Jump to content

True effectiveness of the M1A2 Abrams?


5 minutes ago, Ronin_GE said:

The power/weight ratio is always better for a gasturbine(less dead weight/less moving parts).

Dowside is there is no differnence between going full speed and idling in a BP: it drinks the same amout of fuel...

 

Yup, which is why there was a proposal in the late 1980's, yeah that damned long ago, that when the second gen turbines were installed there would be an APU as well. One large enough to operate the all the tank's systems well enough to fight the tank, just not move it, of course. 

This proposal died in the 1990's "Peace dividend" when the DoD's budget was slashed post Warsaw Pact dissolution. 

So many damned sources from then that I have lost, misplaced over the years. 

 

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2017 at 2:47 PM, *Lyrch75 said:

 

Yup, which is why there was a proposal in the late 1980's, yeah that damned long ago, that when the second gen turbines were installed there would be an APU as well. One large enough to operate the all the tank's systems well enough to fight the tank, just not move it, of course. 

This proposal died in the 1990's "Peace dividend" when the DoD's budget was slashed post Warsaw Pact dissolution. 

So many damned sources from then that I have lost, misplaced over the years. 

 

Wait, does the Abrams still not have an APU? Or was one installed since then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to the OP- the M1A2 is meant to be the pinnacle of MBTs (i mean just look at the weight for starters, jesus christ that is a heavy MBT), but it most certainly is aging. while it'd be a stretch to say the T-14 Armata is "better", it has brand new tech to make it much better than the T-90s at combating NATO MBTs from the Leo 2s to whatever the M1A3 is eventually going to have, without air support.

 

that said, whatever the main russian composite armor is, it lacks the kind of impressive approximate stopping power that 2nd generation chobham armor is believed to have (25 times more durable than RHA/hell for HEAT/tends to break penetrators), so i guess power is in the eye of the beholder when DU-APFSDS starts flying.

 

 

5 hours ago, BloodSeraph said:

Wait, does the Abrams still not have an APU? Or was one installed since then?

 

it should i think. even wikipedia states:

" In December 2014, Congress again allocated $120 million, against the wishes of the Army, for Abrams upgrades including improving gas mileage by integrating an auxiliary power unit to decrease idle time fuel consumption and upgrading the tank's sights and sensors"

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2017 at 9:24 AM, Nope said:

Chinese tanks are always going to be at quite the disadvantage because the ammunition they use will never go beyond merely ok. This is the main flaw of a carousel autoloader. The Chinese tanks are not that much to worry about. The T-14 is another story given that it's a mix of multiple Cold War prototype concepts brought to life, but its turret is absolute garbage though it has a fair bit of redundancy (cheeks are mostly cosmetic and house none of the actual turret). Plus given the fact that the Russians can make decent vehicles that will never be delivered in actually ok numbers, the T-14 becomes even less of a threat. The SEP V3 is going to do just fine on the larger scale of things as it defeats T-90s and T-72B3s quite fine.

 

Also, Russian armor fielded to Russian troops are dinosaurs in terms of FCS until the T-72B3. Damn things do not automatically adjust the gun at all, but merely act as a rangefinder that calculates lead. Driving at a decent speed also moves the lazing point further away from center to the point that it might even disappear off the sight entirely. Digitization is also not a thing the Russians were keen on until the T-90SM that they don't even use or the T-72B3 and lately the T-14 and T-90M Proriv-3, or the T-64BV for KMDB tanks and only that tank because KMDB was the only one of the three major design bureaus that actually bothered going for such advanced FCS. Let's also not forget that T-72s and T-90s are slow in comparison to the Abrams, use carousel autoloaders that prevent anything better than 3BM-42M from being fired and rely entirely on ERA to survive.

 

So is the Abrams at a disadvantage? If you asked before the T-14 was conceived, then you'd be terribly wrong. Nowadays it's a probably not.

You are wrong the T-72B3 and the T-90 has a new autoloader that is capable of even accepting the T-14's rounds.

Why would the the T-14 never be delivered in actually ok numbers? It is really cheap. It does not cost much more than a new T-90ms.

Then the T-90s and T-72B3 have missiles to shoot at 5km.

There is no flaw in carousel autoloder, the new autoloader allows a round that would have 1.20 meters long in two pieces, the round of the Leopard or M-1 Abrams has the same length.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2017 at 4:32 PM, _TomokoAnabuki said:

 

IIRC the ZTZ-99 uses a different autoloader, one which is more akin to the one on the leclerc then the Russian one.

Totally wrong, the new autoloader in the T-72B3 is much more armored. and you have to hit the tank in the carousel or during reload to make it blow.

On 3/6/2017 at 2:08 AM, Eden_Earhart said:

Isn't this bit here 

6f86477aa6.jpg

 

Just the same kind of thing as on the leclerc? 

63d5b7ed33.PNG

Is the same thing that the T-90 carries.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tzalafim said:

Why would the the T-14 never be delivered in actually ok numbers? It is really cheap. It does not cost much more than a new T-90ms.

 

Are you sure about that? All kinds of fancy new tech but it's not any more expensive... If that's the case then why isn't Russia updating their whole armored force with them?

 

3 hours ago, Tzalafim said:

Then the T-90s and T-72B3 have missiles to shoot at 5km.

 

The M1A3 is almost certainly going to carry an active protection system, so lobbing missiles from 5 km is going to be worth a lot less. It's also very rare to have 5 km sight lines in Europe (or about anywhere else for that matter).

 

3 hours ago, Tzalafim said:

There is no flaw in carousel autoloder, the new autoloader allows a round that would have 1.20 meters long in two pieces, the round of the Leopard or M-1 Abrams has the same length.

 

If they're carrying two piece ammunition that's going to seriously decrease their ammunition capacity, especially the capacity of the autoloader.

 

2 hours ago, Tzalafim said:

Is the same thing that the T-90 carries.

 

That's not the same kind of autoloader the T-90 has...

 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21.6.2017 at 8:20 PM, *Lyrch75 said:

The Abrams' weight has become its greatest issue, not due to lost mobility as the turbine has always been down graded for what it would push powerwise, and several of the proposed diesel replacements are putting out stellar numbers as well. 

No it is the logistics and maintenance issues that this massive weight engenders. 

 

The tracks, even the newest versions, wear out at insane rates. Less than a year of operations and you will be on your second if not third set of them. Drive and road wheels are also wearing out at absurd rates. 

This is actually aided by the fact that they keep on pushing the turbines harder and harder. 

 

Which get us to the log issues. Opened up and running fast across country the Abrams is amazingly fuel efficient, getting close to .75 mile per gallon. Of course that is not what 90%+ of its operations are, so it is closer to .35 mile per gallon. I had the hourly burn rate figures, but not sure where I put them, but they suck. 

 

So had Congress and the DoD not been idiots, we would have had the third generation turbine in it now. Which, if aeronautical fuel efficiency gains in the past 3 decades are any guide, would be at least 50% more fuel efficient with slightly better power. but, DC is filled with imbeciles so we have a tank with 40+ year old driveline technology that requires an insane amount of fuel and needs depot level work multiple times per year. 

 

This portly weight is also why there has been little work done on up gunning the beast, as there really is no way to up gun it without adding tons to a vehicle that is already the heaviest fighting vehicle deployed. 

 

 

 

 

As for the logistical footprint of the M1A2.

Of course an simple car is less maintenance intensive...but then would you want to run a formula 1 race in it?

You want to go on the cutting edge of technologie. And if the logistic system of your army (and the US is still the worldmaster in logistics) can support it, then it is not really an issue.

If you can't maintain/supply such a tank, you need to look somewhere else.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Admiral_Aruon said:

to the OP- the M1A2 is meant to be the pinnacle of MBTs (i mean just look at the weight for starters, jesus christ that is a heavy MBT), but it most certainly is aging. while it'd be a stretch to say the T-14 Armata is "better", it has brand new tech to make it much better than the T-90s at combating NATO MBTs from the Leo 2s to whatever the M1A3 is eventually going to have, without air support.

 

that said, whatever the main russian composite armor is, it lacks the kind of impressive approximate stopping power that 2nd generation chobham armor is believed to have (25 times more durable than RHA/hell for HEAT/tends to break penetrators), so i guess power is in the eye of the beholder when DU-APFSDS starts flying.

No, it is not. It is actually supposed to be a cheaper version of the MBT-70, but still ended up being more expensive. Read up on the development history of the tank. It is still a very good MBT though. 

Next, no, it is not a heavy MBT, just look at the Chieftain, Challenger and Challenger II. The M1A2SEPv3 is going to be 72,5 ton, now you can call it heavy, still lighter than the Challenger II with up armored sides. 

 

Next, please provide a source on why the T-14s composite armor array is bad. Also, the M1 series does not use chobham, it uses Burlington, HAP, HAC and soon NEAP.

Also, what do you mean by "25 times more durable than RHA" does that mean 25 times as effective armor in case of volume? weight?

 

 

And, READ: http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/1086-tanks-guns-and-ammunition/&page=1

 

 

Source:
http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/1462-history-of-us-tanks/

 

 

 

10 hours ago, Tzalafim said:

You are wrong the T-72B3 and the T-90 has a new autoloader that is capable of even accepting the T-14's rounds.

There is no flaw in carousel autoloder, the new autoloader allows a round that would have 1.20 meters long in two pieces, the round of the Leopard or M-1 Abrams has the same length.

Source.

 

You do realize that the dimensions are impossible right?

xO49C.jpg

 

 

Also, the 120x570mm rounds are 980mm, not 1,2m. The new 130mm is closer, at around 1,35m.

 

 

7 hours ago, muzzleflash98 said:

 

The M1A3 is almost certainly going to carry an active protection system, so lobbing missiles from 5 km is going to be worth a lot less. It's also very rare to have 5 km sight lines in Europe (or about anywhere else for that matter).

Trophy is being integrated in SEPv3/v4

 

7 hours ago, muzzleflash98 said:

 

 

If they're carrying two piece ammunition that's going to seriously decrease their ammunition capacity, especially the capacity of the autoloader.

 

No, two piece can increase ammunition capacity, since it is smaller and easier to fill out volume with. This is why the T-72 uses two piece ammunition.

It does however, put a cap on how long the KEP can be, which is a huge downside. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, muzzleflash98 said:

 

Are you sure about that? All kinds of fancy new tech but it's not any more expensive... If that's the case then why isn't Russia updating their whole armored force with them?

 

 

The M1A3 is almost certainly going to carry an active protection system, so lobbing missiles from 5 km is going to be worth a lot less. It's also very rare to have 5 km sight lines in Europe (or about anywhere else for that matter).

 

 

If they're carrying two piece ammunition that's going to seriously decrease their ammunition capacity, especially the capacity of the autoloader.

 

 

That's not the same kind of autoloader the T-90 has...

 

Yes it is the same thing at least that of the chinese tank. But even comparing with the Leclerc the ammunition is in the turret's bulb, in the T-90 in the carousel under the crew, still the arm or tool that reloads go in the same place.

I don't know if the Russians need so much T-14 tanks, in fact Russia need not a MBT, it needs and MBT and a good Heavy tank for breaches, being a continental power, they need more than a MBT, well maybe the T-14 fullfills that mission, and according to the doctrine the russians use, they will not use their tank forces to fight tank forces, that is the task of the anti-tank weapons, the tank is to breach infantry lines and to fight the tank it can encounter there, then it is part of the mobile reserves, for defense the T-72B3 and the T-90 are really good tanks.

The T-14 is a necessary tool in the battlefield but it is not needed to be deployed with every armor formation, in such way, you can focus to get other kind of weapons that allow you than older tanks win an armored clash, for example a kind of weapon that introduced in the right moment allows you to stomp in a kind of battle such as kursk, and that is not the tank, the tank is only a tool in that scheme.

Edited by Tzalafim
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, xoonZG said:

No, it is not. It is actually supposed to be a cheaper version of the MBT-70, but still ended up being more expensive. Read up on the development history of the tank. It is still a very good MBT though. 

Next, no, it is not a heavy MBT, just look at the Chieftain, Challenger and Challenger II. The M1A2SEPv3 is going to be 72,5 ton, now you can call it heavy, still lighter than the Challenger II with up armored sides. 

 

Next, please provide a source on why the T-14s composite armor array is bad. Also, the M1 series does not use chobham, it uses Burlington, HAP, HAC and soon NEAP.

Also, what do you mean by "25 times more durable than RHA" does that mean 25 times as effective armor in case of volume? weight?

 

 

And, READ: http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/1086-tanks-guns-and-ammunition/&page=1

 

 

Source:
http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/1462-history-of-us-tanks/

 

 

 

Source.

 

You do realize that the dimensions are impossible right?

xO49C.jpg

 

 

Also, the 120x570mm rounds are 980mm, not 1,2m. The new 130mm is closer, at around 1,35m.

 

 

Trophy is being integrated in SEPv3/v4

 

No, two piece can increase ammunition capacity, since it is smaller and easier to fill out volume with. This is why the T-72 uses two piece ammunition.

It does however, put a cap on how long the KEP can be, which is a huge downside. 

The dimensions are not impossible if I'm not wrong, I read it somewhere the total length of the Armata's ammunition (two pieces) is 1.40 meters.

And that the new ammunition for the T-90 and T-72B3 with new autoloaders is 1.20 meters.  The two piece ammunition does not put a cap anywhere, how are you going to load a 1.40 meters long round inside a turret into the breach, no loader will be able to do that.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Tzalafim said:

The dimensions are not impossible if I'm not wrong, I read it somewhere the total length of the Armata's ammunition (two pieces) is 1.40 meters.

And that the new ammunition for the T-90 and T-72B3 with new autoloaders is 1.20 meters.  The two piece ammunition does not put a cap anywhere, how are you going to load a 1.40 meters long round inside a turret into the breach, no loader will be able to do that.

T90_Armor_Protection.jpg

It's impossible to fit anything longer in this autoloader. 

 

Yes, two piece does limit KEP performance. In a one piece design, you can have the KEP run all the way through the propellant case, you cannot do this in a two piece design, since the shell is split in two. 

125mm:
4E7AD06D-5056-B74B-7156A429DBD81C9A-supp

120mm:
M829a2.jpg

 

 

And yes, a loader would have a hard time loading a 1,35m longs shell, this is why Rheinmetal specifically said that their new cannon requires a autoloader.

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/15/2017 at 0:49 AM, ArmourWorm said:

M1 Abrams in all incarnations is a fast becoming obsolete. A2s are taking losses when facing modern warheads in places like Yemen and A1s are being fire-balled in Iraq.

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. 

 

Quote

This is no surprise as same thing happened to Israelis. When their Merkava 4 tanks advanced to Lebanon in 2006 they were shocked by the losses. Nearly half of the hits they had from infantry anti-tank weapons, such as Vampyr RPGs, Metis and Koronet missiles, went through the heavy composite armor. New generation of warheads are designed to penetrate such armor and they clearly work. Israelis upgraded their tank with Trophy Active Protection System to counter (and Trophy is also going to be installed into US Abrams in near future), but calls for a new MBT for Israel have been made from highest levels.

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. 

 

Quote

Protection isn't the only thing wrong with Abrams these days. 120 mm L/44 is simply out of date. Germans have been driving around with L/55 for better part of 20 years and if their government hadn't been in 'be nice' -mode in late 1990's, their Leopard 2s would now be sporting a 140 mm smooth bore. Potential Leopard 3 (name is not official, but it is in the works) is rumored to sport Rheinmetall 130 mm cannon. Latest Russian gun in action (2A46A) has over 1.5x the combat range of the 120mm L/44 and even British older 120 rifled has clear advantage against Abrams' gun (record combat kill against armor; British 5.75 km, A2 Abrams 4.2 km). The gun has not been state of the art since 1990´s.

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?

 

Quote

Israelis increased the effectiveness of L/44 by developing LAHAT missile as tube-launched option, which has been thought as possibility for US as way to increase the range of L/44. Problem with LAHAT is the increased anti-missile protection of most tanks are making them useless. Also the latest Russian weapon is of course 2A82 of T-14. That thing is going to be installed to next upgrade of T-90s as well (so the rumor goes). Top that with Thales optics and latest generation targeting computer which Russians got from French, plus the latest Russian HEAT round (triple tandem - obviously designed to penetrate extremely heavy composite with additional plates) and I would not bet against latest T-90 in T-90 vs M1A2 match.

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.

 

Quote

All and all US army needs a new tank and it needs it decade ago. It had one planned in Future Combat System - project, until everyone in Pentagon went all "Asymmetric warfare!" and canceled almost entire program in 2006, including the Abrams follow-up. Now with T-90 taking names and making waves in Syria and Ukraine, and Pentagon found out that they are back in business of being a field army. Expect it takes a decade to design a tank and another to get it fully fielded. Meanwhile Russians have used last 15 years to upgrade and modernize their entire force and according to Pentagon they have successfully pulled ahead in multiple fronts (New Russian Capability Study they ran last year). M1A2 is pretty much at the end of its career and only reason it isn't replaced is that there is no replacement in works. Not a good situation.

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.

  • Upvote 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 6/14/2017 at 11:49 PM, ArmourWorm said:

M1 Abrams in all incarnations is a fast becoming obsolete. A2s are taking losses when facing modern warheads in places like Yemen and A1s are being fire-balled in Iraq.

 

This is no surprise as same thing happened to Israelis. When their Merkava 4 tanks advanced to Lebanon in 2006 they were shocked by the losses. Nearly half of the hits they had from infantry anti-tank weapons, such as Vampyr RPGs, Metis and Koronet missiles, went through the heavy composite armor. New generation of warheads are designed to penetrate such armor and they clearly work. Israelis upgraded their tank with Trophy Active Protection System to counter (and Trophy is also going to be installed into US Abrams in near future), but calls for a new MBT for Israel have been made from highest levels.

 

Protection isn't the only thing wrong with Abrams these days. 120 mm L/44 is simply out of date. Germans have been driving around with L/55 for better part of 20 years and if their government hadn't been in 'be nice' -mode in late 1990's, their Leopard 2s would now be sporting a 140 mm smooth bore. Potential Leopard 3 (name is not official, but it is in the works) is rumored to sport Rheinmetall 130 mm cannon. Latest Russian gun in action (2A46A) has over 1.5x the combat range of the 120mm L/44 and even British older 120 rifled has clear advantage against Abrams' gun (record combat kill against armor; British 5.75 km, A2 Abrams 4.2 km). The gun has not been state of the art since 1990´s. Israelis increased the effectiveness of L/44 by developing LAHAT missile as tube-launched option, which has been thought as possibility for US as way to increase the range of L/44. Problem with LAHAT is the increased anti-missile protection of most tanks are making them useless. Also the latest Russian weapon is of course 2A82 of T-14. That thing is going to be installed to next upgrade of T-90s as well (so the rumor goes). Top that with Thales optics and latest generation targeting computer which Russians got from French, plus the latest Russian HEAT round (triple tandem - obviously designed to penetrate extremely heavy composite with additional plates) and I would not bet against latest T-90 in T-90 vs M1A2 match.

 

Mobility is also a problem. The weight of Abrams has gone up after every upgrade until it is now seriously hampering the deployment and operative use. Idea of upgrading it would end up increasing weight even more. Also the max speed, once among top of MBTs is now just average, not to mention fuel consumption is beyond funny.

 

All and all US army needs a new tank and it needs it decade ago. It had one planned in Future Combat System - project, until everyone in Pentagon went all "Asymmetric warfare!" and canceled almost entire program in 2006, including the Abrams follow-up. Now with T-90 taking names and making waves in Syria and Ukraine, and Pentagon found out that they are back in business of being a field army. Expect it takes a decade to design a tank and another to get it fully fielded. Meanwhile Russians have used last 15 years to upgrade and modernize their entire force and according to Pentagon they have successfully pulled ahead in multiple fronts (New Russian Capability Study they ran last year). M1A2 is pretty much at the end of its career and only reason it isn't replaced is that there is no replacement in works. Not a good situation.

So you are basically saying that in case of a massive Rusissan invasion of Europe, NATO tanks (including US made imported) from Germany and such would be decimated by Russian T-90's and Russian field technology??

 

Edited by Mavyalex79
  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the M1 Abrams was as outdated as people believe, it would have been replaced. The US has the largest military budget in the world. You honestly think we couldn't get a better tank if we needed it?

 

The turbine engine may not be as fuel efficient as other tanks, but its time between maintenance is very good. Again, if it needed to be replaced, it would have.

 

Why shouldn't the Abrams be praised for its effectiveness in the Middle East? No one holds that against Tigers and Panthers when they faced Shermans and T34s. You bring the best weapon you can. They aren't going to leave the M1s behind because the enemy has less effective tanks.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M1A2 certainly is not outdated, It's not being replaced because there is virtually no need for a batter tank amongst all of the Nato Forces. Russia is not an ennemy and potential ennemies which are mostly middle east (and North Korea) country rely on tech that is 40-50 years old tank Wise. However tanks like Leopard 2A7, Leclerc XLR or K2 Black Panther are better I think, even if the M1 Abrams certainly still holds the armor superiority.

Edited by Tantor57
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M1A2 SEP V3 program is going to boost Abrams capabilities even more so i don t see the problem. For sure the future is in the 130-140 mm range for main weapons. We will see how this develops. Certanly it s not a close thing. Talking about at least a decade

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
17 hours ago, Ronin_GE said:

 

Wow...that makes 6-HEAT charges stacked in a line :D

 

>not preparing for the inevitable quintuple layer era

 

get a load of this pleb

  • Haha 7
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
On 6/23/2017 at 7:05 PM, xoonZG said:

No, it is not. It is actually supposed to be a cheaper version of the MBT-70, but still ended up being more expensive. Read up on the development history of the tank. It is still a very good MBT though. 

Next, no, it is not a heavy MBT, just look at the Chieftain, Challenger and Challenger II. The M1A2SEPv3 is going to be 72,5 ton, now you can call it heavy, still lighter than the Challenger II with up armored sides. 

 

Next, please provide a source on why the T-14s composite armor array is bad. Also, the M1 series does not use chobham, it uses Burlington, HAP, HAC and soon NEAP.

Also, what do you mean by "25 times more durable than RHA" does that mean 25 times as effective armor in case of volume? weight?

 

 

And, READ: http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/1086-tanks-guns-and-ammunition/&page=1

 

 

Source:
http://sturgeonshouse.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/1462-history-of-us-tanks/

 

 

 

Source.

 

You do realize that the dimensions are impossible right?

xO49C.jpg

 

 

Also, the 120x570mm rounds are 980mm, not 1,2m. The new 130mm is closer, at around 1,35m.

 

 

Trophy is being integrated in SEPv3/v4

 

No, two piece can increase ammunition capacity, since it is smaller and easier to fill out volume with. This is why the T-72 uses two piece ammunition.

It does however, put a cap on how long the KEP can be, which is a huge downside. 

it is not impossible, the T-14 rounds are two pieces, put along they have 1.40 meters.

 

Then the T-72B3 is having the autoloader replaced with a new one that allows 1.20 meters rounds to be carried on, yes of course in two pieces.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2017 at 2:26 PM, Mavyalex79 said:

So you are basically saying that in case of a massive Rusissan invasion of Europe, NATO tanks (including US made imported) from Germany and such would be decimated by Russian T-90's and Russian field technology??

 

there was never a massive russian invasion of Europe that is an illusion,

And according to General Dunford they would be decimated. LOL, Russian field technology is better, was better even during the soviet union period, and in ww2 except from some exceptions.

Again General Dunford said that, not me or a Putin's agent. I can give you the video. Boer you have eaten too much fake news lately.

  • Haha 3
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
On 9/20/2017 at 2:43 AM, Tzalafim said:

there was never a massive russian invasion of Europe that is an illusion,

And according to General Dunford they would be decimated. LOL, Russian field technology is better, was better even during the soviet union period, and in ww2 except from some exceptions.

Again General Dunford said that, not me or a Putin's agent. I can give you the video. Boer you have eaten too much fake news lately.

 

You do realize that the soviets feared they would be decimated in the event of a war as well right? Hell at the time of Able Archer 83 Soviets believed they were at only 45% of the strength of the NATO forces because of their VRYAN system and their analysis was that  40% was the threshold for NATO launching first strike.

 

Quite frankly both sides, NATO and Warsaw Pact, assumed the opposing side was much more powerful and capable then their own. who was correct thankfully we never found out

  • Upvote 6
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is speculation on my part. But being that the T14 is 14 tons lighter and costs approx half of what a M1 does, I can't help but think the Russians have cut corners somewhere. I think you'll find that the armor is lighter except in the new crew compartment.

 

Still the basic M1 is a design that's over 30 years old. But the problem is the US has only lost a few from IED's and none from tank combat so why replace them?

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, *cbrstar said:

This is speculation on my part. But being that the T14 is 14 tons lighter and costs approx half of what a M1 does, I can't help but think the Russians have cut corners somewhere. I think you'll find that the armor is lighter except in the new crew compartment.

 

Still the basic M1 is a design that's over 30 years old. But the problem is the US has only lost a few from IED's and none from tank combat so why replace them?

 

That would be the turret that's the big reason, for it has little armor. However, the front profile of it is so narrow that it becomes hard to actually hit it anyway, and it is completely isolated from the crew anyway. In fact, when one considers how much of a tank's weight is actually in the turret, there's not much a reason to say that the hull is weak.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Nope said:

 

That would be the turret that's the big reason, for it has little armor. However, the front profile of it is so narrow that it becomes hard to actually hit it anyway, and it is completely isolated from the crew anyway. In fact, when one considers how much of a tank's weight is actually in the turret, there's not much a reason to say that the hull is weak.

 

Yupp, thats most likely the whole point of this tank design: make the protected volume as small as possible. So you can get in the most crew protection possible with the lowest weight you can think of...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ronin_GE said:

 

Yupp, thats most likely the whole point of this tank design: make the protected volume as small as possible. So you can get in the most crew protection possible with the lowest weight you can think of...

 

And that's what most future tank design will probably do to be weight efficient.

Unmanned turret (implying auto loader), crew capsule and possibly 2 man crew if technical limitation allow it (replacing the gunner by an automated system).

 

Maybe ditching some passive armor and rely more on active protection.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...