January 16, 2011 |
Author: Rick |
In: Future, Tanks, U.S. Army, Weapons
1
-
It is speculated that the Army is developing a 60-ton Abrams to replace the 75-ton M1A2. Maintaining the same level of protection in a lighter vehicle is a tough task. However, the advantages are being attributed to a better ability to cross bridges and (this one's coming from my mind) probably fuel consumption.
Source
Photo Source
theBRIGADE wants to show off your pictures from service
Submit your Photos here
It is speculated that the Army is developing a 60-ton Abrams to replace the 75-ton M1A2. Maintaining the same level of protection in a lighter vehicle is a tough task. However, the advantages are being attributed to a better ability to cross bridges and (this one's coming from my mind) probably fuel consumption.
Source
Photo Source
theBRIGADE wants to show off your pictures from service
Submit your Photos here
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
-
see what I did there…I know, I’m an idiot
8
-
It is speculated that the Army is developing a 60-ton Abrams to replace the 75-ton M1A2. Maintaining the same level of protection in a lighter vehicle is a tough task. However, the advantages are being attributed to a better ability to cross bridges and (this one's coming from my mind) probably fuel consumption.
Source
Photo Source
theBRIGADE wants to show off your pictures from service
Submit your Photos here
theBRIGADE wants to show off your pictures from service
Submit your Photos
here
Scroll To Top
Red River Army Depot?
#7 Looks more like a prop from Transformers 3. That and it looks like a film set around it.
I see the original pic has been taken down!
If it is, let's hope to God that they took out the Depleted Uranium as part of it's armor protection. If we were smart we would model our tanks protection off of British, German, and Israeli tanks.
its the current version with the turret and bore facing the rear.
Would the lower profile help, too?
I'm an Abrams tanker and to take out the depleted uranium would be silly. That is where your best protection lies. This type of armor can take a hit from a depleted uranium sabot round and survive. As for modeling it after Israeli, German, or British tanks there is no need. The Abrams is a far superior tank. Not to mention that the Abrams was a joint US/German collaboration to design a tank that would outmatch Soviet tanks during the Cold War. The cannon on an Abrams is actually a German designed cannon. What makes the tank superior to the rest is its superior armor, advanced fire control system, ballistic computer, and thermal imaging systems just to name a few.
With British Armor tech? YOU SO FULL OF IT!
I find it unlikely that this is indeed the M1A3, It looks much more like a prop for a movie. I highly doubt that the CITV would be removed on the next model when it gives the commander so much more freedom on the SEPs. This looks a lot more like an M1A1 with some extra length put on the gun tube and an extended turret for a movie or something.
From what I'm hearing (I frequent a forum thread with a bunch of tank "nerds", one of whom is actually a professional historian on the matter), this seems to be the 1990's-era prototype platform for the ATAC 140mm gun, the tank being called "Thumper". It appears to have been repainted and moved somewhere out of storage. Why they repainted it, why they took it out of storage, and to where they are taking it I honestly don't know.
This is the CATTB (Component Advanced Technology Testbed) Abrams. It was an experimental abrams from 1987-1988 that mounted a 140mm smoothbore gun with an auto-loader, a heavier turret, and a modified abrams chassis. It wasn't ever fielded. There were a few made, but nothing new here. Just 24 year-old tank technology.