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

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   
He also seems to love the Leo 2A6 for its extra turret armour but he seems to not understand that in urban combat people don't aim at the front of the turret because that is where the armour is heaviest. Nothing pentrated the Abrams frontal turret armour.




posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   
www.fas.org...


theres a link for you about the T-72

as said above - it has a 125mm gun



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   
You do know that Britian and German do use DU rounds right? The T-80 series used a turbine engine also. There have been 12 versions of the T-80 over the years. Most of them used a gas turbine like the Abrams.

I find this whole argument funny for a few reasons. First being that you think you know what your taking about. You have already been proven wrong and wrong again. I suggest you go read a few books and look over some websites and then maybe you can come back and actually contribute something intelligent to this conversation.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   


use DU rounds right? The T-80 series used a turbine engine also. There have been 12 versions of the T-80 over the years. Most of them used a gas turbine like the Abrams.


ahhhh jetseller, the T80 isnt sooo heavy as the M1
, dont be pathetic im not talking about urban war, i dont like the Leo by its armour (both Leo and M1 are the same), but the turret design is much better, one thing is to have DU amunitions secured into a tank (that also is a risk, but it seems that they are abandoning by tungsten) and other thing is that you expose that as an armour


and yes, yes is 125mm......so what???????????????


[edit on 6-7-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2
Im not swiss...


dont u think im joking?


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


wat ammunition place? ooooo dats the stowage box, well its better than having ammo like HEAT rounds under yer seat as in the Russian designs.


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


poorly made and loud diesel engine where we can hear it afar before u can find us.


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


the turbine is oldy but goody, reason why its nicknamed the whipering death, heard they making a new engine for the Abrams. the ammunition place again... well always be vunerable thats why we have sliding doors seperating the crew from the stowage armor box, as well as top panels so that if the enemy round penetrates and hits the armor ammo box then the explosion will be directed upwards instead of into the crew, imagine in Russian tanks where u are sitting on top of the ammo. wat does uranium 238 got to do with tanks.


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


dats yer view. still prefer the Abrams, and i think its the best in the 90s.


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


im sure u wish they dont have ani problems.



[edit on 6-7-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   


wat ammunition place? ooooo dats the stowage box, well its better than having ammo like HEAT rounds under yer seat as in the Russian designs


the "stowage box" is a protection against the very vulnerable place, not a crew protection, what is the diference of to have an ammo under your seat, than behind you seat?????
, the tanks always have more impact probablity in the turrets

deltaboy your other arguments just are "the abrams is better""the abrams is better""the abrams is better""the abrams is better""the abrams is better".....nice brainwash


turbines also induce a higher IR signature, specially to such heavy tank

in the 80s the abrams werent so tought, and now they are tought as any modern tank

[edit on 6-7-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Originally posted by grunt2



the "stowage box" is a protection against the very vulnerable place, not a crew protection, what is the diference of to have an ammo under your seat, than behind you seat?????



"the ammunition place again... well always be vunerable thats why we have sliding doors seperating the crew from the stowage armor box, as well as top panels so that if the enemy round penetrates and hits the armor ammo box then the explosion will be directed upwards instead of into the crew, imagine in Russian tanks where u are sitting on top of the ammo."

read my post again and more carefully what i say in middle of my post. the Russian tanks have no ammo boxes and instead have to store ammo someplace and that someplace is below u. why you think they made the Black Eagle tank similar to wat the Abrams and Leopard tanks with the ammo stowage in the back eh? also u see most in the videos where a sabot or heat round heats the turret the Russian turrets usually go flying in the air. no doubt the Russians learn from that lesson.


deltaboy your other arguments just are "the abrams is better""the abrams is better""the abrams is better""the abrams is better""the abrams is better".....nice brainwash


base on Abrams history im sure why i say Abrams is the best.


turbines also induce a higher IR signature, specially to such heavy tank


with advance sensors and thermal imaging dont matter wat engine they have because no engine can hide from thermal imaging devices.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Seekerof,

-the U238 turns in Pu239 with neutron bombardmeny

-about the T80-M1 armour, the russains, gemans, british, etc... also has penetrators, but the armour in both tanks help to reduce the effective range, but the fact is that both has similar armour, and most M1s has lighter or similar armour than lastest T72 and the T80

all your other comments are the same brain wash nationalist pc gamer crap



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   
the most probable version will be the T95 and it looks more like a T90, but again, the BE storage ammo is needed to put the missiles in a more safe place

the main russian tank problems are the living conditions, the western tanks are muuuuuuch better, but at price of fire security

[edit on 6-7-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   


with advance sensors and thermal imaging dont matter wat engine they have because no engine can hide from thermal imaging devices.


thats not true actually, the IR sensors are the most suceptible to be jammed or decoyed, now some IR jamming sistems are ready for the tanks



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   

as posted by grunt2
btw, the T tanks dont have ant problem with its autoloaders

You had better be packing some sources to verify that, cause they most certainly do have issues with their autoloaders: 2A46M and 2A46. Russian field training has cited and indicated thus. Where you been? Oh, I know where:


all your other comments are the same brain wash socialist pc gamer crap


You have a mechanical complexity issue, whereas, any type damage or malfunction will render the system inoperable and useless in a combat situation. The other is the sheer complexity and time involved in keeping the system in operating order. With a crew of say...3...that means definate increased crew fatigue because in a non-combat situation, time spent resting is time spent cleaning and maintaining. The autoloader system requires routine extensive time to maintain and clean. Fatigue means increased physical incidents of fingers and hands being taken off.







seekerof

[edit on 6-7-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   


You have a mechanical complexity issue, whereas, any type damage or malfunction will render the system inoperable and useless in a combat situation. The other is the sheer complexity and time involved in keeping the system in operating order. With a crew of say...3...that means definate increased crew fatigue because in a non-combat situation, time spent resting is time spent cleaning and maintaining. The autoloader system requires routine extensive time to maintain and clean. Fatigue means increased physical incidents of fingers and hands being taken off.


so what if the autoloader fails??, if the engine fails??, if the transmision fails??etc.., .......ahhhhh


is seems that the russians are very happy with their autoloaders

[edit on 6-7-2005 by grunt2]

[edit on 6-7-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 05:01 PM
link   


all your other comments are the same brain wash socialist pc gamer crap


im not communist nor socialist, but im also arent a nationalist, the best is a equilibrated politic ecomonic system, but this isnt a politic disscusion, is a technic debate, i guess that you need a moderator



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   
I guess you need to bring some realistic substantiated factoids to the table then, cause till then your talk is cheap and falls rightly into the same category as those vaunted "bolt-on plasma stealth" kits, k?



Have a good one.

Btw, get with me when those vaunted T-80s, 85s, 90s, and 95s get some real combat battlefield experience, when compared to the M1s and Challengers. Maybe then you will come with some real hard data to debate with?





seekerof

[edit on 6-7-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   
SPF 1,000,000


Originally posted by grunt2
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...

This concern seems somewhat penny-wise to me. It's been a while since I had to worry about any of this stuff, so I'm rusty, but here's what my take is off the top of my head.

Alpha particles are essentially helium atoms stripped of electrons. They don't penetrate very far into solids, and a thin casing of steel is good enough to shield people -- or depleted uranium -- from them, especially since they carry a strong positive charge which leads to them bonding with things.

The kind of neutron flux it would take to begin any sort of supercritical reaction in U-238 is high enough that the people inside the tank would be fried long before the armor “touched off” -- assuming that it did at all, which is questionable, because the geometry of tank armor is not optimal for sustaining fast fission reactions.

More significantly, neutrons interact with the atmosphere, with a tenth-thickness of about 500 meters, meaning, if we ignore the very real geometric effect of the “expanding neutron sphere”, if you're 500m away from ground zero, the neutron flux will be 1/10th of what it is at ground zero. At 1000m, it's 1/100th, at 1500m, 1/1000th, etc.

Even if you're that close to a “little” tactical nuke, you're screwed anyway. The shock wave alone would throw the heaviest tank around like a feather in the wind -- and the occupants would be spread thinly over the interior like pink goo simply from the multi-digit G forces.

That said, U-238 does have issues -- both radiological and chemical.

In the scenario you describe, the main thing a tank crew has to worry about is not neutrons which, like alpha particles, strongly interact with solids (to a lesser extent), but rather electromagnetic radiation -- high-energy photons.

And all nuclear weapons -- including neutron bombs, which are extremely rare -- give off massive amounts of electromagnetic radiation.

Long before neutrons become a problem for a tank crew, the gamma and x-ray flux they are exposed to will decide their fate. Ironically, U-238 can help by serving as a rather good shield from such radiation.

You can use boronated plastics (boron is a neutron sponge of sorts) or motor fuel as shielding, or water for that matter, but those come with their own issues, including the not-so-unimportant issue that they offer little defense against incoming rounds.

In light of the fact that that's what tank armor is supposed to do, that's not a trivial detail.

The bottom line is that there are trade-offs in everything, and people can worry about stuff like this if they want to.

But some very smart people who designed this tank didn't seem too concerned about this scenario, and, based on what I know, there are good reasons for that.

As things stand, no one has died in an Abrams from being too close to a nuclear blast, and in pretty much every reasonable scenario I can envision, if anyone does die this way in the future, it won't be the tank's fault.

If you're looking for reasons to bag on the Abrams, I guess you can add this to the list, but when I see it, I call “bullflux”, and it calls the other complaints into question.

Meanwhile, all the guys I've known who drive around in these things have seemed quite happy with them.

To date, none of them have expressed to me a desire to switch to something else, and considering how important those tanks are to their occupational well-being, a high customer satisfaction rating should count for something.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 06:57 PM
link   
first, most of the residual radiactive elements in a nuclear war are plutonium-uranium in active radaition phase (emmiting neutrons), remember that not all the nuke explosive in a bomb gets fissioned, is only one proportion (as in the nuclear reactors, but in this last case the proportion is lower, beause the reaction is more controlated ans slower)

the U238 gamma shield has no sense, because the neutrons has more penetration capacity than the gamma rays, so...

neutronic flow has muuuuuch more range than expansive wave, actually some nuclear ABMs were designed tu use their neutron flow to activate enemy shielded MIRVS and not to a direct impact or shockwave effects
, i think that you are confusing EM bomb with neutron bombs

[edit on 6-7-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Sure the US Army is aware of the shortcomings. Often they're not allowed to comment - same for us & Chally 1 (AKA The Vickers Rescue Package) - a real BOS but we had to have it.

Given the sharing of tech and the closeness of applicable technology I'm sure the issues with all the core elements of the decent Modern MBT's (M1, Chally, Leo2) are more about service deals, parts, payment terms etc than minor differences in performance.

Until the great suicide shoot-out armoured duel (funded by ????) we'll never know

Fritz

Awful story mate. ND's happen - nothing else I can really say. Peace.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   


To date, none of them have expressed to me a desire to switch to something else, and considering how important those tanks are to their occupational well-being, a high customer satisfaction rating should count for something


yes,yes,yes tipical tankers sentimentalism, the same will say the t80 , Leo, Callenger, T72, M60 drivers.....



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 07:08 PM
link   
cool avatar CTID56092



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   
First, many of the M-1s that were "destroyed" in Iraq were only disabled. They were hit in the engine by an RPG round, and were able to be returned to service after refits.
"No Abrams tank has ever been destroyed as a result of fire from an enemy tank, though a number have been disabled in ambushes employing short-range antitank rockets like the Russian RPG-7, RPG-18 and AT-14 "Kornet". Also, during the Operation Desert Storm four Abrams were destroyed in a friendly fire incident by Hellfire missiles fired from AH-64 Apache attack helicopters."

www.answers.com...

Second, read this and tell me that the M-1 isn't a great tank.

"Suddenly, as they were waiting, three Iraqi T-72 tanks came over a hill and charged the mud-bogged tank. One T-72 fired a High-Explosive Anti Tank (HEAT) round that hit the frontal turret armor of the M1, but did no damage. At this point, the crew of the M1, though still stuck, fired a 120mm SABOT round at the attacking tank. The round penetrated the T-72’s turret, blowing it off into the air. By this time, the second T-72 also fired a HEAT round at the M1. That also hit the front of the turret, and did no damage. The M1 immediately destroyed this T-72 with another SABOT round. After that, the third and now last T-72 fired a 125mm Armor-Piercing round at the M1 from a range of 400 meters. This only grooved the front armor plate. At that point, realizing that continued action did not have much of a future, the crew of the last T-72 decided to run for cover. Spying a nearby sand berm, the Iraqis darted behind it, thinking they would be safe there. Back in the M1, the crew saw through their Thermal Imaging Sight (TIS) the hot plume of the T-72’s engine exhaust spewing up from behind the berm. Aiming carefully through their TIS, the M1’s crew fired a third 120mm SABOT round through the berm, into the tank, destroying it."

Now, the export version, and the Russian version use the same gun, and the same shells, but the best they could do was groove the armor from 400 meters? And not even that much from 100 meters? We've been having this discussion on another thread, where someone claimed that against Russian T-72s we'd lose half the Abrams fighting them.


Yes the Iraqi T-72s were heavily outnumbered, but show me ONE battle where the massive numbers of the Abrams came into play? There were SEVERAL battles that took place tank to tank with NO air cover whatsoever to come into play. The Abrams was reaching out and ripping apart the T-72 from twice the range that the 72 could reach. Air power did take out qutie a few T-72s, but not NEARLY all of them, and the superior numbers of the Abrams would only come to play in a mass battle. Most of the battles the Abrams either had the same number of tanks, or was even outnumbered but not one crew member was killed unitl Iraqi Freedom when a tank tried to cross a bridge, and it collapsed and several crew members drowned.





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join