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 deltaboy
Dimitri, the Abrams tank is still capable of fighting with other tanks, no matter the situation that the U.S. Army face in Iraq. All they did was change tactics and add some features to fight in urban combat, not the other way around that you mentioned that the Abrams was design to fight in urban combat from the start.
Sounds like a fun game. Keep in mind that the information provided to the maker of the game was limited to some declassied info and their own imagination and by no means should be used at all in judging their accuall capabilities.
As far as how many Tanks russian lost in the conflict last yr. I was hesitent to put that in.
The main problem with the Abrams is that it's been redesigned for urban combat and it is now weak against tanks such as the T-90 or T-80bars.
Originally posted by Tank2/8
Originally posted by SKUNK2
Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
All of that sounds realistic, except for the loading part. T-90 has an auto-loader (ever since the T-72), is a human really faster than an auto-loader? Also, T-90 auto-loader can apparently load and distinguish between APFSDS, HEAT-FS and HE-FRAG ammo, so I guess T-90 has similar ammo capability as the M1.
A human loader is faster than an auto laoder...But i have never heard of a shot being fired every 3 seconds, it just wouldn't happen in the real world and sounds like an exageration. Challenger2 can fire of 3 shots in 12 seconds and thats using much lighter and easier to handle 2 piece ammunition. A trained Leopard2 crew fires a shot every 5 seconds....
In the field, training when the crew is good, the loader will have a round chambered in 3sec and the gunner or TC will have the shot downrange before the 4thsec turns. In the real world, you kinda of lose your perception of time, but as long as everybody is clicking, it can be done
Originally posted by SKUNK2
Originally posted by Tank2/8
Originally posted by SKUNK2
Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
All of that sounds realistic, except for the loading part. T-90 has an auto-loader (ever since the T-72), is a human really faster than an auto-loader? Also, T-90 auto-loader can apparently load and distinguish between APFSDS, HEAT-FS and HE-FRAG ammo, so I guess T-90 has similar ammo capability as the M1.
A human loader is faster than an auto laoder...But i have never heard of a shot being fired every 3 seconds, it just wouldn't happen in the real world and sounds like an exageration. Challenger2 can fire of 3 shots in 12 seconds and thats using much lighter and easier to handle 2 piece ammunition. A trained Leopard2 crew fires a shot every 5 seconds....
In the field, training when the crew is good, the loader will have a round chambered in 3sec and the gunner or TC will have the shot downrange before the 4thsec turns. In the real world, you kinda of lose your perception of time, but as long as everybody is clicking, it can be done
I don't believe a word you say i'm afraid. It isn't possible to load a round every 3 seconds and if you were in the military and served on Abrams as you claim you'd know that 80% of the features from the TUSK kit have made it to all Abrams on active duty. Not forgetting the FACT you would have trained using the new systems back at home in America.
In the field, training when the crew is good, the loader will have a round chambered in 3sec and the gunner or TC will have the shot downrange before the 4thsec turns. In the real world, you kinda of lose your perception of time, but as long as everybody is clicking, it can be done
Originally posted by SKUNK2
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
I'm sorry but T-95 only exists as a conept and in the imaginations of fanboys. Russia cannot afford to make a new tank. That is why Russia is now using the T-90 as its primary tank with T-80s being used in the elite house hold divsions. Abrams doesn't weigh 80 tonnes either it was 61.4 fully loaded and 64 tonnes with the TUSK kit. Abrams was not designed to fight in urban combat either.......It was designed to fight Russian T-72 and T-80 on the plains of western Germany.
Originally posted by Tank2/8
Funny you mention 'firing from 6miles away' One of the future rounds for the main gun will be a self guided round that will 'hunt' targets and have a range of about 12kilometers!! (at least that is the specs for the public)
reply to post by Ole Sarge
Aside from the Abrams Tech. capabilities, the crew is the KEY. I know russia trains, but I dont see them being able to train as much as we do, it is not cheap. inbetween these deployments we are in the field training at LEAST 6 months out of every 12 for Tank on Tank combat
Originally posted by Tank2/8
Originally posted by SKUNK2
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
I'm sorry but T-95 only exists as a conept and in the imaginations of fanboys. Russia cannot afford to make a new tank. That is why Russia is now using the T-90 as its primary tank with T-80s being used in the elite house hold divsions. Abrams doesn't weigh 80 tonnes either it was 61.4 fully loaded and 64 tonnes with the TUSK kit. Abrams was not designed to fight in urban combat either.......It was designed to fight Russian T-72 and T-80 on the plains of western Germany.
The A2 and A2 SEP weighs closer to 69tons combat loaded. The TUSK would obviously put the weight over 70.
As a Russia tech lover I can assure you Challenger1/2 is better than M1A1/2
Originally posted by Tank2/8
The Abrams will retain the same Hull/Turret. The only exterior up grades you may see is the improved armor and maybe an additional 'eye' or 'eyes' ontop of the turret. In the article, their plans for the Abrams will keep the basic design in service till at least 2050. If any of you are familar with the CROW system, I think something like that will be added outside the TC's hatch aswell.
Thank you Kettlebellysmith!
I do not like it but I also kinda agree with you (wintergreen) about 'what exactly we are doing here' but ask any...well most soldiers what it means to them to be here now and they will tell ya that they are here to help the Iraqi people become a free nation and that they are here to make sure all the heros that fell for this cause did not do so in vain.
Anybody want to debate that the Abrams is the baddest machine on land?
As a Russia tech lover I can assure you Challenger1/2 is better than M1A1/2
As you can see the A2's protection is not as good as the Challenger 2's read this and then link to the Challenger 2's article:
Originally posted by Tank2/8
reply to post by ATSWATCHER
As a Russia tech lover I can assure you Challenger1/2 is better than M1A1/2
Please go into detail about what features you think are better and why. Are you including training levels and standards of the crew?