There are no fuel caps in that area, so I guess there is no fuel up there.
2 Likes
Machine translation:
âFront of the vehicle
Crew compartment hatch
Vehicle height increase
Sensor module
The turret is a manned vehicle and other structures, and the vehicle is designed for the front of the vehicle. Therefore, it is not mounted on a J-mounted gun.â
2 Likes
Thanks for the translation.
2 Likes
I donât think thatâs true. Especially in cavalry formations, but just in general, having a few PERCH systems available in every company gives the company much more situational awareness and a more advanced sensor potential. Even if itâs not anti-tank and anti-personnel drones, the additional sensors provided by tank companies could be useful. Not to mention, for cavalry formations, this could be EXTREMELY useful to screen for enemy formations. When you send out recon drones and even anti-personnel and anti-tank drones, it forces enemy short range air defenses to either expose their locations, or to potentially have the larger formation suffer potentially very serious damage. Considering what armored Calvary has to work with right now I think it would be smart to use existing platforms to launch these, not to mention this way you donât need to train people on new vehicles that are purpose-built for this. Bradleyâs and Abrams both work for this. I think the Bradley is probably more suited to this role, and it would be good to see cav scouts using portable launchers for this too, but in general it would be a good capability that fits perfectly into the role of probing the enemy.
1 Like
Donât you think it should get a new M number? The number of mods between this and M1A-anything is definitely more tha between M48 and M60, wouldnât you say? Why donât they admit itâs a completely new tank? Do they want to fool a bunch of senators again?
1 Like
Not really. It will become the M1A3, which means a new variation on the same basic hull and turret. The M48 and M60 were totally different tanks; different hulls, different turrets, different guns, etc., etc⌠This is just a variation of the same basic parts with other stuff added onto it. The basic Abrams hasnât changed.
2 Likes
Iâve thought about this too. It seems to me that there are sufficient upgrades to warrant a new M- number. Historically the Army has done it a few times. When the M26 Pershing received a new engine, it was designated and renamed M46 Patton. The M48 and M60 (early) were more similar than dissimilar. The 60 being an obvious evolution of the 48. For me the M1 got pretty confusing pretty quickly. The normenclature started in typical fashion. M1, followed by a sub designation as upgrades were made (A1, A2) but then they began adding sub-sub designations (IP, HA, SEP) then sub-sub-sub designations, like V1, V2, and if we want we could go onto other variants that were treated like sub designations. You needed a score card to follow each upgrade, change, variant, or altercation and for some reason, they didnât want to continue the âAâ designations, being âstuckâ on A2 forever. I know this didnât start with the Abrams. The M60A1 had RISE and later Passive. And of course the M60A3 variants. -But at least Iâm glad they quit the long identifiers and went back to at least changing the âAâ designation, so at least for now we are all on the same stinking page!
Edro
2 Likes
The most consistent thing about the American military equipment numbering system is the inconsistency.
1 Like
I donât buy it neither - but I didnât want to argue with Gino 
So letâs see if I get it right: Hull is different (that large hatch in front of the turret), The turret is different and the engine is different. Not sure about the suspension, wheels and track. What would be the part commonality between the good old M1A2 with a lot of letters and the new one? And you still want to tell me itâs a bit like with the M4A2 and M4A3?
But I get it - M1 is a brand name and every tank from now on will be known as M1 Abrams because people like it.
Question is how much longer will the concept of a manned tank exist in the drone dominated battlefield?
Itâs worth noting that the defence industry likes manned tanks A LOT more than those s***y (they censored me!) Ukrainian drones, because tanks give you A LOT better margins. Generals have to retire somehere, right?
Rant over, have a nice day!
PaweĹ
1 Like
Im Just not crazy of all crew in the hull and a reduced crew
Not arguing. You can have your opinion. I just donât think it is enough of a different tank; mostly the same parts with a few scabbed onto it. To me, it is basically just added stuff to the same old Abrams hull and turret.
2 Likes
Pogey (sp?) bait storage.
Air intake, when you want to go really fast and cool off at the same time.
1 Like
Adding a hydropneumatic suspension is a pretty major mod.
1 Like
âŚAnd the information on the M1E3 ran dryâŚthe reporters drifted away and no new M1E3 news has been released.
The M1E3 reminds me of the M10 Booker where the US Army didnât release much information on it and a lot of the technical specifications were considered secret. So the M10 Booker was canceled and still itâs âInformation Blackoutâ on the M10 Booker.
The US Army is having a bad history of having a lot of canceled armor programs, with SECDEF canceling even more. Yes, cheap FPV drones are the bane of AFVs now, but weâre talking about decades of workforce hours placed into these AFV programs and hundreds of billions of dollars, if not trillions, placed into these armor programs that just got swept off the desk onto the floor due to politics and realignment issues, now ignored and forgotten. It kind of makes the people wonder if the US Army, government, politicians, and management even knows what itâs doing when they appear to know what theyâre doing. Thereâs like a âbugabooâ haunting the US Army programs.
Google AI:
bugaboo primarily refers to something that causes fear, worry, or anxiety, often out of proportion to its actual importance.
The saying goes, âIâll believe it when I see it in serviceâ is really true. With peer nation governments, they can put AFVs into service a lot fasterâŚnot saying that their tanks are better or comparable, just that they can field new armor designs into service faster than the US Army.
2 Likes
This thread is in its fourth month and so far nobodyâs asked the obvious question: do I really need a tank to drive through Detroit? 
2 Likes
So letâs see if I get it right: Hull is different (that large hatch in front of the turret), The turret is different and the engine is different. Not sure about the suspension, wheels and track. What would be the part commonality between the good old M1A2 with a lot of letters and the new one? And you still want to tell me itâs a bit like with the M4A2 and M4A3?
Thereâs probably no parts commonality, but it âlooksâ the same 
Question is how much longer will the concept of a manned tank exist in the drone dominated battlefield?
So long as there are roles for the tank which drones cannot do, -such as leading dismounted troops into contested territory, or taking and holding ground, tanks will still exist. At present most militaries are actually investing more into tanks, rather than eliminating them.
Anyway, back to the topic, the Abrams name is probably going to be around, probably like the Patton name lasted through three major designs (four if you include the M60âs)
Ed
2 Likes
The M60 lineage goes all the way back to the M26 Pershing
1 Like
I think they were talking about the use of the âPattonâ name?
Likely have to wait until the October Association of the US Army (AUSA) conference in Washington DC for more information, or, ideally another exhibit. According to program concept, four vehicles are to be delivered for trial, experimentation, & âsoldier touch points.â
1 Like
The goal was 60 tons for the M1E3, and I wonder if that weight goal drove the 120mm M1E3âs design and requirements compared to battlefield survivability against FPV drones and other advanced threats by putting the crew into the hull frontâŚwhy, the Future Combat System (FCS) did that and it got nowhere, not even close to a FCS tank, because the FCS was deemed over-budget and âtoo light to fight and too heavy for the C-130 to transport.â
If the US Army really wanted a lighter tank, then the 42-ton 105mm M10 Booker is it, but it seems that the US Army is kind of confusing its requirements as to what it tactically wants due to politics, external influences, and so forth and so on.
1 Like