The new Abrams will feature a diesel electric drivetrain similar to a locomotive powertrain and will get a giant ornate heat dispersion ass grille lik...

The new Abrams will feature a diesel electric drivetrain similar to a locomotive powertrain and will get a giant ornate heat dispersion ass grille like the M60. We have retvrned to tradition.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Good, hybrid makes the most sense as you have a decent battery to run systems from while in a static position.
    Also source?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Just what they showed off in the Abrams X tech demonstrator. The Army has been open about wanting to replace the engine though with a hybrid for better fuel economy.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nuclear powered when?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Whenever they invent a safe nuclear reactor that can fit in a tank. The tank would have to be almost the size of a Landkreuzer P1000

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Diesel Electric doesn't mean a battery hybrid you moron. It means it has a electrical generator attached to the diesel engine instead of a transmission

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, and you use battery systems to smooth out different loads and power demands.. moron.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No, that's not the case. Diesel-electric just means you use a diesel to produce electricity to run electric motors rather than to directly turn a shaft that provides primary motive power.
          Hybrid-electric has traditionally only existed in subs, since they couldn't very well run diesels while under the layer. I'm not sure that type of power plant was every "named", but let's call it CODLOL (heh). A modern hybrid-electric powerplant would be CODLAL, capable of drawing power from the diesel and the batteries either independently or at the same time. CODLAL does have certain advantages, which is why it was planned for FCS back in the day. It allows lighter vehicles to creep along in battery-only mode for short distances, making relatively little sound. It also allows for a rapid reaction time, since you can move first and then start the main engine while you're already clearing datum.
          Now, some cars have been designed with under-sized engines to improve fuel economy, with the expectation that the batteries would kick in as needed. However, for a combat vehicle, you really want both power sources to provide enough power to at least limp away on one if the other went down.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > It means it has a electrical generator attached to the diesel engine instead of a transmission
        That is literally a Hybrid engine.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Good
      >drive 2-5 tons of batteries with you around.. shit starts to BOOM as soon cells leak..

      i personally love this idea..

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        batteries are less dangerous than ammo for the simple reason that they can be completely isolated from the crew
        ammo you always need to be able to get to at least some of it so you can shove it in the gun

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >vehicle full of explosives, propellant and fuel
        >you can't add batteries because they are flammable

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    l-lewd

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is there any particular reason they're going with triangle futurism aesthetic instead of actually making a good tank.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >cooling is a meme
      Hey Fritz

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It makes brownoids lseethe when the evil empire is aesthetic because that's the element of charisma they'll never have, no matter how much jargon they invent to sound knowledgeable. It infuriates them that the average person still knows, instinctively, that shit outside means shit inside. No amount of "America bad" yapping will ever come close to the psychological impact of how fricking cool an F-22 looks. That's why the AbramsX looks like a gaming router, and it will still shit on any of its contemporaries. Frick I love being better just for being born on this rock.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >electric hybrid tanks are traditional
      fricking what?

      you know how military procurement actually works, right? they have to sell this thing to the politicians, and that means making it look mean and cool.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        hybrid tanks are traditional
        Yes

        https://i.imgur.com/emKzzRj.png

        We figured that shit out way before the Germans. It wasn't mass produced for combat in Europe because it made less sense to ship 1 of these to Europe instead of 6 Shermans. 40 entered service in 1942 but non saw combat deployment because we actually understand logistics and the M26 made more sense due to being cheaper and conventional. Nowadays diesel electric is old proven legacy tech and it's a wonder why only the US is going to deploy it en masse.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >traditional
        In the sense that theyre old?
        Yes.
        None where successful afaik and used so much copper and were so unreliable that they were abandoned.
        Diesel electric drive trains should be the future of propulsion of all passenger vehicles imo.
        Diesel electric works great for heavy equipment, and its so much more efficient especially for this task.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/wvMW7Yg.jpg

          hybrid tanks are traditional
          Yes [...]

          >traditional means old
          No... Old obscure prototypes cannot rightly be called traditional. Would you say that turreted sailing warships are a "traditional" design because the HMS Captain once existed? This is not the way the word traditional works.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Stop being autistic.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Stop being quasi-literate. Words mean things.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, and I said as much in my post.
                Perhaps reddit is more your speed.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >M6
            >obscure

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              How many of the electric model built? 20?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >fricking what?
        The first SPG was gas-electric

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >you know how military procurement actually works, right? they have to sell this thing to the politicians, and that means making it look mean and cool
        Having worked in the defense aerospace sector I can attest that making our product look good is something that the higher ups did have on their checklists. Every so often we'd have a meeting with one of the chief engineers just to discuss if there's ways to make things look less 'industrial' and more 'sleek'

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Seething that a ROG motherboard shits on your domestic tanks

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Heat sink

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >diesel electric
    i see we're Ferdinand Porsche maxxing

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      We figured that shit out way before the Germans. It wasn't mass produced for combat in Europe because it made less sense to ship 1 of these to Europe instead of 6 Shermans. 40 entered service in 1942 but non saw combat deployment because we actually understand logistics and the M26 made more sense due to being cheaper and conventional. Nowadays diesel electric is old proven legacy tech and it's a wonder why only the US is going to deploy it en masse.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        IIRC the new yurotank is supposed to use hybrid propulsion as well.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Neat. I'm actually surprised that the Chinese haven't announced some quantum hybrid electric tank. It's solid established technology. It's absolutely mind boggling that it hasn't been already put into mass production at least with big industrial powers.

          The ornate grill offers no tactical advantage whatsoever

          It actually is designed like that to drag air back and down for extra cooling and extraction without use of powered fans through pure aerodynamics and it just adds a signature character look for shits and giggles. Like how Banks vanes look cool but actually work well as functional parts on cars.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/Vaek3hi.jpg

            Vgh

            >Lust provoking images

            Anon, don't look under my cooling hatch, that's where my dirty parts are!

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Not really, only a Boxer engine has been shown with diesel electric this far.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >hybrid propulsion
          Diesel electric isn't really a hybrid. It just means that the transmission has been replaced by a generator and electric motors. A hybrid would mean that there is a battery that provides energy for propulsion in addition to the diesel engine

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The French were doing petro-electric back in 1917

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/emKzzRj.png

      We figured that shit out way before the Germans. It wasn't mass produced for combat in Europe because it made less sense to ship 1 of these to Europe instead of 6 Shermans. 40 entered service in 1942 but non saw combat deployment because we actually understand logistics and the M26 made more sense due to being cheaper and conventional. Nowadays diesel electric is old proven legacy tech and it's a wonder why only the US is going to deploy it en masse.

      What is a diesel-electric?

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    they're still using the turbine engine right?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I think you meant the "loud ass ear rape engine that can be heard from further away than a heli TM"

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        diesel engines are louder at a distance

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >t. doesn't know how pitch affects attenuation in air

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You should read how the M1 performed in its first REFORGER exercises. There were some scenarios against a Canadian unit and they were quite surprised by how the M1s were closer than they thought when they heard them. At least when compared to the M60s and other MBTs they would have encountered in NATO exercises.
        Also I've heard that many of the guys first training against the Abrams are impressed with how fast a unit of them can reverse and pull back from a position. Maybe you're a moron who will make some cowardice joke, but I'd imagine a Soviet officer who just spent many artillery shells and effort to assault a position that had recently halted an attack would be quite pissed upon learning those Abrams were long gone.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >You should read how the M1 performed in its first REFORGER exercises.

          It's not 1983 any more and the world has changed to 100% 24/7 battlefield surveillance so the huge ass heat plumes of Abrahamic engines is a major problem.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Can't resist typing Abrahamic

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It's crazy how almosy every single third worlder makes the same mistake and calls it an Abrahams.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                nonsense english conjugation saves the white speaking world yet again.
                go "do what is needed" and have a nice day you subhuman dalits

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Also the diesel engine can be heard very very far away.
        T.leopard 2 commander

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >T.leopard 2 commander
          Story time?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I think you meant the "loud ass ear rape engine that can be heard from further away than a heli TM"

      They are small, light and have high output, the biggest weakness is terrible fuel efficiency below ~90% load.
      It'll be interesting to see if they use the hybrid system to keep the load high by only starting the turbine when the battery is low and running a big generation rather than having a mechanical drive system.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Aren't they supposed to use the new opposed piston 2-stroke diesel?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Starting and stopping the turbine would be even worse. These systems work with a constant rpm ice running a generator that powers the vehicle. It's better to think of the batteries as a buffer. That's why these systems in particular are great with turbines

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Typically a range extender type hybrid will run the engine continuously while in operation since the engine is downsized to only output the average power requirement of the vehicle at maximum load. If you were to wait until the battery were nearly depleted, you wouldn't be able to charge it back up while actively operating the vehicle, and an extended demand for power might see the batteries discharged entirely and a loss of available power.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >They are small, light and have high output, the biggest weakness is terrible fuel efficiency below ~90% load.
        The Abrams VS L2 in engine, the Abrams has more fuel and goes a shorter distance while having the same power, and is louder.

        You should read how the M1 performed in its first REFORGER exercises. There were some scenarios against a Canadian unit and they were quite surprised by how the M1s were closer than they thought when they heard them. At least when compared to the M60s and other MBTs they would have encountered in NATO exercises.
        Also I've heard that many of the guys first training against the Abrams are impressed with how fast a unit of them can reverse and pull back from a position. Maybe you're a moron who will make some cowardice joke, but I'd imagine a Soviet officer who just spent many artillery shells and effort to assault a position that had recently halted an attack would be quite pissed upon learning those Abrams were long gone.

        >There were some scenarios against a Canadian unit and they were quite surprised by how the M1s were closer than they thought when they heard them.
        Likely from the Canadians being experienced with the L1 that have a unique baffle structure on the engine exhaust that makes them extremely loud and carries over a long distance but is extremely non directional for human ears. You can hear them getting louder as they get closer but when you ask 10 people to point where the tanks are you get 10 different random directions.

        The L1 blows it's engine cooling out the same ducts as it's engine exhaust while the L2 seperates them.

        This one about mid video sorta shows off how non directional the L1 sounds.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Turbines are louder, up close.
          The higher frequency noise doesnt travel as far as the low frequency noise from a piston diesel engine.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      how come no one mounts a similar turbine engine on heavy duty trucks. I feel like they would benefit tremendously from its performance.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The ornate grill offers no tactical advantage whatsoever

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Itt
    >OP confusing a GD tech demonstrator (not even a US DoD demonstrator) with an official future configuration

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The leaked A3 looked very similar to the Abrams X but had more armor blocks and an integral autocannon and drone.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >A3
        Source?

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Wouldn't a turbine engine be the perfect fit for that job? Maybe a more compact one

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      One issue with turbine engines is, they're not really field-strippable. Taking apart and putting back together a turbine isn't exactly something a forward supply base's motor pool wrenchmonkey can pull off. They need to be taken to a turbine shop.
      Whereas stuff like gaskets, bushings, o-rings, etc. are relatively familiar to somebody with a modicum of auto mechanical knowledge.
      Also, another potential benefit of something like that opposed-piston engine is cylinder deactivation. This way it can still run at peak rpm efficiency, but use less fuel, if the full power generation potential isn't required. Turbine engines tend to have poor power-modulation capacity, especially since their fuel consumption isn't directly correlated to load factor.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Isn’t the current Abrams turbine engine designed to be easily replaced, even in the field with a recovery vehicle crane? Makes more sense to quickly swap the whole pack and let greasemonkeys back at base fix the broken one.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yes. That’s true of most modern AFVs. Because surprise, nobody really wants to be tearing down an engine all the way to the block while in the field.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      As someone else said they burn enormous amount of fuel, and something injust heard an analyst talking about was they burn continuously, so even parked the consumption rate is enourmous, so supply chain to keep them fueled is a major problem + the heat plume is so huge even russian satellites easily see them.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Continuously and constant high rate i mean..

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If you're parked, you start the APU and kill the main unless you're expecting to have to move in a real hurry on a couple seconds' notice.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >new Abrams
    without shells useless

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No one asked you Sandeep.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >diesel electric drivetrain
    Because this worked so well with the LCS.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Wasn't the problem with those that they didn't get the drive shafts perfectly aligned? Like 2mm out of alignment.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >2mm out of alignment
        Did Russians build those?
        Actually... did one contractor use metric and another one imperial?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Works fine for trains, works fine for submarines.
      Maybe the LCS were just giant peices of shit all around?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The LCS had diesels running as normal power for normal operation with some insane combining gear to attach the gas turbines' output to the same power shaft. Not diesel engines running electric motors, running the pump jets.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          And even then, there are plenty of CODLOG/CODLAG designs out there that work just fine. LCS's was uniquely messed-up, in no small part because of the contradictory requirements the USN had placed on the program.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The problem didn't originate with the USN. The real problem originated with some Congresscritters who went full moron and asked the USN: "how do/can you contrib00t to the GWOT?"

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It's a bit more complicated than that; also, I think you're conflating LCS with DD-1000's congressional Naval Gunfire Support requirements. The short version is that the USN is indeed very much to blame for botching the requirements phase of the program, and then compounding the issues by building them before the modules were even fully fleshed out, much less built.

              Also, others have mentioned this, but Abrams-X was a demo. M1E3 (A3 will be when it's finalized and accepted into service) is more of a clean-sheet design outside of certain fixed elements like the size of the hull and the diameter of the turret ring. The biggest change under the hood--yes, even moreso than the power pack, which is fairly modular and theoretically engine-agnostic--is redesigning the miles of power and data cables for all of the gadgets and gizmos in order to shave several tons of unnecessary weight off of the tank (should make the end product a little cheaper, too, which will partly offset the cost of any *new* gizmos that are added). On top of that, I expect to see some sort of active drone protection, whether it's a modified APS or a lightweight Apache gun on a RWS. And, given that Booker has already introduced DAS-style cameras, a camera suite with sensor fusion software is fairly likely as well. In fact, the Army should probably consider something akin to Aegis (not the radar part, the "OS for the vehicle" part), but they might still be gun-shy after FCS tried to do exactly that and failed.

              Other than those things, and possibly the engine (if the opposed-piston design is ready; if not, it can be upgraded later thanks to the modular power pack design), I don't expect any major changes. M1 upgrades have always been fairly evolutionary, even when they added significant features like the CITV.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I expect to see some sort of active drone protection, whether it's a modified APS or a lightweight Apache gun on a RWS
                Porque no los dos? They serve different purposes. APS is for protection against warheads, autocannon is for deletion of overwatch drones.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                An APS can be made to protect against FPV drones and against dropped munitions from bomber drones. Current APS systems aren't optimized for that task, however, so you are correct that as of right now, an autocannon is a superior all-around anti-drone system (at a far greater cost in weight and volume). I do think it's worth asking the question, however; and, in the long run, I suspect a small laser cannon may become the primary anti-air weapon.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >far greater cost in weight
                The radar needed for a 360-degree APS system isn't exactly light.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's not exactly heavy either. Trophy weighs about 2 tons for the entire system: sensors, armor, ammo, reloading mechanism, electronics, power supply etc.
                The radars themselves probably weigh less than 20lb each.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                AFV sensors are an issue whether you're including APS or not. It's easy enough to put tiny cameras all around a vehicle; adding F-35-style sensor fusion to make them fast and easy for the crew to use is a bit harder. A lot of work needs to be done on determining the best sensors and if possible giving the vehicle the ability to "look" at different sensor feeds and figure out what's going on. That *probably* means some kind of short-range radar in addition to EO/IR, but the details are as of yet unknown (and probably undecided). It'll be interesting to see what the Army is willing to invest in.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Electric ships have been done for more than a century, they work fine. They're proven technology.

      It's also not what the LCSes did. The LCSes aren't simple diesel-electric ships; they tried to combine both diesel and turbine power and failed miserably. This has nothing at all to do with the viability of diesel electric drive trains.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >they tried to combine both diesel and turbine power and failed miserably.
        The problem wasn't that they tried mixing diesel and turbine propulsion. That already exists, it's called CODAG. It even has an electrical version, CODLAG.
        The problem was that the way they tried doing it was via a special snowflake system which had little to nothing in common with classic CODAG reduction gearing.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >they tried to combine both diesel and turbine power and failed miserably.
        The problem wasn't that they tried mixing diesel and turbine propulsion. That already exists, it's called CODAG. It even has an electrical version, CODLAG.
        The problem was that the way they tried doing it was via a special snowflake system which had little to nothing in common with classic CODAG reduction gearing.

        There have even been diesel-turbine tanks.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          fun fact: the s-tank was more like a normal tank until one day they let an american tourist sit on it

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You think this is fricking funny? I FELL ON IT, I DIDN'T FRICKING SIT ON IT.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            weak bantz

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Hehe

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >It's also not what the LCSes did. The LCSes aren't simple diesel-electric ships; they tried to combine both diesel and turbine power and failed miserably. This has nothing at all to do with the viability of diesel electric drive trains.

        CODAG is a proven concept since the 1950s. Its just that America is suffering a competency crisis.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The failure in competency was in the requirements and design phases. The requirements were downright contradictory (40-50kts or more, shallow draft, but carries enough fuel to cross the Pacific unaided). This forced both vendors to use highly-unconventional hull frames with large, cramped power plants. The error was then compounded when the Freedom-class's designers decided to solve the space issue by utilizing something like 19 forced bearings to combine the different power plants.
          So, yeah, sorta, but it never would have happened if the USN hadn't come up with insane requirements in the first place.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Huh? They had some early issues but those are all solved?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >all solved
          The LCSs? They're not solved, they're fricked. Speed limited, useless in a near-peer war, and the Navy desperately wants to get rid of them.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Turbo-electric drive worked fine on the New Mexico-, Tennessee-, and Colorado-class battleships

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That image brings back unpleasant memories.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What's that?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you don't already know then it's probably better staying that way

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Isn’t it some kind of waifu 3D printer?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous


                Yeah sure let’s go with that

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The opposite and anyway it's best left unlearned.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Isn’t it some kind of waifu 3D printer?

                What's that?

                Uuuuuuh...

                View at your own discretion, anon.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >160k views
                >not even a mature content warning
                Pretty impressive.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Don’t forget the much more powerful Lexington-class battlecruisers-turned-carriers. IIRC one even supplemented a whole city during a long power outage.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://www.southsoundtalk.com/2020/02/28/that-time-the-uss-lexington-saved-tacoma/

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

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

        That image brings back unpleasant memories.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >The new Abrams will feature a diesel electric drivetrain similar to a locomotive powertrain

    they are using a hybrid engine you moron
    https://www.twz.com/next-generation-abramsx-tank-will-have-hybrid-powerplant

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So like a diesel locomotive with a few tons of batteries.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Hybrid power trains use diesel-electric or turbo-electric to power railway locomotives, buses, heavy goods vehicles, mobile hydraulic machinery, and ships.

        locomotive engines aren't hybrid engines

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Hybrid power trains use diesel-electric or turbo-electric to power railway locomotives, buses, heavy goods vehicles, mobile hydraulic machinery, and ships.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Abrams X is just a show-vehicle it has nothing to do with US procurement plans. We’re not even getting a M1A3 let alone some future tank and the only reason why the Abrams factory is still in operation at all is thanks to emergency political intervention— that’s how disinterested the Army is in tanks now. Marines recently divested from theirs as well. The fact is, these things are obsolete because their last hope, APS, never materialized. When some 80-IQ peasant can point-click delete your multi-million gas-guzzling 50-ton logistics monster with a man-portable $40k ATGM then it’s simply over. In a peer war you’d be literally better off just blowing up your own tanks at base — that way you can save the logistics burden of carrying them to the warzone.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Impressive.
      Everything in that paragraph is wrong.p except the very first sentence

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You sound kinda dumb ngl tbh senpai
      Combined arms has and always will be what wins wars. Tanks are by far the most flexible and maneuverable fire support asset you have, they can get the closest to the front line and can even be used for BVR fire missions.
      The problem is simply that 8 tanks in a single file line driving down a road doesn't work when the forests are bristling with ATGMs.
      As for the Abrams X, I don't see why the idea of a hybrid tank couldn't work, and I definitely don't think the US gave up on making tanks, but I agree that the "X" is most definitely a show vehicle. Doubt the actual next Abrams will look anything like it.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Combined arms
        Ukraine solidly puts the lie to this claim. When any moron with 2 days of training can be flung into the front and literally point-click away a tank with a $40K ATGM then the tank is simply finished. It’s over. If the tank has to be held back from battle until the enemy is destroyed then it’s literally worthless. Maybe that was different when China WASN’T mass-producing Javelin clones, but now the cat is out of the bag. And forget Javelin, the Russians are clowning on Leo2s and Abrams with mines and old ATGMs. Ukies are literally flying FPVs with RPG warheads into T-90Ms and T-72B3s, not even bothering with the advanced ATGM systems anymore. Imagine the capabilities of an actual modern peer adversary.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Ah, you seem to be one of the morons who genuinely believes that tanks are slow, lumbering behemoths which exist to soak up fire and occasionally shoot back: In reality, the mission of the MBT is to be an extremely fast, mobile platform that can remove hard targets for fast-moving mechanized infantry while maneuvering faster than field artillery. The armor is only there to increase the odds of the vehicle completing it's mission in the unlikely and in the *highly undesirable* event its weapon system hasn't already taken out a threat, give the MBT a chance to respond. Not sit on a hilltop getting shot repeatedly while it rotates its turret to the next target 2° at a time to engage the next target. Armor and survivability are great, but mean little so long as the vehicle can still complete it's mission. Which the MBT does better than any other vehicle, "muh drone swarm" very much included.

          Case in point, there was a thirteen year stretch from 1965-1978 in which two of the largest land armies in Europe both decided that in the face of increasing armor-piercing threats, the best alternatives to the conventional tank was a less armored tank: Both of their designs went on to become some of the most successful AFVs in arms export history, in spite of their shortcomings because they *did what their owners needed them to do better than any other vehicle could*, i.e. be a fast platform capable of blowing up bunkers and infantry squads outside of their combat range, and the EXACT SAME LOGIC applies when talking about javelins as when talking about recoilless rifles in 1948 or AT rifles in 1918. Unless something trying to replace the tank can:

          >Move with combined arms formations they're assigned to
          >Provide versatile direct fire support to other units
          >Be reliable enough to be deployed in nearly any temperature, humidity, precipitation, etc. without a loss in function
          >Cost less than a B-2A on a cost per combat hour basis

          It will never fully replace the MBT.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > In reality, the mission of the MBT is to be an extremely fast, mobile platform that can remove hard targets for fast-moving mechanized infantry while maneuvering faster than field artillery.

            In the modern era, field artillery is all racing to sub 2 minute reaction time. While 155mm HE is more than enough to mobility kill any tank reliably, never mind mines, sensor fuzed or ramjet terminally guided shells.

            A decent thermal on a mast can easily cover 15km against MBT sized vehicles, and there is a huge array of cheap drones and unattended sensors for non-standoff observation.

            In the modern era, even insurgent light inf are packing FOGM and AT-FPV with 5k+ NLOS range with 10km organic sensing capability, a sub-2.5km sabot warfare optimized combat vehicle is bringing a spear to a gun fight. It is one thing if it is free from the scrapyard, new builds is full moron.

            Short of urban warfare with dead zones, just about everyone would be better off with the money in tanks converted to PGK-155mm shells and 155 tubes. Same effect on target without being outranged by friggen infantry half the time and only good for shooting up suicide recon storm-Z.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I expect we'll see an autocannon-based CIWS for tanks within the next few years, and a laser CIWS within 20.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                M230LF and comparable 30-40mm autocannon equivalents on every tank? Seems like a waste to reserve it for AD only.
                At the same time, it also seems like the drone defense role would be limited without a datalink to all the other radar receivers in the area. How would this work?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >We’re not even getting a M1A3
                they literally announced the M1E3, which will be likely renamed to M1A3 when it enters service
                to say nothing of the fact that the M1A2 SEP3 was an extensive upgrade of both the turret and hull and electronics

                > that’s how disinterested the Army is in tanks now.
                they are re-organizing their army to be centered around the armored brigade
                the primary maneuver force on the battlefield is still the armored brigade for the forseeable future

                > Marines recently divested from theirs as well.
                the marine tanks are going back to the army

                > The fact is, these things are obsolete because their last hope, APS, never materialized.
                the M1A2 SEP3 has brackets for mounting APS, you literally see M1A2s on exercise with APS mounted
                the M1E3 will have APS built-in

                > In a peer war you’d be literally better off just blowing up your own tanks at base — that way you can save the logistics burden of carrying them to the warzone.
                the move to concentrating the offensive power of the army into armored divisions was entirely as a response to the likelihood of conventional war increasing

                A CIWS + missile tank is to a MBT an AEGIS is to a Iowa. People sperged about 16" and NGFS and per shot cost and blah blah for 50 years, but in practice small guns and big missiles does everything outside of very niche situations, and land forces have even more asset types in play.

                And people will seriously forget about big guns when drug gangs start slinging brimstone class munitions. Totally will happen one day if civilization don't collapse.

                and some half assed APS is to proper AD an dozen 5" mounts is to a VLS setup. An category of AD system that is trivially defeated by existing standoff top attack EFP is a dead end.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The M230 outranges EFPs. A laser cannon in the tens of KW could burn through any low-speed drone the vehicle's sensors could detect before it could get into EFP range; a laser in the low hundreds of KW could deal with RPGs and ATGMs moving at high-subsonic/low-supersonic speeds.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              That idea would be pretty much redundant. On a strategic level, High-altitude drones like global hawk or predators can mount more powerful optics, SAR imagers, and better EW capabilities all while having a colossal altitude and mobility advantage over the aforementioned cherry-picker. Granted, what I describe is extremely expensive, isn’t organic with frontline troops and has zero guarantee of survivability in mildly contested airspace. Which is why you need a tactical asset that can follow troops.

              So you need a highly mobile, survivable target designator with multiple gen 3 cooled thermal imagers and highly advanced communication equipment that can operate in any environment the Army & Marine Corps will see combat in.

              By the time you work out the modern AFV trifecta of Weight-Logistical Footprint-Cost (hence why the Abrams is faster than a fricking humvee[1] over most terrain in spite of weighing 72 tons) you have just described a main battle tank, but without the gun, meaning the cheapest ammunition it can now fire with any kind of precision costs 68’000 dollars per shell, while still retaining a large enough CEP to require 2-3 against soft targets, and considerably more against bunkers or armor. Add a zero to the cost if it’s engaging any kind of moving target. Meanwhile in reality, the M1147 costs less than 8k per round and can deal with anything lighter than an MBT out to 8km, which keep in mind is likely a far greater range than any combat unit is likely to encounter outside of the Sahara or the Steppes of central asia. Inside that range, the modern MBT with infantry support is better protected, more aware and deadlier than any equivalent tactical asset. Infantry with anti-tank weapons can only do one (1) thing cost effectively, I.E. defend themselves against and to a limited extent armor. An infantry unit with armor, even something like a T-55A has a colossal advantage over infantry without direct fire support.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Let's be realistic; no other asset on the planet has ever been decried as obsolete because it can be easily destroyed. Only when it cannot do it's job anymore, and the MBT still does it better than anything else. I get it, you grew up with the TV telling you tanks were rolling bunkers, and that the Abrams was unstoppable. So when you see them getting destroyed like any other piece of military equipment (at much lower rates), it's an attack on your identity which angers you and leads you to claim they're all obsolete, when all available evidence points in the opposite direction.

                2/2

                [1]:

                https://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/M1.html

                [2]:

                https://www.military.com/equipment/high-mobility-multipurpose-wheeled-vehicle-hmmwv#:~:text=Full%2Dtime%20four%2Dwheel%20drive,an%20exceptional%20off%2Droad%20vehicle

                AMP cost (14'206.56$): (Pg. 23)

                https://www.dacis.com/budget/budget_pdf/FY20/PROC/A/1120E22203_13.pdf

                Fortunately, military planners are unbound by history channel fantasies, which is why we're getting the M1A3.

                >Move with combined arms formations they're assigned to
                >Provide versatile direct fire support to other units
                >Be reliable enough to be deployed in nearly any temperature, humidity, precipitation, etc. without a loss in function
                >Cost less than a B-2A on a cost per combat hour basis
                CV90 can do all of those things. It's over, the MBT is finished.

                War Thunder and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/T0cwznE.jpg

                Let's be realistic; no other asset on the planet has ever been decried as obsolete because it can be easily destroyed. Only when it cannot do it's job anymore, and the MBT still does it better than anything else. I get it, you grew up with the TV telling you tanks were rolling bunkers, and that the Abrams was unstoppable. So when you see them getting destroyed like any other piece of military equipment (at much lower rates), it's an attack on your identity which angers you and leads you to claim they're all obsolete, when all available evidence points in the opposite direction.

                2/2

                [1]:

                https://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/tank/M1.html

                [2]:

                https://www.military.com/equipment/high-mobility-multipurpose-wheeled-vehicle-hmmwv#:~:text=Full%2Dtime%20four%2Dwheel%20drive,an%20exceptional%20off%2Droad%20vehicle

                AMP cost (14'206.56$): (Pg. 23)

                https://www.dacis.com/budget/budget_pdf/FY20/PROC/A/1120E22203_13.pdf

                Fortunately, military planners are unbound by history channel fantasies, which is why we're getting the M1A3.

                [...]

                War Thunder and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race

                Thermal imagers on a roof is huge waste of money when you get vastly improved views by putting it on a mast.

                Direct fire focus is also very dumb when you can buy a tablet for any vehicle crew and it suddenly triples effective range. Ammo requirements is low with PGK, lethality and range up with some terminal guided shit against expensive stuff. Sure, keep the cheap stuff too but if there is some bastard with a Spike-clone somewhere one shouldn't need another vehicle to take care of it.

                The upgrade kit costs practically nothing. However, if a armored heavy gun fighting vehicle is "decent at indirect" is it a tank? That ought to be a question for semantics people to argue over.

                Of course, the next step is that if sabot is rarely useful, why use HV smoothbore? Why not AMOS and smother APS with twin barreled top attack MRSI. Why not 155 and can commonality with arty shell stocks? Not like 140mm HV shells is any smaller or that 155 would fail to mission kill anything it hits.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Good post, sums it all up nicely
                But I will have to "akshually" one thing; the M1's fire control system will calculate and input a solution at a maximum range of 5000 meters (which is incredibly, incredibly optimistic if you're trying to hit something that far that isn't the size of a building). It will display a range return up to 7990 ± 10 meters, but you will never hit it.

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

                [...]
                Thermal imagers on a roof is huge waste of money when you get vastly improved views by putting it on a mast.

                Direct fire focus is also very dumb when you can buy a tablet for any vehicle crew and it suddenly triples effective range. Ammo requirements is low with PGK, lethality and range up with some terminal guided shit against expensive stuff. Sure, keep the cheap stuff too but if there is some bastard with a Spike-clone somewhere one shouldn't need another vehicle to take care of it.

                The upgrade kit costs practically nothing. However, if a armored heavy gun fighting vehicle is "decent at indirect" is it a tank? That ought to be a question for semantics people to argue over.

                Of course, the next step is that if sabot is rarely useful, why use HV smoothbore? Why not AMOS and smother APS with twin barreled top attack MRSI. Why not 155 and can commonality with arty shell stocks? Not like 140mm HV shells is any smaller or that 155 would fail to mission kill anything it hits.

                >Thermal imagers on a roof is huge waste of money when you get vastly improved views by putting it on a mast.
                Optics mounted to masts are highly susceptible to damage from shrapnel and artillery. It's not a bad idea to have the option, but to nix the classic position of the TIS (which with the exception of the Challenger series is always on the roof on every tank I know of) in favor of only a mast mounted optic is short sighted to say the least.
                >Direct fire is dumb
                >Ammo requirement is low
                Battlefield sustainability is and always will be a requirement, if you can only fire 10 rounds and then you have to resupply, that's not a good thing
                >Sabot is rarely useful
                Against tanks and tank like targets it's unmatched
                >Not like 140mm HV shells is any smaller or that 155 would fail to mission kill anything it hits.
                Why settle for a mission kill with HE when you can get a cat kill with KE? Why stand when you can lay down, etc
                Your entire post is just describing turning tanks into self-propelled artillery like Paladins and PzH2000s but with extendable mast optics on them.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > Hey, why don't we give 6 pounder an HE shell
                > NOOO, doctrine says MG for infantry, gun is for tanks!
                > Hey, why don't we make a longer barreled 75mm
                > NOOO, doctrine says pz3s do anti-tank, this tank only shoot infantry
                > Hey, why don't we put an MG on Ferdinand
                > NOOO, doctrine says TD only shoot tank
                > Hey, why don't we put a roof on the Jackson
                > NOOO, doctrine says TD only ambush, no fighting infantry
                > Hey, why don't we put a turret on a M113
                > NOOO, doctrine says APC only move infantry, no shooting
                > Hey, why don't we add BLOS FCS on a tank
                > NOOO, doctrine says tank only shoot direct

                If you can cheaply give commanders new options, people will find uses for it. As it stands now tanks are already used for indirect a lot, it is just not designed for it.

                > Why settle for a mission kill with HE when you can get a cat kill with KE
                Why optimize weapon for <1% of shots when there is the 99% case that can be improved? It is not that performance in the 1% case is insufficient either.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Ukrainians and Russians use it for indirect alot, that's a fact for sure. If they want to put more optics and masts and whatever else they'd like, they can go right ahead (I'm sure someone is already pitching the idea to their command). But they do it out of necessity simply because it's all they have at that moment, and beggars can't be choosers.
                My read on your take is that all tanks everywhere should be centered around indirect fires because direct fire is "very dumb when you can buy a tablet for any vehicle crew". If that's the idea, why not just buy/manufacture more paladins, or gvozdikas, or pzhs with upgraded gun laying and fire controls? Would be more effective - they're already designed precisely for sending indirect fires at some unlucky bastard.
                You're basically reinventing something that already exists, it's superfluous.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Maneuver warfare is not something you can force on the enemy, but useful if the situation comes up.

                If you just mass armor and try to force a breakthrough, you get battle of kursk. Instead, breakthroughs and exploitations happen when enemy is overstretched and poorly positioned, like having Romanians or Riot police cover a part of the front. Alternatively massive strategic deception or deep attrition combined with no-retreat orders can produce weak points. Pursuit and exploitation can speed up winning a war significantly.

                But that situation is not necessarily common as entire fronts and wars can go by without a exploitable situation so having dedicated assets for this particular situation is pretty overrated. Historically tanks did infantry support when maneuver was not available. Today with long range infantry weapons, AFVs need to do long long range to be effective.

                Given the value of large MRSI salvos and how busy artillery generally are with dodging counter battery and rearming, having more artillery capable hulls is helpful.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >If you just mass armor and try to force a breakthrough, you get battle of kursk.
                kursk was a textbook battle of maneuver as the two forces constantly repositioned themselves in an attempt to control better positions

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                All mobile forces maneuver in combat. Infantry moves, artillery moves and so on. In trench warfare infantry conduct complex maneuvers coordinated with artillery, reposition to reinforce sectors and counter attack and so on.

                There was no breakthrough and no exploitation as attacker could not out maneuver the defender as the defender have mobile reserves in correct places on top of thick defensive lines stalling.

                You only get outsized advantage against weak defensive lines that can't stall with opponent not having sufficient well positioned mobile reserves. This situation do not happen in all wars.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >All mobile forces maneuver in combat.
                thats literally what happened at kursk

                > In trench warfare infantry conduct complex maneuvers coordinated with artillery, reposition to reinforce sectors and counter attack and so on.
                so trench warfare is maneuver warfare now?
                and both infantry and tanks were engaged in mobile combat at kursk, so its a moot point

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > 1965

            While History is a fascinating subject, we have a rather thorough field test of modern tanks and tactics going on in Eastern Europe right now, and it indicates tanks are fooked.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >we have a rather thorough field test of modern tanks and tactics going on in Eastern Europe right now, and it indicates tanks are fooked.

              kek

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              the US has literally increased the importance of armor in response to current events

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Please support that statement. The Marines stripped out their tanks. The Army is reshuffling their Org Chart again, but does that increase the number of tanks per Brigade?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The Marines stripped out their tanks.
                the tanks are going to the army

                >The Army is reshuffling their Org Chart again, but does that increase the number of tanks per Brigade?
                they are calling for 5 armored divisions and 7 infantry divisions increasing the proportion of tank:infantry in their army
                the reinforced armored division, a new type of division, has 3 ABCTs one of the most concentrated armored formations since the cold war
                but only 1 of the armored divisions are national guard, 3 of the infantry divisions are
                and 2 of those divisions are special environment units, mountain and airborne
                so theres actually only 1 active-duty infantry division and 4 active-duty armored divisions that will see most of the fighting

                they relied on the SBCT throughout the 2000s to the 2010s because it gave a quick response to insurgents
                but the 2030 divisional reform is putting the ABCT as the main force with the armored divisions explicitly laid out as their primary maneuver element

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Sorry, don't see an overall increase in tanks in a given division type. Mostly shuffling around support units, and concentrating those in the Heavy "Guards" Divisions:

                https://www.battleorder.org/post/waypoint-divisions

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The heavy divisions are literally their breakthrough and maneuver units, while the infantry divisions will primarily support them

                Which is the purpose behind concentrating all the tanks in their own armored division
                They arent being committed in small brigades to support infantry, they will be focused in order to maximize force concentration
                This is the most force concentration the US has had since the cold war

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >CAMEL TOE

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Move with combined arms formations they're assigned to
            >Provide versatile direct fire support to other units
            >Be reliable enough to be deployed in nearly any temperature, humidity, precipitation, etc. without a loss in function
            >Cost less than a B-2A on a cost per combat hour basis
            CV90 can do all of those things. It's over, the MBT is finished.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          ATGMs aren't new, anon.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And yet US hasn't fought an army that has ATGMs in it's entire existence. If any time you hear "combined arms" you replace it with "the enemy is poor", everything will instantly make a lot of sense, i.e.
            - "desert storm success was built on the enemy being poor"
            - "ukrainians should have fought an enemy that is poor to suceed in 2023 offensive"
            - "NATO trains it's NCOs and officers in fighting an enemy that is poor tactics"

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >And yet US hasn't fought an army that has ATGMs in it's entire existence.

              Iraq had a lot of them

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the ATGM where a dude has to stick his hand out of the IFV and unfold the missile fins. By hand. Sometimes with a stick.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                But anon, he's no TRUE Scotsman!

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Paper eagle vaporware

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Abrams X is just a show-vehicle it has nothing to do with US procurement plans. We’re not even getting a M1A3 let alone some future tank and the only reason why the Abrams factory is still in operation at all is thanks to emergency political intervention— that’s how disinterested the Army is in tanks now. Marines recently divested from theirs as well. The fact is, these things are obsolete because their last hope, APS, never materialized. When some 80-IQ peasant can point-click delete your multi-million gas-guzzling 50-ton logistics monster with a man-portable $40k ATGM then it’s simply over. In a peer war you’d be literally better off just blowing up your own tanks at base — that way you can save the logistics burden of carrying them to the warzone.

        Poop encrusted dalit fingers typed these posts

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >We’re not even getting a M1A3
      they literally announced the M1E3, which will be likely renamed to M1A3 when it enters service
      to say nothing of the fact that the M1A2 SEP3 was an extensive upgrade of both the turret and hull and electronics

      > that’s how disinterested the Army is in tanks now.
      they are re-organizing their army to be centered around the armored brigade
      the primary maneuver force on the battlefield is still the armored brigade for the forseeable future

      > Marines recently divested from theirs as well.
      the marine tanks are going back to the army

      > The fact is, these things are obsolete because their last hope, APS, never materialized.
      the M1A2 SEP3 has brackets for mounting APS, you literally see M1A2s on exercise with APS mounted
      the M1E3 will have APS built-in

      > In a peer war you’d be literally better off just blowing up your own tanks at base — that way you can save the logistics burden of carrying them to the warzone.
      the move to concentrating the offensive power of the army into armored divisions was entirely as a response to the likelihood of conventional war increasing

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I know it's just a shiny tech concept demonstrator but the Abrams X is so SEX.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >will feature
    a tech demonstrator is not a final design

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Citation or eat shit.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    *laughs in ali express drone*.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >The new Abrams
    he doesnt know^

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Vgh

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

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

        The new roach version of the M60 is keeping the fancy ass grill but also adding a huge APU to run all the new active protection systems and electronically controlled turret. Personally I wish Continental would just try to relaunch their upgrade platform again. It had a 1200-1500hp version of the AVDS, an electronics suite from the Abrams and some snazzy armor add on kit made out of the US version of Chobham. They built it at a time where it looked like the M60 was going to stay in service with NG and Marine units for a very long time.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    dat ass though

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yugomakemebus

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Will it still get BTFO in Ukraine cause of the shit side armor?

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    moron here, what is the point of switching?

    Diesel-electric is usually the last resort engine when you have a very high horsepower requirement and can't make a practical powerful ICE for the task, so you combine a lot of smaller diesel/petrol ICEs in a row and wire them to an electric engine because those scale in torque and power much more cheaply.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Fuel economy mostly I suppose.

      The entire point of Abrams X is trying to build something future proofable enough that the inevitable ten billion upgrade packages and modifications for shit we haven't thought of yet won't make it A) weigh 120 tons and B) hopefully has a modular enough electronics and software infrastructure behind it all to account for the eventual addition of seven more computer screens and joysticks that on an M1 would all be totally independent of each other.

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This will summon the ghost of Frdinand Porsche.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why does everyone cite Porsche for this kind of stuff. The US and France were already making gas-electric and diesel-electric armor before the Germans. I hate wehraboos.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Rule of cool anon. They weren't the first, but they did put it in the Panzer VIII and that shit looked classy (and chunky) as hell.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The Panzer VIII looked like trash and was trash

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I gotta be honest, the Abrams X looks evil as frick. Meanwhile the Armata looks like a fricking cuck tank.

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Abram’s x is just the mbt70 all over again. Lots of new tech that will not work and too expensive. This will be like a concept car where some of the innovations will be further developed and used to upgrade the current abrams but the abrams x will not go anywhere

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nothing in the Abrams X is undeveloped tech. It is explicitly all stuff that can be rapidly mass produced. That's the point.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The auto loader alone in unproven tech and if the Stryker msg shows anything is that the army is not very receptive on autoloaders also the gas electric hybrid system is a solution looking for a problem that will only brew I refer complications and I doubt if these features will go anywhere

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/EGbK9Av.jpg

          >Abram’s x

          Why the frick is the Abrams name so fricking impossible for third worlders to say correctly?

          These fricking phone autocorrect piss me off

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The auto loader alone in unproven tech

          The autoloader for the Abrams is literally 35 year old tech. It was originally developed for the 140mm armed Abrams that was cancelled when the Cold War ended.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >why yes i believe autoloaders from the 80's are still in production today

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Yes companies still have the ability to build them. The Abrams that was offered to Peru a few years back was basically just the Saudi export variant with this Meggitt autoloader. The US isn't Russia where all tech knowledge and infrastructure since the late 80s has died off. There are in fact multiple aftermarket NATO compatible autoloader designs on the market from the US, Korea, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, Turkey etc

              ?si=wFb0j7guEITX37Tx

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >looks like a revolver cylinder from the side
                yee haw

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Cool then give me 1 tank or vehicle in service today with the us army that uses an autoloader… I’ll wait

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Stryker MGS. Soon, the M1E3 tank.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >M1E3
                >Abrams
                Gay

                Should be Schwarzkopf

                Don't name it after losers like Westmoreland

                MacArthur is acceptable

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous
              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Schwarzkopf

                In End War, the US has a successor to the Abrams called the M5 Schwarzkopf. It has a gas turbine engine paired to twin electric motors and a 120mm gun that can fire in high arcs like artillery and a 20mm chaingun as it's coaxial. It also only weighs like 45 tons due to some new titanium-ceramic armor. I thought that shit was the coolest thing I'd ever heard of when I was in high school.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >In End War

                checked: no war since WW2..

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I can't figure out what anon meant by this post. Drunken vodka daze?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The Stryker mgs was shitcanned after they finally got the autoloader to work so thanks for proving my point moron and the m1e3 is another meme that is not going anywhere the us army at the end of the day just doesn’t like autoloaders

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The Stryker autoloader also has nothing to do with the autoloaders that were built for the Abrams. The Stryker autoloader was some garbage designed to be tiny and cheap. The Abrams autoloaders were designed for huge fricking 140mm rounds but could be scaled down to 120mm or 105mm and were built better because they were designed with a Cold War budget.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Can and will are 2 different things. We have been dicking around with autoloaders since the 50s and every time we just go back to a manual loader despite what you say at the end of the day there will be manual loaded abrams for the next 30 years, deal with it

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Because we did X in the past, that means we'll keep doing it in the future!!!!

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              companies keep trying to sell Procurement their fully functional autoloaders but the Army prefers to have more men in a tank to help with awareness and maintenance or something

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                they are looking at autoloaders in the far-future, but only because proposed 130 or 140mm guns will have rounds literally too long to be handhandled not because they want to cut out the 4th man

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Update your script

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The Paladins

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Only in the sense that it has an auto rammer

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not yet. Redlegs should have had autoloaders with MRSI 20 years ago; with the cancellation of ERCA, they're still waiting on Paladin mods that haven't even been formally selected yet.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >they're still waiting on Paladin mods that haven't even been formally selected yet.

                Obligatory

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Blyat if not in service is meaning is of impossible to be maked

              Not every country is a dead husk, Ivan.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Still waiting on a replacement for the M109. M1299 got shitcanned.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What are antifratricide bars, and a Geneva segment?

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              antifratricide bars try to prevent ammo from exploding in a chain
              or maybe to prevent you from getting your fingers caught in it, instructions unclear lost dick in machine

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >autoloaders are unproven tech

          Maybe in bongobongo monkey land

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > This will be like a concept car
      It’s almost as if THAT’S THE ENTIRE GODDAMN POINT

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Abram’s x

      Why the frick is the Abrams name so fricking impossible for third worlders to say correctly?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Abrahams' Sex

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          much place there my dear Wallmart visitor..

  28. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    quad or 6 tracks should be mandatory for modern tank design

    Can't just be losing tanks because you throw a track and have to have the crew run away

  29. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Still the greatest of all time since 1959.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You may not like it but this is what peek performance looks like

  30. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Such a beautiful machine. American war tech is the best in the world. You have to have some real eggs to go toe to toe with Uncle Sam, the US military is arguably the most powerful martial force on the planet.

  31. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it's important to consider our carbon footprint when we're blasting people into the stone age

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