Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Share

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod on Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:31 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    This man is responsible for the TUSK update on his own. Vampyr salutes and kicks ass.

    This man is chiefly responsible of US withdrawal from Iraq, they fled like a dog with its dick between its legs. Until -a part of- this video appeared in Youtube -around 2005/2006-, I used to consider that M1 Abrams was invulnerable. Nothing could stop this tank. After I started to realize that US could lie too. I was far to realize how I was cheated. In that time I used to consider that russian/soviet hardware were mere ironsmith. And this Ironsmith could match with modern western hardware. I was very far to realize the huge scale of US lies, and its propaganda.
    Furthermore, I don't know what Shia is, what Sunni is, what Xtian is etc...I see a mere iraqi that standed against the illegal occupation of his country by Oligarchy. He was a resistant against US empire, that's all.
    Incredible man, incredible video. Thx for adding these images. If you have others, please....

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Apr 05, 2016 11:46 pm

    nemrod wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    This man is responsible for the TUSK update on his own. Vampyr salutes and kicks ass.

    This man is chiefly responsible of US withdrawal from Iraq, they fled like a dog with its dick between its legs. Until -a part of- this video appeared in Youtube -around 2005/2006-, I used to consider that M1 Abrams was invulnerable. Nothing could stop this tank. After I started to realize that US could lie too. I was far to realize how I was cheated. In that time I used to consider that russian/soviet hardware were mere ironsmith. And this Ironsmith could match with modern western hardware. I was very far to realize the huge scale of US lies, and its propaganda.
    Furthermore, I don't know what Shia is, what Sunni is, what Xtian is etc...I see a mere iraqi that standed against the illegal occupation of his country by Oligarchy. He was a resistant against US empire, that's all.
    Incredible man, incredible video. Thx for adding these images. If you have others, please....

    An ISU-152 will kill any tank today with its concrete projectiles, no penetration but a destroyed tank. Nothing is indestructable, not even fanboys dreams. I love to see them destroyed, it is the most magical thing in this world.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod on Wed Apr 06, 2016 1:17 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    I love to see them destroyed, it is the most magical thing in this world.
    Very Happy If a thing is sure, your point of view is shared by 4/5 of this world.

    Werewolf wrote:
    Nothing is indestructable, not even fanboys dreams.
    In fact I was jarred by the book of Zaloga -M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural OPERATION DESERT STORM 1991-, that cheated me.

    Available here
    https://ospreypublishing.com/m1-abrams-vs-t-72-ural
    He presented the M1 as something nearly invulnerable, far better than the T-72. In his ugly presentation he omit -we understand why- to present the battle of Phase Line Bullet, where iraqi T-72 performed very well against coalition's tanks . Moreover, the T-72 performed very well too in 1982 against the israeli's Merkava. If we add the recent videos occured in Yemen, where an old 60's era AT-4 Spigot burned an saudi's M1 A2 Abrams, then, there were enough proofs against Zaloga's fantaisies. US won the battle of Kuwait in 1991, because there were no battles. Iraqis were retreating when US cowardly attacked, and slaughtered an army in retreat. Take a look this link :
    http://www.countercurrents.org/lagauche280210.htm
    During the war in 1999 against Serbia, serbian army expected a ground battle vs US. But US did not dare! They did not dare, because US high responsibles were freightened, they knew very well how a such battle might ended in nightmare meaning a real humiliation for US, worse than Khe Sahn in 1968. Because they were very well aware what is the reality of the US so called superiority. And now, you have many western books that claimed without any proofs the superiority of West against russian's hardware.

    Saying this, about the M1, what could I say. Is the T-72 superior than the M1 ? I could not assert it. M1 better than the T-72 ? I could answer regarding electronic area slightly better, maybe the M1's gun -?-. But tell me what is the the usefulness of GPS, in a real ground battle ? U can easily jam it, except if the US attack a stone age army.
    Range 4.000 meters for the M1, and 1.800 for the T-72 ? In the ground battle most of the fights occured at less than 1.000 meters. Above, there are the effectives anti tank missiles like the AT-4 Spigot, Tow 2, AT-5 Spandrel. Below 500 meters another nightmare for the tanks are the RPG. In the paper we could say that the M1 seems -not sure- to be slightly superior to the T-72, or T-90, but in the paper only. After that it relies on the team inside the tanks, the context, the motivation, the logistic etc.... More you are trained, better it is. But all tanks are vulnerable including the new Armata. Hence the question is becoming more complex, and it is hard to assert who is better than who, because it depends of several very complex parameters. Let's tell the editors, we do not need propaganda, or fanstaisies, we only expect objectives point of views, not ugly fantaisies for commercial, geopolical purposes whatever it is.


    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1190
    Points : 1208
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  KiloGolf on Wed Apr 06, 2016 2:49 am

    nemrod wrote:US won the battle of Kuwait in 1991, because there were no battles. Iraqis were retreating when US cowardly attacked, and slaughtered an army in retreat. Take a look this link

    Coalition won all battles in KSA, Iraq and Kuwait. Khafji and Medina Ridge come to mind. Many more on the list incl. as you mentioned, Phase Line Bullet, where Iraqis were massacred on the field by Meigs' and Riley's boys (Iraq pretty much lost a creme de la creme division in 24 hrs).

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3550
    Points : 3585
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Wed Apr 06, 2016 9:09 am

    Once again, we're talking something Irrelevant here. In Desert Shield/Storm the goal, from the US WAS to obliterate Iraq with all they got. IF you want it was really the perfect set up. Almost no vegetation, no need to get into cities, overwhelming aerial and intelligence superiority and all the time in the world to deploy troops (about 700K in total). And a UN resolution to boot.

    Everything that "failed" in desert Storm was made to fail. It had nothing to do with the qualities of the hardware or weapons. Many say, that most night fighting capabilities of the Iraqis were obsolete. Well even if they weren't, the capabilities of the US in electronic surveillance were truly ahead of their time then. The chances were stacked against Iraq, so basically the people put everything against Iraq and its stock, while everyone, bar maybe the Soviet Union would falter to such an onslaught.


    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2127
    Points : 2242
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  higurashihougi on Wed Apr 06, 2016 2:52 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    nemrod wrote:US won the battle of Kuwait in 1991, because there were no battles. Iraqis were retreating when US cowardly attacked, and slaughtered an army in retreat. Take a look this link

    Coalition won all battles in KSA, Iraq and Kuwait. Khafji and Medina Ridge come to mind. Many more on the list incl. as you mentioned, Phase Line Bullet, where Iraqis were massacred on the field by Meigs' and Riley's boys (Iraq pretty much lost a creme de la creme division in 24 hrs).

    We can't expect Iraqi army to stand against the combined arms of U.S. and some other European countries.

    Not to mentioned that most of Iraqi weapons were old stuffs, and Iraqi troops morale/training were not extremely good.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Apr 06, 2016 9:51 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:Once again, we're talking something Irrelevant here. In Desert Shield/Storm the goal, from the US WAS to obliterate Iraq with all they got. IF you want it was really the perfect set up. Almost no vegetation, no need to get into cities, overwhelming aerial and intelligence superiority and all the time in the world to deploy troops (about 700K in total). And a UN resolution to boot.

    Everything that "failed" in desert Storm was made to fail. It had nothing to do with the qualities of the hardware or weapons. Many say, that most night fighting capabilities of the Iraqis were obsolete. Well even if they weren't, the capabilities of the US in electronic surveillance were truly ahead of their time then. The chances were stacked against Iraq, so basically the people put everything against Iraq and its stock, while everyone, bar maybe the Soviet Union would falter to such an onslaught.


    Horse shit, not everything was planed to fail that failed, retarded and non existent discipline among soldiers is one of the reasons of the constant fuck ups. They certainly did not plan to get over 100 abrams wrecked or over 20 Apaches wrecked not to mention the actual death/destruction count of all tanks and helicopters and what not. Despite fighting such an easy war with no problems involved. Flat desert is a dessert.

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  AlfaT8 on Wed Apr 06, 2016 10:11 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:Once again, we're talking something Irrelevant here. In Desert Shield/Storm the goal, from the US WAS to obliterate Iraq with all they got. IF you want it was really the perfect set up. Almost no vegetation, no need to get into cities, overwhelming aerial and intelligence superiority and all the time in the world to deploy troops (about 700K in total). And a UN resolution to boot.

    Everything that "failed" in desert Storm was made to fail. It had nothing to do with the qualities of the hardware or weapons. Many say, that most night fighting capabilities of the Iraqis were obsolete. Well even if they weren't, the capabilities of the US in electronic surveillance were truly ahead of their time then. The chances were stacked against Iraq, so basically the people put everything against Iraq and its stock, while everyone, bar maybe the Soviet Union would falter to such an onslaught.

    Maybe??Suspect

    You mean definitely, the SU would tear apart this so-called onslaught like it was nothing, and i am excluding nukes here. attack

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod on Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:08 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    Horse shit, not everything was planed to fail that failed, retarded and non existent discipline among soldiers is one of the reasons of the constant fuck ups. They certainly did not plan to get over 100 abrams wrecked or over 20 Apaches wrecked not to mention the actual death/destruction count of all tanks and helicopters and what not. Despite fighting such an easy war with no problems involved. Flat desert is a dessert.
    I searched for several years about the real scale of US losses. But now for evident geopolitical reasons it is classified. The losses -in 1991- must be far higher than announced. Nevertheless US had benefited  real strategic errors of Saddam Hussayn and its staff. This is the most explanation of US success. Iraqi soldiers wanted to resist, but iraqi's high officials did not want.
    We could notice from US DoD a certain toast of humour listen :


    A total of 23 M1A1s were damaged or destroyed during the war. Of the nine Abrams tanks destroyed, seven were destroyed by friendly fire, and two were purposely destroyed to prevent capture after being damaged.[20] Some others took minor combat damage, with little effect on their operational readiness. Very few M1 tanks were hit by enemy fire, which resulted in no fatalities and only a handful of wounded.
    Best than Jerry Lewis's Joke! lol!
    Another excerpt
    Battle of Phase Line Bullet -involving several hundreds of US tanks, beside several hundreds of IFV Bradley-

    Another Bradley (A-36) was first disabled by a 12.7 mm round from an NSVT heavy machine gun...
    Hummm interresting news, a simple 12.7 could at least disable an IFV like the Bradley...but just three IFV? Only three ? There were several hundreds, if not more than thousand others were taking part in the combat.... Shocked Yes, but impossible is not american lol! !


    The contact lasted for about two hours, until the Bradleys, battered by enemy and friendly fire and running out of ammunition, were forced to withdraw.
    Two hours only ? the cow boys retreated ? Battle with several hundreds of tanks ? Where were the A-10 ? AH-64 ? F-15 E ? well let's continue...
    The losses -amercan hollywood happy end version-

    4 Bradley IFVs destroyed and 10 damaged 2 killed 12 wounded...
    Obviously, there were all destroyed by this damn of "Friendly fire".  lol!  If I remember, in porn convention they have the same expression meaning....But in this case it came from US DoD.


    higurashihougi wrote:

    We can't expect Iraqi army to stand against the combined arms of U.S. and some other European countries.

    Not to mentioned that most of Iraqi weapons were old stuffs, and Iraqi troops morale/training were not extremely good.

    In my view, the M1 Abrams is not a bad tank, but it suffers as most the US hardware by an excessive hype. The M1 Abrams could be compared with the T-72, T-80, T-90, Leopard A2, Challenger. But it is not better.  A T-62, or even a T-55 -modernized- could destroy an M1. In my view the M1 has the same problem as the F-15, F-16, F-35, F-22, this hardware in order to win must be engaged in outnumber way in order to win.  I suspect  RPG and Sagger took a toll of US M1, and Saudi, egyptian M-60 in Iraq. In 1991, there were no battles in Kuwait, there were a simple massacre of iraqi soldiers retreating called as "Batlles", except Phase Line Battle where some Iraqi divisions were not in position of retreating, as you can see US could no longer sustain their high losses. But this kind of behaviour, is like a joker, U could use just once.
    The battle of Falludjah in 2004 took the first prelude of western rout. 2006 Israelis tanks Merkava IV were decimated -at least 100- by simple anti tank tactics of a mere militia. Sure, the next is following.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 07, 2016 1:16 pm

    Heavy machine gun fire will DISABLE any armoured vehicle... even if it cannot penetrate its armour from any direction it can blind the vehicle, damage its weapons and means of communication and also immobilise it by damaging tracks and wheels.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod on Sat Apr 09, 2016 1:04 pm

    GarryB wrote:Heavy machine gun fire will DISABLE any armoured vehicle... even if it cannot penetrate its armour from any direction it can blind the vehicle, damage its weapons and means of communication and also immobilise it by damaging tracks and wheels.

    Garry I never doubted this, I try only highlight the stupid arguments of US DoD. U engage several hundreds of tanks, beside several hundreds other armoured vehicles in a very great battle disguised -as US DoD's terminology- in a simple skirmish. At the end U admit that heavy machine could damage your armoured vehicles, but only 3 ? Only 23 M1 Abrams destroyed, and most of them were due to friendly fires, the rest were destroyed by US themselves. What a Face With that only few deaths ? Shocked It looks like a Zaloga's fantaisies, no ? In fact US DoD take us for fools. The ridicule of the propaganda.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9424
    Points : 9916
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  George1 on Tue Apr 19, 2016 10:35 am

    U.S. Marine Corps plans to buy Trophy active protection systems for its M1 Abrams tanks

    The Marine Corps plans to buy or lease existing active protection systems (APS) for its M1 Abrams tanks that are vulnerable to proliferating anti-tank guided missiles.

    Specifically, the Marine Corps will test the Trophy APS system developed by Israeli defense firm RAFAEL and sold in the United States by DRS Technologies, Lt. Gen. Robert Walsh, deputy commandant of the Marine Corps for combat development and integration, told members of the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on seapower April 13.

    Trophy (also known as ASPRO-A)
    is a military active protection system (APS) for vehicles. It intercepts and destroys incoming missiles and rocketswith a shotgun-like blast. Trophy is the product of a ten-year collaborative development project between the Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and Israel Aircraft Industries’ Elta Group. Its principal purpose is to supplement the armour of light and heavy armored fighting vehicles.

    http://defence-blog.com/army/u-s-marine-corps-plans-to-buy-trophy-active-protection-systems-for-its-m1-abrams-tanks.html


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


    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Apr 19, 2016 7:33 pm

    So many failed projects of APS systems for the US also with Israeli work and they end up buying foreign anyways.

    Well those US projects weren't the best projects either. The Trophy should do better, but would need improvements in near future.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Tue Apr 19, 2016 8:57 pm

    Werewolf wrote:So many failed projects of APS systems for the US also with Israeli work and they end up buying foreign anyways.

    Well those US projects weren't the best projects either. The Trophy should do better, but would need improvements in near future.

    LOL Abroomz is basically a foreign tank now, British armor, German gun, allegedly Russian 'inspired' ERA, and now Israeli APS. Another factor is that the Israeli's have a price-tag for all their military secrets...*cough, China, cough*

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Apr 19, 2016 9:05 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:So many failed projects of APS systems for the US also with Israeli work and they end up buying foreign anyways.

    Well those US projects weren't the best projects either. The Trophy should do better, but would need improvements in near future.

    LOL Abroomz is basically a foreign tank now, British armor, German gun, allegedly Russian 'inspired' ERA, and now Israeli APS. Another factor is that the Israeli's have a price-tag for all their military secrets...*cough, China, cough*

    Weren't they going to replace their American GTD with a german 1500 HP engine for M1A3?

    That will end up having american crew inside and the layout/armor design. So the weakest points are still american.

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  AlfaT8 on Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:20 am

    I just found out that apparently Blacktail (aka:Sparks) has stirred up the Abrams fanboys too respond, not many vids though, there Abrams vs T-90 vid was very interesting, first time i have seen anyone use RHA numbers in a vid, which are BS as far as i am concerned.



    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Zivo on Wed Apr 20, 2016 2:52 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:I just found out that apparently Blacktail (aka:Sparks) has stirred up the Abrams fanboys too respond, not many vids though, there Abrams vs T-90 vid was very interesting, first time i have seen anyone use RHA numbers in a vid, which are BS as far as i am concerned.



    He had a hint of bias.

    For instance, every single T-90 has Shtora... and I have not seen a single M1 with the countermeasure suite he mentioned, yet their softkill capabilities are "equal". Better inform the saudis.

    Same with the ammunition:

    He stated the the M1's dual purpose HEAT rounds were a match for the triple charge, wider diameter, dedicated HEAT rounds used by the T-90... OK "stalemate". Are the M1's HEAT rounds magical or something?

    Stalemate for Gun Launched ATGM's too, apparently the M1 has LAHAT... despite admitting that refleks was actually better than LAHAT.

    He mentioned that the T-90 has a 7 round per minute fire rate, he then mentions that some sources say it has a 10-13 round per minute estimated (confirmed on video) fire rate for the T-90, but stated nothing about that occurring on rough terrain, a feat no manual loading gun could replicate. What's comical is the video that plays when he's talking about this, shows a T-90 firing at 10 rounds per minute, six second spacing, if he actually took out a stopwatch and timed it, he would see the 7 round per minute figure is BS.

    But don't worry, to dispel the doubt that the M1 could have an inferior fire rate... he mentions 15 rounds per minute. To reinforce his claim, he states that it's a well known fact that manual loaders are just faster.

    thumbsup


    I'm not a fan of sparks, but this guy somehow manages to be worse.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:33 am

    Zivo wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:I just found out that apparently Blacktail (aka:Sparks) has stirred up the Abrams fanboys too respond, not many vids though, there Abrams vs T-90 vid was very interesting, first time i have seen anyone use RHA numbers in a vid, which are BS as far as i am concerned.



    He had a hint of bias.

    For instance, every single T-90 has Shtora... and I have not seen a single M1 with the countermeasure suite he mentioned, yet their softkill capabilities are "equal". Better inform the saudis.

    Same with the ammunition:

    He stated the the M1's dual purpose HEAT rounds were a match for the triple charge, wider diameter, dedicated HEAT rounds used by the T-90... OK "stalemate". Are the M1's HEAT rounds magical or something?

    Stalemate for Gun Launched ATGM's too, apparently the M1 has LAHAT... despite admitting that refleks was actually better than LAHAT.

    He mentioned that the T-90 has a 7 round per minute fire rate, he then mentions that some sources say it has a 10-13 round per minute estimated (confirmed on video) fire rate for the T-90, but stated nothing about that occurring on rough terrain, a feat no manual loading gun could replicate. What's comical is the video that plays when he's talking about this, shows a T-90 firing at 10 rounds per minute, six second spacing, if he actually took out a stopwatch and timed it, he would see the 7 round per minute figure is BS.

    But don't worry, to dispel the doubt that the M1 could have an inferior fire rate... he mentions 15 rounds per minute. To reinforce his claim, he states that it's a well known fact that manual loaders are just faster.

    thumbsup


    I'm not a fan of sparks, but this guy somehow manages to be worse.

    From my understanding M1's doesn't have Lahat, Merkeva's do, and Germany has purchased some from Israel back in 2006 but probably not in large numbers. Russia has by far the largest stockpile and longest history using GLATGM's and is ahead by a wide margin, the next largest stockpile is most likely China, then India, and a huge drop-off when you mention any Western nation from then on forward.

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Zivo on Wed Apr 20, 2016 7:55 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Zivo wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:I just found out that apparently Blacktail (aka:Sparks) has stirred up the Abrams fanboys too respond, not many vids though, there Abrams vs T-90 vid was very interesting, first time i have seen anyone use RHA numbers in a vid, which are BS as far as i am concerned.



    He had a hint of bias.

    For instance, every single T-90 has Shtora... and I have not seen a single M1 with the countermeasure suite he mentioned, yet their softkill capabilities are "equal". Better inform the saudis.

    Same with the ammunition:

    He stated the the M1's dual purpose HEAT rounds were a match for the triple charge, wider diameter, dedicated HEAT rounds used by the T-90... OK "stalemate". Are the M1's HEAT rounds magical or something?

    Stalemate for Gun Launched ATGM's too, apparently the M1 has LAHAT... despite admitting that refleks was actually better than LAHAT.

    He mentioned that the T-90 has a 7 round per minute fire rate, he then mentions that some sources say it has a 10-13 round per minute estimated (confirmed on video) fire rate for the T-90, but stated nothing about that occurring on rough terrain, a feat no manual loading gun could replicate. What's comical is the video that plays when he's talking about this, shows a T-90 firing at 10 rounds per minute, six second spacing, if he actually took out a stopwatch and timed it, he would see the 7 round per minute figure is BS.

    But don't worry, to dispel the doubt that the M1 could have an inferior fire rate... he mentions 15 rounds per minute. To reinforce his claim, he states that it's a well known fact that manual loaders are just faster.

    thumbsup


    I'm not a fan of sparks, but this guy somehow manages to be worse.

    From my understanding M1's doesn't have Lahat, Merkeva's do, and Germany has purchased some from Israel back in 2006 but probably not in large numbers. Russia has by far the largest stockpile and longest history using GLATGM's and is ahead by a wide margin, the next largest stockpile is most likely China, then India, and a huge drop-off when you mention any Western nation from then on forward.

    They don't have LAHAT, and probably never will. When the US Army finally adopts a GLATGM, it will be in irrelevant numbers, a boutique item. The fact is, the T-90 currently has every ammunition advantage over the M1, minus APFSDS. And since 99% of an MBT's targets are not other MBT's, the T-90 is the better armed tank for modern warfare.

    The M1 may be getting the AMP round, which just passed trials a few months back. The 120mm AMP round is comparable to the now ancient 3OF26 HE-FRAG round. This should make up for the M1's weakness, and at least put it on par with the T-90 in the HE-FRAG department, assuming it's actually fielded. They also ordered something like 3000 DM-11's, which are a German HE FRAG round some years back for the Iraq War, so those are also probably floating around.

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Apr 20, 2016 8:31 am

    Zivo wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Zivo wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:I just found out that apparently Blacktail (aka:Sparks) has stirred up the Abrams fanboys too respond, not many vids though, there Abrams vs T-90 vid was very interesting, first time i have seen anyone use RHA numbers in a vid, which are BS as far as i am concerned.



    He had a hint of bias.

    For instance, every single T-90 has Shtora... and I have not seen a single M1 with the countermeasure suite he mentioned, yet their softkill capabilities are "equal". Better inform the saudis.

    Same with the ammunition:

    He stated the the M1's dual purpose HEAT rounds were a match for the triple charge, wider diameter, dedicated HEAT rounds used by the T-90... OK "stalemate". Are the M1's HEAT rounds magical or something?

    Stalemate for Gun Launched ATGM's too, apparently the M1 has LAHAT... despite admitting that refleks was actually better than LAHAT.

    He mentioned that the T-90 has a 7 round per minute fire rate, he then mentions that some sources say it has a 10-13 round per minute estimated (confirmed on video) fire rate for the T-90, but stated nothing about that occurring on rough terrain, a feat no manual loading gun could replicate. What's comical is the video that plays when he's talking about this, shows a T-90 firing at 10 rounds per minute, six second spacing, if he actually took out a stopwatch and timed it, he would see the 7 round per minute figure is BS.

    But don't worry, to dispel the doubt that the M1 could have an inferior fire rate... he mentions 15 rounds per minute. To reinforce his claim, he states that it's a well known fact that manual loaders are just faster.

    thumbsup


    I'm not a fan of sparks, but this guy somehow manages to be worse.

    From my understanding M1's doesn't have Lahat, Merkeva's do, and Germany has purchased some from Israel back in 2006 but probably not in large numbers. Russia has by far the largest stockpile and longest history using GLATGM's and is ahead by a wide margin, the next largest stockpile is most likely China, then India, and a huge drop-off when you mention any Western nation from then on forward.

    They don't have LAHAT, and probably never will. When the US Army finally adopts a GLATGM, it will be in irrelevant numbers, a boutique item. The fact is, the T-90 currently has every ammunition advantage over the M1, minus APFSDS. And since 99% of an MBT's targets are not other MBT's, the T-90 is the better armed tank for modern warfare.

    The M1 may be getting the AMP round, which just passed trials a few months back. The 120mm AMP round is comparable to the now ancient 3OF26 HE-FRAG round. This should make up for the M1's weakness, and at least put it on par with the T-90 in the HE-FRAG department, assuming it's actually fielded. They also ordered something like 3000 DM-11's, which are a German HE FRAG round some years back for the Iraq War, so those are also probably floating around.

    Really...only 3000 DM-11 shells lol? There's less shells than M1's in service, that means less than one HE-Frag per U.S. M1 model...lmao seriously my sides... lol1


    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Apr 20, 2016 8:17 pm

    There never was and never will be Lahat on any Leopard 2. The only thing that happened was ONE, ONE single Leo2a4 that was used as a testbed that was equipped with the necessary Laser designation/coding channel to the EMES unit, without that you can not guide any Lahat. So you can buy a bazillion Lahats, no coding laser no guidance, none were equipped with it.

    Like already explained such videos are mainly done by retards. Using numbers of RHAe for armor is the kids game of people without knowledge. Stating anything about armor in rating numbers or declaring one superior to some other is nothing else but propaganda, no one knows shit about armor layout or thickness so present some sources of the armor, materials, thickness of plates, technology and not to forget the clean tests of penetrators of various kinds, materials, alloys of HEAT and APFSDS based weapons to see how the armor works against them.

    Ammunition on Abrams is non existent like mentioned it only has APFSDS M829A2, the rest is just underwhelming in performance. The HEAT rounds are not HEAT rounds but Multi Purpose which reduces their capability for armor penetration significantly aswell their Anti Personal capability are decreased several times fold. No GLATGM's and never will have them, no APS not soft nor hardkill and it will have them when rest are moved on to 3rd generations. There is absolutley nothing in that video that speaks of good research other than butthurted sparkinism.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Apr 20, 2016 8:23 pm

    I started to watch that video and already bloody face palmed myself.

    That video was featured by IBT98 a 18 year old child, dalek14mc another retard that haven't hit beyond teenage years. Had great fun time with those two idiot kids that no nothing about military hardware. The worst of their kind. Maybe some screenshots are left of what shit they write in the comments, just cringe worthy.

    Edit:

    Just for your entertainment one of the "educated, experts" from that "professional video".

    10 year old troll nothing else, but very entertaining this kind of retardation and legally to laugh at.









    Don't expect the others to be more than that idiot troll. They are all like that, no knowledge and just butthurt murican fanatics, true fanatics beyond understanding or hearing to logic and reason. If you do not believe just go on their google+ and read the comments for yourself.

    Just vidoes for abroomz fanboyism without facts, sources or anything worth.

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4799
    Points : 4846
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Militarov on Mon Apr 25, 2016 7:56 pm

    "Optex Systems, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Optex Systems Holdings, Inc. (OPXS), a leading manufacturer of optical sighting systems and assemblies for domestic and foreign militaries, today announced that it has received $841,000 in orders for its laser protected periscopes with an option for an additional $841,000 from the U.S. Army Contracting Command.

    Optex's periscopes will be installed in the Abrams U.S. military land vehicles, which are main battle tanks used by the U.S. Army. The Company's laser periscopes come with optional laser protection in both glass and plastic, to protect soldiers' eyes during battle.



    "Optex is a market leader in military-grade optical products and this order further cements our relationship with the U.S. Army representing several compelling value propositions for the Company," said Danny Schoening, Optex's CEO.

    "This demonstrates the superiority of our military periscopes as a best value solution with world-class field performance. Through this established customer, we are able to expand our order base to provide a recurring revenue stream while strengthening our foothold in the market. We take pride in providing great optics solutions for our soldiers who are utilizing and maintaining the current Abrams fleet. We remain committed to our focus on development and innovation and anticipate many forthcoming purchase orders," Schoening added."


    Source: http://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/optex_to_equip_us_army_s_m1a1_abrams_main_battle_tanks_with_laser_protected_persicopes_22204161.html

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod on Tue May 31, 2016 4:40 pm

    Werewolf wrote:



    Just vidoes for abroomz fanboyism without facts, sources or anything worth.

    1500 to 1700 RHA laughable...If I believe, nothing could engage this specimen ?
    Really ?

    It seems like another Zaloga's joke.


    Let's take a look at this famous supposed invincible tank, and its incredible armour





    well now let's take a look at this interesting website about the weak spots of the M1 Abrams

    http://catchingrat.blogspot.fr/2015/11/m1-abrams-series-tank-vulnerabilities.html

    It appears that this tank has many vulnerabilities.
    In face :

    side


    Most important :

    As it was said here even a 30 mm gun could destroy the M1 Abrams if the shoot is well chosen.

    The upgraded  D-10 T gun of the T-55 as it can perforate 420 mm at least, could take out the M1 Abrams, and it happened during Desert Storm, during the battle of Phase Line Bullet. The iraqi T-72 were aimed for Republican guard, the others the T-62 -that took out several Merkava in 1982's war- and T-55 were aimed for the iraqi army that was in Kuwait.



    Now the question, could the T-55 fire enough accurately against a more modern tank like the M1 ? Does it have laser rangefinder ? I don't know. Many engagements that occurred during Desert Storm -most of them- happened below 1.500 meters, giving great chances for the T-55, and T-62 to destroy US coalition's tanks.

    Worst for the M1 Abrams, there is another old and still redoubtable enemy the RPG-7





    The RPG-7 is able to perforate until 600 mm -tandem HEAT could defeat even the modern ERA-, hence this cheap weapon itself could destroy any very expensive M1 Abrams, if the shooter is enough experienced and enough skilled to choose the moment, the area to shoot.
    During the occupation in Iraq between 2003-2006 US army in Iraq sent back to United States at least...500 M1 Abrams, in reality most of them were disabled by RPG-7 mostly, and some by IED. At least 200 were totally destroyed.
    As I said before, the M1 Abrams is not a bad tank, but as any other tank, it is vulnerable.

    Its weak spots


    lead the destruction of many M1 Abrams.


    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4799
    Points : 4846
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Militarov on Tue May 31, 2016 5:13 pm

    KTD-1 and KTD-2 laser rangefinders were available for T55A in its late production, post 1975. or so. Later various Chinese and North Korean rangefinders became available for possible modernisations.

    Sponsored content

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 3:22 am


      Current date/time is Mon Dec 05, 2016 3:22 am