With modern precision guidance drones, anyone sitting in a tank, no matter how expensive, is in the most dangerous place in the battle zone. The tank is suddenly obsolete. A real dinosaur on the battlefield.
M60 tanker here... how are they gonna quiet the tracks? That's what you hear first. We had different sights too and only used the M32 battlesight. What about heat and ac? All those electronics gonna work in the desert, the jungle? How about Siberia? Way too many geegaws. Good luck future tankers/targets.
Drone warfare isn't new. Every guided missile built in the last 50 years is a "drone". Every torpedo is a drone. It's the low cost aspect of what's being done in Ukraine that changes things. Volume. I personally think MBTs are close to being obsolete on the high end battlefield.
@crf59 True to some extent, but what you referenced were tens of thousands to millions of dollars. Ukraine is searching out armor with dromes costing a few hundred and taking out heavy armor with homemade, short-range drones that cost less than a thousand with a guy using a handheld controller.
from watching i didn't see anything to detect and protect it from drones i starting to think drones are tanks Achilles heal until they come up with a protection package for them
In a battle the first thing to go will be all those additions on the turret. Yes, the "third generation flir" will be the first to go making it the same as any other on the battlefield.. Auto loaders break and there's rarely an easy manual back up..
Tanks have been proven useless in the Ukraine war...Drones are taking over the field...A tiny fast drone can fly in at ground level land on the tank and set off a beam for missiles to fly along and kill the tank or just carry high explosive and at the very least disable the tank.....Navy ships are pretty much the same. Hyper sonic missiles can hit ANY Navy ship in the world and there's nothing they can do to stop it...Thats the reality now. Aircraft carriers are the easiest targets on the water.
Getting rid of the human loader has some drawbacks. If a crew member is injured you have a replacement with a crew of 4. Maintenance in the field can be split among 4 people instead of 3. Any Tankers out there to give opinions on this?
Correct. I was a crewman on a M-48a2c. Autoloaders are fast, when they work. Don't know how it would pick different types of ammo though. Extra man=good.
This tank will never see mass production way to costly and is still subject to being destroyed by infantry, aircraft, strategic, drones and other tanks. 650 million versus 10 million...
Sorry but it is designed to take out helicopters and planes before they can even detect it. Than shoot them down with exploding rounds that actually detect the target. Also the armor is completely different with like the iron dome protection. Not arguing with you. You just missed a little of what they said about it. Listen again. You will see what i mean. I missed it to the first few times.
This tank will not see mass production but *most definitely not* for the reasons you cited. The AbramsX is a one-off prototype built by General Dynamics Land Systems (they actually took the HCVTB testbed previously used to showcase the possibility of swapping the Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine with a MT-883/HSWL 295TM diesel engine) as a _demonstration_ of the company's ability to design and build what would eventually be the US Armed Forces' _next_ tank. They're essentially (and they HAVE explicitly declared this at the AUSA defense expo where the AbramsX was unveiled) tapping the US Army on the shoulder and saying, "hey, we built this. Do you like what you see? Kindly give us feedback, because we intend to compete for the privilege of building your next MBT. Consider this a starting point for a hypothetical final design." In other words, it's a concept tank made by GDLS to start a conversation with the US Army - and they already received feedback e.g. the fact that tankers are not comfortable with the idea of unmanned turrets because they like to sit there to better observe their environment (yes, they have CITV turrets, but they still pop the turret hatches open and peek out). The M1A3 will most likely incorporate design cues from the AbramsX, but it's very likely it won't be an AbramsX. As for your other point, if anything on the battlefield can be destroyed--even the infantry, aircraft and drones--then armies across the world shouldn't even bother waging war anymore. They should just call it a day and look for jobs at the nearest drive-through. It's bad logic. RIP the tank? Riiiiiight. Thing is, there is NOTHING at the moment that can replace the tank in its assigned role, i.e. being a heavily armored mobile platform carrying very heavy weaponry, that can accompany and support infantry into heavily-contested areas for long amounts of time. Drones have their shortcomings (susceptibility to bad weather, low visibility environments and ECM-degraded airspace, limited range, etc). Battleships were made obsolete because aircraft carriers did their job better, but in the tank's case? IFVs can't pick up their torch--not the Puma, not the Boxer, not the T15. Drones can't either. Artillery doesn't conquer territory by staying in the rear lines. As for price, it depends on how effective it actually is (and do mind that the Trophy system was recently upgraded to target kamikaze drones), economy of scale (the less units you produce, the more unaffordable the vehicle model becomes) and how desperate you are to plug a gap in your range of capabilities.
