Gyrojet Pistol

[discord]

sen:
rifle range, 80%+ hit rate was the key, at 1km it takes skill, at 2km it goes beyond science into mystical prediction skills, remember even a really fast bullet takes a few seconds to get there(.338 lapua, favored long range round, has a muzzle velocity of 900m/s or so, it will lose some speed along the way, so about 3(no closer to 5) seconds for a 2km shot.), and a mobile target with that delay is rather difficult to lead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5MJI6NII68 <--- 2.5km i obviously doable, but it is damn difficult, and as it showed
hmm, 2500m five seconds, 500m/s average starting out at 900m/s it just might have gone sub sonic on the way, that fucks up precision something fierce btw.
according to data those rounds usually drop sub sonic at 1300m or so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Harr ... 8sniper%29 <--- run down of the longest confirmed shot.

2. Abrams weighs in at 68 tons, MGS comes in at 18.7 according to open data....pretty exactly fifty ton difference.
road friendly? i know the abrams is supposed to be this badassmobile, but REAL tanks avoid driving on roads, for tactical reasons.
and that is the reason why american tanks are afraid of IED's while the europeans in the same war were wondering 'what IEDs? we never encountered no stinking IEDs!'
M1 bashing of the day done.

4. yup, such dial in devices are available on the open market, just add power.
but seriously, at 2000+ watts you will drown out just about any portable device at rather long range, remember, cell phone uses under one watt and got a range measured in km.
that also means positioning is important, if you get a jammer BETWEEN the units you are jamming....

but seriously, was thinking wrong with the sweeping frequencies, that might be bad for digital since packet loss is a serious issue...but not for analog.
so units that scan for radio, when it picks something up, jam the crap out of that signal for a few minutes, look for a new signal(that is not one of it's jammer buddies.)
i used 2000 watts since that is readily available in every home, possibly on multiple lines....for example, i could theoretically run three 3000 watt jammers without overloading my breakers at my home, i would probably want to stay at 2000 though, just to be sure.
so, target the freq, toss random noise at it, needs to be able to jam plenty of freqs too...well, comes back to what i opened with, not really difficult but you do however need plenty of power.

area denial.
is just that, it would not be individually guided, at best just 'home in on something' kind of indiscriminate slaughter.....
crazy idea, balloon tethered mines, simple mechanical release + radio+wire controlled, maybe electric too? kinda like bouncing betty, just different.
overly effective? not really, but fear factor? pretty huge.

[Senanthes]

sen:
rifle range, 80%+ hit rate was the key, at 1km it takes skill, at 2km it goes beyond science into mystical prediction skills, remember even a really fast bullet takes a few seconds to get there(.338 lapua, favored long range round, has a muzzle velocity of 900m/s or so, it will lose some speed along the way, so about 3(no closer to 5) seconds for a 2km shot.), and a mobile target with that delay is rather difficult to lead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5MJI6NII68 <--- 2.5km i obviously doable, but it is damn difficult, and as it showed
hmm, 2500m five seconds, 500m/s average starting out at 900m/s it just might have gone sub sonic on the way, that fucks up precision something fierce btw.
according to data those rounds usually drop sub sonic at 1300m or so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Harr ... 8sniper%29 <--- run down of the longest confirmed shot.

2. Abrams weighs in at 68 tons, MGS comes in at 18.7 according to open data....pretty exactly fifty ton difference.
road friendly? i know the abrams is supposed to be this badassmobile, but REAL tanks avoid driving on roads, for tactical reasons.
and that is the reason why american tanks are afraid of IED's while the europeans in the same war were wondering 'what IEDs? we never encountered no stinking IEDs!'
M1 bashing of the day done.

4. yup, such dial in devices are available on the open market, just add power.
but seriously, at 2000+ watts you will drown out just about any portable device at rather long range, remember, cell phone uses under one watt and got a range measured in km.
that also means positioning is important, if you get a jammer BETWEEN the units you are jamming....

but seriously, was thinking wrong with the sweeping frequencies, that might be bad for digital since packet loss is a serious issue...but not for analog.
so units that scan for radio, when it picks something up, jam the crap out of that signal for a few minutes, look for a new signal(that is not one of it's jammer buddies.)
i used 2000 watts since that is readily available in every home, possibly on multiple lines....for example, i could theoretically run three 3000 watt jammers without overloading my breakers at my home, i would probably want to stay at 2000 though, just to be sure.
so, target the freq, toss random noise at it, needs to be able to jam plenty of freqs too...well, comes back to what i opened with, not really difficult but you do however need plenty of power.

area denial.
is just that, it would not be individually guided, at best just 'home in on something' kind of indiscriminate slaughter.....
crazy idea, balloon tethered mines, simple mechanical release + radio+wire controlled, maybe electric too? kinda like bouncing betty, just different.
overly effective? not really, but fear factor? pretty huge.

If you consider trigonometry and a little dead reckoning to be "mystical prediction skills", then sure. At those ranges, you figure for elevation, air density, projectile drop over distance (which is pretty much a commonly known value for each round in a given air density, including when and if the round will go subsonic), windage, rotation of the Earth, target heading and speed, among other factors. Which is also part of the reason you have a spotter. A phone with the right apps could do a lot of it rather quickly. It's math, plus the skill to take advantage of said math.

Nine shots to range it, then engaged. Perfect conditions. Yup, sounds like long range shooting to me. 80% hit rate is pretty much wishful thinking, unless you're dealing with a stationary target, such as the video. Most such engagements under combat conditions resemble naval gunnery more than personal combat, with multiple shots to find the range, then a successful hit. The video is pretty impressive shooting, really, but tells me what I already know... That a good marksman can do it, even if it takes a few shots to find the distance. The scary part is that it's been done with weapons that are not as optimized for it as the one shown.

I'd quote my own experience with considerably less sophisticated equipment, but you'd have naught but my word on it, and that's just not something that would carry much weight in a debate.

2. Why yes, there ARE actually tactical reason tanks avoid roads, but I'm afraid they have nothing to do with the nationality of the vehicle, no matter how much anyone wants it to be true. Tank treads rip roads up, and it goes both ways. The tracks last longer over softer terrain. The only tank ever built with road travel in mind was the Christie... Which never made it into production. Further, roadside ambushes are commonplace now, which may or may not be a factor depending on the terrain. Frankly, in open terrain, engaging a still mobile MBT with light ground forces is pretty much suicide, since it can not only overpower them, but use it's mobility to dictate the flow of the battle. Different story in any sort of built up or otherwise disruptive terrain, where IED's, shoulder fired anti-tank weapons, and ambushes take advantage of the large size, relatively ponderous nature, limited close range defenses, and uneven armor distribution of any tank that Keith Laumer didn't invent.

Beyond that... *chuckle* Don't worry, M1 bashers are a dime a dozen (or maybe twenty four to a quarter?), so it's something I'm used to hearing on a regular basis.

The last one presented me with "proof" of a glacis blow through that consisted of an impact analysis that he'd somehow obtained; It clearly showed that the shot had penetrated the rear turret armor (the 'glacis', right? ^.~), struck the interior of the side turret armor (hint: closer to being the real glacis), and exited the vehicle through the roof (thin steel). Yup, glacis blow through. Very convincing!

I HAD to share that, since it's emblematic of the 'arguments' I hear in the matter, even if it's unrelated.

The moment you find proof that any tank in the world is completely IED proof, let me know. Been waiting on that one for six years, and no MBT has yet to qualify that has ever shook hands with a large enough IED.

4. It's come down to your opinion versus that of someone who has done the job in the field, as well as researched reasons why such methods don't work... Not much of a contest, but you're free to stick by it, if you wish. We'll have to agree to disagree.

As was said, first you have to find the frequency, which takes time and more equipment, and would actually be hindered by any broad spectrum jamming. Then you have to hope they don't just hop to force you to start over again, which more sophisticated systems do automatically anyways. Then you have to pray you're between the source and the receiver. All in a matter of the seconds you have while the transmission is active. After that, it's a contest of who has better ability to generate/ defeat EM noise, which has little to do with raw power after a point. AND you have to hope that the other guy isn't on the ball, since lighting up any sort of ECM is the same as blasting away with a fire control radar. A Big Red Bullseye.

This sort of thing was, as Nemo said, abandoned in the '70's, for the combined reasons of being ineffective against the newer generations of communications equipment and techniques, and that lighting yourself up in such a way was proving to be far too dangerous. It worked against field comm units in the 50's to 60's, and was later dropped for the simple fact that it doesn't work against any system capable of simple noise cancellation (applying an opposing frequency adjustment). Integrated communications also includes battlefield networking, ranging from portable terminals to those mounted in the Strykers and elsewhere, which has the same capabilities. 'Wireless' and 'communications', in the end, use the same transmission and receiving gear in the field.

To put it simply, jamming every frequency you can at the same time is, in effect, dividing up your systems capabilities into just that many efforts. The more you try and do, the less successful you will be in doing it. Without focus, power is barely a factor.

In the end, is it possible? Sure, if your opponent is incredibly out of date or using off the shelf civilian gear. Will it work against anyone with more than a laughable electronic warfare and counter capability? Nope.

[Nemo]

A phone with the right apps could do a lot of it rather quickly. It's math, plus the skill to take advantage of said math.

And dont forget, such a scope exists to do these adjustments automatically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvbyAcYjzlc

Costs a mere $17k for the scope and gun weapon system. Militarize it and slap it onto a rifle firing a round purpose built to reach 2km and call it $25k. Whats more, you can issue one such weapon to a squad and train everyone how to use it in a day.

[Senanthes]

Nemo, I like you. Just so you know. *chuckles*

But yes, that's more a weapon that I can get behind. Practical, useful, portable, and affordable.

[discord]

nemo: boring! it's not anywhere near crazy and out there enough.

now, to extend range....how about shooting a guided munition with a single shot gun in it, tag target, it shoots high above the target, the gyroscopic munition tracks target and waits for a good target resolution and shoots, suitably rube goldstein device for it to be cool.

[JQBogus]

And very complex and expensive. So much so that the process of developing and making it can be split up among plenty of congressional districts. This may be a winning idea!

[Senanthes]

SURGEON GENERALS WARNING!:

Discord, careful, you're starting to ALMOST sound American. That ideas just enough of a money eater to fly with someone rich enough to fund it over here. XD.

Love the mental image though, seriously. A gun that fires a gun that seeks out and shoots it's target...

WAIT!...

The last round MUST be a gyrojet munition. Icing on the cake!

[discord]

and now for a quick break.
<abrams bashing>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYKJ-jWI ... 4FAfSCWLpA
</abrams bashing>
it is a rather funny channel, and close enough to reality for it to be depressing.

[JQBogus]

Hmm.. I realize it is humor, but I just can't take it as 'close enough to reality' at all, given that it claims that the Tiger II comes out ahead of the M1 on armament. Might as well say the WWI vintage Mark VIII is superior to either since it had 2 cannons and up to 7 machine guns! Oh, and it had a 12 man crew... clearly superior to the 5 man crew of the Tiger II that is (according to the linked video) a factor of superiority for the Tiger II over the M1.

Are the guys other videos just as Trollish?

[Arioch]

I heard the Unreal Tournament music, started laughing, and moved on.

[Senanthes]

Blacktaildefense? Yeah... He's a laugh riot XD. AND shows up in TV Tropes! It's even better to read a debate between him and a man whose MOS is 19K. ^.^

I wouldn't take him too seriously if I were you, discord. He does a LOT of cherry picking for these videos, and freely admits he has no military experience. Armchair expert at it's finest! While he does, at times, have a good point, it's typically lost on the fact that there are just as many pro's as con's when it comes to modern military hardware.

[discord]

sen: i know, but his data is usually good, and he does have a point.

in this case, and many others, the strange results comes from the points of interest not really being weighted for importance, crew size is one such thing.

yes, larger crew has advantages, but most of those advantages get nulled by technology, take loader not really needed if you got a good auto loader, radio....has gotten much smaller and easier to use compared to WW2 era, so a dedicated radioman is no longer needed, omitting those two you go from ww2 era optimal crew size of five to modern day optimal which is three(although four can be argued with a backup loader/gunner/driver)

but seriously, the tiger 2 according to his numbers actually had some advantages in firepower, indirect fire capability for one, more variation on munition(that HE can be kinda useful), and finally more rounds for the big gun.

on a side note, been thinking for a while about a light recon tank, armored up to .50 and change(just so you actually need AT weapons to take it out, but if they got it and hit, it's toast), high mobility and off road capacity, good sensors(recon, duh) a bofors 40 as main gun(very versatile gun) and a couple of AT missiles(javelins or similar) so it can take out armor...I suppose it should have a coaxial gun too.
and try to keep overall weight under 10 tons(I want a C-130 to be able to carry TWO of these, and air drop capable of course) but this is probably too optimistic.
would probably be a two man crew, just to keep size down on the thing, although three would be 'better' but it would also bloat the vehicle somewhat, compromises...
secondary jobs, CIWS(the 40mm and sensors combined should be able to get the job done with a software patch), infantry support as a heavy weapons platform(and pack mule carrying spare ammo, food, water), AA system(just swap the ATMs for SAMs and change software mode)

but basically it is a modern take on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX-13 with slightly different roles.

[Nemo]

yes, larger crew has advantages, but most of those advantages get nulled by technology, take loader not really needed if you got a good auto loader, radio....has gotten much smaller and easier to use compared to WW2 era, so a dedicated radioman is no longer needed, omitting those two you go from ww2 era optimal crew size of five to modern day optimal which is three(although four can be argued with a backup loader/gunner/driver)

but seriously, the tiger 2 according to his numbers actually had some advantages in firepower, indirect fire capability for one, more variation on munition(that HE can be kinda useful), and finally more rounds for the big gun.

Dropping crew size is a huge issue because the tank crew itself is tasked with maintenance of the tank in theater. Furthermore they have to rotate watch duty. This means a three man crew in combat theater has more work to split between them and less downtime. Its one of those innovations that work better during peace time than war.


As for indirect fire and specialized rounds, those tasks are offloaded to better suited platforms and weapons. Close air support and precision artillery strikes mean the MBT does not need that capacity.



Light tanks only armored to .50 will not pass muster. The common threat to a light AFV in the common place asymmetric warfare around the world today is going to be a roadside bomb. Every power that has fielded lightly armored AFVs has spent years bulking them up. In a shooting war between major powers any infantry support vehicle such as this would face off with RPGs. It just won't do.

Then there are other problems if its going to have every weapon system you describe on it all at once. Building a common platform that can perform different roles in variants is one thing, but slapping all that hardware onto one frame is not feasible.

[discord]

nemo: i did say MOST advantages are negated by technology, and the most obvious advantages of crew, but you can argue for a drop from the optimal during WW2 of five crew to a modern four due to easier maintenance and higher quality on most parts(some added work with auto loader, true.) with number 4 being mostly backup and extra hand(or radio operator), and three can also be argued on non MBT sized vehicles just to get and keep size down.

the capacity is nice to have, for the times the specialized hardware is not around.... admittedly this does not fit into american armored doctrine where the tanks flip the finger at poor infantry sobs and drive off into the sunset, for the rest of the world which still use combined arms however, infantry support is a good job for an MBT.


roadside bomb? in the middle of nowhere? this thing is designed to NOT drive on roads, and most assuredly move with infantry support.
and yes, RPGs are a issue, but to slap on enough armor to defeat them...well basically you have an MBT again, not a light tank....i could accept some ERA, it would give limited protection against RPGs at a minimal increase in mass, but it is still gonna be a increase in mass, and almost guarantee it not being able to transport two in a c-130.

all those weapons? an auto cannon, coaxial machine gun and some missiles? with the missiles being interchangeable so it's more like a weapon hard point, true.
however, this reminds me of something, the all mighty and awesome bradley, which got an autocannon, coaxial machine gun and some missiles....
the difference will be mostly in software really, to be able to use different ordinance and use it in different ways, the good thing is that they are fully different software systems and are not engaged at the same time.

[Nemo]

Hold up. The US military is combined arms, don't bash just because its vogue. Trolling will only get you so far. The role of infantry support gets assigned to platforms better suited to actually working with infantry. Whether the platform in question is good at its job is a separate question, and I'm staring right at the F-35 here. The Army catches a lot of flak for not using infantry as anything more than spotters for the expensive support vehicles and close air support.

AFVs can go off road. They don't unless they have to. You fight where the enemy is, not where your equipment is made to. These days that means in cities fighting guys in plain clothes. And when you kill the guy shooting at you they send in 5-8 year old children to pick up their weapons and run off with them so the next guy in line can use them. Then the guys with cameras walk up and take pictures of the "civilian" casualties. Wish I had those videos showing that right now. Can't find them online atm and the old IDE hard drive they were on burned up.

In any event, ciws requires a fast tracking turret. A Bofors 40 wont turn fast enough to engage threats close in like rpgs. That requires a dedicated active protection system like Trophy or Hard Kill. And the Soviets tried using a Trophy like APS in Afghanistan, fragged more of their infantry than they saved.

No Western military is going to spend money on a AFV that is only armored against a .50 cal. They learned in Iraq and Afghanistan that even the backwoods third world can get competent enough weapons from the people who hate you to make that a losing proposition.

And the missile box on the side is useful only if you intend to use it against MBTs. Air threats should be handled by dedicated platforms with the appropriate sensors and position to use them. Hardened fixed instillations should be hit by air support or artillery. The Bradleys carry Tows because of the overwhelming number of T series tanks the Soviets could field. Unless we are planning on going toe to toe with the current crop of fascists there the threat is different.

[discord]

nemo:
fact: in just about every country in the world doctrine dictates that infantry advances using MBTs as mobile cover. fact: US infantry can't do that due to stupid design.
fact: in just about every country in the world MBTs move with infantry to cover each others weaknesses. fact: US MBTs can't do that due to the same stupid design flaw as the above(that friggin turbine)
so much of US tank doctrine is based around that turbine it's flipping silly, and there are reasons the russians dropped the experiment that was turbines for tanks and rejoined the rest of the world in using diesel.

fact: the M1 Abrams was designed to be stationed in germany using the infrastructure available there, and assumed that such infrastructure would be around. fact: using it elsewhere means that such well devolped infrastructure might not be around, creating serious issues with tactical and strategic mobility.(both in fuel usage and road/bridge usage)
fact: the M1 Abrams is very awesome on paper. Fact: in reality it is not very awesome.

there are two major problems for the Abrams as a combined arms vehicle, #1 turbine and #2 the lack of a tank/infantry phone(just about EVERY other tank since WW2 has this feature.) okey, they actually added it AGAIN in the latest version of the Abrams(SEP 2), i wonder where it is? can't be behind, that would fry the poor infantryman....must be on the side then? no, it is behind, on a corner, but better than none i suppose...only took 20 or so years to add it.

side note, checking the interwebs, apparently the british matilda II infantry tank had a phone as standard as early as 1940, by 1945 just about every tank had one.

[Nemo]

fact: in just about every country in the world doctrine dictates that infantry advances using MBTs as mobile cover. fact: US infantry can't do that due to stupid design.

And in your eagerness to bash you missed it again. That tasking is offloaded to other, better suited platforms. The British and French style infantry tank was made obsolescent in WW2 in the face of the German Panzers. The infantry can use a light armored support vehicle, but not a MBT. Split them and focus them.

[discord]

nemo: and i am a follower of 'eliminate the not needed' to stream line things.
so, specialize....why not diesel the abrams, get a lightly armored truck(MRAP got this covered) and remove the bradleys altogether?
according to numbers i found, for two bradleys you could get one abrams and a truck...which together(assuming diesel abrams) would have a similar or slightly higher fuel usage, but better tactical mobility, more firepower and carry about as much troops/gear.

and might actually be cheaper in the long run due to mass production, and most assuredly could be cheaper to transport troops.

but, yes, you have a point about better platforms, but if you have a 155mm howitzer, why not have it capable of horizontal(direct) fire too? should not be an impossible(or even difficult) engineering feat.

[pinheadh78]

You can use a large caliber artillery piece such as a Howitzer or field-gun for direct-fire and there have been times that that has happened.

There was even that one time in WWII when Allied ships (cruisers and destroyers) used their heavy guns in tank-pinking when the German's were over-running a harbour the ships were based in. I'll post the link here when I get home and can find it as was a pretty crazy battle.

But in-general direct-fire (tank gun) weapons are very different from in-direct fire weapons (artillery) and don't really work well when the roles are swapped. The shells have different velocities, trajectories, drop-over-distance, weight of the weapons system, and speed of re-targeting. The gas pressures, riffling and types of ammunition don't really carry over well.

Trying to design a weapon that works well for both roles has been done before with varying degrees of success but such things never really excelled in either role.

[Senanthes]

nemo: and i am a follower of 'eliminate the not needed' to stream line things.
so, specialize....why not diesel the abrams, get a lightly armored truck(MRAP got this covered) and remove the bradleys altogether?
according to numbers i found, for two bradleys you could get one abrams and a truck...which together(assuming diesel abrams) would have a similar or slightly higher fuel usage, but better tactical mobility, more firepower and carry about as much troops/gear.

and might actually be cheaper in the long run due to mass production, and most assuredly could be cheaper to transport troops.

but, yes, you have a point about better platforms, but if you have a 155mm howitzer, why not have it capable of horizontal(direct) fire too? should not be an impossible(or even difficult) engineering feat.

I can actually answer this... The AGT-1500 has several advantages over a diesel engine that are apparent if one looks at the tradeoff. And before I begin, I have to ask... How does using a turbine engine prevent a tank from doing what another with a diesel does?... (Hint: the exhaust 'issue' is only an issue because it's presented as such, yet not so in reality).

Now then, onwards...

1. The AGT-1500 is a true multifuel engine. Now, a diesel CAN be run as a multi-fuel system, but having worked on such in the past, I can tell you plainly... You do NOT want to do it. The injectors will be screwed in short order, and you'll lose a great deal of power while it does remain running, due to the simple fact that a diesel is mechanically optimized to run on diesel fuel. Biofuels of any sort are exceptionally bad about this. Turbines burn hot enough that pretty much anything combustible can be used as fuel without issue, from raw kerosene to gasoline to diesel to jet fuel. The Australians, for example, run their M1A1 AIM's on diesel without issue (Diesel Abrams, right here. ^.^). We run them on JP8, along with literally everything else, as a common fuel type.

2. A turbine engine has approximately 33% fewer moving parts, which in turn makes the engine less prone to failure. The record number of failures during Gulf War I was due to improperly fitted air filters, allowing sand into the engines... And surprise surprise, the other major MBT to see action then, the Challenger II, had the exact same issue with it's diesel. Let grit in, and it hardly matters what you've got under the hood, it WILL fail, fast. On a related note, that reduction in mechanical complexity makes for a smaller, lighter powerplant compared to a diesel of the same output. Look up a video of an M1's power pack being removed... Literally 70% of what you will see is the transmission, with the turbine looking like an afterthought bolted onto the end.

3. Power curve. A diesel has to spin up to speed, delivering peak horsepower only at a certain RPM, and not before or after. A turbine, from the moment it is spun up to operating speeds, delivers its full horsepower across the entirety of the power curve. Top speed is pretty much a hollow statistic, when it comes to an MBT, whereas acceleration, especially up a grade or over rough terrain, means everything when it comes to taking advantage of cover or getting out of the enemy's gunsights. Acceleration is something the M1 has in spades.

4. On the subject of RPM's... Revving an engine at high RPM's, outside of it's optimal range, kills it's service life. For a diesel, anything above about 2.5k is not good for it, and pushing along 50 plus tons of tank with a need for power will push it above that. As mentioned before, above a certain RPM gives you very little return, and steadily running above about 3k, you're likely to damage a diesel. The AGT-1500, by comparison, spins up to 20k to start (startup takes about fifteen seconds, FYI), and comfortably operates at 35k without ill effect. While the diesel looks more reliable on paper, it only remains as such in a certain operating range. After that you'll be replacing head gaskets, injectors, piston rings, and turbochargers regularly.

5. Quiet operation. While this may not sound like a serious advantage, it has proven to be as such. Diesel engines, even with proper mufflers, are noisy, rattling things in operation. By comparison, the M1 is very quiet, and has more than once quite literally snuck up on opposition both in training and in combat (early exercises earned it the nickname 'Whispering Death', and numerous near training accidents when one came crashing through the trees without warning).

6. Cold starting. Much like a gas engine, if you get a diesel cold enough, it will not start. Or, at best, will grudgingly do so and need a long warm up period. Turbines, unless literally frozen in a block of ice, will start every time in temperature ranges from cold to subzero, and have a shorter warm up period.

Now, there are some cons to using this sort of power plant, but that was well understood before it was ever used. It's a tradeoff, and wasn't done on a whim my friend. The higher fuel use was considered acceptable, since we've got the logistics to handle it. The more expensive replacement parts were also acceptable, since we've got the funding to keep them rolling. Beyond that, simple upgrades and operational procedures have largely taken care of other related shortfalls.

Also, on the subject of 'not needed', an MRAP, or any other armored truck, simply isn't suited to combat operations beyond a certain point. They lack the armor, crew protection, and firepower to even come close to taking over the role of a tracked IFV like the Bradley (for all it's flaws...). The concept of wheeled vehicles over rough terrain also presents problems that a tracked combat system just doesn't have. There is a place for both. Your thought there ignores the fact that literally every major military on Earth has a tracked IFV in their inventory, and is continuing to design and build new models, instead of using an MRAP like vehicle as a substitute.

And yes, it does have an infantry phone. It's on the aft quarter. Not every tank has been fitted with one, by the way... And I don't just mean the M1.

The exhaust 'issue' is vastly overrated, in all reality, merely as a talking point that has no actual bearing on the vehicles operations. You don't want to get near any exhaust, but nobody's ever cooked just standing there. It's a bit warm, I can tell you, but I didn't turn into a charred skeleton just standing in the wake, and infantry can walk right up without an issue to make use of the phone. The reason you see them so far back at times, at least 20 ft, is due to ricochets... Whatever hits that metal box has to go somewhere, and ricochets tend to travel parallel to the surface they hit. Would you stand near a bullet magnet? I wouldn't. And no responsible vehicle commander would let them.

As far as infrared signatures go, all armored vehicles have a high signature, and IR optics will pick out the exhaust of a diesel tank as brightly as a turbine, which has been proven (the difference between 299 degrees and 499 degrees on such optics is pretty much nil. Hot is hot, as far as the system is concerned). A less commonly known fact is that the AGT-1500 uses a recuperative exhaust system, scavenging it's own fumes to increase thermal efficiency by raising inlet temperature, which also cools it off a bit in the process.

Nemo has made all my other points for me. And no... I'm sorry... Blacktails "information" is not good for anything but a laugh. He cherrypicks, ignores any and all advantages that are present, and has more than once proven that he knows little more than talking points, which quickly fall apart in the face of anyone who has actual expertise or experience in the matter. You're free to believe him if you like, but I prefer to have the whole picture, myself.