Few photos og M1E3 prototype was just released. What do you guys think about it?
2 Likes
I highly doubt this is any indication of what the M1A3 will look like.
I’m guessing they simply applied select technology that will be adopted to the M1A3 onto an existing M1A1 for testing purposes.
The M1E3 program seems centered around significant weight reductions, which isn’t surprising as that has been a major point of contention for a while now (few excerpts about that below). I’d be surprised if the original turret shape remains intact on the eventual finalized vehicle.
Spoiler
‘‘The Abrams tank was designed to defeat a 1970’s and 1980’s era threat, and it cannot survive against the more powerful conventional and smart munitions fielded by many nations. […] The Abrams’ physical size and configuration limit the ability to manage the system’s signatures. […] At nearly 70 tons, only a few national strategic assets can be used to rapidly deploy and Abrams force. The accompanying Abrams logistical infrastructure significantly hampers any force reployment […] The weight of the Abrams constrains its mobility. The tank cannot move quickly across all terrain types. Lesser-developed countries have many bridges and tunnels that cannot handle the Abrams’ weight or size.‘’
‘‘Tank Modernization Plan’’
1996
Spoiler
[…] It concluded the “M1A2 SEPv3 CANNOT achieve transportability approval at this time.” The statement reviewed the capabilities and limitations encountered when transporting the M1A2 SEPv3. It indicated the vehicle at combat weight (73.59 tons) or with kits installed was beyond the capability of the HET and the Heavy Assault Bridge (HAB). However, “a small number of the United Kingdom HETs are leased to move M1A2 SEPv2 tanks in NATO countries.”
The Transportability Statement also delineated how the sustainability requirements for the recoverability of the M1A2 SEPv3 were not met. When the platform was combat configured, it exceeded the tow limit of the current M88A2 Hercules, and testing demonstrated that two tow vehicles were required to recover an 80-ton MBT. Further, all combat configurations of the M1A2 SEPv3 exceeded the M88A2 70-ton capability. […] The risk assessment revealed none of the various options provided sufficient weight reduction to permit C-17 transport. […] Several options were available to reduce the weight of the M1A2 SEPv3 to make it compatible with the U.S. HET. All options were costly, raising the question as to whether the funds are better spent on reducing the M1A2 SEPv3 weight or allocated to some other project, such as maturing technologies applicable to the next-generation combat vehicle. […]
‘‘An Independent Assessment of the Next Generation Armor/Anti-Armor Strategy’’
2019
Spoiler
Given threat assessments and difficulty of integrating emerging technologies, the M1 is reaching the end of life. Over the time of the study, briefings by the technology community universally held that much of the M1’s technology is reaching obsolescence. It is expected that some new and maturing technology can and should be applied to the M1 series. However, it is doubtful that the full benefit of this technology can be gained by retrofitting a 1980s MBT any more than it can be expected that new technology will maximally improve a 1980s commercial vehicle. […] M1 survivability is also in question. Contemporary conflict exposes vulnerabilities and adversary R&D and adversary energetics, ATGM, and main gun R&D investments are robust, exacerbating battlefield risk over time. In particular, the M1 is vulnerable to top attack. Many current and future ATGMs, armed UAVs, loitering munitions, top attack submunitions and long-range fires
from both Russia and China have this capability. […] At 70 to 80 tons in its various models, the M1 has serious strategic, operational, and tactical mobility
and sustainment issues. The M1 constrains air, sea, and land transport options and ports of debarkation in key regions. Weight limits the use of many rail cars as well as which bridges and roadbeds can be used. Weight also impacts fuel consumption, power to weight ratios, and increases maintenance demand. Moreover, logistically intensive units, such as the current ABCT, demands multiple refueling and rearming operations, as many as three per day. On an increasingly transparent battlefield, this logistics intensity can create vulnerabilities to the formations employing the M1, as the units that deliver sustainment dependence on fixed infrastructure creates predictability than can be interdicted. The enemy can limit armored operations by fighting the less survivable sustainment system, rather than directly engaging the armored formation. […]
‘‘An Independent Assessment of the 2040 Battlefield and its Implications for the 5th Generation Combat Vehicle’’
2020
laser death ray
Other than weight, was there other issues the Abrams was plagued with?
Honestly, I was kinda hoping for something more spectacular lol
2 Likes
The E3 is most likely going to incorporate a lot from the AbramsX. The thickened UFP suggests crew being moved to the hull, which means the turret armor would likely be heavily reduced in favor of hull armor.
Depends on what you define as ‘‘issues’’.
These are just my interpretations:
There are points of concern regarding top attack vulnerability, especially with the bustle rack, possible solutions might include unmanned or minimally manned turrets.
There are also potential interests in autoloaders so that the fourth crew member can be done away with. The presence of a loader requires a significantly larger volume of the vehicle than it would otherwise, which in turn adds weight.
I could see them having interests in replacing the turbine engine, despite it’s many improvements over the years, it’s still an old engine.
It’s stated that portions of the cancelled the SEP v4 will make it onto the M1A3, so I’m guessing improvements in various (relatively) minors things too.
They’ve got a few different gun systems laying around that could be used instead of the M256. Similar to the L7 in the '80s they were at the limit of what the gun was capable of, I get the sense they’re close to that limit with the M256 right now too.
I don’t necessarily think it has to involve a new calibre (130, 135, 140) as they’ve shown previous interests in, but seemed hesitant due to added logistics burden of an entirely new calibre and reduction in number of rounds carried inside the vehicle. It also depends if they predict peer adversaries of developing significant improvements in armour protection in the near future (mostly looking at China I’d guess).
2 Likes
I think they will change turret later. Two hatches on hull means that crew moved there, so no reason to keep big 3 crew turret.
The only things that jump out as interesting are the square box on the turret next to the mantlet, and the changed UFP. We can tell this is the front, as it has lights and driver thermal optics integrated into the armor. More hatches (they look thick as hell) points to crew outside the turret. No idea what the box on the turret next to the gun mantlet means or does, probably a test sensor or something.
I don’t tend to give much credence to random news websites, if this comes from a primary source directly, then I’ll take it, otherwise not so much.
Defense express and TWZ posted about it
I think it could use some more angles on it.
Not really, the M256 is still only an L/44 gun, little would stop them (outside the added weight) from picking up the M256E1 (see passed suggestion here) for a boost to the gun if it was actually warranted, which I don’t really think it is with the oncoming suite of ADL rounds (MRM(GL-ATGM), AMP & AKE(829A4)).
Though I do think they are more likely to nab the Meggitt developed autoloader, and XM360 120mm lightweight gun to drop as much weight as they can for the turret.
Well they might but i hope not. The turret looks cool
Given that the crew is supposedly in the hull, the turret shape and all that Abrams shares and is distinguishable from any other vehicle can be completely scrapped and remade into a more functional design instead of an aesthetic design. Just like most other modern next-generation main battle tanks design with the crew compartment entirely on the hull while all the firing systems in the turret, I am expecting at least enough protection to sustain 30 or 57 mm projectiles.
I personally believe that most of it’s outside is just for looks, when it become an active production vehicle, all that futuristic-looking paraphernalia will be replaced by more robust parts to sustain active combat scenario, speaking specifically about the headlights and exposed sensors in the turret, there are very few vehicles with these systems in service today and even fewer in active combat (i.e. Merkava and T-90), I do sound skeptical because the M10 Booker is a recent example of the most powerful army in the world in both terms of power and money to not be able to put in service a more modern tank support vehicle.
That’s… What I said.