Ok.. what was done to the abrams?

[SpaceAlex 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 08 2002,19:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is no M1A tank.<span id='postcolor'>

There is or was M1A or M1/IPM1 tank.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SpaceAlex @ Mar. 08 2002,23:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 08 2002,19:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is no M1A tank.<span id='postcolor'>

There is or was M1A or M1/IPM1 tank.<span id='postcolor'>

M1/IPM1 = M1

Don't take my word for it:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm

[Wobble 1]

anyone who says the t-72/80 has a better gun based on the fact that its 5mm bigger has their head in their ass.. first off thats just the barrel.. and as anyone knows the barrel is a small part.

also did you know the T-80 can only fire accurate stabilized shots at 25kmh or less? (stabilized shot being hitting a 4x4 foot target at 1500M) while the M1A1 can do it at 30mph and the A2 ad 35.. so as far as shooting on the run the A1-A2 is better.. also back to the T-72 gun being better.. it has an anciant fire control and targeting system compared to the A1-a2.. as seen obvilouley in Iraq..

you can cry "air power" maby you didnt see the footage shot during the war (tv-link to tank's optics) you would see the 3 or 4 T-72s at a adistance of about 3500 M.. the A1 would fire and blow up the first.. then one of the three would fir and you would see its round leave and then land about 800m short and hit the dirt.. then the A1 would fire again and kill another and the process would be repeated.. within less than 1 min all three T-72s were dead and never did one of their rounds land within 500m of the single M1A1 that killed them all..

also its pretty much uncontested that the M1A1-2 and the challenger series tanks have the most accurate fire control systems.. bar none..

BUT!! the T-80 and 72 were not made for long range warefair thats why their guns are not as fast or as accurate.. they are made for knifefights..

thats why it annoys me when people try to say "A1 sucks T-80 rules" or vise versa.. because in all fairness to both they are designed for totally different roles.. its like trying to compare a frog foot to an F22.. you cant because they are made to do different things..

and of course since none of us REALLY know the goody good stuff thats all classified.. I.E. the electronic, armor..etc etc. we can really pass accurate judgment anyway..

and why do people always say "oohh the t-80 has ERA!!".. so what? you can fit almost anything with ERA.. its not some majical integrated system.. its just some plates ya stick on the tank.. no big deal.. you can stick it on a above ground bunker, an APC... pretty much anything.. its not that amazing.

[Wobble 1]

as for the bug.. ive taken to using aronash's realMBT and REAL IFV and it doesent seem to effect them.. but it SHURE IS FUN!

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

In Iraq a M1A1 destroyed  2 T-72's with a single round.Pretty good! My dad drove the M1A1 for 4 years.Including a couple of others.Oh dont forget the M1A1HA (heavy armor) and M1A1HC(heavy armor comon).That picture of that dart looken thing is a sabot round.(pronounced like saying "say boat".not sa as in sad and bot as in robot.)Or long rod penetrators. BIS really messed up the sabot round.In real life it doesnt explode.In real life you cant shoot it at people and kill a group of them.(unless you lined them up lol).HEAT rounds dont either.In my dads tank they caried 4 diffrent rounds.Sabot,HEAT,HEAP(high explosive anti-personal) and AP(anti-personal).HEAP and AP is desigend to kill people lol.HEAP also is used to destroy trucks bunkers etc.The HEAP rounds are really sensitive so will destroy a car when it hits and it wont do any thing to a tank.They just explode real big and is the most explosive round carried in the M1A1. The AP just shoots a whole bunch of darts.You use these basicly for soldiers.Each of these shells the HEAT,Sabot,AP,HEAP weigh about 50 lbs.That thing that allows the M1A1 to kill targets even at 3 miles is that laser rang finder.You put the cross hair on the tank then hit the laser finder switch then bang the barrel is adjusted in a split second then you pull the trigger.Well later!

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

Oh in Iraq an M1A1 was trapped in this mud pit and it was totally stuck and 3 t-72's came up and the first T-72 fired at the M1A1 then the M1A1 fired back destorying it in one shoot then the 2nd T-72 fired at the M1 and the M1 fired back destroying it to then the the 3rd T-72 fired at the M1 and then the M1 fired again and destoryed it.the M1 was still stuck so the crew radioed for some help.Then the help came and they tryed towing it out but was still stuck so they where ordered to abanden the M1 and destory it.Well the other M1's fired at it.Then finally the 3 rd shell penetrated it and destoryed the ammo but instead of blowing the tank up it blew out the blow out panel and the fire depresent thing snuffed it out.Leaving the tank intacted with only the gun sight melted.The tank was still operational and then they just tryed towing out and they were later succesful and they just shipped it back to the US to continue service.Man it took 6 shells and it still works!Man thats tuff!

[Deus Ex 0]

Uhmm also make sure that the server DOES or DOESNT have the EXTENDED ARMOUR ON. If it is on then nothing can beat m1a1 on the feild, if it isnt, then m1a1 is shit poor in the game.

[Deus Ex 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Damage Inc @ Mar. 08 2002,05:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Although I think the Abrams could be weakened a little, it's way too powerful.<span id='postcolor'>

Naw, the extended armour on the m1a1 shows how much more advanced we are than the soveits, i think the armors fine.

if this game turns into a everythings fair game, then someone should build a map with 1 side weapons and vehicles only, that means, eaither U.S and Sovets use only soveit equipment and vehicles or the oppisite. i see that as a crappy game/map

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SKULLS_Viper @ Mar. 09 2002,02:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In Iraq a M1A1 destroyed  2 T-72's with a single round.Pretty good! My dad drove the M1A1 for 4 years.Including a couple of others.Oh dont forget the M1A1HA (heavy armor) and M1A1HC(heavy armor comon).That picture of that dart looken thing is a sabot round.(pronounced like saying "say boat".not sa as in sad and bot as in robot.)Or long rod penetrators. BIS really messed up the sabot round.In real life it doesnt explode.In real life you cant shoot it at people and kill a group of them.(unless you lined them up lol).HEAT rounds dont either.In my dads tank they caried 4 diffrent rounds.Sabot,HEAT,HEAP(high explosive anti-personal) and AP(anti-personal).HEAP and AP is desigend to kill people lol.HEAP also is used to destroy trucks bunkers etc.The HEAP rounds are really sensitive so will destroy a car when it hits and it wont do any thing to a tank.They just explode real big and is the most explosive round carried in the M1A1. The AP just shoots a whole bunch of darts.You use these basicly for soldiers.Each of these shells the HEAT,Sabot,AP,HEAP weigh about 50 lbs.That thing that allows the M1A1 to kill targets even at 3 miles is that laser rang finder.You put the cross hair on the tank then hit the laser finder switch then bang the barrel is adjusted in a split second then you pull the trigger.Well later! <span id='postcolor'>

An excellent example where realism was sacrificed for gameplay. And I'm happy with it. I never change rounds anyway (or only rarely).

[Wobble 1]

UPDATE.. new test..

I was using Ash's tank mod and I was fighting tanks on desert malden.. i got a tad shot up and my barrel was orange.. so I reapired.. then I was hit by a single t-80 shot from aroun 2200m and it killed me.. so the bug effects all models

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

maybe it is just an added feature as it was said previously. mainly that repair truck only makes things work again without putting new armour on.

more realistic, dont u think

[Wobble 1]

well.. then the damage meter should reflect that.. not give you the false sense of security it does..

also i never had this probelm before the update to 1.45 and/6.. and I would have noticed too..

[WKK Gimbal 0]

Regarding my post on the shell's damage values - that was based on an incorrect source - I've been told that the shells have not been changed at all since version 1.28

So maybe it's just one of those psychological thingies? You know, like "why is the sun brighter in patch 1.46?" when it hasn't been changed

[Wobble 1]

1 hit destroying a tank when it used to take 3 is not a mind trick. there is a bug with the repair

[WKK Gimbal 0]

You might be right about the repairs - I was simply referring to a fresh tank.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

You can easily kill a group of people with a sabot... simply just aim next to it, and let it fly past them....

Their lems will be ripped off.

[Hardliner 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Mar. 07 2002,22:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so the idea of a T-80 hitting the frotal armor of a M1A1 and completely destroying it with a single shot.. is just not realistic..<span id='postcolor'>

This never happens to me. Altho in the Heavy Metal mission sometimes my platoon of M1s gets wiped out by T72s... but NEVER with one shot.

[Guest]

Going offtopic again...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">also its pretty much uncontested that the M1A1-2 and the challenger series tanks have the most accurate fire control systems.. bar none..

<span id='postcolor'>

Oh really? T-80UK (latest revision) and T-90 use the Znamya-4 fire-control system. Has both laser and GLONASS/V range finding (satellite, similar to GPS).

A big differance in US vs Russian policy is that the americans upgrade their systems every ten years or so, while the russians do it continuously. You can pretty much expect the latest russian tank to be as good as the latest american. There are some exceptions though. The yanks have always been better at integrated electronics (navigational/targeting systems). The russians however have always had the edge in mechanics of materials(armor).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and of course since none of us REALLY know the goody good stuff thats all classified.. I.E. the electronic, armor..etc etc. we can really pass accurate judgment anyway..

<span id='postcolor'>

Not necessarily guessing. Have you heard of military service? Besides, It's not at all that classified.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and why do people always say "oohh the t-80 has ERA!!"..  so what? you can fit almost anything with ERA.. its not some majical integrated system.. its just some plates ya stick on the tank.. no big deal..  you can stick it on a above ground bunker, an APC... pretty much anything..  its not that amazing.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh yes. And those plates make all the difference. And the russians are the only ones that know how to manufacture ERA in a usable way.

As a matter of fact, here is what the US Army's soldier's manual of common tasks says about ERA (see under note):

In another section they comment on tank escorts (page 315):

"In the field during daylight all Main Battle Tanks (such as the M60A1 or the M1A2) must have an escort of 5-7 soldiers. This is because all NATO tanks are vulnerable to fire from handheld Light Antitank Weapons (LAWs)."

[Aaron Kane 0]

Not to be a smartass or anything, but what do you mean by "in a usable way?" I've seen tons of pictures from Desert Storm that showed M60 tanks with ERA attached to them.

[Guest]

The Russian ERA is simply better. The American-produced ERA (Israelly design, actually, "Blazer") is basically as good as the the first generation of Russian ERA ("Kontakt EDZ", anno 1974). The current Russian ERA is of type "Kontakt-5" and was first used in 1985 on T80-U tanks. They havn't changed the design until recently, since it did not need to be changed. There are rumors of a Kontakt-6 now, but that is beyond my knowledge.

I found an interesting article from Janes that discusses how good the T-72 armour is:

Jane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION

"Claims that the armour of Russian tanks is effectively impenetrable, made on the basis of test carried out in Germany (see IDR 7/1996, p.15), have been supported by comments made following tests in the US.

"Speaking at a conference on Future Armoured Warfare in London in May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US tests involved firing trials of Russian-built T-72 tanks fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour (ERA). In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles.

"When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles.

"Richard M. Ogorkiewicz"

<span id='postcolor'>

[akm74 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh in Iraq an M1A1 was trapped in this mud pit and it was totally stuck and 3 t-72's came up and the first T-72 fired at the M1A1 then the M1A1 fired back destorying it in one shoot then the 2nd T-72 fired at the M1 and the M1 fired back destroying it to then the the...<span id='postcolor'>

I hear the story when M1A1 kill 16 T72 and 2 helos with one shot.

[Wobble 1]

hear the story when M1A1 kill 16 T72 and 2 helos with one shot

yea but did ya see it on CNN and the history channel?

[Wobble 1]

anyone who says "ohh, I know all the secret stuff about BOTH tanks because I was in the service".. is either a liar or commiting a felony.. military secrets are secrets for a reason.. and people who are privvied to them are obligated to keep the secret..

besides im sure there are SOOOOOO many real live high clearence militaty personel hanring around on a video game bullitin board.. yal.. who all here drives a ferreri?

as for ERA.. how would you know which is better? you call the US mil and ask what their latest greatest ERA prototype ERA is? no your just GUESSING..

some people are so hell bent.. regardless of how LITTLE real information they have to convince people their little pet insert vehicle, soldier..etc here---->__ is comapred to everyone elses.. and they always have next to nothing to back it up...

oh yea, I watched a BBC/history channel documantry on the modern battle tanks.. and at the last NATO trials the challengerseries and M1A1-2 won... AGAIN.. they didnt say how the T-80 or 90 did.. in fact it was never mentioned at all throughout the entire program.. though im sure its a WONDERFUL tank..

USSR just doesent have what it takes to make any great armor these days.. its military is so underfunded its sickening.. even if they come out with some great design.. they can produce but a few of them.. their only hope would be to sell the design to whoever wants it (insert whoever and whatever here)

hey lets talk about whaich alien race has the best UFO.. im sure some loudmouth idiot here has a wealth of knowledge on that subject too..

bottom line is.. we have all see the M1A1 and challenger in combat.. they are bettle proven to be great fighting machines.. the T-80.. t-90.. etc are unproven, untested and not really judgeable.. at all...

dont worry Im sure with the way the ruskies are selling any and everything to any 2 bit criminal or twisted shit country we will see the T-80 or 90 in combat very soon..

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">anyone who says "ohh, I know all the secret stuff about BOTH tanks because I was in the service".. is either a liar or commiting a felony.. military secrets are secrets for a reason.. and people who are privvied to them are obligated to keep the secret..

<span id='postcolor'>

Wrong again. I didn't do military service in the US Army. The fact that if I release information that might be classified in the US army, does not mean it is classified in my country. The only ones against releasing US military data is the ones that use their hardware (US+NATO+some others).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

besides im sure there are SOOOOOO many real live high clearence militaty personel hanring around on a video game bullitin board.. yal.. who all here drives a ferreri?

<span id='postcolor'>

What are you, stupid? Do you really think that tank armour is highly classified data? You tell every common soldier what capabilities the enemy tank capabilites are, so that the soldier knows what to do when he encounters one.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

as for ERA..  how would you know which is better? you call the US mil and ask what their latest greatest ERA prototype ERA is? no your just GUESSING..  

<span id='postcolor'>

So true and so irrelevant. We are talking 1985 here, not your fantasy prototype. We can talk Gulf War, or any other time that US or Russian tanks have been deployed.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

some people are so hell bent.. regardless of how LITTLE real information they have to convince people their little pet insert vehicle, soldier..etc here---->__ is comapred to everyone elses.. and they always have next to nothing to back it up...

<span id='postcolor'>

Just trying to get you to get a little perspective to your opinion that the americans have the best military hardware no matter what. I have backed my statements with photos and quotes from your army's "Soldier's Manual of Common Tasks", STP 21-1-SMCT, used by your army for combat reference. I have also supplied a reference to an article in Jane's International Defence Review, a highly respected source for military information.

What did you come with? The history channel. I rest my case.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

USSR just doesent have what it takes to make any great armor these days.. its military is so underfunded its sickening.. even if they come out with some great design.. they can produce but a few of them..  their only hope would be to sell the design to whoever wants it (insert whoever and whatever here)

<span id='postcolor'>

But they have the resources to build an entirely new tank, the T-90, right (entered service last year)? That they have no money for development of weapons is pure bs. It's a question of priority. They cut down on maintenance, yes and on some R&D, sure but do not underestimate the Russian military industry. It is commonly known that they are currently developing a new 152 mm main gun, by the way (Jane's, I think).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

dont worry Im sure with the way the ruskies are selling any and everything to any 2 bit criminal or twisted shit country we will see the T-80 or 90 in combat very soon..

<span id='postcolor'>

I am only glad to know that all americans are not such blind nationalistic cretins as you.

[grey 0]

maybe its not the tank getting destroyed at all, but just the human inside dying? that would make sense

your tank is probably still alive with a bit of yellow on its icon, but you as its crew are dead