Griffin II: now the official US light tank

Griffin II: now the official US light tank

More recently, on June 28, 2022, it became known that military officials from the US Army have finally decided on an easy a tank, which should enter the troops in the near future. They became a modified prototype from the General Dynamics Land System called "Griffin-2" (Griffin II). There is quite a bit of information about this type of equipment, but, according to available data, it is already possible to get some picture of the machine, which will soon strengthen the American infantry formations.

Mobile Protected Firepower

At first glance, it may seem that the United States, having received far from ambiguous experience in the use of M551 Sheridan light tanks in Vietnam, decided to completely abandon the idea of ​​​​using such combat vehicles. Indeed, after the removal of the M551 from service, not a single light class tank settled in the American army. All this is true, but only partly.

Work to replace the Sheridan has been carried out since the 80s of the last century, but it all ended with the fact that the projects were shelved for various reasons, ranging from lack of funding and the extreme conservatism of the military to inconsistency with the requirements. By the way, the requirements for technology themselves often underwent fundamental changes. One of them led to the purchase of the Griffin II.

In 2015, as part of the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) program, the US Army was finally able to shape the look of a new light tank and set the appropriate task for its development. General requirements included:

- high firepower due to the installation of a high-impulse gun of 105–120 mm caliber;

- protection from small arms fire weapons, small-caliber automatic guns and fragments;

- increased mobility, both due to speed characteristics, and due to the possibility of transportation by air;

- a relatively small mass within 32 tons.

With the last condition - the mass - they still could not unambiguously decide. It should be noted here that the future tank was positioned as a means of fire support for infantry, including landing troops. One of the MPF program managers also stated that this machine is likely to resemble an assault gun. Indeed, the range of his tasks included the destruction of fortifications, manpower and, if it comes across, enemy armored vehicles. It is impossible to implement all this with a small-caliber gun, and a large-caliber one with high ballistic characteristics will definitely lead to a heavier overall design of the machine. You can also add a booking here.

This was confirmed by U.S. Army Major General Bassett, who said that the tank's protection and firepower requirements would likely make it heavier than acceptable for low-speed landings from C-17 aircraft.

As a result, one of the most important conditions - airborne landing - was abandoned, and the maximum allowable mass for a promising tank was subsequently increased to 38 tons.

Several companies applied for participation in the competition under the MPF program at once, but at the end of 2018, only two received an order for the development of a combat vehicle: BAE Systems and General Dynamics. Both firms received government funding of $375,9 million and $335 million, respectively. The preliminary contract provided for the development and delivery of the first prototypes 14 months after the conclusion of the contract. Based on the results of comparative tests, by the end of 2021, the winner was determined, who received the right to full-scale serial production of his product.

BAE Systems presented a project for a modernized M8 tank, which was developed back in the 90s to replace the Sheridan. Aluminum armor, a relatively small combat weight from 18 to 24 tons, depending on the chosen protection class and the installation of armor modules, a 105-mm cannon and an automatic loader - all this could become significant arguments for putting this particular project into service. But BAE Systems was unable to provide the required number of prototypes for testing on time due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and then was completely disqualified for violating the terms of the contract.

One of the M8 prototypes. Source:

The technical winner in these competitions was General Dynamics with its 38-ton Griffin II, which literally fit right into the new weight category. Subsequently, before the final tests, this machine was finalized, therefore, due to the lack of complete information, the data that is known today will be presented in the future.

Griffin II

The Griffin-2 tank project is based on the upgraded ASCOD-2 tracked platform developed by the European divisions of General Dynamics - the Austrian Steyr Daimler Puch and the Spanish General Dynamics Santa Barbara Sistemas. The manufacturer claims that this platform is universal and can serve as the basis for machines for completely different purposes in the middle weight category. It is not yet known whether this product has undergone any radical modifications in the course of the creation of the American light tank, so we will rely on the available data for further consideration.

Layout of the tank

Already at the first glance at the tank, it becomes clear that it was actually created on the basis of an infantry fighting vehicle with a typical front-engine layout. Indeed, one of the main features of the ASCOD platform is the ability to transport troops, which, however, was cut in Griffon-2. Because of this, by the way, the chassis of the car was reduced to six road wheels on board instead of the previous seven.

In the frontal part of the body on the left is the workplace of the driver, and to the right of it is the engine-transmission compartment. In the middle of the hull, closer to the stern, there is a fighting compartment with a triple turret. The seating of the towers, apparently, does not differ from the Abrams: to the right of the gun, one behind the other, the gunner and commander are sitting, and to the left is the loader.


As you know, the passive armor of the "Gryphon-2" should provide protection against shelling by 30-mm armor-piercing shells in the frontal projection. The sides must withstand a burst of 14,5 mm machine guns. What accounts for such resilience?

