/k/ redesigns the Abrams

File: 1024px-M18_hellcat_side.jpg (204KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1024x768px

>>32365383
I say we slap modern shit on a M18 and see what happens.

>put on APS

There you go

It's perfectly fine as is and can easily take on the T-14

>>32365383
What about TWO abrams tanks?

Make the turret a lot smaller

>>32365383
Just make a smaller Abrams and give it more slanted armor.

>>32365383
Give it one of those neat french autoloaders and let the loader do something else

File: 1280px-Japanese_Type_90_Tank_-_2.jpg (136KB, 1280x638px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1280x638px

Here you go:

>>32365669
>50 tons
Not bad, but is there anything less... boxy?

>replace the gas turbine with a modern diesel
>remove DU inserts and create western kontakt-5 equivalent or better and apply that

File: generalmotorsxm1prototywl5_zpsa68f53da.jpg (107KB, 1024x694px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1024x694px

>>32365720

Boxy is good with composite armors. Slanted armor is only necessary for plain steel.

>>32365763
Just curious, are there any compilations with slanted armor for composites?

>>32365812
*complications, auto correct is a bitch

File: armor design.png (46KB, 1000x394px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 1000x394px

>>32365812

You mean something like this?

>>32365412
How about a roof?

>>32365859
Yeah. Is there any reasons not to have angled other than that it's not necessary and takes up space relative to flat armor?

File: 1415740023-t-55-enigma-composite-armor-cutaway.png (885KB, 1024x704px) Image search: [Google]

885KB, 1024x704px

>>32365892

It's not necessary since the layers of different materials has the same effect. Even in the case of something rather low-tech like the T-55 Enigma the additional armor ends up making it look quite a bit more boxy.

>>32365954
That makes sense I guess. Thanks for the 411.

File: ochovertank.png (22KB, 347x289px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 347x289px

>>32365383

File: M1A4E3 Mattis.png (941KB, 1542x900px) Image search: [Google]

941KB, 1542x900px

>>32365383
MORE DAKKA

>>32365383
>>light enough to carry at least one on a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III, two would be nice
>2 MBTs on a C-17
It won't be nice.

>>32365812
Russians and Israelis use sloped composite armour + ERA.


On topic, replacing the turret with a two-man turret with an autoloader would save a lot of weight.
New 55-calibre main gun, or new 130mm main gun.
Replacing all the electrical data cables with fiber-optic cables.
Layered defense: New advanced composite armour, optional heavy-ERA tiles, hard & soft kill systems.

>>32365763
>generalmotorsxm1prototywl
Never new about this. Thanks

http://www.kampfpanzer.de/vehicles/abrams

>>32365614
>>32365659
Can you design a optionally manned (not unmanned) turret with provisions for a loader?

>>32365887
Underrated

>>32366230
>On topic, replacing the turret with a two-man turret with an autoloader would save a lot of weight.
>New 55-calibre main gun, or new 130mm main gun.
>Replacing all the electrical data cables with fiber-optic cables.
>Layered defense: New advanced composite armour, optional heavy-ERA tiles, hard & soft kill systems.

That would be too expensive.

>>32365859
I would really like to see the Abrams with bolted on Kontact-5 Wedge ERA on it.

>>32366289
On my phone right now but I can try in a couple hours

File: image.jpg (146KB, 1000x541px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1000x541px

>>32365383
This

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/raytheon-can-turn-old-american-made-m60a3-tanks-killing-16142

Take turret off and apply missiles, done

Next

>>32365383
Bruh the C-17 can already carry an Abrams. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5g6MQfBc3U

Just add ferro-fiberous armor and endo-steel structure, that should take off about 5 tons

Some improvements off the top of my head

V-shaped hull
>No longer a need for a TUSK improved bottom plate, removed weight but requires singificant redesigns of the transmission

L55 gun finally pls
>No explination needed, L44 works perfectly but it's not like there are any drawbacks to the L55 over the L44 (if there are please correct me)

CROWS
>No explanation needed

APS
>Especially the way the army and muhreens uses their Abrams aka as lone battleships, the Abrams also not being RPG proofed from the top or engine deck an APS has literally no drawbacks and they're not hard to make if you're not Ivan

Fucking
50.
cal
co-axial
>There's absolutely no reason to keep a 7.62 gun with 2000 rounds over a 50 with 1000

Slat armor on the back
>Abrams not rpg proofed from the rear

Upwards firing exhaust
>Not melting the paint off other Abrams fronts, allows for slat armor

Finally replace all non digital computers and interfaces.
>The digital upgrade package from the a1 to a2 took off nearly 3-5 tons of Copper cabling and analog computer equipment so doing it again won't hurt

Wider tracks
>Ground pressures a bitch when you don't drive on American roads or hard packed rock all the time

Other than that it's a pretty fantastic tank. I'd question the turbine engine but I don't know enough about mechanical engineering to make a proper counter point against it and neither does /k/ and I'd mostly get spammed at with buzzword copy pasted arguments that no one actually understands, it's not actually a bad engine either it just has a few problems that could easily be fixed with a diesel counter-part engine.

>>32367216
Naw, the technologies come down in price and with the advent of the M1a3 program they should all be things to be considered or done. Do you really think that your mid 90's tech is gonna hold out for long? Things that seem trivial or "too expensive for what they are" may prove invaluable in coming conflicts.

Even the sand people are advancing (slightly) beyond rpg's and AK's, and there are much bigger threats to the East than just Ahmed and his goats.

File: bearTank_mech_2012124.jpg (172KB, 1600x960px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1600x960px

>/k/, I task you to redesigning the Abrams.
I choose this.

>>32367908
Noice

>>32367863
>V-shaped hull
Say goodbye to ground clearance.

>L55 gun finally pls
Germany made their barrel longer while we made better ammunition designed for the L44/M256. The longer barrel of the L55 also suffers more from heat warping and gravity effects

>CROWS
If by CROWS you mean get the fuck rid of it, then yes.

>APS
Agreed, but no one uses them as lone battleships. I don't know about the Marines, but the Army deploys them in platoon strength (4 tanks) at minimum and they operate in sections (2 tanks).

>Fucking 50. cal co-axial
One, there's no space in the turret for a .50. Two, even with CVCs on, crew hearing is fucking gone. Three, the TUSK has a .50 added onto the horn-looking thing above the main gun on the mantle.

>Slat armor on the back
If by that you mean around the sides, then yes. But on top of the back deck would obstruct the turret.

>Upwards firing exhaust
The exhaust only goes out like 15 meters with the wind, and it's just *hot*, not burning except for within a few meters. Slat maybe not, but cage armor would work on the back just fine.

>Finally replace all non digital computers and interfaces.
Already in the works for the SEPv3

>Wider tracks
15psi not low enough for you?

(Army tanker here btw)

>>32367863
The big drawback to the L55 is that its several feet longer. Considering where the Abrams is being used this would even further restrict its ability to be used in support of infantry.

The Abrams has an APS already.

Coax is fine as is.

CROWS eats too much internal room.

Agree with everything else.

I guess if you need to fit it into a C-17 with roll-on/roll-off capability you'd need to figure out those numbers and build a tank that fits into those limitations.

>>32365600
Just strap them together with bungee straps and rubber bands and call it one tank

>>32368251
>>Say goodbye to ground clearance.
>Implying wheels have to stay in the same relative place on the Hull
>>32367863
>>but requires singificant redesigns of the transmission

>we made better ammunition designed for the L44/M256
Germany doesn't even touch DU, so that's a given
>L55 also suffers more from heat warping and gravity effects
First of all
[citation needed]
>Gravity effects
Nigga, what? The extra three feet of steel doesn't make a difference to barrel warping in terms of barrel weight and torque, we're talking about steel not tinfoil and aluminum.

>If by CROWS you mean get the fuck rid of it, then yes.
Because putting a dude up and out of the turret to fire the gun is a lot better of an option, if there was a way (which there is) to be able to switch between man fired and electronically controlled that would most likely be the best.

>but no one uses them as lone battleships.
Marines send them off on their own a lot in fire support missions

>One, there's no space in the turret for a .50
Tank crews remove the coaxial gun and mount a 50 to the gun all the time TUSK style.
>No space in the turret for a 50
It's at most 1.5 x the volume. It will fit right where the M2HB was with less wiggle room.

>But on top of the back deck would obstruct the turret.
Just around the sides and back.

>and it's just *hot*, not burning except for within a few meters.
The exhaust is over 1700 degrees, if Abrams in column are too close to each other (unreasonably close albeit) the paint starts to heat-ware off the front of it.

>Already in the works for the SEPv3
Nice

>15psi not low enough for you?

15 psi is far above the threshold of light dirt and mud. 15 psi is nearly double that of Russian tanks, and a fair ways above any other NATO MBT iirc

>(Army tanker here btw)
Cool.

>>32368320

>The big drawback to the L55 is that its several feet longer.
This is a logistics issue, but it's not a significant drawback. What really has to be considered is if the extra performance gained is worth the maneuverability lost.

>The Abrams has an APS already.
O rly?
[citation pls, very interested]

>Coax is fine as is.
I'll give it that, it wasn't really a large issue. There's basically no difference between .308 and .50 for supresshon since it's just putting boolet down range, but for any fire support, through walls or at structures .50 does leagues better at punching holes in materials.

>CROWS eats too much internal room.
Maybe not a great idea then.
I was almost certain that the Abrams turret had a lot of room to spare

Add literally nothing except for a dedicated GLATGM and APS.

Maybe a cup holder, but that will cost you another hundred million.

>>32370536
>>Implying wheels have to stay in the same relative place on the Hull
No guy I mean that you won't be able to cross terrain because you'll be grounding yourself every time you go over a slight bump.
>Germany doesn't even touch DU, so that's a given
And now it's even better because the ammunition more than overcomes any slight advantage an extra few feet of length would've given, without the disadvantages.
>[citation needed]
Extra distance exaggerates the warped angle, smart guy. You know what an MRS is for? You even know what it is?
>Nigga, what? The extra three feet of steel doesn't make a difference to barrel warping in terms of barrel weight and torque, we're talking about steel not tinfoil and aluminum.
Except when it's extra stress on the stabilization from sitting there over time, and the extra weight thrown around when firing. And the further away it is from the fulcrum, the more effect that weight has.
>Because putting a dude up and out of the turret to fire the gun is a lot better of an option, if there was a way (which there is) to be able to switch between man fired and electronically controlled that would most likely be the best.
How many gunneries have you shot where you watched the TC literally sit on top of the turret to manually fire the CROWS (which is a good 2 and a half feet from the turret's surface) because it broke for the 4th time that week? Not to mention the TC not being able to use the front vision block, and the added silhouette for the enemy to identify you by.
And there is a way, the A1 uses it, it's called the Commander's Stabilized Weapons System. Why the Army hasn't adapted it to the A2 copula (or haven't just retained the A1 copula for this device), I don't know, but they didn't.
>Marines send them off on their own a lot in fire support missions
Surrounded by an entire company or so of Marines, yes.

>>32370536
>>32371282
>Tank crews remove the coaxial gun and mount a 50 to the gun all the time TUSK style.
By TUSK style, I assume you're not retarded, so you mean on top of the gun in the mount I told you about. Which doesn't require taking out the coax. And why have two .50s, one main gun, and one loader 240, when you can have the first two weapon systems plus two 240s?
>It's at most 1.5 x the volume. It will fit right where the M2HB was with less wiggle room.
If by 1.5x the volume you mean like 4x, then yes. How many 240s have you fitted into the gunner's station, by the way?
>The exhaust is over 1700 degrees, if Abrams in column are too close to each other (unreasonably close albeit) the paint starts to heat-ware off the front of it.
How many times have you dried the dew off your sleeping bag by standing on the back deck and holding it a foot away from the exhaust? And we do have a deflector that we use for towing. If we had it on 100% of the time, it would fuck up the gear we have in the bustle rack, or in the motorpool, would fuck up the MRS from having the gun over the rear.
>15 psi is far above the threshold of light dirt and mud. 15 psi is nearly double that of Russian tanks, and a fair ways above any other NATO MBT iirc
I do agree we could work on lightening it, but it's not like we're sinking in the mud just by sitting there.

File: tank.png (87KB, 675x777px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 675x777px

I know it looks autistic, but the general idea is that the main gun is to the side of the commander and gunner instead of in front, making the turret significantly smaller.

>>32371420
Works with an autoloader, which is what I assume you're going for. I disagree but auto vs manual has been argued countless times on this board.

There's also the Challenger Falcon, a Jordanian variant of the Challenger.

>>32365383
>>light enough to carry at least one on a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III, two would be nice
>>retain armor capabilities of the current Abrams
Not with current tech

>>32371420
Also the bustle is right behind the gun which would probably allow for faster loading

>>32371420
It looks like you could simply replace the existing turret with that

Give it one of those sexy korean autoloading systems

>>32365383
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boRzFrmcM60

File: tumblr_od5kiuzVGr1u9werno1_540.gif (2MB, 540x304px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 540x304px

>>32367908
I choose swordmech

>>32365383
MBT-70 coming right up!

>>32365887
He said modern, not science-fiction space magic you nerd

File: 1476607506993.jpg (37KB, 562x600px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 562x600px

>>32365383
>lighter
>better defense systems
>cheaper
>while not losing any of its previous capabilities
how bout we put aircon in the cunts first so im not raosting alive in it
>going faster
you dont want it to go faster
>reasonably protected
it already is
>take on a t-14
it can
>transverse easily in both environments
anything with track can

File: Boys Anti-Tank Rifle.jpg (26KB, 1024x366px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 1024x366px

>>32366230
>New 55-calibre main gun

What?

Make everything square and boxy.

>>32373387
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3594.html

>>32373387
He probably meant L55

>>32373403
Ohhh, caliber as the old-timey way of denoting the length of an artillery piece.

>>32366230
>having a big machine load rounds of a feed system instead of a 80kg loader grabbin rounds of a rack
>replacing electrical with fiber optics
already done, think it wiped off about half a ton if i remember right

>>32366074
Sir which way are we aiming? Everywhere dipshit..

>>32367848
>>32365383
>redesigning the Abrams

File: Matthew McCouldnofucksgive.gif (771KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

771KB, 500x281px

Drop the loader for an autoloader, gain smaller silhouette and lower the weight

Drop the turbine for a diesel to get more mileage than "out of the garage" before it needs to refuel

Redesign the turret with the savings of dropping the loader, incorporate the carousel in the back of it with blowout panels

Install the new Rheinmetall 130mm smoothbore

Integrated NERA on the frontal glacis and upper plate

NERA covering the front and sides of the new turret, slate armour around the back as well as the engine block

Develop a functioning hard-kill APS

Take the SePV3 package along with its new fiberoptics instead of copper wiring to save even more tonnage

360 degree smoke launcher coverage, install new commander optics with hunter-killer capabilities

Modular armour platings redesigned from the ground-up for easier maintenance and replacing damaged modules, aimed at cutting down maintenance requirements from the loss of the loader

Wireless data transmission made specifically to work with UAV and F35 EOTS surveillance for battlefield awareness

Bam, there's your M1A3

>>32365383
Airlifting tanks en masse is a stupid requirement. To deliver MBTs in serious numbers you will always have to sealift them

File: M51-Isherman-latrun-1.jpg (159KB, 1115x788px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1115x788px

>>32365383
If it's stupid and it works...

File: Chrysler_TV8_zpsf6a0b80e.jpg~original.jpg (107KB, 640x594px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 640x594px

Nuclear powered

>>32365383
For a second I misread the Op and thought you wanted the tank to carry a C-17 Globemaster III or two.

Had a chuckle.

>>32375829
but that does not retain the actual capabilities of the Abrams. Is not protected for shit and would only be roughly equivalent to the T-14 Armata.

>>32367863
A gas turbine engine is great for when you have a steady state operating point. However if you are spending a lot of time idle and your operating point (accelerating, constant speed, etc.) is constantly changing gas turbines are a pain in the ass. Unless you use a KERS system to recover the lost energy of the turbine you will have less efficiency and less range.

However if you don't want to deal with either a flywheel spinning at 100k RPM or a bunch of batteries the next best thing is a diesel engine.

File: hovertank.jpg (71KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1024x768px

>>32365383

remove tracks

>>32365383
how about we downscale it and crew it with midgets?

>>32376624
oh and put in an autoloader robot