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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 03:51 AM
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.
yeah but amarica is already im proving on the m1 a1 i hear them every day




posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   
So basically it comes down to the effectiveness of the armour piercing round that the tanks carry. Seeing as the M1 apparently has the best AP round then it has the most lethality against opposing forces. All other western tanks have comparable armour and performance. Of course the Abrams does have a far greater advantage over any other like tnak, if it's integration of external sensors wth it's digital battle management system are taken into account.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
So basically it comes down to the effectiveness of the armour piercing round that the tanks carry. Seeing as the M1 apparently has the best AP round then it has the most lethality against opposing forces. All other western tanks have comparable armour and performance. Of course the Abrams does have a far greater advantage over any other like tnak, if it's integration of external sensors wth it's digital battle management system are taken into account.


there is no evidence to support the view that USA ap rounds are any better than the rest. Its been stated that the German DM-53 already utilized adibatic shear inducing WH Alloy....and duplicates the DU performance of the M-829A2/3. I remind every one the M-829A3 performance has been downgraded when the muzzle velocity was dropped.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by psteel
there is no evidence to support the view that USA ap rounds are any better than the rest. Its been stated that the German DM-53 already utilized adibatic shear inducing WH Alloy....and duplicates the DU performance of the M-829A2/3. I remind every one the M-829A3 performance has been downgraded when the muzzle velocity was dropped.


Hmm where is your evidence of the DM-53 ? I doubt WH would compare to the density of DU or have the same pyrophoric effects.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by psteel
there is no evidence to support the view that USA ap rounds are any better than the rest. Its been stated that the German DM-53 already utilized adibatic shear inducing WH Alloy....and duplicates the DU performance of the M-829A2/3. I remind every one the M-829A3 performance has been downgraded when the muzzle velocity was dropped.


Hmm where is your evidence of the DM-53 ? I doubt WH would compare to the density of DU or have the same pyrophoric effects.


Tungsten alloy gets upto 18.2 g/cc while DU alloy is 18.6g/cc....and the pyrophoric effects, can't contribute to penetration, just post penetration effects. Several German Tankers have reported the DM-53 having 'WHA-IV' alloy which utilized adibatic shearing.

[edit on 2-8-2006 by psteel]



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Imho the armour piercing rounds are 2nd or 3de place in importance.

Range is of the biggest importance, the tank with the longest accurate firing range is king when its up against other ground troops and armour/speed ratio second, when a tank is attacked by an attack heli, he either has to outmaneuver it or withstand the ordinance comming from that heli.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by thematrix
Imho the armour piercing rounds are 2nd or 3de place in importance.

Range is of the biggest importance, the tank with the longest accurate firing range is king when its up against other ground troops and armour/speed ratio second, when a tank is attacked by an attack heli, he either has to outmaneuver it or withstand the ordinance comming from that heli.


By that measure the Abrams comes in quite low - Russian/Chinese T-80/90 & type-96/99s have "Sniper" gun fired anti-tank/helicopter missiles which go much further than APFSDS. As do similar Israeli LAHAT missiles. And the longest recorded combat tank-tank kill is from a British Challenger in GW1.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
And the longest recorded combat tank-tank kill is from a British Challenger in GW1.


Yes against a stationary target ( T-55, I believe ), any modern tank could hvae achieved that kill. I have seen the Challengers live firing at Bovington, even at 2 km they didn't always hit stationary targets.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
....All other western tanks have comparable armour and performance.


"Performance" consists of a lot more than simple top speed specs and such. And there you will find which tanks are hot and which are not. Unfortunately this kind of information is hard to come by or even classified. One very important aspect for example are the maintenance costs/-intervals, or the manhours needed.


Of course the Abrams does have a far greater advantage over any other like tnak, if it's integration of external sensors wth it's digital battle management system are taken into account.


And whats so special about the Abrams in that regard? The french Leclerc for example has been fully computerized and computer-integrated from the start... and that was in 1992. The Leopard 2(S) has also been upgraded with a Command and Control interface - both are around longer than the M1A2 SEP program.


Originally posted by psteel
....
there is no evidence to support the view that USA ap rounds are any better than the rest. Its been stated that the German DM-53 already utilized adibatic shear inducing WH Alloy....and duplicates the DU performance of the M-829A2/3. I remind every one the M-829A3 performance has been downgraded when the muzzle velocity was dropped.


Yes, I heard that too about the adiabatic shearing. I hope that it works, it´s great because it erases one of the main arguments for the poisonous DU penetrators.



Originally posted by rogue1
Yes against a stationary target ( T-55, I believe ), any modern tank could hvae achieved that kill. I have seen the Challengers live firing at Bovington, even at 2 km they didn't always hit stationary targets.


Well, it´s an open secret that the Challengers routinely suffered from radical underperformance during regular tri-national military exercises between the US Army, British Army and the Bundeswehr in Germany. Sometimes not more than 60% hit probability... I think the Chall2 got a completely new FCS and gun upgrade because of this fault.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Personally i'd rank the Leopard 2A6 the best tank, it might not be "combat proven" but it sure is a fine tank.

It's user friendliness, it's speed and manauverability is almost second to none.

Planeman is right however that the AT-11 Sniper gun launched ATGM/anti-helicopter is an advantage that can not go understated.



posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Thats my point really, if your range is more acurate and better then all of the other guys, you almost don't even need good armor on your tanks.

The quality of the ordinance still ranks behind the range/precision and armor/speed factor though imho.

You don't really need to be able to pierce a tanks armour and blow it to smitherines to disable it, if your able to imobillize it and its crew, you got all the time in the world to finish it of.

People often talk about how important it is to utterly desimate a tank, but imho you don't need that in the least.

Imagine how it would feel if a shell exploded on the outside of the tanks armor your sitting in, which currently still is a big hunk of metal(in the future we might see a shift to reactive and electroshielded polymers and high tech materials like that. The noise, shock and vibration of an external blast will more then certainly at least temporarely disable the crew and I'm fairly certain that a shock like that will also break some of the internals and maybe even the tracks of a tank.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   
video

Do I have to say more?

[edit on 14-8-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2
video

Do I have to say more?

[edit on 14-8-2006 by Mdv2]


Got a video link that explains why the M1 Abrams is number 2?



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   
I cannot find it. However I've seen this documentary months ago on television, and if I remember correctly, it became 2nd mainly primarily because of its high fuel consumption and its gun barrel. Furthermore, some small arguable factors.


www.g2mil.com...

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).



Abrams M1A2
Max governed speed 42 m.p.h. or 67.5 km/hr
Max range: 265 miles cruising or 426 km
1 x rheinmetall 120 mm L44 smoothbore gun

Leopard 2 A6
Max governed speed 44.75 m.p.h. or 72 km/hr
maximum range 310 miles / 500 km
1 x rheinmetall 120 mm L55 smoothbore gun


The Rheinmetall L55 is a 120 mm calibre smoothbore tank gun designed and produced by the Rheinmetall-DeTec AG company of Germany. Its barrel has a length of 55 calibres (hence L55) or 6.6 metres. The barrel weighs 1.35 tons (2,970 lb) and the complete gun system is 4.16 tons (9,170 lb).

The L55 is the main armament of the Leopard 2 A6 main battle tank.

The L55 is the successor of Rheinmetall's L44 gun. At 25% longer it is significantly heavier but offers higher muzzle velocity which gives better range and penetration for APFSDS kinetic energy rounds.



[edit on 14-8-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Wow I know tanks are heavy, but I never realized the gun system weighs over 4 tons
and the barrel over 1 by itself




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join