Rare access to British Army's monster new battlefield vehicle

[@Steve-bo6ht]

I was tank Driver / Gunner 16/5th Queens Royal Lancers and was fortunate to drive all the CVRT's variants and Warrior FV510's can say hand on heart the General Dynamics Ajax looks and sounds the absolute business and I wish all the crews the very best that developed and persevered to iron out all the problems.

[@gusgone4527]

I hope you are correct Bro. The specifications for the Ajax are mighty impressive. Just what the troops needed.

[@keptinjack]

Your Brown Star kissing badge is in the post 🤣

[@wor53lg50]

Oh damn, i forgot our new indoctrinated brainwashed ideology means its vorboden to pay Brits any compliments, i need to re-read the first chapter of marxist nialism for dummies again...

[@Foxtrottangoabc]

Yep looks good to me , has to be much better than the vehicles you mention in every way , especially troop protection

[@strippins]

What’s the gun actually meant to shoot ?

[@colingoldthorpe5918]

For all those guys that are nagging on about it, we all did the same when Warrior was coming out. But man when that thing showed up it was a game changer. There are many people alive today that would not be if it wasn't for the Warrior platform, me included. The only thing we wore out in Gornji Vakuf Bosnia was track pads and fuel. Those vehicles were a beast, every day miles upon miles, up and down the countryside they were amazing vehicles. I am sure these will be too, once the kinks are worked out....

[@bacburrito4225]

Kinks, it’s become a joke

[@peterwait641]

Fuel pumps became less reliable with age and multiple reconditioning of old units .

[@bzipoli]

dont worry about it, brits always joke about stuff cmon

[@scalewarmachines]

Always had a soft spot for Warrior. It served well.

[@Ukraineaissance2014]

Same thing happened with the Bradleys as well.

[@hk_brit_fisher]

It can actually move, HUGE achievement

[@1chish]

🤦‍♂🤦‍♂

[@IntrinsicSV]

It’s not the moving it was the stopping that was the initial issue.

[@keptinjack]

Give it an hour or two 😅

[@chip1gray]

This isn't Russia we do make stuff we just over pay for it haha

[@thebrowns5337]

Are we still paying for all the injuries after folk were shaken non stop?

[@gusgone4527]

It has a mountain to climb if it is to be accepted by the troops. The damage to it's reputation could be irreparable. I sincerely hope it climbs that mountain and goes from strength to strength.

[@mwnciboo]

It'll be like the L85 Rifle - It'll improve over 25 years but everyone will still think it is a *Shitbox*

[@gusgone4527]

@@mwnciboo Agreed, the damage has already been done. I converted from SLR and SMG to Rifle 5.56 as it was known, in November 1990. Took the Skill at Arms Instructor course at SASC Browning Barracks, Aldershot. While on that course I actually broke an SA80 when the firing pin snapped. Also broke the forward handgrip on an LSW version practicing "rifle strengthening exercises." If only those exercises were designed to strength the actual weapon as the name would suggest. Rather than the arms of the rifleman and accelerate his muscle memory with the rifle.

[@thecurlew7403]

​@@gusgone4527Every time I look at sa 80 it makes me sick its ugly like made from a kit.😊

[@616CC]

@@thecurlew7403it is a great short weapon system If you want something nice to look at check your wife

[@PaulAnthony2009]

always impressive when a war machine splashes through a big puddle, the enemy would just surrender after seeing that...

[@DMFP93]

A test driver in this video describes it as a "Giant Expensive Tank". Its meant to be an armed reconnaissance vehicle. There are no IFVs that are as heavy or costs as much. It has a miniscule range, and is impractically large. Truly a very British procurement. It is 40% heavier than the Bradley IFV - one of the best armoured IFVs and most effective ever made.

[@CaptMelonfish]

Honestly looks like a fantastic upgrade, kind of miffed it's missing an ATGM system though.

[@InvictusMartin]

@@JimCarner Javelins are hand held missiles, I'm assuming they just mean each vehicle has one on board and a crew member can get out and fire it when needed.

