I understand it was there to give IBCTs fire support, but why was it tracked? And why did they want it to survive auto cannon fire when nothing else in an IBCT can?

Tracked is better off-road.

Because the Army asked for it to be tracked. What is difficult about this. You can go read the requirements
>Tracked
>Lighter than MBT
>More powerful an IFV
>Cheaper than MBT
>Fire support
That's it. The 'waah it can't be air dropped' curiously only popped up way after it was finished and dozens were made when Trump was ending all projects bar a few so he can try and claim he has saved money.

Tracked is just better off-road.

>>63870044
>>63870022
I know the army required it, my answer is why?
>Tracked is better off-road.
It's clearly not worth the increased weight or logistical issues that it brings to IBCTs, if they were going with tracked they could have at least made it lighter.
>'waah it can't be air dropped'
not a problem, the issue is the logistical strain the increased weight brought, like requiring new ARVs for units that never had them.

>>63869994 (OP)
So it would buck-break warriortards mind and let it live rent free in his brain until the end of time.

>>63870044
unlike reddit, most people here are not intelligent enough to look up and comprehend the MPF program requirements

>>63870064
The requirements are the issue though, requiring it to survive auto cannon fire was fucking retarded, and tracked was too.

>>63870063
Are you just not allowed to touch any topics that warrior-tard has ever obsessed over?

>>63870072
What? Expecting a vehicle to survive 30mm AP, even APDS, is not exactly ambitious on the frontal arc of a vehicle weighing 38 short tons. You'd have to focus a disproportionate amount of resources and weight towards that goal, but the same is true for an MBT.

>>63870072
Tracks can accompany infantry in many more places than wheels can.

Wheels are great for minimizing fuel and maintenance on supply trucks but unless you're an all-drone or all-artillery army there will be some kind of close combat unit and it will probably want vehicles to support it. Wheels are terrible at that relative to tracks.

>but I don't care about maximizing tactical mobility I care about something else

Cool. Drive your Tesla to the shartmart. Militaries everywhere (and everywhen) have different requirements.

>>63870088
I've repeatedly said the weight is the issue, 38 tonnes was too much, there's no reason to require a vehicle designed for the IBCT to be more survivable than vehicles used by SBCTs. I'm not saying make an 18 tonne Sprut-SD, but sub 30 tonne without add on armour would seem far more optimal.
>>63870098
>Cool. Drive your Tesla to the shartmart. Militaries everywhere (and everywhen) have different requirements.
Having a separate light tank for more specialised rough terrain infantry wouldn't be retarded, but wheeled vehicles would cut back on the horrible logistic strain, and lower the weight. If it needs to be a tracked assault gun, it shouldn't be as heavy as the booker was.

>>63870072
There are different sweet spots or brackets of armor.

Bottom and top:
-Civilian B6/B7 and Russian BTRs = tinfoil level
-Tank frontal armor = almost invulnerable level (too bad about the other 80% of the tank)

The middle two brackets are:
-stops RPGs
-trustworthy against accurate but not direct-hit artillery

The "good" level of anti-artillery protection is basically identical to 30mm autocannon protection.

>>63870111
Wait a minute are you telling me this shitty "light" tank weighs almost as much as a fully fledged MBT like the T-72 or the Type 10?

>>63870117
That's extremely reductive, especially when stable AFVs like the Stryker, Patria, ZBL-08, Piranha V, etc are all protected against 14.5 frontally, and between 7.62 and 12.7 on the sides.

>>63870127
staple not stable*

>>63870078
You can if you actually add something of value, dont just drain peoples time, actually listen to what people say and not ask the same dumb questions that have been asked by him a hundred times before.

>>63870154
Do you not see the discussion that's going on in the thread?

>>63870157
What discussion? Asking dumb questions, only then ignore what you get spoonfed is no discussion, you attention whore. Impressive reply time btw, maybe give your F5 a rest.

>>63870127
>picking nits about technical details to avoid talking about the core issue
Why do you think I dumbed it down for you, dummy? Those vehicles aren't trustworthy against artillery. They don't meet the standard. They're meant to protect against small arms, so you get technical specs saying 14.5 or 7.62 AP instead of 50mm RHA or autocannons.

Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STANAG_4569
Now look at some early Russo-Ukrainiain War invasion pictures with a focus on counterbattery and artillery damage to armored vehicles. What's the first pattern you notice?

Tinfoil vehicles like Russian turreted airborne mortars are ashtrays or cheese graters despite being spread out in forests. T72s OTOH drive on when arty hits the other side of their street.

Guess why. The area of a circle. "shrapnel protection" that stops shrapnel at 100 meters versus shrapnel protection that stops shrapnel at 10 meters are wildly different levels of survivability, measured as the number of shells per kill per area.

>>63870169
Okay so we circle back, why is this needed for an IBCT, when nothing else in an IBCT is this survivable? It's not supposed to be a tank, it's supposed to role up, and destroy hard points, so why add all of the extra logistical strain?

>>63869994 (OP)
Better offroad mobility. Able to turn in place in constricted terrain like urban combat (rubble-covered streets aren't great for 3-point turns)

Friendly reminder: You can not argue or reason with warriortard.
Just look at the amount you write and with how little he replies to ignore what was actually said, he isn't interested in an actual discussion, he's just tries to tire you out with nonsense until you leave and then he'll claim vicotry like schizo clown he is.

>>63870194
I assume it's not done because of extra complications, but you can neutral steer wheeled vehicles (look at the AMX-10RC).

>>63870195
>Why does the M10 have this level of protection when nothing else in an IBCT does
>to have that level of protection
>Okay but why when nothing else in an IBCT does?
I don't think asking this is warrior tard behaviour.

>>63870181
>why is this needed for an IBCT, when nothing else in an IBCT is this survivable?
Because warriortard starts with his conclusion (Booker BAD) and works backwards, ignoring everything that doesn't further his opinion.

>>63870181
Think about this picture I drew for you for a moment. Now think about how the same principle applies to logistics.

The thing the army is 'buying' (designing) has inherent qualities in it. Otherwise it wouldn't be that thing and they wouldn't be buying it. Those qualities cannot be optimized around, or you're not buying the thing.

>>63870209
Because we didn't have your shitshow a hundred times before, get a new script or finally get therapy. Don't even try to convince yourself you are just trolling or something, you need help.

>>63870209
>warriortards narritive OP
>lone idiot that gets spoonfeed like a baby and still ignores everything that is said and pretends he's right, despite how he is alone with his opinion
>endlessly pretends he is just asks questions and this is an actual discussion
Are you winning, son?

>>63869994 (OP)
Personally I think they fucked up not giving it an insane amount of elevation to act as light artillery. Also it could stand to be lighter with less protection, I know airdrop wasn't a requirement but maybe that or at least being able to be transported by air wouldn't've been a bad idea. As it stood it was a shitty tank
>uhhh it's an assault gun
Copium to cover the fact it was a retarded idea

>>63870216
>Think about this picture I drew for you for a moment. Now think about how the same principle applies to logistics.
I entirely understand why it was designed to survive artillery fragments, I don't understand why a vehicle, designed for an IBCT needed this level of protection, everything else is completely vulnerable.
>The thing the army is 'buying' (designing) has inherent qualities in it. Otherwise it wouldn't be that thing and they wouldn't be buying it. Those qualities cannot be optimized around, or you're not buying the thing.
I'm not saying the booker is bad, because it didn't meet the requirements requested (it did). I'm saying it's bad because the requirements themself were fucking stupid.
>Those qualities cannot be optimized around, or you're not buying the thing.
I am saying that those qualities shouldn't have been required in the first place, because they don't fit within the restraints of an IBCT. Look at what the M10 added to IBCTs that it was attached to for training.
>M88s
Booker is too heavy to be recovered by M1089s, or by M984A4
>heavy-duty jacks, cranes, and transport
None of this was organic to an IBCT before, and is needed for maintenance
>way higher fuel consumption
not much else to add, the booker would drink more fuel than any other IBCT vehicle before it.
All of this was caused by its weight, its weight was caused by its need for the level of protection discussed, and that is why having it be that protected was stupid. That's before adding 19Ks, and 91As to them too.

>>63870253
> I don't understand why a vehicle, designed for an IBCT needed this level of protection
You don't understand why armor exists, why combined arms exists, why infantry and tanks work together, or what?
> they don't fit within the restraints of an IBCT
Cool. The military obviously disagreed with you.

If you want to discuss this productively start posting logistics figures for an airhead or a defense in complex terrain. Make an argument instead of vibes. Vibing is a privilege for experts.

>>63870274
>Cool. The military obviously disagreed with you.
They clearly backtracked on this considering they cancelled the thing.
>If you want to discuss this productively start posting logistics figures for an airhead or a defense in complex terrain. Make an argument instead of vibes. Vibing is a privilege for experts.
Sure, refer to the force structure of the PLAGF, and their mountain brigades.

>>63870282
>MTOE reference
Straight into the trash. Post math retard. Show us you can count up the maintenance hours and gallons diesel per push. This is in public manuals with cute little tables. Come on. You can do it.

Trump has nothing to do with it. The Army is transitioning into a non-combat branch and therefore they seem to be taking the brunt of the budget cuts. What’s the point of acquiring this new vehicle if the Army isn’t going to be deployed anywhere and just do joint training exercises etc, better to cut it before a lot of money is spent. Of course the budget hasn’t actually been submitted yet so maybe there’s a war going on in the DoD over things like this.

>>63870295
>This is in public manuals with cute little tables
Not that I can find for the M10, if you can find it post it.

>>63870306
this may actually be the most retarded take I've seen on this board in quite some time. I hope you're a Terminal Lance and not someone whos opinion actually matters

>>63870078
Normal people don't reopen poisoed well topics, recite the opinion and arguments of a well known schizo, and then act like they actually do something good. The only idiots that do that are the schizo himself, weak manchilds with no intergrity or willpower that get overwhelmed by their "uhm, aktually... *tips fedora*" autism and people who want to shit the board up.

>>63870325
*shrug*. The Army doesn’t do war anymore, prove me wrong.

>>63869994 (OP)
should be steel wheels with only solid rubber nubs, but mostly steel tread for soft dirt.

auto-cannon will blow threads off an Abrams.

you want to be able to lose a couple wheels and still roll.

you want to be like a centipede, not a horse.

>>63871209
Real life aint war thunder bud

>>63869994 (OP)
Stryker showed wheeled sucks for big boi calibers.

>>63870022
Marginally desu and mostly in snow and soft mud but to be frank soft mud is ripe territory for breaking/losing track.
Booker was retarded, they should have had an AMPV with a 105/120mm turret or a wheeled platform - wheeled was fucked by Stryker MGS and army extending Stryker service life

>>63871307
Sherridan showed that tracked sucks for big boy calibers if you don't weigh enough

>>63870120
Or the M4 jumbo "assault tank", yes. It was cheaper + more profitable to use IFV components but that made meeting the weight goals impossible since it has greater volume to armor than a 55ton Tiger tank; one among many ill-conceived choices the program made.

>>63870216
>Unalive

>>63870072
they listed why they wanted tracks in that pic, neural steer and the abilty to get around in urban terrain which tracks just do better then wheels

>>63871351
The IBCT fights in places heavy wheeled and tracked vehicles can’t typically go.
They should’ve made a TOW variant for their weapons companies thats just a 110 lb tube of high explosives and blows the fuck out of any hardened defenses.
Unrelated, imagine a canister shot TOW.

>>63871307
Not been a problem for a bunch of other wheeled assault guns/TDs, look at the Centauro, AMX-10RC, ZLT-11, ZLT-19, etc.

>>63873380
You can design a wheeled vehicle to Neutral steer.

>>63873593
Probably one of the few things the Russians got right is designing HE, thermobaric missiles for their ATGM launchers

>>63869994 (OP)

The Booger's fat tank ass was too heavy for wheels. And bridges. And cargo aircraft.

>>63870072
No it wasn't. There you go, I just obliterated your completely unfounded opinion with the same level of analysis that you've used.

>>63871351
I was in favor of the 50mm super shot

>>63870022

With modern traction control and variable tire pressure systems, doubt tracks have an advantage worth their negatives: weight, noise and maintenance.

>>63877411
Tracks have a much greater surface area in contact with the ground invariably resulting in a lower ground pressure per square cm. There are no workarounds that would cheat simple physics.

Would something like pic rel have been a better option?
Probably.

>>63877503

With lower tire pressure, that spreads the load. And the vehicle is significantly lighter without the tracks, boogies, wheels drives and such.

It ends up being the eternal struggle of engineering tradeoffs.

>>63873622
They're all shit too though

>>63869994 (OP)
>Why was the M10 tracked?

The US Army has never liked wheeled armored vehicles.

>>63877524
There is no way to get comparable perfomance with tires. That is the trade-off.

