|
It weighs the same amount as the t72, the tank it can't fight effectively
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:06 |
|
|
we love our tubby
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 19:37
|
|
|
It's ok to admit western AFV design has been trash since ww2, folks. In the early 70s when the commies were cranking out T72s, which remain the backbone of Bad Guy nations around the world to this day, the United States was sure that the future of tanks was going to be this
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 19:46
|
|
|
Cao Ni Ma posted:And lots of assumptions they didnt you know, change the propulsion system to something thats more modern and quiet. Downplaying adversaries constantly is how you get china popping a sub a few miles from a US naval battle group without anyone noticing and whoops china has like 50x time naval production we do Also, diesel electric subs can be pretty much silent when running off batteries, the issue is obviously is going to be range but the North Koreans are looking at primarily a defensive/ballistic force, so it really isn't as much of an issue. The big thing is that if they got a reactor going and could find a route off the Pacific, they could sit off of the West Coast and hit targets.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 19:50
|
|
|
Don't worry though the problem-plagued 152mm gun-launched Shillelagh missile-armed Starship is just temporary while neoliberal poster child robert 'leave it to beaver hair' mcnamara teams up with the losers of ww2 to create the ultimate wunderwaffenquote:The US Armor Branch had long been pressing the Pentagon to fast-track new main battle tank designs. Consequently, McNamara's seven-year timeline was opposed by senior armor officers, who believed an all-new MBT was urgently needed. Others questioned McNamara's high regard for German engineering, arguing that Germany's collective abilities in tank design and engineering had dwindled and not kept pace with innovations since the end of World War II. Within US armored circles, it was believed that there would be a net technology transfer towards Germany and there was a common belief that the UK would make a better partner. However, McNamara's choice of Germany was also due to the country's excellent economic position, following its successful post-war rebuilding: the so-called "economic miracle". Hence Germany was better positioned to financially commit to a project of this scale,[4] in addition to its history of vehicle and weapons technology, design and development.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 19:54
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:it's literally got a high velocity 105 and the m1a2's fire control system and optics though It has a 105 to do direct fire field gun work for supporting infantry. The Abrams has a 120mm MBT gun designed to defeat enemy heavy armor. The US has never places the M35 cannon in any tank, ever since it was first designed. I don’t know that light infantry need an MBT class cannon to help them with foxholes, MG emplacements, field guns, and BTRs. Is your argument that light infantry should be supported by MBTs? Or is it that the assault gun to support infantry should have an even smaller gun so that it doesn’t look like a tank? Here you can see various 105mm vs 120mm rounds. https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/ammunition-large-caliber/ to be clear, if I were a T-72 crew, I would not at all want to be shot by the 105mm anti-tank rounds. But that doesn't mean the M10 is designed to go tank-hunting. Just has some overlap capability, even though that's not the primary job at all. mlmp08 has issued a correction as of 20:11 on Sep 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 20:01
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:It has a 105 to do direct fire field gun work for supporting infantry. It's an "assault gun" the size and weight of an mbt and they didn't give it a competent modern anti-tank round even though they could have. Western MBTs have just gotten so loving porky that they're now fielding something that has the logistical footprint of a Russian or Chinese MBT and putting a sign on it that says "not a tank" because it's not competent to be one. If you wanted a 105mm assault gun for infantry support only, there are options that weigh 15-20 tons less like the Type 16. Except most of those actually do have modern apfsds rounds, oops, because if you're already going to the trouble of fielding a high-pressure 105, you might as well bring a version of that gun and rounds capable of defeating likely enemies that will show up whether you want them to or not. Guess we'll just make sure the other guys in tanks know to let the guys with Javelins get out of their Strykers and find firing positions because it wouldn't be Proper Doctrine if an assault gun could destroy an MBT.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 20:16
|
|
|
I’m not sure I’m following this conversation any more than I understood The Pentsgon Wars, but is the argument that infantry should have a faster, lighter transportation that doesn’t have defense? or that it should have more guns and just be a tank with troop carrying abilities?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 20:19
