M1 Abrams MBT Replacement

[asVAL]

And the reason I want high capacity is for variety of ammo. You're going to carry a few rounds of a lot of types. Call it 4x or so canister, 8-10x of whatever you're calling the NLOS round (possibly times two different types, fast for flat ground and slow for hilly terrain and built-up areas, though usually you can load one based on terrain and just have two settings in the FCS), 10x MPAT, 10x Sabot, and 10x GLATGMs (separate from the fast NLOS); and that's 44 rounds. Because canister does things that MPAT doesn't, like relatively safely making doors in concrete buildings with a squad 10m away.

Why would you want all of that?
Current tank offensives in Ukraine peaks at tens of kilometres every day - that's a barely noticable, if zero shift in terrain features. Against an actually competent mechanized army like the PLAGF that will be down to multple kilometres until air superiority is achieved.
AMP also replaces CAN, MPAT and HE-OR in the US Army btw. It won't be NLOS but the Abrams also doesn't have the sensors neccesary to execute proper NLOS shots, maybe general grid firing with GPS within a 20km vicinity.
Dedicated GLATGM is obsolete. They can be perfectly dealt with by normal APS.
These days you'd want only 2 type of rounds: HE-GP and APFSDS. Most militaries already moved beyond 5 rounds of major natures of anykind to 2-3 at maximum.
No offense seriously but 44 rounds of 5 types sounds more like a teenager's wishlist after playing BF4 than what actual military planners would think of. Even the US Army moved to 2 round: M829A4 and AMP. Germany have around 3 (DM12, DM11, sabot), France have 2, poorer western European armies use 3 (HEAT, manual fuze HE, sabot) along with T-72 and derivatives users. Not that it's too complicated for the FCS ( Sprut-SD have something like 7 rounds available for use). Edit: it's not 7 rounds, it's 8 different types of APFSDS with more for HEAT and HE
20 rounds of ammunition (13-15 HE, 7-5 sabot) because assuming that youre getting a 3-1 or above exchange ratio against a peer enemy is just arrogant, 30000+ coaxial and HMG rounds total because you would be spending most of the assault hammering MG positions, trenches and shooting at the brief silhouettes of enemy infantry, unless there are plenty of UAVs to spot targets ( which, again, is a poor assumption).
If anything, Ukraine taught us that just *adequate* ammo capacity is best, because you don't fill your MBT up with explosive, and ensuring a constant supply line is much more important than the ability to fight for 2-3 days all by yourself assuming unlimited food, water and gas.

And as Bobbymike said, lets just get back on topic. A discussion on current industry offerings of potential use on a M1 replacement, maybe?

Rheinmetall

The Hungarian government has joined forces with Rheinmetall to develop the Panther KF51 through to production maturity.

www.rheinmetall.com

Let Rheinmetall cook up some good stuff before the US sweeps in and buy it. 3-crew with space for a fourth one, the modular autoloader, and 120mm gun... A license to manufacture Panther turrets in the US with their own electronics and armour designed to US standards, fitted onto GD's AbramsX hull for starter.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Oh, I'm fully expecting the "final" version of Iron Vision to use a metric crapton of cameras all over the vehicle, each the size of a cell phone camera.



Yes, a non-penetrating turret like the Stryker MGS would be ideal. Plays hell on your ammunition capacity, though.

And the reason I want high capacity is for variety of ammo. You're going to carry a few rounds of a lot of types. Call it 4x or so canister, 8-10x of whatever you're calling the NLOS round (possibly times two different types, fast for flat ground and slow for hilly terrain and built-up areas, though usually you can load one based on terrain and just have two settings in the FCS), 10x MPAT, 10x Sabot, and 10x GLATGMs (separate from the fast NLOS); and that's 44 rounds. Because canister does things that MPAT doesn't, like relatively safely making doors in concrete buildings with a squad 10m away.

120mm canister is out of inventory, or soon will be, and MPAT is going that way eventually along with the Indianhead's stockpiles of HE-OR. AMP provides for three natures of ammunition: airburst (CAN), light anti-armor (MPAT), and delayed detonation (HE-OR) by itself. There are no anti-tank guided missiles in America inventory that are gun fired. There likely never will be again.

If you need specialized natures of ammunition, the M10 Booker can carry all of that, plus smoke rounds. Its crews are also trained to provide close support to infantry in combat. IBCTs lack tanks and Bradleys so it will be good for them.

That said, a mechanized CAB can just break down a door or concrete wall with 25mm HEI rounds from the Bushmaster.

In Fallujah, the M1s and M2s operated in pairs, supplementing each other. CAN was a stop-gap measure for individual tank platoons on patrols in a LIC environment. It's not useful in a MIC/HIC war like Ukraine/Korea/WW2 or 1973. As to breaching walls in close support of infantry:





You fire in a spiral, and the rebar will still need to be cut, but canister isn't going to defeat rebar either, so there's little benefit there.

This is neither common nor particularly useful, as most people use doors or windows, especially on the upper stories when using assault ladders or something. Ballistic breaching is annoying, destroys surprise, and rarely achieves anything more comparable to simply chucking a frag grenade or flashbang into a loophole. AMP is a major benefit because its delayed high explosive might just kill everyone in a room outright.

That said it's usually done when the assault team is rumbled by a machine gun team and needs to rapidly find cover, or when the more ordinary method of "dropping a wall with some satchel charges" doesn't work. A TOW-BB could also be used. I think the XM919 is supposed to have some sort of breaching capability. There's a MATADOR that does, and the GREM obviously, which people used in Iraq.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Unless you are going to be operating without resupply for a long time which due to fuel issues alone would be a problem I can't ever imagine a scenario where you are going to need 30,000+ rounds of ammo for the machine guns. Even with barrel changes that would be an absurd amount of time firing at bunkers, trenches, buildings or whatever to suppress positions. If we're assuming these MBTs have plenty of chances to go back to the depot to load up shells for the main gun they can definitely load up MG ammo there too.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Really think there should be a “Tank of the Future” thread separating M1 Replacement news from comments about tanks in general.

Mods thoughts?

Ps I enjoy my learned member comments but I’m looking for specific to M1 news here

Think this is the wrong place for M1 news. M1E3 is over in the Abrams projects thread.

 

[Scott Kenny]

120mm canister is out of inventory, or soon will be, and MPAT is going that way eventually along with the Indianhead's stockpiles of HE-OR. AMP provides for three natures of ammunition: airburst (CAN), light anti-armor (MPAT), and delayed detonation (HE-OR) by itself. There are no anti-tank guided missiles in America inventory that are gun fired. There likely never will be again.

So I used the wrong acronyms for the ammo. My bad.

Canister still does things that AMP doesn't, like have a danger close range of 10m instead of 100m, and being relatively safe to have infantry in front of the muzzle if offset a bit from the line of fire.

So you have a few Canister rounds in the racks in case of close encounters with hostile infantry. You have some mid range NLOS munitions, fast (like XM1111 MRM) for flat terrain and slow (like KSTAM) for dense vertical terrain. Load whichever one is appropriate for the local terrain, but you want both in inventory and in the FCS settings. You may stick a couple of the other type in the racks for an emergency what-if, same as Canister. Abrams or follow on doesn't need NLOS sensors, either round is fire and forget. Then Sabot and AMP make up most of your ammo load. GLATGM may be more accurately described as GLAAGM, though I'm sure AMP's airburst setting will shred a Hind if it's going slow enough to get a hit.

If you need specialized natures of ammunition, the M10 Booker can carry all of that, plus smoke rounds. Its crews are also trained to provide close support to infantry in combat. IBCTs lack tanks and Bradleys so it will be good for them.

M10 Booker isn't going into Armored Brigades, it's strictly an Infantry Brigade unit. Not even going into Strykers, what with the reorg into Divisions. Stryker Brigades are getting rolled into Armored Divisions only (which is a gross mistake, IMO, Infantry Divisions should also be getting a Stryker Brigade to act as fast moving fire brigades. That was part of the original Stryker Brigade mission, after all.)

While Canister is for close support of infantry or close encounters with hostile infantry, all the others are for tank on tank violence or combined arms violence. Kursk 3 or 73 Easting 2.

 

[Kat Tsun]

So I used the wrong acronyms for the ammo. My bad.

That's not what I meant by that. I mean that AMP provides the same battlefield effects as all those rounds.

Canister still does things that AMP doesn't, like have a danger close range of 10m instead of 100m, and being relatively safe to have infantry in front of the muzzle if offset a bit from the line of fire.

Yeah, but infantry with an M1 tank nearby are going to be coming with an M2 Bradley, which makes canister redundant.

So you have a few Canister rounds in the racks in case of close encounters with hostile infantry. You have some mid range NLOS munitions, fast (like XM1111 MRM) for flat terrain and slow (like KSTAM) for dense vertical terrain. Load whichever one is appropriate for the local terrain, but you want both in inventory and in the FCS settings. You may stick a couple of the other type in the racks for an emergency what-if, same as Canister. Abrams or follow on doesn't need NLOS sensors, either round is fire and forget. Then Sabot and AMP make up most of your ammo load. GLATGM may be more accurately described as GLAAGM, though I'm sure AMP's airburst setting will shred a Hind if it's going slow enough to get a hit.

There's nothing wrong with any of this, except that it can be fulfilled by other weapons without impacting the load of tanks, too.

The problem with the M1 is that it's too heavy.
The only real way to reduce a tank's weight is to reduce its armored volume.
Reducing armored volume means compacting elements like engines, crews, and ammunition.

That means things like hyperbar diesels (AMX Leclerc), three-abreast crew capsules (M1 TTB), and single-rack ammo bustles (Leo 2). It will necessarily be annoying for crews used to the heavier, roomier M1, but it's the only way to get the weight down. The tank that arrives in combat is infinitely better than the tank that sits at a railhead and misses the action, as Task Force Eagle showed.

M10 Booker isn't going into Armored Brigades, it's strictly an Infantry Brigade unit.

Yes it's for the guys with the FMTVs and the Humvees. It can easily find a place in other units if the M1 remains too heavy to move.

Not even going into Strykers, what with the reorg into Divisions. Stryker Brigades are getting rolled into Armored Divisions only (which is a gross mistake, IMO, Infantry Divisions should also be getting a Stryker Brigade to act as fast moving fire brigades. That was part of the original Stryker Brigade mission, after all.)

Strykers are weird but using them as a replacement for the Bradley is fine. It's been done periodically at NTC.

While Canister is for close support of infantry or close encounters with hostile infantry, all the others are for tank on tank violence or combined arms violence. Kursk 3 or 73 Easting 2.

Yes, but there's no action without combined infantry-tank company teams. The tank is a field gun, not an infantry support vehicle, so it may sometimes be there and may sometimes not. More than likely not. Wall breaching with guns is a rare occurrence, can be done faster by the M2 Bradley for making loopholes and grenade holes, and most practically is going to be done by infantry with satchel charges or breaching grenades anyway.

 

[bobbymike]

Think this is the wrong place for M1 news. M1E3 is over in the Abrams projects thread.

“M1 Abrams MBT Replacement”

Seems pretty straightforward

 

[Scott Kenny]

“M1 Abrams MBT Replacement”

Seems pretty straightforward

And considering that the Army isn't even looking at replacing the Abrams for another 10-20 years, all you're gonna see is a crapton of speculation.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yeah, but infantry with an M1 tank nearby are going to be coming with an M2 Bradley, which makes canister redundant.

