The Trump administration finally managed to unveil its new generation of main battle tanks, which are modeled after the People's Liberation Army's ZTZ-100 fourth-generation main battle tank. On the 13th local time, the U.S. Army officially displayed the prototype of its new main battle tank project, M1E3, at the Detroit Auto Show (what? ???).

This vehicle is derived from the existing M1A2 series main battle tank design, but with significant technological improvements. The U.S. Army plans to form the first new tank platoon by 2026 to 2027 and immediately begin combat training.

Development of the New Generation Main Battle Tank

Speaking of the U.S. Army's new generation main battle tank project, it has been a rollercoaster journey:

Firstly, the project to further improve and upgrade the M1A2 SEPV3 to M1A2 SEPV4 (also known as M1A2D) was terminated by the U.S. Army in 2023. Perhaps the U.S. Army felt that continuing to add features on the M1A2 platform was becoming unbearable.

At the same time, in October 2022, General Dynamics Land Systems introduced a technology demonstrator called "Abrams-X". This vehicle featured an advanced hybrid system, a new XM360 120mm tank gun, and an active protection system, among other features.

But for some reason, neither the M1A2D nor "Abrams-X" made the cut for the U.S. Army. The final choice turned out to be a new configuration jointly developed by the U.S. Army, General Dynamics Land Systems, and Roush Motors, which came as a bit of a surprise.

M1E3 Design

So what is the overall design of this new U.S. Army main battle tank, the M1E3? Well, it can only be described as somewhat underwhelming:

Starting with the overall design, the M1E3 seems to have adopted the existing M1 main battle tank chassis configuration, with a similar appearance and size. It still has seven pairs of road wheels and a rear power compartment, showing strong characteristics of the M1 series main battle tank. However, the front of the hull is equipped with day/night cameras and LED lights, giving it a slight trace of the "Abrams-X."

The turret directly adopts the shape of the M1 series main battle tank turrets, and there are reports that the M1E3 turret is a modified version of an M1A1 turret. The armor profile on the front and sides of the turret is highly similar to that of the M1A1, although the fire control systems on the turret surface differ significantly. The turret rear compartment has also been redesigned, looking like it's "riveted" onto the hull.

Da Yiwang and Jiang Jiang were joking earlier in the morning, saying that the U.S. Army's design of the M1E3's rear compartment might be intended to eject the rear compartment upon being hit to avoid total detonation (laughing)...

After clarifying the hull and turret design, the M1E3 main battle tank broke the norm for the U.S. military by adopting a three-person crew configuration, with all crew members seated in the front of the hull. This is consistent with the design of fourth-generation main battle tanks from China and Russia, finally eliminating the "human walking BLAKEMAN" automatic loader—although it is reported that manual loading remains as a last backup when necessary.

Finally, it is said that the M1E3's hull weight has been significantly reduced compared to current U.S. main battle tanks. With the M1A2 SEPV3 already expanding to 78 tons of combat weight, the M1E3's combat weight is between 55 and 60 tons. Although it is still heavy, it is better in terms of battlefield mobility than the current M1A2 series main battle tanks, which are essentially iron turtles.

Regarding the power system, as of now, the M1E3 main battle tank's power unit and transmission are somewhat reasonable. First, it does not install an overly aggressive full-electric drive because Americans seem to think that charging on the battlefield is very troublesome. Second, it does not continue to use the AGT-1500 gas turbine engine used in the M1 series main battle tanks.

This is because the power unit consumes too much fuel, and installing it would require compromising on safety. The first M1E3 prototype currently displayed is reportedly still equipped with the AGT-1500, but the exhibition site has already displayed the new diesel engine that the U.S. Army plans to equip with the M1E3.

This should be the military version of Caterpillar's C15 inline engine, with a power output of 1500 horsepower, paired with an ISG motor and ACT1075LP automatic transmission. Additionally, the suspension system has been upgraded from the torsion bar suspension used in the M1 series main battle tanks to a hydropneumatic suspension. Overall, the M1E3's power system design is relatively reasonable, with a specific power of 25-27 horsepower per ton, combined with the torque of the electric motor, the mobility is slightly improved compared to typical third-generation main battle tanks.

If the M1E3's hull is acceptable and the power system is decent, then the firepower and fire control system are a bit lacking. In terms of firepower, the M1E3 main battle tank did not install the U.S. Army's new 120mm tank gun XM360, but instead continued to use the M256 120mm tank gun from the M1A2 main battle tank.

This 44-caliber tank gun is essentially the American version of the Rh-120 L44 tank gun used by the German Army on the Leopard 2A4, with performance levels from the late 1980s. The design of the automatic loader is unclear, but given Western technical reserves in automatic loaders, it is most likely to use a rear compartment loader.

Additionally, the M1E3 is equipped with a R-400MK2 remote-controlled weapon station system. This system integrates electro-optical observation equipment, a 7.62mm machine gun, a 40mm automatic grenade launcher, and even a FGM-148 "Javelin" anti-tank missile launch device. Besides being able to handle close-range infantry and armored tasks, according to the introduction, the main intention of such a design is to counter drones (ha?).

However, upon observing the entire M1E3 hull, there is no four-faced phased array radar for detecting drones. It is reported that only a single face array EchoGuard radar is installed, with a detection range of 1 kilometer for drone-like targets and 2 kilometers for human targets. Without the "Iron Fist" active protection system that the U.S. Army has already used on the M1A2 SEPV3, it is unclear how the M1E3 will fulfill its anti-drone mission.

Of course, the fire control system of the M1E3 is still good. The position of the commander's panoramic sight has been replaced with an integrated electro-optical fire control system turret, while the fire control system at the gunner's position remains. The entire vehicle has also added multiple panoramic cameras to enhance situational awareness.

In addition, it is reported that the M1E3 has incorporated certain artificial intelligence elements into its fire control system to improve the overall combat efficiency. However, the current communication system and overall command and control system performance of the vehicle remain unclear, and more details will have to wait for subsequent U.S. Army tests to be revealed.

Evaluation of the M1E3

So, with the current technical status, what is the overall evaluation of the M1E3, and how does its technical performance compare to our ZTZ-100 main battle tank?

Well, it's just so-so, nothing special: its power system, fire control system, and armor protection are decent, but it still lags behind the ZTZ-100. For example, the power system, the M1E3 is X tons, while our ZTZ-100 is X tons, the specific power is simply incomparable.

For instance, the fire control system, the ZTZ-100 actually has a four-faced phased array radar installed, which can be used for active defense system detection, as well as for the entire vehicle's situational awareness and fire guidance. This is definitely better than the M1E3's single EchoGuard radar, isn't it?

As for the protective performance, we have an active protection system throughout the vehicle, while the M1E3 currently doesn't have one. It's unclear whether it's due to electromagnetic compatibility issues or because the U.S. Army tested and concluded that the "Iron Fist" didn't meet future battlefield requirements.

In short, even if the subsystems of the M1E3 are relatively good, when compared to our fourth-generation main battle tank, the difference is evident. A real fourth-generation and a quasi-fourth-generation, you can tell the gap at a glance. Let alone, the core of the fourth-generation main battle tank is its ability to function as a node in an information warfare system.

This requires it to have a high-bandwidth data link, a powerful information network node, and even an artificial intelligence computing center forming an edge cloud. Undoubtedly, we have done a lot of work in this area. You can see from how many antennas are installed on the ZTZ-100—somewhat, this is even the core competitiveness of the ZTZ-100.

Compared to that, the M1E3 must have done some work. However, with the hull unchanged and the turret slightly adjusted, and the internal space basically fixed, the key issue facing the current U.S. fourth-generation main battle tank is how to tap the potential of the old hull to install a large number of information warfare equipment and servo systems. We don't know how the U.S. Army will solve this problem.

Of course, for the U.S. Army right now, there's not much else to think about. In fact, from the final choice of the relatively conservative M1E3 rather than "Abrams-X," it seems that the U.S. Army's trade-off in the project should be — the Chinese ZTZ-100 has already appeared in the parade and is running around on the exercise field...

If we keep slowly working on "Abrams-X" at this point, maybe the performance is indeed advanced, but this car might not come out until 2032 or even later. By then, the Chinese fourth-generation tanks may have already launched their mid-term improvement models. For the U.S., that would be a step behind and a step behind, ultimately leading to being unable to keep up with China's main battle tank update pace.

Therefore—no choice, whether feasible or not, it has to go with the M1E3, even if the technical performance is a bit lacking, just get it out and use it—this is the development logic of the M1E3.

Original: toutiao.com/article/7595911660108317224/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author.