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.

Are there any next-generation tank projects to replace the Abrams?

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.

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

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]

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

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

By what info do you say that?