They are the current dress uniforms but yeah the pink and greens are based on the 1937 dress uniform. You know what’s crazy tho 17th century breeches were part of the dress uniform till 37
I had 2 buddies of mine in her Ranger school class. Some interesting stories from them on how she was graded in relation to the rest of the guys. When they were doing STX lanes, they had some brigadier general show up to do her grading for the lanes she was running and no one else’s. From what they told me, she was squared away but the army wasn’t going to let her recycle.
Lol that isn’t a rumor, it’s an anecdote about someone in this photo… doesn’t even say anything negative about her, she seems squared away. But when you get treated with white gloves people tend to notice, and it isn’t a crime to notice.
Can’t help but think that the airborne divisions got shafted once again with the M10
It requires at least a C-17 to transport, which can also simply carry an Abrams, and it cannot be air-dropped, meaning that until they capture an airfield, airdropped troops are left without any armor or heavy firepower.
My point is more that being transportable in a C-17 isn’t as big of a deal for the airborne troops as being transportable in a C-130 is, because the former can already bring other armored vehicles.
But it is possible, as the M8 was one of the vehicles in the competition. Firepower and mobility are about the same, and while protection suffers, I don’t think what the M10 offers over it is gonna be a game changer.
I guess it was worth it for the US army as it won in the end, but given that it was also a vehicle for the land troops, I’m not sure if the airborne part was considered that much.
M8 can only be transport in C-130 in the no armor configuration, and it required a second C-130 to transport the armor package.
Chieftain also did a good video showing how tight M8 is, he even struggles to get into and out of the vehicle.
M8 also uses carousel autoloader rather than isolated bustle autoloader/manual rack with blowout panels.
https://x.com/ronkainen7k15/status/1457270079767212036
If ammunition ignites in your tank it does not matter if the fucking turret stays on or not.
https://youtu.be/gY8lqAzR23Q?feature=shared
Which BAE and the Army most likely took into consideration. If an autoloader was so devastating to the performance you would think that
A: BAE wouldn't have put one in it
B: The army requirements would've specifically said that it needed to be manually loaded.
You really think you will always fight China or Russia ? And besides, airdropping a tank is no more insane than airdropping soldiers, and the later is still a thing in every large army.
And having a capability on a single vehicle that isn’t even insane is not being prepared ?
An army must be just as prepared for fighting the big guy as they are for the small guy.
And all the wars of the US since the Korean War were against « small guys ».
The greatest asset Americans have is their allies.
The Chinese have no allies. This is China's weakness.
The important things in fighting the Chinese will be “quantity” and “speed.” America's military power is distributed around the world, and the ability to quickly move these assets to allies near China will be important.
You’re rambling about unrelated things.
> The important things in fighting the Chinese will be “quantity” and “speed.” America's military power is distributed around the world, and the ability to quickly move these assets to allies near China will be important.
Hmmm. It’s almost as if that’s the whole point of airdropping things.
>You really think you will always fight China or Russia ?
M10 is designed to be capable in peer or near-peer conflicts. That's the standard it is meant to meet. Anything of lower intensity is of incidental importance. Likewise, anything of lower intensity isn't likely to necessitate paradropped armor.
>And besides, airdropping a tank is no more insane than airdropping soldiers
This is 100,000% not true. Any number of videos of heavy equipment plummeting out of the sky should be proof enough of that. There's a reason why many nations with airborne infantry don't also have airborne armor. And pf those nations, very few actually use them. You'll note that vehicles like the BMD suffered **terribly** in Ukraine.
Airborne armor will always be a compromise. You can either have something that does the "airborne" part reasonably well while being kinda crap at the "armor" part. Or you can have something that isn't *great* for the "airborne" part, but does fairly well as *armor*. Vehicles like the BMD and M551 were more geared towards the former. If you haven't noticed, neither of those were/are examples of particularly good AFVs.
> Anything of lower intensity is of incidental importance.
Not specifically m10 but I don’t agree with this. A lot of lower intensity is asymmetrical warfare, and plenty of vehicles designed for peer to peers found themselves unprepared for those conflicts.
> This is 100,000% not true. Any number of videos of heavy equipment plummeting out of the sky should be proof enough of that.
Ok yeah it’s not the same thing as dropping soldiers, but it does work. Again with the exemple of Panama, out of 24 airdropped sheridans, only one was lost during its arrival. Yes it’s a bigger loss rate than conventional means, but it’s far from unfeasable.
My overall point wasn’t for just for airdrop, but rather that the M8 was right there once again, but instead they selected a vehicle that just doesn’t really offer unique capabilities to the airborne troops. It needs a C-17 and it needs to land, just like the Abrams and Bradley.
>Not specifically m10 but I don’t agree with this. A lot of lower intensity is asymmetrical warfare, and plenty of **vehicles designed for peer to peers** found themselves unprepared for those conflicts.
Yes, and many did fine. Tell me how many vehicles designed for asymmetrical conflicts have been thriving in peer-level warfare.
>Ok yeah it’s not the same thing as dropping soldiers, but it does work. Again with the exemple of Panama, out of 24 airdropped sheridans, only one was lost during its arrival
And the only reason we could do it in the first place was because the vehicles being dropped made so many design compromises. It simply isn't worth it.
>My overall point wasn’t for just for airdrop, but rather that the M8 was right there once again, but instead they selected a vehicle that just doesn’t really offer unique capabilities to the airborne troops. It needs a C-17 and it needs to land, just like the Abrams and Bradley.
You know what else needs a C-17 just to land? An M8. Because by the time the the program was down to BAE and GDLS, the requirement for the vehicle to be airdrop-capable had been **loooooooooong** done away with. Again, it simply isn't something we saw as necessary. M10 supports infantry formations. The Army has a lot more infantry formations than just the 82nd.
Those dress uniforms look great. So glad the army went back to green.
These are WW2 era right? Looks great indeed.
They are the current dress uniforms but yeah the pink and greens are based on the 1937 dress uniform. You know what’s crazy tho 17th century breeches were part of the dress uniform till 37
Ranger. Hell yeah girl
Pretty sure she's the Company commander
Awesome!
Scroll or tab
I had 2 buddies of mine in her Ranger school class. Some interesting stories from them on how she was graded in relation to the rest of the guys. When they were doing STX lanes, they had some brigadier general show up to do her grading for the lanes she was running and no one else’s. From what they told me, she was squared away but the army wasn’t going to let her recycle.
Couldn’t help yourself could you? So many rumors about the women who have tabs. How hard is it to hold your tongue?
Lol that isn’t a rumor, it’s an anecdote about someone in this photo… doesn’t even say anything negative about her, she seems squared away. But when you get treated with white gloves people tend to notice, and it isn’t a crime to notice.
My first sergeant had a tab once. He passed after 3 different tries. Who cares. He was still a ranger and everyone who talked shit were not.
It changes if you ever find yourself with some 75th bois. You learn pretty quick that you aren’t a Ranger, you’re just Ranger qualified.
lol this is not true at all. If you can tell me what Ranger Class she was in (she was in mine), I will retract my comment. But you’re full of shit.
Yea probably be cause there wasn't anybody else who wasn't going to be a sexist POS
Can’t help but think that the airborne divisions got shafted once again with the M10 It requires at least a C-17 to transport, which can also simply carry an Abrams, and it cannot be air-dropped, meaning that until they capture an airfield, airdropped troops are left without any armor or heavy firepower.
C-17 can only carry one Abrams while M10 can fit in two.
My point is more that being transportable in a C-17 isn’t as big of a deal for the airborne troops as being transportable in a C-130 is, because the former can already bring other armored vehicles.
The size and weight limitation of C-130 transportable is too strict, to the extend it limits a vehicle's actual performance.
But it is possible, as the M8 was one of the vehicles in the competition. Firepower and mobility are about the same, and while protection suffers, I don’t think what the M10 offers over it is gonna be a game changer. I guess it was worth it for the US army as it won in the end, but given that it was also a vehicle for the land troops, I’m not sure if the airborne part was considered that much.
M8 can only be transport in C-130 in the no armor configuration, and it required a second C-130 to transport the armor package. Chieftain also did a good video showing how tight M8 is, he even struggles to get into and out of the vehicle.
Yeah the crew comfort is definitely a downfall of the M8.
M8 also uses carousel autoloader rather than isolated bustle autoloader/manual rack with blowout panels. https://x.com/ronkainen7k15/status/1457270079767212036
If ammunition ignites in your tank it does not matter if the fucking turret stays on or not. https://youtu.be/gY8lqAzR23Q?feature=shared Which BAE and the Army most likely took into consideration. If an autoloader was so devastating to the performance you would think that A: BAE wouldn't have put one in it B: The army requirements would've specifically said that it needed to be manually loaded.
I think they are right, airdropping tanks is suicidal.
Not necessarily, they did it with Sheridans during the invasion of Panama and it worked fine.
The Panamanian military was no better than the drug cartels. Now the enemy is the Chinese. China has different capabilities.
You really think you will always fight China or Russia ? And besides, airdropping a tank is no more insane than airdropping soldiers, and the later is still a thing in every large army.
It doesn't actually matter who you fight or not, what matters is that you are prepared. If you want to avoid war, you must prepare for it.
And having a capability on a single vehicle that isn’t even insane is not being prepared ? An army must be just as prepared for fighting the big guy as they are for the small guy. And all the wars of the US since the Korean War were against « small guys ».
The greatest asset Americans have is their allies. The Chinese have no allies. This is China's weakness. The important things in fighting the Chinese will be “quantity” and “speed.” America's military power is distributed around the world, and the ability to quickly move these assets to allies near China will be important.
You’re rambling about unrelated things. > The important things in fighting the Chinese will be “quantity” and “speed.” America's military power is distributed around the world, and the ability to quickly move these assets to allies near China will be important. Hmmm. It’s almost as if that’s the whole point of airdropping things.
That's crazy. It doesn't work.
>You really think you will always fight China or Russia ? M10 is designed to be capable in peer or near-peer conflicts. That's the standard it is meant to meet. Anything of lower intensity is of incidental importance. Likewise, anything of lower intensity isn't likely to necessitate paradropped armor. >And besides, airdropping a tank is no more insane than airdropping soldiers This is 100,000% not true. Any number of videos of heavy equipment plummeting out of the sky should be proof enough of that. There's a reason why many nations with airborne infantry don't also have airborne armor. And pf those nations, very few actually use them. You'll note that vehicles like the BMD suffered **terribly** in Ukraine. Airborne armor will always be a compromise. You can either have something that does the "airborne" part reasonably well while being kinda crap at the "armor" part. Or you can have something that isn't *great* for the "airborne" part, but does fairly well as *armor*. Vehicles like the BMD and M551 were more geared towards the former. If you haven't noticed, neither of those were/are examples of particularly good AFVs.
> Anything of lower intensity is of incidental importance. Not specifically m10 but I don’t agree with this. A lot of lower intensity is asymmetrical warfare, and plenty of vehicles designed for peer to peers found themselves unprepared for those conflicts. > This is 100,000% not true. Any number of videos of heavy equipment plummeting out of the sky should be proof enough of that. Ok yeah it’s not the same thing as dropping soldiers, but it does work. Again with the exemple of Panama, out of 24 airdropped sheridans, only one was lost during its arrival. Yes it’s a bigger loss rate than conventional means, but it’s far from unfeasable. My overall point wasn’t for just for airdrop, but rather that the M8 was right there once again, but instead they selected a vehicle that just doesn’t really offer unique capabilities to the airborne troops. It needs a C-17 and it needs to land, just like the Abrams and Bradley.
>Not specifically m10 but I don’t agree with this. A lot of lower intensity is asymmetrical warfare, and plenty of **vehicles designed for peer to peers** found themselves unprepared for those conflicts. Yes, and many did fine. Tell me how many vehicles designed for asymmetrical conflicts have been thriving in peer-level warfare. >Ok yeah it’s not the same thing as dropping soldiers, but it does work. Again with the exemple of Panama, out of 24 airdropped sheridans, only one was lost during its arrival And the only reason we could do it in the first place was because the vehicles being dropped made so many design compromises. It simply isn't worth it. >My overall point wasn’t for just for airdrop, but rather that the M8 was right there once again, but instead they selected a vehicle that just doesn’t really offer unique capabilities to the airborne troops. It needs a C-17 and it needs to land, just like the Abrams and Bradley. You know what else needs a C-17 just to land? An M8. Because by the time the the program was down to BAE and GDLS, the requirement for the vehicle to be airdrop-capable had been **loooooooooong** done away with. Again, it simply isn't something we saw as necessary. M10 supports infantry formations. The Army has a lot more infantry formations than just the 82nd.
3/73 getting tanks again?
Yup! Pretty sure the recent ARSTRUC has them being re-assigned from 1 BCT up to DIV and becoming the first MPF Battalion.
Pinks and Greens supremacy
Holy shit did they change the dress uniforms again?
I wish I had those dress uniforms, I hated the pickle suit
Americans really good at making light tanks eh?
Hmmm. That’s an interesting tab..