Usually, yes. But if some insanity requires big tanks in urban areas or canyons, you're gonna want the canister in addition to the AMP. So keep them in low production since any given tank is only gonna need about 4 of them. US has what, 1000ish active Abrams? Make a stockpile of about 20k rounds of Canister over time, burn them up after 10 years or whatever the storage life is of main gun ammo.

There's nothing wrong with any of this, except that it can be fulfilled by other weapons without impacting the load of tanks, too.

The problem with the M1 is that it's too heavy.
The only real way to reduce a tank's weight is to reduce its armored volume.
Reducing armored volume means compacting elements like engines, crews, and ammunition.

That means things like hyperbar diesels (AMX Leclerc), three-abreast crew capsules (M1 TTB), and single-rack ammo bustles (Leo 2). It will necessarily be annoying for crews used to the heavier, roomier M1, but it's the only way to get the weight down. The tank that arrives in combat is infinitely better than the tank that sits at a railhead and misses the action, as Task Force Eagle showed.

I'm not sold on the Hyperbar diesel idea, personally. Even if GIAT or whoever has worked all the bugs out of it now. Using a gas turbine as the turbocharger means you have even hotter air out of the turbo (which means a way bigger intercooler), and you lost 25% of the oxygen in that air to burn in the diesel.

Gimme a turbocharged opposed piston diesel instead. Maybe one that still has a supercharger on it, turbo feeding into the supercharger. Much smaller package than that Hyperbar. Even the locomotive-sized ones on subs only needed a rebuild every 5 years or more, and we ran those hard: cold startup instantly into full load, or no more than 30sec between startup and loading. None of this 5mins unloaded stuff.

Strykers are weird but using them as a replacement for the Bradley is fine. It's been done periodically at NTC.

As my buddy the Stryker office explained to me, the job of the Strykers was 1) to be the fast-moving infantry to hold ground that Abrams and Bradleys took, and 2) to be the fast-moving infantry to spearhead pushes by legs in unarmored trucks or on foot.

 

[bobbymike]

And considering that the Army isn't even looking at replacing the Abrams for another 10-20 years, all you're gonna see is a crapton of speculation.

As opposed to a crap ton of completely unrelated to the topic posts?

As my original post read start a new thread that encompasses the far greater range of subject matter (tank/IVF/anti-tank/armor/engines etc.) that is being discussed.

 

[jsport]

unknown source on Pinterest

 

[asVAL]

unknown source on PinterestView attachment 714829

That's a ZTZ-99A. With the GL5 APS I see.
Now idk how this is relevant to an Abrams replacement but it should go to the user's artwork topic.

 

[dan_inbox]

unknown source on Pinterest

Interesting concept, but I wonder whether this is real or just fan art.
This seems to be overboard on the side of protection at the expense of mobility. That thing would be un-manoeuvrable in a city.

 

[Arjen]

unknown source on Pinterest

 

[jsport]

That's a ZTZ-99A. With the GL5 APS I see.
Now idk how this is relevant to an Abrams replacement but it should go to the user's artwork topic.

 

[aonestudio]

Northrop Grumman Completes M829A4 Ammunition Deliveries to the U.S. Army

FALLS CHURCH, Va. – January 12, 2024 – Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC) announced today it successfully completed production of the M829A4 120mm cartridge to the U.S. Army. The M829A4 is a line-of-sight kinetic-energy cartridge designed...

news.northropgrumman.com

 

[scrubhead]

Old plan for tank modernization 1990's era, probably 1995-ish, its not dated on the USAHEC page. I have far more from usahec, might post in the FSCS thread.

[CHART] FUTURE TANK INDUSTRIAL BASE
https://emu.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/232539/1117B3-20183164MN000001.pdf <- for far better quality, 1 page


EDIT: also since I posted this I might as well post this if it hasn't been posted already, originally posted in SturgeonsHouse and Tanknet like 2.5 months ago. A general overview of all attempts to replace the abrams or improve it. This also has the first known photo of the manned weapon station study vehicle on the internet.

 

[isayyo2]

I have far more from usahec, might post in the FSCS thread.

Please do!

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Old plan for tank modernization 1990's era, probably 1995-ish, its not dated on the USAHEC page. I have far more from usahec, might post in the FSCS thread.

[CHART] FUTURE TANK INDUSTRIAL BASE
https://emu.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/232539/1117B3-20183164MN000001.pdf <- for far better quality, 1 page
View attachment 718006

EDIT: also since I posted this I might as well post this if it hasn't been posted already, originally posted in SturgeonsHouse and Tanknet like 2.5 months ago. A general overview of all attempts to replace the abrams or improve it. This also has the first known photo of the manned weapon station study vehicle on the internet.

View attachment 718007

The ASM thread would be appropriate

 

[Creative]

From a Reddit user who posted a picture of Block III model with his father.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/19eyou9

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/19eyou9/teledyne_block_iii_tank/

 

[jsport]

Thirty years ago General Dynamics introduced a lightweight Abrams programme. Many of its elements are used in the current, "new" Abrams X and M10 MPF.
The US Army is still searching for forgotten gold in the junk heap of yesteryearView attachment 702667
View attachment 702668View attachment 702669View attachment 702670View attachment 702671

 

[Wodan]

does anybody know which presentation is this ? look like USAHEC or DTIC docs, but haven't seen such there

 

[Scott Kenny]

View attachment 724646View attachment 724649

That lightweight variant chassis looks really weird. 2 crew in hull and 2 in turret? WTF?

 

[TomS]

That lightweight variant chassis looks really weird. 2 crew in hull and 2 in turret? WTF?

It's a configuration that the Rheinmetall KF51 Panther concept also got to. Basically, you need two crew in the turret (gunner and commander) and at least the one driver in the hull. But tank crews really need four people to accomplish a lot of non-combat tasks (breaking track, maintenance, standing guard duty, etc.) So, a fourth crew station in the hull looks sensible. You can use it in various ways -- the ALVT (lightweight Abrams) had a "co driver" to relieve the primary driver. That's pretty interesting, because you can split the crew on long moves and have one driver and one turret crew on alert while the other two rest. In the KF51, they use that seat for a UAS/UGV operator or for the company commander (so they don't have to fight their own tank and run the company at the same time).

 

[Prophet141]

So

...or for the company commander (so they don't have to fight their own tank and run the company at the same time).

So it's like a flagship but the Admiral is the Company Commander and the Captain is the Tank Commander?

 

[asVAL]

Another thing that may be interesting is hull height.
MBT hull went from T-55 and Patton-series (high enough for the driver to sit vertically, and in case of M47: the bow gunner to man his station), to Abrams/Leo ( reclined seating). So if a 4th crew station is to be placed inside the hull, then the height could grow enough to accomodate IFV conversion.

 

[TomS]

Another thing that may be interesting is hull height.
MBT hull went from T-55 and Patton-series (high enough for the driver to sit vertically, and in case of M47: the bow gunner to man his station), to Abrams/Leo ( reclined seating). So if a 4th crew station is to be placed inside the hull, then the height could grow enough to accomodate IFV conversion.

Why would it? The second crew seat in the hull can be reclined as well.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Another thing that may be interesting is hull height.
MBT hull went from T-55 and Patton-series (high enough for the driver to sit vertically, and in case of M47: the bow gunner to man his station), to Abrams/Leo ( reclined seating). So if a 4th crew station is to be placed inside the hull, then the height could grow enough to accomodate IFV conversion.

The sketch certainly shows two reclined crew in the hull.

 

[asVAL]

The sketch certainly shows two reclined crew in the hull.

Ehhhh, my mistake. My comment was more directed at a generic 2+2 layout, not the specific ALVT one.