A GDLS advertisement marketing the M1A2 to the UK, 1990.

This advertisement was created by the Land Systems division of General Dynamics in order to market the American M1A2 Abrams to the UK during the time the UK was looking for a replacement to its Challenger main battle tanks. Ultimately though, the UK went with its own Challenger 2, which is in service to this day.

The oldest of these is the Leopard 2A5, introduced in 1995, which is armed with a 120mm/L44 smoothbore main gun. The improved Leopard 2A6M arrived in service in 2001 and features a longer-barrel 120mm/L55 gun, as well as improved mine-protection measures and other enhancements. The latest model is the Leopard 2A7V, in use since 2014, with a range of other improvements, including an air conditioning system, advanced optronics, and programmable ammunition. You can read more about the differences between Leopard 2 variants here.

drawing tanks is the best thing you can do in your free time

“#GREYWOLF is the third brigade to field the Joint Assault Bridge and the FIRST to employ it to cross an Abrams M1A2 SEPV3 Main Battle Tank and M109A7 Paladin. Check this thing out! #CAVLethal #WeAreTheCAV #BeTheLegend #FirstTeam”

Alright @frogblast-the-ventcore, @i-identify-tanks-in-posts, you two wanted me to get in on the tank building challenge so here it is!

(I'm gonna bend the rules a bit in a few places because I haven't really kept up with modern tank development)

Main Gun: Rheinmetall's New 130mm gun from the KF51, and I'll have to double dip to get its autoloader too because,

Look at the size of that shell! I'm practically drooling over the length of that penetrator rod. There's no other autoloader designed for this baby, so it that or manual loading.

Engine: A little more bending here, I'm going with the engine off the M2 Bradley, the Cummins ACE. "But that's an IFV's engine" you're right, but the thing about the ACE is that it was designed to be scaled up to larger vehicles while maintaining parts commonality. So that's what mine does.

Transmission: Taken from the M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicle

Suspension: Taken from the M1074 Joint Assault Bridge

General Layout: M1A2

Armor Profile: From the SEP v3 upgrade package

Electronics: The GDLS KATALYST from the Abrams X, because SEE THROUGH TANK ARMOR

APS: The Iron Fist System from the Challenger II Black Knight

Optional Equipment: The urban warfare kit from the Challenger II Streetfighter

M1A2 SEPV3 Abrams Main Battle Tanks of the Mustang Battalion (1-8 CAV, 2ABCT, 1CD) taking part in exercise Karelian Lock in South-Eastern Finland, May 2023.

Here's a big one. If you could design your perfect tank, taking parts from various different designs, what would pick from each design and why?

You are not allowed to take more than one major component (i.e. crew layout, engine, transmission, suspension, main armament, secondary armament, armor profile/set up) from any one design - this is to force you to pull from multiple different designs.

Okay, assuming I can't just pool the best parts of the Leopard 2a8 and Abrams X into one, here we go:

Main gun: Rheinmetall L55. Pick a tank, it's like Frank's Red Hot, they put that shit on everything.

Engine: Strv. 122, the 1,500hp V12 turbo diesel.

Transmission: Renk HSWL 354, out of the BPz3 Büffel

Autoloader: the one out of the Leclerc, the name escapes me ATM.

General layout: M1A2 Abrams (kind of a cheat since most western tanks have similar layouts

C4I infrastructure: Abrams X. This would be the crowning jewel of my perfect tank, able to link together with all other elements of a combined arms force to facilitate better communication and coordination.

Armor profile/set up: Leopard 2a8, cause it looks like sex on a set of treads.

US Developing New Version of Scary Abrams Main Battle Tank - Technology Org

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/us-developing-new-version-of-scary-abrams-main-battle-tank-technology-org/

US Developing New Version of Scary Abrams Main Battle Tank - Technology Org

The M1 Abrams has been in service since 1980. It is still one of the most capable main battle tanks in the world, but even the most common versions the M1A1 and M1A2 are starting to show signs of their design ageing. So, this tank needs to be upgraded, but how?

M1A1 Abrams – one of the most common versions of the American main battle tank. Image credit: Cpl. Paul S. Martinez via Wikimedia (Public Domain)

While the standard M1 Abrams has been in service since 1980, the most common versions are slightly younger. The M1A1 was produced from 1985 to 1992, and the M1A2 – from 1992. In general, the Abrams platform has proven its advantages in battles and so far surpasses the technology of potential enemies. However, it is clear that the Abrams must be developed further, but there are limitations to this.

It’s hard to believe, but the first Abrams weighed 55.7 tonnes. They were equipped with a 105 mm rifled gun and had slightly weaker armour. The M1A1 initially retained this weight, but the M1A1SA grew to 61.3 tonnes and the M1A2 – to 62 tonnes. And that weight gain continued little by little.

The M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams weighs about 67 tonnes. One can look at the tank’s mobility, maintained maximum speed and other dynamic characteristics, but one cannot ignore the fact that, being so heavy, the Abrams is a huge weight on the specialists of military logistics. The US wants to be able to operate globally, but moving such heavy tanks quickly is very difficult.

The General Dynamics M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams tank. Image credit: GDLS

What is the path of modernization then? Well, upgraded tanks usually get heavier. Additional armour is attached to them because anti-tank weapons, including drones, are being developed faster than tanks. In the past, kilograms were saved by keeping relatively thinner armour on top, but now you can’t even do that – anti-tank drones are cheap and everywhere.

On 2023 September 6 The US Army announced that it had cancelled the planned M1A2 SEPv4 variant and would instead focus resources on the new M1E3 Abrams. The new model will have a modular architecture and will be lighter but with even better protection.

“The Abrams Tank can no longer grow its capabilities without adding weight, and we need to reduce its logistical footprint,” said Maj. Gen. Glenn Dean, Program Executive Officer for Ground Combat Systems. He said that the war in Ukraine showed that crews need to be protected better, but not with added armour.

The M1E3 Abrams is likely to rely heavily on active protection, which is lighter than conventional armour. The US Army promises that the Abrams will remain the most capable main battle tank in the world. The M1E3 version is planned to start service around 2030 and it will continue working well into the next decade.

Written by Povilas M.

Sources: Army.mil, Wikipedia

why cant america give Ukraine abrams tanks now?

It’s a combo of the fact that they don't export depleted uranium armoured tanks, and there’s no non-DU tanks of good enough quality (read: not built back in the 1980s) sitting in reserve right now, because the Abrams is in demand and the military industrial complex is swimming in cash.

The Abrams order to Ukraine is delayed as fuck because of already ongoing export demands. The Polish are clogging up every possible avenue for Abrams exports in particular. They bought 116 ex-Marine M1A1 FEP in December to be delivered this year and 250 additional M1A2 SEP V3, which begin delivery in 2025. In addition, the Taiwanese just started taking deliveries for their 108 M1A2T in June 2022. The Australians are also taking another 120 M1A2s starting this year.

There's outstanding export orders for 600 Abrams over the next one to three years.

That’s why a transfer of thirty tanks to Ukraine are going to take “months, possibly years.” Unfortunately America is not the WWII-era industrial powerhouse it once was, and Abrams are much more complicated than the Shermans where 600 tanks was all in a day’s work.

The 2022 military budget of $715 billion (for the DoD) is enough to buy 80,157 M1A2 Abrams tanks if it was spent on nothing else.

The math is clear.

Since the Civilian Marksmanship Program shat the bed and decided dealers can just buy up all their inventory, making the market for Garands hell forever, it’s time to create the Civilian Armor Program where qualified individuals can have a main battle tank shipped directly to their door via USPS.

Law enforcement agencies and LEOs do not qualify.

🇺🇸 🇵🇱 American tanks arrived in Poland

700 combat vehicles for the 1st Infantry Division of the US Army, including tanks and other armored vehicles, were delivered to the port of Gdynia in Poland.

About 700 vehicles of various types arrived on board the Integrity ship, including M1A2 Abrams tanks, the Polish newspaper Wyborcza reports.

The shipment of military equipment takes place as part of Operation Atlantic Resolve to support allies on the eastern flank of NATO.

US Army, NATO. Powerful M1A2 Abrams tanks with live fire during exercises in Latvia.

MIL3010

NATO. Paratroopers of the US Army's 173rd Airborne Brigade conduct a platoon exercise in Latvia. The 173rd Airborne Brigade is the US Army's contingency response force in Europe.

🇺🇸 Notional task organization of a U.S. Army Armor Company Team. Higher res version at the graphics page of our website.

⚔ This depicts a common configuration of an Armor Company going to war. Such Armor Companies are part of Combined Arms Battalions (CAB) of the Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT), with either 2 Armor and 1 Infantry Company or the reverse. However, TRADOC appears to have a plan to switch back to 2 Armor and 2 Infantry Companies per CAB like it was prior to 2016. Most Armor Companies are equipped with M1A2 SEPv2 or M1A1 SA "Abrams" main battle tanks, and consist of a Company Headquarters and 3 Tank Platoons as organic elements. However, for a combined arms fight, things are shuffled around and support is attached.

⚔ This configuration shows the company with an attached Mechanized Infantry platoon, having traded its 3rd platoon with an infantry company. A Fire Support Team (FIST) is also attached, immediately from the Battalion HQ but ultimately from the Field Artillery Battalion, to coordinate fires. An intelligence analyst is shown at half opacity in the FIST's box but whether one would be attached to a company would depend on the type of operation. A Stinger team has been attached for limited short-range air defense (in the future these will be organic to the companies rather than attached) and an Engineer Squad from the Brigade Engineer Battalion has been attached for mobility and counter mobility support.

⚔ In terms of sustainment, a Field Maintenance Team has been attached from the battalion's attached Forward Support Company providing second-line maintenance support and vehicle recovery. An Ambulance Squad, equipped with an M113A3, has also been attached to provide ground-based medical evacuation.

“Spartan Brigade” soldiers inside a M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams tank participate in new equipment training in September 2022. (US Army/1st Lt. Jacob Swinson)

General Dynamics Land Systems and the Army have been eyeing various paths ahead for the current tank fleet for several years. Existing plans called for an Abrams System Enhancement Package version 4 (SEPv4) but there was also consideration of a new overall design or more aggressive upgrade. Service leaders ultimately settled on closing out the SEPv4 program, giving the development announced today the title of M1E3 Abrams which will include improvements to sustain the fleet in 2040 and beyond.

As for the new path ahead, the service explained that the “E” designation represents an engineering change that is “more significant than a minor modification” and will serve as a designation for a prototype. Although the Army did not detail how that engineering change will play out, it noted that it plans to take the “best features” of the M1A2 SEPv4 and combine it with the latest modular open systems architecture standards. If done successfully, it will enable industry to quickly add in new technologies over time for “a more survivable, lighter tank.”

(via America's next tank: Army greenlights more aggressive M1 Abrams upgrade - Breaking Defense)

The NATO alliance is more relevant than ever before, but the threats facing the coalition are quite different than at the time of its founding. The strongest, most successful alliances, however, are those that can adapt to change, and after 14 months of supporting Ukraine in its war against Russia’s brutal invasion, it’s clear that a major realignment is underway. The backbone of NATO, once centered in Paris and Berlin, is shifting eastward and now stretches from Helsinki to the Black Sea. Eastern European nations—namely, Poland, Romania, Finland, and the Baltic states—understand more acutely than their Western neighbors the threat posed by Russia and the imperative for collective resolve in its face.

For example, perhaps no European country has committed and sacrificed more to meet the challenge imposed by Russia than Poland—a nation of only 37 million, nearly half the population of its ally Germany. Despite Poland’s relative size, there are plans to more than double the size of the Polish army, bringing it to 300,000 troops, which will make it, by far, the largest in Europe. While numbers aren’t everything, Poland and the Baltic nations are among only a handful of NATO states that have consistently met the commitment made in 2006 by all alliance members to spend a minimum of 2 percent of their GDP on defense and invest 20 percent of their defense budgets in major equipment to ensure NATO’s military readiness.

Going beyond these commitments, in March 2022 the Polish government passed legislation that mandates the country spend 3 percent of its GDP on defense beginning this year, followed recently with plans to commit more than 4 percent of its GDP on defense—far surpassing the relative contributions of all other NATO states, including countries such as Canada and Germany. Polish Defense Minister Mariusz Blaszczak has doubled down on this strategy, explaining: “The criminal assault carried out by the Russian Federation, targeting Ukraine, and the unpredictable nature of [Russian President Vladimir] Putin means that we need to accelerate the equipment modernization even further.”

From my position on the House Armed Services Committee, I have worked to expedite our steadfast ally’s efforts to reinforce NATO’s eastern flank, including by pressing the Biden administration to accelerate the transfer of M1A2 Abrams tanks, which Poland asked for to help deter and, if necessary, repel a Russian invasion force. U.S.-Polish industrial co-production on anti-tank missiles and other systems such as HIMARS should also be incentivized and accelerated where possible. This co-production will help alleviate current supply chain issues and worker shortfalls and will help more rapidly replenish European stocks of munitions. There is also a push right now, which I fully support, to upgrade our Aegis Ashore sites in Poland and Romania to allow for the tracking of Russian cruise, ballistic, and hypersonic missiles threatening NATO.

It should also be noted that the United States benefits from its allies’ investments in defense. Money being spent on Ukraine by Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the United Kingdom, and Romania is actually helping to fix our systems by expanding production, hiring new workers, and standardizing NATO armaments away from Soviet legacy systems—making the U.S. military and the entire alliance more prepared for any future fight. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, the U.S. Congress has given the Defense Department the authority to conduct multiyear procurement of key munitions, which will allow for purchases of items over multiple years, not annually. This move will enhance predictability, drive down costs, and help ensure that the U.S. military is able to maintain its own readiness requirements and we can continue our support for Ukraine, Taiwan, and other allies and partners. Talks are also underway between Poland and the United Kingdom to construct a large arms factory in Poland—an important step to make European defenses more self-sufficient.

When certain countries step up to meet the threat, as Poland has, the United States should take note and reorient its partnerships within the alliance toward those whose behaviors are most aligned with its strategic goals. That’s why I was pleased when it was announced that a permanent headquarters of the U.S. Army V Corps would be established in Poland. This, along with Aegis Ashore missile defense facilities in Poland and Romania, is an example of the United States’ enduring commitment to protecting its Eastern European allies. These moves will make NATO more secure in the short term and keep Russia deterred from further aggression in the long run.

However, more must be done to boost our alliance’s defense posture and deter the shared threats we face. First, the time has come to shift current U.S. forces in Europe to the countries that are investing most heavily in their own security. It is in the east, with the countries that truly understand the Russian threat, where our troops will be the most useful and have the largest impact on deterrence. That is why I included Section 1075 in this fiscal year’s National Defense Authorization Act—to force the Pentagon to examine moving U.S. forces out of “Old Europe” and into “New Europe.”

Next, leaders in Washington must recognize that the NATO-Russia Founding Act has been effectively killed by Russia’s ongoing war. Signed in 1997, this agreement sought to build trust and cooperation between the two parties, but given that Putin has launched the largest land war in Europe since World War II, the political commitment of this agreement should no longer constrain U.S. troop movements and basing in Eastern Europe as it has for the past quarter century. The alliance should act in unison and officially declare the act dead at the upcoming NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, and Congress should echo these sentiments in support.

To maintain the solvency of the alliance, leaders must also be forward-looking and prepare to counter not only Russia’s current threat but also that of China, which U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has defined as the pacing challenge for the long term. Given this, the United States should state publicly that the next NATO secretary-general must come from a country meeting its 2 percent obligation and is willing to stand up to the Chinese Communist Party, as Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has. Having the next NATO secretary-general come from Poland, Romania, the U.K., or a Baltic nation would be a wise and well-earned choice.

As we look at other threats facing NATO, French President Emmanuel Macron’s recent visit to China and groveling to Chinese President Xi Jinping—a dictator in the throes of a genocide—should concern the whole alliance. The sins of energy dependence on Russia should serve as a warning for anyone looking to get close to China. Fortunately, Macron’s opinion is a lonely voice in Europe, and there are strong counters to his vision for the continent’s future. One such example again comes from Poland. Following the visit, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki immediately and clearly pushed back on Macron’s comments, saying, “Instead of building strategic autonomy from the United States, I propose a strategic partnership with the United States.”

It’s clear that the center of gravity for the alliance’s resolve has shifted east: Warsaw, Tallinn, Riga, Vilnius, and Bucharest are the new backbone of NATO, and the United States should adjust its policies and posture accordingly.

M1A2 Abrams belonging to 1-3ACR destroyed by “IED” on August 30, 2005.

Reports from soldiers in the unit ID the destruction as being caused by 5 AT mines strapped together that detonated beneath the tank while it was backing up.