[@InvictusMartin]

@@JimCarner So it can be mounted but its relatively new tech, the CROWS-J variant of the missile started development in 2016, and The U.S. Army completed CROWS-J live fire testing in June 2021. It is just a modified version of the handheld strapped to the side of the turret but if it works, it works. The Ajax contract was won by GD in 2010, and the fist vehicle were meant to be delivered in 2017, the fist pre-production vehicle was built as early as 2014, so the vehicle defiantly wasn't intended/designed to mount a javelin.

[@neilba1]

Agree....very odd. Like a slightly worse Bradley.

[@toucan221]

Excellent, just love the sound of the engine, sounds really sporty.

[@JasonBrown-dd7dj]

Sounds like a 1lt ford focus

[@graveperil2169]

its a sneaky scout after they are deaf they will never hear it

[@billballbuster7186]

Pleased to see the Ajax is now on track and getting a thumbs up from the crews. It is a huge leap from the old but well loved Scimitar, to an advanced fully digital A-Star reconnaissance system. It is being tested at full battle weight of 38 tons, but some armour can be removed for normal operation.

[@airhabairhab]

Dude this is a Government PR channel. You won’t get any genuine opinions here.

[@billballbuster7186]

@@airhabairhabYet they reported the issues with Ajax over two yeas ago. Just about every military in the world has an info channel of website. The independent press is way down the list of priorities.

[@airhabairhab]

@@billballbuster7186Completely agree, any kind of independent journalism has long since disappeared from these shores.

[@billballbuster7186]

@@airhabairhabWell, my interest in Military vehicles goes back over 50 years. I can remember most of the scandals in the press. Very few new vehicles were free of complaints, which is why today they are more cautious. You don't really know how good or bad a vehicle is until its served a few years. The worst press I remember was for Challenger 1, for 5-6 years nobody had a good word for it until the 1991 Gulf War. It out performed Abrams and became a super-star over night..

[@billballbuster7186]

Ok so you tell me what the Russians have got that was not around in the Gulf Wars? But whatever it is it don't seem to be working.

[@dazzzdelux]

Its a low bar when one of the highlights is that 4 vehicles didn't break after a few days use

[@VanderlyndenJengold]

It's almost as thouygh a defence firm saw a never-ending supply of money when the MOD came calling...

[@1chish]

OK lets re-phrase it for your 2 brain cells. It has maintained a 100% reliability rate.

[@1chish]

@@VanderlyndenJengold Sorry mate this is the UK not the USA. This is a fixed price contract so any failures have been at the cost of General Dynamics. Yes a Yank firm in the UK being held to contract. You people should try it.

[@impguardwarhamer]

nah man this is military vehicles we're talking about, 2 weeks with no problems whatsoever *is* very good

[@warhead_beast7661]

I mean most of the new IFVs had major problems. Just look at Puma that was withdrawn from VJTF at the start of the year after most broke down during an exercise

[@peterfeeney721]

Driving at any speed across the Plain is VERY far from marginal terrain.

[@Coughinggonzalo]

Like the red square tarmac which is known to have stopped the most modern russian „wunderwaffe”, t14 atrapa😂😂

[@bollewillem1]

00:30 Yes, who does not want to drive around in a giant tank. But the thing you are sitting on is not a tank.

[@synchc]

I think that's a bit like saying who wants to fly an aircraft if the aircraft you're flying isn't a jet fighter/bomber. I wouldn't even assume it's any more dangerous to crew one of these than it is to crew tanks. But yes, they shouldn't have called it a tank, it isn't and that's not its job.

[@Wick9876]

It's not an MBT certainly but it is a tracked and armored vehicle intended for direct fire. That's a tank, unless you feel the APC role sufficiently overshadows the direct fire role.

[@synchc]

​@@Wick9876 True, you could call it a light tank, at a stretch. It's a reconnaissance armoured fighting vehicle, though. I seriously doubt you'd ever hear a BA serviceman call it a light tank in a professional capacity. It would be about as accurate as calling a QE class carrier a 'boat'.

[@Krytern]

It is a tank, what are you talking about?

[@bollewillem1]

@@Krytern A tank is a heavily armoured vehicle which serves as a primary frontline weapon that can encage other tanks and well protected targets like bunkers. An armoured fighting vehicle has less armour, lighter weapons which can be elevated more than the main gun of a tank. So an AFV can encage aerial targets and is more efficient in urban terrain. AFV’s are smaller than tanks and often can carry troops in the back. Usualy AFV’s don’t loiter around in the frontline when contact is made with the enemy. Tanks will rush forward and strike the enemy.

[@l.b.3416]

Buy the tracked-boxer, it looks/ is sized very similarly and can excange modules with the normal boxer. Its still in development too but its a private project so expect it to go ahead fast.

[@robinterry9387]

Go ahead fast? Its 7 years behind schedule.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@@robinterry9387 regular Boxer is better protected than Warrior. With a RTC30 turret (the remote turret of Puma) it can fit a 7 man dismount, can withstand more punishment than Warrior can, s more mobile and better armed and has better sensors. just buy the RTC30 module and be happy.

[@WhoThisMonkey]

I love the adaptability, very practical and means the vehicle can cover a whole plethora of roles.

[@richtbiscuit32]

I can’t believe how effective it is, one video and I’ve already got tinnitus and a massive overdraft 😉

[@davequinn2369]

All the best. Good stuff.

[@dannyblackwell2426]

about time, so happy all the issues have been fixed and now it can join the British army.

[@peterfeeney721]

Sarcasm?

[@dannyblackwell2426]

@@peterfeeney721 no. Not at all

[@peterfeeney721]

@dannyblackwell2426 Fully agree with you, mate. It's a 40 tonne of raw horse mess

[@peterwait641]

Not solved barrel wear issue 750 rd's reported, caused by blow by before cased round seals in barrel !

[@dannyblackwell2426]

@@peterwait641 barrel issue ? I thought it was just the vibration / noise and speed issue. ok thanks for letting me know about the barrel issue :)

[@godalmighty83]

The pockets that have been lined by this thing must be shocking. The troops that have to put up with it have my sympathies.

[@indiefjant]

Or, they could’ve just bought a bunch of CV90’s instead. More mobile, more modular, proven platform, from a stable long term partner country, etc etc.

[@MarkFarrington-hb2ne]

Talks to one crew, "I'm impressed by what the crews think". It's an updated Matilda mk2

[@umwhatthistime]

As usual video of a tank going through a puddle. Impressive !!

[@scrambler69-xk3kv]

Looks like a real beast. Way to go Brits looks like a winner for sure. From the USA.

[@piers995]

Are the soldiers allowed to tell official journalists that they are being deafened and their brains turned to mush? How have they cured the ride experience?

[@mrrolandlawrence]

for a start not having any jurnos ride in the thing :)

[@RichCow-xe1bz]

I really hope this is a great platform for our guys and girls. I just hope it’s more comfortable than the old chieftain I learnt my trade in.

[@rwd76]

I have heard (pun intended) of guys getting permanent hearing damage and getting compensation after trailing them.

[@yumyunrangLOAL]

The monster that vibrated its crew to death, aw hell yeah!

[@petergough2635]

Get some Soucy rubber tracks on that to stop the track clatter.

[@esmenhamaire6398]

Given that early versions were built with sides that weren't even parallel to each other, were inconsistent in height, and had serious issues with noise and vibration injuring its crews, I remain skeptical about General Dynamics' ability to deliver a good quality useful vehicle that will neither injure its occupants in normal use ,nor have constant maintenance issues. I would be utterly delighted to have my expectations proven wrong, as I want our troops to have the best kit possible and given the history of this project, IMO GD should pay for any budget overruns due to defects in what gets delivered to our troops henceforth - and pay compensation to crew that are injured by noise/vibration issues.

[@Jonty290]

The noise and vibration issues are fixed? Thought they were a big problem in the troop carrier version.

[@simonwood1402]

Should still go ahead with the Warrior upgrade at least we know it's going to work!!! 🙃

[@Turbogaggers123]

Cv90 ❤

[@4002corbe]

Analog verses Digital …. I like the analogy.

[@ukironman1]

This is supposed to be a replacement for the fast, relatively quiet , low-weight and helicopter transportable CVR series. Big fat ROFL. I saw one of these being transported near Oxford on the motorway; thing was as big as the Challenger 2 tank...

[@Louis-ej1lx]

CVRT are obsolete. They were made for a recce doctrine of not being seen by the enemy. In todays world that is impossible so the army has had to switch to the doctrine of recce by force/fire, which requires a better protected, more heavily armed vehicle.

[@stevestruthers6180]

And at around 40 tons, they weigh as much as a Leopard 1 tank. Ideally, armoured recce is supposed to be done in stealthy, quiet, small vehicles that are hard to detect and hit. Although the 40mm gun might help the crew get out of a pickle, and the additional armour protection wouldn't hurt.

[@danielkrcmar5395]

Poland and Israel can afford over 1,000 MBTs. Our budget is gar higher so why can we barely scrape enough together for 150 conversions of existing stock?

[@MonotoneCreeper]

Poland and Israel don't have two aircraft carriers or nuclear submarines

[@danielkrcmar5395]

@cjjk9142 Do you realise how much we already borrow? They've plenty of action, they've signed multiple multi-billion contracts and have taken their first deliveries.

[@danielkrcmar5395]

@cjjk9142 I'd rather 1,500 tanks than a navy we can't afford to buy missiles for and an Air Force the government admit would be wiped out in a week if we went into a real war against a peer like Russia.

[@mrrolandlawrence]

@cjjk9142 isreal does actually have nuclear launch capable subs. All part of sampson.

[@michaeltate8017]

Best way to gain above average equipment is to follow trends of peer nations. Copy others no need to reinvent the wheel. Look at the boxer, GB in anticipation of start, left then re-examined it years later, missing out on its early use.

[@Husker5454]

Big question . How easy will it be to intergrate ATGM platforms like spike , brimstone etc . Aswell as anti drone countermeasures , drone launch platforms and more . I hope this isnt all we are getting because the 40mm RDEN was already pretty useless and if we see an increase of platforms like terminator where tank chassis are paired with remote turrets instead of an IFV body this litterally wont be able to do anything . Im very glad we are getting somewhere with this now as warrior is well overdue but we need some gen on AT capability .

[@zytoses9223]

tbh if they can produce six varients of the vehicle each having a specialised purpose they can probably slap an ATGM on it as well without much hassle.

[@gregs7562]

There's a potential Brimstone equiped overwatch version and a 105mm direct fire option. Athena troop carrier I guess will have drone teams. Would be handy if the individual vehicles could have a Brimstone or LMM missile option on the turret though. The Russian Terminator has been a complete disaster in Ukraine btw.

[@grahambuckerfield4640]

I strongly suspect that Brimstone will be integrated, as well as on Boxer, it was possible to quickly adapt the missile for ground launch from initially at least, soft skin vehicles for Ukraine last year. So in an armored and digitized AFV like Ajax it’s likely bring looked at.

[@Oxley016]

Boxer is getting a Brimstone variant so it is more than likely they will start equipping Ajax with it too @@grahambuckerfield4640

[@ashleygoggs5679]

@@gregs7562 Does russia have any terminators left? ive seen countless videos of them being destroyed, i also hear the design of the turret is terrible and the cannons arnt well stabalised making them immensly innacurate. Probably only useful for cover fire and indirect lead showers.

[@Foxtrottangoabc]

Alan your the gunner on the ajax .. sorry didnt hear u say again !

[@honestmcgyver]

You can imagine the team briefing - “whatever you do don’t say there’s anything wrong. Yes we could have gotten something proven but like the SA80 rifle we’re going to plough on no matter what the cost or how long it takes and then years later we realise w eshould have bought something like the M4 rifle or LAV 6 MIV. God bless British procurement

[@notmenotme614]

I was thinking the same, where the Soldiers in this video allowed to tell the truth and their real opinion, with the trouble causers kept away from the cameras? Is the biggest priority of the British Armed Forces to make industry lots of money? I wonder who’s really in charge, high ranking military officers or industry directors and shareholders?

[@vincnetjones3037]

Please let me know if the Ajax has really sorted out all of it's teething issues as we need this vehicle to be the business for the next 20 years... No propaganda just useful facts.

[@ianwang5242]

"We fixed the crew's hearing damage issue caused by noise!" "How did u boys fix that issue?" "We added an extra earplug under the headphones!"

[@ahms732]

I wonder how good Ajax anti drone protection is as it seems to be more relevant on todays battlefield against armour.

[@princeoftonga]

Proximity fused 40mm will be pretty effective against drones. The issue in Ukraine is detection and the Ukrainian forces seem to be finding that a decent thermal sight is pretty good for that.

[@RomanHistoryFan476AD]

Britain still needs a tracked IFV though, the Boxer while a great vehicle is not tracked and could struggle to follow the armour into more nasty terrain and muddy areas.

[@rydekk-4644]

3 questions unanswered in this video; How resilient is it against mines? How resilient is it against top attacks/Kamikaze drones ? When can they go to Ukraine?

[@wingsandsims]

Monster? It looks like a Scimitar and Bradley had a child.

[@ollieisaninja]

0:52 to 0:56 See the track at the rear.

[@rogerthomson9461]

Sounds like they sorted out the noise and vibration problems.

[@StevenWarren-h1e]

I just hope the lads get the right stuff. They need Shouldn't be about money. When it comes to their lives, they should get the best.

[@Gareth04100]

Not one comment on here about the Cannon. That installation is what has completely high jacked the entire platform. What a total lemon.... 🍋.

[@catlee8064]

CV90 would of been cheaper, on time and its battle tested..none of the problems this has.

[@BoostedMike2]

and with that theory tech would not advance

[@catlee8064]

@@BoostedMike2 tech would not advance? The CV90 has been upgraded many times to keep pace with todays tech....

[@bren2385]

​@@catlee8064 SO WOULD YOU SAY THE CV90 HAS ADVANCED OR THE TECH HAS MORE SUPERIORITY THAN CV90 🤔🤔🤔

[@catlee8064]

@@bren2385 I would say the CV90 has advanced and the tech has also advanced,

[@bren2385]

​@@catlee8064 AND USUALLY THE NEXT SERIES WOULD BE A COMBINATION OF UPGRADES MADE THAT HOW PROGRESSION WORKS OTHERWISE EVERYONE WOULD STILL BE USING WW2 TANKS 🙃🙃🙃

[@alanfaulkner6329]

Exceded expectations. Four went out four came back. Wow. That was the bar set pretty low for a brand new vehicle worth billions.

[@redjacc7581]

so, have they sorted out the mass vibrations making crew & soldiers i'll?

[@graveperil2169]

"British Army's monster new battlefield vehicle" not how i expected the new scout vehicle to be described

[@carlosechevarria1977]

this is a new version of the pizarro . in service for years with the spanish army

[@samsmith7212]

How long before the information of the Ajax is leaked on the war thunder forums

[@IntrinsicSV]

It’s massive for a recce vehicle!

[@gibbsm]

Looks like an IFV to me.

[@Ukraineaissance2014]

Ita not a recce vehicle.

[@jayspik6498]

You don’t use land vehicles for reconnaissance anymore, you get killed.. Drones do that now..

[@Ludovit110]

Magnificent. Too bad Its not replacing neither Warrior IFV's nor Bulldog's APC's, as it's not IFV nor a full-capacity APC, for which they will have to procure a totally different family of vehicles.

[@jamiecartwright5093]

Beautiful parade ground rig , put in action against kornet! Game over

[@knowahnosenothing4862]

"So thank you, Ajax Spray and Wipe" anyone remember that add?

[@jacksonteller1337]

All of the new systems have teething issues. The Puma had 18 out of 100+ break down last year one a total loss. That's why it is smart to combine them with the proven Boxers. It would be better to slightly increase the numbers each year after the arisen issues are solved. That way the costs of overhaul is kept down.

[@DeepSpaceIndustriesLOL]

now the question is will its turret shoot slow as hell like the warrior or not

[@adamedwards1937]

Have to say I first read that as "rare success".....

[@rebel1052k]

Looks great, a lot better than the Warrior and Bulldog!

[@barneyreeves2253]

Yeah that's not difficult, those platforms are 30 and 60 years old respectably. For the obscene price tag on Ajax and the fact its taken over 10 years, you would hope so.

[@gadgetgus]

Better late than never... It seems like a good platform overall. Even though the gun has proven effective in trials, it still looks a bit of a 'pea shooter' to me, compared to the actual size of the vehicle. However, I know looks can be deceiving sometimes, so only time will tell if it's: Ajax the Great or Ajax the Lesser... Let's hope it proves itself with good, tactical awareness to assist in the field, with the ability to dash from midfielder to striker, occasionally ⚽️ Atb Gus 👍

[@dalehewison6319]

My understanding is that the gun was added almost as an afterthought - the original requirement being for an armoured fighting vehicle troop carrier and command & control vehicle. Then somebody (MoD?) said it should have a gun and hey presto, it's a tank! The gun will give the crew a bit of confidence that they can fire back ... as long as it's nothing too serious.

[@gadgetgus]

@JimCarner great feedback, much appreciated 💪 I agree overall. The MOD identified an APS camouflage requirement a while back, but I'm surmising that they want to keep costs down, as it's already been delayed. To get the main procurement sorted is paramount, then they can upgrade the vehicle over time. You can overwhelm most armoured vehicles with loitering munitions nowadays, so it will be interesting to see those countermeasures... Atb Gus 👍

[@gadgetgus]

@JimCarner No worries, buddy 👍 I can read your replies and sent you one back... First, we need 5G or 6G, then perhaps things shall improve overall 😉

[@horsebattery9243]

So there are only 4 of them, they're not operationally ready? And a lot of clatter and noise for a vehicle that's not exactly being pushed hard there. I wonder what the operational usefulness of the hull mounted TV cameras will be? Between mud, dust, gun shockwaves, vibration and camo netting how much will anyone be able to see?

[@SimDeck]

You know nothing about armoured vehicles. Get back to bake off or whatever it is you do with your dull life cupcake.

[@unclesamuk8687]

WT really needs to add this to the tech tree.

[@timwingham8952]

Can't help but think - for recon it's a bit big. Compared to a Scimitar Scorpion or Sabre it's HUGE.

[@peterwait641]

Why has Santa Barbara systems still got ISO 9001 when the hulls did not meet quality standards as stated in Government report. What is torsion bar and track life as it was stated weight growth was causing noise and vibration ?

[@XxASBURYxX]

Looks great, but modern war has shown us how vulnerable armour is currently, a Lancet drone costing less than 40k will easily disable this, crew will be fine at least

[@MaxKingsley72]

Just like every armoured vehicle on this planet, what do u except u little rat?

[@charlesteton]

Lots of recovery variants! 😭 Hope all wearing ear protection. So been tested over the weekend, must be ready for combat then.

[@petersandstedt7112]

Best wish from peter sandstedt in sweden and i wish uoi al a great sunday🤔🤔🤔♥️♥️♥️🙏🙏🙏

[@rossco88]

Tracks sound loud

[@Toolbod]

The way it crashes through small puddles is worrying. No give in the front shocks at all.

[@ronlumsden3164]

Never heard of a crew.on a vehicle on land getting sea sick.untill now. I had heard they was playing around with the road wheels a lot. And the vibrations that would get you excited! A turret that works on level ground if your lucky! Just how many years have they been trying to fix up this mess? Its abloody lemon!

[@Dutch2484]

Recce vehicle ? - Obvs a different league from Scimitar but... its flippin MASSIVE (!) CVRT could go places Warrior just couldn't. (Has it still got a BV? :-) )

[@Louis-ej1lx]

CVRT was made fore a doctrine of sneaking around unseen. With drones that has become impossible which necessitates a better protected and more heavily armed vehicle.

[@peacefulpleb]

It's a bit big for a recon vehicle, what a profile. It is bigger than Warrior. Still CVRT needs replacing.

[@caucasianbulldog6057]

Pretty good; but does it require a bigger cannon? I think the 50mm bushmaster cannon the Americans are introducing might be required here.

[@HayMaker-tv2dm]

No doubt a big improvement over the warrior just the 40mm ct cannon is a monster update

[@PerfidiousAlbion1815]

We could have built CV90 under licence, manufacturing in this country and gotten jobs and a good bit of kit. Time will tell…

[@truffs1010]

Ajax is being built in Oakdale and Merthyr Tydfil and supports 4,000 jobs in the UK.......

[@Foxtrottangoabc]

Much of it is built assembled in uk factories. Im not sure there would have been much difference with be cv90 . Yes the Spanish manufacture the Hull. If uk wales can win that part of contract then we are sorted mostly

[@jamesmccann531]

@@truffs1010 Do you know what building under licence means?

[@paxundpeace9970]

​@@truffs1010it put millions of taxpayer money down the drain.

[@Twirlyhead]

"gotten" - you sure you are British ?

[@philc4661]

6 years late and £10m a pop... They better be damned good!

[@mrrolandlawrence]

wow thats £3m more than an Abraham's mbt!

[@stephencrossman9402]

Bit of a beast not small and nimble for recce work

[@George-df4uc]

0:31 Did he just call it a Tank? Call yourself an Armoured Corps soldier and he still cannot tell the difference between a tank and AFV.

[@naimaliahmed302]

Exactly!!! But some people call it Light Tank but I prefer to called it AFV/IFV

[@peterwait641]

It becomes a tank if used in an offensive role and heavily armored , many tanks between wars had guns of 20 mm to 37 mm . It would just need extra armor kit , T72 weighs in at 41 tons -Ajax 38 42 tons !

[@DH.2016]

I used to think as you do but now recognise that 'tanks' come in all shapes and sizes. For example, having watched many people trying to define a 'tank,' very quickly their definitions excluded the very first tanks from WW1 right up to WW2. Basically, they were describing a modern Main Battle Tank (must have "long gun," "revolving turret," etc., but WW1 British heavy tanks didn't have revolving turrets - they had sponsons with some not even having short, quick firing main guns and only machine guns). It's not easy to define what a tank is but looking back at the elements that defined a tank through history from WW1 to the present day, I would attempt to describe a 'tank' as a tracked, armoured vehicle armed with variable calibre weapons (e.g., main gun and/or machine guns) designed mainly for direct fire (i.e., line of sight and so excludes SPGs like the M109 designed mainly for indirect fire) and manned by a crew fully enclosed and under cover within the vehicle (so excludes, say, the M10 Tank Destroyer with its open roof). "But an IFV can carry foot soldiers inside," some might say. Well, the Merkava MBT also has that capability - plus, because it had the space, it is known that the likes of the WW1 British Mark IV also sheltered foot troops on occasion. Given the history of tanks, you could therefore argue that MBTs and AFVs/IFVs are all tanks - just simply different types of tanks.

[@peterwait641]

@@DH.2016 Tank was just the code name to stop the Germans finding out what was going to come over the trenches. Therefore any four sided vessel is a tank ! Seems it excites a lot of people who are up there ar*e !

[@George-df4uc]

I've read over what you've put, however in the sense of Ajax, and what the vehicle is used for, it's main roles are either armoured reconnaissance, or repair variants. You would never think to use this vehicle as a blocking / delay vehicle as if it were to come up against any other nations MBT (main battle tank) their larger armanents would make short work of its armour, and the 40mm weapon of the Ajax would be no more than a slight pain job fix on any modern offensive tank. Yes, you could use it in an offensive role trying to take ground and exploit enemy weaknesses. However that does not mean it becomes a tank, as you could do the same with an armoured wheeled vehicle like the future boxer, or current Danish Piranha V. Just because it has a turret and tracks does not make it a tank. Ultimately it boils down to armour, armament, and role on the battlefield. My comment stemed from a point that a proffesional, well educated soldier does not even know the role of the vehicle he is currently testing. I thought that armoured recognition and roles would be drilled into the very people who use these vehciles day to day.

[@johnbower]

Has it been tested to see what happens when driven over an anti tank mine

[@michaeldoxey1240]

The USA has about 6230 Bradley, 500 - and how many of that number will be troop carriers?

[@tomandrews1615]

Does it have a number plate so it can get a fine in ulez zones?

[@andrewholdaway813]

Do you get a brain?

[@qasimmir7117]

Ajax is like Pentagon Wars only true.

[@Subcomandante73]

Just imagine what we could have purchased for half the money right off the shelf and working from day 1. Oh well.

[@DavidSternburgYt]

​@@Subcomandante73buying off the shelf sacrifices soverignty

[@fludblud]

The one silver lining for bloated military programmes like the Bradley or F-35 is that the end product usually ends up having a shelf life exceeding half a century.

[@NathUnknown]

@@Subcomandante73 so what, we now have our own independent platform that we know the ins and outs of, with mechanics who are fully familiar with the systems as they've built them from the ground up, much better than buying from elsewhere

[@alexwilliamson1486]

It ain’t a tank mate…..how long did this take to procure? 20 years?

[@Bob-bo8ik]

It doesn't say much, when lasting 2 weeks without breaking exceeds expectations.

[@ronlumsden3164]

Never mind this vehicle and what it cant do. What about the condition of the crews Heath......

[@Carter_Hendry]

“I don’t think I could asked for more” well, that was many good England🤪

[@SodaPrezsing]

What? It was good English, it means he thinks it doesn’t lack anything so “He couldn’t ask for more”.

[@P.G.Wodelouse]

are you drunk or stupid

[@tobyraffles]

Lot of talk about the reliability of the vehicle, my understanding of Ajax problems was that the 'crews' broke after a few days of the torture being inside this tin can.

[@RustyBear]

no aa or atgm carrier??? huh?

[@PaxBritannica34563]

Will get a Javelin ATGM launcher.

[@andrewmillerphotography]

Monster is the right word

[@tag10]

These troubled programmes can quite often turn out very good if the developers put lots of time and effort to improving them. Here’s hoping

[@zedeyejoe]

That thing still around? I thought they would have scrapped it.

[@dennisseah9403]

Just asking, why did the UK choose a variant of the ASCOD vehicle instead of the Cv90?

[@mrrolandlawrence]

revolving doors and non exec positions up for grabs. basically brown envelope money.

[@oceanic8424]

When will these be coming to CFB Suffield for training here?

[@stevestruthers6180]

I live in Canada. I could be wrong here, but last I heard, the BATUS facility there was being wound down and will eventually be decommissioned.

[@oceanic8424]

@@stevestruthers6180 With a war raging on in Europe and many European countries rearming it sounds like a bad decision, if true.

[@firstlast5350]

Looks like a relatively small gun. What does it do?

[@AtheistOrphan]

Goes BANG!💥

[@firstlast5350]

@@FunnyVideoCollector You mean it will have babies?

[@markburton5318]

Needs active protection system to protect against drones and ATGMs but this is not an option.

[@ronlumsden3164]

Its a lemon. And was always one! Its to heavy all ready. And it doesn't have atg.or active protection or drone protection yet! I won't go into its problems,.most of you all will know about these, and there are many!

[@zimcanit6647]

Dude was drifting a tank!

[@paulsandford3345]

Is the going to replace the Warrior or CVRT? As a former Spartan driver this would be a big step up?

[@Ludovit110]

CVRT yes, Warrior no.

[@davidpeters6536]

The UK's new Ajax, been a while in the making. I hope it is better than the US Bradly FV.

[@Aaronkennedy-h4q]

Good Stuff

[@BenVaserlan]

57mm cannon firing LASER guided shells? APS?