Sadly we're out of era of casemate tanks and not yet in the era of vertical launch system ones. So we're doomed to have sameish looking boring MBTs. No wonder scifi doesn't copy modern designs:(
@@theunitedkingdom5202 WW2 has a lot of those. Jagdpanzer 38(t), StuG III, Jagdpanzer IV, Jagdpanther, Jagdtiger. Even after WW2 the Strv 103, VT2, Kanonenjagdpanzer and Taifun get you covered.
A lot of the added weight in the current version came from leaving old equipment in (panels, cabling, etc ) and just adding the new equipment. E3 will go through the development effort of making sure the old stuff can be removed without breaking any functionality. Modular design means future new stuff can use existing mounts, cabling, etc. and allow existing stuff to be removed and not just added over.
@@bl8danjil Moreso the new equipment was added and connected in to the existing systems with adaptor panels and the like. Like he said, the E3 design will start by stripping out all the existing internals and replacing them, specifically with more compact, lighter weight, modular systems that will have many of the added functions integrated in from the start. An interesting note though, according to the Chieftain some of the newer APS on the A2 series have required counterbalancing weight to be added to the turret. That's basically over a ton of dead weight, which can be dropped by rebalancing the turret design. That's also part of why it's very likely the turret will be redesigned to some degree (though I doubt they'll go unmanned like the AbramsX).
Nothing is modular and that word is just buzz. Lmao you can not make something modular because no one can predict how big a new feature or sensor will be much less placement of said equipment inside. It will always lead to a new cycle of development and revamping planes or tanks. Nothing is modular in terms of allowing future improvements
@@johnconner4695 Modular in the world of controls and electronics means building it in a way that additional components and functions can more easily be added. It's an approach to computers and programming, rather than bespoke function for all the parts.
@@andrewreynolds4949 I know what they mean. Modular isn’t a new theory and again is a buzz word because any new capability will just be added on until a whole redesign is done to fit that capability into the equipment. A perfect example is the F-15 vs the F-35 one has a attachment sensor pod and the other had it designed into the F-35. Which will reach a limitation eventually because it can not be “modular” because you can not predict nor anticipate the size and capacity of a new capability. Even computing isn’t modular it all takes time and in most cases is stop gaps till a redesign is done. Hence why equipment is replaced and the new E3 is coming online and will repeat the cycle with either a completely new tank or E4 down the road.
As a former tank mechanic who worked on several generations of Abrams, it would be nice if the turret was redesigned for the upgrades because the constant bolting new shit in the old turret made maintenance a real pain in the ass
Not TRUE! The turrets are NOT the same due to Armor packages and even configurations of even mounts inside the Turrets. Try again. Now there are some retro fits but the very first model are sitting in a Depot.
@@jackfletch2001 Nope but I did do my share of Maint. I have seen how they differed even after I got out. I was in when MOS was changed from 19E to 19K. Light and Heavy parts, links, brackets were moved, via remanufacture. I didn't see a lot of "Gerry Rigging". There is a Tank Park with 1000's of M1, M1A1 and even Mods of Tanks in storage. taskandpurpose.com/uploads/2023/01/01/chewbaccatank.png?auto=webp
Chieftain mentioned recently that a weight savings of a couple of tons may be achieved by replacing all wiring with modern electronics and using another available main gun.
He said 10 to 15 tons more precisesly especially when you design in the APS. Basically you could have a 60 ton M1A2 SEPv3 tank if you designed it from the ground up as such.
It's not being mentioned here and elsewhere, but the AGT1500 turbine engine has an inlet temp of 1190 degrees C and operating temp of 816 degrees C, while the operating temp of the Leopard 2 is between 300-350 degrees C. Lowering the temp of a tank with the hybrid diesel ACE engine will significantly reduce its thermal signature and hide from passive and active sensors on satellites and drones.
To be honest, this will only get more and more important, with Gen 3 thermals and drones with similar tech becoming more and more prevalent If you asked me 5 years ago, I’d say it’s a non issue, as many nations barely have Gen 1 thermals But now, with the world gearing up across the board, this is definitely something to consider But the U.S. military is great at 1 major thing, logistics, and that’s because they sacrifice some minor things to make their logistics more efficient The gas turbine might stay because of that, as logistics was the primary factor for using it to begin with
5:30 It should be pointed out that Rheinmetall's Panther KF51 *has* to have an autoloader. Its 130 mm rounds are 50% heavier and 30% longer than the heaviest 120 x 570 mm NATO rounds.
You could squeeze the jolly green giant in as a loader if you really wanted someone that can handle 80kg (est) shells. I'm not an autoloader fan for several reasons but when your rounds almost weigh what a trooper does, I can give it a chance and see how it goes. Panther does have big claws on it for sure.
The chieftain had a good video about this where essentially he's saying it probably isn't going to change much they're just in a better integrate all of its current technology to reduce weight significantly Expected to weigh 10 tons less without losing any capabilities and roughly looking the same
An autoloader without a redesigned turret makes little sense. A human loader doesn't actually weigh that much, but they do require space in which to operate. That necessitates a larger turret, which means there is more surface area that needs armor and *that* is why the weight goes up. The equipment in an autoloader can weigh more than a human crew member, but it's also more compact. If you have an autoloader you can make a smaller turret, which means it needs less armor, and that's where the weight savings comes in. But just putting an autoloader into the existing turret design accomplishes very little. Which is one of the reasons why the Abrams X's turret (which looks basically like a normal Abrams's turret) never really made sense to me. On the other hand that was basically a bit of marketing, not a real design, so I guess they kept it that way just for the iconic look.
@@kevadu Almost certain they will redesign the turret to some degree. The Chieftain mentions that as well. The AbramsX turret is kind of comically large with the extra panels added to the sides, but internally I think the armored portion is smaller. An autoloader would save weight but most of the savings will probably come from redoing the controls and electronics from scratch. More significant for the autoloader they are also struggling with recruitment, so eliminating the loader position would be very helpful.
@@A_Name_only thing in the same chassis that's been hit is the terminator it doesn't have the same turret section though it saw some combat in Ukraine and is performing poorly but the turret is very vulnerable in that config so it's hard to say what the causes are for it being blasted to pieces so often
@@A_Name_ it's also seen an array of other issues to the point where it was pulled from Frontline service till they kinda ran out of options unfortunately it was a huge part of Russia's highly mobile armored doctrine where it replaced ground soldiers for tank cover in urban areas so it's failure as a platform is kinda bad but realistically building it on a tank chassis was probably a bad idea and the dual mounted gun system is super complicated and way to vulnerable to fire
@@VarrickThrae I would tend to lean on it's Russian and it feels like they intentionally add some catastrophic design flaw lol. In all seriousness tho Idon't know enough about the T-14 but I would guess more problems with the auto loader/magazine causing cookoff
I think the biggest advantage of hybrid tank is idling, in regular turbine/diesel tank you have to run you engine to operate the tank even when it’s not moving, in hybrid tank you can run it off of the battery and also at low speeds you can move the tank on pure electric greatly reduces heat signature, noise and smoke
There's also that modern hybrid engines are literally just a generator that charges a battery that in-turn powers electric motors, and electric motors are capable of providing WAY more torque WAY faster than a combustion engine. That means that if you need to scoot in a hurry, you put the peddle to the metal and zoom off even while the engine may still be revving up. You don't need to wait for the engine to spin up to move, or have the engine already spun-up if you think you'll need to move in a hurry, which makes idling even more viable.
Tanks have APUs to power them when the engine is off to save fuel. The only guzzler in NATO is the M-1 series with their turbine engines. Leave an Abrahams running and you run out of gas at almost the rate you do driving the tank around. Leopard 2's have a 12KW APU that can operate the tank stationary for days on end.
@@PhilMarks-g7u good point, it’s not that big of deal for tanks with APU to idle for long time, but it’s a very big deal with m1 , anyway imo hybrid tank is still superior, it can move at low speed with starting the engine, and greatly reduce heat signature noise and smoke
The reason why contemporary Abrams is so heavy is for each new variant they just said "F it, slap new systems on top + integration unit" instead of an actual integration. So every new upgrade had its constituent parts PLUS new wiring & a new PC + monitors. Just by switching to a digital platform, they could say 10+ tons in weight. (According to Chieftan, who was Abrams crew & worked on testing some of these systems). For ex. Abrams uses an analogue/hydraulic system for gun stabilization, digital versions are much lighter & have likely advanced to an equal quality, if not better. Upgrades of suspension systems could also shed weight. B
It's kind of a self-reinforcing cycle, if you shed 10 tons from a tank, you can also cut some weight from the suspension system because it doesn't need to carry as much, so you end up shedding even more.
@@Joesolo13 I would probably keep the suspension system mostly the same, unless they're trying to drop 20+ tons from the tank, to keep the parts supply the same and keep capacity for the inevitable up-armoring and other future weight additions
the US already has laser based systems that are designed to work in tandem with the abrams, moving that capability onto the abrams will only make it heavier and less reliable, require a powerplant rework and more turret space.
@@fuckoff4705 Nobody is talking about putting a big Anti-Air laser like seen on ships on the M1. Dedicated vehicles similar to SPAAGs will do that, which will be used together to provide cover.
@@dimitryofthedonmongolslayer I think the best way would be to incorporate both of these into one. Essentially an APS that can protect from top attack as well.
Turretless? That would mean a casemate design, a Jagdabrams. I think you mean unmanned turret. In regards to turrets, the Falcon turret is very interesting to look at to see what direction future vehicles may take, obviously with additional armor and APS added. For obvious reasons it's not too different from the T-14 as well.
@@sprucemarooseBold claim before anything about the design of the tank was even finalized. Reminds me of the people that claimed the XM2001 would overshadow the PzH 2000 just to never be produced xD
@@DefinitelyNotEmma Considering that the M1A2 SEPv4 was cancelled just for this M1E3 program, for mostly weight reasons. Them building this in numbers makes a lot of sense.
@@DefinitelyNotEmmaThe Main obstacle is the US Army syndrome of canceling stuff before it finishes due to 108 reasons (blah blah... budget overran, the technology is too new, budget cut, changing priority/policies etc.) , but when it does finish US Army didn't have much a problem producing it in numbers in the past. So we have to wait and see.
Doubtful that the M1A3/E3 will even reach service. The US can't build more than 3 Zumwalts and wanted to replace the bomber fleet and air superiority fleets with B-2s and F-22s respectively one-for-one. Now the B-52 and F-15 outlive both aircraft that were intended to replace them. Do I have to mention the the 2 failed programs to replace the M109 or the amphibious vehicle for the marines that was canceled after billions of funding?
Lol, they're only gonna start mass production in early 2030s, if America doesn't have it's economy collapse by then and if they actually remain on time and if the project is successful (which hasn't been the case for the majority of their new vehicles) then I see no reason why Russia won't have hundreds of t14 by then, given they've been slowly but surely ramping up production and improving the tank.
You're very optimistic, despite the fact that over the last decades the US Military has abandoned dozens of programs, some of which before any units were delivered and some where only a handful were put into service.
Integrating sensors and electronic warfare systems into the main electrical systems would cut 5-10 tons by eliminating heavy adapters needed to get the 70's era tech to talk to the modern tech. Replacing copper wires with fiber optics would easily shave another few tons
You overestimate weight cut a lot. However integrated sensors is a step to a fully unmanned tank, which indeed may very well cut weight up to IFV standards.
@@SpicyTake Honestly, yes. Given the total number of electronic systems, system connections, and system integrations, there is very likely dozens of miles of copper wiring
@@heyhoe168the cheiftan said sepcifically its about 10 tons of weight becuse its also transformer boxes and such. You can easily shave another 5 tons with designing in the APS system so it doesnt have to have 2 tons of balancing ballast save another two tons by switching to the lightweight Abrams X gun, and switching to a diesel could yeild more. There is 15 tons of weight you can easily shed. You can save even more weight by switching to electric drive, as well as electric turret motors.
I loved the interview where the people in charge of development pointed to the Bolo science fiction tank as an inspiration for implementing heavy automation where the tank just needs a human component to authorize targets and the tank takes care of the positioning, targeting, loading and firing.
Uh, there's a huge problem with your assessment about the risk of AP vs HEAT warheads. HE and HEAT warheads tend not to cook off very readily either. Not enough to chain react. The main reason tank ammunition cooks off is because of the propellant used to shoot it out the barrel, not the warheads themselves. Neither type of warhead is particularly prone to exploding.
That is true, though I think he was referring more to the amount of damage done to a struck tank, specifically with regards to the safety of the crew and the repairability of damaged tanks. Most munitions aren't carrying enough explosives to destroy a tank, only to disable it. You can't protect the whole tank against modern anti-tank weaponry, so you prioritize armoring the most important parts and make sure you can replace the rest. That means that a well-armored crew compartment and modular components would make tanks much more safe and durable relative to their cost, as the valuable crew will be the most protected and any parts that get damaged by sabot or HE shaped-explosive munitions can be simply pulled of and replaced. Boom, you now have a tank that, even if hit and disabled, can likely be redeployed after recovery and some maintenance with the same experienced crew.
Russian autoloaders store the propellant charge directly under the round. I'll let you think about that design flaw and give me a more realistic response considering 60% of wrecks in Ukraine tend to retain their turrent when no NATO tank that has been hit by multiple weapons has shed it's turret. Facts are just facts.
What do you need a crew for then? If it's fly by wire, you don't need a driver in the tank. The other guys are superfluous in the bottom of the tank. All you need is to follow the tank with a recovery vehicle.
Neither that not T-14 it turret-less. Unmanned turret for sure, but turret-les would be quite another story - like strv-103 or ww2 era tank destroyers.
I’d imagine the abrams X was made with some vague knowledge of that the army was looking to modify in the Abrams. While I have doubts to the abrams x coming out (even the general dynamics spokesperson said they just put everything they could put on it) I’m pretty certain they did a mix of development based on army expectations/early hopes and some stabs in the dark based on either crew feedback or just something General Dynamics is trying to push.
My guess is there was a quick and dirty project to see if an unmanned turret was reasonably feasible on an Abrams hull that DOD paid for quietly. It's success was enough to say kill the SP4 and go with the M1E3 redesign.
Stop comparing the AbramsX to the T-14. The T-14 is so superior that not only does it have an unmanned turret, it also doesn't have a crew at all! Or armor, or munitions, or an engine. It's a truly remarkable feat of Russian engineering.
Lmao, you’re talking out of your ass. You have no clue what it does. We only know what Russia “says it does”, which normally is less than 50% accurate. Even if it can do everything they say it can, we’ll never know cause russia doesn’t have the economic capability to mass produce it. Much like all their new next generation systems, from the T14, to the SU57, to the 2S35 Self propelled howizter… it’s the same story no matter the system/platform or branch of military it’s developed for. They spend all this money on R&D, make a few prototypes and then brag to the world about how superior their new technology is and how they should fear Russia’s military might. Yet they’re all bark and no bite cause they don’t put their money where their mouth is. Well.. not that they don’t… they literally can’t. They simply don’t have the financial ability to do so lmao. In recent years they haven’t been able to make more than a dozen of any of these examples lol and with their current economic situation and future projections, they won’t be able to fix their inability to mass produce any new military hardware any time soon. Like not even in the next 10-15 years. Y’all can thank Putin for that, with his brilliant idea of attacking Ukraine 😂 he thought he could give russia a massive boost in economic and military might by invading and taking over Ukraine. So he could then steal their newly discovered massive natural gas deposit in eastern Ukraine. Along with all their other resources, like Wheat and also benefit massively from would be their first and only warm water port in Sevastopol, Crimea but his plan hasnt come to fruition. It’s actually backfired dramatically. All it’s done has embarrassed russia and drained their economy, resources, and man power. While isolating themselves further from the world and restricting themselves to a small few countries who they can still benefit from economically. Putin bluffed and the world called it 😂
Using a diesel-electric drivetrain is fascinating. The engine would be far less powerful than a gas turbine of the same weight, but the electric motor would be more powerful. Add some batteries to give you 5-10km of range, and you get a much nicer machine. It could accelerate very quickly, though it may have to slow down slightly for long distances. It would also have a low heat signature if the engine were off or idling. It could provide support for infantry without being as bright on infrared cameras.
@@craftpaint1644 Yup linking a drone to the squad or tank would be far easier. A launcher would be very vulnerable to be damaged and would be far better on a support vehicle.
I think some things a auto turret can support. One a close in anti drone gun and enhanced drone/missile spotter radar. They should also add a scouting drone using AI and allows the commander or a specialized EW officer replacing the now redundant gunner. One thing that should also be looked at is mine detection ground sonar systems that were in research in the 90's. The top challenges in the modern near peer tank battles are 1. drone and manpad attacks 2. Mines 3. battle field awareness 4. shoot on the go and not having to stop. Drone assisted artilary has been deadly. US should look into total airspace domination anti-drone drones.
My guess is they are trying to drastically reduce weight by more then 15 tons a regular overhaul could have lowered it by maybe 10ish by ripping out the electonics and putting in proper weight managment and armor as a first thought as opposed to an addon. But the turret change would save even more and make the profile smaller. This could be to push for a battery so it runs on a hybrid train. Since those things are heavy and they likely wanna keep it in bridge weights
@plamenbalev3632 Long term lend lease loans are basically free money. After 80 years of inflation the original WW2 loans are worth nothing. The US got no return.
@plamenbalev3632 well even if we donate the base tanks for now once the war is over one way or another who do you think will be supplying Ukraine with trainers fuel upgrade packages and software more rounds and missiles and training equipment and rounds replacement parts at a umm "reasonable" markup whole things a long term investment hell at the end of this I wouldn't be surprised if Ukraine isn't armed to the fucking teeth in US and German weapons
I am very concerned. We're 23-years behind schedule. The Mark 1 Bolo was supposed to replace the Abrams back in 2000. At this rate, we'll never get to Planetary Siege Engines.
Naming the final production version M1A3 would be very conservative. A more marketing friendly name could be taken from the Russian T-90 (which was just a modernized T-72), and the new production version could be called the M2. Of course, taking a page out if the F-15EX, it could be called the Abrams II. Taking a page from the F/A-18E/F, it could be called the Super Abrams.
The Army's following the traditional nomenclature system. It's still the same base hull design, so it won't get a new M designation. Also the M2 and M3 are already taken by the Bradley
@@andrewreynolds4949 Every class of vehicle and weapon has their own numbering scheme. There's the M1 Garand rifle, M1 Carbine, M1 Thomson, M1 tank, M1 mine, M1 Bazooka
There needs to be a large robotic arm with a fly swatter to hit incoming missiles and drones out of the air. Then the turret won't need armor. The final part of my plan involves the employment of midgets, which can be recruited from the circus. Thus the tank could be shrunk to a size more manageable for aircraft and delivery catapults on aircraft carriers. Of course the new versions would have to have some short flight capability such as what turkey's possess.
I think the "more survivable" most likely refers to improved APS rather than an unmanned turret. I really doubt the Army will go for an unmanned turret, but I think a 2-man autoloader turret is plausible. The weight reduction will likely come primarily from stripping out the existing controls and electronics and installing a new, lighter weight, integrated modular system (unlike the current state of tacking things on top of the existing system). It's also fairly likely they will implement the same lighter gun that was used on the AbramsX, and they may install a new gas turbine or diesel engine to save fuel.
@@ligmasurvivor5600 I believe the AbramsX has a horizontal autoloader, like most western designs, rather than the vertical autoloader like the Soviet series
@@mw9297 Tank crews have voiced some strong opposition to an unmanned turret. I don't think the army will be quite that radical, considering they haven't so far adopted autoloaders either.
gather all the crew members in one place just behind the frontal armor (where most shells hit) and also the place under which the explosion occurs when the tank hits a mine... what could go wrong...
@@radicalxg8282 Yes, but what would you rather lose, the engine or the crew? Soviets might have said crew in the past, but I doubt the modern militaries would say they same. Though moving the engine might have a lot of consequences to the overall design. From a safety standpoint it makes sense but maybe not from other standpoints. Still will likely be looked at for future tanks, unlikely to happen for this new modernised variant.
As a former 19K things I would like to see, crew in hull, 130mm cannon with auto loader. Different power pack and transmission. The reduction gear box takes a lot of space in the engine compartment. Of course the modern suite of sensors and optics with links to other vehicles / drones and an active protection system. Better fuel economy means lease fuel to store
You do want to keep the 4th crewman though. All that fancy gear is a lot of maintenance hours, and if you slim down the crew you may end up with under maintained tanks, or exhausted crews.
@@PhilMarks-g7u I agree with the 4th crew being kept as it would go well with what the military is doing. With how the military is trying to keep up with manpower, aswell as keeping maintenance up for war. Although idk about the autoloader, a lot of the 19ks i know including my friends say the load time isn't too big of a difference. Many say loaders fatigue won't be as much a factor. The better fuel economy is important, Abrams are inherently gas guzzlers, and the old APU made it worse. Not sure about the new one. Just lowering the weight overall will help with where it will be fighting too. Just my opinion though.
Plus if you're the TC you get an extra guy to boss around! Seriously though, some maintenance jobs take 2 people and if you have to adjust tracks in a forward position you want as many eyes watching your back as you can get.@@jasonbrewer6714
@@jasonbrewer6714 4th man should be relegated to uav/loitering munitions duty, imo. A second eyes in the sky for the tank commander and as a way to hit targets behind defilades/cover. Something similar to the switchblade drone system could be added on to a next gen tank.
I think it's good the branding is very conservative like 'M1A3'. I once used a laptop which had integrated Intel Extreme Graphics 2.0. Now Intel integrated graphics is always going to be underwhelming because it's aimed at people who don't care about/actively dislike GPU performance but it seemed slower because they'd foolishly leaned in to Extreme Advertising. Underpromise and then overdeliver.
