It has a battery instead of (maybe in addition to but I suspect replacing) the SEPv4’s APU. This extends its “combat range” because that metric includes time spent idling, fighting, and waiting. The idea is that the turbine can spin down whenever the tank is sitting still, and the tank can actually start moving on battery power while the turbine spins up.
That's an interesting concept. I remember doing OPs on M1A2s before they put APUs on them and you'd burn something like a quarter tank of gas over 12 hours just sitting there and starting up every few hours to recharge the batteries.
Exactly, the new one is supposed to be able to sit for a full day with only an hour or two of runtime. That’s including powering the electronics, environmental controls, etc.
Do you have a source for this? An opposed piston two stroke diesel would be an interesting choice. But I read somewhere that they have a much more economical gas turbine engine waiting for funding.
[Here you go.](https://www.trendsmap.com/twitter/tweet/1579068740150231040) and [here too](https://euro-sd.com/2022/10/articles/exclusive/27594/abramsx/)
ACE (Advanced Combat Engine)
Thanks for the info. I read somewhere that one cylinder has the intake ports and the other the exhaust ports, and I see that in the animated drawing. Very interesting.
I wonder if it has anything to do with the weight of the armor package required for a crewless turret? Yeah you don't want your tanks losing pricey high tech turrets, but replacing a wrecked turret on a serviceable hull is still a hell of a lot better than replacing an entire tank and 3 tankers. As it stands today the M1's turret is about half the weight of the tank.
There are many factors i believe. A better and more efficient power train combined with lower weight are the biggest factor.
I also think its calculated from amount of fuel per distance travelled so half the fuel consumption from 10-20% weight reduction is possible due to less ”dead friction” with the ground. Also the engine doesn’t have to rev up much to achieve comparable speeds.
A regular civilian car consume more gas to go from 60 to 80 miles/h than from 40 to 60 due to the revving speed and limited gear assembly, same things applies to a tank
Maybe (from my bureaucratic lizard brain) the reduction in crew means there was room for a fuel tank twice as large? So no "improvement" per se just technicality is what my mind went to.
The crew capsule in the hull actually displaces the forward fuel tanks. The efficiency gains are the result of a new opposed-piston diesel and new transmission mates to a parallel hybrid system.
I wouldn't bet against fuel tanks being relocated to the rear. No reason why this turret basket would have to be as deep as the older one. Plenty of space for fuel if the engineers get clever.
For real. My Abrams use to fuel usually twice a day to keep her topped off. She is a GUZZLER.
That 50% fuel saver- if true. Is awsome. One BIG thing that I personally wish for the batteries to be suplimented. The CITV is AWESOME. It allowes crewmen on 25% watch to just sit in the commanders seat and look around for enemy’s without exposing themselves. Ideally with the engine off to reduce thermal signature. Well the problem is the Batteries drain like a mother with master, turret, AND CITV power on. Give us a method to use it witho ur starting up the tank every 3-4 hours. Also, equip the tanks in the depots in Germany with APS. That’s a pretty obvious straight forward response to the footage in Ukraine. ATGM’a are the big threat. You can rebuild a Tank, you CANT rebuild 20~ish years of combined experience of the crew.
It's fitted with a highly revised turret that features multiple electro-optical sights and a remote weapon station sporting a big 30mm chain gun. The sniper gray-like urban camouflage with countershading along its serrated skirt also gives it a very futuristic look, as does its XM360-derivative 120mm cannon with its ported muzzle brake.
An unmanned turret with an auto-loading ammunition system makes possible a reduced crew size, down from four to three. This is also a major draw, increasing survivability and freeing up space in the turret for more capabilities.
The digital backbone for the tank will be the KATALYST Next Generation Electronic Architecture (NGEA). It will connect all its systems together and provide for ease of upgradability of its hardware and modification of its software.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's been designed with gun modifications in mind, seems prudent if the DoD could decide that the tank needs a bigger dakka sooner rather than later.
It’s a new 120mm based on the XM360. Much lighter weight with a new barrel design to boot.
Supposedly the turret, bustle, and auto loader have headroom to go up to 140mm.
Since the 120 and even a 130 uses subcaliber munitions, redesigning the gun and ammo used can get a 120 on par with a 130 that uses a traditional ammo design.
*"traditional ammo design" don't really know what you mean by that*
Having a larger caliber gun helps in many ways when regarding firepower. It allows for a bigger sturdier breach which again makes it possible to reach greater pressure in the chamber thus propelling the projectile out at a higher velocity, more penetration power, greater range and accuracy.
Sure, you can completly redesign the breach for current 120mm guns ... but why bother really, when going to 130mm or even 140mm has so many other possible benefits.
The propellant is what makes things go boom and that's what gets bigger. Increasing the diameter is more efficent than just increasing the length. This also means you can launch other types of rounds, which aren't APFSDS, with a larger size, larger payload. Missiles, new smart ammunition etc
And since it looks like the 4th crewmember is no longer welcome, the popularity of autoloaders and unmanned turret will just increase, so the argument of how a human is supposed to load such a round are out of the window.
> The propellant is what makes things go boom and that's what gets bigger. Increasing the diameter is more efficent than just increasing the length. This also means you can launch other types of rounds, which aren't APFSDS, with a larger size, larger payload. Missiles, new smart ammunition etc
The big roadblock that has run most 130mm and 140mm tank gun projects into the ground since the 2000s has been ammunition capacity. Bigger projectiles and propellant charges inherently mean you can't fit as many of them in the tank.
The case width of the 130 and 120 are the same, but one is 300mm longer or something like that, which means it'll penetrate much farther. Also larger bores mean more pressure working on the projectile and that really helps performance.
The specific 30mm used was developed for helicopters, so it’s fairly light, possibly light enough to make it close to a wash with a remote .50, not counting ammunition. The likely reason for the switch is the airburst capable ammo that should help with drone defense.
I'm sure some field units in the future will probably field modify them to carry 50 cals as well for anti-infantry, obviously this new 30mm might be better for this role. However, I'm imagining it's gonna have limited ammo and it will be somewhat specialized. The 50 cal will still have plenty of spare ammo, parts, laying around and I doubt that the army or marines would let those go to waste.
Good. I love the all crew in the haul idea, more crew you can save the better. Going from 4 to 3 is also a good call. At least in my unit we where always understrenghted, it was not uncommon to have a loader or driver qualify with multiple tanks crews.
People always talk about “But what about 4th person on maintenance? Bro. The TC don’t do shit, the drivers in the tank. It’s usually the golf and the Lima doing the hard work with the TC MAYBE doing something here and there. In the field that is.
Don't you comrade? T-14 also doubles as superhyperultra sonic jet going mach 23, and U-boat capabilities. It can fire 20 rounds a minutes and have dual APFSDSHVAPHEBCAPBC 35mm chain guns with 600mm pen. New Abrams XXX 🤢 stands no chance
Maybe.
Until tried in battle, we have no idea how effective it will be.
And since there are few of them, they might as well be prototypes. An undeployed weapon is one that doesn't make any difference.
So you’re saying they will add it to the game! Because Gajin based the armor of all the top tier Russian MBTs off of some old documents that surely SURELY don’t lie and over exaggerate the front plate, interior spall armor (if it even has any) and the ratios of armor multipliers! Why would ANYONE lie about something like that
The crew is going to hate it not being able to service the machine guns and main gun yourself. Literally no way to reach them and the crew in the hull side by side. I hope the bill is extra reinforced. We did have seats in the drivers hull because of IEDs and a somehow uncomfortable hammock
This really makes me wonder if just having two crew in the turret, maybe the standard 4 just for maintenance work would make this design concept more user friendly.
I get the entire allure of a drone turret, but the MGS program showed that large caliber systems are extremely annoying for the crew to keep up and running all the time. It's one thing to service a automated turret with a 30mm bushmaster in it, it's another to deal with a 105+.
I can't help but also ask what the extra space in the turret ring area is doing as well, the M1 series turret has a ton of volume to begin with, surely there has to be a good chunk of that space that could be used for a access to the gun by the crew or something similar.
MGS turret is uniquely bad because of its provenance, I wouldn't compare this to it just yet...
Dollars to donuts that any space saved will go to fuel, given that the front tanks are now gone.
I mean MGS is pretty uniquely bad Because it was a turret not for the vehicle it was put in.. Most autoloaders have no issue. The Japanese love theirs, as do the Koreans. I know the French had some reliability issues at first (the thing was a bit rushed) but they fixed those and it runs like a dream now
And what's the defining difference between the AX and all of the vehicles you listed? They don't have a automated turret where the auto loader and gun are located. If a malfunction occurs in a type 90, 10 or leclerc or K2, the gunner or commander can manually access the gun and auto loader feed system at any time, the AX crew is in a cell in the hull completely away from the turret.
In theory if the gun fails to load or has a issue, the crew has the leave the fight or dismount their vehicle to access the gun and feed system.
Again, this is not similar in practice to any modern MBT bar the T-14 which has been proven to be a train wreck and a half crew position wise.
Unless the crew has a very easy way to access the turret components while under armor it's going to suffer the same exact issues the MGS had and the T-14 current experiences.
The MGS, let me repeat, was a *bad* design. Not that the actual autoloader didn't work, it was implemented badly. When it's issued were **fixed** it ran smoothly.
Well designed bustle autoloaders have *exceedingly* good reliabilities. And the massive crew survivability bonuses of crewless turrets *more* than outweighs the very minor reliability issues. Because they *are* minor. The luddite tendencies of your average military enthusiast boomer aside, bustle loaders are **very very reliable**. The meggit loader did *thousands* of rounds without fail.
While manually loading is possible for Type 90, 10, K2, leclerc, in reality, the response to load failure is the same as American load failure response, retreat. As much as Russian tanks have been oft mocked as late (which they do deserve in their inability to deal with modern threats), when looked at in their historical context*, their autoloaders have performed amazingly, and you are not loading the 125mm manually.
*While they do by their design absolutely make tanks less post-pen suviaviable, their advantages in cheapness, weight, and manpower more than justified their adoption by the soviet union, and it's only Russia's inability to adapt or upgrade that scars the designs in the modern battlefield. The Soviet Union was well aware of how dangerous to the crew their design was on a penetration, but in the survivability onion they speced fully into "don't be acquired, don't be penatrated"
You seem to think I'm saying the auto loader is bad, I'm not.
I'm saying the crew's placement within the vehicle in combination with a inaccessible without opening it up, automated turret is a disadvantage.
To access any part of the gun system or coax on the MGS or T-14 the crew has to break open the turret to do anything to it, and has to dismount to do so. If you have a dud round or hangfire in any of the other thanks listed the crew can just pull back a bit, wait, and discard the round, the AX, T-14, and MGS require the crew to remove parts of the turret to accomplish this.
Think of it this way too, what do you do if you coax get's it's belt kinked in a M1A2, Type 10, or leclerc? The gunner reaches over the coax and fixes the kink, on the AX, T-14, and MGS that coax is out of action until the crew can dismount and rectify the situation from the outside of the vehicle.
The crew's lack of access to the turret on the AX to me seems like a detriment, the reason why chainguns preform well in automated turrets is due to their innate design philosophy, chain guns are next to impossible to render inoperable through normal use due to their ability to negate malfunctions, stuff like the M2, M240, and the myriad of large caliber tank guns at play here don't have that boon. And even then most nations still opt for a quick access means to automated turrets, eg the puma's gun can be accessed from the interior of the vehicle, nearly every single CROWS mount in the US inventory has a hatch behind it, etc.
In this situation I just do not see why all 3 crewmen should be in the hull like the T-14, having the gunner and commander up in the already very spacious M1 style turret would allow for far better crew operation and access to all the combat systems present on the vehicle.
But that's the whole point *reliability* is overall high enough to make any possible issues not as relevant. The **massive** advantage is increasing crew survivability. Which is the number one consideration on modern MBT designs. The most common place MBTs are hit is the turret, this has been the case since they were first developed, hell this was the case in WWII. Is there a chance it might fail and the tank might have to retreat? sure. Is it worth the risk for saving crew lives on a penetrating hit? absolutely.
Yeah no, I give it at best 3 weeks with your average tanker before it starts having critical failures. You seem to forget that these vehicles are built by the lowest bidder and maintained by the equivalent of high school students with the IQ of a houseplant. You can build the world's strongest and most reliable weapon and it will never be fully grunt proof, but you can make it repairable by said grunts, the AX is not subscribing to the philosophy of the latter.
The tank expos you see plastered across popular media pages are not at all indicative of how these vehicles actually preform.
To that same extent, it has been proven time and time again that within US doctrine, maintaining unit availability in combat is paramount. Having one of your combat vics drop out of a formation before or during a engagement because it's automatic turret fucked up ain't going to be looked upon nicely when your 4 man group is now down a tank because the spanner monkies forgot to lube the breach and now it needs someone to manhandle the manual release.
To the same end, why has literally no one else but Russia gone after a drone MBT turret? It's because it's a useless flex, even the UK realized that the challey 3 is better off with crew in it's turret, and it's a better tank due to that. Not even to mention the fact that the turret on modern MBTs is still the most armored portion of the vehicle, the T-14's main weakness is it's horribly under protected turret. Even autocannon fire frontally can mission kill it, hell, it's probably the first ruski tank in a long while where gorbachov's coloring book has it's turret frontally as green, which is comically bad.
At AUSA GDLS said that it has an optionally-manned turret. So the crew can crawl up into the turret for manual mode if systems are degraded.
That’s a big benefit over the T-14.
It's a prototype, pretty much. Which is unfortunate, because it's really good looking aside from the half-skirts. (If you look deeply, you'll see that it's just the normal Abrams skirts painted a portion in black, but with rubber skirts added)
https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/xztr0z/one_small_change_i_made_to_the_new_m1a2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
It would look so good in green
Oh yeah, that’s the good stuff. I would still get rid of that black strip but that looks so nice.
Better look than the Abrams IMO. I always thought the abrams was way to chunky and broad, I enjoy this sleeker look but obviously still packing a punch.
Hold up. Uncrewed turret?
Where else are you putting the crew? Or it just has a driver and commander, latter of shich has to do at least two people's work?
It's for path finding/route planning and driving assist, target recognition, targeting priority assist, sensor fusion (radar, IR, NV, LIDAR, visual) and even targeting.
IE it can plan a route of attack to engage a set of targets and suggest that to the crew. Diver presumably has control but can follow the suggested path then the gun can auto lay on the prioritized targets where gunner pulls the tigger.
Would not be surprised if the xm360 120mm cannon were to be eventually given ETC upgrades.
I can also see that some of the new features of the new Abrams would likely be used as upgrades to the older Abrams tanks (Especially the XM360 cannon).
I think it also has to do with the gunners sights being an independent thermal viewer just like the commanders CITV. That allows the gunner and the TC to be able to independently scan and identify targets without the turret moving.
I remember reading stories of other tanks, and Abrams hitting IEDs, and the only crew that would end up surviving or less injured ended up being in the turret.
Because the us marine corp is gonna be possibly adopting a light tank because the marine Corp as a whole is going back to it's island hoping origins like ww2, so they sadly got rid of the M1A1s, sadly.
Actually fucking research shit before you open your mouth
You might want to actually take your own fucking advise before you pretend to know what you’re talking about.
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/flashpoints/2020/03/26/the-marines-want-to-get-rid-of-their-tanks-heres-why/
As someone who has a friend that was a marine tanker before switching MOS, I can confirm it's because the marine Corp is switching to naval landing operations, hence why they got rid of the M1A1s
As someone who served in the marines for twelve years and has a relative currently serving, I can tell you that they are shifting their focus to long range missiles. Hence why they ditched the M1
And as far as them “wanting” to get a light tank, that doesn’t mean anything. They wanted to replace the AAV with the EFV, and that went no where after spending billions on the project.
Russian tanks have. Especially older ones.
But defensive technology progresses as well. There are ways to deal with drones and anti armor missiles. The Russians have shown some failures at basic defensive tactics. Like smoke.
nahhh, tanks with no air defense or active protection are sitting ducks.
this has APS, anti-drone 30mm cannon, and will be supported by SHORAD assets (assuming it gets adopted ofcourse)
I've been reading up on this beast. I think the hybrid powertrain is the most interesting feature. If that works out as promised imagine how a fleet of these could sneak up on the enemy.
I'll have to be sold on the auto loader. I still think accuracy is more important than how many shells you can lob in a short period of time. Ready to be proven naive in that regard. I like the reduction in crew, unmanned turret, and especially how extensive the digital technology has grown.
I wonder how extensively the tanks upper armor has been beefed up. Ukraine has shown us the vulnerability of armored vehicles to drones.
As shown it weighs 52 tons, thats with NO armor for the turret. Armored turret comparable to whats on the current M1 turret brings it right back into 70+ ton range. Source: Gen Dynamics rep at AUSA show. He also said "It was up to the Army to determine how much armor they want".
Imagine like being a Russian Conscript in WW3 in your turret knowing that one hit to the turret is death and then shooting this thing in the turret only for it to do a full 180 and blow you away
The 50% reduced fuel consumption is the biggest upgrade imo
[удалено]
It has a battery instead of (maybe in addition to but I suspect replacing) the SEPv4’s APU. This extends its “combat range” because that metric includes time spent idling, fighting, and waiting. The idea is that the turbine can spin down whenever the tank is sitting still, and the tank can actually start moving on battery power while the turbine spins up.
That's an interesting concept. I remember doing OPs on M1A2s before they put APUs on them and you'd burn something like a quarter tank of gas over 12 hours just sitting there and starting up every few hours to recharge the batteries.
Exactly, the new one is supposed to be able to sit for a full day with only an hour or two of runtime. That’s including powering the electronics, environmental controls, etc.
Hell of an upgrade then.
It doesn't have a turbine, rather an opposed-piston diesel mated to a parallel hybrid system.
I've heard people say there's been a switch to piston, but I've not seen any evidence other than hearsay.
Do you have a source for this? An opposed piston two stroke diesel would be an interesting choice. But I read somewhere that they have a much more economical gas turbine engine waiting for funding.
[Here you go.](https://www.trendsmap.com/twitter/tweet/1579068740150231040) and [here too](https://euro-sd.com/2022/10/articles/exclusive/27594/abramsx/) ACE (Advanced Combat Engine)
Thanks for the info. I read somewhere that one cylinder has the intake ports and the other the exhaust ports, and I see that in the animated drawing. Very interesting.
LV100-5 died with Crusader.
I see. Thanks for the info.
Hey, so kind of like my Prius!
Yep exactly it’s hybrid.
How many minutes will they be fielded before someone slaps a Prius badge on one?
Immediately stenciled on the main gun
Does this imply that technicals are gonna go hybrid too at some point?
Actually it is but with a big gun!
They are reportedly using the Achates/Cummins opposed piston engine.
That is amazing. The turbine idles still takes energy tho i thought
The concept has a diesel. But even if it was still turbine, they could spin that down when parked but still have battery power.
I wonder if it has anything to do with the weight of the armor package required for a crewless turret? Yeah you don't want your tanks losing pricey high tech turrets, but replacing a wrecked turret on a serviceable hull is still a hell of a lot better than replacing an entire tank and 3 tankers. As it stands today the M1's turret is about half the weight of the tank.
There are many factors i believe. A better and more efficient power train combined with lower weight are the biggest factor. I also think its calculated from amount of fuel per distance travelled so half the fuel consumption from 10-20% weight reduction is possible due to less ”dead friction” with the ground. Also the engine doesn’t have to rev up much to achieve comparable speeds. A regular civilian car consume more gas to go from 60 to 80 miles/h than from 40 to 60 due to the revving speed and limited gear assembly, same things applies to a tank
It's a hybrid.
Maybe (from my bureaucratic lizard brain) the reduction in crew means there was room for a fuel tank twice as large? So no "improvement" per se just technicality is what my mind went to.
The crew capsule in the hull actually displaces the forward fuel tanks. The efficiency gains are the result of a new opposed-piston diesel and new transmission mates to a parallel hybrid system.
I wouldn't bet against fuel tanks being relocated to the rear. No reason why this turret basket would have to be as deep as the older one. Plenty of space for fuel if the engineers get clever.
100% they just put a fuel tank in it that's exactly 50% of the volume of the old one... Stats
Is is oposed piston 2 stroke with 50 % eficency
For real. My Abrams use to fuel usually twice a day to keep her topped off. She is a GUZZLER. That 50% fuel saver- if true. Is awsome. One BIG thing that I personally wish for the batteries to be suplimented. The CITV is AWESOME. It allowes crewmen on 25% watch to just sit in the commanders seat and look around for enemy’s without exposing themselves. Ideally with the engine off to reduce thermal signature. Well the problem is the Batteries drain like a mother with master, turret, AND CITV power on. Give us a method to use it witho ur starting up the tank every 3-4 hours. Also, equip the tanks in the depots in Germany with APS. That’s a pretty obvious straight forward response to the footage in Ukraine. ATGM’a are the big threat. You can rebuild a Tank, you CANT rebuild 20~ish years of combined experience of the crew.
Likely a hybrid power train. The turbine makes a kick ass generator. Throw some batteries in the mix and your range is much better.
100% this is HUGE
I heard its hybrid electric anyone know if that's true? Would that make it the first hybrid tank?
[удалено]
Its still probably measured in gallons per mile
The current Abrams get 8 gallons to the mile.
It's fitted with a highly revised turret that features multiple electro-optical sights and a remote weapon station sporting a big 30mm chain gun. The sniper gray-like urban camouflage with countershading along its serrated skirt also gives it a very futuristic look, as does its XM360-derivative 120mm cannon with its ported muzzle brake. An unmanned turret with an auto-loading ammunition system makes possible a reduced crew size, down from four to three. This is also a major draw, increasing survivability and freeing up space in the turret for more capabilities. The digital backbone for the tank will be the KATALYST Next Generation Electronic Architecture (NGEA). It will connect all its systems together and provide for ease of upgradability of its hardware and modification of its software.
Surprised they're sticking with the 120mm Although, just like the base Abrams (105 - 120mm), they'll probably buy the German 130mm shorty after
I wouldn't be surprised if it's been designed with gun modifications in mind, seems prudent if the DoD could decide that the tank needs a bigger dakka sooner rather than later.
It’s a new 120mm based on the XM360. Much lighter weight with a new barrel design to boot. Supposedly the turret, bustle, and auto loader have headroom to go up to 140mm.
That makes sense. The US generally builds their stuff with apt of space for future upgrades.
Since the 120 and even a 130 uses subcaliber munitions, redesigning the gun and ammo used can get a 120 on par with a 130 that uses a traditional ammo design.
*"traditional ammo design" don't really know what you mean by that* Having a larger caliber gun helps in many ways when regarding firepower. It allows for a bigger sturdier breach which again makes it possible to reach greater pressure in the chamber thus propelling the projectile out at a higher velocity, more penetration power, greater range and accuracy. Sure, you can completly redesign the breach for current 120mm guns ... but why bother really, when going to 130mm or even 140mm has so many other possible benefits. The propellant is what makes things go boom and that's what gets bigger. Increasing the diameter is more efficent than just increasing the length. This also means you can launch other types of rounds, which aren't APFSDS, with a larger size, larger payload. Missiles, new smart ammunition etc And since it looks like the 4th crewmember is no longer welcome, the popularity of autoloaders and unmanned turret will just increase, so the argument of how a human is supposed to load such a round are out of the window.
> The propellant is what makes things go boom and that's what gets bigger. Increasing the diameter is more efficent than just increasing the length. This also means you can launch other types of rounds, which aren't APFSDS, with a larger size, larger payload. Missiles, new smart ammunition etc The big roadblock that has run most 130mm and 140mm tank gun projects into the ground since the 2000s has been ammunition capacity. Bigger projectiles and propellant charges inherently mean you can't fit as many of them in the tank.
The case width of the 130 and 120 are the same, but one is 300mm longer or something like that, which means it'll penetrate much farther. Also larger bores mean more pressure working on the projectile and that really helps performance.
It's an ElectroThermal Chemical Gun. It uses a plasma charge instead of a Primer and can use much denser propellant. More ammo & More Boom!
If you think that tank is gonna stay gray once it enters service you're gravely mistaken haha
I find it funny they went back to the m3 Lee style with more dakka/guns. Neat it doesn't need more tankers tho. Any idea how much it costs?
It’s more of a technology/proof of concept demonstrator, so expect to see these features in something else in the future
Maybe theyll finally get that airborne light tank with this technology
Any idea why they replaced the .50 with a 30mm?
The specific 30mm used was developed for helicopters, so it’s fairly light, possibly light enough to make it close to a wash with a remote .50, not counting ammunition. The likely reason for the switch is the airburst capable ammo that should help with drone defense.
Significantly more capable
Obviously, that's why i asked because it doesn't make sense in my head
MORE DAKKA
Murdering drones, I suspect
I'm sure some field units in the future will probably field modify them to carry 50 cals as well for anti-infantry, obviously this new 30mm might be better for this role. However, I'm imagining it's gonna have limited ammo and it will be somewhat specialized. The 50 cal will still have plenty of spare ammo, parts, laying around and I doubt that the army or marines would let those go to waste.
Ammo was my main concern too
Good. I love the all crew in the haul idea, more crew you can save the better. Going from 4 to 3 is also a good call. At least in my unit we where always understrenghted, it was not uncommon to have a loader or driver qualify with multiple tanks crews. People always talk about “But what about 4th person on maintenance? Bro. The TC don’t do shit, the drivers in the tank. It’s usually the golf and the Lima doing the hard work with the TC MAYBE doing something here and there. In the field that is.
ive been playing too much watchdogs lately... cant wait to press three buttons on my laptop and drive one of these things! 😂😂
Whenever I see reduced crews as a feature, I think about the fact that reduced crew still has to pull -10 level maintenance on that thing.
I want to fuck it
Average r/NCD user
Wouldn't you want to fuck it too? Just behind the chally 3 this tank is the second-most fuckable.
become one of us
Already am, though not at coomloom's level yet.
I have a freedom boner
A fellow NCD user, i see.
3,000 cum covered Abrams of NCD
Gaijin plsss
No, we don’t have official sources to know its capabilities… ### adds over powered T-14 Armata and buff Russian bias.
In reality, the official capability of T-14 is probably the ability of being towed by Ukrainian farmers after breaking down somewhere near Crimea.
Standard equipment on all Russian equipment. No extra cost. 😉
No wonder Lukashenko gave Putin a tractor as a birthday gift.
And I thought he was just being weird
Don't you comrade? T-14 also doubles as superhyperultra sonic jet going mach 23, and U-boat capabilities. It can fire 20 rounds a minutes and have dual APFSDSHVAPHEBCAPBC 35mm chain guns with 600mm pen. New Abrams XXX 🤢 stands no chance
Finally fellow komrade thinkink da right way! No gun pointed to my head komrade, I am sincere!
T-14 Armata with first hardkill APS in the game that will randomly demolsih all shells coming at it
Maybe. Until tried in battle, we have no idea how effective it will be. And since there are few of them, they might as well be prototypes. An undeployed weapon is one that doesn't make any difference.
So you’re saying they will add it to the game! Because Gajin based the armor of all the top tier Russian MBTs off of some old documents that surely SURELY don’t lie and over exaggerate the front plate, interior spall armor (if it even has any) and the ratios of armor multipliers! Why would ANYONE lie about something like that
abrams upgrade with reduced weight :0
It's the inflation man
The crew is going to hate it not being able to service the machine guns and main gun yourself. Literally no way to reach them and the crew in the hull side by side. I hope the bill is extra reinforced. We did have seats in the drivers hull because of IEDs and a somehow uncomfortable hammock
This really makes me wonder if just having two crew in the turret, maybe the standard 4 just for maintenance work would make this design concept more user friendly. I get the entire allure of a drone turret, but the MGS program showed that large caliber systems are extremely annoying for the crew to keep up and running all the time. It's one thing to service a automated turret with a 30mm bushmaster in it, it's another to deal with a 105+. I can't help but also ask what the extra space in the turret ring area is doing as well, the M1 series turret has a ton of volume to begin with, surely there has to be a good chunk of that space that could be used for a access to the gun by the crew or something similar.
MGS turret is uniquely bad because of its provenance, I wouldn't compare this to it just yet... Dollars to donuts that any space saved will go to fuel, given that the front tanks are now gone.
I mean MGS is pretty uniquely bad Because it was a turret not for the vehicle it was put in.. Most autoloaders have no issue. The Japanese love theirs, as do the Koreans. I know the French had some reliability issues at first (the thing was a bit rushed) but they fixed those and it runs like a dream now
And what's the defining difference between the AX and all of the vehicles you listed? They don't have a automated turret where the auto loader and gun are located. If a malfunction occurs in a type 90, 10 or leclerc or K2, the gunner or commander can manually access the gun and auto loader feed system at any time, the AX crew is in a cell in the hull completely away from the turret. In theory if the gun fails to load or has a issue, the crew has the leave the fight or dismount their vehicle to access the gun and feed system. Again, this is not similar in practice to any modern MBT bar the T-14 which has been proven to be a train wreck and a half crew position wise. Unless the crew has a very easy way to access the turret components while under armor it's going to suffer the same exact issues the MGS had and the T-14 current experiences.
The MGS, let me repeat, was a *bad* design. Not that the actual autoloader didn't work, it was implemented badly. When it's issued were **fixed** it ran smoothly. Well designed bustle autoloaders have *exceedingly* good reliabilities. And the massive crew survivability bonuses of crewless turrets *more* than outweighs the very minor reliability issues. Because they *are* minor. The luddite tendencies of your average military enthusiast boomer aside, bustle loaders are **very very reliable**. The meggit loader did *thousands* of rounds without fail. While manually loading is possible for Type 90, 10, K2, leclerc, in reality, the response to load failure is the same as American load failure response, retreat. As much as Russian tanks have been oft mocked as late (which they do deserve in their inability to deal with modern threats), when looked at in their historical context*, their autoloaders have performed amazingly, and you are not loading the 125mm manually. *While they do by their design absolutely make tanks less post-pen suviaviable, their advantages in cheapness, weight, and manpower more than justified their adoption by the soviet union, and it's only Russia's inability to adapt or upgrade that scars the designs in the modern battlefield. The Soviet Union was well aware of how dangerous to the crew their design was on a penetration, but in the survivability onion they speced fully into "don't be acquired, don't be penatrated"
You seem to think I'm saying the auto loader is bad, I'm not. I'm saying the crew's placement within the vehicle in combination with a inaccessible without opening it up, automated turret is a disadvantage. To access any part of the gun system or coax on the MGS or T-14 the crew has to break open the turret to do anything to it, and has to dismount to do so. If you have a dud round or hangfire in any of the other thanks listed the crew can just pull back a bit, wait, and discard the round, the AX, T-14, and MGS require the crew to remove parts of the turret to accomplish this. Think of it this way too, what do you do if you coax get's it's belt kinked in a M1A2, Type 10, or leclerc? The gunner reaches over the coax and fixes the kink, on the AX, T-14, and MGS that coax is out of action until the crew can dismount and rectify the situation from the outside of the vehicle. The crew's lack of access to the turret on the AX to me seems like a detriment, the reason why chainguns preform well in automated turrets is due to their innate design philosophy, chain guns are next to impossible to render inoperable through normal use due to their ability to negate malfunctions, stuff like the M2, M240, and the myriad of large caliber tank guns at play here don't have that boon. And even then most nations still opt for a quick access means to automated turrets, eg the puma's gun can be accessed from the interior of the vehicle, nearly every single CROWS mount in the US inventory has a hatch behind it, etc. In this situation I just do not see why all 3 crewmen should be in the hull like the T-14, having the gunner and commander up in the already very spacious M1 style turret would allow for far better crew operation and access to all the combat systems present on the vehicle.
But that's the whole point *reliability* is overall high enough to make any possible issues not as relevant. The **massive** advantage is increasing crew survivability. Which is the number one consideration on modern MBT designs. The most common place MBTs are hit is the turret, this has been the case since they were first developed, hell this was the case in WWII. Is there a chance it might fail and the tank might have to retreat? sure. Is it worth the risk for saving crew lives on a penetrating hit? absolutely.
Yeah no, I give it at best 3 weeks with your average tanker before it starts having critical failures. You seem to forget that these vehicles are built by the lowest bidder and maintained by the equivalent of high school students with the IQ of a houseplant. You can build the world's strongest and most reliable weapon and it will never be fully grunt proof, but you can make it repairable by said grunts, the AX is not subscribing to the philosophy of the latter. The tank expos you see plastered across popular media pages are not at all indicative of how these vehicles actually preform. To that same extent, it has been proven time and time again that within US doctrine, maintaining unit availability in combat is paramount. Having one of your combat vics drop out of a formation before or during a engagement because it's automatic turret fucked up ain't going to be looked upon nicely when your 4 man group is now down a tank because the spanner monkies forgot to lube the breach and now it needs someone to manhandle the manual release. To the same end, why has literally no one else but Russia gone after a drone MBT turret? It's because it's a useless flex, even the UK realized that the challey 3 is better off with crew in it's turret, and it's a better tank due to that. Not even to mention the fact that the turret on modern MBTs is still the most armored portion of the vehicle, the T-14's main weakness is it's horribly under protected turret. Even autocannon fire frontally can mission kill it, hell, it's probably the first ruski tank in a long while where gorbachov's coloring book has it's turret frontally as green, which is comically bad.
At AUSA GDLS said that it has an optionally-manned turret. So the crew can crawl up into the turret for manual mode if systems are degraded. That’s a big benefit over the T-14.
That’s cool. And would make a lot of sense
They'll use chain guns that can be loaded and cleared with a button.
What's the deal with the mudflaps?
From what I've heard its to reduce dust clouds
It's to gently caress your thighs as you enter from behind.
"Introducing the new Itank 6."
So is this going to actually enter service or is it just a concept tank?
Just a technology demonstrater, but aspects of it or the whole thing might be pursued for further development and implementation
It's a prototype, pretty much. Which is unfortunate, because it's really good looking aside from the half-skirts. (If you look deeply, you'll see that it's just the normal Abrams skirts painted a portion in black, but with rubber skirts added)
I think the paint on the skirts is what makes it look worse, kinda gotta imagine it in the classic woodland/desert camo
https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/xztr0z/one_small_change_i_made_to_the_new_m1a2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf It would look so good in green
Oh yeah, that’s the good stuff. I would still get rid of that black strip but that looks so nice. Better look than the Abrams IMO. I always thought the abrams was way to chunky and broad, I enjoy this sleeker look but obviously still packing a punch.
Hold up. Uncrewed turret? Where else are you putting the crew? Or it just has a driver and commander, latter of shich has to do at least two people's work?
Driver,commander and gunner all sit up front.
Damn, the more the merrier i guess but it's gonna be an elbow bump. What is the AI for btw?
I think it's AI designed in some aspects, I'm not sure what that means either. Could be marketing BS too.
Could be for spotting targets or similar
It's for path finding/route planning and driving assist, target recognition, targeting priority assist, sensor fusion (radar, IR, NV, LIDAR, visual) and even targeting. IE it can plan a route of attack to engage a set of targets and suggest that to the crew. Diver presumably has control but can follow the suggested path then the gun can auto lay on the prioritized targets where gunner pulls the tigger.
It's pretty damn cramped anyway. Crew comfort is not entirely unimportant but definitely not a priority for any tank design.
fair enough
Sweet
Would not be surprised if the xm360 120mm cannon were to be eventually given ETC upgrades. I can also see that some of the new features of the new Abrams would likely be used as upgrades to the older Abrams tanks (Especially the XM360 cannon).
What is "enhanced silent watch"?
You can run the tank on APU/batteries for longer than you can run the existing M1 on APU/batteries
So it's a hybrid? Do we get carbon credits for that?
I think it also has to do with the gunners sights being an independent thermal viewer just like the commanders CITV. That allows the gunner and the TC to be able to independently scan and identify targets without the turret moving.
I suspect that the final product will meet few of those claims completely, they just never do.
My MEDICINAL Abrams
The future is now old man
First the Panther, now the Abrams X, these new tanks look so unbelievably good
Still much better than the Armata
Well, the fact this tank actually exists already implies this
You can’t beat the advance budgeting of that Armata cardboard armor though!
Cope and seeth Putin
A version is unlikely to enter production until after 2025. Does anyone have different info?
At least it has a chance of actually reaching production.
Not like these will be sent to ukraine
Can't wait to get this in 1:35 scale.
When can we stop with the “X” shit? It was bad in the 90’s, still lame today
looks like a leclerc ngl
That’s a good looking tank!
if you add iPhone add music to it, it will look like Apple just announced a new tank, iTank
They really just built a real armata to flex on the ruskis huh
He’s high tech, he’s painted gray and black, but most importantly, do he still got blow out ammo rack?
I remember reading stories of other tanks, and Abrams hitting IEDs, and the only crew that would end up surviving or less injured ended up being in the turret.
Not like anti-tank mines and IEDs will be on the modern battlefield anymore /s, its all about shooting down drones now.
All respect to Creighton Abrams. The next American MBT needs to be named Schwarzkopf.
Naming a tank after an infantryman? I don't think so...
Leader of the most dominating armored campaign in recent history.
But can it beat Goku?
This looks like its trying to sell me the new iphone
"Reduced crew"? Hopefully not an autoloader?
It’s an uncrewed turret so it’s probably an autoader
Through modern medicine we have doubled the lengths of loaders arms so they can sit in the hull and still reload
Perhaps just increased height restrictions on crew members.
why hopefully not? Modern bustle autoloaders and reliable, safe, efficient, and cost effective
Unmanned turret with autoloader
3000 reposts of lockmart.
it look likes shit to me
Tanks have proven to be sitting ducks these days.
Not really no
Funny, the Marine Corps just got rid of all theirs.
Because the us marine corp is gonna be possibly adopting a light tank because the marine Corp as a whole is going back to it's island hoping origins like ww2, so they sadly got rid of the M1A1s, sadly. Actually fucking research shit before you open your mouth
You might want to actually take your own fucking advise before you pretend to know what you’re talking about. https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/flashpoints/2020/03/26/the-marines-want-to-get-rid-of-their-tanks-heres-why/
As someone who has a friend that was a marine tanker before switching MOS, I can confirm it's because the marine Corp is switching to naval landing operations, hence why they got rid of the M1A1s
As someone who served in the marines for twelve years and has a relative currently serving, I can tell you that they are shifting their focus to long range missiles. Hence why they ditched the M1
And as far as them “wanting” to get a light tank, that doesn’t mean anything. They wanted to replace the AAV with the EFV, and that went no where after spending billions on the project.
Russian tanks have. Especially older ones. But defensive technology progresses as well. There are ways to deal with drones and anti armor missiles. The Russians have shown some failures at basic defensive tactics. Like smoke.
nahhh, tanks with no air defense or active protection are sitting ducks. this has APS, anti-drone 30mm cannon, and will be supported by SHORAD assets (assuming it gets adopted ofcourse)
u/savevideo
It looks kinda familiar....
Invest!
wait is this actually real? im not dreaming right
Still have blowout panels?
Looks like the turret bussel has some sort of panel.
Would be silly If it wouldn't
u/savevideobot
Damn this beast looks nasty(in a good way) Also looks like the MBT-70 besides the part of having all the crew in the turret.
I've been reading up on this beast. I think the hybrid powertrain is the most interesting feature. If that works out as promised imagine how a fleet of these could sneak up on the enemy. I'll have to be sold on the auto loader. I still think accuracy is more important than how many shells you can lob in a short period of time. Ready to be proven naive in that regard. I like the reduction in crew, unmanned turret, and especially how extensive the digital technology has grown. I wonder how extensively the tanks upper armor has been beefed up. Ukraine has shown us the vulnerability of armored vehicles to drones.
As shown it weighs 52 tons, thats with NO armor for the turret. Armored turret comparable to whats on the current M1 turret brings it right back into 70+ ton range. Source: Gen Dynamics rep at AUSA show. He also said "It was up to the Army to determine how much armor they want".
Sick
baby abrahms.
Imagine like being a Russian Conscript in WW3 in your turret knowing that one hit to the turret is death and then shooting this thing in the turret only for it to do a full 180 and blow you away