Fuel economy issue was fixed before you were born.
So then why are Russians smoking it?
They haven't been. They've mission killed a handful of Leo's and a double handful of Brad's, generally with good crew survival. For some reason though the Russians seem to think this was a near impossible feat. Abrams has not made a battlefield impact one way or the other yet.
>Fuel economy issue was fixed before you were born.
It wasn't. The Abrams carries more fuel than a Leopard 2, weighs less and has a shorter range.
Face it, the turbine engine was a direct subsidy to an auto maker that poured billions into the engine found out it sucked and was left holding the bag of a failed R&D effort. Congress stepped in and demanded the new tank use this failure of an engine engine the designers didn't want and till this day the tank is held back by it's bad engine. It's so bad that a cult of cope sprung up about how it is actually good. It's very quiet they say, it's louder than a Leopard 2. It's very powerful they say, same power as a Leopard 2. It is multi fuel, so is the Leopard 2.
The Abrams is otherwise a modern western MBT, it's just worse than a L2 when it comes to the engine and fuel economy.
It is louder but the sound it makes has a higher pitch, which means it travels less far, which means it is significantly quiter to anyone not close enough to literally feel it move
>It's very quiet they say
It fucking is
You hear the tracks before you hear it's engine even while it's gunning it.
You hear fucking LAV's before you hear an abrams
95% of people just can't handle the responsibility of not being a complete piece of shit when handling a car. i don't like the walkable city meme but if it gets people off the fucking road then it's something.
do... do people think having a 'walkable city' means you can't have a car?
I swear burgers always find a way to absolutely fail at understand anything. >Were going to build a road AND a bike/foot path and some of the stores can be closer together so you only have to park once
REEEEEE. SOCIALSMARXISM.
>do... do people think having a 'walkable city' means you can't have a car?
walkable city means you don't need a car to get everywhere which translates to less people on the road you fucking retard.
>Were going to build a road AND a bike/foot path and some of the stores can be closer together so you only have to park once
i take it back you're a fucking public transport riding schizo pissing in the corner and yelling at people to not touch your garbage bags. i sincerely hope you're death is painful and prolonged.
Just....don't...there is no point. I honestly tried talking to a few burgers about this and they simply can't comprehend the idea behind it. Argument is always some form of "they took 'er cars" or "guberment wants to limit your movement to a 15min-walking-distance circle" conspiracy. If I had to bet, I would say its a mix of susceptibility to corporate campaigns and a deep fear of change/something new, which is ironic because they used to have "15min cities" before Ford and GM lobbied for everything to be paved over so a car would be a necessity
if given the choice between dying towns and "walkable" towns, i'd rather let towns die.
Fuck walking, fuck buses, fuck subways, fuck taxis, and fuck carpool.
Everyone should be driving their own car in town.
Hull ammo storage
L44 gun
No infantry telephone
Radios not compatible with squad level infantry radios
No independent commanders sight / hunter killer system
low number of rounds carried
poor fuel performance
poor thermal signature
lacks APU for cold running.
>Hull ammo storage
It's in a separate compartment from the crew and has its own blowout panel. >L44 gun
DU, baby. >low number of rounds carried
It's one less than in the Leopard 2 >No infantry telephone >Radios not compatible with squad level infantry radios >No independent commanders sight / hunter killer system >lacks APU for cold running.
Whut?
>Hull ammo stowage
In a blowout compartment, not used anyways for safety reasons in training (ether buildup from training rounds) >L44 gun
Fair, it's a bit long in the tooth and pissing hot ammo only goes so far for breech and gun tube lifetime >No infantry telephone
Wrong >Radios not compatible with squad level infantry radios
What did he mean by this? Hop onto the same net and you're golden as long as you have the same comsec/fill >No independent commanders sight / hunter killer system
For M1A1 correct, but those are relegated to national guard only now >low number of rounds carried
42 is a pretty healthy number >poor fuel performance
Agreed >poor thermal signature
Same as any other MBT in my experience >lacks APU for cold running.
APUs were on older M1A2s and all sep3s come from the factory with under-armor APUs
https://i.imgur.com/cvtKn1h.jpg
Its needlessly heavy due to legacy systems not interfacing well with all the upgrades it got over the years. Nearly 2 tons of dead-weight just to keep the turret balanced.
Alot of it comes from copper wiring, actually. 5 tons of it comes from wiring alone.
Oh, also forgot to mention: the turret hydraulic system is a nightmare. Leakier than a collander (FRH is highly carcinogenic btw, enjoy the cancer) and doesn't provide any advantage over modern electrical traverse drives. I got to hop into a Leopard (full electrical traverse to my knowledge) and spin the turret and it felt just as smooth as my Abrams.
Hydraulic traverse may/may not have been the way to go in the 70s but not today. Pain in the ass.
Right, forgot Australian Abrams were a thing. Buy some more sep3s from us.
>What did he mean by this?
He unironically does not understand how radios work even tangentially and needed something to pad the list, see infantry telephone comment.
>We're not going to use tanks anymore because the enemy will be in a dug in position on the beach and landing a tank there will put the tank and the lander in danger >We are going to use helicopters to land troops at the beach because the dug in enemies will be dead before the helicopters land!
Its needlessly heavy due to legacy systems not interfacing well with all the upgrades it got over the years. Nearly 2 tons of dead-weight just to keep the turret balanced.
Weak upper front plate (38mm hha), is no longer at a critical angle for modern apfsds, has not been for some time, and is vulnerable to large calibre HE shells. Its also weaker than the Leopard 2's, which has seen multiple upgrades.
All models up to the M1A2 SEPV2 had the same hull armour composite as the XM-1 (320-340mm vs Ke.), as per the FOI request about DU armour inserts in 2006 (i.e.there arent any).
Worst fuel economy of all MBTs.
No hunter-killer until M1A2.
Relatively mediocre turret armour as per the swedish tank trials, although its possible that its been largely rectified in the SEP V2 and V3, but we have no data for that.
The seat has a few positions. That's fully lifted. You only use it when moving the tank and not using the turret. The driver would never have his head that high when the turret was in operation.
>We're not going to use tanks anymore because the enemy will be in a dug in position on the beach and landing a tank there will put the tank and the lander in danger >We are going to use helicopters to land troops at the beach because the dug in enemies will be dead before the helicopters land!
the whole concept of BR is laughable given where the T-series is
Russia's actual ground lineup (and not the propaganda fever dream bullshit stats they use in game; see also: Soviet naval lineup based on so little design/construction work that the US tree should have multiple versions of the Montana class in it) should max out at 9.0
The sheer momentum of the MIC behind it is so great that it'll never be replaced by something better. America will send these things to Mars against meson beams and hafnium bombs before considering an M2 tank.
But by that time, the M1A17 SEPv8 will have Oganesson-hyperalloy armor and be armed with a 150mm railgun firing miniaturized particle accelerator shells that form micro-blackholes when detonated.
its a tank. some 50 dollar drone with some 80 year old warhead on it, and youll have the next webm thatll be shitposted on this board for the next month.
So then why are Russians smoking it?
))
>Butt hurt NATO
>imaginationposting
Very fat and heavy like all americans.
Because it's so fat that it gets stuck everywhere.
love that this midwit talking point hasn't gone anywhere even though the Challenger 2 and Merkava 4M are heavier than it
>Look guys I'm lighter than my obese friends. BMI 35 is skinny in america!
Don't look up what the word "median" means.
funny that
When?
I hate ukraine shills, but our equipment shits on russia's, show us a dead tank
[citation needed]
May I see it?
Top tier bait
The fuel economy sux. And it chugs jet fuel.
Fuel economy issue was fixed before you were born.
They haven't been. They've mission killed a handful of Leo's and a double handful of Brad's, generally with good crew survival. For some reason though the Russians seem to think this was a near impossible feat. Abrams has not made a battlefield impact one way or the other yet.
Russian tanks weigh half as much. The mass shavings need to come from somewhere, which typically is armor.
It's also because they're much smaller
>Fuel economy issue was fixed before you were born.
It wasn't. The Abrams carries more fuel than a Leopard 2, weighs less and has a shorter range.
Face it, the turbine engine was a direct subsidy to an auto maker that poured billions into the engine found out it sucked and was left holding the bag of a failed R&D effort. Congress stepped in and demanded the new tank use this failure of an engine engine the designers didn't want and till this day the tank is held back by it's bad engine. It's so bad that a cult of cope sprung up about how it is actually good. It's very quiet they say, it's louder than a Leopard 2. It's very powerful they say, same power as a Leopard 2. It is multi fuel, so is the Leopard 2.
The Abrams is otherwise a modern western MBT, it's just worse than a L2 when it comes to the engine and fuel economy.
>turbine is bad
Yeah this is evidence to ignore everything that you said.
I hear that the turbine can run on copium fuel.
It is louder but the sound it makes has a higher pitch, which means it travels less far, which means it is significantly quiter to anyone not close enough to literally feel it move
>It's very quiet they say
It fucking is
You hear the tracks before you hear it's engine even while it's gunning it.
You hear fucking LAV's before you hear an abrams
Its a bit expensive and maintenance heavy.
Takes money from towns that need the money to rebuild to be desirable to lure new blood to keep the town from dying.
Why are you so stupid?
>just throw money at a town. that will fix the problem of there being no jobs
Noice. Love urbanism.
Less suburbs taking up shooting spaces.
>cars destroyed our cities
No they didn't.
95% of people just can't handle the responsibility of not being a complete piece of shit when handling a car. i don't like the walkable city meme but if it gets people off the fucking road then it's something.
Every time I watch that webm, my brain plays "Angel of the Morning"
do... do people think having a 'walkable city' means you can't have a car?
I swear burgers always find a way to absolutely fail at understand anything.
>Were going to build a road AND a bike/foot path and some of the stores can be closer together so you only have to park once
REEEEEE. SOCIALSMARXISM.
Walkable city means joggers can get up in your neighborhood.
>complaining about free target supply
ngmi
It's not them I'm concerned about. It's the juries composed of the type of people who use 'walkable city' unironically.
Most "walkable cities" just make it unreasonably difficult for me to do my job
>do... do people think having a 'walkable city' means you can't have a car?
walkable city means you don't need a car to get everywhere which translates to less people on the road you fucking retard.
>Were going to build a road AND a bike/foot path and some of the stores can be closer together so you only have to park once
i take it back you're a fucking public transport riding schizo pissing in the corner and yelling at people to not touch your garbage bags. i sincerely hope you're death is painful and prolonged.
3/10
Just....don't...there is no point. I honestly tried talking to a few burgers about this and they simply can't comprehend the idea behind it. Argument is always some form of "they took 'er cars" or "guberment wants to limit your movement to a 15min-walking-distance circle" conspiracy. If I had to bet, I would say its a mix of susceptibility to corporate campaigns and a deep fear of change/something new, which is ironic because they used to have "15min cities" before Ford and GM lobbied for everything to be paved over so a car would be a necessity
if given the choice between dying towns and "walkable" towns, i'd rather let towns die.
Fuck walking, fuck buses, fuck subways, fuck taxis, and fuck carpool.
Everyone should be driving their own car in town.
demographics != economics
>HURRRRRRRRR DURRRRRRRRR LET'S PUT ALL THE AMMO WHERE A SINGLE DRONE GRENADE CAN ERASE IT
Amerigolems, everyone.
Name a single tank where the separate ammunition stores are far enough from each other that the detonation of one would not affect the other.
Da, comrade. Much better to have entire crew killed and turret launched into space.
hugh mungus turret ring and relying on comparatively thin angled armor directly above composit
No exit hatch on the bottom. If it falls into a river upside down you're fucked. Happened in Iraq in 2003.
Hull ammo storage
L44 gun
No infantry telephone
Radios not compatible with squad level infantry radios
No independent commanders sight / hunter killer system
low number of rounds carried
poor fuel performance
poor thermal signature
lacks APU for cold running.
>Hull ammo storage
It's in a separate compartment from the crew and has its own blowout panel.
>L44 gun
DU, baby.
>low number of rounds carried
It's one less than in the Leopard 2
>No infantry telephone
>Radios not compatible with squad level infantry radios
>No independent commanders sight / hunter killer system
>lacks APU for cold running.
Whut?
>Hull ammo stowage
In a blowout compartment, not used anyways for safety reasons in training (ether buildup from training rounds)
>L44 gun
Fair, it's a bit long in the tooth and pissing hot ammo only goes so far for breech and gun tube lifetime
>No infantry telephone
Wrong
>Radios not compatible with squad level infantry radios
What did he mean by this? Hop onto the same net and you're golden as long as you have the same comsec/fill
>No independent commanders sight / hunter killer system
For M1A1 correct, but those are relegated to national guard only now
>low number of rounds carried
42 is a pretty healthy number
>poor fuel performance
Agreed
>poor thermal signature
Same as any other MBT in my experience
>lacks APU for cold running.
APUs were on older M1A2s and all sep3s come from the factory with under-armor APUs
Alot of it comes from copper wiring, actually. 5 tons of it comes from wiring alone.
>but those are relegated to national guard only now
>Laughs in australian
Oh, also forgot to mention: the turret hydraulic system is a nightmare. Leakier than a collander (FRH is highly carcinogenic btw, enjoy the cancer) and doesn't provide any advantage over modern electrical traverse drives. I got to hop into a Leopard (full electrical traverse to my knowledge) and spin the turret and it felt just as smooth as my Abrams.
Hydraulic traverse may/may not have been the way to go in the 70s but not today. Pain in the ass.
Right, forgot Australian Abrams were a thing. Buy some more sep3s from us.
>What did he mean by this?
He unironically does not understand how radios work even tangentially and needed something to pad the list, see infantry telephone comment.
>5 tons of wiring
Imagine the crack you could buy...
mah nigga
>No infantry telephone
>Three number fours, a number five with extra fries, a number eight, two number sevens
I see it's a Marine M1. The Marines don't even have tanks anymore.
oh god don't remind me,
>We're not going to use tanks anymore because the enemy will be in a dug in position on the beach and landing a tank there will put the tank and the lander in danger
>We are going to use helicopters to land troops at the beach because the dug in enemies will be dead before the helicopters land!
The Marines got rid of their tanks to free up money and manpower for other systems.
What's China's solution to contested beach landings?
>Hello? Do you have Battletoads?
>Bob I will Tiananmen square your ass
Its needlessly heavy due to legacy systems not interfacing well with all the upgrades it got over the years. Nearly 2 tons of dead-weight just to keep the turret balanced.
looks like cardboard
Weak upper front plate (38mm hha), is no longer at a critical angle for modern apfsds, has not been for some time, and is vulnerable to large calibre HE shells. Its also weaker than the Leopard 2's, which has seen multiple upgrades.
All models up to the M1A2 SEPV2 had the same hull armour composite as the XM-1 (320-340mm vs Ke.), as per the FOI request about DU armour inserts in 2006 (i.e.there arent any).
Worst fuel economy of all MBTs.
No hunter-killer until M1A2.
Relatively mediocre turret armour as per the swedish tank trials, although its possible that its been largely rectified in the SEP V2 and V3, but we have no data for that.
the UFP on an Abrams post SEPv2 has been thickened to something like 50mm
What happens if the turret turns and the guys head is sticking out?
He'll be decapitated. It's a feature that was made in honor of America's greatest ally, France.
The seat has a few positions. That's fully lifted. You only use it when moving the tank and not using the turret. The driver would never have his head that high when the turret was in operation.
China wins.
TlIPS OF TlUTH
>No hunter-killer until M1A2.
So thirty years ago?
missing googley eyes
It lacks a net over the turret that would protect it from small explosive munitions dropped from cheap commercial drones.
They're not currently killing Russians.
Wait, no, let's be specific:
I haven't seen footage of them killing Russians in the current conflict
Turret is asymmetric
The only valid criticism ITT
wait until you find out that due to the torsion bar suspension, the entire tank is asymmetric
Because it's BR should be 10.0
the whole concept of BR is laughable given where the T-series is
Russia's actual ground lineup (and not the propaganda fever dream bullshit stats they use in game; see also: Soviet naval lineup based on so little design/construction work that the US tree should have multiple versions of the Montana class in it) should max out at 9.0
>overweight
>no autoloader
>no full-speed reverse
>no laser warning system
>no full-speed reverse
True, but it can go 40 km/h in reverse, which is literally ten times what a T-72 is capable of.
Invincible Russian armies never need to retreat XAXAXAXA!
Neat video. It has nothing to do with the M1 Abrams, but it's cool.
>no autoloader
oh_no_anyway.jpeg
cope? cope
I'm sorry your nation's soldiers have difficulty lifting 46 lbs. objects.
You're too slow!
Come on! Step it up!
>105mm
The 120mm weighs a whopping 6.6lbs more.
I'm a retard. That's the shell weight, not the total weight.
The sheer momentum of the MIC behind it is so great that it'll never be replaced by something better. America will send these things to Mars against meson beams and hafnium bombs before considering an M2 tank.
But by that time, the M1A17 SEPv8 will have Oganesson-hyperalloy armor and be armed with a 150mm railgun firing miniaturized particle accelerator shells that form micro-blackholes when detonated.
>M1A17 SEPv8
Still will get defeated by a T-72Z34M4 (Ob'yekt 1834M) turret traveling at relativistic speeds.
The turret cheeks are asymmetrical. I fucking hate it. Similar issue with the Bradley turret, but at least there's a good reason for that.
what's this thing called, /k/?
That's the clitoris.
Coaxial machine gun.
Flash hider. With flutes near the base for smoke to escape.
mogged
It's fuller yanks, whoopin an hollerin and what not
Massive IR signature that makes it glow harder than your average PrepHole poster
Huge turret ring gap. Still my favorite mbt though.
I like bong tank.
I'm not in it.
i played the abrams in wt and got killed by a t72from the front
so its pretty fucking shit, idk how anyone could crew this deathttrap
I agree HATO shitboxes can't even pen t-34 driver hatches.
80s style shot trap
air filters
how's the good ol' M1 supposed to survive against top-attack tandem missile strikes?
Considering our allies are the only ones who use said munitions, they will likely never have to worry about it.
>top-attack tandem missile
Does Russia even have those?
Not unless you count guided artillery shells lmao
It's going to get munched on by the venerable KA52 and minefields lel. Tanks don't win wars on their own. Fact.
I can't impregnate it and it can't impregnate me.
We had a russian guy get his dick stuck in the bilge pump outlet after lubing it with CLP
You just aren't trying hard enough
it's ugly
its a tank. some 50 dollar drone with some 80 year old warhead on it, and youll have the next webm thatll be shitposted on this board for the next month.
Perhaps the biggest flaw is that it is LosTech. USA cannot make any more from scratch.
>USA cannot make any more from scratch.
huh?
>Lack of cannon launched atgm.
>Shitty lower glacis.
>Overweight so useless in most terrains except for European plains and middle eastern deserts
>Shitty lower glacis
bait
>Lack of cannon launched atgm
>GTATGMs
Only exist to circumvent dogshit fire control systems
>Merkava and K2 have dogshit fire control systems
Try again retard
Merkava has dogshit fire control systems
They do.
Assymetrical.
it's asymetrical and I think this means it doesn't look as cool as it could do
Government won't let me buy one. Feels bad, man.
One thing I found discouraging about the Abrams is the roof armor.
I hope to god the Ukies beef up the roof or put ERA blocks on it.
The other retarded thing about Abrams is the belly drain cover... and maybe the thermoplasric hub caps. Leaky shits.
turret ring is a big weak spot
From an Outdated era