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.
Originally posted by rapier28
Just another question.Some poster said that exploding Reactive plates can kill surrounding infantry. If that is true, then arn't we just replacing the dead in the tank with dead infantry outside the tank?How dangerous are the plates to surrounding infantry?
Originally posted by Broadsword20068
Originally posted by Ritual
It doesnt have any short range ballistic defense. Maybe it doesnt come "advertised".
I think if this is WYSIWYG as far as the US's main battle tank, it doesnt belong on the front line. I think wars should be fought by airplanes and surface missiles until we figure out how to 1)detect all mines and planted explosives 2) perfect ballistic defense 3) perfect xray and other visual equipment to indentify targets.
Else riding a tank down the road is just asking for a ton of dynamite up your ass. Or an artillery round to slice through the tank. Or rocket.
Thanks but no thanks as far as me joining the Military. I wouldnt want to be ordered into an APC or Tank to make my way into Iraq. Bad mojo, murphy will kick me in the ass for being so illprepared.
Im better building ICBM's in my basement.
You don't know what you're talking about (not to sound rude). You mention the tracks are exposed. Well they have to be exposed somewhat, or else the skirts would hit the ground. To take out the tracks, aside from a mine or something, would require some real balls and some real shooting. You'd have to get close to the tank, which would see you, then aim the weapon at the tracks, then fire and hope it manages to hit under the skirt. That would take some real sharpshooting from a distance, and up close, you'd likely be blown away before you even had a chance to fire. And that's forgetting that the tank is moving along as well (which means you'd ahve to aim fairly fast).
In urban warfare, the tank would be backed up by infantry that would shoot you if you got close. It would be a really lucky shot (and probably a suicide one at that) to hit the track on an Abrams.
As for wars being fought with solely planes and missiles, that is impossible. You HAVE to put boots on the ground in order to use those weapons. People say warfare these days is simply "push-button," but that is far from the truth. How would you utilize your "surface missiles" and your planes if you don't have tanks to go clear the way for you??
As for a tank being a target, yes, they are, but it is fairly difficult to take out a tank like the Abrams. Being in one is one of the safest positions on the ground. Unless you are fighting an enemy that has tanks that can fire back at you and do some real damage, you're pretty fine, but that kind of land warfare is more Cold War-era.
As for these additions to the Abrams, none of thise is new. I mean, the technology is, but the tactics the tech is for are from WWII. Using infantry to back up a tank in an urban environment was used in WWII, Vietnam, etc....just now it is getting a new spin with some better tech.
Originally posted by namehere
"You dont need boots on the ground to use planes with bombs or missiles and rockets. And you dont need boots on the ground to shoot off cruise missiles."
you do too, how do you think laser guided munitions find their targets? if you dont know, special troops get in sight of a target and fires a laser to mark the target and the bomb/missile sees the laser light.
"Any high schooler who passed chemistry can build a device that can destroy an Abrams"
i've seen humvees with multiple direct hits from rpg's so if a humvee can survive direct hits i doubt that statement is correct.
[edit on 11-3-2005 by namehere]
Originally posted by Ritual
It doesnt have any short range ballistic defense. Maybe it doesnt come "advertised".
I think if this is WYSIWYG as far as the US's main battle tank, it doesnt belong on the front line. I think wars should be fought by airplanes and surface missiles until we figure out how to 1)detect all mines and planted explosives 2) perfect ballistic defense 3) perfect xray and other visual equipment to indentify targets.
Else riding a tank down the road is just asking for a ton of dynamite up your ass. Or an artillery round to slice through the tank. Or rocket.
Thanks but no thanks as far as me joining the Military. I wouldnt want to be ordered into an APC or Tank to make my way into Iraq. Bad mojo, murphy will kick me in the ass for being so illprepared.
Im better building ICBM's in my basement.
Originally posted by Ritual
You dont need boots on the ground to use planes with bombs or missiles and rockets. And you dont need boots on the ground to shoot off cruise missiles. And you dont need boots on the ground to shoot off ICBM's. And you dont need boots on the ground to shoot missiles from our base in Saudi Arabia. Might take a few years to start seeing an outcome, but I bet you if we did it, we wouldnt see the casualty count we have.
Originally posted by Ritual
Your going to get an ATS warning for one line posts.
Your better off trying to refute why I dont know much about warfare instead of just stating so without any proof.
Not saying the abrams is bad, but I dont think its something I would want to be in Iraq in or take out of my backyard.
[edit on 12-3-2005 by Ritual]
Originally posted by FredT
A friend of mine who was a tanker in the AMry told me to think of a claymore mine. The plates and the HEAT round tend to spray into anybody near the tank.
Now would I join the Military to fight a war we arent capable of doing safely? Nope.
Originally posted by Lucretius
And thus an already bloated tank is pushed further overweight...
probably over 70 tons... thus comprimising range, mobility and deployment among other things.
I think a completely new design is in order personally