User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 12:35:13 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How is it a troll? “Experts” said the abrams would be horrible yet it was proven to be the best tank in history. Solidly maybe probably. We haven’t fought anybody other than Arabs in a combined arms battle in a long time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 12:35:38 PM EST
[#2]
Quoted: One of the world's foremost authorities on armored warfare claims that the US Army's new XM-1 tank is "just asking to have [its] turret knocked off by a well- placed shot." According to Robert J. Icks, a retired Army colonel and author of numerous books on armored vehicles, the space between the hull and turret on the XM-1 "when the gun points forward would appear to be a perfect shot trap." The Chrysler Corporation, maker of the XM-1, vigorously denies this assertion of vulnerability and the Army, buffeted by widespread criticism of the main battle tank in past months, declines to comment on the matter. "We don't see any useful purpose in discussing it," says a spokesman sourly. Colonel Icks first made his "shot trap" allegation last December in the pages of National Defense, the journal of the American Defense Preparedness Association. Others have since endorsed his view. Writing to the magazine last June from Quebec, Gunter Scherrer, author of a forthcoming book on the World World II tank battle of Kursk, declared that he and a former German tank commander, who had destroyed 13 Russian tanks in one day in World War II, came to the conclusion that the XM-1 "would be a most desirable target for a good antitank gunner" after studying photographs and pictures of it. In last month's issue of the magazine, a former Marine Corps warrant officer added his criticisms to the debate. "The turret of the XM-1 is fraught with shot traps," declared Thomas Swearengen. "A single high explosive projectile trapped between the turret and the hull can readily remove the turret." Reached at his home in Burton, S.C., Mr. Swearengen elaborated on his criticism of the XM-1. He claims that its glacis plate (the frontal part of the tank) "cannot absorb direct hits by high velocity projectiles nor can it withstand hits from HEAT [high explosive antitank shells.] It needs an angle of about 55 degrees to be able to deflect these rounds." Calling the tank "a virtual death trap," Swearengen, who served in the Marine Corps as an explosive ordinance disposal (EOD) officer and who describes himself as "a student of explosive ordinance," urges an immediate redesign of the XM-1 to eliminate shot traps and provide maximum ballistic protection with sloped armor. He adds that no amount of British- designed Chobham armor, with which the tank is liberally equipped, "can help the XM-1 in its present configuration." Faced with this latest barrage of criticism, Chrysler Corporation has issued a bold challenge to its antagonists. "I'd be prepared to have them shoot anything they can find at the XM-1, including the latest Eastern bloc weapons," exclaims Louis Felder, manager of the XM-1 engineering program in Detroit. "We've done that and we've done that more than once." Mr. Felder dismisses changes that the XM-1 is replete with shot traps. "These people just don't understand the design of the tank itself," he says. "In any tank design there are certain areas, nooks and crannies, that it is impossible to guard. But in this particular tank the design is such that I consider those nooks and crannies to be at an absolute minimum." Oh boy were the “experts” wrong. A usmc CWO and an Army colonel, both wrong. The abrams turned out pretty good I think. Article here https://www.csmonitor.com/1980/1121/112144.html That was entertaining. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 12:36:23 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Technically, you are outside the gates of Moscow right now. Well, certainly most of us. There’s a couple of possible outliers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 12:37:46 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You might want to correct that to "U.S. operated". The iraqis lost them to ISIS's ATGMs, and we killed at least a few that had new owners (there's a poster here that whacked on with a Hellfire). Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Here's a fact: Not a single M1 tank has ever been lost due to enemy fire. Not one. Some have been damaged (14) and several lost to friendly fire, and two intentionally destroyed. Given the almost 100% survivability to enemy fire, saying it is a "death trap" is disingenuous and without any proof. Russian tanks on the other hand, well, there's shit tons of proof at how poorly they protect their crews. The M1 tank is one of the finest military vehicles ever made. Simply amazing piece of equipment. That fact that none been lost to enemy tank fire isn't really that big of a stretch. The Abrams has never faced anything more modern than a T72 so far (well except the friendly fire incidents). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 12:38:46 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I didn't think they called them that at all during the war. It had a pretty good survival rate compared to other tanks of the era. I'm pretty sure, (Maybe from a Manic Moran video) that the first mention of the "Ronson" moniker was a single book from the 50's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 12:48:32 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No he might want to correct that to "Not a single M1 has been lost to enemy tank fire" That is what the US DoD claims. Dozens have been lost to enemy fire. That fact that none been lost to enemy tank fire isn't really that big of a stretch. The Abrams has never faced anything more modern than a T72 so far (well except the friendly fire incidents). Well they are largely going to face T-72s in Ukraine, but the threat there isn’t really from enemy armor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 12:51:07 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, crew survived. Tank was damaged, recovered, repaired and put back in service. Again, 9 destroyed. 7 from friendly fire (other M1's). And two intentionally destroyed to keep them from being captured after being disabled. It's a documented fact. Point being - to claim it is a death trap is a completely baseless claim based on some retard's opinion. Some of them idiots write books and then get deals by Hollywood to make movies about it; and deceive public opinion about US military hardware. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 12:53:03 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well they are largely going to face T-72s in Ukraine, but the threat there isn't really from enemy armor. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: No he might want to correct that to "Not a single M1 has been lost to enemy tank fire" That is what the US DoD claims. Dozens have been lost to enemy fire. That fact that none been lost to enemy tank fire isn't really that big of a stretch. The Abrams has never faced anything more modern than a T72 so far (well except the friendly fire incidents). Well they are largely going to face T-72s in Ukraine, but the threat there isn't really from enemy armor. Most of the Abrams destroyed (31 in Desert Storm alone) were done in by ATGMs, IEDs (AT mines anyone) and swarmed RPGs |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 12:55:25 PM EST
[#9]
Seems like once we get our teething issues out of the way our stuff lives up to what it is suppose to do and then some, though I continue to wonder about the Osprey, that thing is a killer and continues to be so.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 12:58:38 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm pretty sure, (Maybe from a Manic Moran video) that the first mention of the "Ronson" moniker was a single book from the 50's. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I didn't think they called them that at all during the war. It had a pretty good survival rate compared to other tanks of the era. I'm pretty sure, (Maybe from a Manic Moran video) that the first mention of the "Ronson" moniker was a single book from the 50's. Just like the "enemy soldiers can hear the M1 rifle ping when empty" |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 12:59:23 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How is it a troll? “Experts” said the abrams would be horrible yet it was proven to be the best tank in history. It wasn't just "experts". There was a significant attack on the M1 as I recall. Remember Gary Heart? https://www.aei.org/articles/they-only-say-no/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 1:00:59 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Better by far than a "sherman". They didn't call 'em Ronson's for nothing.  Sherman was probably the best tank of WW2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 1:01:18 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Better by far than a "sherman". They didn't call 'em Ronson's for nothing. **face palm** Seriously... do some reading above and beyond the interwebs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 1:03:47 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yup Most of the Abrams destroyed (31 in Desert Storm alone) were done in by ATGMs, IEDs (AT mines anyone) and swarmed RPGs There were 9 Abrams written off in Desert Storm, but it doesn’t surprise me you continue to pull nonsense out of thin airs to |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 1:05:20 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not really. “The 3rd Armored Division entered combat in Normandy with 232 M4 Sherman tanks. During the European Campaign, the Division had some 648 Sherman tanks completely destroyed in combat and we had another 700 knocked out, repaired and put back into operation. This was a loss rate of 580 percent.” Survivable for the crew. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 1:06:21 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There were 9 Abrams written off in Desert Storm, but it doesn't surprise me you continue to pull nonsense out of thin airs to Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yup Most of the Abrams destroyed (31 in Desert Storm alone) were done in by ATGMs, IEDs (AT mines anyone) and swarmed RPGs There were 9 Abrams written off in Desert Storm, but it doesn't surprise me you continue to pull nonsense out of thin airs to "About 3,300 Iraqi tanks were destroyed in desert battles and by air attack. The coalition lost 31." https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisation/2021/02/the-untold-story-of-the-worlds-fiercest-tank-battle So now go tell me Nat Geo UK is Russian Propaganda |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 1:08:49 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Panzer IV had comparable armor to the Sherman. With it's slope the Sherman had slightly thicker armor if you shot at it straight on. They were really competitive with each other. And yes, some tank crews attempted to put things on the tanks to attempt to deflect rounds, but they didn't really do much. If you hung too much on it, it could end up wearing out parts of the suspension at a faster rate. I believe it was General Patton that forbid it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 1:10:35 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It doesn't surprise me that you can't bother to even look it up "About 3,300 Iraqi tanks were destroyed in desert battles and by air attack. The coalition lost 31." https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisation/2021/02/the-untold-story-of-the-worlds-fiercest-tank-battle So now go tell me Nat Geo UK is Russian Propaganda Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yup Most of the Abrams destroyed (31 in Desert Storm alone) were done in by ATGMs, IEDs (AT mines anyone) and swarmed RPGs There were 9 Abrams written off in Desert Storm, but it doesn't surprise me you continue to pull nonsense out of thin airs to "About 3,300 Iraqi tanks were destroyed in desert battles and by air attack. The coalition lost 31." https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisation/2021/02/the-untold-story-of-the-worlds-fiercest-tank-battle So now go tell me Nat Geo UK is Russian Propaganda The Coalition included British, French, and Saudi Tanks. The USMC had M-60A1’s there. Not to mention the media likes to refer to anything with a turret as a “tank”. IIRC the French even had AMX-10 RC armored cars there (turret with a 105mm). ETA: Apparently the USMC had a few M60A3s there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 1:11:13 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Troll thread Not in the least. This is good shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 1:11:22 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It doesn't surprise me that you can't bother to even look it up "About 3,300 Iraqi tanks were destroyed in desert battles and by air attack. The coalition lost 31." https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisation/2021/02/the-untold-story-of-the-worlds-fiercest-tank-battle So now go tell me Nat Geo UK is Russian Propaganda Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yup Most of the Abrams destroyed (31 in Desert Storm alone) were done in by ATGMs, IEDs (AT mines anyone) and swarmed RPGs There were 9 Abrams written off in Desert Storm, but it doesn't surprise me you continue to pull nonsense out of thin airs to "About 3,300 Iraqi tanks were destroyed in desert battles and by air attack. The coalition lost 31." https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisation/2021/02/the-untold-story-of-the-worlds-fiercest-tank-battle So now go tell me Nat Geo UK is Russian Propaganda So you assume the only tanks in the coalition were M1's? Why do you think that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 1:12:59 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sherman M1 F15 F16 F35 That's a lot of big name projects big government and big business got right despite the haters lol. Are there naval and small arms equivalents? LCS. Wait... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 1:13:43 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It doesn't surprise me that you can't bother to even look it up "About 3,300 Iraqi tanks were destroyed in desert battles and by air attack. The coalition lost 31." https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisation/2021/02/the-untold-story-of-the-worlds-fiercest-tank-battle So now go tell me Nat Geo UK is Russian Propaganda Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yup Most of the Abrams destroyed (31 in Desert Storm alone) were done in by ATGMs, IEDs (AT mines anyone) and swarmed RPGs There were 9 Abrams written off in Desert Storm, but it doesn't surprise me you continue to pull nonsense out of thin airs to "About 3,300 Iraqi tanks were destroyed in desert battles and by air attack. The coalition lost 31." https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisation/2021/02/the-untold-story-of-the-worlds-fiercest-tank-battle So now go tell me Nat Geo UK is Russian Propaganda Were M1 Abrams the only model of tank used by the 35 country coalition? I seem to recall that even the USMC was still using M60A3 tanks at that time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 1:16:39 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Were M1 Abrams the only model of tank used by the 35 country coalition? I seem to recall that even the USMC was still using M60A3 tanks at that time. There are 21 on here alone for Desert Storm. Not 9 Iraqi Freedom As of March 2005, approximately 80 Abrams tanks were forced out of action by enemy attacks; 63 were restored, while 17 were damaged beyond repair. As of December 2006 530 Abrams had to be sent back to the US from Iraq to be repaired (they are not at all combat effective while in transport or being repaired in a depot somewhere in USofA) Numerous Iraqi and Saudi tanks (they don't have the DU armor US versions have and neither do the ones we sent to Ukraine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_M1_Abrams#Tank_and_crew_casualties |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 1:22:30 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There are 21 on here alone for Desert Storm. Not 9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_M1_Abrams#Tank_and_crew_casualties Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Were M1 Abrams the only model of tank used by the 35 country coalition? I seem to recall that even the USMC was still using M60A3 tanks at that time. There are 21 on here alone for Desert Storm. Not 9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_M1_Abrams#Tank_and_crew_casualties That list includes casualties like “Damaged sponson box and duffle bags” and “Minor damage to sponson box and .50 machine-gun”. I doubt those M1s were considered destroyed, more likely repaired and returned to service. Same with several others on that list. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 1:30:24 PM EST
[#25]
Another thread carefully constructed to give follow-on credibility to people who are experts in nothing, but desperately want their opinions to be valid.
"Experts were wrong about the Bradley", "Experts were wrong about the Abrams".... *Yawn* Experts have also been wrong about the Abrams survivability in an urban environment, as I've seen plenty of them get absolutely thrashed in Iraq. Ive got a pile of 19k buddies on memorial bracelets if that's something anyone wants to argue. They were also wrong about the importance of armored vehicles overall in an MDO conflict like Ukraine. Hindsight is 20/20, but sometimes people know the outcome upfront and aren't believed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 1:34:28 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There are 21 on here alone for Desert Storm. Not 9 Iraqi Freedom As of March 2005, approximately 80 Abrams tanks were forced out of action by enemy attacks; 63 were restored, while 17 were damaged beyond repair. As of December 2006 530 Abrams had to be sent back to the US from Iraq to be repaired (they are not at all combat effective while in transport or being repaired in a depot somewhere in USofA) Numerous Iraqi and Saudi tanks (they don't have the DU armor US versions have and neither do the ones we sent to Ukraine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_M1_Abrams#Tank_and_crew_casualties That is literally all damage, most of which was repaired at one of multiple levels, not destroyed |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 1:35:06 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Were M1 Abrams the only model of tank used by the 35 country coalition? I seem to recall that even the USMC was still using M60A3 tanks at that time. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yup Most of the Abrams destroyed (31 in Desert Storm alone) were done in by ATGMs, IEDs (AT mines anyone) and swarmed RPGs There were 9 Abrams written off in Desert Storm, but it doesn't surprise me you continue to pull nonsense out of thin airs to "About 3,300 Iraqi tanks were destroyed in desert battles and by air attack. The coalition lost 31." https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisation/2021/02/the-untold-story-of-the-worlds-fiercest-tank-battle So now go tell me Nat Geo UK is Russian Propaganda Were M1 Abrams the only model of tank used by the 35 country coalition? I seem to recall that even the USMC was still using M60A3 tanks at that time. Marines never had the A3, the went from M60A1’s to M1A1’s There’s a lot of non Tankin Bitches in this thread Talking about Tanks. Seems Col Ickes started a trend.. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 1:37:27 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It doesn't surprise me that you can't bother to even look it up "About 3,300 Iraqi tanks were destroyed in desert battles and by air attack. The coalition lost 31." https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisation/2021/02/the-untold-story-of-the-worlds-fiercest-tank-battle So now go tell me Nat Geo UK is Russian Propaganda You are Russian propaganda lover, but no NatGeo isn’t. The coalition had thousands of tanks across many lines. The Abrams was only one of many. Get better at reading comprehension. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 1:40:28 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Marines never had the A3, the went from M60A1’s to M1A1’s There’s a lot of non Tankin Bitches in this thread Talking about Tanks. Seems Col Ickes started a trend.. A lot of people just assume that the Marines stayed with the Army Army’s upgrade path. Not realizing the branched at the A1. The basic protection package was roughly the same, though the Marines seemingly were more willing to use ERA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 1:41:23 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That list includes casualties like "Damaged sponson box and duffle bags" and "Minor damage to sponson box and .50 machine-gun". I doubt those M1s were considered destroyed, more likely repaired and returned to service. Same with several others on that list. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Were M1 Abrams the only model of tank used by the 35 country coalition? I seem to recall that even the USMC was still using M60A3 tanks at that time. There are 21 on here alone for Desert Storm. Not 9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_M1_Abrams#Tank_and_crew_casualties That list includes casualties like "Damaged sponson box and duffle bags" and "Minor damage to sponson box and .50 machine-gun". I doubt those M1s were considered destroyed, more likely repaired and returned to service. Same with several others on that list. Yes the USMC was still using M60A1s and they only lost one while breaching a minefield. They had only a handful of M3s and some 2nd Armored Abrams . Only 10 of those were destroyed all while penetrating mine fields |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 1:45:13 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Marines never had the A3, the went from M60A1’s to M1A1’s There’s a lot of non Tankin Bitches in this thread Talking about Tanks. Seems Col Ickes started a trend.. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yup Most of the Abrams destroyed (31 in Desert Storm alone) were done in by ATGMs, IEDs (AT mines anyone) and swarmed RPGs There were 9 Abrams written off in Desert Storm, but it doesn't surprise me you continue to pull nonsense out of thin airs to "About 3,300 Iraqi tanks were destroyed in desert battles and by air attack. The coalition lost 31." https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisation/2021/02/the-untold-story-of-the-worlds-fiercest-tank-battle So now go tell me Nat Geo UK is Russian Propaganda Were M1 Abrams the only model of tank used by the 35 country coalition? I seem to recall that even the USMC was still using M60A3 tanks at that time. Marines never had the A3, the went from M60A1’s to M1A1’s There’s a lot of non Tankin Bitches in this thread Talking about Tanks. Seems Col Ickes started a trend.. I stand corrected. If it matters, I was a 19E M60A3 crewman in the ‘80s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 1:52:44 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Updated Yes the USMC was still using M60A1s and they only lost one while breaching a minefield. They had only a handful of M3s and some 2nd Armored Abrams . Only 10 of those were destroyed all while penetrating mine fields Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Were M1 Abrams the only model of tank used by the 35 country coalition? I seem to recall that even the USMC was still using M60A3 tanks at that time. There are 21 on here alone for Desert Storm. Not 9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_M1_Abrams#Tank_and_crew_casualties That list includes casualties like "Damaged sponson box and duffle bags" and "Minor damage to sponson box and .50 machine-gun". I doubt those M1s were considered destroyed, more likely repaired and returned to service. Same with several others on that list. Yes the USMC was still using M60A1s and they only lost one while breaching a minefield. They had only a handful of M3s and some 2nd Armored Abrams . Only 10 of those were destroyed all while penetrating mine fields See page 5 of this report: OPERATION DESERT STORM Early Performance Assessment of Bradley and Abrams A total of 23 Abrams were combat damaged in Desert Storm, 9 of which were destroyed. 2 of which were intentionally destroyed to prevent them from falling into enemy hands. I don’t know why you are quibbling about this to point of either not understanding the data you are referencing or deliberately misrepresenting it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 1:58:30 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This. Shermans didn't burn from fuel tank or engine hits, they tended to burn due to ammunition in the side storage lockers combusting, causing a fountain of fire effect often seen on Soviet Era Tanks in Syria & Ukraine battlefields. If you watch the video of the WWII Tank Duel in Cologne Germany between a Panther & M-26, when the Panther is hit, it goes up in huge flames from the ammunition cooking off. Statistically, being a Sherman tank crew member was relatively safe compared to being an infantryman or 8th Air Force Flyer. Bigger_Hammer  Yes. My grandfather commanded a Sherman in Europe in WWII. He had two purple hearts and lost, I think, three tanks to enemy fire. The Sherman kept him alive pretty damn well. I'd have loved to have asked him about what he thought about the Sherman, but he died in '81 and never really talked about his experiences with anyone BUT my old man. He told dad he'd talk about it with him, because he was in Vietnam and would understand. My grandmother served as an air traffic controller in the Army Air force and, I believe, outranked him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 2:00:30 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Another thread carefully constructed to give follow-on credibility to people who are experts in nothing, but desperately want their opinions to be valid. "Experts were wrong about the Bradley", "Experts were wrong about the Abrams".... *Yawn* Experts have also been wrong about the Abrams survivability in an urban environment, as I've seen plenty of them get absolutely thrashed in Iraq. Ive got a pile of 19k buddies on memorial bracelets if that's something anyone wants to argue. They were also wrong about the importance of armored vehicles overall in an MDO conflict like Ukraine. Hindsight is 20/20, but sometimes people know the outcome upfront and aren't believed. None of the initial criticisms against Abrams or the Bradley turned out to accurate. Do you have any links to the expert testimony about the Abrams alleged invulnerability in urban environments? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 2:06:11 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Better by far than a "sherman". They didn't call 'em Ronson's for nothing. Undeserved bad reputation. Highest survivability rate of the war of any tank made in significant quantities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 2:09:27 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not really. “The 3rd Armored Division entered combat in Normandy with 232 M4 Sherman tanks. During the European Campaign, the Division had some 648 Sherman tanks completely destroyed in combat and we had another 700 knocked out, repaired and put back into operation. This was a loss rate of 580 percent.” Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Sherman was the most survivable common tank of the war. For reasons that don’t magazine race very well. Not really. “The 3rd Armored Division entered combat in Normandy with 232 M4 Sherman tanks. During the European Campaign, the Division had some 648 Sherman tanks completely destroyed in combat and we had another 700 knocked out, repaired and put back into operation. This was a loss rate of 580 percent.” By survivable meant that the crew survived, not necessarily the tank |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 2:09:49 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It wasn't just "experts". There was a significant attack on the M1 as I recall. Remember Gary Heart? https://www.aei.org/articles/they-only-say-no/ The Aegis destroyer! I knew there was a ship one. Gold-plated Reaganite monstrosities packed with unreliable electronic widgets. Too expensive to build and too sophisticated to fight. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 2:15:08 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: None of the initial criticisms against Abrams or the Bradley turned out to accurate. Do you have any links to the expert testimony about the Abrams alleged invulnerability in urban environments? Survivability does not equate invulnerability. Words mean things. Also initial criticisms were made in the early 1980's and based around a much different concept of warfare. Down the road our legacy theories on large scale combat operations did not turn out to be accurate either. What I presented was my own experience as a 19K in an ABCT in Iraq, where we used tanks and Bradleys in dense urban terrain for 4-5 years before acknowledging there were major issues, followed by many years as an EOD technician and conducting post blast analyses on them. Even while actual data points passed between entities like NGIC and the CoE's would be classified, the fact that we employed them so long in that environment shows we assumed they would be successful. Even when we realized they weren't we kicked the can for another few years with things like TUSK upgrades which completely ignored the fact that up to that point the highest threat to an armored vehicle was an underbelly strike on a flat bottomed hull or tandem warhead attack. Tanks were mostly off the urban battlefield by the time EFP's became big, but the Abrams was absolutely not going to be able to compete with these as a couple armored battalions right at the start got absolutely chewed up by them. At some point somebody finally realized that if these weapons are going to destroy tanks and IFV's regardless, they might as well create an optimized vehicle that has better mobility, logistics and situational awareness in the MRAP. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 2:25:10 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I stand corrected. If it matters, I was a 19E M60A3 crewman in the ‘80s. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yup Most of the Abrams destroyed (31 in Desert Storm alone) were done in by ATGMs, IEDs (AT mines anyone) and swarmed RPGs There were 9 Abrams written off in Desert Storm, but it doesn't surprise me you continue to pull nonsense out of thin airs to "About 3,300 Iraqi tanks were destroyed in desert battles and by air attack. The coalition lost 31." https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisation/2021/02/the-untold-story-of-the-worlds-fiercest-tank-battle So now go tell me Nat Geo UK is Russian Propaganda Were M1 Abrams the only model of tank used by the 35 country coalition? I seem to recall that even the USMC was still using M60A3 tanks at that time. Marines never had the A3, the went from M60A1’s to M1A1’s There’s a lot of non Tankin Bitches in this thread Talking about Tanks. Seems Col Ickes started a trend.. I stand corrected. If it matters, I was a 19E M60A3 crewman in the ‘80s. The M60A1 RISE Passive the Marines used is very similar in capabilities as the M60A3 TTS, but using different parts to get the same results. The A3 might have a slight edge in fire-control. Just different funding and development paths. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 2:29:04 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Another thread carefully constructed to give follow-on credibility to people who are experts in nothing, but desperately want their opinions to be valid. "Experts were wrong about the Bradley", "Experts were wrong about the Abrams".... *Yawn* Experts have also been wrong about the Abrams survivability in an urban environment, as I've seen plenty of them get absolutely thrashed in Iraq. Ive got a pile of 19k buddies on memorial bracelets if that's something anyone wants to argue. They were also wrong about the importance of armored vehicles overall in an MDO conflict like Ukraine. Hindsight is 20/20, but sometimes people know the outcome upfront and aren't believed. The majority issue with MDO of course is that it’s an Army thing and the Army can’t get the work done alone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 2:31:53 PM EST
[#41]
This is why we should have gone with the Gavin across the board.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 2:32:52 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Coalition included British, French, and Saudi Tanks. The USMC had M-60A1’s there. Not to mention the media likes to refer to anything with a turret as a “tank”. IIRC the French even had AMX-10 RC armored cars there (turret with a 105mm). ETA: Apparently the USMC had a few M60A3s there. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yup Most of the Abrams destroyed (31 in Desert Storm alone) were done in by ATGMs, IEDs (AT mines anyone) and swarmed RPGs There were 9 Abrams written off in Desert Storm, but it doesn't surprise me you continue to pull nonsense out of thin airs to "About 3,300 Iraqi tanks were destroyed in desert battles and by air attack. The coalition lost 31." https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisation/2021/02/the-untold-story-of-the-worlds-fiercest-tank-battle So now go tell me Nat Geo UK is Russian Propaganda The Coalition included British, French, and Saudi Tanks. The USMC had M-60A1’s there. Not to mention the media likes to refer to anything with a turret as a “tank”. IIRC the French even had AMX-10 RC armored cars there (turret with a 105mm). ETA: Apparently the USMC had a few M60A3s there. Col. John Bryant told me those M-60A3s were formerly NYARNG. They were offered to the Marines after the NYARNG NET’d on M1s after AC Army units NET’d on M1A1s arrived from W Germany. It was a one-time thing for ODS only. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 2:33:37 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Undeserved bad reputation. Highest survivability rate of the war of any tank made in significant quantities. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Better by far than a "sherman". They didn't call 'em Ronson's for nothing. Undeserved bad reputation. Highest survivability rate of the war of any tank made in significant quantities. The most overrated tank of the war was the T-34. Most crewmen in a penetrated T-34 died. The poor metallurgy meant sheets of steel flew around tanks that weren’t penetrated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 2:34:03 PM EST
[#44]
The Jagdabrams solves the issue of shot traps once and for all.
 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 2:34:09 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Marines never had the A3, the went from M60A1’s to M1A1’s There’s a lot of non Tankin Bitches in this thread Talking about Tanks. Seems Col Ickes started a trend.. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yup Most of the Abrams destroyed (31 in Desert Storm alone) were done in by ATGMs, IEDs (AT mines anyone) and swarmed RPGs There were 9 Abrams written off in Desert Storm, but it doesn't surprise me you continue to pull nonsense out of thin airs to "About 3,300 Iraqi tanks were destroyed in desert battles and by air attack. The coalition lost 31." https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisation/2021/02/the-untold-story-of-the-worlds-fiercest-tank-battle So now go tell me Nat Geo UK is Russian Propaganda Were M1 Abrams the only model of tank used by the 35 country coalition? I seem to recall that even the USMC was still using M60A3 tanks at that time. Marines never had the A3, the went from M60A1’s to M1A1’s There’s a lot of non Tankin Bitches in this thread Talking about Tanks. Seems Col Ickes started a trend.. I always consult GD for expert opinions on armor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 2:35:28 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Survivability does not equate invulnerability. Words mean things. Also initial criticisms were made in the early 1980's and based around a much different concept of warfare. Down the road our legacy theories on large scale combat operations did not turn out to be accurate either. What I presented was my own experience as a 19K in an ABCT in Iraq, where we used tanks and Bradleys in dense urban terrain for 4-5 years before acknowledging there were major issues, followed by many years as an EOD technician and conducting post blast analyses on them. Even while actual data points passed between entities like NGIC and the CoE's would be classified, the fact that we employed them so long in that environment shows we assumed they would be successful. Even when we realized they weren't we kicked the can for another few years with things like TUSK upgrades which completely ignored the fact that up to that point the highest threat to an armored vehicle was an underbelly strike on a flat bottomed hull or tandem warhead attack. Tanks were mostly off the urban battlefield by the time EFP's became big, but the Abrams was absolutely not going to be able to compete with these as a couple armored battalions right at the start got absolutely chewed up by them. At some point somebody finally realized that if these weapons are going to destroy tanks and IFV's regardless, they might as well create an optimized vehicle that has better mobility, logistics and situational awareness in the MRAP. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: None of the initial criticisms against Abrams or the Bradley turned out to accurate. Do you have any links to the expert testimony about the Abrams alleged invulnerability in urban environments? Survivability does not equate invulnerability. Words mean things. Also initial criticisms were made in the early 1980's and based around a much different concept of warfare. Down the road our legacy theories on large scale combat operations did not turn out to be accurate either. What I presented was my own experience as a 19K in an ABCT in Iraq, where we used tanks and Bradleys in dense urban terrain for 4-5 years before acknowledging there were major issues, followed by many years as an EOD technician and conducting post blast analyses on them. Even while actual data points passed between entities like NGIC and the CoE's would be classified, the fact that we employed them so long in that environment shows we assumed they would be successful. Even when we realized they weren't we kicked the can for another few years with things like TUSK upgrades which completely ignored the fact that up to that point the highest threat to an armored vehicle was an underbelly strike on a flat bottomed hull or tandem warhead attack. Tanks were mostly off the urban battlefield by the time EFP's became big, but the Abrams was absolutely not going to be able to compete with these as a couple armored battalions right at the start got absolutely chewed up by them. At some point somebody finally realized that if these weapons are going to destroy tanks and IFV's regardless, they might as well create an optimized vehicle that has better mobility, logistics and situational awareness in the MRAP. So no links to all of this expert testimony regarding the survivability of the Abrams in urban environments? Even if you provided it, it’s at best an apples and oranges argument compared to the withering criticism directed towards the Abrams during its development and initial deployment. Yeah, we had some learning curves in Iraq fighting in an environment and in a manner that we didn’t have experience with. Isn’t that pretty much the history of war? A constant, never ending evolution of technology and tactics? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 2:40:24 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Survivability does not equate invulnerability. Words mean things. Also initial criticisms were made in the early 1980's and based around a much different concept of warfare. Down the road our legacy theories on large scale combat operations did not turn out to be accurate either. What I presented was my own experience as a 19K in an ABCT in Iraq, where we used tanks and Bradleys in dense urban terrain for 4-5 years before acknowledging there were major issues, followed by many years as an EOD technician and conducting post blast analyses on them. Even while actual data points passed between entities like NGIC and the CoE's would be classified, the fact that we employed them so long in that environment shows we assumed they would be successful. Even when we realized they weren't we kicked the can for another few years with things like TUSK upgrades which completely ignored the fact that up to that point the highest threat to an armored vehicle was an underbelly strike on a flat bottomed hull or tandem warhead attack. Tanks were mostly off the urban battlefield by the time EFP's became big, but the Abrams was absolutely not going to be able to compete with these as a couple armored battalions right at the start got absolutely chewed up by them. At some point somebody finally realized that if these weapons are going to destroy tanks and IFV's regardless, they might as well create an optimized vehicle that has better mobility, logistics and situational awareness in the MRAP. I don’t think anyone thinks an MRAP is a tank replacement. There’s a standing question of what you use for an assault gun in an EFP/IED environment. And I’d be careful drawing the lessons that Russia and Ukraine need from their war and applying them to the US. Depending on who you want to fight and where the lesson sometimes is to be heavy enough that the enemy can observe you full time but they can’t turn knowledge into anything of substance. At least, that’s the way armored divisions plan to go. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 2:41:14 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How is it a troll? “Experts” said the abrams would be horrible yet it was proven to be the best tank in history. They're talking about the new AbramsX not the legacy Abrams. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 2:41:47 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not a death trap, but definitely a gas hog. Which is part of the reason the Ukrainians haven't been able to use theirs yet . Once again, wrong tank. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 2:42:31 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Meh. I watched the M1's in Desert Storm soak up and laugh off everything the fearsome republican guard could throw at them. In the opening shots of the war and M1 took a direct hit, and without stopping its advance rotate the turret and retun fire. It was at that point, less than an hour in to the thing, that I knew we were going to win. I saw pics of an M1 that was hit by sabot rounds in DS that just deflected off the hull. It’s my understanding current Russian sabot rounds are better, but the ones Iraq had were useless against the Abrams. I’ll post the pic if I can find it. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
