T14 is for Red Square. Abrams X is for battlefield.

@KomBackHordz

Жыл бұрын

And the battlefield is America's own soil if the politics continues the way it does

@moparman1692

Жыл бұрын

@@KomBackHordz that might be true for Russia as well..

@pjdu5yifutd

Жыл бұрын

Abrams for oil

@somedudeonline1936

Жыл бұрын

@@KomBackHordz America is similar to Russia in that it's very hard to invade even without having the best military in the world.

@moparman1692

Жыл бұрын

@@pjdu5yifutd .. and, T14.. for gas?? Whats your point exactly.

The comfort of the crew is obviously important when the crew has to operate for DAYS in it during actual combat. Russian tank design and lack of care for crew comfort accelerates exhaustion and stress, which is deadly on the battlefield.

@darnit1944

Жыл бұрын

That's why the T-14 Armata even had a toilet inside the hull. But, this is a very expensive tank and they cant even form a single batallion with current numbers.

@justice2375

Жыл бұрын

LITTLE-KNOWN FACTS ABOUT PUTIN. In 2013, before a coup d'etat took place in Ukraine, he asked the then President of Ukraine, Yanukovych, not to use force. In 2014, when the Ukrainian army was encircled in the Donbas, Putin called on the separatists to release the AFU soldiers from the "boiler" and exchange prisoners. In 2014, realizing that the conflict could escalate into a fratricidal war, Putin proposed a plan to resolve the crisis in Ukraine "Minsk 1". The peace initiatives assumed the cessation of offensives by all armed formations in the Donbas, the withdrawal of all troops to a safe distance from populated areas, international control over the observance of the ceasefire, the refusal of Ukraine to use military aviation against civilians, the exchange of prisoners under the "all for all" scheme, as well as the opening of humanitarian corridors. In 2015, Putin actively supported German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who proposed a special procedure for the entry into force of the law on the special status of Donbass provided for by the Minsk agreements. In 2015, in order to resolve the crisis in Ukraine as soon as possible, he proposed to sign an additional agreement "Minsk 2", where the obligations of the parties to the conflict were spelled out in more detail. In 2017, Putin proposed to place a UN mission on the line of contact in the Donbas to ensure the safety of employees of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission. Later, Putin did not rule out that such a mission could be located throughout the conflict, but with the consent of the proclaimed republics of Donbass. In 2021, Putin warns NATO countries against crossing "red lines" and invites them to dialogue, but his proposal is ignored. In 2022, after the outbreak of the war, Putin forbade the military to shoot at civilian objects and, if possible, at industrial infrastructure, which greatly hindered the army's advance. For 20 years of his manifestation, Putin has not made a single geopolitical mistake, and the Russian economy has achieved outstanding results. Even despite unprecedented sanctions, Russia's economy remains the most stable in the world, while the Western economy is irretrievably losing ground. Draw your own conclusions!

@planetcaravan2925

Жыл бұрын

@@darnit1944 essentially the whole T14 is a toilet

@abdulmuizz4887

Жыл бұрын

@@planetcaravan2925 you literally can't have a decent constructive statement without cynical insults? 🤦

@planetcaravan2925

Жыл бұрын

@@abdulmuizz4887 sorry for hurting your fragile feelings, are you the main designer of the T14?

The higher turret allows for more negative elevation angle, easier to pop over a hill, fire a shot downward then back up allowing gravity to help. The Russian wanted smaller profile for assaults but in order for it to bring guns down onto a lower position it has to completely crest the hill then climb the hill backwards. The fourth crew allows easier Maintenance but is also simpler and safer. The auto loaders require the powder and shell to be two parts and much easier to catastrophically detonate during cook off.

@practicalmind8337

Жыл бұрын

US must not concentrate on developing more advance tank like abram x, russia and china is still no match to US ordinary abram. What US need is to put more missiles in the universe in countering russia and china aggressiveness. US need weapon melting russia at china missiles and destructive weapon.

@shorttimer874

Жыл бұрын

A lot of the narration has little to do with reality. The bit about exploding turrets disregards the M1's separation of ammo from the crew. The same about the US is jealous about not having 3 man crew, a tank is going to pop up and then duck back down, so rate of fire past 3 rounds makes little difference, when I was in an armored battalion tanks, back in the M60 days, tanks frequently had to make do when short a crewmember. Plus as you mentioned fewer to do maintenance tasks. Everything is a tradeoff, and every feature has both good & bad points. I'll bet some of this is deliberately antagonistic to generate more comments for KZread's algorithm. I did envy the British tank crews though, with their water heater for tea.

@nationalsniper5413

10 ай бұрын

Being able to do a hull down position is an important part of tank tactics, which tanks with a low profile lack, seriously limiting their capabilities. Russian autoloaders are terrible, but Leclerc and K2 appear to have capable auto loaders and separate ammo from crew. I do think that autoloaders are a way forward but only IF you can separate crew from ammo.

Having a 4th crewman is valuable for maintenance and recovery

@kingofpoland88

Жыл бұрын

Yeah totally agree on that but on the positive I like the idea of 30mm

@GN-zw4pt

Жыл бұрын

4th siting on top soo dont worry

@ernestjohnson1807

Жыл бұрын

I never had a full crew in all my 10 years on an Abrams. So I'll take an auto loader over no loader.

@lance8730

Жыл бұрын

@@ernestjohnson1807 na you been to combat with a 3 man or just a rotation

@lance8730

Жыл бұрын

@Ernest Johnson I'd trust an auto loader about as much as the crows. Too many points of failure. And who are you trusting to maintain it. I also wanna know how many random bolts are you missing and is your coax feeder shoot I'm emaculate shape. Fuck that I want a dumbest loader to do it. He also manages radios and helps navigate when you have him. A loader is invaluable if you are afforded it

Excuse me? Lol. With a good loader, my crew was able to pop off 15 rounds in one minute. They were all Sabot. But nonetheless they were rounds. Almost our entire ready rack. Edit: Abrams of course.

Neglected to mention, the Abrams has a separate ammo compartment, which is why it’s survived. Even direct hits and ammo has completely blown up, and the Krew survived.

@rodneyhirsch2340

Жыл бұрын

Totally wrong, others have made points. Manual loaders are far faster and better under any circumstances. Yes I was in armor, we had a person loading who never had done it before. Was not assigned to tanks. Result- identification and 3 shots on target in less than 15 seconds.

@protorhinocerator142

Жыл бұрын

@@rodneyhirsch2340 Some Russian tanks have auto-loaders, so... no. None of them are better under any circumstances.

All of these Offensive and incredible defensive improvements with a 50% less Fuel Burn? And a Drone operator? Plus 50% less fuel burn? Just name it the ‘King Abrams’. Mother of God.

Finally GM after all the decades and decades of waiting it Is HERE!!!!!! And it is beyond words it is amazing 😀

The next MBT will have a fourth personnel… Not as a loader but mainly as the UAV operator and other electronics built into the tank…

The only upgrade was the 120mm? HAHAHA! Should probably research more about DU inserts, fire control upgrades, thermal upgrades, APUs, and kinematic lead changes. These are more than “cosmetic.”

@HornetVF103

Жыл бұрын

Agree, this story missed a lot of technology in the current Abrams and the tank is now over 70 tons thanks DU. The DU saves lives and makes the beast virtually impervious to current Russian rounds.

@MikeDMinor

Жыл бұрын

APS, enhanced Data links, additional power reserves , Hybrd power train, etc.

@timothybunnsr.5490

Жыл бұрын

‘and loud”

@edkrach8891

Жыл бұрын

Those other systems were upgraded or replaced. This guy dropped the ball.

@williamroberts6803

Жыл бұрын

Plus ammunition in separate storage to not explode and kill crew.

Whoa, thar Charlie. The FIRST thing that caught my Eye, is that there is NO TURRET. @1:37 image shows NO Turret. Kin to the the Stridsvagn 103 Height With topmounted MG: 2.43 m (8 ft 0 in); Height To cupola: 2.14 m (7 ft 0 in); To vehicle roof: 1.90 m (6 ft 3 in); To barrel centre when horizontal: 1.70 m (5 ft 7 in)

Truly interesting! At 8:17, the narrator mentions the Lima Tank Plant in Lima, Ohio. (During the early 1940s, it made M4 Sherman Medium Tanks.) However, the on-screen captioning read "the Lyme Tank Plant in Lyme, Ohio".

So what about the concept prototype MBT models the US Army showed last year? Lots of interesting designs was shown.

@SnowRookie

Жыл бұрын

They probably classified the designs they followed up with

@arnolddmanila986

Жыл бұрын

@@SnowRookie xq

General Abrams took the fight to the Enemy. Out ranged and gunned. That man...Made the best of what he could and Won!

The West has received T-72B3, T-80BVMs and T-90s and now a T-90M from Ukraine First the 125mm gun and ammo will be tested against Western armor which will either drive new upgrades or a new tank design depending on how well the armor performs Second the West in turn will test its 120mm rounds against the T-72B3, T-80BVMs,and T-90/ T-90M armor The amount of testing that West will do will determine the future of many programs as well weapons

@Deniggafyer

Жыл бұрын

Hell yeah brothers, eradicating the Putin disease 1 step at a time!

@karlanthonybarraca1641

Жыл бұрын

I think it can, since lots of western weapons given to ukraine proves it on battlefield already.

@pjdu5yifutd

Жыл бұрын

Russia got m1 abrams since 1990 cuz of the gulf war. Fsb agent probably already got the abrams X plans like they always got the US plan. We seen the capacity of the fsb in terms of spying.

@geococcyx7543

Жыл бұрын

The west has had T-72s for decades. And T-80s. And probably T-90s.

@verdebusterAP

Жыл бұрын

@@geococcyx7543 T-72B3, T-80BVMs and T-90s and T-90M represent the latest models with the newest tech

4:38 Efforts at developing autoloaders first began during World War Two. The first fully functional system was developed in 1945 by the United States, for use in the 75 mm gun of T22E1 medium tank.

Finally! Some information about our closest ally in eastern europe Thank you General Dinamics and thos channel for this update :)

The Army...be all you can be! Long live the new Tank! 😉😁😆

You are supposed to have three divisions of tanks. Light, Medium and Heavy. Light tanks are best suited to use in cities, because they are smaller, easier to turn with and of course lighter. Light enough to not be a major concern in getting through, over or by obstacles. Your medium tank is supposed to offer some actual fire power, but are more sporatic. As lighter tanks along with armed personnel can more easily comb through an area, medium tanks are only meant to be used in areas of urgent need, otherwise they are just meant for crowd control when the light tanks are not enough. The heavy tanks are supposed to just be used in fields of battle, not in urban crowded areas. The heavy tank is pretty much useless today as most fighting is in streets, but they can be useful to deter movement of enemy troops in the fields where they are most useful. Unlike Medium and Light Tanks which can be destroyed rather easily (light tanks can only repel bullet fire and not much else), heavy tanks can only be harmed with very specialized and expensive equipment or with a malfunction that causes its ammo to explode.

@georgepalmer5497

Жыл бұрын

Light and medium tanks can't handle heavy tanks in head to head combat, but light and medium tanks do better on soggy ground. I've read that battles have been won by light tanks being able to get in places their heavier comrades couldn't go.

@sagittariusa7662

Жыл бұрын

@@georgepalmer5497 Of course not, I just told you that. Light Tanks can only repel bullet fire at best and a Medium Tank has some protection, but no where near what a heavy tank has. Light Tank: "I'm going to blast you to Kingdom Come." Heavy Tank: "Oh that is so cute. Time to squash you!"

I have not heard anying positive about the auto loader system. Perhaps the other western countries or the Israelis can comment if they use one. The Russians use to be a major builder of excellent armor, but that was back when the T-34 models were being built. Simple, solid, sturdy. Once things got complicated and more electronics involved, they have come down in quality.

@josephherrera6656

Жыл бұрын

The French MBT Leclerc has a auto loader

Thank you.

Thank you for this video, Finland is soon updating her arsenal. AbramsX is natural evolution of tanks.

Thank you for the tuition. I am greatful. Something more I Have learnt.

Very bold to be called a military news channels and not know the fundamental design choices made for tanks like the abrams and T90 tanks

We need to add the tanks but keep the heaviest tanks in our inventory

Auto loaders biggest problem is every single moving part has to work perfectly to load the round. Not to think that types of ammo to be used is severely limited if they are loaded in a "queue." Have ap loaded but have troops in the open?

If you know how procurement works in the U.S department of defense then you know this vehicle is unlikely to enter service with the Army. The AbramsX is a General Dynamics internal program aimed at overseas sales with the hope of a U.S Army contract.

@layneparker7408

Жыл бұрын

US government would never allow the sell of a better tank overseas then the one US military currently operates.

An engine is an engine and treads are treads. The fire control systems of Abrams have been redone probably several times. The T90 is rehashed T80 and the Armata is cardboard and plywood over a Yugo for military parade purposes.

Since a rail gun is currently impracticable for a tank because of the restrictions of generating enough electricity, We need something different. The Germans have developed a 130mm gun that is excellent. What the problem is the number of rounds carried carried by the upgrade to this gun is limited to 20 rounds in the ready loader and 10 rounds additionally stored aboard. This severly limits the staying power of the tank, for example the 105mm Israli Centurions that faced the Syrian tank hoards carried 68 rounds. If it had been limited to 30 rounds, Israel would have been overrun. To increase the number of rounds the Army could go for caseless ammunition and inject a propellant and oxidizer from externally armored pods. They could carry close to 55 rounds of 130mm if they went to this configuration.

@layneparker7408

Жыл бұрын

No need for 130mm. The xm360 on abrams X out performs German 130mm and is comparable to 140mm gun.

@NovaScotiaNewfie

Жыл бұрын

They even canceled testing for the US Navy. They are going with hypersonic missiles vs railguns.

Some of this stuff Needs to be Compared with how well they have done in combat

What about the german KF51 Panther from Rheinmetall?

@cortney3280

Жыл бұрын

Will never be produced

@finki007

Жыл бұрын

@@cortney3280 Why?

@layneparker7408

Жыл бұрын

@@finki007 Because Germany doesn't care about its military

It's spelled LIMA, like the damn bean!

i can't unsee a Jagdpanzer Abrams now at 1:37

That's affirmative I agree we need a new Abrams x 👍👍

Hard to tell which tank is best, but M-1 still the most seriously businesslike tank in appearance.

I like both the M1 Abrams tank and the Abrams X tank I like both

The M1A2 Abrams is a beautiful tank, I want it to remain operational for many more decades, and never need to be replaced by the Abramsx. And I want it upgraded from M1A2 to M1A3 Abrams!

@MS79Canesfan

Жыл бұрын

Yeah this dude is Abrams x homer!! Our Tanks are battle proven and the crews Love them!

The smaller tank gives no advantage on the battlefield but a big disadvantage on acquiring targets.

put some amor on the back of that tank

Looks like they are using my barrel technology that I introduced to Piccatinny Arsenal 13 years ago.

6:16 man spitting some truth😂

We need lots of our own tanks!

Hi, the Scots, Northern Irish, Welsh & English would call the Challenger 2 a "British" tank 😃

6:03 That's a Chieftain...

BEST TANK IN THE WORLD ALSO BEST TANK EVER

We need fewer heavy MBT’s and way more light tanks (105mm and 50mm), and WAYYY more fire-and-forget missiles.

Abrams X must have German 130mm Rheinmetall RH-130 Gun rather than current 120mm. It's better than 120mm.

@ImStillWoody

Жыл бұрын

The US will likely do what they did with the M1 Abrams & design the overall tank first then add a new mm gun in an upgrade like they did with the M1A1 Abrams. I could see the US calling this new Abrams the M2 Abrams & then when a 130mm gun or 140mm gun is ready for use they'll upgrade the M2 to the M2A1 Abrams with either a 130mm or 140mm gun.

@rajpawar9343

Жыл бұрын

Yeah maybe. Future will tell.

@ImStillWoody

Жыл бұрын

@@rajpawar9343 True

@layneparker7408

Жыл бұрын

No need for 130mm. Abramsx has xm360 120mm that has better velocity then a 140mm.

@floydrandol2731

Жыл бұрын

I heard it was a 121mm with a much longer Shell. Kinda like WW2. 75mm to 76mm gun, basically same diameter but much longer.

Build tanks that don't need a people. A drone tank.

Sooo the abrams is already protected from 'ammo racking' unless they have the ammo door open (when loading), an auto loader is prone to breaking down and prone to launching turrets sky high in Russian tanks due to the way the ammo is stored for the auto loader and small size to be implemented... but, these problems can be dialed down.

@stevebovee2314

Жыл бұрын

Don't forget that autoloaders in Russian tanks have a tendency to take off arms of careless crew members. And it is not easy to change out types of ammo that is already loaded in the main gun. Usually crews in Russian tanks will fire what is already loaded and then switch the next round for the type they need (I.e. Fire off a sabot round and switch to HEAT or HEAP) at the time.

This is not a production vehicle and is ONLY a tech demonstrator so the alarms replacement is yet to be prototyped so we’re a long ways away from seeing the abrams being replaced

You need a 4th crew man for security.

Yet another Abrams tank review with no clue about how each upgrade changed the Tank. It has been the # 1 contender for 40 years!!!

@michael-h8153

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, I can understand the Abrahams might be loosing ground, but it also completely changed modern warfair...I wish I was as sitting In a chair thinking these new tanks are pretty cool, but I did 40 years ago

I am I’m sure when General Dynamics finally shows the tank you’ll have a bunch of Chinese people in the audience with cameras, trying to take every angle of pictures of the tank. Damn less than 6 miles of range. I don’t see how that thing is going to survive out there.

The new meta of battlefield speed and mobility and supply, likely means these are already legacy or at a minimum of deep defence.

The war in Ukraine is the ultimate advertising for such an item as this.

*They should put all the money in the development of better MANPADS as they same to be cheaper tank-killers*

Well a turret less tank have a lot of drawbacks like you will have to move the ENTIRE tank just to adjust the barrel. And a crew less turret means it can be smaller and if you do that then you could technically lower the area under the turret a bit. And no the us military or any military dont need something that can only operate in 1 biom. That makes it useless.

@abramson262

Жыл бұрын

bruh the STRV-103 was a MBT without a turret

@Appletank8

Жыл бұрын

@@abramson262 Do note that the S Tank was eventually given up on when it was proven that gun stablization tech got good enough to fire accurately at speed. Before that though, in a defensive context, it worked for what they wanted

@abramson262

Жыл бұрын

@@Appletank8 still its an MBT

@Appletank8

Жыл бұрын

@@abramson262 Not arguing that, but the benefits of having no turret are too outweighed by everything else now that gun stablization is reliable.

Anti-tank weaponry has become so extremely powerful that no practical amount of passive armor will fully protect a tank against them. The most effective way to protect a tank on the battlefield is by thinking outside the box. This is where active protection, reactive plates, cage armor, and missile lock-confusing smoke packages comes into play. Blowout panels for the tank's reinforced ammunition magazines have saved tank crews in the past.

Ha, you made this four hours before GD released a brief 56 second video of the Abrams X

I hope there is better front hull armor.

Why do you compare it with the old german tank Leopard 2A7? We got a new one too, the KF51 Panther 😜

Yes we need them

I was FDY at APG when the XM1 hit the range

@kungfury1532

Жыл бұрын

I went there a few months ago to test out for another project. When was the XM1 introduced over there?

It’s the Lima Army Tank Plant, not the Lyme Tank Plant. It’s located in Lima, Ohio, not Lyme, Ohio. The Western armies are not at fault for not having adopted an auto-loader in the past 30 years. An auto-loader has issues it must overcome: mechanical unreliability, the need to store tank rounds in or near the turret basket for ease of loading the breach of the cannon (this exposed ammo is why the T-72 and T-80 tanks are blowing up spectacularly after suffering a hit in the turret or turret basket area), and there is one less crewman availability to assist with vehicle maintenance. The Russian T-14 Armata appears to have solved the exposed ammo issue by moving the crew down into the hull, and the ammo up into the turret. Has the US Army solved the auto-loader problem? Maybe so in the Abrams X - let’s see…

I recall during 4th of July in 2019, when President Trump was in power and called for a military parade, the M1 Abrams tanks were so HEAVY that the US Army need to lay down some protective materials on the road, else the weight of the Tanks driving on the US Roads would crack the road surface. not to mention how much fuel it will take the tank to go 1mile. the M1 Abrams was a contender for Singapore's Army MBT in the past but due to the weight and that it will not be able to cross most of the bridges and the roads, without damaging it, the Singapore Army picked the Leopard 2 A3 variant which is lighter.

what if a drone split into 20 smaller drones, some decoys some real.. and fall towards the tank.. how many can the laser beam shoot down before some of the 20 impact? is the laser effective in fog or dust storm, thunderstorm..etc.

Can you Imagine what kind of Wrecker or Wreckers it will take to turn the tank back onto its tracks if it rolls over.

The 30mm is nice to see but I am wondering if they could have gone with the newer 50mm Canon or a version of it and still b e able to fit it on there. That would make the Abraham's X a force to be reckoned with!!!

@cortney3280

Жыл бұрын

No 30mm would be better then a darn 50mm

@anniesa531

Жыл бұрын

@@cortney3280 true, bigger guns doesn't mean better, less ammo etc

Good research, i didn't know Lima,Ohio was spelled Lyme,Ohio. 🤔🤔

Wow, 1980’s…bring back the mullet.

it does not matter what i think it comes down to the price of each tank.

@1963Austria

Жыл бұрын

the price is no problem.....what about strength, survivability, fire power, speed etc.........if they had Donald Trump aboard, his big mouth and hot air would be more powerful than any 120MM

T-series tanks still have the flaw of their auto loader being in a ring under the turret which blows the turret sky high in the event of magazine detonation. On the Abrams X this is solved by keeping the auto loader on the back with blow out panels on an uninhabited turret.

Modern anti-tank rockets explode above the turret without contact anyway.😊

cool.

There should be a height limit for tankers.

Impressive

Drones attack has changed warfare.

I think we all know by now the Autoloader setup is an automatic tank kill plus up to 3 dead crewmen on Russian tanks. I hope the engineers have figured out a way to fix this on the new AbramsX.

They rly called it the ABRAMSX

It's been publically stated the crew will be in the hull and the main gun will use an auto loader.

Vladimir (Russian: Влади́мир) is a masculine given name of Slavic origin, widespread throughout all Slavic nations in different forms and spellings. Meaning: "of great power".

Finally

More room inside also makes it more comfortable which equals to less fatigue making the crew more alert and battle ready. Aso tanks are no longer found by the naked eye. Therefore, the tank size argument that it's much easier to see because of 1 meter in size is not a good argument. Shooting faster isn't a good argument because western tanks are more accurate. I would take accuracy over fire rate any day. The only good argument is the weight of the western tanks.

What are we seeing at 1:37 ?? No Turret ?? What tank is that ??

Very good USA:

the reasons Russian tanks turrets blow off is because the shells are stored directly under the turret in the carrousel, that won’t happen with western tanks. Result you could repair the western tank should it suffer a ammunition fire, you lose the Russian tank period, I know which I would choose.

@abdulmuizz4887

Жыл бұрын

I reckon they would learn better moving forward

@colinblackie9654

Жыл бұрын

@@abdulmuizz4887 The Russian T14 Armata also has the ammunition in a carrousel under the turret, now granted the turret is unmanned and the crew sits in a armoured capsule but there’s still a greater risk of losing the tank to an ammunition fire, if you hold the ammunition in the turret in a separate compartment with blowout panels it possibly reduces the chances of losing the tank to an ammunition fire. Result not only does the crew survive but the tank could too

Where is this from? 7:52 I never knew the president went to a tank factory himself lol. A documentary or something?

@BattleshipOrion

Жыл бұрын

How about I let you ponder with one simple fact from someone near said factory: because some of us don't want to get nuked, don't ask where, how or when. In fact I wish the whole visit was not even televised or known in the first place.

I will have a new hybrid power plant to reduce carbon emissions.

@matthewgibbs6886

Жыл бұрын

that good for warfare reducing carbon emissions.

all they did was add a x at the end cute :) lol

We could have done the job with the M-60A3, a very good tank! Russian tankers are shorter than US tankers. Have always been shorter.

The height of the tank like the Russian Tank or the S-tank, is to make the tank LOW profile so its a smaller target to hit headon, i think that was before the age of ATGMs if the armor of these new tanks are so thick does it mean that MODERN LAWS (light Anti tank weapons, one shot and discard) useless?

If the Ukrainian war has taught us anything, we need 5000 new AbramsX NOW. And then I hope everyone has realized how mistaken we were on the estimated number of artillery and tank rounds we thought it would take to fight this type of war i.e tier 1 armies with state of the art weaponry at full battle mode would consume on a main battle tank war that we would have had in the days of the Fulda Gap between East and West Germany. From the people I respect they are revaluating the estimates as we speak. Number 2, is the amount of weaponry we need to have pre-positioned in the NATO countries.

While it sounds great along with being up near the top for a long time now with upgrades, but the USA 🇺🇸 also needs to think about it’s weight while watching documentaries of the Tanks Germany built the bigger the Tank the wider the tracks giving it a larger surface to distribute it’s weight much better doesn’t help crossing a bridge or a River thought. Next step if the shape is what you want then scale down the Abrams so it can cross bridges and rivers as even in the Second World War you had light & Medium Tanks, even the scaled down South Korean Tank looks like a smaller version to the Abrams but love the way it can raiser lower itself.

I'm wodnering, is it possible to put kevlar in tanks? I mean, to make them faster and consume less fuel, they need to be lighter first. Maybe a combination of kevlar and carbon fiber. It could be really expensive but it will be faster in combat. It can dodge any attack while reloading with it's sensors that detects incoming missiles.. And also maybe in the future, tanks will use electric motors instead of internal combustion engines to make it even lighter. Technology is rapidly improving and we can't stop it. Autonomous robots, flying cars, drones, and other super advance tech are just fictions a few decades ago and now they are real.

Sounds like a bettter tank, but damn they need to work on a less thirsty tank

I see no problem using an auto loader, but maybe somehow design the inner turret with enough room for a loader to climb up and take over in case of auto loader failure.

I think tanks need toilets of some kind.

No 130mm gun like the new German Panther?

Guy obviously doesn’t know that abrams doesn’t store it’s ammunition in turret so it can’t explode and kill the crew. Do at least a little research.

With the advent of widespread use of Javelins and high Russian tank losses how valid is a obscenely heavy manned tank? I’d think that swarms of lighter remote controlled or AI tanks are the future.