Thoughts on America's newest hardware? It's described as "light", which to me just translates to anti tank round bait. The cannon also seems pretty big for an IFV. It's still interesting to see though, we don't get new armor very often.
Thoughts on America's newest hardware?
The M8 was probably better tbh. Somehow it never gets chosen tho. Killing tanks and being killed by tanks is mostly irrelevant. That's a job for the F35.
The issue is getting killed by RPGs and ATGMs. If this thing weighs 40 tons the least they could do is add more composite armor instead of a manual loader.
Had they gone crewless turret, it probably would have saved on weight by a lot, but crewless turret is not necessary for its intended role and it's bunk for remediating failures in the gun, so I imagine they decided it wasn't worth it
They should have gone 3 man with bustle mounted autoloader IMO. Re-use the 120mm 34rnd rack designed to fit in the M1's blowoff compartment.
If they were giving up on C-130 transport requirement anyway, then the M8 is pretty crap in comparison.
The M8 is just an all around death trap with no protection and poor Ammunition stowage; it only made up for it with true air mobility, but the Army doesn't care apparently.
They definitely could have designed something with more capability for the same weight as the M10.
A low profile turret with a bustle autoloader would have worked well with a tall hull like this, or even potentially a fully unmanned turret.
But M10 will do fine enough, will fit quite nicely if the army also chooses the same Griffin hull for OMFV. It's just not very exciting; the Sheridan is somehow cooler and crazier despite being designed in the 60s.
>Poor ammo stowage
Compartmentalized and blowoff protected.
The XM8 has a carousel autoloader with no seperation from the rest of the fighting compartment.
It reportedly is compartmentalized and has blowout panels but is of a lesser implementation than any bustle design.
It's basically the same roll that Soviet/Russian tank battalions had in motorifle divisions/VDV.
M8 ammo compartment is isolated from the crew. in the turret, but I personally really doubt the effectiveness of blowout panels on such a light vehicle, for both vehicles. Blowout panels don't work if the separating bulkhead is breached from a round penetrating it, which is much likelier in a light vehicle since it doesn't have heavy front turret armor to either completely stop the projectile, or degrade it enough to prevent it breaching the bulkhead
>light
mobile
>tank
firepower
It's not an if, at least not in that it carries infantry. It is designed to work closely with them at least. It's an assault gun like an m8 Scott or stug
It is an infantry support vehicle. There aren't going to be platoons or battalions of these things roaming around doing MBT stuff. One is going to be attached to an infantry company or element for heavy support, "take out that bunker, or blow a hole in that barricade". I think it is interesting but its weight kind of negates its 'light tank' moniker. Also this is an open letter to the US Army; maybe next time before your big unveil photo op could you remember to remove the drip pan from the photo?
I think weight is less important than the fact that it is much smaller, so it can go more places with infantry.
>much smaller
as long as it fits railway tunnels it doesnt matter
Tank go pee pee
>maybe next time before your big unveil photo op could you remember to remove the drip pan from the photo?
if you did that for one millisecond the sgt major's head would explode like 10 kt nuke
What's this hook/crane for?
Wire cutter.
I know helicopters have them just in case they don't see some random wire when flying low, but a tank?
Cheeky heavy-duty fishing line strung commander's neck-height across a road.
how often does that even happen?
Have never heard it happen anywhere else, apart from Chinese dailymotion videos and movies.
It happened enough in Iraq that they started adding them to everything.
It’s the infamous booger hook
It's shit. Just barely scrapes by the 2 per C-17 requirement with ~1450lbs spare per vehicle (will get eaten away quickly by upgrades), and needs HETs/M88s which don't exist in light formations. The original tech demonstrator GD showed off in 2016 was way better, 28 short tons and an XM360.
And no doubt people would be saying it's shit for lack of armor and range. It's always give and take
Looks like shit.
Wasnt this thing for the paratroopers? They wanted parachute air droppable tanks to co-align with their ability to be deployed anywhere rather than being caught with their pants down alone without any other infantry support. It makes sense to me I suppose. Its not gonna stand up to MBTs or anything serious, but then again it really shouldnt be fighting something like that in the first place. But now paratroopers have a bit of heavy support then can use to take out some obnoxious fortifications or generally cause havoc.
It's not air droppable, just air transportable by c-17
No, MPF was not intended for paratroopers, it was meant to provide organic heavy fire support to light infantry formations so they wouldn't have to ask for tanks from armored units.
isn't it meant to help the mehrins do actual mehrin shit again, instead of just being purely shock troops for the army
AGS was air-droppable. MPF ditched it for air-transportable because the brass thought being air-droppable was too niche a requirement and too restrictive for capability sake
This looks cool. It’s like a baby tank
its also leagues better than the stryker mgs apparently, which i'm happy about because assault guns are cool as frick and it's not fair that we don't get to see them
Imagine if the Stryker MGS had some sort of autoloading 105mm recoilless rifle instead of the 105 it actually had, iirc the main problem with it was the recoil was bad enough to be dangerous to the crew if the gun was traversed more than like 45° off the centerline. The thing looks cool as frick and the concept is sound, but it was too much gun too high up for the chassis.
>105mm recoilless rifle on a stryker
ok that's incredibly cool sounding, but how would you even make it autoloading?
> how would you even make it autoloading?
Only if someone had already solved that problem.... say in the 1950s...
>it's been done before
neat!
Take the Grom pill (I know it's not recoilless, but it fires the same projectiles as the SPG-9 recoilless rifle)
Because the Army insisted it use full power 105mm rounds because they still had a metric frick tons from the cold war.
>Because the Army insisted it use full power 105mm rounds because they still had a metric frick tons from the cold war.
This is just wrong.
1) Production had to be restarted for M456A2 HEAT and M393A3 HEP for the much smaller Stryker MGS fleet (~140 vs 500 planned)
2) The army plan to replace HEAT, HEP and CAN with a 105mm version of the AMP round, which doesn't exist yet.
Probably the only decently existing stockpiles of 105mm ammunition in US stocks is M900A1
>Production had to be restarted for M456A2 HEAT and M393A3 HEP for the much smaller Stryker MGS fleet
Only HEP, cannister and training ammo got new production for the M1128.
Does it take a lot to restart a caliber's production line from scratch? May they want to keep 105mm just above welfare funding in case some future tech or scenario makes it the best at something.
Assault guns are kino as frick. Just blast the shit out of fortified trenches
i love how they work with infantry. tanks are all "we have to maneuver and kill other tanks and provide support to x and get air support and liaise with helicopters and meet up with our resupply and advance according to a timetable and get maintenance and get ammo and perform all around defense and and and" while assault guns are just
>HEY BUDDY
>yeah?
>KILL THAT GUY OVER THERE
>that one?
>NO THE ONE TO THE RIGHT
>oh the one with the machine gun?
>YEAH
>ok man
>BANG
Good idea, bad execution.
Poorly executed concept but still something I'd rather have over either nothing or a Sheridan. The M8 should have won, and should have been adopted long before the MPF program.
It can use assault bridges that the Abrams can't so wins in mobility
I guess they're pretty confident in APS getting really good in the near future.
So what I'm getting out of this is that it's basically an evolution of the assault gun concept meant for infantry support?
Yep, it's a stug.
Bits of the autoloader would have to pop out in the open during the process, but apart from the possibility of thus getting shot there shouldn't be any special engineering challenges involved.
that's what I was thinking, maybe a door/cover that swings up and encloses the back of the rifle so it can be pivoted open much like a carl gustav and reloaded, at which point the door moves out of the way and the gun can fire.
wouldn't that have dust and water ingress issues though? i know you acknowledge that too but i'm just curious if it's a showstopper or if it's something that can be relatively easily dealt with.
