M1 Abrams MBT Replacement

[uk 75]

We should not forget that the main opponent with tank forces is having a pretty tough time right now.
The US has had three decades of limited warfare either in Iraq or the Balkans. Unsurprisingly the large armoured force built up in the Cold War was more than sufficient for this task.
Resurgent Russia's answer to the M1 is the Armata tank which it cannot actially produce.
Unless the US is forced again to fight in Korea or elsewhere in Asia on land it is unlikely to encounter the PLA in battle.
US allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia have more rhan enough tanks of their own. France, Germany, Italy, Poland and the UK can make their own tanks if they choose.
The US needs to keep ahead of the game by maintaining its M1 force and developing improvements but M1 is still the best tank on the block.

 

[royabulgaf]

We should not forget that the main opponent with tank forces is having a pretty tough time right now.
The US has had three decades of limited warfare either in Iraq or the Balkans. Unsurprisingly the large armoured force built up in the Cold War was more than sufficient for this task.
Resurgent Russia's answer to the M1 is the Armata tank which it cannot actially produce.
Unless the US is forced again to fight in Korea or elsewhere in Asia on land it is unlikely to encounter the PLA in battle.
US allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia have more rhan enough tanks of their own. France, Germany, Italy, Poland and the UK can make their own tanks if they choose.
The US needs to keep ahead of the game by maintaining its M1 force and developing improvements but M1 is still the best tank on the block.

I can see holding off on Armata production. See what lessons the Ukraine war teaches.

 

[GruntFox]

First, Lima's pitiful number of tanks being produced is due to this little thing called 'institutional knowledge', and that is something that will be lost easily. That's why we've got boneyards filled with equipment and keep producing equipment like tanks and aircraft.

In addition, the basic hullform of the M1 is... futureproofed to the extreme, and the L/44 gun is due to the US's preference for APFSDSDU instead of more traditional APFSDS rounds (which is less effective in a world where ETC guns haven't been made practical yet, only when ETC guns become practical will the US abandon APFSDSDU rounds, because at 2km/s+ tungsten carbides and depleted uranium are, for all intents and purposes, the same penetration-wise).

 

[indicisivedivide]

First, Lima's pitiful number of tanks being produced is due to this little thing called 'institutional knowledge', and that is something that will be lost easily. That's why we've got boneyards filled with equipment and keep producing equipment like tanks and aircraft.

In addition, the basic hullform of the M1 is... futureproofed to the extreme, and the L/44 gun is due to the US's preference for APFSDSDU instead of more traditional APFSDS rounds (which is less effective in a world where ETC guns haven't been made practical yet, only when ETC guns become practical will the US abandon APFSDSDU rounds, because at 2km/s+ tungsten carbides and depleted uranium are, for all intents and purposes, the same penetration-wise).

The L/44 will be replaced by the XM360E1 . October 10 will surprise a lot of us on this forum. Only the turbine needs to be replaced. SEPV4 will have the highest penetration of any tank. Abrams is future proofed to certain extent. SK can hold of rag tag Kim and Europe alone will be sufficient to hold of Russia. There will be no tank battles with China.

 

[indicisivedivide]

In my opinion the tank that achieved mythical status in the 90s fail to be an export success is a really bad screw up by GLDS and the US army.

 

[Firefinder]

Honestly any M1 replacement can be basically a carbon copy of it but for one thing.

It definitely needs to be lighter. Its pushing 75 tons and is only getting heavier.

Getting to the point where even the US can barely ship it to the needed trouble spots. Need really drop it back down to the 60s tons, so we can atbleast ship two by C5.

 

[Elan Vital]

In addition, the basic hullform of the M1 is... futureproofed to the extreme, and the L/44 gun is due to the US's preference for APFSDSDU instead of more traditional APFSDS rounds (which is less effective in a world where ETC guns haven't been made practical yet, only when ETC guns become practical will the US abandon APFSDSDU rounds, because at 2km/s+ tungsten carbides and depleted uranium are, for all intents and purposes, the same penetration-wise).

That the optimum configuration for DU is slower and heavier than tungsten is true...for a given muzzle energy. You still gain penetration when you shoot the same projectile faster (or heavier at same velocity) out of a longer/more powerful gun. That's why XM291 in 120 and 140mm form still used DU rounds. The superiority of DU to tungsten alloys was only true in the 80s however, as the latter alloys progressed far more since then than the former.

Also the hullform is extremely far from futureproofed. It has been obsolete ever since 1978 against Western projectiles (M774 already defeated it beyond 3km), and since 1985 at worst against Soviet ones. The armor there was never upgraded, save for a paltry 5 DU hulls present in tank schools. The 38mm upper plate no longer works against proper APFSDS and shaped charges with graze fuzes (most of 70's shaped charges), and there isn't that much room to introduce more thickness and NERA to defeat both threats. In comparison Leopard 2 was already better in that area from the start and actually introduced proper addons in the 90s and 21st Century, Leclerc and MBT-80 had higher requirements than M1, and both existing T-tanks and prospective vehicles like Object 187 had more efficient and heavier arrays since 1985 or even earlier.
The M1's hull is also longer than required when modern powertrains (LV-100 turbine or Europowerpack) are involved, so not that efficient for the future if you want to control weight which is one of the biggest issues of the existing Western tanks.

The US needs to keep ahead of the game by maintaining its M1 force and developing improvements but M1 is still the best tank on the block.

It was never the best, it was just good enough for the force the Americans needed. They fully admitted from the very start that it would be more austere and worse in some respects than the competition, but that was necessary to meet the stringent cost and schedule ordered by Congress. Even today it is only competitive in overall electronics, while lagging severely behind in suspension, powertrain, armor layout, RAM-D, and slightly behind in armament.

In my opinion the tank that achieved mythical status in the 90s fail to be an export success is a really bad screw up by GLDS and the US army.

The fact that new Leopard 2s still sold more widely than Abrams and defeated it in trials even without ever fighting rather shows that the M1's fame did not make up for its deficiencies in comparative testing.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I'd wager that the armor on the lower glacis plate of the Abram's hull has been upgraded on a few occasions. There has been images of plates welded there on various test vehicles (probably to account for armor increases) going back to the M1E1.

As for the upper glacis plate I'm a bit doubtful that it's only a uniform 38mm even if that's the thickness of the driver's hatch. I'm not sure the angle of that plate but that arrangement hasn't seemed to have been a signficant liability in combat experience.

 

[indicisivedivide]

In addition, the basic hullform of the M1 is... futureproofed to the extreme, and the L/44 gun is due to the US's preference for APFSDSDU instead of more traditional APFSDS rounds (which is less effective in a world where ETC guns haven't been made practical yet, only when ETC guns become practical will the US abandon APFSDSDU rounds, because at 2km/s+ tungsten carbides and depleted uranium are, for all intents and purposes, the same penetration-wise).

That the optimum configuration for DU is slower and heavier than tungsten is true...for a given muzzle energy. You still gain penetration when you shoot the same projectile faster (or heavier at same velocity) out of a longer/more powerful gun. That's why XM291 in 120 and 140mm form still used DU rounds. The superiority of DU to tungsten alloys was only true in the 80s however, as the latter alloys progressed far more since then than the former.

Also the hullform is extremely far from futureproofed. It has been obsolete ever since 1978 against Western projectiles (M774 already defeated it beyond 3km), and since 1985 at worst against Soviet ones. The armor there was never upgraded, save for a paltry 5 DU hulls present in tank schools. The 38mm upper plate no longer works against proper APFSDS and shaped charges with graze fuzes (most of 70's shaped charges), and there isn't that much room to introduce more thickness and NERA to defeat both threats. In comparison Leopard 2 was already better in that area from the start and actually introduced proper addons in the 90s and 21st Century, Leclerc and MBT-80 had higher requirements than M1, and both existing T-tanks and prospective vehicles like Object 187 had more efficient and heavier arrays since 1985 or even earlier.
The M1's hull is also longer than required when modern powertrains (LV-100 turbine or Europowerpack) are involved, so not that efficient for the future if you want to control weight which is one of the biggest issues of the existing Western tanks.

The US needs to keep ahead of the game by maintaining its M1 force and developing improvements but M1 is still the best tank on the block.

It was never the best, it was just good enough for the force the Americans needed. They fully admitted from the very start that it would be more austere and worse in some respects than the competition, but that was necessary to meet the stringent cost and schedule ordered by Congress. Even today it is only competitive in overall electronics, while lagging severely behind in suspension, powertrain, armor layout, RAM-D, and slightly behind in armament.

In my opinion the tank that achieved mythical status in the 90s fail to be an export success is a really bad screw up by GLDS and the US army.

The fact that new Leopard 2s still sold more widely than Abrams and defeated it in trials even without ever fighting rather shows that the M1's fame did not make up for its deficiencies in comparative testing.

Only in the past few years did tungsten alloys become closer in penetration specifications compared to DU. Now will XM360 the Abrams will once again have the highest penetration capability.

 

[GTX]

In my opinion the tank that achieved mythical status in the 90s fail to be an export success is a really bad screw up by GLDS and the US army.

Hmmm…7 operators with over 3000 exported and growing is hardly an export failure. And for comparison, the Leopard 2 has more customers but only a total export of some ~2500 (the numbers are a little challenging to lock down as a number have actually moved between operators so one has to be careful to not double up).

 

[Kat Tsun]

I'd wager that the armor on the lower glacis plate of the Abram's hull has been upgraded on a few occasions. There has been images of plates welded there on various test vehicles (probably to account for armor increases) going back to the M1E1.

As for the upper glacis plate I'm a bit doubtful that it's only a uniform 38mm even if that's the thickness of the driver's hatch. I'm not sure the angle of that plate but that arrangement hasn't seemed to have been a signficant liability in combat experience.

It got fatter with the latest Abrams model too. There are weight simulators on the SEPv4 hull in addition to the turret.

We should not forget that the main opponent with tank forces is having a pretty tough time right now.
The US has had three decades of limited warfare either in Iraq or the Balkans. Unsurprisingly the large armoured force built up in the Cold War was more than sufficient for this task.
Resurgent Russia's answer to the M1 is the Armata tank which it cannot actially produce.
Unless the US is forced again to fight in Korea or elsewhere in Asia on land it is unlikely to encounter the PLA in battle.
US allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia have more rhan enough tanks of their own. France, Germany, Italy, Poland and the UK can make their own tanks if they choose.
The US needs to keep ahead of the game by maintaining its M1 force and developing improvements but M1 is still the best tank on the block.

I can see holding off on Armata production. See what lessons the Ukraine war teaches.

Main reason for holding off T-14 production is constant push-back/delay industrially because T-72B3 modernization keeps eating its lunch money actually. T-14 best tank in the world absolutely getting thrashed by the 50 year old lawn mowing tank in the locker room, the absolute state.

Honestly any M1 replacement can be basically a carbon copy of it but for one thing.

It definitely needs to be lighter. Its pushing 75 tons and is only getting heavier.

Getting to the point where even the US can barely ship it to the needed trouble spots. Need really drop it back down to the 60s tons, so we can atbleast ship two by C5.

It's actually closer to 95 tons in its heaviest configuration, which is ERA, Trophy, turret ballasts (for turret motor balance w/ Trophy), and mine rollers. SEPv4's new armor kit probably sends it over 75 tons with merely full fluids and ammo though.



The way to save weight will be an uninhabited turret and three-abreast crew capsule in the hull, like the TTB prototype.

Airlift isn't important, but there are bridges in Eastern Europe which are MLC limited, and thus make road transport kinda funny.

In my opinion the tank that achieved mythical status in the 90s fail to be an export success is a really bad screw up by GLDS and the US army.

Hmmm…7 operators with over 3000 exported and growing is hardly an export failure. And for comparison, the Leopard 2 has more customers but only a total export of some ~2500 (the numbers are a little challenging to lock down as a number have actually moved between operators so one has to be careful to not double up).

Leopard 2 is looking at a downturn in sales too, as no one seems too interested in KF51 right now.

K2 to a lesser extent, and M1A2 to a greater extent, seem to be eating what export market the Germans established by selling off their entire tank fleet at firesale prices. Now that they're asking real deal new tank prices for warmed over Leos, no one seems to be biting.

GDLS is playing 5D chess in the export market.

 

[muttly]

What is the strongest but lighter than DU substance that can used to protect the next generation
of U.S tanks. We can't just keep adding more armor.

 

[Firefinder]

Main reason for holding off T-14 production is constant push-back/delay industrially because T-72B3 modernization keeps eating its lunch money actually. T-14 best tank in the world absolutely getting thrashed by the 50 year old lawn mowing tank in the locker room, the absolute state.

Also it help to know where the T14 engine was made.

In Ukraine.

And the factory apperantly ate a missile in march so....

With their secondary choice being from the old USA Catapilter.

Plus alot of Russia electronics were western made which does not help anything with the T14 getting.

Eyeah should probably start considering the T14 in the same way the Object 195 [T95] is.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Main reason for holding off T-14 production is constant push-back/delay industrially because T-72B3 modernization keeps eating its lunch money actually. T-14 best tank in the world absolutely getting thrashed by the 50 year old lawn mowing tank in the locker room, the absolute state.

Also it help to know where the T14 engine was made.

In Ukraine.

No, the A-85 is made in Chelyabinsk in the Urals, not in Ukraine. RIP T-84 Oplot though.

What is the strongest but lighter than DU substance that can used to protect the next generation

Nothing.

of U.S tanks. We can't just keep adding more armor.

Tank too fat. M1A1 was pretty heavy without the addon armor and required a circuitous route to reach Kosovo, which involved a lot of downloading and uploading for new transport and single vehicles slowly crossing over bridges. This is when the US Army decided it wanted to become air-mech: to beat the USAF to the punch.

Who knows what bridges would be unpassable for M1A2D though.

 

[GruntFox]

What is the strongest but lighter than DU substance that can used to protect the next generation
of U.S tanks. We can't just keep adding more armor.

Future tank armor would probably look like Battletech armor, given that we created EndoSteel v0.1 in 2016 or GURPS's (and, through them, Tom Clancy's EndWar) 'Nanocomposite' armor.

@Kat Tsun, the US has been severely soured by 'all crew in hull' designs, especially when it constantly had the problem with the crew being less efficient, especially the commander. The HVTL (the one armed with the ARES 75mm autocannon and original replacement for the Sheridan, but canned because of no anti-structure firepower, i.e. the other major thing that tanks are supposed to do when not fighting tanks) was hated by the commanders who tested it, largely because of the 'all in hull' crew configuration, as they couldn't just up their head and see the battlefield. From what I know, every single other similar design had similar hatred.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Yes, it was only recently that cameras like Iron Vision and DAS have become viable replacements for glass. A new type tank would obviously incorporate these modern features over archaic ones, like periscopes (indeed, KF51 already does), but the M1 just needs a diet rn, so new tanks can wait.

The weedy number of periscopes on KF51 are mostly just a vestigial component from its prior existence as a Leopard 2 at this point.

Actual tank drivers (I knew a guy who commanded Merkavas in the IDF) have told me that drivers don't need to see but the TC does, so hyper radicals don't even need to give everyone virtual transparency. Of course a driver can potentially maintain local SA in a three man crew so...

Anyway future threats, aside from the RPG in a window or something, likely won't be visible with human eyes but will require augmentation from a 360-degree sensor. Said sensor makes it easier to spot things than peoples' increasingly myopic eyeballs or whatever,, and TCs would genuinely appreciate having a little movement following CITV that lets them look through the armor, so at that point you're better off hiding in the hull. The optics are bulletproof, the TC isn't.

 

[phantomphan]

Yes, it was only recently that cameras like Iron Vision and DAS have become viable replacements for glass.

So, a system similar to that the F-35 has that would allow the TC to look 'through' the tank in any given direction?

 

[MadRat]

It's much easier to develop an interface distributed inside the tank for a MMI than to give everyone their own sets of screens. Crew members plug their helmet display into one of the redundant ports and choose the mode. Up front costs are higher, long term operational and maintenance costs would be considerably lower. Power needed to run a helmet system would be neglible in comparison, too. You distribute the equipment than supplies power and video throughout the vehicle to prevent one hit taking the whole system out. Its all about redundancy.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Just adding armour is hardly the point, we have (Supposedly) active countermeasures systems that should be added to the equation. These are not exactly new but are frequently ignored/missed from the future vehicle/tank debate.

 

[GTX]

Just adding armour is hardly the point, we have (Supposedly) active countermeasures systems that should be added to the equation. These are not exactly new but are frequently ignored/missed from the future vehicle/tank debate.

Exactly.

 

[muttly]

Maybe the answer is less armor and more mobility . It is difficult for a tank to survive in the
missile rich battlefields.If the armor can't stop the missiles maybe going to less armor and more
countermeasures is the answer. On the turret can you have a semi-manned one and a auto loader.
A gun that fires varies missiles instead of shells. These are just thoughts of mine. I feel for the people
that have to make these decisions.

 

[uk 75]

As the Germans found in WW2 however good you think your tanks are the enemy still kills them..But it took a lot of Allied tanks and aircraft to do it.
The tank will always have a place on a battlefield somewhere. But whether to emphasise apeed, protection or firepower is as hard to get right now as it ever was

 

[Rhinocrates]

But whether to emphasise apeed, protection or firepower is as hard to get right now as it ever was

I've heard tank design described as a never-ending game of rock, paper, scissors.

 

[Grey Havoc]

https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/xpxokb

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/xpxokb/the_new_abrams_will_feature_the_m230_chain_gun/

 

[Grey Havoc]

https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/xpm1xq

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/xpm1xq/teaser_for_new_abrams_x/

Thoughts, my fellow toilers for knowledge?

 

[TomS]

https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/xpxokb

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/xpxokb/the_new_abrams_will_feature_the_m230_chain_gun/

They've already swapped a Protector RWS for the M2HB in the old Commander's Weapon Station. Switching to an M230 in an RWS firing HE-PROX ammo for CUAS seems like a fairly logical next step.

 

[Moose]

What is this?

ASCALON

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/140mm-smoothbore-gun.30029/page-2

 

[sferrin]

Yeah, looked it up and saw it wasn't Abrams-related so I deleted the post.

 

[bring_it_on]

https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/xpm1xq

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/xpm1xq/teaser_for_new_abrams_x/

Thoughts, my fellow toilers for knowledge?

Neat marketing, but with so much other high priority modernization needs yet to be addressed, is there any room in the Army budgets to fund any sort of wholesale Abrams replacement this side of 2035?

 

[Foo Fighter]

Are rebuilds more likely?

 

[Moose]

https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/xpm1xq

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/xpm1xq/teaser_for_new_abrams_x/

Thoughts, my fellow toilers for knowledge?

Neat marketing, but with so much other high priority modernization needs yet to be addressed, is there any room in the Army budgets to fund any sort of wholesale Abrams replacement this side of 2035?

I don't know about a "wholesale Abrams replacement," but I fully expect the US Army to come to the table with plans/hopes for major improvements backed up by a mountain of Ukraine War data regarding the performance of tanks on a modern battlefield.

 

[bring_it_on]

Are rebuilds more likely?

I think for now, the emphasis seems to be on fielding the MPF, followed by the OMFV, and possibly then add another new development/prototyping program to begin fielding a future tank. Those two efforts can and will take them most of the decade, and OMFV well into the 2030s. There are also huge bills to be paid to set up the Multi Domain Task Force's and introduce air-defense back into the divisions. While they may want to, I don't think they have the funds to pay for all this let alone start procurement of a new tank.

 

[shin_getter]

When considering the future of tank developments, the battle for Shusha really should be a data point to be studied. From media reports, Azerbaijan infantry attacked through back mountain roads into Armenian heavy formation in defensive/city mountain and defeated them, without much help from close air support as the weather was foggy.

The Battle of Shusha City and the Missed Lessons of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War - Modern War Institute

There has been no shortage of attention paid to the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. Commentary and analysis have produced a range of claims about what the six-week-long war means for the […]

mwi.usma.edu

Now Soviet era armor was pretty limited in mountain warfare as gun elevation was insufficient resulting in the usage of BMP-2 and ZSU in Afghanistan. Those tanks had no defenses against spike family ATGMs (especially fired out of LOS) and that the combat area only had two narrows roads accessible by armor, one of which was filmed to be the site of heavy losses. Still though, it is surprising that the decisive action of the war was a short light infantry attack into complex terrain.

Did armor meaningfully contribute to the battle?
-----
I am reminded how quickly battleships eclipsed and at a point in history where long range precision fire power was very limited. The entire FAA could not sink a battleship in a day. The prewar projections of B-17 erasing everything with level bombing was disappointed. It was battlefield shaping precision effects, ISR, and ability to enforce standoff when required that make Carriers so effective despite limited firepower, and sheer underwhelmingness of battleships in surface combat against torpedo heavy formations. (for example Samar)

In the Ukraine war the limits to long range precision strike on tanks appears to be ammo, which seems to be saved for high value targets like air defense and ewar. Which is to say tanks are neither high value nor high threat to get allocated sensor fuzed munitions. Note that this is chosen by the shooter, which is to say if tanks ever become seriously threatening (break though risk for example) PGM would be allocated for their defeat. High explosives looks effective enough to break up attacks anyways.

The other story of Ukraine war appears to be a breakdown of vehicle specialization. Jeeps gets used in assaults. Autocannon IFV thrown into tank fights. Air defense vehicles, tanks, and BMP-1s all observed to conduct indirect fire missions. Perhaps the future of AFVs so super generalized vehicles that do it all.

 

[Elan Vital]

https://emu.usahec.org/alma/multimedia/378856/20181815MNBT989112214F167098I005.pdf

Another M1/IP/A1 upgrade program, this time with a lot of fairly minor quality of life mods. The most important info is that basic M1 upgrade to 120mm had congressional support in 1990, and that in-arm suspension was seriously considered for a future block. They also talk a bit on how the FMBT/Block III Tank was delayed in favor of focusing on AFAS.

 

[njiiaf]

And there we go. AbramsX and StrykerX. Abrams with crew in hull, unmanned turret, PASEO optics, APS, XM360, and 30mm chain gun

https://twitter.com/x/status/1577359410279895042

 

[TomS]

And there we go. AbramsX and StrykerX. Abrams with crew in hull, unmanned turret, PASEO optics, APS, XM360, and 30mm chain gun

https://twitter.com/x/status/1577359410279895042

Fascinating. Not something that will be amenable to retrofit, with the crew stations moved down into the hull.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

For such a major redesign I thinking it might be better to move up to a 130mm or 140mm gun.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Just a thought here, as an ex tank crew person. How much overhang of the crew compartment is there and when the hatches are obstructed, how are the crew going to, you know, bail?

 

[njiiaf]

Additional image

In other Abrams news, SEPv4 prototypes were just spotted at YPG. PV05 above the sprocket so there’s at least 5 prototypes, possibly more.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1577430759236780032

 

[Kat Tsun]

For such a major redesign I thinking it might be better to move up to a 130mm or 140mm gun.

This is less a major redesign and more a substantial diet plan. Everything has to be off the shelf I imagine.

XM360 actually exists and can be built unlike the Franco-German 130mm or 140mm guns which are still mostly imaginary.

If Russia's parts bin is Kubinka and the late 80's, then America's parts pin seems to be the late 80's to the early 00's. All that FCS ancillary junk is finally getting some traction, along with the 1980's HTB superguns, except the ERCA has a wedge breech similar to M256 rather than the interrupted screw of the early prototype.