Nag's vehicle mounted at present (although there are reports of man portable ones in develoment http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2005/03/25/stories/2005032501700400.htm) , currently its around 40 Kg in weight and orders have already been placed a while back(one of the few indigenous systems that the army is very eager for) , in addition there were demonstrations for javelin provided during the recent "yudh abhyas" Indo-US excercises for the benifit of indian army for their man portable system requirement. I think there is going to be a order via the FMS route if its not already placed. I can find the source if you want but it should be easy to find if you google it anyway.
M1A1, the indestructible Tank?
- Thread starter M1Brams
- Start date
Nag's vehicle mounted at present (although there are reports of man portable ones in develoment http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2005/03/25/stories/2005032501700400.htm) , currently its around 40 Kg in weight and orders have already been placed a while back(one of the few indigenous systems that the army is very eager for) , in addition there were demonstrations for javelin provided during the recent "yudh abhyas" Indo-US excercises for the benifit of indian army for their man portable system requirement. I think there is going to be a order via the FMS route if its not already placed. I can find the source if you want but it should be easy to find if you google it anyway.
Read the thread again, specifically, this quote from post #16 by Waylander:
Try to consider what's already been said in the thread - no the Abrams is not "indestructible", of course not, and the discussion has moved in a direction that reflects that. So let's not get bogged down with "tank x vs tank y" comparisons, because they're not only against the forum rules, but also largely pointless. Thanks mate.
ltdanjuly10
New Member
No Modern Tank is impervious to its own main gun
Or an Su-25 'Rook'/A-10 Jug-II 
1. Check size of own testicles, if cojones not bigger than baseballs do not attempt
2. run up to tank
3. remove safety pin
4. apply on tank
5. turn 180 degrees and run like hell
The soviet RKG-3M is interesting. You throw it and it's parachute-stabilised. Must be pretty wild to throw.
Oh yeah, the Hohlladung. Pretty simple to use!
1. Check size of own testicles, if cojones not bigger than baseballs do not attempt
2. run up to tank
3. remove safety pin
4. apply on tank
5. turn 180 degrees and run like hell
The soviet RKG-3M is interesting. You throw it and it's parachute-stabilised. Must be pretty wild to throw.
I can think of atleast one clip ive seen from Iraq of something very similar happening though it was a Bradley not a Abrams. Though i do agree its not something you would base your whole strategy around.
The clip i saw it wasnt empty. Can clearly see the turret moving.
Very intresting conversation on the M1, Firstly more were lost during gulf one, to RPG at close ranges,( not all total write offs mostly disabled/ burnt out) than to direct tank to tank engagements, .
In gulf two The Challenger also recorded the longest tank to tank engagement ever with a first round kill, ( some 4 km) ive seen more M1 burnt out than i care to count, if this is indistructable glad im not crewing it, many US tankers when they have seen the challenger comment how much they would perfer to have it than there own tank.
UK 1st armd lost no MBT to any enermy engagements, one challenger was disabled after reciving numerus close range hits including a milan missile, but the crew remained fighting in the tank until recovered, the tank was back in service only a few hours later.
the M1 is not by far indistructable, in fact its more distructable than challenger, as has been proven in battle.
In gulf two The Challenger also recorded the longest tank to tank engagement ever with a first round kill, ( some 4 km) ive seen more M1 burnt out than i care to count, if this is indistructable glad im not crewing it, many US tankers when they have seen the challenger comment how much they would perfer to have it than there own tank.
UK 1st armd lost no MBT to any enermy engagements, one challenger was disabled after reciving numerus close range hits including a milan missile, but the crew remained fighting in the tank until recovered, the tank was back in service only a few hours later.
the M1 is not by far indistructable, in fact its more distructable than challenger, as has been proven in battle.
Well, while the Challenger is arguably one of the most heavily armoured tanks out there it has it's drawbacks, too.
The ammunition is not fully separated from the crew thus a fatal hit is more likely than with the Abrams.
Up until the Brits replaced the lower frontal hull ERA with additional armor the Challi had a weak spot in it's frontal area.
It is debatable how the new armour placed there rectified that.
While the L30 gun is a good gun it is seperated from ammunition developments in the rest of the west. And despite claims from British tankers I just doubt that loading two peace ammo is as fast as loading one piece ammo.
It is right that several Abrams were lost over the years. But how many crews suffered fatalities? And don't forget that a much larger number of Abrams from different generations has seen combat than Challi 2s.
The ammunition is not fully separated from the crew thus a fatal hit is more likely than with the Abrams.
Up until the Brits replaced the lower frontal hull ERA with additional armor the Challi had a weak spot in it's frontal area.
It is debatable how the new armour placed there rectified that.
While the L30 gun is a good gun it is seperated from ammunition developments in the rest of the west. And despite claims from British tankers I just doubt that loading two peace ammo is as fast as loading one piece ammo.
It is right that several Abrams were lost over the years. But how many crews suffered fatalities? And don't forget that a much larger number of Abrams from different generations has seen combat than Challi 2s.
Ok, than we are talking about different clips.
Sounds interesting. Do you maybe have a link?
I had it on my comp but got a new laptop and havent swapped it over.
I got it from a site some on here may not want linked but what the hell, mods feel free to edit/delete this post if you really must.
Its : deleted
i havent been on there for ages but looks like its under construction at moment and i cant access there normal video section but you should find it through the forums.
And to the mods its a western based and owned site that just shows both sides of war (including the horrible bits) its not some anti western terror site despite the unfortunate name.
Admittedly there are alot more insurgent/terror vids on there but thats logical considering they release alot more then most militaries do.
There are alot of cool vids on there though if anyone wants to check it out.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, than we are talking about different clips.
Sounds interesting. Do you maybe have a link?
Hmm after having abit of a look it has kind of been taken over by extremists, i havent looked at it for a year or more and its changed alot.
The mods there are still good and will ban people for saying anything to extreme but it still lets extremists share there political views without being banned which is actually why i liked it in the first place as alot of the good US based sites ban people for saying anything against the US even if its true but seems most of the posters are more on the extremists side these days..
It still has probably the most comprehensive list of video's ive found anywhere so is still worth a look if you can ignore all the babble from 15 year olds who think they know about the world.
Firslty i was a crewman commander, on both chieftain and challengers, the challenger while yes as with any tank has its drawbacks, however the tank is well battle proven.
The L30 / CHARM3 is one of the best tank guns in the world, as for the split ammo system, it is a very safe, the rounds are all KE, the charges are stored below the turrent ring in cooled pods which self seal and designed to contain any fire, as well as the tank having a self activated fire surpression system,
the M1 design has not changed much since the A1 version, its slower and heavier than the basic model and the gun changed to the german 120mm, challenger 2 is a complete new tank, ATDU are currently seeing if the german gun will be any good on challenger but so far we are not convinced, as the tank would require some major internal redesign, the gun is not as accurate and also would reduce the number of rounds carried, if cased ammo, as an example chieftain carried 64 rounds. challenger 2 currently carrys 52 rounds, if cased the tank may lose ten or more rounds in the redesign.( mind you depends if we will have any after the defence review)
As for loading, during the cat cup in germany, both chieftain as well as challenger 1 crews managed three rounds for every one M1 round fired on range 9 a hohne ranges. Where the americans were all instructors from the armour school, the british crews were infact the actual tanks crews, the british crews on the ranges were only beaten by a canadian team in a leopard call me bias but i would be happy to pitch myself against any american gunnery crew in an M1. chieftain crews even managed a 8 round per min on Lulworth ranges in Dorset.
Americain tankers have offten considered challenger to be the more reliable of the two in the field.
The L30 / CHARM3 is one of the best tank guns in the world, as for the split ammo system, it is a very safe, the rounds are all KE, the charges are stored below the turrent ring in cooled pods which self seal and designed to contain any fire, as well as the tank having a self activated fire surpression system,
the M1 design has not changed much since the A1 version, its slower and heavier than the basic model and the gun changed to the german 120mm, challenger 2 is a complete new tank, ATDU are currently seeing if the german gun will be any good on challenger but so far we are not convinced, as the tank would require some major internal redesign, the gun is not as accurate and also would reduce the number of rounds carried, if cased ammo, as an example chieftain carried 64 rounds. challenger 2 currently carrys 52 rounds, if cased the tank may lose ten or more rounds in the redesign.( mind you depends if we will have any after the defence review)
As for loading, during the cat cup in germany, both chieftain as well as challenger 1 crews managed three rounds for every one M1 round fired on range 9 a hohne ranges. Where the americans were all instructors from the armour school, the british crews were infact the actual tanks crews, the british crews on the ranges were only beaten by a canadian team in a leopard call me bias but i would be happy to pitch myself against any american gunnery crew in an M1. chieftain crews even managed a 8 round per min on Lulworth ranges in Dorset.
Americain tankers have offten considered challenger to be the more reliable of the two in the field.
The rounds are all KE? Well HESH comes to mind...
And the fact still stands that the ammo is not as seperated from the fighting compartment as it is in the Abrams. The friendly fire incident is a testimony for this. With an Abrams the crew might have been dead as well but the tank wouldn't have suffered a catastrophic ammo cook of.
And the Abrams changed alot from A1 onwards. First important change would be the HA version which served in ODS. The M1A2SEPv2 right now in service is very different from the M1A1 of the eighties.
You should also know that the Challi 2 is not a complete new tank as only the turret is newly designed while the hull is derived from the Challi 1.
We might very well not see a change from the L30 to the L/55 but that is due to budget constraints. As you said the Challi 2 would need a redesigned turret. But that the L/55 doesn't offer advantages is wrong. The MOD itself said that the L/55-DM53/63 combination offers better performance over the L30-CHARM3 combo. And that without having to rely on DU. The higher accuracy is also a myth. What would cause that? The L/55 is even more accurate than the L/44 and that gun is no slouch either. With the UK ammunition producing capacity in shambles the rest of the west puts new rounds into service while the Brits are stuck with their aging ammo.
As for loading speed. CAT results are usually nothing the Brits boast with. There is a reason why they designed the Challi 2 turret relatively close after introducing the Challi 1. And I have seen crews loading 10 one piece rounds within a minute in Bergen and Munster. Hardly achievable under combat situations. There is just a fundamental logic behind one piece ammo being faster to load even if this goes against the pride of british tankers.
As for availability. The availability of the Abrams in the Gulf Wars was always good.
Be it 1st AD eating the Republican Guard alive in ODS or the 3rd ID fighting it's way right to the front door of Saddam's palace in OIF. They all managed to go into combat with nearly all of their machines running.
And the fact still stands that the ammo is not as seperated from the fighting compartment as it is in the Abrams. The friendly fire incident is a testimony for this. With an Abrams the crew might have been dead as well but the tank wouldn't have suffered a catastrophic ammo cook of.
And the Abrams changed alot from A1 onwards. First important change would be the HA version which served in ODS. The M1A2SEPv2 right now in service is very different from the M1A1 of the eighties.
You should also know that the Challi 2 is not a complete new tank as only the turret is newly designed while the hull is derived from the Challi 1.
We might very well not see a change from the L30 to the L/55 but that is due to budget constraints. As you said the Challi 2 would need a redesigned turret. But that the L/55 doesn't offer advantages is wrong. The MOD itself said that the L/55-DM53/63 combination offers better performance over the L30-CHARM3 combo. And that without having to rely on DU. The higher accuracy is also a myth. What would cause that? The L/55 is even more accurate than the L/44 and that gun is no slouch either. With the UK ammunition producing capacity in shambles the rest of the west puts new rounds into service while the Brits are stuck with their aging ammo.
As for loading speed. CAT results are usually nothing the Brits boast with. There is a reason why they designed the Challi 2 turret relatively close after introducing the Challi 1. And I have seen crews loading 10 one piece rounds within a minute in Bergen and Munster. Hardly achievable under combat situations. There is just a fundamental logic behind one piece ammo being faster to load even if this goes against the pride of british tankers.
As for availability. The availability of the Abrams in the Gulf Wars was always good.
Be it 1st AD eating the Republican Guard alive in ODS or the 3rd ID fighting it's way right to the front door of Saddam's palace in OIF. They all managed to go into combat with nearly all of their machines running.
Abrams that suffer sympathetic chain explosions in the turret bustle tend to be written off. Or at least the turret. It’s not as simple as cleaning out the bin and installing new racks. But even a split turret Abrams is a much better resource than a fully burnt out tank for a workshop putting knocked out tanks back into service for forward delivery.
The British 120mm charge system may not stop a sympathetic chain explosion but it delays it. By storing the charges in either three round or nine round water lined cases it gives the crew a few minutes to get out of a burning tank before catastrophic ammo cook off. This has been proven in quite a few destroyed tanks; mostly Iranian Chieftans. This system has been copied the Israelis (or vice versa as they provided a lot of design input in the Chieftan) by for 120mm single piece combustible ammunition and is in place inside the Merkavas that only has compartmentalisation for the above turret ring rounds in the Merkava Mk IV.
This storage system is also space efficient allowing the insides of these tanks to be liberally covered in storage bins. But I wouldn’t want to crew it in a mobile engagement. The loader will have to work twice as hard to police up charges and shells once the few ready fire rounds are used up. And of course twice the actions to load the same number of rounds. With the single compartment the Abrams has the advantage of easy access to ammunition for the loader. Who just has to press the door open switch pull out a round and flip it over 180 degrees into the breech. This loading style has been copied for the Merkava Mk 4 (with automatic round selection) so as to allow for loading from the seat wearing restraints. This means loading can be sustained on the move cross country.
So you would be familiar with what you do when your tank is disabled and there is no chance for recovery? The reason there were a lot more burnt out M1s than CR2s in OIF was that the British did not have the American tempo of operations and ground to cover. If a CR2 was disabled for any reason it could be recovered. The Americans did not have this luxury so had to self destroy many M1s that they could not recover and could not leave behind.
1.During Gulf War M1 series losses in regards to RPG 7 is not a correct statement.
2. If a tank is burned out it is deemed as a total loss. (U.S and NATO standards)
3. So what in regards to engagement range, is this a effective enemy engagement range, no.
4. You do not know the actual vehicle loss data for Challenger series tanks due to British OPSEC procedures, it doesn't get plastered all over the internet.
5 what makes you so sure that armor protection values for the frontal quadrant is better than that of a late M1A1 series up to M1A2 series.
6. Would not the area of operations have an effect of vehicle attrition when comparing both tanks, please do some research.
You do realize that a Charm3 (L27A1) is a DU projectile correct, though you may deem 2 or 3 part ammo safer it does have its drawbacks, Challenger series combat load is not all KE projectiles, what about HESH and Smoke projectiles
Really, the M1 design hasn't changed much since the M1A1 version, care to elaborate on that comment, Challenger 2 is not an entirely new tank, still uses the same hull as Challenger 1
Challenger will not be getting the L55 due to budget concerns, and oh by the way the L55 actually out performed the L30.
That is just outright rubbish in regards to maingun loading times, somebody has been reading fairy tales from wiki.
No, the majority of us American tankers love our M1's and do not deem Challengers more reliable, you said that you are a former British Challenger 1 & 2 tanker, could you tell me the biggest problem that the British had in regards to Challenger 1, that used to make us Yanks laugh when conducting joint exercises, took you guys awhile to fix the issue that I am referencing, I await your reply.
Last edited by a moderator: