I'm eating a bagel.

@TK-pk7pm

Жыл бұрын

What toppings?

@snarfwallaby2180

Жыл бұрын

Now I want one

@carsoncoyne9765

Жыл бұрын

same

@gabrielmora8403

Жыл бұрын

Nice I had a seasme this morning what about you?

@lil_angle6449

Жыл бұрын

@@TK-pk7pm mayonnaise

the abram x prototype is honestly more of a test bed for a bunch of things the army is interested in so they can see what they do and dont want from it

@arthurpeters1996

Жыл бұрын

True

@user-pq4by2rq9y

Жыл бұрын

It's more like a upgrade package, isn’t it? You can modify the old abrams chassis and save yourself some money.

@skeeman7514

Жыл бұрын

@@user-pq4by2rq9y I think with this many upgrades it’ll be cheaper and easier to build a new one, one thing I’m worried about though is that it seems like it’ll be extremely expensive to make one of these, so I’m sure there’s no way these are replacing anything

@haph2087

Жыл бұрын

@@skeeman7514 Yeah, unless they used large amounts of interchangeable parts (which it does not appear they did) they wouldn't be retrofitting old tanks. I definitely agree with Lenore that it's probably intended as a test to see what features they can make, and if a version ends up in production, it will only have part of these features.

@pata6129

Жыл бұрын

I never understood why they never added a ball turret type of mechanism for the machine gun on top of tanks.. worked for B-17s in WW2

My brother was telling me about how in 79 when he was in the army, they had a chance to see the M1A1 before it was released into service. He was telling me that everyone was hyped over it and really thought this was it, this tank was gonna rule the battlefield.

@gfys756

Жыл бұрын

Your brother was right.

@russellstyles5381

Жыл бұрын

Yes. Repairing the fire direction computer on the XM1 was very easy. Take the 4 boards out, plug into a diagnostic machine one at a time, replace faulty board. Looked kind of like a pc board today. They split one of the early ones into two bits. The mechanics had a tank with no turret, the turret guys had a turret on a metal frame, hooked up to a big Christy power supply. Big yellow line marked on floor. Do not cross it when turret is operational. I imagine that the tank had diagnostics to allow the mechanics to know which board to give tech support.

The hybrid mode for the new tank sounds really cool. Being able to monitor your enemies and maybe fire a shot off before backing away on just electricity really would make it an assassin tank. Then when the battle gets hot, you just turn on the engine and go business as usual

@JudgeDillon

Жыл бұрын

Don't forget that you can operate the tank with essentially no thermal profile (with the popularity and availability of thermal imaging this is game changing)

@NicholasW943

7 ай бұрын

@@JudgeDillon I'd be curious how often that'll ever be done. I imagine when it does run off diesel, it'll get the metal near the exhaust very hot, which would probably keep it bright on anything looking for a heat signature for awhile after it goes to electric.

@squatchbigfoot8577

6 ай бұрын

wrong, just the sun heats metal to give off a thermal profile@@JudgeDillon

@squatchbigfoot8577

6 ай бұрын

how will you charge it? the first thing to go in a war is electricity...and you cant wait around 7 hours to charge it off a diesel generator....hybrid is junk, take it from a tank commander of 20 years.

@JudgeDillon

6 ай бұрын

@@squatchbigfoot8577 1) Smaller thermal profile in daylight. 2) Night time (when thermal imaging is typically used)

"Only lost to friendly fire." A tank so good that it can only be defeated by itself.

@Leftnut59

Жыл бұрын

Several were knocked out by IED's

@subjectc7505

Жыл бұрын

Wait until you hear the story of the time an Abrams couldn't destroy an Abrams

@B.D.E.

Жыл бұрын

@@Leftnut59 damaged tracks yes, destroyed no.

@jacobfitzgerald6481

Жыл бұрын

A tank to powerful

@briant5685

Жыл бұрын

hezbollah massacred dozen of them together with merkava tanks in a velley during the 2006 war using kornet anti-tank missiles

I was a member of the very first 19K class and was a the gunner for our company commander's tank during Desert Storm in 4th Battalion 70th Armor. Our battalion destroyed an entire Iraqi Republican Guards division in a little more than two hours in the battle named "Madina Ridge" after we crested a ridge to come face to face with the Republican Guards division. It was like Mike Tyson vs a school yard bully. Great memories.

@sector986

Жыл бұрын

Ty for your service. 🫡

@themanwhowouldbebrick

Жыл бұрын

Dang! Thanks for your service

@garyhall2770

Жыл бұрын

The wreckage of that battle was still there in 2003. I saw it while conveying from Doha to Baghdad.

@TheYeiBI

Жыл бұрын

We germans still have the best Tanks in the world

@numberonefuturediaryfan

Жыл бұрын

@@TheYeiBI Nah

being able to get in an abrams and talk with the tank crew was certainly a highlight of my childhood. amazing machine.

The Abrams X is the tank i have been dreaming of when i was a child. A tank with a hybrid engine. All crews on the hull for safety. An autoloader so the remote controlled gun atop the turret can be focused on by the 4th crew and the commander can focus on the surroundings for enemy. The only one missing is the capability of troop transport like the Merkava and hoping for a drone capability to scout hidden troops in the area. But all good for the Abrams X

@Sorain1

Жыл бұрын

I'd suggest dropping the troop transport idea, let an IFV handle that. Drone capability on the other hand? That sounds like a useful option.

@UnderpaidGuardD9

3 ай бұрын

Drone capability, drone capability Imagine seeing the world above your tank like it's war thunder, sounds like such an advantage for me

@alexthedemon2203

Ай бұрын

@@Sorain1 Its a great idea

The Abrams is propelled by a turbine, not a gasoline-fueled engine, so they could be using diesel fuel today if they wanted. Turbines will run on everything from Jet A to vodka... which come to think of it would be pretty handy if you overran a Russian camp.

@iancameron8391

Жыл бұрын

Assuming the video is right with the multi-fuel logistics conundrum, the army’s got to have a reason to not run diesel in the tanks. A turbine is not picky, but if there was truly no difference between fuels, they would already be using diesel. So there’s gotta be something. Maybe its soot buildup idk.

@silentdrew7636

Жыл бұрын

@@iancameron8391 as I recall it's a power issue.

@martendschrage

Жыл бұрын

The army already uses one fuel type. The engines are all diesel types.

@godhatesusall85

Жыл бұрын

If you overran a russian camp, there would be no vodka. The russians would have drank it all, and would be desperately waiting for the next shipment and you know that

@dustintacohands1107

Жыл бұрын

@@godhatesusall85 indeed you gotta catch them before they can open it very risky

Some fact-checking for this video: When listing the countries other than the USSR that have auto-loading tanks, it should be noted that the Germans' Leopard 2 does NOT use an autoloader. In fact, the M256 used on the current-generation Abrams is a license-built version of the same Rheinmetall Rh-120 gun used on the Leopard 2 series. As for the types of fuel used, the US Army has standardized that all vehicles, including the Abrams, be able to operate on JP-8 fuel, so they already are operating from the same fuel source.

@BigDsGaming2022

Жыл бұрын

Abrams is a 45 year old US tank totally outdated

@LOPM63672

Жыл бұрын

ok

@Angelthewolf

Жыл бұрын

@@BigDsGaming2022 Ur standing on an very unpopular point right there, the past years have shown that the abrams is still very capable of fighting in modern wars

@crowe6961

Жыл бұрын

@@BigDsGaming2022 It's been upgraded continuously since its inception. The Abrams is entirely on the same level as European MBTs and still superior to anything the Russians can field in numbers.

@P3ntom

Жыл бұрын

Thats kinda wrong, an Autoloader was added to the Leopard II, also the M1 had a test model with an excellent autoloader.

The chieftain did a video on this, but the Russian auto loader is not a weakness of the Russian tank. It’s the excess ammo stored everywhere else in the turret that makes them extremely vulnerable. Ammo stored in the bottom of the tank presents low risk, ammo stored in and around the gunner, rear turret, next to the driver, literally everywhere. You’re asking for everyone inside to die.

@1985slipstream

Жыл бұрын

Maybe the Russians value more ammo than crew survivability? Seems to have been their doctrine through most wars.

@uniquescorpions4802

Жыл бұрын

@@1985slipstream Mass production + higher populous = expendable

@uniquescorpions4802

Жыл бұрын

it was a good video and actually had facts, unlike this inforgraphic video smh

@denniskarlsson7121

Жыл бұрын

@@1985slipstream you gonna tell us about the asiatic hordes you learned from enemy at the gates next?

@operaatio5117

Жыл бұрын

The ammo was placed tank warfare in mind. The Russian tanks are designed to fight other tanks, not missiles. Hence their ammo location.

Others have stated this already but the Abrams X is more of a tech show or test bed for either a potentially new tank design or a major upgrade to current M1A2s. More than likely the army may decide to pick out individual pieces of the tank that they would actually want. I can see them taking the gun (no auto-loader) for it's lighter weight but the auto-loader with the separate remote controlled turret DOES have their perks with faster reloads while retaining the ever so valuable blowout panels. The 30mm chain gun is a MUST HAVE seeing as that's apparently the same chain gun used on the Apache. The engine could go either way. While the diesel-electric hybrid which is a Cummins Ace (looked it up) is pretty enticing for the US's "eco friendly" program even for the military & the price of gas, it might still be a hard pass for the turbine engine that uses multiple available fuel types to fall back on. Other systems like the active protective system will be a necessity but I'm also worried about the hatches at the front. God forbid they need to bail out only to get gunned down at the front.

The new tank by Rhein Metal, the Panther, has a three man crew as well but it has a place for a fourth crew member. For example a specialist for communications, a drone pilot or an unit commander.

@cesaravegah3787

Жыл бұрын

Love modern German designs, slightly less powerful than American designs, yet way cheaper and reliable.

@chris5918

Жыл бұрын

@@cesaravegah3787 Where do you take the fact that it is less powerful?

@cesaravegah3787

Жыл бұрын

@@chris5918 The Abrams is faster, have better armor, better targeting systems and uses uranium depleted rounds wich the germans refuse to use and are the most powerful canno rounds ever created, every military ranking of modern tanks have the Abrams as the number one with the Leopard 2 a close second, thanks for your question

@chris5918

Жыл бұрын

@@cesaravegah3787 Mi Go talked about the Panther so I thought you would as well. Maybe name the tank next time could help the prevent misunderstandings. About your claims Abrams vs Leopard Faster: Abrams 67 km/h Leopard: 68-72 km/h Armor: Hard to compare without tests (and I didnt find any that fast) While the Abrams has the thinner armor (700mm) compared to the Leopard (800-1500mm) it has a composite armor. Targeting: The Leopard 2A7 (2010) got a new targeting system Found nothing about the since 1992 used M1A2 Muniton: We were talking about the tanks not the munition. You dont have a better tank because you use other munition. Regardless First the Leopard 2 could also use the same munition secondly because the Leopard has a 1.3m longer barrel it has a higher muzzle velocity. With that tungesten rounds do the same damage as DU. You could even argue because of the barrel it is better in dealing damage. Rankings: "every military ranking of modern tanks have the Abrams as the number one with the Leopard 2 a close second," First 8 military rankings I just found on google: Leopard won: 2 Abrams won: 1 None won: 1 Had no real ranking but just a list: 4 After that there were more comparisions between 2 tanks or just a look at 1

@cesaravegah3787

Жыл бұрын

@@chris5918 yes, good comment, the South Korean is an excelent tank roughly comparable to the latest Leopard 2 models, very cost efective and arguibly more manouverable than the Abrams on mountain terrain, obviously ideal for fights on the Korean peninsula

I like how the Abrams and the AbramsX both come from previous failed tank programs. PS for the people that don't know the Abrams came of the MBT-70 program, while the AbramsX came from the M1 TTB(Tank Test Bed).

@AbruptandOffensive

Жыл бұрын

There is no innovation without failure. It’s a great lesson to be reminded of.

@Cha-Khia

Жыл бұрын

Because when they were designed (or at least in the case of the X), the technology didn't exist just yet to be able to actually build the tank, but the concept was there. Now the tech exists and the Tank might get made.

@stevenrodriguez763

Жыл бұрын

Most of the failed tank programs had generally good ideas. It’s just technology wasn’t caught up at the time.

@emhkayho

Жыл бұрын

In the end, isn't failure just a data point on the way to success.

@texasbutter1341

Жыл бұрын

You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet)

I’m actually pretty impressed with this tank, interested to see what they’ll do with it. Pretty good video

@boostjunkie2320

Жыл бұрын

Aurora loader makes it an easy target for drones...As seen in the Ukraine invasion. All the Russian tanks with the turrets flying up in the air

@thephoenix756

4 ай бұрын

​@@boostjunkie2320 The autoloader is not the problem; the ammumition in this case is completely isolated from the crew compartment; and there are blow-out panels to redirect ammunition coof-offs... ..And the Abrams won't ever use a dedicated HE/HE-frag round, so the possibility of catastrophic detonation is not an issue.

The current Abrams gas turbine runs on Jet A jet fuel, as does the rest of the US Army vehicle fleet. Commanality of fuel is one of the basics of logistics in any type of force.

@Sheridantank

Жыл бұрын

Do they not run on “anything that burns” like they say about many turbine engines?

@joshuadevera3137

Жыл бұрын

Nah definitely runs on jph (jet fuel) I found it odd he also said gas guzzling 🤣

@7891ph

Жыл бұрын

@@Sheridantank Somewhere along the line, the US military decided to standardize on jet fuel for the entire system. It means you can fuel up your helicopter's and jet's from the same truck that's fueling up tanks and APC's. And while turbines can, as you said "Run on anything that burns", they standardized on jet fuel for all branches of the military . Germany learned that lesson the hard way in WWII.

@coltnix6805

Жыл бұрын

We use diesel, jp8, and other fuels when necessary

One thing to note is that quite a few abrams now are equipped with CROWS which allows the commander to operate the .50 cal remotely although before this upgrade package as was said the commander would be "turned out" to fire the mg

@crowe6961

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, when even Humvees are getting CROWS, you best believe the tanks are getting them.

@DrewSummersTheGOAT

Жыл бұрын

@@crowe6961 it seems like a no brainier as soon as the technology is there. not sure why they wouldn't put it on everything immediately

Stealth technology includes heat and sound. loitering undetected is a major advantage. we have 'crew-chiefs' in our military who can fix just about anything. That #4 man is sometimes the most important to survival of the crew and the mission.

The German Leopard 2, Even the newest 2A7V doesn't have an autoloader, But The new KF51 Panther who is as Advanced, if not even more advanced as The AbramsX has an autoloader

I think that even if the Abrams X doesn't get mass produced, having a new design on hand that is made and tested in small amounts to at least give the option for a new upgrade should the need arise. Can at least have a design handy if one doesn't want to commit the resources to actually making bunch of them pre-emptively.

@Kraken160th

Жыл бұрын

The issue being its designed for a prewar economy and supply line

@herpderp1662

Жыл бұрын

All they have to do to make it appealing to the US army is say it identifies as something it isnt, and paint it with an LGBT/feminist hybrid flag livery. And put a little "i voted for biden" sticker on the turret.

@adventwolfbane

Жыл бұрын

It wasn't really built to be mass-produced. It is a technology demonstrator to show off each of the new systems and upgrades over current equipment.

@kr0b1486

Жыл бұрын

Ya I mean, why buy a tank when you can buy a plane or drone.

@Adam509846

Жыл бұрын

@@kr0b1486 Because drones and planes are unable to hold and conquer land. Not every army is Taliban, some armies have well-developed anti-aircraft defenses, which prevents you from carelessly destroying tanks by planes and drones, in which case you just need good tanks.

Another reason the AbramsX isn't going to enter service is that it was built as a technology demonstrator not for production of a new MBT. It is showing off the new features and equipment that have been developed over the years. What is liked and works will be used to eventually design new combat vehicles or as possible upgrades that can be added. If the army did decide to approve the AbramsX it would be a more streamlined version than the demonstrators.

i really like the irl image u put , great work as always

A Gunnery Sergent I talked to who spent his career working on the Abrams said there are massive amounts of classified info on this platform. He only knew 25% of the data. But I'm pretty sure current platforms don't require the operator to expose themselves to fire the machine guns, either the dual 240 or the .50. Remedial may differ.

@BigBirdUSMC011

Жыл бұрын

Strikers don’t expose their gunners

The M1A1 is powered by a gas turbine engine. Essentially a jet engine with an output shaft to hook to a transmission. It does not run on gasoline, I believe it’s preferred fuel is jet fuel. It can also run on diesel and in a pinch gasoline.

@vincentlee7359

Жыл бұрын

Can it run on cooking oil?

@alexwalker2582

Жыл бұрын

@@vincentlee7359 If you keep the oil heated most of the way to it's ignition point? Probably.

@FYAjibber000

Жыл бұрын

Yes it primarily runs on JP-8 jet fuel. Which is useful for 2 reasons...1) no one else does this, so enemies capturing US tank fuel is worse then useless to them, and 2) it is less flammable then things like gasoline making it moderately safer for the tank crew as they don't need to worry as much about the fuel going boom.

@Ornelas11B

Жыл бұрын

@@FYAjibber000 My fuel point in Afghanistan was massive bladder bags full of JP-8.

@GOD719

Жыл бұрын

It can run on anything combustible. It compresses the air like a diesel. So it can run on biofuel, diesel, gas, jet fuel, alcohol.

Just an FYI, the Leopard 2 is also manually loaded. It uses the same Rheinmetall Rh-120 that the Abrams uses.

@Seir

Жыл бұрын

I think that in light of what's going on in Ukraine tank designers are going to taking a very hard look at current auto-loading systems.

@SelfProclaimedEmperor

Жыл бұрын

@@Seir Auto loaders are what has killed thousands of Russian tankers in Ukraine, it needs shells out in the open, so once the turret is penetrated they all blow up in an auto loader system, sending the turret flying. Granted if the turret is unmanned like the AbramsX proposes, then it should be ok

@RedSkull67104

Жыл бұрын

For the loading you are right but it is not the same Rheinmetall Rh-120 that the Abrams uses. The Abrams uses the L44 version and the Leopard 2 is only useing the L44 up and including to the version A5. A6 and A7 is useing the L55 and the A7+ version is geting the L55A1 version. That´s because the european´s dont use the depleted uranium ammo like the US is doing. The A1 version can shoot the DM11 witch is a programmable multipurpose cartridge.

@thunderwrld

Жыл бұрын

The Abrams is a modified l/44

@jtl05

Жыл бұрын

@@SelfProclaimedEmperor it was proven the auto loader wasnt the reason.

FYI, almost every vehicle the army uses can run on the same jet fuel as the Abrams tends to use. It’s very similar to diesel, just doesn’t have as high a lubricity, so vehicles like MRAPs had engines designed to take that. Also, Abrams gas turbines can run on most heavier liquid fuels from vegetable oil to diesel to jet fuel.

I was a captain of a tank unit during the Korean conflict. We had the M48. 90 mm shells. A great tank for its time. I have kept up with the continued improvement of tanks over the years including the current Abrams. I have never encountered any tank old or modern that could not be defeated. They all have a weak spot. The survival rate has improved over the years. Even though there are great upgrades you can bet the enemy will find a way to to overcome the improvements. Currently there is no tank that can be 100% survivable. So far, the Abrams is the best both defensively and offensively. Another issue with the current tanks is the training needed to handle all the high tech equipment and to use the equipment in combat situations without a panic attack. The "old days" it was point and shoot using the aiming device at that time.

The geopolitical types of videos are my favorite ones you guys put out. Keep up the great work!

@reeldeelz2940

Жыл бұрын

Way too unbalanced on the side of the USA as if the USA could do no wrong Geopolitically..

@alexterry558

Жыл бұрын

That is not true they constantly put criticism towards America and their geopolitical views

@jerrynaylor4092

Жыл бұрын

@@reeldeelz2940 not as bad as russia or China an iran.compared to those the us is a Saint.

@chadzahirshah2588

Жыл бұрын

@@reeldeelz2940 This just shows that Russian Stan’s will go to any video criticizing Russia, China, Iran, etc. and bash the channel creators claiming they are too “pro US” without actually looking at the channels and how they bash the west too.

@anarchyorslavery1616

Жыл бұрын

@@chadzahirshah2588 what is a stan?

Love your guys videos there really enjoyable to watch if you guys need an idea you should do the evolution of the R.P.G ( rocket propelled grenade)

i worked on the M1, M1IP, and M1A1 in the 80-90's. given that the area is secure: you need to cross a bridge, but the tank weighs too much, but only by a few tons, do the following... remove the side skirts (2-5 tons, depending on composition) .. remove the power pack (2 tons) defuel (2 ton) .. remove the tracks (3 ton) .. remove anything not bolted down(weapons, ammo, gear, tools).. winch the hull across, transport all remover components seperatly, and reassemble. doing this will take a 70 ton too heavy tank back to the 62 tons of the original M1 that could cross the majority of bridges in europe. sure, it will take some time to disassemble and reassemble, but that will be much less time than waiting for a new bridge, or going the long way around.

The Battle of 73 Eastings solidified the Wests Technological Superiority in terms of Armour. Especially the Abrams. Also fun fact: After the Iraqi Army was defeated and they were captured, a PoW Iraqi Officer noticed a photo of Erwin Rommel hung in the back, he inquired "Why do you have a Photo of a Former Enemy General?" A reply came from a Private telling him "perhaps if you studied his tactics, you wouldn't be in this mess."

