New Chieftain's video about the MPF

This "light tank" weighs 42 fucking tons!?:

?t=450

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    42 short tons = 38 metric
    that tracks with what the wikipedia page says about the Griffin 2 chassis
    of course, this is just one guy, it's not exactly official.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Idk how they managed to make it so heavy. Might as well use a Bradley as a light tank lmao. It would be 15 tons lighter, has ERA for RPGs, and has TOWs for overwatch.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      M2A4 Bradley without it's BUSK era kit weighs 31 tons anon, it's closer to 35 with armor

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Idk how they managed to make it so heavy. Might as well use a Bradley as a light tank lmao. It would be 15 tons lighter, has ERA for RPGs, and has TOWs for overwatch.

        actually it's 40 fucking short tons
        https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/bradley-fighting-vehicle-m2a4/

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >use the IFV as a light tank.
      >muh TOW.
      The literal tank has an actual cannon on it and can kill tanks with said cannon instead of using like 6? TOW rockets to do AT work, nice thinking fuckhead.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the purpose of the MPF is NOT to fight tanks, it's to engage enemy infantry, light vehicles and tanks in a self defense role. It'll be given SABOT for the same reason the MGS had it, for times when it becomes necessary to protect itself

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >use big AT gun on infantry.
          >it's supposed to use AT on tanks.
          Nice to see youtube educating people on the real life applications of actual fucking tanks.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        M3 has 15+2 TOWs and 1500 25mm rds

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It literally can't fit that many TOW missiles in it's compartment it's an IFV, and 25mm has been proven not to do shit before and even with the rounds today it still won't do much. Your argument is fucking stupid

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >25mm has been proven not to do shit before
            do you have brain damage, anon?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Do you? Amazing how /k only has selective memory and learning since bradley crews in DESERT FUCKING STORM complained about not being able to hurt russian trash at POINT BLANK and had to use TOW for their heavy lifting.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    M18: the abram

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >This "light tank" weighs 42 fucking tons!?
    2 transportable on a C-17.
    Not a bad fuckin' deal.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Arouser

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >air force
      >stuck in a chair
      >literal chairforce

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Arouser

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Can the Chairforce stop being lolcows for just one fucking day?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      she's cute in a weird way i'd bang

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        weird? she's just cute.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Chair2force
      Are we hitting pinnacle chAirforce here?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      IMAGINE

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it was originally supposed to be air droppable like the Sheridan was.......

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        yeah, back in the 1990s. The airdrop requirement was removed because the compromises to get a vehicle to C-130 airdrop weight were significant and airdropping a vehicle means going near enemy territory with something a radar signature the size of a yacht

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          as opposed to having to land a C-17 or C-130 to unload the current vehicle, lol.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            yes, anon, you can capture an airport where the weight of the vehicle matters a lot less, though there are still safety concerns for the aircraft transporting it

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              oh sorry, I didn't know that capturing an Airport eliminated enemy AA that you were whining about in your previous post about why it was impossible to be airdropped......despite that very airport having to be taken by Airborne troops.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >airports can only be captured by airborne troops

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                please point to an airfield seizure during an initial invasion of a country that wasn't seized by airborne troops.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >her ass takes up the whole chair
      the things i would do.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      what is the role of an air force arouser

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That's considered light for a 'Murican tank. All that extra weight is the weight of liberty and freedom resting on the shoulders of the one true superpower left standing on God's green earth.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Everything today is heavy as fuck, that's the price of adding more capability. Israel's Namer APC weighs as much as an Abrams

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >so is it an assault gun or something else
      >it's an armored infantry support vehicle
      you motherfuckers

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Namer are literally former MBT hulls on which they removed the turret to carry troops... It’s a conversion.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >This "light tank" weighs 42 fucking tons!?:
    It's actually more like 20 tons. 42 tons is taking into account the weight of the average American crew.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It looks boring.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Could a 14.5x114mm API penetrate the track links of this vehicle?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, but this will not have any noticeable effect. During gau-8/a-10 trials 30mm API roundes penetrated M-48 wheels and tracks orhen but this didn't affect their functionality. From WWII experience to brake track of medium tank appart it required full caliber 37/40mm AP round.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        So how do we score a mobility kill on the MPF
        The chinese developed an APHE round with 45mm of penetration at 90 degrees at 100m which would penetrate the side of an M113, igniting the ammunition and instantly killing all the crew, so how do we do this to the MPF with this 14.5mm cartridge

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >14.5mm APHE
          >45mm of penetration
          Really fucking doubt that, since it requires the real tungsten (B-32 iirc) core projectile has that level of performance.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >105
    Thought they were going to go with a 120?

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    could be worse. Britain is using the same chassis for the Ajax to try and replace the Scimitar for scouting despite it being a massive lumbering POS

    big brain stuff to replace the tank equivalent of a 5'2 athletic twink with something almost as big and tall as an MBT

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      How in the name of fuck in this day and age is it not a given that a first world country can produce a vehicle that won't injure it's own crew when the engine turns on?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Because the UK didn't do it. The welding was done in Spain. Bong MoD then said they wouldn't accept it until it was fixed.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Eh don´t trow the ball at us, no chassis is going to hold for long when you put +10 tons of crap on a desing that left the production line with a couple more tons than envisioned. The reports of vibrations and noise read exactly like what happens when you drive a car with blown shocks. The ajax test vehicles are shaking themselves apart because their chassis have become their suspension, there´s no fixing that except shedding weight.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Britain is using the same chassis for the Ajax

      MPF is not an Ajax with a turret.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Does it have a/c though? Or are we still committed to pretending cooling vests are a good solution?

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    42 tons with the full force protection kit, like when an Abrams has the side ERA and belly plate.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Only 9 tons more than a Sherman is quite an improvement.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Front engined "tank"
    It just don't feel right.
    M8 was robbed

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    These are not war vehicles, they are 100% protection to minimise crew losses and inturn political pressure.
    If there was ever a proper scrap, the airforce would takeout all opfor tanks, or the mic would be tasked with producing something practical like every other war. This peace time shit material is irrelevant

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >This "light tank"
    You're the one calling it that. The US Army is quite insistent on it not being a light tank.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Calling it a light tank is kinda retarded.
    Its an infantry tank.

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    so its to be used as a mobile gun for infantry to advance with, taking down lightly armored targets, enemy fortifications, and possibly tanks if absolutely required to. is this going to be a replacement for bradley IFV's, since this appears to be taking over that task?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Are you retarded? Serious question, how EXACTLY does a light tank with no capacity to carry troops replace an IFV?
      The IFV still takes the men to the fight and supports them in the fighting, the light tank can't take them there.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        apc

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You mean the M113 that was pulled from combat duty when the Bradley became available and even in rear-line roles was declared obsolete in 2007? The M113 that is being replaced by the AMPV for commanders, medical evacuation and other very low risk tasks?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you know the Stryker exists right?

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              and is also REALLY not intended to fight things directly, it's something that gets warned against in white papers.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                thats why mpf exists, to directly targets foritifed structures and armored vehicles, infantry is going to be dismounted anyways so i dont get what you mean by protection against 30mm rounds, the most they need is protection against artillery shrapnel and small arms fire which the stryker provides

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >thats why mpf exists, to directly targets foritifed structures and armored vehicles,

                So this is a tank that isnt a tank.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the m1 abrams has issues with logistics and weight, the mpf solves that while keeping combat capabilities most valuable to infantry like a mobile main gun. i think calling it a tank implies that its mission is to fight other tanks when that isn't the case.

                >gets his information from a literallywho anon with no source
                >"I was right!"
                I think you belong on a board for "special" people like 4chan

                >but the guy he is replying to is paraphrasing what the pentagon nerd in the video said.
                i didn't even watch the video and my intuition on military doctrine is correct, seethe faglord

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Armored trailer

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Troops can ride on top just like WW2 times. Ukraine and Russia still do that in the current conflict

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      no i think its a new thing to complement ifvs and abrams.

      if anything, it appears to be an 'assault gun' a la mode ww2

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/OqoaWrF.jpg

        so its to be used as a mobile gun for infantry to advance with, taking down lightly armored targets, enemy fortifications, and possibly tanks if absolutely required to. is this going to be a replacement for bradley IFV's, since this appears to be taking over that task?

        The MPF is not intended to be used in units that contain Bradleys or Abrams, it's intended for infantry units and later potentially Stryker units

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >infantry units
          that are being carried by trucks?
          The US doesn't use M113s to carry troops since the 1990s and this isn't airdroppable, just air transportable

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, I question whether making this part of the IBCT is a good idea. Air drop in general is kinda dumb, but it also can't fit in a C-130

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          so i was right and the seething m113 retard is being a fag, strykr infantry dismounted supported by mpf's is the new doctrine

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >gets his information from a literallywho anon with no source
            >"I was right!"
            I think you belong on a board for "special" people like 4chan

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              not him, but the guy he is replying to is paraphrasing what the pentagon nerd in the video said.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            well, until the new program gets us a stryker replacement, yes. and only for the IBCTs, armored divisions aren't gonna get this thing iirc.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >strykr infantry dismounted supported by mpf's is the new doctrine

            IBCT don't use Stryker and SBCT will not use MPF.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/mobile-protected-firepower-bridges-infantry-brigade-combat-21347
              ok

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >actually quoting a milblog

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >nationalinterest

                retard

                SEETHE

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >nationalinterest

                retard

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's old, outdated info, as interpreted by a journalist not really educated in the field.

                Take a look at this: https://www.battleorder.org/post/waypoint-divisions

                That's the new org chart for the Army. Note that the Penetration Divisions (1CAV, 1AD) and the Heavy Divisions (1-4ID, although some of these may actually become Light Divisions instead) have no MPF units. Only the Airborne Divisions (82AB, 101AA) and Light Divisions (7ID, 10ID, 25ID) get MPF at all, and none of those have Abrams or Bradleys. And each division only gets 3 companies of MPF.

                In short, there are only going to be ~6 BNs of MPF in the whole Army, and all of them are going to go to the units that will otherwise have nothing heavier than MRAP/JLTV. If you're going to compare them to something, compare them them to the independent tank battalion issued to each infantry division in WWII. While they will be capable of defending themselves against pop-up armor threats, they're not being optimized for killing tanks. The intent is to use them to take out bunkers, foxholes, occupied buildings, and all other forms of field fortifications--but with a much faster kill chain than calling for artillery. That will keep the infantry, traveling on foot or in lightly-armored vehicles like JLTVs, from bogging down whenever they encounter a prepared enemy position.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                finally someone fucking understands the MPF. I'm honestly surprised the marines haven't jumped on this program or at least aren't running something similar. Missiles are fine but a direct fire cannon will always be faster with more rounds available.

                Penetration Divisions remind me of those old Recon strike group formations that were pushed hard a while back. assuming those weren't optimal since i haven't heard much since

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >105mm cannon
                Just lol.
                It could have some merit if them made real tank with real cannon like 2S25 Sprut-SD. But 40 tons fat abomination with 105mm gun? Just lol.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >russian
                >'real tank'
                now I know you're trolling

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Better than lol MPF pig.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >can be penetrated by a 25mm
                >better

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Russians have 25mm

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >BMP-2M is 30mm cannon.
                >BTR-82A 30mm cannon

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >30 is 25

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Anon. Trolling implies deception. Being a fucking retard is not trolling.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >30=25
                >Being a fucking retard

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I want you to explain, in detail, what you are trying to say.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You do first

                >can be penetrated by a 25mm
                >better

                >BMP-2M is 30mm cannon.
                >BTR-82A 30mm cannon

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What is it that you dont understand?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Looks like he's retarded and saying that you're claiming Russian's have a 25mm cannon, when the point is that they have a 30mm cannon, which will penetrate the armor that can't withstand 25mm.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes. Thats exactly what I said. Thats literally the entire point.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                0/10 bait, very obvious

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >protected against 25mm

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >and none of those have Abrams or Bradleys.
                Just give them the M3 Bradley's for fire support.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                m3 a shit for destroying targets like bunkers or buildings tbh

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                But M3 is better for destroying heavy armor (lol 105mm,) light armor and light fortification (fire positions in trenches and sandbag bunkers). M3 will do ok, and most important it's already exists and werks.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah seems pretty stupid when the Bradley can do the same job but better at killing tanks thanks to ATGMs

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Does a Bradley have a 105mm HE round or MPAT?
                Does a Bradley have blowout panels for its ammunition storage?
                Is a Bradley protected by spaced composite armor?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                you do realize the point of this is to destroy things a *bit* more dug in than sandbags right? like concrete?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >(lol 105mm
                Why do you laugh at the L7/M35 105?
                Its a damn good fucking gun, tried and tested and still works a damn charm.
                The M1 that originally came with the 105 wasn't even obsolete, they made new ammo for it.
                Not to mention anon, this tank is lighter and smaller, having a 105 means it can store more ammo than having a 120.
                If they upgrade to a 120 they lose a lot of rounds because of the size change.
                Its why upsizing MBT guns is gonna be a hassle into the future.
                You can't store as much 130/140mm rounds as you can 120mm.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                iirc 120 in MBT is only given HEAT and APFSDS. Downsizing the gun allows for things like HESH, HE, WP and still have M900 apfsds

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                we've had M908 HE-OR-T since the late 1990s and AMP for about five years in 120mm, anon

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                M908 is just M830A1 with a steel nose instead of a PIBD fuse. It still had a shaped charge warhead.

                iirc 120 in MBT is only given HEAT and APFSDS. Downsizing the gun allows for things like HESH, HE, WP and still have M900 apfsds

                120mm HE rounds exist and in use by the USMC (before they divested the Abrams) Sweden, Israel, Germany

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not true. There are multiple types of 120mm HE and multi purpose rounds.
                The only marginal benefit of the 105 is more ammo, but the MPF weighs so damn much that they should be able to design something that holds as many 120mm rounds if they bothered to optimize weight at all.
                [...]
                Then why does it have a high velocity sabot firing gun? It's obviously meant to be able to destroy armor, but they cheaped out on the 105 for some nonsense reason.

                M908 is just M830A1 with a steel nose instead of a PIBD fuse. It still had a shaped charge warhead.
                [...]
                120mm HE rounds exist and in use by the USMC (before they divested the Abrams) Sweden, Israel, Germany

                Abrams are not equipped with HE.
                And this is for the Army, not the marines.
                The HE from the 105 is more powerful than 120 HEAT-MP. The 105 is the best gun for the job it is being asked to do, which is to support light infantry in the integrated direct fire support role.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not true. There are multiple types of 120mm HE and multi purpose rounds.
                The only marginal benefit of the 105 is more ammo, but the MPF weighs so damn much that they should be able to design something that holds as many 120mm rounds if they bothered to optimize weight at all.

                The 105 has more effective anti-materiel rounds and can carry more ammo. MPF isnt a tank destroyer.

                Then why does it have a high velocity sabot firing gun? It's obviously meant to be able to destroy armor, but they cheaped out on the 105 for some nonsense reason.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Then why does it have a high velocity sabot firing gun? It's obviously meant to be able to destroy armor, but they cheaped out on the 105 for some nonsense reason.

                Because they're re-using an old gun from the 90's along with the MGS' ammo lol

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                25mm is suboptimal for busting bunkers or buildings.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                moron the whole point of those formations is that they do not have organic heavy armor to deal with maintaining, manning, supplying, commanding, etc

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                And now they give them 40 tons "light" skinny fat MPF tank.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Which can effectively engage infantry, fortifications, vehicles, and even armor if necessary.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I agree it seems bad on paper, we will see how it works out.
                Regardless it is far less of a burden compared to Abrams+Bradley

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Which can be carried 2 at a time in a C-17, which is a major issue for the Light/Airborne divisions.

                >here's are new tank, it's medium-heavy and we will call it our infantry support tank

                Revolutionary......
                Is it designed in any way to counter the various threats we see in Ukraine? No? Hmmm

                If the US intervened in Ukraine, sending a Light division via C-17 would only be done to serve as a stop-gap until III Corps with its two Penetration Divisions could get its equipment to Europe by sea. You don't want to send the 82nd up against a mechanized army if you can help it.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >If the US intervened in Ukraine, sending a Light division via C-17 would only be done to serve as a stop-gap until III Corps with its two Penetration Divisions could get its equipment to Europe by sea.
                >blatantly ignoring the US presence in Europe and its preposition stocks

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I started to bring up APS as a side note, but I honestly don't know what's in APS-2 right now. The last time APS was used in earnest--OIF--there was only a single brigade's worth of gear in Kuwait, plus another brigade's worth in Diego Garcia. There may have been a third brigade set in Qatar, but I'm drawing a blank on that at the moment. At any rate, 3ID was able to use primarily pre-positioned gear by drawing on multiple APS stocks, but 4ID and the Marines had to sail from CONUS (and the Brits from England, of course).

                So, unless APS-2 has been seriously beefed up to something more like the REFORGER days, it's not going to be enough to support a full Heavy division, much less a Penetration division, much less III Corps, which is what you'd really want if Putin started hitting NATO members.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I get that.

                What I dont get is attaching tracked vehicles to wheeled formations. Why not just buy something like the B1 Centauro (120mm, 25t) or at least make something like it.

                For me thats the problem with the program. You end up with a pig of a platform that despite its weight has an anemic gun.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Why not just buy something like the B1 Centauro
                Iunno, trauma from having to deal with the Stryker MGS?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Just because they US fucked up with Stryker MGS doesn't mean wheeled tanks are bad

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I know, just offering a reason why the Army might hesitate to pick up another one.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      how do you get this far into the topic and think that IBCT have Bradleys

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I mean it looks cool and all, but what does it do that further proliferation of the M3E in the infantry company wouldn't? Especially with more modern smart multipurpose rounds.

    Right now it seems like it's job is to just bully things that could never harm it and then run away when anything tougher than it appears.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      yes that is exactly its job. plus its lighter than abrams and can go places the abrams can't, and deploy faster.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        But what does it offer that the M3E1 and Javelin don't to an infantry company?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So you've looked at the range limitations of a CG, as well as its payload, and need for the operator to expose themselves to small arms fire, right?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you can't figure that out by reading what the ARMY SAYS it wants it to do then I can't explain it.

            I'll concede that there are occasions where the only suitable firing position would excessively expose infantry. Having a vehicle is helpful in that case.

            But given that MPF is NOT supposed to engage heavy armor, it's limited to static positions and light armor both of which can be handled by the M3/Jav or just having a Stryker MCWS/Bradley rape it to death with autocannon.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If you can't figure that out by reading what the ARMY SAYS it wants it to do then I can't explain it.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >But what does it offer that the M3E1 and Javelin don't to an infantry company?
          They literally spelled it out for you with the name: mobile protected firepower. The javelin team might have the firepower, but it decidedly lack in the other two categories when compared to a light (by M1 standards) tank.

          [...]
          I'll concede that there are occasions where the only suitable firing position would excessively expose infantry. Having a vehicle is helpful in that case.

          But given that MPF is NOT supposed to engage heavy armor, it's limited to static positions and light armor both of which can be handled by the M3/Jav or just having a Stryker MCWS/Bradley rape it to death with autocannon.

          >it's limited to static positions and light armor both of which can be handled by the M3/Jav or just having a Stryker MCWS/Bradley
          As mentioned, the ATGMs lack mobility and protection - also volume of fire. And plenty of heavy structures need 105 (at least) to be easily breachable.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          A 105mm round is over twice the mass of an 84mm, anon

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Tracks, a roof, machine gun, fast recharge. Also no shooting window and no carrying the weight of your own weapons.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You mean besides the fact that Carl Gustav's are only an 84mm warhead, offer the soldier no protection and are very short ranged in comparison.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Considering the MPF's intended targets are supposed to be shitbox BMP/BTR at heaviest, what's the actual terminal difference between a 105mm and 84mm HEAT round?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          you cannot be serious

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Both will kill the shitbox, but one has to come from a 40 ton light tank.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Both will kill the shitbox, but one has to come from a 40 ton light tank.

          further range, greater accuracy, way higher sustained fire, crew protection

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Even the B version of the TOW has comparable armor penetration than the most advanced 105mm HEAT round, sure. But the 105mm round reaches its target about 3 times faster and volume of fire is also about 3 times better than, say, Bradley mounted TOWs. Not to mention that each shot costs you close to just 1/50th of a TOW. Also you can choose to between HEAT, HE, APFSDS - even HESH - on the fly. And you're doing it with a platform that doesn't have all the accrued technology debt of a vehicle designed in the 60s.

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Bastogne
    Those gays are trying too hard

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why the fuck isn't there an autoloader? It's fucking 2022. All that extra mass to accommodate a dedicated human loader. Massive waste.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      fucking loaders union is just too mobbed up, dangling generals from rooftops and shit.

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That weighs 42 tons

    Pic related weighs 25 tons...

    How in the fuck did they manage to make it so heavy?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      its got a burger king on the inside

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it's actualy protected

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You know with lighter vehicles getting APS upgrades, would a full caliber solid shot option be a good idea for the gun? You can prematurely detonates HEAT, HE or other chemical charges and long rods can be snapped, but there really isn't much you can do about a 20 pound piece of steel being flung at you

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      yes, in fact, you can do a lot about solid shot, what an extremely dumb premise

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Tow2b has counter APS system build into missile. Whatever it is.

