@@gamingrex2930 you can upgrade them, ive said it before that an upgraded t-64 would legitimately be the better option, on its base the t-64 ways less anyway (34 tonnes to 40 tonnes)
The MPF has become a meme on Chinese internet, because they thought ZTQ15 was a bad tank, until MPF came out -- heavier, less mobile, just as poorly armored, less fire power, and on top of that, cost more than a K2.
better quality armor, optics, fire control system, will actually work, better battle coordination, and superior crew with the highest first hit capability. He who sees first & shoots, wins. Just ask the Russians how well they're second rate quality is doing?
@@REB4444 Russian tanks are better though, they can get fielded, manufactured and serviced in actual numbers and western mbts have been taken out just as easily as Russian ones have in today's hyper lethal combat environments. In fact, most western mbts have been destroyed in this conflict without ever engaging enemy targets. So much for he who sees first wins, artillery and drones can spot a tank long before the tank ever could.
@@rogerc6533no all Ukraines tankers that have been interviewed have said that the western tanks have performed better and are more survivable then the Russian counterparts...
@@BeansWorld-v3e too bad theres less than 100 of them in the entire war huh? Also dunno what constitutes performing better when they barely even reach the front lines before being taken out.
Any source for the oxygen generator? Chinese sources seem to suggest it is an 8V132 with a two-stage supercharger. Also, it might be worth including VT-5 in the comparison as well. Despite being advertised as Type 15E (E for export), it is a different vehicle designed from the ground up with the technologies deployed on Type 15. With the design requirement on high-altitude operation removed, VT-5 has more design space to strengthen its active/passive protection, as opposed to Type 15's single-sided emphasis on mobility.
Thanks for the comments, Lau. Yes the VT5 is different enough to warrant a separate entry, including different armour package. I'll check my sources re the oxygen generators, it might be a translation issue
I doubt it's an oxygen generator. More likely it's a dual turbo system. Engines have a lot of trouble igniting in cold,high places. The Indian T90s run like absolute dogs up in the Himalayas (lots of white smoke, unburnt fuel). The PLA wanted something they could rapidly deploy and would reliably start at that altitude.
@@Strategy_Analysis Funny enough I was just looking at the new 300 series landcruiser. It's got a dual turbo system as well. More compressed air = more power/ignition
Yeah. And that's just the standard config. With ERA and other gear I wouldn't be surprised if it even reaches 50t just like how Abrams became mega fat.
@@Strategy_Analysis the ZTQ-15 is actually using a Bustle Loader. Which is the largest change from before develop over the year first show on a Chinese 1970s tank prototype.
I'm of the opinion that the MPF doesn't compare to the M551 Sheridan. The Sheridan could swim and was able to be dropped from the sky via parachute. What the MPF does compare to is the older assault guns seen in conflicts like WW2, a good example would be the M4 Sherman fitted with the 105mm howitzer.
It would appear that the ztq is a real tank. Still it is important to remember the mpf has advantages. The mpf has a smaller gun which will help it when it has to run around.
@@alexdunphy3716 yeah but isnt the mpfs gun shorter or the turret further back. Not running the gun into houses is kinda useful. If there really going to use it as infantry it may be kinda good. It should help it drive around.
Do you know if there are any sources I can go to to get chinese tank development history? Also in the video you mentioned that China has been developing new rounds for the 105mm, can you give sources for that?
There are some sources if you can search Chinese language websites. Again for your second question, on chinese language military sites. The new rounds are programmable ones. Similar concept to the new Abrams round.
Type-15 is already sold to many countries in south east Asia. It is very good to operate in swam, muddy road, and rain forest, where main battle tank can not go.
I believe the ZTQ-15 uses a 'standard' 105mm gun (Albeit with a longer barrel?) whereas the ZTL-11 and the ZTD-05 both use a 105mm low pressure/low recoil gun. Is this correct?
Thanks for this important comparison. It looks to me that the US and its allies need to become less dependent on air power for the support of ground troops as their air forces will be busy enough attacking strategic targets and with trying to maintain air superiority and will inevitably degrade rapidly over time during an all out peer to peer war due to the very long lead times needed to replace losses and to build capacity. Israel's experience in the Yom Kippur war is an example. US and allied ground forces accordingly should become more self sufficient like in Soviet/Russian and Chinese doctrine and will as a result need to add considerably more firepower (and air defence capability) to 'light' units such as airborne, amphibious, special forces, jungle, mountain and similar units to complement the GDLS 34 to 40 tonne class MPF which is good as far as it goes but unfortunately remains too heavy to rapidly transport and also to utilise for many conceivable 'difficult' theaters of operations. The US and allied nations need to add the following to their capabilities in addition to the GDLS 34 to 40 tonne class MPF: 1. A 19 tonne class MPF probably based around the very compact BAE Systems M8 Buford design MPF originally by FMC that lies just within the weight limits of the C130J Super Hercules. Transportability by C130 is an essential requirement due to the widespread availability of this aircraft and the fact that bigger transport aircraft will be grossly over committed during major conflict. Bolt on heavy armour or reactive armour would need to be added in theatre when needed. A self loading 105mm rifled gun would be most suitable initially but even better would be the development of a self loading 105mm smoothbore gun based on the 120mm smoothbore XM360 that utilises rarefaction wave technology to reduce recoil. This path would necessitate the development of a new 105mm smoothbore class of ammunition. Such a gun would also suit the GDLS MPF. 2. A portion of the GDLS 34 to 40 tonne class MPF's should preferably be fitted with a self loading 120mm smoothbore XM360 gun in case enemy MBT's or capable light tanks like the Chinese ZTQ-15 are likely to be encountered in addition to the primary infantry support role. The larger gun will provide a range and lethality advantage. 3. The recoil-less rifle from light (57mm) to large calibers (120mm) needs to be returned to widespread use on very light wheeled and tracked vehicles. The recoil-less rifle round is cheap and effective for close to medium ranges and vehicle mounted versions with gun stabilisation, fire control systems and good optics would complement man portable variants and the guns of MBT's and the MPF. This class of weapon could return to being the main source of heavy firepower for light infantry units and especially when artillery is not sufficiently available. Top attack anti-tank recoil-less rounds could easily be developed from existing missile systems that are in service. It was considered in the past that missiles made recoil-less rifles largely obsolete but missiles are very expensive, will inevitably become short in supply and missiles better suit longer range accurate fire. Self loading recoil-less rifles have also been developed in the US which would ideally suit many light vehicle mounted systems. A wide range of weapons could be developed in this class. 4. The Ukraine conflict has clearly shown the importance of artillery in the modern peer to peer battlefield and to complement 155mm tracked SPH's and 155mm and 105mm towed artillery; more light to medium weight wheeled and tracked vehicle mounted mortars (Mjolner or Nemo) and light self propelled howitzers would be highly beneficial. NATO may need to adopt the Soviet/Russian 122mm calibre artillery round and produce an equivalent of the Soviet era 2S1 Gvozdika as the 122mm round has more efficacy than the 105mm round without the mass and bulk of 155mm systems. Wheeled 155mm SPH's should also be added to complement but not replace the tracked 155mm SPH's to offer the advantages of easier air transport and for rapid self deployment in theatre whenever suitable. 5. A modernised version of the US 8 inch (203 mm) M110 self-propelled howitzer needs to be returned to the inventories of US and allied units as the other guys know how to use artillery and losing is not an option.
1. That level of air transportability got dropped quickly when it was realized the survivability of the vehicle was drastically impacted. See also: Stryker vehicle platform 2. 105mm was selected for a reason, and that reason is the role the vehicle was intended to fulfill. Anti-armor (above lighter levels)is not the primary function. 105mm is an excellent ground support weapon with a dizzying array of payload options. 3. Recoil-less rifles lack the range and shell trajectories of a standard cannon. This was ignored due to that rational. If you watch a recoil-less rifle engaging targets at 500m+ the shell drop is drastic. Leading targets gets quickly difficult. 4. The war in Ukraine has shown that as much as larger platforms for artillery are absolutely important, smaller caliber shells have a very important role to play. In a number of videos from Terra (fire support/intelligence unit) of Ukraine, they have stated multiple times that the king of battlefield firepower is the 120mm mortar (make of that what you will). Also, the speed and maneuverability of 105mm non-self propelled arty is treated as an important force multiplier. 5. Yeah, I agree with that in general.
@@SlavicCelery Thanks Timothy for your considered response. I think we are mostly agreed but I have some comments. 1. You say survivability is drastically impacted for a 19 tonne class MPF. The 'Buford' was air transportable by C130J in its base lightly armoured form but had the option of reactive and heavy armour upgrade kits that would be transported separately and could be mounted in the field if and when needed. Modern active protection systems should also be feasible. The 'Bufords' smaller vehicle hull size and upgraded armour kits would result in good survivability almost comparable to the GDLS in my view. I see the 'Buford' and GDLS as being different and complementary. Not all theatres require or can even utilise a 34 to 40 tonne class MPF. The US should have both in my view and perhaps the Marines or Airborne units could adopt something more like the improved 'Buford'. 2. I agree the 105mm is the best option for infantry support but suggested a variant of the GDLS with a low recoil smoothbore 120mm gun such as the XM360 be additionally acquired in case some enemy tanks are in the theatre of operation. Commanders need options and threats are never static. In the Ukraine War Russian tanks have arrived in theatre unexpectedly on frequent occasions - enemies are like that. 3. The short range and relatively poor accuracy of recoil-less rifles is true BUT much fighting is short range for example the Ukraine War, the Falkland's War, the Korean War and in fact most wars. Give the soldier fire power and lots of it. Commanders and soldiers need options not just the best state of the art weapon that will likely never be available in sufficient numbers. The F35's will likely be busy elsewhere anyway in most battle situations. 4 & 5. Agreed
@@andreasbimba6519 Glad to have a civil conversation. Further point of clarification regarding point 1. The Stryker MGS platform, mounting the 105mm has a platform weight of ~18.7 tons. The vehicle shakes itself to death with the recoil of the 105mm. Wheeled platforms are generally lighter than tracked. In order to go down to that weight, equip the entire sensor/technology pack, and mount the appropriate firepower is not cost effective. The MGS system was accounting for something along the lines of 70% of the logistics workers time to keep them operating. So, can you effectively mount the firepower on that light weight of a vehicle? Yes, but. The but absolutely being a degradation of reliability standards for the US military. The ultimate stance was a vehicle of that weight could not accomplish the task at hand reliably even with additional environmental armor (see also, their real world experience). 2. The platform is specifically not designed around the anti-armor role. That said, they are plans to equip it with ATGMs, which would address any shortcomings of the 105mm. 3. You shouldn't plan for a worse option when in peace. You should prepare for the worst option, but plan on the best. No point in giving a low velocity round, when the 105mm is about as ubiquitous as .50 BMG. From a technological viewpoint, dropping to recoil-less creates additional issues, like back blast, which undermines the goal of the MPF. That being direct fire support for infantry. The MPF is a mobile, reasonably armored 105mm cannon, to replace a 105mm howitzer for direct fire combat situations. It's a gun to sling enough hate down range to take out a sandbag position at 2km via line of sight. It also can take down any number of IFV/Armored trucks that are out there. Going off of current combat loss estimates, there seems to be almost a 4:1 ratio of other land vehicles to tanks currently. If you add in the number of bunkers/buildings/hardpoints that need to be targeted... There's a whole lot to shoot at that's not a tank.
@@andreasbimba6519 Also, it looks like the US military is most likely going to go with the Bradley replacement that is based on the same chassis as the M-10. So that's a reduced logistics downstream. They might end up going with the Rheinmetall option, but I doubt it.
@@SlavicCelery Timothy thanks again for your comments. 1. The Stryker MGS does have relatively soft suspension being a wheeled vehicle and mounts the 105mm gun relatively high off the ground hence the significant recoil shock and movement. The recoil shock and movement in the Stryker MGS is nevertheless acceptable in my view but only if reliability is not degraded - war is hell after all. The video below shows the original M8 Buford Armoured Gun System (AGS) firing a 105mm low recoil gun from about 1m50s to 2m30s. The 'Buford' clearly fires the main gun with less recoil shock and movement than the Stryker MGS. ruclips.net/video/AcBIvW5HQnE/видео.html 2. "The platform is specifically not designed around the anti-armor role". That's an example of tying one arm behind your back probably introduced to avoid excessive complexity and cost blowouts but it is also defeatism to deny yourself an opportunity given how close the GD MPF is to being a capable light tank that can take on MBT's IN THE EVENT NOTHING BETTER IS AVAILABLE to those units facing an unexpected MBT. General Dynamics have shown an early version of their successfully bid Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) vehicle mounted with the very low recoil rarefaction wave technology XM360 smoothbore 120mm gun. The US Army should ideally have the option to operate the 34 to 40 tonne class MPF with a 120mm gun in small numbers alongside the 105mm gun MPF's in my view. The 120mm gun MPF may well be investigated and adopted by the US Army a few years down the track anyway if and when they realise peer to peer opponents have lots of tanks. ruclips.net/video/xVnVf7c0aVQ/видео.html Fire and forget ATGM's are useful but relatively slow and are an expensive munition compared to a 120mm APFSDS round. As mentioned all weapons have their strengths and weaknesses and the best you can do is give your commanders and soldiers lots of options that they can draw from as needed and the same goes for recoil-less guns/rifles of all calibres in my view. Low recoil guns have also advanced in recent years and can also be mounted on a range of lighter vehicles avoiding most back blast. 3. Yes the 105mm gun GD MPF is a very useful weapon and should proceed ASAP. Definitely prepare for the worst.
The one thing that kind of bothers me about the MPF is why they cut out parts of the front turret armor to place the smoke grenades? This creates serious weak points on what should be the best fortified area of a tank.
that guy is a goof, nothing but an ex force arm of tyranny, he is the real tyrant, he gives western evil power, ie; order following force arms that violate natural rights, especially firearm and defense rights, own and carry, of humans for evil tyrants
Hi James, yes I have. I mention at the end of the briefing his video and encourage people to watch it. I also provide a link in the description. Cheers.
@@helloterran HAHAHAHA, you mean when it's not in the shop, and no it won't. When it comes to tanks, he who sees first, shoots first, and hits first wins. The M10 has better optics, night vision that is 2-3 generations newer, better networked where it can grab feeds & data from other vehicles/drones/satellites to spot it first, manned by higher quality crews that are better trained. And even IF the Type 96 gets the drop first, extremely unlikely, the Booker has higher quality armor & will have a more reliable APS. The crew also can work more efficiently with less stress knowing they have a higher chance of surviving because of all the different egress hatches. People tend to work better when they know they are not in a deathtrap.
MPF is so confusing, yes I know it's not a tank, but a 105mm gun, still no autoloader, 38 tons and needs M88 for recovering work, US can do better than this.
no they cannot, cause "gotta have a manual loader". A manual loader requires space, crew requires at least somewhat desent survivability. This all makes the vehicle unnecesarilly heavy.
Yes, now the M10 Booker. I uploaded this briefing before the new name came out. I've updated the title. I would have thought an APS and RWS would have been important additions too.
The Type 15 also has a cassette autoloader, which is extra important at high altitudes where oxygen is poor. Loaders would tire out easily. I think the main difference between the two is that the 15 has a real mission set against a real enemy: India. The MPF is just another cash grab. It doesn't have a real world mission for the US Army, maybe the USMC.
@@Strategy_Analysis Yeah, that's another word for it. Though, frankly, for a light tank, a carousel might actually be safer. A bustle autoloader stores ammo behind an armored door that usually has blow out panels. BUT a shot through the front of the turret can perforate that blast door, ignite the ammunition, and you'd still have a total loss of the tank. In a full-armor MBT, the front of the turret is where the strongest armor is, and thus such a penetrating hit is unlikely. But with a light tank, such a penetration is quite likely. By contrast, the T-72 style carousel is placed low in the hull of the tank where it's unlikely to be hit directly. A study done by the Russians a few months ago found that the majority of ammunition cookoffs were due to ammo out side of the carousel being hit, usually the rack next to the driver. So the carousel autoloader wasn't to blame.
@@theredbar-cross8515 Yes, a good point about the carousel not being at fault (at least most of the time) with the ammunition cook-offs. Better protection for the other stored ammo is the solution, which I think they have done on the T-90M.
@@Strategy_Analysis The T-90M has a bit of light armor around the carousel to prevent fires from elsewhere in the tank getting to the ammo. This doesn't stop a direct hit but it might stop spalling from a nearby penetration. Honestly, it's not a bad idea. There's a benefit of bustle autoloaders that rarely gets mentioned which is their ability to counterbalance the weight of the gun. This makes rotation of the turret a bit easier. Older tank designs actually had to weld dead weights to the backs of turrets to balance out big gun upgrades made in the middle of wars.
@@theredbar-cross8515 You are definitely not wrong, but meanwhile, carousel also limits the length of ammunition, especially consider APSFDS is getting longer and longer today, bustle is better to adapt future ammuniton upgrade.
Reportedly Bangladesh paid about $5m per unit for their VT-5 (export version) order, though they bought the APS too so that definitely adds some expense.
I like ZTQ-15, Chinese just leave the Soviet style carousel autoloader into real bustle autoloader, and the design looks practical, but m10 booker more like standard fire support vehicle and they have 4 crewand easy to maintain because they didn't use autoloader
MPF doctrinally isn't a light tank. It's the same thing as comparing a M-10 Wolverine with a M4 Sherman. They may have stuff in common, but their roles are so different that it's a fools errand. MPF isn't a recon tank, nor is its combat doctrine conducive to light tank roles. Honestly, it's more like comparing an SPG with a light tank. Yeah, you can argue light tank capability over the SPG all day long, but the SPG role isn't as a light tank. Comparing the two is literally a strawman argument. I'm going to create a role (which the item is not designed for), and judge it based on the criteria, I've assigned it it all. You shouldn't compare an air superiority fighter with a CAS unit. Because the doctrinal roles are different. Can the Booker be pushed or updated into a true light tank role? Yes. Is that what the military has approved it for at this time? No.
Seems like China went with a rather conservative solution but US army decided to want to change the game and make a new class of vehicle. Between them, it really would be down to who shoots first unless the ZTQ has some proper AP package.
