The Army made a tank it doesn’t need and can’t use. Now it’s figuring out what to do with it.
The Army made a tank it doesn’t need and can’t use. Now it’s figuring out what to do with it.
The M10 Booker busted its requirements from the beginning. It’s a case study in how Army procurement wants to change.
Send it to Ukraine, we'll figure it out from there
Likely worse armor than MBTs, a worse gun than MBTs. It was designed for combined arms, which we aren't seeing a lot of anymore. Probably quite vulnerable to FPVs. I don't think they'd want them.
Hmb while I figure out how to lift it with a drone...
What I don't get is this bit?
"Pretty soon after 82nd Airborne Division leaders told the Army in 2013 they’d like a new light tank, à la the retired M551 Sheridan, the team working on its requirements hit a snag. The 82nd had asked to be able to airdrop the new vehicle from a C-130 or C-17, but nothing even roughly the size and capability of a Sheridan was going to fit inside a C-130."
Mother fucker the Sheridan was roughly the size and capability of Sheridan and it fit in a C-130. Is this wh40k where we lost some technology I don't know about?
Sure maybe they'd want to add modern tech like cameras and gps or some shit, but no way that really takes up all that much space. Plus, in last several decades we havent made any engineering advancements to idk make the engine smaller or shit stronger but smaller?
The Sheridan was the size of the Sheridan, and they want the transportation capability of the Sheridan, but the Sheridan itself was also a wildly unsuccessful tank. It was also fully reliant on the MGM-51 Shillelagh missile, which also was not good. Nobody actually wants the Sheridan back, they want something they can transport like it.
Police surplus I bet….
That was my first thought
Bingo
Send them to Ukraine, they won't complain.
A perfect embodiment of capitalism. Production for the sake of production, infinite growth in a finite system.
They believe that if they stop making war machines, they're going to lose the capability to make it when they need it.
Which is actually pretty reasonable from a historical point of view. The M3 Lee was only ever produced because the post WW1 war industry was basically neutered, this resulted in the Sherman R&D period being an absolute clusterfuck. The Lee and a lot of interwar and early war designs were stop gaps because the actual good shit was either still being worked out or otherwise had fucky production issues.
Give them to ukriane they could do with the help
Precisely what I clicked through to say. Though, I'm not sure big Z would be keen on it if it's trash. They've got that quota full-up from Putiny's squirts feeding the sunflowers all over.
I've been saying this about the M1128 Wolfpack/MGS as well.
The usefulness of tanks in warfare is coming to an end, this thing will get taken out by a $2000 to $3000 drone.
They will still keep making them to sell to police.
A big gun and survivability will always have a place on the battlefield. Until there is something else that can do what tanks can better, they will still be here
The same was said when the ATGM was invented. Yet the tank survived all the same.
And with APS becoming more and more common i predict we will continue to see tanks on the battlefield.
It doesn't only go back to ATGMs, people have been making the claim that tanks are obsolete since tanks were first fielded in combat.
tbf ATGMs only make tanks infeasible if you have a massive supply of them continuously distributed to infantry units (and the latest fancy ones that aim for non ERA weakspots and have CCM against APS), which is what most if not all militaries struggle with.
Plus tanks get a huge buff in their effectivness when properly paired with IFVs and infantry, which can significantly diminish and counter ATGMs (and drones).
Which will then get taken out by even cheaper drones, I'm guessing. ^ahem
Yeah, APS can be a gun firing system or just a bunch of small fpv drones. The only real limit is safety restrictions, because a drone that is targeted to kill anything moving at it is going to have a good chance of hitting birds and people. That's something you could use in Ukraine if you have no civilians and your group is moving only in vehicles.
Affordable housing?? /s
Apart from training, why deploy tanks in Kentucky? Is this the new and improved way of cooking fried chicken?
I wonder how many people died of starvation in the time this was made
Well, considering the time was the early 2000s, just before modern civilization crumbled to the forlorn rubble we're picking through as survivors of the species, young Fingolfinz, I daresay that the death-by-starvatiom stats are difficult to cite accurately without access to a relevant simulation, database, census, or even a calculator these days. Now, put out your tallow candle and get to sleep before the raiders getcha.
That movie is funny, but not in any way accurate or truthful. Half of the story is Boyd's bitterness at having his own designs laughed at and the other is him not understanding how procurement and testing even work.
For example, in the move the protagonist discovers that vehicles meant for destructive testing had their fuel replaced with water and dummy ammunition. Boyd frames this as cheating to minimize possible secondary explosions. The reality is that fuel and ammo are removed from these vehicles so that they can be studied afterwards more easily. Penetrations into the magazine or fuel tank are easier to see when those components are not confetti.
Colonel James Burton, not Boyd.
The movie is fun, but misrepresenting what actually happened.
I mean… is it unneeded and unusable because of sweeping and stupid doctrinal changes that are happening because everything in this country is run by incompetent idiots now? Because I was under the impression for a while now that the M10 was exactly what a lot of the lower and middle ranks were saying was needed.