M1 Abrams "World's forerunner for MBT's?"

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
The diesel engine in a Challenger 1 drives it at the same, or comparable, top speed as the turbine in the M1.

The Challenger 2 tank has a top speed of 59km/h producing 1200bhp from its 12 cylinder diesel engine.
Whereas the M! has a top speed of 45 mph (72 km/h) on roads, 30 mph (48 km/h) cross-country. With the engine governor removed, speeds of around 60 mph (100 km/h) are possible on an improved surface; however, damage to the drivetrain (especially to the tracks) can occur at speeds above 45 mph.

As we can see the M1 is quite a bit faster even by conservative estimates.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
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.

This is not true. Soviet T-80 designs incorporate gas turbine engines. Not all models of the T-80 use it and I don't have the facts in front of me but I think it is a Ukranian tank factory that manufactures them so it may not be so common in Russia anymore but the T-80 is not only the fastest MBT in the world with or without its gas turbine (without counting the T-84 which is based on the T-80) and is the mainstay of many former Soviet States armoured forces. Also of note; the T-80 can also fire the AT-11 sniper barrel launched ATGM, which can sustain its moderate and dangerous penetration at longer ranges then Western made 120mm DU penetrators so ignoring it like that is rather ignorant.

Also I suspect you may have confused the Challenger 2 with the Leo2 when talking about similar speeds. Again I don't have the figures in front of my but I know that the Leo2's engine is more powerful then the M1's and is also a diesel. The Leo2 is also lighter so I suspect this makes it faster. The Challenger 2's speed is not comparable or even in the same class as the M1 series, T-80 or Leo2 hence my reason for thinking you mistook these 2 Western European MBT's.

Before I mentioned that its not easy to class any particular MBT as the best in the world as they all have strengths and weaknesses in certain specialisations. Heres a few that I have found:

-Leo-2 series; best Western gun, non-DU armour and penetrators, best targetting systems, powerful diesel engine (gas turbines have shorter operating ranges so an equivalent power diesel engine = a big bonus in combat radius)
Weaknesses; Some argue Tungsten core penetrators are not as effective as DU core penetrators, I'd argue that I'd prefer my soldiers didn't get liver cancer

-Merkava 4; I don't know much about this tank but here goes, best crew protection, transport capacity, world class armament & targetting systems.
Weaknesses; not enough known

-M1 series; combat proven, thick armour, high top speed
Weaknesses; has proven fragile in certain circumstances, short operating range

-T-80 series; fastest top speed, fast accelaration, longest range gun, best active and passive defence systems available, best ERA available, cheapest, low silhouette, curved armour
Weaknesses; poor crew survivability, autoloader w/o blow off panels for ammunition bustle, lighter armour then most

-T-90 (final T-72 design); fast accelaration, longest range gun, best active and passive defence systems available, best ERA available, low silhouette, curved armour
Weaknesses; poor crew survivability, autoloader w/o blow off panels for ammunition bustle, medium armour

-Type 98; active defence laser system (to burn out enemy sights & eyes), advanced ERA available
Weaknesses; short range main gun, poor crew survivability, autoloader w/o blow off panels for ammunition bustle

Challenger 2; heaviest known armour, most accurate conventional gun
Weaknesses; low speed

An interesting point to note after looking over these strengths and weaknesses is that while Soviet tanks are flawed in crew protection, a problem that they're only just rectifying, they are highly experienced in dealing with the threat of ATGM's and RPG's and have dealt with both problems much more significantly then the West. They simply have had different priorities and these have led their tank designs in different ways. The Western approach is great for tanks designs to defend against approaching hordes of tanks but isn't so great at fighting in urban warfare (eg. Chechnya / Baghdad) or in other low intensity conflicts.
Accuracy, heavy armour and penetration power second to none gets you a long way when you have the strategic advantage and can choose the battlefield. However longer operating radius, longer range guided munitions and suffecient active and passive defences can offer other solutions to problems on the battlefield.

Take these hypothetical situations for example:

Case A; a tank is engaging the enemy in rolling hills or dunes where range of engagement can be between 500-3500 meters. The most likely enemy is an armoured vehicle. In this situation a Western tank would be more likely to win.

Case B; a tank is en route to a firefight through a city filled with a well armed hostile militia. Engagement could occur between 5-1000 meters. The most likely enemy is an individual armed with an RPG-7. In this situation an Eastern tank would be more likely to survive.

Case C; a tank is engaging the enemy on a flat plain where range of engagement can be as far away as the horizon. The most likely enemy is an armoured vehicle. In this situation an Eastern tank would be more likely to win.

Case D; a tank is ambushed by enemy tank fire. Before it can return fire the enemy tank is destroyed by friendly forces (eg. an attack helicopter). The tank is hit by numerous shells at a range of 2,000 meters. A Western tank is more likely to survive if the shells are penetrating sabots. An Eastern tank is more likely to survive if the shells are HEAT or a form of gun launched guided missile.

you do know the record for the longest range kill is held by the brits with a 5km shot with a sabot round killing a T-72 don`t you?


members.tripod.com...

read that site , then tell me that russian tanks are not made of tissue paper compared to western tanks - ERA has little effect against kinetic kill weapons. It simply cannot react fast enough

First Generation ERA is tissue paper against kinetic rounds. Second and third generation arent. This is one of the main advantages of the "black eagle" T-80U is that it has third generation integrated ERA, rather than heavy composite armor, allowing it a handsome speed while having good protection. The ERA is also very thick for this type of integrated defense.

The Iraqi T-72s are not at all an example of the effectiveness of eastern tanks for many, many reasons.

#1 Incompetent crews
#2 Derated armor, engines, and targeting systems.
#3 Inferior tactics, if any.
#4 Hostile air cover.
#5 On the defensive.

All those can be expanded more and you can probably add a few more, but it really adds up to the Iraqi tanks, the vast majority being T-55's and a handful of T-72s, having no hope from square one.

Originally posted by mad scientist

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
The diesel engine in a Challenger 1 drives it at the same, or comparable, top speed as the turbine in the M1.

The Challenger 2 tank has a top speed of 59km/h producing 1200bhp from its 12 cylinder diesel engine.

My facts may be wrong. But at least I know which number I mean.

I was referring to the Challenger 1 because it has the same engine as C2 but as it is lighter it is faster.

Originally posted by Senor Freebie

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
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.

This is not true. Soviet T-80 designs incorporate gas turbine engines. Not all models of the T-80 use it and I don't have the facts in front of me but I think it is a Ukranian tank factory that manufactures them so it may not be so common in Russia anymore

Okay. Did not know that. Thanks.

but the T-80 is not only the fastest MBT in the world with or without its gas turbine (without counting the T-84 which is based on the T-80) and is the mainstay of many former Soviet States armoured forces.

Uh-huh, also didn't know that. But is it relevant to my post?

Also of note; the T-80 can also fire the AT-11 sniper barrel launched ATGM, which can sustain its moderate and dangerous penetration at longer ranges then Western made 120mm DU penetrators so ignoring it like that is rather ignorant.

Who said anything about ignoring it? Who said anything about Russian guns to begin with. I was comparing the Chieftan's guns with the later M1's lesser calibre.

Also I suspect you may have confused the Challenger 2 with the Leo2 when talking about similar speeds.

As above, I suspect you need to go back to kindergarten and learn how to count. Where do I say Challenger 2 is as fast as M1?

I'm sure I dont have all the facts on this but I think this is a trend I have noticed...I just dont have much information.

What I have noticed is that the M1 Abrahams series of tanks dont seem prone to "brewing up " as some of the Brits used to call it. Catching fire I mean. I'm not implying that they are indestructable by any means. Its just that you dont see pictures of them being prone to fire as are so many of the hulks littering the desert. The photos I've seen are of them blown apart not necessarily on fire or evidence of massive fire damagae as is evident on so many other types.
As I recall one of the most terrifying thoughts of a tanker is to be unfortunate to survive a direct hit only to be stuck in a burning tank from which one cannot escape.
If there is any truth to this it represents a huge breakthrough in design and construction techniques. When I first realized this by observation of some pictures I was quite stunned.
Are any of you guys more up to speed on this than am I? Also would be intrested to know what improvements others like the Brits and Germans have made in this ability to survive "Brewing up."

Thanks,
Orangetom

Just a little notice, you put M1 Abrahams instead of Abrams, come on now lets not get the Generals name wrong.

[edit on 29-12-2005 by WestPoint23]

yes..I certainly did...Abrams...is the name. No disrespect intended to the General. Thanks for correcting me. Good shooting olde man. Keep them in the X- ring.

Thanks,
Orangetom

orangetom...
If you are referring to the burnt out Iraqi tank carcasses, this is a direct result of the DU penetrators in the M1 and Challenger 2 AT shells. Now I am no chemist or physicist, but it in most reports about the depleted uranium reports it says that the material is "pyrophoric", which means it can spontaneously combust without being exposed to its actual oxidation temperature or a fire source.

Basically what happens if the DU penetrator hits the enemy tank is that material is gradually scraped off the penetrator (which still remains sharp, one of the desired features of DU above the high density). So when the hull is pierced, a cloud of very finely dispersed DU particles enters the vehicle along the still massive penetrator. This cloud then ignitites because of the energy (the high pressure and temperature it has) and because the small particles are surrounded by air. This is comparable to a flour explosion - normal flour is unhazardous, but if you stand in a cloud of air-dispersed flour and light a smoke, the whole cloud can combust almost like an explosion.

So in the end the DU APFSDS does not only act as penetrator, but also as an incendiary round, and that makes the whole tank gradually catch fire - even moreso with certain russian tank models whose turret is easily blown off (the famous "frying pan"), which creates a nice big hole for oxygen to nourish the flames.

I cannot say whether the M1 is more fire-proof than the other Chal2 or Leo2 apart from the seperate munition bunkers. One thing that can result in better fire-proof behaviour is the switch from the hydraulic and electro-hydraulic turrets to fully-electric turret motors - this erases the hydraulic oils as a fire propellant. What is also known is that the western tanks usually have a more effective automated fire extinguish system than the older russian models. These systems use Halon mixtures which is very effective even in small concentration - but due to environmental and health reasons Halon is agreed upon to be phased out if possible.

Thanks for your post.
I did not know that modern western tank designs use electric motors to rotate the turents. This makes sense over the hydraulic versions.
Also yes..I understand about the DU penetrator and how it works..thanks for the recap. Whey you see pictures of a DU round in one of those saboted shells..it is a very nasty looking artillery projectile. Talk about the tip of a spear...wow!!!
Also know about halon usage..as I have seen this on ships in certain applicatons. The main problem on ships is that in very confined spaces it depletes oxygen to survivors verses other types of fire fighting systems. Yes they are trying to phase this out. Ive seen this system used in certain places on Nimitz class carriers.
Thanks again for your post,

Orangetom

M829A1 APFSDS-T (Armor Piercing, Fin Stabilized,Disgarding Sabot and Tracer) "Silver Bullet" ammunition.

Thats the shots fired by the M1A1

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Originally posted by Senor Freebie

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
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.

This is not true. Soviet T-80 designs incorporate gas turbine engines. Not all models of the T-80 use it and I don't have the facts in front of me but I think it is a Ukranian tank factory that manufactures them so it may not be so common in Russia anymore

Okay. Did not know that. Thanks.

but the T-80 is not only the fastest MBT in the world with or without its gas turbine (without counting the T-84 which is based on the T-80) and is the mainstay of many former Soviet States armoured forces.

Uh-huh, also didn't know that. But is it relevant to my post?

Also of note; the T-80 can also fire the AT-11 sniper barrel launched ATGM, which can sustain its moderate and dangerous penetration at longer ranges then Western made 120mm DU penetrators so ignoring it like that is rather ignorant.

Who said anything about ignoring it? Who said anything about Russian guns to begin with. I was comparing the Chieftan's guns with the later M1's lesser calibre.

Also I suspect you may have confused the Challenger 2 with the Leo2 when talking about similar speeds.

As above, I suspect you need to go back to kindergarten and learn how to count. Where do I say Challenger 2 is as fast as M1?

I wasn't referring directly to your post the entire time. Also, it might interest you to know that the Challenger 1 had a top speed of 56km/p/h compared to the Challenger 2 with its speed of 59km/p/h. This puts both tanks in a very similar ball park and supports my hypothesis that you are thinking about the German Leo2.

As for the other comments you said were irrelevant. This discussion is about the worlds best tank, not about which tanks you think have the same speed as the M1. This is why I raised those points about the Russian tanks.

Another interesting point, The Challenger kill against an Iraqi T type tank was not confirmed. Not only that but a King Tiger on the Western front of WW2 got a confirmed killed at over 5km when firing down hill at a house. The shell missed the house and continued further to destroy a Sherman the tank gunner couldn't even see. Long range tank kills are no new thing. Repeating them accurately and with enough penetration is. Sure you can get lucky and destroy a tank at long range with a kinetic energy shell. But you need to hit a lightly armoured part of your enemy and you need to do so with sights that are optimised to between 1 and 4km so its doubtful that the enemy tank will be much larger then 3-4 pixels on your digital display. Whereas if you're using a KE ATGM with a max range of 15km and sighting equipment compatible with your armies standard issue shoulder mounted guided missiles then you have a pretty big advantage because your sights will be optimised to fire at much longer range and lock onto targets allowing you to focus on other things.

Originally posted by mad scientist
The Challenger 2 tank has a top speed of 59km/h producing 1200bhp from its 12 cylinder diesel engine.
Whereas the M! has a top speed of 45 mph (72 km/h) on roads, 30 mph (48 km/h) cross-country.

As we can see the M1 is quite a bit faster even by conservative estimates.

Hmm, I don't know how you measure speed, but I've never really considered 13 kph to be that great. Although, everything is relative, I guess. I can't see Sir Frank Williams being happy if the new McLaren was 13kph faster at the top end than his new toy.

That seems very strange, that the C1 was 5 klicks slower. I'll admit that everything I'm working off here is memory (I can't see the point in googling for info when my opinion is pre-formed based on earlier research, a blindspot, perhaps), but I definitely do not remember C2 as being faster than C1.

And I definitely wasn't thinking of Leo 2. I'm not attacking anyone here, but my knowledge of Leo 2 isn't that great, aside from its shape(s), it's manufacturer and its gun.

Originally posted by Senor Freebie
Another interesting point, The Challenger kill against an Iraqi T type tank was not confirmed.

Actually it was confirmed a kill ; theres enough testimony from both sides about it. And plenty of other evidence as well.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Hmm, I don't know how you measure speed, but I've never really considered 13 kph to be that great. Although, everything is relative, I guess. I can't see Sir Frank Williams being happy if the new McLaren was 13kph faster at the top end than his new toy.

Well that's teh M1's governed speed, ungoverned it can reach almost 100km an hour.

The 100km/p/h is just the stuff of rumours spread by people who claim to be M1 drivers and testers. Most of these people when pressed with some serious questions on the hardware fail to hold up under the scrutiny.

Also 13km/p/h in main battle tanks is a big deal. If you consider it this way that is a 20% increase in speed over the Challenger. It would be the equivalent of a Formula 1 car being 70km/p/h faster then its opponents.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Hmm, I don't know how you measure speed, but I've never really considered 13 kph to be that great. Although, everything is relative, I guess. I can't see Sir Frank Williams being happy if the new McLaren was 13kph faster at the top end than his new toy.

I, personally, don't find 13 kph to be that great a difference. Not when I'm riding my pushbike around, because whether I'm doing 20 or 40, I'm still slower than the traffic.

But then, 60 vs 70 on my Honda is a little different as closing speeds go up and braking distances run out...but that's about traffic conditions...

But 150 versus 163 on my Honda is no difference at all, I've already decided I don't need to worry about broken bones etc.

But in an MBT it's rough ground ability that matters, not bitumen speed. And from memory they have roughly equivalent cross-country speed. Now, someone may google the facts, but from observing video of both crossing rough terrain, I'd say their capabilities are roughly similar, especially as Challenger can get airborne with its deisel.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
But in an MBT it's rough ground ability that matters, not bitumen speed. And from memory they have roughly equivalent cross-country speed. Now, someone may google the facts, but from observing video of both crossing rough terrain, I'd say their capabilities are roughly similar, especially as Challenger can get airborne with its deisel.

LOL, well if your expert eye says so, it must be true I find this post very funny. I can just imagine you saying next that a gun is better than another, because it looks ' meaner '.
You know what, a tank getting airborne is the most important thing in cross country mobility, LOL.

The M1 has the superior fire control, therefore the bumpier it gets the more adavntage it has in gunnery.

[edit on 2-1-2006 by mad scientist]

I do believe the mass majority of tank rounds are fired from stationary vehicles. I would think that is the only way, even with good targeting systems, to acheive long range accuracy. I dont hear of many kills from on the move tanks...