What are the benefits of having an automatic loader? - Page 4




 
--
 
January 25th, 2005  
Kozzy Mozzy
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinaman
if a t80u or t90 battles out with m1, then definetly the t-80 u would win if the ranges were smaller than usual

the autoloader allows tanks to reload faster than normal, and that is important when both are ownage tanks and the second shot would count very badly
Wrong. Russian autoloaders on both the T-80 and 90 have a minimum cycle time of 6 and 6.5 seconds respectively. Pretty much all loaders on Abrams tank can slam a round in 3 seconds while stationary and 5 seconds while moving, some quicker then that.

Not to mention there wouldn't often be a 2nd shot in a battle between a T-80,90 and an M1A1,A2. The M289A2,A3 can penetrate both tanks over the front turret at 2km. While the T-80,90 cannot.
January 25th, 2005  
Chinaman
 
both use the same round sabot

t90 t80u versions have 125mm guns, that makes a bit of a difference

m1 abram has no reactive armor, while t80 and t90 has loads of it

m1 abram has a hot heat signature

t80u especialy could fire heat seeking missiles from its gun, thus it could desory the m1abram engine and trigger an explosion

t80 and t90 also has chopbam armor, i thought u knew about it

many russian weapons are superior than us weapons, while some us weapons are bette rthan russian made ones, depends on what ur going for

dont get stereotypical that russians cant make good tanks, weird since they are the ones with the msot tank experience
January 25th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
"t80 and t90 also has chopbam armor, i thought u knew about it"

Baloney
--
January 25th, 2005  
Chinaman
 
it does
January 25th, 2005  
Kozzy Mozzy
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinaman
both use the same round sabot

t90 t80u versions have 125mm guns, that makes a bit of a difference

...there is no T-80,90 ammo that can penetrate any western tank at 2km

m1 abram has no reactive armor, while t80 and t90 has loads of it

So? T-80,90 are still less protected then western tanks

m1 abram has a hot heat signature

Yes it does, like most tanks with their huge friggin engines.

t80u especialy could fire heat seeking missiles from its gun, thus it could desory the m1abram engine and trigger an explosion

They cannot fire heat seeking missiles. They can fire the AT-11 which is a laser beam riding missile. These have significant disadvantages compared to conventional ammo. Not to mention the only heat seeking ground missile is the Javelin.

t80 and t90 also has chopbam armor, i thought u knew about it

No, they don't. They use something called Combination K. Chobham is British, why would they give it to the Russians?

many russian weapons are superior than us weapons, while some us weapons are bette rthan russian made ones, depends on what ur going for

Yes, correct. The T-80,90 is not one of these better weapons

dont get stereotypical that russians cant make good tanks, weird since they are the ones with the msot tank experience

Since WWII, what major tank engagement have Russians gotten into?
In between your claims, which are just plain false. Check your facts.
January 27th, 2005  
EOD
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EOD
It is less the projectiles then the propellant and the arrangement of the ammo inside the turret in a circle on the "outer inside".
Once a charge goes off it will iginte all others and tha is quite a lot of propellant - propelling not only projectiles but also turrets and the crew in it.

That's why the German Leopard 2 has its ammo all in single metal containers, if something is gonna burn or hit the fire extinguising sytem will take care of it - in the best case before it becomes more serious.the Russians gave away this chance and pay with the lifes of their crews.
The M1 Abrams has its ammo in the rear of the turret in a blast resistant compartment, when ammo is set afire tehre it will blow away the top cover on top of the roof and the crew and crew compartment will stay unharmed and it has prooven to be effective in Iraq.
There is an article with images in the internet by John P. Conway.
Do not have the URL anymore and do not know how to upload the file here. Propably someone finds it in the net again.

Found the link again:

http://strategypage.com/gallery/arti...ns_learned.asp
January 27th, 2005  
SHERMAN
 
 
not that its on toppic, but Russia dose not have the most experiencein modern tank warfare, Israel dose. And the autoloader is infrior to the human loader(in my eyes) for the following reasons:

*The juman loader is about twise as quick.
*The human loader dose not jamn
*The human loader can replace the gunnger if he is injured, and allow the tank to continue to operate.
January 27th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EOD
Excellent link.
Again shows how hard it is to truly destroy an M-1.
January 27th, 2005  
EOD
 
Hmm...

Here one where it went a little unfortunate for the M1:
http://strategypage.com/gallery/arti...le_mystery.asp


Remember one where the whole turret was blown off:

http://img180.exs.cx/img180/4927/m1a2iniraq3sf.jpg

http://img180.exs.cx/img180/9268/m1a2iniraq9im.jpg
January 27th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
Man that "mystery projectile" sure is freaky. Treated that M-1 like a sedan!