MBT AbramsX Tank- Pictures & Video's

[Beast]

Attack Helo seldom hit armor over 2km...and that's different ATGM than Man Portable or Missile used in Tank or APC. In Bradley case, you can't even fire the TOW when you are moving. Not every ATGM are the same, and not every mode of engagement are the same. You have less noise and more clear contrast if you hit from the air, if you are at level, you will have a lot of obstacles and a lot of interference for your missile.



You do know 105mm usually have muzzle velocity between 500-700, a 120mm gun would have muzzle velocity between 1500-1700......

You see the different??





You are assuming your opponent WOULD NOT Harden their site and use it as is.

It's not hard at all to harden a building with Concrete and Rebar. I mean, if you are to choose your target to engage, why not say your enemy is setting up their HQ in a brick house? Which you can literally destroy it by driving a truck into it.

with modern ATGM. If a fire and forget. Doesn't matter you need to stop and fire.

120mm muzzle velocity wouldnt match the destructive power of a 155mm arty.

If the enemies position is so fortify. I doubt your extra 120mm gun is gonna make much different. Leave it to air strike and heavy arty to take care.

 

[jhungary]

with modern ATGM. If a fire and forget. Doesn't matter you need to stop and fire.

You do know this is the reason why you cannot get accurate outside 1500 yard, right?

You have a lot more obstacle if you are firing your ATGM at level..

120mm muzzle velocity wouldnt match the destructive power of a 155mm arty.

.........Tank Guns ALWAYS have more muzzle velocity than Charge Fire Artillery.....

IIRC M777 Muzzle Velocity are mid 900 and M256A1 muzzle velocity are 1500+

If the enemies position is so fortify. I doubt your extra 120mm gun is gonna make much different. Leave it to air strike and heavy arty to take care.

Again, shooting HEAT round and ORT round on Hard Target will be enough to reduce the bunker into rubble, Air Force don't really drop bomb on an infantry bunker. It's a waste of money.

 

[CSAW]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1580118113403555840

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Sineva]

 

[Beny Karachun]

with modern ATGM. If a fire and forget. Doesn't matter you need to stop and fire.

120mm muzzle velocity wouldnt match the destructive power of a 155mm arty.

If the enemies position is so fortify. I doubt your extra 120mm gun is gonna make much different. Leave it to air strike and heavy arty to take care.

ATGMs aren't seen as a threat to tanks here in Israel anymore, only APFSDS rounds are.

You throw a Trophy system on an Abrams or a Leopard and they can forget about ATGMs as well.

Throw an Iron Fist system and they can even forget about APFSDS shells.

 

[Beast]

ATGMs aren't seen as a threat to tanks here in Israel anymore, only APFSDS rounds are.

You throw a Trophy system on an Abrams or a Leopard and they can forget about ATGMs as well.

Throw an Iron Fist system and they can even forget about APFSDS shells.

If its such magic why its didn't perform miracle for IDF or Tanks in Syria or Ukraine war? Stop BS with me.

 

[Beny Karachun]

If its such magic why its didn't perform miracle for IDF or Tanks in Syria or Ukraine war? Stop BS with me.

But it did lol, Trophy had around 200 successful interceptions in 2014 alone, against Kornet, RPG-29s, Konkurus, Metis, RPG7 and others. The result is 0 Merkavas were damaged

Tanks in Syria and Ukraine aren't fitted with any APS, and if they were, blame the garbage engineering capability of the Russians.

 

[LeGenD]

First video of AbramsX main battle tank released - Task & Purpose (taskandpurpose.com)

Here’s your first clear look at the next-generation ‘AbramsX’ main battle tank​

Finally.
BY JARED KELLER | PUBLISHED OCT 8, 2022 6:30 PM

• TECH & TACTICS

The AbramsX main battle tank technology demonstrator. (General Dynamics Land System
After months of veiled teases, General Dynamics Land Systems has finally revealed its first clear look at its next-generation main battle tank concept.


In a video released Saturday, the defense contractor showed off the so-called “AbramsX” technology demonstrator trundling along at a testing facility, spotlighting the tank concept’s “transformational technology” ahead of the system’s full unveiling at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual meeting in Washington D.C. next week.

