Military Equipment Sperging Thread - The Tiger II is a better tank than the M1 Abrams edition

[HairyBadger]

Find me the group that keeps and eye on the Kazanlak facility.

 

[Sleazy Car Salesman]

Harrier

Once again:

British build a military vehicle that isn't hot dogshit challenge: LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE

 

[Curzon Dax-sama]

And I'm saying this as someone who used to fly the damn things for a bit, the Harrier is a funding albatross and an outright gift on the tax payer

Grift and graft is normal for gubminth contracts. No, I rate the Harrier as a symbol for a different time: people were actively encouraged to tinker around with the most outlandish concepts and some engineerng execs went along with that. It would be impossible today - there would be too much diversity, HR-Karen-interference, political bullshit and ideological crap to overcome.

 

[TiggerNits]

Grift and graft is normal for gubminth contracts. No, I rate the Harrier as a symbol for a different time: people were actively encouraged to tinker around with the most outlandish concepts and some engineerng execs went along with that. It would be impossible today - there would be too much diversity, HR-Karen-interference, political bullshit and ideological crap to overcome.

I meant grift, my finger missed the r.

The Harrier was a cool idea that ended up wildly unwieldy in reality. I have 2 friends in the 35B who swear it is as close to useful as you could get STOVL, but still sucks compared to the previous generations no frills competitor (legacy hornet, low block viper)

 

[Welf Welf]

You see this in the Navy too with quick firing guns prior to the widespread adoption of autoloaders. 155mm is six inches (technically it's a hair over but fuck it) and so quick firing guns were never over six inches in diameter, with most of them being 5 inches or 4.5 inches on the larger end.

Funny story: the reason the 6"/152mm gun disappeared from (new build) Japanese ships in the later 1910s and 1920s is because they thought a 5.5"/140mm shell was easier for the average Japanese man(let) to handle while offering similar performance. But then the London Naval Treaty happened and the autists in the IJN decided to up their light cruiser gun caliber to the 155mm maximum allowed.

 

[The Grognard]

I meant grift, my finger missed the r.

The Harrier was a cool idea that ended up wildly unwieldy in reality. I have 2 friends in the 35B who swear it is as close to useful as you could get STOVL, but still sucks compared to the previous generations no frills competitor (legacy hornet, low block viper)

I do understand the original rationale of being worried about operating from short improvised airfields, but it really is done better by just doing what the Swedes were doing at the time and creating lots of spare air-fields that also were part of the highway system.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Funny story: the reason the 6"/152mm gun disappeared from (new build) Japanese ships in the later 1910s and 1920s is because they thought a 5.5"/140mm shell was easier for the average Japanese man(let) to handle while offering similar performance. But then the London Naval Treaty happened and the autists in the IJN decided to up their light cruiser gun caliber to the 155mm maximum allowed.

I find that period of navies adopting 140mm guns interesting. It wasn't just the Japs, the Bongs did for secondary guns on Warships, as well as land based howitzers. Weight was actually pretty comproable to 152/155mm shells, some reached 100 pounds like 6 inch guns. 6 inch just had more room for growth- I mean 155mm nuclear shells were eventually developed.

 

[TiggerNits]

I do understand the original rationale of being worried about operating from short improvised airfields, but it really is done better by just doing what the Swedes were doing at the time and creating lots of spare air-fields that also were part of the highway system.

The hornet is surprisingly good in that spot, the fins, swiss, Aussies and Canadians have all operated theirs off improvised runways during operational training.

That said, the Harrier was kept operationally relevant because the Marines do a great job of getting a mentality in to the pilot of making every decision count and point towards operational efficacy. Every pound of JP has to be used correctly, every pickle has to put exactly where the JTAC\FAC wants it. Altitude restrictions are for the Navy and Air Force guys that aren't in hogs. Gun runs are artillery strikes with better sound effects. Etc.

