Details presented here are tentative and subject to change.
@cjclark2002
2 жыл бұрын
Oh I’m sure they are.
@MrDK0010
2 жыл бұрын
@@davisdelp8131 Logo has been like that for a while. Are you bothered?
@wolflegion_
2 жыл бұрын
@@davisdelp8131 does it bother you that much? 🏳️🌈
@ravenkk4816
2 жыл бұрын
The US Army, they want what their their opponents had and just made up a excuse for it.
@politics9714
2 жыл бұрын
Why is your profile picture LBGT+ flag like color?
@georgivanev7466
2 жыл бұрын
The U.S. Army is building this tank so we can have another Rank 7 light tank after the HSTVL in War Thunder
@tovarischshashlikov
Жыл бұрын
😭😭
@pokenaut7803
Жыл бұрын
As per the video, the M10 is an assault gun more than anything else. It would probably go under the M1128 in the TD/Assault Gun line, and have the light tank/IFV line be for the M3A4 Bradley
@mcxttxr7598
Жыл бұрын
但说实话我觉得研发这东西还不容易再把XM8改进下
@NotSaddamHussein
Жыл бұрын
OH MY GOD THEY JUST HIT THE THIRD TOWER, TURN ON THE TV!!!!!!
@markpetrochenko8402
7 ай бұрын
I just wonder how thick it's armor is
@rtstrong
2 жыл бұрын
“… the MPF is not air droppable.” Everything is a air droppable… *ONCE*.
@Uncle_Smallett
Жыл бұрын
To airdrop something, you need first airlift that something.
@rapierlynx
Жыл бұрын
"If at first you don't succeed, maybe parachuting isn't for you."
@willl7780
Жыл бұрын
🤣🤣🤣🤣
@terryfowler6090
9 ай бұрын
Yuck yuck yuck😂
@watchthe1369
7 ай бұрын
LAPES, I am sure they can roll it off the ramp at a "fast Taxi"
@kroberts8866
2 жыл бұрын
The seperate log line is how the new system beat the politics of selection. The Knox trials in 1999 actually saw the Stryker tie and in the mud trial loose to the AGS. While the AGS dramatically shrank maintenance and log between infantry and armor variants. The Stryker involved 16 States and Canada. So the stryker lobbied sufficiently on minimal requirements.
@SlavicCelery
2 жыл бұрын
And the maintenance costs bloomed like an expensive flower.
@kroberts8866
2 жыл бұрын
@@SlavicCelery Sadly the FM 7-10 already had the AGS crew drills and load plans added to our instruction manual. But the geopolitics of the Balkans entry allowed the special interests to override the NSS.
@SamBrickell
2 жыл бұрын
That's absolutely disgusting. We need to hang corrupt politicians.
@paratrooper629
2 жыл бұрын
I am very disappointed BAEs MPF was not selected. Hell... In the 1990s it was type classified as the M8 AGS. Ahead of schedule and under budget. A pox on both parties and a certain mafia branch of the Army. President Clinton committed the army to a peacekeeping and stabilization force in the former Yugoslavia. Watched him say for 0ne year and I called BS. I was about to be promoted to LTC. Republicans in a hissy fit said no to funding the mission. Hey... I have a long memory and I will not forget it! Army chief of staff at the time was a field artillery officer. Big ticket item was a 70 plus ton 155mm SP to replace the M109 series back then M8 AGS sacrificed. Later on the 155 mm 70 ton monster was cancelled.
@paratrooper629
2 жыл бұрын
To continue on my previous post.... Consider this... GDLS produces Strykers, upgrades M1 series tanks etc. All as far as I know In one facility in sterling heights MI. Know the area well... A child of the 1960s early 70s. We do are getting out of the counter insurgency core mission to fighting a near peer threat at the Division and Corps level .near peer threats.... We should be acting rapidly on more than one defense contractor
@TheShreddedSnorlax
2 жыл бұрын
Its interesting to see a re-emergence of light tanks, both as new designs like MPF and variations of IFVs like the Lynx 120 and CV90-120. They can offer main battle tank level firepower with enhanced strategic and operational mobility. If outfitted with an active protection system, they would have a level of defence against ATGMs as well. Its something a lot of armies should consider as an alternative to traditional +70 ton MBTs.
@norbi1411
2 жыл бұрын
Re-emergence? Dude, light tanks of various types are constantly being used by many armies.
@alexdobma4694
2 жыл бұрын
The MBT as a concept is already quite dead imo. The most recent conflict has shown the obsolesence of massed armoured formations in modern warfare. Mobility and small-unit tactics is everything.
@scratchy996
2 жыл бұрын
@@alexdobma4694 That's the wrong take from the war in Ukraine.
@m1a1abramstank49
2 жыл бұрын
@@alexdobma4694 You’re using examples from outdated tank designs in a war where Russia keeps messing up every corner. Compare that with a Western or Rich Asian country tank design and you’ll see clear disparities between both sides. Most Western MBTs have great mobility compared to Russian vehicles, hell with the Type 10 it has good armor with some of the body mobility for an MBT.
@scratchy996
2 жыл бұрын
I think the light tank has its place, but not the way it's done here. The Lynx 120 is a rendering only and it would be too heavy for airlift. The CV90-120 is more interesting, as it seems it's built on a lowered chassis, but what's more interesting is the CV90-105 with the John Cockerill 30105 turret. If you go for a light tank with a 105mm (like the US wants), then why not save more weight and go for a 3 man crew, in a turret with an autoloader ? Or use an IFV chassis with an unmanned turret. Personally I would go for a modern Begleitpanzer 57 concept. Use an IFV chassis with an unmanned turret with a 50-57mm autocannon with programable ammo. It still has enough power to smash every enemy light and medium armor from range, even a soviet tank from the right angle with armor-piercing rounds, and it can take out infantry very well with airburst ammo. It can also fire faster than a 105mm gun and carry more ammo. Then you have a rocket launcher for anti-tank or anti-structure needs. A bonus benefit would be that the main gun can be used against drones, with airburst or AHEAD ammo.
@silverjohn6037
2 жыл бұрын
It would be interesting to know if the "two MPF's per C17" is two fully loaded, ready to roll into a fight tanks or two unloaded ones that will need a couple of hours or more to get supplied and set up.
@alexiel4406
2 жыл бұрын
Now that is a good question
@kevinblackburn3198
2 жыл бұрын
Good question. I surmise that they will not be transported by C-17 but will be transported en masse by ship.
@obsidianjane4413
2 жыл бұрын
@@kevinblackburn3198 That isn't the mission being spec'ed for. Think Operation Dragon (Iraq) or Tomahawk (Korea).
@n5syr01
2 жыл бұрын
One number I have been able to find is it will be between 38 to 40 tons. Doesn't specify whether that is combat loaded or dry.
@JWQweqOPDH
Жыл бұрын
In reality, cargo planes are almost never used to carry their listed maximum payload. The C-5 can theoretically carry 2 Abrams but has only ever carried one at a time to reduce stress/fatigue on the airframe.
@cypher4783
2 жыл бұрын
So, if I'm understanding this correctly this is basically designed to be a mobile anti fortification system to be held in reserve. Or be used for sudden shock attacks.
@SlavicCelery
2 жыл бұрын
It's basically an M4 Sherman doctrine-ish. It's not a primary role expected to fight MBT, as that's a role expected of our MBT. But, it can defend itself against it and if needed can engage up to and including enemy armor. Something like 60-80% of rounds fired in WW2 by Shermans were not against tank targets. Infantry need protected LOS arty. That's what this is.
@cypher4783
2 жыл бұрын
@@SlavicCelery It is a very ww1 mindset for tanks. But modern armies seem to be more infantry focused than the vehicle focus of ww2 armies.
@SlavicCelery
2 жыл бұрын
@@cypher4783 That role has almost always been integral to tank logistics. Most of your targets are not going to be tanks, pure and simple
@isaachousley325
Жыл бұрын
No, neither reserve nor shock. Its kinda funny how the Army literally put its purpose in the name, and people still dont understand. Its mobile protective firepower; its supposed to be mobile, protected enough to absorb small arms fire, and have a big cannon to provide large caliber direct fire support. Its in no way a maneuver unit, which means it doesn't engage other tanks, it doesn't get held as a reserve to reinforce a collapsing defensive line, and it doesn't conduct shock attacks.
@brianmead7556
7 ай бұрын
What it will really do is get fed to the T72s
@SirCheezersIII
2 жыл бұрын
I think people are focusing too much on it's compatibility with airborne operations and not enough on supporting other IBCT based formations. All of these have zero armored support and the MPF saves on the cost, fuel economy, and bridging required to support an Abrams Battalion being assigned for a similar purpose. The US Army is tank light in comparison to its peers, and with the addition of the MPF the several dozen IBCTs that the Army currently fields will finally get the level of support that they might need in a near peer fight, even if it might take several years to get it. It's far more than what they were supposed to get before, which was nothing.
@missinginaction2b
2 жыл бұрын
@@billrich9722 when the Army brought back brigades during ROAD, they were practically de-facto RCTs. It made sense to combine the two, if only to cut down confusion.
@missouripatriot6926
Жыл бұрын
Question how does it save money if current mpfs cost 4mil more then abrams abd will need new logstics
@neurofiedyamato8763
11 ай бұрын
@@missouripatriot6926 The current 12.8 million cost is only for LRIP. So its a economy of scale problem, it'll drop a lot once full rate production sets in. Also the M10 Booker/MPF is just logistically simpler to support which makes it cheaper in the long haul. Most of the cost of a BCT is in its logistics and support, Battle Order actually did a breakdown on this. And MPF beyond new spare parts, the MPF can be supported by existing IBCT logistical infrastructure so it won't cost much to set up. Also the 12.8 million figure come from simply dividing the contract price with units ordered. Training, spare parts, and other stuff is included in that price tag, not just the vehicle. So the logistics argument is already largely covered.
@JamesOMalley-hb4tf
8 ай бұрын
M10 will prove to be trash like LCS navy ships ..
@christopherberry9496
2 жыл бұрын
"however these issues can be remedied by proper training" famous last words. lol
@QuizmasterLaw
2 жыл бұрын
Highly trained + shit gear > untrained + great geat
@johnmartin6420
2 жыл бұрын
The selection of the Griffin MPF, in many ways telegraphs that the OMFV requirements will be met by the Griffin lll, the Army will eventually replace the Bradley M2 based M1299 chassis/prime mover with the OMFV chassis/prime mover in the M1299A1 or A2 variants, thus allowing the M1299 to expand its auto loader capacity from 23 to 31 and ammo capacity from 39 to 48.
@atlas42185
Жыл бұрын
I thought the exact same thing. The compatibility between GDLS platforms makes Griffin III an intuitive choice, given the MPF program outcome. Furthermore, BAE's M8 derivative would never be converted into the rear-access body plan popular in SPGs and IFVs. I hadn't considered M1299's successor, but it's intuitive considering they're in the process of deciding Bradley's replacement.
@gregstevens7139
Жыл бұрын
Looks a lot like an uprated scorpion tank Britain had in the 1970's and was used very effectively for more than 30 years m They had a 75mm gun weighed about 8 tons and a crew of 3 and could move at 45 mph
@bcompany650
2 жыл бұрын
now we need a flying version with a wings of this tank like an aerogavin.
@antonioferreira2293
2 жыл бұрын
an A10 with a 60mm cannon? seems cool
@erwin669
2 жыл бұрын
Somewhere LazerPig is having an aneurysm at the thought
@SirCheezersIII
2 жыл бұрын
See reflections on that wataaaaah!
@longtabsigo
2 жыл бұрын
As a force developer, a battalion gives you greater force structure to “grow” your own, where 3 companies won’t. 3 company size units would cap the senior “MPF” dudes just captains. With no battalion structure there are no Major or LTC slots to “grow” into and develop further. Separate company formations in army parlance means your maintenance support comes from commanders who are entirely motorized if any vehicles at all, a battalion gives you a Bn Maintenance company with dedicated MPF maintainers. A Bn has a large manpower cost, but, that cost will pay dividends in the out years.
@longtabsigo
2 жыл бұрын
Additionally, for example, with 3 companies, you will have 3 captains, 3 1LT’s and 9 2LT’s with 1 or 2 extra as assignments end; with a Bn, you get those officers PLUS you get 1 LTC, 2 MAJ’s, up to 5/6 more CPT’s, 3-6 more LT’s and warrant officer or 2. These are just the Officer billets, you get substantially more and you can actually “grow your own” over the course of the first 6-12 years. You 82nd guys get put in hopper first and muddle their way thru. Then a cadre will be plucked to go the schoolhouse. Those will, in turn, train the next cohort and about half will be chopped to the 173rd. By then the 3rd cohort will be fed into the 101st. The National Guard will provide a pool of school trained folks to backfill should combat begin to attrit the Active Duty guys in a shooting war. Am I 100%? Probably not, but this is what I did, I actually built and fleshed out 3 different organizations…how? I read the book!
@duncanmcgee13
7 ай бұрын
We're basically getting a TAM
@sampletext3433
2 жыл бұрын
I remember a science fiction book by M. Kloos where americans had large heavy units while Germans doctrine had this specific tank which was very small and lighly armored however extremely agile, fitting 3 people and largely dependent on various technologies. Main advantage was that it was very light and helicopter/VTOL aircrafts were capable of transporting it to the combat zone and providing air support, as well as evacuating the units in matters of seconds if shit went fubar. I really think this could wise to take be a step towards this kind of doctrine
@KB4QAA
2 жыл бұрын
S34: "The Stug-3". ;)
@fromthefire4176
2 жыл бұрын
This thing isn’t any more air transportable than Abrams tho. Its competition was. But that model was “disqualified for having a delay in producing a prototype”... during covid, so General Dynamics won the contract by default, not performance. I’d be lmfao’ing at the sheer idiocy but I think it was deliberate corruption because the people who work in the Pentagon’s acquisition process almost always go to work for defense contractors after, them sabotaging selection of new gear to favor their future employers is well known, and this mistake is going to cost lives that didn’t have to be lost. Probably a lot more money too since it can’t really do what it was meant to.
@colincampbell767
2 жыл бұрын
The problem with that concept is that it fails to take modern fire control systems into account. The 'agile and hard to hit' doesn't do very well when modern tank fire control systems can put a round inside a 1-meter diameter circle at 2-3 kilometers. And if the situation goes fubar - you probably already lost your helicopters. And light armor is not as agile as heavy armor because it has to slow down move when moving over terrain.
@CombatMedic00
2 жыл бұрын
I read the book you're talking about. The point in it that you're referring to came about because the Europeans didn't have the resources in men or materiel to produce the heavy equipment the U.S. fielded. In response to this the Europeans used faster, more technologically advanced equipment to make up the difference.
@colincampbell767
2 жыл бұрын
@@CombatMedic00 The US also fielded more technologically advanced equipment. We had the most advanced submarines, the M1 rifle, M1 carbine, proximity fuse, better heavy bombers, first stabilized tank fire control system, a homing antisubmarine torpedo (whose development predated the German research), LORAN, the C-54 transport, integrated artillery fire control systems, high(er) pressure steam turbines, and of course the atomic bomb. Several of these technologies were classified during the war (proximity fuse, homing torpedo, stabilized tank fire control system. Others such as the better steam turbines, LORAN, and integrated artillery fire control, and the C-54 were not exciting to the news media despite their impact on the course of the war.
@joaogomes9405
Жыл бұрын
It's not a light tank, it's an assault gun. The US army has already said the Booker will serve an infantry support role, primarily to assault strong positions and secondarily to protect infantry from enemy armour.
@rfletch62
Жыл бұрын
Oh, it can't be a light tank! They wanted to establish the Main Battle Tank system. So the Sheridan became the Armored Reconnaissance/ Airborne Assault Vehicle (ARAAV). 3/12th Cav, 3rd Armored, '76-80.
@pepepistola9258
Жыл бұрын
Not only that, but if you point to the broad definition of "light tank", the Booker does not meet that criteria: It weights about 40 tons and is not really an impressively fast/mobile vehicle. IMHO, it is an overpriced average MBT that weights a bit more than half of what the mammoth Abraham does. A tank costing that much with no APS/anti-UAV features seems like a waste of time and resources nowadays. Yet I still find the explained doctrine of it quite sound from what it is detailed in the video. The need for lighter tank, compared to the Abrahams, is definitively valid, but this particular tank design seems foolish and lacklustre at best.
@acb1511
6 ай бұрын
In theory they wanted do produce a caterpillar self-propelled artillery vehicle like the Soviet Sprut gun but ended up with a "normal" MBT like the M60.
@alientitimilk9073
4 ай бұрын
So pretty much a worse mbt got it
@joaogomes9405
4 ай бұрын
@@alientitimilk9073 Yeah essentially. It's a waste of money
@nicolasmichon4344
Жыл бұрын
So .... this is basically the same tactical rôle that French heavy armored cars (ERC90, AMX10RC) have fulfilled in airborne operations since the Cold War (with more of an AT rôle as well)
@greenmountainboi4453
2 жыл бұрын
Great Content, Keep Up The Great Work.
@lebron3505
2 жыл бұрын
No it's not
@arbelico2
2 жыл бұрын
Greetings from Spain. I am surprised that they have not opted for a vehicle of the style of the (CCVL) with a 120 mm cannon, 3 crew and a system (APS). Thank you.
@stephen6866
Жыл бұрын
I'm amazed myself .😅
@tetraxis3011
2 жыл бұрын
This is also good for export, as the Abrams is quite expensive to operate for many countries, this provides a cheaper alternative.
@iainscott7098
2 жыл бұрын
A very good point Jesus
@QuizmasterLaw
2 жыл бұрын
good luck finding buyers... lots of countries have indigenous tank production.
@almondmilk3014
7 ай бұрын
Much love brother, just found your channel; you are truly brave and strong for telling everyone. Never lose hope
@Soulessdeeds
2 жыл бұрын
I see this as more of the Army making its first steps in Replacing poor performing platforms or even outdated platforms. The Abrams has been on the list of vehicles the Army want's to replace with modern versions. And the Stryker itself was warned against when it was forced through during its fielding. I think America has learned that wheeled platforms definitely have their roles. Tracked vehicles simply provide superior battlefield mobility and armor protection.
@adamramsey5787
Жыл бұрын
That gives the 82nd a lot of firepower. Around 2009 or so, the 18 Fires Brigade was attached giving it 777 Howitzers, and MRLS.
@OriflammeGaming
7 ай бұрын
18FA has since been separated from 82nd and now operates solely HIMARS in its own brigade. 82nd fires are provided by Div Arty and 18FA provides HIMARS support to the 18th Abn Corps as a whole.
@adamramsey5787
7 ай бұрын
@@OriflammeGaming Interesting. In 2009, there was a HIMARS Company. 3-321 and 1-321 were Airborne Artillery 777.
@OriflammeGaming
7 ай бұрын
@@adamramsey5787 yep, 3-321 is actually the exact unit I was in until last year. We have that and 3-27 as the firing BNs, with 188th as the BSB. After they gave up the idea of doing HDPs anymore, we became entirely HIMARS. One of two active duty HIMARS BDEs in the Army, the other being 17th FA
@adamramsey5787
7 ай бұрын
@@OriflammeGaming Rocksteady. I was 3-321 HHB. 13F. I was mostly in the S3 Shop. I did targeting in Afghanistan.
@CatholicDragoon
2 жыл бұрын
Interesting, but my question is how many of these things are going to be made? Cause as we are seeing in Ukraine if you don't have vast reserves of everything then it's not going to last long in a true hot war. And these MPFs are meant to be attached to rapid response/spearhead type of formations so in the event of a war they'll be amongst the first systems fighting in the field.
@norbi1411
2 жыл бұрын
520
@simply2187
2 жыл бұрын
I think they are gonna be working closely with Infantry, or just be Artillery.
@matthiuskoenig3378
2 жыл бұрын
they are probably just going to keep produceing and then storing them long past the point they made enough to outfit units, like they did the abrams. gotta build up a reserve stockpile and keep the skilled tank builders employed (or risk losing those skills)
@twoarc7293
2 жыл бұрын
Hey, I’m a member of the 11th airborne division, and I was wondering if you could do a video on us, and the Arctic, and maybe a comparison of the 11th airborne to it’s adversaries in the Arctic
@InfantryMerc
2 жыл бұрын
yeah, your fucked ...... end of video
@HibikiKano
Жыл бұрын
I'm mostly surprised that the US are surprised about a lighter fire support vehicle. Most of Europe used tanks of such a class. Leopard 1, AMX 30, AMX 13, AMX 10RC. Even the moment heavier tanks became the norm in Europe, lighter vehicles with heavy fire support got into the developmental cycle. The german Puma was supposed to feature a 40mm autocannon but had to downsize to a 30mm due to stresses on the turret. CV90 is playing with many up to 120mm solutions. Boxer and Patria are playing with 105mm and 120mm guns. Dutch John Cockekill designs and build turrets for light vehicles amongst them modular 90mm 105mm and 120mm. French have the Jaguar in design, Italians the 105mm centauro and 120mm centauro II. Japanese the type 16 and probably the Type 10 with it's only 40 tons so falls into this light slot. How Europe branch of NATO integrated modernised soviet based tanks into it's doctrine is also somewhat similar. It's really not a new weird concept. Might take the US some time to retrain those tactics, but you will do just fine. You have plenty of allies with various tactics developed and used to practice together with and find the best way to use these lighter ta ks. You are luckily not in a hot war right now, and are not forced to use those tanks asap. EDIT: forgot to add the british Scorpion super light beast.
@benbo4394
4 ай бұрын
US Army new latest light tank weight 40tons and armed with a 105mm and manual loader. Across the pond is the JGSDF Type 10 MBT, also weight roughly 40tons but with a 120mm autoloader. I feel like money couldve been more well spent
@PVilarnovo
2 жыл бұрын
It doesn’t make sense to me. As It can’t be dropped, the airborne divisions MUST secure an airport that a C-17 can land. This is a factor that will limit the drop area of the airborne, they will become more “predictable”.
@norbi1411
2 жыл бұрын
They can always drop somewhere else and then drive to the objective.
@PVilarnovo
2 жыл бұрын
@@norbi1411 no they can’t. It is not droppable.
@paulsteaven
2 жыл бұрын
Having the capability to be air dropped in this new light tanks means having almost paper thin armor, like the Sherridans
@herbtanner8701
2 жыл бұрын
They don’t need an airport to land a c17 just make a landing strip
@norbi1411
2 жыл бұрын
@@PVilarnovo but they can land them and then drive
@HypnoticChronic1
2 жыл бұрын
I am curious if the USMC is looking at this as well, given how the Corps have ditched the Abrams not to long ago and are returning to a more "highly mobile doctrine". This MPF would appear to be a good compromise between the two, with the firepower necessary to engaged hard targets while not being as logistically intensive as the Abrams was and having greater strategic mobility overall.
@daneaxe6465
2 жыл бұрын
That decision has puzzled me. During WW2 in the Pacific when the Marines went ashore there was always an Army battalion of Shermans waiting to land in case they were needed. One old vet I knew years ago was a Sherman commander. He was really proud of his unit and their performance. He told me more than a couple times..."when things got too hot they would call for XYZ battalion, because we were the best in the business". I wish I could remember the unit number. The point is if you're likely going to need heavy iron for backup why mix up Marine and Army in the invasion area? Why not keep tanks/armor in the Marines? The troops on the ground will need it regardless whose label is on it. Seems simpler to keep armor that will likely support Marines with the Marines.
@ZombieKiller-vf2np
2 жыл бұрын
@@daneaxe6465because Sherman's are way heavier and smaller then an Abrams?
@norbi1411
2 жыл бұрын
@@daneaxe6465 The Corp is not preparing for island hopping WW2 style. It's gonna something more aligned with what they trained before the war.
@daneaxe6465
2 жыл бұрын
@@norbi1411 I don't think they were prepared for island hopping before WW2 either. What's the difference between island hopping and a shore/coastal invasion??
@daneaxe6465
2 жыл бұрын
@@ZombieKiller-vf2np Are you looking for a Kruger-Dunning award??
@teeheeteeheeish
2 жыл бұрын
Interesting to see how the Light Division will change how we do things. Generals haven’t been much more than glorified administrators for a very long time
@andrewtaylor1935
Жыл бұрын
up until the mid 90's 82nd had a airdrop tank
@sparrenburger2804
Жыл бұрын
In scetches like the thumbnail it looks like a british CRV-T. But a booker is the double in length!
@kuhlenzo4410
2 жыл бұрын
Video Idea: Could you please analyse the german "Division Schnelle Kräfte" (Rapid Forces Division), in particular the two paratrooper regiments (fallschirmjägerregiment 26 and fallschirmjägerregiment 31). Thank youu
@bennuredjedi
2 жыл бұрын
This could also be used in the Cavalry Armored Reconnaissance role with a few mods of course
@reviewerreviewer1489
2 жыл бұрын
Another excellent video. Briefly mentioned in video, the US military’s recently renewed emphasis on larger division level combat units makes me increasingly suspicious we may be gearing up for large scale war against China. We’d need large operational units to cut through the immense numbers of Chinese soldiers we’d face in say ground fighting in western China.
@DakotaofRaptors
2 жыл бұрын
I'd imagine the Coast Guard shipping out once more to the Pacific as well
@ZZZ2573
2 жыл бұрын
You are such a genius! The logistics of fighting in western China, which comprises the Tibetan plateau and the Gobi deserts, with no strong ally in the region or reliable support bases and infrastructure, would be singularly the worst nightmare of any military. So good luck. It would make the disaster in Afghanistan look like a innocent tripping. But I'm sure the military industrial complex could make a lot of $ out of this
@QuizmasterLaw
2 жыл бұрын
we are. so are they.
@sushmag4297
2 жыл бұрын
I hope an armed conflict with China never happens. The loss of life with a conflict that big would be catastrophic.
@ycplum7062
Жыл бұрын
Basically, this is not a tank, but rather an infantry fire support vehicle. The primary (but not the only) purpose of a tank to use its mobility to flank or exploit breakthroughs. It really does not have the armor or firepower for such a mission. The MPF provides firepower, but stays within friendly lines where it is protected.
@robwyyi
2 жыл бұрын
Watching or doing anything second time brings more thoughts. This not being the exception. Organization as such is mirroring a tank units. So outcome is same as Abrams. What is a possibility is heavier fire power being delivered to geographic point after initial shock troop takes over a geographical area,airport. Lt Col Frost outcome could have been lot different if had such armored vehicle delivered at a nearby airport. But it’s true if kept as part of unit that isn’t primary it can turn into a show piece unit or a neglected isolated unit of a larger organization. Like the ideal of mobile armored fire support after securing a airport or bridge, helping to hold till main forces relieves.
@JDSFLA
2 жыл бұрын
How is this different from the Swedish CV90-120 light tank that has been available for some years? Some advantages of the CV90-120 would have been a larger gun (105 vs 120), and savings in the development cost for a new light tank for the U.S. Army.
@atlas42185
2 жыл бұрын
The CV90-120's age doesn't make it suitable for the MPF program's needs. Even if it did, the Griffin II (MPF contract winner) belongs to a mature family of AFVs (ASCOD). 105mm works against all targets the 120mm can kill, except tanks. This thing is not an anti-tank weapon. If they need the extra firepower, they can upgrade the gun. GDLS' Griffin technology demonstrator had a 120mm. If they don't need it, then 120mm just means you get less ammo per vehicle that costs more per round. I'll bet the Army has lots of 105mm left over from Stryker MGS, ammo which they've already paid for. Also, some 105mm APFSDS may be effective against older variants of T-64 and T-72.
@JDSFLA
2 жыл бұрын
@@atlas42185 The CV90-120 has continued to be developed with new more capable models. The CV90-120T and the CV90-120 Ghost have substantially better armor, targeting equipment and incoming round sensors. The Ghost has novel camo that conceals its body and can make it look like an ordinary car. In the right circumstance they could be quite valuable to have. Anyway, so long as a tank is constantly upgraded the date of its introduction can be irrelevant. The M1 Abrams was introduced in1980, and some 42 years later is still one of the best tanks due to constant model improvements.
@atlas42185
2 жыл бұрын
@@JDSFLA Apologies for delayed reply. I don't doubt the CV90-120 meets some militaries' requirements. My comment about its age wasn't a shot. I was stating that "old/mature" doesn't necessarily indicate technological reliability, just as it doesn't necessarily indicate obsolescence (as you've pointed out w/ the CV90 and M1 Abrams chassis). However, I doubt the CV90-120 would've satisfied the Mobile Protected Firepower solicitation requirements better than the designs actually submitted to that competition. I haven't located the solicitation b/c SAM.gov search engine returns nothing, so I can't say what those requirements are. Nonetheless, BAE Systems is the CV90-120 intellectual proprietor. They could've submitted it to MPF, but instead they submitted the M8 AGS. That should tell you something about BAE's thoughts on its suitability for that program. We can talk all day about the cool new gadgets the CV90-120 has. That doesn't mean those gadgets solve existing Army problems well enough and cheaply enough to justify their adoption right now. You won't get very precise insight on military procurement decisions either, b/c most relevant details are classified or buried in obscure publications. You must understand that military procurement is a project management application, which means lots of cost estimation and technical performance aggregated w/ engineering constraints to reach an optimal outcome given the available options. Go to z-lib.org and get your hands on an Applied Optimization textbook and a Cost Accounting textbook. These are the tools people use to make decisions when billions of dollars are being spent. It gets complicated very quickly, and "better armor, targeting equipment and incoming round sensors" (btw, better isn't a given w/o evidence) means little without context. What would CV90-120's combat weight be in MPF role? I guarantee you this is an important constraint. BAE claims 26,000-40,000kg or greater. M8 AGS is about 16,700-23,600kg. The exact mass mostly depends on armor packages (most of Abrams' mass growth is attributable to greater armor mass in upgrades). Griffin II is reportedly ~34,500kg, but we know it has growth potential b/c GDLS says so, and that's always a requirement in military vehicle solicitations. We also know the Griffin 2 could be somewhat lighter than this w/ less armor b/c the vehicle family on which it's based are significantly lighter. Vehicle mass is a fairly good indicator of total passive armor mass for direct fire vehicles b/c armor is by far the single largest contributor. So how do we know that CV90-120 w/ combat weight of 34,500kg is better protected than Griffin II at 34,500kg combat weight? The armor compositions are classified. The empirical tests on RHA equivalent are classified. I've no reason to assume one is better protected than the other w/ the information on hand. Keep in mind, none of these vehicles is well suited for fighting other tanks. None of their armor is likely to stop a sabot round. If they could you'd see militaries lining up to replace their 60 to 70-tonne MBTs w/ the newest light tank. For these types of vehicles, the best protection is being used appropriately (infantry direct-fire support) while the infantry screens for targets and ATGM teams. Optionally, you could add active protection systems like Trophy for additional ATGM defense. The point is, the marginal benefit of additional passive armor decreases rapidly once you have enough to defend against man portable crew-served weapons and vehicle-mounted autocannons (which describes all vehicles of this type) b/c no reasonable amount of armor on these vehicles will stop 120/125mm kinetic penetrators. How much would converting CV90-120 to XM35 cannon cost? Both AGS and Griffin II are armed w/ XM35, which almost certainly means that's an important constraint. Can CV90-120's engine compartment accommodate 1,100 hp engine in its current configuration? That's apparently what they're putting in Griffin II. BAE claims the biggest powerplant available to CV90-120 produces 746kW, which is ~1,000.4 hp. What do you think this says about its mobility compared to Griffin II? Let's say CV90-120 mass = 26,000kg (26 tonnes) and gross power output = 1000.4hp, and G2's mass = 34.47 tonnes and gross power = 1,100hp. CV90-120 and Griffin's gross power-to-weight ratios = 38.47 hp/tonne and 31.91 hp/tonne respectively. Impressive for the 120 assuming they install 1,000hp for vehicles in this weight class, which is doubtful. If CV90-120's mass = Griffin's mass, its gross power to weight ratio = 29.00 hp/tonne. If 120's mass = 40 tonnes, this drops to 25.01 hp/tonne. There's obviously more to it than this, but greater gross hp is generally desirable. BAE's datasheet (linked below) suggests 120's chassis would require modification to install larger powerplants. How much would CV90-120 cost to acquire and maintain in US service? How does the cost per capability per vehicle compare to the alternatives? These metrics are always important and usually classified. There are many unknowns here that we haven't and probably won't be able to deduce w/ publicly available information. What we know is the Army picked Griffin II. That likely means Griffin II was the optimal choice given what was available w/in the program's time, performance, and cost constraints. BAE CV90-120 datasheet: www.baesystems.com/en-media/uploadFile/20210908150343/1434585858794.pdf GDLS Griffin II product page: www.gdls.com/mobile-protected-firepower/ Griffin II: www.military-today.com/tanks/griffin_2.htm
@stephencooper3583
Жыл бұрын
I think some people are missing the point. These will supplement infantry units and give them additional firepower if/when they need it, without having to call, coordinate, and wait for armor to arrive. They get quicker response time because they are already attached to the unit. So when an infantry commander gets the call: "Our Bradleys are taking a beating. We need more firepower NOW!!" Instead of: "Ok, I'll call for tanks. They can be here in 30 minutes." They can say: "Ok, I can have 4 MPFs at your position in 2 minutes." I wouldn't try to slug it out with a real tank - that's not it's purpose... but I'm sure it can knock things down that a Bradley can't. Of course, it will never take the place of an Abrams, but that's not what it's for. Just my $0.02.
@CMDRFandragon
Жыл бұрын
M10 Booker is its official name?
@katamarankatamaranovich9986
2 жыл бұрын
Okay, I'll just ask. I thought Abrams can be rolled out of C-17. So what is the point of MFP if it can't be airdropped?
@nobodyspecial4702
2 жыл бұрын
It's what happens when you put a general in charge of paratroops when he really wants to be in charge of an armored division. Someone should have pointed out to him that wanting a non air mobile tank for use by air mobile infantry is stupid.
@dudejo
2 жыл бұрын
Well, with the MFP, you now have a few dozen more tons of cargo. So at least you can deploy the MFP along with its support crew and supplies. Or the MFP and a second vehicle. Or even TWO MFPs.
@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537
Жыл бұрын
@@nobodyspecial4702 Very funny that the other tank was at least able to if needed. After all the shit they put the US light tank program through over so many decades, they buy something that's not even light as a light tank or set up to perform like one. On top of that it's another GD nepotism buy that does it. What an insult. When troops say they "like the Griffon" the context is lopped off on purpose because you can be comfortable with a full paper stat card brochure trundling on base and then blow ass in role doing what you're supposed to. Armless Lazyboy vs bucket seat when it matters.
@RJT80
2 жыл бұрын
Makes little sense considering how effective the 30 mm BTR cannon has been in Ukraine for both sides. That's been a major revelation in this war and it will only for years. Those cannons can be monstrously effective while people thought they were undergunned and outdated. This new light tank was supposed to weigh 30 tons and they've already ballooned it another 10 tons making it roughly half the weight of the Abrams. And it likely won't stop there. A much lighter wheeled, air dropable vehicle with a 30-50mm cannon would be more than enough to do the job they envision while also allowing for some emergency troop carrying or medivac.
@norbi1411
2 жыл бұрын
US Army plans to buy them as well but for different tasks. Low caliber guns are not enough in the direct fire support role With minimum being something closer to 70-90 mm. Not to mention poor AT capability. Of course you can add ATGM but it has its own limitation like problems with firing on the move.
@alexdobma4694
2 жыл бұрын
Couldnt they just develop the Bradley into that role? I dont see why they needed to start a whole seperate development cycle when making the Bradley lighter and thus air-droppable would do the trick.
@norbi1411
2 жыл бұрын
@@alexdobma4694 poor fire power
@kuhaku9587
2 жыл бұрын
@@alexdobma4694 Just too old at this point. They are wearing down and even if you make new ones, they will have the same design issues from the time it was made. Better just create something new with the new techs, design choices and materials so it will last decades to come. Build for present while leaving room for the future
@paulsteaven
2 жыл бұрын
@@alexdobma4694 they needed something that can provide direct fire support against hardened targets and they know that their Abrams can't always accompany them.
@RalphFDM
7 ай бұрын
I think this was the replacement of the Stryker which is equiped in a 105 mm shell, wherein the M10 Booker is just made to suit the chasee of the turret to better aim effectively...
@joeblow9657
2 жыл бұрын
Quite interesting. It'll be interesting to see how the doctrine develops around them
@bernardli9514
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the update on discord and the content, KZitem notifications never get to me.
@stupidburp
2 жыл бұрын
These could also potentially be useful as infantry support in mountain and arctic divisions. Strykers have been struggling in Alaska and need to be replaced with other vehicles, these could be part of that mix. 10th Mountain really needs to return to a specialist division in order to prepare for possible future conflicts that could need such capabilities. I think 10th Mountain should also move to be based entirely in higher altitude mountains such as in Colorado. New York can get some other high capability unit such as 75th Rangers.
@norbi1411
2 жыл бұрын
Couple of mouths ago US Army reactivated 11th Airborne Division(Arctic) in Alaska. Also didn't US Army already have BV200S with units in Alaska?
@stupidburp
2 жыл бұрын
Army has a small number of bv206 or similar but they are the small unarmed and unarmored type. Just for moving people. Could use a better version of articulated all terrain vehicle such as the 3rd gen one offered by ST Kinetics. Could be built in the US by Oshkosh or whoever.
@cm-pr2ys
2 жыл бұрын
4th ID and 10th Mtn should switch places, and 4th IBCT 10th MTN should replace 1st ABCT 11th ABN in AK. If space permits, I would simply reflag 1-11 back to 1-25, and send them to Schofield to be with the other 2 Brigades of 25th ID as a jungle/ air assault unit.
@gregs7562
2 жыл бұрын
Interesting to see this pan out when the UK is having so much trouble with the similarly Ascod 2 based Ajax program.
@missinginaction2b
2 жыл бұрын
It won't. That's the point.
@LadyAnuB
2 жыл бұрын
MPF Light Tank = very highly mobile cannon for light infantry support So it's armor attachable to a light infantry unit. Which brings up the strong suit of light infantry and a weakness of vehicles, terrain. I can sit up on a good hill with some ATGMs and Stingers and small arms and can have a field day with vehicular and air support opposition. Add in IEDs and you have Afghanistan success. Can someone point out to me where the MPF makes sense?
@gmey001
Жыл бұрын
It's like an up-gunned Hellcat, with better armor. I like it.
@aps125
2 жыл бұрын
MPF is the only new light tank that still comes with manual loading, all of its contemporaries have auto loader with a 3 member crew: Type 15, Sabrah, Kaplan, etc.
@colincampbell767
2 жыл бұрын
A loader weighs about 200 pounds and al autoloader - about a ton. The autoloader was cut in order to keep the tank inside the weight budget.
@Nick-wp1vb
2 жыл бұрын
Theres advantages to having an extra human in there. Help with repairs, extra set of eyes, redundant crew in case one is wounded or killed. And a good loader can be just about as fast as an autoloader.
@aps125
2 жыл бұрын
@@Nick-wp1vb if manual control is a good thing why US army opts for only 2 member crew for its future OMFV program?
@ShadowGJ
2 жыл бұрын
@@Nick-wp1vb Yeah, that's the general argument for a 4-man main battle tank, but in a presumably light tank? Its survivability won't be great, so redundancy and more repair hands aren't likely to come into play. A smidge of bad luck and you're toast, with four casualties.
@TheCoupe06
2 жыл бұрын
In those active-duty years of my trying to work with rifle company commanders, from the 70s til my retiring, I've met one who knew what value TOWs had as assets. The rest didn't have a clue. The Dept. of the Army, in its unique wisdom has even gotten rid of the "Hotel" identifier. It's going to be very interesting to see how it all plays out in a "pinch". With troops knowing only how to shoot TOWS, but not necessarily how to deploy them.
@HellsGuard
2 жыл бұрын
Very insightful! Excellent. The Infantry school even combined Mk 19, M2 .50 Cal. With the TOW course and call it Weapons leader course or sonthing like that. TOW gunnery is a perishable skill, and TWO gunners don't get adequate tracking/training before shooting ki e missiles was my experience.
@TheCoupe06
2 жыл бұрын
@@HellsGuard What's remarkable to me, these three and a half decades on is that what's playing out in Ukraine these days could easily have played out in Fulda...
@stacyscott2720
Жыл бұрын
I’ve read every comment. Lots of good points. The purpose of Cav goes beyond just scouting. The mission of a Cav unit is to Find, Fix and Pursue. A Cav unit has to have the capability to pin or fix the threat until the “heavies” arrive. See Buford’s Stand during the first day of Gettysburg or 73 Easting. Atm drones can find but they can’t fix or pursue. The military has to adjust to “big” war against a near peer adversary, something we haven’t done for a while. Expect to see a lot of WWII tactics re-emerge.
@starwarsfan5492
2 жыл бұрын
I think the Marines may use this tank too since it's light like a Bradley, and easy to move from island to island, in my theroy
@superjesse645
Жыл бұрын
It makes me happy seeing light tanks making a possible comeback.
@ElTubeo1515
9 ай бұрын
The 105mm MPF and the 25mm LAV II could both be tools that allow the airborne forces to look more like a lighter version of the same non-airborne units.
@leifkhas7425
7 ай бұрын
"Shock Effect" is just a nice sounding way of saying blitzkrieg
@hanzwillford5141
2 жыл бұрын
Finally an actual video going over this. Hard to find info about it
@LynnetteJJW
2 жыл бұрын
So the Griffin here will mount a 120mm in an assault gun/TD config. A 105mm standard. And a 50mm for support of infantry as an IFV. A good addition to fill the Marine’s back up. Though. I feel that an airdrop able up-gunned platform is needed. The Stryker, bradley, and LAV-25 are airdropable, but atleast a 50mm smart gun would be nice. A 105mm like on the MGS would be perfect, but i guess that would reduce armor ratings.
@ech0labs
2 жыл бұрын
love the conflict desert storm music
@arnoldestipona2244
Жыл бұрын
This issue is similar to German panzer division equipped with tiger and panther tanks against the mobile artillery equipped with STUG III, hetzer turretless armored. Panzer is for anti tank and main shock offensive force while stug 3 and hetzer as mobile artillery support for infantry.
@generaljemssmjem437
2 жыл бұрын
the video is interesting of how the us will integrate it's new light tank, but i have good knowledge of how the M8 AGS was just constantly abandoned even thou it has potential
@manticore4952
2 жыл бұрын
Light tanks are great because you can build a lot more of them, they don't go up against other tanks but are infantry and APC destroyer's. While the light tank supports a high mobility operation the MBTs can engage the other sides MBTs, if the other side only has MBTs it will have to move MBTs away from infantry support to battle the friendly sides MBTs. They wanted the Stryker to perform this role with the added tank turret however its armour is too weak leaving it only able to battle bunkers.
@joehughes5177
Жыл бұрын
light tanks are Bradley bait. a main battle tank is a tank fighter, a light tank is a roving gunslinger with no strengths or reserves . Over armed usually means under armored. Bullet sponges. Never forget we are a combined and integrated force
@Frenchdefense9404
Жыл бұрын
@@joehughes5177 yea man you know more than everyone. Stfu
@Justowner
Жыл бұрын
@@joehughes5177 The under armored problem is exasperated by the "If it looks like a tank it gets responded to like a tank". If the enemy sees a big gun turret on tracks it get shot at by the same weapons an enemy would use against the MBTs.
@stealth225
2 жыл бұрын
105 mm seems a bit low, I have heard that the gd mpf can have 120 mm gun is this true? Also well if they are not adding the 120 they should add atgm launchers since they are good standoff weapon against tanks
@BattleOrder
2 жыл бұрын
In my opinion, some sort of autocannon-armed fire support vehicle with ATGMs would have been a better move but who cares what I think
@johannbezuidenhout2976
2 жыл бұрын
@@BattleOrder You mean a Bradley? Sorry can't steal large amounts of taxpayer money just building a better Bradley.
@norbi1411
2 жыл бұрын
@@BattleOrder those vehicles are planned too but not to fill light tanks niche. Different level of fire power, as you said yourself.
@norbi1411
2 жыл бұрын
Yep, both tanks are prepared to take lightweight 120mm. I think you're right. Since Army dropped the parachute drops idea and went with heavier design, next logical step should be upgunnig the tank with more capable 120 gun.
@Jeremiah90526
2 жыл бұрын
Honestly, the 105mm is a perfectly good gun for a light tank, as it does have ammo designed to kill modern MBTs, and enough HE potential to do the damage necessary, with the added benefit of having higher round count than you could with a 120mm. Realistically it was a choice of either the 105mm or something like a 30mm autocannon because battle experience has shown that you get chewed up if you choose something in the middle. I would personally prefer another package closer to the FV107 Scimitar, because that is smaller, and actually air droppable, and has the range and fuel efficiency to actually stay with an airborne unit for the long haul. This being the "heavier" model for when you actually have some infrastructure taken over during the assault is fine, but believing you can get this into a truly hot area is madness.
@travismoore7849
2 жыл бұрын
They may as well have a rip saw with rockets and light chain gun.
@verdemg90
Жыл бұрын
I see a few variants in the future. It looks like they are planning for a recovery vehicle variant. I also see an engineer / MICLIC / Miner plow variant and an air defense variant focused on UAVs. I also see a need to plus up Counter mobility because armored defensive fighting positions don't dig themselves. Hopefully they have also figured out the logistics for Ammo and fuel. I remember a briefing when the stryker concept was being fielded. When the question of fuel support during combat came up the briefer said " You just need to hang some 5 gallon fuel cans on the outside" and you can refuel from a local fuel source like a gas station".
@fernandocosta2194
2 жыл бұрын
For "mobile ground fire support system" requirement, MPF Light tank is not the most cost effective approach, would say that the upgrade of the 30mm & 25 mm IFV medium gun turrets, with 70mm Hydra and 127 mm zuni rockets launchers on their side for guided and unguided rounds and an upgrade in sync the of FCS and Laser guidance plug-ins could be, since that would be the equivelant to a large gun firepower, similar effect (and as stated in the doutrine of use of MPF, they are not tank destroyers, they are large caliber direct fire support)... is not new nor original, industry e.g. John Cockerill turrets are testing that capability (rocket launchers on turrets)
@maximad5997
2 жыл бұрын
I would say that but the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle Program was rebooted last year with all companies participating going for the bid at any opportunity they can. Light tank in it's self suppose to be for Airborne divisions as they had been decades ago, problem was we literally never had a commission light tank since 1950's which was the Sheridan tanks while the M8 Armored Gun System (Which was originally supposed to be released with the Abrams) failed in 1990s and ultimately scrapped entirely(Then failed at the trial/disqualified again for non compliance in 2022). You also have an idea of it being used for Marines as well in Island hopping missions since USA focus going to be directed towards China.
@michaeldillery9232
2 жыл бұрын
You should write a letter to the pentagon and explain your position on this matter I'm sure they will follow your guidance.
@DaHuntsman1
2 жыл бұрын
From the sounds of it, the MPF is another Bradley in the making, where while the initial concept and design sounds excellent on paper, its been designed by committee since then and now present a case where it might not be a good fit for its intended role. MPF's don't seem to be well suited for their initial role of being attached to Airborne units due to the need to be transported by C-17s and being unable to be airdropped, meaning that it won't be used for the main purpose of why we still maintain Airborne forces: to rapidly seize enemy airfields, because we need those airfields for the C-17's. Not to mention with only being able to transport 2 MPF's at a time per C-17, it is the same amount of Abrams that can be transported, so at that point why would you transport MPF's when you could instead get Abrams, which have both more firepower and more protection. Now i could see a use for MPF being of greater use with the Marine Corps as a compromise between their current stance of no armored vehicles whatsoever, and the Abrams MBT they had before. Or that the MPF would be kind of like a budget Abrams where with lower logistical and manufacturing costs, the MPF would be more useful as part of the Armored Cavalry units of the Army, being far more expendable in comparison to their heavier cousin. I would also like to make note of the mention that the Army is moving away from independent BCT's in favor of a more Division centric model, which when you consider the current conflict in Ukraine has pretty much demonstrated that smaller units working semi-independently in the form of the Russian Battalion Tactical Groups have proven ultimately a very misguided venture in the end, though how much of that can be attributed to Russian incompetence and command structure and how much can be attributed to the BTG's themselves still can't be answered as of yet. But i believe while BCT's work well in the context of the insurgency level conflicts we have been fighting, should we find ourselves in a near-peer conventional war again i do feel we will transition back to Division and Corps level maneuvering in order to get the most bang for our buck.
@user-dq1je7zy3p
2 жыл бұрын
This guy watched Pentagon Wars and believed the bullshit.
@missinginaction2b
2 жыл бұрын
While Pierre spey is spinning in his grave enough to power NYC for six months. lol
@matthiuskoenig3378
2 жыл бұрын
@@user-dq1je7zy3p lkr
@marseldagistani1989
5 ай бұрын
@@missinginaction2b Yea. Why do people think Pentagon Wars is a documentary? When it's just a satire of the Military Procurement, and Burton was a flyboy who had an axe to grind, because the army snubbed him And was designed as an IFV from the start as a response to the BMP 1.
@draconian6692
4 ай бұрын
Bradley turned into sonething amazing tho
@LifesanL4976
2 жыл бұрын
They wanted an air droppable tank. They got a mini M1 that can't be air dropped and will most likely be used like an M1 by incompetent butterbars that don't listen to their platoon sergeant. It seems like a tank made to fit a niche role in the airborne (which in and of itself is a little useless unless we have complete air superiority; keep in mind that AA technology is more advanced and big WW2-style airborne operations aren't feasible against a near peer adversary)
@bluemarlin8138
2 жыл бұрын
It can be combat dropped out of the back of a C-130. “Air drops” when it comes to tanks doesn’t mean it landing like a paratrooper. It means the aircraft flies VERY low above an airstrip or field with the rear ramp open, and the cargo slides out the back with the aid of drag chutes. So as long as it maintains this capability, then it can be combat deployed with the airborne. The US isn’t going to use airborne forces deep behind enemy lines in Russia or China. We’d probably use them in a Pacific island campaign against China, where SEAD can take out basically all of the air defenses. (MANPADs would still be a concern, but nothing is zero risk.) This vehicle could be quite useful in such an operation. We’d probably also use them to quickly deploy forces to reinforce our armor numbers until more Abrams can arrive.
@LifesanL4976
2 жыл бұрын
@@bluemarlin8138 Valid point about the rapid reinforcement idea. A lot of the islands occupied by the Chinese have airbases on or near enough to them, that interception of the aircraft performing the SEAD operation is likely and/or the AA defenses take them out. There are many overlapping layers of protection around the bases, so much so, that it would be very time consuming and expensive to try to dislodge their foothold on the islands. (not that it would matter because we can't go to an open war with China, considering MAD still applies)
@NikovK
Жыл бұрын
I don't know why they did a 105 instead of a 76 or 75mm gun as presently found on a lot of naval vessels. Those have outright semi-automatic loading, far less blast to hazard infantry and more rounds for a given volume of ammo stowage.
@dominuslogik484
8 ай бұрын
those guns require a massive autoloading system that wouldn't fit on a tank, also the 105mm was the same gun in use on the Stryker AGS which this thing is supposed to be replacing.
@NikovK
8 ай бұрын
@@dominuslogik484 Those 105mms were picked because they were derived from the M60 series and there is an autoloader system for the Stryker AGS with the far larger shells. It follows that autoloader is far larger as well. Somehow we put it on a Stryker. Yet you don't have to look that far, South Africa has armored vehicles with 3-inch naval guns, with autoloaders.
@Corbots80
7 ай бұрын
Being able to cross bridges is a good reason
@PeetHobby
2 жыл бұрын
Cheap, fast and powerful light weight tanks are the future, two men crew, driver and gunner, auto cannon with high velocity rounds, adjustable cannon so tank can be in cover only the gun sticking out on the top of the cover. A modern light weight version of the XM274 prototype and it's variations/clones.
@sciarpecyril
2 жыл бұрын
Sounds almost like Predator tank from Warhammer 40k.
@princeofcupspoc9073
2 жыл бұрын
No, not really. The MBT will always be as heavy and powerful as possible.
@norbi1411
2 жыл бұрын
No they're not. All future MBT programs aims for the ~50-60 tonnes vehicle with proper armour.
@barleysixseventwo6665
2 жыл бұрын
Two-men crews are simply too small. A gunner/commander gets tunnel visioned on targets and can’t maintain good situational awareness. Plus you force them to busy themselves with listening to the radio for orders or worse: they’re the platoon commander and they have to give _and_ receive orders for the other tanks! That, plus activating the smoke dischargers, handling tactical navigation (that is, read a map), and coordinating with infantry. This isn’t a problem you can solve with technology as it is a purely human issue: we meatsacks just *cannot* multitask well enough to do all that at once. So you need a commander in addition to a gunner. America could develop an autoloader instead of relying on loaders, but tank crews are pretty adamant that they need the extra hands and eyes and ears to make best use of their tanks. It’s a much bigger debate, but it’s clear the US doesn’t intend to create an Armata-style segregated 3-crew cabin for their next tank for almost exactly this reason.
@norbi1411
2 жыл бұрын
@@barleysixseventwo6665 actually it's one of the strongest competitors in OMT. As it comes to the two-crews you're partially correct. Right now technology is not advanced enough to effectively take away dedicated gunner from tank crew. And IV gen tanks will propably have three crewman. At least at the beggining. Altough OMFV it's more likely to have only two guys.
@Valkires1
2 жыл бұрын
"a critical factor of this tank that must be air droppable" "Best I can do is make it fit in the back of a cargo plane take it or leave it"
@bermanmo6237
Жыл бұрын
So the concept is similar to World War 2 Infantry Divisuon where there is a battalion of tanks assigned to it. If any additional armor support is needed, tanks especially b medium tanks like the Sherman were attached to them.
@karlp8484
2 жыл бұрын
Could they not have just equipped a Lynx with a gun turret? It has the size and weight to carry a gun. I mean that's what Lynx is all about, different modules for different roles.
@matthiuskoenig3378
2 жыл бұрын
you mean have a tank with a needlessly tall hull adding to the weight and profile for no good reason? in a vehicle intended to be light for greater mobility? lmao
@catlee8064
2 жыл бұрын
This is what a Gen does before he retires.....I reckon he will be on the board or a contractor to the company that wins this. If you can land a c17....that means youre holding the skies...so use apaches/A10s to shock and awe. This takes away from the concept of airborne troops.
@cheshire4856
2 жыл бұрын
This seems like a good idea, just being used improperly.
@SirCheezersIII
2 жыл бұрын
Because you can't use AH-64s or A-10s for every doctrinal task assigned to armor. They can't be on station all of the time, and even if aerial superiority is achieved it doesn't mean the enemy's air defense is inactive. What happens if you need to support an infantry battalion's attack on a key objective but MANPADS or SHORADS are located in the AO? You act as if the addition of this Battalion is taking away aviation assets from the airborne division when it's just putting another option for support to the table for them. And you mention this general's role in the whole affair as if the entirety of the procurement process for the US military is just a series of back scratching and favors while the rest of the world's defense industries are somehow less corrupt by comparison.
@catlee8064
2 жыл бұрын
@@SirCheezersIII I never said the rest of the world defense industries were less corrupt...I just pointed out in all likelyhood he will get a gold watch or something down the line. If there are manpads around this objective, you wont be landing a C17 will you? The whole idea of airborne troops is to light, fast and tough. If an objective needs hitting hard, there are many options. Artillery is the go to or Mortars/40mm auto grenade launchers/Javelin/. All these are fitted to the JLTV which is AIRDROP capable. Im not acting like it will take aviation assets away, im acting like its a waste of money. And tbh i dont know why they are wanting this, when they are cutting the MGS out this year, which is also air drop capable. Yes the MGS has a few problems, which could be fixed with alot less money.
@peterprovenzano9039
2 жыл бұрын
I like how the fielding says F you to the 11th ABN Division (Arctic) the odd Airborne unit out I guess
@nobodyherepal3292
2 жыл бұрын
3:36 ….is that Arma 1???… Edit: that is totally Paradiso airport on Sahrani!
@bertster28
2 жыл бұрын
I was going to say Paradiso Airport on Sahrani, an OG map.
@MisterFoxton
2 жыл бұрын
It's VBS. But yeah, same map.
@revolverDOOMGUY
2 жыл бұрын
Despite appreciating the concept of an air transportable light tank, i have problems understanding why the tank does not use a proper 120mm gun. Some people keep telling me that the reason is the recoil and weight, but if the centauro2, a 8x8 platform, can take a 120mm gun thanks to the muzzle breack, i don't see the problem in that sense. The 120mm gun would give the tank a series of advantages: less logistic problems because of ammo commonality, the option of more modern mltipurpose ammo like the AMP (advanced multi purpose), longer range ( and therefore highest safety), superior anti armor capabilities, making the tank actually capable of surviving an unexpected encounter with an enemy MBT. At this point the only advantage i see it the lower weight that can be used to increse the armor protection, but that does not seem like a good trade considering longer gun range is usually a more important part of the "survivability" onion. Even the fact that the tank can transport more 105mm ammo seems a bit less important thanks to the new multi purpose ammo options that the 120mm have. It seems to me this was overall the biggst mistake.
@stupidburp
2 жыл бұрын
105 provides more shots per loadout. When the primary targets are fortifications, 105 will work fine. Blowing up more things has more value than blowing up fewer things with bigger booms in this context. It is not supposed to be used in an anti tank role. The US should have sufficient knowledge of where tanks are likely to be and can move assets in to counter them. If pressed in to an anti tank situation anyways, it would have to rely on flanking or immobilizing the target. 105 will penetrate sides and rear of potential targets.
@stupidburp
2 жыл бұрын
Ammo commonality isn’t really an issue because it won’t be operating in armor units. It is primarily replacing Stryker AGS and already retired light tanks in infantry units that won’t have any 120 lying around.
@TheMachoManlyMan
2 жыл бұрын
Also, the 120mm might have just been too large for the turret. The loader may just not be able to maneuver the rounds used by the 120mm gun in a more cramped turret
@coryhoggatt7691
2 жыл бұрын
The 120mm gun on the Centauro II is a low-velocity version. It can’t shoot APFSDS. The vehicle chassis can’t handle the recoil. The 105mm on the AGS was also a low-velocity gun.
@revolverDOOMGUY
2 жыл бұрын
@@coryhoggatt7691 Nope, the 120mm gun on the centauro is not at all a law velocity version and it could totally shoot APFSDS rounds. The chassis could handle the recoil thanks to the muzzle breack. From CIO Iveco Oto-Melara: "The new Centauro armoured vehicle represents a new stage in the evolution of the storied Centauro 105 and 120mm armoured vehicle, the first 8x8 wheeled antitank vehicle in the world with a high-pressure gun." "The third generation 120/45 mm gun (optional 105/52mm interchangeable to 120 mm), with integrated and stabilised low-recoil muzzle brake, provides the same fire power as most modern main battle tanks, with the capability of firing all latest generation 120 mm NATO APFSDS and multi-role MP munitions." www.iveco-otomelara.com/wheeled/centauro8x8.php
@TheBurg229
Жыл бұрын
I love how the Army is in denial and refusing to call the M10 a light tank
@amirhoseinrabiee5854
2 жыл бұрын
Your videos are great. but I wish you could make a video to explain the basics structure of an army(like what is the brigade, squad and etc and how they organized)
@brianfoley4328
2 жыл бұрын
That was one outdamnstanding briefing...you must have been an S-2 type in this or a previous lifetime.
@johnmascia7612
2 жыл бұрын
We literally watched a battle order video in HWLC lol
@geoffreycalligan9438
Жыл бұрын
A replacement for the now obsolete. M-62/63 SHERIDAN air mobile light tank. retired in the late 80's if memory serves
@fleurdetristesse5218
2 жыл бұрын
engagement bump comment and do keep up the good work, my battle order lords🙏
@Butter_Warrior99
2 жыл бұрын
Dod: If it ain’t from the US, I don’t want it. US Marines and their HKs and Benellis: I’ma pretend I didn’t here that.
@princeofcupspoc9073
2 жыл бұрын
That's not so much the army as the Senate. If it's not produced by my bribers, er, campaign donators, you won't get it. Maybe we should open up campaign donations from anywhere. Trump laid the groundwork with his Russian campaign funds. (Sarcasm)
@thekraken1173
2 жыл бұрын
HK M27s and Benelli M4s are made in Client States of USA though.
@cattledog901
2 жыл бұрын
Stop with the U.S. only buys U.S. equipment BS and learn some actual facts. The M3 Carl Gustav is swedish, M252 mortar and M119 howitzer are British, the M9 was Italian, the new USS constellation frigate is an Italian design, the new M110A1 DMR is made by HK in Germany, even this new MPF is derived from the Spanish ASCOD platform and there are more examples.
@TheTrueAdept
2 жыл бұрын
@@cattledog901 However, all of those are produced _in_ the US.
@cattledog901
2 жыл бұрын
@@TheTrueAdept And we paid foreign developers and bought their designs so we could license produce them here. Same as other countries do with our weapons. Doesn't change the fact that the U.S. will procure foreign weapon designs if it finds a need.
@bingo5694
Жыл бұрын
Narrator: not air-dropable Me: cries Ren & Stimpy tears
@joaosabino2909
2 жыл бұрын
Rooikat Oto Melara 76, Rooikat 105mm, B 1 Centauro
@ultrajd
7 ай бұрын
Honestly, I think this weapon system could be very useful. Not just in airborne operations. But for quick response forces. If I ever correctly, the US Marines have an expeditionary force, which one of its mandates is it Hass to be able to respond to a threat almost anywhere in the world in. I believe it is 72 hours although I could be wrong. Considering the logistical burden that it can be in moving things like a 70 ton Abrams MBT a vehicle like this would probably be significantly easier to move. Not only that but a team of vehicles like this could be used as a form of rapid response units on an existing battlefield. Another thing that could be developed, is a kind of tandem, combats system, where these vehicles could work in conjunction with units, such as Bradley infantry fighting vehicles in a similar fashion to it was done during the first gulf war. One strategy that was utilized during storm was the Bradley units with their extremely advanced optic systems would spot targets for the tanks, who would then use the shared data to the enemy. Think of it is kind of like the vehicle equivalent of a sniper/spotter team. This vehicle definitely could be useful in the future. We just have to find a way to properly design a type of battle doctrine for it. Another good thing I should mention is a vehicle like this could potentially take the place of the Hovey in a few aspects. For instance, the HV was never designed to basically be a front line combat vehicle. Yes, it has armor. But it’s not very strong armor. Mostly only Capable of stopping intermediate, caliber ammunition. Imagine if a convoy had a few of these things in it. I can tell you right now that these units were available when I was overseas, we probably would have fared a lot better when dealing IED attack and sniper fire.
@yugoslavia_operator128
2 жыл бұрын
With today technology, does it really pay off to have light tanks? As APCs yes, but light tank? 🤔🤔
@princeofcupspoc9073
2 жыл бұрын
Airborne is designed for short missions. This is the heaviest ground vehicle that can be employed in airborne operations. It gives the infantry division a lot of punch. Makes sense to me.
@keshimars
2 жыл бұрын
I mean, atgm's we have nowadays could easily take out any tank,also if enemy infantry came face up with a light tank they won't be like"ohh it's just a light tank guys,we're alright",instead they would just go haywire desperately in search of a javelin or a kornet or wtv, HUGE tank battles like desert storm and Kursk are quite rare, even in this Ukrainian conflict tank to tank battles don't happen so often, but if a heavy tank and a light tank came down to a fight, it's prbly up to the crew and all the training and xp they've got,also light tanks are generally cheap than heavy ones, so it's easy to mass produce, a similar situation during WW2 when the US and the soviets did so and managed to outnumber the enemy, also don't take any of this stupid things I wrote seriously and don't take this as rant on your comment :D
@cursedcat281
2 жыл бұрын
Makes the army more flexible and easier to deploy. Look at Japan's RRF for example with the MCV.
@yugoslavia_operator128
2 жыл бұрын
These are all good answers, am glad to see someone mentioned going haywire to look for RPG, Kornet or any AT. Sight of a tank aint guaranteed win.
@matthiuskoenig3378
2 жыл бұрын
why would APCs be ok but light tanks not? if anything its the APC that should be not ok, since its slower to deploy its weapons (infantry) and its weapons are even easier to kill, and APCs either have worse mobility or worse armour or both compaired to a light tank. or did you not notice significantly more APCs and infantry have been lost in ukraine on both sides than tanks...
@nobodyspecial4702
2 жыл бұрын
I'm thinking that this concept is already outdated before it was even brought to the table. We had man portable missile systems capable of destroying everything this tank was designed to be used against, so why burden a rapid deployment parachute force with armored vehicles that in now way improve their capabilities? The whole point of paratroopers wasn't to hit the ground and then go on the offensive all over the countryside, it was to capture and hold key strategic points long enough for the more heavily armed ground units to relieve them. Seems this general wanted to be commanding an armored division instead of light paratroops.
@colincampbell767
2 жыл бұрын
The number of these 'man portable' systems are generally limited to one or two per squad. And they are generally reserved for use against enemy armored fighting vehicles. A tank has 'persistence' in that it can spend all day taking out enemy positions for the infantry. And it's very hard to kill (when operated by well-trained crews and fighting as part of a combined arms team). And these man-portable weapons have the extreme drawback of announcing your position to the enemy who will send artillery to your location.
@kazedcat
2 жыл бұрын
Anti structure gun platform. When taking out fortified structure you need cannons that can fire several dozens of rounds. While I think a light weight MLRS can do it and a lot more flexible. A light tank also fit the role with a more focus intensity.
@colincampbell767
2 жыл бұрын
@@kazedcat You need a level of precision that even the GPS artillery cannot provide. Another issue is that somebody else may have priority over you for the artillery fire. Having a few tanks around gives you 1 meter diameter precision fires and you know that they aren't going anywhere.
@colincampbell767
2 жыл бұрын
@@kazedcat MRLS isn't accurate enough to take out field fortifications. And it has 'danger close' distances the troops have the stay beyond.
@kazedcat
2 жыл бұрын
@@colincampbell767 Switchblade has pinpoint accuracy there is no reason why a missile could not do the same. Javelin could hit tanks dead center. Just use Javelins guidance system but switch out the payload with high explosive, extend the range and make it vehicle launched instead of shoulder launched. This is why I specified light MLRS. A short range precision guided missile launch vehicle instead of the current extra long range missile launched on a heavy truck.
@thomast8539
2 жыл бұрын
So, the Army will be foregoing plans to conduct mountain, jungle and mountainous jungle airborne landings from now on? Only operations for fat, wide open spaces with an airport or straight section of interstate highway nearby? Interesting.
@kazedcat
2 жыл бұрын
I don't think tanks are very effective in jungle and mountain operation. For those environment you need infantry and light trucks to carry equipment.
@bremnersghost948
2 жыл бұрын
Look at what the South African Light Tanks and IFV's achieved against Tanks like the T55 with 90 and 105mm Guns
@FureyinHD
2 жыл бұрын
You'd think they could run it with an autocannon, get rid of the loader, and add ATGMs to the turret. Would surely have more firepower, capability, and less weight, like most light tanks?
@Wick9876
2 жыл бұрын
The bigger gun has a longer range and bigger bang than an autocannon while being much cheaper and harder to spot/jam/intercept than an ATGM. Apparently the US Army thinks that's a valuable niche.
@matthiuskoenig3378
2 жыл бұрын
most light tanks are armed with 105mm guns, exactly like this vehicle. some have 120mm guns (which this has been shown to be upgradeable to). some older models have 90mm guns. very few light tanks have autocannons+missiles, that is common with IFVs but not light tanks. IFVs are designed to work alongside 105+mm armed tanks not instead of.
@FureyinHD
2 жыл бұрын
@@matthiuskoenig3378 British have been running autocannon and 3 man crew in the FV107 Scimitar and found it far more useful than the old Scorpion with the small cannon.
@FureyinHD
2 жыл бұрын
@@Wick9876 Don't really see the need for long range engagements in a scout vehicle, and ATGMs could cover that anyway. ATGMs are still wildly effective, as demonstrated in Ukraine.
@marcross52-95
Жыл бұрын
This platform was based on an Israeli ASCOD design (according to wilipedia). The Philippines has adapted a few dozen wheeled and tracked versions (Sabrah and Scorpion) for counter insurgency and regional defense.
@joeokabayashi8669
2 жыл бұрын
Another informative video; excellent! Thank you!
@txhookey5608
Жыл бұрын
Both Marines and Army also need an "engineering vehicle". A heavy armor very large bore low velocity cannon with attachments for knocking down walls and barriers. It doesn't need to be light as it will be an urban or fortified area tool which usually comes toward the end of a conflict. It has been shown many times that a heavy low velocity round is much more devasting to structures and troops in those structures than mortars or high velocity tank rounds. A napalm variant would also be interesting.
@ghjgbnhjjghjthknvf6379
2 жыл бұрын
So the aircraft loaded with 2 smallish but still heavy as fu#k tanks, is going to land into a presumably secured landing zone but the likely hood is the immediate surrounding area will be hostile, and if its not and you have a totally secure area to land these things you then have a tank that again presumably is not heavily armored because of the need for the thing to be air lifted, driving around looking like a normal tank, this will be like a guy holding a come shoot me sign. Tanks draw fire 😂 good luck with all that Yanks, do your general's hate your soilders? Seriously I'm actually concerned.
@Livi_Noelle
Жыл бұрын
Airborne ops, over the beach ops, air droppable, fits on aircraft, sling loadable, rapid deployable... All things that the M1 can't do and we will need in near peer confrontations.
@theartistformidablyknownas3807
Жыл бұрын
you did the cgp grey thing the smart thing
@iuliuscaesar9078
Жыл бұрын
The ASCOD (even has an autonomous version) from GDELS/SBS is way better and equiped with cutting-edge tech.
@Treblaine
2 жыл бұрын
38 tonnes for a "light" tank I hope it's got excellent protection from RPGs for that weight still the 105mm gun seems too powerful for bunkers it would be very good against any older tank that doesn't use ERA or composite armor. Still, I think they could have compromised more for something more easily transported, something in the 20 tonne range with a small auto-cannon and depending on TOW missiles for anything too tough for a small autocannon.
@SeanP7195
5 ай бұрын
Seems interesting. When I was in Somalia we had no armor at all. This is common with light infantry. We never trained with mech at all. Having a dedicated platoon (albeit only at brigade level) could have its bonuses. The negatives seem that some commanders could rely too much on it. Troops down to the company level would have to train, and know them with combat operations. Seems like an objective buster.
Пікірлер: 2,1 М.