Does this prototype still uses gas turbine?
I don’t think so. AFAIK they are planning to use different engine
According to The Chieftain
“A bespoke turret is being made with everything incorporated from the beginning instead of added on like the current tank, but that gets integrated after they know for sure what they need from testing. This vehicle has the turbine engine, other test vehicles are running the automotive trials on the Cat. Eventually everything will be put together, but that time is not now.”
https://x.com/chieftain_armor/status/2011503763262153039?s=46
1 Like
Exactly, and with this external change to the hull even if Gaijin doesn’t do anything about existing reports impacting the internal modules or amour it should be much harder to penetrate frontally, since it effectively extends the 83 degree UFP to cover the majority of the “shot trap” only issue might be a slight reduction to the maximum declanation of the gun.
We already know quite a bit about the M1111 Mid-Range Munition program, there are two variants, a KE penetrator and a HEAT warhead.
The current M256 gun barrels have only about a 2000 round service life, and M829A3 “war shot” counts for something like a 4~5 round equivalent, off the life of the gun-tube. So there is a difference between can it do it, and can it do it for long?
1 Like
do you think they will get a new gun for the production M1E3?
No way to really tell, if they are trying to go lightweight there is the XM360, of they wanted better performance the M256E1 to go to a L/55 form factor. They are already confirmed to be moving to a 3 crew tank, but the loader station will remain as a manual backup.
It really depends on what the production turret looks like since I could see both options being viable.
2 Likes
Alr now im on my computer so i can add to this point
next issue
frontal driver armor also missing volumetric. ^
Turret basket issue
3 Likes
This requires a brand new tank hull and turret as reducing the turret ring is what’s required for reducing mass.
See: Type 90. A tank whose turret ring was designed for 3 turret crew, and the mass stays the same due to that.
That is why autoloaders for Abrams are denied. No weight savings for a mechanical part that isn’t proven.
So are they going to use autoloader or not?
If they reduce the turret ring, yes, otherwise probably not.
Hull does look new so maybe they also changed the turret ring
Are you referring to the M1E3 not having an autoloader?
Looks like mk19 to me. Would function similarly as they have PF ammunition for it
It is a Mk19, but nothing on that turret is final. It was most likely mocked up that way for the demo.
I don’t think there is a HE-VT shell available for the Mk. 19 yet, and as Grenade Rife systems are moving towards different calibers I feel that it’s unlikely one would be developed at this point.
M1001 HVCC Canister, flechette should still be a serviceable option for achieving a hard-kill smaller drones, and is potentially more resistant against swarm tactics since an active fuse would have issues with debris, and a passive fuse needs sensors to track targets.
Though the tradeoff would be effective range and penetration.
The turret in the picture is a placeholder as far as I have heard. Rn its just a reconfigured M1A1 turret just to have a complete tank without having to design a new turret that will likely get scrapped either way.
Very likely coming.
Confirmed to be coming.
That makes absolutely no sense.
So a M1A2 SEP v3 without a turret mounted weighs the same as a complete SEP v3 simply because the turret ring diametre is identical?
A lighter turret can be assembled because it won’t require as much internal volume due to there not having to be any room for crewmembers, which’ll be primarily seated in the hull now.
M1E3 uses an autoloader.
Autoloaders were previously not a weight saver because they had no intention of changing the turret shape.
That reasoning no longer applies because they’ll be changing the turret shape significantly.
But even then, autoloaders were still seen as having the benefit of offering faster sustained rate of fire over human loaders.
https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/856286e6c6074830b7650ce46262158d/view
NAMMO also already has this for sale
Why are you creating a strawman to argue against when you could just address what was actually said?
The real question you’re supposed to ask to what I said:
“A SEPV3 with its current turret weighs more than a SEPV3 with a smaller turret and hull?”
The turret ring size dictates turret shape.
I addressed exactly what you said:
‘‘This requires a brand new tank hull and turret as reducing the turret ring is what’s required for reducing mass.’’
-AlvisWisla
You literally said that a reduction in turret ring diametre is required to be able to reduce mass.
I point out how that’s nonsense because a turret of lighter construction can be built on the same turret ring diametre.
Shape =/= Weight.
You’re implying a M1A2 turret with the gun, composites, electronics, hydraulics, bustle rack, etc. stripped out of it would weigh the same as a M1A2 with all bells and whistles still attached.
And as I already said, we know that the shape of the M1A3’s turret will change significantly from that which is currently shown.