Joint Task Force Pope

[redleg]

I am curious about unit designations as well, PG. All I see are references to which divisions they will be assigned, but nothing about specific units. When the 82nd still had a Sheridan battalion, wasn't it designated as an armor battalion? I think 3/73 AR? Was it used in the same way that the Army intends to use the Booker?

Another question I have from a modeling perspective is will the Bookers ever receive a camouflage paint job? I have seen pics of them in tan and green, but no camo.

[panzergator]

You are correct about the Sheridan battalion. It was organized as a "light armor" battalion (FK ST 17-1-1/2, 1978) and provided armor support in accordance with the division's mission. It was parceled out by company or platoon as needed. It may be the same will be done with the M10 battalion, but this vehicle and the doctrine for its employment have been developed by and for Infantry Branch. In some ways, I would be surprised if Infantry Branch would allow it to be assigned an Armor unit lineage. In the '30s, the first tank units organized under Infantry Branch auspices (no Armor branch at the time, Infantry was the proponent agency for tanks) used an Infantry regiment number followed by " Tanks" in parenthesis, so that might come up, perhaps with "Mobile Gun" or something instead of "Tanks." Why they decided the thing would be crewed by Armor guys I do not know, but it certainly adds to confusion about the gun's role.

With only a 105mm, the M10 is not sufficiently armed to USEFULLY fill a tank role, although you know it will be called upon, at times, to do so. The fact is, if you need a tank, YOU NEED A TANK. Nothing less will do. You could put a 120mm on the chassis, drop the turret crew below the hull top, give it an auto loader, and send it in with your expeditionary force as armor support. The gun would be more effective, the weight would be about the same, but the armor would still be insufficient, so you still wouldn't have a tank, but you WOULD have something with a better chance of killing a tank. It still might be better to just provide a light vehicle with Javelin launchers that carried a LOT of Javelins. I haven't seen anything yet that convinces me that M10 isn't a waste of resources, although I'm happy to see more trained Armor crewmen. Make it useful with a 40mm or 57mm autocannon, give it a Javelin launcher, make it an APC or an IFV. Make it a cavalry vehicle - reconstitute cavalry units again. Anything but what it is now. Keep in mind that, at least according to some reports, Bradleys have been effective against Russian tanks.

Make it effective as an anti-armor vehicle for use until reinforcing tanks can be delivered.

Light tanks have some irrational attraction, for some reason. The weight, gun, and supposed use of this vehicle make it a waste of resources. Maybe someone could convince me otherwise.

[Begemot]

I don't want to hijack this thread, but Panzergator's comment: "if you need a tank, YOU NEED A TANK. Nothing less will do" raised the question: Is that now actually true? In the war in Ukraine the battlefield seems to be dominated by drones. Drones are killing anything that moves and doesn't move, including tanks and are even pursuing infantry into underground bunkers, not to mention real time observation of battles giving tactical commanders the God's Eye view of their unit's operations that was a feature of table top wargames. In this kind of environment what is the future of the tank? Are they worth the expense going forward?


Begemot

[panzergator]

Weapons like Javelins and drones are certainly existential threats to the tank in its traditional role, as are artillery and missile-emplaced mines. Doctrine and tactics are lagging, at least as far as we know. Battlefields get more deadly with developing technology.

I'm sorry to say, I'm unable to keep up with developments. I AM certain that if a TANK can't do it, the M10 can't.

Drone swarms present challenges to any armored vehicle or attack helicopter. I await developments.

Anything from the ADA guys?

[panzergator]

I saw an article yesterday about a successful test of a British energy-based anti-drone
weapon.

[redleg]

I finally finished the last of my Strykers last night. The photos aren't the best, but I'm already moving on tot he next project!

The only Strykers I own are the combat command from many years ago, so I don't even have a full proper company. I will have to rectify that at some point.

[foxbat]

Nice vehicles, indeed. Thanks for sharing.

[chrisswim]

Yep, good looking Strykers.
Send them into battle.