M1 Abrams MBT Replacement

GTX said:
Kat Tsun said:
Colonial-Marine said:
For such a major redesign I thinking it might be better to move up to a 130mm or 140mm gun.
Click to expand...

None of those actually exist though.
Click to expand...
errr…

Rheinmetall

Rheinmetall is one of the world's leading suppliers of large-calibre weapons and ammunition, e.g. the smoothbore L44 and L55 tank guns.
www.rheinmetall-defence.com www.rheinmetall-defence.com
Click to expand...

Yes, they're barely prototypical.

What tanks have been built with the 130mm? What tests have they passed? Have they been qualified with land forces and platforms? What armies are planning to put the 130mm into service? How many barrel blanks have been produced? These are important because this stuff requires a decade or so of lead time even after a big gun finishes all its trials given the glacial speeds at which Western industrial economies move these days.

Even the latest Challengers are only going to use the 120mm L/55 and those are the most advanced tanks being produced in Europe. They won't be ready for at least another 5 years. Bear in mind the blanks for the new 120mm guns have been ready for at least a year, if not longer. No one seems very interested in KF51 which is just the Challenger 3 parts bin with a big gun, probably because no one wants to foot the bill for a new supply of proprietary big gun ammo, I guess. It will take America finding out the Chinese have built a few hundred Notas for that to have any chance of happening or Germany and France footing the bill themselves.

It'll be a few years, if not decades, before European armies can even figure out what tank they want to build, much less what gun it's going to use. If all the French shilling for silly 140mm CTA is anything to go by this is far from settled.

XM360 already exists and passed most tests years ago for the MCS light tank. It also uses the same ammunition supply chain as M256 and can support BLOS rounds and datalinks or whatnot. The US Army could probably put in these new tanks into service by 2030 if it orders some of them in the next couple of years which is super fast for a tank upgrade these days. A 130mm gun tank will probably not be in series production before 2045 so there's at least a whole tank generation, perhaps two, in that time.

GDLS seems more intent on trying to get their new tank turrets built this side of 2035 at least, as they don't seem to have deviated very much from the general M1. Whether it's real or just marketing stuff is an open question, but it doesn't look particularly avant garde, which is a good thing given the US Army's track record of buying actually new stuff and not just raiding storage lots from 30 years ago for spare bits.

Bigger guns are really something to be thinking about for the tank generation after the next generation, tbh. Maybe the one after that.

The next tank generation is all about getting mobility back by returning armor to its traditional infrastructure limited 50-60 ton MLC without losing protection or capability. It's also gotta be done fast so there's a good platform to build up some chubbiness again.

Unless someone makes a better protected tank than a ZTZ-99, T-90M, or T-72B3, it's unlikely that 130mm will even be necessary though.
 
Last edited:
More details from Ronkainen:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1577469783662301184
View: https://twitter.com/ronkainen7k15/status/1577469783662301184


Diesel-electric hybrid power with a new Cummins opposed-piston diesel called the Advanced Combat Engine. The version of ACE shown in 2018 was only around 1000 hp but it can scale to 1500 hp, supposedly. (And hybrid electric could preserve the "off the line" torque the gas turbine Abrams is known for.)

www.cummins.com

U.S. Army awards Cummins Inc. $87M contract to deliver the Advanced Combat Engine | Cummins Inc.

Cummins Inc. (NYSE: CMI), a global power leader, has been awarded an $87M contract by the U.S. Army to complete the development of the Advanced Combat Engine (ACE), a modular and scalable diesel engine solution, capable of hybridization, that uses innovative opposed-piston (OP) technology to...
www.cummins.com www.cummins.com

Also, I don't think I've seen anyone mention that the Protector RS6 30mm RWS also has a 7.62mm coaxial MG. And has the option to add a Javelin or two Stingers.
 

Attachments

  • protector-rs6-26.01.22.pdf
    1.1 MB · Views: 42
XM360 isn't ETC? It's literally just a lightweight M256 with a huge brake for 20-ton tankettes. ETC has been dead and buried for decades...

It's actually nearly a ton lighter which is good for fat M1. The new transmission will probably eliminate the APU or something. Instead of having a diesel APU and a main drive, you just switch off 8 cylinders on the main engine, and run on four or something for an a idle mode. Commercial engines have been doing this for the past couple years now since it's better than the switching off engines at stoplights.
 
