M1A2 Sep.V3 Abrams

>The US performed well then.
Because in reality the Iraqis were nowhere near a near-peer foe, unlike what was assumed. Their incompetence, poor training and lack of morale was far beyond what anyone was expecting.

Chinese tanks are not made to defeat other tanks although they can do it easily. An air droppable off road vehicle carrying retractable HJ-12 Super Kornet ATGMs while camouflaged as a Toyota SUV can easily kill the newest Abrams by using fire and forget ripple fire of 2 upto 8 missiles on a single target using 2 separate optics that can triangulate the location giving it unjammable capabilities. Regular Russian vehicles can only launch 4 missiles at once and uses inferior Russian missiles which are not as impressive as Chinese ones because of the advanced metallurgy of China.

That’s completely fair, but there’s no reason to claim that US tactics were lacking in that conflict. Given the fact that no one else even has experience operating against large amounts of enemy tanks in recent history, I doubt America is lacking in tactical knowledge in comparison to Russia or China.

Weren’t you in the paratrooper thread earlier?

Impressive, if i dare say so myself

>Why Arabs lose Wars
I-its only if the enemy is not America! If the enemy is America then Arabs are a peer nation that is very terrifying! If the enemy is other nations then they are a joke and any positive insight by any capable nation facing Arabs should be met with ridicule.

No.
Sometimes people think at the same wavelength when they talk about impressive technical capabilities.

Iraq was an unorganized shithole, and I’m not trying to claim it was in any way representative of an actual peer enemy. However, considering Russia’s modern tank experience is with Chechen and Syrian insurgents, and China has basically no experience operating tanks in combat, America’s use of tanks in Desert Storm is literally the only major tank on tank warfare that any global power has been a part of in recent memory.

>there will be 50 times the usual amount of samefagging curry niggers and viet niggers posting these cringe bait shitpost, LARPing as "Chinese shills" and samefagging as faggots taking the bait, when china's navy parade starts

>However, considering Russia’s modern tank experience

>Ukraine
>“In a three minute period… a Russian fire strike wiped out two mechanized battalions with a combination of top-attack munitions and thermobaric warheads,” Karber said.
They have experience comparable to what America had against Iraq. Both against shit holes.

>But but they did not use tanks against tanks
The Bradley had more tank kills than the Abrams

You must be new. Impressive fags have been here since the Ukraine War.

Nobody has, and your memewar between Russia and USA wont ever happen.

This.

Thread shoud be over here but the brainlets of Jow Forums will keep jerking off to their favourite tank until we get at least 300 replies.

you cant really compare experience in artillery strikes and experience in large scale armored maneuver warfare.

Maybe the real war was the friends we made along the way.

Why not? Both destroyed tanks.

Well, the guy that started this whole chain was specifically talking about tank tactics and claiming that the US is lacking in that area. The reality is that the US is the only country that’s even had the chance to use their armored warfare doctrine against other tanks.

>tank on tank warfare
Literally what anyone tries not to do since 1944.

quantum nutrients and now quantum missiles? dang

You don't belong here.

>although they can do it easily
>they can do it easily
>can do easily
>easily

>outdated design
>outdated gun
>outdated armour
>outdated internal layout
The Abrams has a great FCS and good ammunition going for it, but that's pretty much it.

Its not outdated if it still will bash the absolute shit out of 95% of what it meets.

>outdated design
How so?
>outdated gun
Still good enough to kill everything on the battlefield.
>outdated armour
It just got a new armor package with larger armor cavities.
>outdated internal layout
the fuck is this supposed to mean?

You must be illiterate or an asshurt "le Chyna shills xDD" LARP nigger yourself getting all defensive, because I never said anything that implies it's a new phenomenon.

>muh ayybrap is undeadable

Nobody ever claimed that. But it will still wreck the absolute crap out of anything the US is liekly to face. Only some western nations and possibly the newest Russian tanks can compete, but I dont see a liekly scenario where the US Army will engage any of those in the near future.

Leopard 2 has a better gun, a better engine, and better protection. Also killed it in several tank trials recently (sweden, greece ...) and had vast export success. It's a better tank.

And this is the great joke about mutts making threads about the Abrams. It's unlikely to face anything that isn't handed to sandniggers in shady backroom deals or to test out new equipment in combat. It's completely pointless to compare modern MBTs against each other, because with how economically cataclysmic war will be in the modern world, the only wars that will be fought are proxy wars making the comparison pointless, because both monkeymodels will be manned by cowardly brownies.
It's an OK tank. It is not the "best" tank. There is no "best" tank, they are all just as deadly to each other, and can only gain advantages in the terrain and situation they are designed for.

Oh, and lest we forget.

Attached: 1528732537117.png (881x360, 25K)

I guess we agree then, as I never claimed it was the best one, I agree with people like
Not a mutt btw

That mostly compares crew and doesnt prove much tho

t. Swede

You must be seething because the naval parade doesn't matter, there will still be impressive posts whether there is a parade or not.

>Leopard 2 has a better gun, a better engine, and better protection
0 for 3, try again.
>Also killed it in several tank trials recently
Sweden went in knowing they wanted Leopards for industrial offsets, and Greek officials were bribed by KMW. Try again.
>and had vast export success
The number of exported Abrams and exported leopard 2s is about the same, actually.

Correct. That is why this post is the superior answer.

>m-muh monkey model

OH NO NO NO NO HAHAHAHAHA

Sweden went in back in 1994, so I wouldnt call it recently anyway. Also, the gun is better, but armor is probably worse and the engine is just different, I wouldnt call it better in either om them.

Classified leaked documents from swedish assessment. Leopard 2 armor is far superior.

Attached: qdd9Vwe.jpg (1279x959, 102K)

You can tell that the graph is bullshit, because Sweden never tested either the Leclerc or Abrams armor.

Leopard 2 engine uses HALF the fuel for the same performance.

You're also ignoring the fact that a gas turbine requires 8-10x the amount of air throughput for the same performance as a diesel engine.

Do the words "desert" and "dust filters" ring a bell when thinking about 10x air throughput?

Do i really need to point out that the Leopard 2 has the 120mm Rheinmetall L/55 while the Abrams still only has the shorter older and less capable L/44 ?

Attached: OyKLYpN.png (1314x987, 1.14M)

>You can tell that the graph is bullshit, because Sweden never tested either the Leclerc or Abrams armor.

Yeah, right. I can taste your butthurt all the way over the pond.

Attached: jMG31Z9.png (1313x977, 900K)

Attached: HFPsw9B.png (1313x978, 1.21M)

>Yeah, right.
You can screech butthurt all you want, but the fact remains that Sweden did not test the leclerc armor, instead making up bullshit values that gave them the test results they wanted. Same deal for Abrams, but at least they looked at a US test for that.

>Yeah, right.
>You can screech butthurt all you want, but the fact remains that Sweden did not test the leclerc armor, instead making up bullshit values that gave them the test results they wanted. Same deal for Abrams, but at least they looked at a US test for that.

I'm sure you can provide evidence to how exactly sweden compiled these secret documents and came to their assessment.

Kinda related, but I wonder if we will see the resurgence of the tank with little actual armor due to increasing effecticness of hard kill and reactive systems.

Hard kill has really proven itself against legacy ATGMs that don't have top attack, making the MBT's basically immune to them. There still hasn't been one made/tested to stop a sabot round in flight.

>ugh I'm sure you have some hard evidence to prove my sourceless statistics are just asspulls, sweety... thought so *rolleyes*

>what does "more" mean?
The post

Stay butthurt Pajeet and see ya on your overhours next week.

Because it didn't test DU

The M1A2 Sweden tested did not have DU, no one aside from the US has DU in their abruhams

Didnt Sweden just loan a US Army M1A2 tho? (But it was understood that Sweden would never get DU armored ones for serial production). It seems odd that there would be a specially manufactured M1A2 without DU just made for the trials.

There were M1A2s without DU for other export customers (sand niggers)
Also i'm not sure, but iirc it's not overly difficult to remove the DU modules from an abrams, it would be annoying to upgrade them if it was.

>Do i really need to point out that the Leopard 2 has the 120mm Rheinmetall L/55 while the Abrams still only has the shorter older and less capable L/44 ?

Now compare how much actual penetration the DM63 from the L55 has vs the M829A4 from the M256.

O O P S

It's almost like barrel length isn't the only point that matters.

Was there non-DU M1A2s in 1994 tho? As I understood it the trials vehicle was just there for a short period to do the trials, and would never have been included in a deal anyway, but rather be returned (as it also was) regardless if the Abrams won the competition or not.

New ammunition is one thing, but M829A4 ammunition would benefit from a longer barrel too, as the increased speed would mean that its given penetration could be achived at longer range. The downside would however be at short ranges where the speed would be so high that the penetration of a DU rod would go down a bit. Or at least thats how I have understood it.

t. Not that guy you replied to.

There is so much baggage that accompanies any piece of military equipment that an objective comparison is essentially impossible. Is an F-16 better than a Mig-21, in most performance characteristics, yes. Doesn’t mean that a moron flying straight and level in an F-16 can’t get shot down by a Mig-21.
Same with tanks. If a T-34-85 gets a side shot on an Abrams the round will still go through that armor and fuck it up royally. But an Abrams APFSDS round could probably go through 6 T-34 long ways.

At it's best the Abrams is no better than any other modern MBT out there - not its gun, protection, mobility. It also is very maintenance-heavy and is a vast fuel-hog which needs a vast logistical tail which also needs to be fed and supplied and protected. It also suffered heavy casualties in Gulf War 2 and more than half of them are now unserviceable and sitting in the desert for spare parts cannibalisation. Much better just to go for the Leo 2 or T-90.

Attached: abramsr.jpg (752x423, 65K)

Don't some countries put a huge amount of effort into training up hand-picked crews tho while others just send whoever?

>documents from swedish assessment
>no supplementary Somali translation
>no cumstains
Yeah that's bullshit.

Arabs might as well buy something cheap, gonna fuck it up either way.
The blowout panels there only saved a couple of inbreds, so crew safety isn't a big deal for them.

More or less. Doubt Ukraine would send their best, they have bigger problems.

>New ammunition is one thing, but M829A4 ammunition would benefit from a longer barrel too, as the increased speed would mean that its given penetration could be achived at longer rang

Incorrect. Different kinds of rounds function better at different velocities. DU rounds don't function as well at the velocities the L55 fires things at.

The L55 would need to be the L55A1 to push the DM rounds past the M829 series. Until then, they're still behind the US in penetration.

While the american military isn't perfect and a lot of schlomofication is going on, I don't think there is a more experienced military force. To my knowledge their crews are well trained which IMO makes all the difference in current generations of tanks besides combined warfare.

No that's BS peddled by "experts" who use the graph comparing WHA, DU and steel with penetration Vs velocity and 10MJ constant. Guess what happens if you increase velocity, mass decreases.

In the real world the projectile mass stays constant and the Kinetic is what changes as speed changes. Documents on dtic from the 70s/80s show that WHA equals DU at 2000m/s not 1500m/s as that shit graph shows.

Pic related is the M1A2 with the L55 that was evaluated between 1998 and 2001 and rejected on account of gun not being able to be stabilized adequately.

Attached: dq6rrsbtp7a21.jpg (274x184, 12K)

We will find out in Iran this winter

I understand this, but ammunition slows down with time. Let me state an example (figures are compleatly made up)

Lets say that the M829 preforms best at a speed of 1000 m/s. If you fire that M829 round from a L44 gun, it will perhaps have slowed down to its ideal 1000m/s velocity after 2000 meters. If you however would fire that M829 round from a L55 gun with a higher muzzle velocity, it will perhaps have slowed down to the ideal 1000 m/s after 2500 meters, wich means that you have extended the range at wich the round would preform as best. This range extention comes at the cost of higher initial speed, as it would go to fast during the first part of its travel, and thus decreasing penetration preformance at short ranges.

Iran has no modern tanks tho. Their newest tank is a T-72 with a body kit.

Ready or not here we come

I posted relatively recent, officially still classified material from an actual tank procurement program with a solid assessment done on 3 different tanks.
You criticise it claiming that the assessment was done in a shitty fashion without providing any sources, details, nothing.

You're just pulling shit out of your ass to protect your false reality bubble of "HURR murrica #1" like every teenager or low intelligence redneck.
Pretty fucking pathetic. Unless you come up with anything solid to point at, your garbage opinion is just that: Your garbage opinion.

>>Do i really need to point out that the Leopard 2 has the 120mm Rheinmetall L/55 while the Abrams still only has the shorter older and less capable L/44 ?

>Now compare how much actual penetration the DM63 from the L55 has vs the M829A4 from the M256.

What relevance does this have? None. Germany decided, for political reason, to not use DU as a projectile material due to the golf war controversy about it. I said the Leopard 2 gun is superior (which it is) and nothing more. Due to standardised 120mm ammo in NATO, the Leopard 2 could shoot US DU ammo without issue. In fact the FCS has ammo data programmed in for all NATO ammo which only has to be selected by the gunner, so even foreign ammo with different ballistics can be shot with full accuracy.

>blowout panels
>fire plumes clearly coming from the commander and loader hatches with massive amounts of smoke coming from the turret ring
hm

Attached: 265988892702801922.png (86x88, 22K)

If the ammunition hatch isnt closed thats what happens. The probably forgot to close it, or more liekly didnt care because the dont understand why it exists

Another user here, wasn't it discussed to death, that US L44 (which isn't based on Rheinmetall) is optimised for lower velocity but heavier DU rods?
I am quite certain, that M829 shooting from German L55 has suboptimal accuracy and penetration parameters due to barrel harmonic and ironically higher speed.

The higher speed is really only a problem at short ranges, ranges at wich tank battles rarely happens. Also, Im pretty sure the M256 is originally based on a Rheinmetal L44,but with a lot of modifications, meaning that almost no parts are interchangable anyway.

>(which isn't based on Rheinmetall)
The m256 is most certainly based on it you dipshit, the breech systems were changed.

>The G-3 is based on the FN-FAL because they fire the same ammunition
See how retarded you sound? The M256 was based on the Delta-LASH 120mm.

Exactly, Arabs will always fuck up.

Not until hard kill systems prove themselves against KE penetrators. Until that happens I think APS will actually make light/medium tanks LESS than IFVs, because the latter now have the same effective level of protection.

>2nd of the 1st Infantry
>armor competition
>infantry division
>Armor
>Big Red One
.
Its like nobody even thought about it. I get that america is a proponent of the mixed arms shit, but you couldnt at least send someone from 2nd armor? You had to send someone from 2nd of the 1st?

No, the baseline M1A2 had the same armor package as the M1A1HC.

That being said, it's not a huge issue to swap out armor packages on the Abrams. It is absolutely not out of the question that the US built a prototype one to spec for a potential export customer if there wasn't one already in existence.

What usually happens is that the American crew does really well on gunnery and not as well on the other tasks, some of which are legitimate assessments of crew efficiency and some of which are stupid.

US Army unit designations are a fucking mess, don't think too hard about it unless you want to find something to sperg about.

Im just coping with the fact they sent tankers from an Infantry Division, instead of a crew from an Armored Division. Really making me think.

user, 2nd armored was deactivated in '95 and merged with 4ID.

1st armor is around, and there are plenty of Armored Cav units running around with division level punching strength based on their actions in Gulf 1.

Attached: At-the-Opera-with-Palpatine-the-anakin-skywalker-fangirl-fanclub-26128057-748-481.jpg (748x481, 44K)

Cunt, they are hardcore tankers. When 1st Infantry swapped to combined arms, they moved a bunch of tanks over. These fuckers were in both gulf wars, and the shit going down in the balkans.

They are seasoned tankers, the abrams is just bad comparatively.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Brigade_Combat_Team,_1st_Infantry_Division

Could possibly have been custom made. Sweden did not test shoot against it, might've been because the US did not want it, or that the "prototype" wasnt very good. They proceeded to make a mockup made from its measurements; the mockup exceeded the survivability of the original armor by 50%..

Attached: strv_ny-16.jpg (1134x852, 544K)

Actually, the report does not state that the leopard had best c2 system, as the m1a2 was the only tank in the trial with an operational system. A prototype leopard system was used in the trials, but it was separate from the tank. Neither was determined being "best" at all, just being modified to fit swedish needs.

Sweden tested the armor of all tanks in their respective countries. They also built armor mockups to test, see

Implessive. The Han Chinese dragon does employ the best camouflaged Toyota ATGM/MAPAD in existence. The sunny day shines on winnie the pooh.

Attached: Chairman Xi.jpg (570x442, 93K)

The only thing that matters for Army line units is: Infantry, Airborne, Stryker, Armored. That's it. The actual names of units are basically vestigial.