NationStates Jolt Archive

I currently have quantities of both designations of Abrams tank, THE BEST Tank in the world!

Statistics: (Specs for M1A2, also mostly applicable to M1A1)

Type: Main Battle Tank (MBT)
Weight: Combat- 125,890lb's (57,154kg's)
Ground Pressure: 13.65lb/in2 (0.96kg/cm2) (The '2' means 'squared')
Length: (Gun Forward) 32.3ft (9.8m)
Hull Length: 25.9ft (7.9m)
Width: 11.9ft (3.7m)
Height: 9.5ft (2.9m)
Powerplant: Textron Lycoming AGT-1500 gas-turbine, developing 1500bhp at 30,000rpm
Road Speed: 41mph (67kmh)
Range: 300miles (480km)
Vertical Obstacle: 3.5ft (1.1m)
Trench: 9.0ft (2.74m)
Gradient: 60%
Armour: Chobham
Armament: 1xM256 Rheinmetall 120mm Smoothbore Gun; 1xM240 7.62mm Co-Axial Machine Gun; 1xM2 HB 12.7mm Machine Gun (Commanders Hatch); 1xM240 Machine Gun (Loaders Hatch)
Crew: Four-Commander, Gunner, Loader, Driver
Quantity (M1A1): 9000
Quantity (M1A2): 1780
Price (M1A1): 4.0 Million USD ($)
Price (M1A2): 4.5 Million USD ($)

Hurry, stocks won't last!

The abrams is nopt the best tank in the world.

This is NOT a thread about the best tank in the world.

It has been proven in combat and has been agreed by Military experts worldwide, inluding Janes, that the M1A2 Abrams MBT IS the best tank in the world. I do not think that you are one of those military experts so if you're not buying the tanks then please don't post.

:bump1:

Did they forget the bit where they are claimmed to be the invinsible tank but a patrol of them get mashed by some blocks with rpgs and heavy machine guns. also iv got the janes tank and combat recognition guide infront of me and it does not say its the best tank in the world. but anyway thats my view

This is NOT a thread about the best tank in the world.

It has been proven in combat and has been agreed by Military experts worldwide, inluding Janes, that the M1A2 Abrams MBT IS the best tank in the world. I do not think that you are one of those military experts so if you're not buying the tanks then please don't post.
1) Experts can't 'prove' anything as their 'proof' is merely opinion.

2) The only combat situation they have been in was against export versions of an M60 Patton rival crewed by barely trained conscripts who didnt much like their commanders.

The Challenger II has better armour, the Leopard II (or is it III?) is quite big.

The challenger 2 i think is classed as the better tank as it has better armour and a better gun. the leopard III is the current version i think and its a good tank.

In no place did i say the guides say it, i also have the 2003 guide.
It would defeat the purpose of the guide to say whether it is the best or not, Janes reference manuals are neutral, that is their purpose.

I refer you to the most informative text on Tanks and Armour in General, this is considered THE text on the subject btw, 'The Encyclopedia of Tanks and Armoured Fighting Vehicles'- Christopher F. Foss. This book is considerably larger and more well informed than the sharpish Janes manual.
In this book, it does plainly say that the Abrams is the best MBT in the world, it mentions this either in the Introduction or at the Introduction to the American Tanks section.

Now please, if you don't mind i am trying to SELL TANKS, NOT have an argument/debate about them.

Your wrong though thats false advertising thats illigal. the Challenger has a better main gun and armour so how can the abrams be better also. rpgs bounce of challengers whilst they wreck abrams.

oh and its the leopard II sorry my bad not the Leopard III

Oh here we go again, have you people got nothing better to do.

Go on, ask an expert, they'll re-affirm my position.

The Challenger 2 is undoubtedly a great tank, but if you had read your facts you would fine in Oman in 2003 during Trials they had many problems with the sand filters and the tanks kept breaking down due to this and other minor technical faults, the largest minor fault being the failing Haylon fire-dousing system. The Challeneger 1 and 2 are not even British designs, they were commissioned by the Sultan of Oman.

The Leopard 3, is a very old tank, the current version is the Leopard2A6, not the Leopard 3, and the A6 has been said to be on a very close par with the Abrams M1A2 but it cannot surpass the survivability of an M1A2 SEP, or the newer M1A2 AIM XX1 (Abrams Integrated Management System for the 21st Century).

Now as for
"2) The only combat situation they have been in was against export versions of an M60 Patton rival crewed by barely trained conscripts who didnt much like their commanders."

I guess your talking about Iraqi's? Hmm...let me see, little, if any, Iraqi tanks were M60's, at least not after the First Gulf War. The Bulk of Iraqi Tanks were small numbers of Tigers (Iraqi name for T-80 MBT), large numbers of the T-72 and T-62 and T-55's, as well as BMP 1 and 2's.

The Iraqi Republican Guard forces were NOT conscripts and they knew how to crew their tanks. Not many conscripts had T-72's, all Conscript based Armour forces were issued with older designs, RG divisions were issued with better tanks and equipment.

I think that if you made such idiotic statements your one person who hasn't read into the recent Iraq war. You simply watched it on the News and though 'Damm, that was sure easy.'
If you think that then pick up a book and educate yourself, try 'Thunder Run', by David Zucchino, that'll surely make you re-consider your position.


NOW PLEASE STOP GOING ON ABOUT TANKS, I AM TRYING TO SELL TANKS, LEAVE IT AT THAT.

Abrams= not only not the best tank, but compared to newer ones, closer to the worst.

Alright, first off, he said "proven in combat". Its not proven by experts, it was proven in combat that it is a formidable tank.

And second off... The M60 is actually a formidable tank, not on par with the M1A2 but it is roughly equal to an unmodified T-72 and anything below it. There's a reason the Israelis still use the M-60 as the chassis to many of their tanks, its a sturdy and strong design. And crewed by conscripts? The US trains its soldiers far better than any other nation on this planet. Sure, some are close and some are not, but chances are, an M1A2 is gonna face an older tank with a haphazard crew.

And about that being the only combat they've seen, they participated in the second gulf war. Which, of course, there wasn't much for tank combat, but they've proven effective against the little resistence there was.


===========================

Remember, a tank was designed for tank on tank combat. EVERY tank has its weaknesses. Men on foot can easily take advantage of those. Since a turret can move fast enough and chances are, the commander, loader, and gunner are all in the turret and not manning their crew served weapons, the people are gonna be able to get in and fire on the engine manifold area. This will effectively neutralize ANY tank. Tanks are also designed to allow their crew to survive, so... Any attack on a tank is meant to destroy the tank first and save the crew.

============================

Now onto armor and armament. Some tanks have better armor... Some have bigger guns... But do they have advanced fire control and computers that can be found in the Abrams? No. Those fire control computers give the Abrams to fire first and to fire with deadly accuracy. With its fire on the move capability (most modern tanks now have it), its advanced fire control, it can possibly defeat most tanks before they have a chance to maneuver to open fire. Armor can't make up for the technological shortcomings of a tank.

Oh, and better armament? The bigger the guns the less the firing rate. And what's the use of a massive gun with horrible fire control? Sure, if you're lucky enough to hit the Abrams, then it may bite the dust. But hitting it is the problem, as chances are, you'll be evacuating your tank after a shell kills the driver and renders you a sitting duck.

Armor and armament don't just define a tank. The M1A2 also has speed, agility, and silence (turbine), which gives it even more advantages on the field.

So... Next time, take some of this into account.

I will take 500 M1A2s and the money will be wired as soon as the purchase is confirmed.

Thank you iron blood. in you view what is the best tank out at this momment?
"they were commissioned by the Sultan of Oman." thats why they only had 38 of them whilst the uk had 386 ordered. if you look england isnt exactly a desert region hence the sort of lack for a sand filter. but yes i agree there are problems with that and the radios in the challenger. but im just sayin in combat the challenger came out on top all the time if my memory serves me rightly. whilst the abrams didnt.

*Also, forgot to add- They tell you a Challenger II has the ability to have RPGs just bounce off of its armor. The same thing happens with an Abrams. What they don't tell you, is that, the RPG's shutting down Abrams are fired from behind and into the engine area. Meaning it either overheats the engine, knocks something out of alignment, or something like that. If the same scenario occured to a Challenger II, it'd be shut down too. Only, with the Challenger II it'd be shut down PERMANENTLY! The Abrams engine can easily be replaced by sliding it out and dropping a new one in. In 1 to 2 hours, you've gut a fully functional Abrams. Formerly 'incapacitated', now active. Meanwhile, the damaged Challenger II will be hauled back to its base where they'll strip it of every usable piece...


The Abrams has the ability known as 'Survivability'. Something alot of today's tanks lack because they believe a superior gun will defeat the enemy or superior armor will defeat the enemy's shells. One good hit on a Challenger II will shut her down forever. A good hit on an Abrams (well, to the enemy) can be repaired within a day (assuming parts are nearby).

Challenger has the same sized gun as and abrams i think. the advantage of the challengers gun is its riffled makeing more accurate. look im just sayin you cant call the abrams the best tank in the world.

*Also, forgot to add- They tell you a Challenger II has the ability to have RPGs just bounce off of its armor. The same thing happens with an Abrams. What they don't tell you, is that, the RPG's shutting down Abrams are fired from behind and into the engine area. Meaning it either overheats the engine, knocks something out of alignment, or something like that. If the same scenario occured to a Challenger II, it'd be shut down too. Only, with the Challenger II it'd be shut down PERMANENTLY! The Abrams engine can easily be replaced by sliding it out and dropping a new one in. In 1 to 2 hours, you've gut a fully functional Abrams. Formerly 'incapacitated', now active. Meanwhile, the damaged Challenger II will be hauled back to its base where they'll strip it of every usable piece...


The Abrams has the ability known as 'Survivability'. Something alot of today's tanks lack because they believe a superior gun will defeat the enemy or superior armor will defeat the enemy's shells. One good hit on a Challenger II will shut her down forever. A good hit on an Abrams (well, to the enemy) can be repaired within a day (assuming parts are nearby).
Actualy, the reason everyone said the RPGs destroyed the tanks, was becuase the crew tossed thermite grenades inside to keep the bad guys from using them, hence, the Iraqi propaganda saying that the tank aws destroyed.

On review of your nation i have found that you are unable to afford 500 M1A2's.

Your budget has been reviewed here:
http://www.pipian.com/stuffforchat/gdpcalc.php?nation=Alejandro%20Rey&defense=10&defenseprovided=10&militarybudget=10

and it has been concluded that an order of 500 M1A2's, costing 2.25 Billion USD ($) would probably bankrupt you.

As well as this your military spendings say that you cannot have 500 at yout level, you can have 441, but in my opinion this would put your nation, economically, in the red.

Thus i'll offer you 100 Abrams M1A2's at 450 Million USD ($), if you accept i will begin the shipment immediately upon your confirmation.

-COH-

Well, actually, RPGs hit the engines and rendered them useless first. And any the crew deemed 'unrepairable' were destroyed. Otherwise, you'll read somewhere that most of the tanks hit with RPGs survived to fight on (with new engines).

I know the tank in question here.

It was commanded by a SFC Diaz of the 3rd Infantry Division, Tusker Brigade, said incident happend on April 5th when they made a Thunder Run to Saddam International Airport.

The Tank had the words 'Cojone eh?' written on the barrel.

The crew beleived that a Recoilless rifle round hit the rear grill, igniting the batteries into an unstoppable fire.

The tank was abandoned and Thermite grenades were thrown in to destroy the electronics, then another Abrams whacked a HEAT round into it, and then an A10 pilot hit it with a Maverick ATG missile.

Even that didn't destroy the shape.

Then the Iraqi's take a Camera crew, after the Thunder Run, and go down to the tank. They tell everyone it was destroyed by RPG's, which it wasn't, and that the damage done was by RPG's, which it wasn't, all the while the words 'Cojone Eh?' or 'Yeah Right' were in plain view on the still intact barrel, which has more range and can use HEAT and SABOT and MPAT rounds, whereas the Challenger's gun can only use HESH ammo, High Explosive Squashed Head, which is not as effective, and hence is only used by the Brits and Indians to any great effect.

The book i got the info on the Abrams in question was called 'Thunder Run' by David Zuchinno.

explain these then.
http://images.google.com/images?q=destroyed+abrams&ie=UTF-8&hl=en

abrams combat experience- against iraqi copies of the t-72 (even worse than regular t-72) with grade F steel construction, horrific crews, and in most cases, T-54's (mid 40's tech). The abrams is the best tank in the world! It ahs taken on tanks designed in the mid 40's and won!

T-72 nicely owns an unmodified M60, which was a high profile piece of shit. T-72 is superior in every way except FCS anyway to M60.

im not mentioning that the Iraqis have killed abrams using everything from 23mm guns (ahahaha) to mines to RPG's.

Alright, first off, he said "proven in combat". Its not proven by experts, it was proven in combat that it is a formidable tank.

And second off... The M60 is actually a formidable tank, not on par with the M1A2 but it is roughly equal to an unmodified T-72 and anything below it. There's a reason the Israelis still use the M-60 as the chassis to many of their tanks, its a sturdy and strong design. And crewed by conscripts? The US trains its soldiers far better than any other nation on this planet. Sure, some are close and some are not, but chances are, an M1A2 is gonna face an older tank with a haphazard crew.

I was refering to the Iraquis... and your 'it doesnt really matter what equipment it has' statement is just idiotic. I think some of this has something to do with Americans not being able to admit that something they make isnt the best...

EDIT: And I said M60 RIVAL. Please read before ciritising. Look Im tired and dont want to argue about this...

explain these then.
http://images.google.com/images?q=destroyed+abrams&ie=UTF-8&hl=en
Just read the stuff we just said for an explanation.

Umm...are you REALLY THAT DUMB?

A few of those pictures are of the tank in question, each is of the same tank taken from different angles and viewpoints, the rest are so small i can't see anything, and some of the small ones are from Iraqi TV, and could easily have been faked.

The only other tank i heard of being disabled by Enemy Fire was an Original M1 Abrams, built in the 1980's with a smaller gun, 90mm. As far as I heard it was from the USMC but i didn't see any pictures nor hear any solid proof.

Another tank had its gun disabled on April 5th because the gun tube hit a Highwar abutment and spun the turret round about 19 times, tearing the gun from its connections, although still connected to the tank it could not fire and rendering the tank unable to fire its Main and Co-Ax guns. The tank kept going and some pictures of it, if any, may have appeared to show it as if it was disabled, yet it wasn't.

What is your problem with the Abrams anyway?

Also, the Iraqi's manufactured LESS THAN 100 T-72 tanks, the rest were bought during the 80's from the USSR.
If your going to argue, get your facts in order and stop spouting such idiotic statements.

The only Challenger Two destroyed, was taken out by another one in Friendly Fire, something our american posters should know a lot about. The reason they had the desert trials was to find the faults in them so they'd be fine in a real war situation.

Denbighshire's Minister of State for the Popular Defence has been authorised to offer, in accordance with a previous order, $450 million USD in exchange for 100 M1A2-SEP Abrams tanks, to be wired upon receipt of the shipment.

So... how's the T-90 then?

Tanks are obsolescent. That is all.

So will your nation be when we put it back in the stone age.

What difference does it make for you if M1A1 kills T-72? Destroying tanks of the previous generation is not combat experience. :rolleyes:

By your standards, if a country with T-90's invaded a country with M60's and slaughtered the M60's, T-90 has combat experience and is excellent.

The following tanks are better than Abrams:
T-80UM2 Black Eagle
Leopard 2A6EX
STRV-122
T-80U/UK/UD/UE/UM/UM1
Leclerc
Challenger-2U
Merkava MK4


Have a nice day.

thats alot of wrecked tanks whilst there are no pics of challengers

Eh no, you see the Chiorny Oriol, or Black Eagle, is not a T-80 designation, as some idiots think. The only photo's of it are of it at a military expo near Moscow where the turret is covered. Note the turret shape, almost identical to that of the Abrams.

The we have the Leopard2A6, note also how they've changed the front armour to be angular, like the abrams, because the former vertical shape at the front was too vulnerable.
All T80 versions are obsolete, replaced by the T90 which is an Airborne classed MBT, also obsolete by Western standards. The Leclerc is older than the Abrams and does not have any new Computer systems, and the auto-loader is much slower than a manual system, because the gun has to go horizontal before a shell can be loaded, and then returned to the previous elevation.

The Challenger 2 is on a certain par with the Abrams.

The Merkava 4 is also on a par, but the Israeli's are behind in their computer technology.

Now, the order.

Order: Denbighshire
Quantity: 100
Price: 450 Million USD ($)

Order Confirmed

Money received

Shipment will arrive in about 1 NS month.

-COH-

The Merkava 4 now thats a kool tank i think it looks great as far as tanks go. its computer systems arnt the best but hell its got potential to be a great tank.

God, reading your biased, propaganda fueled posts drops my iq at least 2 dozen points. Im not even going to bother proving to you why your wrong and let you continue thinking your tanks are l33t only to find them defeated by a Kornet ATGM, T-80U, T-90, T-95, T-90UM2, T-84U, M-2001, LeClerc 2010, Leo 2A6EX, etc etc.

Arguing with you is hard. But Im stubborn.

Eh no, you see the Chiorny Oriol, or Black Eagle, is not a T-80 designation, as some idiots think. The only photo's of it are of it at a military expo near Moscow where the turret is covered. Note the turret shape, almost identical to that of the Abrams. <----http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t80/index.html "T-80UM2

The latest version of the T-80U being developed is the T-80UM2, which is designed to engage targets while stationary or on the move. It has a new all-welded cast steel turret with ERA on the hull front and turret, an automatic loading system and relocation of the ammunition to the turret bustle for improved survivability. Other improvements include a computerised fire control system, thermal imaging sights for commander and gunner, and the Arena active countermeasures system." Looky. It just describes the Black Eagle. Although I will give you that the Black Eagle's second version with 7 roadwheels, extended chassis, 135mm gun, has less to do with T-80U than the first.


The we have the Leopard2A6, note also how they've changed the front armour to be angular, like the abrams, because the former vertical shape at the front was too vulnerable. So what. They changed it. And now its better. its gun is also a newer, better model.


All T80 versions are obsolete, replaced by the T90 which is an Airborne classed MBT, also obsolete by Western standards. You some sort of gorilla? T-90 was chosen over T-80U in russian service because it was cheaper, not because it was better! Also, Russia has only fielded 375 T-90's, compared to about 5,000 T-80U's.

The Leclerc is older than the AbramsNo it isnt. It entered service with the French army in 1992, while abrams entered service in 1981, or for the M1A1 with 120mm gun, 1985.

and does not have any new Computer systems, and the auto-loader is much slower than a manual system, because the gun has to go horizontal before a shell can be loaded, and then returned to the previous elevation. The Leclerc can engage 6 targets in 30 seconds (i.e 12 rpm fire). The abrams is 15 rpm. That is not "much faster". Oh, and yes it does got new comp systems, as well as the best sights and fire control.

The Challenger 2 is on a certain par with the Abrams.Its better than abrams because the Brits put additional amror on it.

The Merkava 4 is also on a par, but the Israeli's are behind in their computer technology.No, they got the best FCS in the world, the Merkava can even engage helicopters.

iron blood im in awe of you knowlage mate nice on ethanks for backing me up.

On review of your nation i have found that you are unable to afford 500 M1A2's.

Your budget has been reviewed here:
http://www.pipian.com/stuffforchat/gdpcalc.php?nation=Alejandro%20Rey&defense=10&defenseprovided=10&militarybudget=10

and it has been concluded that an order of 500 M1A2's, costing 2.25 Billion USD ($) would probably bankrupt you.

As well as this your military spendings say that you cannot have 500 at yout level, you can have 441, but in my opinion this would put your nation, economically, in the red.

Thus i'll offer you 100 Abrams M1A2's at 450 Million USD ($), if you accept i will begin the shipment immediately upon your confirmation.

-COH-

was that 10% a number you put in, or was able to take from somewhere within nationstates?

You are really dumb if you beleive ERA Panels are better than 3rd Generation Chobham Armour.

The reason the Brits put additional armour blocks onto their Challenger tanks was because they do not use 3rd Gen Armour, only the newbuild Challenger 2's do. As well as that the use of a rifled gun on the Challenger was a mistake because it cannot fire APFSDS (Armour-piercing fin stablised discarding sabot), HEAT or MPAT (Multi Purpose Anti Tank) rounds. The British (and also the Indians) use HESH-AT rounds, High Explosive Squashed Head. Sceintifically speaking it is not as effective, and this has also been proven in combat, although the new HESH munitions can kill old Russian armour they have trouble penetrating ceramic armour, especially if it is re-enforced like on the M1A2 (HAP).

The HAP is the Abrams Heavy Armour Package. Here's a direct quote from 'The Directory of Modern American Weapons'-David Miller.

"In the HAP certain parts of the hull, particularly at the front, are fabricated from a new type of armour, essentially depleted uranium (DU) encased in steel, which has a density of some 250% greater than normal steel and is intended to counter the latest kinetic energy penetrators."

The T-80 is only now getting stabilisers for firing on the move? That is truly pathetic, the M48A3 had that back in the early 1980's.
Also 'welded-cast steel' has been proven to be much less effective than ceramic armour, even when its caked with ERA as the Russians tend to do, showing just how badly they need it. But it is proven to be useless against SABOT which pierces straight throught it.

" a computerised fire control system, thermal imaging sights for commander and gunner," Funnily enough the Abrams has had these since its inception, the M60 had thermal imaging.

The gun on the new Leopard is the M256 Rheinmetall, same as the Abrams.

The T-90 IS obsolete, it has been obsolete for years, it doesn't matter how cheap it is. And, yes, the Leclerc IS older than the M1A2 Abrams.

As well as this, Manual Loading systems are much faster than auto-loaders and have won out against against an auto loader that was supposed to go into the Merkava 4. The Brits also considered an Auto-loader for the Challenger two, but again due to reliability and rpm trouble it was dropped.

The best sights and fire controls systems were proven to be at home in the Abrams. Nealry every text on the Abrams mentions this fact.

Funnily enough, in the Tank simulations for the US Army they practice shooting down Helicopters, i've seen them doing it. They also go through the drills for firing at Helo's when on ranges. The Abrams CAN effectively enegage Helo's, heck with the right crew a friggin T-34 from WW2 could knock out a helo.

Now, i am trying to sell tanks, the arguing is becoming pedantic at best, so drop it.

The British (and also the Indians) use HESH-AT rounds, High Explosive Squashed Head. Sceintifically speaking it is not as effective, and this has also been proven in combat, although the new HESH munitions can kill old Russian armour they have trouble penetrating ceramic armour, especially if it is re-enforced like on the M1A2 (HAP).
Actually they use HESH against fortifications and infantry, APDS (it's not fin stabalised but so what) is used against tanks. Yes this is less effective than APFSDS fired by an Abrams, but really it makes little difference as Challengers are only ever going to be deployed against the lower T-XXs.

Thats not the point behind what i said though. If a Challenger did come up against a Ceramic armoured tank, there are a lot more now on the International market in many nations, then the HESH rounds would not be very effective, unless they hit the weak-spot of the tank.

Its pointless to argue with someone who gets their facts from American Propaganda sites. Your worse than the Iraqi Information Minister.

http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw000531_1_n.shtml

Wonder why the godly Abrams didnt beat the 2a5, which by all means is worse than the 2a6...

Also, Leclerc fires faster than abrams. Abrams does not fire 15rpm, more like 7rpm, whereas LeClerc can reach 12rpm, not to mention the autoloader doesnt get tired. The Leclerc has a 120mm L52 gun compared to the L44 of the Abrams, the LeClerc can move faster, drive longer, has better electronics with the Finders system, can fire the polynege which has more range than any other tank fired ATGM, has the Galix smoke protection system which is much better than the abrams smoke protection, the armour of both tanks are state secrets so they cant be compared, though French SNPE ERA is better than the ERA that can be used on the Abrams I believe, The LeClerc has much better fire on the move capabilities(Talking to actual M1a2 tankers, they admit they usually slow down alot or stop when they fire. LeClerc has no need). The LeClerc is not older than the M1 series in total. LeClerc is a much better tank.

Funnily enough, about everything you just said is completely and utterly...wrong.

The Auto-Loader, an ingenious design or...not?

Not.., because, a main gun that requires an auto-loader has to move from its current elevation down to 0 degrees, i.e. completely horizontal, where the round can be placed in the breech. The the gun has to return to its former elevation, taking a lot more time than a well trained gunner. An auto loader cannot use adrenaline, thus a human in battle, when called upon, can load faster than a machine. As well as that, an Auto-loader, although it can be stopped, usually means that a round is always in the breech, thus if the tank takes a hit straight onto the gun the round is in danger of going up.

The Abrams M1A1 and M1A2 Main gun is a M256 120mm Smoothbore Cannon, the best production smoothbore in the world at the moment.

The Leclerc CAN move faster because it is a LIGHTER TANK. The Abrams does not fire ATGM's. However, some Abrams can mount TOW rocket launcher racks on the turret roof, which can beat the french fried ATGM.

As well as that the Abrams DOES NOT USE ERA. It is Chobham Generation 3 Ceramic Armour, the best, and scientifically proven, armour in the world.
ERA is obsolete because APFSDS rounds, or SABOT rounds, simply cut through the ERA like a warm knife through butter, also proven in trials.
The Abrams HAP program, Heavy Armour Package uses Depleted Uranium encased in Steel with a density of 250%, able to stop the latest Kinetic energy penetrators (i am repeating myself here because you obviously missed that post).

Fire on the move facilities are the same on most tanks, tankers like to slow down to fire because it gives ever greater accuracy, firing while going at 45mph reduces accuracy whether there are stabilisers or not. (Btw, when did you ever talk to an Abrams Tanker?)

There are about 200 original M1 Abrams (with 90mm guns) still in usage, all by the USMC. Thus the majority of Abrams tanks are M1A2, or M1A1's with SEP and HAP making them M1A2's. Thus the Leclerc is older than some Abrams tanks.

And to finish, the Abrams IS a better tank, this thread is for BUYING TANKS, NOT ARGUING ABOUT THEM.

General Cooper here on orders from President Ellis of Jaminme.

I have the proper money to buy 144 Abrams M1A2's.

If you are interested in the possible sale of said tanks, then respond quickly.

Order: Jaminme
Quantity: 144 (M1A2)
Price: 648 Million USD ($)

Since you have not shown money i cannot complete the order, you must confirm before the order can go through.

Btw, New Build M1A2's are now avaliable at the same price, so the Quantity in stock is no longer a matter, you can order as many as you can buy. However, M1A1's remain storage quanity sales only, limited avaliability.

-COH-

I just had to add this... After reading the article provided by Chellis, I noticed a few things... The only reason (I could find) the Leopard 2A5 won was because of a deep fording capability. If you actually read it, it stated the M1A2 had the best firing results (therefore performing the best in the hunter-killer engagements) against the LeClerc, Leopard 2A5, Challenger 2E, T-80U, and the T-84.

The Leopard 2A5 came out on top only by using technical and operational score (maintenance, speed, fuel consumption, engine let-off, ammunition usage, etc.). And even then, the Abrams came in second.

:bump:

We will by 20 Abrams.
Broken down:
5 Abrams M1A2
5 Abrams M1A2SEP
5 Abrams M1A2HAP
5 Abrams M1A2XXI or whatever it is.

Unfortunately you are on a COH blacklist and nothing can be sold to you.

-COH-

Oh, and why am I on a blacklist?
Everything I've said about the M1A2 was ooc, so if you want to carry it to IC, then your godmodding bud.

I'd be God-modding if i said i had 200 Billion Trillion Aircraft Carriers.

I can refuse to sell to you if i wish, i with-hold that right.

So why am I black listed? Screw it, I'll just make my own.

BUMP

NOTE: Now selling Abrams to order, no order too large, manufactured new on receipt of order. Still LIMITED stocks of M1A1 MBTs'.

I'll take 100. Money wired upon confirmation

I currently have quantities of both designations of Abrams tank, THE BEST Tank in the world!

Statistics: (Specs for M1A2, also mostly applicable to M1A1)

Type: Main Battle Tank (MBT)
Weight: Combat- 125,890lb's (57,154kg's)
Ground Pressure: 13.65lb/in2 (0.96kg/cm2) (The '2' means 'squared')
Length: (Gun Forward) 32.3ft (9.8m)
Hull Length: 25.9ft (7.9m)
Width: 11.9ft (3.7m)
Height: 9.5ft (2.9m)
Powerplant: Textron Lycoming AGT-1500 gas-turbine, developing 1500bhp at 30,000rpm
Road Speed: 41mph (67kmh)
Range: 300miles (480km)
Vertical Obstacle: 3.5ft (1.1m)
Trench: 9.0ft (2.74m)
Gradient: 60%
Armour: Chobham
Armament: 1xM256 Rheinmetall 120mm Smoothbore Gun; 1xM240 7.62mm Co-Axial Machine Gun; 1xM2 HB 12.7mm Machine Gun (Commanders Hatch); 1xM240 Machine Gun (Loaders Hatch)
Crew: Four-Commander, Gunner, Loader, Driver
Quantity (M1A1): 9000
Quantity (M1A2): 1780
Price (M1A1): 4.0 Million USD ($)
Price (M1A2): 4.5 Million USD ($)

Hurry, stocks won't last!



I'll By the rest Of them. Ive Got a Titanium Plating Facillity in Racoon Valley
Then I'll Resell thim

Order: Drunken Deli Operators
Quantity: 100
Price: 450 Million USD ($)

Order Confirmed

Money Accepted

Your order should be complete within 3-4 NS Months.

-COH-


**********************************************************

Tennesee Fans, you cannot afford more than 850 M1A1's.
Check your GDP before buying anything, it saves time:

http://www.pipian.com/stuffforchat/gdpcalc.php?nation=Tennesee%20Fans&defense=10&defenseprovided=10&militarybudget=10

**********************************************************

For any newer nations wishing to buy tanks please check your GDP and military budget before placing an order.

You can check it here:

http://members.optusnet.com.au/caesarlike/gdpform2.html

Thanks.

-COH-

Bump

Bump

Bump

Dhabi will buy 576 Abrams M1A2

Order: Dhabi
Quantity: 576
Price: 2.592 Billion USD ($)

Order Confirmed

Money Received

Your order should take up to 5 NS Months to Complete

-COH-

Fascist Scotland is in dire need of re-armament quickly, and shall pay up front the cost for every remaining M1A1.

Order: Fascist Scotland
Quantity: 9000 M1A1
Price: 36 Billion USD ($)
Discount: 10%
Revised Price: 32.4 Billion USD ($)

FS, i realise you can afford this but i strongly suggest that you wait for a good while until you decide to buy anything else as this could cause serious economic problems.

Order Confirmed

Money Received

This order should take between 2 and 3 NS months to complete.

-COH-

We understand that, but our recent seccesion from England has left us unarmed completely, and we thank you for your advice.

Bump

:mp5: i'm a new nation so i mite not be able to afford 100 M1A1 but i'll try it eney way can i have 100 M1A1 :headbang:

Order: Pidgeon Land
Quantity: 100 M1A1
Price: 400 Million USD ($)

Order Confirmed

Money Received

The order should arrive within 1 NS Month

-COH-

Bump

Bump

Bump