OMFG!!! Teh Abrams tank iz krap LOLOLOL!!!!!111

[JonN]

A PRC military wanker is showing off these pics of Abrams tanks destroyed in Iraq by the insurgents in an effor to "prove" how "bad" they are compare to the uber l33t Type 98 tanks of the PLA. I love watching PRC wankers go on about how good their military "stuff" is, without realizing that most of their country's military hardware are cheap ripoffs of foreign (mostly Russian) equipment.

For the record, from other pics I've seen, the tanks in pics 1 and 2 were disabled (tracks blown off) by enemy fire then blown up by their own crews because there was no time to tow them away. 4 and 5 are of the same tank: this was destroyed by a massive, command detonated mine. 6 appears to have been disabled and abandoned anfter being ambushed by RPG fire (I can spot several impact points on the hull and turret), then abandoned by it's crew. 7 appears to have been disabled and waiting repairs along with other damaged tanks. 8: again, suffered "mobility kill", then destroyed and abandoned by crew. This one looks like it took a hit to the engine: again, a mobility kill. 9: this one suffered a blown-off track, but now other major damage was apparently infilcted. 10: Another "Abandon and destroy" inflicted by it's own crew after the tank was disabled. Any modern tank is vulnerable to this kind of damage...

[NWFreak]

Personally, I still think the M1A1/A2 is the best tank in serive anywhere. Still, no tanks are invincible, not even an Abrams. One person in that forum in the posted link did make a good point that any tank, even an Abrams, is vulnerable to anti-tank weapons. But, the abrams can probably take significant damage before being incapacitated.


Have a nice day :-)
-Mike

http://img35.photobucket.com/albums/v105/goldphoenix006/upsignew.jpg

[JonN]

Well the Germans' new Leopard 2A6EX is considered slightly better individually than the Abrams: It has a more powerful gun (it's the same caliber, 120mm, but the barrel is 55 calibers long vs. 44 for the Abrams), and it's frontal armor protection is somewhat better. It should be noted, however that this tank is brand new: the Abrams hasn't changed much since Gulf War I in terms of armor protection (at that point in time, nothing came close to it), and there are around 6,000 M1A1s and M1A2s in service, vs. 150 for the Leo 2A6EX.

While the Leo 2A6 may be better individually, the Abrams (the M1A2SEP model) is probably superior while operating in formations, due to it's Force IX C&C architecture.

[Gixxer86g]

One thing that will always make the Abrams better is the quality of crews.Imagine how poorly an Abrams,or any top shelf tank would perform with a Chinese or Iraqi crew.I like the Leapord series for their diesel engines.Much better for infantry support.You could advance behind a Leopard with being cooked by jet exhaust.

[JonN]

>I like the Leapord series for their diesel engines.Much better for infantry support.You could advance behind a Leopard with >being cooked by jet exhaust.

Forget the exhaust: The concussion from the main gun's muzzle blast when it's fired is enough to keep infantry from being too close to any tank in action. I've heard the effect of being hit by the concussion described as feeling like "having your eyes poked in, your ears boxed, and your chest kicked by a mule, all at the same time": There is a reason tanks are usually "buttoned" while the main gun is being fired.

[yellowdog]

How many Abrams' tanks went into action? How many of those in action were hit with some sort of fire? Of those hit, how many were severly damaged destroyed? Give those same numbers for enemy tanks (provided they were manned by equally competent and prepared crew members) and I think you MIGHT be able to answer the question "Who's stuff is better?"

[Erick_Cantu]

The M1 is crap. If it were an airliner it'd be trashed due to poor dispatch reliability because all they can do is break down.

So says my cousin, one of the army's grief stricken mechanics... http://sgair.net/erick/GRIN1.gif


http://sgair.net/erick/SIGS/CP_BANNER.JPG

"The F59PHI and Genesis are the lamest excuses for locomotives Amtrak has ever operated - accept it and move on. Hug an F40 before it's too late!"

[Gixxer86g]

Well,my cousin didn't fix 'em,he just drove 'em.He didn't have any problems charging across Iraq in Gulf War one.But then again they're getting older and are heavily used.Forgot about the concussion.That kinda kills it.Plus the sabot casings.I guess that means there aren't really any MBT's out there.By definition they are really TD's.Like I said quality of crew is more important than the vehicle itself.Even a Sherman(late with wet ammo stowage) could be quite effective.I've seen interviews with WW2 German tank crews that were impressed by the automotive superiority of American equipment.Many of these crews preferred a long barrel Pzkfw IV over the Panther.Basically you don't want to engage any tank head on.The side shot that would kill a Sherman would probably kill most other AFVs on the field(just with less flames)provided you had a decent gun.These guys survived the Eastern Front because they relied on tactics,maneuver and training,not armor thickness.The Soviets discovered in tests on captured German AFV's that the armor on a King Tiger,although much thicker,it was of considerably lower quality than say a Panther.They found it extremely difficult to penetrate at any range,but the vehicles suffered major internal damage due to armor fragmentation at the point of impact.?So basically the specs only mean so much.

[Gixxer86g]

I gotta be honest though,I think even crappy tanks are cool!
And I would like to see the Leopard2a6 renamed Tiger III.

[JonN]

>How many Abrams' tanks went into action? How many of those
>in action were hit with some sort of fire? Of those hit,
>how many were severly damaged destroyed? Give those same
>numbers for enemy tanks (provided they were manned by
>equally competent and prepared crew members) and I think you
>MIGHT be able to answer the question "Who's stuff is
>better?"

More than 2,000 originally went into action last year, most of which were M1A1s (V Corps uses only M1A1s, no 'A2s). Last time I checked 40 have been "knocked out of action" (the majority by the insurgants), but only a fraction have been declared "permanant losses". All things considered, thats not a bad record at all.

>The M1 is crap. If it were an airliner it'd be trashed due
>to poor dispatch reliability because all they can do is
>break down.
>
>So says my cousin, one of the army's grief stricken
>mechanics.

The source of just about all the M1's mechanical woes is it's AGT-1500 gas-turbine engine. The engine accounts for about 60% of an M1's operating costs, and many of the engines are also nearing 20 years old.

However, the AGT-1500 is finally being replaced by the new LV 100-5, which is supposedly much more reliable than the AGT-1500. It also adresses another problem of the Abrams: notorious fuel economy (the Abrams averages 0.6 mpg). The LV100-5 consumes 25% less fuel when moving and 50% less when idling, while delivering the same horsepower as the AGT-1500.

>Plus the sabot casings.I guess that means there aren't really
>any MBT's out there.By definition they are really TD's.

By definition, TDs are lightly armored (unlike modern MBTs, whose frontal armor is roughly equivilent in RHA to WWII battleship armor), so no they are not really TDs. Tank Destroyers do live on, however: they just traded their guns for missiles (the M901 Improved TOW Vehicle being a good of the modern equivelent of a TD)

[Gixxer86g]

Jonathan,what's you're best info on top speed?And also,Jonathan's post points out one of the three main problems with the M1,fuel.I'm pretty sure it burns the same amount idling as moving,so what good is it in the city?A good ol' M60(late) with TTS and reactive armor would do much better.HE shot for the 105.Lighter than an M1.That makes for a nice assault gun.And it's much cheaper.And with the TTS and DU ammo you're still killing everyone else.And then,the A-10's.......

[JonN]

>Jonathan,what's you're best info on top speed?

For the Abrams? Well, the engine has a governor which limits the tank's top road speed to 45mph for the M1A1 (42 for the heavier M1A2). It averages 30mph cross-country. I have no idea how much faster it could go if the governer were removed.

[Gixxer86g]

Actually,only some TD's in WW2 were lightly armored.Both German and Russian TD's sported some serious frontal armor:Jagdpanzer 4 series,Jagdpanther,Jagdtiger,SU85,SU100 etc.I'm not arguing,It's interesting how AFV definitions can change.Maybe that's the current definition of TD.I meant functionally speaking,they're really only for killing other AFV's.

[Gixxer86g]

On the speed,I asked because you're definately up on it and I'm curious of what you've heard.I've been told by folks I trust around 70mph but It's really hard on the tracks and other components.There's a reason its got a governor.My cousin cruised across that desert without governor.He didn't care about his speed.Other things to worry about.But he said 60 wasn't out of the question.In the sand.When they were done,the tanks were in bad shape,but they kicked ass.

[CGW409]

Jonathan
Take this with a grain of salt because I'm going back into the ol memory banks but IIRC at the time they were building and first deploying the M1A(very late 70'sIIRC)reports I'd heard were a top speed of 60 mph.

[JonN]

>Actually,only some TD's in WW2 were lightly armored.Both
>German and Russian TD's sported some serious frontal
>armor:Jagdpanzer 4 series,Jagdpanther,Jagdtiger,SU85,SU100
>etc.I'm not arguing,It's interesting how AFV definitions can
>change.Maybe that's the current definition of TD.I meant
>functionally speaking,they're really only for killing other
>AFV's.

I do see your point, but it should be noted that all of those vehicles you mentioned were actually classed as "assault guns". The idea of the assault gun was to save weight by removing the turret and mounting the gun directly into the hull, allowing the vehicle to have the same protection as a similar tank, but have ligher weight and greater speed. For obvious reasons, they were not well suited to defensive purposes. They were designed purely for assaults and offensives. Tank destroyers, on the other hand did have turrets, but these were usually open topped and lightly armored, to save weight and space for a larger gun than a similar sized tank (the M36 Jackson, for example, was actually the same weight as a Sherman, but it mounted a 90mm gun and carried as much ammo as a Sherman). Unlike Assault guns, TDs were used for defence, "overwatch" of advancing forces, and ambushes of enemy AFVs

[Gixxer86g]

The Jagdpanzers were TD's.The Stugs were AG's.The SU100 was a dedicated TD.There were both assault and TD versions of the SU85 and SU122.But,All TD designs were pushed into the assault role.Both the Sherman and Tiger were really intended for the assault role.Breaking through enemy lines was their purpose.In reality,it was whatever you could muster with a gun,wheels and motor.With a 90mm gun,how do you think the Jackson was put to use.With the M26 Pershing,US Tank and TD concepts were combined.

[Erick_Cantu]

Definitely. Tactics make a HUGE difference. Innovations like the hedgetrimming devices crews fitted to the Sherman made a huge difference as well.

You know, I hate war and war machines, but enjoy the history and mechanics behind it all. I could watch TV shows on WWII and tank warfare et c. forever. Heh.

http://sgair.net/erick/SIGS/CP_BANNER.JPG

"The F59PHI and Genesis are the lamest excuses for locomotives Amtrak has ever operated - accept it and move on. Hug an F40 before it's too late!"

[NW_611]

Let me jump in here a second, 'cause I'm not following something here:

How exactly is modern Chobham armor and the like mounted on a tank equivalent to that of the Class A armor used in the main belt on an Iowa-class battleship? I'm not a tanker, not an engineer and certainly not a metallurgist, so I'm a bit confounded as to how a couple of inches on a tank equals 12.1 inches on an Iowa. What's "RHA" mean?

I don't suppose all of that means that Terry Mackall in his Abrams could trade a round with me aboard USS Wisconsin and have it come out a tie; rather, I suppose it means that if I fired a 16in/50cal Mk 7 AP round at the armor belt of an Iowa and at the armor on an Abrams, the damage would be equivalent? I'm definitely not comprehending something here.

Thanks.

[JonN]

>How exactly is modern Chobham armor and the like mounted on
>a tank equivalent to that of the Class A armor used in the
>main belt on an Iowa-class battleship? I'm not a
>tanker, not an engineer and certainly not a metallurgist, so
>I'm a bit confounded as to how a couple of inches on a tank
>equals 12.1 inches on an Iowa. What's "RHA" mean?

The composite frontal armor on a modern MBT is more than a "few inches". On some tanks, it is in excess of two feet thick. The armor on the turret face of an M1A1HA+ or M1A2 is equivilent to around 35 inches of homogenous armor-grade steel (or Rolled Homogenous Armor, aka RHA) when against kinetic rounds like the armor peircing fin stabilized discarding Sabot (APFSDS) rounds that the Abrams itself uses. Against High Explosive Anti Tank (HEAT) rounds (like the rounds used by all infantry-AT weapons like the M136 AT4 used by the US Army, or the ubtiquitous RPG-7, as well as by many tanks), the armor is worth 50+ inches of RHA.


>I don't suppose all of that means that Terry Mackall in his
>Abrams could trade a round with me aboard USS
>Wisconsin and have it come out a tie; rather, I
>suppose it means that if I fired a 16in/50cal Mk 7 AP round
>at the armor belt of an Iowa and at the armor on an
>Abrams, the damage would be equivalent? I'm definitely not
>comprehending something here.

Well, no. A modern depleted uranium or tungsten-carbide APFSDS round from a 105mm or 120mm tank gun will definately slice through an Iowa's belt, but a round of that size isn't going to do much internal damage to a warship as big as Iowa: An abrams could fire off all it's ammo into a Iowa and not do any appreciable damage, even if all the shots penetrate. However, despite it's frontal armor protection, an Abrams is not going to survive a hit from a Mk. 7 16in projectile. The kinetic energy would be too great for the armor's support structures to withstand, so the round would do one of the following things: it could actually smash the frontal armor plates throught the rest of the tank (without actually penetrating them), or it could knock the turret right off the hull. Although a Mk. 7 shell has lower penetration than many of the shells that the Abrams can survive hits from, the sheer kinetic energy carried by the shell will be too much for the tank's structure to handle, even if the armor plates are not actually penetrated. Also, bear in mind that only the frontal armor of the Abrams is as strong as stated above: the side armor is believed to be only 1/3 as strong as the front armor, and the rear and rooftop armor is even weaker. However, Iowa would be better off using HE rounds against tanks, as a near miss from one of these can partially bury a tank or even flip it over!

Heres an analogy of Mk. 7 AP shells vs modern APFSDS rounds: try stabbing yourself with a dull pencil: the odds are you won't get through on your first try. Now, try appling the same force to a straight pin...The odds are you have punctured the skin an are now bleeding. To take the experiment further, you are going to have to exert many times the force to get the pencil to penetrate your skin than with the pin, however the pin is going to cause far less injury to yourself. The pencil, on the other hand wis going to cause lots on damage before it even gets through your skin, such as broken blood vessels and bruising.

[dpabrams]

My guess's are:
Type 61
M1A1
Challenger
Gephard
Leo I
M41
Merkava
JS II
T62
All Tamiya's, I think and very well done.

[sinclair97]

Correct Don!

I got them from a photo library on CD.

Are you any relation to anyone whos is, or was connected the Abrams Name ?

Mike :)

[Gixxer86g]

Named after General Creighton W. Abrams.

[dpabrams]

AH Great Uncle Creighton, what a great run he with the 37th Tank Battalion and Combat Command B, 4th Armored Division? Actually no relation but a great name. I have several books on the M1 series and was once a playtester and scenario designer for Talonsoft, remember them? I did scenarios for The Art of War series. My crowning achievement was the order of battle for the Desert Storm. Just a little trivia from a guy who now paints trains.

[Gixxer86g]

I enjoyed many Talonsoft games.I still play East Front from time to time.

[sinclair97]