Comments by "Ghost_Of_Compromism" (@nikitatarsov5172) on "Meet the XM30 Replacing M2 Bradley" video.

  1. Wellwell, the XM30, or, as we say, the KF41 Lynx. Is it good? Yeah absolutly. Is it choosen for its greatness, lol, that would be funny, right? No for sure it isen't. See, the KF41 has long tried and only been selected as the company gave permission to let them build in the US (and probably also claiming to open a tank factory in Ukrain also hellped to make the deal - we can't tell). So, very obviously, its a economical decision. Is the KF41 - now XM30 - the right tool for the job? Well, no. Or most likely no, because the US has been totally lost in bureaucracy (i'm german, i know what i'm talking about xD) and corruption. So branches and institutions all have ther own interests and no one's is the defensive capability of the nation. There is not even a doctrine in which the XM30 could fit in - and if, you can be 100% sure its aged out of usefullness twice. So isen't it better to have a good vehicle with questionable integration than having nothing at hand? Well, good question. The problem here is - the KF41 is a good, balanced vehicle, but the XM30 isen't. Aren't they the same? No. It's like a very special person removed everything that made sense and replaced it with something very american. The new gun is too heavy and offers nothing (even less) than the original one. But it is of US origin now. Murrica fk yeah! Armor packages don't work without the german ERA-solutions, and the US replaced it - not with ther inferior ERA, but with - nothing. For tonnage considerations, i suspect. The US wanted drone-capability for the vehilce. Nice. For what reason again? Oh, the drone-pack concept of the GTK Boxer that is developed in EU right now? Cool. But maybe it would be more of a good idea if the US hadn't one of the lowest ratings in E-warfare and cyber security of all modern armys/nations. They could had StrikeShield, but they decided to add one of the worst cost/ability balanced APS ever. That's one short step before level 'i use Trophy'-idiocy. And i could go on with this. The US crippled a pretty good vehicle to make it fit into a dystopic bureaucracy shitshow. And soldiers will rely on this to work. Soldiers who trust ther goverment to make ther decisions accordingly. Pretty disgracefull imho.
    1
  2. *Ammo-size-requirements for programmables No, that's not a thing. It is probably a problem for US production, but most of EU achieves this with quite small calibers.
    1
  3. *Can we 3D-pring tanks & armor Well, yes, the problem is, they'd be crap. The thing is, you can print SOME materials. They can be way better than ther non-3D counterparts. But can you print materials that need specific processes to reach its hardness/flexibility? Yeah, exactly here's the problem. You can't. And that include almost all materials made to stop death from entering your vehilce. Its cool to make stuff you fit in your spaced armor between your plastic top cover and the real metall stuff, because microstructures can derive kinetic/heat energy more efficent. But even if we could, this would increase the need for perfectly refined and 103% pure materials for the printer, and rising manufacturing cost by 1 lot. So in a industry focused on money and buzzwords, you for sure will have this Skynet-operated 3D machine in the corner of your tank manufacturing company, but it most likely will print rearview mirror casings for the vehilces and thats it.
    1