M1 Abrams Developments and News

If that missile/drone faction doesn't want to leave money for anything else the Army will rapidly discover how limited they are in what they can actually do.

Armor is very still important on the battlefield, it just needs modernization to keep up with changing threats like anything else.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1997658542745223579
View: https://x.com/Defence_Index/status/1997658542745223579?s=20

M1 Abrams Tank Armed With Switchblade Drones Tested By Army​

www.twz.com

M1 Abrams Tank Armed With Switchblade Drones Tested By Army

Loitering munitions are already revolutionizing the battlefield, and the U.S. Army is finally testing launching them from its main battle tank. Loitering munitions are already revolutionizing the battlefield, and the U.S. Army is now testing them launched from its main battle tanks.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 
Last edited:
Interestly the pics are not that revealing. In particular they are not displaying any part of the roof. Rather stark contrast between DoD and the PRC these days - we keep seeing stuff China is working on every week and a lot of their new stuff gets paraded around, literally.

www.twz.com

Our First Glimpse At The M1E3 Abrams Next-Gen Tank Demonstrator

Testing of the first iteration of the Army's next-generation, lighter-weight, hybrid-electric Abrams tank concept is set to kick off soon.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 
It is…small!

Also it seems to have hydropneumatic suspension judging from the stance of the tank
 
Last edited:
I might be missing it, but I thought this was supposed to be a hybrid drivetrain? I guess being a pre-prototype the turret is still quite early as it doesn't seem to have an APS system and everything looks kind of bolted on rather then properly integrated.
 
16_incher said:
It is…small!
Click to expand...
How so? It appears to be more or less the same size as the current M1s, arguably even taller with all the stuff up top. All in all, this pre-prototype looks rather underwhelming, especially compared to the previous Abrams X tech demo.
 
I'm rather unimpressed too. Looks like a downgrade compared to the Abrams X tech demonstrator. And a Javelin thrown onto the RCWS? Why?
 
Whilst I understand why it's a static and closed display, it is, granted, a bit underwhelming to look at in photographs. The interesting stuff is under the hood and the tank on display is a great talking point for the folks here who are very excited about the end design, we could have talked for hours. The engineers will geek out more than the tank nerds, this really is a massive step in capability. The promise this vehicle shows to keep M1's position as "apex predator on the battlefield" is definite, even if those who want to see the final, low profile, 60 ton vehicle right now are disappointed. It takes time to brew perfection.
Click to expand...
I think this is a good summary of the initial reactions tbh. What we can see is preliminary and not particularly impressive, the impressive things are not visible and in some case not tangible.
 
This reveal mostly just showed us what the vehicle isn’t going to be then what it’s going to be.Kind of lackluster but I guess we shouldn’t have expected a lot from a pre-prototype.
 
SlothmanAllen said:
I might be missing it, but I thought this was supposed to be a hybrid drivetrain? I guess being a pre-prototype the turret is still quite early as it doesn't seem to have an APS system and everything looks kind of bolted on rather then properly integrated.
Click to expand...

Read The Chieftain's post. This is essentially a breadboard mockup. Final version is to have everything more tightly integrated, while this one has everything just bolted/welded on to the existing turret to make sure it all works and is useful first. This one even has a gas turbine, where the final design should have a diesel.

The Javelin launcher is apparently just a last-minute addition to fill an open pontel mount.
 
SlothmanAllen said:
I might be missing it, but I thought this was supposed to be a hybrid drivetrain? I guess being a pre-prototype the turret is still quite early as it doesn't seem to have an APS system and everything looks kind of bolted on rather then properly integrated.
Click to expand...
Not the right stage to be testing APS integration.
 
The M-1X seemed to have more potential. Was that an actual working party or just a mock up? The javelin seems almost comical. What possibly would be the use?
 
Josh_TN said:
The M-1X seemed to have more potential. Was that an actual working party or just a mock up? The javelin seems almost comical. What possibly would be the use?
Click to expand...

This is a test rig, what the car biz would call a mule. It's not even close to production representative.

Again, go read Chieftain's post. This is an existing turret with the new systems bolted on for testing, and an existing hull with the new transmission but the old GT engine. There will be a new turret with all the new stuff integrated, and a new (or heavily modified) hull with the diesel, which is being tested on other vehicles.

The Javelin was added at the show just because they had an open mount and it fit. Not planned for the actual vehicle.

AbrahmsX was sexier looking because it was a sales tool as much as an actual tech demonstrator. Functionally, it sounds like there isn't a lot of difference between the two end products.
 
Whole engine thing kinda does not add up , they are talking 1100hp with 250+hp electric boost ,
at the moment C13D is a 13 liter engine that in commercial form tops out at 690hp ,Note cutting edge engines in trucks ,16-17Litre engines with twin turbos top out at 800hp ,so is somewhat doubtfoul C13D is putting out 1100hp without Hybrid Power Expansion powerpack, meaning 1100hp already includes electric motor output which would kinda make it under powered compared to current M1

Caterpillar C18 with twin turbos gets up 1100Hp but its much larger 18litre engine

C13 even tough its a small engine is relatively tall because its an inline 6
 
Presume the Cummins Advanced Combat Engine (ACE), developed for the U.S. Army under a $87 million 2021 contrcat, a 1,000-hp modular opposed-piston (OP), only two cylinders? which features two pistons moving toward each other per cylinder, diesel, two stroke, high efficiency with low fuel consumption and used Achates Power technology is now dead.

Impression Army current priority is COTS hardware to control costs, remember comment that with the CAT diesel the power at the sprockets the same as now with the turbine.
 
The use of electric motors might provide more instantaneous power with less transmission loss, but we would need to have more details about the power train. I assume given the relatively wide net they seemed to cast for propulsion solutions that they found something that produces roughly equivalent performance.
 
Not sure if ACE actually still a contender a 2 stroke horizontally opposed(4 cylinder) 14.7 liter twin turbo and supercharged still taped out at 1000hp ,might be a step to far technologically .Achates Power IP has been bought by General Atomics. I don't know if there is any work ongoing on ACE

Caterpillar off the shelf engine makes sense as they are built in tens of thousands , dedicated tank engine will always end up as multi million $ engine just because it costs so much to develop then is not built in quantity. C13D seems on a small size but a C18 is already fielded with 1130hp in marine use.

Only really kinda developed opposed piston engines are Soviet/Ukrainian 6TD that have gone trough many many decades of development . And when you listen to 6TD is sounds like its in process of tearing itself to bits.

2026-01-20_16h44_22.jpg
 
Going forward there are several nations that want to continue developing AFVs but not at the usual cost. So COTS engines is great.
On the other hand, those going for exquisite items may thus find themselves significantly industrially disadvantaged in that aspect.

So COTS has a lot of logic to it. But I wouldn't read too much into the M1E3 propulsion selection. Ground vehicle propulsion is still in a transition phase. Some aspects of modern EV and HEV can benefit an AFV.
 

Army to push M1E3 prototypes to soldiers this summer, five years ahead of schedule​

breakingdefense.com

Army to push M1E3 prototypes to soldiers this summer, five years ahead of schedule - Breaking Defense

Instead of waiting until all the tank's fixings meet every requirement, the service wants soldiers in the field to “plug and play” with various hardware and software components, Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George said.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

A 'computer-first' tank: Army wants next-gen Abrams to link with XM30​

A 'computer-first' tank: Army wants next-gen Abrams to link with XM30 | InsideDefense.com

After debuting the next-generation Abrams tank prototype this month, the Army is gearing up to give it to soldiers -- and one major test will involve gauging how well it can talk, a senior Army leader told Inside Defense this week.
insidedefense.com insidedefense.com
 
Last edited:
Mr.T said:
Not sure if ACE actually still a contender a 2 stroke horizontally opposed(4 cylinder) 14.7 liter twin turbo and supercharged still taped out at 1000hp ,might be a step to far technologically .Achates Power IP has been bought by General Atomics. I don't know if there is any work ongoing on ACE
Click to expand...
Yeah, the ACE could have been a really good option for M88 and Abrams power.


Mr.T said:
Caterpillar off the shelf engine makes sense as they are built in tens of thousands , dedicated tank engine will always end up as multi million $ engine just because it costs so much to develop then is not built in quantity. C13D seems on a small size but a C18 is already fielded with 1130hp in marine use.
Click to expand...
They've gotta be boosting the heck out of a C13 to make 1000hp base. A C13 only makes about 500hp on the upper end.

And that has a serious effect on durability.



Mr.T said:
Only really kinda developed opposed piston engines are Soviet/Ukrainian 6TD that have gone trough many many decades of development . And when you listen to 6TD is sounds like its in process of tearing itself to bits.

View attachment 799159
Click to expand...
Excessive smoke suggests too much fuel in the system, probably to spool the turbo to maintain boost. Better turbo/intake design can help that.

You can address durability with engineering. Forged components, etc.

The advantage of using a hybrid system is that you size the engine for the anticipated part load instead of the full load, and use the electric motor to make up the extra power needed on the top end.
 
They've gotta be boosting the heck out of a C13 to make 1000hp base. A C13 only makes about 500hp on the upper end.

And that has a serious effect on durability.
Click to expand...

C13D commercial units tap out at 690hp , so to get to 1100hp or something they would need to be forcing the heck out of it . Besides there are commercial truck engines with 16liter and V shape around 800hp of the shelf , but i reckon one of the reasons for looking at caterpillar its in its core a very simple engine with minimal ancillary gear and the other thing it has multiple power take off points where you could connect generators or hydraulics

Top truck engines at the moment Chinese Shacman , Scania D16 and Volvo

Scania D16 makes 750hp for truck , but without all the emission controls and tuned up it was built into T72 tanks for poland with 1150hp , marine variant also produce over 1100hp.
516813981_10230831796473605_2192027946297727668_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
Is the diesel in the M1E3 directly linked to the transmission or does it just power the electric motor?
 
Josh_TN said:
Is the diesel in the M1E3 directly linked to the transmission or does it just power the electric motor?
Click to expand...
It's sounding like it's just powering the electric motor. There's comparisons to "just like a train".


Mr.T said:
C13D commercial units tap out at 690hp , so to get to 1100hp or something they would need to be forcing the heck out of it . Besides there are commercial truck engines with 16liter and V shape around 800hp of the shelf , but i reckon one of the reasons for looking at caterpillar its in its core a very simple engine with minimal ancillary gear and the other thing it has multiple power take off points where you could connect generators or hydraulics

Top truck engines at the moment Chinese Shacman , Scania D16 and Volvo

Scania D16 makes 750hp for truck , but without all the emission controls and tuned up it was built into T72 tanks for poland with 1150hp , marine variant also produce over 1100hp.
View attachment 799910
Click to expand...
I do like everything I've heard about the big Scania V8 (note that the Scania numbers are horsepower at the wheels, not at the crankshaft), but for packaging I'd want the Volvo.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom