Is it a good idea?

Is the Abrams X a good idea or will it be a waste of money ?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's a tech demo you vatnik. it's proof that it can be done.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    At very least, an upgrade on the protection is long overdue after the Abrams's performance this year. We whole-heartedly need to modernize the fleet.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ukies geting m1a1 not the m1a2sep3 and there a green light for a m1a3

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        At very least, an upgrade on the protection is long overdue after the Abrams's performance this year. We whole-heartedly need to modernize the fleet.

        The hull armor has never been upgraded though, and is in dire need of it now, its lagging behind the Leo 2

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Hulls aren't what's failing out in the field. It's tracks and turret roofs that are being penetrated. The Abrams is still proofed against its own gun from the glacis at any practical combat range, and though having D-10 proofing on the sides would be nice to have, hardly none of them are getting into tank brawls anymore.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The hull armor has never been upgraded though
          Source

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            All the warthunder players with terminal autism who tried to dig up info on a hull armor upgrade. Only thing that was found was that 3 trial vehicles got a hull armor upgrade.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Roof and hull deck armor is insufficient with the drone issue, to say nothing of the blowout ammo panel. An Abrams with that addressed + drone detection/AA wouldn't hurt. Aside that, systems to make it more precise for indirect fire coordination in support of infantry wouldn't hurt given what we've seen in Ukraine [same goes for the Booker which hopefull will shoulder the brunt of baby sitting infantry for direct fire support].

      The Ukraine war shows that there should be *less* technology on your tank not more. Otherwise the enemy will simply outproduce you and drown you in cheap shit

      Still Soviets could not protect anything from open conflict with NATO from deep strike rape, just as Prighozin met token resistance - and was welcomed with open arms - on the way to Moscow. It's not even close and won't ever be with any amount of time or industrial espionage.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's a proof of concept for what we could build out of accademic curiosity and no more than that. Aspects of it may be revisited at a later date if they either prove necessary or become cost effective to implement. It's a good idea for telling us what we can and can't do and a bad idea to actually mass produce.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think it's cute but really they're just gonna go for another M1 upgrade package. Perhaps the A3 will integrate some of the ideas shown off on the Abrams X but we'll never see any version of the X enter service

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    gunner using cannon and coax, while the commander blows shit up with the 30mm at the same time sounds pretty neat

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Is the Abrams X a good idea or will it be a waste of money ?
    It will never "be", its a tech demonstrator and not a procurement vehicle

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The M1E3 will be a significant change and should draw parts from the Abrams X. It's not going to be a normal SEP upgrade like anons ITT are dismissing it as. Weight reduction is planned, and they're looking at unmanned turrets, integrated APS, the works.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://www.defensenews.com/land/2024/05/31/a-lighter-high-tech-abrams-tank-is-taking-shape/

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        does it still have blowout panels on the roof which compromises the whole tank still? even though modern rounds are less combustible?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Why would the panels compromise the armor? Roof armor is already absurdly thin on every tank, and they don't need to be thinner, just configured so they can be projected outwards.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            please ignore him, he is a moron

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I get that having a low profile is good but how are the crew meant to fit??

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Funny how this stupid model came back into the limelight when it was first shown off like last year and the guy showing it off said it wasn't a real design being considered but something he kitbashed. He showed off like 3 other ones too that looked cooler

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Ukraine war shows that there should be *less* technology on your tank not more. Otherwise the enemy will simply outproduce you and drown you in cheap shit

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      dunning-kruger is hell of a drug

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    is there any reason why a lot of modern tanks/IFVs have those big optic modules targetable by small arms? wouldn't it be more survivable to have multiple fixed camera modules in harder to hit places like the seam between the turret and the body?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Physics, mainly. Modern (read: Western and Japanese tanks) have both multiple, smaller, hardened, fixed camera modules and also the larger modules you're pointing out. Bigger modules let you use larger lenses, larger apertures, and larger sensors, all of which allow you to take in more light and see further with more resolution.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >wouldn't it be more survivable to have multiple fixed camera modules in harder to hit places like the seam between the turret and the body?
      depends, anon. would you like to be able to see anything before half your vehicle is exposed?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You need big glass to see camouflaged things 5km away. The little modules are for seeing 150m.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >waste of money
    thirdie mindset

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It is always a waste of money to try and upgrade a very old system over just building a new one.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >More yank wunderwaffen
    I'm sure it'll be great, just like how the current Abrams destroyed Russia day 1

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    any "next-gen" tank without an automated shotgun turret to take out drones is just poorly thought out

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >12 gauge 3.5 in shell auto cannon shooting BBB shoot
      FUND IT

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Is the Abrams X a good idea
    drone goes BRRRRRRR

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Keep the three man wienerpit but for a driver, drone/comms/sensor operator and third is spare seat/storage for future expansion. Two man turret, gunner and commander, since an autloader is all but inevitable. Drone guy helps offset the manual labor of maintaining the tank, ie. have fun changing a tread link with two guys.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A 30mm with airbursting ammo and a small radar would be pretty great against drones, less so against any friendly infantry that got kersploded by it

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's a trade show floor model from two years ago. It's not going to be a thing. It was never going to be a thing.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It is ultimately up to individual opinions whether the Abrams X is a good idea or a waste of money. Some may argue that investing in advanced military technology is necessary to maintain national security and military superiority. Others may believe that the cost of developing and implementing the Abrams X could be better spent on other priorities such as healthcare, education, or infrastructure. Ultimately, the decision to pursue the Abrams X will depend on the perceived benefits and risks associated with the project.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      thanks chatgpt

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A pre-drone waste of money, like the Russian T-14 Cuckmata. It will likely be shitcanned too.

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Standing next to it gives you cancer. DU armor and all.

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It has some good ideas.

    The fact that some of it's ideas are seriously being considered for M1E3 shows it wasn't a waste of money for GDLS who would make their money back from supplying those selected upgrades.

    As it is, it will never be bought because it was never intended to be a full product, just like the X-29, Berkut, F-16XL, etc.

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