Explaining the M10 BOOKER Light Tank's Future Role

[@BattleOrder]

Details presented here are tentative and subject to change.

[@cjclark2002]

Oh I’m sure they are.

[@MrDK0010]

​@@davisdelp8131 Logo has been like that for a while. Are you bothered?

[@wolflegion_]

@@davisdelp8131 does it bother you that much? 🏳️‍🌈

[@ravenkk4816]

The US Army, they want what their their opponents had and just made up a excuse for it.

[@politics9714]

Why is your profile picture LBGT+ flag like color?

[@rtstrong]

“… the MPF is not air droppable.” Everything is a air droppable… *ONCE*.

[@Uncle_Smallett]

To airdrop something, you need first airlift that something.

[@rapierlynx]

"If at first you don't succeed, maybe parachuting isn't for you."

[@willl7780]

🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@terryfowler6090]

Yuck yuck yuck😂

[@watchthe1369]

LAPES, I am sure they can roll it off the ramp at a "fast Taxi"

[@hellbreaksloose5536]

The MPF could also be an alternative for the USMC ditching Tanks. It provides a mobile ground fire support system that has greater tactical and strategically mobility than the Abrams.

[@lebron3505]

Big mistake, fot the USMC to be ditching his tanks, they should at least keep a brigade, this Generals should stop experimenting with our Marines lives and stick to what has been proven that really works.

[@lebron3505]

Whoever decided to ditch the tanks for the USMC should be court martial and fired!!

[@christianelthorp8601]

@@lebron3505 they got rid of them because they want to be the marines again instead of Army Jr. A 70 ton tank isn’t going to do a lot in island warfare and certainly takes up a lot of space that could go to more relevant systems.That’s why this rank could be be useful, as it’s half the weight while still retaining a good amount of firepower.

[@rrenkrieg7988]

@@lebron3505 how do you get the tanks from the Amphibious Assault ship to the coast then? they ditched tanks because they don't have any space for it in the doctrine and the ships, tanks would just burden the limited logistics space that specific Marine Operations can carry, if they really needed tanks they'd just have a joint operation with the Army

[@Sandycheeks6699]

@@lebron3505 that take is cold asf lol

[@calebbearup4282]

Considering as a cavalry scout we spent about 30% of out training going up against armored units with our Bradley's. I can guarantee that a unit with that large of a gun is going to think of themselves as an anti armor unit

[@QuizmasterLaw]

yeah the problem with arming scouts is the temptation to give them useful defensive armament which of course they then aggressively use and get themselves killed, but issuing them armored cars/tracks with no cannon looks weak and may not keep them from getting killed anyway. idk why its hard to be aggressive about finding the enemy and then getting the hell away from them but everyone wants to punch no one wants to feint duck or jab.

[@louisbabycos106]

@@QuizmasterLaw In the age of the drone reconnaissance can be done by drones . If a light tank spots an enemy it may not have time to break contact . A light tank cannot "tank" incoming firepower like an MBT . It has to have some measure of offensive capability and people willing to use it . The sad truth is that the light tank may be worth having on the battlefields of tomorrow but the war fighter inside of a light tank will be far more vulnerable to getting killed or dismembered.

[@Calbeck]

"You gave us a gun that CAN kill armor, so we're gonna kill armor."

[@QuizmasterLaw]

@@Calbeck Yep! This is EXACTLY the attitude of scouting detachments, at least in the USA

[@davidemme2344]

@@QuizmasterLaw We had four troopers in our squadron that died during our deployment to Iraq in 2004. When you think about it, it really sucks-we sent one troop to the second battle of Fallujah with an infantry Battalion-no one got wounded or killed on that battle. What really sucks about it was losing two troopers in the attack by a suicide bomber in Mosul at FOB Marez chow hall. Was not a good time to be a supply sergeant back then. I was the first trooper wounded in y troop and the first one out of our whole Brigade/Taskforce to get wounded a second time. I can say ths now-the first time I was wounded was from a Mortar Attack in FOB Marez in Mosul. The second one 30 days later in Tal Afar, Iraq from an IED which prodced a puncturing head wound for me amoong other things. That happened on 19 November 2004 and with that chowhall attack, we lost another Supply Sgt who was killed in the suicide attack-Supply Sgt for Archer Troop. Was one of those soldiers you see as the example and try to live up to his standards and fail miserably. He was a good NCO. By the way-we were te second Brigade to transform to a Stryker Brigade and at the time we were 2/14 CAV. They gae that unit designater up andd was the first Brigade to move to Germany. Me, I was told I would never deploy again despite my desires and would be froced to retire. when you have shrapnel in your brain and a prosthetic skull among other prblems-do not have a lot of options to stay in.

[@georgivanev7466]

The U.S. Army is building this tank so we can have another Rank 7 light tank after the HSTVL in War Thunder

[@tovarischshashlikov]

😭😭

[@pokenaut7803]

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]

但说实话我觉得研发这东西还不容易再把XM8改进下

[@NotSaddamHussein]

OH MY GOD THEY JUST HIT THE THIRD TOWER, TURN ON THE TV!!!!!!

[@markpetrochenko8402]

I just wonder how thick it's armor is

[@kroberts8866]

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]

And the maintenance costs bloomed like an expensive flower.

[@kroberts8866]

@@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]

That's absolutely disgusting. We need to hang corrupt politicians.

[@paratrooper629]

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]

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]

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]

Re-emergence? Dude, light tanks of various types are constantly being used by many armies.

[@alexdobma4694]

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]

@@alexdobma4694 That's the wrong take from the war in Ukraine.

[@m1a1abramstank49]

@@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]

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]

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]

Now that is a good question

[@kevinblackburn3198]

Good question. I surmise that they will not be transported by C-17 but will be transported en masse by ship.

[@obsidianjane4413]

@@kevinblackburn3198 That isn't the mission being spec'ed for. Think Operation Dragon (Iraq) or Tomahawk (Korea).

[@n5syr01]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@@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]

@@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]

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]

What it will really do is get fed to the T72s

[@greenmountainboi4453]

Great Content, Keep Up The Great Work.

[@lebron3505]

No it's not

[@johnmartin6420]

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]

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.

[@SirCheezersIII]

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]

@@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]

Question how does it save money if current mpfs cost 4mil more then abrams abd will need new logstics

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

@@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]

M10 will prove to be trash like LCS navy ships ..

[@wellemdeffo]

Can you do a video on the structure of Ukrainian Mechanized and Motorized units? Alternatively, maybe an overview similar to the Ukraine Primer video, except on other regional conflicts like Iran vs Saudi Arabia, the units they have, and the equipment they field?

[@l1nker_z314]

It is clear to the whole world that apart from the USA, Iran and Germany, there is no one with such high-quality and good tanks. At the expense of Artillery - Russia and Germany are the best countries on this topic

[@kameronjones7139]

@@l1nker_z314 Iran?

[@l1nker_z314]

@@kameronjones7139 yeah

[@kameronjones7139]

@@l1nker_z314 they don't make anything good quality let alone tank

[@l1nker_z314]

@@kameronjones7139 kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5jQiquojZ2kh5o

[@erwin669]

Interesting. It says that it will be rolling out to the National Guard in 2027 as a divison level battalion, but my question is what about the states that only have a brigade? Will they get an independant armor company or will they be attached to a higher headquarters? I can recall during my time with the 53rd Infantry Brigade in Florida being told that we fell under the 28th Infantry Division, which is in Pennsylvania. That would mean we would almost never train with the armor battalion because it's 1,000 miles away and giving Florida a single armor company means it is all by itself which would suck for both supporting it and providing for the career path of its soldiers (I guess they could go to the Cav squadron, but that seems like a bit of a shift). I guess they could reactivate the 31st Division HQ along with the 31st Cav in Alabama and fold the 53rd IBCT (Florida) and the 48th IBCT (Georgia) under the new organization.

[@Korrupt5223]

The NG unit it refers to is specifically the 1 BN (ABN) of the 143rd IR that’s active under the 173rd ABN BCT through the AUPP.

[@erwin669]

@@Korrupt5223 so they are converting an infantry unit to an armor unit then? That still doesn’t solve the issue of how the independent brigades or brigades that are hundreds of miles away from their higher headquarters would train with these new units.

[@cavalryscout9519]

When I was in the 28th ID in MD we road marched as far as Fort Benning, GA, or Camp Ethan Allen, VT, and flew down to Puerto Rico on C-130s. I think we maybe did 1 in every 4 annual trainings somewhere close, and that was only when there was no way to go somewhere. When I was with 29th ID Div Recon (still MD) we line-hauled to California, Texas, and Louisiana in addition to the road marches to east coast forts. NG brigades need to make long moves pretty regularly to keep trained on the logistics. The point being that the tankers should be able to do ATs with units fro other states every couple of years. The bigger issue for NG tanks is that it's hard to organize gunnery onto drill weekends, so NG tankers tend to use their AT for that, which means they don't get long field problems, and they tend to only go to forts that have tank ranges. It's possible to divide gunnery between 2-3 4-day drill weekends, but it takes a lot of planning and most units just don't do that. When I was with 29th Div Recon, my squadron was the only NG light cavalry unit that was shooting a 12 table gunnery every year, and it took up our whole drill calendar from January to May, and we had a lot more options for where we could shot than tanks do. We tried talking to the tank units in PA when we were coming up with our training plan, but they were using their ATs for gunnery, and only shooting every 2 years while we wanted to shoot yearly and then use our ATs for other training. NG units have an unfortunate tendency to always go to the same training areas, always go somewhere close, and not actually bring all their go-to-war equipment. They don't need to, but it's actually difficult to move a hundred trucks 1000 miles.

[@erwin669]

@@cavalryscout9519 every 4 years or so isn’t enough to build any kind of working relationship though. Who does the brigade 1000 miles away train with in the years between?

[@GSC-Operator-chan]

@@cavalryscout9519 Roll on brother, roll on!

[@robbudden]

An excellent presentation, cheers mate

[@nicolasmichon4344]

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)

[@duncanmcgee13]

We're basically getting a TAM

[@gregstevens7139]

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

[@AzrealMaximus]

20 out of 21 years jumping out of planes for uncle sugar, it's always a good sign to have armor support like the 3/73rd-4/68th with their M551 Sheridans. May not have been much, but it helps when you're at the LD with DRB1 and only 3 Delta companies with Tow2. Something is better than nothing for LGOPS🤷‍♂️

[@michaeldillery9232]

Thanks I was a Sheridan Crewman in 3/73 Armor. We would do Lapse operations with are Sheridans air drop was a last resort very unique skill set especially at that time since I came from a Heavy Armor BN in Germany.

[@AzrealMaximus]

@@michaeldillery9232 AATW, was at Sicily when the C130 conducting lapes during AA Week crashed. Definitely an eye opener. I also remember DRB1 heavy drop rigging and how a couple of M3 machine guns ended up wrapped in the pool, when they were secured at HD Rigging, along with our loaded TOW2 humvees. 3/505

[@benthurber5363]

-We need air-droppable firepower! Requires landing strip. -We need mobility! Too large for C-130 transport, uses a minimum of a C-17 and a *good* dirt runway. -We need less logistical burden! Requires 4 crew members and literally the same level of maintenance as a tank. -We need protection! It's a light tank with a relatively large turret and little protection against chemical rounds. -It needs to be survivable! Crew all share compartment with gun and turret. Modern conflict shows that missiles and PGMs will produce the majority of tank casualties. They're typically aimed at the center of the vehicle. -We need to blow fortifications up! Gets a 105 mm gun to plink at tanks instead of the 152 mm low-pressure gun on the M551. -We need shock factor! Gets a *manually loaded* 105 mm gun and a coax. -But at least it's still light! Weighs 40 tons, can be killed by many IFVs, but doesn't transport infantry. How utterly inept do you have to be to think this is remotely a good idea? IT'S ALMOST THE SAME WEIGHT AS A T-72 while being nearly a meter taller?!

[@spencegame]

The 82nd is the same division that gave its intel cells giant MATVs as collection platforms to augment light-infantry and scouts, so this is pretty normal.

[@benthurber5363]

@@spencegame Sure, build it in enough key senators' states and the military uses whatever you make.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

@@benthurber5363 105mm is really effective against fortifications, especially with HESH. 152mm is actually worse most of the time due to more limited ammo capacity and range.

[@benthurber5363]

​@@matthiuskoenig3378 Historically and off-the-shelf, yes. But if we're thinking in terms of maximum recoil energy in a very light tank, I'd rather go with low-pressure. The 105s you're likely thinking of were 40+ ton tanks, I want something air-droppable and have barrels short enough to manage difficult and narrow terrain. We can easily work with the 105 calliber. But I'd honestly consider something like a low-pressure 155 mm gun/launcher. The M551 was plagued by its missile tech, but we've come a long way and missiles look to be viable for many years to come, particularly top-attack models. For dimensional reference, the Javelin, NLAW and smaller Spike missiles are 150 mm or less. Edit: Also, with such a diameter, even the Starstreak could fit. While all of these would require rework to function, that would bring amazing flexibility to a light platform. With a high elevation, it could basically be an anti-everything light tank. Direct-fire infantry support and demolition, (short range) mobile artillery, anti-armor and anti-aircraft capability. Maybe use an Oerlikon 25mm KBA as a coaxial gun to better deal with infantry and intermediate threats like IFVs and fast-moving vehicles.

[@joshuamueller3206]

BAE's bid was ideal on the mobility issue. 105 is proven and already in use, but the vehicle in general does not seem very future proof. Slap on a side armor kit and the Iron Fist APS that is going on the Bradley and it will be more relevant.

[@GK-xg6yc]

Im interested how it will perform against the Sprut-SD. And other light tanks of the world

[@lukejohnston4666]

ZTQ in particular

[@Gegengrupenfuhrur]

A Toyota hilux is superior to Sprut, but I'm interested in how the MPF will work against countries who can actually build a tank and not just a box that explodes if coughed at too hard.

[@DOSFS]

While MPF role isn't anti-tank, if they have to they should have access to some M900 105mm APFSDS rounds that can destroy any light tanks and some MBTs.

[@GK-xg6yc]

@@Gegengrupenfuhrur pov: no brain

[@Gegengrupenfuhrur]

@@GK-xg6yc what? Sprut is terrible. The armor is awful even for a light vehicle, the troop compartment is awkward, cramped and terrible to get out of, the range is awful, even for a ( light) tank that is literally designed for reconnaissance and forward operations. Please explain what secret hidden benefits it has you RT watching smooth brain.

[@peterpenberthy2918]

Genuine question when was the last time an Airborne Brigade parachuted into a war zone?

[@FXIIBeaver]

Been awhile but no one foresaw trench warfare coming back and here we are where Russia and Ukraine are performing trench warfare. Moral of the story. The military should be ready for everything because an actual war will look very similar to historic wars.

[@TheAllardP]

The 173rd Airborne Brigade was parachuted in Northern Iraq in 2003. Before that the 1989 the 75th Ranger Regiment and part of the 82nd Airborne Division were parachuted in Panama.

[@Jeremy-ul3it]

That's because Airborne is obsolete it's all about Air Assault now🖤

[@FXIIBeaver]

@@Jeremy-ul3it air assault is part of airborne MO.

[@blacklight4720]

It's funny seeing people who never parachuted discussing the importance of parachuting. There is a good reason militaries don't parachute grunts, it's not a computer game.

[@danielwang2956]

Army boss to private: yo you have that product animation ready yet? Private: laughs in Arma 3

[@tetraxis3011]

This is also good for export, as the Abrams is quite expensive to operate for many countries, this provides a cheaper alternative.

[@iainscott7098]

A very good point Jesus

[@QuizmasterLaw]

good luck finding buyers... lots of countries have indigenous tank production.

[@joaogomes9405]

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]

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]

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]

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]

So pretty much a worse mbt got it

[@joaogomes9405]

@@alientitimilk9073 Yeah essentially. It's a waste of money

[@longtabsigo]

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]

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!

[@bcompany650]

now we need a flying version with a wings of this tank like an aerogavin.

[@antonioferreira2293]

an A10 with a 60mm cannon? seems cool

[@erwin669]

Somewhere LazerPig is having an aneurysm at the thought

[@SirCheezersIII]

See reflections on that wataaaaah!

[@HypnoticChronic1]

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]

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]

@@daneaxe6465because Sherman's are way heavier and smaller then an Abrams?

[@norbi1411]

@@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]

@@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]

@@ZombieKiller-vf2np Are you looking for a Kruger-Dunning award??

[@almondmilk3014]

Much love brother, just found your channel; you are truly brave and strong for telling everyone. Never lose hope

[@nemiw4429]

Thank you patrion guys, you did a good job. Fantastic how similar you sound to the channel owner.

[@BlueLightningHawk]

Who else is here waiting for this to be added to War Thunder one day?

[@johnnytopside9745]

What's the point of the MPF being chosen for Airborne if it's not air dropable? The Air Force isn't going to risk landing a C-17 unless air superiority is achieved at the captured airfield, at which point the M1 Abrams is just as easy to forward deploy

[@Wick9876]

An M1 is exactly twice as hard to deploy, at least when using a C-17.

[@johnnytopside9745]

@@Wick9876 You're right, but it's already assumed that many aircraft would be required to fly in all of the needed supplies as 2 MPFs would likely not be sufficient

[@fromthefire4176]

Johnny Topside ask this to the guys at the Pentagon who selected this pos, and they’ll start sweating and say don’t ask them, all they know is they’re just about to retire to work for General Dynamics.

[@Nick-wp1vb]

Theres also no parachute drops in contested airspace. As far as air defences are concerned, its not much different to fly over and drop stuff than to land on a dirt strip, unload, and takeoff again in 10 minutes. But you arent doing either without at least suppressing enemy air defenses. The functional difference is time in unloading cargo. With a dirt strip, you could land a few c-17s to offload some light tanks, but they need to take the runway again to depart, which doesnt allow other planes to land. One plane on the runway at a time. So paradrop the paradroppable stuff nearby to get it on the ground quick.

[@bluemarlin8138]

The MPF can fit on a C-130, so a “combat drop” here means the aircraft flies about 5-10 feet off the ground with the rear ramp open, and the cargo slides out with the aid of drag chutes. Of course the C-130 can also operate from very short and rough landing strips, so it could easily land too. We have tons of C-130s, so there’s no need to risk a C-17 or C-5.

[@petter5721]

The CV90-120 is an interesting alternative 👍🏻

[@mysterioanonymous3206]

I think where that really shines is if you have the full range of cv90 vehicles. Ifv, gun system, engineering, mortar, recon, command, medical evac and so on... All on one platform with inter changeable parts, so training and maintenance (parts) is much, much easier, and you have scale effects for cost also.

[@mrdynamic8678]

Or a new design M551, air droppable platform, with a 105 mm and .50/40mm RWS

[@PropensityVisualized]

I was the author of the Expeditionary Warfare Operating Concept with GEN N. The end product was not what was intended. The MPF is a result of bureaucracy at its worst. There are candidates that were airdroppable. The lighter weigh would also negate the M98 and allow for a lighter recovery vehicle. The BN absolutely requires a full staff complement and probably more communications.

[@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537]

What really gets me is General Dynamics could have done a lot better with how much time they had to compete with the M8 that was stopped from entering production by nepotism for decades. We have had a lot of good, much better in role, options for a long time. This is not even the first time or second time this has happened, either. Going back and redoing even the HSTVL/RDFLT would have yielded more results for base vehicles that had weight class / size / balance and tractive effort/track flotation to keep pace with the faster small vehicles or easily get ahead of movements. With how frickin heavy and off balance the MRAPs and such are, a full on scout car revisit wouldn't be bad either since they have forgotten the point of the HMM utility part of the HMMWV territory they encroach on. For sure, a tankette would allow pickups and ball hitch tandem axels to move them.

[@run_lift_communicate]

Having served in 3ID, 3 mechanized brigade, and than in 82nd, brings back so many memories and flashbacks.

[@sampletext3433]

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]

S34: "The Stug-3". ;)

[@fromthefire4176]

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]

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]

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]

@@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.

[@christopherberry9496]

"however these issues can be remedied by proper training" famous last words. lol

[@QuizmasterLaw]

Highly trained + shit gear > untrained + great geat

[@adamramsey5787]

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]

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]

@@OriflammeGaming Interesting. In 2009, there was a HIMARS Company. 3-321 and 1-321 were Airborne Artillery 777.

[@OriflammeGaming]

@@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]

@@OriflammeGaming Rocksteady. I was 3-321 HHB. 13F. I was mostly in the S3 Shop. I did targeting in Afghanistan.

[@Corbots80]

Being able to cross bridges is a good reason

[@joeokabayashi8669]

Another informative video; excellent! Thank you!

[@Soulessdeeds]

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.

[@katamarankatamaranovich9986]

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]

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]

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]

​@@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.

[@grantfitz2047]

Tow is a platoon asset for the light cavalry as well as the javelin

[@HibikiKano]

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.

[@Calbeck]

The value of the MPF is that it brings the old 105mm gun back into service, which was multi-role - "Beehive" flechette, HESH, HEP, and other specialty rounds which can do very good service in terms of supporting lighter airmobile forces. These rounds were discarded for the 120mm Rheinmetall on the M1A1s and later, which only carried HEAT and Sabot.

[@sethborman7844]

The 120 now has AMP, which is a multi fuze HE round that can airburst. It's the ideal weapon for MPF.

