Crewless turret - long been a dream of pencil necks in the US procurement system...but you can’t navigate, or see obstacles immediately next to the tank. Cameras and periscopes can help, but nothing beats being able to look out from the top of the turret.
Gas Turbine - same hp as the M1, but interesting that the US is toying with the idea of converting M1s to a traditional diesel engine.
125 mm gun - proven effective.
Gun effective range - the range listed in the article eclipses the M1. I hope its propaganda, or the M1 range has secretly increased (its a function of the fire control system more than ammunition).
Autoloader - the Soviets and Ruskies have used for years. Cuts down on the number of conscripts needed to man the tank. But very basic functions, such as pulling security all night in shifts, favor having a 4th crew member.
Same chassis concept - A good idea on paper. The M1 chassis is actually used for a bridge layer, as an example. But a personnel carrier traditionally has a door in the REAR, for obvious reasons. The rear engine tank setup doesn’t seem to work with this.
But I’m looking at it as a tank vs tank weapon...this think might be very effective at terrorizing civilian populations in eastern Europe.
The range listed is for the missiles launched via the main gun.
So factor in minimum arming range, ToF, and the fact they’re command guided, their new tank will still be dead before their missile is even 3/4 of the way downrange.
Overall I’d say they’re up to maybe M-60A3TTS, M-1IP, M-2A0/A1 level in sight, armor, and munitions technology which means they’re still 20-30 years behind us.
Concur. And as an APC/SP arty gun killer? Oh yes....