People who want auto-loaders have never served as an armor crewman. That 4th person comes in very handy when things break down, whether replacing broken torsion bars, tracks, or pulling watch/security. Imagine being out on a mission for weeks. You get ragged from lack of sleep. As a former Platoon Leader and Tank Commander, I had my hands full with writing the OPORDER, tactically maneuvering my tanks, taking care of my troops, going to frickin' meetings, making sure that you cover ALL the check lists, etc. That 4th man, the LOADER, can help with monitoring the radios or help fix the broke-dk tank, or simply manning the M240 while the rest of the crew is pulling maintenance, or deploying as a dismounted OP for local security, or as a ground guide when required when moving through congested area. My humble 2 cents worth.
@@TheRealBillBob - Nevermind the fact that auto-loaders have a higher malfunction rate. When they break, who do you think will have to abandon his crew position duty to fix it? Nevermind that manual loaders are quicker on the reload. I've had "Vacuum" Loaders who can load another Sabot round in under 2 seconds. Have you ever had to remove a dud? When you stick a round in the breech, the metal expands making it like a cork and it is really difficult to remove. I've been through all the tank crew positions and commanded Armor Platoons and a Combined Arms Company/Team. As a Loader, I've had to open the breech after a misfire, remove the round, rotate it 180 °, reload the round, spit on the primer, and reset the breech. That round successfully fired. All within 5 seconds. You tell me what happens when you have an auto-loader and you get a misfire? What is your experience with REAL tanks again?
@@acardy1804 - Let's just say over 5 years as an Armor officer, a few years as 11B Infantry before that, and a couple of years in Military Intelligence after.
I think reliability and the ability to make near-field repairs will be important. The lessons learned from the current conflict are that you can not have support and complex parts very far from action.
Which the army is trying to screw up. The “new hummer” aka the JLTV, which is more advanced than the humvee, has no reliability, the suspension breaks down constantly under any condition that isn’t perfect, with no way to repair or replace it on the move, it has trouble maneuvering through mud because of how dang heavy it is, and the occupants can get trapped inside .
I agree. When I was on tanks in the seventies we could barely keep heat going. However, we knew how to fix our rigs and carried the tools and parts for most of the usual breakdowns. The M60 A1 could move and shoot without any electrical power from the engine or batteries. We had manual systems for everything. I don't know what kind of backups the new tanks have but I know that in field conditions stuff was constantly breaking and we weren't getting shot at. I wonder if we still have warehouses full of brand new tanks in Germany like we did back then. I don't think these new rigs are going to be able to cool and heat their systems which will undoubtedly degrade their fancy electronics. Hybrid? From what I've seen of EV's I doubt that this system will be helpful or survive deployment. Lastly, anyone who has been around these machines will tell you that you will hear track noise long before you hear even the v12 diesel engine. Why again a hybrid? God bless our soldiers who will be the ultimate test subjects for these systems.
Whether an MBT has an Autoloader or not, and therefore potentially having a significantly less armoured turret, the main thing that really counts is that the Crew are separated in an enclosed heavily armoured crew compartment, and so will survive. It is the survival of the crew that matters above all else with Tank design.
Actually we survived in the turret and I was deployed during the roughest times in IRAQ. the countless IED's we took and I left shook but no parts taken. Putting them in the Hull does nothing but expose them when the Autoloader malfunctions. Put a Sabot round through the hull and All 3 are dead that's a dead crew. Putting the two in the turret and you still have a chance. turns the tank into a pillbox and you can still fight until recovery operations can be completed. Dont fix what is not broke. Autoloaders will never be as fast as a human loader and thats a fact. my 18 years on the Abrams says so
Whom ever is coming up with most of this BS was never a Tanker and if they were they freaking sucked. This is the stuff that’s gonna fall on its face. You want reliability.. get some salty ass E-4’s crew members maybe an E-5 gunner, with a couple salty as Tank mechanics to tell you what is shit! A Tank designed by Tankers for Tankers. Autoloader is horrible and slow. Nevertheless you can expect to have a good tank that’s designed by desk lizards 🦎.
Not disagreeing with the comments from tankers below. Do have a question though. If a human loader is faster why do the Russians and others use an autoloader? It seems for the Russians it is not helping other than to make interesting footage of the turret flying through the air.
This is the problem with relying on a military-industrial complex.The vendors are always addressing the previous requests which is why we're always fighting the last war. This system seems to be designed for the plains of eastern europe....
The hybrid electric vehicle program is important because the heat produced by the Abrams tank can be observed from space and counter artillery attacks will be another serious threat on the battlefield
The script for this seems A.I. written. You can detect it in the number times it circles around fuel efficiency before getting to the hybrid engine details. 5:19 As of yet it hasn’t mentioned that the electric part of the motor allows the engines to be off while all of the electronics remain on.
A new tank yes. Just not based of the SEPv3. The Abrams x is yes a tech demonstrator and they should make one based off that instead as it's more modern and made for a modern battlefield. The SEPv3 could be used as a blueprint possibly but that's about it. The m1a2 SEP upgrades have used up there useful lifespan
As long as the auto loader can operate when the machine breaks down, that's what has to be incorporated into the design that if the auto loader breaks down it still could be manually loaded
The Abrams Main Battle Tank platform has came a long way in advancements since its inception in the early 1980s. I was on the first series of the M1 in 1985 in Bamberg Germany, the M1IP, M1A1 and the first series of the M1A2 at Fort Hood Texas in 1992-1993. That was during the Air-Land Battle Doctrine era. Now the Army is in the Multi-Domain concept of training for combat with the reliability of major computer systems and satellite communications/links making it leaps and bounds ahead of all allied forces and adversaries. I believe the main mission of Armor is still “To close with and destroy the enemy using firepower, mobility, and shock action achieving decisive results on the battlefield by maneuvering rapidly and concentrating overwhelming firepower at the critical points of engagement;essentially outmaneuvering and eliminating hostile forces through protected firepower and rapid movements. STAY ON THE TANK!
I was in the last Class at Fort Knox in 1983 to be trained on the M60A3, and after 16 months I had to be trained on the M1A1...what a huge difference between the two... it was like going from a Yugo to an Escalade
There are actually two current versions of the Abrams X in development. One is a full version hybrid; much like a Toyota Prius, that also weighs 70+ tons. They might make both turbine and diesel variations. A second fully different option, a fully electric tank, but also has a type of semi-attached pod to keep batteries charged. Technically an engine of just over one liter in size could keep batteries charged - even for something of that weight. It works fine for trains
That would only work for the expensive drones costing up to millions of dollars. For the cheaper drones, everyone basically uses them or they are make shift FPV's made from parts from a hobby company's warehouse.
As a retired tanker and master gunner, I believe the Army could benefit from a new design. That said, at the very least, they should consider replacing the turbine engine with the diesel
Surviving the battlefield should always be the top priority in tank design-protecting the crew with a heavily armored compartment is essential, no matter the turret's specifics
Everyone is aware of that, however fpv drones aren't enough to cause any real damage to a tank on its own at least not current nato tanks, and im pretty sure even the worse soviet tanks have been able to receive a couple fpv drones and even direct front fire hits without immediately going out, rather its larger drones and drones like the reaper that have more significant payloads or other infantry ground weapons and mines that are more dangerous as there are mines that basically shoot up and then look for the weakest section of tanks which is usually the top and back side, before deploying and exploding. FPV drones are much harsher against lighter vehicles and infantry also they exist more easily because neither side has air dominance or even air control to which the US it wouldn't be much of an issue to maintain air dominance and naval dominance meaning fpv drones wouldn't exactly work as well against the US the issue is cost effectiveness to destory those drones, they're so cheap that most systems are very expensive to use or difficult to hit and may not stop the drone, which is why laser weapon systems are being used, to which nato has been collectively sharing with eachother improvements we recently borrowed some ideas from the UK on their laser weapon system that was better than the publicly known systems we have. Laser weapons are very inexpensive to actually shoot but even currently take some time to stop drones so a swarm unless those can burn through in them less than a second will cause issues in general something nato is already working on, we've seen germany and the US make advancements in drone swarm systems and probably the rest of nato in europe.
@yulfine1688 to include: FPV drones are nearly vulnerable to EWS systems, the one were seeing being fielded in russia are extremely short-ranged and are used as modifications to be placed ontop the cages of russian armoured vehicles. EWS being utilized by NATO and the US itself might be able to nearly get rid of all FPV drones though not Vandal Optically-connected Wire drones(?). I doubt NATO would be facing these drones if they were attacking because they wouldn't be the one attacking Russia first.
@@dberry999666 Even if true it proves nothing as anyone but fanboys know that tanks are destroyed and yes crews do get killed. You may be right that ONE M1 was destroyed with a crew loss but compare that to how vulnerable every Soviet/Russian designed and fielded tank is.
@@dberry999666 ....the T72 turret is setting records .....how high the turret can fly......but yes it is still a good tank in my eyes when You consider the Russian military budget verses USA budget
@@dberry999666 Wow you are ignorant, the Marines got rid of Abrams because they are re focusing on what they were designed for, rapid deployment and costal attack. Any tank can be defeated but the Abrams is probably the best in the world and most survivable. It's battle proven with many years of evolution.
The Ukrainian Army is perfectly happy to take our old Abrams variants, and the Russian, North Korean, and Belorussian armies are terrified that the Ukrainians have them!
The tank has definatly turnd into a crew cooker with the avent of drones and top stricking man portables , newer tanks will have to armour the turret roofs and decks , even the infantry is being pushed to obsolescence by the drones , a return to linnear warfare may be in order , AA artilery has advanced to a point that 155mm shells can be intercepted , imagine company or battalion units advancing with mechanized AA covering the air from artilery and drones , a heavily armourd tank with roof and deck armour on flanks of advancing unit would be effective against machine gun positions encounterd , the armouring of the infantry is long past due and will be totaly nessary on the future battle feild .
What lessons from Ukraine? They never used the Abrams in the same Capacity as we always have done: In groups. Never is a Solo Abrams on the battlefield. 95% of the destroyed vehicles in Ukraine were solo and moving solo, therefore they were targeted. When we move we move in Sections, Platoons or Company/Troop, Never Alone. so that so called lesson is a garbage example. Leaders in todays military are weak and want to forgo the "Train as you fight" mentality to become a lethal fighting force. They want to get rid of scouts and now they want to complain about the Abrams when there was absolutely nothing wrong (other than the CROWS, which was the worst idea ever) with the tank. Don't fix what is not broke. I was on every iteration of the M1A1 (starting at the 105) and transitioned to the M1A1 and M1A2 and seen the tanks evolution. I retired on the SEPv2's in 2014 and I feel sorry for our tankers going into the future if they are deciding to go with the Abrams X Program. Autoloaders will never out do a Human loader. thats the Army saying we dont need another soldier. lets save money and toss an autoloader in there. Now tell me....whats going to happen when that said autoloader malfunctions, round gets stuck in the feed tray or turret goes out? You have 3 crew members in the hull which is an extremely terrible mistake that in of itself. That Abrams X tank is Dead. You might as well park the Abrams X right next to the T 14 Armada that still sitting on the parade ground waiting for it to be started. I hear the T 14 needs a friend.
Well here's the thing american tech is more reliable than Russian tech so comparing the Abrams X to a tank that can barely move like the t-14 armata is an insult to the tank. If you think the evolution of a tank to something better as it's always been then you're pathetic. They have to evolve it. The sepv3 and sepv4 is now basically obsolete in today's battlefields.
Materials science is constantly evolving, so a 13 ton drop may not be as outlandish as previously believed. There are R&D projects out there where metals are having air pumped in as metal is formed to produce lighter but stronger metals. The main problem is not the strength of this new Dairy Queen ice cream type material but the same consistency throughout. It will take time but it's possible. As for the hybrid systems, I don't think it's sensible to go to that as a greener way. Now, as far as tactical advantage, yes, it could helo alot. As far as being able to squeeze every bit of fuel in combat operations, yes, that could alot. But the warfighting ability has to always come first. If the hybrid/battery becomes non-functional, the crews must have the option to "disengage " it from the fuel systems. Having never been in any type of tank much less a crew member, I truly believe our tank veterans' opinions need to be given the most attention and I have read in many articles, blogs and comments that they believe a human loader is the best way to go.
There's no point in asking people to give their opinions on the M1 E3 because you provide almost no information on it. All you'll get is some boomer ex-tanker saying autoloaders are bad because they don't have a 4th crewman.
I can see it now. I've replaced more than my fare share of battery packs from tankers, leaving the master power on. The M1E3 will only run a few times a year, having to have its batteries constantly swapped out with a full hybrid system. As far as the auto loader, I've known a few loaders that could easily outpace the main guns' heat cycles. Not to mention, a machine can't fix itself where a tanker only slows down as they break or are easily swaped out with another crew member.
As for Anti-Drone Warfare, how come no one has developed a shotgun modification for the M2 Heavy Machinegun, or the Mark 19 Grenade Launcher? Or even the M240??
There's literally no reason to add any of this to the tank. All it does is keep the tankers from doing their job. Close with and maneuver to destroy the enemy with over matching firepower. All of these "add ones" should be put on a different vehicle that accompany the tanks do do anti drones defense, ani air , as well as run counter drone ect. A tank isn't ment to be a Uber tank , a god tank. It's meant to support infantry and destroy shit in a maneuver environment while being supported by other tanks / support assets.
Step advancements in hyper velocity, precision guidance anti-materiel air- to surface and surface to surface projectiles will eventually antiquate these track platforms. (if not already available.)
WTF??!! Why are the developers of tanks much better at keeping their secrets? I’ve never heard of even one developer even being investigated for fraud or theft or espionage!!!💖❤️💖
It seems like a pretty simple thing to me, Use the same hull. Increase LFP protection and sides. go with autoloader to make turret smaller for more room for armor and modern systems. with a diesel electric drive. bye bye turbine.
I think the people who are saying the upgrades will not suffice are wrong.. So much has to do with the training of the tank crews. They are looking at a weapons & mobility standpoint. The new upgrades to the Abrams are great and with a well-trained tank, the crew will have no problem defeating the enemy.. One of the biggest things they need to do is have a countermeasure against drone attacks..
ДИРЕКЦИЯ МЕТАЛЛОБАЗЫ ( СОБЕРЁМ МЕТАЛЛОМ) ПОЗДРАВЛЯЕТ ВСЕХ ПОСТАВЩИКОВ ВОЕННОЙ ТЕХНИКИ С НОВЫМ ГОДОМ! ПРИСЫЛАЙТЕ ЕЩЁ! УТИЛИЗАЦИЮ ГАРАНТИРУЕМ! НАДЕЕМСЯ НА ДАЛЬНЕЙШЕЕ СОТРУДНИЧЕСТВО! С УВАЖЕНИЕМ директор МЕТАЛЛОБАЗЫ Россия!
It is strange that the military is moving to electrical vehicles. Batteries are not light weight and take up space. If your opponent is still using petroleum with modern technology these systems may not be able survive the battle if they don’t destroy the enemy first.
Efficiency and fuel demands are a concern to any military especially one that wants to force project globally. The heat signature reduction is the biggest thing followed by how thirst for fuel the current abrams design is meaning it needs a constant solid supply chain pushed for alternative power plants. Especially ones with a lower heat signature and longer field time between refuel
"Greener technology"... In a main battle tank lmfao. They're worried about what's coming out of the rear pipe. Meanwhile depleted uranium is coming out of the front pipe 🤣
An EV combat or support vehicle is a no go. Hard enough to get fuel to vehicles how in the world are you going to charge an EV during battle. Hybrid is the way to go.
Trump said we're trying to protect the environment while we're blowing up things, we knocked down a building with the Abrams tank but at least we kept the air clean the Democrats want to make all the tanks electric but they do have a little bit of a good idea we need to reduce the thermal signature of main battle tanks significantly
The war in ukraine has changed the way tanks fight...now they need countermeasures for drones since that is the main way they are being taken out....if they go all electric hiw are these vehicles gonna be charged if they are in a firefight unless they find a way to vharge them while its running cuz there is no way they are gonna be olugging these things in
ДИРЕКЦИЯ МЕТАЛЛОБАЗЫ ( СОБЕРЁМ МЕТАЛЛОМ) ПОЗДРАВЛЯЕТ ВСЕХ ПОСТАВЩИКОВ ВОЕННОЙ ТЕХНИКИ С НОВЫМ ГОДОМ! ПРИСЫЛАЙТЕ ЕЩЁ! УТИЛИЗАЦИЮ ГАРАНТИРУЕМ! НАДЕЕМСЯ НА ДАЛЬНЕЙШЕЕ СОТРУДНИЧЕСТВО! С УВАЖЕНИЕМ директор МЕТАЛЛОБАЗЫ Россия!
@@lazy-v2c --Dude, your army is getting wiped out every day. You Russians aren't anywhere close to a military power. More like a bunch of drunken conscripts who have no idea how to manage a battle.
All tanks suffer from the same flaw: TRACKS. They are easily blown up and immobilize the tank as demonstrated in Ukraine. Once stationary, all tanks are vulnerable to even small drone attacks. Tanks will need drone jamming and reactive armor on the turret and engine covers. Mounting the targeting systems make it easy to disable the cannon as Ukrainians demonstrated by destroying the sensor of a T80 with a Bradley's 25mm cannon and making it crash on a tree.
I've been watching Ukraine and it's obvious no improvements matter if you can't protect against Drones. The recent use of Fiber Optics make Jammers useless. Trophy? It's almost a antique already. Does it work? Why aren't they in Ukraine NOW? What better place to test and upgrade --unless it doesn't work.
The un-crewed Abrams X looks interesting, just from a space saving perspective with what they can potentially additionally fit onto the same platform. With drones, the external machine gun able to track, target and wipe hostile drones out of the sky are really the best defense and if you have multiple tanks in a column equipped with the systems plus other support vehicles, it’s quite effective at creating a wall of bullets in the sky. The trophy protection system is outdated at this point, mostly because it is a non - rapidly reloadable system , as an emergency backup it still works , but alternatives/ upgrades should be looked at Especially of interest being laser interception systems on multiple points of the tank giving it a 360° dome of protection The additional advantage of the un-crewed system would be being able to significantly reduce armor weight / reduce armor to critical areas of functionality so around the guns and around the computer /electronics If they’re able to reduce weight enough you can be looking at something almost entirely different with a much higher speed , Think of the difference between aircraft in speeds is the best example here. 120+ top speed while still of course being able to fire with the gyroscopic stabilization, is a very different thing in terms of mobility If you then combine this with an AI that can detect buried mines through a variety of instrument sensors and a kind of active signal scanning of the ground To where it can automatically steer around them or in the worst case with a heavily mined field throw ordinance out to pre-detonate the mines / clear a path
We cannot Electrify the equipment on the battlefield like this it is absolutely ridiculous and absurd and I hope that Trump Stripes this down in fact the new secretary of defense will make an end to this cuz it's just a waste of money but the hybrid program is important but the batteries are so heavy they're going to contribute to possible fires breaking out if moisture gets on these batteries which is a serious problem, the hybrid solution must not use current Auto Battery Technology, it is susceptible to spontaneous combustion and the tanks are in the variety of conditions heat and moisture Gathering everywhere
OMG even the US Army goes into the far left woke climate scam nonsense. EV's might be silent but logistically are a disaster in wartime when electricity usually is the first target for the enemy. And it takes a huge amount of time to recharge compared to just replacing the fuel. Which means you need generators that run on diesel to recharge them. A hybrid vehicle in which the batteries are charged by using a normal engine might be useful to go into silent mode when entering the combat zone. Battery vehicles have another problem: they are almost impossible to extinguish after they caught fire, which means that every vehicle lost will be a total loss. CO2 is only a minor greenhouse gas. It is water vapor (H2O) that is 95% of greenhouse gasses and controls the greenhouse effect. CO2 never had a climate driving effect and always followed the temperature. Aside from that current CO2 level is way to low, the average of the last 600 million years is 7 times higher than today. High CO2 levels cause better plant growth (which is why CO2 is added in greenhouses), which is why they indirectly allowed Dinosaurs to get so huge. More CO2 is more green, more green is more food for herbivore animals.
There is a lot of work going into lightening the Abrams as well. Like fiberoptic cables replacing metal wiring, stripping out old computer systems and replacing them with open architecture modern designs, and other such things.
It's about time that both America and UK replaced these old tanks rather than simply adding new kit to these dinosaurs which are almost 50 years old now.
ДИРЕКЦИЯ МЕТАЛЛОБАЗЫ ( СОБЕРЁМ МЕТАЛЛОМ) ПОЗДРАВЛЯЕТ ВСЕХ ПОСТАВЩИКОВ ВОЕННОЙ ТЕХНИКИ С НОВЫМ ГОДОМ! ПРИСЫЛАЙТЕ ЕЩЁ! УТИЛИЗАЦИЮ ГАРАНТИРУЕМ! НАДЕЕМСЯ НА ДАЛЬНЕЙШЕЕ СОТРУДНИЧЕСТВО! С УВАЖЕНИЕМ директор МЕТАЛЛОБАЗЫ Россия!😅🤣😂😋😪😪😪😪😪😪
I don't care how new or advance this tank is, its as obsolete as a biplane is to a modern day jet! It cost millions of dollars and a couple thousand dollar $1000 drone will take it out.! Tanks or armor are the military equipment of the past ! Beware of the vast military industrial complex !
A small coordinated fleet of enemy drones could overwhelm the Abrams at a tiny fraction of the Abram's cost, and drone technology is progressing much faster than tank technology. But don't let that be a reason not to waste more money.
There is already many ways to deal with drones at a cheap cost and many more technologies on the way. Tanks will always be part of the plan. Anyone that says otherwise does not know what the hell they're talking about.
fpv drones are on their aren't enough to cause significant damage to current modern tanks, it usually takes a few dropping small ordinance even against soviet tanks to disable them, larger drones are the issue rather than smaller swarms, swarms are more of an issue against light armor and infantry..
ДИРЕКЦИЯ МЕТАЛЛОБАЗЫ ( СОБЕРЁМ МЕТАЛЛОМ) ПОЗДРАВЛЯЕТ ВСЕХ ПОСТАВЩИКОВ ВОЕННОЙ ТЕХНИКИ С НОВЫМ ГОДОМ! ПРИСЫЛАЙТЕ ЕЩЁ! УТИЛИЗАЦИЮ ГАРАНТИРУЕМ! НАДЕЕМСЯ НА ДАЛЬНЕЙШЕЕ СОТРУДНИЧЕСТВО! С УВАЖЕНИЕМ директор МЕТАЛЛОБАЗЫ Россия!
question is will Trump continue with all the climate proposals for the army continue? i kinda doubt it either way the most important thing is u dont want to lose any combat range the tank already has purely to virtue signal when it comes to future propulsion system one thing i am more or less certain of is that we will change it simply cause of the fact the current propulsion system is reaching the end of how much better we can make it and idk if hybrid is the best way to go to preserve or increase range or capabilitys cause with a hybrid system u dont have the biggest batterys which wont give u alot of range with how heavy a tank is atleast of any noteable speed i mean its better than pure electric. i think maybe hydrogen can be a good replacement if we can get to a point produce it cheaper and all that, but then we need cheap reliable energy cause of how much power it takes to make hydrogen i think either way its more fitting as it looks now to be used with tanks than normal cars cause with tanks u dont need to spend as much on fueling stations. ofc if we can make a hydrogen engine strong enough to power a tank and i dont think we have built even a prototype of that (might be wrong though)
People who want auto-loaders have never served as an armor crewman. That 4th person comes in very handy when things break down, whether replacing broken torsion bars, tracks, or pulling watch/security. Imagine being out on a mission for weeks. You get ragged from lack of sleep. As a former Platoon Leader and Tank Commander, I had my hands full with writing the OPORDER, tactically maneuvering my tanks, taking care of my troops, going to frickin' meetings, making sure that you cover ALL the check lists, etc. That 4th man, the LOADER, can help with monitoring the radios or help fix the broke-dk tank, or simply manning the M240 while the rest of the crew is pulling maintenance, or deploying as a dismounted OP for local security, or as a ground guide when required when moving through congested area. My humble 2 cents worth.
yeah pretty sure all the major officers agree with you which is why the military is still wanting to have a humen loader
If that's the only reason you want a 4th person for, you completely miss the point of why an auto-loader is the best option.
@@TheRealBillBob - Nevermind the fact that auto-loaders have a higher malfunction rate. When they break, who do you think will have to abandon his crew position duty to fix it? Nevermind that manual loaders are quicker on the reload. I've had "Vacuum" Loaders who can load another Sabot round in under 2 seconds. Have you ever had to remove a dud? When you stick a round in the breech, the metal expands making it like a cork and it is really difficult to remove. I've been through all the tank crew positions and commanded Armor Platoons and a Combined Arms Company/Team. As a Loader, I've had to open the breech after a misfire, remove the round, rotate it 180 °, reload the round, spit on the primer, and reset the breech. That round successfully fired. All within 5 seconds. You tell me what happens when you have an auto-loader and you get a misfire? What is your experience with REAL tanks again?
how long were you a tanker?
@@acardy1804 - Let's just say over 5 years as an Armor officer, a few years as 11B Infantry before that, and a couple of years in Military Intelligence after.
I think reliability and the ability to make near-field repairs will be important. The lessons learned from the current conflict are that you can not have support and complex parts very far from action.
Which the army is trying to screw up. The “new hummer” aka the JLTV, which is more advanced than the humvee, has no reliability, the suspension breaks down constantly under any condition that isn’t perfect, with no way to repair or replace it on the move, it has trouble maneuvering through mud because of how dang heavy it is, and the occupants can get trapped inside .
@RadiantCataclysm That’s why you have a combat load list to keep parts on hand for these types of situations
I agree. When I was on tanks in the seventies we could barely keep heat going. However, we knew how to fix our rigs and carried the tools and parts for most of the usual breakdowns. The M60 A1 could move and shoot without any electrical power from the engine or batteries. We had manual systems for everything. I don't know what kind of backups the new tanks have but I know that in field conditions stuff was constantly breaking and we weren't getting shot at. I wonder if we still have warehouses full of brand new tanks in Germany like we did back then. I don't think these new rigs are going to be able to cool and heat their systems which will undoubtedly degrade their fancy electronics. Hybrid? From what I've seen of EV's I doubt that this system will be helpful or survive deployment. Lastly, anyone who has been around these machines will tell you that you will hear track noise long before you hear even the v12 diesel engine. Why again a hybrid? God bless our soldiers who will be the ultimate test subjects for these systems.
Whether an MBT has an Autoloader or not, and therefore potentially having a significantly less armoured turret, the main thing that really counts is that the Crew are separated in an enclosed heavily armoured crew compartment, and so will survive. It is the survival of the crew that matters above all else with Tank design.
No, it's green energy and running off batteries :)
Actually we survived in the turret and I was deployed during the roughest times in IRAQ. the countless IED's we took and I left shook but no parts taken. Putting them in the Hull does nothing but expose them when the Autoloader malfunctions. Put a Sabot round through the hull and All 3 are dead that's a dead crew. Putting the two in the turret and you still have a chance. turns the tank into a pillbox and you can still fight until recovery operations can be completed. Dont fix what is not broke. Autoloaders will never be as fast as a human loader and thats a fact. my 18 years on the Abrams says so
Whom ever is coming up with most of this BS was never a Tanker and if they were they freaking sucked. This is the stuff that’s gonna fall on its face. You want reliability.. get some salty ass E-4’s crew members maybe an E-5 gunner, with a couple salty as Tank mechanics to tell you what is shit! A Tank designed by Tankers for Tankers. Autoloader is horrible and slow.
Nevertheless you can expect to have a good tank that’s designed by desk lizards 🦎.
Thanks Mr. Rheinmetal 👌
Not disagreeing with the comments from tankers below. Do have a question though. If a human loader is faster why do the Russians and others use an autoloader? It seems for the Russians it is not helping other than to make interesting footage of the turret flying through the air.
This is the problem with relying on a military-industrial complex.The vendors are always addressing the previous requests which is why we're always fighting the last war. This system seems to be designed for the plains of eastern europe....
We have to find the solution for the drones, they almost make the tank obsolete a laser system would be the most important asset
The hybrid electric vehicle program is important because the heat produced by the Abrams tank can be observed from space and counter artillery attacks will be another serious threat on the battlefield
War is the only true way to learn what is needed. You can be sure they are watching Ukraine and how Russian armor is fairing against drones.
*CORRECTION - The boxy protrusions are not a feature or an upgrade. They are stand in weights to represent the added weight of additional armor.
Who cares? One drone disables it, as already proven in Ukraine.
Yeah thats not added armor, its just weighted boxes
The script for this seems A.I. written. You can detect it in the number times it circles around fuel efficiency before getting to the hybrid engine details. 5:19 As of yet it hasn’t mentioned that the electric part of the motor allows the engines to be off while all of the electronics remain on.
The AX looks so badass, a very impressive evolution building on the mighty Abrams M1 👍🏻
I think we need a knew tank based off the ABRAMS but with all these features and more.
A new tank yes. Just not based of the SEPv3. The Abrams x is yes a tech demonstrator and they should make one based off that instead as it's more modern and made for a modern battlefield. The SEPv3 could be used as a blueprint possibly but that's about it. The m1a2 SEP upgrades have used up there useful lifespan
Sepv4? Ive been lucky enough to see a sepv3 and Im still on the sepv2
As long as the auto loader can operate when the machine breaks down, that's what has to be incorporated into the design that if the auto loader breaks down it still could be manually loaded
And who’s gonna be doing the loading?
@@vanpearsall commander should in a fighting retreat
The Abrams Main Battle Tank platform has came a long way in advancements since its inception in the early 1980s. I was on the first series of the M1 in 1985 in Bamberg Germany, the M1IP, M1A1 and the first series of the M1A2 at Fort Hood Texas in 1992-1993. That was during the Air-Land Battle Doctrine era. Now the Army is in the Multi-Domain concept of training for combat with the reliability of major computer systems and satellite communications/links making it leaps and bounds ahead of all allied forces and adversaries. I believe the main mission of Armor is still “To close with and destroy the enemy using firepower, mobility, and shock action achieving decisive results on the battlefield by maneuvering rapidly and concentrating overwhelming firepower at the critical points of engagement;essentially outmaneuvering and eliminating hostile forces through protected firepower and rapid movements.
STAY ON THE TANK!
I was in the last Class at Fort Knox in 1983 to be trained on the M60A3, and after 16 months I had to be trained on the M1A1...what a huge difference between the two... it was like going from a Yugo to an Escalade
Full color video capabilities! Wonder if the LED is still 480i resolution?
Needs drone swarm packages, offensive and defensive.
That'll be the day when they put the E-3 into production.. Don't hold your breath!
It wouldn't make a difference on the battlefield as the war in Ukraine has pointed out. Drones are the now the tanks' natural enemy.
There are actually two current versions of the Abrams X in development.
One is a full version hybrid; much like a Toyota Prius, that also weighs 70+ tons. They might make both turbine and diesel variations. A second fully different option, a fully electric tank, but also has a type of semi-attached pod to keep batteries charged. Technically an engine of just over one liter in size could keep batteries charged - even for something of that weight. It works fine for trains
Tank needs a drone memory to remember enemies and friendly drones.
That would only work for the expensive drones costing up to millions of dollars. For the cheaper drones, everyone basically uses them or they are make shift FPV's made from parts from a hobby company's warehouse.
Great Video. Very current,
We need laser drone defense systems on those tanks.
Excellent video, very current,
Nice one USA from friends in Australia.
Upgraded tanks will survive a few additional hits, but in the end, it too will be destroyed.
The anti-drone laser system is next level...
I think the boxer’s are like the ancient period’s pyramids!!!😂😂😂😂
the abrams turns 45 this year. still going strong but showing its age
As a retired tanker and master gunner, I believe the Army could benefit from a new design. That said, at the very least, they should consider replacing the turbine engine with the diesel
all that just to have "Crew knocked out" on my screen from a nearby firework explosion
Surviving the battlefield should always be the top priority in tank design-protecting the crew with a heavily armored compartment is essential, no matter the turret's specifics
Unless the drone defence system works really well, all tanks will be insanely vulnerable. Sorry for stating the bleeding obvious 😊
Everyone is aware of that, however fpv drones aren't enough to cause any real damage to a tank on its own at least not current nato tanks, and im pretty sure even the worse soviet tanks have been able to receive a couple fpv drones and even direct front fire hits without immediately going out, rather its larger drones and drones like the reaper that have more significant payloads or other infantry ground weapons and mines that are more dangerous as there are mines that basically shoot up and then look for the weakest section of tanks which is usually the top and back side, before deploying and exploding.
FPV drones are much harsher against lighter vehicles and infantry also they exist more easily because neither side has air dominance or even air control to which the US it wouldn't be much of an issue to maintain air dominance and naval dominance meaning fpv drones wouldn't exactly work as well against the US the issue is cost effectiveness to destory those drones, they're so cheap that most systems are very expensive to use or difficult to hit and may not stop the drone, which is why laser weapon systems are being used, to which nato has been collectively sharing with eachother improvements we recently borrowed some ideas from the UK on their laser weapon system that was better than the publicly known systems we have.
Laser weapons are very inexpensive to actually shoot but even currently take some time to stop drones so a swarm unless those can burn through in them less than a second will cause issues in general something nato is already working on, we've seen germany and the US make advancements in drone swarm systems and probably the rest of nato in europe.
@yulfine1688 to include: FPV drones are nearly vulnerable to EWS systems, the one were seeing being fielded in russia are extremely short-ranged and are used as modifications to be placed ontop the cages of russian armoured vehicles. EWS being utilized by NATO and the US itself might be able to nearly get rid of all FPV drones though not Vandal Optically-connected Wire drones(?). I doubt NATO would be facing these drones if they were attacking because they wouldn't be the one attacking Russia first.
Like to see how one unit would handle five hundred drones simultaneously engaging it
@unpob since it's one unit specifically it's gone, if its a whole army the hundred drones would be gone in no time because of the active EWS systems.
The idea of the tank needs a makeover something that can take a tank mine but keep going
Is there a way to make M1A1 Abrams Saber round go faster?
Sabot
Right On Go Army!
@@dberry999666.....How many T 72 tanks have been destroyed?....
@@dberry999666 Even if true it proves nothing as anyone but fanboys know that tanks are destroyed and yes crews do get killed. You may be right that ONE M1 was destroyed with a crew loss but compare that to how vulnerable every Soviet/Russian designed and fielded tank is.
@@danwild6 ...that M1 was also stripped of alot of its Tech....
@@dberry999666 ....the T72 turret is setting records .....how high the turret can fly......but yes it is still a good tank in my eyes when You consider the Russian military budget verses USA budget
@@dberry999666 Wow you are ignorant, the Marines got rid of Abrams because they are re focusing on what they were designed for, rapid deployment and costal attack. Any tank can be defeated but the Abrams is probably the best in the world and most survivable. It's battle proven with many years of evolution.
we don't need anymore combat operations. thanks
The Ukrainian Army is perfectly happy to take our old Abrams variants, and the Russian, North Korean, and Belorussian armies are terrified that the Ukrainians have them!
Lmao...
The tank has definatly turnd into a crew cooker with the avent of drones and top stricking man portables , newer tanks will have to armour the turret roofs and decks , even the infantry is being pushed to obsolescence by the drones , a return to linnear warfare may be in order , AA artilery has advanced to a point that 155mm shells can be intercepted , imagine company or battalion units advancing with mechanized AA covering the air from artilery and drones , a heavily armourd tank with roof and deck armour on flanks of advancing unit would be effective against machine gun positions encounterd , the armouring of the infantry is long past due and will be totaly nessary on the future battle feild .
I would still choose a Merkava...
Not even close
Clickbait title. UPDATES
The Abrams X id not the next Abrams to go into service its a concept/ technology demonstrator
In peer on peer warfare between industrialized countries tanks may be like battleships, obsolete.
What lessons from Ukraine? They never used the Abrams in the same Capacity as we always have done: In groups. Never is a Solo Abrams on the battlefield. 95% of the destroyed vehicles in Ukraine were solo and moving solo, therefore they were targeted. When we move we move in Sections, Platoons or Company/Troop, Never Alone. so that so called lesson is a garbage example. Leaders in todays military are weak and want to forgo the "Train as you fight" mentality to become a lethal fighting force. They want to get rid of scouts and now they want to complain about the Abrams when there was absolutely nothing wrong (other than the CROWS, which was the worst idea ever) with the tank. Don't fix what is not broke. I was on every iteration of the M1A1 (starting at the 105) and transitioned to the M1A1 and M1A2 and seen the tanks evolution. I retired on the SEPv2's in 2014 and I feel sorry for our tankers going into the future if they are deciding to go with the Abrams X Program. Autoloaders will never out do a Human loader. thats the Army saying we dont need another soldier. lets save money and toss an autoloader in there. Now tell me....whats going to happen when that said autoloader malfunctions, round gets stuck in the feed tray or turret goes out? You have 3 crew members in the hull which is an extremely terrible mistake that in of itself. That Abrams X tank is Dead. You might as well park the Abrams X right next to the T 14 Armada that still sitting on the parade ground waiting for it to be started. I hear the T 14 needs a friend.
Well here's the thing american tech is more reliable than Russian tech so comparing the Abrams X to a tank that can barely move like the t-14 armata is an insult to the tank. If you think the evolution of a tank to something better as it's always been then you're pathetic. They have to evolve it. The sepv3 and sepv4 is now basically obsolete in today's battlefields.
Good to see that these mechanisms of destruction are eco-friendly. Al Gore should be proud.
Materials science is constantly evolving, so a 13 ton drop may not be as outlandish as previously believed. There are R&D projects out there where metals are having air pumped in as metal is formed to produce lighter but stronger metals. The main problem is not the strength of this new Dairy Queen ice cream type material but the same consistency throughout. It will take time but it's possible.
As for the hybrid systems, I don't think it's sensible to go to that as a greener way. Now, as far as tactical advantage, yes, it could helo alot. As far as being able to squeeze every bit of fuel in combat operations, yes, that could alot. But the warfighting ability has to always come first. If the hybrid/battery becomes non-functional, the crews must have the option to "disengage " it from the fuel systems.
Having never been in any type of tank much less a crew member, I truly believe our tank veterans' opinions need to be given the most attention and I have read in many articles, blogs and comments that they believe a human loader is the best way to go.
There's no point in asking people to give their opinions on the M1 E3 because you provide almost no information on it. All you'll get is some boomer ex-tanker saying autoloaders are bad because they don't have a 4th crewman.
I can see it now. I've replaced more than my fare share of battery packs from tankers, leaving the master power on. The M1E3 will only run a few times a year, having to have its batteries constantly swapped out with a full hybrid system. As far as the auto loader, I've known a few loaders that could easily outpace the main guns' heat cycles. Not to mention, a machine can't fix itself where a tanker only slows down as they break or are easily swaped out with another crew member.
As for Anti-Drone Warfare, how come no one has developed a shotgun modification for the M2 Heavy Machinegun, or the Mark 19 Grenade Launcher? Or even the M240??
There's literally no reason to add any of this to the tank. All it does is keep the tankers from doing their job. Close with and maneuver to destroy the enemy with over matching firepower. All of these "add ones" should be put on a different vehicle that accompany the tanks do do anti drones defense, ani air , as well as run counter drone ect. A tank isn't ment to be a Uber tank , a god tank. It's meant to support infantry and destroy shit in a maneuver environment while being supported by other tanks / support assets.
Great sales pitch, but not complete. Quiet tank? Even without an engine the tracks make plenty of noise.
Step advancements in hyper velocity, precision guidance anti-materiel air- to surface and surface to surface projectiles will eventually antiquate these track platforms. (if not already available.)
The MIC deliberately make it that the DOD is always 1 step behind and on time with the money
WTF??!! Why are the developers of tanks much better at keeping their secrets? I’ve never heard of even one developer even being investigated for fraud or theft or espionage!!!💖❤️💖
The future belongs to drone swarms - land and air.
I think we're screwed for future ground warfare but at least we'll be green about it... 😅
Pretty sure the army’s climate strategy is done on Jan. 20
It seems like a pretty simple thing to me, Use the same hull. Increase LFP protection and sides. go with autoloader to make turret smaller for more room for armor and modern systems. with a diesel electric drive. bye bye turbine.
I think the people who are saying the upgrades will not suffice are wrong.. So much has to do with the training of the tank crews. They are looking at a weapons & mobility standpoint. The new upgrades to the Abrams are great and with a well-trained tank, the crew will have no problem defeating the enemy.. One of the biggest things they need to do is have a countermeasure against drone attacks..
A artillery mine in front and behind makes it a stationary cannon after the track comes off. It can then sit there awaiting destruction.
ДИРЕКЦИЯ МЕТАЛЛОБАЗЫ ( СОБЕРЁМ МЕТАЛЛОМ) ПОЗДРАВЛЯЕТ ВСЕХ ПОСТАВЩИКОВ ВОЕННОЙ ТЕХНИКИ С НОВЫМ ГОДОМ! ПРИСЫЛАЙТЕ ЕЩЁ! УТИЛИЗАЦИЮ ГАРАНТИРУЕМ! НАДЕЕМСЯ НА ДАЛЬНЕЙШЕЕ СОТРУДНИЧЕСТВО! С УВАЖЕНИЕМ директор МЕТАЛЛОБАЗЫ Россия!
Anymore, the tank crew is irrelevant. The drone pilots will control the battle space from the skies.
It is strange that the military is moving to electrical vehicles. Batteries are not light weight and take up space. If your opponent is still using petroleum with modern technology these systems may not be able survive the battle if they don’t destroy the enemy first.
batteries allow for silent and low heat stealth moving also batteries allow for lazer counter defense weapons
30mm needs armor
Why not a L-55 gun. Better ballistics.
M1 Upgrade, AC Unit and Cocktail Bar with ICE Maker ?😊
Do you think China and Russia are thinking about being green in the battle field
Efficiency and fuel demands are a concern to any military especially one that wants to force project globally. The heat signature reduction is the biggest thing followed by how thirst for fuel the current abrams design is meaning it needs a constant solid supply chain pushed for alternative power plants. Especially ones with a lower heat signature and longer field time between refuel
"Greener technology"... In a main battle tank lmfao. They're worried about what's coming out of the rear pipe. Meanwhile depleted uranium is coming out of the front pipe 🤣
Its gonna fail...if its got the word green in it.
I prefer the New Panther. Germans don't make junk.
An EV combat or support vehicle is a no go. Hard enough to get fuel to vehicles how in the world are you going to charge an EV during battle. Hybrid is the way to go.
we are going to need these to take canada
MAGA and make Canada 🇨🇦 the 51st state!
Trump said we're trying to protect the environment while we're blowing up things, we knocked down a building with the Abrams tank but at least we kept the air clean the Democrats want to make all the tanks electric but they do have a little bit of a good idea we need to reduce the thermal signature of main battle tanks significantly
#usa If you wanna win on your opponent don't forget modified your cannon into e.m.p cannon like 2in1 cannon ammo➕e.m. p then they wasn't your match
The war in ukraine has changed the way tanks fight...now they need countermeasures for drones since that is the main way they are being taken out....if they go all electric hiw are these vehicles gonna be charged if they are in a firefight unless they find a way to vharge them while its running cuz there is no way they are gonna be olugging these things in
ДИРЕКЦИЯ МЕТАЛЛОБАЗЫ ( СОБЕРЁМ МЕТАЛЛОМ) ПОЗДРАВЛЯЕТ ВСЕХ ПОСТАВЩИКОВ ВОЕННОЙ ТЕХНИКИ С НОВЫМ ГОДОМ! ПРИСЫЛАЙТЕ ЕЩЁ! УТИЛИЗАЦИЮ ГАРАНТИРУЕМ! НАДЕЕМСЯ НА ДАЛЬНЕЙШЕЕ СОТРУДНИЧЕСТВО! С УВАЖЕНИЕМ директор МЕТАЛЛОБАЗЫ Россия!
@@lazy-v2c --Dude, your army is getting wiped out every day. You Russians aren't anywhere close to a military power. More like a bunch of drunken conscripts who have no idea how to manage a battle.
TG there’s a different narrator. The narrator’s voice on most military channels started to sound too grating for my tastes.
america 1st .... maga baby maga 👍
It's pronounced Sep, not ESS EE PEE VEE lol
Still weights 59 tons, far too heavy and costly.
All tanks suffer from the same flaw: TRACKS. They are easily blown up and immobilize the tank as demonstrated in Ukraine. Once stationary, all tanks are vulnerable to even small drone attacks. Tanks will need drone jamming and reactive armor on the turret and engine covers. Mounting the targeting systems make it easy to disable the cannon as Ukrainians demonstrated by destroying the sensor of a T80 with a Bradley's 25mm cannon and making it crash on a tree.
I've been watching Ukraine and it's obvious no improvements matter if you can't protect against Drones. The recent use of Fiber Optics make Jammers useless.
Trophy? It's almost a antique already. Does it work? Why aren't they in Ukraine NOW? What better place to test and upgrade --unless it doesn't work.
You can't seriously tell me were going to factor "climate change" into design of our military tank. Gerta thunberg approved 🙄
The un-crewed Abrams X looks interesting, just from a space saving perspective with what they can potentially additionally fit onto the same platform.
With drones, the external machine gun able to track, target and wipe hostile drones out of the sky are really the best defense and if you have multiple tanks in a column equipped with the systems plus other support vehicles, it’s quite effective at creating a wall of bullets in the sky.
The trophy protection system is outdated at this point, mostly because it is a non - rapidly reloadable system , as an emergency backup it still works , but alternatives/ upgrades should be looked at
Especially of interest being laser interception systems on multiple points of the tank giving it a 360° dome of protection
The additional advantage of the un-crewed system would be being able to significantly reduce armor weight / reduce armor to critical areas of functionality so around the guns and around the computer /electronics
If they’re able to reduce weight enough you can be looking at something almost entirely different with a much higher speed ,
Think of the difference between aircraft in speeds is the best example here.
120+ top speed while still of course being able to fire with the gyroscopic stabilization, is a very different thing in terms of mobility
If you then combine this with an AI that can detect buried mines through a variety of instrument sensors and a kind of active signal scanning of the ground
To where it can automatically steer around them or in the worst case with a heavily mined field throw ordinance out to pre-detonate the mines / clear a path
Its not uncrewed. It will be a 3 man crew as you lose a loader and all 3 will be located by the driver which is a terrible mistake.
Ah, all my comments were about the abrams X un-crewed option.
It’s not in production yet.
Just makes it heavier....junk
We cannot Electrify the equipment on the battlefield like this it is absolutely ridiculous and absurd and I hope that Trump Stripes this down in fact the new secretary of defense will make an end to this cuz it's just a waste of money but the hybrid program is important but the batteries are so heavy they're going to contribute to possible fires breaking out if moisture gets on these batteries which is a serious problem, the hybrid solution must not use current Auto Battery Technology, it is susceptible to spontaneous combustion and the tanks are in the variety of conditions heat and moisture Gathering everywhere
Theses machines are very expensive canon fodder for very cheap FPV drones.
They have anti drone systems, you missed half of the video.
Did you not watch the video?
100% taxes here we come!
Australia has promised some 60 Abrams that they just put out of service. They are more generous than the US.
Why they don't give it to Ukraine?
nobody cares.
It’s a sitting duck without drone laser defense systems.
obsolete against a $250 drone and a block of c4 waste of money
OMG even the US Army goes into the far left woke climate scam nonsense. EV's might be silent but logistically are a disaster in wartime when electricity usually is the first target for the enemy. And it takes a huge amount of time to recharge compared to just replacing the fuel. Which means you need generators that run on diesel to recharge them.
A hybrid vehicle in which the batteries are charged by using a normal engine might be useful to go into silent mode when entering the combat zone.
Battery vehicles have another problem: they are almost impossible to extinguish after they caught fire, which means that every vehicle lost will be a total loss.
CO2 is only a minor greenhouse gas. It is water vapor (H2O) that is 95% of greenhouse gasses and controls the greenhouse effect. CO2 never had a climate driving effect and always followed the temperature.
Aside from that current CO2 level is way to low, the average of the last 600 million years is 7 times higher than today.
High CO2 levels cause better plant growth (which is why CO2 is added in greenhouses), which is why they indirectly allowed Dinosaurs to get so huge. More CO2 is more green, more green is more food for herbivore animals.
A Ukraine drone would take it out before they knew what happened. Electric vehicles in war, how stupid
with trump coming back into office the mandate for electric combat vehicles with be out the door
The Abrams is massively overweight already... if it gets fatter, it'll sink and get stuck in all the mud fields around the world.
There is a lot of work going into lightening the Abrams as well. Like fiberoptic cables replacing metal wiring, stripping out old computer systems and replacing them with open architecture modern designs, and other such things.
It's about time that both America and UK replaced these old tanks rather than simply adding new kit to these dinosaurs which are almost 50 years old now.
The M1E3 will fail ,keep main battle tanks you'll need them.
ДИРЕКЦИЯ МЕТАЛЛОБАЗЫ ( СОБЕРЁМ МЕТАЛЛОМ) ПОЗДРАВЛЯЕТ ВСЕХ ПОСТАВЩИКОВ ВОЕННОЙ ТЕХНИКИ С НОВЫМ ГОДОМ! ПРИСЫЛАЙТЕ ЕЩЁ! УТИЛИЗАЦИЮ ГАРАНТИРУЕМ! НАДЕЕМСЯ НА ДАЛЬНЕЙШЕЕ СОТРУДНИЧЕСТВО! С УВАЖЕНИЕМ директор МЕТАЛЛОБАЗЫ Россия!😅🤣😂😋😪😪😪😪😪😪
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. That hybrid crap is a waste and will fail in the battle field.
New Drone Candy.
I don't care how new or advance this tank is, its as obsolete as a biplane is to a modern day jet! It cost millions of dollars and a couple thousand dollar $1000 drone will take it out.! Tanks or armor are the military equipment of the past !
Beware of the vast military industrial complex !
The M1 is now almost 50 years old. We are in a new age. A $100K drone can now destroy a $13 million tank. Do the comparative math.
Tanks still have a role to play
Climate vehicles lol Jan 20th the green deal will be gone
A small coordinated fleet of enemy drones could overwhelm the Abrams at a tiny fraction of the Abram's cost, and drone technology is progressing much faster than tank technology. But don't let that be a reason not to waste more money.
There is already many ways to deal with drones at a cheap cost and many more technologies on the way. Tanks will always be part of the plan. Anyone that says otherwise does not know what the hell they're talking about.
fpv drones are on their aren't enough to cause significant damage to current modern tanks, it usually takes a few dropping small ordinance even against soviet tanks to disable them, larger drones are the issue rather than smaller swarms, swarms are more of an issue against light armor and infantry..
@@xxrustyxx_6977 That's what the Navy once said about seafaring tanks called battleships.
ДИРЕКЦИЯ МЕТАЛЛОБАЗЫ ( СОБЕРЁМ МЕТАЛЛОМ) ПОЗДРАВЛЯЕТ ВСЕХ ПОСТАВЩИКОВ ВОЕННОЙ ТЕХНИКИ С НОВЫМ ГОДОМ! ПРИСЫЛАЙТЕ ЕЩЁ! УТИЛИЗАЦИЮ ГАРАНТИРУЕМ! НАДЕЕМСЯ НА ДАЛЬНЕЙШЕЕ СОТРУДНИЧЕСТВО! С УВАЖЕНИЕМ директор МЕТАЛЛОБАЗЫ Россия!
th-cam.com/video/RNXh1GAFrT4/w-d-xo.html
SUGGESTION...just use drones. It will save millions
Garbage.
🤣🤣🤣🤣👎👎👎👎👎👎
question is will Trump continue with all the climate proposals for the army continue? i kinda doubt it either way the most important thing is u dont want to lose any combat range the tank already has purely to virtue signal
when it comes to future propulsion system one thing i am more or less certain of is that we will change it simply cause of the fact the current propulsion system is reaching the end of how much better we can make it and idk if hybrid is the best way to go to preserve or increase range or capabilitys cause with a hybrid system u dont have the biggest batterys which wont give u alot of range with how heavy a tank is atleast of any noteable speed i mean its better than pure electric. i think maybe hydrogen can be a good replacement if we can get to a point produce it cheaper and all that, but then we need cheap reliable energy cause of how much power it takes to make hydrogen i think either way its more fitting as it looks now to be used with tanks than normal cars cause with tanks u dont need to spend as much on fueling stations. ofc if we can make a hydrogen engine strong enough to power a tank and i dont think we have built even a prototype of that (might be wrong though)
Turbine powered tanks have a huge heat signature. Easily detected and destroyed. They've failed miserably in Ukraine because of this.