America's New Tank is Legitimately Insane

[@Taskandpurpose]

Thanks for watching spare parts army! Get free life insurance quotes from America's top insurers and start saving today with Policygenius: policygenius.com/taskandpurpose Thanks to Policygenius for sponsoring this video!

[@BoiStudio]

First in here

[@dugress5]

47 seconds ago is crazy 2nd here btw

[@berkosmansatiroglu]

Unacceptable. Please accept our apology. İZMİR💙🦅

[@jaydenmasters2888]

Will the insurance company cover me for nuclear apocalypse?

[@tommymaddox6785]

When we gonna get the Harris policy video LOL

[@dman1357]

Born too late to fight in an Abrams, born too early to fight in an Abrams, born just in time to fight in an Abrams

[@hawkshot867]

Oorah

[@cuckmasterflex9106]

Hah!

[@lalchhandama3805]

born too late to fight in the sandbox, born too early to fight in the sandbox, born just in time to fight in the sandbox

[@Gliese380]

Much original. Joke new.

[@dman1357]

@@lalchhandama3805We live for the Sandbox, and we die in the Sandbox

[@wout4yt]

13:05 * new hull, new turret, - what shall we call it? * M1

[@sirsmeal3192]

...and made with a 3D printer.

[@zperdek]

It's like air force one.

[@triadwarfare]

Problem is M2 is already taken by bradley. Maybe they should take notes from USB and name them M1 Gen2×2

[@droltihs]

@@sirsmeal3192

[@ulissedazante5748]

The US Army is just bullying Perun.

[@lacrewpandora4164]

A few thoughts from an ex-tanker. - While there are advantages to a 3 man crew, perhaps a 4th man to watch the skies is more important than ever. Not in combat operations, but merely going down a road, etc. - If the optionally manned turret keeps the gunner in the hull, he loses his auxiliary sight, which might be all he has if the main sight gets hit. He likely also loses access to the charging handle for the coax, if there's a stoppage. - I hope the optionally manned turret means the TC can ride up top except for when under fire. The situational awareness from up top cannot be easily replaced with periscopes and cameras - I think the 30mm upgrade is a huge step forward. For whatever reason, the Bradley has been much more successful in Ukraine, and I attribute a lot of that to the its 25mm and its rapid rate of fire. - I think the weight reduction is a great move - IMHO any active protection system should be modular and "bolt on" so it can be easily upgraded as drone capabilities change.

[@SFtastemakers]

Thanks!

[@Adityabikramnayak]

AI can easily track the skies because there are no ground obstacles in the sky, especially with modern optics

[@stallingset7301]

So how would it exactly stop a kamakazi drones?

[@TRAZ4004]

Considering that hybrid batteries burn a lot hotter and faster than combustible only, do you think the crew could be protected?

[@TRAZ4004]

@@AdityabikramnayakWould a tree canopy be a hindrance?

[@1126steve]

I worked at the original plant that manufactured the engine for the M1A1. It was a jet turbine, modular design 1500HP engine that could be replaced in the field within approximately 20 minutes. Incedently, that same engine was also used in the Navy's LCAC. (Hovercraft land assault vehicle) That platform used 2 AGT1500's.

[@h.a.9880]

If I'm not mistaken, you can switch out a Leopard 2's engine and transmission in the field within like 30-60 minutes as well. The speed at which modern western tanks can have important parts exchanged is mind-blowing. How is maintenance done on these engines anyway? Feels like you could swap an old engine with a newly maintained one, overhaul the old, swap that with another tank's engine that will then in turn be overhauled. You'd have your entire tank fleet operational at all times at the cost of one extra engine that's being kept in a garage and being worked on.

[@SliceofLife7777]

Lycoming Textron? Gas guzzling powerhouse that can push 45+ tons at near 50mph. This tank needs an APU.

[@johnjames5842]

Breaks down all the time , runs out of fuel in 8 hrs , needs shit loads of service very regularly, very prone to catching on fire , super loud, runs so hot that thermal satellite imaging spots these things just idling, retarded design. Diesel electric hybrid like a train or older school submarine way better , switch to electric for quiet moving around, minimum heat signature, way more reliable than any turbine engine.

[@uberschnilthegreat22]

​@@h.a.9880It's a common design trait for modern NATO MBTs to use what's called the Power Pack, which essenessentially means the entire powertrain (engine, transmission, radiators,etc.) Can come out as a single unit.

[@h.a.9880]

​ @uberschnilthegreat22 NATO really helped proliferate such smart solutions across Western nations. Compare this ease and convenience to swap out an engine within minutes with the backbreaking tedium of maintaining soviet tanks... I think one of russia's newer T-90 models is praised for only taking like 6 hours to remove a broken engine. I can't remember the exact amount of time, but I know reading it and thinking "That's about as much time as you'd take to service an entire NATO tank fleet... and this is considered an _improvement?_ "

[@GhostoftheSnow271]

Gotta love it when America builds stuff based off of “hey what if on the off chance our enemies have something better than us, let’s make some dope ass shit”

[@TakkudALT]

F15 Fucking laughing in the corner

[@ItsJoKeZ]

russias biggest error was making us think they were stronger

[@singular9]

This whole m1a3 project is just the russian t14....its not new.

[@chillwill1998]

@@singular9its also not the t14 because there’s kinda a history of this where we make something expecting the new enemy thing is as strong as they say, then we make counter and turns out the enemy lies and not we have a new thing that not only beats the stuff they claimed it did, but definitely bears what it actually does.

[@dx-ek4vr]

@@singular9 It's the T-14, except if it actually worked as advertised

[@DionikesX24]

It’s wild hear the Army only just now realized mud is a problem. The original M1 was designed to apply 11lbs/square inch…which is specifically less than a human foot. So if you could walk in the mud the tank wouldn’t get stuck. Then with each upgrade they added more and more weight and it lost that ability

[@billjones8950]

That’s because tanks were designed around the enemy fleeing when they saw one. Like all quiet on the western front. If I remember the right movie. Tanks rolled in. Flame throwers walked in behind them. And the enemy was forced to just skadaddle. Now they can just take the tank out. So making tanks more survivable is the goal.

[@Lusa_Iceheart]

Yeah, the redesigns are all just decades of bandaids trying to make a system meant to fight the soviets in Europe relevant against insurgents in the desert. It's just never been good for the system. With so many of these upgrade packages tho, it's impossible to just tear it all off and go back to the "base Abrams", so a redesign of everything is simply necessary. Hopefully they'll bring it back in line with a focused image of what it should do.

[@dimdim3490]

So basically the new american tank will use the same approach as..... the old soviet tank...reduced profile, reduced weight, autoloader, reduced crew, increased mobility, guided munition ect improved of course with different gun powder so it would not detonate.

[@aidanproy1484]

@@dimdim3490 except it will have the backing of the military industrial complex instead of a failing oligarchy.

[@dimdim3490]

Yes Mic is the best! We need more of it because we all know what is good for the mic is good for an average Joe.

[@marioornot]

Lisa: poor predictable bart, always using Abrams tanks Bart: good ol Abrams, nothing beats that!

[@raiderdare7462]

Bart: Wiped the floor with Lisa with Abram’s.

[@chartreux1532]

But can it compete with the new German "PANTHER" ? I mean we already got the cooler Name, so that's 1:0 for us Just bantering my Friends haha Prost & Cheers from Berchtesgaden in the Bavarian Alps

[@familyjobe853]

bart in another dimention : good ol t 72, nothing beats that !

[@WackadoodleMalarkey]

​@chartreux1532 In fairness you guys won the tank war when you said "hold my beer" and set a stein up on the end of the barrel and drove around while it stayed on 😸 🍻

[@N_4747]

nothing except sand in its engine 🗿

[@SirBedevereTheWise]

US Army: we need to reduce weight Developer: ok, we design the new tank with 1 less crew member 🤦🏼‍♂️🤷🏼‍♂️

[@Blossomtree183]

Man, don’t you just hate it when a crew member weighs 15 tons?

[@zachcooper6236]

Making me think back to Pentagon Wars. The Abrams: a recon vehicle too high-profile (and slow) to do recon, a personnel carrier that lacks the space to carry personnel, and a tank too lightly armoured to withstand small arms fire.

[@WindFireAllThatKindOfThing]

Dude, as someone who railheaded a LOT of armor in my time....that drop to 60 tons (before they add some fancy new cope cages and applique armor) is a massive worldwide mobility changer, as well as your combat wrecker crews breathing a sigh of relief in field recovery ops with their M88 Herc

[@myopicthunder]

Still heavy as shit

[@douglasiles2024]

@@myopicthunder but a lot less than the SEP4 was going to be at around 85 tons

[@chugs1984]

I don't know. I was eager to see how obese the M1 could get.

[@jabloko992]

Hopefully, the new design will eliminate the need for cope cages!

[@noxious89123]

@@myopicthunder Well yeah, it's a fucking tank, not a Fiat 500.

[@martindice5424]

To those who keep banging on about the end of the MBT - ‘If you’re an infantryman fighting against an entrenched enemy ANY tank is better than no tank at all’ - The Chieftain.

[@TheActionBastard]

I'd go with "end of the MBT feeling invulnerable"... since it's now brutally apparent that no tank is invincible when pitted against purpose built weapons. The MBT will cease existing when someone figures out how to deliver the same capabilities in a different package... until then "big gun on armored chariot" is the tits.

[@mrroger-t6m]

Tell that to the Australian arm forces

[@Fiasco3]

That's a stolen quote from WW2. There weren't drones, fire-and forget anti-tank missiles, smart-accurate artillery then. The tanks only survival now is stealth, speed and Electronic Warfare.

[@myriaddsystems]

I sat in a Chieftain once when I worked at Chobham

[@Adityabikramnayak]

a tank is often more visible to enemies though

[@SlinkyTWF]

I'm glad they are seriously looking at weight reduction. > 60 tons is a serious handicap if you're not fighting in a desert or a dry plain.

[@sirsmeal3192]

Exactly. And brain-dead commanders kept saying "just one more feature!"

[@lisam4503]

Also a hybrid electric system to reduce fuel demand and increase range.

[@fauge7]

​@@lisam4503 not sure if that's a good advantage. More mechanically complex vehicles are harder to maintain... Battery density is not good enough that we can effectively use it for combat imho

[@Exxar-Kuun]

@@fauge7you aren’t wrong but we gotta start somewhere. Hybrid is better than the altruistic all electric. I use the “Canadian logger standard” for viewing the two concepts. It would take something like 30 tons of batteries to replace your average diesel log truck. But they did say, a hybrid system would be a step in the right direction for the long idle times.

[@john_in_phoenix]

​@@lisam4503 The diesel generator added to the Abrams really helps keep the turbine from consuming too much while idling.

[@BustedGeezerGarage]

Having been an "Ex-Navy doc," I really appreciate an "Ex-grunts" POV on in-depth military opinions for battlefield efficacy. Since the Stinger shoulder fired ground-to-air system was and is such a good weapon system for knocking down choppers and low flying go-fasts, why not mount an externally mounted Stinger array on the new Abrams?

[@flexyco]

The Bradley has the TOW if I'm not mistaken.

[@xavier6838]

@@flexycoyeah you not shooting a heli down with a wire guided missle

[@YummyMoney98]

This should make my guard shift more bearable.

[@Taskandpurpose]

glad I could help make the time go by a little quicker

[@tjthrillajaw]

Fitting name. All hail the Expansive Fractional Reserve Banking Military-Congressional Industries™!

[@Leb0ngjames]

Should get you about 1/16th of the way through your shift

[@YummyMoney98]

@Leb0ngjames Not even, but it was the best 23 minutes of my shift.

[@Leb0ngjames]

@@YummyMoney98 felt that

[@rayf4925]

You got to love how the Pentagon prioritized AI (something nobody really understands) over a basic air-conditioner (something everybody wanted). Maybe they’ll build a hover tank next instead of figuring out the autoloader.

[@JK-dv3qe]

hover tank will be powered by farts. but then Greta will be mad because of the CO2

[@rayf4925]

@@JK-dv3qe How dare you disrespect Greta’s work on thermal camouflage! And why spend money on a tank when you can just talk down to people while looking constipated? Man, that motard brings a whole new meaning to the concept of barracks lawyer.

[@KevinBlankenship-p6m]

That eliminates the cheap drone grenade drop!! Air Conditioned and locked down - death dealer!!

[@rayf4925]

@@KevinBlankenship-p6m True. AI would make RWS more effective, especially against swarms. Still, we've always had maneuver and combined arms to deal with things like that going all the way back to Guadalcanal. There is no doctrine for drinking so much water that to have to hit the head every 30 mins. - Invictus.

[@NXTangl]

...you do realize that climate change is a major security risk, right?

[@scopeguy]

It's 1973 and the Army is fighting in Abrams, it's 2002 and the Army is fighting in Abrams, It's 2024 and the Army is fighting in Abrams.

[@joshwalker8984]

You really think we need a new factory to build a metal box? If it's not broke, don't fix it...

[@kennethng8346]

Could be worse, think of the B52.

[@pissfather6798]

following the proud tradition of putting "M1" in front of everything

[@TRPilot06YT]

​@@kennethng8346 The year is 3012, Third interplanetary war is going on new B52N BUFFs are hitting Venusian forces in the surface of Mars

[@badtoothbeetroot]

M2 Browning: _look what they need to mimic a fraction of our power_

[@jacoley]

I remember in the 90s, we sat down with GD (General Dynamics), and they showed a video on the future M1A3 Abram. It was expected to be a one-man operator (commander or completely manless) and self-loading. My MOS was a 45G (Fire Control Systems Technician). We serviced the weapons systems, GPS (Gunner's Primary Sight), CWS (Commander's Weapon Station), and optics. Several of us thought GD was out of their mind, how times have changed.

[@kev_999]

yet here it is completely obsolete and has a 3 person crew when we could be buying 100 drones or 25 unreal million dollar ones with no humans inside.

[@jacoley]

@kev_999 as someone who has served, you do not want to go that route. Sitting in a room watching videos of artillery going off never seeing the damage in person will prevent one's self-accountability of knowing the damage they created. There are very few Navy personnel who never actually see one-on-one carnage suffer from PTSD. Don't get me wrong, I don't want anyone suffering period. But when you are thousands of miles away from the actual damage you are creating you create separation from the accountability. Thus diminishing the value of life.

[@kev_999]

@ I like your comment and agree but you can’t fight an enemy that way if they are willing to do that. We’ve already been using drones that way. And did you know what happened in Langley for 17 nights straight back in Dec 2023? A tank, even super carriers seem obsolete if we are so far behind we can’t even identify where those drones came from or how they are communicating. The enemy is spending way less money and getting better results learning ai, cyber warfare, drones, etc and we are spending money on tanks. What if they are focusing on how to disable the tanks without having to fire a shot? The defense contractors are getting all the money yet veterans are unhoused all over the country and suffering from PTSD fighting in bs wars based off fear of communism for the most part. We are not a good country. We started back in 1954 meddling in Guatemala using psyops to pull off a coup which resulted in 36 years of civil war. Coup in Chile and who knows how many other countries. Now, the CIA and spies who could be finding out what technology other countries have that we don’t is probably highly underfunded due to dumb stuff like building tanks.

[@jacoley]

@kev_999 Unfortunately, that is the effect of sharing technology with allies. It will eventually, be copied and our enemies or no-allies will obtain the tech as well. It sucks that 73% of all the rare minerals used in our military applications are harvested by China. How that makes sense, I will never understand. I foresee in the future a major electrical charge that will fry all electrical systems or the vast majority of them. When you have nations wanting to go all-electric. The great weapon against them is a nuculear EMP or CME, you do that and we are back to gunpowder, grenades, and mechanical weaponry. Unfortunately, as advanced as the US is we don't have the technology to eliminate the effects. We can reduce it some, but it can not be stopped if put into action.

[@nyalan8385]

@@kev_999 not even for moral reasons do you not want to go that way. Boots on the ground is the only way to hold territory and protecting those boots is the most important objective. Lob trillions of unmanned drones if you want and level an area, if you don’t have a single person there you’re still losing. Besides drones are only so effective right now because they’re new and don’t have many counter measures. Give it half a century and you’ll start having people saying “do we even need drones? They’re not that effective” like people say for every other piece of military hardware

[@Meatball1407]

“Yeah it costs 24 Million dollars each, but nobody can get mad at you for buying it cuz now, you have a f**king tank!”😂😂😂

[@rh7163]

How much does a bunker buster cost and how long would it take to eliminate a super tank with everyone in it ?

[@ArmedIvan]

​​ @rh7163 Shoot for rear of turret or side of hull. *Hide in ditch so the main gun can't depress enough to fire at you. As far as I know, you'll just need a low-caliber antitank gun, like a Pak 36, 45mm M1937 or a 37mm M3, and two or three rounds for them, maybe more if you're using the M3 because it only uses solid shot. They anti-tank guns will be tricky to get, and they might cost from $350,000 - $600,000, and the ammunition (per piece) will be a few thousand. Godspeed, soldier. (*This would be useless if it was using HEATFS rounds.) ((I know all of this because... War Thunder.))

[@jordan9604]

​@@ArmedIvan*New tank proceeds to double armor back of turret and sides, while giving 2 small arms turrets with 180° turning radius to each side that all fire independently*

[@ArmedIvan]

@@jordan9604 45mm M1937 and 37mm M3 would still be reliable. Who cares about small arms.

[@jordan9604]

@@ArmedIvan I was just being contrary for no reason. I have very little experience with guns, besides shooting varmints.

[@ScottySundown]

You had me rolling with: “But nobody can get mad at you for spending that money because now you have a fuckin tank” 😂😂

[@billjones8950]

Imagine if they had a sponsorship program for the military. Then you and some buddies could fund a tank or a naval ship. Depending how rich you are and then they could slap a little logo on it. And a video camera to let you watch it live in action.

[@gimlithebrave6354]

@@billjones8950We’d never have funding problems ever again lol

[@bonemasterj]

Seems like every tank should have it's own small, hard-wired drone with a camera/sensor that would increase it's viewing/killing range. Basically, a flying periscope.

[@cameronspence4977]

Theyre already doing this for the infantry, black hornet. Just a matter of time

[@personman8404]

That fiber optic system they're using in Ukraine right now seems like the best. Unjammable and has a 5km tether. Essentially an old observation balloon for every tank and afv in a compact drone and spool of wire

[@colemurphy2063]

Soooo…. Pretty much third person view for tankers?

[@ratte6090]

Literally turns that crap into War Thunder (third person view irl)

[@yourbadger5486]

​@@cameronspence4977That black hornet is a POS. All it does is crash and leave a whole squad looking for it for hours instead of completing their training

[@RobertGMoore]

Here's a thought. For drones and small munitions, manufacture a M-134 auto turret. It's ammo wouldn't weigh too much and it would give an automated response to incoming threats, without diverting attention from the crews primary mission. Something similar protects our Navy fleets assets. With our new auto tech mules you could resupply easier and faster with minimal down time.

[@doomedoptimism1015]

it still costs $24 million dollars, but no one can complain because now you have an F'n tank! That was pure gold!!!

[@jebes909090]

killed by $240 drone ............

[@noctwice]

@@jebes909090dare you say tanks are obsolete?

[@blue-obsidian]

@@jebes909090 so? there will always be a way to destroy them but they are important

[@SensualPinecone]

Yes, it is nearly weightless and indestructable. Yes, it can become invisible. ...Yes, it can even fly with the upcoming modernization pack. But can you f*** it?

[@harrykuheim6107]

The Deep State blows through $24 Million in an instant

[@Condor1970]

The 30mm chain gun like the Apache in conjuction with onboard short range radar and fast program proximity fuse rounds is exactly what the Abrams needs for drone swarm defense. It can also be used against enemy troops inside buildings, behind barricades, and smaller vehicles. I've advocated this idea for years. Nice to see they may actually do it.

[@WritingFighter]

Might not need to be 30mm; but anything like a miniaturized ship-borne CIWS would defend against a load of weapon systems simultaneously.

[@Condor1970]

@@WritingFighter . On the surface, that would seem like a good idea. However, the problem with any kind of small caliber Gatling system is the enormous amount of ammunition it uses. The Abrams only has so much room for ammo. It makes much more sense to be able to fire only a few rounds that burst with shrapnel to disable a very small target, vs dumping hundreds of rounds in 2-3 seconds, hoping to get one that will score a hit. You have to remember, after scoring a hit, you may very well have another 10 incoming drones to deal with.

[@Del_S]

They need two approaches. One quick and nasty as an interim, and one more technical. Get the big bore thing working right while using something that just sprays in the general direction, because right now the swarms are small and unarmoured. Who's to say someone won't decide the ability to resist some small arms fire on the way to a tank is worth a little more cost on a kamikaze drone?

[@TB-zf7we]

@@Condor1970 Have you heard of Rheinmetall RWS MG for armored vehicle use only (RMG762) that uses a 3 rotating barrel configuration, not for Gatling gun use, but to rotate out remotely the hot barrel, thus allowing higher rates of precise fire to deal with multiple drones, while crew stays buttoned up...concept

[@LD-pt5ur]

All it takes is one FPV drone 😂

[@Limpn00dle19kilo]

19kilo here, I can’t tell you how many briefings we sat through going over pictures and videos of every aircraft helo and armored and cargo vehicles at EVERY ANGLE possible to verify Friend or Foe. We had a m1A2 abrams (sep) v2 and it weighed 65 tons roughly, to bring it down with all of these options and that grade of armor under 60 tons is incredible I love it! Also the auto loader, just wow, maybe we will go to a 3 man crew. This is incredible tech, HOOAH

[@karenrobertsdottir4101]

As someone with actual experience, I'm curious as to your view. There's chatter from some manufacturers about future tanks being plug-in hybrid (looks like they're looking at conventional-hybrid for M1A3, so probably no pure-electric range). From some napkin math, it looks like every 1T of battery mass would offer 15 miles of pure-electric range, with the advantages of (A) silent (when on electric-only), (B) near-zero thermal (when on electric-only), (C) ability to drive even if the engine is damaged, (D) ability to charge off mains power if fuel is unavailable, (E) extreme torque boost from 0 RPM, (F) high power (up to several megawatts) available for accessories (jammers, etc). Does that sort of mass tradeoff sound like a good or bad buy to you? Assumptions: 230Wh/kg for non-flammable cell chemistries (flammable would be higher, but ruling that out for obvious reasons); ~90% efficiency; 50MJ/mi needed for tank propulsion (based on 1gal/mi diesel at 146,5MJ/gal at 34% engine efficiency, or higher fuel consumption but a less efficient engine); and not accounting for reducing the bottom armour mass, though the packs are steel cans full of metal oxides and graphite, so there may be some ability to reduce it.

[@kx7500]

@@karenrobertsdottir4101I wonder about the fragility of a battery that big though.

[@jacobbaumgardner3406]

Glad to see a mention of Glenn. Never met him personally but have had some great exchanges online. Great dude.

[@jkull173]

Thank you for going the extra mile and reading/researching the source materials instead of just quoting headlines and online articles or Twitter threads.

[@Taskandpurpose]

Keep an eye out for other channels ripping off this thumbnail topic and title then running the words through AI to change it , it’ll happen about a month from now

[@NikeHM69]

The US already had fully deployed tanks with barrel launched missiles decades ago. The M-60 A2 "Starship" and M-551 Sheridan were both capable of firing the MGM-51 Shillelagh. It was even used several times in combat with limited success. They were by most reports pretty lousy and were all eventually phased out, but i think that's mostly because the concept was way ahead of the technology of the day.

[@darthkarl99]

Partly that and it was also the US's first real attempt at the tech.

[@ktall6749]

Yep.

[@ZipperOfficial]

That 30mm chain gun with airburst rounds sounds absolutely nasty for drones. I didn't know there were air burst rounds that small

[@Ashy-TheAshen]

Pretty sure 20mm an up you can slap fuzes on rounds

[@zachdrozs2938]

A 30mm isn't small. It's roughly the size of a soda can

[@ZipperOfficial]

@@zachdrozs2938 I'm well aware of that. Airburst rounds are generally HUGE though

[@darthkarl99]

@@ZipperOfficial Airburst rounds in WW2 went down to 37mm in size. 30mm has been a thing that could technically be done for at least 50 years. It's just that western air defence doctrine has really deprioritised any type of SHORAD other than shoulder fired SAM's so there's been zero incentive to develop it.

[@L1_L2]

@@zachdrozs2938a 30mm is absolutely not the size of a soda can, but one can‘t blame americans for not knowing.

[@AntonioDelRio-uy1kc]

The M551 Sheridan Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle could fire the main gun launched 152 mm Shalalie missile in 1969. The M60 A2 came along with the same gun and capability in 1973.

[@capoeirastronaut]

Saying tanks are obsolete is obsolete.

[@theimmortal4718]

The tank isn't, but 70 ton tanks are

[@ZboeC5]

@@theimmortal4718 There is always a need.

[@gae_wead_dad_6914]

@@theimmortal4718 Then it's not really a tank if it has little to no armor. It's probably an IFV, or AFV

[@theimmortal4718]

@@gae_wead_dad_6914 So unless a tank is more than 70 tons, it has "no armor"? How the hell did you come to that conclusion?

[@theimmortal4718]

@@ZboeC5 Can you name our biggest and best battleship the US Navy is sailing right now?

[@sethb3090]

Worrying about the T-14...So what you're saying is that we're about to repeat the whole "they have a Mig-25 Foxbat, we need to design the F-15" thing all over again.

[@СимеонНиколов-о9в]

Yes. And they will give all of the cocanium to their engineers

[@Attaxalotl]

Yep; because that is just what we do, and it's awesome!

[@itmaybeokay]

The lazerpig loop in full effect.

[@convenientplayer1447]

I mean, we got the legendary F-15 out of that, so I reckon we might actually get a good fourth-generation main battle tank for once 💀

[@grenmoyo3968]

I will never be upset that we have extreme over-match against near peers.

[@trickslies844]

One reason they might be ready to switch hulls is that there is currently a market for tanks. So if the US wants to sell it old ones there will be plenty of takers

[@cascadianrangers728]

Yeah and then the US will have to spend almost as much as they were paid ripping out all the depleted uranium armor and s***

[@stupidburp]

All the M1A1 and M1A2 can be refurbished to M1A2 SEPv2 or SEPv3 equivalent but with the armor packs swapped out for export versions. That would provide thousands of decent tanks to sell or give away as military aid.

[@GalAxy-u9s]

Well, you could start with the Ukrainian market. Or having lost 22 out of 31 is too embarrassing, particularly when the Ukrainians don't speak very well about the tank...

[@trickslies844]

@@GalAxy-u9s By what benchmark is that embarrassing?

[@sirnirvikingur]

@@trickslies844 its Ivan mate.

[@GizmoKid]

Great video. You present the information well. Your content is always watchable, and I always leann something. Good job!!

[@Soulessdeeds]

The biggest problem with mass producing tanks like we have the Abrams is that you become trapped by an older design and the cost of replacing that platform vs producing an entirely new design. Tanks aren't obsolete, not by a long shot. But I do think current tank designs are obsolete. Drones simply changed everything.

[@burnttoaster6313]

You don’t need to design a new tank to combat drones. You develop the hardware to combat drones. That’s why Russia is using their old t55’s and t62’s in Ukraine. All they need is a mobile gun that’s has walls on top of it

[@ecojom8104]

“ i know nothing but will comment this irrelevant opinion anyway “

[@winzyl9546]

​@@burnttoaster6313thats probably the worst and most simple solution. Theres a reason why tank armor is weaker on the sides, back, and roof. Tanks are suppose to be supported with protection from top and rear, and not built with a barn roof or some heavy back armor.

[@JohnSmith-pj6wb]

drones are much cheaper to evolve and counter anything tank designing could do...its just easier to do drones and you can have millions of them....any country that goes heavy af on drone tech will do well even against the us tank force...all it takes is 5 or 6 cheap 10k drones to take out a m1 abrahms as proven in the ukraine war... also if this tank is an ev tank its even weaker...lots of bad issues come with ev designs...drones are the future in every theater of war...air space sea land

[@Dreadwolf3155]

tank drone carriers! very cool idea. You are right sir, we need to get more creative with designs

[@orlandostuart5805]

Very thorough. As a retired Tank Commander I appreciate this. Thanks and Go Army!

[@arsonisticfox6215]

On the note of the army science board report considering the T-14 armata a real threat, I will say this: We saw this exact same scenario occur with the MiG-25 Foxbat. We thought that it was going to be some highly agile fighter and we needed to develop something better, leading us to create the F-15 Eagle. When the reality of the situation was the Foxbat was just another fast interceptor.

[@ShadowRulah]

@@arsonisticfox6215 Pretending to believe stupid things Russian say is how we get away with our budgets. The ability to fight two world powers at once is hard to justify if you admit the only real world powers are in NATO.

[@jasony8480]

It is probably less the thought that T-14 was a credible threat and more "hey, how about these ideas based off these other ideas!?" "Yea, that would be pretty sweat with these other ideas and then tanks would be X% harder to destroy by ATGMs and this would etc, etc, etc, etc" I would argue more of a excuse or inspiration than anything else.

[@arsonisticfox6215]

@@jasony8480 idk dude i was just repeating what the video said

[@MrTefe]

T-14 was a huge fail

[@adambell9188]

At some point Russia is going to have to realize that their fantasy is a dumbed down version of our reality

[@bluefluteman]

Outstanding report! Thank you Sir.

[@i_basl]

it’s so great you came out as tanksexual! we all support and accept you no matter who you are

[@Taskandpurpose]

🎉🎉🎉🎉

[@G36C-556]

basil im gonna touch you 👹👹(all diddy)

[@AxisGMD2010]

It’s the only fake gender I support so you have me too

[@joeclaridy]

Back in 1966, the M551 Sheridan had a 152mm rifled canon that shot both conventional artillery and the MGM-51 Shillelagh missile

[@sanpietroprogettista9887]

Shoot we still rocked those into the mid 80s in the 82nd. I saw a few of them burn in on equipment drops.

[@hibco3000]

The technology just wasnt there back in the 60s

[@raz4371]

I love the Sheridan it's such a badass tank

[@joeclaridy]

@@hibco3000 it was but it didn't answer the question of do we need this? The caseless 152mm ammo was more than enough for then Soviet armor but can't really say if it was necessary for it to be equiped with the MGM-51.

[@Mighty_Atheismo]

Those sheridans were a handsome piece of kit too

[@Caswell_Official]

I spoke to someone in the know about this at Fort Moore/Benning, and he said this definitely wasn't last-minute. Something like the E3 has been favored for several years, but SEPv4 was instead prioritized because it was simpler and cheaper. Ukraine was what made the brass realize that a more substantial shift was needed, so the E3 was greenlit.

[@nyalan8385]

Yeah the amount of legwork already done, the clear design goals and the amount of studies completed makes it pretty clear this has been in the background for a while

[@jaredschroeder7555]

The biggest thing the Abrams X had that im hoping to hear is on the M1A3 is the camera system. Iirc, the X had an allaround camera system, which could link to the crews helmets like a fighter pilot can, allowing them to see through their own tank. One of a tanks biggest weaknesses being awareness, hearing about such a system sounded phenomenal.

[@arakami8547]

Might be referring to the Elbit Ironvision, I think its in service already with some of the more modern stuff coming out of Europe. In Australia we're getting it for our Redbacks. Otherwise, 360 degree camera systems is already becoming standard. The Brits will have it for their Ajax, Boxer, and Challenger 3s.

[@MichaelWarman]

Really enjoyed the subtle shade thrown on the Armata by the repeated use of the past tense in discussing how the science board used to be concerned about it...

[@nathanhall4156]

The tank's obsolescence has been stated since WW1. No, it's never going away. People will always shout opinions on subjects they know very little about.

[@sirsmeal3192]

The naysayers were correct about battleships in WWII when aircraft carriers checkmated them, but carriers are now obsolete in the same way battleships were. Tanks will always be needed for offense, although their form will need to change to match the threats.

[@gae_wead_dad_6914]

Ah yes, the famous "someone said tank is obsolete so that means it doesn't count this time!" Trope I remember a story about Battleships. Everyone thought that Battleships were obsolete pre-WW1 when torpedo boats became a thing. Then Torpedo boat destroyers, or colloquially named "Destroyers" came to be. Combined arms at sea Then the aircraft carrier became a thing and we aaaall know how you people like to repeat how Battleships aren't obsolete. Oh, woops.

[@gae_wead_dad_6914]

@@sirsmeal3192 "Although their form will need to change" So they won't be tanks, then. The same way you don't call an aircraft carrier a battleship, do you? Also "Carriers are obsolete" is hilarious. No, they're not. They were ALWAYS vunrelable and were NEVER meant to be in a direct fight, and as of yet NOTHING changed their capabilities of being a floating aircraft platform.

[@02091992able]

@@sirsmeal3192 In ship to ship combat the carrier outclassed the battleship. But when you are doing island hopping with naval invasions the firepower a battleship brings to bear is not something to scoff at. I believe the longest hit on target with a naval gun was done by one of the Iowa class battleships during Desert Storm with the aid of a drone spotter. Hitting an enemy complex well over 25 miles inland from the gulf and scoring a direct hit. Tanks were said to be obsolete after the advent of attack helicopters. Perhaps that is why there is a renewed interest in tank launched missiles.

[@kaneworsnop1007]

Although aircraft carriers took the top spot and became the main threat to battleships they didnt actually kill them off, they still needed battleships for protection due to being so weakly armoured that if anything got close enough to fire at them they would be destroyed easily. The final nail in the coffin for battleships was missiles. Once missiles became accurate enough to be fired by moving ships at other moving ships, not only did they outrage battleship guns, but their large warheads meant battleship armour counted for nothing. Current warships have negligible armour as a result, relying on speed and hard kill defensive systems to survive.

[@ccfmfg]

The U.S. Army's M551 Sheridan Tank's 152mm Gun had a Gun Launched Guided Missile along with Fixed Ammunition and it was a 1960's Tank first used in Vietnam.

[@Zander1890]

If it’s immune to exploding drones, then it’s gonna be a game changer. 😂

[@rhishabhpandey175]

War Tycoon reference isn't it

[@elissitdesign]

Some AI system with throwing nets packed in canisters could work. Like mini mortar rounds. AI could aim towards the threat. Sky tracking might be easier because of less obstacles.

[@lightbird27]

@@elissitdesign I could see this working. An AI would definetily beat a human's reaction time that's for sure, especially with RF sensors and/or jamming equipment. Training it may not be as much of a pain as I thought unless it's visual since it will probably be mistaking birds or flying debris for drones.

[@kevinmello9149]

The US had a gun/launcher back in the late 50s early 60s called the M81 152mm gun launcher. It was mounted in the M551 Sheridan and M60A2 "Starship" (unofficial), and although the vehicles stayed in service into and past the 80s, the launcher was never as good as hoped. I chalk it up to technology in it's infancy. Nowadays, it may actually work

[@Nomad-qm3zf]

Everything about this tank sounds like a child describing the superpowers of a character he created

[@theimmortal4718]

It's all basic capabilities, now

[@edwhatshisname3562]

My tank can beat up your tank.

[@Iona_Roe_Deer]

@@edwhatshisname3562😮

[@chartreux1532]

But can it compete with the new German "PANTHER" ? I mean we already got the cooler Name, so that's 1:0 for us Just bantering my Friends haha Prost & Cheers from Berchtesgaden in the Bavarian Alps

[@josemercado4702]

He has way more knowledge than you in this subject. Why listen to your nonsense?

[@ArthurWright-uv4ww]

Informative, thanks

[@Zerachael1337]

As a former tanker, I will take a caffine fueled adrenaline charged human loader over any malfunction prone autoloader any day. If the autoloader can't load in less than 4 seconds, it's useless.

[@jonathanpfeffer3716]

Problem is when calibers start going into the 140s and up. It’s a basically an inevitability as armor and APS technology advances, any future tank will be designed with either a 140mm immediately or the room for one in the future. At that point human loaders are really going to struggle with that size and weight of a shell. And modern auto losers are extraordinarily reliable (and can be faster than 4 seconds). Us using manual loaders is the exception to the rule, multiple advanced NATO militaries use them. I actually agree that human loafers are better than autoloaders right now in the 120mm/105mm weight class, but I don’t think it makes sense to design a future tank with one in mind.

[@joeypaulzine3769]

well said, what’s the point of an auto loader if it takes more than 7 seconds to load a shell

[@dbio305]

Japan in the corner with 4 second autoload​@@joeypaulzine3769

[@jeffwestmoreland1753]

as a former tanker as well , Went from a M60 to an Xm1 to a M1A2 I pray for the day we don't need tanks .

[@RobertDibona]

Facts!!!! 19 Kilo Ft. Knox 5th/117 ACR.

[@Liam-ql7tr]

Line of sight???? Tanks with ranging drones! Done

[@Wavy_Gravy]

Also, drones that take out enemy suicide drones, as well as spotters.

[@DrunkguyFawkes4]

I read that at first as "raging" drones..... Raging drones best ranging drones any day I my opinion.

[@philipthecow]

I had the same thought. This might not be feasible because the drones would need really good optics. I believe good optics are expensive and possibly heavy. In any case, it seems like a bad idea to have tanks fire missiles because there's no reason a Humvee can't have that capability; what makes tanks unique is the big gun.

[@karimadel4309]

Top attack tank launched missile modelled on a miniature Spike missile

[@DT-wp4hk]

Command and Conquer Generals.

[@josiahhockenberry9846]

Tanks are not obsolete. The hardware and tactics simply need to be adapted to fit new field conditions.

[@sierra283blue5]

Love the channel and the info!!!

[@adamhodgson8851]

“Task and Purpose” videos are the only videos on these sort of topics that are really informative yet funny at the same time. The humour aspect of making videos is not easy. I have seen many channels on all sorts of topics and they are often either super informative OR funny, but hardly ever both. I really appreciate his sense of humour and the jokes he adds to the clips. Keep’m coming Cap! 👍🏻

[@PatriotxAsset]

"24 million a tank, but nobody can get mad at you for buying it, cause now you own a fucking tank"😂

[@jeromethiel4323]

Tactics are ever evolving. When the Abrams was first designed, a lot of battlefield hazards didn't exist or were not considered a priorities for design. Things change, and the equipment must evolve with it.

[@TheActionBastard]

It doesn't help that armor development is ludicrously expensive and time consuming. Time to "I want a new tank" and "I have a new tank" can be a decade or more.

[@darthmaul8912]

A lot of those threads existed for decades. And the US was laughing about them.😂 Now the "answer" is a tank with a all the features of a modern Russian tank + APS from German tanks in a hull that looks an awful lot like the Leclerc frim France.🤣 Turbine engine is gone too. Turns out that an engine hot enough to be seen from space via thermal satellites wasn't the brightest idea.😂

[@rebelgaming1.5.14]

​@@darthmaul8912Imagine being this stupid. Those 'modern' MBTs you speak of in Russia used outdated equipment for years, had manned, unshielded MGs for nearly a decade after the Abrams had a remote controlled turret and gun shields with the TUSK package, lacked effective APS (Shtora-1 doesn't seem to work, and Drozd had a tendency to paste infantry in addition to having massive blind spots), only recently gained proper computer optics (something the Abrams has had since the early 90s), uses mostly ERA which will also paste infantry if it goes off, lacks DU armor (which has proven incredibly effective in defeating APFSDS and tandem munitions), and suffers from the same problem of getting destroyed by FPV Drones. Russian tanks only recently managed to catch up to what the West has had for decades. And we're about to obsolete Russian armor again.

[@georgesheffield1580]

Generals often fight last years war . The Challanger 2 ,has had a proven ( 30 + yrs ) 5 km range that will knock out any tank . The new Korean tank is superior and is in production

[@SnorriTheLlama]

@@darthmaul8912I think you’ll find it was the brightest idea. So bright in fact, that it could be seen by aliens looking for light radiation from the planet Earth.

[@InvestmentJoy]

This is super cool but I'm also kind of curious why we just don't make a super bradley. The M2 Bradley has shown that it is an absolutely devastating force to be reckoned with in Ukraine most of the fighting is against Infantry and similar targets not tanks. The downside is you've got two tries to kill a tank and then you've got to get out of there otherwise you're left fighting it with the bushmaster Cannon which is proven itself to be somewhat effective. In my mind you give it some more armor, add the ability to airburst ammunition, and add more missiles to it and you would have a relatively affordable extremely effective solution

[@bluntcabbage6042]

A full caliber main gun is more effective against the vast majority of targets so if you're going into the weight class of MBTs, a normal main gun is better. That's why you don't really see MBTs with autocannon+ATGM setups, and those few that do exist have not and will not replace normal MBTs with normal guns. The autocannon/ATGM combo is just a way to emulate the raw firepower of an MBT on a lighter platform, but it's not quite as good as a full caliber gun regardless though it's still very effective.

[@jasony8480]

That would be for direct combat. I would argue that the current Bradley and other modern western style IFVs are already direct-combat focused enough, where as enhanced sensors and enhancing situational awareness of friendly forces would be more valuable on a modern battlefield. For example, in addition to the standard weapons, an IFV with 6 hunter-killer anti-drone munitions, an ECM + hardkill defense, and a solid sensor suite for identifying targets (probably including radar for drones and artillery identification) would be incredibly capable at directing fires, generating drone safe zones, and still performing the standard IFV direct fire role on a modern battlespace. I am not saying more capable munitions and more missiles ready to go is bad, but I think the information space and target acquisition would be a more cost/tonnage effective direction to go at this point. Loss of efficiency and capability though the chaos of conflict is very real and both mitigating that and reducing the enemy's ability to peer through that fog is incredibly valuable and well worth having many dispersed platforms in the area all able to do this. This would be doubly or triply so since front-line forces are increasingly being shrunk to reduce footprint and potential losses to strikes.

[@bzipoli]

they complement each other, not substitute each other. ifvs go together with mbts. not every enemy will be a.... not so good t-90 crew like that one we all saw. if a bradley goes against a good one, it's a done deal. also this will be in the future, so who knows what the chinese will come up by then, they're getting better with their electronics and making a bit better mbts (not as good yet, but not an ifv). also if you put too much armor/weight on the next bradley you get the same problem you get with the abrams: too heavy. you'll loose its nimbleness, one of it's great advantages. theres one vehicle for every situation and they complement each other, higher mobility + more firepowet you have the booker etc

[@themichael3410]

The M1 Abrams Tank is one beautiful piece of machinery. The M1A2-SEPV3 is peak power and performance.

[@ashutoshsharmash]

The last time I was this early, the Iraqis fighting in Kuwait thought their T72s were better than the M1 Abrams.

[@sirsmeal3192]

It is. It is lower, lighter, and can fight anywhere in the world. It has a 500 km combat radius and doesn't break down every 200 km.

[@GC-nd1lp]

@@sirsmeal3192 what the fuck is kilometer?

[@konakona420]

@@sirsmeal3192 tell that to all the abandoned T series variants on the side of ukrainian roads XD. not to mention the T-72's getting stuck inthe mud just as easy as any western tanks.

[@JAnx01]

The T-72M was to the T-72B and the T-80 series what the M10 Booker is to the M1 Abrams. Plus they were using, at the time, 20 year old ammunition. Plus the desert environment multiplies the technological gap in fire control systems tenfold.

[@StkyDkNMeBlz]

@@GC-nd1lp 1000 meters lmao

[@CW-nj2fn]

I'm no expert but what people tend to miss when claiming tanks are obsolete is that military tech hinges on the capability that it brings to the table, so until something else can fill or eliminate the tank's role, the tank will never be obsolete.

[@irrelevantfish1978]

One of the most common arguments of the anti-tank crowd is that anti-tank weapons have advanced faster than tank defensive systems and it's no longer feasible to make them sufficiently survivable. If they're correct, it doesn't matter whether there's a replacement waiting in the wings or not, because it simply won't be technically possible to make something that does what an MBT is supposed to do. And while I'm not entirely convinced that they _are_ correct, it certainly wouldn't be the first time militaries have had to deal with unfilled roles. In fact, the tank itself filled a role that had been vacant since the Renaissance or soon thereafter, when fully armored heavy cavalry went obsolete. From then until WW1, militaries just had to cope with not having something that could cross contested ground without getting mowed down. We'd have to do no less, though I'd hope our means of coping would bear no resemblance to theirs (ie, throwing men into meat grinders until they jammed).

[@Commodore22345]

@@irrelevantfish1978 "If they're correct," We are correct. Just look at the last two conflicts in which tanks were used in large numbers by at least one side: the war in Ukraine, and the Armenia/Azerbaijan war two or three years ago. In both of those conflicts, tanks have performed extremely poorly. The main problem being that a tank that costs hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars can be killed by UAVs that only cost a few hundred dollars to make and can be produced in much larger numbers much quicker than an army can replace their tank losses. There's also the matter of logistics. Tanks really are becoming logistical nightmares to field compared to bog-standard infantry that can kill those tanks much more easily than those tanks can kill them. So both logistically and financially, it's just making more sense for armies to deploy UAV-equipped infantry with maybe a few light armored vehicles for support than it would to deploy a heavy armored formation.

[@onceuponadime978]

Tanks aren't obsolete they just require decent doctrine. They were never meant to be used like the Russians have, in urban environs with little to no infantry attachment. Tanks are like hammers. Great for nails, not so great for screws. Using the right tools or tool combinations makes a job much easier.

[@matthewvargas2264]

You clearly havent been paying attention to the ukraine war in detail. Theres a reason why the russians operate them the way they do . With satellites and drones you cant mass a heavy amount of armor on a certain part of the front with out being spotted . The moment you get spotted you get destroyed by long range stand off weapons. This war has shown huge armored columns get destroyed very easily becuase you can see them coming from miles away .

[@OdinReactor]

Nah, in the age of cheap kamikaze drones, tanks are pretty obsolete, especially in urban environments. It's like bringing a sword to a gun fight.

[@iCanHazTwentyLetters]

I want to know more about the thermal stealth and electronic signatures you mentioned in the beginning 🤔

[@Rievven]

Obsolete is the wrong word. Cost effective is the right word.

[@mrroger-t6m]

There s no way those 60 tone behemoth are cost effective, I appreciate them but there's no way they pay for themselves

[@moshet842]

​​​@@mrroger-t6m In war, it can potentially pay for itself in minutes. It has a destructive power worth much higher than what it cost to produce. The point is to last long enough to inflict more damage on the enemy than the tank cost and you're ahead in monetary terms.

[@alandaters8547]

They are not cost effective if there burgeoning weight makes them and their crews significantly more vulnerable. (Although the Russian military DOES seem to feel that major losses of poorly trained crews and old tanks IS cost effective.)

[@rasheedh7043]

@@moshet842$ 1000 dollars drones be like: 😂😂😂

[@wedgeantilles8575]

@@mrroger-t6m It depends on your military budget. If you have a high budget: Why wouldn't you invest into some tanks? The US defense budget is roughly 850 BILLION. Per YEAR. So how much do they spend on tanks? A few billion. That is less than 1% of your defense budget. So if your combat power on the battlefield increases by just 1%, they are already cost effective. And I seriously doubt that the difference between: US Army, tanks included and US Army, without tanks, is only 1%...

[@roy6419]

As an engineer I'm jealous of American engineers who have the opportunity to work on tanks

[@paulm3079]

From one engineer to another: nothing stopping you from designing your own

[@DalekVark]

As a dalek, I'm not jealous. We are the tank!

[@roy6419]

@pcpll I work in aerospace, it gets dull. Tanks are cool 😎

[@paulm3079]

@pcpll it’s free to scribble ideas on a piece of paper. I disagree with your disagreement 😂

[@wes11bravo]

@roy - I would imagine designing tanks and the systems that comprise them is a tough field to get an engineer gig, fairly niche, but keep looking. People retire every day. And I can only see them needing more engineers in this realm. Hammer at it, son!

[@SK-gc7xv]

Autoloading just makes sense. So long as you solve the ammunition separation issue, the weight and size savings are well worth it.

[@cpt_4meric4]

Great research, thank you!

[@TheChadiwack]

I FUCKING KNEW IT THAT HE LOVED TANKS AND THEIR BIG GUNS!!!!! He loves watching those big shells shoot out of those long hard barrels!!!

[@darianharman9193]

"Exasturbated". Lol! This is why we love you!

[@Taskandpurpose]

: p woops I'm a dummy

[@darianharman9193]

@@Taskandpurpose Never!

[@checkwikipediasrsly9274]

@@Taskandpurpose Remember that time Cappy got caught exasturbating in the Abrams reveal video? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

[@anthonyali4710]

Saying a tank is obsolete because it can be destroyed by cheap drones. Is like saying a soldier is obsolete because an expensive human soldier can be killed by a $1 bullet.

[@joshwalker8984]

It's obsolete because the only thing it excels at is defeated by a cheap drone. Infantry excel in far more categories...

[@anthonyali4710]

​@@joshwalker8984 Infantry don't have the mobile firepower and protection that a tank has. A single tank can roll through an army of infantry and they can't do anything to stop it without getting a drone or some other weapon to stop it. Try sending in infantry to do a tank's job and you'll end up with a ton of dead infantry. A tank is far more difficult to kill than a human.

[@girthquake0]

This is a terrible comparison

[@brigadgeneralvoid2508]

@@anthonyali4710 Good ol' carl gustaf should do the trick, if not that then artillery (which aren't nearly as vulnerable) or drones at this point

[@swiftycortex]

Hell yes, that is a great point. Thanks

[@Batmans_Pet_Goldfish]

There were M60 variants that had ATGM capabilities, though the obvious western example is the Sheridan.

[@RootzRockBand]

Drones and mines and ATGMs are the most lethal things that a modern tank can face in today’s battlefield, not other MBTs. All available funds should be going into how to properly deal with those threats first.

[@shanerooney7288]

The US should focus on a single use Kamikaze drone. It uses launch-assist and glides to target, to cut down on costs by not blowing up the propulsion system every time. The drone also offloads the targeting and tracking to hardware to a family of systems, allowing the drone to be almost entirely payload. The drone system has a high focus on low cost, allowing the US to build them by the truck load. I call it the 155 mm shell.

[@mattadams7922]

Mines are always gonna be a tanks greatest enemy even with a V hull it would still blow tracks and everything else.. the drones will be a laser system to just overheat it. Tight beam in the 250 kw range will drop drones easy and I believe less than a 2 second on target time to do it. ATGM is a similar thing. The lasers are the answer to the air launched issues.

[@cameronspence4977]

Nope. You forgot aircraft

[@stefthorman8548]

@@shanerooney7288 cool, except it doesn't have pin point accuracy, nor is it able to chase infantry

[@shanerooney7288]

@@stefthorman8548 chasing infantry is called a creeping barrage. And a lack of accuracy sounds like a skill problem.

[@tkg__]

I love how with the autoloader, lower weight and silhouette, three person crew, barrel launched ATGM... it shapes up to be an American T-series.

[@sirsmeal3192]

We eventually notice *good* technology, usually after trying all the _bad_ technology.

[@Attaxalotl]

Stealing other people's ideas and doing them better is kind of our thing. Look at the entire idea of an IFV; pioneered in East Germany, proven with the Soviet BMP series, and then epitomized by the Bradley.

[@tkg__]

Don't get me wrong: nothing bad with that. Leclerc's and South Korean K2s have a very similar design too. I wouldn't be surprised if the captured T-80 that showed up in USA has something to do with it too.

[@cameronspence4977]

​@tkg__ lol bro we've had T80s for literal decades

[@joekent5675]

4 person crew > 3 person crew. I've read up on this argument for a long time now, and nothing will change my mind.

[@Evinthal84]

When you mentioned that the T-14 was one of the main reasons that the new tank was being developed I lost my shit laughing. I swear If this turns out to be a repeat of the whole MiG-25 Foxbat causing the US to panic and develop the F-15, but in tank form I'm going to laugh so hard.

[@mercb3ast]

The Mig-25 was a good plane, and in a lot of ways revolutionary for the USSR. The F-15 was an incredible advancement. There will be no similar step in advancement with tanks, and the Soviets->Russians still have the better tank doctrine when it comes to quantity over quality. Tanks perform an important role, but they are easily killed by contemporaneous AT systems. This tank is one deployment away from being killed by a 45 dollar walmart drone and an RKG-3. It's not economical for real war, and the only reason to invest so heavily in Western style MBTs in the decades prior, was because we were fighting dudes who had ZERO MODERN AT. Iraq? Limited modernish ATGMs, no modern RPGs. Afghanistan? Zero of either. If we deployed these to Ukraine, they'd end up on display in Red Square, killed by a 400 dollar grenade, dropped by a 50 dollar commercial drone. I'm not saying tanks are obsolete, but any serious military in the world would rather have ~8 T-90Ms over 1 of these, because that's what the price differential is going to be. Now, obviously it's not that simple, because the US can afford to buy and build a lot more tanks than Russia can, Russia isn't going to have 8 T-90Ms for every one of these. The point still stands. If the US is going into a near-peer conflict, at a strategic level, we'd be better off with 8 of the US version of a T-90M (4.5m bucks a pop roughly), versus 1 tank that by the time it actually is being deployed, is 30m+ a pop. If we were talking about this 10 years ago, I think there would be an argument to be had about really high quality tanks when used in support of COIN against an adversary that has no, or limited modern AT. The US will never fight another insurgency after our roll in Ukraine, where the enemy doesn't have dirt cheap drones dropping shaped charged AT grenades on the roofs of tanks. It's just not going to happen. So the use case of a 20 million or 30 million dollar tank saving a few more crews lives isn't really going to be economical. It very much could undermine strategy readiness if/when a real big boy war broke out.

[@rh906]

It's the only thing that gets people to spend money on modernization instead of feeding the corruption grift.

[@SuphaGarb]

@@mercb3astWell you see thats why they are redesigning it…

[@Andrew85or]

​@@mercb3ast don't these have a pretty sophisticated suite of jamming equipment for that reason?

[@calebmenker988]

​@@Andrew85or Yea but people seem to have this sudden obsession with the idea that the tank is now useless because of the drone but that's just simply not true

[@thomasglover1327]

Lima like the bean O-high-yo! I was born in '74 my friends in school dads made the Abrams...they make the Abrams and their kids make the Abrams. 3 generation tank makers are all over NW Ohio.

[@mctaguer]

Longer ago, there was also the Shillelagh missile fired out of the Sheridan (your pic at 3:38). Oboy. One of my ROTC instructors was an armor guy who'd actually been on Sheridans. I asked him about the missile and he just smirked.

[@sirsmeal3192]

They were useful, but cleaning the barrel after every shot made them a non-combat alternative.

[@johndeboyace7943]

I’m surprised he was alive, we lost 5 Sheridan’s in one action, 2/11ACR. It was such a disaster that Gen. Abrams visited the squadron, Vietnam May 1971. A lot of things are developed, but when used are disasters.

[@stabsfeldwebela4178]

TTP’s might change but nothing else does, never has. Offence Defence Time v Space Armour makes you a time lord that messes with the space of defenders, and defenders steal offenders time to manoeuvre before being fully engaged and delayed. All armour tools are those for a time master. Engineer terrain assessments aren’t worth a pinch of shit. See here is how a tactic is formed, I walk up to map, and then pick exactly where the map says I can’t because the enemy has the same map. So when I perform a night march and reappear from one location and reappear in another like a time lord, the space savers shit emselves with how did they do that, when no one recon’d the routes. A formation commander will want reports on those movement corridors as of now, many routes will be proven. What most won’t know is that software uses formation size as a limiting factor, not individual tanks. There is way more to war fighting than spec sheets, there is way too much computer fighting. Afghans didn’t need a single thing to kick our asses out of their country. Just the will to fight. Once you get a tank into a hard close fight all of the fancy garbage is useless. Survival is down to humans making good tactical decisions to preserve combat power but smash the other in the face hard enough my infantry brothers can walk down hill in style.

[@dandylion1987]

Yes but does it have tea making facilities. Thought not.

[@asdfgh9985]

They come equipped with Frosty machines instead

[@josullivan7369]

Just a Coca-Cola fountain machine

[@dixenherize6969]

That's because we're men over here in the states, and we don't need to take breaks from laying on the hate/pain, to have a little tea party like you softies across the pond over there 😉😘

[@dandylion1987]

@@dixenherize6969 😢

[@paleoph6168]

​@@asdfgh9985ah yes, the ones that keep braking down.

[@Grapheneolic]

5:46 did that just say… PLASMA CARTRIDGE??

[@Attaxalotl]

Yep!

[@DanielDorn-tr7tw]

@@Attaxalotl In the 40 Watt range?

[@charleshartley9597]

​@@DanielDorn-tr7twJust what you see, pal.

[@joshuamattingly1232]

@@DanielDorn-tr7twterminator?

[@Attaxalotl]

@@DanielDorn-tr7tw I mean, it's not that much plasma. It's to set off the shell more precisely, in a way that maximizes the powder's burn rate.

[@nosidenoside2458]

It's good they're doing this. I was worried that the companies they hire to make tanks weren't going to get their Cost Plus Percentage of Cost Contracts. Thank goodness, i love that our taxes are going to the military instead of unimportant things like medicare or public schools. The last time we were invaded was 1942, but it could really happen at any moment.

[@kobythompson3206]

Good times make weak men

[@slothboyomg]

"This better not awaken anything in me..." hahahaha. Quality Content as always 😂❤

[@bat2293]

Sooo.. the question in my mind becomes: "When is an Abrams, no longer an Abrams"? I propose it be renamed. Below is my list of _Top Five_ possible alternatives: 1. M1 Schwarzkopf - or "Stormin' Norman" for short. 2. M1 Super Patton II - because everything is better when you put "Super" in front of it. 3. M1 Sherman X - hey, it won WWII didn't it? 4. M1 Heniokhos I - after the charioteer of Delphi - or just "Chaos" for short. 5. M1 OBLTTP - (Over Budget Late To The Party) - or just "Blyat" for short.

[@sirsmeal3192]

M1 Super Booker

[@orlandostuart5805]

I like #1.

[@triadwarfare]

True. The name must be changed. The new tank should no longer be an Abrams. Maybe Abrahams? Most people mistake Abrams from Abraham so just own it.

[@biohazard724]

The main battle tank of Theseus

[@sirsmeal3192]

@@bat2293 M1 Super Booker

[@jimm3093]

5:03: I remember that consuming soda in the field was an Article 15 offense. If Red Bull is allowed in Basic and AIT today, my locker would be absolutely full, especially considering back in the day, we were allotted only 4 hours of sleep per day during Basic (19 hours of training, 1 hour of fire watch/CQ)

[@cameronspence4977]

Holy sh how old are you

[@anonemus2971]

@@cameronspence4977 He must be ancient because we pigged out on all kinds of pop and junk in the field back in the 1980's, No article 15's for drinking pop, just for getting sunburns at the lake on the weekend.

[@JustNo8808]

Idaway jern not as old as you think because the term soda wasn't that popular in the past as it is today. Many many more people said pop back then, because You just called him dad and your drink that was carbonated pop. Now we have baking soda being drink whenever someone mentions soda. ​@@cameronspence4977

[@Rocket_Man232]

The Task & Purpose Video Subject Namer is Legitimately In Need (of a Dictionary) 🤣

[@SAM_Felipe]

Tanks will never go obsolete. You still need to move a gun on land to advance the battle lines and to control AOs.

[@kohl1999]

I agree, we will still need tanks because they make beautiful wreckage on the landscape when they get torched by $1000 drones.

[@JLM-y5g]

Yep. The more things change, the more they stay the same. People seem to conveniently forget the role of tanks and armored vehicles; they do a job that nothing else can do.

[@Commodore22345]

"You still need to move a gun on land to advance the battle lines" There are no "battle lines" anymore though. Modern war is all about asymmetrical warfare and tanks are absolutely garbage in that kind of environment.

[@JLM-y5g]

@@Commodore22345 Different tools for different jobs. If I need to roll up on an embedded position, I'm not doing that on my own two feet lol.

[@PaulGuy]

War. War never changes.

[@redwings19798]

18:56 The Abrams gets around .5 mpg. The difference in range between the M1A1 and the M1A2SEP family of tanks is because they removed part of the fuel cell in order to make room for the under armor APU. This is the main reason from the ~40 mile reduction in range, not the weight. Source is me since I was a tanker on the M1, M1A1, M1A2, and M1A2SEP. Also, the need for two M88 recovery vehicles is not because of the weight of the tank, rather the need for a "brake vehicle" to assist with stopping because the overall weight is more than the towing vehicle can handle. Even if you tow an Abrams with another Abrams, you have to use a break tank in that scenario too.

[@CCM1199]

Same I was on every variation of the M1A1 up to the M1A2SEPv2. You lose 50 Gals in the back left rear for the APU which has yet to be installed.

[@BustedGeezerGarage]

It's always good to hear from the ones who were in them. You all know that sh**. 😆

[@redwings19798]

​@@CCM1199thanks brother!

[@JacobWillits]

I heard they got them up to 1 mpg but whats that mean bro it could sit there it could move far you dont know what itll do really its just gotta be able to do it

[@NoManClatuer-pd8ck]

Enjoy your sense of humor Chris. Well done.

[@grimreaper2606]

Now you need to make a comparison video between the A3 and Germany's New Powerhouse tank.

[@zybloom7777]

Abrams X is purely a tech ahowcase not a proposed idea. Just think the crew training with these new systems and the maintenance that they would need if something goes wrong, plus the price of these things at the moment is huge so they would be extremely expensive to make.

[@fmj_556]

Tanks a lot for making this video!

[@know-body2519]

HA!

[@MLaak86]

To quote Lazerpig "This thing scares the HELL out of me, I'm so glad it's on my side."

[@williamyoung9401]

LazerPig's analysis of the T-14 Armada is spot on. Built around the Tiger tank engine... (yes, that Tiger tank...)

[@MLaak86]

@@williamyoung9401 yeah... great choice there guys

[@Silver_Prussian]

​​@@williamyoung9401nothing in his video is spot on its full of lies meant for sheep with high conformation bias. The armata does not use the engine from the Jagdtiger, the only similarity is the x shaped layout and thats where the similarities end. Why did the russians chose this design ? I dont know maybe they wanted to experiment and saw potential in this design, maybe they picked it up for its compact designs compared to conventional engines or gas turbines.

[@captainnutt2995]

@@williamyoung9401 No, he not. He analysis is not very accurate about T-14 (especially Engine) Red Effect analysis is explain better than that pig.

[@S300V]

​@@williamyoung9401 tell me when the Tiger used an X DIESEL engine! Oh it didnt... V12 petrol. Lazerpig is for you dumb ppl.

[@jonny-b4954]

As long as they keep 4 tank crew with the autoloader. Put that loader on drone/radio control.

[@sleepingninjaquiettime]

Nope, the TC just gets more to do

[@braincell4536]

I can imagine it now. Each Abrams having its own drone scout or even small suicide drones that can act as forward recon scouts and disable things like mines, or detect threats earlier and then shoot at said threats.

[@Bloodhound_Dogg]

I agree.

[@BionicBurke]

​@braincell4536 the tech already exists, who knows if they'll use it.

[@gdheib0430]

Ooo yeah a drone swarm operator would do wonders for command, control and survivability.

[@Lt-Dan]

Watch out for those 4000 dollar drones

[@DongusMcBongus]

3:10 Don’t worry, the tank got fired from SNL shortly after but has a pretty great career now as a Grilled Cheese Chef and Special Needs Basketball Coach.

[@sybo59]

Glad someone got the joke!

[@themcchuck8400]

A new gun, a new hull, a new turret, a new drivetrain... It's not an M1, it's a new tank.

[@MrKotBonifacy]

Yeah, right - and now go and tell Ford they should come up with some new name... ;-)

[@jloki9259]

By the time the US Army actually fields the new tank it won't look or have the same upgrades as the "Abrams X" shown in the video. It will be much more advanced due to the speed of growth in technology. I doubt it will even use the Abrams name. The Abrams served well in the desert and we're learning lessons from it in Ukraine but it's run it's course. I don't expect the US to do what Great Britain has (make a Challenger 2.5 and call it the Challenger 3) because the US and GB have different needs. A new tank with no parts from the last deserves a name of it's own. I know that the Army likes to name tanks for Generals but I wish they would pivot away from that and start naming them for Medal of Honor recipients. In fact, I just may start a petition when the new tank is close to being adopted.

[@MrKotBonifacy]

@@jloki9259 _"but I wish they would pivot away from that and start naming them for Medal of Honor recipients"_ - like, any suggestions? Just asking, I'm totally impartial to the issue.

[@jloki9259]

@@MrKotBonifacy There's quite a few but I'd say Master Sergeant Gary Gordon or Sergeant 1st Class Randy Shughart, both members of Delta Force who each earned the Medal of Honor posthumously for their actions during the Battle of Mogadishu (aka The Black Hawk Down incident) would each be deserving of the honor.

[@MrKotBonifacy]

@@jloki9259 OK, thanks. Not beeing an American I did not know these names. Well, we'll see...

[@craftyscotsman8970]

Not a very good tank considering it ran you over at 0:14 and you didn't even die

[@M1A2_Abrams_Tonk]

DON'T BULLY MY LITTLE BROTHER LIKE THAT

[@Xerlyst]

Chris is just tank proof

[@jamannk]

I actually yelled look out!

[@two0092]

i refuse!

[@wesleymccandless5489]

2:53 The AH-1W used was one of the Helicopters that I worked on during my time with HMLA-167

[@panzerkampfwagenviiimaus1790]

The GDLS Abrams X is a technology demonstrator. It is not a vehicle that the US army is adopting,

[@racine1866]

C&C Generals - Paladin tank with the addons!! is REAL

[@johnlucas6683]

Paladin tank in the field. With drones!

[@igorthelight]

Preserving freedom! xD

[@TheSpectralFX]

Man, can't wait for that Pepsi bottle to be delivered to me from 5km away. Edit: man, the Russian over-hyping a system of theirs just for the Americans to make a better... REAL version of the thing is such a freaking meme by now.

[@mjames7674]

Why were they putting bottles of soda in there??

[@horrornado9121]

You said "exasTerbated". You slid right past that, but we heard you say it. Your love of heavy tanks is showing.😉

[@jaw0449]

“Stop! I can only HOOAH so hard guys”….also, a paratrooper designing armor projects?

[@SoundBoy808]

thats why its lighter.....

[@williamyoung9401]

If you want to know American military tactics for the 21st century, just play Command and Conquer Generals. They had these drone things figured out 20 years ago, lol.

[@strikercwl]

I always thought they should make a miniature version of Phalanx for tanks. A small rifle caliber (5.56,7.62,etc..) Gatling gun would be perfect for drone defense and would probably handle most ATGM threats too. It would be so much cheaper to reload and not to difficult to give it a large enough magazine to handle multiple threats between reloads.

[@stupidburp]

A 7.62mm minigun with optics on a remote weapon station turret. Add 3D audio and video based sensors for target positioning. Use automatic slew and elevation to quickly get the weapon on the target. Man in the loop approval by default, full automatic mode option for use only in areas and times when friendly fire is not a risk. This could all be added to current tanks for low weight and cost. Somewhat limited in effectiveness but way better than nothing. Mini CIWS.

[@oldscout7]

"METALSTORM", perhaps?

[@Demopans5990]

More modernized gepard with airburst rounds

[@McDuggets]

@@oldscout7That would be sick name!!!

[@oldscout7]

@@McDuggets Metalstorm is an existing system already. Please Google it! The downside is, it’s electronically fired.

[@_blank_3677]

23:47 “real…” what!?!

[@GaionSputro]

_"Tanks"_ for the timestamp. Now l can watching it more shortly.👍🏻