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: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
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.


What has gunnery got to do with brake horsepower at the wheels?

Obviously you haven't read too many of my posts about weapons, because the plumage don't enter into it.

For those who came in late:

The point we are arguing is speed. I said Challenger 1 was nearly as fast. This was shown to be incorrect, by 13 kph. I then said I didn't think 13 kph was that much of a difference, with certain caveats.

I also said that in video I have watched of each machine they cover rough ground at roughly the same speed. Now, for those who can't keep up:

My point is that the deisel in the Challenger 2 obviously puts out similar amounts of Newton Metres to the Lycoming turbine in the Abrams because both tanks can get airborne, quite a feat for a vehicle weighing more than 60,000 kg.

I find your post to be off the mark and just a little sad. At least I make it plain I'm no expert. You clearly assume I'm 13 years old, perhaps you should go back to trying to be "cool" and "hip" and "get the four one-one" or something in an attempt to understand the "kids of today" and let the other adults talk.




posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   
^^^

I'm just curious were the M1 and Challenger tanks travelling side by side ? If not, then how the hell would you know from watching television, that their cross country mobility is the same ?

As for your insults
this is coming from the same person who in another thread had to gloat about what school he went to LMAO. You really are a mature one.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Because I've never driven a bicycle, motorcycle, car, grader or truck I would have no idea of relative speeds, would I?

And because I equally have never lived in the bush/desert/3rd world I would have no idea of relative speeds cross country, would I?

The human eye and brain aren't as accurate as a laser gun, but they're pretty good at estimating whether or not ground-based objects are moving at similar speeds.

But no, to answer your specific objection to my observations, no they were not moving side by side in the same video, they were different videos produced by different production companies for identical purposes, to extol the virtues of each tank as being the best in the world. Much like all the Discovery Channel programming we see about the Raptor, JSF and Commanche.

I wasn't gloating about my school, I was making a point. Someone else felt the need to spout their uninformed, ignorant opinions of private schools and then transfer their problems onto their image of me.

If you don't like insults, don't hand them out. Simple rule, really. You condescended to me, I returned the favour.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

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.


You totally missed my point. With these speeds compared via % the M1 series of tanks have a very large speed advantage of something like 20% when compared to the Challenger series. That would be like the difference between a stock Pontiac GTO and a Maclaren F1 in terms of top speed and if you were to compare the Challenger to the T80 it would be like a Toyota Camry 6 cylinder vs. a Maclaren F1.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
I cannot stand the constant bickering any longer.

Listed below, are the relavent details to the 4 major MBT's likely to be found on a battlefield somewhere near you - soon!

The details come from their respective country's official databanks so, if you've got any problems with the data supplied, contact your department of defence!

Challenger II

Crew 4
Length Gun Forward 11.55m;
Hull Length 8.3m;
Height to Turret Roof 2.49m;
Width 3.5m;
Ground Clearance 0.5m;
Combat Weight 62,500 kg;
Main Armament 1 x 120mm L30 CHARM Gun (CHallenger main ARmament);
Ammunition Carried Typically 50 rounds - APFSDS, HESH, Smoke;
Secondary Armament Co-axial 7.62mm chain gun; 7.62mm GPMG Turret Mounted for Air Defence;
Engine 1200bhp Perkins-Condor CV12;
Maximum Road Speed 59km/h;
Average Cross Country Speed 40km/h.

M1A2

Crew 4 - driver, commander, gunner, loader
Weight 69.54 tons
Length with gun forward 387 inches
Turret height 93.5 inches
Width 144 inches
Ground clearance 19 inches
Ground pressure 15.4 p.s.i.
Propulsion gas turbine engine, 1500 horsepower
Power-to-weight ratio 21.6 hp/ton
Speed cross country 30 m.p.h.
Main armament 120 mm smooth bore cannon, M256
Coaxial Weapon 7.62 mm machine gun, M240
Loader's Weapon 7.62 mm machine gun, M240, on skate mount
Commander's weapon 0.50 calibre machine gun, M2, on powered rotary platform










Leopard II

Crew 4
Weight 62 metric tonnes
Length 7.7 m
Width 3.7 m
Height 3.0 m
Armament 1 x rheinmetall 120 mm L55 smoothbore gun
1 x coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun
1 x 7.62 mm anti-aircraft machine gun
Maximum speed 72 km/hr
Powerplant mtu mb 873 multi-fuel, 1500 hp

(Note: I cannot find referencies to cross-country speed)

T-90

Crew 3
combat weight: 46.5 tons
Engine: 4-stroke V-84ms diesel engine, 618 kw (840 hp)
Main gun 125 mm 2A46m - smoothbore
Coaxial machine gun 7.62 mm PKT
Machine gun 12.7 mm NSVT-12.7 AD
Assault rifle 5.45 mm AKS-74
3UBK14 weapon system with 9M119 missile
3UBK20 weapon system with 9M119m missile
840 hp V-84MS diesel
1,000 hp V-84KD turbo-supercharged diesel
1,000 hp V-85 diesel
1 kW AB-1-P28 auxiliary power unit
Max Road Speed 65 km/h
Max cross-country Speed 45 km/h



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
Challenger II

Engine 1200bhp Perkins-Condor CV12;
Maximum Road Speed 59km/h;
Average Cross Country Speed 40km/h.

M1A2

Propulsion gas turbine engine, 1500 horsepower
Power-to-weight ratio 21.6 hp/ton
Speed cross country 30 m.p.h.

Leopard II

Maximum speed 72 km/hr
Powerplant mtu mb 873 multi-fuel, 1500 hp

(Note: I cannot find referencies to cross-country speed)

T-90

840 hp V-84MS diesel
1,000 hp V-84KD turbo-supercharged diesel
1,000 hp V-85 diesel
1 kW AB-1-P28 auxiliary power unit
Max Road Speed 65 km/h
Max cross-country Speed 45 km/h


I can't see this stopping the bickering. The figures are in different measurements (not that great an obstacle, I realise) but they are not measured objectively. One is maximum, another is average...

My point before was this: If you can get a 63 tonne M1 airborne and you can get a 62 tonne Challenger airborne...you tell me which one is underpowered and too slow...



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   
At least one poster has pointed out that comparing tanks to each other to determine a "best" is kinda pointless. With the same investment of resources most countries could likely build any one of the tanks mentioned. The reason tanks are different ( as everyone here MUST very well know) is because each country has a different experience when it comes to operating them and thus different requirements for future designs.

Would you try build an entirely new industrial sector just to producer a denser type armor for your tanks or would you rather invest in a dual use industry that might produce a reactive armor of sorts that might be of use for a large series of IFV's? I believe these types of factors are far more promiment in most countries as they simply lack the resources ( and money) to pay for their "ideal" tank whatever that might be. Compromise and practical starts in the designers mind as he needs to be familiar with what can be done for what price and to keep the tank within the required cost/resources regime.

There are so many factors ( not even mentioning the social structure that produces your tank crews) that i wonder why these threads keep popping up! The Germans took over most of westernEurope while outnumbered and outgunned but could not keep it with numerous and generally superior tanks.

So ,with my sermon being done for today, i must wonder why people keep trying to compare things designed with vastly different industrial/resource capacities and at least widely differing requirements. It's largely futile however much fun it is.


Stellar

[edit on 20-1-2006 by StellarX]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join