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.

 

Merkava Mk4 vs. Abrams M1A2

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Damn desert roamers, i hate them both

They'd get stuck in the woods....muhaahaah

Hard to say, the M1 has proven itself in combat, so that would be my choice atleast for now.
Then again i don't know a flying donkey about the Merkava so i'll just zip it, guess we'll see soon.
[edit on 17-6-2004 by Numbnutz]

[edit on 17-6-2004 by Numbnutz]

[edit on 17-6-2004 by Numbnutz]

[edit on 17-6-2004 by Numbnutz]




posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian
Can we have anyone else but these American bastard post here.

For example someone with an open mind?

So we can really discuss something and not just fart in the air?

Out,
Russian


OK, Im from the UK


Some one suggested the Merkerva was russian based. Actually the merkerva was based on the cheaftain and early challenger tanks. UK tanks.

Also the American Abrahams tank used Chobham Composite Armour, made in the UK.

How do i know easy, I live 3 miles awayfrom the Chobham factory and i regularly see Abrahams tanks being driven away on the back of transporters.

Heh they have to use British armour because the US armour is crap!


the armour is shipped out to the states premade or the tanks are fitted out over here, because the armour is difficult to produce and the formula is top secret not even the yanks are allowed to know what goes into the armour.

The new Chobham mk 5 armour is reputed to be able to withstand a direct hit from a Hellfire missile, and is only avalible to British vehicles. The Abraham uses the mark 3.

In the GULF War 2 Abraham tanks were knocked out on a fairly regular basis, but the new Dorchester Armour on the British Challenger 2 was resistant to the same fire the US tanks took and the new desert filters on our tanks removed the relibillity problems of the Challenger 2 making the C2 a better tank than the Abrahams on points.

I also go for the merkerva, simply because its part British..... nuff said. LOL

Hope that helps Mr Russian.





[edit on 17-6-2004 by rustiswordz]



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by rustiswordz


OK, Im from the UK


Some one suggested the Merkerva was russian based. Actually the merkerva was based on the cheaftain and early challenger tanks. UK tanks.

Also the American Abrahams tank used Chobham Composite Armour, made in the UK.

How do i know easy, I live 3 miles awayfrom the Chobham factory and i regularly see Abrahams tanks being driven away on the back of transporters.

Heh they have to use British armour because the US armour is crap!


the armour is shipped out to the states premade or the tanks are fitted out over here, because the armour is difficult to produce and the formula is top secret not even the yanks are allowed to know what goes into the armour.

The new Chobham mk 5 armour is reputed to be able to withstand a direct hit from a Hellfire missile, and is only avalible to British vehicles. The Abraham uses the mark 3.

In the GULF War 2 Abraham tanks were knocked out on a fairly regular basis, but the new Dorchester Armour on the British Challenger 2 was resistant to the same fire the US tanks took and the new desert filters on our tanks removed the relibillity problems of the Challenger 2 making the C2 a better tank than the Abrahams on points.

I also go for the merkerva, simply because its part British..... nuff said. LOL

Hope that helps Mr Russian.





[edit on 17-6-2004 by rustiswordz]


I dont know about Merkava being based on the early Challenger but yes Abrams has its whol armour from UK.

I also know that Merkava is not based on the Russia tanks.

Out,
Russian



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 04:54 PM
link   
These reports are such rubbish ...up until last year the list was

LEO-2/M-1A2/Merk/C-2 and Type 90 was back in the list.

We discuss this and most agree there is not much to choose from between the top 4 so placing is not that important. It looks more like the authors are 'more educated' or suffering from the effects of all the critism



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 06:31 PM
link   
The reason that the abrams armor is made there is because its cheaper to produce it in brittan than in the us and trust me the US knows the composite of the armor and since you guys have great armor according to you whats your favorite tank that great brittan has?



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 08:52 PM
link   
The Challenger mark II is the best protected tank in NATO. And the fire control system is upgraded over the Abrams tank.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The reason that the abrams armor is made there is because its cheaper to produce it in brittan than in the us and trust me the US knows the composite of the armor and since you guys have great armor according to you whats your favorite tank that great brittan has?


I agree with the chap in the above post.

Challenger 2, now its wrinkles have been ironed out its the most powerful tank in the world. The Dorchester is fully NBC protected and its fire control system is accurate enough to fire on the move and hit its targets everytime.

As i said the Abrahams tank has been knoked out at a small but steady rate in Iraq but the British Challenger 2 is immune to the fire that hurt the Abrahams.

Its a monster of a tank. Its downside is that its HUGE! The biggest of the modern MBT's and an easy to spot vehicle.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by h4dd3n
The Challenger mark II is the best protected tank in NATO. And the fire control system is upgraded over the Abrams tank.


The C-2 WAS [past tense] the best protected tank in NATO when it came out in 1994. Both FCS are made in Canada and are based on the same components.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Mercava is based on Chinese tank.

Our experts go to Isreal to help them make it,as an exchange,we turn Isreal's blueprint of Lavi back.


E_T

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Russian
...but yes Abrams has its whol armour from UK.

I don't really think they have to import DU used in front armour.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by E_T

I don't really think they have to import DU used in front armour.


Thats the newest upgrade that I dont think is even on the tanks yet.

But I dont really know much about it.

Out,
Russian


E_T

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Russian
Thats the newest upgrade that I dont think is even on the tanks yet.

www.globalsecurity.org...


An improvement program will eventually upgrade all M1A1 tanks with steel encased depleted uranium armor, which has a density at least two-and-a-half times greater than steel. The depleted uranium armor will raise the total weight of the Abrams tank to 65 tons, but offers vastly improved protection in the bargain.
...
The Abrams has been using Depleted Uranium (DU) armor since 1988.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 05:44 AM
link   
im sorry but the LEOPARD-2 is the best tank German tanks were always the best.




We will burry them!!

ps. Im an Americian



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Yes, the Leopard is good, but i don't think it can be compared with the MK4 and the Abrams...Apples and Oranges.......

[edit on 18-6-2004 by Numbnutz]



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Russian

Originally posted by E_T

I don't really think they have to import DU used in front armour.


Thats the newest upgrade that I dont think is even on the tanks yet.

But I dont really know much about it.

Out,
Russian






The tank has had DU on its armor since it was first produced in the late 70's that shows how much you know about it.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Numbnutz
Yes, the Leopard is good, but i don't think it can be compared with the MK4 and the Abrams...Apples and Oranges.......

[edit on 18-6-2004 by Numbnutz]


Why?

WesPoint23


The tank has had DU on its armor since it was first produced in the late 70's that shows how much you know about it.


You mean the late 1980s right? Thats when DU armor was first mounted on the M-1A1HA....in the late 1970s the Abrams was still in development and not yet in production.


[edit on 18-6-2004 by psteel]



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 10:42 AM
link   
no the abrams prototype was built during the late 70's and when it came in production in the early 80's not late 80's it had DU armor.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 10:52 AM
link   
DU armour came on the M1A2. The M1A1 didnt have them.

Out,
Russian



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Hmm interesting heres a bit of history

The M1A1/2 Abrams main battle tank is manufactured by General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS). The first M1 tank was produced in 1978, the M1A1 in 1985 and the M1A2 in 1986. 3,273 M1 tanks were produced for the US Army. 4,796

The M1A1 tank incorporates steel encased depleted uranium armour. Armour bulkheads separate the crew compartment from the fuel tanks. The top panels of the tank are designed to blow outwards in the event of penetration by a HEAT projectile. The tank is protected against nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) warfare.

M1A1 HAD DU ARMOR.
in the late 80's



source www.army-technology.com...



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kriskaos
Hmm interesting heres a bit of history

The M1A1/2 Abrams main battle tank is manufactured by General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS). The first M1 tank was produced in 1978, the M1A1 in 1985 and the M1A2 in 1986. 3,273 M1 tanks were produced for the US Army. 4,796

The M1A1 tank incorporates steel encased depleted uranium armour. Armour bulkheads separate the crew compartment from the fuel tanks. The top panels of the tank are designed to blow outwards in the event of penetration by a HEAT projectile. The tank is protected against nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) warfare.

M1A1 HAD DU ARMOR.
in the late 80's



source www.army-technology.com...


Yes you are right M1A1 got the DU after the M1A2 came out.

The Abrams has been using Depleted Uranium (DU) armor since 1988. In 1996, a design change to the armor package was made by the Army and cut-in to production by General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) via Change Request XMPP-2083 in Oct 96 and effective with Job #1 M1A2 Phase II AUT. The use of DU armor is a primary feature that distinguishes the Abrams tank from numerous other commonly accepted equipment employed by the military and industry. The current use of the depleted uranium (DU) armor package on the M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank (MBT) Heavy Armor System has been re-evaluated to determine whether the environmental impacts of its continued use remain insignificant, taking into consideration the current use of the tank and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) reduction in allowable radiation exposure from 500 mrem/year to 100 mrem/year for tank and maintenance crews (individual members of the public). As in already-fielded weapon system, M1 MBTs have been in production and in the field since the early 1980s. During that time, many technical, environmental and health assessments have been completed. These documents have addressed and minimized environmental impacts.

Out,
Russian



new topics




 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join