Posted on 10/01/2004 11:59:26 AM PDT by SLB
And just think, if Kerry had his way, we would be fighting this war with "spitballs" instead. Preserve us Oh LORD from a Scary *Carrie presidency.
*Spelling intentional.
Bump for tankers.
This is not good. The Abrams is a fine tank. But it a late 70's tank. It will be a 45 or 50 year old design by the time it gets retired. For perspective...that would be like showing up for the first gulf war with really upgraded Sherman tanks. Not good.
Excellent.
Thanks for the ping!
For more FCS information, try this.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/fcs.htm
It's the quality of airpower that decides the outcome of any war now & no nation can match the US at that for the next 30-40yrs(that is, if one assumes that US military R&D stagnates).As long as the Abrams get upgraded periodically & get's all that air-support,it will remain the beast everyone considers it to be.The Israelis still use 40+yr old tanks which they have upgraded with modern electronics,jamming equipment etc & are also in the process of upgrading Turkish M-60s & Indian T-72s & BMP-2s.
Heard the tanks computer systems have been upgraded with windows 98.
That is incredibly limited thinking. How many Serbian tanks did airpower kill in Kosovo? Airpower is important and has its uses, but to think it is the be all and end all is foolish.
Aren't the Israelis still using Super Shermans?
And, of course, the Sov, er, Russkis still have most of their old tanks. They use T34s as pillboxes along the Sino-Sov, er, -Russian border.
Real point is, the threat hasn't changed that much since 1970. Shermans were designed (shortly) before things like bazookas and panzerfausts (the precursor to the RPG) were introduced. The threat was small caliber AT guns (37 - 50mm). Under the pressure of WWII, the threat changed very quicly and when the Sherman was deployed it faced much more powerful weapons like the 88. As a result, they died a lot.
But, since the 1970s the threat hasn't changed much. Nobody has introduced a new level of tank-killing fire power, like, say, a railgun. Weapons have evolved, and so has the M1. There is hardly a comparison between the M1 and the M1A2. The M1A2 is a good weapon for the current era.
The Army SHOULD be looking at vehicles for low intensity warfare like it faces in Iraq and will face elsewhere.
One thing I disagree with is Rumsfeld's decision to cancel the paladin's replacment.. and to nix the M1A1 (or scale back the upgradges) in place of faster strike vehicles.
MBTs are badly needed..
& how many tanks did the Serbians field in that conflict???they kept most of their tanks(as well as their few high value S-300 SAMs) hidden out of the conflict zone .What I mean't was (superior) air operations widen your scope of operations & radically limit that of your enemy.Hence during the Lebanon war of 82 & Gulf War 1,the Syrians & Iraqis had most of their effective airpower wiped out & soon their armoured forces ,pretty much on their own,had to face up to both enemy armour as well as airpower & we all know the skewed results of those 2 conflicts.It would have been more or less the same even if the Iraqis/Syrians were operating M1A2 or Leopard 2 tanks.
| M1C1 Modular Combat Vehicle Science & Technology |
|
The M1C1 is a modified M1 (or M1A1 or M1A2) Abrams main battle tank platform. It contains nine unique improvements: The M1C1 is designed to be an A-10 infantry support fighter on the ground. |
I seriesly doubt that. Microsoft no longer supports Win98, and it is not robust enough for the job anyway. Are you sure it wasn't Windows 2000? It looks like Win98.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/army-equipment.htm
Not in any serious capacity. They may still have some stockpiled, but they are not relying on them.
I wouldn't argue that the M1A2 is not a good tank for the current era. I would argue that we can do much better in 15 years, nevermind 24.
And I would argue that the threat is evolving quickly. ATGMs are much more powerful. Top attack munitions will be widely available within the decade. While we are upgrading the intervehicle electonics substantially, the in vehicle could be improved A LOT. The point is to stay ahead of the threat curve. Waiting until we have to go to war with an outdated tank is not the time to start its replacement.
It would have been more or less the same even if the Iraqis/Syrians were operating M1A2 or Leopard 2 tanks.
It would have been similar, but not because of the air power, but because of the quality of the troops manning the equipment.
Air power matters. It is not decisive.
The M1A3 Abrams Tank Thread (proposals for modernizing our aging fleet of M1 and M1A1 tanks)
You have ask, is anybody else improving their tanks? I'm out of the loop these days, but are the Sov, er, Russkis or the PRC developing a new generation of tanks equal to or exceeding the capabilities of the M1A2? I don't see it.
I think the real revolution will along the lines of lighter vehicles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
