The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 2: Mobility (Part 2/4)

[BandNerdcp]

@BlacktailDefense

First of all, I don't think we can effectively compare the armor of modern tanks. Their effective armor value is for the most part classified, and even if it isnt you usually only get the frontal. The space is not "wasted". That space is used for much more advanced optics (which give you the "surprise" you want-- Night attacks? The Abram's cannon is superior, although I will give you that the T90's ATGM is an advantage.

[BandNerdcp]

Im pretty sure a Leopard and Challenger, or any other MBT for that matter can go off road very easily easier. Tanks ALWAYS will get stuck, it has happened since the first tank and will always happen. Also, bridges cant support a Leopard or Challenger either! It seems like your argument is more against the use of TANKS in general than specifically the M1. Next, there isnt exactly much rain or snow in the Mid-East now is there?

[BlacktailDefense]

@BandNerdcp "Tanks ALWAYS will get stuck, it has happened since the first tank and will always happen."

You miss the point. The M1A2 is the heaviest tank of all --- more weight = higher propensity to bog-down + greater difficulty to recover.

[Pcordero87]

@BlacktailDefense @Pcordero87 here is an example how little mud can fuck the M1 watch?v=TCXwgPZXScM&feature=re­lated technically this could happen to any tank, but being a fatass increases the risk as you pointed out. and this little mud is nothing compared to the mud of south east asia jungles

[BlacktailDefense]

@BandNerdcp "Also, bridges cant support a Leopard or Challenger either!"

That could support an EE-T1 Osorio, or a T-90 --- but those aren't useful as Straw Men, are they? That's because they have a comparable level of protection to the M1, without wasted space or mass.

[BlacktailDefense]

@BandNerdcp "Next, there isnt exactly much rain or snow in the Mid-East now is there? "

Cherry-Picking, much? The Middle East isn't the only potential hot spot in the world.

[Pcordero87]

@BlacktailDefense Agreed, the problem of being the world cop is that you cant choose were to fight, you must be ready to intervene in any hotspot in short notice. you have been fighting in the middle east hot spots lately but no one cant asure that tomorrow you might be fighting in the jungle and bogs of taiwan or in the snowy mountains of north korea.

[TheCatholic143]

It depends on the model if you're talking about how much an Abrams weight. THe M1a2 Sep is the heaviest in the U.S miliatry arsenal.

[BlacktailDefense]

@TheCatholic143 That's true, but the 62-ton M1s are no longer restorable to an operable condition, and the 65-ton IPM1s have all been turned into M1A2 SEPs. That only leaves M1A1s and M1A2s, which in US service all weigh about 70 short tons, and the M1A2 SEP, which weighs about 72 short tons.

The only other operational tanks that rival this much weight are the 69-ton Challenger II, the 70-ton Leopard 2A7, and the 71-ton Merkava Mk.III and Mk.IV.

[franknbeans4761]

fas(dot)org/man/dod-101/sys/la­­nd/m9-ace(dot)htm

That is a website that just gives information about the ACE. It says it performed well, so...?

As for the reviews of it, I am sure it did get bad reviews. It is only made for a few basic jobs (or it can only do them). Basically, it moves dirt. Armored units did not run into any problems while moving and, especially in 1991, broke through any sand berms or "Cheap Tricks" with ease. The US has not had any engineer problems in combat so I have....

[BlacktailDefense]

@franknbeans4761 "That is a website that just gives information about the ACE. It says it performed well, so...?"

It also points out that M9s are slower than the vehicles it "supports", the Operator can't tell if it's about to tip over, the D7 is a better Earthmover, it has no weapons and no way to use them if it did, it needs two Bradleys to protect it in combat, and no less than FOUR consecutive "Systems Improvement Phases" (Pentagon double-speak for "buy now, fix later").

[realIBeliX]

@BlacktailDefense Which tank is more effective, Abrams or T-90A? And why?

[BlacktailDefense]

@realIBeliX I'd have to say the T-90. It has substantially better Mobility, Endurance, Surprise, and Combat Engineering capabilities, and quite an edge in Firepower as well. That just leaves the M1's overall advantages in Production & Development Factors and Ergonomics, which aren't enough for the benefits to outweigh the penalties.

Even so, that doesn't guarantee the T-90 will win every time.

[realIBeliX]

@BlacktailDefense What about armour? Because I hear some tank internet experts yell that Abrams is better, because it uses Deplected Uranium, then again, I think T-90 are better, because they armour is made from wolfram (strongest metal in world) and is equiped with latest reactive armours.

[BlacktailDefense]

@realIBeliX Depleted Uranium is much denser than Tungsten (also called Wolfram), but it's also much softer, and has a lower melting point than RHA Steel --- by contrast, Tungsten Carbide has twice the melting point of RHA Steel, twice the density, and a 30% higher tensile strength.

By contrast, DU has 40% of the radioactivity of fresh Uranium, which is equal in intensity to Nuclear Fallout, and it's Pyrophoric (i.e., FLAMMABLE). Tungsten is neither, and it's less toxic as well.

[realIBeliX]

@BlacktailDefense Ok, nice, thanks for info.

So, how about that Apache Longbow videos, heh?

[BlacktailDefense]

@realIBeliX I've got my hands full with ground vehicles for now, so I don't think I'm up to a thorough presentation on the Apache. But for now, this might interest you;

pogo(dot)org/pogo-files/report­s/national-security/high-tech-­weapons/ns-puav-19920701(dot)h­tml#Apache

[realIBeliX]

@BlacktailDefense Great, except, still, I am surprised that India bought Apaches instead Havocs.

[franknbeans4761]

@realIBeliX How so? The Apache is a proven system with most of it's "child diseases" worked out. At the Indian tender, the Apache beat the Mi-28N on 20 counts.

From what many have said, the Mi-28N has poor night time capabilities and that it still has a long way to go for it's sensors to mature. That and it's massive bulk severely limits it's performance.

[franknbeans4761]

@BlacktailDefense "Even so, that doesn't guarantee the T-90 will win every time."

I wish you were more reasonable all the time, but then I guess some fanatics would try to take a yard when you gave them an inch.

[BlacktailDefense]

@franknbeans4761 Also, FAS' statement that;

"Fortunately, they met with very light resistance. Otherwise, mortality among ACE operators would have been very high."

[dudejo]

so much for that story where M1s took on a tank platoon without a single loss...

but even then, tank by themselves tend to be vulnerable against aerial attacks. even more so now than before.

[BlacktailDefense]

@dudejo Speaking of which, in Desert Storm, there was an Iraqi T-62 platoon that evaded detection by leaving their engines turned-off until passing M1s were so close, you could shoot them with a pistol. The M1 crews didn't realize they'd been jumped until they lost 2 tanks.

[franknbeans4761]

@BlacktailDefense Where is the reference for this?

[r8wing]

"FOV" stands for "fairly overweight vehicle"?

[BlacktailDefense]

@r8wing It means "Faimily Of Vehicles", but your description is more accurate where the M1 is involved. XD

[Cokecanninja]

Get your shovels ready for part 3, a bunch more crap is heading your way.

[BlacktailDefense]

@Cokecanninja

XD

[BitnikGr]

Merkava IV also considered as one of the best tanks in the World... "while it stays in Middle East rocky terrain" I allways add. Water obstacles in European theater of military operations can be met average after each 20km. Without bridges strategical and tactical mobility of super-weight tanks are significantly reduced. Not only Abrams require more field engineering support, but also... air cover. Yes yes... bridges which can hold 70+tons are very rare and sure will be mined. While places for..

[BitnikGr]

@BitnikGr ... river forcing are always good spots to place an ambush. Very heavy tanks won't be able to force river without help of engineers and air-cover. And I've told you only about Europe. Now imagine sub-tropical jungles...

It is clear that Abrams lack some protection systems... as ERA, ATGM launch ability and hard-kill systems like "Trophy". While all these systems and features have been tested already and USA has technology and know-how they don't fit them on Abrams. Why??? For 3...

[BitnikGr]

@BitnikGr ... reasons.

1) Systems like that... especially ERA, would increase weight even more!

2) ATGM sights, ammo and hard-kill system would increase cost of already overpriced units. If Russia "Arena" system costs $400.000. "Trophy" for Abrams would have triple price.

3) As today Abrams are engaged against enemy with no hi-tech weaponry they see that what they have now is enough. Why to build even more heavier and even more expensive tanks anyway?

[BlacktailDefense]

@BitnikGr High costs are primarily the result of ineffective project management and/or price-gouging, and weight is NOT protection.

Just compare the 72-ton M1A2 Abrams to the EE-T1 Osorio. It has nearly as much Protection and Firepower, and vastly-greater Mobility, but only costs 1/4 as much ($2.8 Million), and weighs 50% less (45 tons).

The Osorio's size and weight were also designed with the infrastructure of the 3rd World in mind, which is where wars actually happen; NOT in Central Europe.

[beltar2]

@BlacktailDefense

But never reached serial production. Brazilian army has chose "Leopard 2".

[WheelsRCool]

The M1 is bar-none, the best tank in the world. The most high-tech and even more important, very battle-tested.

[BlacktailDefense]

@WheelsRCool

Based upon what metric?

Is it that the M1 is the heaviest? The most fuel-inefficient? The most unreliable?

[WheelsRCool]

@BlacktailDefense It isn't unreliable at all. That was one of the concerns in the Gulf War, tha it would jam up in the sand, that the Iraq oil fires would damage its engine, etc...all nonsense. As for fuel efficiency, you want a fuel-efficient tank, you're going to have a highly underpowered tank, unless you make it very light, of course, then it cannot have a very powerful gun either and won't have much protection. There are trade-offs.

[BlacktailDefense]

@WheelsRCool

" It isn't unreliable at all. That was one of the concerns in the Gulf War, tha it would jam up in the sand, that the Iraq oil fires would damage its engine, etc...all nonsense."

According to William McCanna, a Tanker of A Co, 2-70 Armor, 2nd Bde, 1st AD on the first day of ODS, 5 of his company's 14 tanks broke down, 4 due to engine failure; after rainfall, with no blowing sand..

Source;

knox(dot)army(dot)mil/center/o­coa/armormag/backissues/1990s/­1994/Jf94/1Letters94(dot)pdf

[WheelsRCool]

@BlacktailDefense That link won't work, however, U.S. commanders maintained on average a 90% operational readiness for their Abrams tanks in the Gulf War.

[BlacktailDefense]

@WheelsRCool

"That link won't work, however, U.S. commanders maintained on average a 90% operational readiness for their Abrams tanks in the Gulf War."

I'll quote William McCanna directly;

"Mr. Hower also states that the M1/M1A1a readiness rate of 90 percent in Desert SHIELD/STORM. This is not surprising considering that the tanks were parked in the desert with their engines off for over 90 percent of the time.

The only thing a readiness rate of 90 percent does is look good on your OER."

[WheelsRCool]

@BlacktailDefense The Abrams uses a gas-turbine for high power-to-weight ratio, however, gas-turbine also is a fuel hog, that is why they do not use gas-turbines in tractor trailers.

It uses heavy armor which makes it weigh 70 tons, however this also allows it the ability to take direct shots in the front from the Soviet tanks it faced in the Gulf War and also a direct hit in the side and still protect the crew.

[BlacktailDefense]

@WheelsRCool

"The Abrams uses a gas-turbine for high power-to-weight ratio, however, gas-turbine also is a fuel hog, that is why they do not use gas-turbines in tractor trailers."

There are also no tanks in production, development, or projected that use Gas Turbines, and the only other full-turbine-powered AFV (the T-80) was deemed a failure. After the T-80's combat debut in Chechnya, the Russian Army established a policy to NEVER procure any more turbine-powered vehicles again.

[WheelsRCool]

@BlacktailDefense Different doctrines.

[kamphwagon1]

@BlacktailDefense Turbine power is most likley the reason the Russians havent put obyect 640 the ''Black Eagle '' into production,that & money as the prototype had a turbine from the T80,a new diesel is needed here,verry advanced and inovative tank.

[BlacktailDefense]

@kamphwagon1 The Black Eagle's manufacturer would have done well to observe that Ukranian T-84s and T-80UDs are all Diesel-powered, and still find customers abroad... not to mention that Russian Army policy forbade the procurement of Gas Turbines since that little thing that happened in Grozny.

It's too bad --- the Black Eagle was an amazing design.

[ihateforigners]

@BlacktailDefense

What was amazing about the Black Eagle design?

[BlacktailDefense]

@ihateforigners It had a low silhouette (as well as a low height), a broad and shallow armor array over the front of the turret, a turret bustle, a 1400hp engine, all dropped into a stretched T-80 hull.

These features made the Black Eagle the closest thing to a Western 3rd-gen MBT that Russia ever built --- and it's easily the scariest-looking MBT ever built, as well.

[2205Razors]

@BlacktailDefense Scariest-looking, yet IMO also one of the most handsome =P. Also, I think it was intended to mount a bigger gun? Either 135mm or 152mm. The demonstrator sported a 125mm gun tho.

Too bad that Omsk bureau that designed it is in a state of bankruptcy management, or so I heard... =(

[ihateforigners]

@BlacktailDefense Whats a "broad and shallow armor array over the front of the turret". How do you define that?

[beltar2]

@BlacktailDefense

Bullshit.

1) Did you ever think how Chechens could get tonnes of anti-tank weaponary like ATGM and even several tanks for themself?

2) Is the in the light of pt. 1 is nothing strange that many of Russian tanks used in invasion were older models from military stores with unprepared crews. So any tanks performed bad not only T-80.

[beltar2]

@BlacktailDefense

3) When Chechens has to deal with something like T-72B with ERA they could do nothing. And in 1999-2000 Russian Army had no problems with the clearing of region from bandits. May be because this time the government REALLY WANTED to establish the control?

4) T-80's production factories were in Harkov and Omsk. The first in Ukraine now the second is bankrupt. So there's no real alternative to T-72 and it's descendants.

[TheTokkin]

The reason why Omsk tank factory is bankrupt is Russian governments decisions, so if the Russians would really have wanted to continue with the t80, they could have.

[beltar2]

@TheTokkin

In the shit of 1990s it's hard to tell if government was interested in tank factory. Uralvagonzavod survived because of India ~500 T-90 it produced for Russian Army is not enough. With all these tanks Russia has got from USSR and great reduction of the Army 2 factories is too much.

[MarshallJukov]

@TheTokkin

Turbine T-80 is twice more expensive than diesel T-90 or diesel T-84.

And it gives no any significant advantages over diesel tanks, but delivering all the flaws turbine has.

There is no any reason to produce T-80

[TheTokkin]

@MarshallJukov I fully agree.

[beltar2]

@BlacktailDefense

5) Ukraine continues to develop T-80 based tanks including diesel models. So everybody simply uses what it got from USSR.

6) Russia has so many tanks and would produce new tanks for itself because it's necessary to keep production line. Why spend time and money for T-80 with it's turbine engine which is not only consume too much fuel but became non-standart?

[beltar2]

@BlacktailDefense

7) I don't know how often American officials say bullshit but Russian officials do it often so fairy-tales like "T-80 sucked in Chechnya because of gas-turbine engine" must be checked at least twice.

[BlacktailDefense]

@WheelsRCool

"It uses heavy armor which makes it weigh 70 tons, however this also allows it the ability to take direct shots in the front from the Soviet tanks it faced in the Gulf War and also a direct hit in the side and still protect the crew."

The only "Soviet" tanks in Desert Storm were obsolete T-55s, and the FAILED T-62 (See the video, "Failed Tanks! Chapter 2: The T-62"). Those T-72Ms were Monkey-Models --- crude look-alikes that were NOT like the T-72Bs used by the Warsaw Pact.

[WheelsRCool]

@BlacktailDefense I would bet there are a lot of old Soviet generals thanking the starts they never had to face off against the Abrams.

[999cheetos999]

@WheelsRCool A T-80 during that time was a correction of the mistakes that they made with T-72...The abrams fought the T-72/ T-62 before and still the Abrams had some losses against older technology and with less trained tank crews...The only thing that matters in a tank battle is who can fire first

[BlacktailDefense]

@999cheetos999 The Russians claim to have tested a batch of M829A1 APFSDS rounds against a T-80 turret in the early 1990s, and that they didn't penetrate --- assuming this is true (the CIA and FBI would be VERY interested to find out how they got those shells if it is), there wasn't any point in up-gunning the M1 to a 120mm weapon in the first place.

Also, good point about the first shot; that's all that counts if it's M1 vs Type 99, Leopard 2 vs T-90, Arjun vs Khalid, etc.

[kamphwagon1]

@BlacktailDefense Well thats a no brainer,the FBI& the CIA have no control over the Germans, the Russians on the other hand have some control over the Germans, natural gas and petrolem products,and the Germans own the rights to the Rinemetal 120 and it's ammo,we only have a licence to maufacture and use

[BlacktailDefense]

@kamphwagon1 Not only that, but with all the 120mm shells that were stockpiled in USA, Israel, and Europe, a dozen-or-so M829A1s were bound to "disappear" sooner or later

[kamphwagon1]

@BlacktailDefense Yeah it would be sort of hard to put your finger on the exact culprit,as I think even these new NATO countries have the gun,and ammo Rinemetal ought to be knocking down some heavy coin here.

[2205Razors]

@BlacktailDefense Oh, lord. 2:32. This reminds me that most Russian tanks can be equipped with dozer blades so that they can self-entrench to compensate for their lack of gun depression - so as to be able to go 'hull-down'. Looking at this, it is now clear why M1s don't need dozer blades - they can self-entrench self with the help of sheer weight! =p

[BlacktailDefense]

@2205Razors

Soviet and Russian tanks tend to have a narrow range of gun elevation and depression because Russia's terrain is predominantly flat. This region is also lacking in suitable defilade for most MBTs, so that in turn necessitated an integral power tool for entrenchment in Soviet/Russian tanks.

Of course, the Soviets kept things to themselves when they sold T-55s, T-62s, and T-72s to Egypt and Syria... XD

M1s did in fact use Dozer Blades during trials in the '70s --- but never again.

[2205Razors]

@BlacktailDefense "M1s did in fact use Dozer Blades during trials in the '70s --- but never again." May I know why?

Also, I'd like to ask your opinion if there really is a value for a tank to have 'power tool' (e.g. dozer blades) if the terrain they're operating in already provides enough defilade?

Thank you beforehand. =)

[BlacktailDefense]

@2205Razors The reason that the M1's powertrain was found to be too fragile; the M1 is unique, in being the only tank that can't push a Blade without BREAKING ITSELF.

You obviously don't need to dig-in if the terrain gives you plenty of cover, but this isn't always available. Case in point: the Arabian Desert.

Furthermore, Dozer Blades provide many unique and valuable (in some cases, crucial) capabilities that Mine Plows lack.

(more on this below)

[BlacktailDefense]

@2205Razors Dozer Blades are more important than the US Army presently lets-on, because you can't cut roads, build berms, or clear small debris with a Mine Plow.

Not having Dozer Blade compatibility entails that tanks need extra Engineering assets attached to them, just to perform functions that other tanks do without help.

Read about how M48s did "Jungle-Busting" in Vietnam, and how Canadian Leopard C2s are presently used to build roads in A-stan... then ask yourself if an M1 could do that.

[franknbeans4761]

@BlacktailDefense USMC M1's can/have mounted the British Pearson front plow.

[BlacktailDefense]

@franknbeans4761 "USMC M1's can/have mounted the British Pearson front plow."

And it's only a decoration, because they can't use it in an operational capacity.

See the M1 Combat Engineering Chapter.

[BlacktailDefense]

@franknbeans4761 I also wouldn't put it past the USMC procurement system to field a device that they KNOW doesn't work, because they've done it before; e.g., the Dazzler fitted to the roofs of USMC M1A1s, after the Army rejected them on ground of general ineffectiveness.

[franknbeans4761]

@BlacktailDefense Regardless, the British Pearson plow is effective and has been used. And the M9 Armored Combat Earthmover along with the Caterpillar D9 can be more than capable of doing these jobs too.

[BlacktailDefense]

@franknbeans4761 "Regardless, the British Pearson plow is effective and has been used."

I reiterate, see the Engineering Chapter.

[BlacktailDefense]

@franknbeans4761 "And the M9 Armored Combat Earthmover along with the Caterpillar D9 can be more than capable of doing these jobs too."

Those vehicles lack the armor and firepower of an MBT, which is essential for breaching obstacles covered by heavy weapons (e.g., Anti-Tank Guns, ATGM teams). Calling-in air or artillery won't work if the they're dug-in, and a competent enemy will be.

The US Army's own Field Manuals say that unprotected obstacles will only buy the defender a few minutes, each.

[franknbeans4761]

@BlacktailDefense The US VII corps had no problem breaching the "Cheap Tricks" set up by the Iraqi's when they went in.

Obviously those vehicles lack the armor and firepower of a MBT, thanks for pointing out the obvious. They are never meant to work alone. The tanks support them so that each vehicle can focus on it's own task rather than having both tasks pressed on one vehicle.

[Flugabwehrkanone]

@franknbeans4761 If the obstacle is in front, how will the M1s place themselves in between the M9 and the enemy? By default, the obstacle clearer would have to be the closest vehicle to the enemy. There won't always be room to suppress enemy fire with tanks by deploying on the rear flanks of the obstacle. What would you do in built-up areas?

[franknbeans4761]

@Flugabwehrkanone The current model of the M88 along with the Assault Breacher Vehicle are more than capable of handling obstacles in the heat of battle.

[VickersIndependent]

@franknbeans4761 The ABV of the US Army was cancelled, and the top speed of the M88A2 is not much faster then its predicessors at 30mph. Plus the M88 is not supposed to use its stability blade for general engineering like what a tank dozer would be used for like clearing roads or building them or general earthmoving.

[franknbeans4761]

@VickersIndependent I was referring to the Marine Corps with the ABV.

And as for the M9, it is still armored and it still works together with the units it is attached to. Which is fine and has proven to be fine.

[BlacktailDefense]

@franknbeans4761 "And as for the M9, it is still armored and it still works together with the units it is attached to. Which is fine and has proven to be fine."

Not according to these guys;

/all_comments?v=NSSD-bdnp5k

...or John Pike;

fas(dot)org/man/dod-101/sys/la­nd/m9-ace(dot)htm

I *dare* you to try to Troll them all.

[franknbeans4761]

@BlacktailDefense .....no complaints.

And if they did have any problems, it was not significant enough to be noted.

All the M9 is is a moving dozer blade, that is it. I am talking about how the US uses it's engineering equipment alongside it's armor. And it works.

[BlacktailDefense]

@franknbeans4761 ".....no complaints."

Read the commentary by the *Youtube users*, smart guy;

/all_comments?v=NSSD-bdnp5k

[franknbeans4761]

@BlacktailDefense I know, I did read the commentary. The guy with the comment with the most likes has videos of cats and batman costumes on his channel. I am not going to take his word for it. He seems like he has autism to be honest.

[BlacktailDefense]

@franknbeans4761 That doesn't mean he isn't right, despite your Appeal to Ridicule (i.e., pseudo-argument). An Abusive Ad Hominem "argument" doesn't disprove his claims, either --- and so is cherry-picking the information content that you like, while ignoring the unpleasant parts (REALLY mature tactic, big guy).

[franknbeans4761]

@BlacktailDefense How many times have I said that no vehicle is perfect and they all make compromises? Maybe you should just start listening. I know they have faults and they can't do everything they are made out to do. But I am not going to trust some random guy who has cats and batman stuff on his account.

The official sites (like one you gave me) said it fared well in combat. I am trusting those over a cat fanatic.

[BlacktailDefense]

@franknbeans4761 "How many times have I said that no vehicle is perfect and they all make compromises?"

Still relying on the Straw Man of "no", I see. It's also an Irrelevant Conclusion, because perfection isn't raised as an issue --- numerous and unacceptable design defects are.

"But I am not going to trust some random guy who has cats and batman stuff on his account."

There you do, with your Abusive Ad Hominem Fallacy again. It isn't reasoning.

[franknbeans4761]

@BlacktailDefense It doesn't matter. He isn't a reliable source. In what way is he a good source. That makes no sense.

As for the vehicles, they still can do things that make them good and are used in a way that make them good. How else do you explain the fact that the US did not take significant or even moderate casualties in both Gulf wars? And yes, Iraq was a poor enemy but so were the enemies of Israel in all the wars they fought and the US still beat Iraq in the same significant fashion.

[BlacktailDefense]

@franknbeans4761 "How many times have I said that no vehicle is perfect and they all make compromises?"

Enough that you commit the Argumentum Ad Nauseum Fallacy. No matter how many times you say it, that claim is not relevant to either my arguments, nor the issue.

"The official sites (like one you gave me) said it fared well in combat."

FAS also said that if the ACE wasn't operating under near-ideal conditions, losses would have been severe. Militant ignorance toward such facts isn't reason.

[franknbeans4761]

@BlacktailDefense And as for the US engineering forces, the ACE, D9, D7, M88, and many other combat engineering vehicles are plenty enough and have proved so. Stop complaining over nothing.

[BlacktailDefense]

@franknbeans4761 "And as for the US engineering forces, the ACE, D9, D7, M88, and many other combat engineering vehicles are plenty enough and have proved so."

Lumping the M9 ACE in with the D7, D9, and M88 is an Association Fallacy, because the latter three vehicles work correctly, and the M9 ACE doesn't.

"Stop complaining over nothing."

I've proven the M9 ACE is a dog, so it's far from "nothing". Also, I don't take orders from you.

[franknbeans4761]

@BlacktailDefense "Also, I don't take orders from you."

Jeez I wasn't being serious.

"Lumping the M9 ACE in with the D7, D9, and M88 is an Association Fallacy, because the latter three vehicles work correctly, and the M9 ACE doesn't."

My main point is that the M1 has plenty of engineering support so that it does not have any real engineering related problems, and the ACE simply adds to it.

[franknbeans4761]

@BlacktailDefense And if you are really using those users as sources then that is pathetic.

The US did easily break through the sand berms and other obstacles in the first Gulf War and did not encounter any problems with Iraqi obstacles in the OIF so your point is meaningless. Why bitch about something when the doctrine of US military engineering forces working with the armored forces work?

[franknbeans4761]

@BlacktailDefense And as for JESTREET he posts videos of cats and batman costumes on his channel and his comment had the most likes on that video. Something seems wrong with that. Second link you sent me said positive reviews and was much more believable than JESTREET. It is the first I have really heard of people not liking the M9 so I would need much more evidence for my opinion to change.

[franknbeans4761]

@BlacktailDefense Oh and check out this video:

watch?v=nexaxnbhhyw

It is seen riding directly beside an Abrams. It has good combat reviews and served it's purpose. Can other vehicles do a better job than it? Yes. Is it perfect? Of course not. But that doesn't matter. It can still completely do it's job and is only another asset to the US engineering force. Why fix a good thing?

[kamphwagon1]

@BlacktailDefense On the subject of geting in the first shot another aera over looked with the 120mm was the gun fired missile, the Russian 125 may lack in some aeras but the efective range of the ATGM makes up those short comeings. On the mobility subject the M1 may have better top speed,but off road I see a lot short comeings just like the ww2 German Tigers,it makes no difference how good the wheapon is if it can't make it to the fight then it's useless

[BitnikGr]

@BlacktailDefense russianarmor(.)info/Tanks/TRIA­LS/19991020.html

Remove ()...

[BlacktailDefense]

@WheelsRCool

As for the falacy that "Weight = Protection", compare the HEMTT Truck with the M113A3 Gavin APC; BOTH have an empty weight of 10 tons, but the HEMTT has no armor.

Likewise, the Leopard 2, Lince, and EE-T2 Osorio all have the same level of protection as an M1A1 Abrams, but weigh 65, 50, and 45 tons respectively.

The reason the M1 is so heavy is only because it contains copious amounts wasted space, dead air, space/weight/protection-ineffi­cient materials; symptoms of sloppy design.

[WheelsRCool]

@BlacktailDefense Not saying weight = protection, I said in order to get protection, you will need weight because of the armor. "Wasted space, dead air, etc..." do not increase a vehicle's weight.

[kamphwagon1]

@WheelsRCool What Blacktail is geting at here, is that the inside is larger than need be it still takes armor to protect unused space, you would think the disigners had plans for a recliner& big screen TV lol , inother words it's to big period ,and that = unnessarysary weight that'l cost you in fuel,loose dirt , mud,snow and wear on the under carriage.

[BitnikGr]

@WheelsRCool "Wasted space, dead air, etc.. do not increase a vehicle's weight. "

Yes, they do! They create more inner volume of space which have to be protected with same thickness of armor and so vechile gain weight.

Take a simple box of 50cm^3 and put 20mm steel all around it.

Now take 80cm^3 box and put same 20mm steel all around it. Both boxes will have same level of protection, but second box will be significantly heavier.

[kamphwagon1]

@WheelsRCool I guse everone forgets the M1 abrams is what came out of the joint failed MBT 70 project, the Germans didn't like the direction it was going and pulled out . Also another myth that the M1 has faced anything up to date,in the gulf war the Iraqes only had old out dated ammo for their soveit copys,but still lost 4 to Iraqe tank fire,the best iraq had was Polish export mdls with little better than ww2 fire control tech

[BitnikGr]

@WheelsRCool Efficiency of Abrams against soviet build tanks for Iraq would be the same as efficiency of T-90 against M-60s, Centurions and other 2nd gen western tanks. It was a clash of different generations and more credits for that brilliant victory had to be givven to "Storming Norman" developed great battle plan and not only to pure technological advance of Abrams against its rivals there.

[WheelsRCool]

@BlacktailDefense It has a 120 mm smoothbore cannon with a fire-control system that allows it to fire while moving at any speed and hit the enemy

[BlacktailDefense]

@WheelsRCool

"It has a 120 mm smoothbore cannon with a fire-control system that allows it to fire while moving at any speed and hit the enemy"

The same can be said of the Merkava Mk.3, Leopard 2A4, Lince, EE-T2 Osorio, AMX-40, and T-84 Yatagan --- which all charge HALF as much as the M1A1 for those capabilities, all weigh less, and all have equivalent protection.

The Merkava and Leopard also hold more 120mm rounds than the M1A1, the AMX-40 has a better COAX, and the Merkava has a Mortar.

[BitnikGr]

@BlacktailDefense plus Merkava and Leo2 has ATGMs in their ammunition.

[HMSBeagle200]

your weight unit is in imperial or metric?

[BlacktailDefense]

I use Imperial units for sizes and weights, but metric for some weapon bores.

I've made the mistake before, but now I pay VERY close attention to what the measurements say; the term "ton" is very ambiguous, but "tonne" is self-explanatory (and convertible into Short Tons --- because you know what you're converting from!).

[ihateforigners]

Man that sucks. I wish I could just get the list of the parts and see how much they weigh and just scratch them off to shave off some weight. Jesus this thing weighs a lot. This is a pretty good tank (Not like any other tank around 60 tons can do any better) the only solution I can say is adopt a Medium tank with upgradable armor and put "Duckbills" on the exhisting M1's tracks. I still think this is a good cross-country Vehicle, even M113's get stuck. No complaints from Afghanistan.

[BlacktailDefense]

There's a lot of stuff on the M1 weight is high, but whose value is dubious.

The DU armor for example, weighs several tons. It could be swapped for Ceramic-Steel plates, which are every bit as tough against KE threats, BETTER against CE threats, and actually weigh less than the Steel plates that the DU originally replaced.

Also, the 120mm M256 weighs more than 3 times as much as the 105mm M68A1".

Just switching to these items will instantly drop the weight to 65 tons.

[ihateforigners]

Damn. What about the new XM360 gun?

[BlacktailDefense]

Assuming the brochure can be believed, the complete XM360 weighs about 2 tons --- about halfway between an M68A1 and an M256 in weight.

[ihateforigners]

Hmm. Seems pretty good.

[forgottenforguitar]

Damn, the M1 is obese. I guess the tank reflects the culture, doesn't it?

[BlacktailDefense]

When one considers that the M1 was billed as the vehicle that would "lead the Army" into battle, it's practically a metaphor for the Army's "leadership".

While the rank-and-file have been cut in half since the Berlin Wall came down, more HQs and commands have been established, and the number of senior officers has remained unchanged. Half of these commands don't do anything, either.

Now consider that the US Army inventory has 3000 operational M1s, and 3000 in storage --- sound familiar?

[forgottenforguitar]

Not really. Not to be rude or anything, but could you simplify what you said? I don't really understand what you said.

[BlacktailDefense]

Basically, the M1 is huge, cumbersome, heavy, FAT, and keeps getting more so.

The same goes for the Army "leadership", which has increased in size since 1990 (and even added new commands), while the number of enlisted personnel they command has been halved.

Also, the US Army bills the M1 Abrams as the vehicle that "leads the way"; even though half of them CAN'T, because they're in storage.

The same goes for the (Br)asshats, because half of thier "commands" don't command anything.

[forgottenforguitar]

Thanks!

[franknbeans4761]

@BlacktailDefense What does it matter if half of the Abrams are in storage? Look at the large number of Russian tanks in storage. And Germany had (and still does to some extent) large amounts of Leopard 2's in storage. And look at the large number of M48's in storage in Turkey. And even in Israel they still have massive amounts of M3 halftracks in storage.

It all means nothing.