You're missing the point: 65 tons with a 120mm main gun and space for shells on 1950s technology. The Conqueror even had a limited early form of modern dual-sight hunter-kililer capability. There's a lot more flexibility in tonnage than you're giving credit for, even with a large-caliber gun.
Tanks and other Armoured Vehicles Image thread.
- Thread starter Duke Nukem
- Start date
You're missing the point: 65 tons with a 120mm main gun and space for shells on 1950s technology. The Conqueror even had a limited early form of modern dual-sight hunter-kililer capability. There's a lot more flexibility in tonnage than you're giving credit for, even with a large-caliber gun.
Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
Nah man 65 tons with that is how much tanks weigh today with 2024 technology
Yes, but modern tanks weigh that much with all of their fancy electronic toys and vastly heavier armor protection and a much larger, more powerful engine. A modern MBT basically has the armor protection of a superheavy tank, the gun of a heavy tank, the mobility of a medium tank, and the sensors of a light tank, all rolled into one. Because technology gets better. So the assumption that a bigger gun MUST be paid for by increased size/tonnage simply isn't correct; increased size/tonnage is one way to fit a bigger gun, but it's not the only way.
As a direct example, the KF51 Panther demonstrator is actually substantially lighter than the Leopard 2 it's derived from, and that's with improved armor protection and a 130mm gun that has higher performance than prior projections for 140mm.
BF110C4
Well-known member
Another thing to consider is how many ammunition a modern tank with much better fire control systems requires to accomplish its tactical objectives.
I remember that for example that ammo use for the Bradley during Desert Storm was an ongoing concern for the army, after all auto weapons got a high rate of fire and there was a shortage of armor piercing 25mm slugs but between the superlative optics of the M2s and the exceptional trigger discipline of the US gunners (one shot for ranging followed by a three round burst to destroy the target) they managed an average of 6 shots per APC destroyed.
So while a 140mm gun might take a lot more of space in the magazine than a 120mm between the greater destructive potential and the advancements in sensor tech and fire control systems they might be just efficient enough in the aggregate to compensate for those problems without the need to expand the space available for the magazine.
I remember that for example that ammo use for the Bradley during Desert Storm was an ongoing concern for the army, after all auto weapons got a high rate of fire and there was a shortage of armor piercing 25mm slugs but between the superlative optics of the M2s and the exceptional trigger discipline of the US gunners (one shot for ranging followed by a three round burst to destroy the target) they managed an average of 6 shots per APC destroyed.
So while a 140mm gun might take a lot more of space in the magazine than a 120mm between the greater destructive potential and the advancements in sensor tech and fire control systems they might be just efficient enough in the aggregate to compensate for those problems without the need to expand the space available for the magazine.
Modern tank hypervelocity guns are generally "one shot, one kill, first to shoot wins", which is exactly the ammo economy that the larger 130mm and 140mm guns seek to maintain against improved armor technology.
Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
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 every new M10 costs as much as a new 2 Abrams. What the fuck? The entire program reeks of being a consequence of bloated budgets and corruption. I will also add that US industry developed something with similar capabilities in the 1980's and it also was over 20 tons lighter the Stingray
Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
Okay and the Japanese MBT the Type 10 tank literally weigh's 5 tons less than this and has a 120mm main gun.
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 done.
And yes it costs more then 2 abrams... do you think it was supposed to be cheaper?
Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
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.
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 of more pounds.
The 105 at the flank of ANY vehicle will kill.
Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
The Stingray has also has the 105mm gun, weigh's 20 tons and is a fraction of the cost of this piece of shit.
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 we can have a 30T light tank with heavy protection
Look at every other nation's light tanks, many also with a 105, some even bigger guns.
The cost vs Abrams is a fruit of far worse economy of scale in production... Perhaps it shouldn't have a dedicated hull, just slap the turret on an AMPV and call it a day.
The weight though...
It's either bad design or protection level equivalent to fat modern IFVs like CV90 and Puma.
According to this it's armored up to 30mm APDS from the front and 14.5mm from sides, so there is some explanation for the weight, as this is way beyond what a Stingray, Sheridan, or Sprut-SD is armored against, translating to STANAG 6 front and STANAG 4 all around, yeah, that does sound like modern IFV, and similar weight follows.
Some sources mention ERA module option, which would also make it RPG resistant, what kind of RPG resistance do you think those Soviet light MBTs have without their ERA ?
This is, effectively, a medium tank, meant to be used in a similar role as a Stug, except with a turret. Why have no autoloader, 4 crew, and a big heavy turret to fit it, that's US doctrinal skew with tanks also spreading to totally-not-tanks, which has its pros and cons, but guess they have managed to make it fit whatever airmobility requirement this was designed for regardless.
Last edited:
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.
You can also fit 2 Bradleys in a C-17...
Still, cost wise, it's a bad artifact of the contracting process that "take a modern IFV and stick a 105 turret on it" ended up with an ASCOD based vehicle, which is a hull US military doesn't use otherwise, instead of using AMPV hull, which is not really heavier or worse protected, and US military uses for Bradleys, which would help massively with maintenance and economy of scale.
Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
If turret size is a problem then I present the Expeditionary Tank.
105mm main gun and comes in at 21 tons.
23mm protection from front, 7.62 from sides. Get it to 30mm APDS from front and 14.5 from sides and it's gonna be at least at 30 ton mark. Also no info on ammo storage and no 4th crew member.If turret size is a problem then I present the Expeditionary Tank.
105mm main gun and comes in at 21 tons.
Last edited:
Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
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
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.If turret size is a problem then I present the Expeditionary Tank.
105mm main gun and comes in at 21 tons.
Which is notorious for its horrible auto loader.
Plus the army still belives in manmed turrets
The whole 4 crew allows for the US to just transplant a tank crew instead of having to do diffrent training.