True, but one minor correction. The actual designation is M1E3. The Chieftan explained it in a recent video. I can’t remember the exact details, but the “E” designation apparently signifies a major engineering upgrade, as opposed to an “A,” which usually just means some additional capabilities were added.
@@bluemarlin8138 The M1E3 and M1A3 are nearly the same designations, just for different stages of development. The "E" is for a variant under engineering development, while the "A" designation is adopted once the vehicle is accepted for service. So what is currently the M1E3 will become the M1A3 for most of its life. The SEP (System Enhancement Package) designation is for minor modifications and additions.
Unmanned Turret* I have a feeling the M1A3 is going to look a lot like the abramsx, General Dynamics will be the ones producing the vehicle, and theres no doubt they had a heads up about this potential decision before, which directly influenced development / RND then subsequently unvieling of the abramsx.
AbramsX seems more like a designer car, trying to sell as many cool features as possible to up the price. The eventual M1A3 will probably look a lot more like the existing Abrams.
The existing FCCP. (M1A2). Made by Curtiss Wright Controls Defense Solutions (Vista Controls) has the MIPS performance for full autonomous operation. The FCCP for the MiA2 was upgraded as of 2018.
@user-kf9ui1in6r Families of Russian T-72 crews were able to brag that their relatives got their astronaut wings just before they were then incinerated in Mariupol.
This won't be the AbramsX, the AbramsX is to the M1A3 more like the X-32 or X-35 prototypes were to the F-35 that eventually resulted from that program
I really want them to get rid of the fuel thirsty Honeywell turbine engine with a simple V8 or something diesel engine, that will increase the tank's range siginificantly with same fuel amount
The Honeywell turbine engine exists specifically because it is powerful and can use ANY fuel, which makes logistics and emergency supplying much easier. A V8 would be horribly underpowered, as would a diesel. The listed top speed of the Abrams is the RECOMMENDED top speed. At full power, off-road, the Abrams can peak at 70 MPH. This makes it capable of outmaneuvering enemy forces to a significant degree, which is a major part of US armored strategic doctrine.
Diesel-Hybrid is the way to go. Fuel efficiency is key and the hybrid system will provide a lot of benefits like running subsystems of a silent battery, creating less of a heat signature.
@@Liberty_or_Ded A diesel wouldn't be underpowered. In terms of mobility the Leclerc, T-80, Leopard 2 and T-90 either match or exceed the M1, they all use diesel engines. Although the T-80 initially had a gas turbine too.
@@Liberty_or_Ded not really, even every other western/NATO tanks use advanced diesel engine, the Leopard 2, Challenger II, Leclerc, Korean K2 Black Panther, you name it, and they are not less powerful at all, generating 1500+ hp & 3000+ Nm torque, resulting 75+ km/h top speed as well. Yes I know the Honeywell is multifuel, but that was proven to not be significant, since diesel is very cheap and always present everywhere, you can always supply them very easily at any moment of time.
@@DefinitelyNotEmma A single lithium ion battery weighs the entire amount of a car's entire engine block. A diesel-hybrid would require 12 such batteries to operate for any tactically-feasible period of time. Also lithium-ion batteries have a tendency to be EXTREMELY explosive and flammable if subjected to high impact, meaning that they would have to be further armored, meaning more weight. Not to mention the scarcity of the resources needed to make those batteries in US-friendly nations. It's not worth it just to be able to have a quiet tank that is only slightly cooler (lithium battery usage still generates a lot of heat, well above background levels, and thus would provide no tangible benefits to evading thermal imaging).
@@Valorius I do think the Army might finally be willing to pick up autoloaders now. We'll have to wait and see. On a different note, I do suspect the M1E3 is also an excuse to not only cancel the SEP v4 but to quietly cancel or delay the Decisive Lethality Platform program meant to replace the Abrams
@@andrewreynolds4949 Autoloaders make sense on every level. Strategic, logistically, tactically, and most importantly perhaps, societally. Not only does an autoloader not eat, and not get wounded, and not need dental work and not need uniforms, but it also doesn't get PTSD and lifetime VA payments and health care. If you eliminate 25% of a crew size, you reduce the LIFETIME expenses of an item by orders of magnitude. Not to mention what you actually gain as a combat vehicle.
The "E" nomenclature represents a substantial(relatively) design change, in its experimental/developmental stage. As opposed to "SEP" which denotes minor changes.
Finally!!! They are realizing that a giant, tall and heavy bunker on tracks is a terrible idea. A smaller and lighter tank is a much better idea, following a Russian school of thought with American build quality. An autoloader would be a nice edition as well.
One thing is certain. FPV drones have changed the game and no current tank is equipped to deal with that. Now, the Abrahms and Challengers might do better due to their armores better defense to shaped charges but from the top? No tank is ready for that.
PL-01 Concept (shown in 3:26) is a laughing stock in my home Poland, because the project never came to fruition. But purchasing of M1A2 tanks seems like a good choice. If uncle Sam is indeed willing to upgrade his fleet to new vehicles, he will have a lot of old ones (but still very capable) to sell or even donate to his allies. America, f**k yeah!
Unlike the Russian T-14, if the US is building a all new follow on tank to the M1A2, it will be built, it will work as advertised and like it's predecessor, it will kick ass.
Russia can't focus on the t14 right now, it needs cheap usable t80s or t72b3 If they build some t14s, and they get destroyed by a cheap drone it's a waste
@@BIGDADDUI Russia claims that the Afghanit APS can hit projectiles traveling at 2000 m/s, faster than pretty much every APFSDS ever created, and also claims it can be upgraded to intercept projectiles traveling at 3000 m/s, or faster than every in atmosphere projectile ever. Seems to me like it should have no issue taking out some DJI drones traveling at 60 m/s. Slap on a mine roller and it is generally invulnerable to all anti tank threats. That is, of course, if the definitely reliable and totally trustworthy Russian military is to be believed
That's crazy after getting a plug in hybrid I realized how Tanks are perfect for a a hybrid system now the new Abram coming out with electric motor. Tanks do a lot of stop and go hybrid system will be more efficient and torque.
@@RobertLutece909 But that would require installing an extra system of blow-out panels, where the alternative is installing a normal diesel or gas turbine engine. Also with the batteries the explosive force caused by a battery ignition seems less of a concern than the extremely high temperatures it produces
@@RobertLutece909 It's all just tradeoffs. The batteries take up space and weight that could be used for a larger diesel engine. The batteries primarily have an advantage with overall fuel efficiency and noise reduction, the rest is just marketing talk. Considering how much the Army has insisted on keeping a gas turbine so far, I'm not sure they'll abandon it now. The gas turbine does eat more fuel, but it does produce noticeably more power for its size and weight, and is much quieter than a diesel engine (though not as quiet as battery power of course). I don't think there's an improved gas turbine ready for use in the Abrams, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had one developed fairly quickly. On the other hand there is an existing diesel power unit that was recently developed; again, it's all tradeoffs. Personally I think the hybrid option is the least likely outside of Congressional intervention.
@@RobertLutece909 It depends on what kind of gas turbine and diesel you're comparing. A modern diesel unit uses less fuel than a modern gas turbine, in general, though a gas turbine does use less fuel when operating at or near full load. That's part of why gas turbines are so common in naval vessels. A tank spends far less time at full load, so the balance is more towards the diesel. The turbine's main benefit is the smaller size and weight for a given power output, though an APU will reduce that margin if included.
8:30 I think you have to worry about artillery shells too. We’ve seen a lot of vehicles in Ukraine get knocked out with artillery shells which do, in fact, use large explosions. Edit: time stamp
I'm really curious about what the secondary armament is going to be. I keep think Gau-19, or Gau-21, both in 12.7mm might be more sustainable than a 30mm, but you can't program a 12.7mm - yet. Still, ballistics computers are always getting better too.
A new tri or hex barrel in the armys new 6.8 would be better remember its going to be more for taking out drones than any thing else & small calibre = more ammo carried & faster tracking speeds .
@@jackdburthe reason 30mm cannons are used for C-UAS, is because they can be loaded with proximity fuse ammunition. Means you don’t really need to hit the drones, and you can deal with lightly armored vehicles.
I think what the US Army is getting to is to make the Abrams X the next variant as the E3/A3 since the hull is from existing Abrams. If GD can upgrade any and all Abrams into the Abrams X specs, they can save R&D funds while giving the platform more life and significance in the current and future battlefield.
So, T-14 designers didn't actually design a crap tank then? I remember how much hate it got for being some weirdo - unmanned turret, all 3 crewmembers in same armored capsule, etc. Good to see that this design is going to work.
It didn't get hate for that design choice. It got hate because it's basically vaporware and broke down at the parade. And people online act like it's some Wunderwaffe
@@KGAnims Really? That's the story you choose to believe lmao. "No, the tank didn't break down. It's just that Russian tank crews and Recovery crews are so incompetent that they didn't even know they turned on the brakes and could've turned them off...no, the emergency break didn't get stuck on. Yes, they immediately intentionally shut the engine off when they accidentally turned the brake on, to save gas...What do you mean you need to disconnect the drive shaft to tow it because it?"
@@moist_ointment because once UVZ worker got into the tank, it drove away on it's own from there? Certainly a fuckup on crew's side, but if it broke down, you wouldn't see it driving away on it's own in the end.
Lazerpig made fun of the tank and he gets like a million views, so I'm going to choose to believe that the T14 is a dumb and crap idea made by incompetent Russian engineers.
How tf do you make an Abrams turretless like the Armata? The Armata clearly has a turret. I think you should correct the video title to something about "crewless turret" or "remote controlled turret"
Why T-14 Armata turret is unarmored? Yes, crew won't be hit inside turret, but every turret hit disables T-14, destroying its turret with all sensors and armament. And unmanned T-14 turret is higher than manned Abrams or T-72/90 turrets.
50t. Composite armor and chassis. Turbo-Diesel-Electric hybrid. 500hp commercial truck/marine engine. Plus 1,500hp electric motors with 5,000ft/lb torque. An electric-only (low observable, low IR signature) range of 5mi. Armed with 127mm (5in) gun. 5,500ft/s, 5mi range. Penetrates 50" of steel or concrete. And a remote operated, helmet-aimed 30mm chain gun with 200rpm. Plus two 7.62mm co-axial mounted with main and chain gun. Larger emphasis on active protection, trophy, jammers, bullet direction finders, etc.
Yeah, that will save weight. They can plug in modern digital electronics overall. The difference between an F-4 and its discrete hard wires for every thing and every system was a PITA to fix compared to the F-18 hornets with their modern data bus. The wiring was cut in half, and that was with a multiply redundant set of busses. I expect the M1E3 would enjoy some serious weight and space savings with a ground up redesign to use a standardized "Open Architecture" set of redundant data channels. Then all you need to know is the standard and you can pop different turrets on and off by yanking a bunch of bolts and a few plugs. You could have an E3 hull which could take several turrets. M1 Missilero turret for drones. M1 Gunny for platoon support with a couple miniguns, suite of sensors, and 105mm gun for platoon support. M1 Bullet Wasp done up with an MBT turret with a heavy cannon and anti tank drones.
ok the logic of that statement saying "even if the gun gets taken out, the crew will be safe. bruh they are literally as good as dead with a non working disabled tank. wtf are they gonna do? get out and get shot at? stay in so the enemy unloads more rounds? that logic makes no sense. the gun needs as much protection as possible.
If the gun is taken out, you're still in a 60 ton armored bunker, why the hell would you get out???? Put that shit in reverse and live to fight another day. Chances are there are other allies nearby, a tank is rarely ever isolated, that's when they're the most vulnerable.
I would say more like the M1128 Stryker MGS considering design applications. Though they'll likely opt to save the crew and keep the ammo in the turret, unlike the T-14, so it can still use vertical blowout panels without compromising hull integrity or mine resistance.
As there's no info yet on how much weight the Army actually wants to shave off the Abrams, the M1E3 could still end up closer to Germany's conceptual KF51 Panther with its two-man autoloading turret than Russia's Armata with its unmanned turret. The pros and cons of an manned vs unmanned turret in an MBT are still debatable. The weight difference of these newer unmanned/manned turret MBT designs don't seem that much. In metric, the Armata's listed at 55 tons but the 21st century Panther (which also proposes a bigger 130mm gun) supposedly isn't that much heavier at 59 tons.
The M1A3 was announced years ago. There was even a Wikipedia page dedicated to it for about a year if I recall right. Then nothing and the page was taken down. With the Army still having not procured it, nothing more sounded off about it. Then about around last year, there was some mention about the M1A3 again. Nothing more as the Army then proceeded to start buying more M1A2s of different SEPs and even further subcategories. And then suddenly, from the sounds of it, that's when the M1E3 was announced. So, I had assumed the M1A3 was finally abandoned and that M1E3 would lead to a whole new Tank.
I just can't believe that we are too many years away from tanks, planes and possibly even subs being unmanned and remotely operated. Not having to protect the squishy people inside opens up so many more options.
Think of the advantages in space, where every minor thing can lead to a horrifying death in a cold vacuum. Suddenly something falling off, could be pretty minor to the mission.
IMO the 30mm on the Abrams X won't make it, but the uncrewed turret will. My stretch call is: It'll also have EW & maybe even directed energy defences.
Half the reason we don't use autoloaders is because you want that fourth body to help manage the day-to-day needs of tank work. But this is a better improvement in the long run. Just follow the design cues from The AbramsX.
The same arguement was made for the 5th man back in the late 40s/50s. As it turns out not all tanks are equal in terms of work load. The total workload for the m551 was less than 1/4th the workload of any current m1 abrams (ie you could easily have it be a 1 man tank outside of combat) An abrams varient could theoretically be made with reduced crewload so as to not increase indivual crewmen loads while reducing the crew to 3. And inside of combat the minor increase in situational awareness can be more than made up for by assigning a a rotation of light drones to run spotting and security for the tank operated by men not inside the tank (something we already happening in Ukraine atleast some of the time)
I think the US army are looking at different engines including hybrid power.If there are A3 models of the M1 it won`t be too extensive.I think that diesel and battery power is in the future for MBT and if the upgrades to the M1A2 are going to happen ,I doubt major changes will include what you think.
This is a bold and necessary move for US armor corps. The M-1 family is old, and its problems are well-known: too heavy, not deployable under a lot of circumstances, and challenging logistics (fuel consumption is just one issue). If you can't use the tank because you can't get it there in sufficient numbers, or once there you have a hard time keep them operational, then in a lot of ways, you don't have a usable tank. The US being able to prepare for its last few major wars well ahead of time (e.g., via prepositioning) solved a lot of these problems, but they may not always work out that way in the future. A more flexible and mobile force is needed, but I'm waiting to see if the new tank or design doesn't get weighed down gradually as well, which would defeat its main purpose. The M1 grew by about 20 tons in its development, the SEPv.4 would've only added more weight.
@@Ag3nt0fCha0s It uses 1 gallon every six minutes when idle and 1 gallon every minute when traveling cross-country. Not too much, especially for America who will spend any amount on the military lol
@@Ag3nt0fCha0s my point being, the gas issues are largely exaggerated, just look at tank fuel ranges, the abrams fits fine with its contemporaries and even more modern tanks, and with good logistics, the fuel should never be a problem
@@Ag3nt0fCha0sthe fuel economy being shit is a veritable myth, the abrams turbine doesn’t just run on one form of fuel while most of the engines you listed are limited to one form of fuel, the ability for a turbine to swap from marine diesel normal diesel and various gas fuels allow it top up from ANY source, which is what people always forget while mentioning the turbine
Given recruiting issues and the casualty estimates for Large Scale Combat Operations (LSCO) it would be wise to reduce the crew to 2 men (max 3). Saves size, weight, logistics and reduces need to train crew replacements.
all the changes we are seeing with new plans from the navy, army, and airforce shows how much we are learning from the war in Ukraine. project replicator, new designs for the abrams, even the future warfighter system for the army, it feels like a ton of programs are being either accelerated or being moved back to the drawing board from what we are learning. low altitude slow moving objects (drones) are going to start blotting out the sky with with the nations of the world are learning, the US military need to start learning to fight in the shade.
i mean, no crew means more space for armor and tech. technically you could make a tank with triple the armor in that case. although you better hope nobody hacks these
![[DRAGON BALL LEGENDS REVEALS ＆ STUFF] LEGENDS FESTIVAL 2024 Special Edition Part 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mV5bGIswTtQ/mqdefault.jpg)
We mixed the words and put turretless instead of unmanned turret in our first title. Apologies.
Sadly we're out of era of casemate tanks and not yet in the era of vertical launch system ones. So we're doomed to have sameish looking boring MBTs. No wonder scifi doesn't copy modern designs:(
Turretless lmao =D
That was funny. Not. (Just kidding but imagine a tank without a turret)
@@theunitedkingdom5202 Strv 103 is the most famous MBT with that feature.
@@theunitedkingdom5202 WW2 has a lot of those. Jagdpanzer 38(t), StuG III, Jagdpanzer IV, Jagdpanther, Jagdtiger. Even after WW2 the Strv 103, VT2, Kanonenjagdpanzer and Taifun get you covered.
A lot of the added weight in the current version came from leaving old equipment in (panels, cabling, etc ) and just adding the new equipment. E3 will go through the development effort of making sure the old stuff can be removed without breaking any functionality. Modular design means future new stuff can use existing mounts, cabling, etc. and allow existing stuff to be removed and not just added over.
Geez, they left the old equipment and wires in? I bet that was a pain for wire tracing. I wonder how much dead weight was left in.
@@bl8danjil Moreso the new equipment was added and connected in to the existing systems with adaptor panels and the like. Like he said, the E3 design will start by stripping out all the existing internals and replacing them, specifically with more compact, lighter weight, modular systems that will have many of the added functions integrated in from the start.
An interesting note though, according to the Chieftain some of the newer APS on the A2 series have required counterbalancing weight to be added to the turret. That's basically over a ton of dead weight, which can be dropped by rebalancing the turret design. That's also part of why it's very likely the turret will be redesigned to some degree (though I doubt they'll go unmanned like the AbramsX).
Nothing is modular and that word is just buzz. Lmao you can not make something modular because no one can predict how big a new feature or sensor will be much less placement of said equipment inside. It will always lead to a new cycle of development and revamping planes or tanks. Nothing is modular in terms of allowing future improvements
@@johnconner4695 Modular in the world of controls and electronics means building it in a way that additional components and functions can more easily be added. It's an approach to computers and programming, rather than bespoke function for all the parts.
@@andrewreynolds4949 I know what they mean. Modular isn’t a new theory and again is a buzz word because any new capability will just be added on until a whole redesign is done to fit that capability into the equipment. A perfect example is the F-15 vs the F-35 one has a attachment sensor pod and the other had it designed into the F-35. Which will reach a limitation eventually because it can not be “modular” because you can not predict nor anticipate the size and capacity of a new capability. Even computing isn’t modular it all takes time and in most cases is stop gaps till a redesign is done. Hence why equipment is replaced and the new E3 is coming online and will repeat the cycle with either a completely new tank or E4 down the road.
As a former tank mechanic who worked on several generations of Abrams, it would be nice if the turret was redesigned for the upgrades because the constant bolting new shit in the old turret made maintenance a real pain in the ass
Good thing the loader could help out eh? Not automatically, I'm sure orders were issued first of course.
Not TRUE! The turrets are NOT the same due to Armor packages and even configurations of even mounts inside the Turrets. Try again. Now there are some retro fits but the very first model are sitting in a Depot.
@@dnate697I'm guessing you're a tank mechanic then?
@@jackfletch2001 Nope but I did do my share of Maint. I have seen how they differed even after I got out. I was in when MOS was changed from 19E to 19K. Light and Heavy parts, links, brackets were moved, via remanufacture. I didn't see a lot of "Gerry Rigging". There is a Tank Park with 1000's of M1, M1A1 and even Mods of Tanks in storage. taskandpurpose.com/uploads/2023/01/01/chewbaccatank.png?auto=webp
I do Know an A2 turret fits an A! chassis.@@dnate697
Chieftain mentioned recently that a weight savings of a couple of tons may be achieved by replacing all wiring with modern electronics and using another available main gun.
Plus either going with a newer turbine or diesel engine.
He said 10 to 15 tons more precisesly especially when you design in the APS. Basically you could have a 60 ton M1A2 SEPv3 tank if you designed it from the ground up as such.
@imjashingyou3461 the aps could go even lighter if the choose the trophy light that is in development
Yeah I remember him saying about the wiring, it actually shocked me how much of it there was :/
@@Wolfhound223copper is pretty heavy
It's not being mentioned here and elsewhere, but the AGT1500 turbine engine has an inlet temp of 1190 degrees C and operating temp of 816 degrees C, while the operating temp of the Leopard 2 is between 300-350 degrees C. Lowering the temp of a tank with the hybrid diesel ACE engine will significantly reduce its thermal signature and hide from passive and active sensors on satellites and drones.
That's a pretty good point to consider. Kind of similar to some of what the aircraft have to do when thinking about their engines and thermals.
To be honest, this will only get more and more important, with Gen 3 thermals and drones with similar tech becoming more and more prevalent
If you asked me 5 years ago, I’d say it’s a non issue, as many nations barely have Gen 1 thermals
But now, with the world gearing up across the board, this is definitely something to consider
But the U.S. military is great at 1 major thing, logistics, and that’s because they sacrifice some minor things to make their logistics more efficient
The gas turbine might stay because of that, as logistics was the primary factor for using it to begin with
In addition, if the M1E3 utilizes the adaptive camouflage technology developed by BAE, the tank will be invisible on thermals.
I agree with this, lower temp, means it can hide much easier.
5:30 It should be pointed out that Rheinmetall's Panther KF51 *has* to have an autoloader. Its 130 mm rounds are 50% heavier and 30% longer than the heaviest 120 x 570 mm NATO rounds.
You could squeeze the jolly green giant in as a loader if you really wanted someone that can handle 80kg (est) shells. I'm not an autoloader fan for several reasons but when your rounds almost weigh what a trooper does, I can give it a chance and see how it goes. Panther does have big claws on it for sure.
The chieftain had a good video about this where essentially he's saying it probably isn't going to change much they're just in a better integrate all of its current technology to reduce weight significantly
Expected to weigh 10 tons less without losing any capabilities and roughly looking the same
He also brought up a 2 man or 1 man turret with an autoloader to reduce weight further. And a diesel engine.
@@imjashingyou3461 I hope they dont put an autoloader in it
@@ryangoslingIRL Why? Also they may have to reduce the weight enough.
An autoloader without a redesigned turret makes little sense. A human loader doesn't actually weigh that much, but they do require space in which to operate. That necessitates a larger turret, which means there is more surface area that needs armor and *that* is why the weight goes up. The equipment in an autoloader can weigh more than a human crew member, but it's also more compact. If you have an autoloader you can make a smaller turret, which means it needs less armor, and that's where the weight savings comes in. But just putting an autoloader into the existing turret design accomplishes very little.
Which is one of the reasons why the Abrams X's turret (which looks basically like a normal Abrams's turret) never really made sense to me. On the other hand that was basically a bit of marketing, not a real design, so I guess they kept it that way just for the iconic look.
@@kevadu Almost certain they will redesign the turret to some degree. The Chieftain mentions that as well. The AbramsX turret is kind of comically large with the extra panels added to the sides, but internally I think the armored portion is smaller. An autoloader would save weight but most of the savings will probably come from redoing the controls and electronics from scratch. More significant for the autoloader they are also struggling with recruitment, so eliminating the loader position would be very helpful.
You might wanna correct that title. I'm pretty sure that both the "M1A3" and the T-14 have turrets.
Depends the t-14 been hit by a round yet? 😁
True, corrected now. Thanks.
@@A_Name_only thing in the same chassis that's been hit is the terminator it doesn't have the same turret section though it saw some combat in Ukraine and is performing poorly but the turret is very vulnerable in that config so it's hard to say what the causes are for it being blasted to pieces so often
@@A_Name_ it's also seen an array of other issues to the point where it was pulled from Frontline service till they kinda ran out of options unfortunately it was a huge part of Russia's highly mobile armored doctrine where it replaced ground soldiers for tank cover in urban areas so it's failure as a platform is kinda bad but realistically building it on a tank chassis was probably a bad idea and the dual mounted gun system is super complicated and way to vulnerable to fire
@@VarrickThrae I would tend to lean on it's Russian and it feels like they intentionally add some catastrophic design flaw lol.
In all seriousness tho Idon't know enough about the T-14 but I would guess more problems with the auto loader/magazine causing cookoff
I think the biggest advantage of hybrid tank is idling, in regular turbine/diesel tank you have to run you engine to operate the tank even when it’s not moving, in hybrid tank you can run it off of the battery and also at low speeds you can move the tank on pure electric greatly reduces heat signature, noise and smoke
There's also that modern hybrid engines are literally just a generator that charges a battery that in-turn powers electric motors, and electric motors are capable of providing WAY more torque WAY faster than a combustion engine. That means that if you need to scoot in a hurry, you put the peddle to the metal and zoom off even while the engine may still be revving up. You don't need to wait for the engine to spin up to move, or have the engine already spun-up if you think you'll need to move in a hurry, which makes idling even more viable.
Tanks have APUs to power them when the engine is off to save fuel. The only guzzler in NATO is the M-1 series with their turbine engines. Leave an Abrahams running and you run out of gas at almost the rate you do driving the tank around. Leopard 2's have a 12KW APU that can operate the tank stationary for days on end.
@@PhilMarks-g7u good point, it’s not that big of deal for tanks with APU to idle for long time, but it’s a very big deal with m1 , anyway imo hybrid tank is still superior, it can move at low speed with starting the engine, and greatly reduce heat signature noise and smoke
I never understood why the Abrams wasn't equipped with and APU.@@evanleo7633
For heat signature, one thing that really stands out are the tracks. Swapping the engine won't change that.
The reason why contemporary Abrams is so heavy is for each new variant they just said "F it, slap new systems on top + integration unit" instead of an actual integration. So every new upgrade had its constituent parts PLUS new wiring & a new PC + monitors. Just by switching to a digital platform, they could say 10+ tons in weight. (According to Chieftan, who was Abrams crew & worked on testing some of these systems). For ex. Abrams uses an analogue/hydraulic system for gun stabilization, digital versions are much lighter & have likely advanced to an equal quality, if not better. Upgrades of suspension systems could also shed weight. B
It's kind of a self-reinforcing cycle, if you shed 10 tons from a tank, you can also cut some weight from the suspension system because it doesn't need to carry as much, so you end up shedding even more.
@@Joesolo13 I would probably keep the suspension system mostly the same, unless they're trying to drop 20+ tons from the tank, to keep the parts supply the same and keep capacity for the inevitable up-armoring and other future weight additions
I think you mean an unmanned turret instead of turretless
fuck it, self propelled abrams
No, it says turetless. The tank doesn't randomly shout curse words.
We mixed the words and put turretless instead of unmanned turret in our first title. Apologies.
@@Binkov no apologies needed, you were probably rushing it to get the video out before western europe starts their weekend
I think the most important thing for a US tank to have right now is a way to counter small UAV's and an active protection system.
SPAAG and Lasers.
the US already has laser based systems that are designed to work in tandem with the abrams, moving that capability onto the abrams will only make it heavier and less reliable, require a powerplant rework and more turret space.
@@fuckoff4705 Nobody is talking about putting a big Anti-Air laser like seen on ships on the M1. Dedicated vehicles similar to SPAAGs will do that, which will be used together to provide cover.
They need mobile medium range antiwar vehicles as well as laser or microwave weapons for drones.
@@dimitryofthedonmongolslayer I think the best way would be to incorporate both of these into one. Essentially an APS that can protect from top attack as well.
Turretless? That would mean a casemate design, a Jagdabrams. I think you mean unmanned turret. In regards to turrets, the Falcon turret is very interesting to look at to see what direction future vehicles may take, obviously with additional armor and APS added. For obvious reasons it's not too different from the T-14 as well.
It will be different to the T14, in that it will actually be produced in numbers
@@sprucemarooseBold claim before anything about the design of the tank was even finalized. Reminds me of the people that claimed the XM2001 would overshadow the PzH 2000 just to never be produced xD
@@DefinitelyNotEmma Considering that the M1A2 SEPv4 was cancelled just for this M1E3 program, for mostly weight reasons. Them building this in numbers makes a lot of sense.
Counterpoint: T-72 isn't a casemate design ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@DefinitelyNotEmmaThe Main obstacle is the US Army syndrome of canceling stuff before it finishes due to 108 reasons (blah blah... budget overran, the technology is too new, budget cut, changing priority/policies etc.) , but when it does finish US Army didn't have much a problem producing it in numbers in the past. So we have to wait and see.
Key difference though we will actually be able to manufacture more that 16 or whatever they claim
Doubtful that the M1A3/E3 will even reach service. The US can't build more than 3 Zumwalts and wanted to replace the bomber fleet and air superiority fleets with B-2s and F-22s respectively one-for-one. Now the B-52 and F-15 outlive both aircraft that were intended to replace them. Do I have to mention the the 2 failed programs to replace the M109 or the amphibious vehicle for the marines that was canceled after billions of funding?
Lol, they're only gonna start mass production in early 2030s, if America doesn't have it's economy collapse by then and if they actually remain on time and if the project is successful (which hasn't been the case for the majority of their new vehicles) then I see no reason why Russia won't have hundreds of t14 by then, given they've been slowly but surely ramping up production and improving the tank.
You're very optimistic, despite the fact that over the last decades the US Military has abandoned dozens of programs, some of which before any units were delivered and some where only a handful were put into service.
@@R34-j1i Three Zumwalts of Auntie Sam
@@R34-j1ithis isn’t unique to the US either
Integrating sensors and electronic warfare systems into the main electrical systems would cut 5-10 tons by eliminating heavy adapters needed to get the 70's era tech to talk to the modern tech. Replacing copper wires with fiber optics would easily shave another few tons
You overestimate weight cut a lot. However integrated sensors is a step to a fully unmanned tank, which indeed may very well cut weight up to IFV standards.
You think there are a few tons of copper in the tank?
@@SpicyTake Honestly, yes. Given the total number of electronic systems, system connections, and system integrations, there is very likely dozens of miles of copper wiring
@@heyhoe168the cheiftan said sepcifically its about 10 tons of weight becuse its also transformer boxes and such. You can easily shave another 5 tons with designing in the APS system so it doesnt have to have 2 tons of balancing ballast save another two tons by switching to the lightweight Abrams X gun, and switching to a diesel could yeild more. There is 15 tons of weight you can easily shed. You can save even more weight by switching to electric drive, as well as electric turret motors.
@@damascus1111lol no
I loved the interview where the people in charge of development pointed to the Bolo science fiction tank as an inspiration for implementing heavy automation where the tank just needs a human component to authorize targets and the tank takes care of the positioning, targeting, loading and firing.
Probably go more like a Slammer tank, Gunner/Commander and Driver.
The Swedish S-tank designers realized the weakness of the turret about five decades ago. 🤣
me when cheese wedge tank
We mixed the words and put turretless instead of unmanned turret in our first title. Apologies.
The S-Tanks looked like real predators. crawling out from under the trees.
protecting against drones is going to be a huge challenge for all new tank designs going forward.
Uh, there's a huge problem with your assessment about the risk of AP vs HEAT warheads. HE and HEAT warheads tend not to cook off very readily either. Not enough to chain react.
The main reason tank ammunition cooks off is because of the propellant used to shoot it out the barrel, not the warheads themselves. Neither type of warhead is particularly prone to exploding.
That is true, though I think he was referring more to the amount of damage done to a struck tank, specifically with regards to the safety of the crew and the repairability of damaged tanks.
Most munitions aren't carrying enough explosives to destroy a tank, only to disable it.
You can't protect the whole tank against modern anti-tank weaponry, so you prioritize armoring the most important parts and make sure you can replace the rest. That means that a well-armored crew compartment and modular components would make tanks much more safe and durable relative to their cost, as the valuable crew will be the most protected and any parts that get damaged by sabot or HE shaped-explosive munitions can be simply pulled of and replaced.
Boom, you now have a tank that, even if hit and disabled, can likely be redeployed after recovery and some maintenance with the same experienced crew.
Russian autoloaders store the propellant charge directly under the round. I'll let you think about that design flaw and give me a more realistic response considering 60% of wrecks in Ukraine tend to retain their turrent when no NATO tank that has been hit by multiple weapons has shed it's turret.
Facts are just facts.
@@PhilMarks-g7u Facts are there are pictures of both Leopards and Challengers with their turrets popped off. Facts are just facts, indeed.
What do you need a crew for then? If it's fly by wire, you don't need a driver in the tank. The other guys are superfluous in the bottom of the tank. All you need is to follow the tank with a recovery vehicle.
Cant wait for the us army to find a way to stuff a loader in the hull!
They already did. M3 Lee, T28/T95, T55E1 GMC, etc. (All have casemate gun mounts.)
The US should just buy T90Ms from Russia - save loads of money
@@Siempre1978 That would be a major downgrade. Why would US buy tanks from a 3rd world country?
@@doom9gaming T-90 was meant for battle, your M1A2 WAS MEANT TO RIDE DOWN THE STREET SHOOTING AT SHEEP HERDERS!!!
@@salilpanwar6922 weird last i checked thats all the t90 has done and blow up in ukraine
Neither that not T-14 it turret-less. Unmanned turret for sure, but turret-les would be quite another story - like strv-103 or ww2 era tank destroyers.
True. We mixed the words and put turretless instead of unmanned turret in our first title. Apologies.
@@Binkov Nothing to apologise for, happens! Love your content! :)
I’d imagine the abrams X was made with some vague knowledge of that the army was looking to modify in the Abrams. While I have doubts to the abrams x coming out (even the general dynamics spokesperson said they just put everything they could put on it) I’m pretty certain they did a mix of development based on army expectations/early hopes and some stabs in the dark based on either crew feedback or just something General Dynamics is trying to push.
My guess is there was a quick and dirty project to see if an unmanned turret was reasonably feasible on an Abrams hull that DOD paid for quietly. It's success was enough to say kill the SP4 and go with the M1E3 redesign.
General Dynamics and other fat cats have overstayed they’re welcome with the amount of influence they have.
Stop comparing the AbramsX to the T-14. The T-14 is so superior that not only does it have an unmanned turret, it also doesn't have a crew at all! Or armor, or munitions, or an engine. It's a truly remarkable feat of Russian engineering.
Don't forget about it's incredible stealth capabilities.
Operating for over a year in Ukraine; has yet to be spotted by the enemy.
That's impressive!
not gonna lie, you had me in the first half there!
Let’s not downplay how fast and nimble it is, it can move so fast it’s like it was never on proving ground of battlefield ever
You people are killing me!@@machosassistantmacho700
Lmao, you’re talking out of your ass. You have no clue what it does. We only know what Russia “says it does”, which normally is less than 50% accurate. Even if it can do everything they say it can, we’ll never know cause russia doesn’t have the economic capability to mass produce it. Much like all their new next generation systems, from the T14, to the SU57, to the 2S35 Self propelled howizter… it’s the same story no matter the system/platform or branch of military it’s developed for. They spend all this money on R&D, make a few prototypes and then brag to the world about how superior their new technology is and how they should fear Russia’s military might. Yet they’re all bark and no bite cause they don’t put their money where their mouth is. Well.. not that they don’t… they literally can’t. They simply don’t have the financial ability to do so lmao. In recent years they haven’t been able to make more than a dozen of any of these examples lol and with their current economic situation and future projections, they won’t be able to fix their inability to mass produce any new military hardware any time soon. Like not even in the next 10-15 years.
Y’all can thank Putin for that, with his brilliant idea of attacking Ukraine 😂 he thought he could give russia a massive boost in economic and military might by invading and taking over Ukraine. So he could then steal their newly discovered massive natural gas deposit in eastern Ukraine. Along with all their other resources, like Wheat and also benefit massively from would be their first and only warm water port in Sevastopol, Crimea but his plan hasnt come to fruition. It’s actually backfired dramatically. All it’s done has embarrassed russia and drained their economy, resources, and man power. While isolating themselves further from the world and restricting themselves to a small few countries who they can still benefit from economically. Putin bluffed and the world called it 😂
Using a diesel-electric drivetrain is fascinating. The engine would be far less powerful than a gas turbine of the same weight, but the electric motor would be more powerful. Add some batteries to give you 5-10km of range, and you get a much nicer machine. It could accelerate very quickly, though it may have to slow down slightly for long distances. It would also have a low heat signature if the engine were off or idling. It could provide support for infantry without being as bright on infrared cameras.
Man the Abrams is the best looking MBT imo. I’m obviously biased as an American but man they are just massive sleek beasts
Currently yes. But take a look at the Panther KF51.. :)
Bob Semple solos, stay mad
They are very iconic tanks
Leo 2 > Merkava > Abrams
@@CommonSenz if it actually becomes a production tank. Then yes I agree
New ideas are needed. The hull-less tank
10:00 Tokyo drifting in a Abrams Tank now that's bad ass
A storage with two or more drones that will hover above tank and give vision to crew will be nice
They'll just select a drone already in the air for that.
@@craftpaint1644 Yup linking a drone to the squad or tank would be far easier. A launcher would be very vulnerable to be damaged and would be far better on a support vehicle.
Plus why add volume to the tank for something that can easily be carried by a separate lighter vehcile not in dirrect combat?
nah, leave dromes to specialised teams
Yeah, let's rise an RF emitting thing above our tank so the foe SIGINT could detect and target us faster.
I think some things a auto turret can support. One a close in anti drone gun and enhanced drone/missile spotter radar. They should also add a scouting drone using AI and allows the commander or a specialized EW officer replacing the now redundant gunner. One thing that should also be looked at is mine detection ground sonar systems that were in research in the 90's.
The top challenges in the modern near peer tank battles are
1. drone and manpad attacks
2. Mines
3. battle field awareness
4. shoot on the go and not having to stop. Drone assisted artilary has been deadly.
US should look into total airspace domination anti-drone drones.
More like the t14 went with the TTB style unmanned turret, then the abrams finally went with the unmanned turret was developed decades ago for it
My guess is they are trying to drastically reduce weight by more then 15 tons a regular overhaul could have lowered it by maybe 10ish by ripping out the electonics and putting in proper weight managment and armor as a first thought as opposed to an addon. But the turret change would save even more and make the profile smaller. This could be to push for a battery so it runs on a hybrid train. Since those things are heavy and they likely wanna keep it in bridge weights
Yes because they saw in Ukraine how heavy big tanks are crumbling and easy to be spotted and destroyed and not mention how much gas it takes.
@plamenbalev3632 Long term lend lease loans are basically free money. After 80 years of inflation the original WW2 loans are worth nothing. The US got no return.
@plamenbalev3632 well even if we donate the base tanks for now once the war is over one way or another who do you think will be supplying Ukraine with trainers fuel upgrade packages and software more rounds and missiles and training equipment and rounds replacement parts at a umm "reasonable" markup whole things a long term investment hell at the end of this I wouldn't be surprised if Ukraine isn't armed to the fucking teeth in US and German weapons
I am very concerned. We're 23-years behind schedule. The Mark 1 Bolo was supposed to replace the Abrams back in 2000.
At this rate, we'll never get to Planetary Siege Engines.
Hybrid battery? Hope they shield and cool that thing. Lithium tends to cook real hot and can be dangerous AF if damaged or overheated
Inbefore all the "it's T-72 that goes turretless, not T-14 jokes" 🤣
What do you mean by "you're late"? How dare they steal my spotlight?!
Naming the final production version M1A3 would be very conservative. A more marketing friendly name could be taken from the Russian T-90 (which was just a modernized T-72), and the new production version could be called the M2.
Of course, taking a page out if the F-15EX, it could be called the Abrams II. Taking a page from the F/A-18E/F, it could be called the Super Abrams.
Super Abrams would go hand in hand with the Super Pershing and Super Sherman
The Army's following the traditional nomenclature system. It's still the same base hull design, so it won't get a new M designation. Also the M2 and M3 are already taken by the Bradley
@@andrewreynolds4949 Every class of vehicle and weapon has their own numbering scheme. There's the M1 Garand rifle, M1 Carbine, M1 Thomson, M1 tank, M1 mine, M1 Bazooka
@@ImBigFloppa Fairly sure both the M1 Abrams and M2/M3 Bradley are in the same scheme as armored vehicles
M2 Super Abrams II
There needs to be a large robotic arm with a fly swatter to hit incoming missiles and drones out of the air. Then the turret won't need armor. The final part of my plan involves the employment of midgets, which can be recruited from the circus. Thus the tank could be shrunk to a size more manageable for aircraft and delivery catapults on aircraft carriers. Of course the new versions would have to have some short flight capability such as what turkey's possess.
I think the "more survivable" most likely refers to improved APS rather than an unmanned turret. I really doubt the Army will go for an unmanned turret, but I think a 2-man autoloader turret is plausible. The weight reduction will likely come primarily from stripping out the existing controls and electronics and installing a new, lighter weight, integrated modular system (unlike the current state of tacking things on top of the existing system). It's also fairly likely they will implement the same lighter gun that was used on the AbramsX, and they may install a new gas turbine or diesel engine to save fuel.
I think it’s be an unmanned turret, more survivable means a more efficient auto loaded. Something that’s not gonna pop.
iirc abrams x has a carousel similar to t72 (different design but same type)
@@ligmasurvivor5600 I believe the AbramsX has a horizontal autoloader, like most western designs, rather than the vertical autoloader like the Soviet series
@@mw9297 Tank crews have voiced some strong opposition to an unmanned turret. I don't think the army will be quite that radical, considering they haven't so far adopted autoloaders either.
only the T-80 and T-64 has a vertical style autoloader, the T-72 is horizontal@@andrewreynolds4949
Pretty sure the last year has shown the biggest threat is mines.
AT mine with Artillery.
I just want the X. What a dope demonstrator
APS and PPS. Otherwise i would still take 500 drones and ATGM's to every tank...
gather all the crew members in one place just behind the frontal armor (where most shells hit) and also the place under which the explosion occurs when the tank hits a mine... what could go wrong...
Unmanned turrets make sense. So does engine in front.
Why engines in front? wont that make them more vulnerable since the front is one of the most targeted areas of a tank?
@@radicalxg8282 Yes, but what would you rather lose, the engine or the crew? Soviets might have said crew in the past, but I doubt the modern militaries would say they same.
Though moving the engine might have a lot of consequences to the overall design. From a safety standpoint it makes sense but maybe not from other standpoints. Still will likely be looked at for future tanks, unlikely to happen for this new modernised variant.
As a former 19K things I would like to see, crew in hull, 130mm cannon with auto loader. Different power pack and transmission. The reduction gear box takes a lot of space in the engine compartment. Of course the modern suite of sensors and optics with links to other vehicles / drones and an active protection system. Better fuel economy means lease fuel to store
You do want to keep the 4th crewman though. All that fancy gear is a lot of maintenance hours, and if you slim down the crew you may end up with under maintained tanks, or exhausted crews.
