At first I thought that 30mm gun was going to be too much. I thought it would be better to have a .50 cal with more ammo to engage infantry and light vehicles such as trucks. But in the modern battlefield where pretty much every infantry unit is either motorized or mechinized it makes a lot of sense. There's a lot of vehicles in use that can easily withstand 50 cal fire, but for which the 120 gun is overkill. These targets also often carry AT missles so its actually really useful to have a gun system that appropriately matches that kind of firepower and armor.
Yeah, I mean worse case scenario it shouldn't be too hard to simply make a mount for a 50 cal if they felt they needed it. Always something that can be changed afterwards if it was needed.
not to mention how urban combat is becoming increasingly common as well, a large gun for infantry and light armor makes sense as it can shred walls easier. This is also good since tanks can fill the role currently used by some IFVs by providing intermidate fire between the 50 cal used by light vehicles like Humvees and the larger cannons used by tanks.
*DON'T BE FOOLED IT IS MADE FROM PLASTIC, WILL CONSUME MEGATONS OF FUEL AND BURN LIKE MATCHES LIKE PREVIOUS VERSION, YANKEES ARE GOOD IN MARKETING BUT SUCKS IN TECHS, AND BY THE WAY THANX FOR STEALING CONSTRUCTION FROM ARMATA, U WILL ALWAYS BE SECOND TO RUSSIA CLOWNS*
I am old school and spent all my time in 4 man crewed tanks..but as I went from M48's to M60's to M1's...but we should all be open to new tech and ideas..if this new design is half as good as it looks I say let's bring it on..I will say one thing when I was a gunner having that loud engine having to fire up at 2 a.m. really was a great way to give away your position...
@@DonWan47 You should either go to firefighting school like I did, or read up and various methods of foam as an anti fire method. It smothers the fire. Well, I don't have the time nor inclanation of school ya, boy. Do your own research. Something called "goodle, or google" I think.
*DON'T BE FOOLED IT IS MADE FROM PLASTIC, WILL CONSUME MEGATONS OF FUEL AND BURN LIKE MATCHES LIKE PREVIOUS VERSION, YANKEES ARE GOOD IN MARKETING BUT SUCKS IN TECHS, AND BY THE WAY THANX FOR STEALING CONSTRUCTION FROM ARMATA, U WILL ALWAYS BE SECOND TO RUSSIA CLOWNS*
What blew me away is the new Abrams secondary (30mm) have more power than the M2 Bradley’s main gun. It’s much needed, that Active Protection is too, Tanks are underpowered and are almost no match for dismounted infantry with AT these days, having this beast with a good support system and infantry will do serious damage.
Considering that 30mm chaingun can defeat the BMP-3 (freeing up the 120mm for enemy MBTs), this is one formidable tank. Let's hope they're more reliable than the "mighty" Russian T14.
*DON'T BE FOOLED IT IS MADE FROM PLASTIC, WILL CONSUME MEGATONS OF FUEL AND BURN LIKE MATCHES LIKE PREVIOUS VERSION, YANKEES ARE GOOD IN MARKETING BUT SUCKS IN TECHS, AND BY THE WAY THANX FOR STEALING CONSTRUCTION FROM ARMATA, U WILL ALWAYS BE SECOND TO RUSSIA CLOWNS*
@@dotabuff5288 LOL, I do believe this is an excellent example of projection. BTW, those Yank clowns developed the Abrams in 1980 whilst the T14 was developed in 2015. Get your facts straight comrade if you intend to remain somewhat credible. The 2nd best to Russia gave me a mighty good chuckle. That's hilarious! 😆
The Hybrid engine is a great idea with the increased battery enabling more silent operations & I am curious about the new counter measures employed...sounds good.
This isn't THE new tank it is just an Abrams tank testing the new equipment and ideas for a new tank. Edit: To clarify, the video title is misleading as it makes viewers think the Abrams X is in the running to be the next tank or the next variant of the Abrams because the title says the Army is testing them. It is just a technology demonstrator. The last part about the US Army testing the Abrams X may be false information too as there currently is no mention that the Army is testing it. At best(air quotes🙃), a few of the technologies showcased here will make its way on to current Abrams tanks as an interim solution before THE next generation main battle tanks. Currently the Decisive Lethality Platform which is part of the Next Generation Combat Vehicle program is looking to replace the M1 Abrams.
I think the Abrams X isn't the final prototype but a prototype stepping stone to something close to what they will use. Technology has changed so much in the past 20 years, we really need to replace the current Abrams before it gets left behind, and what they are doing here is testing new tech for a eventual real tank that will replace the current Abrams.
my understanding is the Abrams X is more of an intermediary: it's an upgrade package to keep the current Abrams competitive while we develop a true 4th generation tank. The US military is working on 2 other programs right now: the Decisive Lethality Platform and Next Generation Combat Vehicle, the Decisive Lethality Platform is a replacement for the Abrams and a true fourth generation tank. Since Abrams X is slated to enter service over a decade before the planned Decisive Lethality Platform you're probably right in that it will be a test bed for various tech, which makes perfect sense since they'd be able to test it on a proven platform and a platform that's slated to be replaced by a successor 10+ years later.
@@arthas640 the big thing is I don't think the US sees the need to build things like the Abrams X currently. The Abrams can still beat pretty much all competition it has to come up against including the Armata despite what Tankies claim. It's good to have something being developed, but I doubt the US is that rushed to make new tanks.
@@shaunlevin5081 That's just it though, it's not really a production model so much as it's just a test bed/demonstrator. It appears to be an Abrams they've customized with a bunch of new tech that's all being used for the Next Generation Combat Vehicle, which also includes replacement vehicles for the Bradley, M113 APC, Abrams and new robotic/unmanned vehicles and a new light tank and they're also replacing some failed/canceled programs like that anti tank Stryker and some earlier light tank ideas. Right now it doesnt sound like the projects will be complete until 2030-2035 and after that they need to enter production so while we dont need to worry about the Abrams tank being outdated anytime soon, despite being "3rd generation" and originally designed 40 years or so ago it's been modernized and as you said it's competitive with modern tanks like the Armata. By the 2030s and 2040s though it's likely we'll need to worry about 4th generation Chinese tanks though, especially since China is already starting to replace Russia as the supplier for many non-western militaries and is likely to only expand that niche as Russian manufacturing has been on a downward slide for a long time and is only likely to get worse, especially after the Ukraine war revealed many failings in Russian equipment and exposed how poor their production abilities are.
Id say the current abrams does do its job so damn well its as irreplaceable as an AK47 to the military as a mass general purpose main battle tank and while it is dated and can be vulnerable it is still well capable of taking out any tank on the market today and I think General Dynamics know what they are doing with tank design, however id note these look really stout and weak on the sides with little deflecting armor.
Kind of feels like they built it to show everyone what a T-14 Armada would look like if it was built by someone that could actually put it off. 😂 But I doubt this will go into production, it is just way too expensive. Many of the systems developed for it will probably show up on other vehicles. Not sure if we are going to get another main battle tank, it kind of feels like they are not really all the necessary anymore. Do we really have trouble putting "big gun" power where we want it? What is the role of the MBT now?
I remember reading about this back in 92' as an Army Vet. My MOS was a 45G (Fire Control Systems Tech). I was responsible for the GPS (Gunners Primary Sight), calibrating the 120 mm smoothbore Howitzer along with all electronics with the Load System, Gunner, and Driver optics. I remember getting classified documentation then about how the next generation Abram would be manless. For over a 2 yr period we would get a look into the interworking of the system as to its future limitations and systems, some of which I would assume are still classified just as the M1A1 and A2 Abram were.
