It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by deltaboy
Originally posted by planeman
Possibly better than the Abrams....
The future Turkish MBT project:
[ats]http://i3.tinypic.com/xm3mty.jpg[/at]
Where you get the idea that the pic you put there is Turkish. Looks more Frenchie to me. Looks Leclerc in 2020.
Would it be worth re-engining the Abrams with a modern diesel or hybrid engine?
The PROSE process is expected to improve reliability by 30%. The benefits of the new engine are much more dramatic - the Army could achieve a 4-5 fold improvement in reliability, hopefully a 35% reduction in fuel consumption, a 42% reduction in the number of parts, and a 15-20% improvement in vehicle mobility. Life cycle engine O&S costs are projected to drop from 16 billion dollars over 30 years with the current engine to 3 billion dollars with the new engine.
Originally posted by Heckman
I think most people forget that the Abrams was designed in the 70s and tested in 1976... Thats 30 years ago!!! Hardly cutting edge compared to many new tanks however it has obviously has helped set standards around the world in targeting technology , gun stabilization and ammunition/crew safety.
It certainly has done very well. But against a T-54's 90mm main gun... no contest.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
The Stryker has proven in Iraq that it can take quite a bit of damage. It has withstood enormous IED’s and direct fire. By the way, regarding Stryker’s and RPG’s, check out the Trophy System.
Originally posted by planemen
It certainly has done very well. But against a T-54's 90mm main gun... no contest.