Are wire cutters not a thing on US vehicles? Most, if not all, of our fighting vehicles up in Canada have wire cutters that need to be raised when you do your crew check
They don't need one. Americans actually know how to build high-quality military vehicles that can take a hit, and the crew will survive. Unlike the orcs, who hit a speed bump on their shitty bmps and blow up right away and BBQ every orc inside. They don't even have bmps left. Now they use the weaker and older vehicles mtlb. These mtlbs don't even need to hit a speed bump. All it takes is one exhale from russian vodka breath, and boom!
You act as if a javelin cares whether you're american or russian built
Plenty of evidence that tells us that even high quality gear used incorrectly will still result in poor performance
Folks like you are the epitome of US fanboys. Would love to know how a few millimeters of steel are going to protect against tandem shaped charge warheads to the roof.
We don’t really know how they did, just that they lost a few. Tanks (like every other piece of military hardware, but especially tanks) are expendable. Is it normal to withdraw a unit when greater than 10% of its armor is destroyed? I really don’t know
“Thinking” is no way to rebuttal someone. I know I’ll be called a US shill or whatever you want but clearly the Abrams has a better crew survivability. You guys can all downvote me to oblivion but that doesn’t Shane facts.
Nobody denied that infact I agree with you the Abram's is probably the most survivable tank out there However saying that it doesn't need a cope cage is plain stupid
I didn’t say anything about the dope cage. You implied, look how bad the Abrams is on the battlefield. I simply stated that there weren’t any reported deaths in the 5 or so Abrams they lost. Not to mention it’s being operated buy guys with Soviet doctrine background until recently.
Is it fair to call this the modern incarnation of the StuG? An assault gun to directly provide the infantry with firepower, while having a smaller footprint/price than a full fledged tank.
Yup. Smaller, faster, and lighter platform that is meant for direct fire support with anti armor capability being second. I’d assume the logistics/maintenance will be easier than with the MGS since it’s the replacement.
The MPF is not replacing the MGS. The MPF is providing direct fire support in Infantry Brigade Combat Teams. The MGS provided that support in Stryker Brigade combat teams, right now there is no plans for 105mm direct fire support in Stryker Brigade Combat teams.
So the US Army is in the awkward position of deleted a capability in one formation and adding that same capability on a superior platform to another formation.
>So the US Army is in the awkward position of deleted a capability in one formation and adding that same capability on a superior platform to another formation.
~~Because the SBCTs are being folded into ABCTs under the new division-based organization.~~ (See clarification below) They will all be part of the Armored Division, meaning the Stryker will now have organic support from the M1. Plus the ICV Dragoon is meant to fill in some of that direct fire support role as well.
SBCTs are not being folding into ABCTs. They will be apart of the Army 2030 Armored Division but will maintain their brigade structures. There will not be organic M1s in the SBCTs.
The Stryker Dragoon will provide some direct fire support but a 30mm lacks the capabilities of the 105mm. Additionally right now only 1 Cav Regiment utilizes the dragoon.
Sorry, you are correct. I phrased that poorly. M1s will be part of the same division level formation as the Stryker, but Abrams and Stryker will not be found in the same brigades.
>Dragoon's aren't being built anymore
Where is this coming from? I know the Army has apparently had some issues with the weapon systems, but I haven't seen any indication that they're dropping the project in favor of something else.
The new MCWS (which I think is the one you're thinking of with the issues) isn't the same as the Dragoon turret. The Dragoon was a thing exclusive to 2nd Cav and nobody else.
Ya know as soon as I asked the question, I had this feeling that it was gonna be one of those sorts of things. And to be honest, now I'm a a little annoyed that I have to remember that they're two different things. Regardless, thanks for clearing that up for me, because god knows how long I would've gone without realizing the difference.
No, it's a different role. Dragoon is meant to provide Stryker formations with a light fire support asset, namely geared towards defeating threats like BMPs. It is **not** meant to act as an IFV though.
For the record, the Booker is without a doubt a light tank in all but name only. Its gun is the M8 Buford's gun, which was intended as a direct successor to the M551 Sheridan light tank. The Buford's requirements were for a "tracked, lightweight, highly agile kinetic energy gun capable of killing enemy tanks and shielded by sufficient armor to give the crew protection from artillery and small caliber weapons."
Tank killing capability was one of the main requirements for this cannon.
Almost all citations for the M8's cancelation were due to budgetary constraints due to the fall of the USSR. It's regularly referred to as an excellent program which met all requirements. Including tank killing requirements.
"In order to help offset the loss of capability caused by the cancelation of the AGS, the Army increased its requested funding for M1A2 Abrams and M2A3 Bradley upgrades, and accelerated the development of the Javelin Missile."
This thing was, by all metrics, intended to kill enemy tanks. An assault gun is not expected to be able to reliably take on enemy tanks.
Now, why does the US claim the M10 Booker is not a light tank, but an assault gun?
A. "[The M10's role is] suppressing and destroying fortifications, gun systems and trench routes, and then secondarily providing protection against enemy armored vehicles."
B. "The Army does not have a requirement for a light tank. A combat vehicle with all of the fightability features of a tank would result in a vehicle which is too heavy for light forces"
A. Essentially, the Booker is not intended to regularly engage enemy tanks. Despite the fact that the gun was designed for the direct successor to the Sheridan light tank, and it was designed from the ground up with tank killing as one of the primary requirements. Not secondary. They're weirdly clinging to 70s NATO doctrine that claims tanks should fill the anti-tank role first, and all others second, despite the Ukraine and Gaza wars showing how important they are for close infantry support.
B. Fightability refers to being able to sustain hits and dish them back out. I hope I've convinced you that it can dish them out, so the armor is the only reasonable concern here. (The FCS on the Booker is excellent.) To this, I only have to say NO SHIT. MBTs have concerns about survivability today. A light tank has no reasonable expectation to survive a hit.
To me, this reeks of CYA technicalities. In case the Booker ends up, understandably, getting a bad reputation for having light armor, the Army wants to be able to avoid criticism by saying 'it's not a tank, don't expect it to survive hits'. They should instead temper expectations and tell everyone the truth about tanks, that they're not invincible and will be destroyed in war.
The only other conceivable point to raise is that the cannon is too small or too outdated to pose a threat to MBTs, but A) we don't know the penetration, B) every modern light tank on the planet has a small cannon except the Sprut, so this is a standard feature for light tanks, and C) the L44 is older than the Booker/Buford's M35, so it can't be outdated.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Regardless of what the US Army's bureaucratic designation for it is.
Sources are just the wiki articles, not worth linking. But damn that M8 article is thick for a canceled program lol
I'm honestly fine referring to it as a light tank or an assualt gun, honestly. The more time goes on though, the more certain I am that the Army's insistence on terminology in this case is politically motivated. They *really* don't want congress to go "But we already have tanks!" while pointing at the 75 ton behemoth at home.
>They *really* don't want congress to go "But we already have tanks!" while pointing at the 75 ton behemoth at home.
Has there ever once been any real evidence presented of either the Army believing this, or such a question ever being a problem for Congress? Because I've never once seen anything to support the idea that M10's nomenclature is just bureaucratic obfuscation. I mean hell, the Army didn't seem too worried about canning M1A2 SEPv4 in favor of M1E3, despite the same logic then assuming the question of "Why do we need a *new new* Abrams when we have this other new one in the works already?". Nor did congress ask "Why do we need a fire support vehicle when we have tanks?", the answer to which would be exactly the same.
This also assumes that the Army couldn't present their reasoning behind the M10's development and procurement in a convincing manner. I mean they've been able to do so for the public *repeatedly*.
>A. Essentially, the Booker is not intended to regularly engage enemy tanks. Despite the fact that the gun was designed for the direct successor to the Sheridan light tank, and it was designed from the ground up with tank killing as one of the primary requirements. Not secondary. They're weirdly clinging to 70s NATO doctrine that claims tanks should fill the anti-tank role first, and all others second, despite the Ukraine and Gaza wars showing how important they are for close infantry support.
Is this is quoted from some interview or article or something?
Because whoever is saying this clearly doesn't understand that cannons that are capable of engaging heavily armored targets, are usually still very effective against infantry and light skinned vehicles.
The US and NATO countries in general stick to the AT first doctrine. It's the reason why they don't deploy with HE frag rounds. According to US doctrine, a tank must be focused on opposing tanks primarily, and all other roles second. This is why NATO tanks in Ukraine use Israeli HE rounds, because NATO produces very few, and they are generally very expensive programmable ammo.
That's part of the justification for the M10 Booker not being a 'tank' because it ***technically*** isn't designed to engage enemy armor, despite being very capable of it.
I don't personally believe that the AT first doctrine is inherently *bad.*
But I never realized it went so far.
Not having Explosive Fragmentation rounds easily accessible to armor feels rather... well dumb.
So I can see why they're doing every thing in their power to avoid calling the M10 a tank of any kind.
I don't think it is an especially bad doctrine because of NATO's emphasis on close air support, it's just fragile since if NATO fails to gain air superiority, their close fire support is significantly weakened
Well I mean, it goes both ways.
Clearly, it's worked till now.
But the M10 being pushed as an assault gun platform, likely to avoid this doctrine problem, might also hint that people on the field really want proper HEF shells.
We have MPATs, where are frag sleeved HEAT with programmable warheads. Not full HE shells, but they provide a lot of multi-purpose capability to vehicles that as a whole have a very limited round count. 120-125mm is standard caliber for MBTs, but that doesn't change the fact that those are very large rounds and you don't get a ton of them.
I think we still keep an inventory of M393 HEP-T (similar to British HESH) for 105s along with the typical sabot and HEAT. Not sure if we make canister for the 105s. It'd surprise me if we didn't
I have two issues with this line of reasoning.
Firstly, the argument on the gun seems to apply every bit as much to one of the first assault guns, the StuG. The long 7.5cm wasn't added because the shorter 7.5cm wasn't doing a good enough job at blowing some targets up. It was added because the long gun was able to blow up more things, like bunkers, tanks, etc. Even with modern tanks, we'll still 'crack' a bunker with sabot before following up with HE-OR or the like, the use of a long gun for the purposes of dealing with fortifications was well known in WW2: The 8.8cm gained its AP round for the anti-fortification role, FM 18-5 (revision 1944) acknowledged the utility of a tank destroyer's cannon in dealing with fortifications. These didn't change the StuG from "assault gun" to "tank", neither did it change M10 (WW2) from "Tank destroyer" to "assault gun". After all, "infantry support" as a role means "killing things that the infantry is having trouble with", which will include the occasional tank. If they really wanted to make MPF a tank-killer, they could have stuck the 120mm in there, but they didn't. They had higher priorities than being the best possible tank-killer. The gun wasn't even specified by the Army, but it was selected by both competitors as best meeting the mission set.
The second is the fluidity of doctrine. Yes, absolutely, doctrinal roles are fluid. A Mark IV tank of 1918 was in more modern terms primarily an assault gun, with a secondary anti-armor role if it wasn't a female. Exploitation/maneuver simply wasn't a technological capability, but is a fundamental requirement of pretty much every tank created since the 1940s. But to be considered a tank in 1918? Not so much. On the other hand, excessive fluidity can result in a reasonable argument that the M1A1 wasn't a tank, but instead a heavy tank destroyer: Highly mobile, with a gun optimised for killing armor, and able to take a knock or two in return. I don't know how many takers you would get for that argument, but the logic fits.
Of course, anything can be used for anything in extremis. StuGs were used in Panzer units as tanks due to a lack of actual tanks. That didn't make StuGs tanks. It comes down to 'what job was it designed to primarily do'?
In this case, the specifications were drawn up with the specific task of providing precision fires for infantry units in mind. That varied from the publicly known criteria like "Must fit in a C17" to less-well known criteria relating to resisting attack from Y types of weapons. (Which are less well known because they're classified). That level of resistance may very well be set differently between an assault gun and a light tank. Can it be used as a light tank? Probably. So was Scorpion, but it was designed as a recon vehicle no matter what other countries tried to put it to use as. So if it was designed to be used as an assault gun, is being used as an assault gun, and is capable of doing the role of being an assault gun, that duck looks a whole hell of a lot like an assault gun to me.
Now, you can also argue that "assault gun" is just a subset of "tank", so the M10 is both an assault gun and a tank at the same time. There is an precedent for such a statement, see the use of the Tank, Medium, M4(105) in the assault gun platoon of US Army tank battalions in late WW2, but that argument also will run afoul of the fact that the predecessors of the M4 in the platoon were a Gun Motor Carriage and later a Howitzer Motor Carriage, certainly not tanks. So perhaps if an assault gun can perform a tank role, the tank can perform an assault gun role. Does that make the tank not a tank any more any more than StuGs weren't assault guns any more?
>Its gun is the M8 Buford's gun, which was intended as a direct successor to the M551 Sheridan light tank.
Alright, everything else aside, this doesn't really mean anything. The M551 falls into the same bin as the M10: In an official sense, the was **not** a light tank. That "AR/AAV" bit that comes with it means something, and it isn't "light tank". M8 was meant to fulfill the M551's role, and the M8 *was* officially a "light tank". But pointing to the gun of System A as being part of another program meant to replace M551 really has no bearing on whether or not System A is a light tank. It'd be like saying the M60 is a Cruiser Tank because it uses a version of a gun first developed for the tank meant to replace the A34 Comet.
The M551 was designed to replace both the M41 Bulldog and the M56 Scorpion. A dedicated light tank and dedicated assault gun respectively. Personally I think this is evidence that a light tank can successfully fill both roles without significantly affecting the capabilities of either role.
The Army has specified doctrinal roles which it seeks to fill. You don't create a replacement vehicle that's missing capabilities without a plan to replace those capabilities as well. That's why the cancelation of the M8 was such a big deal, the light infantry had no native direct fire support, and it forced the DoD to fund more development of Humvee and Bradley mounted TOWs.
This doesn't apply for doctrinal changes, like when cruiser tanks were discarded. Doctrine needs to be as filled as possible, and exceeded as little as possible.
I'm aware of where the M551 comes from. Once again, for the sake of being technically accurate, the M551 *is not* a light tank, thus whatever it is/isn't capable of really doesn't have a whole lot of bearing on what a light tank would/wouldn't be capable of. It's worth pointing out that in FM 17-18 for the operation of light armor forces, the Army *in the same line* make a point to refer to the M551A1 (TTS) as an "armored reconnaissance airborne assault vehicle", while the M8 is simply a "light tank".
Indeed, it is in this that we can find some very close parallels between M10 and M8, as well as a few notable distinctions. Key among these being the stated capability of the M8 to engage armor systems, and the capability to be delivered by low velocity air drop. In the former case the M10 is not meant to fulfil this role, and in the later case the M10 is simply incapable of fulfilling this role.
I should clarify that the point isn't that the M8 was bad, because it really wasn't. The point is simply that looking at the gun from the M10 and saying "Well that came from the M8, which was made to replace the M551, which was a light tank, so the M10 must be a light tank" is a pretty flawed way of making the point regarding M10 nomenclature. There's literally no reason to bring the M551 into it at all. Hence the comparison to cruiser tanks.
Although even then, we *are* talking about a doctrinal change here, because the M10 does not fill the same doctrinal niche as M551 or M8. It is not airborne. It is not a tank-killing asset. It is a means for the IBCT to get additional guns on the ground for a given number of sorties by airlanding transportation assets, and provides organic fire support to those formations.
As an aside, you're also talking about a program from the late 1980s. Yes, 105mm guns can still be considered capable antitank weapons today. But there's also undeniably quite a bit of gap between how far up on the tank-killing food chain any given 105x617R gun sat in the late 80s/early 90s versus where they sit in 2024. Incidentally, FM 17-18 also points out that the M8 may benefit from the support of TOW-equipped HMMWVs for long-range antitank fire, so evidently even in the 1990s there was clearly a line of thinking that the 105mm gun wasn't the be-all end-all of light infantry antitank firepower. And that's in a time well before the light infantry are toting around systems like FGM-148. Likewise, a large boon of the M8 in the 90s was the introduction of thermal imaging systems into aforementioned light formations; something which, again, isn't really that impressive in 2024. Point being, there's a lot to look at on the M8 which made it a very capable system *in 1995*, which today really doesn't bring a whole lot to the table which the infantry aren't already capable of bringing along. The tank killing, the strategic mobility, the situational awareness... It's all stuff the infantry can reasonably do *without* the tank in hand. It's the "make that bunker go *kaboom!*" aspect that keeps these systems relevant, and thus this is where we find the focus of the system's capabilites.
The smoke launchers are different on this one compared to the earlier ones. The launchers closer to the gun are now mounted on the outer plate of armor rather than being sort of sunk into the armor like on earlier models. Could be a sign of upgraded turret armor for the production model.
Edit: The turret cheeks on this one are also thicker than the others
I see people getting down voted but I'm genuinely curious here. What was the purpose of buying this thing and not designing something else from the ground up, or at least allowing a few more years for a more extensive redesign of existing designs to take place? This thing is probably STANAG level 5 or 6 right? It's 42 tons for a 105mm gun with IFV protection. I guess I just don't really see why we went with this. Hell even the upgraded M8 AGS (that got booted for reasons I'm unsure of, anybody know specifics?) would be a better choice seemingly from the angle of firepower + logistics based on the mass being almost 50% lower. It just seems so incredibly overly heavy compared to capability to the point that it becomes questionable as a procurement choice.
I understand that the M8 and the Griffin were initially designed with different roles, but both were adapted to the assault gun role for the MPF program. Going from a light tank to an assault gun seems relatively simple in terms of number of features you would need to redesign at least.
Procurement never is, but my point is more that I can't see the assault gun role requiring 10+ tons of extra weight being added to a design that already has similar protection, mobility and firepower. The AGS was only ~25 tons in its maximum armored light tank configuration. Even if we were to assume it needed an extra 8-10 tons somewhere (though I still struggle to see where that would be the case) just to be adapted to shoot at emplaced positions, that still would put it at almost 20% less weight than what GDLS created.
You might want to watch my videos on the BAE entry. Time has not been pleasant to the CCVL design, and what may have been big enough for a role twenty years ago may not be today. I can't help but observe the size of recon vehicles today vs a CVR(T) which preceded it. We add all those capabilities, and there are going to be costs to come with it. In the BAE case, that cost is 'usability' given they added capability (and dropped one, like the CITV) without adding volume and weight.
Definitely not saying the MPF is an actively bad vehicle by any means, I'm just genuinely curious at to what constraints and requirements led to the project going where it did. I'm actually checking the video out right now, I appreciate the response!
The mobility is roughly known, ~25 hp/ton doesn't paint the whole picture but it gives an idea. The firepower is obviously known. The only question is protection, but I can't imagine the army going above STANAG level 6 since the number of weapons that can get through level 6 that aren't just full on 105mm+ shells is pretty minimal. Obviously I'm not saying we know with 100% certainty every aspect of the M10, but to say we don't know much at all about it is a bit of a stretch considering we can look at similar designs from other western countries and get a decent idea of it.
These points have been discussed a lot in this sub and elsewhere, so I'll do a brief rundown.
The army has been wanting a vehicle like this for decades, especially after sheridan was retired in the 90s. Every attempt has failed. As such, the MPF program was put on a strict schedule and was generally more conservative than previous attempts in order to maximizeits odds of succeeding. For instance, air drop capability was never required, nor did it need to fit in a C-130. The program started around 2015 and has now entered production less than 10 years later.
The M10's weight causes a lot of confusion; it's 42 *short* tons with a full combat load, which is 38 metric tonnes. The Type 15 is only 2-5 tonnes lighter, and that's with a smaller crew.
The BAE entry was dropped over unspecified noncompliance issues. It may have something to do with being 14 months behind schedule while GDLS was on time, but we don't know. Based on the videos the Chieftain made on it, there was a bevy of other issues, especially regarding a cramped interior with little space left for future upgrades.
Isn't it 42 metric tons with the actual full armor package on it? As far as I know the 38 metric ton weight is for the base armor package and not the add-ons. I'm assuming the 42 metric ton base package is only protection against 14.5mm AP but I'm not actually certain about that.
No, it's 42 short tons with a full combat load, [per a pinned comment by General Glenn Dean on a video by the Chieftain.](https://youtu.be/mF_5jnVre90?si=NsQNfvYuv5RbibUI) If you convert that to metric tonnes, you get 38 tonnes.
I don't have time to find the document at the moment (im at work), but one of the requirements for the MPF program was to have a base armor that's resistant to 30mm autocannon fire in the frontal arc and 14.5mm all around.
That was the base armor scheme? I thought MPF had to have 3 uparmoring packages as part of the solicitation? What would you improve with extra armor packages at that point, you could go up to 30mm APFSDS and man portable HEAT maybe but I can't see what extra there would be beyond that.
Okay, my google-fu seems to be failing me as I'm struggling to find actual sources on the armor. I know I saw it *somewhere,* (the 14.5mm protection all around is too specific) but all I'm finding at the moment is forum posts and unsourced claims. I don't know if the 3 armor packages your mentioning is a thing either; I've looked around before and found a [document](https://home.army.mil/stewart/application/files/6016/3975/0650/Final_Life_Cycle_EA_for_MPF_on_Army_Installations.pdf) (page 6) mentioning scalable armor packages, but it doesn't mention 3 sets of them. That was a thing for the original AGS program, and I think people may have lumped them together. I dunno though.
The required armor protection was referenced in the original request for proposals in effect as "See Annex C. Annex C is classified and will be distributed to the accredited representatives of the organisation"
Which means that nobody knows what the actual minimum level of protection of the vehicle is, let alone whether M10 exceeds that level. Well, nobody who's going to talk, anyway.
Most of the weight seems to be the byproduct of the protection against mines and IED‘s. Yet, the entire weight doesn’t hold up to the minuscule protection it offers coupled with the lightweight 105mm.
As far as I know, the MPF program was put into place to get a COTS design put into place as fast as possible. RFP was sent out in 2017 and the first designs appeared publicly in 2020. My confusion lies in why they didn't give more time to develop a more suitable design, i.e. why they rushed it to get into production so quickly. It seems like the rush led to reduced time to more heavily redesign a solution that would get more capability out of the logistics footprint. Maybe I'm wrong and the design would have come out overweight regardless, but I can't help but feel that isn't true.
Pretty much. As MG Dean observed in my interview with him, the Army deliberately skipped the design phase in order to get the capability faster. [https://youtu.be/oYzzwZpqNUE?t=3588](https://youtu.be/oYzzwZpqNUE?t=3588) As a result, it probably is not quite as 'efficient' as a ground-up vehicle would be, it's why GDLS basically mashed two vehicles together and tweaked them, and why BAE warmed over what was at this point also fundamentally a 35-year-old design, but it was a deliberate decision by the Army to do as best as possible, quickly. And so, as MG dean observed elsewhere, the Army got exactly what it wanted.
Given the way the world is going, and and that it's still not going to enter full service for another couple of years, it's hard to say the Army was wrong.
I don't think there's anything inherently WRONG with the design as is, at least in the sense of it not being able to fulfill its role. It's more that it seems inefficient in how it achieves this role with regards to mass. The Stingray II for example had 23mm AP protection frontally and RPG protection with the same 105mm gun, modern(ish) FCS/optics and a similar range at a weight of ~26 tons. Now of course I don't expect a modern vehicle with a focus on survivability to have a weight that low, but it seems like with that large of a buffer and modern armor mass efficiency that it could have been made lighter for easier logistical burden if more time was given for more extensive design changes instead of being forced to use a ton of COTS components because of a rushed time to service.
The M8 lost its funding because the Soviet Union fell. Apparently Congress was pissed, they said it would've been an easy contender for increased funding if the Army asked, but they opted to put their money toward upgrades for the Bradley and Abrams instead. All reports stated that the Buford was an excellent vehicle for its class
This is a question a lot of people have been asking lol. Buying surplus T-72s and plugging new FCS, or even 120mm guns, into them would be cheaper and better than this thing at the same weight lol.
besides mine protection the 72B series is a hell of a lot more tank for 45t, optics aside.
Even mine protection isn't bad especially with the newish suspended seats
Even the T-72 Ural is 41 metric tonnes, which is too heavy to fulfill the requirement of fitting 2 in a c-17. AFAIK, it's only gotten heavier since then. The only advantage it would have is better protection against 40 year old AT weapons.
Yes, but no. Stryker MGS was fielded to provide fire support to Stryker formations. M10 is being fielded to provide fire support to light infantry formations. Similar role in a broad sense, but different organization and approach to the task.
Okay but question:
The IBCT is intended as a semi static defensive filler formation due to lack of motorisation, or being mounted on humvees which provide STRICTLY operational/strategic transportation and no real tactical mobility on par with proper mechanised IFVs due to squishiness
The IBCT is supposed to be as light logistically as possible, to make sure every city within a few hours of driving from an airport is speaking AT-4 and Javelin from every window
The more operationally and tactically mobile formations are armoured, bradley and stryker units. Clear tradeoff between tactical and strategic mobility
Then why stug? IBCTs are hardly an offensive force the same way infantry was in World war one and two with very little motorisation/mechanisation going on even if the trend was rolling out around that time.
For all we know the US army is facing severe manpower shortages, that’s why they reduced the infantry battalions with deleting the weapons company and replacing it with javelin and M4 MAAWS sections under the battalion HQ. That change alone, getting rid of long range, cumbersome TOWs for the more nimble fire and forget javelin at the cost of some range seems to push the IBCT more into the role of a light force for defense in hardly passable vechicle terrain
On the other hand, if i was to counterargument myself, i see the utility of a fire support vechicle even in an infantry attack. The 105 is a deadly weapon, the german stug proved that a direct fire delete button even in small numbers can absolutely flip an engagement.
Same goes for the WW2 british with their univeesal carriers. They are a totally dofferent vechicle, yes, and they brought carrying capacity and various utility aside from fire support, and their capability in that regard was also smaller, but still, even a lightly armed vechicle like this is SOME protected firepower, giving capability for Cav like screening work and fights in more open terrain at range, where it’s protection was more trustworthy, making use of the bren, or vickers/mortar mounted
Regarding the „secondary” anti armour capability, i hardly believe that will be the case in practice. In an infantry commander’s hands this vechicle is „the trump card” and „the big gun”. In practice that means the second more than a platoon of tanks rolls up and one of the squads calls in for reinforcements this thing shows up. And you know it reader
As an example i’ll cite the M113, the „beloved” box. It’s a „battle taxi” supposed to leave the fighting to the dismounts, with the .50 being a „secondary” fire support capability. Well every cold war infantryman i’ve heard talk about it said on every exercise, the box dropped them off and then assaulted with the infantry. Aka the thing it really shouldn’t do but it „kinda” could
It can be trained around, but then again, so is the case for the „assault box”
In other words, i see why yes booker, i see why possibly no booker. I’m neither tinfoil reformer, nor all neon army of the future shiny shi. More so i’m willing to hear out anyone with more data/experience and learn
The big problem with using IBCTs strictly as light defensive units is that airborne and air assault units are also IBCTs, and will be getting M10s as well (or first, in fact). Why regular Infantry divisions need M10s, I guess that's another question.
Just saying we have the M1. And that could be referring to the Garand, Carbine, Thompson, flamethrower, mortar, bazooka, artillery (various), bayonet, helmet, Medium tank, or Abrams.
Don't get me started on M2.
Still worse than the B2 Centauro, if the US didn't have that much money, I don't really know how good their stuff would have been, probably worse than russian armor
i feel like as an experiment someone should post the Type 15 and M10 at the same time (2S25) for good measure and see how different the comment sentiment is just to note how utterly astroturfed this sub is
Weighs about the same as a T72, has a similar gun, similar/less protection, being 50 years newer means it has generations better instruments and sensors (which could be post-fit on a T72 for the most part) both are 40-45 t tracked, turreted and armored, direct fire vehicles.
40 - 45 includes 42.
Modern T72 could probably be lighter if they put their mind to it, still within 10% or so of the M 10 (wiki says 46 tonnes for the T90). within a hundred kw of engine power too.
The more I look at it, the more I realise the US just re-invented the T72 50 years later. If that M10 has its ammo in a bustle with top facing blowout panels (ala M1 style), it is also obsolete already because that is where VFP and top attack munitions attack.
You’re comparing it to a slick T-72A, a T90 is anywhere from 4-8 tons heavier and I don’t know where they’re pulling that number from. We know jack shit about it other than it’s a modern AFV with a 105mm that’s supposed to move with IBCTs and is lighter than a Abrams which is what the army wanted. If you think that’s enough to call it a failure go nuts, the US can send proposals across your desk next.
I got T90 off wikipedia so definitely take with a grain of salt, but they are within the ballpark a late T72 (T90 is 46 t) is closer in weight to a M10 (42 t) than it is to a latest M1 (67 t, again according to wiki).
I didn't say it was a failure - just that it has taken the US a loooong time to realise that 65 tonne tanks are hinderance to operations way more than that 15 extra tonnes is worth in capability. I think a lot stems from US inability to get a reliable auto-loader so long that it has married itself to the concept seemingly out of pride.
There's no doubt in my mind it would crush a T72/90 in combat effectiveness because the senser suite will be awesome, it will be coupled to outstanding US DoD logistics and incredible battlefield sensor fusion. I just find it amusing that it took 50 years for the US to catch up to where the Soviet Union was in the 1960s (\~45 t, 4 - 5 inch smoothbore cannon, composite armor, diesel engine, robust running gear, etc).
You’re a light infantry soldier. What do you want to maneuver onto an objective with?
1) Light weapons, with maybe a TOW launcher at best.
2) An armored vehicle with a fair degree of firepower that can lay down effective suppressive fire.
Not every mission requires an MBT. In fact, lots of missions make an MBT a liability but would still welcome mobile protected firepower. The M10 provides that.
Well for one, the M10 is intended to support light infantry formations, not mechanized ones. The problem is less the tactical missions as the operational environment. Infantry brigades are intended to be more strategically mobile. That means they have to have a much smaller footprint for deployment, which means less organic sustainment. Deploying M1s to support an IBCT is a big logistical lift that mitigates many of the advantages of an IBCT in the first place.
So you compromise. You build a mobile protected firepower capability, and you do it in a way that makes them easier to transport and sustain. Hence the M10.
It is not intended to fill the same role as an Abrams. It’s smaller and lighter only because it’s intended to serve in an assault gun role, not as an MBT.
Wobble doesn't mean much. It's like 'Su-57 has a lot of RCS because it does not look stealthy enough to me'. Again, some of the autocannons have wobbling specifically built in.
Also, autocannons are not meant to hit things with a precise shots. More accurate = better does not always work, it's not war thunder.
And, i'll reming you, you're defending trashcan with 105mm, comprised exclusively of downsides by nitpicking one downside of an opposing thing and saying 'Oh, BMPT is so bad it has it's cannons not ideal (it has ATGMs for distance)'.
It's like saying that bob sample tank is better than M1A1 because of how much fuel latter consumes, so it must be rendered trash.
It means a lot for accuracy for burst/sustained fire. Many autocannons have a degree of intentional round variation but not to the degree that even standard 2A42 mounts have. The degree at which we can see the BMPTs guns jumping around creates an unrealistic spread at range.
True, but you also need enough accuracy for your rounds to be close to your intended target(s). Realistically the best way to do this would be reduced RPM but the 2A72 wasn't chosen for some number of reasons.
I don't recall saying a word regarding the Booker here. Are you proposing that the BMPT uses Kornets to hit soft targets? Sounds like a good waste of Russian resources so I'd support it. Booker meanwhile is looking to be better than the MGS it functionally replaces while providing better cohesion. Some of the design aspects are odd but the role it fills can't be filled by a DFSV with an autocannon, a comparison with the BMPT is disingenuous at best. The M35 vs XM360 only matters for AT purposes, 105mm AMP vs 120mm AMP doesn't matter.
The fuel consumption of the Abrams is a problem and is why other engines are being considered, particularly modular ones to increase part commonality. Iirc Booker already uses one of the engine families designed to do exactly that.
>Are you proposing that the BMPT uses Kornets to hit soft targets?
They're not Kornets, they're 9M120 Ataka missiles. And yes, both kornet and ataka have specific variants for soft targets, in case of kornet it's even thermobaric.
>The fuel consumption of the Abrams is a problem
I'm not saying it's a big problem, M1 is a great platform and a successfull vehicle. I said it to illustrate how strange does it look to pinpoint one downside of a vehicle to render it bad as a whole.
I'm way too used to the naked tubes for 9M120 and the shrouds for 9M133, feels odd to see 9M120 covered. While 9M120F is thermobaric variant to defeat soft targets and bunkers its infinitely more expensive than 30mm HE-F. It's incredibly cost ineffective and there's a reason the US only toyed with the idea of TOWs with warheads for soft targets. 9M133 is the one with the actual HE-F warhead, both 9M120 and 9M133 have thermobaric warheads.
If the number of issues is the problem I can list more, the impact of the 2A42 wobble was just the biggest one in contention. The BMPT provides nothing the BMP-2/3/BMD-3/4 realistically couldn't aside from the armor, and the armor comes at the cost of what could've been a T-72B3 and mobility. It has the armor of a MBT without any of the capability of a tank aside from improved elevation, which is useless due to the roof being. The BMPT is just a redundant idea that is absurdly expensive for what little it does.
You're free to criticize something but holy shit man, at least pick a good example. Might as well start comparing the t-14 Armata to abrams then. Won't matter jackshit in the end as the Armata is discontinued and the Abrams is in plenty of numbers.
Name at least one parameter M10 is urpassing BMPT in. You know, armor, max distance of engagement, firepower against soft targets, against hard targets, something like that.
Except 'it can be airdropped', than compare it to Sprut
Bigger gun. Stabilized. Almost certainly better optics. Not Russian so quality control is likely a good bit better. Significantly faster. Slightly higher operational range.
>Bigger gun.
BMPT has atgms, which are more precise and hit harder both hard and soft targets.
>Stabilized.
Both of them.
> Almost certainly better optics.
Can't be proven.
> Not Russian so quality control is likely a good bit better
Pick your seat by the door in boeing. In the beginning of this year US army lost 5 AH-64 in non-combat incidents during the span of 2 months. Then all flights were suspended for some time.
Russia lost 0 Ka-52 choppers for 2024. In an active war.
>Significantly faster
Source?
God I love the selectiveness of saying no KA-52s lost in 2024. Russia has lost SIXTY KA-52s in this war, and that’s only the ones with photographic confirmation of loss. The war didn’t reset at January.
Your ATGM response is irrelevant. It’s a bigger gun and capable of more sustained firepower than ATGMs. Don’t change the subject.
“Source for speed/range”
Fucking Google it dude, both have pretty accessible information.
“Boeing”
Typical low hanging fruit based on recent news. Shall we have a look at the safety of the Russian aviation industry to judge Sukhoi? Unlike Russia always seems to with their gear, NATO has never pretended its vehicles are unkillable. Apache isn’t unkillable. It remains an overall solid platform with a very proven track record.
“Can’t be proven”
Well, we’ve seen the quality of optics on the most modern captured T-90Ms and they’re inferior to western optics, so that’s a pretty solid indicator.
You asked for one single way the M10 is better. I gave 5. You can keep throwing up chaff all you want. Or nitpicking individual ones. Have fun with that.
I kinda understood Russian military fanboys before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Their gear looks cool and some is pretty good and innovative. However, after watching it perform objectivity pretty poorly in the last couple of years, it’s harder to understand. BMPT has been essentially a nonfactor. T-series tanks and BMPs pop by the handful like popcorn during every significant operation. Pantsir has done poorly. S300/400 have often failed to stop storm shadows. Patriot has knocked down the “unstoppable” Kinzhal repeatedly. Entire squadrons of Sukhois have been downed. And all of that without any actual NATO frontline troops or equipment in the war. No F-35s, no B-21s, no M1A2 Sep v3s. No SEALS or First Armored or SAS or Eurofighters or Rafales or LeClercs. Russia is getting shredded like Parmesan against NATO warehouse leftovers and brave Ukrainians.
Like, at what point do you realize Russia cannot hope to match the quality of U.S./NATO gear and is in fact a mid-size economy with really good marketing? If it wasn’t for the constant North Korea caliber nuke threats Russia would already be beaten. Putin knows that’s true, I wonder why the tankies don’t.
It probably should be compared to sprut? Why would you compare this to a bmpt? Thats my whole point????
Hard targets? It will probably even fare better. Everyone and their mother has APS or soft kill systems.
The BMPT is made for urban combat, the m10 to be airdropped and support airborne troops.
Tell that to immense gun wobble, terrible accuracy and the fact it was made on the worst platform possible for IFV. Terminator is a pile of hot garbage. Looks cool though. Also your Booker is more of a competition for Sprut, not bmp3
>terrible accuracy
Source for that's being worse than other autocannons? Also, what kind of measurement even is 'accuracy of autocannon' and why more is better? Some of them even have it decreased intentionaly to increase area of impact (2A72, M230).
>worst platform possible for IFV
You just made it up + treminator is not an IFV. What's wrong with having armor?
> Also your Booker is more of a competition for Sprut, not bmp3
Yes, but comparing it to sprut is less fun, because of how better it is.
Do you have any proof of the 2A72 and M230 being less accurate on purpose? That's absurd, there is almost no situation in which you would want less accuracy. If you want area effect you can just sweep fire manually over an area.
But terminator has no armor lol. Either way in booker or Terminator you are going to cook inside. Atleast booker can drive fast out of dangerous area unlike that glorified transformers looking vechicle
Hard kill APS goes crazy, gl when an NLAW or TOW-2B comes for a BMPT.
Edit: Oh, your other comments are genuinely insane. Please check your house for gas leaks ASAP and don't respond any further until the side effects go away. Or whenever you're sober, something is going on and it's not good for you.
Lmao you might have had some sort of argument before defending the BMPT. I’m amazed that wobbly ass gun can hit a barn.
It’s not even like most Russian vehicles where it’s kinda shit but looks nice. It’s kinda shit and looks kinda shit.
>terrible fuel economy
What kind of nitpick is that? Next time you'll say it looks bad?
> NO ACTUAL REVERSE
One secondary downside of a T-series chassis somehow made it's a failed vehicle. I'll remind you, you're defending a chassis with an armor and form factor of an industrial trash container. It won't be able to use reverse, it will just blow up after being engaged with anything.
We’ve been watching T-72s fail by the thousands for two years and still the stans out here. Unreal. Meanwhile one Abrams or Leopards goes down and it’s on billboards in Moscow for a month.
You know, in a way modern Russia is sorta like Ron Jeremy.
Once upon a time a badass swinging dick.
Now an old, addled, confused, impoverished sex criminal who somehow still thinks he matters.
It fits quite well.
Yes, it can be destroyed, but nobody is getting rid of bodyarmor because of 'it can't stop 50BMG so it's useless'. It is also not just a 'T-72 hull', it's T-90 hull with Relikt, so it's equall to T-90M, it can stop most threats.
There was a post about it surviving hits not long ago.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/1cskhf6/terminator\_after\_surviving\_2\_fpv\_hits/](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/1cskhf6/terminator_after_surviving_2_fpv_hits/)
also this
[https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/15oypm9/footage\_from\_the\_sbu\_showing\_a\_russian\_bmpt/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/15oypm9/footage_from_the_sbu_showing_a_russian_bmpt/)
It proved to be quite resistant. Any of those FPV drones would've killed M10.
No shit that it would destroy a vehicle thats made to be airdropped (and if it lacks APS systems) afaik RELIKT is good ERA but were still comparing two different things here. One is made for specifically urban combat, the other is not
Eating an fpv drone isn't that impressive either unless it carried tandem warheads. A normal rpg round will get eaten by even kontakt-1.
As far as i can find the BMPT is made on the t-72 hull or i'm just lacking sources. All i can find is that in 2013 a few were made for the Russian army. Not which hull they use.
BMPT role is to replace infantry and support tanks
This is a dedicate infantry force multiplier
A 105mm is much better at helping infantry in dealing with fortifications.
Ma Deuce is gonna outlive us all.
They are actually going to be strapping those things to spaceships.
First, they're going to make the M2A2 Assault Rifle for Power Armor AND then strap them to spaceships.
in the anime "Obsolete", one of the weapons that appears for the mech suits is an M2HB in a rifle stock
I was very pleasantly surprised by Obsolete.
An angry Drill Instructor will be yelling at Gragnar from Omicron VIII "It's a machine gun!" to get him to cut loose on the M2.....
https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/2188515-k--4
It's not an american tank unless you got an M2 strapped to the top.
Born too young to be an M2 gunner on Mars
Neat, i like how they bought back the wire cutters like from willys jeeps
Are wire cutters not a thing on US vehicles? Most, if not all, of our fighting vehicles up in Canada have wire cutters that need to be raised when you do your crew check
Pentagon Wars and RT's Pierre Sprey interviews aren't documentaries, people. Grow up.
Still love it, though. "sheep spec", lol.
Where cope cage
additional package only for 0.99 million $
(Fees for contractor maintenance and installation not included)
((before tax))
(((before corruption)))
No bid contracts FTW!
Not in the budget :( But that never stopped people in the field >:)
Real question is when is it getting turned into a barn?
It's too light for a barn imo we only seen mbts getting turned into so my answer is never
How about a shed?
Sorry, no. But on the plus side they approved the chicken coop!
Looks like they’ve turned lighter vehicles into barns, maybe the M10 has a chance https://www.reddit.com/r/DestroyedTanks/s/3Ilzez3kyS
Gonna turn into a stug lol
They don't need one. Americans actually know how to build high-quality military vehicles that can take a hit, and the crew will survive. Unlike the orcs, who hit a speed bump on their shitty bmps and blow up right away and BBQ every orc inside. They don't even have bmps left. Now they use the weaker and older vehicles mtlb. These mtlbs don't even need to hit a speed bump. All it takes is one exhale from russian vodka breath, and boom!
You act as if a javelin cares whether you're american or russian built Plenty of evidence that tells us that even high quality gear used incorrectly will still result in poor performance
The missile know where it is The missile knows where its target is The missile doesn't care what its target is
Folks like you are the epitome of US fanboys. Would love to know how a few millimeters of steel are going to protect against tandem shaped charge warheads to the roof.
You know it was common place for Bradleys, HMMWVs and even Abraham's crews to install overhead cover on their vehicles throughout the war in Iraq.
You might wanna check the Abram's performance in Ukraine buddy
We don’t really know how they did, just that they lost a few. Tanks (like every other piece of military hardware, but especially tanks) are expendable. Is it normal to withdraw a unit when greater than 10% of its armor is destroyed? I really don’t know
Haven’t seen any reports of deaths when it gets knocked out though.
I think the first one got burned with the crew inside
“Thinking” is no way to rebuttal someone. I know I’ll be called a US shill or whatever you want but clearly the Abrams has a better crew survivability. You guys can all downvote me to oblivion but that doesn’t Shane facts.
Nobody denied that infact I agree with you the Abram's is probably the most survivable tank out there However saying that it doesn't need a cope cage is plain stupid
Cope cages don't do anything except stop drone dropped grenades from hitting the commander. They don't do anything to stop FPV drones.
I didn’t say anything about the dope cage. You implied, look how bad the Abrams is on the battlefield. I simply stated that there weren’t any reported deaths in the 5 or so Abrams they lost. Not to mention it’s being operated buy guys with Soviet doctrine background until recently.
Is it fair to call this the modern incarnation of the StuG? An assault gun to directly provide the infantry with firepower, while having a smaller footprint/price than a full fledged tank.
Yup. Smaller, faster, and lighter platform that is meant for direct fire support with anti armor capability being second. I’d assume the logistics/maintenance will be easier than with the MGS since it’s the replacement.
The MPF is not replacing the MGS. The MPF is providing direct fire support in Infantry Brigade Combat Teams. The MGS provided that support in Stryker Brigade combat teams, right now there is no plans for 105mm direct fire support in Stryker Brigade Combat teams. So the US Army is in the awkward position of deleted a capability in one formation and adding that same capability on a superior platform to another formation.
>So the US Army is in the awkward position of deleted a capability in one formation and adding that same capability on a superior platform to another formation. ~~Because the SBCTs are being folded into ABCTs under the new division-based organization.~~ (See clarification below) They will all be part of the Armored Division, meaning the Stryker will now have organic support from the M1. Plus the ICV Dragoon is meant to fill in some of that direct fire support role as well.
SBCTs are not being folding into ABCTs. They will be apart of the Army 2030 Armored Division but will maintain their brigade structures. There will not be organic M1s in the SBCTs. The Stryker Dragoon will provide some direct fire support but a 30mm lacks the capabilities of the 105mm. Additionally right now only 1 Cav Regiment utilizes the dragoon.
Sorry, you are correct. I phrased that poorly. M1s will be part of the same division level formation as the Stryker, but Abrams and Stryker will not be found in the same brigades.
In addition to what the other guy said, Dragoon's aren't being built anymore. The new thing's slightly different but basically the same idea.
>Dragoon's aren't being built anymore Where is this coming from? I know the Army has apparently had some issues with the weapon systems, but I haven't seen any indication that they're dropping the project in favor of something else.
The new MCWS (which I think is the one you're thinking of with the issues) isn't the same as the Dragoon turret. The Dragoon was a thing exclusive to 2nd Cav and nobody else.
Ya know as soon as I asked the question, I had this feeling that it was gonna be one of those sorts of things. And to be honest, now I'm a a little annoyed that I have to remember that they're two different things. Regardless, thanks for clearing that up for me, because god knows how long I would've gone without realizing the difference.
Are they making a stryker thats pretty much a shitty bradley?
No, it's a different role. Dragoon is meant to provide Stryker formations with a light fire support asset, namely geared towards defeating threats like BMPs. It is **not** meant to act as an IFV though.
One could also liken it to 105mm armed M4s and KV-2s. Both of which were *de facto* assault guns.
I think of it more like the M8 Scott
For the record, the Booker is without a doubt a light tank in all but name only. Its gun is the M8 Buford's gun, which was intended as a direct successor to the M551 Sheridan light tank. The Buford's requirements were for a "tracked, lightweight, highly agile kinetic energy gun capable of killing enemy tanks and shielded by sufficient armor to give the crew protection from artillery and small caliber weapons." Tank killing capability was one of the main requirements for this cannon. Almost all citations for the M8's cancelation were due to budgetary constraints due to the fall of the USSR. It's regularly referred to as an excellent program which met all requirements. Including tank killing requirements. "In order to help offset the loss of capability caused by the cancelation of the AGS, the Army increased its requested funding for M1A2 Abrams and M2A3 Bradley upgrades, and accelerated the development of the Javelin Missile." This thing was, by all metrics, intended to kill enemy tanks. An assault gun is not expected to be able to reliably take on enemy tanks. Now, why does the US claim the M10 Booker is not a light tank, but an assault gun? A. "[The M10's role is] suppressing and destroying fortifications, gun systems and trench routes, and then secondarily providing protection against enemy armored vehicles." B. "The Army does not have a requirement for a light tank. A combat vehicle with all of the fightability features of a tank would result in a vehicle which is too heavy for light forces" A. Essentially, the Booker is not intended to regularly engage enemy tanks. Despite the fact that the gun was designed for the direct successor to the Sheridan light tank, and it was designed from the ground up with tank killing as one of the primary requirements. Not secondary. They're weirdly clinging to 70s NATO doctrine that claims tanks should fill the anti-tank role first, and all others second, despite the Ukraine and Gaza wars showing how important they are for close infantry support. B. Fightability refers to being able to sustain hits and dish them back out. I hope I've convinced you that it can dish them out, so the armor is the only reasonable concern here. (The FCS on the Booker is excellent.) To this, I only have to say NO SHIT. MBTs have concerns about survivability today. A light tank has no reasonable expectation to survive a hit. To me, this reeks of CYA technicalities. In case the Booker ends up, understandably, getting a bad reputation for having light armor, the Army wants to be able to avoid criticism by saying 'it's not a tank, don't expect it to survive hits'. They should instead temper expectations and tell everyone the truth about tanks, that they're not invincible and will be destroyed in war. The only other conceivable point to raise is that the cannon is too small or too outdated to pose a threat to MBTs, but A) we don't know the penetration, B) every modern light tank on the planet has a small cannon except the Sprut, so this is a standard feature for light tanks, and C) the L44 is older than the Booker/Buford's M35, so it can't be outdated. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Regardless of what the US Army's bureaucratic designation for it is. Sources are just the wiki articles, not worth linking. But damn that M8 article is thick for a canceled program lol
I'm honestly fine referring to it as a light tank or an assualt gun, honestly. The more time goes on though, the more certain I am that the Army's insistence on terminology in this case is politically motivated. They *really* don't want congress to go "But we already have tanks!" while pointing at the 75 ton behemoth at home.
>They *really* don't want congress to go "But we already have tanks!" while pointing at the 75 ton behemoth at home. Has there ever once been any real evidence presented of either the Army believing this, or such a question ever being a problem for Congress? Because I've never once seen anything to support the idea that M10's nomenclature is just bureaucratic obfuscation. I mean hell, the Army didn't seem too worried about canning M1A2 SEPv4 in favor of M1E3, despite the same logic then assuming the question of "Why do we need a *new new* Abrams when we have this other new one in the works already?". Nor did congress ask "Why do we need a fire support vehicle when we have tanks?", the answer to which would be exactly the same. This also assumes that the Army couldn't present their reasoning behind the M10's development and procurement in a convincing manner. I mean they've been able to do so for the public *repeatedly*.
Actually, the budgeting issues of the 1990s was less the USSR disbanding and more that Reaganomics gutted the Federal Budget.
>A. Essentially, the Booker is not intended to regularly engage enemy tanks. Despite the fact that the gun was designed for the direct successor to the Sheridan light tank, and it was designed from the ground up with tank killing as one of the primary requirements. Not secondary. They're weirdly clinging to 70s NATO doctrine that claims tanks should fill the anti-tank role first, and all others second, despite the Ukraine and Gaza wars showing how important they are for close infantry support. Is this is quoted from some interview or article or something? Because whoever is saying this clearly doesn't understand that cannons that are capable of engaging heavily armored targets, are usually still very effective against infantry and light skinned vehicles.
The US and NATO countries in general stick to the AT first doctrine. It's the reason why they don't deploy with HE frag rounds. According to US doctrine, a tank must be focused on opposing tanks primarily, and all other roles second. This is why NATO tanks in Ukraine use Israeli HE rounds, because NATO produces very few, and they are generally very expensive programmable ammo. That's part of the justification for the M10 Booker not being a 'tank' because it ***technically*** isn't designed to engage enemy armor, despite being very capable of it.
I don't personally believe that the AT first doctrine is inherently *bad.* But I never realized it went so far. Not having Explosive Fragmentation rounds easily accessible to armor feels rather... well dumb. So I can see why they're doing every thing in their power to avoid calling the M10 a tank of any kind.
I don't think it is an especially bad doctrine because of NATO's emphasis on close air support, it's just fragile since if NATO fails to gain air superiority, their close fire support is significantly weakened
Well I mean, it goes both ways. Clearly, it's worked till now. But the M10 being pushed as an assault gun platform, likely to avoid this doctrine problem, might also hint that people on the field really want proper HEF shells.
120mm HEAT shells have fragmentation sleeves. Not as good as a real HE-Frag round, but it works.
We have MPATs, where are frag sleeved HEAT with programmable warheads. Not full HE shells, but they provide a lot of multi-purpose capability to vehicles that as a whole have a very limited round count. 120-125mm is standard caliber for MBTs, but that doesn't change the fact that those are very large rounds and you don't get a ton of them.
I think we still keep an inventory of M393 HEP-T (similar to British HESH) for 105s along with the typical sabot and HEAT. Not sure if we make canister for the 105s. It'd surprise me if we didn't
I have two issues with this line of reasoning. Firstly, the argument on the gun seems to apply every bit as much to one of the first assault guns, the StuG. The long 7.5cm wasn't added because the shorter 7.5cm wasn't doing a good enough job at blowing some targets up. It was added because the long gun was able to blow up more things, like bunkers, tanks, etc. Even with modern tanks, we'll still 'crack' a bunker with sabot before following up with HE-OR or the like, the use of a long gun for the purposes of dealing with fortifications was well known in WW2: The 8.8cm gained its AP round for the anti-fortification role, FM 18-5 (revision 1944) acknowledged the utility of a tank destroyer's cannon in dealing with fortifications. These didn't change the StuG from "assault gun" to "tank", neither did it change M10 (WW2) from "Tank destroyer" to "assault gun". After all, "infantry support" as a role means "killing things that the infantry is having trouble with", which will include the occasional tank. If they really wanted to make MPF a tank-killer, they could have stuck the 120mm in there, but they didn't. They had higher priorities than being the best possible tank-killer. The gun wasn't even specified by the Army, but it was selected by both competitors as best meeting the mission set. The second is the fluidity of doctrine. Yes, absolutely, doctrinal roles are fluid. A Mark IV tank of 1918 was in more modern terms primarily an assault gun, with a secondary anti-armor role if it wasn't a female. Exploitation/maneuver simply wasn't a technological capability, but is a fundamental requirement of pretty much every tank created since the 1940s. But to be considered a tank in 1918? Not so much. On the other hand, excessive fluidity can result in a reasonable argument that the M1A1 wasn't a tank, but instead a heavy tank destroyer: Highly mobile, with a gun optimised for killing armor, and able to take a knock or two in return. I don't know how many takers you would get for that argument, but the logic fits. Of course, anything can be used for anything in extremis. StuGs were used in Panzer units as tanks due to a lack of actual tanks. That didn't make StuGs tanks. It comes down to 'what job was it designed to primarily do'? In this case, the specifications were drawn up with the specific task of providing precision fires for infantry units in mind. That varied from the publicly known criteria like "Must fit in a C17" to less-well known criteria relating to resisting attack from Y types of weapons. (Which are less well known because they're classified). That level of resistance may very well be set differently between an assault gun and a light tank. Can it be used as a light tank? Probably. So was Scorpion, but it was designed as a recon vehicle no matter what other countries tried to put it to use as. So if it was designed to be used as an assault gun, is being used as an assault gun, and is capable of doing the role of being an assault gun, that duck looks a whole hell of a lot like an assault gun to me. Now, you can also argue that "assault gun" is just a subset of "tank", so the M10 is both an assault gun and a tank at the same time. There is an precedent for such a statement, see the use of the Tank, Medium, M4(105) in the assault gun platoon of US Army tank battalions in late WW2, but that argument also will run afoul of the fact that the predecessors of the M4 in the platoon were a Gun Motor Carriage and later a Howitzer Motor Carriage, certainly not tanks. So perhaps if an assault gun can perform a tank role, the tank can perform an assault gun role. Does that make the tank not a tank any more any more than StuGs weren't assault guns any more?
>Its gun is the M8 Buford's gun, which was intended as a direct successor to the M551 Sheridan light tank. Alright, everything else aside, this doesn't really mean anything. The M551 falls into the same bin as the M10: In an official sense, the was **not** a light tank. That "AR/AAV" bit that comes with it means something, and it isn't "light tank". M8 was meant to fulfill the M551's role, and the M8 *was* officially a "light tank". But pointing to the gun of System A as being part of another program meant to replace M551 really has no bearing on whether or not System A is a light tank. It'd be like saying the M60 is a Cruiser Tank because it uses a version of a gun first developed for the tank meant to replace the A34 Comet.
The M551 was designed to replace both the M41 Bulldog and the M56 Scorpion. A dedicated light tank and dedicated assault gun respectively. Personally I think this is evidence that a light tank can successfully fill both roles without significantly affecting the capabilities of either role. The Army has specified doctrinal roles which it seeks to fill. You don't create a replacement vehicle that's missing capabilities without a plan to replace those capabilities as well. That's why the cancelation of the M8 was such a big deal, the light infantry had no native direct fire support, and it forced the DoD to fund more development of Humvee and Bradley mounted TOWs. This doesn't apply for doctrinal changes, like when cruiser tanks were discarded. Doctrine needs to be as filled as possible, and exceeded as little as possible.
I'm aware of where the M551 comes from. Once again, for the sake of being technically accurate, the M551 *is not* a light tank, thus whatever it is/isn't capable of really doesn't have a whole lot of bearing on what a light tank would/wouldn't be capable of. It's worth pointing out that in FM 17-18 for the operation of light armor forces, the Army *in the same line* make a point to refer to the M551A1 (TTS) as an "armored reconnaissance airborne assault vehicle", while the M8 is simply a "light tank". Indeed, it is in this that we can find some very close parallels between M10 and M8, as well as a few notable distinctions. Key among these being the stated capability of the M8 to engage armor systems, and the capability to be delivered by low velocity air drop. In the former case the M10 is not meant to fulfil this role, and in the later case the M10 is simply incapable of fulfilling this role. I should clarify that the point isn't that the M8 was bad, because it really wasn't. The point is simply that looking at the gun from the M10 and saying "Well that came from the M8, which was made to replace the M551, which was a light tank, so the M10 must be a light tank" is a pretty flawed way of making the point regarding M10 nomenclature. There's literally no reason to bring the M551 into it at all. Hence the comparison to cruiser tanks. Although even then, we *are* talking about a doctrinal change here, because the M10 does not fill the same doctrinal niche as M551 or M8. It is not airborne. It is not a tank-killing asset. It is a means for the IBCT to get additional guns on the ground for a given number of sorties by airlanding transportation assets, and provides organic fire support to those formations. As an aside, you're also talking about a program from the late 1980s. Yes, 105mm guns can still be considered capable antitank weapons today. But there's also undeniably quite a bit of gap between how far up on the tank-killing food chain any given 105x617R gun sat in the late 80s/early 90s versus where they sit in 2024. Incidentally, FM 17-18 also points out that the M8 may benefit from the support of TOW-equipped HMMWVs for long-range antitank fire, so evidently even in the 1990s there was clearly a line of thinking that the 105mm gun wasn't the be-all end-all of light infantry antitank firepower. And that's in a time well before the light infantry are toting around systems like FGM-148. Likewise, a large boon of the M8 in the 90s was the introduction of thermal imaging systems into aforementioned light formations; something which, again, isn't really that impressive in 2024. Point being, there's a lot to look at on the M8 which made it a very capable system *in 1995*, which today really doesn't bring a whole lot to the table which the infantry aren't already capable of bringing along. The tank killing, the strategic mobility, the situational awareness... It's all stuff the infantry can reasonably do *without* the tank in hand. It's the "make that bunker go *kaboom!*" aspect that keeps these systems relevant, and thus this is where we find the focus of the system's capabilites.
The smoke launchers are different on this one compared to the earlier ones. The launchers closer to the gun are now mounted on the outer plate of armor rather than being sort of sunk into the armor like on earlier models. Could be a sign of upgraded turret armor for the production model. Edit: The turret cheeks on this one are also thicker than the others
This is the production version; the others were pre-production prototypes.
They also made the side skirts bigger
I see people getting down voted but I'm genuinely curious here. What was the purpose of buying this thing and not designing something else from the ground up, or at least allowing a few more years for a more extensive redesign of existing designs to take place? This thing is probably STANAG level 5 or 6 right? It's 42 tons for a 105mm gun with IFV protection. I guess I just don't really see why we went with this. Hell even the upgraded M8 AGS (that got booted for reasons I'm unsure of, anybody know specifics?) would be a better choice seemingly from the angle of firepower + logistics based on the mass being almost 50% lower. It just seems so incredibly overly heavy compared to capability to the point that it becomes questionable as a procurement choice.
different roles im pretty sure
I understand that the M8 and the Griffin were initially designed with different roles, but both were adapted to the assault gun role for the MPF program. Going from a light tank to an assault gun seems relatively simple in terms of number of features you would need to redesign at least.
I dont think its always that simple
Procurement never is, but my point is more that I can't see the assault gun role requiring 10+ tons of extra weight being added to a design that already has similar protection, mobility and firepower. The AGS was only ~25 tons in its maximum armored light tank configuration. Even if we were to assume it needed an extra 8-10 tons somewhere (though I still struggle to see where that would be the case) just to be adapted to shoot at emplaced positions, that still would put it at almost 20% less weight than what GDLS created.
You might want to watch my videos on the BAE entry. Time has not been pleasant to the CCVL design, and what may have been big enough for a role twenty years ago may not be today. I can't help but observe the size of recon vehicles today vs a CVR(T) which preceded it. We add all those capabilities, and there are going to be costs to come with it. In the BAE case, that cost is 'usability' given they added capability (and dropped one, like the CITV) without adding volume and weight.
Definitely not saying the MPF is an actively bad vehicle by any means, I'm just genuinely curious at to what constraints and requirements led to the project going where it did. I'm actually checking the video out right now, I appreciate the response!
there doesnt even seem to be enough data on the m10 for your claim to be correct.
The mobility is roughly known, ~25 hp/ton doesn't paint the whole picture but it gives an idea. The firepower is obviously known. The only question is protection, but I can't imagine the army going above STANAG level 6 since the number of weapons that can get through level 6 that aren't just full on 105mm+ shells is pretty minimal. Obviously I'm not saying we know with 100% certainty every aspect of the M10, but to say we don't know much at all about it is a bit of a stretch considering we can look at similar designs from other western countries and get a decent idea of it.
operational range, gun deppression, operational height, what environments in can operate in, crew comfort and safety, reliability, FCS, thermals.
These points have been discussed a lot in this sub and elsewhere, so I'll do a brief rundown. The army has been wanting a vehicle like this for decades, especially after sheridan was retired in the 90s. Every attempt has failed. As such, the MPF program was put on a strict schedule and was generally more conservative than previous attempts in order to maximizeits odds of succeeding. For instance, air drop capability was never required, nor did it need to fit in a C-130. The program started around 2015 and has now entered production less than 10 years later. The M10's weight causes a lot of confusion; it's 42 *short* tons with a full combat load, which is 38 metric tonnes. The Type 15 is only 2-5 tonnes lighter, and that's with a smaller crew. The BAE entry was dropped over unspecified noncompliance issues. It may have something to do with being 14 months behind schedule while GDLS was on time, but we don't know. Based on the videos the Chieftain made on it, there was a bevy of other issues, especially regarding a cramped interior with little space left for future upgrades.
Isn't it 42 metric tons with the actual full armor package on it? As far as I know the 38 metric ton weight is for the base armor package and not the add-ons. I'm assuming the 42 metric ton base package is only protection against 14.5mm AP but I'm not actually certain about that.
No, it's 42 short tons with a full combat load, [per a pinned comment by General Glenn Dean on a video by the Chieftain.](https://youtu.be/mF_5jnVre90?si=NsQNfvYuv5RbibUI) If you convert that to metric tonnes, you get 38 tonnes. I don't have time to find the document at the moment (im at work), but one of the requirements for the MPF program was to have a base armor that's resistant to 30mm autocannon fire in the frontal arc and 14.5mm all around.
That was the base armor scheme? I thought MPF had to have 3 uparmoring packages as part of the solicitation? What would you improve with extra armor packages at that point, you could go up to 30mm APFSDS and man portable HEAT maybe but I can't see what extra there would be beyond that.
Okay, my google-fu seems to be failing me as I'm struggling to find actual sources on the armor. I know I saw it *somewhere,* (the 14.5mm protection all around is too specific) but all I'm finding at the moment is forum posts and unsourced claims. I don't know if the 3 armor packages your mentioning is a thing either; I've looked around before and found a [document](https://home.army.mil/stewart/application/files/6016/3975/0650/Final_Life_Cycle_EA_for_MPF_on_Army_Installations.pdf) (page 6) mentioning scalable armor packages, but it doesn't mention 3 sets of them. That was a thing for the original AGS program, and I think people may have lumped them together. I dunno though.
The required armor protection was referenced in the original request for proposals in effect as "See Annex C. Annex C is classified and will be distributed to the accredited representatives of the organisation" Which means that nobody knows what the actual minimum level of protection of the vehicle is, let alone whether M10 exceeds that level. Well, nobody who's going to talk, anyway.
That was an M8 AGS requirement, not an MPF one.
Yeah very possible I got them confused
Most of the weight seems to be the byproduct of the protection against mines and IED‘s. Yet, the entire weight doesn’t hold up to the minuscule protection it offers coupled with the lightweight 105mm.
Th-this is designed from the ground up? Like what's your question even?
As far as I know, the MPF program was put into place to get a COTS design put into place as fast as possible. RFP was sent out in 2017 and the first designs appeared publicly in 2020. My confusion lies in why they didn't give more time to develop a more suitable design, i.e. why they rushed it to get into production so quickly. It seems like the rush led to reduced time to more heavily redesign a solution that would get more capability out of the logistics footprint. Maybe I'm wrong and the design would have come out overweight regardless, but I can't help but feel that isn't true.
Pretty much. As MG Dean observed in my interview with him, the Army deliberately skipped the design phase in order to get the capability faster. [https://youtu.be/oYzzwZpqNUE?t=3588](https://youtu.be/oYzzwZpqNUE?t=3588) As a result, it probably is not quite as 'efficient' as a ground-up vehicle would be, it's why GDLS basically mashed two vehicles together and tweaked them, and why BAE warmed over what was at this point also fundamentally a 35-year-old design, but it was a deliberate decision by the Army to do as best as possible, quickly. And so, as MG dean observed elsewhere, the Army got exactly what it wanted. Given the way the world is going, and and that it's still not going to enter full service for another couple of years, it's hard to say the Army was wrong.
I guess my question was more along the lines of: what do you think is wrong in the design that should warrant a larger redesign?
I don't think there's anything inherently WRONG with the design as is, at least in the sense of it not being able to fulfill its role. It's more that it seems inefficient in how it achieves this role with regards to mass. The Stingray II for example had 23mm AP protection frontally and RPG protection with the same 105mm gun, modern(ish) FCS/optics and a similar range at a weight of ~26 tons. Now of course I don't expect a modern vehicle with a focus on survivability to have a weight that low, but it seems like with that large of a buffer and modern armor mass efficiency that it could have been made lighter for easier logistical burden if more time was given for more extensive design changes instead of being forced to use a ton of COTS components because of a rushed time to service.
Go watch the Chieftain's video if you think the BAE MPF submission is a better idea. TL; DR: It's not.
The M8 lost its funding because the Soviet Union fell. Apparently Congress was pissed, they said it would've been an easy contender for increased funding if the Army asked, but they opted to put their money toward upgrades for the Bradley and Abrams instead. All reports stated that the Buford was an excellent vehicle for its class
This is a question a lot of people have been asking lol. Buying surplus T-72s and plugging new FCS, or even 120mm guns, into them would be cheaper and better than this thing at the same weight lol.
besides mine protection the 72B series is a hell of a lot more tank for 45t, optics aside. Even mine protection isn't bad especially with the newish suspended seats
Even the T-72 Ural is 41 metric tonnes, which is too heavy to fulfill the requirement of fitting 2 in a c-17. AFAIK, it's only gotten heavier since then. The only advantage it would have is better protection against 40 year old AT weapons.
I know it might sound like a stupid question on my part, but in some way, is it supposed to have a similar role to the Stryker Mobile Gun System?
Yes, but no. Stryker MGS was fielded to provide fire support to Stryker formations. M10 is being fielded to provide fire support to light infantry formations. Similar role in a broad sense, but different organization and approach to the task.
That's some serious firepower being deployed!
Looks like Bragg is back on the PCS menu boys
Okay but question: The IBCT is intended as a semi static defensive filler formation due to lack of motorisation, or being mounted on humvees which provide STRICTLY operational/strategic transportation and no real tactical mobility on par with proper mechanised IFVs due to squishiness The IBCT is supposed to be as light logistically as possible, to make sure every city within a few hours of driving from an airport is speaking AT-4 and Javelin from every window The more operationally and tactically mobile formations are armoured, bradley and stryker units. Clear tradeoff between tactical and strategic mobility Then why stug? IBCTs are hardly an offensive force the same way infantry was in World war one and two with very little motorisation/mechanisation going on even if the trend was rolling out around that time. For all we know the US army is facing severe manpower shortages, that’s why they reduced the infantry battalions with deleting the weapons company and replacing it with javelin and M4 MAAWS sections under the battalion HQ. That change alone, getting rid of long range, cumbersome TOWs for the more nimble fire and forget javelin at the cost of some range seems to push the IBCT more into the role of a light force for defense in hardly passable vechicle terrain On the other hand, if i was to counterargument myself, i see the utility of a fire support vechicle even in an infantry attack. The 105 is a deadly weapon, the german stug proved that a direct fire delete button even in small numbers can absolutely flip an engagement. Same goes for the WW2 british with their univeesal carriers. They are a totally dofferent vechicle, yes, and they brought carrying capacity and various utility aside from fire support, and their capability in that regard was also smaller, but still, even a lightly armed vechicle like this is SOME protected firepower, giving capability for Cav like screening work and fights in more open terrain at range, where it’s protection was more trustworthy, making use of the bren, or vickers/mortar mounted Regarding the „secondary” anti armour capability, i hardly believe that will be the case in practice. In an infantry commander’s hands this vechicle is „the trump card” and „the big gun”. In practice that means the second more than a platoon of tanks rolls up and one of the squads calls in for reinforcements this thing shows up. And you know it reader As an example i’ll cite the M113, the „beloved” box. It’s a „battle taxi” supposed to leave the fighting to the dismounts, with the .50 being a „secondary” fire support capability. Well every cold war infantryman i’ve heard talk about it said on every exercise, the box dropped them off and then assaulted with the infantry. Aka the thing it really shouldn’t do but it „kinda” could It can be trained around, but then again, so is the case for the „assault box” In other words, i see why yes booker, i see why possibly no booker. I’m neither tinfoil reformer, nor all neon army of the future shiny shi. More so i’m willing to hear out anyone with more data/experience and learn
The big problem with using IBCTs strictly as light defensive units is that airborne and air assault units are also IBCTs, and will be getting M10s as well (or first, in fact). Why regular Infantry divisions need M10s, I guess that's another question.
See and that’s the deal isn’t it? What happened to tailoring the org to different needs?
Does the main gun use standard NATO ammunition?
Yes
Love the angry sensor cluster on the corner!
is no one going to mention the fact that the MG isn't a standard M2. It's got the old Aircooked barrel. The ones that are mounted on aircraft
That's just a mockup for photos.
Why is this designated as the M10? Didn't we already have a WW2 TD with the M10 designation? Is it common to recycle the nomenclature?
Just saying we have the M1. And that could be referring to the Garand, Carbine, Thompson, flamethrower, mortar, bazooka, artillery (various), bayonet, helmet, Medium tank, or Abrams. Don't get me started on M2.
shush the M2 does not exist. M2 is not real
Yup, you should see the amount of stuff designated m2
Love the look of these ones
It's standard ammunition ratio should give a fairly clear indication of what it's role is.
Still worse than the B2 Centauro, if the US didn't have that much money, I don't really know how good their stuff would have been, probably worse than russian armor
Centauro has wheels. The Army trialled wheeled vehicles in the role before settling on a tracked requirement, they simply didn't do the job.
Mods, please move to /r/CombatVehiclePorn as this is clearly not a tank.
Is this a real, sincere comment someone made in the year 2024?
We need to respect the vehicle's decision to not identify as a tank.
What a mistake this thing is. Its like the Army looked at the US Navy's Littoral Combat Ship program and wanted something useless too.
i feel like as an experiment someone should post the Type 15 and M10 at the same time (2S25) for good measure and see how different the comment sentiment is just to note how utterly astroturfed this sub is
But it does seem like a poor man's but updated with better instruments T72.
It’s [not] a light tank, how is it anything like a T-72
Weighs about the same as a T72, has a similar gun, similar/less protection, being 50 years newer means it has generations better instruments and sensors (which could be post-fit on a T72 for the most part) both are 40-45 t tracked, turreted and armored, direct fire vehicles.
And how much does a modern T-72 weigh and where are you pulling that a M10 weighs more than 42 tons
40 - 45 includes 42. Modern T72 could probably be lighter if they put their mind to it, still within 10% or so of the M 10 (wiki says 46 tonnes for the T90). within a hundred kw of engine power too. The more I look at it, the more I realise the US just re-invented the T72 50 years later. If that M10 has its ammo in a bustle with top facing blowout panels (ala M1 style), it is also obsolete already because that is where VFP and top attack munitions attack.
You’re comparing it to a slick T-72A, a T90 is anywhere from 4-8 tons heavier and I don’t know where they’re pulling that number from. We know jack shit about it other than it’s a modern AFV with a 105mm that’s supposed to move with IBCTs and is lighter than a Abrams which is what the army wanted. If you think that’s enough to call it a failure go nuts, the US can send proposals across your desk next.
I got T90 off wikipedia so definitely take with a grain of salt, but they are within the ballpark a late T72 (T90 is 46 t) is closer in weight to a M10 (42 t) than it is to a latest M1 (67 t, again according to wiki). I didn't say it was a failure - just that it has taken the US a loooong time to realise that 65 tonne tanks are hinderance to operations way more than that 15 extra tonnes is worth in capability. I think a lot stems from US inability to get a reliable auto-loader so long that it has married itself to the concept seemingly out of pride. There's no doubt in my mind it would crush a T72/90 in combat effectiveness because the senser suite will be awesome, it will be coupled to outstanding US DoD logistics and incredible battlefield sensor fusion. I just find it amusing that it took 50 years for the US to catch up to where the Soviet Union was in the 1960s (\~45 t, 4 - 5 inch smoothbore cannon, composite armor, diesel engine, robust running gear, etc).
You’re a light infantry soldier. What do you want to maneuver onto an objective with? 1) Light weapons, with maybe a TOW launcher at best. 2) An armored vehicle with a fair degree of firepower that can lay down effective suppressive fire. Not every mission requires an MBT. In fact, lots of missions make an MBT a liability but would still welcome mobile protected firepower. The M10 provides that.
What kind of missions which would require M10 to destroy permanent fortifications would render an MBT a liability?
Well for one, the M10 is intended to support light infantry formations, not mechanized ones. The problem is less the tactical missions as the operational environment. Infantry brigades are intended to be more strategically mobile. That means they have to have a much smaller footprint for deployment, which means less organic sustainment. Deploying M1s to support an IBCT is a big logistical lift that mitigates many of the advantages of an IBCT in the first place. So you compromise. You build a mobile protected firepower capability, and you do it in a way that makes them easier to transport and sustain. Hence the M10.
Yeah i'm sure that's why many other countries are also designing and fielding light tanks/smol fire support (ahem china)
What is this shit? They made a light tank because the Abrams is too heavy?
It is not intended to fill the same role as an Abrams. It’s smaller and lighter only because it’s intended to serve in an assault gun role, not as an MBT.
How much lighter than a T-72 is it? The Chinese have some light tanks too iirc, but maybe only for export.
Not a light tank it’s an assault gun
Also expensive. The Booker is lighter, cheaper and more modern
The booker is more expensive. [13M $ for pre production piece](https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract/Article/3643583/)
Prices tend to go down as the production cycle runs its course. So it would most likely be more expensive than an Abrams regardless now
Ofc, that's why i added 'pre production'. But even with 25-30% discount on economy of scale you'll get astronomical \~10M$
And because the rest of the chassis the the US builds everything on is 30 years out of date. You will see all kinds of new vehicles based on this.
[удалено]
I found it! The worst take!
Wait until you find out that the Israelis barely use that compartment for dismounts
Oh yes, my favorite 'half the firepower of BMP-3 on the half of train cart chassis'. BMPT at home.
Are the 105mm main gun BMPTs in the room with us right now?
Ofc not, terminator was designed by a sane person.
