Drawing First Blood (Tank V.S Tank)
- Thread starter Kampfwagen
- Start date
These are VERY academic questions, and the core of why M1 is such a bad tank. Yes, I know I will get lots of hate mail on the subject, but please consider how long it took to put M1 into production, and what it was built for.
In that time Soviet Union went from most of it's fleet being composed of T-55s to the T-80s.
Shipping the armoured units to the Gulf made a substantial dent in the US national GDP, and Americans are still paying for 1991!
Aside from the Gulf countries (and Egypt who gets them subsidized by Saudis), Australia has been the only country to purchase M1s (and only 55) because the deal was just too good to refuse.
At the same time the T-72 variants are all over the World replacing the still seriving T-55s.
Then there is the doctrine and environment. In Kuwait and Iraq the US forces fought against an enemy which was passive and lacking any air support. In Europe, the environment M1 was built for, the NATO forces would be facing an enemy on offencive, and sparring for air superiority.
This would be in an environmennt where the average engagement distance is 6-800 meters, not several kilometers in the deserts of Kuwait and Iraq. Would an M1 withstand a direct hit from a 125mm APFSDS round at this range? I have my doubts.
Then there is the cost. The cost is so prohibitive that the M1 is likely to not be replaced n the next family of AFVs on the design board. At over 63 metric tons, it requires a crew of 6 and a logistic tail that is difficult to sustain even for the US. To keep the tanks in Iraq going now, most of the fleet has been operating on very limited budget, utilizing reduced training regime (so I was told in another forum).
On the other hand about 1,000 T-90s will be built in India which has third world infrastructure to handle armoured forces. This is the highest praise for its designers, because tank design is more then just armour, engine and the gun.
As I understand it the Chinese Type-99 will also ultimately be built in large numbers, and its design is based more on the Soviet/Russian thinking then that of the USA.
The reasoning is simple. Larger numbers of tanks make two principles of war possible that were always crucial to securing victory: surprise and mass.
I think 1 on 1 duels in the open went out with the Napoleonic wars, and Napoleon (who's birthday anniversary it is today!) highly disapproved of them.
Cheers
Greg
In that time Soviet Union went from most of it's fleet being composed of T-55s to the T-80s.
Shipping the armoured units to the Gulf made a substantial dent in the US national GDP, and Americans are still paying for 1991!
Aside from the Gulf countries (and Egypt who gets them subsidized by Saudis), Australia has been the only country to purchase M1s (and only 55) because the deal was just too good to refuse.
At the same time the T-72 variants are all over the World replacing the still seriving T-55s.
Then there is the doctrine and environment. In Kuwait and Iraq the US forces fought against an enemy which was passive and lacking any air support. In Europe, the environment M1 was built for, the NATO forces would be facing an enemy on offencive, and sparring for air superiority.
This would be in an environmennt where the average engagement distance is 6-800 meters, not several kilometers in the deserts of Kuwait and Iraq. Would an M1 withstand a direct hit from a 125mm APFSDS round at this range? I have my doubts.
Then there is the cost. The cost is so prohibitive that the M1 is likely to not be replaced n the next family of AFVs on the design board. At over 63 metric tons, it requires a crew of 6 and a logistic tail that is difficult to sustain even for the US. To keep the tanks in Iraq going now, most of the fleet has been operating on very limited budget, utilizing reduced training regime (so I was told in another forum).
On the other hand about 1,000 T-90s will be built in India which has third world infrastructure to handle armoured forces. This is the highest praise for its designers, because tank design is more then just armour, engine and the gun.
As I understand it the Chinese Type-99 will also ultimately be built in large numbers, and its design is based more on the Soviet/Russian thinking then that of the USA.
The reasoning is simple. Larger numbers of tanks make two principles of war possible that were always crucial to securing victory: surprise and mass.
I think 1 on 1 duels in the open went out with the Napoleonic wars, and Napoleon (who's birthday anniversary it is today!) highly disapproved of them.
Cheers
Greg
Kampfwagen said:
No offense, but a driver is usually a PFC or a SPC, which is between 1-2 years of actualy experience in the military. Further, a junior enlisted is rarely taught the tactical and strategic nuances of warfare, and has little if any technically knowledge of the Abrams weapon system.
In this regard, neither do I. I was a former officer in the Armor branch(and a former NCO before that). And the closest you will get to proffesional opinion is a Master Gunner, or a senior Master Gunner instructor.
Generally, an junior enlisted has a sense of "invincibility", this is a reflection of his age.
MY general opinion of the M1 series is lower than his. It is heavy, requires a huge logistic tail, and lacks some of the defense mechanism of the current generation tanks world wide. For example, it does not have a laser detection system, so it does know when it is being targeted. Also, the T99 is supposed to have a auto target tracking system. In its current state, the Abrams is heavily reliant on the gunner to do the tracking.
In my opinion, modern SABOT will ruin either's day in a hurry, and will render both ineffective for some time. The bottom line is that in a standoff, it come down to mission planning and the skill of the crew which will place the weapons at the right place to take the right shots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To answer a previous question, the most likely modern armor confrontation is between an Isaeli Merkava 4 and an Egyptian M1A1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Area previously mentioned above the driver's vision block is called "Sabot Alley", which is the only part of the turret ring exposed to frontal fire. This is present in all modern tanks, and a bit more prominent on the Challenger series. On that note, the driver's view needs to be imporved in all tanks as to take the load off the tack commander.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Abrams has a crew of 4, not 6.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited:
Welcome Steel21, always nice to have those with military backround onboard...We have another member, Utelore who is also served with M1...
...don't forget to give good introduction in the new members thread in member's club room
...don't forget to give good introduction in the new members thread in member's club room
Not true about lack of turret separation, ergo:
Attachments
-
m 1.jpg -
post-11-1094019353.jpg -
post-11-1104878665.jpg
Kampfwagen
Junior Member
Did that happen right after the explosion or after a possible salvage/scuttling? That turret seems rather nicely and neatly placed.
A One-On-One situation is still likely. Seperations from colums, radios not working, etc. So while not prefered, there is a definate possibility of them getting into that undesirable situation.
As far as the M1 being a bad tank? I have heard alot about what happened in the deserts of Iraq and Kuwait, and a good portion of the tanks engaged were Chinese Type-56 tanks or the Soviet Made equivilant. (I forget which tank that was exactly, T-52 or something)
Many M1 Tankers were actualy worried about encountering a skilled team behind the gun of a T-72. So I imagine that it came down more to driver skill than any sort of gigantic technological leaps. I imagine that those leaps are shortened between T-98/99 and M1A1/2.
Also, it's nice to see that my first topic ever here got it's third page.
A One-On-One situation is still likely. Seperations from colums, radios not working, etc. So while not prefered, there is a definate possibility of them getting into that undesirable situation.
As far as the M1 being a bad tank? I have heard alot about what happened in the deserts of Iraq and Kuwait, and a good portion of the tanks engaged were Chinese Type-56 tanks or the Soviet Made equivilant. (I forget which tank that was exactly, T-52 or something)
Many M1 Tankers were actualy worried about encountering a skilled team behind the gun of a T-72. So I imagine that it came down more to driver skill than any sort of gigantic technological leaps. I imagine that those leaps are shortened between T-98/99 and M1A1/2.
Also, it's nice to see that my first topic ever here got it's third page.
Going back to the BMP-2 vs. M1 Abrams discussion, I can think of 2 incidents in Iraq where the tank "lost" to a BMP. The first was an Iraqi BMP-2 that somehow managed to drive around the back of a M1 and peppered the engine compartment with 30mm autocannon. The second was a friendly fire from Bradley vehicle, accidently shot a M1 in the back with 25mm autocannon. It disabled the engine and set off an APU unit on fire, and the crew had to bail out. In both incidents the tank was technically "mission killed", but not completely destroyed.
These are just lucky or freak accidents that happen very rarely. If you set a force of APCs/IFV's with 25/30mm guns up against a force of MBT's head-on, the APC/IFV's are going to get creamed. Even if you equip the APC/IFV with anti-tank missiles, there's no guarentee that it'd penatrate the frontal armor of a M1 Tank.
I think the T-72 got a lot of negative publicity from the 1991 Gulf War. There's no question that the M1 is better built and protected, but there are many other factors contributing to the failure of the Iraqis. For example the Iraqi T-72 "Lion of Babylon"'s production only started in 1989 with German and Polish assistance. Many vital components had to be imported from Poland. After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the country was under arms embargo and couldn't import additional components from abroad.
This means the Iraqi T-72 was only produced/introduced to the Iraqi army for 2 years before the 1991 Gulf War. These locally assembled tanks are generally considered inferior in quality, comparred to Russian or Polish products. I don't think anyone would argue that the Polish PT-91 is far better in quality comparred to the Iraqi T-72.
After the battle of 73 Easting, the US assessed that the Iraqi Republican Guard units were brave and willing to stand their ground, but suffered poorly from lack of training, logistics, and effective command. The Iraqi T-72 crew did not know how to use their equipment to its full potential. They failed to deploy effective local security to warn them of incoming allied force. The Iraqi marksmenship was also very poor, and did not know how to properly use their artillery or air defense units.
In other words, the Republican Guard was simply given these shiny new T-72's to look good, but lacked modern, realistic training, something that the US and British is far better at. Had the Iraqis invested in better training and live-fire exercises, the allied force would've suffered a lot more casultiies.
These are just lucky or freak accidents that happen very rarely. If you set a force of APCs/IFV's with 25/30mm guns up against a force of MBT's head-on, the APC/IFV's are going to get creamed. Even if you equip the APC/IFV with anti-tank missiles, there's no guarentee that it'd penatrate the frontal armor of a M1 Tank.
I think the T-72 got a lot of negative publicity from the 1991 Gulf War. There's no question that the M1 is better built and protected, but there are many other factors contributing to the failure of the Iraqis. For example the Iraqi T-72 "Lion of Babylon"'s production only started in 1989 with German and Polish assistance. Many vital components had to be imported from Poland. After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the country was under arms embargo and couldn't import additional components from abroad.
This means the Iraqi T-72 was only produced/introduced to the Iraqi army for 2 years before the 1991 Gulf War. These locally assembled tanks are generally considered inferior in quality, comparred to Russian or Polish products. I don't think anyone would argue that the Polish PT-91 is far better in quality comparred to the Iraqi T-72.
After the battle of 73 Easting, the US assessed that the Iraqi Republican Guard units were brave and willing to stand their ground, but suffered poorly from lack of training, logistics, and effective command. The Iraqi T-72 crew did not know how to use their equipment to its full potential. They failed to deploy effective local security to warn them of incoming allied force. The Iraqi marksmenship was also very poor, and did not know how to properly use their artillery or air defense units.
In other words, the Republican Guard was simply given these shiny new T-72's to look good, but lacked modern, realistic training, something that the US and British is far better at. Had the Iraqis invested in better training and live-fire exercises, the allied force would've suffered a lot more casultiies.
I would just like to say from first hand experience that I ran into a unit of the regular Iraqi army that put up a pretty good fight. We ran up on these guys outside of some kind of large oil industrial facility west of Kuwait. They were armed with T-62 MBT , BMP-2 , MTLB and some BRDM with Sagger. our engagement ranges was around 700 meters and some of my company took hits from various rounds. Anyway we defeated and killed all of them. Maybe 2 company worth of armour. This regular army unit put up the best fight in small unit action that I saw in my 72 hours worth of fighting. Most of my engagements with the republican guard were at more than 2000 meters so I think that made a difference.....cheers ute
