Posts Tagged ‘M1A3’

Abrams M1E3 Tank Prototype Unveiled (Sort Of)

Thursday, January 15th, 2026

The army has unveiled a prototype of the new Abrams M1E3 tank at the Detroit Auto Show, and people are (slightly) freaking out. Nicholas Moran explains why the freakout is unwarranted, as many features won’t be in the final version, but there are some interesting nuggets of actual design decision

Ok. Some initial observations. Obviously lots of media will be coming through over the next two days, with their own topics and thoughts. My own video will come soon.

1) Don’t get hung up about anything above the hull roof. In fact, don’t get hung up about everything below the hull roof either. As suspected, this is a test vehicle which is focused on crew operation. They just needed something to do the turret job, which is why they grabbed an A1 turret and modified it to fit the needs of the crew test program (including autoloader). A bespoke turret is being made with everything incorporated from the beginning instead of added on like the current tank, but that gets integrated after they know for sure what they need from testing. This vehicle has the turbine engine, other test vehicles are running the automotive trials on the Cat. Eventually everything will be put together, but that time is not now.

2) As the RWS is above the hull roof, again, don’t get hung up on it. They needed an RWS for testing, that’s the one they grabbed. When they brought it to the show, the RWS had an empty rack, it could carry a Javelin, so they put a Javelin on it. The purpose is not to show that the thing can carry or is intended to carry a Javelin specifically, nobody here thinks there is any merit to using space/height/weight for things which things which don’t have to be on the tank for the tank to do tank things. They have been very focused on the design on the tank’s requirements as a tank. Instead the purpose was to demonstrate “the RWS will be modular and able to be reconfigured as required”. For similar reasons, don’t get too caught up on the Mk19, secondary armament mix and location has not been finalized. RWS’ll shoot down drones though.

3) Power capacity for a coffee maker (110v plug socket) has been provided. (It actually has other uses officially, but you know someone will hook up a Keurig)

4) Confirmed 3 man crew. In theory they expect a hatch up top for admin moves, maintenance access etc, (this vehicle does have one) and a cramped manual backup position if things get desperate.

5) Tank can shoot and move with one crewman. It’s not ideal, but it’ll work. Again, I can’t overstate how important the software you can’t see is. Fully configurable crew stations, combat assistance and upgradeability is inherent. When it comes time to let the tank do everything on its own, there will be an app for that.

6) No more broken torsion bars.

7) Whilst I understand why it’s a static and closed display, it is, granted, a bit underwhelming to look at in photographs. The interesting stuff is under the hood and the tank on display is a great talking point for the folks here who are very excited about the end design, we could have talked for hours. The engineers will geek out more than the tank nerds, this really is a massive step in capability. The promise this vehicle shows to keep M1’s position as “apex predator on the battlefield” is definite, even if those who want to see the final, low profile, 60 ton vehicle right now are disappointed. It takes time to brew perfection.

More from Global Defense News:

The U.S. Army unveiled the first prototype of the future M1E3 Abrams tank at the Detroit Auto Show, allowing the public to see the future of the Abrams tank, but also likely to attract new recruits. The U.S. Army explained that this is an early demonstrator, meant to test ideas, crew layout, controls, and systems, rather than a finalized tank. Four early prototypes are planned, and they are expected to be used by operational units to see how the new features work in practice, as the serial production is targeted for the end of the decade. Roush Defense in Warren, Michigan, built this prototype, while General Dynamics Land Systems will handle full production planning. The overall direction focuses on digital systems, open architecture, and the ability to adapt to future threats through 2040 and beyond.

The turret seen on the prototype looks familiar at first glance, but is heavily modified compared with earlier Abrams tanks. It is based on an older M1A1 turret shell, but it no longer has crew hatches, periscopes, or elements of the legacy fire control layout, confirming that the M1A3 Abrams will possess an unmanned turret, with all crew members located in the hull. The main gun remains externally consistent with the 120mm M256 smoothbore gun used on current Abrams tanks, with no visible change in size or layout. At the rear of the turret, a new bustle has been added, possibly to house an automatic loader for 120mm ammunition, reducing the crew from four to three. An additional opening to the left of the gun mantlet is visible and has been associated with a new primary sight or sensor location, though its specific role has not been clarified.

On top of the turret, the M1E3 prototype carries an EOS R400 Mk2 remotely operated weapon station (RWS), clearly visible in available pictures. In the configuration shown, this RWS combines a 40mm Mk19 automatic grenade launcher, a 7.62mm machine gun, and a launcher holding an FGM-148 Javelin missile, presented as an example of what the R400 could carry. The R400 Mk2 is also paired with the EchoGuard radar for counter-drone detection and tracking, as well as close-range defense. U.S. Army representatives explained that this installation is modular and can be changed, depending on needs. In terms of optics, the AbramsX demonstrator employed the Safran PASEO panoramic sight as part of its sensor suite, while the M1E3 pre-prototype prefers the Leonardo S3 stabilized optoelectronic sight for commander and targeting functions.

