Matrix Games Forums

New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Deal of the Week: Combat Command Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the Family
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: What modern tank are considered...

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: What modern tank are considered... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: What modern tank are considered... - 9/9/2004 12:50:41 PM   
Marc von Martial


Posts: 10890
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Bonn, Germany
Status: offline
True, your neighbours might feel save, but I woulnd´t want to fight my way into Norway too . I don´t think you need a big force to harass a potential invader. Looks like awesome defense and ambush country there.

_____________________________

Marc von Martial

(in reply to JallaTryne)
Post #: 31
RE: Challenger 2 - 9/10/2004 1:22:24 PM   
The MSG


Posts: 2259
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Svişjoğ
Status: offline
quote:

Challenger 2 is equipped with an L30 gun


Wrong. The gun is designated L30 (or more accurately, the L30A1 is in use today), it is longer than 30 calibers.

I wouldn't even consider the Chally 2 until the gun problem is fixed. The UK does not have the resources alone to develop sophisticated ammo types in competition with the Rheinmetal smoothbore (developed by Germany, the USA, Israel, South Africa and loads of commercial entities) for their rifled L30. While the HESH has its advantages as a GP round, its increasingly obsolete against modern armour. There has been a decision, or at least a suggestion, that the Rheinmetall L44 or L55 should be implemented into the Chally, wich would bring it up to speed. But then there is the problem of internal redesign, mainly because the Chally has uses separet propellant bags instead of unitary cartridges... the entire ammunition stowage system has to be redesigned...

As for deciding wich is better between the M1A2 and Leo 2A5 (the most modern types in large scale service), its mainly a matter of taste. They are both very much more similar than different, both being based on a failed co-development experience by the US and Germany.

I prefer the Leo 2A5, because of its "diesel" (wich is developed from a 5000hp boat engine, so it gives a very explosive 1500hp, somewhat equalizing it with the turbine on the Abrams), wich is cheaper logistically both to keep fueled and going. Those gasturbines are damn expensive, even if they break down somewhat more rarely once they do it does costs a pretty penny to replace the powerpack.

The turbine always work on "full rev", so the Abrams burn huge amounts of fuel even idling. This is supposed to be rectified by carrying another APU-turbine to supply electricity for electrical systems and the turret when stationary. Here is were the "easier to maintain" issue starts to become clouded. While the engine alone is "simpler", its nature has forced the inclusion of another system, itself demanding additional maintenance.

It seems that the placement of the APU may have been poor, as several of the Abrams lost to fire in Iraq has had their fires started in the area where the APU is mounted, there is supposedly a "field expedient" fix for this, but wether it is fully effective I can't guess.

The gastubine also has a tendency slightly larger than the diesel to choke if driving through a water obstacle as well. This would be related to its need for greater airflow and quite logical, so I find these claims to be credible, or at least very possible.

The Abrams carries ALL its ammo in the rear-turret bulkhead, while Leo 2 carries some rounds in the hull, this would give the Abrams somewhat of an advantage in crew survivability. But then again the hull-based stowage area on the Leo is armed as well (although with no blow-out panels), so crew should in most cases be able to escape the vehicle before a brew-up in a worst case scenario with the hull stowage area penetrated.

If we bring in the Merkava 4 things start to get difficult. The all-aspect armouring seems to be greater, but the system in all is rather unknown (ie not disclosed by the IDF), so its rather a wild-card IMHO.

The most modern Russian systems (short of Black Eagle and T-95 wich are prototypes and largely unknowns), mainly the T-80UK and T-90M still has that bad old autoloader (although updated) wich nearly guarantees a catastrophic KK brewup once penetrated. The autoloader also severely limits the possibility to use long-rod penetrators limiting the effectiveness of teh gun. The gunbarrel is lightweight and wears out much faster than the Western equivalent. Additionally they are maintenace demanding contrary to popular mythology, engines and the drive train wears out much more quickly. therefore although the tanks may be cheaper to buy, they are more expensive to maintain and train on.

Armor-wise they have nifty gee-whiz equipment like Kontakt-5 advanced ERA and active defense systems like ARENA. The problem is that these systems most likely aren't foolproof to any extent and really unproven. It doesn't look like any of the systems protected the T-90's used by Russia in Chechnya from LAW's and RPG's for instance.

In Chechnya another issue materialized. Due to the autolaoader the gun on Russian tanks are capable of less lower angles of elevation and depression, limiting their usefulness in FIBUA even more.

< Message edited by The MSG -- 9/10/2004 11:23:32 AM >


_____________________________

"Arf! Arf! Thats my other dog impression."
-Oddball


(in reply to Shaun Wallace)
Post #: 32
RE: What modern tank are considered... - 9/10/2004 1:34:25 PM   
The MSG


Posts: 2259
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Svişjoğ
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Belisarius
Stepping in to reply Marcs, the Norwegians use, AFAIK, the AG-3 as main infantry weapon. The AG-3 is a licensed G3. In Sweden we use the G3 too, but under license and modifications under the name AK-5.


No, the HK G3, or rather our very modified HK G3is the AK4, now mainly in the AK4B version (with rail and RDS) used by Hemvärnet (the Home Guard reserve).

The AK5 is a somewhat modified FN FNC 80, soon to be replaced with the AK5C with RAS and a RDS as standard. The SUSAT 4 from the AK5B will be issued to selected marksmen, usually one per squad.

_____________________________

"Arf! Arf! Thats my other dog impression."
-Oddball


(in reply to Belisarius)
Post #: 33
RE: What modern tank are considered... - 9/10/2004 4:18:55 PM   
JallaTryne


Posts: 234
Joined: 7/19/2004
Status: offline
Whats up with the swedish tiger? I have seen this so many places in Sweden, it beginning to look like a cult. I know the consept is old (70ies?), but what does it represent?

Oh, derailing thread


JT

(in reply to The MSG)
Post #: 34
RE: What modern tank are considered... - 9/10/2004 4:28:42 PM   
The MSG


Posts: 2259
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Svişjoğ
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne
Whats up with the swedish tiger? I have seen this so many places in Sweden, it beginning to look like a cult. I know the concept is old (70ies?), but what does it represent?

Oh, derailing thread


JT


Well, in Swedish the word "tiger" means both "tiger" as in the animal, and "keeps silent". The sentence "En Svensk Tiger" has two meanings, ie "A Swedish Tiger", or "A Swede Keeps Silent".

The origin of the picture is WW2, and it was the centerpiece of a wartime awareness campaign with the same intentions of the German "Pst!" or American "Loose lips sink ships!" campaigns.

In essence, think about what you say, you never know who is listening. ;)

_____________________________

"Arf! Arf! Thats my other dog impression."
-Oddball


(in reply to JallaTryne)
Post #: 35
RE: What modern tank are considered... - 9/11/2004 1:14:56 AM   
Belisarius


Posts: 4042
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: The MSG

quote:

ORIGINAL: Belisarius
Stepping in to reply Marcs, the Norwegians use, AFAIK, the AG-3 as main infantry weapon. The AG-3 is a licensed G3. In Sweden we use the G3 too, but under license and modifications under the name AK-5.


No, the HK G3, or rather our very modified HK G3is the AK4, now mainly in the AK4B version (with rail and RDS) used by Hemvärnet (the Home Guard reserve).

The AK5 is a somewhat modified FN FNC 80, soon to be replaced with the AK5C with RAS and a RDS as standard. The SUSAT 4 from the AK5B will be issued to selected marksmen, usually one per squad.


Dang! How could I get that mixed up? Yep, the AG3 is, ofcourse, equivalent to our AK4. The caliber for one thing should be a dead giveaway.

_____________________________


Got StuG?

(in reply to The MSG)
Post #: 36
RE: What modern tank are considered... - 9/16/2004 10:40:37 AM   
Larac

 

Posts: 239
Joined: 9/5/2004
Status: offline
Which country is this?

Lee


quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi
(and i gladly live in a country that does not invade or conquer foreign soil) i do not need it....

quote:

and i gladly live in a country that does not invade or conquer foreign soil) i do not need it....

(in reply to Adnan Meshuggi)
Post #: 37
RE: What modern tank are considered... - 9/16/2004 5:50:05 PM   
Adnan Meshuggi

 

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
From: Center of the universe (Lippoldsweiler in Württemb
Status: offline
Oh, just look in my profile... nah, sorry... i forgot to write
germany..
i am happy that we are no longer involved (at last not initally) in and war. but it is just my personell opinion

_____________________________

Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy
dweebespit

(in reply to Larac)
Post #: 38
RE: What modern tank are considered... - 9/16/2004 6:02:53 PM   
Belisarius


Posts: 4042
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

Oh, just look in my profile... nah, sorry... i forgot to write
germany..
i am happy that we are no longer involved (at last not initally) in and war. but it is just my personell opinion


You still make the best tanks.

_____________________________


Got StuG?

(in reply to Adnan Meshuggi)
Post #: 39
RE: What modern tank are considered... - 9/19/2004 4:35:45 PM   
Adnan Meshuggi

 

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
From: Center of the universe (Lippoldsweiler in Württemb
Status: offline
hehe, thank you, but not necessary true.

Oh, wait, you spoke about the Wiesel ? YES SIR....

the Leopard II is a great tank, but still around 30 years old. I doubt that the abrahams is better, but i think the leclerc (beeing much newer and later designed, based on the leopard-2 but improved) could be better. At last, all these new tanks are more or less a Leopard II. THe ammo of the abrahams with du is better untill the higher muzzle speed from the a6 gun will improve it.

THe big difference is the engine... gasturbine or diesel (all-fuel-)engine. For the americans, knowing they never will be invaded, this is not important, for the rest of the western world, it is a huge difference.

_____________________________

Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy
dweebespit

(in reply to Belisarius)
Post #: 40
RE: What modern tank are considered... - 9/19/2004 4:46:57 PM   
The MSG


Posts: 2259
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Svişjoğ
Status: offline
Abrams, not "Abrahams"... ;)

< Message edited by The MSG -- 9/19/2004 2:47:20 PM >


_____________________________

"Arf! Arf! Thats my other dog impression."
-Oddball


(in reply to Adnan Meshuggi)
Post #: 41
RE: What modern tank are considered... - 9/19/2004 4:51:42 PM   
The MSG


Posts: 2259
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Svişjoğ
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

The ammo of the abrams with DU is better untill the higher muzzle speed from the a6 gun will improve it.


No, the latest German tungsten composite penetrators are just as good, although somewhat more expensive to manufacture. They are also adiabatic like the DU penetrators so the "behind-armour" effect is similar as well.

So far the Rhienmetal L55 gun has some problems with accuracy due to barrel warping, so I guess it will take some time before it will become truely superior to the older L44.

_____________________________

"Arf! Arf! Thats my other dog impression."
-Oddball


(in reply to Adnan Meshuggi)
Post #: 42
RE: What modern tank are considered... - 9/19/2004 5:01:23 PM   
Pumba1968


Posts: 440
Joined: 7/22/2004
From: LA,Ca
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Adnan Meshuggi

the Leopard II is a great tank, but still around 30 years old. I doubt that the abrahams is better, but i think the leclerc (beeing much newer and later designed, based on the leopard-2 but improved) could be better. At last, all these new tanks are more or less a Leopard II. THe ammo of the abrahams with du is better untill the higher muzzle speed from the a6 gun will improve it.



I am pleased to hear that someone is thinking that our MBT Leclerc could be better as I did my military service in a French armoured regiment as a Tank Platoon Leader several years ago. Moreover my unit was testing our new MBT at that time.

_____________________________

"s'instruire pour vaincre"

(in reply to Adnan Meshuggi)
Post #: 43
RE: What modern tank are considered... - 9/19/2004 5:20:28 PM   
riverbravo


Posts: 1319
Joined: 1/16/2003
From: Bay St Louis Ms.
Status: offline
M1A1 / M1A2 ABRAMS MAIN BATTLE TANK, USA
The M1A1/2 Abrams main battle tank is manufactured by General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS). The first M1 tank was produced in 1978, the M1A1 in 1985 and the M1A2 in 1986. 3,273 M1 tanks were produced for the US Army. 4,796 M1A1 tanks were built for the US Army, 221 for the US Marines and 555 co-produced with Egypt. Egypt has ordered a further 200 M1A1 tanks with production to continue to 2005. 77 M1A2 tanks have been built for the US Army, 315 for Saudi Arabia and 218 for Kuwait. For the M1A2 Upgrade Program, over 600 M1 Abrams tanks are being upgraded to M1A2 configuration. Deliveries began in 1998.

In March 2004, the Australian Army announced the purchase of 59 US Army M1A1 tanks to enter service from 2007.

M1A2 SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PACKAGE (SEP)
In February 2001, GDLS were contracted to supply 240 M1A2 tanks with a system enhancement package (SEP) by 2004. The M1A2 SEP contains an embedded version of the US Army's Force XXI command and control architecture; new Raytheon Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV) with second generation thermal imager; commander's display for digital colour terrain maps; DRS Techologies second generation GEN II TIS thermal imaging gunner’s sight with increased range; driver's integrated display and thermal management system. The US Army planned to procure a total of 1150 M1A2 SEP tanks but the US Army has decided to cancel future production of the M1A2 SEP from FY2004.

Under the Firepower Enhancement Package (FEP), DRS Techologies has also been awarded a contract for the GEN II TIS to upgrade US Marine Corps M1A1 tanks. GEN II TIS is based on the 480 x 4 SADA (Standard Advanced Dewar Assembly) detector.

M1 ABRAMS ARMAMENT
The main armament is the 120mm M256 smoothbore gun, developed by Rheinmetall GmbH of Germany. The 120mm gun fires the following ammunition: the M865 TPCSDS-T and M831 TP-T training rounds, the M8300 HEAT-MP-T and the M829 APFSDS-T which includes a depleted uranium penetrator. Textron Systems provides the Cadillac Gage gun turret drive stabilisation system.

The commander has a 12.7mm Browning M2 machine gun and the loader has a 7.62mm M240 machine gun. A 7.62mm M240 machine gun is also mounted coaxially on the right hand side of the main armament.

DEPLETED URANIUM ARMOUR
The M1A1 tank incorporates steel encased depleted uranium armour. Armour bulkheads separate the crew compartment from the fuel tanks. The top panels of the tank are designed to blow outwards in the event of penetration by a HEAT projectile. The tank is protected against nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) warfare.

One L8A1 six-barrelled smoke grenade discharger is fitted on each side of the turret. A smoke screen can also be laid by an engine operated system.

FIRE CONTROL AND OBSERVATION

The commander's station is equipped with six periscopes, providing 360 degree view. The Raytheon Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV) provides the commander with independent stabilised day and night vision with a 360 degree view, automatic sector scanning, automatic target cueing of the gunner's sight and back-up fire control.

The M1A2 Abrams tank has a two-axis Raytheon Gunner's Primary Sight- Line of Sight (GPS-LOS) which increases the first round hit probability by providing faster target acquisition and improved gun pointing. The Thermal Imaging System (TIS) has magnification x10 narrow field of view and x3 wide field of view. The thermal image is displayed in the eyepiece of the gunner's sight together with the range measurement from a laser rangefinder. The Northrop Grumman (formerly Litton) Laser Systems Eyesafe Laser Rangefinder (ELRF) has a range accuracy to within 10m and target discrimination of 20m. The gunner also has a Kollmorgen Model 939 auxiliary sight with magnification x8 and field of view 8 degrees.

The digital fire control computer is supplied by General Dynamics - Canada (formerly Computing Devices Canada). The fire control computer automatically calculates the fire control solution based on: lead angle measurement; bend of the gun measured by the muzzle reference system; velocity measurement from a wind sensor on the roof of the turret; data from a pendulum static cant sensor located at the centre of the turret roof. The operator manually inputs data on ammunition type, temperature, and barometric pressure.

The driver has either three observation periscopes or two periscopes on either side and a central image intensifying periscope for night vision. The periscopes provide 120 degrees field of view. The DRS Technologies Driver's Vision Enhancer (DVE), AN/VSS-5, is based on a 328 x 245 element uncooled infrared detector array, operating in the 7.5 to 13 micron waveband. A Raytheon Driver's Thermal Viewer, AN/VAS-3, is installed on the M1A2 Abrams tanks for Kuwait.

PROPULSION

The M1 is equipped with a Honeywell AGT 1500 gas turbine engine. The Allison X-1100-3B transmission provides four forward and two reverse gears. The US Army has selected Honeywell International Engines and Systems and General Electric to develop a new LV100-5 gas turbine engine for the M1A2. The new engine is lighter and smaller with rapid acceleration, quieter running and no visible exhaust.

Click here for printable version


Abrams M1A1 Main Battle Tanks deployed in the Gulf.


2 Abrams M1A2s of the 315 exported to Saudi Arabia. These tanks have the export armour package.


The M1A2 firing its main armament the 120 mm smoothbore gun, US designation code M256, developed by Rheinmetall GmbH of Germany.


The gunners station in an Abrams M1A1.


M1A2 the upgraded version of M1-A1.


Abrams tanks on exercise in the field.


The M1A1 tank incorporates steel encased depleted uranium armour.


An Abrams M1A1 advancing across the Kuwaiti desert.


An Abrams M1A1 on the firing range at Yakima.

_____________________________

I laugh at hurricanes!

(in reply to Pumba1968)
Post #: 44
RE: What modern tank are considered... - 9/19/2004 5:24:59 PM   
riverbravo


Posts: 1319
Joined: 1/16/2003
From: Bay St Louis Ms.
Status: offline
The M1A2 manned module provides controls and indicators for each crewmember that closely replicate those found at the crew stations in the actual M1A2 tank. The following describes the functions replicated in the module:

Fire Power

120mm M256 cannon
.50cal M2 HB machine gun
7.62mm M240 coaxial machine gun
M250 Smoke Grenade Launcher System

Turret and Gun Control

Commander's Control Handle Assembly (CCHA)
Gunner's Power Control Handle (GPCH)
Manual Elevation Handle
Manual Traverse Handle

Sighting System

Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV)
Improved Commander's Weapon Station (ICWS)
Gunner's Primary Sight (GPS) (Day Channel)
Gunner's Primary Sight (GPS) (Thermal Imaging System)
Gunner's Auxiliary Sight (GAS)

Digital System

Commander's Integrated Display (CID)
Intervehicular Information System (IVIS)
Position/Navigation System (POSNAV)
Gunner's Control Display Panel (GCDP)
Drivers Integrated Display (DID)

Communication

2 SINCGARS radios

Night Vision

Thermal Imaging System (TIS)
AN/PVS-7B NVG
AN/VVS-2NVV

Differences between Manned Module and the M1A2 Tank

Due to physical limitations, some controls and indicators are not fully replicated on the M1A2 manned module. In addition, some operations are handled differently compared to the operations the crewmember would perform in the actual M1A2.

The tables below list the functional differences between the module and the tank by crewstation (commander, driver, gunner, and loader).

Commander Station

Controls or Indicators
Description

MACHINE GUN panel
Shows status and control loading of .50 caliber machine gun.

ROUNDS IN AMMUNITION BOX panel
Indicates the number of rounds in the .50 caliber ammunition box.

CREW CONDITION panel
Shows "status" of commander (i.e., Wounded in Action [WIA] or Killed in Action [KIA]).

COMPASS HEADING indicator
Shows orientation of the long axis of the front of the vehicle referenced to grid north.

Turret/hull reference indicator
Shows the orientation of the turret relative to the hull.

Binocular Joystick
Controls view for the simulated binoculars.

.50 Caliber machine gun joystick
Controls firing and aiming of the machine gun.

ROUNDS IN STORAGE panel
Shows status and controls transfer of ammo in the .50 caliber machine gun ammunition storage area.




Operations
Description

Repair Operations
Repair operations are performed at the Trainer Unique Display (TUD).

Load FH channels or COMSEC Keys
Radios are automatically set-up for correct net operation during trainer initialization.

Check Crew Condition Status
Crew condition panel illuminates when a crew member is WIA or KIA.

Load.50 Caliber Machine Gun
Fill Weapon Ammunition box indicates rounds in storage. If rounds are available then the machine gun is loaded.

Unload.50 Caliber Machine Gun
Depress the load/unload button until the load light turns off.

Fire .50 Caliber Machine Gun
Use the commander's handle.

Determine Direction/Orientation of Turret
Commander will use the turret/hull reference indicator.

Read Compass heading
Tank must be stationary for 60 seconds to read compass.

Use Binoculars
Commander will use the CPH and the binocular joystick to move the binocular reticle.




Driver Station

Controls or Indicators
Description

CREW CONDITION panel
Shows "status" of driver.

Night Vision Viewer (NVV) controller
Simulates slewing the NVV imagery.





Operations
Description

Refueling and Towing
These operations are performed at the Trainer Unique Display (TUD) station.

Check Crew Condition Status
Crew condition panel illuminates when the driver is either WIA or KIA.

Drive Tank (Drive At Night)
The NVV is equipped with an adjustable Field Of View (FOV) knob.




Gunner Station

Controls or Indicators
Description

CREW CONDITION panel
Shows "status" of driver.

MACHINE GUN panel
Shows status and controls loading the 7.62mm coaxial machine gun.




Operations
Description

Check Crew Condition Status
Crew condition panel illuminates when the gunner is either WIA or KIA.

Load 7.62mm Coaxial Machine Gun switch
Press LOAD/UNLOAD switch, LOAD light will flash. Machine Gun is ready to fire when LOAD light is steady.

Unload 7.62mm Coaxial Machine Gun
Press LOAD/UNLOAD switch, UNLOAD light will flash. Machine Gun is unloaded when UNLOAD light is steady.

Clear 7.62mm Coaxial Machine Gun Stoppage
Grasp and pull charger cable to the rear and then let go. No other steps are required for clearing of the weapon.




Loader Station

Controls or Indicators
Description

MAIN GUN LOAD/UNLOAD switch
Loads or unloads the main gun.

BREECH OPEN/CLOSE switch
Opens and closes the breech.

CREW CONDITION panel
Shows "status" of loader.

CANS IN STORAGE panel
Shows status and controls transfer of cans of ammunition in the 7.62mm ammunition storage area.

ROUNDS IN READY BOX panel
Shows status of 7.62mm ammunition ready box.

Main Gun Status panel
Shows status of the 120mm main gun.

HULL AMMUNITION STORAGE panel
Shows number of rounds and controls transfer of ammunition in hull ready rack.

SEMI-READY AMMUNITION RACK panel
Shows number of rounds and controls transfer of ammunition in semi-ready rack.

Ready-Rack Switch-Lamps
Shows status of tube and controls transfer of ammunition in ready-rack. Ammunition type will light when loaded.





Operations
Description

Resupply
These operations are performed at the Trainer Unique Display (TUD) station.

Load Smoke Grenades
This operation is performed at the Trainer Unique Display (TUD) station.

Check Crew Condition Status
Crew condition panel illuminates when the loader is either WIA or KIA.

Load 7.62mm Coaxial Machine Gun Ready-Box
Facilitates the transfer of ammunition for the 7.62mm coaxial machine gun.

Move Gun to Breech Accessible Position
Elevate or depress the main gun or move GUN/TURRET DRIVE switch to EL UNCPL position. BREECH ACCESSIBLE light will light.

Open Main Gun Breech Manually
Move BREECH switch to the OPEN position. BREECH OPEN light will light.

Close Main Gun Breech Manually
Move BREECH switch to the CLOSE position. BREECH CLOSED light will light.

Load 120mm Main Gun
Indicator light indicates round loaded/unloaded.

Load Ready Ammunition Storage Rack
Select type of round to stow, indicator light lights when ammunition is stowed.

Unload Ready Ammunition Storage Rack
Select type of round to unload, indicator light turns off when ammunition is unloaded.

Operate Semi-Ready Ammunition Rack Panel
Select type of round to unload from the Semi-Ready Ammunition Rack for stowage in the Ready Ammunition Rack or Main Gun. Indicator light will go out when ammunition is unloaded from the Semi-Ready Ammunition Rack.

Operate Hull Ammunition Storage Panel
Up to 3 rounds of selected ammunition can be removed from the Hull Ammunition panel and uploaded into the Ready Ammunition Rack or the Main Gun.




Capabilities

In the CCTT, M1A2 crewmembers can:


Load and unload the M2 Cal .50 machine gun


Transfer ammunition from the Cal.50 stowage to the ready box


Determine vehicle azimuth including azimuth of turret in relation to hull


Operate binoculars


Install and operate night vision goggles


Occupy a defilade position


Load and fire smoke grenade launchers


Load and unload main gun


Transfer main gun ammunition from semi-ready rack to ready rack or hull ammunition rack to ready rack


Load and unload Coaxial Machine gun


Transfer Coax ammunition to Coax ready box


Use thermal sights


Load SINCGARS presets


Receive fuel from a HEMTT


Receive main gun ammunition from a pre-stock, from another M1A2, or transfer ammo to another M1A2


Perform Damage Assessment


Drive across a wadi or an AVLB


Drive through a breached tank ditch, a breached mine field, and a breached wire obstacle




Additional Information

Refer to the M1A2 Manned Module Guide at the CCTT site for information on operating the M1A2 manned module.

_____________________________

I laugh at hurricanes!

(in reply to riverbravo)
Post #: 45
RE: What modern tank are considered... - 9/19/2004 5:33:29 PM   
riverbravo


Posts: 1319
Joined: 1/16/2003
From: Bay St Louis Ms.
Status: offline
M1A2 vs Leo2 vs Challenger 2.....hmmmmmmm

Didnt the Leo 2 first have the targeting system for the TC so another target can be lazed while one is being engaged?

Of all three of the tanks I believe the M1A2 is the fastest.

The euro tanks mite have a slite advantage in engine dependability.

The only thing about the Leo is its not full on battle tested.

All in all the three tanks are all top of the line and are killing machines.I wouldnt want to see any of them cresting a hill and rolling towards me.

_____________________________

I laugh at hurricanes!

(in reply to riverbravo)
Post #: 46
RE: What modern tank are considered... - 9/20/2004 1:40:15 PM   
Adnan Meshuggi

 

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
From: Center of the universe (Lippoldsweiler in Württemb
Status: offline
well, don´t forget the Leclerc... he is newer and has more and propably better equippment. Esp. in computer equippment even half a year can make a huge difference... but honestly, i bet there are no large differences... only this "m1 is the best cause it is american" opinion is sometimes a little bit disturbing for me. But you are absolutely true, the Leo2 has no battlefield test, so everything is theory.. maybe he is far superior cause of a little detail or viceversa... i still prefer the wiesel

have fun and thank you for the great details abotu the m1...

_____________________________

Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy
dweebespit

(in reply to riverbravo)
Post #: 47
RE: What modern tank are considered... - 9/21/2004 1:22:48 AM   
MadDawg

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 6/24/2004
Status: offline
Here is a document some might be interested in. Basically it talks about the lessons learnt in Iraq with regards to the M1.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf

Of interest is that an M1 can be penetrated from the rear or sides (even turrent sides) by 25mm DU ammo and up, including RPG's (if you get lucky/hit the right angle or spot). Crew survivability have been excellent though, and the ammo storage have proved very successful! Thankfully no AT missile such as the AT-14 Kornet have be used but you can imagine what sort of result you might get from these larger AT weapons, particually if hit form the side or rear.

Of course this would be the case with just about any modern tank though, not just the M1. I think its a good indicator that investing in AT missiles over tanks is actually be a very smart move for countries with a smaller budget, especially considering 1 M1 equals something like 30-50 Kornet missiles.

Dawg

< Message edited by MadDawg -- 9/20/2004 11:24:29 PM >

(in reply to Adnan Meshuggi)
Post #: 48
RE: What modern tank are considered... - 9/21/2004 8:42:16 PM   
mikemike

 

Posts: 489
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

IIRC they both were developed out of the failed design.




That´s not the complete story. True, both incorporate elements and concepts from the MBT 70 project (especially the MTU diesel of the Leo 2), but the MBT 70 had a hydrostatic suspension that looked good in theory, but proved too unreliable (and too expensive?) in practice. The suspension of the M1 has been "inspired" by several Leo 2 prototypes that were given to the U.S. as part of the "two-way street" in NATO arms procurement. Apparently Chrysler made some errors in copying the suspension system, because at first the M1 was prone to throwing tracks in tight turns (hence the retainer ring on the drive sprocket).
The MBT 70 used a 155 mm gun that could also fire the Shillelagh ATM - that one ended up in the Sheridan and in the M60A-2. The German side was unsatisfied with the performance of the weapon and initiated development of the Rheinmetall 120 mm smoothbore gun.

BTW, concerning exports - there is the story of how the Swiss chose their new MBT. The competition was down to the M1 and the Leo 2, in the end the Leo 2 was selected. One major reason was the brake performance. While the M1 apparently has just conventional brakes,the Leo 2 also has a hydrodynamic retarder on the main gearbox. The Swiss started off by full stops from top speed. After three or four stops the brakes of the M1 started to burn, and the U.S. representatives forbade further full stops. Further down the test schedule, there was a cross-country drive using regular streets. Now, considering how the topography of Switzerland goes up and down all the time, the inevitable finally happened - the brakes on the M1 failed completely in a downgrade, and its driver could only just keep the out-of-control tank from running lengthwise through a house. As the two tanks are so close technically, I think this might have been the decisive factor in the selection.

Now for another bit of innuendo: in the MBT 70 project, both partners developed their own engine. Germany derived theirs from the MTU engine of the Leopard 1 and it worked just fine (it´s still used in the Leo 2, even if it is now a bit long in the teeth). The U.S. engine, developed by Continental, had all the newest technical tricks, like cylinders with a variable compression ratio, and it kept blowing up on them. Now, they could just have bought the MTU powerpack for the M1, but the U.S. Armed Forces never buy foreign stuff unless there is absolutely no domestic alternative available, so the M1 ended up with a gas turbine.

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 49
RE: What modern tank are considered... - 9/21/2004 9:18:31 PM   
The MSG


Posts: 2259
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Svişjoğ
Status: offline
Sort of similar stories go about the Abrams (M1A1) taking part in the Swedish trials. I can't confirm this of course, but what I heard is that we got a real lemon that suffered no less than over two dozen electrical faults... half of them during the final live firing exercise...

The Leclerc was one of the first 10 built (more a prototype than finished MBT), and REALLY unreliable, but Leclerc is supposedly fixed now, although it still is dogged by a spotty reliability record. If this depends on wether the design is poor or due to savings in maintenance wiser men than I debate. :)

_____________________________

"Arf! Arf! Thats my other dog impression."
-Oddball


(in reply to mikemike)
Post #: 50
RE: What modern tank are considered... - 9/22/2004 1:16:08 AM   
mikemike

 

Posts: 489
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline
The limited nummer of exports of the Leo 2 is mostly due to German weapons export regulations that essentially limited exports to NATO countries and reliable neutrals like Sweden or Switzerland. Pity. Otherwise it might have been exported to Iraq while Saddam was still Rumsfeld´s darling in the Middle East and we would have hard combat experience to decide which tank is superior (although if I wanted someone to display the abilities of my stuff in combat the Iraqi army would not immediately come to mind - maybe the Iranians?)

_____________________________

DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to Wolfi-S)
Post #: 51
RE: What modern tank are considered... - 9/22/2004 2:06:25 PM   
The MSG


Posts: 2259
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Svişjoğ
Status: offline
Well...

I think that the US would have run over the Iraqis pretty much the same with pre-TTS M60A1's (USMC M60A1 performed just as stellarly as Abrams in '91)... so I don't think having even 2A4's (wich Iraq couldn't have afforded to acquire in large numbers anyway) would have done much difference. Maybe teaching the Iraqis to respet thermal imaging a bit more, but that wouldn't have helped much in the end either.

Perhaps losses would have been somewhat heavier if modern ammo would have been available as well, but I doubt it.

I wouldn't describe the lack of a sophisticated MBT like the Leo2 in Iraqi hands as a pity neither. ;)

But the real important part of tank warfare isn't the tanks per se, but rather the doctrine they are used within, Iraq wouldn't have been able to do much more with the army it had regardless with what equipment they were issued.

_____________________________

"Arf! Arf! Thats my other dog impression."
-Oddball


(in reply to mikemike)
Post #: 52
RE: What modern tank are considered... - 9/22/2004 8:28:47 PM   
Ancient seaman

 

Posts: 138
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
As far as i am concerned i think that the last type of Leo2:A6 with the long barrel is perhaps the best western MBT in service now.It already has been sold to Greece(althought that for lowering the cost Greeks decided to take the older periscopes-cant recall the exact type)but costs much more than its main opponents like Leclerc or M1A2 or Challenger 2E.
After all in the last competitions around Europe Leo2 last models have won them all(there are other reasons as well for that like political games etc.)so i guess that all these armies had a good reason to take it.

(in reply to The MSG)
Post #: 53
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: What modern tank are considered... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.117