If it aint broke dont fix it...M1A1

[HomicideJack]

well you may know of it but they M1A1 has bbeen around for some time now....but its starting to be replaced by the more advanced M1A2 Abrams, the M1A1 may be good but the M1A2 is better, both have 120mm cannons that fire depleted Uranium shells but the M1A2 fires at a higher velocity, its 10 mph faster than the M1A1, Stronger armor, both have Chobham armor made of depleted uranium but the M1A2 has newer materials, also its fire control radar is more advanced, so is its detection radar system (DRS), it is howerever heavier but still faster than the M1A1, but the M1A1 is battle proven...if it aint broke dont fix it but they did anyway...3 versions, the M1IPM1 the first version, the M1A1 2nd version and the M1A2 Prototype(3rd installment), still a prototype it wont be put into service until 2008, which wont come in handy once the war is over coz of the settling down in Iraq but it may see service if we go to war with Iran or North Korea...

[K-RadPie]

What, exactly, is the point your trying to get across?

[HomicideJack]

that if you got a good tank in your army why do you need to replace it if its the most advanced tanks in the world and the most powerful!

[gipper2]

Phew, for a second when I saw the title I thought you meant the M1A1 Carbine or sub-machine gun. I was about to go ballistic. And, I think I see your point, but I don't think we'll be in North Korea for a while.

[HomicideJack]

damn your right...well lets build up forces for Iran lets go polish our helmets...

[wildeyekc]

If it aint broke, break it.

thats my motto

[HomicideJack]

really? i dont see it on your signature....is it microscopic?

[HomicideJack]

you think they gonna make an M1A3? in about 10 years or so?

[ForkRobotik]

depleted uranium should be banned.

[Karzand]

Well you could also argue that we don't need the F-22 or the F-35, but I want every advantage when we knock heads with China.

[cellardoor6]

At 6/18/07 03:26 PM, HomicideJack wrote: well you may know of it but they M1A1 has bbeen around for some time now....but its starting to be replaced by the more advanced M1A2 Abrams, the M1A1 may be good but the M1A2 is better, both have 120mm cannons that fire depleted Uranium shells

No, they fire steel 120mm cannon shells, only some of which fire depleted Uranium projectiles.

but the M1A2 fires at a higher velocity,

No it doesn't. There was just a newer generation of shells that came in service along with the M1A2. They fire the SAME SHELLS at the same velocity.

its 10 mph faster than the M1A1

No it's not, in fact its slower because its heavier.

Stronger armor

Nope. Only the M1A2 SEP has better armor because it has explosive reactive armor pods placed over the already existing armor.

both have Chobham armor made of depleted uranium but the M1A2 has newer materials, also its fire control radar is more advanced, so is its detection radar system (DRS), it is howerever heavier but still faster than the M1A1

No it's not, it is slower because they have the same engine.

The ONLY thing the M1A2 has better is related to electronics; communications, fire control, nagivation etc... and a few structural differences to protect electronics. That is why it is very simple and easy to convert M1A1s to the A2 configuration.

So yeah... you don't know what you're talking about.

The A2 is better, it is more modern. It is not a different tank, it is just an A1 modified to be better integrated into the modern battle command network and to take advantage of developments in better electronics.

[cellardoor6]

At 6/18/07 03:36 PM, HomicideJack wrote: that if you got a good tank in your army why do you need to replace it if its the most advanced tanks in the world and the most powerful!

What makes American equipment the best is because we keep evolving. Military science doesn't remain stagnant. In order to have the best technology you have to keep fielding new developments, you have to keep evolving to utilize newer technology.

That is why the M1 tank is the best. It is modular and upgradeable in order to stay being the best. If it WASN'T being upgraded, it would be inferior to tanks it will come across in a few years.

But the most important thing about the new M1A2 is that it has MUCH better communications systems in a large battle network. What makes the American armor capability so much better is not just the tanks themselves, but because our communications, command and control, is excellent.

A single M1A2 can see where all friendly units are, where all known enemy units are via GPS integration in the new electronics. They have the communications to each call in airstrikes, divide targets up evenly between ground troops, air craft (usually helicopters), and other vehicles/tanks that are in their augmented unit.

It's not just about each individual tank, it's about how it fits into a whole scheme of operations. If you don't upgrade the M1 to the newer version, you're not keeping up with the transformation that is taking place in the rest of the US military.

[HomicideJack]

i know my facts the things i said are true dont argue with a guy whos so pro-military he makes a nazy seal look like a pacifist

[cellardoor6]

At 6/19/07 01:19 AM, HomicideJack wrote: i know my facts

Obviously you don't because basically everything you said is entirely wrong.

The only major upgrades between the M1A1 and the M1A2 - as I already told you - are enhanced electronics, Take a look.

The newer M1A2 series includes all of the M1A1 features plus a commander’s independent thermal viewer, an independent commander’s weapon station, position navigation equipment, and a digital data bus and radio interface unit providing a common picture among M1A2s on the battlefield.

You said that the A2 is faster, shoots at higher velocity, and has better armor which is all wrong, as I already told you. Look at that same link under the table titled "Specifications"

-The A2 has the same engine as the A1 but is heavier.

- The A2 has less HP/ton than the A1 due to its heavier weight but same engine, meaning it has lesser acceleration.

- They have the same exact top speed, but the older M1A1 is faster on slopes.

You said it shoots at a higher velocity, which is also false because they have the SAME EXACT GUN, the M256 120mm smoothbore cannon, that fire the same exact shells.

You said that the A2 has better armor, which is also false. The same exact Chobham armor is used, there is no difference, no change in materials as you suggested.

the things i said are true dont argue with a guy whos so pro-military he makes a nazy seal look like a pacifist

WTF are you talking about? There are plenty of people who are pro-military who still know absolutely dick about military equipment. You've proved that you're one of them.

[ErwinR0mmel]

It's just another version of the same tank! Nothing has changed much, only more advanced electronics. But I've been wondering. I've heard that the company that made the engine of the abrahams stopped making them in 95 and that the army has just been keeping the ones already in service in top shape with constant repairs. So if they are making the A2 what are they gonna make its engine from? Are they gonna use those of the currently serving A1s or are they just gonna put all of 'em upgrades everybody has been talking about into the body of an A1 and then call it an A2?

[DevourerJay]

i do think that MAKING a new tank is a little silly + expensive, why not simply UPGRADE the M1A1?
would'nt that be more time efficient & money saving?
as long as it keeps our troops safe, and kills the enemy (which ever it might be) im for it

[dodo-man-1]

What in sweet mother are you all talking about?!

[cellardoor6]

At 6/19/07 07:37 PM, dodo-man-1 wrote: What in sweet mother are you all talking about?!

This.

[HighlyIllogical]

The M1A2 SEP is awesome, no doubts there, but we could certainly use a nice light tank for airborne units, say, a super-duper M551 (without the Shilalegh). Take the M8 AGS as an example. It's smaller, more mobile, cheaper but lighter armored than the M1A2. But you get advantages like mobility etc...the M8 AGS was cancelled, though, and that was a major error.

[cellardoor6]

At 6/19/07 08:39 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: The M1A2 SEP is awesome, no doubts there, but we could certainly use a nice light tank for airborne units, say, a super-duper M551 (without the Shilalegh).

Absolutely not. If we get something lighter we want something much lighter, but that has to be coupled with a giant leap forward in firepower, communications to make it more potent over all, and more agile to make its lesser armor irrelevant. The Sheridan wasn't just lacking in firepower as you suggest, it was lacking in technology over all, its armor was weak, and its lighter weight doesn't negate its vulnerability.

Take the M8 AGS as an example. It's smaller, more mobile, cheaper but lighter armored than the M1A2.

And incredibly obsolete in basically every aspect.

But you get advantages like mobility etc...the M8 AGS was cancelled, though, and that was a major error.

No, it wasn't a major error because it wasn't nearly as battle-effective as newer vehicles. The reason systems are canceled is because they can be proven to be less effective by conducting scenarios. A few Hmmwvv's can outperform those tanks in anti-armor applications when they have TOE missiles, and are more agile, which makes their lesser armor irrelevant when they take on armored vehicles and tanks.

There is a balance between mobility, firepower, technology in communications/coordinate etc... older tanks like those don't have a right balance. They can be PROVEN to be less battle effective, and they have been, that's why they aren't in use today. They are neither more agile than lighter vehicles, and don't pack more protection and firepower than the M1. They are vastly inferior, they have no real use in the modern battlefield.

The M1Abrams in conjunction with lighter vehicles armed with autocannons and missiles, air support, ground troops, etc... is much more effective overall. And even then, the M1Abrams is incredibly agile for its weight, it has more horsepower/ton than both the tanks you suggested.

So I don't how you come to the conclusion that old tanks that were phased out a long time ago should be adopted, or that canceling them was a mistake..

[Leap]

At 6/18/07 03:36 PM, HomicideJack wrote: that if you got a good tank in your army why do you need to replace it if its the most advanced tanks in the world and the most powerful!

*Ahem* Challenger 2

[AdamRice]

Oooo neato! So when do we start spending money on US citizens instead of making the M4 better?

[cellardoor6]

At 6/19/07 09:51 PM, Leap wrote:

At 6/18/07 03:36 PM, HomicideJack wrote: that if you got a good tank in your army why do you need to replace it if its the most advanced tanks in the world and the most powerful!

*Ahem* Challenger 2

What makes the Challenger 2 better? Hmm? Please parade your ignorance of the facts so I can have a good laugh.

At 6/19/07 10:18 PM, AdamRice wrote: Oooo neato! So when do we start spending money on US citizens instead of making the M4 better?

1) We're not talking about the M4, that is a rifle, we're talking about a tank.

2) Without tanks and other military equipment, we'd have no proper defense. The spending is crucial. Also, the building tanks and other equipment creates thousands of jobs, which is good for US citizens.

3) All together, including tanks... ships, airplanes, EVERYTHING. Our country only spends about 3.5% of our income on the military.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 6/19/07 08:55 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Absolutely not. If we get something lighter we want something much lighter, but that has to be coupled with a giant leap forward in firepower, communications to make it more potent over all, and more agile to make its lesser armor irrelevant.

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about for the AGS...It can have armor up to proof to direct hits from 30mm cannon shells and RPGs (at level III protection, it has ERA)...

The AGS also was tiny, with a 105mm cannon (that's as good as the original M1), only needs 3 crew, M1A2 equivalent fire control system...and get this:

"The AGS is capable of Low Velocity Air Drop (LVAD Parachute) or more conventional roll-on/roll-off delivery by airlift aircraft. A C-130 can carry one AGS, while the larger C-141, C-17, and C-5A can carry two, three, and five AGSs respectively."

That's way better than the M1A2. I mean, seriously, you can't do better than that.

The Sheridan wasn't just lacking in firepower as you suggest, it was lacking in technology

over all, its armor was weak, and its lighter weight doesn't negate its vulnerability.

I said that the Sheridan's Shilalegh missile was crappy due to its reliability issues. But the M551 has awesome factors going for it! It's air-droppable, worked well up through post-Gulf War, FLOATS, etc. etc. Naturally, its armor sucked, but the system as a whole was a good idea. That's what we should start up with again – a TRACKED, tank-caliber weapon with lighter (RPG and 30mm cannon resistant) weapon system.

And incredibly obsolete in basically every aspect.

You've got to be kidding.

TItanium MODULAR armor ranging from basic to enhanced with ERA, M1A2 fire control technology, 300 mile range (better than the M1 series's ~275), equivalent cross country and road speed to the M1A2, etc..

A few Hmmwvv's can outperform those tanks in anti-armor applications when they have TOE missiles, and are more agile, which makes their lesser armor irrelevant when they take on armored vehicles and tanks.

TOW missiles and 105mm cannons in combination are quite lethal.

Regardless, a HMMWV couldn't survive much more than small arms. The M8 AGS could even take RPG hits...

So I don't how you come to the conclusion that old tanks that were phased out a long time ago should be adopted, or that canceling them was a mistake..

Okay, then. Airborne attacks without big-gun support is no good. We've known that for a loooooooong time. Here's a recent scenario: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wirele ss_Ridge

The Brits had light tanks. They won. Naturally, they had superior training and all, but when you have armed tracked vehicles, you clearly posess an advantage.

[Luvsstormthehouse]

At 6/19/07 10:18 PM, AdamRice wrote: Oooo neato! So when do we start spending money on US citizens instead of making the M4 better?

When you go to Iraq and see what its like.Imagine using a World War 2 Era Sherman against the RPG wielding maniac insurgents in iraq today.Sherman was a good tank,dont get me wrong,but a few facts i can state about it:
-Couldn't fire while moving
-Needed to get very close to a target to get a shot off.(Imagine having to be directly behind or in front of an RPG wielding maniac.Whats the point of using a tank shell then)
-Fairly slow Tank
-We lost i dunno..a couple hundred thousand in WW2.This was versus german tanks from over 60 years ago.Imagine facing RPG wielding maniacs of today.the costs of using the sherman today,with the number of them that we would loose,would FAR out-weigh the cost of buying a SINGLE Abrams.(there you go,less military spending??Nope!Shermans would cost much more with the numbers we would loose)
-1 more thing.Imagine facing a modern day tank,imagine facing thousands of them in an invasion force.You have....300 shermans.Command these shermans,and fight off all of the modern day battle tanks!(Game idea for flash creators,just gimme a larger number of shermans.) if we had choosen to stick with the sherman,i belive that we would have been invaded YEARS ago.YEARS ago.Bye bye spending more on jobs,we could be under the rule of any country.

-Simple fact.If you dont upgrade youre military,you run the risk of being invaded.If youve ever played a strategy game,with a military aspect,you realize what i mean.If you have up to date military technology,youre very un-likely to be invaded.Lets say i have a country called TimTomTamTartTill.Lets say i have a neighbor called TartTerrylarryFerryMerryscary.If this guy has a supply of Abrams tanks,and i only have a supply of shermans,i realize im running the risk of being invaded and having my assets stripped.However,you can balance this out by having a superior air force.If i have a supply of A-10 ThunderBolts(ThunderBolt is the correct name.Warthog is the nickname)and my neighbor has a supply of Bi-Planes,my neighbor realizes that,defensivley,i have the edge over him.My Thunder Bolts can knock his tanks out,so he's screwed,considering my A-10s could also wipe out his bi-planes with a few machine gun rounds.It all depends upon how you use youre military technology.Ive always viewed the airforce as the superior weapon over the ground forces.However,if you intend us to keep all of our military force in the stone age,you are wrong.This simply cannot happen,especially if you expect america to survive as a nation for a long time.We must upgrade our military every time the chance comes,and if we dont,we will be invaded.Simple Fact.
=============================================
================================
Overall,my point is,we cannot be kept in the stone age.And,as another wise man provided,that upgrading our tech creates new jobs as well.

Go America!!

[HomicideJack]

the challenger sucks man even the leopard 1 could beat it

[HomicideJack]

maybe the tanks should fire experimental class-2 small nuclear munitions...then no country would dare declare war on us.....to stop terror you must trueley embrace it...class-3 nuclear munitions!

[HomicideJack]

even an M1IPM1 costs around 1.4million to produce....

[HomicideJack]

keep the weapons alive no matter the cost if you have to pay billions to kep it working do it even if it isnt worth it!

[The-Kerberos]

Cheers to that... Worst rifle in existence.