@@ivanronin8209 US handed Ukraine like 1/2 of your entire yearly defense budget in under a year, you don't get to brag about jack Ivan 🤣🤣 at least when it comes to military power. Your ladies however, that's an area you're welcome to brag about still since they're all gorgeous 🤣🤣🤣
I think it's a great idea. The US Army should get this into production asap. Another war with a near-peer adversary seems like something that is unfortunately on the horizon.
General dynamics had a shipyard in Quincy, Mass. right next to where I grew up, building pocket carriers, liberty ships, cruisers, all types of sea crafts for WW2, and the drawbridge was a perfect water park for me and my friends, 70' at high tide, it was a blast.
As a former 19K, I think this has a lot of awesome upgrades, except I don’t like the tc and gunner not being in the turret. It’s the same thing the Russians have done with the T-14. What’s the crew going to do when there is a misfire, jam, computer malfunction? Can you manual fire or use an auxiliary sight?
I wonder how those large protruding cameras would handle the rigors of combat. Hopefully they’re armored enough and maybe include a thin sheet of ballistic glass to help prevent things like light shrapnel from crippling them.
@@williampaz2092 I share your concern, but I wouldn't hold my breath. If GD produced the perfect tank now, that would detract from the necessity of selling the DoD upgrade kits in a few years.
was thinking same thing... seems they would be the first target and the crew could be blind.... dont know anything about tanks but that would be my concern
@@richardruiz6972 they can copy decisions that make on Russian t-90m, it has steel plate that cover it in battle and secondary smaller cameras, that harder to hit but that can be used if main was destroyed. This way americans made own t-90m, maybe even better version of it.
one small detail that is to be addressed the Abrams x is powered by a 1500hp diesel/hybrid electric engine not a gas turbine to increase logistical use and range along with silent watch
The biggest thing to understand here is that the Army didn't say "hey go build this" GD literally built a few of these using technology they all ready use on other platforms to say "this is what we can do." The FCS platform that was scrapped forever ago had a lot of these same concepts, but the tech just wasn't there yet. But the T14 now uses this same style of platform...though there are not many due to cost. I was and am still not a fan of this cannon, mainly due to questions about production time, and I also wonder how many rounds it can fire before the tube needs to be replaced. Our newest combat rounds put a beating on the M256 tube we use today. Maintenance would be an absolute nightmare on this thing I am sure, it already is today, but that's mainly a Soldier issue...the Tanker culture just isn't what it used to be. On top of that now you would have an up-gunned Bushmaster to maintain as well in the field along with the other weapon systems. And then there's the cameras...my biggest complaint, for this, the FCS, and even the T14. Simple small arms fire takes even one out, and you have lost situational awareness, no questions asked. Most Tankers will tell you that we want to be in the turret, we fight from the turret, we need EYES, not cameras.... and a damn loader....extra man for maintenance, and faster than an auto loader as long as they have a good gunner/Tank Commander to train them. I've loved the turbine, but always wanted a diesel, we finally have a good APU, though we should have went with newer light track, light road wheels etc. for the V3/V4. Which leads me to the last point (sorry for the exhausting comment) PRICE- Just look at what we are doing with the V3/V4....the government did not want to pay for all the upgrades at once, so they created packages. But, all they are doing is spending more in the end to retrofit more tanks with different shit. So, the if DOD does want this, what are they willing to pay? And once the bureaucrats get their claws in..... things will be added or taken away and we'll have something else. LAST thing...if there are 3 people in this Abrams hull...where are the front fuel cells? Thanks to whoever read this lol.
I've heard it could also carry and deploy 2 of our switchblade loitering munitions aka suicide drones. That would also add a lot for situational awareness as I imagine while they are in recon mode they could feed that info right to the tank.
@@KC_Smooth I like the idea of making a new generation of tanks. Some are saying we should go to the 130mm Rheinmetall or the 140mm Nexter. Are either one of those guns electrothermal chemical guns like the 120mm (if converted to ETC) on the Abrams X? Would their rounds be more powerful than the new rounds for the Abrams X's 120mm? I think a 4th crew member should be added so he can help operate secondary and tertiary weapon systems such as the 30mm canon, hero drones, etc. I'd say mount a .50 paired with a crows system on top. Add some active countermeasures to go along with the already present passive ones. Add reactive armor. Is it true these tanks will have javelins? That would be a weapon system the 4th crew member could utilize while the gunner/commander are concentrating on primary targets. As far as a tank platoon goes, maybe the lead tank of the platoon could use reconnaissance drones in place of hero drones.
As a former M-1 Abrams tanker, here’s what I think; 1) I absolutely DO NOT want an Autoloader! That’s a HORRIBLE idea! It offers no advantages. You loose a crew member. Tanking is hard work! You need that crew member to help do maintenance and security. That’s also one less person in the crew sleep rotation. 2) I agree with loosing the turbine engine. Its power advantage of about + 300-500 more Horsepower was never really a useful factor. It gave a slight potential speed advantage, but that’s useless on normal tank terrain (which will always limit speed). The turbine wasn’t worth the massive extra fuel consumption. 3) A 30mm cannon instead of a .50 Cal? Yeah. I could see that.
My main concern with the tank is the battery's reaction to a 5000ft/s projectile. It's also worth mentioning that the 30mm gun with probably have a fraction of the ammo the 50 has. It's more gun, but less ammo. I'd also like to see it's solo defense against a Walmart fixed-wing drone with 15lbs of explosive on it.
@@ObiWanShinobi917 my main concern is those batteries. There is a lab that got blown to smithereens by a D-sized lithium Ion battery. Imagine with enough power to move a 50 ton vehicle 😨
I think most if not all tanks would be concerned with a 5000ft/s projectile, battery or no. Hope these batteries are at least designed with a blowout panel though.
My dad was a design engineer on the targeting computer for the M1-A2 I always enjoyed the needless opulence of having the tank powered by a turbine jet engine I feel like the camera systems could be disabled relatively easily Artificial Intelligence is the Devil
I would love to see one in action. I was a tanker, and I got out as the Sep 3 was being looked into. Got to see it with new sights better distance in sights, and the A/C system was awesome, but reliability is a must, and there were a couple of issues with it. Auto, anything worries me in battle. The A2s were bad ass but if you did get to know the gremlins in your tank, in battle recovery could have been a bitch. B33 was a stud of a tank an would have gone to war In that thing.
Former 19k as well. This looks like a ton of systems to break, especially in combat situations. The only thing I like on this is the 30mm, but it isn’t necessary except in situations where the tank is out on patrol for days. The 120mm does a fantastic job of taking out small armored vehicles already and the battle load is more than enough for al last all scenarios short of a situation where we are in WW3 and we are fighting on the back foot.
It sounds like it has some impressive new technologies implemented, but I have a concern regarding my previous experience with the M1 Abrams tank. I was a 45K Tank Turret Repairer in the early 90s & during Desert Storm. The turret had a limited amount of space inside for moving around & was difficult for maintenance to repair. The concept AbramsX did not appear to have any "visible" accessibility for the turret section. Presumably it has access to that section for maintenance from the hull section. I would be concerned about the ability to maintain & repair the components inside the turret in this vehicle.
My first question was about the auto loader. If no one is in the turret how do they clear a jam? This is a big problem with the t-14 if it jams they have to get out of the tank to fix it, I hope General Dynamics was smarter than that. 🙂
I feel like keeping the auto loader, and the 4th crew member, and mounting another .50 cal gun turret for rear guard or extra forward firepower, or a drone for the 4th person to use is the best idea.
The 30mm autocannon is a very good idea, and the autoloader, new engine... but will that new XM360 120mm main gun be porwerful enough to defeat other modern MBT´s?. The new Rehinmetall 130mm L51 looks like a big step forward.
wont be an issue tanks are not for fighting other tanks anymore they are for infantry support. the 30mm will be the mainly used gun while the cannon for heavier armor and bunker busting. air support is for destroying the heavy tanks they have some missiles that are really good at destroying tanks from dozens of miles away
The XM360 can use every modern projectile, so there is ones for when you fight against other tanks. 125mm from a T-72 will be less penetrable than a 120mm XM360 with a modern projectile.
If you could run it for short sprints off the batteries it would be silent. Completely. Silent. Thats game changing that is. Normal tanks you can literally hear a mile away on a cold night.
How often does it need field maintenance and how difficult to affect said maintenance? Are the spare parts and consumables easily sourced and transported in the field?
Sounds to me like a deadline queen in the making, I hope they'll triple the amount of mechanics per company with the amount of loaders they'll lose because it looks like they'll need them.
@@uwehoffmann9255 that's what I was wondering, I thought autoloaders wear out pretty quickly? Is that still the case? In theory powertrain wise the hybrid system should actually help with maintenance.
The USMC ditched their armor! Their brass didn't like the M1, not likely to be bringing armor back on deck. In any case you can have that high maintenance deadline queen.
This seems like an absolutely amazing tank. This machine does seem to perfect everything about the platform. 1) Hybrid engine adressing M1's bad thermal image and fuel economy 2) APS for increased efficiency of the AT weaponry 3) 30mm autocannon for commander is a beast, less 120mm waste. Infantry and light vehicles are much better targets now. 30mm can also engage helicopters much better. 4) Joint space for better communication 5) Radar stealth is crucial, Longbow-type radars are a great threat. This really adresses all major M1 flaws and includes experience from the REDFOR losses. Great job, engineers.
... and good luck fixing it with a three men crew if there isn't a massive increase of mechanics per company, and even then fixing broken track in the mud ought to be material worth of a new military comedy movie with that contraption.
No, we should get smaller, cheaper tanks. We need to be more mobile and have a smaller loss when an infantry anti-tank weapon inevitably destroys the tank
As these new versions are built the older versions they replace can be sold off to Taiwan thus "forward deploying" them to a place that has a reasonable high probability of where they may be needed.
So many advanced and expensive looking optics and systems on the outside of the tank, which could get easily blown away. Not to mention that chaingun on top. A single shell to the 30mm and its gone. Having all the crew in one place means if a shell gets through, they're all dead. Lastly, it has the same disadvantage all tanks do. It can't engage multiple attackers directly. Other than that, this is one beautiful tank, and I hope to see it's combat effectiveness prove me wrong!
I wonder if you're playing too many video games when you think someone actually aims for the 30mm on top or specific optics. Also, traditional optics could be hit just as much as the one on this tank
@dierare I wonder if you're just looking for an excuse to disagree when you assume that I meant someone specifically aims for them. It doesn't matter if they're aimed for. If they get hit (even accidentally, I'll spell it out for you), then that's a lot of money, technology, and functionality gone.
Looks very impressive. This one is probably going to be produced a lot in the future. Also very excited for KF51 Panther, though not sure whom or in what extent its going to be built in. Its 130mm gun and included 4 drones, sets that one a part.
The Abrams X can launch switchable drones and is fitted I believe with an Electro Thermal Chemical gun. It also features a 30mm auto cannon, similar to the one found on the Apache attack helicopter.
I like the idea of making a new generation of tanks. Some are saying we should go to the 130mm Rheinmetall or the 140mm Nexter. Are either one of those guns electrothermal chemical guns like the 120mm (if converted to ETC) on the Abrams X? Would their rounds be more powerful than the new rounds for the Abrams X's 120mm? I think a 4th crew member should be added so he can help operate secondary and tertiary weapon systems such as the 30mm canon, hero drones, etc. I'd say mount a .50 paired with a crows system on top. Add some active countermeasures to go along with the already present passive ones. Add reactive armor. Is it true these tanks will have javelins? That would be a weapon system the 4th crew member could utilize while the gunner/commander are concentrating on primary targets. As far as a tank platoon goes, maybe the lead tank of the platoon could use reconnaissance drones in place of hero drones.
Penetrating (and improving) frontal armor is a last century problem though, as the war in Ukraine has shown bigger guns aren't so much needed as munitions come down from above to disable. I think we'll still need MBTs, but one-upping the best Cold War designs might not be the direction needed.
@@ohboydiamonds Their is consequences to everything. Remember consequences is results or effects. By having a smaller crew maintaining the vehicle will become more challenging especially with more advanced systems in place. This can and will increase maintenance time which will keep the combat platform out of the field for longer periods.
I agree. Unless HQ platoon is increase by 14 (to offset a company size decrease), Any battalion/brigade duties will greatly decrease the effectiveness of the company.
Almost everything that has an X in the name of a new AMerican weapons system, tends to fail dramatically. Not that it may be the case here, but i would also like to point out that the overall look of the system also projects its effectiveness. Almost all weapon systems that look good aesthetically, also perform as they should. Looking at the X model, the chassis from the older Abrams doesn't seem to fit its turret, where original Abrams turret fits the casis perfectly.
I've spoken with a retired US tank commander, and he prefers having the 4-man crew, one because replacing a crew member is easier than repairing a complicated auto loader, and two because the tank needs so much maintenance that having only three hands is a huge pain. So I'm less confident in the auto loader. But the engine looks really formidable.
No, joe Biden needs to pull out of Ukraine and stop laundering billions of dollars instead. The Ukrainians aren’t struggling to pay bills and buy groceries thanks to him.
To be clear, this is technically still a prototype, it's not going to enter full service yet, because the current Abrams isn't struggling or in need of replacement just yet (I mean, just look at the T-14)
Honestly, as much as the Military causes negative affects, they also cause positive effects to help Civilizations get more advanced and not let insane Dictators (Cough Hitler) just roll into another country they want and take it over. Systems and Technology like this tank will be used in much more and that helps people and countries defend and grow properly (like the universe intended).
The vehicle crew can be blinded by destroying the optical viewers/ranger finders located on the turret, how has that been addressed? How many rounds are stored on board the tank and are they all loaded into the autoloader system. Are we talking about a hybrid battery power tank and if so, how often would the batteries have to be changed or recharged by an external power source. Will the power pack be able to be replaced in the field? Has the logistics of this been consider before the design acceptance. As for the main gun size the larger the caliber the less main gun rounds can be loaded into the autoloader system. I have heard the superlative descriptions on so many other weapons systems and have observed the far less than desirable realities of these systems, I have a wait and see attitude. I hope there is not a void between the superlative descriptions and the reality. Lastly what will the Abrams X unit cost be?
Would a hybrid engine allow for more low-end torque from an electric motor? One of the main reasons the US military went with the gas turbine engine over a traditional diesel engine was because the gas turbine engine offered better torque and acceleration at lower speeds. So, in theory, the tank could fire and maneuver more quickly and effectively. It's also cool that new Abrams X no longer needs an APU, cuz they'll just use the electric motor to power critical systems while the diesel is powered off.
At first I thought that 30mm gun was going to be too much. I thought it would be better to have a .50 cal with more ammo to engage infantry and light vehicles such as trucks. But in the modern battlefield where pretty much every infantry unit is either motorized or mechinized it makes a lot of sense. There's a lot of vehicles in use that can easily withstand 50 cal fire, but for which the 120 gun is overkill.
These targets also often carry AT missles so its actually really useful to have a gun system that appropriately matches that kind of firepower and armor.
Yeah, I mean worse case scenario it shouldn't be too hard to simply make a mount for a 50 cal if they felt they needed it. Always something that can be changed afterwards if it was needed.
ATGM teams and drones. Programmable airburst rounds and some form of target detection will knock drones out of the sky
not to mention how urban combat is becoming increasingly common as well, a large gun for infantry and light armor makes sense as it can shred walls easier. This is also good since tanks can fill the role currently used by some IFVs by providing intermidate fire between the 50 cal used by light vehicles like Humvees and the larger cannons used by tanks.
*DON'T BE FOOLED IT IS MADE FROM PLASTIC, WILL CONSUME MEGATONS OF FUEL AND BURN LIKE MATCHES LIKE PREVIOUS VERSION, YANKEES ARE GOOD IN MARKETING BUT SUCKS IN TECHS, AND BY THE WAY THANX FOR STEALING CONSTRUCTION FROM ARMATA, U WILL ALWAYS BE SECOND TO RUSSIA CLOWNS*
@@dotabuff5288 isn't russia that country thats out losing to its tiny neighbor?
I am old school and spent all my time in 4 man crewed tanks..but as I went from M48's to M60's to M1's...but we should all be open to new tech and ideas..if this new design is half as good as it looks I say let's bring it on..I will say one thing when I was a gunner having that loud engine having to fire up at 2 a.m. really was a great way to give away your position...
When the first UAV covers your whole tank with Super foam, we'll see how those billions of $ were wisely spent as the crew suffocates inside.
@@motomike3475 that’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.
@@DonWan47 You should either go to firefighting school like I did, or read up and various methods of foam as an anti fire method. It smothers the fire. Well, I don't have the time nor inclanation of school ya, boy. Do your own research. Something called "goodle, or google" I think.
@@motomike3475 One problem with that, you’re talking bullshit 😂
*DON'T BE FOOLED IT IS MADE FROM PLASTIC, WILL CONSUME MEGATONS OF FUEL AND BURN LIKE MATCHES LIKE PREVIOUS VERSION, YANKEES ARE GOOD IN MARKETING BUT SUCKS IN TECHS, AND BY THE WAY THANX FOR STEALING CONSTRUCTION FROM ARMATA, U WILL ALWAYS BE SECOND TO RUSSIA CLOWNS*
What blew me away is the new Abrams secondary (30mm) have more power than the M2 Bradley’s main gun. It’s much needed, that Active Protection is too, Tanks are underpowered and are almost no match for dismounted infantry with AT these days, having this beast with a good support system and infantry will do serious damage.
Considering that 30mm chaingun can defeat the BMP-3 (freeing up the 120mm for enemy MBTs), this is one formidable tank. Let's hope they're more reliable than the "mighty" Russian T14.
*DON'T BE FOOLED IT IS MADE FROM PLASTIC, WILL CONSUME MEGATONS OF FUEL AND BURN LIKE MATCHES LIKE PREVIOUS VERSION, YANKEES ARE GOOD IN MARKETING BUT SUCKS IN TECHS, AND BY THE WAY THANX FOR STEALING CONSTRUCTION FROM ARMATA, U WILL ALWAYS BE SECOND TO RUSSIA CLOWNS*
@@dotabuff5288 LOL, I do believe this is an excellent example of projection.
BTW, those Yank clowns developed the Abrams in 1980 whilst the T14 was developed in 2015. Get your facts straight comrade if you intend to remain somewhat credible.
The 2nd best to Russia gave me a mighty good chuckle. That's hilarious! 😆
@@snowdogthewolf The T14 doesn't even work. What makes you think a Russian tank could stand a chance against an American one?
@@memeityy Most of what I wrote was heavy on sarcasm.
The Hybrid engine is a great idea with the increased battery enabling more silent operations & I am curious about the new counter measures employed...sounds good.
elon musk be liik⬆
Putrid The Abrams has always been a defective.. 8 hour tank. Putting an aircraft engine in a tank, is, and will always BE, RETARDED.
Imagine how those li-ion batteries will burn
This isn't THE new tank it is just an Abrams tank testing the new equipment and ideas for a new tank.
Edit: To clarify, the video title is misleading as it makes viewers think the Abrams X is in the running to be the next tank or the next variant of the Abrams because the title says the Army is testing them. It is just a technology demonstrator. The last part about the US Army testing the Abrams X may be false information too as there currently is no mention that the Army is testing it.
At best(air quotes🙃), a few of the technologies showcased here will make its way on to current Abrams tanks as an interim solution before THE next generation main battle tanks. Currently the Decisive Lethality Platform which is part of the Next Generation Combat Vehicle program is looking to replace the M1 Abrams.
Its very impressive still, not that the M1 Abrams on its own isnt impressive enough.
A concept… May or may not be…
I like what I have seen here. But let us see how the tests go…..
No its a new tank based on the NGMBT. Dont get jealous
@@B1GK1NG This isn't a new tank model. It is just an Abrams showcasing the technology to the public. Jealousy has nothing to do with this.
I think the Abrams X isn't the final prototype but a prototype stepping stone to something close to what they will use. Technology has changed so much in the past 20 years, we really need to replace the current Abrams before it gets left behind, and what they are doing here is testing new tech for a eventual real tank that will replace the current Abrams.
my understanding is the Abrams X is more of an intermediary: it's an upgrade package to keep the current Abrams competitive while we develop a true 4th generation tank. The US military is working on 2 other programs right now: the Decisive Lethality Platform and Next Generation Combat Vehicle, the Decisive Lethality Platform is a replacement for the Abrams and a true fourth generation tank. Since Abrams X is slated to enter service over a decade before the planned Decisive Lethality Platform you're probably right in that it will be a test bed for various tech, which makes perfect sense since they'd be able to test it on a proven platform and a platform that's slated to be replaced by a successor 10+ years later.
@@arthas640 the big thing is I don't think the US sees the need to build things like the Abrams X currently. The Abrams can still beat pretty much all competition it has to come up against including the Armata despite what Tankies claim. It's good to have something being developed, but I doubt the US is that rushed to make new tanks.
@@shaunlevin5081 That's just it though, it's not really a production model so much as it's just a test bed/demonstrator. It appears to be an Abrams they've customized with a bunch of new tech that's all being used for the Next Generation Combat Vehicle, which also includes replacement vehicles for the Bradley, M113 APC, Abrams and new robotic/unmanned vehicles and a new light tank and they're also replacing some failed/canceled programs like that anti tank Stryker and some earlier light tank ideas.
Right now it doesnt sound like the projects will be complete until 2030-2035 and after that they need to enter production so while we dont need to worry about the Abrams tank being outdated anytime soon, despite being "3rd generation" and originally designed 40 years or so ago it's been modernized and as you said it's competitive with modern tanks like the Armata. By the 2030s and 2040s though it's likely we'll need to worry about 4th generation Chinese tanks though, especially since China is already starting to replace Russia as the supplier for many non-western militaries and is likely to only expand that niche as Russian manufacturing has been on a downward slide for a long time and is only likely to get worse, especially after the Ukraine war revealed many failings in Russian equipment and exposed how poor their production abilities are.
Id say the current abrams does do its job so damn well its as irreplaceable as an AK47 to the military as a mass general purpose main battle tank and while it is dated and can be vulnerable it is still well capable of taking out any tank on the market today and I think General Dynamics know what they are doing with tank design, however id note these look really stout and weak on the sides with little deflecting armor.
Kind of feels like they built it to show everyone what a T-14 Armada would look like if it was built by someone that could actually put it off. 😂 But I doubt this will go into production, it is just way too expensive. Many of the systems developed for it will probably show up on other vehicles. Not sure if we are going to get another main battle tank, it kind of feels like they are not really all the necessary anymore. Do we really have trouble putting "big gun" power where we want it? What is the role of the MBT now?
I remember reading about this back in 92' as an Army Vet. My MOS was a 45G (Fire Control Systems Tech). I was responsible for the GPS (Gunners Primary Sight), calibrating the 120 mm smoothbore Howitzer along with all electronics with the Load System, Gunner, and Driver optics. I remember getting classified documentation then about how the next generation Abram would be manless. For over a 2 yr period we would get a look into the interworking of the system as to its future limitations and systems, some of which I would assume are still classified just as the M1A1 and A2 Abram were.
I've watched too many movies of machine's coming to life to kill humanity to believe a man-less tank is a good idea.
@@reinhartkrempler7654 it’s probably remote controlled
@@reinhartkrempler7654 Those are just that: movies. They're made to scare you, not be realistic.
And I bet you didn't leave classified documents at your house like the irresponsible politicians.
@@Roker22 I would like to apply my 5th Amendment rights.
That's a badass tank bro 👀
This is exactly what the Army needs in a "MODERN" BATTLE TANK!
Looks like the Russian '' Armata ' Tank ! same Concept ! Armatures !
Got the money for it though?
@@ivanronin8209 US handed Ukraine like 1/2 of your entire yearly defense budget in under a year, you don't get to brag about jack Ivan 🤣🤣 at least when it comes to military power. Your ladies however, that's an area you're welcome to brag about still since they're all gorgeous 🤣🤣🤣
Fully electric, with a laser would be modern.
@@B01 happy that your gov take your tax and send it abroad 🤣
The fuel consumption of the AbramsX dropped by 50 %, which means that GD put the engine of the Leopard 2 in it. That's a smart action.
I was hoping it was going to be a proper diesel such as German, Swiss, Japanese, or Ukrainian.
Love it! The design looks great!
Im fangirling over this tank and you cant stop me.
I think it's a great idea. The US Army should get this into production asap. Another war with a near-peer adversary seems like something that is unfortunately on the horizon.
are you writing this from 1990s? because a war with Russia was apparent in the early 2000s.
General dynamics had a shipyard in Quincy, Mass. right next to where I grew up, building pocket carriers, liberty ships, cruisers, all types of sea crafts for WW2, and the drawbridge was a perfect water park for me and my friends, 70' at high tide, it was a blast.
a comparison with the new KF51 Panther from Rheinmetal would be interesting
Yes, it is a must needed for US army.
Good idea having a completely remote secondary weapon. Don't want snipers picking off tank crew sticking their heads out... this awesome..
As a former 19K, I think this has a lot of awesome upgrades, except I don’t like the tc and gunner not being in the turret. It’s the same thing the Russians have done with the T-14. What’s the crew going to do when there is a misfire, jam, computer malfunction? Can you manual fire or use an auxiliary sight?
Good point. I would also be interested in your point of view concerning the possible increase of daily maintenance tasks with 3 crewmen instead of 4.
even t-64 has pretty reliable autoloader. Also misfire can kill crew if it inside turret.
A tank is replaceable, a experienced crew is not.
I wonder how those large protruding cameras would handle the rigors of combat. Hopefully they’re armored enough and maybe include a thin sheet of ballistic glass to help prevent things like light shrapnel from crippling them.
I thought exactly the same.
That worries me as well. Hopefully, by the time these systems go into production they will be smaller and much harder to hit.
@@williampaz2092 I share your concern, but I wouldn't hold my breath. If GD produced the perfect tank now, that would detract from the necessity of selling the DoD upgrade kits in a few years.
was thinking same thing... seems they would be the first target and the crew could be blind.... dont know anything about tanks but that would be my concern
@@richardruiz6972 they can copy decisions that make on Russian t-90m, it has steel plate that cover it in battle and secondary smaller cameras, that harder to hit but that can be used if main was destroyed. This way americans made own t-90m, maybe even better version of it.
one small detail that is to be addressed the Abrams x is powered by a 1500hp diesel/hybrid electric engine not a gas turbine to increase logistical use and range along with silent watch
+++🤯💥🤯 ℕ𝔼𝕎 𝔽ℝ𝕆ℕ𝕋𝕀𝔼ℝ 𝕋𝔼ℂℍℕ𝕆𝕃𝕆𝔾𝕐 𝔾ℝ𝕆𝕌ℙ multidisciplinary engineer/inventor here. We are developing one of my numerous ultra simple, long life, engine architectures which offers Significantly‼greater ratios of power to weight[specific power] and energy to volume[specific energy]...without any pollutants [NO, CO2 is not a pollutant] and can use any fuel or mixtures thereof. It's will be based on the 𝔽𝕦𝕖𝕝 𝔸𝕘𝕟𝕠𝕤𝕥𝕚𝕔 ℤ𝕖𝕣𝕠 𝔼𝕞𝕚𝕤𝕤𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝔼𝕟𝕘𝕚𝕟𝕖 [𝔽.𝔸.ℤ.𝔼.] tech described below with thermal efficiency ~60% which is close to an EV's charge-discharge cycle efficiency.😉 😁 We are incorporating Waste-To-Fuel systems in the offerings which will provide ultra-low-cost, renewable, carbon-negative fuels for our engines and gensets...without pollution. Torque...constantly Maximal. We'll also develop my superior power dense rotary architecture. Coming to Yourtown soon. ‼
😶🌫🤯Before that, we introduce the revolutionary FAZE engine
technology. The 𝔽𝕦𝕖𝕝 𝔸𝕘𝕟𝕠𝕤𝕥𝕚𝕔 ℤ𝕖𝕣𝕠 𝔼𝕞𝕚𝕤𝕤𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝔼𝕟𝕘𝕚𝕟𝕖
[𝔽.𝔸.ℤ.𝔼.] tech best solves the issues present in previous internal
combustion engine designs by transforming the old paradigm into a
simple, low cost, quiet, power dense, efficient, on-the-go liquid and
gas fuel-flexible, ‘non-polluting’ solution for power generation of all
scales and advanced transportation, construction, military, off-road
vehicles including ships, aircraft, trains & robots not possible before.
Companies can either get aboard or risk of getting run over.
𝔽𝔸ℤ𝔼 delivers better than 25% ABSOLUTE/ACTUAL [not relative]
fuel efficiency improvement over gasoline engines, more than 15%
for Diesel engines at any operating condition - speed/load, ambient
temperature or elevation, not just at one optimal testing point at
STP. Real world driving cycle savings could be an additional 200%
higher due to the constant MAXIMAL efficiency and torque which
results in a huge turn down ratio of ~99% without sacrificing
performance. That means it's idle or running speed can be 10-50 rpm.
