ultimate factories-the M1 Abrams

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: DrChinstrap
To keep an M1-Abrams operational is a logistical nightmare of epic proportions if I'm correct.

It's the same with any tank (although the Abrams is a thirsty beast). You need a constant supply of fuel, ammunition, stores for the crew, maintenance etc.

This is normal for any military operation not just tanks but aircraft too. It takes 13 people to keep one soldier in combat!

a reply to: buddah6

Most of them were disabled and had to be blown up by us. Eighty were shipped back due to damage as of 2005.

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: intrptr
Toyota pickups are so much better.

I always admire the guys willing to go into war riding in the back of Toyota's with some giant mounted relic of a gun. Like they watched too many Rambo movies where they shoot a million shots and never get hit. When you believe in God that much then you will soon end up in a better place!

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

Nothing is but it has one of the best records of any tank that had seen combat. No one ever said it was indestructible.

Our allies just watch our equipment to improve their own tanks ...case in point is the Leopard 2A7+.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: buddah6

Most of them were disabled and had to be blown up by us. Eighty were shipped back due to damage as of 2005.

In 1991, I was only aware of three. One marine that rolled over in a river, one detracted around 73 Easting and one on the thunder run to Baghdad airport.

After 2003 I don't know because I had already retired.

originally posted by: buddah6

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

Nothing is but it has one of the best records of any tank that had seen combat. No one ever said it was indestructible.

Our allies just watch our equipment to improve their own tanks ...case in point is the Leopard 2A7+.

If that's the case where did the idea for chobham armour come from which is where the Abrams success lies?

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: DrChinstrap
To keep an M1-Abrams operational is a logistical nightmare of epic proportions if I'm correct.

It's the same with any tank (although the Abrams is a thirsty beast). You need a constant supply of fuel, ammunition, stores for the crew, maintenance etc.

If it was the same as with any tank I wouldn't have made the comment.

Here is vid that is part of a series of vids that are actually pretty entertaining.

originally posted by: sg1642

If that's the case where did the idea for chobham armour come from which is where the Abrams success lies?

The British.

originally posted by: buddah6

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: DrChinstrap
To keep an M1-Abrams operational is a logistical nightmare of epic proportions if I'm correct.

It's the same with any tank (although the Abrams is a thirsty beast). You need a constant supply of fuel, ammunition, stores for the crew, maintenance etc.

This is normal for any military operation not just tanks but aircraft too. It takes 13 people to keep one soldier in combat!

Yep that's the point I was making. The Abrams isn't the only logistical nightmare on the battlefield, everything is.

a reply to: sg1642

I said "of epic proportions".

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: sg1642

If that's the case where did the idea for chobham armour come from which is where the Abrams success lies?

The British.

Rhetorical question mate

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: buddah6

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

Nothing is but it has one of the best records of any tank that had seen combat. No one ever said it was indestructible.

Our allies just watch our equipment to improve their own tanks ...case in point is the Leopard 2A7+.

If that's the case where did the idea for chobham armour come from which is where the Abrams success lies?

It was invented for the Challenger tank or the one before that...IICR. My point was all allies share technology with the latest one being the Leopard 2. We wouldn't have tanks if it hadn't been for the English.

a reply to: buddah6

Cool cool. That's the way it should be in my book.

a reply to: sg1642

I just remembered the tank before the Chanllenger! It was the Chieftan but the type of armor I still can't remember...That's what I get for being a hundred years old...lol.

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: sg1642

I just remembered the tank before the Chanllenger! It was the Chieftan but the type of armor I still can't remember...That's what I get for being a hundred years old...lol.

You know I'm not even so sure myself I think they had plans to upgrade the armour on them but I'm not sure if it was always chobham armour or if that what was going to be updated

a reply to: Aliensun

Yeah, a miserable failure, look, they get damaged in war.

They got "damaged" invading and occupying other countries. What do you expect?

Welcome wagons?

a reply to: intrptr

And did what they were supposed to do for the most part and kept the crew alive.

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: sg1642

I just remembered the tank before the Chanllenger! It was the Chieftan but the type of armor I still can't remember...That's what I get for being a hundred years old...lol.

You know I'm not even so sure myself I think they had plans to upgrade the armour on them but I'm not sure if it was always chobham armour or if that what was going to be updated

You Brits have always made great armor. There was a English engineer who came up with reactive armor then a ceramic sandwich armor. I know that the later models of the Patton tanks used reactive armor in Desert Storm on Marine M-60s. On the M-1, I think that it's a sandwich of chobham and kevlar with stand-off airspaces between each.

originally posted by: buddah6

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: sg1642

I just remembered the tank before the Chanllenger! It was the Chieftan but the type of armor I still can't remember...That's what I get for being a hundred years old...lol.

You know I'm not even so sure myself I think they had plans to upgrade the armour on them but I'm not sure if it was always chobham armour or if that what was going to be updated

You Brits have always made great armor. There was a English engineer who came up with reactive armor then a ceramic sandwich armor. I know that the later models of the Patton tanks used reactive armor in Desert Storm on Marine M-60s. On the M-1, I think that it's a sandwich of chobham and kevlar with stand-off airspaces between each.

I think it's a combination of RHA and ceramics with air pockets. Truth be told I think the only people that know are the people who made it. I wonder if it's still being manufactured?

I don't understand all the hate for the Abrams. Fair enough it isn't perfect but if someone can point me to a tank that is I'll give him my next month's wage.

originally posted by: buddah6
Our allies just watch our equipment to improve their own tanks ...case in point is the Leopard 2A7+.

I love the Leopard's modular design. Pop out a broken 'system' module and drop in a new one...tank up and running in hours not days. Canada bought some old Leopards and it was one of the best decisions they have made for the military, imo.+



Link
www.youtube.com...