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.
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.
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 fricking short tons
https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/bradley-fighting-vehicle-m2a4/
>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 frickhead.
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
>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 fricking tanks.
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 fricking stupid
Do you? Amazing how /k only has selective memory and learning since bradley crews in DESERT FRICKING STORM complained about not being able to hurt russian trash at POINT BLANK and had to use TOW for their heavy lifting.
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
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
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.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>airports can only be captured by airborne troops
1 year ago
Anonymous
please point to an airfield seizure during an initial invasion of a country that wasn't seized by airborne troops.
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.
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.
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
>14.5mm APHE >45mm of penetration
Really fricking doubt that, since it requires the real tungsten (B-32 iirc) core projectile has that level of performance.
How in the name of frick 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?
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.
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
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?
Are you moronic? 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.
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?
and is also REALLY not intended to fight things directly, it's something that gets warned against in white papers.
1 year 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
1 year ago
Anonymous
>thats why mpf exists, to directly targets foritifed structures and armored vehicles,
So this is a tank that isnt a tank.
1 year 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 /misc/
>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 gaylord
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
>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
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/mobile-protected-firepower-bridges-infantry-brigade-combat-21347
ok
1 year ago
Anonymous
>actually quoting a milblog
1 year ago
Anonymous
>nationalinterest
moron
SEETHE
1 year ago
Anonymous
>nationalinterest
moron
1 year 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.
1 year ago
Anonymous
finally someone fricking 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
1 year 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.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>russian >'real tank'
now I know you're trolling
1 year ago
Anonymous
Better than lol MPF pig.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>can be penetrated by a 25mm >better
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Russians have 25mm
1 year ago
Anonymous
>BMP-2M is 30mm cannon. >BTR-82A 30mm cannon
1 year ago
Anonymous
>30 is 25
1 year ago
Anonymous
Anon. Trolling implies deception. Being a fricking moron is not trolling.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>30=25 >Being a fricking moron
1 year ago
Anonymous
I want you to explain, in detail, what you are trying to say.
1 year ago
Anonymous
You do first
>can be penetrated by a 25mm >better
>BMP-2M is 30mm cannon. >BTR-82A 30mm cannon
1 year ago
Anonymous
What is it that you dont understand?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Looks like he's moronic 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.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Yes. Thats exactly what I said. Thats literally the entire point.
1 year ago
Anonymous
0/10 bait, very obvious
1 year ago
Anonymous
>protected against 25mm
1 year ago
Anonymous
>and none of those have Abrams or Bradleys.
Just give them the M3 Bradley's for fire support.
1 year ago
Anonymous
m3 a shit for destroying targets like bunkers or buildings tbh
1 year 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.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Yeah seems pretty stupid when the Bradley can do the same job but better at killing tanks thanks to ATGMs
1 year 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?
1 year ago
Anonymous
you do realize the point of this is to destroy things a *bit* more dug in than sandbags right? like concrete?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>(lol 105mm
Why do you laugh at the L7/M35 105?
Its a damn good fricking 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.
1 year 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
1 year ago
Anonymous
we've had M908 HE-OR-T since the late 1990s and AMP for about five years in 120mm, anon
1 year 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
1 year 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.
1 year 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.
1 year 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
1 year ago
Anonymous
25mm is suboptimal for busting bunkers or buildings.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Black person the whole point of those formations is that they do not have organic heavy armor to deal with maintaining, manning, supplying, commanding, etc
1 year ago
Anonymous
And now they give them 40 tons "light" skinny fat MPF tank.
1 year ago
Anonymous
Which can effectively engage infantry, fortifications, vehicles, and even armor if necessary.
1 year 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
1 year 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.
1 year 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
1 year 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.
1 year 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.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>Why not just buy something like the B1 Centauro
Iunno, trauma from having to deal with the Stryker MGS?
1 year ago
Anonymous
Just because they US fricked up with Stryker MGS doesn't mean wheeled tanks are bad
1 year ago
Anonymous
I know, just offering a reason why the Army might hesitate to pick up another one.
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.
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.
>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.
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?
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.
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
Ok, so it's not a light tank, but rather an assault gun, a replacement for the Stryker MGS.
But why the frick 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?
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
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...
>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
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 homie, read.
