To add a few points I wasn't able to mention and to address some comments: The MPF concept isn't ill-advised. MBTs require more robust infrastructure and logistical backing to support them. They're more difficult to transport, recover, and often cannot go into certain areas because of their weight. Having a lighter and rapidly deployable counterpart to the MBT which can provide fire support for the infantry in a wider variety of environments is a solid idea. A lot of other countries have developed similar vehicles. The Japanese Type 16 MCV, South Korean K21-105, and Chinese ZTQ-15 are a few examples. A few comments have asked why we don't just throw Javelins on some preexisting vehicles. While the Javelin is effective in the anti-tank role, it would be much less effective against infantry or hardened structures. A Javelin missile is also considerably more expensive than a conventional cannon round. Both the BAE and GD bids have mounted 120mm cannons in the past, though they likely weren't nearly as developed as their 105mm counterparts. Perhaps the MPF will be upgunned at some point in the future.

@GonzoGames

2 жыл бұрын

Also look at Leonardo DRS's RIwP program for the JLTV. While it doesn't have a 105, it can use many other different direct fire weapon systems on a light chassis. I built some of the sights for that program as well as the BAE MPF sights.

@dakotaallard6339

2 жыл бұрын

They also changed the turrets design for the GD, it's a lot lower with a lot less gap at the neck. I got to see both up close and comparing the two, the troops were ALL over the GD, only supervisors were looking at the BAE machine. Not a lot of urgency on the BAE side, I saw zero techs

@vandelayofficial492

2 жыл бұрын

wouldn't an advantage for the M8 be that the Army already chose it 25 years ago?

@John-ed8ye

2 жыл бұрын

105mm was a US Army requirement. The Army can always change its mind once it moves into full scale vehicle development.

@dakotaallard6339

2 жыл бұрын

@@vandelayofficial492 sadly no, it was shelved/stored/parked in a dark hole for years. No funding to put to it. That's what GD said about theirs. After the testing the piece was going to TACOM to literally sit outside until....whenever

Current musings at TRADOC suggest the MPF will be integrated as a division-level Tank Battalion for light divisions if it's adopted. The divisions it will support are basically all IBCT, but it doesn't look like they want them organic to the IBCTs themselves. The employment would probably include attaching to IBCTs, but in certain divisions the MPF Battalion will likely bear the brunt of the division's security and reconnaissance needs (because some divisions will lack cavalry squadrons). It's all in flux though so could change. Notably the symbols they're using for that unit in preliminary presentations is that of a tank unit rather than the mess that was the Stryker MGS unit symbols which may suggest they at least subconsciously are thinking of them as sort of a tank. As an aside, Stryker BCTs meanwhile are going to be paired with 2 Armored BCTs in Heavy Divisions, so they might not see a Stryker MGS replacement necessary (so no MPF for Stryker units).

@pokenaut7803

2 жыл бұрын

Holy Shit, it's Battle Order!

@v13r3r

2 жыл бұрын

Do you know why they dont want to add MPFs to ICBT? Isnt that the whole point?

@BattleOrder

2 жыл бұрын

@@v13r3r I haven't seen a reason but probably to add flexibility. The U.S. Army is planning for a shift back towards division-centric operations in the late 2020s/early 2030s. That involves shifting support elements from certain brigades back to divisional control (like it was before 2005) so the division commander can shape the situation by prioritizing how that support is used. Having the MPF under divisional control would give the divisional commander more options. They could attach them in direct support of the IBCTs (the only option possible if they were organic to the IBCTs), keep them as a mobile divisional reserve to reinforce success or counterattack against enemy attacks, or use them for recon/security.

@BattleOrder

2 жыл бұрын

@@v13r3r They'd also probably have to buy more to give every IBCT an MPF component. If they give a brigade a unit too small, like a company or something, those tankers would become isolated from their experts in their field, and stuff like training and maintenance would likely suffer (reducing readiness; this was an issue with the Stryker MGS). A Tank Company Commander is also going to not have that much sway in influencing a brigade commander in how their unit is best employed. Centralizing the tanks at division allows them to train together, centralize maintenance/sustainment, have access to a greater pool of armor expertise, and have a field grade officer at the helm who might have more influence in planning.

