User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:33:55 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah shitty for all the 82nd AB 19D. They’re getting reclassed to 19K to man this tank. It has to better than those old clapped out sheridans 3/73rd had when I was in. They were the only armor we could air drop and not break anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:35:02 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because air droppable is a fucking stupid requirement that hamstrings the fuck out of a vehicle design. 105mm will have far more HE in the shell and will have much better performance against point targets. This shit isn’t hard. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That's why I think they should have gone lighter. If it's not designed to be a tank that can defend itself from other tanks, why design it "like" a tank and be 80% of a tank? Why not go down from 40 tons (which cannot be airdropped anyway because it's too heavy) to 25-30 tons so it isn't limited like something heavier would be? Throw a 40mm or 50mm gun on it, too. If you say, "It can't defend itself from other tanks...," well, neither could the 40 ton tank-that's-not-a-tank. If a 105mm main gun can't defeat enemy armor, why the need for a vehicle that is big and heavy enough to carry one? Because air droppable is a fucking stupid requirement that hamstrings the fuck out of a vehicle design. 105mm will have far more HE in the shell and will have much better performance against point targets. This shit isn’t hard. "Air droppable" is but one requirement, not the requirement. There are lots of bridges a 40 ton vehicle (of that size) cannot cross, so that has to be factored into it, too. Think "a fully loaded 80,000lb tractor trailer" but in the size of a huge SUV where all the weight of the vehicle is on the bridge at one time, unlike the tractor-trailer, which spreads the weight out over 70' and six axles where only a fraction of the weight is on the bridge at any one time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:36:05 PM EST
[#3]
Quoted: GDLS says that they've designed the vehicle to be compatible with both a 120mm gun and an autoloader. Which is what it should have had at the beginning. If memory serves, the M10 (why are we re-using M10 and not calling this the Wolverine-2?) was designed with excess energy production in mind, with an eye towards future power consumption needs by things like APS, to boot. Quoted: @Manic_Moran did a video crawling around the BAE submission. It's not the right choice. Quoted: Just call the fucking thing an assault gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:37:08 PM EST
[#4]
Man all this hate on the Sheridan. lol
the gist is to lead with or support with large caliber bullets, HE, and armor instead of little pink bodies with plate carriers. both the Sheridan and the new vehicle did/does that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:38:26 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't doubt that. I'm just saying that, as things stand now, asking troops to go in against a peer opponent in something like this is a first-class NO-GO for me. When I was in, long years ago, the doctrine for our 113-equipped inf (of whom I was a member) was that, under no circumstances were those vehicles to be exposed to direct-fire larger than .30 cal. Like most young men, I accepted that, and assumed that, somehow, we'd kick the living sh** out of the enemy, anyway, and "drive on." As an admittedly "old" man, now, I say "Hell, NO!" Given the accuracy and lethality of munitions on the battlefield now, I just don't see any place for aluminum AFV's. As far as I am concerned, expecting men to serve in such vehicles in a peer-on-peer environment is positively immoral. Very well said. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:39:51 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's news to me. I knew they used off the shelf components in the M8, but I didn't know it used a modified Bradley chassis. The one in the video on page one has m113 road wheels. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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? The xm1302 in the video posted on pg 1. Based on the M8 AGS which was based on a heavily modified Brad chassis That's news to me. I knew they used off the shelf components in the M8, but I didn't know it used a modified Bradley chassis. The one in the video on page one has m113 road wheels. Yeah, I went to wiki and the M8 page doesn't talk about Bradley roots. Engine and transmission were similar but M8 dates back to the early 90s, so it's probably all new by now. I just assumed it was since almost everything BAE makes is Brad based - Paladin, AMPV, MLRS, etc |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:43:21 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Air droppable" is but one requirement, not the requirement. There are lots of bridges a 40 ton vehicle (of that size) cannot cross, so that has to be factored into it, too. Think "a fully loaded 80,000lb tractor trailer" but in the size of a huge SUV where all the weight of the vehicle is on the bridge at one time, unlike the tractor-trailer, which spreads the weight out over 70' and six axles where only a fraction of the weight is on the bridge at any one time. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: That's why I think they should have gone lighter. If it's not designed to be a tank that can defend itself from other tanks, why design it "like" a tank and be 80% of a tank? Why not go down from 40 tons (which cannot be airdropped anyway because it's too heavy) to 25-30 tons so it isn't limited like something heavier would be? Throw a 40mm or 50mm gun on it, too. If you say, "It can't defend itself from other tanks...," well, neither could the 40 ton tank-that's-not-a-tank. If a 105mm main gun can't defeat enemy armor, why the need for a vehicle that is big and heavy enough to carry one? Because air droppable is a fucking stupid requirement that hamstrings the fuck out of a vehicle design. 105mm will have far more HE in the shell and will have much better performance against point targets. This shit isn’t hard. "Air droppable" is but one requirement, not the requirement. There are lots of bridges a 40 ton vehicle (of that size) cannot cross, so that has to be factored into it, too. Think "a fully loaded 80,000lb tractor trailer" but in the size of a huge SUV where all the weight of the vehicle is on the bridge at one time, unlike the tractor-trailer, which spreads the weight out over 70' and six axles where only a fraction of the weight is on the bridge at any one time. Why is everyone hung up on the air droppable thing? Who cares if it isn't air droppable. There is a bunch of shit IBCTs have that isn't air droppable or won't function after it is dropped. Those units with an airfield seizure mission can adjust the PVL based on the threat and put these on the ground via airland. This is practiced several times a year in the 82nd. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:50:36 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's 40 tons instead of 70. I think this should have been a 40-50t medium tank with a 120mm or a 15-20t 50mm. Steel hull, unsure what the applique is. Anything short of an Abrams can be killed by ATGMs and even that can be from the side. That was not in this solicitation. Direct fire support for infantry. Drones aren't as effective as the highlights reel on twitter would lead you to believe. An Abrams is $4.5m plus your donor M1A1, and that's a mature design where the tools have been bought, people trained, facilities prepared to support them, etc. An FMS Abrams for a country that doesn't use Abrams already is $20m. Should we expect to shoot 40 Javelins a day at enemy machineguns and concentrations in buildings? Does the Javelin work as well on buildings as HEP? How does it do through heavy tree cover? How well is it armored so you can stand there looking for your target while they shoot at you? MGS was unreliable. This is doctrinally similar but will work in IBCTs only while SBCTs have the 30mm Dragoon for direct fire support. Excellent analysis. Thanks. And it will make an excellent "urban pacification vehicle" domestically.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:51:01 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, I went to wiki and the M8 page doesn't talk about Bradley roots. Engine and transmission were similar but M8 dates back to the early 90s, so it's probably all new by now. I just assumed it was since almost everything BAE makes is Brad based - Paladin, AMPV, MLRS, etc I wouldn't be surprised if it was. It does kind of look like a chopped down Bradley hull. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:54:08 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why is everyone hung up on the air droppable thing? Who cares if it isn't air droppable. There is a bunch of shit IBCTs have that isn't air droppable or won't function after it is dropped. Those units with an airfield seizure mission can adjust the PVL based on the threat and put these on the ground via airland. This is practiced several times a year in the 82nd. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That's why I think they should have gone lighter. If it's not designed to be a tank that can defend itself from other tanks, why design it "like" a tank and be 80% of a tank? Why not go down from 40 tons (which cannot be airdropped anyway because it's too heavy) to 25-30 tons so it isn't limited like something heavier would be? Throw a 40mm or 50mm gun on it, too. If you say, "It can't defend itself from other tanks...," well, neither could the 40 ton tank-that's-not-a-tank. If a 105mm main gun can't defeat enemy armor, why the need for a vehicle that is big and heavy enough to carry one? Because air droppable is a fucking stupid requirement that hamstrings the fuck out of a vehicle design. 105mm will have far more HE in the shell and will have much better performance against point targets. This shit isn’t hard. "Air droppable" is but one requirement, not the requirement. There are lots of bridges a 40 ton vehicle (of that size) cannot cross, so that has to be factored into it, too. Think "a fully loaded 80,000lb tractor trailer" but in the size of a huge SUV where all the weight of the vehicle is on the bridge at one time, unlike the tractor-trailer, which spreads the weight out over 70' and six axles where only a fraction of the weight is on the bridge at any one time. Why is everyone hung up on the air droppable thing? Who cares if it isn't air droppable. There is a bunch of shit IBCTs have that isn't air droppable or won't function after it is dropped. Those units with an airfield seizure mission can adjust the PVL based on the threat and put these on the ground via airland. This is practiced several times a year in the 82nd. My post you quoted has virtually nothing to do with being air droppable, but you're claiming I'm hung up on it being air droppable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:58:02 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Should we expect to shoot 40 Javelins a day at enemy machineguns and concentrations in buildings? Does the Javelin work as well on buildings as HEP? How does it do through heavy tree cover? How well is it armored so you can stand there looking for your target while they shoot at you? The US could buy a shitload of 155mm HE arty shells, Carl Gustav rounds and Hellfire rockets for 10 million bucks but one $2500 RPG-7V2 launcher with a $400 HEAT round, could jack up a 10+ million dollar clusterfuck. Also true. But what happens when we are not defending but have to take a defended position? I'd rather have this M10 then a Brad for something like Fallujah. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:58:59 PM EST
[#12]
At 42 tons it should have an auto loading 130mm gun. One less crewman to protect.
 It should be 30 tons max with the 105mm. Think m18 hellcat. Light, fast, but no armor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:59:54 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What’s old is new again. Just bring back 105mm recoiless rifles, put on Toyota technicals with an auto loader. Throw some cheap plate and reactive armor for a 2 man crew survival. Same platform and put some anti-air and anti-drone. Make it in Mexico for pennies. But that would make too much sense for an airborne force. Simple, rugged, and cheap. It should be light, fast, and pack a heavy punch. They are airborne, not a heavy force. You are WAY too far ahead in the future.... (actually makes sense for probably 80% of Army type shit we do_ |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:00:02 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Air droppable" is but one requirement, not the requirement. There are lots of bridges a 40 ton vehicle (of that size) cannot cross, so that has to be factored into it, too. Think "a fully loaded 80,000lb tractor trailer" but in the size of a huge SUV where all the weight of the vehicle is on the bridge at one time, unlike the tractor-trailer, which spreads the weight out over 70' and six axles where only a fraction of the weight is on the bridge at any one time. When air droppable is a requirement it becomes the requirement. Every design decision has the lend itself to it. The vehicle becomes a serious compromise, you only have to look at the failed candidate to see what mess it created from a surviablity and fightabilty perspective to understand. Much of the equipment in the the IBCT and SBCT aren’t air droppable, which vastly outnumber the handful of Airborne Brigades, but your expert opinion is to hamstring the former to facilitate the low probability mission of the latter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:04:26 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When air droppable is a requirement it becomes the requirement. Every design decision has the lend itself to it. The vehicle becomes a serious compromise, you only have to look at the failed candidate to see what mess it created from a surviablity and fightabilty perspective to understand. Much of the equipment in the the IBCT and SBCT aren’t air droppable, which vastly outnumber the handful of Airborne Brigades, but your expert opinion is to hamstring the former to facilitate the low probability mission of the latter. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: "Air droppable" is but one requirement, not the requirement. There are lots of bridges a 40 ton vehicle (of that size) cannot cross, so that has to be factored into it, too. Think "a fully loaded 80,000lb tractor trailer" but in the size of a huge SUV where all the weight of the vehicle is on the bridge at one time, unlike the tractor-trailer, which spreads the weight out over 70' and six axles where only a fraction of the weight is on the bridge at any one time. When air droppable is a requirement it becomes the requirement. Every design decision has the lend itself to it. The vehicle becomes a serious compromise, you only have to look at the failed candidate to see what mess it created from a surviablity and fightabilty perspective to understand. Much of the equipment in the the IBCT and SBCT aren’t air droppable, which vastly outnumber the handful of Airborne Brigades, but your expert opinion is to hamstring the former to facilitate the low probability mission of the latter. It happened again. My entire post was about the bridge crossing capability of a compact 40 ton vehicle, but somebody quotes it, and turns it into "you're trying to defend it being air droppable." |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:07:03 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My post you quoted has virtually nothing to do with being air droppable, but you're claiming I'm hung up on it being air droppable. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That's why I think they should have gone lighter. If it's not designed to be a tank that can defend itself from other tanks, why design it "like" a tank and be 80% of a tank? Why not go down from 40 tons (which cannot be airdropped anyway because it's too heavy) to 25-30 tons so it isn't limited like something heavier would be? Throw a 40mm or 50mm gun on it, too. If you say, "It can't defend itself from other tanks...," well, neither could the 40 ton tank-that's-not-a-tank. If a 105mm main gun can't defeat enemy armor, why the need for a vehicle that is big and heavy enough to carry one? Because air droppable is a fucking stupid requirement that hamstrings the fuck out of a vehicle design. 105mm will have far more HE in the shell and will have much better performance against point targets. This shit isn’t hard. "Air droppable" is but one requirement, not the requirement. There are lots of bridges a 40 ton vehicle (of that size) cannot cross, so that has to be factored into it, too. Think "a fully loaded 80,000lb tractor trailer" but in the size of a huge SUV where all the weight of the vehicle is on the bridge at one time, unlike the tractor-trailer, which spreads the weight out over 70' and six axles where only a fraction of the weight is on the bridge at any one time. Why is everyone hung up on the air droppable thing? Who cares if it isn't air droppable. There is a bunch of shit IBCTs have that isn't air droppable or won't function after it is dropped. Those units with an airfield seizure mission can adjust the PVL based on the threat and put these on the ground via airland. This is practiced several times a year in the 82nd. My post you quoted has virtually nothing to do with being air droppable, but you're claiming I'm hung up on it being air droppable. TIL, "everyone" equals you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:08:33 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Didnt they try this with the MGS and decide it didnt work? Aside from the obvious wheels vs tracks whats changed and how will this improve? And the 8 round auto-loader, overheating turret crew compartment, overweight so it couldn't be upgraded to double V hull much less A1, e.t.c? Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:10:17 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It happened again. My entire post was about the bridge crossing capability of a compact 40 ton vehicle, but somebody quotes it, and turns it into "you're trying to defend it being air droppable." Because as you noted 40 tons is still a very common weight rating for bridges across the globe because that’s what loaded semi trailers weigh, so a 40 ton vehicle isn’t some huge barrier to operations for gaining units, so what are we gaining by dropping 20 tons? It’s not like IBCT don’t have a large number of armored vehicles. A lighter vehicle that is is less survivable, to what is the gain? The reason people keep bringing up air droppable is because prior proposals for similar projects failed on the alter of making it lighter to fit in a C-130, now the Army finally picks a viable track and here you are advocating for a lighter option for reasons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:11:03 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: At 42 tons it should have an auto loading 130mm gun. One less crewman to protect. It should be 30 tons max with the 105mm. Think m18 hellcat. Light, fast, but no armor. One less crewman to pull security or conduct preventative or emergency maintenance. No armor, so we're back to leading with little pink bodies again and this thing is just a mobile unprotected/easily targeted SBF. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:13:48 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Did the strikers with the 105 not pan out.  Was sure fun watching the videos of them maneuvering and firing on ice. They were ginormous pieces of shit. Most of the ones we had in Iraq were constantly deadlined. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:15:30 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: One less crewman to pull security or conduct preventative or emergency maintenance. No armor, so we're back to leading with little pink bodies again and this thing is just a mobile unprotected/easily targeted SBF. It’s almost like we haven’t watched 100s of BMD and BMPs get shredded by artillery and people are still acting like light armor is a good quality |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:16:13 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Man all this hate on the Sheridan. lol the gist is to lead with or support with large caliber bullets, HE, and armor instead of little pink bodies with plate carriers. both the Sheridan and the new vehicle did/does that. Maybe. Just remember that in the Sheridan's one-and-only real war, there was nothing--absolutely nothing--in the skies overhead that wasn't ours. We're highly unlikely to have that luxury against China or any other peer-opponent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:17:36 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's almost like we haven't watched 100s of BMD and BMPs get shredded by artillery and people are still acting like light armor is a good quality Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: One less crewman to pull security or conduct preventative or emergency maintenance. No armor, so we're back to leading with little pink bodies again and this thing is just a mobile unprotected/easily targeted SBF. It's almost like we haven't watched 100s of BMD and BMPs get shredded by artillery and people are still acting like light armor is a good quality |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:18:22 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why is everyone hung up on the air droppable thing? Who cares if it isn't air droppable. There is a bunch of shit IBCTs have that isn't air droppable or won't function after it is dropped. Those units with an airfield seizure mission can adjust the PVL based on the threat and put these on the ground via airland. This is practiced several times a year in the 82nd. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That's why I think they should have gone lighter. If it's not designed to be a tank that can defend itself from other tanks, why design it "like" a tank and be 80% of a tank? Why not go down from 40 tons (which cannot be airdropped anyway because it's too heavy) to 25-30 tons so it isn't limited like something heavier would be? Throw a 40mm or 50mm gun on it, too. If you say, "It can't defend itself from other tanks...," well, neither could the 40 ton tank-that's-not-a-tank. If a 105mm main gun can't defeat enemy armor, why the need for a vehicle that is big and heavy enough to carry one? Because air droppable is a fucking stupid requirement that hamstrings the fuck out of a vehicle design. 105mm will have far more HE in the shell and will have much better performance against point targets. This shit isn’t hard. "Air droppable" is but one requirement, not the requirement. There are lots of bridges a 40 ton vehicle (of that size) cannot cross, so that has to be factored into it, too. Think "a fully loaded 80,000lb tractor trailer" but in the size of a huge SUV where all the weight of the vehicle is on the bridge at one time, unlike the tractor-trailer, which spreads the weight out over 70' and six axles where only a fraction of the weight is on the bridge at any one time. Why is everyone hung up on the air droppable thing? Who cares if it isn't air droppable. There is a bunch of shit IBCTs have that isn't air droppable or won't function after it is dropped. Those units with an airfield seizure mission can adjust the PVL based on the threat and put these on the ground via airland. This is practiced several times a year in the 82nd. I'd like to airdrop the old TPQ36 radars. I don't think half of them could work after just driving on the road. I wonder if theTPQ53s can we push or have even tried to push them out of an aircraft..lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:22:42 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe. Just remember that in the Sheridan's one-and-only real war, there was nothing--absolutely nothing--in the skies overhead that wasn't ours. We're highly unlikely to have that luxury against China or any other peer-opponent. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Man all this hate on the Sheridan. lol the gist is to lead with or support with large caliber bullets, HE, and armor instead of little pink bodies with plate carriers. both the Sheridan and the new vehicle did/does that. Maybe. Just remember that in the Sheridan's one-and-only real war, there was nothing--absolutely nothing--in the skies overhead that wasn't ours. We're highly unlikely to have that luxury against China or any other peer-opponent. Show me a vehicle and it can be killed by any of our enemies. Doesn't have to be peer or near peer. An IBCT's fight isn't open plains. Think forests, cities, hills, etc. This is a vehicle designed to help those infantryman survive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:23:10 PM EST
[#26]
Weight affects a lot of other things besides what was already mentioned.
