User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 8:00:28 AM EST
[#1]
Army’s LCS?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 8:01:00 AM EST
[#2]
Made in New Jersey?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 8:04:06 AM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Army’s LCS? Lord no. While this may not be the final iteration of this concept, this has been a missed capability from the light units for years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 8:10:12 AM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryThat's the BAE vehicle which wasn't selected. He's got an overview video up as well on the winning vehicle, the GDLS Griffin/M10 Booker. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 8:14:21 AM EST
[#5]
Huh, neat. Saw it on a trailer leaving Belvoir a few weeks back when I was on my way to the range, figured it was just an Abrams that was at the museum for an event and didn’t even give it a second look
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 8:15:49 AM EST
[#6]
Should have gone with the CV90-120. Same weight but with a 120mm gun and proven chassis design
  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 8:15:59 AM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't know where this vehicle will really fit in. Direct fire is nice, but it is still 40 tons heavy. I'm not sure how much armor they can put on that thing to make it survivable at that weight. I think a lighter platform with more mobility, a smaller gun, and a simpler design would provide more bang for your taxpayer dollar. The ability to reasonably survive artillery and threats like a RPG would be enough if you can get it under 30 tons. Make it simple enough that it is cheaper to produce, maintain, and provide logistics for. Just my two cents. So a Bradley is what you're describing. Maybe we can buy some from Ukraine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 8:20:29 AM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So a Bradley is what you're describing. Maybe we can buy some from Ukraine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 8:25:25 AM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: well the M10 does use a modified Bradley hull Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So a Bradley is what you're describing. Maybe we can buy some from Ukraine. I'm pretty sure it's a derivative of the ASCOD, not a Bradley hull. ETA:  Inside the Chieftain's Hatch Snapshot: XM10 Booker  Ten Responses to the MPF Discussion |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 8:25:44 AM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: if they could add the armor on after the drop. they might have something. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Adding an armor capability to airborne is an important concept but unless it's airdroppable I don't see the practical application. if they could add the armor on after the drop. they might have something. How does the armor get there? Fedex? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 8:27:06 AM EST
[#11]
$258M is budget dust…...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 8:30:29 AM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Drones aren't as effective as the highlights reel on twitter would lead you to believe. I don’t know about that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 8:31:39 AM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: $258M is budget dust…... Rarely does anyone who goes bankrupt look at a single item and say THAT was what killed me. It's the coffees, the netflix,the t shirts, the Amazon prime day deals..... The budget dust. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 8:32:26 AM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Google. Google. Google. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So what does this do that a regular tank doesn't? How does the gun compare? Weight/transportability? Speed? It kinda sounds like this is supposed to supplement infantry troops. Does the M1 not already do that? Google. Google. Google. If only a person who wanted to start a discussion on a discussion forum did not take offense at the suggestion that he should supply a bit more information on the topic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 8:39:59 AM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am going with why, as in the actual need and use of the Booker, not the lining of the Military Industrial Complex pockets, and the generals that retired to get the project pushed through. It's fire support for infantry BCTs. It fills the role of an assault gun or medium tank. It gives the infantry a bit of extra firepower without turning them into an armored BCT with it's huge logistics tail and strategic mobility limitations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 8:40:52 AM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Almost 10 million each? The whole procurement process needs to be burned to the ground. Am Abrams was 6-7 million. When was that? I agree that the procurement process is beyond broken. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 8:44:44 AM EST
[#17]
If the US Military is seriously looking at ground action in Asia, they are going to need a smaller/lighter tank thank the M1. There is a interesting doc on the newest Japanese tank, it's modular so they can lighten it up, it goes over the percentages of how many bridges in Japan cannot support a MBT and the number is very large. I know we likely aren't fighting in Japan, but I figure the rest of Asian would be even worse off.
Nice how they shove Ukraine in that article, fucking money pit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 8:45:32 AM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Adding an armor capability to airborne is an important concept but unless it's airdroppable I don't see the practical application. It's really not an important concept. Even MBTs have been obsolete for half a century,.. yet we just keep pouring money into them like the sinkholes they are. Until armor technology is revolutionized it's going to continue to be on the losing end of peer to peer conflicts both tactically and strategically. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 8:58:34 AM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: if they could add the armor on after the drop. they might have something. But MPF that can actually traverse infrastructure that already exists, and can get there with the unit they're mean to support, certainly means something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 9:01:38 AM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I wonder if it wouldn't be better to design it like an assault gun. No moving turret saves on weight and simplifies the design. Let's more weight go to armor and defensive systems. Or go the other way and keep it light to increase mobility. It would also bring the cost down on production and maintenance as well. Being able to field more of them and keep them serviceable cheaply should be a consideration. If you try to design a vehicle to handle too many roles, you end up with something like a Bradley. I know it's popular to bag on the Brad, but I thought it ended up being a damn good piece of equipment? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 9:01:55 AM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Adding an armor capability to airborne is an important concept but unless it's airdroppable I don't see the practical application. For clarity's sake, it is intended to go to all light divisions. It's going to the 82nd first as they are more likely to be the first unit deployed and they tested the MPF concept and its integration a couple years back using borrowed LAVs. That and there is retained unit memory there as they had 3-73AR with Sheridans well into the 90s-the only light unit to have such capability. There is absolutely no need to throw a baby tank out of an airplane. Heck, half the stuff we currently say we can throw out of an airplane is unnecessary to drop. If we drop a BCT, its intent will be to secure an airfield so as to establish a lodgement and bring in follow on forces. I forgot the exact timing, but the general goal is to have the runway cleared and open by P+2hours. Sooner if able as they kind of want to survive. I guarantee some of these vehicles will be high on the air land PVL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 9:05:55 AM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: For clarity's sake, it is intended to go to all light divisions. It's going to the 82nd first as they are more likely to be the first unit deployed and they tested the MPF concept and its integration a couple years back using borrowed LAVs. That and there is retained unit memory there as they had 3-73AR with Sheridans well into the 90s-the only light unit to have such capability. There is absolutely no need to throw a baby tank out of an airplane. Heck, half the stuff we currently say we can throw out of an airplane is unnecessary to drop. If we drop a BCT, its intent will be to secure an airfield so as to establish a lodgement and bring in follow on forces. I forgot the exact timing, but the general goal is to have the runway cleared and open by P+2hours. Sooner if able as they kind of want to survive. I guarantee some of these vehicles will be high on the air land PVL. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Adding an armor capability to airborne is an important concept but unless it's airdroppable I don't see the practical application. For clarity's sake, it is intended to go to all light divisions. It's going to the 82nd first as they are more likely to be the first unit deployed and they tested the MPF concept and its integration a couple years back using borrowed LAVs. That and there is retained unit memory there as they had 3-73AR with Sheridans well into the 90s-the only light unit to have such capability. There is absolutely no need to throw a baby tank out of an airplane. Heck, half the stuff we currently say we can throw out of an airplane is unnecessary to drop. If we drop a BCT, its intent will be to secure an airfield so as to establish a lodgement and bring in follow on forces. I forgot the exact timing, but the general goal is to have the runway cleared and open by P+2hours. Sooner if able as they kind of want to survive. I guarantee some of these vehicles will be high on the air land PVL. MPF is pretty good idea for light and medium forces and as you are aware gets rid of the heavy support element assign as a FIE to light forces, allowing them to concentrate on their mission |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 9:06:06 AM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Should have gone with the CV90-120. Same weight but with a 120mm gun and proven chassis design https://www.militarytoday.com/tanks/cv90120t_l3.jpg https://fighting-vehicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/CV90120-T-Medium-Tank-with-Active-Protection-5.jpg So it wouldn't be surprising if an M10A1 moved it to a 120 for ammo compatibility. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 9:07:15 AM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 40 tons brings you to places to fight where a 70 ton tank can't go to. Think bridges in contested areas. One would think that 25 tons and a 40mm would be even more versatile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 9:09:57 AM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Should have gone with the CV90-120. Same weight but with a 120mm gun and proven chassis design https://www.militarytoday.com/tanks/cv90120t_l3.jpg https://fighting-vehicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/CV90120-T-Medium-Tank-with-Active-Protection-5.jpg This would make sense though... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 9:11:43 AM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Should have gone with the CV90-120. Same weight but with a 120mm gun and proven chassis design https://www.militarytoday.com/tanks/cv90120t_l3.jpg https://fighting-vehicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/CV90120-T-Medium-Tank-with-Active-Protection-5.jpg  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 9:15:38 AM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was supposed to be an air-mobile light tank. Too heavy now. Agree. They should have just done an upgrade on the M551 Sheridan. Even though we were forbidden to call it a "light tank" (officially it was an Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle) it was a light tank. 16 tons with 152 mm of whoop-ass. Since they are bringing back the 105, are they going to issue WP and beehive rounds again?!?!?!? Please - Please - Please |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 9:15:39 AM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: One would think that 25 tons and a 40mm would be even more versatile. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 40 tons brings you to places to fight where a 70 ton tank can't go to. Think bridges in contested areas. One would think that 25 tons and a 40mm would be even more versatile. Not enough firepower to slug it out with enemy tanks. Needs an ATGM launcher in both cases ( IMHO ) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 9:29:40 AM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We tried that w/the M551. It never really worked out all that well ('cept maybe in Panama in 89 when the enemy didn't have ATGMs). Any ATGM that will destroy a Sheridan will also destroy a Stryker, the M10, M557, Humvee, and at least get a Mobility kill on an M1. I prefer the small silhouette and faster speed of the M551. I served on them at the start of my service. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 9:36:32 AM EST
[#30]
Wonderful. Light armor good only against shrapnel & small arms fire, old 105 gun that probably requires DU to defeat Russian armor.
Makes me think of the M-10 Wolverine or M-36 Jackson. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 9:40:10 AM EST
[#31]
Modern 551. Fuck that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 10:21:26 AM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's fire support for infantry BCTs. It fills the role of an assault gun or medium tank. It gives the infantry a bit of extra firepower without turning them into an armored BCT with it's huge logistics tail and strategic mobility limitations. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I am going with why, as in the actual need and use of the Booker, not the lining of the Military Industrial Complex pockets, and the generals that retired to get the project pushed through. It's fire support for infantry BCTs. It fills the role of an assault gun or medium tank. It gives the infantry a bit of extra firepower without turning them into an armored BCT with it's huge logistics tail and strategic mobility limitations. We do not have other platforms out there that would work or be modified to work? I just see this becoming a huge boondoggle of huge money and not working out well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 10:33:23 AM EST
[#33]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 10:35:56 AM EST
[#34]
Can this vehicle be taken out with a drone?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 10:41:02 AM EST
[#35]
Quoted: https://www.army-technology.com/news/us-army-spends-258m-for-more-m10-booker-vehciles/ https://www.army-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2023/07/M10.jpg Designed by General Dynamics Land Systems, the mobile direct-fire combat vehicle melds recently developed designs to dominate ground threats. The Booker has a four-person crew; an enhanced thermal viewer; a large-calibre cannon; a lightweight hull and turret and a modern diesel engine, transmission and suspension system. It has been designed from the start for capability upgrades, based on future operational needs. What question is this thing answering? Can it be transported with a C-130? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 10:41:23 AM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's really not an important concept. Even MBTs have been obsolete for half a century,.. yet we just keep pouring money into them like the sinkholes they are. Until armor technology is revolutionized it's going to continue to be on the losing end of peer to peer conflicts both tactically and strategically. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Adding an armor capability to airborne is an important concept but unless it's airdroppable I don't see the practical application. It's really not an important concept. Even MBTs have been obsolete for half a century,.. yet we just keep pouring money into them like the sinkholes they are. Until armor technology is revolutionized it's going to continue to be on the losing end of peer to peer conflicts both tactically and strategically. Wrong, and user name does not check out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 10:44:15 AM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We do not have other platforms out there that would work or be modified to work? I just see this becoming a huge boondoggle of huge money and not working out well. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I am going with why, as in the actual need and use of the Booker, not the lining of the Military Industrial Complex pockets, and the generals that retired to get the project pushed through. It's fire support for infantry BCTs. It fills the role of an assault gun or medium tank. It gives the infantry a bit of extra firepower without turning them into an armored BCT with it's huge logistics tail and strategic mobility limitations. We do not have other platforms out there that would work or be modified to work? I just see this becoming a huge boondoggle of huge money and not working out well. We tried that with the stryker MGS for SBCTs. It was a goatscrew. This has been a long needed capability in light divisions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 10:46:17 AM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Should have gone with the CV90-120. Same weight but with a 120mm gun and proven chassis design https://www.militarytoday.com/tanks/cv90120t_l3.jpg https://fighting-vehicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/CV90120-T-Medium-Tank-with-Active-Protection-5.jpg The 120mm main gun would have been a better choice and should have been selected over the 105mm, IMHO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 10:47:32 AM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Almost 10 million each? The whole procurement process needs to be burned to the ground. Am Abrams was 6-7 million. Thats the vehicles, personnel training, the supply train to keep them maintained, spare parts, future spares production, etc. Procurement is a shit show, to be sure, but you cant take a number from the budget and lay it just on the individual vehicles unless they're specifically saying its for that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 10:49:14 AM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Agree. They should have just done an upgrade on the M551 Sheridan. Even though we were forbidden to call it a "light tank" (officially it was an Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle) it was a light tank. 16 tons with 152 mm of whoop-ass. Since they are bringing back the 105, are they going to issue WP and beehive rounds again?!?!?!? Please - Please - Please Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It was supposed to be an air-mobile light tank. Too heavy now. Agree. They should have just done an upgrade on the M551 Sheridan. Even though we were forbidden to call it a "light tank" (officially it was an Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle) it was a light tank. 16 tons with 152 mm of whoop-ass. Since they are bringing back the 105, are they going to issue WP and beehive rounds again?!?!?!? Please - Please - Please The 105mm isn’t really being “brought back” since it was fielded with the Stryker MGS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 11:01:49 AM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This would make sense though... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Should have gone with the CV90-120. Same weight but with a 120mm gun and proven chassis design https://www.militarytoday.com/tanks/cv90120t_l3.jpg https://fighting-vehicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/CV90120-T-Medium-Tank-with-Active-Protection-5.jpg This would make sense though... BAE owns hagglunds, but for some reason they submitted a modified Brad chassis. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 11:03:19 AM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How much is it going to weigh once there's enough ERA/APS on it to make it useful against modern ATGMs? Dude. It's illegal for the people we fight to use modern ATGMs against us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 11:05:16 AM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The 120mm main gun would have been a better choice and should have been selected over the 105mm, IMHO. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Should have gone with the CV90-120. Same weight but with a 120mm gun and proven chassis design https://www.militarytoday.com/tanks/cv90120t_l3.jpg https://fighting-vehicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/CV90120-T-Medium-Tank-with-Active-Protection-5.jpg The 120mm main gun would have been a better choice and should have been selected over the 105mm, IMHO. And they didn't even add active protection, or a rws (useful against drones) or even something like switchblade. Only thing modern I saw on the video was that it had li-ion batteries for silent watch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 11:13:50 AM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We tried that with the stryker MGS for SBCTs. It was a goatscrew. This has been a long needed capability in light divisions. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I am going with why, as in the actual need and use of the Booker, not the lining of the Military Industrial Complex pockets, and the generals that retired to get the project pushed through. It's fire support for infantry BCTs. It fills the role of an assault gun or medium tank. It gives the infantry a bit of extra firepower without turning them into an armored BCT with it's huge logistics tail and strategic mobility limitations. We do not have other platforms out there that would work or be modified to work? I just see this becoming a huge boondoggle of huge money and not working out well. We tried that with the stryker MGS for SBCTs. It was a goatscrew. This has been a long needed capability in light divisions. I never researched the MGS all that much. What ended up being the cons of it? Seemed like a good idea on paper. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 11:17:23 AM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I never researched the MGS all that much. What ended up being the cons of it? Seemed like a good idea on paper. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I am going with why, as in the actual need and use of the Booker, not the lining of the Military Industrial Complex pockets, and the generals that retired to get the project pushed through. It's fire support for infantry BCTs. It fills the role of an assault gun or medium tank. It gives the infantry a bit of extra firepower without turning them into an armored BCT with it's huge logistics tail and strategic mobility limitations. We do not have other platforms out there that would work or be modified to work? I just see this becoming a huge boondoggle of huge money and not working out well. We tried that with the stryker MGS for SBCTs. It was a goatscrew. This has been a long needed capability in light divisions. I never researched the MGS all that much. What ended up being the cons of it? Seemed like a good idea on paper. The gun/autoloader was unreliable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 11:20:46 AM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So what does this do that a regular tank doesn't? How does the gun compare? Weight/transportability? Speed? It kinda sounds like this is supposed to supplement infantry troops. Does the M1 not already do that? this is a program that has been years in the making it is to provide ARMOR (ie kinda a tank-ish piece of firepower) to infantry units which previously HAD ZERO ARMOR. think -- light infantry, Airborne / Air Assault, etc. basically giving these 'light' infantry units one battalion of 'armor' where they previously had none. has NO EFFECT as far as i know on current Armor Divisions and 'heavy' infantry divisions its a good -- and needed -- addition IMO |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 11:23:16 AM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: BAE owns hagglunds, but for some reason they submitted a modified Brad chassis. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Should have gone with the CV90-120. Same weight but with a 120mm gun and proven chassis design https://www.militarytoday.com/tanks/cv90120t_l3.jpg https://fighting-vehicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/CV90120-T-Medium-Tank-with-Active-Protection-5.jpg This would make sense though... BAE owns hagglunds, but for some reason they submitted a modified Brad chassis. Which one used a modified Brad chassis? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 11:31:01 AM EST
[#48]
just to use a real world example to show the need for these.
say you want to re-take Bakhmut or Fallujah. a perfect mission for a lighter infantry force like the 82nd, 101, 25th or whatever but it would DEFINITELY be nice to have some armor for those infantrymen as they advanced into the built-up areas. roadblocks. fortified positions. strongholds / bunkers, etc. well now you would have to 'borrow' or cross-task / attach other units to provide armor. from a different unit. possibly chain-of-command issues. possible commo issues. possible logistics issues. possible training / sync issues, etc. now the light force will have its own organic armor firepower to rely upon. makes assigning / resourcing / accomplishing the mission significantly more efficient / effective. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 11:34:31 AM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The gun/autoloader was unreliable. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I am going with why, as in the actual need and use of the Booker, not the lining of the Military Industrial Complex pockets, and the generals that retired to get the project pushed through. It's fire support for infantry BCTs. It fills the role of an assault gun or medium tank. It gives the infantry a bit of extra firepower without turning them into an armored BCT with it's huge logistics tail and strategic mobility limitations. We do not have other platforms out there that would work or be modified to work? I just see this becoming a huge boondoggle of huge money and not working out well. We tried that with the stryker MGS for SBCTs. It was a goatscrew. This has been a long needed capability in light divisions. I never researched the MGS all that much. What ended up being the cons of it? Seemed like a good idea on paper. The gun/autoloader was unreliable. That’s a pretty big con, haha |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 11:52:35 AM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: just to use a real world example to show the need for these. say you want to re-take Bakhmut or Fallujah. a perfect mission for a lighter infantry force like the 82nd, 101, 25th or whatever but it would DEFINITELY be nice to have some armor for those infantrymen as they advanced into the built-up areas. roadblocks. fortified positions. strongholds / bunkers, etc. well now you would have to 'borrow' or cross-task / attach other units to provide armor. from a different unit. possibly chain-of-command issues. possible commo issues. possible logistics issues. possible training / sync issues, etc. now the light force will have its own organic armor firepower to rely upon. makes assigning / resourcing / accomplishing the mission significantly more efficient / effective. So change the TO&E to include organic armor. Adding a new vehicle doesn't change anything by itself, you still need to change doctrine and division resources. Does a light armored division even have the logistic support to move enough fuel to keep these things relevant? This seems redundant. If a M-1 isn't the best choice, is a 80% tank? If an 80% tank is good enough, do we really need an Abrahms? Would a Stryker be a better option? There are a few different MRAP options. Why not them? Why do we need a whole new system, instead of a modified existing one? All rhetorical thoughts, not a specific attack on you, btw. |
|
|
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