- Join me in War Thunder for FREE on PC, PS®5 and Xbox Series X|S: gjn.link/RedEffectWarThunder. Follow my link to get the game as well as an exclusive bonus. Thank you for supporting the channel!
You know you joke about that but light bending camouflage is actually something that the US army announced they were working on about 8 years ago.......so actually I wouldn't be that surprised if it does actually legitimately look like a blur to the human eye.
@@anarchyandempires5452 This sort of cloaking device isnt that complicatet at all... but its verry power consuming. And you have to keep the surface clean.
US tanks be like: Year 2350, our new tank will be armed with a 150 mm rail gun, 10 plasma missile launcher, 4 anti-projectile laser's and a 50 caliber m2 browning machine gun.
Idk exactly why but I love that fact that you actually use the same account to post videos and to watch and interact with other videos it’s slightly surreal to watch a video of random troops shooting guns with less than 10k views and see you commenting on it
@Doom True, tanks are to a degree quantifiable and of a human scale. Plus you can figure out a lot just by looking at pictures. (The same goes for planes and ships but ships are large and somewhat impersonal, with planes most interesting things happen under the surface, so to speak.) Although I would say in Canada you are probably never going to see a tank. They are, as a rule, kept far away from urban areas, which in Canada can be very far indeed.
Just chill, by the fime it went through the actual development phase, it will look nothing like the original concept. I hope it doesn't suffer the fait of Pontiac Aztek.
I don’t think any of the tanks shown in the video or the ones we couldn’t see will be the next tank besides it takes the us at least 10 years to bring a new vehicle to the army
Designers of Tiger had the idea that a "boxy" construction of interlocking plates would improve the entire construction against metal stress and fracturing after repeated non-penetrating hits. This design thought is rarelly mentioned on the internet outside of the tank museum elderly gentlemen.
@@popinmo I can point you to useful info like that. The tank museum I mentioned: ruclips.net/user/TheTankMuseum I can't point you t any specific video mentioning that bit of trivia, as I have listen to too many of the historical videos to remember it.
It was happen-stance that the Tiger I's gun, a shortened version of the Flak 88, was a supreme tank-killer for its time. However, already, foreseeing the need for even higher-velocity tank armaments, the WaffenAmt pushed the development of both the KwK 42 (75 mm L70) and KwK 43 (88 mm L71) for the Panther and Tiger II tanks. It's not just the ability to penetrate even relatively thick amounts of RHA, sloped at sharp angles, as presented in the Soviet T-34 and JS series, and even the USA Sherman and later Pershing models, but also greater precision at longer ranges. The Brits were a bit slow to adopt this, but their Centurion, had it been able to make the battle field in time for WWII (missed by a few months), would likewise, with its gun and armor specs, proved a formidable contender, as it did well into the 1980s, especially in IDF service.
With regards to the third design, a complicated routing between the gunsight and the gunner sitting on the other side of the breech doesn’t really make sense. Considering modern variants of the CV90 just use a camera for the gunsight, the only limitation on placement is down to where there is space and routing for wiring. Same can be said for tanks like the T-14, there’s absolutely no requirement for the gunner to sit behind the gunsight anymore.
I think that the reason the sight is on the right is so that Abrams' crews can instantly switch over to the new platform without needing retraining, not that I think it's a good design.
RedEffect, "The Abrams has been in service for 40 years." Ya know, sometimes I forget just how long the Abrams has been around. If they do decide to replace it, it will probably make it to 50 years before it is phased out as the main tank of the US. Absolutely incredible. That's very nearly the same amount of time it took to go from the British Mark 1 tank of WW1 to the Abrams itself.
It was new tech when I went in the Army in 89. Just got the 120mm a little earlier. Now I'm 50 and that thing is still an ass kicker. Yeah, she's like 41 years old or 39. Still old. But, it works.
how bout a 300lb tank eight inches high that can go 120mph, deliver one or two warheads and act itself as an anti personel or anti armor munition. love the abrahms but i think we need to think about swarms of big drones delivering swarms of smaller drones, coordinated by humans, but capable of autonomous nearly instantaneous decisions on the battllefield when unleashed. Same with penetration aircraft. the delivery system is the weapon. tactical superiority will demand it.
I doubt it would take 50 years, it would probably take much less, but still be used in say, the national guard, for a very, very long time, unless some new advance in tech comes along that makes all the older vehicles obsolete
1:41 Ah yes, it's my favourite tank. The blurry tank. Practically impossible to aim and hit in places that you really want to hit as its all blurred out.
I’d be willing to say that the “high energy” and “large caliber” new gun is a new design of 140mm seeing that it has a pretty large muzzle brake and rheinmetall has shown with the l51 that you don’t need a muzzle brake but the French have shown with their 140mm on the t4 terminateur that you really need a muzzle brake for the recoil produced by a 140mm. One thing that contradicts this however is the turret bustle on the third design doesn’t look long enough to facilitate a 140mm autoloader and ammunition. As for my personal choice, take the hull and turret rear of design two, slap the turret front of design three on there and you’ve got a really nice looking tank.
@@williamgandarillas2185 love how gaijin secretly tells him "hey don't mention the fact that if people want our top tier vehicles we advertise, that they'll have to pay 100s of dollars just to get there within a year"
If the Bradley can't accept the new gun the US Military is looking at then the Bradley for sure will be replaced. Protoypes have already been produced. XM913
I have a theory about the first tank and his smaller gun caliber and low amount of ammo. That tank could be packing an ETC gun which was tested a lot in the past.
in my opinion this would be a bad idea. I doubt that there is any ETC gun that is ready for mass production (even though I admit to not have checked this). I imagine you would run into the problem of cost overruns, not being able to deliver the gun in time, etc. It would not only delay the introduction of this new tank, it would also result in skyrocketing costs, and thus fewer orders. This reminds me of the Zumwalt class lol
@@xxnightdriverxx9576 my dude what you just described was the development process and procurement process of the f-35 lightning 2. if we didn't give the slightest of shits back then do you seriously think we will now? Boy this thing literally gives our tanks a delete button against any other ground vehicle in the foreseeable future by giving them a weapon with power comparable to a naval rail gun.
@@anarchyandempires5452 these etc can still use the standard 120mm ammo right, cant remeber if the ammo required any other changes except for the charge itself
The M1 originally had a 105mm cannon so I don't think it'd be a stretch to say the first tank having a 120mm might be a similar situation where it's a placeholder of sorts.
There are, essentially two types of fume evacuators, Red: the "Bulge" and the compressed air one. Fume extractor that uses compressed air (Leclerc) does not feature a typical "bulge" you can spot on most tank guns in use. It is very plausible that tank designer(s) has chosen the latter one. PS: Compressed air smoke evacuator is nothing new. Sd.Kfz. 171 Panzerkampfwagen V Panther (or just Panther) from WWII used this method.
