues) because of the Army's doctrine with it
>IE we aren't going to use it to support infantry, It will not be deployed along side Stryker brigades because for what ever reason to the army "105mm gun = ITS A TANK!!!!!"
>So we crew it with people who are trained to kill enemy tanks!
>WTH Isn't this vehicle functioning like our Abrams???
M10 will suffer the same issues unless the Army is actually going to develop a doctrine to use Assault guns and deploy it along side infantry and not do the standard "Oh its got a big gun so its a tank off to the Armored Company you go!"
>M10 will fail because of this made-up problem in my pea brain
>Army gets a new Assault gun
>Army does not have nor develop a doctrine for said Assault gun
>It fails
>Army gets new Assault gun
>1. They don't develop a doctrine for assault guns and it fails
>2. They develop a doctrine for assault guns and it works
Is it that fricking hard for you to understand?
>Army gets a new Assault gun
>some guy used it wrong once in NTC
>IT'S A FAILURE IT'S JOEVER WE'LL NEVER RECOVER IT'S IMPOSSIBLE WE'RE DEAD WE'RE SO DEAD
yes, it's really quite difficult for me to understand how lesser life forms think
>some guy used it wrong once in NTC
No the army treated it as a Tank... I don't know why you don't understand that. They never deployed them like they were designed to do.
>IT'S A FAILURE IT'S JOEVER WE'LL NEVER RECOVER IT'S IMPOSSIBLE WE'RE DEAD WE'RE SO DEAD
Again they were given a Tool and didn't develop a way to use it correctly.
And now they are given a similar tool and if they don't develop a way to use it correctly they'll just withdraw it from service like they've done with pretty much every assault gun they were given for the past 80 years.
>the army treated it as a Tank... I don't know why you don't understand that. They never deployed them like they were designed to do
[citation needed]
>Booker
What did he do?
Named after a MoH recipient in Tunisia who stormed a machine gun nest.
I'm surprised they didn't someone from the cav
They did, it's named after two different bookers. One was an infantry MoH recipient, the other was an armored cavalry DSC recipient
he go into a machine gun fight in open ground with 2 entrenched german machine guns, he didn't live
So he didn't even knock out the MG nests? Wtf, find a better person to name the tank after.
I can only imagine that guy reading your post in heaven and seething kek
fixed the text since that was going to bother me
>So he didn't even knock out the MG nests?
He "silenced" one according to the citation. This could be as little as temporary suppression, but is worded to sound like a kill. Knowing how combat accounts usually go, it's probably even less than that.
Pinkerton guy who was at Wounded Knee
Wounded Knee fricked him up good too. Guy could never quite pay his debts after that. It's a good thing he never had any kids or anything. Who knows what the debt collectors might have wanted to take.
Protagonist of that Bioshock game no one liked.
I liked it.
Destroyed some weird floating city iirc.
He defeated Chris Benoit in a best of seven series for the WCW World Championship belt in 1998.
He booked.
You know what he did.
I guess that's why they call her your betteretteretteretteretteretter
Boggle
Who calls her that?
I like it. It looks cool and that's the only important part.
Does it have a microwave?
looks neat
>105mm
>Medium tank weight
>Diesel
I am sorry, Pierre Sprey, you were right.
>Tfw bongs were ahead of their time with the centurion, they just needed the engine in the front and turn it into an IFV
I can't be the only one seeing a comparison here
Germans were ahead as always...
TAM justifies it's existence because Argentina is at least poor.
M10 exists because the IBCT wants main gun support, but the idiots in charge won't put M1s back into infantry units like it was in the 80s, or with the USMC until they retired them
>M10 exists because the IBCT wants main gun support
a reasonable request
>but the idiots in charge won't put M1s back into infantry units like it was in the 80s
M1s were prioritized to mechanized units, where they fought alongside bradleys
and attaching a vehicle designed for maneuver war and optimized for hunting enemy tanks and demolishing enemy operational depths to a slow moving, foot mobile force firing HEAT rounds at bunkers is a short-term solution at best
the M10 is a continuation of the regimental tank battalion from the cold war
but due to a lack of legacy vehicles to fill them with, they might as well just use a new vehicle designed specifically for the purpose instead of just adjusting the HE loadout slider on a cold war MBT
>TAM justifies it's existence because Argentina is at least poor.
Back when the TAM was made Argentina was a rich as Japan and Italy...
>M1s back into infantry units like it was in the 80s, or with the USMC until they retired them
well, the M1 is heavy, the M10 can be deployed anywhere in the world in less than 24 hours by airlift, and the USMC is gearing up for an island hopping campaign, hope they develop a new find flamethrower to burn the chink insects.
>well, the M1 is heavy, the M10 can be deployed anywhere in the world in less than 24 hours by airlift
Wow
2 vs 1 in a C-17!, 3 vs 2 in C-5! The airlift capability advantage is a joke.
The USMC will regret ditching it's tanks (saying muh tanks have no use in island warfare is plainly wrong looking at the last time such a campaign was conducted)
Best part is, the LCAC can't even carry more M10s then it can M1 (both are 1) for a landing when the Army will inevitably have to take part in an amphibious assault operation to support the USMC
let's see how you supply an company of abrams in a saipan tier island
It's irrelevant. Both IBCT and ABCT use the HEMMTT
The TAM was made in the mid 80s. Argentina was already a third world country by then.
Iirc the medium tank version was actually designed by Argentines off of a German hull. The Germans thought the TAM as a concept was dumb and wanted Argentina to buy the Leopard 1. The newest version of the TAM is actually heavier than thr original Leopard 1 and had a 120mm gun. It's supposedly better protected now too but is pigfat af.
>48 ton "medium tank"
What the frick is that?
>and had a 120mm gun
No. The israelites scammed them with that.
Yes it does. There are multiple upgeade versions of the TAM. Some with 105mm some with 120mm
>There are multiple upgeade versions of the TAM
Maybe in paper, but they are all virtually obsolete anyways.
Funny shit how the TAM could be quite relevant since the M10 Booker and the ZTQ-15 is a thing nowadays. Shame the country needs 100% focus on economy instead of ordering shit up.
Go to bed dead disco man.
No he wasn't. He thought something like this would be sufficient as a main battle tank. He was wrong for reasons that have been proven many, many times in wars since the 1970s, particular in the Gulf War and Arab-Israeli wars. This tank is designed solely to support infantry, which ironically puts it within the historical role of an infantry tank. The Army won't call it a light tank because a light tank is mainly used as a recon tank, but also because the Army loves dumb jargon and needs to make up stupid new names for things to justify their procurement budgets.
>the army went through all this trouble to make a new tank instead of firing up those old assembly lines and making m60s with m1 internals instead
shaking my head
>m60
>old assembly line
Holy shit, an actual lobotomite!
>implying tanks weren't made on assembly lines
troonkari you do know that once an older tanks turret and hull were hatched from the casting sands it was sent to be assembled no?
What do you think those old production lines are doing these days?
Tripgay is correct you're actually fricking moronic.
All of these non arguments defending wasteful government spending. You must FSB shills trying to stir the pot
>All of these non arguments defending wasteful government spending. You must FSB shills trying to stir the pot
If I was an FSB shill I would be arguing for making the most expensive bullshit possible to drain the United States of its money.
You say that like a new tank isn't also expensive and draining the US of money it doesn't even have. How's the weather in Moscow, Pidor?
A little chilly ))
Please tell me what you think a tank factory might possibly be making in 2023. I'll give you a hint because I'm nice.
>only having one tank factory
that isn't the W you think it is m8
And yet that's how it is. There's more Abrams than the Army wants right now but they keep making more because shutting it down would get rid of a lot of expertise.
They should go ahead and shut the plant down if it will save some dollars. We can just outsource procurement to China and pick up some of their tanks in a pinch.
Shill detected who knows nothing of preserving industrial base.
Why not build more Sheridans instead?
Sheridan still suffers from the problems of
1. Damaging itself when it uses its gun
2. Being able to be perforated by anti-tank rifles in the 21st century
Last Sheridans weren't even scrapped, they were dumped into the ocean.
>light tank is mainly used as a recon tank
This is not true, especially since none of the "recent" light tank programms the US has made have been for recon as the primary purpose of the light tank (AGS, RDFLT, MPF, Sheridan), but rather direct fire support for light infantry.
The last light tank the US made for recon was the M41 Walker Bulldog
sheridan was never called a light tank
its officially called an airborn recovery vehicle/airborne assault vehicle
had the cold war gone hot, it would have been been deployed far forward to harass enemy units
making it a light tank/tank destroyer hybrid
the actual infantry gun duty, as in attached tank battalions supporting infantry, were the M60s
armored divisions would have split their tank units to reinforce infantry divisions
Just because the US has a moronic aversion to calling a duck a duck since WWII, doesn't mean it's not a light tank.
>tank
so the M10 booker is to replace the sheaden. thank frick.
I like light tanks yes it will be good for the pacific
105mm round is the most common round tons of these things after world war 2 and korea
most common rounds. using old stock up.
and those bridges can't handle most modern tanks anyway they where desgined for WW2 tanks 20~40tons.
any heavier and the bridges would fail.
they are all over the pacific
and the runways a real short as well.
the pacific is hard place to fight.
because its both mudy and sandy
and the mud gets real soft exspecially the soloman islands.
Oh and take alot of malria pills and mosquito nets you think the biting insects are bad on the mainland you haven't seen shit.
and get alot banages there isn't much cover on the islands.
and a ton of sand bags
no doubt all the world war two junk is all over those islands.
most of the bunkers have been blown up and became death traps and alot of them are flooded now might want to take water pumps with you as well.
Yet they dont have much 105 on hand to even train with 🙁
>105mm round is the most common round tons of these things after world war 2 and korea
The 105mm is so common that the US had to procure more M393 and M456rounds for the meager amounts of vehicles in the MGS program.
The "muh ammunition is so common" doesn't work in the context of what the US actually have stockpiled. Probably the only decently stockpiled round is M900 funnily enough
I'm pretty sure most of the US 105mm stockpile has been sold to countries like Greece, Turkey and South Korea
Too many fancy electronics and not enough machineguns for Sprey to approve of it.
wut is it
looks like bmp1
It's a light tank
No its not. Its an infantry support armored fighting vehicle.
I can see you glowing from miles away. It's a fricking tank and you know it is. Quit coping because you lost the argument.
It's a light tank and that is final.
The "light tank" designation came from a journalist and youtubers, and is nowhere mentioned by the us dod. Im canadian, here is my canada gun.
I think the 105 is a good choice, because they can use their old stock of shells, no?
To add to this, how does it stack up to the stryker with the 105(?)mm gun?
WTF is that a type 97 shotgun?? your rail mod looks kind of fricked ngl
Yes and yes
That's what a tank is. Just because it's not great at other tanks doesn't mean it's not a tank dipshit.
Yes. All of these could be used as tanks. They wouldn't be great against other tanks, but 99% of a tank's job is supporting infantry.
>tank
Literally yes you dumb Black person, This is also a fricking tank and it only has machines guns
in that same war they called the mondragon an automatic rifle.
Language changes over time
No. They are armored fighting vehicles (AFV) with 105-120mm guns.
I bet you are also one of those dumb Black folk that call a 8x8 wheeled vehicle with 30-120mm gun, a infantry fighting vehicle (IFV).
>the T-55 is not a tank
Wheeled IFVs are still IFVs, if they're armored and designed to carry and fight alongside infantry it's an IFV. Yes, the Hind was original an IFV.
No. They are still AFVs, but being used in the IFV role.
Is the AMX-10RC an AFV
If it looks like a tank then its a tank, anything else is semantics. Its got tracks, its got a turret, its got a big gun, those arent pre-requisites for being a tank, but theyre tank features which suggest that it is. Frankly as far as most people are concerned, AFV+gun=tank, even if it has wheels or is a casemate (if they still existed), you wont care if its shooting at you or you cant see it properly and autistically analyse it. A hull down wheeled TD 2km away will still be a tank to you even if it moves and you see the wheels.
>tank
SHE WAS ROBBED
More of an infantry tank
>This is a light tank
No, that's a piece of shit.
>Tripgays are moronic
More news at 7
>ummm akshually you can't use a trip or double space because that's reddit
>t.redditor
have a nice day tripgay
>This is a light tank
yeah
no turret makes it kinda arguable but in a pinch, sure
picrel was used as a tank by the ARVN
>used as a tank
wrong
used as an IFV
No, they used them as tanks. They equipped armored battalions with them, fitted them out with three-man crews and operated independently of infantry units
You're too deep up your ass in meaningless semantics to see the obvious. A tank can be used as a tank. An IFV can be used as a tank. An APC can be used as a tank. An SPG can be used as a tank. A bulldozer with armor plating bolted onto it can be used as a tank.
It all depends on the environment it's in and what you've got.
>operated independently of infantry units
This part is new to me, I admit.
That's pretty neat. This thing is going to overperform in the Pacific theatre of WWIII
Booger
So what do we actually *know* about this thing so far? I watched the chieftan interview with the army representative, but he kept being unable to disclose certain things due to it being classified. I guess the new thing we know so far is the name. Honestly its a good name, but naming things after old civil war generals like Sheridan is pretty badass and black metal.
Modern assault gun. Same weight as M2a4 Bradley. Meant to work directly alongside IBCTs as organic fire support. Fires any 105mm in inventory.
This means the Mobile Gun system is kill?
MGS has been dead for awhile now.
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2021/05/12/us-army-scraps-stryker-mobile-gun-systems-in-favor-of-new-lethality-upgrades/
So basically a skinnier, more modern Leo1?
Noooo. A leo 1 is an MBT. This is specifically for infantry support while the Abrams does the maneuvering and being a big b***h in general
>A leo 1 is an MBT.
Technically yes, in actuality it's the carbon copy of this from 60 years earlier.
Designed for very much the same reasons (need something mobile against subhuman zerg rushes).
Chunky.
Why is every US weapons system called "M number"
Model (insert number here).
It just means model.
So how does it stack up to M551?
the M10 is based on the M60 so should be a match its just got more modern gear and should have twice the range of the M60.
as they fixed most of the M60's over heating issues and made it more resistant to emp.
emps will now have less effect on this vehicle.
thanks to the new lead lined casings
it should alot stronger than a bradley or BTR or any armored car.
its light based on weight.
because of composites.
its not 100% steel.
unlike the M60 it has modern composite armor so now the RPg7 should have little effect on it now.
think of this light tanks as just a mobile field gun on tracks.
it still can't fight off a T62 in a head to head though. but blow up bunkers and cold war tech no problem. and no the 50cal won't do shit on cosposite armor.
it just needs something to fight off drones.
and modern rockets and other field guns
and yes anon its still prone to mortor fire.
and artillery. but should be a ton tougher. and be more radation resistant and biological weapon resistant.
decent all rounder.
No.58548660
no moron the sheraden was comprising 1/3 of the us homeland security in 1999
it can't of changed that much and no those weapons are not even the 1/3 of the strenght of the M60 production unless you sold it to south america.
there more mnore M60's than there are abarms.
you can't get rid of hat many tanks that quickly
they are openly lying to you.
also canada still has those rounds if you want to "borrow" some
and so does mexico. and your neibour britain still has a ton of stuff and france as well, morrco and tisnisa you just lazy american.
the 105mm is extemely common.
no the 120MM was made during and after the gulf war it was never in high production.
once the M1A2 stop being made and was upgraded to the later M1A3 they stopped all together.
the striker was a 1990 vehicle and was always in low numbers.
not even a arguement.
the m60 was used in the first gulf war but not in the second.
so it had quite the run
now its just homeland security
Who gives a shit about EMPs?
>there more mnore M60's than there are abarms.
Source?
>lead lined casings
Wut
>Source?
they are probably referring to total production runs
since more than 10,000 M60s were built
though thats still a dumb thing to bring up, since most of those 10,000 tanks were simply sold or away as part of FMS
So this is an american T-72 really
No, moron. The T72 is a death trap cold war MBT.
Much better on account of not using the combination gun launcher and not being penetrable by a 50 cal
Big ass fat b***h.
Lose some weight.
unironically looks like a t14
>DOD unveils new vehicle
>cheap 105mm diesel tank w/updated comms and thermals
Apologize to m60-chan RIGHT NOW
>M60 obr 2023 never ever.
>cheap israelites won't replace the track pads
classic
>Jews
Interesting way to spell "Turks." Israel sells the Sabra upgrade package to Turkey. Tracks not included. Israel hasn't used the M60 as a tank in almost 20 years, all of its former M60s have been converted to heavy APCs, missile carriers, engineering vehicles, and other non-tanks.
It's meant to be infantry support and will do better than an m60 for that by miles
It's still 15 tons lighter than her fat ass while offering comparable protection to modern threats.
as a 19D, I relish any amount of butthurt rendered on the tanker who end up getting wienerblocked from the Abrams to crew this.
Nice little tonk though
>it's not a tank because... because... well because i said so, okay!
It's not a tank? Looks like a tank.
nobody said this, and nobody looks like this
>nobody looks like this
looks like that
Memes in 2023 fricking suck.
I miss when we just bombarded each other with image macros instead of wojacks.
>"This is a combat vehicle," he said, answering a question from a reporter during the briefing. "The historic task of light tanks has been to perform reconnaissance functions. [The M10] isn't a mission match, even though [it] sort of looks like, smells like, feels like [a light tank]."
It's more like historic role of the light tank of the 1920s-30s that we saw being used by the Soviets, Americans and French lmao, which was penny packets in infantry divisions.
"Booker" isn't a very awe-inspiring name
They could even have called it the Geronimo and I wouldn't have minded
>light tank of the 1920s-30s
that's just "tank"
frick off, Alaska were hardly even WW1 battleship grade
Germany's first dreadnoughts had thicker armour
>frick off, Alaska were hardly even WW1 battleship grade
>Germany's first dreadnoughts had thicker armour
I could have just as easily posted Scarnhorst or something but I knew Alaska would piss someone off
If you wanted a controversial but true take, you should have pointed out that the final evolution of battlecruisers was actually better or equal in just about every metric compared to contemporary battleships, and in the shape of the "fast battleships" of WW2 represent the final evolution of the big gun capital ship
That's encroaching on "Iowa was a battlecruiser" territory. I should have done that.
Iowa WAS a battlecruiser.
lol it's not actually a hot take, even by WW1 standards. The last "true" battlecruisers built by the RN and the IGN were Hood and Ersatz Yorck, they had big guns sure but also battleship-standard armour. "Fast battleship" is a nomenclature to differentiate these from the likes of Renowns, Lexingtons and Kongos.
Hmmm.
HMMMM.
I'd have preferred it to be air-droppable, Would have been worth the reduction in weight, especially if we have better active protection systems in the pipe.
The Sheridan was air droppable at the expense of needing to retreat if it ran into a heavy machine gun.
Much better to have a support vehicle capable of fighting BTRs and infantry armed with RPGs.
Yeah no. The Leo 1 was designed for MBT stuff. Even if it lacked the armor for it. This is an FSV while the Abrams does MBT stuff.
>The Leo 1 was designed for MBT stuff
Ugh, not really, no.
>Even if it lacked the armor for it
It was specifically designed as a mobile 105mm gun first and foremost since commies would have six zillion more tanks per square inch of West Germany in case of invasion.
Dropping the armor mass to be air-droppable is never worth it. Look at the rolling bombs known as BMD and Sheridan
>no APS
>no remote gun
it's a light weight gun carriage. not a tank.
So...
a light tank?
it's more like a carriage, but with a motor and a gun. dumbass
IFVs are getting APS now. Light infantry support "tank" without APS is just asking for a flying dildo.
I'd be astonished if they didn't design in allowances for an aps. The DoD has been sitting on an aps for ages now waiting for it to mature. I'd bet this will get it when they start becoming standard
So, it's a lighter M60?
Yes, a Leopard 1.
>unveiled with a drip pan
lmao. i'm just going to assume it's for stupid environmental reasons and not because the vehicle is a leaking mess already. looks great though. i like our little assault gun already
I like it, it looks cool, and seems to be needed by the Marines.
You know, the point of this being similar to cold war MBTs has me thinking of the battlecruiser evolution. What would have once been called a battleship gets called a battlecruiser simply because its contemporaries are so much bigger than it.
Designations are determined far more by doctrine than by size.
Alaska was a battlecruiser because it was designed to the original British battlecruiser doctrine, an overgrown armored cruiser designed to crush enemy cruisers with minimal viability in the line of battle
>original British battlecruiser doctrine, an overgrown armored cruiser designed to crush enemy cruisers [and kite enemy battleships at range] in the line of battle
FTFY
since Alaska doesn't have battleship-class guns and wasn't designed to snipe enemy battleships, it's not a battlecruiser
I'm baffled by how this piece of shit weighs 42 tons when the light weight Abrams idea from the 1990s weighed 46 tons. The 4 ton weight difference is probably solely due to Lightweight Abrams having a steel turret and this has an aluminum turret, the LT Abrams however has all crew members in the hull (similarish to AbramsX) and composite armor in the hull front.
What a lazy fricking design.
The original XM1 was extremely poorly protected for an MBT by modern standards, as was the LWAC.
You're a fricking moron.
The last m60 was built using the 80s, the production stopped and tooling sold off.
The last M60s being used as range targets were scrapped last year.
There's a better chance we bring back the M4 Sherman than the M60.
>There's a better chance we bring back the M4 Sherman than the M60.
How many companies can even make major castings like a sherman hull nowadays anyways?
Actually, Sherman parts are still made in Canada to service tractors based off their suspension system.
Mexico was stilll using Sherman derived mortar carriers until 1991. They had modern Detroit Diesel engines. They still put them on display and on parades for independence day.
>Sherman parts
But do they make the entire hulls? That's a whole different deal from some suspension bits or a roadwheel.
That's the joke
dumbass Black person responding to my post with exactly what I said
imagine that. the tripgay obviously meant to reply to that one fricking moron
Still far better protected then the M10, which uses "cosmetic armor" for no reason except to no make the smoke grenade mountings stick out
the M10 officially has "composite spaced armor" and "add-on armor" on its turret, which is vague but assumed to be a smaller version of the M1 abrams turret
so in combat, we could expect the turret to have NERA arrays or something depending on the situation
There is no magic composite armor fitted on any of the vehicles we have seen so far.
It's turret base + applique bolted on (similar to what we see on Bradley, probably high hardness steel) and then a sheet metal covering.
You are a worthless moron.
Wrong.
The cold war ammo was partially compromised due to age and poor storage. That's not the case now.
Yeah, which is why the Army wants to bring a new round which is a downscaled 120mm AMP round, to replace (near non-existant stockpiles) HEAT,HEP and CAN rounds.
A new 105mm round that there are zero stockpiles for because it doesn't exist.
The stockpile argument doesn't fricking work especially when you add on top the Army had ~140 Stryker MGS and they want to order just over 500 M10s.
I mean, there is a shortage but from URK war. So much so that they might need to procure more.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11859
Ah yes the famous 105mm guns in Ukrainian service..
"The provision of existing 105 mm
ammunition to Ukraine as part of current and future
Security Force Assistance efforts might also have an impact
on 105 mm ammunition availability for MPF systems."
On the Leopard 1A5 and T-55MS they operate the L7 gun. They also operate a bespoke French 105mm on the AMX-10RC, and 105mm light artillery.
>This is the M10 Booker. Say something nice about it.
At 38 tons its too lightly armored to resist anti tank missiles.
>anti tank missiles.
>anti tank
>tank
>assault gun
yeah you're right. the classes are different. only anti tank missiles can take down a tank. an assault gun is completely immune. likewise for the tank if they started using anti assault gun missiles against it.
>an assault gun is completely immune
it's not designed to stand up against anti
>tank
missiles because it is not
>A fricking tank
It's the wrong type of missile for the job anyway. So of course the assault gun will be fine. You're not going to use a law against a hind are you? Just ridiculous
>So of course the assault gun will be fine
It's not going to be fine, because it's a fricking assault gun, and it is not designed to resist against anti tank missiles because it's not a tank.
The anti tank missile will go straight through, sparing the crew. Simple as.
>at 35 tonnes its too lightly armored to resist anti tank missiles
>35tons
>41 tons
>42 tons
make up your mind my dude. which weight is it?
that is the m2a4 bradley you fricking moron
>talking about the booker and assault guns
>here's a bradley
now you're just trying to one-up me in the moron competition
>now you're just trying to one-up me in the moron competition
It's also around 35 tonnes and doesn't stand up to anti-tank missiles
Because, like the Booker, it is not a tank.
It's 38 metric tons / 42 long(US) tons
Again, this is the same weight as the newest Bradley. While not needing a troop compartment - so it could be more heavily armored. Could.
>so it could be more heavily armored. Could.
Which I'm sure you know, being an armored officer and design manager on the Booker.
We've already established that it's good against anti tank missiles since it's not a tank
>While not needing a troop compartment
It does "have" a troop compartment though, probably filled with ammunition instead. It's based off an IFV hull so that volume used for the troop compartment in the rear is not going to disappear, and that's the issues with these IFV tanks. They are very volume innefficient
>42 Long (US) Tons
US uses Short tons....
so that would be 47 US tons.
I'm gonna throw some food and boxes of ammo at it
You can fit two of them in a single C-17.
>Named after some gwot Black person
Garbage
It's named after an moh recipient from ww2
How would this thing do against 30 and 40mm?
the 30-ton ASCOD it uses as a base for its hull has 30mm APDS protection with add-on composite armor
the ceramic/steel composite used in the ASCOD has x0.8 protection compared to steel of the same thickness but x3.5 the protection for a given weight
>Say something nice about it.
No. You will never be as hot as your older sister.
I can dig it
What is the point of this? Dont the amerimutts have like 4k M1s in storage?
>What is the point of this?
lighter vehicle for use in IBCTs
its 20 tons lighter, has more compact dimensions, and is intended to be used in battalion sized elements spread out across infantry divisions
unlike an ABCT, which has organic engineering and sustainment units to keep them operational at all times, a MPF battalion has to rely on itself for maintenance and engineering
> Dont the amerimutts have like 4k M1s in storage?
M1s are used in ABCTs for maneuver and breakthrough
using them in the infantry support role is a highly inefficient strategy
The M1 MBT is an all purpose.vehicle though, it can maneuver, perform infantry support, or take on armour, if the argument was to get these at the same time as procuring the M10 then i'd get it, but the mutts already have thousands of M1s lying around, i dont see why they cant use an objectively better armoured vehicle with better firepower, and presumably similar speed and maneuverability (unless this M10 goes like 100 km/h), it just would seem to do anything an M10 can do better, and cheaper as they already exist. If its purely a matter of logistics, then is an M1 really that much logistically more burdensome than the M10, of which we know almost nothing? Also if this is for an IBCT then surely thats on a brigade level and should have its own support company for armour anyways?
>The M1 MBT is an all purpose.vehicle though, it can maneuver, perform infantry support, or take on armour,
M1s are concentrated into ABCTs
the infantry they support are mech inantry, though more likely the mech infantry are supporting them
their strategic role is to be used as an offensive arm
>Also if this is for an IBCT then surely thats on a brigade level and should have its own support company for armour anyways?
an entire infantry division gets a MPF battalion
just a battalion, to be split up and used to reinforce IBCTs as needed
this means that they are going to need to be lighter, easier to maintain, and require smaller sustainment units
So this is just for these independent battalions not the standard ICBTs? Surely if these battalions are being split up and attached to ICBTs, then they are probably within the same division for an extended period of time, if not permanently, and could rely on the brigade or divisional maintenance units? Couldnt issues just be resolved by expanding the brigade/divisional maintenance? And wont there be the problem of creating yet another supply chain except this time its for many small units which each need to individually be supplied?
meant for
MPF battalions were made by the requirements of the army for a direct fire vehicle to support infantry
and thats why its smaller and lighter than an M1, its not intended to fight enemy tanks but needs to easily fit into the leaner structure of an infantry division
not requiring a engineering brigade to set up bridging solutions and provide the necessary sustainment for a heavy vehicle was what they wanted, and assigning an M1 battalion to infantry would necessitate that
back in the cold war, they could just use legacy vehicles like the M60 or M4 sherman for infantry tank battalions so they could free up M1s or M46s for mechanized units, but now that M60s are no longer stocked in any appreciable quantity, they kind of need a new vehicle to fit that niche
>now that M60s are no longer stocked in any appreciable quantity, they kind of need a new vehicle to fit that niche
there's also only so far you can stretch a chassis
baking in the new electronics and shit into a new chassis can be way more efficient
>standard IBCTs
they get them as well, and also Stryker BCTs in place of the MGS
>they are probably within the same division for an extended period of time, if not permanently, and could rely on the brigade or divisional maintenance units
theoretically yes except now that divisions are the operational unit of manoeuvre, the division commander will want the option to task allocate them en masse as well
>Couldnt issues just be resolved by expanding the brigade/divisional maintenance
it's not about who has the maintenance assets, it's about who has ultimate control over where they're deployed
>wont there be the problem of creating yet another supply chain except this time its for many small units which each need to individually be supplied
why should there be? what's the alternative?
It's also 70 tons and has a fuel efficiency of gallons per mile. It is still the "main" battle tank, but one has to conceit it's simply too big for many types of terrain and bridges where the infantry the M10 would be attached to operate.
>China makes the ZTQ-15
>the US responds with the M10 Booker
god I hope this goes on further
I wanna see more vehicles
I don’t know why so many anons struggle with this. The MPF program was to fulfill a capability gap the Army has been struggling with for decades, heavy fire support for light infantry reaction forces. No, that’s not the Stryker which ended up forming an intermediate force (the Stryker BCT). The infantry BCTs needed something and that’s where the M10 is going.
to be fair, it would have been the MGS if it hadn't fricked up
The MPF idea is good, the result is pretty bad.
>the result is pretty bad
Says you.
you are wrong
I have a question. One of the many reasons the Chally gets shat on is it's 120mm rifled cannon, with many people saying there's now no difference in accuracy between rifled and smoothbore cannons and how they have a longer life.
But now both the Booker and Type 15 use rifled cannons, not to mention the MGS. My question is why are the lighter vehicles using rifled cannons? What are the advantages over smoothbore?
It's a lighter gun with lighter ammo, every other advantage is imaginary.
Why not make a 105mm smoothbore?
Not worth the R&D effort and 105mm is already a NATO standard.
How much R&D is it to just not give it rifling?
>What are the advantages over smoothbore?
smoothbores are optimized for firing HEAT and APFSDS
both types of ammo are optimized for fighting armor
theres no real incentive to use a smoothbore if you just intended to shoot buildings and infantry
Nah, another advantage is HESH performance which the US still uses for blowing up buildings and fortifications, one of this programs main requirements
Isnt one of the reasons that the CR3 will use smoothbore is that GBR now has a HESH that can be fired from a smoothbore?
I don't know, it's not like you need a gun to be rifled for HESH to work. It just makes it more effective. I would believe it though
>HESH
>Advantage
HESH is fricking garbage and anything else is bong propoganda.
Even vs concrete emplacements, HE set to delayed fuze performs better.
HESH had a valid use during its era when tanks had primarily monolithic steel turrets that readily spalled, it's outdated now but there's no need for exaggeration.
HESH was never the main anti-tank round when at the same time HEAT and APDS existed.
It's a meme pushed by the British. I bet the only reason we "regard" HESH's anti-armor performance was because it has had extensive armor tests done it vs HE . The only comparative performance of HESH of captured Chieftain 120mm ammo vs HE was done by the Soviets, but they didn't note down after-armor effect, instead the energies at various frequencies, where 120mm HESH is better vs 125mm HE-Frag at low angle but worse vs angled plate
HESH main purpose is anti-fort, since it will knock large holes in walls
and has a significant concussive effect due to oversized HE filler
effect on steel armor is just considered a bonus
>HESH main purpose is anti-fort
Which is funny since delayed fuze HE is much better vs fortifications
smart HE shells are better at clearing rooms of people by detonating inside it
but HESH is better at physically destroying the building, since it transfers all of its energy directly into the point of impact
>smart
variable fuzed has existed for a long time
>HESH
>better at damaging the building
Which is why 120mm M908 (which is a 80mm saboted delayed-fuzed HEAT frickup of a shell is equal to 165mm HESH vs dual reinforced concrete.
Your logic clearly doesn't work, because the best way to destroy the structure is for the shell to explode either inside the structure or inside the wall, that way the pressure wave does the most damage.
HEAT is useless against buildings due to low HE charge from the shaped charge using up all the internal space
if you want to knock a building down, HESH is still the go to because it has a larger payload and better energy transfer
Yeah M908 is an M830A1 with the programmable fuze replaced with a steel penetrating cap and a delayed fuze for structures. It retains the HEAT warhead even if it's functionally useless and just has HE effect and to US testing was equal vs the 165mm HESH round used by the M728.
As I say
>HESH
>still the way to go
>better energy transfer
Fricking lmao
>Hurr durr the amount of boom you have is the ONLY thing that matters, nothing about the casing, nothing about the fuzing
This shows the level of intelligence i'm dealing with
Shows the level of troglodyte I'm evidently dealing with
I was just stating a fact, frickface
You've stated an irrelevant factoid that shows your stupidity.
Yeah HESH has a huge amount of explosive for it's weight. Good job moron, doesn't mean it performs good. HESH is garbage that rides of 60 years of Bong propoganda coping on why they kept HESH on Challenger 2.
>Against homogenous armor
HEAT is better
HE-F is equal or not much worse
>Against infantry in the open
HEAT is better
HE-F is MUCH better
>against infantry in trenches
>HEAT is also garbage
>HE-F set to delay (+ supersensitive) is much better (either ricochet of hard ground or explode in tree canopies if set to supersensitve.)
>against bunkers
HEAT is worse
HE-F set to delay is much better (when a 80mm delay fuzed HEAT warhead smekalka'd as a Semi-armor piercing round performs better then 165mm HESH, you know it's fricking shit
>M908
L32 HESH has 25% more explosive fill
If HESH was garbage then GBR wouldnt have used it for like 70 years and still want to use it going forwards, theyre not stupid (aside from whoever designed the warrior's turret-but thats being replaced). HE is better for anti infantry but for destroying buildings/fortifications HESH has more explosive and transfers force better.
'Performs better', it doesnt tell us by what metric or how they decided this
>theyre not stupid
Stupid sums up British armored vehicle development as a whole (Challenger 2 is an amazing example of this) and HESH is the result of 70 years of sunk-cost.
HESH is worse then delayed fuze HE, always has been, always will be.
HE has the option of being immediate impact for anti-infantry or delayed impact for buildings and light armor and non of this is "smart"
Almost all the ammo in our inventory that is 105mm were optimized for a rifled gun. We've essentially been using the same concept since the 105 was first adopted.
If most of what you're doing is being a support weapon system, the types of ammo you're using is better with a rifled gun. The 105 inventory is pretty varied.
There really isn't much of a reason to adopt a smooth bore variant when we already have a stockpile of 105.
Or animals. Like the Hellcat. I think we should name it after an animal. I was thinking about calling it the M10 Wolverine. Sounds catchy.
>Like the Hellcat.
Well, you can thank the marketing department at Buick for that one.
Where the frick are the APS modules?
Feels like it has the same role as the AMX-10, but with tracks. Probably because the Stryker MGS didn't work out very well. Like that Polish CV-90 variant that looked like it was from C&C Generals.
>The M10’s name honors two soldiers killed in combat, including one from the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003. Staff Sgt. Stevon A. Booker was a tank commander posthumously awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for his actions during the ‘Thunder Run’ raid on Baghdad that opened the Iraq war. Pvt. Robert D. Booker was an infantryman in World War II who was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for heroism in combat in Tunisia in 1943.
Neat
Why aren't tube-launched ATGMs a thing anymore? Was the Shillelagh so bad? I liked the Sheridan, it was a fun little thing in Wargame too.
>Why aren't tube-launched ATGMs a thing anymore?
russians still use them
israelis developed one for their 120mm guns
the niche it fills in russian armies just isnt really a thing yet in US armies
russians use it to give extra stand-off range, since it has better accuracy at max range than sabot rounds and so can force enemy tanks to respect that range
US forces would prefer to just close the distance and engage them with sabot if its a target they need to engage
or if its something they can afford to keep at arms length, then they can leave it to get hit by air power or bypass it entirely
>Why aren't tube-launched ATGMs a thing anymore
Russhits use them, although the AFU reported that captured T-72s don't actually have many of those missiles (big surprise) in stock
they're not as popular as in WGRD because tanks can play hide and seek much more easily when micro'd full time
Longer/harder to reload, longer time on target (have to guide it in, and its not very fast compared to a KE round). Missiles also did (do?) have a much shorter shelf life than KE munitions, and are each more expensive.
What happened to naming vehicles after famous generals?
That's an mbt thing. Auxillary vehicles didn't get that treatment as far as I'm aware
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M551_Sheridan
Probably a better example is the m8 Scott, I realized after I posted that. That was just straight up a fire support vehicle rather than a combat tank, unlike the Sheridan
We need more equitable standards for naming vehicles, chud.
God I hope to see a tank named after him in my lifetime.
>everyone desperate to find something that offends them about the name of the tank
It don't offend me, I'm just kind of anal about naming schemes.
>it don't
Why
I'm going to pretend I don't see a pan catching the leaking oil.
its 90% the weight of a t-90 and has higher ground pressure than a t-90 while having worse armor, worse gun, worse mobility, better reverse speed, and presumably better sensors
it doesn't fit in a c-130
it cant be airdropped
and US ground force commanders dont know how to use assault guns
and it will be forced to fight MBTs if an IBCT comes up against them
it's not meant to fight T-90s
nothing fits in a C-130 any more, not even a fricking IFV
nobody cares that it can't be airdropped, airdropping was never the requirement
US ground commanders have been crying for assault guns because they've been using Bradleys as assault guns, inadequately
an IBCT has gajillions of Javelins to engage that T-90 with
anything else, you fricking boomer?
>it's not meant to fight T-90s
no shit its an assault gun, guess what happened to the stryker mgs at NTC? it fought tanks and got mauled
those tanks will invariably just get javelin's because the infantry are also still there so you're moronic
ABCTs have javelins too....
do you seriously think the ground force commander is going to have his infantry get mushed by tanks when a perfectly good tank shaped assault gun is available to go die for him instead
again exactly what happened in training and exactly what will happen agian. just painting the words 'assault gun' on it and constantly reminding people that its an assault gun by doctrine is not going to stop it dying fighting tanks
>no shit
so why are you bringing this up, dipshit
>it fought tanks and got mauled
and now those commanders know not to use it to fight tanks with
do you want to exhaustively list all the other shit that people learn at NTC?
>infantry fight at NTC, get mauled
>HURR DURR THE AGE OF INFANTRY IS DEAD
>US ground commanders have been crying for assault guns because they've been using Bradleys as assault guns, inadequately
Why don't they just upgun the Bradley then?
THEY JUST FRICKING DID IT'S CALLED THE M10 BOOKER!!
they're just not using the Bradley chassis because they want to phase it out!
but it weighs as much as a t-90 and has way too high ground pressure to actually go where the infantry goes so its just a really really shitty tank
see
so its a very poorly designed assault gun with fricked up requirements that is not very capable for its weight or size....
yes I really want the infantry to have assault guns and I think its an awesome capability. I just dont think the M10 brooker is the best way to do it...
how the MGS fit into the SBCT was a closer match for what it should have been (technical issues asside that could have been fixed instead of divesting it completly)
BUT given that toy, they eventually had to take it away
so now they're just repeating the same thing with the IBCT, but with an even worse vehicle for its job than the MGS is
the MGS fits smoothly into an SBCT by being a common chassis with the exact same mobility characteristics and spare parts as its parent unit
vs a completly new chassis, in an airborne unit thats heaviest vehicle is some humvees in a single company. and it does not share the mobility characteristics of the rest of the brigade or even the deployability characteristics.
its not even more deployable than an MBT. they could just cross attach MBTs if they're going to logistically support the M10.
>they could just cross attach MBTs if they're going to logistically support the M10.
thats literally what they wanted to avoid doing
the solution to "we need a lighter vehicle to slip into infantry divisions than an MBT" is not to slap an MBT in there
>"we need a lighter vehicle to slip into infantry divisions than an MBT"
yes and the one they went with is just as logistically demanding as an MBT and has the same strategic and tactical mobility
>yes and the one they went with is just as logistically demanding as an MBT
the M10 is lighter than an M1 abrams and does not need a dedicated engineering battalion to support it
>and has the same strategic and tactical mobility
strategic mobility is better, due to not needing an engineering battalion
what makes the M10 inherently more self-recoverable than the abrams.
I imagine the answer is that they want the abrams to do things like breach obstacles so it needs engineering support. and they can also much easier support an engineering unit inside a mech unit. obviously an ibct cannot support a mechanized engineering unit...
>what makes the M10 inherently more self-recoverable than the abrams.
for starters, its more than 10 tons lighter
>bviously an ibct cannot support a mechanized engineering unit
you could attach M1s, an enginering unit to an infantry division
and then why not add M2 bradleys so the infantry can best make use of the M1s mobility
and now that its a very heavy unit, we should commit it to the heaviest fighting
and now we need to raise a lighter division to replace it without all that equipment
and we shall give them the M10 in place of the M1, since its a lighter, less demanding unit, that was made according to the criteria an infantry division asked for
>its a very poorly designed assault gun
once again, I wonder if you're just a moron or disingenuous
>fricked up requirements
go on smart boy, what are your requirements?
>is not very capable for its weight or size
you try doing better
>how the MGS fit into the SBCT was a closer match
except it didn't work. next.
>given that toy, they eventually had to take it away
WRONG
it was decommed because of its technical shortcomings, nothing to do with its tactical conops
>by being a common chassis with the exact same mobility characteristics and spare parts as its parent unit
except it turned out that they couldn't properly fit a 105mm into that requirement set
>an airborne unit thats heaviest vehicle is some humvees in a single company
JLTVs, and irrelevant
>it does not share the mobility characteristics of the rest of the brigade or even the deployability characteristics
also irrelevant
they're an option not a fricking requirement
>its not even more deployable than an MBT
WRONG
>they could just cross attach MBTs
WRONG
>which means that it might as well have been an abrams
WRONG
>just as logistically demanding as an MBT and has the same strategic and tactical mobility
WRONG
>what makes the M10 inherently more self-recoverable than the abrams
weight alone is already a significant advantage, idiot
>weight alone is already a significant advantage, idiot
but it weighs as much as a t-90, who also role around with dedicated engineering support lol
why are you disingenuously equating a T-90 with an Abrams?
>>just as logistically demanding as an MBT and has the same strategic and tactical mobility
>WRONG
errrm yes you need a C-17 to get it in theater just like an abrams : )
>why are you disingenuously equating a T-90 with an Abrams?
im comparing and contrasting it to the M10 because they weight the same. except the T-90 has less elbow room. but higher fuel range, lower ground pressure, better tactical mobility (sans reverse speed), better gun, and better armor
>for starters, its more than 10 tons lighter
see
>and we shall give them the M10 in place of the M1, since its a lighter, less demanding unit,
barely
>except it turned out that they couldn't properly fit a 105mm into that requirement set
technical issues could have been solved by moving to the V hull chassis. they divested the capability because they weren't using it properly EVEN THOUGH it fit much much more smoothly into an SBCT than a m10 will ever fit into an IBCT seeing as the M10 is a completly new class of vehicle that weighs 4 times as much as a JLTV
>you need a C-17 to get it in theater
that's not the only measure of mobility, and anyway everything heavier than a JLTV basically needs C-17s
>im comparing and contrasting it to the M10
no you're not, you're disingenuously saying "the T-90 is better than the M10 so why not just use an M1"
>the T-90 has less elbow room. but higher fuel range, lower ground pressure, better tactical mobility (sans reverse speed), better gun, and better armor
and far worse sensors and optics which you conveniently left out
>who also role around with dedicated engineering support
not as much as an M1 does
>barely
WRONG
>moving to the V hull chassis
debatably, but a V-hull would also need a C-17 to ship and isn't air droppable either, so point your own criticism at your own stupid idea
>they divested the capability because they weren't using it properly
WRONG
>the M10 is a completly new class of vehicle that weighs 4 times as much as a JLTV
so what? a Stryker MGS DVH would clock in at near 30 tons as well, so once again, direct your own criticism at yourself
you can't come up with a better idea sweaty so frick off
well, that's the result of
>Why don't they just upgun the Bradley
any more bright ideas?
the T-90 is so light because it sacrificed as much internal space as possible to reduce the surface area that needs protecting
it would be a sub-optimal infantry support vehicle if used in that manner because it has very little elevation, gun depression, and would tire the crew out quickly in combat due to reduced elbow room
the cramped interior is less of a hindrance in its intended role of breaking through enemy lines as it will be replaced by a fresh platoon once its reached its destination
but if its trundling along with infantry on extended missions then crew fatigue will be a major issue
in all the patrols ive ever done in the infantry that weren't COIN barely any of them could have an M10 trundling alongside us. apart from setpiece raids and defenses where we would have had to coordinate and have it meet us via the road which means that it might as well have been an abrams
>its not meant to fight T-90s
Ok but that doesnt mean it wont, or even that it likely wont, the battalion is (theoretically) going to face enemies, those enemies might have tanks. If its a soviet style mechanised formation then at the battalion level they almost inevitably will have at least a squadron of tanks attached to a given battalion, iirc they have 34 tanks in a tank regiment-plus one MR battalion, and 41 tanks in a MR Regiment''s tank company, attached to 3 motor rifle battalions in IFVs/AFVs, Then a Motor rifle division has usually.2 motor rifle regiments and 1 armoured regiments, as well as an AT battalion.i.e. there is almost always a tank. Those tanks might be T-90s, and they'll engage the battalion and its assets, including the M10. In turn the M10 is itself a tank, which is a large target, and has a 105mm gun, which is an obvious threat which stands out from the IFVs or wheeled vehicles, and will be the priority target both for enemy armour and enemy AT teams, therefore as its going to be a priority target and its going to be engaged by enemy tanks if it is ever involved in a near-peer conflict, it ought to just be an MBT. Yes it could be pulled back while AT teams try and engage enemy armour, but that leaves enemy armour able lay down supporting fire while the M10 is absent, or even if the tanks are destroyed its still more vulnerable to AT than an MBT, which is hard to completely avoid.by positioning alone while trying to support the infantry at the same time If its lighter weight and lack of firepower/protection is for deployability reasons, then it would need to be much lighter than it has been stated to be. As it is, it seems to be a cool project to build a new tank, but not really an improvement in any way.
>those enemies might have tanks
if an infantry brigade meets tanks, its first option is not not to deploy the M10s to fight those tanks head on
they will instead use their javelins as the main defense and use the M10s as a supporting arm for the javelins
because thats what the M10 is, an attached unit to provide additional firepower to infantry, not an MBT
it is not meant to radically alter the way an infantry unit fights, especially not against enemy tanks, its meant to give them more tactical options in combat
>As it is, it seems to be a cool project to build a new tank, but not really an improvement in any way.
it fills a tactical niche that the army wanted filled, regimental infantry tank battalions
they arent replacing M1 abrams in any role, they are adding a anti-fort/anti-infantry weapon to a formation that usually gets no such vehicle
If the M10s cant effectively engage tanks, and the infantry are relying exclusively on javelins, doesnt that require a certain ability to acquire targets and not get shot while doing so? Because one of the big advantages of a modern NATO MBT over an infantryman with a rocket launcher are the; high magnification/quality thermals+commander hunter-killer, the ability to very rapidly reposition, the ability to rapidly put multiple shots on target, and being bulletproof+resistant to many anti materiel or even anti tank weapons from the right aspect. The ability to set up and hope for the enemy to oblige is also not always an option, especially if the infantry is assaulting a position, and the team is at a closer range with obstructing terrain and in range of enemy infantry+IFVs. There is also the issue that people will slip up sometimes, and getting the drop on an M10 will be more lethal than on an M1. I understand that javelins etc are powerful and meant to be the 'primary' AT solution, but really an MBT can both provide additional firepower for the infantry, and much more potent AT abilities, while being more surviveable for the crew, i dont understand why the M10, which seemingly isnt actually light enough to be appreciably easier to deploy (i could be wrong about this?), or faster than a 70 km/h M1, is a choice over just using an M1 or a stripped down version of it, does it even have blowout panels?
I get they arent replacing the M1 in a role, but why not just give them an M1 for the role? They already have them.
Idk, whats dug in infantry going to do when it needs to move? Or vs artillery? Or CAS? Or a tank at 3km using the terrain and its thermals to harass them with HE while screened by its own infantry?
If its just a bunker/position buster, and nothing more, isnt that something the javelin can do too? Or an IFV? Bradleys have missiles. Shouldnt it be easier to use a javelin on a static position than using a javelin on a tank?
infantry want tanks
M1 abrams too heavy and needs a dedicated support battalion
so they get M10 instead, basically M1 that weights less
do you get it?
of they wanted M1s to be in an infantry division they would have asked for M1s
What weight is too heavy, and by which metric does too heavy become too heavy? The 105 M1s were like 50ish tonnes, which seems to be the same as the heavier end of the M10s.
>What weight is too heavy
look up why the Russians tried to keep their T-64s/72s/80s down to ~45 tons
What governs the weight limit tho? And the M10 goes to like 48 tonnes so is that too heavy? I understand heavy=inconvenient to move, but arent even the russian tanks on like 55 tonnes these days anyways? Perhaps its a matter of logistics improving as well?
>What governs the weight limit
civvy road infrastructure
>role of an attached infantry battalion in a modern ICBT
hold ground
>Tanks are integrated at battalion level
yes, but what kind of battalion? 😉
>they are going to have to face equivalent or near-equivalent enemy units with advantages in firepower, all other things being equal?
and the US Army determined that a dug-in infantry brigade beats all comers, all else being equal
this finding was not without controversy I assure you, but from it stemmed the Stryker program and all the other 8x8s and 8x8 doctrine of NATO and even the JGSDF
>How fast does an infantry brigade move?
Operationally, faster than every other kind of formation
2nd Cavalry Regiment has been demonstrating its ability to quickly reinforce the NATO front line from Germany for nearly a decade now
>What is the weight limit for deployability
~45 tons
>but javelins were used in afghanistan for this kind of thing by infantry
from which experience they decided it really was too damn expensive
they also used the Bradley's Bushmasters as assault guns and found them incredibly inefficient, using up entire vehicle-loads just to blast out one bunker
all this is nothing new by the way, it's documented in all the reasons put forward for 105mm support guns
and before we got to forming infantry divisions, all this also applied to IBCTs
nothing very new here IOW
>if the infantry is assaulting a position
infantry will NOT assault a superior enemy
that's for the Armoured Divisions to do
>people will slip up
so equip the whole damn army with Abrams MBTs and Namer-type Abrams IFVs? not going to work
>an MBT can
not move as fast as the infantry brigade can, and that's that
an M10 that's present can do all that better than an M1 that's left behind
>i could be wrong about this
you are
>why not just give them an M1
M1s are too slow
>whats dug in infantry going to do when it needs to move
move, and faster than it would if it had Abrams to carry along
>isnt that something the javelin can do too? Or an IFV?
reread the comment you replied to, if you're too lazy to, I won't bother writing
Through exercises, the US Army determined that given two brigades of equal strength with equal supporting assets (artillery, radar, CAS, etc), one infantry and the other mechanised, the infantry brigade will win if it can dig in. if you give both units the same objective, the one who can get there faster and dig in first wins.
on that basis the Army designed its infantry to move fast and dig in, which is where the mobility requirement becomes especially important. you can't wait around all day for bridging and POL to do their thing. on the same basis it also designed its units to blow dug-in enemy out of their bunkers efficiently and effectively.
see where the MPF fits in that doctrine?
>50-60 tonne chasis
MPF is significantly lighter
>Missiles are expensive for sure, but are they more expensive than commissioning 500 new tanks
Yes
ANY NATO AFV costs north of 10 million dollars now. So forget all that "what if Bradley, M60, M1" bullshit, the chassis alone will all cost at least that much. Now let's talk ammo. 105mm is likely 7-10x cheaper than a Javelin missile. Do the math.
>infantry will NOT assault a superior enemy
assaulting positions is literally infantry's main job, moron
>that's for the Armoured Divisions to do
no it isn't. armored divisions are exploitation forces. they might be able to break through weak defensive lines, but against a full multi-layered defense clearing a path for them is and always has been the job of the infantry.
Not true since 1991, dipshit
>but against a full multi-layered defense clearing a path for them is and always has been the job of the infantry.
thats the job of the reinforced heavy division
for when no flank is available and forcing your way directly through a defender area is the only option left, the reinforced heavy division is the main use
it trades a stryker brigade for a third armored brigade and adds an additional engineering brigade to ensure no obstacle can stop them for long
they bring heavily concentrated firepower to create a breakthrough and then maneuver within the enemy battle space to force the defenders to abandon their current positions to react to them
then heavy divisions come in and relieve the reinforced heavy division and to defeat each defending unit in detail and complete the encirclement
infantry divisions are meant to both attack and defend, but at a smaller scale than the armored divisions
not a good description
>at a smaller scale
ie bullying a weaker enemy force, or flanking to take and hold unprotected terrain
they're only intended to fight against an equivalent enemy force on the defensive, preferably dug in
he's not a chang, he's repeating US fringe right bullshit
Infantry never assault a position? What exactly is the role of an attached infantry battalion in a modern ICBT? Tanks are integrated at battalion level in many militaries, and the battalion is generally the smallest operational unit, so it seems like they are going to have to face equivalent or near-equivalent enemy units with advantages in firepower, all other things being equal?
True but when it comes to tanks thats whats lead to modern MBT design, the aim is see first+shoot first, and keep screened with infantry, but the reality is that doesnt always happen, so now we have the technology to do so, we have 68 tonne MBTs which can take an apfsds to the ufp and an rpg blast to the skirts.
How fast does an infantry brigade move? I was under the impression that many infantry brigades had IFVs, and only certain 'light' ones did not. Isnt the 72 km/h max speed of an M1 actually much faster than a bradley? On that topic, how fast is the M10 supposed to go? If its less than 70 then surely its less suitable?
I get the logic behind the exercises which justify MPF, it just seems to me that racing to a position uncontested, then digging in, and winning in one scenario on a clock is not the whole picture, do you have a link or something to a study from these exercises?
I've seen a lot of ranges of weight, i'd admit a 38 tonne MPF is significantly lighter, but less so the 48 tonne one. What is the weight limit for deployability? Doesnt it pretty much need to be a C-17 or C-5 anyways? Unless the limit is for railways or flatbeds?
Ok fine ammo cheaper, but javelins were used in afghanistan for this kind of thing by infantry alone.
>What exactly is the role of an attached infantry battalion in a modern ICBT?
infantry arent attached to an IBCT
they are the main component
>Tanks are integrated at battalion level in many militaries, and the battalion is generally the smallest operational unit, so it seems like they are going to have to face equivalent or near-equivalent enemy units with advantages in firepower, all other things being equal?
the MPF is going to be attached at the divisional level
this is more or less how its done in other countries that have attached tank units, either divisional or regimental tank units
> I was under the impression that many infantry brigades had IFVs, and only certain 'light' ones did not
an armored brigade has IFVs
an ABCT carries 3 companies of tanks and 3 companies of mech infantry riding in IFVs
they are deployed in combined armes teams consisting of varying numbers of tanks to mech infantry depending on the situation
an IBCT consists of battalions of infantry who are footmobile
their trucks are for operational mobility and they dismount before entering combat and are only armed for self-defense (if at all), though they are authorized to equip JLTVs for combat if needed
an infantry division will be composed primarily of 3 IBCTs along with their associated support like recon, artillery, etc
one of these supporting units is a tank battalion consisting of the M10s
divisional command will commit the battalion to the battle as needed to reinforce units that need them
You have to go back to the foundational Army understanding of 21st century combat to know how the MPF requirements came about.
>that leaves enemy armour able lay down supporting fire while the M10 is absent
Nope
In modern combat, dug-in infantry beats everything
>while trying to support the infantry at the same time
It's not going to
The MPF is for digging said enemy dug-in infantry out of bunkers
The Army specced 105mm precisely because Bushmaster wasn't doing this job well, and missiles are too expensive
>not really an improvement in any way
It's not meant to supplant Abrams in firepower and protection
it's meant to be more mobile than Abrams, which it is
this
Missiles are expensive for sure, but are they more expensive than commissioning 500 new tanks, it isnt like the missiles arent going to be procured anyways, esp with how many are being given to ukraine. Expense is part of the reason for KE guns on MBTs, but in this case they could just use an MBT, if they really want the 105 on a 50-60 tonne chasis then surely they could just drag the 105 M1s out of storage?
there was a limit on how small it could be made due to ergonomic requirements
and the turret could not be made smaller due to requiring rear bustle ammo placement and having minimum elevation/depression that precludes a short turret
while it could be made far lighter than a T-90 or be given a much larger gun, these were seen as acceptable compromises to meet all of its requirements
>and it will be forced to fight MBTs if an IBCT comes up against them
then the javelin missiles of the infantry will be used instead of the tanks
or they can simply be deployed defensively to stall the enemy MBTs until a proper armored brigade can be used to cut the enemy off
if enemy MBTs are expected they wont be sending in an infantry division
if MBTs are being encountered despite that, then they werent going to be offensively hunting them but rather just trying to divert their advance, and the presence or absence of a light tank is not an issue
its a gun for providing fire support to beef up infantry units not an MBT
>if enemy MBTs are expected they wont be sending in an infantry division
there are 100 war college papers you can read right now about how because of kosovo and desert shield we need light rapidly deployable forces so SBCT and IBCT that are yes going to face MBTs just like in desert shield
you should also have read those papers about how infantry are going to defeat those MBTs
>no they had to take their toy away
not sure if moronic or disingenuous
they took the MGS away because it was a shit design even for its job of blowing up bunkers
and if they fight enemy MBTs they will not be sending their M10s
or their M10s will just play a supporting role in fighting them
the M10 is not the primary offensive unit in an infantry division
its a very specific usecase of giving increasing the firepower of infantry
why would its performance against MBTs be the deciding factor in its use when it is not expected to be fighting them 1v1 in the first place?
if infantry encounter tanks they will not send their sole M10 company to fight them head on, they will just use them to support javelin teams
>if enemy MBTs are expected they wont be sending in an infantry division
and again, we rotate IBCTs to be tripwire forces in europe constantly. to face down mechanized formations so no just saying WE DONT DO IT is stupid
>and now those commanders know not to use it to fight tanks with
no they had to take their toy away (MGS) and now they're giving them the same thing again lol...
It looks bad ass.
No.5854932
tactical nuclear attack. and radioactive fire.
clearly dopn't knowe shit about 1963 doctines of wars.
in a hyperthetical war tactical weapons would be used to make cerain roads unpassiable.
when a nuke hits it makes a emp pluse disabling all vehicles.
modern milltary should have counters for such attacks so that if not directly hit they can still operate even in a hostile radioactive enviroment.
unless things have some how slacked since those times.
the m60 was built on that premise.
the M10 is a simular beast built on survival
unlike the abrams its mearly a support assest for small units.
yes i was differncing the 10,000
i would love to see the sales.
because as far as i know only the scopian was exported.
and limited numbers to korea and taiwan
but that might be too old for some of you fine folks.
no way you going to export all 10,000 of them.
half at max, then again you haven't studied war readiness doctrine.
the only think i'm aware is that mostly light vehicles where exported.
and only a few times the abarams and itwas usually the old M1A1 not the M1a2 or M1a3
also M1's are too heavy for island combat.
the bridges can't take the weight.
Your lacking hard.
and you don't know fricking nothing scrub
we are talking about islands here not the us fricking a
m1's where only useful on the mainlandand the desert. you would never have a MTB on the islands the roads can't cope with that much weight.
this isn't like europe where the mud is some what frim even when wet.
in the pacific is way more wet and the storms are 5 times worse.
also you couldn't air drop a M1 on the drop of a hat
you would need a C5 galaxy and not even one of these could land as the runways are too damn short for them.
and no there not plenty of M1's to around.
and beside you never use a MTB in infantry units.and you do not use them in the fricking island jungles.
>i would love to see the sales.
5400 M60A3s were built,1600 built the rest conversions
this was all the pattons the US ever had in service at one time at the end of the cold war
of which, only about 3000 ever had US crewmen in them
1000 were sole to saudi arabia
1000 to egypt
900 sold to spain
300 to greece
about 100-ish to taiwan
smaller countries would get about a few dozen to a hundred of them
and the rest to israel
I can't help but think these would be much more suited, almost ideally, in the current situations where we see Leopards being used in Ukraine.
No.58550176
listen jack ass the T90 is 65 tons.
the M10 is 38 tons
that's not 90% moron that's only 60%
you clearly cannot into math.
>americans.
*eye roll*
ande no dumb ass its not a MTB
its a field gun on tracks.
no way is anyone believing a 105mm round is going to destory a modern tank.
let alone a t90 and that isn't made out of paper like in your video games young man.
you would be lucky to even destroy a T62 before it blows you up.
hell the M60 coulod bearly fight off a T55B let alone the modern tank.
and this M10 is almost the same armorment
its not going to go toe to toe with any modern vehicle that would be literal stupidity.
and no one in their fight mind is going to send a T90 to stop a M10 when anti tank commet rockets exist.
and you will never surive those even in a MBT
this isn't world war two anymore tanks don't face other tanks anymore.
those days are very much over.
I like that some of them will have the 50mm chain gun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM913_chain_gun
The thing about it not fitting in a C-130 makes me wonder, is there going to be a need for something only slightly bigger than it but not C-17 sized just to carry these vehicles?
yes, it's called the Airbus A400M
a US-built C-130 equivalent would probably be of similar dimensions
No.58550456
your thinking of the persing.
the M45
this M60 has not been exported
the only thried world country i can rtemeber getting these weapons was veitnam because it was too hard to get them back home that was under carter.
most of the M60A3's are with the homeland security as i pointed out before.
and it was as recent as 1999
unless something big happened since then things haven't changed they just are not mainstream
as the for the other vehicles I think they where 60 and 70's vehicles mostly low numbers and all on the coastal cities.
as far as i'm aware the M1 is still the mainstay of america even the M1A1's abandoned in afcanistan where somewhat on purpuise to clear old stock for the newer abarams but i'm not allowed to talk about anything newer than the M1A3's
so the M10 its a mobile field gun.
its uses is on fixed implacements.
the 105 round is more then capiable of blwoing up bunkers and casemates and so on.
light tanks are ideal for island combat and jungle warfare for as anon said its turret elvation and depresation there is alot of very steep hills and mountians in island combat and many of the roaqds have cliffs and shallow streams to cross
this is not ideal for a MTB who is built to be low to the ground.
the point here is to illusrate the need for light vehicles.
most MTB's are too wide for world war 2 era roas remeber that m,ost of the pacific is even lower then the third world teir
most of these roads haven't been touched since 1920
in fact most precollonial houses where in the pacifc and mostly tin huts with no doors or windows
its 35+ degrees C or 90fenthight on most days.
and therefore doors and windows are no longer needed.
I didn't see that many houses.
and island folks tend to live in small villiages anyway.
and no roads.
its mostly just jungle or grassy plains
there are roads yes but not many of them are sealed.
and they are only just barely useful to a modern 4x4 and not a modern car even.
>this M60 has not been exported
the heck are you talking about?
the M60 was sold as part of FMS as the E60
they couldnt get rid of them fast enough because they didnt want 5000 obsolete tanks cluttering their warehouses
the last 3000 M60A3s converted never had a single US crew member, they went straight to FMS, the only reason they were even made were to fill a contractual obligation and wanted them the hell out of sight ASAP
>most of the M60A3's are with the homeland security as i pointed out before.
last national guard M60 was retired in the 90s
any M60s that arent target drones or musuem pieces are being used for spare parts to sell to the people who do have M60s
Waste of resources while thousands of Abrams sit in storage. These things are also supposed to cost nearly $13 million each. The money should have been put into the development of the replacement for the Abrams instead by 2030.
Naming land vehicles after people is cringe. Imagine the next British tank being called Charles III.
No.58550633
this its most likely exported to south america
No i don't see any M60's in operations but as you said third world.
like i said its been in operation since 1999
not 1990
maybe iun your state idk
one assumed they where perhapps melted down.
again i don't see any proof of them ebing exported in mass.
the persing M45 was exported
again i think your being confused.
and that and the sorpain which looks somewhat like a m60 but it isn't.
it has a 120MM gun much bigger then the M10
the sorpain looks very much like a M60 but its the export version without the nightvision tech
unless the phipines has them idk.
but i doubt i hav eseen a M60 in active use for a really long time.
as for the 105mm round.
idk that's opinion and i would rather not entertain more of it.
most tanks ise the 120, 125 and 150mm rounds at anyrate.
but that's just MTB's support weapons are allowed to be much smaller for mobitly reasons.
again. I see the reason for the M10.
I just don't think its a mainland weapon.
fricks sake learn to fricking reply properly AND spell, it's embarrassing
M10 Bonker
>105 mm
Wasted opportunity of not naming it Wolverine.
>AFV
>AFV
>AFV
reminder that AFV is a description, neither a role nor classification
it stands for "Armoured Fighting Vehicle"
Does the Booker T have MGs?
Come on you frickers, Wolverine II was RIGHT FRICKING THERE