Can cross bridges with weight limitations or portable bridges like the Baily bridges, older avlbs, ferrys, etc. Saves a lot of fuel, especially when logistics is difficult Easier to maneuver in urban areas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:24:05 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd like to airdrop the old TPQ36 radars. I don't think half of them could work after just driving on the road. I wonder if theTPQ53s can we push or have even tried to push them out of an aircraft..lol Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That's why I think they should have gone lighter. If it's not designed to be a tank that can defend itself from other tanks, why design it "like" a tank and be 80% of a tank? Why not go down from 40 tons (which cannot be airdropped anyway because it's too heavy) to 25-30 tons so it isn't limited like something heavier would be? Throw a 40mm or 50mm gun on it, too. If you say, "It can't defend itself from other tanks...," well, neither could the 40 ton tank-that's-not-a-tank. If a 105mm main gun can't defeat enemy armor, why the need for a vehicle that is big and heavy enough to carry one? Because air droppable is a fucking stupid requirement that hamstrings the fuck out of a vehicle design. 105mm will have far more HE in the shell and will have much better performance against point targets. This shit isn’t hard. "Air droppable" is but one requirement, not the requirement. There are lots of bridges a 40 ton vehicle (of that size) cannot cross, so that has to be factored into it, too. Think "a fully loaded 80,000lb tractor trailer" but in the size of a huge SUV where all the weight of the vehicle is on the bridge at one time, unlike the tractor-trailer, which spreads the weight out over 70' and six axles where only a fraction of the weight is on the bridge at any one time. Why is everyone hung up on the air droppable thing? Who cares if it isn't air droppable. There is a bunch of shit IBCTs have that isn't air droppable or won't function after it is dropped. Those units with an airfield seizure mission can adjust the PVL based on the threat and put these on the ground via airland. This is practiced several times a year in the 82nd. I'd like to airdrop the old TPQ36 radars. I don't think half of them could work after just driving on the road. I wonder if theTPQ53s can we push or have even tried to push them out of an aircraft..lol Best thing going right now is dropping a 50. Only takes a 16' platform for the whole system too. edit, back when 48s were a thing we'd put them on 32' platforms with the prime mover, howitzer, and a 120. Eventually we decided 48s sucked and shitcanned them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:28:30 PM EST
[#28]
Also assault gun is the better term for it than light tank. They should've dropped the weight even more by making it 3 man and using a smaller gun and using ATGM's against tanks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:30:40 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Also assault gun is the better term for it than light tank. They should've dropped the weight even more by making it 3 man and using a smaller gun and using ATGM's against tanks. It's not a tank. 'Mobile Protected Firepower' defines its mission within the light divisions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:34:05 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's almost like having something between a lightly-armed Stryker or Bradley and a 70-ton M1 is a good idea in areas of the pacific that don't have great infrastructure, if you're preparing for a fight against an adversary that wants to forcibly project their authority in that area.   Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Indonesia, Philippines and IIRC Malaysia procured light tanks recently.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:36:25 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: At 42 tons it should have an auto loading 130mm gun. One less crewman to protect. https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UYzuBfljBr4/XcDF8jG9LCI/AAAAAAABFrE/HtznOoSrjpUE357zM9ayMbArFNl_1Tm8ACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/1485010071_01.jpg It should be 30 tons max with the 105mm. Think m18 hellcat. Light, fast, but no armor. The South East Asians newly procured light tanks are all roughly 30 tons IIRC |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:38:18 PM EST
[#32]
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? The M10 Booker is a tracked vehicle built by General Dynamics that provides a mobile, direct offensive fire capability to the US Army’s Infantry Brigade Combat Teams. Although it has similarities with the M1 Abrams main battle tank, the service clarified that it has decided against classifying it as a tank for several undisclosed reasons. Like the Abrams, the M10 is manned by four crew and boasts a heavy 105-millimeter direct-fire cannon. It also features an enhanced thermal viewer, a lightweight hull and turret, and a modern diesel engine for improved performance. However, the army revealed that the Booker is much lighter and less expensive than the well-known main battle tank. While the vehicle cannot be air-dropped, two can fit inside a C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft to support missions abroad. https://www.thedefensepost.com/2023/06/14/us-army-booker-vehicle/ I'm not an expert on the US Army, but my limited understanding is that the M10 will actually be owned and operated by the brigade combat teams -- I don't think they have M1s and would need to receive armor support from armored units. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:42:29 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That seems smart, if basically every armored vehicle program over the last 50 years are anything to go by. If memory serves, the M10 (why are we re-using M10 and not calling this the Wolverine-2?) was designed with excess energy production in mind, with an eye towards future power consumption needs by things like APS, to boot. I did not know that. My uneducated self thought the M8 was a shoe-in, and was surprised it lost. Cliffs notes? That would make too much sense, and deprive some poor general a post-retirement gig. Original M10 never did get an official US Army-provided name, so “Wolverine 2” wouldn’t work. Worth observing that it wouldn’t fit in with the current naming policy anyway. Cliff notes…. Well, see video on page 1, but the bottom line is that though the vehicle had a number of positive features, the execution was not to a standard I would appreciate as a crewman. Too cramped, is the short version. “The original 1980s design had much less room for upgrade” would be the slightly less short version. I, for one, do not want to fight with a monitor 8” in front of my face and a second one in 3” in front of my right shoulder facing right. Air droppable was not a requirement for the MPF program. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:42:44 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Adding an armor capability to airborne is an important concept but unless it's airdroppable I don't see the practical application. Everything is air "droppable"... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:43:26 PM EST
[#35]
Filipinos' light tank is also based on the ASCOD hull.
36 tons, crew of 3. 12 rounds in the autoloader, 24 in the hull. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:43:30 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So did they spend more or less on the base name changes?  Whose the Booker named after? Booker T and the MGs? (it's got MGs right? ) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:44:36 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Whose the Booker named after? Booker T and the MGs? (it's got MGs right? ) Cory, of course! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:45:30 PM EST
[#38]
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. Sounds like a Bradley. (As sad as that sounds) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:47:19 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 40 tons brings you to places to fight where a 70 ton tank can't go to. Think bridges in contested areas. This. Lots of us are still stuck thinking about international conflicts which involve armor. Take a second look...for much of DC and the Pentagon their primary fear seems to be a little more ... domestic...these days. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:47:29 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Whose the Booker named after? Booker T and the MGs? (it's got MGs right? ) PVT Robert Booker, Medal of Honor recipient. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:48:03 PM EST
[#41]
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. Come on. Really? There is rarely a useful armor introduction that didn't make someone rich and the people poor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:48:41 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sounds like a Bradley. (As sad as that sounds) The Bradley is a great combat platform, but its not a fit for this requirement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:52:08 PM EST
[#43]
As a World of Tanks player, my first thought when I saw the M10 Booker was "it's 2022 and the U.S. Army still can't figure out that the lower glacis needs to be angled?"
Funny perspective. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:53:36 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: PVT Robert Booker, Medal of Honor recipient. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Whose the Booker named after? Booker T and the MGs? (it's got MGs right? ) PVT Robert Booker, Medal of Honor recipient. If I were the Army I would have called it the Gavin to stop those few idiots who call the M113 that from doing it anymore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:54:13 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: PVT Robert Booker, Medal of Honor recipient. WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army has named its first new combat vehicle in nearly four decades the M10 Booker after two soldiers killed in action, one in the Iraq War and the other in World War II. Staff Sgt. Stevon A. Booker was killed April 5, 2003, during the so-called thunder run in Baghdad, Iraq. Pvt. Robert D. Booker was killed under heavy machine gunfire in Tunisia on April 9, 1943, during WWII. Stevon Booker was a tanker and Robert Booker was in the infantry. Robert was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor, and Stevon was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:55:58 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. 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 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. I assume active protection can be added, won't add much weight. Seems like going forward it would be crazy to not have it especially for a vehicle that is more designed to go up against infantry rather than tanks. I can see it trading armor if there is an APS to save it from a rocket or two. I have a feeling this will end up looking like something out of Mad Max, with slat armor and reactive armor all over it adding a few tones eventually. Just like every other armored vehicle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 5:58:48 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: PVT Robert Booker, Medal of Honor recipient. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Whose the Booker named after? Booker T and the MGs? (it's got MGs right? ) PVT Robert Booker, Medal of Honor recipient. @9divdoc @Former11BRAVO Actually two people. https://www.ausa.org/news/new-combat-vehicle-named-2-heroic-soldiers Pvt. Robert Booker, of Callaway, Nebraska, was assigned to the 133rd Infantry Regiment, 34th Infantry Division. His unit was sent to Africa, where he served for almost a year during the Allied North African Campaign before being mortally wounded during an incursion with enemy forces. On April 9, 1943, the 22-year-old Pvt. Booker braved enemy fire to cross an open field near Fondouk, Tunisia, carrying a machine gun and a box of ammunition, according to his Medal of Honor citation. He set up his machine gun at a location nearly 200 yards away and began firing on enemy targets. Though he was wounded by gunfire, he continued firing his weapon and destroyed an enemy machine gun. Turning to a second enemy machine gun, Pvt. Booker was shot again, this time fatally. Before he died, he continued to encourage his squad and help direct their fire, his citation reads. AND Staff Sgt. Stevon Booker, a native of Apollo, Pennsylvania, was a tank commander with Company A, 1st Battalion, 64th Armored Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, on April 5, 2003, when his platoon led a task force on a highway toward Baghdad International Airport in Iraq. Shortly after departing on the mission, the platoon came under heavy small-arms and rocket-propelled grenade fire. Staff Sgt. Booker, 34, alerted his command and encouraged his crew, returning fire with his tank mounted machine gun. When both his and his crew’s machine guns malfunctioned, Staff Sgt. Booker got into a prone position on top of the tank’s turret and began firing on the enemy using his personal weapon, according to his award citation. Protecting his platoon’s flank and delivering accurate information to his command during a critical and vulnerable point of the battle, Staff Sgt. Booker’s fearless attitude and excitement over the radio inspired his fellow soldiers to continue the attack, the citation says. Still exposed to enemy fire, Staff Sgt. Booker saw an enemy troop carrier trying to bypass his tank and destroyed it before enemy troops could dismount. He continued to engage the enemy until he was mortally wounded, the citation says. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 6:00:10 PM EST
[#48]
damn the Swedes make some sexy looking armor, CV9050
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 6:02:19 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @9divdoc @Former11BRAVO Actually two people. https://www.ausa.org/news/new-combat-vehicle-named-2-heroic-soldiers Pvt. Robert Booker, of Callaway, Nebraska, was assigned to the 133rd Infantry Regiment, 34th Infantry Division. His unit was sent to Africa, where he served for almost a year during the Allied North African Campaign before being mortally wounded during an incursion with enemy forces. On April 9, 1943, the 22-year-old Pvt. Booker braved enemy fire to cross an open field near Fondouk, Tunisia, carrying a machine gun and a box of ammunition, according to his Medal of Honor citation. He set up his machine gun at a location nearly 200 yards away and began firing on enemy targets. Though he was wounded by gunfire, he continued firing his weapon and destroyed an enemy machine gun. Turning to a second enemy machine gun, Pvt. Booker was shot again, this time fatally. Before he died, he continued to encourage his squad and help direct their fire, his citation reads. AND Staff Sgt. Stevon Booker, a native of Apollo, Pennsylvania, was a tank commander with Company A, 1st Battalion, 64th Armored Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, on April 5, 2003, when his platoon led a task force on a highway toward Baghdad International Airport in Iraq. Shortly after departing on the mission, the platoon came under heavy small-arms and rocket-propelled grenade fire. Staff Sgt. Booker, 34, alerted his command and encouraged his crew, returning fire with his tank mounted machine gun. When both his and his crew’s machine guns malfunctioned, Staff Sgt. Booker got into a prone position on top of the tank’s turret and began firing on the enemy using his personal weapon, according to his award citation. Protecting his platoon’s flank and delivering accurate information to his command during a critical and vulnerable point of the battle, Staff Sgt. Booker’s fearless attitude and excitement over the radio inspired his fellow soldiers to continue the attack, the citation says. Still exposed to enemy fire, Staff Sgt. Booker saw an enemy troop carrier trying to bypass his tank and destroyed it before enemy troops could dismount. He continued to engage the enemy until he was mortally wounded, the citation says. Yep. Pretty cool decision. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 6:15:20 PM EST
[#50]
I haven't read the whole thread yet but I think this will fill a gap that currently exists, supporting infantry in theaters where the supply lines or weight of the Abrams can't be accommodated. The MGS was supposed to fill it but as others have said it doesn't seem to have worked very well.
I don't know why they would re-class 19D to 19K for this thing. Seems like it would be easier to train up 19Ks for the new Armor then take from the existing 19Ds which still have a very important role that needs to be done. It would probably be better to create a whole new 19 series MOS than take from the 19Ds. |
|
|
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.
