Tanks and other Armoured Vehicles Image thread.

[Zachowon]

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.

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

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

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 supposed to do.

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

Not really, better to have them and not need them then need them and not have them

Also overkill is patt of the army doctrine

Except its main gun can't fire HE shells

That's false, it can fire every 105mm NATO standard round.
Where you getting this from?


Also, here is a very good over view of the MPF.

 

[Marduk]

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

Isn't a C-17 cargo compartment big enough for even wider Abrams with much room to spare, and if not for the weight limit could even take more?

Boeing C-17 Globemaster III - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

For cargo operations the C-17 requires a crew of three: pilot, copilot, and loadmaster. The cargo compartment is 88 feet (27 m) long by 18 feet (5.5 m) wide by 12 feet 4 inches (3.76 m) high. The cargo floor has rollers for palletized cargo but it can be flipped to provide a flat floor suitable for vehicles and other rolling stock. Cargo is loaded through a large aft ramp that accommodates rolling stock, such as a 69-ton (63-metric ton) M1 Abrams main battle tank, other armored vehicles, trucks, and trailers, along with palletized cargo.

Perhaps the weight restriction is for C-130, which couldn't take anything MBT width... But then again M10 is too heavy for C-130... Unless you *really* strip it down to parts and use 2 planes to transport it.
Or perhaps it's for some future transport plane that's somewhere between C-130 and C-17 in capacity.

Except its main gun can't fire HE shells

As Zach said, in this case it's not the super special variant of gun MGS had with ammo limits, but a normal NATO standard 105, so no reason not to.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Concerning the Type-10, it’s actually a very good tank for its role. Like Korean armour it is designed for a different battlefield. This is a lighter vehicle that can cross the narrow bridges and winding roads of mountainous Japan instead of thundering across open plains like the M1 Abrams or Challenger II.

Considering that the JGSDF would be deployed in homeland defence, the Type-10 slots into the role of specifically defending Japan quite nicely.

 

[AnimalNoodles]

Not really, better to have them and not need them then need them and not have them

The issue comes down to whether you can supply these vehicles with all that ammunition by air. If you cannot, it makes no sense to have it.

 

[Marduk]

The issue comes down to whether you can supply these vehicles with all that ammunition by air. If you cannot, it makes no sense to have it.

No one in their right mind will be supplying either vehicle by air *while anywhere near combat*. Which makes a larger ammo reserve more important for those than normal tanks, because without the full logistical tail of a heavy division and a set, obvious frontline they may need to go on longer without reloading and withdrawing them to reload may be trickier.

 

[Carrot of Truth]

Concerning the Type-10, it’s actually a very good tank for its role. Like Korean armour it is designed for a different battlefield. This is a lighter vehicle that can cross the narrow bridges and winding roads of mountainous Japan instead of thundering across open plains like the M1 Abrams or Challenger II.

Considering that the JGSDF would be deployed in homeland defence, the Type-10 slots into the role of specifically defending Japan quite nicely.

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

 

[Marduk]

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

Most MBTs would be... but this tank has to meet the quite annoying requirements regarding fitting into planes.

 

[Husky_Khan]

The C-17 can carry two M10 Bookers supposedly as opposed to one of pretty much any other main battle tank apparently. And transporting an Abrams via a C-17 requires a long period of work including the removal of the side skirts apparently and the use of an M88 or equivalent vehicle for air transport.

How The Army's New M10 Booker Light Tank Will Actually Be Used

The Booker may look like a mini Abrams, but its role is specifically to support infantry and arrive ready to fight long before an M1 could.

www.twz.com

 

[Marduk]

I think CV90105 would be an interesting off the shelf alternative. Similar weight, size and protection level (new ones even better due to APS already intergrated!), more modular armor allowing it to be made even lighter for transport (might be able to even fit 3 in C-17 with just basic armor), similar cannon, ok ammo storage, already developed, and probably cheaper to boot. The only thing that may weird out US Army is autoloader (haven't heard of this one being shitty though) and 3 man crew.

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

-Autoloader and 3 man crew, US military does not approve
-120mm cannon with 22 ready/36 total round stowage, oof, completely wrong for the role, need more ready shots
-About as long as Abrams, and almost as wide, may interfere with the idea of putting 2 in C-17, depending on details of cargo compartment shape
-US tankers may be too big to be comfortable in a compact tank made for Japan

 

[Carrot of Truth]

Most MBTs would be... but this tank has to meet the quite annoying requirements regarding fitting into planes.

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

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

I still don't get why the Abrams is the only tank in service which has every round behind a blowout panel.

That...Seems sort of really fucking important to crew safety.
Worse than that, most tanks that DO have blowout panels have the rounds facing the crew, so if there's HEAT-FS loaded in there and it detonates it's going to pierce the bulkhead and kill everybody inside.

 

[Marduk]

I still don't get why the Abrams is the only tank in service which has every round behind a blowout panel.

That...Seems sort of really fucking important to crew safety.
Worse than that, most tanks that DO have blowout panels have the rounds facing the crew, so if there's HEAT-FS loaded in there and it detonates it's going to pierce the bulkhead and kill everybody inside.

Insensitive explosives deflagrate or burn instead of exploding properly without the right detonator. These days it's the propellant that is the real explosion threat.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Insensitive explosives deflagrate or burn instead of exploding properly without the right detonator. These days it's the propellant that is the real explosion threat.

I know that stuff like C4 and the like are comically safe, you can use the stuff as firewood without it blowing up.

But god damn I'd feel a lot safer without 20 rounds of 120mm HEAT-FS aimed at my ass while the ATGM's are flying around. In a full on firefight it wouldn't surprise me if more-sensitive explosives are used as ersatz measures once stocks of the proper stuff run dry.

In this regard the Abrams still has far better safety. Especially as tanks are starting to use a lot more HE-MP munitions which I still want facing away from the crew compartment.

 

[Zachowon]

Isn't a C-17 cargo compartment big enough for even wider Abrams with much room to spare, and if not for the weight limit could even take more?

Boeing C-17 Globemaster III - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Perhaps the weight restriction is for C-130, which couldn't take anything MBT width... But then again M10 is too heavy for C-130... Unless you *really* strip it down to parts and use 2 planes to transport it.
Or perhaps it's for some future transport plane that's somewhere between C-130 and C-17 in capacity.

The C17 is what woukd transport it, it's the aspect of HOW an Abrams has to be loaded. Husky shows later on

As Zach said, in this case it's not the super special variant of gun MGS had with ammo limits, but a normal NATO standard 105, so no reason not to.

Yep. It can fire all standard NATO rounds

The issue comes down to whether you can supply these vehicles with all that ammunition by air. If you cannot, it makes no sense to have it.

It has enough ammo to allow the Ling fights in which the Airborne troops will fight

Most MBTs would be... but this tank has to meet the quite annoying requirements regarding fitting into planes.

Yep, welcome to Airborne

The C-17 can carry two M10 Bookers supposedly as opposed to one of pretty much any other main battle tank apparently. And transporting an Abrams via a C-17 requires a long period of work including the removal of the side skirts apparently and the use of an M88 or equivalent vehicle for air transport.

How The Army's New M10 Booker Light Tank Will Actually Be Used

The Booker may look like a mini Abrams, but its role is specifically to support infantry and arrive ready to fight long before an M1 could.

www.twz.com

Exactly

I think CV90105 would be an interesting off the shelf alternative. Similar weight, size and protection level (new ones even better due to APS already intergrated!), more modular armor allowing it to be made even lighter for transport (might be able to even fit 3 in C-17 with just basic armor), similar cannon, ok ammo storage, already developed, and probably cheaper to boot. The only thing that may weird out US Army is autoloader (haven't heard of this one being shitty though) and 3 man crew.

I think it competed for the Bradley replacement instead

-Autoloader and 3 man crew, US military does not approve

Correct

-120mm cannon with 22 ready/36 total round stowage, oof, completely wrong for the role, need more ready shots

always need more

-About as long as Abrams, and almost as wide, may interfere with the idea of putting 2 in C-17, depending on details of cargo compartment shape

Abrams is not just drive it on either

-US tankers may be too big to be comfortable in a compact tank made for Japan

also possible

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

It won't be parachuted. The army gave up that dream

 

[Carrot of Truth]

It won't be parachuted. The army gave up that dream

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

 

[Zachowon]

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

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?

 

[Marduk]

I think it competed for the Bradley replacement instead

More senseless bureaucracy?

Abrams is not just drive it on either

It's still half a meter less width than Abrams so should not be tricky like that.

Also Japan's crazy legal restrictions on arms exports are a thing.

 

[Zachowon]

More senseless bureaucracy?

We are trying to divy things up.
Though this program was a successor of the one that the M8 was in

It's still half a meter less width than Abrams so should not be tricky like that.

The Abrams takes a lot more effort. The Booker not so much

Also Japan's crazy legal restrictions on arms exports are a thing.

That too

 

[ShadowArxxy]

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

The M1A1 Abrams cost $4.3 million domestic in 1989; inflation adjustment alone brings that to $10.6 million apiece today. And that’s an obsolete version; the M1A2 SEP V3 is export priced at a cool $24 million each.

The M10 Booker is at $12.9 million — barely half the cost of an Abrams, not double.

 

[Carrot of Truth]

The M1A1 Abrams cost $4.3 million domestic in 1989; inflation adjustment alone brings that to $10.6 million apiece today. And that’s an obsolete version; the M1A2 SEP V3 is export priced at a cool $24 million each.

The M10 Booker is at $12.9 million — barely half the cost of an Abrams, not double.

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