What's new

M1a2 is best tank of the world ?

There is no difference between M1A2S and M1A2 SEP
Whats the use of going in circles.

You cannot comprehend due to your "biased thinking" probably. Either its the machine or its other factors mentioned before. If its not the machine since you have praised the machine thoroughly in some of your posts even putting equality in all M1 variants local and exported(lets go by your word on this one), then guess what it is that the machine perform superbly under one Army and poorly under another.
 
Whats the use of going in circles.

You cannot comprehend due to your "biased thinking" probably. Either its the machine or its other factors mentioned before. If its not the machine since you have praised the machine thoroughly in some of your posts even putting equality in all M1 variants local and exported(lets go by your word on this one), then guess what it is that the machine perform superbly under one Army and poorly under another.

You don't read my article ?

F15SE not enter in service to USAF

F15SA is the best version of F-15 series

1330203475631175084.jpg


F-15SA[edit]
The F-15SA (Saudi Advanced) is a new version for the RSAF. The F-15SA have a modern fly-by-wire flight control system in place of the hybrid electronic/mechanical system used by all previous F-15s. The variant includes the APG-63(v)3 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, digital electronic warfare systems (DEWS), infrared search and track (IRST) systems, and other advanced systems. It also includes a redesigned cockpit originally intended for the F-15SE.[102][146][147] The fly-by-wire system will allow the carriage of weapons on the previously unused outer wing weapon stations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15E_Strike_Eagle

According to Al Arabiya, the F-15s delivered to the country are among the most advanced F-15 variants ever built.

The fighters are equipped with advanced warfighting technologies such as Active Electronically Scanned Array radars and ASM-135 missiles. The F-15SA has double the missile-carrying capacity of other variants such as the F-15C or the F-15E.

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/20...commissions-new-batch-of-F-15s/8201485376192/

M1A2 SEP (SEP V1) Saudi

2_191680.jpg


M1A2 SEP V1 US Army

Char-1.jpg

A good modern main battle tank consists of the following elements

Maneuverability: M1A2 SEP V3 is not available
Lightweight: M1A2 SEP V3 not available
Shoot ATGM through cannon: M1A2 SEP V3 not available. This is very important, the ability of the tank to fire accurately depends on the main gun, however, both Russian and American tanks use smooth bore gun (to save maintenance costs, as compared to rifling). Make them less accurate in long-range combat (> 2-3 km), Russian and Chinese tanks (T-80/90, Type 96/99) equipped with ATGM, they is better at long range accuracy (missile can be drive by laser)
APS: M1A2 SEP V3 not available
Moderate size (safe in modern warfare): M1A2 SEP V3 not available
FLIRS: M1A2 SEP V3 and other tanks are available
Automatic main gun stabilization system: Same as above
ERA: M1A2 SEP V3 not available (may be added with M1A2 TUSK version)
Autoload: M1A2 SEP V3 is still not available, its biggest weakness, while France, Russia, Israel, China and South Korea are all equipped on they tank.
There have been reports of US soldiers being affected bad health by Abrams uranium shells. Abram is an unfriendly tank for the user (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK214595/)

M1A2 can not be considered as the best tank in the world


 
Last edited:
U.S. Army Battling To Save Equipment
PH2006120401596.jpg

At Anniston Army Depot in Alabama, broken-down tanks and other armored vehicles have created a huge backlog. (Photos By Ann Scott Tyson -- The Washington Post)

ANNISTON, Ala. -- Field upon field of more than 1,000 battered M1 tanks, howitzers and other armored vehicles sit amid weeds here at the 15,000-acre Anniston Army Depot -- the idle, hulking formations symbolic of an Army that is wearing out faster than it is being rebuilt.

The Army and Marine Corps have sunk more than 40 percent of their ground combat equipment into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to government data. An estimated $17 billion-plus worth of military equipment is destroyed or worn out each year, blasted by bombs, ground down by desert sand and used up to nine times the rate in times of peace. The gear is piling up at depots such as Anniston, waiting to be repaired.

The depletion of major equipment such as tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and especially helicopters and armored Humvees has left many military units in the United States without adequate training gear, officials say. Partly as a result of the shortages, many U.S. units are rated "unready" to deploy, officials say, raising alarm in Congress and concern among military leaders at a time when Iraq strategy is under review by the White House and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, is lobbying hard for more money to repair what he calls the "holes" in his force, saying current war funding is inadequate to make the Army "well." Asked in a congressional hearing this past summer whether he was comfortable with the readiness levels of non-deployed Army units, Schoomaker replied: "No."

Lt. Col. Mike Johnson, a senior Army planner, said: "Before, if a unit was less than C-1," or fully ready, "someone would get fired." Now, he said, that is accepted as combat-zone rotations are sapping all units of gear and manpower. "It's a cost of continuous operations. You can't be ready all the time," he said.

Across the military, scarce equipment is being shifted from unit to unit for training. For example, a brigade of 3,800 soldiers from the 3rd Infantry Division that will deploy to Iraq next month has been passing around a single training set of 44 Humvees, none of which has the added armor of the Humvees they will drive in Iraq.

The military's ground forces are only beginning the vast and costly job of replacing, repairing and upgrading combat equipment -- work that will cost an estimated $17 billion to $19 billion annually for several more years, regardless of any shift in Iraq strategy. The Army alone has 280,000 major pieces of equipment in combat zones that will eventually have to be fixed or replaced. Before the war, the Army spent $2.5 billion to $3 billion a year on wear and tear.

At Anniston, the sprawling lots of tanks and other armored vehicles are just the start of a huge backlog in broken-down gear.

"There's stuff, stuff everywhere," Joan Gustafson, a depot official, said as she wheeled her brown Chevrolet van through a landscape of rolling hills lined with armadas of mobile guns.

"There's another field of M1s," she said, motioning toward a swath of M1A1 Abrams tanks next to the winding road. "We're just waiting for someone to tell us what to do with them."

The Army's five depots carry out the highest level of maintenance for Army gear ranging from rifles and other small arms to tanks, helicopters and missile systems. Since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Army has left behind hundreds of thousands of pieces of equipment in Iraq and has relied heavily on field maintenance facilities in Kuwait.

But as the war has continued, Army leaders have recognized that they cannot afford to wait for a drawdown of troops before they begin overhauling equipment -- some of it 20 years old -- that is being used at extraordinary rates. Helicopters are flying two or three times their planned usage rates. Tank crews are driving more than 4,000 miles a year -- five times the normal rate. Truck fleets that convoy supplies down Iraq's bomb-laden roads are running at six times the planned mileage, according to Army data.

Equipment shipped back from Iraq is stacking up at all the Army depots: More than 530 M1 tanks, 220 M88 wreckers and 160 M113 armored personnel carriers are sitting at Anniston. The Red River Army Depot in Texas has 700 Bradley Fighting Vehicles and 450 heavy and medium-weight trucks, while more than 1,000 Humvees are awaiting repair at the Letterkenny Army Depot in Pennsylvania.

Despite the work piling up, the Army's depots have been operating at about half their capacity because of a lack of funding for repairs. In the spring, a funding gap caused Anniston and other depots to lose about a month's worth of work, said Brig. Gen. Robert Radin, deputy chief of staff for operations at the Army Materiel Command at Fort Belvoir.

"Last year we spent as much time trying to find available money as managing our program," he said. "We don't want to go into the next rotation . . . with equipment that's at the far end of its expected life."

Responding to urgent requests from the Army and Marine Corps, Congress approved an extra $23.8 billion in October to replace worn-out equipment in fiscal 2007. With the money, the Army plans to double the workload at its depots, which will repair and upgrade 130,000 pieces in 2007, up from 63,000 last year. This will include a quadrupling of the number of tanks, Bradleys and other tracked vehicles overhauled, from 1,000 to 4,000.

At Anniston, which will handle 1,800 combat vehicles in fiscal 2007, a cavernous 250,000-square-foot repair shop is humming as damaged tanks are rolled in one by one and disassembled with the help of giant cranes. Removing an M1 tank's turret alone takes a day and a half, and the entire overhaul requires 54 days and costs about $1 million, said Ted A. Law, the depot's vehicle manager.

Earnest Linn, 58, a heavy-mobile-equipment mechanic who as of January will have worked at Anniston for 30 years, said that "it's never been like this" since the end of the Vietnam War.

In October, Anniston became the official repair facility for the Army's newest armored vehicle, the Stryker. Repairs for those vehicles will soar from eight in fiscal 2006 to 75 this fiscal year -- including 58 that received some level of battle damage, said Gregory McMath, program manager for Stryker repair.

"This one hit a triple-stacked land mine," he said, peering up into the underbelly of a Stryker ripped open by the blast. Some of the Strykers are coming in with 40,000 miles on their odometers, he said.

Workers at Anniston take pride in patching, rebuilding and testing the broken-down gear and returning it to like-new condition. Often, they must innovate by taking parts from wrecked vehicles if new parts do not exist or have not been ordered in time.

"The supply system can't keep up with us," said Rodney Brodeur, division chief for turbine engines, speaking over the clang and whir of his workshop. It is projected that in 2007, Anniston will rebuild 1,400 turbine engines for M1 tanks, compared with 800 this year.

Fine sand and heavy use erode the blades on the tank engine rotors, eventually leading the blades to snap off and stall the engines. Such erosion, which is invisible to the Army's field mechanics, can lead to catastrophic failure without timely maintenance.

"If your Cadillac stops by the side of the road, that's an inconvenience," Brodeur said. "If the tank quits in the middle of the fight, that's a hard target."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/04/AR2006120401347.html
 
U.S. Army Battling To Save Equipment
PH2006120401596.jpg

At Anniston Army Depot in Alabama, broken-down tanks and other armored vehicles have created a huge backlog. (Photos By Ann Scott Tyson -- The Washington Post)

ANNISTON, Ala. -- Field upon field of more than 1,000 battered M1 tanks, howitzers and other armored vehicles sit amid weeds here at the 15,000-acre Anniston Army Depot -- the idle, hulking formations symbolic of an Army that is wearing out faster than it is being rebuilt.

The Army and Marine Corps have sunk more than 40 percent of their ground combat equipment into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to government data. An estimated $17 billion-plus worth of military equipment is destroyed or worn out each year, blasted by bombs, ground down by desert sand and used up to nine times the rate in times of peace. The gear is piling up at depots such as Anniston, waiting to be repaired.

The depletion of major equipment such as tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and especially helicopters and armored Humvees has left many military units in the United States without adequate training gear, officials say. Partly as a result of the shortages, many U.S. units are rated "unready" to deploy, officials say, raising alarm in Congress and concern among military leaders at a time when Iraq strategy is under review by the White House and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, is lobbying hard for more money to repair what he calls the "holes" in his force, saying current war funding is inadequate to make the Army "well." Asked in a congressional hearing this past summer whether he was comfortable with the readiness levels of non-deployed Army units, Schoomaker replied: "No."

Lt. Col. Mike Johnson, a senior Army planner, said: "Before, if a unit was less than C-1," or fully ready, "someone would get fired." Now, he said, that is accepted as combat-zone rotations are sapping all units of gear and manpower. "It's a cost of continuous operations. You can't be ready all the time," he said.

Across the military, scarce equipment is being shifted from unit to unit for training. For example, a brigade of 3,800 soldiers from the 3rd Infantry Division that will deploy to Iraq next month has been passing around a single training set of 44 Humvees, none of which has the added armor of the Humvees they will drive in Iraq.

The military's ground forces are only beginning the vast and costly job of replacing, repairing and upgrading combat equipment -- work that will cost an estimated $17 billion to $19 billion annually for several more years, regardless of any shift in Iraq strategy. The Army alone has 280,000 major pieces of equipment in combat zones that will eventually have to be fixed or replaced. Before the war, the Army spent $2.5 billion to $3 billion a year on wear and tear.

At Anniston, the sprawling lots of tanks and other armored vehicles are just the start of a huge backlog in broken-down gear.

"There's stuff, stuff everywhere," Joan Gustafson, a depot official, said as she wheeled her brown Chevrolet van through a landscape of rolling hills lined with armadas of mobile guns.

"There's another field of M1s," she said, motioning toward a swath of M1A1 Abrams tanks next to the winding road. "We're just waiting for someone to tell us what to do with them."

The Army's five depots carry out the highest level of maintenance for Army gear ranging from rifles and other small arms to tanks, helicopters and missile systems. Since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Army has left behind hundreds of thousands of pieces of equipment in Iraq and has relied heavily on field maintenance facilities in Kuwait.

But as the war has continued, Army leaders have recognized that they cannot afford to wait for a drawdown of troops before they begin overhauling equipment -- some of it 20 years old -- that is being used at extraordinary rates. Helicopters are flying two or three times their planned usage rates. Tank crews are driving more than 4,000 miles a year -- five times the normal rate. Truck fleets that convoy supplies down Iraq's bomb-laden roads are running at six times the planned mileage, according to Army data.

Equipment shipped back from Iraq is stacking up at all the Army depots: More than 530 M1 tanks, 220 M88 wreckers and 160 M113 armored personnel carriers are sitting at Anniston. The Red River Army Depot in Texas has 700 Bradley Fighting Vehicles and 450 heavy and medium-weight trucks, while more than 1,000 Humvees are awaiting repair at the Letterkenny Army Depot in Pennsylvania.

Despite the work piling up, the Army's depots have been operating at about half their capacity because of a lack of funding for repairs. In the spring, a funding gap caused Anniston and other depots to lose about a month's worth of work, said Brig. Gen. Robert Radin, deputy chief of staff for operations at the Army Materiel Command at Fort Belvoir.

"Last year we spent as much time trying to find available money as managing our program," he said. "We don't want to go into the next rotation . . . with equipment that's at the far end of its expected life."

Responding to urgent requests from the Army and Marine Corps, Congress approved an extra $23.8 billion in October to replace worn-out equipment in fiscal 2007. With the money, the Army plans to double the workload at its depots, which will repair and upgrade 130,000 pieces in 2007, up from 63,000 last year. This will include a quadrupling of the number of tanks, Bradleys and other tracked vehicles overhauled, from 1,000 to 4,000.

At Anniston, which will handle 1,800 combat vehicles in fiscal 2007, a cavernous 250,000-square-foot repair shop is humming as damaged tanks are rolled in one by one and disassembled with the help of giant cranes. Removing an M1 tank's turret alone takes a day and a half, and the entire overhaul requires 54 days and costs about $1 million, said Ted A. Law, the depot's vehicle manager.

Earnest Linn, 58, a heavy-mobile-equipment mechanic who as of January will have worked at Anniston for 30 years, said that "it's never been like this" since the end of the Vietnam War.

In October, Anniston became the official repair facility for the Army's newest armored vehicle, the Stryker. Repairs for those vehicles will soar from eight in fiscal 2006 to 75 this fiscal year -- including 58 that received some level of battle damage, said Gregory McMath, program manager for Stryker repair.

"This one hit a triple-stacked land mine," he said, peering up into the underbelly of a Stryker ripped open by the blast. Some of the Strykers are coming in with 40,000 miles on their odometers, he said.

Workers at Anniston take pride in patching, rebuilding and testing the broken-down gear and returning it to like-new condition. Often, they must innovate by taking parts from wrecked vehicles if new parts do not exist or have not been ordered in time.

"The supply system can't keep up with us," said Rodney Brodeur, division chief for turbine engines, speaking over the clang and whir of his workshop. It is projected that in 2007, Anniston will rebuild 1,400 turbine engines for M1 tanks, compared with 800 this year.

Fine sand and heavy use erode the blades on the tank engine rotors, eventually leading the blades to snap off and stall the engines. Such erosion, which is invisible to the Army's field mechanics, can lead to catastrophic failure without timely maintenance.

"If your Cadillac stops by the side of the road, that's an inconvenience," Brodeur said. "If the tank quits in the middle of the fight, that's a hard target."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/04/AR2006120401347.html
get lost you turd why you always degrading western weapon system, Russian weapon system isn't a world beater/top of the world either @blackuday ;):enjoy:
 
F15SE not enter in service to USAF

F15SA is the best version of F-15 series

1330203475631175084.jpg


F-15SA[edit]
The F-15SA (Saudi Advanced) is a new version for the RSAF. The F-15SA have a modern fly-by-wire flight control system in place of the hybrid electronic/mechanical system used by all previous F-15s. The variant includes the APG-63(v)3 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, digital electronic warfare systems (DEWS), infrared search and track (IRST) systems, and other advanced systems. It also includes a redesigned cockpit originally intended for the F-15SE.[102][146][147] The fly-by-wire system will allow the carriage of weapons on the previously unused outer wing weapon stations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15E_Strike_Eagle

According to Al Arabiya, the F-15s delivered to the country are among the most advanced F-15 variants ever built.

The fighters are equipped with advanced warfighting technologies such as Active Electronically Scanned Array radars and ASM-135 missiles. The F-15SA has double the missile-carrying capacity of other variants such as the F-15C or the F-15E.

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/20...commissions-new-batch-of-F-15s/8201485376192/
F-15 SA are 'among' the most advanced F-15 variants every built.

Among - being a member or members of (a larger set).

USAF is operating squadrons of F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II which are relatively superior combat aircraft.

USAF, on the whole, is laughably ahead of RSAF in sheer size, operational readiness, operational capacity, cooperative engagement capability (CEC), surveillance capability, offensive capability and training regime - all spectrums of warfare in short.

M1A2 SEP (SEP V1) Saudi

2_191680.jpg


M1A2 SEP V1 US Army

Char-1.jpg
US Army is shifting to M1A2 SEP v3 :-

sepv3.jpg


FYI: https://taskandpurpose.com/army-m1-abrams-tank-upgrade/

U.S. Army Battling To Save Equipment
PH2006120401596.jpg

At Anniston Army Depot in Alabama, broken-down tanks and other armored vehicles have created a huge backlog. (Photos By Ann Scott Tyson -- The Washington Post)

ANNISTON, Ala. -- Field upon field of more than 1,000 battered M1 tanks, howitzers and other armored vehicles sit amid weeds here at the 15,000-acre Anniston Army Depot -- the idle, hulking formations symbolic of an Army that is wearing out faster than it is being rebuilt.

The Army and Marine Corps have sunk more than 40 percent of their ground combat equipment into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to government data. An estimated $17 billion-plus worth of military equipment is destroyed or worn out each year, blasted by bombs, ground down by desert sand and used up to nine times the rate in times of peace. The gear is piling up at depots such as Anniston, waiting to be repaired.

The depletion of major equipment such as tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and especially helicopters and armored Humvees has left many military units in the United States without adequate training gear, officials say. Partly as a result of the shortages, many U.S. units are rated "unready" to deploy, officials say, raising alarm in Congress and concern among military leaders at a time when Iraq strategy is under review by the White House and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, is lobbying hard for more money to repair what he calls the "holes" in his force, saying current war funding is inadequate to make the Army "well." Asked in a congressional hearing this past summer whether he was comfortable with the readiness levels of non-deployed Army units, Schoomaker replied: "No."

Lt. Col. Mike Johnson, a senior Army planner, said: "Before, if a unit was less than C-1," or fully ready, "someone would get fired." Now, he said, that is accepted as combat-zone rotations are sapping all units of gear and manpower. "It's a cost of continuous operations. You can't be ready all the time," he said.

Across the military, scarce equipment is being shifted from unit to unit for training. For example, a brigade of 3,800 soldiers from the 3rd Infantry Division that will deploy to Iraq next month has been passing around a single training set of 44 Humvees, none of which has the added armor of the Humvees they will drive in Iraq.

The military's ground forces are only beginning the vast and costly job of replacing, repairing and upgrading combat equipment -- work that will cost an estimated $17 billion to $19 billion annually for several more years, regardless of any shift in Iraq strategy. The Army alone has 280,000 major pieces of equipment in combat zones that will eventually have to be fixed or replaced. Before the war, the Army spent $2.5 billion to $3 billion a year on wear and tear.

At Anniston, the sprawling lots of tanks and other armored vehicles are just the start of a huge backlog in broken-down gear.

"There's stuff, stuff everywhere," Joan Gustafson, a depot official, said as she wheeled her brown Chevrolet van through a landscape of rolling hills lined with armadas of mobile guns.

"There's another field of M1s," she said, motioning toward a swath of M1A1 Abrams tanks next to the winding road. "We're just waiting for someone to tell us what to do with them."

The Army's five depots carry out the highest level of maintenance for Army gear ranging from rifles and other small arms to tanks, helicopters and missile systems. Since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Army has left behind hundreds of thousands of pieces of equipment in Iraq and has relied heavily on field maintenance facilities in Kuwait.

But as the war has continued, Army leaders have recognized that they cannot afford to wait for a drawdown of troops before they begin overhauling equipment -- some of it 20 years old -- that is being used at extraordinary rates. Helicopters are flying two or three times their planned usage rates. Tank crews are driving more than 4,000 miles a year -- five times the normal rate. Truck fleets that convoy supplies down Iraq's bomb-laden roads are running at six times the planned mileage, according to Army data.

Equipment shipped back from Iraq is stacking up at all the Army depots: More than 530 M1 tanks, 220 M88 wreckers and 160 M113 armored personnel carriers are sitting at Anniston. The Red River Army Depot in Texas has 700 Bradley Fighting Vehicles and 450 heavy and medium-weight trucks, while more than 1,000 Humvees are awaiting repair at the Letterkenny Army Depot in Pennsylvania.

Despite the work piling up, the Army's depots have been operating at about half their capacity because of a lack of funding for repairs. In the spring, a funding gap caused Anniston and other depots to lose about a month's worth of work, said Brig. Gen. Robert Radin, deputy chief of staff for operations at the Army Materiel Command at Fort Belvoir.

"Last year we spent as much time trying to find available money as managing our program," he said. "We don't want to go into the next rotation . . . with equipment that's at the far end of its expected life."

Responding to urgent requests from the Army and Marine Corps, Congress approved an extra $23.8 billion in October to replace worn-out equipment in fiscal 2007. With the money, the Army plans to double the workload at its depots, which will repair and upgrade 130,000 pieces in 2007, up from 63,000 last year. This will include a quadrupling of the number of tanks, Bradleys and other tracked vehicles overhauled, from 1,000 to 4,000.

At Anniston, which will handle 1,800 combat vehicles in fiscal 2007, a cavernous 250,000-square-foot repair shop is humming as damaged tanks are rolled in one by one and disassembled with the help of giant cranes. Removing an M1 tank's turret alone takes a day and a half, and the entire overhaul requires 54 days and costs about $1 million, said Ted A. Law, the depot's vehicle manager.

Earnest Linn, 58, a heavy-mobile-equipment mechanic who as of January will have worked at Anniston for 30 years, said that "it's never been like this" since the end of the Vietnam War.

In October, Anniston became the official repair facility for the Army's newest armored vehicle, the Stryker. Repairs for those vehicles will soar from eight in fiscal 2006 to 75 this fiscal year -- including 58 that received some level of battle damage, said Gregory McMath, program manager for Stryker repair.

"This one hit a triple-stacked land mine," he said, peering up into the underbelly of a Stryker ripped open by the blast. Some of the Strykers are coming in with 40,000 miles on their odometers, he said.

Workers at Anniston take pride in patching, rebuilding and testing the broken-down gear and returning it to like-new condition. Often, they must innovate by taking parts from wrecked vehicles if new parts do not exist or have not been ordered in time.

"The supply system can't keep up with us," said Rodney Brodeur, division chief for turbine engines, speaking over the clang and whir of his workshop. It is projected that in 2007, Anniston will rebuild 1,400 turbine engines for M1 tanks, compared with 800 this year.

Fine sand and heavy use erode the blades on the tank engine rotors, eventually leading the blades to snap off and stall the engines. Such erosion, which is invisible to the Army's field mechanics, can lead to catastrophic failure without timely maintenance.

"If your Cadillac stops by the side of the road, that's an inconvenience," Brodeur said. "If the tank quits in the middle of the fight, that's a hard target."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/04/AR2006120401347.html
Wear-and-tear of equipment due to their extensive use in harsh environmental conditions of Iraq and Afghanistan.They will fix these problems over time - they have huge budget to ensure operational readiness.

American establishment have cleared largest budget for defense in years:-

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...udget-authorization-months-ahead-of-schedule/

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...udget-authorization-months-ahead-of-schedule/

You worry about the condition of Russian equipment and Russian budgetary constraints.

Maneuverability: M1A2 SEP V3 is not available
FALSE




Want more?

Lightweight: M1A2 SEP V3 not available
Silly metric ... heavy armor have its share of advantages in the battlefield.

Consider an environment where IED are planted on the ground. If you have to pass through, would you take your chances with heavy armor or with a lighter vehicle?


Shoot ATGM through cannon: M1A2 SEP V3 not available. This is very important, the ability of the tank to fire accurately depends on the main gun, however, both Russian and American tanks use smooth bore gun (to save maintenance costs, as compared to rifling). Make them less accurate in long-range combat (> 2-3 km), Russian and Chinese tanks (T-80/90, Type 96/99) equipped with ATGM, they is better at long range accuracy (missile can be drive by laser)
Choice between Rifled and Smooth-bore gun comes down to the type of rounds in use and maintenance factors. Both have their share of merits and demerits: https://www.quora.com/Which-is-better-rifled-or-smoothbore-tank-guns

M1 MBT variants feature gun stabilization system and sophisticated digital fire-control system to achieve high degree of accuracy in engagements at long distances while on the move. US Army veterans have pointed out that they can effectively engage targets up to 5000 meters away, which is really good.

M1A2 SEP v3 can detect and distinguish targets on the ground at over 15000 meters distance with its state-of-the-art sensor suite which is remarkable for any MBT in existence, and use long-range Sabot rounds to engage them. FYI: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-maximum-range-of-an-Abrams-tank-firing-a-shell

ATGM are overrated as munition for use in Main Battle Tanks. In real-world war situations, numerous terrain features including hedges, trees, buildings, elevation changes, all conspire to block visibility at ground level.

As apparent from war in Syria, ATGM are rather good in the hands of troops/combatants because they can capitalize on terrain features to their advantage in engagements.

APS: M1A2 SEP V3 not available
Trophy APS:-

US_Army_M1A2_Sep_V2_MBT_tanks_fitted_with_Israeli-made_Rafael_Trophy_active_protection_system_against_missile_and_rocket_925_001.jpg


Source: https://www.armyrecognition.com/oct..._israeli_trophy_active_protection_system.html

FYI: http://www.leonardodrs.com/news-and...trophy-active-protection-systems-for-us-army/

Moderate size (safe in modern warfare): M1A2 SEP V3 not available
Silly metric ... wars in Iraq and Syria suggest otherwise.

ERA: M1A2 SEP V3 not available (may be added with M1A2 TUSK version)
ERA option is available and can be added any time.

Mounted_Soldier_System_(MSS).jpg


Autoload: M1A2 SEP V3 is still not available, its biggest weakness, while France, Russia, Israel, China and South Korea are all equipped on they tank.
Cook-the-books argument. Autoloader is SLOW and have its share of limitations.

Read the response of an Israeli Army veteran: https://www.quora.com/In-a-modern-t...ges-does-an-auto-loader-tank-offer-to-an-army

There have been reports of US soldiers being affected bad health by Abrams uranium shells. Abram is an unfriendly tank for the user (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK214595/)
From an expert in radioactivity:

DU is only very weakly radioactive - it takes about 3 tons of DU to give the same amount of radioactivity as you’ll find in 1 gram of radium-226. As a heavy metal, it is nephrotoxic (if affects the kidneys) if it gets into the blood (i.e. ingested or inhaled).

There have been extensive studies of servicemen and women exposed to DU during wars in the Balkans and the Middle East; all have shown that the radiological impact is negligible and is unlikely to cause cancer among any of those exposed.

This was also studied by the National Academies of Science in 2008; their report looked at both radiological and toxicological effects of exposure to DU on the battlefield, including among tank crews struck by DU rounds from our own planes. The NAS report also concluded that the radiological effects were likely to be absent in all but a very few cases - specifically, crews of tanks that had DU armor that were hit with DU rounds and in which the crews remained in the tanks for some time after the impact. This report also exhaustively examined the medical literature, including a number of case studies and epidemiological studies and concluded that, with the exception of the nephrotoxicity, there were not likely to be any additional short- or long-term health effects from DU exposure. Incidentally, all other forms of exposure (e.g. handling DU munitions, repairing damaged tanks, entering battlefields after DU had been used) posed much less risk due to the much lower levels of DU exposure.

The only way a person will killed by DU is if they are struck by a round or are in a tank that was struck by a DU round.


Link: https://www.quora.com/Since-the-US-...-shells-can-the-depleted-uranium-kill-someone

Busted.

M1A2 can not be considered as the best tank in the world


Very funny.
 
Last edited:
Obviously all tanks without active defense are vulnerable to ATGM. T-14 which has revolutionary AESA and active defense combo can virtually eliminate ATGM threat. ATGM are slow.
Like newton's law there is a law of war ie to every measure there is an equal and opposite countermeasure watch this video.
You will get the idea
 
F-15 SA are 'among' the most advanced F-15 variants every built.

Among - being a member or members of (a larger set).

USAF is operating squadrons of F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II which are relatively superior combat aircraft.

USAF, on the whole, is laughably ahead of RSAF in sheer size, operational readiness, operational capacity, cooperative engagement capability (CEC), surveillance capability, offensive capability and training regime - all spectrums of warfare in short.


US Army is shifting to M1A2 SEP v3 :-

sepv3.jpg


FYI: https://taskandpurpose.com/army-m1-abrams-tank-upgrade/


Wear-and-tear of equipment due to their extensive use in harsh environmental conditions of Iraq and Afghanistan.They will fix these problems over time - they have huge budget to ensure operational readiness.

American establishment have cleared largest budget for defense in years:-

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...udget-authorization-months-ahead-of-schedule/

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...udget-authorization-months-ahead-of-schedule/

You worry about the condition of Russian equipment and Russian budgetary constraints.


FALSE




Want more?


Silly metric ... heavy armor have its share of advantages in the battlefield.

Consider an environment where IED are planted on the ground. If you have to pass through, would you take your chances with heavy armor or with a lighter vehicle?



Choice between Rifled and Smooth-bore gun comes down to the type of rounds in use and maintenance factors. Both have their share of merits and demerits: https://www.quora.com/Which-is-better-rifled-or-smoothbore-tank-guns

M1 MBT variants feature gun stabilization system and sophisticated digital fire-control system to achieve high degree of accuracy in engagements at long distances while on the move. US Army veterans have pointed out that they can effectively engage targets up to 5000 meters away, which is really good.

M1A2 SEP v3 can detect and distinguish targets on the ground at over 15000 meters distance with its state-of-the-art sensor suite which is remarkable for any MBT in existence, and use long-range Sabot rounds to engage them. FYI: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-maximum-range-of-an-Abrams-tank-firing-a-shell

ATGM are overrated as munition for use in Main Battle Tanks. In real-world war situations, numerous terrain features including hedges, trees, buildings, elevation changes, all conspire to block visibility at ground level.

As apparent from war in Syria, ATGM are rather good in the hands of troops/combatants because they can capitalize on terrain features to their advantage in engagements.


Trophy APS:-

US_Army_M1A2_Sep_V2_MBT_tanks_fitted_with_Israeli-made_Rafael_Trophy_active_protection_system_against_missile_and_rocket_925_001.jpg


Source: https://www.armyrecognition.com/oct..._israeli_trophy_active_protection_system.html

FYI: http://www.leonardodrs.com/news-and...trophy-active-protection-systems-for-us-army/


Silly metric ... wars in Iraq and Syria suggest otherwise.


ERA option is available and can be added any time.

Mounted_Soldier_System_(MSS).jpg



Cook-the-books argument. Autoloader is SLOW and have its share of limitations.

Read the response of an Israeli Army veteran: https://www.quora.com/In-a-modern-t...ges-does-an-auto-loader-tank-offer-to-an-army


From an expert in radioactivity:

DU is only very weakly radioactive - it takes about 3 tons of DU to give the same amount of radioactivity as you’ll find in 1 gram of radium-226. As a heavy metal, it is nephrotoxic (if affects the kidneys) if it gets into the blood (i.e. ingested or inhaled).

There have been extensive studies of servicemen and women exposed to DU during wars in the Balkans and the Middle East; all have shown that the radiological impact is negligible and is unlikely to cause cancer among any of those exposed.

This was also studied by the National Academies of Science in 2008; their report looked at both radiological and toxicological effects of exposure to DU on the battlefield, including among tank crews struck by DU rounds from our own planes. The NAS report also concluded that the radiological effects were likely to be absent in all but a very few cases - specifically, crews of tanks that had DU armor that were hit with DU rounds and in which the crews remained in the tanks for some time after the impact. This report also exhaustively examined the medical literature, including a number of case studies and epidemiological studies and concluded that, with the exception of the nephrotoxicity, there were not likely to be any additional short- or long-term health effects from DU exposure. Incidentally, all other forms of exposure (e.g. handling DU munitions, repairing damaged tanks, entering battlefields after DU had been used) posed much less risk due to the much lower levels of DU exposure.

The only way a person will killed by DU is if they are struck by a round or are in a tank that was struck by a DU round.


Link: https://www.quora.com/Since-the-US-...-shells-can-the-depleted-uranium-kill-someone

Busted.


Very funny.

USAF still uses the F-15, F-15SA is the best version, you have not denied this,
F-22/35 is not ready to use weapons


M1A2 SEP of Saudi is similar to US M1A2 SEP

All is just an individual's ad

The quora resource is invalid, it is a similar forum here

Is there any evidence that M1A2 SEP V3 can protected before ATGM?


 
Last edited:
forget about Russian tanks and that much inflated T-14``````they are miles behind world's top now. look how they cheat on that Tank games, and changed shooting contest. The only thing they can make their tanks do is, "run, run, run faster on the field"``:lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom