Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
M6D

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   
...its not the taliban, its insurgants..

oh, and any damage above the extent of tracks or engine stoppage that wont disable other systems of hte tank like turret shouldnt be counted as destroyed, i believe it should only count when the vehicle stops been combat effective, it may count as disabled, but if it stops been combat effective, its null, so you can count it out :p




posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Tanks are always disabled when theire tracks are blown off. That is why that Tiger tanks which only had theire tracks disabeled were still abandoned.


M6D

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   
and allowed us to capture them and reap there technlogy!

oh..who am i kidding ...



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
PICS OF ABRAMS DESTROYED BY TALIBANS...




actually that Abrams in the first pic we had to blow it up to prevent it from falling enemy hands as u can see that hole in the turret, no doubt from a sabot round. the tank was damage and could not continue to move and it was in one of the thundering runs into Baghdad so there were no recovery vehicles with them so they decided to destroy it.

[edit on 8-7-2005 by deltaboy]


Well, what about the other pictures... And hey... already the fact that they decided to destroy it themself meant tht it had gone to a shape... A shape that was impossible to fix... and that means that it's weak against talibans... Cos' it didn't get shot down by an enemy tank...!!!



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   
No tank on the planet is invulnerable. Period. But in actual combat, the Abrams has the best record of any tank thats ever existed. So it matters not what photos you have seen or heard about.

The loss rate in Iraq currently is around 4%. Thats nothing. Find me another war in the history of mankind where a tank had a loss rate that low. In the first Gulf war (fighting the way the tank was designed for) the loss rate was less than 1 %, with NOT ONE crew death.

For a tank to suffer a mere 4% loss rate fighting a style of combat it wasnt designed for is nothing short of amazing.

The Abrams could not be performing any better, and with the TUSK upgrade, it will easily be the most formidable tank on the planet.



[edit on 8-7-2005 by skippytjc]


M6D

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   
I still disagree, even with a TUSK upgrade, a challenger still has the longest recorded kill, with a HESH round it might create a hard enough impact to spall up the inside.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Hmm, out of the many tanks that are deployed out in Iraq today, 1-2 destroyed tanks automattically dismisses the vehicle as everything but amazing right?

Well in my opinion, it doesn't matter the longest kill it gets, it matters how many lives it saves, keeping the crew casualties to a minimum is a primary goal in tank safety, and the mean look of the tank coming down the battlefield, was apparantly enough to make the first regime in Iraq to through down their arms and surrender without even a fight.

Besides, sabotage can stop anything, doesn't matter what it is, nothing is invincible, certainly not the Abrams, but the Abrams has proven it's worth when up against other tanks and targets, maybe not an insurgent coming up behind it with C4 or with anti-armor weaponry, but still, who can defend against a sneak attack?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   
After reading through all the comments my opinion is.... you really dont want to get in the way of either the M1 or the Challenger. I do not have any experience with the challenger but am proud to say that I have driven and worked with the M1A1. This is one intimidating vevicle and I would not like to be on the recieving end of its power. At the end of the day both the challenger and the M1 are very similar but they are the best we have(USAandthe UK) and I honestly belive the best in the world.
Any vehicle can be disabled and then destroyed even our mighty MBT's but it takes a brave or stupid person to try and take one on. As for it being a "stupid media product" all I can do is laugh at that one. Was the Tiger also a stupid media product? They are one of the best ground attack vehicles we have at present and I would really like to know where the media come into it.
Anyway thats my thoughts on this one and I will include a couple of my own personal pics for fans of the M1.
images5.theimagehosting.com...


images5.theimagehosting.com...

enjoy,
Oakley


*removed oversized images

[edit on 8-7-2005 by dbates]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 09:07 PM
link   
In the Gulf War, 1500 Abrams took on around 500 Iraqi T-72s. Most of the T-72s were destroyed by the bombing campaign. As for the tanks who were destroyed by US armor, they were mostly T-54/55s. Even then, the T-72s that the Iraqis had were poorly maintained, used old sabot rounds instead of newer tungsten rounds, and Iraqi crews were poorly trained.

I wouldn't say the Abrams is battle-proven. In both Gulf wars, they haven't faced any significant number of T-72s, and where crews and maintainence comes in, the US Marines/Army comes up on top. It is unlikely that the Abrams will be battletested at all, since the latest tanks (T-90,Type-98,Leo2A6,Chally2 etc) are all either fielded by allies, not available to 3rd world countries or won't be fought against.

PS: Oakley, pls resize your pics. [img=size*size]link, then close tag [/img]

[edit on 8/7/05 by W4rl0rD]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   
if you want to find out the state of the iraqi army all you have to do is refer to the iran-irag war

read the combat history and tactics.
www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
PICS OF ABRAMS DESTROYED BY TALIBANS...




actually that Abrams in the first pic we had to blow it up to prevent it from falling enemy hands as u can see that hole in the turret, no doubt from a sabot round. the tank was damage and could not continue to move and it was in one of the thundering runs into Baghdad so there were no recovery vehicles with them so they decided to destroy it.

[edit on 8-7-2005 by deltaboy]

Well, what about the other pictures... And hey... already the fact that they decided to destroy it themself meant tht it had gone to a shape... A shape that was impossible to fix... and that means that it's weak against talibans... Cos' it didn't get shot down by an enemy tank...!!!

Actually, they decided to destroy it because for one reason or another it wasn't able to keep moving, and it would take awhile for the tank recovery vehicles to arrive, so instead of risking it falling into enemy hands, they blew it up, so the enemy forces wouldn't be able to use it, or learn anything from it.


As far as the M-1 not facing large numbers of T-72s, 73 Easting was all M-1s vs T-72s, as well as several other battles. Equal or slightly higher numbers of T-72s vs M-1s. The Iraqi forces were using a Tungsten penetrator, that would bounce off the M-1 as evidence in the 3v1 engagement with the stuck M-1. Many Iraqi tanks WERE destroyed by airpower, but many were also destroyed by the M-1s. Yes, there were 1900 M-1s, and 500 T-72s, but they didn't fight each other at the same time. They fought in small numbers, with either the T-72s outnumbering, or equal numbers.

After Desert Storm the Russians came in, and upgraded the Iraqi T-72s. They were export versions, but they all carry the same gun, and other equipment. After the upgrade the T-72s all had laser rangefinders, and night vision equipment added to them.


M6D

posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 02:31 AM
link   
You know what, fine, the M1 series is probably more proven in combat, then any other tank, and has more experiance and this and that....

but just because of that doesnt make it easily the best tank in the world, because you still gotta remember, it outnumbered the iraq tanks
now i have no quelms against it, i was just speaking up to say that the challenger shouldnt be as ignored as it is,
thats just my little thought that i put in to this conversation

oh, and the first picture you had grunt.....wait, is it grunt? cant remember, anyway, the first picture you had, think about it, it had to be taken out by three 155mm shells stacked on top of each other.....and still two crew survived thats impressive to say the least.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 02:45 AM
link   
Ok, I STILL have an argument about "It outnumbered the Iraqi tanks". Yes it did, in THEATER totals. In the tank to tank battles, there were equal numbers or fewer M-1s in actual combat. Just because you have more in theater doesn't mean that all of them are fighting at the same time. Some were down for maintenance, some were with recon units, some were guarding oil fields etc. Yes the Abrams outnumbered the Iraqi tanks, 1900-500 but the ACTUAL COMBAT numbers were smaller.


M6D

posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 04:06 AM
link   
oh yesh. but we also have to remember air power, and all the other factors, and how many ground to ground tanks faced each other on each side in combat.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 04:20 AM
link   
In actual combat, every battle I've read about involving tanks, shows that the numbers were almost always even, or very close to even. I am taking into consideration air power, and all the other factors. I'm not trying to diminish the effect of anything, just get people to realize that having 1900 Abrams in theater doesn't mean that they were all fighting at the same time. Just that they were in theater and present. Yes there were a lot of Abrams there, and yes there were a lot of T-72s and other tanks destroyed by airpower, but there were also a lot of them that were killed by M-1s in even number battles. I'm not claiming that the M-1 is the best tank ever, just trying to get a nice objective view of its capabilities and acomplishments to date. I feel that saying they won so handliy against the Iraqi tanks because they outnumbered them 1900 to 500 takes away from what the Abrams DID accomplish in Gulf War 1, which no matter how you look at it is pretty incredible.


M6D

posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 04:56 AM
link   
yeah, thats why we have the technlogical advantage, so these countries with their tanks stand no chance against our er...awesome crushing migh!



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
"Overrated" must be one of those vogue hip words having very little meaning these days?

Tell you what fellas', since the "Abrams" is "overrated", please feel free to interchange that picture of a destroyed M1A1 with a T-80, T-90, Merkava, ChallengerII, etc., etc., etc!

No details behind the picture.
Hell, if I look hard enough, I could find a load of pictures of destroyed tanks, like the ChallengerII, Merkava, etc., etc. etc, and then make up a bunch of crap that has nothing to do with the newer versions now out, and then say: "So well, the debate is open."


The challenger 2 to date has only been destroyed once and that was by another challenger 2 when the sand storms in Basra started in the early days of the war .The Abrams is deffo and over rated tank in my opinion just like the whole of the American army .





[edit on 6-7-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 03:22 AM
link   
How many Challenger 2s have been in major tank to tank combat, or city combat, or are even in theater in the Gulf right now? The Abrams is being used in large numbers in environments ANY tank would have problems with. The Challenger 2 is a great tank, but the use of it in the Gulf isn't as extensive as the Abrams is, and there aren't as many numbers of them there. Put a Challenger 2 in Bagdhad fighting the way the Abrams has, and it will have problems too. ANY tank made by ANYONE would. Tanks just aren't meant to fight under those conditions. I'm not trying to take anything away from the Challenger, because I think it's a good tank, but again, you're making a generalization about the Abrams that it's overrated because of the way it's being used, and the conditions it's fighting in. Percentage wise, it's loss rate is very small, and the crew casualty rate is smaller.

I don't think it's the best tank in the world, but it's definately not media hype saying it's a great tank.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 06:15 AM
link   

The challenger 2 to date has only been destroyed once and that was by another challenger 2 when the sand storms in Basra started in the early days of the war .The Abrams is deffo and over rated tank in my opinion just like the whole of the American army .


Over rated ok, considering that the Abrams is older than all of these other tanks and still equal or better than them tells me something about it being over rated. And as for our army being over rated I will only let history prove you wrong.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Not one of these Abrams haters has yet to post just one single stat on any other tank from actual combat data that beats the Abrams. Because, the data doesnt exist.

So, its irrelivant how any other tank may, or may not perform as they have yet to do so.

The bottom line, undesputable fact, is the Abrams has posted the best record of any tank in the history of mankind fighting the enemies it has ACTUALY been called to fight.

So until any other tank has real lifec ombat stats that come anywhere even remotly close to the Abrams, you haters have absolutly no credibility in your argument.

The tale of the tape means nothing unless there is real combat data to support it. And the Abrams has it, any other currently produced tank doesnt.


[edit on 10-7-2005 by skippytjc]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join