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ok, so it's not a light tank, but rather an assault gun, a replacement for the Stryker MGS.
    But why the fuck is it so heavy and only has a 105?! The Stryker MGS is 19t with a 105. Where's the space and mass optimization, where's the 120?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      probably because thats the given weight with a full load and a war kit
      the bradley a4 weighs about the same amount with a BUSK 3 kit (40 short tons)

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The 105 has more effective anti-materiel rounds and can carry more ammo. MPF isnt a tank destroyer.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The MGS sucked in large part because it was so light; the cannon couldn't recoil properly. 105mm rounds are only 2/3 the weight and volume of 120, likely an intentional choice for ammo capacity and logistics

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Its not a Tank. It's an Armored Infantry Support Vehicle.
    Learn about tank doctrine first

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That sounds like a fucking tank to me, considering tanks support armored infantry

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Tanks are meant to move up to within 300m of the enemy and provide shock value, this is not

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Then I guess the Tiger wasn't a tank either, when they made it follow a couple hundred metres behind the infantry because of the fears of ricochets hitting troops.
          Wonder why this is no longer a problem with the APS literally exploding around infantry...

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Then I guess the Tiger wasn't a tank either, when they made it follow a couple hundred metres behind the infantry because of the fears of ricochets hitting troop
            never heard of this
            >Wonder why this is no longer a problem with the APS literally exploding around infantry...
            because APS are relatively directed explosives with small charges, the infantry still has to stand more than a few yards away even if there is no APS because rockets and ATGMs have explosive filler

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Its literally a tank. Not every tank is an MBT you retarded gorilla moron
      Tank= treaded AFV

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not a tank. It isn't meant to counter tanks. It's meant to support Marines.
        Read tank doctrine.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Not all tanks are intended to counter tanks. According to your brain dead definition, the following are not tanks:
          Pz4 A-F1
          Churchill
          Renault FT
          KV-2
          Pz 1
          Vickers 6 ton A

          Also the MPF is going to the army not the marines. Read bro, read.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Is the fucking Bradley a tank now you mongoloid? How about the Scimitar?

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's almost like they are trying to replace the Abrams or something without saying tanks are useless...hmmmmm

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Most retarded take of the week winner.
      Anon the bullet counters infantry very well, being cheap and easy to use, is infantry dead?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nope because you still need people to storm houses and kill families. Unrelated question, why aren't there anymore battleships?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >people to storm houses and kill families
          Just like you still need AFVs to counter enemy armor, fortification, bunker, entrenchment and so on.
          You are delusional if you think tanks are obsolete.
          What, you saw some cherry picked footage of destroyed tanks in Ukraine and think it represents the entire tank spectrum?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Those problems are countered with cheaper, easier and safer solutions now. You don't need a whole army to support the tank so it can roll up to a bunker and blast it like WW2.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              There is still not better option for the direct fire&maneuver role

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      this is literally going to light infantry with no armor.
      if anything abrams is being more concentrated with the new heavy divisions
      if youre trying to bait, you need to work harder, anon

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >here's are new tank, it's medium-heavy and we will call it our infantry support tank

    Revolutionary......
    Is it designed in any way to counter the various threats we see in Ukraine? No? Hmmm

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Funny enough, guess what also weighs 42t?
      Ukraine's most common MBT, the T-64BV!

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Which was a Soviet MBT from the 60's, not a newly built tank

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's a Basedviet medium tank from the 80s, not 60s — don't get fooled by the numbers and running gear, they were being constantly upgraded whilst CCCP was still a thing.
          Do you seriously believe this Leopard 1 shitbox has better frontal 60 degree arc than even an old mbt? I'm betting they did some half-measure against "common threats" that protects you from non-tandem hollow charges and autocannons only.

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Needs protection against the T-55's 100mm D-10, or it isn't much of a tank.

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why do y’all care so much about what’s going to be killing you in the inevitable civil war?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >not keeping up to date to keep your EFP charges relevant
      NGMI

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        first good post in this thread

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Remember anon, v-det is the primary factor for penetration and Erythritol tetranitrate doped with Nitroglycerin has a higher v-det than any insensitive explosive.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Hey, I know how to make that in one minecraft mod! Can't for the love of me figure out fusing because I'm an ass with electronics but will work it out someday.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You are going to want to install the thermate mod and wrap a little ETN in Al foil, rapidly heating it in foil causes the game to crash at about 5,000m/s. To get the thermate running well you just need a little flash powered.

  31. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I know what you are saying but nearly all bridges are rated from 40 metric tons so it's "light" enough to not need bridging vehicles follow it everywhere.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Stryker MGS is already in service and It's much lighter whilst also being armed with a 105mm

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >in service
        you've been in a coma since 2020 haven't you

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          yes, imma go out and buy myself one of those $600 colt 6920s

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *