MBT's

[DRG]

In the most recent development, the Army now seems to have realized that something has gone wrong. At its training grounds in Fort Campbell, eight of the 11 bridges it crossed cracked under the weight of the “light tank,” making it too heavy for the Amy’s needs.

The M10 Booker seems to be the latest victim of a broken requirements process that is more concerned with checking boxes than actually evaluating the needs of the Army.

If true that would be a game changer

Also.........

..crewed attack helicopter formations to be restructured and augmented with "inexpensive drone swarms capable of overwhelming adversaries."

The US OOB has one ( 1 ) drone and it's unarmed so there will be additions.... just what they are is TBD..........FORTUNATELY we have the extention OOB in place so we can add many more...... the first unit in the extentions was the M10..........grumble

[DRG]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

BREAKING NEWS: The M-10 BOOKER is cancelled. Other systems to follow. Waiting for army.mil to respond.

With the programme now halted, these vehicles may be reassigned to armoured units, sold to foreign partners, or placed into storage.

That means the M10 *may* not be pulled completly out of the game........they could end up anywhere doing what they we designed to do or becoming dust magnets locked in a warehouse

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Here's what I wanted as expressed in my last post.

The next two items read the same but, I posted them for context.

First as the upper Chain of Command received it...
https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/...initiative.pdf

Last also from the army.mil News section which I first saw.
https://www.army.mil/article/285100/...ion_initiative

First the M1E3 appears to be safe.

For now, except as already noted so from the above...
"We will cancel procurement of outdated crewed attack aircraft such as the AH-64D, excess ground vehicles like the HMMWV and JLTV, and obsolete UAVs like the Gray Eagle."

So, we will not be producing and or buying any more of those systems and other systems TBA in the future.

From the quote I highlighted the ones most in danger of being withdrawn from active service.

"We live in interesting times. "

I'm not worried about AMPV as it was already fielded by the USA and we further adjusted the START date accordantly as posted. We have no backup plan (Except autonamious systems still being evaluated.) or "whiff" of another armored unit to replace it or to transport our troops in.

As noted, we'll have to be "eyes on" for certainly the next few months or more.

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Just came across this a few minutes ago, I'll call this the "Don't fall in!?!" article. I think most will catch my meaning as it relates to the information I passed along to Don yesterday in the APC Thread for the timeline posts. Anyway...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...e65a8f60&ei=42

The next has no game impact however it most certainly has potential real life consequences.

We have decided at the end of last week or earlier to not allow Australia to send their M1A1 Abrams to the Ukraine one of the reasons is stating we don't think they want them however, Ukraine did address the issue that they do want them on the web. Besides they figured out how to better protect the "Top" (Another issue that was brought up by us.) a few months back and we haven't seen anything in a while about drones taking them out.

I guess they managed the situation quite well and without our help. They must've been paying attention to what the Israelis have been doing for decades, making our equipment better then when they got them to include more recently their F-35I.

Before I post this I'm sticking to my START for these tanks as I recently posted they are still training and qualifying on these tanks. Further the only ref that matters is the Australian "REAL" Army newspaper I subscribe to. Para 6 of the following mentions the delay in shipping.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/news...-tank-squadron
https://kyivindependent.com/transfer...media-reports/
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...k-in-australia
https://militarywatchmagazine.com/ar...abrams-ukraine

It's a wonder how these things come along to support a point I made in a post so for a further example here's the following...
https://www.armyrecognition.com/focu...ted-smart-fuse

Regards,
Pat


EDIT: Alright was heading to bed when I realized I forgot the following. This is the reason why the K2 PIP was "killed" 2-3 years ago. First the K2 had many of the systems incorporated into the tank when the decision was made to improve the K2 and be able to build a larger tank force quicker which also included modernizing the K1 to the K1A2.

This also lead to the K3 planning which I started posting on about a year ago at least. When I saw this article there was another obvious reason to get it posted, which Don will most certainly pick up on. Read Para 2 very slowing. and the rest of the article will certainly show this tank has a long way to go. VLS on a tank MAYBE-WOW!
https://www.armyrecognition.com/news...3-stealth-tank
(Now corrected in here as well-thanks Don. Cut the end "k" when made bold early this morning.)

[DRG]

registers-the-design-of-south-koreas-future-k3-stealth-tan[/url][/b]k[/quote]

The link cut the K off the end in link above

This is the corrected one

https://www.armyrecognition.com/news...3-stealth-tank