MBT AbramsX Tank- Pictures & Video's

[LeGenD]

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.

A tank should be survivable in modern battlefield(s).

T-14 is very impressive in THEORY but can you be certain about its survivability in a complex threat environment involving NATO? Russians are known to claim MUCH but deliver LESS to clients and even their own troops. This problem is particularly apparent in Ukraine.

My contention is that T-14's turret is NOT heavily armored and can be easily penetrated and disabled. This will render the tank useless in the thick of the battle. I mark this as a vulnerability of T-14 in terms of "survivability."

There's literally only a gun in the turret? Really?

Tell me now.

----

Who is talking about protecting the gun? The gun is NOT a practical target to engage from a distance BUT the turret is due to being a wide-bodied structure. See above.

You need to read my posts carefully.

----

I am aware of the fact that the crew compartment is separated from the ammo storage compartment in T-14. The manufacturer made the right call in this case. T-14 design is definitely a step up in terms of protecting the crew in comparison to older Russian MBT designs - credit where due.

But I noticed something - the crew compartment is located right next to the autoloader compartment where ammo will be present due to requirements of the Russian autoloader system:

Do you see it now?

If the autoloader compartment is breached and one of the rounds is struck in the process, the resulting chain of events will lead to destruction of the turret and harm the crew due to "proximity." I mark this as a vulnerability of T-14 in terms of "survivability."

I am aware of the fact that Russians have applied Malachit ERA tiles to protect the HULL of T-14. But ERA tiles are good at stopping HEAT rounds, but not all types of rounds. For perspective, tandem charges were able to penetrate every ERA type and cope cage(s) applied on Russian MBTs deployed in Ukraine.

In AbramsX, ammo is NOT present in the autoloader compartment like in T-14. The ammo storage compartment is present behind the autoloader compartment instead. The Meggitt autoloader system is fundamentally different from how Russian autoloader system(s) work - see video in post # 25. This arrangement creates sufficient gap between the crew compartment and the ammo storage compartment for the crew to be SAFE in case of a mishap in the ammo storage compartment.

Which tank has better design, therefore? You tell me now.

----

You mentioned T-15, but fine.

----

Russian T-90M is equipped with Arena-M APS by default. One was lost in a battle in Ukraine. Ukrainian forces captured another that was reportedly equipped with Afghanit APS.

My point is that Russian APS kits do not offer 360 degree protection like Israeli Trophy APS. I mark this as a vulnerability of T-14 in terms of "survivability."

----

You boasted that T-14 is a far superior design due to reduction in its turrent armoring. But I am biased for challenging this FLAWED assertion?

See my explanation above to understand why it was a bad idea to reduce turret armoring.

----

Lower Front Hull?

Baseline armor on the Lower Front Hull was improved in M1A1HA (of the US Marines) and M1A2 SEP (of the US Army) to following standard in 2004:

580 - 650 (in mm of RHAe) vs KE
800 - 970 (in mm of RHAe) vs CE

M1A2 SEPv3 received whole-body armor REVISIT in recent years, but details are classified.

AbramsX also received whole-body armor REVISIT, but details are classified.

But how likely it is for the Russian tankers to score hits on the Lower Front Hull side of the American tanks in use? Do they have SEE FIRST and SHOOT FIRST advantage? Unlikely.

And Russian ATGM users will have to deal with Trophy APS.

----

People like ME trolled on your analysis on a regular basis? I barely recall having debates with you, dear.

You might have made some good observations before in other threads but I do not see it in this thread.

The Stryker family of vehicles are suitable for a wide range of roles in combat situations, and did fine in Iraq and Afghanistan respectively.

How many roles you want to assign to tanks in modern warfare?

It is easy for people like you to complain, but it is challenging and costly to come up with innovative solutions that will work in increasingly complex threat environments of the 21st century (realized and anticipated).

Food for thought time:

AbramsX wasn't put together in a day or two - its development is informed by DECADES worth of technological research and experiments in connection with the Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) program and also in connection with development of the 5th generation aircraft to receive cutting edge autonomous capabilities and to provide 360 degree situational awareness to the crew to fight more effectively than ever before. Huge sums of money were poured into these experiments through the years to develop solutions that can work and deliver results in increasingly complex threat environments of the 21st century (realized and anticipated). How many countries can afford these experiments and match these applications for real?

In addition to incorporating technologies having relevance for emerging warfare trends, General Dynamics have also addressed commonly highlighted complaints about M1 Abrams variants [in use] such as they are very heavy and gas guzzlers, in AbramsX.

AbramsX Next Generation Main Battle Tank Breaks Cover

This is the first time we have seen the AbramsX concept, which is representative of a future American main battle tank, outside of artwork.

www.thedrive.com

US army veterans provide very good explanation of the merits of AbramsX:

To replace the Abrams tank, the Army should stick to what it knows - Breaking Defense

The Army is considering an unmanned future system, but AEI’s John Ferrari and Charles Rahr argue the Abrams X is a better bet.

breakingdefense.com

You wanted to see the ability to slave machine guns and autocannons to short range air defense radars? AbramsX feature guns that are remotely operated and linked to onboard sensor systems.

AbramsX is a revolutionary vehicle in true sense of the word - better than T-14 on the whole.