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.

 

The Abram Tank is Best in the World

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Best armor, best engine, and some would say the best firing system in the world so how can one deny this tank's might?




[edit on 6-5-2006 by LooseLipsSinkShips]

[edit on 6-5-2006 by LooseLipsSinkShips]




posted on May, 6 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   
It's a good tank, better than average for sure, and deployed by the world's most powerful and well equipped military, but in comparison terms there are tanks that are better whichever way you look at it.

Tanks which suppass it in some respect or other:

Challenger 2 (ability to fire HESH rounds)
Leopard 2 (latest variants; better gun)
Merkava 4, ZTZ-99, T-90 et al (deployed with gun launched ATGWs)
Merkava 4, Challenger-Falcon (better crew servivability)
Leopard 2, Leclerc (better mobility)
Leopard 2, Leclerc, ZTZ-99 et al (better engine)
AMX-30-stealth (better stealth)
Challenger 2 (arguably better armor)
ZTZ-99 (laser AA defences)
Most other tanks (cheaper)
Leclerc, Challenger-Falcon, ZTZ-99, T-90 et al (fewer crew)
Leopard 2, T-90 et al (snorkel for river crossing)

The list could go on.

[edit on 6-5-2006 by planeman]

[edit on 6-5-2006 by planeman]



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
my ***************** is better , bigger , faster , than yours -- you suck





posted on May, 6 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
It's a good tank, better than average for sure, and deployed by the world's most powerful and well equipped military, but in comparison terms there are tanks that are better whichever way you look at it.

Tanks which suppass it in some respect or other:

Challenger 2 (ability to fire HESH rounds)
Leopard 2 (latest variants; better gun)
Merkava 4, ZTZ-99, T-90 et al (deployed with gun launched ATGWs)
Merkava 4, Challenger-Falcon (better crew servivability)
Leopard 2, Leclerc (better mobility)
Leopard 2, Leclerc, ZTZ-99 et al (better engine)
AMX-30-stealth (better stealth)
Challenger 2 (arguably better armor)
ZTZ-99 (laser AA defences)
Most other tanks (cheaper)
Leclerc, Challenger-Falcon, ZTZ-99, T-90 et al (fewer crew)
Leopard 2, T-90 et al (snorkel for river crossing)

The list could go on.

[edit on 6-5-2006 by planeman]

[edit on 6-5-2006 by planeman]


Great list, and the armour of the Challenger is most probably quite a lot better than the armour of the Abrams. No hard proof though, as figures are classified.



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
my ***************** is better , bigger , faster , than yours -- you suck






Let me guess, you're American?

______

Nowadays, Abrams really isn't the best tank anymore.


www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 6-5-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2

Let me guess, you're American?




ROFLMAO

what the heck gave you that idea -- go back and read what i said

which bit of " deny pissing contests " was unclear -- this thread and all like it , acheive little and just get people steamed



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Great list, and the armour of the Challenger is most probably quite a lot better than the armour of the Abrams. No hard proof though, as figures are classified.
That is opinion not fact there is no way for sure for us to know.



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Here we go again. I am interested in warfare and military technology, but I fail to see any relevance to any conspiracy topic here. We've all seen a thousand of these nationalist urinating contests haven't we?

I'll make my standard reply short and sweet: Horses for courses. The Barret .50 cal is an awesome rifle- unless of course you're looking for a home defense weapon. Same reasoning applies to tanks.

Abrams' fuel versatility and armor is very respectable, but there are places on Earth where I'd prefer something more "shoot and scoot" like Leclerc.

We may as well argue over the comparative advantages of phillips and flathead screwdrivers.



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Here's a mention I found on that HESH round and an Abram tank:


It would take something like two tons of HE in a bomb or HESH
warhead to spall anything through the frontal Burlington armor
of a M-1A2 tank.

Though it's not specifically designed to, its design features
nearly completely negate any effect a HESH type warhead has,
until it gets so significant as to implode the whole armor box
and cause the turret structure to fail on a gross manner.
HESH vs. Modern Armor




HESH ("High Explosive Squash-Head") is considered an inferior
alternative to HEAT as an anti-tank munition. A HESH warhead is
comprised of a malleable mass of plastic high explosive, with a
detonator in its base, enclosed in a thin outer shell. When the
HESH round hits its target, the explosive splats against it and
spreads thin, somewhat resembling a cow-patty. The detonator hits
last, and the spread-out explosive transmits a wide, sharp shock
wave through the impacted surface. It was invented as a way of
destroying concrete fortifications, but it was accidently found to
be very effective against tanks with homogeneous (not spaced or
laminated) armor, since the shock wave passes through the armor
without penetrating it, and causes "spall" (little bits of metal
broken off the inside armor surface) to kill the crew. It was
pretty neato at the time, but advances in armor overtook it very
quickly. The US doesn't have a HESH munition, but some NATO
countries do, the UK in particular. The Scorpion light tank, which
has a very small and low-pressure main gun, carries HESH munitions
as a matter of course -- it's still a great round for destroying
hardened buildings, and lightly-armored or old-armor vehicles too,
if you don't have anything better (there are lots and lots of old
russian T-55 tanks rolling around the world, and HESH would be
effective against them).


The above came from here:
TTK Ciar's MBT Resources


Accordingly, the best tank is a destroyed inactive tank.




seekerof

[edit on 6-5-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Seekeroff is right HESH is no match for HEAT rounds. I doubt they have any use except for demolitions.



posted on May, 6 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
Merkava 4, ZTZ-99, T-90 et al (deployed with gun launched ATGWs)

Coming to an Abrams near you: ATK MRM, including other smart weapons like STAFF, etc.



Leopard 2, T-90 et al (snorkel for river crossing)

"Et al" include the Abrams MBT, since it does have a snorkel kit?
If so, then why have this included in your list of tanks that have better features/aspects than the Abrams?




Merkava 4, Challenger-Falcon (better crew servivability)

Implying what, exactly?
Better armor, crew displacement, crewless turrets, autoloader equipped, what?
Accordingly, crew survival is great and all, but it is also a relative mention, for a number of factors are built into "crew survivability," correct?




Leclerc, Challenger-Falcon, ZTZ-99, T-90 et al (fewer crew)

Autoloader equipped, what?
This makes these tanks better because of return to action numbers or the less letters to be sent home to mourning wives?
Furthermore, fewer crew means increased tank repair (track/tread or battle damage, etc.) in the forward area, thus, increased vehicle down time--one less tank in action when it may matter. The autoloader adds cost (but cost is relative here) to the tank and the old saying that the more gadgets you have, the more chance of something failing. The autoloaders advantage is what: saving of space, consistent rate of fire? Consider this: A trained M1A1 or A2 tank human loader is trained, thus expected, to load that 120mm one shell every five seconds, on average, for two minutes. Accordingly, if the that human loader does what he is trained and expected to do, the tank will have virtually expended its entire combat supply of 120mm munitions (I think around 40 rounds). Time to go and re-supply after gazing upon the destruction laid by 40 rounds out of one tank. Now considering the reality of fatigue, 1 round every three to five seconds is realistic for the first 5-10 rounds. Given the human factor, the example above given was given for one reason: the ability to surge fire--that which the autoloader cannot do.




Most other tanks (cheaper)

Again, relative.
A ad-hoc argument along the lines of the F-22 and its expense versus effectiveness.


Your other mentions not quoted and commented to above are simply relative when applied to tanks which suppass the Abrams in some respect or other. The issue here is not some respect or other, it is overall best, but that is a matter and topic that is certainly RELATIVE, as well, considering that very few of those you listed are as battle-tested as the Challenger, Merkava, and Abrams.






seekerof

[edit on 6-5-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
Seekeroff is right HESH is no match for HEAT rounds. I doubt they have any use except for demolitions.


You cannot compare these types of round to one another. In its day HESH had its uses both as an anti tank round and also a round against hardened fortifications (which was its primary function and designed for), as a secondary use it was found to splinter armour internally, within a tank. With the advent of modern composite armour, this has negated the HESH's secondary role to some extent.

Now with the advent of FIBUA which round would you use?? HESH or HEAT or a APFSDS...HEAT and APFSDS totally inferior to HESH in this situation, the rounds just go clean through the buildings making nice neat holes, a HESH round will take half the building down!!

Spacemunkey



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Deny pissing contests? Oh no, Ape!

I built a model tank, the barrel is a pencil, and it can be remote controlled, and Ive also painted it. It looks really good, and outclasses every tank since the patton.

So there!



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Re comparing HEAT and HESH - those sources were irrelevant. The Challenger used APFSDS-DU rounds just like the Abrams does for destroying enemy tanks. HESH is instead used for attacking lightly armored vehicles, buildings, bunkers etc - it's a general purpose round. It is also longer ranged than APFSDS.

The advantage comes from the nature of warefare - in real war (Iraq etc) tanks are not used soley for tank-v-tank encounters. They dominate their immediate vecinity. In this respect the Chjallenger with it's rifled gun is better suited.

Seekerof, I can't be arsed to argue every point you raise since I really don't care either way. But a few relevant points:

Implying what, exactly?
Better armor, crew displacement, crewless turrets, autoloader equipped, what?
Accordingly, crew survival is great and all, but it is also a relative mention, for a number of factors are built into "crew survivability," correct?

The Merkava and Challenger-Falcon (Falcon II or III turret on Challenger-1 chassis) both have similar armor to the Abrams minus and DU. But they are layed out to better protect the crew - the Merkava has a forward mounted engine and rear crew compartment and the Challenger-Falcon has a below-turret-line crew compartment and a crewless turret. Turret hits would mostly leave the crew compartment intact whether or not the turret armor was penetrated - unlike on the Abrams.


Autoloader equipped, what?
This makes these tanks better because of return to action numbers or the less letters to be sent home to mourning wives?
What are you implying?


Furthermore, fewer crew means increased tank repair (track/tread or battle damage, etc.) in the forward area, thus, increased vehicle down time--one less tank in action when it may matter. The autoloader adds cost (but cost is relative here) to the tank and the old saying that the more gadgets you have, the more chance of something failing. The autoloaders advantage is what: saving of space, consistent rate of fire? Consider this: A trained M1A1 or A2 tank human loader is trained, thus expected, to load that 120mm one shell every five seconds, on average, for two minutes. Accordingly, if the that human loader does what he is trained and expected to do, the tank will have virtually expended its entire combat supply of 120mm munitions (I think around 40 rounds). Time to go and re-supply after gazing upon the destruction laid by 40 rounds out of one tank. Now considering the reality of fatigue, 1 round every three to five seconds is realistic for the first 5-10 rounds. Given the human factor, the example above given was given for one reason: the ability to surge fire--that which the autoloader cannot do.
Autoloaders have been employed on MBTs since the 1960s. current autoloaders, such as those on the Falcon turret load a round in 4.5 seconds and do not fatique like manned crew. And load times will only get quicker wheras the human has pretty much topped out. But more crucially, it means fewer crew.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
Seekerof, I can't be arsed to argue every point you raise since I really don't care either way.

Question: You "can't" or won't?
Then my next question is if you "can't be arsed to argue every point," then why make such a post as you have, knowing that what you have said will be argued?

Originally posted by planeman
Tanks which suppass it in some respect or other:

Challenger 2 (ability to fire HESH rounds)
Leopard 2 (latest variants; better gun)
Merkava 4, ZTZ-99, T-90 et al (deployed with gun launched ATGWs)
Merkava 4, Challenger-Falcon (better crew servivability)
Leopard 2, Leclerc (better mobility)
Leopard 2, Leclerc, ZTZ-99 et al (better engine)
AMX-30-stealth (better stealth)
Challenger 2 (arguably better armor)
ZTZ-99 (laser AA defences)
Most other tanks (cheaper)
Leclerc, Challenger-Falcon, ZTZ-99, T-90 et al (fewer crew)
Leopard 2, T-90 et al (snorkel for river crossing)

The list could go on.





Autoloaders have been employed on MBTs since the 1960s. current autoloaders, such as those on the Falcon turret load a round in 4.5 seconds and do not fatique like manned crew. And load times will only get quicker wheras the human has pretty much topped out. But more crucially, it means fewer crew.

And the breakdown/failure rate for the autoloader is what in a combat environment?
Furthermore, can the autoloader surge fire?
"Crucially"?
I have given my counter argument to that "crucial" reduction of crew personnel.





seekerof

[edit on 7-5-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
Re comparing HEAT and HESH - those sources were irrelevant. The Challenger used APFSDS-DU rounds just like the Abrams does for destroying enemy tanks. HESH is instead used for attacking lightly armored vehicles, buildings, bunkers etc - it's a general purpose round. It is also longer ranged than APFSDS.


HESH is also an old round. The US now uses MPAT HE rounds for their general purpose work, they are far more effective than a HESH round.
Another draw back of a rifled gun is APFSDS are much harder to engineer for a rifled gun. Rifling is of course used for spin stabalising, this is detrimental to sabot, hence why a special collar has t be used with the round so the round won't spin. The latest being the CHARM III round. The Brits are moving to a smoothbore cannon because of the prohibitive cost of producing these rounds.



The advantage comes from the nature of warefare - in real war (Iraq etc) tanks are not used soley for tank-v-tank encounters. They dominate their immediate vecinity. In this respect the Chjallenger with it's rifled gun is better suited.


Maybe 20-30 years ago, today though with modern electronics, a smoothbore cannon is just as accurate as a rifled one.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   
It might be the best tank but only because the rest of the world is third world. If we lived on a planet with intelligent life I doubt the Abrams would be all that "superior".

The main gun on the Abrams was designed and manufactured by a German company. I don't really look at the Abrams as American. We might use them but that doesn't mean we designed them.

[edit on 7-5-2006 by ImplementOfWar]



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Are tanks really that necessary to continue to spend huge amounts of money on them.

Abrams were destroyed in Iraq pretty easily, also they can't stand a missile such as a Hellfire, no matter how good they are.

And when they develop portable land base JDAM missile is there really a point?



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 03:31 AM
link   
the best tanks in the world are from two camps:

a. ones that have actually performed well in combat and do the job it was designed to do aka Abrams and Chall2

b. never used never seen in combat and no crew ever lost, never have to face other tanks (merk4) and look pretty.

most on those lists are actually from teh catagory b thats not a bad thing but it does mean they arent truely proven which eliminates them from being the best of the best that only comes with combat.

as for the tank being needed? heck yes they are there is no weapon system on the face of the earth that can fulfill the need that it does, ad far the abrams being easily destoried you are fooling yourself if its so easy to kill why a. havent they been replaced? b. more been destroyed? c. are they developing anti missile defenses?

you dont waste money developing am def if the tanks are usless plus think of tanks as a class rather just a single piece of equipment. Before tanks it was cavalry before that knights then mounted archers before then charitotes(spelling) tanks have been in use since the dawn of the wheel.

[edit on 8-5-2006 by Char2c35t]



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Re crew servivability:




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join