Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: BAE XM1302 MPF, Part 2

The alternate proposal for the MPF program was the BAE XM1302. Again, I walk around the vehicle with the MPF product manager LTC George, and pepper him with unexpected questions in order to shed a little more light on this platform as well, whilst also trying to figure out what it's like on the inside. Reminder, though I wasn't permitted to film inside the GDLS entrant (XM10) as a US service vehicle, I did crawl around inside it, and can thus make some comparative statements. Vehicle filmed at Warren, MI, courtesy of PEO GCS, and National Armor and Cavalry Collection, then-Ft Benning, GA. Links for M10 and BAE part 1 at the end of this video.
Financial donations:
Patreon: / the_chieftain
Direct Paypal: paypal.me/thec...
Utreon: utreon.com/c/t...
Merchandise
the-chieftains...
Public facebook page:
/ thechieftainarmor

[@aaronclair4489]

So the driver gets a 5-point harness to keep him in place, and the gunner and commander get a bunch of sharp corners to slam into?

[@VekhGaming]

Yea sure, strap the guy with the most space and the best sight of incoming speedbumps the security and give everyone else just sharp bits to slam into. Seems like a perfectly average military decision.

[@christhirion9474]

All armoured vehicles are designed to maim you.

[@MediumRareOpinions]

@@christhirion9474 The machine spirit demands the blood debt must be satisfied, the enemies or yours.

[@chaosXP3RT]

Don't anger the driver!

[@handlesarekindadumb]

Keeps the crew on their toes

[@SlavicCelery]

Seeing the Chieftain wiggle his way in and out of vehicles will never get old. It really highlights how much some vehicles take "human factors" into consideration and how others do not. Odds being what they are in modern combat, soldiers will likely have to egress after a significant emotional event at some point in time.

[@tdpro3607]

well chief is a bit tall for a tanker so

[@scottyfox6376]

Tankers are traditionally of smaller stature. See Soviet tanks for height restrictions.

[@tdpro3607]

@@scottyfox6376 soviet tanks arent prioritise on human comfort, its been cramped since t34s

[@ShuRugal]

@@tdpro3607 He is, but he's also not wearing an IOTV in these videos.... Tank crews will be.

[@venator5]

@@tdpro3607 Soviet tanks are not that bad now. I've seen a loot of videos where tankers managed to get out from a burning vehicle. And the height restrictions are pretty much gone now with the new seat desings.

[@xgford94]

7:15 Col. George looks very happy to be the one NOT climbing into to the drivers position 🤣

[@willfrankunsubscribed]

That Commander's position was making me claustrophobic just seeing you sitting in it. "Cramped" doesn't even begin to describe it

[@DZ4295DBW]

I'm 6'2" 240lbs. I wouldn't fit... At all. 🤣

[@willfrankunsubscribed]

@@DZ4295DBW 6’4” 270lbs. My shoulders wouldn’t have made it through the hatch

[@tomhenry897]

Add body armor

[@lancerevell5979]

@@DZ4295DBW I'm 6'4", about the same weight. If I got in I might not get out.

[@DZ4295DBW]

@@tomhenry897 That's what I'm saying man, and I have nice Crye SPC. I'd legit have a hard time fitting in this thing.

[@Emu0181]

An anecdote about the Mercury capsule comes to mind, "you don't so much get in it as put it on"

[@thearisen7301]

Man the TC has to contort to do anything. I think you nailed it. The ergonomics sucking is probably the reality of stuffing a 1980s/90s vehicle full of 2020 tech it wasn't originally designed for

[@JAnx01]

They redesigned the hull completely, so why didn't they make the interior roomier? They had plenty of headroom in weight compared to the Booker. There was no need to keep the dimensions the same. But I sympathize. They didn't have enough time given how rushed the whole program was.

[@clarkbarrett6274]

@@JAnx01 They had a 40 year head start, and still couldn't build 12 vehicles. They were 14 months late on that count.

[@steveturner3999]

‘’Oh bugger the Chieftain is on fire!’’ Unless you’re 5’8’’ or less that drivers hatch looks deadly!

[@ShuRugal]

Driver hatch also looks like it would be unusable with the gun forward and depressed.

[@scotttucker2298]

Death trap!

[@venator5]

Death trap if you ask me. Loot the gun is elevated to max. Imagine it depressed.

[@CaptainSeato]

Fiber optic viewing was noted by Masamune Shirow in his "Dominion Tank Police" author notes as natural progression for tank optics...

[@Plaprad]

For as goofy and entertaining as it was (one of my favorite anime of all time) there was a lot of actually interesting things in there. I seem to remember the police tanks had a plastic armor like modern CFRP since they weren't expected to go up against more than an occasional LMG. Until they ran into the gang with strippers.

[@LOLHAMMER45678]

It was the way of the future back then. I'd bet anything that Shirow had a subscription to Jane's combat vehicles

[@SonsOfLorgar]

That coax ammo storage sounds like a good way to motivate the crew to keep a few belt boxes behind the driver at all times and ignore regulations...

[@LIGHTNING278TH]

This makes the MGS look like a palace by comparison.

[@bigd4366]

Well, that should put most of the "controversy" to rest. I really do like the band tracks, the autoloader, and the fiber-optic periscope, all of which should be considered for future vehicles. However, it's just too cramped to be fully usable.

[@darinhassett4708]

band tracks are a pain my squad leader in 85 was on a M114 that had them he didnt like them for maintence

[@LOLHAMMER45678]

That's what happens when you try to force a 105mm gun tank to fit in a C-130H cargo bay

[@dustindubbo2892]

Band tracks are fine in small vehicles where they aren’t too cumbersome but anything this size your better off using standard track.

[@kevinburt44]

Really enjoy your videos, as someone who was 6ft 6in, ( spinal issue has shrunk me a little) I can sympathise. I'm ex RAF and civil firefighter. Crash tracks, and fire appliances, aren't the roomiest of wagons, but I never had to worry about getting out in a fire, how embarrassing that would have been! I'm lucky now to be a volunteer modeller for Bovington, so your videos are just the job.

[@olivialambert4124]

A few more inches of space and it looks like it could have been a lot better. But as it is now I dread to think how the crew fit inside with full gear. After all Nick might have extra height to contend with but he doesn't have extra width and that was still a real issue in some places. Plus it's lacking a bit of space to move around if locked inside for a long time, of course. Love the autoloader, but it does seem to be part of the problem here.

[@dposcuro]

I also feel that 21+7 rounds of 105mm is really not much for the intended task?

[@cheyannei5983]

@@dposcuro It's definitely low, but it's also a light armored vehicle for light combat with airborne units If they're needing 30+ shells the shit has obviously hit the fan and that's bad... But every mission? They're not meant to be in that much hot water. We have Abrams for that.

[@TakNuke]

Reminds me of Turm3 experimental tank. It also had one sided autoloader but had more than double ready to fire ammo. The weight and size constraint doomed this version of M8. Had they kept the autoloader or maybe with a different design like a bustle one while keeping both the loader and commander each having their own side maybe the bae design proposal would have been selected. But at this point that design would have no relation to M8 AGS. The closest real life equivalent of the theoretical design would be japanese type 10 mbt or type 15 chinese light tank, where the former is closer to M10 booker in weight while latter is closer to fully uparmoured M8AGS in weight. If one sided autoloader is to be kept then design it with a new hull and turret.

[@dposcuro]

@cheyannei5983 the point is, that during an assault, you might be pushing farther, and faster, than the supply train can keep up with. Plus you have 5 types of ammunition, but only 21 ready to fire. You might end up with 2 APFSDS just in case, and maybe a handful of HEAT to deal with enemy IFVs. Those will always be in the rack. That puts you down to ~15 to play with between HEP, HE, and Canister. Plus the spare 7. That is really limited endurance.

[@RahulDevanarayanan]

I'm glad it wasn't selected for use. I remember from the xm10 video the ergonomics looked *much* better.

[@hellbreaksloose5536]

Is there an inside view of the GDLS/ M10 Booker? Can see one of the many possible reasons the GDLS got chosen if the turret is a mini Abrams

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

There is not. As a service vehicle, I was not allowed bring a camera into it

[@dannyturkian9083]

He has made a video on that already

[@Poxyquotl]

Give it a couple years and some Red Beret'd Specialist in the 82nd will give you the full tour.

[@LAHFaust]

​@@Poxyquotlyears? I give it 4 months after it fits the fleet.

[@cheyannei5983]

You will get to see the inside when it's in full deployment and they can't stop Private Bozo from taking video of the inside... Or maybe the OPSEC PowerPoints will finally set in and they won't! (they will)

[@stephenreese5921]

It’s a boy! That cracked me up!

[@maxinematsuoka1278]

I love the XM8 design, it has always been one of my favorite. So happy to get to see it, even if it didn't get selected.

[@crown7639]

The edit for the "no specifics" and the tanker boots coming out of the driver hatch got me lol

[@crbielert]

I've worked on passenger busses with the same Allison gear selector... lol I think I still remember the button combo to spit out error codes...

[@MichaelYates-m7x]

We had a similar Allison on my wife's motor home. And you are correct, you can get error code readouts from the little display.

[@davydatwood3158]

That was very distinctly a "y'all" at the end. I think Nick is picking up some Texas.

[@nekophht]

Gotta admit... seeing the interior makes me consider that, yeah, maybe the other one earned the win. I do have to wonder if they couldn't have shrunk the autoloader side a bit more without impacting operation in order to free up a little more interior space for turret crew, or widened the turret a bit on the crew's side to give a bit more crew space. I was thinking "why couldn't they put that monitor on a swivel so it can be out in front more rather than up next to the shoulder" ... and then the second monitor spot was swiveled into that area. Still, I feel like there ought to be a way to have both monitors angled so they're both mostly in front of the TC.

[@thecanadiankiwibirb4512]

I mean it was a rush program... It looks like they just crammed the electronics in wherever

[@JAnx01]

@@thecanadiankiwibirb4512 Yeah, if they had had more time and money, they could've made the interior roomier for sure. The hull and the turret were completely redesigned anyway, but they probably started with the M8 AGS dimensions and didn't realize it would be so cramped until they filled it up with stuff at which point they were out of time and resources.

[@ericzaiz8358]

Seem like they basically forgotten that for tge last nearly 80 years the US Military valued ergonomics and ease of escape a whole lot.

[@scottyfox6376]

Remember how many Sherman's got brewed up in WW2. The ease of egress was a big factor for less casualties.

[@fishingthelist4017]

It is always good to see someone else having trouble with tge.

[@WozWozEre]

​@scottyfox6376 All tanks catch fire, don't fall for the Ronson myth.

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

How would BAE know that?

[@tallleprechaun1318]

@@scottyfox6376 It was really only the early shermans that had issues with being death traps. Shermans actually had quite high survival rates.

[@FelixMeister]

One thing watching the Chieftan's video has taught me is the importance of UI and ergonomics in a combat vehicle. Otherwise excellent vehicles let down by difficulties in operation that slow down and impede reactions. I'd be interested to see interviews with those responsible for designing these elements and the challenges they have with dealing with the straight engineering issues. Then again, it may make a good argument for UGVs. Although they have the issue with maintaining control of the vehicle in a heavily contested EW environment.

[@k4b44l]

Having a Q&A with LTC George would defenetly be a fun excersise :D

[@valoroustv]

"It's how you should jump into life. Feet first." Hilarious yet informative commentary on an incredibly fascinating video, keep up the great work!

[@logicbomb5511]

6:47 chieftain geting back to the classics

[@glengearhart5298]

Oh my Lord! I was a 19K back in the mid to late 80's. I loved my M1IP, especially the driver's compartment. Once we hit the field, I never too my "fart sack" out of the hatch, and with the extra room in there, I only exited for nature's call and hot chow. "DEATH BEFORE DISMOUNT!!!!" I couldn't imagine having to live in that thing, even for a day.

