We are very keen on our rock collection I hope you know :)
The only reason we kept it first time round is because the poor sods who live there very blatantly wanted to be British.
1 Like
They did and that is reason enough.
Of course we know!!!..According to BP experts, oil reserves in the economic zone of the Falkland Islands are 60 billion barrels, which is the 5th place in the world.Argentina considers this oil to be its own…Fish and access to Antarctica are small things…
Spoiler
Wheeled vehicles, especially heavy military ones, tend to have higher ground pressure than tanks. The Abrams is 15.4 PSI (Scorpion is 5.12) which gives it much better soft ground mobility than most wheeled vehicles. And that’s the point. Sure, we could not, would not, drive “willy-nilly” around the Island. But we would STILL have had our tanks there for use on MSR’s and any available spots. I do not know the terrain where the scorpions set up. Given they often had trouble on the marshy ground.
The POINT is that soft ground is just a limiting factor not a go-no go criteria. We work around it all the time and before it went away 2nd Tank Battalion practiced this all the time in the swamps of Camp Lejune. Furthermore, even 1st Tank Battalion had issues with “dry” lakebeds that are often just soft mud underneath a thin crust. I’m not arguing that marshy or swampy ground isn’t an issue. I’m arguing that the crap that is Russian tanks has no advantage over Abrams, just because of terrain (which is where this argument started). Sure a T-90M comes in at 13.34 psi, but that is a marginal difference and certainly not relevant tot he overall statement.
2 Likes
It’s pretty obvious in any form of logistics that 60 tons is different to 40 tons .We know that from the historical study of the Tiger tank and all the issues it had regarding it’s extreme weight.Any school boy with an interest in military history does ,you don’t need to be a US Marine for that one.
You can build all the bridges you want with total air superiority but neither side has that in Ukraine or Russia unlike anywhere the Good ol’ US Marines may go to.There fore in that scenario 20 tons can be the difference between getting over a river or taking a major detour and a detour path the enemy will be only too aware of.
I also imagine the US Marines facing an army of drones is also one for the future as well.It would be interesting to see the US Marines working it’s logistic mojo while the enemy drop grenades on your head from 200ft. I never had to wash my socks with one eye on the sky.
I might add, that of course, the Falklands being remote as it is, has few roads between settlements, and one of the mains ones between San Carlos beachhead/Goose Green and Port Stanley has a small bridge over the Murrell River. Which a Scorpion managed to flip itself while attempting to cross. I suspect any tank commander would’ve thought twice about using such a crossing - most of those bridges are built with, at most, a land rover in mind. Or a couple hundred sheep. Not that a bit of 105/120mm fire support would go amiss, but…
I mean the whole point is a nonstarter because a) USan did not land on the Falklands, and b) I suspect the USMC, with vastly superior arrays of airpower and sea power at its disposal at the time, would’ve sailed into Port Stanley harbour, NGSed every single Argentine position on East Falkland with an Iowa Class, carpeted every known Forward Airfield with B-52s, along with every fast-jet capable airfield on the mainland, and Argentinians would’ve surrendered on day one.
The flipside to that being that a USMC taskforce might have turned around 15 minutes after leaving port because some muppet in the American UN delegation decided to play politics and not recognise the difference between a “colonialist oppressive regime illegally occupying some islands (or words to that effect)” and a fascist dictatorship imposing itself on 1,800 people for the want of some “manliness” and to stop itself from being overthrown for the lack of aforementioned trait. (I am, of course, referencing Jeane Kirkpatrick’s flipflopping in the UN meetings pre-liberation.)
We have many many ways around that baked in, but I concede that in the end the challenges may have been deemed to be not worth it. However, generally we tankers were begged for in any fight of substance. I don’t know enough of the situation to comment further. I just know that a lot of people don’t understand how adaptable tanks really are.
Sigh. There are a LOT of false assumptions here. A LOT.
Logistics is a complex study. Fuel consumption is balanced against ability to move it. Weight is a factor for bridging but at those weights the differences are often irrelevant. Bridging support varies from force to force. Spare parts vary on transportability/ability to transport overall. Reliability matters more than size.
Again, this is why we have the saying about professionals studying logistics. The USMC marched over a hundred tanks over 500 miles in a couple of weeks without losing a single tank to mechanical issues. Then proceeded to operate those tanks for weeks under harsh heat and sand. This was during the first parts of OIF.
I’m mostly saying that this stuff is complicated. And ANYTHING requiring a 55 standard ton bridge (50 metric ton bridge which the T-90M requires as it was 48 metric tons) is going to require significant support. The logistics required to support a tank is not linear based on weight. E.G. a 20 ton AFV is not 1/3 as easy to support as a 60 ton tank. IT depends on the tank and it depends on the AFV. The only thing that generally holds true is that wheels require less support than tracks. With advances in suspension technology and the need for high profile vehicles to avoid IED’s and Mines we’ve seen a big push for tall, wheeled vehicles.
However, in Full Spectrum Conflict (basically full on shooting war) these vehicles have disadvantages not present in shorter tracked vehicles. That high profile makes it more difficult to hide the vehicle or use terrain for cover and concealment. It’s a huge reason tanks are generally so squat.
All of these things are tradeoffs. And, currently, the tradeoff of getting reduced weight by using a carousel loader has shown that to be a net negative. As all of the launched turrets demonstrate.
2 Likes
Have you ever read any documents about tank armor? Most of them align with the margin of error based on the armor ratios that Gaijin uses in the game, all of this based on public documents that we have access to…
no they do not dont know where you got this insane psychobabble from. The M1A2 Sep variants are vastly under armored and gaijin knows this They’ve completely ignored the B.R.L armor updates in the 1980s and refuse to increase the hull thickness of the Abrams with the B.R.L armor update in general. No Abrams is able to be penetrated by 3BM-42 IRL at any distance.
1 Like
i dont know… maybe for thanksgiving or Christmas more likely.,
source: trust me bro please D:
I haven’t read such a hopium yet.
If all this is true, then why do we need Abrams X?
It doesn’t though? I think the most I’ve seen is a ~15mm difference which can be explained by different hardness of steel.
[and can’t legally do anything about it].
Fixed it for you.
Who said the US army needed Abrams X?
Did you mean the M1E3?
1 Like
If it’s more convenient for you, then yes, the US Army canceled the upgrade of the M1A2 SEPv3 to SEPv4 due to its excessive mass and lack of mobility in favor of the new M1E3.
And Abrams concept of the future is focused on reducing weight and automating processes in the tank.
However, we can only guess what will happen next. Draw your own conclusions.
Yes. Including the classified ones. The publicly available documents present a very limited picture. Ergo they do not present an accurate picture. As i have clearly laid out in this thread mutiple times.
1 Like
Take a hike… You are always on every Abrams post putting your non-sense. You already got discredited of your claims multiple time. You don’t even have enough time on this game to make your non sense opinion valid. For real, go to the russian forum.
Either way gaijin just laugh at this crap. Its being years since the abrams has problems. They wont fix it, so dont worry your lack of skills will still be carry away by your german and russian MBTS.
1 Like
I’m always on every Abrams thread because i love the Abrams and i want it fixed.
Not enough time? I grinded out the whole US tech tree with no premium at all, years of playing the Abrams, hundreds of games i know the Abrams very well.
I guess they do, but that wont stop people from complaining about the lack of armor and the turret ring issue.
That’s a funny thing to say, how do you know a lack skills?
I meant to replay to Necrons not you. My bad.
2 Likes
I’m allergic to false claims.
If people continue to lie and fabricate claims in regards to the M1 Abrams series of vehicles, you’ll continue to see me popping up and debunking those claims.
That however does not mean I’m against people engaging in constructive arguments. As always, if people disagree with what I say, they are welcome to provide counter evidence of their own. It’s just that there’s a distinct lack of evidence being presented by those who are on the other side of the fence.
And if you take issue with a specific claim I’ve made, please do point it out and present evidence which supports your case.
3000 hours across 12 years and toptier on four seperate nations isn’t enough?
Here’s a whole bunch of fixes the M1’s have received over the years:
- M1 Abrams, IPM1, M1A1 and M1A2 lower glacis: 332mm > 375mm.
- IPM1 and M1A1 right cheek: 400mm > 464mm.
- IPM1 and M1A1 left cheek: 434mm > 539mm.
- M1A2 left cheek: 667mm > 766mm.
- M1A2 right cheek: 625mm > 685mm.
- M1 Abrams left cheek: 486mm > 450mm.
- M1 Abrams right cheek: 426mm > 403mm.
- M1A1 received M829A1
- M1A2 received M829A2 based on dev server feedback
- IPM1 received M900
- Reload rate 6sec > 5sec
- UFP changed to defeat any and all APFSDS in the game
- Engine noise levels reduced significantly.
- Sight magnification buffed from 3x-10x to 3x-13x
Uhh, okay?
Your stats on the top row -vs- my stats on the bottom row:
And considering the fact that you play the Leopard 2A7V and Strv 122 series yourself, this seems like a bit of a ‘‘Pot calling the kettle black’’ situation.
5 Likes