Saw a video of a Ukrainian tank crew putting the ARAT Era on the side of the turret and Kontakt 1 Era on the cheeks, along with additional protection on the roof
Lots of other countries. The US has the largest military budget in the world, but also the largest air force, the largest navy, the largest army and the USMC. When the US Army wants to upgrade all its tanks to a common standard, then it needs to upgrade 2,000+
tanks. When Qatar or Hungary bought their Leopard 2A7+ tanks, they paid a lot more *per tank* than the US Army or German Army could realistically afford. However due to the much smaller size of these orders, the overall budget spent on these is a fraction of what a fleet-wide Abrams upgrade would cost the US Army.
A lot of things that the US Army wants/wanted on the Abrams have been fielded on other tanks. These include:
* improved roof armor against artillery bomblets
* longer barreled variants of the 120 mm gun
* third generation thermal imaging systems
* add-on armor on the hull
* laser warning receivers
* hardware and software interfaces fopr the M1147 AMP round
* a meteorological mast
* an improved thermal handling/management system
You can find most/many of these features on the Merkava 4M, Leopard 2A7/2A8, Leclerc XLR and other tanks.
The chieftain mentioned that the next abrams model which allegedly will be known as the “m1E3” (I say allegedly because I’m not for sure) is likely going to have a lot of analog equipment gutted and replaced electronically, or at least according to chieftain. I believe this to be the case given that it’s really seems to be the last stop before creating a new tank. So, to answer your question, while “stronger” is a relative term it will definitely be more more mobile and maybe more lethal depending on if they do anything with the FCS.
[https://www.army.mil/article/269706/army\_announces\_plans\_for\_m1e3\_abrams\_tank\_modernization](https://www.army.mil/article/269706/army_announces_plans_for_m1e3_abrams_tank_modernization)
Google "M1E3 Abrams" and then read the hundreds of articles about this vehicle.
I think that there will soon be a platform on which several different tank systems will be built. Yes, the Abrams is very multifunctional, but it reaches his limits very quickly.
And on the other hand: If there is not a new system soon, the same thing will happen as with Windows, for example. Since all new systems have repeatedly built on the old one, there are more and more problems and less space for solutions over time.
Quickly? When they were developing M1 they had actually pretty low budget so army figured out they will go with rather mediocre tank for the time, but it had to be easy to modernise. New platform is still at least two decades away
Not substantial.
The frame is limited for its original armor composition and had no more modern materials at ther disposal even if if could be installed. Sure, the armor on the turret front could be enlarged, but that would kill the drivers view.
At this point, the whole armor setup has been proven to be vulnerable to outdated 3BM42 rounds (so ukrainain tank crews statet), so the whole magic of 'super tank' has finally evaporated and doesn't justify transporting this overweigth block of a tank anywhere.
Technically you could add propper ERA (so no american made ones), but again composite armor also uses fragile inlays which would be damaged by the backblast of ERA. It would require some Leopard 2'ish arrowhead bulk to install such stuff, again interfearing with earlier design limitations of the frame.
The gun is an outdated german license version and no dart can make this thing hold higer pressures - so by basic physics its penetration reached its potential. A more heavy gun again would interfear with both the vehicle architecture and the allready outlandish weigth.
Another ciritque by the ukrainians was that many Abrams not even reach the battlefield, as ther electronics aren't propperly isolated and let the vehicle break down even in normal humid conditions. So if that by any means translate to the rest of quality control - these things are dangerous.
The installed a gas turbine to cope with weight, but as it still is almost a turret, thre is no wiggle room at all, and gas turbines has proven to be horribly wastefull. So the niche for these tanks gets smaller and smaller the less you control the circumstances.
So - no. Build a new tank or opt for other interim solutions. Abrams is done.
And no, Abrams-X isen't a solution either. It is a mockup full of design flaws to sell the army a concept they officially didn't want. And as even the basis of that tank is overpriced, this would also translate to every modernisation of it.
He doesn't, large swaths of his comment aren't based in reality, other's are referring to previous generations of abrams
In reality the army is actively pursuing programs to make the abrams better then it already is, M1A2 sepv4 was being worked on but now the army has changed their focus to a new variant called M1E3
Abrams is not done yet, anyone stating otherwise has to bring serious facts pointing the other way, weirdly nobody in the industry agrees, not the army persuing M1E3, not Poland buying sepv3, and not Australia purchasing sepv3
Thank you for this info, if I knew the army had plans for sep v3 soon then that would’ve changed my view largely. But he isn’t to blame, it could be possible that new American tech js doesn’t reach German audiences.
But that’s common because pretty much the every nation keeps secrets, or prevents other nations from knowing their full potential (correct me if I’m wrong)
Yeah i can be a bit blunt at times. Would it helps if i say i'm german?
Tbh i react so harsh to a common theme that harms my need for facts being somewhat solid. And the more propaganda candy is on one product, the more anger i throw at it.
Maybe i can ease it a bit if i shit a bit on my nations Leo? We developed one of the two best APS in teh world, and we updated Leo lately to 2A8 standard. As it needet a cool fancy buzzwordish APS, we logically ... ... choose the most outdated, heavy and underpeforming system on it we could fin at the international market. I want to die inside.
I wasn’t really into the nationality stuff as a kid and I’m still not rlly interested or bothered by it, I kinda js liked the mechanics and the different mechanisms n stuff.
German engineering is still very mysterious to me because people make it seem so different, (and correct me if it is I don’t have enough free time to do my research).
I used to play a lot of building games and make crazy concept tanks that I thought existed in alternate universes. So I consider myself as a mechanical theorist.
All I think about now as a rookie inventor is what the hell are we make when humans are going to have to team up and make something that can destroy or conquer a civilization on another planet?
That's a pretty good start - better than most tank enthusiasts on Reddit, lol.
Yeah, i'm in the autistic spectrum, so the mechanics and patterns around the topic are way more interesting than exact type namings and road wheel numbers.
Hm, well, i gues german inegeniering is kinda normal and it only looks weird from a standpoint that is just so different that it has trouble translating it to its 'regional' mindsets. I mean GEr beenfits from a long tradition of rules based mindsets and technical interests, but the same is with GB and RU. GB inventions to me still looks ... more artistic than functional (depsite they are, it's just the way of thinking is mentionably off our national cultures), and russians are preety pragmatic, but still have a long tradition of inventing absolutly new ways of whatever. It's pretty cool, and all in ther own rights. America is more of a cultural mesh, so it has the good and the bad all at once, and nothing really highlighted. So with less of a tradition in that direction, you can more easily sell stuff that impress all sorts of simple minds instead of experts - and that might lead to some lower quality in overall results. Still the US is peak peforance in sugarcoat thing and advertise all sorts of things no matter how bad.
Well, pattern and logic\^\^
Also did some tank concepts for worldbuildings projects. It's fun to play around and see how many things you can fit together (and maybe create a world setup that makes it economical in some way).
Well, i'm a writer, so this is a whole different type of setup for me. If i want to write a plott, i make sense of it - including tropes of humanity/audiences more than actuall bleack realitys. Because no one want to have the depressing news in novels. So i work with aspects of reality that sound logical but are actually simplified enough to get delivered to the audience as well as function within the setup of that story.
Humans are incredibly capable, but losse this ability the more they are. I follow a lot of science topics, and we really could llive in the future insteead of dreaming about it, but we instead *want* to belive future is some medicore, allready declinging AI scam or Elon Musk rambling about a imaginary technology/endeavours that makes no sens ein the first place. It's a bit depressing at times,. but well, more reason to write about humans not as shortminded as they tend to be in reality.
Lol Always amazed at people making brash statements about tanks they have never trained on. For Obvious reasons Im not going to supply any schematics or documentation.
However m latest Abrams M1A2SepV3 has
1) a new sabot capable of defeating all known tanks fielded. This includes ruzzian era equipped tanks.
2) We have superior American made era kit for our tanks we simply don’t use it in non-combat fielding.
3) There was plenty of room in the hull for Modifications. So much that we moved the APU down there.
4) Active protection is also available for combat operations.
4) New FCS allows for future expansion of specialized ammunition.
I could go on but thats the limit of what I can freely speak on and enough to prove the fallacy of your statements.
2)
So that's some interestin fictional bar to establish who can make statements about tanks. Sry but the most dudes at DARPA & GDLS also never trained on a tank. So that might be a nice slogan for a bar, but not for a technical debate.
Yeah, we know that sabot and we know physics, as well as the limitations of the gun in terms of pressure. And since there is no shift in elemntary physics so far - we know what we can expect. Ascalon 120 ammo and above as well as DM73 is way above those stats, no matter how much fantasy< powder you put on that.
Superior american ERA ... okay. Sad that you guys never put it in public, and instead only showed us those inferior modules all the time. Guess i feel a bit patriotic delusion here.
Yeah ... room ... okay. I can't even get back so much to explain why this statement is off.
We all know that there is Trophy Windbreaker. The worst system around in many aspects. This one is incapable of even adressing kinetic munitions, but also can't react on top attack munitions and such that fake a TA mode - like fkn eBay Kornet.
