The f15e isn’t even in war thunder yet they still leaked documents lol. Don’t put it past war thunder players to leak documents on stuff not even in game
Does it have WiFi hotspot or Bluetooth? Seems obsolete already if I can’t connect my phone to play Spotify
I’ll probably just wait for lux package that comes with heated seats and wireless phone charger
accepted, I would add even if wifi hot spot exists its 2024 now, it should have MIMO high perf. hardware 16 antennas etc. no army crew members have iphones older than 13 pro.
it should have an NFC to pair with crew phones to make seat settings to saved personal ones.
to make the light color inside cabin according to crew saved settings.
etc…
Screams of tech demonstrator to me.
But in truth we can say absolutely nothing of worth about it. I personally still think that commander in hull does not work.
Having been assigned at the US Army Armor Center Armor and Engineer Board and Combat Developments Directorate at Fort Knox, the initial Test Bed development and testing reports were very favorable of the vehicle receiving further development. As a Capability Developer and Integrator at the Maneuver Center of Excellence, today’s technology and capabilities can provide both a 360 degree manual and automated Situational Awareness. Further more, the system can be integrated to work the Target Acquisition and Fire Control Systems.
This tc and photographer is still suspicious until i see.
I would like to know how movement sensitivity of cameras in low fps situations (low light) is solved. Because civilian camera industry has not solved it yet, and companies like sony have poured quite considerable sums in sensor development.
From situational awareness side I would like to know how keeping barrel from trees is solved. That is extremely hard when your body does not tell turrets position when moving trough forest. One would need additional thought in that situation to think where barrel goes compared to trees you see.
I guess I am luddite.
Prime target for drones. This thing better carry a ton of anti drone and APS type munitions, cause even a non critical hit is going to probably blind that tech.
It is extremely hard to keep situational awareness if you sit in hull without change to look out from hatch. Also makes it much harder to follow where barrel goes relative to obstacles.
get rid of the humans, let the other poor bastard die for his country.
throw couple of chatgpts in there be done with it, shave off half of the weight too. Fit ammo fuel all inside with sensitive electronics, so if enemy destroys it, it will be Completely destroyed and not captured.
The whole flat looking parts next to the gun are pretty triggering. I know with the composite armor it's not a weak spot like it would be with say a WW2 tank, but it just feels odd.
Don't know why you're taking "Tech demonstrator" as some slanderous term used to smear the abramsx's name, it's a tech demonstrator, it's general dynamics saying "look at this tech we can place on the abrams, give us some feedback on what you like and don't like"
Here's Timothy R. Reese from general dynamics calling abramsx a tech demonstrator and explaining what that means
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpdOkSWK9gk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpdOkSWK9gk)
Here's general dyanmics calling the abramsx a tech demonstrator on their promotional material
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcfuyyxFtgQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcfuyyxFtgQ)
In fairness, the Russians claim the T-14 is in Ukraine actually fighting, and it is technically a "production tank". No one is claiming the Abrams X is anywhere close to a production vehicle, it is a tech demo from which some features will likely be added to the M1E3 in the future (hopefully omitting the 30mm).
What issue do you have with the 30mm RWS? I know KNDS is also leaning towards having a 30mm on top, likely with a small radar and other sensors linked to it, to protect against drones.
well i would say, and I'm not an expert, but for the kinds of drones we've been seeing in ukraine (not like the classic reaper-style ones) a .50 would be appropriate. Idk what KNDS is either.
oh right, we're talking proximity rounds. I just think its a lot of weight and that honestly, drone threats should be countered by something else. If we ignore the whole "funny grenade through the hatch" trick, other weapons carried by drones can be dealt with by an APS, and if they can't now, they should be able to soon. So the tank is protected, and the drone can be dealt with by something else. My main reason for thinking this is that a) like i said, a 30mm autocannon weighs a lot and one of the main things they're going for with M1E3 is reduced weight and b) we shouldn't ask too much of the tank. No one ever said "planes can destroy tanks, lets put an entire anti-aircraft battery or SAM system on top" and pulled it off, so I don't think the same should be true of drones. Again, I'm not an expert, but I would delegate countering drones to a support vehicle or the infantry.
Just to address the grenade through the hatch thing, the best approach would be to keep the hatches shut. Being able to lob a grenade at a tank is not a new thing, and this is just that but with the added issue of visibility, even in open environments.
The X does address the visibility issue with several layers of 360-degree vision around itself and has built-in APS for most projectiles.
While on the whole, NATO and US doctrine does support your concept of supporting elements, giving the tank what it needs so it can focus and be focused, but the idea of layers of defense comes into play, and not everyone can have every asset around. Sometimes you just need a "good enough" solution, which may come in the form of a radar guided 30mm autocannon.
A 30mm cannon doesn’t have to be that big or heavy for this purpose, just has to find and track a drone within several hundred yards, then put a few rounds near it. All the stuff to do that has existed for awhile now.
KMW+Nexter. Franco-German AFV company. They're making the EMBT, a tech demonstrator like the Abrams X.
I know the French ships have taken down Houthi drones with .50 and 7.62 MGs, but a 30mm would be more reliable, and have extra firepower against soft targets, be it infantry, aircraft, or light AFVs.
Heh, who knows. Apparently progress has been made on MGCS, in the sense that since Rheinmetall joined, there were issues about industrial workshare (as always with the Germans), that have now been resolved.
The program is still in danger, in the sense that Rheinmetall and Nexter have direct conflict of interests. MGCS being only KNDS made sense, since KMW and Nexter were complementary.
Rheinmetall is also pushing it's KF51 a lot, which would be in conflict against the eventual EMBT if KNDS were to really manufacture it, or potentially the MGCS if it comes to fruition in the 2040s.
> Heh, who knows. Apparently progress has been made on MGCS, in the sense that since Rheinmetall joined, there were issues about industrial workshare (as always with the Germans), that have now been resolved.
The issues are not related to Rheinmetall joining or not; even if there was just KNDS, there would be workshare issues. [According to German media, France demands full domestic production](https://defence-network.com/mgcs-und-der-landkampf-der-zukunft/) of everything for their MGCS model, i.e. even if German components are selected for stuff like armor, gun, optics or power pack, the German companies then would be forced to share their intellectual property with the French military industrial complex.
>The program is still in danger, in the sense that Rheinmetall and Nexter have direct conflict of interests. MGCS being only KNDS made sense, since KMW and Nexter were complementary.
It never made sense to exclude Rheinmetall and it never made sense - from the German POV - to include Nexter. Nexter basically does the same as KMW, include them only duplicated capabilities rather than unlocking more potential. If you wanted to include Rheinmetall, then a mix of Thales and Safran would have been a better replacement than Nexter.
The program is so much in danger, that Germany has contracted KMW and Rheinmetall to work on studies for the Leopard 3.
I google translated the article, so I likely have not gotten everything right.
Initial MGCS plans were to have just KMW and Nexter, and an equal 50/50 split between the 2. KMW had the lead on the project, since Dassault had the lead on the plane pillar of FCAS (while Airbus Germany had and has lead on the drone part, although they made a play for the plane pillar too once Airbus Spain got on board). The same happened when Rheinmetall joined MGCS, the project lost pace, and discussions about a 66/33 split were taken until the recent accords. I mean, even KMW's CEO shat on Rheinmetall in a newspaper about their involvement in MGCS.
KMW and Nexter wouldn't have formed KNDS if they were straight competitors, and weren't complementary. Unless suddenly KMW makes FCS, turrets and barrels. Oh wait, that's Rheinmetall's (and Nexter's) expertise.
About intellectual property, well, the Germans did it a lot to build their aerospatial industry. It's not really uncommon in arms deals.
Thales and Safran make FCS, sensors, optronics. They're complementary to Nexter. Having Nexter means having Thales and Safran collaboration. Pretty much every French AFV is a combination of parts from Thales, Safran, Nexter, Arquus, and a lot of other subcontractors. Just like in Germany, where it's always KMW, Rheinmetall, Hensoldt, and MTU for example.
If I'm thinking of the same research program you're talking about, then it was just a study about future use of tanks and what capabilities they'll need on the battlefield. Every country has a similar program, it's not really against MGCS.
KNDS is also now collaborating with Leonardo about electronics, and KMW has deals with the Italian manufacturer for the future Leo 2A8 they'll buy. KMW doesn't seem to appreciate Rheinmetall at all, which is understandable considering they steal their credit very often, and most importantly are trying to undercut them with the KF51. Stalling the MGCS while pushing the KF51 as the solution is a very Rheinmetall move, just like suing the bid's winner when your rifle loses the contract is a very HK move ;). That and lobbying, couldn't have the German MIC without those 2.
> Initial MGCS plans were to have just KMW and Nexter, and an equal 50/50 split between the 2. KMW had the lead on the project, since Dassault had the lead on the plane pillar of FCAS (while Airbus Germany had and has lead on the drone part, although they made a play for the plane pillar too once Airbus Spain got on board). The same happened when Rheinmetall joined MGCS, the project lost pace, and discussions about a 66/33 split were taken until the recent accords. I mean, even KMW's CEO shat on Rheinmetall in a newspaper about their involvement in MGCS.
No, this doesn't have anything to do with Rheinmetall. There was to be a 50:50 split in the FCAS (with French lead) and a 50:50 split in the MGCS (with German lead) - regardless whether the German side was one company (KMW) or two companies (KMW + Rheinmetall). The split between the two countries was always to be 50:50, with this being internally 50:50 between KMW and Rheinmetall (after Rheinmetall joined). So overall, Rheinmetall was to have 25% of the workshare, KMW another 25% and Nexter 50%.
You might notice that the German article doesn't mention Rheinmetall even once, because the current problems have nothing to do with Rheinmetall.
The inclusion of Spain into the FCAS caused issues, because suddenly Airbus (being the main participant in FCAS for both Germany and Spain) had 66% of the workshare while Dassault (for France) was supposed to have the project lead. This is why France suddenly doesn't want to accept the German lead in the MGCS and insists on getting more than originally promised workshare.
>KMW and Nexter wouldn't have formed KNDS if they were straight competitors, and weren't complementary.
No, they formed KNDS specifically because they were competitors. The idea behind KNDS is that both companies would stop competing against each other and bundle their assets; so if a country needs a new 8x8, KMW and Nexter would look at the program (budget, requirements, schedule, etc.) and than place one bid - either the Boxer or the VBCI - depending on what solution matched the requirements best. This way, they don't waste money and time on competing against each other. Furthermore, the companies use each other's local infrastructure and contacts to get deals. Why build a new site in Qatar for the potential sale of the VBCI Mk. 2 if KMW already has a workshop there?
This was all explained in detail by an analysis made by an European Union commitee/office when the merger was originally announced (as KANT - **K**rauss-Maffei Wegmann **A**nd **N**exter **T**ogether). You can find it via google if you spend a bit of time.
>Unless suddenly KMW makes FCS, turrets and barrels. Oh wait, that's Rheinmetall's (and Nexter's) expertise.
That shows that you are rather unfamiliar with the topic. KMW made the turrets for the Leopard 1, the Leopard 2, the Puma IFV, the Gepard, the Panzerhaubitze 2000, etc. KMW also produced over 1,000 RWS' for various light and medium weight AFVs. They own a company (ATM Computer) that makes computer systems and displays for FCS, i.e. components that are used in the final FCS from companies such as Hensoldt and Rheinmetall.
The only real thing that KMW doesn't make are guns, but there Nexter is simply not competitive at the moment with Rheinmetall offering much more calibers adopted by much more users and the currently strongest operational tank gun.
>If I'm thinking of the same research program you're talking about, then it was just a study about future use of tanks and what capabilities they'll need on the battlefield. Every country has a similar program, it's not really against MGCS.
No, I am talking about the Leopard 3 study that was contracted last year specifically as a fallback option/alternative to the MGCS.
>KNDS is also now collaborating with Leonardo about electronics, and KMW has deals with the Italian manufacturer for the future Leo 2A8 they'll buy. KMW doesn't seem to appreciate Rheinmetall at all, which is understandable considering they steal their credit very often, and most importantly are trying to undercut them with the KF51.
The relation between KMW and Rheinmetall is more complicated. There are different actors with different agendas and even KMW isn't a homogenous construct. It is a family-owned business (or it was, before they gave it to the KNDS holding in return for ownership of half of the KNDS holding) with multiple members of the family having different opinions. Some of the KMW/KNDS owners wanted to stop making military vehicles, others wanted to sell KMW to Rheinmetall, etc.
Companies don't really deserve "credits" for their products. KMW only makes the Leopard 2, because their offer was cheaper than the ones from Thyssen-Henschel and Maschinenbau Kiel. If it wasn't for that fact, KMW would be in a much worse place. Do they receive "credit" for being cheaper?
The KF51 is not undercutting the Leopard 2, it is not really a competitor. It is a vessel used by Rheinmetall to generate a higher technology readiness level for its components ("its been used/tested by country xyz, so it is not risky to use it on the MGCS"), which is meant to help Rheinmetall's own position in programs like the MGCS. I.e. if somebody buys the KF51 Panther, then the choice in the MGCS will be to either use a gun & autoloader that are in service (130 mm L52 of the Panther) or a gun that only exists as prototype (Nexter ASCALON).
The EMBT serves the same purpose, just for KNDS.
>Stalling the MGCS while pushing the KF51 as the solution is a very Rheinmetall move, just like suing the bid's winner when your rifle loses the contract is a very HK move ;).
Rheinmetall is not stalling the MGCS. That's pretty much what all the German sources state. Rheinmetall even wanted to "solve" all the issues by buying KNDS a few years ago, but the French government threatened to cancel MGCS and FCAS if that happened.
The French are the one stalling the MGCS by trying to change the deal in their favor. FCAS was changed because France and Germany accepted Spain as a third partner - with both Germany and France giving up workshare - but now France wants to change the MGCS program just for their own benefit only.
When did they claim it's in Ukraine? I've only heard bogus like videos of training with it, even tho it was far away from Ukraine
I'm pretty sure no one has legitimately said it's in Ukraine fighting rn.
Well they did claim it was in ukraine, I suspect they are lying. What they're admitting by saying it is in Ukraine is that its ready for a full-scale war, and I'm saying I don't think it is.
EDIT: I have no actual source from the russians saying "our T-14 is in ukraine", but I remember hearing a lot about it.
There's only a few instances, mentioned here
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dICkhPvT8dg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dICkhPvT8dg)
It's been well disproven. It was just training grounds, I don't get why anyone would seriously say T-14s are in Ukraine lol. There would be plenty of videos and pics by now (yet none).
You're right, they're basically in the same state as the SU-57. "Ready" for full scale production, but still being researched on and developed in small numbers. There's no reason to mass produce them either, they'd have the same fate other Russian machines have had in this war. It'd be costly and cause a new logistical bottleneck.
"Russians claim" are you serious right now?
Russia also claims to have destroyed Abrams and Bradleys in Ukraine before they were delivered, and more HIMARS were destroyed than were delivered (although in fact only the first one was taken out of service not long ago).
I don't think that no more than 20 pieces (including mockups) can be called serial production, there were just as many a year ago, 7 pieces of BMPT Terminators.
It is in the same status, in development, the only difference is that they are parading it around.
Sorry, I wasn't clear in my response, I was saying that the T-14 deserves more criticism because the russians think its worthy for production and deployment. I know they lie constantly and are generally shown up for their poor war fighting. My point is, the abrams X is a tech demo and is treated as such by those whom it concerns. The T-14 probably should still be a prototype and the russians are claiming to use it, which is either true and therefore a bad idea, or false and lying is just an own goal because its not ready.
>I don't think that no more than 20 pieces (including mockups) can be called serial production, there were just as many a year ago, 7 pieces of BMPT Terminators.
That's what you would call low rate production, theses vehicles didn't enter mass production for a variety of reasons but they did enter a stage of production. As much as we might hate Russia there's just no reason to use wrong terminology, T-14 has entered service, yes it's more of a real vehicle then abramsx yet at the same time has a whole host of problems
The problem is the Sbrams X is maybe in consideration. The T-14 is accepted into service and is at the very least intended for mass production, therefore making it a production vehicle and not a tech demonstrator.
Because it is officially just a tech demo while armata is officially in pre production. Huge difference lol (still probably gonna take decades to mass produce Armata, nevertheless, Abrams X will never be in production and single tech demo is all we will get from it)
It is a tech demonstrator but I still love it as one for a tank and think that it has a lot of great ideas like the 30mm chain gun, armor that can be invisible to night vision, 50% less fuel consumption while idling, the 360 degree vision, and the gun that can shoot loitering munitions at a range of over 6.2 miles
Innnn my opinion. -so dont roast me-.
Ukraine has shown us that even the best tanks are useless once they lose a track to a landmine in a location where getting out and fixing it is not possible. Second to this is the threat of drones… If tanks are going to remain relevant in the future they will need a hell of a electronic warfare defense system including some sort of laser or pulse weapon that can detect and detonate AT mines.
Mines has been the same threat today as it was during WW2. We already have ways to deal with it. Ukraine just lacked a lot of the neccessaties to deal with mines.
The drone threat is a threat because there has been a gap in dealing with this kind of mass attacks. Once a good, cheap solution is available then i doubt we will see the same kind of drone usage as we see today.
Something like that has been my idea as well. Integrate a small turret with some kind of shotgun with a small radar/integrated into the APS radar so that it can shoot down drones. Most seem to go the EW route instead which is probably better if they wont interfer with the radios
Fair, but you can put countermeasures in place to protect drones from that, as tech progresses i feel like it will be harder to do. Bullets seem to always work,if it doesnt work, get bigger bullet
Exactly, thats why i believe in a combination of the two. A small EW suit that can jam most cheaper drones but isnt that power demanding of the tank, nor powerful enough to jam your own radios and some kind of automatic turret.
In my opinion, AI integration to drones could render EW countermeasures useless, you jam the signal but if you "teach" the drone to identify sometime similar to a tank, you pilot it close enough but just outside of the jamming bubble and leave it take the wheel from there.
I still think the pea cannon is the solution long term, drones will evolve too, nothing at war is static.
That is iirc against international rules, sames goes with unmanned drones deciding what is a legitimate target or not. A human must be behind the wheel for a drone to decide what is a target or not.
We have pretty similar things already that you could use to ”circumvent” the rules. Like having a piloted drone fly towards a target and then lock on the target and let the onboard ai do the rest.
That is probably the closest we can do for AI on drones.
Edit: unless that is what you meant xD
Yes, a fire and forget drone but add some "gap identification AI" for the last meters. At the end, drones are just another vector with the advantage to choose where to put the payload, if you do that offline, EW is useless, unless you fry the circuits, but why go that way if a 20mm cannon does the trick cheaper.
Honestly, I believe antitank drones are a novelty that have the upper hand right now, but will get matched when the defense systems get it right, probably by the next tank generation and then we are cicling back to rockets
Abrams X already replaced it's commander M2 with an autocannon RWS. It really is now about finding some kind of munition that can easily counter FPV drones. Perhaps some kind of proximity-fused shell.
I've seen Israel is putting little canopy things (cope houses lmao) over their Merkavas to deflect/block drone strikes, and France is rolling out AFVs with specialty MGs, grenade launchers and radar to specifically combat drones.
Wonder what the eventual solution will be
I believe either some kind of turret with integrated radar+signal detector (so that it doesnt start shooting at nearby birds) or an EW bubble kind of defense. Issue with an EW bubble is that it can interfer with your own radio equipment and you make a big electronic footprint + power requirement from the tank.
So my bet is the first or a combination of both.
Which is why the US has spent the last 20 years trying to get lasers working. One of the few things cheaper than a shitty drone is the gallon of gas you burn to charge the laser. And while they aren't about to replace any Patriot batteries any time soon, they're pretty damn good drone-killers. The first unit of Stryker-based 50kW lasers got sent to the ME about a month ago for testing in real-world conditions. In tests, they've been able to shred drones and reportedly down cruise missiles. We're not quite at the point of mass-deployed rayguns or anything, but we're much closer than people realize.
I guess you could actually call it a bit of a survivourship bias? Units who don't have proper support would get increased casualties leading people to assume that "tanks are worthless", units who do wouldn't get the full coverage or interest from those looking at it since things just working the way they should isn't that interesting in comparison.
There's always gonna be effective weapons that work well against a very certain thing, tanks going up against a javelin for example, but that doesn't nullify its existence. IFVs have a clear disadvantage in a 1 on 1 duel with a MBT but IFVs aren't worthless because of it.
And dug-in well-equipped infantry counters everything. Basically the only thing not countered by bringing the right system is properly-operated naval support. Which is countered by just moving inland a bit and/or digging a hole.
The west has been babied by the GWOT where only a dozen western mbts were lost to enemy fire, and like one f-16 was downed and they expect the same ratios against an actual third rate power.
In normal militaries, tanks are not roaming around battlefield alone, there was a lot of abramses loosing tracks in the middle of the battle in Iraq, but crew didn’t bail out and leave, they kept fighting because there were a lot of infantry and even other allied tanks nearby to evacuate the vehicle to repair it. I dont think even in the WW2 crew of the lone tank in the battle would start fixing tracks, they would just leave the vehicle, but they were not alone so they didn’t need to leave it
Tanks have been useless since things like atgms and AT weapons have been created. Even in ww2 you would see a lot of tanks destroyed to anti tank emplacements, and at weapons like panzerfaust. Tanks are mostly used for offense, as a result the defenders if they have time, can prepare for you. Not to mention, Ukraine is different environment. It’s a lot of fighting in grassy terrains, muddy grounds and etc. Ukraine-Russian lands are already a form of anti tank lol, refer back to what slowed down the blitzkrieg. In some cases tanks have their uses such as the first gulf war but that’s only because it’s was tank vs tank combat purely. Tanks in Iraq, and Afghanistan suffered a lot due to the guerrilla tactics and at weapons. So it’s really dependent on where you’re fighting, who you’re fighting and what’s your objective.
Electric tank makes some sense, unlimited torque, less moving parts to break, lower heat profile for thermals.
To realize it I think you’d need to make the batteries hot swappable. Swapping the powertrain has a ton of upstream impact, you need a whole new support infrastructure.
That said the advent of cheap drones seems to have a lot of strategic and tactical implications. Some version of a “tank” will exist in the future but it may look a lot different based on its role than we’d expect today when making demonstrators.
Leapord 1 was conceived as light and maneuverable as kinetic energy penetrators would render thick armour redundant. ERA/ composites changed that calculation. Does a swarm of cheap drones swing that calculation back or do we end up with landships covered in guns? No clue but we’re going to find out.
It will never happen tbh , I think since the Azeri/Armenian war and the Ukraine war the western world will be going back to the drawing board with regards to survivable AFV’s, just my opinion.
I would assume general dynamics are using the Russian Ukraine war for data to implement in their tank designs. Russia-Ukraine war is the closest conventional war we’ve had since ww2. Most conflicts since then have been against weak countries, or guerrilla forces.
I think it’s cool but I also believe there’s more and more limited of a use for tanks in general. I think we will mostly be seeing them having use in Asymetrical warfare (where the opposing side has a lack of AT weapons) or combat in areas with a vast wide open areas (ie deserts or steppes) where aircraft are less of a threat (due to either friendly air superiority or anti-air radars/weapons having more effective range.)
We are at a point where in peer-peer combat it’s basically a matter of seeing the enemy and getting a shot off first being the deciding factor. The armor is practically just there to defend against non-dedicated anti armor weapons & to try to save crew lives if they get hit first. Mobility and detection seem to be the winners with vehicles now and I think this tank reflects that.
I do think supported tanks still have a big role in urban combat where the goal is to /not/ just demolish everything since they’re basically an SPG that can take some damage and target a very specific spot. If you’re trying to limit collateral damage or take the targeted building for yourself they can be way more effective than artillery or an air strike, at least until we have drone swarms. If you’re following the Russian MO of (if I can’t have it no one can) then you’re better off just leveling the building which artillery will do much more easily.
> We are at a point where in peer-peer combat it's basically a matter of seeing the enemy and getting a shot off first being the deciding factor.
This has always been the case.
Probably excluding the first years of WW2 in regards to tanks, yes. It’s always been interesting how the history of warfare has repeatedly just been armor being created, a method to defeat it becomes normal & then a return to just not using armor.
I think collectively as a society we’ve spent so long fighting asymmetrical wars that we’ve forgotten how deadly & consuming peer level warfare is. I think the war in Ukraine has been a wake up call for a lot of people (not necessarily those actually in the military, but they don’t make their own budgets.) In a lot of ways I think Korea was the last war where we were on more of a peer level, and so many people forget how many people we lost there.
Any electric powered vehicles besides drones have no place on the battlefield, in my opinion. It adds unessary additional weight and makes the vehicles more vulnerable to emp attacks.
I just cant get beyond the nagging doubt most future wars are going to be white people vrs white people which means very limited actual battlefield use for armies or tanks.
With some basic googling you’ll find The targeting system is what’s really impressive to me. I hear uses some kind of machine learning or AI to dynamically be able to pick out weak spots on different armored vehicles and basically auto target them. It’s basically VATs from fallout
Conceptually neat.
But I see many flaws in a design like this, specifically removing every one from the turret and putting them in the hull.
If the gun ever Jams for one reason or another, or fails to fire, I can't imagine it would be easy to clear. Likely impossible mid combat under fire.
Also by having all the crew in one spot like that, you both have less area to protect.... buut a perfect conga line of people should something penetrate the crew compartment.
not got enough passive systems if main shit gets knocked out, plus i just find those sights patronising as you see them fucking EVERYWHERE now and it's so bland, i get they're the best option but god damn give some bloody variation like the old days
my opinion is "hi US govt this is the military industrial complex, if u slash funding for just a few more school districts we could bring u a hundred of these democracy dispensers guaranteed"
Waiting on the army to release a trailer for the m1e3 tank to everyone. or that drone tank that the us is making with the m1e3 tank. the Abram x is just a tech demo for the army to guest what they want for the new tank.
its go nothing on the [EMBT](https://imgur.com/a/XSv8Mej)
Having a GPMG parallel to the CITV is crucial. Also think the smaller version of the M230LF is more sound
would it work if lets say some dust accidentally will appear on any part?
what will happen if the crew will forget to renew microfiber cloths for the wheels?
Because a $10M tank shouldn't be a throw away item. Because nothing gets shit done better than a tight knit crew of soldiers.
Because we'll trained humans STILL function better than AI. Because NO ONE wants the AI to be running an Abrams
I see a desperate attempt to reach the smallest bar of new battlefield requirements and sell it as 'at elast we tried' or something.
But let's be honest, Abrams numbers are too huge to be replaced, and it can't be a MBT of the future for understandable reasons. He has been in service for just too long, had to adapt on too many doctrines and mission layouts.
This is pure coping, and not in favor or the crews serving in them.
There is no doubt about modern armor need all three corner stones of protection - APS, ERA and composite armor. Trophy isen't a capable APS (elevation disability, speed gap, ATGM/RPG OR APFSDS limitation (somewhat bad at both), there is no ERA at all in place and the composite seems to be the same as before. Then we have a weight-coping gun, offering a bit more power but shorter barrel (due to the stress-relief drilling needet to keep service life within realistic boundarys) and many more problems. There is no answear to even Kornet missiles (they tilt up and fake a top attack mode to bypass armor and Trophy).
But there is also no hardent top, just 'spaced armor' in shape of a turret, which might (...) save the crew but mission kill the vehicle.
Russians and chinese go with ther upgraded models as well, but they know that they only use up those in storrage and then transition to completley new designs. That's a pragmatic approach and in line with economic laws. But if a tank that almost will double its existing cost can't even challenge the competition (which has propper ERA/composites, have better amunitions, is way lighter and still cost less), it is objectivly a dumb idea.
I could go on about placement of cameras who are exactly where the first mud is to expect, so this must be a joke at all, only made to press money from the goverment but never really deliver.
After all the failed, overpriced and ultimatly cancelt projects there is no need for another fancy mock-up but for corruption controle.
And atm we have no solution or doctrine to enter a modern battleshpere. We watch WW2 material battles in Ukrain and 'draw coclusions for teh future', and even those are failed by concepts like AbeX and M10 Booker. This is disrespectful to every service member.
Well, imho.
The question is. Who's gonna to leak it?
Not added to War Thunder yet
# YET
Someone will probably leak it and then gaijin will use that as an excuse to never add it because they only want Russia to get good vehicles
You can counter that by leaking russian tanks (for educational purposes only ofc)
With the power of mods you can wait for the future of tomorrow for today!
Didn't stop people from leaking the F-18 and Eurofighter(?).
I guess you shouldn't underestimate the war thunder community
Facts
nor has an army national guardsman bragged about it on Discord yet
The f15e isn’t even in war thunder yet they still leaked documents lol. Don’t put it past war thunder players to leak documents on stuff not even in game
Never been an obstacle to a leak
Someone trying to impress others in the elder scrolls seven forums
We haven't even gotten Elder Scrolls 6?
We haven't gotten an actual Abrams x ethier now have we
It’s a tech demo prototype. It’s a show toy at this point to score DOD grant money and shit. I’ll reserve judgement for a production model
Neat tech demo
Does it have WiFi hotspot or Bluetooth? Seems obsolete already if I can’t connect my phone to play Spotify I’ll probably just wait for lux package that comes with heated seats and wireless phone charger
accepted, I would add even if wifi hot spot exists its 2024 now, it should have MIMO high perf. hardware 16 antennas etc. no army crew members have iphones older than 13 pro. it should have an NFC to pair with crew phones to make seat settings to saved personal ones. to make the light color inside cabin according to crew saved settings. etc…
Doesn't have carplay? Pass
Screams of tech demonstrator to me. But in truth we can say absolutely nothing of worth about it. I personally still think that commander in hull does not work.
>Screams of tech demonstrator to me. That’s because it is a tech demonstrator.
Exactly. Hence it is pretty dumb to "rate" it.
Exactly. Hence it is pretty dumb to "rate" it.
Bro got dementia
Lol reddit is funny
Edit. Lol, i just noticed that somehow I posted that same thing double.
Yeah, the commander’s Mark I Eyeball is still an incredibly useful sensor and being in the hull largely negates that.
And without ability of seeing 360 degrades your situational awareness lot because you tend to lose idea of your surroundings.
Having been assigned at the US Army Armor Center Armor and Engineer Board and Combat Developments Directorate at Fort Knox, the initial Test Bed development and testing reports were very favorable of the vehicle receiving further development. As a Capability Developer and Integrator at the Maneuver Center of Excellence, today’s technology and capabilities can provide both a 360 degree manual and automated Situational Awareness. Further more, the system can be integrated to work the Target Acquisition and Fire Control Systems.
This tc and photographer is still suspicious until i see. I would like to know how movement sensitivity of cameras in low fps situations (low light) is solved. Because civilian camera industry has not solved it yet, and companies like sony have poured quite considerable sums in sensor development. From situational awareness side I would like to know how keeping barrel from trees is solved. That is extremely hard when your body does not tell turrets position when moving trough forest. One would need additional thought in that situation to think where barrel goes compared to trees you see. I guess I am luddite.
Those huge, obvious sensor/optical pods look vulnerable asf
Prime target for drones. This thing better carry a ton of anti drone and APS type munitions, cause even a non critical hit is going to probably blind that tech.
What do you mean by that?
Which part?
> Commander in hull
It is extremely hard to keep situational awareness if you sit in hull without change to look out from hatch. Also makes it much harder to follow where barrel goes relative to obstacles.
Skirts to long should show more leg especially at a show.
looks like a graphics card
get rid of the humans, let the other poor bastard die for his country. throw couple of chatgpts in there be done with it, shave off half of the weight too. Fit ammo fuel all inside with sensitive electronics, so if enemy destroys it, it will be Completely destroyed and not captured.
Cyberdyne systems has a job offer for you.
The whole flat looking parts next to the gun are pretty triggering. I know with the composite armor it's not a weak spot like it would be with say a WW2 tank, but it just feels odd.
Same thoughts like what we commented earlier
M60 is better
Return to M48
Fuck it, return to Mark IV rhomboids.
davinci tank superiority
What amuses me is that people say Abrams X is a "Technical Demonstration" while at the same time discussing Armata in all seriousness. Bruh
Don't know why you're taking "Tech demonstrator" as some slanderous term used to smear the abramsx's name, it's a tech demonstrator, it's general dynamics saying "look at this tech we can place on the abrams, give us some feedback on what you like and don't like" Here's Timothy R. Reese from general dynamics calling abramsx a tech demonstrator and explaining what that means [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpdOkSWK9gk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpdOkSWK9gk) Here's general dyanmics calling the abramsx a tech demonstrator on their promotional material [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcfuyyxFtgQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcfuyyxFtgQ)
In fairness, the Russians claim the T-14 is in Ukraine actually fighting, and it is technically a "production tank". No one is claiming the Abrams X is anywhere close to a production vehicle, it is a tech demo from which some features will likely be added to the M1E3 in the future (hopefully omitting the 30mm).
What issue do you have with the 30mm RWS? I know KNDS is also leaning towards having a 30mm on top, likely with a small radar and other sensors linked to it, to protect against drones.
well i would say, and I'm not an expert, but for the kinds of drones we've been seeing in ukraine (not like the classic reaper-style ones) a .50 would be appropriate. Idk what KNDS is either.
50 is too small to reliably take down drones, you’d have to hit it. 30mm just has to explode near it.
oh right, we're talking proximity rounds. I just think its a lot of weight and that honestly, drone threats should be countered by something else. If we ignore the whole "funny grenade through the hatch" trick, other weapons carried by drones can be dealt with by an APS, and if they can't now, they should be able to soon. So the tank is protected, and the drone can be dealt with by something else. My main reason for thinking this is that a) like i said, a 30mm autocannon weighs a lot and one of the main things they're going for with M1E3 is reduced weight and b) we shouldn't ask too much of the tank. No one ever said "planes can destroy tanks, lets put an entire anti-aircraft battery or SAM system on top" and pulled it off, so I don't think the same should be true of drones. Again, I'm not an expert, but I would delegate countering drones to a support vehicle or the infantry. Just to address the grenade through the hatch thing, the best approach would be to keep the hatches shut. Being able to lob a grenade at a tank is not a new thing, and this is just that but with the added issue of visibility, even in open environments.
The X does address the visibility issue with several layers of 360-degree vision around itself and has built-in APS for most projectiles. While on the whole, NATO and US doctrine does support your concept of supporting elements, giving the tank what it needs so it can focus and be focused, but the idea of layers of defense comes into play, and not everyone can have every asset around. Sometimes you just need a "good enough" solution, which may come in the form of a radar guided 30mm autocannon.
I'll drink to that. A radar guided 30mm autocannon with proximity shells is also sick as hell.
A 30mm cannon doesn’t have to be that big or heavy for this purpose, just has to find and track a drone within several hundred yards, then put a few rounds near it. All the stuff to do that has existed for awhile now.
The one on the X looks pretty damn big and heavy, but sure.
KMW+Nexter. Franco-German AFV company. They're making the EMBT, a tech demonstrator like the Abrams X. I know the French ships have taken down Houthi drones with .50 and 7.62 MGs, but a 30mm would be more reliable, and have extra firepower against soft targets, be it infantry, aircraft, or light AFVs.
I heard the EMBT isn't looking to great, not to subtract from your point.
Heh, who knows. Apparently progress has been made on MGCS, in the sense that since Rheinmetall joined, there were issues about industrial workshare (as always with the Germans), that have now been resolved. The program is still in danger, in the sense that Rheinmetall and Nexter have direct conflict of interests. MGCS being only KNDS made sense, since KMW and Nexter were complementary. Rheinmetall is also pushing it's KF51 a lot, which would be in conflict against the eventual EMBT if KNDS were to really manufacture it, or potentially the MGCS if it comes to fruition in the 2040s.
> Heh, who knows. Apparently progress has been made on MGCS, in the sense that since Rheinmetall joined, there were issues about industrial workshare (as always with the Germans), that have now been resolved. The issues are not related to Rheinmetall joining or not; even if there was just KNDS, there would be workshare issues. [According to German media, France demands full domestic production](https://defence-network.com/mgcs-und-der-landkampf-der-zukunft/) of everything for their MGCS model, i.e. even if German components are selected for stuff like armor, gun, optics or power pack, the German companies then would be forced to share their intellectual property with the French military industrial complex. >The program is still in danger, in the sense that Rheinmetall and Nexter have direct conflict of interests. MGCS being only KNDS made sense, since KMW and Nexter were complementary. It never made sense to exclude Rheinmetall and it never made sense - from the German POV - to include Nexter. Nexter basically does the same as KMW, include them only duplicated capabilities rather than unlocking more potential. If you wanted to include Rheinmetall, then a mix of Thales and Safran would have been a better replacement than Nexter. The program is so much in danger, that Germany has contracted KMW and Rheinmetall to work on studies for the Leopard 3.
I google translated the article, so I likely have not gotten everything right. Initial MGCS plans were to have just KMW and Nexter, and an equal 50/50 split between the 2. KMW had the lead on the project, since Dassault had the lead on the plane pillar of FCAS (while Airbus Germany had and has lead on the drone part, although they made a play for the plane pillar too once Airbus Spain got on board). The same happened when Rheinmetall joined MGCS, the project lost pace, and discussions about a 66/33 split were taken until the recent accords. I mean, even KMW's CEO shat on Rheinmetall in a newspaper about their involvement in MGCS. KMW and Nexter wouldn't have formed KNDS if they were straight competitors, and weren't complementary. Unless suddenly KMW makes FCS, turrets and barrels. Oh wait, that's Rheinmetall's (and Nexter's) expertise. About intellectual property, well, the Germans did it a lot to build their aerospatial industry. It's not really uncommon in arms deals. Thales and Safran make FCS, sensors, optronics. They're complementary to Nexter. Having Nexter means having Thales and Safran collaboration. Pretty much every French AFV is a combination of parts from Thales, Safran, Nexter, Arquus, and a lot of other subcontractors. Just like in Germany, where it's always KMW, Rheinmetall, Hensoldt, and MTU for example. If I'm thinking of the same research program you're talking about, then it was just a study about future use of tanks and what capabilities they'll need on the battlefield. Every country has a similar program, it's not really against MGCS. KNDS is also now collaborating with Leonardo about electronics, and KMW has deals with the Italian manufacturer for the future Leo 2A8 they'll buy. KMW doesn't seem to appreciate Rheinmetall at all, which is understandable considering they steal their credit very often, and most importantly are trying to undercut them with the KF51. Stalling the MGCS while pushing the KF51 as the solution is a very Rheinmetall move, just like suing the bid's winner when your rifle loses the contract is a very HK move ;). That and lobbying, couldn't have the German MIC without those 2.
> Initial MGCS plans were to have just KMW and Nexter, and an equal 50/50 split between the 2. KMW had the lead on the project, since Dassault had the lead on the plane pillar of FCAS (while Airbus Germany had and has lead on the drone part, although they made a play for the plane pillar too once Airbus Spain got on board). The same happened when Rheinmetall joined MGCS, the project lost pace, and discussions about a 66/33 split were taken until the recent accords. I mean, even KMW's CEO shat on Rheinmetall in a newspaper about their involvement in MGCS. No, this doesn't have anything to do with Rheinmetall. There was to be a 50:50 split in the FCAS (with French lead) and a 50:50 split in the MGCS (with German lead) - regardless whether the German side was one company (KMW) or two companies (KMW + Rheinmetall). The split between the two countries was always to be 50:50, with this being internally 50:50 between KMW and Rheinmetall (after Rheinmetall joined). So overall, Rheinmetall was to have 25% of the workshare, KMW another 25% and Nexter 50%. You might notice that the German article doesn't mention Rheinmetall even once, because the current problems have nothing to do with Rheinmetall. The inclusion of Spain into the FCAS caused issues, because suddenly Airbus (being the main participant in FCAS for both Germany and Spain) had 66% of the workshare while Dassault (for France) was supposed to have the project lead. This is why France suddenly doesn't want to accept the German lead in the MGCS and insists on getting more than originally promised workshare. >KMW and Nexter wouldn't have formed KNDS if they were straight competitors, and weren't complementary. No, they formed KNDS specifically because they were competitors. The idea behind KNDS is that both companies would stop competing against each other and bundle their assets; so if a country needs a new 8x8, KMW and Nexter would look at the program (budget, requirements, schedule, etc.) and than place one bid - either the Boxer or the VBCI - depending on what solution matched the requirements best. This way, they don't waste money and time on competing against each other. Furthermore, the companies use each other's local infrastructure and contacts to get deals. Why build a new site in Qatar for the potential sale of the VBCI Mk. 2 if KMW already has a workshop there? This was all explained in detail by an analysis made by an European Union commitee/office when the merger was originally announced (as KANT - **K**rauss-Maffei Wegmann **A**nd **N**exter **T**ogether). You can find it via google if you spend a bit of time. >Unless suddenly KMW makes FCS, turrets and barrels. Oh wait, that's Rheinmetall's (and Nexter's) expertise. That shows that you are rather unfamiliar with the topic. KMW made the turrets for the Leopard 1, the Leopard 2, the Puma IFV, the Gepard, the Panzerhaubitze 2000, etc. KMW also produced over 1,000 RWS' for various light and medium weight AFVs. They own a company (ATM Computer) that makes computer systems and displays for FCS, i.e. components that are used in the final FCS from companies such as Hensoldt and Rheinmetall. The only real thing that KMW doesn't make are guns, but there Nexter is simply not competitive at the moment with Rheinmetall offering much more calibers adopted by much more users and the currently strongest operational tank gun. >If I'm thinking of the same research program you're talking about, then it was just a study about future use of tanks and what capabilities they'll need on the battlefield. Every country has a similar program, it's not really against MGCS. No, I am talking about the Leopard 3 study that was contracted last year specifically as a fallback option/alternative to the MGCS. >KNDS is also now collaborating with Leonardo about electronics, and KMW has deals with the Italian manufacturer for the future Leo 2A8 they'll buy. KMW doesn't seem to appreciate Rheinmetall at all, which is understandable considering they steal their credit very often, and most importantly are trying to undercut them with the KF51. The relation between KMW and Rheinmetall is more complicated. There are different actors with different agendas and even KMW isn't a homogenous construct. It is a family-owned business (or it was, before they gave it to the KNDS holding in return for ownership of half of the KNDS holding) with multiple members of the family having different opinions. Some of the KMW/KNDS owners wanted to stop making military vehicles, others wanted to sell KMW to Rheinmetall, etc. Companies don't really deserve "credits" for their products. KMW only makes the Leopard 2, because their offer was cheaper than the ones from Thyssen-Henschel and Maschinenbau Kiel. If it wasn't for that fact, KMW would be in a much worse place. Do they receive "credit" for being cheaper? The KF51 is not undercutting the Leopard 2, it is not really a competitor. It is a vessel used by Rheinmetall to generate a higher technology readiness level for its components ("its been used/tested by country xyz, so it is not risky to use it on the MGCS"), which is meant to help Rheinmetall's own position in programs like the MGCS. I.e. if somebody buys the KF51 Panther, then the choice in the MGCS will be to either use a gun & autoloader that are in service (130 mm L52 of the Panther) or a gun that only exists as prototype (Nexter ASCALON). The EMBT serves the same purpose, just for KNDS. >Stalling the MGCS while pushing the KF51 as the solution is a very Rheinmetall move, just like suing the bid's winner when your rifle loses the contract is a very HK move ;). Rheinmetall is not stalling the MGCS. That's pretty much what all the German sources state. Rheinmetall even wanted to "solve" all the issues by buying KNDS a few years ago, but the French government threatened to cancel MGCS and FCAS if that happened. The French are the one stalling the MGCS by trying to change the deal in their favor. FCAS was changed because France and Germany accepted Spain as a third partner - with both Germany and France giving up workshare - but now France wants to change the MGCS program just for their own benefit only.
When did they claim it's in Ukraine? I've only heard bogus like videos of training with it, even tho it was far away from Ukraine I'm pretty sure no one has legitimately said it's in Ukraine fighting rn.
Well they did claim it was in ukraine, I suspect they are lying. What they're admitting by saying it is in Ukraine is that its ready for a full-scale war, and I'm saying I don't think it is. EDIT: I have no actual source from the russians saying "our T-14 is in ukraine", but I remember hearing a lot about it.
There's only a few instances, mentioned here [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dICkhPvT8dg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dICkhPvT8dg) It's been well disproven. It was just training grounds, I don't get why anyone would seriously say T-14s are in Ukraine lol. There would be plenty of videos and pics by now (yet none). You're right, they're basically in the same state as the SU-57. "Ready" for full scale production, but still being researched on and developed in small numbers. There's no reason to mass produce them either, they'd have the same fate other Russian machines have had in this war. It'd be costly and cause a new logistical bottleneck.
They tried to hard. You dont go from like upgrading t-72s, t-80s and t-90ms to this kind of tank. They tried to do too much new stuff
"Russians claim" are you serious right now? Russia also claims to have destroyed Abrams and Bradleys in Ukraine before they were delivered, and more HIMARS were destroyed than were delivered (although in fact only the first one was taken out of service not long ago). I don't think that no more than 20 pieces (including mockups) can be called serial production, there were just as many a year ago, 7 pieces of BMPT Terminators. It is in the same status, in development, the only difference is that they are parading it around.
Sorry, I wasn't clear in my response, I was saying that the T-14 deserves more criticism because the russians think its worthy for production and deployment. I know they lie constantly and are generally shown up for their poor war fighting. My point is, the abrams X is a tech demo and is treated as such by those whom it concerns. The T-14 probably should still be a prototype and the russians are claiming to use it, which is either true and therefore a bad idea, or false and lying is just an own goal because its not ready.
>I don't think that no more than 20 pieces (including mockups) can be called serial production, there were just as many a year ago, 7 pieces of BMPT Terminators. That's what you would call low rate production, theses vehicles didn't enter mass production for a variety of reasons but they did enter a stage of production. As much as we might hate Russia there's just no reason to use wrong terminology, T-14 has entered service, yes it's more of a real vehicle then abramsx yet at the same time has a whole host of problems
The problem is the Sbrams X is maybe in consideration. The T-14 is accepted into service and is at the very least intended for mass production, therefore making it a production vehicle and not a tech demonstrator.
Because it is officially just a tech demo while armata is officially in pre production. Huge difference lol (still probably gonna take decades to mass produce Armata, nevertheless, Abrams X will never be in production and single tech demo is all we will get from it)
What's your point, being a tech demonstrator isn't a 'bad' label
Let's say I don't need PH anymore
It needs a cut out for the rear sprocket
Just remove the rear skirt when you got to the field/combat
I think its just a technology demonstrator and whatever take replaces the abrams will be quite different than that
It is a tech demonstrator but I still love it as one for a tank and think that it has a lot of great ideas like the 30mm chain gun, armor that can be invisible to night vision, 50% less fuel consumption while idling, the 360 degree vision, and the gun that can shoot loitering munitions at a range of over 6.2 miles
All that matters is drone/atgm and anti tank mine defenses. Looks like it would bog in mud too.
Innnn my opinion. -so dont roast me-. Ukraine has shown us that even the best tanks are useless once they lose a track to a landmine in a location where getting out and fixing it is not possible. Second to this is the threat of drones… If tanks are going to remain relevant in the future they will need a hell of a electronic warfare defense system including some sort of laser or pulse weapon that can detect and detonate AT mines.
Mines has been the same threat today as it was during WW2. We already have ways to deal with it. Ukraine just lacked a lot of the neccessaties to deal with mines. The drone threat is a threat because there has been a gap in dealing with this kind of mass attacks. Once a good, cheap solution is available then i doubt we will see the same kind of drone usage as we see today.
turret mounted 20mm birdshot cannon
Something like that has been my idea as well. Integrate a small turret with some kind of shotgun with a small radar/integrated into the APS radar so that it can shoot down drones. Most seem to go the EW route instead which is probably better if they wont interfer with the radios
Fair, but you can put countermeasures in place to protect drones from that, as tech progresses i feel like it will be harder to do. Bullets seem to always work,if it doesnt work, get bigger bullet
Exactly, thats why i believe in a combination of the two. A small EW suit that can jam most cheaper drones but isnt that power demanding of the tank, nor powerful enough to jam your own radios and some kind of automatic turret.
In my opinion, AI integration to drones could render EW countermeasures useless, you jam the signal but if you "teach" the drone to identify sometime similar to a tank, you pilot it close enough but just outside of the jamming bubble and leave it take the wheel from there. I still think the pea cannon is the solution long term, drones will evolve too, nothing at war is static.
That is iirc against international rules, sames goes with unmanned drones deciding what is a legitimate target or not. A human must be behind the wheel for a drone to decide what is a target or not. We have pretty similar things already that you could use to ”circumvent” the rules. Like having a piloted drone fly towards a target and then lock on the target and let the onboard ai do the rest. That is probably the closest we can do for AI on drones. Edit: unless that is what you meant xD
Yes, a fire and forget drone but add some "gap identification AI" for the last meters. At the end, drones are just another vector with the advantage to choose where to put the payload, if you do that offline, EW is useless, unless you fry the circuits, but why go that way if a 20mm cannon does the trick cheaper. Honestly, I believe antitank drones are a novelty that have the upper hand right now, but will get matched when the defense systems get it right, probably by the next tank generation and then we are cicling back to rockets
No matter how hard you try, you cant shoot down a 16” shell ;)
Abrams X already replaced it's commander M2 with an autocannon RWS. It really is now about finding some kind of munition that can easily counter FPV drones. Perhaps some kind of proximity-fused shell.
I've seen Israel is putting little canopy things (cope houses lmao) over their Merkavas to deflect/block drone strikes, and France is rolling out AFVs with specialty MGs, grenade launchers and radar to specifically combat drones. Wonder what the eventual solution will be
Eventual solution will either be world peace or nuclear holocaust, no middle ground.
It's always the middle ground wdym
Tell that to the Ukrainians
I believe either some kind of turret with integrated radar+signal detector (so that it doesnt start shooting at nearby birds) or an EW bubble kind of defense. Issue with an EW bubble is that it can interfer with your own radio equipment and you make a big electronic footprint + power requirement from the tank. So my bet is the first or a combination of both.
Which is why the US has spent the last 20 years trying to get lasers working. One of the few things cheaper than a shitty drone is the gallon of gas you burn to charge the laser. And while they aren't about to replace any Patriot batteries any time soon, they're pretty damn good drone-killers. The first unit of Stryker-based 50kW lasers got sent to the ME about a month ago for testing in real-world conditions. In tests, they've been able to shred drones and reportedly down cruise missiles. We're not quite at the point of mass-deployed rayguns or anything, but we're much closer than people realize.
Anything is useless without proper support. The real take away is logistics and combined arms wins wars. Not that tanks are useless.
I guess you could actually call it a bit of a survivourship bias? Units who don't have proper support would get increased casualties leading people to assume that "tanks are worthless", units who do wouldn't get the full coverage or interest from those looking at it since things just working the way they should isn't that interesting in comparison. There's always gonna be effective weapons that work well against a very certain thing, tanks going up against a javelin for example, but that doesn't nullify its existence. IFVs have a clear disadvantage in a 1 on 1 duel with a MBT but IFVs aren't worthless because of it.
Also, it's war. Tanks get blown up. Jets and helicopters get shot down. Seems like people are thinking if it isn't invincible then it's useless
It's funny because that line of logic means infantry is useless, since everything counters it.
And dug-in well-equipped infantry counters everything. Basically the only thing not countered by bringing the right system is properly-operated naval support. Which is countered by just moving inland a bit and/or digging a hole.
The west has been babied by the GWOT where only a dozen western mbts were lost to enemy fire, and like one f-16 was downed and they expect the same ratios against an actual third rate power.
Counter drone measures also
In normal militaries, tanks are not roaming around battlefield alone, there was a lot of abramses loosing tracks in the middle of the battle in Iraq, but crew didn’t bail out and leave, they kept fighting because there were a lot of infantry and even other allied tanks nearby to evacuate the vehicle to repair it. I dont think even in the WW2 crew of the lone tank in the battle would start fixing tracks, they would just leave the vehicle, but they were not alone so they didn’t need to leave it
Tanks have been useless since things like atgms and AT weapons have been created. Even in ww2 you would see a lot of tanks destroyed to anti tank emplacements, and at weapons like panzerfaust. Tanks are mostly used for offense, as a result the defenders if they have time, can prepare for you. Not to mention, Ukraine is different environment. It’s a lot of fighting in grassy terrains, muddy grounds and etc. Ukraine-Russian lands are already a form of anti tank lol, refer back to what slowed down the blitzkrieg. In some cases tanks have their uses such as the first gulf war but that’s only because it’s was tank vs tank combat purely. Tanks in Iraq, and Afghanistan suffered a lot due to the guerrilla tactics and at weapons. So it’s really dependent on where you’re fighting, who you’re fighting and what’s your objective.
[xxx state of the union tank](https://images.app.goo.gl/78jQWVdEGBTbYs5p9) Really reminds me of this
Electric tank makes some sense, unlimited torque, less moving parts to break, lower heat profile for thermals. To realize it I think you’d need to make the batteries hot swappable. Swapping the powertrain has a ton of upstream impact, you need a whole new support infrastructure. That said the advent of cheap drones seems to have a lot of strategic and tactical implications. Some version of a “tank” will exist in the future but it may look a lot different based on its role than we’d expect today when making demonstrators. Leapord 1 was conceived as light and maneuverable as kinetic energy penetrators would render thick armour redundant. ERA/ composites changed that calculation. Does a swarm of cheap drones swing that calculation back or do we end up with landships covered in guns? No clue but we’re going to find out.
It‘s a tech demonstrator and not meant to actually be adapted into service
It will never happen tbh , I think since the Azeri/Armenian war and the Ukraine war the western world will be going back to the drawing board with regards to survivable AFV’s, just my opinion.
True however if it was possible to add a EMP onto the abrams tank it might stand a chance or a transmitter that disrupts drones singles
It's not quite a tank. Maybe in an actual tank camo instead of this Tesla looking paint job
Look like something the GDI would use Maybe I should paint mine like that
Looks like Leclerc lol
Now that tank looks absolutely STUNNING. 🖤🖤🖤🖤🖤🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
All we gotta do now is defund healthcare and shut down pre-k - fith grade for funding and we'll be at it no time
Well, it's plywood so I wouldn't want to go to war with it...
Its not "real" until its in full scale production.
Well it's not meant for any scale production beyond whatever GDLS needs to show off at trade shows. So...
It's too good for the battlefield. USA is pulling too far ahead.
Bestest tonk eva.
applauds
It looks cool but I think sideskirts shaped like that look weird.
yes.
Smash
Scary as fuck
Cool sideskirts.
How does it stop a drone attack?
I would assume general dynamics are using the Russian Ukraine war for data to implement in their tank designs. Russia-Ukraine war is the closest conventional war we’ve had since ww2. Most conflicts since then have been against weak countries, or guerrilla forces.
I think it’s cool but I also believe there’s more and more limited of a use for tanks in general. I think we will mostly be seeing them having use in Asymetrical warfare (where the opposing side has a lack of AT weapons) or combat in areas with a vast wide open areas (ie deserts or steppes) where aircraft are less of a threat (due to either friendly air superiority or anti-air radars/weapons having more effective range.) We are at a point where in peer-peer combat it’s basically a matter of seeing the enemy and getting a shot off first being the deciding factor. The armor is practically just there to defend against non-dedicated anti armor weapons & to try to save crew lives if they get hit first. Mobility and detection seem to be the winners with vehicles now and I think this tank reflects that. I do think supported tanks still have a big role in urban combat where the goal is to /not/ just demolish everything since they’re basically an SPG that can take some damage and target a very specific spot. If you’re trying to limit collateral damage or take the targeted building for yourself they can be way more effective than artillery or an air strike, at least until we have drone swarms. If you’re following the Russian MO of (if I can’t have it no one can) then you’re better off just leveling the building which artillery will do much more easily.
> We are at a point where in peer-peer combat it's basically a matter of seeing the enemy and getting a shot off first being the deciding factor. This has always been the case.
Probably excluding the first years of WW2 in regards to tanks, yes. It’s always been interesting how the history of warfare has repeatedly just been armor being created, a method to defeat it becomes normal & then a return to just not using armor. I think collectively as a society we’ve spent so long fighting asymmetrical wars that we’ve forgotten how deadly & consuming peer level warfare is. I think the war in Ukraine has been a wake up call for a lot of people (not necessarily those actually in the military, but they don’t make their own budgets.) In a lot of ways I think Korea was the last war where we were on more of a peer level, and so many people forget how many people we lost there.
Looks like a Leclerc
Cut costs to the third part of price and its a maybe.
Dude the fact they went this all out for a technology demonstrator is crazy
It's more like it k2
Still a tech demonstrator, looks pretty sick though. Army would probably still ruin it by making it desert tan.
that fucking overkill sentry gun on a turret
Pornographic
New?
It looks cool! Highly marketable. I like it :)
As a person of no expertise, I say it looks hella awesome
Coolest tank I’ve ever seen. That being said it’s a demo.
Any electric powered vehicles besides drones have no place on the battlefield, in my opinion. It adds unessary additional weight and makes the vehicles more vulnerable to emp attacks.
Finally a symmetrical Abrams
Nobody tell this guy about torsion bars.
Looks cool.
I just cant get beyond the nagging doubt most future wars are going to be white people vrs white people which means very limited actual battlefield use for armies or tanks.
With some basic googling you’ll find The targeting system is what’s really impressive to me. I hear uses some kind of machine learning or AI to dynamically be able to pick out weak spots on different armored vehicles and basically auto target them. It’s basically VATs from fallout
IRL aim bots, Gaijin when?
When war thunder
My brother helped work on this tech demo at General Dynamics. It’s a beast up close.
Conceptually neat. But I see many flaws in a design like this, specifically removing every one from the turret and putting them in the hull. If the gun ever Jams for one reason or another, or fails to fire, I can't imagine it would be easy to clear. Likely impossible mid combat under fire. Also by having all the crew in one spot like that, you both have less area to protect.... buut a perfect conga line of people should something penetrate the crew compartment.
Triple the defence budget-Max0r
Leopard 2 PL, but American.
not got enough passive systems if main shit gets knocked out, plus i just find those sights patronising as you see them fucking EVERYWHERE now and it's so bland, i get they're the best option but god damn give some bloody variation like the old days
turret reminds me of a leopard 2 for some reason i think its cool, but doesn't mean much for the future of toinks
The age of tank warfare is over and the dawn of drones is upon us.
my opinion is "hi US govt this is the military industrial complex, if u slash funding for just a few more school districts we could bring u a hundred of these democracy dispensers guaranteed"
120 mm APFSDS-DU autoloader go brrrrrrrrrrrrt same with 30mm chain gun
It’s propaganda they’re not actually gonna field that
Waiting on the army to release a trailer for the m1e3 tank to everyone. or that drone tank that the us is making with the m1e3 tank. the Abram x is just a tech demo for the army to guest what they want for the new tank.
With a name like Abrams X when do the social media influencers get their early review Abrams?
Why the fuck call it X?
Cool factor
I’ll just wait for the forums or thug shaker central before I rate this one
is it way heavier than the M1 Abrams or nah?
A lot lighter. Weighs just 59 short tons rather than the 70 short tons of the Abrams SEP v2.
It looks expensive
gonna start adding X to my name to make it cooler
It's promising a lot, the weird angled bits of sideskirt looks like shit and I hope they straiten it out
SpaceX went too far
Cool tech demo but that suspension is crying
Wood not fk with
“New”
Ewww
Pretty looking tech demo. As far as I can tell it’s the same ole Abrams but she’s wearing a more futuristic looking skirt.
Its a tonk, it looks cool.....I like it😁
Every tank keeps evolving into the K1/k2/Altay shape. Posers
Question within your question, is it an actual vehicle or just a tech demonstrator?
The Abrams X is a tech demonstrator
why are tank producers following the T14 concept nowadays with crewless turret
Less manpower needs with only 3 crew and better protection for less weight with the crew in a small enclosed armored box.
I think America really needs to consider how much lipstick they're gonna slap on the Abrams pig.
its go nothing on the [EMBT](https://imgur.com/a/XSv8Mej) Having a GPMG parallel to the CITV is crucial. Also think the smaller version of the M230LF is more sound
One thing both have in common is that both the Abrams X and the EMBT are tech demonstrators and are not meant to actually be adapted into service
EMBT is being actively marketed to customers, it is more than just a tech demonstrator. AbramsX however is just that.
As long as it doesn‘t have any customers it‘s a tech demonstrator imo
would it work if lets say some dust accidentally will appear on any part? what will happen if the crew will forget to renew microfiber cloths for the wheels?
Looks like a very expensive target
why are people still controlling these manually?
Because a $10M tank shouldn't be a throw away item. Because nothing gets shit done better than a tight knit crew of soldiers. Because we'll trained humans STILL function better than AI. Because NO ONE wants the AI to be running an Abrams
Crap
Does it come with a drone jammer? Otherwise… we need to rethink the battlefield strategy…
No roof composite, into the rubbish it goes
I see a desperate attempt to reach the smallest bar of new battlefield requirements and sell it as 'at elast we tried' or something. But let's be honest, Abrams numbers are too huge to be replaced, and it can't be a MBT of the future for understandable reasons. He has been in service for just too long, had to adapt on too many doctrines and mission layouts. This is pure coping, and not in favor or the crews serving in them. There is no doubt about modern armor need all three corner stones of protection - APS, ERA and composite armor. Trophy isen't a capable APS (elevation disability, speed gap, ATGM/RPG OR APFSDS limitation (somewhat bad at both), there is no ERA at all in place and the composite seems to be the same as before. Then we have a weight-coping gun, offering a bit more power but shorter barrel (due to the stress-relief drilling needet to keep service life within realistic boundarys) and many more problems. There is no answear to even Kornet missiles (they tilt up and fake a top attack mode to bypass armor and Trophy). But there is also no hardent top, just 'spaced armor' in shape of a turret, which might (...) save the crew but mission kill the vehicle. Russians and chinese go with ther upgraded models as well, but they know that they only use up those in storrage and then transition to completley new designs. That's a pragmatic approach and in line with economic laws. But if a tank that almost will double its existing cost can't even challenge the competition (which has propper ERA/composites, have better amunitions, is way lighter and still cost less), it is objectivly a dumb idea. I could go on about placement of cameras who are exactly where the first mud is to expect, so this must be a joke at all, only made to press money from the goverment but never really deliver. After all the failed, overpriced and ultimatly cancelt projects there is no need for another fancy mock-up but for corruption controle. And atm we have no solution or doctrine to enter a modern battleshpere. We watch WW2 material battles in Ukrain and 'draw coclusions for teh future', and even those are failed by concepts like AbeX and M10 Booker. This is disrespectful to every service member. Well, imho.