Upgrades to the already dominating MBT are a go!

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tank2/8

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]

I didn't mean T-90, i meant the T-95. Because i made another post else where on the site i was unable to edit my mistake.
T-95 is nothing but a concept and doesn't exist. Russia simply can't afford to make an entire new tank. Also a 150mm cannon??? Did you make that up LOL......




posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tank2/8


9M119M Refleks ATGM should be equipped as a standard in all T-90s. I don't know its exact precision ratio, but it's laser targeted and has a range of 6km. If I remember correctly, standard procedure is to shoot one or two 125mm HEAT rounds at an enemy armor and if it still stands to next fire a Refleks. Also, Refleks can be used as a SAM in desperate situations against helicopters.

T-90 primary armor is a Kontakt-5 ERA, which probably isn't as overall effective as Abram's armor which is made of depleted uranium for maximum weight, Abrams being 80tonnes heavy tank and T-90 being around 50tonne medium tank range. The ERA is pretty much designed to take a beating and at the end of the day, be replaced so the T-90 can fight the next day. Besides that, T-90 has composite armor on the turret and a detection and active defense systems, for instance Shtora-1 active protection system (I think it is also called ARENA?). According to wikipedia, a T-90 with Kontakt-5 was able to survive RPGs, ATGMS and even sabot rounds like those the Abrams uses.

As for the Georgia campaign, Russia only sent in older T-72 variants and some T-80s for their tank groups and Georgia was lucky Russia felt mercy before they finished raping their unprepared forces. From what I know, T-90s were not even involved though they were tested extensively in Chechen conflict (IMO they put up a better fight than Georgians who proved to be sitting targets if not running away).

Here are some good numbers near the middle of this wikipedia article. Holy crap, notable points being equipment Russia captured (65 T-72s) and their artillery used (100 units, even Iskanders and Tochkas).

T-90 is designed to be a fast and offensive tank, as opposed to the more defensive T-80 that Russia uses within its boarders. Armor was sacrificed for speed and various sensor equipment. Abrams can no doubt take a few hits from a 125mm HEAT and Refleks, but in terms of cost effectiveness (T-90 at ~$1.5m, Abrams at ~$4.3m), it should be three T-90s vs one Abrams in combat in which case I gave the T-90s a 70% chance of success easy.

Keep in mind that we are only considering T-90S vs M1A2 here and not all the other factors that could be involved in the fight (aircraft, ATGM platforms, etc). If we consider the entire theater of war, then one would have to consider American command and control supremacy vs Russian field tactics and artillery support.

What I meant by Abrams being designed for urban warfare is that they are pretty much heavily armored tanks that can handle RPGs and .50cals while packing more than enough firepower to destroy any threat posed by insurgents. They aren't designed to fight tanks anymore, at least not modern ones that have the specific AT equipment like the T-90. Just to be honest, T-90 isn't all the effective in urban combat as proven in Chechnya. They are meant to fight in tank on tank action in rural environments.

By the way, my bad with "T-35", I meant T-34. I keep messing up names of military hardware that I once knew so well before I found my love in vodka





T-95 is nothing but a concept and doesn't exist. Russia simply can't afford to make an entire new tank. Also a 150mm cannon??? Did you make that up LOL......


If it doesn't exist, then why does it have the official name "Nizhny Tagil MBT"? And I was wrong, it's not a 150mm cannon that's just silly... It's actually 152mm smoothbore. Some old rumors say it was finished testing in '99 but official production is limited due to funding issues (which are passed by now)...

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

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



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


First, thanks for keeping up a good debate!

I am glad you brought up the shtora and kontakt, I did not because I figured I would just be speaking chinese to you. I have found using wiki for refrences can be pretty shacky at times, so if you can find other resources that are more accurate to the truth. I am going to do somemore research before I dig into you about the kontakt and shtora so I am not falsely tearing you a new one or mucking up what I remember. I will not go into detail but the abrams can defeat refleks


As far as the T-95....the M1A2SEP will do just fine. The M1A3 can wait ten yrs.

The ONLY adaption that has been made to the Abrams for urban combat is the tactics and strategy in which it is fought. What ever site told you it has lost some of its Tank on Tank ability is missleading you. There is still plenty of simulated Tank vs Tank training done in the field. I think they will stick with the turbine...maybe a more efficient type, but the power, ease of maintnance and reliability out weighs the negatives. The power pack has been but to the test in the harshest of conditions and came out a champ. What other tank can do a complete powerpak swap in 15min? (with a good crew
) The majority of the information you will find about the Abrams vs T-90, they are refrencing mostly to the M1A1 and some M1A2...the SEP is a whole nother can of woopass.

[edit] Ohyeah, the georgia deal....True, Russia mostly rolled with T72's some T-72(...cant remember the upgrade) and a few T-80s. STILL their armor out numbered georgia almost 2-1. I Know georgia went running leaving the innocent behind and that alot of its tank kills where not from their tanks. Russian put its big foot and them with relative ease. BUT! that is no excuse for loosing 80tanks in such a short period of time. It highlighted how out of shape russia's training and tactics are.

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



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Tank2/8
 


There is an urban kit for the M1, TUSK, but it in no way takes away from it's tank-on-tank capability.





posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
What I meant by Abrams being designed for urban warfare is that they are pretty much heavily armored tanks that can handle RPGs and .50cals while packing more than enough firepower to destroy any threat posed by insurgents.


Im really curious as to where your getting the idea that the M1A2 is optimized for urban combat and that it cannot fight tank on tank battles anymore?

are you refering to this?


Tank Urban Survival Kit
en.wikipedia.org... Tank Urban Survival Kit, or TUSK, is a series of improvements to the M1 Abrams intended to improve fighting ability in urban environments.[52] Historically, urban and other close battlefields have been the worst place for tanks to fight—a tank's front armor is much stronger than that on the sides, top, or rear, and in an urban environment, attacks can come from any direction, and attackers can get close enough to reliably hit weak points in the tank's armor, or get sufficient elevation to hit the top armor square on.

Armor upgrades include reactive armor on the sides of the tank and slat armor (similar to that on the Stryker) on the rear to protect against rocket-propelled grenades and other shaped charge warheads.

A Transparent Armor Gun Shield and a thermal sight system are added to the loader's top-mounted M240B 7.62 mm machine gun, and a Kongsberg Gruppen Remote Weapon Turret carrying a .50 caliber machine gun (again similar to that used on the Stryker) is in place of the tank commander's original .50 caliber machine gun mount, wherein the commander had to expose himself to fire the weapon manually. An exterior telephone allows supporting infantry to communicate with the tank commander.


This is ontop of the M1A2's already formidable capabilites which are not downgraded in the least. In fact they are inhanced quite a bit.



If it doesn't exist, then why does it have the official name "Nizhny Tagil MBT"?


Lots of things that dont exist have names eh
and Russian systems seem to have this cult of invicibility bestowed on them before they are even in production :shk:

DO they have a new MBT? Lets hope so because thier past designed have not held up to any sort of real combat



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tank2/8
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 
I am glad you brought up the shtora and kontakt, I did not because I figured I would just be speaking chinese to you.

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


I used to play a fairly detailed military simulator game before, and Abrams were usually the weakest tanks that I encountered against my T-90 battalions considering they had no active protection system against Refleks ATGM and their shells usually bounced off my ERA. Merkava MkIV proved to be the toughest (they had TROPHY). It's free to download and #ty graphics, called WinSPMBT if you can find it


And don't get me wrong, I don't base all of my information from video games. Is is simply more reliable to understand the theory in some practice then to assume the wrong facts.


Russian put its big foot and them with relative ease. BUT! that is no excuse for loosing 80tanks in such a short period of time. It highlighted how out of shape russia's training and tactics are.


After a quick search, I still have yet to see any news article mention Russian army losses in the Georgian war. Russian losses were limited to soldiers and aircraft, I see no info regarding these "80 tanks" that I keep hearing about on ATS.


What ever site told you it has lost some of its Tank on Tank ability is missleading you.


No mere website speaks for the information that I know. Since the Cold War officially ended in 1990, the philosophy of all out warfare has shifted gears. The West started to focus on fighting insurgencies instead of Soviet tank armies and so they modified their tactics and equipment. Russia just continued on to develop hardware specifically designed to counter and destroy Western technology, specific examples being T-90, S-400, Su-35, Topol-M, Iskander, etc.

The US military philosophy revolves around a command and control balance on the battlefield. The thing is that a capable military would only have to surgically strike certain priority elements of the American force and the Americans would be helpless to continue without battlefield supremacy. Imagine if the US went into a battle and lost its aircraft carriers or 747 AWACS early on in the battle, how effective would they be without such powerful elements? Communication would crumble, morale will falter, all their training and reliance on technology wouldn't mean a thing.


DO they have a new MBT? Lets hope so because thier past designed have not held up to any sort of real combat


Yeouch, that hurts coming from an ATS elite... haha, just kidding dude


It would first be nice to have actual combat data, unfortunately peace prevailed over mutually assured destruction so all we can really do is continue to fantasize about our favorite weapons of war and their capabilities. Though this is not saying that we cannot have hope for war in the future, right comrade?


EDIT: I managed to find an image of a new model of T-90, apparently with some kind of new optical sensors...


[edit on 10-8-2009 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


I'm sorry but T-95 only exists as a conept and in the imaginations of fanboys. Russia cannot afford to make a new tank. That is why Russia is now using the T-90 as its primary tank with T-80s being used in the elite house hold divsions. Abrams doesn't weigh 80 tonnes either it was 61.4 fully loaded and 64 tonnes with the TUSK kit. Abrams was not designed to fight in urban combat either.......It was designed to fight Russian T-72 and T-80 on the plains of western Germany.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

I used to play a fairly detailed military simulator game before, and Abrams were usually the weakest tanks that I encountered against my T-90 battalions considering they had no active protection system against Refleks ATGM and their shells usually bounced off my ERA. Merkava MkIV proved to be the toughest (they had TROPHY). It's free to download and #ty graphics, called WinSPMBT if you can find it


There are several problems with that.

1. The M1A2's Chobham Armor is specificaly designed to defeat HEAT warheads, of which the Refleks ATGM is. Since the armor is passive, tandam warheads will not give the missile an advantage. Since the ATGM is a beam rider, top attack is not an option.

2. There is no way an M1A2 with M829A3 sabot rounds will "bounce off" anything.

While in the Army, I saw a presentation where 6 M60 hulls were lined up front to back, 2 rows of 3. A 105mm tungsten carbide (TC) round was fired at the first row and a 105mm APFSDSDU round was fired at the 2nd. A nighttime long-exposure photo was taken. The TC round made it into the first hull and the APFSDSDU round's tracer could still be seen as it cleared the 3rd hull and traveled downrange.

ERA will not stop, let alone "bounce", a APFSDSDU from a M1A2.

3. Trophy is fine, but will not help against sabot rounds.


[edit on 10-8-2009 by SpudmanWP]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpudmanWP
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

I used to play a fairly detailed military simulator game before, and Abrams were usually the weakest tanks that I encountered against my T-90 battalions considering they had no active protection system against Refleks ATGM and their shells usually bounced off my ERA. Merkava MkIV proved to be the toughest (they had TROPHY). It's free to download and #ty graphics, called WinSPMBT if you can find it


There are several problems with that.

1. The M1A2's Chobham Armor is specificaly designed to defeat HEAT warheads, of which the Refleks ATGM is. Since the armor is passive, tandam warheads will not give the missile an advantage. Since the ATGM is a beam rider, top attack is not an option.[edit on 10-8-2009 by SpudmanWP]


Just because it is designed to stop HEAT doesn't mean it is invincible to it. If you keep pounding the armor with high explosives then it will eventually give in, and there's always the chance of hitting a weak spot. It's easy to miss all the other variables involved... Think of a HEAT round hitting an Abrams. It might explode safely on the exterior with minimal damage to interior components, but it might disable important sensors or even the tracks.

I wouldn't doubt that the Russians are developing some kind of AT round designed specifically for chobham since it is their style to design anti-American specific weapons. This is considering if the 152mm T-95 cannon cannot do the job with HEAT alone.


2. There is no way an M1A2 with M829A3 sabot rounds will "bounce off" anything.

While in the Army, I saw a presentation where 6 M60 hulls were lined up front to back, 2 rows of 3. A 105mm tungsten carbide (TC) round was fired at the first row and a 105mm APFSDSDU round was fired at the 2nd. A nighttime long-exposure photo was taken. The TC round made it into the first hull and the APFSDSDU round's tracer could still be seen as it cleared the 3rd hull and traveled downrange.

ERA will not stop, let alone "bounce", a APFSDSDU from a M1A2.


I was using an expression, I did not mean literally bounce off


I do not believe solely in theory anyways. One can develop a weapon and claim it can do anything, but there's a million different things that can change the facts in actual practice. Unfortunately, Abrams will probably never face off against T-90 in real life under optimal conditions (Russia vs US anyways).

It's good that you've seen a test for yourself in the military, but just like the Kontakt-5 T-90 test that proved it could survive a sabot round, it's just a test. In real combat, both tanks would probably be moving around each other in under 50% optimal conditions and the only thing that would matter is if they could at the very least hit each other or not. Anything else is bonus.


3. Trophy is fine, but will not help against sabot rounds.


TROPHY is defense against ATGMs and RPGs, it detects their targeting systems and deployments and automatically counters with a blast of metal pellets. It is used/developed by Israel and will probably not be used against Americans and their sabot rounds, not like it can stop cannons anyway.

As much as I like APS like Arena, I must also think of how they can be just as destructive to their own troops since they are deployed automatically. I guess the choice has to be made to sacrifice one or the other.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by SKUNK2
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


I'm sorry but T-95 only exists as a conept and in the imaginations of fanboys. Russia cannot afford to make a new tank.


haha, that's a good one. The US has such a large defense budget because they build large and fancy superprojects to make themselves look scarier than they really are, and also because they have extensive intelligence programs.

Russia's economy collapsed in the early '90s, but you'd have to be a fool if you cannot see that they've rebuilt themselves since then. I've heard a rumor that Russia spends at least 40% of their KNOWN annual defense budget on constructing their Mt. Yamantau mountain bunker, complete with black ops security. It is no surprise that Russia makes a lot of unknown defense money just by selling off old equipment, so I would never believe any Western BS about Russia being too poor to build weapons.

On top of that, Russia does build technology demonstrators of their new military models, public examples being MiG 1.44 and Su-47. Russian defense officials have said they've started testing the T-50, which is 5th generation fighter. It saves money to build and test prototypes to know exactly what and how to produce when the time is needed, as opposed to amassing a large and expected force like the US does for all to see.

I believe same is being done for T-95. In my opinion, they have all the technology and money available to build at least one to test before making improvements and entering production.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


I think the problem is with the game you were playing and the weight it gives the M1A2 (hereto just called M1) and the T-90. Here are a couple of observations.

1. A track hit from a HEAT round will disable any tank. There is nothing about the M1 that makes it more susceptible to this damage than any other tank. If anything, the VERY THICK skirt armor will protect the tracks more often than not. This is one reason I suggested composite band tracks for the A3 as it gives better survivability to land mines and track hits.

2. The combat history of the M1 is being completely ignored. In GW1 and GW2 there were numerous reports of M1s surviving multiple hits from HEAT and sabot rounds without penetrating the crew compartment.

3. A larger (152mm vs 125mm) HEAT round is not going to make that much of a difference to the M1's armor, which has been upgraded on several occasions. With the added protection of the TUSK add-on kit and DU panels, this will not likely make a difference. This is another reason that an active defensive suite is likely to make it to the A3 package.

4. Sensor damage. There are only 2 sensors to damage. One being the crosswind sensor and the other the main sight/laser rangefinder. This is no different than any other tanks and is not a weakness inherent to the M1.

5. Dual targeting system. The M1 has a unique system where the Gunner and Commander have their own targeting systems. While the Gunner is aiming at an enemy tanks and firing, the Commander is searching for and lining up the next shot. After the Gunner confirms a kill on target #1, the Commander pushes a button and the gun swings around and lines up on target #2. As the Gunner takes over on #2, the Commander searches for target #3, etc, etc. IIRC, the Commander's sight can also do automatic target search, ID, and sequencing.

6. ROF - The M1 can fire up to 1 round approximately every 3 seconds. The M1 cannot keep it up for long, but at least 10 rounds in 30-45 seconds is doable. I know because I was the loader slamming all those rounds into the breech. The T-90/95 will never do that. Combined with #5 above, it is a very deadly combo.

7. Superior electronics. The M1's battle computer, laser rangefinder, barrel deflection sensor, 2nd gen thermal FLIR, and comms make it more than a match for any Russian tank on the battlefield.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
All of that sounds realistic, except for the loading part. T-90 has an auto-loader (ever since the T-72), is a human really faster than an auto-loader? Also, T-90 auto-loader can apparently load and distinguish between APFSDS, HEAT-FS and HE-FRAG ammo, so I guess T-90 has similar ammo capability as the M1.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
All of that sounds realistic, except for the loading part. T-90 has an auto-loader (ever since the T-72), is a human really faster than an auto-loader? Also, T-90 auto-loader can apparently load and distinguish between APFSDS, HEAT-FS and HE-FRAG ammo, so I guess T-90 has similar ammo capability as the M1.

A human loader is faster than an auto laoder...But i have never heard of a shot being fired every 3 seconds, it just wouldn't happen in the real world and sounds like an exageration. Challenger2 can fire of 3 shots in 12 seconds and thats using much lighter and easier to handle 2 piece ammunition. A trained Leopard2 crew fires a shot every 5 seconds....



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Dimitri, the Abrams tank is still capable of fighting with other tanks, no matter the situation that the U.S. Army face in Iraq. All they did was change tactics and add some features to fight in urban combat, not the other way around that you mentioned that the Abrams was design to fight in urban combat from the start. Heck they are still designing new ammo that allows the Abrams tank to hit targets from 12 kms or more! I havent heard much from the T-95 or the Black Eagle tank, but the Russians claim that they will have a new tank replacement somewhere after 2011, we will see what happens then, but the Abrams M1A3 as op poster claims will be interesting to look up on. I want to especially see them put up the new gun, like the German Leopard 2 called the L/55.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpudmanWP
reply to post by Tank2/8
 


There is an urban kit for the M1, TUSK, but it in no way takes away from it's tank-on-tank capability.




I had seen that kit in popular mechanics in 2006 when I was here for my second tour. We thought we would be the ones to field test it. I have never seen or heard from it again. It looked like a good package.
Did it make it to the field??



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Tank2/8
 


Yes its in the field, some pics.
en.wikipedia.org...:M1A1_Abrams_with_Integrated_Management_System_new_Tank_Urban_Survivability_Kit_Dec._2007.jpg

www.flickr.com...

www.flickr.com...

Last pic is a model, but looks cool though.
www.missing-lynx.com...

[edit on 11-8-2009 by deltaboy]



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 



I used to play a fairly detailed military simulator game before, and Abrams were usually the weakest tanks that I encountered against my T-90 battalions considering they had no active protection system against Refleks ATGM and their shells usually bounced off my ERA. Merkava MkIV proved to be the toughest (they had TROPHY). It's free to download and #ty graphics, called WinSPMBT if you can find it


Sounds like a fun game. Keep in mind that the information provided to the maker of the game was limited to some declassied info and their own imagination and by no means should be used at all in judging their accuall capabilities. The Abrams has been a very close, personal friend of mine for a while. Shoot, even though the military channel always places the Abrams #1 in its top ten, it is still down playing the Abrams, mostly just refrencing the M1A1. I dought the simulator would do any better justice.

As far as how many Tanks russian lost in the conflict last yr. I was hesitent to put that in. I was keeping up with it while it was going on from the news on my cell phone (traveling) They talked of russia losing several tanks. Wikipedia does not....(russia could have edited that) True it is not 100% conformed. I found a realible sight the other night and should have provided the link. I will dig it up tonight.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 



#'n A Thanks deltaboy! I am a lil disappointed I have not got to play with it but I am happy they went through with it! Adding a CROW like system to the TC's and Loaders CS is something I think they should have added a while ago.

....The flicka pics are obviously posted my a tanker, or at least taken by one. I wonder why they made the mistake of labeling it a M1A1?



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SKUNK2

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
All of that sounds realistic, except for the loading part. T-90 has an auto-loader (ever since the T-72), is a human really faster than an auto-loader? Also, T-90 auto-loader can apparently load and distinguish between APFSDS, HEAT-FS and HE-FRAG ammo, so I guess T-90 has similar ammo capability as the M1.

A human loader is faster than an auto laoder...But i have never heard of a shot being fired every 3 seconds, it just wouldn't happen in the real world and sounds like an exageration. Challenger2 can fire of 3 shots in 12 seconds and thats using much lighter and easier to handle 2 piece ammunition. A trained Leopard2 crew fires a shot every 5 seconds....


In the field, training when the crew is good, the loader will have a round chambered in 3sec and the gunner or TC will have the shot downrange before the 4thsec turns. In the real world, you kinda of lose your perception of time, but as long as everybody is clicking, it can be done



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Tank2/8
 


Probably because it doesn't have the Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer. I always considered that the best way to tell the difference between the two. But then M1A1s can be upgraded with such device.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join