It's a tank because it's fully enclosed, tracked, armored, with a main cannon capable of destroying reasonably tough enemy armor and fortifications, with a coaxial machine gun and no dismounts >but we're gonna penny packet it out to the infantry
yeah like an infantry tank
It's not a tank destroyer because it has a coaxial machine gun and is primarily intended for use against fortifications in support of the infantry, y'know, like an infantry tank, because that's what it is
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>It's not a tank destroyer because it has a coaxial machine gun
Who says a tank destroyer can't have a coax?
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
if you put a coax on it they'll think they're a tank
It's an assault gun; its mission profile is so and the US Army itself said so
>all tanks must be heavily armored, says man blissfully ignorant of a hundred years of tank development
>a hundred years of tank development
culminating in the Main Battle Tank, which is not what the M10 is, and a host of other armoured vehicles
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Assault guns historically have thicker armor than tanks retard, due to the fact they’re inherently fighting at closer ranges
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
For Germany during ww2 yes but Not for the US. M113s with recoilless rifles served specifically as assault guns, in fact every categorized American assault gun post ww2 has had relatively light armor.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Ooh look, SUDDENLY armour's a factor >Assault guns historically have thicker armor than tanks
The first Sturmpanzers weren't even fully enclosed, RETARD
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>the first few had this feature!
Before they realized how much it sucks to get shot from a three story building as you support urban warfare. There’s a reason why Stugs have a roof and the Nashorn and the M10 don’t
It’s going to do everything that the Abrams did during the Iraq war minus tank on tang engagement. This will take the strain off of Abrams so they can focus on their MBT role >come across fortified buildings >blast with the 105 >bunch of guys behind a position >blast with 105
Any anti tank roles within that engagement would be tasked to soldiers using a javelin or other atgm
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
The 105mm seems overkill for it's intended job, I think a 90mm would be adequate to get the job done. They could carry more ammo that way too. I guess they went with the 105mm because they had tons of them leftover from when the Abrams was originally equipped with them?
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
the MPF program had either a 105mm or 120mm gun as a requirement, so a 90mm gun was always out of the question
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Diameter creep seems to be the future. Every tech demonstrator released these last few years for MBTs either came with a 140 standard or claimed to mount on optionally. In such a world, the only thing that could reasonably get away with mounting a 90mm gun would be a swol CV90-type IFV.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>The 105mm seems overkill
Not since WW2, when 100mm was regarded as the minimum for blowing shit up and anything lesser was strictly a compromise.
Diameter creep seems to be the future. Every tech demonstrator released these last few years for MBTs either came with a 140 standard or claimed to mount on optionally. In such a world, the only thing that could reasonably get away with mounting a 90mm gun would be a swol CV90-type IFV.
Even the CV90 has a 105 tacked on.
Honestly, when the French and Italians are swanning around with their zippy little wheeled 105s it's hard to make a case otherwise.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Not since WW2, when 100mm
This is an apples to oranges comparison. Modern powders make rounds of the same dimensions much more capable than their WW2 counterpart.
What if, due to its lighter weight but still being tracked with cannon and some armour we added a preffix beforehand to the tank designation perhaps, light? Does light tank have nice ring to it?
>Does light tank have nice ring to it?
No, because classification by weight is retarded >a Flakpanzer Gepard is a light tank >a Panzerhaubitze 2000 is a heavy tank
https://i.imgur.com/jYcqZDB.jpg
It’s going to do everything that the Abrams did during the Iraq war minus tank on tang engagement. This will take the strain off of Abrams so they can focus on their MBT role >come across fortified buildings >blast with the 105 >bunch of guys behind a position >blast with 105
Any anti tank roles within that engagement would be tasked to soldiers using a javelin or other atgm
>fortified buildings >blast with 105
Which is what an assault gun does.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yeah, that’s why it’s not being called a tank. Since…It’s being used as an assault gun. PrepHole really needs post IDs
infantry tank is a british designation that doesnt exist in the US
infantry support guns were called gun motor carriages in US service and were used in assault gun platoons
which is why no one calls the M8 scott a tank
infantry tanks are limited to slow speed in exchange for heavy armor, while the M10 has moderate speed and moderate armor
and infantry tanks were intended to fight enemy tanks, which is why the earliest infantry tanks had the decidedly anti-tank 2pdr, and later they had mixed 75mm and 6pdr variants for soft and hard targets respectively, the M10s 105mm is only for use against non-tanks
the M10 fills the same role as the M8
nowadays if it cant protect you from ATGMs why even bother?
armor exists in discrete steps of protection starting at machine guns and ending at bunker busters
protecting against more of steps is always a better option even if you cant stop all of them
>armored vehicle, so colloquially a tank >but not a tank in the MBT sense >nor a tank destroyer-tank >a direct fire support AFV for mechanized/armored infantry to have additional overmatch against similar formations that can do ersatz tank destroyer things if pressed, though suboptimal
Gun Carrier/Infantry Tank/Assault Gun/Medium Tank functionally but Light compared to Abrams. It's there so MBTs can fuck off and do their thing, especially island hopping.
>40 tons is "light" and "maneuverable"
ok
It's chunky enough to be called a Medium Tank by weight at least.
https://i.imgur.com/baMdEZR.jpg
Smaller gun, smaller size, less armor than whatever the mainline tank is at the time. Typically used for different tactical purposes due to these distinctions, such as going places the main battle tank can't.
Caliber is excessive for a light tank, but the armor resistance is on the light side.
light tank is no longer a classification in the US army
but even in the time when light tank was used, they referred to recon and cavalry vehicles
so the M5 stuart and M24 chaffee were mostly used for flank protection and rapid response
the M10 is closer to the M8 scott rather than the stuarts or chaffees
which is not a light tank, but an assault gun
No, its giving MGS firepower to motorized units who currently only have various MRAPs. The MGS is exclusively a mechanized unit thing. The MGS is being ditched, but I don't think there's anything lined up to replace it currently, unless you count the dragoon which I think pretty obviously fills a different role. Idk why we don't get rid of the stryker entirely, it was only a stopgap (literally "interim combat vehicle") until we could built better tracked designs, and all the problems with the stryker stem from it being forced to do things it was never meant to do and shouldn't have been required to anyway.