@v13r3r

2 жыл бұрын

@@BattleOrder ah, I see the logic now. Insightful as always. Thanks.

Ahhhh, I wish BAE won. The M8 is one of my favorite tanks ever, it looks so cool. Although the GD also looks nice to be fair.

@revolverswitch

2 жыл бұрын

Baby Abrams gets screwed over, again.

@YoRHaUnit2Babe

2 жыл бұрын

BAERIZON

@Thekilleroftanks

2 жыл бұрын

got a feeling it will. i give it a few years and the army is gonna make a fuss about the new light tank being dog shit and throwing it back into the useless bin. and then we will be at the start all over agian.

@iammrmech7650

2 жыл бұрын

I honestly hate how thin it looks, but thats just personal taste.

@janekfan666

2 жыл бұрын

God, sam. I LOVE the m8, it's probably the coolest light tank ever made.

It's sad to hear that BAE got kicked. I did the final building and testing of the sights for the prototypes. We put gen 2 flir in them but had some very nice day side equipment. 4k display and camera. The schedules were very very tight from when they were being built, plus most of the day side came from IMI (in Israel). My company also built the backup sight for the GDLS model but I wasn't apart of that contract.

@tedzhang4168

2 жыл бұрын

Wow cool insights!

@Arbiter55555

2 жыл бұрын

Dude, 4k display day sight sounds amazing! I'm on the last of the Stryker MGSs in Germany, so this platform type is rather near and dear to my heart. Sad to hear the BAE wasn't picked, but I will say the autoloader concept has me skeptical, since they're always the first part to break down for the MGS.

@s_ckem6846

2 жыл бұрын

Hi, my dream job is to be a mechanical engineer and work for bae systems. Do you work for them?

@tedzhang4168

2 жыл бұрын

@@Arbiter55555 a random question: if the auto loader broke down then the crew can still reload the gun manually?

@GonzoGames

2 жыл бұрын

@@Arbiter55555 its MUCH MUCH better than what the bradley has. I was the lead on IBAS(bradley sight) and it has a really shit black and white 480p camera and display. (the IBAS team was chosen to do the 15 prototypes for the BAE MPF.)

Sounds like a role the HSTV-L would’ve been good for.

@vignasimp2835

2 жыл бұрын

What about the aerogavin

@FMHikari

2 жыл бұрын

The aero-what now?

@swguren

2 жыл бұрын

@@FMHikari the aerogavin

@SaintJerry

2 жыл бұрын

I absolutely love the love for the HSTV-L in the comments of these videos

@ThatTurboProbe

2 жыл бұрын

@@FMHikari Ah, the Aerogavin. It's a big meme in the military community. If you want to know more, watch LazerPigs video on the Bradley Wars.

I'm sad that BAE got disqualified, the General Dynamics one seems far too large and is based off a hull that has had a lot of issues

@shanekhiu9884

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, it’s not promising

@TheRandCrews

2 жыл бұрын

I heard they even took our Amphibious or Airmoblie capacity so it made the M8 be more less competitive in their for having such capability

@86pp73

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, Britain is getting nowhere with Ajax, crews can't even use it for practical amounts of time due to how bad the internal vibrations are. I've heard a few other - mostly anecdotal - reports, but it lines up with what more "proper" sources are saying. How various regiments are struggling to store and maintain them in spaces previously used by Warriors due to their huge size, that sort of stuff. Much like their counterparts on the other side of the Atlantic, one has to wonder why American higher-ups are pouring good money into anything to do with the Ajax...

@cstgraphpads2091

2 жыл бұрын

@@86pp73 International money laundering.

@kesmeseker9593

2 жыл бұрын

Somebody did some lobbying, just sayin...

The M8 has been shafted before, I think it deserves another shot now, it really looks like the more beneficial vehicle to put into service - people really underestimate the benefits a vehicle with easy and simple logistics requirements and organisational requirements can give

@hibikiverney4146

2 жыл бұрын

Hi koala 👋

@spartanx9293

Жыл бұрын

M8 has been successfully shafted again General Dynamics seems to be getting all the contracts

The BAE's modernized M8 seemed like the better system for the given requirements. GDLS's Griffon 2 is about 5-8 tons away from being the same weight as a brand new T-72B1MS. If BAE could have updated the M8 to use the M1's FCS, I think they would have won. The issue being, GDLS is the one who developed the M1's FCS.

BAE in the early 2000’s turned the M8 into the Thunderbolt by putting a 120mm gun that had fired M829A2

Can we all take a moment to appreciate the work this man is doing to entertain and educate us? Man thank you very much!

AGS dying makes me cry.

*1 light tank battalion per division* *1 company per brigade* *1 platoon per battalion* *1 tank per company* Kind of neat but I wonder just how substantial that would actually be on the battlefield against a near/peer threat.

@krellio9006

2 жыл бұрын

Compared to what the russians are doing in ukraine? Where their tanks are dying en masse in a collumn?

@spartanalex9006

2 жыл бұрын

@@krellio9006 True, but that’s more due to the Russians refusing to use standard combined arms Infantry-Armor tactics to scout for and deal with ATGM teams.

@krellio9006

2 жыл бұрын

@@spartanalex9006 what im saying is its easier to just protect 1 light tank+1 MBT than an entire collumn. Russian tank in general uses ERA which made it almost impossible to be protected side by side with infantry because they would be vaporized by friendly ERA blast.

@spartanalex9006

2 жыл бұрын

@@krellio9006 Well, not really. Infantry protecting a tank from ATGMs involve them ranging normally a few hundred yards ahead of the column to scout for and eliminate missile teams. Not following tanks right next to them.

@sgtdocholliday4097

2 жыл бұрын

@@krellio9006 Its also easy to ambush your enemy if you now they cant leave a hardball rode. What is happening in Ukraine is a fluke do to the weather and ground conditions. If you know that your enemy has to use a rode because they will get stuck going cross county. Makes it easy to place your ATGM teams in the right place.

0:43 “oh that breech and commander felt nice, I’ve gotta get back for extra” bruh

I seriously want a T.O.W. Humvee in war thunder, I think it would be fun to run around in.

I can't believe the Army canned the XM8 again. It's crazy.

I recall that during the 1970s and 1980s the M551 Sheridan was tested with the 105mm M68 rifled gun. The tests found that while it was technically feasible to outfit the Sheridan's turret with the new tank gun, the recoil force would have been too much for the Sheridan's hull to handle without expensive modifications.

What a shame. I didn't hear BAE was disqualified. I was really hoping they would win because I have always loved the M8.

BAE's looked really nice and that iron fist protection system was like the cherry on top

Pls do more of these type of videos! They’re awesome

Another Spookston light tank video! Lets goooo

Spookston be hitting us with the transition from IRL MPL footage to the game at the start of the vid.

GD is also developing the AJAX, which is- so far- a complete failure. the MPF uses the same hull with the same issues. i think the history will repeat

@ToyotaTechnical

2 жыл бұрын

The people who proposed this should be put up on money laundering charges, especially since the evidence is so clear to even the layman. There are no more excuses for this kind of behavior.

@shanerooney7288

2 жыл бұрын

I'd just like to point out that the Ajax scout AFV has a similar size, weight, and firepower to WW2 medium tank "Matilda".

@RogueStormCB13

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah and they make stuff for the Abrams, so history might repeat itself with success

@Selvariabell

2 жыл бұрын

I think it is more of a British Army issue since other ASCOD users are very happy with their ASCODs, though I am surprised GD didn't upgrade their bid with an auto-loading Sabrah turret like the Philippine Army ASCOD

@thamemeez5702

2 жыл бұрын

@@Selvariabell the Ajax and the MPF use the shortened ASCOD chassis which is the issue

It's a shame BAE got removed, it's a really simplistic and usable design in comparison to the GD model, the extra weight will definitely be an issue if one had to be recovered and an aluminum turret doesn't seem very trustworthy to me, I would hate to be the commander looking down his sights just to get an AP round through the gut.

@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537

2 жыл бұрын

It's the corrupt Bureaucracy at work. American tradition. They have been fucking light projects for decades. They grafted their way into putting the M8 on backburner to buy Strykers/LAV's for 30 years before this clown decision. I can't say I am surprised, just constantly disappointed. I look at a lot of old projects that could be updated and be excellent for their role, but that is not how government corruption works. They don't have to man them, just profit off their decisions.

