It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Upgrades to the already dominating MBT are a go!

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Tank2/8
 



Alot of piggy back training takes place in germany between the US and UK in very compedative field training and the US has come out ontop the majority of the time. You can chalk that all up to better trained crews.
DEATH BEFORE DISMOUNT!

If I want some hot tea, I will go knock on a C2 hatch for a cup but otherwise I will stick with my more then capable Abrams.

The M1A3 will be in the soldiers hands with in a decade. The C2 is suppose to carry the UK MBT for another 20-30yrs. The C2 is a good match to the M1A2 both having their own strenths, When that A3 comes a roll'n there will be no question.

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




posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tank2/8
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]

Challenger2 fires 8.9kg penatrator @ 1680m/s, while Abrams fires a 10kg penatrator @1555m/s.....Abrams uses an old short .44 smoothbore, CR2 uses a long .55 rifle.
The Challenger1 was not a flop, it only lost in the 89 CAT because the other tanks could acquire targets slightly faster.....Yet when CR1 went to Iraq it broke the world record tank on tank kill @ 5.2km with APFSDS......And not one single CR1 was lost to enemy fire, while many Abrams were.
Also Challenger2 has never been destroyed or KO'd by enemy fire while Abrams gets KO'd by $5 RPG and even .50 Dushka HMG fire.
www.janes.com...

Challenger1 also had FLIR called TOGS. Challenger2 has TOGSII. Not forgetting the FACT Challenger2 is the 2nd fastest tank over rough terrain because it uses advanced hydro-gas suspension, CR2 is only beat by the French LecLerc in mobility. Engine power means nothing if you can't travel safely across rough terrain.






[edit on 17-8-2009 by SKUNK2]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by SKUNK2
 


Only because the Challenger 1 was not under intense battles like the Abrams tank was, especially against the Republican Guards. But then the Abrams performed very well along with the crews during GW1. If someone wants to use the wiki as the source well then...


Nearly all sources claim that no Abrams tank has ever been destroyed as a result of fire from an enemy tank, but some have certainly taken some damage which required extensive repair. There is at least one account, reported in the following Gulf War's US Official Assessment (scan), of an Abrams being damaged by three kinetic energy piercing rounds. The DoD report indicates that witnesses in the field claimed it was hit by a T-72 Asad Babil. The KE rounds were unable to fully penetrate and stuck in the armor, but because of the external damage it was sent to a maintenance depot. This is the only verified case of an M1A1 put out of action by an Iraqi MBT.[25]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SKUNK2
 





Also Challenger2 has never been destroyed or KO'd by enemy fire while Abrams gets KO'd by $5 RPG and even .50 Dushka HMG fire.



Yet when CR1 went to Iraq it broke the world record tank on tank kill @ 5.2km with APFSDS......And not one single CR1 was lost to enemy fire, while many Abrams were.



Neither the C1 or C2 seen near the action the Abrams has. During the invasion, even basra was nothing compared most of the other battles. Abrams crews took care of most of the fighting in basra anyhow and the UK brought up the rear to hold it. Everything that the 3rdID and 1st Marines came with were all M1A1s. 4thID (Division I belonged to at the time as a Abrams System Maintainer and recovery) was the only Division in country at the start with M1A2s and I was with the first brigade to get the SEP. If you rolled the C1s and C2s out in the kind of #s the Abrams was and put them up against the same situations the Abrams was in, I am sure I would be posting you a link showing soft spots were found in the challenger.

I have never called the Abrams invincible and I will admit the challenger2 has slightly better protection.
You will never find the complete play by play of the abrams and others preformance during OIF online. The people who do know are the ones who wrote it in blood and sweat.

What I posted above, the Challenger2 will be carrying the Uk MBT for another 30+yrs. The M1A2 and C2 are very good matches at the present. The Challenger has yet to be put threw the same combat tests the Abrams has. The Challenger2 is a very good Tank. When the A3 hits the dirt in the next decade, there will be no question.

Find a Tanker, US or UK who has trained in Germany in the last 10yrs and they will tell you who dominated the simulated battle field.

This is a good thing for everybody, the abrams and the challenger were not designed to fight each other. Both were built to play different roles on the battle field.


[edit on 17-8-2009 by Tank2/8]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Tank2/8
 


Thanks to Turkey 4th ID was held up.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SKUNK2
 


If you had read the link you provided, you would have seen that those rpg hits were to the engine compartment. This would have taken out any tank since the engine compartment is not as protected as the rest of the tank. Think Russian tanks with fuel barrels on the back deck.

The 50 cal round took out a piece of equipment that was on the turret bussle rack. The equipment caught fire and the flaming fuel dripped down into the engine compartment and disabled the tank. The equipment is no longer carried in the rack, IIRC, to keep this from happening again.

As to the effectiveness of M1 ammo, the new M829A3 is second to none:
www.atk.com...



PHYSICAL DATA
Cartridge Height . . . . . . . . . . . . . 982mm
Cartridge Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . .22.3 kg
Propellant Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RPD-380 Stick
Propellant Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . .8.1 kg
Projectile Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Armor Piercing
Projectile Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.0 kg
Projectile Length . . . . . . . . . . . . .924mm
Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Depleted Uranium

PERFORMANCE DATA
Muzzle Velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1555 m/s
Target Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,000m

The M829A3 is the newest design of the U.S. Army's Kinetic Energy tank cartridge. With an extended range and improved accuracy, this is the most lethal tank round in the world. The M829A3 utilizes state-of-the-art composite sabot, propellant, and penetrator technologies to ensure that the U.S. armored forces will maintain battlefield supremacy well into the future.


Take a look at the length of the penetrator. It is HUGE and reaches nearly to the base of the round. Here is a couple of points.

1. The longer the penetrator, the more armor it penetrates vs other penetrators of identical width.

2. The M829A3 has only a 3.8% deficit in muzzle energy compared to the CH round. BUT, since it enjoys a 12.35% lead in penetrator weight, it retains that muzzle energy better than the CH round over it's range.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 


# man, we were ready to go to. we hit dirt in Iraq April 9th a week and a half after baghdad was taken.

I found out later that it was accually used as a deception method against saddam and his generals. They thought we would wait until 4th ID regrouped in the south. They were taken by suprise when the bulk of the south force, 3ID and the 1st Marines pushed without us.

I wonder now if our generals new that turkey would block us from the start and just used the whole thing as one big well played out act of deception. We pushed threw with little engagment. Once we got just north of bahgdad where the 4th marines headed west and we took diyala and as far north as mosul. It was a pretty dominating tour. The extremist and insurgents where not well organized after baghdad fell. My company had gun battles out numbered 2-3 to 1 a couple times but they did not have the organization to cause any damamge. My second tour 2005-07, my brigade had the largest area of responsibility in theater. Holy # did the game change as far as what we could and could not do, Iranian backed shia making more effective EFPs and IEDs.....sectarian violence was at its peak and the mahdi army was trying to tussle. # A....goodtimes



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Tank2/8
 


Son of a bitch. news.yahoo.com...

I have no dought that there are somethings that can go. It would be a mistake to only build and improve our force to meet the needs of fighting these rats.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
For those interested in M1 numbers, the M1 is consistently being upgraded. And when I say upgraded, they are torn down to the bare metal and rebuilt to a new standard.

Here are just some of the latest upgrades.


U.S. Army Awards General Dynamics $81 Million for Abrams Tank Upgrades
STERLING HEIGHTS, Mich., Feb. 2, 2009 -- The U.S. Army TACOM Life Cycle Management Command has awarded General Dynamics Land Systems, a business unit of General Dynamics (NYSE: GD), a multi-year contract valued at $81 million to upgrade 30 M1 Abram tanks to the M1A2 Systems Enhancement Package Version 2 (SEPv2) configuration.



General Dynamics Awarded $34 Million for M1A1 Abrams Tank Upgrades
STERLING HEIGHTS, Mich., Sept 05, 2008 - The U.S. Army TACOM Lifecycle Management Command has awarded General Dynamics Land Systems, a business unit of General Dynamics (NYSE: GD), a $34 million delivery order for 30 M1A1 Abrams Integrated Management (AIM) main battle tanks. The contract includes an option for 30 additional AIM vehicles, bringing the total potential award value to $69.5 million.



General Dynamics Awarded $614 Million for Abrams Tank Upgrades
STERLING HEIGHTS, Mich., Aug 06, 2008 - The U.S. Army TACOM Lifecycle Management Command awarded General Dynamics Land Systems $614 million on August 1 to upgrade 235 M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks to the M1A2 Systems Enhancement Package (SEP) Version Two (V2) configuration. General Dynamics Land Systems is a business unit of General Dynamics (NYSE: GD).



U.S. Army Awards General Dynamics $39 Million for Abrams Upgrades
STERLING HEIGHTS, Mich., Feb. 8, 2008 - The U.S. Army TACOM Lifecycle Management Command has awarded General Dynamics Land Systems, a business unit of General Dynamics (NYSE: GD), a multi-year contract to upgrade 435 M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks. The vehicles will be converted to the M1A2 Systems Enhancement Package (SEP) Version Two (V2) configuration. The first increment of the multi-year contract is valued at $39 million and will fund the upgrade of 20 M1A1 Abrams tanks.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Thewikipedia article has sources so don't give that "Wikipedia isn't reliable crap!!" the Challenger 2 has been hit with 70 thats right 7-0 RPG-7's and none penatrated exept the newer RPG-29,

and btw the U.S. Army did tests back in 93 and the Soviet Kontakt-5 stopped the M1A1's 1991 era DU round, thats why they came out the newer ones and Russia came with Relekit,Droz,Arena and the devistating Kaktus, while everyone's think about the M1A3, I'd be more concernd about the coming true T-95.

P.S. if you guys read my link you'd have seen that most of the M1A1's have already been upgraded to A2's.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by ATSWATCHER]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Tank2/8
 


I can assure you that the IDF is the one most respossible for alot of the IED attacks.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATSWATCHER
reply to post by Tank2/8
 


I can assure you that the IDF is the one most respossible for alot of the IED attacks.


Are you talking over the course of IED history or OIF/OEF campains???



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ATSWATCHER
 


If you are implying OIF.....that would be a first for me and I would even laugh at the thought of Israel helping muslim extremest set up and or produce IEDs to harm its greatest allia



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
I suggest that a cupola or turret should be put on the new tank to protect the commander and loader. Perhaps a modular one that can allow the turret/turrets to be put on and taken off if the situation leads to that. Sure it makes the tank look ugly and higher profile but it sure protects the crew, and with the accuracy of the tank cannon by modern standards, being a little taller don't really matter.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by deltaboy]

[edit on 17-8-2009 by deltaboy]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
I suggest that a cupola or turret should be put on the new tank to protect the commander and loader. Perhaps a modular one that can allow the turret/turrets to be put on and taken off if the situation leads to that. Sure it makes the tank look ugly and higher profile but it sure protects the crew, and with the accuracy of the tank cannon by modern standards, being a little taller don't really matter.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by deltaboy]

[edit on 17-8-2009 by deltaboy]


Good call, an excellent setup for urban and light Inf. attacks. I would have liked to have a lil more protection when firing from the 240. BUT, if you needed to get outof the tank in a hurry, wearing the ibas with the additional side sapi plates made it hard enough getting out of the turret. The latest vest would be a lil better. But if I had to get out while the tank was on fire, while taking heavy small arms/RPG fire, I would want as little in my way of getting out of there before being set ablaze as possible



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Here is the history of TUSK
www.defenseindustrydaily.com...

A contract signed in April 2008:


General Dynamics Awarded $57 Million for Abrams Tank Survivability Kit Work

STERLING HEIGHTS, Mich., April 21, 2008 - General Dynamics Land Systems, a business unit of General Dynamics (NYSE: GD), has been awarded two contracts valued at $57 million for Abrams Tank Urban Survivability Kits (TUSK).

The first award, valued at $45 million, funds 2,832 Loader's Armor Gun Shields. The second award, valued at $12 million funds Loader's Thermal Weapon Sights and Counter-Sniper Anti-Materiel Mounts. Lessons learned during combat operations in Iraq led the Army's project manager for the Heavy Brigade Combat Team and General Dynamics to create TUSK. The add-on kit for M1A1 - and M1A2 - series tanks enhances crew survivability in urban environments and consists of added armor protection, a mine safety seat, Abrams reactive armor tiles and a tank infantry phone. The combination of an added gun shield and thermal weapon sight allows the tank's loader to engage targets from behind a transparent shield during limited visibility or at night. The counter-sniper anti-materiel mount enables the gunner to precisely engage with a .50 caliber machine gun while remaining under armor protection.


Here are the appropriate links

Counter-Sniper Anti-Materiel Mounts
www.gunmasters.com...

Here is a M1A1 with TUSK in Iraq.
www.inetres.com...



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Tank2/8
 


Well I guess you gotta be quick in getting out of the tank with the new turret if its on fire.


I was thinking of the turret on the M1117 and the AAV which I think is good for the tank, but it could be in fact too big.

It has its pros and cons of having such a turret on the tank, but in my opinion the pros outweighs the cons.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 



yes, they will add much needed defence for urban warfare. I am sure by then the they will have more adapted body armor for the crew to wear also. more motivation to not catch fire is not a bad thing I suppose



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
It's quite sickening really, isn't it?

All the money being spent of machines of death.

Sure, it's impressive technology, but sometimes I feel that we just have it round the wrong way.
What if all the money spent globally on machines of death and destruction were spent on the people?
Utopian, yes, Idealistic yes, but it sure as hell, for me, beats idolising these sickening machines.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by aorAki
 


I agree with you 100% aorAki....unfortunatly I do not see that kind of global unity ever being a reality

So this is what we must do.

War being apart of the human race is as solid as gravity itself.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join