It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Black Eagle MBT under construction?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 02:02 AM
link   

I never heard that the A2 could do that. Talk about a step in the right direction. All we need now is smarter munitions to exploit the advantage fully. A low and slow flying tank-fired missile which can track targets it can't see is number 1 on my wish list.
One more question though: do our UAVs have the equipment to feed targeting data to a tank directly, not through the chain of command/communication? (ie the tank can roll around a corner and shoot from the hip accurately with UAV provided target data?) [/qoute]

The FCS program will use ground based UAV's, as well as air based that can send the date directly to the units on the battlefield.

Mostly everything you're looking for has been covered by FCS.

I don't see the use of heavy tanks anymore. We can make small tanks just as survivable, but far lighter, and more manueverable.

Mobility has always been the key to warfare, and the current heavy tanks we have wouldn't give us that if we were fighting some of the more competent tanks in the world.




posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by COWlan
Vagabond, your dream tank would weigh more than a modern Abrams. You are asking to put every unique piece of equipment on every tank that exists today together.


I didn't say I wanted it tomorrow, and I really doubt that anything I've specified will weigh more than a Chobham Armor matrix full of DU.
As time goes on these technologies will be more widely available and costs will go down from competition, higher production, and the discovery of industrial uses for some of related products.
Another thing we should do to bring down prices is start modularizing weapons to increase production of components.
The laser for example is not going anywhere- it's a very handy piece of equipment that needs more development and can be used in many applications. Design one with a wide variety of uses and buy a ton of them and the unit price goes down substantially, especially if its a derivative of one used in industrial applications.



60 miles per hour off-road is ummm......beyond the speed of a tank. To drive that, your tank would fly when it bumped into a broken tree stomp and create shakes within the cabin.

Not an easy thing to accomplish, but not physically impossible with the proper innovations. Maybe not cost effective, but we'd never know until we looked long and hard and how to do it.



But who cares, A dream is a dream, everyone dream of impossible things. Yours isn't impossible but its just illogical.
[edit on 28-12-2004 by COWlan]


Can't blame a guy for having dreams. And I wouldn't say its illogical- there are logical reasons for dreaming of all that I want. Improbable is the word that fits best. It is highly improbable that the things I envisioned will go onto a single tank in the near future- the best bet is when carbon micro-tubing manufacture is advanced to the point that it becomes practical for commercial uses, when lasers find their way into the main stream of military aresenals, and of course when armament finally makes all available armor obsolete and forces a rethinking of designs.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 03:50 PM
link   
As time goes on, the technology will become cheaper and more easily available, but you STILL NEED HEAVY ARMOR FOR THINGS LIKE RPGs and such. You CANNOT make lighter, "more survivable" tanks right now, because lots of armor is one of the keys to survivability. You don't drive a 25 ton armored personnel carrier into a heavy firefight like a tank; it'll get chewed up by RPGs. A 70-ton Abrams, employed correctly, is a match against those things. Until armor becomes lighter, but stronger, tanks will remain at 70 tons.

Also there is the thing called mines. An armored Humvee that drove over a mine got blown about 10-15 feet up in the air; the crew was okay though because it was an armored Humvee. But my point is, even if you have a light tank with armor making it as strong as a 70 ton Abrams, if you could develop cheap mines that could knock the tank upside down, it's kinda useless.

Yes, the engineers are supposed to go in and get the mines out first, but there is always the chance they'll miss, and I'd rather be driving a tank where if you hit a mine, you just have to replace a track and make a few repairs, rather than one where if you hit a mine you could get turned upside down.

In the recent Iraq War, a lot of the tanks and vehicles were on narrow roads with ditches on the side. You get a light tank that hits a mine, and BOOM! you go straight into the ditch and the crew drowns, even if their armor protected them from the blast.

Heavy tanks I see staying for a long time; if anything, since infantry weapons will improve, the newer MBTs will probably have stronger armor, but a lighter, more powerful engine, thus allowing even more of this stronger armor, so the tank can weigh 70 tons, but be more withstandable to weapons.

I don't see tanks going past 70 tons, mainly because there is a limit on what the modern aircraft that transport them can carry. The limit is 70 tons. Sure, you could build bigger aircraft, but that costs a crapload of $$$, and also you'd need some big-ass runways for it, and in wartime, runways are never the ideal length. So tanks will remain at 70 tons, no heavier I'd think.

As for the turbine engine, it has one slight problem. The heat signature. In Vietnam, troops could move directly behind the M60 tanks, whereas nowadays I think that is kidn of difficult, because an Abrams puts out a lot of heat, so you can't be right behind it. What they need is a cooling system I'd think, or a way to reduce the heat signature on the turbine. Otherwise, the turbine is better than the diesel. But that heat signature makes it vulnerable to enemy aircraft in a future conflict, or enemy infantry weapons.

Oh yeah, you say the U.S. needs something that it can put at the front lines immediately until the heavy stuff arrives?? We've had that for over 100 years. It is called the United States Marine Corps



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
As time goes on, the technology will become cheaper and more easily available, but you STILL NEED HEAVY ARMOR FOR THINGS LIKE RPGs and such. You CANNOT make lighter, "more survivable" tanks right now, because lots of armor is one of the keys to survivability. You don't drive a 25 ton armored personnel carrier into a heavy firefight like a tank; it'll get chewed up by RPGs.

To be fair, on the way into Baghdad, the Marines learned something very interesting about the LAV-25. You don't run away from T-62s in an LAV. You get in close and don't stop moving. The 25mm autocannon will punch through a tank and manueverability will keep you from getting blown up. I still see your point though- unless we can make composites and countermeasures which will defeat all infantry-handled weapons we can't make light armor the core of our forces- until then it needs to be a specialized tool on the side, if we can afford it.



A 70-ton Abrams, employed correctly, is a match against those things. Until armor becomes lighter, but stronger, tanks will remain at 70 tons.

Under those conditions I can agree, but dont forget that countermeasures and other systems may be as important as armor in the future.



Also there is the thing called mines. An armored Humvee that drove over a mine got blown about 10-15 feet up in the air; the crew was okay though because it was an armored Humvee. But my point is, even if you have a light tank with armor making it as strong as a 70 ton Abrams, if you could develop cheap mines that could knock the tank upside down, it's kinda useless.

I doubt a tank will ever be as light as a humvee. What does a humvee weight? Definately under 5 tons dont you think? A 15-20 ton tank with composite armor could probably avoid this situation, and of course systems to detect and destroy mines are the ultimate answer.



In the recent Iraq War, a lot of the tanks and vehicles were on narrow roads with ditches on the side. You get a light tank that hits a mine, and BOOM! you go straight into the ditch and the crew drowns, even if their armor protected them from the blast.

Chalk that up to bad engineering by the attackers. Use more explosives in better positions and you could create an untenable slope on soft ground that even a 70 ton tank couldn't help from falling off of.
The answer to things like this is not to employ your tanks in stupid places where the enemy can easily set potent traps.
We don't build excessively armored aircraft and put them in positions where they will be torn up by AAA, we just emphasize being able to keep them out of the danger area and making them able to destroy the threat.



Heavy tanks I see staying for a long time; if anything, since infantry weapons will improve, the newer MBTs will probably have stronger armor, but a lighter, more powerful engine, thus allowing even more of this stronger armor, so the tank can weigh 70 tons, but be more withstandable to weapons.

For a while yes. 4th/5th generation tanks may very well continue to be massive, but if you look at the tanks that will be on the drawing boards in say, 2050, there is at least a chance that we will have seen armor clearly become obsolete in the face of railguns and improved KE ammunition. Eventually lasers and directed energy weapons may force all direct fire weapons to be relegated to a secondary and mostly defensive role while indirect fire becomes paramount for weakening defenses- this would be the end of heavily armored tanks and the beginning of more faster, more manueverable, longer range platforms.



I don't see tanks going past 70 tons, mainly because there is a limit on what the modern aircraft that transport them can carry. The limit is 70 tons. Sure, you could build bigger aircraft, but that costs a crapload of $$$, and also you'd need some big-ass runways for it, and in wartime, runways are never the ideal length. So tanks will remain at 70 tons, no heavier I'd think.

I certainly do not believe it is wise to make them heavier, but theoretically we could if we began to keep large forces constantly deployed abroad or if we developed them as trump cards to be deployed behind lighter forces.
If we had strong and effective light forces then a smaller and heavier force of "juggernaught" weapons could be kept for slower deployment to bring decision to stalemated battles.



As for the turbine engine, it has one slight problem. The heat signature. In Vietnam, troops could move directly behind the M60 tanks, whereas nowadays I think that is kidn of difficult, because an Abrams puts out a lot of heat, so you can't be right behind it. What they need is a cooling system I'd think, or a way to reduce the heat signature on the turbine. Otherwise, the turbine is better than the diesel. But that heat signature makes it vulnerable to enemy aircraft in a future conflict, or enemy infantry weapons.

Heat directly correlates to efficiency in a turbine engine because greater heat increases combustion of the incoming fuel. Chrysler greatly improved efficiency by using heat reclaiming systems which delivered heat to the intake, cooling the exhaust and heating the intake for greater efficiency. The development of more efficient thermal conducting systems or other instruments which can run off of heat energy could be extremely useful for cooling the exhaust and increasing the effectiveness of turbine engines. That being said it is safe to be behind an Abrams, however it is not very comfortable and would create heat casualties after a long period of time in certain climates, especially if troops were requirred to be in MOPP4 at the time.
There is another problem with turbine engines- they REALLY hate particulate matter in the air. This hasn't been quite as much of a problem for the Abrams as it has been for helicopters, but the problem does exist. A turbine engine loses far more efficiency than a piston driven engine from restricted airflow and this creates filtering problems, theoretically. (I have not read too much about the actual occurance of this, but I am farily well informed on the early history of the turbine engine).


Oh yeah, you say the U.S. needs something that it can put at the front lines immediately until the heavy stuff arrives?? We've had that for over 100 years. It is called the United States Marine Corps



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
As time goes on, the technology will become cheaper and more easily available, but you STILL NEED HEAVY ARMOR FOR THINGS LIKE RPGs and such. You CANNOT make lighter, "more survivable" tanks right now, because lots of armor is one of the keys to survivability. You don't drive a 25 ton armored personnel carrier into a heavy firefight like a tank; it'll get chewed up by RPGs.

To be fair, on the way into Baghdad, the Marines learned something very interesting about the LAV-25. You don't run away from T-62s in an LAV. You get in close and don't stop moving. The 25mm autocannon will punch through a tank and manueverability will keep you from getting blown up. I still see your point though- unless we can make composites and countermeasures which will defeat all infantry-handled weapons we can't make light armor the core of our forces- until then it needs to be a specialized tool on the side, if we can afford it.



A 70-ton Abrams, employed correctly, is a match against those things. Until armor becomes lighter, but stronger, tanks will remain at 70 tons.

Under those conditions I can agree, but dont forget that countermeasures and other systems may be as important as armor in the future.



Also there is the thing called mines. An armored Humvee that drove over a mine got blown about 10-15 feet up in the air; the crew was okay though because it was an armored Humvee. But my point is, even if you have a light tank with armor making it as strong as a 70 ton Abrams, if you could develop cheap mines that could knock the tank upside down, it's kinda useless.

I doubt a tank will ever be as light as a humvee. What does a humvee weight? Definately under 5 tons dont you think? A 15-20 ton tank with composite armor could probably avoid this situation, and of course systems to detect and destroy mines are the ultimate answer.



In the recent Iraq War, a lot of the tanks and vehicles were on narrow roads with ditches on the side. You get a light tank that hits a mine, and BOOM! you go straight into the ditch and the crew drowns, even if their armor protected them from the blast.

Chalk that up to bad engineering by the attackers. Use more explosives in better positions and you could create an untenable slope on soft ground that even a 70 ton tank couldn't help from falling off of.
The answer to things like this is not to employ your tanks in stupid places where the enemy can easily set potent traps.
We don't build excessively armored aircraft and put them in positions where they will be torn up by AAA, we just emphasize being able to keep them out of the danger area and making them able to destroy the threat.



Heavy tanks I see staying for a long time; if anything, since infantry weapons will improve, the newer MBTs will probably have stronger armor, but a lighter, more powerful engine, thus allowing even more of this stronger armor, so the tank can weigh 70 tons, but be more withstandable to weapons.

For a while yes. 4th/5th generation tanks may very well continue to be massive, but if you look at the tanks that will be on the drawing boards in say, 2050, there is at least a chance that we will have seen armor clearly become obsolete in the face of railguns and improved KE ammunition. Eventually lasers and directed energy weapons may force all direct fire weapons to be relegated to a secondary and mostly defensive role while indirect fire becomes paramount for weakening defenses- this would be the end of heavily armored tanks and the beginning of more faster, more manueverable, longer range platforms.



