Why didn't the US Army just buy some aftermarket 105mm manned turrets for the Strykers instead of buying M10 Booker "Light Tanks" for IBCTs? Now you're literally adding a tracked vehicle that won't be able to keep up with the Strykers on roads
Why didn't the US Army just buy some aftermarket 105mm manned turrets for the Strykers instead of buying M10 Booker "Light Tanks" for I...
Strykers and the M10s are in entirely different units. Strykers are part of Heavy divisions, while the M10s are part of Light and Air Assault divisions.
What said.
based guy who actually knows what he's talking about
truly incredible how Stryker/M10 threads are still made by midwits
a five second google search would tell you that an IBCT isn't an SBCT and the M10 is going to IBCTs
Google is complete garbage these days, though. All its algorithm offers is news articles that maximize clicks and ad revenue, instead of what the person is actually looking for.
I wouldn't be surprised if you'd have trouble finding out about Waypoint 2028 that way.
>robot combat team
Drones?
i wouldnt worry about it
Alright thanks I feel better now
Ground drones, yeah. Unmanned vehicles for dumb-fuck missions where sacrificing a unit produces high-value results. With no human lives lost.
>Tethered UAS
Great idea literally having a handy rope to point out the position of your vehicle.
The picture is suggesting it will be a tiny quadcopter, so I can't imagine the cable would be thicker than even an HDMI or something. That isn't going to be terribly visible from hundreds of metres away, let alone over a kilometre. If you're close enough to spot that then it's probably too late for you anyway.
>If you're close enough to spot that then it's probably too late for you anyway.
Not really, because it lets the vehicle see over buildings and hilltops, around corners. Even if the enemy spots the drone, there's no way they can lay direct fire on the vehicle itself. All it tells the enemy is that they're about the get fucked by indirect fire / drone / ATGM.
I meant for the hypothetical guy spotting the cable running up to the drone, not the IFV. As in if you've stumbled close enough to the vehicle to spot the cable without noticing the vehicle itself, it's too late for you.
Ah yeah, my bad.
How come the only anti air battalion is hidden in the CS berigade? Also, what the hell are intelligence divisions?
Finally, has the US army started procuring more mine clearing vehicles?
>How come the only anti air battalion is hidden in the CS berigade?
A lot of the long-range / theater / front level assets are on the corps level in this new system, including anti-air and rocket fires. The US is going back to top-heavy organization and massive operational concentration of force, because the modern battlefield is so dependent on advanced systems, that it's just not viable to bring all of them down to the brigade level anymore. There's also so much accurate artillery and recon, that you have to build these incredibly concentrated units to actually breakthrough the enemy. If you don't concentrate corps level assets on the battlefield, you will not succeed against a peer enemy on the modern battlefield.
>Also, what the hell are intelligence divisions?
Do you mean the military intelligence companies? Those are units that have in themselves drone units, different kinds of recon, signal intelligence, interpreters, HUMINT specialists, and the personnel needed to put all of this intel together into a comprehensible package, that can then be fed to the battalion / company commanders to base their plans on. They're basically people whose job it is to try to get eyes / cameras / ears on the enemy and then tell other people what that means.
If that means it can be airborne 24/7, it's more than worth it. With modern networking, the vehicle with the drone airborne can just pinpoint the exact location of the enemy to another vehicle, or an indirect fire system and take it out that way. Meanwhile the vehicle itself is hiding behind a berm or a building.
>this totally arbitrary classication term means we can waste taxpayer money
Your argument is that you can't have wheeled vehicles in a mechanized regiment because that would make it motorized, not mechanized
>MUH MONEY
nagger the Stryker MGS was an interim support gun (the whole Stryker family was interim in the first place) and keeping the system going was costing more than it was worth. shut the fuck up.
>Your argument is that you can't have wheeled vehicles in a mechanized regiment because that would make it motorized, not mechanized
Ah, no. That has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted, so you must be high, but anyway
Motorized being vehicles like BTR/Stryker is a Russian/Soviet thing. Motor-rifle regiments etc. are Soviet stuff, not Western, which matter.
Western militaries see motorized units as just being motorized, having a motor-driven vehicle to drive them around (hence the name).
The US defines them as
>motorization is "the use of unarmored wheeled vehicles for the transportation of combat units."
Any truck-borne infantry unit is motorized in the West, so a unit using BTRs would be a mechanized infantry unit, instead of a motorized one.
It's just a cultural / doctrinal misunderstanding in truth. Personally I like the Russian way of naming them as motorized, if they have wheeled APCs to transport them.
Lowest IQ post ITT
The argument is that the striker MGS chugs dick compared to an actual tank.
Strykers are there to provide a lighter maneuver element for heavier armored forces. Flank security, spoiling attacks, whatever.
Why didn't they just keep the Stryker MGS instead of spending billions on this garbage? Or just stick a 105 in Sheridans in the 90s.
there we go again
We already had a good light tank design around for ages.
?si=wobCQmKYM2YaIYVr
cause the strikers with 105's rolled over if the fired while the turret was slewed very far
Speaking of the M10, why do people keep saying it's not built for tank to tank battles?
Obviously a light tank wouldn't fair well against an MBT if MBT shot first but the 105MM is perfectly capable of penetrating enemy armor, the type 96 and type 99 for example can easily be penetrated 105MM HEAT and APFSDS.
>but the 105MM is perfectly capable of penetrating enemy armor
lol
lmao
105mm apfsds are absolutely anemic and have no ability of penetrating modern MBTs frontally. even 120mm guns are deprecated against modern designs, because there's only so much penetration you can push out of a gun that size through penetrator design and its materials. the only way of gaining adequate penetration at this point is by going bigger.
the m10 is solely an assault gun. something to provide direct firepower against strongpoints and lighter vehicles. any actual action against MBTs is going to be performed by ATGMs.
>105mm apfsds are absolutely anemic
so are you gonna volunteer to stand in front of it an get shot? no? didn't think so homosexual
unfortunately i'm not an MBT, but if I were, I totally would, because after the first hit that anemic gun has on me, i could blow it to smithereens with my own main gun.
post tracks or gtfo
The HE is adequate to compromising optics, the AP is adequate to mobility kill tracks; it shouldn't be doing either probably without an anti-tank team engaging first to distract it. They're not intended to be anti-tank, just other anti-everything else.
>the AP is adequate to mobility kill tracks
God, I want you to stand in front of a vehicle crew and tell them to go face an MBT just to disable its tracks for some nebulous purpose.
Maybe you're capable of giving orders like that to your subordinates, but personally, if I have to order a unit to their death, I'm going with them to it.
Strikers tip over at certain shooting angles
>logistics
They were always a stopgap interim solution. They have their problems. The survivability and terrain traversal is less than ideal for the "baby sit infantry and supply cheap direct fire support and ersatz anti-tank work against thirdie shitboxes until the actual cavalry arrives." Booker's more relevant to Pacific theater transport and shit to nonexistent roads/bridges with shit capacity. Wheelies don't provide overmatch against comparable armored infantry (sans MBTs) at a lower cost than misusing an Abrams.
>why did the army [solve problem in extremely round about way]
Welcome to military procurement