The `simple, low cost, native/built-in, non-electric, environmentally safe,
non-explosive, temperature agnostic 𝕊𝕦𝕡𝕖𝕣ℍ𝕪𝕓𝕣𝕚𝕕© feature
recovers more energy than EVs and provides approx.100% fuel
savings for a combined absolute vehicle fuel usage improvement of
approximately 300%, thus obviating the basic need for expensive
EVs & e-hybrids. 𝕚ℙ𝕠𝕨𝕖𝕣𝔹𝕠𝕠𝕤𝕥 adds >400% more torque. It’s like
4 engines in 1. 𝕚𝔼𝕗𝕗𝕚𝕔𝕚𝕖𝕟𝕔𝕪𝔹𝕠𝕠𝕤𝕥2© further improves efficiency,
torque, power & other performance metrics by 10%. This is all done
w/o a transmission. Additional fuel saving solutions are available.
The FAZE engine perfectly follows the vehicle’s road or genset’s
electrical power demand with no energy loss [no fuel waste], This
unique characteristic enables dispensing with any auxiliary power
units [APU] for power or refrigeration in any application. This also
makes for a perfect range extender for battery electric vehicles [EV]
or as a standalone EV charging unit even where is no electric grid.
The fuel agnostic capability allows instantaneous use of any liquid
or gaseous fuel [natural gas at home!!!] incl. biofuels and hydrogen,
even if old/dirty/unprocessed like flare gas or employ the concurrent
multi-fuel capability…anywhere on the globe. One engine for all
locales w/o changes! Unlike EVs, this enables fast fueling anytime,
anywhere…with no troublesome infrastructure disruptions or
changes. EV’s are not a solution to the [FAKE]climate or mobility topics as
high level of electrification globally is unrealistic
[See Patrick Boyle's video "Electrify Everything?"]
The technology offers smokeless, non-polluting, low odor heat and
noise output without costly after-treatments, etc.,… with only the
lowest CO2. It has a negative carbon footprint with hydrogen,
ammonia, biofuels or gasified municipal, agricultural and/or forest
waste and coal from a 2-stroke-like simplicity. These are HUGE
business opportunities. We can provide these turnkey solutions
The FAZE technology can be integrated into any ICE or vehicle
architecture, adding some of the positive characteristics to its own.
With virtually no electronics and emissions equipment, the cost of
purchase and reduced servicing frequency make this solution
even more appealing.
Those are my two-bits
PS.
Did I mention we're developing advanced, simple, low cost, power dense electric machines and torque dense[read - compact], infinitely variable FrictionLess transmissions?
PPS.
✈✈✈ℕ𝔼𝕎 𝔽ℝ𝕆ℕ𝕋𝕀𝔼ℝ 𝕋𝔼ℂℍℕ𝕆𝕃𝕆𝔾𝕐 𝔾ℝ𝕆𝕌ℙ is a visionary multidisciplinary B2B innovation company utilizing a licensing business model or collaborative enterprise with strategic partners to develop Advanced clean, efficient, power dense solutions in domains of energy, propulsion, mobility, robotics / exoskeletons and clean technologies with a particular emphasis on the aerospace sector including space exploration and commercialization
What happens if somethings blows those two FLIR sights off of the top? Can the gunner manually sight targets?
I wonder what kind of fire suppression it has for the battery.
Wow! What a gamechanger!
That's one badass tank!
Excellent presentation we now need to add it to our arsenal
The biggest thing to understand here is that the Army didn't say "hey go build this" GD literally built a few of these using technology they all ready use on other platforms to say "this is what we can do." The FCS platform that was scrapped forever ago had a lot of these same concepts, but the tech just wasn't there yet. But the T14 now uses this same style of platform...though there are not many due to cost. I was and am still not a fan of this cannon, mainly due to questions about production time, and I also wonder how many rounds it can fire before the tube needs to be replaced. Our newest combat rounds put a beating on the M256 tube we use today. Maintenance would be an absolute nightmare on this thing I am sure, it already is today, but that's mainly a Soldier issue...the Tanker culture just isn't what it used to be. On top of that now you would have an up-gunned Bushmaster to maintain as well in the field along with the other weapon systems. And then there's the cameras...my biggest complaint, for this, the FCS, and even the T14. Simple small arms fire takes even one out, and you have lost situational awareness, no questions asked. Most Tankers will tell you that we want to be in the turret, we fight from the turret, we need EYES, not cameras.... and a damn loader....extra man for maintenance, and faster than an auto loader as long as they have a good gunner/Tank Commander to train them. I've loved the turbine, but always wanted a diesel, we finally have a good APU, though we should have went with newer light track, light road wheels etc. for the V3/V4. Which leads me to the last point (sorry for the exhausting comment) PRICE- Just look at what we are doing with the V3/V4....the government did not want to pay for all the upgrades at once, so they created packages. But, all they are doing is spending more in the end to retrofit more tanks with different shit. So, the if DOD does want this, what are they willing to pay? And once the bureaucrats get their claws in..... things will be added or taken away and we'll have something else. LAST thing...if there are 3 people in this Abrams hull...where are the front fuel cells? Thanks to whoever read this lol.
Great comment. It's obvious you know your stuff. Thank you
It did say the optics were armored, including the glass, and that parts could be swapped easily, modular design.
Such a great improvement. I would say yes, buy this tank. It would be a great investment for the u s army.
I've heard it could also carry and deploy 2 of our switchblade loitering munitions aka suicide drones. That would also add a lot for situational awareness as I imagine while they are in recon mode they could feed that info right to the tank.
I saw that too. However with a crew of only 3, I wonder who they’d give the job of controlling them to without overloading them mentally.
@@KC_Smooth I like the idea of making a new generation of tanks. Some are saying we should go to the 130mm Rheinmetall or the 140mm Nexter. Are either one of those guns electrothermal chemical guns like the 120mm (if converted to ETC) on the Abrams X? Would their rounds be more powerful than the new rounds for the Abrams X's 120mm? I think a 4th crew member should be added so he can help operate secondary and tertiary weapon systems such as the 30mm canon, hero drones, etc. I'd say mount a .50 paired with a crows system on top. Add some active countermeasures to go along with the already present passive ones. Add reactive armor. Is it true these tanks will have javelins? That would be a weapon system the 4th crew member could utilize while the gunner/commander are concentrating on primary targets. As far as a tank platoon goes, maybe the lead tank of the platoon could use reconnaissance drones in place of hero drones.
@@KC_Smooth I imagine a lot will be done by the on board AI ID'ing and calling out threats automatically
@@KC_Smooth just like they run drones now. they ask for deployment and someone in a cubical thousands of miles away will fly it for them
As a former M-1 Abrams tanker, here’s what I think;
1) I absolutely DO NOT want an Autoloader! That’s a HORRIBLE idea! It offers no advantages. You loose a crew member. Tanking is hard work! You need that crew member to help do maintenance and security. That’s also one less person in the crew sleep rotation.
2) I agree with loosing the turbine engine. Its power advantage of about + 300-500 more Horsepower was never really a useful factor. It gave a slight potential speed advantage, but that’s useless on normal tank terrain (which will always limit speed). The turbine wasn’t worth the massive extra fuel consumption.
3) A 30mm cannon instead of a .50 Cal? Yeah. I could see that.
Great point. 3rd crew member helps with shifts and maintenance.
My main concern with the tank is the battery's reaction to a 5000ft/s projectile. It's also worth mentioning that the 30mm gun with probably have a fraction of the ammo the 50 has. It's more gun, but less ammo. I'd also like to see it's solo defense against a Walmart fixed-wing drone with 15lbs of explosive on it.
I'm sure it'd be pretty easy to attach a switchblade drone launcher on it.
@@spackle9999 airborne bayblade
Itd use the same defense against the drone as it would against an anti tank missile. The drone wouldn't stand a chance.
@@ObiWanShinobi917 my main concern is those batteries. There is a lab that got blown to smithereens by a D-sized lithium Ion battery. Imagine with enough power to move a 50 ton vehicle 😨
I think most if not all tanks would be concerned with a 5000ft/s projectile, battery or no. Hope these batteries are at least designed with a blowout panel though.
Looks promising. Needs much more testing
My dad was a design engineer on the targeting computer for the M1-A2
I always enjoyed the needless opulence of having the tank powered by a turbine jet engine
I feel like the camera systems could be disabled relatively easily
Artificial Intelligence is the Devil
Incredible! If it will save fellow soldier’s lives; hell yes.
Adopt it, and get it issued asap! ❤️
I would love to see one in action. I was a tanker, and I got out as the Sep 3 was being looked into. Got to see it with new sights better distance in sights, and the A/C system was awesome, but reliability is a must, and there were a couple of issues with it. Auto, anything worries me in battle. The A2s were bad ass but if you did get to know the gremlins in your tank, in battle recovery could have been a bitch. B33 was a stud of a tank an would have gone to war In that thing.
Former 19k as well. This looks like a ton of systems to break, especially in combat situations. The only thing I like on this is the 30mm, but it isn’t necessary except in situations where the tank is out on patrol for days. The 120mm does a fantastic job of taking out small armored vehicles already and the battle load is more than enough for al last all scenarios short of a situation where we are in WW3 and we are fighting on the back foot.
Not the first Abrams with am autoloader. Mttb and thumper had it. Aswell as a prototype that was fitted to a standard m1
Yup, and there was a reason that particular feature didn't make it into the production series, and Gulf War I proved that decision to be right!
Just friggin awesome all the way around!
It's amazing to see the stark contrast difference between the US and Russia when it comes to strategic long term adaptability to warfare.
Russia advises knights with experience on the battlefield
The new tank sounds pretty badass. Definitely a winner. The only problem and real decider is the cost. Thats up to the US ARMY.
It sounds like it has some impressive new technologies implemented, but I have a concern regarding my previous experience with the M1 Abrams tank. I was a 45K Tank Turret Repairer in the early 90s & during Desert Storm. The turret had a limited amount of space inside for moving around & was difficult for maintenance to repair. The concept AbramsX did not appear to have any "visible" accessibility for the turret section. Presumably it has access to that section for maintenance from the hull section. I would be concerned about the ability to maintain & repair the components inside the turret in this vehicle.
My first question was about the auto loader. If no one is in the turret how do they clear a jam? This is a big problem with the t-14 if it jams they have to get out of the tank to fix it, I hope General Dynamics was smarter than that. 🙂
I feel like keeping the auto loader, and the 4th crew member, and mounting another .50 cal gun turret for rear guard or extra forward firepower, or a drone for the 4th person to use is the best idea.
GAU19 backup for drones and urban defence sounds good to me.
The 30mm autocannon is a very good idea, and the autoloader, new engine... but will that new XM360 120mm main gun be porwerful enough to defeat other modern MBT´s?. The new Rehinmetall 130mm L51 looks like a big step forward.
wont be an issue tanks are not for fighting other tanks anymore they are for infantry support. the 30mm will be the mainly used gun while the cannon for heavier armor and bunker busting. air support is for destroying the heavy tanks they have some missiles that are really good at destroying tanks from dozens of miles away
The XM360 can use every modern projectile, so there is ones for when you fight against other tanks. 125mm from a T-72 will be less penetrable than a 120mm XM360 with a modern projectile.
If you could run it for short sprints off the batteries it would be silent. Completely. Silent. Thats game changing that is. Normal tanks you can literally hear a mile away on a cold night.
How often does it need field maintenance and how difficult to affect said maintenance?
Are the spare parts and consumables easily sourced and transported in the field?
Sounds to me like a deadline queen in the making, I hope they'll triple the amount of mechanics per company with the amount of loaders they'll lose because it looks like they'll need them.
@@uwehoffmann9255 that's what I was wondering, I thought autoloaders wear out pretty quickly? Is that still the case? In theory powertrain wise the hybrid system should actually help with maintenance.
Poor putler. Had to see the unveiling of the B21. Now this thing rolling out 😂
This looks like the tank from Battlefield 2042
Hell yea new tank for us! Get some!
The USMC ditched their armor! Their brass didn't like the M1, not likely to be bringing armor back on deck. In any case you can have that high maintenance deadline queen.
It would be really cool if it had gull wing doors and chrome wheels.
This seems like an absolutely amazing tank. This machine does seem to perfect everything about the platform.
1) Hybrid engine adressing M1's bad thermal image and fuel economy
2) APS for increased efficiency of the AT weaponry
3) 30mm autocannon for commander is a beast, less 120mm waste. Infantry and light vehicles are much better targets now. 30mm can also engage helicopters much better.
4) Joint space for better communication
5) Radar stealth is crucial, Longbow-type radars are a great threat.
This really adresses all major M1 flaws and includes experience from the REDFOR losses. Great job, engineers.
The auto loader is not a good idea.
western auto loaders are stored in blowout pannels
finally someone with brains in the comments. autoloaders are a gimmick to look "futuristic" but actually SUCK.
@@DevDog98 nato auto loaders are good
@@dew7025 idc if its nato loaders or not they are a massive weakspot and not worth it.
@@DevDog98 nato autoloaders have blowout panels making it no longer a weak spot
This might just be a bridge, but autoloading and the engine change were def a must
autoloaders are not worth it
Wow, Incredible MBT!
I’m in the military and speaking with experience of military equipment. This tank is going to brake A LOT
A LOOOOOOOOOOTTTT
... and good luck fixing it with a three men crew if there isn't a massive increase of mechanics per company, and even then fixing broken track in the mud ought to be material worth of a new military comedy movie with that contraption.
You knows he’s telling the truth about being in the military because he said “brake” and not “break”
Decommissing the old and building the new gradually should be the right approach! Yes US military should buy it!
No, we should get smaller, cheaper tanks. We need to be more mobile and have a smaller loss when an infantry anti-tank weapon inevitably destroys the tank
As these new versions are built the older versions they replace can be sold off to Taiwan thus "forward deploying" them to a place that has a reasonable high probability of where they may be needed.
Good idea, but it all depends on the testing phase the ABRAMS X goes through, and how long that takes.
So many advanced and expensive looking optics and systems on the outside of the tank, which could get easily blown away. Not to mention that chaingun on top. A single shell to the 30mm and its gone. Having all the crew in one place means if a shell gets through, they're all dead. Lastly, it has the same disadvantage all tanks do. It can't engage multiple attackers directly. Other than that, this is one beautiful tank, and I hope to see it's combat effectiveness prove me wrong!
I wonder if you're playing too many video games when you think someone actually aims for the 30mm on top or specific optics. Also, traditional optics could be hit just as much as the one on this tank
@dierare I wonder if you're just looking for an excuse to disagree when you assume that I meant someone specifically aims for them. It doesn't matter if they're aimed for. If they get hit (even accidentally, I'll spell it out for you), then that's a lot of money, technology, and functionality gone.
Looks very impressive. This one is probably going to be produced a lot in the future. Also very excited for KF51 Panther, though not sure whom or in what extent its going to be built in. Its 130mm gun and included 4 drones, sets that one a part.
Do I hear "tiger" coming soon?
The Abrams X can launch switchable drones and is fitted I believe with an Electro Thermal Chemical gun. It also features a 30mm auto cannon, similar to the one found on the Apache attack helicopter.
Abrams X will probably be going into battle with autonomous vehicles at some point in the future.
I like the idea of making a new generation of tanks. Some are saying we should go to the 130mm Rheinmetall or the 140mm Nexter. Are either one of those guns electrothermal chemical guns like the 120mm (if converted to ETC) on the Abrams X? Would their rounds be more powerful than the new rounds for the Abrams X's 120mm? I think a 4th crew member should be added so he can help operate secondary and tertiary weapon systems such as the 30mm canon, hero drones, etc. I'd say mount a .50 paired with a crows system on top. Add some active countermeasures to go along with the already present passive ones. Add reactive armor. Is it true these tanks will have javelins? That would be a weapon system the 4th crew member could utilize while the gunner/commander are concentrating on primary targets. As far as a tank platoon goes, maybe the lead tank of the platoon could use reconnaissance drones in place of hero drones.
Penetrating (and improving) frontal armor is a last century problem though, as the war in Ukraine has shown bigger guns aren't so much needed as munitions come down from above to disable. I think we'll still need MBTs, but one-upping the best Cold War designs might not be the direction needed.
Wow!!!! So it's a lighter variant but just as well armored, more advanced with better fire power.
Not convinced a three-man crew is such a great idea.
damn, pack it up GD, mike clark isnt convinced.
sorry guys, maybe next time your advanced tank will be approved
Mike Clark needs a job GD
@@ohboydiamonds Their is consequences to everything. Remember consequences is results or effects. By having a smaller crew maintaining the vehicle will become more challenging especially with more advanced systems in place. This can and will increase maintenance time which will keep the combat platform out of the field for longer periods.
I agree. Unless HQ platoon is increase by 14 (to offset a company size decrease), Any battalion/brigade duties will greatly decrease the effectiveness of the company.
Western autoloaders are stored in blowout pannels
We need to start building this now! ASAP
Almost everything that has an X in the name of a new AMerican weapons system, tends to fail dramatically. Not that it may be the case here, but i would also like to point out that the overall look of the system also projects its effectiveness. Almost all weapon systems that look good aesthetically, also perform as they should. Looking at the X model, the chassis from the older Abrams doesn't seem to fit its turret, where original Abrams turret fits the casis perfectly.
I've spoken with a retired US tank commander, and he prefers having the 4-man crew, one because replacing a crew member is easier than repairing a complicated auto loader, and two because the tank needs so much maintenance that having only three hands is a huge pain.
So I'm less confident in the auto loader. But the engine looks really formidable.
It needs to be tested in Ukraine now
No, joe Biden needs to pull out of Ukraine and stop laundering billions of dollars instead. The Ukrainians aren’t struggling to pay bills and buy groceries thanks to him.
If this gets added to war thunder then just aim for the driver you literally knockout the crew in one
I would have loved to operate this beast
Wow……take that, Armata !
Ummm, did you notice they are almost identical?
Yes buy it, stay up on new technology.
It will be in testing for for years before it's considered to go into production, so don't hold your breath:)
Thank goodness! Looks pretty though but highly impractical, when it comes to the field I'd rather take an ugly Pinzgauer over the prettiest Ferrari.
Hurry up and get this thing into production.
Environmentally friendly army…now that’s rich 😂
20mm cannon explode? or it just hit something explosive?
A hybrid is so needed for this tank. Impressive 30mike mike on top.
The design looks awesome
To be clear, this is technically still a prototype, it's not going to enter full service yet, because the current Abrams isn't struggling or in need of replacement just yet (I mean, just look at the T-14)
this is definitely a hop-skip-jump up from its previous cousins. The US Military should invest in this AbramsX contract
Honestly, as much as the Military causes negative affects, they also cause positive effects to help Civilizations get more advanced and not let insane Dictators (Cough Hitler) just roll into another country they want and take it over. Systems and Technology like this tank will be used in much more and that helps people and countries defend and grow properly (like the universe intended).
I think that cannon is more than my net worth
The metal looks hi tech to point an invisible ray to it to camouflage. The tech is there already and these new Abs look the part.
Very nice looking tank as with the German Panther KF51.
This is the closet tech that we can get to a M820 Scorpion from H5.
INCREDIBLE!!!
The army should definitely adopt this new tank USA. Strong
It would be just cheaper to buy T-14 as they seem to be super close.
YES BUY IT! But it's Missing 1 Crucially important feature to truly be a cutting edge Modern American Tank. Cloaking invisibility and Stealth Coating
General Motors needs to make the chain gun smaller and more compact to reduce the chance of getting shot, it's making the tank too tall
hybrid drive to work silent patrol ; sounds like a game changer.
it looks a lot better than in the 70's. they need to add laser for blinding enemy sensors and to take down drones
This is artwork 💪🏿😁🇺🇸
Maybe next time they can come up with a version that uses the old Abram`s turret or some of its major parts?
Seems like an awesome machine
I was in an armor unit for 2 years that thing is incredible dont even have to be outside of it to fire it,,,
Looks great.
Retired 19k4px.
Steel on steel
The vehicle crew can be blinded by destroying the optical viewers/ranger finders located on the turret, how has that been addressed? How many rounds are stored on board the tank and are they all loaded into the autoloader system. Are we talking about a hybrid battery power tank and if so, how often would the batteries have to be changed or recharged by an external power source. Will the power pack be able to be replaced in the field? Has the logistics of this been consider before the design acceptance. As for the main gun size the larger the caliber the less main gun rounds can be loaded into the autoloader system. I have heard the superlative descriptions on so many other weapons systems and have observed the far less than desirable realities of these systems, I have a wait and see attitude. I hope there is not a void between the superlative descriptions and the reality. Lastly what will the Abrams X unit cost be?
Maintenance is going to be a bitch
All valid points...which will be addressed in the Abrams X v2.0 upgrade kit in a few years...in a multi-billion-dollar contract. Buy Gen Dyn stock.
Yes they should have this tank
Buy it! We need it!! Now!!!
Yes yes yes the entire us military absolutely SHOULD buy this new tank
Amazing tank!
На картинке заставке видео , указаны 2 установки слева и справа от дула танка. Это для отпугивания голубей.
Would a hybrid engine allow for more low-end torque from an electric motor? One of the main reasons the US military went with the gas turbine engine over a traditional diesel engine was because the gas turbine engine offered better torque and acceleration at lower speeds. So, in theory, the tank could fire and maneuver more quickly and effectively.
It's also cool that new Abrams X no longer needs an APU, cuz they'll just use the electric motor to power critical systems while the diesel is powered off.
The frontal sloped plate:
Why am I still only 30mm thick?
Designers: Because we're outta ideas