Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Upgrades to the already dominating MBT are a go!

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
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)




posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Does this arouse you?

More weapons... Great.

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




posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Truth4hire
 

It's his job. His job is drive tanks. His chosen profession, from what I ascertain when reading his post, is that of a soldier, assigned to protect you from all enemies foreign and domestic. That is, if you live in the US>



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Tank2/8
 
Nothing quite like getting a new toy, is there? I hope you're having a blast with it! Thank you for you're service. Stay safe if you can, and if you can't be safe, then keep everything in one piece.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
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?



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
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]



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by KSPigpen
 


LMAO! That is the beast that started it ALL! Have to give that one to the Brits during WWI. The name Tank given to it to make it sound like no big deal.

The Mark I, designed to cross the trenches. The machine became a huge advantage for the allied forces even though it had ALOT of short comings



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
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)



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Tank2/8
 


I just can't imagine the fear that those guys used to experience with one of these seemingly unstoppable beasts rolling over everything.

I am a HUGE fan of modern technology. It just isn't quite like slapping the other guy in the face with a glove anymore, ya know.

So, is there any mention about the new MBT would fare against something like.... spent uranium shells from an a-10? Any new defensive systems other than armor? Like a small Phalanx or something? That wold be the stuff.

I guess what I'm getting at, is if there have been any noticeable advancements to mitigate the threat from the air. (i realize no one is close to the US when it comes to poking holes in tanks...)



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by KSPigpen
 


I am not sure (and prob will not know for along time) what the new armor will consist of and its limitations.

As far as additional defences (from the air or ground fired rocket), that is one thing other MBTs currently have that the Abrams does not. I am sure it will be addressed and equipt with the latest. We have the tech to intercept incoming rockets with ease... I have seen in person! it just has not made its way to the Abrams as of the SEP.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
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]



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Wintergreen
 


You are not joking about the SABOT round.
I think your buddy could have been also refering to EFPs (Explosively Formed Penetrator (( or Projectile)) The molton copper at that vilosity will go threw ANYTHING like warm butter. Very terrifying



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 05:42 AM
link   
and this is the death of FCS heavy armour - why innovate when they can bolt new toys on 30 year old tanks....



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tank2/8
reply to post by Wintergreen
 


You are not joking about the SABOT round.
I think your buddy could have been also refering to EFPs (Explosively Formed Penetrator (( or Projectile)) The molton copper at that vilosity will go threw ANYTHING like warm butter. Very terrifying


You do know that all HEAT based weapons are EFP's right??? Also the next upgrade for Abrams is a regular diesel engine. Also the M1A3 is nothing more than a concept like the mythical Russian T-90.
The Abrams is not the best tank in the world either as its basic design was first produced in the early 70's, the only upgrades that have been carried out since then is a new gun,Chobham armour, a DU mesh added to the armour and advanced electrical systems like battlefield management. The Abrams design is now showing its age, the recent conflict in Iraq has shown this with many Abrams being KO'd by simple RPGs and even .50 Dushka HMG fire.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SKUNK2

Originally posted by Tank2/8
reply to post by Wintergreen
 


You are not joking about the SABOT round.
I think your buddy could have been also refering to EFPs (Explosively Formed Penetrator (( or Projectile)) The molton copper at that vilosity will go threw ANYTHING like warm butter. Very terrifying


You do know that all HEAT based weapons are EFP's right??? Also the next upgrade for Abrams is a regular diesel engine. Also the M1A3 is nothing more than a concept like the mythical Russian T-90.
The Abrams is not the best tank in the world either as its basic design was first produced in the early 70's, the only upgrades that have been carried out since then is a new gun,Chobham armour, a DU mesh added to the armour and advanced electrical systems like battlefield management. The Abrams design is now showing its age, the recent conflict in Iraq has shown this with many Abrams being KO'd by simple RPGs and even .50 Dushka HMG fire.


You are absolutely right about the HEAT skunk. I was pointing out to wintergreen that since the story was from his medic friend in Iraq, that the EFP IEDs where probably what his friend was refering to since they have been the cause of most of the carnage.; It has taken Armor penetrating RPG's to punch holes into curtain areas of the Abrams, the simple RPGs barely leave a scuff. First hand experience skunk

I mentioned that the Abrams lacks some features other MBTs have. I think you are under estimating the current upgrades in the SEP refering to them as "the only upgrades". You do realize that most of the upgrades you mentioned where done for the M1A1 dont you??? And that the SEP is the 3rd gen upgrade from the original M1 (M1 was the only model that had the 105mm) M1, M1A1, M1A2, M1A2SEP,........M1A3!

The M1A3 will be very real. The money for it is easily making its way through congress in the supplemental spending request. It should be about 7-10ys when the the A3 hits the dirt for field testing. (after several prototypes of the beast have been put through the ringer) Its my opinion that they will stick with the turbine in the end.

Like I said above, we train like madmen in the field Serveral months out of the year. Give me some solid reason you think ANY other nations tanks would stand a chance against ours.

[edit on 26-7-2009 by Tank2/8]

[edit on 26-7-2009 by Tank2/8]

[edit on 26-7-2009 by Tank2/8]

[edit on 26-7-2009 by Tank2/8]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
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..



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SKUNK2

You do know that all HEAT based weapons are EFP's right???


um, NO.
HEAT Warhead vs EFP

The basic difference is that the HEAT warhead causes the copper liner to enter it's molten state and it burns it's way through the target. The EFP reshapes the copper disk to form a SOLID penetrator to punch it's way through the target.


Also the next upgrade for Abrams is a regular diesel engine. Also the M1A3 is nothing more than a concept like the mythical Russian T-90.


No definitive components have been stated for the A3, but that is what the name will be.


The Abrams is not the best tank in the world either as its basic design was first produced in the early 70's, the only upgrades that have been carried out since then is a new gun,Chobham armour, a DU mesh added to the armour and advanced electrical systems like battlefield management.


The Chobham armor was a part of the original batch of M1 tanks. I know because I spent many months on them in the Kentucky heat during Basic & AIT. Go 19K!!

The same could be said for the F-15, yet it still remains as the undefeated leader in Combat Air Warfare.


The Abrams design is now showing its age, the recent conflict in Iraq has shown this with many Abrams being KO'd by simple RPGs and even .50 Dushka HMG fire.


While I have heard of a RPG achievig a VERY luck mission kill of a M1, I would have to see the info on the .50 cal hit. Btw, any tank whose track get's hit by a RPG will have the same effect.

Here are a few things that can help out the A3:

1. All the TUSK upgrades
2. Better engine, while a diesel would give it better mileage, it is quite loud.
3. Hybrid engine tech would also help with range and sound issues
4. DAS-like 360 vision
5. Band Tracks would help with being quiet and survive IED & RPG hits better
6. Active projectile defense



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   

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]



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

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]





new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join