Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Share
    avatar
    nemrod

    Posts : 809
    Points : 1305
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod on Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:48 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    ... just they're employed correctly by better trained personnel
    Or just because they this supposed trained personnel did not take risks, because of their cowardices ?

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    ...and according to their doctrine.

    Doctrine that relies on powerful aerial support, and numerical superiority, else they pass up any risks 'combats. Meanwhile, the T-55, or T-62's teams did not hesitate to take risks.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1386
    Points : 1387
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  AlfaT8 on Fri Jul 01, 2016 6:51 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:
    nemrod wrote:A friend of mine that knows very well the situation that is prevailing in Middle East told me that a syrian army's T-62 took out an M1 Abrams belonging to the terrorists dubbed "DAECH".





    This news did not surprised me, as I know that the powerful gun -115 mm/ smoothbore- of the T-62 could largely destroy any western tank in a fair combat.

    Wouldn't be surprised, armor of export M1s is a joke, SA lost quite a few in Yemen, there was also that time when Iraq tested Kornet against M1 the thing was hauled away with tarp covering the frontal armor so it didn't look good.

    Export M1 armour is far from a joke. Especially the post IAP ones.

    KSA lost quite of them due to its crews being little more than baboons with the gift of speech. All tanks would have faltered in those circumstances. Take the T90's in Syria, great workhorse, definitely not enough for garbage crews.

    Lets agree to disagree then, and IAP which variant is that, also the KSA had the A2S export variant of the A2 SEP so now i am laughing harder. Laughing

    And that T-90 the "rebels" got is useless, i have yet to see them turn that turret much less use it in combat, good for PR, but not much else.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3911
    Points : 3938
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sat Jul 02, 2016 2:26 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:
    nemrod wrote:A friend of mine that knows very well the situation that is prevailing in Middle East told me that a syrian army's T-62 took out an M1 Abrams belonging to the terrorists dubbed "DAECH".





    This news did not surprised me, as I know that the powerful gun -115 mm/ smoothbore- of the T-62 could largely destroy any western tank in a fair combat.

    Wouldn't be surprised, armor of export M1s is a joke, SA lost quite a few in Yemen, there was also that time when Iraq tested Kornet against M1 the thing was hauled away with tarp covering the frontal armor so it didn't look good.

    Export M1 armour is far from a joke. Especially the post IAP ones.

    KSA lost quite of them due to its crews being little more than baboons with the gift of speech. All tanks would have faltered in those circumstances. Take the T90's in Syria, great workhorse, definitely not enough for garbage crews.

    Lets agree to disagree then, and IAP which variant is that, also the KSA had the A2S export variant of the A2 SEP so now i am laughing harder. Laughing

    And that T-90 the "rebels" got is useless, i have yet to see them turn that turret much less use it in combat, good for PR, but not much else.

    Nope we won't agree on anything. Especially on disagreeing on something as evident as the fact that you are well protected in an export M1A1/A2. IAP/AIM stands for Integrated managment Abrams Program/Abrams Integrated Managment. These tanks are well protected for front use. What they can't overcome, is poor crews, poor leadership and idiotic tactics.

    Same for the T90.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1386
    Points : 1387
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sat Jul 02, 2016 2:42 am

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:
    nemrod wrote:A friend of mine that knows very well the situation that is prevailing in Middle East told me that a syrian army's T-62 took out an M1 Abrams belonging to the terrorists dubbed "DAECH".





    This news did not surprised me, as I know that the powerful gun -115 mm/ smoothbore- of the T-62 could largely destroy any western tank in a fair combat.

    Wouldn't be surprised, armor of export M1s is a joke, SA lost quite a few in Yemen, there was also that time when Iraq tested Kornet against M1 the thing was hauled away with tarp covering the frontal armor so it didn't look good.

    Export M1 armour is far from a joke. Especially the post IAP ones.

    KSA lost quite of them due to its crews being little more than baboons with the gift of speech. All tanks would have faltered in those circumstances. Take the T90's in Syria, great workhorse, definitely not enough for garbage crews.

    Lets agree to disagree then, and IAP which variant is that, also the KSA had the A2S export variant of the A2 SEP so now i am laughing harder. Laughing

    And that T-90 the "rebels" got is useless, i have yet to see them turn that turret much less use it in combat, good for PR, but not much else.

    Nope we won't agree on anything. Especially on disagreeing on something as evident as the fact that you are well protected in an export M1A1/A2. IAP/AIM stands for Integrated managment Abrams Program/Abrams Integrated Managment. These tanks are well protected for front use. What they can't overcome, is poor crews, poor leadership and idiotic tactics.

    Same for the T90.

    Fine by me charly, your views wont change and neither will mine.
    avatar
    nemrod

    Posts : 809
    Points : 1305
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod on Sat Jul 02, 2016 11:18 am

    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Nope we won't agree on anything. Especially on disagreeing on something as evident as the fact that you are well protected in an export M1A1/A2. IAP/AIM stands for Integrated managment Abrams Program/Abrams Integrated Managment. These tanks are well protected for front use. What they can't overcome, is poor crews, poor leadership and idiotic tactics.
    With or without their gadgets like IAP/AIM, or you can bring the most well trained personnel -that rarely exist in KSA's ground forces-, the best tactics, that implies a very skills high commands -that does not exist KSA's ground forces- any M1 will be crushed by any russian anti tank missiles.
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2065
    Points : 2083
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Jul 02, 2016 2:28 pm

    nemrod wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:

    Nope we won't agree on anything. Especially on disagreeing on something as evident as the fact that you are well protected in an export M1A1/A2. IAP/AIM stands for Integrated managment Abrams Program/Abrams Integrated Managment. These tanks are well protected for front use. What they can't overcome, is poor crews, poor leadership and idiotic tactics.
    With or without their gadgets like IAP/AIM, or you can bring the most well trained personnel -that rarely exist in KSA's ground forces-, the best tactics, that implies a very skills high commands -that does not exist KSA's ground forces- any M1 will be crushed by any russian anti tank missiles.

    I don't think your statement makes much sense. The fist part is the exact opposite of the second part. I haven't heard of any armored formation deciding to carelessly drive and park their MBTs towards enemy ATGM traps and so on. Saddam's IQ Army and Assad's Seflie Arab Army are exceptions.

    Export or US M1s are pretty solid tanks.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3911
    Points : 3938
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sun Jul 03, 2016 12:00 am

    I'd say that a protracted war will always cost assets, there's no question about it.

    It's also probably an unical setting. The "rebels" have fired more ATGM's than some armies have in inventory.
    avatar
    User 1592

    Posts : 13
    Points : 25
    Join date : 2016-07-08

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  User 1592 on Wed Aug 17, 2016 2:09 am

    avatar
    Gunfighter-AK

    Posts : 21
    Points : 21
    Join date : 2012-12-10

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Gunfighter-AK on Tue Sep 13, 2016 6:18 pm

    May or may not being the wrong thread to ask in, but I've heard that the Saudis have lost 6 M1A2Ss, as of March. Has that number increased any?
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1386
    Points : 1387
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  AlfaT8 on Tue Sep 13, 2016 10:58 pm

    Gunfighter-AK wrote:May or may not being the wrong thread to ask in, but I've heard that the Saudis have lost 6 M1A2Ss, as of March. Has that number increased any?

    In the last discussion about this, we believed they lost around 20 and those are the ones that can be verified, some believe the actual lost is over 100.
    http://www.russiadefence.net/t4766p500-yemeni-conflict-news-2
    avatar
    Gunfighter-AK

    Posts : 21
    Points : 21
    Join date : 2012-12-10

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Gunfighter-AK on Wed Sep 14, 2016 1:29 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    Gunfighter-AK wrote:May or may not being the wrong thread to ask in, but I've heard that the Saudis have lost 6 M1A2Ss, as of March. Has that number increased any?

    In the last discussion about this, we believed they lost around 20 and those are the ones that can be verified, some believe the actual lost is over 100.
    http://www.russiadefence.net/t4766p500-yemeni-conflict-news-2

    Cheers! Will take the discussion there.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10514
    Points : 10991
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  George1 on Fri Sep 08, 2017 3:32 am

    The US Army contract for the development of the Abrams SEPv4 tank modernization project

    General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS), a division of the US corporation General Dynamics, reported on September 5, 2017 that it received two contracts from the US Army - one for the serial upgrade of the first 45 major Abrams tanks under the M1A2 System Enhancement Package Version 3 (SEP v3) and another - to develop a project for further modernization of the tank in accordance with the variant M1A2 SEP v4.

    The contract to create a new upgrade option for the M1A2 SEP v4 has a cost of $ 311 million and within it GDLS should supply the US Army seven prototypes of M1A2 SEP v4. It is reported that the project for the modernization of SEP v4 includes the installation of a new panoramic commander's Raytheon Commander's Primary Sight with a third-generation thermal imager, the upgraded gunner's sight Raytheon Gunner's Primary Sight, as well as "improving sensors, firepower and security."

    According to Jane's publications, the SEP v4 upgrade project meets the requirements of the so-called Engineer Change Proposal 1B (ECP1B). The beginning of the serial production of SEP v4 (more precisely, upgrades to this version of Abrams tanks of previous versions) is planned for 2022.

    The GDLS contract for the serial upgrade of the first 45 tanks under the revised version of the M1A2 SEP v3 has a value of $ 270 million. The first pre-production modernized tank SEP v3 (modified for ECP1A requirements) should be rolled out at the tank plant in Lima, Ohio, in September 2017, and the first mass-produced car SEP v3 - in July 2018, the modernization of 45 tanks should be completed in August 2019.

    According to Jane's publications, as of August 2017, the US armed forces had deployed the Abrams tank in line 2361, of which 1605 belonged to the modifications of M1A2 SEP v1 and SEP v2.

    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2835966.html


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    JohninMK

    Posts : 5064
    Points : 5127
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  JohninMK on Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:37 pm

    Jon Hawkes‏ @JonHawkes275 6h6 hours ago

    US Army awards USD9.8 miilion contract to get Trophy APS on M1A2 SEPv2, equipping first ABCT vehicles in March 2019 bit.ly 2fwr1JL



    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DK4UK1yXoAAlWTU.jpg

    JohninMK

    Posts : 5064
    Points : 5127
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  JohninMK on Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:15 pm

    Very real Laughing

    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10514
    Points : 10991
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  George1 on Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:28 am

    Tank M1A2 SEPv2 Abrams with the active defense complex Trophy

    As previously reported, on September 28, 2017, the US Army issued to General Dynamics General Dynamics General Dynamics corporation a contract for equipping the Israeli main gunboat M1A2 SEPv2 Abrams with an Armor Brigade Combat Team with the Israeli Trophy active protection system.

    Now the US resources have published the first official photos of the M1A2 SEPv2 tanks equipped for testing the KAZ Trophy (as well as the ARAT dynamic protection kit). It is reported that the brigade set of ATST tanks M1A2 SEPv2 in this configuration, which should be upgraded under the above contract, will be deployed in 2020 on an ongoing basis in Europe "to deter Russian aggression." The total cost of the modernization of the brigade set of tanks (the current staff is now 90 tanks) is estimated at 150 million dollars.


    A prototype of the American active protection Rafael Trophy of the American tank M1A2 SEPv2 Abrams (c) the US Army

    In an interview with Defense News and www.shephardmedia.com, the US Army Colonel Glenn Dean, the head of the Stryker armored vehicle program, who is also responsible for installing KAZ for other types of armored vehicles, the US Army has already conducted two stages of testing the KAZ Trophy with practical shelling equipped with these KAZ tanks Abrams. Tests were conducted in Michigan and in the Redstone arsenal in Alabama. At the first stage, the KAZ itself was tested, and on the second stage, the system was tested "in real-realistic conditions" on a real battlefield. As a result, "the Trophy system has surpassed our expectations," Dean said, "we do not have a question about Trophy's performance."

    According to Dean, the trials "tried to hit Abrams 48 about once, and failed."

    The next stage in the development of KAZ Trophy on Abrams tanks will be the safety assessment of the use of this system, for example, when several tanks adjacent to each other interact with this KAZ. As for the danger of KAZ shots for the tank infantry accompanying the tank, then, according to Dean, in the past stages of testing the army was convinced that "KAZ is less dangerous for dismounted soldiers than dynamic defense."

    "You will have a lousy day, whether there is a complex of active protection or if it is not," said Dean. - "[but] it seems they will be better off with KAZ."

    It is also planned to increase the level of integration of the KAZ Trophy with the equipment of the tank - in particular, to give it the possibility of target designation for threats to the tank, with a rapid turn of the gun in the direction from which the tank is fired.

    Dean also said that now under his leadership are working to integrate the complex of active protection of Iron First developed by the Israeli company IMI at the M2A4 Bradley BMP, and the Stryker wheeled armored vehicle KAZ Iron Curtain developed by the American company Artis. However, both these programs are at a less advanced stage, both because funding for them was allocated only in 2017, and because of the need for more tests and improvements. "The reducibility of these systems may not be as high as advertised," Dean said.

    The Trophy active defense complex was developed and manufactured by the Israeli company Rafael with the participation of the IAI Elta and is scheduled to be installed on the Merkava type of the Israeli Defense Forces from 2010, and from 2014 on the heavy armored vehicles Namer. Structurally, the KAZ Trophy in its current production model has a detective Elta EL / M-2133 radar with four fixed antennas with a phased array, and two launchers firing a stream of impact nuclei to destroy incoming antitank munitions. KAZ Trophy is designed to defeat only relatively low-speed RPG grenades and ATGM missiles and is unable to hit sub-caliber projectiles and high-speed ATGMs. Like almost all other modern KAZ, Trophy imposes serious limitations on the location of infantry in a tank equipped with a complex.

    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2892419.html


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1386
    Points : 1387
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  AlfaT8 on Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:38 am

    Jesus, now they install Trophy, Israel had installed those things back in 2012, and talks about installing them on the Abrams have been going on since before 2012.
    By the time the T-14 deploys that system will be obsolete, if it isn't already, considering there's still Arena-2.

    Sponsored content

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:08 am