Play World of Warships here: wo.ws/3CSdK9S Thank you World of Warships for sponsoring this video. During registration use the code BRAVO to get for free: -500 doubloons -1.5 million credits -7 Days Premium Account time -Free of choice USS Phoenix, Japanese cruiser Kuma, French battleship Courbet, Italian battleship Dante Alighieri, or the HMS Wakeful after you complete 15 battles Applicable to new users only.
world of warships is one of the worst free to play games out there. the devs don't listen to the playerbase and literally everything about the game is monetized.
I enjoy World of Warships. I've only spent money when I've wanted to do so. Like many games it has both good and bad aspects. I think it has more of an upside than down side.
Will you ever make a video about the few T-90M actually destroyed in Ucraine and on which AT WEAPONS DO YOU PERSONALLY BELIEVE WERE BEHIND THEIR DESTRUCTION?
@@tashithendup2336 Logistics are arguably as important as protection, firepower, and mobility, especially operating far in advance of front lines. Hopefully no more 10 gallon consumption on start up and hopefully no more 1 gallon every 6 min at idle or 1 gallon per minute in motion. This would be huge. Would be interesting to know whether using the engine charges the batteries and electric operated systems. Because this is simply a demonstrator, I wonder how much more the design will be refined in whatever this develops into over the next 5-10 years and what any potential production version will look like and how it will operate. The main difference between this and T-14 is America has the means to actually produce these in meaningful numbers when that time comes.
As I understand it, the width of the turret has been maintained because if any mechanical failure occurs in the turret, the crew could access it and control it manually.
Yes buts if I heard right its even more cramped than it all ready was so it would be an undesirable place to be Edit: I feel attacked not really lol but I won't be replying back to you cuz I got stuff I need to do lol aka farm IT TAKES SO MUCH TIME
Size of the turret was left the same due to the feature of having a “degradation” mode allowing crew to get in the turret and use a gun sight and operate the turret like the old Abrams
It also goes back to the AbramsX being a tech demo, it makes the most sense. Give the Generals both options of remote and manned so they can see how all the other tech work in tandem with it and then can order one option or the duel optimized+degradation modes it currently has.
Achates's opposed piston diesels are crazy-efficient. I wouldn't be suprised, if the "50% lower fuel consumption" could be achived when compared to other modern MBTs, not only gas-guzzling turbine! They also output a huge ammount of torque from very low RPM
As much as a love gad turbines. The new universal engine is one of those ideas too good to not implement. Parts commonality alone is reason enough to switch.
50% less is... Actually exactly what they claim it can do, compared to the standard guzzling Abrams. We'll see how well it actually holds up, but it is honestly one of the most potentially impressive parts of the vehicle. And with the Abrams power pack already being a modular drop-in, it's also something that existing vehicles might more easily be retrofitted with, assuming they design it that way (AKA: Aren't stupid, and want to make money).
@@DerpsWithWolves I totally agree with you, however what i meant is since a opposed-piston diesel has 15% higher thermal efficiency than a conventional one and outputs more torque, the AbramsX would most likely consume less fuel than other diesel-powered MBTs. And that it without even mentioning the fact, that it's got a hybrid drivetrain, which increases it's efficiency even more. 50% less than a Leo 2a7v might not be as far-fetched as we may think!
@@MrSlyFox I'll remain cautiously optimistic for twice the efficiency of other diesel engines, but that would be quite the game-changer. Not just for MBTs, either, but for more fuel efficient IFVs that can take a hit just as well, like the Puma and Namer.
@@yaraelpoof7242 Remotely operated was flown around long before that, so it is just a simple concept that anyone can come up with. Developing and putting it into production is another thing entirely.
Both nations tested crewless turret way back then, but only one adopted the concept for serialization. Don't get sensitive when the US recognizes this design as good.
I had read even when fully developed, it’s still in interim design. A tank to cover the timeframe from the existing Abrams to a next generation tank sometime in the future.
They say that… but I wouldn’t be surprised if Congress just says “You are buying these and that’s it” We spend a fuck ton on our military but even then we are still grubby when it comes to actually getting stuff lmao.
@@PeterMuskrat6968 That's just how it is when you are the largest military in the world. Most of that budget goes to maintenance, training, personnel, basing, and other logistics. And as things get older, their maintenance bill only gets higher and higher. A previously small military that is expanding like China for example don't have to start out paying and feeding millions of men(they shrunk their manpower in the 80s and 90s) nor do they have to maintain thousands of tanks, IFVs, APCs and humvees. Nor do they have to maintain 10 nuclear carriers and a hundred cruiser and destroyer fleet. All that money can be spent producing new hardware. All the new Chinese equipment is fresh out of factory and aren't maintenance intensive. But over time, they will due to wear and tear. 10 years later, that maintenance bill is going to hit like a truck and procurement will slow because money is siphoned away. It's also why Russia actually would benefit shrinking(ridding old soviet era hardware) its military to grow it later with brand new stuff. But I guess they want the money sink like the Kuznetsov to maintain institutional knowledge on carrier operations. Not having a carrier for potentially a long time mean losing all the experienced personnel and the navy would have to relearn everything.
@@neurofiedyamato8763 Classic, it’s also not going to be easy to pay for their advancing Military budget when 60-65% of the current workforce is retired, and no longer makes significant money for the state and instead sucks up that money… that’s where China is headed. It’s economy is fucked just by the Age issue, but further exacerbated by the labor getting more expensive and companies shifting the manufacturing of their goods to alternative countries such as India, Bangladesh, Thailand and African countries once the infrastructure is built. China is a titan living on borrowed time, and by the end of the 21st Century they will be down to around 600 Million people if the current trends continue. They are quickly turning into another Japan… once forecasted to surpass the west and become the dominant economic force of the world… until they weren’t. That’s also not including the CCP’s grip slowly being degraded away with each failure of the state.
The bustle auto loader was the right choice, as it has the same benefits the current ammo storage has. I’d put armor on the turret to provide it protection, and making it have no armor since it’s unmanned would mean a lot of potential mission kills on it. Also if the crew is ever inside the turret, you want the turret to have armor. There will probably be crews that still use the turret, but that might be a good thing as you could have a crew size of 3-5 with two in the turret and 3 in the hull. This could be good for task management and observation. Having a gunner in the turret would allow him to man the gun while the commander and a second gunner in the hull can scan for targets. Or the drones and other system can be manned in the hull by a crewman while the gunner is in the turret. Basically, there are options and the idea could be explored to have flexibility in task management and crew size to find the best layout and number.
A hit on the armored turret would still mean a mission kill a lot of times. I don’t think the trade of in weight would actually make a well armored turret worthwhile.
1. The turret is the same size from what I’ve heard for both maintenance and emergency manual usage 2. The XM360 may have the same ballistic performance as the m256 but the xm360 can handle higher pressure loads meaning that it can handle higher performance rounds than the current 120mm used by the US
Couple of things about what you've said in the video: - 2:49 - because they went for the repairability approach. The turret is "optionally manned" - as they've said, if anything gets damaged or goes wrong, the turret can still be operated or fixed fro the inside, without exposing oneself to the enemy fire. - 3:22 - the "Kryuk" isn't nearly as much of a threat as it is advertised as. If the computer of the APS has radar signatures in its memory, it can recognize which one is the missile and which one is the "bait", and just ignore the fake rocket. - 6:35 - Which Switchblade is it? Because if it's the 300 variant, it's gonna be pretty useless - these things can't deal with jamming at all, they just fall out of the sky when exposed to EW equipment.
Based on the fact that the SwitchBlade is being fired out the main gun rather than a module on the side it is SwitchBlade 600 which has the same payload as Javalin and has a range up to 90km.
Both of those dont exist, Leo 3 wasnt even a concept. PL 01 was a "fake" tank made on CV 90 hoping for some funding to make it an actual thing, nothing came of it tho, its dead
@@AkeN996 the "production model" of the PL-01 only exists in GTA Online as the Khanjali tank. The tank is literally only known now for being in a videogame than being a famous prototype.
The turret is wide, because it needs room for the crew. Even though it is now remotely operated, it still has a crew compartment so that the crew can do maintenance and repairs on the turret from within, and can operate it manually if the remote controls in the hull fail. This is significant advantage over the T14 and M1TTB.
it's not a advantage lol, it's bad design at that point you basically give up all the advantages of uncrewed turret so why even adopt it in the first place???
@@stsk1061 Every tank is balance of compromises. Of course there are going to be advantages and disadvantages to every design decision. This is already much lighter than the M1A2, and has a smaller profile. The designers probably didn't feel it would be worth sacrificing versatility just to make it a little more lighter.
@@xxfalconarasxx5659 A little? The turret has by far the heaviest armor on the tank and it's just as wide as the previous one. There's no good reason for that.
@@mac2857 You don't give up all disadvantages of an uncrewed turret. The crew compartment is MUCH SMALLER than the original M1 Abrams, as it is designed for one person to operate in emergency situations, as opposed to 3 people. A remote turret is also not just to reduce weight, but to improve crew survivability. If the turret gets hit, the crew will likely be unharmed. Another advantage is reducing the number of crew members per tank. This only requires 3 crew members as opposed to 4, and theoretically could be fully operated by just 1 person if need be.
Account name and PFP check out. But yeah… unlike the flaming pile of Dogshit that is the RU military, we can afford to mass produce these babies… at least make enough to kit out *Most* active Armor units. Plenty of M1A2’s will be shipped to National Guard units or be put into storage to fill gaps in wartime. (Or sold to Ukraine :) )
More importantly, produce them. This still being an Abrams underneath means there's no dramatic change to existing tank production unlike introducing a completely new model which means a reset of logistics and part production.
It has those problems you mentioned because it's not a fully new concept but something they could build on the existing Abrams factory jigs. They spent as little money as possible on modifying the structure, instead spending on showing tech. I think the Army will understand, they know more can be done to the structure.
If i were the desiner for the AbramX, I would change the hull design massively, instead have the gunner and commander inside the chassis directly underneath the turret. This frees up space and allows the driver's station to also be squished closer to the turret of the tank. Resulting in significantly lighter tonnage. Then have the fully automated ammo stored in where the ammo is originally stored in the Abrams. The auto loader is semi automatic, the autoloader would be loaded by a first ammo stowage located directly under the turret breach that is manually loaded by the gunner/commander (can be loaded from both sides). The autoloader itself would feature a revolving carousel of ammo similar to the Russian Autoloaders however with the fact that it needs to be loaded manually and stocked manually by a person, when the first ammo stowage is depleted, the autoloader will cease functioning until another shell has been loaded, however a shell can also be manually loaded into the breach by hand. The shell that would be loaded into the first ammo stowage to go into the autoloader however would have either the commander or gunner take a shell from the ammo stowage on the rear of the tank and load it into the auto loader and select what shell has been loaded(or have an automatic shell type identifier fitted to it). Before firing the commander must designate what shell to be indexed, upon being indexed the autoloader will only load that same shell type until the commander selects a new shell to index, at which point it will load that shell after the shell fired from the turret has been fired. This modification would require the turret dimensions to keep the same but the FUP of the chassis can be changed to reduce weight, by squishing the front of it, you can make the profile of the tank slimmer while also saving space, as well as this, I would add a 40-60mm block of armor that is angled not the same as the front plate but still angled enough where its actual thickness can provide protection on the sides of the driver's view port from the right and left going to the sides of the tank to protect the turret neck. Another weight reduction attempt is I would try to make the turret shorter, similar to the already existing AbramsX design suggestion since the crew will be mostly in the chassis and around their chest upwards in the turret, not all the upper space of the turret is required, letting the turret be shorter and more weight reductive, as well as modifications to the turret cheeks to attempt to compliment the new hull and turret designs. For the FCS I would pretty much leave unchanged, LWR, Smoke Countermeasures, TROPHY APS and the 30mm. However I would also add a single periscope created for the commander only mounted on the rear of the turret next to the 30mm (Would prevent the 30mm from fully revolving around the turret unless periscope is fully retracted) but similar to submarines this periscope would extend 4-8 meters into the sky and would just act as an elevated camera for the commander to look around in (i.e Tank is behind a defensive entrenchment and needs to safely gather intel from nearby enemies without exposing the crew or the tank itself, the commander can raise this periscope and gather intel before deciding the next course of action).
Hey Red, GDLS stated that they emptied the armor blocks on the front turret because they took the crew to the hull front. Hence the front turret acts as spaced armor. If you want to move the crew back into the turret you have to place the heavy composite back as well.
I feel like the engine should be in the back(edit I mean front ) for ultimate crew safety. I know the Merkuva has it that way but I am a lay person and ignorant on how good this or that is outside of raw numbers. Also wouldn't that balance the tank to go over trenches?
I'm surprised no one's talked about the opposed diesel engines, that super cool and also increases efficiency to the maximum of what diesel engines can provide, combine that with a hybrid electric drivetrain and it's the best of efficiency and torque.
I'm just glad the US Army is finally seriously looking at replacing the legacy Cold War systems. Abrams, Bradley, and Apache are all excellent but we can't just keep using them forever.
RedEffect’s video on T14 Armata’s very narrow but weakly armoured turret makes a very good point about survivability as it’s harder to hit. I think AbramsX is about offering a turret that’s not too dissimilar to current design.
50percent fuel reduction and lighter weight has to come with reliability and reduced Maint to reduce tank budget which has also ballooned, great content thanks
I got so excited when i heard that it could be an opposed pistons engine. I heard that some companies where interested in thr engine but i didnt think it would be in a tank
The British had the Leyland L60 opposed piston Diesel engine as well and that was the Achilles heel of the Chieftain MBT, what was otherwise a formidable tank. The issues with the L60 six cylinder apposed piston engine were never really solved from my understanding and led to the desire to retire the Chieftain MBT and replace with Challenger.
Probably not a new production M1 Abrams but more a technology demonstration tank. But the powertrain will be a better upgrade for most current Abrams fleet in terms fuel efficiency and cost. And the improvement of suspension will be better. Hopefully the 30mm auto cannon able fire fletcher type ammo
If you ask me the 30mm Autocannon on the roof of the AbramsX might be a bit much for its intended purpose of taking out drones, a 25 or 20mm autocannon probably can still achieve a similar effect while also still being capable of eliminating lightly armored targets and infantry and structures and fortifications when needed
Why? Opposed piston engines have been around since the 1800s. You have no reason to believe their claim of performance improvement since they didn't release any relevent details on the design or how they calculated their "50% improvement"
@@AmericanDiscord the Abrams turbine engine is notorious for guzzling fuel. 50% reduced fuel consumption is not in any way unreasonable if your using diesel instead.
@@iretrixi9252 Yes but what of the Abrams spec are you sacrificing to get that efficiency, what are the details of calculating it? A more efficient and easily maintainable engine is probably the right move, I imagine in an actually contested battle zone the high power maintainence queen would bite you.
@@AmericanDiscord take a look at the Challenger compaired to Abrams then. Diesel has recently proved more reliable and suitable for wartime. Repairability, maintainance, thermal signature and fuel demands. The 1500hp turbine in the Abrams certainly performs better than the standard 1200 diesel of the Chally, but in war its the other factors that seem to have a larger impact from what I have read.
By putting the entire crew into the hull, the engineers can apply an all or nothing armor principle. This is good, because all the real safety for the crew, can be concentrated and applied into the crew space.
Nothing can replace eye balls scanning the terrain. To do that, the TC has to have a hatch at the highest point of the turret. Cameras cannot not match the human eye. Also, the camera can be damaged by small arms rounds, or just covered by mud or other debree(sp). Finally, the maintenance load would be very large for for 3 people (more likely 2, because the TC would probably be attending briefings etc), as opposed to a 5 man crew.
I think it would be interesting to see a KF51 Panther, combined with US Tech as a kind of NATO tank. I don’t like the RM Natter RWS, but I love the apaches 30 mm auto cannon instead. I Love The punch of the 130 mm and the leopard style turret armor, but I also like the unmanned turret and the optics of the AbramsX.
Well the reason why they didnt go for a 130 is because even if a production ready version hit service, they cant just change the ammo type and invalidate all the ammo they were storing in warehouses and such. They did the same with the M1. It used the same 105mm ammo the M60 series used, but then eventually swapped to a 120mm once the time was right.
Very cool looking tank, tho it still has a lot of things to be fixed before going into US army, but overall looks good and the 50% reduction on fuel is really really important.
50% fuel reduction is a good improvement, but its not as big as you think. The Abrams is already relatively fuel efficient if constantly moving. Its bad fuel consumption came from when the tank had to stay still and put the turbine on idle, way below its optimal RPM. They fixed it though by adding an APU.
just an observation to share . . . correct me if I'm wrong . . . those sliding hatches in the forward hull section of the new M1 Abrams X should be replaced with a concealed sliding hatch that'll slide to one side inside the hull . . . for closing the hatch you slide the concealed hatch to it's close position & push the hatch upwards for a tight (sealed) fit . . . similar to inward sliding cabin doors on some fixed winged aircraft . . . no matter how technologically superior the M1 Abrams X maybe there has to be a proper manned turret variant of the M1 Abrams X as well . . .
I feel like they kept the turret width the same to keep internal maintenance simpler and possible ability to man the turret. Just my idea of it but idk for sure.
Рік тому+10
Opposed piston high-power engine in modern western MBT, eith autoloader and three man crew? Charkiv design bureau is silently smoking in the corner with their T-84 Yatagan... Anyway, excellent video as always! Keep up the good work!
The Cummins ACE series were used in Strykers and stuff wayyy before the AbramsX lol. Imagine if the Charkiv design bureau pulled a Yakovlev and just moved to the US after the 90s.
If you're going to take the crew from the turret, better they be at the back of the vehicle in an armoured capsule, then they'd be behind the engine and internals for frontal attack, and could have a much better egress, being under the turret bustle would also offer more protection. Downside, no possible optical vision for driving if cctv knocked out. Could have rear facing periscope, which would solve issue, because if on the Abrams x, if all cameras are kaput, well, you probably don't want to stick around.
Interesting. Can it launch a switchblade, and have it target-designate for subsequently fired guided shells? This would allow hitting targets out of line-of-sight.
@@bigtimegamer7776 Exactly, it’s a testbed. It’s meant to be critiqued so that the final product would not have any of these flaws. IF YOUR BLOOD PRESSURE IS INCREASING OVER A UA-cam COMMENT MAYBE STAYING OFF UA-cam WOULD BE BETTER FOR YOUR HEALTH.
@@bigtimegamer7776 I hate people that use all caps to communicate "loudly". Can people stop spending 8 hours a day on TikTok and learn to communicate in a civilized fashion?
@@TB-zf7we This is actually a retrofit kit, it's meant to take existing hulls and replace it with a new turret, engine, and internals. The US Army won't have to go through the expense of building entire new hulls, instead use existing hulls in storage and retrofit them.
Correct, this is meant as a tech bridge til the US Army has a next generation tank. The US Army needs something to keep ahead of Russian and Chinese tanks soon because a next generation tank would take a decade to design and field. China is looking to start a war soon over Taiwan, their latest tanks looks on par if not better than current Abrams.
So they saw the T-14, said “We can do that but actually better” and then designed this beautiful thing. I even like that they didn’t jump on the 130mm bandwagon like other countries currently are… doing so would not only mean manufacturing of a new Ammo Type but also complicating NATO Standardization. The XM-130 can get the same if not better performance than the 120 L/44 and still use the same ammo (DU for the win!)
no, XM360(and 360E1) doesn't improve current ammunition penetration but does allow for longer penetrator rounds(currently maxed out at around 900) past 1000mm etc as well as it does accept higher chamber pressure, even higher than m256 which is higher than german L44...
why they left a HUGE gap between the turret and the hull, like in the former Abrams variants? It is such a mistake and any, even older, APFSDS rounds will penetrate the turret ring. And when a 125mm HE projectile hits there, the turret is gone....
The crew would survive, the Abrams would be combat ineffective and would be pulled from the frontline to be shipped back to the US where it would be repaired and probably given a new Turret/Turret Ring (depending on how much of the interior is damaged) The tank would still be able to drive away.
You said turret ring? I assumed you meant the big area connecting the Turret and Hull. If you are talking about the 38mm Upper then that is not the final design, and would probably be up armored to a higher thickness. Either way, it isn’t a super big deal anyway, as the M1A2 still has that, and so far no Abrams has been lost to a shot hitting there. It was actually originally designed to deflect and crumbs Soviet APFSDS ammo but that no light get works with new Russian rounds.
Maybe they retained the same width because they want to have the flexibility to move up to a larger gun like the new German 130 or a 140mm gun just my 2 cents
Low profile turret? Autoloader? 3-men crew? Explicite willness to limit weight? Damn, they literally have leclerc-ified the good ol' Abrams :D Joke aside, it's one of a sexy demonstrator, I'm very curious to see that on a test field!
The active protection system is capable to provide protection against one person with a rpg shooting from a specific angle, the problem starts when the tank enters a real battlefield and against a enemy who is not part of a loose Terrorist. Group or a small country! And this is exactly the point!
Coordinating simultaneous attacks from multiple angles against a target with multiple extremely good thermal cameras and a 30mm autocannon with air burst rounds sounds extremely difficult to me, even for a professional military. Western militaries also tend to use tanks with mutual support from infantry. Also tend to actually have the funds to field top of line tanks in numbers. This thing will be a nightmare to face when they're done trialing and updating.
Not only that, but since it uses the Cummins ACE, the same engine used in Strykers and other stuff, the actual logistics behind it would also be way cheaper.
Tbf not many tanks are designed to survive direct artillery. Usually where the treads, engine, and transmission come in. I don't think you can blame the armor department for any tank when they get a top down round on the tank.
@RedEffect - You have misjudged AbramsX internal design in your "problems" part. The turret is very large due to following reasons. The turret is split into two compartments. The compartment on the front contains various electronic systems including the autoloader system of the main gun and is completely separated from the compartment on the back containing ENTIRE ammo with blowout panels. These two compartments are separated by a thick wall containing a blast door which automatically opens for the autoloader system to RECEIVE a round through it and shuts afterwards - ONE AT A TIME for safety reasons. This autoloader system is identified as MEGGIT and is very efficient in its works. The hull is also split into two compartments. The compartment on the front contains the crew capsule which stretches all the way back to the compartment on the back containing the engine. The crew capsule is well-protected and spacious at the same time. The crew also have access to the turret from within through a hatch or two to check onboard systems and take control if necessary. On a further note, if the compartment containing the ammo inside the turret is somehow breached, rest of the tank will be unaffected and remain functional. This is EXCELLENT tank design on the whole. T-14 tank design is relatively different. The hull is split into three compartments. The compartment on the front contains the crew capsule. The compartment in the middle contains ammo from where it is LIFTED towards the autoloader system inside the turret. The compartment on the back contains the engine. The turret contains another compartment on the back where additional ammo is stored. The turret is small due to lack of armor and the crew does not have access to it from within. The lack of armor on the turret is compensated with the Afghanit APS. AbramsX is fuel efficient and relatively silent in comparison to other tanks by virtue of its engine technology. AbramsX is equipped with state of the art sensor systems that collectively provide 360 degree situational awareness to the crew, facilitate target identification and selection, and eliminate the need to move the turret around unnecessarily. AbramsX has very good baseline armor package and can be paired with TUSK and Trophy APS to significantly enhance its survivability. The gross weight could be significantly reduced to facilitate transportability and maneuverability by using a lighter main gun paired with Meggit autoloader system, and REVISITING baseline armor package on the turret. AbramsX was put together with 2 decades worth of lessons in mind as per General Dynamics and eliminate reliance on foreign components. This is not amateurish work that would necessitate a significant revisit to it.
It seams like a better idea to move the driver to the turret. Yea sure, that might be a tight sqezze, but that would totaly remove the front from humans.
1:36 - after the information General Dynamics give the tank has a crew of 4, commander, gunner, driver and system operator where the commander and guner are located in the turret and the driver and system operator are located in the hull front...
As per usual the floor model and production model will vary greatly with all the "tech" they stuffed on it im surprised the skipped on the chrome wheels and diamond encrusted barrel
It looks like after they up date this tank some more the human tanker will be a thing of the past and all we former tankers in the United States military will be DinoTankers. Currently a DinoTanker is a Tanker who served on the earlier versions of the M-48 and earlier American Tanks. The AbramsX is on the way to becoming a totally AI tank.
I get the logic of a crewless turret for the T14 because thats where all the ammo is But the Abrams already stored ammo separately in the bustle + blowout pannel, why do they need it to be crewless ? If they reduce the armor on the turret because of this, a single shot might detonate the ammo bustle render the tank useless Atleast on the T14, the ammo rack has lots of protection
I dont like the turret. What if ammo cocks off? If the turrent compartment is accesable, and the turret is penetrated from an angle, which penetrates the blast doors/blast shield, that puts the crew in danger no? since the blast can enter the crew compartment.
It's in this weird stage where people aren't sure if they trust robots or not, so everything needs a manual backup. We would've been better off buying Panther.
Just in my opinion concept desings are made exactly for this reason getting aspects from many different sources to make a better final product. Smart marketing
Leaving space in the turret for the crew is a worst of both worlds solution. You keep the weight and profile of a manned turret, but also lose the extra fuel capacity. Not to mention there's very few cases where the crew will actually be able to repair such complexed systems in the battlefield. It's like they don't trust their technology. "we have an autoloader but when it eventually fails you can load it manually. It's not like Russian and even nato tanks have been using autolaoders for decades with pretty good reliability
Tech demonstrator. It’s entirely possible the US requests the turret to still be manned and the autoloader being removed. Much more efficient to have a Manual loader anyway.
@@antimatter4733 Lmao, a 19 year old drinking Bang or a Red Bull will load shells faster than an Autoloader. It also leaves another crewmen to perform maintenance. Stop sucking off autoloaders. It’s a nice addition but not necessary since we aren’t needlessly increasing caliber like the Krauts and the Frogs over in Europe.
I honestly like the T-14 turret design a lot more. This "I want a turret that's unmanned but also isn't" type of thinking seems like a half-measure that somewhat negates the advantages of both. But it's just a tech demonstrator, so we'll see.
I would say that it's different approach, not bad and not good, different, T14 turret has it's own disadvantages, basically it's smaller, lighter, less armored turret vs bigger heavier, better armored turret, as both tanks have crew in hull, hit to the turret is not about crew survivability, T14 turret is smaller so it's harder to hit but at the same time it is so lightly armored that any hit means mission kill as turret will be easily penetrated and not operational, in AbramsX turret is bigger and easier to hit by it is as heavy armored as normal Abrams turret, so hit do not mean guaranteed penetration and tank will be fully functional most of the time.
@@czaja995 I don’t think the respective sizes of the turrets are of significant importance, when (19K) M1 Armor crewman are generally trained to shoot at the center of visible mass and top-attack munitions will land on target irregardless of the size of the tank’s turret.
Go through comment and count how manny people dont know its a tech demonstrator /testbed and think this will enter produdction it seems like 1 in 50 thinks it is a new produdction vehichal
3:08 I think thats due to the fact its a tech demonstrator. Their not sure what the army wants, and retains features for them to do their own trials and optimizations. Its supposed to be optionally manned. Its possible to controll the turret manually, but its just an option mostly. They still have all the crew on the bottom though, as its the preferrable layout. Also they included a few removable drone deployers since their not sure if the army wants tank crews to be controlling them. I think no ones pushing tank controlled drones yet, cus in Ukraine, tanks would be controlled by 2 people, while the commander would keep and eye on things through a drone.
![Дон ДОН, Алаудинов и СБЕЖАВШИЕ из под Курска ахматовцы 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dEfCf5IK26Q/mqdefault.jpg)
Play World of Warships here: wo.ws/3CSdK9S
Thank you World of Warships for sponsoring this video.
During registration use the code BRAVO to get for free:
-500 doubloons
-1.5 million credits
-7 Days Premium Account time
-Free of choice USS Phoenix, Japanese cruiser Kuma, French battleship Courbet, Italian battleship Dante Alighieri, or the HMS Wakeful after you complete 15 battles
Applicable to new users only.
world of warships is one of the worst free to play games out there. the devs don't listen to the playerbase and literally everything about the game is monetized.
Rarely any channel has made a video about Leopard 3 and PL-01 tanks.
I'm still waiting for the video!
At least this channel will be one of the few! 🔥
I enjoy World of Warships. I've only spent money when I've wanted to do so. Like many games it has both good and bad aspects. I think it has more of an upside than down side.
@@bigearl3867 It's fun until you get harassed by carriers and submarines while at the same time, being able to do nothing to defend yourself.
Will you ever make a video about the few T-90M actually destroyed in Ucraine and on which AT WEAPONS DO YOU PERSONALLY BELIEVE WERE BEHIND THEIR DESTRUCTION?
That 50% less fuel consumption really sells it
People dont realize how important this feature alone is lol. Really good stuff!!
@@serbianboss3294 Logistics above all.
press x to doubt
yeh cuse therye not using a jet engine..
@@tashithendup2336 Logistics are arguably as important as protection, firepower, and mobility, especially operating far in advance of front lines. Hopefully no more 10 gallon consumption on start up and hopefully no more 1 gallon every 6 min at idle or 1 gallon per minute in motion. This would be huge.
Would be interesting to know whether using the engine charges the batteries and electric operated systems. Because this is simply a demonstrator, I wonder how much more the design will be refined in whatever this develops into over the next 5-10 years and what any potential production version will look like and how it will operate. The main difference between this and T-14 is America has the means to actually produce these in meaningful numbers when that time comes.
As I understand it, the width of the turret has been maintained because if any mechanical failure occurs in the turret, the crew could access it and control it manually.
Yes buts if I heard right its even more cramped than it all ready was so it would be an undesirable place to be
Edit: I feel attacked not really lol but I won't be replying back to you cuz I got stuff I need to do lol aka farm IT TAKES SO MUCH TIME
@@BedCat1432 Yeah, but at least it have the option to do it.
@@darkdragon6837 yes
@@BedCat1432 That's a place to be acessed in case of emergency, so it's ok.
@@BedCat1432 sure but bring cramped compared to a normal Abrams still means its superior to something like a Russian t tank
Size of the turret was left the same due to the feature of having a “degradation” mode allowing crew to get in the turret and use a gun sight and operate the turret like the old Abrams
Bollocks
Good point. And probably also to allow easiest maintenance on the various (and complex) systems included in the turret :)
It also goes back to the AbramsX being a tech demo, it makes the most sense. Give the Generals both options of remote and manned so they can see how all the other tech work in tandem with it and then can order one option or the duel optimized+degradation modes it currently has.
@@johnredcorn2476 don't worry, little bro, puberty is tough but you'll get through it.
@@defective6811 dont get saucy with me sunshine
Achates's opposed piston diesels are crazy-efficient. I wouldn't be suprised, if the "50% lower fuel consumption" could be achived when compared to other modern MBTs, not only gas-guzzling turbine! They also output a huge ammount of torque from very low RPM
As much as a love gad turbines. The new universal engine is one of those ideas too good to not implement. Parts commonality alone is reason enough to switch.
50% less is... Actually exactly what they claim it can do, compared to the standard guzzling Abrams.
We'll see how well it actually holds up, but it is honestly one of the most potentially impressive parts of the vehicle.
And with the Abrams power pack already being a modular drop-in, it's also something that existing vehicles might more easily be retrofitted with, assuming they design it that way (AKA: Aren't stupid, and want to make money).
@@DerpsWithWolves I totally agree with you, however what i meant is since a opposed-piston diesel has 15% higher thermal efficiency than a conventional one and outputs more torque, the AbramsX would most likely consume less fuel than other diesel-powered MBTs. And that it without even mentioning the fact, that it's got a hybrid drivetrain, which increases it's efficiency even more. 50% less than a Leo 2a7v might not be as far-fetched as we may think!
Cummings had an opposed piston engine design in the late 1970s. It was called SCORE. But Chrysler (yes, they designed the M1) went with a gas turbine.
