Replies

The M1 could probably take a 105 sabot to direct front (I would not want to aboard) but on the sides I don't think so and properly deployed in the defense the M60's would have many opportunities for flanking shots against a company of M1's in the assault.

How likely was ANY tank going to get a flank shot against a company of M1's in Iraq? Given the nature of the terrain, I mean. As soon as you get up out of your revetments your meat for the Warthogs & Apaches.

First off US Meeting engagements in Iraq GW1 were against tanks that SURVIVED the Apaches and Warthogs. None the less by adding other elements you miss the purpose of the example..

What I am trying to demonstrate is that the actual difference between the pentultimate weapons system M1 and a more run of the mill but same field weapon system (the M60) is far thinner than one might imagine.. Further that holds for F22 Raptors or Aircraft Carriers or nearly any weapons platform you can think of..

This is backed by history and only makes sense.

Before I go further someone asked would the M60s get flanking shots.. Well if they are in the Defense one can pretty well be assured they have sought to analyze the terrain and select those positions which maximize that opportunity. Further in the defense the M1s would maybe run into 3-4 M60s deployed forward who would fire and run for home along preplanned escape routes. Under the covering fire of the rest of their company. Consider for every 20 M1 Abrabs (Company) you could buy nearly a Battalion of M60s. (60 plus Tanks and assessories) The M1 has to be refueled every few hours while the M60s can run for about 3 days or 250 Miles.. The advantage becomes less clear. Surviving a front mantle hit does not mean the tank is dead nor that all is ok so that is nothing to sneeze at.

The most important point is we need BadAssed Systems like the M1, B1 Bomber, Large Carriers but we cannot sacrifice one for the other we need a mix and we don;t have it..

That is bad news.

W