Mighty_Zuk

Member
  • Content count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About Mighty_Zuk

  • Rank
    Aircraftman

Recent Profile Visitors

202 profile views
  1. Hold your horses mate. First of all, I haven't yet witnessed a frontal penetration. All penetrations were to the side, and that's because the Yemenis took advantage of the poor training and lack of experience of Saudi crews, and same with ISIS against Iraqi Abrams. If anything, the Abrams has proven its concept of (nearly complete) ammo separation was successful and worthwhile. So describe it however you want; but "obsolete" will not be a word to describe it. If you're talking purely about armor efficiency, frontally the Abrams in use by the US will be upgraded under the CEP program, and is already better than the export variant, for obvious reasons. The only export variant that stands on par with the US's armor efficiency is the Australian variant, which merely replaces the DU with WC. Same happened here. Back in 2006, the army was in shambles; Little to no training due to inappropriate budget for that. Brigade sized trainings occurred maybe once a year. There weren't even enough smoke grenades for every tank, let alone for replenishment. Tactics were outdated. Commanders were promoted due to personal favors rather than actual performance, and even the good ones were too far back in air conditioned rooms. Worst yet? General feeling of slacking around rather than taking the war seriously. In spite of all that, the Merkava 4 had also demonstrated exceptional levels of protection and post-penetration protection. Your statistic is misinterpreted. Not half the shots penetrated. Far less than half actually penetrated, and even a penetration usually didn't result in anything significant, which is why missiles were always fired in salvos. What you're referring to is the fact that about half the tanks that were classed as damaged (minor damage doesn't count) were eventually pierced. 21 tanks out of 52. As of yet, no call for a new MBT has been made. To the contrary, Israel is one of the only front runners in MBT development to NOT require a next generation MBT. To remove all confusion, Israel currently has 2 running programs: Rakiya (Carmel demonstrator) - universal family of vehicles that would be better optimized for urban combat, includes an IFV and probably an APC(not confirmed!), but not an MBT by any means. Barak - deep upgrade to the Merkava 4M. Not new MBT. It's hard to say the L/44 is obsolete in light of the L/55. The L/44 still retains the advantage of lower weight of gun and stabilizers, easier stabilization, and substantially improved comfort of use in urban, desert, or forested areas. Usually, unless facing each other on very large plains, an L/44 would be plenty enough adequate. The L/55's usefulness is limited to not many scenarios. The 140mm gun was pursued by pretty much the entire west. US had the CATTB, and a prototype named Thumper was recently sighted being moved by rail, meaning it wasn't scrapped. Switzerland and Israel in a joint project, France with their own Leclerc armed with 140mm, South Korea had such project as well, and the UK was at least also considering it. All cancelled because there was no need for it. So Germany and USA had the exact same reason to dump it. The 130mm still has a long road ahead before it is first used on an operational tank, and the US would likely adopt both an interim firepower upgrade (XM360) and a long term upgrade, which might be based on cooperation with Rheinmetall on a NATO-standardized 130mm caliber. The latest Russian gun is 2A82, not 2A46A, and although likely more powerful than even the L/55 and somewhere on par with the future L55A1, still does not have a higher effective combat range because that depends heavily on the armor of the target. Last but not least, the Challenger 2's rifled gun, which is L/55 by the way, is quite substantially LESS powerful than the M256 L/44 gun because it uses 2-piece ammo (3 if you count primer) and rifling, both dramatically reducing performance. That gun has been deemed obsolete by the UK over a decade ago. The long range kill it scored is nothing special really. It was due to the pure skill of the gunner, and could definitely be achieved by any other modern tank had it been faced with the same circumstances and manned by a similarly skilled gunner. It's actually known that tank kills at up to 18km were scored by Sherman tanks when used as artillery, but you don't see anyone calling the Shermans superior to modern tanks, do you? The only thing the T-90 is set to gain from using the new gun, if it happens, is slightly increased accuracy and life longevity of the barrel. The penetration depends heavily the munitions used, and unless the T-90 goes through a tremendous upgrade to replace its entire autoloader, which would require substantial and expensive redesigning, I don't see how it can actually replicate the firepower of the T-14. Also, a triple charge (not triple tandem, as tandem means dual) would not be useful. Why? The Abrams doesn't make use of ERA on the front, therefore there is no need for triple or double (tandem) charges. If enough space across the length of the round is free, it's better to go for a tandem charge alone. I don't see how they can fit 3 full sized shaped charge warheads in there. 3 warheads in the same space as 1 larger warhead are less effective because the streams would deviate from one another, creating a lot of lost energy and non-linear penetration. There are still a few decades of usefulness for the Abrams. The ECP programs will eventually replace every component of the tank for a full revamp.