Preparedness & self-sufficiency community
What’s the verdict ?
It looks pretty cool. What's different about it?
unmanned turret and autoloader. 3-man crew all set in the forward section of the hull.
It's also got all kinds of doo-hickeys and techno gizmos because it's the marketing platform; they give it every single feature they've come up with in the hopes that the pentagon will be impressed by and want as many features as possible.
Seems like a show off of everything they came up with, oughta be very expensive tho
Glad to see we will get to enjoy the americans join the turret toss championship
Turret toss is because of the slavshit carousel design, bustle loaders shouldn't suffer the same issue unless they're also storing fuckloads of ammo in the hull
Its not the same if the turret is unmanned 🙁
They made it cool and futuristic... the functional differences are just Armata:But might be feasible.
The most interesting to me was new electronics that turned down the weight by a few tons
Ask me again in 2030
Personally, I think there should still be guys in the turret. Being able to stick your head out of the turret still gives much better situational awareness than relying on optics. Even if the camera for the commander gave a perfect 360 degree VR view, the camera and other subsystems would still be very vulnerable to enemy fire and damaging them could severely handicap the tank while negating it's armor and firepower.
>the camera and other subsystems would still be very vulnerable to enemy fire and damaging them could severely handicap the tank while negating it's armor and firepower.
let me rewrite that for you
>the [tank commanders'head] would still be very vulnerable to enemy fire and damaging them could severely handicap the tank while negating it's armor and firepower.
The tank commander can button up when under fire. The main issue is that situational awareness is much more important when the tank isn't being shot at. Relying on vulnerable external subsystems for can be detrimental when looking out for other anti-tank teams or other dangers in close vicinity of the tank.
blackout all the windows in your car then drive pls
>t. never been in a tank
>general dynamics did it for free
Cool marketing piece
>Call us if you want to see what we can do for you for a M1A3 Abrams
As a concept it is fine. If it were to be considered for service, I expect a lot of simplification.
Sounds cool, will have an opinion once they have actually used it somewhere.
its electric and vegan? if not Greta will be offended
cool tech demonstrator
It's a Transformer
Did they at least cash Musk's checks before rolling it out?
It hasn't seen combat so asking for a verdict is Wakandan-tier stupid.
Israel demonstrated 2-man crews are the new minimum. So America will play it safe by keeping the third man for maintenance.
The M1E3 will incorporate some tech like the integrated radars and EO/IR suites but will retain 4 crew.
It seems like the turret is quite large despite it being unmanned.
They could probably reduce the size and weight by a lot, it seems like a half-assed design.
Unless burgers get over their pride and buy a 130mm Rheinmetall gun and an MTU diesel from the germs, it's gonna be shit.
Russian composite arrays still use NERA and textolite from the mid 80s. A T-72B3M pretty much has the same passive protection level as a T-72B. 120mm with ERA defeating tips is sufficient since that's where the only improvement has been.
These are the same as 18 inch and 20 inch battleship guns, IMO we will never see them deployed at scale.
They literally make the tank worse at everything except killing the most heavily armored unicorn tanks.
More weight, more space and less ammo.
Yeah. For now anything above 130 seems completely unrealistic. NATO will continue to use the 120 because its common, Russia will continue to use the 125 for the same reason.
it looks like a crab
Neat tech demonstrator, but way too different from the A2 to get adopted. Some of its tech will make its way into the A3 for sure.
If your tank is taking small arms fire you basically already fucked up, the main threat is being one shot by a tank hunter barrage or a kamikaze drone at this point as well. Systems are more adapted for that kind of threat awareness.
It's largely just a prototype test bed for what we "could" do and the military will likely adopt one or two things and possibly squirrel some tech away on other projects. The point isn't actually to make a "new" Abrams it's to wow investors for specific new programs and systems. Slapping it all on one hull is just the easiest way to show it all off. But it's not a serious attempt at making a "new" tank, rather, it's an attempt to show what can be done with an existing Abrams hull and possibly support it with upgrade packages over the next 10-20 years and any other military platform stuff can be backported to.
interesting technology demonstrator. it'll be interesting to see what features it has are actually adapted for the next mbt design
put some LEDs on it so it looks even more futuristic
Can it do indirect fire?
I don't think the Americans pursed gun launched BLOS rounds since the old FCS programs or at least no working product has made it to troops. With the overlap in artillery and air delivered guided weapons it seems a bit unneeded with American doctrine. Focus seems to have shifted to airburst rounds for anti-infantry work. I could see having a separate pod for loitering munitions though since the XM30 program has suicide drones as a requirement.
Marginal increase in protection for an 80-90 ton MBT when its finished,
What vatnagger cope did you consume to even get anywhere close to this idea?
I like the giant secondary weapons station for the commander and the big ornate grille at the back. Gives off strong M60 vibes.
>Retvrn to tradishun
Elon gonna ruin Abrams too?
SO BUY IT GOY
Much like the panther it's more of a tech demonstrator than anything else, conceptually it's a bit muddled up.
Why am I seeing 2 drivers hatch?
Theoretically speaking the weight savings from having a remote turret will be enough to give unmatched armor protection for the crew. Remote turrets are an objective win for crew survivability, but they come with their trade-offs.
The lack of a crew member in the turret means that any coaxial machine guns cannot be directly accessed, unless theres a way to crawl back in there from the front compartment. There is also the disadvantage of inferior periscope coverage, which in the case you're taking artillery fire and can't use your primary optics, might make the tank crew less spatially aware.
The remote turret means that there are no more worries about ammo detonation while a blast door is open, as the crew has 100% isolation from ammunition. That also means there will be a much smaller chance of getting your arm trapped in the blast door as its closing and subsequently being discharged. Less room for mistakes like getting your arm torn off by the breach.
To me the Abrams X represents a remote turret MBT and thats about it. The optics do not look like they have covers, the upper front plate does not appear to have armor protection, and the profile of the turret seems too wide to be justified.
That is, unless these optics need to be far apart to add a coincidence range finding feature. Coincidence range finding fell out of popularity with the advent of laser range finders being easier to use, but these days computers are advanced enough to make coincidence range finding just as fast and accurate. It also means you emit no laser, so laser warning receivers will be defunct. This is definitely a feature we will be seeing on tanks in the near future, but I think the Abrams X is just a cardboard tank in its current state. Nothing should be taken seriously about it.
Any word on having even thicker roof armor? Or they just gonna slap on an APS instead?
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save name for the next time I post.