The US secretary of defense announced that they will proceed with the Abrams M1A3! He basically that the upgrades will smoke the already intimidating M1A2SEP in Optics, Firecontrol, Armor, battle field commo, and available ammunitions! I do not have the article in front of me at moment to quote more but I will be back to add. They have had over 6yrs to find weaknesses and bugs in the SEP.

That is one thing that I hope other countries who might be looking for a piece, have not overlooked. The fact the for the last 7yrs, we have been putting ALL of our equiptment to the test and have been constantly improving on leasons learned.

For me a new Tank is like Christmas day!

I understand that the Abrams has yet to be tested against a worthy advisary in combat. But neither has anybody elses MBT. I am reasonably schooled in other countries tanks and their capabilities and understand some have more advanced features then the Abrams. One thing is for curtain, the United States Armor crew members are training while at home CONSTANTLY! I dam near spend as much time in the field training as I did on deployments.

I would love to see a good debate reguarding this topic (I did not see it else where but am sure it may already exist but please humor me anyways)

Does this arouse you?

More weapons... Great.

Keep on destroying non existent foes my brother....

I would have to agree with trust on the invisible enemies end of things to a degree. However, I myself love watching stuff blow up, just well... minus entrails flying everywhere.

By the way, is there any pictures for this tank? Or is it just basically the same looking abe with better stuff.

The Abrams will retain the same Hull/Turret. The only exterior up grades you may see is the improved armor and maybe an additional 'eye' or 'eyes' ontop of the turret. In the article, their plans for the Abrams will keep the basic design in service till at least 2050. If any of you are familar with the CROW system, I think something like that will be added outside the TC's hatch aswell.

Thank you Kettlebellysmith!

I do not like it but I also kinda agree with you (wintergreen) about 'what exactly we are doing here' but ask any...well most soldiers what it means to them to be here now and they will tell ya that they are here to help the Iraqi people become a free nation and that they are here to make sure all the heros that fell for this cause did not do so in vain.

Anybody want to debate that the Abrams is the baddest machine on land?

OK Tank. I'll debate you. Actually There IS no debate because I have found THE best tank in the world and I am ready to take you ON. Try not to poo yourself in the presence of my superior firepower.




All this shooting my tank from 6 miles away stuff is just not fair. You get over here and fight like a man!






[edit on 24-7-2009 by KSPigpen]

Funny you mention 'firing from 6miles away' One of the future rounds for the main gun will be a self guided round that will 'hunt' targets and have a range of about 12kilometers!! (at least that is the specs for the public)

From the way my buddy talked when he was over in Iraq (he was a medic), it didn't matter what kind of armor you had when it came to being hit by a sabot round from a tank. He said the round goes in, and when it goes out the other end, it looks like one of those scenes in a movie where something is getting sucked through a hole from a plane losing cabin pressure (not pretty).

Oh and as far as I am concerned, the tiger tank the Germans had in WWII, will probably be the most terrifying tank ever to be made, if you take into account its design for the time period, even though it was hampered by massive gas guzzling and drive train issues. I read stories about allies who had come across king tigers that had been abandoned because of running out of fuel, and that they used to use them for practice. One story in particular said that these guys shot at one over 250 times and didn't penetrate the armor once. I also read stories about tigers that had gotten bombed, and still managed to crawl back home.

[edit on 7/24/2009 by Wintergreen]

and this is the death of FCS heavy armour - why innovate when they can bolt new toys on 30 year old tanks....

Being old school i would say Chieftain for me, with a different engine though perhaps a Royce or Cat, the second choice, centurion much under rated tank loved by the American forces in Korea and still used by the IDF, i think its just me but i cant get me head round a MBT using a jet type engine.. just doesn't sit right, any ways..

Originally posted by SKUNK2
Also the M1A3 is nothing more than a concept like the mythical Russian T-90.

The T-90 has been in service for at least a decade I think, and in my opinion it is far more effective tank in terms of cost effectiveness, offensive capability and defensive capability.

You speak of the T-95, which is supposed to roll out within the next few years. Considering it will sport a completely automated turret, I believe it will be the symbol of the next generation of tank warfare. They should use the extra room to include surface to air defense, possibly similar to a Tunguska configuration around a 150mm auto-cannon/ATGM launcher.

The main problem with the Abrams is that it's been redesigned for urban combat and it is now weak against tanks such as the T-90 or T-80bars. I would not doubt that Russia already has T-95s (and Sukhoi T-50) in secret production and preparing them against an armoured assault when the need arises. They would no doubt learn from their decisive victory over the Germans when the T-34 steamrolled over unprepared Panzer battalions.

EDIT: Sorry, I meant T-34 NOT T-35. How unprofessional of me...

[edit on 9-8-2009 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi]

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by SKUNK2
Also the M1A3 is nothing more than a concept like the mythical Russian T-90.

The T-90 has been in service for at least a decade I think, and in my opinion it is far more effective tank in terms of cost effectiveness, offensive capability and defensive capability.

You speak of the T-95, which is supposed to roll out within the next few years. Considering it will sport a completely automated turret, I believe it will be the symbol of the next generation of tank warfare. They should use the extra room to include surface to air defense, possibly similar to a Tunguska configuration around a 150mm auto-cannon/ATGM launcher.

The main problem with the Abrams is that it's been redesigned for urban combat and it is now weak against tanks such as the T-90 or T-80bars. I would not doubt that Russia already has T-95s (and Sukhoi T-50) in secret production and preparing them against an armoured assault when the need arises. They would no doubt learn from their decisive victory over the Germans when the T-35 steamrolled over unprepared Panzer battalions.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by Tank2/8]

Good reply. The ATGM that the T-90 already has as an option is theoreticly a good feature but it has shown poor accuracy, if you cant hit it, who cares that it can reach further. The T-90 does not have as resistant of armor. According to the russians, their built in dynamic protection armor has taken good hits in testing, but one impact with a SABOT would leave a useless crew. They are still relying on reactive armor that we have had ways to defeat for some time. Its advantage in range is only with the aux. fuel drums on the back deck which also make it easier to disable. I would love to know what the latest version has for optics. That is one of the Abrams main advantages over other (not all) MBTs is the ability to kill before seen. I am very scepticle of the footage that russia does provide for its tests. They could have easily used appropriatly tuned ammo for the 'video camera'. For the most part, that is all the T-90 has under its belt, is alot of parading. A year ago this week, Georgia held some ground for a couple days with half the tanks Russia came with and all Georgia had where T-72s and still nocked off around 80 russian tanks. That is pretty discusting numbers.

I agree with you that the T-90 'sounds' well suited for offence and defence, but from what I have been able to dig up the last few yrs, like with its anti tank guided missles, they are all below mach 1 except for the HEAT and that can only be fired from a halt for the FCS to work. That is suicide when a heard of M1s are rolling in on you. The russians did do a good job at hyping it up, that is about it. I am not calling it a horible tank, but it would not stand a chance. The T-90 has a much lower profile but that is useless since it has a rooster tail of a heat signature. I could go on for pages about how T-90's systems are not all they are cracked up to be.

I honestly have no clue where you got that the abrams has been redesigned for urban combat that makes it less effective for Tank on Tank battle. All of the upgrades that have been made since the origninal M1 have improved its Tank on Tank capability. The M1A2 SEP and even the M1A2 have classified systems capable of defeating the T-90's "effective" arsenal.

The T-35 was an decent tank, caught germans off guard but it had a fair share of problems. The Russian tank that DID have a very decisive roll was the T-34 being the first to take advantage of John Walter Christie's ingenious design with the Christie suspension and sloped front armor.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by Tank2/8]

[edit on 9-8-2009 by Tank2/8]

[edit on 9-8-2009 by Tank2/8]

[edit on 9-8-2009 by Tank2/8]