M1 Abrams-X MBT - Comparisons
In terms of overall layout, the use of unmanned turrets, the isolation of the crew compartment from the ammunition, and centralized arrangement in the vehicle body are basically the "basic formula" for the next generation of main battle tanks. Although the gap between the performance of China's main battle tanks and the United States has narrowed at this stage, some of the experience of the United States in the development of next-generation tanks is still applicable to China.
In terms of firepower systems, it would be a more reasonable choice to continue to tap the potential of existing weapon systems and focus on the development of long-range guided munitions and artillery-launched missiles. For China, based on the improvement of the existing 125mm tank gun, adopting a new type of rotary automatic loader, multi-purpose grenades equipped with programmable fuzes and guided armor-piercing projectiles for indirect aiming, and incidentally improving the power of armor-piercing projectiles, are directions worth considering. In terms of the configuration of remote control weapon stations, the combination of large-caliber machine guns and grenade launchers is more suitable for China's current combat environment.
In terms of the fire control system, it is a beneficial experience to integrate the integrated photoelectric aperture system, integrated radio frequency system, and artificial intelligence-assisted decision-making system, and to equip the commander and gunner with a full set of sighting and sighting equipment for mutual backup. Adding small vehicle-mounted UAV systems and improving all-weather, all-round, and multi-field reconnaissance capabilities need to be incorporated into the design.
In terms of protection systems, the main protection object of passive protection is people, while the protection of the whole vehicle should be combined with integrated photoelectric and radio frequency countermeasures and active hard-kill interception, focusing on avoiding being attacked first by the enemy. For vehicle-mounted equipment, external equipment for weapons, power, and fire control systems should have the ability to be quickly replaced. The active protection system in hard-kill mode can be used as an optional equipment in specific environments.
In terms of power system, in order to unify with fire control and protection, it is a relatively safe strategy to use internal combustion engine or gas turbine as the main power and the electric system as the auxiliary power. The radical route is to directly link the main power system with the generator, adopt all-electric transmission and propulsion, and replace the mechanical transmission part including the gearbox. And China's experience in the field of new energy vehicles will greatly help the development of a new generation of ground armored assault weapons.
A retired US Army officer, Dr. Brent Eastwood of 18FortyFive attributed the use of a single tracked platform "Armata" to the advantages of the Rusian tank-building school, on which, in addition to the tank itself, representatives of Uralvagonzavod produce a heavy Infantry Fighting Vehicle T-15 and self-propelled guns 2S35 "Coalition-SV", in addition, there is a Repair and recovery vehicle T -16 and Tank Support Fighting Vehicle "Terminator-3".
In turn, the American "vis-a-vis" has a "lightweight" design in comparison with the serial samples of the classic Abrams. During the modification, he lost the "extra" 10 tons. What both tanks (T-14 and Abrams X) are equal in is the presence of an uninhabited turret that can save the lives of the tank crew, in addition, Abrams has a "two-circuit" power plant, where the hybrid engine will reduce fuel consumption by a significant 50%. Armata, according to Eastwood, is more protected. The tank is "covered" by fourth-generation Malachite dynamic protection. And together with Malachite, the active defense "Afghanite" "works out".
And the final word of Eastwood, according to which, despite the similarity of the parameters of future promising tanks, both vehicles are worth each other, and it is rather difficult to predict which of them will win in a "frontal battle". Both tanks have excellent technical capabilities, are decently armored and have sufficient machine-gun and cannon armament. Of the nuances: Armata may have better armor thanks to Malachite, but Abrams X is more "power-armed" due to its lower mass and excellent power plant with the "hybrid" prefix.
Dmitry Kornev, founder of the MilitaryRussia.ru portal, told Sputnik: “The Armata is our prospective battle tank, and the AbramsX is presently a prototype of an advanced American tank. It’s clear that our tanks compete with American ones, at least on paper,” Kornev explained. “We already have the Armata. It is at least already being tested. There is already even limited series production; it’s being produced, undergoing tests by the military. The AbramsX is still just a prototype. This is the only copy, and is not yet even an experimental tank.”
Kornev pointed to several standout features distinguishing the two tanks, including the AbramsX’s 120 mm main gun, compared with the Armata’s 125 mm main gun. “Ours turns out to be a little bigger; in addition, a prospective 152 mm gun is being developed for the Armata. When it appears, it’s clear that the Armata’s firepower will be far greater” than that of its American counterpart.
“Next, regarding the layout design of the tank. We don’t know all the details, but the AbramsX’s layout doesn’t look like it’s going to change much compared to the current Abrams as that of the Armata – which changed in quite a revolutionary way compared to previous generations of [Russian] tanks. The Armata is genuinely a tank of another generation – and has a modular design, i.e. separate modules; a separate crew module, a separate engine-transmission compartment module, a separate combat module. With the AbramsX, in all likelihood, everything is simpler. That is, a standard Abrams was taken and slightly improved, so to speak. And the standard Abrams does not have this type of modular design,” Kornev said.
The military observer sees apparent “parity” in the general characteristics of the two tanks’ unmanned turrets, “although judging by appearance, the AbramsX prototype seems to have a more voluminous turret, perhaps for storing ammunition. The Armata turret’s dimensions are minimized relative to the general silhouette of the tank,” he pointed out.
One area where the AbramsX may have an edge on its Russian counterpart, if it is ever produced, is its hybrid engine. “That is, it will feature electric propulsion, and be powered by a diesel engine – with a principle of operation similar to that of hybrid cars. They plan to halve fuel consumption – this is quite a significant advantage,” Kornev stressed, explaining that a hybrid engine means lower mass, reduced noise levels, and possibly increased acceleration characteristics, which could prove critical on the battlefield.
Regarding protection, Kornev is confident that the Russian tank is superior. “The Armata is one of the best-protected tanks in the world. It features dynamic protection, spaced armor, smart smoke grenades, and an installable active protection complex. The AbramsX is simpler. That is, while it’s possible to deploy dynamic protection on the tank, the simplest models may have only spaced armor, sometimes uranium inserts. The exact makeup of the tank’s armor is still unknown, but most likely it will feature less protection than the Armata, and perhaps even the T-90M Proryv,” a Russian third-generation MBT.
Kornev expects the Armata to be less expensive than the AbramsX, even though both will be expensive (one Armata, for example, costs several times the price of a new T-90M to produce).
“It’s probably not entirely correct to compare the cost of Russian and American tanks, because the cost of wages is different, conditions are different. American equipment is traditionally more expensive, costing one-and-a-half times more than similar equipment produced by Russia. This also applies to planes, missiles, submarines, ships. Their military-industrial complex is pricey, but they have the money for it,” the observer summed up.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