[@scottyfox6376]

Considering that war is often accompanied by stomach issues like diahrea aka trouser squirts. So egress time would likely become critical.😂

[@glengearhart5298]

@@scottyfox6376 LOL That was my point. Even though we lived by the motto "Death Before Dismount", egress from the driver's hatch was very quick. Rolling out to our deployment position during ReForGer 87, the Main Hydraulic Distribution Valve failed. 17 gallons of FRH was atomized. It looked like there was a fire in the turret. I killed the engine, pulled both fire extinguisher handles, set the parking break, and exited the tank in under 5 seconds! Granted the hatch was already open because it was SOP to drive through town "heads up."

[@herosstratos]

22:17 Experience has shown, that in hazy conditions target acquisition at long ranges using fiberoptics may be more difficult than using standard optics.

[@MandolinMagi]

It's a backup sight, so not that important.

[@Red_Four]

At 12:45, that's the control electronic panel, or CEP, for the automatic fire extinguishing system. There are still manual discharge handles in the event that the automatic system fails or is otherwise not operating, but under normal conditions, the CEP will automatically discharge the fire extinguishers that are located in whatever area that the sensors detect a fire.

[@ozza1785]

I know soviets did experiment with fiber optic as reserve sights, but back then they couldn't get small enough fiber so image wasn't really crisp.

[@jamesolbrisch2582]

That tank just birthed a chieftain! 😮

[@MichaelYates-m7x]

Navy Gunner's Mate/Ordnance Officer here, so pardon my ignorance. But, how does the Auto-loader know what type of round is in each position? And, what happens when a type of round is selected but isn't in the auto-loader (all expended, not loaded and selected by mistake, etc.)? Thanks for the shows, I find them educational and entertaining.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

You tell the computer which round you are placing into the autoloader as you are loading the rack. It then remembers that "Slot 3 has sabot" or whatever.

[@switch3743]

@@TheChieftainsHatch Thanks So, what happens if the autoloader doesn't have the type round selected?

[@deadmeat8754]

BAE made some poor choices with their MPF candidate, but they had made those decisions off or the original program requirements which the Army evolved. Ultimately, it appears they couldn't adapt their platform to the Army's evolving preferences. The large difference in allowable platform tonnage from the beginning of the program to the end favored the much heavier GDLS candidate. It was good to hear The Chieftain praise some aspects of BAE's design choices, like the innovative auxiliary sight. I can't see BAE selling any of these on the export market as the technology inflates unit price and the US Army requirements were unique. As before, I suspect BAE just used their MPF candidate to proof technologies they might use on other systems to which they have a greater commitment.

[@signs80]

I'm sure it would've been better had they gotten more time, the rush to produce a product from request to prototype being under 3 years really had a tight squeeze on what could be changed.

Thank your for this series on the two vehicles. Very interesting stuff. The M10 will definetly be a hot topic for a while

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

This thing needed to be made wider by a few inches. I think the gdls is too heavy for an assault gun, but this is alittle too small for all the electronics they wanted to fit in it.

[@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537]

It's tradition to shit out requirements and renege down a memory hole. The aspect ratio was squeezed to make it work for lesser planes and smaller transport; otherwise, the four decades of other light tanks just make the Army look retarded for overlooking them. We need to relook how we consider space and how much marble fat we encumber. It's obvious a light tank is going to be a tighter fit to be what it needs to be, which is not a Chevy Suburban of tanks with its wide open plain of space, but rather a Metro. With recruiting being what is because of cancer politics, three crew definitely saved on the issue. They shit stacked features on a sales brochure with the M10, like the Sig fuckaroo clamoring for AR updoots goosing up the new gun, when they really needed to think about what makes a great cruiser chassis at 25-39 tons since they clearly couldn't be bothered to make it *light* light. Think about why the Panther had the best floatation and traction over 30 ton mediums despite being a 40 ton tank, because this needs it to not get stuck. It also desperately needs a turret forward model; even the OG StuG had effectively useable massive gun depression. Second, redesign the base armor with the understanding of HE slingers, shit drones, and automatic cannons or shitty zoot tubes firing back at close range; your tank does not need to be obese.

[@cbremer83]

The Allison shifter is the same one they use in commercial trucks. That same unit must be about 20 years old now.

[@nightshade4873]

what i find particularly interesting is the Commander's cupola, the vision blocks/periscope blocks are integrated on the hatch instead of being on the turret, i'd guess due to the cramped nature of the design it probably is kind of impossible to place the Vision blocks into the turret while maintaining a relatively comfortable space, now what i think would be even more limiting is that the commander, when he needs to, can no longer peek outside of his hatch like one could in an M1 Abrams without needing to completely open it.

[@herosstratos]

This is rather the worst cupola I have seen. It isn't just a bullet trap, it's dish form redirects the bullets to the commander too.

[@ShuRugal]

@@herosstratos Bullet Trap is Evolving! ... ... ... It evolved into Bullet Lens!

[@KJ4RMZ]

Getting to hear and see this thing run is cool.

[@pex_the_unalivedrunk6785]

Oh bugger....how to crawl out of that hole when the tank is on fire 🔥

[@ariesv7108]

In the video LTC George states the weight of the BAE entry to be 26 tons, at the end of the video you mention it to be 28 tons, and then online I've seen 27 tons floated about. Are you able to confirm which of these is the correct weight for the vehicle with add-on armor?

[@captiannemo1587]

Unlikely. Probably just slightly different design iterations.

[@nikujaga_oishii]

about fiber optics aux sight - as I recall there were some concepts a few years back that'd use this kind of fiber optics in a remote or low-profile turret that you can't really put traditional periscopes on (or at least can't cover wide angle) - like Stryker MGS turret but with 360 deg view as fiber optics can go atop the turret

[@cdburner5911]

Maybe I missed it, but what is the purpose of the big bump-in in the armor behind the commanders screen? It seems like a waste of extra armor (as opposed to just continuing the slope around it) and a huge inconvenience inside the vehicle, as it puts the screen WAY too close to the TC, at a wonky angle. Going back in the video, it doesn't look like there is anything there, no sight, mount or whatever. Maybe a future position for an APS?

[@charlesemerson6763]

I especioally like the sticker to your left in the gunners position, "Loud noise, Double hearing protection required" Has an army anywhere, ever made a quiet gun.

[@ptonpc]

The crew conditions look horrific. A case of "Ergonomics. Have you heard of it?"

[@sleepingninjaquiettime]

How much mud is the driver going to have to clean going in feet first?

[@ES90344]

Don't know if you have time for modeling anymore, but next time you're in Warren head up to Great Lakes Hobby and Train. They have a great selection of armor kits.

[@ttpechon2535]

Do you edit these vids with some army guys who tell you what to remove and all that? I'm also guessing they have to watch it and give it the green light before posting.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

They do. I'd like to be invited back again, so I get to follow their rules on security

[@williamwimmer5473]

it's absolutely wild to use titanium in a ground combat vehicle, nearly as foolhardy from a strategic supplies standpoint as using tungsten carbide in small arms ammunition

[@SlavicCelery]

Well that's why DU should be used in ammo instead. But people hear Depleted Uranium and get squirrely about the whole thing.

[@williamwimmer5473]

@@SlavicCelery they should probably get squirrely about the whole thing. We already have enough health issues with mercury, lead, and copper poisoning in conventional small arms ammo, and you want to add DU to it too lol. fantastic idea

[@SlavicCelery]

@@williamwimmer5473 The difference between mercury, lead, and copper, and DU is where it is in the round. The prior three tend to be in propellant or the gliding jacket - which is a very different issue. You can't have it both ways. If you complain about titanium, tungsten, copper, lead and DU... well directed energy weapons aren't there yet.

[@SlavicCelery]

@@williamwimmer5473 Also, DU is really for a round that can benefit from the incredibly dense payload. Small arms isn't where it is; cannon rounds are a different story.

[@Coconut-219]

@@SlavicCelery Well isn't tungsten-carbide still poisonous anyways???

[@icy3-1]

15:34 *Bad Chieftain! No specifics! Bad!* Yeah, wouldn't wanna pull a War Thunder forums moment on us now xD

[@tracyo868]

So do new tanks have a new tank smell, like cars?

[@telankiristyssylinteriasetelma]

31:45 that looks like the perfect potatochips and sodabottle space

[@josephlownes5138]

In the stryker they still call it a j box

[@Riceball01]

Looking at the exterior again and all of those bolts I'd hate to have to put up cammie netting over it. I bet you'd snag the cammie netting all over the place and it would probably take longer to put cammie netting over it than an M1 despite the M1 being larger simply because of everything the cammie netting would snag on the XM1302.

[@teagame1011]

The other half of the turret space just... not being there is certainly a look. Its so narrow that it makes the gunner position look like you're in a driver compartment.

[@Not_Octopus]

Please donate to Benning! That's the nearest museum to me and would love the bragging rights of seeing it.

[@wacojones8062]

Thanks!

[@cv5273]

These new vehicles are cool

[@fishua5564]

It would be cool if they could get the hatch to slide forward and then pivot forward making sliding in and out easier and giving the driver protection while getting the coax ammo.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

He doesn't to open the hatch to get the coax ammo. It's inside the vehicle, on the outside of the turret basket

[@KevinSmith-ys3mh]

​@@TheChieftainsHatch- Ahhhhhh, that does clarify things! During the video it seems like the MG ammo storage was in a weird mystery storage bin under the bustle! Maybe we needed a picture?

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

@@KevinSmith-ys3mh I couldn't see it to photograph it without moving the turret to the side.

[@grantlee5737]

That Gunners position SCREAMS Pz68/88. It’s almost identical, really. Only difference is that the right side is very cramped in the Pz, while it’s vertical here

[@barelyasurvivor1257]

Another great Chieftain video!

[@cavscout888]

Seeing around/'through' the vehicles is mostly a boondoggle. Hopefully it's a quickly-toggleable momentary feature that is mostly out of the way, and lets the crew still focus on crewing the vehicle.

[@arbelico2]

Greetings . There are some questions that come to mind. 1º Why don't you use seat belts? . 2º Will a configuration like that of the "T-72" allow more ammunition to be accommodated and give more space to the crew? . 3º Is there a version with a 120mm cannon, wouldn't it be a better option, would the USMC serve as a "substitute" for the M-1? . 4º How much weight would an APS like the TROPY and a RWS add? Thank you .

[@davidcorriveau8615]

From the Dept of Damning with Faint Praise...I guess its better than the T-34 interior?

[@HappyDuude]

The cupola looks like it was a rubber cap where you'd put/or have cushioned your helmeted head - does that rotate, or is it fixed?

[@SlavicCelery]

Not saying that any armored vehicles are quiet, but are the double hearing pro warning signs all over every part of American equipment at this time? I don't remember seeing any of those in US vehicles that have made it over to Ukraine...but they are older models. We didn't believe in ear protection in the past, so that's less of a surprise. I've known a couple arty guys from Korea, and lemme say, they were solidly deaf almost 30 years ago. "You served in the military?" "WHAT?" "WHAT DID YOU DO?" "ARTILLERY!" "Yeah it shows" "WHAT?" That said, great guy and great camp counselor...Unflappable to be sure. Apparently a bunch of fire happy 13 year old boys didn't bother him in the least.

[@HelminthCombos]

The reason the M10 was selected is very clear in this video ergonomics are bloody terrible and its too tight.

[@charlesbryant3287]

First thing I thought of when you got in the driver's seat was TRAP! then I saw the armor was matchbox. (not the toy) Stops maybe 12.7?