The Brits did a similar thing, their guys would talk about "a bit of the ol daring-do" whenever you had to do anything with pucker-factor because they knew the plane had severe limitations that had to be countered by individual bravery.

So really the lesson is if you give good pilots bad planes, it will make both better

 

[TiggerNits]

Once again:

British build a military vehicle that isn't hot dogshit challenge: LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE

The Lynx is solid according to my friends who flew them. And the Defender was better than any other military 4x4 until insurgents figured out the beauty of the Land Cruiser and Hilux.

And I guess the Lightning would have been a solid interceptor against Russian bomber formations had it ever come to that.


But those are the only three I can come up with after the age of the longbow

 

[JJLiautaud]

The Lynx is solid according to my friends who flew them. And the Defender was better than any other military 4x4 until insurgents figured out the beauty of the Land Cruiser and Hilux.

And I guess the Lightning would have been a solid interceptor against Russian bomber formations had it ever come to that.


But those are the only three I can come up with after the age of the longbow

British ships up until the post-war era were really good.

 

[The Grognard]

List of actually great British tanks: Vickers 6-ton, Centurion.

 

[Sleazy Car Salesman]

I mean yeah. Still on a close in engagement, 6-8 barrels of TOW missiles on a building or group of lightly armored infantry with a follow up of autocannon fire would be devastating. Efficient no. But it would be OP.

Late as fuck I know but I just remembered this thing and it's somewhat relevant. Four way murder with a purpose.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Late as fuck I know but I just remembered this thing and it's somewhat relevant. Four way murder with a purpose.

That is pure grunt engineering and I love it.
----
Want to talk about the M10 Booker

Last I checked Army has taken delivery of around 108 out of the planned 504. Might be higher as of now. Actually a pretty successful program. Its been going rather smoothly procurement wise with few hiccups.

NOT a light tank. Its a assault gun with the ability to fight tanks in a pinch. Its a Stug more or less in modern day. Uses the M35 tank gun designed in the 80s.

Basically a Royal Ordnance L7 105 we're all familiar with, but MUCH lighter. Which fits its role. Its roughly 42-46 short tons depending on the load. Which is pretty good considering what its meant to do. It isn't meant to drop out of a plane with a parachute, but to be more air mobile than a Abrams. Two can be carried in a C-17 instead of 1 Abrams. So twice the firepower.

And firepower is really what its about. Its why they went with 105mm instead of 120mm. More ammo means more sustained boom. Which when you're supporting infantry with HE and HESH, which is it's main loadout presumably given its assault gun designation, you want ammo, lots of it.


Now its secondary armament is bare bones as of now. 1 7.62 M240B as a coax, 1 M2 .50 cal up top for the commander. It would serve it well to get a APS for some RPG protection and possibly limited drone protection. Something like Iron Fist like the Bradley just adopted. That and turn the 50 cal into a remote weapon station. Luckily there is room. What's coming out now is basically pre production. They just want the tanks now. Upgrades later. Which makes sense, the US Army hasn't had a Light Tank since the 90's in its foolishness.

As for design history, its based on the ASCOD 2 infantry fighting vehicle, this thing:

A very safe, time tested design, in service since 2002, that was later redesigned into the Griffin II, which was adopted by the US Army and then became the M10 Booker. This was the Griffin II prototype during the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) program that lead to the M10 Booker

As you can see, not much changed between prototype and production. The Army really fucking liked it. And in June 2022 it won the contract. By 2024 it was in production and issuing out to the 82nd Airborne Division for testing.

Really this is a example of a program going right from A to B, beginning to end, and I think that doesn't get talked about enough. Hope it gets export sales, seems like a good light tank- assault gun a lot of militaries would want to have, especially in countries with rough terrain and bad roads that cant really support a big boy like a M1 Abrams.

 

[The Grognard]

Really this is a example of a program going right from A to B, beginning to end, and I think that doesn't get talked about enough. Hope it gets export sales, seems like a good light tank- assault gun a lot of militaries would want to have, especially in countries with rough terrain and bad roads that cant really support a big boy like a M1 Abrams.

I would think that this makes most sense in South-East Asia and South America. 105 mm guns are still fairly common out there and the main concern many of these countries have is specifically related to most modern tanks being too fat and expensive for their needs. It ideally should be done so that if necessary, export models would have the option to be refitted with guns that are of other designs in case someone wants to keep using the 90 mm or 75 mm stuff they have in storage. I would specifically send offers to those who still have either AMX-13s or SK-105s in their inventory.

 

[74164978231]

Really this is a example of a program going right from A to B, beginning to end, and I think that doesn't get talked about enough.

Sure if you just ignore the failure of the mobile gun system, and how horrible the M551 turned out.

I really have to wonder the usefulness of a tracked fire support platform in the age of drones piloted by 18 year old broccoli headed zoomers delivering ordnance with more accuracy than laser guided jdams.

 

[WelperHelper99]

I would think that this makes most sense in South-East Asia and South America. 105 mm guns are still fairly common out there and the main concern many of these countries have is specifically related to most modern tanks being too fat and expensive for their needs. It ideally should be done so that if necessary, export models would have the option to be refitted with guns that are of other designs in case someone wants to keep using the 90 mm or 75 mm stuff they have in storage. I would specifically send offers to those who still have either AMX-13s or SK-105s in their inventory.

Actually agree with this in terms of countries to sell to. Think though that the 105 should be pushed, 105 is pretty standard and is objectively better than low velocity 90mm. That and South America does have stocks of 105 already, it's not like it's a 120mm, which is basically unknown down there asides from like Chilie last I recall.

Sure if you just ignore the failure of the mobile gun system, and how horrible the M551 turned out.

I really have to wonder the usefulness of a tracked fire support platform in the age of drones piloted by 18 year old broccoli headed zoomers delivering ordnance with more accuracy than laser guided jdams.

The Booker was designed because of the failure of the M551. It is designed to share as much in common with the Abrams as possible. If you can crew a Abrams you can crew a Booker. No weird auto loader none of that. It's a support vehicle meant to lob HE and HESH at bunkers and infantry. A drone could scarsely carry a similar payload with a similar fire rate. It also doesn't have the risk of getting jammed by EW or shot down by a 12 gauge.

 

[The Grognard]

Drones also have a natural predator called ECM. If there is one thing you really can't ignore in today's warfare, it's your ELINT and EW.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Drones also have a natural predator called ECM. If there is one thing you really can't ignore in today's warfare, it's your ELINT and EW.

This is understated. ECM is only getting better. All you need to do is cut that drone's control feed and it's out of the fight. A light tank has no such issues. You have to physically disable it. Even if you have the capability, it's not as easy as pointing a strong signal at a quad copter. It might survive your RPG. Then it hits you with a 105mm HE round and you're fucking dead.

 

[The Grognard]

This is understated. ECM is only getting better. All you need to do is cut that drone's control feed and it's out of the fight. A light tank has no such issues. You have to physically disable it. Even if you have the capability, it's not as easy as pointing a strong signal at a quad copter. It might survive your RPG. Then it hits you with a 105mm HE round and you're fucking dead.

Sending a strong signal also makes anyone keeping tabs on where the command links are to triangulate the antenna location and make the whole grid-square where it's at cratered like the moon.

 

[Gerelatha]

This is understated. ECM is only getting better. All you need to do is cut that drone's control feed and it's out of the fight. A light tank has no such issues. You have to physically disable it. Even if you have the capability, it's not as easy as pointing a strong signal at a quad copter. It might survive your RPG. Then it hits you with a 105mm HE round and you're fucking dead.

EW is like air defence, you can make the best air defence system in the world but coverage will always be inherently limited and there *will* be gaps, it will forever be a gradual one-upping as EW gets better, then drones get better, then EW gets better again.
Drones, like any other piece of military equipment, are just one part of a joint force that needs to work in conjunction.