@MRWALKER500000 are you sure you know what you're talking about? compared to a chally 2 this thing might as well be made out of paper mache, personally i don't think you much about mechanised infantry.
@MrXclio You are right about the comparison to the Challenger 2. The M8 would fit between the two. The fundamental problem with the Challenger, like other western tanks, is that they are too heavy and suffer from poor mobility as a result. Their large weight and high ground pressure limits where they can go and makes their movements very predicable and easy to be flanked/ambush by more mobile opponents. A 105mm to the side armor will kill any obese Western tank. The Fulda Gap is over.
@therichardking4242 So are the AMOS and NEMO turrets. If an anti-armor capability is an absolute necessity, there's always STRIX and similar guided mortar rounds available, as well as an assload of tube-launched anti-tank missiles. Both are a hell of a lot lighter and versatile than a cannon. Making a vehicle that fits a role is easy, but then again, the real question is how much tax payer money can be squeezed out of a project before it's cancelled due to the costs.
@SAsgarters Missiles and guided mortar/artillery rounds are a lot more expensive per round then a regular cannon round. About $50,000 compared to $1,000. My statement about "off the self" means no development cost, somebody else is already building it and paid for the development. Plus from your statement I get the impression you want the whole army to be equipped as light infanty with no firepower backing it.
@therichardking4242 Very few rounds of smart ammunition or missiles would be used, we're really not talking about tank destroyers here. The turrets I mentioned are already in production and have been developed for just about anything from the CV90 to the M113 and Piranha. The products exist and it is likely that you wouldn't even need more than to supply the chassis.
As for the impression you got, I have no idea how you got it.
@wordbeyotch military is odd with that stuff...canned FCS, the whole thing, the M8, M247, Crusader...
OR...
They issue a requirement for an apc. Then it has to swim. Then it needs to be a scout. Then it needs heavy firepower. Then it needs to be a light tank. And has to be a tank destroyer. Consequently you get an amphibious APC that can't swim, only holds a few people, which is too tall to be a scout, too heavy to be fast, has a crap gun, and has less armor than an M113.
@franknbeans4761 True. It was a horrible development process though. But they should stop canceling projects or trying to burden them with too many requirements--or cancel a project, only to start up a new one almost exactly like it!
As a comparison, the humvee's replacements have been in development hell for a decade, whereas the original jeep was designed in like 2 months and in service for 50 years.
@redreaper2020 I completely agree. They should of completely had the M8 enter service & have the RAH-66 replace the OH-58A/C. Along with the EFV, FCS (which was replaced by the near identical BCT Modernization), the prolonged development of the V-22, & the list goes on.
And it only seems like it is getting longer to develop programs & that more get canceled.
There better be some major changes in the military's development programs.
@franknbeans4761 Why hasn't hte ripsaw entered service? Or at least its tracks been fitted to something similar?
I think the future is drones. Drones are cheap. You can spend $80 million on a new jet fighter, or $1,000 for a big RC plane with a gun. Manned systems should be just developments on what works--more tanks/apcs/ifvs/etc. No stupid shit like the future soldier suit, which can be built using the same tech I have in my HOUSE.
@redreaper2020 I would say the current land warrior system (& where it's going) is pretty good, at least it had good results in Iraq. But the Switchblade UAV seems very promising along with the Avenger. And once large amounts of the Reaper enter service along with the X-47B & Boeing Phantom Ray; things should be better. And I can't forget about the XM-25.
@franknbeans4761 Still, those UAVs seem wasteful. When it doesn't matter if you lose it, when it turns into just a financial loss, you can crap out a shitload of 'em for cheap. Think flying jeeps, with 250-pound guided bombs taped onto them. No "artifical intelligence" needed, just a guy with a remote and a camera.
Tho a cheapened XM25 sounds cool. The 25mm round would be a nice hybrid heavy rifle/grenade round for infantry too (use the gun like an M-14)
@redreaper2020 Well the US does still have massive amounts of the RQ-11 Raven, on practically a platoon level. Newer UAV's like the X-47B & the Boeing Phantom Ray won't necessarily be expendable, but they can actually be used over threat countries that don't like an American pilot over their skies but instead an unmanned drone. It doesn't really make sense but that is just how it is.
I know the XM-25 will be deployed in every single squad.
@franknbeans4761 even so. I'd think more along the lines of "flying T-34/Sherman" would be the idea for it--make it as painfully simple as possible. But that's nice to know that they're really getting som euse and all.
And thanks for the update on the XM-25, I was unware it was even still in development, I thought it got canned with the XM29.
@redreaper2020 The XM-25 was was deployed to Afghanistan with the 82nd Airborne, I think 5 were sent there. They performed very well & they gave it the nickname "The Punisher." There's suppose to be 35 built now, most of which being tested by units in Afghanistan & special ops units. It performed much better than it's South Korean counterpart the K11, which had 15 out of the 39 built have serious defects.
ESTE TANQUE É DE QUE ORIGEM?
geanfilms 2 months ago
GOSTEI BASTANTE DA AERODINÂMICA DO CHASSI DESSE TANQUE.SÓ ACHO QUE A TORRE TEM UMA AERODINÂMICA MEIO RUIM.DEVERIA SER MAIS INCLINADA!!!
geanfilms 2 months ago
the british army need something like this to it will replace the Challenger 2 and Scimitar
MRWALKER500000 3 months ago
@MRWALKER500000 are you sure you know what you're talking about? compared to a chally 2 this thing might as well be made out of paper mache, personally i don't think you much about mechanised infantry.
MrXclio 2 months ago
@MrXclio *know
MrXclio 2 months ago
@MrXclio You are right about the comparison to the Challenger 2. The M8 would fit between the two. The fundamental problem with the Challenger, like other western tanks, is that they are too heavy and suffer from poor mobility as a result. Their large weight and high ground pressure limits where they can go and makes their movements very predicable and easy to be flanked/ambush by more mobile opponents. A 105mm to the side armor will kill any obese Western tank. The Fulda Gap is over.
Crosshair84 1 month ago in playlist www
Still think a CV-90 direvitive or a modernized Cadilac StingRay is needed.
Papi1960R 5 months ago
@Papi1960R
maybe!
skiamakia 4 months ago
@Papi1960R the CV-90120-t is off the shelf
therichardking4242 4 months ago
@therichardking4242 So are the AMOS and NEMO turrets. If an anti-armor capability is an absolute necessity, there's always STRIX and similar guided mortar rounds available, as well as an assload of tube-launched anti-tank missiles. Both are a hell of a lot lighter and versatile than a cannon. Making a vehicle that fits a role is easy, but then again, the real question is how much tax payer money can be squeezed out of a project before it's cancelled due to the costs.
SAsgarters 4 months ago
@SAsgarters Missiles and guided mortar/artillery rounds are a lot more expensive per round then a regular cannon round. About $50,000 compared to $1,000. My statement about "off the self" means no development cost, somebody else is already building it and paid for the development. Plus from your statement I get the impression you want the whole army to be equipped as light infanty with no firepower backing it.
therichardking4242 4 months ago
@therichardking4242 Very few rounds of smart ammunition or missiles would be used, we're really not talking about tank destroyers here. The turrets I mentioned are already in production and have been developed for just about anything from the CV90 to the M113 and Piranha. The products exist and it is likely that you wouldn't even need more than to supply the chassis.
As for the impression you got, I have no idea how you got it.
SAsgarters 4 months ago
I was headed for this tank after basic in 95, then they abruptly cancelled it.
wordbeyotch 10 months ago
@wordbeyotch military is odd with that stuff...canned FCS, the whole thing, the M8, M247, Crusader...
OR...
They issue a requirement for an apc. Then it has to swim. Then it needs to be a scout. Then it needs heavy firepower. Then it needs to be a light tank. And has to be a tank destroyer. Consequently you get an amphibious APC that can't swim, only holds a few people, which is too tall to be a scout, too heavy to be fast, has a crap gun, and has less armor than an M113.
redreaper2020 5 months ago in playlist Liked
@redreaper2020 Well I image you are talking about the Bradley right?
If so the APDS-T makes the main gun on it quite formidable. Also, the M2A2 & M2A3 is completely adequately armored.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 True. It was a horrible development process though. But they should stop canceling projects or trying to burden them with too many requirements--or cancel a project, only to start up a new one almost exactly like it!
As a comparison, the humvee's replacements have been in development hell for a decade, whereas the original jeep was designed in like 2 months and in service for 50 years.
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 I completely agree. They should of completely had the M8 enter service & have the RAH-66 replace the OH-58A/C. Along with the EFV, FCS (which was replaced by the near identical BCT Modernization), the prolonged development of the V-22, & the list goes on.
And it only seems like it is getting longer to develop programs & that more get canceled.
There better be some major changes in the military's development programs.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Why hasn't hte ripsaw entered service? Or at least its tracks been fitted to something similar?
I think the future is drones. Drones are cheap. You can spend $80 million on a new jet fighter, or $1,000 for a big RC plane with a gun. Manned systems should be just developments on what works--more tanks/apcs/ifvs/etc. No stupid shit like the future soldier suit, which can be built using the same tech I have in my HOUSE.
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 I would say the current land warrior system (& where it's going) is pretty good, at least it had good results in Iraq. But the Switchblade UAV seems very promising along with the Avenger. And once large amounts of the Reaper enter service along with the X-47B & Boeing Phantom Ray; things should be better. And I can't forget about the XM-25.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 Still, those UAVs seem wasteful. When it doesn't matter if you lose it, when it turns into just a financial loss, you can crap out a shitload of 'em for cheap. Think flying jeeps, with 250-pound guided bombs taped onto them. No "artifical intelligence" needed, just a guy with a remote and a camera.
Tho a cheapened XM25 sounds cool. The 25mm round would be a nice hybrid heavy rifle/grenade round for infantry too (use the gun like an M-14)
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 Well the US does still have massive amounts of the RQ-11 Raven, on practically a platoon level. Newer UAV's like the X-47B & the Boeing Phantom Ray won't necessarily be expendable, but they can actually be used over threat countries that don't like an American pilot over their skies but instead an unmanned drone. It doesn't really make sense but that is just how it is.
I know the XM-25 will be deployed in every single squad.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 even so. I'd think more along the lines of "flying T-34/Sherman" would be the idea for it--make it as painfully simple as possible. But that's nice to know that they're really getting som euse and all.
And thanks for the update on the XM-25, I was unware it was even still in development, I thought it got canned with the XM29.
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 The XM-25 was was deployed to Afghanistan with the 82nd Airborne, I think 5 were sent there. They performed very well & they gave it the nickname "The Punisher." There's suppose to be 35 built now, most of which being tested by units in Afghanistan & special ops units. It performed much better than it's South Korean counterpart the K11, which had 15 out of the 39 built have serious defects.
franknbeans4761 4 months ago
@franknbeans4761 that's just my personal opinion, but we seriously need a change in these development programs.
redreaper2020 4 months ago
Is there a Youtube regulation stating that all interesting military videos must have really gay music?
Papi1960R 11 months ago
@Papi1960R LMAO
xhtownbeatdownx 7 months ago
@Papi1960R yep. :/
redreaper2020 5 months ago
Was envisioned as an M551 Sheridan replacement but was killed by the bean counters
frequentfiler 1 year ago
This could have been a bad ass track
b/37
1/2ACR
74/76
mtw56or 1 year ago