M10. It has underpowered main gun and giving it to wheeled Brigade Combat Teams just makes the HUGE logistical trail that these BGTs already have, even longer. And without offering really any new firepower or performance capabilities.
Don't think of it as a tank, think of it as an infantry support vehicle like an improved stryker. The advantage is that because it has tracks, its way more mobile offroad so it can hang with the infantry where wheeled vehicles cant, and it has better armor and more ammo storage than the stryker while still being transportable by air. The 105 wont be able to pen modern tanks frontally, but that's ok because it can still easily kill them from the sides/rear, and its job is mostly to sling HE for infantry anyways. Plus, the smaller round means more ammo, which is important for its role. It'll have blowout panels so itll be more survivable than a stryker and itll be way easier to upgrade it with add on armor or an APS system down the road.
Not as a big of a deal as people think, a vast majority of equipment is moved by sea anyway. An Abrams will have a much heavier logistics trail (parts, fuel, maintenance guys) than the MPF which is something an IBCT isn't equipped to deal with. You're getting a direct fire cannon with good offroad mobility and smaller logistical headache. Just because you can use an M1 doesn't mean you should.
11 months ago
Anonymous
[...]
Don't think of it as a tank, think of it as an infantry support vehicle like an improved stryker. The advantage is that because it has tracks, its way more mobile offroad so it can hang with the infantry where wheeled vehicles cant, and it has better armor and more ammo storage than the stryker while still being transportable by air. The 105 wont be able to pen modern tanks frontally, but that's ok because it can still easily kill them from the sides/rear, and its job is mostly to sling HE for infantry anyways. Plus, the smaller round means more ammo, which is important for its role. It'll have blowout panels so itll be more survivable than a stryker and itll be way easier to upgrade it with add on armor or an APS system down the road.
[...]
You can only get two M1s in a C5 and one in a C17, but you can get two M10s in a C17.
plus it runs off a regular diesel engine instead of a turbine
11 months ago
Anonymous
You don't actually have to run Abrams on jet fuel, the Aussies run theirs on diesel, it's a turbine. You could run it on lamp oil.
11 months ago
Anonymous
We should run WW3 Abrams on whale oil, just for extra pissing off the Gmorons
11 months ago
Anonymous
lamp oil is jet fuel
11 months ago
Anonymous
lamp oil and jet fuel are basically the same thing (kerosene)
Not as a big of a deal as people think, a vast majority of equipment is moved by sea anyway. An Abrams will have a much heavier logistics trail (parts, fuel, maintenance guys) than the MPF which is something an IBCT isn't equipped to deal with. You're getting a direct fire cannon with good offroad mobility and smaller logistical headache. Just because you can use an M1 doesn't mean you should.
You can only get two M1s in a C5 and one in a C17, but you can get two M10s in a C17.
It doesnt though, just because its tracked doesnt mean its going to have the logistical requirements of an MBT.
Less fuel, lighter parts and less wear from less weight.
Tank on tank combat is a meme, a fraction of the threats a tank will face.
Tank on tank combat even today in Ukraine is exceedingly rare, and instead Tanks are used more often to sling HE towards infantry and fortifications. The idea is to have a dedicated air/sea transportable infantry support vehicle that *could* kill a tank, but can also sling HE at infantry all day, and then move onto the next island.
Army wants to give its infantry divisions a tank battalion each. But they don't want to deal with the hassle of a full size abrams, adopting a lighter, more strategically mobile platform instead. It's not intended to fight in whole battalions like the armored units, but in small detachments - up to company size - assisting light infantry.
Airdropped vehicles have to sacrifice armor in order to be light enough to dropped in the first place which limits how heavy they can be armored. Western doctrine places a premium on crew survivability which is extremely difficult to do on vehicles in that weight class so that might have been part of the reasoning considering I'm pretty sure the M10 is like 40 tons.
BMD-4s are a good example, I'm pretty sure they might not even be able to stop 7.62 AP at close range let alone .50 BMG but they clock in around 13 or 14 tons. Still better than having no vehicle at all but given the US has access to tons of allies airstrips, ports, as well as pre-positioned stocks already in theatre, the airdropped shit might not have been a major concern in the long run. Or alternatively it was but they have more Infantry divisions than airborne divisions and trying to lighten the thing to be airdroppable just so the 101st can be more flexible came at too great of an expense when the rest of the infantry divs aren't benefitting from the airdrop capability and ended up with a much less protected vehicle.
In Russia's case it has far less friendly facilities to project power from and it is a massive country with large parts being relatively underdeveloped and empty (far east, Siberia etc.), on top of logistics being heavily tied to railroads so air dropped armor makes a lot more sense for them when they need assets real far away and real quickly, on top of the fact they give zero fricks for the guys inside comparatively.
Every tank thread I read is pretty much like this lol. I typically end up typing a paragraph about how an Abrams hasn't used "chobham" since the early iterations for anons whos tank knowledge consists of YouTube and not checking wikipedia sources. There's been hundreds of MPF threads and the concept of ops for it has been explained so many times I'm convinced 90% is just b8. Hypersonic threads are the same too kek.
its supposed to have the same FCS and optics as the M1A2 SEP3, since part of the requirements is that it have compatibility with M1A2 to make it easier to train tankers on it
so it can easily spot targets out to max range while turret down with its CITV
and hit buildings out to 4km out with its main gun
I'm going to be very disappointed in the zoomers crewing these if there aren't fist fights over who gets to name theirs the Bonker and other variations on that.
RUSI analysis of the use of armour in Ukraine shows that tank-versus tank combat is rare with tanks primarily used as assault guns in line with the US Army's MPF concept. See https://static.rusi.org/403-SR-Russian-Tactics-web-final.pdf The armour section begins on page 15:
THE RUSSIAN USE of armour has evolved significantly during the conflict...
...tanks are used as highly accurate fire support assets able to stand off at 2 km and utilise their enhanced optics to identify and knock out firing positions. It is important to note that while the introduction of older tanks such as the T62 and T55 to the field has been mocked online, these vehicles are largely being used in the role of the fire support function offered by BMPs and other infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs). They represent an increase in range, protection and kinetic effect over these IFVs, and therefore pose a serious battlefield threat when there are a limited number of anti-tank guided weapons able to reach them at their stand-off range.
Although Russian forces have proven very cautious in using armour in Bakhmut, they have pushed armour in a supporting fire role for infantry in other urban battles. Here, tanks have proven critical for both suppression of urban structures and rapid breaching of buildings to avoid entering through choke points and known avenues of advance. The use of older tanks as assault guns in this role appears to be preferred as the urban environment does not give more modern Russian tanks with advanced optics and multispectral concealment a sufficient tactical advantage to justify their loss.
Tank-on-tank engagements have become relatively rare, but when they occur they usually take place within 1,000 m. Engagement speed has been the determining factor in these clashes. Ukrainian tankers note that one-shot kills are possible if the point between the turret and glacis is hit. Russian explosive reactive armour (ERA), however, has proven highly effective, preventing most anti-tank systems from defeating the tank’s armour.49 Some operators have reported hitting tanks multiple times with barrel-launched ATGMs without knocking them out.
Significantly, Ukrainian tankers report that mobility kills against the vehicle’s tracks are also an effective means of removing Russian armour from the field because they usually cause the crew to abandon the vehicle.50 This is because a tank’s mobility is considered the best means of protection against artillery and its survivability is compromised if it is immobilised
Tank-on-tank engagements have become relatively rare, but when they occur they usually take place within 1,000 m. Engagement speed has been the determining factor in these clashes. Ukrainian tankers note that one-shot kills are possible if the point between the turret and glacis is hit. Russian explosive reactive armour (ERA), however, has proven highly effective, preventing most anti-tank systems from defeating the tank’s armour.49 Some operators have reported hitting tanks multiple times with barrel-launched ATGMs without knocking them out.
Significantly, Ukrainian tankers report that mobility kills against the vehicle’s tracks are also an effective means of removing Russian armour from the field because they usually cause the crew to abandon the vehicle.50 This is because a tank’s mobility is considered the best means of protection against artillery and its survivability is compromised if it is immobilised
Tank-on-tank engagements have become relatively rare, but when they occur they usually take place within 1,000 m. Engagement speed has been the determining factor in these clashes. Ukrainian tankers note that one-shot kills are possible if the point between the turret and glacis is hit. Russian explosive reactive armour (ERA), however, has proven highly effective, preventing most anti-tank systems from defeating the tank’s armour.49 Some operators have reported hitting tanks multiple times with barrel-launched ATGMs without knocking them out.
Significantly, Ukrainian tankers report that mobility kills against the vehicle’s tracks are also an effective means of removing Russian armour from the field because they usually cause the crew to abandon the vehicle.50 This is because a tank’s mobility is considered the best means of protection against artillery and its survivability is compromised if it is immobilised
wow, the sucka really did some digging
thanks man 😀
This is fundamentally a game theory concept rather than a military concept but it seems utterly obvious that tanks would primarily be used to assault infantry. If the main role of the tank is to fight other tanks why would anyone bring tanks? Anti tank weapons are a lot cheaper.
>it seems utterly obvious that tanks would primarily be used to assault infantry
Only if you don't understand what tanks are for. Direct fire "assault guns" have been outdated since WW2 because we just use indirect fire artillery instead. The entire purpose of tanks is breakthrough and mobility, not playing grabass with the infantry.
>Both sides in Ukraine use tanks primarily as infantry support vehicles, even as indirect fire pseudo artillery.
Which is like saying helicopters are "for" shooting at infantry just because that's something that has been done a few times recently.
No, tanks are intended to breakthrough static defenses. End of story. That's why they're heavily armored tractors with a cannon attached to them. If you want a vehicle that goes against infantry, you get an APC or IFV.
The M10 is likely to less catastrophically explode with blowout panels, unlike the BMD which kinda just doesn't give a shit about that (while having inferior infantry protection because extremely small space to store dismounts)
are you a dumb motherfricker or what?
Since the Cold War, we've bought:
Stryker+LAV (Canadian)
M240 (Dutch)
M249 (Dutch)
SMAW (Israeli)
M9 (Italian)
AT4 (Swedish)
Harrier (British)
40mm guns for the Sgt York Program (Swedish)
Sig M11 (Swiss)
TROPHY APS (Israeli)
HEMTT (Israeli)
that's off the top of my head
M10 isn't a replacement for the bradley, its meant to augment the firepower of airborne/light infantry with its main gun. Bradley only carries a handful of TOWs and the 25mm is not nearly as effective at knocking out buildings and fortifications as the 105. M10 carries about 40 rounds so it can hang around and pound enemy strong points much longer and with much greater effect than a brad, which has to compromise its firepower in order to carry troops - its primary job.
Legit had no idea we were doing light tanks again. I usually keep up more with naval and air force procurement but holy fricking shit how did I miss this? I never thought we'd see light tanks again.
It's a tank. Operated by tankers. In tank battalions.
Why is the concept of a high-low mix so hard to udnerstand? You give the infantry divisions tanks with lighter logistical footprint and don't bother with all the shit they'd need to operate independently above company level. That way you can parcel them out as needed and where needed to support light infantry. It's not gonna stack up great against T-72++++'s but that's not it's job, infantry's got TOWs and Javelins to deal with those.
The Ukraine war should be showing all you stupid zoomers that 90+% of what a tank does is rolling up and shooting at things the infantry wants shot.
>It's a tank. Operated by tankers. In tank battalions.
Its an assault gun, since its main role wil be infantry support
Its crewed by tankers because commonality with the M1 was a requirement to make training easier
>Why is the concept of a high-low mix so hard to udnerstand?
Because there is no high-low occuring
It serves a completely different role from the abrams
>The Ukraine war should be showing all you stupid zoomers that 90+% of what a tank does is rolling up and shooting at things the infantry wants shot.
Ukraine war has nothing to do with the procurement and role of the M10
The possibility of a conventional war means that infantry need additional firepower
An actual tank like the M1 has a different use from the M10
Its concentrated into mech units and will be used to carry out the maneuver phase of the battle
>Its an assault gun, since its main role wil be infantry support
Your premise is false. Plenty of tanks were designed and used specifically for the infantry support role. The brits had an entire doctrine of cruiser tanks and infantry tanks. The germans ran a hi-lo mix of panzer IIIs for armored units and panzer IVs for infantry ones. The original fricking tank itself was designed explicitly for the same role that MPF is going to fill now.
Everything you say after can be safely discarded because you're arguing from a dishonest premise.
>Its an assault gun, since its main role wil be infantry support
Your premise is false. Plenty of tanks were designed and used specifically for the infantry support role. The brits had an entire doctrine of cruiser tanks and infantry tanks. The germans ran a hi-lo mix of panzer IIIs for armored units and panzer IVs for infantry ones. The original fricking tank itself was designed explicitly for the same role that MPF is going to fill now.
Everything you say after can be safely discarded because you're arguing from a dishonest premise.
And honestly, a StuG is for all practical intents and purposes, a tank. The Germans used them as such and treated StuG battalions as stand-in tank battalions for their panzergrenadier ToE
>And honestly, a StuG is for all practical intents and purposes, a tank
stug is an assault gun
>The Germans used them as such and treated StuG battalions as stand-in tank battalions for their panzergrenadier ToE
up until the end of the war ToE specified panzer IVs and panthers in panzer divisions and stugs in infantry divisions
using a stug improperly does not make it a tank
infantry tank, in modern terms, would be called an assault gun
why am I the only american on /k/ that really likes chink army doctrine and gear/vehicles?
spamming navy light cruisers
torpedo/missile spam
seems like the best options they have for the navy and their amphib stuff is always joked about here but for what they want they can pull it off.
light tanks. floating tanks. their IFVs are cool. their artillery stuff is great. I really like all their wheeled big guns.
also I think their grenade sniper rifles and machine guns are fricking breasts and they are way more effective than a simple lmg
>light tanks are a meme
good thing the M10 is not a light tank
>better off just developing kamikaze drone carriers to kill meme tanks and a UGV Ontos for slinging HE up asses
the army asked for a direct fire vehicle that is well protected
kamikaze drones are inherently limited by the fact they sacrifice themselves to hit a target
the ontos is limited by the fact you need to leave the vehicle to reload and that you cannot choose ammunition on the fly
the M10 exceeds both in the role of providing fire support by being able to follow troops and sustain itself in combat for much longer
it reloads under armor and can fight in extended operations unlike either vehicle
which is why infantry divisions are getting both M10 battalions and dedicated drone operators, since the ultimately serve different roles
the M50 was retired for a reason, however, that its limited to 6 shots and limited to thin armor
Das Chiner Shit
still dont understand its purpose
The M10 or the Type 15? Type 15 is for fighting in the mountains on the Indian border.
M10. It has underpowered main gun and giving it to wheeled Brigade Combat Teams just makes the HUGE logistical trail that these BGTs already have, even longer. And without offering really any new firepower or performance capabilities.
Don't think of it as a tank, think of it as an infantry support vehicle like an improved stryker. The advantage is that because it has tracks, its way more mobile offroad so it can hang with the infantry where wheeled vehicles cant, and it has better armor and more ammo storage than the stryker while still being transportable by air. The 105 wont be able to pen modern tanks frontally, but that's ok because it can still easily kill them from the sides/rear, and its job is mostly to sling HE for infantry anyways. Plus, the smaller round means more ammo, which is important for its role. It'll have blowout panels so itll be more survivable than a stryker and itll be way easier to upgrade it with add on armor or an APS system down the road.
but M1s are moveable by air too
Not as a big of a deal as people think, a vast majority of equipment is moved by sea anyway. An Abrams will have a much heavier logistics trail (parts, fuel, maintenance guys) than the MPF which is something an IBCT isn't equipped to deal with. You're getting a direct fire cannon with good offroad mobility and smaller logistical headache. Just because you can use an M1 doesn't mean you should.
plus it runs off a regular diesel engine instead of a turbine
You don't actually have to run Abrams on jet fuel, the Aussies run theirs on diesel, it's a turbine. You could run it on lamp oil.
We should run WW3 Abrams on whale oil, just for extra pissing off the Gmorons
lamp oil is jet fuel
lamp oil and jet fuel are basically the same thing (kerosene)
>lamp oil
Does it also use rope and BOMBS?
You can only get two M1s in a C5 and one in a C17, but you can get two M10s in a C17.
congrats, you took the bait
>improved stryker
Jesus Christ, how horrible.
A vehicle like the Stryker would have a battlefield lifespan counted in seconds in a place like Ukraine.
It doesnt though, just because its tracked doesnt mean its going to have the logistical requirements of an MBT.
Less fuel, lighter parts and less wear from less weight.
Tank on tank combat is a meme, a fraction of the threats a tank will face.
Tank on tank combat even today in Ukraine is exceedingly rare, and instead Tanks are used more often to sling HE towards infantry and fortifications. The idea is to have a dedicated air/sea transportable infantry support vehicle that *could* kill a tank, but can also sling HE at infantry all day, and then move onto the next island.
Its purpose is export sales. Its a product.
Army wants to give its infantry divisions a tank battalion each. But they don't want to deal with the hassle of a full size abrams, adopting a lighter, more strategically mobile platform instead. It's not intended to fight in whole battalions like the armored units, but in small detachments - up to company size - assisting light infantry.
super powerful engine for its weightclass so it can operate in low oxygen enviroments and cross shitty bridges
>it's the XM8 Buford we have at home
Sad. The M10 is a mistake. There's nothing wrong with light tanks per se but it's a terrible one.
M10 Groomer
hello
M8bros, we were robbed
The M8 looked much better aesthetically. I'm pretty sure they got disqualified for noncompliance though.
Being late with the prototype.
They also got fricked over because army decided they don't want airdropability, which is fair I guess.
Why is it that the Army prefers air landed over air dropped? Is it because they're afraid of damaging their vehicles?
Airdropped vehicles have to sacrifice armor in order to be light enough to dropped in the first place which limits how heavy they can be armored. Western doctrine places a premium on crew survivability which is extremely difficult to do on vehicles in that weight class so that might have been part of the reasoning considering I'm pretty sure the M10 is like 40 tons.
BMD-4s are a good example, I'm pretty sure they might not even be able to stop 7.62 AP at close range let alone .50 BMG but they clock in around 13 or 14 tons. Still better than having no vehicle at all but given the US has access to tons of allies airstrips, ports, as well as pre-positioned stocks already in theatre, the airdropped shit might not have been a major concern in the long run. Or alternatively it was but they have more Infantry divisions than airborne divisions and trying to lighten the thing to be airdroppable just so the 101st can be more flexible came at too great of an expense when the rest of the infantry divs aren't benefitting from the airdrop capability and ended up with a much less protected vehicle.
In Russia's case it has far less friendly facilities to project power from and it is a massive country with large parts being relatively underdeveloped and empty (far east, Siberia etc.), on top of logistics being heavily tied to railroads so air dropped armor makes a lot more sense for them when they need assets real far away and real quickly, on top of the fact they give zero fricks for the guys inside comparatively.
Transportation requirements inflict compromises on vehicles, air-transport inflicts heavy compromise, air-transport air-dropped inflicts unacceptable compromises.
How does every single thread about the MPF manage to attract so many midwits, bullshitters and reformists?
Every tank thread I read is pretty much like this lol. I typically end up typing a paragraph about how an Abrams hasn't used "chobham" since the early iterations for anons whos tank knowledge consists of YouTube and not checking wikipedia sources. There's been hundreds of MPF threads and the concept of ops for it has been explained so many times I'm convinced 90% is just b8. Hypersonic threads are the same too kek.
Look where you are dude. Not exactly Harvard yard in here.
F A T
A
G
Why are you tripgayging?
>autoloader
>actually light weight
Slap western optics and electronics on this thing and it mogs the M10
Tbh the eletronics on it are pretty alright, optics definitely better than Slavshit.
its supposed to have the same FCS and optics as the M1A2 SEP3, since part of the requirements is that it have compatibility with M1A2 to make it easier to train tankers on it
so it can easily spot targets out to max range while turret down with its CITV
and hit buildings out to 4km out with its main gun
Finally something new and land based that looks cool.
Good job America
I wish someone made a tank that can go 0 to 60 in 2 seconds and had a top speed of 130mph
Great now send it to Ukraine to see how well it holds up in a minefield.
Party pooper.
How many MGs does the Booker have?
Luv me some light tanks.
I'm going to be very disappointed in the zoomers crewing these if there aren't fist fights over who gets to name theirs the Bonker and other variations on that.
Inb4 it doesn’t fit in a plane
M8 Buford would have been better
Shit looks like a toy
>M8 Buford would have been better
Why did the US never use these and instead only exported them?
M8s were never exported.
Cadillac Cage Stingray was an export tank
RUSI analysis of the use of armour in Ukraine shows that tank-versus tank combat is rare with tanks primarily used as assault guns in line with the US Army's MPF concept. See https://static.rusi.org/403-SR-Russian-Tactics-web-final.pdf The armour section begins on page 15:
THE RUSSIAN USE of armour has evolved significantly during the conflict...
...tanks are used as highly accurate fire support assets able to stand off at 2 km and utilise their enhanced optics to identify and knock out firing positions. It is important to note that while the introduction of older tanks such as the T62 and T55 to the field has been mocked online, these vehicles are largely being used in the role of the fire support function offered by BMPs and other infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs). They represent an increase in range, protection and kinetic effect over these IFVs, and therefore pose a serious battlefield threat when there are a limited number of anti-tank guided weapons able to reach them at their stand-off range.
Although Russian forces have proven very cautious in using armour in Bakhmut, they have pushed armour in a supporting fire role for infantry in other urban battles. Here, tanks have proven critical for both suppression of urban structures and rapid breaching of buildings to avoid entering through choke points and known avenues of advance. The use of older tanks as assault guns in this role appears to be preferred as the urban environment does not give more modern Russian tanks with advanced optics and multispectral concealment a sufficient tactical advantage to justify their loss.
Tank-on-tank engagements have become relatively rare, but when they occur they usually take place within 1,000 m. Engagement speed has been the determining factor in these clashes. Ukrainian tankers note that one-shot kills are possible if the point between the turret and glacis is hit. Russian explosive reactive armour (ERA), however, has proven highly effective, preventing most anti-tank systems from defeating the tank’s armour.49 Some operators have reported hitting tanks multiple times with barrel-launched ATGMs without knocking them out.
Significantly, Ukrainian tankers report that mobility kills against the vehicle’s tracks are also an effective means of removing Russian armour from the field because they usually cause the crew to abandon the vehicle.50 This is because a tank’s mobility is considered the best means of protection against artillery and its survivability is compromised if it is immobilised
cool, thanks for the info.
wow, the sucka really did some digging
thanks man 😀
>when there are a limited number of anti-tank guided weapons able to reach them
so the tanks are safe when there's no danger present? whoa
This is fundamentally a game theory concept rather than a military concept but it seems utterly obvious that tanks would primarily be used to assault infantry. If the main role of the tank is to fight other tanks why would anyone bring tanks? Anti tank weapons are a lot cheaper.
>it seems utterly obvious that tanks would primarily be used to assault infantry
Only if you don't understand what tanks are for. Direct fire "assault guns" have been outdated since WW2 because we just use indirect fire artillery instead. The entire purpose of tanks is breakthrough and mobility, not playing grabass with the infantry.
>we just use indirect fire artillery instead
Assooming a lot about the battlefield context here.
Both sides in Ukraine use tanks primarily as infantry support vehicles, even as indirect fire pseudo artillery.
Not every army is the US "we have overwhelming amounts of everything and just roll over the enemy".
>Both sides in Ukraine use tanks primarily as infantry support vehicles, even as indirect fire pseudo artillery.
Which is like saying helicopters are "for" shooting at infantry just because that's something that has been done a few times recently.
No, tanks are intended to breakthrough static defenses. End of story. That's why they're heavily armored tractors with a cannon attached to them. If you want a vehicle that goes against infantry, you get an APC or IFV.
You’re a platoon of airborne infantry. Which vehicle would you rather have for support?
BMD-4
M10 Booker
The M10 is likely to less catastrophically explode with blowout panels, unlike the BMD which kinda just doesn't give a shit about that (while having inferior infantry protection because extremely small space to store dismounts)
should've named it the m18
m10 is gay
Cool CV90. bro, how much did you waste in r&d for that?
This, whats the point of the M10 just buy the latest CV90120 with APS off shelf.
>just buy the latest CV90120 with APS off shelf.
>US military
>buying and using any foreign made vehicles
are you a dumb motherfricker or what?
Since the Cold War, we've bought:
Stryker+LAV (Canadian)
M240 (Dutch)
M249 (Dutch)
SMAW (Israeli)
M9 (Italian)
AT4 (Swedish)
Harrier (British)
40mm guns for the Sgt York Program (Swedish)
Sig M11 (Swiss)
TROPHY APS (Israeli)
HEMTT (Israeli)
that's off the top of my head
jesus calm down I was just joking since the US likes to design their own tanks. Also I only mentioned vehicles.
>HEMTT
Isnt that made by an american truck company?
Oshkosh is Israeli
which reminds me, nearly all of our early MRAP designs were either Israeli or South African
No it isnt
dang, guess my info was off. Interesting that they nmake so much for the IDF
Oshkosh is from fricking Wisconsin
Take two seconds to Google something before you make a fool of yourself
Tie me to a missile and fire me at Oshkosh Wisconsin I’m ready
See
you are projecting hard, bullshitter. You dont even know the basics you imbecile.
What's the point of a light tank when the Bradley exists? I thought IFVs replaced light tanks. Or is the IFV concept not working?
Bradley is a slow underarmored pos
That's been known since the beginning. It was always a deathtrap.
M10 isn't a replacement for the bradley, its meant to augment the firepower of airborne/light infantry with its main gun. Bradley only carries a handful of TOWs and the 25mm is not nearly as effective at knocking out buildings and fortifications as the 105. M10 carries about 40 rounds so it can hang around and pound enemy strong points much longer and with much greater effect than a brad, which has to compromise its firepower in order to carry troops - its primary job.
obvious samegay
not a tank
Legit had no idea we were doing light tanks again. I usually keep up more with naval and air force procurement but holy fricking shit how did I miss this? I never thought we'd see light tanks again.
its not a light tank.
It's closer to an infantry tank or assault gun.
It's a tank. Operated by tankers. In tank battalions.
Why is the concept of a high-low mix so hard to udnerstand? You give the infantry divisions tanks with lighter logistical footprint and don't bother with all the shit they'd need to operate independently above company level. That way you can parcel them out as needed and where needed to support light infantry. It's not gonna stack up great against T-72++++'s but that's not it's job, infantry's got TOWs and Javelins to deal with those.
The Ukraine war should be showing all you stupid zoomers that 90+% of what a tank does is rolling up and shooting at things the infantry wants shot.
>It's a tank. Operated by tankers. In tank battalions.
Its an assault gun, since its main role wil be infantry support
Its crewed by tankers because commonality with the M1 was a requirement to make training easier
>Why is the concept of a high-low mix so hard to udnerstand?
Because there is no high-low occuring
It serves a completely different role from the abrams
>The Ukraine war should be showing all you stupid zoomers that 90+% of what a tank does is rolling up and shooting at things the infantry wants shot.
Ukraine war has nothing to do with the procurement and role of the M10
The possibility of a conventional war means that infantry need additional firepower
An actual tank like the M1 has a different use from the M10
Its concentrated into mech units and will be used to carry out the maneuver phase of the battle
>Its an assault gun, since its main role wil be infantry support
Your premise is false. Plenty of tanks were designed and used specifically for the infantry support role. The brits had an entire doctrine of cruiser tanks and infantry tanks. The germans ran a hi-lo mix of panzer IIIs for armored units and panzer IVs for infantry ones. The original fricking tank itself was designed explicitly for the same role that MPF is going to fill now.
Everything you say after can be safely discarded because you're arguing from a dishonest premise.
And honestly, a StuG is for all practical intents and purposes, a tank. The Germans used them as such and treated StuG battalions as stand-in tank battalions for their panzergrenadier ToE
>And honestly, a StuG is for all practical intents and purposes, a tank
stug is an assault gun
>The Germans used them as such and treated StuG battalions as stand-in tank battalions for their panzergrenadier ToE
up until the end of the war ToE specified panzer IVs and panthers in panzer divisions and stugs in infantry divisions
using a stug improperly does not make it a tank
infantry tank, in modern terms, would be called an assault gun
why am I the only american on /k/ that really likes chink army doctrine and gear/vehicles?
spamming navy light cruisers
torpedo/missile spam
seems like the best options they have for the navy and their amphib stuff is always joked about here but for what they want they can pull it off.
light tanks. floating tanks. their IFVs are cool. their artillery stuff is great. I really like all their wheeled big guns.
also I think their grenade sniper rifles and machine guns are fricking breasts and they are way more effective than a simple lmg
Chinkshit is cool actually.
It's fun seeing their evolving from 1:1 copy of Soviet/Russian stuff to something more indigenous.
light tanks are a meme. better off just developing kamikaze drone carriers to kill meme tanks and a UGV Ontos for slinging HE up asses
>light tanks are a meme
good thing the M10 is not a light tank
>better off just developing kamikaze drone carriers to kill meme tanks and a UGV Ontos for slinging HE up asses
the army asked for a direct fire vehicle that is well protected
kamikaze drones are inherently limited by the fact they sacrifice themselves to hit a target
the ontos is limited by the fact you need to leave the vehicle to reload and that you cannot choose ammunition on the fly
the M10 exceeds both in the role of providing fire support by being able to follow troops and sustain itself in combat for much longer
it reloads under armor and can fight in extended operations unlike either vehicle
which is why infantry divisions are getting both M10 battalions and dedicated drone operators, since the ultimately serve different roles
the M50 was retired for a reason, however, that its limited to 6 shots and limited to thin armor