The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 3: Firepower (Part 1 of 6)

We've all heard the party line before, that the M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank's M256 120mm Smoothbore gun is the biggest, baddest, best, and most powerful tank gun in the world --- once and a while, there are even promoters who tout the M1's main gun as a UNIQUE weapon system.

We hear these things again and again on the Corporate Media, Future Weapons, the manufacturer's videos and brocures, and the testimony of US tank crews.

...but how honest IS this claim? Are there any tanks out there with similar weapons; BETTER main guns, perhaps?

After all, it would REALLY suck if the only Battletank in the entire US inventory, which costs more than ANY OTHER, had any less than a one-of-a-kind, EXCEPTIONALLY-powerful gun that the M1's rave reviews imply it has.

Category:

Autos & Vehicles

Tags:

• M1
• IPM1
• M1A1
• M1A2
• Abrams
• Main
• Battle
• Tank
• US
• Army
• Marines
• USMC
• General
• Dynamics
• Land
• Systems
• GDLS
• Rheinmettall
• L/11
• M256
• 120mm
• Smoothbore
• gun
• cannon
• Scam
• Scandal
• Defense
• Waste
• Fraud
• Ruse
• Boondoggle
• Debacle

[franknbeans4761]

@franknbeans4761 And if you look on the website at other pictures by clicking on one of those pictures, it shows a variety of vehicles, one of which being much larger and heavier looking and without a turret but a gun shield instead, more like the Namer. Maybe 2 designs will be adopted? It is hard to say.

The design BAE had that I posted also lacked ATGM's, I am sure a similar Bradley-styled box will be attached to the turret. There is still a hatch in the back troop compartment.

[franknbeans4761]

@Pcordero87 Here are some schematics that BAE released. I sure it will change slightly.

h t t p : / / defensetech . org/2012/03/02/friday-eye-cand­y-baes-new-gcv-bid/#more-16487

I wonder if it will be balanced well, but it looks like the entire rear of the vehicle doesn't hang back. The ERA looks enormously thick too. It also appears that there is a boomerang sniper detection system and of course the RWS, a kind I haven't seen before.

I wonder what the front cone is on it.

[franknbeans4761]

@Pcordero87 Yes very good and valid points. One should know the "why" for the most part. With the military it is a bit more difficult because much of it needs to be kept a secret for obvious reasons, and large claims need to be made for other varying reasons.

But yes, questioning your government is important and corruption and general wrongdoing is of course not acceptable and is bad; but it will unfortunately be a reoccurring problem for many years to come.

[Pcordero87]

@franknbeans4761 standing by the consensus its ok, what is not ok is to accept corruption and wrongdoing.

lets go back to the bridge example again; if the bridge suddenly falls into the lake or end being a scam in which few people fill their pockets with your money. you have to stand behind their wrongdoings?

being a critic of your own nation its very patriotic, if the critic is constructive of course.

[Pcordero87]

@franknbeans4761 Civic Nationalism is good, as exposed by Ernest Renan "a daily referendum" but the "standing by your country no matter what" sounds like ultranationalism to me.

lets forget the military hardware topic for a minute, and ask yourself this; if your government begin building a bridge across lake michigan, whouldnt you want to know the reason? how much it cost? could it be cheaper? its the right way to build it? maybe there are other ways to make the trip easier, like a ferry?

[franknbeans4761]

@Waltham1892 True with the limitations of ERA, but some tanks in Chechnya did lack ERA.

ERA does not protect everything and Soviet/Russian tanks do rely heavily on ERA for their protection. Especially with the 50 ton limit.

But the Russians did fail to have infantry with the large tank columns they rolled into Grozny. Which obviously led to disaster.

But that is just the tip of the iceberg to the problems that were found in the First Chechen War.

[franknbeans4761]

@Pcordero87 No I know, for the sake of argument you do have to stand up for it. The T-72 and all of it's Soviet/Russian variants are certainly effective.

And obviously it depends on how the tank is used, no matter what. Hence the point of the National Training Center at Fort Irwin. But the T-72 was revolutionary for it's design and still is very deadly on the modern battlefield.

[Pcordero87]

@franknbeans4761 agreed completely, and im glad you actually responded according to the point in question and not with a combined arms bla bla bla, while thats true, it has nothing to do with the tank itself but the way it is used. my point was never that T72 is a suprem tank while abrams is a piece of shit, like the other guy took it. i just dont think that tank is as bad as they paint it, it has crew safety problems and that is bad, but for being a 70's desing i think it has its perks.

[Waltham1892]

@franknbeans4761

The problem wasn't that the tanks didn't have ERA, but that ERA has limitations.

According to a study I read on line, tanks were lost when they took hits on the flanks, top, and rear, where ERA does not cover. So, either the tanks were surviving frontal arc hits or the A-T teams were specifically taking shots at weak spots.

Without screening infantry in an urban environment, tanks are easy prey to dismounted A-T teams.

[franknbeans4761]

@Waltham1892 Yeah that is true. And the lost years of the 90's still are apparent today.

To be honest, the Russians were given ridiculous time lines and their "underestimation" of Chechen forces is ridiculously bad and a very poor excuse for such results.

It showed a lot about things, especially since some tanks didn't even have ERA.

The major amounts of incompetence are too big to excuse.