[@przemog88]

Ok, small correction. M1A1 and M1A2 tanks don't use Rheinmetall gun. It is common mistake made by many internet sites, including wikipedia. In reality German gun was too big for usefulness in Abrams, so USA bought licence for technology used to make these guns. Based on that technology they made M256 gun.

[@arbelico2]

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]

I'm amazed myself .😅

[@QuizmasterLaw]

Maybe this way: how many other countries are fielding "light" / "cavalry" tanks? How effective are they?

[@X.Y.Z.07]

Maybe the French with their AMX-10 ?

[@PVilarnovo]

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]

They can always drop somewhere else and then drive to the objective.

[@PVilarnovo]

@@norbi1411 no they can’t. It is not droppable.

[@paulsteaven]

Having the capability to be air dropped in this new light tanks means having almost paper thin armor, like the Sherridans

[@herbtanner8701]

They don’t need an airport to land a c17 just make a landing strip

[@norbi1411]

@@PVilarnovo but they can land them and then drive

[@stephencooper3583]

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.

[@JDSFLA]

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]

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]

@@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]

@@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

[@teeheeteeheeish]

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]

up until the mid 90's 82nd had a airdrop tank

[@bpsitrep]

That was a well done video, great explanation. The 'need' for armored firepower will always remain and the need for something light and quick is essential for mission success and protecting the infantry. I see a lot of bantering about tanks and the USMC. The visionaries of the USMC saw tanks as the one aspect of warfare they could change without totally compromising the mission. They wanted to keep the Corps mobile and light as possible. Drone warfare in Armenia and Ukraine has shown the vulnerability of not only tanks but the entire ground forces. Most of targets are often sitting still or moving slow when hit by drones. Warfare planners must include anti-drone/anti-missile doctrine for future battles or any 'armor' is going to be very vulnerable.

[@joehughes5177]

BP the infantry is perfectly capable when it comes to protecting itself, such that protecting the infantry doesn't entail special planning on the part of armor, nor a hot rod tank. Skirmishes and wars bring out the dreamers and schemers when it comes to new battle equipment like mosquitoes in summer, by the ton and only good for killing

[@bpsitrep]

@@joehughes5177 Not the 'Russian infantry', they're getting slaughtered via the evolving drone-arty type of warfare. If the Ukrainians had air power like most NATO nations, war would be over in a week. I watched a drone drop a bag of sugar to 'friendly' troop at his feet, who wanted sugar for their tea/coffee. Infantry needs huge evolving in drone and still, mine defense. Warbots are the next thing to hit the battle field. Don't be surprised to see some on the 'Russian front' very soon as 'big defense tech' needs the next big money project.

[@joehughes5177]

@@bpsitrep warbots have no place in combat at all. war is terrible, and the price is human lives. when we bring autonomous/drone weaponry into battle its just machines killing. Humanity is already dropping in value, with machines life has no value. You tout the drones because they are protecting the lives you side with. They know no alliance. a heat signature is just a heat signature. believe me when I predict seeing armed drones conducting attacks against the American public at the hands of terrorists. it's not too late to put that genie back in the bottle but it has to be done soon or these machines will become the norm. Fighting an enemy not even on the battlefield with you. I served for a decade in the army and this is the road to destruction.

[@bpsitrep]

@@joehughes5177 I agree 100% with you, the genie needs to be stuffed, locked, and sealed forever. But that's not what mankind does. The next evil tech to watch for: Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality.

[@joehughes5177]

@@bpsitrep greatest lie sold to the public. Care for some internet? And it sounded friendly, with share, communicate, connect, knowledge. They left out the dark, drugs, slavery, arms, murder parts. Now serving virtual party 13. The matrix made real is just so surreal

[@mrd7067]

You might be interested in: Luftbeweglicher Waffenträger LuWa aka LuWa Airborne Armored Vehicle or the german "Wiesel" tankette which will be replaced by this vehicle. or the south african badger infantry fighting vehicle with the 60mm breech loading mortar with direct (1500m) and indirect fire capability).

[@bobbertbobberson6725]

When I was in B/2-70AR out of 1st ID, in 2018 we did something similar to the 82nd. While at Hohenfels, Germany we were attached to the 173rd Airborne Brigade to test doctrine for the MPF.

[@MardukTheSunGodInsideMe]

I feel like armor thickness matters less and less with anti-tank weapons. Hopefully, APS and reactivate armor can close the gap.

[@MardukTheSunGodInsideMe]

Friend of a friend of a friend who knew a guy that knew a guy who had their bathroom used by Micheal Jackson said it was true.

[@MardukTheSunGodInsideMe]

Facts: T80 Armour T-80B - Hull 440-450 mm vs APFSDS 500-575 mm vs HEAT, Turret 500 mm vs APFSDS 650 mm vs HEAT[ T-80U - Hull & Turret with Kontakt-5 780 mm vs APFSDS 1,320 mm vs HEAT Javelin Armor Penetration: 30 in (760 mm) RHA. (Tandem-charge HEAT) Only the T80U with its vaporware upgrades like APFSDS and Kontakt-5 are capable of stopping a single unlucky javelin hit on its thickest armor. A 2nd javelin would not have to deal with APFSDS or Kontak-5 as they wouldn't survive the first strike.

[@MardukTheSunGodInsideMe]

@Chris Carson (Old And In The Way) oh, the video of the rocket being launched from The 2nd floor of the building was an NLAW vs a T72. It requires a certain distance (20 meters) before it'll detonate to protect the user.

