First of all, SEP v3 is already 70 tons, how much more armor do you think we can put on this thing? We're getting past the Königstiger and moving towards Maus territorry lol.
This argument, and not just from you, always makes me laugh. I can see it now, "the M26 is already at 42 t, how much heavier can we go?! The M4 is only 30 t!"... or, "the M60 is already at 50 t, how much heavier can we go?! The M26 is only 42 t!"... or, "the M1 is already at 60 t, how much heavier can we go?! The M60 is only 50 t!".
Yup. Tanks get heavier. Everything gets heavier, even us humans, as we age. But that's ok, if two things happen. One, the engines need to keep up. In this case, they have - the M1 has better mechanical performance than the M4 in every way, depending on variants its 2 - 4 times more powerful per tonne. With sufficient engine performance you can ignore a lot. Just compare the Königstiger you mention (the Maus comparison is silly, it's still heavier than two M1A2 SEP v3 combined...), it made 515 kW, the AGT1500 makes 1120 kW. With about eleventy thousand percent more reliability and simplicity.
The second point is the support elements. Yes, a heavier tank needs heavier logistics (including infrastructure). But that's the price you pay for fighting. As with anything, the user scenario defines the need first and foremost. The fact is that modern anti-tank weapons need a certain level of armour. That also means there needs to be a certain level of armament to kill enemy AFV. Which defines the minimum weight. The log elements have to match that. As a loggie, would it be easier to support a M4 unit? Probably not, but lets assume so. It'll be really easy after D-Day when they are all dead because they can't survive. No point in having light 'stuff' because it makes a loggies life easy if they all die in the first two hours when an appropriately armoured platform can survive and fight beyond that. And we have done that... just look at the
Diamond T M20 truck (150kW) compared to a
MAN TGA we use today (~400kW)
And obviously you can't kill the unmanned turret with a 7.62. There are some misconceptions here. Unmanned turrets still have ballistic protection. I don't remember the exact specs but the amount of damage that would knock out the unmanned turret was about the same as the manned one.
You can damage the optics or the gun of an M1 Abrams pretty easily too. Maybe a bit harder than the alternative but still. I'm pretty sure Australia with their relatively small population would prefer crew safety over anything else.
Not going to debate specifics, but no. Even your comment is inherently contradictory - if the amount of damage to destroy an uncrewed turret is the same as a crewed one then the armour must be the same. Which in turn makes the weigh the same. Oh, it may be slightly physically smaller, but in which case you still aren't saving heaps of tonnes. Furthermore, unless you are a particular 'strategic thinker' on Twitter, no one thinks you can easily damage the optics or guns of an M1. You 100% can, artillery is good for it, but you can't just brass up an M1 with a medium machine gun and expect many results (perhaps a pissed off driver because they have to paint the chips later). Even a modern crewed IFV/APC turret is similiarly resilient. Uncrewed ones though? Not quite....
Seeing the comments here about Abrams in the RAA, USA approval to send Abrams to Ukraine, German approval to send Leopards to Ukraine, logistics factors and known MBT orders, I had a question for those who know about armour:
Would it be worthwhile for Australia to send its existing 50 Abrams MBTs to Ukraine (or Poland, see below) to assist in their defense, then bring forward the introduction into Australian service of either new Abrams MBTs or Lynx family AT vehicle mentioned above, in their place?
I am not expert in tanks so apologies if this is unrealistic. I am interested in understanding what is feasible.
You don't need to be an expert in tanks; you just need to understand international law (eww....). Broadly speaking, under
ITARS and other arms trading laws, you cannot on-sell weapons without approval of the nation you bought them from. ITARS makes an excellent example; in this case the US State Department (not Defense) has to approve all transfers and sales. It doesn't matter what age, I have some decades old equipment I'm disposing of that I still have to get Dept of State approval (just to shred them). You'll often find that that is the greatest delay. Remember, it's also not just the platform; a German platform (say, Tiger) with an American system (say, ARC-210 radios) would still need State's approval to onsell.
If you are talking about using them 40ks behind enemy lines, then the Australian Army is better off just using Bushmaster PMVs, they are mine and IED resistant, far cheaper to operate, far easier to train drivers on, can be fitted with HMGs and AGLs on RCWS, can carry Mortar, MANPAD or MANPAT teams in the back, are self-deployable over long distances. We originally built 1046 of them and we have a factory up and running to build more if req. They are battle proven, not a single fatality in Afghanistan despite dozens being damaged. beyond repair.
@Redlands18 nails it. For lower threats, the PMV will always be better than the M113AS4. It's mine/IED resistance is orders of magnitude greater, it's armour isn't too dissimilar, its faster, more efficient, better protection for onboard peeps, and it's just plain easier to maintain. If the threat is higher, then you need to start looking at CRV or IFVs. Even in the 90s and 00s, such rear area security operations acknowledged that there would still be a balance between unarmoured/protected assets and armoured assets by using ASLAV where and when required.
