No Soviet Autoloaders...

Nikephoros

Banned
Considering the fact that Chobam has already withstood salvos from waves of Saggers in Iraq and other types of reactive armour have done the same in the Gaza Strip, I'm going to have to put my money on the Abrams.

The "Abrams Sucks" meme is getting pretty old, isn't it? I'd like to see an indepth analysis of how pathetic the M1 supposedly is. Doubt I'll see that though.

The reason European countries haven't adopted them is this: Either they can afford to build their own (UK-Challenger II, France-LeClerc, Germany-Leopard 2), or would much rather have a cheaper tank. Like the Leopard 2.
 
The reason European countries haven't adopted them is this: Either they can afford to build their own (UK-Challenger II, France-LeClerc, Germany-Leopard 2), or would much rather have a cheaper tank. Like the Leopard 2.
Isn't the Leopard 2 more expensive per unit than the M1A2 though?
 
Do you think the Soviets, who were known to keep the best stuff for themselves, would sell superior tanks to the country next door they might end up fighting in WWIII?

OK, so no real evidence then.

So next time there's a thread about autoloaders, let's keep the urban legends at the door, 'kay?

It may not be urban legend after all....

Quoted from Wikipedia, and they cite Perret here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-64

..Additionally, the adoption of the autoloader was highly controversial for several reasons:
Early versions of the autoloader lacked safety features and were dangerous to the tank crews (especially the gunner, who sits nearby): Limbs could be easily caught in the machinery, leading to horrible injuries and deaths. A sleeve unknowingly snagged on one of the autoloader's moving parts could also drag a crewman into the apparatus upon firing. Perrett 1987:42)..

I'm looking for more quotes...
 
Isn't the Leopard 2 more expensive per unit than the M1A2 though?
Hmm...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080106040649AAgWUbJ
says

How much does a Leopard 2 Tanks cost?


and
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

About 3.5 million dollars, a third less than an M1A1. That would be for the 2A6, which is the current version of the tank. It would be interesting to see a battle between a bunch of M1A1s and a bunch of 2A6s (30% more of them).

it also looks like countries like Spain, buying used Leopards got dirt cheap prices...
 
The "Abrams Sucks" meme is getting pretty old, isn't it? I'd like to see an indepth analysis of how pathetic the M1 supposedly is. Doubt I'll see that though.

M1(A1 onwards) seems to be pretty robust modern Western tank without particular good or bad characteristics. It isn't Wunderwaffe as proclaimed after 1991 war, it's opponents were merely pathetic. One may question, though, if US Army and USMC were equipped with diesel-engined tanks that Operation Desert Storm would have been a true blitzkrieg due to faster advance. Also, how many days less it would have taken to Baghdad in 2003?
 

MacCaulay

Banned
M1(A1 onwards) seems to be pretty robust modern Western tank without particular good or bad characteristics. It isn't Wunderwaffe as proclaimed after 1991 war, it's opponents were merely pathetic. One may question, though, if US Army and USMC were equipped with diesel-engined tanks that Operation Desert Storm would have been a true blitzkrieg due to faster advance. Also, how many days less it would have taken to Baghdad in 2003?

Well, the Marines were by and large equipped with M-60s during Desert Storm, and they made a fine show of themselves against an Iraqi mechanized brigade armed with T-55s in Kuwait.

The British were driving Challenger 1s in Desert Storm and Challenger 2s in 2003, both with diesels. Neither tank had any problem keeping up with the Abrams, though I don't think it would've been any faster.

The French were operating AMX-30s, while the Egyptians and Syrians that made up the bulk of Arab Corps were operating T-62s and T-72s.

I think that's the large question here: after the ground war in 1991 started, they ripped the Iraqi Army to shreds in a matter of days. It couldn't have been any faster.

Having said that, it's always been my (oft stated) opinion that while the Challenger 2 is the best tank in the world, the only reason it is is because it's basically an M1 with a normal engine.
That jet-engine derivative requires a circus of people to keep it running, which is why countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are the only ones who've bought it. Why Egypt has bought it as well, I'm not sure. Perhaps they're willing to sink more money into it than I thought they had.

But for the money you have to pay to the M1, it's an amazing vehicle. I don't think there's another tank that can beat it.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
M1(A1 onwards) seems to be pretty robust modern Western tank without particular good or bad characteristics. It isn't Wunderwaffe as proclaimed after 1991 war, it's opponents were merely pathetic. One may question, though, if US Army and USMC were equipped with diesel-engined tanks that Operation Desert Storm would have been a true blitzkrieg due to faster advance. Also, how many days less it would have taken to Baghdad in 2003?

That doesn't really sound like "M1 suxorz" though:p
 

NothingNow

Banned
The Israeli armor tactics and design stem from the operational use of their tanks; either deserts or densely populated urban areas ,where the main opponents are militias armed with hand carried RPGs at best .(Coupled with its high vrew survivability, it is a quite handy APC as well) . A machinegun is handy against infantry .

Sadly enough, Exactly the sort of place where Americas been sending troops recently.

The Main Issues I see with TUSK is that the Reactive Armor they fit on the M1 as part of it seems to be poorly Distributed. It's almost all on the Sides of the Hull and not on the Turret faces or other weak spots like the Engine Bay. Which should honestly thinking about it have about have some armor on top of and behind the engine bay to begin with, preferably spaced about 3-4in from the engine bay proper to let the engine breathe.

Maybe We should have Bought or Borrowed some Merkavas from the Israelis for the Occupation of Iraq and all that in Afghanistan. They're certainly Better for the Job than the M1 series tanks are.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
Maybe We should have Bought or Borrowed some Merkavas from the Israelis for the Occupation of Iraq and all that in Afghanistan. They're certainly Better for the Job than the M1 series tanks are.

I think the M1's doing a good enough job. Most losses are due to mechanical breakdown, not enemy action. Besides, the TUSK is sufficient enough. The Merkava has reactive armor because it's normal armor isn't as good as the M1's. The M1's reactive armor is only to increase the M1s protection.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
I'm going to need something a little bit more substantial than a Yahoo Answers page.

Yeah...by that math, an Abrams would cost somewhere around 11 million and change. I have some serious doubts that they're that cheap, unless the price was brought down because of how many were made. But I don't think so.

NothingNow said:
Maybe We should have Bought or Borrowed some Merkavas from the Israelis for the Occupation of Iraq and all that in Afghanistan. They're certainly Better for the Job than the M1 series tanks are.

The US using a foreign tank? We're using South African armoured cars, I don't think we'd use foreign treads just because of general principle.

And what we need in Afghanistan are things like more up-armoured LAVs and such. Yeah, the tanks are great, but there's certain places you can't go in them.
 
I think that's the large question here: after the ground war in 1991 started, they ripped the Iraqi Army to shreds in a matter of days. It couldn't have been any faster.

With tanks of less fuel consumption the advance might have been faster still, as well as during the 2003 war. As the tanks are on the top of the logistics chain a reduced need for fuel on them reduces drastically need of an extensive logistics chain (IIRC, some 70% of supplies required by mechanized forces, by weight, is fuel). But anyway, the both cases were spectacular victories anyway, and as is well known the troubles in Iraq started after the spectacular victory...

As for heat signature of Abrams, it has not been an issue yet since the Iraqi Army did not have thermal sights. Any reasonable future opponent will, and that will be an additional problem for Abrams tanks, whether decisive or not remains to be seen.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
As for heat signature of Abrams, it has not been an issue yet since the Iraqi Army did not have thermal sights. Any reasonable future opponent will, and that will be an additional problem for Abrams tanks, whether decisive or not remains to be seen.

I don't think it would be. Reactive armour on Israeli Merkavas and Magachs as well as the Abrams has withstood hits from Saggers, the most incredible being the time in 1998 when an Israeli Magach 7 was hit with 20 in one engagement with only 2 actually penetrating the Blazer ERA and getting into the engine compartment. (Modern Israeli Tanks and Infantry Carriers, Gelbart)

I'm not saying it's not impossible to get through Chobham but when even the Abrams' own 120mm gun has trouble killing another Abrams, we know it's going to be a tall order for an enemy to do it.

There's ATGW systems out there that can do it: the AT-11 Sniper, for example, which is currently with the T-80 and T-90, and supposedly can be used with the T-72's 125mm gun is able to penetrate Chobham. It can also be used (apparently) to hit low flying helicopters.

However, there's only so much room for ATGWs in a tank, and if that is an armoured vehicle's only viable weapon against other tanks, then they're at a serious disadvantage.
 
I'm not saying it's not impossible to get through Chobham but when even the Abrams' own 120mm gun has trouble killing another Abrams, we know it's going to be a tall order for an enemy to do it.

As for modern ATGM's (Sagger is, after all, a 1960's design with design began some 50 years ago), such as Israeli Spike, Bofors BILL 2, US Javelin, US TOW-2B etc. strike from above, not from side, making the job altogether easier. Of course there's the usual jam-anti-jam -war issue on this, but ATGM's seem to have upper hand at the moment. But they're not überwaffe and the tank gun seems to have place (yet) as a tank killer. As for tanks themselves, the anti-tank ammunition has improved considerably during past 20 years.
 
Last edited:

MacCaulay

Banned
As for modern ATGM's (Sagger is, after all, a 1960's design with design began some 50 years ago), such as Israeli Spike, Bofors BILL 2, US Javelin, US TOW-2B etc. strike from above, not from side, making the job altogether easier. Of course there's the usual jam-anti-jam -war issue on this, but ATGM's seem to have upper hand at the moment. But they're not überwaffe and the tank gun seems to have place (yet) as a tank killer. As for tanks themselves, the anti-tank ammunition has improved considerably during past 20 years.

Very true.


Me personally, I always felt the two most dangerous weapons systems to a tank on the modern battlefield were at two ends of the spectrum: helicopters and IEDs.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
A couple of Merkavas were killed by RPG-29s in the 2006 Lebanon war . . .

Really? Got a link for that? I'd like to know more. I'm not doubting you, it just seems like Hezbollah would've had to have gotten them into a really tight corner.


On the subject of the Saggers: one has to remember that a Sagger in, say, 1967 was different than one in 1982. The Soviets did learn from the Arab-Israeli Wars like the US did, and not only made new weapons, but upgraded their existing ones accordingly when they could.
 
On the subject of the Saggers: one has to remember that a Sagger in, say, 1967 was different than one in 1982. The Soviets did learn from the Arab-Israeli Wars like the US did, and not only made new weapons, but upgraded their existing ones accordingly when they could.

Definitely yes, but many key characteristics of old design remain, such as high signature launch, low speed, old style guidance method etc. The difference with newer ATGM's is staggering and the minute the modern MBT's combat forces equipped with them the fight will be different. Spike-ER, for example, has a range of 8 kilometers and can be fired using indirect trajectory and strikes from above, sending continuous thermal image from it's seeker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA1-qUKV9qQ

Moreover, this kind of technology will proliferate and it's a merely question of time when non-state actors (Hezbollah etc.) will get their hands into them. MBT will not be dead, but it's life will become yet more difficult.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Moreover, this kind of technology will proliferate and it's a merely question of time when non-state actors (Hezbollah etc.) will get their hands into them. MBT will not be dead, but it's life will become yet more difficult.

That's a good point.

It's fair to point out, though, that training does come head on with these newer weapons. US forces in Korea ran into this issue in the 80s with the Dragon: the rounds cost so much in the beginning that only a few people were allowed practice shots, and everyone else was just shown how to set it up and operate it. Had the North Korean army (for whatever reason) come over the border before about 1986, the vast majority of infantrymen they'd be facing would be completely untrained in the operation of their own ATGW system and be reliant on the LAW.

This may be more of a factor as time goes on, and may in fact be why in 21st Century we're seeing terrorist groups using Saggers and IEDs as opposed to newer equipment: perhaps the older equipment is not only cheaper, it is logistically easier to operate.
A shorter learning curve can mean a quicker time from weapon acquisition to attack. With a modern army that possesses an intact teaching system, that's not a concern. (VMI is going to teach a cadet how to load a gun, right? :D)
But in the Bekaa Valley of Syria, there may have to be a balance struck between weapon deadliness and operator education.
 
This may be more of a factor as time goes on, and may in fact be why in 21st Century we're seeing terrorist groups using Saggers and IEDs as opposed to newer equipment: perhaps the older equipment is not only cheaper, it is logistically easier to operate.

I'd somewhat disagree on this. Older the ATGM, more training and care it will require. Newer ones are more easily storaged for a longer time and the guidance is made easier by the fact that one does not have to guide the missile itself but merely choose the target and the missile flies itself to it. Almost all missiles even have the fire-and-forget mode. New missiles also have extensive training software etc. which can be easily used by using commercial video projectors, ordinary laptops etc. Their use in the field is also much easier as they are lighter and more easier to conceal, some even have indirect firing possibility.

The fact that terrorists and insurgents are using Saggers is because that's the most advanced piece of equipment Iran and North Korea are able to produce. Now, if a non state operator was sponsored by China or Pakistan, which don't even produce ultimate state-of-the-art kit, the ATGM's as well as MANPADS would be a MUCH more severe threat.

EDIT:

And what really will be a game-changer will be the spread of robotic technology. A rudimentary cruise missile or recon UAV would be actually very easy to construct nowadays, and the day that IED's will become mobile on toy tanks, light ATV's etc. is not far away.
 
Last edited:
Top