@@229masterchief you are forgetting that the UNSC uses coil gun technology (railguns but with coils instead) the Paris class frigates have 50mm rapid fire coilguns for air defence , so one can assume the gun is a 90mm coil gun
@@reedrk88t probably just outdated info as between the time of this video's release and now Army said they will be keeping the Abrams until mid century
The Merkava actually is a very good design. i just do not know if its design is suited for American uses, as it was developed for working in the environment of Israel and it's neighbours. But i also had the merkava in mind witht he first two objects shown ^^
And also a great way to keep a 4th man for maintenance in the vehicle. Tanks have become landships almost like HG Wells 19th century short story. My Dad was Navy. Lots of men on a ship who on paper are redundant but massively needed in any it hits the fan scenario. France and the USSR/Russia certainly have found 3 men to cause a pain maintenance wise.
@@user-gx6tu3mf4k Yep. Microwave and sonic weapons were outlawed in some revision during the cold war.. It might be one or the other that was outlawed but i think its both
The F35 wasn't a "boondoggle", no more then any other vehicle produced in the US. Look at the backlash both the F-15 and Abrams got during their development. It costs _a lot_ to make something that us breaking technological grounds in nearly ever field. It's expensive to have the most sophisticated equipment in the world.
@@Chopstorm. complete fucking waste, trillions on a stealth fighter when we already had the raptor 😂 but as long as the defense contractors get fed 🤦♀️
@@Chopstorm. no, according to the taxpayers who are fed up with the government and their defence corporation buddies spending trillions for war machines to kill people several thousand miles away, yet anytime the people demand for services that make actual improvement to the living standards like public transport, education and healthcare, the standard canned response we get is 'how we gonna pay for it'! man, gtfoh with that shit.
US tanks be like: Year 2560, our new "tanks" are just flying technicals/military pickups loaded with a payload of Marines equipped with power weapons like dual barrel RPGs, AR looking RPGs (named after that those bad guy super soldiers from Captain America), 12.7mm snipers, or FRIGGIN' LASER GUNS!!!
The US Army sees no great need to replace the Abrams, but will begin a replacement program in 2035-40. By then, the US Navy's railgun research program will have completed. This in addition to 2nd gen solid state batteries (or at least 3rd gen) becoming readily available commercially means a far different electrical architecture for the Abrams replacement; and a better more advanced multi-megawatt laser-based APS system.
the first one looks like the PL-01 and T-15 made a child. the second one looks like a Challenger Falcon and Leo2E made a child. the last one just looks like a Leclerc T4 and a Chally 2 made a child. If anything? i think the last variant is just a forward or sidestep project of the M1A3. if not... then the M1A3 will most likely just end up as the CATTB-2.
I love the Abrams. I was a tanker a few years back. It will have to eventually be replaced and it breaks my heart. I'm not a fan a of autoloaders at all. A manual loader is faster and all the tech in the world can't replace human intuition.
Plus an autoloader can't pull security, help with maintenance, help to spot enemy targets, or any of the million other jobs a fourth crewman can accomplish
@@michaelhowell2326 unfortunately while that is the case the new rounds are just getting bigger and heavier autoloaders are coming in wether they are liked or not.
Everyone: So America, you are getting a new MBT, what will you call this one? America: Hmmmmm, Oh I have an Idea! Everyone: Go on… America: M2 SMARBA Everyone: ….
@@CrimsonTheNova the us army is definitely designing a new tank. The Abrams is a capable tank but it's age is showing due to advancement of technology. However, I doubt that it will replace the Abrams immediately. The Abrams might still be the US MBT until 2030-40s.
The Abrams is conceptually still perfectly sound, and none of these future concepts - which the Army have always been studying with regular intervals - bring anything of consequence. The future of tank warfare is 1: situation awareness, because who knows first, shoots first, and will kill first. 2: active protection (automatic anti missile missiles/projectiles), because it's the only thing that will give a significantly upgraded protection. So my take, is that all the desirable systems can be fitted on a rebuilt Abrams, as can a better gas turbine.
@@panzerofthelake506 The gunner doesn't get any armor as a motivator for him to shoot the enemies effectively. It forces the gunner to always be on his toes, although that could just be poor seat positioning.
Can you make a video on explaining how apfsds does *not* richochet/shatter, but penetrate. There is a lot of people believing Abrams UFP is shattering apfsds
1. Personally, even with an autoloader. I'd still have a 4 person crew. Driver, T-Commander, Gunner, & Information "Officer" (an actual officer or NCO). 2. anything above 120mm will need a autoloader system for sustained fire 3. a hybrid drivetrain with electric primary with (reduced speed) mechanical backup will be a great help for combat survivability and be much, much better option for fuel costs... A diesel-electric setup would work wonders.
It's 3 AM, good and chilly to watch a new video of yours, the only question I have is what kind of Music do you use in the background of your overall videos? Thanks for uploading!
@@warriorson7979 it's Called Advance Multi purpose (AMP) , it's basically Hybrid between HEAT and Canister Round, it can penetrate armored Vehicle and then explode inside it , and Also Explode in mid Air ( Airbust) , very effective against infantry just like Canister round ,but it can engage infantry at almost 2000m range, and also can kill armored vehicle sound better right?
@@user-xu5sx6bh9u Exactly. Most of those rounds only arm at 500meters. Closer that that they don't work. If your tank is being swarmed by 200 Chinese infantry at 100 meters a canister round is the only thing that's gonna prevent you from getting molotov cocktailed.
What’s really scary is that a tank that pretty much can’t be destroyed by ground fire and it can’t be destroyed by most AGMs is being replaced after about 40 or so years of service.
ACTUALLY, it has had very few ATGMs fired at it and in places where they were, they tended to succeed. The roof is plain jane thin metal just like most other tanks.
I do like the idea of the tank having a drone operator, especially if the tank it self is a drone deployment platform. This could provide some interesting benefits including new ways of striking targets to improved situational awareness depending on visual capabilities of the drone available. Either way, will be interesting to see what the US will pick.
apolgy for bad english it is my first languagen’t where were you when M1 Abrams die i was at house eating dorito when phone ring “M1 Abrams is kil” “no”
On why to keep cannister rounds: The cost of that multi-purpose round is probably very high, and quite frankly airburst is really not the same especially at close range. You don't want fragments flying in all directions at 200 meters down range, especially if you have friendlies nearby. I'm sure this is well within the effective range of fragmentation of the multipurpose round. All those tungsten balls are going one direction spreading in a cone shape down range. It's about having the option to fire when your infantry are around. there is no blow-back with a cannister round.
Said it once, will say it again and again until people understand: Tanks are not developed on the principal of how well they can take a shot from another tank. From over 100 years of tankers' experience, trillions in research from multiple countries, etc, it is decided that the vast majority of threats that pose REAL threats to tanks are infantry. And for the crowd in the back that play too many video games and read absolutely nothing in reality, APSs are to protect against chemical warheads. They do nothing to stop kinetic warheads. M1A2 SEPV3 and whatever tank that'll be the Abrams replacer were not designed and will not be designed to fight against T14 Armatas as A. they're too low in number to be a threat on any logistical radar and B. he who spots the other first is going to die or be disabled. Heavy armor on modern MBTs does not exist for resisting various AP shells from other tanks, but to resist the various chemical warhead threats more commonly seen on a battlefield full of infantry. The Abrams was designed for fighting in cities and resisting all forms of chemical warheads that existed at that time. The Trophy APS simply brings the Abrams armor package up to deal with, yet again, all forms of modern chemical projectiles. The weight of the Abrams is not a huge deal for the US Military as it can still be airdropped and it's not hard to transport it. Even if we made a lighter tank, it's still only going to be 2 tanks on a hovercraft carrier, one tank in the belly of a plane, one tank on a railway car, and one tank going across a deployable bridge at a time. The argument of "it's too heavy" is about as nothing-burger as the decades of fudd lore about the Abrams having a "super hot exhaust because of its jet turbine engine" even though there's plenty of records and data on books proving it actually has a cooler exhaust than the vast majority of all modern MBTs. And lastly, for those stuck on "but T14 is a stealth tank" please ask the Polish why the concept of a "stealth tank" is utterly dumb and impossible to create.
Yeah, how about some credible references for this creative writing: "A. they're too low in number to be a threat on any logistical radar" "The Abrams was designed for fighting in cities and resisting all forms of chemical warheads that existed at that time." "The weight of the Abrams is not a huge deal for the US Military as it can still be airdropped and it's not hard to transport it."
@@BigSmartArmed yeah this gie is clearly uneducated if he thinks the abrams was designed for city fighting or can be airdropped. perhaps he can be excused for the later with air-transportable, but thats not really the same thing as air-dropable. and it was most definitely not designed for city fights. as for the abrams not being too heavy? Lt. Gen. John Murray, deputy chief of staff and Army G-8, disagrees. according to him: 1) too heavy to quickly cross the Army’s current deployable bridging systems 2) It won’t fit on the C-130, the most common U.S. military air transport. Even the heavy-lift C-17 can carry only one at a time (despite haveing the volume to carry 2, with room to spare), if the tank weighed ~40 tons you could carry 2 of them in an unupgraded C-17 with room to spare 3) transport trucks and other vehicles have a hard time carry them and wear down faster (with the new upgrades) additionally it is considered too heavy for certain terrain types, and heavier tanks use more fuel (both for operation and by vehicles transporting it) which while less of an issue is still money that could be spent elseware (so in an ideal tank would be reduced)
@@matthiuskoenig3378 In the information age, such uneducated condition is forgivable to the age of up to 12-13 years old. If by 13 a kid is too lazy to learn how to search for credible information, then from that point on it becomes a waste of everyone's time. Yes, you are correctly quoting facts about Abrams. Other gems are a fact that the first 300 that were deployed to Iraq broke down from sand ingestion, and air filter had to be completely redesigned. Then there was an issue of outsourcing manufacturing of the compressor blades to Taiwan, and how it messed the logistical supply chain. And so on.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 >too heavy to quickly cross the Army’s current deployable bridging systems Then the answer is to built more capable bridging systems. >2) It won’t fit on the C-130, the most common U.S. military air transport. Even the heavy-lift C-17 can carry only one at a time (despite haveing the volume to carry 2, with room to spare), Then build a more powerful aircraft. >if the tank weighed ~40 tons you could carry 2 of them in an unupgraded C-17 with room to spare If a tank weighed 40 tons it wouldnt have enough armour to protect against ATGMs and other chemical-based anti-armour weapons. And before you say 'muh APS systems', there are already man-portable ATGMs that can defeat all known APS systems and top-down striking ATGMs cannot be countered by APS and thus protection against them relies on armour and armour alone. >additionally it is considered too heavy for certain terrain types, Widen the tracks. Simples. >and heavier tanks use more fuel The Challenger 2 when kitted out for theatre operations weighs more than the Abrams and has one of the longest ranges of any NATO tank. The answer? More efficient engines and/or larger fuel tanks.
@@gomezgomez6299 Both tanks will be armed with L7 105mm rifled guns capable of firing the latest APFSDS rounds that can pen the latest armour systems and able to launch the Israeli made LAHAT missiles that can defeat Relikt. Type 15 light tank by China has the same capabilities already.
The U.S. Army still has several upgrade programs in the works for the Abrams though. The M1A2 SEP v.4 is in the works and the Army is planning an M1A3 that plans to use a high efficiency diesel engine, a lighter weight main gun, lighter weight armor that will utilize composites, extra road wheels and improved suspension, built in laser warning receivers and several other improvements. I think the Abrams is still long way from reaching its upgradable potential. Just look at the T-72 and the M60, those tanks still receive upgrades and a chassis the size of the M1's has a lot of room to play with.
- Join me in War Thunder for FREE on PC, PS®5 and Xbox Series X|S: gjn.link/RedEffectWarThunder. Follow my link to get the game as well as an exclusive bonus. Thank you for supporting the channel!
Maybe...
ok
Already did lmao
Hey are monoblock apfsds are better or multiblock apfsds are better at penetrating angled armor ?
Why is that one better ?
I've been playing warthunder 6 years and I can say it's not worth playing.
They should use the blurry tank because it'd be harder to hit.
You know you joke about that but light bending camouflage is actually something that the US army announced they were working on about 8 years ago.......so actually I wouldn't be that surprised if it does actually legitimately look like a blur to the human eye.
get this man a job at the Pentagon
Word is they’re developing a cloak interactive tech that will make the tank blend into its environment
@@anarchyandempires5452 This sort of cloaking device isnt that complicatet at all... but its verry power consuming. And you have to keep the surface clean.
@@FlexDB not complicated at all?
ill see yall later :(
o7
@M1a1 Abrams We will miss you. *Salutes*
Sleep well sweet prince
So long, partner 😢
Keep Destroying commie tanks wherever you go
My bet is on the one we didn't see.
Dr.Obvious
nice if they would cast John Cena as the Tank
@@i8yourDog he can easily swing a 130mm round 2 miles.
i see captain finished med school
@@dragoonTT at least! APFSDS Shells even 5KM+
"Alright men. Pick whatever tank looks the coolest"
I take the [REDACTED].
Scorpion from Halo
Abrams
*Pick Abrams*
Abrams still the most badass looking tank ever
Gotta spread freedom with style.
My summary:
First tank: an armored stryker.
Second tank: looks like a challenger
Third: improved m1
4th tank, German panzer
@@goldmanjace which panzer model?
2nd looks more like the chieftain
Again that's MY summary, i respect your ideas though.
1st variant is basically American Armata,
2nd variant is basically American Armata with bigger gun,
3rd variant is Basically a Leopard 3.
US tanks be like: Year 2350, our new tank will be armed with a 150 mm rail gun, 10 plasma missile launcher, 4 anti-projectile laser's and a 50 caliber m2 browning machine gun.
Ey M2HB still there
Is it sad that the m2 browning is the most likely armament out of all you listed that's still in use?
Naw they’ll probably have flying tanks that can be more maneuverable and traverse rough terrain easily
@@pepperedash4424 i dont hate it and the M2 is the HMG that i like
@@jaquinhelp7298 My reply was a bit tongue in cheek in nature. Still, couldn't they at least make the m2 lighter by 2350?
Finnaly the gloriuos BoB semple will enter the U.S army
Yes! Bob semple tank Is far more powerful Than the abrams
Too OP.
What is it you guys with the Bob semple
@@triatheraider1612 Its the best tank ever designed
Who needs cannons anyways?
Fingers crossed they're gonna replaced it with the Paladin tank from Command and Conquer Generals
I was hoping for the Rockhead II from Supreme Commander, that thing is as big at the whitehouse!
@@spamuraigranatabru1149 Supreme Commander is the wackiest RTS game I've ever played
Overlord is waiting
@@229masterchief Yeah the scale is immense, the smallest vehicle is titanic and would eliminate entire militarys we have today!
The Patton/Rommel tank from Battletech!
Abrams is older now, than T-34 was when Abrams was introduced.
Still not as old as the leopard 2
@@michael-wn2ns how is that relevant?
@@Maxlo-kx9hh It another example of a main battle tank used by a western country that has lasted decades upon decades. It is very relevant.
Uh no.....
@@WalrusWinking that also got fucked in syria, granted export varient.
Red Effect: The Abrams is gonna be replaced
The Abrams: I’m gonna bury y’all and dance on your graves!
Nice reference
B52: laughs in 2050
Every tank gangsta till some dude with an rpg pops up behind them
Really the question is when not if as every model of tank is bound to die at one point or another just like living beings.
The T-54/55, hello there, Young one
Abrams: NANI!?
They should just buy Arjunk. All the indian keybord warriors tell me it's the best tank ever! XD
yeah totally a good ol curry version of the Leo 2A4 with no armour protection what so ever!
Lol that tank is so bad it's absolute shit
@@alphacentauri34 well, it has "Junk" in the name
@@danielm.595 i, may have taken the liberty to add a "k" at the end of the name, but it's very compelling haha!
Arjun best mbt in world 2021! India supapowa 2021
Imagine a world where red effect wouldn’t like war thunder quite well
I shan't even begin to ponder the thought
Indeed
The new engine is so loaded with bugs and now every Sherman's front is invincible against it's contemporaries.
@@news_internationale2035 I still died everytime i got shot by anything while playing in the sherman. Including the sherman itself.
@@news_internationale2035 Let me guess, you also think germany suffers?
It’s Christmas bro not April fools
Merry Christmas Orthodox bro
i love how that image at 1:41 is like:
"bro did you touch my model abrams?"
"nah dude i swear i didnt"
Keep up the great work my eastern brother!!
❤️🤜🏼🤛🏼
Thanks man, you too.
Idk exactly why but I love that fact that you actually use the same account to post videos and to watch and interact with other videos it’s slightly surreal to watch a video of random troops shooting guns with less than 10k views and see you commenting on it
@@cloroxmints355 Most do that tho
@Doom True, tanks are to a degree quantifiable and of a human scale. Plus you can figure out a lot just by looking at pictures. (The same goes for planes and ships but ships are large and somewhat impersonal, with planes most interesting things happen under the surface, so to speak.)
Although I would say in Canada you are probably never going to see a tank. They are, as a rule, kept far away from urban areas, which in Canada can be very far indeed.
@@cloroxmints355 I remember seeing him in Doomer videos whic i found very, very interesting
"Looking at the data shit"
40k
Freudian slip?
Shitload of data?
😂
I heard that too.
I always wanted an abrams with C_RAM instead of the 50.
How bout a C-RAM in M1 Chassis?
How bout an at at from star wars
@@erikangeloramos362
This
Flakpanzer M1 lol
Communist!
Just chill, by the fime it went through the actual development phase, it will look nothing like the original concept. I hope it doesn't suffer the fait of Pontiac Aztek.
Dude really 🤢🤢😱
THIS
Is a new US army main battle tank
Idk about you, but the aztek is a bad ass suv
I don’t think any of the tanks shown in the video or the ones we couldn’t see will be the next tank besides it takes the us at least 10 years to bring a new vehicle to the army
"Modern projectiles have no problem penetrating very steep angles" So the Tiger 1 was actually a very forward-thinking tank?
It's always been like that no it's more for the small chance of ricochet
Designers of Tiger had the idea that a "boxy" construction of interlocking plates would improve the entire construction against metal stress and fracturing after repeated non-penetrating hits. This design thought is rarelly mentioned on the internet outside of the tank museum elderly gentlemen.
@@oditeomnes oh really tell me more useful info pls
@@popinmo I can point you to useful info like that. The tank museum I mentioned: ruclips.net/user/TheTankMuseum
I can't point you t any specific video mentioning that bit of trivia, as I have listen to too many of the historical videos to remember it.
It was happen-stance that the Tiger I's gun, a shortened version of the Flak 88, was a supreme tank-killer for its time. However, already, foreseeing the need for even higher-velocity tank armaments, the WaffenAmt pushed the development of both the KwK 42 (75 mm L70) and KwK 43 (88 mm L71) for the Panther and Tiger II tanks. It's not just the ability to penetrate even relatively thick amounts of RHA, sloped at sharp angles, as presented in the Soviet T-34 and JS series, and even the USA Sherman and later Pershing models, but also greater precision at longer ranges. The Brits were a bit slow to adopt this, but their Centurion, had it been able to make the battle field in time for WWII (missed by a few months), would likewise, with its gun and armor specs, proved a formidable contender, as it did well into the 1980s, especially in IDF service.
With regards to the third design, a complicated routing between the gunsight and the gunner sitting on the other side of the breech doesn’t really make sense. Considering modern variants of the CV90 just use a camera for the gunsight, the only limitation on placement is down to where there is space and routing for wiring. Same can be said for tanks like the T-14, there’s absolutely no requirement for the gunner to sit behind the gunsight anymore.
I think that the reason the sight is on the right is so that Abrams' crews can instantly switch over to the new platform without needing retraining, not that I think it's a good design.
“If we look at the datashit” dang what did the data do to you? :(
I get a lot of HSTV-L vibes from the 'new tanks'.
More like HSTV-H, look at their weight displacement.
@@ReviveHF Touché.
Design principle everywhere else but armor looks relatively the same.
The second one reminds me of the cheiftan
@@nikm5575 mixed with the HSTV-L
Spookston is the main man behind the project it seems
RedEffect, "The Abrams has been in service for 40 years."
Ya know, sometimes I forget just how long the Abrams has been around. If they do decide to replace it, it will probably make it to 50 years before it is phased out as the main tank of the US. Absolutely incredible. That's very nearly the same amount of time it took to go from the British Mark 1 tank of WW1 to the Abrams itself.
Yep....look at the b-52 bomber....well past its service live yet STILL going
@@shawnaustin6910 the Air Force won’t let it die
It was new tech when I went in the Army in 89. Just got the 120mm a little earlier. Now I'm 50 and that thing is still an ass kicker. Yeah, she's like 41 years old or 39. Still old. But, it works.
how bout a 300lb tank eight inches high that can go 120mph, deliver one or two warheads and act itself as an anti personel or anti armor munition. love the abrahms but i think we need to think about swarms of big drones delivering swarms of smaller drones, coordinated by humans, but capable of autonomous nearly instantaneous decisions on the battllefield when unleashed. Same with penetration aircraft. the delivery system is the weapon. tactical superiority will demand it.
I doubt it would take 50 years, it would probably take much less, but still be used in say, the national guard, for a very, very long time, unless some new advance in tech comes along that makes all the older vehicles obsolete
1:41 Ah yes, it's my favourite tank.
The blurry tank.
Practically impossible to aim and hit in places that you really want to hit as its all blurred out.
I’d be willing to say that the “high energy” and “large caliber” new gun is a new design of 140mm seeing that it has a pretty large muzzle brake and rheinmetall has shown with the l51 that you don’t need a muzzle brake but the French have shown with their 140mm on the t4 terminateur that you really need a muzzle brake for the recoil produced by a 140mm. One thing that contradicts this however is the turret bustle on the third design doesn’t look long enough to facilitate a 140mm autoloader and ammunition.
As for my personal choice, take the hull and turret rear of design two, slap the turret front of design three on there and you’ve got a really nice looking tank.
I like how his advertisement for War Thunder is so sudden, from being on topic to off topic in less than a second
I also like how it’s showcasing an older update (New Power) not the most recent (Hot Tracks)
@@canadianbias913 I noticed that too
@@williamgandarillas2185 love how gaijin secretly tells him
"hey don't mention the fact that if people want our top tier vehicles we advertise, that they'll have to pay 100s of dollars just to get there within a year"
@@kaiburns4257 me: smacks lips. Bought premium time and got top tier within 2 months.
@@generalkenobi5173 im a new player with average skill and only able to play like 3x a week at best for 1-2 hours at a time
I was asking my self this question yesterday
All branches getting upgrades except tankheads. So what's they getting? Then boom thos video
If the Bradley can't accept the new gun the US Military is looking at then the Bradley for sure will be replaced. Protoypes have already been produced. XM913
I have a theory about the first tank and his smaller gun caliber and low amount of ammo. That tank could be packing an ETC gun which was tested a lot in the past.
I heard about that, no need for q bigger gun when using a etc
in my opinion this would be a bad idea. I doubt that there is any ETC gun that is ready for mass production (even though I admit to not have checked this). I imagine you would run into the problem of cost overruns, not being able to deliver the gun in time, etc. It would not only delay the introduction of this new tank, it would also result in skyrocketing costs, and thus fewer orders. This reminds me of the Zumwalt class lol
@@xxnightdriverxx9576 ruclips.net/video/u0gneYoV2PQ/видео.html
I think this video could change your perspective a bit.
@@xxnightdriverxx9576 my dude what you just described was the development process and procurement process of the f-35 lightning 2.
if we didn't give the slightest of shits back then do you seriously think we will now?
Boy this thing literally gives our tanks a delete button against any other ground vehicle in the foreseeable future by giving them a weapon with power comparable to a naval rail gun.
@@anarchyandempires5452 these etc can still use the standard 120mm ammo right, cant remeber if the ammo required any other changes except for the charge itself
The M1 originally had a 105mm cannon so I don't think it'd be a stretch to say the first tank having a 120mm might be a similar situation where it's a placeholder of sorts.
3rd variant looks like a M1 Abrams made in 2000-2010
There are, essentially two types of fume evacuators, Red: the "Bulge" and the compressed air one. Fume extractor that uses compressed air (Leclerc) does not feature a typical "bulge" you can spot on most tank guns in use. It is very plausible that tank designer(s) has chosen the latter one.
PS: Compressed air smoke evacuator is nothing new. Sd.Kfz. 171 Panzerkampfwagen V Panther (or just Panther) from WWII used this method.
We're getting closer and closer to Halo scorpion tanks
Hell no, the Scorpion is hilariously weak with it's 90mm gun.
Nah Scorpion Is shittier than a tiger
i think spookston have made a video on it
@@229masterchief you are forgetting that the UNSC uses coil gun technology (railguns but with coils instead) the Paris class frigates have 50mm rapid fire coilguns for air defence , so one can assume the gun is a 90mm coil gun
@@Hierachy bruh did you play the game at all? Scorpions has a plain old 90mm tank gun firing HE lmao
US Army going for North Korean Armata+Abrams Fusion tank😂
I would prefer the fusion tank over m1a1 abrams but over m1a2 variant?
Not a chance.
I would choose an Abrams or leopard 2 over the t14 at least it’s battle proven
lol so, M2A1 "Slammer" from Arma 3?
@@appleholo2336 I would choose a T-34 over Abrams or Leo 2 since it is MORE battle proven. Lol
@@JABelms or Sherman lol
2:39
*C&C Generals / Zero Hour flashbacks*
More like they will just rename the Abrams and claim it's a whole new tank.
It's getting an upgrade but it isn't going anywhere.....this guy has incorrect info.
@@reedrk88t probably just outdated info as between the time of this video's release and now Army said they will be keeping the Abrams until mid century
I can already imagine those beasts in the famous yellowish sand color. Btw, In my opinion the second is the most neat
I think it's just called desert tan.
Yeah, the second one looks unique
Ehh it could be better. Less blunt flat spots and more angled armor
LOL OMT3 is Abram redesgined
A possible worse and inferior redesign
4:31 that felt weird
Hello comrade tovarisch i see you are also gathering datas wink wink
1:41
I’LL TAKE YOUR ENTIRE STOCK
M1 Abrams: *Gets replaced*
Glorious Leman Russ MBT: "FINALLY, THE TIME HAS COME."
NO! BAAAAAAAAAAAAAANEBLADE!
@@ariza7654 IT IS THE BANEEEEEEEE BLADEEEEEE!
I agree.
Leman Russ MBT is best Tank ever.
Hehe boi
no how bout the monolith,those things are OP as fuck
epic
what are you doing here, I thought you were playing some fucked up doom mods!!!!!
epic
epic
epic
epic
so, a merkava, a bigger merkava and an Abrams 2077....can't wait to see the 4rth :D
The Merkava actually is a very good design. i just do not know if its design is suited for American uses, as it was developed for working in the environment of Israel and it's neighbours. But i also had the merkava in mind witht he first two objects shown ^^
@@davidsch9122 what do you think of a Merkava Turret on an Abrams Platform?
@@woodonfire7406 sounds like a waste of money to me
The first and second do not have rear mounted turrets. They just look like they’re on the back due to the design
-OMT-
New name:
Leclerc 2: Oil Boogaloo
It's not being replaced. They are developing a competition for a Light Tank design with either a 105mm or 120mm for Infantry assistance.
one crewman as a dedicated UAV operator, that's actually a really interesting concept
And also a great way to keep a 4th man for maintenance in the vehicle. Tanks have become landships almost like HG Wells 19th century short story. My Dad was Navy. Lots of men on a ship who on paper are redundant but massively needed in any it hits the fan scenario. France and the USSR/Russia certainly have found 3 men to cause a pain maintenance wise.
@@BigWillyG1000 so they should just design a tank that needs less maintenance : p
Crossed-fingers they'll make a microwave tank...
Microwave tank is glorious
Pretty sure thats a war crime.
Active Denial System was already in use for crowd control I think.
They could also just put a tank in the microwave.....
See what comes out.
Beep beep beep
Hotpockets hotpockets.
@@user-gx6tu3mf4k Yep. Microwave and sonic weapons were outlawed in some revision during the cold war.. It might be one or the other that was outlawed but i think its both
Aww. I always liked this MBT. Looked cool, had a good main gun, kickass engine. Can’t wait to see whats taking it’s place.
I love the Abrams. And I do believe we need a replace asap but I'm afraid the new tank will be a military budget boondoggle like the F35.
The F35 wasn't a "boondoggle", no more then any other vehicle produced in the US. Look at the backlash both the F-15 and Abrams got during their development.
It costs _a lot_ to make something that us breaking technological grounds in nearly ever field. It's expensive to have the most sophisticated equipment in the world.
@@Chopstorm. right on!
@@Chopstorm. complete fucking waste, trillions on a stealth fighter when we already had the raptor 😂 but as long as the defense contractors get fed 🤦♀️
@@andrewyaden5209 According to who is it a waste of money? That wash up Sprey?
@@Chopstorm. no, according to the taxpayers who are fed up with the government and their defence corporation buddies spending trillions for war machines to kill people several thousand miles away, yet anytime the people demand for services that make actual improvement to the living standards like public transport, education and healthcare, the standard canned response we get is 'how we gonna pay for it'! man, gtfoh with that shit.
US tanks be like: Year 2560, our new "tanks" are just flying technicals/military pickups loaded with a payload of Marines equipped with power weapons like dual barrel RPGs, AR looking RPGs (named after that those bad guy super soldiers from Captain America), 12.7mm snipers, or FRIGGIN' LASER GUNS!!!
The US Army sees no great need to replace the Abrams, but will begin a replacement program in 2035-40. By then, the US Navy's railgun research program will have completed. This in addition to 2nd gen solid state batteries (or at least 3rd gen) becoming readily available commercially means a far different electrical architecture for the Abrams replacement; and a better more advanced multi-megawatt laser-based APS system.
RedEffect: *Makes any critique/suggestion.*
The US: WRITE THAT DOWN! WRITE THAT DOWN!
The abrams is bad i mean you killed one with some grenades all by yourself
I am a simple man, when I see replacing abrams I click.
so, my favorite tank well soon become a range target, *sad tank noises*
They are already getting sold to iraq ukraine and other countries so we will see them around in ww3 no worries 😊
@@mohsinshahidferdous708 probably will be scrapped
the first one looks like the PL-01 and T-15 made a child.
the second one looks like a Challenger Falcon and Leo2E made a child.
the last one just looks like a Leclerc T4 and a Chally 2 made a child.
If anything? i think the last variant is just a forward or sidestep project of the M1A3. if not... then the M1A3 will most likely just end up as the CATTB-2.
We need to replace all of our military vehicles with the vehicles of the grand army of the republic
Wonder if they really have thought about a walker because it haven’t been done before
MBT-2020A: *Gentlemen, the time has come*
Could you Do one the Japanese Type 10? Its rlly intresting
3:00
Finally,
*T-14 America*
M-14 Merica
A-14 America
to be real they probly gonna name it after a general or giver it some edgy name
@@dominatorandwhocaresanyway9617 and who said where were serious about it we were joking around
@@ikill-98 ik, just been thinking about how its gonna end up
Goodbye old friend. You served us well :(
Maybe they'll sell the old Abrams tanks to anyone that can afford one
Hey at least they won't have to deal with traffic
"IlL TaKe YoUr EnTiRe StOcK!"
They will sell them to a Middle eastern country and will end up fighting them in a couple of years.
@@juancarlos-uv4lh cause you know
Americans
Lol
The M1 Abrams is a beautiful tank, I want it to remain operational for many more decades and never need to be replaced unnecessarily
It's been over 40- maybe 50 years, and its still sad to see it nearing its retirement day
I love the Abrams. I was a tanker a few years back. It will have to eventually be replaced and it breaks my heart. I'm not a fan a of autoloaders at all. A manual loader is faster and all the tech in the world can't replace human intuition.
I agree, but new ammo calibers will make the rounds too heavy to be handled by a person unfortunately
Plus an autoloader can't pull security, help with maintenance, help to spot enemy targets, or any of the million other jobs a fourth crewman can accomplish
@@davidfinch7407 you just nuked the autoloader fans.
With advancement in technology, autoloaders will suppress humans in every way.
@@michaelhowell2326 unfortunately while that is the case the new rounds are just getting bigger and heavier autoloaders are coming in wether they are liked or not.
New MBT will only arrive after Gabe release Half-Life 3.
Everyone: So America, you are getting a new MBT, what will you call this one?
America: Hmmmmm, Oh I have an Idea!
Everyone: Go on…
America: M2 SMARBA
Everyone: ….
just wondering, where is your source for this information? its not that im sceptical, just i want to know lol
god himself came to him to tell him about these abrams replacements
He iz sekrit russian spy with dokuments
They aren’t actual replacing them I don’t think. I’m pretty sure it just another Abrams but upgraded to a more modern tank of what we have now
@@CrimsonTheNova the us army is definitely designing a new tank.
The Abrams is a capable tank but it's age is showing due to advancement of technology.
However, I doubt that it will replace the Abrams immediately. The Abrams might still be the US MBT until 2030-40s.
Just search abrams replacement in google and it will pop up
just reminded me of a strange dream where I was playing war thunder again despite quitting it for all its bullshit
The simple fact that they have one NOT declassified means these are the rejects.
Yeah probably
NEXT Tank probably be M4A1 "Sherman", to confuse the enemy.
The Abrams is conceptually still perfectly sound, and none of these future concepts - which the Army have always been studying with regular intervals - bring anything of consequence.
The future of tank warfare is 1: situation awareness, because who knows first, shoots first, and will kill first. 2: active protection (automatic anti missile missiles/projectiles), because it's the only thing that will give a significantly upgraded protection.
So my take, is that all the desirable systems can be fitted on a rebuilt Abrams, as can a better gas turbine.
11:28 Yeah, didn't help that Iraqi made t72s had mild steel armor lmao
Abrams will be replaced by the Arjun MBT aka the best MBT in existence
Pfft obviously.
The armour is so good that no one has ever bothered to even try to pen it.
@@panzerofthelake506
The gunner doesn't get any armor as a motivator for him to shoot the enemies effectively. It forces the gunner to always be on his toes, although that could just be poor seat positioning.
That tank looks like some rhino tank gta shot
Can you make a video on explaining how apfsds does *not* richochet/shatter, but penetrate. There is a lot of people believing Abrams UFP is shattering apfsds
Critical ricochet.
1. Personally, even with an autoloader. I'd still have a 4 person crew. Driver, T-Commander, Gunner, & Information "Officer" (an actual officer or NCO).
2. anything above 120mm will need a autoloader system for sustained fire
3. a hybrid drivetrain with electric primary with (reduced speed) mechanical backup will be a great help for combat survivability and be much, much better option for fuel costs... A diesel-electric setup would work wonders.
One hatch is for 'Sam' the A.I. doll who helps with morale and second set of scanning eyes
It's 3 AM, good and chilly to watch a new video of yours, the only question I have is what kind of Music do you use in the background of your overall videos?
Thanks for uploading!
"Canisters" rounds are Anti-personnel rounds...like shotgun shells for a tank.
Yes, He know About it, but why you should use canister round when they are already better round and more effective than canister round
@@user-xu5sx6bh9u
Give me an example of a round that would be better at neutralising 100 infantery soldiers at a range of 50 meters from the tank...?🤔
@@warriorson7979 it's Called Advance Multi purpose (AMP) , it's basically Hybrid between HEAT and Canister Round, it can penetrate armored Vehicle and then explode inside it , and Also Explode in mid Air ( Airbust) , very effective against infantry just like Canister round ,but it can engage infantry at almost 2000m range, and also can kill armored vehicle sound better right?
@@warriorson7979 Look at minute 04:24
@@user-xu5sx6bh9u
Exactly.
Most of those rounds only arm at 500meters. Closer that that they don't work.
If your tank is being swarmed by 200 Chinese infantry at 100 meters a canister round is the only thing that's gonna prevent you from getting molotov cocktailed.
Abrams is getting replaced Leopard 2: chuckles nervously
France and Germany are already working on a replacement of the Leclerc and Leopard 2
@@Dracorex235 embt
@@Dracorex235 i know it looks cursed seeing the hull of the Leo and the THICC turret of the Leclerc
Call it Patton, I don’t care that the name was taken already, but just call it that.
What’s really scary is that a tank that pretty much can’t be destroyed by ground fire and it can’t be destroyed by most AGMs is being replaced after about 40 or so years of service.
ACTUALLY, it has had very few ATGMs fired at it and in places where they were, they tended to succeed. The roof is plain jane thin metal just like most other tanks.
It’s gonna be sad to see the Abrams gone it really was a great tank and it will no doubtly go down in history as a god tier tank
The Abrams M1A2 is supposed to remain in service until 2050 to my knowledge so we might be able to see them a little longer.
It’s not going anywhere 😂
I know that it will be around for a while before it’s gone but it’s still kinda sad to realize it won’t be around for ever
@@theretardsquadakajaxon825 we have several platforms that have been around since Vietnam. You’ll prolly be dead before the Abrams is replaced.
@@andrewyaden5209 agreed
Sad Abrams noises😭
:(
2:05 I’m getting T-14 vibes from the top one
Looks like a chieftain turret mounted on an Abrams chassis. I can’t wait for them to waste trillions on this 😍
The 2nd looks more like chieftan. The 1st gives me prototype merkeva vibes
I’m getting Abrams TTB vibes from the T-14
@@1zeisele lol
I do like the idea of the tank having a drone operator, especially if the tank it self is a drone deployment platform.
This could provide some interesting benefits including new ways of striking targets to improved situational awareness depending on visual capabilities of the drone available.
Either way, will be interesting to see what the US will pick.
Why not just give the Abrams a new design on the turret and hull?
apolgy for bad english it is my first languagen’t
where were you when M1 Abrams die
i was at house eating dorito when phone ring
“M1 Abrams is kil”
“no”
This made me laugh so hard!
This ruined my morning.
Dont worry your English is like most
@@CT--sr5en nah im just kidding, its actually a fallout copypasta lol
@@chakalzoku3467 Ah, I was bamboozled
bye abrams, you will be missed
Well, the Abrams will not be gone for at least 5 years, and even with mass production of the new tank, Abrams can still be used
Finally the last abrams journey
"Autoloader almost certain"
It's a next gen MBT, of course it has an autoloader.
On why to keep cannister rounds: The cost of that multi-purpose round is probably very high, and quite frankly airburst is really not the same especially at close range. You don't want fragments flying in all directions at 200 meters down range, especially if you have friendlies nearby. I'm sure this is well within the effective range of fragmentation of the multipurpose round. All those tungsten balls are going one direction spreading in a cone shape down range. It's about having the option to fire when your infantry are around. there is no blow-back with a cannister round.
Philippines and other countries: I L L T A K E Y O U R E N T I R E S T O C K
EXACTLY ! How much do you bet, that Pentagon "surpluses" the Abrams to our "allies", who then declare war on their neighbors (also our "allies") ?
The first two kinda look like merkava and the third leopard abrams hybrids.
Or obese version of the Japanese Type 10 tank.
@@ReviveHF
Sumo Typuh tenn
Tesla can wow everyone with CYBERTANK, which would literally be a door wedge but with a turret.
I think the Swedish already did that
@@CarburetorThompson but it aint got a turret!
ruclips.net/video/wQ3tnsMlkBI/видео.html
I feel like adding a UAV to a tank makes less sense than just having a dedicated UAV launching vehicle. Manned or unmanned, either way.
If it's unmanned why not just have it on the vehicle and if it's manned then why not just use a regular drone to do the same job.
The third variant kinda looks like that “Leopard 2 revolution” tank.
Said it once, will say it again and again until people understand: Tanks are not developed on the principal of how well they can take a shot from another tank.
From over 100 years of tankers' experience, trillions in research from multiple countries, etc, it is decided that the vast majority of threats that pose REAL threats to tanks are infantry.
And for the crowd in the back that play too many video games and read absolutely nothing in reality, APSs are to protect against chemical warheads. They do nothing to stop kinetic warheads.
M1A2 SEPV3 and whatever tank that'll be the Abrams replacer were not designed and will not be designed to fight against T14 Armatas as A. they're too low in number to be a threat on any logistical radar and B. he who spots the other first is going to die or be disabled.
Heavy armor on modern MBTs does not exist for resisting various AP shells from other tanks, but to resist the various chemical warhead threats more commonly seen on a battlefield full of infantry. The Abrams was designed for fighting in cities and resisting all forms of chemical warheads that existed at that time. The Trophy APS simply brings the Abrams armor package up to deal with, yet again, all forms of modern chemical projectiles.
The weight of the Abrams is not a huge deal for the US Military as it can still be airdropped and it's not hard to transport it. Even if we made a lighter tank, it's still only going to be 2 tanks on a hovercraft carrier, one tank in the belly of a plane, one tank on a railway car, and one tank going across a deployable bridge at a time. The argument of "it's too heavy" is about as nothing-burger as the decades of fudd lore about the Abrams having a "super hot exhaust because of its jet turbine engine" even though there's plenty of records and data on books proving it actually has a cooler exhaust than the vast majority of all modern MBTs.
And lastly, for those stuck on "but T14 is a stealth tank" please ask the Polish why the concept of a "stealth tank" is utterly dumb and impossible to create.
Yeah, how about some credible references for this creative writing:
"A. they're too low in number to be a threat on any logistical radar"
"The Abrams was designed for fighting in cities and resisting all forms of chemical warheads that existed at that time."
"The weight of the Abrams is not a huge deal for the US Military as it can still be airdropped and it's not hard to transport it."
@@BigSmartArmed yeah this gie is clearly uneducated if he thinks the abrams was designed for city fighting or can be airdropped.
perhaps he can be excused for the later with air-transportable, but thats not really the same thing as air-dropable. and it was most definitely not designed for city fights.
as for the abrams not being too heavy? Lt. Gen. John Murray, deputy chief of staff and Army G-8, disagrees. according to him:
1) too heavy to quickly cross the Army’s current deployable bridging systems
2) It won’t fit on the C-130, the most common U.S. military air transport. Even the heavy-lift C-17 can carry only one at a time (despite haveing the volume to carry 2, with room to spare), if the tank weighed ~40 tons you could carry 2 of them in an unupgraded C-17 with room to spare
3) transport trucks and other vehicles have a hard time carry them and wear down faster (with the new upgrades)
additionally it is considered too heavy for certain terrain types, and heavier tanks use more fuel (both for operation and by vehicles transporting it) which while less of an issue is still money that could be spent elseware (so in an ideal tank would be reduced)
@@matthiuskoenig3378 In the information age, such uneducated condition is forgivable to the age of up to 12-13 years old. If by 13 a kid is too lazy to learn how to search for credible information, then from that point on it becomes a waste of everyone's time.
Yes, you are correctly quoting facts about Abrams. Other gems are a fact that the first 300 that were deployed to Iraq broke down from sand ingestion, and air filter had to be completely redesigned.
Then there was an issue of outsourcing manufacturing of the compressor blades to Taiwan, and how it messed the logistical supply chain. And so on.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 >too heavy to quickly cross the Army’s current deployable bridging systems
Then the answer is to built more capable bridging systems.
>2) It won’t fit on the C-130, the most common U.S. military air transport. Even the heavy-lift C-17 can carry only one at a time (despite haveing the volume to carry 2, with room to spare),
Then build a more powerful aircraft.
>if the tank weighed ~40 tons you could carry 2 of them in an unupgraded C-17 with room to spare
If a tank weighed 40 tons it wouldnt have enough armour to protect against ATGMs and other chemical-based anti-armour weapons. And before you say 'muh APS systems', there are already man-portable ATGMs that can defeat all known APS systems and top-down striking ATGMs cannot be countered by APS and thus protection against them relies on armour and armour alone.
>additionally it is considered too heavy for certain terrain types,
Widen the tracks. Simples.
>and heavier tanks use more fuel
The Challenger 2 when kitted out for theatre operations weighs more than the Abrams and has one of the longest ranges of any NATO tank.
The answer?
More efficient engines and/or larger fuel tanks.
The reason: MPF Tank
Currently, there are 2 candidates, one is the M8 Burford by BAE systems, the other one is Griffin by General Dynamics.
Nice to see someone making a good reply( not stupid kids shit) , thanks Tarkin
@@gomezgomez6299 this has the same vibe as the ‘thanks satan’ meme
@@leonardusrakapradayan2253 don’t know what to reply “ ANIME BOY”
@@gomezgomez6299 right back at you “Karate kid”
@@gomezgomez6299 Both tanks will be armed with L7 105mm rifled guns capable of firing the latest APFSDS rounds that can pen the latest armour systems and able to launch the Israeli made LAHAT missiles that can defeat Relikt. Type 15 light tank by China has the same capabilities already.
Second one looks like UDES medium tanks in WoT
Finally someone said it
@@hoticeparty so they copied the Swedish? Got some of their ideas from them?
The U.S. Army still has several upgrade programs in the works for the Abrams though. The M1A2 SEP v.4 is in the works and the Army is planning an M1A3 that plans to use a high efficiency diesel engine, a lighter weight main gun, lighter weight armor that will utilize composites, extra road wheels and improved suspension, built in laser warning receivers and several other improvements. I think the Abrams is still long way from reaching its upgradable potential. Just look at the T-72 and the M60, those tanks still receive upgrades and a chassis the size of the M1's has a lot of room to play with.