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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kozzy
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.


Read about it on TankNET. There is information on the cartridge but not the projectile. Since every new round is improved over the last, it stands to reason some improvement can be expected with DM-63.

63.99.108.76...



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


That can be quite costly, I read that mainenance over 20 years is equal to 4 times the cost of the tank and this is mostly fuel and engine costs.




posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 12:15 AM
link   
This is from the that forum......

"120 mm KE cartridge DM63

The DM63 cartridge from Rheinmetall Waffe Munition GmbH is based on the already fielded DM53. The essential difference between the two cartridges lies in the propulsion unit. Instead of a conventional propulsion unit, the DM63 is the first 120 mm high-performance KE round to be equipped with a temperature-independent propulsion system (TIPS), based on SCDB technology. Apart from temperature-independent performance data, the design of the propulsion unit of the DM63 was aimed not so much at achieving an improvement in performance but instead at attaining a distinct reduction in erosion while maintaining the same level of performance. To achieve this objective in optimum fashion, the one-piece combustible case was modified with respect to the erosion-reducing characteristics of its combustion gases.

The intended v0 of 1,650 m/s (L44) is attained with a pure bulk powder charge featuring a mass of approx. 8.45 kg and a maximum gas pressure of approx. 545 MPa. Taking into account the cartridge conditions arising under typical operational circumstances in climate zone A3, the temperature performance in the L44 develops as shown below.

The span of v0 and pressure throughout the entire temperature range is less than 60 m/s and 60 MPa. At low temperatures, the gain in performance is particularly noticeable, as is the avoidance of unnecessarily high pressure and performance levels at high temperatures with respect to terminal ballistics.

Apart from the balanced temperature performance, the DM63 displays the following advantages:

- Useable in all Leopard 2 weapon systems, A4 through A6
- Deployable at temperatures ranging from -46C to +71C (climate zones C3-A1)
- Under all operating conditions, gas pressure levelsthroughout the temperature range are less than 575 MPa
- Significantly lower erosion, especially at higher temperatures
- Identical terminal ballistic performance at reference v0
- Improved terminal ballistic performance at low temperatures
- Greater first-shot kill probability
- Better LOVA characteristics."

source : www.rheinmetall-detec.com...



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 11:05 PM
link   
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!!!



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 01:29 PM
link   
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



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 04:26 PM
link   
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]



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 04:45 PM
link   

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.



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 01:14 AM
link   
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]



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 05:50 AM
link   

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.



posted on Nov, 14 2004 @ 06:06 AM
link   

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.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 08:39 PM
link   
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!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join