M1 gets .6 gallons to the mile, with a maintenance schedule that requires a check to be completed every 12 hours, even in combat. Failure to complete the maintenance check can result in engine failures that cannot be corrected in the field. At least it looks cool though.
okay i understand there are practical limitations to building and maintaining a 60 ton cannon on treads but every 12 hours??
They need to rev the engine up to a certain speed to blast sand particles out of the filter every twelve hours. It can be done from inside the tank and only takes a couple of minutes.
Getting 
because I had to stop and rev my tank loudly for several minutes in an active war zone
average american suv/pickup truck
Forty rods to the hogshead
tankman could never happen in the US because it's that much harder to climb on the hood of a M1, and the M1 wouldn't stop anyways.
M1 would also probably destroy any of the poorly maintained streets in America
American SUV brain is so bad it's even spread to their tank designers
other way around. there's a reason the hummer was so popular.
The T-72 fires a slightly larger round than the M1A1, 125mm vs 120mm, and much larger than the original M1 which fired 105mm. Same amount of ammo too.
But I guess you have to make room for that dump-ass jet engine in the M1.
The m1 abrams is a superior tank, in a nazi masturbatory fantasy where maintenance, logistics, cost of manufacture, and crossing bridges doesn't matter.
Does cost of manufacture matter to them? The Abrams is roughly double the cost of a T-90 and the US has bought and built so many of them the army asked congress to stop (and congress said no).
The US army also has a fuck ton of bridge layers attached to their armoured divisions.
Us tank doctrine isn't developed around extended periods of independent operation, so while maintenance is an issue of expense, it's not one of performance.
even other than bridges heavy tanks have to be much more selective when planning routes, light armored cars and smaller tanks can more or less go in a straight line where heavy vehicles have to avoid certain types of terrain (slopes, mud, narrow passes, etc.) to a greater degree, and take a longer, more circuitous route.
the T-80,90, etc. have less vertical cannon traversal than the abrams as well, this is due to differences in combat doctrine: america/the west expected a defensive war in the cold war times, while russia expected to be on the offense. therefore western vehicles are large, heavy, reliant on stable and secure logistics situations, and designed to fight often from prepared defensive positions, with long range weapon systems and optics to use them accurately, whereas russian vehicles are smaller, cheaper, lighter, more mobile, easier to maintain, with shorter range but versatile weapons (one of the T-series of tanks can launch AT missiles out of its smoothbore cannon IIRC), because they expected to be on the move and their combat doctrine emphasized closing with the enemy to negate optics/range/sensors advantages, they built tanks to be able to use railway cars and roads and maneuver more easily in tight terrain to attack from unexpected directions and outmaneuver defenses.
That the doctrine isn't built around extended periods is actually a problem in the era of combined arms. Not everyone is going to roll over like desert storm.
That the doctrine isn't built around extended periods is actually a problem
what? no country is capable of keeping their troops ahead of their supplies for very long, it'd be bad doctrine to assume you could make up for that with airlifts
Their doctrine only works if things stay maneuver warfare, and not attrition based, is what I'm saying.
when has attrition warfare been about whose troops can operate unsupported for longer? who has more material & men, and the rate at which they are replaced is what 'attrition' analyzes
Sorry, what I'm saying is that tanks are less able to engage in attrition if they are constantly requiring a lot of constant work on them and guzzle more fuel as they move, including as they move from engagement to maintenance and back and forth. And requiring bridge layers and such makes logistics harder, further limiting the use of the vehicles.
reading it back you're correct, operating for over 12 hours without support would be something desirable in a tank, especially in maneuver. just because the US usually has enough support doesn't mean it couldn't be a serious liability if they get into situations support isn't forthcoming
Everyone knows bigger targets are harder to hit
Can we get some love for the comically small Объект 775? It clocks in at an astonishing 1.74m tall.
It gets no love because with modern thermal optics its whole existence has no purpose
the yankee thinks this is a good thing
In field combat, the bigger tank simply eats the smaller one.
The m1 doesn’t sound like a toolbox falling down an infinite flight of stairs though.
Americans build their cars like tanks and builds their tanks like they build their cars.
What's filling all that extra space? Is it way more armored?
It’s mostly just large. 4 crew instead of 3 and an auto-loader, and they focus on extra thick composite armor instead of a mix of that and reactive armor. And meanwhile, the t-72’s an extension of old Soviet philosophy that a smaller tank was that much harder to hit, so everything’s packed as tight as possible, while you could almost have a small cookout in the abrams.
/Edit - And as mentioned elsewhere, the abrams is stupidly heavy at this point and has even gained something like 20 tons over the years. A smaller, lighter tank has less problems crossing softer terrain and getting over rickety bridges.
Yeah but does the t72 get half a mile to the gallon like the Abrams? Fuel economy is for commies and women.
It's due to the gas turbine. Soviet T-80 with gas turbine is also shit at fuel economy (and that was why it didn't become a new main tank instead of T-72).
Does all that composite armor stand up to more modern kinetic rounds and tandem warheads? Surely they get some benefit from it?
That’s one of those things where it’s really hard to tell. They all claim different capabilities but the proof is classified (and even somewhat untested). Composite will give you almost no-gap coverage though, and any nearby folks will be happier if you aren’t waltzing around with outward facing explosives all over your tank. But, many Abrams in Iraq added reactive armor all over the less protected sides to help counter RPG’s, so…
I’d mainly say it’s just easier to retrofit an older tank with ERA blocks than it is to design and produce a whole new one with thicker integrated armor.
Rules (Under review):
