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

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Yours Truly 2095 said:
I didn't realize how big Phantoms were until I was standing next to one in person. Absolute unit. Same with the F-14. Absolutely gigantic.
Click to expand...
They're both USN designs and the USN historically loved beefy planes. The Hornet was a serious break from tradition for them.
 
Caligura said:
What's the point of light tanks in an era of FPV drones smoking full-sized MBTs?
Click to expand...
Ah, you didn't look. They WANTED a light tank. A LIGHT TANK. They want it not to weigh that of a T-72. And apparently there were other issues.

And as for your question: they are cheaper than an Abrams, and you need armor to occupy land. A FPV drone also isn't taking out a bunker. A tank will.

The question is what happens to the 80-100 bookers already built?
 
WelperHelper99 said:
Ah, you didn't look. They WANTED a light tank. A LIGHT TANK. They want it not to weigh that of a T-72. And apparently there were other issues.

And as for your question: they are cheaper than an Abrams, and you need armor to occupy land. A FPV drone also isn't taking out a bunker. A tank will.

The question is what happens to the 80-100 bookers already built?
Click to expand...
I would just offer them to allied nations who have a need for a tank but can't have anything as heavy as the Abrams.
 
Spectacular interaction. laughed my ass off


Screenshot_20250503-122414.webp
Screenshot_20250503-122428.webp
Screenshot_20250503-122439.webp
Screenshot_20250503-122449.webp
 
WelperHelper99 said:
Ah, you didn't look. They WANTED a light tank. A LIGHT TANK. They want it not to weigh that of a T-72. And apparently there were other issues.
Click to expand...
Issue that been plaguing modern light tanks, assault guns and older cannon equipped tank destroyers is by going "light" they kiss most armor protection good bye. And it isn't just the U.S Army running into this problem as Russia, China, South Korea and others also been running into this dilemma.
WelperHelper99 said:
And as for your question: they are cheaper than an Abrams, and you need armor to occupy land. A FPV drone also isn't taking out a bunker. A tank will.
Click to expand...
Another "advantage" is/was they were being built on a separate line separate production line from the Abrams line.
WelperHelper99 said:
The question is what happens to the 80-100 bookers already built?
Click to expand...
Right now that's the million dollar question nobody knows the answer. Russia also ran into this with the 40 or so 2S25 Sprut-SDs built. Which the Russian military absolutely did not want or use, since they haven't seen in the SMO.
 
Fatsuit Shinji said:
Issue that been plaguing modern light tanks, assault guns and older cannon equipped tank destroyers is by going "light" they kiss most armor protection good bye. And it isn't just the U.S Army running into this problem as Russia, China, South Korea and others also been running into this dilemma.

Another "advantage" is/was they were being built on a separate line separate production line from the Abrams line.

Right now that's the million dollar question nobody knows the answer. Russia also ran into this with the 40 or so 2S25 Sprut-SDs built. Which the Russian military absolutely did not want or use, since they haven't seen in the SMO.
Click to expand...
I think the most reasonable case is that they give them to the Marines. The Marines aren't asking for air portability, but something lighter than an Abrams would be nice. It would fir the island hopping push going on rn.
 
WelperHelper99 said:
I think the most reasonable case is that they give them to the Marines. The Marines aren't asking for air portability, but something lighter than an Abrams would be nice. It would fir the island hopping push going on rn.
Click to expand...
Still too heavy since the Marines decided to be nearly all light infantry.

Little bit of soul crushing levity.
Clean and labeled versions of everything only the U.S. Army had canceled in the 21th Century.
Gp9sfWPW4AAYXP-.webpGp-08ZtWgAAGqOI.webp
 
WelperHelper99 said:
The M10 Booker got cut for being too fucking fat.
Click to expand...
No shit. What a retarded design, so many compromises in every area and still managing to weigh as much as a T-72 without any of the frontal protection, more than a metre taller and significantly less anti tank firepower. All extremely major issues when you consider it was not designed as a reconnaissance vehicle but as an "assault gun" (retarded). Either make a light tank or an assault gun, not a bizzare frankenstein of both mashed together into an overweight shitbox.
Previously the US made light tanks that were too light thanks to dumb amphibious requirements, these days they just make everything weigh 2x whatever it was supposed to replace. Look at the disatrous GCV program, IFVs weighing as much as 80 tonnes. Truly Hitlerian levels of overweight vehicular designs.
 
WelperHelper99 said:
Ah, you didn't look. They WANTED a light tank. A LIGHT TANK. They want it not to weigh that of a T-72. And apparently there were other issues.

And as for your question: they are cheaper than an Abrams, and you need armor to occupy land. A FPV drone also isn't taking out a bunker. A tank will.

The question is what happens to the 80-100 bookers already built?
Click to expand...

Sell them to Ukraine..... Or maybe the Philippines or Taiwan.

Also, an fpv can take out a bunker if it flies into an open door/hatch and has a big enough warhead.

Fatsuit Shinji said:
Still too heavy since the Marines decided to be nearly all light infantry.

Little bit of soul crushing levity.
Clean and labeled versions of everything only the U.S. Army had canceled in the 21th Century.
View attachment 7313033View attachment 7313034
Click to expand...

You forgot to put in the absolutely incredible Sikorsky FAHRA entry with the Coaxial rotors and pusher prop. If theys not used as the Apache replacement I'm going to crash out.

Hatewerfer said:
No shit. What a retarded design, so many compromises in every area and still managing to weigh as much as a T-72 without any of the frontal protection, more than a metre taller and significantly less anti tank firepower. All extremely major issues when you consider it was not designed as a reconnaissance vehicle but as an "assault gun" (retarded). Either make a light tank or an assault gun, not a bizzare frankenstein of both mashed together into an overweight shitbox.
Previously the US made light tanks that were too light thanks to dumb amphibious requirements, these days they just make everything weigh 2x whatever it was supposed to replace. Look at the disatrous GCV program, IFVs weighing as much as 80 tonnes. Truly Hitlerian levels of overweight vehicular designs.
Click to expand...
This. The US Army needs to get over it's retarded fear of autoloaders and realize that a ~25 ton light tank is not gout be as protected as a 55+ ton tank.

If you want an "assault gun" in 2025, there are plenty of options with a 105mm or 120mm autoloaded gun plus a turret ready to go in either a wheeled or tracked platform. Or you can mix and match turrets and hulls to get what you want.

Make it proof from HMG fire and maybe RPG-7 warheads and maybe have armor add on packages of the threat level calls for it.

Still, the base weight CANNOT be more than ~25 tons with a 3 man crew. Learn what rubber band tracks are, what all electric turret drives are, and what WEIGHT LIMITS ARE.

It's actually funny, a base model T-72A / M1 but upgraded with modern electrical systems, a smaller but more powerful engine (already saving weight right there) and modern sights would probably weight about.... 40-42 tons LMAO.

Or just use the T-72 hull and pop on a modern 2 man autoloaded turret with a bustle autoloader and the Army's new lightweight 120mm gun.... Hmmmm 🤔
 
As it turns out, the T-72 was actually a very logical design for the demands of a military that needs a lot of firepower but has strict limits on size and weight.
 
Falcos_Commisar said:
Sell them to Ukraine..... Or maybe the Philippines or Taiwan.

Also, an fpv can take out a bunker if it flies into an open door/hatch and has a big enough warhead.


You forgot to put in the absolutely incredible Sikorsky FAHRA entry with the Coaxial rotors and pusher prop. If theys not used as the Apache replacement I'm going to crash out.

This. The US Army needs to get over it's retarded fear of autoloaders and realize that a ~25 ton light tank is not gout be as protected as a 55+ ton tank.

If you want an "assault gun" in 2025, there are plenty of options with a 105mm or 120mm autoloaded gun plus a turret ready to go in either a wheeled or tracked platform. Or you can mix and match turrets and hulls to get what you want.

Make it proof from HMG fire and maybe RPG-7 warheads and maybe have armor add on packages of the threat level calls for it.

Still, the base weight CANNOT be more than ~25 tons with a 3 man crew. Learn what rubber band tracks are, what all electric turret drives are, and what WEIGHT LIMITS ARE.

It's actually funny, a base model T-72A / M1 but upgraded with modern electrical systems, a smaller but more powerful engine (already saving weight right there) and modern sights would probably weight about.... 40-42 tons LMAO.

Or just use the T-72 hull and pop on a modern 2 man autoloaded turret with a bustle autoloader and the Army's new lightweight 120mm gun.... Hmmmm
Click to expand...
The army needs a 25 ton tank, hauls ass, give it a auto loader, aps, and expect to take losses. Yeah it's going to die. It's a light tank. Not a Abrams. That's what all the firepower is for. Offense is it's defense.
 
WelperHelper99 said:
The army needs a 25 ton tank, hauls ass, give it a auto loader, aps, and expect to take losses. Yeah it's going to die. It's a light tank. Not a Abrams. That's what all the firepower is for. Offense is it's defense.
Click to expand...
It would require the American military to drop it's single biggest weakness right now, which is excessive fear of casualities. Congressmen don't like it when their constituents hear that Corporal Billy-Bob McFootballson died because there wasn't enough armor plating to stop a Kornet turning his military career into a closed casket funeral.
 
Falcos_Commisar said:
The army needs a 25 ton tank, hauls ass, give it a auto loader, aps, and expect to take losses. Yeah it's going to die. It's a light tank. Not a Abrams. That's what all the firepower is for. Offense is it's defense.
Click to expand...
25 tons is still too light and under armored, as all of the existing, competing and in service vehicles to the M10 Booker are at 30 tons to 35 plus tons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom