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:

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2285
    Points : 2279
    Join date : 2020-09-13
    Location : Philippines

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  lyle6 Sun Oct 09, 2022 8:05 am

    GarryB wrote:
    (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.

    The implementation sucks because NATO tacticians are wedded to the idea of the mad minute. They really think their enemies are subhumans orcs that would rush their positions by the hundreds, hence the need to have as fast a rate of fire as possible. And the best way to do that is with a bustle autoloader which rams rounds into the breech in one smooth movement.

    Isos wrote: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.

    The challenge with unmanned turrets is that with no crew in the fighting compartment to troubleshoot problems, the standard of reliability for the subsystems would have to be much higher. Beyond minimizing failure per cycles, you would need to design redundant parallel systems wherever applicable, and of course integration of the vast number of equipment onboard for control and monitoring, etc.

    kvs likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39592
    Points : 40086
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  GarryB Mon Oct 10, 2022 1:42 am

    The whole advantage of an unmanned turret is that the turret front armour can be weak because there is nothing in the turret to protect any more, (saving considerable weight because the turret front is the most likely hit part of the tank in theory) but keeping the ammo in the rear turret bustle means any penetration of the front of the turret that makes it right through is going to hit the ammo in the rear of the turret and set it off.

    Blow out panels are OK for burning propellent, but useless for detonating ammo... normally ammo explosions are what cause the tank to lose its turret, and since the T series tanks stopped carrying spare loose ammo in the crew compartment really only a direct hit to the underfloor autoloader can do that.... and that is a tricky shot.

    Hitting the rear turret of a tank on the other hand is not that hard... especially with even very light RPGs type weapons.

    The turret on this new vehicle is enormous and probably isn't very light, and it makes it a big target... there might not be people to kill in there but there is ammo to hit.
    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 7051
    Points : 7141
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  ALAMO Mon Oct 10, 2022 1:50 am

    GarryB wrote:The whole advantage of an unmanned turret is that the turret front armour can be weak because there is nothing in the turret to protect any more, (saving considerable weight because the turret front is the most likely hit part of the tank in theory) but keeping the ammo in the rear turret bustle means any penetration of the front of the turret that makes it right through is going to hit the ammo in the rear of the turret and set it off.

    It is not that easy.
    It still must be protected, as there are vital systems there anyway. Like the gun, loading mechanism, FCS subsystems etc.
    The only real difference is, that all that stuff is much smaller than the people inside, so the turret can be much smaller either.
    And that applies to weight reduction but does not mean that the turret is not well protected.

    Werewolf, kvs, Rodion_Romanovic and Hole like this post

    George1
    George1


    Posts : 18384
    Points : 18881
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  George1 Mon Oct 10, 2022 12:06 pm

    General Dynamics Land Systems (GDELS, a division of General Dynamics Corporation) has officially unveiled the concept of the promising AbramsX main tank, which is an evolution of the American M1 Abrams tank. A video with a prototype demonstrator of the AbramsX tank has been published.



    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4595698.html
    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2285
    Points : 2279
    Join date : 2020-09-13
    Location : Philippines

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  lyle6 Mon Oct 10, 2022 10:37 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    The turret on this new vehicle is enormous and probably isn't very light, and it makes it a big target... there might not be people to kill in there but there is ammo to hit.

    They gave the turret a complete armor package, actually, so its only going to be very heavy.
    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 7 Abrams-x-emerges-as-the-tank-of-the-future-youtube-video-shows-it-driving_5
    The problem of providing adequate protection against advanced anti-armor threats remains however.

    ALAMO wrote:
    It is not that easy.
    It still must be protected, as there are vital systems there anyway. Like the gun, loading mechanism, FCS subsystems etc.
    The only real difference is, that all that stuff is much smaller than the people inside, so the turret can be much smaller either.
    And that applies to weight reduction but does not mean that the turret is not well protected.

    The main gun was never protected. Its impossible to even try when 6m of barrel is sticking out of the armor. The main gun actually completes the turret protection scheme by providing a solid backstop for the thin mantlet, since the gun and breech are mostly solid steel.

    For an unmanned turret autocannon level protection is more than enough. Real protection is mostly through the use of signature reduction measures these days - can't kill what you can't see. So a low profile turret with stealthed bodywork, targeting disrupters, and of course if all else fails, the hard-kill APS to knock the offending projectile before it hits - that doesn't sound like a weakly-protected turret to me.

    GarryB and kvs like this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 7051
    Points : 7141
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  ALAMO Tue Oct 11, 2022 2:23 am

    "The gun" is not only what is sticking outside, you know? Laughing
    And yes, it must be protected.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39592
    Points : 40086
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  GarryB Tue Oct 11, 2022 5:21 am

    It is not that easy.
    It still must be protected, as there are vital systems there anyway. Like the gun, loading mechanism, FCS subsystems etc.
    The only real difference is, that all that stuff is much smaller than the people inside, so the turret can be much smaller either.
    And that applies to weight reduction but does not mean that the turret is not well protected.

    It is changed because the needs are different... instead of turret front armour to protect the gunner and commander position all they really need to do is space things out like optics and cables and equipment because a human body doesn't care what part gets a 60mm hole punched through it by APFSDS or HEAT, it will probably fail or be taken out of action anywhere it is hit, to actually try to hit optics or the gun would actually be quite difficult if you position other things in the way and reduce its frontal exposure to enemy fire... frontally the Armata turret is not small, but where do you hit it to disable it... you could guess where the gunner and commander would be sitting, but with the gear inside the turret, where are its vulnerabilities?

    Other than the gun of course... but then you have already won because the enemy are trying to work out how to get a clean shot through your turret to hit your gun while you are lining up a shot to kill his crew...

    They gave the turret a complete armor package, actually, so its only going to be very heavy.

    So wonder what advantage they see to having the turret unmanned?

    And this seems to just be a tank and not a vehicle family...
    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2285
    Points : 2279
    Join date : 2020-09-13
    Location : Philippines

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  lyle6 Tue Oct 11, 2022 9:13 am

    GarryB wrote:
    So wonder what advantage they see to having the turret unmanned?

    And this seems to just be a tank and not a vehicle family...

    Well they got rid of the loader, so that's a 33% increase in the number of tanks you can man for the same dwindling manpower base.
    They also managed a dramatic weight-loss for the Abrams. Major stuff that Russian tanks have long since enjoyed so kudos I guess?

    GarryB and Rodion_Romanovic like this post

    Godric
    Godric


    Posts : 800
    Points : 826
    Join date : 2015-04-30
    Location : Alba (Scotland)

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Godric Wed Oct 12, 2022 10:22 am

    George1 wrote:General Dynamics Land Systems (GDELS, a division of General Dynamics Corporation) has officially unveiled the concept of the promising AbramsX main tank, which is an evolution of the American M1 Abrams tank. A video with a prototype demonstrator of the AbramsX tank has been published.



    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4595698.html

    looks like that Leopard Revolution tank in service in Singapore

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 7 Revo_main

    kvs likes this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 7051
    Points : 7141
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  ALAMO Wed Oct 12, 2022 10:31 am

    Looks like all the Asian new tanks.
    Both Korean and Japan.
    It is a sad example of fading.

    GarryB and Hole like this post

    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8


    Posts : 2475
    Points : 2466
    Join date : 2013-02-01

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  AlfaT8 Wed Oct 12, 2022 12:02 pm

    First it was just a german gun, now its an intere german tank.

    I wonder what excuse the Abrams fanboys are gonna come up for this.
    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 7051
    Points : 7141
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  ALAMO Wed Oct 12, 2022 12:43 pm

    It is a Korean/Japanese tank.
    Ony masuaraded for US.

    Seems that Japan finally won the war Laughing

    GarryB and Rodion_Romanovic like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2285
    Points : 2279
    Join date : 2020-09-13
    Location : Philippines

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  lyle6 Wed Oct 12, 2022 10:30 pm

    You jest, but Korea is poised to become the leading supplier of land systems for NATO and their coolies.
    Mostly by default, since Korea actually has hot production lines for all of its offerings, unlike Germany who will promise you delivery in 3 years, but if we're honest at this point, probably never. Razz

    lancelot likes this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 7051
    Points : 7141
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  ALAMO Thu Oct 13, 2022 2:44 am

    Well, they had almost 30 years to study a decent T-80U, so I guess they could finally learn how to build a proper tank, agree? Laughing

    GarryB, Rodion_Romanovic, Hole and Broski like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 2285
    Points : 2279
    Join date : 2020-09-13
    Location : Philippines

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  lyle6 Sat Nov 12, 2022 4:34 am


    French is such a disgusting sounding language. I love it.
    Arkanghelsk
    Arkanghelsk


    Posts : 3820
    Points : 3826
    Join date : 2021-12-08

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Arkanghelsk Tue Nov 21, 2023 11:12 am

    U.S. Made 75 M1 Abrams Per Month in the 1980s, Now 12 is the Limit

    What factors limit the ability of the United States to supply armored vehicles to its allies
    Between 1979 and 1993, the U.S. defense industry produced 8,800 M1 Abrams main battle tanks in total. The average was 840 units annually, or 75 a month, according to public data. Moreover, the capacity could be doubled or even tripled if necessary.

    However, the ongoing defense contracts indicate a reduced production rate nowadays of only 12 tanks per month or up to 135 per year, Defence24 reports.

    The authors of this Polish website published an overview suggesting that the American industry now primarily focuses on modernizing old tanks taken from storage. Quite often, the stored vehicles are tanks in the name only, as even the turrets were stripped, leaving empty hulls. Still, even these shells become source material for making new units.

    These nuances may cause discrepancies in estimating the actual U.S. tank reserve, with Defence24 suggesting 6,000 vehicles, including those in active service with the U.S. Army units and those kept at storage bases outside the U.S.

    In turn, The Military Balance 2023 handbook from the U.S.-based International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates 2,500 M1 Abrams tanks in operation and 2,000 more in storage as of the beginning of the year, totaling 4,500 tanks.

    Official data submitted to the UN Register of Conventional Arms suggests the U.S. has 4,200 usable tanks, Defence24 adds.

    On the part of Defense Express, we should keep in mind that the sum of M1 Abrams contracted by various countries is over 1,500 tanks queued up for the next several years. Among them, Poland expects to receive 83 tanks a year according to a deal for 250 Abrams signed in January 2021.

    All of the above, including the technological approach to making new tanks, the condition of vehicles stored, and the quantity of resources, explain why the United States is having so constrained tank supply to its allies. Here he can point out Ukraine which was waiting for eight months until the first tanks were withdrawn from American stocks and delivered to Europe.

    GarryB likes this post

    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 2835
    Points : 2833
    Join date : 2020-10-17

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  lancelot Tue Nov 21, 2023 12:31 pm

    The US used to have multiple tank factories. Now they only have the Lima plant, and they only refurbish M1s.
    The Lima plant was also supposed to have been closed down at one point. I think it was Trump who pushed to keep it open.

    Even Omsk "produces" more tanks than the Lima plant. Let alone UVZ.

    kvs and Hole like this post

    Arkanghelsk
    Arkanghelsk


    Posts : 3820
    Points : 3826
    Join date : 2021-12-08

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Arkanghelsk Tue Nov 21, 2023 3:37 pm

    It's crazy, judging from the revelations, which show how US industry cannot support 155mm, M1Abrams, Himars production in sufficient quantities

    This means the loss of industrial output has severely affected the ability of the Americans to sustain their military

    They outsource it to South Korea, but it's doubtful South Korea could ramp up production of other items, when it is already producing at high capacity for its own needs

    Ingalls Shipyard and Bath Iron Works are also not looking too good

    This happened to Russia in the 90s, the loss of manufacturing know-how created the current mess with the VMF

    And the Americans it seems will be going through these pains themselves

    GarryB and Rodion_Romanovic like this post

    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 2963
    Points : 2955
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Arrow Tue Nov 21, 2023 4:02 pm

    This happened to Russia in the 90s, the loss of manufacturing know-how created the current mess with the VMF And the Americans it seems will be going through these pains themselves wrote:

    FOR now, they are building a powerful SSN fleet and 150 F-35s a year. So in some areas they are doing well.
    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 10974
    Points : 10954
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 48
    Location : Scholzistan

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Hole Tue Nov 21, 2023 4:52 pm

    They outsource it to South Korea, but it's doubtful South Korea could ramp up production of other items, when it is already producing at high capacity for its own needs
    South Korea is in range of cruise missiles launched from russian soil. Just saying. angel

    a powerful SSN fleet and 150 F-35s a year.
    Powerful on paper. Issues with steel quality, welding...
    The electronics won´t be better.
    In the end the Virginia is just a Los Angeles with a few cosmetical changes.

    The F-35... scratch Each of them is more of a liability than an asset.
    They only produce so much because the oligarchs controlling the MIC make a lot of money from it.

    GarryB, ahmedfire, kvs, Rodion_Romanovic and Arkanghelsk like this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 7051
    Points : 7141
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  ALAMO Tue Nov 21, 2023 5:09 pm

    ... and which ape was that? scratch
    Arkanghelsk
    Arkanghelsk


    Posts : 3820
    Points : 3826
    Join date : 2021-12-08

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Arkanghelsk Tue Nov 21, 2023 6:38 pm

    Hole wrote:
    South Korea is in range of cruise missiles launched from russian soil. Just saying. angel

    Yes, but either way, South Korea won't be able to meet that demand, as it already is at capacity of production


    Powerful on paper. Issues with steel quality, welding...
    The electronics won´t be better.
    In the end the Virginia is just a Los Angeles with a few cosmetical changes.

    636.6 does the same job as Virginia, and for the Mediterranean, Baltic, Pacific, and Barents sea, its perfectly fine to hunt shipping and respond to submarines encroaching on near seas


    The F-35... scratch  Each of them is more of a liability than an asset.
    They only produce so much because the oligarchs controlling the MIC make a lot of money from it.

    It's definitely better to produce then F22, and so they can actually export it

    The f22 was not exported because they did not have the capacity to expand production - not because of technology

    But in the end the f35 is worse than even the f22 so
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39592
    Points : 40086
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  GarryB Wed Nov 22, 2023 1:55 am


    FOR now, they are building a powerful SSN fleet and 150 F-35s a year. So in some areas they are doing well.

    So they will be poised to rebuild their poor neglected arms industry... reminded me immediately of this:



    Do you think what happens to Mr Creosote is the same as what will happen to the US economy?


    Nice twist right at the end... you still have to pay the bill...
    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 15427
    Points : 15564
    Join date : 2014-09-10
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  kvs Sat Dec 02, 2023 11:00 am

    The 20 rounds per minute for the autoloader sounds like marketing BS to me. If you want reliability, then you do not squeeze every last
    drop of juice out of the system. So in the real world, this 20 will never be used. Russian fire rates under 10 are from systems with decades
    of experience but some no-name US company will just nearly triple the fire rate with the snap of the fingers. Sure.

    BTW, the mechanical issues are not size-invariant. Machine-gunning tank shells is not the same as bullets.

    GarryB and Hole like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 39592
    Points : 40086
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  GarryB Sat Dec 02, 2023 10:54 pm

    Talking about rate of fire like that is the most important thing... sounds like they expect to be outnumbered and out gunned.

    Previously they used to talk about accuracy and effective range but it clearly seems they don't have any superiority in those areas and that now they want to take on the Russians and Chinese and Iranians all at once they now need rate of fire.

    The Abrams was supposed to sit back and pick off Soviet vehicles at night or in bad weather using its amazing armour protection and stand off range to remain safe while shooting blind enemy tanks from a distance where they wont even see what hit them.

    Sounds like they know their armour is not good enough at any range and that the Russians are going to see them anyway.

    Sponsored content


    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread: - Page 7 Empty Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Jul 14, 2024 8:09 pm