As a guy who works with that stuff, it might be better to go with copper. Yes, fiber is lighter and you get more throughput but copper is way more robust and we're talking about a tank, not an F-22 Raptor. But who knows. Maybe they've got a way to protect the fiber, I dunno. I'd be interested in how.
My god.😂 I imagine their 90s tech upgrade was fairly similar to what was in the aircraft, since it's all solid steel and weighs a shit ton. Those old cables were no joke either, it took so much more amperage to get those shits to work
The Chieftain has a special gift; the ability to translate Army language into Civilian, a very useful skill. It's much akin to my ability to translate Engineer to English, or other people's ability to translate Legalese into Klingon (it IS translated, but most people still can't understand it).
This ability of his is what makes him stand out the most out of all military RU-vidrs. If someone couldn’t translate Army to Civvy well we could have another F-35 situation where the public is woefully misinformed about what its role is.
Your ability to translate Engineer to English is rivalled only by my ability to learn jargon (I'm a bit hyperlexic). You wanna know what's _hard_ to learn? The shibboleths (those things that just *are,* and few questions are asked *why).* My God, it is hard to learn the shibboleths. Because if you don't learn them or ask why they exist, you're branded as goofy. If they're part of your "unknown knowns", explaining anything becomes needlessly verbose as you avoid the minefield that is the shibboleths. If you make them part of your "known knowns" (or try), learning anything becomes needlessly complex as you chase down the origin of every meaningless and unrelated thing while others look on, convinced that you're chasing ghosts.
I was a OH-58D mechanic for 17 years. I tried to get them to replace the electronics in the back. They could have lost about 1200 lbs. The same job could have been completed by 1 man and a laptop.
I wouldn't be opposed to dropping more men back into the hull form. Easier maintenance. So a systems manager with radio access who can help watch the surroundings with cameras, mostly listening in. To go with the driver looking forward. The gunner carefully inspecting what the guns looking at. And the commander who gets radio priority but can actually give instructions and fight the tank. All with an autoloader to keep the turret lightened and smaller.
This way of thought continues to this day with other airframes. You could likely cut 1000lbs of weight by modernizing a lot of the electronics systems on most models, even today. I'm sure most of the reasoning why it doesn't happen can be chalked up to government contracts, bureaucracy, and the aviation industry's general unwillingness to make logical progression without the prospect of a 10,000% markup on their technology.
Great video! A WWII tank vet once told me the sandbags helped calm the nerves of newer crew members by absorbing alot of the impact sounds lf smaller nonpenetrating rounds hitting the tank.
According to a 1987 article in the magazine "Armor", the M1 Abrams tank uses approximately 1,000 pounds of copper. This includes the copper wiring, as well as other copper components such as the radiator, heat exchanger, and fuel lines.
Unless they use fibre optics, which also have the benefit of being lighter. This could potentially replace a bunch of non-conducting data connections.@@maxo.9928
You still want steel, copper, and aluminum for things like radiators and hard pressure lines, but all that wiring (including everything bolted on since 1987) could be swapped for fiber for some massive savings. Unfortunately there are officers who think they know more than the engineers designing the systems who have the final say.
@@kevinsullivan3448 fiber can only replace signal wire, it cant replace power cables. and in terms of wiring weight, the vast majority of the wiring in terms of weight is going to be power, not signal.
The M1A1 AIMS was not the predecessor to the M1A2. I participated in the M1A2 IOTE Test in 1991 at Fort Hunter Liggett. The AIM tank came out around 2005 as much of the Army hadn't gotten the M1A2 let alone the SEP version yet. I believe the AIM version was just a stop gap measure. Like the M60A3 was before all units transitioned to the M1. I think Fort Hood was all SEP v1 by the time many units were getting the AIM tank or maybe we at Fort Riley were just that far behind 🤣.
You are correct in terms that AIMS was not a successor vehicle, (I received mine off the production line in about 2007) but I don't believe that the underlying A2 technology is any different. I focused on AIMS because I am certain about it
It's interesting to get this on the same day as Perun putting out his video about how incentives surrounding decision makers affect defense procurement. That line about investing in the plants, it isn't only a way for your local congressman to buy votes by keeping jobs in his district that literally cannot be outsourced to China.
It’s also just a strategic national decision. These tank plants need something to do, and if they go out of business we lose a strategically important industry that will take a long time to restart and upscale.
Comment on the "Why now?" question. Looking at the tension rising in Asia the logistic footprint suddenly makes quite a bit more sense. Possibly hinting that the same design principles that made Sherman a good tank for America during the second world war needing to be reconsidered for the current M1
Also, lessons learned from the big AFV testing ground that is Ukraine. Challenger 2s and Leopard 2s have been lost, and the tanks are out fighting tank battles instead of plinking unaware Iraqis from miles away in a desert, or blowing the tops off minarets to deal with the sniper in it.
@@Skorpychan Yes some have been lost, but they have been lost to either mines and then artillery, mines and then atgm or drone and then artillery. I haven't seen any footage yet of any western tank given to Ukraine being taken out directly by another tank. They are all imobilised first, engaged with artillery or ATGM second. Which any tank, regardless of quality, nation of design, or any other variable, would be equally vulnerable too.
50,000 Sherman tanks were built in WWII (around 5 years time span). Over 5,000 M1 tanks were built in the last 30 years. There were around 18 different variants built on the M4 Sherman tank. How many versions are there on the M1?
@@robmx2324 The last 30 years have been the post-Cold War era of unipolar peace and conventional military drawdown aka. the Peace dividend. Use a better example
The torsion bar suspension is heavy! Each station weighs around 1 metric tons, so that's around 7 tons. Replacing it with hydropneumatic inarm suspension would save around 3-4 tons. Such suspension from Textron and General Dynamics was tested back in the 90s. Today the GD suspension is owned by RENK America, and is readily available.
As to electronics vs. hydraulics, I believe that SpaceX switched from hydraulics to electronics for engine gimbaling. Which presumably requires a lot of force and accuracy. So probably another indication that the M-1 would do just fine with the electric controlled turret.
I very much suspect you're right and the electrics will be totally fine, but there are important differences as well. Failure is quite a different scenario, after all: -I think the engines gimbal independently? So if you lose gimbals on one engine, you can compensate with the others pretty easily. If you have the choice between nine engines with nine gimballing systems each of which is 99.2% reliable, versus a heavier system that is 99.5% reliable, and you can fly just fine with seven out of nine gimbals working... You'd probably pick the lighter one, y'know? (Play with the numbers until you get a number of nines acceptable for crewed flight, of course). But if it's a single point of failure instead of a "we can lose three, no problem, but four might cost us some missions and losing six could kill someone," the math changes, right? -The consequences of partial failure are different. A slow or off-calibration gimbal on some engines while others are working fine probably means you can't use those gimbals. A slow or off-calibration turret rotation system is still very much better than no power traverse. So if the electrics are more likely to die all at once, while the hydraulics are more likely to start to fail a little at a time, that might be worth a little more weight even though the top-line "reliability" statistic is similar.
And the electric actuators seem far better in terms of functionality. Don't know about reliability, but I doubt it's bad. Also, do you know if the flaps use electric or hydraulic actuators?
@@trioptimum9027it’s pretty catastrophic if a Falcon-9 booster is landing and the one engine it’s using for thrust loses gimbal control. Combat systems and space systems are different but they are both hard fields.
@@henrikoldcorn Oh, absolutely! I was just pointing out that the challenges are different, not that one set are easier than the other. One could say the same about space systems and other space systems, for that matter. (And yeah, you could absolutely lose a booster that way... But it wouldn't cost you the mission. Might be an acceptable risk, depending on the other factors.)
@@trioptimum9027 Properly engineered electrics are always going to beat hydraulics, you just have to do the work. Smaller, faster, stronger, more efficient. Can be redundant.
Note: Italian Army had its "common combat engine" thing. the VCC80 Dardo IFV and Centauro-1 had the same IVECO 6-cylinders, the C-1 Ariete tank has two 6-cylinders bolted togheter to make a 12-cylinders.
@@alexisXcore93 Not really, it's a pretty standard concept. The problem is always in actually implementing it. By their nature, you rarely end up replacing your light and heavy vehicles at the same time, so the likelihood of the engine being relevant for both when needed is pretty low. Italy is a small enough country that they can do it, but major nations can't. For example, the BMP has been using the same engine since its introduction. It's good enough, and there hasn't been reason to significantly change the chassis, so why change it? In that time, Russia has also changed their MBT several times over, even trying a turbine in the T-80. A T-62 engine in a T-90 or T-80 simply wouldn't do
Friend of mine was an Army tanker during initial Thunder Run into Baghdad. Said his tank topped 83 tons combat weight. Said he felt pretty friggin safe inside that thing!! And that was WITHOUT an IED plow!!!!
Well, the Merkava was designed by actual tankers. Many tank designers around the world are mostly designed by engineers. IMO, I rather have tankers input than an engineer.
I think the M1 (or any current MBT) has still a lot of potential for future development. The basic template offers a lot to work with, by installing new subsystems, engines, maintenence friendlier options. Point being, and I could be wrong, an empty hull stuffed with brand new, maintenence friendly systems and possibly a new turret is a promising prospect for the future. Not to mention that the tank isn't just meant to fight opposing armor. It's also meant to break through defenses and provide long range, heavy fire power where it's breakthrough capabilties are needed. And something like that doesn't require a totally new tank developed from scratch, especially given how most adversaries also spend more time and money improving existing stocks rather than developing or procuring brand new systems.
You're right - When there is no pressing need for big change, nothing even close to a paradigm shift, then you really just want to make what you have easier, cheaper and less of a pain. Nothing wrong with that.
@@lostalone9320 I think cheaper and more logistically sound are the keywords. If we're looking towards Ukraine, tank losses are immense. And that wouldn't be different with large numbers of M1s. And while the US themselves would lose less, due to different doctrine, training and logistics. It still means an emphasis should be put on the ability to easier replace components and entire tanks. Improved logistics mean that a damaged tank can be put faster back on the frontline. And I think that's much more important than a 140/130mm, heavy armor packages and even more weight which hampers logistical support. That's actually why I like the T-90 a lot. You can load lots of them onto a train, maybe two without additional armor on an An-124 and they can be produced comparatively quickly. Ideally something like a T-90M with a bustle autoloader (and blowout panels), a fuel efficient engine and shared component with other systems would be made. Something easy to produce, low profile, mobile, with a lot of parts commonality.
@@lostalone9320 The problem is, as i think the chieftain himself mentioned (or maybe someone else, don't quote me), New systems are starting to put a huge burden on these cold war designs. The thing is, you are never working with an empty hull when upgrading these designs, so adding all of these new electronic equipment and sensors, and things like active protection systems become far harder to do. And while i know the reformers are out there waiting to rag on fancy new tech, the modern battlefield has shown that lethality is increasing and MBTs need to keep pace, at least until something that can perform its role comes to replace it.
Its a 30+ year old design that's been added onto with SEPv1-4 and now weighs too much. Germany has the Panther KF51 which is a 60 ton tank with a 130mm cannon and seemingly more turret protection than the Abrams. The turret is probably the biggest problem as it's not very sloped by modern standards meaning it needs thicker armor and more weight to achieve the same protection as other tanks and the armament is likely falling behind. If they upgrade to a 130mm cannon the loader has less space and it can carry less ammo total and if they upgrade the turret face at the same time how heavy does it become? Does this 80 ton tank become 100 tons to match the firepower and armor of a 60 ton KF51? Sure they could rip out the internals like you said but that probably cant save them enough weight to allow armor and weapon upgrades matching other modern vehicles especially with the slightly dated turret face.
Germany isn’t going for the KF-51, they have their own design they’re working on with the French. The KF-51 is entirely a private venture by Rheinmetall. Also, that turret isn’t sloped “by modern standards”. That’s just an evolution of the arrowhead add-on armor of the Leopard 2A5+. The base armor is what’s composite snd on the Leopard 2s isn’t even sloped.
2.5 tons of wiring. The US Army has openly stated--over a decade ago--that M1A3 will include replacing the discrete copper wiring with a standard network bus (MIL-1553-something, IIRC), resulting in a reduction of 5000 pounds of weight just from the reduction in copper found in the tank.
A Hybrid diesel/electric main engine would make sense...Technology has come a long way since the Tiger P (porsche). Electric motors have brutal torque from the moment they start and a massive powerband, which is perfect for quickly moving a tank to speed.
I've read commentary from other tankers that, while safer, the L2A6 electric turret is more challenging to control with precision. Old sports car vs. new electric steering sports car type comparison...just one guy's opinion tho
He never said that electrics were bad, infact he brought up "the germans" as an example of tanks that used electric turret systems that worked. What he did say, however, was that 15 years ago, the hydraulic systems gave more precise control. He also said that it should be looked into if modern electrical systems still have this problem or not, and if not, replacing the hydraulic systems would drop at least 1 ton of weight, if not more.
This is the BEST breakdown of what the considerations are in designing the M1 series replacement that can fight and survive on today's battlefield I have heard. Thank you Sir! I do have a few questions because I did not hear this directly addressed. What are the options for addressing main gun effective range and target detection? Will they be using the current main gun and fire control system? Will the ability to detect an enemy first by passive means be addressed as well? Is a main gun tube launched missile system being considered? Will main gun rounds, with improved effective ranges, be developed as well? I can understand not saying anything in detail about these things but lethal effective range, target detection range, and observability of the tanks surrounding for the crew are important which I know you more aware of than me. I hope these things are also being addressed with earnest attempts are realistic improvements. Thank you for the knowledge you share Sir.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. This whole argument over how to update M1 Abrams really reminds me of the arguments over how to replace M60 back in the day. For decades, the Army just couldn't find a "new" tank that really was more cost-effective than sticking upgraded modules in the M60. We went through several promising vehicles that came close to replacing M60 before M1 finally was adopted, but every one was too complicated, unreliable, expensive, or otherwise unsuitable compared to M60. Seems like we are in the same situation now with M1. Every time someone says "we really need a new tank entirely that efficiently integrates all the technologies we have and want," someone points out that it is just cheaper and easier to put a better computer or whatever on/in M1. Until someone actually proves M1 is not cost-effective in battle, it looks like we will indeed be retaining M1 for years to come.
@@TheoEvian Maybe that's a real reason for sending them. If Abrams tank will do fine, it will stay in service for another decade. If it will explode immediately in the first battle it took, like Leopard or Challenger, probably it's time to create a new tank from scratch.
@@leonfa259 Exactly, but still, military needs a real proof to use as an argument. Abrams is kinda more resistant from indirect artillery hits than Leopard actually, because latter has very thin armor on the sides compared to Abrams tank and all Soviet tanks. Nothing can survive a more or less direct hit though. This requires some kind of new powerful APS for the tanks.
If metamaterials continue their improvement, we could finally see a replacement for the Abrams. But only because the new tank hull will be made of entirely new alloys and so it becomes cheaper to build new hulls, since they don't make new Abrams hulls anymore.
It doesn't help when you can track the tanks heat signature from satellites. This was proven in the gulf War, it's time to move away from the gas turbine tank.
The way theyve been talking about it is a ground up redesign rather than the incremental improvement of the SEP, stripping everything out of the hull and starting again probably revolving around a new powerplant and a networked modular architecture. I dont think they will be redesigning the tracks and suspension as they will be wanting to keep as much mechanical commonality as they can for spares and logistics.
Swapping to a hydropneumatic suspension could save something like 3t and would be worth it. It’s also easier to service and provides better stabilization, and a smoother ride that keeps the crew and equipment from being shaken.
@@scottzagger Yeah I agree theres stuff they could improve like a hydrogas suspension but a lot of stuff where they are essentially locked in now as they share a common chassis with bridging units, mine clearance and recovery vehicles.
@@watcherzero5256 We tolerate the M88 being an M48 derivative. I think it would be acceptable to the Army to move on with suspensions. They’ll probably MWO them onto support vehicles that are new builds.
@@scottzagger M88 is a bit unusual in that it is the only bespoke, purpose-built-from-the-ground-up ARV which isn't a tank chassis which has had the top have changed out from shooty things to cranes. M88 does share some common parts with the M48/M60 line, but not many.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Right, my point though is that having M48/60 based auxiliary vehicles hasn’t been causing a logistical issue that causes them to be replaced. Indeed the US often operates these models in numbers comparable to entire tank fleets in other nations. They’ve been replacing them because the older vehicles can’t keep up-at least that’s the reason given.
Small detail i dont think you'll see in the comments Its not just opposed piston Its opoc, opposed piston opposed chamber The pistons fire against eachother its super cool
That's a very dumb design simply because if one cylinder block goes down you lose two Pistons and believe me there's been times on my truck that a cylinder has just stop firing and then it runs like shit now imagine a tank, a tank that weighs 70 tons, losing two cylinders instead of one . Ya no, I really hope they stick with their turbines
There are a lot of benefits to switching all the copper ethernet cables in your house to fiber optic ones (more fire resistant, less emi, less signal loss over longer distances, higher max data transfer speeds, etc.). I imagine armored vehicles with advanced weapons and defense systems could benefit so much more.
This is really cool. Thank you Chieftain, it's always fun for me when logistics and sustainment are explained. The latest developments in modern AFVs are super. Hope you had an amazing day filming.
My uneducated guess is they won’t go for an unmanned turret. Maybe a two man turret with auto loader, but not something AbramsX style. This seems like a good medium approach between the more minimal, short term SEP v4 and the wholesale replacement program that’s been in the background for years. With the v4 cancelled and this announced I’m rather expecting the NGCV’s Decisive Lethality Platform to be cancelled or quietly shelved for another decade or more.
Agreed, so like Commander, driver, gunner and drone operator or something like that and a cassette autoloader like on the leclerc (besides the drone operator)?
@@Yuki_Ika7 Probably either 3-man with commander and gunner in the turret and an autoloader, or 4-man like they have now. I don't see them trying to add space and weight for a drone operator with their focus on weight reduction. Better to store more fuel, armor, ammunition or something like that. I don't really know what they'll go for, just making a guess at it
"E" is used for experimental modifications, not fielded equipment. If the M1E3 is accepted, it will become the M1A3. The SEP variants are considered upgrade packages for the M1A2 rather than modifications to the base tank.
because this denotes the vehicle itself and upgrades it has been though. The same way as: M60 (vehicle) A3 (modification) TTS (upgrade package) M2 (vehicle) A2 (modification) ODS SA (upgrade package) M60 (vehicle) A1 (modification) RISE (upgrade package) M109 (vehicle) A6 (modification) PIM (upgrade package) etc.
'E' used in that way means some kind of modification to the hull that is a change to the hull that is big enough to make it different but not big enough to justify being a different production model (the 'A'). The SEPs are upgrade packages that are addons- they can (and probably are) put on or taken off as needed, but either way the M1A2 under is the same as an M1A2 without it. We're probably not going to see another M#A#E# something because doing modifications like that is at best a bit confusing for logistics. As far as I know the only times we did that was during WWII and the Korean Tank Scare because we were willing to put up with logistics hiccups if it meant we could have more factory lines producing more tanks, even if they had differences (and even then not every difference justified a different designation).
Год назад
This Video shows the value of this channel. Just the chieftain infront of a tank putting things into perspective. I was wondering why there wasnt a program for a truly "new" tank in the works in the US, now that seems to be settled.
Those old terminals are like a block of solid steel. Just a 6"x6" screen and casings gotta be a few hundred lbs😂😂 i'd love to know how much the tech gutting weighs, id make a guess with the aircraft but tanks I got no clue
As someone that worked on tanks back in the 80's and has been working on industrial controls up until now this is a good thing. As good as the M1 is it would be so much better to green field the new MBT. Now they do not need to go crazy but take everything that works and start from the ground up for it to be in the system. If there is a better power plant use it, better main gun use it. In the end just do not lose sight of the fact that everything breaks and war is hard on equipment.
Great breakdown! Which finally! A new frontline tank seems pretty important and was kicked down the road for so long that the Air force and navy will both have their new toys long before the army has a new tank...
Until there's a tank in front of me, I take all these announcements with a tablespoon of salt. You never know when Congress decides for new defense budget cuts. Thanks for the update though, breaking it down piece by piece was helpful.
@@UmHmm328 My gawd, I skipped one. Anytime I laugh until I bleed at the F-35 fiasco somebody mentions the Zumwalt, LCS and Ford. So you're telling me that the Army is 0-3-0, while the Navy is 0-2-1 and the AF is 0-0-1 and therefore the winner with a single tie?
thanks, Nick, for another great video on current military maters, making sense of the press releases and giving us insight to the true "world of tanks."
There’s a lot of details in the Armata that are somewhat lacking, but the overall concept was solid if extremely ambitious for Russian defense industry capabilities
A technical question. When you replace the current m1 turbine for a abrams-X ACE egnine, do you create problems with the transmission the abrams has now?
Pretty sure that would require a whole different transmission. Idont see the way a turbine vs combustion engine works being compatible with the same transmissions.
For an update, as of the issuing of the design contracts, the Army says they intend to push the weight below 60 tons if they can (although that’s awfully ambitious). They will begin testing on an autoloader, and it does sound like they will be replacing the turret traverse with electric controls. Power plant and crew arrangements still seem very up in the air.
The question that hasn't been asked is why not start a new program to build a tank from the ground up instead of a major upgrade that has the potential to replace almost everything within the M1 hull?
@@billyparker5974 I agree, and they get cancelled because the Pentagon had completely lost it's ability to control development costs. This way they will lose SOME of their wish list when the costs spiral out of control, but still end up with a (less capable) vehicle.
find the ForgottenWeapons video about the Fusil Automatique RSC M1917. The French Army fielded that as an upgrade kit from Lebel. You took the lebel, throw it away except the front band and a couple of bits, add the bits to the RCS and, presto, here is a cheap, upgraded rifle way more economical than a brand new rifle. This M1E1 sounds more or less the same: it keep maybe the hull-thub and the return rollers (or the greasepump track tensioning, much to Chieftain disdain), everything else is something new. But is just a budget-reasonable upgrade, not a totally new tank program, in the PR leaflet.
@@billyparker5974 I also think they are worried about development time. This would probably much cheaper and faster to implement. If the US gov is worried about a war with China in the next ten years, cutting back on the weight and logistical support needed for an abrams would help ease alot of concerns.
Sometimes the things they come up with are stupid. Also, sometimes, the things they come up with satisfy a last minute design change by a board member or general who desperately needs X feature to really make the product go. But having several engineer friends, its often a matter of the design environment. If they want something simple and easy to work on, thats actually not too hard. its usually when they also want cutting edge technology and have a complicated decision making apparatus or regulations to comply with that things can go sideways. But you also see successes by various companies as well, and usually these have engineering teams with their eye on the ball and their management is in vision lockstep with them on the main design principals. defense (vs civilian firms) usually has an issue with this since most civilian products are internally developed from needs to market whereas you often have multiple different bodies that have design input on military hardware (design firm, pentagon, politicians, at a minimum).
If it's easy to work on, it's probably less effective. All design is a compromise, for something to be simple it often has to sacrifice something else.
The other issue with the Abrams is that, for reasons I don't understand, the weight and the bridge rating diverge dramatically above 70 tons. So a SEPV3 with FP kit, APS and ballast weights 81.43 tons but needs a 104 Military Load Classification bridge. Which is why the MLC of new bridging the army is buying seems so absurdly high.
AbramsX honestly seems like the most logical choice however the Army needs to decide if they want to go to a fully unmanned turret or a manned turret. The former seems more sensible since it would reduce the most weight. Also more weight could be shaved off if they replace the interior of the turret which is optionally manned with more systems or delete it entirely and save more weight.
Keep in mind AbramsX was a technology demonstrator so whatever the army gets would likely look drastically different. AbramsX was essentially “hey look what we can do if you anted us to”. As for unmanned turrets, from someone who has talked to German soldiers, and 2CR guys with dragoons I’ve heard nothing but hate for them, the ability to have direct access to the gun and the tc to be able to pop his head out and look around from what I’ve heard outweighs the advantages. This is all conjecture but I personally believe we will see something with an auto loader, as robotics have sky rocketed in the past 5 years in capability.
@@anonymous-ml8sl The thing with unmannned turrets and the crew comforts was already known before they were adopted in the various militaries. The goal of unmanned turrets is to make the vehicle safer, something which soldiers in general service generally don't notice, as they aren't shot at with HEAT shells that impact their turret. The fact that with unmanned turrets you can completely isolate the crew from anything explosive is incredible, if you care about the lives of your soldiers. And I as a German generally have heard nice things about the Puma. The soldiers may often complain about it, but the complaints I hear are less about the unmanned turret and more general vehicle design. Complaints I hear are mostly about the small turret magazine (you need to reload after 200 30mm rounds), overengineering and over-complication, plus bad training about how to repair the vehicles.
@@anonymous-ml8sl well autoloaders have never really been complex it's just a simple ramming arm however the MGS made it needlessly complex. Having access to the gun is largely unnecessary because if there was an issue that required the crew to open up the autoloader in combat it's more likely they would simply break contact and RTB for repairs than waste time trying to manually load the gun. However the main reason the commander would want to stick his head out of his hatch is to guide the driver but AbramsX has a back up camera so the crew has full situational awareness. Both M1 TTB and T-14 were well received by their test crews and there isn't any mention of the commander feeling he was blind or didn't have good vision. But people have been debating this for decades with things like gunners auxiliary sights which most modern designs of the 21st century have since deleted.
@@nemisous83there's a lot more in terms of situational awareness you get from having the TC with their head out the turrent, than just easier reversing. Having full use of your peripheral vision, as well you're other senses (sound, smell, feel do in fact subtly inform a TC's awareness of the surroundings) there's a reason why a TC today is very rarely fully "buttoned up" in the turret, they'll have their head out the hatch more often than not. I would he very surprised if the Army goes for an unmanned turret. Going to an autoloader and 3 man crew seems more likely, although that would also necessitate larger changes in a tank units MTOE, as the Army also currently seems to regard 4 crewmen to be the minimum for reliable field maintenance and watch, plus many tanks will at times be a crew man down due to illness, injury, leave, training needs, etc. Chieftain has been a big advocate for mirroring French armor formations which attach full time dismounts riding in trucks to the formation, who aid in repair, keeping watch, and other field duties.
@@grgr105 sure it may protect the crew… but I’d much rather be able to access my gun and get it up if it malfunctions to engage the enemy rather than climb out to fix the damn thing. But I’m bises as hell since I’m a brad guy. As for German troops complaining, I got the privilege to watch a puma gunnery and I noticed that the gun malfunctioned multiple times and they had to expose themselves in order to fix it. After talking with the crew afterwards he went on to complain about how every time the gun malfunctions he has to be exposed. Now all cannons like this malfunction the difference is in my Bradley I’m protected inside my vehicle and have complete and easy access to my gun to get it back in the fight asap. That’s just my experience and two cents on it
at least TWICE in this video, the (auto-generated?) captions have transformed "They aren't saying" into "They are insane" which is a HELL OF A BIG CHANGE... I don't know if Nick can fix this, but it definitely needs fixed if possible.
While I'm sure they've thought about it already, I'm wondering why if they are looking at service past 2040 and are already looking at the cost of retooling production for significantly redesigned components, are they not looking into a clean-sheet design that puts forth everything we have learned about MBT design and expected capability? Surely a design from the 2020s would be more relevant on the 2050 battlefield than a remake of a design from the 1970s?
My guess is this prospective M1A3 is a middle ground between a short term, less expensive SEP v4 package and a long term, much more expensive totally new platform. The Abrams hull is still solid, so as long as everything can still fit inside (and there aren’t any signs yet that it can’t, as long as the internal systems are replaced as he describes) there’s not much advantage in designing a new hull, with the time and cost that would require. Even if they replace the turret with something completely new most of the hull will still be pretty much the same
I'm just kinda excited to see what they come up with. In my lifetime the U.S. hasn't rolled out a new MBT, and while this is still an Abrams I think it will be fun to see.
This is neat to hear, someone who translates military PR into civilian speak and focus not only what is said but what Isn't. But the idea of the E3 being a complete gutting of the Abrams makes sense, the advantage is that older Abrams can be gutted and refitted so production can focus on the new components while the older ones can be recycled while keeping the tanks in active service.
Interesting. I suspect the war in Ukraine is making many weapons designers go back to their drawing board. Coping with drones and things like a Lancet missile have to be high on the list.
I don't know about that. Is a lancet or any other conventional loitering munition (which is to say, not using an exotic mode of attack) substantially different than, say, an atgm with a top-attack profile? At least from the perspective of the designer, who isn't necessarily having to account for the secondary factors of drone delivered weapons (such as the moral impact of pervasive, airborne individually directed explosive devices). It seems they have much the same requirements as they had before - how to keep the explosions going out of the tank rather than into it. If anything, they could improve in Ukraine by doubling down - being more armoured/protected and having more powerful guns/munitions, since they have proved most viable at stand-off ranges acting like massive sniper rifles. Now if you were talking about strategists and planners, or even designers working on other categories of systems, your point stands more confidently.
@@sir_vix Top attack is at least somewhat predictable, but consider that FPV kamikaze drones can impact literally anywhere on the tank at any angle. That could be important. Otherwise, tanks now need to have some EW and radio surveillance tools built in IMO, as well as their own drones.
@@sir_vix I think Lancets and Vikhr missiles or similar long ranged ATGM systems are a major threat any system designer needs to think about. Certainly as you say keeping the explosion outside the tank is desirable. Also desirable is some way of knocking them down before they reach the tank. I think it is just a matter of time before we start seeing large flocks of networked anti vehicle (or anti air) drones with an AI controller drone somewhere in the middle or edge of the swarm selecting targets based on heat signature or other detection methods. No on the ground human controller, independent once launched until the fuel is expended..
not sure. I'm pretty confident that an anti-drone/loiter ammo WAS on the drawing board from long ago. The russian aggression to Ukraine is finally ringing the bell. Armies need the budget to take that thing from floating around drawing boards and prototypes into a real system fielded on every tank, and as soon as possible.
Former Abrams mechanic and I'd be interested to see what the maintenance is like on an electric vs hydraulic turret system, sounds like it'd be a lot easier than dealing with hydraulic fluid lines. And as to the weight and recovery, we had an m1 aims ed flip upside down in a canal in iraq and sink in the mud. It took 5 m88s and a week to get it out and it tied up damn near a company's worth of personnel. Those extra tons make their presence known and if that tank was an a2 we'd probably have had to thermite it and leave it
Damn. Bridge collapse under it? (I hope the crew got out! My great uncle died in Korea that way, bridge collapsed and his Sherman ended up upside down in a river.)
In the 80's, Abrams endured a big loss against the Brazilian Osório, which was just better. Politics aside, when I look at certain Abrams characteristics these days, it feels outdated, or perhaps it's me that doesn't understand in fully the modern doctrine the mechanized vehicles are enforced to. And the weight case is very sounding, based on what Glenn Dean has said recently. Seems to be some guys out there may produce things that doesn't need to be high tech to deal with the Abrams. That's my two cents, and I'm sorry for whatever thing I may get wrong. Any clarification will be appreciated.
@@luis9308I'd say that indecisiveness isn't the only huge hurdle: the other main "problem" with the Abrams is that it was developed in an age where drones (especially cheap ones) weren't really a thing and many now avaiable technology weren't present: much like 4th gen fighters you can upgrade the system for a long time and actually make it much better than the original version, but after a while you just NEED a new base, as a starting platform can only take so much
Well, it turns out that when the only peer power in the world implodes and you switch focus to counterinsurgency, MBTs stop being such a priority upgrade.
@@shittinontheceiling3474 Makes sense. It's really due time to change. This E-version is interesting. Since the base of the tank proved to be a good hit, rebuild it from there. It's a good approach to do, considering how much of the old and heavy tech now has been replaced by things that are the size of a hand, or way smaller (an smartphone and it's own components).
Back in 1991 when I graduated from high school. The first MOS offered to me was 19K. Then somehow they lost my job and 16S was the next one. Years later I switched to 67S, that later changed to 15S.
Always interesting, how much fire power can be relocated to out of direct fire areas on call for the forward contact vehicles? From my reading of the TTB auto loader testing it could be expanded to 60 rounds and possibly to 72 rounds with external suspension system. Turret redesign from scratch for less weight better protection, smaller profile while retaining a full 4-man crew for extended operations is in opinion desirably.
If they choose to follow the army nomenclature system the E stands for experimental modification version, then after it is approved it would get an A number as those mean its Successive approved modifications (A1, A2, A3, etc.)
great content as always, i had not thought about all the ways you could reduce the wight of a tank without reducing capabilities by removing and replacing outdated systems.
The Chieftain is standing in front of the American response to the T-14. The armor is made of depleted Vibranium, the gun will penetrate 6000mm of RHA at 1.3 parsecs and we are going to build 12.000 of them. See Russian fanboys, two can play this game.
I can appreciate the weight and cost saving of switching from copper to fibre optics. It would make all sub systems faster as well because of the quicker electronic "talking" to one another. As old as the Abrams is, it is high time they did a ground up change as opposed to the long string of add ons. I can't imagine a long list of bolt on upgrades is the most efficient way of doing things especially when redundant communication devices have to be installed. I think E3 is really the way to go.
I mean, technically the WWII-era M26 Pershing was the basis for all our medium/MBT designs until the Abrams. Tanks designs, like the tanks themselves last much longer than that of fighter planes.
My speculations would be: A new armor composite, Cobham was developed in the 1970s. Depleted uranium skins, stand-off spaced-armor, these can be integrated in a new hull and turret. The integration of communication and power lines through this newly-constructed composite, rather than boring holes straight-through, to accommodate cameras and sensor packs and future upgrades for battlefield communications. The Japanese Type 10 claims sufficient protection at a base fourty tons, versus seventy-three tons, along with the integration of cameras, sensors, active protection hard-kill system, and bolt-on advanced reactive armor kit _if desirable._ I expect significant increase in _upper hull_ and _turret_ top-armor, especially! Mobility and repair: I half-way expect adoption of the style of suspension used by Challenger, because [to an extent] it can be built to take a certain maximum weight, be _upgraded _*_to_*_ that weight,_ and accommodate upgrade to a _new_ weight limit. It is vastly easier to repair more completely than torsion-bar suspension, _and_ handles going off-road _much_ better; what it does _not_ do is speeds much over 37 miles per hour. -- BUT -- The U.S. is going to require a hybrid power train that supports all-electric operation, and the weight for batteries has to come from somewhere. Gun: Two guesses: The Rheinmettal 120mm L55, or the Japanese 120mm that is backwards-compatible with the N.A.T.O. ammunition, or can use its own high-pressure load to match performance of the L45 gun _with a shorter barrel._ My money is on a U.S. version of the Japanese gun, probably also using the Japanese robotic autoloader. In many ways, I would expect a new turret to be a mix of developments and capabilities exhibited by the Merkava Mark 4, with the Type 10, and a couple of entirely new communications capability those don't have plus electronic intelligence gathering and electronic countermeasures, and a spectrum of defensive capabilities no one else in the world is fielding yet. I expect it will trial remote-operation capabilities, too, in a platoon and company network.
LTC. What is being done in the mean time to upgrade the Abrams for top cover of the turrets and engine decks? This drone thing is getting a bit dicey? Thank you. SSG. RET
The current answer is air defense units and electronic warfare. The long-term solution is hemispherical protection on the vehicle itself in addition to the above.
Depending on how far the Army wants to deviate from the current M1, we might see them going for an autoloader with the M1E3. I doubt it will be an unmanned turret or an external cannon though, so a two-man turret if they do decide take the autoloader route. However I am almost certain they will end up using a hybrid engine like the one demonstrated in the AbramsX. A hybrid engine would go a long way in reducing fuel consumption and hence the logistical footprint, plus it has plenty of tactical advantages too.
To get the optimal amount of operational reliance AND maintainability for any military combat platform requires that the platform places a significant amount of emphasis on maintenance access to components. That is one reason the M1A2 power packs, for instance, are modular, to enable rapid changeout of the engine pack with a reconditioned spare and then send the old one to depot for overhaul and upgrade. This needs to be a uniform design feature throughout the vehicle. Tracks and suspension are one area where developing new designs would be vast improvements over the existing system of road wheels, suspension arms and linked tracks that is essentially 100 years old. It doesn't just apply to tanks. Warships, including nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines are platforms that haven't always been designed with maintenance in mind, and that becomes very important when you are trying to repair battle damage or failed critical components without gutting the entire hull.
Hey I feel pretty good here considering I called it before he said 65 tons would be acceptable ish for weight savings. I was like if it started 55 got to 72.5 get back to 60-65 ton.... Newer turbine could probably save some weight and gain on the fuel efficiency as well.
basically the army Generals walked up to politicians, pointed to the Russo-Ukraine war and said "see, our predictions were right" and the politicians proceeded to hand over the money the army had been asking for over the past 3 years. 14:50 I suspect this is because they might not be entirely sure either way right now.
Fiber optics isn’t the same as copper. So it depends on what they would be swapping. Fiber is good for communications, but I highly doubt they would have over a ton of copper just for communications. Most of that would be for power, and for that, you can’t substitute fiber.
I still think the future of ground combat is automated/unmanned vehicles. Replacing tanks/IFV's/APC's and combat soldiers. But, in case it isn't? Thanks for this. Very interesting. Easy to understand. ☮
Unmanned remote controlled vehicles, suffer from being targeted by Electronic Warfare. Autonomic vehicles may be hacked and aren't really working reliably enough yet. Still I think you are mostly right, an APC that controls a number of partially automatic remote vehicles the size of a Wiesel tanktet seams like the future and already possible. I understand the need for protected direct firepower, but Wiesel like 4 ton remote tank with a 20mm, a javelin and a sensor suite that can call in accurate artillery should be able to do nearly everything that a tank does at a tenth the price. And if 1-2 million is still to expensive, than a pickup truck with an AP, AT, or AA weapon system in the back might come in at below 200k. A solider in a western military I would estimate at 1 million on average (20 years * 50k/year). If Ukraine tough us anything it is that a 20+ million high tech tank burns just as well as a 500k t55 when hit by artillery. So to win we need tens of thousands of systems.
@leonfa259 I agree with all of that. Well said. The Russians have apparently taken down TONS of drones with electronic interference. So, better protection in that area is needed. Superior Faraday Cage's, perhaps. And you hit the nail on the head with the rest of it. I love the little Wiesel's. And why risk huge numbers of human soldiers when remote-controlled vehicles can do the job? Finally, throughout this video - as you said - I am thinking of how tanks are getting obliterated in Ukraine. Even Leopard 2A6's. I am not sure building 80 ton monsters that cost $12 million dollars are good value for the money any longer. Seems artillery and ATGM's are the way to go. And I doubt even Trophy can defeat all of those systems. Just like battleships ended up having to be just ridiculously huge to protect themselves. The same seems to be happening to tanks. I personally think their future is limited. Don't tell The Chieftain, though. ✌️
@@McRocket The problem with drones that are attacked by EW is usually that they loose communication and GPS, a Faraday cage doesn't help against that. But by using EW the Russians also deny the airspace to their own low tech drones too. Loosing 10,000 drones a month isn't really that big of an issue since they are still cheaper than a single western tank. At the end of the day it seams to be mostly about finding the enemy and delivering a munition, both ideally as cheaply, frequently and quickly as possible.
