They can call it whatever they want. Infantry support vehicles will face enemy tanks regardless.

I call it a boondoggle... Tens of Billions of dollars for junk. Money would be better spent on effective, re-usable, shoulder fired anti-tank weapons.

@@pop401k those munitions aren't capable of doing the MFP's job.

@@krunchie101 no they wont. Not if you use them right.

@@pop401k we have plenty of those and they work about as well as expected as evidenced by the Ukraine war, heavy weapons systems like tanks have seen such high losses due to improper use and using a more top heavy doctrine against a more flexible one. The Ukrainians are facing an almost opposite issue, they do not have enough mobile heavy weapons systems (and more importantly air power) to commit to large scale counter attacks. An N-law or Javelin is excellent against inexperienced or overconfident armor that’s moving ahead of supporting infantry, but for forcing the enemy out of hard points with direct heavy firepower? Not so much. The war in Ukraine so far has proven that proper combine arms doctrine is a *requirement* in modern warfare if you want any success worth the expenditure in men and materiel. A more worthwhile use of budget would be to improve command and control, recon, the speed at which fire missions are completed, and mobile support systems. An ATGM isn’t going to break a trench line or take a city, but proper coordination of artillery infantry armor and aircraft, 9 times out of 10 will. Also as a side note, single use ATGMs are in general cheaper, quicker to fire, and more survivable to their reloadable counterparts, and with US logistics being heads and shoulders above everyone else’s having a single use system probably gets more bang for its buck out of the logistics system than having to transport the weapon and extra ammunition.

In the future ANY military vehicle is nothing more than an easy target for drones. And the future is now...

@@couchwarrior2449 First, given their small size and other features, medium-altitude, low-speed unmanned aircraft, drones can thus more easily penetrate enemy air defense systems, which in turn favors offensive military operations, but today's technologies like Drone jammers Hijacking and limited armaments, payloads, drones can be strategically deployed in limited time plus due to Drones may pose a danger to aircraft and Relatively new technology that is not mature yet.

@@couchwarrior2449 drones are great for precision strikes as well as delivery on the battlefield. But are they good enough to literally conquer the enemy? Tanks will be around for a long time. Even in the future.

❤️❤️❤️

Wow ❗️❗️

As Most concepts I can see it Upscaling

Drones with anti tank missiles have turned military vehicles into slow moving targets.

Wheeled tanks cant do stuff that tracked tanks can do

The strykers getting out of service soon, so time to find a new Replacement

Tracks...

Yes, the loss of the M8 is an absolute travesty. Both HMC and LAC variants were most definitely relevant to the contemporary battlefield and its a shame to see this new vehicle in the foreground.

One answer, money

@Jim Scott, I was and still am a great fan of the Scorpion. Quite sad really they didn’t carry on the platform.

Whose real name was francis

The AJAX suffered from issues due to the Brits continually changing specifications and adding weight to the platform.

@@foedspaghetti3290 Same seems like a waste.

vibrations and build quality seems to me like a relatively fixable problem

cause he loves them

With the advent of more lethal missiles and better aircraft, main battleships were replaced with lighter warships with better sensors, and they function fine. I don’t agree that more firepower is necessarily better as the Ukraine war as shown. More heavy tanks could get stuck to operate only in roads and be taken out with drones, mines and atgm and the logistics could get complicated because of higher fuel demands like how Russian tanks ran out of fuel a couple kms outside Kiev in the initial days of the war(if they could have gone these extra kms they would have been in Kiev!) The ability of this tank to be airlifted and sent by aircraft to where the key territory under attack makes this a key strategic advantage and the ability to detect infantry more than 10 kms away is astounding

@@thexperimenter88 This light tank has no technology that isn't available on newer models of the Abrams, so no advantages there. And putting a 120 mm low recoil gun on this tank would add firepower needed to perform better on the battlefield, without much increase in weight. One should not read too much into Russia's abysmal performance in Ukraine. Russia's corruption, paired with poor maintenance, poor training, inexplicably attacking during the "rasputitza" and trying to attack from more directions than they had forces to cover are the lessons from Ukraine. Had Russia focused on two directions, with diversionary attacks in the east, they would have most probably succeeded. Back to the light tank, a bigger gun would help because this light tank is for airborne as well as infantry support. Infantry and airborne are primarily used for defense. Airborne takes an objective and then holds until heavier units arrive. Both Russian airborne assaults in Ukraine were wiped out by Ukrainian armor because neither the airborne nor airmobile units could counter Ukrainian armor. Airborne and airmobile units do not benefit from deliberate defenses like Ukraine had in the east. Anti-tank missiles are vulnerable outside of dug in positions. You don't need an MBT to have more firepower. Italy has a wheeled vehicle with a 120 mm and Sweden offers a version of the CV-90 with a 120 mm.

@@brianjordan2192 the abrams is a heavy tank that cannot be easily redeployed on the battlefield. A light tank that can be moved by aircraft to be redeployed is a strategic advantage making it a nightmare for the enemy to defend on a long frontline and it has enough firepower to destroy fortifications and other tanks. The US army probably did not go with a heavier turret because it would probably cause a redesign of the hull causing it to be heavier and ultimately be another Main battle tank which they have enough of in the inventory. I can understand why the US army opted to go with the tank, my assessment is that it is a gamechanger especially for the airborne units which are the offensive unit. Like you said that was a key unit that the Russians lacked when they pushed into hostomel airport

@@thexperimenter88 I don't think you read my last comment. This light tank has a 105 mm. Insufficient to engage tanks. As I pointed out before, for airborne scenarios this tank has to role out of the plane, so the enemy will be alert by the airborne infantry having to seize an area sufficient to land and unload C-17s therefore this tank should have a 120 mm gun, because of the realities of warfare. I an well aware of the abrams capabilities and limitations. My son is a crewmember on one, and my son in law works on them.

@@brianjordan2192 why is 105 mm not big enough to engage tanks? Conflicts around world and killed tanks has proven that statement false.

Not cheaper than an Abrams which are 6.1 million each. The new tank was quoted at 12 million each. Would that light tank with a 120 mm gun be able to stand up to the recoil, or for that matter a ATGM?

There’s multiple videos of abrams being hit by atgms and rpgs only to turn their turret and obliterate the unfortunate that shot it

The US army don't call it a tank. People don't seem to understand the combat dynamics of high value platforms. The more you invest in a platform, including the training and abilities of the crew, the more cost effective advanced systems, for both protection and superiority in the combat loop, will become. This is, for instance, the reason why air power has totally dominated air defense missile systems, in actual conflicts. And this to an increasing degree, not less, despite all the predictions from journalists and leftwing/pacifist politicians, ever since the 1950s. Breakthroughs in technologies will cause dramatic breaks in trends, sure, but the core principle remains: More advanced and expensive systems makes sense, and are better used in platforms which are already expensive for other reasons. When it comes to tanks, the often relied on paradigm for evaluation, of firepower/protection/mobility, is mostly BS today. What really counts is situational awareness, better decision loop, reliability, comfort/crew endurance, and crew survivability. The winner is not the thickest armor or biggest gun, but who strikes first. So quality, sensors, communication and human interface are of paramount importance. But if you build a great system on those criteria, the old firepower/protection/mobility comes into play. You want to be able to bring a weapon that can't be defended against - the tank gun - into play. Otherwise all that fancy stuff is waste. You want the platform to stand up to most weapons that could easily be brought against it. Specialized weapons will exist, but they will be special, and thus rare and difficult to bring into play. 70 tons of hard armor will pose a completely different question to an enemy, and limits his options. Active anti-missile systems is just a novel detail, to patch a hole. It exists, is widely deployed in Israel, USA and UK, works well, and is soon standard on Western tanks. Finally, you want it to be able to move around tactically with authority. But another truth is that the "best" weapon is always the one that is "good enough to do the job" *_and_* *_is_* *_available_* . A lighter vehicle will be more strategically mobile, as well as, probably, require less mechanical and logistic support, which would also be more strategically mobile. This has always been the logic behind "light tanks". A final observation: More expensive systems tend to be cheaper. They last longer in service, they have lower losses, they use less ammunition to destroy their targets, and do it quicker, thus using less resources over all, as well as eliminating more damage by the enemy.

@@michaelkatz275 thats not the point in the 1st place? its airmobile and not meant to survive atgm or 120+mm hits. What use is your very survivable 70 plus ton Abrams when its on a ship in the Atlantic while your unit is forward deployed in a hurry? its no replacement its to fulfill a specific need.

Why not add two TOW Missile launchers?

Or not kicking 60000 enlisted because they refused the jab and then claim shortages

How the hell else are they going to get a complete woke culture overhaul in the US military?

Yes. Drones with anti tank missiles have rendered military vehicles obsolete.

@@couchwarrior2449 no they haven't. Not even slightly. ATGMs have existed for 50 years and couldn't do this. APS systems and combined arms tactics alone ensure that atgms can't reap a bloody harvest on mechanized units. Drones are aircraft, and if in over a century of military aviation, tanks have only gotten more prevalent, clearly drones wont do the job. Hard Kill APS, electronic warfare, and better shorad will limit the drone.

The 25mm is not a 105 or 120mm cannon. While autocannon are good for lighter targets, tank guns are still best for anti-fortification and demolition work and that is why they are introducing a light tank.

@@MPdude237 that’s why it has TOW missiles, the Bradley proved its worth taking out bunkers, BMP’s, and some T-72’s during the Gulf War

@@WarInHD Not air droppable.

@@Chopstorm.good point there, it can only be dragged out the back of a C-17 at low level

@@WarInHD I cannot argue with the capabilities of the TOW missile. It does pack a pretty powerful warhead that can do a lot of structural damage to a building and bunker. However, missiles cannot be used as liberally a gun for a few reasons. Missiles are very expensive coming in at $175K a piece or more, while tank rounds top up at $20-40k for solid DU or Tungten APFSDS rounds, HEAT and HE rounds certainly are much cheaper but I cannot find data on it. Another problem is that missiles are big. The M2 Bradley can only carry 7 missiles and the M3 can carry 12, while most modern tanks can carry anywhere from 22-43 rounds. While missiles are very deadly and do have HE and bunker busting variants available, they cannot fully replace a tank gun, for the same reason stand-off missiles cannot replace gun artillery. I am not saying that the TOW is inferior to a 105 or 120mm gun, they serve different roles and have some overlap.

To be an ex-army and to state that "nothing beats an Abrams" makes me worry about the army alittle. The Abrams , Challengers and Leopards alltogether ,under such a commands as the current Russian ones would be as massively destroyed as the Russian "T's" now by Ukrainians.

I love your idea.

I love your idea: multiple small vehicle swarms equipped with highly mobile firepower that would be lethally overwhelming en masse.

Actually Russia has been quite good at r & d etc

@@riphopfer5816 didn't we learn anything from our proxy war with isil against Assad

Oh I think will be successful for role which is direct fire support. It will be to do that job...but quest what so can aBradley,Lav,Styker, Abrams, Artillery, and mortars do the same job. Now where I think it will be unsuccessful when it takes fire from the enemy. It's thin armor will get pierced by anything that has something bigger that a 30mm. Also it will fail when it's force to face enemy armor. Why?.….. cause it armed with a shity 105mm gun. 105mm is garbage in fight today's tanks. The 105mm could punch through the armor of a Soviet T80. And all modern MBTs are light years better armor that original t-80. So this POS will be force to run or hide and hope and pray their a Javelin crew, a Bradley, Stryker or Abrams around to kill the enemy before the enemy murders them.

👍🦅

US has counter drone weapons being worked on and are currently in testing as early as next year they will begin deployment and in some cases deployed despite officially not being deployed

The cost is based on a lot of things. 1. Being most Abrams are largely recycled, they reuse parts to get a newer version. 2. The new vehicle is all new built, even though it uses Abrams leverage tech, they are still new hulls, turrets and guns. 3. The rate and amount produced. The more something is produced the cheaper per unit cost.

Smart artillery using drones for targeting doesn't fill in the roll of heavy direct fire weapons. Also, such assets would be better served in other rolls.

My thoughts actually! If support for infantry… A decent Drone with associated ordinance and optics will be a necessity!

@@Torchriver67 no.

im currently a abrams crew member and our tanks have alot of the stuff they mentioned in this video so it sounds like a waste to me

Basically

A modern assault gun maybe? A classic revisited, this thing’s predecessor is the StuG

It's an IFV except it has a regular tank cannon instead of a smaller autocannon.

@@krunchie101 makes sense....thanks!

@@mcRydes exactly.

The cvrt worked for the british for a while

It's an upgunned Bradley. This was tried in the 60s. The M 551 Sheridan.

@@floydvaughn9666 ....no it's not.

@@Chopstorm. is too

@@floydvaughn9666 There is nothing in common between the MGS and the Bradley. _Maybe_ there is some minutia that's shared, but the chassis and turret have nothing in common. Nothing that matters.

@@Chopstorm. so, you resort to diversion. Why not just come back with is not?

The infantry can carry it !!!!!!

Your tax dollars at work!

Cv90/120. Cv90 mk IV as bradley replacement. Or Boxer plus Boxer tracked. No need to have seperate vehicle families.

In a war against a conventional opponent, it would be suicidal to think you could drop troops right on top of the enemy like you could in the good ol' days. Now any monkey with a manpad can shoot you out of the sky if you fly near, turning everyone inside into crispified charcoal. I recon airborne units will deploy much further away from the frontline and have this tank land near them so they can push up together.

Put an MGS platoon in a support by fire position behind a hill and have them peak out and put fire down on targets while a company menuevers, suddenly its a worthwhile vehicle. But if you use it as a tank destroyer or, even worse, a tank, you'll only fail.

It's Buford btw, not Burford

We had the MGS but its kinda shit. Which is why it was decomissioned.

Unlike the Russian tanks, the US tanks have APS systems to protect against atgms and the US would have air superiority first before it sends in the troops

Until Electronic warfare systems and cheap aa fire counter the drones

Thats like saying "lets defund the army and only have an airforce". Air craft kill everything on the ground, we know. Doesn't change the fact that we need tanks.

​@@Ben-li9zb There are autonomous drones that are basicly unaffected by Ewar as they are not remotely controled they are programmed and do not have input signal...like the MQ9Reaper Wich can detect jamming signals and strike the jammer with anti-radiation missile if needed ..but many drones are programmed to fly on pre-determined routs against pre-determined targets and jamming is, thus, rendered a moot point .. An F35 has the size of a Golfball on radar..F22 is like a smal marble. Stealth Drones are basicly invissible ..like the Taranis Drone or like the Dassault Neuron models..there is no way you wil shoot them down with cheap AA..cheap AA cant see them...and what you cant see you cant hit...and some of these can fly at 50 000 ft. with speeds up to 1250 KPH

@@BARELD050 fair, but there is the crucial issue that these drones can't take or hold objectives. They fall to the same issue as all other aircraft. you'll still always need boots on the ground, and thus you'll want vehicles to move them, and thus you'll want armor on some of those vehicles, etc. This isn't a battle sim where 2 sides just smash into eachother and see who wins. There are objectives behind the fighting

Automation can break down in combat. Why do you think Russian Tanks are getting their ass kicked in the Ukraine by untrained, sweet, little grandmothers?

@@trippsmythoftheaurigancoal8155 Good point but I am talking about building redundant and resilient automation with manual overrides. Battles of the future will be highly automated and sometimes I wonder if manned tanks if any kind will make sense in the near future. The Russians have too many problems to count and I highly doubt over automation is one of them.

@@CuriousPersonUSA if you can take out a Russian Tank's autoloader, while you have not hard kill on the tank, you do have a mission kill.

@@trippsmythoftheaurigancoal8155 That is true for multiple systems on a tank. Having an autoloader does not mean a tank has to be unreliable or be less survivable. When I think cool technology I don't think about Russian tanks :).

@@CuriousPersonUSA you should. T34 was the first AFV, Armored Fighting Vehicle aka "Tank" that had Slopped Armor. Cool tech. The Russias are at the forefront of cool tech every day of the week.

*Sounds lethal!*

Doesn't matter. A drone can destroy it with an anti tank missile from far away, the crew won't even know what hit 'em.

@@couchwarrior2449 shorad can kill a drone. Hard kill aps can protect the vehicle. You do realize that no atgm exists which outranges a tank?

My thoughts too! /m114's variances

True. But i think the 105 should work better than the gun launcher. Just because the sheridan sucked doesn't mean the MPF will.

I wonder if this new (tank) will be adopted by the marines for their newer faster attack force?

The M551 ARAAV turret was not very good, the missile system was all but useless, and 152 mm gun was too big for a 17 ton chassis. Automotively it was good and very maneuverable. Served on them for about 5 years before I went to tanks.

12.7 mm is .50 cal. 14.5 is the Russian extra heavy machine gun they use on recon vehicles.

It faces up words