ok. i did lots of research about new ideas and developments about replacing the army's M1 abrams in the future. and i dont seem to find any info. neither about an M1A3. is the army even doing anything to improve or replace the abrams?? it still fully vulnerable to IED and anti tank missiles"(except for the rpg)

M1 tanks are disastrously vulnerable to IEDs and anti-tank missiles, and terrorists know that, which is why they managed to annihilate several M1 tanks in Iraq.

The US Army doesn't even dare to send M1 tanks to Afghanistan.

M1 tanks NEED to be replaced - with ATM-resistant AMX-56 tanks (licence-produced, not imported; new, not used). They're French, but good. They consume much less fuel and require fewer crewmembers than M1 tanks. The US Army should therefore sell its M1 tanks to allied countries like Poland, and purchase 9000 AMX-56 tanks.

Thanks Ziggy, I needed a good laugh to start the day off right!

Ignore Ziggy. Our M1A2 SEP Abrams is still top class and easily comparable to the French Leclerc.

Back near the end of the Cold Car there was a plan for US Army MBTs. First would be the Block II upgrade for the Abrams which became the M1A2. This would be followed by the Block III which was originally intended to be based on the Abrams but eventually became a plan for a whole new tank. No final design was ever specified. However there was a tank design competition designed to "generate ideas on the evolution of armored warfare" which produced some interesting offerings.

Block III became part of the Armored Systems Modernization program which also included plans for an infantry fighting vehicle, engineering vehicle, and self-propelled artillery system on the same chassis. Not much funding went to ASM however and the program got nowhere as far as I know.

In the mid 1990s there was the Future Combat System which was a concept for very advanced 40+ ton MBT but this remained in the initial concept stage.

Following that massive Future Combat Systems was introduced. Eventually the Manned Ground Vehicle portion of the program was developed into family of tracked vehicles weighing 25+ tons. While not a MBT and much closer to a light tank, the XM1202 MCS was originally supposed to replace the Abrams, but this was determined to be foolish. Plenty of the information is up at the programs website. Some of the vehicles such as the XM1203 NLOS-C made it to the prototype stage. http://www.fcs.army.mil/systems/index.html

Gates has canceled the MGV portion of FCS in the new budget for various reasons but a new replacement plan has been promised to the Army which will have heavier armor. So it could possibly include a plan for a true M1 Abrams replacement.

Following the Abrams there have been seen several prototypes testing technologies such as the Tank Test-Bed (TTB) with an unmanned turret and crew located in the hull. There was also the Component Advanced Technology Test-Bed (CATTB) based on the Abrams hull and designed to test components for the Block III tank. I could try to dig up some photos if you want.

quote:

...disasterously vulnerable...

Quite a statement, Zig. Care to back it up with some data? How about a list of all M1 tanks lost due to enemy action, specifically those penetrated by either IEDs or anti-tank missiles?

Psst - the reason the Le Clerc will always have a better record is that the French will surrender before ANY rounds are fired, thereby preserving their 'perfect' record.

Sullivan013

quote:

Originally posted by sullivan013:

Quite a statement, Zig. Care to back it up with some data? How about a list of all M1 tanks lost due to enemy action, specifically those penetrated by either IEDs or anti-tank missiles?

Here's the list of all M1 tanks disabled or annihilated during the Second Gulf War:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams_Tank#Operation_Iraqi_Freedom

quote:

the reason the Leclerc will always have a better record is that the French will surrender before ANY rounds are fired, thereby preserving their 'perfect' record.

Ha! By writing that you've proven that you are an ignorant person and that you're biased against French military equipment. France does not always surrender, only sometimes. France did lose a few wars, but so did America. France would've won WW1 without anyone's help. American troops arrived too late in France to play a significant role.

But according to you, France's military history is as follows:

The Thirty Years War (1618-1648): The Habsburgs defeated France in 1642 and created an empire spanning from the Atlantic to Hungary.

The War of the Augsburg League: France was defeated.

The War of the Spanish succession: France was beaten. The Austrian Habsburgs managed to install an Austrian in Madrid.

The French invasion of Britain in the 1740s: The French never made it to the island.

The American War of Independence: France played absolutely no role whatsoever during that war. Lafayette did not go to America, and neither did the French Navy.

The French Revolution: In 1792, foreign armies occupied France and restored the Bourbon monarchy.

The war for Toulon (1793): Napoleon failed to retake Toulon.

The Italian Peninsular War (the 1790s): Napoleon was defeated by the Austrians.

The Napoleonic Wars (1799-1814):
A humiliation of France. Battles which the anti-Napoleonic countries won include:
The Battles of Marengo, Genoa, Hohenlinden and Wagram;
The battles of Jena and Auerstedt;
The battle of Friedland;
The battle of Austerlitz (that's why a Parisian train station is named after it - to humiliate the French);
The battle of Borodino.
The Duchy of Warsaw was never created.
The Napoleonic Code was never enacted.
Moscow was never overrun by the French.
The British annexed France.

The 19th Century: France failed to create a colonial empire.

The Crimean War of the 1850s: France and Britain were defeated by Russia, which conquered the entire Balkan Peninsula and Palestine.

World War 1: A humiliation for the French, an even worse one than the Napoleonic period. The Germans beat the French military at the Marne river, overran Paris, and conquered all of France.

World War 2: The French were beaten by the Italians and surrendered to Italy. The Italians overran the Bir Hakeim base.

.......

Biased posts are funny, but they should not be treated seriously by policymakers.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ziggy1988,

quote:

Originally posted by ReconTeam:
Ignore Ziggy. Our M1A2 SEP Abrams is still top class.

Gibberish. You've proven that you're an ignorant person. M1 tanks are 1970s' tanks - they were designed, produced and deployed during the 1970s (the first M1 tank was delivered to the US military in 1980).
M1A2SEP tanks are upgraded M1s; they account for only a minority of the M1 fleet (which nowadays numbers fewer than 6,000 tanks). Upgraded, but not on par with AMX-56 tanks. If an M1 tank ever fought against an AMX-56, the French tank would win.

M1s earned their combat record by annihilating 1970s' Soviet tanks. The fact that they can defeat 1970s' Soviet tanks doesn't mean that they can defeat 1990s French tanks.

quote:

Back near the end of the Cold Car there was a plan for US Army MBTs. First would be the Block II upgrade for the Abrams which became the M1A2. This would be followed by the Block III which was originally intended to be based on the Abrams but eventually became a plan for a whole new tank. No final design was ever specified. However there was a tank design competition designed to "generate ideas on the evolution of armored warfare" which produced some interesting offerings.

Block III became part of the Armored Systems Modernization program which also included plans for an infantry fighting vehicle, engineering vehicle, and self-propelled artillery system on the same chassis. Not much funding went to ASM however and the program got nowhere as far as I know.

One of those programs should've been pursued.

quote:

Gates has canceled the MGV portion of FCS in the new budget for various reasons but a new replacement plan has been promised to the Army which will have heavier armor.

It might be necessary to cancel the entire FCS program. Anyway, it must be ensured that the US military will never swap heavily armored vehicles for fast, but weakly armored, vehicles.

AMX 56 adopted in 1990, 1980s technology at best. Given development time, probably 1970s technology though.
Uses a 120mm Gun, same caliber as the M1 nd Leopard (uses standard NATO 120mm ammunition)
Has NEVER seen combat. So it has never even defeated any other tank, let alone supposedly obselete ones.
What makes it a superior tank?

You want to talk about obselete and outdated? You're the Air Force guy, how about the F-15s and F16s the Air Force uses? Both use 1960s technology. So, they must be no good and are incapable of performing their duties, get rid of them.

quote:

Originally posted by gumbydammit:
AMX 56 adopted in 1990, 1980s technology at best. Given development time, probably 1970s technology though.

Nope. AMX-56s were developed during the 1980s and introduced in 1992.

quote:

Uses a 120mm Gun, same caliber as the M1 nd Leopard (uses standard NATO 120mm ammunition).

So?

quote:

Has NEVER seen combat.

Your claim is flawed. Your claim is "since M1s are superior to 1970s' tanks produced by the USSR, they are also superior to 1990s' tanks produced by France". But that claim is wrong. M1 tanks earned their combat record by annihilating Soviet tanks produced during the 1950s', 1960s' and 1970s' (T-55s, T-72s, etc.). T-55s were designed in 1945 and introduced in the 1950s; T-72s were designed in the 1960s and introduced in 1972 (hence the "T-72" designation).

Iraq's variants of the T-72 tank type were T-72M and Assad Babil (a domestic variant). T-72s don't have ERA, composite armor, nor 120mm guns. They do have manual transmissions and Soviet autoloaders. Assad Babil tanks also lacked laser range instruments, except when the Iraqis reclaimed them from retired T-72s.

Of course, T-72s weren't the most common tanks in the Iraqi tank fleet, anyway. Type #69 tanks were. Type #69 tanks are modified export-variant Chinese derivatives of T-54s. Their guns are 105mm cannons which cannot even pierce the armor of other Type #69 tanks. These tanks lack ERA and composite armor.

All Iraqi tanks were using vintage Soviet ASDFPS
projectiles produced during the 1970s. They can pierce armor no thicker than 140mm-thick. The newest (as of 2009) Russian tank projectiles breach armor no thicker than 650mm-thick. The frontal armor of an M1 tank is 950mm-thick.

M1A2SEP tanks are not threatened by tanks (although not all M1 tanks are M1A2SEP vehicles). They are threatened by irregular weapons (e.g. IEDs).

quote:

What makes it a superior tank?

Armor, low fuel consumption and a low crew requirement.

quote:

You're the Air Force guy, how about the F-15s and F16s the Air Force uses? Both use 1960s technology. So, they must be no good and are incapable of performing their duties, get rid of them.

Dude, F-15s were designed in the 1960s and F-16s were designed in the 1970s. The first F-15 first flew in 1974 (I believe) and joined the USAF's fleet in 1976. The first F-16 first flew in 1976 and joined the USAF's fleet in 1979. F-15s and F-16s are so obsolete that they now fall out of the sky (ask the family of Major James Duricy). F-15s and F-16s should be retired as soon as their replacements arrive. In order to replace them, the USAF should order hundreds of additional F-22s and F-35s.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ziggy1988,

Here's a photo of an M1 tank annihilated by an obsolete Assad Babil tank (a derivative of the Soviet T-72 tank type):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:B-23-1991.jpg

Here's info about the Assad Babil tank type:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_of_Babylon_tank
M1 Abrams tanks (the oldest M1 variants) were inferior even to Assad Babil tanks, let alone AMX-56s. The French did not buy their weapons in the USSR. The M1A2SEP tanks were superior to Assad Babil and T-72 tanks but inferior to AMX-56s, Leopard-2 tanks, and Challenger-2 tanks.

The US Army MUST replace these tanks with new vehicles - either indigenous or foreign. It's unacceptable that the ASM program was cancelled. But buying 8000 AMX-56 tanks can compensate for that cancellation.

Dude, so like wow man, statistics don't like make it, Dude, a superior combat vehicle. Far out.

Dude, on paper it may be, but it is unproven in a real live fire situation. Dude.

By the way, where does it say that M1 was destroyed in a tank on tank confrontation? All the caption says is it was destroyed in battle with the whatever division. Even if it was, and the Army says no Abrams has EVER been destroyed by another tank, it's ONE out of how many engaged?

There was an Abrams that was DISABLED (not destroyed) in a tank on tank battle in the first Gulf War, it was destroyed by ANOTHER Abrams, not an Iraqi tank, when it was considered unrecoverable at that time.



The Army still says, there have been no Abrams tanks destroyed by an enemy tank. Unless you know, and have proff, otherwise.

quote:

Originally posted by gumbydammit:
statistics don't like make it, Dude, a superior combat vehicle.

Dude, on paper it may be, but it is unproven in a real situation. Dude.

What you wrote is the equivalent of a claim that because a BMW car never raced against a Ford Stallion, that we don't know who would win if such a race was organized. Of course statistics indicate that a BMW car would win against a Ford Stallion. A Leclerc tank would defeat an M1 tank.

The only tanks that M1s have ever defeated were Chinese tanks produced during the 1950s and Soviet tanks produced during the 1970s. That combat record doesn't prove that M1s are superior to AMX-56s.

quote:

By the way, where does it say that M1 was destroyed in a tank on tank confrontation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_of_Babylon_tank

A quote from Wikipedia:

quote:

This text mentions two rounds hitting the Abrams, the first of them (a shaped charge weapon) being probably an AGM-114 Hellfire missile blast through the rear grill doors, while the second 'unknown' round is almost certainly that depicted in the ballistic's sketch. The damage taken from this second hit, as is described in this report, was catastrophic. Incidentally, other sources hint that, besides C-12, at least another tank was penetrated by APFSDS shells.

Psssst.... The Hellfire is a US MIssile and, it's not launched from a tank. How did an Iraqi tank destroy this Abrams with a:
Helicopter
Launched
Fire
and
Forget
(HELLFIRE)
Missile?

You're the one spouting off the AMX 56 is superior, statistically speaking. By your logic, we lost the Battle of Midway because the Japanese Navy so vastly outnumbered the US Navy forces. Statisics don't make it so.

AND, at least the Abrams is combat proven. The AMX 56 has never been used in combat. What tanks is the AMX 56 designed to fight? The very same obselete tanks the Abrams has been defeating for almost 20 years.

French military victories? Only one since 1814. Hell, you even lost to the Mexicans for Chrissakes! (Cinco de Mayo)

I find it interesting that France now wants to 'rejoin' NATO now that the big, bad Soviets are safely in their graves. While the British, Canadians, Americans, Germans and even the Dutch held a portion of the line for 45 years, the French didn't want any part of it. Now that there isn't a T-72 within 1500 miles of the Fulda Gap it's "Is the coast clear? We want back in!".

You can keep your unproven and worthless tanks (after all, who do you suppose they will ever fight?) and rest assured that whenever and wherever a crisis requiring a real military, it will be that of the US, the UK, Germany and the rest of the members of NATO who will face it.

Of what value is the sharpness of a knife you never use?

Sullivan013

quote:

Originally posted by gumbydammit:
Psssst.... The Hellfire is a US MIssile and, it's not launched from a tank. How did an Iraqi tank destroy this Abrams with a:

(HELLFIRE)
Missile?

Read my previous post again. The AGM-114 wasn't the only missile launched at that tank; moreover, Wikipedia says that at least 2 M1 tanks were annihilated by the Iraqis with Soviet-made APFSDS projectiles

quote:

AND, at least the Abrams is combat proven.

So? M1 tanks have proven themselves to be disastrously vulnerable to IEDs. And if a Leclerc tank ever fought an M1 tank, the French tank would've won.

quote:

The AMX 56 has never been used in combat. What tanks is the AMX 56 designed to fight? The very same obselete tanks the Abrams has been defeating for almost 20 years.

It's also designed to fight all other tanks. And your claim that M1s are superior even though they never fought AMX-56s is akin to a claim that because a BMW car never raced against a Ford Stallion, that we don't know who would win if such a race was organized. Of course statistics indicate that a BMW car would win against a Ford Stallion. A Leclerc tank would defeat an M1 tank.

quote:

Originally posted by sullivan013:
French military victories? Only one since 1814.

Garbage. France won 1 war against China, the Crimean War, and WW1, and also created a vast colonial empire.

quote:

I find it interesting that France now wants to 'rejoin' NATO now that the big, bad Soviets are safely in their graves. While the British, Canadians, Americans, Germans and even the Dutch held a portion of the line for 45 years, the French didn't want any part of it.

France could not rejoin NATO because it never withdrew from NATO - it only withdrew from its MILITARY STRUCTURES. France rejoined NATO's military structures, and did that in order to Europeanize NATO and, ultimately, kill the alliance so that the EU will become the sole military bloc in Europe.

quote:

Now that there isn't a T-72 within 1500 miles of the Fulda Gap it's "Is the coast clear? We want back in!".

Garbage. The Russian threat still exists. Russia is NATO's (and America's) #1 foe and should be treated as such.

quote:

You can keep your unproven and worthless tanks (after all, who do you suppose they will ever fight?)

They are not worthless, and they are superior to M1 tanks. M1s are 1970s' tanks which earned their combat record annihilating 1970s' tanks produced by the USSR. They are inferior to 1990s' French-produced tanks. And stop saying "your tanks", because I am not French.

quote:

whenever a crisis requiring a real military arises, it will be that of the US, the UK, Germany and the rest of the members of NATO who will face it.

Germany (unlike America and the UK) has a weak military and cannot defend itself. It doesn't have any aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons, nuclear bombers, nuclear cruise missiles, SSBNs, SSNs nor cosmodromes. The German military fought only two wars (WW1 and WW2), and was defeated during both of those wars, and hasn't fought any wars after 1945. (The 3000 German troopers in Afghanistan are hiding in their bases, unlike French soldiers).

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ziggy1988,

Do you know that anyone can put anything they want on Wikipedia? It is not like the Encyclopedia Brittanica where the postings researched and confirmed.

Even then, you claim two Abrams tanks were destroyed. Two, out of how many engaged? And again, the US Army says no Abrams has EVER been destroyed by an enemy tank.

No tank is invulnerable to IEDs, even your AMX 56. The thinnest armor ON ALL TANKS is the bottom. IEDs are normally buried, thus the thinnest part of the armor is where a tank is hit. I will guarantee the AMX 56 would fare no better.

So, you're not French? Where are you from? BTW it's Ford MUSTANG, not Stallion. If you can't get that correct, what else are you getting wrong?

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAhahahahahahha...................
....HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahHAHAHAHahAhhAhahhaHAHAHHAHAA
HAHAHAhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!

"France won WWI.."

HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAH....
HAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHaHAhaHahaHAHhahahahahahaHaaaaa

quote:

Germany (unlike America and the UK) has a weak military and cannot defend itself.

This comes as a surprise to me. After having served alongside the Bundeswehr for several years (we had a 'sister' unit when I was stationed there in the 90s), I have an entirely different view of their capabilities. They are far better trained than any of the French units that I witnessed training. Thier officer and NCO corps were some of the best I ever met, along the lines of the best of the UK and Canadian units (I had an opportunity to train with the Black Watch, the 3rd Paras and the Princess Pat's - all excellent troops).

The only French units I saw were in the Berlin Brigade, and a sorrier bunch of raw recruits I never remember seeing.

Paper strength is one thing. Actual fighting capability is another. Just ask General Gamelin or Weygand. They had superior tanks too.

As Patton said, 'Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men.'

Sullivan013

P.S. The Crimea was a shambles and ended with a withdrawal. China? Not the Beijing expedition during the Taiping Rebellion! That was led by an English general with the Frogs just tagging along. The bulk of the fighting was accomplished by the "Ever Victorious Army", led by a second mate of an American clipper ship - Frederick Townsend Ward (makes you wonder what the first mate and captain were capable of).

As for colonial empires, it isn't something to brag about as it wasn't that hard to accomplish. Hell, even the Italians had one.

Sullivan013

Yes the M1 Abrams wad designed and deployed in the late 70s, early 80s. But since then it has been heavily upgraded. The M1A1SA and M1A2 SEP are the "best" variants and easily comparable to the Leclerc.

The Leclerc has some great features like modular armor that is easier to repair or upgrade than that of the Abrams, but it is hardly a massive improvement over upgraded variants of the M1 Abrams, Leopard 2, or Challenger 2. All of these designs have their flaws and advantages but there are simply not enough facts on the table to declare any superior overall.

No Abrams were knocked out frontally by Iraqi weapons, and while a few were disabled by side hits, or knocked out by friendly fire (mostly side and rear hits again) the Abrams proved extremely survivable. No tank has strong enough side and rear armor to entirely resist hits from modern 105mm or greater APFSDS ammunition, or modern ATGMs.

Indeed some Abrams have been lost to very large IEDs or disabled by side/rear hits from RPGs (sometimes these are destroyed by Hellfires or other weapons if they cannot be recovered at that time) but the lighter Leclerc would fare no better against such huge high explosive devices. In fact it might even be more vulnerable. Most estimates give the M1A2 somewhat stronger frontal armor, but the The Leclerc may have stronger side armor. However many Abrams have been fitted with ERA on the side hull to protect from newer types of RPGs, as well as slat armor on the rear.

The 120mm on the Leclerc and that of the Abrams can theoretically use some of same the ammunition, but the current M829A3 120mm APFSDS is superior to it's French counterpart.

Leclerc is indeed lighter, uses less fuel, and has a three man crew, but there were reasons the Army kept the loader on the Abrams, and prefers the turbine to "conventional" diesel engines. A good loader can still match most autoloaders which have a chance of breaking down.

Also you say we "only" have some 6000 Abrams in active service. Well over 1000 of those the M1A2 SEP models, and most others are either the M1A1SA, the M1A1 FEP (USMC upgrade) or the older M1A1HC. Plus we probably have more in storage. France barely has more than 400 Leclercs.