@@PhilMarks-g7u I agree with the 4th crew being kept as it would go well with what the military is doing. With how the military is trying to keep up with manpower, aswell as keeping maintenance up for war. Although idk about the autoloader, a lot of the 19ks i know including my friends say the load time isn't too big of a difference. Many say loaders fatigue won't be as much a factor. The better fuel economy is important, Abrams are inherently gas guzzlers, and the old APU made it worse. Not sure about the new one. Just lowering the weight overall will help with where it will be fighting too. Just my opinion though.
Plus if you're the TC you get an extra guy to boss around! Seriously though, some maintenance jobs take 2 people and if you have to adjust tracks in a forward position you want as many eyes watching your back as you can get.@@jasonbrewer6714
@@jasonbrewer6714 4th man should be relegated to uav/loitering munitions duty, imo. A second eyes in the sky for the tank commander and as a way to hit targets behind defilades/cover. Something similar to the switchblade drone system could be added on to a next gen tank.
I think it's good the branding is very conservative like 'M1A3'. I once used a laptop which had integrated Intel Extreme Graphics 2.0. Now Intel integrated graphics is always going to be underwhelming because it's aimed at people who don't care about/actively dislike GPU performance but it seemed slower because they'd foolishly leaned in to Extreme Advertising. Underpromise and then overdeliver.
True, but one minor correction. The actual designation is M1E3. The Chieftan explained it in a recent video. I can’t remember the exact details, but the “E” designation apparently signifies a major engineering upgrade, as opposed to an “A,” which usually just means some additional capabilities were added.
@@bluemarlin8138 The M1E3 and M1A3 are nearly the same designations, just for different stages of development. The "E" is for a variant under engineering development, while the "A" designation is adopted once the vehicle is accepted for service. So what is currently the M1E3 will become the M1A3 for most of its life. The SEP (System Enhancement Package) designation is for minor modifications and additions.
@@andrewreynolds4949Thanks for the clarification.
A umanned turret is cool but the next abrams version just consuming less fuel will be a game changer
Unmanned Turret*
I have a feeling the M1A3 is going to look a lot like the abramsx, General Dynamics will be the ones producing the vehicle, and theres no doubt they had a heads up about this potential decision before, which directly influenced development / RND then subsequently unvieling of the abramsx.
AbramsX seems more like a designer car, trying to sell as many cool features as possible to up the price. The eventual M1A3 will probably look a lot more like the existing Abrams.
The existing FCCP. (M1A2). Made by Curtiss Wright Controls Defense Solutions (Vista Controls) has the MIPS performance for full autonomous operation.
The FCCP for the MiA2 was upgraded as of 2018.
The moon is tired of all those Russian T-72 turrets littering the surface.
They went so high and crashed down with such velocity that these T-72 turrets leveled Mariupol all on their own.
@user-kf9ui1in6r Families of Russian T-72 crews were able to brag that their relatives got their astronaut wings just before they were then incinerated in Mariupol.
@@R34-j1iThe Ukies will be seething lol
@@R34-j1iReminds of the comment, and I quote: „Go ahead, call the NATO, it won't unbomb Mariupol."
@@R34-j1iKhokhols won't like this one 😂😂😂
May the AbramsX enjoy the same level of sucsess as F-35.
This won't be the AbramsX, the AbramsX is to the M1A3 more like the X-32 or X-35 prototypes were to the F-35 that eventually resulted from that program
I really want them to get rid of the fuel thirsty Honeywell turbine engine with a simple V8 or something diesel engine, that will increase the tank's range siginificantly with same fuel amount
The Honeywell turbine engine exists specifically because it is powerful and can use ANY fuel, which makes logistics and emergency supplying much easier.
A V8 would be horribly underpowered, as would a diesel. The listed top speed of the Abrams is the RECOMMENDED top speed. At full power, off-road, the Abrams can peak at 70 MPH. This makes it capable of outmaneuvering enemy forces to a significant degree, which is a major part of US armored strategic doctrine.
Diesel-Hybrid is the way to go. Fuel efficiency is key and the hybrid system will provide a lot of benefits like running subsystems of a silent battery, creating less of a heat signature.
@@Liberty_or_Ded A diesel wouldn't be underpowered. In terms of mobility the Leclerc, T-80, Leopard 2 and T-90 either match or exceed the M1, they all use diesel engines. Although the T-80 initially had a gas turbine too.
@@Liberty_or_Ded not really, even every other western/NATO tanks use advanced diesel engine, the Leopard 2, Challenger II, Leclerc, Korean K2 Black Panther, you name it, and they are not less powerful at all, generating 1500+ hp & 3000+ Nm torque, resulting 75+ km/h top speed as well. Yes I know the Honeywell is multifuel, but that was proven to not be significant, since diesel is very cheap and always present everywhere, you can always supply them very easily at any moment of time.
@@DefinitelyNotEmma A single lithium ion battery weighs the entire amount of a car's entire engine block.
A diesel-hybrid would require 12 such batteries to operate for any tactically-feasible period of time.
Also lithium-ion batteries have a tendency to be EXTREMELY explosive and flammable if subjected to high impact, meaning that they would have to be further armored, meaning more weight. Not to mention the scarcity of the resources needed to make those batteries in US-friendly nations. It's not worth it just to be able to have a quiet tank that is only slightly cooler (lithium battery usage still generates a lot of heat, well above background levels, and thus would provide no tangible benefits to evading thermal imaging).
The power generation capability the Abrams has makes it an ideal platform for one of the new ultrashort pulse lasers.
I would be surprised if it even has an autoloader. It's more likely they will cancel the program then build one without a turret.
Traditionally the US has preferred turreted vehicles far more than most other militaries
@@andrewreynolds4949 u.s. also completely refuses to abandon manual loaders. Even during the Cold War when we were massively outnumbered in Manpower.
@@Valorius I do think the Army might finally be willing to pick up autoloaders now. We'll have to wait and see.
On a different note, I do suspect the M1E3 is also an excuse to not only cancel the SEP v4 but to quietly cancel or delay the Decisive Lethality Platform program meant to replace the Abrams
@@andrewreynolds4949 Autoloaders make sense on every level. Strategic, logistically, tactically, and most importantly perhaps, societally.
Not only does an autoloader not eat, and not get wounded, and not need dental work and not need uniforms, but it also doesn't get PTSD and lifetime VA payments and health care.
If you eliminate 25% of a crew size, you reduce the LIFETIME expenses of an item by orders of magnitude.
Not to mention what you actually gain as a combat vehicle.
@@Valorius Indeed. That's becoming more of a concern than it has been in the past
Just use the turret from m1128 gun carrier, but upsize it for 120mm or even 140mm gun and with additional armor.
It's time we going METAL GEAR
The "E" nomenclature represents a substantial(relatively) design change, in its experimental/developmental stage. As opposed to "SEP" which denotes minor changes.
S - systems
E - enhanced
P - package
Finally!!! They are realizing that a giant, tall and heavy bunker on tracks is a terrible idea. A smaller and lighter tank is a much better idea, following a Russian school of thought with American build quality. An autoloader would be a nice edition as well.
Turrets usually have alot of armour, especially the front, back in ww2 the front of the turret was mostly covered by the mantlet wich was very thick.
Ahh yes. The fabled non existing armata
One thing is certain. FPV drones have changed the game and no current tank is equipped to deal with that. Now, the Abrahms and Challengers might do better due to their armores better defense to shaped charges but from the top? No tank is ready for that.
From the top, every tank has weak armor, including the latest Abrams.
@@PhilMarks-g7u yes. That is the point.
PL-01 Concept (shown in 3:26) is a laughing stock in my home Poland, because the project never came to fruition. But purchasing of M1A2 tanks seems like a good choice. If uncle Sam is indeed willing to upgrade his fleet to new vehicles, he will have a lot of old ones (but still very capable) to sell or even donate to his allies. America, f**k yeah!
It was a good technology demonstration..what is possible but was never meant for production
The new Korean design scheduled to be produced in Poland looks like the real deal, tho
Dude! The can opener is on the right!
Unlike the Russian T-14, if the US is building a all new follow on tank to the M1A2, it will be built, it will work as advertised and like it's predecessor, it will kick ass.
Russia can't focus on the t14 right now, it needs cheap usable t80s or t72b3
If they build some t14s, and they get destroyed by a cheap drone it's a waste
The M60A2, XM2001and XM1203 NLOS-C and it's sister models all disagree with you
@@BIGDADDUIThe T-80 isn't really cheap. However it's cheaper than modern T-90 models while also offering better mobility. Which seemingly is favored.
@@BIGDADDUI Russia claims that the Afghanit APS can hit projectiles traveling at 2000 m/s, faster than pretty much every APFSDS ever created, and also claims it can be upgraded to intercept projectiles traveling at 3000 m/s, or faster than every in atmosphere projectile ever. Seems to me like it should have no issue taking out some DJI drones traveling at 60 m/s. Slap on a mine roller and it is generally invulnerable to all anti tank threats. That is, of course, if the definitely reliable and totally trustworthy Russian military is to be believed
@@BIGDADDUI but then if it can get destroyed by a cheap drone, then it doesn't sound like it's all that much of a badass tank to begin with, does it?
That's crazy after getting a plug in hybrid I realized how Tanks are perfect for a a hybrid system now the new Abram coming out with electric motor. Tanks do a lot of stop and go hybrid system will be more efficient and torque.
Batteries in tanks… what could possibly go wrong?
Large batteries tend to burn really badly...
@@RobertLutece909 But that would require installing an extra system of blow-out panels, where the alternative is installing a normal diesel or gas turbine engine. Also with the batteries the explosive force caused by a battery ignition seems less of a concern than the extremely high temperatures it produces
@@RobertLutece909 It's all just tradeoffs. The batteries take up space and weight that could be used for a larger diesel engine. The batteries primarily have an advantage with overall fuel efficiency and noise reduction, the rest is just marketing talk.
Considering how much the Army has insisted on keeping a gas turbine so far, I'm not sure they'll abandon it now. The gas turbine does eat more fuel, but it does produce noticeably more power for its size and weight, and is much quieter than a diesel engine (though not as quiet as battery power of course). I don't think there's an improved gas turbine ready for use in the Abrams, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had one developed fairly quickly. On the other hand there is an existing diesel power unit that was recently developed; again, it's all tradeoffs. Personally I think the hybrid option is the least likely outside of Congressional intervention.
@@RobertLutece909 It depends on what kind of gas turbine and diesel you're comparing. A modern diesel unit uses less fuel than a modern gas turbine, in general, though a gas turbine does use less fuel when operating at or near full load. That's part of why gas turbines are so common in naval vessels. A tank spends far less time at full load, so the balance is more towards the diesel. The turbine's main benefit is the smaller size and weight for a given power output, though an APU will reduce that margin if included.
8:30 I think you have to worry about artillery shells too. We’ve seen a lot of vehicles in Ukraine get knocked out with artillery shells which do, in fact, use large explosions.
Edit: time stamp
Hi Binkov! Can you make a video about the latest Flight III Arleigh Burke class destroyer? I would love to see it❤
I'm really curious about what the secondary armament is going to be. I keep think Gau-19, or Gau-21, both in 12.7mm might be more sustainable than a 30mm, but you can't program a 12.7mm - yet. Still, ballistics computers are always getting better too.
I don't see how a gau of any calibre would be worth the upgrade on a mbt.
me too
It would be nice if those variants send in Ukraine and how well it works
A new tri or hex barrel in the armys new 6.8 would be better remember its going to be more for taking out drones than any thing else & small calibre = more ammo carried & faster tracking speeds .
@@jackdburthe reason 30mm cannons are used for C-UAS, is because they can be loaded with proximity fuse ammunition. Means you don’t really need to hit the drones, and you can deal with lightly armored vehicles.
They could resurrect the 25mm fused medium velocity that was developed.
I think what the US Army is getting to is to make the Abrams X the next variant as the E3/A3 since the hull is from existing Abrams. If GD can upgrade any and all Abrams into the Abrams X specs, they can save R&D funds while giving the platform more life and significance in the current and future battlefield.
If they wanted just buy AbramsX they wouldn't need 10 years for it.
It won't be AbramsX. That's just a concept design and there's a lot of differences between it and what the Army will actually want
So, T-14 designers didn't actually design a crap tank then? I remember how much hate it got for being some weirdo - unmanned turret, all 3 crewmembers in same armored capsule, etc. Good to see that this design is going to work.
It didn't get hate for that design choice. It got hate because it's basically vaporware and broke down at the parade. And people online act like it's some Wunderwaffe
@@moist_ointment it didn't break down at parade, the crew accidentally engaged the brakes. That's why the other vehicle failed to tow it.
@@KGAnims Really? That's the story you choose to believe lmao. "No, the tank didn't break down. It's just that Russian tank crews and Recovery crews are so incompetent that they didn't even know they turned on the brakes and could've turned them off...no, the emergency break didn't get stuck on. Yes, they immediately intentionally shut the engine off when they accidentally turned the brake on, to save gas...What do you mean you need to disconnect the drive shaft to tow it because it?"
@@moist_ointment because once UVZ worker got into the tank, it drove away on it's own from there? Certainly a fuckup on crew's side, but if it broke down, you wouldn't see it driving away on it's own in the end.
Lazerpig made fun of the tank and he gets like a million views, so I'm going to choose to believe that the T14 is a dumb and crap idea made by incompetent Russian engineers.
Loved seeing the scenes from Hohenfels.
How tf do you make an Abrams turretless like the Armata? The Armata clearly has a turret. I think you should correct the video title to something about "crewless turret" or "remote controlled turret"
We mixed the words and put turretless instead of unmanned turret in our first title. Apologies.
Survivability is not so much about preserving the value of the crew, it is about enabling a sustainable and rational aggression in the crew.
You shuld look in to swedish STRV 103 S-tank without any turnet
Well Done! Thank You! Oohraah!!! 🇺🇸🤠🇺🇸
It won't get an umanned turrent like the T-14. It'll get one that actually works and doesn't pop it's turrent like a jack-in-the-box.
Ahh, the M1A3E2 Abrams Jumbo finally on the horizon :)
Great episode!
Im glad were done with sep that was enough of the a2
The Tank Museum in Amman,Jordan has a three crewmen tank that was designed by the King.
The turret is unmanned. The hull is an Abraham’s tank.
Why T-14 Armata turret is unarmored?
Yes, crew won't be hit inside turret, but every turret hit disables T-14, destroying its turret with all sensors and armament.
And unmanned T-14 turret is higher than manned Abrams or T-72/90 turrets.
50t. Composite armor and chassis. Turbo-Diesel-Electric hybrid. 500hp commercial truck/marine engine. Plus 1,500hp electric motors with 5,000ft/lb torque. An electric-only (low observable, low IR signature) range of 5mi. Armed with 127mm (5in) gun. 5,500ft/s, 5mi range. Penetrates 50" of steel or concrete. And a remote operated, helmet-aimed 30mm chain gun with 200rpm. Plus two 7.62mm co-axial mounted with main and chain gun. Larger emphasis on active protection, trophy, jammers, bullet direction finders, etc.
Yeah, that will save weight. They can plug in modern digital electronics overall. The difference between an F-4 and its discrete hard wires for every thing and every system was a PITA to fix compared to the F-18 hornets with their modern data bus. The wiring was cut in half, and that was with a multiply redundant set of busses.
I expect the M1E3 would enjoy some serious weight and space savings with a ground up redesign to use a standardized "Open Architecture" set of redundant data channels. Then all you need to know is the standard and you can pop different turrets on and off by yanking a bunch of bolts and a few plugs. You could have an E3 hull which could take several turrets. M1 Missilero turret for drones. M1 Gunny for platoon support with a couple miniguns, suite of sensors, and 105mm gun for platoon support. M1 Bullet Wasp done up with an MBT turret with a heavy cannon and anti tank drones.
ok the logic of that statement saying "even if the gun gets taken out, the crew will be safe. bruh they are literally as good as dead with a non working disabled tank. wtf are they gonna do? get out and get shot at? stay in so the enemy unloads more rounds? that logic makes no sense. the gun needs as much protection as possible.
If the gun is taken out, you're still in a 60 ton armored bunker, why the hell would you get out????
Put that shit in reverse and live to fight another day. Chances are there are other allies nearby, a tank is rarely ever isolated, that's when they're the most vulnerable.
I would say more like the M1128 Stryker MGS considering design applications. Though they'll likely opt to save the crew and keep the ammo in the turret, unlike the T-14, so it can still use vertical blowout panels without compromising hull integrity or mine resistance.
As there's no info yet on how much weight the Army actually wants to shave off the Abrams, the M1E3 could still end up closer to Germany's conceptual KF51 Panther with its two-man autoloading turret than Russia's Armata with its unmanned turret. The pros and cons of an manned vs unmanned turret in an MBT are still debatable.
The weight difference of these newer unmanned/manned turret MBT designs don't seem that much. In metric, the Armata's listed at 55 tons but the 21st century Panther (which also proposes a bigger 130mm gun) supposedly isn't that much heavier at 59 tons.
At the bare minimum, they have to go with an autoloader so that the volume of space the loader takes up can be removed, making the tank lighter.
The M1A3 was announced years ago. There was even a Wikipedia page dedicated to it for about a year if I recall right. Then nothing and the page was taken down.
With the Army still having not procured it, nothing more sounded off about it. Then about around last year, there was some mention about the M1A3 again. Nothing more as the Army then proceeded to start buying more M1A2s of different SEPs and even further subcategories.
And then suddenly, from the sounds of it, that's when the M1E3 was announced. So, I had assumed the M1A3 was finally abandoned and that M1E3 would lead to a whole new Tank.
I just can't believe that we are too many years away from tanks, planes and possibly even subs being unmanned and remotely operated. Not having to protect the squishy people inside opens up so many more options.
Think of the advantages in space, where every minor thing can lead to a horrifying death in a cold vacuum. Suddenly something falling off, could be pretty minor to the mission.
IMO the 30mm on the Abrams X won't make it, but the uncrewed turret will. My stretch call is: It'll also have EW & maybe even directed energy defences.
Half the reason we don't use autoloaders is because you want that fourth body to help manage the day-to-day needs of tank work. But this is a better improvement in the long run. Just follow the design cues from The AbramsX.
The same arguement was made for the 5th man back in the late 40s/50s. As it turns out not all tanks are equal in terms of work load. The total workload for the m551 was less than 1/4th the workload of any current m1 abrams (ie you could easily have it be a 1 man tank outside of combat)
An abrams varient could theoretically be made with reduced crewload so as to not increase indivual crewmen loads while reducing the crew to 3. And inside of combat the minor increase in situational awareness can be more than made up for by assigning a a rotation of light drones to run spotting and security for the tank operated by men not inside the tank (something we already happening in Ukraine atleast some of the time)
Defeat is a harsh teacher, but if you survive, you'll learn a lot.
>abramsX
>quick and dirty demo project
if this is the "shit i have homework due today edition" im scared to see what the real deal can do
I think the US army are looking at different engines including hybrid power.If there are A3 models of the M1 it won`t be too extensive.I think that diesel and battery power is in the future for MBT and if the upgrades to the M1A2 are going to happen ,I doubt major changes will include what you think.
This is a bold and necessary move for US armor corps. The M-1 family is old, and its problems are well-known: too heavy, not deployable under a lot of circumstances, and challenging logistics (fuel consumption is just one issue). If you can't use the tank because you can't get it there in sufficient numbers, or once there you have a hard time keep them operational, then in a lot of ways, you don't have a usable tank. The US being able to prepare for its last few major wars well ahead of time (e.g., via prepositioning) solved a lot of these problems, but they may not always work out that way in the future. A more flexible and mobile force is needed, but I'm waiting to see if the new tank or design doesn't get weighed down gradually as well, which would defeat its main purpose. The M1 grew by about 20 tons in its development, the SEPv.4 would've only added more weight.
I think a metal umbrella on top would help
So what, a cope cage?
@@andrewreynolds4949yes!
As long as they keep the turbine they can forget about any other modification.
Yeah bro, fuck fuel economy!
@@Ag3nt0fCha0s It uses 1 gallon every six minutes when idle and 1 gallon every minute when traveling cross-country. Not too much, especially for America who will spend any amount on the military lol
@@LewisB3217 now compare it to a standard piston diesel and remember that tanks frequently spend great amounts of time idling…
@@Ag3nt0fCha0s my point being, the gas issues are largely exaggerated, just look at tank fuel ranges, the abrams fits fine with its contemporaries and even more modern tanks, and with good logistics, the fuel should never be a problem
@@Ag3nt0fCha0sthe fuel economy being shit is a veritable myth, the abrams turbine doesn’t just run on one form of fuel while most of the engines you listed are limited to one form of fuel, the ability for a turbine to swap from marine diesel normal diesel and various gas fuels allow it top up from ANY source, which is what people always forget while mentioning the turbine
Given recruiting issues and the casualty estimates for Large Scale Combat Operations (LSCO) it would be wise to reduce the crew to 2 men (max 3). Saves size, weight, logistics and reduces need to train crew replacements.
If they go with an unmanned turret, the crew will be 3.
2 is just not feasible with practicalities of combat/maintenance.
You know I just noticed, you don't use the puppet anymore. Any particular reason why not?
all the changes we are seeing with new plans from the navy, army, and airforce shows how much we are learning from the war in Ukraine. project replicator, new designs for the abrams, even the future warfighter system for the army, it feels like a ton of programs are being either accelerated or being moved back to the drawing board from what we are learning. low altitude slow moving objects (drones) are going to start blotting out the sky with with the nations of the world are learning, the US military need to start learning to fight in the shade.
We'll see profileration of mmWave radars and anti-drone lasers.
i mean, no crew means more space for armor and tech. technically you could make a tank with triple the armor in that case. although you better hope nobody hacks these