el t80 esta muy bien blindado por el frontal, en cambio por los laterales no tanto como un abrams.
charlie escribió:en realidad se trata de un arco frontal de unos 70s grados, que es la zona con mayor incendencia de impactos, si tomamos en cuenta ese punto, en realidad son las torres occidentales las que mas se exponen, sobretodo cuando muestran sus laterales. y eso se debe a que cuando el tanque oocidental gira su torre exponiendo alguno de sus flancos, incrementa su perfil.
The M1 does, indeed, suck.
the thing weighs 90 tons [supongo que petado, no sé] and can only be transported by ship. this in a military that is supposed to be able to put three regiments anywhere in the world within 48 hours. also, it holds less than 30 rounds for its main gun.
it devours fuel, it is prone to catching fire, the bore evacuator doesn't work, and only the M1A1 AMES has a halfway decent Thermal sight, and it is, indeed, poorly protected.
the main gun is awesome, the fire control system is A1, it is really quiet, and it is spectacular as a defensive asset, but it is being used as a gun carrier for infantry support; a roll it does not do well.
It's like the tiger tank for the modern day.
Isn't suited for what it does/did during the Iraq occupation - but it was still used because it did this better than anything else.
that "anything else" is the Stryker MGS.
a damn Ontos is better than that magic shortbus.
Isn't the bore evacuator on the M1 the same as on the Leo2?
We had no problems with the ones on our Leo's.
Of course, some fumes got through to the fighting compartment, but other than it smelling like rotten eggs, I wouldn't call it a problem.
After five shots I can barely breath without holding the NBC air tube up to my face. that is how poorly the bore evacuator works.
by the by, the M60 had a far superior thermal gun sight. one that was not put into the M1 until the M1A1 AMES configuration.
and no, the M1A1 AMES does not predate the M1A2. rather, the AMES is what they did with a bunch of M1A1s when the guard bought them.
IT features such improvements as:
- a thermal sight for the commander's remote cupola giving the commander a remote turret that tracks faster and is more accurate than the CROWS system without fucking up his forward view as well as not needing a thermal sight turret that cuts the loaders fire sector in half.
-the M60's thermal sight with is of much higher resolution and is black/white rather than gren/white and uses its own collimator screen rather than the GPS ocular like on the other M1 variants.
-blue force tracker STANDARD
-improved comms to include and infantry phone; something that didn't get put on the A2
-redesigned fire sensor placement and those nice sidecar controllers
-compressed air jets to clean the V-packs while in operation
-slightly improved NBC system.
-redesigned blowout panels on the ammo compartment that ACTUALLY WORK and are part of a quick-reload system where the whole ammo racks can be replaced with ready loaded ones to reduce restock time. this is invaluable considering how few rounds we can carry.
the AMES is the best of all the M1 variants in my humble opinion.
It IS more silent than other tanks, so I have no idea why Gavinguy says it's unable to surprise opposing forces like he implies "all other tanks can".
it has to do with the loud whine of the engine.
yeah, it doesn't register at distance, but within a city block you know an M1 is in the area.
Almost only AT-ammo - HEAT, despite the two last letters in its name, works well as a general purpose round.
not as much as you'd think.
bonerforgavinsguy does have a point about the limited utility of shaped charge projectiles in applications outside of anti-armor role. a 120mm HE round with a PD/SQ fuse would be infinitely more useful in operations like we saw in Iraq
my armchair opinion of the M1 is that it's a pretty nice tank, and I don't think any other tank would be able to do what it does noticeably better.
this is your problem.
you never crewed the damn thing.
lots of tanks can do the job better than the M1. the T90 is air deployable, nimble, has a low silouette, and can SHOOT MISSILES OUT OF ITS MAIN GUN THAT CAN TAKE OUT HELICOPTERS. that's a damn handy feature right there.
the rooikat is an armored car that features a big cannon, and can zip around a battlezone AND is air transportable.
several other light tanks fielded by china and Russia are not only faster, lighter, more mobile, but are also amphibious.
and I don't even want to get into how many times we've gotten an M1 stuck.
the M1 is not a terrible tank in the same way the tiger was not a terrible tank or the HMMWV is not a terrible armored car; its just not made for the role we need it to perform, and has plenty of design faults. she may be ugly, but she's the only girl in town.
All that said; I am confident in my abilities and awareness of the shortcomings of the M1 that should I find myself in a tank fight my track will come out ahead.
video implying any shortcomings are not negated by the ridiculously effective logistics capability of the U.S.
looks like somebody's stuck in the 80's The US logistical network is so congested and neglected that it can barely keep its soldiers supplied with armor and ammo.
hell, they had trouble paying us last moth.
El Leo, por su menor costo operacional, lo único en lo que gana el M1, seria en blindaje...
Yo diria que no. La municion es la que cada cual quiera usar. Maxime cuando los cañones son los mismos.
O sea, si has decidido fabricar otra cosa. NO es que exista una ley divina que te prohiba comer carne los viernes y fabricar determinandos tipos de municion. Aunque ¡A saber que pasa en Israel!
Usuarios navegando por este Foro: No hay usuarios registrados visitando el Foro y 1 invitado
