Jump to content

True effectiveness of the M1A2 Abrams?


18 minutes ago, Cadianguardian said:

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

 

These aren't in service.

  • Upvote 2
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 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?

 

I was reading about friendly fire incidents during the Gulf War a while back and multiple Abrams were hit in the front by other Abrams and the round did not penetrate into the crew compartment. I’ll see if I can go back and dig them up. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2018 at 4:28 PM, Nope said:

 

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

 

yea Marky Mark our Nam hero.

 

1404663096977.jpg

Edited by kev2go
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2018 at 1:00 PM, xoonZG said:

Dump:
coIJOcb.jpg

Woh9Ar3.jpg

qdd9Vwe.jpg

 

what is the skyddad ytal column about? I understand the horizontal one being about penetration, but the vertical one, I cannot understand is it slope or what?

medal medal

Share this post


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

what is the skyddad ytal column about? I understand the horizontal one being about penetration, but the vertical one, I cannot understand is it slope or what?

 

It's the percentage of the area covered. The green area is protected, and the red area is not. Taking the M1A2 turret as an example, it shows that 50% of the area on the turret front at 20 degrees is protected against 600mm penetration KE rounds (on impact, so something with 600mm penetration like M829A1 might have 550mm penetration at 2 km), and 70% of the area is protected against 850mm penetration HEAT rounds. A steeper decline may imply more weakspots in the armor.

  • Upvote 2
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/06/2017 at 7:34 PM, BloodSeraph said:

I've always wondered about the true effectiveness of this tank considering that it's incredibly hyped by so many people. I don't use the Gulf War of 1991 as a demonstration the Iraqi forces during that conflict had outdated equipment and inadequate training. So how effective is it against a modern opponent exactly? I want to like my country's MBT but after seeing the release of the T14, European MBTs, the increasing quality of modern Chinese armor(how much is hard to gauge because of Chinese propaganda and secrecy but certainly a massive improvement to what they had before), and how cost-effective Russian tanks have been in the past it really makes me wonder whether this thing is worth the price tag. So how good is the M1A2 SEPv2(or is it 3 now?) Abrams?

Edit: Whoops can a mod please move this into the Ask the Experts subforum please? Meant for it to be there.

M1A2 Didn't enter Service until 1992, 

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...

600mm KE on M1A1HA is actually correct, according to infantry MAR APR 1990 M1A1 with DU had 600mm.

So those Swedish docs do infact talk about an M1A1HA (same performance anyway, it had more bells and whistles than the actual M1A1HA because it had digital FCS/hunter killer)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...
On 14/08/2017 at 07:26, Theoask79 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??

 

I think that's what he's implying, I certainly hope not. What I've seen a lot of people do is judge the Abrams based on the ones seen in Iraq today, the ones we left(ahem, excuse me, sold) to the new Iraqi Military, those lack almost all of the fundamental armor packages that we put up on the ones we continue to use, think of it as a stripped down discount model, it does the job it needs to do without compromising our secrets we put into them. My eval of Russian tanks, giant **** tinderboxes waiting to happen, the ammunition stowage is a fatal flaw in my opinion, one good shot and the tank would cook off, it's been seen many times. Would there be a slugfest? Yes, it's not a smooth sail battle, but the odds of decimation are too far out there, especially when it comes to a Russian non-nuclear front offensive. Just my two cents, carry on. Have a good night all. 

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/03/2019 at 11:53, Sev808 said:

I think that's what he's implying, I certainly hope not. What I've seen a lot of people do is judge the Abrams based on the ones seen in Iraq today, the ones we left(ahem, excuse me, sold) to the new Iraqi Military, those lack almost all of the fundamental armor packages that we put up on the ones we continue to use, think of it as a stripped down discount model, it does the job it needs to do without compromising our secrets we put into them. My eval of Russian tanks, giant **** tinderboxes waiting to happen, the ammunition stowage is a fatal flaw in my opinion, one good shot and the tank would cook off, it's been seen many times. Would there be a slugfest? Yes, it's not a smooth sail battle, but the odds of decimation are too far out there, especially when it comes to a Russian non-nuclear front offensive. Just my two cents, carry on. Have a good night all. 

 

With or without the same armor package, or better yet, even with the exact same version used by the US Army, i.e newest version, the Iraqi Army would still get the exact same results. Its losses of tanks are not the result of Soviet weaponry piercing the front. It's them being stupid enough to:

  1. Let ragtag terrorists outflank them and shoot them in the sides where they're defenseless.
  2. Forget very basic drills that could potentially save them, or at least mitigate losses, from the situation above.

Share this post


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

 

With or without the same armor package, or better yet, even with the exact same version used by the US Army, i.e newest version, the Iraqi Army would still get the exact same results. Its losses of tanks are not the result of Soviet weaponry piercing the front. It's them being stupid enough to:

  1. Let ragtag terrorists outflank them and shoot them in the sides where they're defenseless.
  2. Forget very basic drills that could potentially save them, or at least mitigate losses, from the situation above.

 

This, very much this.

 

You can have the best equipment in the world, but if you don't train and don't use it as it should be used, it doesn't matter in the end. 

 

Take that infamous photo of a M1's ammo cooking off next to a concrete barrier.  Been said to be an example of (pick your flavor), RPG attacks, ATGM's, hand grenades tossed, etc.  That particular instance is a case of stupidity and unwillingness to train:  That pic was made whilst the tank was uploading ammo (you can tell because the uncropped versions of the picture have the ammo tubes stacked up next to it), while the guy was smoking: a huge no-no when the ammo you are loading is made of a combustible case that is designed to burn very easily.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PantherAl said:

 

This, very much this.

 

You can have the best equipment in the world, but if you don't train and don't use it as it should be used, it doesn't matter in the end. 

 

Take that infamous photo of a M1's ammo cooking off next to a concrete barrier.  Been said to be an example of (pick your flavor), RPG attacks, ATGM's, hand grenades tossed, etc.  That particular instance is a case of stupidity and unwillingness to train:  That pic was made whilst the tank was uploading ammo (you can tell because the uncropped versions of the picture have the ammo tubes stacked up next to it), while the guy was smoking: a huge no-no when the ammo you are loading is made of a combustible case that is designed to burn very easily.

 

Makes me remeber one incindent at a range.

Tank driving to our front left, suddendly stops and loader/TC/gunner pop out like spring-loaded "jack-in-the box".

The loader misshandled a round and spilled propellant all over the fighting compartment. TC got a big sheoing for not telling the driver what happend...

They just jumped out, and one baffled driver was left there, wondering on the silent intercom "hello, anybody here?" after he got the "halt"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
On 15/06/2017 at 00:49, 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.


Very well said! That's the truth! Also should add: for the price Abrams comes and the huge loses they had in Yemen, it probably the most failed tank in recent years. 
And for the guy that replied to you, blaming "arab tactics" is an ignorant, those tactics used by Saudis are US tactics, thier defence work closely with US defense on all combat and reports.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Abadai said:


...., those tactics used by Saudis are US tactics, ....

LOL....erm, no, no and no...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 12/01/2018 at 00:35, [email protected] 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?

This is a common misconception of cost and effectiveness. You are comparing diffirent countries and their internal costs here.

For example here in Russia you can have limitless internet for like 7$ which is of better quality than the one that you can have in the US for 50$. If you compare petrol costs then our costs twice less.

 

If i remember correctly i think t90M costs the same or more than T14 lol.

 

Yes the US has the biggest war spending by far. But hypersonic precision weapons were pioneered by Russia somehow. Thats because you spend less efficiently and have thousands of military bases worldwide. I think that for every dollar spent in russian military you need to spend 5$ for equal effect more or less.Armata tank in the US? probably a 15mln affair. You probably can afford that because you print dollars and then export the inflation worldwide via trade.

Edited by Max__Damage
medal medal

Share this post


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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...