View Full Version : US Army tank development: The M1E3
Presumably to become the M1A3 if it gets as far as production. Almost sounds like a clean-sheet-of-paper design:
"The Army announced its intention to pursue a more ambitious modernization strategy for the M1 earlier this week. “The new approach balances costs with the Army’s needs and invests in the nation’s defense industrial base,” it said. Initial operational capability (IOC) of the M1E3 is anticipated by the early 2030s. Despite the designation having been used by the service to describe various future ‘modernized’ Abrams concepts since at least 2010, it notes that “the M1E3 Abrams nomenclature is a return to the Army’s standard use of its type classification and nomenclature system for our combat vehicle fleet.” The ‘E’ especially is used to illustrate the significant engineering changes involved compared to the previous system, and the type’s prototype status, per the service.
“The development of the M1E3 Abrams will include the best features of the M1A2 SEPv4 and will comply with the latest modular open systems architecture standards, allowing quicker technology upgrades and requiring fewer resources,” the Army says."
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/army-axes-m1a2-sepv4-abrams-bets-big-on-next-gen-m1e3
SomeOtherGuy
09-09-23, 17:50
Very interesting. The Elefant in the room:
pushing 76 to 78 tons combat loaded
Or should I say Maus? It's pushing towards Maus weight.
Recent wars including Ukraine suggest that some sort of onboard short-range air defense against drones and ATGMs is essential. Not clear if the Rafael Trophy APS mentioned does that comprehensively, or only against ATGMs at extremely close distances. I picture some kind of microwave radar and IR camera system keyed to the remote MG turret shown in the demonstrator. 30mm would be overkill for drone defense - 50 BMG would likely be more than adequate, and even 30 cal (7.62mm) might be a better balance between ammo capacity and ROF vs. effectiveness on aerial threats.
Very interesting. The Elefant in the room:
Or should I say Maus? It's pushing towards Maus weight.
Recent wars including Ukraine suggest that some sort of onboard short-range air defense against drones and ATGMs is essential. Not clear if the Rafael Trophy APS mentioned does that comprehensively, or only against ATGMs at extremely close distances. I picture some kind of microwave radar and IR camera system keyed to the remote MG turret shown in the demonstrator. 30mm would be overkill for drone defense - 50 BMG would likely be more than adequate, and even 30 cal (7.62mm) might be a better balance between ammo capacity and ROF vs. effectiveness on aerial threats.
Basically a minature CIWS in 7.62x51. Shrink the CIWS down and put a M134 on it.
A lot of the armor losses in Ukraine seem to come from drones directly overhead, so that would seem to be an area of concern.
Basically a minature CIWS in 7.62x51. Shrink the CIWS down and put a M134 on it.
Yeah, something like this. A "guided" mini-gun in .308 would be ideal. Like you said, base it on a scaled-down CIWS.
Diamondback
09-09-23, 20:26
R2D2 makes a pretty big visible target on a tank-size platform... ships it's downright Lilliputian so by the time you see it you already got bigger problems but that radome might as well be a blazing neon sign.
R2D2 makes a pretty big visible target on a tank-size platform... ships it's downright Lilliputian so by the time you see it you already got bigger problems but that radome might as well be a blazing neon sign.
Well then in theory they would be able to defend against those threats posed by the high profile they have. i.e. because of their higher profile they are picked up "sooner" by bad guys, but the shit sent out after them they *should* be able to defeat: ATGMs, RPGs, low-flying drones, etc.
I get what you're saying but it's a main battle tank FFS! It's gonna be known to be in the area of where it actually is!
Diamondback
09-09-23, 21:11
OTOH, Phalanx uses an old-school dish IIRC; modern flat-panel AESA antennas might be able to get around that, esp if you can set 'em up to be popped up when needed and stowed when not. Like have a few tanks as "picket ships" protecting the rest of the formation, trading off the role periodically.
Main concern was the height of the antenna might complicate "hull defilade" fighting position tactics.
Doesn't the Trophy system use a radar of some sort? I's small enough to fit on a tank, although it's evidently not exactly lightweight.
Diamondback
09-09-23, 22:54
That could be a possibility too--Trophy's been tested with great success on Abrams platforms before.
Averageman
09-10-23, 06:21
Eventually stackin all of this technology either gets you too heavy a platform to cross bridges in Europe and difficult to move on a truck.
But that's not taking in to account that someone has to be able to work on all of this technology, and its just about too much.
Too dificult to get replacement parts, too difficult to train someone on the system and too difficult for that trained person to actually replace the technology with the tools onhand.
I don't mean to be a wet blanket but I've worked on the M1 series tank for 35 years.
Eventually stackin all of this technology either gets you too heavy a platform to cross bridges in Europe and difficult to move on a truck.
But that's not taking in to account that someone has to be able to work on all of this technology, and its just about too much.
Too dificult to get replacement parts, too difficult to train someone on the system and too difficult for that trained person to actually replace the technology with the tools onhand.
I don't mean to be a wet blanket but I've worked on the M1 series tank for 35 years.
Perhaps the M10 Booker will be the light tank overlap and fill the role between MBTs and Striker type vehicles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJQp5wQSFsY
Averageman
09-10-23, 10:08
I'm an old crewman, so I know a trick or two that makes a lot of this new tech, kind of stupid and dumbsizes the problems instead of fixing them.
For instance;
If you are a Tank Commander and kind of smart, at sunset you lock your M-2 to your cannon's sights, that way in the evening. You can sit deep in the defelade and still fire your M-2.
Now, as far as I know, no one ever wrote that in a manual for the Army.
Kind of makes a Night sight and a giant monster on top of the Turret kind of stupid don't it?
Diamondback
09-10-23, 15:14
Smart play would be put the anti-missile-anti-squishy defense on lighter "picket/escort" vehicles, akin to the destroyers screening an aircraft carrier or cruiser.
SomeOtherGuy
09-10-23, 15:51
I have to wonder if drones are making defilade obsolete, while the various AT warheads and potential attack angles (top, rear, sides) are making heavy frontal armor obsolete.
Remember how navy ships went from heavy armor belts to little or or no armor after WW2 when aircraft made the armor belts almost irrelevant? I think we are there now with tanks, or whatever replaces tanks.
Some degree of armor to protect against small arms and shell fragments seems smart, but a foot of frontal armor to stop gun projectiles, at the cost of maybe 20 tons in weight, is a lot less value when many weapon systems don't attack the front. And a low profile tank for hiding in defilade is less valuable when tiny cheap drones blanket the sky and find your tank anywhere.
To me, it seems like future armored vehicles that could survive and be useful are one of two things:
-extremely sophisticated land destroyers with their own air defense in all directions, along with armor and conventional tank weapons; or
-small as possible semi-disposable drone tanks, carrying a few missiles and maybe a .30 cal turret, operated from miles away and surviving through small size, low profile, and numbers.
Diamondback
09-10-23, 16:14
To me, it seems like future armored vehicles that could survive and be useful are one of two things:
-extremely sophisticated land destroyers with their own air defense in all directions, along with armor and conventional tank weapons;
You mean something like this? LOL
https://cnc.fandom.com/wiki/Assault_destroyer
Germany's Gepard Flakpanzer seems to be working out well for the Ukrainians. A burst of 35mm is considerably cheaper than a missile to take down a drone, and it has an anti-surface capability as well.
Too bad our M247 Sgt York was a dumpster fire from beginning to end.
SomeOtherGuy
09-10-23, 16:56
You mean something like this? LOL
https://cnc.fandom.com/wiki/Assault_destroyer
The dimensions of bridges and tunnels are going to be a hard limit, along with weight capacities. So I'm picturing something the size of an Abrams or a large MRAP (FP Buffalo, maybe), with light armor like an MRAP or Bradley, but miniature air defense systems including radar and IR sensors and some combo of a machinegun / light cannon and some last ditch system like the Trophy mentioned above. It would be expensive and a maintenance nightmare, but watching Ukraine it just looks like a tank without air defense is a $4m coffin.
Diamondback
09-10-23, 18:10
Germany's Gepard Flakpanzer seems to be working out well for the Ukrainians. A burst of 35mm is considerably cheaper than a missile to take down a drone, and it has an anti-surface capability as well.
Too bad our M247 Sgt York was a dumpster fire from beginning to end.
Too bad our Not Invented Here Syndrome trumps everything including mission effectieness and aircrew lives. If we were smart we'd license-build an Americanized version and add some Stingers like a NATO version of the 2S6(?) Tunguska.
According to the Chieftain the M1 needs to go on a serious diet, he mentions Trophy which adds 2.5 tons to the turret, 1.25 for the system and another 1.25 counter weight to balance. He states a new design turret and newer electronics, possible fiber and electric instead of hydraulic and newer engine and you can shed tons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu6BPLMrwII
Diamondback
09-10-23, 18:29
Electric and fiber require care in EMP hardening, but I would suspect that once you strip the hydromechanical systems you could probably install multiple-redundant E/O and still have a net weight reduction.
Maybe the Trophy system could be dispersed as several smaller bolt-on packages instead of one big unit and alleviate the counterweight need that way?
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-11-23, 02:36
Heck, I think 7.62 is overkill for drone. Even 556 is probably more than you need, but range becomes the issue. I’d assume you’d need 500m at least or 1000m preferably?
Frankly, I don’t know what drone denisity we are talking about, but a smaller drone with persistent chase functionality seems the best tool with a direct kill function.
Hell, get rid of armour and give it some kind of self digging capacity for hiding and kinetic protection. Like a sand burying pit viper or sea rays that lay on the bottom of the sea floor.
Was there ever an anti-impact system that used water jets to screw up incoming missiles?
OTOH, Phalanx uses an old-school dish IIRC; modern flat-panel AESA antennas might be able to get around that, esp if you can set 'em up to be popped up when needed and stowed when not. Like have a few tanks as "picket ships" protecting the rest of the formation, trading off the role periodically.
Main concern was the height of the antenna might complicate "hull defilade" fighting position tactics.
That's my first thought. Not every vehicle needs a mini R2D2.
Hell, an A frame tarp over some chicken wire, suspended 2-3 feet above the turret, woukd stop most of the "grenade from a drone" issues, esp if the tarp was kevlar.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.