User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 7:15:14 PM EST
[#1]
It's totally a TANK. Maybe not a main battle tank but it a TANK.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 7:27:57 PM EST
[#2]
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. The tank destroyers were supposed to destroy other tanks. In practice, they're all used interchangeably when shtf. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 8:11:30 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Of course that was the job of a tank when they were first used in 1916. The tank destroyers were supposed to destroy other tanks. In practice, they're all used interchangeably when shtf. 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. The tank destroyers were supposed to destroy other tanks. In practice, they're all used interchangeably when shtf. The US Army tank destroyer battalion was intended to stop massed armor attacks. That’s it. Doctrinally they had no role in offensive ops except to sit in reserve for use against armored counterattacks. Killing tanks in the offense was the business of tanks, among other things. In practice the tank destroyer battalions were used extensively as artillery. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 8:22:06 PM EST
[#4]
Will this being going to HBCTs or IBCTs? HBCTs already have the M1 so...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 8:29:30 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Will this being going to HBCTs or IBCTs? HBCTs already have the M1 so... It has been long been advertised as going to IBCTs and not ABCTs. You should know that given your job. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 8:29:52 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Looks like what the USMC should’ve transitioned to instead of divesting themselves of armor capability. It hasn’t been used and abused by the other services yet. The it’s not ready for the Marines yet. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:06:29 PM EST
[#7]
So they want a light, 'cheap', infantry supporting, 'not-tank' with a big gun?
Seems like it would be easier to update a LAV than create a new, light not-tank thats more expensive than a heavy tank  Attached Fileyou know- because its not a tank |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:19:02 PM EST
[#8]
Has a tank cannon. Looks like a tank. It will draw tank and Anti Tank fire. It’s a tank.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:23:02 PM EST
[#9]
Shits a tank yo
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:30:26 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Looks like what the USMC should’ve transitioned to instead of divesting themselves of armor capability. The Army offered the M1A2 SEP to the USMC as far back as 2013 since the Army planned on going M1A2 pure, but the Marines declined. Not sure why since they knew US Army support for the M1A1 was coming to a close rather soon (despite M1A1 FMS). Cost saving decision and nothing more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:33:09 PM EST
[#11]
it’s an assault gun Does it have a shoulder thingy that goes up? Where is the bayonet lug? I guess you can't hunt dear with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:36:17 PM EST
[#12]
The value is that two can fit on a plane.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:36:56 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So they want a light, 'cheap', infantry supporting, 'not-tank' with a big gun? Seems like it would be easier to update a LAV than create a new, light not-tank thats more expensive than a heavy tank https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/62895/fut7nc5q1ta41_jpg-2940839.JPG you know- because its not a tank We had that, and it didn't work out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 9:51:40 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Assault gun you say? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/72384/c8a70d5dd193123865f153051e96651187249362-2940234.jpg  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:18:35 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So they want a light, 'cheap', infantry supporting, 'not-tank' with a big gun? Seems like it would be easier to update a LAV than create a new, light not-tank thats more expensive than a heavy tank https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/62895/fut7nc5q1ta41_jpg-2940839.JPG you know- because its not a tank Hard to upscale armor on wheeled vehicles due to weight limitations, not to mention their armor is already too thin to begin with. The M10 is more expensive than “new” M1A2 SEPs coming out of Lima because the former is being built from the ground up on a new production line, while the latter is being built from hull and turret structures that were originally from M1s and M1A1s and are already paid for in 1980s and 1990s US dollars. Existing Abrams turrets and hulls are stripped down to the structures and built back up to the latest specs on a line that’s been running for decades, hence the cost savings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:31:49 PM EST
[#16]
There can be only one M10
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:45:33 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hard to upscale armor on wheeled vehicles due to weight limitations, not to mention their armor is already too thin to begin with. The M10 is more expensive than "new" M1A2 SEPs coming out of Lima because the former is being built from the ground up on a new production line, while the latter is being built from hull and turret structures that were originally from M1s and M1A1s and are already paid for in 1980s and 1990s US dollars. Existing Abrams turrets and hulls are stripped down to the structures and built back up to the latest specs on a line that's been running for decades, hence the cost savings. infantry support vehicle? wtf is that even supposed to mean? literally every piece of army equipment is technically infantry support. what does this one do that lavs/strykers/bradleys dont? a modern sheridan might be cool (which this isn't because not a tank), but does it fill a niche better than anything else available? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2023 10:50:25 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryI'm glad someone got it. Fucking nerd. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 3:33:47 AM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I suspect if an infantryman saw it on the battlefield, he/she/they would say "that's a tank". ^^This. Ivan/Mohammed who sees this thing rolling by is going to go ”Holy shit a tank! Fire all the Kornets!”. The nuance of infantry support vs. proper MBT won’t matter to him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 5:18:29 AM EST
[#20]
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 6:23:33 AM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. Quoted: Quoted: Looks like what the USMC should’ve transitioned to instead of divesting themselves of armor capability. It hasn’t been used and abused by the other services yet. The it’s not ready for the Marines yet. More like, the Marines will come buy them, maybe, once they've blown their whole budget on yet another attempt to replace the AAV, more F-35B (which, in fairness, seems to be doing OK, just expensive-ish), another new-build AH-1 Cobra variant as well as another run of V-22s, probably whole-force new rifles (that do the same job as M16 or M4A1 PIP at 5x the price and 1.5x the weight, because HK and piston). Then they'll tell the junior enlisted that "Marines always get the Army's hand-me-downs and cast-offs!" despite having the brand-newest guns, LBE, aircraft, etc, and another prototype armored, amphibian vehicle that cost billions but didn't enter service. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 6:25:40 AM EST
[#22]
I used to work on tanks.
Thats a tank. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 6:46:23 AM EST
[#23]
@Manic_Moran
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 6:48:23 AM EST
[#24]
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). Be very careful about drawing conclusions from that war. Neither side there fights like we fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 6:50:28 AM EST
[#25]
The M10 should have been a medium tank with a 120mm and enough armor to fight a T-90 in a pinch if not as the workhorse of a combined arms breach. Or it should have been a little sports car of a thing with a 50mm. One or the other.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 7:16:23 AM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: More like, the Marines will come buy them, maybe, once they've blown their whole budget on yet another attempt to replace the AAV, more F-35B (which, in fairness, seems to be doing OK, just expensive-ish), another new-build AH-1 Cobra variant as well as another run of V-22s, probably whole-force new rifles (that do the same job as M16 or M4A1 PIP at 5x the price and 1.5x the weight, because HK and piston). Then they'll tell the junior enlisted that "Marines always get the Army's hand-me-downs and cast-offs!" despite having the brand-newest guns, LBE, aircraft, etc, and another prototype armored, amphibian vehicle that cost billions but didn't enter service. TBF after 50+ years in service it was past time to replace the AAV, and the AV-8B isn't a whole lot newer. The AAAV may have been better than the ACV, but it was also heavy as fuck. I still don't get the hate for the M27 here, especially when you can compare it to the Army's XM7 adoption. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 7:20:51 AM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The M10 should have been a medium tank with a 120mm and enough armor to fight a T-90 in a pinch if not as the workhorse of a combined arms breach. Or it should have been a little sports car of a thing with a 50mm. One or the other. Agreed on that part. 35 tons with a 40mm. Maybe throw in a Javelin launcher. Faster, lighter, bridges are no problem, transports easier, and if it's really for infantry a 40mm is plenty. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 7:22:39 AM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Could just be all of the lies our Government has been rolling out over the last three years.. but I have a nagging suspicion that this non-tanks primary design function is less international and more ..domestic. Good chance that people in high levels of power.. right now are plotting the final solution for the American Patriots. Commanding officers with blue hair and mutilated genitals don't view threats to American values the same way officers in the past may have. Good grief.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 7:43:37 AM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Agreed on that part. 35 tons with a 40mm. Maybe throw in a Javelin launcher. Faster, lighter, bridges are no problem, transports easier, and if it's really for infantry a 40mm is plenty. Make Javelins fire vertically, make a MLRS tracked vehicle for them. Keep them in a fast replaceable box. 30 or 40 rockets per box. 18 tracks per company. 720 missiles max. Park launcher (box) in one spot, park control vehicle in another. 3 or 4 operators for box, own the battle field… |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 7:45:12 AM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Surprised it isn't all electric. hypocrites |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 8:02:09 AM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Agreed on that part. 35 tons with a 40mm. Maybe throw in a Javelin launcher. Faster, lighter, bridges are no problem, transports easier, and if it's really for infantry a 40mm is plenty. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The M10 should have been a medium tank with a 120mm and enough armor to fight a T-90 in a pinch if not as the workhorse of a combined arms breach. Or it should have been a little sports car of a thing with a 50mm. One or the other. Agreed on that part. 35 tons with a 40mm. Maybe throw in a Javelin launcher. Faster, lighter, bridges are no problem, transports easier, and if it's really for infantry a 40mm is plenty. There's no reason to use a 40 when the XM913 and its 50x228 is the future standard for the US. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 12:04:29 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Make Javelins fire vertically, make a MLRS tracked vehicle for them. Keep them in a fast replaceable box. 30 or 40 rockets per box. 18 tracks per company. 720 missiles max. Park launcher (box) in one spot, park control vehicle in another. 3 or 4 operators for box, own the battle field |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 12:09:36 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The value is that two can fit on a plane. Wars are won and lost due to logistics, and this thing has much better logistical value than a abrhams, with a very similar punch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 12:12:06 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The M10 should have been a medium tank with a 120mm and enough armor to fight a T-90 in a pinch if not as the workhorse of a combined arms breach. Or it should have been a little sports car of a thing with a 50mm. One or the other. The 105mm can kill a t90. We found out too late that the original m1 just needed better ammo. The assumption was that Russian armor was ubotaniun, in reality it's no better than a m60. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 12:14:35 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Genius Not so great when you consider they can put a dozen laser guided /smart 70mm hydras on a regular hummv. They've been used to absurd effect in Ukraine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 12:19:29 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quacks like a tank Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Looks like a tank. Quacks like a tank but its actually a tink |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 12:23:18 PM EST
[#37]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 12:37:21 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It identifies as an assault vehicle, it's pronouns are "fuck your building", "fuck your bunker", and "fuck your infantry" 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 2:35:17 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Make Javelins fire vertically, make a MLRS tracked vehicle for them. Keep them in a fast replaceable box. 30 or 40 rockets per box. 18 tracks per company. 720 missiles max. Park launcher (box) in one spot, park control vehicle in another. 3 or 4 operators for box, own the battle field… Brimstone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 2:53:44 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryThe Bradley turned out to be a pretty damn good War machine though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 2:55:26 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's a light tank. You'd think a general could tell huh? Betcha he gets pronouns right though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 3:18:26 PM EST
[#42]
Since the general called it a, "assault gun" they should nickname it HAG - Heavy Assault Gun.
Light Urban Combat Yeeter (LUCY) |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 5:06:16 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Bradley turned out to be a pretty damn good War machine though. Quote HistoryQuoted: The Bradley turned out to be a pretty damn good War machine though. yeah its funny how a vehicle that was derided as a 'laughing stock' / disaster turned out to be so effective still kicking ass almost 45 years later. combat proven. but i guess there's still people hatin' on the M4 / M16 / AR15 too... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 5:12:54 PM EST
[#44]
Up armored howitzer/arty piece.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 5:24:35 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: yeah its funny how a vehicle that was derided as a 'laughing stock' / disaster turned out to be so effective still kicking ass almost 45 years later. combat proven. but i guess there's still people hatin' on the M4 / M16 / AR15 too... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The Bradley turned out to be a pretty damn good War machine though. yeah its funny how a vehicle that was derided as a 'laughing stock' / disaster turned out to be so effective still kicking ass almost 45 years later. combat proven. but i guess there's still people hatin' on the M4 / M16 / AR15 too... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 5:32:50 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: All this time I thought it was a front sight post for the gunner if he lost his optics!  in the past sometimes they opened the breech and aimed down the barrel in emergencies. not sure how common that was but have read about the germans, israelis and the US doing it on occasion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 5:36:45 PM EST
[#47]
It can't take a main gun round to the face. It's not a tank.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 5:38:40 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: yeah its funny how a vehicle that was derided as a 'laughing stock' / disaster turned out to be so effective still kicking ass almost 45 years later. combat proven. but i guess there's still people hatin' on the M4 / M16 / AR15 too... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 5:39:45 PM EST
[#49]
Are there any other 105mm platforms still in U.S. service?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 5:41:48 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: For Better or Worse we found out pretty quick that the Bradley is a better Tank Killer than the Abrams is. And the end the Abrams has been more of a assault gun than a tank in actual combat so why not make a assault gun? Upgrading to the Rhinemetall 120mm was seen as the only possible way that we would ever be able to punch through Soviet armor and we spent billions upon billions of dollars to do that only to find out that the original 120 mm gun would have done just fine. Meanwhile the rest of the world still makes crap ton of Highly Effective 155 mm ammo. Along with that this thing is much lighter weight much easier to repair much more mobile and is more fitting for what a future war is likely to have especially with what we're seeing in ukraine. Mast armored columns won't have value in the future flying it. Wait... What? This is confusing. Did you mix up some of the numbers here? This all seems pretty wrong to me. |
|
|
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.
Attached File