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.
1 Like
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.
I hope it will get that 1500hp 6TD-F in future
1 Like
Gotta be honest its kinda meh for me, i prefer the old chassis design personally but the covering of the turret ring gap gives me T series Vibes but it definitely fits the turret armor way more.
judging from the hull, driver camera, no more funny 3.5 inches windshield wipers
big L
2 Likes
Do we know what it’s got mounted in the loaders position?
It’s got an M2 / 240 + FGM-148 on the CROWS.
Belt feed makes me think M230LF, but I’m not sure, as the Abrams-X’s installation looked a little different.
Seems to be an unmanned turret given the lack of periscopes/hatches. Slightly strange that the turret is still so large and presumably quite heavy for being a (presumably) unmanned design.
It’s also riding strangely low on it’s suspension.
Also strange to see the ATGM on top.
Not so much, as the CROWS-J was already developed for the Stryker. And there is growth potential with the Javelin’s CLU, being intended to be able to be swapped out for the NGSRI (Next Generation Short Range interceptor).
And there is the potential to further extend compatibility to the CLT(Common Launch Tube), which would provide access to most of the powered Air Launched Effector (e.g. AGM-176) Developments. It also gives commonality with H-AT teams in the interim so it’s basically free logistically.
They maintained the original Abram look :D. And it has CROWS-J i think which is awesome
Would turret ring still be a problem?
Somewhat, but the Glacis has been re-sloped quite a bit as can be seen in the third image.
I’m assuming unmanned turret here, in which case: Who’s going to reload the Javelin?
I’m aware of it being used on different platforms, but in those cases they are accessible by the crew. If there is an autoloading mechanism for the Javelin, then that might be a bit of a waste of interior volume given the presence of the 120mm?
Javelins are often found on vehicles which otherwise would not have a (or have limited) means of defeating armoured threats, the Abrams clearly has this need satisfied with the 120 already.