Being useable until 2040 is actually a very long service life of 60 years.

@alexduke5402

7 ай бұрын

Only recently beat by the Russian t54&t55s hahaha!

@navret1707

7 ай бұрын

Trying to go for the BUFF’s service life?

@ChrisZukowski88

7 ай бұрын

​@@alexduke5402soon it'll be the T-34 sepv5 lmfao

@alexduke5402

7 ай бұрын

@@ChrisZukowski88 t34X upgrade with the "modern" Chinese thermals onboard haha some poor conscript to act as a trophy system and jump in front of the AT munitions! man I'd really dislike being a Russian soldier

@ChrisZukowski88

7 ай бұрын

​@@alexduke5402the conscript trophy system, nice! Its not hard to imagine conscripts duct taped to the tank lmfao.

pretty insane to think that by this date, the initial design of the abrams was chronologically closer to the literal Mark 1 tank from WW1 than 2040!

@specrtre

7 ай бұрын

It's crazy to think how many actual designs that relate to in the military branches.

@jamesbarca7229

7 ай бұрын

@@specrtreyea, like the B-52, which entered service only 50 years after the Wright brothers first flew.

@specrtre

7 ай бұрын

@@jamesbarca7229 the B52 and U2 are two of the ones that instantly came to mind when I wrote that lol.

Not surprising. The “foundation” that the modern abrams is built upon is decades old. Time for something entirely new

@Llyrin

7 ай бұрын

Yeah, about 40+ years.

@GeshronTyler1

7 ай бұрын

That's not nearly as simple as it sounds, to make something "entirely new"

@octagonPerfectionist

7 ай бұрын

@@GeshronTyler1whether or not it’s easy is irrelevant, it’s what they’re paid to do

@mtmadigan82

7 ай бұрын

I think seeing ukraine and those merkava's in israel getting rpgs dropped on them, really show how things are changing. I think we're in an advantageous spot seeing this shift and not being actively in a big fight, learn from others experience and start designing around that. Plus we've got so much data and access to the people out in the field...it's a real solid spot to be in, and not having to gain all of that knowledge the hard way.

@jarink1

7 ай бұрын

@@GeshronTyler1It's not simple, but there can be massive long-term advantages in re-engineering major systems and integrating new construction methods from ones that are decades old. Even if the Army keeps and refits old hulls like they've been doing, a lot can be improved.

"Too heavy, Too fuel hungry, ... Too old". I take issue with this statement ! Sounds like he's describing me !

There was a good reason that back when the Abrams was being designed they went with a 4th crewman to load the gun instead of an autoloader. Man was faster, more reliable, and a 4th, man was able to help out with service and maintenance

@dirtyhlbly

7 ай бұрын

Think of the added burden in a platoon leader or other command tank. Two people to do all the maintainence.

@Silver_Prussian

4 ай бұрын

Man is faster only after months of training which in a real war, most people dont get. Man gets tired after loading a lot of these shells and calibers will get bigger so a human wont be able to lift 130mm or 152mm shells. Reliability was an issue back when autoloaders were first introduced. Safety isnt a problem for with a bustle autoloader. Not that is matter since all tanks have ammo in the hull that can make them go boom.

@andrewyork3869

2 ай бұрын

Aren't tanks always attached to mounted infantry in US doctrine? If so, couldn't one of them just help out? Baring anything that ultimately really needs an engineering vehicle called out for.

i'd be cautious about draining the armor too much. active defenses are cool but at the same time, it doesn't seem difficult to saturate those defenses and get something through. meanwhile i'm wondering if the M10 booker is going to be good for the Airborne and GRF. as always, love the content. a mix of short and sweet, and longform and in-depth.

@bobfg3130

7 ай бұрын

You've got a lot of armour protecting the crew. A smaller crew means less armour necessary and a lighter tank.

@gintasvilkelis2544

7 ай бұрын

No actually, it's not that easy to saturate those defenses. It's extremely rare for a tank to be attacked by 2 projectiles at _exactly_ the same time.

@j.f.fisher5318

7 ай бұрын

​​@@bobfg3130and whatever size of crew if they are located in a smaller physical volume it means less armor is needed to wrap around them, so you can keep the same protection at a lighter weight, increase protection at the same weight or a bit of both. Turret hits just knocking out the gun with no risk to the crew provides a huge opportunity for weight reduction too.

@seaofenergy2765

7 ай бұрын

How much protection does the current armour actually provide against modern anti tank rockets and munitions though? And is that amount of protection worth the massive weight and logistical issues with transport, operational restrictions (bridges etc) , fueling and maintenance? Its likely that the best defense in the face of outrageously hi-pen attacking ordnance or drones firing down/kamikazi-ing on to the thinnest armour plates will be to not get hit at all, which is probably why active protection systems is being pursued so intensely in armoured vehicle R&D.

@granatmof

7 ай бұрын

The M10 cannot be air drop ornpradropped, they have to be unloaded from a plane. The plane in question I believe can carry two of them. It's also not amphibious (which is questionable really).

Well, even if it reaches retirement at 2040, it will be the longest serving tank in the history of the US Army. It’s still the top dog on the battlefield today. Will be awesome to see its successor.

The M1 Abrams started at around 50 tons. The British Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 were closer to 60 tons and was already considered too heavy in the early 2000s. The weight of the Abrams grew with the addition of depleted uranium armor and other upgrades. The latest iteration was suppose to exceed 70 tons but that was cancelled. (SEPV4?)

@ThatGuyOrby

7 ай бұрын

The SEPV4 package was abandoned and the US is instead pursuing a new variant as of right now designated the "M1E3" which will probably enter service as the M1A3. What that'll look like nobody knows but there are plans to make the tank significantly lighter than the current service model M1A2 SEPV3 without compromising protection.

@CrystallineFoxCF

7 ай бұрын

@@ThatGuyOrby M1E3 is, from what I've heard, going to be the official designation for the tank, similar to how the M4A3(76) Sherman had the E8 model (M4A3E8, otherwise known as the Easy 8 due to the HVSS Suspension), it's mostly to do with the fact that there's a massive engineering change between the M1A2 and M1E3, even if it retains the same general outward appearance, the interior will be much, much different

Yes and you mentioned the drone part. What I meant about skins are new camouflage technologies that can possibly make the tank not visible from the air making it adjust to the different terrains like a chameleon to make drone operators not be able to distinguish them from their cameras. We probably could also use laser technology as an antidrone weapon on these new turrets. More of my thoughts anyways it's going to be interesting next time I see what you find out. I will be watching.

"Too big, too heavy, too fuel hungry, and too old to make it past 2040." Damn, I thought they we're talking about me for a second. 🤣

@oskar6661

7 ай бұрын

The way the country is going, you're probably not wrong.

Well it's an old platform, it's usually good to upgrade

@samsonsoturian6013

7 ай бұрын

The chasis is old, everything else is new.

Interesting information, thanks Alex.

I'm woefully out of date. This is the first I've heard of the Ripsaw, and it's been a development project since 2000. I've been promoting a similar idea I thought of that is a turretless tankette that is either unmanned or can be manned by 1-2 persons. Think of it as a mini-Stridsvagn. I figure that removing the turret might make it lighter, faster, use less fuel, lower profile, improve the armor design, and make it generally less expensive. However, it might not be so good for escort duty if it needs to be on the swivel for potential enemies appearing off-axis. I was thinking it would be used more for defense or attack where the threat was generally forward. The lack of a turret would be made up by making it maneuverable so it can rotate the whole tank like a Stridsvagn, and also use guided main gun rounds that can allow it to hit targets off-axis. Although, maybe a smaller turret could be added for lighter weapons, like .50 cal or .30 cal. I also was thinking it could have small man portable munitions mounted to the side for engaging tanks (ATGM) or aircraft (MANPADS), that could be plugged in and fired by the tank or removed for use by infantry.

@josephahner3031

7 ай бұрын

The problem with an S-tank like concept is that there's a hard limit on how long it can be fore to aft. Once you exceed the length of the Strv 103 you run into problems with the turn speed and track retention when you try to go faster. Putting a 120mm or larger gun in an Strv 103 isn't really viable due to the length limitations.

@deansmits006

7 ай бұрын

I wonder if the could mount the 30/50mm turret to it with ATGMs. Unmanned, 15 tons, fast ...

@jakeaurod

7 ай бұрын

@@josephahner3031 I'm not sure how long a gun it can have. However, I was hoping that with newer PGM rounds, gun length wouldn't need to be as long because projectile velocity wouldn't need to be so high, since the PGM round can adjust it's trajectory to hit a moving target. I'm not sure how much room the gun needs behind the breech for an autoloader and protection from the elements and shrapnel. I figure the ammo can be stored at the rear and the engine could be forward to balance the weight. I was also wondering if it would work better as a wheeled vehicle. It might be faster, but it might not be able to pivot as well or climb steep embankments. Maybe it could come in two variants depending on needs and terrain and climate.

@xavierwilmerng6317

7 ай бұрын

​@@deansmits006lots of those kinds of turrets now. Integrated 30 to 50mm autocannons with a pair or more ATGMs in a pop out launcher configuration. The Israelis have several of those turrets, might be time to locally manufacture a variant specifically for US Army requirements

Thanks Alex

Love your videos

The army knows this, and recently canceled Sepv4 to do a major re-engineering for essentially a new tank. I like the reports ideas of adding lighter table to the mix, including unmanned. The difficult thing is we don't know if the AI will actually work as we want it to. At any rate, support vehicles with new radar and cheaper munitions to handle small drones will be needed to protect the tanks.

@xavierwilmerng6317

7 ай бұрын

Might not need a true AI for the systems, just automation for some tasks like gun loading/unloading and machine learning for a hunter-killer assist. But yeah, AI for the wingman tanks is gonna be challenging. Distributed small sensors scattered around the tank to help find enemy vehicles or infantry, then quickly hand-off the info to the tank commander. Might need something like an F-35-like helmet or some sort of goggles for the commander.

Yay more tank videos please:D Loved this short report.

The next version of the Abrams, the M1e3, will focus heavily on reducing the weight of the Abrams by at least 10 tons. It will achieve this by better integrating all the tech the tank has acquired over the decades. The chieftain had a good video about this where he explained that adding the trophy system to the turret would be difficult because you have to account for the weight of the trophy and the counterweight keeping the turret perfectly balanced. He also elaborated that all of the advanced optics and targeting computers need specialized adapters to integrate into the ancient fire control systems. All of which adds weight.

@sigbauer9782

7 ай бұрын

It's a good video, especially since it's done by someone who knows what the fuck he's talking about, unlike this clown (alex).

@unknownuser069

7 ай бұрын

M1E3 is the official name for evaluating the AbramsX upgrade mentioned in the video. It would eventually enter service as M1A3.

