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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 01:31 PM
link   
I feel like the U.S. will give up offense and firepower in exchange for defense and survivability.

If I had it my way, I'd combined Army 86 and Force XXI together. That would be something to see!

But that can never happen, so I think the U.S. is taking survivability over offense. Especially since the big-time threats are pretty much gone. Even China and North Korea don't match the power of the Warsaw Pact.




posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 01:45 AM
link   
I would like to believe that the M1 series will be around for awhile. I started out on the M-60 A1, M-60 A2, M1-IP, and finally the M1-A1. Even though I love these tanks, when the "Rail-Gun" is finally small enough to mount on a vehicle all tanks will become obsolete. As far as an auto-loader in the future I don't see it. Agood loader can load a round every 4-8 seconds, not to mention "hang-fires" and "miss-fires"



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
If it would be possible to made some good exoskeletons (light, simple and cheap) in the future, the infatry could play a HUGE role again. [edit on 29-8-2004 by longbow]


The infantry nowadays not only plays a HUGE role but has the main role....
In the post- cold war era the infantry has gotten his role back : in this era there's no room for huge tank to tank battles it's all about city warfare where the infantry plays the main part backed by tanks and airplanes.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 08:20 AM
link   



Current Tank Rating
1. M1A2SEP
2. Merkava Mk 4
3. Leo 2A6
4. Chally 2
4. Leclerc
5. T-90M
6: Arjun
7: T-80UM1
8: K1A1
9. Type 98G
10: Al-Khalid


Why is the M1A2SEP above Merkava Mk4 and Leopard A2A6??????? (cuz of your american patriotism?)

[edit on 7-9-2004 by Wodan]



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wodan



Current Tank Rating
1. M1A2SEP
2. Merkava Mk 4
3. Leo 2A6
4. Chally 2
4. Leclerc
5. T-90M
6: Arjun
7: T-80UM1
8: K1A1
9. Type 98G
10: Al-Khalid


Why is the M1A2SEP above Merkava Mk4 and Leopard A2A6??????? (cuz of your american patriotism?)

[edit on 7-9-2004 by Wodan]


No, because it has superior optics (x50 FLIR) and the best sabot round in the world (M289A3). I kind of like the turbine too, it's fast has good acceleration, smaller and lighter, plus easier to maintain. The first 5 tanks on that list really have nothing that "big" over each other. To go along with my American patriotism, my favorite tank is actually the Strv-122.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 11:02 AM
link   
uhh whats the advantage the leo has over tha cahallanger 2?



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
uhh whats the advantage the leo has over tha cahallanger 2?


Better mobility, better C3 suite. The ammo the Challenger uses is two piece, from which I hear takes a bit longer to load then one piece ammo.

Other then that, not much.

Btw, does anyone have penetration values on the CHARM 30?



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 02:58 PM
link   
yeah but it doesnt better armour or gun.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 07:15 PM
link   
The Leo's armor is more then sufficient, probably more so then the Abrams if looking at the side or rear aspect. The L55 and L30 are both excellent, but the ammo is what really counts.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kozzy


No, because it has superior optics (x50 FLIR) and the best sabot round in the world (M289A3). I kind of like the turbine too, it's fast has good acceleration, smaller and lighter, plus easier to maintain. The first 5 tanks on that list really have nothing that "big" over each other.


I heard the LEO-2 was easlier to maintain than M-1 with GT engine. ALso GErmans have new round , DM-63 for 120L55. THis should get same penetration as M-829A3?



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Mod Edit: removed promotional link
[edit on 8-9-2004 by armsky]

[edit on 8-9-2004 by Spectre]



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Mod Edit: removed promotional link

[edit on 8-9-2004 by Spectre]



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kozzy
The Leo's armor is more then sufficient, probably more so then the Abrams if looking at the side or rear aspect. The L55 and L30 are both excellent, but the ammo is what really counts.

how so?
abrahms have the chrobran armour and thats the best in the world right now.



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 04:47 PM
link   
M1A2 has the best C3 capability of all military vehicles.



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
how so?
abrahms have the chrobran armour and thats the best in the world right now.


This is typical example of assumptions. How do we know chobham armor is the best...cause they said so !
Does any one even know what the word Chobham means? I was sent a paper on ballistics from Chobham, does that make it chobham armor?


Proof of the pie is in the eating.


[edit on 8-9-2004 by psteel]



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 06:51 PM
link   
''The effectiveness of Chobham armour was demonstrated in the first Gulf War, where no Coalition tank was destroyed by Iraqi ones. In some cases the tanks in question were subject to multiple point-blank hits by both KE-penetrators and HEAT rounds, but the lower power of the T-72 and T-64 guns left them completely incapable of penetrating the armor. To date only one Chobham protected tank has been defeated in combat, an M1 that was hit by an advanced dual-warhead HEAT wire guided missile in the second Gulf War.''

''Chobham armour is used on the Challenger II, the Leopard II and the M1 Abrams series of tanks.''

''The exact nature of the protection offered by this layering remained a mystery for some time, but it was eventually revealed that Chobham armour works in a manner somewhat similar to reactive armor. When the armor is hit by a HEAT round the ceramic layer shatters under the impact point, forming a dust under high pressure. When the HEAT round "burns through" the outer layers of armor and reaches the ceramic, the dust comes flying back out the hole, slowing the jet of metal.''

Chobam armour is indeed some of the best if not the best armour on the planet. Well atleast till carbon nano tube armour come around then it will look like tin foil compared to this stuff.

www.fact-index.com...



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
'' In some cases the tanks in question were subject to multiple point-blank hits by both KE-penetrators and HEAT rounds, but the lower power of the T-72 and T-64 guns left them completely incapable of penetrating the armor. To date only one Chobham protected tank has been defeated in combat, an M1 that was hit by an advanced dual-warhead HEAT wire guided missile in the second Gulf War.''



Most of this is inaccurate. There was no T-64 in Iraq and the what APFSDS they fired was steel which can't penetrate S&#t....besides there was penetrations but by friendlies to kill tanks that failed to detonate. This underscores a problem ...is the high protection of the M-1 due to the armor or the ammobunker-blowout panels?

Abrams KOed in Iraq have been done with RPGs RR and 25mm APFSDS not ATGMs.

But to say its the best is most odd , unless the others have also been tried and results available ...where are they



heres a site that gives just a little bit more information on modern armors


www.niistali.ru...

[edit on 8-9-2004 by psteel]



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by psteel

Most of this is inaccurate. There was no T-64 in Iraq and the what APFSDS they fired was steel which can't penetrate S&#t....besides there was penetrations but by friendlies to kill tanks that failed to detonate. This underscores a problem ...is the high protection of the M-1 due to the armor or the ammobunker-blowout panels?


[edit on 8-9-2004 by psteel]


Must have been a typo because heres the same article with T-62 in place of T-64

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by psteel

Originally posted by Kozzy


No, because it has superior optics (x50 FLIR) and the best sabot round in the world (M289A3). I kind of like the turbine too, it's fast has good acceleration, smaller and lighter, plus easier to maintain. The first 5 tanks on that list really have nothing that "big" over each other.


I heard the LEO-2 was easlier to maintain than M-1 with GT engine. ALso GErmans have new round , DM-63 for 120L55. THis should get same penetration as M-829A3?


I haven't heard anything on the DM-63, maybe you mean the DM-53? If that's it, the round gets 810mm at 2km (from an L55) while the M289A3 gets 960mm at 2km.

About the engine, maybe so. But all western armies can maintain 90% readiness if needed.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 08:11 PM
link   
All western tanks use some version of Chobham, the British have the most advanced version, Dorchester. The Abrams uses the 3rd Gen type while the Leo and Leclerc use their own home grown formula. Russian tanks I believe use steel and fiberglass resin piled onto each other, which is called Combination K.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join