I hear from time to time armchair militarists saying the Abrams tank is bad or needs a replacement.

I hear from time to time armchair militarists saying the Abrams tank is bad or needs a replacement. I was just wondering, where does this sentiment come from? I have a basic idea of what made tanks good in WW2 but I won't even pretend to understand what makes or breaks modern vehicles. It just seems a bit peculiar to me because on the outside it doesn't seem to have any glaring flaws. Is it good, is it bad? What's the deal?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    > where does this sentiment come from?
    The Three C’s:
    Contrarianism
    Communists
    Complete fricking morons

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      fpbp

      >Abrams tank is bad or needs a replacement
      They are working on a kinda new tank anon, it's called the M1E3, which is apparently going to be parts of the M1V2 SEPv4 program alongside some other stuff, with the goal of both lightening and further integrating the stuff that was already in the M1. The Chieftain has a video on it.

      But like "waah we need to get rid of m1 because drones and shit", nah, that shit is said by morons. A rule of thumb is that if anyone brings up drones before attack helicopters, and they aren't a serving officer/tanker in the US Army, they're fricking moronic and you're allowed to ignore everything they say.

      at which point will they finally give up and agree that the latest build is so fricking different from the M1 that it should be designated M2?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >M2
        The Bradley? It's pretty clearly a different tank thanks to the M1A3 designation it's going to receive. Designations are really just arbitrary things, the actual relevant data on the tanks is held by the Army. It's like when you hear the USAF say it's sending some F-16s to Europe. What block? What tape? What munitions? What missions are the pilots certified for? What command will it be under?

        Nobody wants to get into the weeds of that so making it the M1A3 instead of M1A2 SEPv4 makes it much clearer.

        why is it called E3 instead of A3 ?

        As it says later in the press release, "E3" is basically short for a prototype/work in progress and it'll get the A3 designation once it's done. In tech speak they're not making Abrams 1.2.4, they're skipping right to Abrams 1.3, which is now in beta tests.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No, M2 is a 50 cal machine gun

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Skipping
          Lets be real here, the M1A3 if anything has been taking its sweet time to make it into fruition, largely because of post-Cold War budget cuts.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No, the m1a3 will be far more than the sepv4, it will lose wirght and to do that it has to redesign major parts, like the entire turret.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Can it kill the enemy
    Yes
    >Can it see the enemy
    Yes
    >Can it take a hit if need be
    Yes
    >Can it be moved around
    Yes (With USN and USAF C5's)
    >Is it fast enough to respond or attack quickly?
    Yes
    >Is it too expensive
    No, there are also surplus stocks

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Oh for fricks sake, stop it. It's design is almost half century old, for fricks sake, and no amount of reactive armor of DU shells are going to change that. It needs a fricking replacement, especially at the dawn of drone warfare.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Meh, we will just get the m1a3, and it will retain the crown the sepv3 has. A complete internal rebuild, with everything being integrated instead of bolt on like current APS should do it. Probably and unmanned turret as well

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >A complete internal rebuild

          How is that going to help, if even a fricking Leo has a longer barrel with higher velocity? Not to mention that abrams runson fricking Jet fuel. NATO armies cannot sustain such logistical burden, seeing as most of their tanks run on Diesel fuel.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Jet fuel and diesel are basically the same bullshit. Jet A specifically has formulations for altitude and temperature stability that regular diesel doesn't have. But you CAN run a turbine on diesel, and it is fine to do so, provided that it does not go to 30,000 feet in the air.
            The Abrams runs JP8 because everything in the military runs JP8. Their dirtbikes, their trucks, their humvees, all run JP8. Cheaper than having separate diesel and jet fuel.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He doesn't know

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Found the moron. The Leo needs higher velocity because it uses tungsten ammo. The Abrams achieves the same penetration with its shorter barrel because it uses DU. DU actually has an upper limit on velocity, so the M829 series round would be LESS effective from the L/55. The L/55 also has more issues with barrel droop (both thermally and stresses on the stabilization system) due to its length and weight, and is more likely to be impacted while moving through the environment. The Abrams is also multifuel and can use diesel, gas, kerosene, other grades of jet fuel, liquor, etc. The US also converted all of its tactical vehicles to be able to use JP8/F24 as well.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/zRj8fdO.jpg

            In the age of drones, the unprotected turret ammunition rack is extremely vulnerable to $150 FPVs and top-attack ammo.
            Basically the tank is a complete write-off once it gets hit.

            That's a lot worse than even something like the PT-91 tank which has ERA roof protection.

            Actual fricking brown morons

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If we get the new turret that is proposed it will have the 130mm from rheinmetal, it will be an unmanned turret with an auto loader, integrated APS, and a hybrid diseal electric powerplant. Also the jet isn't in the issue at all only poors think it is. But the hybrid will give some nice advantages over it or a straight diseal.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >and no amount of reactive armor of DU shells are going to change that.
        the M1A2 SEP3 has already basically replaced everything in the M1 except the road wheels
        the hull has been so thoroughly upgraded that nothing really remains of the original 80s design

        its gotten a lot more than just reactive armor or DU shells, its electronics are leaps and bounds better than what it originally had as well as its fire control

        > It needs a fricking replacement,
        the M1E3
        which will probably receive the M1A3 designation when fielded

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The fact of the matter is that we need our own version of ''Armata'', something new made from ground up. How long are we going to rely on old solutions?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The fact of the matter is that we need our own version of ''Armata'
            yeah, the M1A3
            which has the advantage of actually existing

            >How long are we going to rely on old solutions?
            the M1E3 is hardly old, in fact it hasnt been born yet
            the M1A2 SEP4, whose technology will be used in the M1E3, was cutting edge

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >which has the advantage of actually existing

              That tank does exist, just in small numbers, and mainly made for parades.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        HURRRRRR OLD THING BAD

        go be a consoomer somewhere else. Just like the AR-15, the V8 engine, the Boeing 737, wooden pencils with a graphite core, qwerty keyboards, and a million other things, the current design is competitive enough that it will proceed for the foreseeable future until a paradigm shift occurs. The more entrenched a design becomes, the larger a potential improvement will need to be in order to justify changing. You need to grasp this concept because life is going to be hard for you otherwise.

        Also the logistical compatibility of any tank is always going to be more important than any specific statistic regarding armor thickness or effective range or ground pressure or anything like that.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's not a matter of consumerism, it's just a fact. Abrams is fricking old, and needs a replacement.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, it doesn’t.
            You don’t NEED to replace the Abrams until the hull fundamentally cannot equip the modern technology needed on the battlefield.
            That point has not been reached yet. And likely won’t for a long damn time.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Abrams tank is bad or needs a replacement
    They are working on a kinda new tank anon, it's called the M1E3, which is apparently going to be parts of the M1V2 SEPv4 program alongside some other stuff, with the goal of both lightening and further integrating the stuff that was already in the M1. The Chieftain has a video on it.

    But like "waah we need to get rid of m1 because drones and shit", nah, that shit is said by morons. A rule of thumb is that if anyone brings up drones before attack helicopters, and they aren't a serving officer/tanker in the US Army, they're fricking moronic and you're allowed to ignore everything they say.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Oh and to paraphrase The Chieftain's video (which is basically just reading the US Army's announcement and giving context as a tanker):

      >The Army will close out the M1A2 System Enhancement Package version 4 effort and develop M1E3 Abrams, which will focus on making the capability improvements needed to fight and win against future threats on the battlefield of 2040 and beyond.
      They're not doing a bolt-on addition/upgrade to the M1 anymore, they're moving to basically an M1A3. It'll have parts of SEPv4 in it.

      >“We appreciate that future battlefields pose new challenges to the tank as we study recent and ongoing conflicts” said Brig. Gen. Geoffrey Norman, director of the Next-Generation Combat Vehicle Cross Functional Team. “We must optimize the Abrams’ mobility and survivability to allow the tank to continue to close with and destroy the enemy as the apex predator on future battlefields.”
      They want to keep the tank, they want to make it more efficient, but they're moving towards heightened mobility and survivability (APS etc).

      >“The Abrams Tank can no longer grow its capabilities without adding weight, and we need to reduce its logistical footprint," said Maj. Gen. Glenn Dean, Program Executive Officer for Ground Combat Systems. “The war in Ukraine has highlighted a critical need for integrated protections for Soldiers, built from within instead of adding on.”
      They need to lighten the tank, so they're going to do a big fricking pass on it to integrate everything, shed off weight wherever possible, and add APS. They are NOT getting rid of the M1.

      >Initial operational capability is anticipated in early the 2030s. As longer-range threats increase in both lethality and survivability, the M1E3 Abrams will be able to defeat those threats. The Abrams Main Battle Tank remains the most lethal, protected tank in the world.
      They want to keep this around for decades.

      So no, they aren't abandoning the M1 anon.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        APS is the future of survivability. We’re hitting a hard limit on armor and top attacks only get more trivial

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      why is it called E3 instead of A3 ?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        E is an engineering change, rather than an A B C or numerical upgrade
        These are typically a pretty invasive and substantial amount of work which will make the chassis overall a different enough to warrant that kind of info (mostly later on in logistics orders)

        Though, it would be fricking great if the US could stop calling everything M1

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No. E is an experimental alteration that if accepted becomes an A. Likewise with XM becoming just M. At most, the E would be used as a sub-variant of an A number, but isn't a big enough change to require a new A number. An example of that being the various Sherman models, like the M4A3E2 and M4A3E8 which were both variants of the M4A3. An engineering change alters the TDP itself without changing any designation, such as when the M16A3 was altered from the carry handle to a flat top. The US stepped pretty far away from the traditional E/A designation with the Abrams. The SEP, SEPv2, and SEPv3 should've been the M1A2E1, M1A2E2, and M1A2E3 going by Sherman numbering. Likewise with the M1A1 sub-variants.

          >Though, it would be fricking great if the US could stop calling everything M1
          Only morons that don't understand the designation system think this. It's not an "M1 Tank", it's a "Tank, M1". Just like the Rifle, Carbine, Helmet, Flamethrower, etc. What is confusing here is that we stepped away with that system by putting the Abrams, Bradley, Booker, and a few other vehicles all in the same series even though most of them have nothing to do with each other.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_United_States_military_vehicles_by_model_number#Non-consecutive_numbers

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        E is four better

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        E is for experimental, so the M1E3 will be its placeholder designation until its given an A designation when it enters service

        so M4A3E8 was not actually the one that saw service in combat, the E8 was its prototype designation
        it was just called the M4A3 HVSS when accepted, to denote the new suspension
        this isnt too different from the M1A1 being designated the M1A1 HA when it got armor upgrades
        the M1A2 SEP4 would have followed suit, but someone realized that the sheer number of upgrades has warranted its own A designation

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >I hear from time to time armchair militarists saying the Abrams tank is bad or needs a replacement.
    you are lying. you do not hear this. nobody is saying this

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >I hear from time to time armchair militarists saying the Abrams tank is bad or needs a replacement. I was just wondering, where does this sentiment come from?

    Pure vatnik/turdie cope, latest spec Abrams is second to none

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    A lot of people tend to think of mil vehicles as a static entity which simple exists as it rolled off the floor and that's just never really been true. They just fiddle with them over time to suit conditions and expected use along with technology advancements and while that is often 'expensive' its so much quicker and cheaper to upgrade rather than design, then prove out a completely new chassis from scratch which costs a lot and takes fricking ages.
    Plus we also have to consider the driving demand for further development

    >As a direct fire, heavy armoured vehicle does it still serve its purpose there against ground targets and other vehicles?
    Yeah, pretty much.
    Nothing made by China or Russia is a next-step threat so there's the two biggest ground forces which it'll be expected to clash with that requires a complete generational re-think on its design
    >Is there modern threats against it?
    Yep, plenty. But that's when we come to the whole combined arms principles that an armoured vehicle is not a singularly deployed asset. Anti-everything else is dealt with by basically everything else which rolls along with them.
    All the IFV's, AA, ECM and engineering is someone else's job which doesn't need to be bolted onto the tank asset and having to re-do a whole doctrine!

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it's not horrible but they can definitely do better
    it's like the type 90 which is not a bad tank but they made the type 10 capable of more
    you never know what you can do when designing from the ground up until you do

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    its not bad but its getting old like the leopard 2 even with the frequent upgrades

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      pretty much everythings been changed, only thing thats actually old on it is the suspension but torsion bars still work

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    In the age of drones, the unprotected turret ammunition rack is extremely vulnerable to $150 FPVs and top-attack ammo.
    Basically the tank is a complete write-off once it gets hit.

    That's a lot worse than even something like the PT-91 tank which has ERA roof protection.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It needs a diesel engine. The turbine means that it consumes about 2x the fuel of a diesel engined tank. That means twice as many tanker trucks, twice as many refuellings etc etc.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >implying this is a problem
      This was sorted out in 1991 yet we still have midwits coming out with this argument to sound smart.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      turbine consumes more fuel when idling, but efficiency rises when the vehicle is moving
      as long as the crew doesnt leave their vehicle in a situation where it has to stay still with the engine running, the fuel consumption is about the same as any other tank

      but they alleviated that issue with the addition of APUs so they dont need to run the turbine when idling

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > That means twice as many tanker trucks, twice as many refuellings etc etc.
      Irrelevant when you’re the US

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    With upgrades it is a very modern tank. But it needs to be lighter and smaller with all of the modernization and more. It is an old vehicle with current technology placed inside of it. The army knows it could do better than the Abrams, but there hasn't been any need.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >it needs to be lighter and smaller
      This is the main thing holding it back. The USA is primarily an expeditionary force, and needs to be able to transfer its equipment quickly and efficiently. Once the system is mature, the M10 is going to largely supplant the M1 in most roles.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        this is so obscenely moronic i must believe you get your information from those AI generated youtube military technology channels.

        The M1 will be receiving a lightening project, in the form of the M1E3, which is an upgrade project dedicated to working all the added, applicae, and bolt on systems into a from the design stage integration.

        The M1A2 SEP3 has 2.5 tonnes of mass in the turret of just ballast, as all the SEP modifications have just added ballast to balance the turret. at the very least, the E3 will remove that ballast.

        and don't you fricking think that means that its just shedding 2.5 tonnes.

        Additionally, the M10 Booker isn't replacing anything in service, its supplementing the Infantry BCTs.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The abrams is an excellent tank and doesnt need to be replaced.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    When you compare the difference between a mustang and an F35 with the difference between a sherman and an abrams, it becomes pretty obvious that tanks haven't advanced anywhere near as much as fighter aircraft have since world war two.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    good tank, logistics nightmare

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is it bad? Frick no, its perfectly capable of doing its job. Nothing actually wrong with it.
    Could it use a replacement? Yes. Not because its bad, but because at the end of the day its a 50 year old design and we've come a long way in both design and materials sciences which would make the next US MBT theoretically fricking amazing compared to its 'peer' opponents.
    Thing is, is the Yanks don't have to. It can happily outfight anything else on the battlefield right fricking now, so the marginal upgrades of making the M1A47-SEP Eleventybillion make sense. Short of small fusion engines and a non shit railgun... Nah. They don't have to replace it because they don't need it.

    The only people with anything to fight it on roughly the same terms are allies. So why bother replacing it?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *