Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+27
kvs
lyle6
Isos
Zhar666
Anonymous Fighter
JohninMK
Gunfighter-AK
User 1592
OminousSpudd
Book.
AlfaT8
higurashihougi
KiloGolf
KoTeMoRe
nemrod
Werewolf
George1
rtech
Zivo
Cyberspec
magnumcromagnon
collegeboy16
BlackArrow
GarryB
Mindstorm
TR1
Austin
31 posters

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 7324
    Points : 7473
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 6 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  magnumcromagnon Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:36 am

    Just like how they said they only need to purchase F-35 fighter aircraft...only to start buying F-15's again; now after saying for many years that Abrams MBT's don't need reactive armor tiles on their turrets, and saying that Depleted Uranium slabs is all they needed....they're now starting to add reactive armor tiles to turrets lol!
    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 6 EukzakzXYAE5D0U?format=jpg&name=900x900

    GarryB and kvs like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30648
    Points : 31178
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 6 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  GarryB Sat Feb 20, 2021 11:55 am

    Autoloaders next?
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7892
    Points : 7876
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 6 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Isos Sat Feb 20, 2021 12:40 pm

    Lower front hull is less protected and would benefit more of ERA.

    Is it old M1 or M1A2 ? Older ones are easy to penetrate for new anti tank weapons.
    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 742
    Points : 744
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 6 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  lyle6 Sat Feb 20, 2021 1:25 pm

    Well its either that or the retard thick CATTB turret. Good sense prevailed this time though I imagine the Russians, being the undisputed masters of ERA shouldn't have much issue designing APFSDS projectiles that can bypass whatever ERA (most likely purloined from the Ukrainians in the first place) that is.
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 9252
    Points : 9355
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 6 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  JohninMK Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:46 pm

    Do those small blocks on the turret look like an alternative to the single slab on the turret in the photo of the M1A2C (M1A2SEPv3) Abrams on the previous page?

    The side protection could be the same for both.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 7324
    Points : 7473
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 6 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  magnumcromagnon Wed Mar 17, 2021 2:17 pm

    THE GROWING MASS OF ABRAMS IS A NIGHTMARE FOR AMERICAN LOGISTICIANS
    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 6 M1a2-sepv3

    The latest report on the modernization programs implemented in 2020 by the US Department of Defense discloses the progress of the M1 Abrams upgrade to the M1A2 SEP v3 standard . The main problem addressed in this passage is (apart from the CROWS-LP problems) the mass of the newest Abrams. It is supposed to be too high for the capacity of the US Army's engineering and pontoon park. The report was prepared under the guidance of the former director of military equipment research and verification, Robert F. Behler.

    The M1A2 SEP v3, already in its basic combat configuration (with an active vehicle defense system and reactive armor), is too heavy to carry out a technical evacuation by the M88A3 HERCULES technical support vehicles that are just being introduced into service , which, according to the assumptions, were to be compatible with these tanks. On the other hand, another engineering vehicle currently being deployed into service - the M1074 Joint Assault Bridge - is currently not suitable for crossing M1A2 SEP v3 tanks equipped with any additional equipment.

    Moreover, at the moment there is no assumption that NATO-wide design is to design an accompanying or pontoon bridge that would be capable of transporting such a heavy tank (fully equipped) across European rivers.

    Although the M1A2 SEP v3 weighs only 66 tons, which is comparable to the latest German Leopard 2A7Vs , this weight does not take into account the presence of the Trophy-HV active vehicle protection system implemented in American tanks. The manufacturer's declared weight of the system is 820 kilograms, but it was originally designed to be mounted on the Israeli Merkava siman 4 tanks . So the Mekrawas had already reserved space for him.
    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 6 Abrams-sep-v3
    Abrams SEP v3 belonging to the 3rd Panzer Brigade Combat Group "Gray Wolf".
    (US Army / Sgt. Calab Franklin)


    In the case of the Abrams, however, this space was lacking, which means that the installation of additional shelves on the sides of the turret for the protection system increases its weight up to about 2,300 kilograms, causing a shift in the center of gravity of the turret itself. In the case of the M1A2 SEP v3, such an increase in weight is not expected to be a problem due to the changes made to the turret design - the Trophy tests on this tank will take place only this year - but the older M1A2 SEP v2 already requires adding additional armor weighing around 1600 kg to the front tower to balance the center of gravity.

    The first effects of these complications were already present when the M1A2 SEP v2 tanks equipped with the Trophy-HV first arrived in Europe. These tanks were delivered to Poland using low-loader kits, and not via rail, as was the case with the standard M1A2 SEP v2 so far. Tanks with additional equipment were too heavy for the railways.

    Attempting to send in their place tanks in the SEP v3 version may therefore end up with even greater complications for logisticians. As we already mentioned in the article Dream about the iron wolf. What can the new Polish Main Battle Tank look like? , the national infrastructure is adjusted or verified for vehicles not exceeding 60-63 tonnes.
    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 6 M1A2
    M1A2 delivered to the German Grafenwöhr training ground.
    (US Army / Markus Rauchenberger)


    In the case of the M1A2 SEP v3, with the heaviest equipment configurations (ASOP + reactive armor + minesweep), it is up to 84 tons. This is beyond the design capacity of 16% of bridges built after 1985 and as much as 39% of bridges built before this year that would still be useful for the base M1A2 SEP v2. However, when using low-loader sets for transport over longer distances, the weight ranges from 109 to as much as 122 tons when transporting tanks in standard configurations (with additional reactive armor).

    These problems put in a difficult situation the next planned modernization of M1 tanks - this time to the SEP v4 standard. There were rumors about replacing the existing, over twenty-ton towers in favor of a lighter structure with a reduced profile, but this option was rejected in this modernization.

    At the moment, the only thing that is certain is the planned replacement of the existing thermal imaging devices for the third generation optoelectronics (which, incidentally, we have been implementing since the beginning of the last decade for our own combat vehicles as their standard equipment) and the adaptation of the fire control system - which in the meantime will be supplemented with meteorological devices - to using a new high-explosive shell equipped with a programmable fuse. The assumptions for this modernization itself are to be adopted in the next quarter.

    https://www.konflikty.pl/aktualnosci/wiadomosci/rosnaca-masa-abrams-logistyka/

    LMFS likes this post

    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 10669
    Points : 10816
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 6 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  kvs Wed Mar 17, 2021 3:31 pm

    A weight of 84 tons is a total fail for tank design. The T-14 comes in at under 50 tons. The T-14 is superior to any variant of the M1 including
    in terms of projectile energy and survivability. As with their total lack of supersonic and hypersonic missiles the US is only prepared to fight 3rd
    world pushover targets. But they are terminally deluded with the notion that they can cake walk over anybody.



    magnumcromagnon and LMFS like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 742
    Points : 744
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 6 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  lyle6 Thu Mar 18, 2021 2:06 am

    The US is going to fight Russia to the last Pole. They don't need tanks that can get there when they don't plan on fighting themselves anyways.

    GarryB, magnumcromagnon and LMFS like this post

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3893
    Points : 3895
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 6 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  LMFS Thu Mar 18, 2021 2:16 am

    I hope those data are not real, do they plan to rent some Antonovs to airlift those things?


    Last edited by LMFS on Thu Mar 18, 2021 3:10 am; edited 1 time in total
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 30648
    Points : 31178
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 6 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  GarryB Thu Mar 18, 2021 2:44 am

    I remember in the mid 1990s there were lots of complaints about the weight of the Abrams and how not every enemy is going to wait 6 months while they ship enough Abrams tanks over for a decent fight.

    They played around with all sorts of designs with square barrels that were supposed to be all stealthy, but the final design was about 45 tons and looked like a squashed Abrams with three crew and an autoloader... essentially what they realised they wanted was a T-90... but all square and boxy like an Abrams...

    AFAIK they never actually made anything but there were lots of proposed light tanks too to replace the Sheridan with all sorts of different levels of weight and protection option with the lightest being vulnerable to HMG fire and the heaviest being about Bradley levels of protection.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 11467
    Points : 11537
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 6 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  PapaDragon Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:50 am

    LMFS wrote:I hope those data are not real, do they plan to rent some Antonovs to airlift those things?

    Volga Dnepr would do it pro bono just for the lolz

    LMFS likes this post

    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 4532
    Points : 4524
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 45
    Location : Merkelland

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 6 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Hole Thu Mar 18, 2021 11:43 am

    VolgaDnepr could bring Sputnik V to them so the planes aren´t empty on the first leg of the travel.
    flamming_python
    flamming_python

    Posts : 4976
    Points : 5058
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 6 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  flamming_python Sat Mar 20, 2021 4:16 pm

    84 tons?

    Are they building a Maus?

    Hole likes this post


    Sponsored content

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 6 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Sep 25, 2021 8:53 am