Posts
The M10 Booker is not a main battle tank.
We stopped making tanks of differing weights as The Cold War got into full swing.
Unless we were dropping it with the 82nd, all tanks were main battle tanks which is really a niche between medium and heavy tanks.
The M551 Sheridan, M8 Buford and M10 Booker aren't main battle tanks, are a bit too beefy to be light tanks... Too light to be medium tanks... Armed like heavier tanks, but...
So the Army isn't calling it a light tank, they've got a new term for this light tank with a too-big gun.
Mobile Protected Firepower. This replaces the previous light tank with a too-big gun term, "Armored Gun System" used on the Buford.
They've been stressing that light tanks were primarily recon vehicles when avoiding the term.
The non-recon role is precisely why the gun is too-big.
It amuses me a lot that its protection and firepower sure looks like a "Gun Motor Carriage" also known as a "Tank Destroyer".
Gun Motor Carriages are emphatically NOT tanks...
Looks like the US Army has reinvented the Stug? If it works, good on them. With a 105, one would be able to defend against tanks but only as a last resort. When some T-55s and the T-72 show up, take a hull down position, fire and run.
ReplyDeleteThe M35 gun supports the M900 APFSDSDU round, which is no slouch in snuffing Soviet armor.
DeleteIt's more like the later Pzkfz IVs with the long 75mm. Good gun, able to kill most other opponents, but the armor is really starting to lack against other front-line guns.
DeleteAs long as it has the thin "roof" like the "tanks", it is just another target for the opposition. Everyone saw the effectiveness of the Javelins and NLAWs so the copies will be everywhere. The new designs will probably not pop their turrets like the Russian autoloader tanks, but dead is dead.
ReplyDeleteI expect to see protective systems for top down attacks. I also expect something more sophisticated and effective than a "cope cage" withe ERA
Delete