I'm more imagining the entire gun sitting out in the open, and to reload the rear venturi swings open and then arm arm comes out of a hatch to stuff a new round in the back. But I'm not exactly an expert either, and this is just what comes to mind instead of the result of a few years of R&D. Dust and water does sound like something the designer would need to keep in mind, but then again current tank autoloaders can hardly expect squeaky clean working conditions either so it could probably be dealt with while keeping reliability acceptable.
>It's described as "light"
Yeah, "light tank" is what the US Army is very, very specifically NOT calling it. It's morons like you who insist on describing it as one.
Piss off homosexual. I didn't call it a light tank. I called it light because it is.
>35 tons is light in America
We're talking about it's armor you colossal moron.
No, you're not. People are talking about the autoloader, air transportability, the M8's ammo storage... Not a whole lot of discussion going on about the armor specs, which is unsurprising given that most of the details there are likely classified. Is there a post of yours over at the War Thunder forums I should be aware of?
Though that said here's a little thing that will apparently come as a real surprise for you: there's a not insignificant amount of correlation between the armor on an AFV and it's mass.
And what are you comparing it with for 40 tons to be light? Oh yeah, an MBT. Sure you might fool yourself, but the rets of us know you you'll always think of it as a light tank.
I think it's a great idea if you replace every IFV and APC with them.
Anything bigger than a single infantryman is bait for explosives anyway, and this thing is "light" in that it's air transportable on more platforms, weighs less physically to go over more bridges, and carries enough cannon for anything that isn't actually a western MBT anyway, it seems like a nice addition to modern mechanised formations in lieu of the M1128 variant stryker
its gud and fills a hole.
Hopefully they add the APS to it and retrofit the XM360 that was on their tech demonstrator. I'm 100% sure that it would be a thousand times better than the bullshit 105 they have now, and while they're at it, they need to bring the LOSAT back.
> they need to bring the LOSAT back.
I’ll second that. LOSAT makes my dick hard
With APS being one of the next steps for protection on tanks, LOSAT's speed may actually have a purpose
It’s a GMC and should have been named Wolverine II
Gun motor carriages weren't crewed by tankers and weren't supposed to do the jobs of tanks.
And yet they did
I think we can agree on we are talking doctrinally.
The army doesn't want to call this a tank, but it's crewed by tankers, it does the job of a tank (direct fire for supporting infantry) and it is a armored, enclosed vehicle with tracks.
How come only the Army is getting it? It seems like it would maybe be well-suited for the Marines considering they got rid of all their Abrams. Which is at least partially because the Marines are supposed to be focusing on war with China, and the Abrams is too heavy and big for the type of terrain they'd be fighting on.
it has good strategic mobility and needs almost no logistical support compared to the abrams. this tank is supposed to match the strategic mobility of the infantry
Looks... fine to me, but it would probably depend on how fast it moves.
The list of better vehicles for the role is pretty fricking huge.
Like...
I for one find it impressive how a womanlet towers over the hull height of the Abrams, meanwhile the M10 has a stupidly tall hull for no reason.
Truly a marvel of modern engineering
well, I know the reason, because it's based of an IFV chassis and comes with all the drawbacks associated with such a decision namely a huge amount of wasted volume
>namely a huge amount of wasted volume
>IFV
Namely a huge amount of volume for troops
Fixed for you.
Fleshbags are increasingly useless on the battlefield now that we have drones
Good job moron.
This thing can't carry troops inside, hence wasted volume
It's not an IFV, dingus.
Seems like the hull is taller, but it looks like it has a good bit more ground clearance as well. Also maybe those dudes are short af.
>Truly a marvel of modern engineering
looking at it, its a giant broadside of a barn at nearly every angle, and I think everyone has seen how effective man-portable anti-armor has become
Putting a Patria NEMO turret or something similar on a Stryker?
