What Is AbramsX?

[@Spookston]

Just a heads up, Apex Gaming currently has a 15% discount when you use code "SPOOKSTON". They also have 4000 series NVIDIA GPUs and 7000 series Ryzen CPUs available, so if you want to upgrade but don't want to build your own PC, consider checking them out: apexpartner.app/redirect/spookston Also sorry if the VO sounds weird, I ad-libbed this script

[@dukenukem8381]

I accept your offer for free

[@lukefriesenhahn8186]

Thank you for making a video on Abrams-X. :)

[@familyjobe853]

Spookston ! You Own me a computer ! You must pay me a computer !

[@TheArklyte]

I think it'll be a neat little addition to the game... since Gaijin won't give M829A3, M829A4 and LAHAT to any NATO or IDF MBT anyway in effort to gatekeep the mental health of russian players;) Doesn't matter what features your tank has if it's not allowed to shoot back.

[@michaelhuddleson2610]

Apex gaming as a System Integrator (as in putting together configurations) isnt half bad. As builders and a business, not the best choice on the market.

[@justabitround3603]

Man this new 8.7 premium is looking pretty good

[@SimonSenaviev]

Squadron too

[@iwantmynametobeaslongaspos7194]

No that’s not really balanced tbh at max it should be 5.7 max that way if it gets uptiered it’s still balanced

[@bigchungus6320]

It’s coming with the new Finnish sub-tree Sweden need more top tier tanks 😠

[@gabevietor3685]

9.3, take it or leave it.

[@noobiplays8539]

🤣🤣🤣👍👋💯

[@gabrielinostroza4989]

Abrams series X, the successor to the Abrams One and the Abrams 360

[@alicorn3924]

bruh

[@CommandoTM]

bruh

[@CommandoTM]

powered by Creighton 2 cores

[@mechanomics2649]

It's call the Abrams X because you turn X degrees and walk away.

[@xninewxw7559]

bruh

[@DefinitelyNotEmma]

These demonstrators are always super neat. The EMBT, Leclerc 140mm and M1 CATTB/Thumper were also pretty cool. The autoloader, hybrid engine and 30mm seem extremely promising to me.

[@avroarchitect1793]

Lets hope they worked out the problem Porsche ran into.

[@italo195]

@@avroarchitect1793 What was it?

[@tudordumitrescu8707]

@@italo195 hybrid transmission crapping out

[@Orinslayer]

@@avroarchitect1793 80 years ago?

[@avroarchitect1793]

@@Orinslayer Correct. There is a reason they haven't tried to use it since.

[@datankz2498]

So far if we've seen the T-14 Armata, the Challenger 3, the KF51, and now AbramsX. I really want to see what France or Italy comes up with.

[@DefinitelyNotEmma]

France works together with Germany on the MGCS. But you could expect a modernized Leclerc in the future

[@kamov52510]

An event with assumed stats would be cool

[@V-V1875-h]

Italy will most likely just buy into one of the existing programs, waiting for the EMBT, until then it's upgrades to the Arietes and modernizing the Centauro fleet. Italy doesn't prioritize the armor branch, but their fleet

[@DefinitelyNotEmma]

@@V-V1875-h Italy is also part of the MGCS I think, I'm not sure though.

[@areusure538]

Wrong, italy will just have a bigger l3 33cc

[@cavalry624]

Hey Spookston. When I was an M1 Abrams crewman there was a lot of conversation of the future of the Abrams and the mechanized / armored forces of the future. Lots of concepts were thrown around. Even the step from the M1A1 to the M1A2 / SEP was a start towards some of these concepts. Looks like the Abrams X is another idea thrown into the mix of options for the future.

[@RoboFloyd]

Same, the new Abrams looks retarded

[@suckerborneveryday1815]

Real question is would you want to be right next to the Tc lol.

[@RoboFloyd]

@@suckerborneveryday1815 It makes it easier for the gunner to punch the driver whenever he slams on the breaks 💀

[@RoboFloyd]

@@suckerborneveryday1815 It makes it easier for the gunner to punch the driver whenever he slams on the breaks 💀

[@suckerborneveryday1815]

@@RoboFloyd or causing the Tc to kiss the 50cal lol

[@soup5344]

The idea of a tank popping switchblades is certainly interesting, i could see a possible alternative/addition to that concept where it would have some sort of UAS recon platform like the Black Hornet VRS

[@trplankowner3323]

Using that MFD system and some good programing, any crewmember that wasn't weighed down with tasks could use Black Hornet. I don't see it happening often, but if the need arose, the tank could park in a covered position and the whole crew could use Black Hornets to fully reconnoiter a position before exposing the tank.

[@burt2800]

@@trplankowner3323 well in a tank platoon or company that could become more feasible

[@trplankowner3323]

@@burt2800 It's readily doable. The question is would the circumstances ever arise, which I find unlikely. Now, if we're talking about a larger group, it's easily done by a dedicated vehicle stationed at the rear of that group and, using the netcentric warfare infrastructure, feeds from select recon assets can be fed directly to the tank commander's MFD. I don't see any reason why there couldn't be a dedicated interface where the TC can look through the available feeds and select a particular one that is of interest to him and his tank crew. The TC could also send a request for a specific recon support back to that recon controller vehicle. I can see a lot of those Black Hornets being expended. Perhaps they should work on a larger model that can return and recharge. Because we all know that the soldier at the point of contact is going to use whatever gets the job done without a second of thought to how much that costs or how many are in inventory.

[@masterchief7301]

@@trplankowner3323 Honestly if Ukraine has shown me something is that I would love to have a drone conduct recon when I'm driving a tank, can't always trust you'd have infantry next to you.

[@soup5344]

@@trplankowner3323 I could see it finding plenty of use in or near urban environments where individual units getting aerial reconnaissance (especially with thermals like the Black Hornet system) to look around a corner could mean the difference between armor rolling back to their depot for rearm and refuel or being towed back by a recovery vehicle

[@jacobfarias2335]

The us army talked to tankers about what features they would want in the next gen mbt and a majority favored keeping a 4 man crew even with a auto loader as a drone or systems oporator

[@morva4498]

I'm sure my father, who was a tanker in the M1A1 Abrams, would agree. He's told me he prefers the 4 man of the Abrams over the 3 man crew with autoloader of the Russian tanks. That's because with more crew the more eyes you have to pick out targets.

[@termitreter6545]

@@morva4498 I agree with the sentiment, it seems like having 4 man is useful, especially with all the new tech, networking and drones. But Ill note the russian tanks just arent great examples. Theyve been built for an "extreme" scenario of soviet mass warfare, and even for a 3-man tank they got limited situational awareness and crew comfort/space. That was just a compromise the Soviets thought was fine in the 70s. Western tanks were always bigger, more modular and easier to upgrade.

[@northropi2027]

@@morva4498 this is something i've always wondered if drones could help with. does the 4th crew member need to be in the tank to help with systems operation, unmanned systems management, and situational awareness if they're watching from above?

[@morva4498]

@@northropi2027 A person has to use the drone. The drone cannot help with manning the tank. The drone is best used in open terrain with it's thermals rather than a urban environment in my opinion unless it can penetrate buildings with thermal vision. Urban environments are close quarters and require the tank to be supported by infantry. The drone would definitely be a good option to have in open environments.

[@northropi2027]

@@morva4498 well yeah urban environments make it harder to see what could sometimes be seen from the tank, but if the main purpose of a fourth crew member is either controlling unmanned systems or spotting, just having someone outside of the tank doing that is a tempting alternative for saving space. Any situation of very heavy electronic denial aside, you really only lose out on maintenance and a sort of backup commander, right? And having a smaller tank overall would be the upside of that tradeoff.

[@snazzydazzy]

It's an Abrams after a breakup. Thus, AbramsX.

[@andrewrogers3067]

And just like many men after a break up, it went to the gym and got better

[@frozen_owl1493]

Oh I though it turned Muslim and decided it didn’t want it’s last name

[@derrickstorm6976]

​@@andrewrogers3067 in a way that's not sustainable for a long time lol

[@This_Pleases_The_Nut]

@@derrickstorm6976 Mfw people going to gym stopped many suicides 🗿

[@TBCN69]

Explaines that angry face

[@Julio_Tortillia]

The Apache chain gun with proxy rounds could be a real gamechanger. As we have seen in Ukraine, drones and loitering munitions play a major role in modern combat. If a model of the AbramsX could be equipped with a small search and track radar it would basically make them immune against drone and loitering munition attacks with a ballistic computer for the chaingun. Sure drones could still be able to recon from afar with optical zoom, but knowing you wont be blown up by a drone you didnt even see surely would boost crew morale. Anyways, im very excited for the next generation of western tanks.

[@dylanwhite3383]

About time the Abrams has a modern looking concept tank

[@LaVaZ000]

The Abrams tank just looks modern as is.

[@dylanwhite3383]

@@LaVaZ000 not really because it's been the same shape since the 1980s

[@nekopop8159]

Idk if the looks matter, the most important thing about the Abram models is that it’s more about crew protection. The M1 has a top hatch that comes off if the ammo explodes, saving the crew. I don’t know about the Abrams X tho cuz it has an autoloader.

[@dylanwhite3383]

@@nekopop8159 true but i don't really trust a panel that only stays open a few seconds i mean what might happen if the loader had to pick another round and put the other round back in the storage at the same time a little longer than a few seconds

[@TheArklyte]

​@@dylanwhite3383 /looks at T-14 that is literary a downgraded soviet prototype from 1980's/ So what's you point again?

[@Mikalent]

As Lazerpig so elegantly said it "The AbramsX is just a tech demo to show what we could do if we just shut down a few schools and gave all the money to GD"

[@Jimblethorp]

Bro i remember coming up with an idea in middle school about a Javelin turret for an Abrams. And hearing that it is something at least mentioned by them just blew my mind.

[@gamingfox9845]

I got the same vibes from the Abrams X as I got from the Rheinmetall KF51 Panther. A highly advanced vehicle that serves more as a demonstrator of what the industry sees future technology to go to rather than a vehicle that will be procured and produced (which would most likely be rediculously expensive esp in the case of the Panther) like many news outlets make them up to be.

[@F14thunderhawk]

obviously other then the rubber Runningskirts, i wouldnt be surprised if the Abrams X replaces the SEPv4 if the Digital Combat Environment is found to be adequate at its current/immediate revision level of design. the Sawblade Trackskirts are sexy, but theres no value to them. Also i hope the Googly Eyes remain on the prototype.

[@dapper5084]

Rheinmetall sounds so cool

[@hyperlux6893]

i actually was at the AUSA convention where i got to see it in person, it was really cool to see.

[@123456gordon]

The crewless turret is a concept I'm really digging, my only doubt is, wouldn't that make the hull extremely cramped? or force it to be taller by design?

[@jintsuubest9331]

Driver will complain since he get less space now, but gunner actually get more space, and commander has about the same space. When you are not physically moving around you don't need that much space.

[@Cragified]

It is a concept I don't see the U.S. Army adopting for a MBT any time soon. For several reasons. First crewless turret seems to always sacrifice turret protection for weight savings and a lower profile. This runs into the issue that it makes the gun easier to disable and a tank without a gun is well.. not much use. Second is the crew being spread out makes a penetrating hit less likely to cause multiple casualties and make evacuating the tank more viable for more crew. Lastly a 4 man crew brings a lot of benefits to the table that many overlook. This is now your day to day maintenance tasks are spread out over 4 guys instead of 3. And in an urban/close in environment there is another man that can defend the vehicle with a machine gun. Plus there are other issues that cameras are nice but human vision is still quite useful, especially our field of vision which is why almost all U.S. tank commanders have fought in the covered position so they can scan around. The crew on this would be 100% reliant on cameras to look to either side, up, or backwards.

[@aitorbleda8267]

@@Cragified If you get in range to damage the turret, then just 20/30mm protection is enough.. anyway and AT round would disable the tank anyway. What I would like to see is a remotely operated abrams.. several ppl could be looking at sensors/cameras plus drones and the big disadvantage the tank has, lack of awareness would be absolutely reversed.. plus no one is atrisk

[@arakami8547]

Its similar in design to the T-14 Armata, the crew would be housed in an armoured citadel.

[@cameron5802]

I really like the built in inclusion of drone assets, having seen how commanders are using them in the Ukrainian war to direct their tank units. Obviously we already do extensive forms of this through battlenet and the other data sharing systems between units but in the example that UA is facing, there isn't all that built up structure in the same scale so being able to still have access to these advantages just on your own equipment is novel. Of course this could be as far as just carrying a small quadcopter inside the crew compartment but going the route with AbramsX and having multi-purpose drones is also an option.

[@autarchprinceps]

Hmm, interesting. Some of the ideas are similar, but the engine change is defintively one difference to what Germany just showed, also in a corporate fundet tech demonstrator Panther KF51. I believe it also isn't planning on removing the crew from the turret completely, though they too were reducing it to 3 man crew with an autoloader. The AbramsX does seem to change more things, where before Abrams & Leopard often were fairly comparable. Then again the German government wanted to cooperate on its future main battle tank with the French, not just buy the Panther. So I guess that is mostly Rheinmetalls demonstrator for its autoloader & 130mm gun, as well as a few ideas for drone integration, etc. Did seem surprisingly ready though, and I think the turret at least can be an upgrade onto existing Leopard chassis, so maybe they are more planning the replace the guns before the rest of the tank, instead of making a new tank with the old caliber gun for now, as you suggest the Americans may be planning.

[@termitreter6545]

Tbf the KF51 was more of a power-move from Rheinmetall, because the french/german tank project had some hickups and they want some of the pie. So makes sense to apply pressure. The AbramsX, same as StrykerX, is more of a tech demonstrator to push new products.

[@freddythefriendlygiant3856]

This might be a dumb request. But could you maybe talk about the new panther? Since you’ve analyzed the AbramX so much.

[@MaxwellAerialPhotography]

I had heard that the Abrams X would be a 4 man crew with them former loader operating the 30mm and drones.

[@Attaxalotl]

That’s pretty reasonable, four man crews seem to work pretty well.

[@MrBsvc]

super informative as always

[@sparrow9990]

1:47 I really hoped they beefed up the armor there a lot because if I'm not mistaken those fuel tanks helped out the tank quite a lot and saved a bunch of drivers from getting killed by rockets. imagine ur entire crew getting killed by a single rocket especially a newer much better rocket than an rpg

[@Welterino]

a rocket can never hit an Abrams with Throphy installed. It is impossible, unless they throw so many that the Throphy runs out of charges but I bet that would be very unlikely to happen.

[@sparrow9990]

@@Welterino that's bullshit. Trophy can reduce there is a pretty good chance it just wont stop it or detect it especially in an actual combat situation

[@dragonace119]

@@Welterino Saying that it never will is the height of hubris.

[@arandomcommenter412]

@@Welterino The trophy isn’t THAT good.

[@lesthodson2802]

It will probably get additional spaced armour in the space.

[@cnlbenmc]

If the XM360E1 variant that used the ETC tech was put on the tank; there would be NO need for a a 130mm or 140mm gun since a 120mm ETC gun could theoretically have Double the muzzle velocity of the Current M256.

[@KSmithwick1989]

The problem it the materials used in the projectile. DU is marginally superior than Tungsten, at velocities below 1,700 m/sec. Although Tungsten is theoretically viable to 2,100 m/sec. That said, neither is viable at "double" the velocity. At that point the damage is more due to kinetic transfer, rather than penetration. At this point velocity is more of a concern, to increase stand-off distance and penetration retention. While exploiting improments in optics and fire control systems.

[@termitreter6545]

How can it have double the muzzle velocity? Considering how speed/energy works, that would require like 4 times the effective energy? Mind that means extreme stress on the barrel and gun, let alone the short barrel length. I think the XM360E1 barrel is also centered around weight reduction, so it might not actually be much stronger.

[@termitreter6545]

@@KSmithwick1989 From what Ive read in theory DU should still be better than tungsten alloys at 1700m/s. But nobody really knows how the munitions work out, thats top secret. Or heck, even if we did how the projectiles work, its still impossible to know how it would actually work vs specific tank armors, which are also secret. I would love to see the german 1700m/s tungsten compete vs american 1500m/s DU though (I think thats the speed of short vs long gun).

[@KSmithwick1989]

@@termitreter6545 One thing that is certain is that Tungsten is harder and denser than Uranium. And was an outgrowth of British development of Tungsten APFSDS program. The key issue being cost and production efficiency. Issue such pyromorphic effects and lower marginal velocity efficiency are somewhat coincidental. Although were significant in keeping this decision relevant for decades.

[@TheRyujinLP]

@@termitreter6545 ETC tech, though twice the velocity is a on the hyperbolic side, maybe closer to 25-30% faster for 1st gen ETC, 50-60% maybe at the high end with mature tech. Double the velocity is claimed by ETK but that tech is less developed then ETC (though they are based on similar concepts) and is way off. ETC, or electro-thermal combustion, is kinda like a half way step to a an EM weapons system. It's not as powerful but it also doesn't need as much power. The basic concept is that the propellant is replace with a reaction mass (usually water) impregnated with microscopic strips of aluminum that are designed to have a huge surface area relative to their mass. An electric arc is pulsed through the reaction mass causing the strips to vaporize which then flashes the reaction mass into a plasma imparting hella energy into the projectile.

[@lp3255]

I love how the Command and Conquer generals USA theme is playing in the background

[@JohnF0X]

Friend of mine is serving with the US Army as a Tanker. asked him about both the Lynx and Abrams X. He isnt impressed with the Abrams X, mainly because it moves the crew to the hull and doesnt give them backups in case a system malfunctions/fails. he has a better opinion of the Lynx altho he thinks the 4th seat is unnecesary since it is autoloaded. I suggested that it would be an interesting setup for a Squad leader position for increased situational awarenes with drones, he thinks that would be the only good aspect about that 4th seat but otherwise unnecesary in regular use. For service vehicles he is more excited about SEPv4

[@inferno3667]

Just bought you decal! Keep up the amazing content Spookston 👍

[@mattfaletto1663]

Would love to see spookston cover the Stryker leonidas

[@StarkRaven59]

Seems like it has a bunch of interesting systems. We'll see how things pan out for it.

[@jackbower8671]

That new power pack is a great push to the future. Those turbines eat tons of fuel and have reliability issues in sandy environments. Still kinda weird they ditched the other fuel tank tho

[@davidty2006]

Also reducing logistical strain with other vehicles like trucks using a variant of it. Thats something i can see going through because of the logistics and maintenance benefit might even expand into other NATO vehicles simply because why not have every vehicle be logistically the same parts wise.

[@bmouch1018]

One of the most interesting bits of tech to come from AbramsX and StrykerX is the distributed aperture system. That's some Sci-Fi tech I want to see on my next-generation vehicle.

[@Sierra-208]

Hey, the crew placement kinda reminds me of the Not-T14 Armata from the ARMA 3 Tanks DLC Also, I'll definitely pay for a model kit of the technology demonstrator, it's too cool of a concept. Its basically a multi-mission platform: Drone launcher, Tank Destroyer, Fire Support Vehicle, Anti-Drone, idk, the list can go on.

[@overlord4404]

Its pretty much armata but american...

[@KebeQ]

@@overlord4404 so that one actually works?

[@MH-OKW]

@@KebeQ only if it's German

[@CARBONHAWK1]

Lol at everyone who was shitting on the Armata 😊

[@termitreter6545]

@@CARBONHAWK1 Because the Armata seems kinda trash, after its been hyped so much. AFAIK the limited trials in Syria didnt go well, and at this point they cant even make T14s run an entire parade without breaking down. Russia doesnt even got the industrial or technology base to build them without western tooling. Americans actually got the expertise and money to pull it off. But I still doubt this concept is gonna be accepted yet, because its too radical and unproven. And frankly, stuff like the low armor turret seems very questionable.

[@gatling216]

The biggest takeaway from all this is the hybrid powerplant. I don't see the US Army moving away from a manned turret anytime soon; there's just too much institutional inertia to be dealt with. Too many tank commanders like riding outside of the hatch for situational awareness, for instance, and you'll have a hard time convincing them to rely solely on sensors. The gun is a solid maybe, but it doesn't seem like a huge upgrade. MFDs for the crew positions would be a big improvement, I'd wager, and probably the easiest out of everything to implement. Not really what I'd call a game changer, though. The hybrid powerplant, though, that's a different story altogether. The DoD wants to go electric in a big way. The rank and file are skeptical, but in fairness, they hate everything until about ten years after it happens. Just the ability to silently sneak around for short periods would be a massive game changer, to say nothing of how much easier it is to work on a diesel engine than it is a turbine. I could absolutely see this thing making its way into the Army's next iteration of the Abrams.

[@termitreter6545]

Honestly yeh the hybrid powerplant is super interesting. I also wonder how the hybrid would compare to a pure direct diesel. Eg on trains its considered a big loss in efficiency, but the lack of mechanical connections is worth taking losses.

[@gatling216]

@@termitreter6545 Depends on how they implement it. I doubt they’ll go full diesel-electric. That’s been tried on tanks before and doesn’t work well. I imagine they’ll have the two working together, sort of like a hybrid car.

[@termitreter6545]

@@gatling216 I would actually bet that they go fully diesel-electric transmission, plus (very) limited batteries. Sure its failed before, but thats why this is a technology demonstrator, supposed to show it can work. Hybrid otoh would be way more weight, as well as a bunch of transmission losses. I dont see much of a point in a hybrid tank tbh. Youre losing a lot for little gain.

[@gatling216]

@@termitreter6545 Conspiracy theory: all this talk about diesel is meant to distract us from the fact that they’re going the F1 route, complete with KERS and DRS. How they’re going to get active aero to work on a tank is a matter of national security.

[@termitreter6545]

@@gatling216 Goddamit, are the americans trying to overtake us with illegal modificatoins? I swear, if the Abrams suddenly rushes past our Leo2 on the final straight, im gonna lodge a complaint :V

[@M4A3Sherman]

There are some things that I like about it and things I don’t. The auto loader is the right type, but I would have kept a more traditional layout. Having a 4th man is also great for maintenance. I do like the cannon being mounted on the top, but I’d still have the .50 cal for the commander as it’s good to have just in case.

[@CaptainSpacedOut]

I'd say the drones are being kept. Because you can scout ahead without risking any troops or exposing yourself, and since that drone can also destroy tanks you can literally take out 4 tanks without shooting once. The APS seems radical definitely being kept as well. Especially because of drones being so prevalent in combat. As for the rest it's a light Abrams with a lot of cool toys.

[@imadequate3376]

Actually kinda excited for this new iteration of the Abrams. New crewless turret, so a crew reduction to 3 plus auto loader. Also a new hybrid engine which will improve range, also might allow the tanks to run silently and give off less heat signature, so that's pretty ccol.

[@KeeperOfTheSevenKeys.]

Important question about the Hybrid power train, is it a traditional hybrid setup, or is a primary electric motor with the engine just acting as a generator?

[@Circka1]

Considering its supposed to be an upgrade in power, I imagine the electric motor is meant to work in tandem with the diesel engine, much like hybrid supercars.

[@indyjons321]

Oh look, the Abrams-14 Armata.

[@cr90captain89]

at least this can be massed produced & is an effective solution to logistics problems faced by MBT's which is more than the t-14 can say by a country mile.

[@YukarisGearReviews]

An Abrams with an unmanned turret existed decades before the Armata (which will never enter serial production)

[@cr90captain89]

@@YukarisGearReviews care to give the name/ make & model of said abrams with the unmanned turret? cause that sounds like BS to me.

[@YukarisGearReviews]

@@cr90captain89 yes, the "BS" is called TTB and CATTB respectively. Produced by TACOM in the early to late 1980s but never formally adopted due to collapsing military budgets at the end of the cold war

[@sargesacker2599]

@@cr90captain89 Abrams TTB buddy look it up.

[@trplankowner3323]

Yes, this was informative and thank you for your work!

[@olekzajac5948]

I don't think they put the ammo with warheads facing forward - if an ammo rack like that is hit and a HEAT-MP warhead is detonated, the electronics in the turret (or the gun breech) is *done.* If that happens in the classic Meggitt autoloader design, the jet just goes through the rear armor plate. Btw, do you know which Switchblade is it? Because as far as I know, the 300 variant isn't really a good design - it's very susceptible to EW, at least that's what Ukrainian soldiers were saying about them.

[@Welterino]

They probably gave more priority to the rate of fire, I read that it reloads in 3.5 seconds that's insanely fast. Turret is probably only penetrable by kinetic projectiles bigger than autocannons This tank has Trophy therefore no HEAT, HE, rocket or missile can hit this tank, only kinetic stuff.

[@olekzajac5948]

@@Welterino I meant a case when the rounds that are inside of the autoloader detonate. If the HEAT-MP warheads inside go off, the jet has to go somewhere, so it better be facing backwards instead of the electronics and gun breech. It's the same reason why the elevating ATGM container on almost every modern western IFV (besides the German Puma, US OMFV and Polish Borsuk) is a bad idea - if it gets hit and the ATGM goes off inside the turret, the whole turret is gone. If it explodes in an external container like on the three mentioned designs, the turret isn't really seriously damaged, you just replace the container and it's all fine. Also, while the front turret armor is incredibly thick (rougly around 1 meter thick armor module), the ammo rack doesn't seem to be that well protected.

[@xt6wagon]

@@olekzajac5948 It needs to be properly triggered. That's why slat armor works. If you smash part of the warhead and make the cone no longer a symmetrical cone... the jet doesn't form properly. So if something hits a HEAT warhead with the ability to trigger it, its going to have destroyed that shape. Now chain detonating that much explosives will be unpleasant, but its not going to HEAT jet the rest of the turret. Also remote turret in this case so who cares, just pray the blow off panel bleeds off enough.

[@Draycoe]

Very informative thank you.

[@HolyNorthAmericanEmpire]

Not all that pretty but a cool tech demonstrator. I think the gun and autoloader are the most likely components to be adopted.

[@criseist9786]

Ngl I love videos discussing this because of how radically different people interpret things. For example, I think the autoloader is the most likely to be removed. Just an interesting note

[@KSmithwick1989]

@@criseist9786 Why would an autoloader be removed on an unmanned turret. It would effectively disable the main gun. Not to mention the US/NATO plan to develop UGVs, based on MBTs.

[@criseist9786]

@@KSmithwick1989 I mean, kinda obvious that removing an autoloader would madate a manned turret. You know, like the current military doctrine supports.

[@KSmithwick1989]

@@criseist9786 Which also ignores the NGCV guidelines. As I mentioned the US millitary is developing optionally manned vehicles. All positions must be automated, to allow them to function as UGVs.

[@criseist9786]

@@KSmithwick1989 which would be great, were this not a transitional vehicle

[@the7observer]

"a universal engine for every vehicle" logistic personell: *orgasms*

[@angreyhewe4009]

Honestly I get a lot of T14 Armata vibes from it

[@V-V1875-h]

Still much more classic design than the T14

[@DefinitelyNotEmma]

@@V-V1875-h Definitely, the T-14 is much more futuristic

[@classicgalactica5879]

@@DefinitelyNotEmma The T-14 Armata is nothing more than a rip off of old, rejected U.S. technology from the 1980's called the M1 Abrams TTB. There is nothing futuristic about it.

[@-TheLynx-]

Ah, you're a man of culture I hear, some sweet C&C Generals music!

[@user-pq4by2rq9y]

You know, with the number of drones on the battlefield, I would like to see an abrams capable of indirect fire support like a small howitzer, however that's probably too much of a hassle.

[@timharnans]

Honestly, a 155mm autoloaded cannon would be eat, mounted on an Abrams chassis for direct-fire support. Maybe the germans could help us out lol

[@cast5439]

I love the music i herd it and instantly remembered what it is C&C Generals

[@2003ToyotaVitz]

how did people get confused about the abramsx being a tech demo 💀 people don't read huh

[@7shelties]

I’ve been looking forward to seeing your take on this.

[@nikolakaravida9670]

I'm still not sure about the manless turret concept ever since the Armata came out. It definitely has its pros, mainly crew survivability and you can fit more advanced shit in the turret, but what if visual systems fail? The tank is practically dead in the water. In a manned turret the commander constantly has a 360 view, the Eyeball mk1 is immune to system failures, and the TC can even turn out if needed.

[@vannlo355]

Eyeball Mk. 1 lol

[@pugasaurusrex8253]

You haven’t heard of the counter measures to Eyeball MK1s? The Sand MK 2000s

[@thatcarguydom266]

One thing they could do is still include room for the other crew members to sit partially exposed, or with periscopes that allow the commander to view what he needs to at any given time. In order to do this however, 3 out of four crew members would need to be inside a turret capsule that rotates with the turret. The design would need to allow for movement in and out of the tank through hatches, but it would basically need to be designed in such a way that the crew spends their time almost exclusively below the actual turret. I can think of a few ways in which stuffing all kinds of electronics into the top could cause some issues… especially when you need to be able to have a tanker take the place of the autoloader in case it fails, or if the turret armor is penetrated. Hopefully nothing essential is up there, because you’ll cripple the tank just by hitting the turret if it’s not adequately armored.

[@cqpp]

Lmao I'm calling them eyeball mk1's from now on.

[@cqpp]

@@pugasaurusrex8253 lovely.

[@peterh8553]

It would be nice to see comparison of the various new MBT's out their. The new KF 51 Panther I find very impressive.

[@rock_ok]

cant wait to see it on warthunder

[@Tobiasdg365]

you need maybe to wait more then 15 years

[@TheBenghaziRabbit]

overall GDLS did a pretty good job on the AbramsX Tech Demo

[@luisgarces1382]

Is the new abrams in war thunder supposed to get improved hull armor in the front?

[@Spookston]

The SEP has "third generation depleted uranium arrays" but it's not really known if this includes DU hull armor. Some sources say some M1s built after 1998 had DU hulls.

[@justtypical8604]

@@Spookston ye it's heavily implied, there's a source which shows m1a1's having du inserts and suggests where they would go on m1a2 ( the source is some sort of radioactive handling report from 2002)

[@elanvital9720]

@@Spookston Only 5 DU hulls were ever built and they are present at tank training schools. Hull armor didn't change at all since basic M1.

[@KSmithwick1989]

@@elanvital9720 What gets me wondering, is why the term "DU" is interchangeably used to describe the armor. Given it's really not the same as the alloy used in APFSDS munitions. And gives a false impression of its composition. As DU is inherently pyromorphic in nature. When used as APFSDS the known quantity in the DU alloy is excess 90%. While used as armor the quantity is significantly lower. And is clearly is alloyed in a manner that eliminates the pyromorphic effects. Yet enhances the overall density of the alloy. Also notably you rarely hear the proper term (staballoy) used.

[@luisgarces1382]

@@Spookston I see, thanks!

[@AZREDFERN]

Maybe they’ll make the Army choose between X and Y. They’re almost the same tank, but with different starting tech, and some available tech is only available for one or the other. And the MEGA Abrams evolution looks way cooler for one version.

[@Michael_OBrian]

Any chance of a video like this on the CV90 family?

[@seargesoren9391]

5:42 Very informative!

[@heftyjo2893]

Wouldn't be surprised if they adapt the drone launcher to current tanks. Basically turn them into land destroyers like their water going cousins which I mostly just missile boats now. And just like the boats the future tanks may even start to downsize their main gun in favor of turning into drone tanks. Could even have a little drone landing and recovery pad on the back of the tank. The main gun would be just needed for point defense.

[@llamatronian101]

At the extreme end of theory, the main gun could be used to deploy drones. You can expect a lot of anti-drone warfare, so they might not survive long. Deploying a drone very quickly forward gets you better images before the inevitable destruction. The hard part would be building a drone that could survive being fired.

[@twentylush]

@@llamatronian101 sounds like an anduril contract

[@Kubaxwot]

that new squadron vehicle looks dope

[@gwydionrusso3206]

So basically something between the modern Abrams and something like the KF 51 or future systems

[@Icesandwich__1]

Looks like a really nice special abrams

[@kulwiederbach9993]

Hold up, it’s not an HSTVL? My disappointment is immeasurable…

[@halofly3]

If it were a 90s cartoon vehicle, it would be nicknamed the Abrams Extreme

[@nomar5spaulding]

Isn't this thing basically just the tank version of a concept car?

[@DefinitelyNotEmma]

Yes. It's functional, previews future technologies and is supposed to raise interest ^^

[@HF7-AD]

I'd say it's more like a mannequin

[@Eskeletor_210]

The Leonidas looks sick

[@derpypotatos4610]

The engine looks like the most logical to pick. More efficient and more range if they keep the current layout.

[@MrLathor]

This tank makes a ton of sense and seems actually feasible to build. I would expect a lot of interest. Making use of a unified modern engine family for many vehicles is going to great for compatibility, logistics, and efficiency. That is the single most important improvement in this tank.

[@JaCKal_646f67]

war thunder for the next 10 years: FREEBRAHAMSX (casually leaks documents)

[@elt39]

Hope you'll consider doing a vid like this on the EMBT

[@WolfeSaber]

Still waiting on the KF-51 concept tank!

[@dannyneufeld8846]

It's gonna take the spot of "best tank in the world" away from the leopard II

[@rexxmen]

@@dannyneufeld8846 assuming the leo2 ever held that position

[@dannyneufeld8846]

@@rexxmen it even still does

[@rexxmen]

@@dannyneufeld8846 debatable

[@Just_A_Random_Desk]

@@dannyneufeld8846 that front ammo rack is a pretty big issue.

[@mr_resource5099]

The AbramsX activates the monkey in me, just the sheer want to discard the education system in favor of a funny tank

[@AbsolutelyStupidGoofball]

Spookston when no HSTV-L X

[@Registered_Simp]

Now he's waiting for the RDFLT-X

[@CoffeeMug2828]

They would probably adopt an armored variant, that's for sure. As for the autoloader, they'll most likely ditch it and just put a manual loader in there.

[@TheBlankJoker]

The US Army has already seen a tank a lot like this one before. Just in the late 80s and early 90s which was being tested to be the M1A1. Clearly we didn't go down that route back then...

[@jintsuubest9331]

Because 4k display did not exist back then. Imagine your situational awareness is all done by a couple 480p display.

[@TheBlankJoker]

@@jintsuubest9331 That wasn't even the reason why the US Army didn't go with the TBH. It was deemed unsafe for the crew. Even though they were in their own separate compartment separated from the Ammo it still only took a single shot to destroy the entire tank, to include getting into the separated crew compartment, and that single spot was also the only spot of the tank you need to have exposed in order to shoot. The turret needs way more armor on it at the very least. Not to mention that Autoloaders aren't very good for general purpose cannons but are best used for specific needs. Requesting anything more than two different ammo types on an autoloader is just asking for problems. (AP (Sabot), HEAT, HE, Canister, Smoke, ect.) The new engine package I can see being installed in existing Tanks replacing the not so efficient, but very useful, turbine engine. (Its not a picky eater vs the Diesel Hybrid) And many of the other tanks have already been slowly getting the optics upgraded already. This AbramsX seems like we are trying to go the Soviet route. Cut cost at the cost of our crews safety.

[@WarDaddy66]

I still like the 4th crew member for help with maintenance and a extra set of eyes

[@Elver_Galarga816]

Rip Russians they were supposed to have 3,000 T-14s by this year yet they still have like 15 of them lmao

[@HF7-AD]

14 because at least one of them has to have broken down by now

[@tylerlewis2766]

The T14 doesn't provide a big enough leap in capability or occupy a role that's worth cannibalizing the 1000/yr T90M production

[@Geshiko-GuP]

you should do a video on the new European MBT, it has a very unique design

[@CMDRsomeone77]

EBRC "Jagwire" lol

[@Spookston]

Yes, that's how Americans pronounce jaguar.

[@CMDRsomeone77]

@@Spookston Fair enough

[@V-V1875-h]

@@Spookston you always learn something new

[@Notreallysureactually]

@@Spookston *Some* Americans.

[@emortalelitegaming2667]

I do like The switch blade drone idea

[@kyb5203]

I feel like the optionally manned feature is a bit wasteful, if remote control stops working, you’re like pretty fucked anyways

[@miloskaluznik48]

That's why if the remote stops working a crewman can climb in and operate the thing Thus the whole optionally thing

[@V-V1875-h]

@@miloskaluznik48 yeah optional, but not everyone gets it

[@kyb5203]

@@miloskaluznik48 what I'm saying is that if remote control is disabled by a combatant, I can imagine very, very few scenarios where an optionally manned turret would help. If a tank has its internal, closed circuit tech disabled, it is quite likely combat ineffective, manned turret or not

[@BlueBloxRoblox]

"So how strong is your new tank" "50% fuel efficiency" "Somebody help"

[@stevenhussey9228]

so what the AbramsX is it's like a T-14 with the man less ( or very uncomfy area of a turret ) it keeps a 120MM gun which is good we can use the same rounds it's lighter by i wanna say 30 tons 9 so it's not a king tiger ) and it gets trophy and a drone modification which is good so it can have an idea of the field it ( might see ) will fight in and a newer engine which is good better fuel and all that the one thing i see bad about it is that it's coming out to a point where tanks now aren't as needed now then they were like during the Second world war or in Afghanistan. Is it good maybe will it do yes in opinion it's ok and it will do it's just not the best timing for a new tank to come out since the new drones and all that but good video and giving some idea of it Spookston.

[@YukarisGearReviews]

are you having a stroke?

[@Raphix]

Tanks were needed in Afghanistan?

[@Marth667]

Tbh I'd be rolling in spike missile systems with a rapid reload system synced to it's own or other drones into modern tanks. Giving the crew options on how to engage targets whilst keeping them out of harms way seems like the best way to keep a mult-million dollar tank in use.

[@blackstoneblkstntv5551]

Atgm is waiting 😶

[@evo3s75]

soooo, this is basically a sort of T-14 Armata-esque take on the Abrams in design and layout

[@Monarch_E.]

Abramsex

[@aorusxtremem1_sam183]

Spookston you are wrong the Safran Paseo is not a third gen thermal sights, this has been confirmed by GDLS Timothy Rees it is a second generation sights in all aspects The Safran Paseo - Optics one is just demonstrated for Abrams X and Proposed for M1A2 but it is not going to be installed The Third Gen sights that are going to be installed are from L3-Harris i.e Raytheon The Army has chosen Raytheon for the third gen sights Your also missing major of the points and not gone into complete detail (I dont know since you wanted to keep this video short I supposed) There are lots of things about the AbramsX even the crew placement can be changed 2 in the hull 1 in the turret.....etc.

[@tyvernoverlord5363]

The US Army has always used Short Tons for AFV's. The current M1's are 73.6 Short Tons, having a AbramsX that's 54 Short Tons(a full 6 short tons lighter than the original production M1's btw) after the current gen heavy armor behemoths we've been fielding to date; would be pretty damned revolutionary for US Armored Forces and pretty 21st for the Army . . .

[@JAy3JeE]

I subscribe to the Onion defense philosophy, so when I saw this I was surprised and perplexed, then I read the comments and saw that this was going to be exported and purchased and then it made a bit more sense. (For those that don't know, the #1 rule of onion defense philosophy is don't be seen/detected) I kinda do like this tank - it's literally an Abrams 2.0 with it's autoloader and improved crew safety. I just have A LOT of questions, but most of those arise from defense philosophy being different.

[@FMHikari]

The HPP is not only more efficient, but the fact they want to push for EVERY SINGLE VEHICLE to use it means they want to have as many interchangeable parts as possible to ease recovery and repair. Cases: IFV and Tank are down Tank lost the HPP IFV is undriveable but the HPP is fine. Repair the tank by salvaging the HPP from the broken down IFV, and the tank can also tow the dead ifv for further salvaging once the situation is clear. Plus all crews will get the same kit for handling their power packs, so everyone can help themselves.

[@overlord4404]

Americans: haha Armata paper tank. Also americans: quick write that down, write that down!!!

[@nicholaswoof88]

Looks more that the hybrid power train, the new gun barrel, improved suspension and more armour protection will be needed in the next Abrams tank v5

[@Stivonim]

didn't know you play DCS. will you do module reviews?

[@jonasbrumley8184]

So what your saying is the AbramsX would be better suited as a light tank or as an armed scout vehicle then as a main battle tank

[@HF7-AD]

No, the Abramsx is as much of an MBT as the regular Abrams, it's just designed for a different combat environment, think of the regular Abrams as the F16 and the Abramsx as the F35

[@ElementttH2H]

I can see the 30mm coming into use as an Anti material and Light AA/Drone Killer weapon with the HEP and its other possible munitions, the new engine, power pack and transmission also being used, the crew might not get as massive a change, though they may use the extra space in the hull to keep the 4th crew member and replace the loader with an in-crew Recon/UAV Controller or something like that to enhance overall recon and command and control of the battlespace around it. new 120 would definitely be useful, and we may see even further modifications on the XM360 to make it even more of a good replacement over the M256, FLIR Gen III, MFD and other tech enhancements for crew information, sight and other such gear is def being grabbed in a revision or even already being planned for I would say for the V4 since its most likely going to enhance crew capabilities quite a deal, the sensors suite to add AR to the tank itself, I dunno about as its quite likely to be finicky if not done right, the turret upgrade and modular armor package change is likely to save a couple tons if done right, but its also likely they would ask for at least a mid level package to make damn sure that tank is operational even if the APS and other such gear were overwhelmed.

[@mayuri4184]

That C&C Generals music, though.

[@Schnitzelfox]

The AbramsX is like EA, you have to buy extra for the armor dlc.

[@GeneralCalculus]

Cutting edge from far future of 80ies.

[@arnoadam5691]

4:47 this part where noone knows what unit is actually meant cracks me up :)

[@SuperMadman41]

Thanks for the vid

[@Cheesy_Garlic_Bread]

Last year when i saw the US Army looking for a new service rifle I brushed it off as another project that'll be burried once its done like many other projects before it. I was suprised when they actually selected the sig spear. With the ongoing events in Ukraine I really don't know if they'll burry this one and save the tech for next time like they've done so many times before. It's really hard to say.