M1 Abrams MBT Replacement

[Scott Kenny]

Far left/rear is an AMPV but one of the new ones,

I guess I have only seen the command version of the AMPV...

and middle is M10 Booker. Both are likely traced from promotional images. Nearest is probably a notional OMFV while the far right tank is probably OMT. The little vehicle between the right two I'd imagine is supposed to be RCV-L. That covers all the major armored vehicle programs more or less, though whether OMT is a serious program or just a video game is an open question, and OMFV might end up looking more Bradleyish than this imagines.

It's mostly the turret that I think looks weird, but the tall side armor looks bad..

The notional tiny tank/RCV-L looking thing is kinda goofy. It's like an M48 hull or something.

Yeah, that's a goofy thing. If/when the US buys some, I expect them to use a Bradley/OMFV turret on an M10 hull, unless it's supposed to carry a scout section inside.

But the OMT looks like a gigasized MBT-70.

Agreed, I think it's way too big for transport.

If anything, the OMT will be lighter than the MBT70, nevermind the Abrams.

 

[TomS]

Yeah, that's a goofy thing. If/when the US buys some, I expect them to use a Bradley/OMFV turret on an M10 hull, unless it's supposed to carry a scout section inside.

RCV-L (Light) is supposed to be <10 tons. You're describing something more like RCV+Heavy.

 

[Scott Kenny]

RCV-L (Light) is supposed to be <10 tons. You're describing something more like RCV+Heavy.

If they want something that light it won't be manned at all, it'll be one of those RipSaw tracked vehicles with a turret on it.

Maybe if the autodrivers get good enough we could have 2-3 RCV-Ls attached to each manned scout vehicle. Any of you remember the COMBAT story anthology that came out in about 2000? Short story in there by James Cobb called CAV, about a cavalry scout section in a US intervention in Mali. They had (wheeled) FCS-type vehicles, with one command truck and a pair of unmanned vehicles. Command truck had a scout team of 4 in the back, plus driver, commander, and EW/Ops wizard up front. Manned truck was mostly support, unmanned trucks were heavily armed for direct combat (remember that US cavalry units are expected to fight, not just sneak around and get information).

 

[TomS]

If they want something that light it won't be manned at all

RCV = Robotic Combat Vehicle, so....

 

[Kat Tsun]

I guess I have only seen the command version of the AMPV...

It looks about the same.

Agreed, I think it's way too big for transport.

If anything, the OMT will be lighter than the MBT70, nevermind the Abrams.

No, OMT is seeking the same 55-ton target as the MBT-70. Which is half the mass of the modern Abrams. Or it was. It's a bit opaque as to whether OMT is a real program or just merely a troop survey of what they might want in a potential future MBT. The obesity of modern M1s is why they have mobility more comparable to a Chieftain than a modern main battle tank.

 

[Scott Kenny]

View attachment 704041

It looks about the same.

Huh, don't remember having seen one from that angle. Argument withdrawn.

No, OMT is seeking the same 55-ton target as the MBT-70. Which is half the mass of the modern Abrams. Or it was. It's a bit opaque as to whether OMT is a real program or just merely a troop survey of what they might want in a potential future MBT.

It could be starting at the level of a troop survey before Big Army goes into requirements definition. I would hope that Big Army is planning at that level.

The obesity of modern M1s is why they have mobility more comparable to a Chieftain than a modern main battle tank.

And I bet is going to see just as much weight bloat as the Abrams has... 33% weight increase or so.

 

[Foo Fighter]

The obesity of modern M1s is why they have mobility more comparable to a Chieftain than a modern main battle tank.

That bad? Chieftain going up a moderate hill sounded like a dinosaur having it's tackle removed, sans anaeasthesia.

No, NOT fishing.......

 

[Scott Kenny]

That bad? Chieftain going up a moderate hill sounded like a dinosaur having it's tackle removed, sans anaeasthesia.

No, NOT fishing.......

"Wedding tackle" is the Ambulance Driver-ism I read.

And yes. The current Abrams is 84 tons or so. Heavier turret armor, Trophy is a ton and a half or two tons... But still only has 1500hp.

 

[Firefinder]

That bad? Chieftain going up a moderate hill sounded like a dinosaur having it's tackle removed, sans anaeasthesia.

No, NOT fishing.......

No its not that bad.

The M1A2 Septv3 maxs out at around 148,000 pounds, or 74 short tons (66 long tons or 67 metric tons), with all the toys and mine plow. It can still make over 40 mph off road with out 3 ton and change the plow, which only 1 in 12 get. And still little over 23 horsepower per ton. With only thing not upgrade in the drive train being the turbine.

Rarely goes over 35 mph off road due to multiple reasons. Like out running everyone else or the fact that going fast off road is painful as hell from all the bouncing and rocking.

 

[Kat Tsun]

And I bet is going to see just as much weight bloat as the Abrams has... 33% weight increase or so.

Try 100%.

An M1 in maximum weight configuration, which might be seen assaulting the sort of minefields in Ukraine right now if the U.S. Army were in there instead, has a sprocket horsepower:ton of around 11. Very similar to Chieftain. Could be worse could be M4 Sherman mobility, which would be M1 at 120-130 tons.

OMT probably will never exist. It seems to be dead. Whatever replaces the M1 will probably just be an M1 with the Advanced Combat Transmission, which buys back some mobility for very little effort, thus requiring no real attempt at reducing mass or armored volume.

No its not that bad.

The M1A2 Septv3 maxs out at around 148,000 pounds, or 74 short tons (66 long tons or 67 metric tons), with all the toys and mine plow.

Nah, it's way heavier than that at combat weight in that configuration. Maybe the M1A1(HA) was that light but it didn't have cool stuff.



The line stops at around 90 tons. That configuration where it stops specifically is for a mine clearing assault lead, like the kinds of tanks you saw company commanders rocking in Desert Storm TFs during the berm assault, but with better protection. The M1A2D is heavier because of the improved frontal armor, possibly touching triple digit tons.

 

[Firefinder]

Try 100%.

An M1 in maximum weight configuration, which might be seen assaulting the sort of minefields in Ukraine right now if the U.S. Army were in there instead, has a sprocket horsepower:ton of around 11. Very similar to Chieftain. Could be worse could be M4 Sherman mobility, which would be M1 at 120-130 tons.

OMT probably will never exist. It seems to be dead. Whatever replaces the M1 will probably just be an M1 with the Advanced Combat Transmission, which buys back some mobility for very little effort, thus requiring no real attempt at reducing mass or armored volume.



Nah, it's way heavier than that at combat weight in that configuration. Maybe the M1A1(HA) was that light but it didn't have cool stuff.

View attachment 704080

The line stops at around 90 tons. That configuration where it stops specifically is for a mine clearing assault lead, like the kinds of tanks you saw company commanders rocking in Desert Storm TFs during the berm assault, but with better protection. The M1A2D is heavier because of the improved frontal armor, possibly touching triple digit tons.

...

No.

Just no.

By all official and un official sources all put the M1A2 Sepv3 Abrams at less then 160k pounds with all the all the toys from ERA, Trophy and Mine Plows.

https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/abrams-main-battle-tank/

www.armyrecognition.com/united_states_army_heavy_armoured_vehicles_tank_uk/m1a2_abrams_sep_v3_main_battle_tank_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures_video_11710154.html

Which puts the Sprocket horsepower well over the 20 per ton mark.

 

[1635yankee]

One wonders how much more oomph they can get from the AGT-1500. Its non-recuperated brother, the PLT-27, was rated at about 2200 hp, with the same core but no variable geometry in the hot end and a different power turbine. There has been forty years of development in turbine materials, including coatings, so I suspect they can turn up the wick and pick up some power without major redesign.

 

[Foo Fighter]

OK, plenty of views either way, where are the official weight stats for the M1 variants and can we see one holistic and agreed set of numbers please?

Opinion is all well and good but this needs to be addressed. No Elephant but a huge pile of something.

 

[Elan Vital]

One wonders how much more oomph they can get from the AGT-1500. Its non-recuperated brother, the PLT-27, was rated at about 2200 hp, with the same core but no variable geometry in the hot end and a different power turbine. There has been forty years of development in turbine materials, including coatings, so I suspect they can turn up the wick and pick up some power without major redesign.

The AGT-1500A developped for and in parallel to the transversely mounted AGT-1500 could do 1700hp, 1800hp was considered for upgrades to the M1A2 in the 90s. Back in the late 70's this was considered the maximum for the engine, more might have been possible but I think 2200hp would require substantial enough changes that you basically get a new engine.

2200hp in the current M1 engine bay is absolutely doable for sure, in fact I believe studies showed this could be achieved with a smaller powerpack and the maximum power for the same size was even higher. The maximum potential was something like 45 hp/t gross.

That said it would be preferable, and easy to make a more compact and altogether more weight efficient vehicle nowadays. 120mm L55A1 level gun at slightly lower weight, lighter electronics and cabling, more compact powerpack even at say 2000hp, lighter suspension, much more efficient structure, autoloaded turret of reduced height ala Flachturm (if you still want something conventional), turret designed for use of APS so you don't need tons of counterweights anymore...You could easily get down to 60 metric tonnes or even 55 with better protection than the current M1 and the current max level 120mm armament.

The basic AIPS (diesel) already saved 7.3 tons out of a 60 ton M1 configuration alone at constant hp/ton and that was not even the expected maximum performance of future engines (9.8 ton weight reduction).

 

[Shusui]

The AGT-1500A developped for and in parallel to the transversely mounted AGT-1500 could do 1700hp, 1800hp was considered for upgrades to the M1A2 in the 90s. Back in the late 70's this was considered the maximum for the engine, more might have been possible but I think 2200hp would require substantial enough changes that you basically get a new engine.

2200hp in the current M1 engine bay is absolutely doable for sure, in fact I believe studies showed this could be achieved with a smaller powerpack and the maximum power for the same size was even higher. The maximum potential was something like 45 hp/t gross.

That said it would be preferable, and easy to make a more compact and altogether more weight efficient vehicle nowadays. 120mm L55A1 level gun at slightly lower weight, lighter electronics and cabling, more compact powerpack even at say 2000hp, lighter suspension, much more efficient structure, autoloaded turret of reduced height ala Flachturm (if you still want something conventional), turret designed for use of APS so you don't need tons of counterweights anymore...You could easily get down to 60 metric tonnes or even 55 with better protection than the current M1 and the current max level 120mm armament.

The basic AIPS (diesel) already saved 7.3 tons out of a 60 ton M1 configuration alone at constant hp/ton and that was not even the expected maximum performance of future engines (9.8 ton weight reduction).

The Abrams will likely not receive an L/55 of any kind, that would be absurd. The XM360 was developed already, and the M256 in the tank already has been rated for higher chamber pressures. They don't need the L/55 at all, and trying to install it would require similar modifications to the recoiling system and such. There's a reason they didn't just stick a standard L/44 in there, it sucks.

 

[scrubhead]

TLDR: The SEPV4 / D is not getting armor upgrades as part of its package, it inherits SEPV3's armor which isn't that heavy. M1A2 SEPv4's arent going to be high 90's low 100's tons. Sepv3/4 weighs around only 80.1 American tons in it's heaviest 'combat configuration' without mine rollers but with FP ( Flank Protection, TUSK? ) and APS ( Trophy ). It is not pushing 100 tonnes. Converted its around 160200 pounds / 72665 kg/ 72.6 tonnes. With mine-rollers this jumps to 90.9 American tons or 181800 pounds / 82463 kg / 82.46 tonnes, so still not pushing 100 at all. The upgrade package of SEPV4 does not focus on improving survivability but lethality.

---

M1 Weight Growth:

Spoiler: Weight Stuff

M1 Abrams series weight growth, from Ronkainen on twitter from some army presentation. Pretty crunchy pic quality and grey I think says mine roller ( 10.8 (American) tons ). Notice that the SEPV3 and 4 are the same weight. SEPV4 is not getting a new armor package, it's keeping the same package of SEPV3. Survivability is not a focus point for V4.


Another one dealing with the weight growth from XM-1 to the M1A2. From Historic Weight Growth of US Combat Vehicles. It seems to match alright with Ronkainens, but the numbers are off by 400-2000 pounds when converting and comparing. The M1 in Ronkainens chart however seems to be in reality an M1 IPM.

---

SEPV4 Stuff

Spoiler: Sepv4 Stuff

The SEPV4 is not getting further improved armor over the SEPV3. The 'recent' 3d model SEPV4 ( that isn't posted here ) from GDLS posted by Ronkainen just has a weirdly modeled LFP that if you've seen it that makes it look like they thickened it up, they didn't. SEPV4 upgrades are for improved lethality and mostly not survivability.

Upgrades include improved FCS like ICITV for commander or the IntelliSense Ballistic Meteorological Sensor meant to replace the current J-Tec crosswind sensor, Datalink to interact with AMP ( + already fielded (?) M829A4 for speculated Datalink enabled precursor projectile for defeating ERA and APS ) and confirmed from the 'leaked' photos of an actual SEPV4 almost a year back from around october an/vvr 4 LWR's on all four turret corners.

The following is from Abrams M1A2 System Enhancement Package version 4 (SEPv4) Tank. This file is from maybe at-least 2021 as another file I have relating to this subject is dated FY2020 and mentions different dates ( Q1FY25 for the fielding of SEPV4 ) and does not mention the LWR upgrade.

"The Abrams M1A2 SEPv4 is an upgrade to the Abrams M1A2 SEPv3 to improve lethality. The Army intends to begin fielding the Abrams M1A2 SEPv4 in 3QFY28. The upgrades include:

• An improved gunner’s primary sight (GPS) with 3rd Generation Forward Looking Infrared (3GEN FLIR), an improved laser range finder (LRF), and color day camera
• An improved Commander’s Primary Sight with 3GEN FLIR, a LRF with laser pointer, and color day camera
• Improved lethality by providing the ability for the fire control system to digitally communicate with the new M1147 Advanced Multi-Purpose round
• Improved firing accuracy through the installation of a meteorological sensor
• Improved onboard diagnostics
• Improved thermal management system
• Improved laser warning receiver system"

They do not mention improved frontal armor for the SEPV4 / D, they're not doing this. And if you're referring to the improved armor on SEPV3 that SEPV4 inherits ( that thickens both the hull and turret ), as shown on the chart, it's not that heavy, recent M1's are not punching into the high 90s low 100s. The heaviest M1 on Ronkainens chart is an M1A2 SEP v3/4 with mine rollers, APS ( Trophy ) and FP ( Flank Protection, TUSK? ) coming in at 90.9 tons. If the weight shown is in American tons ( it probably is), its around 'only' 181800 pounds / 82463 kg/ 82 tonnes, not in the low 100's high 90's of short tons or tonnes. Without mine-rollers this jumps down to 80.1 American / short tons or around 160200 pounds / 72000 kg/ 72.6 tonnes.

Lastly, OMT isn't dead. Why would they stop their next gen mbt program when they're literally actively working on it and "ZTZ2020" is also in development and seemingly far closer to production. There is a unclassified report / Assessment( An Independent Assessment of the Next Generation Armor/Anti-Armor Strategy Phase 1: 5th Generation Combat Vehicle Concept and Analysis ) from 2020 that discusses the 5th generation tank and it's long and in-depth. More than that too, an unmanned turret project called LCAS seemingly for the Abrams recently popped up around a year ago in a public September 20, 2022 presentation that can be found on DTIC ( Tues_Grassano PDF ). While it only popped up and nothing besides the name is known and that it might be related to congressman Tim Ryan, its still further proof they're still working on concepts and testing things out for OMT, future tanks and M1 variants in general. OMT is also supposed to come in around the mid 2030's ( from what I remember reading about ) and it's a classified program, of course its going to seem dead. It's only in it's early formation and alot of the development is either testing concepts online in VBS or some other program or working out and thinking of concepts.

P.S: M1A1 -> M1A2 SEPV3 Abrams turret weights. SEPV4 should be around the same as SEPV3 because no new armor package or upgrade:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1384132199402795019

View: https://twitter.com/sksslrkalqek/status/1384132199402795019?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1384132199402795019%7Ctwgr%5E41c75592cd0e7b7ab5b30e875966ba77457d4e2e%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fsturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fsksslrkalqek%2Fstatus%2F1384132199402795019

 

[Elan Vital]

Damn 2028 for SEP v4 deployment? Kinda late for an at-least pre 2021 project which changes the electronics with stuff that already exists.

There's a reason they didn't just stick a standard L/44 in there, it sucks.

@Shusui What are you talking about? L44 and M256 are identical in terms of pressure specs, the Americans just bothered to recalculate maximum pressure when they were testing M829E3 or E4 so it was found the gun could handle this, but no technical upgrades were made to improve the gun for higher pressure. Germany didn't use it because they were not interested in certifying ultra high pressure ammo on the basic L44. They either just use L55A1, or L44A1 which was built with higher pressure in mind thanks to new steels.

They don't need the L/55 at all, and trying to install it would require similar modifications to the recoiling system and such.

Same goes for XM360. Considering the Europeans are trying to cram maximum performance out of the 120mm system both in terms of ammo and gun, I highly doubt the Americans really can do with just the former.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Damn 2028 for SEP v4 deployment? Kinda late for an at-least pre 2021 project which changes the electronics with stuff that already exists.

Government contracting timelines. Gotta loathe them.

 

[Elan Vital]

Government contracting timelines. Gotta loathe them.

I was already baffled at the schedule for Challenger 3, but this...

 

[Scott Kenny]

Same goes for XM360. Considering the Europeans are trying to cram maximum performance out of the 120mm system both in terms of ammo and gun, I highly doubt the Americans really can do with just the former.

The M829A4 has a significantly heavier dart with a lighter composite sabot. Result is lots more energy in the dart. DU seems to have a preferred impact velocity of about 1500m/s.

I was already baffled at the schedule for Challenger 3, but this...

A lot of that is legal requirements. Proposal has 90 days for comment, 90 days or so for analysis, reproposal has another 90 days for comment...

 

[Kat Tsun]

By all official (...) sources all put the M1A2 Sepv3 Abrams at

Nearly 100 tons.



Someone posted this on Twitter a while ago and hasn't been arrested so I think it's safe.

This is a pretty official mass weighing of the M1A2 SEPv3 by the U.S. Army. There are a few other weight charts like this for the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2. It was what was used in the MLC rating study I took the line chart from, but these are from the actual data used for the study, which are from the U.S. Army for comparison of domestic and foreign main battle tanks and their mobilities.

TLDR: The SEPV4 / D is not getting armor upgrades as part of its package, it inherits SEPV3's armor which isn't that heavy. M1A2 SEPv4's arent going to be high 90's low 100's tons. Sepv3/4 weighs around only 80.1 American tons in it's heaviest 'combat configuration' without mine rollers but with FP ( Flank Protection, TUSK? ) and APS ( Trophy ). It is not pushing 100 tonnes. Converted its around 160200 pounds / 72665 kg/ 72.6 tonnes. With mine-rollers this jumps to 90.9 American tons or 181800 pounds / 82463 kg / 82.46 tonnes, so still not pushing 100 at all. The upgrade package of SEPV4 does not focus on improving survivability but lethality.

I said tons, not tonnes.

I imagine it varies based on how much paint the tank has, but probably between 90-93 tons, in the maximal fighting configuration.

And yes, "without the mine rollers" the M1A2 SEPv3 is "only" 80-82 tons. Unfortunately, the main obstacle in Ukraine's counteroffensive is minefields, their ubiquity, and the process of breaching them. Which means the 90-93 ton weight is an extremely realistic possibility for future U.S. wars.



If this is true, why did the M1A2D have such massive weight simulators on the front of the hull and the turret? M1A2D doesn't have a new caliber gun, or more ammunition than the SEPv3, after all.

edit: That might actually be a SEPv3 testing the APS.





The v4 seems to have some altered front turret geometry, though. It looks longer, by at least a few inches, than the v3's turret, unless that's a trick of light or the angle of the turret making it seem that way.

Regardless, point is it's gotten quite far from the original "ideal" weight of 55 tons. Tons, without the e, obviously.

 

[Elan Vital]

Trophy requires very heavy front ballasts, which were installed as big slabs later:

Technically counts as addon armor...

 

[Firefinder]

Nearly 100 tons.

Someone posted this on Twitter a while ago and hasn't been arrested so I think it's safe.

This is a pretty official mass weighing of the M1A2 SEPv3 by the U.S. Army. There are a few other weight charts like this for the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2. It was what was used in the MLC rating study I took the line chart from, but these are from the actual data used for the study, which are from the U.S. Army for comparison of domestic and foreign main battle tanks and their mobilities

And none of that is support by newest TM 9-2350-255-10-3 M1 ABRAMS TANK Operator's Manual.

AKA the manaul that the crew uses to keep track of all the tanks specs, PMCS, order spare parts and how do X deals.

And you can easily download that by googling it cause it doesn't show anything people dont already know like the armor bits. Will need to fight the site to get you the newest 2022 edition.

This is the official no shit actual deal with the M1 specs that everyone uses to plan for everything so its the LAW.

 

[Kat Tsun]

And none of that is support by newest TM 9-2350-255-10-3 M1 ABRAMS TANK Operator's Manual.

AKA the manaul that the crew uses to keep track of all the tanks specs, PMCS, order spare parts and how do X deals.

And you can easily download that by googling it cause it doesn't show anything people dont already know like the armor bits. Will need to fight the site to get you the newest 2022 edition.

This is the official no shit actual deal with the M1 specs that everyone uses to plan for everything so its the LAW.

If it isn't sensitive, then post a snippet showing the weights, instead of claiming it's there?

Only caveat is it needs to be showing the mass in short tons, though. I've posted two images from U.S. Army funded studies showing the weight increase in tonnage over time, specifically short tons, as the original M1 was specified as a 55-ton tank and has since grown to nearly double this. One from a study of MLC calculations (and a new method of calculating them) and another from a chart of MLC rates of American and foreign tanks.

The second chart was originally(?) posted by Jon Hawkes on Twitter in a discussion about the weight of APS systems.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1454014028704014338

View: https://twitter.com/JonHawkes275/status/1454014028704014338

I'm pretty sure these numbers come from TRADOC, but they're probably just a single vehicle, rather than an average. The second number is from this study, and it's a bit more vague, but I'm always a tad leery of posting hard numbers on this sort of stuff until I see it released on Twitter.

Trophy requires very heavy front ballasts, which were installed as big slabs later:
View attachment 704105
Technically counts as addon armor...

Oh, I see. Okay, so SEPv3 is the armor improvement and SEPv4 is the ADL and associated fire control equipment? Unless there is a improved breech or something in there? So yeah then v4 isn't going to be much heavier than that chart, which is good, because it means there are essentially hard numbers on his mass.

He's big.

Perhaps this means SEPv5 (if it ever happens) will be Advanced Combat Transmission (or something similar) to replace the X1100. Buys back mobility without needing to go whole hog into something like AbramsX or whatever.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I think the Trophy installation highlights a need for a redesigned turret like on that Abrams technology demonstrator if not just to incorporate APS gear cleanly without needing ballast like that. Aside from OMT which seems to be going nowhere fast the Army should really be looking at a major upgrade along the lines of that tech demonstrator. It would definitely bring the weight down.

I'm sure M829A4 fired from the current M256 is a very potent APFSDS round but an improved longer 120mm gun or maybe even the Rhinemetall 130mm would probably be worthwhile as future insurance.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Trophy highlights the need for a better APS that isn't Trophy more than anything IMO. It's a particularly volume intensive design because of the internal magazine. Something like AWISS or LEDS 150 would be better but these are both long dead.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I think the Trophy installation highlights a need for a redesigned turret like on that Abrams technology demonstrator if not just to incorporate APS gear cleanly without needing ballast like that. Aside from OMT which seems to be going nowhere fast the Army should really be looking at a major upgrade along the lines of that tech demonstrator. It would definitely bring the weight down.

I'm sure M829A4 fired from the current M256 is a very potent APFSDS round but an improved longer 120mm gun or maybe even the Rhinemetall 130mm would probably be worthwhile as future insurance.

My thought about the weights needed for Trophy would be to add an equivalent to Shtora to the turret front, and more smoke launchers. You will need more smoke launchers to hold chaff. I expect that a tank decoy would need to fit into a 76mm or 81mm launcher.

You need weight there for balance, use that need to add something other than just 4+" of steel plate!

 

[Elan Vital]

Yep, Trophy is better than nothing but it has far too many drawbacks to be the only APS in service in NATO for more than a few years.

I'm actually surprised neither V3 nor V4 have revised final drive ratios to reduce top speed to like 61 or 59kph but improve acceleration like the Leopard 2A7V did. As long as they refuse to upgrade the engine+transmission themselves that's an easy alternative and neither tank goes much faster than that in practice.

I do think SEP v5 should be a very big upgrade considering when it will be fielded. IMO electric turret drives and a hydropneumatic suspension to handle the weight and improve performance and reliability in these two areas (and save some weight and bulk) and the XM360 as a firepower upgrade would be pretty reasonable yet useful. Esp considering that the M829A3/A4 achieve their performance in part by accepting very low barrel life in the M256 compared to DM63/73 in the L55.

 

[njiiaf]

Nearly 100 tons.

View attachment 704100

Someone posted this on Twitter a while ago and hasn't been arrested so I think it's safe.

This is a pretty official mass weighing of the M1A2 SEPv3 by the U.S. Army. There are a few other weight charts like this for the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2. It was what was used in the MLC rating study I took the line chart from, but these are from the actual data used for the study, which are from the U.S. Army for comparison of domestic and foreign main battle tanks and their mobilities.



I said tons, not tonnes.

I imagine it varies based on how much paint the tank has, but probably between 90-93 tons, in the maximal fighting configuration.

And yes, "without the mine rollers" the M1A2 SEPv3 is "only" 80-82 tons. Unfortunately, the main obstacle in Ukraine's counteroffensive is minefields, their ubiquity, and the process of breaching them. Which means the 90-93 ton weight is an extremely realistic possibility for future U.S. wars.

View attachment 704104

If this is true, why did the M1A2D have such massive weight simulators on the front of the hull and the turret? M1A2D doesn't have a new caliber gun, or more ammunition than the SEPv3, after all.

edit: That might actually be a SEPv3 testing the APS.

View attachment 704106

View attachment 704107

The v4 seems to have some altered front turret geometry, though. It looks longer, by at least a few inches, than the v3's turret, unless that's a trick of light or the angle of the turret making it seem that way.

Regardless, point is it's gotten quite far from the original "ideal" weight of 55 tons. Tons, without the e, obviously.

The bottom most picture you posted isn't really a SEPv3, it was a SEPv2 with the name emblazoned on it from when the SEPv3 was first announced. The actual production SEPv3s have the same altered turret geometry as in the SEPv4 photo.
V2 top, and V3 bottom

 

[Scott Kenny]

The bottom most picture you posted isn't really a SEPv3, it was a SEPv2 with the name emblazoned on it from when the SEPv3 was first announced. The actual production SEPv3s have the same altered turret geometry as in the SEPv4 photo.
V2 top, and V3 bottom
View attachment 704108

Based on the mounting bracket angle (or lack thereof), it looks like the turret face is wider so the cheeks are closer to parallel...

 

[yeetmahboi]

Do anyone have a timeline of DLP/OMT/ whatever the Abrams replacement is called? Given that the US Army just bought M10 Booker, fast-tracking XM30 MICV it seems a SEPv5 or even a M1A3 is going to be close (early 2030s perhaps). Seems to be the right time to solve out the politics, maturing some parts, buy some COTS, consolidating several R&D efforts ie Lockheed MAPS.

 

[Shusui]

Trophy requires very heavy front ballasts, which were installed as big slabs later:
View attachment 704105
Technically counts as addon armor...

The ballasts were no longer required after they retrofit SEPV2 with the new turret drives from the SEPV3+

Nearly 100 tons.

View attachment 704100

Someone posted this on Twitter a while ago and hasn't been arrested so I think it's safe.

This is a pretty official mass weighing of the M1A2 SEPv3 by the U.S. Army. There are a few other weight charts like this for the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2. It was what was used in the MLC rating study I took the line chart from, but these are from the actual data used for the study, which are from the U.S. Army for comparison of domestic and foreign main battle tanks and their mobilities.



I said tons, not tonnes.

I imagine it varies based on how much paint the tank has, but probably between 90-93 tons, in the maximal fighting configuration.

And yes, "without the mine rollers" the M1A2 SEPv3 is "only" 80-82 tons. Unfortunately, the main obstacle in Ukraine's counteroffensive is minefields, their ubiquity, and the process of breaching them. Which means the 90-93 ton weight is an extremely realistic possibility for future U.S. wars.

View attachment 704104

If this is true, why did the M1A2D have such massive weight simulators on the front of the hull and the turret? M1A2D doesn't have a new caliber gun, or more ammunition than the SEPv3, after all.

edit: That might actually be a SEPv3 testing the APS.

View attachment 704106

View attachment 704107

The v4 seems to have some altered front turret geometry, though. It looks longer, by at least a few inches, than the v3's turret, unless that's a trick of light or the angle of the turret making it seem that way.

Regardless, point is it's gotten quite far from the original "ideal" weight of 55 tons. Tons, without the e, obviously.

That's not a proper "SEPV3", rather a SEPV2 w/ all the harness and electronics swapped for the new stuff in the V3.

The V3+ has the chiseled flat parts either side of the breech whereas earlier models have a sharp angle up to the breech.

The big slabs on that testing model are to account for the ballasts which eventually weren't needed due to the aforementioned turret drive upgrade. iirc Trophy is only like 5000 extra pounds with the slabs tho

Do anyone have a timeline of DLP/OMT/ whatever the Abrams replacement is called? Given that the US Army just bought M10 Booker, fast-tracking XM30 MICV it seems a SEPv5 or even a M1A3 is going to be close (early 2030s perhaps). Seems to be the right time to solve out the politics, maturing some parts, buy some COTS, consolidating several R&D efforts ie Lockheed MAPS.

They expect something by 2050, pending review of what they require from an MBT some time after 2036.

 

[Scott Kenny]

They expect something by 2050, pending review of what they require from an MBT some time after 2036.

We're seriously running the Abrams for 70 years? lolwut?

 

[Kat Tsun]

We're seriously running the Abrams for 70 years? lolwut?

You could probably run it for more than a century without too much issue in all seriousness. Technology follows a logistic curve and tanks are a solved problem by the 1980's, at least until an entirely new tank appears. Maybe. FWIW the M109A7 has an engine nearly a century old and the T-90M uses an engine of similar vintage, and I suspect they will both be in use in 15 years or so for the V-2 block and Series 71 to hit 100.

 

[Scott Kenny]

You could probably run it for more than a century without too much issue in all seriousness. Technology follows a logistic curve and tanks are a solved problem by the 1980's, at least until an entirely new tank appears. Maybe. FWIW the M109A7 has an engine nearly a century old and the T-90M uses an engine of similar vintage, and I suspect they will both be in use in 15 years or so for the V-2 block and Series 71 to hit 100.

Nope, M109A7 uses a Cummins, not a Detroit 71. Was re-engined to use the same engine as the Bradleys.

 

[bobbymike]

Don’t want to start an endless “what if” speculation thread but given current combined operational concepts what would be, if you could snap your fingers today, the top three or five changes to an MBT that would offer significant warfighting overmatch on today’s battlefield?

Emphasis on significant.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Don’t want to start an endless “what if” speculation thread but given current combined operational concepts what would be, if you could snap your fingers today, the top three or five changes to an MBT that would offer significant warfighting overmatch info today’s battlefield?

Emphasis on significant.

• Multiple integrated APS both soft and hard kill,
• "transparent armor" whether through big screens or Helmet Mounted Display,
• some kind of small DEW drone-smoker whether laser or microwave, and
• serious datalink capabilities so that Tank A can tell Tank B that there's a drone about ready to pop over the house next to them and see them or whatever. Even better if the datalinks can let infantry talk to the tanks.

Better protection and situational awareness. That's for a refit to existing vehicles.

For an actual follow-on tank, I'm thinging about something in the 40-55 tonne weight class with all the extras already included. Tank and IFV to use the same chassis because they have the same armor protection needs.

 

[Ainen]

Tank and IFV to use the same chassis because they have the same armor protection needs.

That's a trap.
it's impossible to provide same protection to similar vehicles sized for 3, 4, 9 and 12 people.
Furthermore, to increase the number of heavy chassis within unit by a factor of 3 (and the weight of the unit by almost same number) is an enormous logistical, support and mobility concern.

Massed heavy chassis IMHO works only for dedicated assault units, intended to work only in simpler hard terrains. Many of which don't really benefit or need IFV in the first place*.

Otherwise, availability(all sorts of it, from strategic/operation mobility - to being able to come to that hill with weak soils - to mechanical availability) will outweigh any benefits.

*strictly speaking, heavy APC seems to be far more useful than a heavy IFV.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That's a trap.
it's impossible to provide same protection to similar vehicles sized for 3, 4, 9 and 12 people.
Furthermore, to increase the number of heavy chassis within unit by a factor of 3 (and the weight of the unit by almost same number) is an enormous logistical, support and mobility concern.

Massed heavy chassis IMHO works only for dedicated assault units, intended to work only in simpler hard terrains. Many of which don't really benefit or need IFV in the first place*.

Otherwise, availability(all sorts of it, from strategic/operation mobility - to being able to come to that hill with weak soils - to mechanical availability) will outweigh any benefits.

*strictly speaking, heavy APC seems to be far more useful than a heavy IFV.

Same frontal armor protection

 

[Shusui]

We're seriously running the Abrams for 70 years? lolwut?

Modern military equipment with modular design makes it much easier to continue using things as technology evolves... unless that technology is unable to be retrofit or combined with the current modular platform base.

Examples such as tank armor, evolving from just hardened steel to spaced armor, composites, and now fully welded high hardness homogenous plates with modular blocks underneath. The guns similarly, retrofit-able into these turrets with fewer modifications than previously as the turret was designed separate the guns but with the concept that more than one might be fit in its' service life.

The only reason they are considering changes now is because of the concept of a remotely manned vehicle, or partially manned vehicle where certain parts (in this case, turret) can be remotely operated. This obviously is easier to do and implement into a newer vehicle or design, and eases maintenance / logistics than retrofitting such a idea to an existing design.

Don’t want to start an endless “what if” speculation thread but given current combined operational concepts what would be, if you could snap your fingers today, the top three or five changes to an MBT that would offer significant warfighting overmatch on today’s battlefield?

Emphasis on significant.

Anything that improves:
Cost
Protection
Lethality
Situational Awareness
Logistics

In reverse order, without sacrificing aspects of any. You'd have to look at technologies that enhance each aspect without crossing a "line" in others. For example, the MAUS at the time offered significant protection and lethality but massively increased cost / logistics. Situational awareness did not really change in regards to other German offerings at the time. This could lead towards an interesting discussion.