@@Soultaker7 It's SIX HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION dollars for one tank versus 10 MILLION for one tank and it offers no significant advantage other than the unmanned turret and drone launch capabilities. All other advantages are either slight or exaggerated. The modern military structure is to go with what works for the least amount of cost. As America does not have a large (roughly 10%) combat arm compared to it's peers, America spends more on equipment to get the job done versus say russia (roughly 30%) which has a larger combat arm for it's army and can afford to spend less on it equipment. The X is not cost efficient for what it provides on the battlefield which is not significant enough advantage over the abrahms M1A3.
@@leesharp7683 Your average infantry man can do that when said planes are on the ground so yes you are not completely full of BS with you statement. Just to point out to you how dumb your statement is the average engagement range of an apache it between 8 to 12 kilometers versus the average engagement range of a tank gun is 2 to 3 kilometers......
reducing weight by 10 tons will improve mobility. reducing fuel consumption by 50% is a huge tactical advantage. But nowadays ANY tank is vulnerable to drones. And, the more electronic gadgetry, the more that can go wrong.
Amazing you guys all missed it . Drone detecting ammo that exsplodes in front of it. The gun has been completely rebuilt. Longer than the Apache. Way different exploding ammo. Completely different sighting systems that seek planes and helicopters long before detected itself. Also with a longer range. Plus better armour than the Abrams.
A anti drone laser detection system could alert a tank crew by having passive sensors that electronically sending out signals that would detect an incoming drone. Jamming system would render the drone inoperable. Tanks could destroy it when the system would force it down from the sky!
From 10:05 to 10:10: the graphic of a "bullet" includes the projectile still seated in the cartridge case for some reason. The spent cartridge case (casing) remains behind and is ejected out of the gun barrel breach after firing. Just saying.
I’m not a tanker but has tanks ever carried drop fuel tanks to be dropped before entering a combat area? Something like the fuel drop tanks jet fighters carry. Just curious.
Electric Drive will be the next revolution in tank design. It is so quick and powerful that tanks will literally be able to pop smoke and jump out of the way of AT projectiles.
@zeekwolfe6251 each tank will make its own power, with onboard APU, which only needs to run occasionally, when safe to do so. This will require far less fuel than current systems.
@@Dr.Know_4UInteresting! But consider this, a nuclear propulsion system could be installed in the MISSOURI with the latest weaponry on deck or below. Battleships are obsolete and the MISSOURI would still best be used as a museum despite the upgrades. Tanks will eventually be safe via machine gunfire from drones but not from mines or artillery, even javelins. Wheeled vehicles like the "Striker" are the future: Lose a tire, even two...keep going. Tank, track hit by small drone, DOA.
@zeekwolfe6251 all these vehicles will get similar benefits from Electric drive. Future tanks will be lighter and more mobile. Imagine an electric Bradley with a 50 mm autocannon. That is in the works.
Why is the back of the turret flat? I realize it is the ammo storage and has blast plates for protection, however an angular design might look strange but it would better protect the ammunition compartment?
There is no armor behind the turret. Yes, it will slightly increase protection, but it is not noticeable enough to make a difference. The metal is probably 20-30mm behind there and an RPG-7 has 500mm of penetration, so not really.
@@utley Unless they angle it more than 80 degrees, it isn't going to bounce anything. And sloped armor is mostly used to absorb rounds, not deflect them
@@PhantomofPhreedom I dunno about that, there are a lot of armor penetration simulation renders on youtube that engineers use for exactly this. The angle doesnt even have to be all that great, but obviously the angle on the new Abrams X is a lot greater than 80.
@@utley No. The Abrams back is unarmored, so any anti-tank projectile will penetrate it. And the back isn't sloped at more than 80 (or less than 10) degrees, depending on how you look at it. And since there isn't any armor, the angle MUST ricochet the round in order to not be penetrated.
Will tanks be relevant after Ukraine? If tanks continue to be relavent wouldn't it be prudent for NATO to build one MBT licensed for production in all member countries?
Do you know the biggest threat to human life, the AI. Once it starts thinking and doing for us, we become redundant, but all we have to do to shut this tank down is a focused EM weapon, like modern vehicles and the stupid EV death cars, that tank will be stopped in its tracks, and because of the lowering of fitness standards so that shelias can be in combat units( stupid) they won't be able to run away with their chubby butts.
Since American doctrine doesn’t have tanks out there by themselves like Russian doctrine does, drone attacks aren’t going to be as easy. Second, since you see that as an issue, those fellows in charge over at the Army have already thought about that issue. They already have solution the commies don’t have. Those fellows over at the Army are just that smart.
I don’t know because when I was reading on this tank and doing research, it said that it comes with a trophy system pretty much and believe it or not you know they’re gonna program those to shoot down drones plus this tank has its own drones two switchblade drones maybe more and they’ve made advancements in armor instead of uranium plated armor. They got plastic plates mixed with some kind of other material when a rocket or something comes within an inch of the armor, the armor heat up extremely high, and it evaporates anything on one side of the plate
technology the tank can use a skin the operators that can be used to put over the tank it can drape over the tank adapt with the sounding area and change it can change with the obstacles
HG Wells... predicted the tank and the military aircraft... and the Laser. He also tried to help in the formulation of the charter of the league of nations and after the second world war the UN charter.
Modern tanks are like the 4 Iowa class battleships during WW2. Dinosaurs never sank one battleship during the war. Money would be better spent on drones.
the US military soldiers can use a small tech drone to Look if it's clear to move or if there are threats on the outside of the ditch always papering for the worst and always Having the upper Hand on the enemy
That's part of Jamming and countermeasures already ... but that's up to the engineers hardware and software ... 🤞🏻 hopefully they don't have limp modes and still have some manual overrides and don't just have vision by goggles.
“You sound like the salesman who sold Saddam Hussein all those tanks. “American tanks are vulnerable. Your tanks will kill them in droves.” And obviously you didn’t watch the video. Go watch again and listen to how it will defeat drones.
In the description … a “canon” is a musical composition.. I thought “cannons” were black-powder muzzle-loaded guns that were obsolete after the US’s civil war..
It still does not deal adequately with a horde of cheap drones dropping a cheap thermite grenade on the back engine compartment. Yes, the Israeli Trophy sytem might get a few, but eventually the trophy munitions will run out and the tank will be subject to a (cheap) mobility kill. And it doesn't deal with exposure to mines, on the bottom where the armor is relatively thin. I think the US Army is not quite admitting that the tank as we know it is done... finished... kaput. The planners need to reconsider a NextGen tank that will control small (relatively cheap and lightweight) robotic tanks.
The truth is no it’s just for show it will never be put into combat it’s gun is from the 1970s/1960s really out dated as well as they have put no armour packaging in it meaning you could kill it will a ww2 tank frontally
Tanks are almost obsolete. Asymmetric warfare via cheaper unmanned "smart" munitions and drones is the wave of the future. We will always need a few heavy armored vehicles, but spending ridiculous sums on them is insane. The USA can send a precision guided munition into any palace or mansion, or most bunkers, from tremendous distances. Large deployments of heavy land forces is a waste.
All electric propulsion could possibly allow deep fording without extensive preparation. But less weight says less armor. Mobile protected firepower is impossible without adequate passive protection, read armor, on top, sides and bottom, equal to the nearly impenetrable front. Active protection systems and reactive armor will help but they are limited by ammunition supply in the former case and the ablative nature of the latter. I think the world is ready for the ogres from Steve Jackson games. Those fictional tanks had all three of these in spades and full artificial intelligence to go with it.
Doesn’t the automatic loader on Russian tanks make them more easily destroyable because the ammunition is less protected from blasts? One of the reasons so many Russian turrets are laying around on the ground!
This new tank may be the best ever made. It may even be the best tank that it is _possible_ to make. But it won't change anything. The military budget will continue to be the main pork that sends our deficit into the stratosphere, and we will never use those or any other tanks for anything significant- or the planes or the expensive aircraft carriers. Unless, that is, that we decide to start helping out other nations more aggressively. We don't need more vastly expensive crap for our defence and everyone knows it.
@@Tankfan145 over half of battleships sunk in WW2 , were sunk by airplanes . Even the yemoto,all 85•000 tons of her and 6 of other Japanese battleships. And don't forget the Arizona, and Oklahoma, and the west Virginia, were sunk at Pearl harbor. Bismarck, prince of Wales, and the Repulse. Many were sunk with out bring down one plane.
@@lestie1686 yes most were sunk by torpedo bombers or dive bombers but that only happened because planes were munch more plentiful then ships but ground fights are different and the us is always going to have air superiority over the battlefield
I’ve been wondering about this exact same question for so many years, we do not see our major enemies such as China or Russia for example putting out 1/1,000,000 amount of info about any of their weapon systems Also in my humble opinion, I have to believe that this info only gives a country especially like China just another Major Weapon System to Hack into and Learn its secrets saving them Billions & Billions of dollars since they have very little costs for R & D expenses and can also get to the Production Line of these Weapons in such a much short time period I’m sure the US does have other systems that like the F-117 that are more secure and security oriented and not leaving such a public cloud of information that these adversaries can use for both battlefield and intelligence operations
@@OHUQTU yes & no, todays tech is a different beast…. If the countries did release everything well then more than half still don’t including China and some of Russia for example
By telling everyone. It is suppose to scare them. Plus China and Russia steal the ideas or secrets anyway. Now it isn't so easy to steal what isn't a secret. Can they produce drone detecting ammunition. That explodes in front of the drone. Israel already has the Iron fist on there tanks.
Why pouring money into heavy MBT's when they can so easily be destroyed by cheap drones or guided arty projectiles? What we need in the West is a break in developing FULLY AUTOMATED vehicles that can be driven remotely and fill in the (soon to come) "classically designed's" MBT void. Out of the THOUSANDS of tanks delpoyed in Ukraine (by each side) we can easily learn one thing - that WW2 style "tank-to-tank duels" are becoming so rare we could've counted them with our fingers. Most of the tanks are getting destroyed on their concentration points - by artillery - way before they even ENGAGE. The tanks' designs must change much more radically than THAT to be effective and have to be integrated with much further stealth & drone technology to truly mean anything. Putting a bunch of guys into a steel casing, that disables their vision & battle awareness just ain't gonna cut it, anymore.
An auto-loader with central ammunition stored under the turret? Haven't we seen enough Russian tanks pop their turrets in the Ukraine War to know that this is not a good idea? No reload time is given for this new AbramsX auto-loader which means that it is not faster than a human loader or they would definitely be advertising that. Also, other auto-loaders are not faster than a human loader. Why not just change the M1 jet engine to this new efficient engine and upgrade the M1's with this new FLIR?
LOL. This is technology demonstrator that's been around for a couple years. It is not a new Army MBT as the Army has not dropped an RFP for a new MBT. LOL.
With modern precision guidance drones, anyone sitting in a tank, no matter how expensive, is in the most dangerous place in the battle zone. The tank is suddenly obsolete. A real dinosaur on the battlefield.
Aren’t tanks the new battleship? Once great weapons that are easy targets?
@@kradwonders Good analogy.
M60 tanker here... how are they gonna quiet the tracks? That's what you hear first. We had different sights too and only used the M32 battlesight. What about heat and ac? All those electronics gonna work in the desert, the jungle? How about Siberia? Way too many geegaws. Good luck future tankers/targets.
Track noise is meaningless on the modern battlefield with drones watching every move.
How come you aren't in charge of designing tanks? You should let them know they have no idea what they are doing.
All tanks today need a robust drone defense.
Is it drone proof? Drone warfare is the new danger in conventional warefare.
Drone warfare isn't new. Every guided missile built in the last 50 years is a "drone". Every torpedo is a drone. It's the low cost aspect of what's being done in Ukraine that changes things. Volume. I personally think MBTs are close to being obsolete on the high end battlefield.
@crf59 True to some extent, but what you referenced were tens of thousands to millions of dollars. Ukraine is searching out armor with dromes costing a few hundred and taking out heavy armor with homemade, short-range drones that cost less than a thousand with a guy using a handheld controller.
It has a chain gun...
Has anybody in a CEWI unit will attest to, drones don't do well against either targeted or broad spectrum radio jamming
from watching i didn't see anything to detect and protect it from drones i starting to think drones are tanks Achilles heal until they come up with a protection package for them
In a battle the first thing to go will be all those additions on the turret. Yes, the "third generation flir" will be the first to go making it the same as any other on the battlefield..
Auto loaders break and there's rarely an easy manual back up..
Tanks have been proven useless in the Ukraine war...Drones are taking over the field...A tiny fast drone can fly in at ground level land on the tank and set off a beam for missiles to fly along and kill the tank or just carry high explosive and at the very least disable the tank.....Navy ships are pretty much the same. Hyper sonic missiles can hit ANY Navy ship in the world and there's nothing they can do to stop it...Thats the reality now. Aircraft carriers are the easiest targets on the water.
Sadly true! Numbers matter in war.
Ridiculous junk piled on one spot
Thanks. ✌🏻👊🏼
You're right it will change everything, no other abram model had such obvious weaknesses
Agreed
Getting rid of the human loader has some drawbacks. If a crew member is injured you have a replacement with a crew of 4. Maintenance in the field can be split among 4 people instead of 3. Any Tankers out there to give opinions on this?
Correct. I was a crewman on a M-48a2c. Autoloaders are fast, when they work. Don't know how it would pick different types of ammo though. Extra man=good.
This tank will never see mass production way to costly and is still subject to being destroyed by infantry, aircraft, strategic, drones and other tanks. 650 million versus 10 million...
Sorry but it is designed to take out helicopters and planes before they can even detect it. Than shoot them down with exploding rounds that actually detect the target. Also the armor is completely different with like the iron dome protection. Not arguing with you. You just missed a little of what they said about it. Listen again. You will see what i mean. I missed it to the first few times.
You Could Not More Wrong 🤣!!
This tank will not see mass production but *most definitely not* for the reasons you cited.
The AbramsX is a one-off prototype built by General Dynamics Land Systems (they actually took the HCVTB testbed previously used to showcase the possibility of swapping the Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine with a MT-883/HSWL 295TM diesel engine) as a _demonstration_ of the company's ability to design and build what would eventually be the US Armed Forces' _next_ tank. They're essentially (and they HAVE explicitly declared this at the AUSA defense expo where the AbramsX was unveiled) tapping the US Army on the shoulder and saying, "hey, we built this. Do you like what you see? Kindly give us feedback, because we intend to compete for the privilege of building your next MBT. Consider this a starting point for a hypothetical final design." In other words, it's a concept tank made by GDLS to start a conversation with the US Army - and they already received feedback e.g. the fact that tankers are not comfortable with the idea of unmanned turrets because they like to sit there to better observe their environment (yes, they have CITV turrets, but they still pop the turret hatches open and peek out).
The M1A3 will most likely incorporate design cues from the AbramsX, but it's very likely it won't be an AbramsX.
As for your other point, if anything on the battlefield can be destroyed--even the infantry, aircraft and drones--then armies across the world shouldn't even bother waging war anymore. They should just call it a day and look for jobs at the nearest drive-through. It's bad logic. RIP the tank? Riiiiiight.
Thing is, there is NOTHING at the moment that can replace the tank in its assigned role, i.e. being a heavily armored mobile platform carrying very heavy weaponry, that can accompany and support infantry into heavily-contested areas for long amounts of time. Drones have their shortcomings (susceptibility to bad weather, low visibility environments and ECM-degraded airspace, limited range, etc). Battleships were made obsolete because aircraft carriers did their job better, but in the tank's case? IFVs can't pick up their torch--not the Puma, not the Boxer, not the T15. Drones can't either. Artillery doesn't conquer territory by staying in the rear lines. As for price, it depends on how effective it actually is (and do mind that the Trophy system was recently upgraded to target kamikaze drones), economy of scale (the less units you produce, the more unaffordable the vehicle model becomes) and how desperate you are to plug a gap in your range of capabilities.
@@Soultaker7 It's SIX HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION dollars for one tank versus 10 MILLION for one tank and it offers no significant advantage other than the unmanned turret and drone launch capabilities. All other advantages are either slight or exaggerated.
The modern military structure is to go with what works for the least amount of cost. As America does not have a large (roughly 10%) combat arm compared to it's peers, America spends more on equipment to get the job done versus say russia (roughly 30%) which has a larger combat arm for it's army and can afford to spend less on it equipment. The X is not cost efficient for what it provides on the battlefield which is not significant enough advantage over the abrahms M1A3.
@@leesharp7683 Your average infantry man can do that when said planes are on the ground so yes you are not completely full of BS with you statement.
Just to point out to you how dumb your statement is the average engagement range of an apache it between 8 to 12 kilometers versus the average engagement range of a tank gun is 2 to 3 kilometers......
We make tanks that are so expensive that we won't committed them to combat.
reducing weight by 10 tons will improve mobility. reducing fuel consumption by 50% is a huge tactical advantage. But nowadays ANY tank is vulnerable to drones. And, the more electronic gadgetry, the more that can go wrong.
Amazing you guys all missed it . Drone detecting ammo that exsplodes in front of it. The gun has been completely rebuilt. Longer than the Apache. Way different exploding ammo. Completely different sighting systems that seek planes and helicopters long before detected itself. Also with a longer range. Plus better armour than the Abrams.
Great ideas, but they should also have a low cost version for general production, that can be updated when necessary. They need numbers.
A anti drone laser detection system could alert a tank crew by having passive sensors that electronically sending out signals that would detect an incoming drone. Jamming system would render the drone inoperable. Tanks could destroy it when the system would force it down from the sky!
From 10:05 to 10:10: the graphic of a "bullet" includes the projectile still seated in the cartridge case for some reason. The spent cartridge case (casing) remains behind and is ejected out of the gun barrel breach after firing. Just saying.
when these next generation tanks become controlled by remote control that will be a game changer.
The war in Ukraine shows that tanks are good in the back of troops, for their agile and mobile artillery support and not in front of the attack.
we will not be monsters anymore thanks to the tank!
I wonder how it will on the ice and snow in Greenland?
I’m not a tanker but has tanks ever carried drop fuel tanks to be dropped before entering a combat area? Something like the fuel drop tanks jet fighters carry. Just curious.
I personally think that’s a good idea. Those drop tanks could easily be used/recovered by following units.
Russian tanks like the T62 have jettisonable fule tanks on the rear (the drums you see in pictures).
Fuel, sorry
Electric Drive will be the next revolution in tank design. It is so quick and powerful that tanks will literally be able to pop smoke and jump out of the way of AT projectiles.
Why, yes, electric tanks are coming to the battlefield. The problem: Where do you store the Hoover Dam to keep them charged?
@zeekwolfe6251 each tank will make its own power, with onboard APU, which only needs to run occasionally, when safe to do so. This will require far less fuel than current systems.
@@Dr.Know_4UInteresting! But consider this, a nuclear propulsion system could be installed in the MISSOURI with the latest weaponry on deck or below. Battleships are obsolete and the MISSOURI would still best be used as a museum despite the upgrades. Tanks will eventually be safe via machine gunfire from drones but not from mines or artillery, even javelins. Wheeled vehicles like the "Striker" are the future: Lose a tire, even two...keep going. Tank, track hit by small drone, DOA.
@zeekwolfe6251 all these vehicles will get similar benefits from Electric drive. Future tanks will be lighter and more mobile. Imagine an electric Bradley with a 50 mm autocannon. That is in the works.
Why is the back of the turret flat? I realize it is the ammo storage and has blast plates for protection, however an angular design might look strange but it would better protect the ammunition compartment?
There is no armor behind the turret. Yes, it will slightly increase protection, but it is not noticeable enough to make a difference. The metal is probably 20-30mm behind there and an RPG-7 has 500mm of penetration, so not really.
its shape is mostly the key to defeating hits. Its meant mostly to deflect incoming rounds rather than absorb the impact.
@@utley Unless they angle it more than 80 degrees, it isn't going to bounce anything. And sloped armor is mostly used to absorb rounds, not deflect them
@@PhantomofPhreedom I dunno about that, there are a lot of armor penetration simulation renders on youtube that engineers use for exactly this. The angle doesnt even have to be all that great, but obviously the angle on the new Abrams X is a lot greater than 80.
@@utley No. The Abrams back is unarmored, so any anti-tank projectile will penetrate it. And the back isn't sloped at more than 80 (or less than 10) degrees, depending on how you look at it. And since there isn't any armor, the angle MUST ricochet the round in order to not be penetrated.
Woulld like to see a maintenance manual
which one?
New German Panther tank uses computer controlled 7.62 machine gun designed to take down attacking drones. From literally any direction.
10 minutes ago you were saying this about the new Rheinmetal Panther.
Will tanks be relevant after Ukraine? If tanks continue to be relavent wouldn't it be prudent for NATO to build one MBT licensed for production in all member countries?
Sure, great update on the tank but will it stop drones..
Don’t pop that announcer dudes bubble LOL😅
Yes. Any new tank would be equipped with iron fist aps along with other anti-drone tech already being installed on bradleys and other vehicles.
Drone detecting ammo. It explodes in front of it.
the 30mm ammobelt exposed so bad
And a simple drone will take it out, so just how amazing is it?
Watch out for the $1000 FPV-X drone
Yep. It is a new world now. And our Oligarchy is fighting the last war still.
engineers have to totally re-think base concepts of MBTs. An unmanned turret revolutionizes space management.
Didn’t mention the thermo tiles that hide its heat signature.
Do you know the biggest threat to human life, the AI. Once it starts thinking and doing for us, we become redundant, but all we have to do to shut this tank down is a focused EM weapon, like modern vehicles and the stupid EV death cars, that tank will be stopped in its tracks, and because of the lowering of fitness standards so that shelias can be in combat units( stupid) they won't be able to run away with their chubby butts.
I don't see the Trophy system installed on the base system...
It could be taken out with $3,000 drone or two.
Since American doctrine doesn’t have tanks out there by themselves like Russian doctrine does, drone attacks aren’t going to be as easy.
Second, since you see that as an issue, those fellows in charge over at the Army have already thought about that issue. They already have solution the commies don’t have. Those fellows over at the Army are just that smart.
That’s what I was thinking. Or one of those 50 gazillions mph rockets
Womp womp
That’s why the us government is gonna spend another 194738473 dollars on active protection systems
I don’t know because when I was reading on this tank and doing research, it said that it comes with a trophy system pretty much and believe it or not you know they’re gonna program those to shoot down drones plus this tank has its own drones two switchblade drones maybe more and they’ve made advancements in armor instead of uranium plated armor. They got plastic plates mixed with some kind of other material when a rocket or something comes within an inch of the armor, the armor heat up extremely high, and it evaporates anything on one side of the plate
technology the tank can use a skin the operators that can be used to put over the tank it can drape over the tank adapt with the sounding area and change it can change with the obstacles
Can it detect drones and destroy it before making contact with the tank
What about its infer red signature.
graphic @ 10:09? firing cartridges instead of bullets?
How many have they built?
Completely autonomous war machines. Why does that sound familiar?
HG Wells... predicted the tank and the military aircraft... and the Laser.
He also tried to help in the formulation of the charter of the league of nations and after the second world war the UN charter.
Modern tanks are like the 4 Iowa class battleships during WW2. Dinosaurs never sank one battleship during the war. Money would be better spent on drones.
SCARY YELLOW TAPE! 😱
the US military soldiers can use a small tech drone to Look if it's clear to move or if there are threats on the outside of the ditch always papering for the worst and always Having the upper Hand on the enemy
All it need is a Clocking device so it disapeared ! While being there!
What happens if the enemy learns how to take over your AI and turn it against you?
That's part of Jamming and countermeasures already ... but that's up to the engineers hardware and software ... 🤞🏻 hopefully they don't have limp modes and still have some manual overrides and don't just have vision by goggles.
You kiss your butt goodbye
1200 dollar drone bait
“You sound like the salesman who sold Saddam Hussein all those tanks.
“American tanks are vulnerable. Your tanks will kill them in droves.”
And obviously you didn’t watch the video. Go watch again and listen to how it will defeat drones.
The D.A.S. system.
If AP is loaded but HE is required, can the autoloader pull the AP and load the HE?
It’s a smooth bore gun plus the USA doesn’t use he anymore it’s either heat or apfsds
NO self contained drone swarm that can be released ?
What will this tank look like when it has full body cages?
Idk but it never will so we will never know
What’s next,a Heli with a tank gun?
Does it still run on fairy dust?
Check out the German advance version tank.
What about its armor?
It needs a 130 mm gun like Germanys new Panther
Four-man crews are better for sustained field maintenance and for security in 24-hour ops.
Is it drone proof
I'm pretty sure Putin just wet his pants - or at least he had to check cause - there was a little pee coming out.
Impressive
WTF!?!? At 10:05-10:11, the animation is showing the shell casing traveling WITH the bullet. Very poor special effects.
In the description … a “canon” is a musical composition.. I thought “cannons” were black-powder muzzle-loaded guns that were obsolete after the US’s civil war..
No they aren’t cannon just means large gun basically
That tank looks like then one from transformers🗿🇺🇸
The last time a Tank had a Hybrid Engine was during WW2, and it was developed by Ferdinand Porsche.
Ok. Tech has advanced
The one's that were destroyed at Kursk, July 4, 1943?
@@fredrosenfeld6450 the prototypes were never sent to Kursk.
It still does not deal adequately with a horde of cheap drones dropping a cheap thermite grenade on the back engine compartment. Yes, the Israeli Trophy sytem might get a few, but eventually the trophy munitions will run out and the tank will be subject to a (cheap) mobility kill. And it doesn't deal with exposure to mines, on the bottom where the armor is relatively thin. I think the US Army is not quite admitting that the tank as we know it is done... finished... kaput. The planners need to reconsider a NextGen tank that will control small (relatively cheap and lightweight) robotic tanks.
Haven't they been trying to push this for years and gotten 0 traction with the military?
It’s not Fleer … try saying the letters FLIR.
They adapt an aircraft techonolgy
U.S / israel built and anti drones weapon kit to add on top . Look it up it's call the " tank /IFV iron fist kit
How about turning a tank into unmanned drone
Got to get used to flying drones that will destroy other tanks maybe this one too
Until a 10K drone takes it out
So you clearly didn’t watch the video
The tank is nothing more than a missile magnet.
With missiles improving every 3 years.
The tank is not going to keep up .
The days of a giant pile of iron on tracks are coming to an end. Future tanks will be smaller, lighter, and more nimble.
why? is this tank immune to drone attacks?
The truth is no it’s just for show it will never be put into combat it’s gun is from the 1970s/1960s really out dated as well as they have put no armour packaging in it meaning you could kill it will a ww2 tank frontally
Tanks are almost obsolete. Asymmetric warfare via cheaper unmanned "smart" munitions and drones is the wave of the future. We will always need a few heavy armored vehicles, but spending ridiculous sums on them is insane. The USA can send a precision guided munition into any palace or mansion, or most bunkers, from tremendous distances. Large deployments of heavy land forces is a waste.
I was in the defense industry for 25 years. We used auto loaders in the M1A1 back in the 80s and 90s.
Ok sounds good, but how does it defeat drones like in the Ukraine?
The best tank hasn't been invented yet: one should dodge mines automatically as well.
prototype been built but the army not a fan of it because it has auto-loader and there man-less turret
All electric propulsion could possibly allow deep fording without extensive preparation. But less weight says less armor. Mobile protected firepower is impossible without adequate passive protection, read armor, on top, sides and bottom, equal to the nearly impenetrable front. Active protection systems and reactive armor will help but they are limited by ammunition supply in the former case and the ablative nature of the latter. I think the world is ready for the ogres from Steve Jackson games. Those fictional tanks had all three of these in spades and full artificial intelligence to go with it.
I wonder if they could slave helmets to be used by a tank crew, Not in the tank, making it a drone tank.
Doesn’t the automatic loader on Russian tanks make them more easily destroyable because the ammunition is less protected from blasts? One of the reasons so many Russian turrets are laying around on the ground!
Drones are going to be the game changer, not tanks
I just wanna know when it’s coming to War thunder
This new tank may be the best ever made. It may even be the best tank that it is _possible_ to make. But it won't change anything. The military budget will continue to be the main pork that sends our deficit into the stratosphere, and we will never use those or any other tanks for anything significant- or the planes or the expensive aircraft carriers. Unless, that is, that we decide to start helping out other nations more aggressively. We don't need more vastly expensive crap for our defence and everyone knows it.
Until laser weapons are perfected all tanks are rolling tombs.
Why is putting out information like this helpful? So now everyone knows our equipmentcapabilities???
a well placed grenade can immobilize a tank by taking out just one of its tracks. rocket technology makes tanks a waste of money.
Designed by Lego
Let's take this tank on a field test in North Korea.
This tank will save lives
The tank is a battleship, and the missile is the airplane.
We know what the airplane did to the battleship.
Yea it got shot down
@@Tankfan145 over half of battleships sunk in WW2 , were sunk by airplanes .
Even the yemoto,all 85•000 tons of her and 6 of other Japanese battleships.
And don't forget the Arizona, and Oklahoma, and the west Virginia, were sunk at Pearl harbor.
Bismarck, prince of Wales, and the Repulse.
Many were sunk with out bring down one plane.
@@lestie1686 yes most were sunk by torpedo bombers or dive bombers but that only happened because planes were munch more plentiful then ships but ground fights are different and the us is always going to have air superiority over the battlefield
Why tell all your enemies about what your latest tanks and planes can do, they'll only try and make the same or better. ?
I’ve been wondering about this exact same question for so many years, we do not see our major enemies such as China or Russia for example putting out 1/1,000,000 amount of info about any of their weapon systems
Also in my humble opinion, I have to believe that this info only gives a country especially like China just another Major Weapon System to Hack into and Learn its secrets saving them Billions & Billions of dollars since they have very little costs for R & D expenses and can also get to the Production Line of these Weapons in such a much short time period
I’m sure the US does have other systems that like the F-117 that are more secure and security oriented and not leaving such a public cloud of information that these adversaries can use for both battlefield and intelligence operations
Warefare has been that way since a man attacked with a club, but was stopped by a spear.
@@OHUQTU yes & no, todays tech is a different beast…. If the countries did release everything well then more than half still don’t including China and some of Russia for example
By telling everyone. It is suppose to scare them. Plus China and Russia steal the ideas or secrets anyway. Now it isn't so easy to steal what isn't a secret. Can they produce drone detecting ammunition. That explodes in front of the drone. Israel already has the Iron fist on there tanks.
Why pouring money into heavy MBT's when they can so easily be destroyed by cheap drones or guided arty projectiles? What we need in the West is a break in developing FULLY AUTOMATED vehicles that can be driven remotely and fill in the (soon to come) "classically designed's" MBT void. Out of the THOUSANDS of tanks delpoyed in Ukraine (by each side) we can easily learn one thing - that WW2 style "tank-to-tank duels" are becoming so rare we could've counted them with our fingers. Most of the tanks are getting destroyed on their concentration points - by artillery - way before they even ENGAGE. The tanks' designs must change much more radically than THAT to be effective and have to be integrated with much further stealth & drone technology to truly mean anything. Putting a bunch of guys into a steel casing, that disables their vision & battle awareness just ain't gonna cut it, anymore.
AI can be hacked?
Ai tank before gta6
An auto-loader with central ammunition stored under the turret? Haven't we seen enough Russian tanks pop their turrets in the Ukraine War to know that this is not a good idea?
No reload time is given for this new AbramsX auto-loader which means that it is not faster than a human loader or they would definitely be advertising that. Also, other auto-loaders are not faster than a human loader.
Why not just change the M1 jet engine to this new efficient engine and upgrade the M1's with this new FLIR?
God bless our brave military !
LOL. This is technology demonstrator that's been around for a couple years. It is not a new Army MBT as the Army has not dropped an RFP for a new MBT. LOL.
Isn’t the Leopard 2 still better? I believe so….
I like the Israeli Merkava as my personal choice.
@@Boris-do5rsyes the tank with no armor to speak of