Upgrades to the already dominating MBT are a go!

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 



Good eye delta, I did not even notice the CITV was not there!
My mistake. I think I was looking at the other prototype photo provided from ealier, that one had the citv.




posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
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.


I never said it was designed to fight urban warfare from the start, I'm quite aware that it was designed post-Vietnam to counter the T-72 and T-80 in NATO skirmishes against the Soviets. I'm just saying that in modern times the US does not usually fight tank vs tank warfare (Iraqi ragtag "T-72"s are not even close to Abram level), so they've adapted their tanks to be support for their infantry and lighter vehicles. Obviously they are still very capable against other modern MBTs.


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.


I know that it's just a game, a game designed by people much more obsessed with military simulation than us.

Either way I would love to test out both machines in actual practice, but that's not very likely. It would also be the greatest thing in my life to join the military, but I don't even think they're interested in taking my application seriously. Apparenty I'm just not army intelligence material.


As far as how many Tanks russian lost in the conflict last yr. I was hesitent to put that in.


Obviously Russia would lose some tanks, more than likely to poor maintenance or environmental issues. I seriously doubt that they lost 60+ tanks to Georgian fire though considering Georgia was using Russian technology against them. The only real surprise to the Russians was when the Georgians scored a kill of a Tu-22MR using a modern Buk-M1 SAM.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Not trying to bust balls here. I am very happy that this thread has not been poluted with a bunch a hippies and you have added some good thoughts to yourside of the topic.
what you did say is


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.


You are just being corrected on that statement as it is complete duke.
I understand you are aware the simulation is just a simulation and I am sure the designers spend a great deal of time and research for the game.
I have not played it (I will look for it, sounds like fun) but just based off what you said your outcomes were....IT IS NOT any kind of remotely reliable record for the realworld.

I dont think I am the only Tanker in this thread. A Tanker KNOWS his Tank. The Abrams, although in need (not urgent) of some updates, Is very capable of taking on and out T-80/90s...95s if they roll.

Aside from the Abrams Tech. capabilities, the crew is the KEY. I know russia trains, but I dont see them being able to train as much as we do, it is not cheap. inbetween these deployments we are in the field training at LEAST 6 months out of every 12 for Tank on Tank combat.

[edit on 11-8-2009 by Tank2/8]



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Are there any next-generation tank projects to replace the Abrams?



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


I have read a bit in popular science and popular mechanics about future unmanned battle tanks and vehciles that could hit the battle field within our lifetime. At least on the developmental side of it. The project for the M1A3 will, according to the experts take the main Abrams hull/turret design to or beyond 2050.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Tank2/8
 



In those Popular mechanics articals about the future of the battle field, that talked of these unmanned machines being able to differenciate between friendly and enemy combatants on their own. I can see that the technology is on the way. The systems that they plan on using in airports that is basically an eye scan that can tell from different signs of the body that cannot be controlled, to tell if an individual has bad intensions or not.
I could see them going that route, or something physically on the friendlys that the machine would reconize as being friendly forces. I was a Abrams system maintainer for 3yrs before I was a Tanker. (makes for a hell of a tanker
) I remember reading about this and making a funny scenerio of being the mechanics for this unmanned AI weopon. Doing a systems check after some repairs and having the thing going apeS on you after powering it up. Then the rest of the Mechs would clown the guy who just got shot up because of lousy trouble shooting and repair. I laugh about it but it could quite possibly be a realistic hazzard to working on that type of equiptment or just having it malfunction.....or go on its own AI rampage to destroy its creators!



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tank2/8

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



I don't believe a word you say i'm afraid. It isn't possible to load a round every 3 seconds and if you were in the military and served on Abrams as you claim you'd know that 80% of the features from the TUSK kit have made it to all Abrams on active duty. Not forgetting the FACT you would have trained using the new systems back at home in America.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   
With export of Iranian know-how on EFPs of more sophistocated designs spreading among insurgents/freedom groups it appears armour has had it's day.

Hezbollah has shown that Israel is just pissing it's tanks away when they try to venture into Lebanon. EFP, Kornet and Metis-M rockets

Fielding nearly $5 million dollars worth against flip-flop wearing assailants with half an oil drum of RDX and a Copper or Tanatlum plate... it's a complete mismatch.

The measure is always way more expensive than the countermeasure

Afghanistan and Iraq will end in the bankrupcy of the USA



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by SKUNK2

Originally posted by Tank2/8

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



I don't believe a word you say i'm afraid. It isn't possible to load a round every 3 seconds and if you were in the military and served on Abrams as you claim you'd know that 80% of the features from the TUSK kit have made it to all Abrams on active duty. Not forgetting the FACT you would have trained using the new systems back at home in America.


Insulting my service to this country like that skank is really a douche bag move considering you know NOTHING about me and what sounds like 3rd hand knowledge of the Abrams is shakey at best. Just a lil bit of my background, I served regular Army 2002-07, I fought 2 hard yrs in this country WITH the Abrams under 4th ID, WarHorse Brigade 3/67Armor and 2/8inf. After our redeployment from the second tour in 2007, 2nd Brigade was slotted to move from Hood to Carson. Our Tanks went strait from Iraq to Carson. My EOC was up before the move to Carson. I got hired with BNSF as a trainconductor when I still had a week left in service. I was furloughed at the begining of this yr so I came back out here to Iraq with a contractor untill I get called back to train service probably towards the end of 2010. I also have a six yr ArmyNational Guard contract that they where able to put on hold for me until I return to the states. Once I am called back to train service, I am reenlisting back to Regular Army 19K, the railroad will hold onto my senority date for the duration of my service.
I lived and breathed Armor fool. I know the Abrams like it was a part of my being. You must be aware that several Armor Units returing to Iraq after 2007 did not even bring their Abrams and that alot of 19Ks have been cross classed into 19Ds to meet the current needs of Iraq and Afghan. My unit that I still keep in very close contact with was one of these units.

I did not say that a round is loaded every 3seconds.


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


I said a good loader can have a round chambered in 3sec and a round down range in 4. That is not saying that a round is chambered every 3sec on the clock.
Not only did that comment make your look like a douche bag, but the inaccurate rebuttle about how fast a crew can load and fire makes you look like a #'n idiot.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by Tank2/8]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:25 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. 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.


The A2 and A2 SEP weighs closer to 69tons combat loaded. The TUSK would obviously put the weight over 70.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SKUNK2
 


Talking with a GD friend of mine, I did not see any TUSKs because General D did not even get started on it until almost '07. This could have been what the 1yr contract I almost took at hood earlier this yr was for. He said they did not get that many in the order. I imagine they will mainly upgrade A1s with TUSK to keep the weight down considering the Heaviest recovery Tank only weighs 70tons.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tank2/8
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)



we all know it is for public consumption. I don't think I have ever heard how fast the F-15C could fly, but it is a barn burner.

Tank, I can empathy with you on wanting to talk about your favorite toys, but do we have many tankers on this forum. If you stuck a few extra goodies on the top of your talk I would not even notice them, that is about how much I know about tanks.

I will be the first to say that our equipment is pretty hot, but our troops are way better and that is where winning is at. We have fought most of our wars with equipment that did not outmatch the enemy, quite the opposite, but our people made it happen.

Our current stuff is fairly top notch, lost the F-22 so you ground folks better travel with one eye on the sky in the next war if we go up against the chicoms.

Ole Sarge



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   


Aside from the Abrams Tech. capabilities, the crew is the KEY. I know russia trains, but I dont see them being able to train as much as we do, it is not cheap. inbetween these deployments we are in the field training at LEAST 6 months out of every 12 for Tank on Tank combat
reply to post by Ole Sarge
 



Very true friend



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tank2/8

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. 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.


The A2 and A2 SEP weighs closer to 69tons combat loaded. The TUSK would obviously put the weight over 70.

M1A2SEP Abrams with a TUSK kit weighs 67.6 tonne. With out TUSK it weighs 63 tonne. I don't know why your using short ton when i am using metric tonne, there is quite a big difference. Tanks like CR2 are weighing in at 75+tonne with street fighter kits....



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SKUNK2
 


I am using tons from lbs. I HAD to know these weights as I was also the M88HERC operator/TC while a 63A

I have seen alot of sites that seem like they should be reliable on stats but are not. I am getting my weights from the data plates that are posted inside of the vehicles.



[edit on 13-8-2009 by Tank2/8]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tank2/8
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?
As a Russia tech lover I can assure you Challenger1/2 is better than M1A1/2



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
By what info do you say that?



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ATSWATCHER
 






As a Russia tech lover I can assure you Challenger1/2 is better than M1A1/2


Please go into detail about what features you think are better and why. Are you including training levels and standards of the crew?



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tank2/8
reply to post by ATSWATCHER
 






As a Russia tech lover I can assure you Challenger1/2 is better than M1A1/2


Please go into detail about what features you think are better and why. Are you including training levels and standards of the crew?
As you can see the A2's protection is not as good as the Challenger 2's read this and then link to the Challenger 2's article:

en.wikipedia.org...

P.S The M1A1/2's gun is designed & built in Germany so its basicly European.

[edit on 16-8-2009 by ATSWATCHER]


[edit on 16-8-2009 by ATSWATCHER]



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ATSWATCHER
 



I was hoping you would have done a lil better then wikipedia but as far as a brief discription of the armor, it did a decent job. The Abrams Chodham/DU armor is perfectly capable of standing up to anything the Challenger2 has to throw at it. Even though the Abrams packs more capable rounds then the C2, I am sure it would take a couple well placed to penetrate the Dorchester. The UK had to come up with a better MBT in the '90's because the Challenger1 was a flop. I am not saying that the Challenger2 is not an great tank, but you have to facture many more things in then just an upgrade of the armor. The Abrams has thus far proven its survivorbility in combat. The C2's that are still packing the rifled barrels have a little more range, but anything that was out of range of our smooth bore, you could still easily see with the latest FLIR and call for artillary. THe Abrams is better designed for fast mobility. It would deffinatly depend on the battlefield but between these two tanks I think it would boil down to the crew.

[edit on 16-8-2009 by Tank2/8]





new topics
 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join