Search results for query: *

So...a normal artillery piece. That is how the 155s and the like work you know. This is a LOT more mobile then those, and allows for immediate change of location faster then normal artillery if need be. And most countries have a land border with ejo they are fighting. The US has to get things...

We are trying to divy things up. Though this program was a successor of the one that the M8 was in The Abrams takes a lot more effort. The Booker not so much That too

That isn't the issue. We have difficulties dropping Humvees let alone tanks. The Sheridan had a horrible record for it. And isn't the Stingray more top heavy due to the turret size?

The C17 is what woukd transport it, it's the aspect of HOW an Abrams has to be loaded. Husky shows later on Yep. It can fire all standard NATO rounds It has enough ammo to allow the Ling fights in which the Airborne troops will fight Yep, welcome to Airborne Exactly I think it competed for...

Too wide and too long.the Type 10 is almost an entire meter larger then the M10 width wise and over 3 meters longer. It can only still fit one Type 10 in a C17 How so? It is twice the price due to Electronics. The Stingray you brought up is way to light and to thinly armored for what it is...

Yep, most western tanks don't use then because the benefit of them it outweighed by the existence of the extra crew member and the fact the times are not significant enough

Except...that isn't at all what it will be used for. Airborne troops need something other then actual heavy armor. So they get this to support them. Say the Abrn unit is told to capture a airfield. The infantry land first and secure the runway enough for touch and goes, you can do a quick...

It is able to fire and move a lot quicker then a Bradley, which has to remain still for thr TOW. It is to be used in tandem with light infantry units not heavy infantry units, that being the main didfrence. Doctrine. And the manned turrets also allow for mechanical failures to be overridden by...

Because they want something they can get now, as compared to years from now before the full scale production of the AMPV. That's basically why. We could see an M10A1 or A2 with a diffrent chassis. they did it eith the Paladin That seems to be the same turret they use for the MGS. Which is...

While true, it is as you mentioned. It's about protection. You can fit two of these bad boys in a C 17. Do a hot landing drop then off and take off. Easier to maintain woth fuel then an Abrams. But yes, it is part of the US doctrine of have heavy everything.

Except it has none of the newest electronic packages, has a fuck huge turret, and that is an issue. The M10 is also easier for them to upgrade with more armor as it was made for additional armor plating. The US Army is trying to get as heavy vehicles protection wise. We arnt at the level where...

Except, it is better then the Stryker, more advanced then the Abrams, and is actually capable of doing jtd job. Your issue is that it is 45 tons with a 105. It is made to be small crew and small profile. To get in and be there to provide AT firepower without needing infantry to carry hundreds...

But is wider and not as compact. The M10 is basically there to replace the Stryker MGS, without being top heavy. It allows for better firepower that is more mobile and able to get around the Battlefield. The 105 is there to allow it to be an ambush vehicle. Yes, it is 45 tons. It gets the job...

It's not supposed to be a tank. It's mobile protected firepower. It is supposed to provide heavy firepower for airborne and Air assault forces.

Most have been early war and the last few offenses nit in Kursk. Would have to dig them up. @Marduk probably has more on hand

There have been massive tank battles in the Russo Ukrainian war

The JLTV can get lower to the ground, but is also a lot more user friendly and safer. It's because they don't want soldiers to operate something they don't know how to and get people killed or damage 3 million dollar pieces of equipment.

Again, having been next to various APCs, the JLTV isn't that big and is only slightly taller then a Humvee. AFAIK yes. Unit varies but it is better to have an extra tripod then not have one (it doesn't take up much room at all) There is a reason they lock up motor pools at night. But after...

It's lighter then a Stryker, more mobile then one, and allows for small unit movement and nit as big of a target. Having been next to both in my truck, the JLTV is small compared to a Stryker. We dont put those on our small vehicles. Generally make them able to be dismounted and used by the...

Gear fits fine in the JLTV. 50 cal and 240 is fine enough for what is needed, plus the US doesnt use any other caliber outside of 25mm on the Bradley and 30mm on the Stryker Dragoon. it is about separation of support, wothout having to add larger vehicles. simple. They suck. Not the way our...