They are now running an early Black Friday Sale. Go to establishedtitles.com/TASKPURPOSE and get an additional 10% off on any purchase with code TASKPURPOSE. Thanks to Established Titles for sponsoring this video!

@ansonellis443

Жыл бұрын

Could the next video be on the Georgian lazika

@terranempire2

Жыл бұрын

Pretty sure I had heard AbramsX was using a cassette automatic loader like that in other NATO spec tanks with automatic loaders.

@verdebusterAP

Жыл бұрын

They are trying to recycle old tech for the Abrams X I don't see them adopting everything The improved situation awareness, power pack and 30mm yes Everything else is very much Iffy

@terranempire2

Жыл бұрын

@@verdebusterAP the turret and autoloader are brand new, the controls are dramatically improved vs the TTB, the APS is Trophy based, the UAS is Switchblade 300, I suspect the tracks are not alone but it might have an external in arm suspension system. The ACE is also new with a new transmission. It’s based on ideas of the past but GDLS didn’t go around stripping old prototypes and bolting them on an Abrams hull. Though this hull itself is I think the same one GDLS showed with a conventional diesel about 10 years ago.

@verdebusterAP

Жыл бұрын

@@terranempire2 They already have the Trophy. Like I said, its iffy on the rest

As a former tanker. The new helmet like the air force have is gonna be the biggest improvement for the crew outstanding

@fealls12

Жыл бұрын

I tried out this system in my service, and it's a game changer as a commander Works better than you'd expect as well Urban warfare becomes so much easier

@handlemonium

Жыл бұрын

Yep basically War Thunder IRL probably even better and more terrifyingly deadly.

@coryhoggatt7691

Жыл бұрын

Before you get too excited, the Air Force version runs $400k each. I don’t see them buying one of these for every Army tanker.

@fealls12

Жыл бұрын

@@coryhoggatt7691 it's not the same as the airforce version, which has a lot of other features, also not needed for every tanker, only the commander Still it's an investment that I personally think won't happen in the near future

@MrPickledede

Жыл бұрын

The Israelis are manufacturing this system for thenewest version of Merkava begining this year

Most "Failed" weapons programs are not actually failures, they can be thought of as Test Beds / Proof of Concept

@Cris-xy2gi

Жыл бұрын

Even if they don't produce an effective weapon, it's still a good learning experience... albeit a very expensive one.

@brookerodriguez3993

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for pointing this out. Basically every advanced vehicle and weapon in the US military exists thanks to these "failed" concepts. Most of the time they don't even expect to adopt them. Many people even consider the commanche (the stealth helicopter prototype) one of the most important vehicles developed because of this.

@plainlake

Жыл бұрын

I see the similarities of both the RAH-66 Comanche and the 1960s Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne in Raider X for example.

@randomcenturion7264

Жыл бұрын

True. Just because it failed now, doesn't mean it can't be useful later.

@foxmcld584

Жыл бұрын

I've long felt like DARPA's job is 'grab the biggest dumbest failed idea that would be awesome if it worked... and then make it work'

Since this new tank can communicate with the F-35 and other air assets, that means it can receive targeting data from the air. That ability, coupled with the tank's smart and precision ammunition, will be one heck of an advantage.

@laytonmalmstrom1661

Жыл бұрын

And vice versa. The tanks can point out targets to the planes as well.

@SomeJustice19k

11 ай бұрын

@@laytonmalmstrom1661 the Abrams already can....with Tracer rounds.

@thevortex6754

11 ай бұрын

@@SomeJustice19k but wouldn’t that tell the enemy where the tank is?

@Mgl1206

11 ай бұрын

@@SomeJustice19k nearby enemies will still be able to see where you’re coming from and find you, being able to identify an enemy location while remaining hidden is a huge advantage

@Wargunsfan

9 ай бұрын

Take that you Ruskies!

This is a consistent theme with military programs. The military puts out a request for a new weapons system that is highly advanced and ahead of its time. The defense industry manages to put together a functional (but not exactly combat ready) system in response. The military takes a look at it, sees that it’s doable, but the technology of the day just isn’t quite good enough to bring the system to combat readiness. They shelve the project only to revisit it a decade later to see that technology has advanced enough that not only can the system be combat ready, but is now much cheaper and easier to produce. It’s basically the military’s way of pushing the envelope one project at a time.

@jp3630

Жыл бұрын

What do they do when it is just not possible and the project is a failure.

@fnfdmgjfndf

11 ай бұрын

@@jp3630 Wait even longer. I'm sure the Space Force is just dreaming of ressurecting the Star Wars program.

@jp3630

11 ай бұрын

@@fnfdmgjfndf Good point.

@Mgl1206

11 ай бұрын

@@fnfdmgjfndf if they can make a good enough energy production system that’s also small it will be, with SpaceX (even before it actually) it would be easy to make a directed energy intercept system.

@clownworld4655

11 ай бұрын

@@fnfdmgjfndf it still amazes me how clueless people are about space force with all the Star Wars jokes. They’re a bunch of tech nerds that deal with satellite operations

The hybrid system's fuel savings are pretty useful when you consider the logistics behind keeping a tank operational, that can be seen in Ukraine where otherwise fine tanks are being abandoned due to running out of gas.

@lewiswood1693

Жыл бұрын

Yep, a tank is only useful until it runs out of gas. And tanks use a shit ton of gas. Especially the cold war versions.

@andrewgranger3370

Жыл бұрын

In a non-military aspect, this is why my next vehicle will be a hybrid. Until there is better saturation of charging stations and the charging times are shortened, having the flexibility of a hybrid is more logical.

@nvelsen1975

Жыл бұрын

And the fact that Ukrainians have been known to engage in prolonged low-intensity skirmish operations in order to force vehicles to keep idling their engines. Especially during Operation Sitting Duck north of Kiyv it was sometimes just some TDF firing a few potshots or launching an NLAW at a range that can be described as 'optimistic' for the express purpose of making sure a large column wouldn't consider themselves to be 'outside of combat' with all the supply use and fatigue that entails. And whether that's coincidental or planned deliberately with knowledge of Russian 'push logistics', there's no disputing that it worked.

@v4skunk739

Жыл бұрын

Take your meds. The hybrid system on a tank is good for a 2 mile range.

@doppler3237

Жыл бұрын

@@andrewgranger3370 or better yet a plug in hybrid. I have both, wife has a plug in hybrid that gets about 55 miles then just switches over to gas at about 45 mpg. I also just bought a f150 hybrid but it is not a plug in and I wish it was. If I am careful I can get 28 mpg. and if I am not careful I can go from zero to 60 in 5.3 seconds. In a truck that can tow 12,000 lbs. and haul 2,200 lbs. from now on everything I buy will have some type of electric drive

It's good to see some of the good FCS tech reach maturity and make it on platform. It was a frustrating experience when testing FCS concepts, doctrine and prototype analogs in simulation back at Fort Knox.

@miketogwell1000

Жыл бұрын

it's not unusual e.g. leopard2 used a lot of tech from several prior designs that never entered production

@jakelilevjen9766

Жыл бұрын

Seems like the ideas of FCS were actually really good, but the technology just wasn’t ready. Now the technology has caught up with the vision and we are able to make it a reality.

@WellBattle6

Жыл бұрын

It’s still a tech demonstrator, we may still have to wait till 2030 for new production vehicles with the tech.

@bubblebobble9654

Жыл бұрын

@@jakelilevjen9766 unfortunately, when vision is a decade or two behind the tech, any money spent developing it is equivalent to burning so much paper.

@adamboyd1132

Жыл бұрын

So, back when my father was working at Boeing, he was on a FCS project. (I have a branded glass mug for FCS) I remember telling him that a Nintendo 3DS had most of the features their control system might need.

Biggest question remaining is survivability. In the first Persian Gulf, Abrams crews reported being hit multiple times by enemy armor units while retaining their combat abilities.

@bryanjohnson5803

11 ай бұрын

Not many direct Abrams hits overall and those few direct fire impacts from the Republican Guard T-55's, T-62's, T-64's, and even the T-72' during combat ops were firing old Soviet substandard tank ammo. My understanding from discussions with the targeted crews is those substandard rounds were deflected by the M1's armor at the time. I would imagine that current ammunition supplies have been updated to contend with the now old M1 armor. Additionally, much of the combat superiority was the fire control systems of the M1 allowing long-range target engagements out to 2K combined with nighttime thermal imaging systems. Despite the Iraqi tanks in a defensive position, the Abrams had every advantage for a night-time assault, as evidenced by the results and those if us that were there.

@theminerwithin9316

8 ай бұрын

I would imagine that they'll use an updated armor system. The M1 Abrams already has a formidable armor system, so I think they'll make some improvements, implement it into the Abrams X, and go from there.

@davebacknolaliki1452

7 ай бұрын

They are definitely working on that and improving upon old armor designs. A ton of time is put into Survivability.

@haventthoughtofanameyet6364

7 ай бұрын

​@@bryanjohnson5803doesnt matter, at all actually. It still proved its armor durability.

@haventthoughtofanameyet6364

7 ай бұрын

​@@bryanjohnson5803look up Mcmasters(mcmastersen?) Raid. It was a failed recon mission turned into a face to face tank battle, 9 Abrams amd 13 bradley destroyed 70+ armored targets. Whether or not those targets were using new or old ammo doesnt change the outcome.

I was a 19K M1A1 tanker from 97-03. Many of my first TC's or at least Platoon Sergeants had been M60 tankers. My dad was a Sheridan tanker in the early 70's. I remember every one of them reminding me of how good I had it on the A1. I guess it's another changing of the guard. Pretty good pluses and minuses. Gotta focus on what can come from above more these days than what's in front.

@user-ce4eh6gk2c

3 ай бұрын

87-91 19K here. My concern is the the more complex the system, the more opportunities for system failures. Even on the M1IP and M1A1 it wasn't uncommon for a tank to have to shoot Qual in degraded mode due to a crosswind sensor or something else being on the fritz.

Military R&D is rarely wasted. Even when it doesn't produce a product, it provides technical and scientific knowledge. You hit the nail on the head about the Future Combat System. It wasn't really failed. They came up with a concept they thought would be great, did a lot of research to see if and how it could be done, and then realized that the technology doesn't exist yet, but it will in the future. I will bet you money that there were people whose jobs were to keep on top of novel technologies, keep referencing the old designs, and submit a report when they thought it had become viable.

@frednugent2310

Жыл бұрын

I definitely agree. Just imagine the wild weapons systems of tomorrow that are sitting on the back burner as we read this message now.

@williamyoung9401

Жыл бұрын

Lockheed/Martin: "Well, I want the F-35 jet project." General Dynamics: 'Sigh.' Fine, crybaby. You can have your nifty little, multi-trillion dollar boondoggle that is the F-35. But we want the new Abrams tank design, as long as you (the U.S. Military) promise to buy more of them. We got stock holders to think about! We won't even change the name!" U.S. Military: "Deal."

@georgemartin1383

Жыл бұрын

Agreed. Love the MIC, love my time in Iraq. Thousands of Americans did not die for nothing in the Middle East, they died for the advancement of weapons! Freedom First!

@dnate697

Жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/fGyHw8GqXa_gZso.html

@joshuajoaquin5099

Жыл бұрын

@@georgemartin1383 welcome to war, every tech we use today originated as a military research project

They should have named the engine the ACME - the Advanced Combat Modular Engine. Both Wile E Coyote and Spare Parts Army approved.

@Joe_Friday

Жыл бұрын

There was a legit ACME device truck driving in my area 🚚. I thought they were Looney Toons fans.

@Destroyer_V0

Жыл бұрын

MASSIVE missed oportunity.

@michaellee6489

Жыл бұрын

THAT'S funny!

@mikewithers299

Жыл бұрын

🤣🤣🤣

@t10claytempered16

Жыл бұрын

I third the motion. Beep--Beep!

I love it! The only thing I worry about is the possibility of the external cameras being damaged by incoming fire, rendering the capabilities of the tank unusable.

@damaskusseraph6046

Жыл бұрын

They probably have backup viewports to at least be able to see and retreat unlike the armata

@lordcthulhu8472

Жыл бұрын

The external cameras have backup cameras, there is also the sensor systems, and datalink so it can recieve images from other units, like drones, or other tanks in it's unit. It should still be able to operate if the power is knocked out of the tank, might not even notice with the size of it's battery, while it also have retractable periscopes if everything else fails. But the old fashioned periscopes and viewports is more vulnerable to enemy fire then the camera's are, as they made of glass, the camera's are not. Probably very similar in design to many of the cameras you can find on nodern millitary aircraft, that they use to look over the horizon.

@ebperformance8436

7 ай бұрын

The Abrams X has several back up sites….We won’t be seeing any Abrams X’s on the battlefield, anytime soon. Reason? it’s really not needed…..USA has been making fun of, and Trolling Russian equipment for decades. If anyone notices….the Abrams X is designed like a T-14….the only difference is the Abrams X is a real tank, and the T-14 is a Russian lie. The T-14 doesn’t have…..anything up to date! The T-14 was built by hand In 2014’ And only a handful finished in 2016 nothing has changed on the T-14. It’s the same tank built in 2014….In short, it’s outdated as hell.

@JarthenGreenmeadow

3 ай бұрын

@@damaskusseraph6046 You can always breech sight it lol

@zteacherr5992

2 ай бұрын

Just thinking of the Tesla fires FD have such a hard time putting out. In addition to new safety concerns, one must wonder how much these enormous batteries will increase the price of maintaining combat readiness. (Which could be a small price to pay, but worth considering).

I was a former Tanker and stationed in a FCS unit, I'm glad to see that my time wasn't wasted. We all thought everything we were testing was junk and never going to work...I am now wondering about some of the gadgets I played with and if they work now.

Something to remember: this is currently a proposal by General Dynamics. The army has not yet had any involvement. The specifications shown will probably not be the final specifications if it goes into final design and then service. However, I think this is potentially a better route for the army than running another high-dollar design competition. A relatively incremental improvement, to an extent, I think would be a better, less risky method of development than “complete revolution” competitions with absolutely cutting edge technology.

@davidschrepfer3077

Жыл бұрын

While I fully agree with your rationale, I do believe that the occasional ‘rocking of the boat’ as it were in terms of military design might become necessary in some weapons and equipment. The abrams itself was a completely alien concept when it came out because at the time tank design was still trapped in ww2 schools of thought. Still you make good points.

@anthony.3085

Жыл бұрын

They gonna buy it %1000, miwitawy lob abrmms

@dirtyaznstyle4156

Жыл бұрын

@@anthony.3085 it’s only a name plate

@TheBlackstarrt

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, I think they said they just wanted to throw everything at it and see what peaks the military's interest.

@williamyoung9401

Жыл бұрын

You know what's sad? It has no AA systems to take down drones. 'Sigh' When will we learn? We have idiots designing our trillion-dollar boondoggles, people.

Out of all the advances this tank showcases, I'm most impressed with the GPH improvements. Imagine sending 1000 of these tanks into battle and only needing a mere fraction of the tankers needing to follow for refueling. That alone is formidable and can be the deciding factor in future tank battles.

@h8GW

Жыл бұрын

Ah, I see you're a professional in thinking logistics, as well.

@mrtrek64

Жыл бұрын

@@h8GW Bro...Oh...it's ALL about the logistics when fighting a war. It's amazing to me how many people believe it's simply a matter of transporting men and equipment to the battlefront and just letting them slug it out. If people only knew what was involved....Oppps I used my other account..sorry.

@DrBodyshot

Жыл бұрын

​@@mrtrek64 As a restaurant owner and an avid fan of military history, I cannot tell people enough just how important having a good supply chain is in both the food industry and any kind of war effort.

@mouldyfart

Жыл бұрын

@@DrBodyshot especially a food supply chain haha

@ulforcemegamon3094

Жыл бұрын

@@DrBodyshot yup , having 100 tanks without fuel and ammo is as useful as 1 tank without fuel and ammo , doesn't matters how excellent the vehicle may be if it can't even start up

A silent tank sounds like a nightmare for enemies in night time operations, both on the offensive and defensive side.

Imagine getting sniped over, under, and around cover by a tank 5 miles away. Got to love the human ingenuity and propensity for killing each other.

As a former 19K, it brings a tear to my eye to see that the Army hasn't given up on our main battle tank! Here's to all the future generations of tankers to come! "Death before dismount"!!!

@Kaiserboo1871

Жыл бұрын

Tanks still have a role on the battlefield. You just gotta know how to use them right. Also known as not doing what Russia did in Ukraine.

@andrewbarajas4420

Жыл бұрын

11b is better loser

@onlyonered3242

Жыл бұрын

Tanks and attack helicopters are obsolete in a modern war. Unless youre staying back shooting from a distance, there's no rolling through streets or flying over towns anymore. Can't believe we're still waisting money on tanks while seeing how useless they've become.

@404cheeseburgernotfound5

Жыл бұрын

@@Kaiserboo1871 yea cause that was dumb

@Kaiserboo1871

Жыл бұрын

@@404cheeseburgernotfound5 Why yes, let’s just command these tanks to enter cities completely unprotected. I’m sure nothing bad will happen.

One more great feature was not mentioned. Untill communication is not jammed (which is not easy) tank could be supported by additional remote crew (e.g. overseas). It gives commander more eyes to see, analise situation, quick react to multiple threat, and even drive tank when actual crew sleeps.

@shepberryhill4912

Жыл бұрын

Have you ever tried sleeping in a moving tank?

@p.turgor4797

Жыл бұрын

@@shepberryhill4912 I was sleeping in 12 meter boat during the storm on the sea. I read the memoirs of T-34 tanker - after hard work they slept during march deeply (not the driver of course) and that was much less comfortable tanks. Sleep is not a luxury but a necessity.

@robertcasto8790

Жыл бұрын

No.... as a tanker myself..... no one is controlling my tank from the outside while the crew sleeps.

@thehalberdier4774

Жыл бұрын

It seems like a potential for utter catastrophe, either by the remote controller malfunctioning, not being able to detect ground-level threats out of sight of long-range sensors, or being a hacking target for enemies.

@longjidalu3845

Жыл бұрын

@@robertcasto8790 You could be in a Soviet era relic and still be a tanker 😂

being able to virtually see outside of the vehicle in any direction is a HUGE plus in my opinion. you can catch any movement without needing to be exposed, or it being known that you're actively looking for movement. it also is able to make the tank look like it's in standby, when it really isn't. that paired with being able to stay in auxilary for several hours without the engine on would be massive for defending positions. I'm not sure I understand the slogan of "they'll never hear us coming" though, unless it has the capability to travel under electricity only as well, it'll either be a really slow moving electric vehicle, or wont be able to travel very far distances on electricity alone.

That's actually insane because you will be able to see the enemy from all directions with the help of the new helmets that is also being used for the F-35 and the silent engine is the top of the cake amazing review for the tank keep it up👍

Looking at developments on both sides of the Atlantic, it seems a bit more certain now that after 40 years of iterating on the products of the late cold war we've finally reached a technological crescendo whose full exploitation requires not just fresh tank designs, but a whole new paradigm of what a tank is, how it operates, and how it fits into the larger force.

@nvelsen1975

Жыл бұрын

In the same time period electronics have progressed so that your phone contains more computing power than a batallion worth of onboard computers of a tank, so a redesign of what we think a tank can do based on that is quite necessary. I've seen the ballistics computer for the Cheetah SPAAG that's known to be rapid, precise and advanced for it's time, but it's a pretty large box with loads of proprietory connectors that needlessly complicate spares. All of that can probably be fit into a fist-sized computer these days.

@beardedxdeath

Жыл бұрын

Mechs come after this!

@Bee-tj8gc

Жыл бұрын

Interesting how USA decided to make thee person tank crews instead of 4..... Like Russias tank crews

@cannonfodder6299

Жыл бұрын

@@Bee-tj8gc done for different reasons, USSR/Russia did it because they had a massive tank force, far larger than NATO. The US is going to it to get everybody out of the turret and down low, with much higher survivability rates. Soviet doctrine was to replace tanks and crews. US uses much more highly trained crews, replacing the tank is far easier than replacing the crew.

@Craynz

Жыл бұрын

@@cannonfodder6299 i dont think it's that surprising. an autoloader means you do not need a loader while also reducing the space for crew in a tank. add that digitalisation allows less people to do more and you can afford even less people, the rheinmetall panther has the option to be operated by one or two person less due to it's better controls. and there's also all the benefits of not having 4 people and specifically not having someone in the turret

I’m impressed about the contrast between your playful humility and your well researched and excellent presentation skills. As for the tank, the concepts seem promising though I think coordination among the tank’s capabilities will take time to master.

@FiendWS6

Жыл бұрын

Not as long as you would think. By the time this goes into production and replaces the old one, the generation which will be using it will have grown up playing with computers, vr, and augment reality programs enough that it will seem like child's play, unless the design is completely counterintuitive.

The hybrid Engine might also be able to significantly reduce or even mask the thermal signature of the tank - which along with acoustic reductions will make the tank genuinely stealthy at night.

Chris: Don’t sell the Cummins/Achates OP Diesel short. It’s awesome! I don’t know about the “advanced combat transmission” but I suspect it trades peak power and top end for a few seconds in the quarter mile. (Probably OK)

Real time intelligence sharing between platforms and the ability to select the correct weapons system is game changing. Being able to remote operate for really risky objectives is the icing on the cake.

@inorite4553

Жыл бұрын

???? Thats what FBCB2 was supposed to do....except that processing power and the speed of wireless communications were not up to snuff....and they still likely are not because even if you speed up CPUs and MBs on data transfer, the limiting factor is the squishy human feeding it info.

@moose1442

Жыл бұрын

Here's hoping the software is securely made and that foreign adversaries cannot hack and take over any of these systems. Some serious consequences can come about if there is any hole in the "cyber armor"

@inorite4553

Жыл бұрын

@@moose1442 here's something most civilians dont seem to know, defeating encryption is stupidly difficult. It requires a super computer to attempt and even then, needs a LOT of time to do. So our COMSEC encryption will be fine. When most people hear about nefarious groups "hacking" computer systems, what they are doing is either taking advantage of a security flaw in the operating system or more commonly, they took advantage of the greatest security flaw in any system; the squishy human users. Hacking is really just a nefarious person sending out feelers and those squishy meatbags click the link and give away information the nefarious can use to now gain access to the system. That or they datamine your online presence and piece together your personal info to gain access to your online systems. Thats why you should never participate in Social Media memes where you answer any questions about yourself regardless of how harmless you think the questions are.

@moose1442

Жыл бұрын

@@inorite4553 I work in cyber security, when I referred to other nations hacking into military networks I certainly meant through means of exploiting flaws or people before breaking the military's standard of encryption. No feasible means exists to break that encryption. Other nation states are already in our nation's networks, even our government's. And while I'm sure a significant amount of effort has gone into securing these modern weapon and vehicle systems, as I'm sure you're aware, it only takes finding that one weak link or even a way to pivot into that network through different one. There are many capable adversaries that I'm sure are already trying to find ways into it that can one day feed false or altered data to our war fighters.

@inorite4553

Жыл бұрын

@@moose1442 I will refrain as you appear to be at a higher level of expertise than I.

AbramsX doesn’t use the carousel autoloader, it has a bustle autoloader, blowout panels on the turret wouldn’t effect an ammunition detonation much, flames would still barbecue the crew (unless they had panels on the bottom of the hull) The blowout panels on the turret are above the autoloader similar to the Japanese Type 90 or Korean K2 Black Panther

@gurugo666

Жыл бұрын

Why?

@Dana-cb7vk

Жыл бұрын

​@@gurugo666 the statement made says why ;)

@gurugo666

Жыл бұрын

@@Dana-cb7vk Sorry didn't see where the crew is situated thought it was self contained and ammo positioned similarly to today's Abrams with the crew protection it has today. Would seem to be even safer.

@Dana-cb7vk

Жыл бұрын

@@gurugo666 All good fam. Thats one reason I kept it respectful! Sometimes we miss stuff. (Atleast I know I do! Lol). Its life. ;)

@ObiWanShinobi917

Жыл бұрын

There is a blast door between the crew and the ammunition. The crew would be fine.

The AR helmets with 360° view and information sharing that populates a map with said info would be the true upgrade. It would be like having a map hack in a game. See allies, objectives, distance to them, targets, and enemies, who needs support, etc. With any allies able to add info in real time would be massive.

@bradley4465

3 ай бұрын

Itd be just like battlefield, with objectives you and other soldiers need to capture being placed by CIC.

@AHHHHHHHH21

3 ай бұрын

Man, tanks in the past are dirty, sweaty, loud, and uncomfortable but this one honestly looks *fun* to drive and operate. Not even mentioning how much easier it will be to operate

I've been working on designing an AFV concept and it's kind of wild coming up with my own conclusions/ideas, looking them up, and finding some engineer had the exact same thought process as me, sometimes decades ago and sometimes very recently.

I was a gunner on an Lt's tank (19k20c) and we pulled our maintenance essentially with a crew of 3 - The LT chipping in when he could but also off doing LT things.. Not as easy as having a full crew but doable. The biggest con to 3 I see is the loss of sleep. Someone always pulls security while the other crew rests.

@MikeDMinor

Жыл бұрын

Perhaps the AI is the 4th crew person, for sentry duty, who doesn't need sleep just power...

@jebes909090

Жыл бұрын

Is there a bathroom in those things? Do you just stop the tank and go outside?

@stuartlpnwcc

Жыл бұрын

"Doing LT things"......sooooo golf!

@bryangeist8608

Жыл бұрын

@@jebes909090 …No there is not. As a driver you learn to defy physics by pissing in a water bottle while in a reclined position. The crew in the turret do the same minus the whole defying physics part bc they are standing or sitting.

@jebes909090

Жыл бұрын

@@bryangeist8608 pissing i could see, but having to shit must be a nighmare

Working with those integrated systems before getting out in '01. Watching the progression over two decades of bureaucracy. Love this breakdown, good job. Veteran or just someone who studies better than most grunts?

The 30mm canon on the top makes sense and I always wondered why they didn't opt for it before because it is well suited to shooting infantry

@justamicrowave2572

3 ай бұрын

Coaxial and pindle mounted mgs are also very good at dealing with infantry. The purpose of the rc 30mm is most likely because the improved targeting computer allows it to engage drones better.

As a tech demonstration, it’s interesting that this almost looks combat ready apart from a few things that might be adjusted. I’m sure that current talks are underway in how to future proof the X and it’s descendants based on Ukrainian combat info. I do wonder if the 30mm can be slaved to the gunner if they don’t wanna use the main gun for light armored targets while the commander is busy watching HoTD season 2.

@kylemclean4297

Жыл бұрын

It could probably be linked to the aps radar for drone and limited aps function.

@ChristianF15cher

Жыл бұрын

Your comment reminds me of when eMachines put stickers on their desktop computers back in the 90s that said “This computer will never be obsolete”.

@12monkey57

Жыл бұрын

Dude that muzzle break is going to be unbearable! You better not be within 100m of that thing

@williamyoung344

Жыл бұрын

I feel like everything people keep saying we need these days I find myself saying, we had that back in the FCS days, I'm sure they can build it better really quick now. I like seeing the fruits of that very stressful program show up.

@j.f.fisher5318

Жыл бұрын

The unmanned turret with autoloader would be far easier to upgrade to 130mm or 140mm than a manned turret that needs enough space for crew along with the larger gun, and with a human loader trying to load the larger and heavier rounds. And MRM, especially MRM-KE would possibly make upgrading the gun unnecessary as shots could be taken by any vehicle able to hit the side of an enemy even if that enemy tank was frtontally invulnerable to our tanks' guns.

The FCS program really wasn't a waste at all, we just didn't have the refined versions of this technology at the time of the program to make it a viable effective option, the research initially put into it was worth it with the development of technology over this past decade or so allowing for these new things to be implemented effectively

@spaceengineeringempire4086

Жыл бұрын

Basically they were limited by the technology of there time. (Yes I know of the iron man 2 reference)

A neat trick about the turret. The turret can be controled by conventional means because the design from what i know has enough space for a gunner and commander postion within the turret.

@AHHHHHHHH21

3 ай бұрын

Yeah, that was what i was hoping. Say an electrinic failure happens, you can still foght

Bro they're turning the tank into an advanced warthunder sim setup

General Dynamics, General Electric and General Motors finally combining like the cards for Exodia

Very much like this. The improved visibility, silent/diesel drive is really nice. Looks like they're salvaging a good part of the $18b that was lost.

@ReallyRealBenMills

Жыл бұрын

It wasn't lost, just expended a decade in advance.

@DaveQZ85

Жыл бұрын

Similar thing happened with RAH-66 Comanche. All the materials manufacturing technologies (composites a big one) ended up in future Sikorsky products.

How much ''Merika'' do you want on your tank sir: US Government: Yes

@Azraeluchiha999

3 ай бұрын

Never too much

@kennethkho7165

2 ай бұрын

Autonomous lethal freedom

Awesome work as always keep it up thank you for keeping us informed on different things God bless you♥🙏

There was a lot of maintenance that went along with the M1A1. Every time you drove it, you had to grease it, walk track, check the torsion bar, etc etc.

@joriankell1983

Жыл бұрын

Is there any heavy gear that doesn't require thorough maintenance?

@blahorgaslisk7763

Жыл бұрын

You'd think serviceability and longer service intervals would be something prioritized when creating something as complex as a tank, or a fighter plane or other military equipment. But what seems like reasonable intervals when sitting at the desk in an office often turn out to be less reasonable when it's put into actual service. Also they add up. Greasing the bearings for one of the rollers the track rides on isn't a big thing, but it's not just one. And it's not just the rollers but just about everything that moves will have a service schedule. In the end you will spend a lot more time doing maintenance than what the designers initially aimed for. But bearings have improved a lot in the last 40 or so years. Just look at ordinary cars. It used to be that almost every car would leave an oil slick where they were parked. You checked the oil level regularly and often had to top it up. This was normal maintenance. Universal joints, ball end fittings and bushings used to all have grease fittings, and today that's more often omitted than not. Greasing all the joints were something you did at least once a year. Also looking back it was a lot more common to see cars having stopped on the shoulder because they broke down. Today that's a lot less common even though there's a lot more cars on the road. And that's still true after all the complaints about overly complex constructions, electronics and computers in modern cars. As much as we complain about not being able to service them and poor reliability they are still more reliable today than they were 40 years ago, or 30, probably even 20. So a new tank constructed today should be more reliable and require less maintenance than the old tanks simply by being constructed of better materials and improved engineering. But time and time again I feel the engineers has proved that any improvements in reliability and service intervals made by improved technology can be offset by added complexity.

@dianapennepacker6854

Жыл бұрын

@@blahorgaslisk7763 As weapons advance and get more expensive you want to make sure they are running smoothly. Also you want preemptive maintenance done. Aircraft though are crazy intensive though. You'd think we could design robots or tools that either did it themselves or severely cut the time. I still see videos of guys with just regular garage gear.

Perhaps an underrated, but no less important aspect of the engine's efficiency is the smaller logistical footprint it causes. Needing less fuel means it can travel further without needing resupply, both allowing for missions deeper into enemy territory while also keeping resupply vehicles in safer distances from the front lines.

@adamkhan4451

Жыл бұрын

Obviously

@mennovanlavieren3885

Жыл бұрын

@@adamkhan4451 But almost never stated

@trollmcclure1884

Жыл бұрын

Is it two stroke diesel electric yet? I missed it and I don't wanna rewind anything today

@williamyoung9401

Жыл бұрын

Yeah...great. Hey, what's that thing in the sky coming at us? o_O Shoot it down! Oh wait. We don't have any AA!

@joet7136

Жыл бұрын

Yeah but the guys in the tank want to feel like they have a snowballs chance in hell of making it alive for another day soooo....more armor please!

The coolest new feature has got to be that helmet + camera system that allows you to move your head and see through your armor to the outside.

The only downside to this new abrams is the drop from 4 to 3 crew members. While at a glance this sounds like a good thing as you are putting less men at risk or making better use of finite manpower. The fourth man adds a lot to the efficiency of operator level maintenance. The extra set of hands goes a long way in the time it takes to say, repair or replace a broken track.

