Tanks

reply to post by armed2teeth


The US doesn't invest in tanks because we have too many M-1s as it is. There is a ridiculous number of Abrams in the US Army inventory, and despite saying "enough", Congress is telling them "You're getting more whether you like it or not." Although the M1A3 is supposed to be in the prototype stage next year.

How about high tech vs reliability? Depending on the battle environment you are in , sometimes some old tech might be better. If your enemy is a rival super power then by all means bring out the M1-Abrams. But after a long drawn out war when your factories making replacement parts are knocked out, then you need to go back to old school tech and dust off the M60 -A3.

The M60-A3 was upgraded from the original 1960's era M60A1. The A3 had nearly all the electronic goodies upgrades of the M1-Abrams yet, still had intact the reliable and simple systems of the M60-A1. You can still fire and roatate the cannon on the M60-A3 even if you are out of fuel and have dead batteries. It also had the optical range finder so you could aim when out of power. The M1 abrams like many of today tech is too dependant on the computer system.

I don't see tanks going away any time soon.
They still have a role to play.
Don't like Strykers much, weapons systems that we have on them pretty much suck.
Armor is on the level of frag 4 M1114. Sure we have AWTs/air cover most of the time, but wha if you run into a BMP2 or a BTR while on patrol ? That 30/14.5mm will eat you alive.
BFV is a way more capable weapons platform in my opinion. Now what would be great, is a new V hull Stryker with that 'soon to be in service' ERA armor and a modified turret with the same/similar weapon systems as on BFV. That would be a bad mofo.

Crunchy for life !

reply to post by CristobalColonic


Americans cheat, we get flying tanks. What does germany have?

reply to post by TimeOfZera


I saw the master gunner in 1/10 Cav at Carson in 85 perform a "vaccum load"rapid fire demonstration on the M60 tank WOW.

reply to post by Cancerwarrior


Well what if the U.S added a thicker but yet, lighter armor to their tanks? And possibly make their tanks with twin turbo engines that have twice the amount of speed but also have good quality leather seating go out in style? (ok all jokes aside!) but seriously what if they did add a stronger, thicker and yet lighter material that would be un-though of on a tank?? i mean seriously, think about it, thicker lighter armor allow for better defenses and also faster movement and what if they also did some major tune ups to the weaponry like upgraded the main cannon and did a few tweaks here and there on the camouflage (if any) that could say make it undetectable via radar or UAV or Blackbird SR-71?

reply to post by Zaphod58


well even then so if the Abrams can be out done by the Leopard-2 then why not re-design the abram cause eventually they gotta get repaired or replaced anyway, right? then why not add a new type of armor plating to it? but like you said they wont invest in more, so too say its probably a good idea to at least consider right?

reply to post by communist1997


The M1A3 is expected to have upgraded (the exact quote was "revolutionary") armor, as well as improved systems, and allegedly some kind of visual camouflage system.

Yea your probably right about that one. And so it goes that the U.S once again proves to be smarter and yet not half as bright as a potato however, could it be possible that the new tank may fail because of this so called "Revolutionary armor"? what if its too heavy and they need a much lighter material thats probably alot thicker but yet lighter?