@CrayonEater255

2 жыл бұрын

It’s obviously not only aluminum

I remember watching the tradoc video about the new formation changes to the light IBCT's like 8 years ago using arma. Never heard much beyond that so I kind of figured it was a good idea fairy that was actually pretty good but didn't get enough funding and died. Cool to see this is still ongoing, always felt in the 101st that using up armored humvees with TOWs and javelin teams wasn't going to cut it against a mechanized and armored near peer/peer threat. The introduction of the Gustav to light infantry platoons does help but it still felt like we had a firepower issue in an environment where CAS could be operating in a contested airspace. Good video and good input from battle order, really insightful to see the T/O&E of how these are possibly going to be implemented as it stands now

the ajax hull seems like a very risky bid, doesn’t it have massive issues with vibrations and such? I don’t know much about the program at all, but hopefully that will have been worked out

@92HazelMocha

2 жыл бұрын

Iirc the UK has actually been looking to replace Ajax hulls for exactly this reason.

@browning2471

2 жыл бұрын

Ian Pederson is the issue with the hull literally a fundamental issue with the design itself? is there no bandaid fix for the ajax?

@elsjp1478

2 жыл бұрын

@@browning2471 My understanding is that AJAX based on the ASCOD hull which is about 28 tons and AJAX is closer to 40 tons, sounds to me like an overloaded chassis

@joshuamueller3206

2 жыл бұрын

I heard, via matsimus, that the Ajax prototypes are bad because the contractor in Spain did not build them square.

@remoquillojosemiguel1105

2 жыл бұрын

The ASCOD is a solid platform, the ajax just got "HUMVEED" which made it overburdened

The m8 tanks are just so beautiful.

Not that it would actually go anywhere, but it would be fun to see a company remake the M24 Chaffee with modern sights and FCS and submit it for consideration. It's light, very small, and while the gun may not be very powerful, it would still pack enough of a punch to service pretty much anything but an MBT

i believe there's another alternative for the 105mm APFSDS made by Cockerill, the M1060CV is either had the same penetration or better against the M900, it uses tungsten penetrator too

Very interesting development. After researching the CVRTs in the Falklands War for my videos my opionion and interest in "light" Tanks certainly changed.

@MrEsphoenix

2 жыл бұрын

If I win the lottery, first thing is do is but a CVR(T). They look fun as hell to drive

2 жыл бұрын

@@MrEsphoenix and you can get pretty much everywhere with them 😄 would love to own a tank. But in Germany you have to cut them up pretty bad to be able to do that

@MrEsphoenix

2 жыл бұрын

@ not sure if it would be the same over there, but the CVR(T) was designed to be road legal in Europe. In the UK you just need any weaponry decommissioned and your good to go. They rolled out of the factory with everything from indicators to rubber tracks.

2 жыл бұрын

@@MrEsphoenix in Germany you can't own an armoured vehicle. So there need to a number of holes cut into the armour. Those can be plated over with sheet metal. So that the police can disable the vehicle in an emergency. The road legal aspect is a secondary concern I think.

@MrEsphoenix

2 жыл бұрын

@ ahh ok, that's a shame but I understand the logic behind it.

Ah I wanted to see what BAE would do They are doing a really cool thing with the swedish CV90120-T and wanted to see more from them

Hey spook! Love your stuff but in the infantry we call them brigade combat teams as in my example I was apart of 101st (air assault), 2nd BCT, 1-26 infantry battalion. We don’t say IBCT because we don’t only have infantryman, half of the brigade is made up of support personnel and we usually have a company of scouts or armor with each battalion

I would love to see some British light tank videos on stuff they could add

The project wont fall through. The Marines are waiting for their Light Tanks.

A three man crew and autoloader just makes more sense for a light tank. I wish BAE could've won

Mfw 6.7 America trying to get the m60 and sit there

I wonder what you think about the option of adding the french EBRC Jaguar, as it recently got delivered to the army, its a real working vehicle and not a prototype anymore. It would help a lot for the French tech tree to have a wheeled light tank option at BR10+ with all the goodies of modern tank, being modern thermals, modern ammunition and better mobility than the previous french wheeled options. The gun would be lackluster in penetration at 140mm of penetration to 1500m range with the APFSDS, but the dual mode of the gun ( 200 RPM standard or 80 RPM high accuracy ) would open interesting gameplay options, enough to stay competitive if you were to get the side or rears of MBTs. The ATGM would also prove lethal. The fully unmaded turret with the very high up commander/gunner optics would also provide excellent vision and stealth to use said missiles. Tho i don't know if Gaijin is ready to introduce something released in 2022.

Heyo Spookston, I feel like this will be the best opportunity to request you cover the Turkish-Indonesian medium tank: Kaplan MT/Harimau, since you're talking about new tanks!

Cool, he is actually doing news now.

This is the first time I've heard someone specifically use the short ton. Noice. 👌

"Leave the army maidenless"

@Zorro9129

2 жыл бұрын

No maidens?

When I heard that GD's proposal is a aluminum turret but still gonna be like 30 to 40 tons, I start to realize just how fuck up American is nowadays

They should use 120mm I get that they want to save weight but the firepower is always handy not to mention it would share rounds with Abrams easing logistics.

@richardthomson4693

2 жыл бұрын

Rheinmetall has a released a lynx concept light tank with a 120mm

The modern army just consists of projects that is cancelled, over budget, hindered by government, and old equipment

@MaxwellAerialPhotography

2 жыл бұрын

The shift thats currently happening makes me think that this is more likely to see the like of day than previous projects. The last quarter century has the seen the US torn between the need for equipment suited to modern conventional warfare, the reality of fighting continuios counter insurgency warfare. Now that the US military is no longer tied up in asymmetrical warfare, and the near peer conflict is of much greater focus and likelihood, I think we’ll much better results from military procurement, which has undergone something of a quite change in the last 10 years.

@Shankinator-zx4tp

2 жыл бұрын

Yup, that's how weapons development is for just about every country these days.

@cnlbenmc

2 жыл бұрын

Then there's Russia; See Ukraine for examples...

@jintsuubest9331

2 жыл бұрын

Except you can't draw a line on so called conventional warfare and asymmetric warfare anymore. While large scale conventional operation is still very much on the table, you are just as equally likely to encounter professional trained combatant fight in a guerilla style, just with much better equiptment.

@little_lord_tam

2 жыл бұрын

@@Shankinator-zx4tp Not realy. Other countries put out some amazing tech. US too in aviation

Although it probably wont be a lot, but seeing as how the new tank is similar to m1 controls we could see prior marine tank crews that have been left w/o a job and/or had to transfer switch to the army for these. Have a friend who joined the marines to be a tanker on an m1 but he had to go amphibious assault vehicles cause he joined mid decommission. He has been thinking of transferring for a bit.

@stevenrodriguez763

2 жыл бұрын

he should just join the army to drive an abrams these wouldnt be replacing the abrams.

@matthiuskoenig3378

2 жыл бұрын

@@stevenrodriguez763 well he also joined when abrams was the only tank in service

I was shocked when they eliminated one company for noncompliance. Like you said it was during Covid and there were only two companies competing. It was my choice be a E would still be in the competition and would be likely winner. But obviously that’s not happening since they were eliminated.

105mm AMP round is under development so the issue you told at the last part of this video can be solved in the near future.

To those who that has doubts with the current US Army light tank program, that's understandable after the failure of the AJAX program for the British Royal Army. It might be unrelated but the Philippine Army's light tank program that uses ASCOD 2's hull made by GDELS fitted with Israeli 105mm turret (that has autoloader) is still going smooth and on its way for delivery by year end. So there's still hope that it might not be problematic as the AJAX IFVs.

Rather baffling that they scrapped the most promising entry. The GD MPF will be... A headache and a half, i'm sure.

Chefs kiss

This was cool ngl i like

like the concept, and I was actually thinking about this the other day... I wouldn't call this a "light tank" I would call it a heavy IFV/heavy MGS, I would love to see something like this but with a 120mm main gun with a base armor of 30-40mm AP protection with composite, ERA, and APS. With the thermal site. It's job would be to support infantry and hunt all non MBT vehicles but could kill/disable a MBT if need be.

@Gegengrupenfuhrur

2 жыл бұрын

I wouldn't call it a heavy IFV because it cannot carry troops.

@ah64dbeast37

2 жыл бұрын

@@Gegengrupenfuhrur yeah I should have said a heavy AFV or ISV infantry support vehicle... But really heavy MGS works best

@Gegengrupenfuhrur

2 жыл бұрын

@@ah64dbeast37 I would agree there. Especially ISV. Those are so vaguely defined in the modern Era.

One of the largest failures of the MGS is that Infantry Commanders refused to use them or have their formations train with them.

0:45 ah yes, my favourite enemy. The Turms who don’t even know what is ‘damaged gun breech’.

I'm pretty sure they're going to come up with a multi-purpose 105 mm round in the near future since they're proposing using that type of Cannon

I wonder if they might even consider the Lynx120 „tank hunter“, if the lynx KF41 IFV gets adopted as Bradley successor…

I got a model kit of one of these Nice to know more

Hey spook me and you were in a game together and I ironically the footage in this vid I was in and was with you good stuff bro!

What’s your opinion on there being so many Sherman tanks to have to play in the American tree

@norvinosorio22

2 жыл бұрын

To me, Shermans are just pain.

@maplesyrup6700

2 жыл бұрын

Very repetitive

@Zorro9129

2 жыл бұрын

What about other trees that are basically copy/paste?

@kohlshu8979

2 жыл бұрын

@@norvinosorio22 we need more Sherman's

@kohlshu8979

2 жыл бұрын

More

stuart time baby!

It's NOT A LIGHT TANK! (it's a medium tank) lol. A main concern for this item is air transportability. At their current design weight, 2 can be transported by C-17, as opposed to one M-1 Abrams. This allows for fast reinforcement of the initial attacking force.

Looking at the way technology goes this is a very smart decision. We need fast vehicles capable of withstanding small arms fire, while using active protection to deal with larger Atgm/ shells.

I will now use the M8 as reference for my light tank drawings Also do an everything wrong video on the A.I.D. tank and mech in the surge 2, the tank has quad tracks so have fun

The fact that the selected MPF requires a Hercules is mind boggling. An IBCT doesn’t organically have M88s, which means they’ll need to be added as well. But the M88 is only air transportable by C5, it’s too big for a C17, which means the strategic mobility of the MPF is HUGELY impacted. The main selling point is that airborne and other light divisions have light tanks, but now they can’t be recovered in the austere environments that light divisions are the most likely to be deployed to. Not to mention the huge costs of that added crew member in a time when the Army already can’t meet manning requirements and the additional casualties per vehicle in a near-peer conflict

Considering that MBTs are essentially heavy tanks nowadays and IFVs are too lightly armored to fill the gaps, i'd say having a dedicated light tank is a very good idea

@civilengineer3349

2 жыл бұрын

Why not just use an M48 Patton tank?

@Akrilloth

2 жыл бұрын

@@civilengineer3349 Because they still weigh way too much for a light tank role. Also, they pretty large as well.

@notstonks20

2 жыл бұрын

@@Akrilloth mobility also isn't as good as a modern light tank would have

@jaffacalling53

2 жыл бұрын

The largest MBTs may equal heavy tanks in weight, but they still differ in both role and protection. A heavy tank is going to have much more all around protection while a MBT is going to concentrate its armor on the front turret and hull.

@Akrilloth

2 жыл бұрын

@@jaffacalling53 A modern heavy tank would really just be a mobile bunker for urban/city defence, to ensure its flank proof, modern tactics (and missiles in general) makes it sort of pointless to invest in all-around armor out in the open. Can't really see anybody using funds to make something like this in the near future.

Spookston! When Facts Per Minute is a thing!

Could the GD candidate's turret be further designed to more likely recognized, in the heat of battle, as an M1 Abrams? This could elicit more panic in the enemy. It might also result in heavier weapons shot at it.

I always figured the Bradley filled the role as a light tank. I know it's an IFV, I always figured that the 30 mm cannon and then and the toe missiles could fulfill whatever role was needed as a light tank. I clearly don't understand military strategy so Terry strategy so I would assume that a light tank would have more survivability, And an easier time engaging other tanks? Because besides engaging two Heavily armored targets, I would imagine the Bradley could handle any light armor with its cannon.

@griffinfaulkner3514

2 жыл бұрын

A TOW isn't a proper replacement for a full-power tank gun. You not only have the ammo limitations, but missiles in general are far easier to spot mid-flight and do something about, and that's before active protection comes into the picture. A TOW might get swatted out of the air where a sabot round carries so much velocity that even if the round is struck by APS, it may still impact the target with devastating results. Not to mention the utility of large-caliber HE or HEP rounds for dealing with bunkers or troop concentrations.

@bubbasbigblast8563

2 жыл бұрын

It basically is, but the Bradley is really too heavy to fit the role. In the past, light tanks were supposed to be air-moveable, and the Bradley is too heavy for that, barring specialist equipment. Now, the Army says it doesn't have to be air-dropped, at least, which makes me think the goal is more about overall mobility; but in that case, needing a specialist lift vehicle makes the current choice of light tank rather awkward.

@92HazelMocha

2 жыл бұрын

I served in a Stryker bct before and this is my exact same question. A 30mm gun offers excellent effectiveness against light vehicles and iirc the Army is already looking to have a new ifv that will be even more capable than existing platforms. Yes the Bradley is heavy but that's largely due to its protection which is something a light tank will still need. So while an unarmored light tank weighs less, one with similar protection will weigh something similar. Additionally the tow is old and needs to be replaced but javelin and hellfires already exist so all that's really needed is to integrate those into existing platforms.

@ptranchand52

2 жыл бұрын

@@92HazelMocha i agree, french military replace their old light amx 10Rc (105mm canon) with the Jaguar (40mm gun), it has 4 ATGM for heavy target and the cannon is excellent against infantery, light vehicule, building, helicopter. It also has an armor piercing shell with 140mm of penetration (good for broadside heavy tanks), he can be aero transportable. Anyway, I don't know what is the goal of having a tank very similar to the stryker and the abrams but for a very different mission with the same armement (sry for my poor english)

@matthiuskoenig3378

2 жыл бұрын

the problem with IFVs is they waste volume and thus weight/etc on transport capacity (which also forces an ineffecitent shape, so even if the volume is filled with useful equipment its still inefficient). making them overly heavy for the same combat power. and autocannons have limited range compared to larger weapons, and small calibre smart munitions are less effecient than larger smart munitions (fuses take up larrger % of volume). autocannons are useful but can not fullly replace larger cannons. and bigger guns are currently only on heavier tanks which are hard to deploy.

While strikers are cool they are kinda light in the armor department but they also have alot of weapon systems

MPF has been officially introduced as the M10 Booker now

Somewhat surprised to not see the CV90-120 in there. Or an auto cannon armed vehicle with ATGMs strapped to them, though I guess they're looking specifically for armored fighting vehicles and less infantry fighting vehicles.

@joshuawilliams9020

2 жыл бұрын

The problem isn't that they are supposed to engage enemies MBTs, but large caliber cannons are better to engage fortified position. Plus large caliber cannons has better range auto cannons

2:30 "Based on the Ajax hull" RIP

I predict this gets cancelled, again. Are there any assets within an IBCT that can recover the Ajax based MPF? Why we are adding a new and different chassis to the mix, when we were trying to reduce that factor by adopting AMPV?

@jamieobree1181

2 жыл бұрын

Honestly it should, instead of a proper purpose built light tank, the GD offering is a cut down M1 Abrams that's still 40 tons, so it has all the trouble of a heavy vehicle without the armour.

im putting money on the griffin II simply cause I like its design and GD has a good history with armored vehicles making it into service.

@testaccount4191

2 жыл бұрын

BAE, makes and updates all of the UKs armored vehicles so i think both companies are capable

@einar8019

2 жыл бұрын

Good history?????? The chassis its based on is a literall faliure

WOOOO never clicked on a video this fast before

lets see how op active protection systems will be

Would the rheinmetall lynx 120 have been consedered a possible candidate? Italy right now is considering buying the kf41 lynx as the new IFV, the lynx 120 as a light/medium tank and the new Eurotank as a replacement for the Ariete. Basically have one big order and move everything fast and from technology that is already available.

Hopefully better than the current Strykers. Something that will fix the faults of previous Vehicles.

i wandered if there was a cannon bigger then the 105mm but not as big as the 120mm so i did some research and found out the british made a 110mm cannon in 1970 and so wandered if that cannon like that can be good for the mobile protected firepower

I have had this idea for a tank concept for quite a while now, and I have finally decided to share it. Ok so, brief bit of background; I originally got the idea from watching 'Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade' tank scenes and I thought 'why not incorporate a more modern-day design into a similarly styled structure?' In other words, replace the armaments and basic technology with modern-day equivalents while keeping the overall design. On to the actual tank design; first of all armaments: 2 M2 Browning machine guns, 2 flank guns, and 1 110mm to 115mm tank gun. The concept is easy to understand; say you are up against 3 enemy tanks and you can take out the center one because your main gun is pointed at it, but you can't traverse the turret fast enough to get the other 2, which is where the 2 flank guns come in. The 2 machine guns are located towards the back of the tank, whose role is infantry support and fire suppression (both roles apply to flank guns as well). The size of the tank is something more recently developed, with the main hull being 6 feet in height (from the bottom of the tracks to where the turret begins). Because I believe in a good middle-ground between functionality and comfort (luxury); in other words I like to have as much comfort as possible without fully sacrificing functionality. Thoughts and suggestions are welcome, thanks!

All I’m saying is they should look at givin this thing a aps. Considering that a c-17 will have to lend to deploy these, that also raises questions. Aswell equipping airborne troops with large amounts loitering munitions that aren’t finicky.

Now do the OMFV program pls

What tank is that you're using? It looks really nice.

I personally like BAE's vehicle better.

"With all of [the ammunition] having blowout panels" oh thank god

The U.S. does make the stingray light tank, with the L7A3. But only Thailand uses it.

Isn't the Hull of the Griffin based on the ASCOD Ulan IFV, a Austrian Spanish Cooperation.

Just hope they fix the problem with the Ajax and that was the fact that it can make you suffer from a hearing loss from the excessive vibration and I'm not sure if they fixed it and if they chose a unmanned turret I think it could have shaved off some pounds possibly

What has happened to BAE cv90 120mm and what is the USA opinion. @spookston.

Pretty cool about the MPF program. I only know that this program suppose to have 12 prototype vehicle or It might be the OMFV program that have the 12 prototype vehicle. I only know the basic about this MPF stuff.

@jintsuubest9331

2 жыл бұрын

I think you are thinking about the fcv series that get cutted in the 2000s.

Oh what? The BAE M8 got disqualified? Booo. Here I was hoping it was finally getting its time to shine.

Maybe US should adopt and license produce existing design such as the CV90105 or Kaplan MT.

@CrayonEater255

2 жыл бұрын

No

so i was playing WT in the American tree and i was looking at the t series like the t29 t30 and t34 and i was wondering if u can tell us about the history or something like that :)

The thing looks like a freaking WW II tank destroyer.

Damm you killed a lot of turms t.

Hmm, seems like the Lynx 120 would possibly also a good fit. Of course i don't know the requirements so i am probably wrong.

@jintsuubest9331

2 жыл бұрын

120 is out of the question from get go, simply because the ammo capacity.

@einar8019

2 жыл бұрын

@@jintsuubest9331 idk the cv90120 carries more ammo than both and it has a 120

@matthiuskoenig3378

2 жыл бұрын

@@jintsuubest9331 as mentioned in the video the ammunition types available to 120mm means that the effective ammunition capacity can be higher, even if raw capacity is lower.

@jamieobree1181

2 жыл бұрын

@@einar8019 the CV90 120 isn't American, when was the last time America bought a foreign design instead of making its own (sometimes far inferior, M14 rifle *cough cough*) design?

@einar8019

2 жыл бұрын

@@jamieobree1181 at-4, 57mm mk3 bofors, saab giraffe radar, bv 206, Bofors bonus, saab barracuda etc

The M8 really can't catch a break, huh?

Speaking of weight. yes the military needs light tanks because most of the bridges have weight limits that don't allow the mbt to cross.

yeah i agree

The GD MPF has next to nothing in common with AJAX. The suspension is a six wheel in arm hydrodynamic suspension from the FCS program, while AJAX has a seven wheel torsion bar setup. In addition the hull is a new design, it’s lower profile and the arrangement of the mechanical elements are changed. The engine is different as is the transmission, the electronics, comms and weapon systems are different as well. In summary it has little in common with AJAX, other than basic weight and dimensions. It will max out at no more than 38.5 tons as two need to fit on a C-17, AJAX weighs 38 tons. About the only thing the two vehicles have in common is a 7.62 MG as their secondary armament.

Yes