posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 03:27 PM
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. >
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
< 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
... 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
< 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
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 .
[edit on 14-7-2005 by LCKob]