M1A2 MBT
-
The M1A2 MBT is touted as one of the best if not the best tank around. However during the Gulf War 2, pictures of burning or disabled M1A2 tanks is common. My question is how survivable is this Cold War designed MBT still relevant in today's battlefield? Its important to note that Iraq's capability to wage a modern war is questionable which is confirmed by the coalition central command repeatedly. Please comment.
-
The leopard 2 would kick the ass of the M1A2.....seeing as to how the M1A2 was designed after the Leo1......Originally posted by tankee1981:The M1A2 MBT is touted as one of the best if not the best tank around. However during the Gulf War 2, pictures of burning or disabled M1A2 tanks is common. My question is how survivable is this Cold War designed MBT still relevant in today's battlefield? Its important to note that Iraq's capability to wage a modern war is questionable which is confirmed by the coalition central command repeatedly. Please comment. 
but the firecontorl on the M1A2 is still good -
Not to pour cold water hor...
Those current engage in war are M1A1 model (same as those used in the 1991 gulf war). 3rd infantry division is still based on the previous gulf war technology.
In fact I look forward the 4th infantry division join in this battle, the so call new era digital division. This divsion operate the latest M1A2. -
what about challenger? slow as hell, but how does it match up against M1A2? And Erm, u sure the Leopard 2 will kick M1A2 butt? i'm not sure but i doubt so leh. . . .. .
and anyone got any idea what is Chobam armour?? i know its classified but there must be something about it out there. . . -
I dun think so, the tanks are roughly equal in armor and mobility (the Abrams armor is probably heavier, the americans being crazy about DU). In a slug out fight I suppose the outcome is more dependent on crew then tank, though I suspect the M1 DU package will give it an edge over the Leopard 2, which due to certain conservations in european states about using nuclear material, is relys on less effective materials to make up it's armor.
However in the generally tatical sense, when it comes to factoring in most of the fog of war and stuff into the M1A2 vs Leopard 2 battles, the advanced digitalized technology of the Americans will start to show it's edge over the Leopard 2, which is by comparism, relatively blind and deaf very fast.
IVIS technology and intergrated databus gives M1A2 unit far more situtational awareness and response times then any Leopard 2 unit (which is very important, given tanks are largely blind), and that's going to be a definate advantage. FCS of the M1A2 is superior above any tank currently, given the new upgraded databus the blackboxes that control FCS makes up a sizeable proportion of the tank's cost), and thus the M1A2 Abrams can shoot more accucrately then any tank in the market today. Any body rooting for the Leopard 2 dun seem to have any valid reason rather then rabid anti-americanism...
Unfortunately the reason why we dun see many M1A2s around opr being deployed is because they are expensive to build, and hence the army is still relying on it's M1A1 tanks to do the job while they slowly filter in the A2 models. All of the american tanks in Gulf War2 are A1 variants.
And by the way, the M1A1 has preformed very well in GW2 so far, most of the supposed knock outs were shots to the thinly armoured rear areas of the tank. That kind of ambush woulds have taken out any MBT. However when the Abrams was not ambushed or surprised, the Iraqis found that it was pratically impossible to destroy. Their RPGs simply left burn marks and their 125mm tank cannons bounced off the frontal armor of the A1 like peashooter ammo. That's the reason why the Americans happy happy dare to drive their tanks to the heart of Badhdad in the midst of heavy RPG fire and all the nonsense the Iraqis were throwing at them, the Abrams will be relatively unaffected unless their crews got careless or failed to check six. -
other then firecontrol the Leopard 2 has proved itself better then the M1A2 in tests.The gun and armour is better but the firecontorl i must say makes the M1A2 equal and in fact much better for combine arms but the Leopard 2 in a total ground war will winOriginally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I dun think so, the tanks are roughly equal in armor and mobility (the Abrams armor is probably heavier, the americans being crazy about DU).
But the IVIS technology and intergrated databus gives M1A2 commanders far more situtational awareness then any Leopard 2 crew, and that's going to be a definate advantage. Any body rooting for the Leopard 2 dun seem to have any valid reason rather then rabid anti-americanism...
(and the thing about DU....is it intergrated or simply stuck on like the reactive armour?) -
surprisingly other then the fact that the brits are keeping very very quiet about it i cant find anything else.....Originally posted by laser51088:what about challenger? slow as hell, but how does it match up against M1A2? And Erm, u sure the Leopard 2 will kick M1A2 butt? i'm not sure but i doubt so leh. . . .. .
and anyone got any idea what is Chobam armour?? i know its classified but there must be something about it out there. . .
ok so maybe kicking the butt of the M1A2 would alittle far but yea in a tank on tank battle the Leopard has a better chance of winning,but then i once hear that in this age of warfare he who shoots 1st wins so yea...... -
The DU armor layer is intergrated to the Abrams armor package along with the Chobhamm package. This means that the Abrams actually has the heaviest protection package of any MBT currently deployed, including the Leopard 2. The Abrams is proof (from the front) against the 120mm gun that both it and the Leopard 2 carries, the frontal armor of the Leopard 2 however, cannot keep out the advanced thirty-one ratio "silver bullet" APFSDS of the Abrams.
If both tanks slugged it out front to front, and even if the Leopard 2 got off the first shot, it will be unable to penetrate the Abrams frontal armor at any range, however the Abrams can penetrate the frontal armor of the Leopard 2 quite easily, and at distance as well.
The Leopard 2 is a good tank, and will prove itself well against soviet-bloc tanks. But note that the Abrams design is actually newer then the Leopard 2 by several years, the Abrams spots a better ballistic shape (making better use of the armor) in accordance to heavier armor as well. -
hmm.......wasnt aware of that.But DU armour is different from a Chohbamm armour.They are both different ways of making armour....of which even the Germans and Isrealis have their own version...or so i've read.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:No, the DU armor is intergrated to the Abrams armor package along with the Chobhamm package. This means that the Abrams actually has the heaviest protection package of any MBT currently deployed, including the Leopard 2. The Abrams is proof (from the front) against the 120mm gun that both it and the Leopard 2 carries, the frontal armor of the Leopard 2 however, cannot keep out the advanced "silver bullet" APFSDS of the Abrams. -
No, the M1A2 uses the exact same gun as the Leopard 2. The M256 smoothbore the Arams uses is made by the German company Rheinmetall Landsysteme GmbH, and guess what. The Leopard 2 is armed witht the M256 as well. Ammo wise however, the americans have a very big edge. Their disregard for the toxic hazards of DU ammo and development of thirty one ratio DU APFSDS gives their ammo a significant preformance advantage (1.5 to 2 times better) then the twenty one ratio tungsten APFSDS that the Leopard 2 uses.Originally posted by |-|05|:.The gun and armour is better but the firecontorl i must say makes the M1A2 equal
As for armor, I stated liao.
Once you sort the wheat from the chaff and looked through all the data, you'll realize that the Abrams actually has heavier armor, better ammo and fire control then the Leopard 2. Making it the most advanced MBT being used in the world today. -
Question:
Can the driver of the M1A1 exit from the vehicle from his hatch with the turret in the forward postion.
From the photos is seems that the turret is right on top of the hatch. And also I see pictures of M1s with turrets skewed to one side when they are parked. Could it be to allow driver to enter and exit the tank? -
Dun get mixed up, the M1A2 protection package consist of both the Chobhamm armor plus the DU armor layer. The exact composition is a tightly kept secret (that's why they always destroy all their disabled tanks to avoid them from falling into enemy hands) and is constantly being reviewed. But get this straight, the Abrams uses bother Chobhamm armor (that provides great protection against HEAT rounds) plus an additional layer of DU about 2 inches thick. The exact arrangment is of course, a closely guarded secret.Originally posted by |-|05|:hmm.......wasnt aware of that.But DU armour is different from a Chohbamm armour.They are both different ways of making armour....of which even the Germans and Isrealis have their own version...or so i've read. -
Question:
Can the driver of the M1A1 exit from the vehicle from his hatch with the turret in the forward postion.
From the photos is seems that the turret is right on top of the hatch. And also I see pictures of M1s with turrets skewed to one side when they are parked. Could it be to allow driver to enter and exit the tank? -
i agree with the DU ammo.And i'm looking at their specs.....hmm......surprising those 2 are so so alike!Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:No, the M1A2 uses the exact same gun as the Leopard 2. The M256 smoothbore the Arams uses is made by the German company Rheinmetall Landsysteme GmbH, and guess what. The Leopard 2 is armed witht the M256 as well. Ammo wise however, the americans have a very big edge. Their disregard for the toxic hazards of DU ammo and development of thirty one ratio DU APFSDS gives their ammo a significant preformance advantage (1.5 to 2 times better) then the twenty one ratio tungsten APFSDS that the Leopard 2 uses.
As for armor, I stated liao.
Once you sort the wheat from the chaff and looked through all the data, you'll realize that the Abrams actually has heavier armor, better ammo and fire control then the Leopard 2. Making it the most advanced MBT being used in the world today.
oh and the MERKAVA 4 looks better though -
i believe they had some problems like that during the current conflict.....but they did manage to get the guy out though with alot of troubleOriginally posted by spencer99:Question:
Can the driver of the M1A1 exit from the vehicle from his hatch with the turret in the forward postion.
From the photos is seems that the turret is right on top of the hatch. And also I see pictures of M1s with turrets skewed to one side when they are parked. Could it be to allow driver to enter and exit the tank? -
They have to reverse the turret completely for the driver to get out with ease, if not it's gonna be a real squeeze and troublesome to get out with the gun pointed out front, if possible at all.
The Merkava 4 is the most crew-survivable tank in the entire world today, the armor protection is not the heaviest, but the Israelis construct their tank in such a way that even though the thing is virtually destroyed, the crew will still have a high chance of surviving. -
Wow, Singapore could use that tank..
-
i'd be contented with the Leo 2 or even and M1A1 haha anything beats the amx we have now!Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:Wow, Singapore could use that tank.. -
AMX 13 SM1... aka the piece of outdated post WW2 crap?
-
yep yep haahOriginally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:AMX 13 SM1... aka the piece of outdated post WW2 crap?
-
Russian main battle tank T-90 is also as good as M1. Any comment.
-
The latest upgrade to the Abrams is in fact the M1A2 SEP.
See the info:
http://w4.pica.army.mil/wsb/Maneuver%20Systems/Abrams/m1a2_sep.htm
SAF does not need a nearly 70 tonnes tank. Even a 50 ton tank is slightly too heavy. We cannot hope that SAF will replace the SM1 with anything other than a 105mm or 120mm light tank. The Centurions however would most likely be replaced by an older generation of MBT, my guess would be Mekarva 3 (Baz???) or some upgraded version of M-60A3.
SAF was reported looking at getting AMX-30B2 at some time, but I seriously doubt that would be good for tropic region.
So, my ideal armoured force for SAF would be
1. 3,6,9 Div to replace 2 armoured brigade SM1 tanks with a locally made light tank, eg. Bionix chassis with the RAUG 120mm gun, possibly on a foreign turret like the CV90-120T ones. Second option is to look at getting the Jordanian Falcon 2 turret with the 120mm gun.
2. replace 1 armoured brigade SM1 tanks with a modern MBT of around 50 tons. The only one I can is the Leclerc.
3. For the new 32 Div, replace all current centurions with an MBT with whatever SAF choice is. If Mekarva is to be chosen, I would like to see the Merk 3Baz with independent commander panaromic sight coupled with Hunter-Killer mode plus a whole range of active and passive densive aids used in Mekarva 4.
Just my 2 cents. -
Some thoughts
Based on current doctrine, 3,6,9 div organic armour brigade won't be a heavy armour brigade, so can forget anything that has an MLC load class of above 30 (approx 35 metric tons based on engineer calculation). They only play a support role to provide heavy direct firepower and thrust. Most probably replacement will be a variant of Bionix with 120mm cannon turrut or worse case stick to the current SM1. At most in close combat (FIBUA), this light tank will wear a "bra protection kit" consisting of reactive armour, additional armour plates and barang barang hangings outside the tank to soften the impact from HEAT rounds like RPG-7, AT-4, recoiless rifle etc. In this configuration, the light tank mobility will be greatly reduced but that won't be a problem as FIBUA fighting does not require cross country performance say 65km/hr.
So any thoughts of new heavy armour will be the 32 div. Maybe we can get a few of the 2nd hand M1A1 after this iraqi warOriginally posted by Joe Black:So, my ideal armoured force for SAF would be
1. 3,6,9 Div to replace 2 armoured brigade SM1 tanks with a locally made light tank, eg. Bionix chassis with the RAUG 120mm gun, possibly on a foreign turret like the CV90-120T ones. Second option is to look at getting the Jordanian Falcon 2 turret with the 120mm gun.
2. replace 1 armoured brigade SM1 tanks with a modern MBT of around 50 tons. The only one I can is the Leclerc.
3. For the new 32 Div, replace all current centurions with an MBT with whatever SAF choice is. If Mekarva is to be chosen, I would like to see the Merk 3Baz with independent commander panaromic sight coupled with Hunter-Killer mode plus a whole range of active and passive densive aids used in Mekarva 4.
Just my 2 cents. -
No way, the russian T-90 is actually an improved version of the T-72, the Abrams will have little trouble fraggin' it in a stand up fight. Besides, the T-90 was built on the old soviet doctorine of mass numbers of inferior quality tanks. One on one, the M1 series has greater range, accuracy and armor, not to mention mobility.Originally posted by electric_lucid:Russian main battle tank T-90 is also as good as M1. Any comment.
For russian MBT that stand a fair chance against western MBTs, look at the Black Eagle and the exist-on-paper-only T-95. -
I would not want to put a weight limit on any of our future armoured systems, but I am in favour of a 40 ton system with modular armor that can be adjusted to various needs. Mobility will be an issue as well, and must be enough to keep the Malaysians reeling back, and defeat their MBTs in a stand up fight as well.