What was the driving factor behind selecting the 105mm M35, and is it possible we might see a version with a 120mm cannon such as the XM360E1?

I’d like to hear more about the autoloader system and how they would make it integrate with the blast doors.

Is this only going to be assigned to light units like the 82nd, or will it also be in formations with Abrams tanks and Bradleys? If this is purely for infantry support, then what capabilities does it have that sets it apart from a Bradley that is already performing the same role?

Love to say hello! I’m on the AUSA staff, and was a tanker for 29 years.

Awesome interview, good score on your part. My question would be, will the sighting system be able to see IR lasers? Drove us nuts in Iraq trying to firgure out what the dismounts were telling us to shoot. Which building or which window? Same thing for CAS. Would have made life so much easier to have everyone the same ability to see the IR lasers. (thanks, rant over)

Excellent

About a hundred and ten years ago the first tanks were not designed to fight other tanks either. They were designed to do exactly what they say this vehicle was designed to do - "...it's purpose is to support dismounted Soldiers who are hung up by an enemy dug into a bunker, or hiding in a building, or in some place where the small arms that an infantryman carries can't deal with the threat." Sound familiar? Like maybe the trenches and bunkers of WWI? Later on in the wars where tanks were getting heavier firepower and heavier armor, it wasn't because the bunkers were getting more dangerous, but because other nations were designing tank killers including other tanks! Tanks were developed solely to kill other tanks so they were getting bigger and bigger. No matter where tanks started, they ended up getting to the point where they were getting so big and heavy, they couldn't move worth a damn. We all know all of this so what's my point? My point is why are we developing a vehicle that is a step back over a hundred years? We've done this before and none of them worked. He actually compared it to the Sheridan?? The Sheridan sucked! The Army tried it for one war and never again. Ft Irwin had bone yards full of them that nobody else wanted. We tried giving it away to other countries and it was turned down! I can already predict what's going to happen with this: After the first few get destroyed by anti-tank systems, they will be up-armored, and up-armored and up-armored again, until they can't even move....kinda like what happened with HMMWVs and MRAPs, and any other light vehicle system we've tried. A heavily armored Abrams supported by a fast and lethal Brad. It's won wars. It works.

If I may add, I am a rather course guy, but when I see others trying to do a job, I try to help out........not what those guys did.

Shh that’s top secret, not even the crews are supposed to know until they are deployed

@@Vince_A_Bull Everyone knows, if they start issuing Tactical Googly Eyes (TGE's)- SHITS about to get real. ;)

someone needed tax money from gov and they made a story. 120,105,90 mm is part of fire team not main element anymore. we saw that thruth with two thousand tank loses in syria and ukraine . single barrel age is over , 30,50 caliber plus 20,30,40 mm configuration with proxy fuse ammo can handle modern battlefields.

Yeah, it's a medium battle tank. It's also a tank that is roughly the weight of a T-72 model. You want something for conventional war, it may not be the best option. But, if you're primarily going against insurgencies.... with modern spotting/drone arms. That thing will bring more firepower to the frontline than a Bradley. It's also a more quickly shipped unit for quick redeployments around the globe. 105mm is still no joke. Also, as much as I've seen tanks getting knocked out in droves. I've also seen a lot of combat footage on both sides showing tanks suppression effects being used to deadly deadly results. But that requires good combined arms. Including enough drone/artillery to keep the potential larger ATGM teams at bay. Or, they get used a lot as a direct arty support. Honestly, I think that point is missed a lot by people. The tanks sitting close to the front line putting rounds downrange faster than calling in distant artillery.

IBCTs are used in places in the world to hold a line or make an entry. It's pretty rare that they would be sent against threats with tanks. The 82nd in Desert Storm is the notable exception. They were trip wire forces to deter until the ABCT type units could get there. (Schwarzkopf called them speed bumps). Still they probably would have appreciated MPF too.

​@@clarkbarrett6274 The enemy can also decide where it employs it's (proper) tanks. Should MPF be searching out and actively trying to fight MBTs? No! Could it encounter them anyway? It absolutely can happen. And in that eventuality MPF should be able to contribute to the IBCT fighting against armor, rather than twiddle their thumbs and saying "They aren't a tank" since the 105mm gun won't do much to any frontal armor that has been upgraded since the mid-80s

@@01Laffey The Army has the option to upgun to the 120mm if they so desire. The MPF can accommodate at the cost of higher weight. (Aside: If you're watching the news you'll see one of our main opponents appears to be a paper tiger. I'd venture 105s will do a number on those tanks too). The reason they chose not to already is because it's not aligned with the IBCT mission. Most of the world has very few, if any tanks, and those who do don't have comparable capabilities to even the MPF. IBCTs aren't generally going to be sent to places where they will have to oppose tanks. You don't bring a knife to a gunfight. If they have to pull tripwire duty they'll ensure they have adequate backup in aviation etc. until heavier forces can arrive. Regardless, they'll be much happier to have the MPF then not. In that situation or others.

Agreed. However, I recall there was an NCO who was a Tanker and was awarded the MOH during the Korean War... I do not recall his name. The Stryker was named after 2 enlisted men who awarded the MOH

StuG. A self-propelled gun. Called a "tank destroyer." Worked as a defence tank.

I have some 3D printed 1/87 scale of these. I still prefer BAE MPF.

Contests would just mean you'd get Tanky McTankFace....maybe that's the name for Sofi's googly eyes mod.

I like your thinking.

😅

Then there is still room for a air dropable mobile gun carriage then. I imagine something similar to the Swedish StridsVagan 103 armed with the lightweight 120 mm gun the gun would be mounted directly to the carriage which as in the Strids wagon will elevate and angle using the whole carriage, equipped with a M2 50 caliber mg on the roof this mobile gun carriage would be airdroppable specifically I can see this being used with airborne troops to seize an airport and hold the airport in the defensive role until C17s arrive with the cavalry.

The BAE M8 AGS should have been selected IMHO. Hell.... Let's get both!

It also looks like a vehicle to get marketed as a replacement for the smaller sized tanks/Infantry support vehicles. Heck, even a MBT for somewhere like South America or South East Asia. Diesel engine, marketed lighter weight for transport and bridges/cranes/etc.

M1128 was retired this year after 15 years service in the US Army. 330 were planned but the Army quietly cancelled after acquiring 142.

I wonder what will happen with the M1128s. Scrapped? Perhaps given as Military aid? Fiji actually has 8 infantry brigades. Iirc to are active duty. 1 brigade does peacekeeping mission in the Sinai. m1128 might fit in with that army. Thoughts? Thanks!

The MGS was great idea but poorly designed As for the MPF The West has received T-72B3, T-80BVMs and T-90s and now a T-90M from Ukraine So first the 125mm gun and ammo will be tested against Western armor which will either drive new upgrades or a new tank design depending on how well the armor performs Second the West in turn will test its 120mm rounds against the T-72B3, T-80BVMs,and T-90/ T-90M armor Ironically this will make or break the 130mm program depending on how well 120mm rounds perform The amount of testing that West will do will determine the future of many programs

This isn't really for armored or Styker brigades. Its for light infantry, to have a firepower support that is more easily moved than armor.

Good question. This is heavier than a Bradley and less protected. It does what the MGS did, just with tracks rather than wheels.

@@jeffcaird6801 is it less protected than a Bradley? i thought it was more

@@mcb4067 No. No reactive armor suite or APS. Though that could be added eventually.

The Stryker was named after 2 enlisted men awarded the MOH . An NCO tanker was awarded the MOH during Korea. Name it after him. I hold the highest respect and regard for Ridgeway. Had the honor of speaking with briefly @ 35 years ago.

Hopefully when CMC Berger retires this summer. Worst CMC in USMC history. It is as if the has been trying to destroy the USMC.

Tracks. Yep, that’s it, just tracks. And one more guy.

Nah. They are so lame that all their stuff has to arrive on wheels. They could simply benefit from 60t MBT support but some folk high up there in the general command wanted all their vehicles to be air-drop-able.

Agree with 💯 on it being more of a urban combat vehicle to be used in tight areas. Being able to bring heavy firepower up close on targets . In the times we live in makes you wonder some ....

40t isnt a LIGHT tank

@@Necromancer_88 its half the weight of the M1A2SEPV3, and just a few tons over a Bradley. Its light.

@@madkabal no 70t abrans IS obese tant not normal one 😂

19K will man it and they will be in stand alone battalions. In fact 11 series MOS is getting away from crewing vehicles, Armor branch is taking over the M2 Bradley with a new MOS 19C. infantry will still ride in back

@@barryrobinson1041 makes sense. An ASI or MOS modifier could lead to a lack in proficiency as soldiers try and maintain their main MOS with their ASI.

@@MagnusUS1776 that was the idea, Armor Branch learned their lesson and don't want to repeat the mistakes of the Stryker MGS manning and training profiency

Yep. Wrong choice IMHO.

My guess is to be able to carry more rounds. Might also be so as to not give folks the idea for it to try to slug it out with enemy MBTs.