The US Army needs 1. Light tanks 2. Assault guns among other things.

No it doesn't.

Define assault guns

Both of those would be pointless when the M1 Abrams exists.

>>29868774

The Army needs more memes. :*D

>>29868774
Why do we need either of those? No one has used assault guns since shortly after WWII and we already have Bradleys for something akin to light tanks(scouting, infantry support, and anti-armor).

>>29868774
>1. Light tanks
IFVs.

>2. Assault guns
Artillery, MBTs, IFVs, CAS.

>>29868774
you misspelled more drones

>>29868788
self propelled, direct fire artillery pieces for primarily destroying hard static targets such as bunkers, forts, or houses, in close coordination with infantry. the Stug and Sturmtiger are classic example. a more modern design might look like a Stridsvagn 103.

>>29868843
The Strv103 is (was) an MBT in Swedish doctrine.

I understand the case for light, mobile tanks to deal with anything more than a technical though an assault gun is pushing it, it's such a one-role vehicle that it's better off being substituted with an MBT or the aforementioned light tank.

File: ТОС-1А_Буратино_на_репетиции_парада_4.5.2010.jpg (3MB, 3856x2569px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3856x2569px

>>29868843
I've got something better for you.

Not that anyone's building static fortifications like bunkers for defence anymore. Atleast that I know of.

Assault guns are useless given how cheap, plentiful, and accurate airstrikes are

light tanks won't be useful until we have some working active defense systems. Our personel carriers are far better armored than historical light tanks and they are still very vulnerable to common man portable devices and roadside bombs.

>>29868800
>IFVs as light tanks
a light tank with a passenger compartment performs much worse than a light tank, and is much larger. an army of compromises isn't want you want to go to war in. You want all the best tools for the tasks you need, and when the Army gets into a major conflict, and you actually need volume of production, they will realize the necessity of specialized vehicles, but for so long the military has been fighting against a budget and a senate that doesn't support, it commendable military enemy.

>>29868843
IFVs are well capable of supporting infantry in urban fighting.

Didn't the Bradley have issues with ineffective anti-personnel ammunition in the sandpit, or am I misremembering something?

>>29868774
That's why the MPF project is a thing. It is exactly that. It will provide a battalion of light tanks (which also function as assault guns) to IBCTs. That's right, an entire battalion. With one of their named purposes being the destruction of enemy armor. That means a 120mm gun.

As for why it needs them, as of the moment an IBCT is practically worthless in modern state-on-state warfare. It lacks the ability to deal with enemy fortifications safely and in a timely manner, especially with organic assets. It lacks all sorts of anti-tank capacity. If an IBCT was attacked by even a tank battalion, there's not much it could do other than hope they close to 2500 meters. Just the specter of armor would prevent maneuver, as infantry simply cannot attack tanks. While light tanks would be vulnerable, it'd be a fair sight better than the current situation.

As for why it can't be a current platform, quite simply an Abrams is not as strategically mobile to work in an IBCT. The same with the Bradley, which doesn't fill the role anyways. Neither of them fits what is needed for the role, especially paradrop capability.

>>29868843
Oh yeah those'll come in real handy if someone builds another Maginot line.

>>29868900
The 25mm ammunition was too small. Not enough power to deal with even unfortified structures effectively. A big cannon is better. That's what the Army has decided, and that's why MPF is a thing.

>>29868899
In large scale warfare "light tank" is just going to be a fancy word for "moving target."

>>29868843
So what you want is an engineering vehicle.

>>29868843
>self propelled, direct fire artillery pieces for primarily destroying hard static targets such as bunkers, forts, or houses, in close coordination with infantry

That's called a tank.

>>29868858
Yes, an assault gun is a limited role, but it's just a gun with an engine on it, it is so so so much less expensive than an MBT, and the benefit it provides to infantry, by "hardening" them up, especially in a time when tanks don't operate that closely with infantry anymore, and command prefers to send them off to play battleship with enemy tanks in the desert, I think assault guns are worth it. not only is it much cheaper, but factories that couldn't otherwise produce tanks can now be producing assault guns, so you wouldn't be subtracting much from other vehicles by pursuing assault guns.

File: f0205060_50ed28306750b.jpg (720KB, 1600x1065px) Image search: [Google]

720KB, 1600x1065px

>>29868843
Image related then.

>you are now aware that the only new ammunition the US procured for the Stryker MGS was HEP and canister, APFSDS and HEAT rounds are leftover stockpiles

>>29868903
Do US infantry companies not have anti-tank platoons in them? Surely they do.

>>29868919
Could just amp the cannon up to 40mm or something.

>>29868903
>IBCT

What is an IBCT?

>>29868868
>Assault guns are useless given how cheap, plentiful, and accurate airstrikes are
Bullshit. You've been spoiled by years of uncontested control of the airspace.

Let's imagine a situation. Your infantry runs into a bunker made out of wood and earth, and concealed from the top. You know, a normal field fortification. How do they take it out? They can't just shoot it, it withstands that. They could sit still and call for artillery support, and hope that they are able to expend an Excalibur round on it. This takes quite a few minutes. You could call for air support, and wait God knows how long for a plane to be available to do this. Or you could bring up the big gun in the company and it blows it up. Which one takes the least time?

>>29868974
>Bullshit. You've been spoiled by years of uncontested control of the airspace.

You say like that's going to change any time soon.

>>29868966
Infantry brigade combat team.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade_combat_team

>>29868903
The army has not announced its requirements for MPF, so what you wrote is largely speculative.

>>29868974
Artillery.

I don't know how you've got it in your head that moving a large heavy vehicle to a firing position is somehow quicker than calling in a grid on a radio.

>>29868944
I suppose.

Though IFVs seem to do the job pretty well, they're not as heavily armored as what you've described (I think) though they have a comparable role in providing infantry support. The best analog I can think of to the assault gun is the >>29868952. Providing direct fire support that bridges the gap between artillery and autocannons.

>>29868794

Can an Abrams:
1. Traverse a bridge rated for 30 tons
2. Be airdropped
3. Navigate through mountainous terrain

#2 is why the US is looking for a new LT to this day.

>>29868868
$20,000 per guided bomb with a 15 (absolute minimum, 30 is more reasonable) time to delivery does not recommend itself. an assault gun fires rounds at 2 orders of magnitude lower cost, and can respond to the changing realities of the battlefield more quickly.

>>29868960
>Do US infantry companies not have anti-tank platoons in them? Surely they do.
At the company level? No. This is beside the point that ATGMs are vastly inferior to a big gun in killing tanks, and are more liable to get killed, partially because of exposure time.

>Could just amp the cannon up to 40mm or something.
It's too small even then.

>>29868966
>What is an IBCT?
Infantry Brigade Combat Team. They're what the US military is made out of. Please learn the organizations, so you have an idea how they fight.

>>29868974
Or you could fire a rocket into, or maybe have your IFV / APC shoot at it. Smoke it and rush past it.

>>29868989
Of course it won't. The US fights against shit-tier militaries in shit-tier undeveloped or developing countries.

>>29868960
>Do US infantry companies not have anti-tank platoons in them? Surely they do.

They do, both with Javelins and Humvee mounted TOW's. The 'light tank' that the US Army wants for IBCT's is more for dealing with things that would otherwise require artillery/airstrikes.

>>29868974
Carl Gustav

>>29868974
So either have a vehicle elsewhere shoot it or have another vehicle following around to shoot it?

Not a very good argument for a new type of vehicle.

>>29869006
You need a direct hit to knock out one of these. Unlikely to occur without using an Excalibur round, which is why I mentioned it. And yes, it takes far less time. We're talking about a minute or two for the vehicle rather than 5 or 6 for the round, and that's being generous.

File: Saab Carl Gustav.jpg (3MB, 5000x3337px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5000x3337px

>>29868974
>They can't just shoot it, it withstands that.

Hm gosh if only this was 2016 and infantry had some kind of weapon capable of penetrating seven feet of wood and earth from a kilometre away

>>29869024
>his is beside the point that ATGMs are vastly inferior to a big gun in killing tanks
Yeah, but they allow a single fireteam to take out a tank at several kilometres and barring modern, currently undeployed APS, that missile is going to make short work of the tank.

>partially because of exposure time.
Ever heard of fire and forget? The Javelin is quite good for it.

>>29869032
>things that would otherwise require artillery/airstrikes.

Why not just use the APC/IFVs?
>Also, most units typically maneuver in HMMWVs when deployed and operate as "motorized infantry" to facilitate speed of movement.
Oh for fuck's sake. Really? US ICBTs are expected to use Humwees on a modern battlefield? I sincerely hope these never get deployed where a Stryker BCT could have been deployed to.

>>29869052
Someone has clearly never seen artillery in action. Spotters just walk the rounds in on a target then call "fire for effect" when it's on target.

>>29869003
While it has not announced the requirements, I believe I'm justified in my position from everything that has been said. I recently read something in one of their publications that said the MPF had the role of "Defeating bunkers, closing with and destroying the enemy, and destroying enemy armor". Then the 4-14-44 strategy. It makes complete sense.

I can try digging it up for you.

>>29869052
>Unlikely to occur without using an Excalibur round

I get it, you've seen this magical super-round on Modern Weapons so you think it's impossible to be accurate with conventional rounds? Well, you're wrong. Conventional artillery is plenty accurate.

And you think it takes 5-6 minutes for an artillery mission? The fastest mission I've ever seen called in was 21 seconds.

Lets not even bother with the fact that your arbitrary vehicle is "a minute or two away". How convenient for your ridiculous scenario.

>>29869076
Artillery is not that accurate anon and is highly ineffective against below ground targest. Excluding thermobaric and airbust of course. The latter which can't penetrate even a thin layer of soil. Something like 90% of casualties occur before the target has taken cover.

>>29869026
>Or you could fire a rocket into, or maybe have your IFV / APC shoot at it. Smoke it and rush past it.
Fire the rocket with what? And if you've got an IFV or an APC, you also have tanks. You'd be in an ABCT or SBCT. Now think of the guys in an IBCT. They don't have tanks. They don't have APCs. You could try smoking it, but if it's in an integrated position, which it probably is, that becomes somewhat of a risky proposition. And, once again, takes longer than just bringing up one of the vehicles in the platoon assigned to your company. Think of how the Stryker MGS would be used.

>>29869032
The ATGM vehicles aren't a company level asset. They're at the lowest a battalion level one. There are Javelins in the company, but they aren't anything more than a basic self defense asset. Try attacking into enemy armor (even just BMPs) with just some Javelins.

>>29869096
>Artillery is not that accurate
Want to know how I know you know nothing about artillery? Spotters can walk a barrage in on a target quite effectively and anything that matters enough to be a threat will be dead or buried.

File: 1462161695840.jpg (7KB, 259x195px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 259x195px

>>29869096
>Artillery is not that accurate anon and is highly ineffective against below ground targest. Excluding thermobaric and airbust of course. The latter which can't penetrate even a thin layer of soil.

>>29869065
Do you even know how the army is organized? Tell me, where is it?
Also, good luck hitting with a CG from a kilometer away.

>>29869137

why are you wasting your time arguing with this kid? he's clearly retarded, I doubt that anything you're writing is penetrating his skull.

>>29869038
Where is the vehicle that would shoot it in an IBCT?
>>29869076
You have no clue what you're talking about.

>>29869092
Good luck getting an accurate mission in 20 seconds.

>Lets not even bother with the fact that your arbitrary vehicle is "a minute or two away". How convenient for your ridiculous scenario.
When you've got a platoon of them already in your company, yeah, it'd be only a couple minutes away at most.

>>29869176
>Good luck getting an accurate mission in 20 seconds.

Well, it certainly was.

I don't know how you think you can tell me different. I've seen it happen in the real world. Have you?

File: aaaaa.png (502KB, 893x535px) Image search: [Google]

502KB, 893x535px

>>29869092
Artillery relies on its fragments for its lethality. In general they don't offer enough HE to take out proper fortifications.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUvcdKGD-FM

>>29869103
>Fire the rocket with what?
Ever heard of portable rocket launchers? AT weapons? Thermobaric rocket launchers like the M202 Flash and the Russian RPO-A?

>And if you've got an IFV or an APC, you also have tanks.
Yeah no. That's not how military organization works.

>Now think of the guys in an IBCT
They're fucked because the IBCT is vastly inferior to the SBCT, simply because of the massive amount of fire provided by the Strykers.

>>29869137
Walking a barrage onto a point is not the same as making the rounds themselves hit a single bunker. That's what the Excalibur round was designed for.

>>29869138
>thin

>>29869137
Do you think hitting a bunker directly is an easy task? Even with modern artillery? That shows vastly more ignorance than you attempt to put on him.

>>29868774
no

>>29869194
A precalculated mission with priority of fire is not quite the same thing as a forward observer targeting an enemy bunker.

File: 1461891807548 (1).jpg (115KB, 1240x775px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1240x775px

>>29869207
>Do you think hitting a bunker directly is an easy task? Even with modern artillery?

>>29869216
This wasn't "Pre-calculated", you cretin. Pathetic attempt to try and worm your argument into plausibility.

Fuck, I'm done. Why bother wasting time with someone that doesn't know what the fuck they're on about and thinks they know it all.

>>29869205
>Ever heard of portable rocket launchers? AT weapons? Thermobaric rocket launchers like the M202 Flash and the Russian RPO-A?
I've heard of them, they just aren't carried in a rifle company.

>Yeah no. That's not how military organization works.
That's exactly how it works. If you're in an ABCT, which is where the IFVs are, you likely are in a company team, which has AT MINIMUM a platoon of tanks. If you're in an APC, you are in an SBCT, which has a platoon of MGSs at the company level, which, for the purposes of this exercise, have the same effect as tanks. If you're in an IBCT you have none of these.

>>29869207
>Do you think hitting a bunker directly is an easy task?

I really don't know why you need to be told this, but earth fortifications have not been real obstacle for close to 100 years.

the scenario you are describing here would take 5 minutes at most to bypass or destroy.

>>29869207
No, it's not that hard. Doing it on the first shot is, but so long as you have it in the right grib they're going to hit it eventually and keep the guys inside down until they do.

>>29869161
Says the guy who knows jack about artillery.

>>29868843
Main battle tanks are more than capable of acting as assault guns.

>>29869207
>Do you think hitting a bunker directly is an easy task? Even with modern artillery?

Yes, it is. Christ read a book sometime.

>>29868900
>Didn't the Bradley have issues with ineffective anti-personnel ammunition in the sandpit

Bradley's lacked frag ammunition, meaning you had to more or less directly hit people with the 25mm. As it were the coaxial was the primary anti personnel weapon.

File: 1461905492123.png (159KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 600x400px

>>29869243
>if a rifle company can't do it, the war is over

>>29869216
>Oh shit that argument has wrecked mine
>Better make shit up

>>29869240
No fucking way can you check the grid, call in the mission, have the mission checked at the other end, the mission relayed to the battery, the battery targeted, the salvo fired and the rounds arrive in 20 fucking seconds. Fuck you.

>>29869270
21 seconds exactly. Not 20 seconds.

Power armor will replace IFVs in the future. Mark my words.

>>29869223
Do you think otherwise?
>>29869240
You have to realize you're arguing with at least two people here. And are we talking about hitting a single 6x6 square here? And it can't be a 60mm mortar, cause that probably won't do shit if they put proper overhead cover.

>>29869277
I'd love some actual evidence of that.

>>29869250
>they're going to hit it eventually
And how long is that going to take and how many rounds are they going to expend on it?

>>29869243
>I've heard of them, they just aren't carried in a rifle company.
No AT weapons in a rifle company?

>>29869279
>Do you think otherwise?

have you not noticed the dozen or so anons who are completely trashing you right now?

>>29868809
For this you get two kekkels

>>29869293
>And how long is that going to take and how many rounds are they going to expend on it?

Who gives a fuck, it's literally minutes and less than ten rounds. Artillery is not slow or inaccurate, we are not in the year 1916. Quit posting such retarded bullshit.

You're acting like a single earth pit will hold up the entire US Army.

>>29869287
Gee let me ring up the MoD and see if they'll disclose the information so I can win an internet argument with some kid on 4chan

>>29869263
Where do you think those weapons appear from? Do they just magically poof into existence when you need it? What you need to think about is what unit carries them, and how that unit goes to the place it needs to be. That's why saying THIS SAVES THE DAY or MBTS SAVE THE DAY is retarded, because nowhere in an IBCT are those weapons found.

>>29869075
>US ICBTs are expected to use Humwees on a modern battlefield?

Armored 4x4's are pretty common.

>>29869297
They're not the best at taking out these things in the first place, with one possible exception. I was specifically mentioning the thermobaric weapons in this case.

Im adding assault gun fag to my list of delusional armchair strategists. So far I have
>BBfag
>Gliderfag
and now
>assaultgunfag
Did I miss any?

>>29869293
Once you call fire for effect? A round every 7 seconds depending on angle so...within a minute or so of when the first round starts landing depending on how good the spotter is.

>>29869315
The earth pit will require a notable amount of ordnance to be fired upon it and there are dozens more. At some point you're going to run out of ammunition and there are still earth pits to attack. Direct fire should be used when possible and effective.

>>29869343
True. Should've just talked about shoulder-held rocket launchers, since a lot of them have HE / FRAG / thermobaric capabilities. Even the M72 LAW has a variant for that.

>>29869329
I can't fathom why they wouldn't go with better armoured APCs and such, like every other modern military. Is it corruption?

>>29869345
Aircraft carrier submarine and Falklands re-invasion via container ship Trojan horse

>>29869321
>Where do you think those weapons appear from? Do they just magically poof into existence when you need it?

they are part of the unit your rifle company is attached to, or part of a sister unit in support.

this is some pretty basic stuff, I'm surprised that you actually need to have this explained to you.

>>29869345
VLS tanks
submarine carriers
tanks carrying infantry in trailers
1 light tank + 1 APC > 2 IFV's

File: 1459359647378.jpg (54KB, 350x383px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 350x383px

>>29869359
>At some point you're going to run out of ammunition and there are still earth pits to attack.

why aren't we just building lots of earth pits, then?

fuck tanks, holes in the ground are the new hotness.

>>29869345
carrier ramp fag
antman

File: M2a3-bradley07.jpg (1MB, 2954x1888px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2954x1888px

>>29868774

>Light tanks

Say no more. Light tank equivalent reporting in. It even comes with a complementary storage compartment for holding a small compliment of troops!

>>29869305
I've noticed a bunch of idiots thinking that artillery magically hits where you want it every time, yes.

>>29869315
Probably a bit more than 10 rounds, but hey, let's say it is. Congratulations, it took you seven minutes and ten rounds of artillery to take out an earthen bunker! Do you think that is sustainable? It's not that this bunker will hold up the entire US Army, but that at the moment the destruction of this single earthen bunker has caused an undue loss in primarily time and secondarily munitions. If you had a large cannon at the front, it'd take a minute or two and just as many rounds.

>>29869380
Convenient for your scenario that it happens to be exactly where you need it for your argument to work.

And followed by a derisive comment making this falsification seem obvious knowledge! How original!

File: 1426373415014.png (138KB, 375x375px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 375x375px

>>29869389
>why aren't we just building lots of earth pits, then?
You think we're not? What do you think trenches and foxholes are? Do you think infantry is expected to stand in the open against artillery?

>>29869393
But carriers have ramps in real life. And they're useful and prolific.

>>29869397
NO FRAG ROUNDS.

>>29869399
>Probably a bit more than 10 rounds

You're talking shit from a position of total ignorance.

>>29869380
>they are part of the unit your rifle company is attached to, or part of a sister unit in support.
They're at the battalion level? Since when? Mate, I asked the question for a reason. As it stands, they aren't at battalion level. And if they're brigade level, good luck getting there in a timely manner.

>>29869358
Remember, you have to be getting direct hits to destroy these things. Even just normal shell dispersion is enough to royally screw with it.

>>29869422
>And if they're brigade level, good luck getting there in a timely manner.
Shit. Just attach them to the attacking company that according to intel and scouts needs it the most.

>>29869413
TOW Bunkerbuster's use a blast-frag warhead.

>>29869345
VLS PT Boatfag

>>29869416
>You're talking shit from a position of total ignorance.
Mate, we're talking about a tiny 6x6 area at the largest, with a very low profile. And you're telling me that non-precision artillery can land direct hits on it just like that? I'd understand if this was a mortar, but it's not.

>>29869457
Really putting the cart before the horse there. The thing already has an autocannon, why not give it some useful AP ammunition?

>>29869432
How many of them do you have to go around? If we're attacking fortified positions, every attacking company in the brigade will need them. Do we have that number of FLASHs? Do we have the number of trained soldiers to wield them all?

>>29869345
You do realize that the Army is specifically pursuing the Mobile Protected Firepower project as an assault gun, right? And that it's one of their foremost priorities?

>>29869466
It can. Get used to the idea. Maybe at the very least watch some artillery missions being called in and get a feel for how accurate it is these days.

>>29869470
You didn't specify it had to be the autocannon.

You cannot really go below 30mm to have both fragmentation and a useful HE payload.

>>29869470

What's wrong with the 25 mm?

File: Russian mechanized brigade.png (21KB, 632x357px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 632x357px

>>29869492
>every attacking company in the brigade will need them
Not necessarily. Not all companies will take part in combat at the same time.

File: 1195842643_9badbdc71a6cba8efc66d0110229a729.jpg (306KB, 1600x1071px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 1600x1071px

>>29869508
All of the depictions of MPF look like a CV90-120.

>>29869397
There are problems with it for the MPF project. They seemed to want a large cannon, both for taking down bunkers and killing armor. The Bradley, while CAPABLE of it, doesn't fit the bill. The autocannon is insufficient against even unfortified structures and the TOW launcher, while good, is not as good at taking out armored vehicles as a tank gun.

>>29869541
No FRAG rounds and according to >>29869514 don't have the capability for effective ones.

>>29869548
Wouldn't surprise me if it's based on it.

>>29869543
Notice I said the word attacking.

>>29869548
It's still in the role of an assault gun. But yeah, the CV90-120 is similar to what they want.

>All these fags talking about needing assault guns
Did the MGS dissappear whe I wasn't looking?
Or do you think this mythical mobile gun needs armor? Because then you may as well just get a tank.

>>29868788
Scary and black.

>>29869564
That is an attacking Russian mechanized brigade. They're all taking part in the main attack, but they do not fight at the same time.

The "kärkiosasto" point units draw the enemy into combat and try to engage their reserve.
The "I porras, 1st step" no fucking idea what they're called in English destroy the enemy and create a hole in the enemy's defence. Either continue forwards, or hold and let the resupplied and reinforced point unit, now "II porras" to attack through the gap.

>>29869587
Stryker a shit though. Maybe that's why they're upgrading?

>>29869205
>strykers
>massive firepower advantage over a motorized infantry bde

Dude, standard strykers use the same weapons as hmmwvs. M2s and mk19s.

They're war minivans. Their advantage over light units lies soley in mobility. Their armor is only rated to 7.62 ap.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Yall are also missing the bit where the primary location/requirement that drove the MPF search was due to experience's in Afganiland that also directly caused the inclusion of the M3 (Carl Gustav) due to terrain requirements and distances involved.

M3 came around due to longer range over SMAW/AT-4 due to distances involved in mountains when they were being engaged at 900-1000 meters by RPG/HMG teams. Some targets couldn't be reliably spotted by Air assets for attack runs and required ground based attacks to reliably take out. Having a light Air portable tank allows it to be used in such remote area's to give added protection and firepower range in terrain that doesn't allow Abrams permissive use of the environment.

>>29869587
MGS is actually perfect for the requirements espoecially with it's modular armor packages allowing it to be air dropable and ability to be upgraded once on the ground. Another good thing to it is the recent "Thunderbolt" upgrade that further upgrades it's systems and inherit armor package (level 1) to a higher level of protection.

>>29869611
Well shit. I thought the SBCTs had strykers with bigger guns. No wonder the US military is looking into heavier gunned IFVs for their BCTs. I had no idea the current organization was so bad. From an armchair general's perspective, that is. Maybe the brass know something I don't.

>>29869610
>Stryker a shit though

Retard detected, MGS Strykers are not going away because some infantry carriers are getting a 30mm gun.

File: 2008_Moscow_Victory_Day_Parade_-_BMP3.jpg (109KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 800x600px

>>29869549

So then something like the BMP3.

>>29869511
Let's say that I'm wrong, and it takes even 5 rounds. Okay? That's 5 rounds in (a bit generous) seven minutes to kill two or three infantrymen that had time to prepare a position. What about the other fighting positions their platoon has prepared? How much time and how many rounds are you going to go through, as opposed to having something drive up and put one or two shells in each of them? And this thing can kill enemy armored vehicles as well. In fact, this can even be used in situations where artillery isn't, whether that's because of fears of civilian casualties or some situation in which artillery support is denied.

Are you telling me you can't see the utility in this?

>>29869587
The MGS is pretty much exactly it. However, for the MPF project it is rather sub-par, due to the low ammunition load and somewhat smaller gun than has been implied by the desire to kill armor.

>>29869611
SBCTs have MGS strykers though.
>The U.S. Army allocated nine Mobile Gun Systems to a battalion.[3] There were 27 Mobile Gun Systems per Stryker Brigade in 2013, but the Army is cutting the number per brigade to 10.

>The Army bought 142 Mobile Gun Systems in tota

>>29869644
Stryker is a shit compared to other similiar vehicles. It's unfit for the US to not be number one in some field.

>>29869611
>Their armor is only rated to 7.62 ap.

You mean 14.5mm

>>29869643
>I thought the SBCTs had strykers with bigger guns

There are 10 variants of Strykers, only two have heavy weapons currently. Although that is changing soon with some getting a 30mm gun and some getting the ability to fire Javelins.

>>29869602
I'm aware. It's not entirely applicable to how an IBCT works. Try running around and going to each infantry company in the attack.

And yeah, that's a pretty standard order of march for armored units.

>>29869677
>Stryker is a shit compared to other similiar vehicles

Doubling down on being a retard is not helping you.

File: stryker_mgs_l4.jpg (103KB, 580x458px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 580x458px

>>29869611
M8 did I say Stryker? I said MGS, as in the variants designed for TOWs and 105mm

File: ehang.jpg (82KB, 1170x658px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1170x658px

Tanks are completely obsolete these days.
There needs to be a radical shift back to Rhodesian Fireforce / Vietnam Air-Cav style tactics. The Osprey program needs to be canceled and a new 8-10 person capable autonomous aerial vehicle should be developed.

The chinks will probably beat us to this though.

>>29869677
>9 mgs in a bde weapons company
>9 atgms in the same company
>bde wont farm us out to the units
>OR rate of 60. Highest in the army.

Stryker a shit

>>29869611
The Stryker infantry company has a massive advantage over an IBCT infantry company because of their "war minivans". They have two 120mm mortars and three 105mm guns at the company level. Even without the upgrade, that's a hell of a lot of very heavy combined arms all the way at the company level.

>>29869693
I never even said the MGS Strykers were going away. There's not even enough of them currently.

>>29869663

It's hard to imagine a scenario where it would matter. Artillery is very good at wrecking shit.

>>29869651
Even the BMP-3's gun is somewhat deficient, however the anti-tank armament being a GLATGM isn't exactly unheard of for the role- after all, that's how the Sheridan worked.

>>29869702

>The chinks will probably beat us to this though.

No, because the chinks aren't stupid enough to support that idea.

>>29869710
No. They don't.
Read the updated to&e. The 120mm mortars are 1 per company, and the mgs are consolidated in a bde weapons company, all 9 of them.

>>29869623
My bad meant to say AGS not MGS, IE M8

>>29869022

>private anon, there's a bunker we need to blow up
>call in the assault guns
>tanks in 30 minutes!

vs

>private anon, there's a bunker we need to bow up
>call in the CAS
>air strike inbound in 30 seconds

>>29869686
14.5 mm of rhs does not mean it can stop a DShK.

The basic armor is only rated to stop 7.62 ap.

>>29869719
>It's hard to imagine a scenario where it would matter.
Your infantry company is tasked to seize some woods from an enemy infantry company. The enemy infantry company has had time to prepare fighting positions. That's it. That's all this has to be.

Proper fighting positions tend to be manned by 2 or 3 people. That's probably two per fire team, 5 per squad, at least 18 in a platoon. 64 or so in a company. Do you see how this quickly goes beyond artillery's ability to kill them all?

>>29869741
>Read the updated to&e.
I just read the brand new Stryker Company FM. Those changes weren't there.

>>29869754
The times involved are pretty much swapped there, anon.

>>29869771
Link to pubs page? 1/25 is finger fucking shit if true.

>>29869754
Or then you do some actual fucking soldiering, suppress that bunker with MG, or GLMG fire, rush forward, using smokes if necessary and keep the enemy pinned as you move towards their positions.

>>29869756
14.5mm does not refer to the thickness of a Strykers armor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KPV_heavy_machine_gun

>>29869758

>Do you see how this quickly goes beyond artillery's ability to kill them all?

Not really? I feel like there is something I'm missing here. Why wouldn't artillery be able to kill them all?

>>29869779
This one came out about 3 months ago http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/atp3_21x11.pdf

I think the month old rifle platoon one said the same thing, but I'll have to double check.

File: fragpatterns.png (611KB, 1314x972px) Image search: [Google]

611KB, 1314x972px

>>29869805

>>29869756
>The basic armor is only rated to stop 7.62 ap

The basic armor on the front is rated for 14.5 and the sides for 7.62, the sides are augmented with ceramic plates that bring them up to the same protection as the front.

>>29869017
Stryker can be airdropped from C-130, C-17, and A400

>>29869821
Isn't it too heavy for reliable airtransport on the C-130?

>>29869805
Right, so let's go back to assuming that you can achieve a direct hit on a fighting position in 5 rounds. To take out a single squad's (5) fighting positions, you'd need 25 rounds. Doesn't that strike you as a bit unsustainable? Never mind the amount of time needed to walk fire on to each and ever one of these.

>>29869835
Depends on the variant.

>>29869805
Oh, of course I forgot to mention this, they're in woods, which means overhead cover. Artillery is going to have an even more tough time.

>>29869813
Huh.


Fucking 1/25 man. I stand corrected.

>>29869846
Nevermind the fact that the fire observer would need to actually see the fighting positions, which by default will be concealed and the troops taking cover inside.

>>29869741
Why would they drop to 1x 120mm mortar per company? To do much of anything you need two mortars. Does the other mortar team only carry 60mm?

>>29869873
Let me get this straight, you're a part of 1/25 and they're doing something stupid?

>>29869890
Yus.

Like forgetting every single lesson learned in recent years

>>29869017
Get bradley.

Move all the crew to the back of the vehicle where they use to transport troops.

Fill the front part now with more armor.

Upgrade to the M1 Abrams cannon.

You get a light tank now.

>>29868774
1. Light tanks are pointless since you can mount anything you want on most APCs or IFVs and have the same protection as a "light tank". Further the power output is so good on modern tanks that even the 70ton Abrams can keep up with other mechanized elements of a formation.

2. Assault guns were usually produced because case mate style AFVs were cheaper to produce, faster to produce, required fewer resources to produce, and reasonably effective. This is why the Germans produced so many during ww2 however, the key flaw was that they could only shoot to their front an obvious disadvantage in a 3D world.

>>29869903
That's certainly odd. Extremely odd. Perhaps you're being used as a test formation for future IBCTs. They want to see if tossing all the MGSs together in one formation is viable for the MPF program. As for mortars, I haven't the faintest clue.

>>29869935
That's not how this works.

>>29869935
>Bradley's pitiful turret ring
>Handling the girthy monster that is a 120mm cannon
It'd split her in half

>>29869937
>1. Light tanks are pointless since you can mount anything you want on most APCs or IFVs and have the same protection as a "light tank". Further the power output is so good on modern tanks that even the 70ton Abrams can keep up with other mechanized elements of a formation.
The trap you've fallen for here is that while MBTs have similar tactical mobility, they lack the same STRATEGIC mobility. And there are some things that are best done by big cannons rather than ATGMs and autocannons, namely taking out fortifications and killing enemy tanks, which likely have ERA or possibly even APS systems in the years to come.

>>29869972

But you can use any modern IFV to fill the strategic niche that a light tank would have filled in the past. The Bradley weighs less than half what the Abrams weighs, and it can stand up to tanks if it has to (although not as well as an Abrams).

>>29869254

No need to hit them directly, it's a marvelous tool for suppression. Nobody's sticking their head out with Bushmaster rounds popping all around them. Artillery, airstrikes or grenades can do the killing once they're suppressed.

>>29870033
I bet auto cannons are great against anything with ERA or APS because you can just plink all that shit dead and then fire an ATGM and kill.

File: 800px-US_Navy_090529-N-5345W-126_Gunner's_Mate_2nd_Class_Michael_Miller_downloads_an_ammo_belt_from_an_MK_38_25mm_gun.jpg (203KB, 800x1190px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 800x1190px

>>29869563

Well, it does have HE Incendiary. That's probably going to work just as well as fragmentation.

>>29870033
It COULD, but would not be as good. For example, ATGMs are at a serious disadvantage against tanks. This is in part because of the velocities of the two rounds, but also because there are many devices which can stop an ATGM, such as ERA or APS (both soft kill and hard kill). Further, an autocannon simply isn't as good as a full caliber cannon against fortified structures. They lack the explosive filler that a tank shell has. This lesser capability is okay, because it does something the light tank can't- carry troops. It is also generally paired with tanks to work. A simple armored company team consists of platoons of tanks and mechanized infantry working together.

Now, when we look at the context of the MPF, it is clear that an IFV could not fill them. The role calls for an airdroppable big gun that has enough ammunition to go without resupply through a day's fighting, while possessing enough tactical mobility to provide an IBCT a good maneuver element. An IFV simply doesn't provide that.

Can someone explain to me what assault gun guy's argument actually is and how his 2 minute readiness figure is supposed to work?

The problem with /k/ is that the people here are fucking retarded, and will dispute an idea past after it has already become self-evident. Most of the people in this thread are arguing based on intuition, what feels to them strong, masculine, practical, simple, rather than any sort of objective critereon. The fact that the US army is itself seeking basically an assault gun, and already deploys the stryker MGS (lol stryker), should be enough for anyone to realize that perhaps the army does need assault guns and light tanks.

>>29869945
That's my first thought, but if all these experiments are resulting in losses of combat power, fooking why?

>>29870138

I didn't mean to imply that the Bradley was equal to an MBT in a direct fight. In this scenario, the MBT's are going to have a definite advantage. But that's to be expected for any vehicle going up against an MBT. The Bradley at least has a way that it can deal with the situation until the real tanks get there.

>>29870147
>Hey Ramirez, see that house over there with enemies in it?
>Yeah Jamal, my Fellow full-blooded american Patriot?
>I want to fuck it, Ramirez
>Okay Jamal, do you need me to request support from armor, artillery, aircraft, naval vessels, Satellite, or some other external unit
>No Ramirez, bring forward the company's assault gun and fuck them with that. that will be fast and responsive.

>>29868774
>light tank
Stryker MGS or Bradley or Sheridan
>assault gun
Stryker MGS
We have them friend

>>29870147
Essentially it's this- Take a look at the MPF program. The US Army has mentioned a 4-14-44 setup. 4 per platoon, 14 per comapany, 44 per battalion. You attach this directly to an IBCT. Then, if you parcel out the units directly, you end up with a platoon of them per infantry company, exactly the same as the Stryker MGS, its most apt comparison. If it's attached to an infantry company, it's not far away. Hence, 1-2 minutes.

Further, an enemy who has had time to prepare for an attack will have at the very least dug foxholes, which makes them infinitely more hard to take out with artillery or air power, which already takes a significant amount of time to wait and call in. Reducing their positions purely through those things is frankly impossible if you want to not bog down to all hell. A normal infantry attack could also be very costly. Direct fire from heavy guns, on the other hand, would have no problem with this. Further, if they were attached to the company, they'd be readily available. Further still, if they did have a 120mm gun, as it seems like the Army desires, they would be able to take on enemy armor, something an IBCT simply cannot do at the moment. While yes, it does have SOME protective ATGMs, it definitely does not have enough to protect against an armored force, let alone attack one. A 120mm gunned vehicle would provide that capability.

That's my argument. Idiots on /k/ happen to think that artillery and airpower can magically take out even foxholes, let alone fully fledged fighting positions with overhead cover.

>>29870214
>not a light tank, not a light tank, and retired

And the MGS is arguably an assault gun, but it's so awful we'd be better forgetting it exist. shit is so awful it turned one person into a mass murderer and several people into serial killers.

>>29870169
I'm just trying to say that a Bradley doesn't fit the MPF requirements. It's a pretty nice IFV, no argument there.

>>29870265
This is bait.

>>29870265
>not a light tank
Fills the same role
>retired
Ready reserve. 2 battalions with crew, equipment, and ammo still deployable.

>>29870301
>Ready reserve. 2 battalions with crew, equipment, and ammo still deployable.
Huh, I heard they kept them around just in case but never heard the specifics. You got a source for that?

Theres not much point building a light TANK that can't take fire from enemy tanks, or kill enemy tanks

>>29870308
I was stationed across the road from them for 8 years.

>>29870314
Being able to take fire from enemy tanks isn't a necessity. Light tank crews in WW2 didn't complain about their lack of armor, that was just the tradeoff that was made and they accepted it. The one thing they wanted was a bigger gun. You can easily put a 120mm gun on a "light" chassis, and that more than has the capability of taking out other tanks.

>>29870330
That's about as close a source as you can get.

>>29870359
I'm not sure that the 120mm guns you mount on light chassis have the same KE performance of the actually Rheinmetall L44 and L55 guns.

Not that it'd matter if you fire HEAT.

>>29868974
We fire a fuckin Carl Gustav or SMAW, Mortar the fucker, or call in artillery.

>>29870359
The accuracy of tank cannons in WW2, especially on the move, left much to be desired.

If the hull itself is much lower profile, a casemate design, etc.
I'm sure you could make frontal armor similar to MBT protection levels.

>>29869243
You really think that after 30 years of forming our doctrine around stopping russian tanks from flooding over the fulda gap, then another 15 years fighting sandfucks in caves we wouldn't give our rifle companies the ability to blow up armor or entrenched positions?

>>29869052
>I watched Future Weapons: the thread

>>29870389
And you're going to do this for every single position you come across? You're going to run out of ammunition very quickly, both for the Carl Gustav and artillery.

>>29869835
Heavy, no. But its too wide. However you can fit 3 in a C17 or 8 in a C5, and they can be pushed out for touch n gos.

>>29869782
ok WW2

>>29869758
>literally everybody uses hasties, which provide zero overhead, rear, or side cover and tenuous frontal cover against GPMGs and down
Also, organic shoulder fired shit like XM25, SMAW/SRAW, AT4, Javelin, M203/320, and organic mortars at the platoon level

File: sbct infantry rifle company.jpg (80KB, 842x496px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 842x496px

>>29869945
>>29869903
>>29869890
>>29869878
>>29869741
>>29869710
I am seeing 2 mortar vehicles and 3 MGS per rifle company.

>>29870420
See, the 15 years fighting sandfucks is the problem. It's essentially what happened in Vietnam- the Army has lost its focus on fighting a conventional war. This can be primarily seen in the IBCT, the other formations are more able to cope with this. And for the most part, sandfucks haven't been in caves. They've been firing from a mountaintop a km away, they've been firing from buildings, they've been firing across farm fields. They haven't been digging in, with a few notable exceptions.

>>29869017
Sheridan can do all that, why did they stop using it?

Was it the aluminium armour or low velocity rounds or something?

>>29870491
>hey we're taking fire from that mud and/or brick building
>should we storm and clear it?
>Nah, shoot a (thermobaric, HESH, HE, canister, or HEAT) through the window/door and call it good

>>29870477
The XM-25 is honestly the best tool out of these. The SMAW is decent, but not in the Army's rifle companies. The 203s and 60mm mortars probably aren't going to get a kill even if they hit. AT4s might do the job, but it'd be iffy. Really, you'd want the specialized BB SLM, whose name I can never remember.

>>29870388
RUAG's low recoil L/50 gun works

>>29870510
It's old and kind of shitty. As in, if you fire the main gun, things might break shitty.

>>29870510
Gun was pretty disappointing against other tanks and the Shillelagh was an abject failure.

Made a truly awesome assault gun though.

>>29870483
That anon is in a unit that has some weird things going on. I speculate that it is to test if the future IBCT concept could work, as it goes counter to the FM, as you can see.

>>29870535
>Shillelagh was an abject failure

It actually wasn't, what 'killed' it was the cancellation of the MBT-70.

>>29870534
>>29870535
Darn.

I don't suppose they could rework it/build new ones with modern materials, give it a 90mm or something. :(

>>29870521
The AT4 is even more versatile, and with a larger warhead, than the SMAW-D. Just not reloadable. Javelin can be used either as unguided direct fire or user designated top attack, and they do quite well against emplacements.

40mm HEDP will completely fuck fighting positions and unfortified buildings and theyre working on an airburst.

We have MTSQ fuses for the 60s as well, enabling airburst if set right.

>>29870562
90mm is not going to be too good a bunker buster, nor is it able to take on modern tanks.

>>29870555
Was horribly inaccurate. Plenty powerful though.

>>29870562
M8 AGS already has upgraded materials/suspension with a 105mm.

>>29870491
Except they lost in Vietnam because they had no clue how to fight that sort of war, where their armored units couldn't just roll over the enemy.

>>29870562
Would love to see them upgrade it. The 158 low velocity is pretty tame on recoil, it really just needs new optics and FCS.

>>29870587
The problem with the AT4 is hitting in a position which can ensure a kill. You've only got one shot on a fairly small target, and you don't have the scope or the spotting rifle of the SMAW. Forgot to mention the Javelin last time, whoops. The Javelin is a good option, but might be better to be saved in case of enemy armor. Top cover can protect against most grenade launchers regardless of size. The XM-25 is somewhat different in that it has a pretty flat trajectory, and likely COULD thread the needle and explode inside. Depending on exactly how prepared the position is, 60mm just ain't enough unless it gets direct hits. Against a hasty position? It'd wreck face. Against something with tree trunks over it? Kinda iffy.

>>29870278

What are the MPF requirements?

>>29870598
>Was horribly inaccurate.

Because the Sheridan was a terrible platform to fire it from, the control unit could not even see the missile until it was a certain distance.

There were upgrades made and tested, like beam riding, just never implemented because the MBT-70 was canned.

>>29870638
That's not how it went. In fact, they didn't employ armored units until it was too late, and when they did, they found that they were actually INSANELY effective. I'd suggest reading a thesis paper by the name of "The Relevance of Armor in Counterinsurgency Operations".

>>29870648
If a dismounted infantry unit is encountering enough earthworks and timber bunkers to be a serious issue they found a high enough priority target to get pretty much any fire support they want.

Thats *the* situation to sit back and let some serious artillery tenderize them for a while.

>>29868843
MBT it is.

>>29870638
I know this will rustle your jimmies, but America won the Vietnam war from a military perspective.

>>29870763
Then how come after over a decade of war, the north vietnamese army was stronger than the south?

>>29870803
Because they suck and despite their very survival hanging in the balance they halfassed the whole fucking war.

>>29870734
And if they had support from direct firing cannons, the entire thing would be a non-issue.

>>29870803
They had 2 years after we got done bombing them to hell and back for China to rearm them.

>>29870763
Yes, and you are your girlfriend's lover from a financial perspective.

>>29870803
Because the North Vietnamese were being given supplies by other nations? Because the South Vietnamese never really cared to fight?

Here's a quote from a statement given to Congress.

>Mobile Protected Firepower will provide protected, long-range, direct fire capabilities to the IBCT to defeat enemy prepared positions, destroy enemy armored vehicles, close with the enemy through fire and maneuver, and ensure freedom of maneuver and action in close contact with the enemy.

>>29870828
And if theyre in a heavily enough forested area to make the bunkers to start with the assault gun would both not be able to get anywhere fucking close enough to be useful and be a damn sitting duck.

>>29870837
See, it did rustle your jimmies.

>>29870875
not an argument.

>>29870865
Sure thing. You realize that in Vietnam one of the benefits of using tanks was that they could forge their own paths through the jungle, right?

>>29870803
Because you are unaware that the North rearmed for a couple years before restarting the war.

>>29868774
>Army investing more in armor
It's 2016. The armored corps is kill.

>>29870883
I wasn't responding to an argument either, so it works out.

>>29870865
>And if theyre in a heavily enough forested area to make the bunkers to start with the assault gun would both not be able to get anywhere fucking close enough to be useful and be a damn sitting duck.
Come on, you know better than this. Not all forests are the same density or have the same amount and quality of roads. The densest stuff is prohibitive to heavy vehicles, true. But in all the rest, you're looking at the same tactical problem as armor in urban areas. That's a problem that already has an adequate tactical solution.

>>29870763
>America won the Vietnam war from a military perspective
The military perspective is to back up political decisions with real power(aka violence). No political victory, no military victory.

>>29870911
We are in a thread mainly talking about AFVs for the light Brigades.

>>29870911
The US military is turning back to conventional from COIN though.

>>29870995
>The military perspective is to back up political decisions with real power(aka violence). No political victory, no military victory.

Which country signed the Paris Peace Accord after Linebacker II?

>>29870491
>the Army has lost its focus on fighting a conventional war. This can be primarily seen in the IBCT
I don't think the light units are obsolete because of 15 years of COIN: I think the light units are obsolete because developments on the conventional battlefield have raced past light infantry and left them weak, immobile, and vulnerable.

Consider that Army has had a light infantry fetish for longer than any of us have been alive. They are only starting to get away from that as an institution. The Stryker concept is basically what our motorized infantry units should be. Even now, budgetary issues make light brigades attractive when you don't have a real war to fight so there's a tension between contradictory goals here.

>>29871040
Who creampied your girlfriend last night?

>>29871040
>allowing your enemy a temporary re-arming break
>that you know will be temporary
>running away and claiming victory even when you failed at your goals
Disingenuous argument, my man.

>>29871052
i did sorry about that

>>29870891
You realize nothing in anybodys inventory can just "forge" through actual trees, just underbrush, saplings, and scrub...right?

>>29871050
It's moreso that we have focused on deploying to and fighting these wars, so money for modernizing conventional capabilities was VERY hard to come by.

>>29871129
I was looking for a documentary type video of what I think was a Leopard trying to drive over trees of various sorts. I couldn't find it. Instead, here's an Abrams snapping trees in half.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fReXK_ntOYg

>>29871071
>enemy surrenders
>you leave
>enemy starts a new war years later

Sorry, what was that about you being disingenuous?

>>29871341
they didn't surrender
they negotiated a truce

>>29871348
They suddenly accepted a long standing peace treaty offer, hosted by a third party, after America started actually bombing North Vietnamese cities.

>>29870665
>>29870647
>>29870618
>>29870589
Iirc 90mm has some HEAP and HETW rounds as well as air bursting that can counter structures providing they have a good FCS for it. As well 90mm APFSDS should be able to pen most tanks provided they have good positioning.

I don't know anything about the MBT 70 though. I'm just spitballing.

>>29871555
Nope. In order to penetrate tanks, they need to have extremely high velocity, which means significantly less explosive filler. It also means lesser barrel life.

File: 300px-M728_Combat_Engineer_Vehicle_(CEV).jpg (25KB, 300x202px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 300x202px

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M728_combat_engineer_vehicle

Here's a good assault gun.

>>29869846

Unsustainable?

Do you know the cost in fuel, flight time, maintenance, and ordinance for a SINGLE F-15E sortie?

25 artillery rounds is not even a drop in the bucket, it's like a... like an ant taking a piss in a bucket. It's tiny, it's so incredibly minuscule you couldn't comprehend.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet it's a lot cheaper than designing, building, shipping, maintaining, and supplying an entirely new vehicle to do something that only takes, by your retarded metric, 5 arty rounds.

An Abrams consumes ~300 gallons of jet fuel in 8 hours, at the current rate of $5.21 a gallon, that means it consumes about $1600 worth of gas alone in a single 8 hour operation, this does not include the cost of ammo, filter cleanings, spare parts, and the cost to ship all that shit into an active combat zone.

If your proposed vehicle is anything close to that, yeah, 5 arty rounds is stupidly, stupidly cheaper.

>>29871966
>25 artillery rounds is not even a drop in the bucket, it's like a... like an ant taking a piss in a bucket. It's tiny, it's so incredibly minuscule you couldn't comprehend.
You think magic happens. It doesn't. This is 25 rounds to kill a single squad. To kill assuming a platoon is 5 squads (it's a bit less, but fuck decimals) would be 125 rounds. What's worse a single gun can only fire so many rounds in a day. This is only partially because of supply. The more pressing issue is time. Five rounds takes time. This isn't a five round fire mission, this is walking the fire onto a small target, round after round. Firing a single target, waiting to splash, then waiting for corrections, then making said corrections and firing again. How long are you going to sit there taking shots at individual positions? Let's say the TOF of a round is 45 seconds. It's a relatively easy number to work with. From the time the first round is fired, it takes 45 seconds to splash. Then, following the splash, you need to call in and make the adjustment. Let's say it takes 15 seconds, for easy math. That's a minute per shell. 5 minutes after the first splash to hit a single position. That seems fine, but think about how this increases. Half an hour to take out a squad. It ends up with multiple hours to take out a platoon's positions IF they can achieve hits in 5 rounds. You don't see how this is a bit off?

>>29869207
Do you know how Belgium got utterly destroyed in 4 days during ww1?
Germans utilized artillery to destroy their massive amount of fortresses.
In modern warfare a F-16 can just fire a GBU-53/B from 80km in safe airspace, because their is little chance that any advanced system like a S-400 is that close to the front.

>>29872789
The issue is not whether or not the fortification will fail. The issue is the amount of time that it takes. How long does it take to sortie the aircraft, establish communications, lase the targets (because the other terminal seekers wouldn't pick up anything), tell the aircraft that it can release one SDB, have it hit its target, and then tell them to send the next one as you lase the next one? Oh, and this is all in heavy EW conditions. It's all possible, but takes time. Remember, this is an individual fighting position. There's more where that came from. This opposed to a vehicle that's a couple minutes away at most and can just shoot it, and anything around it, at about 5-10 seconds a position.

>>29871966
Money really doesn't matter for the DOD in wartime situations since this whole excercise and most of US wartime planning is set around airpower, and cheaper planes can be used like F-16s.

>>29873066
But the thing is, is that these positions will already had been scouted out and destroyed, and any other recently made position will be an easy target for TOW teams.

>>29872713
Artillery is still going to be the most cost-effective option no matter how you figure. The shells in question are dirt cheap and if you're having to deal with thst many positions and need to speed things up, assigning more than one gun and spotter to do it is still a cheaper option than bringing in your snowflake vehicle.

>>29873232
Cost in terms of dollars are almost irrelevant in combat. Time is the resource that matters most. And besides, the Army IS procuring such a vehicle. In fact, it's one of their 8 highest priorities. That seems to support my side of the argument, wouldn't you think?

>>29873181
Scouted out by what? And destroyed by what TOW teams? Who are they attached to? And here's a fun fact about the TOW teams-

And a prepared fighting position are pretty easy to make in a day or two's work. It's just some digging and felling some trees to drag on top.

>>29873486
Huh, somehow posted before I wanted to. Anyways, the fun fact- before the Stryker MGS was brought into service, they used M1134 TOW Strykers as the intermediate system. They worked decently, as they had Bunker Buster TOWs, but the MGS was preferable.

>>29871348
>>29871429
A peace treaty that every party knew was only temporary. IOW America left with its tail between its legs.

>>29873549
Aww, your mental gymnastics are so cute.

>>29870138
The problem, at least in my mind, is that as soon as you add enough armor and systems to make a light tank noticeably more survivable than an IFV, you add enough weight and size to keep it from being airdroppable, and then you might as well just use an MBT to begin with.

Now, you know what would be cool, even if it might not be all that practical? An Abrams chassis with a huge fucking assault gun on it, like a 155 or something, basically the Abrams version of a Sturmtiger or something.

>>29873459
Not really, no. All that means is that they're willing to look into something to do what the Stryker gun platforms can't seem to do very well.

>>29873634
Why would you need it to be more survivable than an IFV? IFVs are designed to take autocannon fire to the front. Armoring against anything more than that is a waste of your time, as there's nothing in between autocannon and cannon that you'd need to protect against. Remember, the M8 Buford, the vehicle that was actually accepted into service to do this task (the buy was truncated at 3 because of post-cold war budget cuts), was only armored against 30mm autocannons from the front, and only then with applique armor.

>>29873698
Considering it's not meant for SBCTs and has been expressly stated that it is desired for IBCTs (see here >>29870852 ), yes, yes it does.

>>29868952
They didn't procure newer APFSDS ammunition because the MGS isn't supposed to be taking on tanks, it's meant to target lighter scout vehicles/IFV's and support infantry, which the old APFSDS is plenty capable of, and why they procured so much HEP and cannister.

>>29868952
You have to realize just how much of it we have left over. We have enough APFSDS and HEAT to fight multiple wars.

Good one, OP. I'm adding 'light tanks' and 'stugs' to my 'battleships' and 'gliders' shitposting repertoire.

>>29868952
But yes, this is exactly the same concept, and it's half the reason the SBCT is as useful as it is.

>>29871429
>They suddenly accepted a long standing peace treaty offer, hosted by a third party, after America started actually bombing North Vietnamese cities.

They suddenly accepted a long standing peace treaty offer when the United States finally committed to withdrawing its troops from South Vietnam due to mounting political pressure at home.

>>29873880
>They suddenly accepted a long standing peace treaty offer when the United States finally committed to withdrawing its troops from South Vietnam due to mounting political pressure at home.

Which happened as part of the peace accords, not what got North Vietnam to the table.

>>29869017
>1. Traverse a bridge rated for 30 tons
Yes, if that's a 30 ton bridge built to western engineering standards. Although only slowly.

>2. Be airdropped
Not with current equipment.

>3. Navigate through mountainous terrain
With ease.

>>29868774
Why does it look like it you tried to magic wand the picture and why is it a gif?
You just triggered me real hard.

>>29869207
>Do you think hitting a bunker directly is an easy task? Even with modern artillery? That shows vastly more ignorance than you attempt to put on him.
I've personally watched M777 hit a 1m x 1m target board at 25 km on their first round. Plunging the round on an angle through the board.

>>29874018
>Which happened as part of the peace accords, not what got North Vietnam to the table.

What's your point? Going to the table isn't surrendering, and North Vietnam only accepted on the condition that the US would withdraw. Who got what they wanted out of those negotiations, exactly? Reminder that the US only went to the table because they were looking for a way out that was slightly more respectable than fleeing Vietnam outright.

>>29874106
That's one a hell of a shot, but definitely not the norm. Direct fire?

>>29874221
North Vietnam hadn't even wanted to go to the table at all.

>>29872713

You honestly don't have a single clue how modern artillery works.

You don't walk shots onto target. Modern fire direction is done by computer and even if you're not hitting the target directly, it's going to be in the ballpark of just shooting more rounds most of the time.

Or you can just drop an M982 on them.

>>29874244
Generally speaking, yes. However, most cases aren't trying to hit this small of a target precisely. In this case, it's a bit more precise than that, and the observer probably would have to walk fire onto it if they don't want to just FFE in the ballpark (which is still very close) and hope it hits. Which it may, or it may not. When we're talking about a covered hole in the ground, it's somewhat of a challenge.

>Or you can just drop an M982 on them.
I did mention that earlier, but when we're talking about dozens of prepared positions, you probably don't have enough rounds for all of them, and you might want to preserve them for other targets. Technically doable, but best avoided.

>>29869278
More like VTOL capable assets will replace IFV's. Power armored troops would likely be used as heavy/shock infantry in the beginning, and later most infantry will be powered, so something will be needed to move that infantry around the theater rapidly. Creating a ground vehicle to do that would likely be far more vulnerable than a VTOL capable troop carrier that can drop to the deck, have 4-8 power armored troops clip/clamp onto it and dust off.

File: 1255256869004.jpg (20KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 512x384px

>>29869407

>>29874436
lol
and all of this will be powered by magic?

>>29869663
So a platoon-company sized element in static light earthen bunkers spread over a grid?
>1. forward observer to arty, fire mission on following coordinates
>2. shift fire
>3. Fire for effect on grid
>4. Smoke the grid
>5. Assault
>6. ???
>7. profit!

>>29869782

Are we going to break out the satchel charges after that?

Maybe we can send word back to base with our carrier pigeons....

>>29869972

We are talking about the U.S. military here, right? Our strategic mobility is so far beyond anyone else's it's a fucking joke.

>>29870199

>Sorry Jamal, the assault gun took an EFP a few miles back. It's out of action..
>Well damn, Ramirez, if only we had some sort of weapons system that could fly...

>>29874550
satchel charges would be a good thing, don't they still teach troops how to make a shitty one?

>>29869017
Between MRAPS and AAVs the US has done well without light tanks. An MATV with a MK19 is maneuverable armor with a lot of firepower. An AAV packs a punch, plus they swim.

>>29874533
>Insert usual Arthur C Clarke quote.
It could be a fucking helicopter, which is literally VTOL, as long as it can rapidly pick up/deploy the troops. Ground vehicles are already vulnerable even with air superiority if you're facing a real enemy military, much less contested airspace.
And if you have the tech to deploy massed infantry powered armor systems, you have the capability to deploy far better air assets than we currently have.

>>29874782
Correction: I'm thinking of the LAV, not the AAV.

god damn. All you armchair generals bought into the air force meme. The greatest military in the fucking history of the universe is buying assault guns. deal with it.
The efficiency of airstrikes was largely the result of a myth created by an alliance of the Air Force with Taft Republicans in the Senate (who liked strategic bombing because it was cheaper than the actual policies the JCS wanted and needed - an expanded draft and universal military training).

>>29873459

Okay fine, 1 hour of refueling for every 4 in the field, 2 hours of filter cleaning minimum 1-2 times a week, you have to transport the vehicle, the fuel, and the team of specialists to take care of the vehicle.

Artillery you plop down and give them ammo. They can sit there for months at a time and provide effective support with no additional supply chains.

Very few replacement parts, no fuel, just food, water, and shells.

You lose the argument, fucking stop it.

>>29874612
Despite this fact, light tanks provide strategic mobility that MBTs simply can't match, regardless of the US's capabilities.

>>29874545
Entrenched infantry is very difficult to dig out with tube artillery.

>>29875039
One of the biggest issues with a focus on air power is that they redefined the aim of war to maximum casualties rather than actually winning battles

>>29875093
>You lose the argument, fucking stop it.
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
I can give you a half dozen reasons why your argument is wrong but because you're autistic and communicate well I'll just make fun of you you autistic sperg faggot basement dwelling anime loser.

File: technical killer.jpg (748KB, 2820x1890px) Image search: [Google]

748KB, 2820x1890px

I'm pretty sure we can shoehorn in a 105mm tank gun onto a Bradley.

>>29875125

>muh cost effectiveness
>artillery is cheaper
>dollar amounts don't matter!
>mobility and availability matters
>artillery is easier to maintain and more available while covering a wider area
>ANIME WEEB DUMBASS CUNT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

fucking stop dude, your special snowflake bullshit is retarded and your shit's all fucked up.

>>29875126

No, wee need a high velocity 400mm round minimum to bust earthen bunkers.

We have literally no weapon in the US military that can bust earth forts.

>>29875177
>loses the argument
>resorts to this level of childishness

>>29875177
it's called a JDAM

>>29875093
Did you not hear what I said? Or that the US Army desperately wants this? It's one of the Army's Big 8 modernization priorities. Or did you know that one of the requirements is for a vehicle which can engage in 24 hours of combat without any form of resupply?

Cost effectiveness means very little when, once again, the main resource is time. Can this resource do the needed tasks within the limited time frame we have? Is the time spent transporting supplies for one thing worth more than transporting another?

The Army has decided that, YES, the mobile protected firepower program is needed, and that it is an extremely valuable thing to have. In the end, they're doing it. You're so obsessed with LOGISTICS that you fail to see look at reality. You know how they say "professionals look at logistics"? Well, so do idiots who want to think they know what they're talking about.

And, by the way, MPF is good for logistics, as it's a tank you can bring with your infantry even if they decide they want to parachute out. That's a logistical leap that nothing else can match.

>>29875126
You probably could, but it probably wouldn't end very well. Hell, you could probably remove the turret and make it a casement gun you load from the passenger compartment.

>>29875248

>logistics
>unimportant

let me guess, our massive battleships and jet fighters won WW2

>>29875281
Simply shipping more tonnage is not a massive expense

>>29870440
>what are logistics
you get 2 points for trying

>>29875281
Dear god, you're so ass-ravaged your anus must resemble a hamburger at this point.

And just a reminder, cost isn't everything in logistics.

>>29875248
>is for a vehicle which can engage in 24 hours of combat without any form of resupply?
Adding fuel, ammo, and supply trailers to every vehicle would solve this issue.
Then of course, removing the jet turbine engine on the abrams.
Switching all engines over to more efficient diesel electric ones

>>29875301
Yes, you can get resupplied, but that doesn't mean you can just waste ammunition. They can only bring up so much so quickly. Artillery is often limited in the number of rounds it can fire per gun per day for this reason.

>>29875329
>destroying enemy possitions is wasting ammo
u wot?

>>29875324
>trailerfag
Not if you're going into combat, you're not. They're a decent idea if you use them like a rucksack, and dump them somewhere before you go into combat.

>>29875341
From a cost benefit analysis, trying to destroy well entrenched infantry with tube artillery is somewhat wasteful. There are more efficient ways about it.

>>29875329
Also, the artillery battalion in the battle of La Drang was doing continuous fire missions for two days straight without stopping. Please tell me why I can't call down more than a few strikes to take out fortifications.

>>29875369
Like firing a million dollar missile on some fuckin logs covering a hole in the ground?

>>29875371
Let's put it this way- you probably COULD do it. It'd be a massive effort which might be better spent elsewhere, (in Ia Drang it most certainly was working, as infantry tends to find it somewhat hazardous to their health to keep attacking through an artillery barrage) but might be possible. And in taking all this time to reduce the positions, the guys down the road gets more time to dig themselves in, or to launch a counterattack. Are you telling me this is going to be your reaction to every single time you come across infantry in well prepared fighting positions?

>>29875386
If the benefit suits it, possibly. Remember, the resource we're most worried about is time.

>>29875412
what else are you suppost to do? dick around in the sand untill the armor shows up? As said, i'm not talking about just tube arty to clear positions, I'm talking shoulder launched as well.

>>29875499
Suppress the positions until one of your friendly company MPF ambles along to shoot them. You could use shoulder launched (there's one specifically designed for bunker busting), but you might want to save them in case you have a close encounter of the armor kind. Russians are known for having quite a bit of it.

>>29875267
Textron developed a way to fire a 105mm round with low velocity using voodoo or hydraulics or something.

It works on the striker variant.

>>29875267
Bradly jagdpanther when

File: 1461840550105.png (81KB, 374x479px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 374x479px

>>29877163
Our dreams will be forever denied
>mfw

>>29871582
I mean, they have less than a .1 mr deviation, so long as they aren't facing the tank head on, hull down they should be able to hit a soft spot somewhere.


Even if not, they could use modernized swingfire/shelejhle or whatever top down smart sub munitions.

I can't imagine pitting LTs against MBTs on equal footing on purpose anyway.

>>29877425
>I mean, they have less than a .1 mr deviation, so long as they aren't facing the tank head on, hull down they should be able to hit a soft spot somewhere.
I sincerely doubt that. If they're anywhere along the frontal arc, hitting the side of the tank is a somewhat risky proposition, especially if it's moving. Try playing Steel Beasts. Even with retarded AI, you'll find flank shots are a bit harder to get than you might think.

>shelejhle
Shillelagh

And no, they really couldn't. Not if they wanted to future proof their design against ERA and APS.

>I can't imagine pitting LTs against MBTs on equal footing on purpose anyway.
I mean, when you're playing rocket tag, whoever gets shot first loses. If you have a gun which can penetrate him and he has a gun that can penetrate you, it comes down to whoever has the better positioning and training.

>>29869598
he said assault guns not goons