Is the Light Tank finally returning?

Рет қаралды 26,536

Күн бұрын

The Light tank, thought by many to be no longer capable in the modern battlefield has made a resurgence among many countries, with particular interest taken by China and the United States.
Are we finally seeing a return of the little tanks that can? Watch to find out in this video.
Want to support the channel? Become a Patron!
patreon.com/Kaboda
-
Follow me on Twitter!
/ kabodaofficial
-
Music by Karl Casey @ White Bat Audio - • Dystopian Synthwave Pl...
#Tanks #M10 #Booker
Intro 0:00
What is a Light Tank? 1:06
Why use a Light Tank? 1:29
The History 1:54
Choosing the Light Tank 3:48
The Return 5:23
Why are they back? 6:39
America’s new Light Tank 7:50
Conclusion 9:03
Outro 9:50
Please note: since upload, the US has released the name for the Griffin II, now called the M10 Booker.
Footage and Credit
BAE Systems bid - AGS
• BAE Systems Mobile Pro...
M551 Sheridans in vietnam
• The M551 Sheridan in t...
German light tanks blitzkrieg
• WWII - Ep. 2 Act 1 - H...
US WW2 Pacific footage
• US Marines Intense Com...
M24 Chaffee
• M24 Chaffee Tank Drivi...
• M24 Chaffee Light Tank...
AMX-13
• TANK FEST 2021 (Saturd...
Scorpion
• FV101 Scorpion light t...
• Scorpion CVRT Shoot
Renault FT
• Renault FT WW1 Light T...
M5A1 Stuart
• WW2 M5A1 Stuart Light ...
Tiger tanks
• Rare WW2 Footage - PzK...
Shermans
• Amazing Footage Of Ame...
PT76
• PT-76 light tank (Sovi...
Abrams loading
• US Marines Tanks Doing...
M41 Walker Bulldog
• M 41 Walker Bulldog
Further credit to: Photo and video: Wiki common, General Dynamics, BAE Systems, Zhongguolujun weibo, xibuzhanqu weibo, PLADaily site, Chinese Foreign Ministry, Norinco & Russian Ministry of Defense.
All footage is used in accordance with KZfaq guidelines and ‘fair use’.
Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.

Пікірлер: 170

@KabodaOfficial Жыл бұрын

Update: It seems right after I released the video, the name ‘M10 Booker’ has been chosen for the Griffin II by the US military. Also: I meant to put General George S. Patton, not General S. Patton - whoops, I know, literally unwatchable now! Thanks for those of you who took the time to like and comment!

@Gebbeth Жыл бұрын

US Army don't want to call it light tank so they were not used as tanks in the future. They are designed for providing direct support for infantry operating in very close proximity, that's is also why they are not equipped with hard-kill APS which are dangerous for infantry between tank and ATGM.

@jdogdarkness 11 ай бұрын

Well not every APS is inherently deadly for dismounts, beyond that no US tanks have APS as standard. There's a handful of Abrams with Israeli trophy APS. Seems to me ALL armor in the near future will require APS, they usually have different modes, so u can turn off APS when needed in more standard APS.

@RaptorJesus 11 ай бұрын

So it's an...assault gun? I wonder what that'd be in German... Sturmgeschütz!

@adisura9904 10 ай бұрын

This will be also very food in island hopping and in himalayas 🍻

@jdogdarkness 10 ай бұрын

@adisura9904 eh. There's vehicles that could do the same thing better imo. If ur gonna have to ferry a tank at a time, why not just have a full tank? Why not create a new LAV. The EFV was awesome, but was canceled. Seems to me an IFV would be better suited. But I'm no expert so there's that lol. check out Marine Corp's cancelled Exhibitionary Fighting Vehicle, was a technological marvel.

@RaptorJesus 10 ай бұрын

@@jdogdarkness But it's not a tank. It's an assault gun. Different purpose.

@erikwiseman1702 11 ай бұрын

For the M10, the label is important. If the people employing it think of it as a tank they'll try to use it as a tank, so the army isn't calling it a tank. The M10 exists because putting a big gun on an armored infantry transport wasn't working and a dedicated platform was required. Maybe this is what light tanks should always have been: dedicated infantry support never intended to act like a "real" tank.

@halo129830 Жыл бұрын

I can see the appeal of light tanks in modern combat. For one light tanks need three things. 1. Speed to maneuver and run quickly. 2. Scouting goes along with number 1 but if airspace is contested a tank slightly uparmored and lower profile then a IFV would make a good tool. 3. Armament and ambush and logistics. It needs a large enough armament to fight infantry or IFV’s. Also historically light tanks have been very light and thus less fuel hungry. These are hard factors but the problem is balancing the soft factors on a modern battlefield. Suvivability might be lowered because of the compact size and less area for crew to maneuver or store ammo. I’d also worry about top attacks. Just to name a few

@Thunderbox247 Жыл бұрын

I was going to make a War Thunder leaking joke but you beat me to the punch

@ronmaximilian6953 Жыл бұрын

Surprised you didn't mention the Leopard 1 tank being used in Ukraine right now. The Japanese Type 10 is a 40 ton main battle tank, which was designed because of the logistics and deployment problems with the Type 90. Many nations including the Japanese, Italians, French, and Spanish also have wheeled tank destroyers and other systems with 105 mm guns.

@ronmaximilian6953 Жыл бұрын

I forgot the Sabral lght tank which will be fielded by the Philippines..

@michael-prime9567 Жыл бұрын

Not to be that guy but the leopard 1 still counts as a mbt tank

@terranempire2 Жыл бұрын

Leopard 1 was a main battle tank and still is. Type 10 is and always has been an MBT and will remain such. It may be light weight but it’s about the doctrine not the weight or gun.

@COLT6940 Жыл бұрын

Bare bone type 10 is 42 tons which can be destroyed by a single old rpg side shot. Full armor package is 48 tons.

@spectershoottokill9365 10 ай бұрын

@@COLT6940that is assuming any opposition doesn't get gunned down by infantry in support of the tank and that because Japan's forces are centered around defense and won't be attacking like a traditional army you'll be the one driving into their sights with that said how are you gonna get a side shot without getting hit first

@weik-2936 Жыл бұрын

another possible explanation for the light tank resurgence is advances in weapons systems, specifically in making smaller weapons that do more damage, allowing for a light tank to punch outside of it's weight class and that's the key thing, as long as deadlier weapons can be made smaller, enough so that armor/protective technology can't keep up, you might see tanks with lighter armor become the norm, because if no armor can stop a weapons system (vehicle mounted or man-portable), why have it and sacrifice speed?

@fredhercmaricaubang1883 Жыл бұрын

The M-10 Booker, previously known as the Griffin II, is actually based on the Sabra ASCOD light tank which the Philippine Army is now acquiring to modernize their arsenal.

@KabodaOfficial Жыл бұрын

Indeed they are likely both for similar purpose, both to combat Chinese potential operations in the region where MBT’s are less than ideal!

@fredhercmaricaubang1883 Жыл бұрын

@@KabodaOfficial Y'know, the best way to stop the pricks is to destroy their navy & air force. Once those are out of the way, everything else becomes MUCH easier!

@theprogressivecynic2407 10 ай бұрын

That would explain the forward engine, which has been a signature of the IDF. It's a massive pain to develop, as you need to develop ways to manage heat so it doesn't cook your electronics and optics, but the result is a much more defended vehicle for frontal assaults.

@fredhercmaricaubang1883 10 ай бұрын

@@theprogressivecynic2407 That & the fact that the Israelis helped in its development, yep! In fact, you could call it Merkava lite!

@Du4l50ck Жыл бұрын

I love this channel. Always interesting topics and great video clips. Really enjoying the shorter videos too (under 20 minutes is short nowadays lol)

@KabodaOfficial Жыл бұрын

I’m glad you like them! ❤️

@Leffe123 Жыл бұрын

I agree, 10-20 min is the best length imo

@Statueshop297 Жыл бұрын

Great content. If heavy armour is not enough, lighter tanks with aps etc and a big gun should be just as useful as a MBT

@AirShark95 Жыл бұрын

I wonder if we'll ever see the rise of "VLS carriers", a turretless armored vehicle with a series of VLS cells for launching dozens of ATGMs and loitering & surveillance/targeting drones. Basically a land version of a modern naval Destroyer. A lightweight vehicle that uses APS and EW as its armor, and speed and mobility to outflank enemies and rain down munitions on their positions and armor. Drones like quadcopters could also be carried, acting as a warship's scout helicopters, extending the range of the vehicle's sensors, providing surveillance on enemy positions and movements, and maybe even acting as a targeting system, for "non line of sight" engagements (say over a hill or behind cover). Maybe even add a small 30mm autocanon RWS system with smart munitions (eg. AHEAD) to act as the vehicle's "CIWS", engaging enemy drones and loitering munitions, as well as light vehicles and infantry.

@StrikeNoir105E Жыл бұрын

The reason nobody uses VLS tubes in ground warfare is because they're a pain to reload, and takes up too much internal space for no real gain. Externally-mounted rocket/missile tubes are the norm among ground vehicles for a reason.

@IsaacKuo Жыл бұрын

There have been a number of concepts like that, including weird British ideas with Swingfire missiles everywhere. So far, none of them have come anywhere close to practical. I think that a big design problem for this idea is simply that missile ammo is bulky compared to gun ammo. This leaves much less volume for armor - and modern armor is bulkier than older rolled steel armor to begin with. Vertical launch is commonly used for air defense missiles (see, for example, SAMP/T or S-300). But these systems do not attempt to offer armor protection. Anyway, look at SAMP/T for the land version of a modern naval destroyer. A modern naval destroyer is largely an air defense platform anyway, so ... there you go?

@extraordinarytv5451 10 ай бұрын

Sounds like a VLS tank destroyer

@theprogressivecynic2407 10 ай бұрын

That's basically a test variant of the Namer. It's a heavy APC with several recessed Spike ATGM launchers (they sit behind armor and open up when firing) and the ability to launch drones. The only difference from what you describe is that it is super-heavy, with more armor than an Abrams in addition to its APS. It's also pretty quick, however this comes at the drawback of it guzzling gas like crazy.

@Likeaworm 7 ай бұрын

Imagine a an abrams with the 105 for example. Shrink the ammunition compartment by half and add a VLS style launcher that can launch loitering munitions and drones that are data linked to the platoon for recon and destroying targets behind cover. In my opinion we will see a vehicle like the one I described in the future with the same concept.

@squidcraft3878 11 ай бұрын

This guy is very underrated

@KabodaOfficial 11 ай бұрын

Thank you!

@terrylober6035 Жыл бұрын

As a former USN officer that was stationed in GTMO, various Caribbean islands and was cross-trained at Ft. Knox on M-60A1 tanks I think the USMC needs a "light" tank. The Corps has exactly 0 tanks. We need them where the heavy 50 ton monsters cannot go.

@quakethedoombringer 10 ай бұрын

M10 Booker says hello

@al-sir Жыл бұрын

Very interesting video from current events influencing other militaries how to conduct effective operations for their strategic interest.

@johnnyenglish583 Жыл бұрын

As always, great work. Thank you!

@KabodaOfficial Жыл бұрын

Thank you for watching!

@oldmandoinghighkicksonlyin1368 Жыл бұрын

Congrats on 5k!

@KabodaOfficial Жыл бұрын

Thank you!

@stormeaglegaming5395 Жыл бұрын

Excellent video

@thearisen7301 9 ай бұрын

M10 is more an infantry tank meant to fight alongside light infantry. Some say it's an assault gun but it's role does go beyond what a classic assault gun does so imo, it's an infantry tank. I think it's reasonable to call it a light tank then as it's the lighter of the two tanks in US service.

@crimcrusader8459 Жыл бұрын

While the M10 Booker is originally using the 105mm cannon for air deployability, I would think that upgunning it with the XM360 120mm cannon like the Griffin prototype would be a viable option, not just for easing logistics for 120mm tank cannon ammo but also for the XM360 cannon parts as well. After all, the XM360 120mm cannon is slated to not only be used on the AbramsX, but also to be used as a possible cannon upgrade for older and existing Abrams tanks!

@KabodaOfficial Жыл бұрын

They did actually use a 120mm in the Griffin I, so it is possible we could see it implemented if they deem it necessary! Interestingly the Griffin III has a 50mm variant of the bushmaster, fully automatic, that I would like to see - even if in small numbers!

@crimcrusader8459 Жыл бұрын

@@KabodaOfficial the Griffin I is actually the Tech Demonstrator prototype I was talking about. And yes, we are likely to see the upgunned M10 as an actual production model, especially for export.

@StrikeNoir105E Жыл бұрын

AFAIK 105mm ammo is still one of the most prolific and numerous tank ammo types in the US, not to mention 105mm ammo is smaller and thus a smaller tank can carry more rounds. For the types of targets the Booker is expected to shoot at 120mm is overkill, and the 105mm is still perfectly adequate against other armored vehicles of similar size and profile.

@crimcrusader8459 Жыл бұрын

@@StrikeNoir105E Still, if one wants to ease up on logistics for both cannon ammo and XM360 cannon parts, then upgunning is the way to go.

@spectershoottokill9365 10 ай бұрын

105mm is sufficient for it's intended purpose if it ever has to kill a tank it will more than likely be a side shot again anti armor isn't it's primary role, it's primary purpose is obstacle reduction

@johnnyrocket1320 Жыл бұрын

This has USMC written all over it. Considering they just publicly dumped the MA1 from its front line roster. Throw an anti armor rocket loader on the thing and it's GTG

@halo129830 Жыл бұрын

Bring back the ontos

@helloterran 8 ай бұрын

I used to think this Chinese Type 15 is a joke, until I saw the M10 Booker design, which is inferior in almost every measurable metric (taller, inferior gun, thinner armor despite being heavier, 4-men crew for a light tank in 2020s, etc.), and still costing $11 million a piece. Maybe its sole purpose is to balance the books, hence the name.

@vitsobotka6268 Жыл бұрын

glad to see a new Kaboda video! Keep up the great work

@Rimmy45 Жыл бұрын

I will try to leave a shorter comment as I am a fan of this topic, first of all good work, found your channel sometime ago and binged most videos on it. Second of all, in short terms is that MBTs were set to have the role of an universal tank that could be used in majority of potential fields of conflict as specialization of vehicles for every field of conflict would be a military suicide. Third is the fact that people have a skewed perception of military conflict and they perceive of conflicts as today as that of world war 2 and more often their perception is wrong (which is an understandable thing as humans are flawed beings not all knowing deities). There was conversation of why didn't the US employ armour like the Sherman in some fields as they are "better" suited and proven vehicles, but the notion is that conflict is seen in a vacuum You can design a practical weapon that is specified for let's say anti-tank warfare and someone would say it is bad as it cannot defeat soft targets easily. That is that they, on purpose or not, miss the role of the vehicle or piece of equipment in the, keyword, organization/system of a military. A B-2 Spirit won't down a fighter, a Chafee ww2 light tank won't obliterate heavy armour, an AK won't down an aircraft carrier etc as it isn't their role. Lighter tanks were employed in the Pacific for example as first of all their lightness gave them mobility and more access, it eases supply, it won't get bogged down like a better but heavier piece of equipment would which would need more engineering and recovery and that leads to more supply. - Conflict doesn't happen in a vacuum and complicated matters such as armies and weapons have millions of variables in peace time let alone in war time. Could have gotten further, but decided not to. Matter of the fact is things are complicated and don't operate in isolation and keep up the good work, Kaboda.

@KabodaOfficial Жыл бұрын

Thank you for the write up, - some great points, and I’m glad you enjoyed it!

@Fusilier7 Жыл бұрын

It's not just the US and China, Europe had been developing light tanks too, such as the French EBRC Jaguar, German Lynx 120mm, Swedish CV90 120mm, Italian Centauro II, Austrian ASCOD 120mm, and Spanish is in the process of developing the Dragon, which will have either a 105mm or 120mm main gun. These platforms range from tracked to wheelled, and are designed to fight in rough terrain too rugged for MBTs, a common misconception is that light armour is too weak to take hits like heavy armour, if this were true, IFVs would not be deployed with MBTs due to armour weakness. The IFV is designed to be fast and mobile, this is how they were intended to be used, and this is how they are supposed to survive combat, not sustaining hits, this is the role of the MBT, instead, light tanks doctrine favour fighting soft targets behind enemy lines, such as supply convoys, enemy troop deployment, forward operating bases and enemy camps. The light tank is suitable for these roles, which will free up MBTs for the main attack on the enemy line of resistance, anyway, this is how I envision light armour.

@ericb.4358 5 ай бұрын

During WW II the US Sherman medium tank was perfect for the island hopping Pacific war. It was an overmatch for the VERY light Japanese tanks. But in the European theater the relatively under armored and under gunned Sherman was victorious ONLY because it had superior air cover and it was fielded in far greater numbers than the German armor. As the Russians say, "Quantity has a quality of its own."

@LewisPulsipher Жыл бұрын

If the primary vision of a light tank was spotting, then they've been displaced by drones. Though I confess I think of fighting vehicles such as the Bradley have taken the niche of light tanks.

@StrikeNoir105E Жыл бұрын

The firepower on a Bradley, while versatile, lies in two completely different spectrums: the 30mm for softer targets and endurance but not very good against tougher targets, and the TOW missiles can destroy most things but the M2 can only carry a handful at any time. The M10 Booker fulfills having a smaller, lighter armored vehicle with an actual tank gun for direct fire support. Also, the US military at the moment does not like referring to the M10 as a "light tank" because one of the historical roles of the light tank is reconnaissance, and that's not the kind of role the M10 was built for. It's not meant to scoot in and out of enemy lines to provide eyes on the field, it's meant to support infantry advances with its 105mm gun.

@aker1993 Жыл бұрын

@@StrikeNoir105E its more akin to the M10 wolverine role as a Gun Motor Carriage

@KapitanPoop 4 ай бұрын

Future light tanks would do well if they have integrated drones to look ahead , get the first look to then be able to outmaneuver an enemy that doesn’t even know they’re coming yet

@xivkya6882 10 ай бұрын

Ztq15 my beloved

@StritarD Жыл бұрын

Hell yeah...

@asturiancetorix2552 8 ай бұрын

Modern anti tank weapons are now so powerful that sometimes can be more conveniento smaller, lighter and faster armored vehicles like this.

@matthewgourd3938 10 ай бұрын

Soundtracks kickin

@pol4risyt 4 ай бұрын

they should be called mgs mobile gun systems. and the new m10 booker too.

@devendoffing7004 Жыл бұрын

What’s kind of interesting is the US military has many options now for delivering direct fire support for infantry without the use of MBT’s. First there’s gps guided artillery which is extremely accurate. Then there’s smart MLRS systems like the MIMARS which is accurate within 18 inches if I remember correctly. Then there’s aircraft like the AC-130 which can offer direct fire support with a variety of options, from 25mm, 30mm, and 105mm if operated with air superiority, which is something that the modern US has no issue with since it operates with air supremacy. Air superiority means the enemy aircraft can still fight and get off the ground, but air supremacy means they can’t even take off.

@jacksonteller1337 9 ай бұрын

Most of the vehicles they sometimes refer to as light tanks are usually FSV (105 mm armed) or tank destroyer (Sprut). The medium tank does however seem to be in a revival as the Asia Pacific region isn't very well suited for a heavy MBT.

@TheMarelis Жыл бұрын

Great video as always! I like the idea of a light armored infantry support vehicle, it emphasizes mobility and deployability, two things that would be crucial in Pacific theater. But I'm not sure about it being equipped with a tank calibre gun. Wouldn't a heavy IFV such as CV90 with 30-40mm autocannon and with ATGMs fulfill the role of infantry support better?

@aker1993 Жыл бұрын

try to destroy an enemy hardpoint like a concrete buildings with 30mm autocannons which the Philippine army finds out the hard way thats why during the Marawi siege they employ 105mm M101 howitzer in a direct fire role.

@MrTankslave 11 ай бұрын

😂😢😢September 15 1940 saw heavy and sustained fighting in the sky’s over Britain between the RAF and the Luftwaffe. The Germans suffered some of their heaviest losses, this was seen as an overwhelming victory for the RAF and defeat of the Luftwaffe, for this reason, today is known as Battle of Britain Day.September 15 1940 saw heavy and sustained fighting in the sky’s over Britain between the RAF and the Luftwaffe. The Germans suffered some of their heaviest losses, this was seen as an overwhelming victory for the RAF and defeat of the Luftwaffe, for this reason, today is known as Battle of Britain Day.September 15 1940 saw heavy and sustained fighting in the sky’s over Britain between the RAF and the Luftwaffe. The Germans suffered some of their heaviest losses, this was seen as an overwhelming victory for the RAF and defeat of the Luftwaffe, for this reason, today is known as Battle of Britain Day.September 15 1940 saw heavy and sustained fighting in the sky’s over Britain between the RAF and the Luftwaffe. The Germans suffered some of their heaviest losses, this was seen as an overwhelming victory for the RAF and defeat of the Luftwaffe, for this reason, today is known as Battle of Britain Day.September 15 1940 saw heavy and sustained fighting in the sky’s over Britain between the RAF and the Luftwaffe. The Germans suffered some of their heaviest losses, this was seen as an overwhelming victory for the RAF and defeat of the Luftwaffe, for this reason, today is known as Battle of Britain Day

@yewyyui Жыл бұрын

Cool channel

@donaldgraham6414 10 ай бұрын

I think we should call this a medium tank, not a light tank. The M10 Booker is around 40 tons, with a 105 mm gun. The Scorpion and Scimitar are around 7 tons with 75mm and 30 mm guns respectively. We should reserve the term “light tank” for vehicles that are something like that. The WWII Sherman was 30 tons and commonly referred to as a medium tank.

@mtf_savage_beasts2565 Жыл бұрын

Light tanks were always in use and so is Assault gun. Just because USA was not using them doesn't make the redundant.

@StrikeNoir105E Жыл бұрын

The US did use light tanks and assault guns though, like the M551 Sheridan, and later the Stryker MGS. They've also had tracked assault gun programs running in the 80's and 90's.

@mtf_savage_beasts2565 Жыл бұрын

@@StrikeNoir105E As I said many countries were using light Tanks and Assault Gun as part of their Military. USA not using them doesn't make them redundant.

@FairladyS130 10 ай бұрын

Back to the future, WWII revisited and not much improved on. What happened to a unmanned small turret with a big auto loading quick firing cannon? Say 50 mm? Improved safety with a crew armoured capsule, lighter weight which has lots of benefits including all important mobility. The Booker needs to booker place in the fail bin.

@draconian6692 Ай бұрын

Its mind boggling that other countries aside from the usa dont have adequate military budgets to midernize and adaot theur arsenals

@rat_king- 8 ай бұрын

Light tanks would work very well in cities... and mountainous terrain if you want high elevation guns..

@va_sirberpasir9708 10 ай бұрын

Kaplan Harimau: note it down boys

@alientitimilk9073 Ай бұрын

They’re not medium tanks, medium tanks stopped being things after the M60, the only two types are Main battle tanks and light tanks

@catcatcatcatcatcatcatcatcatca Жыл бұрын

I wonder if light tanks in near future will take on the flexible role IFVs with modular design nowdays fulfill. Especially if electronic warfare and drones become as integral part of supporting infantry as they are in the war in Ukraine. Land-based drones could work alongside light tanks similarly to how USAF envisions them to work alongside human pilots. And even without any new types of drones, there seems to be a need to counter the already existing ones. Dedicated, highly mobile platform that can reliably shut down enemy drones while also serving another role could provide value similarly to a traditional light tank: it’s not the EW or anti-drone suite you’d use if you had the luxury of choosing freely, but a huge upgrade compared to having no such dedicated system. I think drones likely will quickly reach a point where a kit that fits in a backpack will be virtually impossible to score a soft kill on, and can operate despite heavy interference, while using all the same signal masking methods modern communication systems use. And even if not, it will likely take a lot more power than spoofing a GPS signal with a man portable device. So that’s why I think we will see these anti-drone measures move away from MBTs and into a more dedicated platform. And something very similar to light tank could be a very suitable option.

@IsaacKuo Жыл бұрын

A light tank with a 105mm or similar armament is not going to be able to shoot down enemy drones. A much lighter gatling gun of some sort would be a vastly superior option. But it could still be a bit of a difficult balancing act. A .50 gatling might have insufficient range, while a 25mm gatling may have inadequate ammo storage. I suspect the best defense against small drones would be anti-drone drones. My pet idea is a "flying flail" drone, similar to bolas. It's a thin cable between a dumb steel weight and a tiny airplane (little more than a wing, battery, and motorized prop). The idea is that it spins round and round like a monocopter. It simply tries to "ram" near the target, and whack it with the dumb steel weight. Cost per engagement is almost nothing. The drone itself can be carried by a person, and launched by simply swinging it like a sling. Range and endurance is better than a quadrotor, though. Maybe this "flying flail" isn't the best idea, but I'm confident some sort of reusable drone is workable. Maybe it needs to be bigger and heavier, with a straightforward gun armament. Or maybe the drone simply rams the target, with the expensive guidance units placed in wingtip pods, so they likely survive the engagement.

@sebastienb.5985 10 ай бұрын

The M10 Booker is very strong.

@madkabal Жыл бұрын

judging by the footage, the Type 15 does not have a stabilizer for its main gun. Giving the M10 and significant advantage over it should they meet in battle.

@IsaacKuo Жыл бұрын

The M10 Booker's design features four crew members in a traditional tank layout, which seems to me like a lot of volume to try to protect. I can understand the reluctance to use an unmanned turret considering how badly the Styker MGS performed, but still ... there are better options available now. In particular, what about the Patria NEMO? With an unmanned turret, the crew can be better protected. And if it's paired with spotting drones, it can provide precise real time fire support from further away and behind cover. If this is classified as indirect fire, and thus ruled by mountains of red tape and rules of engagement delaying use to uselessness? Well, then it's the rules of engagement that need fixing, not fielding an excessively vulnerable direct fire weapon system. The war in Ukraine is showing what's possible with drone directed artillery fire, when the desperate needs of the battlefield dictate prioritizing fast real time response over CYA GWOT-imposed rules of engagement. But a 155mm artillery system many kilometers away won't have the response time of an auto-loading mortar much closer, simply because of time-of-flight.

@jdogdarkness 11 ай бұрын

I suspect M10 Booker will go the way of every post-WW2 not quite a tank-tank.

@Lonewolfmike 10 ай бұрын

It is called Mobile Protected Firepower. The Army doesn't call it a light tank at all. It is supposed to work with light infantry.

@Uncle_Neil Жыл бұрын

500 MPF for the Marines, yes please.

@ProudlyAryan 11 ай бұрын

My idea of a light tank would be a new version of a british scorpion or m551 sheridan. It would be armed with the 100m gun like on the bmp3 and if it is possible with the 30mm cannon co-axial with it. If it takes to much space or is to complicated then remove it and then just have a 7.62 coax. It will have an autoloader and a good commanders sight with periscope abilities for recon or otherwise in a specific recon role the sight or turret can be different to this light tank primary role of infantry fire support. Also if it can maybe carry an extra scout or 2 in the rear (like a merkava setup) for recon role, so total crew will be 4/5. The factors to balance on size, weight, armour would depend on if this light tank should be air transportable by plane or helo like ch 53/v22, and if it needs to be amphibious. Now if you are dealing with nato standards then the gun to be installed can be 90mm or 81/120mm gun mortar. Also i would put external fuel tanks like the m113 on for range and reduced burden on logistics.A further step could be to make a family of light armour like the brittish cvrt family with anti tank, ada with missiles and my idea of an apc like role so that the soldiers dont have to use thier legs carrying heavy backpacks on long marches like when you see photos of soldiers getting a ride sitting on top of a bmd vehicles but this version wont have any turret or heavy armament but more an apc, in short a bmd thats a dedicated apc. The problem i think the us has is to make everything to bigger than whats in texas instead of focussing on the role that the equipment has to fulfill. Just think of pentagon wars on how the bradley ended up compared to its concept and also the f35. This is just my 2c worth of an idea.

@Yuki_Ika7 10 ай бұрын

to my understanding the reason why the M10 might not be called a "light tank" is because the US military does not want soldiers to think it can tank as powerful hits as the Abrams, since that is what the majority of US tankers are used to

@Phantom-gc2ns 11 ай бұрын

I always believed the successor of the light tank are the IFV/AFVs

@estebanrivera5633 Жыл бұрын

¿If the light tank have found a new home in 21century will do frigates and corvettes algo together with the light and heavy cruisers and last but least the monitors like they did during vietnam? :-)

@NightshadeX85 Жыл бұрын

"He who controls the spice controls the universe" - Me

@SabinStargem Жыл бұрын

I wouldn't be surprised that as AI technology advances, we will see tankettes in the style of X-COM. In the games, they were AI-driven and about half the size of a Tata Nano. Not the most powerful tool, but they were expendable and could go down dark, narrow alleys. My guess is that if the invasion of Taiwan is deferred for at least a decade by China, they will try to reintroduce tankettes. You could fit more of those onto a boat or even a helicopter, and there would be lots of urban combat that would whittle down standard troops pretty quickly.

@whitedoggo9571 Жыл бұрын

We will use AI-tankette drones 100%

@MapleovBacon Жыл бұрын

At what point does making a tank lighter become a Toyota Hilux. Trucks won over tanks in Chad because of immense mobility.

@futuregenerationz 8 ай бұрын

Our adversaries will likely have tanks: T72s. It has be able to destroy them. If infantry has to rescue it's support AFVs, I don't see their purpose. Give them drones.

@5675492 Жыл бұрын

I'd like to see a " Terminator " version of this with a 30-37mm auto cannon and Hellfire missles - more suitable for urban environments .

@MaxwellAerialPhotography Жыл бұрын

Thats called an IFV

@5675492 Жыл бұрын

@@MaxwellAerialPhotography The Russian version is built on a t72 chassis I think and is an AFV (doesn't carry infantry ) .

@hypersonichobo4263 Жыл бұрын

To be fair, the terminator has been shown to be an abject failure. You cannot reproduce the protective quality of infantry screens with just another tank. Because at the end of the day an ATGM mulches a terminator just as easily as a T-90M

@waltermodel9730 Жыл бұрын

This dumb The terminator is dumb You don't replace dismounted infantry with a vehicle No armored vehicle would do what infantry can do A big vehicle is an easy target in Urban areas that require protection form dismounted infantry thus decreasing the amount of infantry that can attack enemy positions so you don't put it there in the first place Rather you use it support infantry from a safe distance Plus a 105 will have more ammo than a hellfire And better HE performance than an autocannon

@hypersonichobo4263 Жыл бұрын

@@waltermodel9730 this. Infantry and armor complement each other. Not replace each other.

@rolyantrauts2304 10 ай бұрын

Yeah but strangely the US has one that is debatable if its lite! Likely a CV90 and mobility would be better

@charlesfaure1189 6 ай бұрын

If this isn't a tank, then the original tanks weren't tanks either. The original concept of a tank wasn't a tank? The Booker isn't an MBT, but it sure as hell is a light tank.

@leggett997 11 ай бұрын

The M10 isn’t a light tank its pretty much a turreted infantry support gun.

@BarrettCharlebois 10 ай бұрын

How is your name Kaboda but you haven’t any tractor videos?

@carlanderson7618 10 ай бұрын

At 40 plus tons it is not a light tank. Vehicles like the UK Scorpion or US M-551 Sheridan in the 8 to 15 ton range could be considered light tanks. The M-10 is the same weight range as a Leopard 1 MBT and too heavy for use by units like the 82 ABN

@JimmySailor 10 ай бұрын

Why does it have to be Light? Why can’t it be a Medium? Leo 2 and Abrams are as heavy as land vehicles can practically be while still being mobile. If a 73 ton Abrams isn’t a Heavy tank what is?

@REB4444 5 ай бұрын

It's not a light tank and they don't want it used as a "tank" but I'm sure it could be considered like the WWII Tank Destroyer, being able to shoot & scoot and lie in ambush easier because of the smaller footprint. There is NO DOUBT about one thing though, it would undoubtedly obliterate the Chinese light tank: better quality armor, better optics, more reliable, better trained tank crews, higher quality personnel, better communications & network. Basically the Chinese light tank would be target practice.

@DeniatitadenCompostela 11 ай бұрын

42 tons and a 105mm gun is a light tank now?

@schiefer1103 Жыл бұрын

I see tank. I say tank. I see lighter tank. I say light tank.

@emperorkane317 Жыл бұрын

So I assume it would be sending the MBTs to Europe to fight the Russians. Then send the light tanks to the Pacific/Asia to fight the Chinese.

@monarchtherapsidsinostran9125 Жыл бұрын

Unironically the light tank never left. Its always been a niche thing really. Especially for low supply rough terrain nations with bridges that can't support main battle tanks wright for example. Also paradropping light tanks has always been a thing militaries want to do but only a few get right. When you do get it right updating them over time also increases weight making it harder to paradrop. So the video title should be are light tanks returning to western nations. Asia, and smaller nations have been using it since the cold war. China in the mountains, argentina in its areas, various 3rd world nations in their rough terrain, and so on. Just simple as.

@ulforcemegamon3094 Жыл бұрын

Yeah , that is the reason why Argentina doesn't has a MBT but instead the TAM , the terrain is just too rough and the bridges are unable to support something as heavy as a MBT , thus why the TAM is used , no point of having a heavy ass tank if you can't move it around lol

@G-manFan1 4 ай бұрын

idk

@TgamerBio5529 11 ай бұрын

Technically it’s light tank

@riotcailin Жыл бұрын

Will you ever make video about Russian MIRV?

@KabodaOfficial Жыл бұрын

I'm always open to ideas! I would however have to do my research on the topic - what is it you have in mind yourself?

@riotcailin Жыл бұрын

@@KabodaOfficial For example, is it as effective as Russia says? Should west really be terrified of it or is it just like their main battle tank or SU-57. The quality and quantity of it. And also, how effective it is to its western counterparts. Of course if there`s enough information for a video.

@KabodaOfficial Жыл бұрын

@@riotcailin Indeed, my current position on that is if we don't know, then it's wise to treat them as if they exist, but the actual level of maintenance taken place by the Putin led government.. doesn't fill me with confidence. Will add this onto my pending videos list, thanks for your comment!

@riotcailin Жыл бұрын

@@KabodaOfficial Thank you too for the great content!

@AaronCMounts Жыл бұрын

The vulnerabilities of the Main Battle Tank are on full display in Ukraine. However, any vulnerabilities that plague a MBT also plague a light tank. For this reason, I don't see light tanks coming back. More likely, we can expect to see roles of the tank being filled by more powerful IFVs and by vehicle-mounted missile-launch platforms that can adequately fill the need for high-mobility, large-caliber direct fire support that tanks provide.

@adamfrazer5150 Жыл бұрын

....wait, so Kane and the Brotherhood were right all along ? Light tanks it is 👍

@rhodie33 Жыл бұрын

We don't call it a light tank.

@eugeneblue299 4 ай бұрын

The M10 is not light. Nor does a light tank weigh in at 40 or so tons. The army sadly missed the mark on the M10.

@CharliMorganMusic 10 ай бұрын

I think calling these things "light tanks" is a mistake. They're a lot more like assault guns than anything else. They cannot do the same things as MBTs. They are often slower, less armed, and less armored. They are not tanks. Employing them as tanks is stupid. They do not engage other tanks; they wouldn't even engage each other if there were any other weapon system.

@FinsburyPhil 8 ай бұрын

Talking about whether the M10 or the T15 is the better vehicle is schoolboy stuff. Warfare is not a game of top trumps. Doctrine, training, crew motivation and logistics all play a crucial role in deciding the outcome of combat.

@samhavoc1066 6 ай бұрын

Kind of funny calling a 42 ton tank "light". Weighs almost as much as the WW2 Russian KV1. Only light in comparison to an Abrams tank.

@THESocialJusticeWarrior 10 ай бұрын

How is 40 tons a light tank? Wtf?

@PedroCosta-po5nu Жыл бұрын

Griffin is an Sturmgeschütz.

@jdogdarkness 11 ай бұрын

Marines got rid of ALL their tanks... that seems stupid imo, when they are supposed to be shifting to countering China & near peers. If anybody can use M10, id imagine it woukd be USMC lol

@FreSch_Dude Жыл бұрын

you know something is wrong when war thunder is cited as a source for military info...

@GeorgeMerl 10 ай бұрын

The bradley is basically a light tank without a cannon since its a shitty APC

@rightiswrongrightiswrong806 6 ай бұрын

The T72, T80 and T90 all weigh between 42 and 46 tons, the T10 is approaching 40 ton. In what way is the T10 designated light anything? Too heavy for airlift, 105mm gun and light armour over a heavy body is a joke and waste of taxpayers money. Of course this will all be realised after the first hundred of so are built, and then will come the "needed" add ons which will push this light tank, lol, up to 50 tons. Then it too will be scrapped and billions given to the same people to design another POS "light tank". Meanwhile, Russia pulls out a 40 year old tank, give it a new turret, weapon upgrades, new ballistic computers, new thermal sights, new engines and off they go. The T62 were 38 tons, new engines, FCS, thermal sights and ERA packages and the ancient relic is now a modern infantry support platform, no need for a new factory or production line, now that's strategic military thinking for you, not fanboy designer gear only good for a profit.

@chloeholmes4641 Жыл бұрын

So light tanks and mbt's are here to stay! Tho given the lackluster tank destroyers and no heavy tanks those niches are pretty much nonexistent now! Pitty tho! Did love the looks and ideas that came with td's

@many.kittens Жыл бұрын

f**** ya finally back

@tasman006 Жыл бұрын

Great vid I think definatley it should be called a light tank but with the Americans pretty much every weapon or peice of equipment was called M1in the old days. But well Mobile Protective Firepower it is but its still just a light tank. But also is now designated M10 Booker after two US soldiers one in WW2 and the other in the 2nd Gulf war. The first US tank to be named after servicemen not a general. Which tank would be better I'm going with the American tank they will have the better FCS and having the engine in the front like the Isreali Merkava tank ect would have better protection overall. The Chinese has only one thing over the American tank at this point and the Guns are both 105mm guns the Chinese would have a lot of ammo the US is ramping up thier ammo production due to the Ukraine war. The US have better quality ammo with different types but the Chinese gun can fire a ATGM so its a see saw on that question. Overall the Chinese have the numbers and already 520 units in service. The first production US M10 Bookers will not reach the army till the end of the year and full production of 504 all units will be supplied by 2025-2030. See link: taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/army-m10-booker-combat-vehicle-mobile-protected-firepower/