"The mighty M1", a stupid media product ....

Pre the M1 , IMO , the Brits had the best tank (and could hold its own agaisnt the numerical advantage of the WARPAC) with the Chieften (which is also battle proven)

Little snippet about the Abrams performance in Gulf war I:

"The Abrams remained untested in combat until the Gulf War in 1991. A total of 1,848 M1A1s were deployed to Saudi Arabia. The M1A1 was superior to the Soviet produced T-72, T-62 and T-55 tanks fielded by the Iraqis. Only 18 M1A1s were taken out of service due to battle damage and none of these losses resulted in crew casualties. The M1A1 was capable of making kills at ranges in excess of 4000 m."

That’s LESS THAN a 1% loss rate, and NONE were damaged enough to kill one single crew member. So, in the type of combat that the tank was actually designed for, the M1 is basically undefeated. Find me one tank in all of history that has been deployed on such a massive scale with such a record. You cant because its never happened before.

I couldn’t find numbers regarding today’s figures (if you have them, post them), but we all know some Abrams have been destroyed. But understand this is an asymmetric style of warfare that the Abrams wasn’t designed for. So losses are possible. But I think I recall something like 70 or so have been destroyed or put out of operation. If we assume the same number of tanks are there now as there was in GW1, then we are looking at a less than a 4% loss rate. That’s damn impressive still.

Actually, now that I work this out a little bit, I don’t think the Abrams is hyped enough!!!

All hail the Abrams, the best modern tank on the planet with the best record to match!!


[edit on 6-7-2005 by skippytjc]

Originally posted by deltaboy
yo gooseuk wat do u think of the Merkava thats design to fight both conventional and unconventional warfare where it had fought in cities? i think maybe the U.S. should be thinking making a new tank which combines both to fight conventional and urban warfare.

The current Israel MBT is in a totally different kettle of fish, it was designed for a nearly completely set of requirements, if you will notice, the Merkava, is designed with its engine in the forward compartment, rather that the more common rear engine bay compartment, the reason for this is simply due to the fact that one of the main design features was Crew Surviability.

Your quite correct that it was designed with urban warfare in mind, although it is still a tank, and still relies on speed and movement and tactical placement, not to mention a huge amount of infantry in the general area, to help protect it from hostile terrorists or enemy infantry. Its marginally smaller and displays a smaller cross section to the enemy, but like I already said, the Merkava is still a tank.

Yes a new tank design is needed for the future, but I am not sure that the Merkava is the way to go, with its differing requirements, it does have some downfalls, range being one, operating ability in a true sustained conventional battlefield being another.

The more time we spend in Iraq the more lessons we are learning.

- Phil

Of course, more so a problem for the Abrams, which i do agree is overated, is when the sudden realisation that theyre not invicible hit them, when they first got hit by a RPG in the side skirts, is the lack of side armour, like someone else said, been designed around the 80's, and for convential field warfare, been hit in the side was a complete surprise to them, but really, i dont so much as blame the media for overhyping it, but more so, the US milltary in general for not learning their damn lesson after vietnam, how the hell could they forget every single lesson they learnt in gorilla warfare?! i mean..gunshields?! come on...basic stuff

skippytjc, please be serious, i mean 1850 m1s, the horde of A10, F16,Ah64, tomahawks on the comunications bases, against 500 t72,bad crew training, and 1600 t62-55 without good sabots and electroptics, be serious

but it seems that some guys think "well, we kicked a untrained-un equipped 3th world army -tired and wasted by a 10 years war-, with huge numerical superiority, so it seems that we have the best tank"

the Leos in M1s excercises were Leos1, and the main problem in that excersice was the lack of elecro-optics sensor (the same iraqui -not iraki - problems in the gulf war)

The european worlds war scenarie is a nuclear theatre

The late 90s M1 tank have kinetic armour of 950mm, but this just like other european tanks, the T90 has a 900mm armour and the Leo2A6 arround 950mm, but the M1 has done a big sacrifice, it weights arround 63 TM, not good in the complicated european scenarie, and the thirsty fuel turbine engine, so we cant say that is the best tank

and btw all that have nothing to do with urban war

[edit on 6-7-2005 by grunt2]

Originally posted by grunt2
skippytjc, please be serious, i mean 1850 m1s, the horde of A10, F16,Ah64, tomahawks on the comunications bases, against 500 t72,bad crew training, and 1600 t62-55 without good sabots and electroptics, be serious

So grunt, we arent alowed to compare the M1 performance against real examples and the real enemies? Let me guess: Your entire argument is based on what the Abrams SHOULD be fighting in your imagination?

Who needs to get serious?

Bottom line: In the fighting that the Abrams has been called to do, its performed as good as or better than any tank in the history of warfare. PERIOD.

Originally posted by grunt2
The late 90s M1 tank have kinetic armour of 950mm, but this just like other european tanks, the T90 has a 900mm armour and the Leo2A6 arround 950mm, but the M1 has done a big sacrifice, it weights arround 63 TM, not good in the complicated european scenarie, and the thirsty fuel turbine engine, so we cant say that is the best tank

wat tank u think right now is the best tank grunt? expect a tank to go 100 mph, jump across a river, take a direct nuke hit and still withstand it all, tracks that can go on forever without breaking down, fuel range equivalent to a nuclear aircraft carrier going around the globe a couple of times without stopping. the Abrams is the best tank for wat it is with the current technology and design. and look at how many tanks were hit and how many survived. no tank can be the best forever, this tank is the best at current time.

So grunt, we arent alowed to compare the M1 performance against real examples and the real enemies? Let me guess: Your entire argument is based on what the Abrams SHOULD be fighting in your imagination?

wat tank u think right now is the best tank grunt? expect a tank to go 100 mph, jump across a river, take a direct nuke hit and still withstand it all, tracks that can go on forever without breaking down, fuel range equivalent to a nuclear aircraft carrier going around the globe a couple of times without stopping. the Abrams is the best tank for wat it is with the current technology and design. and look at how many tanks were hit and how many survived. no tank can be the best forever, this tank is the best at current time.

lets be serious, these are arguments???

now, what tank is the best, thats relative all have their good and bad points, so the debate is open, i want to see other arguments than those nationalist crap until start a good disscusion, but to start the Leo2, Leclerc, Challenger, T80-90, and M1 all are very good tanks, but first i tried to breake down that mithy M1s armour superiority


[edit on 6-7-2005 by grunt2]

My arguments are still sound. It seems that you know nothing about tanks.

grunt you didnt answer the question

Leclar un tested, challeneger very old, t90 untested....etc

grunt where are you from? IRAQ? China?

Lets look at the Sherman vs The Abrams how many were destroyed and built for each?

Originally posted by Char2c35t
grunt you didnt answer the question

Leclar un tested, challeneger very old, t90 untested....etc

grunt where are you from? IRAQ? China?

Lets look at the Sherman vs The Abrams how many were destroyed and built for each?

LOL

Interesting, because this person provides a different view, from the standard, U.S Military is the best, you automatically assume that this person is from China or Iraq? He or She has every right to present an opinion in a calm and clear manner, which he/she has done.

The F-22 is not combat proven? If we use your basic princable, the older F-15 is the best in the world, not the F-22. The Challenger isn't any older than the M-1 its actually younger based on most material.

You can't honestly compare WW2 tanks to their more modern counterparts, they were designed for another time and another battlefield, in terms of the tanks that added to the history and set the standard for the future, sure, you can include world war 1 and 2 tanks in that.

- Phil

[edit on 6-7-2005 by gooseuk]

My arguments are still sound. It seems that you know nothing about tanks.

cry baby,cry.....your arguments arent good, accept that...

grunt where are you from? IRAQ? China?

what are you saying, that my posts are biased????, im not form those countries, my country is very neutral, i wont say which is, because its seems that some idiots will start to attack and insult my land only because i just try a OBJETIVE discussion

Let's be civil if you wish for this thread to continue.

Originally posted by grunt2
[my country is very neutral, i wont say which is, because its seems that some idiots will start to attack and insult my land only because i just try a OBJETIVE discussion

sounds like Swiss to me , since its always neutral for how long i dont know. in anicase my question to u is wat tank u think is the best at the current time.

The reason I asked ch1466 was he a tanker - is quite simple. He seems to know his stuff about ballistics etc. To me, he sounds as if he's spent some time in a turret. That was all.

As to my statements about friendly fire, I was not on about Blue on Blues relating to same side. I was saying that there was a simple case of mistaken identity and the US crew 'correctly' opened fire - as I would've done if I had been the TC. Pure and simple. No ulterior motive to 'slag-off' or bad mouth yanks in any way, shape or form.

In the heat of battle, we all make mistakes, and I have to live with mine for the rest of my life. Although it happened in the 70s, it still haunts me to this day. (Mine was a simple stoppage that I could not clear and I panicked, causing a dear friend to give his life [dying in my arms] to rectify my mistake)

I must hold my hands up and say I had not heard of the friendly fire incident where a Chally I was hit and 2 guys killed but I've read the link. It was interesting to say the least.

Did you know that the majority of 'friendly fire' incidents are hushed up by our respective governments? I know of at least one 'headline grabbing story' that has been swept under the carpet here in the Uk because the person involved was a high ranking officer. Before you ask, I WILL NOT divulge any info because to do so, would put the person who told me, in a very difficult position.

As to Challenger I not being taken out by enemy fire, that is still the case. I wrote in a previous thread (not sure which one) about the time I went to ABRO in Warminster and saw a Chally I which had sustained over 40 odd hits from missile and main tank guns. Although very battle scarred, it could still do the job it was designed to do - that is, kill enemy armour.

Originally posted by grunt2

My arguments are still sound. It seems that you know nothing about tanks.

cry baby,cry.....your arguments arent good, accept that...

grunt where are you from? IRAQ? China?

what are you saying, that my posts are biased????, im not form those countries, my country is very neutral, i wont say which is, because its seems that some idiots will start to attack and insult my land only because i just try a OBJETIVE discussion

My arguments are still sound because I have the evidence to back them up. I have read many a story from the tankers themselves that agree with what I said. Where are your sorces?

Here is a very good article explaining how armour is doing in Iraq. This Russian has proven very critical in the past and I suggest you take his statements for the truth.

mdb.cast.ru...

read the whole article and then the conclusion at the bottom.

The examples above show that the Abrams M1 tank, on the whole, failed to live up to its full potential in combat, while the Iraqi resistance was able on several occasions to exploit faults in the vehicle's design. Nevertheless, the Abrams tank proved itself to be a formidable fighting machine with no serious competitor on the battlefield, while losses resulting from combat or technical causes remained within reasonable limits. Accounting for variations in national design, it is likely that other modern MBTs would have performed more or less the same under similar circumstances. It is worth recalling the range of measures proposed by American specialists to enhance the survivability of the Abrams tank under urban conditions: extra smoke grenade launchers along the perimeter of the turret that provide cover from all aspects; extra gun-slaved mount for 7.62 or 12.7 mm calibre machine guns or a 40 mm grenade launcher (CSAMM); improved protection side skirts and engine deck roof; slat armor for the stern; the PDCue computer system of directing to the sound of fire; commander-activated claymore mines on the side skirts for battle against infantry in blind spots; a retractable mast with observation instrumentation; video-camera on the sides and rear, etc. The vast majority of these measures are entirely appropriate for conditions of urban battle.

The Abrams was never ment to go into urban combat. It was designed to go head to head with soviet tanks. With that in mind it has done fairly well in the situation for which it was not designed. Urban combat has always been a problem for tanks. It is easy to hide bombs, missiles, etc. The only ones who have alot of real experience in this is the Israelis. They still loose tanks even after many years in urban combat. The tank is not a fullproof design.

[edit on 7/6/05 by jetsetter]

Originally posted by grunt2
ahhh, really i dont see any good argument here...

Of course you do not. Its simply because you choose not to see nor read.

1)the U238 turns very fast in PU239, actually in that way it works the modern nuclear bombs

, ahh i see it take years to detonate the U238 fase from the neutrons bombardments

, seriously the regenerators reactors actually must be more slower in the U238-Pu239 process, becouse the risk of a nuclear reaction, also the U238 turns radiactive with alpha radiation, now just imagine a neutron bomb (obviously not a direct impact) over a M1 company.....maybe it could end in a .....BOOOOM!!, nice radioactive protection...

Talking out your rear, and has no bearing, at all, to MBTs. Why? How about you take an educated guess and tell us why your making a non-issue into an issue.

3)the M1 armour storage has been blowed by 20mm gun, the bad fame of russian gulf war tanks is because.......that huge air advantage and numerical superiority, if the M1s would be in the other side, im sure that we would seen many M1 turrets blowed

Umm, no!?
Does ludicrous or absurd come to mind?
Again, simply talking out your rear.
Try some toilet paper next time.

4) about the T80, we are talking about KINETIC armour an the value for the T80U is 810mm,the ERA (well, that ERA generation, supossely the K-5 has also ballistic protection) has nothing to do with that

News flash, that vaunted and alledged "810mm" with or with out ERA will be defeated by the M1A1's and M1A2's DU penetrator E3 rounds. What the M1 or Challenger can see, they can destroy. The T-72s and T-80Us have nothing remotely comparable to the optics systems used by the M1s and Challengers.
I also suppose you forgot that the M1s can be likewise equipped with ERA and have?
Try again, your counter-arguments are weak.

5)105mm is better than a 120mm??????are you kidding????

Anyone with one grain of credibility and research skills would be able to verify this as accurate. Your problem appears to be what, exactly?
Let me give you another factoid that you will undoubtedly argue otherwise: The M1 and Challenger tanks can fire more accurately moving at 30mph with their current guns than a T-72 or T-80U can sitting still.

The M1 is good designed, but isnt that fortress over wheels that some idiots would love to believe, also the T72-80 has some shortcomings,

Understatment. They have a load of shortcomings, namely the "frying pan" turret. Frying pan turret equates to no space and improper round/ammunition protection. The Russians corrected this but it is still highly suspect and susceptible, and that is a factoid. The only thing that a T-72s or T-80Us can surpass the M1s and Challenger tanks at is doing the vaunted "flying frying pan" manuever....you know, when the turret comes exploding off and flys through the air.

but the ammunition place is very missunderstanded, the glacis armour in modern t72 and t80s is decent (from 400-750mm) and also is a very low probability impact place,

More assumptions.
Link it.
And the "very low probability impact place" is simply someone who has no clue as to what they are indicating. But hey, when the T-80 gets anywhere close to the M1s or Challenger 2s in realtime battelfield experience, let us know, k? The M1s and Challenger 2s are in a class nearly by themselves, and those vaunted T-80Us will never come close to being on par with them.

the "Blacl Eagle" has the turret ammunition because they increase the cuantify of missiles carried -they are internally carried, because you dont want those explosives in the turret-

Why do those who have no clue about tanks continue to bring up the vaunted "Black Eagle" tank? The tank is a test-bed prototype and will not see serial production remotely any time soon. Your simply comparing what is real and and applied, as in active service, to that which simply is not. Ironic, huh? Apples and oranges comes to mind here.

nice tale, sounds like the army crap of 50...50!!!!!!! rpgs shooted against a M1 until is destroyed........nice tales

, the nationalists -and the industry- will always defend that stupid "mighty M1" mith, in war times you will always see those tales

Nice tale?

I suppose a real tale deserves to counter a imaginary tale, such as you spew out, over and over, huh?
Bring something real to the table next time instead of your continued rhetorical, ludicrous, unsubstantiated comments.








seekerof

[edit on 6-7-2005 by Seekerof]

Also, the T-72s use a 125mm cannon. Get your facts right grunt. It has never proven to be an effective weapon in combat.

He failed to mention it because of their inherent autoloader problems, Jetsetter......



seekerof

Im not swiss...

the best tank????hmmm, now in this year, well it could be Leopard2A6, nice design turret, nice gun, nice engine, but i dont like the amunicion place,its too heavy, but at least its engine is diesel

the T80U, has a nice armour, is agile, is a assault tank, not a defensive like the Leo2, but with comparable KE armour of the earlier Leos2, the T90 has better armour, poor engine power but more reliable (turbines are fragile),but good transmision

the M1A2 and last M1A1, nice armour, too heavy, defensive tank, the turbine is a big shortcoming at such weight, better P/W than the T90,the design turret is bad, and the ammunition place is vulnerable, and U238 isnt a good idea in a nuke war

in the 90s the best is the advanced Leo2A, in the 80s the best was the T80 series

jetsetter, 120mm-125mm??? who cares, dont be ridicoulus, also this have nothing to do with the urban war....

btw, the T tanks dont have ant problem with its autoloaders



[edit on 6-7-2005 by grunt2]