Its one of the good featuers of the T-34 and panthers, sloped side armour, but im still lost as to why it isnt used nowersdays.

My guess would be that it might interact with explosive reactive armor in some way, but that would just be my first thought.

The M1, the Abrams, a very media-overated tank

< Well, that has much to do with the pervasive nature of western media and to a certain degree of culturocentric promotion of homegrown products ... but to be fair, I think that most if not all countries do the same thing for ideological or moral reasons. >



Some facts;

1)the M1 fame starts with the gulf war, the media and some biased analysts said it was the best tank, with better results, sure, with 1900 M1s against only 500 T72 (even not the best model), the irakis with poor trained crews, bad-old sabots (accepted even from the most biased analists), lack of airpower (a lot of T tanks were smashed from the air), lack of electro-optics, etc,etc...

< as it has been pointed out by a number of posters prior ... there have been reasonably documented battles which show a relatively conventional "one on one" scenario between the T-72 and the M-1 ... with the end result being rather one sided. >




2)the earlier M1 model introduced (around 1980) had a turret armour of 400-420mm, the same year (in the case of the 72, around 1975-79) T80-72 had an armour of 450-500mm, and a 120mm gun compared with the M1s 105mm

3)the late 80s M1s had an 600-680mm armour, compared with the same year T80U with 810-800mm, the famous 900mm armour (later M1A1s and M1A2s) only was deployed in the late 90s

< Well that may be true, but such a comparison based on chronological development would be similar to saying that a human being is less capable at age 10 than 21? >




4)"depleted uranium is the best".....yeah sure, until the tank must operate in a nuclear enviorement, with the neutronic radiation, the U238 turn in....................................PU239!!!!!!!!!!


< While I believe that this is true from the absolute scientific perspective ... what are the practical implications in regards to how much neutronic radiation and for how long. I suspect that the intensity and duration would indicate such a hostile environment that other factors may well be of greater immediate concern to the health of the human operators ... in which case tungston, steel or DP as an ammunition would be incidental >




5)the amunition place make it veeeeery vulnerable to enemy fire, explode and blow up the tank

< Evolutionary improvments have helped to modify the design scope for the M-1 ... to include design changes for a wider range of operations requirement.
... the important thing here is that such product improvement is actually part of the ongoing support for an weapons system. The U.S. is reasonably capable in this regard >



6) the turret maybe is one of the worst designed to avoid a hit and distribute the impact force

< Perhaps my information is a bit dated here, but If I recall, the "geometric" nature of modern turrets has much to do with the limits in fabrication process involving the british Chobham armor? ... that in a nutshell, planar sheets are made with this process, as opposed to a more ballistically resistant organic shape. ... with the net effect that such laminates as Chobham are superior in ballistic protection even when factoring against the absence of traditional sloped armor doctrine. >



among other things that could be interesting to discuss, also to compare with other tanks, like the Leopard A1-2-3 that werent so good designed tanks and the challenger, t80-90-72 and other tanks, btw german post cold war ballistic tests on T72s showed that the tank (at least the soviets ones) were veeery tought.....

< The tanks you mention, to the best of my knowledge are very good designs ... yet in all honesty, I really don't see one standout based on my readings ... for all intents and purposes, all state of the art MBT's ( personally I would try to qualify what T-72) if operated by highly experienced crews pose a lethal threat. The more important issue here IMO is the overall doctrine, strategy and support such a tank or tanks get in a conflict situation.

In this regard, I would say that the M-1 (as a weapons system within the scope of the U.S. millitary war machine) is perhaps the most formidable tank at present.

One can postulate as to the absolute qualities and characteristics of individual tanks (as in t vs t) ... but I submit that in the real world, it is the cumulative syergistic effect of individual components as they are used within a particular theater or operation.

Now add to this, one valuable component of an weapons effectiveness ... the priceless knowledge and experience gained from actual usage in comtenporary situations ... this additional element makes it possible to continue the process of product refinement ... to make a truly effective weapon ... as opposed to one that looks good on paper ... or in simulations.

So, within this context, I would say that the present evolution of the M-1 is IMO the best tank in the world .

LCKob


[edit on 14-7-2005 by LCKob]

I'm getting sick:

First off all no tanks are designed for urban war ! the german did learn that in WWII and its still the same, nothing changed.
second The place where the shells are placed dosent matter if its in the rear or in the touret, is the amour pennetrated by a shell/ICM-bomblet, the tank will blow up even if its just a little hole like 5cm. the heat of the pennetration ignites every thing, end of story. dosent matter if its the M1A2, Challenger,Leo or T-something.
third: The leopard is combat proven: In former yugoslavia under UN 3 tanks was under fire by serbien forces/tanks they fight for multiple hours, enemy tanks was destroyed,the UN-Leopard 1 hit, a hook in the front of the tank was blowen of.
Then UN-lepoard was under heavy Morter attack 1 wheel destroyed could still drive and 1 UN leopard drove on an antitank mine the hole crew survived.
The M1A/2 tubine engine does have a higher fuel consumption and does give away a higher heat signatur and that does matter.
If U then take the vertikal side on the turret of the LEOPARD 2, at that time the amour was that good it couldnt be pennetrated by that times weapons/shells, but as they get better the amourment of the LEO 2A5/6 gets better like Challenger/M1..
They call the m1 silent death ? the leopard is different the exaust goes down so the sound travels longer but U cant hear from where its comming. That is what they call psyko terror for the infanteri and if Ur in an other tank U wouldnt hear it anyway.
and comparing the M1 with Iraqi tanks is like to go to a fight where the 1 part comes with a knife and the other parts with sub-guns.
The 4 -5MBT are very much a like with their advantages, wheere the one maybe has better amourment the other has greater mobility.

Originally posted by grunt2
they were so badly tired and wasted after a looooooooooooooooooong 10 years war.

If you listened to the world news media just before the 1st Gulf War the Iraqui Army was supposed to have been "experienced and battle tested" after their 10 year war with Iraq.

Amazing how fast "experienced and battle tested" becomes "badly tired and wasted" after a good old fashioned a$$ whooping.

Hey fascinating thread....apart from the gung-ho 'we're considerably better than youuuu' bobbins...the point i'd like to pose though is this..surely a tank's crucial role lies in it's mobility in the theatre of warfare...no matter how thick or sophisticated your armour is, a hit or two against the tracks with an RPG would cause them to be thrown or break...rendering the vehicle immobile and vulnrable...you may have turret mobility, but you are in essence a sitting duck for RPG and mortar practice....you may not destroy the vehicle, but you can at least remove it's capability from the battlefield....

Originally posted by timski
Hey fascinating thread....apart from the gung-ho 'we're considerably better than youuuu' bobbins...the point i'd like to pose though is this..surely a tank's crucial role lies in it's mobility in the theatre of warfare...no matter how thick or sophisticated your armour is, a hit or two against the tracks with an RPG would cause them to be thrown or break...rendering the vehicle immobile and vulnrable...you may have turret mobility, but you are in essence a sitting duck for RPG and mortar practice....you may not destroy the vehicle, but you can at least remove it's capability from the battlefield....

The proverbial "Mission Kill !!" It is like making a bomber jettison its bombs to avoid your fighters. You may not knock it down but it isn't going to bomb its target. Does anyone know if they plan on putting reactive armour on the M-1s?

No need for reactiv amour the NATO got Shells/grenates to breake the reactive amour and then the tanks amour afterward in the same shot, so everbody could make the same kind of shell/grenate.
And it has bieng used on the M60 MBT and if it was effektiv they wouldnt propperly not have removed it.

Originally posted by Locutus
No need for reactiv amour the NATO got Shells/grenates to breake the reactive amour and then the tanks amour afterward in the same shot, so everbody could make the same kind of shell/grenate.
And it has bieng used on the M60 MBT and if it was effektiv they wouldnt propperly not have removed it.

Reactive armour was originally designed to defeat a shaped charge anti-tank weapon. Like the RPGs that are being used by the insurgents in Iraq. Every picture or video I've seen from Iraq shows M-1s with out reactive armour.

Here is a picture of an M1 fitted with more systems to help it be more effective in Urban Combat.



[edit on 4-8-2005 by WestPoint23]

JIMC..

The point I was trying to make was (albeit admittedly badly) was that you can have the most sophisticated MBT on the battlefield, but it's only as sophisticated as the tactics you employ against your enemy...you could pit this machine against a lesser foe and the vehicle survive a direct hit, but still be immobilised and therefore out of the contest...
The media hype surrounding the M1 only serves the purpose of a) boosting the morale of the crew b) boosting the number of vehicles sold at arms-fairs...

The M1 is a very good tank---amongst the best in the world---that, when properly employed, will destroy virtually anything else out there. The British Challenger II and the German Leopard II are equal I think, and the British are just as good with tank tactics I believe (not sure about the Germans, but if not, it is just because they lack the budget).

Remember, the United States never relied on the Abrams as a "numbers" tank, meaning, you throw more tanks at the enemy, you will win. That was Soviet tank strategy. Thousands of tanks and troops against the enemy.

Before the M1, the Soviet tanks were a good match for the U.S. and NATO tanks, but outnumbered them a good deal. Because of this, the U.S. took special care to train to be able to fire upon multiple tanks as quickly and accurately as possible, as it was considered that in the event of a Soviet tank invasion, the U.S. and NATO tanks, being outnumbered, would have to take out the Soviet tanks quickly.

The Abrams tank changed all that in that not only was it light-years ahead of the Soviet tanks of the time, but also the tank tactics for it were very good.

NO tank is invincible. In the drive to Iraq, a few Abrams were disabled due to hits to their transmissions and so forth. But the Abrams is a very, very good tank. There are very few tanks out there that can be considered better than it. The M1 Abrams, the German Leopard, and the British Challenger are all on pretty much equal footing, as each country has their own ideas of what is best for a tank. The British use a rifled gun on their tank and a diesel engine, the U.S. uses a turbine engine with a smoothbore gun, etc...and the United States and British are very good at tank tactics.

Nowadays, in Iraq, they are essentially reverting back to WWII tactics, with the tanks going through urban areas being backed up by troops.

Another thing to remember is a tank's primary armor is up front. If you are standing in front of an Abrams, you can't damage it. Iraqi tanks have fired on the Abrams and failed to dent it. If you get behind it, though, you can disable it if you know where to fire.

The Abrams is a fine tank; quiet, fast, and accurate (by tank standards). When they give it a new engine, which I think they are preparing to do soon, it will probably be quieter and faster.

[edit on 4-8-2005 by EngineMan2145]

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by Locutus
No need for reactiv amour the NATO got Shells/grenates to breake the reactive amour and then the tanks amour afterward in the same shot, so everbody could make the same kind of shell/grenate.
And it has bieng used on the M60 MBT and if it was effektiv they wouldnt propperly not have removed it.

Reactive armor was originally designed to defeat a shaped charge anti-tank weapon. Like the RPGs that are being used by the insurgents in Iraq. Every picture or video I've seen from Iraq shows M-1s with out reactive armor.

The Abraham's front, side, and turret armor, at least, are pretty much impervious to the early model RPGs that the crews encounter in Iraq, so they don't bother putting the reactive armor on, because it's extra weight. Reactive armor certainly doesn't help against roadside bombs, which is the main reason behind M1 losses. There have been all of like two mission kills due to RPG attack.

If they were fighting in an urban environment against a modern opponent with better, perhaps tandem-charge warheads, then the reactive armor would be necessary. Of course, most modern militaries field top-attack munitions against which only AMS helps.

Also: the ammunition is unusually vulnerable on the M1, but it is a design choice, because it was designed so that a hit to the ammunition will not destroy the tank, only the ammunition. That's pretty much a mission kill, but it saves the crew, and most of the vehicle.

Originally posted by skippytjc

Originally posted by M6D
I think thats rather sweeping of you to make such a statement as it well easily be the best on the planet, a bit of add on armour doesnt make it a almighty god, just a bit less vulnerable, the armour still dosent protect the side of the turret, and slat armour doesnt protect 100 percent, i mean, it is a great improvement, but its a add on kit, it isnt the baseline tank.

[edit on 7-7-2005 by M6D]

As I posted to one of your replies on another thread, let’s compare actual combat records.

In desert storm the M1 had LESS THAN a 1% loss record, and not one single crew member was killed. And that’s out of 1900 tanks. Find me one other tank in the history of mankind that can post such a record. You can’t, because there aren’t any others. Not one.

Now in Iraq, about 70 Abrams have been destroyed or disabled and some crew has been killed. But that’s still LESS THAN a 4% loss rate, and again, that’s fighting a style of combat it wasn’t designed to fight. AGAIN: No other tank in the history of mankind can post such an impressive record. NONE!!

You guys can SPECULATE all you want, but the actual real life data of the M1 in combat action cannot be refuted. Until one of your precious tanks actually starts to fight in the scale that the M1 is fighting (or fight at all), you really need to keep quiet, because all you are doing is guessing.

The all time, undisputable king of tanks: M1 Abrams

DAMN HOW CAN YOU ARGUE WITH THAT????? THE MAN HAS A POINT

No he doesnt, neither have you apart from your all caps in your face eye-attack. This idiotic juggling of unrepresentative and irrelevant "combat statistics" belongs into the video comments on youtube, not here where people try to keep at least a semblance of knowledgeable discussion.

Can we please let this thread die the death it deserves? its 2,5 years old already...