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 "World's forerunner for MBT's?"

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 10:49 PM
link   
While there are amny great MBT's out there, IMO the M1 was the real pioneer for the MBT. Sporting a seprate ammo stowage compartment, new APFSDS rounds, CHobham and later added DU mesh, all the gizmo's and gadet's a tank can hold.

Also being one of the first powered by a Turbine (No not the first air plane eninge, the Sherman had that). Also having the turret bustle attached to the turret instead of setting the turret in a turtle shell type configeration over the chassis.

While I am a huge fan of the M60A3 TTS, it was more of a Heavy Tank than a MBT, and no the USMC didn't have the M60A3 (NOOB! LEET! YOU L!3!). Thats right, the USMC didn't have the M60A3, they had the M60A1 with Passive RISE.

Now it seems the M1's 25 year reign might be in peril by the Challenger 2 and Merkava Mk.4 (Both superb armor systems) and the older Leopard 2. But with the new M1A2 SEP with BLOCK III CITV coming out, I can't see much more than the M1's silhouette on the horizon.

While the Chally 2 seems to be the premire tank, it was born of an export. Thr Iranian spec Chally 1. Yes thats right Iran, the Brits couldn't afford the expensice Chobham armor but the Iraian's could, but the Iranian Army found a more suitable tank for themselve's and left the 500 or so Chally's for the British Army's taking.

[edit on 19-12-2005 by Weps_The_Tanker]




posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Weps_The_Tankeries
While the Chally 2 seems to be the premire tank, it was born of an export. Thr Iranian spec Chally 1. Yes thats right Iran, the Brits couldn't afford the expensice Chobham armor but the Iraian's could, but the Iranian Army found a more suitable tank for themselve's and left the 500 or so Chally's for the British Army's taking.

[edit on 19-12-2005 by Weps_The_Tanker]


A few inaccuracies here the Challanger I was a development of the Centurion/Chieftain line, modified to produce the Shir/Iran 2 originally planned for service with the Iranian forces. After the Iranian Revolution the Shir Iran 2 project was taken over by the British Army and the end result was Challenger later redesignated as Challenger 1. The main differences between Challenger 1 and its predecessor Chieftain are the Challenger engine, and the Chobham Armour.

Challenger 1 took part in Operation Desert Storm where the Iraqi forces failed to take a single vehicle out of combat while Challenger destroyed roughly 300 Iraqi tanks.

Challenger 2 has an uprated version of Challenger 1's Chobham armour called Dorchester.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 07:56 AM
link   
You must consider theat the M1A23 SEP is a VERY expensive tank , and as such not that many (in comparrison to the amount of M1A1`s) will actually be upgraded.


The `majority` tank is still , and will be the M1A1



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   
The US has about 300 M1A2 SEP, while Britain has bout 386 Challenger 2. The MOD plans to reduce the Challenger 2 force by several armored squadrons (about 100 Tanks) through 2007. It also plans to change the role of one Challenger 2 regiment to an armored reconnaissance regiment.


Challanger 2


[edit on 20-12-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
You must consider theat the M1A23 SEP is a VERY expensive tank , and as such not that many (in comparrison to the amount of M1A1`s) will actually be upgraded.


The `majority` tank is still , and will be the M1A1



Not so. Most M1A2's are reconfigured M1IP's and older M1A1's.

And in actuality the M1A1HC now has upgradeds to match the M1A2. The M1A1HC-D and M1A1HC-AIM.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Popeye

Originally posted by Weps_The_Tankeries
While the Chally 2 seems to be the premire tank, it was born of an export. Thr Iranian spec Chally 1. Yes thats right Iran, the Brits couldn't afford the expensice Chobham armor but the Iraian's could, but the Iranian Army found a more suitable tank for themselve's and left the 500 or so Chally's for the British Army's taking.

[edit on 19-12-2005 by Weps_The_Tanker]


A few inaccuracies here the Challanger I was a development of the Centurion/Chieftain line, modified to produce the Shir/Iran 2 originally planned for service with the Iranian forces. After the Iranian Revolution the Shir Iran 2 project was taken over by the British Army and the end result was Challenger later redesignated as Challenger 1. The main differences between Challenger 1 and its predecessor Chieftain are the Challenger engine, and the Chobham Armour.

Challenger 1 took part in Operation Desert Storm where the Iraqi forces failed to take a single vehicle out of combat while Challenger destroyed roughly 300 Iraqi tanks.

Challenger 2 has an uprated version of Challenger 1's Chobham armour called Dorchester.



I don't know. After reading "TANK" "The Royal Tank Regiment Journal" I have to go with them.

Now if the Chobham is upgraded it must be because of the US adding DU. I also might point out that not one M1 was lost in ODS.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The US has about 300 M1A2 SEP, while Britain has bout 386 Challenger 2. The MOD plans to reduce the Challenger 2 force by several armored squadrons (about 100 Tanks) through 2007. It also plans to change the role of one Challenger 2 regiment to an armored reconnaissance regiment.
[edit on 20-12-2005 by WestPoint23]


Thank you mister blair, mabye next election he can explain how he plans to protect britain with a 26 ship fleet.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   
My bad double post...

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Weps_The_Tanker

I don't know. After reading "TANK" "The Royal Tank Regiment Journal" I have to go with them.

Now if the Chobham is upgraded it must be because of the US adding DU. I also might point out that not one M1 was lost in ODS.


I can only stress that if you do some research you will find that the Iranian did not reject the Challenger I, but it was not sold because of the arms embargo placed on Iran after the 1979 coming to power of the Khomeni and the US embassey hostage crisis.

The British army was not originally looking for a replacement tank, with the Challenger being a ready made replacement (no great development costs) it was too good to turn down.

As to the upgraded armour this was developed at the same time as the US was addind DU the the original Chobham (the original M1 did not have the DU was introduced with the M1A1 in 1985). Also not many people know that 12 Challenger II were fielded in GW1 as part of the 90 million demonstration phase (also referred to as the proof of principle phase) which lasted until September 1990.

Finally it is well known that during the Gulf War only 18 Abrams tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage: nine were permanent losses, and another nine suffered repairable damage, mostly from mines. Not a single Abrams crewman was lost in the conflict. There were few reports of mechanical failure. US armor commanders maintained an unprecedented 90% operational readiness for their Abrams Main Battle Tanks.

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



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Weps_The_Tanker
Not so. Most M1A2's are reconfigured M1IP's and older M1A1's.

And in actuality the M1A1HC now has upgradeds to match the M1A2. The M1A1HC-D and M1A1HC-AIM.



I disagree - the M1A2 TUSK is much more than an M1A1HC with the aim rebuild , especially since the AIM rebuild (refurb) is so seriously underfunded that they can only manage 135 tanks a year - which means a 12 year cycle just to refurb the present fleet!

The M1A2 SEP has 960mm RHAe(kinetic) - which is 100mm MORE than the refurb`d tanks - so explain how they can match the TUSK`s
and the M1A1P`s are in the AIM prgramme - the SEP and TUSK are new builds!



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin

Originally posted by Weps_The_Tanker
Not so. Most M1A2's are reconfigured M1IP's and older M1A1's.

And in actuality the M1A1HC now has upgradeds to match the M1A2. The M1A1HC-D and M1A1HC-AIM.



I disagree - the M1A2 TUSK is much more than an M1A1HC with the aim rebuild , especially since the AIM rebuild (refurb) is so seriously underfunded that they can only manage 135 tanks a year - which means a 12 year cycle just to refurb the present fleet!

The M1A2 SEP has 960mm RHAe(kinetic) - which is 100mm MORE than the refurb`d tanks - so explain how they can match the TUSK`s
and the M1A1P`s are in the AIM prgramme - the SEP and TUSK are new builds!


Actually the U.S. Army is nolong using the M1IP and hasn't since Aguast 1996.

Actually the 100mm's is the Glasis Plates A.K.A. ERA added for the Tank Urban Survival Kit. TUSK isn't a tank, is a kit that can be added to any M1A1 or M1A2.


Also I would like to point out that the M1A2 AEP is on hold due to the fact it has no funds, currently the U.S. Army field 500 SEP's.

Also going to point out that the SEP concept has been around since 1985.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Popeye

Originally posted by Weps_The_Tanker

I don't know. After reading "TANK" "The Royal Tank Regiment Journal" I have to go with them.

Now if the Chobham is upgraded it must be because of the US adding DU. I also might point out that not one M1 was lost in ODS.


I can only stress that if you do some research you will find that the Iranian did not reject the Challenger I, but it was not sold because of the arms embargo placed on Iran after the 1979 coming to power of the Khomeni and the US embassey hostage crisis.

The British army was not originally looking for a replacement tank, with the Challenger being a ready made replacement (no great development costs) it was too good to turn down.

As to the upgraded armour this was developed at the same time as the US was addind DU the the original Chobham (the original M1 did not have the DU was introduced with the M1A1 in 1985). Also not many people know that 12 Challenger II were fielded in GW1 as part of the 90 million demonstration phase (also referred to as the proof of principle phase) which lasted until September 1990.

Finally it is well known that during the Gulf War only 18 Abrams tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage: nine were permanent losses, and another nine suffered repairable damage, mostly from mines. Not a single Abrams crewman was lost in the conflict. There were few reports of mechanical failure. US armor commanders maintained an unprecedented 90% operational readiness for their Abrams Main Battle Tanks.

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




Actually the DU wasn't placed on M1A1's until 86' and then few units had DU added. The whole Armor Corps didn't have DU until 88'.




Prime Contractor is Vickers Defence Systems plc. Vickers Defence systems started work on the Challenger 2 in November 1986 as a private venture and shortly afterwards, in March 1987, made its first presentation of the vehicle to the British Ministry of Defence. In February 1988, Vickers submitted a formal proposal regarding the tank to the MOD following the issue of the staff requirement. In December 1988 it was announced that Vickers Defence Systems was to be awarded a £90 million contract to undertake a demonstration phase (also referred to as the proof of principle phase) which lasted until September 1990.[quote/]

I just quoted both www.fas.org... and globalsecurity.org. It states nothing in either sites paragraphs about 11 CH2's going into GW1 as testing systems in 1990. I know full well that the ground war didn't start until late 1991.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I am going to quote www.fas.org... again on the orgin of the CH1.




Challenger is a development of the Centurion/Chieftain line, modified to produce the Shir/Iran 2 originally planned for service with the Iranian forces. After the Iranian Revolution the Shir Iran 2 project was taken over by the British Army and the end result was Challenger later redesignated as Challenger 1. [quote/]

.



[edit on 21-12-2005 by Weps_The_Tanker]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Weps_The_Tanker

Actually the U.S. Army is nolong using the M1IP and hasn't since Aguast 1996.


thats right because they are now M1A1-D`s as per the AIM programme.


Actually the 100mm's is the Glasis Plates A.K.A. ERA added for the Tank Urban Survival Kit.


no , the extra 100mm is from the turret NOT the front glacis



TUSK isn't a tank, is a kit that can be added to any M1A1 or M1A2.


TUSK is really for the M1A2 tanks as thy lost the remote controlled turret gun earlier



Also I would like to point out that the M1A2 AEP is on hold due to the fact it has no funds, currently the U.S. Army field 500 SEP's.

Also going to point out that the SEP concept has been around since 1985.



AEP? thats a new one - as its the the Firepower Enhancement Package (FEP) for the USMC M1A1 tanks.

And the US Army fields 240 (or there abouts) M1A2 SEP`s . production was cancelled in 2004 short of the 1,150 they wanted.


Are you aware that the M1A2 SEP enter the AIM prgramme in 2012?

The current Army plan allows for a fleet of 588 M1A2 SEP, 586 M1A2 and 4,393 M1A1 tanks. The potential exits for a retrofit program of 129 M1A2 tanks to the SEP configuration between 2004 and 2005. Initial fielding of the M1A2 to the Army's 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas, was complete by August 1998. Fielding to the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Ft. Carson, Colorado ended in 2000. Fielding of the M1A2 (SEP) began in spring 2000 with the 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas, and continues. Rolling over of the 1st Cavalry Division's M1A2 tanks to new M1A2 (SEP) tank began in 2001 and continues.

Except , that in 2004 funding was stopped (all bar a one off order for 60 SEP`s in 2005) , so what you see now is what you get - the M1A1-D is the majority tank in the fleet.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin

Originally posted by Weps_The_Tanker

Actually the U.S. Army is nolong using the M1IP and hasn't since Aguast 1996.


thats right because they are now M1A1-D`s as per the AIM programme.


Actually the 100mm's is the Glasis Plates A.K.A. ERA added for the Tank Urban Survival Kit.


no , the extra 100mm is from the turret NOT the front glacis



TUSK isn't a tank, is a kit that can be added to any M1A1 or M1A2.


TUSK is really for the M1A2 tanks as thy lost the remote controlled turret gun earlier



Also I would like to point out that the M1A2 AEP is on hold due to the fact it has no funds, currently the U.S. Army field 500 SEP's.

Also going to point out that the SEP concept has been around since 1985.



AEP? thats a new one - as its the the Firepower Enhancement Package (FEP) for the USMC M1A1 tanks.

And the US Army fields 240 (or there abouts) M1A2 SEP`s . production was cancelled in 2004 short of the 1,150 they wanted.


Are you aware that the M1A2 SEP enter the AIM prgramme in 2012?

The current Army plan allows for a fleet of 588 M1A2 SEP, 586 M1A2 and 4,393 M1A1 tanks. The potential exits for a retrofit program of 129 M1A2 tanks to the SEP configuration between 2004 and 2005. Initial fielding of the M1A2 to the Army's 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas, was complete by August 1998. Fielding to the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Ft. Carson, Colorado ended in 2000. Fielding of the M1A2 (SEP) began in spring 2000 with the 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas, and continues. Rolling over of the 1st Cavalry Division's M1A2 tanks to new M1A2 (SEP) tank began in 2001 and continues.

Except , that in 2004 funding was stopped (all bar a one off order for 60 SEP`s in 2005) , so what you see now is what you get - the M1A1-D is the majority tank in the fleet.


When I typed AEP I meant SEP.

No TUSK is not mainly for the A2. The M2 on the M1A1 can be controled electronically and maunally from inside. (I myslef having used it.) The CROWS system was added to TUSK after the whole CITV uproar. Did you know that the TUSK even had a mounting for M18A1's?

Actually the SEP or Future Battlefield System is planned on being the MBT by 2030.

Very true that the majority is the M1A1-D's.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Weps_The_Tanker
While there are amny great MBT's out there, IMO the M1 was the real pioneer for the MBT. Sporting a seprate ammo stowage compartment, new APFSDS rounds, CHobham and later added DU mesh, all the gizmo's and gadet's a tank can hold.

Also being one of the first powered by a Turbine (No not the first air plane eninge, the Sherman had that). Also having the turret bustle attached to the turret instead of setting the turret in a turtle shell type configeration over the chassis.


The "MBT concept" has its origins already in the 50s, when it became clear that heavier tanks have no more advantage because of improvements in AT weaponry. The pioneer of the "new generation", the features we see with most contemporary tanks, is the Leopard 2. All in all the Abrams is a combination of many improvements - BUT it was NOT the pioneer in these fields.

Chobham armour? Developed for other tanks - and by far not the first composite armour, nor proven to be the best. And the DU mesh isnt "pioneering" because virtually noone else follwed that concept (some countries have DU in their shells, but not in the armour).

Seperate ammo stowage? It also has some rounds in the hull, and though I am too lazy to check now, I doubt it was the first with ammo in the turret. And if you are referring to the blast panels, they have been in service since the 60s.

The turbine, though not bad, is a technological death-end to the modern Diesels, so hardly any "pioneering" here. (Ironically one of the reasons why a turbine was chosen was the assumption that Diesel evolution had reached its peak) Mark my words, if the USA will ever create a successor MBT, it WILL have a Diesel (or a more sophisticated, yet-to-develop form of propulsion) - but no turbine.

And the APFSDS is not "pioneering" because it was a simple reaction to the newer Rheinmetall L44 cannon, and apart from the DU penetrator (which isnt "pioneering" too because of the known side effects) it was comparable to the originial APFSDS by Rheinmetall. Since then there only was "evolution", not "revolution" in this field. And if anything is pioneering, then it is those developers that manage to catch up performance-wise to DU munition performance while NOT using DU.

The "Gizmo´s" you speak of were only introduced time after time, and mainly consist of improvements in electronics and "Command and control" interfaces. The french Leclerc however (an usually underrated tank) was fully-electronic from the first day, so that is the pioneer in the "network" field.

I´m sorry, but I fail to see the "reign" of that tank. While the M1 certainly plays in the "Starting 5" of MBTs, its neither a pioneer, nor does it represent a technological advancement per se. The concept it replaced, the more sophisticatd (and expensive) Kpz/MBT 70, certainly was.

[edit on 21/12/2005 by Lonestar24]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   
I would say the first "MBT" was the M48/T-55 generation. However you folks obviously mean "modern" MBTs, as in having the large turret, electronic gun sights, smoothbore gun, and composite armor.

I would say the Abrams and Leopard were developed pretty much in tandem with each other but the Abrams has had far more combat experience. Both tanks have very similiar performance.

Its interesting to note that you consider the modern MBTs to be the "western" MBTs. The current FSU tanks are also modern MBTs, but dont seem to get the same rating. The T-90 ranks high up on advanced armor platforms. Of course, its a totally different idea than the Abrams and Leopard.

I'd be interested to see what the US/German/UK militaries are planning for their "future" designs. Simply tweaking their big turrent designs and adding the latest composites, or something else?

We'll also see whether the Russians plan to adopt the western style "black eagle" or the mysterious, ultra low profile T-95.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raideur
...
I'd be interested to see what the US/German/UK militaries are planning for their "future" designs. Simply tweaking their big turrent designs and adding the latest composites, or something else?...


At least for Germany the next stage in the MBT field will most probably be very different. The next MBT should have:



  1. An autoloader: One less crewmember (Crew probably even reduced to 2)
  2. An MLC of 50t or even less
  3. The crew will share one compartment (including driver), most probably in the tower
  4. An electric drivetrain, with a Diesel generator
  5. Emergency batteries in case of engine failure
  6. The platforms will be specialised; The turret will contain ALL weapon systems, munitions and sensors, the fuselage only the propulsion, generators and, obviously, the tracks


This is what experts are thinking of at the moment, and some prototypes are already made or in planning to test aspects of this. The basic idea is to decrease the size. With size (and thus the "space to armor") naturally the weight decreases - a compact 10t vehicle can be better armored than a bulky 20t vehicle.. The electric drive erases the need for the usually huge and heavy drivetrains, and the Diesel Generator can basically be put in any place, any position inside the tank. The single crew compartment serves several purposes: Only one small part to be air conditioned and NBC-proofed, armour can more effectively be applied to protect the crew, more direct driver/commander interaction. It also allowes for a radically different fuselage layout - including the possibility of lowering the whole chassis.

Another advantage would be the modular approach: By stuffing all command&control assets, weapons&ammunition and the crew into the tower, you basically get to independent upper/lower modules - you only need a datalink energy transmission. So basically if you have one tank with a nonfunctional fuselage, and another one with defective tower, you simply take a heavy-duty crane and form one ready-to-fight vehicle within MINUTES.

It also increases the strategic possibilities: with the same fuselage section (and possibly adding or removing modular armor plates), but different turrets you can easily create a wide range of different specialized vehicles; you could have an Antitank turret (with conventional large-bore cannon, or later (semi-)electric weaponry, a SAM turret (maybe with only 2 crewmembers in that config); a MOUT turret with more infantry supporting armament and so forth. You could even make it air-transportable that way: the new A400M military transporter can carry 32 tons at a reasonable distance, up tp 42t with range penalty. So you send in the fuselage module with one transporter, and the turret plus a specialized engineering vehicle in another. Give them 15 minutes to put the turret on teh fuselage, and BAM! you have a full-fledged MBT in the theatre.

[edit on 21/12/2005 by Lonestar24]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Thats sounds an aweful lot like the T-95 design, except having instead of a remote chassis, a remote turret, an autoloader, all electronic sighting system, etc.

One does wonder what improvements they will make to the gun though. I would guess a retry of the cannon launched ATGWs, even though they were not really practical for FSU tanks.



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Interestingly most Western Analysts state that the T-90 is superior to the M1 Abrams and even the M1A1 improvement. Only the M1A2 is better then it. This throws the arguments about crew survivability out the window because these reviews are based on offensive and defensive capabilities all in one basket. In other words the afore mentioned analysts believe the T-90 would destroy the M1 and M1A1 before being destroyed itself. The M1A2 on the other hand is better because its targetting system allows it more of an ability to maneouvre and fire then the T-90 giving it a better chance in a mobile battle despite having a shorter range gun (when compared to the A-11 Sniper).

As for newer Western designs. I think many of them fall into a similar basket as the M1 series. The newer models are superior due to good targetting systems, powerful sabots, high top speed and thick armour. However I will still maintain that tanks are only good for their intended specialisation. Just because the Leo2A6 is considered the best in the world by Western Analysts doesn't mean it'd be the best tank to storm a beach with or invade Europe with. It just means its the best on average at each task. So I think its more prudent to talk about which tank is best in which scenario and then to set down clear guidelines on what classifies as a tank (eg. does in development count / amphibious light vehicles count?)



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 04:14 AM
link   
My 2 cents:

The Brits have led the way in tank design since 1945. This trend began when they had Centurions on the Continent the day the surrender was signed.

They invented Stillbrew for the Cheiftan, which was also the first allied MBT to carry a 120mm (rifled) tank gun.

The M1 came out with a Royal Ordnance 105mm on it.

The Stillbrew Chieftan led to the Chobham Challenger which led, as stated, to the Dorchester Challenger 2.

The Brits also pioneered, and abandoned, the concept of the specialist "heavy tank" in the west with the Conqueror, built to combat the JS3 - T10 series. This was when it was realised there was no need for "Heavy Tanks" if your MBTs were built properly.

The diesel engine in a Challenger 1 drives it at the same, or comparable, top speed as the turbine in the M1. The only other tank to be given a turbine was the Bofors "S-tank", which was designed exclusively for defensive combat in Sweden and was really a specialist "shoot and scoot" SPG, rather than a tank.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join