Thanks for posting that video.  Very enlightening.  The selection of the GDLS candidate now makes sense.

YouTube

Ten Responses to the MPF Discussion

[I strongly recommend reading the pinned comment]. The MPF has led to a number of talking points, some of which I agree with, many of which I do not. These a...

The issues in that video, mostly ergonomics by the looks of it, stemmed from the fact that The Chieftain is 6"2 which is massive for a tanker, having a reasonably sized tank crew <5"9 and below would solve all of those, while retaining the advantages of the design, especially with the US Army so manpower constrained and going through a recruiting crisis eliminating human loaders is an absolute must, on those grounds alone the XM1302 should have been picked, let alone the fact that it's 33% lighter in it's base config and is MUCH more efficient design wise compared to the M10, which quite literally is an Aluminized Abrams turret mounted on an ASCOD IFV hull, which weighs in at 42! tons in its initial config, which is as much as a T72M1 except with much less protection and firepower, this also means that the IBCT will need upgraded wreckers and recovery vehicles so that's not good, there is no way to slice this nicely, the M10 should not have won

 

Autoloader is definetly the future and it seems all bustle ammo load

French seem to looking pulling spare ammo from the hull in view of Ukriane experience , leaving the tank only ammo in the loader , so smaller caliber makes sense if you can carry more ammo

Gr1ff1th said:

XM1302 should have been picked, let alone the fact that it's 33% lighter in it's base config

That is a compelling argument for it. 

I'd love to have seen a picture of the 2 vehicles side by side. 

...

"M10, which quite literally is an Aluminized Abrams turret mounted on an ASCOD IFV hull, which weighs in at 42! tons in its initial config, which is as much as a T72M1 except with much less protection and firepower."

I remain skeptical of the choice as well / creation of a new vehicle in general.

Japans Type 10 weighing 40-48 tons with a 120mm is another tank the MPF seems to compare poorly too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_10

Gr1ff1th said:

The issues in that video, mostly ergonomics by the looks of it, stemmed from the fact that The Chieftain is 6"2 which is massive for a tanker...

Really?  At 6'0" I was only two inches shorter than the Chieftain, and I did not consider myself as being anywhere near "massive" compared to the other tankers.

Gr1ff1th said:

...having a reasonably sized tank crew <5"9 and below would solve all of those, while retaining the advantages of the design...

My take is that height was not the only issue.  It looked to me like it would also be necessary to minimize body width, especially the shoulders and chest.

So not only would it be necessary to have crewmen for the XM1302 who are short and very slight of build, they would also need to be circus contortionists (especially the driver).

Gr1ff1th said:

...especially with the US Army so manpower constrained and going through a recruiting crisis eliminating human loaders is an absolute must...

Perhaps, but I'm not sure if your proposed height requirement would help or hinder matters.

Restricting height to <5'9" by itself would eliminate 55% of recruits as potential MPF crewmen.

And placing limits on torso size would reduce the number of potential candidates even further.

.

Some very nice (360-degree) exterior views of the XM1302.

YouTube

Mobile Protected Firepower - BAE Systems Prototype at NACC

A new tank moves in, we find out what and why! Follow the U.S. Army Armor & Cavalry Collection!https://twitter.com/ArmorCollectionhttps://www.facebook.com/Ar...

stancrist said:

Restricting height to <5'9" by itself would eliminate 55% of recruits as potential MPF crewmen.

Thats the solution there.

Need to create a B3 - "Booker Babe Brigade" - of strictly petite lady tankers.

                   "Booker Babe Brigade"

                         I'll drink to that!