The Abram Tank is Best in the World

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

No, I don’t think so, the number of Abrams that have been destroyed in Iraq due to enemy action is very low. The number which have been temporarily disabled is a little higher but still low considering the urban environment.
Also, a tank is not designed to win a war by itself or to be indestructible; it’s designed to work with supporting forces. Why make an 80-ton crawler to defeat hellfire’s when you can use supporting assets to deny access to enemy forces trying to use the hellfire on you. And by the way no tank can withstand a hellfire however that does not mean they are not needed.


[edit on 8-5-2006 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by Char2c35t
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.

[edit on 8-5-2006 by Char2c35t]

To introduce the best MBT:

While I was in Germany, there was a competition between the tankers of the Us, Canada, Germany and the UK... the Canadians won....

Guess what MBT the Canadians have...

What do you mean by ''actually performed well''. You can't call the soviet era T62/T72 tanks a 'worthy' enemy. Yes, the Abrams have experienced combat yet, what did we observe? Poor armour, a shorter similar gun like the (old) Leo 2 A5, and a far too short range for the 'number one' MBT.

Another BIG disadvantage, its consumption:

The gas turbine engine provides unmatched acceleration, but consumes a lot a fuel. Estimates vary, but the combat average (not highway cruise average) from various sources is about three gallons per mile (not miles per gallon). This is about three times more than similar diesel engines. A diesel engine with three times the fuel efficiency could triple the range of Abrams tanks. Wise tankers generally advance at a steady pace, lest they get ambushed.

The U.S. Army did a couple of high speed tank assaults in Iraq, but the outcomes of those rare confrontations would have been the same if the Abrams tanks moved slower. A slower overall tactical speed would have been compensated by a better operational speed, e.g. if tanks didn't need to halt and wait for refueling. During Operation DESERT STORM, the U.S. Army's VII Corps had to stop and wait for refueling trucks for thirsty Abrams tanks at a critical moment, and much of the Iraqi Republican Guard was able to escape. Ideally, more reliable fuel-efficient diesel engines will also reduce the need for tractor-trailers to transport tanks in-theater, like was done in Saudi Arabia.

In Germany, fuel was moved from the nearby fuel depot. In expeditionary operations, fuel may have to come all the way from California. [uu]It makes a big difference if three oil tankers are needed to fuel gas turbine powered tanks for an armored division each week, or just one tanker for a division with diesel engines. Since the fuel the must be delivered, a gas turbine powered division requires three times more fuel trucks, and another tanker a week just to provide fuel for the extra trucks. Then there are the soldiers and equipment needed to offload and store the fuel, and three times more logistical support for three times more truck drivers, and three times more truck mechanics.

The Leclerc's autoloader loads too slow to be number one.
Furthermore, the fact remains that the Challenger's armour probably is superior to any other tank on the battlefield, especially compared to the M1, but it is too slow to be the number one.

The M1 actually is an older generation tank, and therfore definitely is not the number one MBT at the moment. That's why the Leopard 2 A6 EX (improved amrour edition) and the STRV122 (Leopard 2 S) are the best MBTs.




[edit on 8-5-2006 by Mdv2]

Originally posted by Mdv2
The M1 actually is an older generation tank, and therfore definitely is not the number one MBT at the moment. That's why the Leopard 2 A6 EX (improved amrour edition) and the STRV122 (Leopard 2 S) are the best MBTs.
[edit on 8-5-2006 by Mdv2]

With logic like that, how can anyone refute it? While range is definitely a weakness of the Abrams, why can't you just admit that when it comes to combat (not competition) proven ability, the Abrams has the best record of any modern MBT in the world in both tank battles and urban combat. How many tanks has the US lost in Iraq as a result of actual kills? I think that number is roughly 12, if that. Mobiity kills might be a little higher. This is from hundreds of tanks spending hundreds of hours in combat. This is not a few Leopard 2 A6 EX's or Leopard 2 S's being run by a hand picked crew for a competition.

Originally posted by crusader97
With logic like that, how can anyone refute it? While range is definitely a weakness of the Abrams, why can't you just admit that when it comes to combat (not competition) proven ability, the Abrams has the best record of any modern MBT in the world in both tank battles and urban combat. How many tanks has the US lost in Iraq as a result of actual kills? I think that number is roughly 12, if that. Mobiity kills might be a little higher. This is from hundreds of tanks spending hundreds of hours in combat. This is not a few Leopard 2 A6 EX's or Leopard 2 S's being run by a hand picked crew for a competition.

As much as I don't see the Leopard 2 as THE best tank out there, and wouldn't say it's a generation ahead of the M1, I do not agree with your assessment of "Combat Proof" either.

When has the Abrams ever faced a current generation MBT? Never, the Iraqis had at best T-72s with downgraded sights, poor moral and poor ammunition.

I'm not anti-Abrams, I sure as hell wouldn't want to face it.

And don't forget that the longest ranged tank-tank kill was by a CHALLENGER not an Abrams, and that both Challenger 1/2 and Italian Ariete have also been deployed to Iraq successfully - so I guess they must be combat proven too.

And I haven't ever seen it proven that an Abrams fired APFSDS round is better than any of the gun fired ATGWs that many countries use.

Originally posted by planeman
As much as I don't see the Leopard 2 as THE best tank out there, and wouldn't say it's a generation ahead of the M1, I do not agree with your assessment of "Combat Proof" either.

When has the Abrams ever faced a current generation MBT? Never, the Iraqis had at best T-72s with downgraded sights, poor moral and poor ammunition.

Admittedly the "quality" of the opponent has not been the greatest, most well trained, but the sheer quantity of combat hours has got to count for something.

And don't forget that the longest ranged tank-tank kill was by a CHALLENGER not an Abrams, and that both Challenger 1/2 and Italian Ariete have also been deployed to Iraq successfully - so I guess they must be combat proven too.

I'll take hundreds of .5-1.5 mile+ kills over one 3 mile kill. Last time I checked, the Brits and Italians weren't anywhere near Fallujah or the Sunni Triangle. Sure, there is some conflict in the south where they are, but it is nothing like the insurgency north of Al-Nasariyah.

And I haven't ever seen it proven that an Abrams fired APFSDS round is better than any of the gun fired ATGWs that many countries use.

How many countries use a significiant number of ATGW's, and how many of those ATGW's are Fire and Forget? In this case, I would think that it's not the deadliness (if you're dead you're dead, whether its APFSDS or ATGW) but the volume of fire. ANY tank firing APFSDS will be on it's second or third target by the time that a laser guided missile has traveled 5K to it's intended target. Sure, another tank or helicopter or FO's can lase for you, but then you've got a comms issue, which will also take precious time.

Originally posted by Mdv2
Furthermore, the fact remains that the Challenger's armour probably is superior to any other tank on the battlefield, especially compared to the M1, but it is too slow to be the number one.

The fact you say? Would that be the fact that armor levels are still classified? By the way, when you have the chance look up the SEP, its a bit different than the A1.

WestPoint23,

If I wanted to kill an Abrahms force, I would wish to do so with a system that could maneuver harder, longer, _faster_ than it could while losing more total vehicles, not to the LOS force but to the COP air.

You move at 70mph with a ground force that is all of 4-5ft off the ground yet which mounts the kinds of (smoke generators, CKEM missile systems and 30-40mm MStorm cannon packs) weapons systems that can kill an MBT _from the side_. And it is only going to be a matter of time before said vehicles get bunched up in a fueling laager and are mazcaz'd out of existence.

The difference being that even the level of metallurgy, automotive and systems technology inherent to producing an IFV/APC type system is an order of magnitude less complex than that necessary to build a MBT which weighs twice as much. And if you can build an APC, you can build a robotic Wiesel with the same basic 'inertial logic' as a windup toy: Point and Release. With only endgame group behavioral responses possibly being more sophisticated as coincidental support via (random) bob-and-weave must still be associated with target sorting.

THIS is what makes such LOMD 'Schwarz' debates untennable. Because you can literally create a _tank destroyer_ force which you can **afford to lose** at 4-5:1 ratios _ for about 30% of the standup cost of an armor battalion with the latest and greatest landship technology available.

Why nobody sees this I do not know but it is inherent to any realistic study of tank protection levels in a sectored aspect format. Cavalry didn't die because men were afraid of armor. It died because combined arms showered them with air and artillery before they could leave their staging areas. It died because men couldn't crack that armor with horse borne weapons.

Now we have systems which are more or less invulnerable to any but brilliant topattack systems (no baby onboard). And which can carry AT technology which, /provided you can close with and engage from advantaged aspect/, are quite capable of killing armor on the fly.

I _hate it_ when so much of our discretionary budget is dedicated to employing the otherwise worthless in weapons systems which are themselves completely dated for operational paradigm (taking land you don't intend to own) as well as technologic evolution (fighting a threat with a vehicle whose very 'survivability' has rendered it too heavy to amass in-theater quickly using air transport, thus avoiding war as a 'policing' deterrent force which is all that main force elements can do anymore...).


KPl.

I believe the Abrams has some other advantages over its rivals which have not been mentioned.

* The gas turbine engine is a lot quieter than a deisel and it does not produce clouds of black fumes. Also notwithstanding the logistic problems associated with the higher fuel consumption, the Abrams can sustain higher speeds for longer. The Challenger 2 would not have been able to advance as rapidly on Baghdad in 2003 as the Abrams were able to. The Abrams therefore has better strategic mobility.

Originally posted by DickDasterdly
I believe the Abrams has some other advantages over its rivals which have not been mentioned.

* The gas turbine engine is a lot quieter than a diesel...

Untrue, it is only marginally quieter. It has a very different, higher-piched noise, that is true. Nevertheless, that is only a last-resort argument... no tank has ever been built so far that is quiet to use, and at the moment it moves the tracks produce an incredible metal-grinding-noise anyway. Not to forget the intense vibrations any 60t tank produces when travelling across a solid surface. Everything on a Tank is loud as hell and it has never been different.

and it does not produce clouds of black fumes.

So do the Diesels once they are running at a constant RPM.

Clouds here?
Clouds here?
Clouds here?

In reality, most traveling tanks generate a large wake of dust anyway that is more visible and longer lasting than the exhaust fumes could ever be. Much more interesting is the issue of the heat signature, and there the Abrams loses: Its high fuel consumption coupled with the vastly larger necessary amount of air that is pushed through the engine make the Abrams stand out more visibly on thermal imagers.

Dont forget that the turbine wasnt chosen because of an inherent superiority, but because its multi-fuel capacity, that they were available and also that there was no good and powerful enough american Diesel engine in production back then. Of course, today it is tried to sell this fallacy as a performance plus

Also notwithstanding the logistic problems associated with the higher fuel consumption, the Abrams can sustain higher speeds for longer.

Huh? This statement is contrary to the known fuel consumption. As an example, the Abrams has 60% larger fuel tanks compared to the Leo2, but its maximum range is 1/3 less! This ratio is a bit less compared to the other western tanks, but generally all of those can drive farther despite smaller fuel tanks than the M1. In practical use, there is also another problem in a "dirty" environment like the desert: the insane air consumption of the engines clog up the air filters rather quickly, which results in a shorter maintenance interval of these filters.

One other thing to reconsider: to achieve full performance the Abrams has to be fed by jet fuel. But jet fuel is easier inflammatory than Diesel, which means that the crew sits on a 1900l molotov cocktail...

The Challenger 2 would not have been able to advance as rapidly on Baghdad in 2003 as the Abrams were able to.

In reality tanks arent driven at highest speed... it usually isnt tactically necessary and makes combined movement more complicated. Apart from that it puts unduly stress on the vehicles, the engines and, not to forget, the tank crew. It is NOT pleasant to ride a tank at Hi-Speed over rough terrain for longer times (it is also not pleasant to drive a tank at highest speed over a solid road). As a commander, to keep your troops on edge you better not wear them down unnecessary. Besides, it was found that the quick advance on Baghdad did not serve any tactical goal.

The Abrams therefore has better strategic mobility.

If it were true what you said, the Abrams would have a better TACTICAL mobility. The "strategic/operative mobility" however is a factor of the mobility of all necessary elements of your troops, and typically the pace is given by the slowest element. The operative mobility also includes the issues of resupply -> Abrams at the disadvantage, again because of the bad mileage. Yes, the Abrams did charge through the desert.... only to be stopped dead in track when the fuel trucks and support elements that had to use the roads simply couldnt keep up.

Interesting in this respect are the average fuel consumption rates during the 1994 swedish competition trials (won by the Leopard 2, like all other export competitions it has contended in...):

- Leo 2 A4 : 720 l/ 100 km
- LECLERC : 1 380 l/100 km
- M 1 A1 : 1 480 l/100 km

I´d say there is a reason why half the world and their grandmother buys german engines for their tanks The figures also show that all these "maximum ranges" are only ferry ranges and the actual performance in a stop-turn-go combat environment are much different.

To be continued...

[edit on 9/5/2006 by Lonestar24]

...Continue

Now the TACTICAL mobility, the mobility in any given combat circumstance, is something where statistics can only show a part of the picture, nevertheless some key figures are of interest here:

Power to weight:
- LECLERC : 1 100 kW / 55 to : 20,0 kW/to
- Leo 2 A6 : 1 100 kW / 62,4 to : 17,6 kW/to
- M1 A2 : 1 100 kW / 62,8 to : 17,5 kW/to
- CR 2 : 880 kW / 62, 5 to : 14,1 kW/to

(the Challenger 2E modernizing program will give the tank a lighter and stronger MTU engine and transmission, putting it marginally ahead of the Abrams and possibly even the Leo2)

Also important for the tactical mobility is the capability to overcome obstacles. In absolute terms the western tanks are roughly on par, with small advantages for the Leopard 2 because it has longer tracks than its competitiors, and for the Leclerc because it is significantly lighter and has a hydro-pneumatic suspension with a limitied adaptability. Both these tanks also can cross wider trenches. One DEFINITIVE advantage of the LECLERC and the Leopard 2 is that they both can not only ford shallow waters like the others can, with 15 minutes of preparation they can DIVE through depths of up to 4m, effectively erasing the need to find shallow spots or heavy bridges in some cases.

As a last point, of course the mobility cross-country and in rough terrain is very important. The M1 and the Leopard might have a slight advantage over the other two because they both have one more roadwheels (7 vs. 6), but as said before, these things are hard to be captured in numbers. Another very important measure however is the specific ground pressure, as it has a big influence on both muddy and very sandy desert terrain:

- CR 2 : 8,63 N/cm²
- LECLERC : 9,60 N/cm²
- Leo 2 A6 : 9,92 N/cm²
- M 1 A2 : 10,8 N/cm²

As you can see, the Abrams is ~10% worse than the next-best, and ~20% worse than the Chal2, which might be an explanation to the high cross-country speeds of the Chal2 despite its low road speed.

-------

Thanks for reading, now please dont come and wave the "Abrams has a better armor/penetrator/computer/Chrome rims/etc..." because I was solely focusing on aspects of propulsion and mobility here


PS: For my convenience the figures were copied from here (very good short summary, but not in English) but were cross-checked with other sources.



[edit on 9/5/2006 by Lonestar24]

I would say that the Leo 2A6 is faster than the Abrams. 116 KM/H/72mph was the topspeed at a unofficial test on a Autobahn (Highway) in Germany with the Leo 2.
And a littlebit tuning at the turbo charger and the Leo has 1800-2000hp. 3000hp are also possible but it makes the Leo veeeeeeeery thirsty.


By the way:
The Leo2 cannot DIVE it can only WADE. Because the word diving is reserved for the German Navy (Bundesmarine or something like that). But that is only interesting for paper-shufflers


[edit on 9-5-2006 by Zimmerolm]

Originally posted by Zimmerolm
I would say that the Leo 2A6 is faster than the Abrams. 116 KM/H/72mph was the topspeed at a unofficial test on a Autobahn (Highway) in Germany with the Leo 2.
And a littlebit tuning at the turbo charger and the Leo has 1800-2000hp. 3000hp are also possible but it makes the Leo veeeeeeeery thirsty.

Waffenhq, eh?

I´d take those trivias with a grain of salt, they cannot be backed up with mutual sources.

By the way:
The Leo2 cannot DIVE it can only WADE. Because the word diving is reserved for the German Navy (Bundesmarine or something like that). But that is only interesting for paper-shufflers

Point taken. I rephrase and say that the LECLERC can dive, and the Leo2 can do a "similar" thing. Now prove me that the word "dive" is reserved to the Navy in France, too



[edit on 9/5/2006 by Lonestar24]

Originally posted by Zimmerolm
I would say that the Leo 2A6 is faster than the Abrams. 116 KM/H/72mph was the topspeed at a unofficial test on a Autobahn (Highway) in Germany with the Leo 2.

My understanding is that the Abrams is electronically limited to ~45mph (most likely for fuel consumption or chassis reasons), but it's unlimited top speed is considerably higher. I'm sure it's dropped a little in the A1 and A2 because of their additional weight.

[edit on 9-5-2006 by crusader97]

Would it be worth re-engining the Abrams with a modern deisel or hybrid engine?

Also on the issue of IR signature; the Abrams has a huge signature (it looks like it is on fire!), but other deisel tanks are perfectly visible in IR. The Challenger for example has twin swirling exhaust plumes which resemble 'swans wings'. I curious about the Merkeva 4 with its engine in the front; I wonder what it looks like in IR.

Possibly better than the Abrams....
The future Turkish MBT project:


The Korean XK-2 prototype with L-55 120mm main gun:

planeman, wtf is up with your continued use of "possibly"?
For someone who seemingly has the knowledge you portray, "possibly" should not even be in your vocabulary, you think?
I could go from this thread to your British tank thread and post up hoards of pictures of tanks and give a short commentary that "possibly" this tank and that tank is better than the Challenger II. What'cha think?

At any rate, how about this: Possibly, excluding possibly the Merkava, the M1A2 SEP is possibly the best tank in the world, with the Challenger II possibly falling somewhere possibly around #3 or possibly #4.

Think you can end with the "possibly" mentions before it becomes "possibly" contagious?





seekerof

[edit on 9-5-2006 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
planeman, wtf is up with your continued use of "possibly"?
For someone who seemingly has the knowledge you portray, "possibly" should not even be in your vocabulary, you think?
I could go from this thread to your British tank thread and post up hoards of pictures of tanks and give a short commentary that "possibly" this tank and that tank is better than the Challenger II.

I think "possibly" is the right word here. I know that there are several tanks that are arguably better than the Abrams in some respect or other, and I know which I think is better and why, but I don't put sufficient weight on my opinion or knowledge to make brazen statements like "Tank X is better than Abrams".

My personal thoughts are that there are a number of contemporary and near future MBTs that are all about equal, in general terms:
Abrams, USA
Leclerc, France
Challenger 2, UK
Leopard 2, Germany
XK-2, South Korea
Turkish-GIAT MBT, Turkey
Merkava 4, Israel
Challenger-Falcon, Jordan (my preferred choice)
Type-90, Japan
MBT-X, Japan
Ariete, Italy
etc

Abrams is within that catagory which gives it a chance of being "the best" but really any advantage of one tank over another is immaterial within the wider factors which are likely to influence the outcome of a tank-on-tank engagement.

An interesting analogy would be the WW2 showdown of the Tiger II-v-T-34-v-Sherman. Pretty much everyone, not least the tank crews on all sides, agrees that the Tiger-II and Royal Tiger were the best - yet it suffered from over-engineering, cost, maintainance and mobility. And the generally thought of as crap Sherman, which suffered from lack of firepower, did have later up-gunned varients which could destroy the Tiger II. And then before anyone can conclusively argue that the Tiger II was the best tank of WW2 we have to wonder how it compared to the Soviet T-44 and British Centurion, both of which were probably much better tanks but never actually faced the tiger because of the end of the war. Therefore we could say that the Centurion was possibly the best tank of WW2 because because because.

[edit on 9-5-2006 by planeman]

Hey, no problem, planeman, two can play the game, correct?





seekerof

Originally posted by Lonestar24
Waffenhq, eh?

I´d take those trivias with a grain of salt, they cannot be backed up with mutual sources.

No Some tankdrivers I think they should know how fast a "Dickblechauto" (thick plate car^^(Leo2)) can drive

Some of those guys are really bored.

Originally posted by planeman
Possibly better than the Abrams....
The future Turkish MBT project:

Where you get the idea that the pic you put there is Turkish. Looks more Frenchie to me. Looks Leclerc in 2020.

[edit on 10-5-2006 by deltaboy]