User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:45:08 AM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The real question is, given the drone threat and current gen ATGMs, do tanks have a viable place in the current battlefield? What I've seen of Ukraine's results don't seem to give much of an answer. It appears they're sometimes useful, but their casualty rates are sky-high, and armored maneuver warfare doesn't seem to be occurring much by either side (or at least, when it does the results are a flop). Meh. WW2 tanks had a life expectancy of only a couple days too. But I think future tanks will have to have APS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:45:12 AM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Looking it up, even the latest M1 with all the bells and whistles is 9million. Uh yeah, 13 million for a light tank versus 9 million for a heavy is strange. ETA: I hope it doesn't earn the same rep as the Sheridan. That's $9 million assuming you refurbish an existing hull and existing equipment. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:47:22 AM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Boom. Nailed it. Primary focus is urban pasification. people here know how to build drones and other things..... Pacification can be a two way street. Asymmetry can be a real bitch. I doubt it is (initially) for use here. I think it is easily transported and can be delivered to an island, for example, quickly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:49:29 AM EST
[#4]
$13 million each? That would buy a huge diamond engagement ring.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:52:40 AM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Typical . The MRS isn't a laser . My first WTF thought too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:54:09 AM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: people here know how to build drones and other things..... Pacification can be a two way street. Asymmetry can be a real bitch. I doubt it is (initially) for use here. I think it is easily transported and can be delivered to an island, for example, quickly.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 11:01:37 AM EST
[#7]
Hope it runs on electricity
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 11:03:41 AM EST
[#8]
Does it have a 30 clip magazine? Does it have the shoulder thing that goes up?
If not, it cannot be an assault gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 11:07:26 AM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That deal on the end of the tube is not a laser. It is a culminator. For some reason I thought this was going to have an auto loader. A culminator? In the old days we had to scrape by with collimators. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 11:13:55 AM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That deal on the end of the tube is not a laser. It is a culminator. For some reason I thought this was going to have an auto loader. BAE’s entry had an auto loader. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 11:36:58 AM EST
[#11]
I think it’s this thing
 Inside the Chieftain's Hatch Snapshot: XM10 Booker |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 11:55:35 AM EST
[#12]
In comparison, the PLA Type-15 tank is pretty similar.
The Chinese tank has a turbo diesel engine, an oxygen generator (for operating at 10,000 feet, i.e., the Indian border), and is about the same profile and ground weight (think softer - mushier ground in Southeast Asia come the monsoons, and bridges an Abrams will collapse just thinking about it). The tank commander has a .51-cal machinegun and 35mm automatic grenade launcher CROWS.   |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 11:56:27 AM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Based solely off casual observations of how armor is fairing on the modern battlefield, with much cheaper, man portable weapons and drones smoking modern armor it almost seems like they'd have saved a ton of money by just using those upgraded M60s if all they wanted a gun platform, especially now that our Javelin technology is out in the wild. It does look cool but not 13 million cool; and no, I'm not honestly saying that the US military should go back to the M60 even though it was one of the better looking US tanks (I think I must have built four or five of them back when I used to build plastic models, those and halftracks). |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 12:00:15 PM EST
[#14]
Dupe. 6 pages.
