But that still has all the problems associated with why M1 Abrams are suboptimal for infantry.
1. Very slow rate of fire -- It takes time to load the weapon.
2. Low number of shells -- an M1 Abrams only can carry 40ish shots.
3. Extreme heavy weight / armor is redundant -- 70-tons means really big engines, really big engines uses a lot of fuel.
-------------
I'd say the "heavy vehicle" that is actually designed for infantry are the M2 Bradley IFV. Less than 30 tons, a smaller 25mm chain gun with 900-rounds, armor still too thick for small-arms fire (but not redundantly / absurdly thick like the M1 Abrams).
The 25mm cannon is still capable of firing those "anti-trench burst rounds" that started this thread, and a faster rate of fire would be more useful than a bigger, slower 120mm boom.
Things like the M1 Abrams exist to kill things like the M2 Bradley. Sure, the M1 Abrams has some tricks (mainly the 50-cal secondary gun) to deal with infantry, but a lot of its features are straight up redundant if there's no enemy armor around.
-------------
A lot of military weapons, maybe most of them, exist to beat the strategies that beat lower level tactics. Ex: F22 is designed to kill airplanes, but cannot serve as a close-air support fighter very well.
A civilian might have to worry about a Predator Drone (seemingly the main weapon we use to kill targets from the sky). But civilians don't have to worry about F22.
1. Very slow rate of fire -- It takes time to load the weapon.
2. Low number of shells -- an M1 Abrams only can carry 40ish shots.
3. Extreme heavy weight / armor is redundant -- 70-tons means really big engines, really big engines uses a lot of fuel.
-------------
I'd say the "heavy vehicle" that is actually designed for infantry are the M2 Bradley IFV. Less than 30 tons, a smaller 25mm chain gun with 900-rounds, armor still too thick for small-arms fire (but not redundantly / absurdly thick like the M1 Abrams).
The 25mm cannon is still capable of firing those "anti-trench burst rounds" that started this thread, and a faster rate of fire would be more useful than a bigger, slower 120mm boom.
Things like the M1 Abrams exist to kill things like the M2 Bradley. Sure, the M1 Abrams has some tricks (mainly the 50-cal secondary gun) to deal with infantry, but a lot of its features are straight up redundant if there's no enemy armor around.
-------------
A lot of military weapons, maybe most of them, exist to beat the strategies that beat lower level tactics. Ex: F22 is designed to kill airplanes, but cannot serve as a close-air support fighter very well.
A civilian might have to worry about a Predator Drone (seemingly the main weapon we use to kill targets from the sky). But civilians don't have to worry about F22.