About T80 and T90 vs M1A1 without depleted uranium armour
|August 27th, 2004||#1|
| || |
T80 and T90 vs M1A1 without depleted uranium armour info
I am a year 12 student in South Australia, Australia. One of my subjects is politics and for it I have to do an individual study on a political issue. My study is on the Howard governments decision to buy the M1A1 without the depleted uranium armour. This interests me as I hope to join the armoured core at the end of my education, hopefully at the end of this year.
I would be very grateful if people would give me thier opinions about the wisdom of purchasing the M1A1 for Australia, considering the models will lack depleted uranium armour. Also do you think this will reduce their surviviablity to the point were T80 and T 90s will be able to better them in terms of crew surviability and general peformance. Also Australia is also only buying 59, a token rather than effective force. Should Australia have spent the money on more JSFs (when they finnaly are built) or light armour? Anything will be helpful
|August 27th, 2004||#2|
| || |
The M1A1D can definitely outshoot the T-80 and T-90, which is really what's important. The sights, gun, fire control, loader, and interface are better. It's got better comm. systems too.
The M1A1D is rated at 600mm KE and 1300mm HEAT, better the T-80U. The T-90 has 800mm KE and 1200mm HEAT, but tends to pop it's turret off.
I'd put a T-90 on par with an M1A1, the digital component of the M1A1D gives it that edge.
Ahh...the AK-47, when you absolutely, positively have to kill every last motherf*cker in the room...accept no substitute
|August 28th, 2004||#6|
| || |
The reason the Abrams is so much heavier then the T-90 is because it's a much larger tank, and has one more crewmen. Despite that the Abrams' turbine gives it very good acceleration and speed.
|August 28th, 2004||#7|
| || |
I suspect that this is a politically motivated decision. Someone probably decided that depleted uranium made the M1 appear to be a "nuclear weapon", besides making the tank more expensive.
I don't think it makes a bit of difference. The likelihood of an Australian M1 going mano-a-mano against a T80 approaches zero.
The benefit of buying M1A1s without depleted uranium armor is that they should be cheaper. Any Australian troops who end up doing any fighting will likely be in US supplied tanks in a battle area anyway. The benefit would be familiarity with the weapon system.
Since Australia also has close ties with the UK, the Challenger would be a good choice as well (I'm sure they would offer it without the depleted uranium armor for a discount).
\"Nolo Copulare Equestribus\"
|September 11th, 2004||#9|
| || |
Re: T80 and T90 vs M1A1 without depleted uranium armour info
Let the tree huggers worry about the snails and bees and whales or whatever. DU saves HUMANS when hit by a sabot style round. Especially anything that is less dense like tungsten or steel.
DU posses NO real danger to those handling the ammunition and even if your tank has it in the armor and your tank is hit. If you fire your DU ammo and hit an enemy, the enemy tank will pose a hazard for some time.
THE ONLY REAL HAZARD WITH DU IS THE FACT THAT AS WITH TUNGSTEN IT'S A HEAVY METAL AND WILL CAUSE RENAL DAMAGE IF INGESTED OR OTHERWISE GETS INTO YOUR BLOODSTREAM.
Those that get so paranoid that they urinate on them selves when they hear DU need to be told that their smoke detectors in there home has MORE unstable and by weight MORE radioactive material in it.
Look up Uranium city in Canada on Google. Guess what they mine there? Ask a tree huger where this super poisonous "evil" man made stuff comes from. Yep, right out of the ground. In fact it's in the top soil of most of the world at a rate of 3 teaspoons per 8 dump trucks. And that's Uranium, not DEPLETED Uranium, which is a particular isotope and 40% less radioactive.
Radioactive sounds so bad. DU is an Alpha emitter and this radiation is not even capable of penetrating a piece of paper or your skin.
It's sad to hear that your PM will buy a great tank but settle for less because of the possibility of his political opponents exploiting a BOGUS issue for their gain if he so chose to buy a M1 with DU.
Your level of protection will still be extraordinary and the design is fantastic in how survivable it is, but DU armor will increase your protection against highly capable APFSDS type rounds. Don't listen to all those idiots out there telling you about this and that. DU armor is MORE expensive and it's not done because of cost savings. DU ammunition is MORE expensive and not used because of cost savings. We use DU because it kills the bad guys and keeps you alive. ATK build high quality ammo made of tungsten too, but those rounds just don’t punch through as much.
The M1 is an Offensive tank! It was designed to fight a war in Europe where while on a defense you’re constantly attacking the enemy and nibbling him away slowly. This “mobile defense” against an overwhelming numerical superiority and armored force required a tank with exceptional characteristics.
The M1 even in its most basic form from 1980 is still a more capable than most threat tanks present. The US has a doctrine of over match. Depending on the version Australia buys, you may get a good or awesome tank. A M1A1 is still a good tank even though it’s from 1985. The SEP tank is outrageous. If you get a SEP you have a fully digital tank with FBCB2, FLIR2, CITV, 50 power with color display, and and and. The FCS will give you a full ballistic solution out to 5000 meters on a SEP and will actually do passive ranging and track on its own. But even with an older M1A1 you’d be well off. 1AD used this tank in Baghdad with great success and to the best of my knowledge NO one was killed in 1AD in 15 months in a city under armor from enemy activity in this tank during numerous fights. Some tanks took as many as 15 RPG (7, 9, 13) hits and the crews walked away. One M1 was breached on the side armor by a RPG22 but according to the Army Times only one crewmember was lightly injured. In the 24-year history and 3 conflicts it saw combat; only 2 crewmembers have ever lost their lives under armor from enemy activity inside this tank. Australia is buying a combat proven system. A tank which is arguably the worlds premier offensive tank by specs.
There’s no better way to say “I love you” than to park an M1 in front of someone’s home.
Australia is smart.
They will not work independantly, they can't afford it. However, a battalions worth of tanks is a good thing to have especially since you'll end up task organizing them out to other units when conducting missions like now in Iraq. Those tanks will probably never see real word combat as a PURE tank force. Rather you may have a platoon or company sliced out to a battalion. That way the tanks can play as a force multiplyer, bringing in new capabilities where otherwise soldiers might have been required to risk their lives. Example, conducting a breach into a building, Reducing obstacles/baracades with a plow, generating smoke, using a 50cal under armor, coax, comms relay, thermals which can show enemy movements, EID sweeps, main gun against fortified positions, using the tank as a baracade at a check points, intimidation and using the tank as a mobile shield for moving troops in a city make tanks even in urban terrain VERY useful. You just don't need thousands of them, just a few to support the infantry, but those are nonetheless very important. So 58 tanks while not a huge number may help out a lot because you (Example) just need 7-8 in support of a whole battalion.
|September 13th, 2004||#10|
| || |
Sorry its not really relevant but what other tanks does australia have and how many do you have? 59 tanks is only 1 battalion (i think its 56 tanks in a normal battalion, though i have seen thats its 36 in a british regiment)