Jump to content

True effectiveness of the M1A2 Abrams?


9 hours ago, Alzoc said:

 

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.

 

So when will tank combat literally be like naval combat today?

 

Because modern naval combat is seriously dull.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nope said:

 

So when will tank combat literally be like naval combat today?

 

Because modern naval combat is seriously dull.

Well naval force and aviation have already made that transition in the last decades, all that's left is ground warfare.

The fundamentals for a tank survivability remain:

 

1) Do not be seen (Stealth/Kill the enemy first)

2) Do not be acquired (Evasion/concealment-smoke)

3) Do not be hit (APS)

4) Do not be penetrated (Efficient use of passive armor)

5) Do not be killed (other survivability features)

 

From an engineering point of view it's much more efficient to act first on 1 then 2 then 3 etc than just rely on passive armor that rank second to last.

The point is you don't need a very thick armor all around (just concentrate it around the crew) if the probability of being hit is low to begin with

Edited by Alzoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Alzoc said:

Well naval force and aviation have already made that transition in the last decades, all that's left is ground warfare.

The fundamentals for a tank survivability remain:

 

1) Do not be seen (Stealth/Kill the enemy first)

2) Do not be acquired (Evasion/concealment-smoke)

3) Do not be hit (APS)

4) Do not be penetrated (Efficient use of passive armor)

5) Do not be killed (other survivability features)

 

From an engineering point of view it's much more efficient to act first on 1 then 2 then 3 etc than just rely on passive armor that rank second to last.

The point is you don't need a very thick armor all around (just concentrate it around the crew) if the probability of being hit is low to begin with

 

I feel like we've had this conversation before ;) 

 

Anyway, that sounds somewhat like the T-14, with APS, well armored crew capsule and mediocre armor everywhere else, supposedly some stealth technologies implemented. All they need now is a rail gun or a laser and voilà, a "perfect" tank. 

  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

I feel like we've had this conversation before ;)

 

Nah, you think? xD

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

I feel like we've had this conversation before ;) 

 

Anyway, that sounds somewhat like the T-14, with APS, well armored crew capsule and mediocre armor everywhere else, supposedly some stealth technologies implemented. All they need now is a rail gun or a laser and voilà, a "perfect" tank. 

 

until it throws a track, which is even an issue for Russian crew with 3 people....

  • Upvote 4
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Nope said:

 

So when will tank combat literally be like naval combat today?

 

Because modern naval combat is seriously dull.

I combat is dull, you're doing it right.

 

S**t starts hitting the fan, as soon as things get "exiting" :p:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, _TomokoAnabuki said:

 

until it throws a track, which is even an issue for Russian crew with 3 people....

 

Maintenance is harder with less crew member but it's not like it doesn't exist already (any Russian tank, Leclerc, K2, Type 10, etc).

So we have a good amount of experience on the difference between a 4 and a 3 man tank and we could try to extrapolate that to a 2 man crew.

It is, however, a legit question.

 

In my opinion the pro of reducing the crew size vastly outweigh the cons:

 

-You have a lighter, smaller tank which improve both tactical and strategical mobility

-It has a better passive protection for it's weigh class

-It greatly reduce the cost of possessing a tank fleet (main expense during the life-time of the system being crew training and accommodation)

Edited by Alzoc
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, _TomokoAnabuki said:

 

until it throws a track, which is even an issue for Russian crew with 3 people....

 

Those are just teething problems, which can be eliminated with practice and/or new innovations. 

 

Also, I think the track throwing incident you’re referring to was driver error, not design flaw. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

Those are just teething problems, which can be eliminated with practice and/or new innovations. 

 

Also, I think the track throwing incident you’re referring to was driver error, not design flaw. 

 

Tracks get thrown, maintenance or not, you are going to throw a track every once in a while, especially on combat ops. 

On NATO tanks standard practice is for the Gunner and loader to align the track, while the driver moves the tank into position and the commander keeps overwatch.

For the Russians, any thrown track means regimental depot needs to be called because with a 3 man crew, you cannot reattach it in the field without seriously compromising on crew security (as you cannot keep somebody on lookout).

 

 

  • Upvote 6
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, _TomokoAnabuki said:

 

Tracks get thrown, maintenance or not, you are going to throw a track every once in a while, especially on combat ops. 

On NATO tanks standard practice is for the Gunner and loader to align the track, while the driver moves the tank into position and the commander keeps overwatch.

For the Russians, any thrown track means regimental depot needs to be called because with a 3 man crew, you cannot reattach it in the field without seriously compromising on crew security (as you cannot keep somebody on lookout).

 

It's not like a tank will travel alone anyway, worst case scenario the environment is really dangerous and the crew has to wait for help to come as you said, it's not a game changer.

If a tank throw a track, even with a 4 man crew they won't be able to repair fast enough to resume their mission anyway.

 

I recall that one of the event of the strong Europe tank challenge was evacuating a wounded soldier and reacting to an IED damaging the tracks.

All teams (bar the Ukrainian whom we don't know the score) got the maximum score (50) on that event regardless of whether they operated a 3 man or a 4 man tank.

 

Granted it was a mixed event and we don't know the rules used to rate the performance.

My point is while it is true that it is harder to do basic maintenance with less people it is not impossible per se, it just require to adapt the procedures.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

 

Tracks get thrown, maintenance or not, you are going to throw a track every once in a while, especially on combat ops. 

On NATO tanks standard practice is for the Gunner and loader to align the track, while the driver moves the tank into position and the commander keeps overwatch.

For the Russians, any thrown track means regimental depot needs to be called because with a 3 man crew, you cannot reattach it in the field without seriously compromising on crew security (as you cannot keep somebody on lookout).

 

 

Not entirely true. You can make a track almost impossible to throw.

 

The perfect tank for that would be a tank with a center-center with contact length ratio of 1, with a good rear mounted sprocket. Sensors could also be used to detect a throw. 

 

But not all of the above is practical however. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Not entirely true. You can make a track almost impossible to throw.

 

The perfect tank for that would be a tank with a center-center with contact length ratio of 1, with a good rear mounted sprocket. Sensors could also be used to detect a throw. 

 

But not all of the above is practical however. 

Well, you'd have to constantly monitor and adjust track tension depending on the driving situation.

...possible, but not realy helpful for reliability (you introduce a ton of additional fault options into the system)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IRC Dazzler are already a pretty common feature on Chinese MBTs and it's not hard to retrofit one, you just need to have laser warning panels to detect the enemy ranging you (which most modern MBT have or should have) and add a high luminosity laser coax on the RCWS.

 

It blind the enemy crew and could allow you to either evade or take your time to do your own ranging and fire first.

However it will increase the power requirement (but still nowhere near the kind of power needed for a laser "APS")

 

And since Dazzler aren't exactly a new weapon, the counter measure already exist (generally speaking it require optics that have a non linear transmittance depending on the luminosity), if dazzler become widely used, most nation will have to change their optics to counter them, which mean forcing the enemy to spend money on upgrades AKA: arms race (that's how the US defeated the USSR during the cold war, only the wealthiest survived in the end).

Edited by Alzoc
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the true effectiveness has long been revealed, and been debated since foreever.

 

 

M1A2 Inferior to M48a5 and M60A1 because Cheaper and Moar NUmbers.

 

pierre sprey says so. :016:

 

1982 PDF

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/10.pdf

 

 

2007 PDF

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/07.pdf

 

 

 

 

  • Haha 5
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
15 hours ago, xoonZG said:

 

That's an M1A2 export variant that was made for the Swedish trials. It doesn't have the DU armor.

 

edit: actually is more fake than mcdonalds meat patties

Edited by Nope
  • Like 4
  • Confused 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19.1.2018 at 6:28 AM, kev2go said:

the true effectiveness has long been revealed, and been debated since foreever.

 

 

M1A2 Inferior to M48a5 and M60A1 because Cheaper and Moar NUmbers.

 

pierre sprey says so. :016:

 

1982 PDF

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/10.pdf

 

 

2007 PDF

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/07.pdf

 

 

 

 

Only Pier Sprey can invent an M1128 variant with a 175mm gun AND send it on a trip to Vietnam. Kudos to this old man.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Only Pier Sprey can invent an M1128 variant with a 175mm gun AND send it on a trip to Vietnam. Kudos to this old man.

 

Please, you never heard of the 175mm Stryker in Vietnam? I heard Marky Mark received support from one deep in Vietcong territory.

  • Haha 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7.3.2018 at 1:32 PM, Nope said:

 

That's an M1A2 export variant that was made for the Swedish trials. It doesn't have the DU armor.

 

edit: actually is more fake than mcdonalds meat patties

Actually potentially  more real than a 2 dollar bill !

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Laviduce said:

Actually potentially  more real than a 2 dollar bill !

 

wowzers

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t see how it can be real. The Abrams took direct hits from other Abrams in Desert Storm and the armor was not penetrated. Either the M829 does not penetrate anywhere near what it should or the armor is stronger than the document shows. 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, *MiseryIndex556 said:

The Abrams took direct hits from other Abrams in Desert Storm and the armor was not penetrated.

 

Tom Clancy is not a reliable source. M829A1 is a crapload stronger than any Soviet KE round at the time (nearly 600mm KE penetration point-blank), and even today to some extent if we exclude Vacuum-1. And if the armor was actually that strong, there's no way the armor would need to have been upgraded so quickly against inferior Soviet APFSDS shells. Are you confusing kills with K-kills perhaps?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
medal

Share this post


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

 

Tom Clancy is not a reliable source. M829A1 is a crapload stronger than any Soviet KE round at the time (nearly 600mm KE penetration point-blank), and even today to some extent if we exclude Vacuum-1. And if the armor was actually that strong, there's no way the armor would need to have been upgraded so quickly against inferior Soviet APFSDS shells. Are you confusing kills with K-kills perhaps?

What about Anker-1/2 and Grifel-1/2?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...