The hull of the displayed prototype shows more pronounced structural changes than the turret, particularly at the front. The upper frontal glacis appears to be reinforced, and features two forward hatches instead of the single driver hatch used on older Abrams tanks. This matches the idea of a three-person crew seated entirely in the hull, consistent with the removal of the loader position from the turret. Cameras, lighting elements, and sensors are distributed across the hull and turret to create a full external view for the crew, replacing direct vision blocks. The arrangement of the hatches suggests that internal space has been reorganized, likely side-by-side for at least part of the crew, to improve crew protection and awareness. Some components traditionally placed near the driver, such as fuel tanks, may have been moved, though this cannot be confirmed from the outside.

Inside the M1E3, the focus is on reducing workload and making the tank easier to operate. The driver controls shown at the Detroit Auto Show 2025 use a Fanatec gaming controller as the primary control device, probably the Fanatec Formula V2, a commercially available gamepad selected for its adaptability and ease of use. The U.S. Army stated that this approach significantly reduces the time required to train a new driver, adapting to a global trend where military careers are less attractive to young people. Crew stations are described as fully digital and configurable, meaning displays and controls can be adjusted through the software interface. The prototype is also described as being able to move and fire with only one crew member on board, which shows the level of automation being considered by the U.S. Army as part of its new strategy, even if this mode is not intended for normal operations. Electrical power inside the M1E3 supports computers, sensors, and other onboard equipment, and we can assume that it carries batteries, given that the U.S. Army has confirmed in the past that the future M1A3 Abrams will be hybrid.

From a mobility perspective, the prototype shows a mix of old and new elements, although it is not clear what will remain on the future M1A3 Abrams. The displayed tank prototype is said to keep the traditional Abrams turbine engine, confirming that it is not representative of the final hybrid propulsion solution. At the same time, the Army has confirmed its intention to transition to a commercial diesel engine with a new transmission to improve fuel efficiency and maintenance. The suspension system visible on the M1E3 might be new, as the tank appears to sit lower, suggesting an adjustable ground clearance, maybe through the use of a hydropneumatic system instead of the traditional torsion bars, reminding the Abrams Suspension Technology Demonstrator (STD). Commentary associated with available pictures mentions a transversely mounted powerpack concept and an ACT1075LP transmission paired with a Caterpillar CAT inline diesel engine as part of ongoing automotive trials.

This is all in line with what we previously knew of army designs for the new tank.

The Detroit Auto Show prototype is like a Marvel teaser trailer for a superhero flick that’s just started filming: Beyond a few key points, very little real information is conveyed. Still, there are a few nuggets of solid intel to be gleaned.

  • Three crew members, a reduction of one from the four crew members for the M1A2.
  • That’s almost certainly the loader, which means the long-expected transition to an autoloader is happening.
  • That also means an unmanned turret with the crew controlling the tank from the hull compartment.
  • What type of autoloader remains the question. Given the emphasis on modularity, I have to think some sort of quick-change cassette system for rapid resupply may be in the cards.
  • Presumably technology has advanced enough that a modern, U.S.-built autoloader will be as quick or quicker than famously quick Abrams gun crews.
  • Three men crews mean fewer sets of hands to repair things. They may address this by adding additional maintenance personnel at the company level.
  • No more torsion bar suspension.
  • Moving from a 1,500 hp gas turbine engine to a 1,000 hp commercial diesel engine plus electric hybrid is not without risk. I also wonder if they’ll modify the Caterpillar engine to use the JP-8 fuel standardized across American armed forces, or if this presages a change in fuel strategy.
  • Fully digital and configurable controls are great until you have to reboot them. Hopefully the system will have robust fail-safes.
  • Not shown in the prototype: The Trophy active defense system installed in the M1A2 SEPv3 package. I expect that, or equivalent, with added anti-drone capability, to be in the production version.

    • The Detroit Auto Show prototype is less a revelation of new trends than a confirmation the project is heading in the direction already outlined.

    Tags:, , , , , , , , , , ,
    Posted in Military | 6 Comments »

    Why The Army Wants The M1A3 Abrams

    Sunday, September 15th, 2024

    Or, more specifically, why they decided to do the M1A3 rather than than M1A2SEP4. And the main reason is weight.

  • “This list of proposed capabilities for the new design that include:
    • An autoloader
    • New main gun new turret
    • Hypersonic gun launched missiles that maneuver in midair
    • The ability to pair with robots
    • Masking capabilities to reduce thermal and electromagnetic signatures
    • AI systems that detect incoming fire and prioritize return fire
    • Hybrid electric drivetrain
    • Reduction of crew from 4 to 3.
    • Reduction of weight from 75 tons down to sub 60 tons.
    • But the coolest thing is it’ll likely get a brand new sleek hull for the first time in 30 years.”
  • “US Army leadership [is] reversing course on decades of tank design philosophy to do a last minute complete overhaul from the ground up based on new lessons learned from the war in Ukraine.”
  • The gun-launched anti-tank guided missile is something the army has worked off and on for a long time. The Soviet’s had one, but mainly because their main guns were inaccurate at longer ranges. U.S. had a prototype ATGM that hit a T-72 at 8,600 meters. “But the Army never invested in it to go full rate production. Part of the reason for this might be because it’s also true that tank-launched ATGMs have a smaller warhead and they don’t perform as well against modern composite armor compared to the 1970s.”
  • So why does the army want it now? Line of sight studies in Latvia and Lithuania (i.e, the border with Russia) shows a whole lot of areas where it would be useful.
  • Tank optics are also a lot better now.
  • The new XM 360 cannon uses the same 120mm diameter, but save a full ton of weight by using composites, and delivers the same 17 megajoules of energy to the target as a conventional 140mm cannon, thanks to more efficient plasma ignition.
  • The Russo-Ukrainian War reveals a much more deadly threat environment for tanks. Drones are a huge threat.
  • “They’re going to link the new cannon to a remote-controlled, optionally manned turret by switching to an autoloader and making the turret interior smaller. That’s a lot less volume that has to be protected by heavy armor, which equates to a lot less tons of armor.” When we last checked with western tankers looking at the T-14s autoloader some six years ago, they were skeptical of both smaller crews (“all we do is maintain tanks, and they still break down”) and autoloaders (Abrams tank crews currently put shots on target faster than Russian crews with autoloaders). But since then, the Russo-Ukraine War happened and technology galloped furiously, and presumably higher crew survivability will make the tradeoff worthwhile.
  • M1A3 almost certainly wouldn’t have the cassette design that gives the T-72 its turret toss reputation. “Newly designed autoloading tanks can have all of their ammo secured behind a bulkhead blast shield and can work with blowout panels to prevent detonation from cooking the crew.”
  • “We’ve also seen from combat in Ukraine that the Abrams engine deck with it air intakes and radiators is a popular target point for drone swarms, so the army is looking at unique ways to keep the engine better protected from above without sacrificing cooling performance.”
  • “The new M1A3 Abrams tank would also upgrade from that puny 50 caliber machine gun to possibly the 30mm chain gun remote weapon station. The big advantage there is that it could fire specially made 30mikemikes that provide air burst capability for shooting down drones.” That sounds both awesome and the makings of an extremely complex turret with multiple automatic-feed weapon systems.
  • “We have to remember that systems enhancement packages was always supposed to be a stopgap temporary band-aid solution for the Abrams, because the service thought that they would do with that until a full replacement vehicle was chosen that’s how we ended up with like a dozen different variants of Abrams tanks with various levels of advanced features in the early 2000s.”
  • “The main difference between the M1A1 and A2 is its electronics. However, with this new M1A3, it’s now likely to have a whole brand new hull and turret. There’s conflicting reports on that, but I can’t see any other way that we get the kind of weight reductions that they’re looking for without a whole new hull.”
  • “The first version of the Abrams tank weighed 54 tons. The SEPV4 that was cancelled was on track to weigh over 75 tons. Add in a mine plow and it was going to break the scales at 83 tons.”
  • In May this year, an expert analysis board came to some sobering conclusions. “The M1A2SEP3 and 4 upgrades will improve effectiveness, but not restore dominance. Near transparency in all domains will significantly increase the lethality our forces will experience. We will continue to have to fight outnumbered, exacerbated by a low MBT operational readiness rate and aging fleet.”
  • “Lessons learned in Ukraine is that tanks are sometimes dead meat if they’re too heavy. They get stuck in the mud, they’re too slow not nimble enough to fire and then escape from drones that are searching for them.”
  • That same Latvian-Lithuanian study showed lots of no-go zones for Abrams due to their weight in muddy conditions. “From a tactical perspective a defending Force could easily mine trafficable routes, destroy bridges to complicate Abram’s combat operations during the wet season and funnel them into choke points.”
  • “The study recommends new band tracks to lower the ground pressure to help fix that problem along with the lighter weight.”
  • SEPV3’s heavier weight lowered operational range from 300 miles down to 264.
  • He references the role of tank in the army’s current FM3-0 Operations Guide, which you can read at the link.
  • Transcom says that SEPV3 is too heavy to transport for a lot of roles.
  • Meantime between failure for current tanks is 200 miles, which does seem worrisome.
  • “It will likely have the hybrid electric drivetrain that reduces fuel consumption by 50%.” He calls it the Prius of tanks, but it’s not ugly enough for that.
  • More stealth.
  • More active protection.
  • “The future of armored warfare, the way the army envisions it, is that they’ll be preparing for a major change to tank tactics unlike anything we’ve seen since the introduction of the Abrams in 1980 …they all seem to believe that the future will be a combination of manned and unmanned platforms that are integrated with aerial UAVs. The M1A3 is the first step in that direction.”

    • A major Abrams redesign was probably slightly overdue anyway, but the torrents of real-world information coming out of the Russo-Ukrainian War forced their hand to make more radical changes.

    Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , ,
    Posted in Military, video | 19 Comments »