Details on the Abrams X are scant at the moment, but according to GDLS, the new tank concept features “reduced weight for improved mobility and transportability,” allowing for a similar tactical range to the M1A2 Abrams variant currently in service with roughly half the fuel consumption and a significantly smaller crew.

As our colleagues at The War Zone reported when GDLS first started teasing the next-generation tank concept in previous months, the AbramsX will likely feature several new weapons systems and sensors, including a 30mm Kongsberg Protector RS6 Remote Weapon Station mounted on top of its main turret, what looks like an advanced 120 mm main gun, some variant of the Trophy active protection system that’s seen testing on the Army’s current M1 Abrams fleet in recent years and refreshed electro-optical and infrared turrets.

Not only is it deadly, featuring “AI-enabled lethality” based on the company’s Katalyst Next Generation Electronic Architecture for advanced mobility and target acquisition, manned/unmanned teaming (MUM-T), and various autonomous systems, but the AbramsX is silent too — sort of.


“The AbramsX’s hybrid power pack supports the U.S. Army’s climate and electrification strategies, enhances silent watch capability, and even allows for some silent mobility,” according to GDLS, suggesting that the new Abrams concept might achieve some level of relative stealth when moving across the battlefield compared to previous iterations.


According to GDLS, the AbramsX will function as a “key node in lethal battlefield networks” and serve as a bridge between the currently-fielded Abrams SEPv3 and the recently-unveiled SEPv4 iteration to some sort of “future tank,” whatever that might look like.

The SEPv3 upgrade to the Abrams “incorporates turret and hull armor upgrades, mine blast improvements, reactive armor tiles, lightweight belly armor, improved countermine equipment, Improvised Explosive Device (IED) jamming equipment, a Total Integrated Engine Revitalization (TIGER) engine, an upgraded transmission, an Auxiliary Power Unit (APU), improved power generation & distribution, Ammunition Data Link (ADL) for smart munitions,” according to Army budget documents.


Meanwhile, the SEPv4 upgrades reportedly include “new laser rangefinder technology, color cameras, integrated on-board networks, new slip-rings, advanced meteorological sensors, ammunition data links, laser warning receivers and a far more lethal, multi-purpose 120mm tank round,” as Army officials told Warrior Maven way back in 2016.

When soldiers can expect to get their hands on the AbramsX remains to be seen: the service only received its first half-dozen initial production versions of the SEPv3 back in October 2017 and started testing the SEPv4 this year.

Independent explanation of this variant in following video:

Detailed information.

Russian T-14 Armata is impressive but General Dynamics was like GAME ON.

@iLION12345_1
@PanzerKiel

 

[iLION12345_1]

Independent explanation of this variant in following video:

Detailed information.

Russian T-14 Armata is impressive but General Dynamics was like GAME ON.

@iLION12345_1
@PanzerKiel

It doesn’t matter how good the T14 is if Russia cannot produce them anyways.

The T-14 might have an inherently base better design, simply because the Abrams as a base design is much older, but what they’re managing to pull out of the tank performance wise goes to show how much forward thinking went into the upgradability of it, and how standardizing everything to such a massive extent makes something like the AbramsX feasible economically and logistically despite being so “different”
That’s how the US won WW2 as well in a way, the Sherman wasn’t impressive, but it was so well thought out that it became the most feasible tank of the war.

US Tech/Software/AI systems are just a step ahead of Russias’ anyways, the T-14 is impressive, but the AbramsX is definitely more modern/smart and at this point, likely more capable too. I was hoping they’d have a bigger main gun on it by now though. Germany and Britain are moving to 130MM.

 

[LeGenD]

It doesn’t matter how good the T14 is if Russia cannot produce them anyways.

The T-14 might have an inherently base better design, simply because the Abrams as a base design is much older, but what they’re managing to pull out of the tank performance wise goes to show how much forward thinking went into the upgradability of it, and how standardizing everything to such a massive extent makes something like the AbramsX feasible economically and logistically despite being so “different”
That’s how the US won WW2 as well in a way, the Sherman wasn’t impressive, but it was so well thought out that it became the most feasible tank of the war.

US Tech/Software/AI systems are just a step ahead of Russias’ anyways, the T-14 is impressive, but the AbramsX is definitely more modern/smart and at this point, likely more capable too. I was hoping they’d have a bigger main gun on it by now though. Germany and Britain are moving to 130MM.