The basis of the armor of the new tank, in contrast to its counterpart in the face of the M8 from BAE, is rolled steel sheets, which, most likely, are stacked in two or three layers with an intermediate low-density filler. At the same time, of course, the laws of differentiated armor are also observed: the largest steel mass is located in the frontal part of the turret and the lower frontal part of the Griffon-2 hull, while, for example, the upper frontal part of the hull, a large part of which is the engine compartment cover, has a smaller thickness, but a large angle of inclination.

Assembly of BM "Ajax", built on the ASCOD-2 platform. The thickness of the armor of the upper frontal part of the hull in the area of ​​​​the roof of the MTO is visible. Source:

However, in order to provide protection against armor-piercing shells of 30-mm automatic guns within the given weight restrictions, the above armor is not enough. Therefore, in addition to it, protective modules installed on the hull and turret are attached. Their composition is unknown, but something suggests that they could not do without reinforced ceramics.

The thickness of the side screens "Gryphon-2". Source:

The bottom of the Griffin-2 has also been reinforced. The original version of the ASCOD platform did not have mine protection, for which he received many complaints from the military of different countries. They listened to the comments, and now the ASCOD-2, like the light tank based on it, is protected from mines and various explosive devices weighing up to 10 kg of TNT.

It is worth noting that one of the requirements for the future tank was the presence of an active protection complex. With him, apparently, there is no certainty yet, so it’s too early to say whether there will be a Trophy or another complex.

Armament and fire control system

In addition to the standard 12,7mm and 7,62mm machine guns, the new light tank has a rifled 105mm KhM35 high-impulse cannon. It is noteworthy that initially the machine assumed the installation of a 120-mm gun, however, due to savings in weight and dimensions, a smaller caliber became the final version.

The development of the XM35 began back in 1983, when the US military issued a number of requirements for a promising lightweight gun for medium and light weight vehicles. On the face of it, it may seem that this gun is similar to the M68 gun, which was equipped with the American M60 and M1 Abrams tanks. And there is no arguing here: the length and configuration of their trunks are generally the same. However, the XM35 used a lighter breech and improved recoil devices, which made it possible to reduce the recoil force and, accordingly, the impact on the tank hull by more than 20 percent.

All this made it possible to install a new 105-mm gun in the Griffon-2 without any changes to the chassis. But the term “lightweight” is by no means synonymous with the word “weakened”. The KhM35, like its heavy counterpart M68, uses the same ammunition for firing, including: armor-piercing high-explosive, feathered sub-caliber and cumulative shells. The caliber also allows you to expand the range of shots and include high-explosive fragmentation and multifunctional projectiles with controlled detonation in the range.

The Griffon-2 weapon system is controlled by an aiming system similar to the M1A2 SEP v.3 tank. It has two main components.

First: the gunner's sight, mounted on the right side of the turret roof, which includes a laser range finder and a TV-thermal imaging channel for detecting and hitting targets at any time of the day and in almost any weather.

Second: the commander's 360-degree panoramic observation device, located on the left side of the turret roof. Like the gunner's sight, the commander's device has a television thermal imaging channel with a stabilized field of view. Through it, the tank commander can not only observe the terrain, but also give target designation to the gunner in the “hunter-shooter” mode, as well as independently fire from a cannon and a coaxial machine gun.

General view of the Griffin-2. The gunner's sight and the commander's panoramic observation device are visible. Source:

A digital ballistic computer helps to issue the necessary corrections for firing to the gunner and commander in real time, collecting the maximum possible information about the conditions of firing, ranging from wind speed and direction to the temperature of the powder charges in the shells.

It must also be added: there is some probability, while very vague, that the Griffin may acquire drones-kamikaze, or reconnaissance quadrocopters, as in the German Panther from Rheinmetall.

Mobility and some problems of the British

There have been rumors about the engine that will be installed on the new American light tank for a long time. Someone talks about a 1000-horsepower engine, someone even bends the bar to one and a half thousand horses. However, there is ground for speculation: the car weighs 38 tons, and this is almost the level of the Soviet T-64, so a fairly powerful engine is needed.

The British Ajax BM, which is built on the same ASCOD-2 platform as the Griffin-2, and also has a comparable combat mass, can serve as a reason for reflection here. It has a German MTU diesel engine with a capacity of 800 horsepower, paired with an automatic six-speed transmission. It is quite enough to easily accelerate the car to 70 km / h. Perhaps the Americans will take this version of the power plant.

It is noteworthy that when testing the Ajax, the British encountered great difficulties. The fact is that at fairly high speeds, a strong vibration began inside the body of the vehicle, which broke the electronics and even prevented firing from a stabilized automatic cannon. Crews also suffered: headaches and swollen, painful joints of the limbs became an indispensable companion of driving this car.

The exact reason for this behavior of the ASCOD-2 platform is not yet clear, since both marriage in the manufacture of hulls and an elongated chassis could intervene, but General Dynamics specialists clearly have something to think about.


What can be said in general about this car? First of all, the fact that the Americans completely abandoned the idea of ​​​​aerial landing of tanks, giving them the opportunity of air delivery to their places of deployment. In this, the differences between light tanks and the same Abrams are practically erased, but the possibility of replacing a heavy main tank with a lighter and more mobile one in secondary areas of operations is quite a viable option.

Aft projection "Gryphon-2". Source:

In addition, the US military has very precisely defined the requirements for a light tank. And in them, collisions with an enemy equipped with heavy weapons do not appear. In fact, the "Gryphon-2" is a kind of "anti-partisan" tank, capable of operating in contact with the enemy, equipped mainly with small arms and anti-tank missile systems.

From this we can conclude that any fitting of the "Gryphon-2" in the NWO, held in Ukraine, or a global war with NATO, have no basis. In combined arms combat, this vehicle (like a tank) will have practically no advantages. And if the manufacturer himself and the customer did not provide for this, then why jump over your head?

As for the state order, the situation is as follows. The US military plans to purchase 504 Griffin-2 units by 2035. At the same time, tanks formed into companies will be given to the infantry brigades of the US Army and the National Guard. The total cost of the production of tanks, their repair and maintenance, crew training, etc. are estimated at 17 billion dollars.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +8
    4 July 2022 05: 11
    If the abrams were not so fat, then light tanks would not be needed
    1. +21
      4 July 2022 06: 27
      Yes, and 38 tons for a light tank is a bit much, and it's almost like the T-62 weighs. And the armor, as they say, only holds 30mm shells in the lobeshnik. On the T-62, at least the armor is normal.
      1. +7
        4 July 2022 10: 31
        well, here is an attempt to unify the fighting compartment, so the tank is healthy .. by the way, I noticed that the Indonesians, if I’m not mistaken, also have a medium tank of 35 tons, and at best it’s protected from a 30 mm gun .. Taking into account the fact that the wheel has spun and now the tank again this is a cart for a gun and the main enemy is RPG and ATGM, then I think that soon the Europeans will want a "light tank" for themselves ..
        1. +2
          4 July 2022 13: 47
          Quote: Barberry25
          Well, here is an attempt to unify the fighting compartment, so the tank is healthy ..

          Universal platform. Including for the BMP.
          This thing cannot be compact by definition.
          1. +7
            4 July 2022 19: 27
            Hmm ...
            38 tons, and at the same time holds a projectile only 30 mm.
            In the 21st century.
            How can one not recall the wonderful film "The Pentagon Wars" about how the Bradleys were adopted.
            Probably, this "Gryphon-2" had a similar fate.
            And just like the Bradley, it will be intended for sale or use in exercises. But not where the Americans can get a shell on board.
            1. +3
              4 July 2022 19: 42
              Few people can withstand a projectile on board. wink
              1. +3
                4 July 2022 19: 45
                Quote: Alex777
                Few people can withstand a projectile on board. wink

                Depends on what projectile.
                In the "Pentagon Wars" during the tests of Bradley, they could not break through the board from an RPG.
                Then this RPG didn't break through the 5mm steel door.
                1. +3
                  4 July 2022 19: 53
                  You are absolutely right to "sharpen". hi
                  I meant any of our tank 125 mm.
            2. 0
              6 July 2022 01: 07
              Now, in all seriousness, I would say that the Bradley is a bad car.
              1. 0
                6 July 2022 07: 22
                There were many upgrades.
                In particular, steel sheets have been added to the armor, making the armor multi-layered. The alloy of aluminum in the armor has been changed, now less poisonous gases appear when burning through the armor.
          2. -1
            5 July 2022 15: 46
            so there is an engine in the back, what BMP?
            1. 0
              5 July 2022 17: 25
              The British Ajax BM, which is built on the same ASCOD-2 platform as the Griffin-2, can serve as a reason for reflection here.

              Ajax is nothing more than a version of the ASCOD infantry fighting vehicle, which is in service with the ground forces of Austria and Spain.

              1. 0
                6 July 2022 18: 02
                well, there is such a remake that it is unlikely to become cheaper
      2. 0
        25 August 2022 15: 02
        I completely agree with you, besides, due to the small caliber, the rather weak power of high-explosive ammunition (if any is provided at all) in general, infantry support is so-so.
        The meeting of this pepelats with our "Octopus" will be fatal for both, whoever saw whom first and won.
    2. +7
      4 July 2022 06: 44
      Quote: Clever man
      If abrams weren't so fat

  2. -9
    4 July 2022 05: 32
    Well, this is actually an analogue of our Octopus, only the Yankees still do not have a machine gun on the tower.
    1. +19
      4 July 2022 06: 15
      Quote: Thrifty
      this is actually an analogue of our Octopus, only the Yankees still do not have a machine gun on the tower

      Yes. Analog. With a mass, like a "sixty-four". The combat weight of the Octopus is 18 tons, more than half that of this light ... ahem, light tank (s).
      1. +11
        4 July 2022 08: 07
        I have vague doubts that the development of a light tank is an attempt to save General Dynamics after the failure of the Ajax infantry fighting vehicle.
        After all, the Britons almost seemed from the adoption of Ajax into service
        due to identified, but seemingly unrecoverable shortcomings. And it will be very interesting to see how it all ends. hi
        1. +10
          4 July 2022 10: 32
          really, I don’t understand .. when an organization makes products of the same type for a long time, then such a thing as competence appears, and Ajax is denied as if it was done by graduates of an Indian vocational school on outsourcing
        2. +2
          4 July 2022 13: 03
          similarly. I don’t see any objective reasons why an American armed with a top-end abrams needed a cardboard light tank. but saving General Dynamics from bankruptcy is quite a motive
          1. +1
            4 July 2022 13: 06
            Seven years ago, the UK Department of Defense awarded General Dynamics a $7,5 billion contract to build 589 armored vehicles of various types based on a single chassis. Most of them (245) are Ajax.

            Even the number is approximately/correctly similar. hi
          2. +5
            4 July 2022 16: 03
            The answer, in fact, is very simple and lies on the surface. C-17 Globemaster fits 1 Abrams or 2 Griffins. The generals have a choice, and that's exactly what they wanted.
          3. +4
            4 July 2022 16: 21
            Abrams with its mass is like a suitcase without a handle, and these will plug the brushes, although with such a reservation a suitcase without a handle also comes out.
            1. +1
              4 July 2022 18: 56
              Personally, I (IMHO), I liked Sheridan and its concept more. It would be improved in terms of greater armor protection and it would be an ideal weapon for urban combat (again, IMHO) ....
              1. 0
                4 July 2022 23: 24
                All the same, I would have made the base more powerful for Sheridan, closed the dz, a pulik and a good kalatukha, and this light tank is not clear what for, in general, it’s easier to convert the bradley into a turret with this gun and the mass will be lower and there is no need to reinvent the wheel.
              2. 0
                25 August 2022 15: 04
                Fougas be healthy there.
  3. -1
    4 July 2022 05: 48
    Preparing for Civil wink Under it is a theater of operations, but more is not visible in the future.
    1. +2
      4 July 2022 10: 33
      under the civilian one, you just need a lot of equipment and motivated infantry with a rear, and then the realization came that sitting in the bushes and waiting for tank hordes is not expected, but you have to fight, which means you need something lighter, you don’t want to recognize Abrams as a mistake, so they washed down a new one tank
      1. -2
        4 July 2022 11: 52
        Back in 2014, Texas announced mobilization "in order to prevent the invasion of the US army" - the words of the governor of Texas. After BLM, there are rear and infantry and equipment - and everyone is so motivated wink
        Well, Obama decided to carry out maneuvers in Texas so that the "Lone Star" would not get out - Texas did not understand
    2. +3
      4 July 2022 10: 52
      Quote: Cowbra
      Preparing for Civil

      500 pieces is not enough for a civilian. Not?
      1. +3
        4 July 2022 11: 45
        Norm, pull it.
        The Yankees are likely to change their strategy (tactics) as they will create highly mobile corps in Russia (or like the Germans during the Second World War).
        The times of huge armies are over, finances are no longer pulling.
        Although there will still be a big mess over time.
    3. 0
      25 August 2022 15: 05
      It looks like KAZ will be screwed on and the Confederates will be driven forward.
  4. +11
    4 July 2022 06: 08
    I have to say something that this is not a tank that fits into the weight limit so precisely, but this weight limit was adjusted to this tank)))
    1. +1
      4 July 2022 12: 54
      the restriction was adjusted for this tank)))

      Well, here everything is according to the classics in Bradley styles hi
  5. +1
    4 July 2022 06: 17
    What is it big, light and non-landing (expensive by definition), what's the point? Is an uprising of the Papuans predicted?
    1. 0
      4 July 2022 06: 35
      Quote: mark1
      What's the point?

      In the cut of the dough! lol
    2. 0
      25 August 2022 15: 06
      Southern states however, history repeats itself.
  6. +2
    4 July 2022 06: 25
    It seems that the US military realized that the heavily armored, "fancy" and expensive Abrams is quite easily hit by modern anti-tank weapons, therefore, based on the principle "whatever, whatever, they will burn it anyway" they decided to switch to a significantly cheaper version of the tank. "Economy, however."
    1. +1
      4 July 2022 10: 02
      It seems that the US military realized that the heavily armored, "fancy" and expensive Abrams is quite easily hit by modern anti-tank weapons, therefore, based on the principle "whatever, whatever, they will burn it anyway" they decided to switch to a significantly cheaper version of the tank. "Economy, however."

      Yes. It's time for us to understand this too.
      Cornet and javelin do not care about the thickness of the armor. So there is no point in carrying it around.
      We need a normal KAZ, habitability, electronics and UAVs. And armor from a 30 mm gun maximum.
      1. +5
        4 July 2022 10: 34
        given that everyone is switching to 40-57 mm automatic guns .. so-so solution
        1. 0
          4 July 2022 13: 14
          Well, increase to 57. There is no point further. It's like battleships.
          1. 0
            5 July 2022 15: 43
            the fact of the matter is that with amplification they will have difficulties, I think
        2. 0
          4 July 2022 20: 44
          And who, according to the Americans in Afghanistan, would begin to use "40-57 mm"? The enemy has RPGs, maximum anti-tank missiles - they don’t need armor against them, but all types of active protection. Heavy duty cannon for fire support is not needed. But the timing of the transfer to is critical - low weight is an advantage. And everything "hard" aviation will smash - the Americans do not consider personnel to be "meat". Yes, and escorting columns in the rear with the main tanks is not optimal. He will cope with partisan saboteurs. As if on purpose, oil and gas regions are the most suitable for such machines.
          1. -2
            4 July 2022 21: 58
            Quote from Avis
            Americans do not consider personnel "meat"
            come on!!!!
            1. +4
              4 July 2022 22: 24
              No matter how much someone would like it - that's exactly what it is. And "values" have nothing to do with it. In the pro-farm, either you protect your soldiers, or there will be no one to use the most advanced technique. Therefore, lives become more valuable than iron.
              1. -1
                5 July 2022 20: 05
                I want to say that you are somewhat idealizing the state of affairs. At least the death of mattresses in Niger 2017. There, no one began to save the specialists. I hope you don’t think that the myth that Zhukov said “women give birth” is true)))) And in the US Army there is a place for incompetent command, the Bay of Pigs, Eagle Claw, Operation in Mogadishu ... Well, judging by what they have Strykers in light mechanized brigades, these are all armored vehicles, it’s kind of ridiculous to talk about caring for personnel. Technique of the level of protection of the BTR-80 and heavier is not even in theory. And here is Griffin with bulletproof armor, the top of the "care" for the soldier, yeah)))
          2. +1
            5 July 2022 15: 44
            and did someone use 30 mm there? The development of a light tank is an attempt to give birth to at least something in the form of the dead end of Abrams with its prohibitive mass. And yes, accompanying the rear columns even with light tanks is a perversion of pure water, for this there is wheeled vehicles .
      2. 0
        14 August 2022 00: 28
        Yes, next, instead of a heavy Cornet or Javelin (which makes sense exactly until the moment a corny normal sensor is made), it will be possible to carry missiles 3-4 times lighter and cheaper, which will overload any KAZ. But at the same time they will be suitable for cars, infantry fighting vehicles and other things.
        This is a classic distortion that if a tank can be knocked out, then armor is not needed. Needed, it increases the weight of anti-tank weapons, reducing the mobility of the enemy.
  7. IVZ
    4 July 2022 06: 55
    Version. Tank - anti-tank reserve of increased operational mobility (bridges) for the European theater of operations. Moreover, the base chassis is made in Europe.
    1. +8
      4 July 2022 09: 21
      Such a shed with 105mm cannot be anti-tank.
      A rapier can be disguised, even an octopus can be, but this birdhouse will definitely participate in all festivals.
      Although in urban battles the griffin is 100% better than any infantry fighting vehicle. The main advantage of this car is that it can drive calmly on road bridges.
      1. 0
        4 July 2022 10: 55
        Quote: IVZ
        Tank - anti-tank reserve of increased operational mobility (bridges) for the European theater of operations.

        Quote: demiurg
        The main advantage of this car is that it can drive calmly on road bridges.

        It’s easier to build a medium tank than lighten Abrams. hi
        1. +2
          4 July 2022 12: 31
          Everyone suffers that 120-125mm is not enough in terms of energy, especially stubborn people stare at 130/140/152mm.
          And then they rolled out 105mm on a harp and weighing under 40 tons, and here it is, the anti-tank weapon of tomorrow.
          1. +1
            4 July 2022 13: 02
            Quote: demiurg
            Everyone suffers that 120-125mm is not enough in terms of energy, especially stubborn people stare at 130/140/152mm.

            All this is necessary for Almaty. And she's not there yet.

            Quote: demiurg
            And then they rolled out 105mm on a harp and weighing under 40 tons, and here it is, the anti-tank weapon of tomorrow.

            For the T-62 / T-72 and maneuver warfare is enough.
            Yes, and colleagues about the civil war are hinting.
            They have enough 105 mm shells in their warehouses. hi
            1. 0
              4 July 2022 22: 39
              For T-62 / T-72 and maneuver warfare is enough

              But I’m wondering how, in the light of all this, the possible modernization of the old Soviet MBTs, the same t-62 / t-72a, looks like. They are clearly capable of providing a similar level of protection akin to a light tank.
              1. +1
                5 July 2022 11: 14
                Quote: alexmach

                But I’m wondering how, in the light of all this, the possible modernization of the old Soviet MBTs, the same t-62 / t-72a, looks like.

                Exactly the same thought when I wrote my message!
                Modernization of old tanks may well give us
                certain outcomes that the States are planning
                get from the production of the lungs. tank mobility,
                today, has become a very important factor
                his protection. If there are modern sights
                and powerful engines - it can turn out interesting. hi
  8. +2
    4 July 2022 08: 11
    So yes! 38 tons. In terms of combat qualities, it is worth comparing not even with the early 64-72, with the T-62. The only benefit is speed. But on a terrain of more than 25 km one horseradish cannot be squeezed out, the crew's bosses will come off the thread.
    In general: "an unknown little animal."
    1. +2
      4 July 2022 08: 21
      Probably in the western part of the globe there are other physical constants, so it turns out that the 38 ton tank has become "light". Really "unknown little animal". It is customary for Americans to make everything big, maybe that's why this tank should be called a "big light tank", and if it is overlaid with concrete sleepers, then it will pull on a medium one.
  9. -4
    4 July 2022 08: 27
    Well, they know how to make such convenient targets!
  10. +9
    4 July 2022 08: 46
    It is still difficult to say something about the car itself, but there are two interesting points in this news.
    At the same time, tanks formed into companies will be given to the infantry brigades of the US Army and the National Guard.

    So far, infantry brigades were not supposed to do anything but jeeps, trucks and M777. If this is confirmed, then the Americans abandon the light infantry and return to the motorized infantry.
    At the same time, they recently removed cannon strikers - that is, most likely this machine will also go to the striker brigades.
    . The project of the tank "Gryphon-2" is based on the upgraded tracked platform ASCOD-2

    That is, ASCOD, not by washing, by skating, entered the American army. This means that now it will be an order of magnitude easier to replace any monument of Soviet power, like the M109, with a ready-made modern solution: there are any medium-weight tracked vehicles on the ASCOD platform.
    1. +4
      4 July 2022 09: 41
      They want to reinforce their light divisions with a separate tank battalion on these tanks. Details here
      1. +2
        4 July 2022 09: 48
        HM thank you. That is, in fact, tankless brigades are obsolete, the staffing table is sharply becoming heavier. Interesting news.
  11. +4
    4 July 2022 09: 15
    Congratulations to the USA. They invented the T-62M.

    Here, on the topvar, quite recently, people mocked why the DPR / LPR and T-62 volunteers were being handed over.

    And now these experts will change their shoes in flight with a deflection and tell you why it's different.
    1. +2
      4 July 2022 09: 31
      Quote: demiurg
      Congratulations to the USA. They invented the T-62M

      Do not offend the T-62. Amer's craft "holds" 30 mm in the forehead, and 14,5 on the sides. T-62 will be any stronger ...
      1. +1
        5 July 2022 13: 26
        T-62 will be any stronger ...

        Is it stronger? That same 105mm gun, he just doesn’t hold practically anywhere. And 30mm, yes, it will definitely work.
        1. 0
          5 July 2022 13: 39
          Quote: alexmach
          he just doesn’t hold the same 105mm gun practically anywhere

          I like it "practically" wink laughing

          Quote: alexmach
          Is it stronger?

          Stronger, stronger. This 105-mm "Luminium tank" (even with a blank, I think) will stupidly sew through. And 62 still has a chance to survive Yes
    2. +2
      4 July 2022 09: 59
      Quote: demiurg
      why the DNR / LNR and T-62 volunteers are being handed over.

      With the T-62, the question is completely different: how did it happen so interestingly that the Russian Armed Forces ran out of T-72s. And the refusal of the Americans from over-lightened infantry in jeeps should hardly please people who consider the Americans a potential enemy.
      1. -2
        4 July 2022 10: 26
        Quote: Negro
        And the refusal of the Americans from over-lightened infantry in jeeps ...

        ... in favor of something, with a tin instead of armor, misunderstood called a light tank. Lightweight, only with the T-64, and under 3 meters tall belay

        Miracle technology, do not take away.
      2. -1
        6 September 2022 15: 54
        T-72 is in abundance, only you will be informed about this :))))
  12. +1
    4 July 2022 09: 57
    After Karabakh, the Azerbaijanis argued, and many of ours picked up that the tank was not the necessary rudiment of the Armed Forces. But how is it, the Americans heard but did not understand! lol
  13. +5
    4 July 2022 11: 05
    You can understand the creation of such a tank. Abrams are so complex and heavy that it is problematic to use them everywhere. Transporting Abrams is a whole logistical task. Bringing the details and organizing repairs is also a huge crap. And he eats fuel like crazy (remember how now oil prices have risen again). At the same time, they still need to ensure the mass character of armored vehicles in the troops. So they decided that the infantry units would be turned into "motorized infantry" units with such light tanks. Then such units will be able to take over secondary directions and regions. And their heavy Abrams can be concentrated only on the main directions of strikes. So their army will definitely become stronger.
    Because while maintaining the tank formations (they were equipped with the Abrams, they will be), the infantry units will be significantly strengthened, which will now have their own armor (albeit not so strong) and a 100 mm gun. for support.
    In other words:
    If earlier "the danger looked like heavy Abrams tanks that are covered from the fronts and rear by infantry in jeeps (doubtful cover). Now these are Abrams tanks that are covered from the rear and fronts by groups of light tanks with a 100 mm gun. So this "Light" Tank how to strengthen them.
  14. +1
    4 July 2022 11: 16
    If this thing is at least half as expensive as Abrams, then it will be a really useful thing. If the price is comparable, then it can only make sense if there is no one else to build the Abrams. I would have also screwed ATGMs to it and a turret with AGS.
    1. +2
      4 July 2022 12: 25
      This thing will be twice as expensive as Abrams.

      Remember this tweet ©

      For the last twenty years, whatever the United States has adopted, everything has turned out to be several times more expensive than the original plans. Penguins, Ford, littorals everywhere the price grew rapidly and uncontrollably.
      1. +3
        4 July 2022 13: 43
        Quote: demiurg
        Remember this tweet ©

        You can't even remember here. wink
        For some positions in the United States, inflation reaches 20%.
        So your colleague is right now.
  15. -1
    4 July 2022 11: 53
    Run after the Papuans in the desert
  16. +1
    4 July 2022 12: 20
    I am not against light tanks, but it is important that it be unified in terms of chassis and systems with armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles and with self-propelled guns and mortars.
  17. +1
    4 July 2022 12: 41
    Many "experts" here have already proven repeatedly that tanks have become obsolete, everyone has long stopped development, they are reducing brigades, etc. And this is how it turned out ...
  18. +1
    4 July 2022 12: 46
    if we admit that the security of a unit of armored vehicles is completely "exchanged" for its quantity (in the plus there will be the "number of eyes" and firepower, and in the minus trained crews and victims), then everything depends on the capabilities of a particular country for this alternative
  19. 0
    4 July 2022 13: 05
    It would be interesting to compare with the Octopus.
  20. +3
    4 July 2022 15: 43
    In Ukraine, armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles are fighting not as part of tank groups, but as independent units, it would be better if light, maneuverable and better protected tanks did this. You can make a well-armored vehicle for delivering infantry to the battlefield and light tanks for cover. Maybe it's worth returning the classification of tanks again? Make heavy ones with good protection and a 152mm cannon, medium T72 and others, as well as light ones that will replace equipment like infantry fighting vehicles on the battlefield. And equipment with good protection without unnecessary buoyancy for transporting soldiers.
  21. +3
    4 July 2022 16: 10
    By the way, we also have our own light tank, the BMP-3, remove the troops, improve the armor, and nothing, not a bad light tank!
  22. +3
    4 July 2022 18: 00
    and the maximum allowable mass for a promising tank was subsequently increased to 38 tons.

    Light sho laughing
    According to the subject - in modern conflicts, given the more than sufficient saturation of the ATGM infantry (including the Javelin), which, according to the results of the SVO, will only be more - I believe that a "light tank" is, in general, a "waste of flesh." The filling of the "light" will be comparable in cost to the heavy one, the crew will be comparable in terms of training, so its loss will be comparable to the loss of the heavy one in fact. And he will bear the losses unequivocally, which eliminates the entire gain.
    In a good way, they need to develop a modular solution for armored personnel carriers, and not all of this. This is pure archaic.

    I think that such a rift began with them due to the fierce congestion of "Abramych", it's time to design something new, easier and more modern, against modern challenges and with modern methods of stopping them. It will, of course, not be a light tank, far away. But transportability will grow and everything was started for this, right? They need a new MBT, not a light tank.
  23. 0
    4 July 2022 18: 14
    What is the funding mechanism for such projects? Well, this is not an enthusiast who drew a feather on his cuff. This is the work of a serious design team, and certainly with the "output in the metal", at least some blocks must be actually made in order to test and take into account the problems. All this is worth many millions. Where do they come from?
    1. 0
      5 July 2022 13: 36
      T-62 will be any stronger ...

      Well, that's capitalism. We noticed in the article - another contestant dropped out of the competition due to the fact that he could not produce a test batch. These apparently had more resources and hurt better.
  24. +1
    4 July 2022 20: 06
    As I understand it, the tank was created on the basis of an infantry fighting vehicle developed in Europe, but with the replacement of nodes with American ones from Bradley !? what for the USA, does this "light" tank burn like that? It is immediately felt that the main thing in this tank is the price and cost of operation, and the characteristics are so-so sad A light tank in terms of weight is like a medium one, with armor like a light one, the platform is not American at all.
  25. +3
    4 July 2022 21: 42
    It just shows how good America is at cutting the military budget.
  26. +1
    5 July 2022 19: 32
    They have nowhere to put their money...
  27. +1
    6 July 2022 10: 21
    Quote: "... Griffin-2" is a kind of "anti-partisan" tank, .."
    This is what protection against 30 mm automatic guns. :))

    But nobody canceled the old RPG-7, and he immobilized the M1A2 (Abrams) in Iraq, and there are better ones - RPG 29 "Vampire" and "30" "Hook".
    If we compare in terms of effectiveness, then the Americans showed more good results in battle with the heavy Bradley infantry fighting vehicle, which really is fire support, with an efficiency against tanks higher than that of the Abrams.

    Apparently, the Pentagon's terms of reference boiled down to the need to have a self-propelled artillery gun from 100 mm capable of quickly changing positions.
    But the effectiveness is not yet clear - it's not a howitzer though.
    1. 0
      25 August 2022 15: 20
      Direct fire support, what does the howitzer have to do with it?
      In view of the unitary loading, this unit is likely to have an exorbitant rate of fire.
  28. -1
    11 July 2022 21: 51
    Oh, they don’t have their own 62ki smile
  29. 0
    4 August 2022 23: 06
    it’s wrong to compare with the T-62, look at the dimensions of the tanks, the Americans are relentlessly following the path of their school - a spacious layout, they don’t try to cram everything into a small volume, therefore the booking performance of the T-62 is better, but the convenience and survivability are worse, and it seems to me that the Americans are right here, protection against kinetic weapons is now fading into the background, and protecting against cumulative ammunition by building up armor is a dead end, for the COP there is no difference, the thickness of the armor is 30 mm or 80 if penetration is about a meter, it is more important to save the crew and the car if penetration has occurred and here the Soviet school is inferior to the Western one, precisely in terms of survivability ...
    1. 0
      26 September 2022 15: 19
      Quote: 1984
      and here the Soviet school is inferior to the Western one, precisely in terms of survivability.

      This is your controversial statement.
      Vitality of the machine envy:
      firstly it depends on whether the enemy detects it or not
      secondly, can he get into it.
      These two questions - and here Soviet technology, due to its smaller size, has an advantage.
      For some reason, all experts and anal-itics forget about it.
  30. 0
    12 August 2022 04: 25
    long overdue re-division into medium and heavy tanks. presented in the article - it is the average. while abrams and analogues are in the heavy niche. quite reasonable.
    for ours, in turn, for the assaults on various Mariupols, it’s time to think about heavy tanks with a 152mm gun, KAZ and maximum protection. one fig in a positional war, operational-strategic mobility loses its significance.
  31. 0
    12 August 2022 16: 49
    In my opinion, this is all nonsense. Heavy, well-protected BMP tank with a 125 mm MBT gun. and an airborne squad for 6 people in the back - has serious prospects in future wars. Israel's Merkava is a great example.
  32. +1
    25 August 2022 14: 29
    It seems that the T-62M will be cooler and the weight of this crap will grow another tone by 10, just before our T-72.
  33. 0
    25 August 2022 15: 16
    Apparently, this "light" (probably in comparison with Abrashka) is done to support infantry without obvious anti-tank countermeasures.
    The anti-tank effect is probably in theory assigned to aviation (similar to the war in Iraq).
    If so, then for this "light" tank, mobility, firepower and resistance to shelling by wearable anti-tank weapons, which it probably possesses, are important.
  34. TIR
    19 September 2022 13: 14
    With such a huge mass, having protection against 30 mm autocannons in the forehead is just a degradation of tank building. And such a weight on gooses from a light-class infantry fighting vehicle means driving on roads. And this tank will have to hide in the lowlands from ATGMs, which means sitting up to its ears in the mud. In general, this whole idea with this light tank suggests that its adoption was not dictated by the desire to have a light tank, but simply money decided everything