Next Generation Abrams

[DB]

You could do a hybrid-electric with a gas turbine. The apparently increased deck height (and we won't know if that's actually higher until we see a side-by-side, or someone gives out the measurements) would answer the question as to where the battery pack and/or fuel cells are.

What's the gun? the pepperpot reminds me of the lightweight 120mm seen a decade or more ago. Was it one of the XM291 versions?

[lucklucky]

I don't understand that huge separation between turret and hull. I think current systems can be precise enough to get a round between them

[Renegade334]

56 minutes ago, DB said:

You could do a hybrid-electric with a gas turbine. The apparently increased deck height (and we won't know if that's actually higher until we see a side-by-side, or someone gives out the measurements) would answer the question as to where the battery pack and/or fuel cells are.

What's the gun? the pepperpot reminds me of the lightweight 120mm seen a decade or more ago. Was it one of the XM291 versions?

XM360.

Interestingly, the XM360 was also supposed to be retrofitted into a notional M1A3, in a variant tentatively referred to as XM360E1. It had a smoothbore muzzle brake comparable to the one on the M256, whereas the original XM360 (ATD version 1), meant for the XM1202 MCS, had the pepperbox.

9857 (usgovcloudapi.net)

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2006/garm/tuesday/smith.pdf

The XM291 was tested on the M1 CATTB (both for 120mm and 140mm barrels) but a modified version of it was also fitted to an M8 variant called the Thunderbolt. No pepperbox that I know of, though, but there were efforts to make it lighter and less complex than the M256.

  

58 minutes ago, bojan said:

And thanks all gods old and new, industry does not write doctrines.

Even in 1995, they were of the opinion that "the three-versus-four-man-crew is a doctrinal issue and should not be driven by engineering considerations."

https://i.imgur.com/skrmFhQ.png

 

Edited October 8, 2022 by Renegade334

[DB]

Thanks for the correction.

[Mighty_Zuk]

11 hours ago, Mike1158 said:

Really?  How?

Practicing basic drills not involving any combat envelope, a unit having enough tanks but not enough UXVs at the moment, sale to foreign customers who do not have an equivalent MUM-T program, and probably more reasons that require more than 10 seconds of thought.

9 hours ago, lucklucky said:

I don't understand that huge separation between turret and hull. I think current systems can be precise enough to get a round between them

Could be to allow the crew to more easily get in and out, now that the turret is an obstacle to not 1, but 3 crewmen.

Also, yes, targeting systems are sufficiently precise, and a former gunner in the IDF briefly mentioned to me they had a drill called "cupola shooting". But even an APFSDS does not travel in a flat line, and so there is a limited engagement distance in which hitting that area is possible, and beyond it is impossible.

Protecting that area may not necessarily be a high priority since the turret on the AbramsX is no longer manned. 

If you referred to the SEPv4 pic, that is indeed odd but if you look more carefully you see the armor profile appears more wedge shaped, and its lower part is hidden by a shadow, so you might have missed some of it.

[Mighty_Zuk]

This nice fella says fuel tanks are eliminated, rather than relocated, due to increased fuel efficiency.

https://twitter.com/lfx160219/status/1578977690857926656?s=20&t=g6OM4VSZJV-MZs7qXfJY1Q

[Mike1158]

3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Practicing basic drills not involving any combat envelope, a unit having enough tanks but not enough UXVs at the moment, sale to foreign customers who do not have an equivalent MUM-T program, and probably more reasons that require more than 10 seconds of thought.

Could be to allow the crew to more easily get in and out, now that the turret is an obstacle to not 1, but 3 crewmen.

Also, yes, targeting systems are sufficiently precise, and a former gunner in the IDF briefly mentioned to me they had a drill called "cupola shooting". But even an APFSDS does not travel in a flat line, and so there is a limited engagement distance in which hitting that area is possible, and beyond it is impossible.

Protecting that area may not necessarily be a high priority since the turret on the AbramsX is no longer manned. 

If you referred to the SEPv4 pic, that is indeed odd but if you look more carefully you see the armor profile appears more wedge shaped, and its lower part is hidden by a shadow, so you might have missed some of it.

What has any of that got to do with the crew size of any vehicle?  All exercises and deployments utilise a full crew or, did you not know that?

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, Mike1158 said:

What has any of that got to do with the crew size of any vehicle?  All exercises and deployments utilise a full crew or, did you not know that?

Because, as I explained to you, on the next gen the number of men =/= crew size. 

So an Abrams or Leopard or whatever could run with a crew of 2, but there are 3 men inside, and the 3rd guy either commands a unit or operates UXVs or EW or whatever.

This means the 3rd man operates the envelope around the tank, not the tank itself. So if in any instance that envelope is not needed or does not exist, there are possibilities he just won't be inside, or not exist at all.

For example the US sells an M1A3 or whatever it's called to Saudi Arabia, and the Saudis are lagging behind in MUM-T, or not using it at all, then on most tanks the 3rd station would be empty. Or outright removed.

I don't understand why it's so hard to understand. 

