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.

 

Armor forecast international ranks M1A world's best MBT

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   

PARIS, [June 14, 2004] ¯ In light of the global war on terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Forecast International Weapons Group has re-evaluated its annual ranking of the world’s best main battle tanks. With an unmatched combat record in Operation Desert Storm (1991) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003-present), the M1A1 Abrams by General Dynamics Land Systems Division has clearly proven itself to be the premier main battle tank in service today. Based on its combat debut with the U.S. 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized) during Operation Iraqi Freedom, the M1A2 SEP (System Enhancement Package) Abrams now sets the international standard for main battle tank performance.

www.strategypage.com...

Well i knew it wasd a great tank with the 2nd best armorr,best PAFSDS rounds, anda nice top speed etc but im impressed o well all studies have different results but in my book it'sa t least 3rd best.




posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 05:48 AM
link   
shame it drinks like a fish!



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Funny, Forecast Int´nal previously ranked several over tanks over the M1s (btw, the quoted study is 2 years old, there have been newer ones since then). The ONLY reason why the M1 now comes first in their list is the combat record.

Combat record however doesnt mean ANYTHING as it is. a combat record ONLY carries some substance when it is a record in RELATION to a different product - ie. the Abrams combat record should be a seperate record against the T-55s, and a separate record to the the Iraqi T-72s (which were inferior to even the standard T-72s).



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by paperplane_uk
shame it drinks like a fish!


Does anyone know if an M1 has ever been fitted with a big diesel to see how it would perform and compare to the turbine?



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by warpboost


Does anyone know if an M1 has ever been fitted with a big diesel to see how it would perform and compare to the turbine?


I think australian export variant has diesel, although I may be wrong.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by warpboost
Does anyone know if an M1 has ever been fitted with a big diesel to see how it would perform and compare to the turbine?


they considered it before but they realized the Turbine gives you much better speed.M1's travel at 42mph and shoot at that speed as well.Well the reason why the M1 got first place was

1 It is widely considered to have the best DU rounds int he world anda good smoothbore to fire it out of.
2 st gen chobham and DU armor to make up for lack of 2nd gen.Some British commander said that an Abrams hasa ana rmor protection level almost as good as the Challneger,not better but almost.
3 42 mph top speed
4 Combat performance

once the CHall 2 gets the smoothbore it'll move much higher up on the list.


[edit on 31-7-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by paperplane_uk
shame it drinks like a fish!
And what exactly do you mean by that?? Sure it has lessr ange but it has much better speed. The CHlalneger's lack ofa smoothbore gun and other modernizations prevented it from being on top.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   
I’ve been saying this all along. And I get beat up for it too. So many “great” tanks on paper out there, but when all is said and done the Abrams has the best combat record in all of tank history. Really.

You can talk about your 6’10” power forward that has all the fancy moves all you want, but if he never leaves the bench he may as well play like my grandma.

The Abrams is fighting, right this very moment, a style of combat it wasn’t even designed for, and its still performing better than anything else. In actual, real life combat it’s the best.

A spec sheet doesn’t mean much if the tank never gets shot at…So you can take your German, Israeli, British, and Russian tanks, ill stick with the longtime and apparently still reigning champ: The Abrams



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Here's something for ya'll tank lovers
nice info, inside views(literaly INSIDE the tanks), small portion about other current tanks and a portion about the next evolution.

Extreme Machines! Tanks

NSV is Winamp video, can be opened with Winamp and VLC Media Player and most Mplayer/FFMpeg based players.

The video is about 200 Megs and I think more then an hour long.
Easyest way to view it is by copying the url and opening the URL with winamp or VLC, that way you watch it while you download it.

[edit on 31/7/06 by thematrix]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lonestar24
Funny, Forecast Int´nal previously ranked several over tanks over the M1s (btw, the quoted study is 2 years old, there have been newer ones since then). The ONLY reason why the M1 now comes first in their list is the combat record.

Combat record however doesnt mean ANYTHING as it is. a combat record ONLY carries some substance when it is a record in RELATION to a different product - ie. the Abrams combat record should be a seperate record against the T-55s, and a separate record to the the Iraqi T-72s (which were inferior to even the standard T-72s).


How does a combat record not mean anything? That means absolutely everything, if the tank isnt combat proven then how can you tell it would stack up well against anything else that can be thrown at it. And yes that study is old, seeing as not all Abrams are up to M1A2 SEP standard yet, which makes the tank fully digitized and more modern than than the A1 model. If I were to go into an armored engagement, I'm taking with me the most technologicaly advanced battle proven tank there is at the moment, and that is the Abrams.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
The french tank they show in that video has an autoloader system and with that 1 less person in the crew.

I dunno if I'd like an autoloader system in something like a tank, if you have a person loading the cannon, he can swiftly correct problems. If you have a jam in an autoloader, you got get out of your cramped space and go fix the problem, which is not really something you have time for when you were about to take out an enemy tank.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by thematrix

I dunno if I'd like an autoloader system in something like a tank, if you have a person loading the cannon, he can swiftly correct problems. If you have a jam in an autoloader, you got get out of your cramped space and go fix the problem, which is not really something you have time for when you were about to take out an enemy tank.


which is precisely why the M1 has a human loader. In addition to correcting problems I would imagine that 4th crew member could be invaluable when the unforseen happens, like getting stuck and having to dig out, making repairs to a broken tank, administering first aid, and pulling double duty when something bad happens, even reading a map, tank gets taken out and you have to fight on foot etc.. then some fancy autoloader cant help you



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158

they considered it before but they realized the Turbine gives you much better speed.M1's travel at 42mph and shoot at that speed as well.


The turbine itself doesnt give better speed. The speed comes from the cooperation of the engine performance with the transmission. A piston engine with a comparable performance to the Lycoming turbine and with a comparable transmission can provide the exact same top speed. Top speed is only theoretical number anyway. You wont reach it in combat/over terrain anyway - unless you want it to end up in maintenance for the next few days. And several Diesel tanks including the Leopard 2 have a faster top speed - and that is with governor.

Well, and the ability "shoot on the move" doesnt have anything to do with the type of engine as well


One shouldnt forget two important factors that influenced the M1 development: the first was that there was no sufficiently light, reliable and powerful enough Diesel engine of domestic American production available at that time. The turbine was readily available. The second was that the M1 was planned as a CHEAP replacement for the failed MBT-70 project. The turbine was much less complicated to build and subsequently cheaper than any Diesel.



2 st gen chobham and DU armor to make up for lack of 2nd gen.Some British commander said that an Abrams hasa ana rmor protection level almost as good as the Challneger,not better but almost.
...


Only for information: The DU armor layer has only been applied to limited parts of the tank. A good part if not most, I don´t have exact specs, are still covered in regular armor.

[edit on 31/7/2006 by Lonestar24]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris

Originally posted by Lonestar24
....
Combat record however doesnt mean ANYTHING as it is. a combat record ONLY carries some substance when it is a record in RELATION to a different product - ie. the Abrams combat record should be a seperate record against the T-55s, and a separate record to the the Iraqi T-72s (which were inferior to even the standard T-72s).


How does a combat record not mean anything? That means absolutely everything, if the tank isnt combat proven then how can you tell it would stack up well against anything else that can be thrown at it. ...


I said that a plain "combat record" doesnt mean anything as it is - a simple figure. Because it is simply a ratio, meaning it has to be rated AGAINST another thing to carry any meaning. It is simply no generally valid argument. Let´s say I´d live in a village together with 100 left-handed, blue-eyed pre-school kids. When I play a game of chess against each of them and win every single game (which I certainly would hope to
), then I can say I have a "combat record" of 100:0. Agreed?

But I cant say that I am generally the best player because I have a 100:0 chess record. Because I don´t have a 100:0 record. I have a 100:0 record against left-handed blue-eyed pre-school kids.

When we are evaluating modern western tanks, the only important lesson learnt from the Abrams´ performance in the sandbox is that it has proven its functionality under COMBAT CONDITIONS. This I´ll give the tank credit for, and I agree that some of the contenders for the "MBT crown" cannot claim (although some of them have been in combat, too. Just not in a tank vs. tank environment).

Then again we´re not talking about space shuttles. We´re still speaking of tanks - armored cars with a big gun and some optics. There´s nothing too fancy about this third generation of tanks, and sadly they have lost the rule of the Battlefield to airpower. And one also has to keep in mind that most of these, or the technology they mainly consist of, have been around for up to 30 years now. There are simply no surprises anymore. Every one of these tanks, every single component down to the last screw has been repeatedly tested in every possible condition.

In the modern security-reliant fashion of the armed forces, it simply won´t happen that you put a tank on a battlefield and suddenly find ourself in a situation to think "Wow, never thought that this could happen". And not to forget: several modern MBTs share key technical aspects with each other... sometimes even using exactly the same equipment.

In short: That the Abrams and the Chall2 performed well in Iraq is a statement to their quality (as well as the vast superiority of the crews and network technology). It isnt however a new argument that would significantly boost the technical excellence of either - which is, after all, the important factor when comparing two products. Because better success doesnt equal better quality - see VHS vs. Betamax vs. Video 2000.


[edit on 31/7/2006 by Lonestar24]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   
I have to agree that the so called combat record is hardly proof of much, especially when Saddam's Iraq army was the opponent. All western modern tanks were built to win on the same battlefield against the soviet gargantian threat. If there was any problems they have long since been ironed out. As we have told you a million times soldiers win wars not tanks. If you refaught the 1991 Iraq war and exchanged hardware, the Allies would still have won.

There is little to choose from between the Leopard Challenger and Abrams tanks and even the Leclerc tank. They suite their countries doctrines well enough and thats what matters. Where combat record helps is in sales pitches...but in some countries economic spinoffs etc are far more important in determining sales.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   
IMO the best tank in the world is the Jordanian Challenger with Falcon turret - an evolutionary step ahead of the Abrams.


The problem with using combat record of the Abrams is that non-combat proven tanks may be better. To go for a painful analogy, the Su-27 is combat proven but the F-22 is not - which is the better aircaft though?



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 08:34 PM
link   
planeman, After reading your post I did a little reading on the falcon turret as I had never heard of it before
It seems like a pretty innovative design and a little more low profile than conventional turret systems. If I read correctly it only has a 10 round autoloader, so what happens once the 10 rounds are fired? that is probably adequate for most engagements, but what happens when a whole armored column is advancing and you fire the 10th round?
also what happens if there is a jam or something malfunctions in the turret? As I said above I also see many benefits to having that 4th crew member onboard.

Also do you know if the autoloader can select different round types or do they have to preloaded in the order you want to fire them?



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   
The Falcon turret can carry 11 120mm rounds (one in breach) and fire at 8 rd/min (3 in first 10 seconds). My underastanding is that it can select from at least two ammo types although if you already have one in the breach... but that goes for all tanks. And the autoloader can be replenshided from rounds kept in the hull - much like any tank. But the key advantage is that the crew are below the turret line massively improving survivability.

Although it is developed by Jordanian company Kaddb ( kaddb.com... ) the autolader is of British origin: www.fhltd.com...

IMPORTANTLY, the Falcon II turret we've been talking about is the pre-production version. The Falcon III will have a 17 round autoloader. Video of autoloader: www.fhltd.com...



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 11:47 PM
link   
I like the Abrams. Its a good tank. But comparing it to tanks it has never fought is dumb.

Just because the abrams could blow up a couple of out-dated T-72's in the Iraqi desert means nothing, that was like shooting fish in a bucket.

I personally am not an expert on the subject of tanks so I will leave it at that.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158

Originally posted by paperplane_uk
shame it drinks like a fish!
And what exactly do you mean by that?? Sure it has lessr ange but it has much better speed. The CHlalneger's lack ofa smoothbore gun and other modernizations prevented it from being on top.


I think he means that the M1 is an extreme gas guzzler.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join