dang, almost as if the Soviets actually had good reasons for making vehicles light and low-profile and weren't just dumb idiots who didn't care about survivability!
Well the problem is clearly the giant autocannon they slapped on the top of it. That tends to make things heavier. In the longer video they show one with a full main tank gun on top which is silly as fuck. Just assign a tank with the team then.
11
Tervell [he/him] - 4day
Just assign a tank with the team then
The trouble is that modern Abramses weight like 67 tonnes, which is getting them into Tiger II territory. Their strategic mobility isn't very good, and their logistical costs are really high due to the amount of fuel they burn as well as the maintenance of such complex machines. Sometimes (or in fact, very often) you just need a mobile somewhat-armored cannon to lob HE shells at bunkers and the like, and all the bells and whistles of a modern Western MBT just aren't necessary (and if fact, become counter-productive due to all the extra weight and complexity), so several militaries have been looking into lighter vehicles focused more on infantry support.
The Stryker MGS is one of the worse ones, since the chassis just really wasn't designed for all that weight, but the base idea of a wheeled fire-support vehicle isn't completely stupid, and there have been more successful examples. There've also been developments into fire support vehicles based on tracked IFV chassis - the US itself had such a program, which of course got cancelled shortly after adoption
Now, the proper solution to this problem is to just not make your tanks the fucking Tiger II, and keep them to a reasonable weight and cost, like the Russians have done, but y'know, can't have that. (although tbf, Russia also fields the BMP-3 as an IFV armed with a 100mm cannon, so they kind of already have that fire support capability in vehicles lighter than tanks baked in)
9
FnordPrefect [comrade/them, he/him] - 4day
"Well that's what you get for driving Little Baby McWoke truck! Put some duallies on each of those axles, have 'em stick out the side by about a foot and a half, and put some real tires on there. Then we'll see who's laughing!"
8
Wheaties [she/her] - 4day
Service history
In service 2018-present
apparently named for a Kirby powerup
8
HexReplyBot [none/use name] - 4day
I found a YouTube link in your post. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Tervell in guns
lol. lmao (US Stryker Dragoon failing to go up a slight slope)
https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/dbd7fff1-35e3-42bd-b4fb-e4c1d2c51001.mp4meanwhile the humble BTR
dang, almost as if the Soviets actually had good reasons for making vehicles light and low-profile and weren't just dumb idiots who didn't care about survivability!
clip from a longer-video in a Business Insider article
Well the problem is clearly the giant autocannon they slapped on the top of it. That tends to make things heavier. In the longer video they show one with a full main tank gun on top which is silly as fuck. Just assign a tank with the team then.
The trouble is that modern Abramses weight like 67 tonnes, which is getting them into Tiger II territory. Their strategic mobility isn't very good, and their logistical costs are really high due to the amount of fuel they burn as well as the maintenance of such complex machines. Sometimes (or in fact, very often) you just need a mobile somewhat-armored cannon to lob HE shells at bunkers and the like, and all the bells and whistles of a modern Western MBT just aren't necessary (and if fact, become counter-productive due to all the extra weight and complexity), so several militaries have been looking into lighter vehicles focused more on infantry support.
The Stryker MGS is one of the worse ones, since the chassis just really wasn't designed for all that weight, but the base idea of a wheeled fire-support vehicle isn't completely stupid, and there have been more successful examples. There've also been developments into fire support vehicles based on tracked IFV chassis - the US itself had such a program, which of course got cancelled shortly after adoption
Now, the proper solution to this problem is to just not make your tanks the fucking Tiger II, and keep them to a reasonable weight and cost, like the Russians have done, but y'know, can't have that. (although tbf, Russia also fields the BMP-3 as an IFV armed with a 100mm cannon, so they kind of already have that fire support capability in vehicles lighter than tanks baked in)
apparently named for a Kirby powerup
I found a YouTube link in your post. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy: