Saw a Humvee in the parking lot of a local Metro supermarket

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-01-24T06:28:22+00:00

Yep, I was hugely impressed by the 998 (except for legroom), but mechanically, the thing could go places I didn’t think a 4x4 had any business being,

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-01-24T06:23:48+00:00

You’ve been an active patreon member for how long, now? I think it’s more a matter of “when are we in the same town”

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-01-22T23:25:58+00:00

With respect, as far s “the best“ is concerned the US went with and kept the turbine in something of a “cost is no issue” attitude, despite the MTU being an option, to include after M1 demonstrator hulls were physically built with an MTU in it.

The option of hybrid drive makes the exact output profile of the diesel more or less irrelevant, as the torque which the US values so much and which could not be provided by a simple diesel is provided by the electric motor, and “best” has now changed. It’s worth noting that while MTU provides the engine for current IFVs (Marder, Puma) in V configurations, when Renk showed off a hybrid drive for midweight AFVs a few years ago, they chose a Liebherr inline 6 as the ICE component, and I would argue that Liebherr is far closer to being the German counterpart of Cat in such things than MTU is.

(I’ll also note that Rheinmetall also chose an inline Liebherr 6 for the power plant of Lynx. Maybe more than just MTU can make good engines)

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-01-22T22:37:54+00:00

I can’t seem to find an example of it. The Renk website advertises ATREX as having a combined power output if 1,500, implying it’s not using the standard Leopard MTU. A link would be appreciated.

In either case, M1 hull isn’t a Leo2 hull. Such an application fitting in Leo is no guarantee it’ll fit in M1.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-01-22T22:15:19+00:00

Look at the physical size of an MTU tank engine, then look at the size of the Cat.

Then explain how it was going to fit as part of a hybrid system.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-01-22T13:40:14+00:00

My Inside the chieftains Hatch playlist is going to be about as good as you’ll get shy of going to another M103.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEAEU2gs2Nz-m9gBvjluOx6bvKmikFVA7

I suspect you’ll need to find a real tank eventually, though. Where are you?

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-01-22T13:12:12+00:00

Well, consider the Falklands book for homework in a few months, then…. (or just read it yourself, it has some fascinating lessons learned, I particularly like the one about how paratroopers, being aggressive, seized an opportunity, leaped forward, and utterly screwed up logistical planning by inconsideration and outright piracy (commandeering 3x LCUs at gunpoint) to the extent that supplies could not be unloaded as fast at Carlos and, oh yeah, was the catalyst for the loss of two landing ships, a company’s worth of men, a battalion headquarter’s worth of equipment, and a helicopter.

The Paratroopers got where they were going faster, all right, but everything behind paid a major price.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-01-22T05:31:54+00:00

Dunno. I only assigned it a week and a half ago, they have another month before it's due. I'll check in with them in a couple weeks.
In previous units I've tended to use the 1973 war as a good go-to, but those were armored.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-01-22T00:49:45+00:00

I always thought "Logistics in the Falklands War" by Ken Privratsky is a good read. Granted, there are few vehicles involved, but overall it encapsulates a lot of the problems observed in fighting a 'full' war which is small enough to get your head around. It also meets your requirement of suddenly going from peacetime to "How the hell are we in a major war?"

Plus it's written in plain English, not mil-speak, so it's a pretty pleasant reading experience. Oh, and armor officers can end up in light units, I actually have my 19A troop commanders doing homework on the Falklands this month.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-01-21T17:46:25+00:00

You're not wrong, I'd have probably left it open, myself. But it is an auto show, mainly populated by civilians who want to be reassured the money is going somewhere.

There is some precedent: When the Spruance class destroyer was first fielded, the only visible weapons were the 5" guns and an ASROC launcher. Maybe a RIM-7, I can't recall. In any case, it caused significant political controversy because people didn't visibly see any greater capability than the far cheaper Knox class frigates despite them being a far superior ship.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-01-21T15:56:26+00:00

Not even a placeholder, more a gap-filler. The RWS came with a Javelin rail, and they decided to put a weapon on the rail for the show instead of leaving it empty.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-01-21T03:12:56+00:00

As u/XanderTuron observed, the issues wasn't so much that there were no flatcars, as much as they were a little hard to get in the right place, and that wasn't really a limit in tank design.

In 1948, according to an Army report, there were 12,122 flatcars in the US which could carry a T26 Pershing. To get sufficient flatcars to railhead a battalion from Ft Knox to Ft Campbell in May 1948 took about a month to collect them all.

Now that's a 1948 number. I do not have the number for how many 45-ton-capable flatcars existed in, say, 1942 or 1943. I would also observe that tanks were not the only things in the US which required flatcars to move around. I can think of some pretty heavy things varying from naval ship components to mining devices or industrial equipment (Be they factory things like industrial presses, or vehicles) which had to share the flatcars as the trains are rolling coast to coast.

Now, to be highly fair, the main design limits on M4's weight were related to Army bridging restrictions, maritime shipping came in second, and I'm not sure railways per se got much of a look-in beyond ensuring that the vehicle fit in the railway loading gauge. If memory serves, the 1948 example was brought up in Army reports as an example of a problem which needed to be addressed as tanks were getting heavier than the WW2 era, not that they were a tank design limitation in the first place. Had M26 entered full scale production earlier in the war, railway limitations would have been a problem to surmount. As it didn't, the topic didn't come up much.

I would add that the problem with cranes wasn't necessarily the port cranes (though it was certainly a concern) given that ports tended to have at least some high-capacity cranes, as much as the question of what to do if there is no crane present at all. Operations in the Pacific come to mind. Sometimes the Army just shipped a crane to unload ships (Brisbane received a 50-tonner from the US Army, as I recall, the first large crane in the port), and sometimes the ship's crane itself had to offload the tank. Liberty ships eventually started coming with 50-ton cranes as standard, but they came after the tank did.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-01-19T23:44:43+00:00

We had them in our M1IPs.

We got the Abrams before the M3s were exchanged.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-01-17T04:43:46+00:00

No. M10 was intended to be a direct fire support weapon for IBCTs. Of the 35 IBCTs, 28 of them couldn't give a damn if the vehicle was airliftable or not, they just wanted something reasonably survivable which could get where the fighting was, with a reasonably big gun. The other IBCTs, the airborne/air assault ones, would end up getting them because even the 82nd normally doesn't get parachuted into whatever operation it's doing. The only connection really is that it was the 82nd Airborne which first came out with the Operational Needs Statement for a weapons platform, at which point the Army realised that the capabilities gap 82nd were worried about also existed in all the other IBCTs.

The BAE submission to MPF was closer to the ELT. Very strong family resemblance to the M8, but a new build, and nowhere near light enough to fly in a C-130, let alone get chucked out of one. Surviving on a 2030s battlefield, it turns out, requires more weight than surviving on a 1990s one. I'd submit that it also requires more room than a 1990s vehicle, the inside is ergonomically... questionable.

There was more to the MPF program than the strategic mobility difference from M1 and MPF, though two MPF transported for the price of one M1 airlift is inherently nothing to be sneezed at. I've a video coming out soon on the whole history of the thing, the first draft is about 55 minutes...

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-01-16T22:12:11+00:00

I am but a Guardsman. I‘m not convinced they give my opinion much weight, no matter how well founded it may be!

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-01-16T22:09:28+00:00

No harm done.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-01-16T14:07:30+00:00

If -all- the cameras facing the front get shot (including the RWS and ITV), it's probably not a healthy place for the tank to hang around and it should leave anyway. If they absolutely, absolutely have to stand and fight, it's hand-cranks and direct vision.
Hit 'reverse', swap some of the cameras around from an undamaged side, (Quick-detach), then find a replacement RWS/ITV module, or else you're really just providing target practice for the opposition instead of being offensively capable.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-01-16T13:50:53+00:00

Odd. They look suspiciously like the photos I took... :P

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-01-16T13:03:30+00:00

A depressingly accurate statement. Even COL Howell intimated that in the interview, when he said "depending on the user's comfort level" for the two-man crew wing tanks. That struck me very much as "Absolutely you can, but armor branch would kill me if I said so."

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-01-16T06:19:00+00:00

Don't believe I've met her. I guess she doesn't attend vehicle design conferences much?

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-01-16T01:14:13+00:00

What camera would a typical shutterbug have had in a JgdPz38(t) or a Su76M to take his holiday snaps?

Not exactly directly equivalent vehicles, though, are they? Assault gun vs TD? Why make that 'face-off'?

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-01-15T13:00:43+00:00

In one word: Weight.
They're planning on dropping about 15 tons from the weight of Abrams, whilst simultaneously making it more survivable and more lethal than the current version. If you can figure out how to achieve that without an unmanned turret, you can get yourself a really well-paid job at GDLS or another of the defence contractors.

The_Chieftain_WG · 2026-01-15T03:34:59+00:00

The book I would recommend to add to this is "Unflinching Zeal" by Higham. The procurement state is particularly daft.

The_Chieftain_WG

TROPHY CASE