@@MrSlyFox I'll remain cautiously optimistic for twice the efficiency of other diesel engines, but that would be quite the game-changer.
Not just for MBTs, either, but for more fuel efficient IFVs that can take a hit just as well, like the Puma and Namer.
As an aside, The Chieftain recently did a vidcast with 2 US procurement officers.
And they discussed the AbramsX was briefly.
A 6 cylinder pushing 1500 hp is so incredibly impressive no matter the displacement
Well. That would be 6 cylinder, 12 pistons.
So it's what is usually consider 12 cylinder.
thats any supra owner lmao
@@Xilley1supras trash
Not all remotely operated turrets are taken from the T-14, the M1TTB existed long before the T-14 did.
That was taken from a Soviet design from the 1970s
Russia copied America's homework
@@yaraelpoof7242 Remotely operated was flown around long before that, so it is just a simple concept that anyone can come up with. Developing and putting it into production is another thing entirely.
@@QwerYT4819 homework given by the soviet 🤣
Both nations tested crewless turret way back then, but only one adopted the concept for serialization.
Don't get sensitive when the US recognizes this design as good.
I had read even when fully developed, it’s still in interim design. A tank to cover the timeframe from the existing Abrams to a next generation tank sometime in the future.
Aren`t they all.
They say that… but I wouldn’t be surprised if Congress just says “You are buying these and that’s it”
We spend a fuck ton on our military but even then we are still grubby when it comes to actually getting stuff lmao.
ITS A TESTBED NOT A PRODUCTION VEHICHAL IT WILL NOT ENTER PRODUCTION ITS A CONCEPT TANK
@@PeterMuskrat6968 That's just how it is when you are the largest military in the world. Most of that budget goes to maintenance, training, personnel, basing, and other logistics. And as things get older, their maintenance bill only gets higher and higher.
A previously small military that is expanding like China for example don't have to start out paying and feeding millions of men(they shrunk their manpower in the 80s and 90s) nor do they have to maintain thousands of tanks, IFVs, APCs and humvees. Nor do they have to maintain 10 nuclear carriers and a hundred cruiser and destroyer fleet. All that money can be spent producing new hardware. All the new Chinese equipment is fresh out of factory and aren't maintenance intensive. But over time, they will due to wear and tear. 10 years later, that maintenance bill is going to hit like a truck and procurement will slow because money is siphoned away.
It's also why Russia actually would benefit shrinking(ridding old soviet era hardware) its military to grow it later with brand new stuff. But I guess they want the money sink like the Kuznetsov to maintain institutional knowledge on carrier operations. Not having a carrier for potentially a long time mean losing all the experienced personnel and the navy would have to relearn everything.
@@neurofiedyamato8763 Classic, it’s also not going to be easy to pay for their advancing Military budget when 60-65% of the current workforce is retired, and no longer makes significant money for the state and instead sucks up that money… that’s where China is headed.
It’s economy is fucked just by the Age issue, but further exacerbated by the labor getting more expensive and companies shifting the manufacturing of their goods to alternative countries such as India, Bangladesh, Thailand and African countries once the infrastructure is built.
China is a titan living on borrowed time, and by the end of the 21st Century they will be down to around 600 Million people if the current trends continue.
They are quickly turning into another Japan… once forecasted to surpass the west and become the dominant economic force of the world… until they weren’t.
That’s also not including the CCP’s grip slowly being degraded away with each failure of the state.
The bustle auto loader was the right choice, as it has the same benefits the current ammo storage has. I’d put armor on the turret to provide it protection, and making it have no armor since it’s unmanned would mean a lot of potential mission kills on it. Also if the crew is ever inside the turret, you want the turret to have armor. There will probably be crews that still use the turret, but that might be a good thing as you could have a crew size of 3-5 with two in the turret and 3 in the hull. This could be good for task management and observation. Having a gunner in the turret would allow him to man the gun while the commander and a second gunner in the hull can scan for targets. Or the drones and other system can be manned in the hull by a crewman while the gunner is in the turret. Basically, there are options and the idea could be explored to have flexibility in task management and crew size to find the best layout and number.
A hit on the armored turret would still mean a mission kill a lot of times. I don’t think the trade of in weight would actually make a well armored turret worthwhile.
Well its a testbed to test the technology and concept so i wouldent worry about that to mutch becouse its not going to enter production
1. The turret is the same size from what I’ve heard for both maintenance and emergency manual usage
2. The XM360 may have the same ballistic performance as the m256 but the xm360 can handle higher pressure loads meaning that it can handle higher performance rounds than the current 120mm used by the US
Couple of things about what you've said in the video:
- 2:49 - because they went for the repairability approach. The turret is "optionally manned" - as they've said, if anything gets damaged or goes wrong, the turret can still be operated or fixed fro the inside, without exposing oneself to the enemy fire.
- 3:22 - the "Kryuk" isn't nearly as much of a threat as it is advertised as. If the computer of the APS has radar signatures in its memory, it can recognize which one is the missile and which one is the "bait", and just ignore the fake rocket.
- 6:35 - Which Switchblade is it? Because if it's the 300 variant, it's gonna be pretty useless - these things can't deal with jamming at all, they just fall out of the sky when exposed to EW equipment.
Based on the fact that the SwitchBlade is being fired out the main gun rather than a module on the side it is SwitchBlade 600 which has the same payload as Javalin and has a range up to 90km.
Rarely any channel has made a video about Leopard 3 and PL-01 tanks.
I'm still waiting for the video!
At least this channel will be one of the few! 🔥
there is no such thing as leopard 3. And the pl-01 was an alpha^3 of a tech demo of a fire support vehicle...
Both of those dont exist, Leo 3 wasnt even a concept. PL 01 was a "fake" tank made on CV 90 hoping for some funding to make it an actual thing, nothing came of it tho, its dead
PL01 was a gimmick and nothing else
@@AkeN996 the "production model" of the PL-01 only exists in GTA Online as the Khanjali tank. The tank is literally only known now for being in a videogame than being a famous prototype.
The turret is wide, because it needs room for the crew. Even though it is now remotely operated, it still has a crew compartment so that the crew can do maintenance and repairs on the turret from within, and can operate it manually if the remote controls in the hull fail. This is significant advantage over the T14 and M1TTB.
Sounds more like a disadvantage to me as it's heavier than it needs to be.
it's not a advantage lol, it's bad design
at that point you basically give up all the advantages of uncrewed turret so why even adopt it in the first place???
@@stsk1061 Every tank is balance of compromises. Of course there are going to be advantages and disadvantages to every design decision. This is already much lighter than the M1A2, and has a smaller profile. The designers probably didn't feel it would be worth sacrificing versatility just to make it a little more lighter.
@@xxfalconarasxx5659 A little? The turret has by far the heaviest armor on the tank and it's just as wide as the previous one. There's no good reason for that.
@@mac2857 You don't give up all disadvantages of an uncrewed turret. The crew compartment is MUCH SMALLER than the original M1 Abrams, as it is designed for one person to operate in emergency situations, as opposed to 3 people. A remote turret is also not just to reduce weight, but to improve crew survivability. If the turret gets hit, the crew will likely be unharmed. Another advantage is reducing the number of crew members per tank. This only requires 3 crew members as opposed to 4, and theoretically could be fully operated by just 1 person if need be.
And you know we can actually afford to field these in large numbers too
Account name and PFP check out.
But yeah… unlike the flaming pile of Dogshit that is the RU military, we can afford to mass produce these babies… at least make enough to kit out *Most* active Armor units. Plenty of M1A2’s will be shipped to National Guard units or be put into storage to fill gaps in wartime.
(Or sold to Ukraine :) )
More importantly, produce them. This still being an Abrams underneath means there's no dramatic change to existing tank production unlike introducing a completely new model which means a reset of logistics and part production.
Well its a testbed not a production vehichal so we wont
@@MikoyanGurevichMiG21 its a testbed man
It has those problems you mentioned because it's not a fully new concept but something they could build on the existing Abrams factory jigs. They spent as little money as possible on modifying the structure, instead spending on showing tech. I think the Army will understand, they know more can be done to the structure.
*I hope this gets in WarThunder*
With new FREEDOM armor alloy
@@pabcu2507 yeah
maybe in 3-4 years it'll be added
Probably around 4.3 - 5.0 lol
If i were the desiner for the AbramX, I would change the hull design massively, instead have the gunner and commander inside the chassis directly underneath the turret. This frees up space and allows the driver's station to also be squished closer to the turret of the tank. Resulting in significantly lighter tonnage. Then have the fully automated ammo stored in where the ammo is originally stored in the Abrams.
The auto loader is semi automatic, the autoloader would be loaded by a first ammo stowage located directly under the turret breach that is manually loaded by the gunner/commander (can be loaded from both sides). The autoloader itself would feature a revolving carousel of ammo similar to the Russian Autoloaders however with the fact that it needs to be loaded manually and stocked manually by a person, when the first ammo stowage is depleted, the autoloader will cease functioning until another shell has been loaded, however a shell can also be manually loaded into the breach by hand. The shell that would be loaded into the first ammo stowage to go into the autoloader however would have either the commander or gunner take a shell from the ammo stowage on the rear of the tank and load it into the auto loader and select what shell has been loaded(or have an automatic shell type identifier fitted to it). Before firing the commander must designate what shell to be indexed, upon being indexed the autoloader will only load that same shell type until the commander selects a new shell to index, at which point it will load that shell after the shell fired from the turret has been fired.
This modification would require the turret dimensions to keep the same but the FUP of the chassis can be changed to reduce weight, by squishing the front of it, you can make the profile of the tank slimmer while also saving space, as well as this, I would add a 40-60mm block of armor that is angled not the same as the front plate but still angled enough where its actual thickness can provide protection on the sides of the driver's view port from the right and left going to the sides of the tank to protect the turret neck.
Another weight reduction attempt is I would try to make the turret shorter, similar to the already existing AbramsX design suggestion since the crew will be mostly in the chassis and around their chest upwards in the turret, not all the upper space of the turret is required, letting the turret be shorter and more weight reductive, as well as modifications to the turret cheeks to attempt to compliment the new hull and turret designs.
For the FCS I would pretty much leave unchanged, LWR, Smoke Countermeasures, TROPHY APS and the 30mm. However I would also add a single periscope created for the commander only mounted on the rear of the turret next to the 30mm (Would prevent the 30mm from fully revolving around the turret unless periscope is fully retracted) but similar to submarines this periscope would extend 4-8 meters into the sky and would just act as an elevated camera for the commander to look around in (i.e Tank is behind a defensive entrenchment and needs to safely gather intel from nearby enemies without exposing the crew or the tank itself, the commander can raise this periscope and gather intel before deciding the next course of action).
The US Army last year I think, showed a set of 4 or 5 proposed 130mm gunned MBT models. They will select the future MBT from one of them.
Hey Red, GDLS stated that they emptied the armor blocks on the front turret because they took the crew to the hull front. Hence the front turret acts as spaced armor. If you want to move the crew back into the turret you have to place the heavy composite back as well.
I feel like the engine should be in the back(edit I mean front ) for ultimate crew safety. I know the Merkuva has it that way but I am a lay person and ignorant on how good this or that is outside of raw numbers. Also wouldn't that balance the tank to go over trenches?
@@dianapennepacker6854 i don't get what you mean, AbramsX engine is already in the back.
@@alanch90 Typo meant the front.
@@dianapennepacker6854 long story short, its too complex to rework and too little theoretical gain if any.
@@dianapennepacker6854 that would also make the tank easier to spot on thermals
I love the overall shape and lines of it on top of all the advancements
I'm surprised no one's talked about the opposed diesel engines, that super cool and also increases efficiency to the maximum of what diesel engines can provide, combine that with a hybrid electric drivetrain and it's the best of efficiency and torque.
I'm just glad the US Army is finally seriously looking at replacing the legacy Cold War systems. Abrams, Bradley, and Apache are all excellent but we can't just keep using them forever.
RedEffect’s video on T14 Armata’s very narrow but weakly armoured turret makes a very good point about survivability as it’s harder to hit. I think AbramsX is about offering a turret that’s not too dissimilar to current design.
Not really.
The turret is optionally manned.
the Turret on T14 is heavily amoured
I say, we should just give the Abrams-X some time and development and I'm pretty sure it will go into active service.
50percent fuel reduction and lighter weight has to come with reliability and reduced Maint to reduce tank budget which has also ballooned, great content thanks
Oh no. We are entering the “Late Roman Legionary” stage. It’s over.
I cant believe they made a Prius Abrams
the biggest thing about this tank is active protection system and increase fuel efficiency
I got so excited when i heard that it could be an opposed pistons engine. I heard that some companies where interested in thr engine but i didnt think it would be in a tank
@@honkhonk8009 never even thought a 1000 hp twin stroke engine existed
The British had the Leyland L60 opposed piston Diesel engine as well and that was the Achilles heel of the Chieftain MBT, what was otherwise a formidable tank. The issues with the L60 six cylinder apposed piston engine were never really solved from my understanding and led to the desire to retire the Chieftain MBT and replace with Challenger.
The ABRAMSX does look interesting.
I’m just happy the turret face is finally symmetrical
Very informative presentation. Thank you.
i like these "scanning" mode on the sights
Probably not a new production M1 Abrams but more a technology demonstration tank. But the powertrain will be a better upgrade for most current Abrams fleet in terms fuel efficiency and cost. And the improvement of suspension will be better.
Hopefully the 30mm auto cannon able fire fletcher type ammo
abrams x as a proof of concept is a major upgrade for the aging platform, however. a completely new tank design is probably needed.
If you ask me the 30mm Autocannon on the roof of the AbramsX might be a bit much for its intended purpose of taking out drones, a 25 or 20mm autocannon probably can still achieve a similar effect while also still being capable of eliminating lightly armored targets and infantry and structures and fortifications when needed
I think 30mm is the smallest round that can possibly be programmed to Airburst, unless I am mistaken.
more gun :)
The most useful upgrades that I can see in this tank is the opposed piston diesel engine.
Why? Opposed piston engines have been around since the 1800s. You have no reason to believe their claim of performance improvement since they didn't release any relevent details on the design or how they calculated their "50% improvement"
@@AmericanDiscord the Abrams turbine engine is notorious for guzzling fuel. 50% reduced fuel consumption is not in any way unreasonable if your using diesel instead.
I don’t think that to be the most useful upgrade, it’s more of a side-grade.
@@iretrixi9252 Yes but what of the Abrams spec are you sacrificing to get that efficiency, what are the details of calculating it? A more efficient and easily maintainable engine is probably the right move, I imagine in an actually contested battle zone the high power maintainence queen would bite you.
@@AmericanDiscord take a look at the Challenger compaired to Abrams then. Diesel has recently proved more reliable and suitable for wartime. Repairability, maintainance, thermal signature and fuel demands. The 1500hp turbine in the Abrams certainly performs better than the standard 1200 diesel of the Chally, but in war its the other factors that seem to have a larger impact from what I have read.
"sounds familiar"
>Abrams TTB
It looks bad ass. Should be interesting to see how it progresses along.
By putting the entire crew into the hull, the engineers can apply an all or nothing armor principle. This is good, because all the real safety for the crew, can be concentrated and applied into the crew space.
I wouldn't underestimate the value of having a TC with his head out of the hatch, though with so many add ons on top: guns/optics, etc, maybe not.
Nothing can replace eye balls scanning the terrain. To do that, the TC has to have a hatch at the highest point of the turret. Cameras cannot not match the human eye. Also, the camera can be damaged by small arms rounds, or just covered by mud or other debree(sp). Finally, the maintenance load would be very large for for 3 people (more likely 2, because the TC would probably be attending briefings etc), as opposed to a 5 man crew.
I think it would be interesting to see a KF51 Panther, combined with US Tech as a kind of NATO tank. I don’t like the RM Natter RWS, but I love the apaches 30 mm auto cannon instead. I Love The punch of the 130 mm and the leopard style turret armor, but I also like the unmanned turret and the optics of the AbramsX.
Well the reason why they didnt go for a 130 is because even if a production ready version hit service, they cant just change the ammo type and invalidate all the ammo they were storing in warehouses and such.
They did the same with the M1. It used the same 105mm ammo the M60 series used, but then eventually swapped to a 120mm once the time was right.
Very cool looking tank, tho it still has a lot of things to be fixed before going into US army, but overall looks good and the 50% reduction on fuel is really really important.
ITS A TESTBED
T E S T B E D
its NOT a production vehichal
50% fuel reduction is a good improvement, but its not as big as you think.
The Abrams is already relatively fuel efficient if constantly moving.
Its bad fuel consumption came from when the tank had to stay still and put the turbine on idle, way below its optimal RPM.
They fixed it though by adding an APU.
@@bigtimegamer7776 "still has a lot of things to be fixed before going into US army" Yeah, the person said that it's not going into the US army.
just an observation to share . . . correct me if I'm wrong . . . those sliding hatches in the forward hull section of the new M1 Abrams X should be replaced with a concealed sliding hatch that'll slide to one side inside the hull . . . for closing the hatch you slide the concealed hatch to it's close position & push the hatch upwards for a tight (sealed) fit . . . similar to inward sliding cabin doors on some fixed winged aircraft . . . no matter how technologically superior the M1 Abrams X maybe there has to be a proper manned turret variant of the M1 Abrams X as well . . .
Turret has to be wide as it is determined by the width of the autoloader magazine.
I feel like they kept the turret width the same to keep internal maintenance simpler and possible ability to man the turret. Just my idea of it but idk for sure.
Opposed piston high-power engine in modern western MBT, eith autoloader and three man crew? Charkiv design bureau is silently smoking in the corner with their T-84 Yatagan...
Anyway, excellent video as always! Keep up the good work!
The "new" tank is a testbed for new tech iys not going to even enter production
The Cummins ACE series were used in Strykers and stuff wayyy before the AbramsX lol.
Imagine if the Charkiv design bureau pulled a Yakovlev and just moved to the US after the 90s.
AbramsX have "optionally manned turret" meaning crew can still get inside there.
Could Red Effect do a video on the new Griffin light tank?
Maybe it has something crazy like 80cm of armour but we don't know. Moon rock now has a purpose.
If you're going to take the crew from the turret, better they be at the back of the vehicle in an armoured capsule, then they'd be behind the engine and internals for frontal attack, and could have a much better egress, being under the turret bustle would also offer more protection.
Downside, no possible optical vision for driving if cctv knocked out. Could have rear facing periscope, which would solve issue, because if on the Abrams x, if all cameras are kaput, well, you probably don't want to stick around.
Interesting. Can it launch a switchblade, and have it target-designate for subsequently fired guided shells? This would allow hitting targets out of line-of-sight.
1:44 Reminds me of the M1 TTB which the USA developed long before the Russians developed the Armata T-14
Which was an inspiration from Soviet design and none of them became a thing before t14.
The turret looks like it overhangs the hatches pretty bad
It could be a big deal if the tank gets disabled with the turret in an awkward position
ITS A TESTBED ITS USED TO TEST TECHNOLOGY STOP ACTING LIKE IT WILL ENTER PRODUCTION
@BigTimeGamer lol
they always can escape via floor hatches, i guess
@@bigtimegamer7776 Exactly, it’s a testbed. It’s meant to be critiqued so that the final product would not have any of these flaws. IF YOUR BLOOD PRESSURE IS INCREASING OVER A UA-cam COMMENT MAYBE STAYING OFF UA-cam WOULD BE BETTER FOR YOUR HEALTH.
@@bigtimegamer7776 I hate people that use all caps to communicate "loudly". Can people stop spending 8 hours a day on TikTok and learn to communicate in a civilized fashion?
Can you do a comparative deepdive on this and the new german (maybe even the russian) tanks? Loved the video!
Looks like it would fit right in with the forces being anailatied by Zeon during the ground struggle for Earth.
A gundam fan? Hello there
@@angellara7040 How could you tell?🤔
this looks a lot more like a potential retrofit kit for modernizing Abrams on top of the tech demo
There is no way you could retrofit this configuration into an existing Abrahms.
@@TB-zf7we This is actually a retrofit kit, it's meant to take existing hulls and replace it with a new turret, engine, and internals. The US Army won't have to go through the expense of building entire new hulls, instead use existing hulls in storage and retrofit them.
Correct, this is meant as a tech bridge til the US Army has a next generation tank. The US Army needs something to keep ahead of Russian and Chinese tanks soon because a next generation tank would take a decade to design and field. China is looking to start a war soon over Taiwan, their latest tanks looks on par if not better than current Abrams.
@@eminencerain848 That's less of a retrofit and more a way to recycle old hulls
@@eminencerain848 Russia 😂😂😂
Can you do a video Leopard 2A7V vs m1a2 sepv3?
So they saw the T-14, said “We can do that but actually better” and then designed this beautiful thing.
I even like that they didn’t jump on the 130mm bandwagon like other countries currently are… doing so would not only mean manufacturing of a new Ammo Type but also complicating NATO Standardization.
The XM-130 can get the same if not better performance than the 120 L/44 and still use the same ammo (DU for the win!)
Thanks for such an up to date heads up on the latest Abrams.
Its not the latest Abrams its a TECHNOLOGICAL demonstrator its not going to enter productin its just used to test new technology
Minimizing the turrit to 1/3 the size really would help the 50% consumption as well. As you don't need that space for people anymore.
no, but you need space for more 'stuff' like little drones.
no, XM360(and 360E1) doesn't improve current ammunition penetration but does allow for longer penetrator rounds(currently maxed out at around 900) past 1000mm etc as well as it does accept higher chamber pressure, even higher than m256 which is higher than german L44...
wait arent those basically the same guns? the M256 and the L44? Their both made by rehinmetall with negligible differences right
why they left a HUGE gap between the turret and the hull, like in the former Abrams variants? It is such a mistake and any, even older, APFSDS rounds will penetrate the turret ring. And when a 125mm HE projectile hits there, the turret is gone....
The crew would survive, the Abrams would be combat ineffective and would be pulled from the frontline to be shipped back to the US where it would be repaired and probably given a new Turret/Turret Ring (depending on how much of the interior is damaged)
The tank would still be able to drive away.
@@PeterMuskrat6968 38mm glacis? Nope. No crew survives a direct hit there.
You said turret ring? I assumed you meant the big area connecting the Turret and Hull.
If you are talking about the 38mm Upper then that is not the final design, and would probably be up armored to a higher thickness. Either way, it isn’t a super big deal anyway, as the M1A2 still has that, and so far no Abrams has been lost to a shot hitting there.
It was actually originally designed to deflect and crumbs Soviet APFSDS ammo but that no light get works with new Russian rounds.
Well its a testbed so its never going into combat it just exist to test and demonstrate new tech
Cool Leclerc. 😎
I think.putring the crew in the front is a huge mistake and will require a complete redesign of most tank doctrines.
u think of ur work schedule not a tank
I turret in this video was made of foam BTW
Now if i had known they would be considering this tank i would have not opted out of joining cav a few years ago
Maybe they retained the same width because they want to have the flexibility to move up to a larger gun like the new German 130 or a 140mm gun just my 2 cents
I feel like we are trying to build a western version of the russian terminator tank and integrate it into the abrams.
Low profile turret? Autoloader? 3-men crew? Explicite willness to limit weight? Damn, they literally have leclerc-ified the good ol' Abrams :D
Joke aside, it's one of a sexy demonstrator, I'm very curious to see that on a test field!
Thats one in 47 that actually knows its a demonstrator and not a production vehichal
Afaik the turret can be manned if it needs to be, which is why it retained its size.
Yep it's really a Optionally Manned Turret.
What would happen if enemy uses paint or mud to blind all the optics ? Does tank have something to clean lenses?
Awesome video as always, keep up the awesome work! :D
after 40 years this thing finally got the autoloader
A much superior version than what the uhh… *Eastern* forces use.
Ours won’t send the turret into space.
The French: what kept you waiting huh?
