M1 Abrams gun

[longcat]

Is the M1 Abrams tank ever gonna get the German L55 gun?

[metalbeast]

Is the M1 Abrams tank ever gonna get the German L55 gun?

I think they already did. M256 is like Desert Storm old. Though it kicked Iraqi tank butt. The Rheinmetall has better penetration performance than ever before. Exceeding even the best Russian smoothbore 125mm guns by penetration and accuracy. Ah I don't really know. I know the British are in the process of switching from their rifled to the Rheinmetall. Don't know US is or has done it though.

[Bill]

The M-1A2 doesn't have the L55 120mm/55cal gun.

[longcat]

Do you think the Abrams will ever have one mounted?

[Bill]

If there's ever an A3, sure.

[metalbeast]

Wouldn't hurt the have the best anti-tank gun. Certainly it would strengthen the arguement against about going to a bigger gun like a 6 inch bore which would be more expensive.

[Weps]

If there's ever an A3, sure.

Never going to be an A3. The Army's having trouble with the A2 FCS.

[B.Smitty]

Do you think the Abrams will ever have one mounted?

I doubt it.

If anything, they'll go directly to the 120mm ETC gun from the FCS program at some future date.

The L55 just doesn't give you enough to warrant the upgrade price. It's easier to just focus on new munitions to improve penetration. Plus, there aren't exactly a lot of likely potential targets that can't be handled with the existing gun & munitions.

Now it's possible that a foreign service might pay to add the L55 to their Abrams, since most don't want to use DU rounds.

[B.Smitty]

Never going to be an A3. The Army's having trouble with the A2 FCS.

What troubles are they having with the M1A2? I haven't heard of anything major.

[Rusky]

I think they already did. M256 is like Desert Storm old. Though it kicked Iraqi tank butt. The Rheinmetall has better penetration performance than ever before. Exceeding even the best Russian smoothbore 125mm guns by penetration and accuracy. Ah I don't really know. I know the British are in the process of switching from their rifled to the Rheinmetall. Don't know US is or has done it though.

Right, the thing is what good is a gun that can't penetrate the Kontakt-5 ERA? I heard that US has developed special rounds to deal with ERA, the E3 i think they were called, either way, they aren't in full distribution yet and Russia has already developed Kaktus ERA which is 1.5 times better and now it has money to put a nice, juicy production order on just about anything.

Also why does it even matter how good Abrams gun is? A AT-11 ATGM fired from the T-90 or T-72 125 mm smoothbore will pierce Abrams side armor very nicely from a 5 kilometer range.

Iraqies mostly used T-55s, and the T-72s they used were really, really old, actually the armor values for T-72 have trippled since the production of this tank first began, Iraqies were using some of the older versions with worse armor and not fitted with Kontakt-5. Those versions of T-72 were much older then Abrams, its no surprise Abrams had no problem taking them out.

[Bill]

Dude, you are clueless.

Stop drinking the pravda koolaid and rejoin reality.

[Rusky]

Dude, you are clueless.

Stop drinking the pravda koolaid and rejoin reality.

Can you refute any of what i said in a way that actually makes a point besides that you don't know what you are talking about and this is your defense mechanism?

Here is an educational little link for you:

http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm

Here are th armor values for best Abrams variant, M1A2 SEP

Turret: 940-960 Glacis:560-590
Lower front hull:580-650

This against kinnetic penetrators.

Russian 125mm BM-44M tungsten 660mm at 2km

This is a Russian ammuntion it would have no problem getting through the side armor of M1A2 as you can see.

The AT-11 ATGM can penetrate 700 mm of RHA at 5 km.

So both the standard Russian tank round and the AT-11 ATGM can penetrate Abrams side armor, but the ATGM can do it from the range Abrams can not get T-90 from.

[Officer of Engineers]

Have you stopped to consider that artillery and not tanks is the King of the Battlefield?

[Rusky]

Have you stopped to consider that artillery and not tanks is the King of the Battlefield?

never did, but why does it matter? We are discussing tanks? An easiest way to destroy a tank is probably from the air, so i doubt that any tank on tank battles would be happening between armies equiped with modern tactics (not Iraq).

[Officer of Engineers]

Tanks against tanks are meeting engagements, not hasty, and certainly not deliberate battles. Even during the Cold War, my tank guys were not expecting to meet your tanks head on. They were expected to be puliverized by your artillery first. And given by chance that my tank guys do get off a few shots at your tank guys, the expectation was that your tank guys would back off for the artillery to do their jobs.

And the number one tank killer in history, destroying more tanks than all other systems combined is the Anti-tank mine.