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.

 

US Army releases brand new photos of upgraded Abrams

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Just another question.

Some poster said that exploding Reactive plates can kill surrounding infantry. If that is true, then arn't we just replacing the dead in the tank with dead infantry outside the tank?

How dangerous are the plates to surrounding infantry?




posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   
That's a good question; personally I wouldn't know, however, I am guessing that in order for a troop to be injured by the exploding armor, this means they'd have to be standing in front of it, or off a little to the side.

The round can hit the tank from any angle, depending on where it is fired from, so chances are any infantry standing near the exploding armor would've been shredded by the round as it came in anyhow (my take on it).



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Well, I wasn't too sure who started the ERA craze for sure, but Israel was the second that came up in my mind, That T-72 with all that ERA is certainly ugly but it does the job...

Isn't the frontal armor on the abrams the heaviest out there?



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapier28
Just another question.Some poster said that exploding Reactive plates can kill surrounding infantry. If that is true, then arn't we just replacing the dead in the tank with dead infantry outside the tank?How dangerous are the plates to surrounding infantry?


A friend of mine who was a tanker in the AMry told me to think of a claymore mine. The plates and the HEAT round tend to spray into anybody near the tank.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068

Originally posted by Ritual
It doesnt have any short range ballistic defense. Maybe it doesnt come "advertised".

I think if this is WYSIWYG as far as the US's main battle tank, it doesnt belong on the front line. I think wars should be fought by airplanes and surface missiles until we figure out how to 1)detect all mines and planted explosives 2) perfect ballistic defense 3) perfect xray and other visual equipment to indentify targets.

Else riding a tank down the road is just asking for a ton of dynamite up your ass. Or an artillery round to slice through the tank. Or rocket.

Thanks but no thanks as far as me joining the Military. I wouldnt want to be ordered into an APC or Tank to make my way into Iraq. Bad mojo, murphy will kick me in the ass for being so illprepared.

Im better building ICBM's in my basement.



You don't know what you're talking about (not to sound rude). You mention the tracks are exposed. Well they have to be exposed somewhat, or else the skirts would hit the ground. To take out the tracks, aside from a mine or something, would require some real balls and some real shooting. You'd have to get close to the tank, which would see you, then aim the weapon at the tracks, then fire and hope it manages to hit under the skirt. That would take some real sharpshooting from a distance, and up close, you'd likely be blown away before you even had a chance to fire. And that's forgetting that the tank is moving along as well (which means you'd ahve to aim fairly fast).

In urban warfare, the tank would be backed up by infantry that would shoot you if you got close. It would be a really lucky shot (and probably a suicide one at that) to hit the track on an Abrams.

As for wars being fought with solely planes and missiles, that is impossible. You HAVE to put boots on the ground in order to use those weapons. People say warfare these days is simply "push-button," but that is far from the truth. How would you utilize your "surface missiles" and your planes if you don't have tanks to go clear the way for you??

As for a tank being a target, yes, they are, but it is fairly difficult to take out a tank like the Abrams. Being in one is one of the safest positions on the ground. Unless you are fighting an enemy that has tanks that can fire back at you and do some real damage, you're pretty fine, but that kind of land warfare is more Cold War-era.

As for these additions to the Abrams, none of thise is new. I mean, the technology is, but the tactics the tech is for are from WWII. Using infantry to back up a tank in an urban environment was used in WWII, Vietnam, etc....just now it is getting a new spin with some better tech.


Moron they already do put "skirts" on the tanks to protect the tracks. Look at the wheels, are you trying to tell me that somehow a wheel design is more sturdier then using triangles and a cog effect? Please go get a masters in engineering with experience in armor vehicle design with working concepts before you can make an argument that this isnt half assed.

Watch footage from Fallujah or anywhere else. It was tanks first, fighting vehicles(apc's, bradleys) next. All while bringing in the troops. The IRAQI's were privelaged with the first shot almost always. It was urban combat. You can put a rocket aimed out a window and wait for a tank to roll by and shoot it off and screw. Watch the videos. At least in the present it is not "hard" as you put it to shoot a tank. And no you arent going to use AK47's to kill a tank, you use rockets, artillery and explosives(traps, mines) and missiles. So how do you get off saying they have to aim this # and it somehow takes a long time, they just wait in ambush and shoot the # and run or try and fight off the US soldiers after ambush or diversions.

You dont need boots on the ground to use planes with bombs or missiles and rockets. And you dont need boots on the ground to shoot off cruise missiles. And you dont need boots on the ground to shoot off ICBM's. And you dont need boots on the ground to shoot missiles from our base in Saudi Arabia. Might take a few years to start seeing an outcome, but I bet you if we did it, we wouldnt see the casualty count we have.

Dont insult my intelligence. Any moron with a physics major could develop a medium ranged missile in a year. This is something we have paid our tax dollars for for the past 50 years on. Missile technology.

Difficult to take out a tank? Now I know your smoking some sh!t. A rocket can take out a tank in one shot. Never underestimate your enemy. Any high schooler who passed chemistry can build a device that can destroy an Abrams. I dont think you have ever seen a bomb go off. It is obvious you havent so just shut up like you know squat about anything.

The US can destroy any enemy vehicle in existance probably with one hellfire missile. The missile is not bigger then 5 feet long and weighs probably less then you do and can travel distance on top of it all.





-1 intelligence for broadsword.



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 11:28 PM
link   
"You dont need boots on the ground to use planes with bombs or missiles and rockets. And you dont need boots on the ground to shoot off cruise missiles."

you do too, how do you think laser guided munitions find their targets? if you dont know, special troops get in sight of a target and fires a laser to mark the target and the bomb/missile sees the laser light.

"Any high schooler who passed chemistry can build a device that can destroy an Abrams"

i've seen humvees with multiple direct hits from rpg's so if a humvee can survive direct hits i doubt that statement is correct.

"Any moron with a physics major could develop a medium ranged missile in a year"

i guess scientists with phd's who work for the many nations who just now have started making medium range missiles are morons?

[edit on 11-3-2005 by namehere]



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
"You dont need boots on the ground to use planes with bombs or missiles and rockets. And you dont need boots on the ground to shoot off cruise missiles."

you do too, how do you think laser guided munitions find their targets? if you dont know, special troops get in sight of a target and fires a laser to mark the target and the bomb/missile sees the laser light.

"Any high schooler who passed chemistry can build a device that can destroy an Abrams"

i've seen humvees with multiple direct hits from rpg's so if a humvee can survive direct hits i doubt that statement is correct.

[edit on 11-3-2005 by namehere]


Ok you dont need to paint a target with a laser to hit it. Give a bomb or missile a GPS location and it is good enough.

Also you can paint targets with satellites or the planes themselves. You dont need soldiers to do it.

I never said a high school chemist would build a RPG. I was referring to a homemade explosive devide (IED), bomb, mine or whatever you want to call it.



[edit on 11-3-2005 by Ritual]



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ritual
It doesnt have any short range ballistic defense. Maybe it doesnt come "advertised".

I think if this is WYSIWYG as far as the US's main battle tank, it doesnt belong on the front line. I think wars should be fought by airplanes and surface missiles until we figure out how to 1)detect all mines and planted explosives 2) perfect ballistic defense 3) perfect xray and other visual equipment to indentify targets.

Else riding a tank down the road is just asking for a ton of dynamite up your ass. Or an artillery round to slice through the tank. Or rocket.

Thanks but no thanks as far as me joining the Military. I wouldnt want to be ordered into an APC or Tank to make my way into Iraq. Bad mojo, murphy will kick me in the ass for being so illprepared.

Im better building ICBM's in my basement.



You don't know much about warfare, do you?



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Your going to get an ATS warning for one line posts.

Your better off trying to refute why I dont know much about warfare instead of just stating so without any proof.

Not saying the abrams is bad, but I dont think its something I would want to be in Iraq in or take out of my backyard.





[edit on 12-3-2005 by Ritual]



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ritual

You dont need boots on the ground to use planes with bombs or missiles and rockets. And you dont need boots on the ground to shoot off cruise missiles. And you dont need boots on the ground to shoot off ICBM's. And you dont need boots on the ground to shoot missiles from our base in Saudi Arabia. Might take a few years to start seeing an outcome, but I bet you if we did it, we wouldnt see the casualty count we have.


Would be real cost effient warfare to just sit and watch intel data and launch missiles at "enemy" from distance. Really Afganistan was major waste of cruise missiles if you dont remember, they shot $3million-200thousand worth each missiles at shacks, you have to look the targets to think about wasting cruise missile everything. Iraq isnt much of difference on this matter, theres isnt many military targets that are worth of launching missile strikes and for example Bagdad it has huge underground sewer, tunnel system, you couldnt destroy resistance of such by just shooting missles from distance, you still need someone to go to those holes and eliminate the threat that could hide there for who knowns how long.

You give little too less credit to land forces and your vision to be made true would require nukes or other mass destruction devices to be effient "button" warfare. And that surely would get public on your side 0 Americans fell on battle while enemy regime was eliminated. In the end it comes to funds, not even US can afford shooting infinite amount of cruise missiles and using nukes wouldnt increase the popularity either.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 04:59 AM
link   
I value my life.

Somehow I dont think there would be many targets for cruise missiles. I think high altitude bombing would be alot more effective and cheaper then taking out every target with cruise missiles as you are trying to say.

Cruise missile's arent that big and even if you give them a cluster bomb payload, arent going to be as good as a full b-52 or a loitering c-130 gunship. Dropping bunker busters and precision bombs is alot more cost effective then launching missiles from 1000 miles away from near space.

But if it came down to me sending in tanks and troops or fighting a less effective "target of oppurtinity" war, I would choose to save my life and my country men's lives and fight the war of oppurtunity.

But it was about liberating Iraq fromt heir government. Which you could probably only do with occupation.

Now would I join the Military to fight a war we arent capable of doing safely? Nope.

Too many things that can go wrong and have gone wrong. IED's. Snipers. Gunfights. Rockets. Artillery. Mortars. You name the implement of war and it has probably killed an American in Iraq.

And I dont see the Iraq people helping out any. I can see if Russia invaded Iraq and was holding the Iraqis hostage and they would fight along with us.

We are trying to liberate people from themselves who dont want to be livberated. How the heck do you do that?



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ritual
Your going to get an ATS warning for one line posts.

Your better off trying to refute why I dont know much about warfare instead of just stating so without any proof.

Not saying the abrams is bad, but I dont think its something I would want to be in Iraq in or take out of my backyard.





[edit on 12-3-2005 by Ritual]


You don't seem to understand that you need boots on the ground to take and hold ground. You can bombard a target all you want, but history has shown that even just precision bombardment with maneavur is ineffective. You also don't understand that the Abrams is a very survivable tank and every tanker in Iraq is glad they're in one.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
A friend of mine who was a tanker in the AMry told me to think of a claymore mine. The plates and the HEAT round tend to spray into anybody near the tank.


Then the moral of the story for the infantryman is to never stand next to a tank filled with reactive tiles before, during and after a major or minor firefight.




posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 05:18 AM
link   
And thus an already bloated tank is pushed further overweight...

probably over 70 tons... thus comprimising range, mobility and deployment among other things.

I think a completely new design is in order personally



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Now would I join the Military to fight a war we arent capable of doing safely? Nope.



that is probably the single most rediculous thing i have ever read

fight a war safely - since when has any sort of combat been `safe`?


From your replies - i do believe you think that waves of B-52`s/B-1B`s or B2`s dropping 500lb iron bombs will win the day ; well in WW2 the RAF flattened dresden from one side to the other using such tactics (in excess of 5000 bombs and the same in incendary weapons) ; and that didn`t win the war - it took the red army to take and hold berlin for the third reich to finally give in.

Fighting `brush wars`or skirmish`s doesn`t win a war.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   
At last Abrams with ERA....... took your sweet time though and think your being a little skimpy with it.
Remote weapons ect all good and a definate improvment for urban warfare
.....still if your ambushed in a street what could you bring to bare, especially if your being ambushed from several floors up, the main armnament wouldnt have the elevation?
BMP-T still wins it for urban warfare i think, but for any abrams having to attack into the towns i think these will be welcome changes (if only for the telephone lol)



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucretius
And thus an already bloated tank is pushed further overweight...

probably over 70 tons... thus comprimising range, mobility and deployment among other things.

I think a completely new design is in order personally


The U.S. Army is working on a total re-design of M1 Abrams tank at the drawing boards. The re-design of the Abrams tank would be an important part of the planned Future Combat Systems. globalsecurity.org...

Remember, the FCS is a work in progress.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Having just read and re-read your threads, I think Creighton Abrams would or should be spinning in his grave by now.

The link to the 'new' Abrams is good, it's just the picture that's completely NAFF!

Let's look at the pic more closely. The remotely controlled gun turret is nothing 'new', the German Leopard chasis family of vehicles had them as does the Merkava family.

OH WOW! Those infra-red goggles for the driver. That's a first. I used to use civvie yellow ones. (Did the same job and cost less!)

What's this? A THERMAL IMAGING SIGHT FOR THE 'LOADER'? What does he want one of those for? He will be too busy putting the correct warhead and bag charge in the breach and not getting his fingers chopped off! NOT A GREAT IMPROVEMENT!

A sniper taking out a tank. You lot make me laugh. Of course he can! A sniper is a highly trained marksman. Using a Barrett Light 50, he [the sniper] could deliver harassing fire out to 1200 metres by aiming at the gunner's sights, commander's cupola and driver's periscope. Getting a 50 cal round smashing into yer optics will definately muck up yer day!

This would cause the tank to 'button up' thus reducing their [the tank's] visibility and ability to fight - and allow a single 'sneaky' buggar to creap up and ram an RPG up their tail pipe!



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   
You realize that the in an urban enviroment, where the primary weapon is the tank's machine guns. The loader spends more time observing and firing the M240, now he can do it at night.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   
all that neads to be saif: cooooooool...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join