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.

 

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

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   


Got anything else to bring to the table, grunt2? You are far from discrediting the M1 or Challenger 2 MBTs.


i didnt try to discredit anything, starting with the blow-up of a mith, i dont care about that right now, i just tried to have a objetive conversation about designs, solutions, engines advantages and problems over the M1 and other tanks, but what i have?? "the M1 is the best" "you, socialist","you are a iraqui",


so right now its just fun....




posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 09:03 PM
link   
An "objective conversation" usually involves looking at the evidence, taking facts from both sides, and comparing them. You have taken the facts of the M-1s in combat and from the start of this thead, stated that they were tales and not true. Everything that was said that was good about the M-1 you immediately dismissed and told us why we were wrong without any facts to back them up, or links to point to what you were saying or anything. That's not wanting to have an "objective conversation". That's coming in with a closed mind, and not going to let anyone change it, no matter what they say. And I have a little trouble believing you wanted an objective conversation about the good/bad of the M-1 with the topic of your thread.

[edit on 6-7-2005 by Zaphod58]


[edit on 6-7-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Depleted Uranium: Fast Facts

Depleted uranium is 70% more dense than lead, and 15% more dense than tungsten (the other metal commonly used for projectiles) -- this gives it more kinetic energy when fired. As a comparison, the amount of depleted uranium that would fill a 12-ounce can of Coke would weigh over 14 pounds.

Depleted uranium burns and melts as it penetrates steel, becoming 'sharper' rather than blunting, resulting in increased destructive power.

Projectiles made from depleted uranium are cheaper to manufacture than those made from tungsten because it can be cast easily.

www.military.com...



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Evidence???

evidence is that 1900 M1s faced 500 t72...., with better optics- fire range

evidence is that the iraqui sabots sucks....

evidence is that after a 10 years war you wont have a fresh army to fight....

evidence is that the iraqis didnt have air superiority.....

evidence is that in wartimes there are always nice tales.....


evidence is that i you sell a book saying that your country is the best it will be the best-seller

i think that the main argument to preserve the M1 "fame" is the iraq war???, fighting with a wasted army in rags????? only that???????



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2
so right now its just fun....


Hmm,

After reading the entire thread (I want those 10 minutes back) I have to say that the only thing that is fun here is reading your posts and trying to figure out where you are getting your statements from.

Do you own the "my first book of tanks" or something like that?



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   
well tell me cool hand, your knowlog about tanks to see who knows more


[edit on 6-7-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Iraqi sabot is the SAME sabot that Russia uses. It's a Tungsten penetrator. That's easily researched.

1900 tanks did NOT face 500 tanks. There were individual battles with VERY similar numbers. Just because there were MORE tanks in theater doesn't mean that they were ALL fighting at the same time, or same battles.

Air power doesn't work well in sandstorms, which is when 73 Easting was fought. The biggest tank battle in the war. The Iraqi tanks fought remarkably well for being "tired" but were horribly outclassed by fewer or the same number of M-1s. Again, easily researched. There was NO airpower in that battle as the M-1s were advancing in a SANDSTORM.

Again, according to you EVERY after action report is a "tale" and not fact, no matter how many witnesses to the battle there were on either side.

What book saying our country is the best? These are INDEPENDANT sources saying that the M-1 did all these things during the war. People that actually RESEARCHED the battles, and the tank performance during the war.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 09:20 PM
link   
in chechnya and afganistan the soviets and russians used their tanks with their ERA. can anyone find out figures for these loses.?

here are some pictures















posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 09:26 PM
link   


Iraqi sabot is the SAME sabot that Russia uses. It's a Tungsten penetrator. That's easily researched.


first, iraqui sabots were not advanced as the russians and americans at that time, second, the main problem was the chemical propulsor quality these stuffs were deteriorate , also they didnt have the range precision of electroptics systems...soooo

sadly the true of the air-korean war was relelated only 40 years after


[edit on 6-7-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Ok if you say so. But a Tungsten penetrator is a Tungsten penetrator. You can't make it much more advanced than it is. And the US and several other countries us DU penetrators which punch through a lot better. Tungsten hits and balloons, no matter what you do to it. DU hits and the impact acts to sharpen it, which lets it penetrate armor better. There's nothing you can do to Tungsten to make it do the same thing, and the Russians and Iraqis both use Tungsten for their sabot rounds. Adding or detracting powder will make a difference to the range, but no matter if there is more or less powder a Tungsten penetrator is STILL going to hit and balloon.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Try reading that on the comparison between Tungsten and DU. You might learn something.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   
i never said anything about DU ammos, but also are overated, part of their mass-kinetic energy is loosed in the burning, qnd pasticity, the main propiety is the density, actually thats why the germans prefer the Tu sabot, is rigid and dense..........just like a wise ugly german


btw the t80s 120mm gun muzzle velocity is 1720m/s, and the M1s gun is 1550-1650m/s , the german Rheinmetal gun with 1720-50 m/s

so if compare fairly, the T80U, with 810mm armour and 1720m/s shot
the M1 with 680mm armour and 1650m/s shoot

i dont see that "mighty" M1s.....


[edit on 6-7-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2
cool avatar CTID56092


Cheers! Glad you recognised 'em - they're trapped in my i-pod, still hosting an endless show - my music, their links.

M&L RIP

'Musn't grumble'



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   
first, iraqui sabots were not advanced as the russians and americans at that time

Iraqi and Russian sabot are the same. THAT was the point of my reply. And if you want to think DU is overrated, despite the evidence then you go right ahead. If you had actually READ that, you would have read that the DU burns generally AFTER it penetrates and the dust is spread inside the tank. But again, don't let my facts get in the way of your opinion.



[edit on 6-7-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   
[edit on 6-7-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 10:47 PM
link   
the DU burn is instantaneus with the impact friction-temperature.....

man the web is filled by crap, until i came, you would never know that the standar M1 armour isnt that famous 950mm, so please study a bit more about the topic, dont use those fans books, investigate engieneering, -i dont know if acually you are studing that-, and then come later to discuss, the same have happened in the aviation forum.

im not saying that DU sabots suck, but it has also their vices, thats the reason why other armies dont like



[edit on 6-7-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 11:02 PM
link   
"On impact with a hard target (such as a tank) the penetrator may generate a cloud of DU dust within the struck vehicle that ignites spontaneously creating a fire that increases the damage to the target. Due to the pyrophoric nature of DU, many of the DU particles and fragments that are formed during and following impact and perforation will spontaneously ignite, resulting in a shift of the particle size probability distribution function to a smaller mean diameter. As a result of physical differences between DU and its oxides, the oxide particles tend to crumble under relatively weak mechanical forces, further shifting the particle size to an even smaller mean diameter."

EVERYTHING I have EVER read about DU mentions this. It creates a cloud of dust INSIDE the vehicle which burns. The penetrator hits, and enters the vehicle in like 10ths of seconds. As it enters part of it shatters into a dust cloud which burns, causing more damage.

I bet you agree with someone who posted on another thread, that there's no way that a 767 could have penetrated a concrete building without us seeing it crumpling, if it even could get through the concrete at all.


I'm so glad that you're here to teach all us idjits the things that are wrong on the net, and to correct all the misinformation out there.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
first, iraqui sabots were not advanced as the russians and americans at that time

Iraqi and Russian sabot are the same. THAT was the point of my reply. And if you want to think DU is overrated, despite the evidence then you go right ahead. If you had actually READ that, you would have read that the DU burns generally AFTER it penetrates and the dust is spread inside the tank. But again, don't let my facts get in the way of your opinion.

[edit on 6-7-2005 by Zaphod58]


i think i know where he got his armour figues...
members.tripod.com...


you can look at different rounds penerations



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 11:12 PM
link   


Iraqi and Russian sabot are the same


, look even your nationalists experts accept that both nations sabots are different models, the Tu sabots were not very aviable in the 80s, most were Ti-steel with a low powered propelent



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 11:21 PM
link   
hmm i didnt see that, there is another

www.fprado.com...



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   
now that sadly this thread has been degardated with this "source war"-that i dont like coz some sources are biased-



125mm smooth bore gun with a carousel automatic loader mounted on the floor and rear wall of the turret. The 125mm gun common to all the T-72 models is capable of penetrating the M1 Abrams armour at a range of up to 1,000 meters


www.fas.org...

[edit on 6-7-2005 by grunt2]




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join