USA Army Finally Reveal New Tank

The US Army doesn't call it a light tank. They're calling it the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) system. It's planned to provide heavy firepower to infantry formations. I think the US Army doesn't refer to it as a light tank to avoid the idea developing that it was designed to kill other tanks.

Yes, so this going to start out as a "light armored fighting vehicle" and once it actually starts seeing combat, it will turn into a 55 ton modified heavy armored vehicle. Are we forgetting that we already have strikers?

I just hope the light tank idea doesn't go the same way as littoral ship idea

In the future, Light tanks are more likely be one of the common fire support in Asian battlefield to South East Asia conflicts maybe due to terrain and specially if U. S. went to Taiwan they more likely used to it

I was pissed that the US high ups ditched the M8, I felt it was the superior platform, but the more I look at it, the more this Griffin tank is growing on me. I hope it becomes a successful tank.

Why in the Hell are you showing RUSSIAN 152mm SP guns and a RUSSIAN "Terminator" in a video about US armored vehicles?

The Griffin is based on the same platform as the British Ajax. The Ajax programme has been suspended due to issues with build quality, vibration issues and other issues. Be interesting to see of the Griffin has the same problems.

No, they got it wrong. No light tank should cost more than a MBT and have less firepower.

The army should be more focused on their dismal recruitment and sustainment numbers

Well, nowadays even the 70+ metric tons heavy tanks like the latest M1´s probably are not going to survive an impact from modern ATGM´s, without being destroyed or heavily damaged, so lighter and cheaper tanks are probably the best way to go. A tracked ligh tank armed with heavy weaponry, like a 120mm high velocity cannon, or a 40mm (or the new 57mm) autocannon and ATGM´s... that would be enough punch.

As ex-Army, I have to agree with the many comments less favorable to this venture. Nothing beats an Abrams, but Ukraine suggests that even the mighty Abrams might not be enough. I think you could effect much higher firepower for mobile forces with an army of revved up dune buggies sporting Tow missiles and maybe a 50 cal. Throw on a little Kevlar sheets for some protection. If Ukraine teaches us anything, it’s that slow poky moving tanks can be easily killed with hand held weapons. The only countermeasure to this is lightning speed with high firepower and an overpowering number of targets that can’t possibly be all engaged before they are upon the enemy. I don’t think this light tank will be survivable against anti tank weapons, and although the people might survive a mine, I doubt the vehicle will, in which case what’s the point, it’s still out of the fight. And all that for $12M a pop? Maybe we’ll be surprised, but I doubt it: I havent seen anything good coming out of Futures Command, albeit the traditional acquisition systems has failed as well. No one knows how to do Research, Development, Engineering, and Acquisition any more ;-(

It's only an Airborne Tank or Navy tank support, but the Main Battle Tank still processing it.

One can only imagine what the U.S.A ARMY is developing.

"Fast moving dismounted infantry" - are we back to 1918 were the speed of a grunt is the measure of things?

I always liked American vehicle designs. Very boxy and muscular.

Did they just forget about the Bradley? It has good mobility, it’s a good APC, it’s has a 25mm auto cannon and TOW missiles to take out MBT’s

The big question is, why do they show a russian vehicle for so long?

We won't know if the Griffin is a success until it is tested in combat. Even then the nature of combat is so variable that the final verdict on the efficacy of the platform may not be known for many years.

The M8 was the way to go. The Griffon, is based on the POS Ajax. Typical pentagon BS.

Tanks don't "keep up with Infantry." The Infantry keeps up with the TANKS!