The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 2: Mobility (Part 1/4)

It's time we took a closer look at the Mobility most ballyhooed tank of all time; the M1 Abrams.

In Part 1, we'll examine the top speed of the M1, that itself is widely-believed to be proof of high Mobility. Seriously, 45mph is supposed to be some sort of overwhelming advantage in maneuvering? And an advantage over WHAT, exactly?


Watch and see.

Category:

Autos & Vehicles

Tags:

• M1
• IPM1
• M1A1
• M1A2
• Abrams
• Main
• Battle
• Tank
• US
• Army
• GDLS
• 45mph
• Speed
• AGT1500
• Gas
• Turbine
• Defense
• Waste
• Boondoggle
• Scandal
• Debacle
• Misappropriation
• Coverup
• Scam
• 70
• tons
• Overweight
• Overrated

[TheCatholic143]

The m1 abrams does have a pretty high Horse power per tonne, which allows for fast acceleration.

[BlacktailDefense]

@TheCatholic143 This is true, but it's power/weight ratio is no better than any other MBT, and several models have higher power/weight ratios. For example, both the M1A2 SEP and Leopard 2A6 have 1500hp, but the M1A2 SEP is heavier by 4 short tons.

And even MORE severe disparity is between the 72-ton, 1500hp M1A2 SEP and the 54-ton, 1550hp Type 90 --- the latter has a nearly 50% higher power/weight ratio.

[quickzilver333]

It's always a battle between Mobility(speed) and Armor. Even with th new Armor they have on modern tanks today. It's still heavy. We just can't relly on technology because it will fail. I would rather have a well trained Army using a slower tank.

[BlacktailDefense]

@quickzilver333 The reason the M1 is so heavy is because of sloppy engineering and project management. It started-off at 62 tons, but was re-fitted with new armor arrays and a new main gun that weren't necessary, it had DU added to it's armor that wasn't necessary, it was re-fitted for new tracks that ended up being as bad as the old ones (and weighed more), and had a whole bunch of electronics added that weren't necessary. Now, it weighs 72 tons.

That's a case-study in Overengineering.

[BlacktailDefense]

@quickzilver333 Moreover, any military force operating M1s is NOT going to be well-trained in the long run --- see the Logistics chapter for clarification.

[lunaticwarrior85]

interesting articles

[BlacktailDefense]

@lunaticwarrior85 Thanks!

Granted, a lot of my claims are uncited, but later chapters in this series will have a LOT more citations.

[ORKSIZDABEST]

watch?v=mym3p_zTpQw vs the real T-90 mobility, no comments.

[ORKSIZDABEST]

watch?v=TCXwgPZXScM now THAT is the real Abrams mobility.

[MarshallJukov]

@52111centrumcz

Thats with all autoloaders currently avaiable. And i`m really sick of people talking about "trained crews", pick some dumbells and compete with elevator running upstairs.

watch?v=TbKX_Ldpwp8

2A46M+ guns have greater tube life than any western 120mm tank guns, this is scientific fact

[52111centrumcz]

@MarshallJukov

You sure on length? Is that with new autoloaders? Since I heard old ones can't take longer rods. True with length against ERA, but that is if you are counting on the enemy to have some. A challanger with a trained crew has only one shot per minute less than a L2. The only problems I see is a fatigued crew during extended engagements. The problem with the tube life you are quoting is that is for using HE ammo; it wears the tube much less than KE sabot rounds.

[MarshallJukov]

@52111centrumcz

Separate ammunition presents a problem only with manual loading like in Challenger 2. With autoloaders its not a problem its an advantage. Autoloaders only save volume and mass, litteraly they saved 10-16 tonnes for Russian tanks. There is no length limitations already, 3BM42M has 730mm projectile. Just as increace of projectiles length is not the only solution, in fact at some point it becomes disadvantage if interacting with ERA, due increaced spalling effect

[MarshallJukov]

@52111centrumcz

Thats 3BM42 projectile not 3BM42M, 3BM42M has 7,3kg projectile and 4,8kg penetrator. Max pressure it takes to fire 3BM42M at 1750 m/s is 5200-5600 bar (depenting on temperature). You can`t cheat laws of physics, man, more square that same pressure pushes = more force, more force = more acceleration.

DM53 actualy has comparable performance to 3BM42M. And even initial 2A46 in 1960s had 600 shots tube life. In 1970s 2A46M with chromium coating got 1200 full rounds tube life.

[52111centrumcz]

@MarshallJukov

3BM42M - Projectile weight (including sabot): 6.95 kg

DM53 - Projectile weight (including sabot): 8.35kg

Therefore at the same speed DM53 will have superior terminal performance. The lower gun pressures are selected because the guns are of slightly inferior quality. To keep barrel life at 500 shots, it requires lower pressures. The separate ammunition actually presents a problem; due to size constraints of autoloaders, the sabot length is limited; unlike western tanks.

[MarshallJukov]

@52111centrumcz

And so? 125mm achieves 1750-1800 m/s for, say, 3BM42M which has same mass of pojectile as DM53, with lower barrel pressure and thats EXELENT! It means LESS barrel wear and MORE upgrade potential. Are you dig? AND due to separate ammunition we can easily use more powerfull charges to fire old projectiles from new guns like 2A82.