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.
No, I’m explicitly stating [not implying] that an M1A2 with the gun, composites, electronics, hydraulics, bustle rack, etc. stripped out of it would weigh LESS THAN M1A2 with all bells and whistles still attached.
You’re not going to save 5 - 15 tons by keeping the turret ring width ready for 3 crew members.
It’s not a SEP v3, but we’ve got accurate weight data for a Challenger’s turret.
Removing composites would save 5500 kg, stowage could probably be reduced and it weighs an additional 3800 kg, cupolas, sighting systems and hatches weigh 1000 kg combined.
The turret shell weighs 7500 kg, clearly a reduction in volume could shave roughly 20% off of this weight as well.
You’re already looking at 8000+ kg of weight savings just by removing stuff that’s normally required for the crew seated in the turret.
I’m sure the turret will retain some composite just to protect the modules but I won’t be surprised if it more or less resembles the AbramsX turret when completed.
If it’s the MK 285 HEDP RF that one is already usable on the MK47 Striker. Seems to be in testing on the MK19 but would definitely need a way to program the rounds. Probably cheaper that way instead of replacing all the MK19s with MK47s.
Removing all composites is a strawman though, cause composites are still required.
You have to protect the turret and the insides.
Reducing the turret ring means less armor extending out on each side which reduces the mass.
Some juicy info about m1e3 in this interview https://youtu.be/Xnd9fcgEuaw?si=jDRuVNBT5ruylmNp also they mention warthunder at 9:04 lol.
1 Like
Kind of crazy to think that Gaijin is responsible for a significant amount of people joining the Army.
2 Likes
This is the video most people were waiting for I’m glad it came so soon, the shear amount of people just guessing because they weren’t there to do interviews was getting slightly annoying.
Great video though super interesting, really makes me wonder how things like it will be implemented, like how will gaijin decide the roles outside of the commander/ positions of the crew, if as they said any of the three could be the one operating the turret, driving, etcetera.
Alternatively how will fcs be modeled as three separate controls or as one component hopefully the former cause the latter would be a QOL nightmare.
Lastly with more tanks having diesel/electric engines will we see the ability to drive off the battery for a short time in game similar to how you can use thermals while your battery dies after the engine goes, or be able to run it as an APU without the diesel engine on, if it doesn’t get its own APU when they do inevitably give function to modeled APU’s.
Its not an actual turret its just a quickly made mock up of the curret abrams turret added on for the showcase.