it was emergence of tank killing drones in Ukraine that killed Booker (AKA the $20 million T-55 lol), wasn't it?Does US Army still need The Mission, and how do we fix this?"Another Episode" :) Couldn't have put it better myself. Did they cum up with that before or after the cancellation?
>>64222006>cum up
I like to assess things by standing on them too.
>>64222006This light tank would smoke a t-55, I don't get the comparison you are trying to make
>>64224594WTF do the 3 crew in hull do? driver, commander and ???Sounds like Army picked wrong tank.We spoke with an active duty Army master gunner familiar with the MPF development process who expressed concerns about the GDLS version and said there was much to like about the BAE Systems’ entry.It was lighter than the GDLS version, weighing in at less than 20 tons in its lightest configuration. Equipped with an autoloader, it had a smaller crew – three compared to the GDLS’s model. Most impressive, however, was the ease of repair, the soldier told us.“The engine access was a lot better” in the BAE Systems’ vehicle, he said. “It was more conducive to a light unit.”“You could just slide the motor out and work on it, which is important for light infantry in an austere environment,” the soldier told us. “It didn’t need the requisition of overhead lifts to work on it if something catastrophically breaks.”M10 has same targeting as Abrams. But guess what? Today you can strap a smart phone to barrel of T-55 and have better aim than Abrams and able to do BVR etc.Typically, it takes US Army about 10yrs to sort out running gear of new tracked vehicle, just like Bradley couldn't find a A/T that worked, and they had to re-do Abrams because jet engine couldn't handle desert dust. T-55 is well proven unstoppable beast, with wide tracks and low ground pressure.
>ESL ramblings
>>64222006>:)only you do shit like this, chang.
>>64225812>WTF do the 3 crew in hull do? driver, commander and ???Which of those two do you expect to handle gunnery? Your brain is rotted from vidya gaems.
The hell is this thread even about? Is OP trying to say the M8 based entry should have been chosen instead? Or is it another "tanks are dead!!!" thread? And why is it only ESL's that try to do the cutesy mocking tone thing? Where do the quotes comes from? Damn these posts are annoying.
>>64222006why didnt they fix the issues with the 105mm Stryker instead of going with this retarded braindead fucking design straight from 1948
>>64225882maybe article got it backwards, and its 3 in turret and 1 driver in hull.
>>64225975agree, if needed, downgrade Stryker concept to 90mm to make it fit in C-130 and work.but even smarter would be for growups to tell the army they don't get to demand a turret and for "assault gun" give them basically an S-Tank that can fit inside C-130. With an auto-loader that works, it can be optionally manned and remote controlled, since it will also likely be in harm's way and a target itself.
>>64222006can the t55 be air dropped?the booker was supposed to be air droppable
>>64226049Turns out Ivan is correct and "tank is tank" and mighty Abrams burn just as good as older tanks in even NEAR peer combat against 2nd rate Russian units.Clear reasons for this, such as even most modern MBT having weak armor in most spots, and with lack of effective combined arms deployment, these weak spots are able to be accessed by opposing force. High complexity of Wonder Waffen becomes only mostly a distraction, and prevent crew from the more important task of cohesive combined arms support to protect tank from easy kill.
>>64226057to be even air-ship-able Booker requires Abrams based tractor crane to remove side armor, then same crane to re-attach, or maybe a couple days worth of Nigger-Rigging to re-attach in the field, or else doesn't really qualify as 'protected' firepower, so pretty much moot point.
>>64222006what the fuck are you talking about
>>64224594Outperformed by the latest models of T-64 though, hence its comparison to the T-55.Booker is like if Germany made the Leopard 1 after making the Leopard 2.
>>64226101Except Ivan turned out incorrect as always, and Barams are about 3-4 orders of magnitude harder to burn than any russian garbage, faggot.
>>64226600>Outperformed by the latest models of T-64 thoughLol. LMAO, even. It'd curbstomp T-90Ms. Russian tnaks are garbage.
>>64226683what confuses you is those same hits are same as took out Abrams.some claim Abrams crew more likely to survive due to trade off of rate of fire and protection, but in battle result is effectively exactly same....MBT unit out of action.tank as two main weakness:1)thin armor on most surface2)treadssome claim Abrams is more powerful mobility, at least on firm ground, but Russian tanks have lower rate of "throwing" tread, and much easier and faster and simpler to get back into action if tread is throw or hit with some weapon, mostly due to overall smaller size of tank and treads, but also less "gold plated" mechanism, and less "advanced" but more robust in operation design of having some slack in tread on top boogies VS Tight Tread.
>>64226057Booker is not and was never intended to be air droppable.>>64226133This is also a lie, a single C-17 can carry two Bookers in their middle or lightest configurations, or a single Booker plus other cargo in its heaviest configuration, all without any dismantling of the vehicle whatsoever. The C-130 cannot and was not intended to be able to transport the M10 in any configuration.
>>64226048>if needed, downgrade Stryker concept to 90mm to make it fit in C-130 and work.exactly, they should have bought some of those cockerill 90mm turrets slapped them on top and called it a day
>>64226864
>>64226049>>64226101320 is the regiment IIRC
>>64226864>trade off on rate of fire and protectionAbrams has better rate of fire AND protection, while also being more survivable. Rate of fire only degrades after lots of rounds back to back
>ESL>reddit spacing>"cum up">"T-55 is well proven unstoppable beast"yup, OP is a retard.
>>64227696thic armor only in front of hull and front of turretrest likely to be rekt by even smallest shaped charge. engine likely killed by even hand grenade on engine deck.tank has some protection on side due to skirts outside tracks, then hull, but all of tracks are easy to break, and big target.tracks break easy and can be jammed by barbwire, or metal pole. guess what happens if machine gun sprayed at big tank gun and even few bullets go down muzzle?
>>64227817>guess what happens if machine gun sprayed at big tank gun and even few bullets go down muzzle?Basically nothing because they'll hit the tool steel breech block that's the most armored part of the entire vehicle because it's supposed to take the load of repeated explosions even if everything goes to plan.
>>64226600>sorce: i made it upkek
>>64227817Is this what they're teaching in brownoid schools now or something? I haven't seen this level of psued since the ziggers started coping about the retreat from kyiv
>>64228042wrong, retard, the whole gun and tank blows the fuck up.this is taught to all USGI tankiesyes, it has actually really really happened in combat in at least one semi-famous case, but I wont tell you what war or which side did it to WTF side.
>>64222006>warriortard made anothermeh
>>64225831>He's still going
>>64232075Did it involve having an HE shell chambered? That's the only way I can see anything happening and it would take a string of unlikely circumstances to occur.
