True kinda, the reason they went small was for more or less for tactical size and transportation advantage. Lighter is easier to transport, smaller is harder to hit.
So the abrams is a clean up support tank, not a frontline main battle tank?
No tank should really be in the frontline without support per-se. That’s not the purpose of a tank.
only because we haven’t fought a peer or near peer threat with tanks in a long time, reducing the amount of damage taken and making it far easier to have supporting units nearby
I don’t think reliability has been a major issue for autoloaders in a long time, they typically cycle thousands of times between any issues developing. Maintenance would be an issue though, lots of extra parts to oil and grease.
But you are right that it is a matter of doctrine and what each nation thinks is best. I believe the French actually keep the 4th crew man for each tank, 3 operate the tank and the rest crew APCs as scouts, then all 4 do the maintenance etc and they rotate around.
Abrams is designed to operate as part of a US combined arms doctrine, not a standalone unit, not that any tank really is, but Abrams is a lot more focused on integration with other forces
It said clean up tank here so…
1 Like
Gaijin Entertainment themselves officially stated that they didn’t give the Abrams DU armor. So we don’t have DU armor in the game. What we see on the new ABrahms, starting with the HC, is simply increased armor. They also increased the LFP. Or do you think the LFP also has DU armor?
[Development] Hull Armor of the M1 Abrams - News - War Thunder
T-72M1 vs Abrams is just coughing baby vs hydrogen bomb, so yeah. Either way, tanks should never really be put in a position where they need to be repaired. Which then kinda defeats the whole purpose of a tank, but that’s just how it is.
At least in modern warfare ofc. Air superiority and ability to utilize light and quick AT is really what matters when mounting an offensive.
but why no DU armor though??
‘Not enough data’
1 Like
an extra person also helps distribute the overall workload better. next gen tanks have much more automated and improved systems which is why they are moving to 3 crew, but for current MBT 4 does help
also, you still have to account for stuff going wrong when making anything combat related
1 Like
It literally says it has DU
And the picture you provided earlier supports that DU should only be in the cheeks:
only for the m1a2 not the m1a1??
Ahahahaha. And won’t Russian tanks get stuck in the mud? I remember during one famous military campaign, Russian tanks sank in the spring mud in the first days of the campaign. Hundreds of them, in fact.
By current you mean the Abrams, which is more or less a 70’s tank, produced and serviced in the 80’s, but I still understand your sentiment.
Yes, modern intelligence networks and assisted computer systems are very nice in the new generation of warfare. This is especially important with aircraft for the past 30 years of sharing intel, now it’s working its way down to the ground.
1 Like
abrams is old
the vast majority of tanks in service across the world are cold war designs
He’s talking about reality. That Uranium armor poses a danger to the crew. Learn to read already.
Fairly close to the T-80s in age if I recall, I think a few years younger