M10 Booker Combat Vehicle / Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF)

Colonial-Marine said:
I think it is a bit of a mistake to view armored fighting vehicles in those terms lest we start accepting subpar vehicles because of the notion that they don't matter in the bigger picture. The fact that a conventional war in Europe is even occurring proves this wrong to an extent. There is a pretty big difference between a T-90 and T-55 if they are employed properly.

As for MPF with an active protection system I think it could be useful in a conflict like this even in the context of the "limited role" it is supposed to have. If you wanted to invest more in it by up-gunning to a 120mm cannon and other improvements you could do even more with it though I'd never consider an appropriate replacement for a real MBT.
Click to expand...
There are weapon systems where performance advantages result in utterly decisive combat advantages, and there are those that do not. For air combat for example, a number of performance advantages enables dozen to one kill ratios easily, as advantages of speed, sensors and other characteristics enables the superior force to control the engagement.

In tank on tank warfare, the superior tank does enable very favorable exchange ratios and tactical freedom. However in combined arms conflict where tank on tank combat is rare, the wholistic system performance is more important. Everything from electronics warfare, artillery superiority, infantry performance, land-air cooperation, down to combat engineering all impact outcome more than tank performance. The fact that entire formations and forces can fight without one piece of heavy armor successfully against armor shows that this equipment is only a small part of the puzzle.

Arguments over tank performance is IMO not different from discussions on rifle design. Sure a better rifle is nice, but the difference isn't enough to win a war as rifle fire isn't the main tactical enabler. Could Imperial Japan win the war if they replace crappy 6.5mm bolt action rifles with 5.56mm assault rifles? Could Imperial Japan win the war if they had Tiger tanks or even Leopards?

The European threat is also rapidly neutralizing itself, and in any case is in a different time line than this program.

As for longer time lines, land warfare would be unrecognizable when swarms of autonomous robots fill the battlespace and even if the tank survives, it would likely require completely different design concepts to be efficient.
 
Last edited:
bobbymike said:
donnage99 said:
bobbymike said:
@donnage99

But my thinking will “kill a military” according to your first response.

Seems you’re the extreme lead off hitter to this thread.

Have a nice day
Click to expand...
I apologize if I came off offensive. I do not mean that you have a disregard for soldier's lives but it doesn't matter if you have a complex view and your intention comes from a good place. What matters is optics - how your words are perceived.

Recruitment has direct tie to perception of the general populace toward the military. Plenty of examples of soldiers' health (f-22 helmets, burn pit exposures) being compromised due to negligence or ignorance of leadership have caused enough damage to recruitment already. The kind of talk you suggested, again regardless of what your intention is, does negatively impact that because it reinforce already established negative view of the military among the populace. And with the severity of recruitment shortfalls, yes, I do stick by my original statement that it would kill a military.
Click to expand...
Sure go back to Agent Orange in SE Asia and DU in the Gulf, yet the extent of the current recruitment issues seems far, far deeper than these types of issues seem to portend historically.

It is a very complex issue revolving around social, cultural, economic and even geostrategic issues.

It would be very interesting to poll a few thousand recruit aged males/females and ask why they would or wouldn’t enlist in today’s military.

I’m not sure “improved air quality in armored vehicles would make the list” but hey I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
there are existing surveys and research done already. safety and lack of confidence in leadership are 2 stand out ones among others.

"improved air quality in armored vehicles" would be too specific but it falls under trust in leadership and safety. I think you know that.
 
donnage99 said:
bobbymike said:
donnage99 said:
bobbymike said:
@donnage99

But my thinking will “kill a military” according to your first response.

Seems you’re the extreme lead off hitter to this thread.

Have a nice day
Click to expand...
I apologize if I came off offensive. I do not mean that you have a disregard for soldier's lives but it doesn't matter if you have a complex view and your intention comes from a good place. What matters is optics - how your words are perceived.

Recruitment has direct tie to perception of the general populace toward the military. Plenty of examples of soldiers' health (f-22 helmets, burn pit exposures) being compromised due to negligence or ignorance of leadership have caused enough damage to recruitment already. The kind of talk you suggested, again regardless of what your intention is, does negatively impact that because it reinforce already established negative view of the military among the populace. And with the severity of recruitment shortfalls, yes, I do stick by my original statement that it would kill a military.
Click to expand...
Sure go back to Agent Orange in SE Asia and DU in the Gulf, yet the extent of the current recruitment issues seems far, far deeper than these types of issues seem to portend historically.

It is a very complex issue revolving around social, cultural, economic and even geostrategic issues.

It would be very interesting to poll a few thousand recruit aged males/females and ask why they would or wouldn’t enlist in today’s military.

I’m not sure “improved air quality in armored vehicles would make the list” but hey I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
there are existing surveys and research done already. safety and lack of confidence in leadership are 2 stand out ones among others.

"improved air quality in armored vehicles" would be too specific but it falls under trust in leadership and safety. I think you know that.
Click to expand...
Do you have any links to these surveys? I seem to recall years ago when there was talk about recruitment issues the interesting thing was the problem was less an issue the more dangerous the MOS, safety indeed.

I’ll have to look through the archives see if I saved it.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
donnage99 said:
it's not built to be impressive. it's built to fill an absense of capability US army used to have. It's not supposed to be next gen tank or IFV where a leap in capabilities are essential to justify the development process
Click to expand...
Which capability? It's additional firepower for cavalry and Stryker units but it doesn't replace the role the M551 Sheridan filled for the 82nd Airborne.

Every design decision has drawbacks but an autoloader would have allowed for the vehicle to be smaller and lighter which is supposed to be one of the selling points of this vehicle. I wonder if a 120mm gun would have been a better choice too considering that lightweight 120mm guns have been demonstrated on several vehicles in a similar weight class. The 105mm made a lot more sense when there was a huge reserve of 105mm ammo left over but I imagine most of that is gone now. On the plus side it means more main gun ammunition can be carried.
Click to expand...
120mm is great at blasting tanks.

105mm is better for blasting everything else, and the infantry brigade has plenty of Javelins on hand to blast tanks. It's why the M8 AGS had a 105, it's why the Stryker MGS had a 105, it's why this has a 105. 105mm HESH on a bunker is a very fragged bunker. 105mm ammo is still in production, since a lot of places still use the 105.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Colonial-Marine said:
donnage99 said:
it's not built to be impressive. it's built to fill an absense of capability US army used to have. It's not supposed to be next gen tank or IFV where a leap in capabilities are essential to justify the development process
Click to expand...
Which capability? It's additional firepower for cavalry and Stryker units but it doesn't replace the role the M551 Sheridan filled for the 82nd Airborne.

Every design decision has drawbacks but an autoloader would have allowed for the vehicle to be smaller and lighter which is supposed to be one of the selling points of this vehicle. I wonder if a 120mm gun would have been a better choice too considering that lightweight 120mm guns have been demonstrated on several vehicles in a similar weight class. The 105mm made a lot more sense when there was a huge reserve of 105mm ammo left over but I imagine most of that is gone now. On the plus side it means more main gun ammunition can be carried.
Click to expand...
120mm is great at blasting tanks.

105mm is better for blasting everything else, and the infantry brigade has plenty of Javelins on hand to blast tanks. It's why the M8 AGS had a 105, it's why the Stryker MGS had a 105, it's why this has a 105. 105mm HESH on a bunker is a very fragged bunker. 105mm ammo is still in production, since a lot of places still use the 10
Click to expand...
The US Light Tanks have 105mm because are so light that cannot mount anything else. The MGS have difficulties to perform with 105....
 
mirco1961 said:
Scott Kenny said:
Colonial-Marine said:
donnage99 said:
it's not built to be impressive. it's built to fill an absense of capability US army used to have. It's not supposed to be next gen tank or IFV where a leap in capabilities are essential to justify the development process
Click to expand...
Which capability? It's additional firepower for cavalry and Stryker units but it doesn't replace the role the M551 Sheridan filled for the 82nd Airborne.

Every design decision has drawbacks but an autoloader would have allowed for the vehicle to be smaller and lighter which is supposed to be one of the selling points of this vehicle. I wonder if a 120mm gun would have been a better choice too considering that lightweight 120mm guns have been demonstrated on several vehicles in a similar weight class. The 105mm made a lot more sense when there was a huge reserve of 105mm ammo left over but I imagine most of that is gone now. On the plus side it means more main gun ammunition can be carried.
Click to expand...
120mm is great at blasting tanks.

105mm is better for blasting everything else, and the infantry brigade has plenty of Javelins on hand to blast tanks. It's why the M8 AGS had a 105, it's why the Stryker MGS had a 105, it's why this has a 105. 105mm HESH on a bunker is a very fragged bunker. 105mm ammo is still in production, since a lot of places still use the 10
Click to expand...
The US Light Tanks have 105mm because are so light that cannot mount anything else. The MGS have difficulties to perform with 105....
Click to expand...
To be fair the Italians have a 120mm on their Centauro II
 
The general idea of M10 "Booker" is basically "infantry support tank" of 1930s; cheap, mass-produced machine with moderate protection and limited mobility.
 
Dilandu said:
The general idea of M10 "Booker" is basically "infantry support tank" of 1930s; cheap, mass-produced machine with moderate protection and limited mobility.
Click to expand...
Though for the Brooker limited mobility basically means cant fly down the roads like a wheel vehicle can.

That thing is apparently very mobile for a track vehicle.

Another job for the M10 is going places the M1 cant since the damn thing weighs half as much as a empty M1 does fully loaded.

Like remember, the M1 Sepv3 is 80 short tons in weight fully loaded WITHOUT mine plow, pushing 90 with that.

At 42 tons the M10 far more handy for things.

And as is?

Not a tank out there that can take a 105mm APDSF to the side. So I fully expect the M10, like the MGS, to carry a handful of those.

People might say it needs more armor but... *gesture to the M1* THAT is what will happens if you run with that thought.
 
mirco1961 said:
The US Light Tanks have 105mm because are so light that cannot mount anything else. The MGS have difficulties to perform with 105....
Click to expand...
Dude, the US put an electrothermochemical 120mm on an 18 ton tank. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M8_Armored_Gun_System#Variants Thunderbolt, Lightning Bolt, AGS 120

Nevermind the FCS tank, or the FCS NLOS-C with a 155mm on an 18 ton chassis.

The MGS issues were 100% in the autoloader.


Firefinder said:
Not a tank out there that can take a 105mm APDSF to the side. So I fully expect the M10, like the MGS, to carry a handful of those.
Click to expand...
Oh, sure but probably around 3-6, with the overwhelming majority of the magazine in HE or HEP. Maybe HEAT rounds if they have a decent secondary fragmentation range. And probably a canister round or two if they're expecting human waves.
 
Scott Kenny said:
120mm is great at blasting tanks.

105mm is better for blasting everything else, and the infantry brigade has plenty of Javelins on hand to blast tanks. It's why the M8 AGS had a 105, it's why the Stryker MGS had a 105, it's why this has a 105. 105mm HESH on a bunker is a very fragged bunker. 105mm ammo is still in production, since a lot of places still use the 105.
Click to expand...

I'd argue M-8 and AGS had 105mm because in their weight class, 120mm was simply not an option or at least a hard to accommodate option. It was done in the Thunderbolt demonstrator with a soft recoil system, though I don't know how that compared weight wise to the original M8. But a 40 ton tank should be able to carry a standard 120mm, or at least one with minimal recoil compensation. MPF isn't at all in the same weight class as the original M8 or AGS.

As for 105mm vs 120mm, that's purely an ammunition choice. The new do all 120mm round (time fuse, impact, delay) would probably be superior to anything the 105mm spits out and carry more HE. The only downside would be a reduced number of rounds carried. The upside would be common ammunition with the rest of the tank force, and for that reason alone I can't imagine why it wasn't adopted.
 
Josh_TN said:
As for 105mm vs 120mm, that's purely an ammunition choice. The new do all 120mm round (time fuse, impact, delay) would probably be superior to anything the 105mm spits out and carry more HE. The only downside would be a reduced number of rounds carried. The upside would be common ammunition with the rest of the tank force, and for that reason alone I can't imagine why it wasn't adopted.
Click to expand...
They are developing similar munitions in the 105 mm class. Ultimately, its the target set and magazine size that dictated the choice of the gun. Could there be targets that the Army did not weight that they could have that would have made the 120 mm look like a better option? Sure. But its for the Army to frame requirements and for the designers to best meet/exceed them. This vehicle can be upgraded to 120 mm if that happens just as future increments will feature a more powerful/efficient engine, and better protection (APS). I for one find it difficult to think why the two airborne divisions getting these first really need a 120 mm shooter..
 
bring_it_on said:
They are developing similar munitions in the 105 mm class. Ultimately, its the target set and magazine size that dictated the choice of the gun. Could there be targets that the Army did not weight that they could have that would have made the 120 mm look like a better option? Sure. But its for the Army to frame requirements and for the designers to best meet/exceed them. This vehicle can be upgraded to 120 mm if that happens just as future increments will feature a more powerful/efficient engine, and better protection (APS). I for one find it difficult to think why the two airborne divisions getting these first really need a 120 mm shooter..
Click to expand...

IMO it just makes sense to consolidate ammunition types, but I agree the 105mm is perfectly adequate for intended use.
 
If you are going to field this thing in quantity, and keep it in production then carrying the extra weight and penalty of a smaller magazine is probably not justified based on consolidation of ammo alone. Priority target destruction should be the requirement driver. Just my 2 cents.
 
Josh_TN said:
Scott Kenny said:
120mm is great at blasting tanks.

105mm is better for blasting everything else, and the infantry brigade has plenty of Javelins on hand to blast tanks. It's why the M8 AGS had a 105, it's why the Stryker MGS had a 105, it's why this has a 105. 105mm HESH on a bunker is a very fragged bunker. 105mm ammo is still in production, since a lot of places still use the 105.
Click to expand...

I'd argue M-8 and AGS had 105mm because in their weight class, 120mm was simply not an option or at least a hard to accommodate option. It was done in the Thunderbolt demonstrator with a soft recoil system, though I don't know how that compared weight wise to the original M8. But a 40 ton tank should be able to carry a standard 120mm, or at least one with minimal recoil compensation. MPF isn't at all in the same weight class as the original M8 or AGS.

As for 105mm vs 120mm, that's purely an ammunition choice. The new do all 120mm round (time fuse, impact, delay) would probably be superior to anything the 105mm spits out and carry more HE. The only downside would be a reduced number of rounds carried. The upside would be common ammunition with the rest of the tank force, and for that reason alone I can't imagine why it wasn't adopted.
Click to expand...
The MPAT round is an 80mm diameter projectile in a sabot. It carries less HE than the 105mm HE.

Point of fact: the Army requirements for the MPF did not specify gun caliber. But both teams looked at the requirements and intended mission and came to the conclusion that 105mm was better, even though both had tested a 120mm gun on their chassis.
 
The M1147 shell isn't a subcaliber projectile though, I'd have to imagine that it will be replacing most of the M830A1 shells in a tank's loadout.
 
As posted above, the new XM-1147 round will replace MPAT, the obstacle reduction variant, and whatever that canister/grapeshot round is they issue in Korea. It’s induction time fused for helos or air bursts over infantry, with point detonation for vehicles and delays for obstacles. Apparently there a similar 105mm in the works per Bring_it_on’s post.
 
Josh_TN said:
As posted above, the new XM-1147 round will replace MPAT, the obstacle reduction variant, and whatever that canister/grapeshot round is they issue in Korea. It’s induction time fused for helos or air bursts over infantry, with point detonation for vehicles and delays for obstacles. Apparently there a similar 105mm in the works per Bring_it_on’s post.
Click to expand...
Had missed that. Last one I was aware of was a modified M830.
 
bring_it_on said:
If you are going to field this thing in quantity, and keep it in production then carrying the extra weight and penalty of a smaller magazine is probably not justified based on consolidation of ammo alone. Priority target destruction should be the requirement driver. Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

The issue is, "what is the target." The Army's list includes "enemy combat vehicles' but it's the end of a very long list including bunkers, machinegun positions, fortifications, and strongpoints." So, the priority is on killing stuff other than tanks. And 105mm will do that satisfactorily. A machinegun post cares not whether it's hit with 105mm or 120mm -- that gun is dead either way. So, 105mm wins on having deeper magazines.

PS: Documentary evidence for interest in a 105mm AMP round:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1517786333754052608
View: https://twitter.com/ronkainen7k15/status/1517786333754052608/photo/3
 
TomS said:
The issue is, "what is the target." The Army's list includes "enemy combat vehicles' but it's the end of a very long list including bunkers, machinegun positions, fortifications, and strongpoints." So, the priority is on killing stuff other than tanks. And 105mm will do that satisfactorily. A machinegun post cares not whether it's hit with 105mm or 120mm -- that gun is dead either way. So, 105mm wins on having deeper magazines.
Click to expand...

I agree. My point was that what you've outlined should be the primary factor in gun selection and not the need to maintain two ammo modernization programs. That could have been a higher priority consideration if this was to be a small program say sub 200 vehicles. It looks like the Army did just that and the OEMs optimized the gun, magazines etc for the targets the Army wanted this vehicle for. Twitter etc is flooded with folks claiming that 120 mm should have been selected and their only reasoning is that the vehicle weight should allow for it..to hell with the targets and the use the main operator actually wants these for.
 
Josh_TN said:
Scott Kenny said:
120mm is great at blasting tanks.

105mm is better for blasting everything else, and the infantry brigade has plenty of Javelins on hand to blast tanks. It's why the M8 AGS had a 105, it's why the Stryker MGS had a 105, it's why this has a 105. 105mm HESH on a bunker is a very fragged bunker. 105mm ammo is still in production, since a lot of places still use the 105.
Click to expand...

I'd argue M-8 and AGS had 105mm because in their weight class, 120mm was simply not an option or at least a hard to accommodate option. It was done in the Thunderbolt demonstrator with a soft recoil system, though I don't know how that compared weight wise to the original M8. But a 40 ton tank should be able to carry a standard 120mm, or at least one with minimal recoil compensation. MPF isn't at all in the same weight class as the original M8 or AGS.

As for 105mm vs 120mm, that's purely an ammunition choice. The new do all 120mm round (time fuse, impact, delay) would probably be superior to anything the 105mm spits out and carry more HE. The only downside would be a reduced number of rounds carried. The upside would be common ammunition with the rest of the tank force, and for that reason alone I can't imagine why it wasn't adopted.
Click to expand...
The Infantry brigade has a Javelin launcher in every infantry squad. They have no trouble blowing up tanks.

But sending a Javelin at a bunker (heaven forbid a mud hut) is absurd. Feed the bunker a 105mm HE or even HEP/HESH. Much cheaper and easier. And 105mm takes up less space inside the Booker, so it can hold more rounds overall. (I have not heard how many rounds it carries, I'm guessing about 40)



Remember that the M10 is going to Infantry brigades first, then Strykers (I think the Strykers are getting some to replace the MGS). Those guys don't have Abrams around, but do have 40ton rated bridges in the engineering support side for the HEMTTs. So it's no increased logistics burden aside from the vehicles themselves.
 
muttbutt said:
mirco1961 said:
Scott Kenny said:
Colonial-Marine said:
donnage99 said:
non è costruito per essere impressionante. è costruito per colmare un'assenza di capacità che aveva l'esercito americano. Non dovrebbe essere un carro armato di nuova generazione o un IFV in cui un salto di capacità è essenziale per giustificare il processo di sviluppo
Click to expand...
Quale capacità? È una potenza di fuoco aggiuntiva per le unità di cavalleria e Stryker, ma non sostituisce il ruolo ricoperto dall'M551 Sheridan per l'82a aviotrasportata.

Ogni decisione progettuale presenta degli svantaggi, ma un caricatore automatico avrebbe consentito al veicolo di essere più piccolo e leggero, il che dovrebbe essere uno dei punti di forza di questo veicolo. Mi chiedo se anche una pistola da 120 mm sarebbe stata una scelta migliore, considerando che le pistole leggere da 120 mm sono state dimostrate su diversi veicoli in una classe di peso simile. Il 105 mm aveva molto più senso quando era rimasta un'enorme riserva di munizioni da 105 mm, ma immagino che la maggior parte sia sparita ora. Tra i lati positivi, significa che è possibile trasportare più munizioni per la pistola principale.
Click to expand...
120 mm è ottimo per i serbatoi esplosivi.

105 mm è meglio per far saltare tutto il resto, e la brigata di fanteria ha un sacco di giavellotti a portata di mano per far esplodere i carri armati. È per questo che l'M8 AGS aveva un 105, è per questo che lo Stryker MGS aveva un 105, è per questo che questo ha un 105. L'HESH da 105 mm su un bunker è un bunker molto frammentato. Le munizioni da 105 mm sono ancora in produzione, poiché molti posti usano ancora il 10
Click to expand...
I carri armati leggeri statunitensi hanno 105 mm perché sono così leggeri che non possono montare nient'altro. Gli MGS hanno difficoltà a esibirsi con 105....
Click to expand...
Ad essere onesti, gli italiani hanno un 120 mm sul loro Centauro II
Click to expand...
È più pesante, molto più pesante dell'M8 o dello Striker.
 
Is there any information on the turret ring diameter of the M10 Booker?

Has an 8x8 wheeled variant ever been proposed as a replacement for the Stryker MGS?
 
Christopher Wang said:
Is there any information on the turret ring diameter of the M10 Booker?

Has an 8x8 wheeled variant ever been proposed as a replacement for the Stryker MGS?
Click to expand...
Strykers are all C-130 transportable, even the MGS, I don't think a Stryker with an M10 turret would be.
 
shin_getter said:
The excepted lifecycle of an armored vehicle is decades of crew training followed by years of low intensity combat. This historical intensity was so low, that casualty rate is lower than dangerous civilian jobs and health and safety concerns make a meaningful difference.

The united states, being a nuclear power surrounded by oceans, will not be fighting a war in defense or national survival with these vehicles. This is doubly so for vehicles developed to be lighter weight and thus air transportable.

In those expeditionary, optional conflicts, the question isn't about making sacrifices for a greater cause, it is about getting results while making no sacrifices.

In higher intensity conflict, something like MPF is marginal to begin with when stuff like nuclear strategy, air superiority, sea control, long range precision fires and such start to weight in. It is not like a slight improvement in MPF performance in any factor would change much here. I mean, T-90 or T-55, they are all steel box that go boom when on the other side of PGMs or mines.
Click to expand...

I guess, in truth, the U.S. Army for decades was willing to deploy with it's M551 Sheridan, knowing explicitly it was sub standard. To say nothing of cancelling it's supposed urgently needed replacement programs on more than one occasion....

Regards
Pioneer
 
Pioneer said:
I guess, in truth, the U.S. Army for decades was willing to deploy with it's M551 Sheridan, knowing explicitly it was sub standard. To say nothing of cancelling it's supposed urgently needed replacement programs on more than one occasion....

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
The M551 was a pretty good assault gun, that 152mm HEAT round is mean. And once Javelin was introduced, the antitank capabilities of the basic infantry squad were huge. It's the time before Javelin that gets questionable, when you're looking at a mix of TOW and M47 Dragon missiles for infantry AT.

Cancelling the M8 in the 1990s was a matter of Congress saying "You have 3 urgent needs, pick 2", and the Army sacrificing the M8 to get LOSAT to replace TOW and Javelin to replace Dragon. Except that LOSAT ended up being an even bigger/less portable missile than TOW.

When the M551 was finally retired without replacement, the 82nd got Carl Gustav recoilless rifles for bunker blasting.
 
MihoshiK said:
So the latest Inside The Chieftain's Hatch is out, and it's a bit easyer to understand why the BAE entry didn't make the cut. Long story short, it got pretty close to Soviet disregard for ergonomics in a few spots, and the driver's hatch REALLY should have been redesigned.
Click to expand...
Remember that the Chieftain is 6'5" tall, he's right at the upper limit for tank crew height.

So some of his ergonomic complaints may not be applicable in general.
 
Perhaps, but the commander's station seemed like it would be a minor nightmare regardless of the TC's size. I imagine adding the necessary hardware for a credible APS only made the situation worse.
 
Moose said:
Perhaps, but the commander's station seemed like it would be a minor nightmare regardless of the TC's size. I imagine adding the necessary hardware for a credible APS only made the situation worse.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does look tight, but I'd like to see a soldier that wears a 42-regular suit coat in the TC's slot before making judgement.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Strykers are all C-130 transportable, even the MGS, I don't think a Stryker with an M10 turret would be.
Click to expand...
Nope the MGS was not C130 transportable.

The things 9.5 foot tall and the max allowed hiegh for a c130 is less then 9 feet. Not even airing down the tires help.
Scott Kenny said:
Remember that the Chieftain is 6'5" tall, he's right at the upper limit for tank crew height.

So some of his ergonomic complaints may not be applicable in general.
Click to expand...
You also got to remember that the Chieftain does his videos without KIT.

Remember even tankers wear Iotvs and those things add up to 3 inches to you waistline without and pouches.

Modern body armor has force crew size needs up a metric butt load.

Tgen you got all the stuff that not in the Display Vehicle.

Like Ammo and Radios, the crew weapons, the seversl bit of SI stuff to name the non negotiable stuff that WILL be coming and staying inside the tank. Let allone the small shit the crew have.

Making a cramp space even more cramp.
 
jsport said:
..post because this vehicle appears to be capable of carrying troops something the M-8 could do and the GD MPF can not. IMHO carrying at least two dismount scouts is key capability.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1692897173082632484
View: https://twitter.com/ronkainen7k15/status/1692897173082632484
Click to expand...

The M8 could not carry any dismounts. No idea where that idea comes from.

It's not a given that this K-MPF concept can either, just because it has a rear door. That may be the main crew egress and a holdover from the original IFV hull.
 
jsport said:
..post because this vehicle appears to be capable of carrying troops something the M-8 could do and the GD MPF can not. IMHO carrying at least two dismount scouts is key capability.
-SNIP-
Click to expand...
Having seen The Chieftain's vids on the M8, I think it's safe to say that it could barely carry a crew, let alone dismounts!
 
jsport said:
..post because this vehicle appears to be capable of carrying troops something the M-8 could do and the GD MPF can not. IMHO carrying at least two dismount scouts is key capability.
Click to expand...

Very debatable whether it is a "key" capability and I think you are specifically thinking of the Thunderbolt hybrid demonstrator, not the type classified M8.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom