Typical Russian nonsense... How can you guys believe this crap? A CGI model of an M1 tank?
T-90 in Comparison to Western Armour
- Status
Tanks are not racing cars. Generally the HP of all curent tank engines FAR exceed the HP need to accelerate them to max speed. With modified gearbox all current tanks can drive nearly twice as fast. As such, even doubling or tripling engine HP will not add anything to max speed. Addidional 3-4-5% benefit on T-90 after new engine installed is related more to slightly higher max RPM of newer engine.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The type and capability of track is actually far more important to max speed than overall horsepower in an armoured vehicle as I recall...
On the earth the additional hps is helping for tank avarage velocity due to irregularity of a road, when the tank must go a bulk part of time with acceleration. At highways it's however may be different, when other factors like transmission and chassis characteristics are dominant.
BTW, interesting news from Fort Knox: all Abrams in Iraq will be equipped with remoted controlled .50-caliber machine gun. Just like T-90 allready has 15 years:
U.S. To Add Survivability Gear To Tanks
By MICHELLE TAN, FORT KNOX, Ky.
The U.S. Army will field its tank urban survivability kit in Iraq this summer, outfitting the M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams with additions such as reactive armor, belly armor, thermal sights for the loader and a second .50-caliber machine gun.
The package, known as TUSK, was on display at the 2007 Armor Warfighting Conference April 29 to May 3 here.
“The guys can’t wait,” said Capt. David Centeno, assistant product manager of the TUSK program. “They need this stuff. Every time I go [to Iraq] they ask, ‘When will we get it?’”
Centeno, fresh off a recent trip to Iraq, will return in July to coordinate the fielding of the kits, which will begin in earnest in September, he said. In all, 565 kits will be sent to Iraq over a year.
“The goal is by fall next year, all tanks will be fitted with TUSK,” Centeno said.
Each tank urban survivability kit costs about $400,000, and includes:
• A .50-caliber machine gun mounted on the main gun, giving the crew the ability to shoot back at snipers without leaving the protection of the tank.
The .50-cal will slew with the main gun’s system, and because it’s mounted on the main gun, will be able to shoot single shots more accurately.
A second .50-caliber on the Abrams isn’t new, Centeno said. About 130 systems have already been sent into theater, but putting one in the TUSK will ensure every Abrams in theater has one, he said.
• Belly armor made from shaped aluminum to divert the blast of improvised explosive devices. The belly armor weighs 3,000 pounds and can be installed in two hours.
• Reactive armor tiles to provide side protection. The tiles are already being used in theater on Bradley Fighting Vehicles.
• A tank infantry phone to allow dismounted troops to communicate with the tank crew. The phone will be on the rear right side of the tank.
• Thermal weapon sights for the loader, giving him night vision capability.
The loader also will have a mounted display on his helmet, allowing him to use the system from anywhere in the tank.
• Gun shields made from armored glass and steel for the loader, providing him with protection without compromising his ability to see his target.
• A driver’s vision enhancer, or DVE, which will improve the driver’s thermal night and all-weather vision.
• Remote thermal sights for the tank commander, allowing him to engage targets without opening his hatch. This addition is only for the M1A1.
• A power distribution box to provide power feeds with proper circuit protection to the different pieces of the TUSK package.
The entire kit can be added to a tank in 12 hours, Centeno said, minimizing the time tanks spend offline.
“You have to remember, when we do field this, we’re taking a tank off the battlefield,” he said.
Centeno plans to spend one day outfitting the tanks and another day training the crew on the new additions.
As the Army begins fielding TUSK, work continues on TUSK II, which will include a rear-view camera for the driver.
Centeno said he hopes to field the cameras in May or June 2008. A similar camera also is in the works for the Bradley armored vehicle.
Also part of TUSK II are 360-degree barriers to protect the tank commander and the loader.
TUSK III is in the works and could include remote-operated weapons systems. Testing is under way to determine which system would work best for the Abrams, Centeno said.
“The tank was not designed to do what it’s doing now in Iraq,” Centeno said. “You take this massive tank and put it in the middle of a city, now you have to design something to enable it to survive and still do its mission in a city.”
BTW, interesting news from Fort Knox: all Abrams in Iraq will be equipped with remoted controlled .50-caliber machine gun. Just like T-90 allready has 15 years
: U.S. To Add Survivability Gear To Tanks
By MICHELLE TAN, FORT KNOX, Ky.
The U.S. Army will field its tank urban survivability kit in Iraq this summer, outfitting the M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams with additions such as reactive armor, belly armor, thermal sights for the loader and a second .50-caliber machine gun.
The package, known as TUSK, was on display at the 2007 Armor Warfighting Conference April 29 to May 3 here.
“The guys can’t wait,” said Capt. David Centeno, assistant product manager of the TUSK program. “They need this stuff. Every time I go [to Iraq] they ask, ‘When will we get it?’”
Centeno, fresh off a recent trip to Iraq, will return in July to coordinate the fielding of the kits, which will begin in earnest in September, he said. In all, 565 kits will be sent to Iraq over a year.
“The goal is by fall next year, all tanks will be fitted with TUSK,” Centeno said.
Each tank urban survivability kit costs about $400,000, and includes:
• A .50-caliber machine gun mounted on the main gun, giving the crew the ability to shoot back at snipers without leaving the protection of the tank.
The .50-cal will slew with the main gun’s system, and because it’s mounted on the main gun, will be able to shoot single shots more accurately.
A second .50-caliber on the Abrams isn’t new, Centeno said. About 130 systems have already been sent into theater, but putting one in the TUSK will ensure every Abrams in theater has one, he said.
• Belly armor made from shaped aluminum to divert the blast of improvised explosive devices. The belly armor weighs 3,000 pounds and can be installed in two hours.
• Reactive armor tiles to provide side protection. The tiles are already being used in theater on Bradley Fighting Vehicles.
• A tank infantry phone to allow dismounted troops to communicate with the tank crew. The phone will be on the rear right side of the tank.
• Thermal weapon sights for the loader, giving him night vision capability.
The loader also will have a mounted display on his helmet, allowing him to use the system from anywhere in the tank.
• Gun shields made from armored glass and steel for the loader, providing him with protection without compromising his ability to see his target.
• A driver’s vision enhancer, or DVE, which will improve the driver’s thermal night and all-weather vision.
• Remote thermal sights for the tank commander, allowing him to engage targets without opening his hatch. This addition is only for the M1A1.
• A power distribution box to provide power feeds with proper circuit protection to the different pieces of the TUSK package.
The entire kit can be added to a tank in 12 hours, Centeno said, minimizing the time tanks spend offline.
“You have to remember, when we do field this, we’re taking a tank off the battlefield,” he said.
Centeno plans to spend one day outfitting the tanks and another day training the crew on the new additions.
As the Army begins fielding TUSK, work continues on TUSK II, which will include a rear-view camera for the driver.
Centeno said he hopes to field the cameras in May or June 2008. A similar camera also is in the works for the Bradley armored vehicle.
Also part of TUSK II are 360-degree barriers to protect the tank commander and the loader.
TUSK III is in the works and could include remote-operated weapons systems. Testing is under way to determine which system would work best for the Abrams, Centeno said.
“The tank was not designed to do what it’s doing now in Iraq,” Centeno said. “You take this massive tank and put it in the middle of a city, now you have to design something to enable it to survive and still do its mission in a city.”
More interesting thing about Abrams': the US' tank park started shrink since GW2. According to the UN data collection (I suppose, those data are right), US has tanks as follow:
2002 г - 8019
2003 г - 7851
2004 г - 7460
2005 г - 6451
2006 г - 6323
- Source: UN http://disarmament2.un.org/UN_REGISTER.nsf
So since 2002 US lost not less than 1700 tanks! And my question: where the Abramses are disappearing?
2002 г - 8019
2003 г - 7851
2004 г - 7460
2005 г - 6451
2006 г - 6323
- Source: UN http://disarmament2.un.org/UN_REGISTER.nsf
So since 2002 US lost not less than 1700 tanks! And my question: where the Abramses are disappearing?
No they don't lost them. Most of the tanks being send back for refurbishment are not combat losses or losses to mines/IEDs.
They are just whored down.
After two years of constant operations tracked combat vehicles suffer much. So they send them back to the states and replace them with new vehicles.
The Abrams has it since its introduction. It only disappeared whith the introduction of the A2(SEP).
So all A2(SEP)s which are getting the TUSK package need to be reequipped.
What is disturbing is the fact that while hundreds of billions of dollars are thrown into new high-tech toys by the armed forces of the US the TUSK upgrade only now is adopted in huge enough numbers and a usefull 120mm HE is still not in the pipe.
They are just whored down.
After two years of constant operations tracked combat vehicles suffer much. So they send them back to the states and replace them with new vehicles.
A .50cal which can be used under armor protection is nothing new.BTW, interesting news from Fort Knox: all Abrams in Iraq will be equipped with remoted controlled .50-caliber machine gun. Just like T-90 allready has 15 years
The Abrams has it since its introduction. It only disappeared whith the introduction of the A2(SEP).
So all A2(SEP)s which are getting the TUSK package need to be reequipped.
What is disturbing is the fact that while hundreds of billions of dollars are thrown into new high-tech toys by the armed forces of the US the TUSK upgrade only now is adopted in huge enough numbers and a usefull 120mm HE is still not in the pipe.
But is it not strange that those tanks didnt come back to service? Is it a bit worring? In Chechen-1, 2 the Russian Army lost some tens of tanks but even after lateral RPG-hit the most of T-72's were remaining on duty. For most cases they's over only light repairs. On the follow pics 1-3 there are a number of T-72B's after multiple RPG hits. You can see the boxes of ERA worked out. In most cases they followed to serve in the same unit. However, another wide spread Russian model, T-80B was more problematic in Chechenya mostly due to its weaker lateral defence and the vertical position of rounds in AL.
Only in "designer" stage tracks are important. When designers deside what max speed tank should have and install appropriate gearbox they look at how much max speed can tracks handle without reliability issues, how fast tank can drive without becoming uncontrollable, etc. Track reliability also play big factor in true crossroad perfomance, but they are not related to short-time max speed you can read in advertise paper. Else it would be possible to exceed max speed for a short time. Max speed is only limited by engine RPM/gearbox.The type and capability of track is actually far more important to max speed than overall horsepower in an armoured vehicle as I recall...
No, they're simply not needed in such high numbers in Iraq anymore, so they reduced the amount of tanks. That's it.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
For starters, some are being sold. In the very link you provided, yuo can tally the exports, i.e. 2005:
Australia 59
Egypt 100
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/ext.php?ref=http://disarmament2.un.org/UN_REGISTER.nsf
Considering that c. 8,800 M1 Abrams have been produced and a number has been exported, more accurately
Australia: 59 M1A1 AIM
Egypt: 880 M1A1
Saudi Arabia: 315 M1A2
Kuwait: 218 M1A2
That leaves a maximum US M1 inventory of around 7,400. Now those numbers do not indicate "how many has been lost" but rather inventory of MBT's reported to the UN. That means there are a number of possibilities. First, downsizing of MBT inventory; second, changing accounting practices; third, all those 8000 in inventory in 2002 are probably not M1's, but also M60's. They have probably been exported or scrapped, causing numbers to drop.
The numbers do not match, because inventory in, say 2002, include 128 M60's exported in 2001 due to accounting practices. So, they are not comparable numbers.
The reduction in numbers does not indicate tank losses, and certainly not of a particular type of tank, as, at least in 2002, the M60 was tallied into the numbers.
In use by the US:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1-specs.htm
As far as I can tell, these numbers were collated in 2002-3.
Australia 59
Egypt 100
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/ext.php?ref=http://disarmament2.un.org/UN_REGISTER.nsf
Considering that c. 8,800 M1 Abrams have been produced and a number has been exported, more accurately
Australia: 59 M1A1 AIM
Egypt: 880 M1A1
Saudi Arabia: 315 M1A2
Kuwait: 218 M1A2
That leaves a maximum US M1 inventory of around 7,400. Now those numbers do not indicate "how many has been lost" but rather inventory of MBT's reported to the UN. That means there are a number of possibilities. First, downsizing of MBT inventory; second, changing accounting practices; third, all those 8000 in inventory in 2002 are probably not M1's, but also M60's. They have probably been exported or scrapped, causing numbers to drop.
The numbers do not match, because inventory in, say 2002, include 128 M60's exported in 2001 due to accounting practices. So, they are not comparable numbers.
The reduction in numbers does not indicate tank losses, and certainly not of a particular type of tank, as, at least in 2002, the M60 was tallied into the numbers.
In use by the US:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1-specs.htm
As far as I can tell, these numbers were collated in 2002-3.
Last edited:
And why should you let whored down tanks in the theater when you have full stocks of Abrams in CONUS and Europe?
You bring them home for refurbishment and since bringing the Abrams back to service is not nearly as vital as other assets the overall number of Abrams in service shrinks.
Maybe in Chechen it has something to do with poorer logistics or a decent need for the tanks.
Or the Russian army just thought that they could drive the T-72s till they literally fall apart and than scrap them entirely.
If you have the time and capability to replace damaged and whored down tanks with new ones from your stocks it is the best way to remain on a fixed level of fully operational tanks and repairs and refurbishment can be done much better at home than in the theater.
You bring them home for refurbishment and since bringing the Abrams back to service is not nearly as vital as other assets the overall number of Abrams in service shrinks.
Maybe in Chechen it has something to do with poorer logistics or a decent need for the tanks.
Or the Russian army just thought that they could drive the T-72s till they literally fall apart and than scrap them entirely.
If you have the time and capability to replace damaged and whored down tanks with new ones from your stocks it is the best way to remain on a fixed level of fully operational tanks and repairs and refurbishment can be done much better at home than in the theater.
Or the Russian army just thought that they could drive the T-72s till they literally fall apart and than scrap them entirely.
That does seem to be the routine over there... and not much different from what they do with the crewmen of those tanks.
The life of a T-62 drive-train was about 500 hours, and you could squeeze about 350 more out of them after a good overhaul. Remember, most tanks are expected to last only a few weeks in combat. After that, the chassis get buried in concrete somewhere along the border with China, with just the turret showing. Even today, they make for a nice tip-wire defense.
What is the life expectancy of the T-90 series? I would guess that it would be better than the old diesels burning #2 octane fuel... but you never know with these guys.
That does seem to be the routine over there... and not much different from what they do with the crewmen of those tanks.
The life of a T-62 drive-train was about 500 hours, and you could squeeze about 350 more out of them after a good overhaul. Remember, most tanks are expected to last only a few weeks in combat. After that, the chassis get buried in concrete somewhere along the border with China, with just the turret showing. Even today, they make for a nice tip-wire defense.
What is the life expectancy of the T-90 series? I would guess that it would be better than the old diesels burning #2 octane fuel... but you never know with these guys.
Sounds about ok to me, inline with counterporary western tanks. It translates to about 10.000-15.000km. Of course, after engine change it could happly drive another 500 hours without much problem. And another 500 hours, and another 500 hours, and etc. Compare it to much newer Abram's engine - AGT-1500. It have 19.000 km (~1000 hours) before overhaul - and keep in mind, gas turbines generally have 2-3 times higher MTBO than diesels. (The M1A1 as whole tank have 9600km MTBO... althought it sound a bit strange to me)Or the Russian army just thought that they could drive the T-72s till they literally fall apart and than scrap them entirely.
That does seem to be the routine over there... and not much different from what they do with the crewmen of those tanks.
The life of a T-62 drive-train was about 500 hours, and you could squeeze about 350 more out of them after a good overhaul. Remember, most tanks are expected to last only a few weeks in combat. After that, the chassis get buried in concrete somewhere along the border with China, with just the turret showing. Even today, they make for a nice tip-wire defense.
What is the life expectancy of the T-90 series? I would guess that it would be better than the old diesels burning #2 octane fuel... but you never know with these guys.
P.S. This is perfect example how peoples what dont know much about diskussing subject draw far-going general conlusion about russian tanks, russian peoples, and russian technic in general.
P.P.S. Leo2 MTBO is 10.000 km.
Last edited:
Okay Extern - I hate to disappoint you especially with you thinking that we are losing hundreds of M1`s in Iraq, that is not the case, As fellow forum participants have stated, some are being sold and plus we are pulling them out and using Strykers instead. You may be very disappointed with the exact amount that have been written off the books due to battlefield hostile action.
The Indian T-90S' engine MTBO is 11000 km or 500 work hrs. The tank has a special counter for it. It's not bad number in comparizon to world avarage.
Another interesting info: the T-90S' 2А46М-2 MG barrel has survaivability ~500-550 discharges, while the number for Leclerq CN-120-26 MG - is only 400 . However for Abrams' MG the number is 700.
ekcherl, between 2004 and 2005 the total number of tanks in American Army/Fleet is reduced by jump down by ~1000 tanks (2004 г - 7460 , 2005 г - 6451). I still have no good explanation for such shortening, but if one assumes loses in Iraq, the picture becomes to be more understood.
Last edited:
I don't exactly know, but I could imagine they just mothballed many tanks. It would be interesting how the list looked like before 2001, in the 90's and so. I can well imagine that the US in the face of A'stan and Iraq activated many mothballed M1, which now, after the "hot" armour vs. armour action is over, have been returned to the depots.
You don't seriously think that the US lost over one thousand ( !!! ) tanks in one year?
You don't seriously think that the US lost over one thousand ( !!! ) tanks in one year?
The most part of tanks disability in any modern conflict is without crew life loss. It's just statistics. I remember, the number of tanks, lost by pro-russian chechen opposition in 1st Grozny siege (1994) were like 30 units, while only 4 crew were died (totaly or partial). The bulk part of tank loss in Iraq, I suppose, are also due to mobility kill, fire kill etc , due to RPG fire, IEDs without crew kill. So the events were'nt broadcasted by TV. Also the pure technical incidents are not rare, I suppose, in such hostile enviroment, tactical over-stretch and heavy logistic burden.
The shrinking of armor forces at the middle of 'battle for freedom and democracy' (Iraq War) - is clear indication IMHO that it's related to their combat&non-combat use on the theater. Otherwise why should the US military reduce its armor forces just while the need for them is on apogee?
After some years of operations a tank needs to be overhauled. They send them back to the states and replace them with new ones from the stocks.
The same goes for many damaged tanks which could be repaired in theater but it is easier, cheaper and safer to replace them new ones.
Abrams are not very high at the list when it comes to refurbishment because there are wast stocks of them available.
The Canadians for example stated that after 2 years of operations their LAVs in A-stan need a 1 on 1 replacement. Not because they lost them in combat but just because the constant use under harsh conditions runs combat vehicles down.
The same goes for many damaged tanks which could be repaired in theater but it is easier, cheaper and safer to replace them new ones.
Abrams are not very high at the list when it comes to refurbishment because there are wast stocks of them available.
The Canadians for example stated that after 2 years of operations their LAVs in A-stan need a 1 on 1 replacement. Not because they lost them in combat but just because the constant use under harsh conditions runs combat vehicles down.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
GAO 2003.
Abrams Tank
First delivered in the early 1980s, the Abrams is the Army’s main battle tank and destroys enemy forces using enhanced mobility and firepower. Variants of the Abrams include the M1, M1A1, and M1A2. The M1 has a 105mm main gun; the M1A1 and M1A2 have a 120 mm gun, combined with a powerful turbine engine and special armor. There are 5,848 tanks in the inventory, and the estimated average age is 14 years. The M1 variant will be phased out by 2015. The M1 and M1A2 variant are being upgraded to the M1A2 Systems Enhancement Program (SEP) by July 2004.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04112.pdf
GAO 2005.
Abrams M1A1/M1A2 Tank
First delivered in the early 1980s, the Abrams is the Army’s main battle tank and destroys enemy forces using enhanced mobility and firepower. Variants of the Abrams include the M1,1 M1A1, and M1A2 and there are a total of 5,848 tanks of all variants in the fleet. The M1A1 and M1A2 have a 120 mm main gun, a powerful turbine engine, and special armor. There are 5,109 M1A1 and M1A2 tanks in the inventory, and their estimated average age is 12 years. Officials state that in the future, the Army is planning to use only a two-variant fleet of the Abrams, consisting of the M1A1 Abrams Integrated Management and the upgraded M1A2 System Enhancement Program—the primary difference being the digital architecture of the System Enhancement Program variant. The M1 variant is expected to be phased out by 2015. The Abrams is expected to remain in the Army’s inventory until at least 2045.
[...]
We assessed the long-term program strategy and funding for the Abrams tank as green because the Army has identified a plan to reduce the current inventory of 5,109 to about 3,000 tanks in keeping with current Army transformation plans and has programmed funding to recapitalize the remaining fleet. The Army plans to move to a two-variant fleet of the Abrams, the M1A1 Abrams Integrated Management and M1A2 System Enhancement Program, which they plan to utilize until at least 2045.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06141.pdf
That means they are being scrapped as part of the transformation effort. The US Army is moving away from masses of heavy armour, as it is not needed. The UN numbers are not appropriate for "loss" estimations.
Abrams Tank
First delivered in the early 1980s, the Abrams is the Army’s main battle tank and destroys enemy forces using enhanced mobility and firepower. Variants of the Abrams include the M1, M1A1, and M1A2. The M1 has a 105mm main gun; the M1A1 and M1A2 have a 120 mm gun, combined with a powerful turbine engine and special armor. There are 5,848 tanks in the inventory, and the estimated average age is 14 years. The M1 variant will be phased out by 2015. The M1 and M1A2 variant are being upgraded to the M1A2 Systems Enhancement Program (SEP) by July 2004.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04112.pdf
GAO 2005.
Abrams M1A1/M1A2 Tank
First delivered in the early 1980s, the Abrams is the Army’s main battle tank and destroys enemy forces using enhanced mobility and firepower. Variants of the Abrams include the M1,1 M1A1, and M1A2 and there are a total of 5,848 tanks of all variants in the fleet. The M1A1 and M1A2 have a 120 mm main gun, a powerful turbine engine, and special armor. There are 5,109 M1A1 and M1A2 tanks in the inventory, and their estimated average age is 12 years. Officials state that in the future, the Army is planning to use only a two-variant fleet of the Abrams, consisting of the M1A1 Abrams Integrated Management and the upgraded M1A2 System Enhancement Program—the primary difference being the digital architecture of the System Enhancement Program variant. The M1 variant is expected to be phased out by 2015. The Abrams is expected to remain in the Army’s inventory until at least 2045.
[...]
We assessed the long-term program strategy and funding for the Abrams tank as green because the Army has identified a plan to reduce the current inventory of 5,109 to about 3,000 tanks in keeping with current Army transformation plans and has programmed funding to recapitalize the remaining fleet. The Army plans to move to a two-variant fleet of the Abrams, the M1A1 Abrams Integrated Management and M1A2 System Enhancement Program, which they plan to utilize until at least 2045.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06141.pdf
That means they are being scrapped as part of the transformation effort. The US Army is moving away from masses of heavy armour, as it is not needed. The UN numbers are not appropriate for "loss" estimations.
Last edited:
Hmm... interesting find. It means the greatest reduce in number was between 2003 and 2005 , while the decision for Anrams' reduce was made only in 2005. Does somebody tries to cover the Iraq losses by such 'retroactive reduce'? So they wrote in 2005 without numbered elaboration: "Due to the high use in theater (Iraq), these operations may accelerate the aging process of the tank fleet". Anyway thanks for the good info, Grand Danois!
- Status