>infantry divisions get equipped with 75mm-armed half-track TDs>soldiers love them, even when the are no tanks to hunt, because the gun is extremely effective against fortifications>gets replaced with pack howitzers because troops dont need mechanized support>soldiers hate them because they are more vulnerable and less mobile than a gun-carrier>separate tank battalions prove really popular but their main drawback is that they lacked training with infantry divisions (could be solved by making them organic units to divisions)why is the army allergic to giving infantry motorized guns despite every instance of them being used met with nothing but praise?
Giving infantry a direct fire gun was the whole point of the Booker. Unfortunately, goy retards are unable to conceive that one of the defining features of IBCTs is that they dont have organic access to the strykers and M1s that they could "just use instead bro", so it got cut.
>>65623473there seems to be a huge tension between "we want big guns" from the troops and "light infantry should be light' from the brassthe cold war was when embedded armor was at its peak, with an infantry division had a full tank battalion and an accompanying mech infantry battalion inside them just to be sure that they were prepared for all comers
>>65623473Booker would’ve required most of the same logistical train as an Abrams. They’d effectively end up with all the drawbacks of an armored unit but very few of the advantages.
>>65623490>Booker would’ve required most of the same logistical train as an Abrams.you can carry two of them in the same space as one abrams, and the lighter weight of the vehicle means that division engineers can provide the necessary supportthe M1 abrams needed way more supply and replenishment on top of that, the MPF battalion could get by with divisional sustainment and the battalion sustainment companythe M1 abrams needs dedicated engineering and sustainment at every single level of command from brigade all the way up to divisonalthey are not comparable
>>65623491>you can carry two for one abrams Well the Air Force would seem to disagree with that, and with no large airlifter currently in production that’s not changing anytime soon. It was a 40 ton vehicle that was going to absolutely explode in weight if it was going to be remotely survivable on a modern battlefield. APS integration and add on armor kits would’ve very quickly pushed it north of 45 tons, and that isn’t the sort of logistical burden you can just hand wave away. It was going to be a huge burden for very questionable capabilities.
>>65623491>you can carry two of them in the same space as one abrams, and the lighter weight of the vehicle means that division engineers can provide the necessary supportWhy won't the US just copy t-90m. They are lighter tank and better in every metric compared to the booker.
>>65623491>the lighter weight of the vehicle means that division engineers can provide the necessary supportAnon, it's "lighter weight" compared to an Abrams but at 42 tons it's in the same ballpark as actual MBTs like the T-72. And that's excluding bolt on components that will inevitably be added at some point or another.
>>65623512it would give infantry the exact capability they were asking for, a middle ground between waiting for artillery and trying to assault enemy positions using carl gustafsthats a real capability that currently sits empty> and that isn’t the sort of logistical burden you can just hand wave awaya C-17 is rated to carry 1 M1 abrams but can carry 2 M10s, because its both lighter and more compactand even if we humor your argument that APS would limit its mobility, then you still get 1 M10 to 0 M1A2s in a C-17so thats still a good reason to use an M10 for an infantry divisionand as mentioned, the MPF battalion only needs its organic sustaintment company and can rely on the already existing divisional engineering for anything elsethe M1 abrams needs brigade, company, and divisional sustainment units all dedicated just for the M1so the MPF only needs to bring its own company, whereas the M1 abrams needs multiple units
>>65623515the T-90M would not have passed the MPF program requirements anyways, so it would have been pointless
>>65623519>the MPF battalion only needs its organic sustaintment company and can rely on the already existing divisional engineering for anything elseIn theory. Thinking that a 42 ton vehicle can simply "rely on already existing divisional engineering for everything else" when this isn't remotely true for any country fielding MBTs in this weight class is pure copium.
>>65623521>In theorythere is nothing to suggest that the sustainment company and the infantry division would have been insufficient for a battalion per divisionyou are merely speculating
>>65623527>you are merely speculatingThe program was axed. If speculation is your concern you don't get to claim that you know better than the people who axed it.
>>65623519Boeing rates the C-17 for 164000lbs on their website. Air Force says up to 170k on theirs. In any event that means there is zero growth margin on a platform that was not survivable before it has the same air mobility restrictions as an Abrams. If you are going to build a light tank it needs to stay light, not 40+ tons and growing. Yoloing the logistical burden up the chain isn’t an idea that actually works either. Nobody is deploying with that amount of spare capacity
>>65623529there was no speculationthe MPF battalion organization was publicly available, 3 companies and a sustainment company and slotting in neatly into an infantry divisionairmobility was also known, 2 of them in the same space as an M1 abramsthis was all known for sure and all indicated a significantly smaller footprint than an M1 abrams
>>65623485>the cold war was when embedded armor was at its peak, with an infantry division had a full tank battalion and an accompanying mech infantry battalion inside them just to be sure that they were prepared for all comersWhy did this change? Was there a draw back or did they just do it if for cost reasons
>>65623533>the MPF battalion organization was publicly availableHow did Russian BTGs work out again? Oh wait, they didn't. Fairytale organizational structures will remain fantasies no matter how many times you draw them on a fancy chart.>this was all known for sure and all indicated a significantly smaller footprint than an M1 abramsIt made sense in its original 32 ton specification, not the 42 ton behemoth that it eventually became and would inevitably exceed as time goes by.
>>65623538>How did Russian BTGs work out again?russian BTG was organized exactly how it was on paper> not the 42 ton behemoth that it eventually became and would inevitably exceed as time goes by.its still lighter and more compact than an M1 abrams and would have done exactly what it was intended to, provide a lighter alternative to an M1 abrams using existing components
>>65623536The Army lived in Germany then and could expect to fight there. They had all their stuff on hand. Now it has to plan around how it will get all its shit into whatever country they’re expected to fight in, and have to travel a lot lighter.
>>65623541>russian BTG was organized exactly how it was on paperAnd they failed miserably because they lacked the required logistics support. Sounds familiar?>provide a lighter alternative to an M1 abrams using existing components> In 2023, MPF product manager LTC Peter George said that although the Ajax was the starting point for the GDLS MPF, the current chassis shares little in common with the Ajax and "it's difficult to see the similarities."So much for that.
>>65623543>And they failed miserably because they lacked the required logistics support.they failed because they took too much battle damage and were re-organized back to divisions, since larger formations are more suited to protracted combat in ukrainelogistical support by itself is a reductive argument at bestthe MPF battalion is already situated within a division, a unit size already suited for large-scale combatso that will not be the same issue
>>65623545>logistical support by itself is a reductive argument at bestThe operation was doomed as early as the convoy to Kyiv even before the formations took any serious battle damage. It was too heavym a unit with too light of a logistical tail. BTGs lacking survivability was long known to US planners.
>no one has tried to answer the OPso, who was right?should the US army have kept the 75mm half track or just slotted M4s into the infantry?or was the 105mm pack howitzer the right call?
>>65623556If the infantry was expected to do nothing besides hold ground in largely static positions or slow pushes then pack howitzers aren't terrible. Other than that you'd always want something mobile if possible.
>>65623467You already answered you question with the last greentext. Using tanks worked just fine.
>>65623618they stopped using seperate tank battalions after world war 2they briefly brought back the regimental tank company for korea only to abandon it once again afterwardsthe US army was/is basically caught in a loop of giving infantry organic armor only to take it away
>>65623467I would never judge the effectiveness of equipment based on its popularity
>>65623515Lol no one is lining up for T-90s after their performance in Ukraine
I want to live in the timeline where halftracks are still viable vehicles
On the Eastern Front, Germany also learned the hard way that direct fire-support vehicles require armor capable of more than just protection against shrapnel and small-arms fire.
>>65623633That being said a T-90 without the exploding autoloader and modern (western) electronics would likely be more survivable and more capable than the Booker while weighing less, which is the whole problem with the Booker.
>>65623630Effectiveness of equipment generally correlates to popularity when you're actively using it in a hot war with high attrition rates. Equipment isn't going to be popular if the operators die in droves.
>>65623648the german equivelant was this thing, alongside the supersized 150mm versionyou will notice that neither of them have any protection other than a gun shield this puts them at roughly the same level as the M3 105mm that replaced the 75mm GMCthey also have the exact same drawback that the 105mm howitzer has, which is that its not self propelled
>>65623650Externalized (typically bustle) autoloading ammo storage adds significant weight to Soviet platforms on average. If you took any T-64/72/80 platform (and yes, the T-90 is just a T-72) and made them conform to those requirements and to also load NATO single piece 105mm or 120mm you'd see over 5 tons of weight increase.That's before the shitty ergos even get addressed and those will be at least another ton or more and even then you'll end up with "assault guns" that only take in 5'2-4" midgets of crews (turret crew would benefit from the autoloader change, driver is still screwed).And realistically it'd need to also need to migrate to a Western engine that has US Army familiarity. The costs of this hypothetical thing would be pretty expensive due to it being an re-engineered platform and it'd weigh a lot. Sure, you could shave some of the turret cheeks and hull front array but it becomes just a little more protected than the MPF candidates but also weighs more than them anyways. All while having shittier ergos, accommodating less crews, etc
>>65623651Soldiers evaluate the individual weapon and how it makes them feel. Preference for expensive Thompsons over cheaper grease guns. Sandbags on tanks because it feels safer. Familiar weapons that have kept them alive over new and unfamiliar ones. The Sten was a piece of shit on the individual level but if was the right weapon at the time
>>65623660Yes, but when you're talking about something like a self-propelled gun vs a pack howitzer, I'm pretty sure the crews know exactly what they're talking about.
>>65623658>Externalized (typically bustle) autoloading ammo storage adds significant weight to Soviet platforms on average.The Booker doesn't have an autoloader at all, so you can cut that out entirely. That's a good amount of weight savings.> but it becomes just a little more protected than the MPF candidates but also weighs more than them anywaysIf you're going with a 120mm vs the Booker's 105 it's bringing more firepower and range to the table as well. To be clear, I'm not saying that the Soviet T-series tanks are good tanks. I'm just pointing out that when you're getting into the 40+ ton range there are options that give you more bang for the buck than the Booker. Something like the Japanese Type 10 is in the same ball park and much more capable.
The army doesn't make procurement decisions based on what makes enlisted men happy.If that was the case, they would all be issued with Dodge Chargers with cases of Monsters and Zyns in the trunk.
>>65623737KEK I can tell you probably worked in an Infantry unit.
>>65623666>Cut the autoloaderYour original platform's design form factor is not meant for a 4 man turret crew. The moment you move to a 4 man crew you need a bigger turret and any weight reduction you would have had would be gone. It'd also require a major redesign because, again, T-64/72/80 were not designed as 4 man tanks or tanks with an actual human loader. They're already pushing the turret ring diameter on the hull, you'd need to either deal with a taller turret in the first place because of having to put the gunner with the commander (even with the turret autoloader delete you don't get enough Z height) and redo the entire coupling. They were designed around their autoloaders for their small form factor and that's why they're lightweight.It turns out if you make it so the tank isn't viable for 70% of your service members you can make it small as fuck and in the process also save literal tons on armor. That and have thin ass side armor (no special packages, unlike on the Abrams starting with the OG M1).You'd better be served shilling a CV90105 or CV90120 at this point and it'd be as thinly armored as a Booker. Turns out reality is made of engineering compromises.>Type 10Look up the average height (and body mass) of a Japanese male versus a corn fed American.
>>65623666>>65624405Also before I forget one of the reasons why modernized T-64/72/80s have adequate armor protection is from their heavy ERA packages, which precludes them from being used in close proximity to infantry unless you like fragging your friendly crunchies. Yeah, you "could" put something like low collateral, low fraticide ERA like BRAT or that one European system that uses composite flyer plates but you lose out on effectiveness vs KE and also a bit on CE.So you're back to basically a T-64/72/80's base armor plus light ERA in terms of protection. You could go "yeah replace it with Western arrays" and you could. You're still dealing with a 40+ ton tank that has plain steel sides on the turret (welded/cast) and hull. The only place you have NERA is in the cheeks and hull upper front. Meanwhile your mantlet is basically a bare steel trunion and a glaringly huge weak spot to basic bitch infantry AT, your LFP is a literal glass jaw of steel too.So you're back to being a Squat Booker+1 in terms of effective protection. Yeah, your front is armored but your flanks (and not even broadside, shit like 15-25 degrees axis) are glassy as fuck. You didn't get around physics.If you pour shitloads of money into the problem you get a Type 10 with the exquisite armor array it probably has but you still have the same problem as the Soviet lineage (with "minor" modifications): Manlet only crew. If you value weight above all else there's your exquisite solution. Highest end options to deal with armor, powerpack, autoloading but you make the internal volume small and have only ready ammo in the autoloader protected.So really if you want any more "optimal" of a FSV/assault gun you end up playing a game: Do you want it accommodate the 6'6" Irish telephone pole of a commander? Booker levels of weight and protection. Willing to tell everyone taller than 5'4" to break their spines inside the thing going cross country? Soviet levels of weight and (frontal only) protection
>>65623658The ZTZ-88 and combat-proven M-55s both fit a NATO L7, decent FCS, and survivable ERA/NERA package into a T-series for less weight than the Booker. Like >>65623666, I don't think either is sufficient in the 2020s and that's bad company to be in for a $38m new tank.
>>65623467didn't they make a different version later with the 105mm instead? halftrack designations confuse me.
>>65624612That'd be the T19. Very short production run as it was rush-built to meet the urgent need for self-propelled howitzer ready in time for the Torch landings.
>>65623467>infantry divisions get equipped with 75mm-armed half-track TDs>gets replaced with pack howitzers because troops dont need mechanized supportThe M3 GMCs got replaced by M10 GMCs. The infantry division's anti-tank assets you're talking about didn't belong to the infantry division, but to independent tank destroyer battalions that just got attached to them. If an infantry division had M3 GMCs working with the infantry, later they would have the M10s doing the same, to an obviously superior effect. Nothing was truly lost. Hell, this type of organization is more similar to how the Germans used their assault gun battalions: they were independent as well and all things considered this was probably more effective, since it doesn't require the same logistical footprint out of every infantry unit.Instead, the infantry had T30 and T19 Howitzer Motor Carriages in regimental cannon companies, which were the ones that got replaced with pack howitzers and then with 105mm M3 Howitzers. They were never as good at being true assault guns as the GMCs were.
>>65624612Infantry had T19 and T30. Tank Destroyer battalions had M3 GMC.
>>65624706infantry had the 75mm half-track equipped at their regimental cannon companyso they did have organic TDs, in addition to attached onesthey were replaced with the 105mm M3 pack howitzer
>>65624754>infantry had the 75mm half-track equipped at their regimental cannon companyThe 75mm equipped half-tracks had pack howitzers on them, at least on paper, and were pretty much unsuitable for anti-tank work. Only relatively anemic HEAT shells and no AP shells, or even a long barrel capable of tossing them fast enough to penetrate any real armor.Technically, apparently, some units did go into combat with M3 GMCs in their cannon companies due to the T30s being put into production too recently to arm all units with them or some other reason like that.
Most important thing in war is to prevent the infantry from wasting even more ammo than usual.
>>65624803Why do American generals think like this anyway?>best logistics of the world by far>more afraid of wasting ammo than armies supplied by horse and hand-drawn carts
>>65624734>howitzer/field gun/mortar/cannon shenanigansahh fuck not this again, i hate remembering this shit
>>65624826>why do countries that suck at logistics not care about wasting resourcesBit of a chicken or the egg question innit?
Without restrictions, it would turn into something like the Vietnam War, where rounds of every caliber were fired into any patch of thicket that was spotted.
>>65624826the origin of the "we cant give every solider this gun because it would waste too much ammo" was in the civil war, where plans for mass adoption of the spencer repeating rifle were rejected on those groundsso the spencer was mostly just a specialist weapon for cavalry men while troops used muzzle-loaders until the end of the warthis had somewhat more basis than you would expect, since an entire wagon could only provide 1 hours worth of shooting for a unit equipped with spencers, multiply that by the fact that the union army had expanded several times past their original size and industry was slower to catch upblaming the issue on soldiers being too trigger happy was likely just a convenient excuse the ammo problem wasnt as big of an issue in WW2, they mass adopted the M1 garand after allbut ordnance still had a stick up their ass due to the US actually being the last ones to enter war footing in WW2partially due to actually being the last ones to enter war mobilization, only really getting into it in the late 30s and was only capable of doing it so quickly due to their massive industrial base but also because they had the misfortune of ordnance being headed by the infamous leslie mcnairhis philosophy was "battle need", which was to stick to tried and true methods and only institute change if there was a battle need for it>75mm is good enough, 76mm will just confuse supply lines>self-propelled guns are too tall, towed guns are easier to hide and cheaper to boot>tanks are expensive, we should only have 6 armored divisions (he was vetoed and the US operated 16)>is killed by friendly fire during operation cobra when a bomb falls on his car>coincidentally, operation cobra was the first use of the 76mm sherman, after he had the first 1000 withheld from day 1 of D-day on the grounds it was not needed
>>65624924i am overselling his infamy, during WW2 he was most well known for his success in developing training programs that turned fresh farmboys into soldiers, since the US army training program was infamously bad at the start of the war and it was mcnair who implemented reforms that put them into the realm of competencybut his post-war legacy is basically tied to his retrospective approach to upgunning tanksby waiting for a "battle need" for upgrades, then you are just reacting to the enemy and letting them stay ahead of the gameso by the time the 76mm was made available in greater number as a result of the battle of the bulge, it was both not nearly as good as imagined (the panthers UFP was too sloped for it to handle) and too late (the battle of the bulge was the last concentrated use of armor, so the extra hole punching of the 76mm was no longer decisive)
>>65623467Adding motorization increases skills needed for operators and significantly increases maintenance and logistics needs. It has been shown time and time again that organic addendums below the regimental level add more complexity and chaos than they are worth. As you say, when they saw no tanks they were used against forts and they rarely saw tanks. That means they were wasted.
>>65624420Which is why the entire program was scrapped. The resulting product is a 40+ ton abomination that costs almost as much as an actual tank while providing less firepower and insufficient protection for today's threat environment. The original conception for a ~32 ton assault gun that potentially could be airdropped made sense. A 40+ ton vehicle (base configuration) that is a tank in everything but name does not. We literally had a thread on light tanks the other day.
>>65624973airdroppability is irrelevant in its role, since its in an infantry division none of whom are going to be airdropped anywhereits a divisional asset, moving alongside all the other heavy equipment including the artillery, which is its role, direct fire artillery, it is not a light tank
>>65624965>As you say, when they saw no tanks they were used against forts and they rarely saw tanks.that means that the infantry really, really wanted organic self-propelled artillery and were rather underwhelmed by the towed gun that replaced itso as far as the troops were concerned, motorization is a small price to pay for a mobile gun
>>65624977>it is not a light tankYou can spout that cope as much as you want, but it weighs as much as actual MBTs (manlet types, as you put it) and will no doubt be used in such a role if needs arise. If the problem is that you want to give infantry divisions a tank without calling it a tank, just fucking give them a tank and call it a day instead of making a half-baked platform to avoid that problem. If all you want is an HE lobber that's going to blow up when facing actual threats anyway you can cut the weight down.
>>65624988its not cope, light tanks historical role in the US is as cavalry unitsthey were airdroppable because they operated far ahead of the main force and were intended to operate straight of air strips but not even the current CFV, filling in the light tank role, has airdroppability in its mission profileand the M10 would never have been in a position where airdropping would be necessery because IBCTs arent airdropping anywhere and lack the speed to rush so far ahead that armor would need to go straight from airfield to front
>>65624980Respectfully, the opinions of infantry don’t matter on a strategic level.
>>65625006The 82nd was the first to receive them, followed by the 101st. It's a light tank in the same way the M27 IAR predictably turned out to be a rifle replacement.
>>65625025>The 82nd was the first to receive them, followed by the 101stand the rest were going to infantry divisions that had no airborne capabilities whatsoeverthe airborne IBCTs were being re-organized for commonality with infantry divisons in any case, the MPFs were not the only non-airborne equipment they were getting, resulting in the airborne divisions having a lot of non-airborne assets that would only arrive after they had secured an airfield
>>65625007surely, the people using the equipment would have at least some idea of what works best
>>65625025brother they were going to be issued to IBCTs in the NG with no airborne capabilities
this would have been the perfect replacement for simply bombarding enemy positions with HE
>>65625034>>65625044The project has its roots as a request from the 82nd for a light tank, and the 82nd was coincidentally the first unit to receive it. The fact that it eventually became something entirely different and leadership had to cope and pretend that it was supposed to be something else is immaterial. There's no point talking about who it would have been issued to because the program was scrapped before those non-airborne units ever saw them.
>>65625053the airborne were the first to receive them because they were the first to receive everything, including the stryker SHORADthe M10 was going to infantry who had 0 airdrop capability whatsoever and so airdrop functionality would be pointless because infantry arent moving so fast that you would literally need to airdrop their artillery right next to them
>>65625060>the M10 was going to infantry who had 0 airdrop capability whatsoeverAnd they wanted the M10 specifically? Bullshit. Let's not forget that the USAF later straight up rejected the idea of C-17s carrying 2 Bookers so even that advantage over just using an Abrams no longer exists. The Booker was a solution that didn't solve any problems.
>>65625079the M10 bridges the gap between infantry storming positions with AT4s and waiting for artillery to hit their targetsdirect fire artillery has been something the army in general had been asking for for a while and hadnt had since the cold war
>>65625087>direct fire artillery has been something the army in general had been asking for for a while and hadnt had since the cold warDirect fire artillery weighing as much as an MBT was absolutely not what the cold war planners had in mind.
>>65625093the M1 abrams weights 30 tons more than the M10 and, importantly consumes far more fuelthe M10 could easily slot into the infantry division without needing an additional ARV company and fuel company in divisional supply train whereas an M10 could
>>65625107Which is exactly why future Abrams variants are aiming for lower weight and better fuel efficiency. In any case, you're talking about cold war planners. The M10 absolutely weighs as much as a cold war era MBT.
>>65623473by this point infantry has LAWs, AT4s, Carl Gustavs, Jvelins and an ass load of air assets to use, which makes these types of vehicles largely unneeded compared to the way it was historically.
>>65625205>by this point infantry has LAWs, AT4s, Carl Gustavs, Jvelins and an ass load of air assets to use,the CG has short range, LAWs and AT4s have even shorter range, air strikes are held outside the divisionthe M10 is organic to the division and is attached to brigades, which gives them a more protected, longer range, and harder hitting alternative to trying to run up to enemy bunkers with a LAW while also being more reactive and with shorter response time than waiting for brigade or div artillery to fire on target
halftracks need to make a comeback
>>65625218half-tracks were excellent in the days when driving a tank was closer to driving a 16-wheeler, but most troops would agree a roof, even a thin one, is better than nothing at all
>>65625215>the CG has short range700m is not short range by infantry standards at all>the M10 is organic to the division and is attached to brigades, which gives them a more protected, longer range, and harder hitting alternative to trying to run up to enemy bunkers with a LAW while also being more reactive and with shorter response time than waiting for brigade or div artillery to fire on targetyes we've all read the buzzword advertisements but if all you want is one fat specialized vehicle just to fling HE at range then a Humvee with a TOW already does this better and cheaper anyway.
>>65625230>a Humvee with a TOW already does this better and cheaper anyway.it would need all-around 14.5mm protection for the artillery protection desiredit would need tracks for the off-road performance desiredit would need a cannon instead of, or in addition to, the TOW to have the ammo needed for prolonged operationsthe TOW is actually not-ideal for fire support due to the bulk and cost of each individual missile and is only pressed into that role due to the current lack of anything else to use in that role
>>65625235>it would need all-around 14.5mm protection for the artillery protection desiredwhy>it would need tracks for the off-road performance desiredalso why>it would need a cannonjust because you demand a cannon because you want a cannon doesn't mean you get to discard viable and readily available alternatives that do the exact same thing.>the TOW is actually not-ideal for fire support neither is an extra good for nothing 40 ton tracked vehicle
>>65625205>by this point infantry has LAWs, AT4s, Carl Gustavs, Jvelinsall of which necessitate a dismount, meaning operational momentum is killed outright by every single entrenched position encountered
>>65625252>killed outright by every single entrenched position encounteredSo after all that back and forth, what you want is a breakthrough vehicle. Oh wait, that's called a tank.
>>65625298its not a breakthrough vehicle, its a supporting elementa platoon is assigned to provide additional firepower to brigadesit is not the spearhead of a push, its there to provide longer reach in a more protected package for the infantryinfantry will inevitably reach a position where closing in with AT4s is too risky and the alternative is hoping brigade artillery isnt busywhich is where an assault gun is useful, it isnt as easily stopped by machine guns or artillery fragments, can independently react to threats as they appear, and has more range than either an AT4 or carl gustavthis is not a breakthrough vehicle but still represents an improvement in protection and firepower than using hand weapons
>>65625305>it is not the spearhead of a push, its there to provide longer reach in a more protected package for the infantryIf it's not a spearhead of a push then you don't need 14.5mm all round protection.>infantry will inevitably reach a position where closing in with AT4s is too risky and the alternative is hoping brigade artillery isnt busyNo, the alternative is pulling out a bunch of FPVs from your backpack and letting the best gamer in your platoon fly them.
>>65625310>If it's not a spearhead of a push then you don't need 14.5mm all round protection.anything on the front line is in range of artillery and enemy MGs>No, the alternative is pulling out a bunch of FPVs from your backpack and letting the best gamer in your platoon fly them.a platoon is only carrying a handful of FPVs at most and if a platoon is hiding in the back launching FPVs they arent actually advancing and taking positionshaving a brigade vehicle with a big gun provides more firepower than a handful of drones and doesnt need the operators to hang backand in any case, they dont serve the same role and dont exclude each otheryou arent taking out a buuilding by launching 2 FPVs at two windows and then marching 30 minutes to the front by which point the enemy has re-manned the positionsyou are going to keep pressure up on the building continuously with a vehicle already on site so the infantry can actually advance into the building without having to deal with machine guns in every window
>>65625314>anything on the front line is in range of artillery and enemy MGsAnd in range of the whole arsenal of AT weapons that would light up the moment someone sees something vaguely resembling a tank but actually isn't.>a platoon is only carrying a handful of FPVs at mostSounds like you need an organic division-level asset that can easily transport more than a handful of FPVs to the front then.>you arent taking out a buuilding by launching 2 FPVs at two windows and then marching 30 minutes to the front by which point the enemy has re-manned the positionsYou're not going to find anyone dumb enough to re-man a position that only just got blown up by 2 FPVs 30 minutes ago. Even ziggers aren't that suicidal.>so the infantry can actually advance into the building without having to deal with machine guns in every windowIf you're sending light infantry into a location where you have machine guns sticking out of every window and nothing but a Booker for support, I feel sorry for the infantry.
>>65625322>And in range of the whole arsenal of AT weapons that would light up the moment someone sees something vaguely resembling a tank but actually isn't.infantry under normal circumstances would need to either wait for artillery to be available or else attack the structure with AT4s and carl gustavsthe former wastes time and the latter is the most dangerous thing you can dothe M10 has more range and power than the latter and faster reaction than the former, that alone is worth it>Sounds like you need an organic division-level asset that can easily transport more than a handful of FPVs to the front then.if you are talking about brigade-level drone controllers, that falls into the same drawback as artilleryyou need to call it in and then wait for effectplatoon-level drones are limited by what they can physically carry and that if they are operating them they are way out far behind and will not be able to follow up on their own attackthe M10 is physically present alongside the infantry and so infantry can exploit its fire from the moment it shoots>If you're sending light infantry into a location where you have machine guns sticking out of every window and nothing but a Booker for support, I feel sorry for the infantry.there will eventually come a time when infantry have to displace an enemy from a strongpointthe only brigade level asset they have to knock it out is their hand weapons, which requires getting extremely close, exposing infantry to attack, and having barely a dozen shots per person or evne just 1 shot per person in the case of the AT4and artillery, which has lag between being called in and hitting and not always being availablethe M10 bridges this gap by being more survivable and longer range than the former and being able to react to threats more quickly than the latter
>>65625324>the M10 has more range and power than the latter and faster reaction than the former, that alone is worth itWould infantry appreciate the presence of an M10? Obviously. Does it make sense to make a half-baked vehicle specifically for that purpose? Fuck no. And as I said, drones have bridged that gap.>if you are talking about brigade-level drone controllers, that falls into the same drawback as artilleryNo, I'm talking about a bunch of UGVs or heavy transport drones that can transport a bunch of extra FPVs to the front as needed. You were the one who brought up the issue of limited FPVs at the platoon level. As for the issue of response time for brigade-level drone support, it's much less of an issue as artillery as drones can loiter and can be sent ahead of infantry. The response time is just fine as seen in Ukraine.>there will eventually come a time when infantry have to displace an enemy from a strongpointYou either bypass the strongpoint or level the entire thing to the ground. If you absolutely need to send troops in, you send in mechanized infantry, not light infantry. I'll say it again, you're doing it wrong if you're sending insufficiently supported light infantry to displace an enemy from a strongpoint.
>>65625047>M3 (M8) dimensions: 5.0m*2.3m*2.7m>JLTV dimensions: 6.2m*2.5m*2.6mKnow what, I completely agree. A nimble MRAP-sized howitzer motor carrier that can be issued to each weapons company (or even platoon, in the grunts' dreams) is exactly what the Booker should've been. Patria NEMO or some other direct-fire M120 derivative as the armament perhaps, so it can be useful for the 95% of engagements in which direct anti-armor fire is unnecessary.
>>65625330>You either bypass the strongpoint or level the entire thing to the groundbypassing is not always an option ,especially for ICBTslevelling the entire structure requires concentrated artillery fire which a brigade would be hardpressed to do with its battery, which will be taking tons of requests and will not always be available> If you absolutely need to send troops in, you send in mechanized infantry, not light infantryIBCTs simply do not have the luxury of ignoring every single target in their way and ABCTs are going to be concentrated at the primary axis of advance"waiting for the tanks" would be the absolute slowest way to clear the way forward because you would then have to wait for an ABCT to be made available and then physically make its way to your position and then take over the advanceassaulting strong points is an inevitably and not one that an IBCT has the luxury of avoiding entirely or simply waiting in place for artillery to level, which would represent a defensive victory for the defenders because the successfully delayed the attackers without ever firing a shotso, again, infantry have only two options to deal with strongpointsget suicidally close with hand weapons or use artillery and hope that it isnt backlogged with requieststhe M10 is a logical solution, since it can physically communicate with infantrymen to fire at priority targets as they appear or identify and destroy targets independently while also being far safer than having to fire AT4s at every target
>>65625335>levelling the entire structure requires concentrated artillery fire which a brigade would be hardpressed to do with its battery, which will be taking tons of requests and will not always be availableWhat do you think we're dealing with, the Maginot Line? The strongpoint should also be pre-softened with a good amount of precision air strikes before the infantry even gets close. You're speaking as if strongpoints of that level somehow appear out of thin air.>the M10 is a logical solution, since it can physically communicate with infantrymen to fire at priority targets as they appear or identify and destroy targets independently while also being far safer than having to fire AT4s at every targetYou keep pretending there's nothing between artillery and AT4s. Even in that hypothetical world, a "nimble MRAP-sized howitzer motor carrier" like the anon above described would be a far more practical choice, and you could probably even field 3-4 of them for the same cost and logistical footprint as a single Booker while bringing much more firepower to the table.
>>65623467https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4d9qeb-ucc
>>65625341>You're speaking as if strongpoints of that level somehow appear out of thin air.because facing them is an inevitability, bypassing or sieging them is a luxury>You keep pretending there's nothing between artillery and AT4sbecause that is the current case with an IBCT, as is they have one organic artillery battery and then div artillery above themanything other than that, they have to handle themselves with their hand weaponswhich is where the M10 was supposed to come in, bridging that gap with heavy firepower>a "nimble MRAP-sized howitzer motor carrier" like the anon above described would be a far more practical choice, which would then resemble the M10 in form and function, because of the protection and off-road requirements
>>65625344>which would then resemble the M10 in form and function, because of the protection and off-road requirementAnon it's not even close. The M35 alone weighs 2900lb versus 318lb for the M121 carrier mortar system. That makes the turret proportionally heavier and the chassis balloons from there. Whereas a complete, autoloading NEMO is only 4200lb for the entire armored turret.
>>65625344>because that is the current case with an IBCTwhy do you keep lying like that? you keep pretending that everything m10 does is vitally and unequivocally necessary and everything it doesn't isn't needed and doesn't exist.who in their right mind would be running such stubborn damage control for a failed 3rd wheel program that's more at home in the 1960s?
The fact is that the only other organic asset capable of providing rapid fire support like that for the light division would be the attack helicopters (on station), which isn't really a realistic prospect in most modern combat environments.FPV drones can't, in any way or form, match the amount of firepower needed to actually bring a building down on its occupants or to blast a wall to smithereens from a distance. They're primarily hand grenade / PG-7 levels of effectiveness. You need larger guns for the purpose, and if you're not going to do like the Soviets and attach proper MBTs into infantry units, the MPF project was your best shot.
>>65625377there's been a solutions to blasting heavy fortifications for a while, and it's called M1156 PGK. shoehorning a large and heavy gun into this for such a narrow-minded purpose is ww2 era thinming.
>>65625333Ive maintained from the start that the best option would be an MTV chassis with all its drive parts shared with MTV trucks it would be supporting, but with a centauro-shaped shell bolted to it. This way the only unique parts it has are related to the gun, with everything else fitting within the existing logistical footprint. The booker was okay though, desu all this pilpul over what would have been better is missing the forest for the trees; that there remains a gap in capability that will remain open in apparent perpetuity with the booker cancellation.
>>65625383>30m CEP>10% risk estimate distance of 125 metersNo I don't think that's it.
>>65625387>30m CEPwhy are you citing program goals like you donn't know that it's achieved 10m CEP in practice, with 1 in 4 direct hits? can you be an even more disingenous slimy nigger?
>>65625390With or without GPS jamming?Since we're talking about "in practice" and all.
>>65625387>>10% risk estimate distance of 125 meterswasn't your entire point that infantry weapons are too short ranged so you need a big gun to fire from afar at buildings?
>>65625395modern versions are resistant to GPS jamming so it doesn't matter, your delusional cherrypicking and deflections are meaningless and pathetic.
>>65624980I want an 80 ton assault mech, doesn't mean it should be given to me.
>>65625383Certainly, but they take time to setup up, during which time everyone else is eating shit; and presumably your hypothetical large building full of entrenched combatants have their own IDF capability on call. So yeah, its a workable solution in the same way that call the cops and wait is a solution to having a serial killer inside your house.
>>65625333Won't we just get a robotic gun carriage that will take a fraction of the weight/space at some point?
>>65625400>but they take time to setup upit takes less time to set up than to drive your tracked cuck shed and lay the gun on whatever you're aiming.
>>65625396>your entire pointI specifically went out of my way to not reply to anyone and you still assume I'm the same guy, damn you.Direct fire support is used at whatever range you have to. You might drive it up to their door and jam the barrel inside, or you might blast at them from 2km away from on top of a hill. Whatever's your need at the moment in relation to how big the crews' balls are.>>65625398>modern versions are resistant to GPS jammingThe modern jammers are resistant towards GPS jamming bypassing so they still work to make it inaccurate. :^)>your delusional cherrypicking and deflections are meaningless and pathetic.So you've run out of arguments and feel upset because of it.Do you also, by the way, propose that the artillery battery fire PGK shells onto every single target that direct fire would otherwise be used on? Hundreds if not thousands of targets in a single AO?
>>65625400So you just described a sort of strongpoint that you really shouldn't be sending light infantry against unless that unit is named Wagner and your name happens to be Prigozhin. A fucking M10 isn't doing jack shit there.
>>65625405>I specifically went out of my way to not reply to anyoneyes, you deliberately run away from any arguments you lose and just repeat your idiotic drivel again hoping nobody will notice how battered and full of shit you are.
>>65625405>The modern jammers are resistant towards GPS jamming bypassingsource: you ragged bottle-filled asshole
>>65625407Take your meds so you'll calm down, schizo. Neuroleptics are good for you.
>>65625411Oh look, it's the same source you provided, how nice of you to notice.
>>65625405>Do you also, by the way, propose that the artillery battery fire PGK shells onto every single target that direct fire would otherwise be used on?first it is a super fortified building that manportable weapons cannot even scratch, now it is every single target because not using the M10 means direct fire ceases to exist.are you pretending to be retarded and arguing in bad faith for something you don't even believe in or are you really this delusional?
>>65625404I realize you are very angry and malding, but do you really expect me to believe that an organic armored fire support vehicle within a fire-upon convoy will have a slower response time than a lowed gun at the back of said convoy who has to reposition, unhitch and set up before it can even load a round? Obviously I dont believe that because that is silly and desperate cope, but do you believe that?
>>65625402There's probably still going to be a minimum weight floor you'd want to stay above depending on what kind of gun you're sticking on it.
>>65625414>first it is a super fortified building that manportable weapons cannot even scratchAlso known as the average concrete apartment building.>now it is every single target because not using the M10 means direct fire ceases to exist.Light divisions do not have the direct fire equipment for those fires. The MPF was supposed to be their weapon system for the purpose, but now they have nothing.
>>65625412what, no ignoring(running away like a bitch) my posts this time?this flippant, womanly manner of shilling for the most retarded reformer esque garbage imaginable sure sounds like our old little friend robert is seeking socialization again, do you happen to know something about it?
>>65625420The MPF is going to be blown up the moment it enters direct fire range of said strongpoint, and that's if it's even lucky enough to get that far. Does Vuhledar not ring a bell to you?
>>65625422You have no counter-arguments. You are wrong and upset because of it.This is where we stand right now. Are you going to say something meaningful or is it best if you pretend none of this ever happened and I go do something more productive?
>>65625420>Light divisions do not have the direct fire equipment for those fires.yes they do, AT4s, CGs and Javelins are exactly that.>inb4 he avoids this point and claims they don't exist in an hour again.
>>65625425this scared attempt at avoiding getting called out while mirror to repeat the accusations you've received really looks like robert behavior. are you sure you don't want to start samefagging to try to distract me from focusing on this point right now? it works better if you start sooner rather than later as you could've learned if you were capable of learning from your actions and their consequences.
>>65625426Nowhere near the explosive amount needed. You can pretend a top-attack shaped charge warhead missile has the same explosive power as a 105mm HE shell twice its weight, but that will not become reality regardless. Neither will it solve the simple question of availability and reasonableness. Where will you drag hundreds of Javelin missiles out from, a single missile being worth a hundred shells? Your ass? Will you expend all your organic anti-tank weapons to target buildings, leaving your entire unit utterly vulnerable against any enemy armor?>>65625429Nice Kafka trap, you stupid nigger. Seethe more, pathetic retard.
>>65625435So now the task is to assault a Bakhmut-level fortified city that has armored reserves to call upon with a single IBCT? I give up mein monke, just push me out of a window and end it all.
So, are we just seeing "troops need mechanized firepower" and "light infantry should be light" argument unfolding in front of us in real time without ever actually talking about the T19/T30 HMCs?Because we can actually just apply the same arguments to that thing>infantry dont need a half track with a howitzer, they just need a howitzer >if they meet a building that needs an SPG, then they should have sent an armored division with M4s instead
>>65625402Ammunition space, mainly. Same reason the featherweight 120mm mortar gets to ride a whole M113. A remotely operated MRAP-sized robot sure could fit a lot more armor and shells in the same space as a 4-man crew but that's probably too radical to please the "raaah we need a big gun" thinkers begging for one.
>>65625470>T19/T30 HMCsThose things aren't even close in cost and weight to a Sherman. As you probably noticed, no one had issues with giving light infantry more practical fire support vehicles.
>>65625481So your argument is that weight was a perfectly valid reasont to exclude the halftrack SPG?
>>65625483What the fuck are you talking about? The Sherman weighed a good 3-4X as much. The Booker weighs 10 tons more than a Sherman.
>>65625490The reason for ditching the halftrack SPG was nominally because it was too heavy and too mecanically complex for infantry divisions, and thus was replaced by towed gunsSo your argument is that they were totally making the right call
>>65625494No, you're putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did i say that the HMCs were a bad idea.
>>65625495You are using the same reasoning, that the M10 is too heavy and too complex for infantry divisions, that the brass used for the HMCsSo i can only assume you are pro-towed gun
>>65625435>Kafka trapis panicking whenever someone mentions robert a kafka trap? is angrily lashing at them while doing everything to avoid talking about it one?at what point does a chair with a name tag on it becomes a trap, how low iq does it take to get into it?
>>65625497it's pretty telling that you have been reduced to strawmanning with towed guns to make booker look at all good at this point.
>>65625497>You are using the same reasoning, that the M10 is too heavy and too complex for infantry divisions, that the brass used for the HMCsWhere the fuck did I say that? Bookers are a shit idea because they're shitty light tanks. If you wanted a fire support vehicle, you can make something lighter and cheaper. If you wanted a tank, you get a proper tank. The Booker is a suboptimal piece of shit.
>>65625501Just trying to bring the argument back to whether halftrack SPGs were better than towed guns for infantry divisions The argument for them is that they were faster and more protected The argument against them is that they were heavier and more complexBased on your arguments for the booker, which you somehow turned into the subject of the thread solely because it was mentioned off handedly at the start, you are probably arguing against the HMC since your arguments against the booker are the same ones levelled against the HMC
>>65625504>Based on your arguments for the bookerwhich ones? you seem to keep ignoring all arguments you cannot address and choose to strawman about weight and complexity instead.>which you somehow turned into the subject of the threadlmao, says the retard foaming at the mouth defending thsi piece of shit.
>>65625508>and choose to strawman about weight and complexity instead.That's your ultimate issue with it, that its too heavy for an infantry divisionWeight is what you keep bringing up, so obviously team towed gun is the winner since its lighter than the HMC
>>65625511>so obviously team towed gun is the winnerwhy not bring up medieval bombards at this point? since reductionism to weight is all you can shape straw into due to people calling booker an obese piece of shit.
>>65625512>since reductionism to weight is all you can shape strawThats literally your main argument against it, that its too heavy for an infantry divisionSo clearly the HMC was the inferior choice>into due to people calling booker an obese piece of shitYou say absolutely nothing about the HMC and everything about the booker So thats the only thing I have to extrapolate your opinion on the HMC overIf weight is such a big deal to you, then the armys reasoning for preferring the towed gun was the right one
>>65625516>Thats literally your main argument against it, that its too heavy for an infantry divisionThat is what you're pretending everyone is saying. At least try harder if you're trolling. This is worse bait than what goes on in flat earth threads.>You say absolutely nothing about the HMC and everything about the booker No one had anything bad to say about the HMC. Everyone had something bad to say about the Booker. If you can't put 2 and 2 together and think it's a weight issue, you need to get your brain checked.
>>65625540>That is what you're pretending everyone is saying.just pretend that its weight hasnt been the core of your argument?>No one had anything bad to say about the HMC.just based on your argument against the booker, i can only assume you take the same stance for the HMC
>>65625542>just pretend that its weight hasnt been the core of your argument?It isn't, and it's part of no one's argument. But you're obviously too dumb or too much of an ESL to even comprehend that.>just based on your argument against the bookerBased on your pants on retarded straw man that you're now resorting to after all your previous lines of reasoning were absolutely dumpstered on by the different anons replying to you.
>>65625543>It isn't, and it's part of no one's argumentit is seemingly all you are able to bring up as an argument against it> after all your previous lines of reasoning were absolutely dumpstered on by the different anons replying to you.the only line of reasoning against it is that its too overweightso this is an open and shut case against the HMC, the brass were right to replace it with a lightweight towed gun
>>65625544>the only line of reasoning against it is that its too overweightI'll bite. If the USAF asked for a new fighter design and you gave them a subsonic brick that can barely fly or carry any payload, is weight the issue?
>>65625546the army asked for an all-around 14.5mm protected armored vehicle with a 105mm gun for the purposes of direct fire and thats exactly what they gotthey then got 100 of them before hegseth went on a mass cancellation spree of stuff they already ordered
>>65625546>>65625548however, in any case, none of this is relevant to the T19 and T30s
>>65625548>the army asked forNo, the 82nd asked for a fucking light tank, and requirements were slowly removed to the point where they're now pretending that they really wanted a 42 ton tracked assault gun with 14.5mm all round protection. Even the requirement that a C-17 should be able to carry 2 of them was scrapped after the USAF said they wouldn't carry 2.You know it's fucking bad when you deliver them to Fort Campbell and it was found that 8 out of the 11 bridges couldn't handle the piece of shit. The Booker is a flaming turd because it met no one's requirements besides the bullshit ones that the Army had to pretend were what they wanted all along.
>>65625549Correct, because the T19 and T30 were fit for purpose. Time to move on.
>>65625553>because the T19 and T30 were fit for purposethey clearly werent, because they were replaced with the M3 pack howitzerwhich leads to OPs premise, the troops preferred a mechanized gun that had more mobility whereas the army insisted that light infantry should be light and the half-tracks added too much weight and complexity and re-organized the cannon company to only use pack howitzers, a move which ended up being unpopularwhich leads to OPs premise, were the troops in the right for asking for a mechanized gun despite being ostensibly being too large for them?or was the army right for insisting on smaller, lighter, cheaper towed guns for them?
>>65625557>they clearly werent, because they were replaced with the M3 pack howitzerThey were procured in large numbers and were popular among troops. Ergo, fit for purpose.>whereas the army insisted that light infantry should be light and the half-tracksIf there were logistics concerns, sure. But you'll always want mobility if you can get it, whether officially provided or whether you'd have to find your own wheels like the 83rd ID.
>>65625551Yeah, and a consumer with balls and contract lawyers worth a damn would've demanded a refund, too. Leopard 1A5s have been around for 40 years.
>>65625562Oh yes, but the other guy has been arguing in bad faith all thread saying that so-called "manlet only" tanks are not an option.
>>65625557>they clearly werent, because they were replaced with the M3 pack howitzerCannon companies were intended to provide direct fire support. The T19 and T30's mobility was what enabled that. When those were replaced with the M3 pack howitzer, the cannon companies ended up being redeployed as a 4th battery of less capable "regular" artillery alongside their M2 counterparts, which basically made it so useless that there were even plans to simply fold it into the Regiment HHC.Some divisions later even started outfitting the cannon companies with the heavier M7 Priest and the Infantry School in 1945 wanted to outfit them with Pershings/Shermans equipped with M4 105 Howitzers. The M3 pack guns were unfit for purpose, not the T19/30.
I feel like the soviets had the right idea with putting a low velocity 100mm on their BMP and BMD
>>65623652>the german equivelant was this thingCough, cough StuG III
>>65625230You are not shooting even remotely accurately with a CG at 700m in a regular combat scenario.
>>65625007until they frag you
>>65624924>an entire wagon could only provide 1 hours worth of shooting for a unit equipped with spencers, And if they win the engagement in less than an hour due to fire superiority, ability to fire while advancing and inflicting more casualties?
>>65625333>>65625402>>65625479Why are “we” pretending motorized guns and howitzers are unknown arcane technology?
>>65626289Nah, the French did it better, and even that was goofy.
>>65626289I like the idea but I've only heard bad things about it.
>>65626505the 60mm gun-mortars?
>>65626345He's not wrong, Wehrmacht infantry divisions wouldn't have organic StuG IIIs as standard equipment. Waffen SS infantry would have a few though.
>>65626345stug units were mostly corp-level units that were assigned to support divisions, which made them the equivalent of separate tank battalions not regimental cannonsonly a few late war volksgrenadier units got divisional stugs in their divisonal TD, since german divisions werent standardizedbut volk units were hastily raised after the collapse of the falaise pocket, so they only really got to see use against the western allies in the battle of the bulge most divisions stuck with their towed infantry guns
damn i wish i was smart enough for tactics instead of just gun tism
>>65626740>stug units were mostly corp-level units that were assigned to support divisionsso were M3 GMC & M6 unitslike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/601st_Tank_Destroyer_Battalion for example who was part of the 2nd corps, got attached to the 1st infantry division and fought in operation torch and had its M3 GMCs both spread around the infantry division for fire support and used together at el Guettar against tanks
Couldn’t you just add a light gun suitable for direct fire to a Gavin?
>>65626758OP seemingly confused the T30 HMC and the M3 GMC, since both of them have the 75mm gunthe T30 was in the the regimental cannon company early in the war before being replaced by the M3 pack howitzer
>>65626767>gavinnever say that againthe australians slapped a saladin turret on an M113 and called it a fire support vehicleits a 76mm low-velocity gun, so its basically a BMP at home
>>65623490It was 30 tons lighter. It could go way more places with the infantry than the Abrams can.
>>65623666If memory serves, part of the reason why the Booker was cancelled was because it compared poorly to the Type 10.
>>65626779Yes, who needs a Booker when you can do just that? It’s a proven platform, cheap, and in practice, it’s just as durable as Booker would be, as both are equally dead if they get hit by AT weapons.
>>65626505What exactly did the french do better?
You people going on about the Booker forget it was cancelled because it couldn't be airlifted. That was it. A requirement never requested during the original procurement design spec stage.IBCTs are still, to this day, without their own means of heavy fire support. All you retards mentioning drones or thinking a CG is firing at an entrenched position from 700m is a viable alternative to giving a IBCTs an actual fire support system that is not part of another division seem to forget that this problem is still not covered.The Booker was classified as an assault gun. The requirement for putting something big on a position without needing a separate unit to do it is still there. The Chinese created 'sniper rifle grenade launchers' to deal with positions like this in terrain that is not conducive to vehicles.
>>65626797>as both are equally dead if they get hit by AT weapons.the M113 was already considered insufficiently protected against small arms, .50cal only on the front and only beyond 300mthe low velocity of the 76mm means it has to get closer to target which means enemy 14.5mm MGs are going to have an easier time hitting it which makes the thinner armor even more of a problem
>>65626785Not enough contrast to get my peepee up. Needs to be 20 tons or less, preferably half that when naked.
I've always been a fan of the brutish simplicity of just sticking a recoilless rifle on top of your APC and calling it a day
>>65626353at a large stationary building? 700m is genuinely modest, combat scenario or not.
>>65626813>recoilless riflewhy didn't these take off(during the late '40s and all 1950s they were bling bling in the west)
>>65626758The Army Air Forces used M3 halftracks for airbase security as well. The TO&E of an Air Base Security Battalion included a platoon of four TDs as well as three platoons of halftrack mounted mechanized infantry used to counterattack an opposing force should they reach the base.For a very brief moment in time after the Kasserine Pass where several units saw combat, as well as at El Guettar, it was decided to upgrade the TDs to Sherman tanks but the units were all segregated and the Air Forces didn't want a bunch of bored disgruntled blacks to have unchecked access to the most firepower on base so they were taken away after a few months.https://igorchub.at.ua/index/striking_force_company_air_base_security_battalion_1_april_1942_table_of_organization_7_418/0-739
>>65627116they did, they still use them todaythe carl gustaf is still pretty widespreadthe RPG-7 uses a hybrid recoilless/rocket launch system, if you want to count thatits just that recoilless guns have relatively short range and low muzzle velocityso when tanks became more armored, you couldnt get a long-range recoilless rifle that could still be carried on footso they were mostly relegated to fire support, the carl gustaf is more for knocking out BMPs and buildings than tanksquad/platoon level AT was then mostly carried out by the LAW which is even smaller than the CG and the M47 dragon, which is wire guided and could have a half-decent chance of hitting enemy armor
>>65627116Because they're very limited in development compared to missiles or recoiling rifles. Over longer engagement ranges and against composite armor they're increasingly useless.
>>65627156regular guns already hit their limit in 1945the largest towed guns that could be realistically moved by a truck or really determined people were the 50-60mm guns like the 6-pdr, which were now only useful against the side armor of medium tanksguns capable of penetrating the frontal armor like the 17-pdr or pak 75mm were so heavy that they couldnt be moved on foot at all and were stuck once deployedyou could squeeze a bit more power out of them with tungsten ammo, but that would only delay their obsolescence, since sub-caliber tungsten rounds only became commonplace after WW2 by which point shaped charges were the clear future
>>65627155checked, yeah I was talking about the larger caliber field artillery tripod ones (75 - 90 - 120)not the designated short range squad AT>TOW, LAWnot a recoilless rifle, neither are ATGMs>>65627156Didn't ask about anti-tank weapons (whether rockets-missiles or guns)question is about the recoilless rifle/gun field artillery piece with perforated ammunition case
>>65626810where are you facing the 14.5mm guns with any regularity again?basidese gavins could be up-armored to all around 14.5mm protection for decades and the frontal upgrade is so common it's almost standaed issue.
>>65627199>question is about the recoilless rifle/gun field artillery piecelargely unnecessary with the existence of 40mm grenades and LAW for small work on one end and the 120mm mortars on the other when it comes to blowing things up.large recoilless guns were replaced by ATGM systems in their primary role, that being ani-armor.
>>65626797Booker is at least proofed against autocannons from the front. Basically got the same armor scheme as the Leopard 1, which makes the fact it comes after the Abrams kind of funny.
>>65627203>where are you facing the 14.5mm guns with any regularity again?14.5mm is so widespread on the battlefield that it became the new standard over the previous 12.7mmits also a stand in for 155mm fragmentation at point blank, which was already an issue in the cold war and is now considered the bare minimumboth of those are concerns for a vehicle intended to operate closely with infantryand a low-velocity gun would mean that you have to get even closer to your target and expose yourself even more
>>65627199the main purpose of the recoilless guns was anti-tankthe 90mm and 105mm recoilless gun was issued to anti-tank squads in the US army and the 120mm BAT was also primarily intended for anti-tankthey were phased out because it was not really possible to scale them up against newer, more heavily armored, tanks without making them too cumbersomeso once missiles were available, larger tripod mounted recoilless guns were phased out and smaller recoilless guns like the CG were redesignated as general purpose long-range guns rather than anti-tank
HE shells were rarely seen in use with recoilless rifles; could it be that HEAT shells served as an adequate substitute for the purpose of scattering shrapnel?
>>65627229>14.5mm is so widespread on the battlefieldwhere is it?
>>65627313BTRs 60, 70 and 80, as well as BRDMs are all armed with a 14.5mm KPVT.Choose a country the US might want to invade and they've got BTRs.
>>65627244checked, better explanation than the others itt
>>65627331So first it needs a 105mm because it's supposed to hang back and provide long range fire support, and now you're saying that it's going to be close enough to the front for 14.5mm to be a problem? Which is it? What does it do that a Bradley can't?
>>65627353You're tilting at windmills.
>>65627353>Which is itboththe range is there to allow it to hit targets way past what handheld weapons need, so that it doesnt need to drive up so closethis is both for standoff and to make it easier to react to threats since it doesnt have to drive as far to engage itthe armor is specified as a bare minimum, anything at the front exchanging fire with the enemy needs that amount of protection because thats an omni-present anti-material caliber and because 14.5mm AP is an approximation of 155mm artillery fragments at <30m rangesthe M113 FSV would need even more armor than the M10 does, because its now has to get even closer and make it even more vulnerable> What does it do that a Bradley can't?the cannon was desired over an autocannon because it has more effect on target and more range
>>65627374>the armor is specified as a bare minimum, anything at the front exchanging fire with the enemyIt won't be "at the front exchanging fire with the enemy" because of the "standoff" capabilities the 105mm cannon provides. >155mm artillery fragments at <30m rangesAdversaries aren't bothering with that anymore in the age of drones. Your M10 is blowing up all the same so your "bare minimum" is pointless.>because it has more effect on target and more rangeMeanwhile Bradleys are used to great effect in Ukraine for exactly the purpose the M10 was intended for, while the closest analog to the M10, the Leopard 1A5, is used as an HE lobber. Turns out army planners were full of shit.
>>65627383>It won't be "at the front exchanging fire with the enemy" because of the "standoff" capabilities the 105mm cannon provides.14.5mm fire is expected even with the range of the 105mm, its simply the most common threat >Adversaries aren't bothering with that anymore in the age of drones.you have to be crazy to think artillery no longer mattersthe biggest use of drones was as spotters for artillery, which made them more accurate and made artillery protection vitalthe ukranians themselves have demanded artillery protection even on vehicles that arent designed to be close to the front14.5mm is the bare minimum for a combat vehicle now>Meanwhile Bradleys are used to great effect in Ukraine for exactly the purpose the M10 was intended fobradleys are used as bradleys, IFVs that fight alongside their dismounts in mechanized unitsthe M10 was going to infantry units that need a source of protected, direct fire, artillerythe autocannon exists on the bradley as a compromise to make room for dismounts, but a vehicle intended solely for fire support and not dismounts can instead focus solely on the gunand a 105mm has more range and more effect on target than an autocannon, which is especially important when dealing with targets in cover
>>65627394>14.5mm fire is expected even with the range of the 105mm, its simply the most common threatIt's "so expected" that you hardly see it as a problem anymore in the battlefield where you probably wouldn't see a greater concentration being used.>14.5mm is the bare minimum for a combat vehicle nowHow many videos do w have of M113s just not giving a fuck and going in under heavy fire and coming out just fine? Drone spotting matters if your artillery is actually accurate enough to place shells on target, and zigger tubes have not proven to be capable of that this entire war apart from early footage with Krasnopols.>the ukranians themselves have demanded artillery protection even on vehicles that arent designed to be close to the frontIf you're not slapping a fuckass 105mm cannon on it and you have the weight budget to spare, why the fuck not?>but a vehicle intended solely for fire support and not dismounts can instead focus solely on the gun"Adding a gun" makes it weigh 10 tons more than a Bradley while being of highly questionable utility in actual combat usage.>which is especially important when dealing with targets in coverIn the real world, drones have now made that a non-issue.
>>65623530It's 38 tons
>>65627410It's 42 tons currently (i.e. likely to grow) and it doesn't matter because the USAF said they aren't carrying 2 on a single C-17 regardless.
>>65627405>It's "so expected"its literally the benchmark for NATO standards because its the main anti-material round after 7.62x51 AP>Drone spotting matters if your artillery is actually accurate enough to place shells on target, 155mm artillery protection was already a significant concern in the cold war with dumb artilleryPGMs and drone spotting means those rounds are landing closer and more often, so where 12.7mm from straddling shots was once sufficient now has to be 14.5mm protection from rounds landing at extreme close range>"Adding a gun" makes it weigh 10 tons more than a Bradley while being of highly questionable utility in actual combat usage.the HE round of a 105mm is vastly more effective than the autocannon, which is why they asked for itprogrammable rounds for blasting people through walls and HESH for knocking down the entire walls are capabilities that autocannons dont have at all or only have worse versions ofthe autocannon was chosen as a compromise to accomodate dismounts, but for purely supporting infantry the cannon is superior>In the real world, drones have now made that a non-issue.a cannon round on target from an AFV right next to you is faster and has less wait time than waiting for a drone to do itand drones are usually controlled by people nowhere near the battlefield and are choosing their own targets and close coordination isnt nearly as guaranteed
>>65627422Lmao, you're just going in circles and pretending these points haven't already been addressed by all the anons above you.
>>65627423>haven't already been addressed by all the anons above you.no it hasnt?the armor is what it is because thats what you need to operate on the battlefieldthe gun is what it is because that has the range, power, and ammo selectionneither a bradley nor an upgunned M113 have both those things and wouldnt make the cut if they had been offered
>>65627430>the armor is what it is because thats what you need to operate on the battlefieldNo>the gun is what it is because that has the range, power, and ammo selectionNo>and wouldnt make the cut if they had been offeredCorrect, because kicking the can down to the next guy in the line is easier than being the one to take responsibility and cancel a project that had long failed to meet the initial requirements.
>>65623658>Externalized (typically bustle) autoloading ammo storage adds significant weight to Soviet platforms on average. If you took any T-64/72/80 platform (and yes, the T-90 is just a T-72) and made them conform to those requirements and to also load NATO single piece 105mm or 120mm you'd see over 5 tons of weight increase.Soviet tanks are so compact that if you want any survivability, you should give up on a big cannon entirely and either have a 75/76mm cannon or more likely, something between a 30mm or 40mm. With modern programmable ammo, its fine. For a big boom, an ATGM would work fine.
>>65627199okay short answer is rec rifle backblast causes concussions so you're best off not using them, happy?
>>65627353>What does it do that a Bradley can't?Put a 105mm hole in things. Shoot down drones.
>>65627418It's 42 'metric' tons.
>>65627108Except you're not going to be shooting at a 'large stationary building' you're going to be firing at a bunker made of bamboo and wood that has been dug into a hillside. Putting a 105mm through the slit is infinitely better than a CG.
>>65627526NTA but let me explain. The REQUESTED REQUIREMENTS of vehicle that became the M10 Booker were the following;>Lighter than a MBTIt is.>More protection than a IFVIt has.>Cheaper than a MBTIt is.>Better firepower than a IFVIt has or is equal to the 105 Stryker>Tracked, not wheeledIt wasThose were the requirements. They were met. They were building them. Units have been delivered. Then Trump's admin came in, looked at it, cancelled it by claiming because it wasn't airdroppable it was operationally useless. When in reality it was canned to reduce budget cost so Trump could claim he is a great economist. Same reason they cancelled loads of other planned vehicle replacements. Yes, they said 'increase missile and sea drone production' which is fine, but that doesn't help with the issue IBCTs have which is lack of heavy fire support which doesn't require requesting support from a mech unit, air assets or making everybody carry extra CG/LAW/AT4 and walking in range of machine gun posts to put it through a bunker slit. This idea of drones or just using weapons I mentioned is retarded because they're nowhere near as effective or useful as having a dedicated tracked vehicle fire support to help you and do it at ranges that nothing else in your units inventory can.
>>65626289Accuracy and range are too poor to do anything.
>>65624924To be completely fair the french had spent the entire interwar period seeming to upgrade before they "needed" to and ended up in a spiral of making a couple of shitty production runs before immediately moving onto the next thing, so I can at least see where the logic comes from
>>65623630Eh the Ontos was super popular with the marines because the VC would flee when they were brought forward.However Brass hated the vehicle because the marines were using it as an assault gun and not using it as a TD so they wanted it gone.
>>65628026>a bunker made of bamboo and wood that has been dug into a hillsidethat can be dealt with using a 40mm AGL or a fifty calcare to asspull any more asinine scenarios to justify your pointless turd of a vehicle?
>>65629125>that can be dealt with using a 40mm AGL or a fifty calthe automatic grenade launcher isnt even considered in the same league as a 30mm cannon, much less a 105mmthe 105mm is superior to either of them for defeating hard targets, which is why they asked for itthe most important consideration for the gun was the availability of programmable rounds, which lets you clear rooms entirely with delayed blastsa secondary consideration being HESH for knocking down walls entirely instead of just killing people inside, which the 105mm already has and neither 40mm GLs or 30mm cannons have
>>65626401well, beat your enemy in a mad minute, then run out of ammo and either wait for a fresh unit to relieve you or pull back to a shorter supply line
>>65628037>Those were the requirements. They were metThat's the most hilarious case of "checking the boxes" I've ever seen. By that logic, so long as GDLS made an Abrams that weighed 1 ton lighter than current models and cost 1 cent less, it would have met all the requirements. Let's go through them 1 by 1 in an honest manner>Lighter than a MBTIn its current configuration which isn't sufficiently protected against modern threats like drones, it already weighs 42 tons, as much as actual MBTs. The USAF said they're no longer carrying 2 Bookers per C-17, so you might as well stop giving a fuck and make it bigger and heavier.>More protection than a IFVA single FPV flies in and it still goes boom all the same, and FPVs are going to be the main threat it's going to face going forward>Cheaper than a MBTAt $13 million, it costs a whole order of magnitude more than a similarly specced Leopard 1A5 from 40 years ago and 2 million more than a much more capable Japanese Type 10, which is an actual MBT.>Better firepower than a IFV"Bigger gun" is no longer the only way to deliver more firepower on target, but when cold war reformer type boomers are running procurement, this is the sort of idiocy you get.>Then Trump's admin came in, looked at itSo at the end of the day, you can't even hide that your issue with the decision comes down to pure politics. Had some other admin taken a look at this flaming piece of junk and made the objectively correct decision to cancel it, you'd be applauding it like a circus seal while taking my position in the debate.
>>65629208>In its current configuration which isn't sufficiently protectedits sufficiently protected against machine guns and artillery, which are the main issue>A single FPV flies in and it still goes boom all the same,its protected against machine guns and artillery, which is the main concern when trying to take a strongpoint>Bigger gun" is no longer the only way to deliver more firepower on targetfor the purposes of an IBCT, it is their best way to deliver it
>>65629212>its sufficiently protected against machine guns and artillery, which are the main issueAccording to you>which is the main concern when trying to take a strongpointAccording to you>it is their best way to deliver itAccording to youNow take your cold war boomer reformer garbage out of here.
>>65623473>M10 Booker>designated for airborne, air assault and 10th mountain>hurr y cut tho?
>>65629267>designated for airborne, air assault and 10th mountainbecause they were re-organized to a structure similiar to an IBCTstheir status as elite units meant they got priority on deliveries, which is why they were the first to get M10sbut the majority of the M10s were headed to infantry divisions and a national guard divisions
>>65629273>IBCTs>A type of unit that will soon no longer exist because they are in the process of being reorganized into MBCTs where the M10 plays no role, a process that started in 2024 before muh Trump and muh Kegsbreath>M10 gets shitcanned>surprisedpikachu.jpg
>>65629438>A type of unit that will soon no longer exist because they are in the process of being reorganized into MBCTsLBCTs and MBCTs are both identical to IBCTs, only differing in that LBCTs have no organic motorization while MBCTs have squad carsbut the MPF battalion is held at the divisional level and distributed to support the IBCTs, whether L or M, so both of them would have had guaranteed M10 support
>>65629443>MBCTs, conceived in 2023 and tested in 2024, cut manpower from 4500 to 1900, a huge change that raised all sorts of concerns over whether they could do what they were supposed to do>Somehow expects nothing else would change at the division level when the original 2022 structure assumed IBCTsSure buddy.
>>65629443>LBCTs and MBCTs are both identical to IBCTNo they're not
>>65629491Watch him go in circles trying to explain how MPF companies don't appear in the chart because they're somehow not "attached" to the MBCT but totally still exist at the division level.
>>65629649>but totally still exist at the division level.they were always at the divisional level, even after the renaming of IBCTs to MBCTs and LBCTsattaching is done in the field at divisonal commanders discretion, since it may be more important to support a unit with 2 platoons instead of 1 for force concentration
>>65629650>renamingYes, it's nothing more than a renaming. You're not even trying at this point.
>>65629653most of the changes were moving elements up out of the brigade and up to the divisionthe MPF battalion was still listed under divisional assets even after the renaming of IBCTs to MBCTsso the re-organization would have accommodated MPFs inclusion, not hindered, since they were moving a lot of their heavy equipment to the division already
>>65629655>Still insists its a cosmetic name change after being proven wrongThis is what peak retardation looks like.
>>65629665it was a reshuffling of assets, most of which was moving units up to the divisional levelit still serves the same functionality, with the only real difference being ISVs being organic to squadsbut it really would not have affected the adoption of the M10, because the proposed divisional changes after renaming them to MBCTs had an MPF company with the division
>>65629148and a tactical nuke is superior to 105mm, why do you keep deflecting from the point that things that fulfill the task well enough already exist and don't nescessitate your shitass cold war vehicle shoehorned into light formations it has no business fitting into?
>>65629676>, why do you keep deflecting from the point that things that fulfill the task well enoughbecause they dont fulfill the taska handheld weapon has insufficient range and the user is unprotected
>>65629667>proposed divisional changes after renaming them to MBCTs had an MPF company with the divisionAnd then the MPFs got scrapped while each MBCT gets 400 drones to play with in the interim. MBCTs were also formed specifically as a response to lessons learned from the Ukraine war, where vehicles like the MPF can't even be used for anything other than indirect fire. I know you aren't the brightest bulb on the christmas tree, you don't have to make that even more obvious with every post you make.
>>65629693>lessons learned from the Ukraine war, where vehicles like the MPF can't even be used for anything other than indirect fire. A point further exemplified by Ukrainians converting their Leo 1s (basically an MPF by modern standards) into SPGs, by replacing the original turret with the Cockerill 3105, capable of +42° elevation (much more useful for indirect fire than the original +20°).
>>65629693>MBCTs were also formed specifically as a response to lessons learned from the Ukraine warNo. Study into MBCT's started well before Ukraine as a result of big army's shift away from COIN. The process formally started in FY23, but it was being class roomed for years before that.
>>65629722>Study into MBCT's started well before UkraineAnd looked nothing like the MBCTs we see today. The current MBCTs are highly influenced by the war in Ukraine, with great importance placed on drone tactics.
>>65629729>And looked nothing like the MBCTs we see today.the main addition was a brigade level drone companythe primary goal was identical, moving assets away from the brigade up to the division, especially artillery elements
>>65629734The brigade level drone company is the most important addition and is expected to shoulder a disproportionate amount of the brigade's burden in terms of recon, killing and protection. We now have training exercises where 90% of fire missions now involve drones, and commanders have noted huge increases in lethality while wasting much less ammunition.
>>65623737>Dodge Chargers with cases of Monsters and Zyns in the trunkMake it a F150/1500 then you would actually have a competent motorized infantry.
>>65629743>drones, and commanders have noted huge increases in lethality while wasting much less ammunition.TV guided weapons tend to be more accurate than indirect fire called on a grid square.
>>65629899Nah, this was specific to indirect fire called on a grid square with drones doing spotting and nothing else. I think the figure quoted was something like 50% fewer shells for 300% more lethality. Things obviously get a lot more fun once you throw drone munitions into the mix.
>>65629680yep, i guess the IBCT concept is compleetely unusable and unsalvageable, they should replace every infantryman with a booker.
>>65629982>they should replace every infantryman with a booker.Costs and logistics aside, a "brigade combat team" made up of 4500 Bookers would be uh, pretty damned capable.
>>65629218Not 'according to you' according to the admin that requested this, bought units and deployed units. Only for a new admin to come in and cancel it for 'not being airdroppable'. Which was never a requirement.Again, you've STILL not given any solution to IBCTs lack of heavy firepower.
>YOU CAN'T HAVE A BOOKER BECAUSE IT IS DESTROYED BY DRONES IT IS USELESS>BUT IT'S FINE FOR IBCTS FIREPOWER TO COME FROM A GUY WIELDING A CARL GUSTAV AT COMBAT RANGES THEY CAN JUST DODGE DRONES AND MACHINE GUNS AND RIFLES AND SHRAPNEL DON'T NEED NO VEHICLE FOR THAT
>>65629743>We now have training exercises where 90% of fire missions now involve drones, and commanders have noted huge increases in lethality while wasting much less ammunition.Nothing new bud. Use of quasi-modern drones for fires stretches back to the 1980's with the South Africans and Jews. We used pre-modern drones to spot fires in Vietnam >But it's changed since it was classroomed Yeah. There is a whole experimental process that you run through before you get your final ORBAT. You sound like a Ukraine dick rider with the shit you're posting. The trvth nvke is that aside from the tactical employment of drones there really isn't that much to learn from Ukraine in the operational sense - like, maybe some lessons about better dispersal and how far behind the LOC you need to disperse but that's not really an ORBAT lesson. Even the use of drones itself at the small-unit level predates Ukraine, we were operating Ravens at the battalion/company level in 2007 and started the rollout of drones at the platoon level in 2017.
>>65629743Drones have been organic at the brigade level since 2002. See: RQ-7 Shadow Platoons.
>>65623542>The Army lived in Germany then and could expect to fight there. They had all their stuff on hand. Now it has to plan around how it will get all its shit into whatever country they’re expected to fight in, and have to travel a lot lighter.So REFORGER... wasn't doctrine for decades? Are you high?