Last edited:
Kat Tsun said:
XM360 isn't ETC? It's literally just a lightweight M256 with a huge brake for 20-ton tankettes. ETC has been dead and buried for decades...

It's actually nearly a ton lighter which is good for fat M1. The new transmission will probably eliminate the APU or something. Instead of having a diesel APU and a main drive, you just switch off 8 cylinders on the main engine, and run on four or something for an a idle mode. Commercial engines have been doing this for the past couple years now since it's better than the switching off engines at stoplights.
Click to expand...
Why I thought it was ETC gun?
 
The M1A2 SEPv4 appears to be a more modest upgrade over the SEPv3, which the Army considers to be the baseline for future Abrams variants. Primary improvements appear to be sensors and mission systems. I suppose it remains to be seen if this will be the last SEP before either an entirely new Abrams variant or even a clean sheet design for the OMT, whatever suffices for the requirements.

AbramsX is a more radical departure from the M1 design, and I think this is more of an exercise on General Dynamics' part rather than the Army's. I can definitely see some institutional opposition to some of AbramsX concepts, particularly the 3-man crew. I believe during an Army workshop involving current tankers, the tankers preferred a 4-man crew, even with an autoloader as having the fourth crew member allows for more manpower for operator level maintenance and repairs, such as replacing tracks, and also when standing watch. There was also talks of the fourth crew member taking on collateral duties like UAV operator, etc. Of course, one can't forget institutional inertia.

I've also heard some people suggesting that AbramsX, being such a departure from the M1 design, may simply just be taking advantage of the Abrams' name recognition even though it's essentially a new design.

Regarding the XM360E1, I do recall it having a longer barrel than the current M256A1 and higher chamber pressure as well. As it is a lighter weapon than the Rheinmetall 120 mm L/55, it may be able to use existing Abrams stabilization system. That said, the model does appear to use the base XM360, so I guess we'll see.
 
Last edited:
Anybody else thinking the empty seat at the front next to the driver is for an optional 4th crew member?
 
lantinian said:
Anybody else thinking the empty seat at the front next to the driver is for an optional 4th crew member?
Click to expand...

Where are you getting the idea that there is an empty seat? It's three seats with two roof hatches on the front deck, apparently.

icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
Regarding the XM360E1, I do recall it having a longer barrel than the current M256A1 and higher chamber pressure as well. As it is a lighter weapon than the Rheinmetall 120 mm L/55, it may be able to use existing Abrams stabilization system. That said, the model does appear to use the base XM360, so I guess we'll see.
Click to expand...

E1 did allow increased chamber pressure but I think the barrel length was unchanged.

But, there is no reason they could not go back to a somewhat longer barrel, given that the whole turret was reworked from scratch. That might also jibe with the return of the muzzle brake -- this might be an XM360E2 combining elements of both.

The latest video in this thread does show the new turret with gun firing. Someone with more spare time could probably measure the barrel length off the video.
 
TomS said:
lantinian said:
Anybody else thinking the empty seat at the front next to the driver is for an optional 4th crew member?
Click to expand...

Where are you getting the idea that there is an empty seat? It's three seats with two roof hatches on the front deck, apparently.
Click to expand...
The driver was moved to the left from his centerline position and there is now a 2nd hatch on his right. This seams to me to be the 4th crew position. I assume the crew inside the hull was reduced from 3 to 2 due to the autoloader.
 
lantinian said:
The driver was moved to the left from his centerline position and there is now a 2nd hatch on his right. This seams to me to be the 4th crew position. I assume the crew inside the hull was reduced from 3 to 2 due to the autoloader.
Click to expand...

The turret is unmanned. All three crewmembers sit in the hull, side by side.
 
Man, this demonstrator gave no consideration for all the SL-3. :rolleyes:

Where would tankers throw all their shit, like main packs, jerry cans, tow bar stowage, spare track segments and roadwheels, etc.? Where's muh bustle rack...

I know, I'm being tongue-in-cheek here.
 
Foo Fighter said:
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?
Click to expand...

The engine compartment appears to be higher than before, with the bustle correspondingly higher. (This is the main disadvantage of the ACE, it's taller and boxier than a turbine.) The front of the turret appears to be further back than on the M1. I would suspect you should be able to bail out of all hatches regardless of turret position.

Also, I think there are clearly 3 hatches, with the side ones opening by sliding to the sides, and the center one opening by sliding forwards. In the video above, the side ones are open and the center one is closed.
 
Tuna said:


Also, I think there are clearly 3 hatches, with the side ones opening by sliding to the sides, and the center one opening by sliding forwards. In the video above, the side ones are open and the center one is closed.
Click to expand...
you might be right there.
 
stealthflanker said:
2 men crew and the tank would need same treatment as a Fighter jet.
Click to expand...

It's just TTB's layout. It probably has identical stations.

Two man crew isn't practical without greater advances in automation that have yet to materialize. Carmel is supposed to do something similar but it's basically a bolt-on sensor kit for tanks.

Tanks require three levels of situational awareness (sector, close, far) while a fighter jet only requires two (close, far).

This is leaving aside the operator-maintainer tasks that are handled by a tank crew, as well the necessity of local security of a laager. A radical solution would be integrated tank-infantry mechanized platoons, where the infantry are trained as tankers, but that's still too futuristic.
 
icyplanetnhc (Steve) said:
Man, this demonstrator gave no consideration for all the SL-3. :rolleyes:

Where would tankers throw all their shit, like main packs, jerry cans, tow bar stowage, spare track segments and roadwheels, etc.? Where's muh bustle rack...

I know, I'm being tongue-in-cheek here.
Click to expand...
There's storage bins on the sides of the turret, similar to GDLS's MPF, and it looks like there's an open basket on the back.
 
Does ammunition for the main gun only come from the bustle? Or is there also a TTB type carousel too?
 
Creative said:
njiiaf said:
Creative said:
Does ammunition for the main gun only come from the bustle? Or is there also a TTB type carousel too?
Click to expand...
The former most likely. She has a pretty sizable bustle and they can just use Meggit Defense’s autoloader designs
View attachment 685048
View attachment 685049
Click to expand...
You're probably right. I was hoping it would be TTB type so the turret could be smaller/lighter for additional weight reduction.
Click to expand...
I wonder if they went with the in-arm suspension that the MPF has, that would free up internal space and shave quite a few tons off at the same time.
 
Creative said:
njiiaf said:
Creative said:
Does ammunition for the main gun only come from the bustle? Or is there also a TTB type carousel too?
Click to expand...
The former most likely. She has a pretty sizable bustle and they can just use Meggit Defense’s autoloader designs
View attachment 685048
View attachment 685049
Click to expand...
You're probably right. I was hoping it would be TTB type so the turret could be smaller/lighter for additional weight reduction.
Click to expand...
TTB Carousel is probably a non-starter, additionally the current state of tank development has demonstrated that there's a limit to how small you can make a turret and still handle the sensors, comms, and APS a modern tank requires.
 
It interesting how high the commander 50 cal is. It should have a true 360 arc of fire, unlike with the KF-51 where some angles are obscured by the hull, remote sensors or the loitering munition launcher.
 
lantinian said:
It interesting how high the commander 50 cal is. It should have a true 360 arc of fire, unlike with the KF-51 where some angles are obscured by the hull, remote sensors or the loitering munition launcher.
Click to expand...

Note that it's now a 30mm (30x113). They could swap back to a .50-cal or even a .50/40mm GL combo but the 30mm is gaining a lot of ground thanks to the new HE proximity fuzed ammo for C-UAS and counter-defilade.
 
Good luck knocking down a swarm with a chain gun. Need something more like this but with a lot more power:

 
sferrin said:
Good luck knocking down a swarm with a chain gun. Need something more like this but with a lot more power:

Click to expand...

Well, that's not going on a tank anytime soon. But then, swarming UAS don't seem to be happening all that soon either.

Either way, this is still more useful than the commander's .50-caliber MG.
 
I can see they filled in the empty holes in the turret with weapons and equipment
 
The RWS with the 30mm looks like it it is higher than it has to be. I'm also perplexed as to why the coax MG is higher above the main gun than on today's Abrams.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom