Video summary: Q: “Does the vehicle have X?” A: “We are looking into all possible capabilities”

Not designed to go against tanks... that means that once deployed, it will be used against tanks. Just like the Humvee was suddenly an APC.

@MandoWookie

Жыл бұрын

It's designed to be familiar for tankers to crew for training ease, it has a tank gun on in, it looks like a tank, it's going to be treated as a tank. The MGS was being treated the same way and was less 'tanky' than this is.

@thehobo00

Жыл бұрын

I hate to admit it, but there is a nonzero chance that the.higher-ups may see it and think "hmm it's got a tank gun, so it's good against tanks right?"

@stupidburp

Жыл бұрын

Yup, and at 40+ tons it is in MBT weight range. A Japanese Type 10 is 40 tons for example in base protection configuration.

@ostiariusalpha

Жыл бұрын

It's a non-tank for acquisition reasons, it is in every other regard a functional light tank.

@fnglert

Жыл бұрын

It's going to be used against what it encounters.

This officer deserves a promotion for handling this interview and (probably) not giving away any classified info.

@s.marcus3669

Жыл бұрын

I love the way he just sidestepped the Chieftain's questions like Neo sidestepping bullets and fists in all the Matrix movies!

@ericbrammer2245

Жыл бұрын

An 'Award' for being Fox-Newz?? Really? Sad. But, You do make the point, of, 'NO MORE INFO OUTGOING', in a free-press World.

@s.marcus3669

Жыл бұрын

@@ericbrammer2245 What does Fox News have anything to do with this, Eric?

@jimbella9353

Жыл бұрын

@@s.marcus3669 "CHIEFTAIN" Native American are not going to like that!😃

@s.marcus3669

Жыл бұрын

@@jimbella9353 That's Nick Moran's nickname so he'll have to deal with it. Fortunately the Native Americans aren't quite as woke as the Left would like them to be...

Half way through the tour, LTC George became acutely aware the troubles a knowledgable guest can bring 😆😁

@Mugdorna

Жыл бұрын

I'm sure LTC George knew precisely who LTC Moran was.

@ChenAnPin

Жыл бұрын

I think he was a good sport about it and didn't shut him down rudely or abruptly, just candidly falling back to the vague statements in lieu of an answer; and Moran was also smart and thoughtful enough not to pry.

@matthewgaines10

Жыл бұрын

This isn’t the briefer’s first rodeo. Anybody who works on platforms which contains sensitive and TBD content approaches these things exactly the same. Nothing new or special. Not a problem. Just because you can ask a question doesn’t mean you deserve an answer.

@markcantemail8018

Жыл бұрын

Erulian I am Half way thru and picking up on that . He probably will not even discus Track tension Adjustment .

@markcantemail8018

Жыл бұрын

Oops 19 min he touches on it . Sorry

Wow - this is just fantastic

@TheChieftainsHatch

Жыл бұрын

Feel free to inform all your minions!

@Neuttah

Жыл бұрын

@@TheChieftainsHatch pretty sure the overlap between his and yours is near-circular anyhow.

@HanSolo__

Жыл бұрын

Hi, Perun 😀 You too opt for the use of XM900e1 in it? I guess it should enter-exit something like T-72A or T-62😆

@HanSolo__

Жыл бұрын

@@TheChieftainsHatch What do you think Sir, about asking Canadians: "Where you keep C2 Mexas? Give to Ukraine!"? K1A1 from ROK would be nice-to-have in Ukraine since Korean Army has something like 1000 K1s, while my east-south neighbours say they would appreciate 250+ of some modern sh!t for constantly breaching every Russian entrenchment. Finland, Spain (if they cleaned up their 24 pieces), Germany and we, of course, are into pushing Leo 2 (A4, I presume) to Ukraine. Most likely, all end up in Poland, and someone will forget to lock the garages for the night. Would Leo A4 benefit from ERA bricks in the front hull plates to cover the secondary ammo rack?

@DanielWW2

Жыл бұрын

@@TheChieftainsHatch I do feel you missed a great opportunity to suggest that this vehicle should be called Gavin. 😅

LOL I love how the Chieftain probes for sensitive information and its diplomatically awnsered just like reading the brochure for the MPF.

@syjiang

Жыл бұрын

Is it me or does it feel something like LTC George handed in his homework for the Chieftan to grade 🤣

@ora6925

Жыл бұрын

and the answers are always "We are doing something at the battlefield with momentum and courage and it's new, modern, dynamic, organic and overall great"

LTC George did a wonderful job with the polite verbal dance.

I was like "This young man is doing a great job being interviewed", then realised that LTC is Lieutenant Colonel and I'm older than I thought. 😂

@rcgunner7086

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, I was thinking he was a 1st LT or something. Damn I'm getting old.

@williamromine5715

Жыл бұрын

I bet I got both you and Gunner beat. I'm 81 and everyone seems young to me.

@jameshealy4594

Жыл бұрын

@@williamromine5715 you're younger than anyone else I know that age, commenting on KZread videos! My dad is ten years younger and there is no way he would manage. Respect.

@williamromine5715

Жыл бұрын

@@jameshealy4594 Thanks. I retired 2 years ago because my wife became ill and disabled. We have only my Social Security to live on until this coming Sept when my wife can take early Social Security(she is 20 years younger than I am). I started looking at U-TUBE because we don't have enough income for other sources of entertainment. So, I am really new to U-TUBE and not very computer savvy. I don't understand all of the abreviations, etc, but I am impressed with how much information and entertainment there is for free. The only problem with the platform is how insulting some commentators are. It's ok to disagree, but insulting others is so degrading. I hope you can inspire your father to try U-TUBE. He might find it entertaining and educational.

@williamromine5715

Жыл бұрын

@Hunter Lawrence Thank you. I'm not sure how much "wisdom" I can bring to the table.

Yay, an infantry phone. Making a come back. Should never have gone away.

@LukePRTR

Жыл бұрын

Have it on the Stryker, never used it. Am I missing out on something that I dont know about?

@ScottKenny1978

Жыл бұрын

@@LukePRTR i think it's mostly to let a grunt talk to the crew and walk the gun on target. Not like a Stryker has a big enough gun to deal with.

@williamharvey8895

Жыл бұрын

Along with the phone there was terminals to where you could hook up commo wire and run it to a telephone. You could run it out to an OP, or hook it in parallel with other tracks ( hooks into internal coms) and have coms with out using the radios. In the old WW2 documentaries you see marines using the infantry phones directing tanks to bust open Japanese bunkers.

@wigon

Жыл бұрын

@@williamharvey8895 Most infantry won't get near that phone unless they are very brave as tanks tend to move suddenly in unexpected directions. It's really only there for dire emergencies if communications have completely been disrupted in a heavy ECM environment for example or where enemy artillery is zeroing in rapidly on any field radio communications. But in that environment, I'd expect for them to run a long extension cable from that field phone and for squad leaders to carry the actual phone on them to attach to the cables and talk to the crew at a much safer distance compared to standing right behind the tank. Also note that the question of why there was a camera on the other side, but not on the side where the phone is, was not answered. That's a huge oversight, and I don't think many infantry will try to use that phone as they do not want to become, as many tankers call infantry, a "Squishy".

@thejugernautkiller390

Жыл бұрын

@@wigon Probs one of those push you see the infantry behind the tank using it as a shield.

It's a tank 1 It has tracks 2 it has a big gun 3 It has armor 4 the big gun is in a turret 5 it weighs as much as a Sherman tank 6 it has a coaxial machine gun 7 it isn't designed to transport infantry Survey says... it's a tank. Maybe a light tank, maybe an infantry tank, either way... it's a tank. Not all tanks are MBTs.

@falcondmp

Жыл бұрын

exactly . even tracks are not a requirement to qualify as "tank" Check the The Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty : a vehicle with a 360° turret, a gun of 75 mm or more and a weight over 16 tons is classified as "tank"

@chrissouthgate4554

Жыл бұрын

Bunker Busting & Infantry Support; The very same mission as the very 1st Tanks.

@alexdemoya2119

Жыл бұрын

couldnt agree more. the MBT isnt the end all and be all of tanks. FWIW i would classify this simply as a "light tank" as its lighter than a MBT, the 'medium' of modern armor.

@burhanbudak6041

Жыл бұрын

By that standard, a shitty technical is a tank.

@rubman8937

Жыл бұрын

@@burhanbudak6041 No. Not if it actually meets those standards. A technical is a car with a gun on it. If you give your hilux tracks and armor and guns to the point it weighs more then a sherman, it has transcended past technical status and becomes a makeshift tank. Itll also collapse and break in hilarious ways.

Forty five years ago I was in B 3/7th. Cav. and we named our M551 "Bastogne" as well. Delighted to see this prototype with the same name.

As a former Army maintainer, if you really want to test/verify reliability, drive it 2-3 hours a year and let it set the rest. 😁

@TheKencoffee

Жыл бұрын

100% fact!!!

@ret7army

Жыл бұрын

we moved ours around moren that but ... yeah I can see it ... be like the prepositioned we had back in REFORGER days

@ald1144

Жыл бұрын

Same with helicopters. Fly them more, do the regular maintenance, and they break a lot less.

@kmoecub

10 ай бұрын

That methodology is how I chose which old motorcycles to buy.

@davidgoodnow269

3 ай бұрын

Oooh, I like that!

"Couldn't you put the light weight wheels on the bradley?" *army guy sweats nervously* these are very unique interviews, too bad we poor civilians will not get to see much of these until they get stuffed in a museum

@shanerooney7288

Жыл бұрын

Timestamp? EDIT : 16:55 Thanks Corey Stockdale.

@TheTrueAdept

Жыл бұрын

Because wheels are pretty bad when it comes to off-roading...

@shanerooney7288

Жыл бұрын

@@TheTrueAdept A common misconception. Wheeled vehicles have pros and cons over tracked vehicles when going off road. The Cons are usually just minor preference differences. Where the wheeled vehicles are still quite capable in their own right. The main Pro of wheeled vehicles are they can still drive when missing a wheel. A tracked vehicle can't drive while missing a track. The main con is the ground pressure (all else being equal). 38 Metric tonnes is probably the upper limit wheeled AFVs tend to get. The MPF would be pushing the limit. But the Boxer IFV shows it is quite doable.

@TheTrueAdept

Жыл бұрын

​@@shanerooney7288 the only real advantages of wheeled vehicles is 1) cheapness/ease of maintenance, 2) less able to 'mission kill', and 3) strategic mobility. Problem is, those are the only three advantages it has.

@shanerooney7288

Жыл бұрын

@@TheTrueAdept And 4) fuel economy. But what are the disadvantages? And why do you think these disadvantages outweigh the advantages?

Slits it mud flaps helps with stopping build up of mud as each section moves separately It’s old school tech on trucks that work in mud

@TheChieftainsHatch

Жыл бұрын

That makes some sense

@BadgerBadgerBadger28

Жыл бұрын

@@TheChieftainsHatch English tech 👀😂

@michaelguerin56

Жыл бұрын

@@BadgerBadgerBadger28Like the boiling vessel that goes back to 1945?😂

@MusicalMemeology

Жыл бұрын

That was my first thought too.

@adlerarmory8382

Жыл бұрын

@@michaelguerin56 Watch for a $25 million contract to replace the RAK15 24v ration/water heaters because they are not compatable with newly purchased equipment. Brits and Germans both incorporated water vessels inside tanks after their experience in North Africa. And watch for the million dollar Red Dot Air Cond upgrade kits necessary for these.

LTC George did a brilliant job in this interview in engaging very well and not giving away any information that he wasn't supposed to. Greetings from Dublin (Ireland)

I like George, he is actively engaging in the interview. If we see more of this, get George back on 😉 He even predicted track tension!

@84MadHatter

Жыл бұрын

agree

Two names that pop to mind for this vehicle: Lafayette Poole and Audie Murphy. Since it's primarily infantry support, that literally screams the Murphy, the most decorated infantryman the Army had in WW2. Especially since he fought from the back deck of a burning tank destroyer to suppress enemy infantry and was wounded while protecting his men.

@USN1985dos

Жыл бұрын

Maybe the Murphy, but the Poole just sounds awful for a name. Since it's not an MBT or really a "Tank", I think it would be a good opportunity to go for a different naming convention, the way self-propelled guns have names like the Priests & Paladin. Something like a Knight, Cavalier, Warsaw, etc...

@awesomepawn2

Жыл бұрын

@@USN1985dos man idk the Lafayette sounds pritty cool and the guy deserves some recognition imo

@corwinhyatt519

Жыл бұрын

Murphy? For a mil vehicle? Do you want to curse the platform or something?

@dog-the-duck6838

Жыл бұрын

@@awesomepawn2 I would prefer Pulaski, since polish-american relations are on the rise

@topsecret1837

Жыл бұрын

@@corwinhyatt519 anyone can believe a name is cursed when you think there’s a bad pattern to it.

I’m surprised they let you do this so early into the vehicles life. Nice

@nriqueog

Жыл бұрын

Having the Security Clearance in hand does have it's advantages. He's an officerin the Nevada Army National Guard.

@christopherschroeder4420

Жыл бұрын

@@nriqueog Texas. he moved.

@DB-yj3qc

Жыл бұрын

A highly recognized /well known O-6 Armor Officer too.

@ghostmourn

Жыл бұрын

One does not deny the Chieftain should he request a tank viewing.

@MusicalMemeology

Жыл бұрын

I imagine it’s to gather as much feedback as early and as constantly as possible from skilled users. That’s how we get such amazing products low from cars to smartphones etc. The military is learning and copying the private sector. Great to see. Hopefully the users don’t need to do their own weird hacks.

Thanks to the US. Army for letting you film this. This is exciting time for a new armoured infantry fire support vehicle. I have felt the Army has needed something like this since I went in as a 19D back in 84

@icannon6611

Жыл бұрын

It's fun watching them dance around classified details.

I love how Nick was intentionally asking questions he knew couldn't be answered just to see what the non-answer would be.

@MisterFoxton

Жыл бұрын

He asked about APS twice and I'm wondering if Nick thought he was going to get the guy to admit "we don't want to mince light infantry".

Thanks to LTC George and the Chieftain for giving us this information. I am impressed. As we are now not so fearful of the survivability of Russian armor and the heavy reliance on lighter armor by most countries/groups we might face this is a good tool as far as I can tell. In my day M551 and M60s with M113s and flat pack M151 jeeps were what we had. We would have loved this thing.

@mikhailiagacesa3406

Жыл бұрын

Ah, the good'ol days...trained with ROK M48A5s.

@andrewreynolds4949

Жыл бұрын

I think the main role of this thing is intended to be shooting up BMPs, BTRs, and machine gun emplacements

Those slits/flaps on the rear mud flaps are to allow it to flex instead of split and eventually break off. When taking enevatable repeated hits from things that have some mass to them like stones. While still be able to maintain there primary function. A good thing for them to be durable seeing as it's intended to work next to dismounted infantry.

@brianreddeman951

Жыл бұрын

Thank you. Something I was going to research. So there has to be a disadvantage to them else you'd see everything that has mud flaps using this format instead of solid one piece designs.

@notbobrosss3670

Жыл бұрын

@Brian Reddeman early ones the tabs would just break off. Later when they made them better they cost more.

@BillMcD

Жыл бұрын

@@notbobrosss3670 so basically you have to have the expensive mud flaps and abuse the hell out of them for those slits to be worth it. IE driving around in the mud and rocks all day with these machines rather than having a driveway trophy.

@notbobrosss3670

Жыл бұрын

@BillMcD couldn't have said it better myself! 👌

@richardmoore609

Жыл бұрын

They also allow water and air to pass through the trackwell reducing drag. The hybrid drive makes this thing very fast so I imagine it was designed with aerodynamics in mind.

A bit of minor Army process trivia that may interest Chieftain viewers but will be so much noise for the general public follows. You'll note the Army announcement was "M10 Booker" while Chieftain's video title reads "XM10 Booker". The Chieftain is 100% technically correct -- the Booker will not lose its "X" until it achieves Type Classification-Standard following completion of all its production verification testing. So formally the Booker is still an XM10 to that point. But since that doesn't translate well for the general public the M10 designator was announced. That's the usual process -- the AMPVs were XM1283 (etc) until becoming M1283 (etc) just before fielding; the XM1296 Stryker Dragoon by contrast is still an XM1296 as it is not TC-STD.

I’d imagine most of the jobs that a tank gets used for, you don’t actually need a full size MBT. For anything except an enemy MBT, the 105 will be more than enough. I like that it’s smaller and (hopefully cheaper) but should still be just as effective for 95% of the work

@colincampbell767

Жыл бұрын

And if you use a tank in the first place - you get the same functionality plus the ability to do tank stuff. One of the missions of a tank is to draw fire away from the infantry carriers. Hard to see Strykers conducting offensive operations without something to draw enemy fire away from them.

@Likeaworm

7 ай бұрын

$10 million a pop 😂

I like how the Chieftain wore his Tanker boots for this occasion

@ScottKenny1978

Жыл бұрын

He seems to live in them.

@hughhead9079

Жыл бұрын

When you "earn the boots", you wear 'em.

@TheChieftainsHatch

Жыл бұрын

@@ScottKenny1978 Only when filming. I don't routinely wear boots off-duty.

@ScottKenny1978

Жыл бұрын

@@hughhead9079 and once you get them broken in right they're more comfortable than anything else.

I find it funny that this vehicle is developed for the same role that original tanks were and that MBTs evolved into something else.

@JNF590

Жыл бұрын

The moment we figured out composite armor the MBT's became heavier as is considered Heavy Tank's from our Western views. Edit: when we got rid of pure heavy tanks

@alexdunphy3716

Жыл бұрын

Mbts are really just mobile heavy tank destroyers. They are optimized against other armored vehicles

@chuckygobyebye

Жыл бұрын

Yes, this is an infantry tank.

@markfergerson2145

Жыл бұрын

Well, to my mind the first tanks were a proof of concept for the general idea of mobile armored firepower. That general idea then specialized into what various nations consider necessary for the ways they think they will have to fight wars.

@jaimemartinez9792

Жыл бұрын

MBTs are essentially limited by logistics and enemy counter fire. Fielding more "big enough" guns faster than your enemy can take out, just makes more sense.

I’ve been staring at this thing since the first pictures of it. Thanks for going out and sharing a close up with us.

Love watching LTC George walk the information tightrope!

A huge thank you LTC George. 🙂

@matthewcoleman1919

Жыл бұрын

It was kinda fun to watch him run up against the PR line. He was a good sport about at least smiling when he recited from the brochure (rules of engagement, as per the Chieftan).

A "snapshot" that clocks in at over 35 minutes? Wow, that's a good job of setting your shutter speed with a calendar. I like it!

@mandowarrior123

Жыл бұрын

It IS new, Igor.

Another thing to add: This is supposed to be a "light-weight" tank at 40 tons or so to support paratroopers, etc. But this version is the factory version. It is not shown with gun-shields around the pintle mount, slat armor, additional ammo storage on exterior, IED protection systems, belly armor, CROW mounts, or ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT GET ADDED ONCE IT IS IN COMBAT.

@davidgoodnow269

3 ай бұрын

It gets flown in, rolled off, and the attachments come in the next day and are attached sometime in a week or a month, after someone dies. Same as Vietnam, same as up-armor kits for HMHVV that were originally ordered and funded by Congress when it was adopted [before GM inflated the prices of _actually supplying_ those kits].

@MM22966

3 ай бұрын

@@davidgoodnow269 I think what the Air Force needs is one of those box-scale things they use at airports to make sure you carry-on isn't too big/too heavy, but for IFVs. The sign will say "YOU MUST BE THIS SMALL & LIGHT TO FIT IN A C130!". If it's too big, back it goes!

Another 5-Star video from The Chieftin's Hatch. Thank you, Sir!

Name it the Gavin just to mess with Sparks. Fits for an air mobile light infantry support tank as well

@cm275

Жыл бұрын

It’s not air droppable and amphibious so he’ll hate it.

@MrHws5mp

Жыл бұрын

@@cm275 Bonus...😈

This dude's unusually comfortable in front of a camera

@ScottKenny1978

Жыл бұрын

Project Manager, poor dude has probably spent _way_ too much time in front of Pentagon or Congress.

@DB-yj3qc

Жыл бұрын

It's not a many Army LTC's that haven't had experience with it.

@jwenting

Жыл бұрын

officers authorised to face the press get special training for that, and given his rank and position he will have had a LOT of such training and experience.

Hats off to the officer providing this tour. Intelligent. Well spoken. Well done.

Thank you so much for doing this episode. I’m pretty sure I saw this on the back of a truck being moved through the LA area a few months back and couldn’t figure out what it was. Looking forward to seeing this when it enters the field.

Actually, the building where Chrysler BUILT the vehicles is just across the RR tracks from the Detroit Arsenal. It's now a warehouse, I think.

@BeingFireRetardant

Жыл бұрын

Been there, and yes.

It is going to end up engaging armor. Best give it the same launcher as the Bradley. I second calling it a "Murphy". He was a little guy with a huge heart and a lot of guts. Edit: Murphy also came up through the ranks and was an MoH awardee - non posthumously I might add. You can't be more infantry support than that!

@theguy1506

Жыл бұрын

M900 can still defeat most tanks

@hammer1134

Жыл бұрын

Amen about the ATGM launcher

@carlosdowell4861

Жыл бұрын

I don’t think a ATGM carrier will be necessary as it probably will be able to fire APFSDS rounds for antitank usage

@ScottKenny1978

Жыл бұрын

Never name a vehicle "Murphy". Ever.

@nobleman-swerve

Жыл бұрын

ATGM's eat up a ton of volume compared to 105 ammunition. Whatever marginal edge-case scenario where M900 isn't enough but the ATGM would be isn't probably worth the 3-4 less shells you can carry now.

Wow - this is just fantastic. LTC George did a wonderful job with the polite verbal dance..

Very intersting vehicle with some very interesting choices beeing made. I would never have expected those side doors for example. This vehicle will certainly bring some spice to AV dicsussions in the next couple of years. Nice of them to show it to you.

So it's designed as an Infantry Support Vehicle, and not intended to go up against T-72. Pretty sure history has shown that regardless of what a vehicle is intended to face, it will face a lot more than intended.

@shanerooney7288

Жыл бұрын

It is only between 3 and 10 Metric Tonnes lighter than T72 variants. 38.0 tonnes = MPF vs 41.5 tonnes = Original T72 44.5 Tonnes = T72B 46.0 tonnes = T90 46.5 tonnes = T90A 48.0 tonnes = T90SM

@dallesamllhals9161

Жыл бұрын

That's the rules :-D

@XxTheGreatDestroyerx

Жыл бұрын

A) just because it has a 105 gun doesn’t mean it has no ability to defeat something like a T-72. B) what we’re seeing in Ukraine, is that pure tank on tank combat is not very common. Obviously it still happens but the army is not intending to use it in circumstances where enemy MBTs are known to be operating (without heavier armor support)

@jimjamauto

Жыл бұрын

I think that would be a valid concern with any other country, but the US isn't fighting anywhere without a horde of strike aircraft

@roadhouse6999

Жыл бұрын

@@jimjamauto There are also man-portable anti-tank weapons organic to the infantry platoons this will be supporting.

There are allot of bridges that an Abrams cannot cross. This is a great advantage in most places. At a weight similar to the ubiquitous T72, this is a game changer for the ‘Light Fighter’s’ !!!

@ostiariusalpha

Жыл бұрын

The Abrams is not very useful in Taiwan either. The MPF though would be extremely well-suited to that environment, and would be a huge upgrade in the Taiwanese military's mechanized armor equipment over their aging M60 medium tanks.

@JonathanSchattke

Жыл бұрын

Good point, at 35t, it's about the weight of an 18 wheeled Semi rig.

@geofftimm2291

Жыл бұрын

@@JonathanSchattke 42 tons, still unofficial.

@nagasako7

Жыл бұрын

Even T-72B3 get stuck in the mud in Ukraine. Abrams would have been in trouble in Ukrainian back roads. Light Tanks should have been made years ago before the MGS Stryker

@MrChickennugget360

Жыл бұрын

@@nagasako7 not the least because the Army literally had a light tank program that was basically finished.

George was really good in the interview, perfectly knowledgeable and entertaining.

@stein1919

Жыл бұрын

i feel like he wanted to nerd out more but was cognizant of his orders. but he's definitely enthusiastic of the subject matter.

@realityapostasy2158

Жыл бұрын

@@stein1919 yeah i got strong vibes of "barely contained hours-long presentations just about the suspensions".

Bloody good interview, good questions, honest answers.

Great video and props to LTC George, he seemed like he knew his stuff and did a good job communicating it!

I appreciate you bringing us this!

Thanks Chieftain this was fascinating!

Nice interview from both folks🎉

Top quality, as absolutely always

@user-uy1rg8td1v

Жыл бұрын

Actually the mic/recording quality could be much better. They should have also prepared better for the echoes.

WOOHOO! Thanks for getting us this Chieftain!

I think this is a really good "80% solution" vehicle, there are obviously some design and doctrinal compromises but this thing is going to be far more deployable than an Abrams and useful against pretty much everything except modern MBTs. Still surprised you can get 2 in a C17, I wonder if another C17 might have to follow behind with a lot of "bits"...

@davidgleinbach7316

11 ай бұрын

Right....*_*

@Rainersherwood

9 ай бұрын

2x 42 tons… max cargo load of c17 is over 85 tons. They’re good to go.

Nice tour, Chief. I think the slits in the mud flaps are to reduce spray during wet road conditions. Thanks for sharing!

APC replaced by lithium ion battery packs is interesting. Should give tank a lower IR signature in some usages as well as keeping things quiet. PS - it will be interesting to see if this tank ultimately goes into production and if it’s a successful platform. PS2 - wonder what will be results of French light reconnaissance tank AMX-10 RC (105-milimeter cannon and two machine guns) usage in Ukrainian service.

@agga7517

Жыл бұрын

I want to see how long those batteries will last in subzero, I mean, we have to replace turret batteries on our Brads all the time due to that. Hopefully all will be well.

@Fatallydisorganized

Жыл бұрын

@@agga7517 they probably have a dedicated heater to help them last longer. They might be able to run a power cable from a building to the MPF while it's in motor pool to keep the batteries warm.

@DylanStahl

Жыл бұрын

@@agga7517 I have to figure that some of this will come with testing during LRP, but a lot of the smaller annoyances may not yet be known until full scale usage for sure... Who knows, the engineers may have a good spread on this one.

@Cplblue

Жыл бұрын

AMX-10 RC has a medium pressure 105mm. This will have more punch.

@BillMcD

Жыл бұрын

@@Cplblue the AMX will also get stuck in the mud. those tires aren't great for offroad ground pressure.

That's the biggest light tank I've ever seen.

@Valorius

Жыл бұрын

42 ton light tank in other words as heavy as a T-Series

@abingdonboy

Жыл бұрын

@@Valorius right but with less firepower and less protection

@bumblebeebob

Жыл бұрын

That's what l was thinking. 42 tons is a chonky light tank. Or thicc as Sofilein says.

@tommasobianchi5496

Жыл бұрын

It's still much more lighter than a M1A2 SEP v3, like a third lighter

@dustindubbo2892

Жыл бұрын

@@bumblebeebob a light tank in the beginning of world war 2 as like 5-10 tons; by the end of 4 years they are in the 20s range not that weird.

Awesome video. I’ve been wanting a closer look at this thing.

I think a great feature that should be included is a small integral drone. It could dock into a small part of the hull or turret or even just be put out the hatch. It could be used for a third person view by being se to hovering a certain distance above. It would improve situational awareness so much. You could see around corners over hills etc. It could even guide shots for indirect fire. When he mentioned the IR laser to mark targets that made me think of guiding indirect fire.

Love the Cheftians questions about track tension and maintenance

The M2 McAuliffe. But that would be Nuts!

@barrythatcher9349

Жыл бұрын

Absolutely, this individual unit is called Bastogne. So M2 McAuliffe makes complete sense.

Wow, that was terrific. Thanks.

Thanks for the update very interesting

LTC George was very good. The vehicle reminded me a lot of a Scorpian, I can see this being used for reconnaissance as well.

@nathanwilcut3360

Жыл бұрын

Already a vechile called scorpion, in the brithish army

@ptonpc

Жыл бұрын

@@nathanwilcut3360 There *was* a vehicle called the Scorpion in the British Army. The turret was replaced with the one from the Fox and it was renamed Scimitar.

I found this vehicle somewhat similar with the TAM tank from the Marder family. Sure with a different doctrine of use in mind but similar layout and some of the characteristics.

@jwenting

Жыл бұрын

and it will be used like the TAM, as a TANK. Because that's what it is, that's what congress will see it as, and that's what it will end up being procured as: a cheaper alternative to MBTs to replace the aging fleet of M1s.

@funkytorino

Жыл бұрын

@@jwenting I Imagine that at least this design has enough room for upgrading the main gun to a 120mm. Can't imagine reverting back to 105mm unless a new powerful ammo is also in the package.

Thanks for getting this interview done, Chieftain! It’s great to get more info about the specifics of the tank other than it’s “not a tank” 🤣. Very interesting to see the additional egress hatches!

Kudos on getting access to this vehicle. Great review. This is definitely a light or medium tank, regardless of what the Army wants to call it, and it will surely be used to engage other tanks in direct fire missions. Not sure how the armor is on this but hopefully they can use terrain to shield the vehicle or pull into a fighting position.

@fortusvictus8297

9 ай бұрын

The mission requirements were for survivability against 30mm autocannon and AT weapons < RPG-29. Pretty sure the rapid push for this thing has more to do with Ukraine and operations where air cover is not guaranteed than anything else...especially in the Pacific theater.

is it me or does it look like a giant FV101 Scorpion

@YourGodStalin

Жыл бұрын

Funny you say that, it's based on the same platform the Ajax, which was the replacement for the CVRT family of vehicles, is based on.

@Seraphus87

Жыл бұрын

It does have slight CVRT-vibes, yes.

@davidty2006

Жыл бұрын

Scorpion but it became an american.

@mondriaa

Жыл бұрын

@@davidty2006 1 holiday in the US and bam double the size

I'd call it a rhino. Just look at the mount for the wire cutter on the roof of the turret

It has a decent gun, sufficient armor, good tactical and strategic mobility... Sounds like a light tank to me that for "reasons" can't be called that. Sweet!

@SteelbeastsCavalry

Жыл бұрын

Exactly.

@colincampbell767

Жыл бұрын

And the weapons that will be fired are will be ones that were designed to take out tanks. Survivability is the primary reason 'light tanks' tend to wind up being replaced by tanks.

@lewcrowley3710

9 ай бұрын

A Russian 30 mm would take this out. along with any RPG

I worked on the very very early prototype design for this. Excellent vehicle 👌👌

@TheChieftainsHatch

Жыл бұрын

I seem to recall the demonstrator shown at AUSA back five or six years ago had a rear hatch. Any ideas why it went away?

Watching this and the discussion of logistics, recovery, how they'll be deployed within an infantry brigade or division and I can't help but think about my research on adding the Archer to WW2 British infantry divisions. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

My vote is for M2 "Wood" Light Tank. But we'll probably get something like BIGMAN-X (Brave Intelligence Gun Mount, Armored NATO- Extreme.)

@beargillium2369

Жыл бұрын

Shooty mc shoot face

@ostiariusalpha

Жыл бұрын

The canceled M8 light tank, which the MPF is the developmental successor to, was going to be called Buford, after the famous Union cavalry officer.

@ScottKenny1978

Жыл бұрын

@@ostiariusalpha cancelled _after_ full type classification, so Buford is taken. I'm expecting Ridgeway.

@ostiariusalpha

Жыл бұрын

@@ScottKenny1978 Ridgeway was infantry, so that's a no-go. And as I responded before, Buford II is still open though.

@HanSolo__

Жыл бұрын

"Sixteen times the modularity and lethality!" - What can you tell us about the future battlefield capabilities of this one? "It just works..." Oh, now I get it. It's like with the Bradley: "It is great when it works."

Fascinating - Thank you

Nice Job by the LT Col. Kudos to him. Please pass along our regards.

Would be interesting if this is more fitted to the Pacific theatre being lighter than the Abrams

@kriegslist2967

Жыл бұрын

Depends if this thing has amphibious capability to go from island to island. Or it has to be carried by landing craft like the Japanese Daihatsu-class landing craft which was capable of carrying a Type 95 Ha Go.

@classifiedad1

Жыл бұрын

@@kriegslist2967 Probably carried by landing craft since general experience with amphibious tanks indicate that boats do boat things better than tanks, and tanks do tank things better than boats, and combining the two can be... problematic.

@Michael-wo6ld

Жыл бұрын

@@kriegslist2967 Why on earth would you want your tank to drive from one island to another? Amphibious AFVs do like, single digit km/h in the water. It would take days if not weeks to get anywhere.

@bluemountain4181

Жыл бұрын

@@Michael-wo6ld And if the tide or current was too strong you wouldn't get there at all lol

@kriegslist2967

Жыл бұрын

Sorry, should have used crossing deep rivers as an example. But they should make it capable of driving it from Hawaii to Taiwan lol.

Reminds me of a StuG but better. (Because turrets are good) Built for infantry support but Hey Bonus feature! it can knock out enemy tanks too! Especially those of less modern militaries. I also love all the views provided by the cameras. That will allow better cooperation with infantry, especially in crowded quarters and I think engender more trust so they feel better staying close when they need to.

Always interesting, thank you.

I love how excited the lieutenant colonel is, I think he is a fan of the chieftain : )

Great video, man.

@TheChieftainsHatch

Жыл бұрын

Oh, heya!

Honestly blown away this doesn’t have a CROWS as a standard being an infantry support “vehicle”

@a.t6066

Жыл бұрын

Crows honestly kind of sucks. Visibility is terribly. I'd rather be hatch out than use crows

@SHVRWK

Жыл бұрын

still a prototype

Nice interview!

I'm glad it has cameras. Put on 3 times as many, don't worry if some get shot off. Modern cars have multiple cameras & can even synthesize an overhead view. I hope the software on this tank can do the same. Keep the traditional viewing technology for when combat degrades the cameras - but till then you'll have superb tactical awareness

Reminds me a lot of how German Sturmgeschütz where intended to be used as infantry support vehicles

@joebfnl1079

Жыл бұрын

Ponders the question?. Why doesn't Sweden give Ukraine all of their S-Tanks?. Just like a Stug.???. And in that environment, they actually would be perfect!.

@bloodypine22

Жыл бұрын

@@joebfnl1079 They don't have any aside from museum examples.

For close infantry support a CROWS machine gun should be ideal. Also needed to beat back ground troops if your infantry gets overwhelmed. The turret can't be very nimble in swinging it's coax around. A CROWS will also be useful for "close quarters" combat on the offensive, taking out individual troops when it's not taking out bunkers. I'm sure weight is a consideration, for the suspension and also for air transport. Also height on the battle field. But if one can be worked in it will be very useful.

@elideaver

11 ай бұрын

There is a M240 swivel mount on the commanders cupola; not the same as a RWS, but it does help fill those roles.

Excellent video

You are so lucky to get this early access, I hope to see one soon at Ft. Benning, and come to the open house in November for the model show there I will have all of my 1/16 scale model RC tanks wiith me on display!

Nice video 42 tons (even US tons/36 metric ones) is a very american definition of "light".

@chaosXP3RT

Жыл бұрын

The Chinese Type 15 is 36 metric tonnes

@M.M.83-U

Жыл бұрын

@@chaosXP3RT and the se as the AMX 30, or double the Curasier.

@chaosXP3RT

Жыл бұрын

@@M.M.83-U Yeah so I don't get how it's an American definition if other light tanks weigh the same?

@lIllIlllIlIllIlllIlIllIlllIl

Жыл бұрын

@@chaosXP3RT 36 with the kit that provides *far* better hard protection and still retaining 28 Hp/ton.

@comediangj4955

Жыл бұрын

@@chaosXP3RTi will just repost the text I replied another comment: type 15 have much better armor compere to this thing, and it's specifically designed for high altitude fighting. It also has all the things a tank would have, like a laser detector, which this thing lacks. It's 105mm can also launch missiles, giving it a fighting chance against MBTs from the front. It also has a remotely operated weapon station armed with a 12.7mm machine and one 40mm automatic grenade launcher. The last big difference is type 15 have a 1000 hp engine while being lighter, mpf have 800.

So......when the infantry guy uses the built-in phone... "Press one for customer service, press 2 to place your order, press 3 for accounts, press 4 for fire support. Your call is important to us. Please hold. All our agents are busy right now. We will be with you as soon as possible."

@boyd21

Жыл бұрын

Which button do you push for Espanol?

@Chaosrain112

Жыл бұрын

"You are caller .. twelve .. out of .. twelve. Please wait for the next associate."

@jimjamauto

Жыл бұрын

"Thank you for holding. We are experiencing unusually high call volume at this time. Press 1 for a call back. Stay on the line to be connected to the next representative."

@VosperCDN

Жыл бұрын

"Please enter your 10 digit account or stay on the line for the next available operator"

@ScottKenny1978

Жыл бұрын

I can totally see a tank crew saying that to a grunt...

Good to see the Arsenal again.

For me the way the Army is marketing the vehicle, and the vehicle's name/role/intended gap to fill on the battlefield are at odds with each other. They're very heavily pushing the "Direct infantry and infantry interoperability" angle, which is valid, they're putting heavy emphasis on mobility and the ability of the vehicle to be transportable and to rapidly respond on the battlefield, sure I get that too. But to me, you're just basically just described an IFV. Add in their desire to be able to handle other IFVs/light armour and you've just asked for the "King of IFVs", which is the vibe and feel I get from the way the Army is 'advertising' MPF. Yet in reality when you look at the program's requirements and initial intentions, they are basically requesting (and seem to have gotten) a light tank that operates basically like a smaller Abrams. The vehicle cannot embark or extract or resupply infantry, thinks which you would *probably* want if you wanted a general purpose vehicle to fight along side the infantry and the way the Army *talks* about MPF makes me feel like it's supposed to be this general tool. In reality if you check the requirements, MPF is really a program designed to shed as much weight as possible so that lighter infantry can have *a* tank where they would previously have had no tank. If you're only taking so many vehicles then the configuration and lack of ability to mount troops in it makes complete sense for weight and size restriction reasons. Having said all that, I do find it somewhat humorous that the weight of the vehicle has grown *so* much to the point where it really *is* looking like a smaller Abrams, it leads me to questions about the practicality of the design to be truly "Mobile" and light

@petlahk4119

Жыл бұрын

The weight... always grows...

@Shatterfury1871

Жыл бұрын

I was thinking the same, if 42 tones is the weight of the vehicle, me thinks that a combat ready could go well over 46 tones. This is too heavy for this to be anything less than a light tank. Put a 90 mm turret on the Boxer and you can get a vehicle around 34 - 36 tones ready for combat. At least this will have a niche to fill that a tank can`t due to weight and slowness.

@illogicerr3769

Жыл бұрын

@@petlahk4119 I have that problem myself.

@contagioushavoc5794

Жыл бұрын

Im curious if this thing ends up being any faster than an abrams, it has about half the horsepower and 3 fifths the weight. It weighs about the same as the basic version of the type 10 (which is a full blown MBT)

@Michael-wo6ld

Жыл бұрын

Doctrinally, it's more of an assault gun than a light tank. It would probably also work as a light tank, but that's not the role it's supposed to be used in.

I like the drivers escape hatch. Lost a great guy because we didn't have one

Glad light tanks are coming back.

@davidty2006

Жыл бұрын

weighing 40 tons. more like lighter tanks.

@user-mr1um1cg5v

Жыл бұрын

@@davidty2006 Weight is not the only thing that defines classes of tanks.

That baby is going to bring some smiles to a few grunts.

This is going to be a great asset for light infantry. I know that I would giggle at having the ability to point an IZLID at a target, and my tanker pals making it go away.

The Army always has strict requirements so to get selected for a light tank, you really had to go all out and get it right.

From some angles it sort of looks like bigger, fatter CVRT (Scorpion or Scimitar). Anyone else?

@YourGodStalin

Жыл бұрын

The Ajax which is replacing the CVRT's is based on the same vehicle this is based on, which makes sense why it seems like that honestly.

Its so nice being able to fast forward through videos without needing to click on it. There is No inside footage on this vehicle!

@TheChieftainsHatch

6 күн бұрын

You may have fast-forwarde through the part where I said I wasn't allowed. The interior of any current front-line video is considered sensitive.

@michaelversant8401

6 күн бұрын

@@TheChieftainsHatch Then why the title? I just need to take a break from You tube, the dishonesty for clicks driving me crazy! :)

L.C. very informed on this vehicle.

I like the Cockerell CT CV turret. Autoloader 105mm rifled gun that can elevate 42 degrees. Useful for urban or maintain combat and indirect fire. Losing a man from the tank would have saved a fair bit of weight as well. Would also have been nice to have band tracks. I believe they reduce maintance issues and improve crew comfort. What features would other people like in an infantry tank and where do you see this being deployed?

@gregoryschmitz2131

Жыл бұрын

A good question is about the 105 mm auto loader as that is the guns genesis. But it does have a loader, not that he can't stuff an auto loader from the spares

So everyone is saying that the thing is really underpowered for being so big and heavy, but what I get the notion of is that this is a direct answer to a lot of the Asian Pacific type MBTs where they are lighter, more nimble and have less protection. And given what’s been said about the FCS I suspect that this vehicle will have some of the best gun handling of any high caliber cannon in the world with the 105 being a great gun against 90% of potential armoured targets.

I remember the testing of what probably was one of its competitors at Camp Roberts. Mostly hull and powerplant. Lots of hush hush stuff. Had to tow it back on quite a few occasions.

I never gave it much thought before but a rear mounted turret really does DRAMATICALLY reduce the cargo carrying & lashing capacity of an armored vehicle. In a tank it's less of an issue since they fight fairly separate from dismounted troops. But the MPF is an infantry support vehicle intended to fight amongst dismounts & probably occasionally ferry hitchhikers around the battlefield. So that extra space on the rear deck and rear sides normally free on forward turreted armor is now unavailable for enhanced stowage due to the rear-mount design choice.