You have to wonder how small is too small for infantry support and anti structure work.
the US navy for example uses 57mm for light anti-ship and air defense duties
It would have been nice to have commonality for barrels and ammunition, this is afaik what the French are doing for their 40mm.
The more accurate the munitions the less power it needs. For example, for a 2150 super futuristic anti-personnel weapon you are probably fine with 3mm or smaller. Just have autonomous targeting on a drone good enough to always aim for the head the blast it with a coil gun at Mach 7 to get through any armor. Plenty of vehicles can be disabled by doming the driver too.
That's how BONUS is able to destroy multiple armored vehicles with one 155mm shell. It deploys submissions that then target it from above and hit it with a well aimed EFP.
You can get away with very light, small weapons systems if you can get extremely accurate targeting. Autonomous spotter drones and autonomous artillery we see today, both feeding data into course correcting smart shells are the first step to this
RDF/LT was neither a SPAAG, usable for SHORAD or had a rate of fire comparable to that Italian naval gun.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
No reason it couldn't have been, it has the elevation.
It has about half the rate of fire of the oto melaria
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>half the rof >much weaker 76mm round >tiny ready ammo capacity >no AA ammunition let alone method to track aerial targets
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
https://i.imgur.com/yPDFt8O.jpg
There will be a battalion of MPF at the divisional level which will then attach companies units like an IBCT as needed, similar to the WW2 separate tank battalion.
One issue the Chieftain mentioned is that it is difficult for the driver to get in/out of the hatch because it's on the slope.
I also do wonder how you restock the autoloader. The ammunition hatches you see in your pic are the secondary storage however the only way to access them seems to be by opening up the front armor whilst most tanks can restock the autoloader/ready rack with the crew under armor.
Yeah, thats the thing with the M8. Both the hull ammunition and turret ammunition are in their own blowout panels, but IIRC there isn't a way for the crew to restock the ammunition in the autoloader turret from inside. It has to be done from the outside
>why even bother with that design ?
Because infantry likes direct fire support from a big fuckoff gun, but tanks are a bit much to haul off to all the places you might wanna fight.
>should gone with french route and just put artillery on a truck
This isn't artillery, it isn't supposed to hang back like that. Direct fire support you know? It's supposed to be up there with the door kickers, where a truck has a life expectancy of fuck all.
Just because the US is autisticly terrified in calling anything that's not an Main Battle Tank a "light tank" and has to use stupid names >Airborne Assault Vehicle >Armored Gun System >High Survivability Test Vehicle - Lightweight >Mobile Protected Firepower (funny thing is I saw this phrase being used to describe the Abrams the 2000s)
doesn't mean it's not a light tank
There will be a battalion of MPF at the divisional level which will then attach companies units like an IBCT as needed, similar to the WW2 separate tank battalion.
>Why not?
It failed the trials. How hard is this to cope with?
Define "fail"
>Define "fail"
The government already did that. You could look it up if you really wanted to know more though
The gun tube randomly falls and kills passers-under.
GDLS's vehicle was better.
BAE failed to deliver the required number of vehicles.
Op isn't the mpf
Correct because BAE's bid for MPF, the specific vehicle in OP's picture, lost the selection.
O I see. The selected vehicle was GD wasn't it? Seems legit
I think he's asking why you can't walk underneath the gun tube
Because being teabagged by a tank is both humiliating and painful.
because you will lose the game
Because they gave up on the C-130 transportability requirement.
personally i think they should have chosen a smaller gun that could be dual use for ShoRAD.
You have to wonder how small is too small for infantry support and anti structure work.
the US navy for example uses 57mm for light anti-ship and air defense duties
It would have been nice to have commonality for barrels and ammunition, this is afaik what the French are doing for their 40mm.
Naval guns just need to make little holes. The water does the real work.
>mfw I am well prepared to make little holes
The more accurate the munitions the less power it needs. For example, for a 2150 super futuristic anti-personnel weapon you are probably fine with 3mm or smaller. Just have autonomous targeting on a drone good enough to always aim for the head the blast it with a coil gun at Mach 7 to get through any armor. Plenty of vehicles can be disabled by doming the driver too.
That's how BONUS is able to destroy multiple armored vehicles with one 155mm shell. It deploys submissions that then target it from above and hit it with a well aimed EFP.
You can get away with very light, small weapons systems if you can get extremely accurate targeting. Autonomous spotter drones and autonomous artillery we see today, both feeding data into course correcting smart shells are the first step to this
The entirety of rapid fire 76mm naval guns like your image are much larger than than 105mm tank guns.
not necessarily
A 76mm gun is smaller, who whole system of that particular SPAAG requires a massive turret.
it's possible to make a smaller system if you are fine with a smaller magazine
RDF/LT was neither a SPAAG, usable for SHORAD or had a rate of fire comparable to that Italian naval gun.
No reason it couldn't have been, it has the elevation.
It has about half the rate of fire of the oto melaria
>half the rof
>much weaker 76mm round
>tiny ready ammo capacity
>no AA ammunition let alone method to track aerial targets
>half the ruf
Your pic is an AAI light tank with at 75mm 74 caliber gun. I dont know if this includes the chamber or not.
76x636mmR naval gun is not small
Shell casing is actually longer than 105mm
The 76mm naval guns are not the 75/76mm that we used on Shermans in ww2
Smaller caliber doesn't mean always mean smaller round or smaller gun
76mm top vs 105mm bottom
I said the gun itself was smaller, not that the ammunition was smaller.
XM8bros, we were robbed..
There are two types of XM8 that I wanted to see adopted but were never fully realized 🙁
Why can't you walk under the gun?
In case it bonks you on the noggin.
if the barrel hit me on the head would I die?
It would be extremely painful
it would kill you before you felt it
One issue the Chieftain mentioned is that it is difficult for the driver to get in/out of the hatch because it's on the slope.
I also do wonder how you restock the autoloader. The ammunition hatches you see in your pic are the secondary storage however the only way to access them seems to be by opening up the front armor whilst most tanks can restock the autoloader/ready rack with the crew under armor.
I would imagine that those are in a blow out panel
Yeah, thats the thing with the M8. Both the hull ammunition and turret ammunition are in their own blowout panels, but IIRC there isn't a way for the crew to restock the ammunition in the autoloader turret from inside. It has to be done from the outside
>I also do wonder how you restock the autoloader.
Probably from the roof.
this will eliminate the vatnik with precision that human kind has not yet seen. I hope the ukies live stream
Light tanks are finally back!
More of a self propelled infantry support gun, they don't call it a light tank because it isn't built to do tank stuff beyond that.
>support gun
why even bother with that design ?
should gone with french route and just put artillery on a truck
>why even bother with that design ?
Because infantry likes direct fire support from a big fuckoff gun, but tanks are a bit much to haul off to all the places you might wanna fight.
>should gone with french route and just put artillery on a truck
This isn't artillery, it isn't supposed to hang back like that. Direct fire support you know? It's supposed to be up there with the door kickers, where a truck has a life expectancy of fuck all.
Wait, does it have a 7-round ammo storage on the left front? Hispanicy
Pretty weird.
Could they be drones launchers?
how to explode when shot from the front
>gun tube
its actually called a bullet pipe
big tube under mouth very dangerous
*bonk*
>people in this thread saying light tank canceled
>PrepHole got mad like three months ago that we ordered a shitload of light tanks
Which one fucking is it? Are we getting light tanks or not?
MPF isn't a light tank.
I think people are conflating it because it is air mobile, unlike the Abrams.
>I want to drive a tank
>gets sent to the kek light tonk box instead of the Abrams
KWAB
Just because the US is autisticly terrified in calling anything that's not an Main Battle Tank a "light tank" and has to use stupid names
>Airborne Assault Vehicle
>Armored Gun System
>High Survivability Test Vehicle - Lightweight
>Mobile Protected Firepower (funny thing is I saw this phrase being used to describe the Abrams the 2000s)
doesn't mean it's not a light tank
Is this meant to replace Bradley or something? Or is it just its own thing?
It's own thing
There will be a battalion of MPF at the divisional level which will then attach companies units like an IBCT as needed, similar to the WW2 separate tank battalion.
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2022/02/25/proposed-light-tank-battalion-concept-will-require-more-armor-crewmen/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_tank_battalion
Christ, that's a big dog.
>Clifford likes dark bitches
Alas
Extremely fucking ugly, XM-8 is way better looking
what could of been...
Such a good design.