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.

 

Can the M1A2 Abrams be ousted or replaced?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Don't know about the rest of you, but I've concluded that the M1A2 Abrams MBT is probably the MBT to end all MBTs.

This thing is awesome. It's jammed with awesome state-of-the-art equipment, and the fact it was built for the digital combat environment shows it has the advantage over all adversaries. Added onto the primary features, you got yourself history's greatest combat vehicle ever made.

Do any of you think it can ever be defeated or replaced by something else? This thing is built to last. I want to fight in one!




posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 11:27 PM
link   
It is being replaced. A version of the FCS will carry a 105mm or 120mm cannon I believe and take over the work of the M1. That will be in a while though.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 11:33 PM
link   
I think new MBT tanks will come to use Auto loaders. Its only a matter of time before they are faster and more reliable then a human loader. Also I think 360 display panels will replace modern displays. It has already been tested in the US that younger tank crews (nintendo generation)members preformed much better with this new tech then old tank crew members.


I think a whole new redesign is in the future.



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I think new MBT tanks will come to use Auto loaders. Its only a matter of time before they are faster and more reliable then a human loader. Also I I think a whole new redesign is in the future.


Maybe along the lines of a UMBT? unmanned ground assests could perform the function of recce / scout and crossdeck the feeds from the UAV's / UCAV's tasked for close air support. Or each MBT could have a UMBT buddie under the controll of the TC?



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 11:38 PM
link   
while the M1A2's abilities on the battlefield is impressive the notion of the MBT in todays battle environment is a little dated.


These babies weigh over 60 tons and the infrastructure in the combat environs in the US's future (middle east's oil fields) aren't designed to support such a thing and logistics of these tanks is terrible you can only airlift 2 in a galaxy.

I think that what we will see in the future is a move to lighter vehicles with incredibly strong armour and powerful guns.

We haven't seen the M1A2 verse a real professional army with a strong moral and well maintained tanks yet so I would like to see how she performs there."



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 11:39 PM
link   
the Russians have been using the autoloader (albeit with increasing success with further generations) for a while now.



[edit on 27-8-2004 by drfunk]



posted on Aug, 27 2004 @ 11:43 PM
link   
I forgot all about carbon nano tube armour. This stuff is going to be amazing and no doubt be on all new tanks in the future.



posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Yes it should be replaced. The future MBT should weight +/-55 tons, 3 man crew (commander, driver, gunner using something like cyberspace helmets for control) , unmanned turret, forward placed hybrid-electric more economical engine (able to run on batteries for a while that means quiet no IR signature), rear exit (like on Merkava tanks). 2 man are sitting in forward section, the rear section should be simillar to Merkava able to carry 1 man(commander) + aditional ammo, or vertical launched misilles/mini spy drones, or 3 man crew, or adittional fuel tanks (of course secured iagainst explosion n case of hit). The antimisile system like MetalStorm would be also good. The tank could also employ some kind of buldozer blade (to quickly dig itself in, create trenches for infantry and to deflect the rounds or misilles coming from forward).
It should be also modullar (armor, quickly replaceable turrett) so the weight could vary from 40-45 tons (light version) to 60 tons (very heavy version).



posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by drfunk
while the M1A2's abilities on the battlefield is impressive the notion of the MBT in todays battle environment is a little dated.


Agreedm the ABrams was designed really for a massive armour battle in central europe against the Warsaw Pact forces. Now we have a lift problem with these beasts. Smaller and faster will be the future move. They must be airtransportable.



posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 11:27 AM
link   
I feel like the general consensus here is that such cool stuff like the M1A2 has no place in the modern battlefield.

Tell me, does that have more to do with the combat threats and environments or that these tanks are tough to maintain?

I absolutely love the M1A2, it's a killing machine and a fun machine all rolled into one, and I'd hate to see it go. And I figured it'd be around forever since it was built for the digital world.

To expand the topic, what will the U.S. Army of 2020 look like? Shadow XIX, this one's for you friend.



posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 02:56 PM
link   
The logistics requirements are obsene on such monster tanks. I read that the amount of logistics in 5 years of peace time is equal to the cost of buying the tank in the first place. Since 6 years of peace time = 1 year of war.... the logistics are far more the limiting step than the tank.

IE some one has pay for and supply the logistics and transport all this to any foreign parts. When you factor in shipping cost [airfrieght is right out due to the massive scale envolved], the cost is staggering. One of the reasons for Stryker brigades over conventional mech brigades was that the logistics tail is an order of magnitude lower than the mech brigades...or so I've heard.

One of the reason for the massive weight and theirfore cost of modern tanks was the Eurobattlfield requirement. But unless USA is planning to invade Germany or France anytime soon
their is not such a need any more.

The growth of modern armors and soft recoil , is such that the gun & protection level of a 60ton M-1A1HA is already available for a 35-40 ton conventional tank.If one was to revert to a unconventional [overhead auto loaded gun with 3 crew etc], this weight could be reduced to 25-30 tons.



posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by psteel
The logistics requirements are obsene on such monster tanks. I read that the amount of logistics in 5 years of peace time is equal to the cost of buying the tank in the first place. Since 6 years of peace time = 1 year of war.... the logistics are far more the limiting step than the tank.

IE some one has pay for and supply the logistics and transport all this to any foreign parts. When you factor in shipping cost [airfrieght is right out due to the massive scale envolved], the cost is staggering. One of the reasons for Stryker brigades over conventional mech brigades was that the logistics tail is an order of magnitude lower than the mech brigades...or so I've heard.

One of the reason for the massive weight and theirfore cost of modern tanks was the Eurobattlfield requirement. But unless USA is planning to invade Germany or France anytime soon
their is not such a need any more.

The growth of modern armors and soft recoil , is such that the gun & protection level of a 60ton M-1A1HA is already available for a 35-40 ton conventional tank.If one was to revert to a unconventional [overhead auto loaded gun with 3 crew etc], this weight could be reduced to 25-30 tons.


True, true. And the weight and logistic requirements also heavily limits MBT use and deployment. For example in order to transport Abrams to the warzone you need to transport also dozens of various supply vehicles, repair vehicles and their escort.



posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 03:20 PM
link   
they should combine the challanger and the abrahms best armour wi best C3 tech



posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Wasn't there a specific reason why the M1 has a manual loader? Also due to the extra man in the tank there's 2 AA coaxial machine guns instead of just the one.

I do believe there is a place for the M1 on the modern tank, i don't like the idea of moving to lighter potentially less armoured vehicles like the Stryker.



posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

To expand the topic, what will the U.S. Army of 2020 look like? Shadow XIX, this one's for you friend.


Well I think the first thing will be that it will have a extremely low profile perhaps even half of what it is today on the M1A2.It will also be lighter then its predecessors but will have better armour. The armour will be made up of one of the stronger versions of carbon nanotube armour perhaps around 50 times stronger then steel. I think it will use a multi-fuel engine with IR reduction as a major factor in its design. Also of great importance in 2030 will be the optical stealth MBTs will use. A system similar to that of the future warrio design so it will blend in with its enviroment like no other tank ever has.

Inside the tank it will use a complete 360 degree display panel giving its crew a unheard of amount of area awareness. A good chance a auto loader will be used. The turret machine gun will be automated and controlled from inside the tank,with a manual backup.

The main gun Im not quite sure by 2030 we might see the MBTs start to use a rail-gun.It would be very difficult for any future enemy to defend against EM guns. In a recent test, a 9-megajoule simple projectile fired with EM energy went right through explosive reactive armor. I think we will need about a 12-megajoule powersource that fits in a tank for these things to work in a tank. By 2030 it very might be able to be done.

This is all talking about the manned version of the tank in 2030. By then we will see robot ground vehicles. A umanned version of the tank though it wont really look like what we think a tank looks like today as it we be much smaller but will do many of the same roles. Future tanks may make use of some of these new robots, like was posted before mini UAVs may be used as they could help tanks crews get a better view of the battle field with better range. Heck they might even be used to paint targets for a tanks smart rounds.



posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 04:44 PM
link   
ShadowXIX,

First off, where do you get your info? All this Force XXI stuff is making my mouth drool!


So will the "tank of the future" be more powerful than the M1A2? And considering the M1A2 is the centerpiece of Force XXI, will it be more advanced? Somehow I feel like they're "dumbing" down the Army in some respects in order to make it more simpler and automated. One person controlling everything, so to speak.

Finally, do you think Force XXI is a success or failure? It almost seems as if the Army is going backwards on this, when Force XXI is all about being the most powerful military force in the world by combing raw firepower with lovely computer and electronic technology. A combination of Army 86 and the digital age.



posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 04:47 PM
link   
psteel and longbow,

That is very profound. Wow. I had no idea heavy tanks really cost that much.

Then again, it's pretty obvious a heavy military force, such as the one of Army 86, is insanely expensive. You could feed an entire world with that cost. And try combining Army 86 with Force XXI, if I had that much money, it'd be me and one other girl I choose to let live!


I guess the problem is, the Army can't accomplish their mission without all this power and advanced stuff. So "dumbing" down isn't such a bad idea, I guess.



posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyboy211
Wasn't there a specific reason why the M1 has a manual loader? Also due to the extra man in the tank there's 2 AA coaxial machine guns instead of just the one.

I do believe there is a place for the M1 on the modern tank, i don't like the idea of moving to lighter potentially less armoured vehicles like the Stryker.


I don't know about the M1, but I remember the T-72 had it's automatic loader removed because it tended to load the gunner's arm.


Ouch.

As for your second statement, I'm not too sure. Like somebody said, the entire M1-series of tanks (actually just about anything built before 2000) was meant for heavy conventional warfare, like World War III in Central Europe, not the small-scale contingencies and limited wars like in the Balkans and Iraq. That's not the best excuse for less protection and firepower, but you have to be economical about it, and the best way to do it is to match the situation.

Look at the U.S. Navy, for example. The U.S.S. Seawolf is like the M1A2 of submarines. Most powerful, completely high-tech, etc. Yet they only built two and have pretty much ditched the program? Why? Because it's too expensive and as a result of the current world climate, we can afford not to have something so powerful and costly.

Damn, this is a great discussion we're having. No stupidity involved. Yet.



posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 05:08 PM
link   
The M1 could of always had a auto loader if the designers wanted. They were not going to take the chance that the auto loader would break or malfunction.



posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 05:10 PM
link   
sweatmonicaIdo

Well most of the info I got is from looking at many other future weapons that are being designed right now. Like the future warrior for a example. They want to use carbon nano tube armour on that and optical stealth. These systems would be eaiser to put onto something like a MBT then it would be to put on a single person. Thats also why I think we will be optical stealth on on planes and stuff like tanks before it gets shrunk down to a size to fit on a person. I would not be shocked if they already have some "invisible" planes at Area 51.Same for the mini UAVs as there are plans for single person ones that a soldier could carry on himself. A tank could have a small fleet of these things.

As for automated machine guns I have aleady seen Hummers with a system like this and it only makes sense to use it on tanks too.There is aleady a system that is being tested in Iraq the RAVEN (I think) which has this system mounted on 3 humvees. Auto loaders are becoming more popular and its only a matter of time IMO that a machines does a simple task like that faster and more reliably then any human ever could. Machines are perfect for task like that right now as they are not very smart.

About Force XXI I think the overall concept is sound. About information being gathered, so that the commander has a common operational picture of the battle. A better picture of the battle field as a whole in real time is a very good thing. Helping to prevent things like FF I am all for and this might help that.

Though something could be said about the integratoring of forces at all levels. (Too many cooks spoil the broth type thing). I think having alot of people know whats going on is very important as you could get many opinions on what is the best course of action, But I think commanders in the field should have the final say and should really only take advice from the higher ups. I doubt the brass will ever let this happen


[edit on 28-8-2004 by ShadowXIX]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join