What's the point of light tanks?

What's the point of light tanks?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    less weight

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you wouldnt get it, Westerners are unable to comprehensive a light, cheap tank

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Burgerstanian here, can confirm. I think the light tank is entirely obsolete in the age of drone warfare, except driving around civvie highways to survive a vehicular accident.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        light tanks are good as assault guns
        every vehicle has its place, and to just completely write tanks off because "muh drones" is the equivalent of saying that nobody needs rifles anymore because drones exist
        but you actually think that, don't you?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Just make light tanks drones.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The US has a new light tank.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        no they dont, the light tank is the M3 brad that they have had since the 90s

        https://i.imgur.com/MJSPug1.jpeg

        DOD just made a new one. They said it's to support troops in areas mbt's are too heavy and not moblie enough to get to. Fit 2 in a cargo plane instead of just one and almost double mpg.

        definitionally not a light tank in US nomenclature
        light tank refers to scout or cav vehicles like the M5 stuart, M24 chaffee, and M551 sheridan
        the M10 booker is a medium-weight assault gun that literally has no precedent since the M8 scott in WW2

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >M8 scott
          Was officially a SPG. It wasn't even fully enclosed. The Ontos was the last American assault gun. The Sheridan could arguably said to be an assault gun but it was built as a light tank, so.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Was officially a SPG.
            assault guns were gun motor gun carriages in US parlance, which is the same word used for SPGs like the M7 priest and TDs like the M36
            but in practice, they were organized according to role
            specifically the M8 scott was used in assault gun platoons, which then would be attached to infantry which is similar to how the M10 would be used
            except the M10 booker comes in company sized elements, not platoons, and an assault gun platoon would have M8s and other stuff, while the M10 is a company of nothing but M10s

            >The Sheridan could arguably said to be an assault gun but it was built as a light tank, so.
            it was classified as an airborne assault and recon vehicle, so it is neither an SPG, assault gun, nor light tank
            doctrinally organized like a light tank, it was used in cav regiments, but was used in a role that was literally like nothing else, which was being paradropped ahead of the main force to turn every forward airstrip into a defensible position capable of delaying soviet attacks

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I mean the M8 was literally a 75mm howitzer on a non-enclosed chassis. It is literally an SPG. How it is used is irrelevant. Plenty of weapons were used differently. You think the Bofors AA guns became anti-infantry cannons just because some guys depressed the gun and fired it at infantry?

              As for the Sheridan, the M41 was 25 tons and was considered a light tank but eventually realised it was too heavy to be truly considered one and the Sheridan was 15. The M8 that was going to replace the Sheridan was (depending on the protection level) 16.7 tons to 23.5 tons.

              Just because it was used differently does not make it something else. In the Gulf War, the Sheridan was used in recon role as part of the flanking force to the coalition heavy armor. That makes it a light tank. The fact that they were deployed in Vietnam as fire support role does not change their original development design of a light tank.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Doctrine does matter.
                Why arent MBTs classified as heavy or medium tanks?
                Well because MBT doctrine.

                However I agree, the Sherridan and the Booker are light tanks.
                Shit depending on doctrine every tanks purpose could be infantry support, that doesnt make them an assault gun or an SPG.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >It is literally an SPG
                it was never used as one
                organizationally, SPGs were in artillery batteries like the M7 pritest
                the M8 was never, ever used in an artillery battery
                they were always organized into M8 platoons for infantry support

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >no they dont
          except, yes, they do. no matter how much you try to cope otherwise

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >except, yes, they do
            no one is going to be scouting with the M10 because they have their own recon assets to do it for them

            > no matter how much you try to cope otherwise
            M10s go in M10 battalions
            not cavalry units

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        ...that weighs the same as a T-72

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          t72 is a baby tank, look how small they are

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This, Russian tanks are made to be as cheap as possible and it achieves its small profile by sacrificing any crew survivability measures that every other western tank has.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            ...with MBT armor and MBT gun
            Doesn't that sound like the perfect light tank? MBT capability but light tank weight?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah except for the carousel autoloader, half-functional stabiliser, poor gun handling, slow turret traverse speed, and non-existent reverse speed. Then the russians plaster most of it in heavy ERA in order to make its armour halfway work, plus with the (extremely limited) systems upgrades, T-72s are now like 44-47 tonnes. Due to its platform limitations it isnt able to effectively fill the role of a light tank, it cant use terrain/cover, it cant reverse, it has poor situational awareness, and bad gun handling. Better to have a capable light tank than a light medium tank designed exclusively for working in mass formations, if you actually do want a light tank.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >carousel autoloader, half-functional stabiliser, poor gun handling, slow turret traverse speed, and non-existent reverse speed
                >it has poor situational awareness
                All those are easy fixes, easily fixed with modern optics, a normal gearbox, bustle autoloader etc. All easy and simple fixes that don't add weight or cost.
                >heavy ERA in order to make its armour halfway work
                ERA is extremely weight efficient armor and there's no reason not to outfit all AFV's with ERA
                >it cant use terrain/cover
                It's tiny, it can be concealed very well
                >bad gun handling
                What does this even mean??

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Autoloader
                Yes a bustle autoloader is better, but then you're redesigning the tank, and the weight does go up considerably as you have to redesign the turret to be much larger, and the profile becomes much larger.

                >Normal gearbox
                Does it occur to you that the small size of the transmission, and therefore only 1 reverse gear, is a product of the transmission having to be made very compact in order to fit into the hull? It is possible, but its not an easy of cheap fix. The chinese did actualy do this with the ZTZ99A, which is closer to NATO standard, although they put in an entirely new powerpack and had to bulk out the rear of the tank, again the weight has increased considerably. Between the new powerpack and turret redesign the ZTZ is 55 tonnes.

                >ERA
                ERA is single use, a danger to friendlies, heavy, and doesnt actually stop or significantly hinder modern KE ammunition as used by NATO or China, although it may hinder older rounds. The coverage is also extremely variable/limited. APS is much better.

                >cant use terrain
                No it cant be concealed well because it has to fully expose itself in order to fire, and the size difference isnt great enough to really make it harder to spot.

                >bad gun handling
                The stabiliser on these tanks is poor, mostly due to size constraints, and hampers their ability to fire on the move effectively, doing so also reduces the stabiliser's service life. The small turret also limits both the gun elevation and depression, which makes the use of terrain and cover difficult. Russian tanks also have massively inferior FCS (although this could theoretically be rectified), and are ergonomically very hard on the crew relative to a NATO MBT.

                If you *really* want a 40 tonne ish "light tank", then Japan's Type 10 is a better answer, it is very expensive however. 44-48 tonnes, bustle autoloader able to fire a round every 3.5 seconds, 70 km/h forwards and backwards, frontally resistant to most 120mm apfsds (except lower glacis) etc etc.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                *by frontally resistant i mean a NATO MBT with modern darts will likely go through, but those will also go through a T-72 or T-80, while the Type 10 is much more mobile and has better firepower. The actual armour is classified, but it's heavier predecessor the Type 90 is supposedly able to resist JM33 (licensed copy of DM33) frontally from 250m+, which is similar in performance to 3BM46, which Russia stilll uses, in fact russia still uses 3BM42 lol. The side armour is also very thin, so it is vulnerable to 30mm autocannons. Then again, the side armour of the T-72 isnt immune to those either.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >weight does go up considerably as you have to redesign the turret to be much larger, and the profile becomes much larger.
                A certain number of shells requires a certain amount of tank internal space so the size of the tank does not necessarily significantly change when moving the shells to the turret bustle. Besides, the turret bustle does not have to be heavily armored because it is behind the turret and does not house human beings reducing any possible weight gain.
                >redesign the turret to be much larger, and the profile becomes much larger.
                You are adding a box to the REAR of the turret. You are not making the turret larger, you are not making the profile larger.
                >only 1 reverse gear, is a product of the transmission having to be made very compact in order to fit into the hull? It is possible, but its not an easy of cheap fix
                It was simply a design decision due to the perceived unimportance. You can add a simple reverse switch like in the T-84 without needing to add any additional gears.
                >ERA is single use
                Lightning doesn't strike twice in the same spot
                >a danger to friendlies
                A meme, nobody stands around ten meters from a tank.
                >doesnt actually stop or significantly hinder modern KE ammunition as used by NATO or China
                It does tho
                >APS is much better.
                APS doesn't do anything against KE and is expensive
                >No it cant be concealed well because it has to fully expose itself in order to fire, and the size difference isnt great enough to really make it harder to spot.
                See pic related.
                >The stabiliser on these tanks is poor, mostly due to size constraints
                It's not due to size constraints that's bullshit, it's due to Soviet technological inadequacy.
                >and are ergonomically very hard on the crew relative to a NATO MBT
                This is again a meme, soviet tanks after the really tight four crew T-62 were just fine.
                >it is very expensive however
                The army seems to be interested in procuring 504 M10 Boogers and the total program cost is estimated to be $6 billion USD.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >turret
                Relative to the small size of the T-72 turret, the bustle adds a lot of bulk onto the rear and requires an entirely new autoloader. The rear space needs armour too. The turret is already poorly armoured and this also introduces an additional risk, the chinese have consistently bulked out their turrets in order to up-armour them and provide protection on par with NATO vehicles, the russians have largely slapped on Kontakt, which frankly isnt a good solution. I guess you could slap on the bustle with 30mm armour and only add a tonne or so if you didnt care.

                >reverse
                Its not simply a design decision, its a result of perceived unimportance and expense and lack of space. It is possible, that being said, the T-82's reverse isnt good either, the T-84's is ok, but sub-standard. If you want a genuinely adequate reverse then you need to do what the chinkies did and put in a new powerpack and redesign the engine deck, the ZTZ-99A has a 31 km/h reverse. The standard for a NATO tank is 30 km/h+ in reverse, even the Challenger 2 manages 34 km/h.

                >ERA
                darts can and will strike the same place twice, especially if the plates are large ones.

                >nobody stands ten metres from a tank
                untrue

                >APS does nothing vs KE
                Neither does ERA, several modern apfsds have anti-ERA tips, and ERA has only a mediocre effect on modern high performing apfsds. Relikt isnt sufficient to make a T-90 resistant to DM-53, as we have seen in ukraine it isnt even sufficient to stop or help the tank to resist either ATGMs or KE penetrators. Theres an image of a T-80 with a hole right through the thickest part of the glacis. ERA typically leaves large gaps in coverage, in addition to having gaps in effective coverage as its possible to penetrate it without it going off, in fact the entire T-72/T-80 layout leaves many gigantic gaps in coverage.
                APS is light, and actually protects against ATGMs and RPGs from any direction, no gaps in coverage except from within its minimum arming range.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                ERA is effective in improving protection and lightweight.
                https://mil.in.ua/en/articles/reactive-armor-of-armored-vehicles-experience-in-use-in-the-russian-ukrainian-war/

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That picture is meaningless, if it is lucky enough to find a nice shallow slope to hide behind and engage at a range which allows it to do so, then thats great, but -10 degrees is NATO standard for a reason, -5 is inadequate for effectively using cover and terrain.

                >stabiliser
                It is still the case in Russian tanks today, its partially them not caring/cheaping out, but also a consequence of its small size. The more expensive T-80 has the same problem.

                >soviet tanks are fine ergonomically
                My brother in christ have you seen the fighting compartment of a T-90 compared to a Leopard 2A6?

                >expensive
                True, the cost of the type 10 is similar to the booker. Frankly the type 10 is likely better in every way, better armour, better firepower, better mobility, better systems, real difference of only around 2-6 tonnes, and well within the weight limit for most bridges and infrastructure. We dont have many details on the M10 yet, but its not looking exceptional.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Those tanks are stuck with a design from 60 years ago, you can do a lot better in the present day.

                A low profile or even unmanned turret with a 3 man crew and compartmentalised auto-loader would cut like 10 tons off the M10.
                US companies have even proposed vehicles like that before, the Army just didn't want to spend 10 years developing that capability for a tank meant to put 105 HESH into buildings.

                Pic related is the same gun on a 20 ton chassis from the 1980s.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >weighs the same
          >booker weighs 10,000 pounds less
          moron

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, weighs the same as a T-64 which also has modern MBT armament and armor.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >modern MBT armament and armor
              lmao. Also it only fits midgets comfortably

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >only fits midgets comfortably
                This is a meme, while you can't walk around like in a manually loaded tank turret the fighting positions have plenty of space to sit down in.
                >lmao
                Yeah and this Booker has IFV armor and a puny 105 gun while still weighing over 40 tons because it is a bloated mess. And it will still probably cost $10 million a piece. If the M1 Abrams wasn't so goddamn heavy this new light tank wouldn't even be needed.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Also it only fits midgets comfortably
                Spoken like someone who has never been inside a Soviet tank and is repeating what he heard from people who also haven't been inside Soviet tanks

                >T-64 which also has modern MBT
                modern for 1960 amirite haha

                Still has better passive armor and ERA packages, better gun with more developed ammunition, comparable FCS that only needs a thermal imager, and an autoloader

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >T-64 which also has modern MBT
              modern for 1960 amirite haha

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    to be light

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it is so they can operate in mountainous terrain

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What's the point of heavy tanks?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Someones fetish

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They could take on drones without being gay turtle tanks.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They had to classify your mom somehow

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because they move faster and are more mobile in certain terrains.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    To be cute and funny

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because they're hot

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    76mm 60mph. What's not to like.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Cute af

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      CVRTs have a crazy low ground pressure. 5 psi which is 1/3 that of a conventional tank and they are airmobile allowing them to be deployed in places a conventional tank could never. Famously the falklands islands where they floated over the peat bogs like they were hovercraft.

      Genuinely sad that Argentina didn't deploy their SK-105 austrian made light tanks to the islands we could have had the cutest tank battle in history between the Scorpions and Kurassiers. As it stands they were used in a diversionary attack on argentine positions, a Scimitar CVRT got a 30mm autocannon hit on a Skyhawk and one got flipped over by an landmine but the entire crew survived. They didn't even get to kill a single AAVP let alone a tank.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Also if any anons are wondering how something made of tin cans can survive (with heavy damage) running over an AT mine its because being sunk in the thick boggy waterlogged soil made explosives much less effective. Both sides had major issues with air dropped HE bombs burrowing deep into the soil and failing to kill anyone. That's why the argentines used napalm and the UK used WP.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I will call him Bonaparte

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      75mm CT APFSDS, 55 mph, proper fire control. We were robbed.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Go away dog fricker

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Is nigel known for fricking dogs now? I thought his claim to fame was schizophrenia

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nigel is a fart sniffer, theres another guy who admitted to getting fricked by dogs

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >We were robbed.
        the army fudds seem to hate anything designed by Eugene Stoner.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    sometimes its better to have a shitty tank that can actually support you in adverse terrain than it is to have an amazing tank that got left behind 30 miles back

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    threaten heavier vehicles with their weaponry and wolf pack tactics, be fairly immune to lighter infantry fighting vehicles, easier on logistics for lighter fuel consumption.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It’s to encourage replayability, since you rush MBTs in your first game and superheavy tanks in your second one light tanks are for the third playthrough. It’s like how you got all in on carriers in your first game because BB’s are a waste of time, but then once you learn the system you build like 12 of the frickers just to style on b***hass Yamato.

    What were we talking about again?

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is the Booker a tank?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Screening, reconnaissance-in-force, and direct fire support.

      Doctrinally, no. It's only supposed to be fire support vehicle.
      20 bucks says mission creep happens and it becomes a light tank in 10 years.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Brazilian Autist

      No, it's a stug

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It has treads, armor, a cannon on a rotating main turret, the cannon is suitable for engaging armored enemy targets in direct fire combat and knocking them out with single or small numbers of shots.
      I don't give a frick what word games the army plays. That thing is a tank as tanks have been conceptualized since WW2. If this thing ever sees combat it will be used as a tank because soldiers on the ground won't care what some screeching nerd in the pentagon says about it

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Faster deployment due to lower logistics footprint compared to MBTs.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Logistics footprint, air transport, lower ground pressure, speed

    It's usually fast fire support for light/mechanized elements that might not have access to full tanks.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There are multiple benefits to it Like for an example if its light enough it can be airlifted or it can pass more bridges and etc.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Good luck lugging around 70t behemoths in swampy areas, jungles and mountains.

    If you're above 40t you're not a light tank anymore.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    how much armor does a light tank have? can it resist a 30-40mm autocannon from the frontal arc?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      30? absolutely. 40? eh maybe.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Tactical mobility.

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    DOD just made a new one. They said it's to support troops in areas mbt's are too heavy and not moblie enough to get to. Fit 2 in a cargo plane instead of just one and almost double mpg.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      why the FRICK is the m10 booker a 4 man crew?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        1 driver, 1 lookie outer guy, the shoot gun man, and fred (:

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Fricking Fred.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          But where's Saddam Hussain?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Seems a bit slow about 40-45mph as well. Survivability looks good. Not sure why 4, they talk about automation with it so who knows

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/J6ohsRA.jpeg

        Seems a bit slow about 40-45mph as well. Survivability looks good. Not sure why 4, they talk about automation with it so who knows

        I remember some anons citing maintenance concerns last time I saw a thread talking about crew numbers and system automation but that was a while ago so maybe I'm misremembering which vehicle they were talking about. But the general argument was that once you go under four crew then field maintenance duties start to become overwhelming since the crew is also the maintenance team.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        A lot of the weird things about the booker are because the Army wanted a largely off the shelf solution with a short development time.
        The turret is based off the M1 turret, which is part of why the crew is 4 man.
        Both the M8 and the Stryker MGS had a 105mm autoloader already designed, but designing a new clean sheet autoloader system would have added development time and technological risk.

        https://i.imgur.com/ipD0A84.jpeg

        76mm 60mph. What's not to like.

        Scorpion has no gun stabiliser and a manually hand cranked turret.
        Besides being made of Aluminium and being fast AF it's some real WW2 shit, similar firepower to a BMP-1.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >A lot of the weird things about the booker are because the Army wanted a largely off the shelf solution with a short development time.
          They've been developing the thing for like twenty years already. And if they really wanted an off the shelf solution why not buy one of the many options already in production???

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >why not buy one of the many options already in production???
            None were up to the standard the army wanted

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            MPF began in 2015 not 2005 and Booker is as off the shelf as a US military vehicle gets, AJAX hull with a miniaturized Abrams turret and an already developed gun.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Scorpion has no gun stabiliser and a manually hand cranked turret.
          Besides being made of Aluminium and being fast AF it's some real WW2 shit, similar firepower to a BMP-1.
          Warriortard once again proving how little he knows.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Warriortard accusations
            Please stop disrupting the board with your schizo e-celeb drama. I don't think Warriortard even exists, it's all just you fighting with yourself

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That weighs over 40 tons, anon. It's lighter than an Abrams, but that's about it. It's nearly the same weight as an M60.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >It's nearly the same weight as an M60.
        >10 tons lighter is nearly

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >46 is 10 less than 50
          Is this that new math I've been hearing about?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            nearly implies they are close
            but having the weight of a scout car of difference is very much not close

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Nice cope, but within 10% is close. You wouldn't say that one aircraft carrier weighs much less than another because it has 4 tons less mass.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >but within 10% is close
                50tons is 25% heavier than 40 tons
                and in absolute terms, 10 tons is a lot

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Booker weighs 46 tons, which is over 40 tons like I originally said.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Booker weighs 46 tons
                on the higher estimate
                if we assume its somewhere in between at 44 tons, its still nowhere close to a 55 ton M60A3

                even if we dispense with the rounding, which wouldnt have made a difference, thats still a 20% reduction in weight over the M60
                a large difference that would require a very loose definition of "very close" and ignoring that 10 tons is itself a significant reduction in weight in absolute terms

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                But it's still somewhat close to an M60 at 50 tons, which is what I said. Why are you suddenly comparing to a different vehicle?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >But it's still somewhat close to an M60 at 50 tons,
                how is 10 tons "somewhat close"
                or about 20% heavier

                > Why are you suddenly comparing to a different vehicle?
                its literally the M60, just the specific version that was last used in the army, just so that no ambiguity about which version it is
                unless you mean the M60 with no A designation that was used in only very small numbers in the US Army for a very short amount of time with the hemispherical turret

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >how is 10 tons "somewhat close"
                It's 6 tons, even splitting the difference between the 46t it actually weighs and the 42t it was supposed to weigh in the original proposal a decade ago. I'm already giving you plenty here, no need to try and get more. I specified the M60 (A0), and now you're comparing to the much heavier version built two decades later.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >'m already giving you plenty here, no need to try and get more.
                yeah, 42 tons on the baseline M10 and 54 tons on the M60

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The M10 doesn't weigh 42 tons.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                42 tonnes is in the weight range given for the tank, presumably thats with fuel and ammunition.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Check your sources. 42 tons is the weight of the GDLS entry in the MPF competition. It doesn't represent the actual weight of the production version of the M10.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Why would the production version be lighter?

                ?
                The only reason Abrams never got its DU spall liner was because M1A2 SEP is already massively overweight according the the army

                I mean, they're right, and thats probably the reason why the M1s never had their hull armour improved, but DU isnt a suitable material for a spall liner in the first place. Spall liners are usually aramids. DU isn't tear resistant, its super hard and dense, it would just produce more pyrophoric toxic spalling in the event of a successful penetration. Its used inside the armour array itself.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Why would the production version be lighter?
                It wouldn't be, the production version is 46 tons.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Oh. 46 tonnes, 105mm gun, and it isnt very big. Do we know anything about the armour yet? Only explanation i can think of is an armour package.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Aramid spall liners are placed on the back of plates to catch spall from plate destruction
                DU spall liners are placed in between plates to prevent destruction of backing plates from pressure shockwaves
                These are two different solutions to the spall problem, the reason I think its DU is because the Booker is somehow more expensive to produce than an Abrams and I cant think of why that would be besides the whole tank being lined with exotic material

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >54 tons on the M60
                54.6 tonnes on an M60A3
                50.7 tonnes on an M60
                46 tonnes on an M10 Booker
                42 tonnes on a design proposal for a tank that doesn't exist

                So, in the 60 years since the M60 came into service, the US has been able to improve its conventionally powered tank design chops to the point that it can save 5 tonnes on a 105mm armed tank.

                Can you imagine if the USAF, in the of our lord AD 2024, was going to introduce into service a fighter jet that was 10% lighter that a Convair F106 Delta Dart for a similar level of capability? Or a cruise missile 10% lighter than a AGM-28 Hound Dog?

                Like, frick me dude. You'd have to be on crack to think the M10 is an acceptable design in 2024.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I wasn't saying that the M10 is insufficient, it's not the same gun or the same ammo or the same armor as an M60. My point was just that it seems a bit silly to call it a "light" tank when it's not actually all that light and just about any other country on the planet would call it an MBT if they had them.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >. You'd have to be on crack to think the M10 is an acceptable design in 2024.
                they asked for a tank that had a 105mm or 120mm gun, a turret with the same ergonomics as the M1A2, and all-around 14.5mm protection and RPG protection while still having decent mobility

                what they got was exactly what they asked for and there really isnt any way you can get it much lighter while still meeting all their criteria

                the M2 bradley weights 27 tons with its small turret
                but the larger turret with a gun and ammo storage can easily account for the 15 extra tons as can the 1000hp engine that noticeably juts out further than the 600hp engine on the M2
                only other comparable design is the 30ton TAM, which would not pass the protection and ergonomic specifications of the MPF program

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >only other comparable design is the 30ton TAM,
                CV90105 can be optioned with armor up to STANAG level 5.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >105mm
                >all-around 14.5mm protection and RPG protection
                >40 tonnes
                That is utterly pathetic and that's putting it lightly.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That’s all it really needs though. You’re thinking of a MBT. You’re just being dramatic

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                40 tonnes is simply pathetic.
                There's no reason that thing should weigh a single pound over 30 tonnes. In fact as an infantry support vehicle they should have ditched the turret and went with an assault gun setup easily achieving something like 25 tonnes.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                40 tonnes is light for the US. The only 25 ton assault gun I’m aware of is the cv-90105 base package which doesn’t offer as much protection as even the booker.

                The CV 90105 has 20 mm of frontal hull armour, which is not significant enough to stop anything larger than a 14.5 mm machine gun. But, the upper plate is angled very well and as such could possibly prevent low-penetration autocannons from damaging the vehicle; the hull front, with its slope, can offer from 20 mm on the lower glacis up to almost 90 mm of effective thickness on the upper glacis. The side armour is composed of two spaced plates, one 6 mm and one 10 mm plate (for a total of 16 mm). This is enough to stop low-calibre machine guns, but a .50 cal will penetrate the armour with ease. A fuel tank is located between the spaced armour plates of the left side of the hull, right beneath the turret; the fuel tank is able to absorb machine gun bullets, protecting the turret crew from the left side from machine gun fire. The rear of the hull has a surprising 20 mm of armour, enough to stop low-calibre machine guns.
                The turret has 20 mm of all-round base protection. The turret sides and rear have a 5 mm appliqué armour layer, giving a total armour thickness of 25 mm. This is enough to stop machine gun bullets from penetrating. The gun mantlet has 35 mm of protection - enough to protect against some autocannons.
                The only part of the vehicle that is vulnerable to heavy machine gun fire is the hull side and rear. The rest of the tank can only be penetrated by autocannons or anti-tank guns. Overall, the armour protection is light.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >40 tonnes is light for the US.
                Even if your populace is fat your army doesn't have to be...
                >The only 25 ton assault gun I’m aware of is the cv-90105 base package which doesn’t offer as much protection as even the booker.
                It's a large vehicle with a turret so that's completely unsurprising.
                Ditch the turret, shorten the vehicle by 1-2 meters and you could easily bring this thing down to 20 tons or keep it at 25 tons and significant increase the armor. There's a lot of empty space inside the thing because it's an IFV chassis.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The M8 AGS weighs around 30 tons in its heaviest armor loadout, its also what the Hooker beatout in competition (Picrel)

                >105mm
                >all-around 14.5mm protection and RPG protection
                >40 tonnes
                That is utterly pathetic and that's putting it lightly.

                40 tonnes is simply pathetic.
                There's no reason that thing should weigh a single pound over 30 tonnes. In fact as an infantry support vehicle they should have ditched the turret and went with an assault gun setup easily achieving something like 25 tonnes.

                Hooker is based on the ASCOD IFV that weighs 26 tons with all-round 14.5mm protection. Because the Hookers weight has nearly doubled there is clearly a significant armor package in it, most likely it has a full depleted uranium spall liner and frontal 30MM APFSDS protection

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Depleted uranium spall-liner
                anon...

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                ?
                The only reason Abrams never got its DU spall liner was because M1A2 SEP is already massively overweight according the the army

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Heavy tanks are too fat for mountainous areas, can have weather restrict what they can do in some combinations of region and season, and are most definitely too fricking fat to air lift with all but our most roided up wings.
    I'd be more excited about a new heavy lift capability than the B-21, tbh.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    To be implessive

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Fun

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    DEX > STR

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >China and US are reviving light tanks.
    >Only to use them as infantry support.

    The absolute state of modern doctrine.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >reviving light tanks
      There isn't a single light tank in the US arsenal. The M10 Brooker is an assault gun; not a light tank. The M1128 MGS is also an assault gun. The Chinese have light tanks such as Type 15 tank and Type 62. Turkey and Indonesia have the Kaplan/Harimau. Philipines has the Sabrah, but there is a argument it is a tank destroyer. Finally the Poles have the WPB Anders which can be made into a light tank, but also into a medium tank, IFV or SPAA.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The M10 Brooker is an assault gun;
        >Swallowing DoD wiener this hard.

        If Generals were dumb enough to use Humvees as breakthrough assault vehicles for 2 wars, you can be damn sure they will use these as tanks no matter what the doctrine says.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >you can be damn sure they will use these as tanks no matter what the doctrine says.
          doctrine is immoveable on this matter
          M10s are organized in such a way that it is literally impossible to use them as a tank
          M10s are in their own battalions and controlled at the divisional level

          any infantry battalion who asks for them to be used as a tank swill easily have their request easily shot down
          the US has long known of the pitfalls of TDs being operated as tanks in WW2, and has constantly taken steps to ensure it never happens again

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Tanks in general are obsolete so if you’re going to use them they may as well be cheaper to buy and move to the place of destruction.

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Well Nod has to fly them in with the airfield and relies more and hit and run tactics than overwhelming firepower, so the light tank is a good fit for their army while the GDI fields the heavier and more expensive M1A1.

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    another project to siphon money from

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    cost - they still require to use antitank weapon against them so why pay more for the same result?

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There is none, which is why they've been obsolete since WW2

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In case of the Chinese, it's to fight pajeet T-90's in the Himalayas.

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    To make heavy tanks jealous.

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No idea

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Oh no no no no no no!

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        ?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >we don't NEED our best wunderwaffe tanks*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~
          >T-14? what's that? you want to get gulag'd, cumrat?*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What? Take your meds.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Bro WHAT did you just say?
              It is really funny how vatnig shills all act like scumbag 15yo pill heads. That's probably closer to the truth than I realize, though. That is all.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What are you talking about? Meds.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I could beat you in a fist fight

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous
      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What's that tumor on the left side of the ass, an APU?

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why not simply upgrade the M3 Bradley to a 35mm or 40mm telescoped autocannon and call it a day?

    Why go through the hassle of creating the Booker?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      can 40mm destroy structures the same way a 105mm cannon can? serious (dumb) question, does firing several shots have the same sort of effect or do large bore cannons have other advantages over autocannons?

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Some people are watching their calories, but still want the rich, full taste of an armored division. Others just find a light tank less filling than an MBT.

  36. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Trying to trick infantry into thinking they can't core them with HMGs

  37. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Mountains.

  38. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There needs to be light tanks to oppose the darkness tanks.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      real

  39. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >cheaper
    >good for recon in force, ambushes, quick reinforcing
    >excellent at counter insurgency if they lack good AT
    a poor man's chadley basically

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I dont understand why people often cited recon vehicles as being lighter weight and lighter armored, why cant you conduct recon with the same IFV or MBT you use in maneuver formations?

  40. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Mobility and ease of logistics. Light tanks are still pretty relevant. The Bradley is considered a light tank and it’s doing very well in Ukraine

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The Bradley is considered a light tank and it’s doing very well in Ukraine
      the M3 bradley was not sent to europe
      the M2 bradley is an IFV

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The m3 is just an m2 with more ammo and less troops. The m2 has been used as a light tank in Ukraine.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The m3 is just an m2 with more ammo and less troops.
          its almost like it was designed to be a cavalry vehicle rather than a transport

          >The m2 has been used as a light tank in Ukraine.
          its been used exclusively as a transport and has primarily been used by mech brigades for that purpose

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It hasn’t been used exclusively for transport though. The famous Bradley vs t-90 video was just a driver and a gunner/commander. I’m not here to argue semantics I’m just saying an m2 can be used as a light tank.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The m3 is just an m2 with more ammo and less troops.
          its almost like it was designed to be a cavalry vehicle rather than a transport

          >The m2 has been used as a light tank in Ukraine.
          its been used exclusively as a transport and has primarily been used by mech brigades for that purpose

          It's not even "more ammo and less troops," it's literally just filling the transport bay with extra ammo. The difference between the M2 and M3 is purely doctrinal, there's no structural difference.

  41. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    God it just looks like a lot of fun
    And some of them even have TOW missles
    >tfw you will never zoom around the enemy backline sanic fast, butt blasting enemy armor and skipping out of dodge before they can react

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Cramped as frick
      >Definitely hot as hell inside
      That doesn't look like fun at all.

  42. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because armor is a meme & any hit near the front anything sensitive (optics, engine, tracks, turret ring) is basically mission kill

  43. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Better strategic mobility, you can load them on to more transport platforms, they can cross more bridges. They can operate on more roads without destroying them. etc etc.

  44. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You have new IFVs being upgraded to at minimum 30mm autocannons or even 35/40mm autocannons.

    You telling me the Booker can withstand that?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yea it can be killed by a modern IFV, so? How would any of those IFVs like a 105mm round to the hull

  45. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    well, it's like a tank. but lighter.

  46. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Does Booker also have TUSK package armor upgrades that adds 5+ tons as well?

  47. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So is this another light tank?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the concept art looked so cool too...
      its a fricking takeout container ToT

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What the FRICK are you talking about?

  48. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So you can fit more tanks into a logistically restricted battle space (like Ukraine).

  49. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Light, fast, maneuverability, good for fire support and fast in-and-out attacks

  50. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For China? Fighting in higher elevations where there is less oxygen.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *