Here's an alternative theory, based on years of watching government green initiatives: This is just a money grab. Someone involved in the decision making is poised to make a lot of money off of this effort.
One AFV contractor has already demonstrated an electric drive in a light tank. The US Army has done tank autoloaders at least 3 times. In addition, we were working on antidrone technology back in 2014. We just never got these thing funded or carried forward to completion. Current Pentagon leadership seems unlikely to get this pulled together. Our decision making processes, bureaucracy and technically illiterate leadership are the chief problems as is our penchant for “big programs with high-risk technical goals”.
If they develop and field this scammeister, and that's a big IF, ten years or 15 years from now we'll be reading stories about humidity effects, vulnerabilities that were not foreseen, and a new anti-tank weapon by the Russians or Chinese that is so lethal it makes the new tanks unusable. This is the Littoral ship of the Army. It will be bought and paid for and then scrapped.
Tanks remind me of surface ships they are too vulnerable and expensive. I remember seeing tanks in Vietnam and thanked God I wasn’t In them. A lot of hype since that war as far as tanks go but the reality is they still burn. Now we don’t hear much about the Merkava tanks in Gaza and I think that’s code for, they are not faring too well against Hamas. Hybrid is more likely to be a scheme that makes money for a few but leaves a large number of tankers on the battlefield.
Isn't the main purpose of the 120mm tank gun to destroy other tanks, as it has less range than a 155mm howitzer? That might have been the best antitank tech in WW2 but no longer.
Wouldn't the future be best served with lightweight units carrying antitank missiles and 120mm mortars instead?
Hybrid electric drive is coming. The ability to move “silently” for short periods of time. If a tank shows up unannounced can be a game changer.
Drone defense is the future of combined arms combined with hemisphere active protection systems. The ability to swat down a drone on the attack run will be key for future armor/heavy infantry formations.
CROWs with the XM 914 30mm Bushmaster II with enhanced fire control and proximity fused ammunition will be anti drone capability. The Abrams X already has this mounted on top with unknown fire control capability.
The best (IMO) defense against drone swarms will be a Heavy SHORAD with 30mm bushmaster and directed energy weapons on the same platform. A Brad Chassis with electric generation with advanced generators and fire control will burn the drones out of the sky.
This is sounding like the iron sights guys are pissed at the ACOG guys. Innovation in war is honking expensive. Drones and counter drone systems will play cat and mouse until the next asymmetric threat upends the system.
Who knows..the US gov’t , state department, military industrial complex has made so many retarded decisions I stopped counting. A woke tank lol. Put a rainbow flag on so we can kill in the name of hegemonic tolerance
I think the lesson the Tiger 2 tank left is that tanks can be too big, too heavy. The Russians may be closer to the ideal with much smaller tanks. The Abrams is not suitable for the Ukraine. Gets stuck, breaks down. This was the kind of terrain that the Abrams was designed for. Are they going to reduce the size or will it remain this big? How about the projected weight? We all know that always ends up heavier than planned.
The US should learn from the German experience in WW2. Very heavy tanks really don't work well in the terrain in Eastern Europe during the 2 muddy seasons. I could be wrong, but I believe Napolean also had issues with his heavy cannons as well.
The next F-35? Reading about batteries raised some questions. The slightest damage can turn them into flames. Have you seen an EV catching fire? It takes 3 seconds to turn into an inferno, and with ammunition on board this could be explosive. They can't even make batteries work for trucks, tanks are even more heavier. Yes it's a hybrid so less batteries and size needed. As mentioned, electric motors will be on the bottom and wouldn't survive mines.
I think they are making a mistake, again. Preparing for the previous war and not the future war which will be again different. We can see the importance of drones but nobody was prepared for such war. If NATO had foreseen this they would had the upperhand on the battlefield. Now Russia is taking the lead in drones. I don't know if it's technical possible but the next generation should have drone detection and an auto fire to destroy them. I also would put survivability for the crew more important than the tank. Tanks are more a disposable weapon system these days. It once was an indestructible fortress but now many cheap weapons can destroy a tank. It might not surprise me that Russia is looking into remote controlled tank, no crew to protect so they can be build smaller and lighter.
Locomotives are diesel-electric. They're marvels of power and reliability despite the massive loads they move. So a diesel-electric drive would seem like a natural for a tank in terms of strength and ruggedness. And if you then add the hybrid battery factor, it's an intriguing concept on paper.
Locomotives don't have massive lithium batteries. They also don't have weight issues. Also take note that while they develop considerable torque, they don't jump off from a start, but gradually gain speed. In a combat vehicle survival depends on rapid acceleration, something a train does not do. This means that the electric motors have to be capable of handling extreme stress every time the tank accelerates, unlike a locomotive.
No, obviously locomotives don't have lithium batteries, because all the motive force is generated by a diesel-electric drivetrain. As for weight of a tank, most of it comes from its size, armour, track mechanism and weaponry, not from the engine. This would still be the case if it was powered by diesel-electric. Electric motors can accelerate very quickly if that's what you want. Just look at a Tesla. Electric motors will easily handle the strain of getting a 20,000 ton train moving from a standing position. That's maximum stress, in terms of torque and it's the same for a tank. Maximum stress on the drivetrain comes from initially accelerating from zero. Once in motion the strain on the system reduces.
Electric motors can be designed for virtually any kind of application, it's simply a matter of knowing what characteristics you want and building it from there.
Adding a hybrid capability does increase the complexity of course, but that might be justified by having the tank able to move without the diesels running. I don't know tank operating strategy so I can't comment on that. But I can see how having the option of silent operation could be beneficial.
My best information on tank operation came from Israel Tal, the Israeli general who designed the Merkava. He told me that the most important characteristic is for the tank to be able to accelerate from a standing stop very quickly. He said that was far more important than actual speed. That gives a tank a chance to get out of harms way. Unfortunately the development of image tracking antitank weapons and FPV drones probably has made evasion far more difficult today. Stop and dash still is the key characteristic. I have doubts that under combat conditions and bad surfaces (mud, snow, ice) that the strain on an hybrid electric power pack will be an issue. One can also add to that whether US tanks have adequate suspensions which are equally important to assure traction and spring capability.
General Tal's comment makes sense to me. I believe that an electric motor could be designed to provide that acceleration to a tank. Moreover the acceleration would be greatest from standing still. That's where electric motors provide the maximum torque, at zero RPM. They can provide that low speed torque much quicker than a diesel engine, which needs to spool up to develop full torque.
For turbine powered tanks like the Abrams and T-80, the engine would also need to be spooled up to provide full torque. However turbine engines do not accelerate quickly. So if you're in a situation where you could need immediate torque, you need to have the turbine spooled up while you're just sitting there, which is a massive drain on fuel. It would be much nicer (all other things being equal) to have instant and silent torque available from a hybrid drivetrain that uses no fuel while not in motion.
Obviously designing a modern a tank is complex matter and it's way above my pay grade. I don't know if a diesel-electric hybrid system is feasible. But as a concept it has advantages and maybe that's why the US is looking at it.
Tanks - no. Special ops side by sides (Polaris or better still CanAm) are ideally suited for hybrid ops. Approach the target at up to 70 mph on the regular engine then 5 miles out transition to electric. Using NODS roll in silently with minimal visual or thermal signature. There are “many” weapons that can be mounted and remotely controlled on these platforms. Cost is under 50k each not including the weapons system. Moving at an unanticipated rate of speed may skew the drones off target - and low weight jammers may help as well
The Abrams tank does not weigh 76 tons. When the captured Abrams was unloaded in Moscow at an exhibition of captured equipment, the scales on a large truck crane showed less than 60 tons. I don’t remember exactly, but I think 56-58 tons. The tank, of course, burned badly, but it’s unlikely that 18 tons burned in it
I do not know what is the reason for this difference. But this is a well-known story in Russia. Everyone was wondering how much Abrams weighs and the crane operator was scared by the figure of 70 tons. He moved an even more powerful hook onto the crane so as not to break the crane. As a result, the weight turned out to be much less. Seriously less.
If it has to be designed by woke-engineers... I doubt that would be productive. But if designed by hard-nosed 'facts matter' engineers?
That said, I think the AI mentioning is OTT. If you need AI, you have not understood the problem. Just hoping that "something which we do not understand" will fix it, is not realistic.
Btw: In the Ukraine we see that APCs and even tanks are simply abandoned after reaching their destination. Adding more complexity is bound to increase cost. A better 'X' might have been a more simple and easy to discard tank.
Btw2: At least it will burn very well (all that lithium...)
My view is that tanks will remain vulnerable in future and may become a secondary part of the battle space or will be dug in and used as artillery (something the Russians did in WW2). They are simply too vulnerable for the front line. Without some significant breakthrough, lighter or heavier makes no difference, nor does self protection or other stuff. Overall the huge number of destroyed tanks on both sides of the Ukraine conflict makes it clear that they just chew up resources and kill operators, with little to show for it.
I would tend to agree. Same goes for many other expensive equipment.
In fact, I wonder how a future battlefield may look like. I suspect more drones/counter-drones and less people.
Just to paint a picture: Imagine two domes, advancing and repelling each other. The outer wall of the domes would consist of drones and thus be flexible and have a certain 'depth'. The real fighting will be between the walls of the two domes, consisting of all kinds of drones and anti-drones trying to kill each other. The side that can feed the most and best drones/anti-drones into these walls wins.
Yes, the Russians captured almost 100 thousand square kilometers of Ukrainian territory with the help of tanks. Apparently this is called in the USA fighting “with almost no results.”
It was not tanks that made the difference ... in fact the reverse. It was the combination of artillery strikes, FAB bombs, flamethrowers etc. Your sarcasm notwithstanding.
I would be interested in how American soldiers would storm forest belts dug up by trenches without tanks. Without any sarcasm. In Russia and Ukraine, soldiers without armored vehicles simply will not go on the attack.
I haven't seen any tanks or APCs just abandoned after reaching their destination. I have been seeing tanks and APCs returning to their lines after dropping of the Infantry. I've only seen them abandoned if the were damaged or destroyed. Or some kind of mechanical breakdown perhaps.
Here's an alternative theory, based on years of watching government green initiatives: This is just a money grab. Someone involved in the decision making is poised to make a lot of money off of this effort.
I am not sure "alternative" theory is the right term, but it sure is a waste of money.
Somebody will collect that waste for sure.
One AFV contractor has already demonstrated an electric drive in a light tank. The US Army has done tank autoloaders at least 3 times. In addition, we were working on antidrone technology back in 2014. We just never got these thing funded or carried forward to completion. Current Pentagon leadership seems unlikely to get this pulled together. Our decision making processes, bureaucracy and technically illiterate leadership are the chief problems as is our penchant for “big programs with high-risk technical goals”.
If they develop and field this scammeister, and that's a big IF, ten years or 15 years from now we'll be reading stories about humidity effects, vulnerabilities that were not foreseen, and a new anti-tank weapon by the Russians or Chinese that is so lethal it makes the new tanks unusable. This is the Littoral ship of the Army. It will be bought and paid for and then scrapped.
The Abrams X sounds like more of the same US military tech: too sophisticated, too pricey, and of questionable utility on the battlefield.
Hybrid tanks are a stupid idea. Maybe we can install some windmills on the top, instead…
I like the idea. They could also grind corn in their spare time.
Tanks remind me of surface ships they are too vulnerable and expensive. I remember seeing tanks in Vietnam and thanked God I wasn’t In them. A lot of hype since that war as far as tanks go but the reality is they still burn. Now we don’t hear much about the Merkava tanks in Gaza and I think that’s code for, they are not faring too well against Hamas. Hybrid is more likely to be a scheme that makes money for a few but leaves a large number of tankers on the battlefield.
we don't have any reliable numbers on Gaza, but it is mostly urban warfare. Not comparable to the fighting in Ukraine.
Isn't the main purpose of the 120mm tank gun to destroy other tanks, as it has less range than a 155mm howitzer? That might have been the best antitank tech in WW2 but no longer.
Wouldn't the future be best served with lightweight units carrying antitank missiles and 120mm mortars instead?
https://www.iai.co.il/p/robattle
Hybrid electric drive is coming. The ability to move “silently” for short periods of time. If a tank shows up unannounced can be a game changer.
Drone defense is the future of combined arms combined with hemisphere active protection systems. The ability to swat down a drone on the attack run will be key for future armor/heavy infantry formations.
CROWs with the XM 914 30mm Bushmaster II with enhanced fire control and proximity fused ammunition will be anti drone capability. The Abrams X already has this mounted on top with unknown fire control capability.
The best (IMO) defense against drone swarms will be a Heavy SHORAD with 30mm bushmaster and directed energy weapons on the same platform. A Brad Chassis with electric generation with advanced generators and fire control will burn the drones out of the sky.
This is sounding like the iron sights guys are pissed at the ACOG guys. Innovation in war is honking expensive. Drones and counter drone systems will play cat and mouse until the next asymmetric threat upends the system.
Who knows..the US gov’t , state department, military industrial complex has made so many retarded decisions I stopped counting. A woke tank lol. Put a rainbow flag on so we can kill in the name of hegemonic tolerance
I think the lesson the Tiger 2 tank left is that tanks can be too big, too heavy. The Russians may be closer to the ideal with much smaller tanks. The Abrams is not suitable for the Ukraine. Gets stuck, breaks down. This was the kind of terrain that the Abrams was designed for. Are they going to reduce the size or will it remain this big? How about the projected weight? We all know that always ends up heavier than planned.
it is supposed to be a light tank ... maybe
The US should learn from the German experience in WW2. Very heavy tanks really don't work well in the terrain in Eastern Europe during the 2 muddy seasons. I could be wrong, but I believe Napolean also had issues with his heavy cannons as well.
The next F-35? Reading about batteries raised some questions. The slightest damage can turn them into flames. Have you seen an EV catching fire? It takes 3 seconds to turn into an inferno, and with ammunition on board this could be explosive. They can't even make batteries work for trucks, tanks are even more heavier. Yes it's a hybrid so less batteries and size needed. As mentioned, electric motors will be on the bottom and wouldn't survive mines.
I think they are making a mistake, again. Preparing for the previous war and not the future war which will be again different. We can see the importance of drones but nobody was prepared for such war. If NATO had foreseen this they would had the upperhand on the battlefield. Now Russia is taking the lead in drones. I don't know if it's technical possible but the next generation should have drone detection and an auto fire to destroy them. I also would put survivability for the crew more important than the tank. Tanks are more a disposable weapon system these days. It once was an indestructible fortress but now many cheap weapons can destroy a tank. It might not surprise me that Russia is looking into remote controlled tank, no crew to protect so they can be build smaller and lighter.
Locomotives are diesel-electric. They're marvels of power and reliability despite the massive loads they move. So a diesel-electric drive would seem like a natural for a tank in terms of strength and ruggedness. And if you then add the hybrid battery factor, it's an intriguing concept on paper.
Locomotives don't have massive lithium batteries. They also don't have weight issues. Also take note that while they develop considerable torque, they don't jump off from a start, but gradually gain speed. In a combat vehicle survival depends on rapid acceleration, something a train does not do. This means that the electric motors have to be capable of handling extreme stress every time the tank accelerates, unlike a locomotive.
No, obviously locomotives don't have lithium batteries, because all the motive force is generated by a diesel-electric drivetrain. As for weight of a tank, most of it comes from its size, armour, track mechanism and weaponry, not from the engine. This would still be the case if it was powered by diesel-electric. Electric motors can accelerate very quickly if that's what you want. Just look at a Tesla. Electric motors will easily handle the strain of getting a 20,000 ton train moving from a standing position. That's maximum stress, in terms of torque and it's the same for a tank. Maximum stress on the drivetrain comes from initially accelerating from zero. Once in motion the strain on the system reduces.
Electric motors can be designed for virtually any kind of application, it's simply a matter of knowing what characteristics you want and building it from there.
Adding a hybrid capability does increase the complexity of course, but that might be justified by having the tank able to move without the diesels running. I don't know tank operating strategy so I can't comment on that. But I can see how having the option of silent operation could be beneficial.
My best information on tank operation came from Israel Tal, the Israeli general who designed the Merkava. He told me that the most important characteristic is for the tank to be able to accelerate from a standing stop very quickly. He said that was far more important than actual speed. That gives a tank a chance to get out of harms way. Unfortunately the development of image tracking antitank weapons and FPV drones probably has made evasion far more difficult today. Stop and dash still is the key characteristic. I have doubts that under combat conditions and bad surfaces (mud, snow, ice) that the strain on an hybrid electric power pack will be an issue. One can also add to that whether US tanks have adequate suspensions which are equally important to assure traction and spring capability.
General Tal's comment makes sense to me. I believe that an electric motor could be designed to provide that acceleration to a tank. Moreover the acceleration would be greatest from standing still. That's where electric motors provide the maximum torque, at zero RPM. They can provide that low speed torque much quicker than a diesel engine, which needs to spool up to develop full torque.
For turbine powered tanks like the Abrams and T-80, the engine would also need to be spooled up to provide full torque. However turbine engines do not accelerate quickly. So if you're in a situation where you could need immediate torque, you need to have the turbine spooled up while you're just sitting there, which is a massive drain on fuel. It would be much nicer (all other things being equal) to have instant and silent torque available from a hybrid drivetrain that uses no fuel while not in motion.
Obviously designing a modern a tank is complex matter and it's way above my pay grade. I don't know if a diesel-electric hybrid system is feasible. But as a concept it has advantages and maybe that's why the US is looking at it.
Tanks - no. Special ops side by sides (Polaris or better still CanAm) are ideally suited for hybrid ops. Approach the target at up to 70 mph on the regular engine then 5 miles out transition to electric. Using NODS roll in silently with minimal visual or thermal signature. There are “many” weapons that can be mounted and remotely controlled on these platforms. Cost is under 50k each not including the weapons system. Moving at an unanticipated rate of speed may skew the drones off target - and low weight jammers may help as well
The Abrams tank does not weigh 76 tons. When the captured Abrams was unloaded in Moscow at an exhibition of captured equipment, the scales on a large truck crane showed less than 60 tons. I don’t remember exactly, but I think 56-58 tons. The tank, of course, burned badly, but it’s unlikely that 18 tons burned in it
the 76 tons is the official figure and I see no reason to change it. Look it up for yourself.
I do not know what is the reason for this difference. But this is a well-known story in Russia. Everyone was wondering how much Abrams weighs and the crane operator was scared by the figure of 70 tons. He moved an even more powerful hook onto the crane so as not to break the crane. As a result, the weight turned out to be much less. Seriously less.
The tank still weights 76 tons. What the Russians hoisted was mostly the shell of the tank. Believe what you want.
Could it be that these Abrams are older and don't have the heavier armour or add ons that newer ones have?
This says - Weight:
M1A1 - 63.0 tons;
M1A2 - 69.5 tons.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1-specs.htm
While this says - Weight :
M1A1 SA – 67.6 tons;
M1A2 SEPv2 – 71.2 tons;
M1A2C – 73.6 tons.
https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/533115.pdf
And Wiki says this - Mass:
M1A1: 63.0 tons;
M1A1 SA: 67.6 tons;
M1A2 SEP v2: 71.2 tons;
M1A2 SEP v3: 73.6 tons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams
As well there can be some confusion between US and Metric tons.
US ton = 2000 pounds = 907.18 kilograms (kgs);
Metric ton = 1000 kgs = 2204.6 pounds = 1.102 US tons.
M1A1: 63.0 US tons = 57 Metric tons
M1A1 SA: 67.6 US tons = 61.3 Metric tons
M1A2 SEP v2: 71.2 US tons = 64.6 Metric tons
M1A2 SEP v3: 73.6 US tons = 66.8 Metric tons.
Yes, I've already figured it out. Americans use so-called short tons of 907.18 kg.
It will be interesting how that will turn out.
If it has to be designed by woke-engineers... I doubt that would be productive. But if designed by hard-nosed 'facts matter' engineers?
That said, I think the AI mentioning is OTT. If you need AI, you have not understood the problem. Just hoping that "something which we do not understand" will fix it, is not realistic.
Btw: In the Ukraine we see that APCs and even tanks are simply abandoned after reaching their destination. Adding more complexity is bound to increase cost. A better 'X' might have been a more simple and easy to discard tank.
Btw2: At least it will burn very well (all that lithium...)
My view is that tanks will remain vulnerable in future and may become a secondary part of the battle space or will be dug in and used as artillery (something the Russians did in WW2). They are simply too vulnerable for the front line. Without some significant breakthrough, lighter or heavier makes no difference, nor does self protection or other stuff. Overall the huge number of destroyed tanks on both sides of the Ukraine conflict makes it clear that they just chew up resources and kill operators, with little to show for it.
I would tend to agree. Same goes for many other expensive equipment.
In fact, I wonder how a future battlefield may look like. I suspect more drones/counter-drones and less people.
Just to paint a picture: Imagine two domes, advancing and repelling each other. The outer wall of the domes would consist of drones and thus be flexible and have a certain 'depth'. The real fighting will be between the walls of the two domes, consisting of all kinds of drones and anti-drones trying to kill each other. The side that can feed the most and best drones/anti-drones into these walls wins.
We also used Shermans, etc, as Artillery during WW2 and Korea.
Yes, the Russians captured almost 100 thousand square kilometers of Ukrainian territory with the help of tanks. Apparently this is called in the USA fighting “with almost no results.”
It was not tanks that made the difference ... in fact the reverse. It was the combination of artillery strikes, FAB bombs, flamethrowers etc. Your sarcasm notwithstanding.
I would be interested in how American soldiers would storm forest belts dug up by trenches without tanks. Without any sarcasm. In Russia and Ukraine, soldiers without armored vehicles simply will not go on the attack.
I haven't seen any tanks or APCs just abandoned after reaching their destination. I have been seeing tanks and APCs returning to their lines after dropping of the Infantry. I've only seen them abandoned if the were damaged or destroyed. Or some kind of mechanical breakdown perhaps.