M1 Abram, a 37 year old tank design

File: IMG_11012017_170939.png (53KB, 1162x850px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1162x850px

It's perfect as it. There's no need for a new tank

>>33111045

>The design of this chassis is nearly 40 years old

Fixed that for you. Just about everything else has been swapped out for modern technology.

>>33111045
No need. We keep updating the ones we have.

>>33111063

Alright, what makes the chassis of this tank so good that the USA still use the design for nearly 40 years?

File: image.jpg (188KB, 366x529px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 366x529px

>>33111045
We're waiting for technology to catch up.

>>33111105
Is good chassis, not much to improve on with chassis, so no bother with chassis

File: mech_vs_tanky_by_artswolf-d6dvy32.jpg (178KB, 1024x905px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1024x905px

>>33111136

Oh not this Mech vs Tank. A tank can beat a mech anyday of the week and there is no weeabo magic that can save it.

>>33111105

Who gives a shit? Tanks have used the same basic platform for the whole of their existence. What are you going to get out of a bottom-up redesign? Go look at one of the new Leopards or a T-14, what do they have that can't be strapped on an Abrams?

Because the M1 Abram is peak perfection

>>33111176

Because warfare changes and there haven't been a major tank on tank battle since the gulf war.

What's the point of a mainline battle tank that weights 60 tons when a drone strike can easily pop the top of it?

>>33111045
What do you mean "nearly"? It's a mid-70s design with first prototypes delivered 41 years ago.

>>33111045
And still best tank in the world

>>33111105
The USA's inability to produce a new design. At this point they are struggling even with M1A3.

>>33111338
And you get this info from where? The Abrams is still an entirely capable design.
The M1A3's main thing will be saving weight by removing tons of wiring and replacing them with fiber optics. That alone will reduce weight and add mobility.
There was talk of a 140mm gun but that is simply not needed.
It simply comes down to that the Abrams is not being replaced because there's no reason to replace it.

File: The Best Tank Design.jpg (45KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1280x720px

I think I found the next best tank design, although it might be a little early.

>>33111267
>What's the point of a mainline battle tank that weights 60 tons when a drone strike can easily pop the top of it?
Because drones aren't a threat to Americans, who doctrinally place owning the skies above all other priorities. Same reason they dont have any ground AA units, they dont need them at this point in time.

>>33111400

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-72_Chaparral

Stinger, PIVADS

>>33111365
>The M1A3 Abrams was in the early design period with the U.S. Army in 2009. At that time, the service was seeking a lighter tank version with the same protection as current versions. It aimed to build prototypes by 2014 and begin fielding the first combat-ready M1A3s by 2017.
From M1A3 development being tremendously behind the schedule. Even simply reducing the weight of this gargantuan behemoth proves to be a struggle. Think what it will come down to when preforming the actual MBT function will be required instead of being a Cold War relic self-propelled anti-tank gun.

>>33111045
M1A2 SEP V4 will arrive in the 2020s, it will have a substantial armor upgrade, a new powerpack, new thermals, APS, and more.

File: q95.jpg (977KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

977KB, 2000x1333px

>>33111105
The fact that it is designed to accept upgrades, hence the fact that an M1A2 SEPv2 and an M1 are comparable in name only.

>>33111538
True statement, the armor alone on the A2+ series is completely different

>BMG M2 is 80 years old
>Why we still using it it's almost a century old
>AR15 is like 60 years old
>Why we using half-century old rifle

Sometimes weapons systems hit a peak that isn't surpassed for a long time.
Heavy MGs peaked with the M2
Combat rifles peaked with the AR15 (yeah I know but still)
M1 chassis is still a peak MBT.
All the tech on it has changed though

>Thermonuclear weapons peaked in the 70s. LOL why we have almost half-century old nukes. Why no supernova bombs yet?

Right?

>>33111469
That is old info, they changed the roll out of upgrades to ECP's, so they're going to constantly update instead of major updates every decade.

>>33111421
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot
>The US Army operates a total of 1,106 Patriot launchers. In 2010, in the actual service of 483.[77][78]
>Followed by a list of artillery brigades who haven't deployed anywhere relevant since the 90s and in some cases Vietnam

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-72_Chaparral
>United States Army – All units removed from service by 1997.[1]

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M163_VADS
>United States – No longer in active service

I see your point, but still maintain that Americans dont give a shit about AAA in any meaningful capacity, and wont give a shit as long as they keep pitching themselves against third world shitholes that barely even have an air force, let alone armed drones.

>>33111421
Pretty sure he meant AAA.

