America’s New Abrams-X Tank Needs to Chill Out 

Could the next video be on the Georgian lazika

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@@fnfdmgjfndf Good point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take that you Ruskies!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MASSIVE missed oportunity.

THAT'S funny!

🤣🤣🤣

I third the motion. Beep--Beep!

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

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

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

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-J8Sa_q-Lz6g.html

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

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

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

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

@@damaskusseraph6046 You can always breech sight it lol

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

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

They gonna buy it %1000, miwitawy lob abrmms

@@anthony.3085 it’s only a name plate

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

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

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

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

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

@@DrBodyshot especially a food supply chain haha

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

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

11b is better loser

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

@@Kaiserboo1871 yea cause that was dumb

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

Have you ever tried sleeping in a moving tank?

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

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

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

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

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

Mechs come after this!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wild exaggeration

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

Elon musk is trying to change that hard

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

Standard lithium is looking to change that buy stock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

​@@gurugo666 the statement made says why ;)

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

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

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

Obviously

@@adamkhan4451 But almost never stated

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

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

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

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

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

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

@@LeviBulger correct.

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

Never too much

Autonomous lethal freedom

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

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

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

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

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

....But could it run Crysis? 😉

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

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

HUH?

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

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

@@bornonthebattlefront4883 i certify this comment

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

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

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

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

@@dianapennepacker6854, "ballasitic"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skyranger 30 & 35, and Oerlikon Ahead FTW!

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

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

@@milton42083 If only.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We used the PlayStation 2 in my day!

So basically Apple Vision Pro....

I get the Terminator reference. Although 40 watt range reminds me of the microwave guns, they use to jam drones.