>2016 No M1A3s >WTF AMERICA WAKE UP!

Why do we need a better tank when what we have is sufficient.

You build a new tank. Enemy makes a missile that can kill it, and now everything below that tank in our storage is royally fucked when it hits combat.

>>28452912
What the US needs is light tanks

You can't go plenty of places with the abrams.
Also: Doesn't it consume gas like nuts? That's a hell of a liability.

>>28452957

Eh, I wouldn't say light tanks, but a heavier emphasis on IFV's like the Stryker or some of the new MRAP's. An RPG is gunna fuck up everything short of a MBT anyways, so just place defense in soft and hard kill counter measures instead of fuckheavy armor.

And yea the Abrams sucks gas like hoes sucks dick.

>>28452957
America has the best logistics of any military on the planet.

We can burn gas.

>>28452279

Russians made Armata.
''mmmmmmmurica will make Armato
Italy will make Carro

everyone will be happy with his own Armata of Carro Armatos

>>28452279
Trumps gonna fix this and the M1a3 will be renamed to Trump. M1a3 Trump. 155mm cannon and 30mm chaingun as coaxial mg.

>>28453050
Sure, but then you try to do an offensive and you physically cannot ship enough gas to the tanks to keep them going

Also the cost of actually shipping gas in trucks in a combat zone is like 50+ $ a gallon.
It's really a needless expense.

>>28453046
Tracked vehicles m8
Not wheeled vehicles
Suppose the US was fighting in Vietnam again, what are those wheels going to do?

>>28453401
>and you physically cannot ship enough gas to the tanks to keep them going

Someone better tell that to coalition forces that did just that

>>28453433
Didn't they run out of gas in the first gulf war?

>>28453401
>Sure, but then you try to do an offensive and you physically cannot ship enough gas to the tanks to keep them going

Oh man, better tell Schwarzkopf that the shit he did was not possible.

Fuck you, you ignorant nobody.

>>28453476
How far do you think the Germans would have gotten if they were using abrams?? dumbass
They'd run out of gas in the first week.

>>28453465
No, you are stupid.

>>28453401
Cost to ship gas in some parts of afghanistan was actually something like a hundred dollars per liter. That's when talibans didin't set the trucks on fire crossing the pakistani border.

>>28453492
>WWII Germany = Logistical capabilities of modern US forces.

Keep in mind the germans lacked the logistical capabilities of WWII USA.

Ignorant. You are completely ignorant. You lack the basic knowledge of the subject to even comment on it, yet you still do.

KYS.

File: 1451952456270.png (51KB, 348x379px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 348x379px

>>28453492

>>28453465
>>28453401

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve_(United_States)

>The current inventory is displayed on the SPR's website.[2] As of 7 August 2015, the inventory was 695.1 million barrels (110,510,000 m3).

>>28453516
And how do tanks in iraq run on the strageic petroleum reserve? Which needs to be processed, then shipped across the world.

Iraq was literally right next to Saudi Arabia.
A major US ally.
Fighting against Saddam too.
Largest producer of oil and fuel in the world.
Come on, senpai.

>>28453465
Yes. Tanks were constantly having to park in the middle of the fucking desert and wait for the fuel trucks to catch up. This is a huge problem and a major vulnerability.

In ww2 50% of all logistics tonnage was fuel. Today we're up over 70%.

An army marches on its stomach.

>>28453516
That's a fucking saltmine in Louisiana you fucking retard ie not where the war is.

Kill yourself

>>28453612

Well now we know the next logical step in the evolution of armored warfare

Nuclear powered tanks!

I'm pretty sure they've been tried before but that only means we have the technology to do it now. We NEED nuclear powered drone tanks.

File: bolo-mark-xx.jpg (45KB, 432x329px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 432x329px

>>28453663

>>28453359
>Trumper
fixed for ya

>>28452279
It's called the M1A2 SEPv3.

If I was planning for the US Army Id copy what the Russians are doing with the Armata, Kurganets, Bumerang, and Typhoon-based brigades. Basically the idea is that every combat vehicle in a brigade shares the same chassis base, ie in an Armata brigade you have Armata-based MBTs, IFVs, SPHs, SAMs, engineering & recovery vehicles, command vehicles, etc. This way they all maintain the same level of mobility across terrain, similar levels of protection and since the chassis are just rear, middle and forward engine variants they share all parts and a huge pool of spares plus the know-how to repair them is vastly simplified; in every brigade you only have trucks and the particular chassis to tailor your maintenance around. This way its much easier and efficient in allocating forces to each threat around the world- basically against the likes of Russia and China you send heavy brigades based on Abrams; some second-tier force you send a medium brigade based on the Bradley and against IS-like threats you send rapid reaction brigades made up of Stryker vehicles.

>>28453813
Isn't that exactly what they intended with the FCS and GCV

Strykers don't fit in the c-130's so they aren't really suitable for fast reaction brigades.

Really what they need to work on most is privatizing all those non-combat jobs.

>>28453882
>Strykers don't fit in the c-130's so they aren't really suitable for fast reaction brigades.

This myth needs to die.

>>28453050
Not to mention oil is at its cheapest its been in two decades and the US is glutted with supply. There's pretty much zero reason for the US military to care about fuel efficiency.

>>28453813
Absolutely correct, to me this is the most impressive thing about the Armata. It shows a level of strategic thinking and long term planning that America is completely lacking.

Logistics wins wars

File: XM8 Block II.jpg (160KB, 800x494px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 800x494px

>>28452279
It is the M1A2 SEPv3 and M1A2 SEPv3 TUSK/TUSK-II now.

>>28452957
I agree. A modernized M8 Block II AGS and a lengthened "M10 Block III". Make the M8 with a 105mm as planned and the "M10" with a 120mm/L55. Light and Medium Tanks right there on a single chassis, just improve the armor with add on Chobham blocks, NERA/ERA, SLAT and HKAPS/SKAPS systems.

>>28454106
Eh, I'd say that you would want to revisit the M8 and do things like add an unmanned turret, produce a turretless version with a fixed gun + frontal armor suitable to engage MBT's.

Certainly, there would be modern technologies that could change the way you want to design the tank.

>>28454194

>add an unmanned turret, produce a turretless version with a fixed gun + frontal armor suitable to engage MBT's.

I hate all of these suggestions

stop

>>28453813
Just to point out, American Armor BCTs pretty much just use Abrams and Bradley derived hulls.

Stryker BCTs obvious just use Strykers and Infantry BCTs do not currently use anything heavier than Humvees.

>>28452279
They're still hashing out what all is supposed to be part of that package last I heard. Give it another year or two.

>>28454247
The AMPV replacement will be on the bradley chassis too

>>28454230
What about a version with a VLS array of missiles

>>28453983
>It shows a level of strategic thinking and long term planning that America is completely lacking.

And we have a winner for dumbest post.

>>28453882
>Isn't that exactly what they intended with the FCS and GCV
No, FCS and GCV were to replace all(except those in infantry BCT for the latter) combat vehicles in all BCTs.

>>28454106
All I get from googling tusk ii is plastic models.

>>28454431
TUSK 2 is just additional ERA, those curved tiles.

>>28453757
kek

File: 0jcLJ1w.jpg (104KB, 640x405px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 640x405px

>>28453359

M1A3 Trump

This tbqhdesucuckdenpai

>>28454396
Replace them with a common chassis..