The Abrams will probably be the last big tank the produced due to our new attitude of lighter faster. Unless our politicians wake up and see we need a heavy tank its only a matter of time before the Abrams gets replaced by some lighter faster cheapest armored vehicle. I'm am totally against this!!!

Sorry to bump but I read a book recently by Brigadier Patrick Cordingley. He had an interesting say on the Abrams: (quoting roughly from memory):

"The Abrams looks like an exceedingly good tank. All other NATO MBT's use diesel engines which are heavy, and the more powerful engine you want, the heavier it gets, the bigger the chassis, more weight..

The US forces use a gas-turbine engine in the Abrams which means it's a lot lighter and has superb power capability. However, there are a few problems: 1/ The exhaust from a turbine is approximately 1,800 * F, which for anyone with night-vision, should see that an operating tank will be similar to holding a searchlight up in the air. 2/ The turbines have a horrendous fuel consumption.

I also

Shadow there has been at least 8 M1A1's disabled in iraq so far, what are you talking about "only one chobham tank defeated in combat", and the U.S. Army admmited one M1 was blown up in the first Gulf War in the famous M1 vs. T72 batlle, you can even watch the U.S army's own admition of this, on American shows like "The History channel"

[edit on 13-11-2004 by SiberianTiger]

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Shadow there has been at least 8 M1A1's disabled in iraq so far, what are you talking about "only one chobham tank defeated in combat", and the U.S. Army admmited one M1 was blown up in the first Gulf War in the famous M1 vs. T72 batlle, you can even watch the U.S army's own admition of this, on American shows like "The History channel"

[edit on 13-11-2004 by SiberianTiger]

Someone can still claim it was cause of bad crew, the tank were fine otherwise Anyway it shouldnt be too much trouble to disable any possible tank in urban warfare while streets are full of all sort of garbage, or are the sensors so effective to find anti-tank mines from big layers of other possible metals? I meant my question has any of those M1's been disabled by mine or just some random lucky bazooka shot or other man thrown explosive?

Light weight and versatility logical modern way while war go more likely to urban areas and does M1 armor stand big change vs depleted unarium bullets or other US own weaponry fire.

I can't understand your writings but there are pics of m1's blown to peices and, some with turrets on them but burnt to crisp.

[edit on 14-11-2004 by SiberianTiger]

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Shadow there has been at least 8 M1A1's disabled in iraq so far, what are you talking about "only one chobham tank defeated in combat", and the U.S. Army admmited one M1 was blown up in the first Gulf War in the famous M1 vs. T72 batlle, you can even watch the U.S army's own admition of this, on American shows like "The History channel"

[edit on 13-11-2004 by SiberianTiger]

DISABLED does not mean defeated or destroyed. You can disable a tank just by
firing a rpg or throwing grenade under its track, and it makes the tank disabled.
Such tank us usualy abonded by crew as it is an easy prey for enemy, but after battle it can be easily repaired unless someone finish it.

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
I can't understand your writings but there are pics of m1's blown to peices and, some with turrets on them but burnt to crisp.

[edit on 14-11-2004 by SiberianTiger]

I saw those pics too, but those Abrams were destroed by their own crews in order to prevent falling tech into the enemy hands.

Light tanks aren't replacing heavy tanks anytime soon, that is a myth, unless they can create a light tank that can withstand heavy-duty firepower. Iraq has shown that it is the heavy armor you need to go through the enemy, not anything light. City warfare does not mean that the enemy will be using light weaponry!