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

WelperHelper99 said:
He looks like a gay man. They could have chosen literally anyone that didn't look like a closet case for the Youtube shit.
Click to expand...
They didn’t have many choices for John Stewart and NYU alums.

They weren’t going to let a dirty southerner shill the SIG Spear.

IMG_6866.jpeg
 
  • Horrifying
  • Informative
Reactions: Falcos_Commisar, The Foxtrot and WelperHelper99
  • Like
Reactions: Falcos_Commisar and Robin's Donuts
Slurgle said:
Uh, I never watched his vids because I got strange vibes from them, but I sincerely believed he spent time in the service.

Seems like he got connections through, he somehow got to the frontline in Ukraine.
Click to expand...
I think he did, though I think his service is overstated. He got his job likely based on his education.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Robin's Donuts and Jewthulhu
Yours Truly 2095 said:
you got him fired.View attachment 7137577
Click to expand...
Kek. I am invincible!
----
USS_Long_Beach_(CGN-9)_stbd_beam_view.jpg
In any case I wish we had the USS Long Beach still. Nuclear powered cruiser, had a ass ton of AA missiles, and later, Tomahawks and Harpoons. Was one of the first ships to test 3d radars. Also had two 5 inch guns because JFK said to throw them on lol. Why can't we have cool shit like this anymore?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Falcos_Commisar, Kalbsy and The Foxtrot
WelperHelper99 said:
Kek. I am invincible!
----
View attachment 7137924
In any case I wish we had the USS Long Beach still. Nuclear powered cruiser, had a ass ton of AA missiles, and later, Tomahawks and Harpoons. Was one of the first ships to test 3d radars. Also had two 5 inch guns because JFK said to throw them on lol. Why can't we have cool shit like this anymore?
Click to expand...
Because it's going to be very expensive, likely has to have a billion features for the sake of satisfying some future theoretical and the production has to be spread out to like 40 states because otherwise congress says fuck you and in the end, something sensible is bought from an European shipyard instead. Still, if there's a place where something like this still could be build, you may have to know a bit of Mandarin Chinese.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Falcos_Commisar
The Grognard said:
Because it's going to be very expensive, likely has to have a billion features for the sake of satisfying some future theoretical and the production has to be spread out to like 40 states because otherwise congress says fuck you and in the end, something sensible is bought from an European shipyard instead. Still, if there's a place where something like this still could be build, you may have to know a bit of Mandarin Chinese.
Click to expand...
I usually disagree with you.. but yeah lol. I think it still could if they built one (1) just like USS Long Beach, and ran it like a black project.

If I was in charge, it'd have at least 128 MK 41 VLS cells, something like 20-30 hypersonic tubes, 16 Naval Strike Missiles, a laser like on the USS Ponce, two RAM launchers, two triple torpedo tubes, at least two 5' guns, two to four 30mm bushmasters, various .50 cals and 7.62

And of course, nuclear power to push it well over 30 knots and generate a fuck ton of electricity for radar, sonar, and advanced systems like lasers. Then I'd name it USS Long Beach lol. Basically a super duper version of the in design phase DDG(X) program, but its a actual cruiser with purpose built command facilities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Foxtrot, Falcos_Commisar and Kalbsy
Karakhalkin-Gol said:
Stupid bureaucrats and decaying industry are the biggest reasons. However, it's difficult to keep old ships in war-worthy condition. Retiring the old ships and building new ones to replace them would be cheaper.
Click to expand...
Retiring without a replacement however is equally retarded. I guess we got the Zumwalts lol, which to be fair, are getting hypersonic upgrades as of recent and are more advanced than a Burkue
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Falcos_Commisar and Karakhalkin-Gol
Slurgle said:
Uh, I never watched his vids because I got strange vibes from them, but I sincerely believed he spent time in the service.

Seems like he got connections through, he somehow got to the frontline in Ukraine.
Click to expand...
I never watched his videos because in multiple videos the information he used was blatantly wrong - like "didn't even read the wikipedia article" tier.

WelperHelper99 said:
Like this guy's video's on the Huey to Cobra pipeline. That helicopter is never gonna die. Sometimes you just need a light attack helicopter with a 20mm, some hellfires, and Hydra 70's, nothing fancy like the Apache.
Click to expand...

Sorry sweetie but light attack aircraft, ground mounted precision guided missiles, and drones made the attack helicopter obsolete.
th.webp
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: 74164978231, The Foxtrot, Falcos_Commisar and 1 other person
The Grognard said:
The Swedes are moving to the 35 MM Bushmaster as their next main gun, so I guess they did indeed see that it can be made better. That said, the main actual advantage the CV90 has over the BMP2 in Finnish service is that it doesn't have the ergonomics of a sardine can.
Click to expand...
To me it is a pretty strange decision to go from the 40mm Bofors round to the 35mm Oerlikon round because all you are doing is creating more logistical problems for minimal gain (as Sweden already has a fuckton of 40mm laying around). I am not the Swedish military so I am not privy to what they are thinking. If I had to guess is that the CV90 production line is already configured for the 30/35mm versions and maybe it would cost the Swedish government too much in time/money/effort/etc. to produce more 40mm CV90s.

EDIT: I was wrong - looks the 40mm CV90 is dogshit compared to the other versions to the point where the 30/35mm versions might as well be a completely new vehicle.

