its called a light tank because it lights up targets. just lightly from a light distance away. though I don't think that would be a light year, but a little less than a light second.
No need for a high velocity fun on a breakthrough tank. A rack of ATGMs would do the antiarmour work (without needing the entire vehicle to be built around them) while a low pressure gun can fling HE at things that don't need a missile.
>biiiiiiiiig rack
would be expensive. Like, an order of magnitude plus expensive. The M829A4 DU sabot cost $10,000 in 2014. A Javelin ATGM in 2021 cost $200,000.
https://i.imgur.com/RuKqnyg.jpg
BAE was late but they delivered their prototypes, we don't know why they were disqualified.
The B in BAE might be the problem.
>120mm gun >better mileage than a stryker >ackshully c130 transportable (lmao)
If the Army bought them, Congress would ask awkward questions about why the Army didn't buy them in the 1990s, 00s, or 10s. So the Army bought the inferior alternative instead.
>why the Army didn't buy them in the 1990s, 00s, or 10s
Didn't need them then.
M829A4 didn't exist in 2014, but in the last budget request they were $20k each. Expensive but really super cheap when you consider what they are capable of.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>M829A4 didn't exist in 2014
yes, but there was an order then, don't know if it's the first >in the last budget request they were $20k each
there you go then >Expensive but really super cheap when you consider what they are capable of
which is why a rackful of Javelins and a magazineful of M829A4s has significant cost differentials
Same reason an F-16 would be considered a bomber in ww2. Big things get bigger
>have to get bigger
Do they, though? Because for reconnaissance and exploitation, the traditional "light tank" tasks, a CV90 with a low pressure 105mm gun and some ATGMs would do fine. In fact, the Bradley is probably a decent light tank if you use it that way. This seems more like changing the role of "light tank" to mean assault gun, rather than light tanks getting bigger.
>copium that the Abrams is a "medium tank" instead of essentially being a heavy tank
the abrams performs the duties of both the heavy and the medium tank
but the primary role of an MBT, which is maneuver and exploitation, is that of a cruiser tank
>the abrams performs the duties of both the heavy and the medium tank
Theoretically a heavy tank was supposed to be able to perform all the roles of a medium tank (and then some) as well. Bottom line is, the Abrams and its peers are the heaviest tanks extant, they basically *are* what were called heavy tanks in WW2 >but the primary role of an MBT, which is maneuver and exploitation, is that of a cruiser tank
Well, an MBT does it all, and in fact some MBT designs (e.g. Challenger) are slanted more towards defensive roles than towards exploitation
But again that's no really significant difference with the WW2 heavy tank. It was not so clear-cut that generals would say "no, heavy tank, you do this; medium tank, you do that".
>Theoretically a heavy tank was supposed to be able to perform all the roles of a medium tank (and then some) as well.
in classic heavy/light set up, heavy tanks were used for breakthrough before light tanks would take over
in WW2, heavy tanks were used pretty much the same way, they would only be used for the initial breakthrough before medium tanks would be used for the exploitation role
MBTs combine both roles into one, so they are neither heavy nor medium nor light, but in practice their primary role as a maneuver element means they are closer to the use of medium tanks than anything else
>But again that's no really significant difference with the WW2 heavy tank.
IS and tiger were not meant to be used for maneuver, and were never used as such
In WW2 heavy tanks did everything from supporting the breakthrough, to creating the breakthrough, to exploiting the breakthrough (moving together with the rest of the armoured force to engage enemy tanks and bunkers), to acting as mobile pillboxes and assault guns (especially when on the defence), hence why I propose they were the MBTs of WW2, practically speaking
>in classic heavy/light set up, heavy tanks were used for breakthrough before light tanks would take over
Well, in practice e.g. in the US armoured divisions, light tanks were supplanted by scout cars, medium tanks became recon/screening assets and "heavy tanks" were actually medium tanks (the M4 Sherman) and did more or less everything
Technology marches on. Just look at all the (usual) moronation and fruitless discussion spawned by the MBT post in this very thread, just because their brains can't fathom change and have to cast everything in terms of obsolete WW2 classifications. Don't be like those people. To be honest, I would take role into account, is this even intended for airborne and/or difficult terrain like mountains? If not, it's not light and is indeed something else.
>unironically linking a spookfurBlack person video on /k/
Go back, please, go fricking back to whatever furBlack person containment prison you broke out of
>Light tanks are to provide mobile firepower to airborne troops like the Sheridan and M8
Okay, but again, an IFV chassis with a low pressure 105 does this just fine. Your choice of GLATGM, external ATGM, or conventionally fired tandem HEAT-FS for antitank work.
It's not an IFV hull and it's a full power 105mm gun.
If they were going to stay with a 105, why didn't they just fix the problems with the Stryker MGS instead of developing an entirely new platform?
Or hell, just do what the Navy did and license an allied design, like the Italian Centauro
IBCT are not beholden to using the Stryker chassis for parts commonality.
>Because the MGS did everything right except last long enough.
Nah it had a lot of problems. Apart from the autoloader being unreliable as frick, the gun pod was completely unarmored, and could be disabled by small arms fire. It also had no air conditioning in the crew compartment, which fricking sucks giant donkey balls in Iraq
>the autoloader being unreliable as frick, the gun pod was completely unarmored, and could be disabled by small arms fire. It also had no air conditioning in the crew compartment
None of these are true, I'm surprised you didn't add in a "cannot fire sideways".
Still, the Sheradin was shit, the Stryker MGS was shit. America has been struggling hard with light tanks
Because the MGS did everything right except last long enough. The guns beat the suspensions to death too quickly.
Part of the entire point of the Stryker is to have the BCT on as streamlined a logistical train as possible. It didn't work out in the long term but it was a no brainer to try it.
>Because the MGS did everything right except last long enough.
Nah it had a lot of problems. Apart from the autoloader being unreliable as frick, the gun pod was completely unarmored, and could be disabled by small arms fire. It also had no air conditioning in the crew compartment, which fricking sucks giant donkey balls in Iraq
>Because the MGS did everything right except last long enough. The guns beat the suspensions to death too quickly.
You are aware that the Italians do not have that problem with their 8x8 105mms (who pioneered the concept with the South Africans)? What if I told you they are using 120mms now and have no issues? GD and the LAV series always sucked donkey dick and are some of the worst 8x8s in service compared to their competition.
>If they were going to stay with a 105, why didn't they just fix the problems with the Stryker MGS instead of developing an entirely new platform?
because the griffin was designed from the ground up to meet US MPF standards
so it isnt constrained by needing to be tactically air-dropped and isnt constrained by having to compromise around the dimensions of an APC
presumably, this translates to thicker armor and higher combat endurance for a given size
though the former isnt publicly known yet, its M1-esque turret seems to lean towards higher protection
> its a new chassis
It's an ASCOD hull, the same one that was modified for the shittacular Ajax.
Thing is, using an IFV hull for a light tank doesn't make sense unless you adopt the IFV/APC as well for parts commonality. Compared to say, the Type 15, the MPF is significantly taller due to using a tall IFV hull. Eyeballing, the MPF looks to be at least 9 foot/2.7 meters tall not counting CITV/RWS. It's taller than an Abrams.
If the army picks this then doesn't pick ASCOD for the Bradley replacement, they are literally moronic.
The suspension is different. ASCOD has pic related. I think this is some further GDLS development. It looks light weight with a particular focus on light weight (in comparison to ASCOD which has conventional steel stamping scallops).
I made a thread about this when the Ukraine war first started and got like 7 replies. I resent you because you’re thread is more successful.
Anyway, I’m excited for the final specs to come out. It’s definitely needed. The IBCT lacked mobile firepower. If I was king shit of turd mountain I’d have put a ATGM on it so it could sorta stand it’s ground against a main battle tank. Overall it’s a good idea because we need more organic firepower for IBCT and need a rapidly deployable tank.
Why do you think that? Javelin has a 5km range and is fire and forget. While modern TOWs have a top attack warhead, it doesn’t compare to the top attack profile of the javelin
2 years ago
Anonymous
Because TOW or at least TOW-2 also has fantastic range and you can slap several of them together on a turret. A one-shot weapon seems quite silly.
2 years ago
Anonymous
One javelin= 1 dead tank. That’s a pretty good trade off. Don’t get me wrong, I love TOW but it isn’t a guaranteed kill like the javelin is
2 years ago
Anonymous
I thought the TOW would have been more effective on target. If not, slapping a Jav on an existing CROWS mount makes a lot of sense as value added.
Autoloading Javelin launcher when?
Hellfires on light vehicles when?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>hellfires on light vehicles when
Being tested for light recon vehicles
2 years ago
Anonymous
Holy fricking shit I didn't know I could cum this hard.
IBCTs have a miniscules logistical footprint and the fastest forward deployment time in the US Army. SBCTs are somewhere in the middle and ABCTs require everything and the kitchen sink.
Also consider that the Pentagon has been trying to replace the M24 Chaffe for going on 70 years and its *never* found an acceptable replacement.
M41 Walker Bulldog and M551 Sheradin were both considered failures that made it to service.
M8 AGS is just the most well known R&D failure of recent years. Building a vehicle that is light enough to be able to deploy with your fastest/ furthest deploying units while still retaining tactical usefulness is just an incredibly hard problem to solve, Stryker MGS didn't do it either.
Thanks for providing context. Why is it so difficult to design? Is it really that difficult to make a chassis that can handle a big gun? It's not like they're trying to air drop these, right?
2 years ago
Anonymous
In the case of those vehicles that made it to service there was always something intrinsically linked to the tradeoffs that cause a dealbreaker.
With Walker Bulldog it was the vehicle being too highly strung (causing lots of breakdowns), the crew compartment being poorly designed/cramped and then after those problems were addressed it left very little room to upgrade the gun, causing it to leave service after prety much a decade. They sold on most of the inventory in the early 60s and kept a token number in service.
The Sheridan was much the same, although it compromised on crew protection and (the same) relability problems of a "light" AFV. It was very useful as a fire support platform due to the absurb 152mm gun but the rest of the platform couldnt keep up (The dissapointment of MGM-51 was also a contributing factor, it could not reliably engage enemy armor due to the failure of this weapon system)
Although Styrkyer MGS wasn't neccaserily a like for like replacement of the role that Walker Bulldog/Sheridan had filled (as doctrine had change quite dramatially by the early 2000s) the same trouble emerges. To make sure the logistical burden isn't tooo much for the SBCT concept they were lightly built and couldn't take the rate of operations so are getting replaced.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>MGS wasn't neccaserily a like for like replacement of the role
Since we are still insisting on using archaic terminology, the M1128 was an assault gun. Its entire purpose was to haul around a 105mm gun to shoot things in support of SBCT infantry, particularly with HEP.
2 years ago
Anonymous
brimstone was used in Ukraine fired from technical
Don't know how many they had and how effective they were but some got captured
so its clearly possible to use them from light recon truck
2 years ago
Anonymous
With TOW you need to keep aimed at the target from launch to impact.
TOW is an outdated weapons system from this respect
Jav can be fired and the JLTV can drive off to reload immediately, as opposed to having to keep the vehicle still and guide a TOW missile all the way to its target, that may be several km away.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Thanks for spoonfeeding me, I feel moronic now. I forgot the Jav is Fire and Forget.
I’m unsold on the GDLS vehicle. Nor was I really bought into the upgraded M8. Well apparently the troop evaluation liked the GDLS’ commonality with Abrams, so that in combination with other things the US values like logistic impact etc put it over the line. An upgraded CV-90 might have been interesting but for some reason only 2 vehicles were selected for evaluation. Oh well. I really do wish we’d spread acquisition love around to our allies. Failing to acquire Brimstone was a mistake. Hopefully we’ll pick up the Archer SPG.
>I think the intention of this vehicle is to be a CHEAP tank
the intention of the vehicle is to provide organic direct fire support for IBCTs
so it doesnt look particularly cheap for its size, considering it has all the same tools as the latest M1 SEP like APS and all-crew thermals
Not cheap, but easy to deploy and sustain where you would deploy an IBCT. They plan on giving IBCTs a single company of these so the brigade has some kind of heavy direct fire support, even if not much.
The Sheridan was phased out from Regular Units from 1978, The M8 never saw service.
This light vehicle is an attempt to mask some of the weaknesses of the Infantry Brigade while retaining its strenths.
2 years ago
Anonymous
My mistake then, I was under the impression the M8 saw use.
It does make sense to me to give an IBCT some mobile firepower, but at the same time I don't understand why IBCTs actually exist. An ABCT with more infantry elements makes more sense to me. I also think the Merkava was a good idea, so maybe I'm just moronic.
2 years ago
Anonymous
IBCTs have a miniscules logistical footprint and the fastest forward deployment time in the US Army. SBCTs are somewhere in the middle and ABCTs require everything and the kitchen sink.
Also consider that the Pentagon has been trying to replace the M24 Chaffe for going on 70 years and its *never* found an acceptable replacement.
M41 Walker Bulldog and M551 Sheradin were both considered failures that made it to service.
M8 AGS is just the most well known R&D failure of recent years. Building a vehicle that is light enough to be able to deploy with your fastest/ furthest deploying units while still retaining tactical usefulness is just an incredibly hard problem to solve, Stryker MGS didn't do it either.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The army just can’t into expeditionary units. You’re acting like they are the marine corps.
An IBCT is made up of 3 infantry battalions along with cavalry, artillery, support and engineering battalions. It's not uncommon for headquarters to also have some other supporting elements a couple echelons smaller than them which usually get lumped into a headquarters company.
They could probably in practice just attach the MPF company to one of the subordinate battalions or attach MPF platoons to each of the battalions.
Then you have an ABCT which does not meet the requirements of an IBCT. Infantry battalions, motorized with the new infantry squad vehicle, are the meat of the IBCT. The MPF gives the brigade a little bit of flexible direct fire support without hindering the maneuverability or adding too much to the difficulty of sustaining the brigade.
>Will (insert American tank here) engage (insert Enemy tank here)
The answer is overwhelmingly no, America uses the Abrams and Bradley's to mog AFVs and IFVs, anything with hard armor gets hit by a AGM
>105mm main cannon >105mm main cannon >105mm main cannon
It's SHIT. 105mm barely has the power to punch through an MBT from the side. In front on engagements it's just screwed. Additionally, having a 105mm means missing out on commonality with the 120mm shells used in America's current MBT, of which there are many useful ammo types, from airburst to HE.
