Tanks

[concurssi 11]

So I was watching this video about arma on youtube, and it had a bunch of old soviet tanks in it. Then I started thinking about tanks.

IIRC, the current "the tank" is the Abrams or whatever. If there was, say 1 Abrams and say 3 of old soviet t-## (I don't know anything about tanks, really, so insert whatever model you like) tanks, which would come out on top, generally speaking?

[Ulanthorn 10]

A Abrams will not survive beeing outnumbered.

The second or third hit will render the M1 combat unworthy, the 8th will destroy it.

btw: this is the year 2010. A M1A1 or M1A2 is not state of the art MBT anymore.

[concurssi 11]

What is it about the Abrams that makes it "the tank", why does it stand out so well?

[Ulanthorn 10]

What is it about the Abrams that makes it "the tank", why does it stand out so well?

Hitpoints!

[concurssi 11]

I meant IRL :D

[ben_s 11]

I think its just the current MBT of America, It's not the best tank, it's very bad in actual combat, Takes up too much resources. I'm surprised its not been replaced already.

Unless someone proves me wrong, theres nothing the Abrams can do that other tanks can't in todays modern warfare. Theres just alot of people who still think the M1A2 is the best tank in the world, I go :lol: at them.

[Ulanthorn 10]

I meant IRL :D

Nothing! There is nothing special in a Abrams nowadays. The abrams is already too old and never got much upgrades. It is inferior to real 21. century MBT in production and fielded.

at current moment. Edited December 22, 2010 by Ulanthorn

[concurssi 11]

I have been fooled by those clever bastards in the United States. It's surprising that the US wouldn't have the cutting edge in everything military-related. There must be some reason they're maintaining the Abrams. Wikipedia says they're gonna use them until 2050.

[Baff1 0]

What is it about the Abrams that makes it "the tank", why does it stand out so well?

It is the tank used by the world's strongest army.

What makes it stand out so well is that it has only ever been deployed against greatly inferior forces.

It has deployed in overwhelming numbers against inferior outdated equipment with aerial domination and intelligence superiority by people who know how to use it well, when and where to use it best, and who have practised a lot and picked their battles wisely.

What makes the M1 Abrams "the tank"? Wrong question.

It's not what but "who".

The Americans do.

Edited December 22, 2010 by Baff1

[Ulanthorn 10]

Maybe its just the geman invented and license build m256 gun system. It is the predecessor of the one currently build into german Leopard II A6 MBT.

[JdB 151]

There is nothing special in a Abrams nowadays. The abrams is already too old and never got much upgrades.

The Abrams is made up of modules which can be swapped out for improved versions. There were many upgrades, including urban survivability kits to limit the effect of IEDs and ambushes in places where the tank cannot use it's two greatest assets, it's maneuverability and the main gun it the way they there were originally designed for. The fact that there have been 3 versions of the M1 so far (M1, M1A1, M1A2) as well as interim upgrades (105->120mm gun, SEP etc) disproves your claim of never getting "much upgrades", and a new version, the M1A3 is being worked on.

I don't think the Abrams is as good as it is made out to be, but it does have a combat record, which most "premium" tanks lack.

Has the T90 seen any combat use (not even to mention against an equally sophisticated enemy)? A little bit in Chechnya maybe. The Russians mainly relied on upgraded T72s in the war with Georgia, a mix of various upgrade (technology) levels. What great battles has the Leopard fought? The Danes and Canadians use it in Afghanistan, an insurgency, other than that I don't recall any toe-to-toe fights with modern enemy tanks. The Leclerc and Ariete are virtually untested at all. The Merkeva has seen a lot of use, including against modern Russian ATGMs, but not against other modern tanks.

None of them rolled into Iraq, which was more like a conventional war until the regime was brought down than any of the other MBTs experienced. Both the Abrams and Challenger did. Those are the only two modern MBTs in use by major powers that have seen action in a conventional war (and the asymmetrical war after that).

Some tanks might be better, but as long as they haven't fought against other modern MBTs, it's only speculation, while the Abrams and Challenger have an extensive combat record to show what they're worth (also to do with things like training, air dominance etc of course).

Edited December 23, 2010 by JdB

[max power 21]

New western tanks have this digital battlefield concept thing going on. I'm not sure if there's a russian equivalent (I wouldn't doubt it, but I haven't heard about it). Some russian tanks have some effective active protection. They also have atgms they can fire out of the gun barrel to engage at very long ranges. After all is said and done, though, I think the tank that is detected first is usually the first to die.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

The Abrams is made up of modules which can be swapped out for improved versions. There were many upgrades, including urban survivability kits to limit the effect of IEDs and ambushes in places where the tank cannot use it's two greatest assets, it's maneuverability and the main gun it the way they there were originally designed for. The fact that there have been 3 versions of the M1 so far (M1, M1A1, M1A2) as well as interim upgrades (105->120mm gun, SEP etc) disproves your claim of never getting "much upgrades", and a new version, the M1A3 is being worked on.

I don't think the Abrams is as good as it is made out to be, but it does have a combat record, which most "premium" tanks lack.

Has the T90 seen any combat use (not even to mention against an equally sophisticated enemy)? A little bit in Chechnya maybe. The Russians mainly relied on upgraded T72s in the war with Georgia, a mix of various upgrade (technology) levels. What great battles has the Leopard fought? The Danes and Canadians use it in Afghanistan, an insurgency, other than that I don't recall any toe-to-toe fights with modern enemy tanks. The Leclerc and Ariete are virtually untested at all. The Merkeva has seen a lot of use, including against modern Russian ATGMs, but not against other modern tanks.

None of them rolled into Iraq, which was more like a conventional war until the regime was brought down than any of the other MBTs experienced. Both the Abrams and Challenger did. Those are the only two modern MBTs in use by major powers that have seen action in a conventional war (and the asymmetrical war after that).

Some tanks might be better, but as long as they haven't fought against other modern MBTs, it's only speculation, while the Abrams and Challenger have an extensive combat record to show what they're worth (also to do with things like training, air dominance etc of course).

Nicely written JdB.

People forget that the M1A1/Block D/Sep/Tusk are cheaper to build than the the Leo. And people that bash the M1 and talk about how bad ass the Leo is, forget both of their guns are made by the same company: Rheinmetall. The M1's armor was copied from a British design: Chobham, RH armor, steel encased depleted uranium (DU) mesh plating.

While some of you hate the M1 has a turbine engine, I can tell you it's extremely quite. I remember being in Kosovo and hearing the Russian tanks Leo being damn loud. You could hear them about five blocks away. There has been times when I took a dumb in a field to be surprised that a few feet away was an M1 trying to scare me off my MRE/Toilet box.

Edited December 23, 2010 by Hans Ludwig

[Ulanthorn 10]

Leopard II and M1Abrams do not use the same gun anymore. The L44 (M256) was replaced with the 1 m longer L55 and new DM53 Amunition giving it a penetration in excess of 1200mm RHA and longer ranges.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Leopard II and M1Abrams do not use the same gun anymore. The L44 (M256) was replaced with the 1 m longer L55 and new DM53 Amunition giving it a penetration in excess of 1200mm RHA and longer ranges.

I never said they did. I said their gun is made by the same company.

[Tonci87 163]

What du you think of this one?

8PMxSayySck

There are only a few Prototypes available, but experts already say that this is/will be one of the best Tanks in the World

Some Arab nations are higly interested in the Purchase of these tanks because they proved very reliable in desert environment

fG0weY6I_SE&feature=related

[concurssi 11]

I dunno. All the specs sound impressive, but most of them mean nothing to me. I'm kinda new to the whole military thing in general. It does have a bigger gun than the Abrams, I guess.

[Tonci87 163]

It has some advantages over the other Tanks. Like a low Profile, great Speed and maneuverability, great Operating range....

He also needs only 3 crewmembers and is easy and cheap to maintain.

The Seize of the gun is important too, but what counts more is that he can fire those nasty Anti Tank rockets wit it

[concurssi 11]

Cheaper, you say? Where did you find the price?

[Tonci87 163]

Well maintenace on eastern tanks is generally more cheaper than for example on the Abrams or the Leo. I would had to search for the exact data though.

[max power 21]

A lower crew compliment can work against you too, because then you only have 3 people to service the tank. I hear that the forth guy comes in handy when you're loading the thing with ammunition or trying to repair a track.

[concurssi 11]

And maybe a broken autoloader is harder to fix than a crew member who fumbled a bit?

[Tonci87 163]

I sure that there is also the possiblity to load this thing manually. Well of course the Firerate will be much lower then.

[sputnik monroe 102]

Auto loaders are traditionally much slower than a human. At least they were in the 80s and early 90s. I'm not so sure on newer tanks like the Leclerc or if the T90 has a substantially better auto loader than the T72.

I remember reading an article in something once where it mentioned US and UK tank crews having a six shot for every one shot lead over Soviet tanks.

[JdB 151]

I sure that there is also the possiblity to load this thing manually. Well of course the Firerate will be much lower then.

The idea of an autoloader is to make the tank smaller overall, and the turret in particular to give it increased survivability because of a lower profile, and so you can't fit in a loader anymore, otherwise there wouldn't be any sense in having an auto-loader. They are slower than a human (although it would be interesting to have statistics for engagements lasting several hours to see how fatigue affects the ROF) and if they make a mistake/break down, you are in big trouble, similar to throwing a track. In that case either the gunner or commander would have to do the loading (if it's even possible to circumvent the auto-loader), and that would render the tank combat ineffective since it would either mean loosing your eyes and ears, or over 75% of your firepower (having to do the switch between stations inside an extremely cramped compartment). Either way, it would be almost certain death.

Edited December 24, 2010 by JdB