Mobile Protected Firepower

Possibly because the threat of coming across enemy heavy armor is still real. And with things being as they are, the up-armoring of vehicles worldwide means that a 90mm or even 105mm just doesn't cut it. If it can take a 120mm, I think it's the right choice for all situations.

You think a "broke ass 3rd world shithole" or "african warlords" can purchase or even afford these vehicles? No. The point is to provide a medium/medium-heavy vehicles to units that don't get tanks but may come across them or IFV's.

When war were declared we will learn hard lessons about things.

Attached: benis.jpg (612x792, 103K)

There are plenty of targets on the battlefield that isnt a MBT. This thing is designed for all of them, so that you can use your expensive and relativly few modern ATGMs on actual tanks, not needing to waste them on APCs/IFVs/support vehicles.

Assuming the Griffin II isn't a broken piece of shit. Does the M8 even stand a chance?

Attached: 850_4627_MOD_web.jpg (3302x1858, 3.69M)

>doesn't even have a CITV
Absolutely no chance. BAE has been sitting on their asses for years assuming they'll just automatically win contracts, and it's finally starting to hit them.

If you don't give a fuck about survivability, I'd rather have an Otomatic 76mm. Either tracked or the Draco. Hell of a lot more ammunition, more than enough boom, and can put down silly amounts of firepower.

120 RPM is a hell of a lot more boom than 120mm at 8 rpm.

>but its not light enough.
The Rooikat's 76mm on a Warrior IFV. Excellent amount of ammo, much lighter system, much lighter recoil, and with modern smart munitions, deadly enough.

Attached: warrior.jpg (490x225, 29K)

No. Hell no. The only real point is getting significant FIREPOWER within a combat zone in a real, real hurry. They aren't survivable. A squad of men with MILKOR 40mm Grenade Launchers firing the HEAT rounds could kill one and kill it easily. IEDs? Lol poof tank is gone.

Post Cold War not acquiring these things was a pretty good decision because the amount of battlefields where we wouldn't have lead time to get there was and is amazingly slim. Everywhere else, we would have time to fly in and float in regular armored forces.

>tank fire yet is at the front supporting infantry.
Thats called a tank. And transimission, engine and suspension tech has advanced enough that we can roll with 70 ton fatasses.

They're more than a match against soviet-era T-72s and the Chink equivalent which still makes up the backbone of the PROC's ground forces, and most importantly are air-droppable to boot, giving those forces the big firepower the Stryker was supposed to give them, but never delivered on.
Think of them as Bradleys with a big gun. Or MRAPs with a big gun. Or a Stryker that can actually operate off-road and air-drop.

>MRAPs with a big gun
These things are in no way Mine Resistant. And can't be made so and also be air droppable.

Jungle warfare. Abrams is becoming too heavy to operate in that specific theater, so the M8 has become a necessity if the US is going to use armor in the sticks. Anything heavier than a T-55 tends to be sluggish and difficult to use in regions like South America, which is why you find so many past-generation tanks operating into the 21st century there, and one of the most modern light tank designs is in essence a heavily modernized Stuart.

Attached: 1561665527829.jpg (450x294, 37K)

It's an assault gun, not an MBT.

A 70 ton MBT would cripple the mobility of IBCT.

MPF is not required to be air droppable specifically because of the protection sacrifices that takes.

Would they be as capable as an MBT of maneuvering into a heavy mechanized force? No. However, they're not meant to. They're to provide 90% of that capability to lighter forces which don't have them. IBCTs currently don't have any good way of keeping moving forwards at a rapid pace. Before this, it would take far too much time for an IBCT to deploy to fight each and every foe, so their rate of advance is slowed. Not good when they need to be delivered off of the objective and then "march" onto it. This, the future cavalry vehicle, and the JLTV will provide that, which is hugely important.

This user's got it. The most capable combat vehicle in IBCT currently are Humvee with a TOW...

>IBCT
Why don't they just buy and deploy more Strykers ? It's a mobile gun platform and logistic wise the same as other Strykers in use.

Attached: M1128 Stryker MGS.jpg (1280x853, 223K)

IBCTs aren't SBCTs. Different jobs/requirements.

The Army wants tracks for MPF.

Youre basically arguing for the armor of a tank and the gun of a tank.... thats a tank man!

Tanks cant really support infantry anymore, the loadout doesnt allow for it and theyre too busy fighting other tanks and AFVs.

Because mgs is garbage that cant fire sideways without some kind of backstop.

why put a high velocity gun on a light vehicle when you can put a mortar and have indirect and direct fire capability?

Attached: E4175608-F061-4F9A-9FC0-0991B0D813CD.jpg (600x400, 57K)

>Tanks cant really support infantry anymore

What was Fallujah? Tanks can support infantry more than ever before, because air power has taken over the decisive shooters role.

nona series is peak infantry support

Attached: F04F6904-FF56-446B-924D-C759CA744DB8.jpg (543x400, 36K)

Lag. Not even joking.

when tanks fire HE its at low velocity. the only reason for OPs image to exist is for apfsds.

Except at that point, the 120mm is gross overkill, because 105mm Rifled L7 can annhilate everything in that weight class, and 76mm Otomelara can reliably wreck them too.
WELL THEN, might as well get a vehicle that is heavier. MUCH heavier. Bump that fucker up to 30 tons.

yeah well.
>shrug off tank fire
Either accept the hit to survivability or fuck off.
90% of an MBT's capability is explicit from the amount of investment it takes to eliminate it from the battlefield.
yeah well
Because Strykers are fucking garbage. Air borne mech is a dumb, stupid meme. And outside of that, for the USA, with its Logistics on Steroids? Zero reason to go with anything under 28 tons and less than 600 mile range. But Canada needed the money...

>IBCTSBCTMPF
Yeah...nah...either we will be in such a rush to get there that the fight is over before we do, because its against a force formidable enough to eat those imaginary expeditionary units, in which, leave it to the USMC, or else things will ratchet up with years of warning, in which case we fly and float boats over there....

>theyre too busy fighting other tanks and AFVs
Which is frontline combat, eliminating all the firepower that would be used to slaughter the infantry. And if the infantry tries anything silly like advancing too deeply without the armor, the enemy eats them alive. Which means immediately after the tanks and IFVs and other units have finished engaging their counterparts in their part of the battlefield....they switched to High Explosive and get to work supporting the infantry.

So that doesn't work either.

*concealed infantry lases targets*
*kills armor with guided mortar rounds*
*moves up to support infantry with direct fire*

vs OPs vehicle
*sits on front because no indirect fire capability*
*gets destroyed by atgm, artillery, mortar, rpg etc.*

Because vehicles can't designate target with their optics?
Laser detector rings on, autocannon fire balst away in the general area, spraying the men with shrapnel. Oops.

fucking aimbot over here

Its inevitable, alongside guided .50cal bullets.

ok mutt

Oh no it's a retard!

>90% of an MBT's capability is explicit from the amount of investment it takes to eliminate it from the battlefield.

About the only thing you said that was accurate.

>LWR detects laser
>fires 105mm or 120mm MPHE at spotters location

m.youtube.com/watch?v=eDAcdRXu27I
m.youtube.com/watch?v=t_T21jn_i58
Guided Bullets and Smart Scopes. All the advanced tech developed in the 20th Century for naval vessels and AFVs is getting shrunken down.

We are getting to the point of miniature primitive BOLO's. Keith wasn't wrong about how dangerous are going to get, he was just wrong about how fast and with what tech.

>he thinks his lwr shows him exactly where hes being lased from
>he gets atgm’d while trying to find out
*mortar round impacts simultaneously*
mutts btfo

you are dumb as hell. youd be better off mounting 3 miniguns on a swiveling mount and just spraying in a direction. finding the enemy is the hard part. not hitting them once located.

>he thinks his lwr shows him exactly where hes being lased from

It does, enjoy that APS shooting down the ATGM while also telling the tank where it came from.

thats literally not possible unless the laser was being directly shot into the sensor.

Can someone explain this meme to me?
I thought this was sorted out and everyone agreed that the Soviet Motor Rifle Division was a really good blueprint.
Why do we need light tanks and strykers and IBCTs now?

us military is a zog police force

The problem is being able to deploy with Infantry with ease. You can stuff Strykers into C130s and do a sliding airdrop. Why do you think MGS are so valuable and cuddled by the US. Army and the SBCTs? If you really want staged firepower, where you are going to run things over, the Army will sent ABCTs and the ACRs in. Just takes time to set it all up. Much faster with lighter stuff.

umm excuse me, you thought the americans didnt always have a counter for every piece of shit russian tech making it useless?

What is MGS 105mm Rifled Cannon?

Its very hard to actually killed armored units with mortars, especially if they are moving. Direct fires however, can get rid of alot of crap.

a 120mm mortar can fire heat rounds as well with more explosive than a standard tank heat round. wouldnt be good for steppes and the desert but would be plenty lethal in many environments without huge sight lines.

>light tank
>38 tons

Attached: 10D148F3-2D86-4055-AFEA-4ECE24F93983.jpg (450x300, 16K)

Why the fuck would you ever go with the giant fucking Abrams turret when one of your main requirements is weight? If you want a 120mm gun, you also want an unmanned slimmed down turret.

Attached: TmupBlv.png (900x722, 975K)

Yeah...so. I'll do it this once for the yous.

US army used to be heavy mechanized with an accompanying strand of paratroops (they were good at bureaucracy, like mareens).

Then the cold war ended and russians beat them in a foot race in bosnia, so they needed wheels to look relevant (and LOSAT and Javelin spawned around this time - the "tanks are obsolete" crew was getting loud again).

Cost cutting post cold war also revived the infantry at the expense of armor, and in conjunction with GWOT, the BCT took official shape because it's an easy to rotate size for deployments in an occupation.

The army has always had a rapid-reaction fetish balanced against armor. It knows armor is needed to win vs any near-peer, but it needs rapid reaction to get stuck into the fight because it's over and the president stops caring.

Because armoring your rapid reaction troops is impractical (check out the Russian efforts) it keeps getting brought up, then discarded every ~15 years.

This is the same old. You can't compare it to russian units because the US is an expeditionary, sea power. It would be like telling russians to follow US naval doctrine.

Ok post video of it firing sideways without a backstop. Protip the video of it firing with a wall as a backstop, and losing wheel ground contact on firing side, is not an answer.

when your life is measured in seconds, indirect fire is minutes away.

There needs to be a seventh guy in the tank pulling maintenance because six of them will be off 'getting orders' when it needs to be done. Trust me bro.

Give an example of a 120mm mortar HEAT round that fits your description.

What do you think happens when a LWR detects a laser beam?

I'll give you both a picture and a video.

youtube.com/watch?v=We9qOg9tnCw

Attached: 04-03-15-TopGun02.jpg (1210x1014, 196K)

'Take' a 120mm? I dont think you realize what your implying. If you want a merkava its not going to fufill the putpose of an ICBT in US doctrine.

Attached: 400.jpg (585x399, 79K)

Except your video isnt firing sideways, gun is right over the rear hatch.

Feel free to prove me wrong I have not had one person do it and I have been spreading the truth since before it entered service. Surely theres at least one video of it after so many years lol....

No u

youtube.com/watch?v=rBEKY4nsdx0
5:10

Attached: E6F2AD45-0D15-44F2-B4BF-07445FD7170A.jpg (1764x1125, 257K)

>haha the Stryker in your video was only firing at 80 degrees to the right instead of 90
>oh and I am going to avoid mentioning the photograph

youtu.be/0g-Wk3FZL6I

I don't think you know how much explosive filler is actually in one of those.

try to keep up. 2s9 120mm mortar fires heat rounds direct fire for anti armor. it also has indirect fire anti armor ability with “gran” laser guided round. along with regular he in both direct and indirect fire.

just admit you didnt know direct fire heat mortar rounds existed

He will never admit to it.

I have proven you wrong for years, fag.

The existence of HEAT mortar rounds isn't what is being debated, you claimed "with more explosive than a standard tank heat round".

>38 tons
might as well airdrop t72s

What fo you consider a standard round? Out of 120mm there is mainly the HEDP with a 105mm HEAT warhead diameter. Of course a purpose built 120mm HEAT mortar will produce a better shaped charge.

I don't think you realize the capability of modern IFVs and IFV-type chasis. 120mm is proper for the tasks of the IBCT and the threats it will face in the future.

I don't want a tank, same as the US Army, which is why they want a lighter chassis for the MPF.

>smoothbore 120mm
>has sabot
>rifled 120mm mortar
>no sabot
>which 1 is better
hmmmmm

>What fo you consider a standard round?

There are two kinds of HEAT rounds in predominate use by 120mm smoothbore tank guns, a full bore 120mm HEAT and a subcaliber 80mm HEAT.

>make projectile larger as it doesnt have to fit a case and chamber designed for apfsds

You don't actually have any idea what you are talking about.

Attached: 120mm_M830_HEAT-MP-T_internal.png (800x320, 11K)

>M830A1 is the only kind of tank fired HEAT round

i worded it incorrectly. i was trying to illustrate how abrams heat rounds need a sabot like on apfsds rounds. theres a reason they use a sabot heat round, because its a smooth bore and fucking blows without it.

its literally what the military uses

There is M830A1 nothing else is in service. Even it will be replaced by AMP.

whats the amp upgrade? they just found a way to make it full bore size again with increased stability over the older full bore heat round im guessing.

The Abrams has had two types of 120mm HEAT rounds during its life, the 120mm M830 and the 80mm saboted M830A1.

The M830A1 is dual purpose as a standard HEAT round and as an anti-helicopter round. This is why it is both sub caliber (higher muzzle velocity and flatter ballistic trajectory) and has an RF proximity fuze.

HEAT projectiles are easier to use with smoothbores than with rifled guns, the rapid spin produced by rifled guns interferes with the function of a HEAT warhead and reduces their penetration. That is why rounds like the Russian HEAT mortar posted above have a ring that engages the rifling but allows the projectile itself to not be spun by the rifling.

Attached: 120mm nato.jpg (1256x488, 187K)

M1147 is an MPHE round with a programmable fuze.

MPHE combine the best features of HEAT, HE and canister rounds as you can choose whether they airburst, point detonate or delay detonate.

youtube.com/watch?v=U61Hrn1JZWQ

lmao its another sabot
and my guess without the measurements says the mortar version is larger diameter

Attached: ADA4C8CC-426A-494E-A4E9-38070A974EFE.jpg (480x168, 77K)

I'm hyped af for AMP, I love seeing a return of what basically amounts fo APHEBC

>something that can shrug off tank fire
OK now your vehicle weighs 70 tons and you've violated the major spec of this thing.

Just because it has vaguely similar geometry to the Abrams turret doesn't mean it's anywhere near as heavy.

The MPF is more or less a replacement for the Sheridan. The US used to use Sheridans and apparently thinks they were a good capability.

>whats the amp upgrade? they just found a way to make it full bore size again with increased stability over the older full bore heat round im guessing.
>being this naive
lol you're like a BABY.

Full bore 120mm HEAT was found to be extremely effective in Gulf 1. There was not a single bad thing written about it, and everyone loved it and wanted more of them in the tank.

Stands to reason that the military industrial establishment wouldn't let the soldiers have something they liked or that worked, instead giving them a 105mm round saboted up to 120mm for extra speed which NO ONE NEEDS OR ASKED FOR and a secondary helicopter engagement ability NO ONE NEEDS OR ASKED FOR and an electronic proximity fuse that Russian EWAR can pre-detonate at 200m. Source: youtu.be/14LMmBsDw-g?t=27m23s

>programmable fuze
>HEAT, HE and canister rounds
Oh god.

Fun fact there are 105mm HEAT warheads with superior capability and jam resistance to M830A1/M1147

Your picture is an M830A1, M1147 is a full bore MPHE.

>120mm is a larger diameter than 120mm

Whew laddy.

Cage, APS and heavy ERA can provide adequate protection against all anti tank missiles, shaped charges and most current APFSDS rounds at weight penalties that a light vehicle can afford. I think only USA uses frangible APFSDS which goes through heavy ERA, but even then the penetration is reduced.

>Fun fact there are 105mm HEAT warheads with superior capability and jam resistance to M830A1

I would hope so considering M830A1 is an 80mm HEAT in a sabot.

>and jam resistance to
>jam resistance

user, user please.