Indeed... Russia is struggling to develop T-14 Armata. They aimed too high in terms of incorporating autonomous technology in view of their domestic industrial capacity and development costs ballooned.

----

T-14 is good design for an MBT of its size but I do not think it better than M1 Abrams design due to limited space and Russian autoloader concept.

While there is separate compartment for ammo storage but that ammo below turret? What could possibly go wrong if something manage to penetrate it? Oh well...

M1 Abrams FRAME is noticeably larger and provides significant capacity for "innovations" as time has shown - it turned out to be well ahead for its time and helped reduce innovation costs through the years. Americans have not felt the need to start from scratch since the 1980s.

The Meggit autoloader concept is much safer in line with M1 Abrams crew safety standards. Entire ammo is stored in a separate compartment and autoloaded from behind as shown in following footage:

This autoloading system is 12 rounds per minute capable.

Well done on the whole.

----

Indeed... US is much ahead of Russia in development of sophisticated technologies.

AbramsX seems to be a solid blend of autonomous technologies and proven technologies such as Trophy APS for its defensive needs and to achieve 360 degree situational awareness.

The Diesel-Electric Hybrid engine is very interesting and in line with making the MBT very quiet, fuel efficient, and operationally robust.

XM360 gun design makes sense from American standpoint. It is pure American design, allows deployment of a wide range NATO-standard munitions, and produces considerably less recoil. The idea is to step away from foreign dependency in this domain.

Abrams X - The Next Generation American Battle Tank? - Defense News - Military Matters

Next week will see the unveiling of GDLS' concept for the US Army's next battle tank - the Abrams X. And it promises to be interesting.

militarymatters.online

Your viewpoint is fine as well. There is room for improvements like always.

General Dynamics did a good job in demonstrating future-proofing concepts, nevertheless. The company brought down the gross weight of this MBT to 62 ton mark with internal changes. Excellent work.

@PanzerKiel
@PakFactor
@FuturePAF
@Irfan Baloch

 

[Communism]

The T-14 is a far superior design due to the fact that it doesn't waste armor armoring the front of the turret just to protect the ammo rack at the rear of the turret.


The T-14's autoloader has blowout panels as well, and the crew compartment is completely separate from the ammo compartment, so it's not a real vulnerability.


This is why the T-14 was able to have far superior armor protection in every direction than the AbramsX concept, despite being significantly lighter.


Overall, the AbramsX concept is decidedly meh.


What I really want to see in more mbt armor level vehicles is the ability to slave their machine guns and autocannons to short range air defense radars.


This is what was promised in things like the T-15 armata, but no one seems to be moving forwards with the concept.

 

[Oldman1]

It doesn’t matter how good the T14 is if Russia cannot produce them anyways.

The T-14 might have an inherently base better design, simply because the Abrams as a base design is much older, but what they’re managing to pull out of the tank performance wise goes to show how much forward thinking went into the upgradability of it, and how standardizing everything to such a massive extent makes something like the AbramsX feasible economically and logistically despite being so “different”
That’s how the US won WW2 as well in a way, the Sherman wasn’t impressive, but it was so well thought out that it became the most feasible tank of the war.

US Tech/Software/AI systems are just a step ahead of Russias’ anyways, the T-14 is impressive, but the AbramsX is definitely more modern/smart and at this point, likely more capable too. I was hoping they’d have a bigger main gun on it by now though. Germany and Britain are moving to 130MM.

The t-14 is really nothing new. The American version TTB

M1 Tank Test Bed (TTB) with Unmanned Turret

M1 Tank Test Bed with Unmanned Turret

warfaretech.blogspot.com

In the mid-80s, US Tank Automotive Command (TACOM) awarded a contract to design and develop a Test Bed for an M1 Abrams with an Unmanned 120mm Turret with the crew in the hull to General Dynamics Land Systems.

M1 Tank Test Bed​

If its such magic why its didn't perform miracle for IDF or Tanks in Syria or Ukraine war? Stop BS with me.

Don't see any evidence of Russian tanks being equipped with APS in Ukraine. If they have them, probably kept in Moscow where Putin wants them where it is.

 

[Oldman1]

Indeed... Russia is struggling to develop T-14 Armata. They aimed too high in terms of incorporating autonomous technology in view of their domestic industrial capacity and development costs ballooned.

----

T-14 is good design for an MBT of its size but I do not think it better than M1 Abrams design due to limited space and Russian autoloader concept.

While there is separate compartment for ammo storage but that ammo below turret? What could possibly go wrong if something manage to penetrate it? Oh well...

M1 Abrams FRAME is noticeably larger and provides significant capacity for "innovations" as time has shown - it turned out to be well ahead for its time and helped reduce innovation costs through the years. Americans have not felt the need to start from scratch since the 1980s.

The Meggit autoloader concept is much safer in line with M1 Abrams crew safety standards. Entire ammo is stored in a separate compartment and autoloaded from behind as shown in following footage:

This autoloading system is 12 rounds per minute capable.

Well done on the whole.

----

Indeed... US is much ahead of Russia in development of sophisticated technologies.

AbramsX seems to be a solid blend of autonomous technologies and proven technologies such as Trophy APS for its defensive needs and to achieve 360 degree situational awareness.

The Diesel-Electric Hybrid engine is very interesting and in line with making the MBT very quiet, fuel efficient, and operationally robust.

XM360 gun design makes sense from American standpoint. It is pure American design, allows deployment of a wide range NATO-standard munitions, and produces considerably less recoil. The idea is to step away from foreign dependency in this domain.

Abrams X - The Next Generation American Battle Tank? - Defense News - Military Matters

Next week will see the unveiling of GDLS' concept for the US Army's next battle tank - the Abrams X. And it promises to be interesting.

militarymatters.online

Your viewpoint is fine as well. There is room for improvements like always.

General Dynamics did a good job in demonstrating future-proofing concepts, nevertheless. The company brought down the gross weight of this MBT to 62 ton mark with internal changes. Excellent work.

@PanzerKiel
@PakFactor
@FuturePAF
@Irfan Baloch

I think they will probably skip the unmanned turret and just use the new engine, panoramic sights without having to turn the turret which takes up a lot of power, new gun, maybe even the new auto loader which means new turret design to accommodate all this.

It doesn’t matter how good the T14 is if Russia cannot produce them anyways.

The T-14 might have an inherently base better design, simply because the Abrams as a base design is much older, but what they’re managing to pull out of the tank performance wise goes to show how much forward thinking went into the upgradability of it, and how standardizing everything to such a massive extent makes something like the AbramsX feasible economically and logistically despite being so “different”
That’s how the US won WW2 as well in a way, the Sherman wasn’t impressive, but it was so well thought out that it became the most feasible tank of the war.

US Tech/Software/AI systems are just a step ahead of Russias’ anyways, the T-14 is impressive, but the AbramsX is definitely more modern/smart and at this point, likely more capable too. I was hoping they’d have a bigger main gun on it by now though. Germany and Britain are moving to 130MM.

They won't go for the 130mm because of cost of the new ammo and new logistics. The 120 is doing just fine and if the newest tanks China and Russia puts out that makes it obsolete, they can always introduce the L55 version that Germany is using for more penetration and reach. Did you know that the L44 gun on the Abrams is just as capable of the L55 version because of the DU ammo alone? So imagine putting it on the L55 version.

 

[LeGenD]

The T-14 is a far superior design due to the fact that it doesn't waste armor armoring the front of the turret just to protect the ammo rack at the rear of the turret.


The T-14's autoloader has blowout panels as well, and the crew compartment is completely separate from the ammo compartment, so it's not a real vulnerability.


This is why the T-14 was able to have far superior armor protection in every direction than the AbramsX concept, despite being significantly lighter.


Overall, the AbramsX concept is decidedly meh.


What I really want to see in more mbt armor level vehicles is the ability to slave their machine guns and autocannons to short range air defense radars.


This is what was promised in things like the T-15 armata, but no one seems to be moving forwards with the concept.

Easy to penetrate in the front then? Got it.

---

How many blowout panels? Where are they located?

Also, crew compartment is right next to the autoloader compartment. I would not sit in it.

There is substantial gap between crew compartment and ammo storage compartment in AbramsX on the other hand.

"Like the original Abrams design, the AbramsX keeps the tank’s ammunition in a sealed compartment behind the main part of the turret, and blast doors open only momentarily while loading a round before sealing again." - Coffee Or Die Magazine

This is how you do it right.

---

Based on what exactly? Is it a heavyweight class MBT?

T-14 turret is easy to penetrate and Afghanit APS does not provide 360 degree protection like Trophy APS. There is evidence of the failure of Afghanit APS in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. T-14 isn't as survivable as you imagine it to be - only in games.

---

Right.

AbramsX represents a FAR more practical and survivable design due to its SIZE which in turn provides greater space for incorporating sophisticated technologies, protective measures, and safety standards in comparison to compact Russian designs. Common sense.

---

T-15? Let them complete T-14 first.

AbramsX has integrated electronics architecture for its functions including identification of potential targets and application of its main cannon.

"Also new for the AbramsX is the incorporation of Katalyst Next Generation Electronic Architecture, or NGEA, a modular open architecture developed independently by GDLS that uses AI for object detection and recognition, and automatic prioritization of targets, as well as navigation help including path-planning and avoidance of obstacles. NGEA also provides the kind of situational awareness tools being built into next-gen combat systems including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, such as “see-through armor,” achieved by perimeter cameras that offer tank crews an unobstructed image of the battlefield.

At the rear of the AbramsX, there is another innovation for the modern battlefield: four launchers for Switchblade 300 munitions, also known as kamikaze, or suicide, drones. These unmanned aerial systems are controlled by the crew from the front of the hull, Reese said. And while they mainly serve as loitering precision missiles, the Switchblades also function as a camera en route to their target, Reese said, sending the feed from their sensor back to the crew and thus extending their visibility all the way up until detonation.

NGEA will also give crews the ability to control other UAVs and robotic ground vehicles from within the tank using their existing control panels." - Sandboxx

But there are other practicalities to consider:

"Sensing and AI are also critical to the AbramsX, Reese added, because the vehicle is built with two independent thermal viewers on top of the tank so both the commander and the gunner have near a 360-degree camera with which to gather incoming targeting data which can then be analyzed and transmitted by an AI-enabled Katalyst vehicle electronic architecture.

There are two independent day/night viewers on top of turret instead of one so now both the commander and the gunner each have their own 360 degree camera that they can scan the battlefield from and the turret does not have to move until they want to engage the enemy and then they can engage the turret controls so they are using a lot less of the battery power." - Kris Osborn (Warrior Maven)

AbramsX provides better combat-related flexibility to both the commander and the gunner to do their thing - no need to move turret around unnecessarily in the process.

 

[Communism]

There's nothing to protect in the T-14 turret, as the only thing in it that can be damaged wouldn't be protected by turret armor anyways.


There's literally only a gun in the turret.


Guns aren't protected by turret armor. At all. In any tank.


The fact that you think the gun would be protected in the AbramsX turret shows me exactly that it is you that get your information from games.


The crew compartment isn't even connected to the ammo rack in any way shape or form.


I am not talking about Russia working on the T-14 or T-15.


I am talking about anyone doing anything with the concept at all, which I have seen no evidence of.


Literally zero tanks on any side of the Ukraine conflict has hard kill active protection systems.


Your bias is obvious and always present, which is why it's pointless to ever argue with you on any topic that contains any U.S. piece of kit even tangentially, as nothing productive ever comes from it.


Literally saying one isn't in combat while the other is literally a showroom prop.


The very fact that the hull of the AbramsX is not substantially longer on the front shows that it's totally nonsensical in terms of armor layout, as the hull of Abrams tanks is extremely underarmored, and they decided to armor the turret to protect literally only the ammo rack behind it instead of focusing on the hull armor where the crew actually is is absolutely asinine.


I have predicted exactly what would happen if a war like ukraine happened 20+ years ago and have been talking about it online and had people like you troll my analysis for that entire time.


Everything I have predicted has come to pass on the battlefield exactly to the very tiniest details.


Whereas people like you who parrot defense contractor tripe have been wrong every single time, as the defense contractors only exist to scam taxpayers.


I have had to hear total and utter nonsense like pretending that garbage like strykers accomplish anything at all on the battlefield when it was always 100% abundantly clear from the start that that garbage is total defense contractor tripe that would get destroyed the second a war begins and result in a vehicle that costs half as much as a proper tank while providing 0% of the utility.

It took until the results of the ukraine war (in 2014 and today) for defense contractor regurgitators to finally pretend that they thought like me to begin with, when it's clear from their history that they didn't know jack squat about anything until reality hit them so hard in the face that they no longer could pretend that their notions were correct any longer.