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.

 

M1 Abrams = British main gun

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Snort,

You wanna know what the jeep driver is 'most envious of' when he is driving around some backwater with a thousand and one ugly-hating faces glaring at him through his '1/4" thin' glass windshield?

Eveyone who gets a free ride in a tank.

That's the rubber-meets-road truth of it. Against a civillian/insurgent/unconventional force threat, HEAVY armor wins. All the time.

But heavy armor is completely worthless in the maneuver campaign for which most mistakenly envision it's 'rolling hot' glorious cross country employment of armored cav.

Because the size and weight needed to get it to theater prevents it from being used to STOP wars. And once the bad guy gets his sh*t in gear, it is almost impossible to get up a head of speed sufficient (between the mines and RT) to stage the breakout that is envisioned.

And that same signature + cost makes it too limited a force on the battlefield to be able to absorb the relatively simple big-target, high-tech, missiles which can kill it in a defensive battle.

More importantly, most who read Clancy and Hackett don't know enough to realize that APS (Automatic Protection Systems) like Drozd and Arena have been around for a /long/ time. So too have smoke mortars with white/metal (I2R and MMW blinding) obscurrants. On both sides.

And these alone, along with aggressive airmobile VE tactics and and an honest security/screening (force protect) mission will largely negate the jeep shooter.

Even as average rates of advance on the order of 20-30mph will simply /out run/ the infantry. Be he Green Beret with Javelin. Or Volksturm with Panzerschreck.

CONCLUSION:
Technically, the only way to successfully prosecute wars (technically) is to fight alinearly (abandon your flanks and make the enemy worry about his). And assymetrically (my limited mission set few vs. your impotent multirole many or vice versa).

So that the enemy wastes the most amount of assets and time trying to absorb losses that he cannot directly counter. I fail to see ONE instance where that means armor on armor as it is now played out.

Psychologically, wars are won in the WILL. And willpower means staying power logistically, to accept a requisite number of losses to attain victory.

Where the two concepts cross graphlines if not swords is at the point of "Why is man on the battlefield, increasing the vulnerability of machine warfare...??"

And there simply is no justifiable, tactical or strategic, excuse.


KPl.




posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 01:20 AM
link   
ch1466, I'm afraid you do live in a world removed from the real war, which makes communicating a waste of time, try discussing with real tankers...we do it all the time. Technology is only part of the answer in modern warfare, training is often more important than technology. Which is why OPFORs always beat their oponent no matter how well they are equipped.

A good dose of military history would not hurt either.There is never any "wunderweapon" , and YES even LOSAT can be stopped with the right approach.

Oh and BTW don't be so quick to condem the approach of the 35-40 ton tank cause you will soon be exchanging your 70 tonners for 20 tonners.

America is slowly squandering what has been gain of the past 50 years by being seduced into techno toys to fight their wars for them. Try studing something like "Auftragstaktik". You will see that this increasing technological addition leads to more mircomanagment and does not lead to more combat ability. To much is already being sunk into tech toys that training and doctrine are already starting to suffer.

Don't make the same mistake as the Nazis did. As the war progressed they dug deeper into the bag of magical techno toys to creat the 'wunder weapons' that could not save them. Big part of that was not have a war economy ready but a big obsitcal to that change was the way their weapons were over engineered to be often the best in the world, but could never be built in numbers enough to win. That and the fact that Hitler progressively took over control of the war 'micromanaging' every thing and removing "Auftragstaktik", from the top down to individual Regimental movements.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 05:13 AM
link   
Psteel,

you have missed many of ch1446's points obviously... his primary point was that the american armor doctrine is inherently flawed and a smart OPFOR could easilly destroy us qualitativelly and quantitativelly relativelly easilly with some relativelly simple tactical adjustments.

Rather than taking an unabashed moment to slam american stupiditty in your opinion realize he was slamming it enough justifiably actually for both of you. whether pro american or anti american his perfectly accurate and insanelly in depth opinion was well stated and unimpeachable in scathingly honest content.

Please read the intent and not what you wish to see so you can pour more vitriol in the future.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
Before you all scream *No its german* hear me out



the ORIGINAL M1 Abrams used the M68A1 main gun from the M60 , which , is itself a licenced version of the British L7A1 used on the Centurion Tank from 1959!!


it was replaced in 1985/1986 with the M256 (which it still uses).


Lots of info on the M1 and variants

M68 = modified L7


ok , now i can appreciate that most people will know this BUT , its mainly for those who don`t AND is testament for a design primarily from the 1950`s and is STILL in use today (south africa , Argentina, Bahrain, Austria, Egypt, Greece, Israel, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, Taiwan to name but some!!)

[edit on 10-12-2005 by Harlequin]


Actually it was first used on the M48A5 and M48A5LP



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 08:02 AM
link   
I never said `it was first used on the M60` , but that it came from the M60!

[edit on 20-12-2005 by Harlequin]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   
How so? There where three test bed prototypes.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Weps_The_Tanker
How so? There where three test bed prototypes.


what? you don`t make any sense at all

i said


the ORIGINAL M1 Abrams used the M68A1 main gun from the M60 , which , is itself a licenced version of the British L7A1 used on the Centurion Tank from 1959!!


which in no way , states , implies or infers that the M60 was the first tank to carry that gun



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin

Originally posted by Weps_The_Tanker
How so? There where three test bed prototypes.


what? you don`t make any sense at all

i said


the ORIGINAL M1 Abrams used the M68A1 main gun from the M60 , which , is itself a licenced version of the British L7A1 used on the Centurion Tank from 1959!!


which in no way , states , implies or infers that the M60 was the first tank to carry that gun


It's not a candy. You mean the first variant had a M68A1 105mm Rifled Maingun. Now also remember that there where three test bed prototypes by Chrystler, Ford and by the maker of the Leopard 2, so please say first variant meaning the first M1 in military service.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Weps_The_Tanker

Originally posted by Harlequin

Originally posted by Weps_The_Tanker
How so? There where three test bed prototypes.


what? you don`t make any sense at all

i said


the ORIGINAL M1 Abrams used the M68A1 main gun from the M60 , which , is itself a licenced version of the British L7A1 used on the Centurion Tank from 1959!!


which in no way , states , implies or infers that the M60 was the first tank to carry that gun


It's not a candy. You mean the first variant had a M68A1 105mm Rifled Maingun. Now also remember that there where three test bed prototypes by Chrystler, Ford and by the maker of the Leopard 2, so please say first variant meaning the first M1 in military service.


Actually Harlequins statement is correct because there is only ONE specification for the M1, and that includes said cannon. It doesnt matter hwat weapons the "XM1" prototypes had, because he spoke of the "M1" - the military approved version


Also there were only 2 prototype programs by General Motors (the MBT70 contractor) and Chrysler (the M-60 producer) subsidiaries, and none by Ford or Krauss-Maffei (the Leopard 2 constructor). The chosen Chrysler XM1 prototype however was pitted in 2nd stage trials trials against the near-completion Leopard 2, and quite unsurprisingly the US military chose the XM1 over the Leo2 (which overall had better test results, but didnt fully comply to the US ideas and was at a more advanced development stage at that time).



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   
I think he is getting confussed with the MBT-70 , which was the german /us joint tank - it had a 152mm main gun and had the drive in the turret!




very low profile for a tank

[edit on 28-12-2005 by Harlequin]



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lonestar24
This is particularly unexplainable because the M1 was a follow-up to the German-US Kpz/MBT 70 project, where the americans initially wanted to use a 155mm (!) AT cannon as main armament - and the Russian tanks already had more powerful cannons at that time.


Actually, M1 isn't a follow-up at all but a desparately-needed program to make up for the time wasted on MBT 70.

And the 155mm on MBT70 was the Shillilagh system from the Sheridan light tank and Sheridan is the only place it ever saw service because they couldn't make a gun/launcher work back then.

Which is why the Brits have always stuck with a rifled gun. They could make it dual-purpose without having to go hi-tech. They chose HESH, over Discarding Sabot and HEAT, which works equally well spun or not and could put HE "arty" through the same gun.

120mm Rifled tank gun from Cheiftan was actually more powerful than Soviet 122mm.

The problems 155mm/Shillilagh had have been solved with the 105mm LRF (low-recoil force), but no-one seems willing to buy it.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   
A39 Tortoise Heavy Assault Tank.

linkety linkety link link

Also big.

and

Conqueror Heavy Tank

Big, slow and unreliable.

[edit on 29-12-2005 by HowlrunnerIV]



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 01:19 AM
link   
One tank to rule them all....

The 188t Pzkw "Maus"





Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Originally posted by Lonestar24
This is particularly unexplainable because the M1 was a follow-up to the German-US Kpz/MBT 70 project, where the americans initially wanted to use a 155mm (!) AT cannon as main armament - and the Russian tanks already had more powerful cannons at that time.


Actually, M1 isn't a follow-up at all but a desparately-needed program to make up for the time wasted on MBT 70.

And the 155mm on MBT70 was the Shillilagh system from the Sheridan light tank and Sheridan is the only place it ever saw service because they couldn't make a gun/launcher work back then.


That was what I meant with "follow-up", I hereby hide behind the language barrier

Anyway, the XM150 152mm gun/launcher for the MBT70 (I incorrectly said earlier it was 155mm) was an improved version of the Sheridan´s M81 gun/launcher, and was allegedly cured of most of the earlier diseases resulting from the shell/missile capability. AFAIK the main drawback wasnt the gun itself but the reduced tactical flexibility because of the low ammunition count.

But in the end this is a moot point since the program was apparently scrapped mostly because of other (fiscal and political) reasons.

[edit on 30/12/2005 by Lonestar24]



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Any tank that has a co-axial 75mm gun


But you want to talk about big, slow and unreliable...Maus takes the cake.

The Russians got it right with the JS3.

Iosef Stalin 3 Heavy Tank

Still could done with a bit more reliability, but it could have eaten mice for breakfast...



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
The key to any tubed weapon is not it's caliber (especially when firing subcaliber darts) but it's operating pressure.

In this, the M68, with the right munitions, is still the equal of the bigger bore guns at all but extended ranges above 1,500m.

The way you judge the quality of a tanks main armament is by the LENGTH of the barrel caliber for it's equivalent muzzle diameter because short bores don't bang and crunch in maneuver (losing collimation true with sights and stabs) and they don't /droop/ with heat of use. OTOH, a tank with a short gun in the same caliber must either accept a lower operating pressure (lower MV and lower MJ impact force) or work at a -higher- operating /pressure/ (more work, short run).

And our steels, thanks to techniques we've taken from Krupp and the Bessingham (our nominal 'allies' now), have always been superior to the Russians, even as we gave Stalin some of our own licensed forging technology to them in WWII to help offset the crudity of the T-34's basic design.

For armor not guns. An irony indeed given the direction the Soviet tank design ultimately took.

That said, nothing stands still and the Russians are not incapable of deriving wisdom from observing the success of others as well as developing their own new methodologies in dealing with it.

Which means that direct fires are more or less equal now for penetration and lethality and all that is left are the /brains/ of sensing and distribution of platforms which we allocate kills.

Which is why, potentially, 105mm and even 75mm may make a comeback as we switch to a force designed to deploy directly into battle on less than a weeks notice (what the RDF/CentCom was always supposed to do but never could).

Because a tank is still worthless if an opponent can marshal more shooters than a limited number of allied shooters can kill _before_ they reach a lethal weapons engagement zone.

And where armor is too heavy to deploy, the only hope is not to be shot with weapons of more than 5-10MJ.

Which is why there is no reason not to believe that the 'best way thru' is not from the top. Where the enemy is equally weak.

These-

www.fas.org...
www.fas.org...

Give cause to hope that smaller tubes (or mortarlike low pressure ones) can be used to lob rounds without ever crossing the 3-4km LOS point for which 'laser flat' high velocity rounds are worthwhile.

Of course then you have to deal with reactives and APS systems like these-

www.defense-update.com...
www.defense-update.com...
www.defense-update.com...

So the problem becomes one of onset rate vs. saturation and /cost/.

Still, all things being equal, a 25mm Bushmaster can drill a T-55 from the side. And a 35-45mm upgun of same should be able to do for a T-90 or better.

Which, along with CKEM (son-of-LOSAT) -

www.missilesandfirecontrol.com...

Should be capable of mastering the direct fire battle sufficiently to trap the enemy in place for the ranged fires to work.

Because as is shown, the best LOS battle platform is a robotic dunebuggy with just enough sensorization and armor to navigate and make it to lethal distance (which should be well beyond even a 120mm's 3km) so that it can volley fire ROCKET based (light tube, heavy missile) weapons which can be guided in by UGS unattendeds or FCS masted sights.

That's the nice thing about rockets. They never lose their MV and they can be guided after launch (even if it's nothing more than a coordinate memory plus drift rate on target precess) so that you can fire 4 or 8 in a single volley rather than having to aim them individually. And they will _hit_ with the same energy as they had leaving the launcher.

Indeed, when Shaliksvelli I think it was was holding his armor mafia's toes to the fire over the so-called 'medium' or 'objective' brigades, one of the tools he used to hostage their old-school ideas was a video which showed a LOSAT going in the front glacis of an M1A1HA.

And coming out the rear engine grill.

Even with so called carbon nanotube 'super armor' there is no point in putting a man behind the plating on that kind of impact energy. If only because HIS volume 'thins the skin' of said protection while increasing the target silouhette size.

In this, as well as the vast majority of combat environments we are seeing today (where Armor people are _saying_ they wished they didn't have to worry about mile-per-second overreach and 3-houses-down overpen) the legacy weapons are less examples of how good we once were. Than how long our doctrine has stagnated unaware of the changes that MUST come.

If we are to continue our warlike adventurism.


KPl.


I can't believe you're claiming that Soviet Steel was not up to Western Standards. In the 1930's the USSR overtook the rest of the world in quality and quantity (not the entire world but each nation individually) in steel production and this was part of the reason they were regarded as such a serious threat.

The JS series tanks of WW-2 used a 122mm gun that is today capable (when equipped on the M-1974 of outranging an M1A2 in terms of penetrating power. The guns design hasn't changed since the 1940's, only the ammunition.

Also in regards to the 152mm Sheridan gun from the MBT-70 project. That is a low velocity 'mortar' style gun. It is ineffective against armour. The Soviet 152mm gun mounted on their 1950's prototype heavy tanks and possibly mounted on their T-95 prototype is a high velocity gun capable of being used as artillery as well as an anti tank gun or even an ATGM launcher.

Another final point, it was claimed in the comment I quoted that the only important factor for a tank gun is the pressure it can sustain. This is an important factor, sure, but not the only important one. The AT-11 sniper can sustain higher penetration at longer ranges then DU stabots fired from Rheinmetal 120mm guns because of its rocket motor. Past 3,000 meters or so its penetration becomes the better of the 2 competitors and continues that way until max range of either projectile. This is despite being fired from a gun that can sustain less pressure.

I have to say its a little crazy that you guys are all simply announcing it as common knowledge that the M1 is a superior tank. There is an important lesson that was learnt in WW2 on the Eastern Front that has caused the direction of Soviet tank design. T-34's were made from a large cast. Tiger's were made from numerous machined, bolted and welded armour plates. The Tiger overall was a more complex machine and on paper was superior then the T-34. Its armour was thicker and its gun was superior. Yet despite this more Tigers were knocked out of combat by the first hit from T-34's then the other way around. The precisely engineered armour, when rattled would disturb and crack important parts of the tank, often disabling it when hit by a T-34 round. T-34's on the other hand would survive numerous hits and keep on moving despite much more obvious and more gaping holes in their armour.

Western tanks have the same issues. They have more armour, they look great on paper, but they aren't rugged. Numerous experiences in Iraq have proved this. The M1's maintenance requirements in combat are attrocious and are multiplied massively by small arms fire and weather (eg. dust storm). Small computer systems break down on them regularly and put the entire vehicle out of commission.

Eastern tanks are lighter, made of less complex materials and are constructed in such a way that they can survive serious hits and still be operational. Of course this doesn't include a 120mm sabot fired at 2,000 meters directly into the autoloader carousel but it certainly includes a hit from an RPG-7, a weapon responsible for more Abrams kills then any other. Sure this isn't all that impressive when you pit the 2 in tank vs. tank combat but the biggest advantage is not a tank that can survive 'shock'. It is a tank that is 1/4 the price and only requires 3 trained crew. So if any comparison is to be made it should be made between 4 T-80's vs. 1 M1A2 if you were to talk about tank vs. tank combat.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Senor Freebie
Western tanks have the same issues. They have more armour, they look great on paper, but they aren't rugged. Numerous experiences in Iraq have proved this. The M1's maintenance requirements in combat are attrocious and are multiplied massively by small arms fire and weather (eg. dust storm). Small computer systems break down on them regularly and put the entire vehicle out of commission.


That may be true of the M1...

But in Desert Storm the Challenger 1s advanced further than any other allied armoured unit, destroyed 300 enemy tanks and suffered one mechanical failure.


Eastern tanks are lighter, made of less complex materials and are constructed in such a way that they can survive serious hits and still be operational. Of course this doesn't include a 120mm sabot fired at 2,000 meters directly into the autoloader carousel but it certainly includes a hit from an RPG-7, a weapon responsible for more Abrams kills then any other.


Got a figure on that? and a source, maybe, 'cause that's the first time I've heard that claim.


Sure this isn't all that impressive when you pit the 2 in tank vs. tank combat but the biggest advantage is not a tank that can survive 'shock'. It is a tank that is 1/4 the price and only requires 3 trained crew.


A number of analysts (unfortunately I have no source at the moment) actually pointed out that some ranking Russian officers were unhappy about losing a qarter of their crews to automation.


So if any comparison is to be made it should be made between 4 T-80's vs. 1 M1A2 if you were to talk about tank vs. tank combat.


Why not AMX13 vs T55/64, as in the Sinai? Oh, wait, you're talking MBTs, not light tanks vs (then) MBTs...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join