Printable View
Some tank platoons were at 50% strenght by the time they reached Baghdad in the Second Gulf War, and many tanks were barely operational due to combat damage and mechanical breakdown. Those tanks were then cannibalised for parts to keep the other tanks moving - there was a chronic lack of spare parts during the war.
The Abrams is weak at the engine grille on the back of the tank, an RPG hits there and the engine can catch fire and break down.
yes, but I would feel safer in a tank then a Humvee. RPG hit to the Humvee or the Tank, your pick.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Well, sure. But Abrams doesn't transport people worth a jack now does it...? It's also big, loud, kinda clumsy, not that fast, a fuel hog, and a pain to transport any longer distances like all MBTs. Prolly occasionally falls through weak bridges and streets too. Nevermind hideously expensive and requiring a specifically trained crew.
My brother was in Somalia with the Marines when they got deployed shortly after the incident though he never talks about his experiences over there though I did get a nice souvenir from him, a UN beret lol. Somehow the joke "My brother was in Somalia and all I got was this lousy UN beret" comes to mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mailman653
the whole point of the UN is a joke,what you expect :dizzy2: :laugh4:
At least it's a popular joke. ~;p
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
a popular joke (that is true IMO) :yes:
...unlike some I could name. ~;p
Is there another option for the hummer, i guess there are slower APCs but they aren't fantastic
The UN is of course only the sum of its constituent nations.
true but i think china and russia have a tendancy to be negatives as they can veto just about any move into Africa to try and bring peace or introduce infrastructure
The same can be said of the US vetoing anything deemed even mildly anti-Israel that might start to ameliorate the mess in the Middle East. Perhaps all five members could give up the veto, but I don't see any of them agreeibg to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian the apostate
The UN has flaws, but, contrary to the opinions of some, it has served its stated purposes fairly well in its 60 odd years. The fact that the Cold War never turned hot can to some extent (certainly not entirely) be attributed to the UN providing a forum for the US and USSR to hash out their differences with out slinging lead or tossing nukes.
For the UN to be as effective as its detractors seem to expect to be, it would have to infringe severely upon the sovereignity of its member states, something those said-same detractors would be even more up in arms about.
I think it would require something tantamount to a world consensus to sort out the UN. However, short of Vulcans landing in Florida or Moscow I don't see that happening.
That's incorrect Warman. Hit in certain places, an RPG round could destroy a tank or easily disable it. That's why you have infantry to try to minimize the threats.Quote:
Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888
In open plains, though, an abrhams is almost invincible due to the fact that it's front armor is nearly impossible to breach by any third world nation.
I'm under the impression the first-rate armies are starting to have a bit of planning trouble with their MBTs. In principle they should be able to kill each others' prime toys if need be - but these days the active, passive and reactive defenses are getting so good the current offensive weaponry (120mm main gun is the workhorse) doesn't really measure up anymore. AFAIK they're as a result pursuing some pretty sci-fi avenues of research, and I've read the current French MBT had provisions for upgunning to 140mm if all else fails...
Since the best tanks third-world nations have in any meaninfgul numbers are at least two generations old surplus stuff, they obviously don't have a chance if it comes down to that. Then again, the tanks belong to the governements and these days it's not those who're the major problem anyway.
Is that true even with depleted uranium sheels?
Isn't the selling point of the new Kornet that it can breach any armour , and isn't it being bought by "third world" nations ?Quote:
In open plains, though, an abrhams is almost invincible due to the fact that it's front armor is nearly impossible to breach by any third world nation.
What else do you imagine the default kinetic-penetrator munition against another first-rate MBT to be ? Those armours are made crazy sloped and out of a whole slew of high-tech materials for some pretty decent reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by pleasy
Kornet... Russian ATGM system, right ? Betcha it's one of those "top attack" designs that seem to be becoming the norm these days, and for good reasons - the top of the tank just can't be armoured to even remotely the same degree as the hull, else the machines would become monstrously heavy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Which is why they're adding all kinds of pro-, re- and just plain active anti-missile systems to the tanks these days, of course.
With the veto, any Security Council resolution essentially requires consensus among the five permanent members. Additionally, the UN, by design, lacks the ability to coerce its member states to follow what decisions it does make. No national government suffers under such burdens, but citizens of nearly all countries often complain about their own countries governmental inefficiencies.Quote:
Originally Posted by pleasy
The UN definitely needs some major reforms, but expectations of what it can do need to be realistic. Also, people need to be aware that a portion of the UN's negative reputation comes from the incessant harping from certain corners that may be more concerned with advancing their own agendas than providing objective commentary.
Just checked Watchman , penetration up to 1200mm of latest ERA plating .Quote:
the top of the tank just can't be armoured to even remotely the same degree as the hull, else the machines would become monstrously heavy.
Hezballah used them to take out Israeli tanks , the Iraqis to take out abrams , Hamas is supposed to have recieved them , Syria has lots of them Iran has them , Eritrea has them and is believed to have passed some on to the Islamic Courts in Somalia .
The Kornet is a direct attack weapon, what makes it so lethal is that it's light enough for a single soldier to carry into battle.
You mean it just busts straight through and doesn't bother playing around with this top-attack stuff ? Ouch. Just how large a warhead does the missile actually have ?
:oops:Quote:
Just checked Watchman , penetration up to 1200mm of latest ERA plating .
My mistake , its 1200mm of RHA , only 980mm of ERA .
According to this assessment (http://www.defense-update.com/analys...anon_war_3.htm), very few of the Merkavas in Lebanon were penetrated by any of the Hezbollah threats, and only two destroyed (by massive IED's).
Do you have a link to prove this? I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but I just looked and couldn't find anything describing it well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
I did find this however: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#Armor
The Abrams is protected by Chobham armor, a type of composite armor formed by multiple layers of steel and ceramics. It may also be fitted with reactive armor if needed (as in the Urban Survival Kit). Fuel and ammunition are in armored compartments with blowout panels to protect the crew from the risk of the tank's own ammunition cooking off if the tank is damaged. Protection against spalling is provided by a Kevlar liner. Beginning in 1988, M1A1 tanks received improved armor packages that incorporated depleted uranium (DU) mesh in their armor at the front of the turret and the front of the hull. Armor reinforced in this manner offers significantly increased resistance towards all types of anti-tank weaponry, but at the expense of adding considerable weight to the tank. The first M1A1 tanks to receive this upgrade were tanks stationed in Germany, since they were the first line of defense against the Soviet Union. US tankers participating in Operation Desert Storm received an emergency program to upgrade their tanks with depleted uranium armor immediately before the onset of the campaign. M1A2 tanks uniformly incorporate depleted uranium armor, and all M1A1 tanks in active service have been upgraded to this standard as well, the armor thickness believed to be equivalent to 24 inches (610 mm) of RHA. The strength of the armor is estimated to be about the same as similar western, contemporary main battle tanks such as the Leopard 2. The M1A1/M1A2 can survive multiple hits from the most powerful tank munitions (including 120 mm depleted uranium APFSDS) and anti-tank missiles.[citation needed] In the Persian Gulf War, Abrams tanks survived multiple hits at relatively close ranges from Iraqi T-72's, ATGM's. M829 "Silver Bullet" APFSDS rounds from other M1A1 Abrams were unable to penetrate the front and side armor (even at close ranges) in friendly fire incidents as well as an incident in which another Abrams tried to destroy an Abrams that got stuck in mud and had to be abandoned. In addition to the Abrams' advanced armor, some Abrams, most notably M1A1's of the US Marine Corps, are equipped with a Missile Countermeasure Device that jams the guidance systems of laser-guided anti-tank missiles. This device is mounted on the turret roof in front of the Loader's hatch, and can lead some people to mistake Abrams fitted with these devices for the M1A2 version, since the Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer on the latter is mounted in the same place, though the MCD is box-shaped and fixed in place as opposed to cylindrical and rotating like the CITV.
It sounds like the Abhrams is pretty well protected, while in the correct formation, from most threats a third world nation could muster.
True, and sry if that seemed one sided. I don't know why the US would hinder its own bizarre path in the world by vetoing a motion it was going towards and I acknoledge that none of the Atomic club or the 5 permanant members are nice countrys really. U.S., France, Brit, China and Russia, Israel
Potentially a poor man's UN may be more useful then one held by the powerbrokers simply because of their need to stick together. Strange how after whats happened to so many countries that gave the veto power to noble councils we still do it.
Also, considering the expense of transporting, supporting, and recovering MBTs. Really isn't worth it anymore is it? In city streets, they are pretty badly screwed. Outside of the city most countries have the air power to knock the bloody hell out of them. If you have air cover, Tanks are great but really is there going to be a conventional war on either American or European soil? NOw if not eventual John Maynard Keynes may show himself as a far greater then the military commanders of the past.
The Abrams and its peers may be pretty well protected, but then, what do you think the Kornets were designed to kill ? 150mm tandem-charge HEAT warhead ain't something to laugh at. Just by eyeballing the numbers the missile has around 30mm more punch than a tank's main gun (the power of shaped charges increasing fairly directly with the diameter), on top of which come whatever engineering wizardry the designers managed to cram in to improve performance plus the tandem charge. If the manufacturer claim to 980mm of penetration even through reactive armour is legit the Abrams is in trouble, as its armour-thickness equivalency estimate is somewhere along 610mm... Needs a lot more on top of that, even if the estimate were on the low side.
The "Kornet" is also cited as being relatively resistant to "jamming" of the guidance beam.
Let's just say that there's probably some very good reason why the militaries are investing big bucks in ways of keeping ATGMs from hitting the tanks in the first place, and seem to have gotten quite interested in active interception systems lately.
A link to what , its capabilities or to "third world" nations buying it ?Quote:
Do you have a link to prove this? I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but I just looked and couldn't find anything describing it well.
Try this ( the bottom part of the article) , it has both claimedperformance of the missile and a new nation to add to the list of customers .
http://www.stratmag.com/issueMar-15/page02.htm
Impressive. It does appear like it would be able to take out an Abhrams, but the number of countries that have them seem limited at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman