Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

The M1A2 Abrams: Obsolete or Battleworthy?

Discussion in 'Post-World War 2 Armour' started by Blaster, Jul 23, 2006.

  1. Anton phpbb3

    Anton phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    310
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Hello MikeGolf,


    Thanks for this excellent post!

    As far as I know the Iraqi´s t-72 were mainly second series production upgraded to t-72g/m with less armour (350-375mm versus 450mm dual layer with composite).
    In a photobook of the usmc i´ve found only a handfull pictures of these versions. The reason I said you can´t compare iraqi t-72 performance with current t-72 is that these version are nothing compared with modernized t-72, for example the chech/slovak t-72m2 with the lird-4d laser irridation detector and the french galix vehicle protection system has much better active/passive protection. (I haven´t seen any passive/avtive protection besides atgm decoy)
    The kind of at weapons you referred to. Could you tell something about these weapons because I have seen and read about modern at weapons used by the iraqi´s currently (for example the iranian tow2 the toophan)
    Is it also correct that the iraqi resistance made conversions with at-3 warhead´s for example?

    Like to hear from you.

    Kind regards,
     
  2. Miller phpbb3

    Miller phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    California
    via TanksinWW2
    very battle worthy
     
  3. MikeGolf

    MikeGolf New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    The insurgents have proven that being illiterate doesn't necessarily mean dumb. They are modifying anything they can get their hands on to get more bang. Some of it is self learned but someone is teaching them some good stuff as well. In addition, very modern weapons are being brought into the country. I'm not going to get into the capabilities and effects of the weapons. Just understand that money was well spent on the Abrams because it has saved lives. Yet eventually the design will need to be updated. I hope like hell we don't wait till the tank becomes obsolete then play catch up. That costs lives just like everytime we do a draw down.
     
  4. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Actualy,i can admit that M1 cleaned out Iraqi's T-72 and T-55 (yes they had more T-55 then T-72,eawen some older models) from one side,coz M1 proowen betther there,and from otther that US had far betther logistic,and it was highly superior in number and technology.As somebody sayed,later wesions of T-72 r much diferent (M-84 entered service in late 84,then it was great improowment from T-72 and it was 22y a go) then onees from Iraqi's army ,and i think that main boost for abrams is depleted uranium shells,and armor,what i considere as highly dangerous to helth,but no doubth it give greater penetration and stronger armor.And again,it is fact that US newer fighted in history against quantity and quality the same oponent as US forces,and in alot world conflicts,they newer declared war after WW II.
     
  5. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Any one that desires a "fair" fight is a fool. The thing to do is make it as unfair as possible. Crush your enemies. Quickly, and with maximum force.
    Chivalry is dead, if it ever existed at all.

    The US has faced more enemies in the field over the past half century than any other large military in the world. They haven't ever been tested fully, but that's okay (see previous comment about "fair" fights).

    Guerilla warfare is a poltical tool as much as a military one.
    There is no way to win a guerilla conflict using conventional means and without resorting to unacceptably brutal methods. The US forces rapidly defeated the Iraqi conventional army (which mostly vanished) and that is all they can really do except mark time until the Iraqis decide to take charge of their own country then the US needs to pull out, sooner rather than later.
    These kinds of conflicts, against fanatics, are a lose/lose situation. You cut your losses and leave the Iraqis to decide their own fate. They got a helping hand but it's time for them to stand own their own feet.
     
  6. MikeGolf

    MikeGolf New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Your posting was very difficult to follow. I'm not really sure what your point is but I did get this out of it.

    Don't be so afraid of something you don't have any knowledge of. The cleaning products under your sink at home are as dangerous, and some are more, than the ammunition we use in combat.

    Now to veer away from the politics and what not and return to the subject.......

    There is still an anormous amount of growth potential left in the M1 design. That was one of the more brilliant aspects of the design. I've even seen prototype 145mm main guns for the M1 series. The M1A1/2 is still battleworthy in its current configuration against all expected threats. Things are different if we are discussing against NATO allies.
     
  7. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    U r apsolutly right mike,for Iraq war (any war) and fight vs guerilas,but i dont agree that heawy supression will help (u can see Vietnam for exsample,r WWII)

    I mention US wars,coz US army was newer in situation that they must fight equal enemy,so it is not fair to match,like on some otther topic F-16 vs some Iraqis planes,and base on that u determine what plane is good ,and what is crap ,and allso,last modification product,from basic product.

    When i speaked that depleted uranium is dangerous,main problem is that it does not eliminate from soil,and it is heawy metal,and dust from it is hazard and cancerus metal.
     
  8. MikeGolf

    MikeGolf New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    I agree that the US and Brits have the most combat experience with in the last century. Based on that, don't you think they would have the best idae of how to execute operations?

    I'm not sure what the NAM and WWII reference is about. We won WWII and one can easily argue that "heavy weapons" were the key factor in victory. Most weapons firing in combat is suppression. So I don't understand where you are trying to take this.

    I'll make a bet with you. I'll cut open a sabot round and lick the middle and you cut open the bottle of drain cleaner that's under your kitchen sink. After you lick the inside of it, who do you think will need a doctor? Do you think inhaling oven cleaner is safe? There are more dangerous materials in peoples homes than DU rounds. That doesn't mean DU is completely safe. Under certian conditions all heavy metals are dangerous. A good example, lead based paint is illegal to use in homes anymore. Wonder why? Handeling DU requires precautions like almost every chemical being sold in stores. Just don't go licking tanks after they are hit by sabot rounds and you are pretty safe. Don't just accept propaganda but do the research yourself.
     
  9. Hoosier phpbb3

    Hoosier phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bloomington, Indiana USA
    via TanksinWW2
     
  10. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Actualy as i see N. corea is still there so i cant say that US wined there,it was more like draw to me.

    Mike,i mention wwII and Vietnam as exsamples of guerila fights under heawy losses on ur own ppl,resistans did not fade,it become stronger.Only point is that there is no efective ocupation,and fight against resistances with major population support.

    And about depleted uranium,he not much danger as solid round,but when u shoot it,it burst in dust on hit.That dust,cant be eliminated from soil ,and it is practicly nuclear waste dump.It was proowen that Du dust is hazardus for helth.My sink wil be crushed in 30-40 year,but DU dust stay here for long time.I tryed to find some resource who is closer to west then east http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7279/123
    Interesten thing is here,that DU do transmit radiation,and that there is no ewidence that is hazardus on by radiation,and allso there s no evidences that is not,so it it still included. I remember case from US,when some pesticid was proclamed safe that chieldren can play with him (forgot name) after 20-30 years most of that ppl got leukemia.
     
  11. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Actually, South Korea is still there, so you can say that the UN won. :smok:
     
  12. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Not only still there but free, independent and very prosperous. In stark contrast to their brethren in the North
     
  13. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I have split off the whole Depleted Uranium debate into a new topic, called "DU - Health Risk?"

    Back to the M1 series...
     
  14. MikeGolf

    MikeGolf New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Thanks
     

Share This Page