Yes, tanks go through development growth, it is a constant work in progress or lessons learned to make them better.
Whats this rumor about General Dynamics based in Spain working with the Saudi Kingdom on Leo 2 purchases.
M1A1, the indestructible Tank?
- Thread starter M1Brams
- Start date
Whats this rumor about General Dynamics based in Spain working with the Saudi Kingdom on Leo 2 purchases.
I read about this rumour, too.
But I am sceptical of this and will believe it when I see it.
First point is the question why Santa Barbara instead of KMW should build them? Even with KMW getting fees because of the license I imagine that getting a contract for their own production line is much more attractive to them. Maybe along the lines of similar contracts of the past where the first tanks are build completely by KMW and the following ones are delivered as kits to SA.
Our laws are also problematic. According to our law every export needs to be allowed by the government and deliveries into crisis regions are always a difficult adventure. Why should our government allow such a deal with the prospect of having to live with the internal critics when the German industrie's gain is only limited?
Nevertheless such a deal would fit SAs shopping habits. They tend to diversify their kit and try to equip the Army, Royal Guard and National Guard with different toys.
But I am sceptical of this and will believe it when I see it.
First point is the question why Santa Barbara instead of KMW should build them? Even with KMW getting fees because of the license I imagine that getting a contract for their own production line is much more attractive to them. Maybe along the lines of similar contracts of the past where the first tanks are build completely by KMW and the following ones are delivered as kits to SA.
Our laws are also problematic. According to our law every export needs to be allowed by the government and deliveries into crisis regions are always a difficult adventure. Why should our government allow such a deal with the prospect of having to live with the internal critics when the German industrie's gain is only limited?
Nevertheless such a deal would fit SAs shopping habits. They tend to diversify their kit and try to equip the Army, Royal Guard and National Guard with different toys.
We have touched on in some length in this thread the flaws in the Leopard 2’s survivability system compared to the Abrams. In short they include less advanced and effective armour array technology, non compartmentalised bow ammo and armour cut out for gunner’s sight.
The LAND 907 assessment results provide a definitive, quotable source from an experienced and fair agent indicating that the Abrams is superior in survivability to the Leopard 2. It also indicates that the Leopard 2 is quite a bit cheaper to own and operate.
Claims that it is “impossible” to determine an accurate comparison or that “other factors” may have come into play are not supported by the black and white assessment of the Australian Army: “superior” and “not as competitive”. Trying to muddy the waters by claiming bias or by demanding full access to the secret testing results are unreasonable.
None of this is to say the Leopard 2 is not a bad tank. But the Abrams is more survivable, period.
Last edited:
Way to go posting terrorist propaganda Awang. Delete this or have the mods delete it for you.
@Abraham
I think you missunderstood us.
I am not denying that an M1A1AIM is more survivable than a Pz 87 WE. This is out of question.
But we don't know how much influence the different facts had onto the evaluation. It's like with every other evaluation. The customer decides how he rates the different parts of an evaluation. So two evaluations of exactly the same tanks can have quite different results because one emphasizes US network capabilities much more while the other one gives lots of points for operating costs.
And the last point is that such decisions are more political than capability driven anyway.
I think you missunderstood us.
I am not denying that an M1A1AIM is more survivable than a Pz 87 WE. This is out of question.
But we don't know how much influence the different facts had onto the evaluation. It's like with every other evaluation. The customer decides how he rates the different parts of an evaluation. So two evaluations of exactly the same tanks can have quite different results because one emphasizes US network capabilities much more while the other one gives lots of points for operating costs.
And the last point is that such decisions are more political than capability driven anyway.
What's your point though? I can see it being relevant to the discussion, but I'm not sure why felt it was.
attn: bonehead
Since this post you have not contacted the moderator team. You have been given plenty of time to do so. This is not an optional request. You have 72 hours to contact the mod team with service details.
bonehead,
Since this post you have not contacted the moderator team. You have been given plenty of time to do so. This is not an optional request. You have 72 hours to contact the mod team with service details.
Thank you for your kind offer just love armchair generals who question servicemen or ex in my case about their service are you sitting all nice and comfy.
Served Para Regt 79 to 80, 17/21 lancers 80-93, Pwrr 93-02 with detachments to ADTU 80 and 84. and a period as a gunnery instructor. happy to provide all detachments dates and service within reason.
Served Para Regt 79 to 80, 17/21 lancers 80-93, Pwrr 93-02 with detachments to ADTU 80 and 84. and a period as a gunnery instructor. happy to provide all detachments dates and service within reason.
Don't you dare try that on with me mate. Every other blue poster in here has provided service details, you after multiple requests have not. Implying that questioning your service record somehow reflects poorly on me when it's my job as a moderator doesn't help your cause at all. Attacking my credibility doesn't help yours. It's the height of offensive behaviour to infer I have some kind of disrespect for servicemen, ask some of the blues around here if you're curious as to whether I have an attitude problem - by the way, ALL the blues are such because they provided sufficient evidence to confirm their service record. Why should you be any different?
Feel free to send any one of the Mods copies of your records and discharge papers.
I would add that its entirely reasonable for Bonza or any Mod to seek confirmation of someones claims to service.
We have had such claims in the past and unfortunately, when followed up those individuals were found to be wanting..
People who are members of the DefProf Group are all subject to either presentation of documentation or their backgrounds have been confirmed through association, through membership of professional organisations and or by people who have served with or served in sister or related units.
I'd add that a number of forums exchange info and provide assistance to each other in confirming claims - as we've all been hurt before by wannabe's. We do take such claims seriously
This has been asked of you before some months ago - so it is by no means unreasonable for any Mod to ask you to moxy up with the material and get this over with.
Busting Bonzas chops over something that he has an obligation to ask to ensure we maintain credibility is rather unimpressive - I would expect that you'd appreciate why seeking confirmation beyond "trust" is essential
.
So, does that make the T-64 with its 125mm main armament and thick armour a better tank?
Challenger 1 got landed on the UK when the Shah was toppled - there was no "evaluation" - it was "right, take these tanks, or Vickers goes under..."And then you got the Challenger 1. It's not as if national pride had nothing to do with it...
I have no problem with this but one shouldn't use the UKs evaluation as a proof of the Abrasms deficiencies. That just doesn't fit.
I still think it's ironic that Cr1 didn't have air con, considering it was originally intended for the a desert user base anyways.
Ian
exported_kiwi
New Member
The Challenger was an evolution of the old Chieftan wasn't it? I vaguely remember the Iranians naming the Challenger "Shir" or something like that. What does the UK MBT park look like these days? I'd imagine it's been gutted, like the RAF and RN. Off topic sorry mods , this being a thread about the Abrams, a damn fine piece of kit. Is there any news of a potential replacement or will the US just continue to upgrade, does anybody know?
Last edited:
Tango1992
New Member
Abram is a technological centric tank. The major capabilities lies in the 3rd gen TI sights coupled with incredibly great egronomics and faster reaction time all thanks to the integrated digital fire control computer. Abram has much better situational awareness as the multi directional rotating coupola for the commander has independent CCTV as well as TI sights and targets can be slaved in to the computer much faster and it can easily track targets size of a football at excess of 3km (discovery channel) and pin point accuracy while engagement. Also the battle management system on Abram is one of the world's most advanced and can take encrypted wireless data from variety of sources. All tanks fair similar on off track performance and Abram is no different and can easily maintain a fair amount of manouverability vis a more hp/ton Al-khalid. But coupled with both gun stabilization and turret pneumatic stabilization and years of tinkering with the control systems abram is a well deveoped battle tested system. Much higher level of protection is another added advantage. The americans proved the fact that gas turbines are not vulnerable to heated or dusty environments and almost 90 percent of the fleet was active in desert storm II owing to the newly designed filters. Though maintainence is more and range is less, the US infrastructure can handle abrams easily and with 200km range on internal fuel tanks are not required to engress so much in to enemy territory. It would be a different story if someone else was handling a beast like abram with not the requisite infrastructure to handle it. In US hands the tank is deadly.
About the autoloading part the whole concept of coming to home position to reload defeats the purpose of autoloader, this is one reason why israel adopted a 10 round magazine loader which was more effective. But with the help of a mechanical crane a manual loader tank can also get the same amount of shots / minute without having to move its gun away from the target. As a doctorine the tanks already have their guns loaded when they go in to enemy territory. With abrams better sensors its certain that it will get the first shot.
Abram disadvantages is its a fuel hungry tank....get hot quickly at desert terrains...and still use a 120mm gun...where its competetors like T-90,AL-KHALID(MBT-2000) etc... use 125mm smoothbore gun which provide them a variety of anti-tanks and muzzlers to be fired from the cannons.
ANother great thing is that 6 Al Khalids can be bought where for the same price only 1 M1 Abrams can be bought so in some areas the ALkhalid is better than the M1 Abrams:sniper
Is the M1A1 indestructible? i mean even a sabot round cannot penetrate the Armor despite being fired numerous times is just..:shudder[/QUOTE]
About the autoloading part the whole concept of coming to home position to reload defeats the purpose of autoloader, this is one reason why israel adopted a 10 round magazine loader which was more effective. But with the help of a mechanical crane a manual loader tank can also get the same amount of shots / minute without having to move its gun away from the target. As a doctorine the tanks already have their guns loaded when they go in to enemy territory. With abrams better sensors its certain that it will get the first shot.
Abram disadvantages is its a fuel hungry tank....get hot quickly at desert terrains...and still use a 120mm gun...where its competetors like T-90,AL-KHALID(MBT-2000) etc... use 125mm smoothbore gun which provide them a variety of anti-tanks and muzzlers to be fired from the cannons.
ANother great thing is that 6 Al Khalids can be bought where for the same price only 1 M1 Abrams can be bought so in some areas the ALkhalid is better than the M1 Abrams:sniper
Is the M1A1 indestructible? i mean even a sabot round cannot penetrate the Armor despite being fired numerous times is just..:shudder[/QUOTE]
Must count to 200 and exercise patience.....
I think we're down to 400 Cr2s with the rest in wrappers.
A replacement for the M1 was mooted a while back on the lines of "smaller, faster, smarter" but after a couple of real shooting wars, I think the twin demons of cost and the fact that there's enough M1's to continually reset and upgrade them for another twenty years. There's just not a threat on the horizon that's worth pitching a new design at.
Same with the Challengers to be honest - the things you need are stuff that can be easily added on (remote MG's etc) Right now, any of the main contenders in production are still very competitive.
Ian