Thoughts about medium tanks?
Implessive.
>>65132040Good stop gap until you can produce Mammoth Tanks.
>>65132040I think the meme of a 40t vehicle with a 105mm gun should die when there are ~25 ton vehicles that mount them without issue.
>>65132078Just because amerimutts are too incompetent to execute on the concept doesn't mean that the concept itself is faulty.
>>65132217Fuck off retard we had countless threads about the Booker/21st century tank destroyer concept being retarded, it doesn't become implessive if China does it.
We're getting multiple china threads going up, did they just log in for the day at the shill farm?
>>65132040the gun is good to attack fortification, just give it heavier ATGM to hit enemy tanks further and farther
>>65132242It's why I think the Jaguar is the best modern answer to needing a big gun in a hard to reach place. You really don't need a tank killing gun somewhere you'll never see enemy armor and if you're unlucky we have ATGMs and drones to pick off the brave and unfortunate crew that got a tank into the mountains
>>65132078they french have the AMX-10 because they wanted a recon capable tank, turn out you might just get an APC with ATGM instead.the only difference is the ATGM will have to remain static while the missile is on flight (unlight they use a FF system), the canon just send cheaper SABOT to a target and allow you to move, also easier to reload compared to a missile pod.other than navigating hazardous terrain i don't see why you even need these kinds of vehicles tho.
>>65132059Yeah but if you know how to Q move the Mammoth is a waste of resources.
>>65132224T-64 is doing pretty good in Ukraine. US's problem was that it was gunning for cross-compatibility with the Abrams, when Abrams parts have an inherent girth to them that eats away at available weight.
>>65132217>>65132224It's funny because the Booker has an almost identical spec sheet to the Ajax apart from a 105mm gun instead of a 40mm, and the Booker actually functions unlike the Ajax, and yet there's still people who try to claim either that the Booker is the worst piece of shit ever or that the Ajax isn't THAT bad.
>>65132040>fox thingI will now take the chinese seriously.
>>65132040why do modern tank designs choose 105mm guns, instead of the old 125mm? how is it better?
>>65133225Smaller so you can fit more ammoAnd have higher top speed when driving.
>>65132217The Booker worked perfectly fine retard, it was dropped because the Army didn't want it anymore precisely because the concept was of dubious use. >>65132566>take proven chassis that is also being used for a concurrent cousin project in the US>take gun with no known problems in another vehicle >invent new problems that literally never existed before How does this even happen
>>65133225If your tank doctrine isn't stuck on the idea that all tank warfare from now till the dawn of time will solely take place in the Fulda Gap its a perfectly sensible choice of gun offering a great deal of flexibility at a lower weight while having more than enough capability to deal effectively with any Tibetan monks you come across.
>>65132479Any tank does pretty well in Ukraine, but the ones capable of taking multiple fpv drones are the Western MBTs like the Leos
>>65133720Depends on the season. Only in the Summer and the really cold bit of Winter do you get the kind of hard ground conditions that let Leos and Abrams move around properly.The rest of the time, they have mud problems. One of the reasons people like T-72 and 64 tanks is that they were actually designed to function in Ukranian springtime, when vast swathes of it turn into mud soup and you very quickly run into the any tank is better than no tank kind of situation.Yeah they've got less armor, but getting stuck is an immediate death sentence so the mobility charts for heavy tanks either turn red completely or worse, there are like 5 green spots on the entire contact line.
>>65132040Almost all tanks are medium tanks. Modern MBT is outgrowth of medium tanks.>>65132078If you take a chassis that is about 30 tons with 30mm gun turret as IFV and 25 tons as APC with 12.7mm RWS, you'll end up with roughly 40 ton vehicle if you put tank turret on it. The fact that your "light tank" uses a chassis from something else that is already in service and also present in the theater is essential part of the concept. It shares spare parts with 'em and that helps with logistics.>>65132224Concept isn't retarded at all or at least wasn't. The fact that US army dragged their feet thru mud for 15 years when they might have benefited from it was. Lighter and logistically easier expeditionary tank for fire support would have been perfect fit for Afghanistan. Now cheap as fuck FPV drones probably have possibly made it obsolete. The point was to have direct fire support that doesn't cost 50k to 100k per shot. 120mm or 105mm shells are quite a bit cheaper than ATGM's. FPV drones have kinda changed it.China has quite different, but essentially similar reasons why they have continued to develop light tanks. There are parts of China where roads are too shitty for "real" tanks, it isn't expeditionary warfare against 3rd world subhuman savages, they have that at home and on their own border with India. Tibet and south western China are places where "real" tanks suddenly get rather useless outside of major highways due to mountains and swamps. A tank is better than no tank, even if its inferior to "real" tank.
