M1 Abrams: you can mounts whatever weapons you want on it's chasis

do you know, the M1 Abrams has it's chasis can be mounted with whatever weapons you want:

1. Standard Smoothbore Cannon(for best result, it should be magazine fed and has semi--automatic firing mode)
   
2. Napalm Cannon(fires burning ball of sticky napalm)
   
3. Railgun that fires Hypersonic Uranium
   
4. Laser Cannon
   
5. and Microwave Cannon like those in Crysis 2
   
6. as well whatever else you want including Gatling gun that fires rockets
   

To be fair, I'm talking about variant of M1 Abrams that has Electromagnetic Armor over neo-chobham armor, engines uses Room-temperature superconductor for it's powerplant, and automated systems that uses neural-interface from it's driver

wow. haha. ur livin in the old school.

Yeah, this guy fantasizes alot

I guess he's never seen how many T-72 chassis-base variants there are.

Come to think of M1s, I haven't seen much else from turrets, engineer and maybe bridge layers.

But as far as Tank's go, It's the best Tank In the World by far IMO....And I'm not American.

Originally posted by Zakka
But as far as Tank's go, It's the best Tank In the World by far IMO....And I'm not American.

It really is, up there with the Challenger 2. They both use Dorchester Armor, a variant of Chobham.

Originally posted by Zakka
But as far as Tank's go, It's the best Tank In the World by far IMO....And I'm not American.

It is in no way shape or form the best tank in the world...

It is the best MBT at fighting on roads or hard compacted ground at a 2-3km range against a stationary or slowly moving opponent in another tank or armored vehicle, with the M1 horizontally positioned to the target (0 degrees elevation), with the armor across frontal arc facing the enemy, during night time or low visibility conditions, all while having open supply lines close by.

Back on topic, the M1's chassis, as inefficient as it already is, would be a poor choice of hull for anything other than an MBT. It's just too heavy and the gas turbine lacks the range required for an anti-aircraft, artillery, IFV, etc. roll.

The only logical use would be something like the BMPT, which could travel with M1s to add to the abysmal anti-infantry capability of that tank.

I apologize upfront if you like the M1. I, like many others, view it as an inefficient woppertank.

Yes, but what if I just want you to drive it closer so I can hit them with my sword? What then, huh?

Originally posted by ZIVONIC

Originally posted by Zakka
But as far as Tank's go, It's the best Tank In the World by far IMO....And I'm not American.

It is in no way shape or form the best tank in the world...

It is the best MBT at fighting on roads or hard compacted ground at a 2-3km range against a stationary or slowly moving opponent in another tank or armored vehicle, with the M1 horizontally positioned to the target (0 degrees elevation), with the armor across frontal arc facing the enemy, during night time or low visibility conditions, all while having open supply lines close by.

Back on topic, the M1's chassis, as inefficient as it already is, would be a poor choice of hull for anything other than an MBT. It's just too heavy and the gas turbine lacks the range required for an anti-aircraft, artillery, IFV, etc. roll.

The only logical use would be something like the BMPT, which could travel with M1s to add to the abysmal anti-infantry capability of that tank.

I apologize upfront if you like the M1. I, like many others, view it as an inefficient woppertank.

how about it's gas turbine replaced by Diesel Engine to overcome it's inefficiency?

reply to post by masonicon


There has been talk among arms industry experts on and off about doing just that, or using the gas turbine to run an electric generator to power motors. The gas turbine is just one element to the overall problem.

The whole of the tanks inefficiency comes from the weight, caused by voids of empty space within the hull. In layman's terms, you have armor protecting air. Due to this, mobility (not speed or maneuverability, but the capability to freely move around the battlefield) decreases.

I do not care for the fantasy sci fi stuff, by the time we have any of that discussed by the OP, the M1s will be dated, it's like putting an ATGM on a Sherman. As I said before, the hull itself might make a good BMPT type vehicle, but not much else. The extra space could be used for additional equipment, such as crew positions for remote weapons stations. Give it some upgraded side skirts, dual 25mm cannons, a few 50s and some Javelin launchers, then you could have a capable vehicle for the kinds of battles we are fighting now and in the future. Besides, this will suffer the same logistical ball and chain that has cursed all woppertanks in the past, at least when the M1s run out of gas, it has something stuck next to it capable of firing more than HEAT and APFSDS at the swarms of RPG or ATGM ready infantry that an actual enemy will have.

Frankly, I've had enough of this MRAP fad, these top-heavy under armed stopgap vehicles need to stop. An anti-infantry/helicopter support vehicle would be a great asset to any military. After all, only 10% of a tanks targets are other tanks.

Originally posted by ZIVONIC
reply to post by masonicon

 

There has been talk among arms industry experts on and off about doing just that, or using the gas turbine to run an electric generator to power motors. The gas turbine is just one element to the overall problem.

The whole of the tanks inefficiency comes from the weight, caused by voids of empty space within the hull. In layman's terms, you have armor protecting air. Due to this, mobility (not speed or maneuverability, but the capability to freely move around the battlefield) decreases.

I do not care for the fantasy sci fi stuff, by the time we have any of that discussed by the OP, the M1s will be dated, it's like putting an ATGM on a Sherman. As I said before, the hull itself might make a good BMPT type vehicle, but not much else. The extra space could be used for additional equipment, such as crew positions for remote weapons stations. Give it some upgraded side skirts, dual 25mm cannons, a few 50s and some Javelin launchers, then you could have a capable vehicle for the kinds of battles we are fighting now and in the future. Besides, this will suffer the same logistical ball and chain that has cursed all woppertanks in the past, at least when the M1s run out of gas, it has something stuck next to it capable of firing more than HEAT and APFSDS at the swarms of RPG or ATGM ready infantry that an actual enemy will have.

Frankly, I've had enough of this MRAP fad, these top-heavy under armed stopgap vehicles need to stop. An anti-infantry/helicopter support vehicle would be a great asset to any military. After all, only 10% of a tanks targets are other tanks.

edit on 11/8/11 by ZIVONIC because: (no reason given)

how about using Coltan-Titanium in the metal Components sandwiched with Plasteel(laminated with Carbon nanotubes), and Ceramites as armor for M1 Abrams?

reply to post by masonicon




It's fun to wish, isn't it. Maybe when I'm dead and buried we'll have something like this, and I promise you, it will not be on an M1 hull.