>Idk why we don't get rid of the stryker entirely
Because wheeled 8x8s are a very very very useful and economical capability to have >it was only a stopgap
But an ingenious one: "look, we'll buy these things; if they work out, we switch over entirely to wheels instead of tracks; if they don't, the Humvee- and truck-borne infantry divisions get a much-needed upgrade". >the problems with the stryker stem from
the retarded "must fit in a C-130" requirement. Minus that horseshit it's an excellent 8x8.
Infantry battalions can't go tooling around in trucks any more. Bulletproof wheeled APCs are the minimum. Stryker Dragoons will replace regular Strykers when the budget allows.
I don't disagree that the stryker turned out well enough, but its already been stretched beyond its remit. The chassis wasn't designed for a 105 and suffered for it, and I think the sheer time its taken to get the dragoon into service is evidence that it doesn't really have room for a 30mm turret either, necessitating the skyscraper of a turret its got now. Best case scenario, the chassis should have been lengthened and widened when they added the V-hulls.
>Isn't the Abrams X suppose to replace the Abrams?
No, it's just a technology demonstrator by General Dynamics. The US Army has no expressed interest in it
M1A2 SEPv4 is what's being funded
T-55s aren't tanks either then because autocannons can shoot through them.
See how stupid that sounds?
for a fine example
Yes, modern autocannons can punch through the roof and rear of a T-55; they can also punch through the roof and rear of a Centurion tank likewise. The T-55 and Centurion tanks are still considered Main Battle Tanks, FOR THEIR TIME.
How do muzzle reference systems even work? I understand their basic function of ensuring alignment and account for warp from heat etc, but is it a laser and a prism like surveying equipment?
> but is it a laser and a prism like surveying equipment?
Basically this. It’s just two reference points and it detects shifts between the static point on the base to the tip
There has to have been a defining incident like that. Someone higher up stood too close and got hit with a pile of muck and said “fuck it! Get the mudguards”
That's the beauty of democracy and free speech though. I'd rather watch retards here argue forever over nothing any day instead of something like weibo for example
its because most people in threads like this see one person dare to have an opinion and then temporarily adopt opposing views just to get into arguments. because everyone is anonymous, you can get away with this behavior, if you did this anywhere else you'd simply be known as a pest.
Main battle tanks provide mobile protected firepower. It can be argued that this is a specialization. But that doesn't necessarily exclude it from being a tank. I suspect that they want to be able to sell this to certain police forces so that's why they don't want to call it a "tank".
>that doesn't necessarily exclude it from being a tank
No, it is then simply an armoured fighting vehicle. You're adopting an overly-generalised definition that is at least seventy years out of date, if not more. >they want to be able to sell this to certain police forces
Meds.
its because most people in threads like this see one person dare to have an opinion and then temporarily adopt opposing views just to get into arguments. because everyone is anonymous, you can get away with this behavior, if you did this anywhere else you'd simply be known as a pest.
You might as well call it a tracked gun or just a vehicle if infantry support gun/vehicle and assault gun isn't in your tastes It isn't a MBT because it lacks MBT class armor. The other things that resemble light tanks at this point are things like the CV90105 and that becomes a doctrinal question.
It means a motorized gun, as in a self propelled gun without the implication that SPG carries being that they're artillery. The T28 was considered a super heavy (turretless) tank and assault gun/tank, not a GMC (which it was stripped of descriptor wise). GMCs of the era were applied to things with relatively little to no armor so it isn't a good example of "whatever the fuck you wanted it to mean."
Except "Gun Motor Carriage" was also the term for SPGs. And self-propelled AA. And self-propelled anti-tank guns. Again, it meant whatever you wanted it to mean.
>it could basically mean whatever the fuck you wanted it to mean.
Tank is the same. This whole argument is retarded nitpicking. You can call M10 a tank because it looks like a tank and fills a doctrinal role that has historically been specifically filled by things called "tanks" in some countries. You can call it a not-tank because the Army insists it's not a tank, as they don't want meathead infantry commanders to go out of their way and use their organic M10s to fight concentrations of enemy T-80s
>You can call M10 a tank because it looks like a tank and fills a doctrinal role that has historically been specifically filled by things called "tanks" in some countrie
considering its an american tank, we use the american definition
which is that its not a tank of any kind
the closest predecessor to it was the M8 scott, something that was never referred to as a tank
> You can call it a not-tank because the Army insists it's not a tank, as they don't want meathead infantry commanders to go out of their way and use their organic M10s to fight concentrations of enemy T-80s
you dont call it a tank because it isnt
You use the American definition. I will call it a tank from now on specifically because you can't tell me what to do. >it isn't
According to you. But we've already established that your opinion doesn't matter.
>Be T-80U >Be 46 tons >Be equipped with 1,250hp engine >Have 27hp/ton and be speedy but throw turret when ammo is hit
>Be M10 Booker >Be 42 tons >Be equipped equipped with a 1,070hp engine >Have 25hp/ton and be speedy and light enough to cross bridges that the Abrams can't but also have Abrams blowout protection
>105mm cannon >Tracks >Shrapnel/Bullet protection
Its a tank, but it's role is *primarily* infantry support according to doctrine and the head of the design program. Thats not to say it cant shoot other tanks or perform recon, just that its not supposed to
It's not. It's an assault gun. The Army itself says so; it's represented to Congress as an "infantry assault vehicle" and its primary function is destroying bunkers (so it's not a tank destroyer either).
>the first few had this feature!
Before they realized how much it sucks to get shot from a three story building as you support urban warfare. There’s a reason why Stugs have a roof and the Nashorn and the M10 don’t
>structural elements change
Yes, and that's why mission profile determines classification.
As I understand it:
Army, back in the forgotten mists of time, wanted a light tank.
Industry wasn’t able to offer a satisfactory light tank.
Army decided to put it on hold and for the time being settle for an up-gunned Stryker.
Since the Army wanted a light tank they ended up trying to use the 105mm Stryker as one, and it did a bad job in that role.
Army tried to find a light tank but gave up when industry still couldn’t offer one.
Having given up on getting what they wanted the Army settled for what they could get, the MPF.
The M10 was selected because it was most like a tank with controls identical to the M1; it was the closest thing they could get to a light tank.
One day I’d really like to find out why the light tank acquisition failed. Poor industry performance? Was there good concepts internationally but the Army had to buy American? Or were Army expectations out of line with budget?
Couple things wrong with this: >settle for an up-gunned Stryker
Stryker was "what if we put that gun on an 8x8"
The tracked requirement was still there
Don't confuse the tracked and wheeled assault gun requirements, they're nominally 2 different vehicles >gave up when industry still couldn’t offer one
They didn't give up, they just decided not to buy
There were other budget priorities >Poor industry performance? Was there good concepts internationally but the Army had to buy American? Or were Army expectations out of line with budget?
None of these because it didn't fail
In a nutshell, the US Army was just window-shopping. It's like you looking at the latest model of mobile phone every year until you actually need to buy one.
The M10 is absolutely a light tank, but you've gotta be fucking retarded to think this thing is replacing the M1. That's only gonna happen if we suffer a cataclysmic economic depression, turn inward, and force the DoD to run like a Central European military.
Smaller gun, smaller size, less armor than whatever the mainline tank is at the time. Typically used for different tactical purposes due to these distinctions, such as going places the main battle tank can't.
>Smaller gun, smaller size, less armor >Typically used for different tactical purposes >M10 Booker light tank >M2 Bradley light tank >M270 HIMARS light tank
The people who call it a tank then complain about how it isn't a good tank. If you call it something else, they'd have to judge it by its ability to meet its intended role which is way harder.
You can fit 2 on a C-17, and they require less shipping for maintenance and resupply. They're going to the light divisions, which are designed to be more easily transported across the planet than the armored divisions.
>When you're infantry and need a tracked vehicle with a gun to cross a bridge that can't take more than 50 tons >When you need more than a single Abrams in an area >When you're infantry that just want a 105mm to blow holes into things expediently
>It just has to be called something else because of bureaucracy.
infantry support is not the light tank role
the M3 bradley is closer to being a light tank
the real reason no one calls anything a light tank is because using weight as a classification was meaningless
as the M24 chaffee weighted as much as a pre-war medium or even a japanese medium tank
American's that have the unfortunate to be a part of the 1st Infantry Division . (We are the Big Red One ) (yay Playa )
yeah,,, anyway.. when you enter combat please figure out how to fight alongside this bitched up fucking not really armored, not a real useful gun, probably will break down any way tank kinda ? ? maybe ? thing ?
Some folks asked us to give you Abrams M! MBT's in support but we spent a lot of money with that Ukraine thing, so we all gotta kinda tighten our belts a notch.
Love you so much - Big Army (and Congress " says Hey "
>fucking not really armored
it has 30mm autocannon protection and APS/ERA to stop shaped charges
>not a real useful gun
105mm was chosen because it can take a useable HE payload
and they plan on producing programmable rounds for it
and there really isnt any other direct fire, large caliber gun organic to an infantry division to begin with
>probably will break down any way tank kinda
its 20 tons lighter than an M1, so it wont need a dedicated division-level engineering brigade to build bridges for it or to tow it out of ditches
>it wont need a dedicated division-level engineering brigade to build bridges for it or to tow it out of ditches
Or a separate maintenance battalion to support it.
Consolidation. Its replacing an armored recon vehicle, a tank destroyer and an ATGM vehicle; and its intended to be better than all of them. Its faster than the AMX, outpenetrates the ERC and outranges the VAB Mephisto. Plus its got IED protection, which none of the former have, as well as sensors and jammers the french have historically lacked on a lot of their AFVs. >no better armour protection than what it replaces.
Yes it is, its got native 14.5 protection. AMX only has that with extensive armor addons.
>americans had to degrade protection to light tank tier to achieve 40 tons while ordinary russian MBT's with MBT tier protection already weigh 40 tons
???
Making a thing smaller is after all the first and most obvious answer to making it lighter. They still have a 125mm gun, a full ammo load and a rotating turret with MBT tier armor.
>Making a thing smaller is after all the first and most obvious answer to making it lighter.
it also means that the T-72 crew has almost as much ammo as the M1 abrams shoved in a much smaller space
so its no surprise that it blows its turret into the sky when hit
they wanted the same ergonomics as the M1 abrams, which means that making it as cramped T-72 is out of the question
due to requesting things like a turret bustle ammo rack and gun elevation and depression and elbow room
No amount of internal space is gonna help when the ammo blows. And similarly separated ammo compartment with blowout panels would work just as well with a T-72 they just haven't done it because they don't care and they don't have enough money. >elbow room
You cannot justify tens of tons of extra weight or alternatively light tank tier protection by referring to "elbow room". T-72 ergonomics are just fine. Everyone has a seat they sit it. You don't need to be able to go out for a walk inside the tank.
>No amount of internal space is gonna help when the ammo blows
it helps prolonged operations because people arent going to be stuffed in a sardine can
>And similarly separated ammo compartment with blowout panels would work just as well with a T-72
the M1 and M10 both wanted the ammo in the turret bustle to reduce the odds of it getting hit and to make the blowout panels more effective
the extra weight simply considered a fair tradeoff for a larger turret
>You cannot justify tens of tons of extra weight or alternatively light tank tier protection by referring to "elbow room".
the loss of armor is presumably considered an adequate trade off for more internal volume, because it isnt meant to fight enemy tanks in the first place
>T-72 ergonomics are just fine
spoken like a true soviet
the T-72 has a height limit because of how cramped it is
>heavy and bulky.
No they are not. We are talking about vehicles weighing tens of tons. A hundred kilograms of sensors and their support hardware is absolutely insignificant.
What the fuck are you talking about? a computer can be lifted with one arm. Same with all the monitors etc. They weigh nothing.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
A web browser and document editor can be made to weigh less than a kilogram. The most powerful gaming laptop in the world is nearly ten times the weight.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Your phone has enough processing power to handle everything a FCS does.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Oh sweety, phones can't even play the latest computer games, let alone put in the numerous datalinks and AR displays the Army hopes to mount on their vehicles
Also my phone isn't armoured or NBC protected. That matters as well.
>Its a T-55 with some K-Mart optics slapped on top.
its intended to have cross-compatibility with M1A2 electronics
so same thermal sights, gunner and commander, same FCS, and same brackets to mount APS
yeah, and all that shit that cost Pentagon a million bucks 20yrs ago is now at K-Mart for $300.
Does the Booker even have.....
400 L jettisonable rear drums
Operational
range
325 kilometres (202 mi), 610 kilometres (380 mi) with extra tanks (on unpaved roads)
What about....
The T-54/55 tanks are mechanically simple and robust. They are very simple to operate compared to Western tanks, and do not require a high level of training or education in their crewmen. The tanks have good mobility thanks to their relatively light weight (which permits easy transport by rail or flatbed truck and allows crossing of lighter bridges), wide tracks (which give lower ground pressure and hence good mobility on soft ground), a good cold-weather start-up system and a snorkel that allows river crossings.
Didn't the Bradley go berserk and turn its gun on the grandstands during a demo because it got RAINED ON?
>They are very simple to operate compared to Western tanks, and do not require a high level of training or education in their crewmen
the M10 is intended to have the same ergonomics as the M1 to make crew training easier
probably the only tank-like thing about it is that it will be manned by tankers to simplify training
>Didn't the Bradley go berserk and turn its gun on the grandstands during a demo because it got RAINED ON?
bradley never did that, it was the alvin york AA gun
which was never mass produced due to the buggy radar system
Type 10 from Japan sounds better. Same weight but 120mm and 2 million cheaper, and well sorted out and the Japs make good cars and trucks. Probably not great for anyone over 5'2".
It's a tank because it's fully enclosed, tracked, armored, with a main cannon capable of destroying reasonably tough enemy armor and fortifications, with a coaxial machine gun and no dismounts
>but we're gonna penny packet it out to the infantry
yeah like an infantry tank
>there can be no doubt
yes, there is
simply declaring it so doesn't mean it is so
>look at all its features
carefully avoiding the subject of armour
>armored
lol
lmao even
shrapnel and autocannon protection is "armor", it's not heavy armor but it's useful on the battlefield, especially if given APS
>it's not heavy armor
So it's not a tank.
Done.
it's a tank destroyer then.
It's not a tank destroyer because it has a coaxial machine gun and is primarily intended for use against fortifications in support of the infantry, y'know, like an infantry tank, because that's what it is
>It's not a tank destroyer because it has a coaxial machine gun
Who says a tank destroyer can't have a coax?
if you put a coax on it they'll think they're a tank
Says who?
It's an assault gun; its mission profile is so and the US Army itself said so
>a hundred years of tank development
culminating in the Main Battle Tank, which is not what the M10 is, and a host of other armoured vehicles
Assault guns historically have thicker armor than tanks retard, due to the fact they’re inherently fighting at closer ranges
For Germany during ww2 yes but Not for the US. M113s with recoilless rifles served specifically as assault guns, in fact every categorized American assault gun post ww2 has had relatively light armor.
Ooh look, SUDDENLY armour's a factor
>Assault guns historically have thicker armor than tanks
The first Sturmpanzers weren't even fully enclosed, RETARD
>the first few had this feature!
Before they realized how much it sucks to get shot from a three story building as you support urban warfare. There’s a reason why Stugs have a roof and the Nashorn and the M10 don’t
It’s going to do everything that the Abrams did during the Iraq war minus tank on tang engagement. This will take the strain off of Abrams so they can focus on their MBT role
>come across fortified buildings
>blast with the 105
>bunch of guys behind a position
>blast with 105
Any anti tank roles within that engagement would be tasked to soldiers using a javelin or other atgm
The 105mm seems overkill for it's intended job, I think a 90mm would be adequate to get the job done. They could carry more ammo that way too. I guess they went with the 105mm because they had tons of them leftover from when the Abrams was originally equipped with them?
the MPF program had either a 105mm or 120mm gun as a requirement, so a 90mm gun was always out of the question
Diameter creep seems to be the future. Every tech demonstrator released these last few years for MBTs either came with a 140 standard or claimed to mount on optionally. In such a world, the only thing that could reasonably get away with mounting a 90mm gun would be a swol CV90-type IFV.
>The 105mm seems overkill
Not since WW2, when 100mm was regarded as the minimum for blowing shit up and anything lesser was strictly a compromise.
Even the CV90 has a 105 tacked on.
Honestly, when the French and Italians are swanning around with their zippy little wheeled 105s it's hard to make a case otherwise.
>Not since WW2, when 100mm
This is an apples to oranges comparison. Modern powders make rounds of the same dimensions much more capable than their WW2 counterpart.
Except it's not intended for destroying tanks.
quads get
>all tanks must be heavily armored, says man blissfully ignorant of a hundred years of tank development
What if, due to its lighter weight but still being tracked with cannon and some armour we added a preffix beforehand to the tank designation perhaps, light? Does light tank have nice ring to it?
>Does light tank have nice ring to it?
No, because classification by weight is retarded
>a Flakpanzer Gepard is a light tank
>a Panzerhaubitze 2000 is a heavy tank
>fortified buildings
>blast with 105
Which is what an assault gun does.
Yeah, that’s why it’s not being called a tank. Since…It’s being used as an assault gun. PrepHole really needs post IDs
T-55s aren't tanks either then because autocannons can shoot through them.
See how stupid that sounds?
nowadays if it cant protect you from ATGMs why even bother?
fpbp
>Isn't the Abrams X suppose to replace the Abrams?
it's more like a concept car
infantry tank is a british designation that doesnt exist in the US
infantry support guns were called gun motor carriages in US service and were used in assault gun platoons
which is why no one calls the M8 scott a tank
infantry tanks are limited to slow speed in exchange for heavy armor, while the M10 has moderate speed and moderate armor
and infantry tanks were intended to fight enemy tanks, which is why the earliest infantry tanks had the decidedly anti-tank 2pdr, and later they had mixed 75mm and 6pdr variants for soft and hard targets respectively, the M10s 105mm is only for use against non-tanks
the M10 fills the same role as the M8
armor exists in discrete steps of protection starting at machine guns and ending at bunker busters
protecting against more of steps is always a better option even if you cant stop all of them
>armored vehicle, so colloquially a tank
>but not a tank in the MBT sense
>nor a tank destroyer-tank
>a direct fire support AFV for mechanized/armored infantry to have additional overmatch against similar formations that can do ersatz tank destroyer things if pressed, though suboptimal
Gun Carrier/Infantry Tank/Assault Gun/Medium Tank functionally but Light compared to Abrams. It's there so MBTs can fuck off and do their thing, especially island hopping.
It's chunky enough to be called a Medium Tank by weight at least.
Caliber is excessive for a light tank, but the armor resistance is on the light side.
but it has no armor and it's main cannon is of smaller caliber
thus, a light tank
light tank is no longer a classification in the US army
but even in the time when light tank was used, they referred to recon and cavalry vehicles
so the M5 stuart and M24 chaffee were mostly used for flank protection and rapid response
the M10 is closer to the M8 scott rather than the stuarts or chaffees
which is not a light tank, but an assault gun
Isn't the Booker suppose to replace the Stryker (cannon variant)? Isn't the Abrams X suppose to replace the Abrams?
>Isn't the Booker suppose to replace the Stryker (cannon variant)?
No
They're primarily to add a new vehicle to air assault divisions
No, its giving MGS firepower to motorized units who currently only have various MRAPs. The MGS is exclusively a mechanized unit thing. The MGS is being ditched, but I don't think there's anything lined up to replace it currently, unless you count the dragoon which I think pretty obviously fills a different role. Idk why we don't get rid of the stryker entirely, it was only a stopgap (literally "interim combat vehicle") until we could built better tracked designs, and all the problems with the stryker stem from it being forced to do things it was never meant to do and shouldn't have been required to anyway.
>Idk why we don't get rid of the stryker entirely
Because wheeled 8x8s are a very very very useful and economical capability to have
>it was only a stopgap
But an ingenious one: "look, we'll buy these things; if they work out, we switch over entirely to wheels instead of tracks; if they don't, the Humvee- and truck-borne infantry divisions get a much-needed upgrade".
>the problems with the stryker stem from
the retarded "must fit in a C-130" requirement. Minus that horseshit it's an excellent 8x8.
Infantry battalions can't go tooling around in trucks any more. Bulletproof wheeled APCs are the minimum. Stryker Dragoons will replace regular Strykers when the budget allows.
I don't disagree that the stryker turned out well enough, but its already been stretched beyond its remit. The chassis wasn't designed for a 105 and suffered for it, and I think the sheer time its taken to get the dragoon into service is evidence that it doesn't really have room for a 30mm turret either, necessitating the skyscraper of a turret its got now. Best case scenario, the chassis should have been lengthened and widened when they added the V-hulls.
>Isn't the Abrams X suppose to replace the Abrams?
No, it's just a technology demonstrator by General Dynamics. The US Army has no expressed interest in it
M1A2 SEPv4 is what's being funded
Who the fuck is Mio Booker
>Going back to the 105mm
Bongs I kneel
>It is/is not a tank
it has cannon, it has threads, it has armor
it's a tank
Adding "Strongest enemies" to try and change definitions is such a commie thing to do.
if you mean what I think you mean, see
for a fine example
Yes, modern autocannons can punch through the roof and rear of a T-55; they can also punch through the roof and rear of a Centurion tank likewise. The T-55 and Centurion tanks are still considered Main Battle Tanks, FOR THEIR TIME.
>laser targeting system
that's a fucking muzzle reference
>not canadian hospitals
It's the same in Finland, Mr Digits
Too many Arabs and Somalis on welfare, not enough taxpayers
cope thirdie
How do muzzle reference systems even work? I understand their basic function of ensuring alignment and account for warp from heat etc, but is it a laser and a prism like surveying equipment?
> but is it a laser and a prism like surveying equipment?
Basically this. It’s just two reference points and it detects shifts between the static point on the base to the tip
Ballin thanks for confirming
You gays will argue over anything.
Skub-Lovers should go into a wood chipper
I love skub
fuck you skubber
Heh, rent free.
>skublords : 1
>skubless : 0
non-skubbers are human scum and should be lined up in front of a ditch and shot
At what point in this vehicles development did someone look at the back of the treads and say “let’s put some mud flaps on there”.
>Lead dev stands behind tank
>Tank flings mud at him
There has to have been a defining incident like that. Someone higher up stood too close and got hit with a pile of muck and said “fuck it! Get the mudguards”
Probably when soldiers were stacking up behind the thing and got splattered.
Needs naked women (or femboys, depending on tastes) silhouettes on those mudflaps.
That's the beauty of democracy and free speech though. I'd rather watch retards here argue forever over nothing any day instead of something like weibo for example
"a beefed up engine" so it has a diesel engine that gets better mpg than a jet engine.
It's baffling how so-called "military enthusiasts/autists" can't make the distinction between an MBT and the MPF.
its because most people in threads like this see one person dare to have an opinion and then temporarily adopt opposing views just to get into arguments. because everyone is anonymous, you can get away with this behavior, if you did this anywhere else you'd simply be known as a pest.
Main battle tanks provide mobile protected firepower. It can be argued that this is a specialization. But that doesn't necessarily exclude it from being a tank. I suspect that they want to be able to sell this to certain police forces so that's why they don't want to call it a "tank".
>that doesn't necessarily exclude it from being a tank
No, it is then simply an armoured fighting vehicle. You're adopting an overly-generalised definition that is at least seventy years out of date, if not more.
>they want to be able to sell this to certain police forces
Meds.
Well said.
>beefed up engine
>it's a third less powerful
What did they mean by this?
modern US tanks are built for rapid deployment, IE dropped out of planes and shit.
>Infantry support vehicle/assault gun
Not a tank destroyer, not a tank.
You might as well call it a tracked gun or just a vehicle if infantry support gun/vehicle and assault gun isn't in your tastes It isn't a MBT because it lacks MBT class armor. The other things that resemble light tanks at this point are things like the CV90105 and that becomes a doctrinal question.
>Ontos
The revolver of tanks.
They should bring back the "Gun Motor Carriage" designation, because it could basically mean whatever the fuck you wanted it to mean.
>because it could basically mean whatever the fuck you wanted it to mean
>M1 Abrams Tank
>M2 Bradley Tank
>M10 Booker Tank
>M1296 Stryker Dragoon Tank
>JLTV tank
>F-22 tank
>Iowa-class tank
It means a motorized gun, as in a self propelled gun without the implication that SPG carries being that they're artillery. The T28 was considered a super heavy (turretless) tank and assault gun/tank, not a GMC (which it was stripped of descriptor wise). GMCs of the era were applied to things with relatively little to no armor so it isn't a good example of "whatever the fuck you wanted it to mean."
Except "Gun Motor Carriage" was also the term for SPGs. And self-propelled AA. And self-propelled anti-tank guns. Again, it meant whatever you wanted it to mean.
Modern definitions skew SPG = artillery.
>it could basically mean whatever the fuck you wanted it to mean.
Tank is the same. This whole argument is retarded nitpicking. You can call M10 a tank because it looks like a tank and fills a doctrinal role that has historically been specifically filled by things called "tanks" in some countries. You can call it a not-tank because the Army insists it's not a tank, as they don't want meathead infantry commanders to go out of their way and use their organic M10s to fight concentrations of enemy T-80s
>You can call M10 a tank because it looks like a tank and fills a doctrinal role that has historically been specifically filled by things called "tanks" in some countrie
considering its an american tank, we use the american definition
which is that its not a tank of any kind
the closest predecessor to it was the M8 scott, something that was never referred to as a tank
> You can call it a not-tank because the Army insists it's not a tank, as they don't want meathead infantry commanders to go out of their way and use their organic M10s to fight concentrations of enemy T-80s
you dont call it a tank because it isnt
>we use the american definition
Who's "we", gay?
You use the American definition. I will call it a tank from now on specifically because you can't tell me what to do.
>it isn't
According to you. But we've already established that your opinion doesn't matter.
>According to
the US Army
>but I will be a retard without a cause
Suit yourself.
>40 tons is "light" and "maneuverable"
ok
power to weight is what matters
>Be T-80U
>Be 46 tons
>Be equipped with 1,250hp engine
>Have 27hp/ton and be speedy but throw turret when ammo is hit
>Be M10 Booker
>Be 42 tons
>Be equipped equipped with a 1,070hp engine
>Have 25hp/ton and be speedy and light enough to cross bridges that the Abrams can't but also have Abrams blowout protection
>105mm cannon
>Tracks
>Shrapnel/Bullet protection
Its a tank, but it's role is *primarily* infantry support according to doctrine and the head of the design program. Thats not to say it cant shoot other tanks or perform recon, just that its not supposed to
>can't even resist 20mm
>the tank can't actually "tank"
>M24 chaffee
>Cant resist 76mm cannon
>The tank can't actually "tank"
See how retarded that bait looks?
>it was a light tank 80 years ago so it's a tank now
behold, a top of the line air superiority fighter of the 21st century
>>it was a light tank 80 years ago so it's a tank now
What so its not a tank?
It's not. It's an assault gun. The Army itself says so; it's represented to Congress as an "infantry assault vehicle" and its primary function is destroying bunkers (so it's not a tank destroyer either).
>structural elements change
Yes, and that's why mission profile determines classification.
There is no loader.
As I understand it:
Army, back in the forgotten mists of time, wanted a light tank.
Industry wasn’t able to offer a satisfactory light tank.
Army decided to put it on hold and for the time being settle for an up-gunned Stryker.
Since the Army wanted a light tank they ended up trying to use the 105mm Stryker as one, and it did a bad job in that role.
Army tried to find a light tank but gave up when industry still couldn’t offer one.
Having given up on getting what they wanted the Army settled for what they could get, the MPF.
The M10 was selected because it was most like a tank with controls identical to the M1; it was the closest thing they could get to a light tank.
One day I’d really like to find out why the light tank acquisition failed. Poor industry performance? Was there good concepts internationally but the Army had to buy American? Or were Army expectations out of line with budget?
Couple things wrong with this:
>settle for an up-gunned Stryker
Stryker was "what if we put that gun on an 8x8"
The tracked requirement was still there
Don't confuse the tracked and wheeled assault gun requirements, they're nominally 2 different vehicles
>gave up when industry still couldn’t offer one
They didn't give up, they just decided not to buy
There were other budget priorities
>Poor industry performance? Was there good concepts internationally but the Army had to buy American? Or were Army expectations out of line with budget?
None of these because it didn't fail
In a nutshell, the US Army was just window-shopping. It's like you looking at the latest model of mobile phone every year until you actually need to buy one.
The M10 is absolutely a light tank, but you've gotta be fucking retarded to think this thing is replacing the M1. That's only gonna happen if we suffer a cataclysmic economic depression, turn inward, and force the DoD to run like a Central European military.
>The M10 is absolutely a light tank
Define a light tank.
Smaller gun, smaller size, less armor than whatever the mainline tank is at the time. Typically used for different tactical purposes due to these distinctions, such as going places the main battle tank can't.
>Smaller gun, smaller size, less armor
>Typically used for different tactical purposes
>M10 Booker light tank
>M2 Bradley light tank
>M270 HIMARS light tank
HIMARS is obviously artillery, fits a clear and narrow niche. Same for Bradley.
And the M10 is clearly an assault gun for anyone not a total moron.
3rd PLT, C Company, 3/73AR, 82nd ABN DIV. Cool pic. Where did you get it?
Which is what's about to happen.
"Tank" is a stupid word that we should stop using
It’s not a tank.
It’s a Gun Motor Carriage
Look. We're Americans. We have no idea that term even exists. Just let us argue.
Who the fuck gives a shit what its called
The people who call it a tank then complain about how it isn't a good tank. If you call it something else, they'd have to judge it by its ability to meet its intended role which is way harder.
According to the Chinese, the ZTQ-15 is not an MBT. But it will very likely engage enemy MBT's.
Make that whatever you want.
Think of a combat scenario in which you would rather have an M10 Booker supporting you instead of an M1 Abrams MBT
the use case is literally in their doctrine
infantry divisions get a divisional MPF battalion for support
Why not give them M1 Abrams ? Are we poor ?
Because the M1 Abrams requires a larger logistical and support tail.
Poor mindset
And if you give an infantry division that organic support, it becomes an armored division minus the IFVs.
Loser mindset. The US fought ww2 with the Sherman, not the M6 heavy.
>Why not give them M1 Abrams
M1 abrams weights 60 tons and requires its own engineering brigade
>Are we poor ?
M1s are better off in armroed brigades
poor mindset
the M1 is designed for maneuvers and breakthrough
trundling along and firing at static positions is simply a waste of its capabilities
>poor is when you have multiple types of formations optimized for different tasks.
You can fit 2 on a C-17, and they require less shipping for maintenance and resupply. They're going to the light divisions, which are designed to be more easily transported across the planet than the armored divisions.
That would make all infantry units simply shittier versions of armor units. Most of the logistical overhead at a fraction of the gain.
When the M10 can be flown to you in 2 hours but the M1 is 2 days away.
>When you're infantry and need a tracked vehicle with a gun to cross a bridge that can't take more than 50 tons
>When you need more than a single Abrams in an area
>When you're infantry that just want a 105mm to blow holes into things expediently
Attached armor to airborne battalions. You know that capability we have been lacking since the Sheridan's got shit canned.
Anywhere the Abrams can’t go on its own. This thing is a light tank.
It just has to be called something else because of bureaucracy.
>It just has to be called something else because of bureaucracy.
infantry support is not the light tank role
the M3 bradley is closer to being a light tank
the real reason no one calls anything a light tank is because using weight as a classification was meaningless
as the M24 chaffee weighted as much as a pre-war medium or even a japanese medium tank
Increased support for infantry is a good thing
American's that have the unfortunate to be a part of the 1st Infantry Division . (We are the Big Red One ) (yay Playa )
yeah,,, anyway.. when you enter combat please figure out how to fight alongside this bitched up fucking not really armored, not a real useful gun, probably will break down any way tank kinda ? ? maybe ? thing ?
Some folks asked us to give you Abrams M! MBT's in support but we spent a lot of money with that Ukraine thing, so we all gotta kinda tighten our belts a notch.
Love you so much - Big Army (and Congress " says Hey "
>fucking not really armored
it has 30mm autocannon protection and APS/ERA to stop shaped charges
>not a real useful gun
105mm was chosen because it can take a useable HE payload
and they plan on producing programmable rounds for it
and there really isnt any other direct fire, large caliber gun organic to an infantry division to begin with
>probably will break down any way tank kinda
its 20 tons lighter than an M1, so it wont need a dedicated division-level engineering brigade to build bridges for it or to tow it out of ditches
>it wont need a dedicated division-level engineering brigade to build bridges for it or to tow it out of ditches
Or a separate maintenance battalion to support it.
>30mm autocannon protection
source?
Whatever Rajeesh
Call us when Congress can finally get your toilet running
59437891
(you)
I suppose all of the maintenance battalions are in Ukraine.
Existance of a category "Main Battle Tank" thats seperate from "Tank" implies existance of "Side Battle Tank"
M10 is an SBT
why not Entree and Side battletanks?
Americans think Entree Battle Tanks are the same as Main Battle Tanks
Very nice Tankette
Is there even any soviet/russian or chinese tank that that 105mm gun can't penetrate
Front cheeks of T-72B3 and above will probably resists
What's the point of this? no better armour protection than what it replaces. Guess the 3 man crew is the advantage?
>What's the point of this?
A fuckton of sensors.
Consolidation. Its replacing an armored recon vehicle, a tank destroyer and an ATGM vehicle; and its intended to be better than all of them. Its faster than the AMX, outpenetrates the ERC and outranges the VAB Mephisto. Plus its got IED protection, which none of the former have, as well as sensors and jammers the french have historically lacked on a lot of their AFVs.
>no better armour protection than what it replaces.
Yes it is, its got native 14.5 protection. AMX only has that with extensive armor addons.
>no better armour protection
that's a deep onion problem
>americans had to degrade protection to light tank tier to achieve 40 tons while ordinary russian MBT's with MBT tier protection already weigh 40 tons
???
soviet MBTs are also extremely tiny with even tinier turrets
Making a thing smaller is after all the first and most obvious answer to making it lighter. They still have a 125mm gun, a full ammo load and a rotating turret with MBT tier armor.
>a 125mm gun, a full ammo load
Somehow it doesn't sound that good today.
??
It's equivalent to 120mm and way better than a puny 105mm like on this new tank.
Oh, you didn't get it. I should have added.
>carousel autoloader
Carousel autoloader would blow up the tank just as well as a 105 mm gun or a 75 mm gun.
>Making a thing smaller is after all the first and most obvious answer to making it lighter.
it also means that the T-72 crew has almost as much ammo as the M1 abrams shoved in a much smaller space
so its no surprise that it blows its turret into the sky when hit
they wanted the same ergonomics as the M1 abrams, which means that making it as cramped T-72 is out of the question
due to requesting things like a turret bustle ammo rack and gun elevation and depression and elbow room
No amount of internal space is gonna help when the ammo blows. And similarly separated ammo compartment with blowout panels would work just as well with a T-72 they just haven't done it because they don't care and they don't have enough money.
>elbow room
You cannot justify tens of tons of extra weight or alternatively light tank tier protection by referring to "elbow room". T-72 ergonomics are just fine. Everyone has a seat they sit it. You don't need to be able to go out for a walk inside the tank.
>T-72 ergonomics are just fine
vatnik mong detected
Please show me a problem with the ergonomics. From all the videos I've seen of the internals it seems just fine.
>From all the videos I've seen
Not your personal experience?
No.
Do you have personal experience?
I guess it's "fine" if you're like 150cm tall
>No amount of internal space is gonna help when the ammo blows
it helps prolonged operations because people arent going to be stuffed in a sardine can
>And similarly separated ammo compartment with blowout panels would work just as well with a T-72
the M1 and M10 both wanted the ammo in the turret bustle to reduce the odds of it getting hit and to make the blowout panels more effective
the extra weight simply considered a fair tradeoff for a larger turret
>You cannot justify tens of tons of extra weight or alternatively light tank tier protection by referring to "elbow room".
the loss of armor is presumably considered an adequate trade off for more internal volume, because it isnt meant to fight enemy tanks in the first place
>T-72 ergonomics are just fine
spoken like a true soviet
the T-72 has a height limit because of how cramped it is
glorious Russian tank not of need Western imperialist globohomo sensors; when Ivan, Mikhail and Yuri not of answering radio, enemy detected!
Sensors weigh next to nothing, they do not present a significant factor in weight assessment.
They require power, cooling, processors and protection, all of which are both heavy and bulky.
>heavy and bulky.
No they are not. We are talking about vehicles weighing tens of tons. A hundred kilograms of sensors and their support hardware is absolutely insignificant.
>t. has never built a gaming rig
What the fuck are you talking about? a computer can be lifted with one arm. Same with all the monitors etc. They weigh nothing.
A web browser and document editor can be made to weigh less than a kilogram. The most powerful gaming laptop in the world is nearly ten times the weight.
Your phone has enough processing power to handle everything a FCS does.
Oh sweety, phones can't even play the latest computer games, let alone put in the numerous datalinks and AR displays the Army hopes to mount on their vehicles
Also my phone isn't armoured or NBC protected. That matters as well.
> 42 tons
One per C-17 lift. What an utter embarrassment.
Is the Leopard I not a tank just because it has similarly light armor? Is the T-64?
Its a T-55 with some K-Mart optics slapped on top.
MSRP $13 million for the basic unit that will be needing another $13 million of mods before being deployed.
>Its a T-55 with some K-Mart optics slapped on top.
its intended to have cross-compatibility with M1A2 electronics
so same thermal sights, gunner and commander, same FCS, and same brackets to mount APS
yeah, and all that shit that cost Pentagon a million bucks 20yrs ago is now at K-Mart for $300.
Does the Booker even have.....
400 L jettisonable rear drums
Operational
range
325 kilometres (202 mi), 610 kilometres (380 mi) with extra tanks (on unpaved roads)
What about....
The T-54/55 tanks are mechanically simple and robust. They are very simple to operate compared to Western tanks, and do not require a high level of training or education in their crewmen. The tanks have good mobility thanks to their relatively light weight (which permits easy transport by rail or flatbed truck and allows crossing of lighter bridges), wide tracks (which give lower ground pressure and hence good mobility on soft ground), a good cold-weather start-up system and a snorkel that allows river crossings.
Didn't the Bradley go berserk and turn its gun on the grandstands during a demo because it got RAINED ON?
>They are very simple to operate compared to Western tanks, and do not require a high level of training or education in their crewmen
the M10 is intended to have the same ergonomics as the M1 to make crew training easier
probably the only tank-like thing about it is that it will be manned by tankers to simplify training
>Didn't the Bradley go berserk and turn its gun on the grandstands during a demo because it got RAINED ON?
bradley never did that, it was the alvin york AA gun
which was never mass produced due to the buggy radar system
>the Bradley go berserk and turn its gun on the grandstands during a demo because it got RAINED ON
lmao
ignored
Type 10 from Japan sounds better. Same weight but 120mm and 2 million cheaper, and well sorted out and the Japs make good cars and trucks. Probably not great for anyone over 5'2".
We know it's not a tank because it's not named after someone of general rank