M1A3 Abrams MBT - Marvel of Engineering

[Davos]

Looks like a t-90
diesel engine instead of jet
auto loader
lighter armour
IR camera & laser detector
active protection system

all taken from t-90

G'day Mate

1. It does not looks like a T-90, it still look likes a M1A2
2. M1A2 can use both Diesel and Jet Fuel in its engine. For example, US, Egypt and Saudi were using JP-5 on their M1, While we Aussie uses Diesel on our M1A1 with the same engine. We can use JP-5 just that we choose not to, so do they can use diesel and they choose not to.
3. Autoloader was not a thing from Russia, the US were actually ahead of the Russian on Autoloader usage when they first put an autoloader on a T-20 medium tanks in 1944 (Which were to replaced the M-4 Sherman) However due to the sheer number of M-4 being produced, T-20 project were scraped with several phototype and instead the US developed a new M-48 design. While the first combat application of Russian autoloader is on a T-64 tank, designed in 1952
4. Armour being classified all the way thru, I doubt anyone actually know how thick is the M1A3 armour will be
5. IR, Laser Detection, APS is basically not a Russian thing.

Davos

Some??? I think many would be more appropriate. Just check the fact they elected Murdoodi.

On topic; this tank is a white elephant and NOT a marvel of engineering. It has failed in middle east and especially in Yemen.

G'day Mate

From my own experience as an Abrams Gunner of the Australian Army. The tank is not a white elephant as you said.

Armour warfare have a lot of different level. Where each MBT from different country have something they would excel at and something they are bad at. It is highly dependable on the crew to capitalise the advantage of your tank and exploit the weakness of your enemy tanks.

Where as Abrams excel at running engagement with goof FCS, Challenger excel at static engagement with heavy armour and low profile and the Eastern block and Chinese tank excel at fire power.

There are simply so different between each tanks and it depends a lot on the crew to actually perform in combat. And if you put a British crew in an American tank, the result would still be a disaster.

Davos

 

[war&peace]

G'day Mate

1. It does not looks like a T-90, it still look likes a M1A2
2. M1A2 can use both Diesel and Jet Fuel in its engine. For example, US, Egypt and Saudi were using JP-5 on their M1, While we Aussie uses Diesel on our M1A1 with the same engine. We can use JP-5 just that we choose not to, so do they can use diesel and they choose not to.
3. Autoloader was not a thing from Russia, the US were actually ahead of the Russian on Autoloader usage when they first put an autoloader on a T-20 medium tanks in 1944 (Which were to replaced the M-4 Sherman) However due to the sheer number of M-4 being produced, T-20 project were scraped with several phototype and instead the US developed a new M-48 design. While the first combat application of Russian autoloader is on a T-64 tank, designed in 1952
4. Armour being classified all the way thru, I doubt anyone actually know how thick is the M1A3 armour will be
5. IR, Laser Detection, APS is basically not a Russian thing.

Davos



G'day Mate

From my own experience as an Abrams Gunner of the Australian Army. The tank is not a white elephant as you said.

Armour warfare have a lot of different level. Where each MBT from different country have something they would excel at and something they are bad at. It is highly dependable on the crew to capitalise the advantage of your tank and exploit the weakness of your enemy tanks.

Where as Abrams excel at running engagement with goof FCS, Challenger excel at static engagement with heavy armour and low profile and the Eastern block and Chinese tank excel at fire power.

There are simply so different between each tanks and it depends a lot on the crew to actually perform in combat. And if you put a British crew in an American tank, the result would still be a disaster.

Davos

White Elephant is term used to refer something too expensive for the purpose.

 

[Penguin]

White Elephant is term used to refer something too expensive for the purpose.

Definition of white elephant in English:
noun
possession that is useless or troublesome, especially one that is expensive to maintain or difficult to dispose of: a huge white elephant of a house that needed ten thousand spent on it
Origin
From the story that the kings of Siam gave such animals as a gift to courtiers they disliked, in order to ruin the recipient by the great expense incurred in maintaining the animal.

white elephant - definition of white elephant in English from the Oxford dictionary

A white elephant is a possession which its owner cannot dispose of and whose cost, particularly that of maintenance, is out of proportion to its usefulness. The term derives from the story that the kings of Siam, now Thailand, were accustomed to make a present of one of these animals to courtiers who had rendered themselves obnoxious, in order to ruin the recipient by the cost of its maintenance. In modern usage, it is an object, scheme, business venture, facility, etc., considered without use or value.

White elephant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

E.g. a single aircraft carrier in a small navy, such as that of Thailand

There is no reason why the US could not dispose of M1A3 (since it is not in service).
There is no reason to assume an M1A3 would not be usefull.
There is no reason to assume that the cost of operation and maintenance of an M1A3 would be more expensive than that of its predecessors (quite the contrary)

Development costs aren't staggering. So all you got to complain about is the acquisition cost.

 

[Indus Falcon]

G'day Mate

1. It does not looks like a T-90, it still look likes a M1A2
2. M1A2 can use both Diesel and Jet Fuel in its engine. For example, US, Egypt and Saudi were using JP-5 on their M1, While we Aussie uses Diesel on our M1A1 with the same engine. We can use JP-5 just that we choose not to, so do they can use diesel and they choose not to.
3. Autoloader was not a thing from Russia, the US were actually ahead of the Russian on Autoloader usage when they first put an autoloader on a T-20 medium tanks in 1944 (Which were to replaced the M-4 Sherman) However due to the sheer number of M-4 being produced, T-20 project were scraped with several phototype and instead the US developed a new M-48 design. While the first combat application of Russian autoloader is on a T-64 tank, designed in 1952
4. Armour being classified all the way thru, I doubt anyone actually know how thick is the M1A3 armour will be
5. IR, Laser Detection, APS is basically not a Russian thing.

Davos



G'day Mate

From my own experience as an Abrams Gunner of the Australian Army. The tank is not a white elephant as you said.

Armour warfare have a lot of different level. Where each MBT from different country have something they would excel at and something they are bad at. It is highly dependable on the crew to capitalise the advantage of your tank and exploit the weakness of your enemy tanks.

Where as Abrams excel at running engagement with goof FCS, Challenger excel at static engagement with heavy armour and low profile and the Eastern block and Chinese tank excel at fire power.

There are simply so different between each tanks and it depends a lot on the crew to actually perform in combat. And if you put a British crew in an American tank, the result would still be a disaster.

Davos

In your opinion what is the advantage of using diesel ove JP-5 ?

I agree with you "training doctrine" is something people overlook when comparing MBT's.

 

[jhungary]

G'day Mate

1. It does not looks like a T-90, it still look likes a M1A2
2. M1A2 can use both Diesel and Jet Fuel in its engine. For example, US, Egypt and Saudi were using JP-5 on their M1, While we Aussie uses Diesel on our M1A1 with the same engine. We can use JP-5 just that we choose not to, so do they can use diesel and they choose not to.
3. Autoloader was not a thing from Russia, the US were actually ahead of the Russian on Autoloader usage when they first put an autoloader on a T-20 medium tanks in 1944 (Which were to replaced the M-4 Sherman) However due to the sheer number of M-4 being produced, T-20 project were scraped with several phototype and instead the US developed a new M-48 design. While the first combat application of Russian autoloader is on a T-64 tank, designed in 1952
4. Armour being classified all the way thru, I doubt anyone actually know how thick is the M1A3 armour will be
5. IR, Laser Detection, APS is basically not a Russian thing.

Davos



G'day Mate

From my own experience as an Abrams Gunner of the Australian Army. The tank is not a white elephant as you said.

Armour warfare have a lot of different level. Where each MBT from different country have something they would excel at and something they are bad at. It is highly dependable on the crew to capitalise the advantage of your tank and exploit the weakness of your enemy tanks.

Where as Abrams excel at running engagement with goof FCS, Challenger excel at static engagement with heavy armour and low profile and the Eastern block and Chinese tank excel at fire power.

There are simply so different between each tanks and it depends a lot on the crew to actually perform in combat. And if you put a British crew in an American tank, the result would still be a disaster.

Davos

lol Davos, the US military had changed to JP-8 as standard Jet Fuel for USAF and US Army a few years back

 

[Penguin]

In your opinion what is the advantage of using diesel ove JP-5 ?

I agree with you "training doctrine" is something people overlook when comparing MBT's.

It's most likely simply a matter of availability and/or cost

 

[Davos]

In your opinion what is the advantage of using diesel ove JP-5 ?

I agree with you "training doctrine" is something people overlook when comparing MBT's.

G'day Mate

Using Jet Fuel and Diesel both have their pros and cons, it's not solely determined by cost.

Jet Fuel have a lower condense point and it will turn into jelly-form at about -40C, compare to diesel at around -10C, so you would not need anti-freeze which damage the gas line and the bladder if you want to operate your Abrams in extreme cold weather. Which means less maintenance

Another advantage is that Jet Fuel would have a combined lower operation cost when you eliminated extra logistic cost and the fact that Jet Fuel is a bit cheaper than Diesel and a bit safer to handle.

The third advantage for using Jet Fuel is that you can fuel up from anything that flies, so basically you don't need to wait for the dedicated refuelling truck, you can just land a Blackhawk and refuel the Abram using the fuel in the Blackhawk.

However, Abram eat a lot of Jet Fuel in the turbine because even if the Abram is not moving, you burn the same amount of fuel as moving to keep the turbine turning (Because of the energy from Diesel Combustion), while you only burn a fraction of the Diesel to keep the engine Idle.

Another point is that engine running Jet Fuel will create jet blast, which basically both very loud and have a back blast so strong that it's impossible to have infantry tailing an Abrams, hence bad for urban combat. Burning Diesel will not create jet blast, it's safe for infantry trailing the Abrams and beside during acceleration, diesel engine are overall quite quiet, especially when the engine is idling.

Also torque (which diesel generate an even torque), heat signature (which burning jet fuel produce a lot of heat as well as jet blast) also plays a role on using different type of fuel in the same engine.

Basically those are the different between running an Abrams on Diesel and running an Abrams on Jet Fuel

Davos

 

[Oldman1]

Improvements on the Abrams called M1a2 v3.