Tanks

[Ulanthorn 10]

Please keep in mind...a loader (and I had been one) CANT keep up the same loading rate over time...the first five maybe faster...but after 10 rounds loaded the fire rate will decrease significantly. A loader is a human beeing, not a mashine and it is not that easy to load the thing while it is driving...the loader beeing faster as an autoloader is on paper only. The newer Leopards have a loading support device...practically a loader operated autoloader.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Ulanthorn

[max power 21]

That's some good information! Thanks, Ulanthorn! :)

[Baff1 0]

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).

T72's and T80's in particular are equally as modern as the Abrams.

They have seena lot of action, in Iraq, Beka Valley, Chechenya andrgia for example.

They are battle tested.

The Merkava's were destroyed by pretty old ATGM's notnecessarily state of the art ones. Just effetive ones.

Adrams and Challenger have not faced tanks of comparable generation in battle either.

With regards to autoloaders, they are not only faster than humans but they can do it on the move at any speed over any terrain.

---------- Post added at 02:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:19 PM ----------

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.

ROFL.

I doubt there was ever very much in it.

Froma static position (most favourable for a human) US and UK tanks were getting reload rates of about 6 seconds to an autoloaders 6.5. But that was almost 50 years ago.

These days modern autoloaders are a little faster.

---------- Post added at 02:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:24 PM ----------

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

But easier to fix than a deads guy.

I was going to say cheaper, but actually, I don't supose training a guy to load a cannon takes all that long.

---------- Post added at 02:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:26 PM ----------

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.

Looks cheap and cheerful.

That thing can do all the things people standardly want tanks to do.

Tried and tested design.

Ticks all the boxes in my book.

Edited December 24, 2010 by Baff1

[Tonci87 163]

Jep, thats the purpose of it.

I know that the M-95 can fire 8 Rounds per Minute. Ulanthorn, could you please say how many rounds you managed to load in a minute and in which Tank?

[maturin 12]

T72's and T80's in particular are equally as modern as the Abrams.

Adrams and Challenger have not faced tanks of comparable generation in battle either.

Contradiction in terms.

[mosh 0]

Contradiction in terms.

I think his ramblings are more meant for humor than actual facts and intelligent conversation. ;)

[Baff1 0]

Contradiction in terms.

It is?

How so?

The latter variants of M1 Abrams and Challenger faced the earliest export Variants of T72.

That's the newest tank they have ever faced to my knowledge.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Baff1

[MrBump 10]

It is?

How so?

The latter variants of M1 Abrams and Challenger faced the earliest export Variants of T72.

That's the newest tank they have ever faced to my knowledge.

Yep true, these tanks had a dual axis stabilised fire control system, as opposed to the full three axis system, so they were poor against fast moving tanks, they would have had lower quality ammunition and armour, and I assume, lower quality training...

Edited December 28, 2010 by MrBump

[max power 21]

With regards to autoloaders, they are not only faster than humans but they can do it on the move at any speed over any terrain.

Well, if the gunner can avoid being stuffed into the breach block by the autoloader over rough terrain, good for him!

Yep true, these tanks had a dual axis stabilised fire control system, as opposed to the full three axis system, so they were poor against fast moving tanks, they would have had lower quality ammunition and armour, and I assume, lower quality training...

In the case of the Lion of Babylon tank in the Iraq war, its ammunition had difficulty penetrating the modern tanks. It was not of the same generation by any stretch.

[spooky lynx 73]

What du you think of this one?

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

Another modernisation of old good T-72 which proves its reliability in desert (and many other) environment from early 80's till nowadays:)

Yep true, these tanks had a dual axis stabilised fire control system, as opposed to the full three axis system, so they were poor against fast moving tanks, they would have had lower quality ammunition and armour, and I assume, lower quality training...

The newest iraqi tank was equivalent of soviet T-72A, which was designed in late 70's. And ammo that used most of those tanks was even older than tanks themselves. Some of T-72's (M1 version) were modified with add-on hull armor but there were not so much of such urgraded tanks.

[Baff1 0]

I think there are elements of tanking that are not really generation dependant. Reliability and manouvrability for example.

The T55 is essentially a WW2 design but it's still widely used today.

I don't think the M1 Abrams has needed a lot in the way of upgrades to it's suspension etc over the years. It's clearly a very solid performer on this front.

I think they might of given it a new engine.

I think tank on tank is only a very small part of the role tanks have to play in warfare. So for the bulk of it, a T55 is every bit as useful as an M1.

[Beagle 684]

I think it is impossible to compare weapons systems just by the numbers on the papers made under optimal conditions the manufacturer uses for advertisement.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Beagle

[reconteam 19]

The M1A1s that fought the first Gulf War may not have been up against the best tanks (T-72B and T-80U) the Russians had to offer, but it still saw more action than the top MBTs of other countries will ever likely see. There is something to be said for being "combat-proven" in large scale operations where both strengths and weaknesses can be seen.

I am naturally a bit biased but the M1A2 SEP is still among the world's top MBTs, some designs may outclass it in certain aspects, but nothing has a decisive edge over it. I would like to see a final extensive M1A3 upgrade, as well as design studies for future AFVs.

A bit off topic but does anybody know if older variants of the Abrams (M1, M1IP) with the 105mm gun saw combat in Desert Storm? The Army prioritized shipping over the M1A1HA which saw the brunt of the fighting, but I wouldn't be surprised if some older models saw action.

[M9ACE 0]

A bit off topic but does anybody know if older variants of the Abrams (M1, M1IP) with the 105mm gun saw combat in Desert Storm?

Yes.

It is also of interest that the most advanced version of the M1 series that participated in the 1991 Gulf war were 16 USMC M1A1HCs.

Edited January 4, 2011 by M9ACE

[Beagle 684]

I would like to see a final extensive M1A3 upgrade, as well as design studies for future AFVs.

The future IFV for the Army in discussion right now is the germen Puma with a british 40mm Autocannon that wil be build under license ikn the USA...you get the point here..its just repeating...you are fielding german hardware and just aprove that it is good...but you rarely get the lastes from us. It was not the chassis or the engine that made the M1 so superior.

[Baff1 0]

I'ts more likely to have been the chassis and engine, since it hasn't fought anything that required a bigger gun than the old 105 it originally came with yet.

[JdB 151]

I'ts more likely to have been the chassis and engine, since it hasn't fought anything that required a bigger gun than the old 105 it originally came with yet.

It's the gun and the firecontrol systems (including stabilizers) actually. With the original M68A1 105mm, it would have come within range of Iraqi tanks. Due to it's more advanced weaponry, the M256, it was able to take them out without the Iraqis being able to react. Once the Iraqis managed to ambush Abrams tanks (not even talking about urban warfare), eliminating the huge advantage in range and accuracy over that range, the odds were far more evenly matched, though it still resulted in extremely few total losses.

I feel that if the Iraqi tanks had been (somewhat) on par with US tanks, the Americans would have prolonged the air campaign to reduce their numbers before rolling in.

[stormridersp 11]

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

1991 Gulf War Propaganda. They killed by thousands iraqi inferior and old, outdated tanks.

---------- Post added at 07:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:48 PM ----------

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.

Well, if we're discussing a MBT, which is the main weapon in a conventional war (against other tanks and armour), then silence is not much use at all. Then you can say that a diesel engine runs far cooler, wastes far less fuel, are far more reliable and by miles, easier to repair and maintain. Now thats for me is a real benefit in a conventional theater. Other than that, you dont see many MBTs operating against militia and unconventional warfare. Thats why nations also possess cheaper APCs, IFVs, Jackals... and Infantry after all.

[Tonci87 163]

Thats true. The enmy also gets scared as hell when he hears Tanks approaching.

[KEVINMGXP 20]

Thats true. The enmy also gets scared as hell when he hears Tanks approaching.

hmmm i'm not sure if thats a good thing all the time if your task is to kill your enemy and they are running away :p i mean whats the point to have a war and the enemy is running all the time, stand still i cant shoot you!? i said please stop? :D nah just joking, serious now: if the tank is silent i bet it will have advantages to, like suprise attacks with tanks that you can't hear?

if you are determent to thin out the enemy's ranks i bet that could be one of those advantages ;) if you can't hear it or hardly hear it its harder to spot, harder to spot means your enemy is blind and they will have more troubles to destroy the tank. and so on

i don't think the enemy is scared of the sound, it gives a particular tank a brand mark in wich kind of tank is comming in and to spot it more easy, an enemy is scared of the size and of what it can do on the battle field, there for they can do 2 things run and pick a other day to fight or prepair for battle ;-)

its just how i have a look opon it ...

but it will also have some disavantages like with everything

regards.

Edited January 6, 2011 by KBourne

[Beagle 684]

hmmm i'm not sure if thats a good thing all the time if your task is to kill your enemy and they are running away

Contrary to games like ArmA, in real life the killling itself is NOT the main target of military operations. If a enemy retreats...mission acomplished...Or do you think the Allies moved into germany in 1945 with the mission to kill everone?

A civilized nation would make more prisoners (practically) then kills. A soldier that surrenders is no threat anymore and must not be shot at according to geneve convention, thats why propaganda of superiority is used to scare an enemy to make him more prone to surrender...the way it happened in Iraq in the 90s...the US forces saw white flags quite often when aproaching.

[KEVINMGXP 20]

Contrary to games like ArmA, in real life the killling itself is NOT the main target of military operations. If a enemy retreats...mission acomplished...Or do you think the Allies moved into germany in 1945 with the mission to kill everone?

A civilized nation would make more prisoners (practically) then kills. A soldier that surrenders is no threat anymore and must not be shot at according to geneve convention, thats why propaganda of superiority is used to scare an enemy to make him more prone to surrender...the way it happened in Iraq in the 90s...the US forces saw white flags quite often when aproaching.

erm are you serious did you see the :p and the :D ..... :eek: sikes

[ryguy 10]

I'm too lazy to read all 5 pages, but in the gulf war the M1 won all-out in the largest (or 2nd, I don't remember ATM) tank battle in history. Can't really beat that for field experience. Besides, the army already has plans for a new tank that is smaller and more maneuverable around cities.

And Kbourne, what the hell are you talking about?

Edited January 6, 2011 by ryguy

[KEVINMGXP 20]

I'm too lazy to read all 5 pages, but in the gulf war the M1 won all-out in the largest (or 2nd, I don't remember ATM) tank battle in history. Can't really beat that for field experience. Besides, the army already has plans for a new tank that is smaller and more maneuverable around cities.

And Kbourne, what the hell are you talking about?

I'm talking about the fact that people are taking everything waaaay to serious when something is said :rolleyes:

[max power 21]

I'm too lazy to read all 5 pages, but in the gulf war the M1 won all-out in the largest (or 2nd, I don't remember ATM) tank battle in history. Can't really beat that for field experience. Besides, the army already has plans for a new tank that is smaller and more maneuverable around cities.

And Kbourne, what the hell are you talking about?

If I went to a school yard at lunch time and I beat the crap out of 50 children with impunity, would that mean I am combat proven with an incredible kill ratio?