M1A1 Abrams Future

>>30102510
M1A2 SEPv3 with APS against ATGMs.

Probably be totally replaced whenever the T-14 actually debuts

It's REALLY a dated machine in a lot of ways

>>30102510
Bolo Mark 1 of course.

>>30102510
It's going to need an APS. It can't rely on it's armor to stop missiles and rockets forever.

>>30102733
>It's REALLY a dated machine in a lot of ways

To devils advocate, elaborate.

A shot in the dark, but they'll probably make it a hybrid.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to try to move 60 tons without hydraulic power.

>>30103491
Not him. But the radios dont work with infantry so there's a telephone on the back.

>>30103526
Stop Posting.

>>30103526
That's just plain wrong.

>>30103526
That's assuming it's normal for infantry and tanks to have comms with each other, which I seriously doubt. Plus radios fuck up all the time.

The telephone they added to the SEP was genius - it's about as reliable as you can get, and lets you talk to the infantry who are looking out for your ass.

I am genuinely curious about what is out of date n the Abrams though, if anything. It's been upgraded pretty heavily over the years. Contrast that to the Challenger 2 in my country which is seriously looking old.

The

>>30103491
the turret is gigantic and quite heavy
fuel consumption could be massively improved
The whole gamut of networking/electronics upgrades passed the abrams by because it was intended to be implemented via replacement programs, which instead got cancelled

The future's not looking awesome for heavy tanks right now.

File: 1457672_709877245689017_2086709805_n_zpsleyhx1zc.jpg (76KB, 877x657px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 877x657px

>>30103608
>Heavy Tanks
Stop
Posting

this was the last heavy tank before MBT's became commonplace.

>>30103601
>the turret is gigantic and quite heavy

A characteristic of storing its ammunition in the bustle and armoring both the front and the sides, not age.

>fuel consumption could be massively improved

A characteristic of using a gas turbine engine, not age.

>The whole gamut of networking/electronics upgrades passed the abrams by

Things the SEPv2 has?

>>30103601
I've heard a lot of shit about the gas turbine engine... I mean the performance is great and it can use any fuel in a pinch, but the fuel consumption is nuts. I know the US supply chain is gigantic and everything, but is it worth it? A modern diesel engine would do the job nowadays.

>>30102510
Replaced, it will end up like a super heavy Bradley, able to move troops, or carry more supplies, it will probably replace its main gun with given time, current tank concepts cant get past the "tank must have a big gun" mind set, despite the fact that original tanks where designed to be Father/Mother, some big guns, others multiple machine guns or mortars. the latter being the future of tanks.

>>30103526
Infantry telephone is great idea and should be mandatory in every tank. Even as a backup for radios.

>>30103634
>but is it worth it?
Of course not. The M1 Abrams is the most maintenance heavy MBT in the world, partially thanks to gargantuan fuel consumption. You can deploy roughly 3 times as many M60's as M1's with the same logistical base, the new tank should be at least "not inferior" to it's predecessor, but who cares, it has lots of buzzwords - SMOOTHBORE GUN... WOAH(first debut in 60's, but shhhhh... it's brand new tech), GAS TURBINE - WOOOOOW(60's calling, but again - it's totally something new) etc. etc. etc.

Deployability, maintenance costs and insensitivity, actual SENSE of implementing those "innovations" be damned, we have buzzwords they will carry us straight to destroying the Soviet tank hordes pouring through the Fulda Gap.

Nothing will happen to the Abrams. It will be upgraded and maintained until a new design is deemed necessary. Which won't be for a while. And I would think any successor would be pretty similar.
I'm more concerned what will happened to the British Challenger 2s. Every attempt to improve them gets shot down, they've sold off the companies that make the engines and ammunition, and maintaining the vehicles and ammo has been heavily neglected.
While the need for large fleets of MBTs may have passed with the end of the Cold War, they tanks themselves still are valuable and will not be phased out by heavy IFV, APC, etc. because once that happens, someone will develop a counter that required the return to the MBT. And I do not think unmanned turrets, or entire tanks, are the future. They will be a passing fad much like attempts to center main armament on ATGMs.

>>30102510
Upgraded. When I retired from the army last year, the current intent, given funding levels, on-hand stockage of vehicles and repair parts, and the projected threat levels, is that the Abrams will remain in service until the 2050's.

Of course if one or more of those conditions change, there may be a different plan.

All this is designed to buy time until the BOLO comes on-line!

>>30103687
>The M1 Abrams is the most maintenance heavy MBT in the world

Actually a gas turbine means an Abrams takes less maintenance, if you have any idea of the difference in complexity between those and a big turbodiesel. It's a moot argument because a good tank design lets you swap the engine in the field.

Add a extra barrel and some rocket pods on the turret

its a direct upgrade

I agree with everyone who says it does not need to be replaced. It's like its cousin (The Leopard series). It needs only updates to keep up with the pace of networkcentric warfare and maybe some improvements to the armor to withstand new threats in terms of ATGMs and urban warfare. Nothing new, anyway.

>>30103687
This read like something that Mike Sparks would write. Stop posting.

>>30103776
this ^^

>>30102510
They're going to make it bipedal.

Assuming everything is status quo...

The Abrams will get small SEP and TUSK upgrades over time. The M1A3 will eventually come out which will roll up the upgrades into one built from the ground up package with some extra modern stuff like the APS. During the 2020s, the Army will put out a call for an Abrams replacement. Meanwhile, we'll still be getting piecemeal upgrades to the platform.

By the 2030s there will be prototypes for the new MBT. After ones selected, the Army will go through the slow process of replacing their armored fleets. The Abrams will still be getting upgrades and possibly an A4 version.

Then by the 2040s the Army will fully implement the new MBT and may have upgraded versions already. Like the M60, the remaining M1s will be relegated to the Marines and National Guard until they too are eventually replaced. You'll still have vehicles based on the Abrams chassis like the Wolverine and the ABV rolling around on the battlefield for a while longer. Then, if you're rich enough, you can buy your own decommissioned Abrams to fuck around in.

>>30103776
You think a modern 1500 hp diesel/hybrid electric takes more maintenance than a 50 year old turbine?

I don't see a replacement coming up until the Army feels like auto-loader tech has sufficiently improved to the point of outpacing a human loader in every regard. Give or a take, maybe another 30 years before being entirely replaced in active units by a new design.

>>30103930
Those turbines are not 50 years old you fuckin retard.

>>30103930
>do you think something that is more complex will inherently take more maintenance

Yes.

File: M103A2.png (66KB, 1818x1860px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1818x1860px

>>30103601
The planned M1A3 is intended to fix all three of those things.

>>30103625
Don't forget M103

I see armored 1-hit vehicles a thing. Takes a single hit from any direction on a replaceable armor slot. Modular armor that gets hoisted in the field and replaced as needed.

Like a bunch of titanium-aluminum backing with a fire wall and reactive explosive liner on the outside. Something mass production can enroll into without all this "stupor'seikret muh-terials" they make armor out of that's a one hit wonder for the WHOLE MODULE.

We're still living in the single cast era of M4 Shermans ffs.

>120+ tons
>gas turbine
>no atgms because superior american apfsds
>no era because bestest american d.u.
>no aps because god-fearing americans don't need your slavic voodoo tricks
>no remote weapon system because automation is evil
>torsion bar suspension with 10 rollers
>automatic reversible transmission
>12 men crew to maintain this behemoth and 'have a spare pair of eyes' for situational awareness
>niggerloader because 'autloaders are slow and unreliable' and tyrone needed a job
>another tyrone helps him loading 150mm shells
>a spare tyrone playing xbox in the ammo hold in case first or second tyone gets tired, contussed or killed
>an armed cop to keep all tyrones in check
>an electronic warfare specialist to troll and shitpost slavs to death inside their armored capsules
>lockheed martin gets green light and funds to create a weapon to surpass the metal gear
>20+ year long joint multinational project with the rest of free world
>multitrillion program constantly delayed due to budget overruns and mounting list of terminal flaws
>the army considering to restart m1a2 production line
>the project is cancelled because lol tanks are obsolete and air force will do all the job anyway

We could have invaded Iraq with upgunned/uparmored Shermans and been just fine. Main battle tanks are l i t e r a l l y a waste of money today, just like battleships.

File: 1424902409019.jpg (96KB, 850x613px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 850x613px

>>30104333

>>30103629
>A characteristic of using a gas turbine engine, not age.

That's fine, but I've always wondered if there was a better solution; a modern high-performance engine that didn't take 12 gallons of JP-8 to start, got 1 mile per gallon, doesn't sound like an air strike when you heard it approach, and wasn't so hot that infantry couldn't march or take cover behind the tank because it's exhaust could cook human flesh. Has any nation developed a high performance-engine that didn't have the same weaknesses as the one in the M-1 Abrams?

File: m1-abrams-tank-power-pack.jpg (238KB, 750x617px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 750x617px

>>30105217
>a modern high-performance engine that didn't take 12 gallons of JP-8 to start, got 1 mile per gallon, doesn't sound like an air strike when you heard it approach, and wasn't so hot that infantry couldn't march or take cover behind the tank because it's exhaust could cook human flesh

You might want to educate yourself and not rely on memes.

>>30104267
That was the British concept right after WWII. Instead of tanks they wanted concrete casements that would be built on location. If the concrete gets destroyed, they would just remove it, and toss on another shell.

>>30103601
>fuel consumption

Isnt it the only tank in the world that has like a turbojet in it or something? Is that what makes it consume so much? Or what makes it so fuel inefficient?

>>30105356
*turbojet engine i mean

File: AGT1500-2.jpg (24KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 400x300px

>>30105356
>>30105362
gas turbine

>lighter
>quieter
>less maintenance
>better performance
>less visible exhaust in both visible light and IR/thermal

at the cost of higher fuel consumption, particularly while idling

>>30105317
>You might want to educate yourself and not rely on memes.

From Wikipedia:
>The gas turbine propulsion system has proven quite reliable in practice and combat, but its high fuel consumption is a serious logistic issue (starting up the turbine alone consumes nearly 10 US gallons (38 L) of fuel).[79] The engine burns more than 1.67 US gallons (6.3 L) per mile (60 US gallons (230 L) per hour) when traveling cross-country and 10 US gallons (38 L) per hour when idle.[13] The high speed, high temperature jet blast emitted from the rear of M1 Abrams tanks makes it difficult for the infantry to proceed shadowing the tank in urban combat.[80]

So I was off a few points, what am I missing?

>The turbine is very quiet when compared to diesel engines of similar power output and produces a significantly different sound from a contemporary diesel tank engine, reducing the audible distance of the sound, thus earning the Abrams the nickname "whispering death" during its first REFORGER exercise.

Oh ok, that's very interesting. Still, the point stands that it's a gas hog, etc. Do they make gas turbine engines that aren't such gas gluttons?

File: abrams roasting infantry.webm (3MB, 720x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 720x360px

>>30105436
>So I was off a few points
>So I knowing hyperboled/lied

Bonus webm for fun.

>>30105512
They only do this in training and the movies anyways
It's not something actually done in combat

>>30103625

Technically speaking, when the Abrams debuted, it replaced the M103 and served alongside the Sheridan and M60. Of course, it's no surprise that it also made the M60 redundant and later replaced it completely, but it began its life as a heavy tank.

>>30106173
>when the Abrams debuted, it replaced the M103

The US Army stopped using M103's in 1963 and the USMC in 1974.

>>30105436
>muh MPG

Why do people bring this up when it has almost never, even been an issue for the US even when we were running roughshod over the Iraqis? Sure, the tank drinks gas quicker than a fat kid with free refills of Dr. Pepper, but we can also refill it just as quick.

If there is one thing the US military absolutely beats the ever loving shit out of everyone, it is logistics.

>>30106268
Tank noob here.
How do they refuel tanks mid combat or mission?

File: M978_tank_truck_in_Beatty,_Nevada.jpg (530KB, 2272x1484px) Image search: [Google]

530KB, 2272x1484px

>>30106428

>>30106268
Also keep in mind that an Abrams cruising range is about the same as a Leopard 2's because it has bigger fuel tanks.

>>30106514
I think I'm truck gay.

>>30106514
unarmored trucks filled with flamable material
And if they are shot up, your whole offensive bogs down

Tanker here - Tldr a lot of problems are presented in this thread that aren't actually problems. I do admit the "radios can't communicate with infantry" was particularly retarded.

>>30108778

Yeah, they don't actually drive these anywhere near the enemy you fucking retard. How could you possibly think that these things are driven directly into combat?

The tanks break away from the front line and move to a rear position to refuel. They do not try to refuel while under fire.

You probably think that war is just a totally random chaos where everyone is shooting in every direction all the time, like in your japanese animes. Read a book and quit posting garbage like this.

>>30104602
He has a lot of points.

>>30109268
>Know trucks have to travel along roads
>Set up ambushes along said roads

>>30108778
Funny how you only seem to have an issue with it in regards to America when supply lines are something every army has to deal with.

>>30104356
RPGs eat Shermshits for breakfast

>>30105524
I remember watching a LiveLeak vid of ISIS in its early days sending some Chechens and a T-62 to assault a prison complex. They approached in that formation.

>>30108778
>>30109428
>not securing your supply lines

fuck America blitzkrieg'd their through the middle east while maintaining their lines of supply... thats the fucking point holy shit.

>>30105356
T-80 also uses gas turbines, but the majority of T-80's are out of service or are the T-80UD diesel version.

>>30109428
>war
>knowing literally nothing about it

>>30109651
And their shit got ambushed many times

>>30103588
>The telephone they added to the SEP was genius
It takes brass balls to get up behind the vehicle that could back up any moment without warning.
>>30105416
>lighter
and less spacious too, but balanced out by the additional volume of fuel carried.
>quieter
Only really matters if you are a dune coon with no dedicated recon assets available. For the rest, detecting tanks by hearing basically means somebody up top fucked up.
>less maintenance
False. You have to make sure the filter is clean every time you can else if it fails you're going to get chewed up blades.
>less visible exhaust in both visible light and IR/thermal
Former is only true for tanks using older diesels, and with the latter, the exhaust of turbines are a lot hotter.

>>30109820
And yet it never caused so much as a hiccup

>>30109990

> False. You have to make sure the filter is clean every time you can else if it fails you're going to get chewed up blades.

Hey Spery, M1A2 SEP has self cleaning air filters.

And now you know.

>>30110036
Mech fitter here, never trust anything that is self cleaning.
All it is doing is dumping the filth elsewhere, which means retard Jimmy has twice the components to wreck.

>>30102510
Attach wings to it and turn it into a glider

>>30106268
not the guy you responded to,
while they sure can operate a logistic heavy tank it will always be a downside. sure it isen't a problem now but when there is a real war it just might be problematic

>>30103930
Do you honestly think they are using the same powerpacks as 50 years ago?

>>30109990
>You have to make sure the filter is clean every time you can else if it fails you're going to get chewed up blades.

Self cleaning air filters are a thing.

>Former is only true for tanks using older diesels,

It is still true with modern diesels.

>and with the latter, the exhaust of turbines are a lot hotter.

Not really, and you can't see hot air in a thermal sight.

>>30109268
>You probably think that war is just a totally random chaos where everyone is shooting in every direction all the time, like in your japanese animes. Read a book and quit posting garbage like this.
Well tbf, the entire Thunder Run went a bit like this. Fuel and ammo trucks burning all over the place. Still managed to re-supply and re-arm though, so worked out

>>30103526
it's there for convenience, idiot.

99% sure they did something similar towards the end of ww2

>>30102510
Depends. If nothing major happens then they'll just keep upgrading it to shoot durkas/whatever 3rd world enemy we're still fighting at the time.

If something more serious is on the horizon, then I can see them replacing it with something that can mount a much larger gun since it would be prohibitively complicated to try and do that for an Abrams without so many modifications to the chassis and turret that you may as well have just made a new tank anyway.

File: main-qimg-4111d1b014277287f27ac73931fd4d10.gif (32KB, 485x397px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 485x397px

>op
>his thread
>his life

>>30109630
It's an old tactic not used anymore by first world militarys for a lot of reasons.
One might think, oh, tanks are excellent cover, they're big mobile metal boxes and are bulletproof.
Well yeah specifically because they're big metal boxes
>tanks draw fire like nobody's business
And, well, tanks are faster than people, you can't hug the back of a tank either that's dangerous, and should the driver panic and begin reversing there goes the whole squad.
Even in a best case scenario where the infantry doesn't get shredded by enfilade fire from the flanks, they're still at a massive risk of getting a fuckton of shrapnel to the face from anti tank weapons, because people are going to start shooting at said tank with anti tank guns and rockets and mortars and artillery.

It's much better for infantry to grab stationary cover rather than try to use a tank for cover. You don't naturally lose your cover since it won't drive away, and it's also not a potential bomb either unless you're taking cover behind ammo crates.

>>30103687
Fuck off Sprey

>>30102510
The M1 Abrams needs to replace it's engine with something more fuel efficient and practical. Also, the bottom of the chassis's armor needs to be improved to at least protect the tank from IEDs.

>>30108778
There is an uparmored version for the 978s. And any logpac is going to be 2-3 features of terrain back anyway from the front lines. The only real threat at this point is artillery, which can be mitigated in other ways.


>>30111429
The only time America has run into logistical issues in wartime was during the Revolution when we weren't even a country, and in WW2 when Eisenhower yanked fuel from Patton to prep for Market Garden.


>>30112358
The Thunder Runs were the "bro, hold my beer" of Tank Warfare. Pretty based, desu.

>>30111150
I think that kind of conversion would be more suitable for a M113 Gavin.

>>30116048
>There is an uparmored version for the 978s. And any logpac is going to be 2-3 features of terrain back anyway from the front lines. The only real threat at this point is artillery, which can be mitigated in other ways.
There are no "front lines" in asymmetrical warfare. Which is what 99% of warfare is these days.

>>30114303
Belly armor is part of TUSK and SEPv3 is getting increased IED and lower limb protection as standard.

GDLS successfully mounted a diesel engine in an Abrams that gave similar performance but the Army doesn't want it because the turbine is fine, stop fucking pretending like the US is the only nation that needs to fuel it's tanks while everyone else runs theirs on fairy dust.

I had an elaborate upgrade plan but clover fucked me :^(

ITT certain people/faggots can't admit that it's a just a solid tank, not perfect but damn good.

>>30116924
Are you really dumb enough to suggest that in a situation of asymmetric war, a war where your forces significantly out match the enemies that your overwhelming force advantage cannot secure a forward resupply site

>>30122287
Do you have enough personell and vehicles to cover each mile of read that the convoy has to travel? The whole point of asymmetric warfare is that there is no "front line" and you are fighting an enemy who can pop up at any point. Securing a FAARP is not the main problem, securing the LoC is.

>>30122342
>road*
wtf

Unmanned abrams is the future

>>30114303

It's a multi-fuel turbine. You can fuel it with all kinds of shit in an emergency. The Honeywell AGT1500 in the Abrams can use jet fuel, kerosene, gasoline, diesel, and marine diesel fuel. It doesn't matter that it uses more fuel to get some where when you can fuel it with damn near any kind of fuel in the world in an emergency.

>>30112143
>It is still true with modern diesels.
Confirmed for never having been near a tank with diesel engine. There's virtually no dark soot bro, unless of course when you cold-start the engine.
>Not really, and you can't see hot air in a thermal sight.
Depends on ambient air temp. and if its windy or not. But at night when practically everything has cooled down the exhaust is fairly visible.
>>30116924
>There are no "front lines" in asymmetrical warfare. Which is what 99% of warfare is these days.
You are using the term incorrectly. You can have conventional armies duking it out without established frontlines. Look at Ukraine for instance.

Was there plans to replace all the wiring with fibre opics in the M1A3 or is that SEPV3?
I´not 100% familiar with all the Abrams variants.

>>30122772
>unless of course when you cold-start the engine
and if the engine has been idling for a long time followed by sudden high throttle, like suddenly changing position.
Beyond that, they are impressively clean burning. Worked with Leo 2's, Cv's and M113's for five years, and the M113's had by far the biggest smoke signature when moving normally. Fucking 2-stroke piece of shit

>>30103526
I suppose you think it should be replaced with two plastic cups and a length of string?

>>30122378
It ran exclusively of standard diesel until the army switched over to JP. Hell, it's smoke generating feature was to spray fuel right onto the engine and they had to shut it off with the move to JP as it would start a fire instead of producing smoke like diesel.

>>30104333
You had me at the xbox part anon.
Goddamnit I could totally see this happening in some variation or another.

>>30122772
>Depends on ambient air temp. and if its windy or not. But at night when practically everything has cooled down the exhaust is fairly visible.

Thank you for outing yourself as completely talking out of your ass.