Abrams X - The Next Generation American Battle Tank? 

interesting, I think I will watch that.

Ha! I was going to watch that this morning, but decided to leave it until I got the video finished. Yes, guessing we wont see an Abrams X as is in service, but suspect a number of the features will be integrated into the SEPv5, or the Abrams replacement.

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters It's possible, just like Major General said, some thing can be implemented in future designs. Especially that power pack look very promising on paper. Oh and that RWS, it's Kongsberg Protector RS6 with M230 autocannon for 30 mm x 113 rounds.

I think the important part is the engine replacement. Not having to drag kerosene onto the battlefield solely to feed the tanks but just use diesel and gutter oil like all the other modern kit will be a logistics win. And if anything has been shown in this war it is logistics winning wars. Using hydrogen is probably not an option yet, but imagine invading a modern country that has gone all EV. You'd have to bring gas all the way as there is none. Being able to produce energy in some way and being energy autarch will become more important in the next few decades. Creating less noise will become more important as well, as it can be fairly easily used to detect movement and positions. AI will reduce the noise and only pinpoint the relevant sources of sound.

This thing being shown is clearly just a technology demonstrator. Lots of the weapons and sensors just look like they've been stuck on with little integration. That chain gun placement ooks bodged with its exposed ammo feed etc. Same with the optics and it has the world's biggest shock trap under the gun...I could go on.

As the FT-17 was comically undergunned and prone to tipping over... that might be a bit unfair on '80's Tanks ;-) . The M60A2 of the '70's though, was derisively nicknamed "The Starship" in its day (by the crews), for having been designed by people who knew nothing of on the ground operational reality. (the convoluted electronics for instance often didn't work, and when they did they'd short out, as they weren't even water resistant... a tad inconveniant when being used in wet &/or humid climates) Time will tell I think whether this will become something successful, like M60A3, or just another "Starship".

@@jimtaylor294 it was a bit of a joke for tank nerds

@@tadget0566 ~_^

It only needs aircraft fuel, with diesel it is done after few hours of running and needs maintenance. And no it does not have similar mileage. It barely does 250km on road.

"Its been solved" only as long as logistics can supply a constant supply of fuel, and they can regularly deliver crews new turbines to install into the tanks. Which the Iraq wars were proving to be a massive pain, even under utterly ideal logistics situations of air supremacy, uninterrupted supply lines, and effectively infinite (as in they got 100% of what they asked for) production capacity back home. If any these elements were to be impacted by enemy action or national resource limitations in a massive-scale world war, it doesn't matter if they made the turbine better, it remains too expensive operate in the context of a world war.. And EVEN if somehow they made all that sane, the enemy is going to be operating diesels, and so will be able to field more tanks more easily, and this is the factor that matters most: performance/efficiency RELATIVE to the enemy. Also, to my understanding, the Honeywell turbine has never actually been run on an alternative fuel in operations, only its primary. So the multi-fuel nature is moot because its never been utilized. And lets not forget the M1A2 still requires that turbine to guzzle gas even as the tank is sitting around holding a position, which is 95% of the time a tank spends in the field, sitting somewhere. A piston diesel hybrid is far superior given it consumes much less fuel, it will also have MUCH longer hours between overhauls. Over roads and traveling they are talking 1/2 the consumption, but in ACTUAL use, which 90% sitting around waiting to do something it might well see 1/50th the fuel consumption in actual use because the tank can idle its diesel for a fraction, or even just run on batteries. And for on-base shuffling of tanks around their motor pools, they can plug the tanks into base-power to charge their batteries, meaning to drive them in and out of the repair bays, on and off transports, or just shuffle them around, they don't have to spend 1 drop of fuel, thus freeing up all the fuel for actual field operations, where it is needed most. I think just for the new hybrid power system, the AbramsX stands to be a game changer and huge advantage for the US Army.

@@nordoceltic7225 not really. The problem is that the turbine engine in the M1 is, essentially, the same one that every other M1 used since inception until the recent upgrade packages happened. Largely because Congress got in the way. Hell, the Army _wanted_ the APU in the first place but Congress vetoed it. When Congress discovered the fuel consumption reports, they allowed the Army to reinstal the APUs. Funnily enough, the reason that the turbine was chosen was because it was _easier to repair and maintain_ than other engines. That and it can be easily made to be truly mutli-fuel, unlike the attempts to make diesels multi-fuel consistently failing in doing so.

@@Another-Address Main problem being the inneficiencies of the Li-ion battery and its inherent weight. A very efficient opposed cylinder pure diesel is a better idea.

Agreed this is one of the few channels on military matter that is NOT a rah, rah, rah look at how awesome this is pile of PR garbage. Mark Felton is another good channel but then he is also a proper historian as well.

More like over 90 years, if counting attempts prior to & during WWII. (re' hybrid drive-trains) Autoloaders have *A* place it could be argued (though more as an augment to a crewman than a replacement), but I'd say a greater innovation would be Liquid Propellants, as a Tank with the latter would have quicker load times, and no need for a heavy ammo' compartment for propellant charges, as the propellant would be instead in two seperate storage tanks, coming together only in the gun breech. Not to mention: keeping the charges and projectiles seperate from each other until loaded into the gun is the most reliable way to prevent cookoff in the first place / give the crew the most time possible to put out or escape from an onboard fire.

The true virtue of an auto loader is the ability to UNLOAD and place the round back into magazine. Ain’t happened yet.

Yes if the spare person operates the guns on top of the turret/ and drone recon. Plus keeps a extra person for field repair. That way u have 2 fields of fire.

@@djl5634 one thing in military i noticed is that things rather get redesignated to other tasks than becoming obsolete.

Holy shittttt Double power in an M1?!?!? Sign my ass up!

And if integrated into a hybrid-electric drive train, it would be even more efficient

@@solarissv777 literally sex

This raises the height of the tank to a degree that, until the T-14, Russian/Soviet leaders would _not_ stand for. Thus why the carrousel loader was chosen.

Thought about it but there are some excellent channels covering that sort of thing already.

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters All good, keep up the good work anyway. :-)

Judging by the experiences of T-64 and Chieftain users the reliability part seems to be questionable.

@@comentedonakeyboard yeah, totally new engine, it's not going to be incredibly reliable. But, like I said, no valve train to deal with, many fewer moving parts. Capable of becoming very reliable

@@comentedonakeyboard Technology in manyfacturing has come a long way since the T-64.

@@deansmits006 A turbine has about one moving part though?

I can’t imagine rolling in an urban area without the commander and loader out and scanning, and I wasn’t an armor guy.

@@mattwilliams3456 I was Mech Infantry, with time in 113s and Brads. Urban, wooded, or open fields, heads out. Fighting buttoned up was bad juju.

Hmm, and yet every tanker in Iraq was operating from the Open Protected hatch position. And therefore dependent on their periscope and sights alone. Turns out they didn't like getting shot by snipers or taking ATGM fragments. We always thought being halfway out the hatch was best until we started getting killed that way. The answer in urban terrain is fighting in conjunction with Infantry, not staying at nametag defilade.

The chain gun system is the solution I can think of for this, but at the same time I feel it isnt the right match, one reason I feel is the added weight and taking up of space for the crew.... Secondly there might be a better more efficient method that exists...

Opens the oportunity of (literal) "tank porn" however.

And they need to evolve in to capability to engage top-attack.

...and keeping up on underside protection from IED's & Landmines is rather important too.

Supposedly, it’s either the XM360 or XM306E1 L/48 120mm guns

Don’t think so but it would be awesome

Hope you enjoy the book :)

Who cares about Indian made tanks

Yes India is definitely coming up in defense industry and development. Hopefully the west can come closer together with India. We share alot of values.

@@djl5634 yeah. I think there are some colabs already under discussion, like submarines and jet engines. One that was confirmed was development of swarm drone tech with the US. Hopefully more such endeavours will be taken.

@@djl5634 Yes hopefully. The free good people vs Russia and China

nah just buy more quality russian arms😂

I would not switch to a 130 mm caliber. In my opinion, 125 mm would be perfect for the next 20-25 years. Especially since Russia has no intention of switching to a 130. The differences between 120 mm western and 125 mm eastern are insignificant. It would be the same between a western 125 mm and an eastern 130 mm, if Russia took the step. I think the west should also fire LAHAT missiles. Here I think it is at the moment facing the minus of the western tanks.The transition would be done with much lower costs.A 130 mm gun would require the current chassis. It would definitely require a new, much better performing suspension, which means high costs. I am convinced that neither the Germans nor the British will take the step to 130 mm. The two beasts Challanger and KF51 Panther are just prototypes, just to scare the Russians. It's just a personal opinion...What we notice with all three Challanger, KF51 and Abrams X, that they use the old modernized chassis. It's the best idea. They have been tested for ten years, the Americans and the English even in theaters of war and they saw their weak points, and now they have eliminated them. By doing this, they greatly reduced expenses, avoiding years of design and testing...It's just a personal quibble.

This couldn't be a more incorrect/false statement. The Abrams has always and continues to place crew survivability first. We hold that the tank can be replaced, the crew far less so. And despite all the janky news to the contrary the US Army does a lot to take of their people and see to it they live to fight another day.

There have always been ""experts"" claiming such pish, even back in the 1910's. "Oh it was only good for This War [WWI], and won't be needed again" was the strawman being pushed back then... and then WWII happened, and everyone who'd claimed the Tank was a fad were conspicuously... silent XD.

Aye; and if they make only a few, the unit price will be even higher.

The turbine on the M1 has more than enough power, the drive is even speed limited, fuel consumption is the main issue.

@@FirstDagger a little more power is never a bad thing. Especially with the increasing weight of the vehicle as time goes on. Unless they can find ways to lighten it like they have in the past with new wiring etc

Too much power is possible actually; as shown by various Tanks whos transmissions couldn't / can't make any use thereof. Even when the latter can though, it's not so simple. The British Army found with the A27M Cromwell in the '40's and the Challenger 2 in the 00's, that more than 40mph in a Tank just leads to the Tank shaking herself apart, because of Square Cube Law. (the CR2 that they tested upping the power on in the 00's, tore various external fittings off herself in the process, and just confirmed that for the weight of vehicle, there was no worthwhile point in trying to go faster than 40mph) To go faster than that: add lightness... which has its own series of engineering trade offs

Even the French have returned to their 140mm project from the late 90s.

Because Panther is a private venture, Rheinmetall tries to push the 130 mm, but it will probably fail given that the 120 mm is still perfectly fine for that task and the large stockpiles of the ammo around.

Well Rheinmetall invest a lot in to new 130mm gun, they do promote it as the 120mm replacement. But US do look at higher caliber main gun, OMT could use 130mm, remember that first M1 start with 105mm and later transition in to 120mm. Even if new US tanks will start with new gen of 120mm they will probably design just like predecessor to accept larger ones in the future.

Rhinemetal can push their 130mm all they like: it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. As it is this's happened before; the USSR fielded the T-62 with a then all new gun caliber... only to look rather daft as munitions upgrades to the older 100mm D10 gun rendered the T-62's gun irrelevant. As it is guns above 120 to 122mm caliber are impractical for use in Tanks, due to the munitions weighing too much. Unless there's some breakthrough in Liquid Propellants (which would render 1 peice tank ammo' obsolete), guns larger than 120mm are a practical dead end.

@@jimtaylor294 You do now that main caliber for late Soviet and current gen of T-series is 125mm main gun. Sooo... about that "impractical" and "dead end".

Titanium is, however, an extremely expensive material with which to build and maintain a tank fleet. I'd much rather see improvements in other areas that cut down on weight without dramatically increasing costs, such as a newer, lighter gun, a revised armor scheme to cut down on excess material without compromising protection, and/or a new powerpack

@William Nixon I'd like all the above and don't see a problem with paying an extra few million for special alloys... any country that can afford litoral combat ships and other rubbish can manage to fund 30 million usd tanks... and they can recover the alloy in 50 years time when they get scrapped..

​@@janwitts2688 30 million unit price for a fleet of thousands of tanks... not to mention the billions you'd spend to train all the relevant (and sometimes not) mechanics and maintenance personnel to weld titanium correctly because it behaves quite differently to steel, whilst also making sure they don't confuse titanium for steel and fuck up the welds for either since these would be the only units in service that had such specific requirements. Don't forget you also have to source all that alloy for producing those thousands of tanks and their spare parts, an alloy that might not even exist currently.

@William Nixon Given that combat aircraft are pushing 250 musd all in.. 30 for a cutting edge tank is quite low.. Indeed even more may be required... tank production is a slow thing and will take a decade plus to provide for even basic needs ... training (or just using robots) is desirable as high level skills within the us industrial complex are beneficial... plenty of titanium available as most is used for paint so there's never really been a shortage... I have a couple of engineering degrees and don't see any issues... we are looking at something which won't field till at least 2030s so plenty of time to get issues ironed out... maybe even a titanium box for the crew and a bolt on automated turret.. who knows .. but preferable to just trying to modify m1 hulls which will eventually become block obsolescent...

Titanium. France put that on their Leclerc and it make the tank too expensive to sell to others countries. Except UAE.

That works great assuming you're fighting ass-backward incompetents who don't support their armor with infantry who would quickly wipe out the Javelin team.

Tech demonstrator. Actual shape of MGCS is unknown.

There’s good coverage in the Bovington Tank Museum’s ‘Tank Chats’

@@bob_the_bomb4508 thanks fir that Bob. Kind regards,Damien

@@damien5748 Task & Purpose have just covered the CVRTs being given to Ukraine. Not the most accurate of channels, but good entertainment nonetheless

Russian tanks popping all over the place.

Yup. Stryker is useless against an actual MBT, in surrvivability and even mobility. (even the vehicle that preceded it had better mobility) P.S. If you want people to laugh you to scorn; try telling them a Stryker MGS can match a MBT in cross country mobility, surrvivability... or even a short span of it's greatest enemy... Mud or a Side Slope! (to say nothing of the hopeless lemon being unable to fire side on without flipping the vehicle) Clearly the boyo below thinks he can #ROFL

This comment reveals a complete lack of understanding of the different roles that different armoured vehicles have.

@@idanceforpennies281 You sir NAILED IT!

^×2 This comment was evidently made by someone without a valid counter-statement; rather only lame ad homeniem. #EpicFail Try tackling the subject next time boyo :P

@@jimtaylor294 Sorry I was not referring to your comment Sir!

Yes, if you're stupid enough to commit armor to battle with no infantry support like some kind of mental defective.

Well, when the new turret can probably spot and track targets on its own and only needs authority from the commander to fire it seems like a good idea. Plus drones did not exist back in the 1930s so I think a small turret on the roof that can deal with that is a good idea.

Going all electric, will make a nation's electrical generation and distribution grid a prime military target. During the Kosovo war in the 90's, NATO did target some electrical substations.

Porsche infamously tried to produce Petrol-Electric AFV's in the 1940's... failing completely. The resulting Tiger IP was even more unreliable than the Henschel offering, and its convoluted drivetrain used a slew of strategic materials Germany had little of the time (such as Copper). Even the Germans realized Ferdinand Porsche was pushing a lemon, and rejected the Tiger IP flat. "The more they complicate the plumbing; the easier it is to stop up the drain." - Scotty

@@jimtaylor294 😂 lol facts

Why would it need two fuel supplies? It would only need one, diesel fuel, because the diesel engine would charge the batteries. However, it is not clear exactly what kind of hybrid system it is. Is it a series hybrid like a diesel electric locomotive? If so, it would be powered only by electric motors and the diesel engine would have one job, to power a generator to produce electricity to run the electric motors. Or is it a parallel hybrid, in which the vehicle can be powered by either electric motors, or the diesel engine, or both at once, with a computer normally deciding what mode to run. My guess is the latter for maximum flexibility. Among other things, it would allow for an electric-only "silent mode" for quietly sneaking up on the enemy over short distances.

@@loumencken9644 i saw that silly question 2 but decided to ignore it lol i just figured he's not mechanically inclined