Posted: 1/18/2011 8:57:35 PM EDT
|
I know there are some very smart tankers that are on ARFCOM. Anyway, I saw a show on tanks. Where in the past, they said, you always had trade-offs when designing and building Tanks. Like you could a ton of armor but not much mobility. You could have a ton of speed but not much Armor. Stuff like that This one military historian comes on and says the M1 Abrams is the first and only tank to be made with no compromises. What do ya have to say about that? |
|
I think there were compromises made in it's design (weak top armor among them, though the side and rear armor is also very thin), but those compromises were minimized by the inherent capability and technology that it brought to the table. Other later tanks are very similar in capability also, though I think the M1 was the best at the time it was first introduced. The Leo-2 has always been a very close competitor, and I think it has recently taken the lead over the M-1A2 with the Leo-2A6. Not much in the way of compromise there either. -K |
|
If it didn't have any compromises,it would have needed slat armor across the ass,TUSK upgrades etc etc.
It's a fantastic tank but none yet has been designed with no compromises or is in any way perfect.Somebody,somewhere and somehow is going to be able to blow ANYTHING up.Sometimes it'll be a "golden BB" shot with a tandem-warhead RPG,sometimes it'll be with a new ATGM. Adapt and evolve. |
|
Quoted: Put it up against a peer and you'll see its compromises. Thankfully all of its peers are on our side.  As widely exported as the Leo series tanks are, that may not always be the case... But for now, all the folks running Leos are on our side, and all the shit-turds are running French (really OLD french) or Russian gear... |
|
Quoted:
I know there are some very smart tankers that are on ARFCOM. Anyway, I saw a show on tanks. Where in the past, they said, you always had trade-offs when designing and building Tanks. Like you could a ton of armor but not much mobility. You could have a ton of speed but not much Armor. Stuff like that This one military historian comes on and says the M1 Abrams is the first and only tank to be made with no compromises. What do ya have to say about that? Absolutely very wrong. As has been said, the turbine is rather long in the tooth with better more fuel efficient engines available. The turret side and top armor is lacking to say the least. However, with the AIM/D upgrades and TUSK additions, I'd say the only thing lacking is a top armor upgrade and an active defense system and new power pack. |
|
Quoted: I think there were compromises made in it's design (weak top armor among them, though the side and rear armor is also very thin), but those compromises were minimized by the inherent capability and technology that it brought to the table. Other later tanks are very similar in capability also, though I think the M1 was the best at the time it was first introduced. The Leo-2 has always been a very close competitor, and I think it has recently taken the lead over the M-1A2 with the Leo-2A6. Not much in the way of compromise there either. -K Yep... Top attack munitions weren't a huge threat when it was designed, and a direct 155mm hit was (is) considered to be a 'golden BB' sort of situation, that you can't really defend against... The enemy was going to be coming 'at us' in conventional 3rd-gen style, not 'all around'... So they sacrificed side and rear protection in order to beef up the front, for the fight against the Soviets.... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think there were compromises made in it's design (weak top armor among them, though the side and rear armor is also very thin), but those compromises were minimized by the inherent capability and technology that it brought to the table. Other later tanks are very similar in capability also, though I think the M1 was the best at the time it was first introduced. The Leo-2 has always been a very close competitor, and I think it has recently taken the lead over the M-1A2 with the Leo-2A6. Not much in the way of compromise there either. -K Yep... Top attack munitions weren't a huge threat when it was designed, and a direct 155mm hit was (is) considered to be a 'golden BB' sort of situation, that you can't really defend against... The enemy was going to be coming 'at us' in conventional 3rd-gen style, not 'all around'... So they sacrificed side and rear protection in order to beef up the front, for the fight against the Soviets.... The Canadian Leopard IIA6 CAN in my humble opinion is the best tank the in world today, surpassing the Abrams. Throw some DU ammo in her racks and you've got a hell of a tank. Excellent protection, excellent gun and optics, the powerpack is great, it's really hard to beat. |
|
Which military historian was that, and has he ever served on an M1 tank?
The M1 series is loaded with compromises, just like any piece of Army equipment. You can't have everything, especially at modern defense establishment prices, but even with compromises, the Abrams is still a damned good machine. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think there were compromises made in it's design (weak top armor among them, though the side and rear armor is also very thin), but those compromises were minimized by the inherent capability and technology that it brought to the table. Other later tanks are very similar in capability also, though I think the M1 was the best at the time it was first introduced. The Leo-2 has always been a very close competitor, and I think it has recently taken the lead over the M-1A2 with the Leo-2A6. Not much in the way of compromise there either. -K Yep... Top attack munitions weren't a huge threat when it was designed, and a direct 155mm hit was (is) considered to be a 'golden BB' sort of situation, that you can't really defend against... The enemy was going to be coming 'at us' in conventional 3rd-gen style, not 'all around'... So they sacrificed side and rear protection in order to beef up the front, for the fight against the Soviets.... The Canadian Leopard IIA6 CAN in my humble opinion is the best tank the in world today, surpassing the Abrams. Throw some DU ammo in her racks and you've got a hell of a tank. Excellent protection, excellent gun and optics, the powerpack is great, it's really hard to beat. I've heard the diesel engine has similar HP but is a little more lenient on the fuel. I also read the top armor is a lot thicker, uses the same gun and stabilizing system as the Abrams. The M1 is still a great tank though, it too bad they have to use the governor, I think the thing can run up to 70 MPH, but it rips the tracks apart too quickly 
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: I think there were compromises made in it's design (weak top armor among them, though the side and rear armor is also very thin), but those compromises were minimized by the inherent capability and technology that it brought to the table. Other later tanks are very similar in capability also, though I think the M1 was the best at the time it was first introduced. The Leo-2 has always been a very close competitor, and I think it has recently taken the lead over the M-1A2 with the Leo-2A6. Not much in the way of compromise there either. -K Yep... Top attack munitions weren't a huge threat when it was designed, and a direct 155mm hit was (is) considered to be a 'golden BB' sort of situation, that you can't really defend against... The enemy was going to be coming 'at us' in conventional 3rd-gen style, not 'all around'... So they sacrificed side and rear protection in order to beef up the front, for the fight against the Soviets.... Exactly. It was designed very well for the threats it was expected to face, and has faced them very well (in GW1 at least). That they are still so effective now is only testament to its outstanding design. Threats have since changed, and hopefully they will allow it's design to evolve to meet the changes. -K |
|
Quoted: I've heard the diesel engine has similar HP but is a little more lenient on the fuel. I also read the top armor is a lot thicker, uses the same gun and stabilizing system as the Abrams. The M1 is still a great tank though, it too bad they have to use the governor, I think the thing can run up to 70 MPH, but it rips the tracks apart too quickly There are real advantages and disadvantages to both the diesel and turbine designs. The turbine currently used on the M-1 is a 30+ year old design though. They have a drop in replacement for it that is much more efficient, but when they canceled the Crusader they also canceled the engine replacement because the unit cost went up without the additional engines for the Crusader. Big mistake IMHO. -K |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
<cough> fuel consumption <cough> ^ That's it. As a former Marine tanker, I can tell you that the logtrain is the Achille's heel of a tank unit. Of course, we know how to protect the logtrain. As far as the weapon's design, it's pretty solid. The gas turbine propulsion system has proven quite reliable in practice and combat, but its high fuel consumption is a serious logistic issue (starting up the turbine alone consumes nearly 10 US gallons (38 L) of fuel).[35] The engine burns more than 1 US gallon (3.8 L) per mile and 12 US gallons (45 L) per hour when idle
from THIS ARTICLE. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think there were compromises made in it's design (weak top armor among them, though the side and rear armor is also very thin), but those compromises were minimized by the inherent capability and technology that it brought to the table. Other later tanks are very similar in capability also, though I think the M1 was the best at the time it was first introduced. The Leo-2 has always been a very close competitor, and I think it has recently taken the lead over the M-1A2 with the Leo-2A6. Not much in the way of compromise there either. -K Yep... Top attack munitions weren't a huge threat when it was designed, and a direct 155mm hit was (is) considered to be a 'golden BB' sort of situation, that you can't really defend against... The enemy was going to be coming 'at us' in conventional 3rd-gen style, not 'all around'... So they sacrificed side and rear protection in order to beef up the front, for the fight against the Soviets.... Just how weak is it in the rear compared to other modern tanks such as the Challenger 2 and modernized Leopard 2s? I've read the rear armor is really thin, but how does it really compared to other modern tanks? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think there were compromises made in it's design (weak top armor among them, though the side and rear armor is also very thin), but those compromises were minimized by the inherent capability and technology that it brought to the table. Other later tanks are very similar in capability also, though I think the M1 was the best at the time it was first introduced. The Leo-2 has always been a very close competitor, and I think it has recently taken the lead over the M-1A2 with the Leo-2A6. Not much in the way of compromise there either. -K Yep... Top attack munitions weren't a huge threat when it was designed, and a direct 155mm hit was (is) considered to be a 'golden BB' sort of situation, that you can't really defend against... The enemy was going to be coming 'at us' in conventional 3rd-gen style, not 'all around'... So they sacrificed side and rear protection in order to beef up the front, for the fight against the Soviets.... The Canadian Leopard IIA6 CAN in my humble opinion is the best tank the in world today, surpassing the Abrams. Throw some DU ammo in her racks and you've got a hell of a tank. Excellent protection, excellent gun and optics, the powerpack is great, it's really hard to beat. I've heard the diesel engine has similar HP but is a little more lenient on the fuel. I also read the top armor is a lot thicker, uses the same gun and stabilizing system as the Abrams. The M1 is still a great tank though, it too bad they have to use the governor, I think the thing can run up to 70 MPH, but it rips the tracks apart too quickly Ive had one up to 60. it was way scary.. it feels like its floating at that speed.. and when I was in it was 9 gals to the mile.. 
|
|
Quoted:
It has it's compromises, but the leap from the M60A3 to the M1A2 is a light year. Practically the same as the jump from props to jets for the zoomies. eh.. the 60 was a lot easer to trouble shoot and work on, compared to the abrams.. But all the whiz-bang stuff in the abrams made up for the PITA. I still have nightmares of the octopus cable and test set.. shudder.. |
|
Check out the milege the M1's get. Big time drawback / compromise.
yeah and the cost. Now maybe a small nuke reactor and electric drives and you might have something. Good tank, yes. But any design for any thing has compromises, just look at women for example... |
|
Quoted:
I'm sure RebelGrey would have been glad to tell you exactly what's wrong with the Abrams series of tanks, but he's a little tied-up at the moment. Is he out yet? I remember that crazy fucker from the Lee Enfield Forums before he popped up on Arfcom. C-R-A-Z-Y. He had an epic post about dressing up in a Waffen SS uniform and walking around town with a loaded SKS and getting hassled by the cops. |
|
Considering that the MBT-70 had a 20mm remote controlled cannon for use against aircraft and the Abrams only has a .50 cal that has some remote possibilities but it seems that it is better used against ground targets in that mode...............................I'd call that a compromise.
__________________________________________________________ (When asking about their backup booster, "Sorry guys, we had to drop that to give you the wall to wall carpeting."––Mission Control, (w,stte), "MORONED" (maybe), MAD satire) |
|
Leopard 2 and T-80 both pre-date Abrams, They were set to their own criteria, but all three are fast, hard-hitting and well armoured.
You will never find a tank design that isn't a compromise on something. Even if it's not the 'magic triangle', for example, the fact that Abrams is so big and well armoured is a compromise on the fact that most bridges around the world can't hold its weight. NTM |
|
Quoted:
Leopard 2 and T-80 both pre-date Abrams, They were set to their own criteria, but all three are fast, hard-hitting and well armoured. You will never find a tank design that isn't a compromise on something. Even if it's not the 'magic triangle', for example, the fact that Abrams is so big and well armoured is a compromise on the fact that most bridges around the world can't hold its weight. NTM Pfffffttt!!!! That was a compromise on the part of bridge builders. |
|
Quoted: Considering that the MBT-70 had a 20mm remote controlled cannon for use against aircraft and the Abrams only has a .50 cal that has some remote possibilities but it seems that it is better used against ground targets in that mode...............................I'd call that a compromise. __________________________________________________________ (When asking about their backup booster, "Sorry guys, we had to drop that to give you the wall to wall carpeting."––Mission Control, (w,stte), "MORONED" (maybe), MAD satire) When they added the CITV to the M1A2, they took out the 50cal remote controls. One of the 'TUSK' upgrades was to put a remote-op 50cal (similar to CROWS) in place of the manual one, but not all tanks have that... The M1A1, OTOH, does have the 50cal controls. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I'm sure RebelGrey would have been glad to tell you exactly what's wrong with the Abrams series of tanks, but he's a little tied-up at the moment. Is he out yet? I remember that crazy fucker from the Lee Enfield Forums before he popped up on Arfcom. C-R-A-Z-Y. He had an epic post about dressing up in a Waffen SS uniform and walking around town with a loaded SKS and getting hassled by the cops. He's never getting out. |
|
Quoted: I think the thing can run up to 70 MPH, but it rips the tracks apart too quickly To get the M1 to 70MPH, you're going to need a STEEP hill. They got a turretless hull going that fast in testing, on level ground IIRC... Fastest I've taken one, is 45mph, DOWN HILL. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Leopard 2 and T-80 both pre-date Abrams, They were set to their own criteria, but all three are fast, hard-hitting and well armoured. You will never find a tank design that isn't a compromise on something. Even if it's not the 'magic triangle', for example, the fact that Abrams is so big and well armoured is a compromise on the fact that most bridges around the world can't hold its weight. NTM Pfffffttt!!!! That was a compromise on the part of bridge builders. I can say this from hauling those things around. Bridges are a pain in the ass in the sand box. I only remember ever being able to cross a couple of bridges with an abrams on the trailer. So we got the joy of going down the side of the wadi and up the other side of it. Which at least one moron would manage to get stuck on the way out. Always had to send the hemmit wrecker or an unloaded pls forward to pull them along. I will say this though most tankers and other armor drivers are cool and knowledgeable about there gear, so it was easy to work with them to get stuff loaded and unloaded. Putting crap on with wheels was a pain. Pivot steer was a god send on tracked vehicles. |
|
The biggest bitch I heard from those that transitioned from the 60's to the M1, was the lack of the floor escape hatch so that the tankers could take a piss on the move.
As a maintenance Warrant, the damn things are a nest of microswitches & high dollar circutboards, but not near as bad to maintain as the ITV. |
|
Quoted: The biggest bitch I heard from those that transitioned from the 60's to the M1, was the lack of the floor escape hatch so that the tankers could take a piss on the move. As a maintenance Warrant, the damn things are a nest of microswitches & high dollar circutboards, but not near as bad to maintain as the ITV. But in AMC's " The Walking Dead" the M1 had one!  |
|
Crew Comfort...definitely. The Merk definitely has them beat on that accord. Most of what is considered a compromise today was a non issue when it was designed, as some have pointed out. It is, after all, a Main Battle Tank NOT an Infantry support vehicle. It was not designed for Urban Operations, like the Merkava was, thus it is easy to sharp shoot forthcommings of the design when it is performing a job it was not designed to do. As Mitch Hedberg eloquently said You can train all your life to be a really good cook and someone will still say, "OK, your a great cook, can you farm?"" |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think the thing can run up to 70 MPH, but it rips the tracks apart too quickly To get the M1 to 70MPH, you're going to need a STEEP hill. They got a turretless hull going that fast in testing, on level ground IIRC... Fastest I've taken one, is 45mph, DOWN HILL. Sad part about that is that the army had a captured "Tiger" tank going nearly that fast at Aberdeen prooving grounds during WW 2 while trying to reverse engineer the thing. The electric drive had a very high top end with the governors disabled. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think the thing can run up to 70 MPH, but it rips the tracks apart too quickly To get the M1 to 70MPH, you're going to need a STEEP hill. They got a turretless hull going that fast in testing, on level ground IIRC... Fastest I've taken one, is 45mph, DOWN HILL. M1's were capable of higher speeds. M1A1 upgrades incliuded the M256 gun, different final drive ratio, different speed govenor. |
|
Quoted:
The biggest bitch I heard from those that transitioned from the 60's to the M1, was the lack of the floor escape hatch so that the tankers could take a piss on the move.
I was a CDAT
The belly hatch was the biggest gripe we had. Those in charge wanted the Smoke Grenade Launchers to fire frags, but it was always denied. Steel on Steel! |
|
Actually the M1 is a compromise, all armored vehicles are. There are 3 elements which must be balanced and traded, they are:
1. Firepower- It is more than just the sheer power of the round, it is also the quantity and capabilities of the ammo. Some original M1 tankers think that it had the advantage over the M1A1 because of the variety of the rounds available and the number of rounds on board. The fire control system also has an impact on the accuracy of the Armament. 2. Mobility- It is more than just can the tank cross a ditch or climb a hill. With the M1 weight is a serious consideration, finding a bridge to cross a river with a 60+ ton tank is not necessarily easy to do. The weight is also an issue in how many tanks can be moved into theatre during a time period. All the weight also has a negative impact on the fuel consumption and range. 3. Protection- As for protection, the M1 probably offers the highest level of protection ever offered in any armored vehicle, but with that came a lot of weight, the mobility constraints and heavy fuel consumption. I think the M1A1/2, Challenger II, Leopard II and the Merkhava IV all offer advantages and each has their strengths, but there is still a place in the modern world for light armor. The M551 Sheridan is no match going toe to toe with the M1, but when the only access to the area you are operating in is C130, it is a lot better than HMMWVs and Strikers armed with TOWs, Mk 19s and M2s. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm sure RebelGrey would have been glad to tell you exactly what's wrong with the Abrams series of tanks, but he's a little tied-up at the moment. Is he out yet? I remember that crazy fucker from the Lee Enfield Forums before he popped up on Arfcom. C-R-A-Z-Y. He had an epic post about dressing up in a Waffen SS uniform and walking around town with a loaded SKS and getting hassled by the cops. He's never getting out. Never say never. Next of kin might claim the body.  |