Next generation Abrams tank presented
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 жов 2022
- 💥Use my link to install BLOODLINE for Free: ✅ app.adjust.com/kr3ge0u_2qg3p5r & Get a special starter pack [Available for the next 30 days]
General Dynamics showed off its Abrams concept demonstrator recently, building upon the existing Abrams tank, but also enhancing it in many ways. This video shares more about this AbramsX, and what it might mean for the US army.
Music by Matija Malatestinic www.malatestinic.com
If you want to watch our videos without ads, if you want quick replies to any questions you might have, if you want early access scripts and videos, monthly release schedules - become our Patron.
More here: / binkov
If you want to buy a Binkov plush doll, get it here!
crowdmade.com/collections/bin...
You can also browse for other Binkov merch, like T-Shirts, via the store at our website, binkov.com
Subscribe to Binkov's channel for more videos! / @binkov
Follow Binkov's news on Facebook! / binkovsbattlegrounds
Follow us on Twitter: / commissarbinkov
Suggest country pairs you'd like to see in future videos over at our website: www.binkov.com
💥Use my link to install BLOODLINE for Free: ✅ app.adjust.com/kr3ge0u_2qg3p5r & Get a special starter pack [Available for the next 30 days]
Man the switchblade 300 are such a failure and thry still get jammed in there, m i c
Pay to win scam
Iranian Arabs Make everything Copy
Shahed-136 is copy of israel
Iranian ballistic missile copy of Turkey
Iranian Arabs make tank copy of America
🇺🇸
An average U.S. civilian is better armed and equipped than a Russian soldier. This is sad.
It’s Abrams X video day ! Same-same , Our cycles are in sync now
I watch your videos, sometimes.
Im now convinced that every UA-camr in the same genre always has the same post schedule
I love both of your channels. When you mentioned this site having a similar episode, I came here right after your video. The two of you have the best videos of military equipment and how it affects strategy and vice versa.
The AbramsX Automatic loader system is a cassette system, this differs from the TTB which used a carousel system like the Soviet tank models. As such the AbramsX stows it’s ammunition in the bustle like Korean K2, Japanese Type 10/type 90, French Leclerc. This means in the event of an ammunition cook off the explosion would be channeled out the back of the turret and even farther away from the crew.
Layman’s terms, less pop goes the weasle, more taco bell clear out
@@jfraz6246 The Bustle goes pop the crew looks at each other wondering what just happened because they are three armored compartments away and all the fire and brimstone of the man made volcano is brewing skyward from the roof of the turret. As opposed to T72 where the crew was char broiled as the first thing that happened was the rounds in the turret turned the interior of the tank into hell. This is then followed by the rest of the ammunition combusting turning the turret into a rocket.
@@terranempire2 or considering the British Armies trials for an auto loader when designing challenger 1, the crew is so physically and mentally exhausted due to being 1 man/women down that they don't even know they are in a tank or why they are there, let alone register the fact that their tank has just been take out.
I though it was bad enough that The British weren't integrating recon drones into the challenger 3 uplift like a number of new tank designs, but the Americans aren't doing this and are potentially making their tank regiments useless by under manning them. I seriously hope they don't go down the 3 man tank crew route.
@@kaneworsnop1007 AbramsX does include UAS. As to the fourth man the scheme ascribed is to add him to support vehicles .
That track tension though..
Sources say T-72 turrets have more flight time than Russian pilots.
😭😭😭😂😂😂
Ukrainian ones?
😂
In Mother Russia Tank fire YOU!!!
Ok so what does this have to do with the video?
You forgot to cover its best new feature: the lightning bolt pattern on the side skirts! Studies show such a pattern makes a tank 50% more intimidating/effective.
I think the pattern is meant to disrupt sound waves and reflect radar beams in different directions, i.e., make the tank quieter and stealthier.
Skirt wearing tanks. Its always the women that pack the most firepower.
@@KatyaAbc575 (Speaking with a Scottish accent): "These are KILTS, not skirts!"
The KF-51 panther 4th crew member is meant to be able to increase mission capabilities by controlling drones and loitering munitions and other things along those lines.
The ability for it to launch its own organic kamikaze drones is incredible. I would not be surprised if in the future, all MBTs can use their own UAVs which can be launched and recovered internally.
Oh boy, War Thunder is coming to life...
Some of the big features in the AbramsX are likely going to find their way into older Abrams tanks, like the XM360 cannon and the improved tank treads.
