Posted on 04/25/2024 6:23:12 PM PDT by McGruff
Peanuts compared to the Russian artillery units.
Let me help you out….and from a western news source!
“ Ukraine pulled its Abrams tanks from the front due to Russian drone tactics, US officials say….”
Western Wonder weapons Kaput.
I did say “coming soon” which means the pilots are still in training and the planes have not arrived in UKR yet. The 60 comes from announced donations from Holland and the Netherlands both of which are or have transitioned to F-35s.
F-16s will be useful in taking out or pushing back SU-25s SU-24 and MiG-29s; as for the SU-35s and 34s, they have a longer range radar, but many aviation guys have labeled them “junk”, so we’ll see.
Vlad’s collection is of outdated western kit - an antique collection it seems.
I don’t admire any supposed US citizen rooting for butchers and torturers & who ignores all the blood on his hands.
You just say something like saying it is an argument.
Today, everyone has thermal sights, even our threats have decent thermal sights. When you have a tank that blows enough hot air to peel the paint off a car following it to closely, you have a problem: the M1 has a huge thermal signature.
In the 1970s when the M1 was being developed, that was not a big concern. Not even our allies had thermals on tanks back then (they were all using night image intensifiers), most ATGMs didn’t have thermals, there weren’t a dozen satellites in space looking down at a thermal signature, you didn’t have a battlefield littered with drones using thermal sights.
Having a huge thermal signature today is a tactical disadvantage.
Historically, yes, the turbine was a great concept in that “under load” it is more efficient, it’s a little quieter, doesn’t really care if it’s ridiculously cold or hot, can provide cool air and potentially water, it’s much-much lighter than a comparable diesel, it’s easier to start (you can jump it from a HMMWV), and it’s a true multifuel (diesels are NOT). But today it’s thermal signature outweighs any of the positive attributes a turbine gives you.
You may as well paint a big bullseye on that tank.
We are using equipment that is far past it’s intended life span, and beyond what is today ideal given the evolution in thermals, dive and top attack munitions, penetration capabilities of modern HEAT warheads, conducting operations on enemy ground where there is a threat to the bottom of the vehicle...
The M1 and especially in the A1 variant in 1986 was a beast of a machine. But today it’s simply a legacy system kept alive with half baked bolt on solutions that only sort of work because the tank was never designed around these concepts. These ideas like active defense were never incorporated in its original design, nor were signature management, a digital architecture... In the Cold War fighting on friendly ground, we were not worried about heavy mines, merely light scattered mines that are artillery dispenced and hence the belly is flat and thin, no one had dive and top attack munitions, and hence the roof is thin...
The M1 had its time. But that time has come and gone. Add it to the list of other great historical weapons systems like the P51.
AFAIK, the only Abrahms tanks were all up armored and weight ~60 or above. Even the prototype XM1 weighed a lot more than 40 Tons. You’re probably thinking about the M10 Booker light infantry support tank. It weighs in at 40 tons.
Interesting. I'm sure the Ruskie infantry probably lobs a grenade or two in that open hatch just to make sure it's immobilized before a drone gets there.
From what I've read the turbine is hungry for it. A logistics chain to supply it with fuel continuously presents a challenge itself now that drones have entered the mix.
Its hard to say. The typical Russian TOE for its BTGs (batallion tactical groups) in 2022 seems to have included an artillery battery (6 guns, SP or towed). That works out to about the same ratio of intrinsic 155mm artillery as the US.
Both Russia and the US have much more artillery available at what in the US would be the division or corps level (army in Russia). Russia may well have had more of this, but its unclear. Deploying artillery is more complex than just organizationally assigning it. Artillery is a major logistical commitment.
I may have gotten the weights wrong, but the UKR ones are much lighter than the 70T you quoted.
A turbine uses more in idle but less under load. That’s why an APU for us was a big enhancement.
While diesels sip in idle but get thirsty when you start pushing them.
Also, we use JP8, not diesel, and consumption goes up with that fuel.
Finally, most people you hear talking $hit don’t mention that the AGT1500 is ancient. They are comparing a turbine with very small changes since it was fielded in 79 to diesels that are 36 years younger (a lot changes in 26 years).
Hint: there is a reason why you use a turbine on an airplane, even a prop job. They actually did try the diesel on airplanes and it failed, horribly. Both power to weight and fuel consumption (under load) are to the turbines advantage. ***If someone wants to argue that point with you, just have them look up the thermal efficiency of a turbine and diesel, end of debate.***
The turbine on an M1 was a novel and fantastic idea, in its time. But today with the proliferation of thermal sights, that turbine poses some down sides.
The hen they’re the M1s at around 60 ton.
And a M1150 based on an M1 where they tore open the armor, took pictures and posted them... Hahaha
https://www.twz.com/land/first-confirmed-abrams-tank-variant-captured-by-russia-seen-with-inner-armor-exposed
The M1, Chally2 and Leo2 are all similar, all obsolete, but we’re once great tanks in their time.
We missed the boat by about 20 years. We desperately need an all new platform for mechanized / armored warfare.
—Threats have evolved.
—Where we fight is different.
—New technologies are available today that were never incorporated in these tanks basic design: digitization, signature reduction, active defense.
I’m not bad mouthing the M1, it was a fantastic system and served us well over many decades. But just like a BAR and M1 Garand, P51, B29... all fantastic systems in their time, the M1’s era has come and gone, in fact, a while back.
To illustrate this point let me use the following two hypothetical examples: (1) had the Russians rode into combat against Ukraine equipped with M1s, and vs. Ukraine equipped with 10,000 Javelin missiles we handed them, do you think the outcome would have been any different for the Russians? (2) Had Iraq in 2003 had 10,000 Javelin missiles, do you think we would have been able to drive on the highway to Baghdad and do “thunder-runs” like we did? They would have tore me up.
And here is the problem and this is only regards ATGMs: technology that was available to us in 1997 like a Javelin (single man operable, fire and forget, low signature, small back-blast, dual spectrum seeker, tandem warhead, direct and dive attack, high behind armor effect, excellent thermal sight, 2,500 meter range, >650mm penetration) is no longer novel and only available to us. Now add drones to the equation, the fact that we’re operating on hostile territory where folks can bury huge IEDs (example: https://www.facebook.com/tanksbeingtanks/posts/destroyed-iraqi-m1a1ms-abrams-by-large-ied-near-ramadi-2016m/1674265052632233/) emplace large/heavy anti-tank mines... Frankly, the IED has destroyed many M1’s and killed numerous crew (the first case I know of near Tikrit in 2004), it’s just not talked about.
We’re already far behind the power curve. We should have been fielding a new system at least a decade ago. We’re just lucky that we haven’t found ourselves in a ground war with a near peer that can do to us what we did to the Russians by giving the Ukrainian’s some of our toys.
I don’t admire any supposed US citizen rooting for butchers and torturers & who ignores all the blood on his hands.
——
Are you referencing the US? If so, you are correct, beginning with Bosnia…the forever wars since then speak volumes. Get back with me when the US decides conflicts 6,000 miles away from our borders are a losing proposition.
Our Founding Fathers warned us about foreign entanglements, I take it you are not Constitutionally aware? …that my friend makes you UN- American.
….sorry, the possibility also exists that you are just ignorant as to what guidelines makes America great.
This is a big nothing-burger. Tanks are one of the most vulnerable items on the Battlefield without proper support, and Ukraine has very little capacity for combined arms tactics.
Likewise, without decent anti-drone capability at a low-unit level, drones are going to have an easy time doing a lot of damage. Ukraine hitting Russia is very similar, they just don’t have nearly the same scale as Russia
Want to see the Russians towing their captured M1A1 SA from the battlefield?
I’ll post it for you if you want.
Russians have at least 1 somewhat intact Abrams M1A1, plus 3 modified versions used as maintenance and/or trench fortification breechers - all of which, ran over land mines and were not recoverable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.