Hey folks,
has any of you already seen this ?
found it on ml, anyone an idea what that might be???

looks pretty interesting but I'm already starting to feel the stresses and strains just thinking of having to scratch-build that...

Cheers, Max

That look really heavy. Even for uparmoring that turret looks too heavy but what else shout it be? Armored and closed storage room? At least i don't see any padlocks, hinges and gaps. Maybe it's accessible from the turret roof?

I preclude the possibilit that the room for ammunition has been increased. The Abrams can carry enough rounds for the jobs it's supposed to do. Also the main gun is still the same. One explanation would be that the US Army is planning to introduce new, much longer kinetic energy penetrators but that would also require some substantial modifications on the gun breech.

Auto loader? No way! The turret wouldn't grow so much then i think

Also i doubt that the look was modified to represent an enemy vehicle for training. I don't know a tank that looks similar to this.

Anyhow it's for experimental/research. Maybe the development of the M1A3 is already gathering speed? The photos are names "M1A3prototype", by the way, but that means nothing...

Now that is interesting.

Some more discussion over on MP.net about this.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?192625-M1A3-prototype

In the YouTube video the turret looks all new. Also the gun seems to be a different one. XM360? It seems that i could have been wrong about the auto loader.

well,
this definitely is a new gun, anyway, I think the increased turret length is for addidtional stowage boxes... the overall length matches the turret size with the BRE installed... however that doesn't explain the turret-roof and frontal add-on armor, I mean the additional weight would make air transport quite complicated, wouldn't it?

cheers

I gave them those names, according to some people its prototype, but not of the M1A3...AFAIK the M1A3 program hasn't even put out a request for proposal and the first mockups aren't supposed to come out for another year or two with the A3 production in 2014 or so.

I seriously wonder how much $$$ the Army is going to be willing to spend to upgrade the M1A3 and how different it will truly be from the M1A2 SEP. But on the other hand the M1 series is supposed to be kept aroudn till 2040 or 2050, which will make it nearly 75 years old since the program kicked off in the mid 1970s!

I used to work for one of the major suppliers for the Abrams project, and there is something completely new in the works. We never knew what it was going to look like, but we did know that each piece would also fit into the existing M1 hull. Our end of the project has been finished since 2004 or maybe early 2005. All parts can be built on existing tooling, but are vastly different in concept as well as the way they work. Also there looks to be a new design gas turbine. The new one is about two thirds the size of the original one (probably the same power).

There's also at least one Abrams turret setup for a thermomagnetic gun (I think there were two or three). But I don't see how they could make the M1 hull work with it due to size alone
gary

Sounds like it could have been the canceled LV-100 gas turbine.

Or a newer LV100 derivative.

As for that vehicle, it is probably a turret prototype from the 90's, partially based on CATTB prototype.

I think, as I wrote in other threads over other forums, that US.Army is digging up older prototypes for the M1A3 modernisation program to take some usefull and good design solutions, update them to current standards and include in modernisation.

it was a different brand, either Rolls Royce Allison, or a Garrett. They ran it 24/7 for months and months on the dyno (all one winter and most of the spring.). The powerpac is much different all the way out to the drive sprockets, yet should all bolt right in place on an existing hull even though the electronics would not be compatable. There was a great effort to remove all weight possible from all non armored pieces, so I'd kinda guess the drive trane comes in at about 400 to 500lb. lighter in weight. The reason I know that all the parts interchange with the old stuff (X1100) is that they didn't have to retool the dynos or make new lifting equipment.
gary

I'm no expert on Modern Tanks. But I work in a steel works and lift heavy [auto-censored]. The lifting lugs on the turret are very central,making it very well balanced. i would say that not alot of weight at the rear of that big turret. I also thought they were going with unmaned turrets. Crew housed in the central body, thus a smaller engine and smaller turret?