[Manic Moran]

40 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Because, as I explained to you, on the next gen the number of men =/= crew size. 

So an Abrams or Leopard or whatever could run with a crew of 2, but there are 3 men inside, and the 3rd guy either commands a unit or operates UXVs or EW or whatever.

This means the 3rd man operates the envelope around the tank, not the tank itself. So if in any instance that envelope is not needed or does not exist, there are possibilities he just won't be inside, or not exist at all.

For example the US sells an M1A3 or whatever it's called to Saudi Arabia, and the Saudis are lagging behind in MUM-T, or not using it at all, then on most tanks the 3rd station would be empty. Or outright removed.

I don't understand why it's so hard to understand. 

Why does the person responsible for the “envelope around the tank” need to take up space in the tank? Anyone inside a tank should be used to doing things which can only be done from inside the tank. To do otherwise makes the tank bigger and heavier than it needs to be. If he’s doing something which can only be done inside the tank, he’s a crewman. If not, he shouldn’t be there anyway.

I’ve been trying to find photos of the rear of the Abrams Diesel Solution hull as shown at AUSA a few years ago to compare against the video. Wouldn’t be surprised if this was the same hull.

[Renegade334]

@Manic Moran:

That was an MTU, though...

And...

Salon AUSA 2013, rapport du COGES 21-23 octobre 2013 - Robotique (doczz.fr)

(Switch to pg.38 on the reader)

 

EDIT: @Mighty_Zuk:

The pictures on the tweet you posted were taken from this PDF, page 6: https://www.usarmygvsc.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/2022-Industry-Days-MS2_v2-OPSEC.pdf

It's not the AbramsX (a GDLS offering), but a digital prototype exhibited at the GVSC Industry Days 2022, possibly linked to the OMFV MBT variant. It does look a lot like the AbramsX with its unmanned turret, three-in-a-capsule configuration and CUAV RWS, but at the end of the day, they are two different vehicles.

 

That said, if the AbramsX ticks off a lot of DEVCOM-GVSC's checkboxes, I don't see why they couldn't launch a partnership to refine the design further or at least enter the AbramsX in the candidate list.

And, yes, I watched Sofilein's video - I know they're not expecting USAR to choose it as their next MBT and are simply putting it out there.

Edited October 9, 2022 by Renegade334

[Manic Moran]

1 hour ago, Renegade334 said:

@Manic Moran:

That was an MTU, though...

And...

Salon AUSA 2013, rapport du COGES 21-23 octobre 2013 - Robotique (doczz.fr)

(Switch to pg.38 on the reader)

 

EDIT: @Mighty_Zuk:

The pictures on the tweet you posted were taken from this PDF, page 6: https://www.usarmygvsc.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/2022-Industry-Days-MS2_v2-OPSEC.pdf

It's not the AbramsX (a GDLS offering), but a digital prototype exhibited at the GVSC Industry Days 2022, possibly linked to the OMFV MBT variant. It does look a lot like the AbramsX with its unmanned turret, three-in-a-capsule configuration and CUAV RWS, but at the end of the day, they are two different vehicles.

 

That said, if the AbramsX ticks off a lot of DEVCOM-GVSC's checkboxes, I don't see why they couldn't launch a partnership to refine the design further or at least enter the AbramsX in the candidate list.

Thank you. Seems like the same hull to me, so can't make solid conclusions about what a production engine deck would look like.

[Renegade334]

"(...) the AbramsX uses a parallel hybrid-electric power along with Army-developed Advanced Combat Engine (ACE) (...) developed for an Army program by Cummins and a transmission from SAPA."

Edited October 9, 2022 by Renegade334

[sunday]

Wonder if a conventional transmission like that ACT would prevent the realization of some benefits of a full diesel-electric power plant, but perhaps the development of a variable frequency drive able to reproduce the full functionality of a tracked vehicle transmission (regenerative steering, for instance) is not trivial.

Diesel electric locos have final drives between electric motors and powered axles only. No multi-speed gearboxes.

[Mighty_Zuk]

2 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

Why does the person responsible for the “envelope around the tank” need to take up space in the tank? Anyone inside a tank should be used to doing things which can only be done from inside the tank. To do otherwise makes the tank bigger and heavier than it needs to be. If he’s doing something which can only be done inside the tank, he’s a crewman. If not, he shouldn’t be there anyway.

I’ve been trying to find photos of the rear of the Abrams Diesel Solution hull as shown at AUSA a few years ago to compare against the video. Wouldn’t be surprised if this was the same hull.

It has to do with the limitations of communications, and efficiency.

Specifically platoon and company commanders get their own tanks, at least in some armies that I know. An X+1 setup will allow them to be in a tank that operates at full capacity without his interference, and he's thus free to concentrate better on his job.

Regarding special roles like MUM-T, you need proximity. You can't command a bunch of UAS, sUAS, UGVs etc from a trailer 10km far out in the back, especially if those systems use LoS comms. That also concetrates a lot of capability in one place which does not stand in line with the distributed warfare concept. 

A UXV operator on-board allows for close and uninterrupted cooperation with unmanned systems.

[Renegade334]

 

Edited October 10, 2022 by Renegade334

[Renegade334]

SEP v3 is 76.3 US tons or thereabouts.

Edited October 11, 2022 by Renegade334

[lucklucky]

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/industry-headlines/latest/ausa-2022-cummins-1000-hp-advanced-combat-engine-to-be-demonstrated-in-october

[Mike1158]

Well, being made of plastic and papier mache, it should be a bit less than 54 (US) tons.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[Burncycle360]

Would like to see them use the novel approaches to increase protection for the same weight rather than save weight for the same protection.

[Mike1158]

It does depend on how effective the active defence system is, by preference passive protection should be a last line of defence.

[Helmutkohl]

awesome. this confirms the earlier guesses here that it is indeed unmanned turret.

does this mean all the ammo is still stowed in the bustle still?

I guess Armata and Abramx are the only upcoming tank to have an unmanned turret?

[Mighty_Zuk]

8 hours ago, Burncycle360 said:

Would like to see them use the novel approaches to increase protection for the same weight rather than save weight for the same protection.

Unnecessary. With modular armor construction, it is possible, even preferable, to offer a base vehicle that is as light as possible.

I'm sure this 50 ton AbramsX has the capacity to take on at least 20 more tons of armor or other payload, if not even more.

[futon]

A thought regarding crewless turret tanks.. the three crew (in the super future, maybe two.. but that aside) in the front hull. Turret still needs to be armored to prevent getting easy mission killed. And total tank weight still needs to be balanced so in otherwords, front heavy is not good. So due to still weight-armor going to the turret and front hull armor needs to avoid a front heavy design, then there's still some existing limitations in armoring the 3 person capsule. So then in the event of a penetration.. if the turret is penetrated, no crew deaths.. that's great. But if the front hull is penetrated might the chances of not just one but two or three crew being killed be high? With manned turret, front hull penetration puts risk to just one crew. If turret, then the number of crew in the turret.. 2 or 3 but the crew in the turret look a bit more spaced out so maybe not as much risk in 3 man turret (more so in 2 man turret) in comparison to 3 man crew front capsule in which the 3 crew are shoulder to shoulder with each other. Maybe various propability numbers factoring in still result in net-positive for 3 man front hull capsole but perhaps not as great of positive gain than considered. Possibly net-negative? May depend on tank use. Often hull down fighting, obviously hull is safe. But mayve during tactical manuvering, urban warfare, hitting a mine, hull front (and of course front section of the sides) is just as much as at risk as the turret?

Edited October 18, 2022 by futon

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, futon said:

A thought regarding crewless turret tanks.. the three crew (in the super future, maybe two.. but that aside) in the front hull. Turret still needs to be armored to prevent getting easy mission killed.

Yeah but what will that armor cover, really? Because the true width of the turret will be just the gun mantlet. Everything else is just an external module. If ammo exists in the turret, then sure it makes sense to put armor around it. Otherwise, not so much. And we don't know what solution is preferred yet.

T-14's turret for example is not easier to mission-kill than a T-90's for example. Not at all.

1 hour ago, futon said:

And total tank weight still needs to be balanced so in otherwords, front heavy is not good.

I know some that are very happy with a front-heavy design and even made adjustments to make it so. Said to improve grip on slopes. Never drove a tank so I don't know. But it doesn't sound like an outright negative. But here's some food for thought - with only a driver in the hull, you can afford to have to rotate the turret a bit to let him in/out. With all crew in the hull, the turret will naturally have to go a bit further to the back. So increasing weight to the front (e.g. armor on the hull front) can be a positive thing, and might even just balance the weights, rather than make it front-heavy.

1 hour ago, futon said:

hen there's still some existing limitations in armoring the 3 person capsule. So then in the event of a penetration.. if the turret is penetrated, no crew deaths.. that's great. But if the front hull is penetrated might the chances of not just one but two or three crew being killed be high? With manned turret, front hull penetration puts risk to just one crew. If turret, then the number of crew in the turret.. 2 or 3 but the crew in the turret look a bit more spaced out so maybe not as much risk in 3 man turret (more so in 2 man turret) in comparison to 3 man crew front capsule in which the 3 crew are shoulder to shoulder with each other. Maybe various propability numbers factoring in still result in net-positive for 3 man front hull capsole but perhaps not as great of positive gain than considered. Possibly net-negative? May depend on tank use. Often hull down fighting, obviously hull is safe. But mayve during tactical manuvering, urban warfare, hitting a mine, hull front (and of course front section of the sides) is just as much as at risk as the turret?

I agree that putting all 3 in the front is a major risk. That's why I propose an alternative design where the crew capsule is actually in the rear. That'd just make lives much more comfortable for the crew who will then use a large door/ramp instead of a small hatch to squeeze through.

Unfortunately, that poses a major challenge for situational awareness. But, there is a lot of effort right now to improve situational awareness and convince crewmen to remain with hatches closed during combat. I wonder what kind of tech can be used to provide a reliable, intuitive view of the outside world as a backup to cameras.