Meet the XM30 Replacing M2 Bradley
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 08. 2023
- Video Sponsored by Ridge. Check them out here: ridge.com/TASKANDPURPOSE. Use my code “TASKANDPURPOSE” for 10% off your order and for an entry to win a Hennessey Ford Bronco or $75K through September 30th! US Only
The systems engineer who made this complaint believes that the XM30 capabilities will be limited by this strict requirement. Optionally manned fighting vehicle . OMFV program. I know my first thought was how could 55 tons not be enough? However, it is possible because the XM30 is going to field a brand new 30mm or 50 mm autocannon. That alone will eat up a lot a lot of tonnage. This turret will be remotely controlled and unmanned. Why does the vehicle need a giant cannon? We’ll the XM913 chain gun produced at Picatinny Arsenal is going to shoot a brand new ‘Supershot’ warhead that will replace the old school traditional High Explosive round that we’re all familiar with.
Written by: Chris Cappy
Video Editing: Michael Michaelides
Because the military has had larger caliber autocannons for decades. In fact the prototype 35 and 40mm caliber cannons were developed by Rheinmetall all the way back in 1987 for the German Marder. I think the reason the US Army is only now starting to adopt it is a similar reason as to why they are going back to the battle rifle. There is a whole lot of new sensor technology and optics that are allow gunners to find and accurately hit targets farther away. Drone identify targets miles away allowing you to leverage the abilities of larger cannons. When I spoke to general dynamics at the AUSA convection they gave me a hint about how the armor industry sees the future doctrine going. Because the XM30 will likely fire off small drones from tubes on the back of the vehicle that search for the enemy an identify targets are greater distance.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @taskandpurpose
Task & Purpose is a military news and culture oriented channel. We want to foster discussion about the defense industry.
#ARMY #TANK #WAR
Email capelluto@taskandpurpose.com for inquires.
Video Sponsored by Ridge. Check them out here: ridge.com/TASKANDPURPOSE. Use my code “TASKANDPURPOSE” for 10% off your order and for an entry to win a Hennessey Ford Bronco or $75K through September 30th! US Only
I am always impressed that you can just learn AND meet the people who make what you talk about. That’s something you can’t find anywhere else on CZcams!
gang gang! Ice cream so good! RPG on the left side! Woo got me riding like a cowgirl!
You know when you make us only contests that most people cant particepate in you just ensure i wont buy your product
❤❤❤❤❤❤
All future armored vehicles need a anti drone/anti-tank missile/anti-RPG sensor system with quad copter side mounted tube launched quad copter or micro missiles that launch to intercept the incoming detected threats hitting the APC or tank or any vehicle the system is mounted on.. even transport trucks
Virtual crew-member sounds like the 21st century version of a 40K machine spirit😂
How do you think it starts? 🤣🤣
Imagine the last thing you hear being "Gang Gang" "Strong Woman!" "Ice Cream So Good!" As it fades to black.
That's what a machine spirit is, a really crude AI that manages key systems in whatever it is (So crude in fact that the mechanicum don't even recognize it as AI and instead believe there really is a spirit inside the machine)
The omnissiah aproves
The US Army being the ancestor of the Adeptus Mechanicus instead of some weird Musk-made experimental colony makes SO much sense lorewise with all of the bloated bureaucracy, resistance to changing the old ways, and the weird ritualistic superstitions no one can explain but everyone at the least shrugs to and respects 😂
Working in the industry, I remember the VP of one of the programs telling me, "you need to design this to be idiot proof enough to be operated by an 18 year old kid, who might have a 22 year old kid supervising (officer)"
Is that surprising?
That sounds like great advice.
Jesus H Christ on a cross, ain't that the sad, dark truth...
@@TheAmericanAmerican
Well they dont call them Infant-ry for nothing
I think that it's important to understand that the 18-22 who will be using this vehicle grew up with iPads, Xbox, discord, etc, and making tech that can leverage that familiarity will increase performance and reduce training times.
I was one of the technical writers for the GDLS proposal for the XM30. Glad to see all our hard work paid off and GDLS is one of the two companies awarded a contract for this. Phase 1 was to build a prototype...spend the millions of dollars to make one, and my suggestion (discarded of course) was that since GDLS was at 17 mile road in the Detroit area, drive it down Van Dyke Ave to TACOM and let it deliver our proposal docs! I said to paint it black and put labels all over it (e.g., 1500HP Engine, 50mm Cannon). They liked the idea but didn't do it. :-(
Of course. At least they said they liked it and then didnt do it. At my job it is always the same. Good ideas are ignored. Good idea fairy ideas are hailed as great. Really lame stuff is spot lighted.
M2 Bradley still has done very well. Even when it was damaged in Ukraine with land mines the crews came out it alive and were able to repair most of the Bradley's that were damaged.
I think there is value in experimenting, however I can't but feel that a design such as the Lynx KF41 was mature and capable enough to be a valid off-the-shelf replacement for the Bradley. The same way I feel the 6mm ARC would have been an easier shift for the standard issue rifle. If they wanted battle rifles, then the switch to 6.5CM would have achieved a similar result. Perhaps the penetration value of the 6.8 will be critical in the future, but rechambering rifles comes at a fraction of the cost. The 6.8 looks to me like the ultimate SOF Gucci toy. Where up-gunning is desirable I think there is value in kitting special operators with the 6.8 for compatibility between rifle and their new MG. However the bulk of the arm forces can get around with 7.62 and NM338 just fine. The war in Ukraine shows WWII like level of attrition. 10 Leopard 2s are more useful than a few Panthers, with their silly drones.
Ana even those 10 Leopards are ultimately just going to be rendered scrap metal by the Russians.
That is simply not true.
@@galoobigboiYou can literally watch a video where the crew gets out.
@@willsk3122 "the crew" who struggles to get out because some moron thought it was a good idea to mount a hydraulic system for the back door's opening.Genius engineering right there.And it 's just ONE crew. Several dozens of Bradley's have been trashed since this all started and they rot in Ukrainian fields right now. There is footage of these things getting blown to hell by ATGM's and land mines all over telegram. I mean wtf hombre?
The 55 ton limit is actually very important; it means that the XM30 has to START at 55 tons. It's inevitably going to receive upgrades and armor packages throughout its service life that'll bring the weight up, so it needs to have a reasonable starting weight.
Sounds like you got olds experience
The kind you get with years of seeinh how the system works
Worked myself in engineering, and seen these examples
the first thing that went through my mind when i heard that some engineer complained was "shit, imagine if the manufacturers that are part of the competition sent some little guy complain and pretend to be angry that pentagon officials and their standards and requirements are too strict and blah blah blah just to make their lives easier and reduce their research and development costs and be able to go the easy route and not have to worry about annoying things like weight and size limits!"
that would be funny. the inspector general receiving the thing and being told by the pentagon to throw the complaint into the garbage because "goddamn it, that's the german's guy again, he's been breaking our balls since the beginning with his stories about how we are being unfair for not wanting our new infantry fighting vehicles to weigh as much as big ass tanks right from the beginning.. just ignore him"
hahahah
55 tons is NOT a reasonable starting weight for an IFV, when it is replacing a 40 ton IFV.
@@occamraiseraccording to your degree from the university of armchair engineering
@@occamraiser I think it's okay regarding what they are adding to this. 50mm is way bigger and heavier than a 25mm cannon and the ammo will add more weight as well. It needs to have thicker armor than current Bradley's. This will have drones that need to be deployed. These will have more tech than the Bradley's.
Also 55 is the maximum, doesn't mean they can't be lower than that.
The rail requirement is due to many US Army bases being landlocked far from ports, so the heavy armor routinely has to be shipped by rail to ports, and often even loaded onto rails after arriving in country to get to their units. Also, weight limits allow for air transport in C-5/C-17 for rapid deployment situation.
Especially across Europe.
lmao. These are very basic and universal requirements for any slightly modern military in the world.
Yeah but want that capability anyhow. Japan sacrificed most of their freight rail for passenger rail and it not only raised consumer prices but means they have to move armor one at a time over the road and suffer far more breakdowns, etc. It's become a national security issue they are aware of. And drivers who can still afford to own a car there are also aware every time they pay $100 in tolls to drive an hour outside Tokyo to help subsidize bullet trains.
It's weird how things like that work out...
Its a long way from Fort Riley to any coast.
@jimmiller5600 Yes, I was stationed in Bremerhaven Germany from 90-95, and armor/vehicles/ordnance was shipped by rail to be loaded onto ships for Gulf War. Later, during Yugoslavian Civil War, rail was used to move same materials from Germany.
Actually keeping the weight down to well below the weight of the Abrams could make some sense, if the Abrams is expected to be replaced within its lifetime. Any future Abrams replacement would surely be much lighter. It would be a bit awkward if, in a couple decades, the XM30 suddenly found that it was heavier than the MBT it was operating alongside.
I was attached to an Army Cav unit. They were good to go. Those Bradley’s were incredible pieces of gear, and I’d take one over a ride in the back of an AAV anyday. That being said, riding in the back f’n sucks, no matter the vehicle. By the time the ramp drops, you’re disoriented af coming out into the light, if it’s daytime. They do need to do better in that regard. We were fortunate that the only threats to the Brads were rpg’s, and ied’s. I actually saw a Bradley blown in half south of Fallujah. Shout out to the 5/7 Cav. Those boys deserve the absolute best we can make.
There is no reason for a vehicle interior to be dark in the daytime. We use night vision-friendly lighting at night, so why not bright interior lights during the day? LED are cheap enough and low draw.
14:05 You don't need a 50mm caliber to utilize programmable ammunition. It's available in 30mm also
How about a 40mm? Isn't a 40mm large enough?
how powerful is the APFSDS for such a gun? looking at research on Scaled APFSDS it could be 120-140mm rods resulting in 130-150mm penetration.
Yeah but it's not ideal. There's a reason almost every modern IFV design is trying hard to fit a larger cannon. The more explosives, technology, etc you can fit in a shell, the better.
Yes, but the 50mm does give you more room for error, especially against drones
But would not there be a scaling advantage? First the parts for a programmable fuse do not need to be bigger with with a bigger shell, so you got already more bang. Or you could bigger less expensive components.
And you simply got the scaling of a bigger airburst. The bigger the bang the more interesting the air burst becomes. The most extreme example are nukes with most model were designed for airburst only. So how effective is 30mm air burst to begin with? The juice might simply be not worth the squeeze.
"This lowers corruption to a high level" love you chris! Keep up the good work for grunts like me 😂😂😂
Its not lowered it ENOUGH if the GD Ajax for the USA is the same Ajax that is over time, over budget and so full of problems like noise the British MoD is keen to save face and inflict it on the ARmy but the Army reckon its more or less a piece of 💩 which is so loud and uncomfortable crews will be rapidly exhausted by it leading to poor perfomance.
You can join the dots & work out how poor perfomance is likely to play out on a battlefield -
Its criminal negligence to inflict sub-par kit on fighting personnel
The Civil Servants & Politicians pushing for it should be riding the first ones in the battle line.
@@babboon5764 It's like sometimes they get so far deep with so much $$$ spent that they figure they HAVE to finish it and use it knowing it's a piece of crap! That's why every manufacturer of anything military related must closely watch Putin's war and take and incorporate complete notes.
@@babboon5764 You fight the war with what you have.
@@tedmoss That's the *immediate need* response.
*PROPER planning should result in machines well fitted to their role*
[The complete opposite to the UK's
💩 for brains & for ethics of Britains MoD & their 'who cares, they're just squaddies in them' attitude).
Its funny because it's true😂
The drone support for ground fighting vehicles will be very important in the future. You can see it on the KF-51 Panther which has a special operator seat for drone operations inside.
@raifsevrence easier said than done, they tried doing that with an armored vehicles with a companion protection capability, it ultimately failed because it was too expensive and takes too long to manufacture. What you mentioned can be tuned into the KF-51s drones with proper programming and detection capabilities (better cameras, analysis, etc.) but ultimately it's cheaper to take a drone jockey who knows what to look for tell him what he is looking for and you got what you requested.
as important as drone support is, countering drones in an organic, effective, and economical way is just as important so giving the IFVs the ability to protect the force from drones is incredibly valuable.
@@raifsevrence Optionally manned drones that have the CV ability to detect and log vehicles/infantry it spots is also very usefull.
We do this with big drones already since theres too much imagery to sift through manned means.
Giving everybody an information jackpot is gonan be important in war.
@@j.f.fisher5318 they need to put some kind of auto-shotgun turret with AI aiming that shoots any drones that enter it's range.
I have to tell you one of the most well spoken and informative channels and person around
As a former Welder I have only this to say "They're taking our JERBS!!!!!!" Awesome video as always
Deh durka derrrrrr!
@@daxtertalon4🤣🤣🤣
Great jorb there homestar.
lol, my brother is a welder at Rheinmetall and he's worried as hell. Don't know what would be more concerning for welders, automated magnetic welders like the space industry is developing, or 3D printing.
I still think there will be plenty to weld.
A couple thoughts that were provoked by this video:
1. The using a laser rangefinder and then setting an optimal explosion for the XM30s new ammo reminds me of the OICW
2. It is not just RTS devs who are having trouble with good pathfinding
Yeah. People really need to realize that outside of simple commands and pattern recognition, AI at the moment is really, really stupid and it is far smarter than it was just a decade ago. Making AI not stupid is a hell of a challenge. Now that I am realizing just now that not even the DoD is able to solve stupid AI, I'm going to start apologizing to a few game developers lol
SC1 flashbacks.
oh god, imagine going on convoy seeing one of them wander in the distance, Dragoon Pathfinding.
@@boydrobertson2362 ", AI at the moment is really, really stupid and it is far smarter than it was just a decade ago. "
Thank goodness it is still really stupid; cause once it stops being completely stupid, it becomes far beyond dangerous. I always had trouble suspending my suspension of disbelief in the Terminator movies; cause realistically humanity wouldn't stand a chance, there would be no resistance movement as resistance would be beyond futile.
@@josephburchanowski4636 Yeah what we have right now is virtual intelligence. We really need to stop calling it AI as it really isn't intelligent, it's literally only intelligent on paper, or "virtually" intelligent. We are still a very long way away from Artificial Intelligence. In fact, I suspect we'll have a base on Mars, we will receive 50% of our power from fusion reactors, and we will have quantum computing before we have true artificial intelligence. Additionally, if there is any disruption in the rare earth metal supply chain or an invasion of Taiwan in the next 50-odd years, it's probably more than a century away.
It's sort of like the advent of the fission bomb vs. the fusion bomb. The atom bomb was disruptive as hell and changed war forever, but it wasn't truly harnessing the power of the atom, but it felt like it. Then the hydrogen bomb happened and it almost destroyed us all and we got lucky a lot of times. Luckily, unlike with the hydrogen bomb, true AI is not tomorrow, so we may be able to realize the potential disruptiveness of it and regulate it globally before it happens, unlike the fusion bomb
Realistically, Terminator isn't exactly the danger of true AI, It's more likely that a sentient AI with self-awareness and self-preservation instinct wouldn't have malicious intent, but it would also fight to survive, perhaps by causing chaos near its server location to prevent being shut down.
The railroad transportability is huge! Consider you need to send several ABCTs via sealift into Western Europe and then send them via rail to the front lines in Eastern Europe. Almost all of those routes have tunnels or bridges that restrict the cargo size. If it doesn’t fit you have to travel over the road which is a significant movement for an armored BCT. Basically this restriction is common sense for military planners.
Having massive freight capability not only keeps consumer prices of goods down but is a national security issue. Japan sacrificed most of their freight rail for passenger rail and it not only raised consumer prices but means they have to move armor one at a time over the road and suffer far more breakdowns, etc. It's become a national security issue they are aware of. And drivers who can still afford to own a car there are also aware every time they pay $100 in tolls to drive an hour outside Tokyo to help subsidize bullet trains
All true basically if you need a wider wagon then the distance of the trackside infrastructure has to increase between the track and trackside equipment.
War Thunder is fun, but definitely not fun enough to leak anything ya'll.
Lol!
Yh need to grip that shit! Selling it is bad.. selling it for game credit or boasting is just dumb
As a 7 year War Thunder player. The game is a disease for all countries arguably worse than Covid
Man’s gotta get that sponsorship money somehow man and i’m just surprised that with all this dk slurping he’s been doing, that it hasn’t been the US government 🤣
This has nothing to do with WT, what
The amount of high quality editing here is amazing. It would have taken me a good two weeks just to edit this. Let alone write it. Great work.
The problem is all of the original designs were able to be safely transported by rail even through tunnels, but the military picked a compliance standard which caused everyone to have to shave 4 inches on the sides which means adding additional cost by requiring siding to be easily removable and removed on every rail transport event. Removable armor is fine, but removing it in an upgrade shop is a lot different from trying to remove it and reapply it during mobilization. It should require as little modification as humanly possible to transport.
what's the difference in percentage of rail lines that are able to carry it though?
The weight complaint misses the issue of air transportability. A C-17 can carry just one Abrams or 3 Bradleys. The current weight limit goes with the goal of fitting two XM30s in a C-17
My quick googling showed max load capacity for C-17 is 77 tons, it couldn’t carry two 55 ton vehicles
@@Cyclone1024Incroyable.
C-5 is 127T. Maybe they envision a growth envelope to like 63 tons with applique etc.
Yes. But i have a bigger question - if the pacing threat is China with a conflict over Taiwan in mind how are any of these IFV relevant at all? would a C-17 really be able to fly to Taiwan 120km away from China's shores? If not, what's the point of some of these programs at all?
@@mcb4067 China isnt the only peer or near peer threat out there. There are multiple other countries
As an average Hugaran infantry captain I'd say that I am so happy to see that most of the footage regarding the Lynx was shot in Hungary with our soliers. Also I might add that all the features that You've mentioned regarding the 50mm ammo is true for the Lynx's 30mm ammo and gun. Love your content as always!
Soilers.. sounds like a descriptive name for children.
Love your Country! 💚❤️🤍 (only not Viktor😂✌🏼)
@@stonefish1318 Victor may not be an ideal national leader, but neither are the socialist/Marxist Woke Western politicians. Thank god that Eastern European societies adhere to traditional values, and.. know the difference between a man and woman. Further, their cities are NOT divided into "go" and "no go" districts because people that were allowed to immigrate into them, couldn't assimilate into European culture. Ask Sweden and France how their immigration polices have worked out for them. By the way, I'm a Native American with a "toasted" complexion. So don't bother to try and use the old "racist" line on me.😏
@@misterwirez7731 sorry, typo. I meant soldiers.
@@marktakacs1227 I know. No worries. ✌️
This is the BEST military channel for current information.
Great to see you getting as much as possible information out to the head wrapped enemies. Just in case they missed the low key news about this. Cheers friend well done.👏🏻 👏🏻 👏🏻 👏🏻😊
Imho, the Army shouldn’t budge on the rail transit requirement and should even lower its expectations of capability for logistical movement. The ability to fit within modern rail and shipping proved critical to US Army success in WW2 because we could move a substantial number of vehicles fairly easily. We don’t want to put ourselves in the position that the Wehrmacht found themselves in when transporting their own vehicles. It is better to have a lot of imperfect vehicles arrive on time and ready to go than too few and too late to make a difference. I was CAV and know the limitations of these vehicles well enough. I’d rather have a more guns and mobility than protection. The survivability onion is a thing and it is much better to be able to shoot first and achieve a kill than it is to be fully prepared to the worst case of being spotted first and hit. No amount of armor they could reasonably put on the omfv is going to stop the newest version of kornet, a tank round, or a bomb dropped from an aircraft. Unless those tracks are magically impervious to mines, trying to load an IFV with enough armor to “tank” a tank round or not throw a track from a bomb is a lost cause.
If it can't be moved by rail, then it is borderline useless.
Counterpoint: we don't, and will never produce military vehicles at that scale of quantity ever again. If our military had that many tanks and armored vehicles, we could invade the entire planet singlehandedly
@@occamraiser and if they thought US rail was strict, wait until they meet Europe
It moves with the abrams! so it does not matter if it can rail or not because the abrams cannot.
@@occamraiser The fewer more expensive vehicles model of Europe is a dumb concept. "Good enough," "maintainable/reliable," and sufficient numbers, should be at the forefront of giving the grunts anything. Having lag-times for deployment measured in decades rather than a few years is a dumb way of going about a rearmament. As an example, I can count on one hand the number of times my squadron's MAT-V's were up and running. We had enough trouble with our humvees being ready just due to the red-tape and lack of spare parts for everything in the Army.
In any case, I don't want the US in the same position as the Germans circa WW2. The big cats were the shit in many aspects like armor and firepower... just like the OMFV. However, low production numbers, expense, lack of effective logistical constraints, lack of spare parts, and mechanical unreliability, meant that they were using these heavy panzers at battalion or company strength to take on regimental or even division-sized forces. For all the effectiveness of the 88, they still lost because if you don't have the numbers to cover what you need to cover, you own nothing on the battlefield. That's what the OMFV kind of reminds me of. They're not really looking at the big picture. It's sort of like the new battle rifle. They made that round and rifle based off of combat statistics in Afghanistan that they didn't read correctly. A rifle is not the real killer of an infantry squad. The M240 and SAW are. So why are they giving every grunt a heavier gun with less ammo when they won't be the primary casualty producing component of an infantry squad or cav section? Another CZcamsr, called Practical Accuracy, goes into great detail about it. He was a SF dude that went to Afghanistan a few times and breaks down how dumb a lot of the new concepts are.
Having a firm requirement for the vehicle to be built to an AAR spec is entirely reasonable. I’m all for giving engineers creative license to make the best weapons systems possible but there is a reason for maximum specs.
It would be irrational to make a non-rail spec vehicle. That is a hard limit, no “we can fit a few millimeters here” and should stay that way.
Exactly. It doesn't matter how "good" your IFV is if it's impractical to transport on a mass scale. Honestly, most of this engineer's complaints seem to boil down to "I'm mad they didn't let me make the monster of my dreams, all because of boring reasons like 'logistics' and 'practicality.'"
@@the_mad_foolI was thinking the same thing. I would love to see this engineer take his 60 to 70 ton dream machine through the swamps in Ft. Stewart, GA. Like I did in the CAV. That be hilarious 😂 😂😂
And those dimension specs also impact transport on ship or air. And weight. It will be necessary to transport modestly easily. Weight length, height width constraints make logistics easier. Where would XM30 be based? How would it get to the next battle front?
Hitler's solution was to literally rebuild all the railroads to broad gauge tracks -- and he wanted even broader gauge: 9'10" to stretch from Paris to Berlin to Stalingrad and across the Bearing Straight into Alaska and across the USA (yes, really!). This is what the super heavy giant tanks were being designed for.
@@TristanMorrow Replacing hundreds of billions in rail infrastructure for an armored vehicle is a really dumb idea. That doesn't just affect warfighting, it affects every single company that uses rail. With ideas like that, it's no wonder Hitler expedited Germany's defeat.
Proportional response,..excellent!..armor deflection angles emphasized, yes, a log train consideration. ..and down the long road we travel🥇
wow. excellent video. a truly massive amount of information. as an ops guy I enjoyed your quick note that logistics officers would enjoy commonality of chasis.
I’m not concerned by the limitations set on the manufacturers. For one simple reason. When we as humans are given unlimited choice we tend to stay well within the confines of what’s comfortable. When we have limitations put on us, we get extremely creative and suddenly new things that could never exist before become readily and easily accepted.
If only that worked for the gaming industry.
@@MaelPlaguecrow6942 It does. There aren't a lot of limitations these days, but look at how creative early devs had to get
The wrong limitations can completely ruin a project, though
True. Goes for writers and world builders in movies, books, shows, and video games, when you are told to write a good story, it's incredibly difficult to get started. Just building a basic world to confine a story within makes it super easy.
If I am told to keep a tank within a weight limit, I'm instantly looking at additive manufacture, new composite/material science technology, electric motor technology for lightweight ramp dropping and turret traversing, electric propulsion, and recoil tech that is compact and lightweight to reduce the weight needed to handle the 50 mike mike gun. Sometimes, limitations are too much, they asked for an autonomous vehicle, but the tech proved immature, so they "settled" for a reduced crew. Even in failure, it was a huge stride.
Something tells me the engineer who was complaining in the report wasn't up to the challenge of actually innovating, some engineer.
SpaceX is an example of what adding confines can do. Elon, after learning how this stuff works at Tesla, established a culture of the best part is no part, delete everything you can, and delete some more, keep deleting until you have to add things back. By being forced to constantly fine ways to delete parts, it forces innovation that has led to some cool outcomes. Wish the government took the test to failure and limitation for growth approach more often.
@@MaelPlaguecrow6942 stories and gameplay have become a lot more generic since the capabilities of computers became extremely high.
The railroad fitment requirement shouldn't be ignored. This allows the vehicle to basically drive right from the rail head straight into combat. Having to remove and reinstall parts of the vehicle in order to transport it via rail will complicate and slow down deployment. Even more so if the items removed are not shipped with each vehicle.
It's not going to go on a rail from deployment zone to a frontline, don't be silly.
@@grayman2749 Because the front line would never start to collapse after the train left to head there right?
During WW2 the Germans were having to do exactly that.
Far better to have the capability and not need it, then to need it and not have it.
There's a reason the military has kept that standard all this time.
I bet it was just a way to get the specific information. It wasn't a realistic complaint, but the info could have been censored if it wasn't relevant to the freedom of information request.
I'm not sure why that's seen as a problem, necessarily. If you can drive a Bradley straight off the train into combat, great, but the XM is meant for missions Bradleys can't do. Comparing it just to Bradleys is apples-and-oranges.
@@michaelccozens The XM is meant to replace the Bradley while bringing additional capabilities. It is not an addition to the force slotted in between the Bradley and M1.
Great video, as usual. I was in the infantry when we went from a 12-man squad to a nine-man. "Army of Excellence" squad. Three of those guys were on a M-60 crew (gunner, loader and ammo bearer), two were grenadiers, two were automatic riflemen. There were still two team leaders and a squad leader. I am of the opinion that each fire team should be mounted in their own vehicle. It costs more, but the fire power and dispersion will complement lethality of the mechanized infantry squad.
I definitely agree on keeping fire teams together. I was used to twelve-man squads and nine was simply an idiotic recipe for task overwhelm, in my opinion. Two four-man assault sections and one four-man support section for overwatch is the way to go at the squad level, four twelve-man squads make a platoon run by a SFC.
@@davidgoodnow269 So better security? but Half the number of support armor or IFV's. They need better active protection from loitering munitions or drones like Trophy ADS, something like an automated GAU 19 or Dillon 134.
The Aussies have a cardboard kamikaze drone that doesn't get picked up on radar. Some kind of Gatling gun with a shotgun cartridge might work or a laser system.
Super scary place in near pair conflict.
@@knowahnosenothing4862
What about electronic warfare?
only issue is if a lfv is hit then the whole squad is lost
One thing that should also be mentioned when it comes to the cannon is that those larger calibers will also give it better anti-infantry ability via that massive increase in HE power.
@3:49 "It help to keep corruption level down to just really high levels, instead of insanely high level" 🤣🤣🤣
Having a lighter (comparatively) vehicle would allow the XM30 to provide screening or flanking maneuvers via secondary bridges while the M1s cross on the primary bridge. Or would let them cross a smaller bridge and push out a bridgehead while the engineers get an M1 rated temporary bridge in place.
Valid. Having one force component limited from advancing would not limit the entire force.
😂
This is my go to channel now. Great work, seldom does one see such a thorough unbiased assessment of a particular topic.
The most important features for any Armored vehicles are 1. Drone defense and 2. Mine resistance.
I think you mean 1. Red Arrow and 2. Red Circle
Those are sure important, but the most important feature a tank brings is firepower. Because if an armored vehicle doesn't bring some mighty impressive firepower to the battlefield (AKA the "Battle space") it's just an expensive target for the enemy. Which means the enormous effort and resources needed to transport and support the armored vehicle on the other side of the world, are for naught. So what almost always ends up happening is some level of armor protection and mobility must be sacrificed, and nobody has really found any way around this, yet.
Cupholders
@robertmaybeth3434 I would have thought for an IFV that mobility was more important than firepower. Not saying firepower doesn't need to be taken into consideration but it needs to be able to move and cover the Infantry. To that end mine protection is crucial either in a mine sweeper or survival basis.
@@TheDisgruntledImperial them too, plus I hear the sound system's Delco-Bose and a real banger as well
Great show Cappy! A lot of really good info. As far as the "hard limits" on weight, my first thought is that if they can't build an IFV under 55 tons, then maybe they are over-building it? However, whatever the limits are, if it needs 1 or 2 extra tons to achieve a specific application, then it should not matter.
That said, don't we have to transport these things in USAF planes? And THEY have limits! So, if we are already over the weight to carry 2 on a C-17, then it probably won't matter for a few tons, right?
I think as more advanced munitions are developed, an emphasis in armor to shift towards discretion and speed are more favorable than just stacking mass.
There is also an idea floating around in the space sector about 3d printing ablative materials; combined with reactive layers, it might be possible to make armor more efficient in weight.
Titanium alloys in track technology has been talked about for awhile as well, which would further reduce weight and prevent plastic deformation (allowing for faster, more reliable repairs).
As we all know, NO armor survives a 155mm (or 152mm) direct hit. Mine resistance is good - it will at least force the enemy to stack mines to do more than bend the track. The size "complaint" could be height. Additive metal manufacturing = really long continuous welding. Keep the eM-SHORAD close! Oh; and keep up the good work.
Yeah, even landmines are a problem half the time. The point anymore isn't to survive these higher impact weapons, TOWs and Javelins (and eastern equivalents) alone are borderline unstoppable with armor tech. If we are talking about the survivability onion, the goal nowadays isn't don't be hit or don't be penetrated, anymore it's don't be killed or don't be shot at. People see incidents like the Bradleys destroyed in Ukraine and say "oh crap the Bradleys suck" but when you hear that most of the crews and infantrymen survived, you realize they are pretty good vehicles.
Aircraft went through the same thing, you had the A-10 attack jet with the titanium bathtub meant to take bullets, now they have to worry about MANPADS knocking the engines and making it crash, so now America uses stand-off range missiles and stealth jets to avoid MANPADS and gunfire.
They definitely need to adhere to the Railroad size limitations because that is also the basis for the size limitations of other transportation methods like trucks, ships and planes. If the vehicle does not adhere to them it will mean that any time you want to transport your IFVs you will either need new specialized vehicles and a wide load sign or you will need to drive the IFVs themselves which might make overseas deployments a little tricky, unless these things are amphibious.
I bet it was just a way to get the specific information. It wasn't a realistic complaint, but the info could have been censored if it wasn't relevant to the freedom of information request.
The railroad limitation also streamlines shipping of the vehicles. While railroads can and do handle high-wide shipments, there is restrictions as to *where* they can handle them, which is generally not a good idea logistically. This would typically add time and/or cost as you have to route things in a round about fashion.
18:12 in machining, having to use additive manufacturing is usually seen as a serious design flaw for mass-produced vehicles. It won't be faster, it'll be slower to manufacture by orders of magnitude.
Only makes sense for parts of the vehicles with a lots of imbricated parts, notably the engine and possibly the area around the breech
The procurement process for replacing the M2 has been going on for so many years, so many cancelled projects, it's been like the procurement equivalent of having a tooth pulled out
10:45 there is a saying in the german armed forces "the one who fires first and hits more accurate wins the firefight". You're not just on to something here, you hit the spot.
That's super deep man, it reminds me of my high school's football teams saying "the one that scores the most points wins"
@@EvWade91 there are armies that practice "spray and pray". It's not meant to be deep, it's just the doctrine
Speaking of Germany, why do their armored vehicles are still being named after cats? Leopard 1 and 2, Panther kf/51, and now lynx
@@mr.hedado741 you just scratched the surface there buddy. All the bundeswehr vehicles have animal names. Cougar, fox, badger, weasel, marten, wolf... one reason is to have a big pool of names and the other one the psychological impact of them on morale of the own troops and enemies.
@@T.efpunktto be fair this tradition goes far back to the later days of WW2 with the Elefant, Panther, Tiger, etc. before the Bundeswehr was a thing. Also naming your vehicles after some wild animals instead of famous generals or people is undoubtedly less controversial for the local populace and other NATO allies (for obvious reason for Germany)
The XM913 50 mm cannon also has very good elevation for engaging aircraft and drones.
Yes that's true airburst of 50mm would be deveastating against drone swarms.
much needed!!!!!
Yeah, I hope the AI or machine spirit can detect incoming drones as humans may not always be ready for such attacks.
That would also help explain the need for greater range and larger airbusts capacity
@@kameronjones7139Drone Warfare may be the buzzword of the moment, but with good reason.
The Ukraine war and the many manufacturers of drones around the world are diversifying their offerings, each bringing new and evolving capabilities, that gives these relatively inexpensive platforms capabilities that we had never though of and that we have yet to imagine, but change the battlefield in so many ways, from simple recon, to target elimination and so much more.
Plus their impact is extremely cost-effective, when a 500k dollar drone can destroy a tank, that is extremely cost effective, or a 1000 dollar drone can accurately relay the movements of an entire army, that is ban for your buck and the US has been paying very close attention to the changing form of warfare as presented in Ukraine and want to be ready to deny these capabilities to their enemies when the war begins.
5 star defense journalism, as usual. Many thanks!
Been hearing a lot about "digital engineering" in the news lately.
The 3d modeling side isn't necessarily a new thing, which is kind of the explanation I think Cappy was giving here. What is becoming standard is Model Based Systems Engineering. Think of it like an interactive flow chart with details down to power requirements or cooling. If you change this component and the requirement goes up, the program will tell you it is incompatible with the relevant support system. You can simulate these systems too, to make sure that everything necessary is included. Many engineering companies are already on board with this, and I assume if someone isn't using it in the next 5 years, that company won't be around for long.
So parametric designing right?
Personally I aint a fan of that. Its more work than worth to make every small part parametric.
But im just a CS grad who does 3d printing on the side. The proffesionals prolly have differing opinions.
@@honkhonk8009 Model-Based Systems Engineering is composed of four pillars: Requirements, Behavior, Structure, and Parametrics. I am a Systems Engineer for one of the companies that were competing that was heavily focused on MBSE and it spans way beyond parametrics and simulation. There is also reusability since the USG is pushing for a common architecture.
But the original commenter is right, if the company isn't investing in MBSE or at least setting up the infrastructure to support it in future programs - then the company is setting every program up for failure.
I think it's good that the army has set hard limits on the requirements. It will mean that adaptation will need to be made. Also like the adaptation of machine intel to sift through data for the human crew because that can be used in other aspects including science labs.
Hi Cappy, Australia's new Redback IFV sourced from South Korea, mount's a 30mm with the programmable ammunition. Around 45 tons with very high protection and 8 dismounts. Originally, it was a face-off between the Lynx and Redback . The Lynx originally came in a 6 dismount version but was stretched to take 8 for the Australian requirements.
The footage of the Rhinemetall XM30 version here seems to include Aussie colours and at least one scene (around 12:26) looks like footage from the trials troop with eucalypts, etc. You can really see the stretched back deck on it there, too. Among the reasons we went with the redback were the issues we were having with the Boxer vehicle to date and the need for proprietary ammunition for the Lynx's gun.
Sounds like the U.S. Army needs to check out the Redback! Planning on an eight-man squad seems like a hard minimum to me!
@@davidgoodnow269It was one of the contenders for OMFV but ultimately didn’t make the down selection.
Swedish cv90 also have programable 30mm ammo, and have had i for many years.
Sweden makes great weapons, but of course, I'm part Swedish! @@Louiswernerhansen
Love Task etc. I really like how Cappy starts out clean shaven and ends with a full beard in under 30min.
19:10 ---> alternatively, you can also use casting. no weld weakpoints and you can make very smooth shapes
"It helps to keep corruption levels down to just 'really high' levels instead of just 'insanely high' levels". 😂 the matter-of-fact delivery of that got me
this comment killed me😂
7:45 The Israeli Merkava based Namer, which carries 11 soldiers (3 operators + 8 combat soldiers), weighs 63 tons
Because it’s a merkava tank…
Israel will never have to airlift the Namer and fight in the Pacific with it. Great for Israel, not suitable for US missions.
@Rob_F8F
Exactly right. And given that most countries don't fight overseas, it is reasonable to assume that on average US armor vehicles will be much lighter compared to most other countries. This stands in contrast to the claim made in 7:45.
this was a fantastic video with great humor the whole way through
FMC Ordinance was working on "Vtronics", a vehicle equivalent of avionics back in the early '80s. They made the Bradley fighting vehicle and the M113 APC as well as the amphibious tracked vehicle for the USMC (P7). I can verify this as I worked R&D for them during this period.
Two things. The engineer seems like the type that sees anyone who disagrees as stupid peons. And you really break down this information well. Great work.
Engineers have a arrogance problem, and will absolutely disavow any responsibility for their project collapsing. They loathe consulting with the field techs with decades of experience that try to explain to the engineers why their design won’t work.
It could be that Or it could be they just wanted a look at the specs, and needed an excuse to have the freedom of information act apply. Maybe if the engineer had other complaints then those numbers wouldn't have been made available. So they made requests for information, even though it is obvious why some of the limitations were made (max width for railway transport as the prime example).
@blackhawk7r221 As a saying goes:
"Engineers will pass over 1000 virgins to F*** a technician."
Engineers are taught that math is always right. Then the idiots among them that means because they play with math, they’re always right.
@@blackhawk7r221 No, we do not. We just ask direct questions, and it's part of our jobs. Too many people are too emotional and take it personally, getting defensive. Not everyone of course hates engineers, but the ones that do tend to be overly emotional types.
Cappie, I love your videos in general, but this is your element!
Cappie The Man of Regular Infantry, Wielder of Knives, Benefitee of Goat Gun and Wallets of Ridge, Simper of Tanks
I’m all for stand-off capabilities. Holding the enemy off at distance involves superior use of terrain and countering cyber, artillery, and air threats. Just hope that after getting all these high tech long range toys, our troops have commanders and strategic thinkers who plan for actually using those capability and not some of the current activity the military seems to be getting attention for.
Having fewer troops per vehicle is nice because each vehicle destroyed us fewer casualties but having more IFVs also translates to more fire support per squad which is actually a huge advantage.
Makes sense. The US army should absolutely be trying to downsize the manpower requirements for its equipment
They first tried to cut crew size down to two in the early days of the old Future Combat System (FCS) so they could make even an MBT-type much smaller and lighter. Expected workload was deemed to be too high at the time. But with the recent significant advances in AI, this all now seems plausible. Combat vehicles may soon have the two-man crew of a helicopter or strike aircraft.
In theory, that's great! even a good idea for a smaller system. but what about maintenance and casualty replacement for the crew.
@@dominic6634 I imagine the two-man crew seated side by side in the hull, surrounded by touchscreens and assisted by AI, both with a steering wheel/yoke. With the advent of driverless tech and AI assistance, steering the vehicle doesn’t have to be a full-time job and the driver can take on a kind of assistant gunner role. Then there’s the gunner/commander who would also have back-up controls to drive.
So, if one crewman is incapacitated, the surviving/able crewman could still operate the vehicle, with the AI maybe taking on the driving role in a get-outta-here situation. Or that lone crewman could prefer to drive and tell the AI to shoot. Not ideal but still a survivable situation for the lone crewman.
As for maintenance, the vehicle crew should still know some but the freed up crew spots could be allocated to training more dedicated mechanics and sensor/AI technicians in the forward support unit.
Great job!
I’m an older M113 grunt.
Now I move IRADS to the warfighter
Mostly AF focused it nice to hear Army doing same design planning wise (Open, Digital and Additive)
Excellent, captivating, well researched, good analysis, heart in exactly the right place and charming as alway (minus that poorly-researched episode about DPICMs).
God I enjoy this channel (and have never played warthunder (ship, tank, plane, whatever) I watch, I don't play, my Dad and uncles were in the service, and have followed US mil for last 60, and really appreciate this channel, many thanks
Damn, thanks man, feelin lucky!@@Click_On_My_Profile238
We love you Crappy ! Been watching your videos for a long time bud. Take care.
I crewed a Leopard 1 with the Australian Army, and we had to take the sand skirts off the side, in order for them to be train transportable.
Given that most armour and even many road vehicles are transported to the battlespace, by train, so as to not clock up needless track KM, that simply wear the vehicle out for no purpose.
So, unless, there is a VERY good reason, the width of the vehicle is a hard limit that should not be exceeded.
Having said this, the line has to be drawn somewhere, with respect to the weight. Previous vehicles have had very weak armour on the top, and the Ukrainian experience, has shown us that this simply is no longer a viable option.This new armour requirement will add many tons to any vehicle weight. Add on active defence systems, and suddenly. you've gone from the 40 ton Bradly, to a much heavier vehicle. I'd gladly go for the 50 mm cannon.
However, we are getting into a world, where guns are slowly becoming obsolete. Missiles are the new black, so much to the point, where I think that we'll soon see specific drone vehicles. This vehicle would be a similar model, but designed to spit out drones, that can then be taken over and used by the vehicle's crew, or even automated, using forget and find technology, in which the drone automatically hunts, within a predetermined area, that the XM-30 is operating. Expecting a two man crew to also use drones, it silly. It has the same problem as two manned tanks, in the between wars years. It'll only add yet more confusion and pressure, to the vehicle's crew commander.
Given that the Abrams is up for replacement, I would go with the weight that its tender specifies (better a weight range) and build a more survivable, but less heavy IFV.
Love your stile of reporting mixed with your humor 😊
Hi Capi, I love the xm913 50mm. I'm impressed by Lynx in weapons being seperate from crew. I realise Australian lynx was different but Im glad our country chose AS21 Redback over the lynx. The Aussie soldiers preferred the Redback for many reasons
I think the US Army is missing an opportunity tbh. With how drones are going to be a big thing, I’d have wanted to put a small fire control radar on the top. Retractable maybe? So that it could use the gun to engage crunchies or drones. 50mm airburst would be absolutely choice in blinding them before they can las you and drop Arty. But that’s just me. I think they’re worrying too much about the gun’s ability to engage BMPs and alike. It is why the US Army straps TOWs to Brads and will likely do the same with the XM30.
Plus, there are already well tested platforms (that could meet the current goals in the future) available for adoption and they would allow the US to begin upgrading its forces sooner. China isn't sitting idly by whilst issuing threats - they're procuring new armour at an extreme pace.
Redback was a candidate here, too, but it was eliminated, as well as a CV90-based vehicle
@@uku4171 I wonder what their reasoning was?
I'm inclined to suspect politics and existing relationships played a role.
Lynx made soldiers sick due to some kind of frequency within the vehicle, I bet the POMs go for this.@@aymonfoxc1442
it's kinda weird to think a lot of the design considerations and objectives for the project seem to have taken cues from innovation and development from the aviation sector. digital design, 3D print, weapons designed for long stand-off range. i don't know if we have the industrial ww2 output but being able to just print out vehicles like that sounds awesome, especially if we're deterring a toe-to-toe with china. but i am curious how that might affect parts and maintenance, if things will still be as interchangeable, patching up a hull rather than replacing it entirely. with how well maintenance goes for us NOW who knows when deadlined vehicles will be fixed, let alone replaced. but it might be sooner if its as simple as printing another one.
Still, Bradleys have and probably will continue to look like giant metal coffins to me. My knees might not be happy but I'll jump out of a plane and die on my feet.
i'm curious to hear the 2cents of mech infantry out there on this.
Blows my mind tbh how guys stacked sand bags to somewhat be protected.
Yo these new animations are slick 👍
The Namer is heavier than the Bradley, at 64 tons, but their design philosophy is different. They are adding Spike ATGMs and a light cannon as weapons rather than a heavy cannon. Also, it has a Trophy APS or Iron Fist, so there is a much greater focus on defense than what the US appears to be designing. If you aren't going to focus so much on defense, it might be a good idea to have multiple smaller systems (as you state, their vulnerability to weapons means that you may not want to risk all your soldiers in one vehicle).
very true I covered the Namer about a year ago its one of my favorite IFVs , Israel is really creative with how they created a main battle tank converted to a IFV
I am sure Rheinmetall will try to sell it's strikeshield aps with the whole package since they built it into the armor "bricks" (AMAP) anyway. It covers upwards too for a certain angle too, and the backside.
@Taskandpurpose not the first time either! You should look up the Nagmachon. The Israelis managed to fit 10 passengers and 2 crew into ancient Centurion tank hulls! Now that's mind-blowing considering their age, and for a tank notably long and thing proportionally.
In my opinion, Namer is specialized vehicle for Israel conditions. It is wonderfull vehicle, but closely focesed on what Israel needs. I can not imagine it used as IFV in places like Europe or Asia when it gets muddy and ground presure start beeing a thing. Similar its engine needs to produce more power -> more heat. Especialy on plane fields of Europe low thermal footprint is a good thing.
The Namer was also not intended for transport around the world, so the weight is not as much an issue as for the US.
As long as it can defeat a DJI drone with an rpg tapped onto it
One of your most important comments was right at the end. The XM30 is aimed at a different foe. We are no longer focused on insurgencies in the Mid-East. Now we are looking at a peer, mechanized opponent in Europe or southeast asia. I'm getting flashbacks from my time as a tanker in Germany in the '80s. A different foe means a different Army with different equipment. One thing going for the XM30 that was not for the previous programs is we need this replacement for the Bradley now. when before we could kick the can down the street. We didn't need it right now.
It would be nice to add 3d printing capabilities as well as filament maker fed from row materials for emergency.
TOTALLY agree with the splitting up of people more. Sure, more vehicles, but it takes more incoming projectiles/missiles to take it out. It should also reduce weight with reduced size which then maybe you can bolster the protection, but there's something to be said for the defensive capability to defeat the incoming either right next to the vehicle or some type of version of CIWS.
Add to that, it's more barrels, more sensors, etc.....
The HAEB-T's programmable airburst sounds very similar to the new 30mm and 35mm munitions that Rheinmetall uses in their Skynex and Skyguard AA systems. So, it is possible in smaller calibre as well.
Edit: removed word to be grammatically correct
Bofors makes the 3P multi-purpose, programmable round.
Appreciate the edit info, don't let people tell you it's stupid
AHEAD uses a fairly mild burst/dispersal charge.
RWM Swiss produces AHEAD and KETF in 30mm for the Rheinmetall MK30-2/ABM
Hell, there have been experiments with small arms rounds with guidance systems in DARPA. It is less about tech and more about cost. The smaller the chip, the smaller the node size and the higher the cost. When you are making millions of rounds, a few dollars saved per round is huge.
"really high levels instead of insanely high levels" Best description of military procurement ever.
21:42 I like how you said "harder to detect" there.
Here's my guess for a feature, with the programmable fuzes, you could program burst patterns. A 5 round burst where each detonates a little before the last for clearing trenches, etc. That would be cool as hell
I think that there needs to be three kinds of AFV:
>air-mobile (meets the requirements for an airlift or airdrop, either is acceptable)
>transportable (can be quickly deployed via cargo plane)
>heavy-main line (can be transported only be rail and ship)
the three classifications are there to provide solutions to the battle field, and sort of make up the "light, medium, and heavy," aspects of the fighting force, where Heavy is the mainline fighting force intended for direct contact with entrenched enemies, medium is for probable contact and as a stall hold solution for until a heavy "shock" force can emplace itself for a flanking manuever and light is for deep strike, secondary line of offense operations, and as a mobile task force to provide a response in force for counter attacks. such that light has the capacity but not the holding power, medium has better capacity and some holding power, and heavy has holding power and capacity but is slow in deployment.
again
>light mechinized infantry
>medium mechinized infantry
>heavy armor
this almost make me think of mech warriors.
in a parallel the MBT (M1A1) is very much a shock cavalry/shock infantry, the medium tank (M10 Booker) is like a heavy infantry, the IFV is like a medium infantry, the wheeled APC is like a light infantry, and the MRAP is a skirmisher, the AH-64 and A-10 are either siege-cavalry or light cavalry, the light howitzers are like missile troops/longbowmen and the heavy artillery/MLRS are siege-artillery.
heavy infantry close with and destroy enemy forces, medium infantry are more aimed at holding the line, light infantry try to evade direct confrontation and create opportunities for attack by distracting enemy forces. skirmishers harass forces in-order to draw out vulnerable units into a position to be destroyed, and siege cavalry use siege grade weapons to destroy enemy forces or fortifications.
But ma amphibious
This is a very nice means to teach about mobile warfare/army structure, and i'd say it's already in place, do see the channel Battle Order.
just a small difference though is that the M10 Booker is going to be deployed with the IFVs as it is an Assault Gun in doctrine like what the M1128 MGS is to the M1126 ICV/APC.
in that its only role is to provide direct fire support alongside the IFVs, but not decisively confronting enemy attacks.
so in a sense, an M2 Bradley IFV/M1126 APC paired with M10 Bookers, would be a Cavalry Scout for Screening, Flanking, and Reconnaissance.
i think the Point of the M10 Booker is that in practicality it would reduce necessity for alot of MBTs on spread out area, concentrating them to key strategic locations, while keeping the Cavalry their AT Capabilities without MBTs.
@@jeneric989 true amphibious has mostly been proven to be near improbable, it is better to either ford the river or use floats.
@@nightshade4873 the US military has been looking at "dragoon" units for mechanized and amphibious landing craft. this is to give a good AT capability and direct fire support.
I gave the example of infantry, because that is how the "L" shaped attack originated, which is a an extension of the really basic flanking maneuver that has been used as far back as Alexander or the assyerians.
the definition of cavalry is really mixed and messed up because of the use of machines. the main battle tank is envisioned as being used very much as the line infantry of the 17th century, where they form a long line and move forward as an unstoppable wall of death. this is why their armor is so heavy, because they are intended to be able to take a lot of damage and shrug it off.
the Bradley was adapted into the role of a traditional light tank, where it was used to flank conventional enemy armor forces. however because of the experience with unconventional forces, the Bradley became an over-watch unit as most weapons couldn't penetrate its armor and it could defeat any armor units that it did come across with its 25mm cannon.
using the Iraq war as a precedent and the lessons learned, the Bradley was being pushed into over-watch positions against iraqi medium and light tanks. because of the flat terrain they were almost always exposed, and needed to stay on the move. when they did have cover (an embankment) they operated fine in this role. the TOW missile could penetrate the armor but the Bradley could not survive a direct fire from these tanks. the Bradley was not intended for this role because it was supposed to either flee or fire a TOW as suppressing fire for its retreating units.
the Abrams was never intended for this role either, as it was assumed that CAS would remove anything dangerous that was not easily seen, and the Bradley and APCs could clean up using their infantry.
the M10 fills the role of Anti armor that the Bradley was trying to fill and the Abrams was being used for. it was decided that form logistical reasons and many other things the M10 could serve these roles by being an AFV more than a Bradley and less than a M1A1. this is good because it means that transportation costs can be cut down but there is a minimal loss of effective fighting power. it would also use the 105mm cannon.
@fuge74 Like the other guy said, the M10 is not a tank destroyer or anything like that. It is an AFV with an assault gun, whose main job is to support infantry. Blowing up buildings and fortifications, and providing direct fire support for infantry. Just in case you didn't know that is also the role that MBT's fill most often. Yes Kuwait had a significant amount of AFV/tanks, vs other AFV/tanks, but that was a different war in a different time. ATGMs, mines, and drones are the things killing AFVs and tanks these days (at least in Ukraine). Armor on armor battles are rare, even in history, so much to the point that most of a tanks ammunition was high explosive. This is because, again, a tanks main role was (and still is) supporting infantry. Saying the M10 is going to be on overwatch for armored threats is just wrong. It will be lobbing high explosive at fortified targets. A drone will be on overwatch, spot the enemy tank, the M10 will back off or hold back until a ATGM takes out the enemy armor, then it will continue blowing up bunkers and buildings.
I am used to working with cranes that have the tracks bolted on to the body on-site. I could see doing that to allow a wider-body infantry transport, accomodating layered armor for more protection and things like alternative track designs for high roadspeed in open terrain, higher ground clearance to accommodate surface issues like rubble, slack tracks like Russian tanks use to provide better maneuver in rough terrain, or extra-wide tracks for low ground pressure!
A remote-operated turret makes sense, especially with field-removable replaceable turrets. Make one with the 50mm chaingun. Make another with a central 30mm chaingun and pop-out independent sponsons mounting an M-134 7×62 mm minigun and a 40mm Mk-19, useful for cutting down drones and even intercepting incoming mortar or howitzer shells and missiles. There might be a 30 or 50mm RAP-round for shooting down surveillance/targeting drones that operate at higher altitude than that fancy air-burst round can reach!
Another necessary turret would be a laser-based anti-drone defense. Let's face it, a drone that knows it is being fired on can maneuver to avoid being hit. Speed-of-light weaponry makes dodging harder, especially if the laser can cycle quickly enough to fire a pattern or sustain a continuous beam to sweep a pattern predictive of movement based on speed and mass equalling inertia.
A fourth turret needed is a rapid-fire, fairly heavy, mortar. Maybe 120mm, maybe only 81mm.
One option is to add the capacity to use the various [What was it called? "Thunder" or something? Clusters of electronically-controlled Roman Candles, in concept.] turrets to handle various tasks, from trench-clearing with 40mm grenades to heavy assault or positional defense with a mix of 81 and 120mm mortars to eroding through armor or buildings with one million rounds of small-caliber bullets.
I think any options need to have drones in mind, whether dealing with them through fused airbursts, high-powered lasers, or clouds of bullets. The ability to *detect* drones in time to evade fire is crucial to survival. Looking at the Ukrainian videos celebrating drone kills of Russian Terminator heavy armored personnel carriers emphasizes the danger such a vehicle poses, and the lack of drone detection capability on a vehicle specially designed to operate in areas where drones are a known high-level threat! From surface-to-air missiles to 30mm cannon to 30mm grenades to 30-caliber machine guns, the Terminator should be able to engage any drone before it can be attacked directly, or maneuver if the drone is being used to spot for artillery. But even adding an E.M. rifle to nail drones will not work, if the drone is not detected!
One thing I have not seen is a Terminator-3, or a Terminator-2 refitted with the full T-3 EW package. As I understand from one of its developers, the Terminator-3 carries a three-man crew and a four-man "Special Heavy Infantry" section that actually, mainly, act as additional vehicle crew. These are a drone operator, a signals intelligence "battlefield hacker," a radio operator who coordinates supported infantry, and [I've been up too long, I forget the fourth man's job. I think it was to operate a BattleTrack system in coordination with the R.T.O. and the drone operator, who receives and integrates the take from all allied drones, from hand-held buzzers used inside buildings to rotodrones to hand-launched R/C airplanes to strategic surveillance gliders and balloons. Each of those soldiers can also act as secondary gunners, taking control of one of the sponson-arms to use its AGS or PKs, or guide ATGMs, or target SAMs, while the vehicle's gunner crewman has primary control over the turret itself. I would think anything designed with those intended capacities would have more serious protection from the same threats it is intended to bring to bear, so I doubt the Terminator-2s I've seen have those enhancements.
HEAB-T will help US alot. We have had it on our vehicles in Sweden for many years. It is a game changer.
Back in 1981, my unit got stationed in Italy to test out the EM50 Urban Assault Vehicle. It looked like a Winnebago and a couple of guys took it out joy riding and ended up in Czechoslovakia. SGT Hulka was pissed. Long story. Would make a good movie.
I believe a consideration for the weight needs to be kept in mind is the engineer mobility aspect. Having a lighter vehicle that can cross a combat engineer laid MGB bridge under fire would be a lot more useful than something that cant.
I dont know, just talking as an Combat E
Into a Cold War? Brother we already in it!
But seriously, great content! I’m no longer in the Army but these are important videos for current and future warfighters
Great video, very informative
Airburst programmable munition has been in use with Swedish CV9040 for almost 30 years now. Glad US is catching up. ;)
An FOI isn't a leak... It's an authorised release based on a request from the public :)
It’s called clickbait. Aka. Journalism dishonesty
Comprehensive and on point as usual!
Engagement range also depends on terrain.
Increased weapons range capabilities only matter, if terrain - meaning hills and buildings, as well as weather, don't block the ballistic round.
Given the lethality and pervasiveness of drones and man portable anti armour weapons on the modern battlefield, active defence seems almost more important than armour. That 50 calibre gun seems like it will be very effective.
Active protection makes no point if the platform wouldn't be able to survive some most common battlefield projectiles: 23-mm ZU-23-2 (as it simply refuses to retire and is still literally everywhere) and 30mm BMP-2/Type86, the latter rumored to be equipped with APFS... of some sorts. Not to mention BMP-3/Type04, which adds 100mm HE to the equation (or even low-velocity AP/HEAT if need would be there, as it is semi-compatible with T-12 cannon...)
So, at the very least, it should be able to survive a short burst of 30mm APDS or even APFS shots from at least somewhat reasonable distance *and* some reasonable protection from HE artillery shells falling nearby before active protection would make any difference to the survivability. U.....an conflict demonstrated that perfectly...
In my opinion, make it light or heavy but not medium because you need the heavy lift and logistics equipment anyway and are limited by where the heavier Abrams can go. Also, a drone crew member could complement the ai crew.
DIY gaming PCs are a great example of open "modular architecture" - standardized sizes, connectors, and communication protocols.
AMPV is meant to be Completely Modular as well as interchangable parts. They want to beable to use one hull for multiple variants, its pretty cool
14:10 the Rheinmetal MK 30-2 /ABM uses KETF munitions in 30mm.
I could see the 50mm gun getting repurposed for short range air defense too with the size of the shell being capable of fitting proximity fuses for shooting down drones and other low altitude threats.
GCS common infrastructure architecture is something that should have been a priority decades again, and is one of the major downsides of putting stuff out to tender. This is why we can't just make a bunch of additional systems (like when we run low during a war...), because the development kit used to make them is now in a landfill somewhere, not to mention the Engineers now have switched jobs
I feel like that 50mm cannon is a big advance, especially its anti-drone capability. It's fire support capabilities to support the infantry is impressive too, 50mm is big enough to give quite good explosive capacity for fire support missions - 50mm light mortars used by Germany and Japan back in WW2 for example. So this has a full auto version of that with programmable rounds that can also shoot down drones. Nice.
For 6 dismounts, I think they might use the KF31 (?) hull. This preceded the current hull (KF41).
Rheinmetall has a great platform to leverage on. If they could upgun the KF31 then that's almost them. I like the higher survivability and firepower of the Lynx, it would serve many countries well.
An engineer stuck on the width and weight restrictions is an engineer trying to force 1980's thinking into this decade.
TYVM @ 15:42
The question on rail clearance is simple. If you need to transport armor across the country, then it needs to fit on rail equipment or be able make a road march from garrison to port. Additionally, ships are aware of the rail limits and are designed accordingly so there may be additional complications if the equipment needs to be loaded on ships. One of the reasons that the M4 Sherman tank was designed with certain weight and dimension limitations was so that it could be efficiently deployed to all theaters. Better to have the equipment at the front than have the equipment but it is stuck at the factory.
11:45 As I said in another YT video some time ago, future armored vehicles will probably have a data link with their own launched drones so the drone can spot a target and send the location back to the Fire Control System, which then will aim the main gun at the target EVEN through LoS breaking objects, first shot might not be very accurate but the gunner might be able to correct and eventually "Blind Shot" the enemy.
That seems scary as hell because you can literally be looking directly at the enemy and still won't see him because of bushes/walls while he can still see and shoot you.