The X stands for eXpensive.
Forgot to mention the crew get helmets similar to the F-35 so they can "see through" the hull and turret
More like Apache pilots, so two sensors points make sense
I know Binkov said 'SEP v4' while describing the newest Abrams varient, but I heard 'SCP v4' and had a little heart attack.
US army be deploying SCPs on the battlfield in the future!
4:05 I'm pretty sure the 4th crewmember on the kf51 is optional.
You need 3 to operate the tank and the 4th person can oversee command and control/loitering munitions/other unmanned systems
It is, even Binkov said this in his Vid on the Panther^^
Fuel consumption rate is a major issue for the Abrams so the new power plant seems like a major improvement especially when you consider how much fuel a complete battalion burns through every day. Tanks may be well armored, but fuel trucks typically aren't.
I've always wondered of fuel consumption is overblown. As the cheiftan has proved consistently the M1A1 and later with the APU is SIGNIFICANTLY more fuel efficent then an M4 Sherman. And a lot smaller militaries with a lot worse logistics have operated a lot more of those tanks.
@@imjashingyou3461 Yeah, but I doubt you want the bar of efficiency to be a 70 year old design. Plus, one of the biggest issues for the current tanks is the lack of electrical generation for the the electronics.
@@oldmandan5634 I'm not saying fuel efficiency is good. I'm saying how much of an issue is it really, and how much is it just a popular talking point? It's not like the gas turbine has no advantages for the fuel penalty.
Also how much of a burden would it be for a nation like Ukraine to operate a few hundred M1A1s when a nation like Isreal operated a few thousand Sherman's at one point with less logistics? The consistent counterpoint that is screamed against donating some of the 2k M1A1s we have in storage is "but what about fuel consumption". Doesn't seem like a really issue to me.
@@imjashingyou3461 Fuel efficiency doesn't mean much to the military. It might mean it will go longer before needing refuelled assuming the vehicle is carrying the same amount of fuel. In this Abrams X case the range is about the same since they are carrying less fuel than a regular Abrams. The benefit is that there is more space and it can operate silently while stationary.
Aside from that, picture that they are getting a blank check to drive wherever they want. The fuel will get to them with proper planning. It just sounds good to the taxpayer when trying to buy new equipment.
@@bl8danjil I would agree and that's largely my point. People are saying this is the most significant change. Hell no. A switch to 3 crew members completely changes the personel, training, and logistics tail. The ability to use programmable ammo is another bigger difference as well as a anti drone coaxial that can also do anti vehicle work.
If you are not going to put crew in the turret, you really should have the crew compartment in the rear of the tank with the engine up front, like the Isreali Merkava. You will vastly increase crew survivability. Plus a rear crew compartment makes a four man crew much easier to fit.
But it isn’t common for tanks to be attacked from the front, nowadays they are attacked from behind
I was thinking the same thing. It seems like the Israeli's value the soldier more than the engine while everyone else values the engine more.
The thing is this is still using the Abrams hull as a tech demonstrator. To put the engine in the front would require an entire redesign, which really isn't worth it for a tech demonstrator like this
@@jayl878 No lol the Israelis only did that because they had shit armor back in the day
The problem is that modern tank rounds and atgms can go right through a engine no problem so if the armor is penetrate then no point in putting the engine up front too
Keep the 4th crew as a drone and sensor operator. Lots of battlefield management integration and radars all around, and possible tactical UAVs.
The reason they lose this person as crew is mainly space. Drones and sensor operators are more fit to be located in a 'behind the lines' apc or command station.
@@BartJBols I'm forseeing sUAS getting expendable, proliferated, and smaller than the typical RQ-7 or RQ-11 in future.
I'm also not fully sold on the autoloader never needing a manual adjustment. I think the Optionally Manned option for the turret is better, than fully unmanned.
That seems to be the thinking behind Rheinmetall's KF51.
@@AlphaAurora The turret is still crewman accessible in the AbramsX, in case of just such a scenario where the cannon needs to be manually loaded. It simply isn't meant to be manned as SOP, since it's very crowded in there.
@@ostiariusalpha if the turret only accessible and not manned, the jam will take place when you need it most critically.
An autoloader only makes sense due to the new programmable AMP round which replaces the other ammo types. With that said, reducing the crew to 3 reduces the sustainability of a tank in the field considerably.
Tank warfare is becoming obsolete in the next century tank warfare will be looked back at like how we view trench warfare which is still used today but with drones makes it more obsolete than ever
They put a fucking aimbot on the tank
Thanks, Binkov, for making it clear that this is a company-built demonstrator, and neither contracted nor "OMG AMERCIAS NXT TANKZORZ!1!!!" Already getting other videos popping up in my feed with clickbait titles along those lines.
Next: German's Rheinmetall Panther KF51 tank!
By hydride I hope you mean a very large 300-500kWh battery pack with a diesel-electric gen set. This is the optimal setup because the tank will have excellent acceleration in reverse and forward motion. This will be via several electric motors that give instant torque. Another advantage is the electric motors are very quiet and they do not give off a very high thermal radiation. The battery pack would be hot but it would be in the floor of the tank.
The downfall would be the need to use packs that do not experience thermal run away why they are damaged. In think this should not be an issue though.
With of a large battery and electric motors it would reduce weight and improve space for more ammo and armor if needed. The gen set would recharge the batteries from small refueling fuel tanks that just keep the fuel contained as the gen set consumes it and charges up the pack.
A 100kw battery pack of a tesla is located between its two axles and only a few cm thick. So 300-500kw of battery is really isnt too much of a problem in terms of volume. And weight really isnt an issue for somthing thats already 60 tonnes. 500kg battery in a 2 tonne car? Thats an issue. 2000kg battery in a 60,000kg tank? Thats basically someone like me carrying two 1.5L bottles of water😅
@@arsyadidris6349 Considering that tank uses over 20 times more power than tesla that 500kwh battery is like you carrying a flashlight. not that much energy at all.
General Dynamics is surely one of the hardest working Generals in the US Army today. He deserves more recognition imho
Lmao
We finally get the anime tank
AYAYA!
Abrams Pro Max
At this point the turret is new and the power train is completely different. At this point it seems to be a completely different tank than the M1 of 30 years ago. The haul maybe the same shape but I'm interested in what is left of the original. It is like the 1990 F-150 VS the newest concept
Command & Conquer Generals had tanks with drones. Even the Humvee had drones.
Not the first time the US has gotten concerned about a Russian next gen weapon (that doesn't work) and made something better that actually works
The difference between the Abrams x and the t14 armata is…the Abrams x will work and be fielded in combat…not used in parades ..
Itsa veri nice looking tank so pretty sure it can do both
The actual difference is that the AbramsX Is nothing but a tech demonstrator, and there's just 1 built as far as we know so I don't see it in service any time soon.
@@thhevhsenjoyer9868 when it goes into production…I’m sure they will make more than 15…and they won’t brake down during a parade…you don’t seem to understand our production capacity here in America…
Or have its untrained crew not release the parking brake..
@@Angl0sax0nknight the US doesn’t use untrained crews to operate that type of equipment…they wouldn’t even drive it until fully trained…so there is that…
So glad you made a video on this amd I found it without it being in my feed
For 18 months I've been arguing that HYBRID-Tanks will be a huge advantage.
Ideally on SMR (small modular reactors) and E-TANKS are the ULTIMATE goal...
• SILENT operation (excluding tracks & item those tracks crush).
• A FRACTION the THERMAL signature.
Guys calm down jeez. The AbramsX is a basically a tech demonstrator and maybe a test bed. It's not supposed to be sent out to battle or sold to buyers, its just a platform where they test new military tech to see how it works.
hahaha I agree with you, but still people do the same with demonstrators and prototypes from other nations... take the Cy-57 for example... people still talking about rivets when that was only a prototype and the serial production version is as smooth as it can be
Good summary and analysis, Commissar Binkov. You are my favorite puppet.
Having an Artificial Intelligence tied into the tank's sensors suite is a big advantage. Situational Awareness is paramount inthe modern battlespace. First Look, first shot, first kill.
Honestly at this point. I just want to see some type of innovation before I drop dead.
Keep an eye out for all the new drone and anti drone tech then.
A lot of innovation has been in the use of software and not hardware.
I hear Armata T-14s will be participating in the turret toss championship next year. Supposedly they will have 40 competitors who will be ready to go but who knows.
Maybe you "heard", comrade 🤡 After word "Armata" no sense to read.
Unless they're doing that in a parade, the T14 will have nothing to do with that.
@@Shargok просто палишься петух😘
Até agora essa suposta maravilha russa só apareceu em feiras e desfiles, mesmo assim quebrou, kkkk. assim como o suposto caça de 5 geração deles que nunca sai da fase de testes.
Assuming they don’t break down, again.
Probably the most significant change would be the more efficient engine. In actual combat conditions, as opposed to peacetime tests, fuel consumption for a tank is a matter of gallons per mile, not miles per gallon. A tank's fuel stores have always been a major source of crew vulnerability. Changing that paradigm will mean more to combat effectiveness than the debate over electronic gadgetry and automatic loading.
Although all those issues are dwarfed by effective combined-arms deployment and tactical timeliness.
As the Cheiftan has said the fuel consumption issue on the Abrams is a far overblown and mythologized talking point. It's has far better fuel economy then tanks like the M4 Sherman that were supported in far greater numbers with far worse logistics, by reasource poor nations like Isreal.
At least the Abrams X is a good starting point for the Army to think about. Many good ideas on this technology demonstrator.
The Army _has_ "thought" for decades. Now they are simply one step closer to implementing these "ideas." With the introduction of the T-14 Armata, we've fallen behind; we need a comparably modern platform.
One of the reasons to keep 3 or even 4 crew members are maintenance operations. Reloading, refueling or repairing a damaged track with only 2 people is a hell of a lot harder.
That's why you get more supply vehicles. No army forces their tank crews to service their tank alone in the field.
For those thinking Tanks are a weapon of the past, you are mistaken. Yes current generation NATO ATGM's are devastating to tanks, even NATO ones. However this is where redundant APS's come into play. Tanks in the future will still be just as viable as they are today, a strong point direct fire solution for Infantry support. In fact Tanks will get MORE LETHAL when combined arms data linking is done correctly with with troop designation from individual soldiers and UAV's/UGV's.
Network centric warfare is already required to win wars, it will be much more important as we move forward. Tanks are an integral part of that network centric warfare package, they are here to stay.
OPEC cuts oil supply
US makes Abrams electric
OPEC You weren’t supposed to do that!
Idiot they’re still diesel
I have to tell you, that was a very smooth segue into the add lol 😄
hybrid would be a boon for the logistics side of things as well
Definitely, and the reduced weight is also clutch.
I had to be honest, this detailed explanation make the tank sound way better than what i had in mind.. it would a shame if US didnt move foward with his prototype.. the design solved many of modren tank problem. One of the biggest is crew safety in urban environment..
No need to be afraid of sniper, much more resistance to manpads, harder to detect n much better situational awareness, better firepower.. its brilliant really..
Alternate title. X gon' give it to ya?
X gonna give it to to your taxes.
As the Chieftain noted, the AUSA 2022 Abrams X demonstrator used the same hull of the Abrams Diesel Engine Solution demonstrator GDLS showcased during the 2013 AUSA.
I like big tanks, and I cannot lie. That is a big hunk o' kit.
Hi, Binkov's Battlegrounds. My name is Logan Hayes, and I've been a really big fan of your awesome UA-cam channel over the years ever since I was a small boy growing up, my favorite videos that you've done are 'What if the Soviets joined the Axis', and I was wondering if I could ask you an interesting topic for a possible future video about an WWII alternate timeline, if you would like to hear about it from me or not?
It's just a technology demonstrator. It's not a final product for the US Army
Obviously it ain’t the final product but I feel like this would be something to consider for the final product
it probably will be very similar when they decide on the next gen tank so dont downplay this if the tech is already well devolved the army is more likely to sign this tank off as production ready
As always, great job
3:51 Die 4th crewmember of the KF41 is not required for normal tank operation. It's optional planned for electronic warfare, piloting of the onboard drones, reco,...
Looks like THE GDI Medium Tank from Command and Conquer.
Can't wait for the mammoth !
it looks badass
Great video as always
I am pretty positive that the "improved roof protection" refers to a possibility of mounting an upwards facing APS system, which the AbramsX is said to have.
To me one of the most interesting features of the tank is the 30mm remote weapon station compared to the .50cal of most such systems.
If this gets coupled with a radar a bunch of tanks could deal fairly well with drones. Not a bad change at all.
@@censoredbybigbrother1175 that´s exactly what came to my mind as well.
@@censoredbybigbrother1175 Considering that's what the external machine guns on tanks were originally intended for (Anti-Air), it'd be fortuitous to see them come full-circle: what's old is new.
So, the autoloader dropping a crew member is definitely a minus for the tank... however, when you mentioned that switchblade drones could launch from the turret, it gave me an idea. What if you kept a 4th crewmember, who acted as a sort of "drone master?" The drone master would be responsible for loading different types of drones (including switchblades, or dedicated recon drones), as well as controlling and directing them and perhaps even interfacing with other drones. This would help improve situational awareness, and add a capability to hit targets out of the line of sight.
That is exactly what the KF51 Panther does.
@@humptidumpti83 Oh... Hadn't realized that. Well, that but for American systems.
Also exclusively manning the chaga-chaga-chaga 30mm chain gun with prox fused ammo.
@@Veldtian1 I can just imagine a tanker going, "but... where's the .50 cal? This... this is heresy!"
@@totalnerd5674 could always change the coaxial
This was a perfect video. Well dine.
Being able to place all of your crew in one spot means you need less heavy armor. A turret that doesn't have to service crew members is also better. No hatches up top means better protection.
18 year olds hopped up on nicotine and redbull don't jam like an autoloader does.
No they simply just die from heart failure
@@ArmedSpaghet Shut up what do you know about my health!? My blood pressure indicates only stage 2 hypertension not stage 3!
In a side by side comparison, you can even jam the autoloader with the hopped up cannon fodder!
(to be fair, the autoloader is propably too strong for that.)
By "autoloader" you mean fine French/Korean/Japanese engineering or old Soviet "strength in numbers" junk?
Find room in the hull or make room in the hull for the fourth man. When remounting a thrown track, that extra pair of hands makes life much easier. Also the extra set of eyeballs and somebody to control the drones if you're going to mount them on there.
People that favor auto loaders have never had to replace thrown track in the field
That is a pretty sweet looking tank!
Binkov I laughed out loud at your ad transition
1:51 ad ends
use sposorblock
@@SouthPeter98 no
Ruzzian trolls & Indians: "but T14 Armata is za best in za world! My friend, T90 of the Indian Army has no rival!"
its quite interesting that the new weapons look more and more like how people envisioned to be for decades in movies, games, comics etc
That's exactly why it looks like, probably some form over function involved in the design
I'm constantly curious why some new designs are bringing back bullet traps though.
I'm sure there's a compromise or a reason but id like to hear it
IIRC it can operate purely on the electric motor but is slower while doing so and can only do so for a limited range compared to the hybrid range.
Drone tanks are the future...So an autoloader makes sense, it will be an easy transition to drone tanks in the future. Let the drones lead with the infantry following...
Gut feeling this is a technology test bed that never goes into military production
Yeah, it's a technology demonstrator. That's what those words mean. Great gut feeling.
Nice break down
2 videos back to back?
Sheesh binkov is fast bro
I was under the impression the turret still has space inside to allow crew to get in as needed for mx and other things. But there are two main issues I am curious about how they plan to solve because they have removed the ability to stick your head out the top. That is greatly reduced rearward arc situation awareness ability, and greatly reduced above/aerial situational awareness as the turret blocks line of sight for both. This last one seems very consequential due to the resurgence of small drone threat, and their range enabling hard to anticipate, and detect attacks in rear area movements when one would likely be head out. Some of these threats a tanker can even hear before they see it.
Taking people out of the turret seems like a double edge sword IMHO in the absence of solutions to this problem.
@@gabrielzanetti9558 yeah cameras HAS existed for a long time now and a consistent account you'll see is they don't provide the same situational awareness as sticking your head out.
Now HAVE you ever heard about having discussions as an adult and not behaving as an asshat?
The first thing I thought about when they showed the crew layout was how horribly situational awareness would suffer. Anyone who has done any time in armor will tell you that nothing beat the Mk. I eyeball in gaining situation intel, no matter how good the optics are. Not to mention communication with supporting ground forces via hand signals and shouts and whatnot.
Maybe in the future theyll rig up some kind of armored 360 degree camera and VR type goggles for the TC to wear. It would be as if he was sitting outside the tank at all times. Would probably give the TC a heart attack the first time he took fire. Would pay to see that!
The Turret does supposedly have a compartment inside however it’s not for operating the tank it’s for clearance of jams and maintenance.
WOW, now it turns out that everyone in the comments is a professional engineer and tank expert 🤦🏻.
Guys, if the richest and most powerful armies in the world keep making and upgrading tanks, instead of just scrapping them. IT'S FOR A REASON
FCS isn’t cancelled, it’s just used in the Panther now. Funny how Rheinmetall and GD decided to both spontaneously design new tanks without government requests
well, they got a lot better chance of getting them now after the last 12 months, just wait for the newspaper article about how the Abrams is wearing out. Somehow in the next few months, it will go from the best in the world to hopeless on the modern battlefield. I've heard that one before LOL
@@aldenconsolver3428as my old history teacher always wrote on his whiteboard, “your ignorance is their power.”
Just one thing... why put the crew on the front of the tank? What if they stay on the back? If you have tv screen and cameras to see the battlefield, it makes sense to put the crew behind so they can exit from the back.
Thin armor back there.
Armor the back of the tank, and the tank is killed with machine guns
an Auto loader......Finally, the debate is finish 😁
Now theres no debate
Arguably there are more better things on this thing than just plane autoloader from 1964 😉
So... It's like Armata but made on the basis of Abrams and actually working?
Hybrid engine is a no brainer
My biggest question is if it is a normal hybrid or a plug-in hybrid. You know, if I can charge it overnight to save fuel on morning commune. A big factor for me.
The diesel powered engine is mainly to generate electricity to power the electric motor that drives the drive sprocket. There's dynamo inverter that regenerate & store electricity in battery providing power to the electric motor as well to help reduce fuel consumption. It's more practical than EV & HEV found in cars
You laugh but when your logistics has to supply thousands of vehicles that get gallons per mile fule economy somthing that offers improved efficiency is very interesting.
Damn the internet roasting Russia worse than the inside of their tanks after the turret pops off
Yeah, I have a problem with this. Where does the ventral escape hatch go in this design? Are the hatches on top at the front the only hatches the crew can use to escape the vehicle? That seems like a real shit deal - what if you are facing front towards the enemy when an ATGM rips through the top of the turret and disables the vehicle?
Now your only option is to get out on top of your vehicle, in the most exposed position you could possibly be in, while facing directly towards the enemy. Yes, in an ideal situation you will have ample infantry support to cover your escape, but the fact of the matter is this; in every example of automation or remote control implemented in tanks, it seems to be at the expense of crew survivability.
Having unmanned turret heavily damaged wouldn't force immediate evacuation if it's properly sealed off the hull/crew compartment though
Seems the obvious evolution, though I think the Sensor pods should have telescoping masts to allow observation over obsticles as well as retract them into the turret for protection. The inclusion of a 4th man in the turret is an option, or putting them in the hull with perhapse a back to back configuration, though in a back to back arangement they will need to share the hatch of another person and can't exit untill that person is out, so give that spot to the tank commander.
Good clip :)
Correction: the turret is optionally manned. One crew member can enter it. T-14 turret cannot be accessed from inside.
correction: The turret can be accessed for maintenance reasons, but not operated. T-14 turret really cant be accessed so repairs must be done from the outside.
Me personally I dont see where this is an advantage, Abrams turret would benefit more if they downsized it, it would have a smaller profile and be a lot lighter.
If it was the future it would be chrome. Like everything else in the future.
There's also the fact that the turret system has a much better recoil system that not only allows for better shot, but reduces stress and breakdown. They also mentioned that the Abrams tank will require less maintenance even if the tank requires one less crew.
Stolen design from Russia, the T14 is fully remote...
@@EroticOnion23 where did Russia get the design for the t-14…
@@BreathOfDust Nigeria.
If everything is controlled and driven remotely, is there really a need for the crew to be inside the tank at all? Seems like you could load it with some redundant datalink capabilities and just control the thing like a drone. Being a tank operator is a hazardous job these days.
And what is the point in having heavy armor when you don't have crew to protect?
@@peceed Well, to be fair to the original comment, there are only 3 people inside anyway. This is not an armored personnel carrier. So, I could see weight savings by having a drone (no crew) with an anti-tank gun. Make it cheap (although the electronics would be pretty expensive), make it small, but give it a big gun. So faster and cheaper, but still with good armament. They could help infantry protect against other tanks using their guns, but not really protect them with armor itself.
Signal jammers are a thing
Hazardous job indeed, especially the smell.
@@peceed to protect whole vehicle...
Any chance you will do a similar analysis to the new panther from rheinmetal?
This thing very much looks and feels like a technology demonstrator. Not to be sold as it, but to sell the tech inside.
With the KF51 you get a feeling for a more finished, more thoughtful product, one that's designed as an early prototype that might be sold with the technology ans systems as shown.
Canadian forces in Afghanistan have pretty much proved that tanks still need to be used,
Yes, because they need a place to hide in a place with no structures 😅
@@nitinmittal213 explain
Ah the classic Paint it Gray smooth the edges add X on the end of the name and slap FUTURISTIC.
Hey it worked with DDX destroyer.
the "X" often stands for experimental in american nomenclature ?
Yeah, like how the new rifle is the xm5. The m16 when it was in testing during Vietnam was the xm16
Pretty much, we slap X onto the designations of all kinds of experimental equipment. Though usually as a prefix rather than a suffix.
Given that electric drive gives full torque at any RPM and is noted for great acceleration, combined with lighter weight at the same power, the agility of this vehicle would no doubt be outstanding. The heavier rounds of guns larger than 120mm mean the Army will probably need to accept an autoloader eventually and this would be a lot easier to upgrade to 130mm or 140mm than a manned turret. Alternatively, if MRM-KE can be gotten to work then upgrading the gun beyond 120mm may no longer be an issue as any tank within range will be able to make the shot against an enemy tank so hitting from favorable angle to avoid frontal armor will usually be possible.
Nope. No auto loader coming in the future. Ammo will get lighter
It certainly looks futuristic.
- Given the issues other countries have had, I'm not sold on the auto-loader or lower crew rate. If they can get it to work though . . .
- I do have some concerns about situational awareness. The "glass combat" is revolutionary when you're buttoned up, but I'm not convinced it's a match for sticking your head out, which is a lot harder with an unmanned turret.
- The 30mm makes me smile :D
- The integration of drones with a direct line to the tank, presuming said drones have US grade thermal optics could be a major game changer, especially when you look at how Russian tanks are getting ambushed in rural settings (I'm not sure anything can help in urban).
- The possibilities of the hybrid engine excite me . . . if they are reliable.
- One thing I'm curious about is the move of all crew to the front. With a glass cockpit, wouldn't it make sense to put the engine in the front and the crew in the back for the best crew survivability?
- From a different video, the X still has blow out panels for the ammo. With Russian tanks you see a lot of autoloader turrets go flying on a kill hit, which generally means that the tank crew also had an unpleasant end. The X does not seem to have this issue.
- One thing missing that I recall from a few years ago is thermoptic camo. It didn't make the tank invisible in the thermal, it changed the thermal outline to make it harder for FAF ground munitions and misidentification by drone and air assets.
Autoloader is great as long as it's separated with blast wall from crew and ammo explodes upward freely. Ammo door is thrown up and blast is directed in sky. Wash with pressure washer, put new ammo box in and ready to go. Top loaded ammo box is fast reloadable with crane and even using ammo drones in combat
Friendly fire?
Oh in Russia that's just called war.
Given the AbramsX turret is completely redesigned, I do not know why they didn’t increase the barrel length of the gun. A longer barrel would allow the AbramsX to retain comparability with existing 120mm rounds but increase penetration as well allowing it increase lethality against other MBTs. An L/50 or L/55 gun would have been neat.
Long barrels make the tower deficult to turn in Forrest, city's and other places with little space. Guessing this is the main concern.
What do they need more penitration for? Uranium core rounds take out everything it hits as is. Other tanks aren't this things primary target.
@@abiku2923 T-90M and MS is rather tough tanks. Estimates find that the M829E4 out of the L/44 may have difficulty penetrating the frontal armor of the T-90MS. Also there are a fair few Leopards out there which might be packing upgraded armor that may or may not give the L/44 some trouble. Iraq bought French Command and Control systems prior to the Gulf War and Iran bought American defense goods before the Revolution so it is possible that future Geopolitcal developments may see the Abrams clash with the Leopard 2 or even export Abrams tanks. The current gun and ammo is more than sufficient to deal with most likely threats like the T-72B3 but a longer gun would aid it in combating future tank threats.
The switch blades are scary it’ll be able to launch kamikaze drones eek
KF51 Panther did it first
Amazing
Suddenly... half the world are experts for tanks
Seeing as I have no experience in combat or engineering I'm just going to say I have no idea what will happen and leave it at that.
Ah yes, the new Abrahms X Kendi model.
That will be an Abraham on a whole new level! It will make any enemy hit not the panic but the we are doomed button!
Yeah, I think the army should certainly adopt the new tank with a few changes.