User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 12:01:13 PM EST
[#1]
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. Would be nice to be able to pump some 105/120mm into fortified positions while your assaulting through towns/cities |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 12:02:34 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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 12:04:38 PM EST
[#3]
They could have just improved the original
%20(1)_0.jpg)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 12:05:57 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Sheridan had it's problems, but this is cooler than the other side of the pillow. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/264818/Screenshot_20230709_112638_Firefox_jpg-2879609.JPG When Dad was on the Airborne Board he said "Why not just land? You basically need an FLS anyway." |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 12:13:19 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Great interaction there OP. Quality discussion. Once again. Why come to a discussion unarmed? If you have a question about a post it only makes sense to go look it up using Google to see if you can find the information. Knowledge is power. For instance: Q: So what does this do that a regular tank doesn't? What does the OP consider to be a "regular tank"? An M1A Abrams? Is the OP an "expert" on Military fighting vehicles? Before you ask the question why not spend a few minutes doing the research. He could have searched Google using M-10 vs M1A US Army, that alone would have brought up numerous articles discussing that very subject. Then the OP could of asked "I was wondering what the M-10 does that the M1A Abrams does not do." "I see that the C-17 can carry two M-10's vice one M1A." "It's also smaller, so it's more maneuverable in an urban setting." "The M10 Booker is intended to fill the firepower gap between the M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle and the M1 Abrams main battle tank." "The MPF would fill a capability gap left when the M551 Sheridan Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle was retired from regular service in 1996." "I did not know that, what do you guys think?" It's so easy.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 12:19:42 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's his shtick. Posts something he knows nothing about and tells you to do the work for him. If it were a requirement to know everything about a subject before posting it to ARFcom no one would post anything. I find something interesting and I post it up on ARFcom whether I am a subject matter expert or not. That gives people the opportunity to discuss it and it gives me the opportunity to learn from the discussion. I do use Google to do my own research, is that a problem? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 12:23:55 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. I posted up the article to start a discussion. I have no questions about the vehicle, I Googled it up and found all the technical information I wanted. Also, that's why I post a link to the article or source of information. I posted up the question to START a discussion about the vehicle. I didn't ASK any questions. Again, why ask questions before you do a simple Google search. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 12:26:38 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Which one used a modified Brad chassis? Quote HistoryQuoted: 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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 12:31:55 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How does the armor get there? Fedex? Wouldn't the zoomies just kick it out the back? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 12:33:30 PM EST
[#10]
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. Direct fire application is not on the losing end. Just the opposite. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 12:38:33 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Almost 10 million each? The whole procurement process needs to be burned to the ground. Am Abrams was 6-7 million. Procurement is messed up for sure, but we have no idea if this purchase includes spares, manufacturer support, consumables, etc. It may not be as simple as price/quantity = unit cost. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 12:39:40 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Google. Google. Google. We coulda just googled the story thanks for not sharing |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 1:28:21 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. That's what they did. The M10 Booker. They also made it so it isn't a tank because when you call something a tank, they'll want to do tank things and go after tanks. See also marine scout snipers. The M1 belongs in mech/armored divisions and is used to kill tanks. Those divisions are structured with the support available to feed the M1. It is not going to light armored divisions as we have none. It's going to light divisions. 82, 101, 25, 10, etc. The 82nd has integrated them into training before, and rest assured that doctrine will follow so the other divisions will have a guide. Yes, with a new battalion, each division's resources will change as it will require a robust FSC that is capable of splitting into three parts for a three BCT division. Regardless, every US based IBCT has trained with attached mech or armor units so they have experience at integrating an armored company. This makes it easier and by putting them organic to the light divisions they can further integrate the support for the MPF company and also build a good working relationship during home station training. Strykers fucking blow unless you have a paved super highway to work on. I do LOVE their mortar carrier though. We tried the stryker MGS as mentioned above-guess what we don't have anymore, yeah the stryker MGS. MRAP? Even worse than strykers and are not fighting vehicles to begin with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 1:30:17 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If it were a requirement to know everything about a subject before posting it to ARFcom no one would post anything. I find something interesting and I post it up on ARFcom whether I am a subject matter expert or not. That gives people the opportunity to discuss it and it gives me the opportunity to learn from the discussion. I do use Google to do my own research, is that a problem? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That's his shtick. Posts something he knows nothing about and tells you to do the work for him. If it were a requirement to know everything about a subject before posting it to ARFcom no one would post anything. I find something interesting and I post it up on ARFcom whether I am a subject matter expert or not. That gives people the opportunity to discuss it and it gives me the opportunity to learn from the discussion. I do use Google to do my own research, is that a problem? OK, I take that back. That's not you're shtick. You're just trolling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 2:22:05 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I saw one "tumble" on a LAPES on Sicily DZ. One road wheel made it to the parking lot. When Dad was on the Airborne Board he said "Why not just land? You basically need an FLS anyway." Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The Sheridan had it's problems, but this is cooler than the other side of the pillow. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/264818/Screenshot_20230709_112638_Firefox_jpg-2879609.JPG When Dad was on the Airborne Board he said "Why not just land? You basically need an FLS anyway." The problem with landing is that it takes forever. There's the approach, the actual landing, stopping, somebody has to drive the tank out of the plane, then turning the plane around and taking off. All of which take time and expose numerous people and expensive equipment to danger. With LAPES, one slow pass and the job's done. Not perfect, and there's gonna be some breakage, but in the end you get a tank on the ground and keep the C-130 flying. I'm not an armor guy, never was, but it just seems logical that if you have a way to quickly deliver tanks to forward deployed troops without driving slowly overland that would be a really great thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 3:00:37 PM EST
[#16]
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. Good luck armouring a technical to that extent  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 3:01:04 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They had the Textron Stingray III light tank in the past that could have fulfilled the same role  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 3:03:18 PM EST
[#18]
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. Yeah, that's the whole reason I go on forums in the first place. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 3:05:04 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The xm1302 in the video posted on pg 1. Based on the M8 AGS which was based on a heavily modified Brad chassis Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 3:07:38 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I posted up the article to start a discussion. I have no questions about the vehicle, I Googled it up and found all the technical information I wanted. Also, that's why I post a link to the article or source of information. I posted up the question to START a discussion about the vehicle. I didn't ASK any questions. Again, why ask questions before you do a simple Google search. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. I posted up the article to start a discussion. I have no questions about the vehicle, I Googled it up and found all the technical information I wanted. Also, that's why I post a link to the article or source of information. I posted up the question to START a discussion about the vehicle. I didn't ASK any questions. Again, why ask questions before you do a simple Google search. Maybe you could share your findings to contribute to the conversation then? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 3:07:39 PM EST
[#21]
Indonesia, Philippines and IIRC Malaysia procured light tanks recently.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 3:10:08 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Once again. Why come to a discussion unarmed? If you have a question about a post it only makes sense to go look it up using Google to see if you can find the information. Knowledge is power. For instance: Q: So what does this do that a regular tank doesn't? What does the OP consider to be a "regular tank"? An M1A Abrams? Is the OP an "expert" on Military fighting vehicles? Before you ask the question why not spend a few minutes doing the research. He could have searched Google using M-10 vs M1A US Army, that alone would have brought up numerous articles discussing that very subject. Then the OP could of asked "I was wondering what the M-10 does that the M1A Abrams does not do." "I see that the C-17 can carry two M-10's vice one M1A." "It's also smaller, so it's more maneuverable in an urban setting." "The M10 Booker is intended to fill the firepower gap between the M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle and the M1 Abrams main battle tank." "The MPF would fill a capability gap left when the M551 Sheridan Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle was retired from regular service in 1996." "I did not know that, what do you guys think?" It's so easy.... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Great interaction there OP. Quality discussion. Once again. Why come to a discussion unarmed? If you have a question about a post it only makes sense to go look it up using Google to see if you can find the information. Knowledge is power. For instance: Q: So what does this do that a regular tank doesn't? What does the OP consider to be a "regular tank"? An M1A Abrams? Is the OP an "expert" on Military fighting vehicles? Before you ask the question why not spend a few minutes doing the research. He could have searched Google using M-10 vs M1A US Army, that alone would have brought up numerous articles discussing that very subject. Then the OP could of asked "I was wondering what the M-10 does that the M1A Abrams does not do." "I see that the C-17 can carry two M-10's vice one M1A." "It's also smaller, so it's more maneuverable in an urban setting." "The M10 Booker is intended to fill the firepower gap between the M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle and the M1 Abrams main battle tank." "The MPF would fill a capability gap left when the M551 Sheridan Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle was retired from regular service in 1996." "I did not know that, what do you guys think?" It's so easy.... Why start a conversation on something you're not willing to engage with and answer questions on? You're creating a thread for conversation, and when people ask for clarifying information, you tell them to do their own research? What the fuck is wrong with you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 3:11:03 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Google. Google. Google. We could have found this article via google too. Why the fuck even post it if there isn’t to be any discussion? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 3:12:07 PM EST
[#24]
Baby tank
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 3:13:07 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, let me guess: Aluminum "armor," and a 105. In other words: same shit we've had for forty years, and which can be peeled apart by rpg-2's and saggers, right? Effing brilliant. At least it has a crew of 4 "people," and not 4 men. The M551 Sheridan |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 3:16:41 PM EST
[#26]
Looks like another waste of money, what else is new.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 3:39:14 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wouldn't the zoomies just kick it out the back? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: How does the armor get there? Fedex? Wouldn't the zoomies just kick it out the back? Of the same aircraft? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 3:51:01 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Looks like another waste of money, what else is new. How so? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 3:59:05 PM EST
[#29]
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. I don’t know if the Brad and M113 have the same road wheels but they are the same diameter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 3:59:43 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The 120mm main gun would have been a better choice and should have been selected over the 105mm, IMHO. I agree. I think they wanted to shoot HEP though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:01:22 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. The best DU ammo for the 105mm has less than a 1 in 4 chance of penetrating a T-72B3 from the front and it’s essentially hopeless against a T-90M from the front. Not that the M10 is a tank, but it means it would struggle to defend itself effectively in a pinch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:02:27 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: One would think that 25 tons and a 40mm would be even more versatile. Two industry teams asked about MPF suggested a small vehicle with a a 50mm gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:03:34 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I also think this, but I recall that the M10 design is actually able to downscale to a 50mm gun, and that some early iterations were able to handle a 120. So it wouldn't be surprising if an M10A1 moved it to a 120 for ammo compatibility. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:04:28 PM EST
[#34]
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. You can shoot at the enemy forever with other things but you still need armor to lead assaults if you want to take and hold ground. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:06:02 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don’t know about that. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Drones aren't as effective as the highlights reel on twitter would lead you to believe. I don’t know about that. You know how the war in Ukraine devolved into trench warfare? Does that look like the way they are fighting, largely without armor for various reasons, mostly a shortage of key systems, is the future of successful militaries? Drones are useful but they are not a tool to take and hold ground. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:06:17 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: well the M10 does use a modified Bradley hull ASCOD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:06:47 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ssoooo... they renamed the M-1 and dropped a few tons. Hell, they could have promoted me one pay grade and I could tell them to do that. It'd be cheaper than actually trying to make a new vehicle. "No, no. See, a tank is for killing other vehicles, and can shoot fortifications as a secondary mission. This vehicle kills fortifications, and killing enemy tanks is its secondary mission." Tell me more about how you’re going to get an M1 to 38t. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:07:23 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Apparently Textron didn’t own nearly enough congress-critters and generals. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: They had the Textron Stingray III light tank in the past that could have fulfilled the same role Apparently Textron didn’t own nearly enough congress-critters and generals. @Manic_Moran did a video crawling around the BAE submission. It’s not the right choice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:09:17 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don’t know if the Brad and M113 have the same road wheels but they are the same diameter. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. I don’t know if the Brad and M113 have the same road wheels but they are the same diameter. Bradley/M109 road wheels are a bit wider and use a different hub. They look very similar, but if you see them in person side by side the difference is noticeable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:10:09 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The best DU ammo for the 105mm has less than a 1 in 4 chance of penetrating a T-72B3 from the front and it’s essentially hopeless against a T-90M from the front. Not that the M10 is a tank, but it means it would struggle to defend itself effectively in a pinch. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. The best DU ammo for the 105mm has less than a 1 in 4 chance of penetrating a T-72B3 from the front and it’s essentially hopeless against a T-90M from the front. Not that the M10 is a tank, but it means it would struggle to defend itself effectively in a pinch. 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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:10:31 PM EST
[#41]
Just call the fucking thing an assault gun.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:13:42 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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? Bingo. Napkin math, a modern CVRTish thing with a 50mm gun and armor equivalent to a modern IFV would be under 20 tonnes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:14:10 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bradley/M109 road wheels are a bit wider and use a different hub. They look very similar, but if you see them in person side by side the difference is noticeable. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. I don’t know if the Brad and M113 have the same road wheels but they are the same diameter. Bradley/M109 road wheels are a bit wider and use a different hub. They look very similar, but if you see them in person side by side the difference is noticeable. Any idea if the CV90 wheels are compatible with anything else? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:14:39 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:18:50 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Any idea if the CV90 wheels are compatible with anything else? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. I don’t know if the Brad and M113 have the same road wheels but they are the same diameter. Bradley/M109 road wheels are a bit wider and use a different hub. They look very similar, but if you see them in person side by side the difference is noticeable. Any idea if the CV90 wheels are compatible with anything else? I'm pretty sure they used the same track and road wheels as the Bradley/M109, but I don't know if they still do or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:19:54 PM EST
[#46]
Isn't 40 tons just a ton or two over being able to load a pair in a C17?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:23:36 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bingo. Napkin math, a modern CVRTish thing with a 50mm gun and armor equivalent to a modern IFV would be under 20 tonnes. 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? Bingo. Napkin math, a modern CVRTish thing with a 50mm gun and armor equivalent to a modern IFV would be under 20 tonnes. Yeah, I like tanks. I also like innovation. With this M10, it seems like the military claims it is both...when in fact it is neither. First thing I thought of was, "this sounds like they are going back to the future with an M48 from the late 1950s." |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:28:18 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, let me guess: Aluminum "armor," and a 105. In other words: same shit we've had for forty years, and which can be peeled apart by rpg-2's and saggers, right? Effing brilliant. At least it has a crew of 4 "people," and not 4 men. $300 drones will be destroying them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:30:44 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Indonesia, Philippines and IIRC Malaysia procured light tanks recently.   |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2023 4:33:28 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just call the fucking thing an assault gun. That's essentially what it is, but mobile protected firepower sounds more modern. Remember, this is the service that calls OD green duct tape: tape, pressure sensitive, adhesive, olive cloth. |
|
|
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.
