Insomnium95

Apparently coronavirus is affecting production. I doubt it will be a major issue, timelines change quite often. BAE has delivered at least one prototype back in December.

Where did you find this information?

Look closer, you can see periscopes. Like you said they rejected two man crews, hence the extra crew spaces. The TC would not control the drones, the extra forth crewman would. Switchblade drones are small flying munitions perfect for tanks. The Griffin IFV demonstrated carrying these.

No they just labeled it wrong. It says 100 ready rounds which would mean the smaller RWS since 7.62 comes in 100 round ammo cans. Plus there's no flash hider at the end, it's got to be the GAS.

Now that I look closer tank 1 and 2 might not be 2 man crews. The first one appears to have four and the second three. You can see the gold colored periscopes on the turret, looks like the crew is sitting below the turret ring.

There's only so much you can do with the 30mm.

30mm won't get it done in the long-term.

Variant 1 and 2 have the least potential. Let's face it, a two man crew is not realistic in the field. Tank 3 still allows a lighter turret with autoloader and keeps a 4th man for UAV operation, operating the 2nd RWS, and other duties. I would assume the gunner is still in the turret with the TC and would be the backup loader since the TC can take control of the main gun from his station using the TC primary control handle. If you look closely you can see the gunners auxiliary sight on the left side of the gun mantlet. This would indicate that the gunner needs to be there to use it, unless the

Why would they remove all ATGMs and put a smaller 30mm on it? The other turret was better.

I'm still learning how to upload quality pics on here.

It's the AMPV, but yeah pretty much is a Bradley with an unmanned turret. It's the new EOS R800 turret.

What the Abrams AFAS could have had http://imgur.com/gallery/eOtuRoW

Not much similarity beside interior layout.

Yeah but they can still use it as leverage. Buy our light tank and now you have the option to buy an IFV with a common chasis. I think if GDLS wins MPF there's a high probability they win OMFV. Hopefully BAE wins and we get the Lynx.

Commonality with their Griffin III, assuming they win the OMFV contract.

Well with the 105 you can carry more ammo so in a way it has it's advantages. Plus it's easier to load than a 120. Right now the 105 can destroy any vehicle just short of a MBT and it's a great infantry killer with airburst ammo.

I still can't get over the fact that they didn't put an autoloader in it. Seems like such a waste of space for an extra crewman.

This is the low profile hull. The Army sets the requirements and they want the 105.

His response has nothing to do with what I said. He just wants to argue and I'm not interested in that.

Didn't even read what you wrote.

It's not just about protecting the crew but your life line which is your firepower. If you add armor to the unmanned turret wouldn't that defeat the purpose of keeping weight down?

Why would you want to pack a bunch of tanks on a mountainous island with thick jungles? Most armored vehicles will have little value in places like those islands. Taiwan has no value to America, why would anyone want to fight to save them from China? Any fighting with China won't be on an island but on the sea and in the air.

When I say tanks I mean MBTs. Light tanks like the M8 AGS would be fine.

As soon as you start taking armor off the turret you lose survivability. Now your main armament is exposed which is key to survivability. You save weight on some unmanned turrets but not all.