[@rsKayiira]

@Chris Carson (Old And In The Way) Thats impossible that a T-80 withstood a javelin hit. Only thing I saw was the NLAW that failed to detonate because of the distance. But agreed T-80 is the best tank in Ukraine and Russia

[@GrahamCStrouse]

We don’t use reactive armor. Not designed for APS. Already weighs as much as some tanks.

[@twoarc7293]

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]

yeah, your fucked ...... end of video

[@bennuredjedi]

This could also be used in the Cavalry Armored Reconnaissance role with a few mods of course

[@joeblow9657]

Quite interesting. It'll be interesting to see how the doctrine develops around them

[@celebrim1]

Fighting the last war, that's the point. While the concept of integrated fire support is a sound one in itself, right now we are watching the war in Ukraine and we've learned that any armored vehicle without native close in anti-air weaponry is a sitting duck on a battlefield of drones, loitering munitions, top attack guided missiles, and guided motor rounds. No AFV that can't defend its own airspace is going to survive long, so all next gen AFVs need to be heavy enough to mount in addition to their other gear whatever emergent CIWS comes to the front - smart bullets, micromissiles, lasers, etc. And I just don't see the light tank doing that, which will mean eventually they'll have to build a light version that just mounts the radar and the CIWS and no other heavy weaponry, and that runs against what we've learned since WWII - that specialized AFVs always end up in situations where they are at an absolute disadvantage against the threats they face. You are always better with more multipurpose "main battle tanks" than a complex ecology of specialized assault guns, tank destroyers, light tanks, heavy tanks, mobile AA platforms, and so forth because the realities of combat mean that your AFV will inevitably find itself in deployed in a situation that it is not suited to. Tank destroyers find themselves pressed into service as infantry support guns because they aren't facing tanks, assault guns find themselves doing road marches to respond to emergencies, AA platforms get attacked by armor while tanks get attacked by aircraft.

[@CatholicDragoon]

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]

520

[@simply2187]

I think they are gonna be working closely with Infantry, or just be Artillery.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

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)

[@RT804]

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]

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]

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]

@@alexdobma4694 poor fire power

[@kuhaku9587]

@@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]

@@alexdobma4694 they needed something that can provide direct fire support against hardened targets and they know that their Abrams can't always accompany them.

[@rfletch62]

Only quibble; no image of the M-551 Sheridan. You could parachute it, air drop it on a pallet on a low level pass, and the 152mm gun could kill any tank it might encounter back then. No question, it had massive problems (crew survivability first and foremost). I hope they work out the bugs on this one.

[@keydet72]

As an armored cavalry platoon leader back in the day, I can assure you that the M551 was indeed air droppable…once 😁

[@snoweefrost4412]

I've never served so what information I have is based off civilian 2nd hand. Though what we're seeing in Ukraine right now indicates the end of the MBT as a doctrine and with it many issues about tank-on-tank combat. Anti-tank missiles like the British NLAW or the American Javelin are so effective at taking out MBTs that a more mobile, perhaps stealth capable, vehicle like armored cars or light tanks are going to become the forefront. JLTVs, MRAPs, IFVs, etc, etc. are already cheaper to produce which means they will be overall easier to outfit with new Anti-Missile systems (passive or active) while not sacrificing their ability to be outfitted for anti-armor by merely switching out their weapon system. Tbat is to say the M-551 wouldn't really need to worry about its 152mm main gun penetrating MBT armor types because MBTs are likely going to be a relative rarity. Mostly confined to established safe zones or deployed to areas of intense urban fighting where they would be within the minimum engagement distance of most anti-tank missiles.

[@sgtdocholliday4097]

problems with the M-551. Its a 152mm gun launcher, meant to fire ATGM called the shillala. it was useless. it jus didn't work. then when is fired traditional rounds, it would kill the ballistic computer and concuss the crew. how cool it was. it was a useless tank.

[@fidjeenjanrjsnsfh]

@@snoweefrost4412 the moment germans in the trenches of ww1 aimed their artillery pieces for direct fire, it already indicated the end of tanks. Yet the tank still lives. According to the Chieftain himself, no weapon system can do the job of a tank better than a tank. Trucks are also vulnerable to atgms yet trucks are still used to this day.

[@snoweefrost4412]

@@fidjeenjanrjsnsfh The problem with your comparison is not only 70 years of technological development but also that a tank is slower, presents a larger target, and more expensive to replace than an armored truck with nearly the same armament but with the added ability to harbor troops to and from objectives. The MBT as we know it is going to go the way of Knights. Fondly remembered.

[@Dies1r4e]

we need this light tank for our light forces to be air mobile and light!....tank needs a full airport, massive cargo plane and ground crews to fight......yep, good to see Army logic is still in full swing.

[@sparrenburger2804]

In scetches like the thumbnail it looks like a british CRV-T. But a booker is the double in length!

[@williamED15]

It seems like failures of the LAV in an Airborne unit stem for a lack of knowledge of how to best employ them in addition to their logistical hurdle. It would appear better management of those vehicles would have attributed to their success. Maybe it's too soon to say but I see this being more restrictive and hampering a brigade than being an asset

[@SlavicCelery]

It shares quite a few components with Abrams systems. It's going to ease up logistics train nightmares for the Army. Apparently, it's one of the selling components from General Dynamics. Plus if the system is effective, I can see it being ordered in much larger numbers. Hell, it looks to be a next gen level tank that is relatively cheap (in the grand scheme) to produce and hopefully operate. Less to be upset with than the new Challenger.

[@cm-pr2ys]

It seems like the lighter weight and air droppable capability of the M8 AGS would have been a better choice. The fact this tank can't be airdropped or carried by a C-130 means C17's are going to have to land and offload this tank, which is a huge risk in multiple ways. I'd say the USMC should go for a modified version of the M8 AGS, with amphibious mobility, a 50mm gun, 240 coax, roof mounted 50 cal, smoke launchers, side mounted APKWS launchers, APS, ERA, grunt phone, and the ability to mount a mine plow on the front, launch a drone for reconnaissance, and launch a MICLIC from the rear compartment OR hold a 60 or 81mm mortar team for mobile indirect fire. That'd be everything in one package that is lighter, faster, cheaper, and more capable than the old M1A1 Abrams tank the USMC used to have. The airdroppable feature and modular armor means it's highly mobile in a tactical sense on pacific islands, and it's armament means it can take on enemy vehicles in any domain, not just the pacific. The engine is easier to repair and it can cross bridges and roads easier than an Abrams would. The 50mm cannon does not need an autoloader, so you can use a smaller turret that creates a smaller profile. It also can hold more ammo, and it has a airburst feature for eliminating enemy infantry in adition to the AP rounds for enemy tanks. One cell of APKWS hold 4 Zuni APKWS rockets that are laser guided precision weapons, and they're working on an airburst feature to help take on enemy aircraft, and they're lighter and cheaper and easier to reload than the javelin or tow. Having a mine plow in the front and the ability to launch a MICLIC from the rear would make this vehicle have the capabilities of both the old assault breacher vehicle and a tank in one. Just my 2 cents.

[@crimcrusader8459]

If you ask me, I think an M8 AGS armed with a 120mm XM360 cannon would be the best choice as a light tank.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

@@crimcrusader8459 this, we already know its possible due to the M8 thunderbolt. and it would be able to use existing 120mm rounds too. however the 105 multi-role armament ammunition system (MRAAS) would be best if costs allow. it offers similar preformance to 120mm guns against tanks (due to similar chamber sizes and pressures) and is also an ETC gun (meaning comparable preformance to 120mm ETC guns, which are superior to regular 120mm guns) but has more compact ammunition (meaning either a smaller tank, or more ammo in the same tank). and was designed for an 18ton tank (thus can be a really light vehicle in its lowest armour package level). its also multi-role, designed with long range artillery AND dirrect fire anti-tank (useful for a landing-force both air and naval that would have limited man-power and supply lines intially). its design also makes it more simple and reliable than autoloaders with conventional ammunition like in existing M8s. it also weighs 15% less than existing 105mm guns (meaning even more weight can be put into armour or supplies, while still being air droppable) .

[@dudejo]

Combat vehicles really have to be specialized and stripped down to execute tactical air drops from a C-130. You have to be something like a M113 or M551. Sadly, that's something modern engineers can't really do anymore because of cancerous general politics.

[@britishrocklovingyank3491]

Air dropping things on the modern battlefield requires air supremacy at which point landing isn't a bad thing. WW2 is over.

[@stealth225]

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]

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]

@@BattleOrder You mean a Bradley? Sorry can't steal large amounts of taxpayer money just building a better Bradley.

[@norbi1411]

@@BattleOrder those vehicles are planned too but not to fill light tanks niche. Different level of fire power, as you said yourself.

[@norbi1411]

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]

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.

[@fleurdetristesse5218]

engagement bump comment and do keep up the good work, my battle order lords🙏

[@monate43]

Your videos are very well done!

[@hadesdogs4366]

I think it stems from being cheaper to produce, easier to transport as well as easier to upgrade or replace compared to a full sized battle tank whilst having both the mobility as well as firepower and if needed active protection systems since Ukrainian most Russian tanks relied mostly on inactive protection systems like era pads or bar armor, which works great against things like direct fire weapons like enemy tanks, or RPG’s and unlike the early fifties where the MBT was replacing most other tanks being a jack of all trade, however it was due to much higher and stronger economies which allowed for a more diverse military (and I’m talking as a brit not as a tank so the experience may differ) since most countries were focused on fighting Russia however as terrorism rose and insurgency became more and more common with countries like the taliban where the invasion of Iraq and the Falklands was the two major times any country officially invaded or fought another country (again I’m talking as a Brit) and so as the rise of more hidden and more mobile enemies started to appear such as the taliban, hashkababs and the IRA, counties started gearing towards more smaller and specialized militaries where the most a soldier was expected to do was take a walk ten miles each day and that was mostly it (oversimplified but most patrols were just that, get in a car, heli or on foot, go to the local village to see if they’re okay at best and alive at worst, and so countries started going more mobile (the replacement for the humvee is a good example, where lighter and faster units can make rapid attacks or respond quickly to a situation and again look at soldiers equipment or more specifically their helmets where they’re no longer designed to stop bullets but are meant for either deflection or explosion where the over pressurization of a head inside of a steel helmet would turn to jello vs a plastic bump helmet whch can bend and flex absorbing the energy and releasing it safely (as saddle as it can get.

[@AltF4OuttaHere]

Jesus Christ learn how to use full stops.

[@hadesdogs4366]

@@AltF4OuttaHere NEVER🤣😂

[@paranoidandroid7718]

@@AltF4OuttaHere Amen.

[@colincampbell767]

"I think it stems from being cheaper to produce . . ." Not going to happen. The expensive parts of a tank are the engine/transmission, the armament and the fire control system. (With the fire control system being over 60% of the cost). When you make a smaller and lighter tank - the parts you're saving money on are the ones that are the cheapest to make.

[@tranquoccuong890-its-orge]

sounds like the soviet doctrine of having 2 lines of tanks simultaneously: one heavier line of tanks (like the T-64, T-80 & T-14) with a more well trained crew and one lighter line of tanks (T-72 & T-90, maybe even modernized T-62) that are more disposable

[@superjesse645]

It makes me happy seeing light tanks making a possible comeback.

[@reviewerreviewer1489]

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]

I'd imagine the Coast Guard shipping out once more to the Pacific as well

[@ZZZ2573]

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]

we are. so are they.

[@sushmag4297]

I hope an armed conflict with China never happens. The loss of life with a conflict that big would be catastrophic.

[@tradcatpat2385]

Excellent break down, thanks.

[@NikovK]

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]

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]

@@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.

[@amargen]

tank destroyer units in WW2 ended up being used as tanks. This is a slippery slope. It looks like a tank... it's a tank. it's very hard to say no! when you need a tank and this is all there is.

[@bernardli9514]

Thanks for the update on discord and the content, KZbin notifications never get to me.

[@joeygay7115]

This is what you get when a bradley and an abrams dont use protection

[@watchthe1369]

With that you do not need a 40mm AFV, this can be slotted in with the regular infantry units instead of A full MBT.

[@tbdinh78]

Keep up the awesome work love Watching your videos.

[@hanzwillford5141]

Finally an actual video going over this. Hard to find info about it

[@ryanrobinson1578]

lol doesn't that initial demand sound like what everyone always wants? quick, powerful, and armored? not saying it can't be done but if it were done easily it would already be done?

[@Kurogumo]

Such vehicles are often subject to weight creep that often ruins the whole thing.

[@sciarpecyril]

Demand looked mostly focused on quick and powerful, without armoured.

[@genchar692]

They’ll most likely have insufficient armor values then they’ll put add on armor and weight it down with new technology and the speed will be insufficient when it’s released

[@ryanrobinson1578]

@@sciarpecyril well how light could it have been if we made the armor out of egg cartons like the Russians hmmm?

[@sciarpecyril]

​@@ryanrobinson1578, well, BMP-1 weight is 13 tonnes with frontal armour thickness of 7-19 mm of steel. Though, this is pretty old amphibious light armoured vehicle we are discussing. PT-76 is similar. But MPF is medium armoured.

[@starwarsfan5492]

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

[@tubyduby2816]

Whatever you do, if you're spotted by a civy drone, it's an artillery duel from then on out. It's much hard to create the shock effect with armor these days.

[@richardnoah2922]

The national guard unit getting the Booker is the 108 Cav of the Georgia and Louisiana guard, one Squadron each. (From what my friend in the 108th has said)

[@stupidburp]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[@DARKthenoble]

While this is a step in the right direction. It's still too big for the role a tank can play in what the new battlefield is going to be. I don't think a airlandable tank is going to do too well when so much of modern warfare is about hitting the areas where a enemy might be over hitting where the enemy actually is. I don't think this is going to be able to really justify how it exists in its current form. Is the expectation for the Para troopers to secure a landing zone for it? If the paratroopers can secure and defend a landing zone just to get the thing where it needs to be. Then why would they need it at all. The moment someone lands that whole area would be bound to just get showered in artillery shells. And if the division is capable of countering that already. I don't think adding all the extra prep time where the enemy could regain the upper hand is a very good idea. Though with that being in mind I could see how this mpf is actually meant for non peer to peer warfare like the ac130. A mini Abrams would surely would suspiciously be a lot more useful for committing a Waco then it would be against China or russia.

[@dudejo]

The main advantage of the MPF tanks is overseas shipping. You can practically use the same platforms as with the Bradley to transport those vehicles, instead of heavy duty platforms like the Abrams needs. Also, assuming the track system is designed properly, the MPF can travel over softer terrain than the Abrams without sinking, meaning you can avoid roads more often, meaning less IEDs and ambushes.

[@DARKthenoble]

@@dudejo Ahh so I was correct. More team world america police, over being an actual genuine threat to russia or china.

[@colincampbell767]

@@dudejo Wider tracks increase the weight of the tank. And this light tank is not going to have much - if any allowance for additional weight.

[@dudejo]

@@DARKthenoble Weapons that can't be deployed are useless.

[@DARKthenoble]

It seems someone deleted a comment

[@aps125]

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]

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]

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]

@@Nick-wp1vb if manual control is a good thing why US army opts for only 2 member crew for its future OMFV program?

[@ShadowGJ]

@@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.

[@alanwoods2010]

Nice presentation

[@ycplum7062]

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.

[@gmey001]

It's like an up-gunned Hellcat, with better armor. I like it.

[@SargentoDuke]

Ok Booker

[@generaljemssmjem437]

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

[@kolinmartz]

1:47 I have a feeling that the MGS is gonna get revisited by GDLS but with an MPF turret mated to the DVHA1 hill. 🤔🤔🤔

[@ech0labs]

love the conflict desert storm music

[@manticore4952]

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]

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]

@@joehughes5177 yea man you know more than everyone. Stfu

[@Justowner]

@@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.

[@LynnetteJJW]

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.

[@josephhaack5711]

We had an air droppable light tank in 1990 ready and tested by 1992, the M8 Buford

[@robwyyi]

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.

[@stacyscott2720]

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.

[@LifesanL4976]

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]

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]

@@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)