Tanks and other Armoured Vehicles Image thread.

[Carrot of Truth]

That seems to be the same turret they use for the MGS.
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.

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?

 

[Marduk]

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's an organizational-bureaucratic problem. There's plenty of Bradley hulls to go around compared to the low numbers for MPF, already built.

That seems to be the same turret they use for the MGS.
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.

Horrible autoloaders are a great ad for the 4 man crew option and manned turrets. Until then, they should however consider building better autoloaders. But with the different role for M10, having the same training as tank crews also would seem odd.

 

[Zachowon]

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?

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 hand.

That's an organizational-bureaucratic problem. There's plenty of Bradley hulls to go around compared to the low numbers for MPF, already built.

Horrible autoloaders are a great ad for the 4 man crew option and manned turrets. Until then, they should however consider building better autoloaders. But with the different role for M10, having the same training as tank crews also would seem odd.

They favor crew training capability.
Easier to have a crew member slots of 4, so you can have an easier time as everyone is already trained on how to operate each part.
Adding a separate diffrence for either the gunner or commander to be the loader via auto loader adds an extra problem.

And then you also lose your extra hand if the tank breaks down

 

[Carrot of Truth]

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.

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

 

[Marduk]

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

Well it is meant for airborne and the like, which practically are meant for being quickly deployed to deal with other also light forces, sacrificing capabilities for deployability, not to be used in armor and mech alongside Abrams and Bradley.

 

[Carrot of Truth]

Well it is meant for airborne and the like, which practically are meant for being quickly deployed to deal with other also light forces, sacrificing capabilities for deployability, not to be used in armor and mech alongside Abrams and Bradley.

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

 

[Husky_Khan]

If it's only going to Airborne Units (and some National Guard units) then it will be used in conjunction with other assets and troops that the Airborne has, not in US Army Armored or Mechanized Brigades/Divisions except at a beyond divisional/brigade level.

 

[Marduk]

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

And it still is a niche use that needs to be served by something, plenty of hotspots in Middle East and Africa and it's better than lugging whole heavy armor units there.

 

[Bacle]

Look, if you think of the Booker more are tank destroyer, and less like a MBT or even LT, it's design makes much more sense.

 

[PsihoKekec]

Except with 105 mm low recoil gun it is not a much of a tank destroyer, these days you either go for 120 mm or for missiles. With modern day technology they could have done much better job at this weight.

 

[Husky_Khan]

It's primary role seems to be as an assault gun that engages enemy armored vehicles in general, as well as defensive structures, bunkers, and the like, with tank engagements being a secondary concern. And it's armored on the level of more heavy IFV's. So while Mobile Protected Firepower is a silly term, it is seemingly meant to be mobile and protected firepower in the form of a modern assault gun.

And it's notable that the 82nd Airborne just doesn't have tanks at the moment, or Bradleys... or even many Strykers or other equivalents with some notable exceptions. So it will be filling a gap if the US Military wants to give its Air deployable divisions heavier armored firepower.

The current alternative would probably be some wheeled Stryker or LAV variant with anti-tank missiles.

 

[Zachowon]

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

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 release of 2 bookers and boom gone.

Well it is meant for airborne and the like, which practically are meant for being quickly deployed to deal with other also light forces, sacrificing capabilities for deployability, not to be used in armor and mech alongside Abrams and Bradley.

Correct.
It fills the gap of the Sheridan. A quickly deployable 105mm to deal with entrenched, hunkered down enemies or anti vehicle.
Infamtry can only carry so much AT ammo without weighing 200 pounds of gear alone.
this is a vehicle solely being used by that of the light and airborne infantry.

If it's only going to Airborne Units (and some National Guard units) then it will be used in conjunction with other assets and troops that the Airborne has, not in US Army Armored or Mechanized Brigades/Divisions except at a beyond divisional/brigade level.

This.

It's primary role seems to be as an assault gun that engages enemy armored vehicles in general, as well as defensive structures, bunkers, and the like, with tank engagements being a secondary concern. And it's armored on the level of more heavy IFV's. So while Mobile Protected Firepower is a silly term, it is seemingly meant to be mobile and protected firepower in the form of a modern assault gun.

And it's notable that the 82nd Airborne just doesn't have tanks at the moment, or Bradleys... or even many Strykers or other equivalents with some notable exceptions. So it will be filling a gap if the US Military wants to give its Air deployable divisions heavier armored firepower.

The current alternative would probably be some wheeled Stryker or LAV variant with anti-tank missiles.

And the thing about vehicle born AT of the US, it is wire guided. So you need to stay in position and can't move while firing it.
The M10 allows for quicker mobility after a shot without any delay as it would with ATGMs.
And while yes they could use a Stryker, they are shit vehicles and are to lightly armored compared to even the M10, and even with ERA packages it allows for a much more durable package that doesn't destroy the suspension of the vehicle like the Stryker.
Add in how utterly dogs hit the MGS was

 

[ShadowArxxy]

45 tons like a T-64, 105 mm gun without HE. No protection even from RPG-7's,Also no autoloader.

42 tons, the 105mm gun is an absolutely excellent weapon for its size and weight, the penetration of RPGs these days is high enough to make full protection impractical on anything less than a full-fledged MBT, and a human loader is actually a significant advantage over an autoloader.

 

[Zachowon]

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

 

[Carrot of Truth]

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.

 

[Carrot of Truth]

42 tons, the 105mm gun is an absolutely excellent weapon for its size and weight, the penetration of RPGs these days is high enough to make full protection impractical on anything less than a full-fledged MBT, and a human loader is actually a significant advantage over an autoloader.

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

 

[Marduk]

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

3 man crew, little ammo, compare dimensions, may be too wide for some air transport options.

 

[Carrot of Truth]

3 man crew, little ammo, compare dimensions, may be too wide for some air transport options.

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

 

[Marduk]

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

It's meant for fire support, not fighting tanks. That means generously slinging HE rounds at buildings.
Compared to VDV support vehicles, who don't have that much ammo capacity.

 

[Carrot of Truth]

It's meant for fire support, not fighting tanks. That means generously slinging HE rounds at buildings.
Compared to VDV support vehicles, who don't have that much ammo capacity.

Except its main gun can't fire HE shells