The true purpose of a light tank is to give infantry actual firepower rather than filling the weapons company with a bunch of pick up trucks with TOW launchers on top.
I wonder how would it look side by side with it's main rival.
doctrinally, i think the mpf is going to be treated like a brad, i.e. see a tank and call it up for tanks or air to take care of it or shoot it with a AT missile if you can't break contact
>China meme
The communists have already invaded, and they're getting elected into office.
It's not a light tank. It's fricking 42 tons. That's roughly the same as a T72 or T82 or T90.
Although there's no fixed definitions: Light tanks are under ~30 tons, Medium tanks are ~30 to 39 tons, and MBTs are ~40 tons and above.
>Medium tanks are ~30 to 39 tons, and MBTs are ~40 tons and above
Tell that to the Panther
Damn that's the same as an M26 Pershing
Heavy fricker that
We should have bought the Centauro 2
>wheels
Git that povertymobile out of here.
Its faster and better than the Booker in every way.
>Thoughts on America's newest hardware
It's an assault gun, watching people insist it is a light tank is like watching someone try to fit a square peg in a round hole.
T-14 will eat it for breakfast
>And then pajeet woke up
It's immune to rifles and can make big explosions, that's all you need. Tank duels are for videogames.
Why not a Gavin with anproper big recoilless rifle? Imagine how many of them you could get with that money.
Based and Gavin-pilled
Mount an old British 120mm WOMBAT and sling some HESH at poor people in mud huts
>Thoughts on America's newest hardware?
It does what its supposed to
>it's described as "light", which to me just translates to anti tank round bait.
Its 20 tons lighter than the M1
Which makes it easier to slot into infantry divisions because they don't need specialized bridging, sustainment, or recovery units
>The cannon also seems pretty big for an IFV.
Because its not an IFV
Its an assault gun
>It's still interesting to see though, we don't get new armor very often.
Because they ran out of M60s to use in regimental tank battalions
So its free reign to ask for something scratch built
Frees up the Abrams to do actual tank shit rather than slumming it as SPGs, and makes mechanized infantry that much nastier overmatching formations lacking equivalent firepower. ATGMs are SLOW and EXPENSIVE, HE is FAST and CHEAP.
>Frees up the Abrams to do actual tank shit rather than slumming it as SPGs
doctrinally, M1s have never been attached to infantry as assault guns
they are used solely in ABCTs
even back in the cold war, they were used by mech divisions rather than as assault guns
>Frees up the Abrams to do actual tank shit
Is the US short on Abrams? No.
M1s are concentrated into armored divisions supported by IFVs
so light infantry traditionally got nothing or had a tank battalion sectioned off for their use
even if you had 10,000 M1s, every M1 that is used in an infantry support role is a wasted opportunity cost for it to be used in an armored role
in the cold war, there was no shortage of M60A1s to use for this purpose as they were no longer fit to be used against T-72Bs
but now there arent any M60s left to use
so its the opportune moment to have a vehicle that is tailored to their use
A 40 odd ton SPG -- and it will get heavier -- requires just as much lift to transport and support as a proper tank. In use, Airborne and other light units will leave the Bookers behind to get to the fight quicker, just like they did with the Sheridans.
There's not any reason to assume it'll get heavier than the 38 metric/42 short tons listed.
Sounds counterintuitive, but GWOT was a reminder that you can't patrol mined streets, using light trucks with armor kits designed to protect against small arms fire. You need something purpose built. And if your mission is "we want a vehicle that has wrap-around protection from 50 cals, frontal protection from 30mm and RPG protection in conjunction with APS or ERA" then the vehicle's weight doesn't have to go up.
There are no M1s attached to Light divisions. This is a replacement for the old M551, with the airdrop capability replaced with "2 fit on a C-17".
The larger question is, does MPF make sense in a world where quadcopters are prolific?
>This is a replacement for the old M551
M551 was a hybrid recon vehicle and airborne assault vehicle
it was never organic to infantry units
if WW3 happened it would not have been a guntruck for infantry, it would have been sent far forward to force the enemy to deploy to meet them and make it harder to coordinate an attack as they are harassed ahead of schedule
>The larger question is, does MPF make sense in a world where quadcopters are prolific?
they wanted a vehicle that has a high combat endurance and low weight that can give infantry a long hand to deal with hard targets not a quadcopter
in any case, drone integration will be organic in addition to the M10, making it a false dichotomy
should have just made the HSTV-L but even more modern
Is it named for Booker T. Washington the inventor of a plant that occurs in nature n shiet?
So this is basically an American version of the Leopard I in capabilities and practical role, right?
>and practical role,
leopard 1s were MBTs, so they were maneuver and breakthrough weapons
the M10 is an assault gun, its meant to be handed out in small quantities to stiffen up infantry units
No it's an infantry tank...
Assault gun units are subordinate to the unit they support. Infantry tank units are held at a higher level and distributed as necessary.
Otherwise, in the battlefield they do the same roll
>No it's an infantry tank...
the US has never had an infantry tank designation
the M4 105mm was designated an assault gun and its the closest thing in function to the M10
>Assault gun units are subordinate to the unit they support. Infantry tank units are held at a higher level and distributed as necessary.
assault guns in the US army were part of the separate tank battalion
the rest of the tanks in the STB were actual medium tanks intended for flexible mission sets
the M10 does not have a flexible mission set, it is given a very specific mission of supporting infantry
in US parlance, it would be an assault gun
Yeah the M4 assault howitzer platoon was subordinate to the tank battalion. Stryker MGS platoon was organic to the Stryker infantry company.
MPF doctrinal use is similar to British infantry tanks where the tank brigade was held at the Corps level and distributed to divisions. Its also similar to how the US distributed its light tanks in the 20s-early 30s
the M10 is a regimental tank battalion with nothing but assault guns in it
US has never operated infantry tanks
Well, they are now. There's a first for everything
its an assault gun
its used exactly how they were used in STBs
No, because it's subordinate to an larger administrative unit, (Division in the modern smaller armies, Corps in the past) not a combat, maneuver unit (Brigade in modern times, Division in the past)
MPF battalion is held at the divisional level and distributed to the IBCT, assault gun units would be directly subordinate in the organizational structure to the unit they support
assault guns were part of SBTs which were attached to infantry divisions
conceptually, the MPF is just an SBT where the assault gun platoon replaces all of the medium tank companies, because it is not a tank
M4 Assault Howitzers were subordinate to the SBT.
IF the MPF battalion is in effect a SBT (which there are parallels) ,by your definition it's definitely a type of tank, not an assault gun.
And because medium tanks don't really exist nowadays, because the main battle tanks has role consolidated both Medium and Heavy tanks in the breakthrough and exploitation role, it's an infantry tank. (As a tangent Heavy tanks were also held in separate battalions at a corps/army level and distributed as necessary to divisions)
It's definitely not an assault gun though
tis closer to the regimental tank battalion, but without any tanks
only assault guns
Tank regiments were subordinate to the (armored) divisions which MPF is clearly not.
regimental tank battalions were organic to infantry regiments to give them fire support, consisting of both assault guns and medium tank battalions
the M10 is a continuation of that, being an organic fire support unit for infantry
but there are tanks in an MPF battalion, its not even called a tank battalion
so its called an MPF battalion, because there are no tanks in it
its a regimental tank battalion but without tank only assault guns
The US infantry Division had no organic tank battalions in WW2, only separate tank battalions were attached to them
SBTs were replaced by organic tank units after WW2, the regimental tank battalion
which contained both assault guns and medium tanks
but since the medium tank is at least nominally intended to fight enemy armor in addition to pure infantry support, whether or not they could in practice, the MPF is not a medium tank
therefore it is an assault gun, which is the US nomenclature for pure infantry support vehicles as the infantry tank classification does not exist
MPF is clearly not analogous to the regimental tank battalion then is it sweety? MPF battalion isn't organic to the IBCT.
>MPF is clearly not analogous to the regimental tank battalion then is it sweety?
its an organic fire support unit attached to infantry divisions
in army parlance, since its only intended to support infantry, its an assault gun
>divisions
The modern division is purely adminstrative with HQ and supporting units distributed to the combat formations, the brigade combat teams. The term " infantry Division" has so little meaning in the modern day that the 34th Infantry Division is actually a armor division composed of ABCTs.
MPF is not organic to IBCTs, it's held at the division, in the same way that the SBT was held at the Corps/Army level. Everything has been downsized
So equating MPF to the post war regimental tank brigades is false. Because back in those days the division was the primary element of maneuver, nowadays even with the US "shifting to division centric warfare" (i.e. shifting some support assets from Brigade to Division HQ) the brigade will still be the primary element in operations. A modern version of the regimental tank battalion would be a MPF company attached permanently to the IBCT, which is clearly not the case. They are held high and distributed down as required.
Brigade-centric war is out, divisions are in
And assault guns are in as well, as divisonal assets
Not infantry tank, assault guns
They are intended to be flexible and distributed as needed, but still assault guns
Where it is subordinate to doesn't change what it is, a mortar controlled at the squad, platoon or company level is still a mortar.
At that point you have light mortar, medium mortar and heavy/siege mortars which are organized to different levels(platoon, battalion, corps etc)
Same with tanks.
So thanks for making my point that MPF is a type of tank
>So thanks for making my point that MPF is a type of tank
its not a tank, its not referred to as a tank
its closest analogue historically in the US army are not tanks but assault guns like the M8 and M4 105mm
>but there are tanks in an MPF battalion, its not even called a tank battalion
>so its called an MPF battalion, because there are no tanks in it
Its crewed tankers.
Its definitely a tank even if the US is being moronic about it
I need to find the article in Armor describing the Abrams as "mobile protected firepower" back in the 2000s.
You can't go "akshually it's not a tanks is MPF" when it does the job the tank did since it's creation which was infantry support. Just because it's not designed for skirmishing, breakthrough and exploitation, doesnt mean it's not a tank
MPF is intended to be able to defend itself vs armor if it meets it, though it's not its primary purpose. In contrast M4 and M8 were rather defenseless due to the very low velocity gun.
After the 30s light tank had a screening role. In the 20s-30s light tanks were used to support infantry in in the US army. A similar role is the T-70 in USSR service which was for infantry support. I'd argue it's not a light tank, because at 42 tons it's anything but light to have exceptional tactical and strategic mobility (things like airdrop, amphibious or very low ground pressure for soft soils)
>MPF is intended to be able to defend itself vs armor if it meets it, though it's not its primary purpose
it carries some APFSDs for self-defense, same as how the M4 105mm carries a few HEAT for the same thing
but its otherwise solely meant to attack soft targets and will not engage tanks unless it has no choice
damn frick with todays precision munitions i feel like tanks are a damn big ass heavy loud rooms of metal with 1% chance for the crew if it gets hit.
in todays world of PGMs, anything that stands still is toast
the only way to survive would therefore be to have an all mechanized or all motorized force instead of slow footmobile forces, so in essence nothing but tanks and IFVs
Why didn't they just revive the AGS turret and autoloader design and stick it on literally any IFV platform?
The M10 isn’t a light tank — in the American nomenclature I believe a "light tank" means "scout tank". So the question is, could this infantry support tank be used effectively as a scout tank?
I wonder when, if ever, we'll be allowed to have good threads on this vehicle like we have with the F-35, instead of verbally sparring with morons who apparently went into a coma in the 1990s
once it gets used to blow up some insurgents or wagner in africa probably
When you turn your tripgay off, you fricking loser.