>>33111365
>The M1A3's main thing will be saving weight by removing tons of wiring and replacing them with fiber optics

LOL. 'Tons of wiring.' Don't get me wrong - save weight where you can. But the wiring ain't shit compared to the armor. FFS - I would say that the wiring alone weighs about as much as one single tread segment.

File: Shadowsword_01.png (1MB, 1003x660px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1003x660px

>>33111399
I unironically don't like the Lemon Rust tank.

This thing is more my speed.

>>33111650
They could have just two tons from removing the copper wiring and replacing it with fiber optic cable. They're already going to switch out the tracks for lighter ones.

>>33111365

>60 ton tank
>Removing wiring will save some weight

Exactly how much wiring is there?

>>33111045
>The design of this tank is nearly 40 years old, why haven't the USA design a new tank yet?
The US can't design an effective tank on its own- it must pinch from the others. Looking at you Germans and French, better hurry up with LeoClerc frankenstein, its gonna be pretty embarassing if the vaunted superpower would have to copy the T-14 1:1.

>>33111735
two tons

>>33111749
Why would it need to copy the T-14 when the T-14 is Russia catching up to the west?

>>33111175
What if that tank crew is Saudi Arabian?

>>33111827
No matter what tank, if you are crewing your tanks with poorly trained kebabs, they will lose to the most mundane warheads available.

>>33111827

Then we would put them in a truck instead.

>>33111769
>T-14 is Russia catching up to the west?
[citation needed]

>>33111879
Russians can barely upgrade T-90 tanks to T-90A(M) standards, they'll never be able to pay for more than a hundred or two of T-14.

>>33111905
Try tens.

>>33112092
that inferiority complex though

File: the empire has fallen.jpg (68KB, 404x402px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 404x402px

And what will be their next pyro mangal? Americans on /k/ have repeatedly assured me that the current one is fine as it is, even though they have to PAY Saudi dunecoons to SELL it to them. So, logically, M2 will be the evolution of M1, only fatter and with more zeroes in the tag price

>No APS because god-fearing americans dont need your evil slav voodoo
>No ATGMS because engaging targets beyond 4km range is dishonorable
>No ERA because superior american steel is impenetrable as proven in Syria and Yemen
>No autoloader because afro-american 19K would become gangbanger after being sacked from the army
>6 men crew, with additional two afroloaders for 140mm two-piece ammunition, and a police officer to watch over the ghetto aboard the tank
>Gas turbine running on jet fuel, for gargantuan IR signature and flashy sparks when mangal cooks off
>80 tonns weight and maneuverability of a pregnant cow, just like that of an average american patriot

>>33112120
But...
M1s can mount ERA
and autoloaders are faster
and not to mention testing with off the shelf APS have occurred

>>33111956
They got 20 for the parade, so you're wrong.

>>33111905
Are you the shitskin or the gook from NI?

>>33112120
here's your (you)

>>33111045
It's literally perfect.

>>33111365
Why doesn't the Abrams have ATGMs? Don't ATGMs have longer range and better penetration or sth ?

Why does it have paper thin roof armor where others have 3-4 inches of RHA at least?

File: m60a2_2.jpg (91KB, 620x409px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 620x409px

>>33112215
Why would we? We tried that once before and decided fuck it.

>>33111045
Because Shinseki blew all money on FCS, hookers and coke.

>>33112215
Western fire control systems and guns are accurate enough to the point where they don't have to rely on TLGMs unlike the Russian shit.

>longer range
This is mostly a meme because you'll have a hard time seeing jack shit past 5km, even in a desert. Most combat in Europe occurs under 2km. Even then the Israeli LAHAT is available for 120mm guns.

Who gives a shit. I mean honestly.

Merican tanks succ, Abrams is Ronson 2.0, and easily can be befeated by King Tiger...

>>33112215
Because US fails everything now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM1111_Mid-Range_Munition

>>33111749
The US already looked into a 2-man tank with unmanned turret.

It got cancelled along with the rest of FCS.

>>33112215
There was a fad in the 1960s-70s of trying to have ATGM-firing tanks. You got stuff like the M551, which was too light and flimsy. M60A2, which just didn't work all that well. And finally the MBT-70, which fell apart in the prototyping stage and led to the creation of the M1 and Leopard 2.
ATGMs out of tanks are kind of useless. Yeah you can steer them but in the end there's nothing wrong with a 120mm gun that takes less time to load and doesn't require tons of optics/sensors that will probably need to be reset after each shot.
Plus you can carry a lot more rounds than missiles.

The only ones to really bother with the ATGM on their MBT are the Russians and the Israelis. But even those are not the primary ammunition and are more just a second choice if they happen to have some.

File: cadillac gague jaguar mbt.jpg (33KB, 510x311px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 510x311px

>>33111105
>modular armor
>decent suspension
>full blowout panel protection for all stored ammunition, even the couple shells in the hull

Really, the only thing it really suffers from is having ancient fucking turbine engines. The age of the things is really showing. If they were to replace them, even with just completely new examples of the exact same model, let alone a 40 year newer design, reliability would increase considerably.

Newer ones were developed for the crusader. The LG100-5, itself 15 years old at this point, was 25% more fuel efficient than the Abram's honeywell AGT 1500, and 50% more fuel efficient at idle.


>>33111749
>complains mericans can't design new tanks
>provides the example of ze germans
>whose leopard 2 is exactly as old as the Abrams, and is spawned from the same MBT-70 project.

Person of Color, Please.

>>33112215
Why doesn't the Abrams have ATGMs? Don't ATGMs have longer range and better penetration or sth ?

Literally the only time in all of history that gun-launched ATGMs have actually been used in combat was once in the gulf war when some M551s lobbed a few old shillelaghs at an Iraqi bunker. Tank AGTMs are a meme.

Russians keep building them, but have never tried them. Israelis too. Mericans could buy the israeli ones, which should be compatible with the Rheinmetall gun, but there's no demand for it.

>>33111650

Switching from copper to fiber optics will save the tank two tons. So yes, "tons of wiring".

Look, if you don't know shit, then keep your mouth shut.

>>33111105

Cold War ended. Nobody has anything significantly better yet. And replacing thousands of them will cost trillions.

>>33112120
>aps
>slav
OY VEY GOY

>>33111203

Leclerc is better in every way.

It has APS to stop missiles but Abrams doesnt. It has a bigger gun firing bigger darts and its armor is against HEAT and DARTS rather than just HEAT. Its faster and has autoloader. Better protected because of armor.

File: 9281808847_5efcc5f205_b.jpg (341KB, 1024x769px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 1024x769px

>>33111045
The Design of this tank if 82 years old, why havn't the Russians designed a new tank yet?

>>33113866
Stop claiming stupid shit...

>>33113866
>leclerc
>APS

>>33111105
It works. Until it doesn't, no need to fuck with it.

File: Armatynagotove.webm (496KB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 854x480px

>>33112143
where did you get that number? what you see on this video is the entire t-14 fleet to this day

>>33114382

It have GALIX system to stops missiles. This means Leclerc needs to be attacked from rear only by DARTS as frontal armor has beern proven to be 120mm gun resistant.

File: M4A1_ACOG.jpg (24KB, 501x202px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 501x202px

>>33111045

>the design of this rifle is nearly 50 years old. why havent the usa design a new rifle yet?

I kinda wish we'd built that AA Abrams

>>33111105
It was designed to be updated. We have updated it. What the fuck else you want? The current year doesn't mean shit.

Because it's to cheap, they gonna wait next unreasonable complicated technology to put in tank.

they need f-35 in tracks so you could pull out millions for minor design fixes.

File: 1484827607573.jpg (21KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 500x500px

>>33112419
Fucking wheraboo btfo

>>33111045
When they can hijack another German tank

>>33112909
Only that Germany is developing a new tank.

>>33114766
Galix is simply smoke grenades.

>>33114766
Galix 13 smoke discharger is softkill...
Galix 4 is only anti personnal grenades...
Both manually operated...

There WAS a program for an active defense kit relying on LWR, IR jammers and Galix 4 ammunitions; nammed KBCM.

So yeah... APS.... ... ... ...

>>33115129
Nope.
There are smoke grenades, frag grenades and IR decoys (not mounted on the french version).
Hell, there even are low lethality grenades if we have the need...

File: guderian.jpg (24KB, 385x306px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 385x306px

>>33111045

Because US engineers are inferior. They plan to use the Abrams main design through 2050 and just modify it slightly.

The T-14 Armata already BTFO this piece of shit, and will only get better. By 2050, T-14 will be completely unmanned robot while the Abrams will still require a manned turret.

Fucking Amerilards.

>>33115172
That would unfortunately require Russia to be able to afford the T-14 Armata and not continue to revert back to the T-90 for orders.

>>33115207
By reverting back to T-90 you mean reverting to modernizing T-72B and T-80BV.

>>33115248
By reverting back to T-72 and T-80 do you mean reverting to modernized T-62 and T-64?

>>33115284
No.

>>33115331
By Reverting back to the T54/54? Eventually we get back to the wonderful BT-7 as the T-34 was literally slapping more armor on the BT-7 and expanding it slightly.

The entire soviet/Russia line of tanks traces back to it with incremental upgrades.