@bighands69

Жыл бұрын

Patton was a superior tank general to Rommel.

@hellhoundactual8201

Жыл бұрын

@@bighands69 Rommel defined and outlined both Infantry fighting tactics and armoured warfare along with Gudarien.

@bighands69

Жыл бұрын

@@hellhoundactual8201 He defined nothing. Patton wiped the floor with him with superior tactics.

@hellhoundactual8201

Жыл бұрын

@@bighands69 Additionally Rommel only lost those battles due to Supply and Logistical issues brought in by the Desert Rats, SAS, and Other combined arms back line units

@hellhoundactual8201

Жыл бұрын

@Dr1fty And yet Rommels Armour Tactics are taught today. Wild huh?

The Abrams already uses the same fuel as the rest of the vehicles in the army JP-8, and the 50 cal can be fired from the inside if the tank is equipped with a C.R.O.W.S. system

@curtiscimpson2594

Жыл бұрын

It’s not JP8 anymore. The army has transitioned to DF2 long ago. The reasons why I know this is cause I’m in a armored unit right now in fort bliss. I’m in a distribution platoon that helps supplies fuel and ammunition.. lol! This video has got a lot of things wrong, but hey, I’ll sit back and watch all the wrong facts being thrown out here so I can get a laugh! 🤣🤣

@RoyalNyx

Жыл бұрын

@@curtiscimpson2594 not at wainwright still using jp-8

@deanwilliams433

Жыл бұрын

It can run on just about anything. The maintenance guy will hate you but you can run it on vegetable oil.

So FYI, Gas Turbine does not literally mean it runs on gasoline. One of the big benefits of that type of power train is they ability to run on multiple types of fuel including diesel, gasoline, or jet fuel.

@crowe6961

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, the US uses JP-8, which is basically Jet A, which is basically kerosene, in just about all of its vehicles. The Australians run their Abrams on gasoline without major issue, and the modifications required were very minor.

The M1A1 has always been able to fire the 50 cal from an non exposed position from the commanders station with the hatch closed. He has a periscope device. The gunner has a 7.62 mm coaxial machine gun he can choose to engage targets with from his station also. Jfyi.

General Petraeus just talked about some of the concerns with using the Abrams in Ukraine, including it's weight on bridges, need for lowboy trailers to support them, the high level of maintenance required, it's reliance on jet fuel and the burden it places on the logistics train. It sure seems like this next generation tank addresses many of those concerns.

@aquaticturtle4688

Жыл бұрын

yeah but still expensive asf and highly classified ukraine wont be getting those tanks and it shouldnt even be a question

@melt6894

11 ай бұрын

@@aquaticturtle4688 modern military equipment is always expensive. It’s more about efficiency and results. I think this is a good starting place for the reimagining of tanks. From the answer to machine guns and trenches of ww1 to speedy, heavy hitting armored machines ww2, tanks will definitely evolve. For now, they seem to be leaning towards more of a supportive system, able to provide heavy weaponry for infantry, steering away from more of the tank rushes, in favor of precise attacks guided by information gathered from drones, infantry and aerial support, which has been the case with all modern weapon systems. We have precise weaponry, it’s just about pointing at the target and not getting hit back.

Thank-you for all the content you put out The Infographic Show appreciate it!!

@iamaloafofbread8926

Жыл бұрын

Not all content is imformation that is true, remember that.

The fact that this dude just roasted russian tank engineering 3 times in a row is crazy 💀💀

@SodziausPilietis

Жыл бұрын

But he is not lying…

The M1 has been using the single fuel source the Army uses for Tanks, HMWVVs and helicopters. The previous M60 tank did the same.

The current M-1 can run on multiple fuels, makes a big difference when you are on E and can pull into a gas station if needed. Diesel only puts you at risk of out running your supplies

The Soviet tanks maximum effective range is 1600 meters and they have to be stationary to fire. The M1 Abrams maximum effective range is 2000 meters and it can do it on the move. in both Desert Strom and Operation Iraqi freedom... it was shooting fish in a barrel.

Doesn't the leopard 2 have a 4 man crew? With a loader? I thought all current MBT's apart from the russian, korean and japanese had 4 man crews...

@novo9024

Жыл бұрын

Indeed, Leopard 2 has no auto loader. And the Abrams even uses the Leopards gun

@iplaygames8090

Жыл бұрын

French also have autoloaders

@Angelthewolf

Жыл бұрын

u forgot france, france is using autoloaders in their leclerc tanks since ages

The sarcasm about blow out panels (or lack of in the case of Russia) was appreciated.

Holy God, that bit about the turrets, I'm dying 🤣

Nah, just put a Cope Cage on your current tank and you should be fine. No need to upgrade.

@iplaygames8090

Жыл бұрын

Slat armour

Please continue the I survived stuff it’s amazingly good please

Its still a prototype and on going research phase, a lot of things are still going to change and improve. I just hope they would opt to the 130mm gun instead of the 120mm

Your videos are amazing, the detail and the animation work so well together. Thank you very much for your info

The AI system for the AbramsX is most likely to adjust the turret and gun itself and wait for the commander to fire. But with that in mind, there'll have to be visual and sensory confirmation of the state of the battlefield. So some spots might have a small hole to check for radiation and/or harmful substances outside. For the hostile/ally recognition program it'll probably have several storage devices storing all known friendlies and hostiles. It'll then run several instances, starting from the allied forces to the hostile ones. Comparing the live recording to pictures and seeing if it matches with an image. There may be another smaller 7.62 machine gun mounted on the side of the 30mm gun with it's own axis as an extra protection against infantry. The Autoloader will most likely malfunction or not properly work around 0% - 6.7% yearly. The AbramsX is an upgrade but it shouldn't be focused on too much, having the entire US ground main battle tank fleet replaced by 2031 or 2033 is most likely the best situation for the AbramsX The said things above are not sourced properly, and these are only speculation, do not take this as offical information.

@bighands69

Жыл бұрын

The real power of ai is pattern recognition and speed of data calculation that all gets presented to a human in an easy form to understand. The idea is to make humans faster and better at what they do so it is a force multiplier or human performance amplification system.

The abrams engine is a jet turbine they are fueled with JP8 and JP12 field which is a jet fuel So the abrams is not diesel or gasoline fueled. But we are trained and taught how to use diesel and gasoline. but it is designed to use in emergency situations the resulting of using those 2 fuels can cause the Engine to tear itself apart or cause it to fail in multiple different ways

@GR-cf4qh

Жыл бұрын

JP8 is a variety of kerosene and kerosene is also known as diesel fuel #1, so JP8 is also diesel fuel.

Leopard 2 is manually loaded. The US Army doesn’t use diesel it uses Kerosene based JP8 as a standard fuel type. Abrams uses a gas turbine which is thirsty yet not as thirsty as many think vs Turbo diesels used in allied tanks. The hybrid engine won’t increase range of AbramsX but will allow for a smaller fuel load for the same range.

I believe the entire Army has been converted to JP8 which is jet fuel. All Diesel vehicles were converted in 2001 to JP8 to ensure a single fuel source for logistics.

Challenge Idea: Spend an entire month strictly on The Girlfriend's diet. If you go the full month without her noticing, you'll get a free Meatlover's pizza from whatever place you want. If she finds out on the first day, you'll still get a pizza, but it'll be from Chuck E Cheese. If she finds out within the first week, Little Ceasars. Second week, Pappa Johns (there should be pizza under all that grease). Third Week, Dominos. Fourth Week, Pizza Hutt.

i love the abramsx but the electic part is silly yes it helps keep the engines sound down but i talked to an ex tanker and he answered that it doesnt make sense as the trackes are louder

@runenorderhaug7646

Жыл бұрын

Considering the ending of the video, isnt there a potential advantage in it from the perspective of that when tanks are deployed they will not be over burdening the resources available to Jets and Navy as much in a predicted jet and navy focused environment. That seems like a good argument to benefit from hybdrization especially depending on how upgradible the batteries themselves are...

@R.U.1.2.

Жыл бұрын

It's used almost exclusively for stationary tanks to run their electronics while the main engine is off. It has extremely limited use as a means of locomotion, and then only in the case of an extreme emergency.

8:30 that’s sounding very much like a Machine Spirit there… heh Land Raider I think I found your long lost ancestor!

i hope you keep do more videos like this

Least everyone knows this tank works.unlike the t-14

@sharwama992

Жыл бұрын

😂😂😂 The T-14 works but they just don’t have the money to produce it 🤦🏾‍♂️

@jerrynaylor4092

Жыл бұрын

@@sharwama992 point proven then.

If the issue with battery life could be solved, an electric tank would be amazing. Think about it, it would be a lot more silent, since the 'engine' wouldn't make any noise, and it theoretically could also use powerful lazer cannons instead of/in addition to the traditional tank turret things. Edit: the second I un-paused the video after posting this comment they talked about the tank's battery packs... Great timing

@VPZealouZ

Жыл бұрын

The closest thing to lazers right now are railguns, which are fairly bulky and kinda new.

@daleyfun2247

Жыл бұрын

Would also really help hide from heat seaking missiles as well.

@daleyfun2247

Жыл бұрын

@@VPZealouZ railguns are completely different from lasers which are in use today by the US military.

@sammiches6859

Жыл бұрын

@@VPZealouZ They have lasers on ships, and have plans to put them on aircraft and as point defense against mortars and artillery. Rheinmetall also has a land based defense system like this.

@talinpeacy7222

Жыл бұрын

One of the biggest hurdles electric vehicles have yet to overcome in PRODUCTION models is the energy density versus typical combustion engine liquid fuels. The battery packs on Tesla's and other electric cars are much bigger and heavier than typical fuel tanks and far more dangerous when set on fire. They've reached the point of having enough advantages to be considered viable, but not outright better from a purely design point of view. I believe they will get there one day, as cost effective fossil fuels just don't have as much room to grow in refinement or versatility in the future. I'd give it another 20 years before some of the more promising new experimental battery types will be considered profitable enough to start setting up production. This might be paired by many fossil fuel power plants that can use the extra size to make more efficient combustion engines to turn dynamos so that the fossil fuel production industries are happy. Technically this would likely result in a net pollution reduction as it has been shown by some studies that electric cars charged by fossil fuel power plants are using less fuel for the same mileage due to the efficiency gains of being able to scale up without concern for vehicle weight and size constraints.

another thing about adding a remote controlled turret yes it makes the crew safer BUT you lose visibility as u can only look one direction where the gun is pointing and because no one is going to be outside they cant notice or hear things that will alert them of an ambush

Human loaders don't necessarily load the canon faster than autoloaders, many autoloaders today can load the gun in 4 seconds, sure, the loader can hold the round on his hands waiting for the canon to be fired, but in situations of continuous firing, this advantage more or less disapears and it is very tiring.

When the M1 was introduced the UdSSR long had the upper hand in tanks in every aspect over the M60.

@calvingoetz6753

Жыл бұрын

and then the M1 was proven to be far superior to soviet tanks in Iraq

@TheDude50447

Жыл бұрын

@@calvingoetz6753 hard to say. The T72 variants used by Iraq during Desert Storm were older variants with old ammunition going up against the M1A1 which was the most modern M1 Version at the time. Against the most modern versions of the T72 used in the UdSSR at the time the fight wouldve been probably pretty even. The best Tank available to the russians at the time was iirc the T80U.

@mrkeykush693

Жыл бұрын

@@TheDude50447 i think that some Iraqi TC said that some T-72 used on iraq were using training shells made of wood or something like that ( i don't remember) but sometimes they used obsolete shells

@herpderp1662

Жыл бұрын

All they have to do to make it appealing to the US army is say it identifies as something it isnt, and paint it with an LGBT/feminist hybrid flag livery. And put a little "i voted for biden" sticker on the turret.

@TheDude50447

Жыл бұрын

@@herpderp1662 ???

You cant win a war without ground troops. Build it. Chance nothing. Also would be great defense if needed here.

With a human loader the ammo can be stored in storage compartments that if hit will shield the crew from detonating ammo.

I wonder what other new battle wepons we are working on right now. I think most of the new drones and boats might be remote control to keep more soliders alive for a surprise attack and to see what they are up agenst for better planing.

The Abrams tank weighs around 60 tonnes, the Trilithon stones in Balbeek weigh around 800 tonnes each and were somehow cut, moved and stacked by ancient people using rope and logs. That has very little in common with this video but just something to think about.

@gfys756

Жыл бұрын

Yes, all very impressive. Ancient civilizations were masterful builders and logistical geniuses. That being said, good luck to the enemy getting rope and logs under an Abrams...

@BloteAapOpVoeten

Жыл бұрын

Think about it some more and it won't sound that impossible.

@Eddie_Munster

Жыл бұрын

@@BloteAapOpVoeten spoken by someone who probably hasn’t even built a shed

The Abrams uses a turbine engine that can run on almost any fuel including diesel

Next could yall upload "How and why Yugoslavia was founded and was it allied with the Soviet Union" ??

A very well designed video, loved all the game references

That 3-man hull could be combined with a 3-man turret. Then made into an optionally manned 0-6 crew vehicle. The only thing that would be hard to automate is the 120.

Diesel electric has been used in trains since the 1930's at least. It Would give a tank a very long range.

@Matthew-Anthony

Жыл бұрын

Diesel gas is flammable. Nuclear power is more efficient, lasts a lot longer, and is more environmentally friendly.

@chriswilliams8009

Жыл бұрын

@@Matthew-Anthony I don't think environmentally friendly is or should be a concern the military has.

@Matthew-Anthony

Жыл бұрын

@@chriswilliams8009What is the point if winning a war if the entire human race goes extinct from climate change?

Its vids like this that make me proud to be American.

From my understanding the Abrams X is just a showcase model and would need true field test if to even be consideration. Alternatively with recent conflicts as evidence it's becoming abundantly clear drones, artillery, and aircraft will be vastly more worthwhile ventures.

The M1A2 SEP V2 and older versions of the tank do not use gasoline. They used JP8 and when changed to JP9 is essentially diesel fuel.

I hate that ending prediction that tanks and land forces “won’t be needed” in the sino-American war. It’s a common prediction before every war that handicaps the military. Your enemy always plans for your weaknesses.

@WhatHappenedIn-vt3vq

Жыл бұрын

That's why we stuck a treaty with the dolphin people THEY WILL HABE THEIR REVENGE!

@jackjones9460

Жыл бұрын

@@WhatHappenedIn-vt3vq Training dolphins to hunt for mines was no treaty! That was just cynical destruction of a friendly helpful species!

I'm not entirely sure what the demand would be for these... But building a small group of them might not be a terrible idea.

@superturkeylegs

Жыл бұрын

Maybe the idea would be to have certain special forces operations using tanks like these? That explains the stealth mode.

I can't wait for this beauty to be added to world of tanks.

Miss concept the original Abrams runs on Jp8. Which can also be used on multiple other vehicle types as they are retrofitted with specialized fuel systems so they all run on the same thing. From Humvees to LMTV's and even Bradley's all run on JP8 fuel. So the miss conception that the Abrams needs a separate fuel source is a big one.

This is just the weapon they show the public, imagine the classified ones

How many times do we have to tell you, the AbramsX is not the next generation Abrams models because General Dynamics made the tank so the U.S Military can pick a feature they liked so they would put it in the probable M1A3 Abrams. It was literally titled as a technology demonstrator in the official video made by General Dynamics.

Use Electric Propulsion driven by Alternator connected 2 Power Turbine

I have an idea for the Abram X prototype's machine gun/chain gun problem: Submarines have periscopes, correct? We should use that setup to allow the men inside the tank to fire the chain gun using a secondary function on the periscope's handle to fire, while still being able to turn the periscope 360 degrees. The lens of the periscope will also act as a scope that will be attached to the underside of the chain gun to fire at enemies from close and afar. For added protection, use a titanium or depleted uranium shield with holes for the gun and scope.

So making them “swim” actually isnt that bad of idea, maybe make it watterproof and it can just go right through the river as long as its not to deep. (With a thing like jeeps have that allows it to still have air intake)

@various3394

Жыл бұрын

A snorkel. iirc most tank crews can fit one onto their vehicle if needed, though it takes time.

@mrkeykush693

Жыл бұрын

Tanks that can swim actually does exist, most tanks can fit a snorkel or even be some kind of Amphibious tank like the BMP

@iplaygames8090

Жыл бұрын

Soviet T tanls can be oitfitted with snorkels and brave 7 meters deep water.

I heard the current "abrams-X" is just an Abrams that's dressed up and modified with the tech the real deal will carry. I am curious what the real thing will look like if that's true

@classicgalactica5879

Жыл бұрын

Only the people who designed and built it as well as those who are testing it know for certain. It's performance parameters are likely highly classified.

Was NOT expecting the Skyrim reference! Thank you for this.

the current abrams uses multiple fuel types i wonder if this one would use multiple fuel types as well? hybrid vehicles could prove a problem as there are no ev stops on a modern battlefield.

I always thought the turret had the thickest frontal armour and not the hull.

@Eddie_Munster

Жыл бұрын

Nope

Hear me one time. Mine looked like a Porcupine after Iraq. Brought me and my crew home.

If the US Army does require a machine gun mounted on the Abrams X it will be with the new 6.8 x 51 cartridge (chosen for the new M5 rifle) with its reinforced stainless steel base to withstand the very high 80,000 psi chamber pressure. This gives the 6.8 x 51 round exceptional velocity and range, especially compared by the current 7.62 x 51 round.

So im just asking here why dont we just make a smaller quicker tank that can be used kinda like tank destoyers as well as too cross bridges in case we need to support ground troops where the abrams cant get too fast enough due to its size and weight?

The main reason why you want the Abrams to run on every type of even remotely combustible liquid is in case it gets cut off from logistical support, it can more or less be able to manage on its own, instead of being abandoned due to not finding a specific type of fuel.

Current Abrams is NOT Gasoline powered, it has a gas-turbine engine powered by jet fuel. It is a major fuel hog though.

The current and previous variants of the Abrams have a multi-fuel turbine engine. It will run on gas, diesel, and jet fuel. US Army ground and air vehicles alike all run on JP-8.

Infographics should do a video on the new B21 Raider

While the lack of immediate demand is accurate, I wouldn't be surprised to see at least a few units ordered for training and testing purposes. Having a handful available in various locations might prove fortuitous, should someone other than China decide to seek conflict with the US. 🤠👍

@questionable8783

Жыл бұрын

I don't trust the Canadese. Seems to me like they together with the spikey fruit eaters, the kangaroo lovers and the tea sippers are just itching to bring back the British Empire. I say America produce a few just to make sure the good-healthcare snow-American's don't get any silly ideas about Alaska. Same could be said about the sumbrero people.

The Abrams X is a technology demonstrator, there is no real attempt to try to replace the M1A2C SEP V.3 with this particular model. What you can take from this is some of the features maybe used on future iterations of the platform and other's as well. While the Abrams is a very well-designed platform, the Abrams suffers from other issues as well. It shedding the 13 tons could be from differences in armor, wiring harness, the engine, and several other areas as well, but who knows? I'm not a subject matter expert on the Abrams X or even the A2C, I do know the platform well enough mechanically speaking that I know for a fact the Abrams X isn't going to any battlefield ever due to logistics. The A2C and the next version will probably be the last versions of the Abrams before we switch to a new tank platform. The AI sounds more like a database rather than an AI. if the architecture of the enemy tank is close enough to an Abrams or Challenger II it may identify it incorrectly and use the wrong ammo type for it. So there's some weaknesses in the system that could need to be worked out, but again this is just to demonstrate that they are currently working on improvements so shareholders can be pleased.

Just one question. How do you aim the chain gun from inside again?

I bet if they go with the hybrid diesel electric drivetrain on the next MBT, the tank will be able to be used as a mobile power generator for external equipment as well if the excrement collides with the rotary air circulation device.

I hate to break it to you guys but there is a 95% chance that this was just a tech test bed

@dew7025

Жыл бұрын

It is

@WhatHappenedIn-vt3vq

Жыл бұрын

We don't have a Gorbachev or good communist men to tell us when we're making our point and when we're being a bunch of orcs making a bad situation worse. No flying stealth bombers without a payload over Moscow today

I love your analysis and your channel overall. As a Desert Storm era Cavalry Scout and cross trained M1 Tank Crewman (3rd Infantry Division) I am shaking my head, though, because nothing ever changes. Hey, if we don’t have our own war going on, we can still make money by fighting proxy wars and supplying new and upgraded war material to feed the machine.

@subjectc7505

Жыл бұрын

Also saying our tanks are superior when the T-72s didn't even stand a chance

@iplaygames8090

Жыл бұрын

​@@subjectc7505 there werent even that many t72s. Most tanks were older then that.

How would the blowout panel work if the Abrams autoloader layout is like this?

@Theinitedstatesofamerics12345

8 ай бұрын

I’m pretty sure it’s stored in the back of the turret (like the old abrams) and there is no crew in the turret, so even if the turret flys off the crews most likely safe.

7-minute mark, the TC can fire the .50 cal buttoned up, but a 30mm chain gun would be insane, as in great, but a little too much in urban and built-up areas (that is if you're interested in limiting collateral damage).