The "battlefield bus" concept/doctrine in the late 50s/60s had the soldiers unload outside enemy direct fire range. The ARVNs were lazy and rode the vehicles until engaged.
@@thunberbolttwo3953 Although multiturret is it's one big turret and the loader's and commander's couple as function as turrets with machine guns enclosed. And it was already a light tank so it was gonna have thin armor no matter what.
For all of it's faults and failings, the M113 is likely to be with armies for another 50 years. One of the most versatile and adaptable armored vehicles ever.
I was in mech infantry regiment in Italy in half '80s at eastern border. Regiments like mine all had lots M113. Unluckily they were all put in the bin since early 2000. There is a great cemetery for these in North Italy with LOTS of M113. There is a video here on UA-cam. So sad to see.....😢
It does look like an M113 crossed with a sheridan, with a bradley turret on top. I personally think it looks rather cute. Does anyone know if there is any purchaseable 1/72 scale model of this out there?
Pentagon wars is inaccurate, changeing stuff to increase the dark comedy value compared to the book its based on, which itself ignored changes that adressed issues it brought up (ie it tried to make the project look worse). this has created misconceptions about the M2/M3 Bradley. but i would still recommend the film, as its enjoyable, just don't take it too seriously
Considering that the book and the movie are sanctioned training material in the DoD's procurement department, I'd say it was very accurate. . . Sure the Bradley post '91 is a decent AFV, but it certainly isn't the absolute best we could have.
As a Bradley crew member with multiple deployments, the only thing to make any god damn sense on that vehicle is how the pentagon wars portrays its development. no one apparently planned on us living long enough to reload
@@chrisandrews414 Hey it still did its job well it worked great as a light tank and APC though amphibious was a terrible because of the lack of heavy armor for you guys. Still it got lots of good kills.
@@tyvernoverlord5363 except it outright lies at times (like stateing it got a turret for scouting, when it had a turret before it was required to do scouting, or that fireing ports were added later in the project when they were there from the beginning, or treating Aluminium skin as a new feature when the M113 had Aluminium for years prior) edit: my point wasn't that the bradley's development wasn't messy, but that pentagon wars portrayal of it isn't accurate in all the details, which was done on purpose because it is ultimately a satire film not a documentary, but this has led to misconceptions about the project's details (and the ignoring of the issues fixed by the point the movie is set in, also created misconceptions about the project as a whole)
Matsimus should do something about Australian army vehicles like the M113a3 and the bushmaster which was created by Australia edit: the Aussie M113a3 is a heavily upgraded version
Didn't they also do an upgrade program that involved a stretched body with an extra roadwheel and diesel-electric hybrid engines? It looked really nice.
I can say, from direct personal experience (though it's been a few years) that the 800T is actually pretty enjoyable to drive. However, the centerline driver's seat does take a bit of time to get used to it, if you're not already in the habit (I wasn't). Pretty quick to move about, albeit a bit tall for its other dimensions, and I'd be curious to see whether it could have been armed with a 25 or 30mm gun and maybe a single TOW tube or similar. Though that would likely have meant a significant reduction in ammunition carried, which wasn't huge in the first place with 20mm if I'm remembering correctly.
Great video! I like to think I have kept track of all the variations of vehicle that the US has attempted and or produced but I did not know of this. Love your videos as always, keep up the great work!
I just can’t help but love vehicles like this with recon applications. Small, excellent cross country perf and always a hard-hitting armament designed to handle a wide range of target types. In WW2 you see 2cm magazine fed automatic cannons with the Germans as well as repurposed small and medium caliber AT/HE rounds like the 3.7x249mm Rimmed 36 L/45 and 7.5x243 Rimmed 37 L/24. These guns were under performing in their initial early war roles but were still extremely handy as infantry support guns and were excellent fits for recon vehicles like the 8-Rad 231/234 Späwagens. The perfect guns for taking what you can get and keeping the enemy’s heads down while you use your speed and maneuverability to get the Hell out of there. You can see this with we Yanks and our M20 and M8 greyhounds. Weapons designed for anti infantry, soft skins, light armor and defensive positions. I have a local baby boomer friend who’s father was a commander of an M8 Greyhound and I wish I had time to type out the stories here. Incredible roles that these crews had to take on, extremely varied in both objective and risk. As an American, I find myself very impressed with European and Euroasian recon vehicles. I absolutely adore the 20-30mm versions of British Fv-107 Scimitar and German Wiesel. These vehicles capture my admiration and I find them really inspiring. I wonder if the Brits and Germans are content with keeping the 20mm versions or focus more on ATGM versions. In the U.S., our bigger recon and IFVs are swamped with a huge variety of options from the companies like General Dynamics, ATK, BaE, FN USA in a very saturated domestic market. I have no idea how their sales abroad are. Anyways, it almost feels as if there’s too much of an emphasis on upgrades, role diversification, and varieties, rather than a singular option that’s trained on very hard with and across our service branches. I’m not sure, but I get the impression that we in the U.S.; We have a bit of a different doctrine when it comes to our forward recon armor and I think it has something to do with the differences in terrain and environment specific designs, as well as co-op situational-based-training and nomenclatures. There’s countless towns and villages in Europe that are filled with alleyways, streets, compact housing blocks surrounded by open fields bordered by hedges, tree lines and streams. Entire cities towns, in which anything is accessible by a short walk. It’s fantastic and I’ve loved the couple months I’ve spent in England and Central Europe. For these places, a lot of consideration has to be given to these environments and you can see it reflected in what the leadership, design firms and manufacturers come up with. Especially the stuff that came out of the late and very end of the Cold-War, I feels like here in the U.S., there’s not as much emphasis and small armored recon vehicles but moreso on larger armored options and vehicles that will be extremely dependent on air co-op and infantry for the narrow confines inner town environments. I predict more and more of our (U.S.) recon assets will become unmanned drones rather than sweet little armored hot-rods, like XM800, Weisel, BMD, and Scimitar etc. I apologize for the wall of text and atrocious grammar, I’m on mobile and rushing between breaks at work. I wish everyone a wonderful and healthy October!
"I wonder if the Brits and Germans are content with keeping the 20mm versions or focus more on ATGM versions." Answer for Germany: Depends. The BW will be replacing the Wiesel I in the standard Jäger batallions with Boxer (similar to Australian CRV variant, with both a 30mm gun and spike missiles). Wiesel I will remain present in the airborne units and with parts of the mountain infantry. For that purpose, currently 196 Wiesel I are getting modernized. The 120 machine cannon ones keep their 20mm gun. The 60 TOW vehicles get upgraded to Spike / MELLS. Plus 16 dedicated Wiesel scout vehicles. You can see one here at 5:25 ua-cam.com/video/Qsz_E2uHmD0/v-deo.html Also shows the wheeled Fuchs and Fennek scouts, Fuchs can carry 20mm, Fennek only carries a 50mm GMG, scout wiesel just a MG3. Of course, you can use the machine cannon and missile versions for scouting, too, but that's not their main purpose. Currently, a replacement for the Wiesel I is in the works, called "LuWa" for now - Luftbeweglicher Waffenträger, airmobile weapons carrier. While a 30mm recoilless rifle had been in discussion, word on the internet is that it will probably feature the Mauser BK27, a 27mm revolver gun used in the Tornado, Eurofighter etc., for easier logistics. de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauser_BK-27 A five round burst of intermixed AP and HE hitting all the same spot should kill everything below MBT level. For trucks, single shots will suffice. ua-cam.com/video/FpHBgW0-YQ8/v-deo.html A definitive answer will still have to wait a while, because Germany first needs to figure out its next heavy lift heli. The C53K is wider than the Chinook, and if Germany gets the K, the LuWa can be bigger. Or there might be a small one with the BK27 that fits the Osprey and a big one with a heavier gun and or missiles that just fits the K. Oh, and it probably be diesel electric, to better sneak up on the enemy. ua-cam.com/video/SeRgT_OFH7I/v-deo.html Wait and see.
I've heard many professionals say that heavily arming recon vehicles is setting them up for failure in one of their primary missions - reconnaissance. Sure, a big gun and hefty ATGM are great to have around if you need them, but if they make your vehicle so large and loud that the enemy easily sees you, you're likely dead anyhow. Back in the 80s-90s, exercises at the US Army's NTC showed how light, fast and generally quiet recon vehicles (mainly VISMOD M113s and Hummers) were highly effective at finding and reporting on enemy positions while staying unseen and alive.
Yeah. Because you take several troops along for "recon" and do it from a tracked vehicle in this day and age of "overhead imagery" of the battlefield which goes back to at least Vietnam and "unmanned drones" called Buffalo Hunters for the U.S. All U.S. armor is infantry support and if you have to use tracks for "recon" you're going to end up like Saddam's "elite republican guard" right about the time the enemy let's you find it. When you send "troops" forward in tracks its not to go play hide and seek unless you're playing war in a Commonwealth "army" while your "allies" kill people and break things and you try to maneuver into some "friendly fire" so you have an excuse to cut and run off the "battlefield" you share with your "allies" and "fight shoulder to shoulder" with them on only if there are miles and miles between shoulders and you're there in a "support role" like volunteering for "reece".
Australia developed the M113A1 MRV with the scorpion turret. Which we described as an image intensifier on tracks, it was effective for reconnaissance which was its role, strangely there were only two in four vehicle troop. Bravo and Charlie, with the boss in an LRV and Delta also in an LRV, god knows why, the MRV's had the only night vision equipment, apart from the seldom used IR periscope for the driver, leaving the boss in the position where HE could not observe the battlefield at night, and only the troop sergeant and troop corporal could, the assaulties in Delta and its crew commander also had no night vision capability.
Matsimus: Thank You for an inspirational video. The post-Vietnam era was indeed one for the reevaluation of the infantry tactics. 1) There is not much point in combining the qualities of infantry, cavalry and artillery - if they can't move together. On the other hand leaving one arm out of the equation is a certain recipie for disaster. They supplement each other like the game of "rock, knife and paper". 2) One issue was that the infantry rifle and the RPG increased the infantry firepower against poorly protected targets. The new cartridge of 5.56 mm meant that an awfull lot more ammunition could be carried by the average infantry man - thus cutting down the squad size of the dismounts from 8 to 6. Leaving the supporting weapon on the vehicle - be it the heavy mashine gun or better: The autocannon! And you don't withdraw the supporting firepower leaving the lads behind in the foxholes. 3) The other way of protecting your unit is simply by movement. NOT being where the nuclear bomb hits is generally considered a smart move. Now the massive protection of the tank means simultaneously that it is a bother to move around operationally. Here the wheeled vehicles come in: They use the generally good road network in Europe to move very fast. They can transport themselves and are not sea/rail dependent and moves with 80 km/h. Where the heavies are generally protected to level 6 the medium types are only to level 4 - which in most cases is enough as they run circles around the heavy tanks. The cross country ability of the wheeled units is not bad, but not as good as the tracked vehicles. It does, however, mean that the supporting vehicles have to be protected as well. Today supply trucks are protected to at least level 2 and can move off road (or at least on shitty roads). 4) The extreme in strategic mobility are the light troops that are even air transportable. The trick with them is to move in and be in a dug in protection about a week ahead of the heavier troops. Once dug in they are as difficult to brush aside as much heavier units, plus their logistics requirement is so much lower, that they can stay put for much longer and be a constant menace.
"Reevaluation of infantry tactics"? Do infantry "troops" no longer carry rifles on the "battlefield" and kill people and break things as required to "win the peace"? I get the feeling you're from a "nation" that is ostensibly a U.S. "ally" yet noticeably absent on any and every real "battlefield" that involved professional military forces on both sides and actual "infantry tactics" when the "peace" was being "won" by the U.S. but which you occasionally showed up to "keep the peace" when the "battlefield" had only civilians for you to possibly use "infantry tactics" against. Being in the "jungle" against Asians "10,000 miles from home" was not a new and unique experience for U.S. "troops". Had you not "opted out" of Korea, the "Pacific Theater", the Spanish-American War, the "Moro Uprising" in the Phillipines and any and all "war games" with your supposed "allies" that involve boots on the ground instead of asses in seats and your "troops" seeming to think they are "invited" to be the teachers instead of the very, very "special" students who if half as "combat ready" to FIGHT as they are "combat ready" to "play support roles" wouldn't NEED "war games" just to catch up on "infantry tactics" to roughly the skill, knowledge and experience level of a U.S. Army recruit halfway through "basic training" and months away from Advanced Infantry Training, you might be a little more familiar with how little "infantry tactics" have ever changed much less in the roughly 140 years and countless "conflicts" which have occurred since your "troops" stopped riding "horses" into so-called "wars" against African tribes armed with spears and shields and then your Boer "allies" after they basically won the "Zulu War" FOR you and then "opted out" of making the switch back to "infantry tactics" which have NEVER served you too well against "troops" who didn't need much training in the way of "infantry tactics" to know that keeping your head down, your eyes open, your ass as "covered" as possible and lettting the idiots in the bright red and white "battle dress uniforms" think they're being "denied battle" because the "colonists" are cowards instead of determined to make the other guy die for his "country" (and "constitutional monarch", of course) instead of dying for theirs when the other guy has zero chance of "winning" anything besides not being executed for cowardice, dessertion or treason no matter what "infantry tactics" he uses. Of course wannabe military historians/experts/analysts such as yourself say the U.S. "lost" the Vietnam War when in fact we "withdrew" because the commander-in-chief at the time did exactly what all actual "leaders" do when their bosses in the "public" have had enough war and there is no "declaration of war" and there are no "missions" left unaccomplished and "pulled out". Which being only in South Vietnam and there by the request of the South Vietnamese "people" and the NVA and "V.C." (roughly comparable to the "colonists" in the U.S. "regular army" as well as "militias" during the great kickings of British ass back "across the pond" during the Revolutionary War and War of 1812) were effectively "stood down", we didn't have any reason to "occupy" South Vietnam much less against the will of its citizens. And of course it was not U.S. "troops" that were chased out of "Saigon" and Saigon obviously is not in South Vietnam. It was "diplomats" and various of our "allies" who were "government officials" who seemed intent on "occupying" NORTH VIETNAM as we "withdrew" that U.S. "troops" had to go in an "evacuate" quite some time after the real "withdrawal" of military forces was over. A fundamental difference but certainly only one of many between the U.S. and our "allies" on the crappy little barren undeveloped, unproductive and unworthy of "invasion" island across the pond is that we don't "export" government with military assistance, we go only where and when we are "invited" by legitimate "majority" governments or in dire humanitarian emergencies or to "engage" an enemy that refuses to do actual "battle", never wears or constantly wears a "military uniform" for his/her own "protection" or to "liberate" people who are being held and "governed" against their will by "shadow" or "puppet" governments they do not need, want, have any recollection of "electing" or "inviting" and are comprised of "foreign nationals" and/or "non-natives" but which just refuse to pack their shit and go home even if they "agreed" to long ago on a "date certain" which is long past and which was supposed to return the country to its own people and "home rule" or rather "sovereignty". I wonder which "trading partner" the U.S. "taxpayers" will side with and decide to "defend" if and when "China" decides its time for "one China, one system" and our "allies" from across the pond to pack their shit and finally "withdraw" from Hong Kong? And South Africa. And Iran. And every other country they "occupy" and have long overstayed their "welcome" in after refusing stick to a "deal" to leave every one on a "date certain".. And whether we will have to intervene "militarily" to return "global Britain" back to "local England" by making sure if the "deploy troops" to cover their "withdrawal" and "defend their citizens" they only "deploy" and do not "redeploy" in their "warships" and "fighter planes" by hitting them with a little "EMP" and making sure they go home "in style" on BA "speedbirds" escorted the whole way by UN "peacekeepers" or if they'll go "willingly" in some "mass migration" out of everywhere at once except where they can "slip through the cracks" and maintain some "occupation" here and there. And what about their Commonwealth "cousins" the Cannucks, Ausfailians, New Zealosers and "British-South Africans" they also have "occupying" everywhere and anywhere "Brit" not only is and rhymes with a certain four-letter word but which is a "fighting word" to boot? Lots of "expatriates" out there who left the "Commonwealth" as "tourists" or on "holiday" or on "business" and ended up "legal pernanent residents" in countries where they literally "don't speak the language" when it comes to being invited to leave and "repatriate" themselves back to their "constitutional monarchy" and take their "pounds" of funny money with them. One thing is certain. People always listen better when they're hungry. Or bleeding. And its been...forever...since the "British people" and their white Commonwealth "co-conspirators" have been either. Which is why they don't hear "go home". But their own "Bloody Sunday" could be any Sunday China, Iran etc. finally decide to "evict" them and I really don't see much sympathy going their way much less "special relationships" putting "yanks" on their "side" as a "global policeman" keeping them in their "permanent residences".
@@deeremeyer1749 You don't GET it. The point is: To have a successfull attack you need a concentration of force - fine and clear, but where is the opposition going to get these forces from? With Russia spending 20% of their GDP on defence, they are limited to what they can afford. Strengthning their front in Europe and against China is going to strain them, so they can't be strong everywhere. It does not take much to deflect them. The other point is moving your reserves quickly to the point of contact. This has been a concern for the US. The seatransport is not that difficult - takes 5 days. Road and rail transport across Europe is reasonable - it takes a bit of planning; but moving troops from Spain across Europe has been done - with a lot of swearing and uncouth language - but it has been done. As long as the roads are safe - it is not a big problem: You greatly underestima the importance of freindly forces - especially if they are organised. Reducing the infantry squad from 8 to 6 by introduction of new weapons means you can beef up the number of infantry units.
Always thought this would have made a great replacement for our Lynx's. We got our M113, after our infantry driving around in 3/4 ton trucks were deemed wiped out in a big exercise and that our ability to fight was also deemed obsolete . that forced Canada to buy the M113.
Now do the XM800W. It was the loser of the competition for good reason, but that articulated chassis made it the more *interesting* of the two prototypes.
@matsimus, what do you think of the Ukrainian modified T-64BV fighting in east Ukraine? Its pretty much the standard that all T-64s are being converted to. Ukraine is my homeland. Keep up the good work.
NIce one Matt. Any chance of doing a feature on the Soucy band tracks in comparison with tradition steel tracks? Saw a few CV90s in Afghan using them and the crews said they were awesome, but wore out fairly quickly. I believe Soucy did a replacement track system for the M113, which not only increased performance but also comfort.
Matsimus, could you share your opinion about the kamikaze drone or loitering munition? It's quite terifying when it's used in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict being able to take out many ground assets
Wasn't even aware of this tank until Spookston mentioned it in his last video! Thanks for the vid! Btw, any chance of a T92 Light tank video? I'm absolutely fascinated by the design, would love a video from you. Thanks!
That whine could give it the name "Jericho Trumpet." I was kind of askance about suicide drones, but they seem to be quite useful, especially if they're man portable.
You know if you added a 30mm auto cannon, a AT missile system, give is a v hull for blast mitigations, make the drive wheels large independent on a rubber track so if you lose the track it can still move and keep the speed at 85 to 90 kph it would be a viable scout vehicle for today.
One problem with the XM800T was lack of interior space for all the NBC Gear both protective gear and detection sets. Plus it did not have room for the 2 dismounts some sectors in the Cav branch Wanted to do the NBC detection tasks plus ground scouting of ford and bridge sites.
I've wondered why we don't have something to bridge the gap between a Humvee and a Bradley with an autocannon or the sort for infantry support and reconnaissance, like a mini-Bradley in the form of an modern M5 Stuart, and while not exactly intended for both roles, we had this thing. "Had"...
Funny the Pentagon War movie made fun of the Bradley for all the fire power added on when it just needed to transport troops to drop off, now a fight vehicle transport with heavy firepower is a must and they are looking to up-gun the Bradley. The Bradley was actually ahead of it's time.
Matt, what did you say at 5:30? Played it back 6 times, garbled. Was at Baumholder '66-"68, 8ID 1/68A, HHQ Bat Maint, mos 63C. There were two M114's on the pad that never moved. The recon and mortar sections were never at full compliment, I think who ever was in recon used an M113 and M151"s on alerts. There were two M106's but I don't think there were enough mortar guys to run both at one time. Cheers
make a video on chinese VT4\MBT 3000 and also discuss the variant that recently Pakistani army got from china,i would appreciate if you made this video like always an amazing video keep up the good work, good luck :)
Problem today is that people do not understand concepts of: conscious trade-off and historical context. Today BMP-1 is crap technically, doctrinally etc. When it was appeared and in context for which it was built for - was quite impressive, despite well known problems that were result of compromise between price, technology and goals. In anti-tank role it quickly became obsolete, but when it was announcet, ICV as such was innovative concept.
You are completely forgetting the M113 c&r wich was used by the Dutch and Canadian Army, thats where you are now Matsimus. so the question is was this vehicle designed before or after the C&R? The first C&R had a .50 machine gun, later the Dutch placed a 25MM oerlikon on it.
Too bad this promising vehicle never got a chance. Another problem it would have faced was the Army mood that was developing at the time which was that damn near every single vehicle in the inventory had to be capable of defeating a T-72 (I exaggerate but not by much). You saw it in the Pentagon wars movie you mentioned, in which the Bradley was supposed to be an IFV battling other IFVs but someone decided it had to be a tank-killer. Jeeps were getting crammed with TOW launchers and everything. And the vision blocks/firing ports on the sides of troop carriers wasn't just to tackle claustrophobia or anxiety, but also troops arriving on the battlefield disoriented and uncertain about the terrain. Way Back In The Day when I was a young infantry lad myself we always rode standing up in the back of the M-113s with the big troop hatch popped open because when we rode buttoned up inside (happened sometimes, usually in crappy weather) the ramp would drop and we'd be blinking in the sunlight and looking around the sudden unfamiliar environment unsure where cover or concealment was.
it looks big until it s next to a Ford pick up, lol. pick ups have grown so big, they make a pc look small. I wonder how it would look next to my fj cruiser... good show!
It depends on doctrine. Remember that this vehicle could carry a small scout team to perform the missions that required stealth. When I served in a mech outfit (70s and 80s) our scouts were transported in 113s and did most recon work dismounted. This vehicle would have been fine in that role.
@@jacquesstrapp3219 "It depends on doctrine. " Yep. During the height of the cold war, Germany had entire armored batallions (incl Leo IIs) dedicated to scouting. The Leo's part of the job was "reconnaissance by fire" ... de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzeraufkl%C3%A4rungstruppe_(Bundeswehr) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconnaissance_by_fire
Mat, this is unironically, one of the most detailed video on the XM800T/ARSV program. Thank you so much.
Looks like a mix of the sheridan and stuart
Looks like they have a baby 😂
@@antoniojmols and dropped it
@@patrickwelles3046 kkk
Sheridan base + M2 Bradley Turret
The "battlefield bus" concept/doctrine in the late 50s/60s had the soldiers unload outside enemy direct fire range. The ARVNs were lazy and rode the vehicles until engaged.
Thats a very fitting title.
That’s the point sergeant
Mat I'd love to see a video of the american t-92 light tank concept. A three turreted amphibious light tank sounds like just the right level of crazy.
A multi turreted tank is a very bad idea. The armor will be paper thin.
@@thunberbolttwo3953 Although multiturret is it's one big turret and the loader's and commander's couple as function as turrets with machine guns enclosed. And it was already a light tank so it was gonna have thin armor no matter what.
Looks like a modern day M3 Stuart
That's exactly what it was, a fast scout with enough armor to tank hmg fire, gather intel, and get out
I'm seeing a genshin player here
Very interesting look at a vehicle I didn't know existed. Thanks for close-up look.
For all of it's faults and failings, the M113 is likely to be with armies for another 50 years. One of the most versatile and adaptable armored vehicles ever.
Jim Rinkenberger dont you mean the “Gavin”? Lol. Just kidding
I was in mech infantry regiment in Italy in half '80s at eastern border. Regiments like mine all had lots M113. Unluckily they were all put in the bin since early 2000. There is a great cemetery for these in North Italy with LOTS of M113. There is a video here on UA-cam. So sad to see.....😢
It does look like an M113 crossed with a sheridan, with a bradley turret on top. I personally think it looks rather cute. Does anyone know if there is any purchaseable 1/72 scale model of this out there?
Beautiful military vehicle, I want it to be back in operation for many more decades and never need to be replaced unnecessarily.
Pentagon wars is inaccurate, changeing stuff to increase the dark comedy value compared to the book its based on, which itself ignored changes that adressed issues it brought up (ie it tried to make the project look worse). this has created misconceptions about the M2/M3 Bradley.
but i would still recommend the film, as its enjoyable, just don't take it too seriously
Considering that the book and the movie are sanctioned training material in the DoD's procurement department, I'd say it was very accurate. . .
Sure the Bradley post '91 is a decent AFV, but it certainly isn't the absolute best we could have.
As a Bradley crew member with multiple deployments, the only thing to make any god damn sense on that vehicle is how the pentagon wars portrays its development.
no one apparently planned on us living long enough to reload
ALSO the whole port firing ports? my first bradley had them, along with the port firing weapons, this was in 2005 btw
@@chrisandrews414 Hey it still did its job well it worked great as a light tank and APC though amphibious was a terrible because of the lack of heavy armor for you guys. Still it got lots of good kills.
@@tyvernoverlord5363 except it outright lies at times (like stateing it got a turret for scouting, when it had a turret before it was required to do scouting, or that fireing ports were added later in the project when they were there from the beginning, or treating Aluminium skin as a new feature when the M113 had Aluminium for years prior)
edit: my point wasn't that the bradley's development wasn't messy, but that pentagon wars portrayal of it isn't accurate in all the details, which was done on purpose because it is ultimately a satire film not a documentary, but this has led to misconceptions about the project's details (and the ignoring of the issues fixed by the point the movie is set in, also created misconceptions about the project as a whole)
Matsimus should do something about Australian army vehicles like the M113a3 and the bushmaster which was created by Australia edit: the Aussie M113a3 is a heavily upgraded version
Didn't they also do an upgrade program that involved a stretched body with an extra roadwheel and diesel-electric hybrid engines? It looked really nice.