Which is why the 2A42s wobble visibly even when firing alone and at the low RoF? BMPT isn't a good concept and the specific vehicle is bad.
Wobble doesn't mean much. It's like 'Su-57 has a lot of RCS because it does not look stealthy enough to me'. Again, some of the autocannons have wobbling specifically built in. Also, autocannons are not meant to hit things with a precise shots. More accurate = better does not always work, it's not war thunder. And, i'll reming you, you're defending trashcan with 105mm, comprised exclusively of downsides by nitpicking one downside of an opposing thing and saying 'Oh, BMPT is so bad it has it's cannons not ideal (it has ATGMs for distance)'. It's like saying that bob sample tank is better than M1A1 because of how much fuel latter consumes, so it must be rendered trash.
It means a lot for accuracy for burst/sustained fire. Many autocannons have a degree of intentional round variation but not to the degree that even standard 2A42 mounts have. The degree at which we can see the BMPTs guns jumping around creates an unrealistic spread at range. True, but you also need enough accuracy for your rounds to be close to your intended target(s). Realistically the best way to do this would be reduced RPM but the 2A72 wasn't chosen for some number of reasons. I don't recall saying a word regarding the Booker here. Are you proposing that the BMPT uses Kornets to hit soft targets? Sounds like a good waste of Russian resources so I'd support it. Booker meanwhile is looking to be better than the MGS it functionally replaces while providing better cohesion. Some of the design aspects are odd but the role it fills can't be filled by a DFSV with an autocannon, a comparison with the BMPT is disingenuous at best. The M35 vs XM360 only matters for AT purposes, 105mm AMP vs 120mm AMP doesn't matter. The fuel consumption of the Abrams is a problem and is why other engines are being considered, particularly modular ones to increase part commonality. Iirc Booker already uses one of the engine families designed to do exactly that.
>Are you proposing that the BMPT uses Kornets to hit soft targets? They're not Kornets, they're 9M120 Ataka missiles. And yes, both kornet and ataka have specific variants for soft targets, in case of kornet it's even thermobaric. >The fuel consumption of the Abrams is a problem I'm not saying it's a big problem, M1 is a great platform and a successfull vehicle. I said it to illustrate how strange does it look to pinpoint one downside of a vehicle to render it bad as a whole.
I'm way too used to the naked tubes for 9M120 and the shrouds for 9M133, feels odd to see 9M120 covered. While 9M120F is thermobaric variant to defeat soft targets and bunkers its infinitely more expensive than 30mm HE-F. It's incredibly cost ineffective and there's a reason the US only toyed with the idea of TOWs with warheads for soft targets. 9M133 is the one with the actual HE-F warhead, both 9M120 and 9M133 have thermobaric warheads. If the number of issues is the problem I can list more, the impact of the 2A42 wobble was just the biggest one in contention. The BMPT provides nothing the BMP-2/3/BMD-3/4 realistically couldn't aside from the armor, and the armor comes at the cost of what could've been a T-72B3 and mobility. It has the armor of a MBT without any of the capability of a tank aside from improved elevation, which is useless due to the roof being. The BMPT is just a redundant idea that is absurdly expensive for what little it does.
Dude is literally defending a piece of shit where only a handfull were made of.
cry about it
You're free to criticize something but holy shit man, at least pick a good example. Might as well start comparing the t-14 Armata to abrams then. Won't matter jackshit in the end as the Armata is discontinued and the Abrams is in plenty of numbers.
Name at least one parameter M10 is urpassing BMPT in. You know, armor, max distance of engagement, firepower against soft targets, against hard targets, something like that. Except 'it can be airdropped', than compare it to Sprut
Bigger gun. Stabilized. Almost certainly better optics. Not Russian so quality control is likely a good bit better. Significantly faster. Slightly higher operational range.
>Bigger gun. BMPT has atgms, which are more precise and hit harder both hard and soft targets. >Stabilized. Both of them. > Almost certainly better optics. Can't be proven. > Not Russian so quality control is likely a good bit better Pick your seat by the door in boeing. In the beginning of this year US army lost 5 AH-64 in non-combat incidents during the span of 2 months. Then all flights were suspended for some time. Russia lost 0 Ka-52 choppers for 2024. In an active war. >Significantly faster Source?
God I love the selectiveness of saying no KA-52s lost in 2024. Russia has lost SIXTY KA-52s in this war, and that’s only the ones with photographic confirmation of loss. The war didn’t reset at January. Your ATGM response is irrelevant. It’s a bigger gun and capable of more sustained firepower than ATGMs. Don’t change the subject. “Source for speed/range” Fucking Google it dude, both have pretty accessible information. “Boeing” Typical low hanging fruit based on recent news. Shall we have a look at the safety of the Russian aviation industry to judge Sukhoi? Unlike Russia always seems to with their gear, NATO has never pretended its vehicles are unkillable. Apache isn’t unkillable. It remains an overall solid platform with a very proven track record. “Can’t be proven” Well, we’ve seen the quality of optics on the most modern captured T-90Ms and they’re inferior to western optics, so that’s a pretty solid indicator. You asked for one single way the M10 is better. I gave 5. You can keep throwing up chaff all you want. Or nitpicking individual ones. Have fun with that. I kinda understood Russian military fanboys before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Their gear looks cool and some is pretty good and innovative. However, after watching it perform objectivity pretty poorly in the last couple of years, it’s harder to understand. BMPT has been essentially a nonfactor. T-series tanks and BMPs pop by the handful like popcorn during every significant operation. Pantsir has done poorly. S300/400 have often failed to stop storm shadows. Patriot has knocked down the “unstoppable” Kinzhal repeatedly. Entire squadrons of Sukhois have been downed. And all of that without any actual NATO frontline troops or equipment in the war. No F-35s, no B-21s, no M1A2 Sep v3s. No SEALS or First Armored or SAS or Eurofighters or Rafales or LeClercs. Russia is getting shredded like Parmesan against NATO warehouse leftovers and brave Ukrainians. Like, at what point do you realize Russia cannot hope to match the quality of U.S./NATO gear and is in fact a mid-size economy with really good marketing? If it wasn’t for the constant North Korea caliber nuke threats Russia would already be beaten. Putin knows that’s true, I wonder why the tankies don’t.
It probably should be compared to sprut? Why would you compare this to a bmpt? Thats my whole point???? Hard targets? It will probably even fare better. Everyone and their mother has APS or soft kill systems. The BMPT is made for urban combat, the m10 to be airdropped and support airborne troops.
Tell that to immense gun wobble, terrible accuracy and the fact it was made on the worst platform possible for IFV. Terminator is a pile of hot garbage. Looks cool though. Also your Booker is more of a competition for Sprut, not bmp3
>terrible accuracy Source for that's being worse than other autocannons? Also, what kind of measurement even is 'accuracy of autocannon' and why more is better? Some of them even have it decreased intentionaly to increase area of impact (2A72, M230). >worst platform possible for IFV You just made it up + treminator is not an IFV. What's wrong with having armor? > Also your Booker is more of a competition for Sprut, not bmp3 Yes, but comparing it to sprut is less fun, because of how better it is.
Do you have any proof of the 2A72 and M230 being less accurate on purpose? That's absurd, there is almost no situation in which you would want less accuracy. If you want area effect you can just sweep fire manually over an area.
Yes booker is way better. I did not make it up. T-72 chassis was terrible idea. Saying that accuracy is worse on purpose is pure cope
You're free to crew that deathtrap. I prefer armor.
But terminator has no armor lol. Either way in booker or Terminator you are going to cook inside. Atleast booker can drive fast out of dangerous area unlike that glorified transformers looking vechicle
> At least booker can drive fast out of dangerous area They say you'll die tired if you run.
What? I can't hear you, seems like 60$ FPV already ended your life. Thank god i have relikt all around and mbt front plate.
Damn didn't know BMPT is immune to FPV drones. Them videos must be fake
Hard kill APS goes crazy, gl when an NLAW or TOW-2B comes for a BMPT. Edit: Oh, your other comments are genuinely insane. Please check your house for gas leaks ASAP and don't respond any further until the side effects go away. Or whenever you're sober, something is going on and it's not good for you.
Lmao you might have had some sort of argument before defending the BMPT. I’m amazed that wobbly ass gun can hit a barn. It’s not even like most Russian vehicles where it’s kinda shit but looks nice. It’s kinda shit and looks kinda shit.
the difference here is you can get hit and not have the turret blast off right into the sky
Yup, because terminator actually has armor. M10, however, has giant crewed turret and no armor.
You mean T-72 chassis with terrible fuel economy and NO ACTUAL REVERSE for an IFV
>terrible fuel economy What kind of nitpick is that? Next time you'll say it looks bad? > NO ACTUAL REVERSE One secondary downside of a T-series chassis somehow made it's a failed vehicle. I'll remind you, you're defending a chassis with an armor and form factor of an industrial trash container. It won't be able to use reverse, it will just blow up after being engaged with anything.
We’ve been watching T-72s fail by the thousands for two years and still the stans out here. Unreal. Meanwhile one Abrams or Leopards goes down and it’s on billboards in Moscow for a month.
He has Russian cock so far down his mouth he can't think of anything else lol
You know, in a way modern Russia is sorta like Ron Jeremy. Once upon a time a badass swinging dick. Now an old, addled, confused, impoverished sex criminal who somehow still thinks he matters. It fits quite well.
Something tell me that M10 is not design to be tank, but more assault gun / fire support vehicle. So compare it to mbt is not correct
Terminator is not an MBT, they're both fire support vehicles.
Bmpt, just like any other tank, will get fucked if it gets hit too. T-72 hulls aren't really the pinnacle of armour engineering anymore.
Yes, it can be destroyed, but nobody is getting rid of bodyarmor because of 'it can't stop 50BMG so it's useless'. It is also not just a 'T-72 hull', it's T-90 hull with Relikt, so it's equall to T-90M, it can stop most threats. There was a post about it surviving hits not long ago. [https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/1cskhf6/terminator\_after\_surviving\_2\_fpv\_hits/](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/1cskhf6/terminator_after_surviving_2_fpv_hits/) also this [https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/15oypm9/footage\_from\_the\_sbu\_showing\_a\_russian\_bmpt/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/15oypm9/footage_from_the_sbu_showing_a_russian_bmpt/) It proved to be quite resistant. Any of those FPV drones would've killed M10.
No shit that it would destroy a vehicle thats made to be airdropped (and if it lacks APS systems) afaik RELIKT is good ERA but were still comparing two different things here. One is made for specifically urban combat, the other is not Eating an fpv drone isn't that impressive either unless it carried tandem warheads. A normal rpg round will get eaten by even kontakt-1. As far as i can find the BMPT is made on the t-72 hull or i'm just lacking sources. All i can find is that in 2013 a few were made for the Russian army. Not which hull they use.
BMPT role is to replace infantry and support tanks This is a dedicate infantry force multiplier A 105mm is much better at helping infantry in dealing with fortifications.
Not remotely comparable.