Comments by "Jim Taylor" (@jimtaylor294) on "Abrams X - The Next Generation American Battle Tank?" video.

  1. Porsche infamously tried to produce Petrol-Electric AFV's in the 1940's... failing completely. The resulting Tiger IP was even more unreliable than the Henschel offering, and its convoluted drivetrain used a slew of strategic materials Germany had little of the time (such as Copper). Even the Germans realized Ferdinand Porsche was pushing a lemon, and rejected the Tiger IP flat. "The more they complicate the plumbing; the easier it is to stop up the drain." - Scotty
    6
  2. More like over 90 years, if counting attempts prior to & during WWII. (re' hybrid drive-trains) Autoloaders have A place it could be argued (though more as an augment to a crewman than a replacement), but I'd say a greater innovation would be Liquid Propellants, as a Tank with the latter would have quicker load times, and no need for a heavy ammo' compartment for propellant charges, as the propellant would be instead in two seperate storage tanks, coming together only in the gun breech. Not to mention: keeping the charges and projectiles seperate from each other until loaded into the gun is the most reliable way to prevent cookoff in the first place / give the crew the most time possible to put out or escape from an onboard fire.
    3
  3. Rhinemetal can push their 130mm all they like: it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. As it is this's happened before; the USSR fielded the T-62 with a then all new gun caliber... only to look rather daft as munitions upgrades to the older 100mm D10 gun rendered the T-62's gun irrelevant. As it is guns above 120 to 122mm caliber are impractical for use in Tanks, due to the munitions weighing too much. Unless there's some breakthrough in Liquid Propellants (which would render 1 peice tank ammo' obsolete), guns larger than 120mm are a practical dead end.
    3
  4. 4:34 ...and all hope for this Tank being a serious successor [in of itself] just evaporated -_- . As past failures like the T95 and MBT-70 should illustrate rather well; Rolling Science Fairs pretty much never result in production orders. I'd only feel sorry for the crews of this thing, as while most of the features mentioned prior looked somewhat promising; putting 3 crewmen in a Tank which they not only can't make internal repairs to while in action (getting out whilst in an active battle area is suicide), but also lack an ability to fight in Degraded Mode at all... well they're doomed against an opponent that's not so handicapped. The US would also do well to avoid "hybrid drivetrains". Those are largely the reserve of Trains and Ships for good reason. (being heavy, complex & fragile being just the main limitations) "Keep it simple, stupid!" - age old military proverb
    3
  5. ...and keeping up on underside protection from IED's & Landmines is rather important too.
    3
  6. Yup. Stryker is useless against an actual MBT, in surrvivability and even mobility. (even the vehicle that preceded it had better mobility) P.S. If you want people to laugh you to scorn; try telling them a Stryker MGS can match a MBT in cross country mobility, surrvivability... or even a short span of it's greatest enemy... Mud or a Side Slope! (to say nothing of the hopeless lemon being unable to fire side on without flipping the vehicle) Clearly the boyo below thinks he can #ROFL
    3
  7. As the FT-17 was comically undergunned and prone to tipping over... that might be a bit unfair on '80's Tanks ;-) . The M60A2 of the '70's though, was derisively nicknamed "The Starship" in its day (by the crews), for having been designed by people who knew nothing of on the ground operational reality. (the convoluted electronics for instance often didn't work, and when they did they'd short out, as they weren't even water resistant... a tad inconveniant when being used in wet &/or humid climates) Time will tell I think whether this will become something successful, like M60A3, or just another "Starship".
    3
  8. "current MBT's can't withstand anything serious" Define "serious", as that's a meaningless statement. What isn't; is that the British Army lost 0 Tanks in either Gulf War to enemy action, despite various heated actions, such as the Battle of Basra in 2003. The MBT is the most surrvivable asset on the modern battlefield, both because of her own merits, but also because of Combined Arms.
    2
  9. "Most outdated modern tank" doubt (seriously: have you seen some of the stuff other countries use? ... makes the Abrams look like a starship XD) Definite room for improvement though (to put it mildly) ... but far better things to consider adopting than autoloaders. (a ADS for instance, or all electric turret drives)
    2
  10. Aye; this's what some call a Rolling Science Fair . Army top brass tend to be allergic to such things, thus they either get rejected or heavily watered down.
    2
  11. ^ And? The Russians are getting their arses handed to them by a 3rd world country ATM. Clearly their approach hasn't worked XD . That: and the record for longest range 1 shot Tank kill in history... is still held by a 120mm gun. (though one could perhaps argue that naval guns have killed Tanks from further away, but a 16" battleship gun is perhaps a tad impractical on land XD)
    2
  12. Time will tell. Such trend predictions have been disproven time after time over the last century.
    2
  13. Aye; and if they make only a few, the unit price will be even higher.
    2
  14. I doubt crews will agree. Bigger isn't always better, as the allies conclusively proved during WWII, with the Germans losing territory on the western front every day between D Day & VE Day, to generally lighter armed but more numerous, reliable & servicable armour.
    2
  15. ^×2 This comment was evidently made by someone without a valid counter-statement; rather only lame ad homeniem. #EpicFail Try tackling the subject next time boyo :P
    2
  16.  @MrLobstermeat  Fair enough. I was referring to the other guy.
    2
  17. ""obsolete"" vs what?. The Russians & Chinese Tanks are of the same generations, and by all observable measures objectively worse. (and in the case of Russia, they dither from one failure to another) It's like the postwar situation Battleships faced: the Soviets had given up on building any new ones (as Germany had wrecked their shipbuilding facilities), mooting any reason for the west to, as there was no threat country building anything bigger than a cruiser. Also: there is no "Chally 3" (in reality anyway, as it's just old CR2 hulls with a hyperbolic name), as the UK Government gave up on developing new Tanks back in 2003... and the company that'd tried to keep Tank R&D going (Vickers Defence Systems) was bought out and divested by BAe, a company with no real interest nor experiance in Tanks. In all meaningful terms; an actual CR3 (an newbuild Tank from the ground up) will never happen... which is sad, but an all too familiar case of UK Governmental ineptitude re' defence.
    2
  18. Too much power is possible actually; as shown by various Tanks whos transmissions couldn't / can't make any use thereof. Even when the latter can though, it's not so simple. The British Army found with the A27M Cromwell in the '40's and the Challenger 2 in the 00's, that more than 40mph in a Tank just leads to the Tank shaking herself apart, because of Square Cube Law. (the CR2 that they tested upping the power on in the 00's, tore various external fittings off herself in the process, and just confirmed that for the weight of vehicle, there was no worthwhile point in trying to go faster than 40mph) To go faster than that: add lightness... which has its own series of engineering trade offs
    2
  19. Three Words: Square Cube Law
    1
  20. Err nope. An army without MBT's will always be slaughtered by one that does. Ironically you've invalidated your own point by admitting there is no threat Tank for the west to respond to. That: and there is no substitute for the Tank on the battlefield. An untrained civi' in a ditch with a rocket launcher might take out a Tank... but cannot do any of the things that Tank can do: • He can't run at over 40mph, let alone keep that speed up for hours. • He can't bring a 120mm gun to the fight; nor dozens of rounds of ammunition. • He can't put a wide range of ordinance upto 3 miles downrange. • He can't surrvive more than small caliber bullets or schrapnel. • He lacks the ability to operate in a CBRN contaminated enviroment at all. ...in short: the Tank attracts more fire than most assets because it is a top tier battlefield threat to the enemy, whereas an untrained civi' in a ditch with a rocket launcher... is not.
    1
  21.  @tadget0566  ~_^
    1
  22. There have always been ""experts"" claiming such pish, even back in the 1910's. "Oh it was only good for This War [WWI], and won't be needed again" was the strawman being pushed back then... and then WWII happened, and everyone who'd claimed the Tank was a fad were conspicuously... silent XD.
    1
  23. Nope. Autoloaders are daft in of themselves, and even worse in an unmanned turret, as if it breaks the Tank is not only disarmed, but the [smaller] crew would have to get out of the Tank to attempt repair, which on an active battlefield is suicide.
    1
  24. ^ Nope. It's a crutch to handwave a fundimental flaw with "oh it'll never operate alone, it can withdraw & return". Real battlefields don't care about neat assumptions of "oh that'd never happen", and any weak point will be viciously exploited by curcumstance. Case in point; when the US lost several Abrams to the Iraqi Army in a sand storm, because the latter were by virtue of weather close enough to fire accurately, whilst their US opponent was also disoriented by the situation. (usually in said war, the Iraqi's were hopelessly outranged, less well trained and equipped with obsolete hardware) Tanks whos crews lack the ability to resort to Degraded Mode, are doomed in a fight with those who can; especially if other random curcumstances intervene. A~and no: autoloaders have yet to be proven in a fight vs human loaders, let alone in battlefield conditions.
    1
  25. ^ Don't listen to this ""D G"" guy (or his various sock puppet accounts). Tank Guns larger than 120mm will definitely not be going anywhere. (not in the west anyway; the ex-soviet block is riddled with ridicuous gun calibers; most of which as subpar as the vehicles that have them) If you want a bigger gun buy a SPG. If you want 1 part ammo' for a gun bigger than 120mm... you're a logistician's worst enemy.
    1
  26.  @Galvars  ...as for your other comment... nope; the current record was set by the Royal Ordinance L11A5 gun of Challenger I, in 1991 during Operation Granby. And as for my point: simple really; Soviet Tanks have always performed far worse than expected by western analysts, and always fared poorly pound for pound against western Tanks. (look up for instance how many Syrian T-62's were slaughtered on the Golan Heights, by a handful of battle worn Israeli Centurions) There is no need for a Tank Gun above 120mm, and nothing to suggest there will be anytime soon.
    1
  27. ^ ... and almost always they are proved wrong, which was my point.
    1
  28.  @Galvars  Well put. The missile lobby have repeatedly tried & failed to push such "hurr durr guns are old hat!" gubbuck for over seven decades now XD
    1
  29.  @mamarussellthepie3995  Massive Oof XD It's certainly an odd detail that Aircraft Engines have generally fared well in Tanks, yet Locomotive ones have not. (most of the issues with the Perkins Condor in my country's CR2 is typically attrubuted to the engine being ill suited to being revved a lot)
    1
  30. A Tank with ""silent mode""... That's not how Physics Works!
    1
  31. If an all new Tank aye... but otherwise nope. What would your name preference be though? (just curious)
    1
  32.  @Galvars  Huh. I admit I expected a name the US hadn't used before. Still: better than Gas Electric II XD (the Holt Gas Electric was the first Tank prototype made in the US from wholly domestic parts)
    1
  33. ^ Maketh no sense, that reply does.
    1
  34. ^ A lot of verbage... but nope, the 4th crewman is not "deadweight"; and it's a false equivilance to compare this to the hull mg operator of the 50's. It's also folly to think that plonking all the crew in the hull is a good thing, as one IED or Landmine... and boom , a de-crewed vehicle. The fact that MBT-70 tried the opposite (putting all the crew up in the turret), shows this is just another design fad, thought up by people who have only a theoretical knowledge of actual battlefield requirements, instead of actual combat experiance. Autoloaders are typically just another point of failure, and unmanned turrets are just outright stupid on vehicles like this. (as any malfunction is impossible for the crew to rectify from within the vehicle, meaning they either have to withdraw completely to the rear to get it fixed, or suicidally get out of the vehicle to make repairs in the middle of an active battlefield)
    1
  35.  @chefchaudard3580  Noted on the foremost point; a trend I've seen on postwar French AFV development. (lots of experimentation, albeit ranging at times into the strange & the absurd; most thankfully not adopted) On Autoloaders: the Leclerc has yet to face a MBT of comparable gen' in battle (though so do most western MBT's), so time will tell whether the Autoloader was a good idea or not. As it is: not seen anything so far to suggest Leclerc is any faster firing than other MBT's. (CR2 for instance can unload 12 rounds in a minute if needed, and destroy at least 8 seperate vehicles in a minute)
    1