Super MBT: The Army's New M1E3 Abrams Tank is Taking Shape and Totally Different than Any

The US Army has awarded a contract to begin designing a new M1E3 Abrams super Main Battle Tank. This new tank is totally different than any and expected to be lighter as well as equipped with high-tech capabilities, making it more survivable on the battlefield.

[@Epsilon434]

anyone else notice how instead of using at least a render of the Abrams X to at least stay somewhat on brand, they used the Merkava 4 as the Thumbnail and from 0:19 to 0:37 ; 0:57 to 1:08 ; 2:08 to 3:02 instead. granted the Abrams X was shown and discussed, its still gonna cause some confusion

[@melangellatc1718]

Yep...

[@cooluke29]

Yeah this video is soooo poorly done

[@ericb.4358]

Aaaarrrggghhhh! Why did the producer KEEP BOUNCING THE TANK GRAPHICS?? Hybrid power is definitely a good idea. The French already use it in their SCARABE scout vehicle. By the time the M1E3'a gestation period is over there will likely be SOLID STATE batteries available - smaller, lighter, faster charging, no fire danger. BTW, drone warfare hs So changed tank design that we may see even more radical changes in the future US main battle tank. AND... will the new BOOKER American light tank be really vulnerable to drones? Looks like it from what I have seen of the Booker.

[@Fuck_Snowflakes]

He made this video using 1997 powerpoint.

[@jorgemiller8994]

typical AI shitpost video

[@johndyson4109]

Dude RELAX & LISTEN! It isn't like the pictures of the tanks are of high quality... LOL!

[@michaelr4858]

I agree, the bouncing tank was really annoying and distracting. And the Booker is not a light tank.

[@phil20_20]

Yeah, that's pretty amateurish. He's trying to keep oyr attention using a cheap trick instead of better production.

[@galesams4205]

I served on a m-48 52 ton in vietnam. A very good tank 30MPH, 90mm cannon main gun. 30 cal. coax, M-2 browning 50 cal, 6-7 flavor of ammo including W-P. Some had the FLAME thrower on the main tube great for search out and destroy. Phu-Kat, pleiku, ankhe. 4th div armor.

[@mohammedsaysrashid3587]

A wonderful introduction of future MBT of USA 🇺🇸 army

[@gandalfgreyhame3425]

They already came out with the AbramsX which seemed to anticipate most of the Army's new requirements. The only way to improve crew survivability and decrease weight is to reduce the crew size and move them all out of the turret where the main gun ammo is stored. And that is the essence of the biggest change with the AbramsX

[@user-mp3eq6ir5b]

So you're saying the AbramsX is an Armata ?

[@richwalter3107]

We only built one And that is just a technology demonstrator we put together for the AUSA show.

[@gandalfgreyhame3425]

@@richwalter3107 Yes, it made a big splash and was covered in a number of news articles and KZbin videos back then. Was it an actual functional prototype, or just a mock-up? It seems the Army kind of ignored it for a long while before realizing that the M1 really needed a major upgrade like the AbramsX

[@Infinityfields]

The ammo stored in the turret of the current Abrams is already in a separate compartment and that protects the crew from ammo cookoffs and turret separation that you are seeing on less capable Russian tanks that have the ammo stored inside the turret with the crew compartment. Let’s be really clear the current Abrams is ten times the tank anything Russia has built so far, an upgraded generation Abrams is going to expand that distance further. The issue right now is this, with what we see happening on the battlefield in Ukraine does this show that the era of tanks has long passed its use in combat? I think it does, we will continue to make more portable ways for Infantry to take tanks out on the battlefield. One thing not being talked about here is the development of autonomous vehicles that can further bring about the end of tanks on the battlefield. The era of robot wars is coming very soon as many countries are playing catch up to America’s use of globally deployed drones that can loiter on station for long periods and attack when least expected. We have the aerial drones now, next is the deployment of land vehicle drones and robotic automated soldiers. Don’t laugh, these things are already being designed and tested.

[@ChristianThePagan]

Why are they even bothering with a competition? We all know the winner will be General Dynamics.

[@jaripukki267]

We'll see. Most of the other new vehicles seem to be european made and if someone will come up with better desingn licencing with upgrades is best way to go. For the main gun they will reach out rheinmetall just like abrams gun, they have the gun ready

[@diedampfbrasse98]

they will go with GD, its the usual american protectionism when it comes to the arms industry ... those competitors only take part in order to sell licence production rights for parts like a gun, engine, FCS etc.. ... and thats why they bother with a competition, its done to gain foreign technology and development data to potentially adapt/copy.

[@MilitaryPlayer141]

Ohh, the Abrams X- wait, wtf is this?

[@phil20_20]

L55 is what is needed, not a 130mm gun. The overall protection of our opponents' armor is clearly inferior to our current weapons. What we should be focusing on now is increasing our range. The further away we can strike our enemies, the harder it is for them to strike us. That should be common knowledge to our war planners. 30mm antiair is a ridiculous waste of space considering modern targeting systems. A smaller caliber design yields more ammunition.

[@jaripukki267]

Then they just need to ask it from Germany, just as previous guns

[@jeanninetartanpion9446]

I do subscribe to your point of view.

[@InTTruder]

That line/wire diagram is a Merkava. The tank finally show as a solid is the AbramsX, which is a tech demonstrator, and NOT The M1E3. The contract with GDLS for development is NOT about the AbramsX. Downvote.

[@dancitrea7635]

For the combativeness and compatibility of the future tank, it was required earlier. We know that things do not change from one day to another, but some changes were required from the start. I regret to say that it has a very high consumption due to its size which makes the fuel supply logistics to provide several times more fuel than for a competing tank "we don't want to give names,, !

[@colincampbell767]

All of the pundits talk about electric drive giving an M1 derived tank a 'silent' movement capability. Once the 'stealth' tracks were fielded in the 1980s - the M1 earned the nickname 'whispering death.' Something that we trained to exploit. We could get to within 50 meters of dismounted infantry at night and they never knew we were there until we turned on the headlights. And something I don't get is that if you're going to put the crew in the hull - why put them in front? Put them in the back of the tank. With a hybrid electric drive you can put the engine and generator anywhere so you can put the engine and generator in the front motors turning the final drives in the back and batteries can be crammed into anyplace there's extra space. (And you can install fireproofing - so a battery fire doesn't destroy the tank.) If your concern is driver vision in case of a complete electrical failure (the electrical system that feeds the final drives needs to be completely isolated from the tank's internal power - in fact have a separate generator feeding the drivetrain batteries and a separate set of batteries supplying electrical power for the rest of the tank. Or simply save weight (and reduce the fire hazard) by losing the batteries for the drivetrain completely. This way you can keep the mechanical linkages between the throttle and the engine. And lose a lot of complexity, internal volume use and weight. If you want to lighten up the tank - you need to get rid of everything that is not absolutely needed. And the ability to move using battery power only - isn't that useful in the real world. Anything less than 800 meters is 'knife fighting' range for a tank.

[@olivierfaber8478]

Hmm i'll go for the EMBT Nexter hybride best of Leclerc and Leopard..

[@KC-bv9kf]

Drones changed everything

[@BRANFED]

so this video actually said alot but yet nothing at all

[@fakshen1973]

All future MBTs need an aux crew position added. Thus position shoukd be allocated for such tasks as drone/antidrone warfare. Being able to launch its own eyes in the sky will give any tank a hige advantage when it comes to targeting or uncovering threats to the tank. Offensive drones can give a tank an advantage by knocking out or damaging threats well in advance of the tank or in positions where the main gun might not be able to reach out and directly touch.

[@jaripukki267]

new markets for Rheinmetall

[@jaripukki267]

They have 130mm gun ready and development of new gun takes decade+. Would not be nothing new as Abrams uses german gun allso

[@user-mp3eq6ir5b]

Germany needs to be less Energy Bankrupt.

[@ravenwing199]

​@@jaripukki267 Well kinda. It's like the M1903 and the Mauser 1898. They're the same platform but the American version is more compact and Lighter. The M256 has 75% of the parts the L/44 has.

[@goatman3828]

Wow! All that and didn't say a damn thing!

[@johnL-xk2js]

Clearly the people who put this together have a problem, why the graphics keep bouncing up and down, that person should be fired immediately. I gave this video a thumbs down.

[@MrBigblacksock]

Stop showing a Merkava.

[@dgpgarage9291]

Need anti drone technology, better armor, and better active armor

[@geronimo5537]

130mm because germany already made the barrel for it. while 1980s 140mm abrams gets further ignored for being ahead of its time.

[@Kurikost_]

without automatic systems to destroy drones any tank is too vulnerable in a modern battlefield.

[@santaclaus0815]

In view of active protection systems, increasing the size of the guns on MBTs does not seem to make much sense. The large projectiles will simply be destroyed on approach. A turret with two twin guns of smaller caliber, e.g. 2x 105mm (or triplets: 3x 90mm), which are fired at short intervals (cf. Finnish mortar tank) would make more sense in order to oversaturate the active protection system. This would even allow you to mix types of ammunition, e.g. use something cheaper as the first projectile.

[@darrencorrigan8505]

Thanks, Weapons of the World.

[@zarkmuckerturd2515]

How does it achieve better fuel consumption? A new engine? How does it reduce weight? Different armor alloy?

[@XteoX21]

Yes let them tell us so China and Russia can take notes... let them hack and steal it at least then then they gotta try.

[@johngillespie9459]

Roof, roof, the roof is on fire… Drones kill tanks through weak top armor. So, is lighter really better? Active protection systems are a must. Modular electronic jamming systems as well. So are interactive communications with the other elements on the battlefield. This will enable tanks to engage in long range indirect fires, blurring the roles of tanks and SP artillery. That implies a bigger better protected vehicle, able to fire standard artillery sized rounds, think 155mm. Electric transmission is good too. Battery backup would allow fording of rivers. Find a crossing spot with good bottom, shut down the air breathing motor, seal it up, run it across under battery power, no matter how deep. Ok, maybe not the Congo or the Amazon, but you get the drift.

[@bertdejesus3578]

Hybrid Engines would be the best. This will reduce the use of jet engine fuel.

[@kickofftheboot]

Why are we still calling it an Abrams? Sounds like a whole new tank.

[@SuperiorAmericanGuy]

“USA Armor division.” From generals.

[@metalmarc9542]

Call the Germans for the blueprints. This new tank already exists. It’s called KF51 Panther

[@jaripukki267]

Newer model is allready in planning stage by Germany&France

[@idanceforpennies281]

Not 120mm cannon, 130mm cannon. It's going to be the new NATO standard.

[@vladimirmihnev9702]

130mm is less than 10% more than the 120mm. That doesn't sound like worth doing given the costs and complexity of having one more caliber.

[@thatguy46744]

Not how that works. A 130mm cannon will have around 60-70 percent penetration than a 120mm.

[@jaripukki267]

@@thatguy46744 and range 60 to 90% more

[@thatguy46744]

@@jaripukki267 yup

[@AustinBunyard]

Thosr are graphics of a merkava

[@buzzmeanytime]

Does it come with a force field? Does it come with mine detector?

[@BdogFinal14]

Unless there is a significant improvement in armor technology, I don’t see the need for a larger main gun. It would be heavier and carry less available main rounds. If anything, we should use lesson from Ukraine and develop smaller, faster, tanks capable of more accurate rapid fire on enemy armor and emplacements.

[@XteoX21]

You work in special metal alloys and have a security clearance or just play too much war thunder...

[@edwardcfinklein198]

Yeah it's pretty but they have done nothing to protect the rear from attack by drones.

[@klardfarkus3891]

How are the fools who hate electric vehicles going to deal with diesel electric propulsion?

[@randolphh.hemmerle258]

The main difference needs to be the engine, changed to a fuel-efficient diesel engine that has easier and less maintenance requirements and uses less fuel and has a much longer traveling range on a gallon of diesel fuel, instead of a gallon of jet fuel. The other changes are good, but the engine is a main problem that keeps our allies from being able to use our tanks. Russia is attempting to put 50 caliber cannons on their T-14 tanks but haven't yet succeeded.

[@larryseago730]

The X , I would be very very careful with that. We continue to see battery issues in the civilian market for vehicles. I would bet a paycheck, they will cut the fuel tank size on that "Tank" , since they expect a fuel savings. If the batteries crap out on you, now, you have to run on fuel 100% of the time, with a smaller fuel tank. And what about all these battery fires? In combat, you can't have a battery failure/fire, and hope to be 100% combat ready. I would demand iron clad performance out of these batteries. The cost will be enormous replacing them when they wear out.

[@user-mp3eq6ir5b]

unnn, well, , I think, ummm, I guess I don't know really

[@buzzmeanytime]

Yeah we’ll see

[@MilitaryPlayer141]

I guess they gave the X a new name

[@davidlucero7725]

What about drone protection?

[@PRESTONGARVEY-ww3fq]

We got a new abrams before gta6

[@truck6859]

"High-tech" does not make vehicles more survivable on the battlefield; it just makes them die quicker.

[@LordOfAlwar]

"new abrams variant" **shows a Merkava for a majority of the video**

[@darrenellis9491]

I think GDLS needs to wash their hands after this video.

[@richwalter3107]

All the imagery this site is using is scraped from public domain sites. I wonder if they even got permission from GD to use clips off their KZbin channel. Not saying it's right, not defending this site at all. (to me it's clickbait) just pointing out the obvious

[@DayneJAH333]

We need a new TANK without the politics

[@BillHalliwell]

I'm a military historian and former air force member so, my armour knowledge is limited. I'm fully aware that while this video was talking about a totally new tank called the M1E3 Abrams; that, 1. It doesn't exist because it's yet to be designed, and, 2. This video showed us some "Abrams X" tanks that, apparently, aren't going into full production... er, I think. Confused, darn right I am. 8 minutes of talk about a new tank that didn't actually say anything of substance. Why wasn't this video about 'Company X' that has won a contract to begin designing a new tank to be called the M1E3 Abrams? That's all. That's enough to justify a short video. A five-minute video, maybe. What we saw was mostly 'filler'; including that ridiculous line drawing of a 'jumping tank'. Talk about annoying and pointless. Get back to me when there's something to really see and talk about. Cheers, Bill H.

[@stevenrowlandson9650]

What about woven rock rebar as armor for tanks?

[@thesep1967]

Aha, so the important qualities of a future tank are its 'incredible turret', its 'futuristic design' and last but not last 'multiple electro-optical sights'? Is this subtle satire mocking the WoT kiddies?

[@fergusontimothy71]

Well if they are putting an autoloader in it maybe put a 140 mm or 150 mm gun in it

[@petercofrancesco1620]

Stay With American Designed And Manufactured In The United States ... 🇺🇸

[@jeffreyspinner5437]

I see no discussion of defense against $2 FPV drones on the battlefield, so all this is moot and honestly pathetic intransigence to responding to the changes of how modern wars are fought. No more wars against men wearing flip flops anymore.

[@Hilton-nr3gw]

I agree 100% the first thing i looked for is higher density armor on the top of the vehicle.. Non of this tech will be of any use honestly

[@lukeamato423]

Trophy system

[@lukeamato423]

You just haven't been paying attention

[@Infinityfields]

This is not the designer of the tank talking, it is a video meant to discuss the changes being made to the next generation of Abrams. The war in Ukraine has EVERYONE looking at how drones have changed battle fields in the future. Russia has lost over 7,500 armored vehicles to drones and man portable anti tank munitions. There will be active defense measures to prevent this from happening to future Abrams in battle. The design I see coming will have the turret unoccupied which means the crew will be protected inside the hull, this is a feature that is being learned by the Russians currently with a huge loss of lives of tank crews. I also see the US designing future aircraft like drones that will carry large quantities of anti tank weapons and possible mini guns for anti infantry uses.

[@user-xi3eh9ip1i]

There is a South American country that shamelessly made a copy of the M8 Greyhound tank a few years ago, taking the measurements of the parts and making an improved copy with similar parts, and several units were sold several countries ago and the United States, observing the event, found a way to stop these copies of this arms market company, not with tricks but by using its influence over other countries to buy North American armored vehicles and that unhappy South American country makes a copy of the French missile Exocet bought a few years ago Some units ago and disassembled one after some time and made measurements and the copy of its parts and developed others, and France has done nothing, now with Israel the Israeli drone was purchased with intention To copy it too and over time it was disassembled and, observing its structure and parts, a larger drone began to be developed with longer flight time and cheaper, observing the parts to be purchased and improved and developing other parts. The system in appearance is similar, but the aerodynamic operation is the same. Any country that sells technological weapons to this South American country will have these problems, apart from the torpedoes, which have also been in the same situation for some years being disassembled and studied to develop with domestic production and reduce costs. causing great harm to its developers and countries of origin In gratitude to the Brazilian justice system I am expressing my feelings and what I feel and will continue until there is justice for now with words I hope that some countries will thank Brazil in the way it deserves through explanations to countries that feel exposed by the secrets revealed The countries that recommend Brazil will have my thanks as long as Brazil is singled out for the wrong actions it commits.

[@klausberfelde-je2ye]

Why don't they Take the KF-51?

[@Epsilon434]

because we prefer tp buy american first. also, like the AbramsX and the forgotten PL01, the KF-51 was a tech demonstrator.

[@jaripukki267]

@@Epsilon434 kf-51 is going into production. And most other armoured vehicles US is getting, are foreign design as are infantry weapons. They will be made in US, so you could say they are US made

[@Epsilon434]

@jaripukki267 I can think maybe three Non-US designs in service with the US Infantry, the Gustav, the M27/HK416, and the M110A1/G28. I don't count SIG since they moved headquarters into the US as far as I can find. The Stryker, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is at the moment the only foreign (and built) design for a AVF in the US Aresenal at the moment, until the XM30 most likely goes to Reinmetal. As for the KF-51, I was unaware that those are actively being proceed for thank you for correcting me on that.

[@jaripukki267]

@@Epsilon434 and new rifles, mmg's. Most of the upcoming apc's

[@Epsilon434]

@jaripukki267 only new rifles in US service that are foreign design are the M110A1 (HK G28) and the M27(HK416). The MCX is an American design, as well as the M250 lol. There are still American companies in the bid for the XM30, though I'm biased towards Reinmetal and their Lynx. The Abrams replacement has purely America companies, to public knowledge. I'm not aware of any Stryker replacement programs, though please do tell me if there is one.

[@OG45tool]

They better have anti-drone capabilities or else it will be useless

[@reverencerx873]

This is only a tech demonstrator.

[@tolik5929]

Just more money , that could be better spent , fixing our crumbling infrastructure , and crap economy , and taking better care of our own people . Just Sayin

[@josephdelp87]

A modern Russian tank can't handle a 120mm let alone130mm. Thats why I cant believe this story. You can only do so much.

[@XteoX21]

Another one with a security clearance and a defense contractor? My god, you people really think that the US is going to let all the tricks and trade-offs and toys out of the bag this early on. They only let us know oh so much. Keep in mind that when they do, they will say it does less has less than it really does. I gotta stop reading these comments. All these people who play too much war thunder who think they have a clue.

[@jasonwinters2708]

The m1 Abrams is so unreliable and so difficult to maintain it has not been able to compete on the battlefield against Russia in Ukraine all of our equipment that we thought was so good in the United States has not been able to compete with Russia almost everything we've been told about our equipment in the United States has been a lie and just has not been able to compete with Russia that's sad isn't it

[@rustykilt]

Maybe 2040?

[@davepriddy9263]

By the way, how long does the power extension cord need to be? If it isn't broken, don't fix it. No hybrid technology is needed in military armor.

[@clarencehopkins7832]

You could call it as the Navies Zumwslt lol, or Boeings space craft

[@privatesector0422]

Stop bouncing the tanks!!

[@everready59]

BOLOS?

[@Faiaz999]

Bangladesh army want to bye M1A2 Abrahams MBT

[@fridaynight3181]

It is a heavy tank. Not good for your country

[@marcpest7643]

Goodyear marketing

[@rock0122]

Hate the AI Voice, i know it reads a text so why not spell the words or abbreviations so it sounds right, Don't use abbreviations use the full word.

[@RobertMoore-nj1mi]

How can they make a tank get 50% better feul and can't make cars and trucks get better mileage

[@02SplinterCell02]

They can but choose not to, otherwise the oil companies will lose out on revenue. There is also the cost factor of R&D for civilian vehicles that comes into play; the US military has an unlimited budget (technically) so it doesn’t matter if they need to spend $1trillion developing fuel saving technology. If every auto maker had to spend a ton like that then hardly anybody would be able to afford the necessary price increase in cars.

[@upszilla]

Drones and mines! That’s what’s killing tanks and APC’s in Ukraine! Where are the anti drone defenses for our military?

[@jamescraig3598]

This is poorly done. Bouncing wire frame graphics? Waving info graphics? Unwatchable.

[@damjanforjanic]

Before starting to make a new tank, in this century I would work on anti-drone protection, don't make tanks without anti-drone protection. You have no benefit from a futuristic design.

[@XteoX21]

Yea I'm sure they definitely didn't think of that. It mentions that it will have "self protections" pressure that falls into that category.

[@damjanforjanic]

@@XteoX21 I hope it will work.

[@johndyson4109]

The M1A2 is gettin old but still can hild her own. She needs to LOSE WEIGHT though.. 57 tons would be better for a lot of bridges that can't support 73 tons...

[@SkyMaXX5]

New food for Russian drones and missiles.

[@greglee1587]

Abram X is a piece of shit. Putting all tankers in the hill is fucking stupid. First thing soldiers will aim for is the sites and then the tank is blind on three sides and not a fan of auto loaders. The loader is another set of eyes, ease of maintenance and can be a drone operator in future tanks if applicable. Just because the T14 has all so called tankers in the hull should tell us that we shouldn’t do it

[@peterlaurie1247]

Just remind me, what are the advantages of a big gun in a drone battlefield? You can lose some weight right there.

[@mysticdavestarotmachinesho5093]

A new expensive play toy for Russia to turn to scrap.

[@MoonlightVKV]

Looks like a T-90 and the merkava. Funny enough that many in the U.S made fun of Russia's autoloader, now they are using it, HA!

[@giuseppeamato9159]

The M1 Abrams was a semi-failure in Ukraine, heavy and cumbersome, it was the subject of attacks by drones and anti-tank missiles. it has often been put out of use or destroyed. built to fight Soviet tanks, it is outside, placed as a means of support for infantry and defenseless against new threats such as drones. furthermore it has 4 crew members which makes it even bigger and more vulnerable and in case of loss of the crew there are 4 soldiers lost. in short, it has had its day.

[@javiernevarez2157]

Send this tank to the best testing grounds in the world to see if is capable of defining the RUSSIAN MINES AND DRONES………😊

[@flamezealous]

Fact or speculative? Sounds like something made up by a US weapons fanboy, like me 😜🤩

[@muck8669]

Ha Ha Ha Ha l o l o l o l ol.

[@faithbontilao3867]

They are boasting Abraham's tanks, but stil it keeps burning in ukraine😂😂😂😂 some are captured and turtured in Russia.

[@IRON-5]

Whoa chill there my guy thos were m1a1 and not to mention they doesnt have era or apfsds shells You know what happen in iraq lol

[@sirius9897]

New Russian lancet drones taking shape and totally different😂😂😂😂😂

[@user-ih8fw7bu5p]

❤😂😂🎉🎉🎉😢😢😮😮

[@klardfarkus3891]

Abrams fanboys looking stupid arguing for gas turbine supremacy when that is not a part of new tank. A lot of things the foolish Abrams fanboys pimped are left out of the new tank.

[@cannon3267]

the gas turbine engine was state of the art tech... in 1980. dude, this is 2024, AGTs are old school i was a tank mechanic during the change over from the M60 to the M1. the 60 tank crews were skeptical of the new kid on the block, didn't think much of all that computerized junk. it took a 2 week field exercize and a week at the gunnery range for most of them to become what you call an Abrams fanboi. the M1 was a fast, stable, accurate, easy riding monster. it was, for the most part, mechanic friendly, easy to maintain and repair(remember i was one of those mechanics, so i know what i'm talking about). and the thermal sight system made you king of the night. if the nexgen tank is as much as an improvement as the M1 was over the M60, it's going to be awsome.

[@ericb.4358]

@@cannon3267 Drone warfare! If a tank can't handle it it is already obsolete, as is teh Abrams, a tanks designed decades ago.

[@klardfarkus3891]

@@cannon3267 the Ukrainian soldiers are much less enthusiastic about Abrams. After losing 8 of 32 in short order, Abrams aren’t even on the front line. Check'out some of the videos where Ukrainians talk about nato provided armored vehicles.

[@klardfarkus3891]

@@cannon3267 gas turbine were around long before the Abrams. My argument is, if the gas turbine is so great, why is the new American tank going to be diesel? Same is true for all the criticism of autoloaders from Abrams fans. Now the American tank is going autoloaders.

[@naylaberlianna6867]

M1 abram Bebek lumpuh di medan perang ukrania dan rusia😂

[@allecarlo]

😂😂another American scrap

[@JoeyRay-fz1qe]

Lighter, that's a laugh. Hybrid huh. Hybrid mean engine a battery and electric motor. Well if you don't know that the battery is going to make it heavier unless they aren't using a battery going from engine to electric motor. Most of the weight is its armor, so are they doing away with all the add on's. 130mm cannon will weight more because it will operate at higher power level for shooting. Also that means a new gun that NATO doesn't use so it means they can't work together on ammo. Higher new untested tech means a lot of break downs like the F-35 that has 2/3 of the aircraft non operational!

[@user-mp3eq6ir5b]

HOW DOES THIS HELP UKRAINE ??? (also - can it fly?)

[@mikejadulan701]

Empty tins cans.... they says merkava is the most powerful tanks and Abraham but in reality a cheap Rpg-7 destroyed a 10Million dollars tanks merkava same history nonsense to buy expensive tanks better cheap drones carry by RPG-7