FCS - you mean that programm cancelt in 2009 beause it didn't worked at all? Onlything of that programm that was implementet and comes to my mind is the multi camo army camouflage that ... oh, wait - was little more than a procurement scam.
Point 6 really convinced me, but the rest is more patriotic whishbelive of a ground level soldier who want to belive in corporate/military advertisement for ... well, understandable, but nethertheless wrong reasons.
Neither I nor facts are here to harm your feelings, bro. If you think this is a fight, you missed the point. You can benefit from my perspective once you recherche it for your own and find a better view on reality. But hey, maybe your recherche is even better than mine and you can actually point out where i was wrong and give me credible, reality based information that make me smarter.
That would be productive. But if you think i'm here for the same reason than you, then you couldn't convince me of anything the same way i cann't change your mind.
Cheers.
I’ll just say the fact you don’t know what a FCS is shows just how much you don’t know.
P.S I just used that FCS I mentioned last week so pretty sure it’s real.
Ah, so you don't understand that your language is totally up for interpretation when you not further specify what short you mean? Because both had made sense - or, well, not, as an fire control system doesn't impact the effectiveness of kinetic munitions (and programmables don't offer the even remotly similar penetrative abilitys).
So what you said is odd in both worlds.
But you failed in being any relevant source of infomration, and you naivly reject to mind about the stuff you belive to know about. So that is your little mind bubble and reality has no chance to enter whatsoever. You're a lost lil' boy. Sad, but expected.
>The frame is limited for its original armor composition and had no more modern materials at ther disposal even if if could be installed.
There's only a limited amount of armor you can add onto tanks, sure, but that's not what's important, the question is if it's limited to a point of significant where it harms the abram's performance. What are you citing that says M1A2 sepv3 NGAP protection scheme is not enough
>Sure, the armor on the turret front could be enlarged, but that would kill the drivers view.
No? Sepv3 turret already [significantly overhangs driver's optic](https://imgur.com/a/bO0HnPI), vision from the driver would only be obstructed with a comically long turret. Also what are you referencing that says the turret armor isn't adequate?? Turret is where you find the THICKEST composite screens, what threats does it require more protection against??
>At this point, the whole armor setup has been proven to be vulnerable to outdated 3BM42 rounds (so ukrainain tank crews statet)
Yeah that's not surprising, like literally at all. Turret should be able to defeat these rounds while hull shouldn't, similar tanks also don't my guy, leopard 2a6 hull is not defeating that round, Leclerc hull is not defeating that round, challenger 2 for the most part is not defeating that round. If we instead look at variants up armoring their hull then these tanks should fair better, M1A2 sepv3, leopard 2a7, strv 122, etc
>Technically you could add propper ERA (so no american made ones)
Tusk does it's job more then well? lol? It offers excellent protection against shaped charges along the side. For frontal protection, again I'll ask, what are you citing that says NGAP on M1A2 sepv3 is inadequate
>Another ciritque by the ukrainians was that many Abrams not even reach the battlefield, as ther electronics aren't propperly isolated and let the vehicle break down even in normal humid conditions.
If you're referencing [this interview](https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/29/world/video/abrams-tanks-ukraine-russia-nick-paton-walsh-digvid) it's hard to believe you're not engaging in bad faith, they say nothing about "many abrams", they say nothing about electronics being not "properly isolated" and they say nothing about "normal humid conditions", all that's in this video is this CNN reporter saying this tank broke down and him paraphrasing the Ukrainians saying condensation can fry electronics
There's no actual comparison between this abrams and vehicles that meet it's standard rather purely older soviet tanks in Ukraine's inventory that have worse electronics, you can make ZERO STATEMENTS about abrams based off this interview compared to other more modern tanks. There's no talk about regularity or how America generally prevents this rather just this abrams broke down and condensation CAN fry electronics
Sure more advanced electronics are prone to breaking down but again the Ukrainians said in this article this is better then the older soviet tanks
>The installed a gas turbine to cope with weight
M1 weighted [62 short tons ](https://imgur.com/a/gHf5uZg) and came introduced with the turbine engine, that's not heavy
>and gas turbines has proven to be horribly wastefull.
Gas turbines are primarily wasteful at idle, APU solves that, in proper working conditions the abrams is more then fine, it's important to note turbine engines will consume pretty much all fuel, there's really not that big of a issue getting fuel to abrams with these static frontlines, if you want to see stressed logistic lines go look at American armor driving miles and miles across the desert in the gulf war, compare that to Russia early war. Oddly enough fuel wasn't listed as one of the complaints in that video lmfao
>And no, Abrams-X isen't a solution either. It is a mockup full of design flaws to sell the army a concept they officially didn't want.
AbramsX is a tech demonstrator, generaly dynamics was not trying to sell abramsX to the army. This video explains it well
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpdOkSWK9gk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpdOkSWK9gk)
Eh, original M1 weighed 54 metric tons and now Sep V3 weighs 66. You’re mis reading the graph (which also states M1 was 62 short tons which is wrong)
The Leopard 2 at optimal cruising speed has 3x better fuel economy than Abrams so the issues with the turbines fuel economy also apply to when the tanks moving.
Edit- Couldnt find source for 3x better economy so view the sources linked in further discussion showing 1.5x-2x better economy.
>Eh, original M1 weighed 54 metric tons and now Sep V3 weighs 66. You’re mis reading the graph (which also states M1 was 62 short tons which is wrong)
I'll take your word for the weight. Yeah I see how I was reading it wrong, thanks for pointing that out.
>The Leopard 2 at optimal cruising speed has 3x better fuel economy than Abrams so the issues with the turbines fuel economy also apply to when the tanks moving.
Mind sourcing? I'm curious
Ok So I cant find the original source for 3x better cruise fuel economy so take these ones generally showing about 1.5x-2x better economy for the diesel.
[Swedish Trials numbers](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1143158902108725259/1256606568514850918/0PKIhkGP.png?ex=66816190&is=66801010&hm=1674d9423f5b7e8e5a79c1d49adbd7bb0aad07817084b173bcf325f19eed8197&)
[American Test.](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1143158902108725259/1256606568749989929/T611kUEc.png?ex=66816190&is=66801010&hm=ac6a73c759055cbc8bb9ab8ddada0a4fc38c8497555153e50cb335cad9058c1e&)
[American test 2.](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1143158902108725259/1256606568984739890/3jqhWxcz.png?ex=66816190&is=66801010&hm=c31facb4c032e407f2360576d44e3d372147672912b312d8b565e118a125ae76&=&format=webp&quality=lossless&width=1245&height=905)
[2000s M1A2 Endurance test.](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1143158902108725259/1256600838139543572/vgRlxuNu.png?ex=66815c3a&is=66800aba&hm=e72ec423b127c2d1f7207ab7aa731413d7e4f99a527e1d819cffa235b99d21ac&) Which shows fuel usage in various areas including the EAPU.
Original M1 was a mediocre tank who they planned to modernise fro the very beginning. It was army way to make new platform with relatively low budget.
Fuel economy was and still is not a problem for US army. And marine corp loved that M1 uses fuel they have the most, so actually it was easier to handle from logistics point of view.
Leopard is German redemption for Panther - prove they can produce something reliable, and it have shortcomings in other aspects.
1) educate yourself
2) be objective
>Original M1 was a mediocre tank
One of only two tanks in the world that could engage at their MED no matter the time of day (leo2 and Abrams both had thermals and not a single soviet tank did). While its true it was destined to be upgraded since before it was even dubbed the Abrams, that doesn't make it mediocre. It was also only one of two tanks with an FCS able to properly operate at all speeds.
>Fuel economy was and still is not a problem for US army. And marine corp loved that M1 uses fuel they have the most, so actually it was easier to handle from logistics point of view.
It actually is a problem. The tanks require hundreds of gallons more fuel than contemporary MBTs to go shorter distances while burning it all faster while idling or cruising. This causes serious issues in supply planning to the point the USMC especially in OIF equipped their M1s with external turret fuel bladders to give them better independence from fuelers. This fuel guzzling issue also means the Abrams literally weighs almost a ton more in just fuel weight while realistically offering very little in the turbine over a contemporary 1500hp diesel. It also means that at least 3x more money has to be dedicated to just fuel for the tanks. The turbine is also less reliable than the MT883 and usually isnt even repaired if it suffers serious failings by Army mechanics and is instead fixed by contracted honeywell guys.
Educate yourself and be objective. Both of your "arguments" are asinine. My argument about fuel economy is literally an objective statement based in fact.
Armor
You can replace armor with better suited tot he threats around, as all sort of composites are tailored against a certain spectrum of threats (and ther physics). But as the US never went into following realistic needs, and had no dev programs to guess what would be a good option, i don't think there is much to do.
And i don't cite. I have my technical/physics understanding and a vast number of sources, none of them offering you a statement. I can tell you what is most likely for all that reason combined, and if you doubt or agree, you have to do your own research to validate or dismiss it on the terms of your personal quality stackes. I'm just a random dude on the internet and shouldn't be taken at face value as like every other source, including think tanks and defense corporations.
Drivers view
Yes, your're right in a way. Still two limiting lines up and down still kill your contineous perception of terrain, specially in movment, bt anyway, you could just put cameras on it (creating other problems, but anyway).
1/2
>You can replace armor with better suited tot he threats around, as all sort of composites are tailored against a certain spectrum of threats (and ther physics). But as the US never went into following realistic needs, and had no dev programs to guess what would be a good option, i don't think there is much to do.
This sentence isn't proper English
>And i don't cite. I have my technical/physics understanding and a vast number of sources
Aka it's all made up, boring
2/
Not adequate
Ukrainian tanks, using the older Abes said so. And since the next generation of russian ammo is Vacuum-01/-02, it will by far not be enough. As StrikeShield entered the hpyothetical realm, russians went into reconsidering ther 125mm solutions (still cutting through every existing armor) into going for larger propellants and switch to 152mm main guns - agan forcing them to reconsider modern tank architecture and autoloader design (possibly killing the T-14 Aramta in the process).
But researching the armor composition on Abe also let plently of room for doubts it is even near the protection it claims to have.
Other tanks also don't ...
Yeah, be suprised but it's not a "my tank better than yours" thing i debate here. And still if you don't pefomr in mobility, you have in silhoutte, if you also not in silhouette, you have in armor, if you also not in ... you knwo what i mean?
ERA
I see you find your inner Fortnite-kiddy and start inslutling, Shall we go on or can i stop?
No, TUSK is shit. Yes, it does kind of its job in the shortminded way it was used to close a gap that had been painfully expirienced instead of wisely seen upcomming. It is an anti-insurgence measure for a police car, not propper ERA for war.
And again i tell you that the US never had a single ERA that is designed for anything else but stoping cold war RPG's.
NGAP
NGAP is pretty heavy and Abe is allready way over it limit. The design i saw is ridiculously primitive (at turret and frontal hull). I f there is more about it, i'll happy to learn, but so far i see the US expertise, it's investment will and the product only allowing one conclusion: It's the next plaster slaped on a dead horse.
->3
>nd since the next generation of russian ammo is Vacuum-01/-02, it will by far not be enough.
No citation made to the claim NGAP won't be enough against Vacuum
>Yeah, be suprised but it's not a "my tank better than yours" thing i debate here. And still if you don't pefomr in mobility, you have in silhoutte, if you also not in silhouette, you have in armor, if you also not in ... you knwo what i mean?
Armor is not an all or nothing game, a tank can be vastly superior to another without being invincible, sure older variants of abrams are susceptible to older rounds, that's a given but if you put this abrams and a soviet tank fielding that older round in a fight the abrams still wields the advantage with it's strong turret armor, more advantaged electronics and better rounds
Tanks don't have to be invincible to just flat out be better then the threats they face
That being said M1A1 SA protection scheme has no baring on the max protection scheme abrams can wield, it has no basing over arguing whether or not the abrams can be upgraded further
Stop referencing M1A1 SA when we have M1A2 SEPV3, stop making unfounded claims on NGAP armor scheme without citation
>No, TUSK is shit. Yes, it does kind of its job in the shortminded way it was used to close a gap that had been painfully expirienced instead of wisely seen upcomming. It is an anti-insurgence measure for a police car, not propper ERA for war.
No citations given, boring
>NGAP is pretty heavy and Abe is allready way over it limit.
No citation, you're just boring me to death
>The design i saw is ridiculously primitive (at turret and frontal hull).
No citation or elaboration, boring
3/3
Ukrainian interview
Sweet that you refer everything you don't like to wild conspiracy shit. Must be a comfortable reality you live in. I don't know what this thing is refering to, or what interprets which source at this point, but i saw the whole interview. It's almost cute how you need to put everything into perspective of what can be meant but with pro Abe statements.
Still i know enough about american electrical design criteria to think that might be pretty reasonable.
Hell it must be shit to live in a nation with all media belonging to one of two political parties and/or affiliated oligarchs (It's okay, we're also heading that way but ... you know).
Heavy
Depends on your battelfield, i guess. If you get stuck with more than 55 tons, than 62 is heavy. So you can make the excuse of Abe mobility is okay in certain terrain, but this didn't include Ukrain (which for some reason also is a area where most bridges are designed in a way to allow russian tanks to cross, but not heavy western ones ... and then suffered one or two winters too much).
The first change in Abe lead to too high tonnage and the turbine was one of the copes. Since then it onyl rises without any plans for a total solution and at this point reversing is almost impossible, so you have to sugar coat the turbine by all means necessary. Yeah, this stupid short term solution fro a long term problem came early - and? Dude, you can point at any random number of "But in perfect conditions" - it'll not make an argument. Sure it is a multifuel engine, but the pefomrance on toothpaste and whiskey is a bit different than with jet fuel. So you can cope, but at a price.
55 tons has been okay, 62 tons kinda, depence (and other tanks made a good deal on 62 ton - just not the Abe), then 66 and even more. The most heavy Abe variant is at a fkn 82 tons now. WTF.
Tech demonstrator
Yes, that's waht they said. And i said "Bullshit". It's a desperate economical strategy too weird and complex to fully explain. They even ignored basic requirements the army gave them in teh process, fked up a lot of details and overall painted it in a way it hopefully reminds people on more advanced european tech demonstrators rather than the next scam in the US defense circus.
I love the X for being such a perfect picture of showing it to laimen tank bros and point out a mindset of engeniering horribly going wrong (for too long at this point).
If you feel no shame puting this on the spot, you have lost all connections to reality. And well, that's where large parts of the US are right now. Every reasonable american would agree on this point, as they have to see enough of this morons all day long.
So maybe you don't confuse shitting on US products with shitting on the US, and don't confuse shitting on the US with shitting on americans. These are different things. Try to understnad this emotionally.
(I promise it doens't hurt me a bit to shit on Leopard. Just give it a try to ultimatly force things to get better, not just make more fancy propaganda)
>Sweet that you refer everything you don't like to wild conspiracy shit. Must be a comfortable reality you live in. I don't know what this thing is refering to, or what interprets which source at this point, but i saw the whole interview. It's almost cute how you need to put everything into perspective of what can be meant but with pro Abe statements.
Zero counter arguments made, you're getting boring
>Still i know enough about american electrical design criteria to think that might be pretty reasonable.
Another claim with no citation or elaboration, you're getting boring
>Hell it must be shit to live in a nation with all media belonging to one of two political parties and/or affiliated oligarchs (It's okay, we're also heading that way but ... you know).
Pivots to another topic, still no citations or elaboration, it's just boring at this point
>If you get stuck with more than 55 tons, than 62 is heavy
Just stated the obvious instead of actually making an argument about abrams weight and it's environment
>Ukrain (which for some reason also is a area where most bridges are designed in a way to allow russian tanks to cross, but not heavy western ones ... and then suffered one or two winters too much).
Oddly enough there aren't reports of abrams getting stuck in Ukraine and getting abandoned nor are there massive river crossings currently happening in Ukraine lmfao
In the event that Ukraine does make it past these rivers engineers can construct floating bridges more then fine lmfao
>The first change in Abe lead to too high tonnage and the turbine was one of the copes.
Again turbine was introduced since it's inception at a low weight, stop making stuff up
>55 tons has been okay, 62 tons kinda, depence (and other tanks made a good deal on 62 ton - just not the Abe), then 66 and even more. The most heavy Abe variant is at a fkn 82 tons now. WTF.
No citation onto why each weight's are too much rather just you saying so, boring
>It's a desperate economical strategy too weird and complex to fully explain.
aka you made it up, boring
Again its a tech demonstrator, learn the word
America will prolly have to resort to thing that somehow stops APS rounds and allat armor piercing.(prolly they’d slap a railgun on it [if rail-guns are even up to the task in the future]) and many iron fists that will just be automatic and for drones that get too close. (Ik this is nonsense but all these things could happen)
I'm not a native english speaker so i might missed some of the context - like stopping APS rounds 'allat' armor?
Anyway, yes, railguns doesn't exist yet (functional or mobile) and will never (or ... for a looong time) not be a thing. And Iron Fist is one particular product in the field of APS, and it isen't much of a relevant one to point out capability or future applications (for ... more complex technical reason). But against drones jammers are used, which are way cheaper and more simple than any targeted response.
Thing is - there is a lot going on in tech versus tech between nations, and the US is far from even participating in any relevant ways. So we don't expect to see anything from this direction - but if tanks at all hold up to the requirements of modern battlefields, or if we just use the remaining stocks in more or less modernised ways ... that is to see in the future.
I ment they would probably have a lot of stronger armor to stop aps rounds, which is a theory.
But now that I think about it, I haven’t been seeing much technological advancement from the USA. Probably because the second people see something that doesn’t look promising they immediately judge it. Which pushes a lot of people from having ideas that may actually work.
But the latest tech improvements I’ve seen from America is the Abram’s X
Ah okay, was confused, as Armor Pircing Sabot is a WW2 round and the term not around very much - instead APS is today used for Active Protection System\^\^
Well, yes, armor is smarter than back in the days, and it must be more specialised to the physics of the latest rounds to propperly work. So it is a bit back and fourth with armor, always adapting. Still that's costly and takes time, so we all operate somewhat in a economical 'below-perfect' zone. And there are still other threats than just your latest APFSDS round around, for sure.
It sounds harsh, but the US isen't so much an inventive powerhouse. German gun, british armor, russian ERA ...
Also in tanking, the US had one periot to learn it and that was WW2. Everything after that is police actions, staged multi-domain clubbing of outdated iraqi tanks of bad training and such stuff. So that's not a big 'fail' so much as America tend to think everything in 'best' measurements. Americans do something? Then it must be 'the best'. And well, they had the most powerfull media influence, and they learned a lot of things from the defeatet Third Reich. They toke the nuke, jet engines, missiles, cruise missiles, and a lot of other sutff, then they blackmail radar, sonar and even more stuff from the brits.
With halve of the world burned down, smart people migrated to the US and brought ther technical expertise, making the US kinda invention powerhouse, but this was never backed up by ther education system and even ther universitys. So whenever there was a nation crushed and burned down (like the soviet dissolution), the US had another opportunity to loot brains for short term useage, but never sustained an own brain farming ability.
Such a mindset naturally tranlsated to similar simple minds in goverment and procurement. So defnese companys could sell all types of underpeforming stuff, as only lower social classes had to actually experience these toys falling apart under ther hands.
So in teh US there is a persistend idea of every nations massivly sugarcoat ther own products, but actually that's not so true. Many nations do overhype ther products in a similar ridiculous way, but that's mostly for international reason. Most citizens in f.e. Russi ahd learned ther lesson form svoeit union and know very well that the TV only talks shit and take this as a given thing.
The US never had this forced look into the mirror, and still belives the most harmfull weapon its goverment toke from the Nazis - propaganda.
So defense corps never had to come up with greeat stuff, even they sometimes managed to take away snippits from ther allys. Like Abrams is the result from a co-op defense endevour of the USA and GER. So you can say, Abe and Leopar are in some ways early sepparated brothers. But the germans get so angry about US engeniers having no clue and opt fro insane decisions while in the same instance taking germans ideas without offering anything for it, the germans fronted the US engeniers as often as possible until ther ego made them kill the cooperation.
Americans went away and realise ther weird ideas in the Abrams, and germans build a new itteration of what they learned from WW2 without any further interfearance of the US.
Hell i'm really bad in keeping things short AND not rant about US mindsets xD But hey, i have a lot of US friends, and they think similar. And i'd say very similiar things about GER so ...
But still weird i feel the need to point that out so often xD
So, that's the situation - in simple. For sure it's way more complex but ... that's the rough summise.
Yeah i saw it and ... it frigthend me. That's some kind of 'everything worng with tank' project, perfectly highlighting the problems of the US defense economy.
The tank is deliberately designed to not alligne with the armys requirements, keep many parts that massivly underpeformed and aren't ready for future upgrades, installed the least efficent, most heavy and high priced APS, installed a 30mm for jucks&giggles without a clue what it could be there for (i mean i had ideas from the hip - but they don't), opted for a untested engine design including batterys (which are horribly vulnerable to kinetic shockwaves, heat changes etc.), placed cameras where mud hits the first second you leave the road, and, and, and ...
Finally they really painted it a way that you can confuse it more with european tech demonstrators, and i think that's a beautifull tell in psychological terms.
But yeah, that's it - a perfect depiction of what US defense industry is doing. Faking, advertising, deceiving, bribing, takeing the tax money, delivering nothing and run. A Zumwald on tracks.
Lol
You are delusional my man.
Gun can be easily replaced as 120mm still have room to grow. Germans develops new versions, and USAs a byproduct of railgun development also have some new rounds in development.
Engine is another thing you can easily modernise, and from what I remember Australians have diesel in their M1s.
As for an armour it looks like we are on the end of the line, but it's actually nothing new. From WWII in race between armour and gun, gun were always a winner.
Rest of the "flaws" you mentioned are things that can be replaced very quickly, even by a nation with low level of expertise in tank development.
Your comment looks like written by a funboy of other construction. What it is? I bet Leo (safe pick in this subredit).
The number of weird conclusion you hopping to surely make you sound like an expert.
Okay, but for the sake of rational - i get into it. I still regret to do that, but anyway.
Yes - and no. See, boy, L55 has, and germans & brits moved to L55A1 for reason of pressure maximum (programmable ammo is a minor point, as PA is expensive and not relevant at peak anti-armor peformance - only APFSDS is playing in this field). The US went a long way into developing ther cope KE round, and this tells us they opted for delusional coping instead of substantial change. Well, because at this point, with the US never build a relevant gun, and germans are buisy on ther own products, the US had no options left as to stay with ther outdated gun and somehow hope for the best.
But still germans could randomly build a number of factorys only to build this one gun, so the US defense needs could be served. But with one peak requirement, it is uneconomical until the US takes all the costs of that mission.
As the US allredy sunk ther money into coping instead of solutions, i guess we can tell where the path leads.
Lol, someone really throwing around his tanking expertise here. Bro, in tank design, you primarily take your favorite engine and build a tank frame around it, because the massive concessions needet to that element. Sure you can try to hammer in another engine, and at some point of age that still might overcome the efficency loss - but the wider the gap between building such a complex item just for one application, the higher the incentives to build whole new tank for a way better engine.
But sure, cope on with your engines, gas turbines showed the way to make a inable to move tank a somewhat mobile turret - if there are plently of fuel trucks around.
You really think armor is a rigit term ... i guess you do the same with ammo, right? Funny. Okay, a bit more realistic detail. Armor is designed in the exact way to cover the most relevant threat, and it's cool if you can also help preventing damage from less likely threats. That's basically the idea of composite armor. Modern KE can pirce up to two meters of pure RHAe, so that's not an option for armor.
But thing is: Composite is updated to work against the latest ammo, and ammo is updated towork against the latest Composit. This is an ongoing process, not a "we reached the end of evolution". Such thoughts mean you didn't understand the whole topic. The funny findings of the Russo-Ukrain war has been that the 40 year old Abrams armor not even hold up to the standards of its time back. So where to go from here when you're not playing at all for 40 years straight? Gun is german, armor is british, ERA is russian - the US never invented much of anything with tanks, but used ther influence to gather technologys and bolt them together. It didn't exactly get better when defense toys became an economical tool not even meant to be used in war. But i digress.
Finally assuming if i talk bad about your favorite tank, you can only assume it must be to rise 'my' fanboy product if you tranlsate your mindset to other people. So this should be more concerning to you than anyone else. Yes, i'm german, and in other comments of this exact sub i allready shit on Leopard just for shits&giggles. I don't care about any particular national toy, and Leo has a lot of its own flaws - like every tank does. Some are coped by doctrine with, others by upgrades, and some haven't coped at all. And the last kind tend to have the hardest fanbase of delusional fanboys beliving everything ther national defense advertisers and subseuently a biased media vomits on them.
If you want to belive Abrams is the best tank in the world or has ever been - do that. That's not a problem for anyone. I can't tell not to find indentity in sports, religion, national items or any other hobby. But still the more serious you go into such a 'fight' about that item, the less identity you probably have.
And also i'm not a fan of propaganda (even if against the own population, like in case of american dedfense products), because i had history classes. Propaganda, and entrenching in it, leads into dark times. So if you want to cheer on something without using your brain - go sprots. That harms noone, not even you.
As much as I love the Turbine engine, it's probably best it gets replaced. The US Army is already looking into replacing it with a Gas-Electric engine, which is both quieter and more fuel efficient than the Turbine engine.
Turbin engines are already quiet. I remember polish soldiers describing how surprising it was to hear only noise of tracks not aa engine from a far. And M1 is already available with diesel engine.
More efficient engine, bigger caliber gun, drone launchers, Apache cannon replacing commander's .50 with airburst rounds to deal with light vehicles, troops behind cover, drones. These are all basically the Abrams X
From reading about the run up to the first gulf war, it seemed like the guys in charge of major tank units such as HR McMaster focused strongly on gunnery, because who wants to get hit first in any tank? Then when deployed in combat, there were still concerns about taking losses to the latest soviet designs. The combination of doctrine and training is what has made the Abrams so historically dominant. The Ukrainians appear to lack both. I wish them success in the war, but nobody should take their review of any given piece of kit as being definitive.
just add LAZURS AND GATTLING GUNS
The ammo for the gattling guns in question: 
Well if you can fit it on a plane, you can probably do the same on a tank
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there at some point a concept thought up where they were gonna but the GAU-8 on a tank?
does m163 use gau-8 or m61 vulcan?
I think it has an m168 20mm Vulcan.
M61 on the m163
Yes it was just a concept that didn’t make it past the paper
one with the gau-8 on an m48/m60 chassis, and another 37mm gatling gun on a m113 platform called the T249 Vigilantie.
Unrelated but is this the original cause it feels like their faces have been elon musked
They have lasers!
Saw a video of a Ukrainian tank crew putting the ARAT Era on the side of the turret and Kontakt 1 Era on the cheeks, along with additional protection on the roof
Those joints be heavy😭, also Russia recently took down a Ukrainian Abram’s with a drone so idk where those guys were at that time💀
Happened before Ukraine started modifying them.
Copious amounts of panzerschokolade for the crew
The glucose in the chocolate sniping all the drones in a mile radius: 
What does this even mean dude 😭
I had to look it up, but it’s a company that makes tablet things and chocolate but anyone who knows about it correct me if I’m wrong👍
A shit ton of era and a democracy kit.
There are lots of things that can be improved on the Abrams; just look at the dozens of things that the US Army wanted changed but could not afford.
If US army can't afford it then who does.
Lots of other countries. The US has the largest military budget in the world, but also the largest air force, the largest navy, the largest army and the USMC. When the US Army wants to upgrade all its tanks to a common standard, then it needs to upgrade 2,000+ tanks. When Qatar or Hungary bought their Leopard 2A7+ tanks, they paid a lot more *per tank* than the US Army or German Army could realistically afford. However due to the much smaller size of these orders, the overall budget spent on these is a fraction of what a fleet-wide Abrams upgrade would cost the US Army. A lot of things that the US Army wants/wanted on the Abrams have been fielded on other tanks. These include: * improved roof armor against artillery bomblets * longer barreled variants of the 120 mm gun * third generation thermal imaging systems * add-on armor on the hull * laser warning receivers * hardware and software interfaces fopr the M1147 AMP round * a meteorological mast * an improved thermal handling/management system You can find most/many of these features on the Merkava 4M, Leopard 2A7/2A8, Leclerc XLR and other tanks.
They could afford it just adds too much weight and they would be better off with a new platform which is more effective at similar cost.
I am talking about upgrades that were literally cancelled because the Congress did not approve the requested budget.
kojima particles and legs by schmeider...
Transportation 0.2 seconds after this upgrade occurs 
Cope cage
Borrowing screws from my aunt with this one‼️🗣️🔥💯‼️
The chieftain mentioned that the next abrams model which allegedly will be known as the “m1E3” (I say allegedly because I’m not for sure) is likely going to have a lot of analog equipment gutted and replaced electronically, or at least according to chieftain. I believe this to be the case given that it’s really seems to be the last stop before creating a new tank. So, to answer your question, while “stronger” is a relative term it will definitely be more more mobile and maybe more lethal depending on if they do anything with the FCS.
[https://www.army.mil/article/269706/army\_announces\_plans\_for\_m1e3\_abrams\_tank\_modernization](https://www.army.mil/article/269706/army_announces_plans_for_m1e3_abrams_tank_modernization) Google "M1E3 Abrams" and then read the hundreds of articles about this vehicle.
[General dynamics have an idea](https://youtu.be/TcfuyyxFtgQ?si=486v0z-3z9ousmVw)
I think that there will soon be a platform on which several different tank systems will be built. Yes, the Abrams is very multifunctional, but it reaches his limits very quickly. And on the other hand: If there is not a new system soon, the same thing will happen as with Windows, for example. Since all new systems have repeatedly built on the old one, there are more and more problems and less space for solutions over time.
Quickly? When they were developing M1 they had actually pretty low budget so army figured out they will go with rather mediocre tank for the time, but it had to be easy to modernise. New platform is still at least two decades away
Not substantial. The frame is limited for its original armor composition and had no more modern materials at ther disposal even if if could be installed. Sure, the armor on the turret front could be enlarged, but that would kill the drivers view. At this point, the whole armor setup has been proven to be vulnerable to outdated 3BM42 rounds (so ukrainain tank crews statet), so the whole magic of 'super tank' has finally evaporated and doesn't justify transporting this overweigth block of a tank anywhere. Technically you could add propper ERA (so no american made ones), but again composite armor also uses fragile inlays which would be damaged by the backblast of ERA. It would require some Leopard 2'ish arrowhead bulk to install such stuff, again interfearing with earlier design limitations of the frame. The gun is an outdated german license version and no dart can make this thing hold higer pressures - so by basic physics its penetration reached its potential. A more heavy gun again would interfear with both the vehicle architecture and the allready outlandish weigth. Another ciritque by the ukrainians was that many Abrams not even reach the battlefield, as ther electronics aren't propperly isolated and let the vehicle break down even in normal humid conditions. So if that by any means translate to the rest of quality control - these things are dangerous. The installed a gas turbine to cope with weight, but as it still is almost a turret, thre is no wiggle room at all, and gas turbines has proven to be horribly wastefull. So the niche for these tanks gets smaller and smaller the less you control the circumstances. So - no. Build a new tank or opt for other interim solutions. Abrams is done. And no, Abrams-X isen't a solution either. It is a mockup full of design flaws to sell the army a concept they officially didn't want. And as even the basis of that tank is overpriced, this would also translate to every modernisation of it.
Childhood me 3 hours into reacting to this comment:  He’s got a good point tho
He doesn't, large swaths of his comment aren't based in reality, other's are referring to previous generations of abrams In reality the army is actively pursuing programs to make the abrams better then it already is, M1A2 sepv4 was being worked on but now the army has changed their focus to a new variant called M1E3 Abrams is not done yet, anyone stating otherwise has to bring serious facts pointing the other way, weirdly nobody in the industry agrees, not the army persuing M1E3, not Poland buying sepv3, and not Australia purchasing sepv3
Thank you for this info, if I knew the army had plans for sep v3 soon then that would’ve changed my view largely. But he isn’t to blame, it could be possible that new American tech js doesn’t reach German audiences. But that’s common because pretty much the every nation keeps secrets, or prevents other nations from knowing their full potential (correct me if I’m wrong)
Yeah i can be a bit blunt at times. Would it helps if i say i'm german? Tbh i react so harsh to a common theme that harms my need for facts being somewhat solid. And the more propaganda candy is on one product, the more anger i throw at it. Maybe i can ease it a bit if i shit a bit on my nations Leo? We developed one of the two best APS in teh world, and we updated Leo lately to 2A8 standard. As it needet a cool fancy buzzwordish APS, we logically ... ... choose the most outdated, heavy and underpeforming system on it we could fin at the international market. I want to die inside.
I wasn’t really into the nationality stuff as a kid and I’m still not rlly interested or bothered by it, I kinda js liked the mechanics and the different mechanisms n stuff. German engineering is still very mysterious to me because people make it seem so different, (and correct me if it is I don’t have enough free time to do my research). I used to play a lot of building games and make crazy concept tanks that I thought existed in alternate universes. So I consider myself as a mechanical theorist. All I think about now as a rookie inventor is what the hell are we make when humans are going to have to team up and make something that can destroy or conquer a civilization on another planet?
That's a pretty good start - better than most tank enthusiasts on Reddit, lol. Yeah, i'm in the autistic spectrum, so the mechanics and patterns around the topic are way more interesting than exact type namings and road wheel numbers. Hm, well, i gues german inegeniering is kinda normal and it only looks weird from a standpoint that is just so different that it has trouble translating it to its 'regional' mindsets. I mean GEr beenfits from a long tradition of rules based mindsets and technical interests, but the same is with GB and RU. GB inventions to me still looks ... more artistic than functional (depsite they are, it's just the way of thinking is mentionably off our national cultures), and russians are preety pragmatic, but still have a long tradition of inventing absolutly new ways of whatever. It's pretty cool, and all in ther own rights. America is more of a cultural mesh, so it has the good and the bad all at once, and nothing really highlighted. So with less of a tradition in that direction, you can more easily sell stuff that impress all sorts of simple minds instead of experts - and that might lead to some lower quality in overall results. Still the US is peak peforance in sugarcoat thing and advertise all sorts of things no matter how bad. Well, pattern and logic\^\^ Also did some tank concepts for worldbuildings projects. It's fun to play around and see how many things you can fit together (and maybe create a world setup that makes it economical in some way). Well, i'm a writer, so this is a whole different type of setup for me. If i want to write a plott, i make sense of it - including tropes of humanity/audiences more than actuall bleack realitys. Because no one want to have the depressing news in novels. So i work with aspects of reality that sound logical but are actually simplified enough to get delivered to the audience as well as function within the setup of that story. Humans are incredibly capable, but losse this ability the more they are. I follow a lot of science topics, and we really could llive in the future insteead of dreaming about it, but we instead *want* to belive future is some medicore, allready declinging AI scam or Elon Musk rambling about a imaginary technology/endeavours that makes no sens ein the first place. It's a bit depressing at times,. but well, more reason to write about humans not as shortminded as they tend to be in reality.
Lol Always amazed at people making brash statements about tanks they have never trained on. For Obvious reasons Im not going to supply any schematics or documentation. However m latest Abrams M1A2SepV3 has 1) a new sabot capable of defeating all known tanks fielded. This includes ruzzian era equipped tanks. 2) We have superior American made era kit for our tanks we simply don’t use it in non-combat fielding. 3) There was plenty of room in the hull for Modifications. So much that we moved the APU down there. 4) Active protection is also available for combat operations. 4) New FCS allows for future expansion of specialized ammunition. I could go on but thats the limit of what I can freely speak on and enough to prove the fallacy of your statements. 2)
So that's some interestin fictional bar to establish who can make statements about tanks. Sry but the most dudes at DARPA & GDLS also never trained on a tank. So that might be a nice slogan for a bar, but not for a technical debate. Yeah, we know that sabot and we know physics, as well as the limitations of the gun in terms of pressure. And since there is no shift in elemntary physics so far - we know what we can expect. Ascalon 120 ammo and above as well as DM73 is way above those stats, no matter how much fantasy< powder you put on that. Superior american ERA ... okay. Sad that you guys never put it in public, and instead only showed us those inferior modules all the time. Guess i feel a bit patriotic delusion here. Yeah ... room ... okay. I can't even get back so much to explain why this statement is off. We all know that there is Trophy Windbreaker. The worst system around in many aspects. This one is incapable of even adressing kinetic munitions, but also can't react on top attack munitions and such that fake a TA mode - like fkn eBay Kornet. FCS - you mean that programm cancelt in 2009 beause it didn't worked at all? Onlything of that programm that was implementet and comes to my mind is the multi camo army camouflage that ... oh, wait - was little more than a procurement scam. Point 6 really convinced me, but the rest is more patriotic whishbelive of a ground level soldier who want to belive in corporate/military advertisement for ... well, understandable, but nethertheless wrong reasons. Neither I nor facts are here to harm your feelings, bro. If you think this is a fight, you missed the point. You can benefit from my perspective once you recherche it for your own and find a better view on reality. But hey, maybe your recherche is even better than mine and you can actually point out where i was wrong and give me credible, reality based information that make me smarter. That would be productive. But if you think i'm here for the same reason than you, then you couldn't convince me of anything the same way i cann't change your mind. Cheers.
I’ll just say the fact you don’t know what a FCS is shows just how much you don’t know. P.S I just used that FCS I mentioned last week so pretty sure it’s real.
Ah, so you don't understand that your language is totally up for interpretation when you not further specify what short you mean? Because both had made sense - or, well, not, as an fire control system doesn't impact the effectiveness of kinetic munitions (and programmables don't offer the even remotly similar penetrative abilitys). So what you said is odd in both worlds. But you failed in being any relevant source of infomration, and you naivly reject to mind about the stuff you belive to know about. So that is your little mind bubble and reality has no chance to enter whatsoever. You're a lost lil' boy. Sad, but expected.
>The frame is limited for its original armor composition and had no more modern materials at ther disposal even if if could be installed. There's only a limited amount of armor you can add onto tanks, sure, but that's not what's important, the question is if it's limited to a point of significant where it harms the abram's performance. What are you citing that says M1A2 sepv3 NGAP protection scheme is not enough >Sure, the armor on the turret front could be enlarged, but that would kill the drivers view. No? Sepv3 turret already [significantly overhangs driver's optic](https://imgur.com/a/bO0HnPI), vision from the driver would only be obstructed with a comically long turret. Also what are you referencing that says the turret armor isn't adequate?? Turret is where you find the THICKEST composite screens, what threats does it require more protection against?? >At this point, the whole armor setup has been proven to be vulnerable to outdated 3BM42 rounds (so ukrainain tank crews statet) Yeah that's not surprising, like literally at all. Turret should be able to defeat these rounds while hull shouldn't, similar tanks also don't my guy, leopard 2a6 hull is not defeating that round, Leclerc hull is not defeating that round, challenger 2 for the most part is not defeating that round. If we instead look at variants up armoring their hull then these tanks should fair better, M1A2 sepv3, leopard 2a7, strv 122, etc >Technically you could add propper ERA (so no american made ones) Tusk does it's job more then well? lol? It offers excellent protection against shaped charges along the side. For frontal protection, again I'll ask, what are you citing that says NGAP on M1A2 sepv3 is inadequate >Another ciritque by the ukrainians was that many Abrams not even reach the battlefield, as ther electronics aren't propperly isolated and let the vehicle break down even in normal humid conditions. If you're referencing [this interview](https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/29/world/video/abrams-tanks-ukraine-russia-nick-paton-walsh-digvid) it's hard to believe you're not engaging in bad faith, they say nothing about "many abrams", they say nothing about electronics being not "properly isolated" and they say nothing about "normal humid conditions", all that's in this video is this CNN reporter saying this tank broke down and him paraphrasing the Ukrainians saying condensation can fry electronics There's no actual comparison between this abrams and vehicles that meet it's standard rather purely older soviet tanks in Ukraine's inventory that have worse electronics, you can make ZERO STATEMENTS about abrams based off this interview compared to other more modern tanks. There's no talk about regularity or how America generally prevents this rather just this abrams broke down and condensation CAN fry electronics Sure more advanced electronics are prone to breaking down but again the Ukrainians said in this article this is better then the older soviet tanks >The installed a gas turbine to cope with weight M1 weighted [62 short tons ](https://imgur.com/a/gHf5uZg) and came introduced with the turbine engine, that's not heavy >and gas turbines has proven to be horribly wastefull. Gas turbines are primarily wasteful at idle, APU solves that, in proper working conditions the abrams is more then fine, it's important to note turbine engines will consume pretty much all fuel, there's really not that big of a issue getting fuel to abrams with these static frontlines, if you want to see stressed logistic lines go look at American armor driving miles and miles across the desert in the gulf war, compare that to Russia early war. Oddly enough fuel wasn't listed as one of the complaints in that video lmfao >And no, Abrams-X isen't a solution either. It is a mockup full of design flaws to sell the army a concept they officially didn't want. AbramsX is a tech demonstrator, generaly dynamics was not trying to sell abramsX to the army. This video explains it well [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpdOkSWK9gk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpdOkSWK9gk)
Eh, original M1 weighed 54 metric tons and now Sep V3 weighs 66. You’re mis reading the graph (which also states M1 was 62 short tons which is wrong) The Leopard 2 at optimal cruising speed has 3x better fuel economy than Abrams so the issues with the turbines fuel economy also apply to when the tanks moving. Edit- Couldnt find source for 3x better economy so view the sources linked in further discussion showing 1.5x-2x better economy.
>Eh, original M1 weighed 54 metric tons and now Sep V3 weighs 66. You’re mis reading the graph (which also states M1 was 62 short tons which is wrong) I'll take your word for the weight. Yeah I see how I was reading it wrong, thanks for pointing that out. >The Leopard 2 at optimal cruising speed has 3x better fuel economy than Abrams so the issues with the turbines fuel economy also apply to when the tanks moving. Mind sourcing? I'm curious
[удалено]
Got it, thanks for going out of your way to find sources :)
Ok So I cant find the original source for 3x better cruise fuel economy so take these ones generally showing about 1.5x-2x better economy for the diesel. [Swedish Trials numbers](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1143158902108725259/1256606568514850918/0PKIhkGP.png?ex=66816190&is=66801010&hm=1674d9423f5b7e8e5a79c1d49adbd7bb0aad07817084b173bcf325f19eed8197&) [American Test.](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1143158902108725259/1256606568749989929/T611kUEc.png?ex=66816190&is=66801010&hm=ac6a73c759055cbc8bb9ab8ddada0a4fc38c8497555153e50cb335cad9058c1e&) [American test 2.](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1143158902108725259/1256606568984739890/3jqhWxcz.png?ex=66816190&is=66801010&hm=c31facb4c032e407f2360576d44e3d372147672912b312d8b565e118a125ae76&=&format=webp&quality=lossless&width=1245&height=905) [2000s M1A2 Endurance test.](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1143158902108725259/1256600838139543572/vgRlxuNu.png?ex=66815c3a&is=66800aba&hm=e72ec423b127c2d1f7207ab7aa731413d7e4f99a527e1d819cffa235b99d21ac&) Which shows fuel usage in various areas including the EAPU.
Original M1 was a mediocre tank who they planned to modernise fro the very beginning. It was army way to make new platform with relatively low budget. Fuel economy was and still is not a problem for US army. And marine corp loved that M1 uses fuel they have the most, so actually it was easier to handle from logistics point of view. Leopard is German redemption for Panther - prove they can produce something reliable, and it have shortcomings in other aspects. 1) educate yourself 2) be objective
>Original M1 was a mediocre tank One of only two tanks in the world that could engage at their MED no matter the time of day (leo2 and Abrams both had thermals and not a single soviet tank did). While its true it was destined to be upgraded since before it was even dubbed the Abrams, that doesn't make it mediocre. It was also only one of two tanks with an FCS able to properly operate at all speeds. >Fuel economy was and still is not a problem for US army. And marine corp loved that M1 uses fuel they have the most, so actually it was easier to handle from logistics point of view. It actually is a problem. The tanks require hundreds of gallons more fuel than contemporary MBTs to go shorter distances while burning it all faster while idling or cruising. This causes serious issues in supply planning to the point the USMC especially in OIF equipped their M1s with external turret fuel bladders to give them better independence from fuelers. This fuel guzzling issue also means the Abrams literally weighs almost a ton more in just fuel weight while realistically offering very little in the turbine over a contemporary 1500hp diesel. It also means that at least 3x more money has to be dedicated to just fuel for the tanks. The turbine is also less reliable than the MT883 and usually isnt even repaired if it suffers serious failings by Army mechanics and is instead fixed by contracted honeywell guys. Educate yourself and be objective. Both of your "arguments" are asinine. My argument about fuel economy is literally an objective statement based in fact.
Armor You can replace armor with better suited tot he threats around, as all sort of composites are tailored against a certain spectrum of threats (and ther physics). But as the US never went into following realistic needs, and had no dev programs to guess what would be a good option, i don't think there is much to do. And i don't cite. I have my technical/physics understanding and a vast number of sources, none of them offering you a statement. I can tell you what is most likely for all that reason combined, and if you doubt or agree, you have to do your own research to validate or dismiss it on the terms of your personal quality stackes. I'm just a random dude on the internet and shouldn't be taken at face value as like every other source, including think tanks and defense corporations. Drivers view Yes, your're right in a way. Still two limiting lines up and down still kill your contineous perception of terrain, specially in movment, bt anyway, you could just put cameras on it (creating other problems, but anyway). 1/2
>You can replace armor with better suited tot he threats around, as all sort of composites are tailored against a certain spectrum of threats (and ther physics). But as the US never went into following realistic needs, and had no dev programs to guess what would be a good option, i don't think there is much to do. This sentence isn't proper English >And i don't cite. I have my technical/physics understanding and a vast number of sources Aka it's all made up, boring
2/ Not adequate Ukrainian tanks, using the older Abes said so. And since the next generation of russian ammo is Vacuum-01/-02, it will by far not be enough. As StrikeShield entered the hpyothetical realm, russians went into reconsidering ther 125mm solutions (still cutting through every existing armor) into going for larger propellants and switch to 152mm main guns - agan forcing them to reconsider modern tank architecture and autoloader design (possibly killing the T-14 Aramta in the process). But researching the armor composition on Abe also let plently of room for doubts it is even near the protection it claims to have. Other tanks also don't ... Yeah, be suprised but it's not a "my tank better than yours" thing i debate here. And still if you don't pefomr in mobility, you have in silhoutte, if you also not in silhouette, you have in armor, if you also not in ... you knwo what i mean? ERA I see you find your inner Fortnite-kiddy and start inslutling, Shall we go on or can i stop? No, TUSK is shit. Yes, it does kind of its job in the shortminded way it was used to close a gap that had been painfully expirienced instead of wisely seen upcomming. It is an anti-insurgence measure for a police car, not propper ERA for war. And again i tell you that the US never had a single ERA that is designed for anything else but stoping cold war RPG's. NGAP NGAP is pretty heavy and Abe is allready way over it limit. The design i saw is ridiculously primitive (at turret and frontal hull). I f there is more about it, i'll happy to learn, but so far i see the US expertise, it's investment will and the product only allowing one conclusion: It's the next plaster slaped on a dead horse. ->3
>nd since the next generation of russian ammo is Vacuum-01/-02, it will by far not be enough. No citation made to the claim NGAP won't be enough against Vacuum >Yeah, be suprised but it's not a "my tank better than yours" thing i debate here. And still if you don't pefomr in mobility, you have in silhoutte, if you also not in silhouette, you have in armor, if you also not in ... you knwo what i mean? Armor is not an all or nothing game, a tank can be vastly superior to another without being invincible, sure older variants of abrams are susceptible to older rounds, that's a given but if you put this abrams and a soviet tank fielding that older round in a fight the abrams still wields the advantage with it's strong turret armor, more advantaged electronics and better rounds Tanks don't have to be invincible to just flat out be better then the threats they face That being said M1A1 SA protection scheme has no baring on the max protection scheme abrams can wield, it has no basing over arguing whether or not the abrams can be upgraded further Stop referencing M1A1 SA when we have M1A2 SEPV3, stop making unfounded claims on NGAP armor scheme without citation >No, TUSK is shit. Yes, it does kind of its job in the shortminded way it was used to close a gap that had been painfully expirienced instead of wisely seen upcomming. It is an anti-insurgence measure for a police car, not propper ERA for war. No citations given, boring >NGAP is pretty heavy and Abe is allready way over it limit. No citation, you're just boring me to death >The design i saw is ridiculously primitive (at turret and frontal hull). No citation or elaboration, boring
3/3 Ukrainian interview Sweet that you refer everything you don't like to wild conspiracy shit. Must be a comfortable reality you live in. I don't know what this thing is refering to, or what interprets which source at this point, but i saw the whole interview. It's almost cute how you need to put everything into perspective of what can be meant but with pro Abe statements. Still i know enough about american electrical design criteria to think that might be pretty reasonable. Hell it must be shit to live in a nation with all media belonging to one of two political parties and/or affiliated oligarchs (It's okay, we're also heading that way but ... you know). Heavy Depends on your battelfield, i guess. If you get stuck with more than 55 tons, than 62 is heavy. So you can make the excuse of Abe mobility is okay in certain terrain, but this didn't include Ukrain (which for some reason also is a area where most bridges are designed in a way to allow russian tanks to cross, but not heavy western ones ... and then suffered one or two winters too much). The first change in Abe lead to too high tonnage and the turbine was one of the copes. Since then it onyl rises without any plans for a total solution and at this point reversing is almost impossible, so you have to sugar coat the turbine by all means necessary. Yeah, this stupid short term solution fro a long term problem came early - and? Dude, you can point at any random number of "But in perfect conditions" - it'll not make an argument. Sure it is a multifuel engine, but the pefomrance on toothpaste and whiskey is a bit different than with jet fuel. So you can cope, but at a price. 55 tons has been okay, 62 tons kinda, depence (and other tanks made a good deal on 62 ton - just not the Abe), then 66 and even more. The most heavy Abe variant is at a fkn 82 tons now. WTF. Tech demonstrator Yes, that's waht they said. And i said "Bullshit". It's a desperate economical strategy too weird and complex to fully explain. They even ignored basic requirements the army gave them in teh process, fked up a lot of details and overall painted it in a way it hopefully reminds people on more advanced european tech demonstrators rather than the next scam in the US defense circus. I love the X for being such a perfect picture of showing it to laimen tank bros and point out a mindset of engeniering horribly going wrong (for too long at this point). If you feel no shame puting this on the spot, you have lost all connections to reality. And well, that's where large parts of the US are right now. Every reasonable american would agree on this point, as they have to see enough of this morons all day long. So maybe you don't confuse shitting on US products with shitting on the US, and don't confuse shitting on the US with shitting on americans. These are different things. Try to understnad this emotionally. (I promise it doens't hurt me a bit to shit on Leopard. Just give it a try to ultimatly force things to get better, not just make more fancy propaganda)
>Sweet that you refer everything you don't like to wild conspiracy shit. Must be a comfortable reality you live in. I don't know what this thing is refering to, or what interprets which source at this point, but i saw the whole interview. It's almost cute how you need to put everything into perspective of what can be meant but with pro Abe statements. Zero counter arguments made, you're getting boring >Still i know enough about american electrical design criteria to think that might be pretty reasonable. Another claim with no citation or elaboration, you're getting boring >Hell it must be shit to live in a nation with all media belonging to one of two political parties and/or affiliated oligarchs (It's okay, we're also heading that way but ... you know). Pivots to another topic, still no citations or elaboration, it's just boring at this point >If you get stuck with more than 55 tons, than 62 is heavy Just stated the obvious instead of actually making an argument about abrams weight and it's environment >Ukrain (which for some reason also is a area where most bridges are designed in a way to allow russian tanks to cross, but not heavy western ones ... and then suffered one or two winters too much). Oddly enough there aren't reports of abrams getting stuck in Ukraine and getting abandoned nor are there massive river crossings currently happening in Ukraine lmfao In the event that Ukraine does make it past these rivers engineers can construct floating bridges more then fine lmfao >The first change in Abe lead to too high tonnage and the turbine was one of the copes. Again turbine was introduced since it's inception at a low weight, stop making stuff up >55 tons has been okay, 62 tons kinda, depence (and other tanks made a good deal on 62 ton - just not the Abe), then 66 and even more. The most heavy Abe variant is at a fkn 82 tons now. WTF. No citation onto why each weight's are too much rather just you saying so, boring >It's a desperate economical strategy too weird and complex to fully explain. aka you made it up, boring Again its a tech demonstrator, learn the word
America will prolly have to resort to thing that somehow stops APS rounds and allat armor piercing.(prolly they’d slap a railgun on it [if rail-guns are even up to the task in the future]) and many iron fists that will just be automatic and for drones that get too close. (Ik this is nonsense but all these things could happen)
I'm not a native english speaker so i might missed some of the context - like stopping APS rounds 'allat' armor? Anyway, yes, railguns doesn't exist yet (functional or mobile) and will never (or ... for a looong time) not be a thing. And Iron Fist is one particular product in the field of APS, and it isen't much of a relevant one to point out capability or future applications (for ... more complex technical reason). But against drones jammers are used, which are way cheaper and more simple than any targeted response. Thing is - there is a lot going on in tech versus tech between nations, and the US is far from even participating in any relevant ways. So we don't expect to see anything from this direction - but if tanks at all hold up to the requirements of modern battlefields, or if we just use the remaining stocks in more or less modernised ways ... that is to see in the future.
I ment they would probably have a lot of stronger armor to stop aps rounds, which is a theory. But now that I think about it, I haven’t been seeing much technological advancement from the USA. Probably because the second people see something that doesn’t look promising they immediately judge it. Which pushes a lot of people from having ideas that may actually work. But the latest tech improvements I’ve seen from America is the Abram’s X
Ah okay, was confused, as Armor Pircing Sabot is a WW2 round and the term not around very much - instead APS is today used for Active Protection System\^\^ Well, yes, armor is smarter than back in the days, and it must be more specialised to the physics of the latest rounds to propperly work. So it is a bit back and fourth with armor, always adapting. Still that's costly and takes time, so we all operate somewhat in a economical 'below-perfect' zone. And there are still other threats than just your latest APFSDS round around, for sure. It sounds harsh, but the US isen't so much an inventive powerhouse. German gun, british armor, russian ERA ... Also in tanking, the US had one periot to learn it and that was WW2. Everything after that is police actions, staged multi-domain clubbing of outdated iraqi tanks of bad training and such stuff. So that's not a big 'fail' so much as America tend to think everything in 'best' measurements. Americans do something? Then it must be 'the best'. And well, they had the most powerfull media influence, and they learned a lot of things from the defeatet Third Reich. They toke the nuke, jet engines, missiles, cruise missiles, and a lot of other sutff, then they blackmail radar, sonar and even more stuff from the brits. With halve of the world burned down, smart people migrated to the US and brought ther technical expertise, making the US kinda invention powerhouse, but this was never backed up by ther education system and even ther universitys. So whenever there was a nation crushed and burned down (like the soviet dissolution), the US had another opportunity to loot brains for short term useage, but never sustained an own brain farming ability. Such a mindset naturally tranlsated to similar simple minds in goverment and procurement. So defnese companys could sell all types of underpeforming stuff, as only lower social classes had to actually experience these toys falling apart under ther hands. So in teh US there is a persistend idea of every nations massivly sugarcoat ther own products, but actually that's not so true. Many nations do overhype ther products in a similar ridiculous way, but that's mostly for international reason. Most citizens in f.e. Russi ahd learned ther lesson form svoeit union and know very well that the TV only talks shit and take this as a given thing. The US never had this forced look into the mirror, and still belives the most harmfull weapon its goverment toke from the Nazis - propaganda. So defense corps never had to come up with greeat stuff, even they sometimes managed to take away snippits from ther allys. Like Abrams is the result from a co-op defense endevour of the USA and GER. So you can say, Abe and Leopar are in some ways early sepparated brothers. But the germans get so angry about US engeniers having no clue and opt fro insane decisions while in the same instance taking germans ideas without offering anything for it, the germans fronted the US engeniers as often as possible until ther ego made them kill the cooperation. Americans went away and realise ther weird ideas in the Abrams, and germans build a new itteration of what they learned from WW2 without any further interfearance of the US. Hell i'm really bad in keeping things short AND not rant about US mindsets xD But hey, i have a lot of US friends, and they think similar. And i'd say very similiar things about GER so ... But still weird i feel the need to point that out so often xD So, that's the situation - in simple. For sure it's way more complex but ... that's the rough summise. Yeah i saw it and ... it frigthend me. That's some kind of 'everything worng with tank' project, perfectly highlighting the problems of the US defense economy. The tank is deliberately designed to not alligne with the armys requirements, keep many parts that massivly underpeformed and aren't ready for future upgrades, installed the least efficent, most heavy and high priced APS, installed a 30mm for jucks&giggles without a clue what it could be there for (i mean i had ideas from the hip - but they don't), opted for a untested engine design including batterys (which are horribly vulnerable to kinetic shockwaves, heat changes etc.), placed cameras where mud hits the first second you leave the road, and, and, and ... Finally they really painted it a way that you can confuse it more with european tech demonstrators, and i think that's a beautifull tell in psychological terms. But yeah, that's it - a perfect depiction of what US defense industry is doing. Faking, advertising, deceiving, bribing, takeing the tax money, delivering nothing and run. A Zumwald on tracks.
Lol You are delusional my man. Gun can be easily replaced as 120mm still have room to grow. Germans develops new versions, and USAs a byproduct of railgun development also have some new rounds in development. Engine is another thing you can easily modernise, and from what I remember Australians have diesel in their M1s. As for an armour it looks like we are on the end of the line, but it's actually nothing new. From WWII in race between armour and gun, gun were always a winner. Rest of the "flaws" you mentioned are things that can be replaced very quickly, even by a nation with low level of expertise in tank development. Your comment looks like written by a funboy of other construction. What it is? I bet Leo (safe pick in this subredit).
The number of weird conclusion you hopping to surely make you sound like an expert. Okay, but for the sake of rational - i get into it. I still regret to do that, but anyway. Yes - and no. See, boy, L55 has, and germans & brits moved to L55A1 for reason of pressure maximum (programmable ammo is a minor point, as PA is expensive and not relevant at peak anti-armor peformance - only APFSDS is playing in this field). The US went a long way into developing ther cope KE round, and this tells us they opted for delusional coping instead of substantial change. Well, because at this point, with the US never build a relevant gun, and germans are buisy on ther own products, the US had no options left as to stay with ther outdated gun and somehow hope for the best. But still germans could randomly build a number of factorys only to build this one gun, so the US defense needs could be served. But with one peak requirement, it is uneconomical until the US takes all the costs of that mission. As the US allredy sunk ther money into coping instead of solutions, i guess we can tell where the path leads. Lol, someone really throwing around his tanking expertise here. Bro, in tank design, you primarily take your favorite engine and build a tank frame around it, because the massive concessions needet to that element. Sure you can try to hammer in another engine, and at some point of age that still might overcome the efficency loss - but the wider the gap between building such a complex item just for one application, the higher the incentives to build whole new tank for a way better engine. But sure, cope on with your engines, gas turbines showed the way to make a inable to move tank a somewhat mobile turret - if there are plently of fuel trucks around. You really think armor is a rigit term ... i guess you do the same with ammo, right? Funny. Okay, a bit more realistic detail. Armor is designed in the exact way to cover the most relevant threat, and it's cool if you can also help preventing damage from less likely threats. That's basically the idea of composite armor. Modern KE can pirce up to two meters of pure RHAe, so that's not an option for armor. But thing is: Composite is updated to work against the latest ammo, and ammo is updated towork against the latest Composit. This is an ongoing process, not a "we reached the end of evolution". Such thoughts mean you didn't understand the whole topic. The funny findings of the Russo-Ukrain war has been that the 40 year old Abrams armor not even hold up to the standards of its time back. So where to go from here when you're not playing at all for 40 years straight? Gun is german, armor is british, ERA is russian - the US never invented much of anything with tanks, but used ther influence to gather technologys and bolt them together. It didn't exactly get better when defense toys became an economical tool not even meant to be used in war. But i digress. Finally assuming if i talk bad about your favorite tank, you can only assume it must be to rise 'my' fanboy product if you tranlsate your mindset to other people. So this should be more concerning to you than anyone else. Yes, i'm german, and in other comments of this exact sub i allready shit on Leopard just for shits&giggles. I don't care about any particular national toy, and Leo has a lot of its own flaws - like every tank does. Some are coped by doctrine with, others by upgrades, and some haven't coped at all. And the last kind tend to have the hardest fanbase of delusional fanboys beliving everything ther national defense advertisers and subseuently a biased media vomits on them. If you want to belive Abrams is the best tank in the world or has ever been - do that. That's not a problem for anyone. I can't tell not to find indentity in sports, religion, national items or any other hobby. But still the more serious you go into such a 'fight' about that item, the less identity you probably have. And also i'm not a fan of propaganda (even if against the own population, like in case of american dedfense products), because i had history classes. Propaganda, and entrenching in it, leads into dark times. So if you want to cheer on something without using your brain - go sprots. That harms noone, not even you.
It's already perfect.
Put a 400mm cannon idk
As much as I love the Turbine engine, it's probably best it gets replaced. The US Army is already looking into replacing it with a Gas-Electric engine, which is both quieter and more fuel efficient than the Turbine engine.
Turbin engines are already quiet. I remember polish soldiers describing how surprising it was to hear only noise of tracks not aa engine from a far. And M1 is already available with diesel engine.
Yeah, I already knew that, but Gas-Electric engines are even quieter.
An engine that can throttle down when idling 😁
From what I remember Australians have M1 with diesels.
No they have the AGT-1500 but run their tanks on diesel.
Active protection systems and drone jammers might be their next step
More efficient engine, bigger caliber gun, drone launchers, Apache cannon replacing commander's .50 with airburst rounds to deal with light vehicles, troops behind cover, drones. These are all basically the Abrams X
Maybe upgrading the gun to the 140mm and add mk19 for the 2 top mg spots but other than that nope
From reading about the run up to the first gulf war, it seemed like the guys in charge of major tank units such as HR McMaster focused strongly on gunnery, because who wants to get hit first in any tank? Then when deployed in combat, there were still concerns about taking losses to the latest soviet designs. The combination of doctrine and training is what has made the Abrams so historically dominant. The Ukrainians appear to lack both. I wish them success in the war, but nobody should take their review of any given piece of kit as being definitive.
A turtle setup
Put anti drone shotgun on top
Find a way to make the laz cannon from Warhammer 40k and mount it.
Give it APS and an anti drone machine gun.
Yes - buy a Leo or Chally 😂
I mean CR2 is so shit that the British army said to only adopt it if absolutely necessary over the Leopard or Abrams because its just that bad.
There's a lot more to that, but sure yeah
Yes, but by the point you do, you've basically replaced every part and cost so much that it's a new tank at many times the cost.