>It's SHIT.
for the purposes of HE-slinging, its actually better
more shells, an important consideration for a small hull
able to use HE and HESH rather than just HEAT-MP as well >105mm barely has the power to punch through an MBT from the side
M900 is actually decent against MBT sides
and in its role as attached fire support for IBCTs, this is sufficient >In front on engagements it's just screwed.
frontal engagements are going ot be handled by M1s >Additionally, having a 105mm means missing out on commonality with the 120mm shells used in America's current MBT, of which there are many useful ammo types, from airburst to HE.
120mm loadout is usually just sabot, HEAT, and canister
HEAT-MP gives it a bit more utility, but its still not as good as a plain HE shell
105mm is also still used quite a lot in the US army, so the MPF isnt exactly stretching their supplies, its already using off-the-shelf weapons
>105mm barely has the power to punch through an MBT from the side
A WW2 Pak-40 would frick over the side armour of MBT, if it has a 60-90 degree aspect. 105mm can do that easily if the enemy tank shows has its front angled 10-15 degrees.
>120mm gun >better mileage than a stryker >ackshully c130 transportable (lmao)
If the Army bought them, Congress would ask awkward questions about why the Army didn't buy them in the 1990s, 00s, or 10s. So the Army bought the inferior alternative instead.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Given that it's BAE, it probably has something to do with the powerplant, suspension, transmission, or all of the above, or refusing domestic licensed production.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>120mm gun
I blame vidya for people thinking the M8 can have a different gun than the 105mm M35.
The US should replace those heavy, expensive and complicated M1 Abrams with lighty armored, diesel fueled tanks, with no thermal, night vision and FCS, those are expensive complex systems that are not worth it.
its called a light tank because it lights up targets. just lightly from a light distance away. though I don't think that would be a light year, but a little less than a light second.
i still think it's a dumb idea, especially the 105
Tfw it will be rifled for no reason and HESH is back on the menu
The US Army has been using HEP since the M1128, but they are developing a 105mm version of the M1147 HEMP.
>smart fused HESH-FS
Holy frick I've made shitposts about this concept, now it exists
WHEN IS THE HEAVY BREAKTHROUGH TANK COMING BACK I WANT MY 183MM SUPER CANNON
No need for a high velocity fun on a breakthrough tank. A rack of ATGMs would do the antiarmour work (without needing the entire vehicle to be built around them) while a low pressure gun can fling HE at things that don't need a missile.
>breakthrough tank
>A rack of ATGMs
nowhere near enough magazine capacity
Make it a biiiiiiiiig rack
>biiiiiiiiig rack
would be expensive. Like, an order of magnitude plus expensive. The M829A4 DU sabot cost $10,000 in 2014. A Javelin ATGM in 2021 cost $200,000.
The B in BAE might be the problem.
>why the Army didn't buy them in the 1990s, 00s, or 10s
Didn't need them then.
M829A4 didn't exist in 2014, but in the last budget request they were $20k each. Expensive but really super cheap when you consider what they are capable of.
>M829A4 didn't exist in 2014
yes, but there was an order then, don't know if it's the first
>in the last budget request they were $20k each
there you go then
>Expensive but really super cheap when you consider what they are capable of
which is why a rackful of Javelins and a magazineful of M829A4s has significant cost differentials
>light tank
>heavier than a T-55
I guess it makes sense in a world with 15,000 ton destroyers, but why couldn't they just call it a medium tank?
That's how it always is. Unless there is a huge technological breakthrough in material science things have to get progressively bigger.
>have to get bigger
Do they, though? Because for reconnaissance and exploitation, the traditional "light tank" tasks, a CV90 with a low pressure 105mm gun and some ATGMs would do fine. In fact, the Bradley is probably a decent light tank if you use it that way. This seems more like changing the role of "light tank" to mean assault gun, rather than light tanks getting bigger.
I can pinpoint exactly where this post was made in the dunning-krueger chart.
I can pinpoint exactly where in this post there's an actual argument
...
...
...
...
...
(There isn't)
>Hurf durf tha bradlee wud b gud lite tank iff uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh 105mm main gun
Hurf durf tha bradlee wud b gud lite tank iff uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh 105mm main gun
The absolute state of discussions on /k/ kek
A modern CV-90 is heavier than a T-55 aswell.... you're trying to conflate doctrinal designations with your own arbitrary standards for weight classes
>In fact, the Bradley is probably a decent light tank if you use it that way.
You're not wrong, that's exactly how it is used in armored recon units
Yea moron. That’s how it is unless we can start minituriazing shit.
Hell, even Strykers with the right kit can fill most of the light tank duties well enough to justify keeping one less vehicle on the roster.
Same reason an F-16 would be considered a bomber in ww2. Big things get bigger
>heavier than a T-55
Setting aside that we do not know how heavy this vehicle is, T-55 are pretty lightly armored by modern standards.
To be more accurate, T-55 is hardly considered proper armor nowadays. You can disable them with a BPM-1.
>15,000 ton
That's pretty heavy
>why couldn't they just call it a medium tank
copium that the Abrams is a "medium tank" instead of essentially being a heavy tank
>copium that the Abrams is a "medium tank" instead of essentially being a heavy tank
the abrams performs the duties of both the heavy and the medium tank
but the primary role of an MBT, which is maneuver and exploitation, is that of a cruiser tank
>the abrams performs the duties of both the heavy and the medium tank
Theoretically a heavy tank was supposed to be able to perform all the roles of a medium tank (and then some) as well. Bottom line is, the Abrams and its peers are the heaviest tanks extant, they basically *are* what were called heavy tanks in WW2
>but the primary role of an MBT, which is maneuver and exploitation, is that of a cruiser tank
Well, an MBT does it all, and in fact some MBT designs (e.g. Challenger) are slanted more towards defensive roles than towards exploitation
But again that's no really significant difference with the WW2 heavy tank. It was not so clear-cut that generals would say "no, heavy tank, you do this; medium tank, you do that".
>Theoretically a heavy tank was supposed to be able to perform all the roles of a medium tank (and then some) as well.
in classic heavy/light set up, heavy tanks were used for breakthrough before light tanks would take over
in WW2, heavy tanks were used pretty much the same way, they would only be used for the initial breakthrough before medium tanks would be used for the exploitation role
MBTs combine both roles into one, so they are neither heavy nor medium nor light, but in practice their primary role as a maneuver element means they are closer to the use of medium tanks than anything else
>But again that's no really significant difference with the WW2 heavy tank.
IS and tiger were not meant to be used for maneuver, and were never used as such
In WW2 heavy tanks did everything from supporting the breakthrough, to creating the breakthrough, to exploiting the breakthrough (moving together with the rest of the armoured force to engage enemy tanks and bunkers), to acting as mobile pillboxes and assault guns (especially when on the defence), hence why I propose they were the MBTs of WW2, practically speaking
>in classic heavy/light set up, heavy tanks were used for breakthrough before light tanks would take over
Well, in practice e.g. in the US armoured divisions, light tanks were supplanted by scout cars, medium tanks became recon/screening assets and "heavy tanks" were actually medium tanks (the M4 Sherman) and did more or less everything
due to inflation, standards had to be changed
Technology marches on. Just look at all the (usual) moronation and fruitless discussion spawned by the MBT post in this very thread, just because their brains can't fathom change and have to cast everything in terms of obsolete WW2 classifications. Don't be like those people. To be honest, I would take role into account, is this even intended for airborne and/or difficult terrain like mountains? If not, it's not light and is indeed something else.
American smalls are european mediums
European vehicles are routinely heavier tho, since they don't have to transport them over oceans regularly
America hasn't been able to produce a decent light tank since the Chaffee
The Walker Basedog stayed in service in Norway until the late 90s
Yeah those were pretty good too I'll admit
Still, the Sheradin was shit, the Stryker MGS was shit. America has been struggling hard with light tanks
We almost had the HSTV-L sad that it will never come to be but at least the seems to be hope for the for the ARES gun https://youtu.be/qGZk2Qc0Keo
>unironically linking a spookfurBlack person video on /k/
Go back, please, go fricking back to whatever furBlack person containment prison you broke out of
Light tanks are to provide mobile firepower to airborne troops like the Sheridan and M8. Or the BMD but those things don’t compare to light tanks.
>Light tanks are to provide mobile firepower to airborne troops like the Sheridan and M8
Okay, but again, an IFV chassis with a low pressure 105 does this just fine. Your choice of GLATGM, external ATGM, or conventionally fired tandem HEAT-FS for antitank work.
It's not an IFV hull and it's a full power 105mm gun.
IBCT are not beholden to using the Stryker chassis for parts commonality.
>the autoloader being unreliable as frick, the gun pod was completely unarmored, and could be disabled by small arms fire. It also had no air conditioning in the crew compartment
None of these are true, I'm surprised you didn't add in a "cannot fire sideways".
>It's not an IFV hull
It's derived from the ASCOD
The MGS is a fricking turd and was retired early for a reason anon. I know GD is paying you to shill but you could at least be subtle.
>The MGS is a fricking turd and was retired early for a reason anon.
Because it was a flat bottom hull.
If they were going to stay with a 105, why didn't they just fix the problems with the Stryker MGS instead of developing an entirely new platform?
Or hell, just do what the Navy did and license an allied design, like the Italian Centauro
Because the MGS did everything right except last long enough. The guns beat the suspensions to death too quickly.
Part of the entire point of the Stryker is to have the BCT on as streamlined a logistical train as possible. It didn't work out in the long term but it was a no brainer to try it.
>Because the MGS did everything right except last long enough.
Nah it had a lot of problems. Apart from the autoloader being unreliable as frick, the gun pod was completely unarmored, and could be disabled by small arms fire. It also had no air conditioning in the crew compartment, which fricking sucks giant donkey balls in Iraq
Things like that were liable to happen if your mech pool was garbage, yeah.
>the gun pod was completely unarmored
This one actually did suck sometimes, but that was true of every Stryker at the time.
> no air conditioning in the crew compartment,
Pussy.
>Because the MGS did everything right except last long enough. The guns beat the suspensions to death too quickly.
You are aware that the Italians do not have that problem with their 8x8 105mms (who pioneered the concept with the South Africans)? What if I told you they are using 120mms now and have no issues? GD and the LAV series always sucked donkey dick and are some of the worst 8x8s in service compared to their competition.
The LAV series is an absolute success. I’m not sure why you’re even bringing it up when discussing MPF
Because Italy doesn't deploy their shit halfway across the planet to fight in the absolute worst scenario for light armor.
Centauros were deployed in Somalia and the Iraq war
just more insurgent plinking
come find me when the insurgents actually have ATGMs and real tanks to shoot back with
>If they were going to stay with a 105, why didn't they just fix the problems with the Stryker MGS instead of developing an entirely new platform?
because the griffin was designed from the ground up to meet US MPF standards
so it isnt constrained by needing to be tactically air-dropped and isnt constrained by having to compromise around the dimensions of an APC
presumably, this translates to thicker armor and higher combat endurance for a given size
though the former isnt publicly known yet, its M1-esque turret seems to lean towards higher protection
Wheels suck. The Stryker will never be a tank.
Eugh. Of course they chose the wrong one. They could have had the M8 Buford 40 years ago.
Three paired roadwheels its a new chassis? Sort of new/old more conventional design. The weight is in the armor blocks for sure.
> its a new chassis
It's an ASCOD hull, the same one that was modified for the shittacular Ajax.
Thing is, using an IFV hull for a light tank doesn't make sense unless you adopt the IFV/APC as well for parts commonality. Compared to say, the Type 15, the MPF is significantly taller due to using a tall IFV hull. Eyeballing, the MPF looks to be at least 9 foot/2.7 meters tall not counting CITV/RWS. It's taller than an Abrams.
If the army picks this then doesn't pick ASCOD for the Bradley replacement, they are literally moronic.
It's based on an Ajax hull but its shorted both in length and height, about the only vestige of its origin is having the engine in the front.
The suspension is different. ASCOD has pic related. I think this is some further GDLS development. It looks light weight with a particular focus on light weight (in comparison to ASCOD which has conventional steel stamping scallops).
> It looks light weight with a particular focus on light weight (in comparison to ASCOD which has conventional steel stamping scallops).
But it's 10 tons heavier than even a fully loaded ASCOD. Expected weight is like 40 tons + room for expansion.
>source, my ass
that was the weight of the "fully armored" version they showed off at AUSA.
GDLS has never had their MPF at AUSA.
probably alright, it's got a reasonably-performing 105mm gun, will be tougher than a Bradley, and will suffer less in nasty terrain than an abrams
It'll be perfect for the upcoming land war in Asia.
If it can fit underground.
I made a thread about this when the Ukraine war first started and got like 7 replies. I resent you because you’re thread is more successful.
Anyway, I’m excited for the final specs to come out. It’s definitely needed. The IBCT lacked mobile firepower. If I was king shit of turd mountain I’d have put a ATGM on it so it could sorta stand it’s ground against a main battle tank. Overall it’s a good idea because we need more organic firepower for IBCT and need a rapidly deployable tank.
aren't they slapping JCROWS on everything they can
Yes but I haven’t heard of them doing that for MPF program
CROWS-J are only going on Strykers right now
They’re slapping them on JLTVs too
Wouldn't a TOW be preferable to a Javelin on a CROWS mount?
Why do you think that? Javelin has a 5km range and is fire and forget. While modern TOWs have a top attack warhead, it doesn’t compare to the top attack profile of the javelin
Because TOW or at least TOW-2 also has fantastic range and you can slap several of them together on a turret. A one-shot weapon seems quite silly.
One javelin= 1 dead tank. That’s a pretty good trade off. Don’t get me wrong, I love TOW but it isn’t a guaranteed kill like the javelin is
I thought the TOW would have been more effective on target. If not, slapping a Jav on an existing CROWS mount makes a lot of sense as value added.
Autoloading Javelin launcher when?
Hellfires on light vehicles when?
>hellfires on light vehicles when
Being tested for light recon vehicles
Holy fricking shit I didn't know I could cum this hard.
Thanks for providing context. Why is it so difficult to design? Is it really that difficult to make a chassis that can handle a big gun? It's not like they're trying to air drop these, right?
In the case of those vehicles that made it to service there was always something intrinsically linked to the tradeoffs that cause a dealbreaker.
With Walker Bulldog it was the vehicle being too highly strung (causing lots of breakdowns), the crew compartment being poorly designed/cramped and then after those problems were addressed it left very little room to upgrade the gun, causing it to leave service after prety much a decade. They sold on most of the inventory in the early 60s and kept a token number in service.
The Sheridan was much the same, although it compromised on crew protection and (the same) relability problems of a "light" AFV. It was very useful as a fire support platform due to the absurb 152mm gun but the rest of the platform couldnt keep up (The dissapointment of MGM-51 was also a contributing factor, it could not reliably engage enemy armor due to the failure of this weapon system)
Although Styrkyer MGS wasn't neccaserily a like for like replacement of the role that Walker Bulldog/Sheridan had filled (as doctrine had change quite dramatially by the early 2000s) the same trouble emerges. To make sure the logistical burden isn't tooo much for the SBCT concept they were lightly built and couldn't take the rate of operations so are getting replaced.
>MGS wasn't neccaserily a like for like replacement of the role
Since we are still insisting on using archaic terminology, the M1128 was an assault gun. Its entire purpose was to haul around a 105mm gun to shoot things in support of SBCT infantry, particularly with HEP.
brimstone was used in Ukraine fired from technical
Don't know how many they had and how effective they were but some got captured
so its clearly possible to use them from light recon truck
With TOW you need to keep aimed at the target from launch to impact.
TOW is an outdated weapons system from this respect
javelin's a lot lighter and these sorts of vehicles are already rollover hazards. comes with a nice thermal imager and can fire stingers for fun too.
JLTV are not rollover hazards.
is that a challenge
Jav can be fired and the JLTV can drive off to reload immediately, as opposed to having to keep the vehicle still and guide a TOW missile all the way to its target, that may be several km away.
Thanks for spoonfeeding me, I feel moronic now. I forgot the Jav is Fire and Forget.
Oshkosh is offering a JLTV with a 30x113 and Javelin for a scout vehicle selection.
GDLS was only selected the winner yesterday.
I’m unsold on the GDLS vehicle. Nor was I really bought into the upgraded M8. Well apparently the troop evaluation liked the GDLS’ commonality with Abrams, so that in combination with other things the US values like logistic impact etc put it over the line. An upgraded CV-90 might have been interesting but for some reason only 2 vehicles were selected for evaluation. Oh well. I really do wish we’d spread acquisition love around to our allies. Failing to acquire Brimstone was a mistake. Hopefully we’ll pick up the Archer SPG.
>it's not actually light!
I think the intention of this vehicle is to be a CHEAP tank, not a light tank.
>I think the intention of this vehicle is to be a CHEAP tank
the intention of the vehicle is to provide organic direct fire support for IBCTs
so it doesnt look particularly cheap for its size, considering it has all the same tools as the latest M1 SEP like APS and all-crew thermals
>has all the same tools as the latest M1 SEP like APS
There are only a handful of platforms with Trophy APS on the SepV3
it's basically a baby abrams with lots of parts commonality with abrams and other vehicles but easier to move and easier to get across bad roads
Not cheap, but easy to deploy and sustain where you would deploy an IBCT. They plan on giving IBCTs a single company of these so the brigade has some kind of heavy direct fire support, even if not much.
Aren't IBCTs considerably larger than battalions? How do they not already have an armor company?
IBCT have several battalions
>How do they not already have an armor company?
America hasn't had a light tank in regular units since 1978.
>What is the Sheridan
>What is the M8
The Sheridan was phased out from Regular Units from 1978, The M8 never saw service.
This light vehicle is an attempt to mask some of the weaknesses of the Infantry Brigade while retaining its strenths.
My mistake then, I was under the impression the M8 saw use.
It does make sense to me to give an IBCT some mobile firepower, but at the same time I don't understand why IBCTs actually exist. An ABCT with more infantry elements makes more sense to me. I also think the Merkava was a good idea, so maybe I'm just moronic.
IBCTs have a miniscules logistical footprint and the fastest forward deployment time in the US Army. SBCTs are somewhere in the middle and ABCTs require everything and the kitchen sink.
Also consider that the Pentagon has been trying to replace the M24 Chaffe for going on 70 years and its *never* found an acceptable replacement.
M41 Walker Bulldog and M551 Sheradin were both considered failures that made it to service.
M8 AGS is just the most well known R&D failure of recent years. Building a vehicle that is light enough to be able to deploy with your fastest/ furthest deploying units while still retaining tactical usefulness is just an incredibly hard problem to solve, Stryker MGS didn't do it either.
The army just can’t into expeditionary units. You’re acting like they are the marine corps.
An IBCT is made up of 3 infantry battalions along with cavalry, artillery, support and engineering battalions. It's not uncommon for headquarters to also have some other supporting elements a couple echelons smaller than them which usually get lumped into a headquarters company.
They could probably in practice just attach the MPF company to one of the subordinate battalions or attach MPF platoons to each of the battalions.
Will it at least mount an ATGM so it can pop a T-90?
its main purpose is fire support for infantry, so HESH/HE slinging is more important
though M900 can defeat a T-90 from the side fairly well
Also keep in mind that they are developing a 105mm version of the M1147 HEMP.
>chad doing the penis turret
look at that face
>its main purpose is fire support for infantry
Then it should be an IFV.
>Then it should be an IFV.
an IFV is meant to organically maneuver alongside the armor
the MPF is meant to shore up the firepower of IBCTs
IFVs are sent to ABCTs, MPFs go to IBCTs
I bet you this tank is the perfect size to navigate much of Europe's smaller roads inbetween houses.
Then you have an ABCT which does not meet the requirements of an IBCT. Infantry battalions, motorized with the new infantry squad vehicle, are the meat of the IBCT. The MPF gives the brigade a little bit of flexible direct fire support without hindering the maneuverability or adding too much to the difficulty of sustaining the brigade.
>Will (insert American tank here) engage (insert Enemy tank here)
The answer is overwhelmingly no, America uses the Abrams and Bradley's to mog AFVs and IFVs, anything with hard armor gets hit by a AGM
>105mm main cannon
>105mm main cannon
>105mm main cannon
It's SHIT. 105mm barely has the power to punch through an MBT from the side. In front on engagements it's just screwed. Additionally, having a 105mm means missing out on commonality with the 120mm shells used in America's current MBT, of which there are many useful ammo types, from airburst to HE.
>It's SHIT.
for the purposes of HE-slinging, its actually better
more shells, an important consideration for a small hull
able to use HE and HESH rather than just HEAT-MP as well
>105mm barely has the power to punch through an MBT from the side
M900 is actually decent against MBT sides
and in its role as attached fire support for IBCTs, this is sufficient
>In front on engagements it's just screwed.
frontal engagements are going ot be handled by M1s
>Additionally, having a 105mm means missing out on commonality with the 120mm shells used in America's current MBT, of which there are many useful ammo types, from airburst to HE.
120mm loadout is usually just sabot, HEAT, and canister
HEAT-MP gives it a bit more utility, but its still not as good as a plain HE shell
105mm is also still used quite a lot in the US army, so the MPF isnt exactly stretching their supplies, its already using off-the-shelf weapons
>105mm barely has the power to punch through an MBT from the side.
I truly wonder about people who post shit like this.
>105mm barely has the power to punch through an MBT from the side
A WW2 Pak-40 would frick over the side armour of MBT, if it has a 60-90 degree aspect. 105mm can do that easily if the enemy tank shows has its front angled 10-15 degrees.
You play too much war thunder
You mean too little, if he'd play war thunder he'd actually know that even L7 APDS from the 50's has no trouble going through MBT side armor
The same goes for 50 cal machine guns in that game.
Actually moronic, how do you not die when using the toilet?
>Multirole armored fighting vehicle
>Can't kill dedicated armor-killing fighting vehicle
Gee, really hard to understand this one.
It's for a quick deploy force, I bet they have some secret sauce to defeat a Russian MBT with ease.
BTW, can these things be carried by a C-130?
Probably not, the requirement was 2 per C-17.
105mm are for poorgay c**ts like Flipland, not the USA.
If you can design a reliable, airliftable 120mm bearing vehicle, apply for a job at GD.
GDLS's vehicle can use a 120mm, the Army wanted a 105mm.
Already did. It's called the M8 Armored Gun System and it was competing against GDLS' offering.
And it lost while failing to deliver working prototypes after delaying the program by a year. It was shit
BAE was late but they delivered their prototypes, we don't know why they were disqualified.
>we don't know why they were disqualified
Riveted construction
>120mm gun
>better mileage than a stryker
>ackshully c130 transportable (lmao)
If the Army bought them, Congress would ask awkward questions about why the Army didn't buy them in the 1990s, 00s, or 10s. So the Army bought the inferior alternative instead.
Given that it's BAE, it probably has something to do with the powerplant, suspension, transmission, or all of the above, or refusing domestic licensed production.
>120mm gun
I blame vidya for people thinking the M8 can have a different gun than the 105mm M35.
CV 9040-120 is basically that.
Is this the Griffin 2 being shipped out of production lines with APS?
With it's Abrams based turret it almost certainly can use the same Trophy kits.
Doubt it. Those Trophy APS modules are extremely heavy. It is likely they will add Trophy Light-decoupled in the future to the light tank.
What is the doctrine or use for this thing? Is it for scooting about the upcoming African bush wars?
Giving IBCT an AFV more capable than a Humvee with a TOW.
It will be really telling if the Army moves to procure a new 105mm APFSDS as M900 are simply ancient technology at this point.
>The Army will likely choose their next IFV based of the results of a tangential light tank competion that wasn't actually a competition
farcical
how do you take a shit there
So the US military is copying chink doctrine now?
How would compare to an upgraded T-55?
Like the paki upgraded Al-zarrar
The US should replace those heavy, expensive and complicated M1 Abrams with lighty armored, diesel fueled tanks, with no thermal, night vision and FCS, those are expensive complex systems that are not worth it.
We’ll be getting 504 of these light tanks. We have about 5,000 Abrams.
Spreyposting just isn't the same now that he is dead.