I don't see tanks going past 70 tons, mainly because there is a limit on what the modern aircraft that transport them can carry. The limit is 70 tons. Sure, you could build bigger aircraft, but that costs a crapload of $$$, and also you'd need some big-ass runways for it, and in wartime, runways are never the ideal length. So tanks will remain at 70 tons, no heavier I'd think.

I certainly do not believe it is wise to make them heavier, but theoretically we could if we began to keep large forces constantly deployed abroad or if we developed them as trump cards to be deployed behind lighter forces.
If we had strong and effective light forces then a smaller and heavier force of "juggernaught" weapons could be kept for slower deployment to bring decision to stalemated battles.



As for the turbine engine, it has one slight problem. The heat signature. In Vietnam, troops could move directly behind the M60 tanks, whereas nowadays I think that is kidn of difficult, because an Abrams puts out a lot of heat, so you can't be right behind it. What they need is a cooling system I'd think, or a way to reduce the heat signature on the turbine. Otherwise, the turbine is better than the diesel. But that heat signature makes it vulnerable to enemy aircraft in a future conflict, or enemy infantry weapons.

Heat directly correlates to efficiency in a turbine engine because greater heat increases combustion of the incoming fuel. Chrysler greatly improved efficiency by using heat reclaiming systems which delivered heat to the intake, cooling the exhaust and heating the intake for greater efficiency. The development of more efficient thermal conducting systems or other instruments which can run off of heat energy could be extremely useful for cooling the exhaust and increasing the effectiveness of turbine engines. That being said it is safe to be behind an Abrams, however it is not very comfortable and would create heat casualties after a long period of time in certain climates, especially if troops were requirred to be in MOPP4 at the time.
There is another problem with turbine engines- they REALLY hate particulate matter in the air. This hasn't been quite as much of a problem for the Abrams as it has been for helicopters, but the problem does exist. A turbine engine loses far more efficiency than a piston driven engine from restricted airflow and this creates filtering problems, theoretically. (I have not read too much about the actual occurance of this, but I am farily well informed on the early history of the turbine engine).



Oh yeah, you say the U.S. needs something that it can put at the front lines immediately until the heavy stuff arrives?? We've had that for over 100 years. It is called the United States Marine Corps

The Marines are indeed the ultimate light infantry force. The problem is that light infantry forces, especially Marines, are basically good for enduring massive amounts of punishment and holding the line at all costs.
If we developed more deployable assetts to arm the Marines with they would not be a light infantry force but a light combined arms force. It would greatly increase the deployability and effectiveness of an MEF in times of crisis. Marines are highly disciplined and therefore useful for absorbing punishment, but what they are really on this Earth for is to dish out punishment- so why not give em the tools for that.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Double post? That never happened to me before.

I personally believe that the FCS generation of tanks will be the last tanks ever made and soldiers shall retake the tanks position with strong weapons in smaller size and lighter weight. With mobile crew served ATM (modern ones) you could punch through the armor of a modern tank and a tank will therefore not be needed to kick the butt of another tank. Currently, almost all tanks destroyed are works of other tanks. Why spend 4 million bucks on a tank when 2 soldiers with cost effective ATM can whoop the butt of the tank?



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Vagabond, I should have elaborated on the mines part; I mean if they make light tanks that are strong, they will probably eventually develop mines that could blow with enough force to knock the light tank upside down.....you know, one country makes one weapon, so the others develop ways to counter and stop it. Technology is always advancing, so...

Yeah, I agree on the Marines, it would be great to give them some better tech.

I believe that many people during the first Gulf War conflict were skeptical of the Abrams, saying its turbine would get all fouled up in the deserts of Iraq, with all that sand, yet the tank performed flawlessly. So did the Apache helicopter, shutting up all the naysayers. Also so did the F-117 Stealth bomber, the F-15, and the F-16, shutting up the naysayers to those systems too.

Cowlan, you forget the one important thing with tanks.....they are for forward mobility. It doesn't matter if you're a soldier carrying a gun with the power to blow up a tank; if you're under heavy fire, a couple bullets, and you're down. And if you've got a gun in your arms that can take out a tank, there is no way in hell you could have on some kind of special body armor that could resist the rounds being fired at you, because chances are the enemy would be shooting at you with bigger guns than the one you're carrying. So tanks will be needed regardless to allow troops to move through the enemy and blow them to smitherines without getting blown to smitherines themselves.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by COWlan
Double post? That never happened to me before.

Yeah... i dropped the keyboard and it started loading. i thought it was gonna refresh so i hit stop and kept typing. Didn't realize it had submitted my incomplete post. Sucks dont it? I'm gonna edit the first one down to blank.



I personally believe that the FCS generation of tanks will be the last tanks ever made and soldiers shall retake the tanks position with strong weapons in smaller size and lighter weight. With mobile crew served ATM (modern ones) you could punch through the armor of a modern tank and a tank will therefore not be needed to kick the butt of another tank. Currently, almost all tanks destroyed are works of other tanks. Why spend 4 million bucks on a tank when 2 soldiers with cost effective ATM can whoop the butt of the tank?


This is a good point. I am a very strong proponent of improved crew-served weapons for dealing with armored threats, especially in the form of firearms as opposed to missiles which are a very limited asset.
I believe we need to create a 2-man portable version of the 25mm autocannon used by the LAV and employ several in the weapons company of each batallion. These things would be FAR more effective than the Mk-19 and Ma-Deuce currently employed by CAAT teams.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Dont the US marines have a few abrahms? (excuse spelling)
I know the RM has a few chally 2's.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I may as well ask this on this thread:

What the heck does the US have in development as far as a MBT? As good as the M1 is, its 20 years old now and is starting to show a weakness here and there. They MUST be working on something. Anybody have the skinny?



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 12:43 PM
link   
FCS is the future of the MBT but US has not chosen a paticular FCS concept for further development (at least not publically).



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 01:25 PM
link   

The Future Combat System (FCS) is a joint effort between the Army and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency intended to replace the Armys current fleet of General Dynamics M1 Abrams tanks, United Defense M2 and M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicles and other armored vehicles. According to Army officials, the Army should attain the technological innovations needed to create the objective force as projected. Key among these are the technologies required to produce the future combat system, which will be a replacement for the 70-ton M1 Abrams tank that will have the same lethality and survivability but will weigh only 20 tons.

The FCS Anti-Tank variant is a 20-ton vehicle with a 2-man crew and a direct fire ETC weapon capable of beyond-line-of-sight fires with the Tank Extended Range Munition (TERM) round. The gun elevates up to 60 degrees to enable precision fires at elevated targets in urban environments with programmable levels of lethality. Survivability is enabled by enhanced situational understanding and long-range fires to avoid close combat with enemy tanks, signature management to avoid or delay detection, active protection against tank-fired and larger munitions, and passive armor to defeat all lesser threats. Ground mobility is enabled by a fuel-efficient hybrid-electric drive system, and at 20-tons, the vehicle can be inserted precisely via parasail.

It is a virtual certainty that future conflicts in the 2025-era will find US forces opposing traditional massed heavy armor. There will be occasions where the 20-ton FCS being considered in this study will encounter such enemy forces and direct fire engagements will be unavoidable. Under such circumstances, Overmatching Direct Fire Lethality (ODFL) will be essential to FCS survivability. For a vehicle as light as 20 tons, however, ODFL as protection reflects a last-ditch defensive measure of desperation to be called upon only after the vehicle has gotten itself into a situation that should have been avoided in the first place. If the FCS is used in a manner that optimizes its capabilities and minimizes its operational weaknesses, the overall contribution of its ODFL capabilities to survivability will be relatively small.

Despite having an overmatching direct fire capability, the survivability of a 20-ton FCS will be severely threatened by close-in encounters with enemy main battle tanks. FCS survival will depend on vehicle capability to engage and defeat enemy targets at extended ranges outside the reach of enemy guns. The Tank Extended Range Munition (TERM) program is directed toward providing that capability while retaining an overmatching direct fire capability as well. A variety of projectile concepts are being pursued. Contractor teams are being led by Alliant, Boeing, and Raytheon. The TERM program is structured to meet a First-Unit Equipped (FUE) goal of 2010. This date is compatible with the planned development cycle for FCS, set to begin in 2005.


Source - globalsecurity.org...



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 01:56 PM
link   
FCS sounds like a great idea. After seeing all the stuff on a handfull of sites it looks like its the way to go. But having said that, the US will always need to have some bully of a vehicle that can go face to face with other MBT's.

I cant imagine not having such a machine. I think maybe integrate an MTB of sorts into the FCS plan. Maybe not a mainstay item, but something that can be called upon when the situation warrents it. And it will!

Look at today. Its street to street gorilla warfare, exactly 100% opposite the type of combat FCS seems to be designed for. We need a big bad a$$ piece of machine that can take some hits to run through cities.

Make it mission specific. Big huge tank with massive armor than can just sit and take a beating while dishing out some mayhem. An army will always need something like that.

[edit on 30-12-2004 by skippytjc]

[edit on 30-12-2004 by skippytjc]



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
FCS sounds like a great idea. After seeing all the stuff on a handfull of sites it looks like its the way to go. But having said that, the US will always need to have some bully of a vehicle that can go face to face with other MBT's.

I cant imagine not having such a machine. I think maybe integrate an MTB of sorts into the FCS plan. Maybe not a mainstay item, but something that can be called upon when the situation warrents it. And it will!

Look at today. Its street to street gorilla warfare, exactly 100% opposite the type of combat FCS seems to be designed for. We need a big bad a$$ piece of machine that can take some hits to run through cities.

Make it mission specific. Big huge tank with massive armor than can just sit and take a beating while dishing out some mayhem. An army will always need something like that.

[edit on 30-12-2004 by skippytjc]

[edit on 30-12-2004 by skippytjc]


FCS is moving forward with the basic APC type models but most of the technology envisaged for the advanced models like the tank is not mature at the rate they thought...it maynot happen. USMC is looking at a 30 ton tank as a replacement for their M-1A1HAs in 2020 time frame and that seems more reasonable.

High tech = high risk = high cost.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
An Abrams tank weighs 70 tons, I don't see how it would be inferior to a 50 ton tank armor-wise.


I doubt it would be inferoir the Abrams which uses the same armour as the British Challenger which is considered by many to be the best in the world.


members.tripod.com...


British Challengers uses Dorchester Armour, Abrahams uses British Chobham

Dorchester is 1/5 more effective than Chobham.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by rustiswordz

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
An Abrams tank weighs 70 tons, I don't see how it would be inferior to a 50 ton tank armor-wise.


I doubt it would be inferoir the Abrams which uses the same armour as the British Challenger which is considered by many to be the best in the world.


members.tripod.com...


British Challengers uses Dorchester Armour, Abrahams uses British Chobham

Dorchester is 1/5 more effective than Chobham.


We had the british Chobham armour on our tanks before even the british had it on theirs.

The M1A2 does not use the same armour as the M1A1 its stronger I dont know if it is exactly dorchester but it is pretty much just as strong US version.

vs KE (mm)(1

M1A2 SEP (2) Turret: 940-960 Glacis:560-590
Lower front hull:580-650

Challenger 2 Turret: 920-960 Glacis:660
Lower front hull: 590

[edit on 30-12-2004 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Heh i live about 2-miles from where they make Chobham Armour i regularly see US Tanks rolling off down the motorway (your freeway) on the backs of huge transporters...



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
We had the british Chobham armour on our tanks before even the british had it on theirs.

The M1A2 does not use the same armour as the M1A1 its stronger I dont know if it is exactly dorchester but it is pretty much just as strong US version.

vs KE (mm)(1

M1A2 SEP (2) Turret: 940-960 Glacis:560-590
Lower front hull:580-650

Challenger 2 Turret: 920-960 Glacis:660
Lower front hull: 590

[edit on 30-12-2004 by ShadowXIX]


Looks like different configurations at the very least, based on the figures you posted. I'm still pretty sure that Americans are using the second-best generation of chobham armor but will be sold the new stuff fairly soon for a possible M1A3 modification.
U2U Kozzy if you like- he knows his tanks. Or check out www.strategypage.com They have a forum dedicated to armor.

I noticed a few other things here and there:
Yes the USMC has the Abrams. Mostly M1A1 and FEPs- this was mentioned earlier in the thread. The Marines get something like 5% of the defense budget so they have to do more with less a lot of the time.

The specs on the FCS: I had no idea how close it was to what I was describing. I had just never seen the actual numbers. Guess I made a couple of lucky estimations on what we would need.
It bears considering that sometimes America keeps its mouth shut about the state of technology. I'm not saying we have these things in full production, I'm just saying we may be closer than we say, and here is my reasoning:
Suppose that we had the technology to start turning out FCS tanks, but it was too expensive and we think we're about 10 years from production.
But suppose that the tremendously expensive technology was being used for in the active production of black projects. Why make it clear that we have the technology for these secret weapons too soon? We can say that we're 20+ years from the FCS and it reduces the pressure on the low intensity "arms race" and it hides our secret abilities for an extra 10 years.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join