>>63869994 (OP)
>40 tons
This is why.

>>63870064
Yes and thats why all anime poste5s must be kos.

>>63877978

Then why aren't all Army vehicles tracked, if tracks give better "performance"?

> ....

Because of trade-offs to optimize to a given set of criteria. That's why you don't see many tracked Hummv. And since the M10 was a complete failure, the Army choose those criteria and optimization -- poorly.

>>63879964
because of the wheel mafia

>>63869994 (OP)
>but why was it tracked?
to take the extra weight of armor and to give it off-road capability to keep up with infantry, who will not stick to roads

> And why did they want it to survive auto cannon fire when nothing else in an IBCT can?
think about that for two seconds
they will give an infantry division something with a significant increase in armor over anything else they have

>>63869994 (OP)
Because its a light tank.

>why was it tracked
Because its a light tank

>why did they want it to survive auto cannon fire
Because they wanted a light tank

>>63870120
>T-72
>Type 10
>"Fully fledged" MBTs
lol, lmao. They're practically uparmored IFVs, they belong in the same class as the M10 and not the M1.

>>63883467
>Because its a light tank
The M3 bradley is their light tank
The M10 is not classified as a tank but as itself, the M10
In terms of mission capability, its closer to the M8 scott rather than the M5 stuart

>>63870282
>They clearly backtracked on this considering they cancelled the thing.
It was cancelled because it was designed to fit two to a C-17, and the Air Force is saying it will need to derate the C-17's payload capacity by up to 9% over the next ten years due to global warming, which means that at some point in the next decade it will be exactly as expensive to transport a Booker as an Abrams.

How do you feel about global warming, anon?

>>63877394
kek

>>63879964
>Then why aren't all Army vehicles tracked
most combat ones are
wheels are used when road-speed matters more than off-road speed, which is the case for the stryker and rear ech units
but would most definitely not be the case for a vehicle intended to follow infantry where they go, which is likely off-road
>That's why you don't see many tracked Hummv
the scout humvee was replaced by the M3 bradley in the cav role because tracks gave it better off-road performance
the army has often chosen tracks for increased protection and off-road capability
and the M10 was intended to prioritize those

>>63877978
There is, it's just not practical because you just need absolutely enormous tires. Look a engineering vehicles. Vehicles with pneumatic tires have a ground pressure equal to the tire inflation pressure. That could be anything from 5 psi for a sport ATV up to well over 100 psi for a heavy haul highway truck. A tracked vehicle like a bulldozer or tank is around 5-10 psi, very much on the low end of that scale despite being so fucking heavy. So tracked vehicles are lower ground pressure than most wheeled vehicles. However. If you fit really really big tires, a wheeled vehicle can float. Those huge tires on monster trucks like "bigfoot" are flotation tires from the agriculture or logging industries, and can provide enough buoyancy for vehicles to float over boggy conditions.
And such a vehicle is a giant bitch to transport.

>>63886942
just look how wide this shit has to be to get that flotation.

>>63879964
>Then why aren't all Army vehicles tracked, if tracks give better "performance"?

They are. All army vehicles intended for direct combat are tracked. Wheels are strictly limited to logistics and support roles.

>>63886946
Those tires have another problem. If you want to go for low ground pressure and you therefore have low inflation pressure and soft sidewalls in the tire the tires would be very "bouncy. That would be fine for a truck or an artillery tractor but for actual artillery it couldn't take the recoil. The vehicle would need some method of transferring recoil to the ground directly. This was even an issue for some tracked vehicles, the 600mm Karl-Gerat self-propelled siege mortars drove on tracks but would lower their suspension when firing so the bottom of the hull rested directly on the ground for maximum stability.

Wheel Chads mog the Track Troons.

There are roads everywhere you need to be. Modern tires get you over the rest. Wheels are faster, cheaper, better.

Here is a picture big tire DOESNT want you to see

>>63888911
>Wheels are faster
only on roads, and despite what you say, off-road operations are still very comon

>cheaper
this is a major reason to choose them, but this is more applicable to fast-reaction forces that need a high readiness rate or rear ech units that are running back and forth constantly
but if cost was the only factor, then legs are even cheaper and we dont see 100 slaves pulling ammunition

>better.
at certain things, but not direct combat
theres a reason why things expecting to see heavy combat are tracked rather than wheeled