@andrewreynolds4949

7 ай бұрын

@@unknownuser069 The M1E3 is not the AbramsX. That is a demonstrator built by General Dynamics, much like a designer car to try and sell features. The M1E3 is its own upgrade program, and will likely include a few of the same elements the AbramsX did, but it will be developed from the ground up from Army-written requirements

@unknownuser069

7 ай бұрын

@@andrewreynolds4949 The AbramsX is BOTH a General Dynamics demonstrator AND as of September this year the basis for M1E3 development. That is not to say the AbramsX will be the eventual M1A3 ... just that it is the basis for its engineering predecessors in the M1E3 program. Of course we should expect changes as the Army puts various ideas to the test. Who do you imagine writes the Army requirements? Contractors. In this case the prime Army tank contractor for last half century. aka General Dynamics Land Systems. Neither GD nor the Army are stupid of course, so expect to see ideas, and subsystems from various defense contractors as appropriate. The other big contractors won't get an opportunity to compete again for prime contractor until the Army buys an entirely new tank. I think the target for that will be roughly 2040. When THAT happens contractors will write the requirements again, but they'll be firewalled from the competition teams.

@andrewreynolds4949

7 ай бұрын

@@unknownuser069 You have a fundamental misunderstanding on how Military procurement works. The contractors do not write the requirements, that's how you end up with a piece of cheap junk that makes the contractor a load of profit. The Army, or the relevant procurement committee within the Army, draws up requirements for a new system in great detail, and then hands that to the contractors, who bid on it and deliver prototypes as close to (or better than) those requirements as possible. The AbramsX is nothing more than General Dynamics throwing all the cool stuff they can find into one vehicle, at a time when they see the Army is thinking about upgrade or replacement programs. Most of the systems on the AbramsX were developed completely separately, many for previous cancelled programs, and several of those might make it onto the M1E3. The M1E3 is still a completely separate program that's starting from the M1A2. I'd say I'd like to see an Army source (not a news article) saying the AbramsX will be the basis for the M1E3 prototype, but I'm seriously willing to bet it doesn't exist!

Alright let's go! A new version of the Ontos! Ooorah!

@josephahner3031

7 ай бұрын

lol

There's been very interesting work going on with the Achates Advanced Combat Engine 1500 HP option - an opposed piston diesel engine for tanks, intended to replace the gas turbine engine in the Abrams with zero performance loss! It's not in the early stages either, Cummins has been working with them for several years now. Might be an interesting video subject!

@andrewreynolds4949

7 ай бұрын

That was supposedly developed only because congress demanded they create an electric hybrid powertrain for "green" reasons, but it does have some interesting theoretical advantages and disadvantages. It will be interesting to see if the Army picks it up, goes for a straight diesel version, or possibly even develops a new turbine (the current turbines are very old in design, even if they have seen many improvements since)

@kathrynck

7 ай бұрын

@@andrewreynolds4949 Those are all good points. I especially agree on the pros/cons.. Personally, I don't think the powerplant switch is worth it for the diesel. It's the same power output, and it's not lighter. And then there's a list of pros _and_ cons. It's a lot to spend for something with "and cons". If a continuous _detonation_ turbine were to become fully matured though... THEN it would be time for a new chasis to leverage that. Detonation (rather than conflagration) has the potential to fundamentally improve the energy density of the fuel. That's game-changing.

@deansmits006

7 ай бұрын

I'd like to see a video on the ACE engine too, but there's not any new info on it. I love the idea, hope it works out

@xavierwilmerng6317

7 ай бұрын

Some sort of smaller hybrid turbine set up perhaps? Smaller sized turbine with same output but less consumption, backed by an electric drive with massive torque for quick acceleration for shoot-and-scoot work. The e-drive could also help with creeping up to enemies if they could somehow dampen the sound of the road wheels and tracks moving. Rubberized tracks maybe?

@andrewreynolds4949

7 ай бұрын

@@kathrynck They are rather concerned about logistical requirements currently, which is one of the main reasons I think they might go for the diesel plant. For all the effort needed to alter the maintenance supply chain, it does consume less fuel. Really every decision has pros and cons. The other advantage is that they already have a new diesel plant. I'd normally expect they would develop a new gas turbine, but a suitable diesel engine has already been developed and may be adopted for other platforms as well. I'm really not sure which is the better option.

Let's not forget, even the C17 has problems airlifting Abrams. Which makes them damned hard to deploy. Prestationed, as they were in the Cold War and Europe, that's totally different.

@josephahner3031

7 ай бұрын

My question is that now that we have the Booker do we need to airlift the Abrams? Where will we need heavy armor where we can't just preposition them or send them by sea?

They said the tank was dead before the first Gulf War. But with all things, it wouldn't last forever.

@shionuzuki5549

7 ай бұрын

I've never heard that. That talk has only been more recent, and gaining traction in light of the current Ukraine war.

@johnnydoe3603

7 ай бұрын

Because it would See No Real War. 😅

@madkabal

7 ай бұрын

​@@johnnydoe3603gulf war is not a real war? The 2nd Gulf War is not a real war? The Russian Ukraine War is not a real war? The ISIS war is not a real war? Wat?

@ChrisZukowski88

7 ай бұрын

​@@madkabalhe's an idiot America hater. I wouldn't bother replying to him.

@Captain_Bad_Bill

7 ай бұрын

@@shionuzuki5549 with the types "conflicts" (read: wars) the US was involved with after WWII (Korea, Vietnam, Grenada) tanks were kind of useless, and with the end of the cold war, there seemed to be no value in heavy tanks.

Could you do a piece on the XB-70 program?

re. fuel requirements - I was taught as a kid that gas turbines aren't picky about fuel. (Tales of tha old Chrysler gas turbine car running on perfume or cooking oil come to mind.) So... A: Why is the current engine so finicky? B: Shouldn't it be relatively easy to make a gas turbine that'll eat any hydrocarbon that you feed it? Keep up the great work Alex.

@glenndean6

7 ай бұрын

The Abrams engine is multifuel. It'll run on virtually anything that will combust, just at different levels of efficiency. The current JP8 is actually less efficient than the DF2 diesel the Army used to use.

@Mournful3ch0

7 ай бұрын

I don't believe it is finicky, it just consumes more fuel than a comparable diesel like the Leopard has. It will run on gasoline, kerosene, JP8, or anything else

@andrewreynolds4949

7 ай бұрын

Current thinking is that almost all of what you find in any quantity is diesel anyway, so there's not so much of an advantage in that. The main advantage of the gas turbine is it's quiet, and the main disadvantage is that it eats a lot of fuel.

@oskar6661

7 ай бұрын

Yep, it's multi-fuel and not necessarily finnicky, just has abysmal range. It's built on Cold War expectations of being supplied every 200 miles (or whatever it's current range is) with a huge logistical chain (based around the giant Cold War military infrastructure). The benefits (acceleration, low noise, etc.) don't matter if you run out of fuel. Modern MBTs with diesels can generally go 3-4 times as far on a load of fuel. That's an issue.

@andrewreynolds4949

7 ай бұрын

@@oskar6661 I think the gap is a LOT narrower than that now, but the gas turbine still does use more fuel

This tank exists, is a fast, medium tank with 27/30 tons, 105mm german gun and infantry transport. This tank, TAM, was developed and produced until 600 units. Was based in Thyssen Marder chassis and more than 1500 Argentinian Army specifications in the 70/80s decade, and is actually his principal combat vehicle.

Now I need to rewatch your reporting on the Abrams-X

I went to AIT in the mid 80's and learned to work on the M1's. Back then they were talking about the "Block III" that was a "turretless" tank with everyone in the haul. I think one of the big things that is coming is the precision indirect fire vehicles moving the mortar with advanced ammo into a prime role that it has not filled. There will still be the tank but with the battlespace being so over ran with sensors of all types distance will become much more important to survival.

The Army didn't want the M1A2SEPV4, because that internal study. The M1A3 would definitely be a bit lighter and better to operate, even if there is no autoloader, as a newly engineered version of the M1 Abrams can integrate systems into each other and make the system more streamlined and lighter. One of the main contributing factors for weight are bolt-on APS, that need to be counterbalanced.

I would keep some Abrams around for a backup role. Incorporate new tanks and autonomous tanks👍👍

One would think that the M -10 Booker would have a hybrid propulsion system. One that could keep it's electronics running and produce less of a heat signature. Maybe It has this but I did not see this yet. I would hope the Army comes up with something sooner than later,

btw. the KF51 'Panther' Demonstrator also have forgone the loader by an auto loader but kept the spare seat for drone coordination etc. The tank is still large, but it also containes space for future extentions - even an empty seat. I'm not saying this is smart in itself but worst thing you can do when building a tank (>40 years life span) is to not think about the concept and space for design updates during the lifespan - where chassis, gear, motor and crew space are simply super important to keep in mind.

German KF51 Panther MBT 130mm L52 smoothbore gun, and instruments are all new. Panther’s combat weight is just 59 tons compared to Leopard 2A6 M’s 62.5 tons. Panther belongs to the third generation with fourth-generation technology.

Tanks are infantry support vehicles as their primary role. The Abrams is a great tank, but it's quickly becoming a relic of the past where tanks are no longer needed to knock out other tanks. A true infantry support tank is what is needed for the future.

Makes sense to design something new at this point for the fact we might loose a few and others may get the tech

The loyal wingman concept applied to tanks does not.compute. Unlike space and aerial battlespace, a land battlespace cannot be properly covered even by multispectrum sensors. It will moreover be far more difficult to traverse and operate. The US Army should consider a more radical idea and platform than just fielding a lighter tank that is now less survivable and less capable.

I have a problem with the Army Scientific Board, & that is in regards to needing the next gen tank to be physically lighter. Lighter tanks are more vulnerable to artillery, whike lighter vehicles in general are proving to be vulnerable to anti-personnel loitering munitions. Weight isn't just a number, it's a representation of capabilities. A tank chassis that can handle more weight is inherently futureproofed to accept a wide & long lasting regime of upgrades, vis: the Abrahms Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a newer tank chassis. But, unless I'm misinformed, the capability & role of a tank hasn't drastically changed even if the threats that tanks face has. Edit: And is liable to keep growing, so why pull a Rumsfeld & value being lean at the expense of being adaptable. Particularly if your short & long term goals are to remain the ultimate in global military power.

Congress seeing this video "Best I can do is another 100 years of service 😎"

What is the usage of M1 tanks for the US to against China? I really don’t seen a possible scenario that a heavy main battle tank play any important role in such a conflict.

@graystoke8229

7 ай бұрын

Maybe resumption of hostilities in the Korean peninsula? The PLA returning to aid the Korean People's Army (DPRK). Technically, the Korean War is not over. I agree if it's a China-Taiwan scenario, I don't see any use for tanks from the US perspective.

@josephahner3031

7 ай бұрын

@@graystoke8229 Send Bookers by air to help pick off Chinese landing craft maybe but yeah, Korea seems to be the only likely place to see much tank fighting.

@graystoke8229

7 ай бұрын

@@josephahner3031 I hope the people made the report was thinking, within the Asian context, the Korean peninsula for a new tank. Now if they are thinking of another Battle of Peking, then the Army Science Board has gone bonkers.

@samsonsoturian6013

7 ай бұрын

Vietnam, India, and Russia are wild card allies.

If drone tanks are possible, does that move conventional tanks toward a commander who is more like a fighter pilot. Everything handled automatically, but inputs and networking, in helmet displays, click on a bunch of targets and the tank or a nearby tank takes them out one by one? If systems can load and drive a drone tank, why would more than one person be needed for a nextgen tank? I don't know - asking the question.

so, at 2:50 and im just hearing all the stuff that went into the decision to spool up an m1e1 abrams variant that has been reported several weeks ago as in development.

The new tanks better have good top armor because it seems like small drones and precision artillery are the bane of tanks on the modern battlefield.

The end of heavy tanks is a moveable feast, constantly postponed. The truth is that armor is irreplaceable, and armor must be heavy and spacious. No systems will save the tank when a saturation attack occurs, and recent conflicts show that this is the norm.

I would highly recommend to check The Chieftain video about a possible new M1 Abrams and his previous post about the autoloaders.

I think I would trust my life more to quality armor than I would some computerized protection system that can glitch and fail. To put it on remote driven tanks would be exceptable as no life is to be lost if active protection system fails.

I do not agree with removing armor protection from something thats supposed to be a bruiser on the battlefield. Yes, modern engagements with "near peer" have proven that the enemy capabilities are far below what the US currently fields, but thats not to say they wont fix that in the future. Especially china. Yes i do think that the US needs a medium tank of around 50 tons to be more transportable, but, that is meant to only hold out until the bruiser heavys get there. I would say the (koren) K2 or (japan) type 10 fit that role greatly. Now, i will say that the abrams needs a new powerpack that is more fuel friendly than the current turbine, but going to battery is the wrong move. Imo, as the majority of weight will be the battery instead of armor protection for the crew and ammo. Moving back to a diesel engine instead of JP8 engine would make most sense for a future battlefield be it in Europe or asia, or africa for that matter. Again, this is just my opinion

Well at least there’s the Abram X prototype to build off of if the M1 Abrams does eventually hit its service limit.

😂 If you are familiar with the writer, ex veteran of Vietnam, history professor David Drake. I'd like to see tanks in line with Hammer's Slammers. And I'm not surprised you're showing the Rip Saw which has speed, easy to repair in place better design tracks, and is capable of up to 45 degree or greater inclines, if I remember correctly. It was the drone of fast versatile combat vehicles.

The whole tank industry is probably having to go back to the drawing board after all the new lessons we are learning in the latest battles like for example the Ukraine/Russia War where drone technology has put a hurting on tank war fair by hitting the top armor where it is the weakest that's just one example although our military has been aware of these tank vulnerabilities for a good time now and our antitank weapons are made to already take advantage of that but drones have added another layer of issues because they are better controlled with less to almost no risk on the attackers. So tanks are going to have to be more drone like also in the future with new skin technologies and top armor composites to enhance survivability. We are having a lot change very quickly lately and in my opinion we need to strengthen our military industrial might to stay on the edge because that's I feel we're we are standing at this very moment. 2040 is still quite a ways away and the battle fields of today are changing dramatically faster than I have anticipated in the past. I am sure our country is aware of this and scrambling to adjust as we always do. The last place we ever want to learn a hard lesson is in the middle of a battle field meeting an unexpected threat taking advantage of a fatal vulnerability and we all know this. Thank you for sharing this video I find your content very informative 👍

I dunno. The M-1 is exceptionally modular in design. You can update it almost infinitely. The only reason to replace it (rather than update it) would be a radical change to chasis or powerplant. And I haven't seen a new engine or chasis material which really warrants that. "adding" a light tank option is one thing, but I don't really see "replacing" the M-1. Not unless there's a major breakthrough like a continuous detonation turbine, or a graphene composite chasis, to dramatically improve power/economy/weight.

@deansmits006

7 ай бұрын

We could put an updated turbine in that could help with fuel economy, but the tank is still heavy. Every addition adds weight, so we need a new tank

@kathrynck

7 ай бұрын

@@deansmits006 Vast majority of the weight is in the armor though. And that's bolt-on for the M-1. If they want a lighter tank, it can _still_ be the M-1. That's part of what I meant about it's modular design.

The booker is definitionly a light tank. Supporting infantry is a tanks job

I'm really surprised they didn't start replacing around 2015 or so. It's been too heavy for a long time and talking to tankers they keep shoving mods in it and the base tech/chassis don't have the room for it.

@andrewreynolds4949

7 ай бұрын

That's mostly because they kept slapping new systems on top of the old ones, instead of redesigning integrated systems when they were needed. They've long since hit the limit, and now they're doing that. The Abrams hull itself has plenty of space

@specrtre

7 ай бұрын

@@andrewreynolds4949 ah thank you for more information. I deal with helicopters in my MOS. They do the same to the 60s lol poor Alpha/Lima models still flying around with mods stuck to them. Though they seem to be picking up on cleaning it all up and stream lining it. Do you think if they started from base Abrams and put in the mods only would it be better or feasible, or at this point a new main battle tank is needed?

@andrewreynolds4949

7 ай бұрын

@@specrtre The M1E3 program is meant to replace the original systems and the mods with a new modular system built from the ground up, that will do all the same things. Most of what I know comes from press releases and listening to people like the Chieftain, but I think this is a better idea than A) spending way more to design a new platform, or B) spending a lot less and get the problems with parts and weight that were so bad with the M1A2 SEP v4. Speaking of helicopters, I find the Future Vertical Lift Program fascinating, but I haven't heard anything new about it for months. Would you happen to know anything about what's going on?

@specrtre

7 ай бұрын

@@andrewreynolds4949 ah I should really watch the chieften more too. I know the Army picked a winning helicopter to replace the 60 was the V 280. The prototype is supposedly going to be delivered by 2025 I'm amusing one of the QRF units like 82nd,10th mountain, or 101st. Honestly don't know how they plan that. larger than the 60s so they're going to have to redesign hangers and we have no bell helicopters, so new logistics will have to be implemented as well I assume. Beyond that I barely know what I'm doing tomorrow let alone big Army plans

@andrewreynolds4949

7 ай бұрын

@@specrtre I thought there's a number of Bell helicopters in the force, with all the Huey derivatives still around. One thing I saw is that the V-280 isn't actually that much larger than the Black Hawk when rotor diameter is included. It's a lot wider but also shorter. I suppose they wouldn't store compactly though. I do really like the sound of 'twice the range and speed'

I think highly mobile, very fast, agile cheap and easy to replace and train on vehicles armed with atgms are the very best bet

As if anyone expected an older design to do so.

@xaderalert

7 ай бұрын

No kidding. The M1 in 2040 will be >60 years old. That's the equivalent of Shermans operating in the early years of the GWOT

Wondering if it'd not be better to start from a clean sheet design rather than still utilizing the Abrams hull.

The one place autonomous drones seem logical is in tank warfare. Screen an advance with light, mobile atgm platforms loaded with sensors. Mix in a couple of those Ripsaw things, and a couple live tanks. Seriously beef up system redundancy and hack protection. Add built in aerial scouts to the mix. Now you have the first thousand feet covered in every axis. Assuming AI dosen't turn and kill us, or get hacked, it could fundamentally change armored warfare.

@samsonsoturian6013

7 ай бұрын

There's so many engineering misconceptions there

@neighbor-j-4737

7 ай бұрын

@@samsonsoturian6013 Cool. Elucidate professor...

Let's try this again.

I think the next Gen should be called the Schwarzkopf. A legendary Commander.

The weight of a tank and its logistical expense has been largely driven by 2 things: Weight of armor and weight of the structure needed to support its main gun. What if we got rid of the main gun, and replaced it with something with greater range and greater versatility? If we went in for lots and lots of semi-autonomous drones, we could shed most of the armor weight and all of the gun weight. Instead of armor, the main defense would be the tremendous range and situational awareness provided by the drone swarm. Note that shedding guns in favor of aircraft and missiles has allowed most warships to forgo armor. There would still be a place for main battle tanks, but these would operate under the cover of the drone carriers. Also, as far as mines go, what if robot dogs like the Boston Dynamics Spot could operate as sappers? Drone carrier tanks could also service and operate those.

@bobfg3130

7 ай бұрын

What if you just attack a machine gun with just a popsicle? 😂 You can't replace a gun. You offer no solution. Drones won't protect from anything. You can destroy anything with drones today at any range. 1000 km or 625 mile range drones exist. Missiles are easier to intercept. Note that you don't know anything about ships. They shed the armour because the missiles are too strong. Those "robot dogs" don't work. Why? Maintenance. Drone carrier tanks don't exist. It's either tanks or drone carriers. There will be drone carrier vehicles in the future.

@stcredzero

7 ай бұрын

@@bobfg3130 A) You present this, as if I say there would be no more guns anywhere in the army. This is false on two counts. (Please re-read and exercise actual reading comprehension, if you are capable, to find the 2 counts on which you are wrong.) B) Watch military analysts on what’s happening in Ukraine. The combination of mines and drones has indeed make the Main Battle Tank far more vulnerable and far less potent in offense. C) Drones of greater number and longer range and greater capability to indeed protect soldiers from other drones. This is also borne out by Ukraine. It’s pretty basic, as it also applies to rifles and artillery. But I think you’re actually trolling, so you’re deliberately being that intellectually dishonest or doltish. So odds are you’re just going to repeat yourself either through the trolling or the doltishness. "There will be drone carrier vehicles in the future.” - This is essentially what I’m saying! What do you think a more lightly armored vehicle that carries lots of drones is? Nice reading comprehension, dude!

@josephahner3031

7 ай бұрын

@@stcredzero The problem in Ukraine is not a hardware problem but a shortage of C4I capability in the Ukrainian Army. Their brigades only have enough to coordinate a few companies at a time. They don't have enough trained and experienced officers and specialists to man their equivalent of the brigade and battalion S shops. The US 1st Armored Division conducting the same offensive as the Ukrainians would've been chilling on the beaches of the Sea of Azov by July.

This is a typical bureaucratic report. Nobody can argue with its logic except reality. Witness the B-52, A-10 and even the Sherman tank, all of which are in action somewhere in the world.

The problem with replacing the Abrams is the Army figuring out what it wants in a new tank. I worry we will see an MBT-70 before they have the answer.

It's almost like going back to WW2 doctrine, instead of using a few heavy tanks, use more medium/ light tanks. Given today's battlefields it almost make more sense.

Things a nightmare for Airlift Command. Abrams wants to snap the wings of C-17s.

Bring on the Mk.I Dynachrome BOLO as the Abrams successor.

You mean to tell me that weapons have a service life? Time to throw away my musket and trebuchet.

Medina Ridge, Iraq - US Abrams literally "Incinerated" 80 Iraq/Russian Tanks & 30 Personnel Carriers etc etc with only 2 US Bradley's lost. That was 34 Years ago, and it's our Guess that the A1 Abrams has had Numerous Upgrades AND NEW GENERATION TANK IS LIKELY IN THE WORKS.

Future tanks are going to need a quantum leap in armor materials and design. Counting solely on countermeasures will not cut it.

@tankiller9638

7 ай бұрын

Could be why the M1E3 is undergoing testing my guess is they will field the M1E3 as the M1A3 then go about making a completely new tank design afterwards hence why the Abrams itself might not make it past 2040 which to be fair I do think is misleading if the E3 makes it to an official A3 designation my guess is it would be in service past 2040 but probably not as the main armored thrust anymore as a newer more advanced MBT would be around to replace it kinda like how the Abrams entered service in 1979 but we still used M60s into the 90s just in smaller quantities.

The M1E3, the next version of the Abrams, will be far lighter. By the early 2040s there will be a new tank developed, the decisive lethality platform.

@andrewreynolds4949

7 ай бұрын

I wouldn't be surprised if the DLP is cancelled in favor of the M1E3 program

It's time for an Atlas-Mech!

I look at it this way: warfare is changing-it always changes. When the technology or the techniques change to the point that something is obsolete, the. You stop making them, or come up with something to counter what makes them obsolete. We haven’t built a BB in 80 years, because AirPower made them obsolete. Armor is creeping into the same obsolescence. Not just the M1, but all armor. When a $10k spitball can take out a $50M+ vehicle, you need to find something else to do the job. Reactive armor protection is just delaying the inevitable. However, nothing takes the place of artillery, so for the foreseeable future, combined arms is the best defense for the most powerful battlefield offense.

@josephahner3031

7 ай бұрын

Cheap weapons have always been able to take out tanks. Mere months after the debut of the Mk1 tank the German Army was fielding the Tankgewehr. The role of providing a big gun in a direct fire role to make things the infantry doesn't want to deal with go away while not dying long enough to make those things go away isn't going anywhere anytime soon. The BB disappeared because it's role could be fulfilled by Carriers in the power projection role, and by cruisers and destroyers in the principal surface combatant role. The roles a BB played in the Navy are still there even if the BB itself is not. As of right now, direct fire gun and mgs to support infantry has no replacement looming so the tank will remain.

Them turbines put out lots of heat, which makes it very easy to see heat signature

Even if the relative balance stays the same (speed, armor, firepower, etc), I’m sure we could do a better job now. They’ve been updating, but with new alloys, electronics, engine tech over decades, I’m sure even a vastly modernized Abrams would be better. I’d bet even the basic Abrams hull could be improved across the board just with a new alloy.

@andrewreynolds4949

7 ай бұрын

I don't know about weight reductions of the hull itself (I rather doubt it mostly), but according to the Chieftain they could probably save 10 tons by just ripping all the control systems and electronics out and redesigning those from scratch

@mikepekarek5895

7 ай бұрын

@@andrewreynolds4949I'm glad you didn't say "replace with fiber optics". I'm not sold on the robustness and damage-control of fiber optics, or the ability to repair them in the field. Copper is heavy, but heavy or light doesn't matter if it doesn't work. Fiber might be fine, but I'd need to see the studies. The history of metal armor the past 150 years is constantly based on stronger alloys allowing either the same strength/protection for less weight, or greatly increased protection for the same weight. I understand that their main armor is layered and more materials than structural steel, but the basic strength of the hull is even more important now in the days of IEDs and millions of land mines. And they don't have cobham armor on the belly. Redesigned hull with a V bottom would be one of the basic starting points for either a modernized Abrams or a clean-sheet MBT. I don't think the MBT concept is played out yet. The balance of abilities is too elegant. Whether you partner an MBT with a very capable and heavy IFV (Bradley, CV90, etc) or something you might call a light tank, the MBT is almost certainly still a central weapon system for any modern army.

@mikepekarek5895

7 ай бұрын

@@andrewreynolds4949One thing the video didn't really mention is the use of APUs or some sort of hybrid fuel/battery drive to save fuel logistics burden. Both seem almost like easy yeses for the Abrams, and the US Army has already adopted the APU.

@andrewreynolds4949

7 ай бұрын

@@mikepekarek5895 It doesn't appear they are really touching the hull design much, but they do seem to planning for turret alterations to some degree. I'm okay with the performance of fiber optics, but I do have serious questions about repairability (particularly in the field). Fiber optics are a pain if damaged

@andrewreynolds4949

7 ай бұрын

@@mikepekarek5895 The Army has a diesel-battery electric system developed, and I thought it was one of the recommendations mentioned in the video. I don't agree with the idea, given the volatility of lithium-ion batteries, but since I'm just some guy on the internet I don't really have any say in it (side note: It looks like as of the SEP v3 the Abrams already has an APU)

General Atomics? Uh oh!

The problem I see with unmanned turrets is that 99.9% of a tanks life is not in combat. I guess maybe I don't love the T-14 design because everyday situational awareness seems difficult.

The logistical issues with the Abrams moving forward is because we expect US intervention and deterrence will be needed more in the Pacific sphere of operations than Europe and the Middle East. The Pacific's logistical requirements are very different than the Europe/Africa/Middle East. Smaller, lighter vehicles are going to be worth more in that part of the world, both in terms of having to fly or ship the vehicles as well as their fuel and parts, and operating in areas that tend to more likely to be mountainous or swampy when compared to where the bulk of our combat areas for the last 40 years have been.

Hover tanks please. Thank you, Alex.

@samsonsoturian6013

7 ай бұрын

Are an oxymoron

By 2040, someone is going to have a 1 or 2 person mid-size tank with a javelin cannon. 155mm ramjet artillery already exists so why not.

Dont be surpized if the next tank is not less than 60 tons. The main problem is active armor requires a good understaing of the weapons its going to defend against. How good is reactive armor against drones. I am not saying the new design wont be better. Just that once its in the field. The only reall way to augment the sytem to defend against new threats is to add weight.

Hope the Chieftain does a deep dive on this report

Somebody did a video on KZread comparing the Swedish CV90 to the M-10 Booker but I haven't watched it. The Swedes designed the CV90 for harsh Nordic conditions and apparently the Ukrainians have liked the CV90s they have received from other countries a lot. Supposedly one of the theaters the US wants to prepare for are harsh Alaskan type conditions and apparently the soldiers training in Alaska haven't been happy with Strykers that they have used.

I would sure hope that a tank that at it's core was developed in the 1970s wouldn't still be serving in the US Army by the 2040s.

Was the sepv4 too much tied to GWOT lessons and not peer conflict? Honestly asking.

@samsonsoturian6013

7 ай бұрын

Nah. It was mostly installing upgraded systems as they became available. The Abrams went from analogue to touch screen over of the decades

Fundamental Systems Engineering. The requirements change. The battle field is very different today than 1970. The system must change because the environment changed. This is simple. You should do a series on Systems Engineering fundamentals. Sometimes you start over.

We should transition to the cv90-120 and cv90 afv.

If much of the weight is due to the armor protecting the crew, get rid of the crew. Make it a drone controlled by personnel behind the front line, or control it with AI. Then network it with air assets and HIMARS.

Given that the Army's currently launching the M1E3 program (to become the M1A3 in service) to directly address most of these concerns, I think this is a bit misleading. The Abrams will most likely be in service far beyond 2040, even if the SEP V3 isn't. There's a lot they can do with relatively little work to cut weight and logistics requirements, and it's interesting to know they are seriously considering the autoloader, and the hybrid power system congress forced them to develop. I doubt the hull itself will change substantially though, and it will still be labeled under the Abrams name

@josephahner3031

7 ай бұрын

Until they can mass produce solid-state batteries with sufficient capacity by then, I don't like the idea of Li-ion batteries in tanks.

@andrewreynolds4949

7 ай бұрын

@@josephahner3031 I don't like the idea of large lithium-ion batteries in tanks, period. They just burn far too hot, and I don't think that's safe for a combat zone

I'm guessing MBTs will be replaced by an unmanned remotely operated tank with ai-assisted control by some point in the not too distant future. With no crew the vehicle can be more compact and retain heavy armament and armour, and still be lighter than the abrams, which means a less fuel intensive engine and higher acceleration/speed, easier to transport and less operational restrictions in terms of bridges etc.

@andrewreynolds4949

7 ай бұрын

We're probably still quite a few decades away from that

@seaofenergy2765

7 ай бұрын

@@andrewreynolds4949 considering they already have ai flying fighter jets unassisted, I'm not so sure

@andrewreynolds4949

7 ай бұрын

@@seaofenergy2765 Not reliably! Or at least certainly not ones capable of undertaking the complex combat missions necessary!

@seaofenergy2765

7 ай бұрын

@@andrewreynolds4949 i saw a sandbox vid saying they already have them performing actual combat maneuvers, and learning more from pilots all the time.

@andrewreynolds4949

7 ай бұрын

@@seaofenergy2765 Combat maneuvers don't mean actual combat environments. They've been working on self-driving cars for decades, but they're still dumb as bricks when presented with anything remotely unusual or unexpected

I wonder since it was designed in the 1980s could you make an Abram’s that has the same strength armor but make it out of something lighter?

@imhimdk1785

7 ай бұрын

You don’t think the people who design these don’t know that?

@josephahner3031

7 ай бұрын

You could, theoretically replace all the steel with Titanium but that would be absurdly expensive and incredibly difficult to repair. They are constantly trying to squeeze more protection out of the same weight of armor but there is a limit to what can be done with current materials.

@deansmits006

7 ай бұрын

They have different armor packages for it, but we need a lighter core armor to work from

Reduced the logistical strain? Lol no, there’s no Tesla charging stations in battle.

Best military based presenter on KZread...

a question about ''active defenses''... could they see the difference between a stone thrown at the tank and a missile?... I mean after several stones, will it run out of ''defences''?...

I would also make a bunch of miniature tanks being only 2 feet by 2 you can do more with less

I’ll still take abrahms over any new tank still in 2040 if I had a choice to pick a abram tank or another country tank I’m still picking America

It was too big to be called a tank. Too heavy, too fuel hungry, and too old. Indeed, it was more like a heap of iron.

The replacement will probably be optionally manned.

General Atomics International? They made my Miss Nanny!

Perhaps the biggest flaw with M1 is the fuel economy. Sure, the engine is flexible and can use both diesel and kerosene but it burns too much when idling. The replacement will probably be an electric hybrid with far more range and thus be less reliant on fuel logistics.

@josephahner3031

7 ай бұрын

And also more prone to exploding when hit since the batteries in such a hybrid would probably be Li-ion.

@deansmits006

7 ай бұрын

​@@josephahner3031The batteries have way less energy than the rounds the tank shoots. And if an enemy round penetrates the tank, it's game over, anyway. The battery is not really concerning

@deansmits006

7 ай бұрын

They have small APUs for long term idling, now. On the most recent versions.

Sounds more like the M1A2 won't cut it past 2040 than just the Abrams generally.

I probably wont cut it after 2040 either. Me and Abrams getting old af

What piece of equipment would they use to carry electrical generators to charge the battery powered tanks? Small nuclear reactors or coal burning generators?

It’ll have its run yet