@@DrownedinbloodThe US tends to view them as a waste of space. They throw off combat tempo drastically when being guided, and offer no real advantage over high quality fire control systems and optics. Better to just make the M10 as good as possible at Infantry Support and out the anti tank focus. Also, in the case an IBCT encounters enemy MBTs, that's what all the TOWs and Javelins are for.
@@Drownedinblood good point. Still think it'll do what it needs to do. I think the Army insisted on 105mm also just due to the ammo capacity increase. It's a trade-off certainly, but I highly doubt the Army would willingly field a vehicle that can't complete the mission to their desired standards. Plus, it's not as though the infantry are losing any Anti Tank capability by gaining the M10, they're just getting more capabilities that seem increasingly relevant in near peer conflict.
Actually Sheridan is a pretty good tank in modern context, Russian Ukraine war had shown nowadays big tanks don’t do shit on battlefield, a modernized Sheridan would be a good direction to consider.
T-72 only arppox 45t , why not use M68 to instead of 2A46M 125mm gun and also use Installation of a tailgate automatic loader to instead of carousel-type ammunition loader ,then you can a Light MBT ,Better armor and better power than the MPF.
we can all agree one is a thematic copy of the other because they lack service innovation and just like funneling money into their post-military career company lmao
Not sure why you compared the two vehicles, unless you wanted to use them as an example of how a tank and armored infantry support vehicle are different. (why may have made a good video) Just because they may face each other is not really a good reason. You could have compared an infantryman with an armored vehicle by that reasoning.
@@cj64343 No. A tank is not just an armored vehicle. What defines a tank is it designed mission. A tank is intended and designed to exploit a breach in enemy lines and wreak havoc behind enemy lines using speed, shock, and firepower. It should be noted that "shock" incorporates psychological shock in additoion to physical shock. While teh M10 can be used as a tank, a wrench can be used like a hammer. That doesn't make a wrench a hammer. The M10 lacks the speed and protection to make an effective tank. I served in the US Army as 19D (Cavalry Scout) and trained on the M3 Bradley, M113, and M901 ITV. I later went through OCS to be an officer in the National Guard. The M10 Booker is an infantry fire support vehicle. It is intended to operate and stay closely behind infantary and provide heavy firepower when needed. As such, it speed and armor need not be as great as a MBT. It extremely vulnerable to RPGs. Of course, that isn'tan issue since it should be staying behind infantry.
The Booker is junk. It's way over budget, it has no autoloader, and no drone protection. The Abrams "X" had the right idea, with the autoloader, lighter weight, and unmanned turret.
these 2 tanks will never cross paths cos the US naval fleet will be lucky to even get close to China's 2nd Island chains. Let alone land tanks on Chinese soils. Just saying!
The differences: The M10 will actually work when you turn it on, the armor composition is higher quality, it will coordinate & integrate as part of a whole network working together seamlessly to where it doesn't have to be the one to destroy the bad guy, it's night & low low visibility optics are two generations better, and more importantly, it will hit at what it aims with the first shot because of the superior sighting optics, superior fire control system, and SUPERIOR quality crew with better training.
Tell me you dont know anything without telling me, the ztq 15 has a second gen thermals which is the highest thermal so if m10 has two gen above then is it 4th gen? That dont exist cry harder American glazer, America has a lot of great stuff like f35 f22 abrams but this isn’t it bud, keep coping
ZTQ-15：Light version MBT
MPF: Heavy version assult gun
The only thing that would make it better than a t-55 or t-62 as an assault gun is being fitted with iron fist
@@alexdunphy3716Dawg the T55 and T62 can’t reverse, any metal box with a gun would be a better assault gun.
@@gamingrex2930 you can upgrade them, ive said it before that an upgraded t-64 would legitimately be the better option, on its base the t-64 ways less anyway (34 tonnes to 40 tonnes)
@@gamingrex2930 observe *turns around*
@@BillyBurnsfield you’re right, I remember some Czech or Polish company made a modded transmission that gives >20km/h reverse speed for Soviet tanks.
The MPF has become a meme on Chinese internet, because they thought ZTQ15 was a bad tank, until MPF came out -- heavier, less mobile, just as poorly armored, less fire power, and on top of that, cost more than a K2.
better quality armor, optics, fire control system, will actually work, better battle coordination, and superior crew with the highest first hit capability. He who sees first & shoots, wins. Just ask the Russians how well they're second rate quality is doing?
@@REB4444 Russian tanks are better though, they can get fielded, manufactured and serviced in actual numbers and western mbts have been taken out just as easily as Russian ones have in today's hyper lethal combat environments. In fact, most western mbts have been destroyed in this conflict without ever engaging enemy targets. So much for he who sees first wins, artillery and drones can spot a tank long before the tank ever could.
@@rogerc6533no all Ukraines tankers that have been interviewed have said that the western tanks have performed better and are more survivable then the Russian counterparts...
@@BeansWorld-v3e too bad theres less than 100 of them in the entire war huh? Also dunno what constitutes performing better when they barely even reach the front lines before being taken out.
@user-gc7dr7iz1z thats a lie. Ukrsinians said western tanks too high maintenance and rather soviet tanks
Don't worry, M10 Booker has Blackman Autoloader.
it is famous meme in Chinese internet.
Any source for the oxygen generator? Chinese sources seem to suggest it is an 8V132 with a two-stage supercharger. Also, it might be worth including VT-5 in the comparison as well. Despite being advertised as Type 15E (E for export), it is a different vehicle designed from the ground up with the technologies deployed on Type 15. With the design requirement on high-altitude operation removed, VT-5 has more design space to strengthen its active/passive protection, as opposed to Type 15's single-sided emphasis on mobility.
Thanks for the comments, Lau. Yes the VT5 is different enough to warrant a separate entry, including different armour package. I'll check my sources re the oxygen generators, it might be a translation issue
@@Strategy_Analysisit's on the pamphlet of the ZTQ-15E at a show.
I doubt it's an oxygen generator. More likely it's a dual turbo system. Engines have a lot of trouble igniting in cold,high places.
The Indian T90s run like absolute dogs up in the Himalayas (lots of white smoke, unburnt fuel).
The PLA wanted something they could rapidly deploy and would reliably start at that altitude.
Yes, a translation error on my part.
@@Strategy_Analysis Funny enough I was just looking at the new 300 series landcruiser. It's got a dual turbo system as well. More compressed air = more power/ignition
@@yanmak2363 Are they staged Turbos?
Oxygen generator for the crew. Altitude could be 5,000 meters on the Indian border.
WHY is there no automated .50 cal. M2 machine gun on the BOOKER MPF?? That is a deficit that will hurt the crew.
Good question. I don't know the answer. I would have thought it was of obvious benefit.
Because it’s too expensive to add in
I believe the final weight of the M10 is greater than 38 tons, stripes in June quoted the Army at 42 tons.
Yeah. And that's just the standard config. With ERA and other gear I wouldn't be surprised if it even reaches 50t just like how Abrams became mega fat.
Both could probably be termed infantry support tanks.
Indeed, and as I mention in the briefing the ZTQ-15 when part of the Mountain Brigades would be filing the same role as the MPF.
@@Strategy_Analysis the ZTQ-15 is actually using a Bustle Loader. Which is the largest change from before develop over the year first show on a Chinese 1970s tank prototype.
Type 62G never entered serial production or was issued to the PLAGF. But the original Type 62 with the 85mm gun was.
I'm of the opinion that the MPF doesn't compare to the M551 Sheridan. The Sheridan could swim and was able to be dropped from the sky via parachute. What the MPF does compare to is the older assault guns seen in conflicts like WW2, a good example would be the M4 Sherman fitted with the 105mm howitzer.
The ZTQ-15’s design blows away the MPF, IMO, it looks much more practical and overall versatile.
It would appear that the ztq is a real tank. Still it is important to remember the mpf has advantages. The mpf has a smaller gun which will help it when it has to run around.
@@gabriels5105they both use a 105mm
@@alexdunphy3716 yeah but isnt the mpfs gun shorter or the turret further back. Not running the gun into houses is kinda useful. If there really going to use it as infantry it may be kinda good. It should help it drive around.
oh look, someone smelling theyre own farts.
@gabriels5105 if you're using a tank in that kind of street fighting, kinda sketch from the get go ain't it?
Do you know if there are any sources I can go to to get chinese tank development history? Also in the video you mentioned that China has been developing new rounds for the 105mm, can you give sources for that?
There are some sources if you can search Chinese language websites. Again for your second question, on chinese language military sites. The new rounds are programmable ones. Similar concept to the new Abrams round.
The ZTQ-15 turret kind of resembles a Leopard 2 with ERA.
Type-15 is already sold to many countries in south east Asia. It is very good to operate in swam, muddy road, and rain forest, where main battle tank can not go.
Really? The only country besides China that is using it is Bangladesh and that is not a Southeast Asian country.
@@remliqa standard botted response, dont bother fact checking it
@@remliqa Can't really use heavy MBT's in Bangladesh.
@@remliqanot to mention VT-5 is very much NOT ZTQ-15. It’s a failed contract bidder for ZTQ and contains major differences.
I believe the ZTQ-15 uses a 'standard' 105mm gun (Albeit with a longer barrel?) whereas the ZTL-11 and the ZTD-05 both use a 105mm low pressure/low recoil gun. Is this correct?
Thanks for this important comparison. It looks to me that the US and its allies need to become less dependent on air power for the support of ground troops as their air forces will be busy enough attacking strategic targets and with trying to maintain air superiority and will inevitably degrade rapidly over time during an all out peer to peer war due to the very long lead times needed to replace losses and to build capacity. Israel's experience in the Yom Kippur war is an example.
US and allied ground forces accordingly should become more self sufficient like in Soviet/Russian and Chinese doctrine and will as a result need to add considerably more firepower (and air defence capability) to 'light' units such as airborne, amphibious, special forces, jungle, mountain and similar units to complement the GDLS 34 to 40 tonne class MPF which is good as far as it goes but unfortunately remains too heavy to rapidly transport and also to utilise for many conceivable 'difficult' theaters of operations.
The US and allied nations need to add the following to their capabilities in addition to the GDLS 34 to 40 tonne class MPF:
1. A 19 tonne class MPF probably based around the very compact BAE Systems M8 Buford design MPF originally by FMC that lies just within the weight limits of the C130J Super Hercules. Transportability by C130 is an essential requirement due to the widespread availability of this aircraft and the fact that bigger transport aircraft will be grossly over committed during major conflict. Bolt on heavy armour or reactive armour would need to be added in theatre when needed. A self loading 105mm rifled gun would be most suitable initially but even better would be the development of a self loading 105mm smoothbore gun based on the 120mm smoothbore XM360 that utilises rarefaction wave technology to reduce recoil. This path would necessitate the development of a new 105mm smoothbore class of ammunition. Such a gun would also suit the GDLS MPF.
2. A portion of the GDLS 34 to 40 tonne class MPF's should preferably be fitted with a self loading 120mm smoothbore XM360 gun in case enemy MBT's or capable light tanks like the Chinese ZTQ-15 are likely to be encountered in addition to the primary infantry support role. The larger gun will provide a range and lethality advantage.
3. The recoil-less rifle from light (57mm) to large calibers (120mm) needs to be returned to widespread use on very light wheeled and tracked vehicles. The recoil-less rifle round is cheap and effective for close to medium ranges and vehicle mounted versions with gun stabilisation, fire control systems and good optics would complement man portable variants and the guns of MBT's and the MPF. This class of weapon could return to being the main source of heavy firepower for light infantry units and especially when artillery is not sufficiently available. Top attack anti-tank recoil-less rounds could easily be developed from existing missile systems that are in service. It was considered in the past that missiles made recoil-less rifles largely obsolete but missiles are very expensive, will inevitably become short in supply and missiles better suit longer range accurate fire. Self loading recoil-less rifles have also been developed in the US which would ideally suit many light vehicle mounted systems. A wide range of weapons could be developed in this class.
4. The Ukraine conflict has clearly shown the importance of artillery in the modern peer to peer battlefield and to complement 155mm tracked SPH's and 155mm and 105mm towed artillery; more light to medium weight wheeled and tracked vehicle mounted mortars (Mjolner or Nemo) and light self propelled howitzers would be highly beneficial. NATO may need to adopt the Soviet/Russian 122mm calibre artillery round and produce an equivalent of the Soviet era 2S1 Gvozdika as the 122mm round has more efficacy than the 105mm round without the mass and bulk of 155mm systems. Wheeled 155mm SPH's should also be added to complement but not replace the tracked 155mm SPH's to offer the advantages of easier air transport and for rapid self deployment in theatre whenever suitable.
5. A modernised version of the US 8 inch (203 mm) M110 self-propelled howitzer needs to be returned to the inventories of US and allied units as the other guys know how to use artillery and losing is not an option.
1. That level of air transportability got dropped quickly when it was realized the survivability of the vehicle was drastically impacted. See also: Stryker vehicle platform
2. 105mm was selected for a reason, and that reason is the role the vehicle was intended to fulfill. Anti-armor (above lighter levels)is not the primary function. 105mm is an excellent ground support weapon with a dizzying array of payload options.
3. Recoil-less rifles lack the range and shell trajectories of a standard cannon. This was ignored due to that rational. If you watch a recoil-less rifle engaging targets at 500m+ the shell drop is drastic. Leading targets gets quickly difficult.
4. The war in Ukraine has shown that as much as larger platforms for artillery are absolutely important, smaller caliber shells have a very important role to play. In a number of videos from Terra (fire support/intelligence unit) of Ukraine, they have stated multiple times that the king of battlefield firepower is the 120mm mortar (make of that what you will). Also, the speed and maneuverability of 105mm non-self propelled arty is treated as an important force multiplier.
5. Yeah, I agree with that in general.
@@SlavicCelery Thanks Timothy for your considered response. I think we are mostly agreed but I have some comments.
1. You say survivability is drastically impacted for a 19 tonne class MPF. The 'Buford' was air transportable by C130J in its base lightly armoured form but had the option of reactive and heavy armour upgrade kits that would be transported separately and could be mounted in the field if and when needed. Modern active protection systems should also be feasible. The 'Bufords' smaller vehicle hull size and upgraded armour kits would result in good survivability almost comparable to the GDLS in my view. I see the 'Buford' and GDLS as being different and complementary. Not all theatres require or can even utilise a 34 to 40 tonne class MPF. The US should have both in my view and perhaps the Marines or Airborne units could adopt something more like the improved 'Buford'.
2. I agree the 105mm is the best option for infantry support but suggested a variant of the GDLS with a low recoil smoothbore 120mm gun such as the XM360 be additionally acquired in case some enemy tanks are in the theatre of operation. Commanders need options and threats are never static. In the Ukraine War Russian tanks have arrived in theatre unexpectedly on frequent occasions - enemies are like that.
3. The short range and relatively poor accuracy of recoil-less rifles is true BUT much fighting is short range for example the Ukraine War, the Falkland's War, the Korean War and in fact most wars. Give the soldier fire power and lots of it. Commanders and soldiers need options not just the best state of the art weapon that will likely never be available in sufficient numbers. The F35's will likely be busy elsewhere anyway in most battle situations.
4 & 5. Agreed
@@andreasbimba6519 Glad to have a civil conversation.
Further point of clarification regarding point 1. The Stryker MGS platform, mounting the 105mm has a platform weight of ~18.7 tons. The vehicle shakes itself to death with the recoil of the 105mm.
Wheeled platforms are generally lighter than tracked. In order to go down to that weight, equip the entire sensor/technology pack, and mount the appropriate firepower is not cost effective.
The MGS system was accounting for something along the lines of 70% of the logistics workers time to keep them operating. So, can you effectively mount the firepower on that light weight of a vehicle? Yes, but. The but absolutely being a degradation of reliability standards for the US military.
The ultimate stance was a vehicle of that weight could not accomplish the task at hand reliably even with additional environmental armor (see also, their real world experience).
2. The platform is specifically not designed around the anti-armor role. That said, they are plans to equip it with ATGMs, which would address any shortcomings of the 105mm.
3. You shouldn't plan for a worse option when in peace. You should prepare for the worst option, but plan on the best. No point in giving a low velocity round, when the 105mm is about as ubiquitous as .50 BMG.
From a technological viewpoint, dropping to recoil-less creates additional issues, like back blast, which undermines the goal of the MPF. That being direct fire support for infantry.
The MPF is a mobile, reasonably armored 105mm cannon, to replace a 105mm howitzer for direct fire combat situations.
It's a gun to sling enough hate down range to take out a sandbag position at 2km via line of sight. It also can take down any number of IFV/Armored trucks that are out there.
Going off of current combat loss estimates, there seems to be almost a 4:1 ratio of other land vehicles to tanks currently. If you add in the number of bunkers/buildings/hardpoints that need to be targeted... There's a whole lot to shoot at that's not a tank.
@@andreasbimba6519 Also, it looks like the US military is most likely going to go with the Bradley replacement that is based on the same chassis as the M-10.
So that's a reduced logistics downstream. They might end up going with the Rheinmetall option, but I doubt it.
@@SlavicCelery Timothy thanks again for your comments.
1. The Stryker MGS does have relatively soft suspension being a wheeled vehicle and mounts the 105mm gun relatively high off the ground hence the significant recoil shock and movement. The recoil shock and movement in the Stryker MGS is nevertheless acceptable in my view but only if reliability is not degraded - war is hell after all. The video below shows the original M8 Buford Armoured Gun System (AGS) firing a 105mm low recoil gun from about 1m50s to 2m30s. The 'Buford' clearly fires the main gun with less recoil shock and movement than the Stryker MGS.
ruclips.net/video/AcBIvW5HQnE/видео.html
2. "The platform is specifically not designed around the anti-armor role". That's an example of tying one arm behind your back probably introduced to avoid excessive complexity and cost blowouts but it is also defeatism to deny yourself an opportunity given how close the GD MPF is to being a capable light tank that can take on MBT's IN THE EVENT NOTHING BETTER IS AVAILABLE to those units facing an unexpected MBT.
General Dynamics have shown an early version of their successfully bid Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) vehicle mounted with the very low recoil rarefaction wave technology XM360 smoothbore 120mm gun. The US Army should ideally have the option to operate the 34 to 40 tonne class MPF with a 120mm gun in small numbers alongside the 105mm gun MPF's in my view. The 120mm gun MPF may well be investigated and adopted by the US Army a few years down the track anyway if and when they realise peer to peer opponents have lots of tanks.
ruclips.net/video/xVnVf7c0aVQ/видео.html
Fire and forget ATGM's are useful but relatively slow and are an expensive munition compared to a 120mm APFSDS round. As mentioned all weapons have their strengths and weaknesses and the best you can do is give your commanders and soldiers lots of options that they can draw from as needed and the same goes for recoil-less guns/rifles of all calibres in my view. Low recoil guns have also advanced in recent years and can also be mounted on a range of lighter vehicles avoiding most back blast.
3. Yes the 105mm gun GD MPF is a very useful weapon and should proceed ASAP. Definitely prepare for the worst.
The one thing that kind of bothers me about the MPF is why they cut out parts of the front turret armor to place the smoke grenades?
This creates serious weak points on what should be the best fortified area of a tank.
They don't, the main armor is underneath. Though the outer panels act as spaced armor.
No it doesn’t.
Hello! You earned my subscription! 🙂
Thank you. Much appreciated.
Have you seen The Chieftan's video on the MPF?
that guy is a goof, nothing but an ex force arm of tyranny, he is the real tyrant, he gives western evil power, ie; order following force arms that violate natural rights, especially firearm and defense rights, own and carry, of humans for evil tyrants
Hi James, yes I have. I mention at the end of the briefing his video and encourage people to watch it. I also provide a link in the description. Cheers.
@@Strategy_Analysis Apart from all that though....
@@Strategy_Analysis have you thought about reaching out to him to have a chat? He seems keen on collaborations and is a very well informed individual.
@@Strategy_Analysis he's also been to Australia, in particular to the private armour museum up in Cairns.
MPF is the size of a small barn! 38t for a light tank is absurd it weights almost as much as most Russian and Chinese mbts.
A T90MS weights nearly 50 tons, a M2 Bradley can range from 27 to 30 tons, a 38 ton tank with a 105 sounds kinda tame to me
38t is similar to a T-54/55.
You’ve been misinformed, Chinese MBTs are pretty heavy
@@velavanlaack9134 Type 96 is 42 tons, and will blow M10 to pieces even if the M10 fires first.
@@helloterran HAHAHAHA, you mean when it's not in the shop, and no it won't. When it comes to tanks, he who sees first, shoots first, and hits first wins. The M10 has better optics, night vision that is 2-3 generations newer, better networked where it can grab feeds & data from other vehicles/drones/satellites to spot it first, manned by higher quality crews that are better trained. And even IF the Type 96 gets the drop first, extremely unlikely, the Booker has higher quality armor & will have a more reliable APS. The crew also can work more efficiently with less stress knowing they have a higher chance of surviving because of all the different egress hatches. People tend to work better when they know they are not in a deathtrap.
The VN-17 IFV is developed based on modified VT-5 chassis
MPF is so confusing, yes I know it's not a tank, but a 105mm gun, still no autoloader, 38 tons and needs M88 for recovering work, US can do better than this.
no they cannot, cause "gotta have a manual loader". A manual loader requires space, crew requires at least somewhat desent survivability. This all makes the vehicle unnecesarilly heavy.
The O2 generator is most likely for the crew.
Could be right.
いいビデオ
Thank you.
MPF now named the Booker. Surprised by the lack of HP/Ton. Needs to add APS and Rheinmetall ROSY system. 82nd Abn will have 1 company, so not too many
Yes, now the M10 Booker. I uploaded this briefing before the new name came out. I've updated the title. I would have thought an APS and RWS would have been important additions too.
The Type 15 also has a cassette autoloader, which is extra important at high altitudes where oxygen is poor. Loaders would tire out easily.
I think the main difference between the two is that the 15 has a real mission set against a real enemy: India. The MPF is just another cash grab. It doesn't have a real world mission for the US Army, maybe the USMC.
Do you mean bustle autoloader? Yes it does, which is different from the normal Chinese carousel autoloader.
@@Strategy_Analysis Yeah, that's another word for it.
Though, frankly, for a light tank, a carousel might actually be safer.
A bustle autoloader stores ammo behind an armored door that usually has blow out panels. BUT a shot through the front of the turret can perforate that blast door, ignite the ammunition, and you'd still have a total loss of the tank.
In a full-armor MBT, the front of the turret is where the strongest armor is, and thus such a penetrating hit is unlikely. But with a light tank, such a penetration is quite likely.
By contrast, the T-72 style carousel is placed low in the hull of the tank where it's unlikely to be hit directly.
A study done by the Russians a few months ago found that the majority of ammunition cookoffs were due to ammo out side of the carousel being hit, usually the rack next to the driver. So the carousel autoloader wasn't to blame.
@@theredbar-cross8515 Yes, a good point about the carousel not being at fault (at least most of the time) with the ammunition cook-offs. Better protection for the other stored ammo is the solution, which I think they have done on the T-90M.
@@Strategy_Analysis The T-90M has a bit of light armor around the carousel to prevent fires from elsewhere in the tank getting to the ammo. This doesn't stop a direct hit but it might stop spalling from a nearby penetration. Honestly, it's not a bad idea.
There's a benefit of bustle autoloaders that rarely gets mentioned which is their ability to counterbalance the weight of the gun. This makes rotation of the turret a bit easier. Older tank designs actually had to weld dead weights to the backs of turrets to balance out big gun upgrades made in the middle of wars.
@@theredbar-cross8515 You are definitely not wrong, but meanwhile, carousel also limits the length of ammunition, especially consider APSFDS is getting longer and longer today, bustle is better to adapt future ammuniton upgrade.
Do you know ZTQ-15 COST per unit?
Well there isn't a dealership in my city yet
Reportedly Bangladesh paid about $5m per unit for their VT-5 (export version) order, though they bought the APS too so that definitely adds some expense.
@@jamesdu2044$5M per unit doesn't sound too bad, sounds like the Pakistanis got a good deal for a relative capable little machine
Comparable vehicles. Personally, I like the Type 15 better
I like ZTQ-15, Chinese just leave the Soviet style carousel autoloader into real bustle autoloader, and the design looks practical, but m10 booker more like standard fire support vehicle and they have 4 crewand easy to maintain because they didn't use autoloader
MPF doctrinally isn't a light tank. It's the same thing as comparing a M-10 Wolverine with a M4 Sherman. They may have stuff in common, but their roles are so different that it's a fools errand. MPF isn't a recon tank, nor is its combat doctrine conducive to light tank roles.
Honestly, it's more like comparing an SPG with a light tank. Yeah, you can argue light tank capability over the SPG all day long, but the SPG role isn't as a light tank.
Comparing the two is literally a strawman argument. I'm going to create a role (which the item is not designed for), and judge it based on the criteria, I've assigned it it all.
You shouldn't compare an air superiority fighter with a CAS unit. Because the doctrinal roles are different.
Can the Booker be pushed or updated into a true light tank role? Yes. Is that what the military has approved it for at this time? No.
Seems like China went with a rather conservative solution but US army decided to want to change the game and make a new class of vehicle. Between them, it really would be down to who shoots first unless the ZTQ has some proper AP package.
One difference is that the ZTQ has an ATGM with a 5000m range.
@Strategy_Analysis personally don't know how effective gun fired atgm are.
@@DrownedinbloodThe US tends to view them as a waste of space. They throw off combat tempo drastically when being guided, and offer no real advantage over high quality fire control systems and optics. Better to just make the M10 as good as possible at Infantry Support and out the anti tank focus. Also, in the case an IBCT encounters enemy MBTs, that's what all the TOWs and Javelins are for.
@@NuclearFantasies remember when the sherman was also just for infantry support?
@@Drownedinblood good point. Still think it'll do what it needs to do. I think the Army insisted on 105mm also just due to the ammo capacity increase. It's a trade-off certainly, but I highly doubt the Army would willingly field a vehicle that can't complete the mission to their desired standards. Plus, it's not as though the infantry are losing any Anti Tank capability by gaining the M10, they're just getting more capabilities that seem increasingly relevant in near peer conflict.
They're both tanks, not main battle tanks, just light to medium tanks
👍👍👍
Actually Sheridan is a pretty good tank in modern context, Russian Ukraine war had shown nowadays big tanks don’t do shit on battlefield, a modernized Sheridan would be a good direction to consider.
Clark Margaret Lopez Sandra Perez Jose
T-72 only arppox 45t , why not use M68 to instead of 2A46M 125mm gun and also use Installation of a tailgate automatic loader to instead of carousel-type ammunition loader ,then you can a Light MBT ,Better armor and better power than the MPF.
a t-64 is lighter and better then the m10 even if they upgraded it to have a better engine, thermals, FCS and electronics
we can all agree one is a thematic copy of the other because they lack service innovation and just like funneling money into their post-military career company lmao
Not sure why you compared the two vehicles, unless you wanted to use them as an example of how a tank and armored infantry support vehicle are different. (why may have made a good video)
Just because they may face each other is not really a good reason. You could have compared an infantryman with an armored vehicle by that reasoning.
@@cj64343
No.
A tank is not just an armored vehicle. What defines a tank is it designed mission. A tank is intended and designed to exploit a breach in enemy lines and wreak havoc behind enemy lines using speed, shock, and firepower. It should be noted that "shock" incorporates psychological shock in additoion to physical shock.
While teh M10 can be used as a tank, a wrench can be used like a hammer. That doesn't make a wrench a hammer.
The M10 lacks the speed and protection to make an effective tank.
I served in the US Army as 19D (Cavalry Scout) and trained on the M3 Bradley, M113, and M901 ITV. I later went through OCS to be an officer in the National Guard.
The M10 Booker is an infantry fire support vehicle. It is intended to operate and stay closely behind infantary and provide heavy firepower when needed. As such, it speed and armor need not be as great as a MBT. It extremely vulnerable to RPGs. Of course, that isn'tan issue since it should be staying behind infantry.
Johnson Mark Rodriguez Christopher Thompson Donald
can't believe it, they designed a tank just for India.
就是对付印度的
not really
but mostly
That's why Bangladesh bought the type 15. Can't use heavy tanks in swampy alluvial soil, like majority of Bangladesh.
Young Barbara Perez John Davis Carol
The Booker is junk. It's way over budget, it has no autoloader, and no drone protection.
The Abrams "X" had the right idea, with the autoloader, lighter weight, and unmanned turret.
No its meant for fire support not tank on tank
Why are you comparing the Booker to an Abrams X? They are two completely different units.
Hall Christopher Lewis Brian Clark John
Thompson Cynthia Anderson Betty Moore Steven
Davis Shirley Anderson Mary Lewis Larry
White Mark Garcia Shirley Taylor Deborah
Lopez Ruth Jones Sandra Lewis Michelle
Rodriguez Laura Walker David Rodriguez Lisa
Taylor Angela Moore Daniel Young Betty
Martin Dorothy Moore William Lopez Betty
Jones Shirley White Frank White George
these 2 tanks will never cross paths cos the US naval fleet will be lucky to even get close to China's 2nd Island chains. Let alone land tanks on Chinese soils. Just saying!
Unless they are pre-deployed in Taiwan, as part of a provocation that leads to Chinese military action in that province.
Taiwan has many roads that can't handle heavier tanks, so light tanks may play a crucial role in any ground fighting there.
@@jamesrowlands8971 Have you seen the briefing I did on how the Russo-Ukraine War might influence AUKUS and The QUAD?
@@jamesrowlands8971 Correct. Certainly can see the MPF there.
@@Strategy_Analysis I have not. I really should check that.
Jones Angela Davis Barbara Jones Shirley
The differences: The M10 will actually work when you turn it on, the armor composition is higher quality, it will coordinate & integrate as part of a whole network working together seamlessly to where it doesn't have to be the one to destroy the bad guy, it's night & low low visibility optics are two generations better, and more importantly, it will hit at what it aims with the first shot because of the superior sighting optics, superior fire control system, and SUPERIOR quality crew with better training.
Tell me you dont know anything without telling me, the ztq 15 has a second gen thermals which is the highest thermal so if m10 has two gen above then is it 4th gen? That dont exist cry harder American glazer, America has a lot of great stuff like f35 f22 abrams but this isn’t it bud, keep coping
Keep coping
Of course it is a copy.
The Type 62 were built under license.
MPF booker come after ztq-15, ztq-15 deployed in 2018 while MPF only recently
Thompson Sharon Lee Carol Thompson George