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.

 

Weak spot on the Abrams

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   


Hhaha very funny!! *sarcasm* The black eagle would be easily killed by an A10 or apache so shut up. We all know the The top is vulnerable.........javelin and TOW(top attack with tandem warheads/EPP)!!!!! [.quote]

Knock it off both of you. It only fuels the ranting.

Russian soldier, grow up a tad kid.

urmomma158, involving your self in such exchanges only gets you stuck deeper.


Russias weaknesses..poor economy and cant even afford to feed or train their troops right!!!!!!!!
Please stop insulting countries and contribute to the thread please otherwise you're just being a parasite.


What do you know about current state of Russian economy? Please share it with us.



M6D

posted on May, 1 2006 @ 02:49 AM
link   
iksander, i have to ask, have you ever considered that barett M82 rifles wont last 20 years without replacement parts? which almost certainly the US HASNT supplied?



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
So what you're saying is that I'm just making all this stuff up then right? It must be what you're saying


yes that is exactly what im saying. eithr your making it up or you have the proof and just dont want to show us.



I'm sick and tired of this juvenile "I won't believe till you prove it" crapp. My wife is 34 years young and she keeps saying how silly it is of me to spend my time on this forum arguing with stubborn kids.


it is silly of you to keep arguing with us. show us the proof or shut.



Other then weapons we're not aware of, Al Queda has 25 Barrett US supplied anti-material rifles, what is so hard to grasp here?


about these 25 barret rifles from your link


both Barrett and Cutshaw had doubts they would still work due to dust and a lack of spare parts.


calm down, you cant go round making sensationalist claims without baking them up.

justin

[edit on 1-5-2006 by justin_barton3]

[edit on 1-5-2006 by justin_barton3]

[edit on 1-5-2006 by justin_barton3]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 07:07 AM
link   
iskander, you're basically saying "I'll make these claims without any sufficient proof, why should I have to back up my own information? That's your job, I'm too good to back up my claims with legit sources."

That's what it sounds like on our end.

So if you're not going to back up your own information with sources, then don't even post. Why should we do the work that you need to do? We're not the ones arguing your side.

And I didn't know .50 calibers were anti-material rifles, thought those were 20mm and 15.6mm rifles such as the XM-109.

Shattered OUT...


M6D

posted on May, 1 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Thank you Justin for answering my point, i to supremely doubted barett M82 rifles would even work after 20 years without any supply of replacement parts etc.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Iskander its common knowledge russian troops dont get much training and have a poor economy go look it up its common knowledge. I was simply giving Russiansoldier a taste of his own medicine he needs some discipline. Otherwise he would never shut up.

[edit on 1-5-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
Iskander its common knowledge russian troops dont get much training and have a poor economy go look it up its common knowledge. I was simply giving Russiansoldier a taste of his own medicine he needs some discipline. Otherwise he would never shut up.

[edit on 1-5-2006 by urmomma158]

Common knowledge? Where is this common knowledge, if it were common knowledge, it wouldn't require research. Yet you just contradicted yourself with saying "go look it up". That would suggest it's not common knowledge.

And I too do agree with your opinion, and I say opinion because I seriously doubt any of us know what the training for Russian Military personnel really is like. I would understand that it is in fact substantial. There are few nations that I know of with(excuse the term for lack of a better word) crappy military programs. Believe it or not Russia can still raise a formidable armed force.

This is overshadowed by Russia's once cripple economy, but at this point the Russian economy can only get better, and in fact, it is getting better, slowly and gradually, but it is still an increase. Now, of course this increase in economical prosperity can only be seen in Russian cities that are densly populated, as much as I'd hate to say it, from other people's personal experience(who have shared their stories of visiting rural Russia), the small villages are in shambles and Rural Russia is virtually unmodernized. So are many parts of Siberia, the largest portion of Russia. But if you look at Russia as a whole and start making general comparisons, the economy looks pretty good. Now going down to the very mundane details, it might not look so good, but you can't throw that in their face as their military is not only not mundane at all, but it is a large portion of their budget, they do have their old cold war era name to work up to again. Only in the name non-communism and in the light of a Republic as Russia currently is. Republics tend to work better. Marxism and Socialism all look very good on paper, but do they actually work? No.(In my personal opinion)

Shattered OUT...



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   
i said look it up so he would believe me just in case. I was stating that Russias economy is still poor but i know its getting better but slowly. Most of Russia is unmodernized and they can barely feed their army or train them. Most of their froces are in shambles.
they are improving but the progress is sluggish.Link is old though but you get the point.
news.bbc.co.uk...
however this one isnt. www.jamestown.org...


Further evidence can be found in the Russian's invasion of Afghnistan and how even with a large force they were forced to run back homeand lets not forget Chechnya. Tech is useless without the training.
This should keep Russain Soldier from insulting the US again. We really need to get back to the topic now.

[edit on 1-5-2006 by urmomma158]

[edit on 1-5-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Abrams is getting old.
I would like to see it get replaced.
I mean, it was good, in the 90s.

As for the Black Eagle, some have been made so I'm sure more will be made. Russia needs a new tank to replace their T-90s so I'm sure they're gonna use Black Eagles.

Back to the subject, any tank that can be taken out with an RPG-7 should be released. That's one of the reasons the Abrams should be replaced. RPGs are everywhere, they're so common, I mean its one thing to be vulnerable to a Hellfire missile, but to an RPG? Many insurgents have them. So one poor guy can take out an expensive tank?
The Abrams needs to be replaced. By a tank that can AT LEAST withstand an RPG hit.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian soldier
Back to the subject, any tank that can be taken out with an RPG-7 should be released. That's one of the reasons the Abrams should be replaced. RPGs are everywhere, they're so common, I mean its one thing to be vulnerable to a Hellfire missile, but to an RPG? Many insurgents have them. So one poor guy can take out an expensive tank?
The Abrams needs to be replaced. By a tank that can AT LEAST withstand an RPG hit.


YEs an RPG has disabled an M1 on very rare occasions with a lucky shot, other M1's have withstood multiple RPG hits and barely sneezed.
Interesting that Russians tanks in Chechnya were easily destroyed by RPG's with some tanks being destroyed when the RPG penetrated their frontal turret armour, LOL. talk about in cans.
The Black Eagle woill hvae to be a quantum leap over the Russian T series otherwise what's the point. Kinetic energy rounds will still peel a Black Eagle open like a can opener, reactive armour won't save it or an APS.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Russian Soldier, currently the M1A1 Abrams has the world's best MBT record in combat, so to me, it is the best tank. You cannot judge a tank by it's year, judge a tank by it's engineering and performance in actual combat.

Was the T-90 ever even deployed in combat? Why would it need to be replaced so quickly? Talk about wasting money.

You know what? This sounds alot like "I want to see alot of new stuff come in, get rid of the old stuff, it's old, I want to play with new toys."

That's what it really sounds like.

The M1A2SEP is already a quantum leap in MBT tech, there is no need for a new MBT, the M1A2 is sufficient enough and with a hefty price tag, another MBT is out of the question. Plus I believe the days of the MBT are slowly coming to a close, why keep it going? We will never see large tank battles like we once saw in WWII and in the Gulf War I.

The Black Eagle to me is more a propaganda tool than anything else:"Hey look at what we have, we have this amazing tank". Yeah, I'll stick to my M1A2.

Shattered OUT...



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 07:10 AM
link   
[Mod Edit: removed unnecessary quote of Entire preceeding post]

You Russians and Ami's....
The best tank, although it has barely combat experience, is the Leopard 2 A6 EX. It's has a 120cm L55 gun in contrast to the M1's L44 gun, a some other advantages.




Please Review This Link.


[edit on 5/2/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   
What exactly makes the L2a6 better than the Abrams? Certainly not it's combat record.

The gun? There's alot more to MBTs than guns.

Shattered OUT..


M6D

posted on May, 2 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Could some specs be posted? armour ratings agaainst HEAT or APFSDS? perhaps gun specs? anything useful!



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian soldier
Abrams is getting old.
I would like to see it get replaced.
I mean, it was good, in the 90s.

As for the Black Eagle, some have been made so I'm sure more will be made. Russia needs a new tank to replace their T-90s so I'm sure they're gonna use Black Eagles.

Back to the subject, any tank that can be taken out with an RPG-7 should be released. That's one of the reasons the Abrams should be replaced. RPGs are everywhere, they're so common, I mean its one thing to be vulnerable to a Hellfire missile, but to an RPG? Many insurgents have them. So one poor guy can take out an expensive tank?
The Abrams needs to be replaced. By a tank that can AT LEAST withstand an RPG hit.


Well it dpends at what range. The closer the firer is the more ffective short range assault weapons will be. No tank is surviveable in an urban battlefield. Besides i wouldnt be talking the T90 is untested in combat who knows what weakspots it has.
We'll see if Russia can afford it they can barely pay for the T90.Russian tanks in Chechnya have had terrible records. The T90 is nothing but a glorified T72 as well. Not to mention equipment is useless without the training which Chechnya and Afghanistan proved. Next time you post a nice Russian mil tech consider how important training is and how the Russians dont get any or crappy training anyway.


[edit on 2-5-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian soldier
Abrams is getting old.
I would like to see it get replaced.
I mean, it was good, in the 90s.

As for the Black Eagle, some have been made so I'm sure more will be made. Russia needs a new tank to replace their T-90s so I'm sure they're gonna use Black Eagles.

Back to the subject, any tank that can be taken out with an RPG-7 should be released. That's one of the reasons the Abrams should be replaced. RPGs are everywhere, they're so common, I mean its one thing to be vulnerable to a Hellfire missile, but to an RPG? Many insurgents have them. So one poor guy can take out an expensive tank?
The Abrams needs to be replaced. By a tank that can AT LEAST withstand an RPG hit.


Well it dpends at what range. The closer the firer is the more ffective short range assault weapons will be. No tank is surviveable in an urban battlefield. Besides i wouldnt be talking the T90 is untested in combat who knows what weakspots it has.
We'll see if Russia can afford it they can barely pay for the T90.There have been instances where the abrams has gone unphased by multiple shots from T72's. Russian tanks have been easily killed in Chechnya by RPG's. And lets not forget the major @$$ kicking the russians got in Afghanistan by the afghani war lords. Not to mention we easily anhihilated them with a lot less troops.

A Russian armor regiment's worst nightmare......

[edit on 2-5-2006 by urmomma158]


Not to be offensive jusst pointing out some facts.


[edit on 2-5-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
What exactly makes the L2a6 better than the Abrams? Certainly not it's combat record.

The gun? There's alot more to MBTs than guns.

Shattered OUT..



Originally posted by M6D
Could some specs be posted? armour ratings agaainst HEAT or APFSDS? perhaps gun specs? anything useful!


I've posted specs in another thread, will copy and add some additional info.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   
LEOPARD 2A6 MAIN BATTLE TANK - SPECIFICATIONS



Crew 4

Weight 62 metric tons
Length 7.7 m
Width 3.7 m
Height 3.0 m

Armament
1 x Rheinmetall 120 mm L55 smoothbore gun
1 x coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun
2 x 7.62 mm anti-aircraft machine gun

Maximum speed
72 km/hr

Maximum range
500 km

Powerplant
MTU MB 873 multi-fuel, 1500 hp

Power to mass ratio
25.21 hp/t

Armour:
Turret:
Against Kinetic Energy
(in mm of RHAe)
940
Against Chemical Energy
(in mm of RHAe)
1,960

Glacis:
Against Kinetic Energy
(in mm of RHAe)
620
Against Chemical Energy
(in mm of RHAe)
750

Lower Front Hull:
Against Kinetic Energy
(in mm of RHAe)
620
Against Chemical Energy
(in mm of RHAe)
750


ABRAM M1A2 MAIN BATTLE TANK - SPECIFICATIONS



Crew 4

Weight 62.1 metric tons
Length 9.77 m
Width 3.66 m
Height 2.44 m

Armament
1 x Rheinmetall 120 mm L44 smoothbore gun
1 x M2 12.7 mm BMG machine gun
2 x 7.62 mm anti-aircraft machine gun

Maximum speed
67 km/hr

Maximum range
391 km

Powerplant
AGT-1500 turbine engine

Power to mass ratio:
M1A2 - 21.57 hp/t).

Turret:
Against Kinetic Energy
(in mm of RHAe)
960
Against Chemical Energy
(in mm of RHAe)
1620

Glacis:
Against Kinetic Energy
(in mm of RHAe)
590
Against Chemical Energy
(in mm of RHAe)
1050

Lower Front Hull:
Against Kinetic Energy
(in mm of RHAe)
650
Against Chemical Energy
(in mm of RHAe)
950


Real life experience:

i have served by Trainings Battles (In the Wood) German Leopard 2A4 vs. US M1 and M60 ... lol The Leo takes it all ...

but no system are good if his Crew is bad ...



L55 compared to L44




A new smoothbore gun, the120 millimeter L55 Gun, has been developed by Rheinmetall GmbH of Ratingen, Germany to replace the shorter 120 millimeter L44 smoothbore tank gun on the Leopard 2.
The 120 millimeter L44 gun barrel has a length of 530 cm and weighs 1,190 kg. The whole gun weighs 3,780 kg. By comparison, the 120 millimeter L55 gun barrel has a length of 660 cm and weighs 1,374 kg. The whole L55 gun weighs 4,160 kg. The extension of the barrel length from caliber length 44 to caliber length 55 (130 cm) results in a greater portion of the available energy in the barrel to be converted into projectile velocity.
An important characteristic of the new L55 gun is its compatibility with the Leopard 2 weapons system, meaning that it can be integrated without substantial alterations. The external geometry of the gun was designed to minimize the phenomenon of static sagging, as well as to achieve optimum constant curvature. With respect to both of these factors, the form of the barrel selected for the L55 plays a critical role. This was a prerequisite for the system's high first-shot hit probability. The L55 gun can fire any standard 120 mm round.
Especially when using the new DM 53 KE round, the L55 enables approximately an 30 percent increase in performance compared with conventional systems. For example, when fired from the longer barrel, the DM 53 (LKE II) KE round attains a muzzle velocity in excess of 1,750 m/s.


Even the armour has been upgraded on the new model Leopold 2 A6 EX, which makes it completely superior qua specs compared with the Abrams.






[edit on 2-5-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Those are some nice specs and all, for both tanks...

But I'm still going to stand by the Abram's battle record, until I see what the L2a6 can do in battle and until the Leopard makes a name for itself, it'll still all be a bunch of numbers and figures.

Shattered OUT...



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Not to mention armor protection levels are just estimates they are a mystery in their protection levels. No one really knows how good of a supplement DU armor is.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join