He should do one on the many M113 variants that are more IFV than APC, like my favorite - the Dutch YPR-765.
Random Coyote yeah that’s the variant we use now
Timothy Lewis Not an M113 A3 , it’s Designated M113 AS4
Dave Cowan thank you I couldn’t remember if it was a3 or as4
The XM800T looks like a modern version of the M2 Stuart tank from WW2 all amped up and with with a body lift.
I remember seeing this in a reference book back in the early 80s. I'd always wondered what happened to it.
I can say, from direct personal experience (though it's been a few years) that the 800T is actually pretty enjoyable to drive.
However, the centerline driver's seat does take a bit of time to get used to it, if you're not already in the habit (I wasn't).
Pretty quick to move about, albeit a bit tall for its other dimensions, and I'd be curious to see whether it could have been armed with a 25 or 30mm gun and maybe a single TOW tube or similar. Though that would likely have meant a significant reduction in ammunition carried, which wasn't huge in the first place with 20mm if I'm remembering correctly.
Haha that Bradley jab at the end got me.
These vehicles are very interesting. The National Museum of Military Vehicles in Dubois, Wyoming, USA, has one on display
Huge mistake in this, Matt!... Firing ports on IFVs originated with (L/Cpl) J. Jones, Family Butchers van! LOL
Don't Panic!
Great video! I like to think I have kept track of all the variations of vehicle that the US has attempted and or produced but I did not know of this. Love your videos as always, keep up the great work!
M113 is so simplistic it hurts lol. box, tracks, driver hole....
It'd make such a good Uber eats vehicle...just a big breadbox.
"Reconnaissance Scout" kinda an overstatement
The lower chassis, tracks looks all M113/Lynx. With a turret on top.
The M577 was filmed in Ontario Tank Museum in 1000 Stevenson Rd N, Oshawa, ON L1J 5P5 Canada
Awesome video as always and a really cool looking recce vehicle
I'm blown away. A 113 that doesn't deserve to be turned into a reef. Truly breathtaking.
I play armord warfare and I saw this and idk what it was but now I do and keep doing what you doing.
It reminds me of the Soviet BMD-2 airborne combat vehicle. Small, easily airdropped and agile.
I just can’t help but love vehicles like this with recon applications. Small, excellent cross country perf and always a hard-hitting armament designed to handle a wide range of target types.
In WW2 you see 2cm magazine fed automatic cannons with the Germans as well as repurposed small and medium caliber AT/HE rounds like the 3.7x249mm Rimmed 36 L/45 and 7.5x243 Rimmed 37 L/24. These guns were under performing in their initial early war roles but were still extremely handy as infantry support guns and were excellent fits for recon vehicles like the 8-Rad 231/234 Späwagens. The perfect guns for taking what you can get and keeping the enemy’s heads down while you use your speed and maneuverability to get the Hell out of there. You can see this with we Yanks and our M20 and M8 greyhounds. Weapons designed for anti infantry, soft skins, light armor and defensive positions. I have a local baby boomer friend who’s father was a commander of an M8 Greyhound and I wish I had time to type out the stories here. Incredible roles that these crews had to take on, extremely varied in both objective and risk.
As an American, I find myself very impressed with European and Euroasian recon vehicles.
I absolutely adore the 20-30mm versions of British Fv-107 Scimitar and German Wiesel. These vehicles capture my admiration and I find them really inspiring. I wonder if the Brits and Germans are content with keeping the 20mm versions or focus more on ATGM versions. In the U.S., our bigger recon and IFVs are swamped with a huge variety of options from the companies like General Dynamics, ATK, BaE, FN USA in a very saturated domestic market. I have no idea how their sales abroad are. Anyways, it almost feels as if there’s too much of an emphasis on upgrades, role diversification, and varieties, rather than a singular option that’s trained on very hard with and across our service branches.
I’m not sure, but I get the impression that we in the U.S.; We have a bit of a different doctrine when it comes to our forward recon armor and I think it has something to do with the differences in terrain and environment specific designs, as well as co-op situational-based-training and nomenclatures. There’s countless towns and villages in Europe that are filled with alleyways, streets, compact housing blocks surrounded by open fields bordered by hedges, tree lines and streams. Entire cities towns, in which anything is accessible by a short walk. It’s fantastic and I’ve loved the couple months I’ve spent in England and Central Europe. For these places, a lot of consideration has to be given to these environments and you can see it reflected in what the leadership, design firms and manufacturers come up with. Especially the stuff that came out of the late and very end of the Cold-War,
I feels like here in the U.S., there’s not as much emphasis and small armored recon vehicles but moreso on larger armored options and vehicles that will be extremely dependent on air co-op and infantry for the narrow confines inner town environments. I predict more and more of our (U.S.) recon assets will become unmanned drones rather than sweet little armored hot-rods, like XM800, Weisel, BMD, and Scimitar etc.
I apologize for the wall of text and atrocious grammar, I’m on mobile and rushing between breaks at work. I wish everyone a wonderful and healthy October!
"I wonder if the Brits and Germans are content with keeping the 20mm versions or focus more on ATGM versions."
Answer for Germany: Depends.
The BW will be replacing the Wiesel I in the standard Jäger batallions with Boxer (similar to Australian CRV variant, with both a 30mm gun and spike missiles).
Wiesel I will remain present in the airborne units and with parts of the mountain infantry. For that purpose, currently 196 Wiesel I are getting modernized. The 120 machine cannon ones keep their 20mm gun. The 60 TOW vehicles get upgraded to Spike / MELLS.
Plus 16 dedicated Wiesel scout vehicles. You can see one here at 5:25
ua-cam.com/video/Qsz_E2uHmD0/v-deo.html
Also shows the wheeled Fuchs and Fennek scouts, Fuchs can carry 20mm, Fennek only carries a 50mm GMG, scout wiesel just a MG3. Of course, you can use the machine cannon and missile versions for scouting, too, but that's not their main purpose.
Currently, a replacement for the Wiesel I is in the works, called "LuWa" for now - Luftbeweglicher Waffenträger, airmobile weapons carrier.
While a 30mm recoilless rifle had been in discussion, word on the internet is that it will probably feature the Mauser BK27, a 27mm revolver gun used in the Tornado, Eurofighter etc., for easier logistics.
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauser_BK-27
A five round burst of intermixed AP and HE hitting all the same spot should kill everything below MBT level. For trucks, single shots will suffice.
ua-cam.com/video/FpHBgW0-YQ8/v-deo.html
A definitive answer will still have to wait a while, because Germany first needs to figure out its next heavy lift heli. The C53K is wider than the Chinook, and if Germany gets the K, the LuWa can be bigger. Or there might be a small one with the BK27 that fits the Osprey and a big one with a heavier gun and or missiles that just fits the K.
Oh, and it probably be diesel electric, to better sneak up on the enemy.
ua-cam.com/video/SeRgT_OFH7I/v-deo.html
Wait and see.
I share your views and thoughts almost to the letter ! : D
I've heard many professionals say that heavily arming recon vehicles is setting them up for failure in one of their primary missions - reconnaissance. Sure, a big gun and hefty ATGM are great to have around if you need them, but if they make your vehicle so large and loud that the enemy easily sees you, you're likely dead anyhow. Back in the 80s-90s, exercises at the US Army's NTC showed how light, fast and generally quiet recon vehicles (mainly VISMOD M113s and Hummers) were highly effective at finding and reporting on enemy positions while staying unseen and alive.
Yeah. Because you take several troops along for "recon" and do it from a tracked vehicle in this day and age of "overhead imagery" of the battlefield which goes back to at least Vietnam and "unmanned drones" called Buffalo Hunters for the U.S.
All U.S. armor is infantry support and if you have to use tracks for "recon" you're going to end up like Saddam's "elite republican guard" right about the time the enemy let's you find it.
When you send "troops" forward in tracks its not to go play hide and seek unless you're playing war in a Commonwealth "army" while your "allies" kill people and break things and you try to maneuver into some "friendly fire" so you have an excuse to cut and run off the "battlefield" you share with your "allies" and "fight shoulder to shoulder" with them on only if there are miles and miles between shoulders and you're there in a "support role" like volunteering for "reece".
DEEREMEYER1
“Yikes”
Australia developed the M113A1 MRV with the scorpion turret.
Which we described as an image intensifier on tracks, it was effective for reconnaissance which was its role, strangely there were only two in four vehicle troop.
Bravo and Charlie, with the boss in an LRV and Delta also in an LRV, god knows why, the MRV's had the only night vision equipment, apart from the seldom used IR periscope for the driver, leaving the boss in the position where HE could not observe the battlefield at night, and only the troop sergeant and troop corporal could, the assaulties in Delta and its crew commander also had no night vision capability.
Although short-lived I like the Sheridan it could be self-contained like a submarine in a radioactive environment and also could fire a nuclear round
Looks really cool, but straight out of the 40s at the same time.
American CVRT... It's sooo cute. :)
That is probably why it never made it to production....
Matsimus: Thank You for an inspirational video.
The post-Vietnam era was indeed one for the reevaluation of the infantry tactics.
1) There is not much point in combining the qualities of infantry, cavalry and artillery - if they can't move together. On the other hand leaving one arm out of the equation is a certain recipie for disaster. They supplement each other like the game of "rock, knife and paper".
2) One issue was that the infantry rifle and the RPG increased the infantry firepower against poorly protected targets. The new cartridge of 5.56 mm meant that an awfull lot more ammunition could be carried by the average infantry man - thus cutting down the squad size of the dismounts from 8 to 6. Leaving the supporting weapon on the vehicle - be it the heavy mashine gun or better: The autocannon! And you don't withdraw the supporting firepower leaving the lads behind in the foxholes.
3) The other way of protecting your unit is simply by movement. NOT being where the nuclear bomb hits is generally considered a smart move. Now the massive protection of the tank means simultaneously that it is a bother to move around operationally. Here the wheeled vehicles come in: They use the generally good road network in Europe to move very fast. They can transport themselves and are not sea/rail dependent and moves with 80 km/h. Where the heavies are generally protected to level 6 the medium types are only to level 4 - which in most cases is enough as they run circles around the heavy tanks. The cross country ability of the wheeled units is not bad, but not as good as the tracked vehicles. It does, however, mean that the supporting vehicles have to be protected as well. Today supply trucks are protected to at least level 2 and can move off road (or at least on shitty roads).
4) The extreme in strategic mobility are the light troops that are even air transportable. The trick with them is to move in and be in a dug in protection about a week ahead of the heavier troops. Once dug in they are as difficult to brush aside as much heavier units, plus their logistics requirement is so much lower, that they can stay put for much longer and be a constant menace.
"Reevaluation of infantry tactics"? Do infantry "troops" no longer carry rifles on the "battlefield" and kill people and break things as required to "win the peace"?
I get the feeling you're from a "nation" that is ostensibly a U.S. "ally" yet noticeably absent on any and every real "battlefield" that involved professional military forces on both sides and actual "infantry tactics" when the "peace" was being "won" by the U.S. but which you occasionally showed up to "keep the peace" when the "battlefield" had only civilians for you to possibly use "infantry tactics" against.
Being in the "jungle" against Asians "10,000 miles from home" was not a new and unique experience for U.S. "troops". Had you not "opted out" of Korea, the "Pacific Theater", the Spanish-American War, the "Moro Uprising" in the Phillipines and any and all "war games" with your supposed "allies" that involve boots on the ground instead of asses in seats and your "troops" seeming to think they are "invited" to be the teachers instead of the very, very "special" students who if half as "combat ready" to FIGHT as they are "combat ready" to "play support roles" wouldn't NEED "war games" just to catch up on "infantry tactics" to roughly the skill, knowledge and experience level of a U.S. Army recruit halfway through "basic training" and months away from Advanced Infantry Training, you might be a little more familiar with how little "infantry tactics" have ever changed much less in the roughly 140 years and countless "conflicts" which have occurred since your "troops" stopped riding "horses" into so-called "wars" against African tribes armed with spears and shields and then your Boer "allies" after they basically won the "Zulu War" FOR you and then "opted out" of making the switch back to "infantry tactics" which have NEVER served you too well against "troops" who didn't need much training in the way of "infantry tactics" to know that keeping your head down, your eyes open, your ass as "covered" as possible and lettting the idiots in the bright red and white "battle dress uniforms" think they're being "denied battle" because the "colonists" are cowards instead of determined to make the other guy die for his "country" (and "constitutional monarch", of course) instead of dying for theirs when the other guy has zero chance of "winning" anything besides not being executed for cowardice, dessertion or treason no matter what "infantry tactics" he uses.
Of course wannabe military historians/experts/analysts such as yourself say the U.S. "lost" the Vietnam War when in fact we "withdrew" because the commander-in-chief at the time did exactly what all actual "leaders" do when their bosses in the "public" have had enough war and there is no "declaration of war" and there are no "missions" left unaccomplished and "pulled out".
Which being only in South Vietnam and there by the request of the South Vietnamese "people" and the NVA and "V.C." (roughly comparable to the "colonists" in the U.S. "regular army" as well as "militias" during the great kickings of British ass back "across the pond" during the Revolutionary War and War of 1812) were effectively "stood down", we didn't have any reason to "occupy" South Vietnam much less against the will of its citizens.
And of course it was not U.S. "troops" that were chased out of "Saigon" and Saigon obviously is not in South Vietnam. It was "diplomats" and various of our "allies" who were "government officials" who seemed intent on "occupying" NORTH VIETNAM as we "withdrew" that U.S. "troops" had to go in an "evacuate" quite some time after the real "withdrawal" of military forces was over.
A fundamental difference but certainly only one of many between the U.S. and our "allies" on the crappy little barren undeveloped, unproductive and unworthy of "invasion" island across the pond is that we don't "export" government with military assistance, we go only where and when we are "invited" by legitimate "majority" governments or in dire humanitarian emergencies or to "engage" an enemy that refuses to do actual "battle", never wears or constantly wears a "military uniform" for his/her own "protection" or to "liberate" people who are being held and "governed" against their will by "shadow" or "puppet" governments they do not need, want, have any recollection of "electing" or "inviting" and are comprised of "foreign nationals" and/or "non-natives" but which just refuse to pack their shit and go home even if they "agreed" to long ago on a "date certain" which is long past and which was supposed to return the country to its own people and "home rule" or rather "sovereignty".
I wonder which "trading partner" the U.S. "taxpayers" will side with and decide to "defend" if and when "China" decides its time for "one China, one system" and our "allies" from across the pond to pack their shit and finally "withdraw" from Hong Kong? And South Africa. And Iran. And every other country they "occupy" and have long overstayed their "welcome" in after refusing stick to a "deal" to leave every one on a "date certain"..
And whether we will have to intervene "militarily" to return "global Britain" back to "local England" by making sure if the "deploy troops" to cover their "withdrawal" and "defend their citizens" they only "deploy" and do not "redeploy" in their "warships" and "fighter planes" by hitting them with a little "EMP" and making sure they go home "in style" on BA "speedbirds" escorted the whole way by UN "peacekeepers" or if they'll go "willingly" in some "mass migration" out of everywhere at once except where they can "slip through the cracks" and maintain some "occupation" here and there. And what about their Commonwealth "cousins" the Cannucks, Ausfailians, New Zealosers and "British-South Africans" they also have "occupying" everywhere and anywhere "Brit" not only is and rhymes with a certain four-letter word but which is a "fighting word" to boot?
Lots of "expatriates" out there who left the "Commonwealth" as "tourists" or on "holiday" or on "business" and ended up "legal pernanent residents" in countries where they literally "don't speak the language" when it comes to being invited to leave and "repatriate" themselves back to their "constitutional monarchy" and take their "pounds" of funny money with them.
One thing is certain. People always listen better when they're hungry. Or bleeding. And its been...forever...since the "British people" and their white Commonwealth "co-conspirators" have been either. Which is why they don't hear "go home".
But their own "Bloody Sunday" could be any Sunday China, Iran etc. finally decide to "evict" them and I really don't see much sympathy going their way much less "special relationships" putting "yanks" on their "side" as a "global policeman" keeping them in their "permanent residences".
@@deeremeyer1749 You don't GET it.
The point is: To have a successfull attack you need a concentration of force - fine and clear, but where is the opposition going to get these forces from? With Russia spending 20% of their GDP on defence, they are limited to what they can afford. Strengthning their front in Europe and against China is going to strain them, so they can't be strong everywhere.
It does not take much to deflect them.
The other point is moving your reserves quickly to the point of contact.
This has been a concern for the US. The seatransport is not that difficult - takes 5 days. Road and rail transport across Europe is reasonable - it takes a bit of planning; but moving troops from Spain across Europe has been done - with a lot of swearing and uncouth language - but it has been done.
As long as the roads are safe - it is not a big problem: You greatly underestima the importance of freindly forces - especially if they are organised.
Reducing the infantry squad from 8 to 6 by introduction of new weapons means you can beef up the number of infantry units.
Always thought this would have made a great replacement for our Lynx's. We got our M113, after our infantry driving around in 3/4 ton trucks were deemed wiped out in a big exercise and that our ability to fight was also deemed obsolete . that forced Canada to buy the M113.
Mom can we have a bradley?
We have a bradley at home.
Bradley at home:
I'm sorry, it had to be done.
I’d take that over the brad
Does it swim?
Now do the XM800W. It was the loser of the competition for good reason, but that articulated chassis made it the more *interesting* of the two prototypes.
A vehicle that would end up... SECOND TO NONE
Now this looks like a cool vehicle
They actually built about 15-20 of them... there are 3 known to still exist.
nice shots from the Ontario Regt museum
I have some strong 'Sheridan'-vibes here. Everyone need a huge number of failed IVF concepts. It's the game of the cool kidz xD
@matsimus, what do you think of the Ukrainian modified T-64BV fighting in east Ukraine? Its pretty much the standard that all T-64s are being converted to. Ukraine is my homeland. Keep up the good work.
Would love it if you explored the wheeled variant in a video - adminttedly much more unorthodox but quite intewresting for that reason.
Always called this the Zim-Boot. Don't understand why but the name stuck in my mind.
Thanks mat. Much love.
NIce one Matt. Any chance of doing a feature on the Soucy band tracks in comparison with tradition steel tracks? Saw a few CV90s in Afghan using them and the crews said they were awesome, but wore out fairly quickly. I believe Soucy did a replacement track system for the M113, which not only increased performance but also comfort.
Looks like the BT-7 had some upgrades
The x800m looks like a 6x6 version of the sdkfz 251 with the Hotchkiss turret on top.
Wierd request but what's the music you use in your intro,I've looked for it but have no luck so far.Thx
Matsimus, could you share your opinion about the kamikaze drone or loitering munition? It's quite terifying when it's used in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict being able to take out many ground assets
Another video from Mat!
Mark my words the 113 will fight on Mars.
Thanks for the vid sir.
One can only imagine the amount of Pentagon Wars bullshit that this had to go through
Cute little tank
Wasn't even aware of this tank until Spookston mentioned it in his last video! Thanks for the vid!
Btw, any chance of a T92 Light tank video? I'm absolutely fascinated by the design, would love a video from you. Thanks!
why did the m113 not have any spaced armor
Nice screen saves from Armored Warfare, personally I prefer a lot more armor around when going into battle! lol
that thing was a pain in the ass to face in Armored Warfare when there were players.
Have you seen footage of incoming IAI harop suicidedrones from the war in nagorno karabakh? The sound it makes is insane!
That whine could give it the name "Jericho Trumpet." I was kind of askance about suicide drones, but they seem to be quite useful, especially if they're man portable.
what do you think about borsuk new infantry fighting vehicle?
Far as I know, couldn't carry troops. Engines in the rear. Should gone into production! Many thanx 👍👍 be safe 🦊
Nice to see some Portuguese Army footage in the beginning.
You know if you added a 30mm auto cannon, a AT missile system, give is a v hull for blast mitigations, make the drive wheels large independent on a rubber track so if you lose the track it can still move and keep the speed at 85 to 90 kph it would be a viable scout vehicle for today.
One problem with the XM800T was lack of interior space for all the NBC Gear both protective gear and detection sets. Plus it did not have room for the 2 dismounts some sectors in the Cav branch Wanted to do the NBC detection tasks plus ground scouting of ford and bridge sites.
I've wondered why we don't have something to bridge the gap between a Humvee and a Bradley with an autocannon or the sort for infantry support and reconnaissance, like a mini-Bradley in the form of an modern M5 Stuart, and while not exactly intended for both roles, we had this thing.
"Had"...
Hey look! It's a Metal Slug!
Any chance you could do a video on the Cadillac gage v100 ?
the lil tank that could
Funny the Pentagon War movie made fun of the Bradley for all the fire power added on when it just needed to transport troops to drop off, now a fight vehicle transport with heavy firepower is a must and they are looking to up-gun the Bradley. The Bradley was actually ahead of it's time.
Matt, what did you say at 5:30? Played it back 6 times, garbled. Was at Baumholder '66-"68, 8ID 1/68A, HHQ Bat Maint, mos 63C. There were two M114's on the pad that never moved. The recon and mortar sections were never at full compliment, I think who ever was in recon used an M113 and M151"s on alerts. There were two M106's but I don't think there were enough mortar guys to run both at one time. Cheers
I think it looks awesome. It needs a 35 mm with rubber tracks on it.
The m114 has a Chevy small block v8 and it's "just a modified M113". Where my Chevy fans at?
make a video on chinese VT4\MBT 3000 and also discuss the variant that recently Pakistani army got from china,i would appreciate if you made this video
like always an amazing video keep up the good work, good luck :)
Problem today is that people do not understand concepts of: conscious trade-off and historical context. Today BMP-1 is crap technically, doctrinally etc. When it was appeared and in context for which it was built for - was quite impressive, despite well known problems that were result of compromise between price, technology and goals. In anti-tank role it quickly became obsolete, but when it was announcet, ICV as such was innovative concept.
Looks like a sinful mix between HSTV-L and M113 !
You are completely forgetting the M113 c&r wich was used by the Dutch and Canadian Army, thats where you are now Matsimus. so the question is was this vehicle designed before or after the C&R? The first C&R had a .50 machine gun, later the Dutch placed a 25MM oerlikon on it.
This is now being added to war thunder for those interested
Might have worked on the Grenz, but with more sensors.
Are you the finest in the land?
@@Chosinn nope, but I sure as heck served with them.
@@schlirf Currently with them right now. Always thought the slogans were kinda funny.
@@Chosinn ... Served with 'Second to None' and then the '1st Team' :-)
Aged like wine, welcome to War Thunder
Too bad this promising vehicle never got a chance. Another problem it would have faced was the Army mood that was developing at the time which was that damn near every single vehicle in the inventory had to be capable of defeating a T-72 (I exaggerate but not by much). You saw it in the Pentagon wars movie you mentioned, in which the Bradley was supposed to be an IFV battling other IFVs but someone decided it had to be a tank-killer. Jeeps were getting crammed with TOW launchers and everything.
And the vision blocks/firing ports on the sides of troop carriers wasn't just to tackle claustrophobia or anxiety, but also troops arriving on the battlefield disoriented and uncertain about the terrain. Way Back In The Day when I was a young infantry lad myself we always rode standing up in the back of the M-113s with the big troop hatch popped open because when we rode buttoned up inside (happened sometimes, usually in crappy weather) the ramp would drop and we'd be blinking in the sunlight and looking around the sudden unfamiliar environment unsure where cover or concealment was.
BABY BRADLY AWWWW!!!
Thank you
Reminds me more of the Sheridan
"I guess there won't be any funding left in the budget for my scout program..." apparently there was....
The. 113 and the 114 have nothing in common. Served on both and used the m139 20 mm. Loved the gun, but it was complicated
The US really needs something between the .50 cal and the 25mm bushmaster. I with the XM-25 CDTE was successful.
Would the MK-19 count?
I used to have XM800T #2, sold it to the guy who ones the one in the video which is serial number 1
it looks big until it s next to a Ford pick up, lol.
pick ups have grown so big, they make a pc look small.
I wonder how it would look next to my fj cruiser...
good show!
280 HP 6V53. ROFLMAO. Getting your info from "Jane's"?
Looks like the sheridan
I wonder if he is going to talk about the new tank the US Army is building to be used in airborne operations
The 800 referring to how many miles it can drive before it gets defunded.
We had 20 M114s with this turret and gun in the 80s this gun would take out chinese tanks.
This give me ww2 tank vibes.
The U.S. Army should have just licensed produced the the AVIS Scorpion/Scimitar
Still waiting for the BMD series of vehicles hehe
Noice
Wait a minute. I was under the impression recon and scout implied patrols that tried not to be detected. Armored tracked vehicles are not that.
It depends on doctrine. Remember that this vehicle could carry a small scout team to perform the missions that required stealth. When I served in a mech outfit (70s and 80s) our scouts were transported in 113s and did most recon work dismounted. This vehicle would have been fine in that role.
@@jacquesstrapp3219 "It depends on doctrine. "
Yep. During the height of the cold war, Germany had entire armored batallions (incl Leo IIs) dedicated to scouting. The Leo's part of the job was "reconnaissance by fire" ...
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzeraufkl%C3%A4rungstruppe_(Bundeswehr)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconnaissance_by_fire
@@positroll7870 It sounds like you have done some homework. Great observations.
Good video dad
For me it looks like modernised chaffy