More on the Abrams X. I will continue to add more articals and details about the pathway to the M1A3. If you find additional information and articles, please post here so we can keep a running log.
AbramsX: General Dynamics’ Pioneering Tank and the Debate on Modern Warfare’s Future (msn.com)
OK, I’ll bite.
I think that Laser Warning Receivers (LWRs) are possible on the M1E3/M1A3…after all, the M1A2SEPv4 already has LWRs on the turret.
I also think that 360-degree cameras are also very possible for “See through armor” and that shouldn’t be that hard to implement. The M1A3’s tank crews don’t need a fancy helmet like the F-35 pilots…they can use regular TV monitors. Already newer NATO AFVs have 360-degree cameras.
A new hybrid engine…sure…with more space for batteries and a generator in the engine compartment.
As for mounting a 30mm RWS autocannon on the turret roof for drone-defense, one has to recall that one has to get out to reload a 30mm and the 30mm ammo is bulky and heavy. I think a smaller caliber for drone defense might be more suitable, be it 12.7mm to 25mm. DoD needs to create airbursting shells for smaller calibers. The concept is good as airbursting shells can hit enemy troops in trenches also, but the 30mm profile is high.
As for M1A3 loitering munitions, sure, if the M1A3 has a remote turret with space for them. One doesn’t want a drone to return to the M1A3 to risk giving away the position of the MBT. Loitering munitions are one-way ISR kamikaze drones and will always reach out farther than the tank’s main gun. Also, unlike ATGMs, loitering munitions do not need a lock-on before launch…they can roam until they find a target or just slam into the ground if no target is discovered.
Crew in hull—sure—makes sense…and M1A2SEPs are all started from junky M1s anyway so a complete rebuild can put the M1A3’s crew in the hull.
There is no talk of the future armor package so one wonders if Chobham is implemented, and if so, for the hull and not the turret or for both? And if Chobham is used for the M1A3, would the top get Chobham? How thick would the armor sandwich be? So the M1A3 might want to reposition the armor sandwich around for more top-attack defense. The M1 Abrams only have Chobham on the front faces of the hull and turret.
I also think the M1A3 should have more EW/ECM and sensors. Anti-IED and jammers are essential now so the AbramsX seems to lack these. The Active Protection System on the AbramsX is the 30mm as there doesn’t seem to be any APS, but one has to go to the AUSA show or ask GDLS questions about the AbramsX. A RWS turret can hide many features if it is streamlined and has all these pop out and pop up panels.
A lot of the technology is already possible and the USMC now has uncrewed JLTVs that are remote controlled (NMESIS, ROGUE-FIRES, and Long-Range Fires). Will the M1A3 be optionally manned? That delves into the US Army’s RCV-Heavy tank concept though, not a MBT in the M1 Abrams family that are usually manned.
These are my thoughts on the AbramsX to M1E3/M1A3. I didn’t really think or write what I believe the M1A3 should have that isn’t in the AbramsX. That is another story and leads to the Future MBT (FMBT) which the US Army canceled a long time ago. FMBT does not use the Abrams family and Jane’s Defense had an Israeli armor officer give his winning FMBT design concept a 60mm mortar in the turret back in the 1990s.
Component Technology Testbed (CATTB) = Fiscal Year 1993
https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/development-cattb
At which point do you favor cheaper simpler over fewer but more expensive? The “fancy” M60A2 didn’t last long.
Remember, “quantity is a quality”, ask the Russians / (WWII) Allies and Germans.
@TopSmith I don’t know my WW2 military history, but a famous WW2 US Army general (Abrams or Patton, I’m guessing) said, “Make killer tanks, not tank killers.” He was referring to how and why the US Army had to call upon the M10 Tank Destroyer when the M4 Sherman’s main gun wouldn’t do. The open turret of the M10 made Tank Destroyers very vulnerable to the US Tank Destroyer crews. Ever since that comment, the West has raced ahead to make “Killer tanks.” The M26 “Pershing” with its 90mm gun is an example.
It’s similar to the US Navy answering the question, “Why build a frigate when a light (not full size) destroyer will do?” Now retired Chief of US Naval Operations, Admiral Gilday, replied, “You want both. But it has to be a Navy that we can afford.”
The USMC is going the “Tank killer” route with JLTVs and ATGMs, or LAV-ATs, or ARVs with long-range precision fires and loitering munitions. The USMC believes whacking an enemy tank from far away is better than a 120mm main gun in which a USMC MEU only has four heavy M1A1s that don’t come in with the first wave.
The US Army always believed in attacking so “Overmatch” is one aspect of MBTs. While the US Army may not solve issues in the battlefield (unfortunately), the US Army learns from battlefield lessons and creates new solutions. One example is the 5.56mm M4 carbine, M-16A2, and M249 SAW were outranged and overmatched by the 7.62mm AK-47 in Afghanistan. The US Army had no solution—they can’t match the range of the Russian/Soviet 7.62mm AK-47, PKM, and RPD. Now after Afghanistan, the US Army is fielding the 6.8mm NGSW to match the range of the AK-47 and penetrate the body armor worn by peer nations. USSOCOM is testing the .308 round as well.
The Abrams X is a tech demonstrator so there are a lot of maybes on it. Reference the counter/anti drone/UAV system, agree 30mm maybe too big, if the targeting system is good, smaller caliber with pellets/frag may work. It is only a point defense system so it just has to be good enough, not exquisite. On board drone, not sure on this yet, all kinds of SWAP aspects that need to be sorted, and other than recon, what does 1 drone do for the crew? The other stuff is weight, protection and power trade offs, can you get the weight down and reduce need for bulk fuel? The M10 may provide some insights over time.
The M10 “Booker,” I believe, costs more per vehicle than the M1A2SEP.
The Sig rifle is good a 4 to 500 meters. Is it better than an M4 in an urban environment?
Okay, I really don’t know anything about tanks and designs thereof. But looking at the Abrams X, I’ve got to ask: are tanks looking like models of futuristic Sci-Fi movies because form follows function, or is there some industrial design bias here to make them look cool in futuristic?
This thread has been sleeping since march. Now that Abrams are in ukraine, what are lessons being learned that are going back to redesigning Abrams X?
Until recently I’m not really into modern tanks but after reading the threat about USMC divesting tanks, and watching some YouTube on the Abrams x, I’m getting curious.
Two part question so two part answers. I am not a tanker, but I’ve read the open-source Defense articles and magazines for over 30 years. Nothing here is secret; it’s just a collection of open-sourced articles and videos that I’ve read and summarized the findings.
Are tanks looking like models of futuristic Sci-Fi movies because form follows function, or is there some industrial design bias here to make them look cool in futuristic?
The common practice now is to place the entire crew in the hull for added survivability and to scarifice the turret to attack. In a “hull down” position where the tank is on the reverse slope angled upwards towards the sky, the hull is hidden behind the ridge crest and only the turret peeks over the ridge. The main gun depresses and the Gunner’s Primary Sight sees over the ridge.
The practice of placing the entire crew in the hull has been a decades-old philosophy and it was done back around the 1990s with experimental future tank concept. Here is how it looked like mocked up from “The Learning Channel.” Notice how much lower it looks compared to the M1 Abrams.
Only now is the US Army and Russia (T-14 Armata) serious about placing the entire crew in the hull. That means no human loader and a crew of three. Loading of main shells is accomplished by an autoloader (and the US Army didn’t favor autoloaders at the time because they were complex, slow to load, and might break down, not to mention they might carry fewer rounds in loading carousels than in a turret bustle rack).
The key benefit of three tankers in the hull is that they can see and talk to each other since they sit side-by-side and can share data, information, and screen transfers. The hull armor is increased to protect the crew. The remote crewless turret can have less armor and thus make the tank lighter since it doesn’t need to protect any crew inside. No crew means more interior space for jammers, anti-drone systems, loitering munitions, etc. In the M1 Abrams, the turret face contains the most armor and is the heaviest armored part of the turret. Chobham armor might even be dismissed from crewless turrets.
What are lessons being learned that are going back to redesigning Abrams X?
Future tank design is inherently secret and constantly changing and evolving. It’s expensive and takes a lot of time to design the next-generation tank and the US Army has gone through several canceled iterations of future tanks from the FMBT to 30-ton Future Combat System-Tank, to the now M1E3 (engineering change). I am not going to speculate on how Ukraine is shaping the AbramsX because AbramsX is a demonstrator so maybe the demonstrator doesn’t change at all
Without giving too much details away about the inherent weaknesses of the Ukrainian M1A1, I have to agree that the M1A1 was too outdated for the USMC and the M1A2 too heavy. The M1A1 lacks all-around situational awareness for the Tank Commander. It doesn’t have a 360-degree Commander’s Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV) or a CROWS II .50cal remote weapons station with TV and thermal…two thermal sights that offer 360-degree view and coverage in hunting for aerial drones for the Commander. (I agree with the DoD giving the Ukrainians M1A1s instead of higher-tech M1A2s given that Ukrainian M1A1s were captured and shipped to Russia). Thus, the Tank Commander must rely on his eyes and the 360-degree viewing prisms to spot aerial drones and that has severe vision restrictions and blind spots since he can’t zoom and has to shuffle around standing on his chair with the commander’s hatch on top. The Tank Commander cannot see upwards very well. The Gunner’s Primary Sight is narrow in field of view and requires the turret to rotate to search 360-degrees as the doghouse box is fixed. The M1A1 is not a good tank to spot aerial drones and loitering munitions because the Tank Commander lacks Hunter-Killer CITV with the Gunner’s Primary Sight, and the .50cal has no TV or thermal sight at all. Few, if any, Defense reporter mentions these lack of TV camera and thermal sights for the Tank Commander on the M1A1s when they criticize the M1 Abrams in Ukraine. Only the M1A2s have them for the Tank Commander. It’s an unfair media (reporter’s) assumption that the entire M1 Abrams family is weak against aerial drones and has no defense. Yes, the M1A1 is weak because the crew can’t really see around to hunt for aerial drones without rotating the turret, but the M1A2 and M1A2SEP are NOT weak because their sights CAN see and hunt around for aerial and land targets without rotating the turret. And the US Army uses only the M1A2SEPs now. Ukrainian tankers say that to rotate the turret can invite attacks because there is normally something or someone watching from above. So the Ukrainian tankers stay hidden in trees and fire in support of infantry.
Now the AbramsX uses a 30mm autocannon with TV and thermal sight in a remote weapons station on the turret roof. I forget the “why” facts, but only 30mm has airbursting ammo whereas 25mm (M2 Bradley) does not. Airbursting ammo is great against aerial drones and drone swarms because it doesn’t require a direct hit like a .50cal. Both the AbramsX’s Gunner and Tank Commander have 360-degree fire control sights with TV and thermal sights and I believe all three can tilt up too. So that is THREE sights that have thermal and TV cameras on the AbramsX and ALL can rotate 360-degrees. The M1A1 has just the Gunner’s Primary Sight that requires the turret to rotate to hunt for drones. AbramsX also has integrated anti-drone protection and smoke grenades and laser warning receivers but details are vague.
In conclusion, the AbramsX is decades ahead in anti-aerial drone protection than the much older generation M1A1, mainly due to situational awareness and the 30mm autocannon that can really dish out punishment. I have some better ideas for counter-aerial drone systems that can help tanks, but I won’t post them here and I already gave them to official Defense contacts.
Peter, thank you for your explanations. I had no idea about most of what you wrote. This is piquing my interest in modern tanks.
Sorry, I realize that photos are worth more than a thousand words. I’ll try to clarify better and make it simpler. @JPTRR
AbramsX with remote-controlled 30mm autocannon with fire control sight consisting of TV and thermal night vision camera. Everything you see on the AbramsX turret roof is a fire control sight (periscope). There are THREE TV cameras and thermal night vision imaging cameras that can rotate 360-degrees, pan, and tilt upwards and hunt for aerial drones with a 30mm autocannon firing air-bursting rounds.
In this photo below, those black circles on the turret roof periscopes and gun are camera sights.
M1A2SEPv2 (1/35 model kit). The translucent red color on the turret roof are the fire control/viewing sights. The one on the left in the box is for the gunner and the periscope on the right is for the tank commander. The remote-controlled .50cal gun has a TV and thermal night vision imaging sight (circles). Both the commander’s and remote-controlled gun can rotate 360-degrees but only the .50cal gun’s sight can tilt upwards. The sight in the gunner’s box cannot rotate nor tilt up. Thus, one and a half sights that can hunt for aerial drones and one .50cal (12.7mm) gun (with no air-bursting rounds) and one 7.62mm manually-operated medium machine gun aimed by the loader’s human eyes.
M1A1 used by Ukraine. Look at the turret roof. It has no commander’s periscope sight (a black roadwheel in its place) and the .50cal gun has no nighttime thermal sight. The gunner’s box fire control sight is fixed. Thus, essentially ZERO sights to hunt for aerial drones for the .50cal gun. This is why the US-supplied M1A1SA is so vulnerable to aerial drones in Ukraine because it lacks the turret optics to hunt for aerial drones.
In summary, the Ukrainian M1A1SA are highly vulnerable to loitering munitions, aerial drones, and top-attack because the tank crew can’t see overhead, but this does not mean that the entire M1 Abrams family is vulnerable to aerial drone attacks as the newer M1A2 and AbramsX can see above their turret roof to scan, hunt, and attack aerial targets with zoom TV cameras, night vision cameras, and optics besides the human eyeballs.
Sidenote: The divested US Marine Corps M1A1s have no turret roof sights to hunt for aerial drone and targets except on the .50cal…a daytime camera (black circle next to the barrel). Thus, the decommissioned USMC M1A1s are highly vulnerable to top attack loitering munitions and aerial drones like their Ukrainian counterparts because they can’t see the sky except with the human eyeballs and that .50cal daytime camera.
Photos are for discussion purposes only and are taken from Google search. Click on the photos to enlarge them and cycle through them and you’ll see what I mean by turret roof sights and which M1 Abrams have them and which do not.
These are the lessons learned in future tank designs and NATO and some adversary nations have copied these trends in their latest tanks…tanks that have fire control and zoom optical viewing periscopes to see and scan the sky for aerial threats…and some of latest tanks do not have these turret periscopes and still resort to fixed gunner’s fire control sights in a box.
Russian T-14 “Armata” with roof turret periscope sight on unmanned turret, and a gun mated to the periscope, but I don’t know if the roof gun can tilt upwards or if the periscope sight can.
China Type 99A Main Battle Tank with a questionable turret roof periscope. It has a manually-aimed anti-aircraft gun.
Peter, thanks again for the descriptions. Air bursting autocannons seem to be essential. Any idea as to the state of anti-drone laser systems? Are they even plausible considering haze/mist/rain/smoke, etc.?
Anti-drone laser system prototypes on the Stryker have disappointed US Army leadership so there will be another competition to find a suitable one. According to the Defense articles, the US Army didn’t go into specifics as to why they’re a disappointment but can be anything from overheating to not enough shots to atmospheric disturbance (haze/mist/rain/smoke) corrupting the laser beam to taking too long to damage or destroy the drone.
They’re still too power hungry and large to be mounted on tanks and IFVs as ground lasers still require a dedicated air defense vehicle and aren’t yet counter-drone accessories on armored combat vehicles’ roof with a main gun.
My thought is that we’ll eventually have sonic weapons - sound doesn’t really care about atmospheric anything as much as light does. Still need a lot of power and cooling.
The 25x137mm (NATO- Bushmaster compatible) ammunition is currently being deployed w/ the new GAU-12/22 multi-barrel. Rumors are the end users are asking for a VT fuze.