What Sweden should be really buying is CV90120s (because they look cool and are the spiritual successor to the ikv 91):
SRyqF4l.webp


WelperHelper99 said:
I can't hear you over the 20mm going BRRRRR. But seriously though, it's another "the tank is dead" argument.
Click to expand...
I'm just shitposting - attack helicopters are great if your country can afford them. I remember when the Kamov Ka-52s ended up crippling that one Ukrainian summer offensive.

TiggerNits said:
Degrees of ineptitude are still the construction of failure.

There's really only four "good" militaries left.
The US, because it is massive, capable of bearing the entire logistics burden of the West and maintains an NCO corps that can operate without being micromanaged by staff officers (though this has been heavily damaged by political choices made during the later stages of the GWOT) and a technological and funding edge that is simply unbelievable until you've been balls deep in it for a decade.

Poland has built theirs in to a copy of the US with a greater focus on border security and really leans in to the concept of company level units working independently if needed.

The French actually train professional soldiers exceedingly well with an ability to look beyond their tactical situation to force strategic gains. Their field officers are realists and their NCOs are brutal.

The Aussies are what the British should be and in the event of a war against China, every person that knows anything about Chinese economy and logistical output knows that Australia will be the team that lands the mortal wound on China by sitting down their ability to feed their population and get anything meaningful out to sea that could continue to fight an American host in the Pacific. They train to that mission everyday and in thousands of ways that are built the any conceivable situation it could occur on.
Click to expand...
Bro...hear me out....what if.....
Yichang-Three-Gorges-Dam-Yangtze-River-China.webp


Sleazy Car Salesman said:
Shut up faggot. It looks like a tank, moves like a tank, and sounds like a tank. It's a tank.
Click to expand...
Autistic rant time - the US Army wanted a light tank or an "expeditionary" tank forever but they could never funding because they have, on paper, something like 8,100+ M1 Abraps. The problem with the M1 Abraps it is a logistical nightmare as it is a heavy bitch and has a gas guzzling turbine engine that was designed to operate in the Fulda Gap close to friendly lines, not in some third world shithole that doesn't even have running water.

So what did the US Army do? They saw that the US Marines were able to replace their M16s/M4s with the M27 (HK416) by pretending that the M27 was ackhually a light machine gun (not a rifle) then dropping the ruse when it was adopted. The US Army is doing the same thing right now with the M10 Booker by pretending it is ackhually an "assault gun" even though in real life it will be used as a tank regardless of what doctrine says; this explains why the US Army is being overly autistic about people calling it a tank.

Regarding the M10 Booker itself? I think it is an overpriced shit box as it is underpowered, weighs the same as a basic bitch T-72, and lacks an autoloader + commander RWS. Meanwhile, provided that the Chinese aren't lying (doubtful), the ZTQ-15 is a superior tank for the same purpose/doctrine in almost every way compared to the M10 Booker.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
  • Optimistic
  • Feels
Reactions: Arthur_Schopenhauer, The Foxtrot, Falcos_Commisar and 3 others
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: WhatInTheActualFuck, The Foxtrot, BeckhoffAX5702 and 4 others
Gave my opinion on the Booker ages ago.
WelperHelper99 said:
Want to talk about the M10 Booker
M10 booker stat pic.png
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.
XM35_Exploded_View.png
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.

M10_Booker_at_its_unveiling_June_2023_-_7 (1).jpg
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:
Trident_Juncture_2018_181103-M-RI194-005.jpg
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
MobileProtectedFirepower.jpg
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.
Click to expand...

Robin's Donuts said:
Autistic rant time - the US Army wanted a light tank or an "expeditionary" tank forever but they could never funding because they have, on paper, something like 8,100+ M1 Abraps. The problem with the M1 Abraps it is a logistical nightmare as it is a heavy bitch and has a gas guzzling turbine engine that was designed to operate in the Fulda Gap close to friendly lines, not in some third world shithole that doesn't even have running water.

So what did the US Army do? They saw that the US Marines were able to replace their M16s/M4s with the M27 (HK416) by pretending that the M27 was ackhually a light machine gun (not a rifle) then dropping the ruse when it was adopted. The US Army is doing the same thing right now with the M10 Booker by pretending it is ackhually an "assault gun" even though in real life it will be used as a tank regardless of what doctrine says; this explains why the US Army is being overly autistic about people calling it a tank.

Regarding the M10 Booker itself? I think it is an overpriced shit box as it is underpowered, weighs the same as a basic bitch T-72, and lacks an autoloader + commander RWS. Meanwhile, provided that the Chinese aren't lying (doubtful), the ZTQ-15 is a superior tank for the same purpose/doctrine in almost every way compared to the M10 Booker.
Click to expand...
TL; DR, keep it simple stupid. Plenty of ammo, two are air transportable in a C-17, and not built by chinks. That chink auto loader will jam in two fucking shots.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Falcos_Commisar
WelperHelper99 said:
TL; DR, keep it simple stupid. Plenty of ammo, two are air transportable in a C-17, and not built by chinks. That chink auto loader will jam in two fucking shots.
Click to expand...
Autoloaders are not new technology as the French figured them out in the 1950s and the Soviets mastered them in the 1960s. It's just lazy at this point not use mature technology as even the M8 AGS had one as well. Plus no active protection system just means this thing will get clapped by a random FPV drone in the field. For $13ish million dollars a pop, it is a rip off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Foxtrot, Falcos_Commisar and WelperHelper99
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back