"The mighty M1", a stupid media product ....

The M1, the Abrams, a very media-overated tank

Some facts;

1)the M1 fame starts with the gulf war, the media and some biased analysts said it was the best tank, with better results, sure, with 1900 M1s against only 500 T72 (even not the best model), the irakis with poor trained crews, bad-old sabots (accepted even from the most biased analists), lack of airpower (a lot of T tanks were smashed from the air), lack of electro-optics, etc,etc...

2)the earlier M1 model introduced (around 1980) had a turret armour of 400-420mm, the same year (in the case of the 72, around 1975-79) T80-72 had an armour of 450-500mm, and a 120mm gun compared with the M1s 105mm

3)the late 80s M1s had an 600-680mm armour, compared with the same year T80U with 810-800mm, the famous 900mm armour (later M1A1s and M1A2s) only was deployed in the late 90s

4)"depleted uranium is the best".....yeah sure, until the tank must operate in a nuclear enviorement, with the neutronic radiation, the U238 turn in....................................PU239!!!!!!!!!!

5)the amunition place make it veeeeery vulnerable to enemy fire, explode and blow up the tank

6) the turret maybe is one of the worst designed to avoid a hit and distribute the impact force

among other things that could be interesting to discuss, also to compare with other tanks, like the Leopard A1-2-3 that werent so good designed tanks and the challenger, t80-90-72 and other tanks, btw german post cold war ballistic tests on T72s showed that the tank (at least the soviets ones) were veeery tought.....

so well, the debate is open.

external image

[edit on 6-7-2005 by asala]

yeah, i see waht you mean... The Abrams sure is a bit overrated...

"Overrated" must be one of those vogue hip words having very little meaning these days?

Tell you what fellas', since the "Abrams" is "overrated", please feel free to interchange that picture of a destroyed M1A1 with a T-80, T-90, Merkava, ChallengerII, etc., etc., etc!

No details behind the picture.
Hell, if I look hard enough, I could find a load of pictures of destroyed tanks, like the ChallengerII, Merkava, etc., etc. etc, and then make up a bunch of crap that has nothing to do with the newer versions now out, and then say: "So well, the debate is open."

How lovely, huh?
Silly people.
Tricks are for kids.
Fighter Master FIN, I would have expected better from you, but hey, we all learn something everyday, don't we?


Oh, btw, before I forget, grunt2 mentioned:

btw german post cold war ballistic tests on T72s showed that the tank (at least the soviets ones) were veeery tought..

Well then, I guess those Germans are simply slipping on their assessments then, eh?
Yeah, right. Link? List or cite your references and sources, cause grunt2, when you do get around to producing them, then I will produce my sources that indicate that not only did M1A1s and M1A2s destroy T-72s, they mauled them, easily! That those same vaunted "veeery tought" T-72s, even at 400m's, were not able to destroy those M1's, even after mulitple shots. I also have sources that indicate that those "stupid media product" M1's not only were easily destroying those T-72s, but were destroying them two at a time: whereas, one M1 fires, hits a T-72, round enters and exits T-72 and proceeds on to destroy another T-72.

Yeah, definately a "stupid media product", huh?!






seekerof

[edit on 6-7-2005 by Seekerof]

Over rated or not..

Until the M1 abrams, NATO wouldn't be able to do squat(besides using nukes) if the USSR had decided to invade western Europe..
With the M1 they had a fighting chance..

And now with the russians kindve slowing down on the tank tech front due to political/monetary reasons, that "fighting chance" provided by the M1 has been turned into an advantage..

Must admit.. 'Tis a "come back" of sorts for the American Tank industry..

I don't think a single challenger has ever been destroyed. If i'm wrong then feel welcome to correct me.

Idiot,

>>
1)the M1 fame starts with the gulf war, the media and some biased analysts said it was the best tank, with better results, sure, with 1900 M1s against only 500 T72 (even not the best model), the irakis with poor trained crews, bad-old sabots (accepted even from the most biased analists), lack of airpower (a lot of T tanks were smashed from the air), lack of electro-optics, etc,etc...
>>

Keeping in mind Stalin's Maxim about Quantity having a Quality all it's own; it is NEVER the 'one lever of action' that fulcrums a battle nor a war!

Given all that Russia was taught (and lectured the masters on) by an 'inferior force' during WWII concerning combined arms, it amazes me no little amount that someone could make such an inane statement.

If you have an almost entirely militarized economy where nobody takes pride in the paranoia because everyone _knows_ that they are 'safe' (penned in) behind all of Eastern Europe and the Pacific and nukes are the first not final option for the U.S. which can _never_ 'get thar fustest' in time to beat the massed Russian Horde, why blame U.S. for your _generations_ of technical backwardness?

WE have to come to every fight we play in. Isn't it amazing that when we do, we still in fact /have/ the amassable forces to make it happen with 'numbers on our side'?

Communism ensures the triumph of the weak in the absence of _internal_ competition. Period. Dot.

Don't B&M about how it's 'unfair' that we choose to fight with EVERY tool that we have. Just because you haven't the material means or the will to synergize your own equivalents.

>>
2)the earlier M1 model introduced (around 1980) had a turret armour of 400-420mm, the same year (in the case of the 72, around 1975-79) T80-72 had an armour of 450-500mm, and a 120mm gun compared with the M1s 105mm

3)the late 80s M1s had an 600-680mm armour, compared with the same year T80U with 810-800mm, the famous 900mm armour (later M1A1s and M1A2s) only was deployed in the late 90s
>>

None of which means di**. If we had fought the GSFG and WARPAC forces in Europe, it would have been a pre-peat of Desert Storm except that Hitler's Highway System, coupled to preemptive attacks on airpower foolishly based in Germany proper, would have had them so deep in our shorts that we would have exceeded nuclear threshold in less than 18hrs.

At which point we are back to where we started. Nukes. Except that we can (and would have) skipped the Lance option in frying Europe with an exchange of PII and Gryphon vs. your SS-20 and _Moscow would have died 30 minutes sooner_.

It may not sound like much but when your enemy pulls the pin on the atomic handgrenade as you advance and the best you can manage is a Parthian Shot as you die, it tends to make all your tactical toys look like trash.

On a side note, the way you kill open field running armor is with small ambush units channeliizing the OMG into kill sacks for engagement with brilliant artillery like TGSM/SADARM. Fighting at ranges where /any/ armor is going to protect you (Chobham/Burlington included) is not possible for American units in the CentFront/Southern areas of Fulda and the Hopf Corridor. Only the Brits and the Dutch got anything like 2,000m shots on the NGP and along the Baltic coast. Yet they had so damn little to work with that they would have been snow plowed as well.

When you consider this, the M60A3 was as good a tank as the M1A. Because none of them are going to live long enough to do more than speedbump while the politicians waggle their social fingers at each other.

>>
4)"depleted uranium is the best".....yeah sure, until the tank must operate in a nuclear enviorement, with the neutronic radiation, the U238 turn in....................................PU239!!!!!!!!!!
>>

Blah, blah, blah. If I zap lead (a similarly dense, non reactive, metal) with enough radiation, it becomes brittle and breaks like glass. The question then being what is going on BEFOREHAND that the armor is in fact IN a radiologic environment.

OTOH, DU will burn when subject to normal kinetic energy penetration stress. And when it does, it goes like a fire cracker. Guess which worry the average joe tanker is going to worry the most about?

Sounds to me more like penile envy because DU is /very/ tricky to work with on a machining level of industrial fabrication. And the Russkians don't know how. Boo Hoo Hoo.

>>
5)the amunition place make it veeeeery vulnerable to enemy fire, explode and blow up the tank.
>>

SURE! If you're in the heart of Baghdad and somebody shoots an RPG or ATGM into the turret bustle! OTOH, having your rounds behind a blast proof door with weak roof panels on the A$$ END of the turret is /vastly/ better FOR THE JOB THE ABRAHMS WAS DESIGNED TO DO.

Which is battle enemy MBT off the front glacis.

Compare this with the T-series tanks right up to the T-80 and note that open storage of rounds within a tiny circular turret (incredible volumetric waste that that is) volume is _begging_ for lightoff in with the crew. At which point it's no longer about going back to the generation unit and being issued a new vehicle. It's about a telegram and a medal for momma.

"We are so sorry your son was part of a pissant miliitary that can't fight or design vehicles to survive worth a damn..."

>>
6) the turret maybe is one of the worst designed to avoid a hit and distribute the impact force
>>

Are you kidding me? THERE IS NO 'avoiding' a hit in a ten foot tall armored billboard! Duuuuh! OTOH, there is no /reason/ not to _square the corners_ in layering as much effective armor as you can. The Abrahms led the way in this, the Leopard and to a lesser extent the Challenger followed.

'And then we have the T-80U and T-90' and indeed EVERY Russian tank /except/ the Black Eagle/Orel. Which actually has a respectable turret block.

>>
among other things that could be interesting to discuss, also to compare with other tanks, like the Leopard A1-2-3 that werent so good designed tanks and the challenger, t80-90-72 and other tanks, btw german post cold war ballistic tests on T72s showed that the tank (at least the soviets ones) were veeery tough.....
>>

Pfffft. It's all about air sonny. _AIR_ IS THE BEST ARMOR ON THE PLANET.

Because it slows the rounds down and makes more critical the _aiming_ portion of the slugfest so that autoloaders and penetrator types/alloys are less important than the _Fire Control_ with lays them. And the barrel pressure which squirts them.

And 'ballistically', the 2A46 is a piece of crap. You never have mastered the metallurgy to make a short barrel, high pressure, gun tube. And so you always make 'bigger barrel' caliber comparisons as an _admission_ of your technical weaknesses.

While your 'electrooptics' are dependent on Western tech inserts, even to this day.

The 'glory that is capitalism' remains however the _certainty_ that weak Russian leadership /knew/ they could not stand for long as chief-incompetents in a free market economy driven by competition.

And this, added to the mistaken view of Europe as anything but a _deliberate_ money-soak ploy to keep you fixated on tit-for-tat technical brinksmanship, kept you from realizing TWO critical things:

1. Wars between nuclear powers are fought and lost in the secondary/peripheral theaters. If you sell crap to a bunch of camel jockeys, you WILL get your 'nads handed to you. Reputatively. Since this was one of the few ways in which the Soviets could gain international 'prestige' (bartered trade credits), _whether or not_ your 'uber variants' were in fact better than ours back home, it was the DISPLAYED ineptitude of your designs which bought you second best loser status in the eyes of a world at least 50% in love with the shining-knight concept of martial STRENGTH. As much as moral belief in democracy and free trade etc.

2. Back in the day, the Russians call their clients 'monkey forces' because, in their eyes, that was all they were good for. Monkey-See, Monkey-Do.
Yet in _designing_ 'simple tools for simple minds' they mistook Stalin's Maxim for a /desperate/ (childish) desire on their own part to be seen as our equals. Stalin was fighting a primitive war with primitive tools because he had to. His followons, despite reviling the man as the monster he rightfully was, continued his tradition because _they wanted to_.

And this is what sets the Russians apart in a dunce-cap of their own.

Because _tank vs. tank_ battles don't win wars. You want to /shift/ the nature of the fight to something which _invalidates_ the AFV/MBT combination as a numbered or limited force leverage.

And you never did. Just like you copied the -idea- of fighting the F-15/16 combination with the MiG-29/Su-27. Rather than invent something like (say) robotic interceptor turbine-SAMs to go up and loiter like a minefield before _chasing the F-teens down like a pack of wolves after the cougar_.

A similar system (say like WASP or LOCAAS, probably tube or MRL delivered), coupled to massive airmobility effort to break the notion of an FSCL/FLOT and an emphasis on _light_ armor able to sustain a 60-70mph rates of advance beyond our ground force's ability to cut off and contain, would have shown that the Russians had indeed mastered both the NUMERIC and _CONCEPTUAL_ ability to 'see beyond the obvious'.

Yet they never did. Never chose to 'cheat' the game of chess by carving a new piece with 'rules all it's own'. Always chose to match us at every conceptual turn. Admitting the lag of their own thought processes.

>>
So well, the debate is open.
>>

There is no debate. There is only a couple of potent quotables:

>
Operation Desert Storm was the first conflict to see the extensive use of depleted uranium [DU] munitions and armor. The new DU rounds gave coalition forces a marked operational advantage. Unit histories from the Gulf War contain many anecdotes attesting to the effectiveness of DU "silver bullets," as they were called by US tankers. One armor brigade commander described looking on in "amazement" as his soldiers -- who in training had never fired at targets beyond 2,400 meters (1.5 miles) -- routinely scored first-shot kills on targets out to 3,000 meters (1.9 miles) and beyond. DU armor gained an equally impressive reputation. A Iraqi T-72 has an effective range of about 1,800 yards, while an M1's range is nearly twice that.

A story illustrating DU's offensive and defensive renown involves an M1A1 "Heavy Armor" tank that had become mired in the mud. The unit (part of the 24th Infantry Division) had gone on, leaving this tank to wait for a recovery vehicle. Three T-72's appeared and attacked. The first fired from under 1,000 meters, scoring a hit with a shaped-charge (high explosive) round on the M1A1's frontal armor. The hit did no damage. The M1A1 fired a 120mm armor-piercing round that penetrated the T-72 turret, causing an explosion that blew the turret into the air. The second T-72 fired another shaped-charge round, hit the frontal armor, and did no damage. This T-72 turned to run, and took a 120mm round in the engine compartment and blew the engine into the air. The last T-72 fired a solid shot (sabot) round from 400 meters. This left a groove in the M1A1's frontal armor and bounced off. The T-72 then backed up behind a sand berm and was completely concealed from view. The M1A1 depressed its gun and put a sabot round through the berm, into the T-72, causing an explosion.

On 21 February 1991 the Pentagon reported that bombing had destroyed 1,400 of Iraq's estimated 4,280 tanks, 1,200 of its 3,110 artillery pieces and 800 of its 2,870 armored personnel carriers. On 23 February 1991 Brigadier General Richard Neal, a US Marines spokesman, said that 1,685 tanks had been destroyed, plus 925 armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and 1,485 artillery pieces. According to other published figures, at that time the allies had destroyed 37% of Iraq's tanks, 41% of artillery pieces and 30% of the enemy's armored personnel carriers. With an average of 100 tanks and 100 artillery pieces being wiped out during each day of the air campaign, almost 2,000 tanks may have been destroyed, leaving just over half left. With artillery, the success may have been greater: 1,800 destroyed, leaving just 1,300, or 42%. APCs, a lesser military threat, may have been reduced to about 1,500, or just over 50%. However, the Central Intelligence Agency reportedly estimated that only 10 to 15 percent of Iraq's tanks and artillery in Kuwait had been destroyed by allied bombing as of 20 February 1991, far below the Pentagon's 35 percent figure.

By one estimate published in 1993 [The Gulf War Foreign Policy No. 90], the Allied air campaign destroyed about than 1,600 Iraqi tanks, 900 armored personnel carriers, and 1,400 artillery pieces. According to this estimate, another 2,162 Iraqi tanks were destroyed in the ground war.
>

www.globalsecurity.org...

And one from a Desert Saber Iraqi commander of the Habaniyah division (which I cannot find online at the moment).

"I came into Kuwait with 60 tanks, at the end of 30 days of bombing I had 55 tanks. After 30 minutes with the U.S. Armor, I had three."

This is not all that different from what the Germans were able to achieve against the French in WWII, and the Russians, far from excusing themselves based on technical shortcomings in their 'export grade' equipment, should have acknowledged that it was _the army they trained_ (or failed to) which lost.

Because it was, in the end, (and always will be) the people who lost.

Just as, with the German Mk.I/II/III Panzers, vs. the undoubtedly superior and _more numerous_ French Somua and Char, it was 'those who dared' (to abandon their flanks in making the enemy worry about theirs) that won.

Here too, Russian tactics and training is nothing on ours because you don't look at war as a building block series of competencies 'across the board'. Rather you try to replace that genuine elan of toughness (and the logistics which back it) with an argument of technical 'point credits' that does nothing to make your understanding of warfare seem anything but a shallow facade of greatness.


KPl.

Originally posted by UK_05_XM29
I don't think a single challenger has ever been destroyed. If i'm wrong then feel welcome to correct me.

I mentioned what I did about the 'destroyed' tank pictures with the word and concept implying "hypothetical." The point being, that anyone can simply post up a picture of a destroyed tank and then proceed to use it to justify there ludicrous points.




seekerof

[edit on 6-7-2005 by Seekerof]

None were - either in GWI or GWII! Many, many tanks were stopped in GWI by mechanical defects and a few in GWII - but none to enemy fire. Friendly fire came close on one ocaission, but even then, Abram round 'bounced' off turret. (Just another case of 'mistaken' identity!)

The Abrams on the other hand, has been destroyed by RPGs at close range. Don't really inspire confidence - now does it?

ch1466, are you now, or ever have been a 'tanker'?

Originally posted by fritz
None were - either in GWI or GWII! Many, many tanks were stopped in GWI by mechanical defects and a few in GWII - but none to enemy fire. Friendly fire came close on one ocaission, but even then, Abram round 'bounced' off turret. (Just another case of 'mistaken' identity!)

Two things here, fritz.

One: I mentioned "destroyed" in the hypothetical transition. You did also read that mention?
But be assured, depending on your definition of "destroyed," a Challenger II was indeed 'destroyed'.
Try this one for size:

Two members of a British tank crew were killed and two critically injured after their Challenger 2 tank was fired on by another Challenger tank in southern Iraq. A single tank round took the turret off the tank in the misdirected attack...

Friendly fire kills two UK tank crew
Blue on Blue ground incidents during Operation Iraqi Freedom
Opps, I guess what you accuse just strictly the Americans of, the British are likewise doing? Must be "just another case of 'mistaken' identity, huh?! :shk:

Two: Your comment referencing "friendly fire" and "just another case of mistaken identity"......you are aware that friendly fire incidents were not restricted to the US unfortunate mistakes, as pointed out above? The British had "friendly fire" incidents, as well. Be objective and try researching that a bit, k, or do I need to keep continuing to provide links for ya?

The Abrams on the other hand, has been destroyed by RPGs at close range. Don't really inspire confidence - now does it?

Your point?
And what tank is impervious to such 100% of the time?
Apparently, what you ask of ch1466, should likewise be asked of you after making such a mention concerning RPG's and tanks?
Interesting you simply stick with RPG's to make your point concerning the Abrams, huh?
Allow me to counter with this?

Here’s an interesting site with pictures titled “M1A1 Abrams Lessons Learned During Iraq War 2003”. Here is the original powerpoint. One interesting outtake was the destruction of an abandoned M1 to not compromise the vehicle and/or technology. According to them it:

"Took one thermite grenade, one sabot in turret ammunition compartment, and two Maverick missiles to finally destroy the tank".


Strong tank.

Strong Tank






seekerof

[edit on 6-7-2005 by Seekerof]

To be totally frank, the M1A2 and the Challenger II are the only battle tested tanks in the world today worth mentioning, given the sad state of Iraqi armor in the last two gulf wars. You can only be speculative when talking of all other tanks in the world today. Range tests can only show so much, so so say what you will about t-80s and t-90s, but they have never been in front line battle.

The Abrams has many shortcomings. They were clearly not designed for the urban environment, nor were they to be used in slow convoys. They are fast, and they hit hard. The point is, you should never be able to run up next to an Abrams and shoot an RPG. That's the whole idea with Mechanzied Infantry, to cover up the other's weaknesses.

Gulf War II, and the current Iraq situation is a whole tactical mess. We took machines designed for eastern Europe and threw them in the desert. Of course you will have shortcomings.

It's sorta like using a 'vette to deliver newspapers. Looks good, but isn't good for the job.

Regardless, half of the battle is the crews in the tanks. In range tests, most modern tanks have similar numbers and abilities. Given current tech, the training of the crews is the difference.

Oh, and I think the whole U-238 PU-238 thing is junk science.

Originally posted by UK_05_XM29
I don't think a single challenger has ever been destroyed. If i'm wrong then feel welcome to correct me.

For every instance of a Challenger under fire, there have been many dozens of M1's under fire.

Your comment is moot. Its like saying "My car has never broken down and your breaks all the time" when your odometer reads 10 miles and mine reads 200,000.

The Challenger is a great tank, but please don’t make irrelevant statements about it never being destroyed when its hardly been shot at.

The M1 tank, considering how much actions is seen in the last 10 years, has performed incredibly well. Even today, fighting in a style it was not designed for, it still performs well.

No over hype with the M1, you guys find me one tank, just one thats been shot at as much as the M1 has and then lets compare records. You simply cannot even find a modern day tank thats seen as much combat as the M1, and certainly not one thats performed as well.

even if it really is overrated..it's serving its purpose.

What people don't seem to understand that is all western tanks these days are basically the same. Maybe a little less/more armour and a few slight changes but all western tanks design are very close to each other. There is no tank that is rasically different from another. That being said, the media has always been stupid. ANY tank can be destroyed. Less Challengers have been destroyed for the simple fact that there are many less Challengers in Iraq than Abrams tanks. Also, the places where the British are posted are much less dangerous than the places that most American troops are posted at.

Some facts;

1)the M1 fame starts with the gulf war, the media and some biased analysts said it was the best tank, with better results, sure, with 1900 M1s against only 500 T72 (even not the best model), the irakis with poor trained crews, bad-old sabots (accepted even from the most biased analists), lack of airpower (a lot of T tanks were smashed from the air), lack of electro-optics, etc,etc...
---------------------------------
You are right in saying that the Iraqis had less air support, the US controlled the skies.[/.b]
-----------------------------------
2)the earlier M1 model introduced (around 1980) had a turret armour of 400-420mm, the same year (in the case of the 72, around 1975-79) T80-72 had an armour of 450-500mm, and a 120mm gun compared with the M1s 105mm
--------------------------------
I believe yoru figures are wrong on the armour. The 105mm cannon installed is much better than the 125mm cannon in the T-72
-----------------------------------
3)the late 80s M1s had an 600-680mm armour, compared with the same year T80U with 810-800mm, the famous 900mm armour (later M1A1s and M1A2s) only was deployed in the late 90s

------------------------------------
Your figures are wrong but I should tell you that the T-80U achieves its armour thickness by using ERA. You take that away then......
-----------------------------------
4)"depleted uranium is the best".....yeah sure, until the tank must operate in a nuclear enviorement, with the neutronic radiation, the U238 turn in....................................PU239!!!!!!!!!!

-----------------------------------
Do you know how long that takes, many, many years
---------------------------------
5)the amunition place make it veeeeery vulnerable to enemy fire, explode and blow up the tank
--------------------------------
One of the thinks that makes the Abrams better than other tanks is that its ammo is storred in a armoured ammo box that has a thick steel door that closes after a round is taken out. Many a T-72 had its turret blown off because the T-72 does not have armour storage for its rounds
---------------------------------
6) the turret maybe is one of the worst designed to avoid a hit and distribute the impact force
--------------------------------
That is the dumbest statements ever. Why would be be put into production if it was the worst ever? The design was tested hundreds of times by the US and Britain and it was found to be a very good design
------------------------------
among other things that could be interesting to discuss, also to compare with other tanks, like the Leopard A1-2-3 that werent so good designed tanks and the challenger, t80-90-72 and other tanks, btw german post cold war ballistic tests on T72s showed that the tank (at least the soviets ones) were veeery tought.....
-----------------------------------
I have seen those test on old East Germany tanks and the T-72 is indeed tough. It still does not match up to any modern tank.
---------------------------------



[edit on 7/6/05 by jetsetter]

ahhh, really i dont see any good argument here...

1)the U238 turns very fast in PU239, actually in that way it works the modern nuclear bombs, ahh i see it take years to detonate the U238 fase from the neutrons bombardments , seriously the regenerators reactors actually must be more slower in the U238-Pu239 process, becouse the risk of a nuclear reaction, also the U238 turns radiactive with alpha radiation, now just imagine a neutron bomb (obviously not a direct impact) over a M1 company.....maybe it could end in a .....BOOOOM!!, nice radioactive protection...

2)the turret design cannot be compared with the Leopard2A6 design, the M1 armour has a bad inclination and more area for enemy sight also its enery-absorved levels are higher, the same mistake of the early Leo2

3)the M1 armour storage has been blowed by 20mm gun, the bad fame of russian gulf war tanks is because.......that huge air advantage and numerical superiority, if the M1s would be in the other side, im sure that we would seen many M1 turrets blowed

4) about the T80, we are talking about KINETIC armour an the value for the T80U is 810mm,the ERA (well, that ERA generation, supossely the K-5 has also ballistic protection) has nothing to do with that

5)105mm is better than a 120mm??????are you kidding????

The M1 is good designed, but isnt that fortress over wheels that some idiots would love to believe, also the T72-80 has some shortcomings, but the ammunition place is very missunderstanded, the glacis armour in modern t72 and t80s is decent (from 400-750mm) and also is a very low probability impact place, the "Blacl Eagle" has the turret ammunition because they increase the cuantify of missiles carried -they are internally carried, because you dont want those explosives in the turret-

btw, if the US-bretain forces had coordination problemsnow inagine the problems in the iraki side!!!

Oh, and I think the whole U-238 PU-238 thing is junk science

...........neanderthal..

Took one thermite grenade, one sabot in turret ammunition compartment, and two Maverick missiles to finally destroy the tank

nice tale, sounds like the army crap of 50...50!!!!!!! rpgs shooted against a M1 until is destroyed........nice tales , the nationalists -and the industry- will always defend that stupid "mighty M1" mith, in war times you will always see those tales

ahh.. also for a ignorat eye is veeeery easy to confuse a dispersed low calibre quality bullet with a rpg impact as i see in some photos -and read the "explanations"


[edit on 6-7-2005 by grunt2]

ch1466,

Your post was extremely long and I'm sure it had lots of good info in it..
but I could weed out (understand) only so much..
Could re-phrase and summarise??
What was all that about the pre M1A era and soviet tanks??
And I couldn't get much from that IRaq bit either ..
so please.. run that by me (us) agian in simpler english..

btw, im not here to disscus if stalin was a bad guy or if the communism suck, lets keep its technical

lets just say that history should judge if the M1 tank is good or not, if i remember correctly that the media, before the M1 Abrams performed in the Gulf War 91, considered it expensive and easy too break down, and wen the Gulf War started that the tanks be sitting ducks because of too much sand, that didnt happened. no tank is perfect, but i consider the Abrams tank as the top of the class at this time before new generation of tanks be making the Abrams obsolete. the T-34 Soviet tank is considered the best during WW 2 even if many were destroyed. so the Abrams served America well and i believe its the best tank in the world since the 90s to the 2010. i remember that the Abrams had the advantage, the first early M1 Abrams in an exercise back in the early 80s were they defeated a couple of Leopard tanks because the "enemy" didnt hear or see them until its too late hence the nickname whispering death. if the T-72s cant do as it was advertised, even with air support or no the Abrams kicked the Russian made tanks ass back in 91. right now the new German Army Leopard 2a6 and the M1a2 SEP it be even. but because of battle experience the Abrams is judge to be the best. while the Leopard has no experience so it cannot be considered the king of the land even with all the fancy specs and performances.

Greetings,

Some thing which I have some information on.

I apologise but, I feel some of the people on these thread, seem to lack some basic information, the M-1 and Challenger MBTs were designed to operate on a "conventional" battlefield, aka along the fields and forests of Germany, in the the face of the threatened Soviet Invasion.

Sadly, for the tank designers, these tanks never had the chance to test their designs against the soviets in the role that they had orignally been built for. With the changing requirements in the War on Terror, and the First Gulf War, they were used in roles for which they never really expected to be employed, sure, there was the idea that they "may" have to operate in those climates, but they were not designed with Desert Warfare in mind.

As for the Tanks in Iraq at the minute. Any one that has EVER studied modern combat will note that, the urban battlefield, is NOT tank friendly, with the cheap and easy to carry RPGs and wireguided missiles, its rather easy to ambush a tank in the narrow streets etc. Tanks are beasts of the plains or wide open spaces, were speed, cover of movement and group tactics can provide vast results. In narrow streets, where the tank can't employ those tactics to over come the enemy, they are usally knocked out after a sustained ambush.

The M1 is a grand design for what it was designed for, and at present its doing a fine job, for some thing it wasn't designed to cope with.

Another Note. It wasn't US Airpower, it was Coalition Airpower, I am fed up in correcting Americans about this basic fact, British, French, Germany, Spanish where also there etc.

- Phil

yo gooseuk wat do u think of the Merkava thats design to fight both conventional and unconventional warfare where it had fought in cities? i think maybe the U.S. should be thinking making a new tank which combines both to fight conventional and urban warfare.