The active protection system is capable to provide protection against one person with a rpg shooting from a specific angle, the problem starts when the tank enters a real battlefield and against a enemy who is not part of a loose Terrorist. Group or a small country!
And this is exactly the point!
Coordinating simultaneous attacks from multiple angles against a target with multiple extremely good thermal cameras and a 30mm autocannon with air burst rounds sounds extremely difficult to me, even for a professional military. Western militaries also tend to use tanks with mutual support from infantry. Also tend to actually have the funds to field top of line tanks in numbers. This thing will be a nightmare to face when they're done trialing and updating.
turret size is for protection, you dont like a small turret size like armata that will get blown out easily.
What do you think about the Type-x, that should enter mass production in this or next year?
The Hybrid Engine probably stay if the Army wants it, because it will reduce the fuel logistics.
Not only that, but since it uses the Cummins ACE, the same engine used in Strykers and other stuff, the actual logistics behind it would also be way cheaper.
Tbf not many tanks are designed to survive direct artillery. Usually where the treads, engine, and transmission come in. I don't think you can blame the armor department for any tank when they get a top down round on the tank.
Well, top armor to protect against artillery exists.
It’s fascinating how your reviews have changed since the combat in Ukraine.
I mean the war has changed a lot of things.
@RedEffect - You have misjudged AbramsX internal design in your "problems" part. The turret is very large due to following reasons. The turret is split into two compartments. The compartment on the front contains various electronic systems including the autoloader system of the main gun and is completely separated from the compartment on the back containing ENTIRE ammo with blowout panels. These two compartments are separated by a thick wall containing a blast door which automatically opens for the autoloader system to RECEIVE a round through it and shuts afterwards - ONE AT A TIME for safety reasons. This autoloader system is identified as MEGGIT and is very efficient in its works. The hull is also split into two compartments. The compartment on the front contains the crew capsule which stretches all the way back to the compartment on the back containing the engine. The crew capsule is well-protected and spacious at the same time. The crew also have access to the turret from within through a hatch or two to check onboard systems and take control if necessary. On a further note, if the compartment containing the ammo inside the turret is somehow breached, rest of the tank will be unaffected and remain functional. This is EXCELLENT tank design on the whole.
T-14 tank design is relatively different. The hull is split into three compartments. The compartment on the front contains the crew capsule. The compartment in the middle contains ammo from where it is LIFTED towards the autoloader system inside the turret. The compartment on the back contains the engine. The turret contains another compartment on the back where additional ammo is stored. The turret is small due to lack of armor and the crew does not have access to it from within. The lack of armor on the turret is compensated with the Afghanit APS.
AbramsX is fuel efficient and relatively silent in comparison to other tanks by virtue of its engine technology. AbramsX is equipped with state of the art sensor systems that collectively provide 360 degree situational awareness to the crew, facilitate target identification and selection, and eliminate the need to move the turret around unnecessarily. AbramsX has very good baseline armor package and can be paired with TUSK and Trophy APS to significantly enhance its survivability. The gross weight could be significantly reduced to facilitate transportability and maneuverability by using a lighter main gun paired with Meggit autoloader system, and REVISITING baseline armor package on the turret. AbramsX was put together with 2 decades worth of lessons in mind as per General Dynamics and eliminate reliance on foreign components. This is not amateurish work that would necessitate a significant revisit to it.
It seams like a better idea to move the driver to the turret.
Yea sure, that might be a tight sqezze, but that would totaly remove the front from humans.
1:36 - after the information General Dynamics give the tank has a crew of 4, commander, gunner, driver and system operator where the commander and guner are located in the turret and the driver and system operator are located in the hull front...
Red Effect should do a viedo about how an Idle tank should look like
As per usual the floor model and production model will vary greatly with all the "tech" they stuffed on it im surprised the skipped on the chrome wheels and diamond encrusted barrel
Analysis of the EMBT plssss
It looks like after they up date this tank some more the human tanker will be a thing of the past and all we former tankers in the United States military will be DinoTankers. Currently a DinoTanker is a Tanker who served on the earlier versions of the M-48 and earlier American Tanks. The AbramsX is on the way to becoming a totally AI tank.
The tank looks like it's coming from Red Alert 2.
still waiting on someone to make a abrams x mod for arma 3
Or for someone who plays war thunder too leak document’s for the tank. Just like they did with Chinese ranks
Tanks *
I get the logic of a crewless turret for the T14 because thats where all the ammo is
But the Abrams already stored ammo separately in the bustle + blowout pannel, why do they need it to be crewless ?
If they reduce the armor on the turret because of this, a single shot might detonate the ammo bustle render the tank useless
Atleast on the T14, the ammo rack has lots of protection
X stands for expensive.
I dont like the turret. What if ammo cocks off? If the turrent compartment is accesable, and the turret is penetrated from an angle, which penetrates the blast doors/blast shield, that puts the crew in danger no? since the blast can enter the crew compartment.
yes... i still think the older way was better.
@@MrJC1 it's so heavy.. 70 tons, it is unfeasable to keep uparmoring the turret
It's in this weird stage where people aren't sure if they trust robots or not, so everything needs a manual backup. We would've been better off buying Panther.
Just in my opinion concept desings are made exactly for this reason getting aspects from many different sources to make a better final product. Smart marketing
Leaving space in the turret for the crew is a worst of both worlds solution. You keep the weight and profile of a manned turret, but also lose the extra fuel capacity. Not to mention there's very few cases where the crew will actually be able to repair such complexed systems in the battlefield. It's like they don't trust their technology. "we have an autoloader but when it eventually fails you can load it manually. It's not like Russian and even nato tanks have been using autolaoders for decades with pretty good reliability
Tech demonstrator. It’s entirely possible the US requests the turret to still be manned and the autoloader being removed. Much more efficient to have a Manual loader anyway.
Its a testbed man not a production vehichal
@@PeterMuskrat6968 hahaha, no it isn't. It's outdated tech, every new MBT comes with an autoloader.
@@antimatter4733 Lmao, a 19 year old drinking Bang or a Red Bull will load shells faster than an Autoloader. It also leaves another crewmen to perform maintenance. Stop sucking off autoloaders. It’s a nice addition but not necessary since we aren’t needlessly increasing caliber like the Krauts and the Frogs over in Europe.
I was hoping they would put some kind of armored covers over the road wheel hubs.
You WILL get the thermoplastic wheel hubs
And you WILL love them.
@@MrCantStopTheRobot literally 1984
So it has a armored turret which is remotely controlled? Why?
I honestly like the T-14 turret design a lot more. This "I want a turret that's unmanned but also isn't" type of thinking seems like a half-measure that somewhat negates the advantages of both. But it's just a tech demonstrator, so we'll see.
I would say that it's different approach, not bad and not good, different, T14 turret has it's own disadvantages, basically it's smaller, lighter, less armored turret vs bigger heavier, better armored turret, as both tanks have crew in hull, hit to the turret is not about crew survivability, T14 turret is smaller so it's harder to hit but at the same time it is so lightly armored that any hit means mission kill as turret will be easily penetrated and not operational, in AbramsX turret is bigger and easier to hit by it is as heavy armored as normal Abrams turret, so hit do not mean guaranteed penetration and tank will be fully functional most of the time.
@@czaja995 I don’t think the respective sizes of the turrets are of significant importance, when (19K) M1 Armor crewman are generally trained to shoot at the center of visible mass and top-attack munitions will land on target irregardless of the size of the tank’s turret.
Go through comment and count how manny people dont know its a tech demonstrator /testbed and think this will enter produdction it seems like 1 in 50 thinks it is a new produdction vehichal
I dunno, the optionally manned option adds redundancy that’s critically needed on the battlefield.
3:08
I think thats due to the fact its a tech demonstrator.
Their not sure what the army wants, and retains features for them to do their own trials and optimizations.
Its supposed to be optionally manned. Its possible to controll the turret manually, but its just an option mostly.
They still have all the crew on the bottom though, as its the preferrable layout.
Also they included a few removable drone deployers since their not sure if the army wants tank crews to be controlling them.
I think no ones pushing tank controlled drones yet, cus in Ukraine, tanks would be controlled by 2 people, while the commander would keep and eye on things through a drone.