Your favorite Modern tank

Source of your data? You are certainly entitled to your opinion, as is everyone yet there is a difference between data and opinion, is there not?

Are you familiar with the SEP system?
Among other things it "provides compatability with the Army Command and Control Architecture to ensure the ability to share command and control and situational awareness with all components of the combined arms team" (this combined arms team is what I have been referring to in earlier posts and which is one of the things lacking in most other Armies...at least by comparison)

 

Atleast by comparisong, FINALLY, you get it, the US has a big army, but other forces aint lacking this ''communication'' ability, and your ''data'' is just based on your own opinion, for instance you said that you don't know much about other MBT's in there capability, but you CAN say other armies are lacking this and that...?

 

Oh, Grieg, a warm welcome to you, by the way!

Yes, I was making :roll: at the regulars...
Indeed, Euro vs US is correct (mostly because we have very few non European members!). I think that many of us Europeans get frustrated because America would win in a straight fight (hell, your Marine Corps is larger than the UK's entire Armed Forces) and therefore try to prove that on an individual level, we would win. :-?
Plus there is the 'schoolyard bully' effect, as the USA is the only superpower (besides China, who is effectively isolationist, so doesn't count), and therefore unpopular!

Yes, yes, and yes. Although it should be pointed out that European armies have very similar support systems in place, especially as they train with the Americans and were intended to fight alongside the Americans (NATO, and all that).
Effectively, the supporting systems are similar, the tanks are similar...

 

oh, you nasty American you!

But seriously guys, lighten up!

Facts:

The US could stomp any given nation (posible exception of China).

Yes, looking at an MBT alone is not entirely correct, it is part of a very complex web of stuff - in all national armies. Oh, and the current MBTs are pretty similar in effectiveness.

Yes, new European tanks (especially the LeClerc) are incorporating greater communications with HQ, as the American equipment is.

Good summary?

 

All the modern EU countris should be put in one, just like the US, lets see who is the superpower than :lol:

 

I think we all know the sad history of joint tank design ventures....

 

I think what Jeffrey means is the hypothetical military power of a European Union operating as tightly knit as the United States' federal government. I doubt anything like this will ever come about and as an inhabitant of the richest country in the EU who is paying ridiculous amounts to get the poorer countries up to snuff economically, I will always oppose such a union. Anyway, were it actually set up like that, its military power could not doubt be compared to that of the US.

 

It is not a tiny little bit radioactive it ihas about 40% of the radioactivity of Normal uranium quite harmless while outside the body, however, after stiking a vehicle or other hard object radioactive dust is created and if ingested can accumulate to something more serious.

So yes, being in a tank is quite safe until you fire off DU rounds.

 

Grieg i would be delighted to give you the source, but first you give 'us' yours !. You have yet to bring up even a single source to back up your statements.


KBO

 

Btw the data i provided was for the M1A1 HA also !

 

Um..do you see no irony in your statement? The people inside the tank that takes a hit from a DU penetrator are likely dead and if not that was the intention when the round was fired at them, was it not?

Combat is dangerous. Armored combat is dangerous despite the protection a modern MBT provides. If your goal is to eliminate all risks then a military force must disband and go home and watch TV

 

I have not supplied a source for my data (as opposed to my opinions) because the things I have stated are so well documented as to seem silly to supply links to things that in an armor forum should be self evident.
If you wish to be spoon-fed begin with these:
[url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/]http://www.globalsecurity.org/[/url]

http://www.gdls.com/index.html

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/

http://fprado.com/armorsite/main.html

Nothing that I stated is classified. These sites mention all of the things I discussed.
On the other hand detailed armor composition and performance data are all classified. That is why I have asked you for your source.

 

I wasn't just talking about the tank crews, the civilian population, and also dismounted crews. so if you are in the vicinity of a DU strike you could ingest more than is good for you. As I am sure that an educated man such as yourself is aware, all radiation has a cummulative effect.

 

Websites ! :roll:

Why do you think my data is given as estimates, not actual ?

My main source on the Protection levels is Steven Zaloga, The book Guns vs Armor, the book LEOPARD 2 Main Battle Tank 1979-1998, and General Dynamics.

Still as you said armor protection is classified, so only estimates can be given by top experts in the field.

KBO

 

The SEP program was abandoned in 2004 so only a (relative) few Abrams were involved.

 

Please tell us how the US improved on Chobham armour, I am sorry but I was sure the Brits developed the second generation Chobham.

 

Not abandoned. Future contracts cancelled. Since the global threat that MBTs are designed to counter has lessened many military contracts have been scaled back of cancelled in all countries. The US is no exception.
The numbers of AFVs already upgraded and those still to be provided under previous contracts are substantial. If we are going to discuss numbers of MBTs perhaps you should mention the number of Leos and such in the Euro nations inventory?

 

Indeed they did GP. However the Abrams does not use Chobham armor of either 1st or 2nd generation. Rather after examining the British invented ..so called Chobham.. composite armor, the Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Ballistics Research Laboratory developed their own design based on what they had learned from the Brits plus some research of their own.
As to the precise differences neither I nor anyone else (willing to talk) can enlighten you on that point since it is all highly classified. Suffice it to say that they are similar in some ways and different in others (such as use of DU for example).

 

Most European countries are going for the Leopard2, there are many countries that have tested the Leopard2/Challenger2/M1A2 Abrm,as and Leclerc and everytime the Leopard wins, noone ones the Abrams ( :lol: ), noone wants a tank that uses twice as much fuel than the Leopard2, and noone wants a tank that is, in performance, somewhat ''inferieur'' VS the Leopard and cost a couple of million more

I think there are more Leopard2's in this world than M1A1/A2 Abrams, German alone has about 3000 if i'm correct.

And its clear that you got your information from some PRO-Abrams websites, not all, but some, ore all partially ... especially the General Dynamics website, did you really think they would say something about there tank that makes it look bad? Ofcourse not, they will only say bad things about other tanks :lol:

 

As to numbers..there are conflicting reports of the numbers of Leo 2's produced but the highest I have seen is 3200 (since 1979) and that includes the numbers in Austria, Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, Finland and Poland. Germany could hardly have 3000 alone.
Over 8800 M1A1/2's have been produced.

Where are you getting your information from I might ask?

I thought there was a fairly balanced presentation here:

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,SoldierTech_Leopard2A6,,00.html

Despite the fact that the article is advocating the Leo 2 as a less expensive alternative to the Abrams the relative strengths and weaknesses are fairly well discussed.

I listed those sites as a place to begin researching however I didn't use them as a source for my opinions but for the data that was presented. The data that I was discussing is all part of the public record and available from many sources.