Sounds great in theory. I like that quieter and more powerful engines. I know that in the real world, somebody is still going have to manually input the BFT (Blue Force Tracker) overlays. When the Army can figure out how to integrate BFT with CPOF, then this will be much more effetcive

@dianapennepacker6854

Жыл бұрын

That turret is pretty big too. With advandces in ballasitic CPUs I am wondering if you could use indirect fire as sort of "Enemy is that way just fire".

@JanHoellwarth

Жыл бұрын

@@dianapennepacker6854, "ballasitic"?

@dianapennepacker6854

Жыл бұрын

@@JanHoellwarth Yup. You know ballistics as in computing the flight of a projectile.

@JanHoellwarth

Жыл бұрын

@@dianapennepacker6854, I know, you just wrote (and read it) wrong.

@dianapennepacker6854

Жыл бұрын

@@JanHoellwarth Ah okay no biggie we all do it. You know you had me double checking myself for a good minute haha. I'm suffering from liver failure and the toxins in the brain are effecting certain things and spelling is one of them. Some words just don't look right even when they are. In fact I have to reset my spell check because it has words spelt wrong and it's a real pain in my arse. I'd rather be called out so I can fix em. Aquifer is the last one I battled with(aquafer) Anyway cheers.

I actually tested FCS through the "Land Warrior" rage during the early oughts in Orlando Florida. I was part of the 511th PIR test company and the buzzword at the time was "Network Centric Warfare." We had a lot of fun on that TCS. I won't tell you exactly what my buddies bought with their per diem but we played a lot of games on it for those 3 months. We also tested the LOSAT (Lockheed Martin) and a few other black platforms like CROWS before they shut the unit down due to funding issues because of the war in Iraq. We got shuffled back to 18th Airborne Corp repo and ended up with 51st LRS as part of 525 MI, we deployed to Iraq in 04 shortly after passing our selection and mostly operated out of Mosul (my team at least). The whole story is more complicated but I spent most of my time with an enhanced THT team chasing down sources in Kurdistan and west toward Rabia.

@Liberty_or_Ded

Жыл бұрын

I remember "Network Centric Warfare". I thought I was going to snap and go insane if I heard it one more time. Thankfully, it seems I wasn't.

@nvelsen1975

Жыл бұрын

....But could it run Crysis? 😉

@mhamma6560

Жыл бұрын

People don't understand just how network centric things are today. We're using it in ukraine -- they have full access to collected data from US (targets / imagery, not raw data). The system is called palantir (the companies name) and the software is gotham. It's mind blowing. It's able to take real-time intel from EVERYTHING, and it does (even scrapes social media). All social media, etc. They built an app for citizens smart phones to take pics of missiles / jets / troops / etc flying overhead and do an easy classification of it. It takes the meta data and and within a few seconds tasks something to get it. It's why russia is getting blasted hard --- they're playing against the most advanced AI system nobody has seen. The system is insane what it's capable of. It watches build up of enemy troops and suggests action plans for dealing with. Palantir is quite spooky just how advanced that shit is. Skynet is already here.

@nvelsen1975

Жыл бұрын

@@mhamma6560 Lol civilian. An internet scraping bot is not a battle management system or an intel database. And if you say "imagery, not raw data", you're basically saying there's no acces. Not being able to share the raw data was the exact problem that was always existed. Intel guys have (had?) to manually redo inputs from other systems and from allies pretty much ad nauseam. And that flag on the map that says "Here be badguys" can mean "A reliable report from 1 day ago" or "A rumour by some farmer whose loyalties I find to be quite suspect, that's two weeks old", there's simply no way to convey the information at the time, and there still isn't because adding descriptors of intel quality would make it unreadable, and if you default-collapse it, nobody's going to read it.

@honestabe1940

Жыл бұрын

HUH?

reducing fuel consumption by half means you can field twice as much tank or use the twice as long for the same fuel.

R&D is not wasted. Technology becomes practical when SUPPORTING tech becomes practical. It's rare for solo technologies to thrive in isolation. Not that the procurement process isn't terribly managed or the Army frequently confused and subject to internal factionalism, but all the desirable features requested for FCS were seen as desirable globally because they're force effectiveness multipliers if they succeed.

3:55 the ammo is stored in the bustle behind a blast door with blow out panels. This minimizes ammo explosions blowing up the tank when it's hit.

@petesheppard1709

Жыл бұрын

The carousel only carried the T-72's 'ready' ammo. A lot of ammo (about half the combat load) was carried up in the turret. THAT was what caused the turrets to pop when hit. The ammo down in the carousel is actually well-protected.

@donniespaid6577

Жыл бұрын

@@LeviBulger correct.

@tubyduby2816

Жыл бұрын

From the stuff going on in Ukraine, it's vulnerable to drone drop grenades. People have twisted off the HE 40mm from its shell, did some stuff to reduce arming time, attach it to a DIY shell with a tail. The whole set-up cost $1MM. If they don't destroy the tank, they can still damage the optics and rattle the crew, prompting retreat.

China controls 80% of the rare earth processing for batteries. We need to change that. American lithium mines need to be the priority.

@samsonsoturian6013

Жыл бұрын

Wild exaggeration

@crown7639

Жыл бұрын

And micro chips and semi conductors. These systems are gonna have to be considered part of defense spending cause everything runs on them and not a lot of places produce them

@anthonycassidy1124

Жыл бұрын

Elon musk is trying to change that hard

@yourfriend4104

Жыл бұрын

Along with the academics that accompany with it. So far, there are reports of a shortage of engineers and construction workers. In general now more than ever. We just need to pull away from China more than ever, decreasing the cost as we rely on other countries that aren't sanctioned, lowering prices, hopefully increasing population, and seeing a more motivated population to pursue essential sectors for the military defense complex.

@dumiso123

Жыл бұрын

Standard lithium is looking to change that buy stock

Great next-gen kit. Hybrid electric power train brilliant solution to expanding needs / requirements. Ultra capacitors will also probably figure into high power, rapid discharge requirements.

I love the look . It's looks futuristic but aggressive too.

Being able to see through your own tank is so powerful, and the interlinked data will come in clutch too.

@-Bill.

Жыл бұрын

Especially given the massive improvements in AI detection of people, it could easily alert operators to hostiles attempting to approach from the flanks and perhaps even those observing from windows attempting to get an elevated top armor shot

As a tanker from the 80's and 90's, I can tell you that a 4th person is very important. Not only for maintenance but for LP/OP or many other assignments. We could fight in our vehicles in a degraded 3 man scenario without an auto loader. An auto loader just adds another mechanism that can break down. I like the new engine. The heat generated from our engines lifted dust and debri high I to the air allowing the enemy to see our signature and follow is to our next fighting position. Perhaps this new engine will help out.

@reddog19d

Жыл бұрын

Dude, I was a scout and the track lifted more dust into the air than the engine exhaust. The Bradley had a diesel engine and had just as bad a dust signature. The gas turbine engine was virtually undetectable until you hear the foot fall of the tracks at about 300 meters, well within the lethal zone of the tank... We were dead before we knew it when there was an alert tank crew at about 800 meters.

@CaptHowdy-ym8px

Жыл бұрын

I worked on Abrams and Bradleys. Bradleys are just junk. Also they could have had an auto loader on the original Abrams but decided against it due to them not being as fast as a 19 year old and a 19 year old with a strong arm will not jam. I’ve also loaded and gunned an Abrams through lack of tank personnel we had and trying out adding a mechanic as tank crew for every four or five tanks to have a mechanic (not riding around in an 88) ready to do some fast mechanical work when needed. Not sure about going from the turbine engine to a straight up hybrid piston driven Diesel engine (they all use the same dry military diesel gas). The Abrams engine exhaust is a life saver in the winter. Especially after it rained. Wanna know how many infantry/recon units is hiding in the bushes? Turn in an Abrams and see them all come out to get warm behind one and dry out their gear real quick.

@anthonyscrimo

Жыл бұрын

@@CaptHowdy-ym8px That was my understanding with why the Abrams didn't have an auto loader and why it was superior to the T-72 etc. 19 year olds don't jam and it is a lot quicker for a person to change out the munitions than the autoloader (think changing type of round while one is already in the tube).

@TonymanCS

Жыл бұрын

I get it but trust me nobody wants to manually load 130/140mm rounds

@bryanjohnson5803

11 ай бұрын

@@reddog19d Oh, you Scouts loved when we'd fire up that turbine engine in the winter didn't you? Nice place to get warm.

This channel is f*****g awesome. Chris, you’re a genius

More fuel efficiency=longer range

I think it's important to keep in mind the Chieftains's Rule: Firing high velocity armor piercing ammo at the enemy is the most important single function of a main battle tank. Doing things like piloting and monitoring a drone can be done much more cheaply and even with greater survivability from a lighter and smaller vehicle, or even a man miles from the battlefield.

@swordarmstudios6052

Жыл бұрын

If you could integrate the software under the hood for the tank, and then have that same software running in other vehicles, if ever you need a drone - and all you got are tanks, you can use them. Or just eves drop on the feed of other drones piloted by others in real time. Imagine a google maps or waymo style application, but on the battle field, showing both friend and reported foe, in real time. Drone operators report on what they see. Tanks and Infantry vehicles can respond that - commanders can mark orders on the map, etc. I don't think the real point of this is to make tanks into drone carriers. But to create a platform that permits interoperability. This has the potential to become a battlefield internet and could be super useful. Logistics wins battles, but information win wars.

@bornonthebattlefront4883

Жыл бұрын

You forget that tanks have VERY little vision over all Even in modern day tank combat, convincing an inexperienced tank commander to stay inside and not peek outside takes effort Having a drone that can scout within even 500 yards of the tank, gives that tank a MAJOR edge Letting a tank commander see the entire battlefield, will 100% change any combat situation in favor of that commander No matter the tank Knowing where your enemy is before they know where you are, means you win before a fight has even started And actually no Firing a high velocity armor piercing round is not the primary function of a tank There is a reason why the Abrams carries the AMP ammunition 9/10 times, they arnt shooting at another tank But instead shooting a bunker, a fortified position, or a mg nest Tank on tank combat is rare, and something like only 15% - 20% of ammo that tanks field is actually APFSDS

@nunu4692

Жыл бұрын

@@bornonthebattlefront4883 i certify this comment

@jannuzijannuzicharlescharl3260

Жыл бұрын

Not really. Putting HE downrange is the role that is needed in most battles today.

@Thurgosh_OG

Жыл бұрын

@@jannuzijannuzicharlescharl3260 Someone doesn't know the main purpose of MBTs.

Cappy, you should check out the new anti drone swarm system from Rheinmetal Its pretty neat seems to use a range finder and airburst munitions (doesn't take much to knock a drone out of the sky afterall) Though whilst in the video every round detonated; there's always that fear of some not exploding and potentially hurting someone years later

@ArgosySpecOps

Жыл бұрын

Skyranger 30 & 35, and Oerlikon Ahead FTW!

@jb76489

Жыл бұрын

A lot of munitions these days have auto destructs along with their normal fuses. Nothings perfects but it certainly helps

@milton42083

Жыл бұрын

In the demonstration video, it looked like an excellent weapon. It seems like it would be a good idea to a vehicle into Ukraine for "real world" testing.

@DBZHGWgamer

Жыл бұрын

@@milton42083 If only.

@DrakeKillah

Жыл бұрын

Rather the risk of unexploded ordnance left on the battlefield, than letting in an entire drone swarm - you stop it, because it is aimed at friendly troops and/or equipment. As long as we're using conventional explosives, there WILL be UO left after a war, no way to get 100% around it without switching to railguns, laserweapons, or other future tech.

hybrid electric just makes sense, like just generally as well as for a tank. The reason isn't because it's good for the enviroment, but it means quite opperation if you need it and greater opperational range because the deseil generator can be run at it's optimal RPM which increases efficency and therefore range on the same tank of fuel, the second reason being why it makes sense for cars and trucks to.

I know it's way too late to add this, but for the sake of my own sanity it's pronounced Water Vi-Lee at 3:05 I know, because I live in the area.

My grandfather retired as an engineer from benet labs about 10 years ago. Has his name on a patent for a part for the howitzer canon.

@Au60schild

Жыл бұрын

A "cannon" patent. Now that's pretty damn impressive. Think of the bragging rights that'd give you when out drinking with the boys.

There is an aspect of this that I can understand. I was in college in 2008 and our university took part in DARPAs automated driving contests and while I wasn't on the team, via my cogsci classes we were sort of of an auxiliary opinion piece. Not only was it considered a miserable failure, it led professors and "experts" to make wild and wildly inaccurate claims about the future of AI and machine learning. Yet, only 14 years later we are already in a world that those "experts" could have never imagined. One of the expert speakers from MIT stated (again, in 2008) that it is highly unlikely that we will develop in our lifetime computer learning that could drive autonomously, walk unassisted bipedally, or compete and the highest levels of the game of Go. So much for that expert advice.

@NXTangl

Жыл бұрын

To be fair to those professors, nobody really appreciated at the time that deep neural networks could be as powerful as they are, because they require so many data and CPU-hours to train well, and we just didn't have those kinds of resources.

@calvinpell1738

Жыл бұрын

Well we don’t have ai that can drive autonomously, not in any complicated situations, driving down a highway is easy. As for games AIs, that’s actually existed for decades. Not so much with neural networks, that’s a newer thing, but there were computers in the 90s that could beat top chess players with different kinds of algorithm

@Sybaris_Rex

Жыл бұрын

@@calvinpell1738 Chess, as complex as it is, is very different than Go. In thinking about Go, I believe a lot of scientists were relying on the Salesman problem as the ruling assumption as to why computers couldn't beat humans. Whereas now, it is unlikely that a human will ever even come close to beating the machine. Can machines "off-road" safely right now, not yet. However, yes, AI can drive as safely as humans on the road following the rules humans are meant to follow. It will be merely a few years before that has been replaced by AI being far more capable.

@NXTangl

Жыл бұрын

@@Sybaris_Rex As stated, the problem with Go was that we had no idea what constitutes a board position that looks good for white or black, and good minimax algorithms rely on having a good heuristic for speedup. Training a neural network on millions of self-play games gave us that heuristic.

Me (seeing the thumbnail): "Is that a tank from C&C Generals?" =__= tank + floaty drone nearby

If it works then I'd love to see what it can do and if it is as good as they say

Just an FYI, General Dynamics did not announce that this tank would be replacing the current iteration of the Abrams tank. They very clearly stated that it is a "technology demonstrator" built to showcase technological developments that could be implemented into a future tank.

@bighands69

Жыл бұрын

You can bet your boots that there will be a version in service in the not to distant future even if all the features do not make it in.

@NakedAvanger

Жыл бұрын

which kind of sucks tbh but also it makes sense i guess

@seasonedoilburnerrepair6932

Жыл бұрын

@@bighands69 I agree. The Army would never invest so greatly into a tank merely to showcase possible developments in future tanks. There will be indeed a line of these tanks in the not-so-distant future, even if they are a bit different from the original concept tank.

@nyalan8385

Жыл бұрын

@@bighands69 it probably has to go through a lot more stress testing, improvements and reviews before it makes it into service, this is like a proof of concept more than anything

@nubgaming1013

Жыл бұрын

@@seasonedoilburnerrepair6932the army has had nothing to do with this tank. It is just a tech demonstrator meant to intrigue the army to try and get a contract.

I wonder if it would be feasible to add that fourth crewman back as a drone operator that pilots something akin to a mule for screening, scouting, spotting and things like that. I see it working in a fashion similar to the terminator from the previous video.

@paullakowski2509

Жыл бұрын

where have i heard that...OH YEAH NEW GERMAN PANTHER TANK KF51

@shawnr771

Жыл бұрын

I saw a video about future combat concepts. A 4 tank platoon was augmented by a Stryker like vehicle operating several tracked drones. One had rack of Javelins, one Anti Air capability and one or two antiarmor and personel.

@soul-om4id

Жыл бұрын

My thoughts exactly add a fourth crew for ucavs and drones. That would offer huge information and data benefits that would be immediate and no need to go through other chains to gain that information. It would be a literal game changer.

@flare9757

Жыл бұрын

From what I’ve heard, there is an option for a 4th man in the turret to act as a gunner in case the remote systems get disabled. So if they expand that position to be a permanent placement, then they will have a spare crew slot in the hull for this purpose.

@Redmanticore

Жыл бұрын

more roles are added like electronic warfare and drones to planes and tanks, information input&output increases, but crew size gets smaller. i dont like the contradiction. f35 plane has 1 man and this tank has possibly just 3 guys. same in upcoming german Panther KF51. i wonder if the crew amount design is really based on the optimal function of the machine, or because future armies personnel is going to be smaller because of lower birthrate, people getting more fat, etc.

I love how technology is catching up with all these 80s concepts. It’s kick ass

That ammo is insane

you are also forgetting one of the main advantages to a hybrid power plant for future war. Like a WW2 diesel-electric sub, you should be able to turn off the diesel engine when near enough to a fight and be as silent as an electric tank.

Great segment! I joined in the Infantry in 07 an I remember getting exposed to the new virtual training. Using old mock m16’s connected on some cord. 10 or more of us would be in the prone; we laid there looking at horrible pixelated graphic of a scenario we supposed to engage. I hope that system has drastically improved.

@handlesarecringe957

Жыл бұрын

If you look at Arma 3, apparently the newer VR training system looks like that but with less vegetation and lower quality reflections/shadows

@justalldamnmotorsports2419

Жыл бұрын

@@handlesarecringe957 Not really, at least not from 2013-2017. It was still pretty awful.

@First_Person_Shooter36

Жыл бұрын

Nope, good graphics aren’t a concern for the army. Graphics are a concern for civilians as that’s what computer gamers want but the concern for the military is simulated realistic controls over visuals,

@kookamunga4714

Жыл бұрын

I am sure that they are using full HD graphics now. But the new generation of recruits are used to looking at 4k TVs and will have the same complaints. "you can almost see the pixels from here, this is horrible!"

@davidgoodnow269

Жыл бұрын

We used the PlayStation 2 in my day!

I think the new tank design is great, but I couldn't help but notice there were no new implements to help the tank get unstuck. Besides the lighter weight inevitably helping.

@Vune_GG

Жыл бұрын

Trust me, they 10000% implemented something to help the tank get unstuck, they would not leave something like that out.

@the-witness8811

Жыл бұрын

@@Vune_GG I know they have systems to do such already, but I know it's a cumbersome process. I think having less hands to help could make it more challenging.

@billseventy6825

Жыл бұрын

The R&D can do all the exploring they want too ,, the fact is any Vehicle wheeled or tracked at any weight is going to get stuck going over terrain ,, most of the time it comes down to Crew Experience as to how serious the vehicle gets stuck !!!!!!!! ...

@billseventy6825

Жыл бұрын

@@the-witness8811 this is also very true ..

@corey552

Жыл бұрын

@@Vune_GG I think you give the military too much credit lmao.

I like. I noticed the old turret also had a lot of extra space around it compared to the mock up. I doubt ALL of that space went to armor, so I bet the space normally taken up in the turret by the loader probably went into missile or drone storage? Be it recon drones or kamikaze ones won't much matter as long as they are throwing up a drone because some of the infantry near them hears something worth targetting as well.

These weapon systems are so cool and terrifying at the same time. I don't think infantry will be even be effective anymore.

Makes sense though, the fcs inception was following a massive armored heavy war in 1991, and before insurgency fighting following 9/11. Now that the threat has pretty much returned to that old initial reason, it makes sense to take from the fcs. Most successful projects take from failed or canceled ones. The leo 2 and Abrams both got their starts from the mbt70 that failed

@smeagol7247

Жыл бұрын

Failed projects are not failure just because it does not deliver an outcome now does not mean in the future in can't

FCS was always ahead of its time but it was a necessary process to push the development of these combat systems. The equipment we use now is so far more advance than when I initially got in.

Giving the soldiers a 360 degree angel of view seems like a great idea especially since they won’t have to stick their head out or look through a tiny strip of armored glass anymore

If it works it will be a thing of fantastic hardware for the troops . I always got to think of them !

I like the design a lot. I think it has a lot of potential or, at least, ideas that can be incorporated into future Abrams tanks. Or whole new tanks. The 30mm autocannon mounted in a CROWS is probably a good idea for anti-drone and urban defense, especially if it has a high firing arc.

@ravengrey6874

Жыл бұрын

It’s interesting, Western tanks originally included a pintle mounted machine gun for AA defense. Those guns were retained because they offered a tank crew tactical flexibility in dealing with infantry or lightly armored forces. Now it looks like those guns might prove useful as AA again to deal with drones

@realdakrith

Жыл бұрын

We also have a fear of Russia so we need the firepower asap

@Mahbu

Жыл бұрын

@@ravengrey6874 Indeed. It's almost like going full circle, though the 30mm still potentially offers that tactical flexibility and more.

@STR33TZK1NG

Жыл бұрын

@@Mahbu I would reckon that it's capable of Anti-Missle operations as well. I can't see it being impossible that they didn't add some kind of missile detection system that can be turned on or off. It could be a negative as I've heard of plenty of times those anti missile systems have shot at friendlies.

@rollog1248

Жыл бұрын

Seems like it's going to have a high arc, look at the space below the gun. I bet it has a not a maneuver room.

I was trained on the Carl Gustaf a decade ago that had very similar rounds as this new tank. Was also trained on the CROWS. Seems like they put the two together. Smart!

if the autoloader jams is it also impossible to clear in the field like the soviet tanks? remote control makes sense if it does because at that point most problems would make it return to base anyway. I think realistically it won't be all remote tanks, there will be at least some man power there besides the fact that tanks usually require protection from infantry and the us never travels without close air or at the least artillery back up. If it doesn't have a way of clearing a jam that's a massive problem. I hope it's amazing though, the abrahams will be a very hard tank to replace.

It has proximity chat: US *sees Russian tank* US: “hey bro. Wanna join my squad?”

Despite being a "failure" it's exciting to see so much of the doctrine and interconnectivity of the future warrior program manifesting. The information provided by the helmet, and automatic GPS population, will no doubt go hand in hand with with the sensor suites of the F-22, F-35 and soon to come B-21. This goes beyond the expected performance improvements for main battle tanks. I think its fair to expect that, with the detailed on ground information provided by the X, the precision and lethality of close air support or strikes will also see a huge improvement

Oh man, hearing Future Combat Systems brings me back. My Dad worked FCS and I remember hearing him explain “System of Systems” and thinking it was an incredibly dumb name for it. Definitely recall hearing about all the concepts of the interconnected warfighter and thinking it was really cool… then hearing a ton about how none of the technology was mature enough and the program was a grossly mismanaged money pit. lol Also there’s a little hidden Easter Egg at 10:14 in the video. Notice the Switchblade 600 hanging out by the AbramsX.

@wnose

Жыл бұрын

I wonder what's that vehicle behind him. Multiple Switchblade launching platform with 28 tubes? Those things have a range of 40 km - could easily engage a whole division of enemy armor while the Abrams crew chill.

@MICHAELHOWARD9729

Жыл бұрын

No disrespect,but all I could think of while reading ur comment was...so dad worked on at the time,top tech/top secret military equipment, but I guess made it the dinner time table "talk"everyday? .well not to spotlight jus that,I'm sure a lot of employees did it,after all it's why other countries (china) have a lot of our tech today I guess one positive thing about these ,wonna be companies spending our money was that the secrets that got out ,were about failed shit. Lol

@izoi24

Жыл бұрын

@@MICHAELHOWARD9729 a lot of those programs overall concepts weren’t/aren’t classified, specific technology and specifications are, but the design philosophies aren’t

@MICHAELHOWARD9729

Жыл бұрын

@@izoi24 ,I don't think ur reply to me is enuff,,but I'm not here to argue, but rather I'll say,,,should it of not been talked about only if it was/is labeled "classified?🤔🤔

@brianb7388

Жыл бұрын

@@MICHAELHOWARD9729 I used to date a woman engineer who worked on future combat systems they literally had mini dvd's with crazy high tech movies that were effectively advertisements. I have two of them in the desk I am sitting at right now. I think it's pretty safe to say there was a lot of information about FCS that was not classified. You obviously never held a security clearance because there's a ton of info you can talk about even on a classified project. The US Navy gives tours to foreign civilians in many ports and they discuss nearly every system on the ship in general details that include a lot of information about capabilities.

3 and 2 man tanks? drone-guided artillery?? Smart chips that monitor your health??? sounds like we are getting closer and closer to Ghost in the Shell.

I worked for Army experimental in 90s on the Abrams A1 turbine . Going digital not a good idea in the muck and mire of war. The turbine was so you can sifon oil from anywhere on the mission and can burn any fuel or oil you can find. It was never made for the desert and we had to redesign the intake and exhaust. I used my motorcycle racing knowledge and designed recuppetator exhaust after the Super Trapp 2 stroke motocross muffler and the intake like HVAC quick change and was supposed to have slats downward so sand drops out but didnt. The last 40 turbines were shipprd to Saudi Arabia. The ghost of Avco Lycoming is all that's left. You should see what was built in the 50 to 75 era. Shhhhhh!

For the tank gurus out there: would a recoil systems like the ones on the Cold War era XM204 Soft Recoil/"Fire Out of Battery" and Mandamus Hawkeye systems be good alternatives as well?

I see you didn't talk about how if something goes wrong with the autoloader the crew can climb inside and manually fire and use secondary optics, just like a regular tank setup. And it was specifically stated that it would not use a carousel ammo system as they have seen the drawbacks to them. The ammo is still located in the back of the turret shut behind a firebox just like the legaxy abrams

@nolongerblocked6210

Жыл бұрын

Happy to hear this, I was worried when he said they were still going forward with it

@BrokeWrench

Жыл бұрын

What was the problem with the carousel systems? Ive always wondered by they were not used

@spacecowboy8295

Жыл бұрын

@@BrokeWrench Ithought it's because it jammed, or it might've been because if the tank cooks off, the turret piece gets yeeted into the stratosphere also the crew get cooked as well.

@Redditor6079

Жыл бұрын

@@BrokeWrench the crew is basically sitting directly on top of potential explosives and a well placed shot in between the turret and the main body will ignite that ammo whereas in the legacy Abrams design the ammo if ignited gets blown through the roof sparing the crew.

Looks sweet I hope Toyota had a hand in it, their hybrids are awesome man.

Can you imagine an early WWII tanker getting in one of these? He'd probably think "Buck Rogers done gotten himse'f a tank"...

I like the concept that the Abrams X is bringing. Only thing I'm concerned about is the carousel ammo storage, but like you pointed out and from what general dynamics sees is that they have a solution for if the ammo cooks off. Biggest thing that I hope of this tank is that if it does get approved into service, the auto loading system is reliable, but really the only way to improve on the vehicle is to field test it. None the less the Abrams will be my favorite tank no matter what

@spaceengineeringempire4086

Жыл бұрын

It just so happens there’s a entire war going on where we are currently field testing some equipment. They get some experimental tech and vehicles and we get data to see what can be fixed and changed. May need to add scuttle charges.

@chaz706

Жыл бұрын

My concern is the lowered turret armor. Sure: losing the turret will have a far less punishing consequence for the crew (seeing that we have no crew in the Abrams X) BUT we're still losing our primary and secondary weapons. Also: the autoloader isn't a huge concern for me personally... as long as you have properly designed blow out panels/systems you're probably fine... as long as you don't mind maintaining it plus all the other systems with just a 3 man crew.

@michalandrejmolnar3715

Жыл бұрын

I think the biggest improvement is the APS, reduced fuel consumption and the 30mm autocannon.

@jp3630

Жыл бұрын

So the yanks ended up copying the Russians. 😎

@thevortex6754

11 ай бұрын

I thought the ammo was kept in the traditional bussle mount on the back like the Abrams, but now with a more complex auto loader than the Russians have for there to be blow-out panels on the back of the turret. I could be wrong but that’s what I understood from this

You just do such an amazing job with these videos. Pack with Rich content, well organize, it flows, there's humor, you're just killing it consistently!

@swissmilitischristilxxii3691

Жыл бұрын

No, he's anti-russian, and his propaganda gets on my nerves. He must get $$$ from the ukr beggars. Cyka blyat, mouzhik.

Excellent stuff bro

I'm curious on the armor protection and active protection/reactive armor modular systems and the like. If this doesn't have the armor of the Abrams from the front we're going to have issues vs other tanks, it needs to have other systems in place to protect it with less armor (which it seems this system has less vs M1A2-SEPV).

Even if much of the aspects of this concept end up not getting adopted, it's all worth it for that new engine and power system alone. That thing is going to be an absolute game changer for Armored Vehicles, even if every other piece stays the same. Simply reducing the size of the logistics train thanks to better fuel efficiency will be much needed stress relief for armored operations.

@specialnewb9821

Жыл бұрын

My first thought! Logistical improvements!

Awesome, and most future development programs are 10-20 years ahead of their time, so sound about right. The only problem is the Abrams, as it’s still one of the best tanks in the world, but nice to have a backup in case all hell breaks loose!

@speedy01247

Жыл бұрын

Over reliance on older hardware can leave one unprepared for the future, I'm not saying the Abrams is bad, but that not preparing for the future could leave the US at a distinct disadvantage.

@billarcher7172

Жыл бұрын

Totally agree, and the army is currently playing catch-up due to bad project management over the last 20 years. They had too many development programs get canceled due to requirements overreach. Now they are being more realistic about requirements and as a result a number of new programs are in progress, including JLTV (Humvee replacement) - AMPV (M113 replacement) - MPF (Light Tank) - and OMFV (Bradley Replacement). They are planning on reopening the Abrams’ replacement program in 2023. Hopefully a proven, low cost (relatively) design like the Abrams X will be the right tank at the right time, and hopefully they will have the money to buy it, as they also need to fund the Future Verticle Lift program.

I'm an old M60 tanker and I have serious doubts about how all this technology will fare in battle conditions. We couldn't keep the heat going and when the A3 turret was used we couldn't keep the ac going. Heat was one thing but we needed ac to keep the electronics healthy. Tanks are beasts and they don't hold up in adverse temps and rough terrain day after day. I wish the future tread heads luck.

How good is it against EMP warfare? Also what if the turret electronic controllers fail. Is there a manual backup for these critical systems?

I saw an interview where one of the guys from general dynamics was really emphasizing that this is a tech demonstrator. Basically general dynamics is saying here is what we can do and the army can pick and choose systems they like. Not sure how I feel about the unmanned turret, I think that’s a weird choice. The auto loader though I think is cool, I think that tech is finally reaching the point where it can match human loaders.

@FNLNFNLN

Жыл бұрын

If they go unmanned turret, they should probably just go full Merkava, slap the engine in the front, and move the crew to the back.

@scratchy996

Жыл бұрын

I think this was pretty underwhelming. I expected at least an ETC gun. The unmanned turret is a good choice, since the tank is supposed to be optionally manned anyway.

@rifraf276

Жыл бұрын

The tech outmatched human loaders 60 years ago, it just wasn't used everywhere due to it not being trusted by some countries' armies. The Russians, French, South Koreans and Japanese have been using them for decades. I think most of the bad rep they get is because of the carousel style autoloaders that the Russians use because their tanks are too small to fit safer systems, so everyone gets the impression that autoloader instantly means tank go boom really easily. In reality western style MBTs with autoloaders don't use such systems and are just as safe as tanks with human loaders (except the Abrams which stores all its ammo behind blast doors but that's nothing to do with the autoloader, Leo 2 doesn't have an autoloader either but still doesn't have that level of cookoff protection)

@crown7639

Жыл бұрын

@@FNLNFNLN now there an idea 💡 I can actually see an argument for that

@edbangor9163

Жыл бұрын

Given the fact that Russia is losing its most advanced tanks, having their turrets fly off, sometimes hundreds of feet into the air, because of the way autoloaders are unable to actually isolate the munitions from the rest of the vehicle, we have plenty of real evidence that anything other than a manned turret is a terrible idea in a main battle tank. The concept does need to die, once and for all.

Awesome sponsor today. Saw that on Kings and Generals. Awesome tank. But for some reason, it seems like way too many thing that could break down out in the field and could jeopardize the whole mission. Looks like you'd need an advanced degree just to fix it.

Not sold on the batteries part, but bit ill wait for more info on it. So far not bad.