Posted: 7/8/2023 11:32:47 PM PDT US Army spends $258m for 26 more M10 Booker fighting vehicles https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/US-Army-spends-258m-for-26-more-M10-Booker-fighting-vehicles/5-2657489/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 12:07:08 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We really need to be more intellectually honest about price. What is the drive away cost of one of these 'Bookers' without adding in R&D? How many would have to be built to bring that supposed per unit cost to 9 million of the Abrams? its a good question you figure there is an seemingly inflated price due to the 'starting from scratch' aspect of getting a new one of these designed, tested, change 1, 2, 3, manufactured, fielded, etc plus the lower volume very needed infantry support vehicle IMO. look at what is happening in Ukraine. tanks play a role. but so do vehicles like Bradleys and this one would provide valuable capability also drones and ATGMs are a problem yes. but they're just a new 'flavor' of problem -- missiles and threats from the sky are not a new phenomenon by any stretch |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 12:22:12 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: i understand its not a tank. the capabilities / armor etc make it 'not a tank'. but i also understand people will still refer to it as a tank -- just out of convenience and / or ignorance kinda like people mislabel ARs as assault rifles. its wrong -- but they still do it. you start sounding like the 'actshuuualllly' guy. i'm just glad they are fielding these. great to see the infantry getting some heavier firepower. Lets combine the two misnomers. It's an Assault Tank! Complete with chainsaw attachment and ergonomic improvements. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 4:24:52 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: At 42 tons, it's as heavy as a T-72B with less armor, smaller gun, slower and about 12x the price. Sure it has far superior fire control and has newer composite armor, but it will burn just as bright as all those T-72/80/90 when fighting anyone that not arabs with decent equipment. Whos' bright idea is to have a front engine chassis with its massive weight penalty? On a supposedly lighter tank! Compared to the stryker MGS probably serves a much better role than that piece of crap. The Army should have replaced the Sherman's when they had a chance. This is the case of what is old is new again wasn't this tanks supposed to replace that system back in the mid-90s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 4:27:00 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: BAE’s entry had an auto loader. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That deal on the end of the tube is not a laser. It is a culminator. For some reason I thought this was going to have an auto loader. BAE’s entry had an auto loader. Fuck auto loading systems. They are more problematic than they're worth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 4:48:16 PM EST
[#19]
A capability waiting to be filled since the M56 Scorpion.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 5:00:52 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's supposed to be for infantry support IIRC, kind of a mobile gun support platform, not meant to fight other tanks, that's the read I have on it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: At 42 tons, it's as heavy as a T-72B with less armor, smaller gun, slower and about 12x the price. Sure it has far superior fire control and has newer composite armor, but it will burn just as bright as all those T-72/80/90 when fighting anyone that not arabs with decent equipment. Whos' bright idea is to have a front engine chassis with its massive weight penalty? On a supposedly lighter tank! It's supposed to be for infantry support IIRC, kind of a mobile gun support platform, not meant to fight other tanks, that's the read I have on it. M10, M18 Hellcat and M36 Jackson were what were supposed to actually fight other tanks. Look how that worked out. It WILL be employed to fight other tanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 5:03:02 PM EST
[#21]
Within our modern culture it an identify as anything it wants, be it a tank, assault gun or even attack helicopter.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 5:05:02 PM EST
[#22]
 It's impossible to see these without thinking ' drone bait ' |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 5:11:46 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In comparison, the PLA Type-15 tank is pretty similar. The Chinese tank has a turbo diesel engine, an oxygen generator (for operating at 10,000 feet, i.e., the Indian border), and is about the same profile and ground weight (think softer - mushier ground in Southeast Asia come the monsoons, and bridges an Abrams will collapse just thinking about it). The tank commander has a .51-cal machinegun and 35mm automatic grenade launcher CROWS. https://www.militarytoday.com/tanks/ztq_15.jpg https://cdnb.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/026/086/115/large/tj-songbo-1-rgb-color-0041.jpg?1587832724 https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-eaeb2e516dfa50c892bd8d68229d106a-lq Does share a resemblance to the M10. What do the Chinese call their tank thing? What cal. gun does it have? p.s. What is the typical max load for crossing a typical bridge/hwy overpass here in the USA? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 5:11:48 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The M4 Sherman was not supposed to fight other tanks, it was supposed to be infantry support with the 75mm medium velocity gun firing HE at bunkers, buildings, and emplacements. M10, M18 Hellcat and M36 Jackson were what were supposed to actually fight other tanks. Look how that worked out. It WILL be employed to fight other tanks. The Sherman was designed to do both. Fighting other tanks was written right into the doctrine at the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 5:13:14 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: WTF is a 24hr run time? Is this thing EV? Probably the maintenance interval, or the service life, depending on how thing are going that day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 5:16:48 PM EST
[#26]
Its not a tank and the STG 44 is not an assault rifle.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 5:22:50 PM EST
[#27]
It seems weird to me that it's "not a tank" but still has a crew of 4.
You'd think with the level of automation we can have now that could be reduced to 3 or even 2 at this point. Maybe I'm missing something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 5:24:32 PM EST
[#28]
An armored gun system to support airborne operations
that isn't air droppable. Makes sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 6:02:56 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It is a tank, just a smaller one. The Army likes to use wordplay to get around certain regulations and requirements. The new mini drones being issued are not drones but instead "soldier borne sensors" to avoid FAA regs in CONUS. The Barrett M107 was characterized as a "tool" versus a weapon to get it added to the EOD MTOE, since it can be used to reduce ordnance like UXO submunitions. Quote HistoryQuoted: It is a tank, just a smaller one. The Army likes to use wordplay to get around certain regulations and requirements. The new mini drones being issued are not drones but instead "soldier borne sensors" to avoid FAA regs in CONUS. The Barrett M107 was characterized as a "tool" versus a weapon to get it added to the EOD MTOE, since it can be used to reduce ordnance like UXO submunitions. Yup. You'll never make it to GO without having mastered the art of making any reality possible by advancing narrow or even private definitions of terms. Some get so used to it they stop even seeing it for what it is. This conversation had me dig up the "battle tank" definition from the CFE Treaty. We have been very reluctant to field any new equipment that would trigger these definitions. I've always been intrigued how they don't use the term "main" battle tank. The term "battle tank" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations. I guess we're doubling down on some version of the last sentence with our public statements. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 6:07:16 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It seems weird to me that it's "not a tank" but still has a crew of 4. You'd think with the level of automation we can have now that could be reduced to 3 or even 2 at this point. Maybe I'm missing something. Has nothing to do with technology, you need four to keep the damn thing running and to pull security. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 6:15:19 PM EST
[#31]
Mission seems to be pretty close to that of a medium tank back in the day.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 6:17:19 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yup. You'll never make it to GO without having mastered the art of making any reality possible by advancing narrow or even private definitions of terms. Some get so used to it they stop even seeing it for what it is. This conversation had me dig up the "battle tank" definition from the CFE Treaty. We have been very reluctant to field any new equipment that would trigger these definitions. I've always been intrigued how they don't use the term "main" battle tank. I guess we're doubling down on some version of the last sentence with our public statements. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It is a tank, just a smaller one. The Army likes to use wordplay to get around certain regulations and requirements. The new mini drones being issued are not drones but instead "soldier borne sensors" to avoid FAA regs in CONUS. The Barrett M107 was characterized as a "tool" versus a weapon to get it added to the EOD MTOE, since it can be used to reduce ordnance like UXO submunitions. Yup. You'll never make it to GO without having mastered the art of making any reality possible by advancing narrow or even private definitions of terms. Some get so used to it they stop even seeing it for what it is. This conversation had me dig up the "battle tank" definition from the CFE Treaty. We have been very reluctant to field any new equipment that would trigger these definitions. I've always been intrigued how they don't use the term "main" battle tank. The term "battle tank" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations. I guess we're doubling down on some version of the last sentence with our public statements. The Booker is going to the Infantry BCTs, so they are technically correct. Which we all know is the best kind of correct. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 6:19:51 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It is a tank, just a smaller one. The Army likes to use wordplay to get around certain regulations and requirements. The new mini drones being issued are not drones but instead "soldier borne sensors" to avoid FAA regs in CONUS. The Barrett M107 was characterized as a "tool" versus a weapon to get it added to the EOD MTOE, since it can be used to reduce ordnance like UXO submunitions. Back in the 1930s only Infantry Branch was allowed to have tanks. Cavalry Branch had “combat cars” that were very similar to the tanks used by the infantry at the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 6:25:21 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: seeing this thing getting out in the press make me feel proud of myself for the first time in my life. Finally got my career choice on track and I can say my fingerprints are inside that thing. Seeing your effort turn into something is cool. That's a nice light tank you helped design/build. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 6:26:57 PM EST
[#35]
It's not called a tank for a reason. Call shit a tank and people will use it strictly for tank stuff.
This MPF vehicle is built strictly for IBCT support. Be that knocking down obstacles, leading into some breaches, or hey-getting a shot or two off at enemy armor before they have to pull back to a supplementary position. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 6:30:00 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: An armored gun system to support airborne operations that isn't air droppable. Makes sense. It makes a ton of sense if you've spent more than 37 seconds in airborne units and understand how to build combat power on a lodgement. It is also not just going to airborne units, but to each IBCT. It is a sorely missed and desperately needed capability. Lead with steel and HE instead of 5.56 and SAPI protected bodies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 6:30:32 PM EST
[#37]
Unless it has the capability to shoot down Drones, ATGM’s and directional EFP mines, it’s already obsolete.
Each one should be thought of as an Aircraft Carrier, with it’s own fleet of Drones. Some for recon, some for protection, some for attack. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 6:31:59 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Unless it has the capability to shoot down Drones, ATGM’s and directional EFP mines, it’s already obsolete. A threat doesn't make a weapon obsolete. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 6:33:14 PM EST
[#39]
I suspect if an infantryman saw it on the battlefield, he/she/they would say "that's a tank".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 6:33:57 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: At 42 tons, it's as heavy as a T-72B with less armor, smaller gun, slower and about 12x the price. Sure it has far superior fire control and has newer composite armor, but it will burn just as bright as all those T-72/80/90 when fighting anyone that not arabs with decent equipment. Whos' bright idea is to have a front engine chassis with its massive weight penalty? On a supposedly lighter tank! This is my opinion and it's worth every penny you paid to hear it (not you, personally), but if the goal was to make a lighter vehicle than an Abrams but still with a bigger gun than a Brad on it, we'd have been better off with something in the vicinity of 35 tons and a 40mm. That way it would have no issues whatsoever on 95% of all roads and bridges. 42 tons makes bridge crossing very iffy in most places. Also, the 40mm is really capable. If they had built something like that, I would believe them when they said it wasn't a "tank." |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 6:37:13 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A threat doesn't make a weapon obsolete. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Unless it has the capability to shoot down Drones, ATGM’s and directional EFP mines, it’s already obsolete. A threat doesn't make a weapon obsolete. Read my post again, with emphasis on the first 7 words. I believe capability Will be forthcoming. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 6:41:30 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Does share a resemblance to the M10. What do the Chinese call their tank thing? What cal. gun does it have? p.s. What is the typical max load for crossing a typical bridge/hwy overpass here in the USA? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: In comparison, the PLA Type-15 tank is pretty similar. The Chinese tank has a turbo diesel engine, an oxygen generator (for operating at 10,000 feet, i.e., the Indian border), and is about the same profile and ground weight (think softer - mushier ground in Southeast Asia come the monsoons, and bridges an Abrams will collapse just thinking about it). The tank commander has a .51-cal machinegun and 35mm automatic grenade launcher CROWS. https://www.militarytoday.com/tanks/ztq_15.jpg https://cdnb.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/026/086/115/large/tj-songbo-1-rgb-color-0041.jpg?1587832724 https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-eaeb2e516dfa50c892bd8d68229d106a-lq Does share a resemblance to the M10. What do the Chinese call their tank thing? What cal. gun does it have? p.s. What is the typical max load for crossing a typical bridge/hwy overpass here in the USA? There's a reason tractor trailers and heavy ten wheelers have GVWRs of 80,000lbs or less. 42 tons comes in over that. Many secondary roads have bridges even less capable and have signage to identify that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 6:44:06 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is it a mineral? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 6:46:00 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That deal on the end of the tube is not a laser. It is a culminator. For some reason I thought this was going to have a auto loader. "It's an assault gun." "There won't be an autoloader." Man, the M10 Booker sounds like a waste of taxpayer money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 6:53:35 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The M4 Sherman was not supposed to fight other tanks, it was supposed to be infantry support with the 75mm medium velocity gun firing HE at bunkers, buildings, and emplacements. M10, M18 Hellcat and M36 Jackson were what were supposed to actually fight other tanks. Look how that worked out. It WILL be employed to fight other tanks. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: At 42 tons, it's as heavy as a T-72B with less armor, smaller gun, slower and about 12x the price. Sure it has far superior fire control and has newer composite armor, but it will burn just as bright as all those T-72/80/90 when fighting anyone that not arabs with decent equipment. Whos' bright idea is to have a front engine chassis with its massive weight penalty? On a supposedly lighter tank! It's supposed to be for infantry support IIRC, kind of a mobile gun support platform, not meant to fight other tanks, that's the read I have on it. M10, M18 Hellcat and M36 Jackson were what were supposed to actually fight other tanks. Look how that worked out. It WILL be employed to fight other tanks. The M4 was supposed to fight tanks, among other things. Both tank and tank destroyer doctrine of the time acknowledge this. If you are supporting infantry on offensive ops and they run into tanks, infantry support means killing tanks. You aren’t calling a tank destroyer battalion by doctrine. They are for defensive ops. The 75mm was chosen for the M3 and M4 because it was considered to be good against armor, which was true when the selection was made. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 6:59:40 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Does share a resemblance to the M10. What do the Chinese call their tank thing? What cal. gun does it have? p.s. What is the typical max load for crossing a typical bridge/hwy overpass here in the USA? The Chinese call their Type 15 a tank. It's got a 105mm main gun -- close to the M10's 105, but it's a self-loader like a T-72.  China VT5 light tank automatic gun charger The Type 15 has a crew of three -- which will make maintenance (like breaking track) a pain in the backside. M10s will be crewed by tankers. Bridge classification is one of those engineering skills that takes some math. A freeway bridge that will take a flatbed and heavy equipment (tanks. bulldozers, diggers, excavators, etc.) is different than a 3rd-world highway bridge. Same math will tell you if a tractor, heavy equipment trailer, and an M1 will stress a span to failure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 7:02:05 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Read my post again, with emphasis on the first 7 words. I believe capability Will be forthcoming. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Unless it has the capability to shoot down Drones, ATGM’s and directional EFP mines, it’s already obsolete. A threat doesn't make a weapon obsolete. Read my post again, with emphasis on the first 7 words. I believe capability Will be forthcoming. A threat does not make a weapon obsolete. Most weapon systems get modernized and adapted throughout their life. We're on what iteration of the M16, M1, M109, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 7:04:39 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Read my post again, with emphasis on the first 7 words. I believe capability Will be forthcoming. Those threats made doctrine obsolete, not weapons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 7:09:58 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Looks like what the USMC should’ve transitioned to instead of divesting themselves of armor capability. They will get the worn out ones in 30 years when the latest and greatest bunch of whiz kids come along and rethink the wheel again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 7:11:08 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's supposed to be for infantry support IIRC, kind of a mobile gun support platform, not meant to fight other tanks, that's the read I have on it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: At 42 tons, it's as heavy as a T-72B with less armor, smaller gun, slower and about 12x the price. Sure it has far superior fire control and has newer composite armor, but it will burn just as bright as all those T-72/80/90 when fighting anyone that not arabs with decent equipment. Whos' bright idea is to have a front engine chassis with its massive weight penalty? On a supposedly lighter tank! It's supposed to be for infantry support IIRC, kind of a mobile gun support platform, not meant to fight other tanks, that's the read I have on it. Tell that to our adversaries…. And see if they play by those rules. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