>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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
M2A4 Bradley without it's BUSK era kit weighs 31 tons anon, it's closer to 35 with armor
actually it's 40 fricking short tons
https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/bradley-fighting-vehicle-m2a4/
>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 frickhead.
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
>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 fricking tanks.
M3 has 15+2 TOWs and 1500 25mm rds
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 fricking stupid
>25mm has been proven not to do shit before
do you have brain damage, anon?
Do you? Amazing how /k only has selective memory and learning since bradley crews in DESERT FRICKING STORM complained about not being able to hurt russian trash at POINT BLANK and had to use TOW for their heavy lifting.
M18: the abram
>This "light tank" weighs 42 fricking tons!?
2 transportable on a C-17.
Not a bad frickin' deal.
>Arouser
>air force
>stuck in a chair
>literal chairforce
>Arouser
Can the Chairforce stop being lolcows for just one fricking day?
she's cute in a weird way i'd bang
weird? she's just cute.
>Chair2force
Are we hitting pinnacle chAirforce here?
IMAGINE
it was originally supposed to be air droppable like the Sheridan was.......
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
as opposed to having to land a C-17 or C-130 to unload the current vehicle, lol.
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
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.
>airports can only be captured by airborne troops
please point to an airfield seizure during an initial invasion of a country that wasn't seized by airborne troops.
>her ass takes up the whole chair
the things i would do.
what is the role of an air force arouser
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.
Everything today is heavy as frick, that's the price of adding more capability. Israel's Namer APC weighs as much as an Abrams
>so is it an assault gun or something else
>it's an armored infantry support vehicle
you motherfrickers
Namer are literally former MBT hulls on which they removed the turret to carry troops... It’s a conversion.
>This "light tank" weighs 42 fricking tons!?:
It's actually more like 20 tons. 42 tons is taking into account the weight of the average American crew.
It looks boring.
Could a 14.5x114mm API penetrate the track links of this vehicle?
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.
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
>14.5mm APHE
>45mm of penetration
Really fricking doubt that, since it requires the real tungsten (B-32 iirc) core projectile has that level of performance.
>105
Thought they were going to go with a 120?
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
How in the name of frick 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?
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.
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.
>Britain is using the same chassis for the Ajax
MPF is not an Ajax with a turret.
Does it have a/c though? Or are we still committed to pretending cooling vests are a good solution?
42 tons with the full force protection kit, like when an Abrams has the side ERA and belly plate.
Only 9 tons more than a Sherman is quite an improvement.
>Front engined "tank"
It just don't feel right.
M8 was robbed
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
>This "light tank"
You're the one calling it that. The US Army is quite insistent on it not being a light tank.
Calling it a light tank is kinda moronic.
Its an infantry tank.
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?
Are you moronic? 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.
apc
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?
you know the Stryker exists right?
and is also REALLY not intended to fight things directly, it's something that gets warned against in white papers.
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
>thats why mpf exists, to directly targets foritifed structures and armored vehicles,
So this is a tank that isnt a tank.
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.
>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 gaylord
Armored trailer
Troops can ride on top just like WW2 times. Ukraine and Russia still do that in the current conflict
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
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
>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
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
so i was right and the seething m113 moron is being a gay, strykr infantry dismounted supported by mpf's is the new doctrine
>gets his information from a literallywho anon with no source
>"I was right!"
I think you belong on a board for "special" people like /misc/
not him, but the guy he is replying to is paraphrasing what the pentagon nerd in the video said.
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.
>strykr infantry dismounted supported by mpf's is the new doctrine
IBCT don't use Stryker and SBCT will not use MPF.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/mobile-protected-firepower-bridges-infantry-brigade-combat-21347
ok
>actually quoting a milblog
SEETHE
>nationalinterest
moron
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.
finally someone fricking 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
>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.
>russian
>'real tank'
now I know you're trolling
Better than lol MPF pig.
>can be penetrated by a 25mm
>better
>Russians have 25mm
>BMP-2M is 30mm cannon.
>BTR-82A 30mm cannon
>30 is 25
Anon. Trolling implies deception. Being a fricking moron is not trolling.
>30=25
>Being a fricking moron
I want you to explain, in detail, what you are trying to say.
You do first
What is it that you dont understand?
Looks like he's moronic 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.
Yes. Thats exactly what I said. Thats literally the entire point.
0/10 bait, very obvious
>protected against 25mm
>and none of those have Abrams or Bradleys.
Just give them the M3 Bradley's for fire support.
m3 a shit for destroying targets like bunkers or buildings tbh
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.
Yeah seems pretty stupid when the Bradley can do the same job but better at killing tanks thanks to ATGMs
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?
you do realize the point of this is to destroy things a *bit* more dug in than sandbags right? like concrete?
>(lol 105mm
Why do you laugh at the L7/M35 105?
Its a damn good fricking 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.
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
we've had M908 HE-OR-T since the late 1990s and AMP for about five years in 120mm, anon
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.
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.
>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
25mm is suboptimal for busting bunkers or buildings.
Black person the whole point of those formations is that they do not have organic heavy armor to deal with maintaining, manning, supplying, commanding, etc
And now they give them 40 tons "light" skinny fat MPF tank.
Which can effectively engage infantry, fortifications, vehicles, and even armor if necessary.
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
Which can be carried 2 at a time in a C-17, which is a major issue for the Light/Airborne divisions.
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.
>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
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.
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.
>Why not just buy something like the B1 Centauro
Iunno, trauma from having to deal with the Stryker MGS?
Just because they US fricked up with Stryker MGS doesn't mean wheeled tanks are bad
I know, just offering a reason why the Army might hesitate to pick up another one.
how do you get this far into the topic and think that IBCT have Bradleys
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.
yes that is exactly its job. plus its lighter than abrams and can go places the abrams can't, and deploy faster.
But what does it offer that the M3E1 and Javelin don't to an infantry company?
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?
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.
If you can't figure that out by reading what the ARMY SAYS it wants it to do then I can't explain it.
>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.
>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.
A 105mm round is over twice the mass of an 84mm, anon
Tracks, a roof, machine gun, fast recharge. Also no shooting window and no carrying the weight of your own weapons.
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.
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?
you cannot be serious
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
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.
>Bastogne
Those homosexuals are trying too hard
Why the frick isn't there an autoloader? It's fricking 2022. All that extra mass to accommodate a dedicated human loader. Massive waste.
fricking loaders union is just too mobbed up, dangling generals from rooftops and shit.
That weighs 42 tons
Pic related weighs 25 tons...
How in the frick did they manage to make it so heavy?
its got a burger king on the inside
it's actualy protected
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
yes, in fact, you can do a lot about solid shot, what an extremely dumb premise
Tow2b has counter APS system build into missile. Whatever it is.
Ok, so it's not a light tank, but rather an assault gun, a replacement for the Stryker MGS.
But why the frick 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?
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)
The 105 has more effective anti-materiel rounds and can carry more ammo. MPF isnt a tank destroyer.
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
Its not a Tank. It's an Armored Infantry Support Vehicle.
Learn about tank doctrine first
That sounds like a fricking tank to me, considering tanks support armored infantry
Tanks are meant to move up to within 300m of the enemy and provide shock value, this is not
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...
>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
Its literally a tank. Not every tank is an MBT you moronic gorilla Black person
Tank= treaded AFV
Not a tank. It isn't meant to counter tanks. It's meant to support Marines.
Read tank doctrine.
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 homie, read.
Is the fricking Bradley a tank now you mongoloid? How about the Scimitar?
It's almost like they are trying to replace the Abrams or something without saying tanks are useless...hmmmmm
Most moronic take of the week winner.
Anon the bullet counters infantry very well, being cheap and easy to use, is infantry dead?
Nope because you still need people to storm houses and kill families. Unrelated question, why aren't there anymore battleships?
>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?
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.
There is still not better option for the direct fire&maneuver role
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
>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
Funny enough, guess what also weighs 42t?
Ukraine's most common MBT, the T-64BV!
Which was a Soviet MBT from the 60's, not a newly built tank
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.
Needs protection against the T-55's 100mm D-10, or it isn't much of a tank.
Why do y’all care so much about what’s going to be killing you in the inevitable civil war?
>not keeping up to date to keep your EFP charges relevant
NGMI
first good post in this thread
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Stryker MGS is already in service and It's much lighter whilst also being armed with a 105mm
>in service
you've been in a coma since 2020 haven't you
yes, imma go out and buy myself one of those $600 colt 6920s