Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Share
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5357
    Points : 5588
    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.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4488
    Points : 4661
    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*
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5357
    Points : 5588
    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.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1388
    Points : 1389
    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.


    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1491
    Points : 1521
    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.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4488
    Points : 4661
    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.
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1491
    Points : 1521
    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.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4488
    Points : 4661
    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

    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5357
    Points : 5588
    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.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5357
    Points : 5588
    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.
    avatar
    Book.

    Posts : 699
    Points : 760
    Join date : 2015-05-08
    Location : Oregon, USA

    A Tank Graveyard Is The Perfect Example Of Pork-Barrel Spending

    Post  Book. on Thu Apr 21, 2016 4:11 pm

    A Tank Graveyard Is The Perfect Example Of Pork-Barrel Spending
    By Kate Grumke | 10:20 AM, Apr 19, 2016

    Ever heard of pork-barrel spending? It's not about pigs. It's a term used to describe funds from Congress that are pumped into local projects, mainly to bring money back to a lawmaker's home district.

    In fiscal year 2016, 123 earmarks — that's another word for pork spending — cost taxpayers $5.1 billion. That's especially high when you look at the past few years. The figure has about doubled just since 2014. And all of this year's pork spending was in one big bill — HR 2029, according to the Pig Book, an annual report from Citizens Against Government Waste.

    One of fiscal year 2016's earmarks is a classic example of pork-barrel spending. It's $40 million to continue upgrading the M1 Abrams tank, and this has been an earmark for years. But the thing is, the Department of Defense doesn't want it.

    "It would cost us $2.8 billion just to keep that open, and our tank fleet is in good shape," said former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond T. Odierno.

    The Army has told Congress it's good on these tanks. It's so good, it has 2,000 of them parked in the desert in California.

    Since fiscal year 1994, there have been 39 earmarks just for this tank program, which together has cost $948.6 million, according to Citizens Against Government Waste.

    So why spend millions on military equipment the military doesn't need? To keep money coming into lawmakers' home districts where parts for those tanks are built, which means jobs and economic stimulation in their districts — even if it doesn't make economic sense nationwide.

    Which is pretty much a perfect, textbook example of pork-barrel spending.

    http://www.kfdi.com/newsy/a-tank-graveyard-is-the-perfect-example-of-porkbarrel-spending



    M1 abram the $2.8 billon unshaven
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5538
    Points : 5579
    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
    avatar
    nemrod

    Posts : 809
    Points : 1305
    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.

    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5538
    Points : 5579
    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.
    avatar
    nemrod

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

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod on Tue May 31, 2016 5:20 pm

    Militarov wrote: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.
    Thx for this interresting information. For that reason Iam nearly sure that several M1 Abrams were destroyed just by T-55.

    I don't know whether against a M1 Abrams a simple M-61 vulcan gatling gun with depleted uranium's API amnunitions is not enough. U shoot on the Tank's weakspots and it's done.



    In russian arsenal I did not see much of its Gatling guns with depleted uranium ammunitions.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5357
    Points : 5588
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Tue May 31, 2016 6:54 pm

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

    It seems like another Zaloga's joke.

    Of course it is a joke, to state video game simulators armor table source as a "fact" to reality is retarded just like to use Steel Beasts as a source for armor is nothing else but guesstimation by people who have no clue. How could they even have a clue, armor is top secret there are only few people that would even know actual RHAe numbers, even the testers of armor and weapons can only test type of weapon versus armor, different types of weapons with similiar RHA penetration capability will not necessairly do the same penetration equal to each other on composite armor.

    It is very simple, as soon as people come up with armor values of RHAe they are full of shit. They can not know any values, anything is just guesstimation and the other point is that how could you have a RHAe value if composite armor is not an unified concept or design. They work all differently, with different layers, materials, liners, angles, fillers, physical force of bulking or NERA layers or similiar armor. That makes the entire RHAe laughable concept to be picked up by shittalkers in the first place.

    The only true method is Type of weapon penetrates or does not penetrate type of armor at angle x, zone y and its effect on the tank. If tank keeps moving, one of the values was wrong or all off them and the weapon is obsolete, period.
    avatar
    nemrod

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

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod on Tue May 31, 2016 11:47 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Of course it is a joke, ...just like to use Steel Beasts as a source for armor is nothing else but guesstimation by people who have no clue.
    I understand your concerns. Iam not a fan of games on PC. I never played. I endorse most of your interresting remarks.
    Steal Beasts is an excellent site, as it compiles many relevant informations. Their data came from many sources including Wikipedia, Russian Cannons, Zaloga's books -not the best of course- etc....

    Werewolf wrote:
    ....armor is top secret there are only few people that would even know actual RHAe numbers,

    Yes and no. Yes if it is a secret belonging to a crucial project that is going to be roll out next. But concerning the M1 -A1/A2- Abrams it is no longer a secret. First of all it was exported, and 9 countries have M1 Abrams. 10.000 were built until now.
    Moreover many, many M1 Abrams were destroyed in combat since 1991 until now, and many wreckages are still available. Much of them were abandoned in Iraqi desert. Everyone could see what is the M1 A1/A2 Abrams. But I agree with you the M1 A3 could be still a secret. Furthermore americans did not invent the powder, after all the M1 Abrams is not much more different than Merkava Mk 4, AMX-40 Leclerc, british Challenger, or even the T-62/ -if we remove the US propaganda-T-64/T-72/T-80/T-90. M1 Abrams is simple mass produced tank, not a mysterious black box, if it has 1200 mm of armour and after ? Is it an issue ? U know better than me that it exists everywhere solutions to overcome this armour, in industrial countries not only Russia, UK, France or US but even Serbia, Romania, North Korea, etc... in fact any country that has an industrial potential and could produce ATGM that are able perforate more than 2 meters. Where is the problem ? There are hundreds of M1 Abrams that were burnt, destroyed for while. It is not impossible that many M1 Abrams, Merkava, AMX 40, or even T-72 and T-90 that were destroyed by serbian, north korean, or even romanian anti tank rockets.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5357
    Points : 5588
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Jun 01, 2016 12:12 am

    nemrod wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    Of course it is a joke, ...just like to use Steel Beasts as a source for armor is nothing else but guesstimation by people who have no clue.
    I understand your concerns. Iam not a fan of games on PC. I never played. I endorse most of your interresting remarks.
    Steal Beasts is an excellent site, as it compiles many relevant informations. Their data came from many sources including Wikipedia, Russian Cannons, Zaloga's books -not the best of course- etc....

    Non of the listed sources has any relevance on armor value, non of them could even have a magical coincidence in being even close to the actual figures, because of the reasons i already have explained. If you like a proper more informative explanation you can ask Mindstorm, most educated person here and everywhere else on such matters.

    nemrod wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    ....armor is top secret there are only few people that would even know actual RHAe numbers,

    Yes and no. Yes if it is a secret belonging to a crucial project that is going to be roll out next. But concerning the M1 -A1/A2- Abrams it is no longer a secret. First of all it was exported, and 9 countries have M1 Abrams. 10.000 were built until now.
    Moreover many, many M1 Abrams were destroyed in combat since 1991 until now, and many wreckages are still available. Much of them were abandoned in Iraqi desert. Everyone could see what is the M1 A1/A2 Abrams. But I agree with you the M1 A3 could be still a secret. Furthermore americans did not invent the powder, after all the M1 Abrams is not much more different than Merkava Mk 4, AMX-40 Leclerc, british Challenger, or even the T-62/ -if we remove the US propaganda-T-64/T-72/T-80/T-90. M1 Abrams is simple mass produced tank, not a mysterious black box, if it has 1200 mm of armour and after ? Is it an issue ? U know better than me that it exists everywhere solutions to overcome this armour, in industrial countries not only Russia, UK, France or US but even Serbia, Romania, North Korea, etc...  in fact any country that has an industrial potential and could produce ATGM that are able perforate more than 2 meters. Where is the problem ? There are hundreds of M1 Abrams that were burnt, destroyed for while. It is not impossible that many M1 Abrams, Merkava, AMX 40, or even T-72 and T-90 that were destroyed by serbian, north korean, or even romanian anti tank rockets.

    The americans like in every war they have been very cautious and very paranoid of their destroyed weapons getting into foreign hands, not that it never happened but they usually try to ensure to get the crucial stuff back. I am sure the chinese had tried or even succeeded in getting some information from iraq, but nothing such as the british and muricans did with getting T-80UE from russia via vassal state Marokko.

    The armor configuration, layers and angles are still pretty much secret to most and without doubt to anyone on any forum. Tanks for export always had and always will have different armor configuration, angles, layers, materials or whatever the developers see necessary to change it to have different values. That does not matter if there are fanboys calling T-72M of iraq equal to soviet T-72's in armor of any version, it is still and always was and probably will never change that the armor is always different same as on Iraqi M1A1 or Saudi M1A2S and it does not matter how often there is someone using the magical word that protects the fanboys internet armschairgeneral virginity status by calling always and everywhere "chobham" and "depleted uranium". Mantras are used by people that know little about it or different materials with superior attributes.

    There is no problem producing such a weapon to destroy 2m of RHA armor, the key to this is feasibility of actually carrying and making such a weapon useful. I doubt a 220mm calibre ATGM that weights 80kg is really feasible or practical to be used on the battlefield. The behind logistics, budget, transportation, maintenance, training, safety, storage and actually finding and equipping plattforms with it makes it horrible to even attempt, not to mention if you have such a calibre ATGM you do not need to make it a HEAT based weapon just stuff it with enough explosives it will crush anything mobile, probably two tanks with one missile if they are close to each other. Just not feasible.

    No T-90 was ever destroyed so far.
    avatar
    nemrod

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

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod on Wed Jun 01, 2016 12:54 pm

    To Werewolf
    Werewolf wrote:
    None of the listed sources has any relevance on...

    In fact they have any relevance in nearly all. I share your POV. We have the same vision concerning sources. We've already discussed about this issue, the problem is not new. For that reason my wishes is to see next a russian wiki available in all tongues independant of western lies. No one is coming and showed us the truth. It might be too easy. Well there are events resulting in facts. From these facts we took deduction. These deduction are mere assumptions.

    About the M1 Abrams. Americans accept or not, hide or not their so-called secrets, the facts are there :

    A mass product hardware is vulnerable as any other hardware

    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5538
    Points : 5579
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Militarov on Wed Jun 01, 2016 1:06 pm

    nemrod wrote:To Werewolf
    Werewolf wrote:
    None of the listed sources has any relevance on...

    In fact they have any relevance in nearly all. I share your POV. We have the same vision concerning sources. We've already discussed about this issue, the problem is not new. For that reason my wishes is to see next a russian wiki available in all tongues independant of western lies. No one is coming and showed us the truth. It might be too easy. Well there are events resulting in facts. From these facts we took deduction. These deduction are mere assumptions.

    About the M1 Abrams. Americans accept or not, hide or not their so-called secrets, the facts are there :

    A mass product hardware is vulnerable as any other hardware


    Thing is that some of the destroyed Abrams pics that we have were destroyed by own airforce or US crews after tracks were damaged and they had to retreat, or went out of ammunition/fuel. In first Gulf War for an example Janes once reported that USAF did prevention airstrikes on 7 Abrams tanks and 2 were destroyed by own crews via thermite explosive charges.
    avatar
    nemrod

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

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod on Wed Jun 01, 2016 1:18 pm

    Militarov wrote:...Janes once reported that USAF did prevention airstrikes on 7 Abrams tanks and 2 were destroyed by own crews via ...
    Are U realizing the scale of Janes's insanities! Sorry but Janes has none credibility as most of western press. In war period none of western press news says truth. Nothing! They lie.
    Iam sure that iraqi anti-tanks missiles took out many western coalition tanks, including US M1 Abrams besides egyptian, saudis's M-60, as Hizbollah did in 2006 against Israeli's Merkava. The anti tank missiles used by iraqis were AT-4 spiggot. But these informations are written off, hence censored.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

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

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Wed Jun 01, 2016 1:50 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    nemrod wrote:To Werewolf
    Werewolf wrote:
    None of the listed sources has any relevance on...

    In fact they have any relevance in nearly all. I share your POV. We have the same vision concerning sources. We've already discussed about this issue, the problem is not new. For that reason my wishes is to see next a russian wiki available in all tongues independant of western lies. No one is coming and showed us the truth. It might be too easy. Well there are events resulting in facts. From these facts we took deduction. These deduction are mere assumptions.

    About the M1 Abrams. Americans accept or not, hide or not their so-called secrets, the facts are there :

    A mass product hardware is vulnerable as any other hardware


    Thing is that some of the destroyed Abrams pics that we have were destroyed by own airforce or US crews after tracks were damaged and they had to retreat, or went out of ammunition/fuel. In first Gulf War for an example Janes once reported that USAF did prevention airstrikes on 7 Abrams tanks and 2 were destroyed by own crews via thermite explosive charges.

    The two are from Diwaniyah axis, Tank two, sprocket was busted and Iraqis had hit rear deck. Impossible to move them under fire, impossible to get them out one was thermited without much success and the Iraqis burnt it. Then USAF bombed the area. The other had an APU fire from contact and the crew evaced. It was hit with Hellfire. There's also the story of another Abrams hit twice with M1A1 Tank gun then hit again by Hellfire before starting to burn. I think that's fantasy but why not.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5538
    Points : 5579
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Militarov on Wed Jun 01, 2016 2:01 pm

    nemrod wrote:
    Militarov wrote:...Janes once reported that USAF did prevention airstrikes on 7 Abrams tanks and 2 were destroyed by own crews via ...
    Are U realizing the scale of Janes's insanities! Sorry but Janes has none credibility as most of western press. In war period none of western press news says truth. Nothing! They lie.
    Iam sure that iraqi anti-tanks missiles took out many western coalition tanks, including US M1 Abrams besides egyptian, saudis's M-60, as Hizbollah did in 2006 against Israeli's Merkava. The anti tank missiles used by iraqis were AT-4 spiggot. But these informations are written off, hence censored.

    Its not really censored, we know that 23 M1A1s were knocked out of combat in 1991. 14 of which were returned into service. What we do not know are the details of each incident where they were damaged or destroyed, we know like half of those.

    Two Abrams were destroyed in 2003. during Battle for Baghdad one destroyed by AA guns and one by an ATGMs, Also during operations in Najaf 2 M1s were severely damaged and abandoned, probably after hits from RPG-18, they burned out, crew bailed out from both and sprayed oil inside the combat compartment.

    The Iraq War: A Military History by Williamson Murray has fairly decent list of M1 destroyed units together with their service numbers etc.

    Americans are just claiming that no M1 Abrams was lost to an enemy tank, which is true, same as its true that no F15C to this day was shot down by enemy fighter. Some Abrams tanks were hit by Iraqi T72Ms but none managed to actually destroy them or kill the crew, all were partial penetrations, near missies or penetrations into engine compartment with no hull dmg.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5357
    Points : 5588
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Jun 01, 2016 6:49 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    Americans are just claiming that no M1 Abrams was lost to an enemy tank, which is true, same as its true that no F15C to this day was shot down by enemy fighter. Some Abrams tanks were hit by Iraqi T72Ms but none managed to actually destroy them or kill the crew, all were partial penetrations, near missies or penetrations into engine compartment with no hull dmg.

    That claim moved on now to "M1" is battle proven and was never destroyed at all, as soon you post pictures they back paddle it was destroyed by airforce and Abrams took several shots from its own and Apache had to destroy it.


    The most retarded lies, like any accompaning tanker will not know not to shoot a fucking tank any place but the most protected if he actually wants to destroy it. Even tho i do not believe americans are educated but they certainly are not that stupid either to make such horrible propaganda of how mighty the abrams is, it is like any other tank paperly thin from any other side but the front.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

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

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Wed Jun 01, 2016 6:59 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Americans are just claiming that no M1 Abrams was lost to an enemy tank, which is true, same as its true that no F15C to this day was shot down by enemy fighter. Some Abrams tanks were hit by Iraqi T72Ms but none managed to actually destroy them or kill the crew, all were partial penetrations, near missies or penetrations into engine compartment with no hull dmg.

    That claim moved on now to "M1" is battle proven and was never destroyed at all, as soon you post pictures they back paddle it was destroyed by airforce and Abrams took several shots from its own and Apache had to destroy it.


    The most retarded lies, like any accompaning tanker will not know not to shoot a fucking tank any place but the most protected if he actually wants to destroy it. Even tho i do not believe americans are educated but they certainly are not that stupid either to make such horrible propaganda of how mighty the abrams is, it is like any other tank paperly thin from any other side but the front.

    Once again, it is not as much lies as it is a different paradigm. The Abrams was seldom exposed to urban warfare in GW1. It was also enjoying brutal awareness superiority in both GW's. Bring down the suite that protects it and the tank will not be more difficult to kill than the T-72. Give the defending side enough tools (God only knows what carnage would have happened had the Iraqis the scores of ATGM even the YEMENIS HAD).

    Sponsored content

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:26 am