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

It's got modular armour: In the orginal m8 it was: Level 1: splinters and small arms ball Level 2: small cannons Level 3: 30mm cannons Its probably similar here, with the base armour being just proof against shell fragments and such

[@emilchan5379]

Well I guess we now know why this wasn't selected. While it is a cool compact vehicle with a very efficient use of space, it looks to be an ergonomics nightmare. One wonders if BAE was able to come up with a slightly bigger platform, perhaps they may have won the MPF program.

[@captainfactoid3867]

One thing i don’t really get is the choice of the autoloader for a light tank. A bunch of the advantages for autoloaders are only present in MBTs. For a light tank many of the combat advantages are nonexistent. Not much if any weight saving, space isn’t nearly as much of a concern, the higher upfront cost is a big hit against light tanks, and any consistency advantages for that era of autoloader probably won’t be used because it’s a light tank. Weird choice IMO, especially with a base design being from quite a few decades ago

[@TakNuke]

Autoloaders are good if one is limited by weight and size while wanting maximum possible protection and also if your ammo is too big to manhandle. The fault of this version of M8 AGS is that it is an old design when ergonomics was not a priority. Given time the users also have grown in size and personal gear. Had they redesigned the vehicle but without any size and weight restraint they would have come with a better end product with much more growth potential while weighing less. The irl comparison to both M8ags and M10 booker are Type 15 light tank and Type 10 mbt respectively in terms of weight.

[@Coconut-219]

@@TakNuke An interesting statistical side note, height - while being somewhat hereditary - has also had increase over the years correlated with environmental factors such as improvements in diet due to advances in the nutritional sciences. So technically speaking, if you really wanted to you could design a "really bad diet" on purpose that satisfies the minimum nutritional requirements to not cause any sort of nutritional disease but avoids those that increase body growth. Tada: small tankers!

[@TakNuke]

@@Coconut-219 why does it sound like ussr?

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

@captainfactoid3867 I don't think you realise how big 'light tanks' are these days. Or how much armour is needed to stop 30mm sabot. You get alot of weight savings from using an autoloader. The M8 is only ~26tons vs the M10 broker's ~42tons for the same armour and firepower. That's 16 tons lighters FYI. Part of that is also a rear engine design allowing it to be narrower, but it can only get that narrow with a rear engine and a 105mm because it's got an autoloader. Now arguebly they went too far with the minimized size for crew ergonomic spaces, but the weight savings in light tanks can still be substantial in modern designs.

[@richdurbin6146]

Do protypes try to use off the shelf parts? Like the loudspeakers from the Vietnam era.

[@kmoecub]

Every manufacturer tries to use off-the-shelf parts whenever possible. That's where the profit margin comes from, and it also makes logistics easier.

[@Plaprad]

I'm curious how many of these videos are being watched in boardrooms of major arms development firms with an old fat guy in a 20k suit screaming "JENKINS!! WRITE THAT DOWN!!! DIFFERENT HATCH!! WRITE IT DOWN!!!" in an attempt to win the next contract.

[@adodgygeeza]

Probably approaching non whatsoever. I've no doubt that BAE got plenty of feedback from the selection testers. - As other have said the compromises smack of a lack of design effort, it probably doesn't have a CITV as they didn't have space for the display.

[@chriscookesuffolk]

Christmas tank quiz pretty please Chieftain

[@castercamber]

Everything looks like a tight fit. M1A1 wasn't a Cadillac but it had more room for the crew than this vehicle.

[@michaelblacktree]

I think the LTC missed his calling as a talk radio host. 😛

[@swayingGrass]

Feels like they could have used a wooden mockup for that turret...

[@steves8236]

31:48 So who's the guy that did all the wiring for the turret? And if the turret suffered a penetrating hit, how many months would it take to re-wire it?

[@haldorasgirson9463]

Once again with the unflappable LTC George. You present your service well. Plus you are fun.

[@dr.ryttmastarecctm6595]

_“Oh bugger, the tank is on fire!”_ I see a t-shirt with a crew bailing out sometime in the future. The question to be answered is, what tank? P.S. YTube isn't posting these new episodes. I do find them by manually checking my _Subscriptions_ page. Darn YTube bots.

[@mcfetti9170]

Hay Chieftain Did your stabilization system of the Super Kürassier aktually work? (If you told it in the Video, I'm solly, i think i missed it. My English is not the Best.)

[@petesheppard1709]

It looks as if even a smaller soldier in full clothing and gear would struggle inside this vehicle.

[@maxo.9928]

No specifics?! I think the world has known most of them for the 40+ years that poor thing has been around, and even now still no-one wants to buy it lol!

[@diet_dr.demoncore]

no head rest for the driver? Seems like it would get uncomfortable after a while, especially at the angle the seat lays at

[@jasonz7788]

Awesome thanks

[@TennesseeTanker]

It's a shame one of the four NCOs from that prototypes test platoon stationed there weren't brought in to talk some pieces

[@ISU-KV-]

Mbt-70 and xm803 next?

[@geodkyt]

I'm surprised the gunner station doesnt have a backup panel for some of the "commander" functions that might be necessary to access in combat. Sure, if youre down a man and need to, you can shift the gunner to the TC position. But what if you're suddenly down a man *and you're still in an active fight* , like the TC just got JFK'ed while sticking his head up to actually do "TC things" ? Be nice to have the *ability* to handle at least the "things we might have to do in combat" jobs from the gunner station, even if it requires twisting around to fiddle with something behind your shoulder.

[@kevinsullivan3448]

Is the Army going the route of the T-55 where the shorter the tankers are the better off they are?

[@Colinpark]

Armour seems a bit thicker than the AGS that was at Littlesfields?

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

I believe it is, yes

[@Rider-lo9vt]

Chieftain, do you think post-war 76mm M319 HVAP could penetrate Panther's glacis? As far as I know, the M319 HVAP has the same projectile as the M93 HVAP, but it has a much faster projectile speed.

[@rogerlafrance6355]

What's with all those bonding straps, test? Most of that layout looks like it was knocked up in a blacksmith shop. Yes, its hard to get all that stuff into a 26Ton tank, perhaps the driver is the next to go?

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

Next is probably a more compact autoloader and more compact engine.

[@travistolbert2647]

I really believe it’s time for BAE to stop proposing the same vehicle to the Army…. Just the crew ergonomics looked bad from the M8 and now they look almost horrific! I can’t imagine being a TC or gunner trying to move over anything other than paved roads!

[@sapperjaeger]

really cool episode Where do we get Cheftain swag?

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

T Shirts are occasional releases. Other things like mugs are linked to just below the video if you watch on the main page

[@danndank]

That grinning colonel George is scarier than a bloody clown.

[@blatherskite9601]

And I thought the Chieftain (tha panzer, not the person) was cramped, with a 3 man turret. Does the TC have to look at his monitor out of his right ear?

[@ditto1958]

They changed the name of Fort Benning? What the heck!?

[@jebise1126]

there are lots of non magnetic steels too...

[@PhilippBrandAkatosh]

i have a question pls, since from my knowledge most of the Russian detection devices work with lasers and lower would it have a use to acquire Vantablack on an Abrahams for example ?

[@haldorasgirson9463]

Is there a top-attack warhead for the 105?

[@ThroneOfBhaal]

10:10 The warning, in the middle of the handle bars... does that say 'don't run people over'...

[@klafsen]

19:45 you can give the drive through worker your card through that slit.

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

Thanks Nick. As always - interesting and informative. As to the outrow ... yep ... my one experience being in an armored vehicle was with an M109 they had in Ordnance School - which was open - and you could just climb up in there if you wanted to. Wearing my soft cover - I then proceeded to bang the hell out of my head repeatedly. Yep. That's why they have helmets in tanks. I never understood those German Tankers in their Berets ... That metal doesn't give one tiny little bit ... .