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


+33
Podlodka77
Arrow
flamming_python
Hole
PapaDragon
LMFS
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
37 posters

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon


    Posts : 8138
    Points : 8273
    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 Fri Feb 19, 2021 8:36 pm

    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 : 38493
    Points : 38993
    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 4:55 am

    Autoloaders next?
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11233
    Points : 11203
    Join date : 2015-11-06

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

    Post  Isos Sat Feb 20, 2021 5:40 am

    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 : 2095
    Points : 2089
    Join date : 2020-09-13
    Location : Philippines

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

    Post  lyle6 Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:25 am

    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 : 14321
    Points : 14456
    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 8:46 am

    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 : 8138
    Points : 8273
    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 8:17 am

    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 : 14956
    Points : 15093
    Join date : 2014-09-10
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

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

    Post  kvs Wed Mar 17, 2021 9:31 am

    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 : 2095
    Points : 2089
    Join date : 2020-09-13
    Location : Philippines

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

    Post  lyle6 Wed Mar 17, 2021 8:06 pm

    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, kvs and LMFS like this post

    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5090
    Points : 5086
    Join date : 2018-03-03

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

    Post  LMFS Wed Mar 17, 2021 8:16 pm

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


    Last edited by LMFS on Wed Mar 17, 2021 9:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38493
    Points : 38993
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB Wed Mar 17, 2021 8:44 pm

    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.

    MMBR likes this post

    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon


    Posts : 13197
    Points : 13239
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

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

    Post  PapaDragon Wed Mar 17, 2021 10:50 pm

    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 : 10349
    Points : 10329
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 47
    Location : Scholzistan

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

    Post  Hole Thu Mar 18, 2021 5:43 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 : 8988
    Points : 9050
    Join date : 2012-01-30

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

    Post  flamming_python Sat Mar 20, 2021 10:16 am

    84 tons?

    Are they building a Maus?

    kvs and Hole like this post

    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 2638
    Points : 2630
    Join date : 2012-02-12

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

    Post  Arrow Thu Oct 28, 2021 8:15 am

    The USA significantly increases the M1 upgrade to SepV3 standard from its Lima warehouse
    Podlodka77
    Podlodka77


    Posts : 2589
    Points : 2591
    Join date : 2022-01-06
    Location : Z

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

    Post  Podlodka77 Fri Oct 07, 2022 2:42 am

    07.10.2022
    Bulletin of Mordovia

    Another M1A2 Abrams was burned during the exercises

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 6 Eshe-o10


    The M1A2 Abrams tank was lost during an exercise at the US Army National Training Center Fort Irwin in the Mojave Desert (California). It is reported by "RG: Russian weapons".
    Various sources report that the combat vehicle was destroyed as a result of the negligence of the crew, however, what it manifested itself in is not yet known.
    Judging by the published photographs, the tank caught fire, its high-speed fire-fighting system was unable to cope with the fire or it was not involved at all. As a result of the incident, Abrams received significant damage, and it is hardly possible to restore it, so everything will end with a write-off.

    At first it was noted that an emergency happened with the most advanced serial modification of SEPv3, but later it turned out that the previous version of SEPv2, which began shipping fourteen years ago, was out of order.
    This sample, like other gas turbine tanks operated overseas, has multi-layer armor, reinforced by the inclusion of depleted uranium. The cores of 120-mm armor-piercing sub-caliber projectiles were created from the same material.

    During the overhaul, the internal equipment was changed, in particular, new color displays appeared to display the tactical situation of the automated command and control system.
    Various problems with Abrams happen quite often, for example, we can recall the incident that occurred in the spring of 2020. It took place on the territory of one of the largest military bases - Fort Hood, with numerous witnesses. M1 also caught fire here, it was not possible to extinguish it and the fuel that spread over the concrete failed. Fortunately, there was no ammunition on board.

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 6 Eshe-o11


    In the summer of the same year, during night firing, one of the tanks of this type mistakenly fired at another vehicle located at a distance of 2600 meters.
    Despite the fact that not combat, but practical M1002 ammunition was used during the training, the "targets" were seriously damaged, in particular, a panoramic thermal imaging sight was torn out, and one of the crew members received a shrapnel wound in the chest and lost several fingers on his hand.

    https://vpk.name/news/638455_eshe_odin_m1a2_abrams_sozhgli_v_hode_uchenii.html

    kvs, Hole and Broski like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2095
    Points : 2089
    Join date : 2020-09-13
    Location : Philippines

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

    Post  lyle6 Fri Oct 07, 2022 1:00 pm

    This junk burns real good at even the slightest of love taps. Yet another reason why they won't even dare ship them out to Ukraine.

    kvs, Hole, Broski and Podlodka77 like this post

    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8


    Posts : 2439
    Points : 2430
    Join date : 2013-02-01

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

    Post  AlfaT8 Fri Oct 07, 2022 1:25 pm

    Hmmm...
    Could they finally be testing these tanks against mango rounds?
    Or is this another kornet situation?
    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 10349
    Points : 10329
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 47
    Location : Scholzistan

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

    Post  Hole Fri Oct 07, 2022 3:12 pm

    Just drivers with bad smoking habits.

    Podlodka77 likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38493
    Points : 38993
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB Fri Oct 07, 2022 10:49 pm

    I suspect they have finally realised how exposed and open to enemy fire the rear turret bustle ammo storage is...

    Just drivers with bad smoking habits.

    Or the tanks with bad smoking habit?

    kvs and Hole like this post

    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 2638
    Points : 2630
    Join date : 2012-02-12

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

    Post  Arrow Sat Oct 08, 2022 3:32 pm

    https://m.vk.com/video-123538639_456291037

    kvs likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38493
    Points : 38993
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:48 pm

    50% reduction in fuel consumption and reduced crew.... sounds like America noticed the invention of a diesel engine and an autoloader...

    kvs, MMBR and lancelot like this post

    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 2562
    Points : 2560
    Join date : 2020-10-17

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

    Post  lancelot Sat Oct 08, 2022 7:21 pm

    Those rubber tracks in the video look like crap.
    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2095
    Points : 2089
    Join date : 2020-09-13
    Location : Philippines

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

    Post  lyle6 Sat Oct 08, 2022 8:18 pm

    GarryB wrote:I suspect they have finally realised how exposed and open to enemy fire the rear turret bustle ammo storage is...
    If they have, they didn't bother sharing that memo with their allies. Every single one of NATO's modern MBTs has the turret bustle ammo stowage. Very kind of them to make sure that any anti-tank weapons that overmatch their frontal armor by a fair bit blows up the tank instead of just punching right on through with little issue. And the list of weapons that can do so is only going to grow longer - unmanned turrets were first proposed precisely because the designers foresaw that in a race between armor and anti-armor the latter will eventually overtake the former given the limited mass budget on tanks, so to compensate you would have no choice but to reduce the protected profile area.

    GarryB wrote:50% reduction in fuel consumption and reduced crew.... sounds like America noticed the invention of a diesel engine and an autoloader...
    And still with the bustle ammo stowage. Why would you even bother with the unmanned turret at this point? Rolling Eyes

    GarryB and MMBR like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38493
    Points : 38993
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB Sat Oct 08, 2022 10:07 pm

    And still with the bustle ammo stowage. Why would you even bother with the unmanned turret at this point?

    (As you know) The whole point of having an unmanned turret is to move all the vulnerable bits down under the heaviest armour in the front of the hull.

    In computer games and in real war the location of the ammo or fuel or the crew are the places you aim for depending on the gun and ammo you are using, so having ammo in an exposed turret is stupid because exploding ammo destroys a tank and makes it not recoverable.

    It is like they are going for an unmanned turret because they think it is cool.
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11233
    Points : 11203
    Join date : 2015-11-06

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

    Post  Isos Sun Oct 09, 2022 2:58 am

    Unmanned turret is the same turret but with the crew moved on the front.

    Even on previous tanks the turret was unmanned. It was just the gunner that controled it with a joystick. Now he uses the same joystick but from a different place. It's not like they were in the turret to move it with their hands.

    Some may see it as a more expensive solution but it isn't. It's totally the same turret as on previous tanks. That's why price of t-14 should be very close to t-90M, afghanit and more modern materials making it a bid more expensive but all the other systems are found in t-90M as well.

    MMBR likes this post


    Sponsored content


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

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Feb 25, 2024 1:04 pm