|
|
|
poisonpill posted:I’m not sure I’m following this conversation any more than I understood The Pentsgon Wars, but is the argument that infantry should have a faster, lighter transportation that doesn’t have defense? or that it should have more guns and just be a tank with troop carrying abilities? The M10 doesn't transport troops, it's a fire support gun for blowing up bunkers and buildings and whatnot from stand-off distances. Which is fine. Assault guns are fine. What's not fine is that it weighs as much as a T72 main battle tank, burns gas like a T72 main battle tank, has a high-pressure tank gun, so it's basically a tank (unlike an assault gun which should be lighter, less gas guzzling, and otherwise providing some logistical benefits so that it's not so hard to supply them when they're integrated with infantry formations), but it lacks the armor and rounds necessary to fight tanks. If you take off the sign the Army put on that says "not tank," it's a tank. So the problem isn't assault guns, it's that they made a lovely tank and called it one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 20:24
|
|
|
The M10 is certainly shorter than the T-14, but it makes up for it with a generally higher profile. I think the main idea behind it is going to be more infantry support than simply an assault gun, but a 105mm is going to be less useful in that role. In addition, it still has a large manned turret, which is more of a liability these days. It can certainly be useful for less well-equipped militaries that don't that have serious armor or AT capabilities, and where quick redeployment is a virtue. It at least has an autoloader.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 20:25
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:It's an "assault gun" the size and weight of an mbt and they didn't give it a competent modern anti-tank round even though they could have. Western MBTs have just gotten so loving porky that they're now fielding something that has the logistical footprint of a Russian or Chinese MBT and putting a sign on it that says "not a tank" because it's not competent to be one. If you wanted a 105mm assault gun for infantry support only, there are options that weigh 15-20 tons less like the Type 16. Except most of those actually do have modern apfsds rounds, oops, because if you're already going to the trouble of fielding a high-pressure 105, you might as well bring a version of that gun and rounds capable of defeating likely enemies that will show up whether you want them to or not. So do you want the assault gun to weigh more and be bigger or weigh less and just have less armor, but the same gun? Also the M35 does have a modern APFSDS round, so maybe your angst about its lack of armor piercing is just because you didn't know about the types of ammunition that an M35 cannon can fire. The M35 can fire the M900 round (this is a DU penetrator for more heavily armored vehicles). The M35 is the cannon equipped on the M10 booker. I think you may be confusing the M35 cannon with the base model M68 or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 20:27
|
|
|
poisonpill posted:I’m not sure I’m following this conversation any more than I understood The Pentsgon Wars, but is the argument that infantry should have a faster, lighter transportation that doesn’t have defense? or that it should have more guns and just be a tank with troop carrying abilities? it should be light, fast, armored, cheap, bristling with armaments, spacious, stealthy, fast, efficient, amphibious, connected, modular, upgradable, and serviceable
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 20:29
|
|
|
As is, light infantry formations have TOW and Javelin for anti-armor. But you might not want to use those up on firing against foxholes, MGs, and fortifications (and their warheads aren't optimized for that kind of target). So having something with the primary job of firing 105mm assault gun rounds into those targets and saving your dedicated anti-tank crews and teams in hide sights with TOWs or Javelins makes more sense than the infantry either getting bogged down or burning up their AT ammo on MG nests and field fortifications. Also kind of hard for a TOW crew to rapidly move out of range, kick a round off at a fortification, then run away the way a vehicle with a cannon can. If the booker ends up being bad (it might end up being bad bad!) I bet it won't be because the US didn't make it big enough and have a beefy enough cannon to go be a tank destroyer. It would probably be something like not being mobile enough or maintenance problems or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 20:34
|
|
|
Centrist Committee posted:it should be light, fast, armored, cheap, bristling with armaments, spacious, stealthy, fast, efficient, amphibious, connected, modular, upgradable, and serviceable Don't forget agile
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 20:38
|
|
|
It should be lighter, not heavier. The design splits the difference in an incredibly stupid way where it's as logistically intensive as a fully capable main battle tank (short of the Abrams which is in its own class for porkiness and fuel consumption), but can't be used like one. Given the intended battlefield role, something like a Type 16 or CV90105 would do the same job for less money and a third less weight (and gas etc). The problem is that the US design complex considers "low logistical footprint" as "Can I fit one more in a C17?" and that's it, so by that standard a 40 ton assault gun makes perfect sense. I'm not convinced the 105 is even the right weapon for a a dedicated assault gun when things like 120mm gun-mortars exist, either. The Oldest Man has issued a correction as of 20:43 on Sep 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 20:40
|
|
|
I really appreciate the explanations. so for someone who hasn’t been following Ukraine, is this a correct understanding of how modern war works? -there is long range artillery and missiles for attacking distant targets. these are probably the best in terms of breaking things and not dying -when you actually need to attack something, like a city, you need a combination of infantry and tanks. there are also transport vehicles that are light and assault vehicles for blowing up foxholes -javelins let infantry blow up tanks. drones let infantry blow up infantry. it’s harder and harder to not die against these. what am I missing? are there solutions or problems i missed out on?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 20:43
|
|
|
E:^^^^ yeah, the relative effectiveness of all this stuff isn't the same. It isn't a RPS scenario where one javelin can definitively destroy one tank because weapons miss, armour does actually do stuff etc so how hard it is to avoid dying against stuff is a sliding scale that varies with circumstance and technology. This is why people saying things like tanks are obsolete etc are idiots Why did they stop making the striker with the 105 on top, that seems like a pretty adequate assault gun that you can fit on a plane, with the bonus of being able to drive around on roads quickly and easily It's a rhetorical question, I already know why Slavvy has issued a correction as of 20:45 on Sep 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 20:43
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Why did they stop making the striker with the 105 on top, that seems like a pretty adequate assault gun that you can fit on a plane, with the bonus of being able to drive around on roads quickly and easily No idea, they're great in War Thunder 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 20:45
|
|
|
Canada solved this problem in the late 70’s
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 20:46
|
|
|
Aero Gavin in the rare gives-you-brain-damage variant
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 20:47
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:It's a rhetorical question, I already know why A bad and often broken autoloader and being very vulnerable to landmines wasn't a winning long-term design, it turns out. WT has the bonus that everything works all the time and even the most zany designs or designs cancelled for always breaking down just never break down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 20:52
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Canada solved this problem in the late 70’s "Too many Canadians" is indeed a dire problem and I applaud them for attempting to solve it
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 20:53
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:A bad and often broken autoloader and being very vulnerable to landmines wasn't a winning long-term design, it turns out. WT has the bonus that everything works all the time and even the most zany designs or designs cancelled for always breaking down just never break down. They also relied on Canada as a MGS partner so there was diplomatic pressure to force it through here, despite it being trash and doctrinally unsuitable, but refused to allow to us to use our own LAV hulls or build under license lmao
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 20:55
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:So do you want the assault gun to weigh more and be bigger or weigh less and just have less armor, but the same gun? TM 43-0001-28, Artillery Ammunition (chg 11, 2003) posted:CARTRIDGE, 105 MILLIMETER: APFSD-T, M900 They're apparently issued for the modernized Pattons that were still around so yes technically not only an Abrams-only round. It still points to the fact that only certain M68 guns can use the M900 and of the vehicles that had the M68 (Patton, Stryker, Abrams) two have been retired and the latter are all fully upgunned to a 120mm gun. M35s can't fire M900s unless there's some Warthunder forums documents that just got released for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 20:58
|
|
|
Western nation make a fighting vehicle that isn't as tall an apartment building challenge
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 20:58
|
|
|
poisonpill posted:I really appreciate the explanations. so for someone who hasn’t been following Ukraine, is this a correct understanding of how modern war works? From my understanding: Artillery and airstrikes are the best for killing things on account of delivering lots of explosives to any given target in a wide area faster than anything else can move that distance, though it still takes time to put shells, missiles, or bombs on target. Infantry are best for finding targets to deliver explosives to, and can lug along weapons to blow up anything that gets too close or they can sneak up on. Infantry are also stealthier than vehicles and super cheap, so it's better to lose them than anything else (*) - hence their use as screens and scouts. Tanks are useful for blowing up targets more immediately than either artillery or airstrikes, move a lot faster than infantry, and bring enough armor along that you need dedicated weapons to destroy them. Tanks aren't particularly stealthy and also have problems seeing on account of all the armor they carry. Transport vehicles like IFVs get infantry places faster than legs can, and the more armed and armored they are the more immediate violence they can deliver while the infantry scatter into less centralized cover. Downside of arming and armoring them is both expense and visibility. Drones are basically aircraft infantry - they're cheap (or cheaper), carry less, and are usually stealthier on account of size and such. Depending on type they can be integrated into a wide variety of units - a democratization of localized air support which makes western powers a bit nervous since they're well acquainted with how useful air support is. (*) exceptions and limitations apply to countries with broken social contracts
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 21:09
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Canada solved this problem in the late 70’s i dont know what this is, but it's absolutely adorable
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 21:09
|
|
|
the little afv that could 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 21:11
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Western nation make a fighting vehicle that isn't as tall an apartment building challenge That would involve some degree of troop discomfort, which is unacceptable to people raised on 3xl pickup trucks with twenty cup holders Complications posted:From my understanding: Only one of these can hold ground, also
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 21:11
|
|
|
Danann posted:They're apparently issued for the modernized Pattons that were still around so yes technically not only an Abrams-only round. It still points to the fact that only certain M68 guns can use the M900 and of the vehicles that had the M68 (Patton, Stryker, Abrams) two have been retired and the latter are all fully upgunned to a 120mm gun. All that TM says is not to fire M900 from the wrong model of M68 cannon. (M35 cannons were not in service when that TM was published) Here is a publicly available technical doc that references recoil calculations for an M35 cannon firing the M900. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA404787.pdf The M35 was developed to fire all the NATO standard 105mm rounds, whereas earlier models of M68 were not. (The M35 is about a 30 years newer design than the early M68s) If I'm wrong, and it turns out they publish some limitation or safety message about the M35 at some point in the future, so be it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 21:14
|
|
|
The MGS was a mess, and it was cancelled for a reason. To be fair, the US does need something that is better transported by air and has tank-like capabilities and protection. You aren't going to fit a 120-125mm gun in a turret in that size, so it has to be 105mm at least, and if you want a larger crew compartment, it is going to have to be a larger tank. I would say, there isn't a free lunch in tank design, and weight/size/protection, armament, and torque are all in balance of each other. Anyway, I get for procurement reasons they can't call it a "light tank, a "infantry tank," and it isn't really comparable to a modern MBT, so they called it an assault gun. Admittedly, most modern tanks can be used as assault guns, so it isn't technically wrong, but I would say their primary mission will probably be infantry support. It will have some modern AT capabilities, but I don't how it would fare against T-72/T-80/T-90 with modern ERA. poisonpill posted:I really appreciate the explanations. so for someone who hasn’t been following Ukraine, is this a correct understanding of how modern war works? Yes and no, one thing is that artillery across this conflict hasn't just been used for longer range missions but constantly hitting front-line positions and infantry in small groups in a way that really isn't that different than the First World War (with more dispersion). In the case of assaulting cities, it seems the emphasis has been heavy preparation by artillery, including thermobaric weapons, to soften the enemy, then you come in with your tanks and IFVs etc. The Javelin itself may be a bit overblown, there are kills from them, but it seems much of the ATGM kills are from tripod and vehicle mounted and heavier ATGMS. These have made assaults more costly, but there are ways around them "cope cages" and heavy use of ERA. Also, as for drones, you have four major categories: spotter drones for artillery and general surveillance, smaller loitering drones for anti-infantry/lighter vehicle work, medium grade drones (like the Lancet) used for anti-armor and artillery work, and then "flying lawn mowers" that are used more strategically for longer range work. In attention, certain systems declared dead," like attack helicopters, are still in frequent use, but usually with a heavy buffer between them and the front line. They either attrition infantry with rocket pods, or use their ATGM to hit AFVs from a distance. Ardennes has issued a correction as of 23:24 on Sep 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 21:22
|
|
|
poisonpill posted:I’m not sure I’m following this conversation any more than I understood The Pentsgon Wars, but is the argument that infantry should have a faster, lighter transportation that doesn’t have defense? or that it should have more guns and just be a tank with troop carrying abilities? The M10 doesn't carry troops, the argument is that while its primary mission is direct fire support of infantry not giving it a gun and a handful of rounds to defend itself in case it comes up against a tank is kind of stupid
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 21:39
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:In attention, certain systems declared dead," like combat helicopters, are still in frequent use, but usually with a heavy buffer between them and the front line. They either attrition infantry with rocket pods, or use their ATGM to hit AFVs from a distance. Attack helicopters are actually the mislabeled successors to the US tank destroyer doctrine, prove me wrong The Oldest Man has issued a correction as of 22:21 on Sep 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 22:15
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Attack helicopters are actually the mislabeled successors to the US tank destroyer doctrine, prove me wrong its labeled correctly, tank destroyers were cav, cav started on horses, now ride birds
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 22:35
|
|
|
quote:To be fair, the US does need something that is better transported by air and has tank-like capabilities and protection. You aren't going to fit a 120-125mm gun in a turret in that size, so it has to be 105mm at least, and if you want a larger crew compartment, it is going to have to be a larger tank. The CV90120-T / PL-01 says otherwise; not saying those were a good idea for an assault gun but it seems a lil weird to keep your assault gun concept married to what amounts to a legacy MBT main gun rather than looking at howitzers or gun-mortar systems where you could get a much larger projectile onto a much lighter platform. e: I actually just looked it up and the M10 Booker's parent vehicle family (the ASCOD) is actually offered in an export version with a 120mm by a couple different manufacturers The Oldest Man has issued a correction as of 22:56 on Sep 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 22:35
|
|
|
500excf type r posted:its labeled correctly, tank destroyers were cav, cav started on horses, now ride birds Should have called them defense helicopters
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 22:37
|
|
|
my only opinion on gun systems on tracked vehicle platforms is that they require a lot of training and infrastructure to facilitate that training, from combat simulators to actually shooting gunnery tables. There is a lot of tradoc inertia to deal with on top of any design and manufacturing. It doesn't matter how many guns the vehicle has if you cannot train the crew to effectively use those systems because your existing facilities are already at capacity from all the other tanks and bradleys etc
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 22:57
|
|
|
500excf type r posted:my only opinion on gun systems on tracked vehicle platforms is that they require a lot of training and infrastructure to facilitate that training, from combat simulators to actually shooting gunnery tables. There is a lot of tradoc inertia to deal with on top of any design and manufacturing. It doesn't matter how many guns the vehicle has if you cannot train the crew to effectively use those systems because your existing facilities are already at capacity from all the other tanks and bradleys etc Well also they can't even keep the cafeterias open at some of these bases so rip
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 23:20
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Attack helicopters are actually the mislabeled successors to the US tank destroyer doctrine, prove me wrong The Russians were using them as flying MRLS systems.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:06 |
|
|
Военный Осведомитель posted:
prc spending their rials on shaheds
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2023 00:45
|
|
