The M1A2 Abrams: Obsolete or Battleworthy?

I always thought the M1A2 was one of the best tanks ever. But seeing that so many things beat it, like the Leopard 2 and the Merkava, is it even anywhere close to battleworthy these days?

 

Abrams is still a pretty good tank, it's just lacking on some of the 'tankish' features. To my limited knowledge it one of the most electronic tank in the world. The Army's putting a lot of thier funds into 'electronic warfare' measure and counter-measures instead of better armour/ammunition/tanks...oh wait...

 

How do you mean battleworthy?
It's a top class tank just like the latest models of the other 2 you mentioned!
But i wonder how you mean seeing so many things beat it?
Beat it in what and beat it with how much?

 

The Abrams is totally battleworthy.

The current generation of tanks are pretty similar, and although they have their differences (muzzle velocity, ammo used, armour types, electronic fits, etc) these are never really big enough differences to claim 'tank x is obsolete compared to tank y'

Although we'll never really know until they all meet in combat...

Demolition Derby anyone?

 

Fear not Blaster the M1A2 is quite battleworthy. The perception that you have to the contrary is because of the source of much of your information being from Europeans who naturally favor their own designs or the designs that are fielded by their own forces. With the exception of the Challenger II those designs are essentially untested in combat so any information you are likely to get about comparisons is highly colored by opinion rather than fact.

 

Where on earth did you get the idea that the Abrams is not battleworthy. It will remain a topic of much debate whether it is as good as its rivals or not (personally I favour the Challenger 2 and the Leopard 2) but I would have thought that the fact that it is a good tank is beyond dispute.

squared !

 

It seems to be doing extremely well in Iraq... (in actualy combat conditions, not like tests that the Leopard 2A6 has undergone)... In fact I don't see why you doubt its capability. The Merkava has actually been criticized for its supposedly superior protection following the destruction of several in the war against Hizbollah... The Challenger has proved the be too slow and heavy in Iraq... The Leopard hasn't been proved at all... and IIRC the M1A2 is the most 'mobile' of all tanks, (i.e. in terms of speed, range, cross country performance etc)... IMHO it is better than all of those listed above (I believe that mobility is without doubt the most important feature of a tank)

In Iraq, I like to think of the Abrams as the 'MBT', and the Challenger II as the 'Heavy Tank'

 

combat conditions?
The Dutch (and many others) had Leopard II A5's for SFOR in former Yougoslavia and those performed pretty well....altough i don't think there were anti tank battles they were pretty in obviously combat conditions!

 

Utter rubbish. At the risk of sounding too much like Grieg - where's your source ? Computer games don't count BTW.

:angry: :roll:

 

Actually the Abrams is an MBT. Don't know enought about the Challanger to say yet. Man am I out of place around here

 

Thanks for your replies. However, no offense at all, but you kinda' posted your replies about a month or so too late. At that time I wondered if the Abrams was battleworthy, but now I know that it so is. I mean, it's Rhienmetall L44 gun, coupled with it's A3 round, can penetrate an amount of modern armour yet to be surpassed. 960mm, I think, which is better than the 2A6's L55 gun can do.

 

Actually the blame for bringing this up belongs to me

I was board so I dug through some of the unanswered posts...

w00t! Captain! (for a little while too it seems....)

 

Usually its customary for ingrates to insult the credibility of the source AFTER the source has been given :roll:

Seriously, if you can find any post where i have relied upon a game for evidence I'll give you a lollipop

 

I think what he means is that your previous statement doesn't tally well with reality, to the point of seeming arcadish. For reference yes the M1 has maybe a 10km/h advantage over the Chally but neither is really being used in a cavalry fashion, and the Challenger II is maybe a ton lighter than the M1 (depending on what is fitted to which).

 

Just out of curiosity,what are the respective weights of the Abrams and Challenger II?Isn't the Abrams roughly 68 tons?

 

Latest models about 69 (US) tons and 1500 HP for approximately 22hp per ton power to weight ratio.
Challenger II about 68 (US)tons and 1200hp for about 18hp per ton power to weight ratio.

 

The problem is the L55 (in the A6) is an upgrade from the L44 (wich is also in the A5) and can fire the same ammo

 

The abrams is only battleworthy within the us tactical use. In tank to tank battle hard to defeat (is capable in gaining the ground) but in the aftermath easy target (it can´t hold the ground) by ied´s and unconventional tactics as seen in iraq.
Conclusion very useful in standard fighting situation, piece of junk in a-symetrical war. (it´s like trying to hit a bug with a cannon)

Kind regards,

 

what kind of ton though I wonder? Metric (doubtful), long ton or short ton (Will have what they are in a few....when i get my brother off my case )

 

That's why I specified (US) after the weight. The US weight uses what is sometimes called a short ton or 2000lbs. The Euros and most others use the metric ton or 1000kg usually written tonne.