As I understand it the AT-11 is a LOS weapon system(I admit I could be wrong), and if the Abrahms can see it, then it can kill it.
Your look more lost than a bastard child on fathers day.
Yea, it needs a clear line of sight for the laser.Originally Posted by Stinger
I dont know if a third party could lase the target for the AT-11 though.
But wouldnt the At-11 still outrange the cannon of these tanks?
And if the Russian tanks are on the defence, they might be dug-in
and be well camouflaged. They might see the Abrams before the
Abrams could see them.
Its possible yes, one of the first lessons f applied warfare is anything is possible. I'm not sure what the M1 cannons range is however as a practical concern, and with exception to something akin to the desert, if the M1 has line of sight I beleive the targets likley within range
Your look more lost than a bastard child on fathers day.
The AT-11 can outrange the Abrams gun, but the T-80's optics can't.
Advantadge: Abrams
M21 hit on a good point. There is no such thing as a direct tank-to-tank fight. One side or the other would be dugged in (let's not bring the Iraqis into this).
In a proper prepared tank defence, there would be minefields as well as dugged in tanks, channelling the attacking force into KZs almost certainly being targetted by some very big guns. The defending tanks should be rushing to close gaps and taking on flanking attacks.
Minefields are tanks worst nightmares. They have to breach at least 2 obstacles to clear the minefield. 1) find the mines. 2) clear the mines. If they fail, then, they have a dead tank and 2 more obstalces - the dead tank and the crater that the mine created.
As a historical note, the prepared minefields at Fulda Gap were some of the most innovative. Mines are clustered (ie daisy chain to explode in a series) with the trigger mine deep into the minefield. In this method, when the trigger mine is hit, an entire enemy unit is within the minefield and subject to all the effects of a cluster of mines going off at the same time.
Chimo
A few other things that have to be thrown into the mix are TACAIR, and the organic Bradley's of a US taskforce, as well as their dismounts.
War is a team game. If a T-80U faces an Abrams it will be part of a larger overall battle, and not the key to victory anyway.
It will be all those little engagements added up that make the difference.
BTW, i don't know if you're aware of this TNP, but US tankers regularly practice missile evasion drills, for just such scenarios.
You should all read Kahalani's "Heights of Courage" about Valley of Tears battle on the Golan in 73. He brings up all the points raised, though in the context of heavily outnumbered, but better trained defenders with the high ground. He captures a commander's thinking and the inevitable confusion of battle.
Would it be fair to say that both fronts in 73 were the last time that relatively equal forces of armor opposed each other? I can't seriuosly count either Iraq war as a test of armor doctrine.
Pa'am Tzanhan, Tamid Tzanhan.
More like the PHD playing quiz game against a freshman.
Your look more lost than a bastard child on fathers day.
well yea, of course.
I am not comparing battlefield scenarios. Hell, we havent even factored
in the huge advantage the Abrams would have because of the situational
awarness the commanders of the Abrams would have. Like
having the exact location of the enemy (most likely). Let alone all the
supporting elements which are behind an American or NATO armoured thrust. Obviously the over all advantage rests with the western military on
this account.
But by themselves, in a one-one scenario I was saying that the Russian and new Chinese tanks would not be completely helpless against western tanks. Especially when the are dug-in.
By the way, food for thought:
In a scenario with Pakistani vs Western tanks another factor
would have to be considered. Pakistan has developed a new multi-spectrol
como net which is anti-visual, not just to the naked eye, but to Radar,
IR and NV. It is not just for stationary tanks, but is active on mobile formations as well. So the advantage of the M1A2-SEP for example would
be countered since it would be harder for the M1 to detect it from its max
detection range. So things like things have to be factored in the battle
scenarios.
Just a little statistics, so you know
In former "Western" Germany only 17% of battefields have visibility ranges up to 1000 m. But 56% - up to 200 m only.
p.s. huge disadvanntage of the M1 is it's weight - 80 tons. It is a great machine... if you can get it to the battlefield, and not to sink in some swamp or dirt.
The heaviest varient is not quite 68 tons actually.
Your look more lost than a bastard child on fathers day.
Sorry. But anyway, compare to the 46t T-80u
I'd rather have a unit of 5 M1A2's make it into combat covering my unitas oppoesed to 8 T-80U's. (going purely by tonnage) Its more or less the same problem I have with the Stryker Light weight and mobility don't do you a bit of good without survivability which in my opinion the Stryker doesn't have period, and the T-80 wouldn't have against and comparable Tank.
Your look more lost than a bastard child on fathers day.
Well, it is a matter of your personal preferences.
About surviveability... do not forget "Arena"
The US has had radar scattering camo nets for years. All camo nets help to break up the outline of the vehicle, even through FLIR.
Nothing new there.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: