AbramsX Tank: A Glimpse into the Future of Armored Warfare
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 вер 2024
- #shorts The AbramsX, the next-generation of Abrams tanks, is expected to completely revolutionize the field of tank warfare with its advanced features and capabilities.
The AbramsX is designed with a modular configuration that allows for the easy addition of various capabilities, such as situational-awareness enhancements, threat detection/warning, counter-measures, and active protection systems.
Join our UA-cam channel by clicking here: bit.ly/3asNo2n
Find us on Instagram: bit.ly/3PM21xW
Find us on Facebook: bit.ly/3t2Huvb
Find us on Twitter: bit.ly/3wQfXzA
Find us on TikTok: bit.ly/3wNsBOu
Get the latest stories: interestingeng...
Support IE for high-quality journalism: interestingeng...
People say Abrams X is a demonstrator do not understand, there is a testing date for the Army. And the US is in the middle of replacing our war machines. Humvee is already being replaced, the new Bradley will have a 50mm auto cannon. Abrams X and Striker X both are massive upgrades. Were in development for our 6th gen fighter jets. US Air Force and Navy will get their own designed jet. Were replacing the 5.56 for a 6.8 round with standard riffles.
what's the model of the bradley, cuz im sure it has been around for alot of time.
Edit: i dont know if the striker X and abrams X are going to be in testing, also i dont know if the humvee will be really replaced, the chances are very low, cause the humvee has a really good performance, about the 6th generation fighter, i dont really think it needs to get in production, cause rn the united states already have a good air force, Well thats just an opnion (if i did any typo its cuz im in mobile and also my english is a bit bad. 👍)
@@aaaaaaaa34444 the humvee already been replaced the replacement now has air conditioning
No the age of tanks is not over. It's just that Russian and Chinese knock-offs suck. Next gen. Abrams, Leopards a S. Korean K-2's will dominate for decades.
They won't even need to make a 'next gen' tank for a while. Abrams, Leopard IIs and Challengers, while not invincible, is more than capable of doing their job.
If there's an actual, genuine threat, then they'll build those next gen tanks. But at the moment those tanks don't need to exist yet(aside from the AbramsX, the US need a lighter MBT).
Bs abrams needs to be heavier for drone protection. Abrams has the advantage of using almost any feul a chinese, russian, european or african tanks has and a diseal engine wont be better in terms of logistics, lol I can tell your European bey the fact you thing one size fits all. @@aaroncabatingan5238
I was taught that WW2 was the last tank warfare and WW1 was last of trench warfare and here we are - 2022 /2023 and the largest tank battles ever and trenches. Nobody can determine what the future will like. We have drones and missiles... This was supposedly the only way
Might have to release earlier if things keep escalating:(
Tanks will live forever 👁️👃👁️🙏
it really depends on how you use a tank tbh because no matter how advanced a tank is it will still be fodder without infantry support
the Future main Battle Tank needs more Protection on top of Turrett
From what I heard about the tank it houses an autoloader while stores the ammo in the same spot as the original Abrams did while the crewman sit in the hull of the tank and not the turret
If anyone is looking at Russia to revolutionize warfare then they are stupid. Everyone knows that the Abrams is the best tank not just for its variety of wepons and defenses but because the US trains its crews to a higher standard, we over maintain our equipment, and we actually supply our troops.
still Guzles alot of Fuel...and is Heavy ....But Yes Abrahms is the Toughest Kid on the Block for sure..
@@jamieharmer5654 ya it wastes fuel, but my point was just in how we treat our tank crews. Russia prove it still doesn't maintain its equipment and fills with cheap copies that have 0 protective power. We're as America we only need to do maintenance every 2 weeks but a tanker said they are forced to do it twice a week and we give them actual armor and ammo. Plus we constantly train our troops in tank warfare even when we aren't in a fight.
@@jamieharmer5654I mean the engine in the Abrams weighs the same as the one in the T-90 and the T-90 can only go 30 mph while the abrams can go over 50
@@jamieharmer5654 No, Leopard 2A7 better.
@@definitelynotakgbagent6612Now I have to say this is wrong. The T-90 can go at around 37 mph, the T-80 can go 80mph meanwhile the abrams can go around 44. The reverse however, is absolute dogshir
Automation is coming. but losing tanks? Depends how quickly they can be penetrated/disabled. And a tank is a tank, can't do a whole lot by itself. Keep in mind, once automation begins full score. Meatbags will be easier to replace.. or dispose of.
The Abrams X WILL NOT BE ADOPTED. It is a technology demonstrator, not meant for production.
Fun fact:The first tank was made 537 years ago
Probably around 12 million dollars per unit, and yet 1 $5,000 anti tank mine takes it out of the fight. Go figure
The tank is going to be around for a while or a version of a heavy armored vehicle, the Russians always went for quantity over quality and it shows, and the United States tech is proving it
No enemy tank within range of Russian drone-targeted anti-tank artillery will survive long enough to make much of a difference on the field battle.
No, Russia just doesnt know how to "do battle" they NEVER have. Theyve only had millions of people who they MADE fight with barely any tactics at all.
@Stan US did fight, a lot, in world war II.
Actually the United States, factually, carried the allies BIG TIME in the Pacific and a LOT in Europe.
Russia lost many battles against Napoleon in many of the coalition wars, it was only until Napoleon went deep into Russian territory and then winter kicked in were they actually able to do some damage on the fleeing army because they all would've suffered in the harsh winter.
The Soviets may have "beat" the Germans but they lost MILLIONS of men in the process and Germany was fighting a war on multiple fronts and running out of resources, eventually a direct two front war because of D-Day.
Russia is struggling in Ukraine big time and a lot of their advancements into Ukraine has been undone, and Ukraine in 2014 was in really poor condition.
Ukraine is holding out and winning on certain fronts just by NATO weaponry, equipment and training alone.
@Stan Winter beat those two tbh. They were successful on the battlefield.
@@Lancaster-hu6jy "soviets lost millions" due genocide by germans.
@Stan during ww2 1/3 of the Russian air force was American made planes. Russians would be speaking German if not for America helping. So you are historically incorrect.
@Stan "US didn't really fight in WW2"
The US practically carried the entire Pacific Theater by themselves against Japan, while also fighting in North Africa and eventually Europe, and of course 2 out of the 3 beaches assaulted during the Normandy invasion was by American forces. Also, the Soviets benefited heavily from the US Lend-Lease program, with a large portion of the trucks, tanks, planes, fuel, ammo, etc. being supplied by the US at a time when the Soviets were having difficulties with their logistics.
Tanks will eventually be unmanned and controlled from a safer location.
Millions of $$ for a tank, $100,000 for a handheld missile to destroy it, oh yeah !
So people who manufacture tanks are skeptical of those who say that tanks are obsolete? hahah.
I swear if I had a penny for every time I heard or read someone claiming the era of the Tank is at an end, I'd be a rich man...
And no, the Tank will not be going out of style anytime soon.
Just like how Cannon artillery was predicted to be rendered obsolete by rocket/missile technology but yet is still in full use and even proving it's still very much a decisive tool of war today. So too will the tank remain in service for a long time to come.
Uhm no. The guns on modern naval vessels has no comparison to the large artillery used on battleships and cruisers from the second world war.
The reason why is because the large artillery used on battleships was almost always very inaccurate when used against other ships and was most often used as shore bombardment anyway.
Unfortunately for big gun fans, missiles were pretty much always gonna be a better option considering they're much more accurate, and can travel much further distances than even the most powerful artillery systems used during WW2. Missiles can pretty much do anything battleships artillery can but better in almost every way, aside from cost.
The reason modern naval ships often only have a single low caliber gun (usually 127mm-155mm for most destroyers) is solely for close-in engagements (usually against smaller boats during anti-piracy missions) or in shore bombardment like traditional artillery would be used.
Some smaller caliber guns can even be used as anti-air, usually against small drones and slower and older aircraft if need be.
So why haven't tanks been made obsolete? Because drones arn't the perfect alternative to tanks, and neither are missiles - as both are sustainable to anti-air systems while tanks are a bit harder to take out, especially so modern tanks that use advanced defensive systems such as the Active Protection System and reactive armor used on modern tanks.
Tanks are advantageous considering they aid massively in launching mechanized assaults as well as destroying structures enemies might be hiding in as well combating enemy armor.
They can also come in many variations that can be utilized to protect troops and be used as a solid defense against enemy counter attacks
So tanks will likely always be used till we're able to produce a perfect alternative to them that can also do everything tanks can but better in almost every way.
@@Archangel657 Alright, well for one, I'm not talking about about naval warfare.
Secondly this war is tangible proof that Cannon artillery. (Aka towed or self propelled artillery) is still a very big player on the battlefield.
And I predict that the same thing will happen to the tank, it'll evolve and change but it won't go away.
No casualties for Ukraine? They're so special. They're winning every contact, skirmish and battle apparently. LOL.
380mm goofy ahh tank: *N o.*
In amidst of an era of rapid innovation, this tank would be too outdated for 2030.
Russia doesn't bring infantry with there tanks they fight alone that why u need infantry to take out the tank hunting teams with javelins and nlaws they are horrible at combined warfare
Leopards burning in Ukraine 💀💀
My take on this is, that human die in the hundreds as well, cuz that just what war is...
Your awesome and awesome video
Still doesnt have an autoloader bruh
The military industrial complex knows no bounds, now if we could just figure out how to WIN wars with it!
I understand the tech that's going into the new Abrams isn't available yet. Super computers are crunching formulas and experiments of materials and weapons for the solutions to make the tank beyond what anyone will have by 2028.
Ukraine vs Russia war isn't really a good war to base if a Tank's are still valuable. One country has a plethora of Soviet tanks 70-80 years old, and a newer tank that is unproven with excessive complaints on armor and ect. Vs a country that got really good with Javelins. Now are being trained on base model Abrams. Abrams have 30-40 years of service with a crazy service record, and extensive upgrades. Like trophy system and ect. The US next main battle tank is already rolling around before testing. The Abram X is supposed to not be picked up by thermos because of the tech it is getting. ERCA system turns tanks and artillery into giant sniper rifles. Avg tank shoot's artillery around 15 and 30 kilometers away vs ERCA over 40 kilometers away, and is pinpoint accurate. Their planning on doing something with the artillery shells that could extend it over 90 kilometers away.
The current War in Ukraine is not a mobile war, it is static with defined objectives in mind. If this were any other type of War similar to WWII, it would have been over long ago.
World War 2 also saw static warfare. Most of the Eastern Front was static for much of 1942. Africa was static most of the time. And then there's Italian Campaign.
You seem to be mistaken it's the Ukrainians who's experiencing the high tank casualties.
no
@@OrIoN1989 Yes!
@@pattersonlee062 I dont trust your intel. Relative to russian tanks?
@OrIoN1989 Really? Well, reality from the battlefield proves NATO equipment isn't doing well. According to the recent video evidence, especially the German Leopards and the US Bradley's are getting smashed.
@@pattersonlee062 I would not worry too much. NATO equipment is not invulnerable.
No tank is indestructible and you'll always have casualties but this one might have less casualties then it's Russian counterparts
Also challenger 3:bruh why us brits always forgotten we made the tank like have some respect American fame taker's
but wasnt this just like an example prototype?
Tanks coming to an end? Three schools of thought come up. First, does this mean we may be moving to Power Armor such as in War Hammer 40K? Dangit! Knew I should have kept the Blue Prints for the Mk1A1 Johnny Rebs Power Armor! Second, does this mean that Horse- Cav in Body Armor will replace Tanks? Third. Or the Imps/ Drones will develope into Various mini dreadnoughts ( land ships) that will replace Tanks. Great for infantry support, easy to conceal, and way cheaper. Four, the traditionalists will argue for smaller tanks that are faster, cheaper, easier to manufacture, and to maintain. Hmm, or is the thought of the tanks day about to end just a Heresy.
The obsession with power armor is bizarre.
Power armor will never be a thing. Power armor turns standard infantry into a tank, without the advantages of a tank or infantry.
A guy with an ATGM will kill a guy with power armor. And the logistics of supplying and maintaining a force equipped with power armor is gonna be brutal. Not to mention that soldiers in power armor can only walk as fast as standard infantry. Which is pretty fucking slow.
I think you're joking here, but this message is for anyone who thinks that 'power armor' would ever be a good idea.
Soon to be mech warriors
less military more normal. 🇺🇸
trash metal with the price of gold
Let me guess high school creative writing class???? Utter hyperbole and zero information.
ruzzia just spam t 55s...
Can you mean what you say instead of just saying big words
5/68th here..8th ID
Nope, tanks are still a very viable asset on the battlefield. it's simply a case that the Russians still don't know how to use them. look back at history and see the hordes of tanks that were sacrificed in the name of the motherland.
drones will end them
That’s any tanks
Combined Arms Warfare. If not practiced, yes tanks will fail. Unfortunately as we've seen, Russia, doesn't.
Lol
when western countries finally appreciate the purpose of auto-loaders and decided to join the Auto-loader gang tanks
junk tank
Russia's heavy armor failures has nothing to do with the future of tanks. Their tank warfare doctrine has always been geared towards tanks overwhelming a much weaker disorganized enemy. their failure was not adjusting their battle doctrine to account for modern ATMs being used from a well organized enemy.
Excuse me, but what modern weapons did Abrams fight against? Or even USA.
There is nothing that replaces the job of a tank. Humans can be defeted with a sharp stick or a short fall. There is nothing we have that can replace a human role on a battle feald. Untill then, thousands of lives will be lost.
US NATO means WAR
🤡🤡🤡🤡