Search results for query: *

I just used that specific image as a palceholder for that sort of artillery in general rather than that specific gun.

Most of the countries building this style of artillery aren't building these for air mobility but as cheaper self propelled guns.

There is one major flaw with this design that would be an easy fix IMO, Basically separate the artillery onto a forward facing trailer incase the truck breaks down or is damaged another one could hitch up.

Difference is that we aren't and won't be buying new Abrams anytime soon we have thousands in storage.

The Stingray could potentially pull that off given how much lighter it is.

It could actually fit inside of a C-17 now being parachuted down is another story entirely.

That tank ironically would also be really good for the role the M-10 is suppose to fulfill

Except its main gun can't fire HE shells

If you need that many shells for an airborne unit then something has gone horribly wrong and said airborne unit is likely under the command of the Russian VDV

At 42 tons and twice the price of an Abrams it should be a lot better.

Japan's Type 10 MBT in its basic loadout it weighs 2 tons less than the M-10 and has a 120mm main gun. For the weight of that thing it could be a lot better than what it is. Also the cost of it is ridiculous.

Yeah but we already know how it will actually get used and it won't be like that.

The US military is too caught up in thinking of how to fight the Taliban in Afganistan still I see.

I only posted that tank because it's pretty cool looking, That said the Army needs to get the fuck over having manned turrets. Especially for what is supposedly a mobile gun that is transportable in a C-17. Ignoring all of this though what can that overpriced M-10 do that a Bradley can't?

No 4th crew member is a good thing for what is essentially suppose to be a mobile gun that can be transported by a C-17

If turret size is a problem then I present the Expeditionary Tank. 105mm main gun and comes in at 21 tons.

The Stingray has also has the 105mm gun, weigh's 20 tons and is a fraction of the cost of this piece of shit.

This thing is a piece of shit and clearly a fucking scam to rip off tax payers difference is that back in the day they would actually put in some effort and try to at least pretend to earn that money but now they don't even try.

Okay and the Japanese MBT the Type 10 tank literally weigh's 5 tons less than this and has a 120mm main gun.

45 tons like a T-64, 105 mm gun without HE. No protection even from RPG-7's,Also no autoloader. In this weight range, Soviet and later Ukrainian engineers included a 125 mm smoothbore gun, an automatic loader, protection from 120 mm in the front and the same level of mobility as the Booker. And...