The Army’s New M-1E3 Abrams Tank Modernization Program

The U.S. Army awarded the manufacturer of Abrams tanks a contract this month to begin the preliminary design of its new tank variant expected to be lighter and feature high-tech capabilities so it’s more survivable in battle.
The contract allows the Army to work closely with General Dynamics Land Systems on shaping requirements for the new M1E3 Abrams tank. The hope, according to Brig. Gen. Geoffrey Norman, is to be able to bring the new variant into the force at a similar timeline to the M30 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle, which is under development.

[@videre8884]

Tanks were never invincible. They were always victims of mines and other things. It was always about how many tanks you can lose before the enemy is defeated........

[@380productions2]

AMERICAN tanks and infantry vehicles are made to survive attacks and protect soldiers with has been proven in the Russian Ukraine war they hit the Russian bmp's and destroy the BMP and infantry and with BRADLEYS and M1's they get shot make it back half blown with crew almost 80% of the time are well and protected war is crazy seen a few since I saw the first one the IRAQ war we blew them so fast USA knows what it hasta do that's why they call us when in big trouble and do we show up yes sir!!!!!!

[@TheCerebralDude]

Surprised they are not going to a next generation main gun size given the new German Panther and Armata both have main guns over 130mm

[@DavidJohnson-cv3uh]

Tactics always beat innovation.

[@lhkraut]

I despise the AI voice! There was no way I could listen to the whole video.

[@beaumontgile5886]

I have an idea for drone defence on a tank. A 7.62mm CWIS a or an automated m163 mini gun with some kind of radar that tracks drone. That would be sweet

[@CCM1199]

There was a system already in place during the Iraq confict. The DUKE and Warlock systems were in place to block all frequencies within 300M of the tank. It was more of an Iron dome type of system where if an IED was within that bubble, It was unable to be remote detonated because the frequencies were jammed. It was effective and reduced the strikes against the tank. however it was still prone to Command detonated which was rare and Victim triggered (pressure plate) was more successful.

[@Aden_III]

@@CCM1199well then that means it did its job and it wasn’t a failure, so the “but” is unnecessary 🫡

[@EziekKiel]

@@Aden_III Where did he say "but"? He did say "however" but not in relation to the system being a failure lol.

[@Dwer172]

The crew should be kept at four people. The digitization of the battle field makes the cognitive load of the crew unbearable. There should be a specialized crew member to manage most of the informational load.

[@paladina666]

That if there room to add systems like that.

[@Joe_Friday]

Maybe the 4th member could operate tertiary weapon systems like ATGMs and attack drones.

[@robandcheryls]

Plus someone has to replace tracks, maintain, etc

[@youngstunna1594]

So what a computer meant to replace him would be doing?

[@robandcheryls]

@@youngstunna1594 like an oil change?

[@ChristopherSloane]

The problem is our military minds seem to be lacking in proactive development. Because people will always find a more cost effective weapon to defeat a more advanced one. Hence mines, AT weapons, seeking Artillary rounds and now drones counter armor. Add in aircraft and helicopters and other armore and being in a tank is a rough life. The designers have failed to adjust with 2024 and beyond.

[@geronimo5537]

problem with government is its only reactive not proactive. the proactive people get quickly pushed out. UNTIL they are needed because opps we were not prepared. this is as proactive as the government gets. seeing old obvious flaws in ukraine and going huh we might need to prepare for that. our American heritage however is going in thinking we are the best. getting slaughtered. then coming back with more a proactive approach. then occupy for a period before utterly failing at leaving making the whole thing pointless anyway.

[@damir4125]

I think need to add several launchers from which it will be possible to launch cheap drones for operational reconnaissance or to protect a tank from enemy drones

[@CCM1199]

An unmanned turret, autoloading system or 3 man turret crew is a bad recipe for disaster. I say this because being on the Abrams (retired SEPv2), having a full crew and being proficient as we are is still better than having an unmanned/autoloading/short handed crew. No one is taking into consideration what happens if the unmanned turret goes down due to electrical issues. What happens when the round drops into the turret from the autoloading feeder after the tank hits a large bump or what happens when a crew member in the turret gets seriously hurt that the loader has to step in to fill the gunner's role? Think about it? Everyone in that vehicle has a role. You CAN have a two man crew which would be TC/Gunner which is why they are always certified together. but losing a loader? nope. I dont see or understand the reasoning behind it. as far as 60 tons is concerned, the M1A1 was 68 Tons. Youre talking going back to the original M1 with the 105 mm type weight and that will more than likely never happen. As the old saying goes, Dont change what is working correctly on the vehicle or dont fix whats not broke. if they go to a turretless, autoloading or 3 man crew system, the M1's legacy as we all know it will end.

[@Michigander_of_the_West]

Loaders in tanks can be replaced by auto loaders. auto loaders have functioned in Soviet tanks FOREVER, so auto loading the gun isn’t a problem, it’s more efficient. Putting the crew in the hull of the tank provides more safety, and would reduce weight because the turret armor can essentially be removed or heavily reduced. If the turret (unmanned or not) goes down you’re fucked either way, so much technology is stuffed into the turret that if it suddenly had an electrical problem all of the TC’s equipment would be disabled, the gunner would loose control of his NVDs, the list goes on.

[@johndickson435]

All these advancements but I was wondering if I missed the part about the over head drone's blowing the turrets off and destroying the tank. I don't recall any protection for this type of attack unless I missed it......

[@bariman223]

The army seemed to really want to keep the 4th member. The fact that they're not tells me that they couldn't while keeping the new requirements. That said, these videos often get confusing as they start off talking about the M1E3, but then move on to the AbramsX which isn't the same thing. I'm waiting to see if the loss of a tanker applies to the M1E3 or not.

[@Shaun_Jones]

I honestly feel like that’s the way things are going. I think the army did a study where they they kept all of the Abrams’ capabilities the same, but gave it three crew and modern electronics, and they got the tank down to 55 tons without losing any armor, mobility, or firepower.

[@greglee1587]

Having an unmanned turret is the most stupid idea I’ve ever heard. Take the panoramic cameras out and the tank is combat Inefficient

[@marcinpl5643]

Tell that to the crew. Turret its always first thing that enemy will see. VR or in future, mind projection is a thing.

[@gerhardma4687]

The USA is not the only nation developing a new battle tank and both Germany and France are going down the same path with an unmanned turret. Do you really think that the scenario of hits in the turret is not being played out? Cameras and sensors will certainly not only be installed in the turret, so that a tank hit in the turret should still be manoeuvrable. There will never be all-encompassing protection, but nothing is as important as the protection of the crew and this is certainly least guaranteed in the turret.

[@makestank4800]

A tank having an unmanned turret is a good idea. Having the crew placed in an armored compartment in the hull than the turret provides increased protection for the crew which is the most important thing. Makes the tank lighter by making the turret smaller which is good for mobility and fuel efficiency. And makes the turret a smaller target to hit.

[@altechelghanforever9906]

A tank's turret is the first thing you'll see in the battlefield, therefore the first thing you'll target. And in the case of modern battlefields, the crew is usually situated in the turret which guarantees reducing their combat effectiveness. A crewless turret removes this threat and ensures even if the crew's tank is being shot at, they will not be within the damage area at all. If you thought this through before spouting useless drivel, you would realize the efficiency of this idea.

[@geeussery8849]

Hell, put a small caliber mini-gun on top with a radar like a lil ciws. Phalanx type

[@barbatoslupusrex8712]

30mm chain gun is a better option like with the Abrams X. You can use fused high-explosive shells with a 30mm, something that smaller calibers don’t have. If you’ve ever seen the Abrams X, it’s by far the best option that the US Army should consider using.

[@buzzmeanytime]

@@barbatoslupusrex8712 why can’t they use high explosive rounds for a mini gun on top? Phalanx type.

[@barbatoslupusrex8712]

@@buzzmeanytime they already have fused explosive rounds do for the Phalanx CIWS which is a 20mm. But that adds a shit ton of weight, around 5.7 tons. It also eats up a lot of battery power, which is why the Phalanx is CIWS is usually based on ships. Do you realize how fucking big the Phalanx is too? It’s massive, stands about as tall as a tank. So add that too. It’s just not plausible.

[@seandaly3852]

Russian Drones are currently targeting Ukrainian M1A1 blow out panels to effectively destroy the tanks - crew walks away but no more tank . How is this going to be handled ?

[@kashmirha]

Without extensice drone protection system it is useless. They can sand 5-10 drones to destroy it. So the system have to protect against numerous attacks. Also a tank wingman system have to be used, like a commander guided the tanks now a commander should guide drone tanks-...

[@MichaelRoy-hc3lz]

Tanks were nowhere near invincible in ww1. Another video from a lazy creator taking his script from Wikipedia and running it through a bot voice

[@Dogmeat1950]

Bot talking lol. Tanks we're NEVER invincible lol.

[@vonvomit5666]

Glorification of technology. This is exactly what has gotten the Army to the point of instead of developing a better Abrams by incorporating the lessons learned from all the failed wars the US has managed to have gotten itself into since the end of WWII and ended up in the point of engineering failures that added to its own demise through technological defeat by enemies with simple yet novel counter measures that are used by an enemy that has studied the US over reliance on technology in order to fight its wars. What happens when autoloaders fail? Or damage to electronics technology resulting in uncontrolled turret oscillation that ended up destroying the tank and killing its crew? What happens when hybrid engine technology fails resulting in longer down times and increased threats of engine failure and vehicle fire again resulting in the destruction of the tank and crew? Obviously, the Army has not fully studied the results of these technologies that were incorporated into the T14 Armata battle tank. Before another dime gets spent on developing advanced technologies and slapping them into the Abrams the Army better stop listening to defense contractors wanting to pawn junk off on the American soldier resulting in many needless deaths through endless stupidity

[@jasons44]

Russia has 152mm tank Cannon gun, super 120mm is not good enough! Russia has many new weapons upgrades 😮

[@ThisOLmaan]

Thought they where dismissing Tanks as mentioned in this video:kzbin.info/www/bejne/iIXWiIh8hsh-q7s&ab_channel=Task%26Purpose

[@chandrachurniyogi8394]

wonder whether main battle tank really needs to be so big & heavy . . . a 56.3 ton tank resulting in slow mobility . . .

[@380productions2]

AMRICAN POWER!!! ALTHOUGH TANKS WONT BE USED AS MUCH BY OTHER COUNTRIES BECAUSE OF THE RUSSIA UKRAINE WAR BUT THIS TANK IS NEEDED WHEN YOU KNOW IT HAS A GOOD TRACK RECORD WELL AT LEAST ONE OF THE BEST ICLUDING THE LEAPORD TANK

[@that207guy7]

I dont see them giving this tank an autoloader, especially after seeing what happens to russian tanks in the ukraine war. would be idiotic to switch at this point.

[@briancooper2112]

You pronounced live fire wrong

[@marijnnn4992]

...

[@barbatoslupusrex8712]

He’s probably using AI voice.

[@brucemace5404]

It is a AI GENERATED voice Seen other channels use same voice and mispronounced a lot of English words also try and pronounce AI, SOP , other things

[@JamesPrpich]

Looks like a high priced missle/drone magnet

[@BobBobby-u6q]

New Ai drones will turn any tanks to nothing. different warfare

[@ericb.4358]

Love that 30 mm chain gun instead of a wimpy 7.62 x 51 machine gun.

[@kevinblackburn3198]

Unmanned turret? Obviously the Army did not pay attention to the design disaster that is the T14 Armata.

[@altechelghanforever9906]

This is the US military, not the Russian military. And even then, the crewless turret wasn't the problem of the Armada, it was the severe lack of funding and installation of redundant features such as portholes at the rear of the tank.

[@mathieupizzi7846]

My guy we talking about us army wich has better tech and development , not like russian guy who yeah put absolut mechanical monster but juts in paper

[@RovingPunster]

They gotta get the weight below 60T so that it can transit european bridges.

[@sterben2064]

What???? Did they just said the A1M3 will have ATGMs? but but experts said that use of ATGMs in the newest North Korean MBT were a bad desing choice 🤔

[@altechelghanforever9906]

Probably the same "experts" who genuinely believed the A - 10 is better than the F - 35 or is somehow still relevant in battlefields like the one in Ukraine.

[@rael5469]

Artillery is the King of battlefield. Using tanks requires combined arms strategies. Air cover. ATGMs to use against the enemy tanks. Missiles and artillery. Infantry fighting vehicles to accompany the tanks. Mine clearing equipment. Infantry to counter the man portable ATGMs. and so on.

[@mitchnn]

Useless billion dollars enhancement against $300 air droid. Didn't learn anything from Ukraine war. Money better spent on anti droid tech that go on tank.

[@marcinpl5643]

The meaning of "tank" has lost its significance because nowadays, tanks can't "tank" anymore. They have only 20mm of protection on the roof and 50mm on the sides. Compared to what you find on the battlefield, modern tanks are just light tanks with unnecessarily heavy weight at the front, which no one shoots at anymore. Not to mention that they can't do shit🤬 about planes or drones. Comparing tanks to planes, tanks are in the stone age compared to the latest stealth alien technology found in planes. It's sad for me that the concept of tanking is being forgotten. We're reverting to WW1 era warfare🤕, building trenches and bunkers with heavily defended anti-aircraft systems. No more Blitzkrieg. I would never sign up for the army just to sit in trenches filled with water and wait for a random artillery shell to kill me💀.

[@rael5469]

0:21 Really??? An adjustable wrench? I have one. I almost never use it.

[@cavalryscout]

Imnagine being a crew member on a platoon leader's tanks with just a three man crew? Time for maintenance and just two guys have to do it all without help.

[@1978rrf]

A tibe trophy system and the Australian slinger system and its well protected

[@rogue___tr00per24]

Poor article, nothing new to tell us, regurgitating old news. The APS Trophy system is not about weight, but more about the power it requires.

[@itzygorilla6925]

the reason the current abrams uses a gas turbine engine is to power all of the electrical components in the tank while reducing the roar of standard diesel engines. all i feel like the abrams needs is an anti drone system. i like the 30mm on the abrams x as well as the addition of a attachable javelin, but surely there is a way to lower the profile of it all by removing the commander's sight and replacing it with the 300mm gun.

[@1911Earthling]

HERE is what I have to say about tanks: TANKS for the memories.

[@maonarin6038]

New design USA tanks is very cool and powerful with advanced equipment for future missions and battle fields

[@the1dea]

I'm just saying when one of the crew members craps them selves in that three man hull.

[@mathieupizzi7846]

The Abram X is absolute monster , but the army and pretty sure they know it gonna need to protec their tanks with swarm drone or some high teck jammer

[@Shortsclipsvideo1]

I would like if they build simple tank that cheap are effective

[@dejanbalazic]

Best tank have engine compartment in the front like Mercava and rear exit for crew like Bradly. Rest is ok.

[@beaumontgile5886]

They just gonna have to start using short range air defense way more now with the tanks every four u have one spaa

[@makestank4800]

The Abrams x should be the M1E3 in my opinion. Why spend more money to develop a new tank when you have one already that is currently available.

[@altechelghanforever9906]

Because the Abrams is old and the more they try upgrading it with the passage of time the more it'll stop looking like an Abrams. The video already stated the M1E2 is facing weight problems due to the increasing upgrade requirements, better to make a new tank that already comes integrated with what a modern tank needs.

[@Артем-н8д9о]

🇺🇦💪🇺🇸

[@buzzmeanytime]

Nothing is impregnable

[@Warhorse469]

Until they make are tank designed to defend itself from drone attacks every single tank is going to keep popping doesn't matter what it is.

[@Nikolai_The_Crazed]

Yes and no, it depends on where it’s hit. Footage came out of Ukraine recently of a western tanks taking hits from ten different drones and it kept on fighting. If they had hit the treads, the tank would’ve been disabled. But the heavy composite armor was just too much for the drones to handle. Which makes sense, there’s a lot of stories of western tanks taking dozens of RPG hits and shrugging them off like nothing.

[@robandcheryls]

The Abraham’s X, with some crew space, MSU would make it easier for sale as well. If you are looking overseas, check what the competitors are doing. Than do it better and different.

[@gerhardma4687]

Do you think the other manufacturers will let you look that deeply into their cards? No, the concepts will be similar but completely different in many details. Just think of the drives. Turbine or engine, partially electrified or not... It will be very exciting to see. And the vehicles also have to work in the respective environment. You Leopard and Abrams in the Ukraine... simply far too heavy in the sodden ground

[@farthammer7126]

All the abrams needs is active protection

[@pooferfish2850]

the modern version of the abrams already has aps

[@brucemace5404]

How do they see 360* without someone sticking their head out If camera, can’t they be damage or blinded?

[@gerhardma4687]

multiple cameras and sensors... the same way as the germans and french are going. And since all nations are not stupid, solutions are developed that counteract your logical fears. There will never be all-encompassing protection, but new solutions will be developed for new threats. That's the way it was and that's the way it will always be.

[@StroinkdudeEmil]

Ukraine being a testing ground...

[@eohq]

Name one combat zone that wasnt

[@StabbinJoeScarborough]

Those who think a 3 man crew is Sufficient have never served on a three man crew before

[@marcinpl5643]

What's up old timer🥴? Forgotten about logistic & A.I😂

[@StabbinJoeScarborough]

@@marcinpl5643 Logistics and AI wont help with first aid , security , maintenance and commo Now go play kiddo !

[@marcinpl5643]

@@StabbinJoeScarborough Two crew members are responsible for: -Fire systems and reconnaissance -Driving and reconnaissance A.I manages everything, including fire control, in case the crew is incapacitated. They perform the same roles as in a typical helicopter. Regarding your concerns: 1. Aid: Every soldier on the battlefield must provide self-aid and then wait for professional medical staff. 2. Security: Tanks are always supported by: *SoldiersInfantry *Fighting Vehicles (IFVs) *Other tanks If tanks are unsupported, it is due to poor command decisions, often seen in certain Russian or Asian military strategies. 3. Logistics: The goal is to maintain operations. Two crew members can handle basic tasks. It is better to have a trusted, smaller crew than a larger one that requires constant synchronization, which is not easy.

[@StabbinJoeScarborough]

@@marcinpl5643 Where did you tank at ?

[@pooferfish2850]

@@StabbinJoeScarborough Thank you for your service

[@bobdouglas262]

The vid didn't address the serious threat of aerial drones.

[@pogo1140]

ECM

[@altechelghanforever9906]

Use common sense. Electronic countermeasures, active protection systems, and remote weapon stations. We shouldn't even have to spell it out for you.

[@mikepatterson6416]

LOL Yeah you probably better rethink a few things gentlemen and gentle ladies.

[@Whitecat76]

Personally I think tanks are obsolete when a $100 drone can take out a 20 million tank they just might be obsolete

[@brucemace5404]

It won't be long before the military will figure out how to make the antitank attack drones obsolete Laser or microwave weapons that take them out DARFA has a few weapons they are working on now

[@BARelement]

By that logic they’ve always been “obsolete”. Not sound, or well thought out logic. If a guy with a knife can take out a squad of guys with guns that cost infinitely more (which has happened before in history) why even give soldiers guns? Why even work to improve them? That’s 0 dollars/pennies vs thousands dollars worth of guns, that’s not accounting for ammo, maintenance, etc which in today’s money would be even more cash. 1200s to now. So was the gun obsolete when it first came out and got outclassed by Bow, and Arrows? Got out classed by guys with melee weapons? Got outclassed by cross bows? No. Nuance is key in a sea of disinformation, and survivorship bias :} But in my humble opinion, we personally as a super power shouldn’t spend trillions on tanks, or aircraft at this point, but on the people. We have nukes, we don’t need “more tanks”, “more etc”. We don’t.

[@user-hv8vi8nz5m]

Very narrow way if thinking. Ofc 100$ drones not gonna obsolete no matter how advance they are they get a few bullets put in them drops them. Nets catch's them of they get jam. Each will put onto takes. Lot of most advanced tank already have remote turrets . Have a scatter shot on would be effective against drones. Tank gonna be built with powerful jammer which could work with other time if threats. Ofc cheapest option could be extend current net just to catch them. They just be another nuance like mines, helis, artillery, rpg and top down attack launcher. Each of these affect every other ground armour units. Just like hoheli are said to be obsolete they not. Just old tactics and modern design are just changing

[@Whitecat76]

@@user-hv8vi8nz5m narrow way of thinking when I'm sitting there watching it

[@Whitecat76]

@@user-hv8vi8nz5m bullets aren't stopping in fpv drone with bomb strapped to it you have no idea what you're talking about M1 A1 Abrams the newest models are getting destroyed in Ukraine by fpv drones you should probably pay attention to things before you open your big mouth

[@nowhere474]

RUSSIANS GPS JAMMERS ARE A REAL GAME CHANGER! But a $1000 drone will kill this TANK

[@IMNODOCTOR]

They should invent a single-crew main battle tank. One tank, one man. Less protection needed.

[@Am-pk3zh]

m1 is not that good not better then T72. It was destroyed With fpv drones carrying RPG warehead. the western weapons is fake. They made alot of advertisements but in the real combat pieces of junk😅

[@heaven4Now26]

Lol mass production when they cant even stop the drones 😅

[@BOOGERBOY1]

Nothing will beat the new challenger 3. Its unbeatable, it has everything

[@makoado6010]

abrams was outdated even o blueprintst at 1970. pointless to spend money to upgrade bacuse the bases r wrong.

[@reserva120]

You couldn’t be more incorrect