0
In February 2001, GDLS were contracted to supply 240 M1A2 tanks with a system enhancement package (SEP) by 2004. The M1A2 SEP contains an embedded version of the US Army's Force XXI command and control architecture; new Raytheon commander's independent thermal viewer (CITV) with second-generation thermal imager; commander's display for digital colour terrain maps; DRS Techologies second-generation GEN II TIS thermal imaging gunner's sight with increased range; driver's integrated display and thermal management system.
further details can be found at www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Who would win between a M1a1 abrams vs t-80 who wins?
On flat ground, the T-80 is a faster tank. However, if this race included pulling up a hill, the M1 has a significant power-to-weight ratio over the T-80 which would give it an edge. As far as confrontation between the two goes, the M1A1 still has the edge. The British acquired four T-80 tanks, and found it to be only slightly less vulnerable than the older T-72. However, a T-80 is designed to be easy to train a conscript army to use. If you put such a group of soldiers in an M1A1, they wouldn't fare so well.
Which method of transportation that proved to be better than canals?
railroads were better transportation than canals
How could the roman armies defeat so many people?
The Roman armies were able to defeat and conquer so many people because they were better equipped, better trained, and better disciplined. They were simply better than their enemies.The Roman armies were able to defeat and conquer so many people because they were better equipped, better trained, and better disciplined. They were simply better than their enemies.The Roman armies were able to defeat and conquer so many people because they were better equipped, better trained, and better disciplined. They were simply better than their enemies.The Roman armies were able to defeat and conquer so many people because they were better equipped, better trained, and better disciplined. They were simply better than their enemies.The Roman armies were able to defeat and conquer so many people because they were better equipped, better trained, and better disciplined. They were simply better than their enemies.The Roman armies were able to defeat and conquer so many people because they were better equipped, better trained, and better disciplined. They were simply better than their enemies.The Roman armies were able to defeat and conquer so many people because they were better equipped, better trained, and better disciplined. They were simply better than their enemies.The Roman armies were able to defeat and conquer so many people because they were better equipped, better trained, and better disciplined. They were simply better than their enemies.The Roman armies were able to defeat and conquer so many people because they were better equipped, better trained, and better disciplined. They were simply better than their enemies.
Why does some footballs have better grip than others?
Footballs have better grips than others because of the material they are made out of. A football that is made out of leather will have a better grip than a football that is made out of nylon.
Is a commander better than a admiral?
yes. A commander is better then a admiral.
What is better a airsoft Thompson or a airsoft m4?
It all depends of the company making it. A Tokyo Marui M1A1 Thompson would be better than a cheap Wal-Mart M4. But a Classic Army M4 would be better than a CYMA M1A1 Thompson.
Is the Thompson smg better than the PPSh-41?
The M1A1 Thompson submachine gun is better because it has better recoil but the PP-SH gives better bullet penetration. The Thompson is a British gun well as the PP- SH is a Russian gun.
How many m1a1 tanks in service?
More than 2000, less than 3000. (US)
Are US tanks invincible?
Not really, while the m1a1 abrams is the most advanced and best armored tank in the world today with a near perfect track record against grenades, IEDs, and other infantry explosives, it can still be destroyed or damaged by anything larger than a 500lb high explosive round, the Abrams armor also can withstand several direct hits from it's main counter part the t-72
Is the upgaded mg42 better than the m1a1 browning in nazi zombies cod 5?
yes, and upgraded mg42 is better than an upgraded browning because the browning still takes longer to reload and mg42 takes about 3 seconds. Browning takes about 7-8 seconds.
Who would win between a M1a1 abrams vs t-80 who wins?
On flat ground, the T-80 is a faster tank. However, if this race included pulling up a hill, the M1 has a significant power-to-weight ratio over the T-80 which would give it an edge. As far as confrontation between the two goes, the M1A1 still has the edge. The British acquired four T-80 tanks, and found it to be only slightly less vulnerable than the older T-72. However, a T-80 is designed to be easy to train a conscript army to use. If you put such a group of soldiers in an M1A1, they wouldn't fare so well.
How hot does it get inside an Abrams tank?
"Actually the m1a1 Abrams is air tight to prevent leaks and fire damage so to keep the crew from suffocating the Abrams has air conditioning so despite the fact that its 125 degrees in Iraq our tank crews are siting in beautiful 62 degree weather" I can tell you were not a 19K Armor crewman. The abrams does not have air conditioning. Actually, during normal operations the inside of the tank will run a little hotter than the outside air temp. The previous answer was refering to the NBC (nuclear , biological, chemical) system. This system basicly cycles air through the engine to burn of particles, then cools that air and pumps it to the crew compartment via hoses at each station that the crew can attach to their gas mask.
Can you get a comparison of the Challenger 2 and M1A2 Abrams and Leopard 2 tanks?
(This answer has been updated and corrected with the intention to improve the answer by providing unbiased corrections to inaccuracies. I urge the original answerer to please do more extensive research in the future however.) Most comparisons about the best tank are between Abrams and Leopard 2. Which conclude that the Leopard 2 A6/A7 is the best tank for the price. So you get the best tank for each Dollar or Euro your spend (The Leopard 2 is cheaper to buy and operate). However when looking purely at combat performance the Abrams is the best tank. The Challenger 2 is never number 1 in such comparisons. The Abrams is the best protected tank. Like the Challenger 2 it has a variant of Chobham/Burlington armor. But in the case of the Abrams it is improved with a layer of steel encased depleted uranium (DU). The radioactivity of DU is harmless. (Correction: This is contested by Australian evaluations, though the extent of harm is believed to be limited.) It is a very dense material which gives a lot of extra protection against kinetic energy (sabot) projectiles. The older M1A1 Abrams in Desert Storm could survive hits at the front and side turret. Not just of obsolete T-72's but also pointblank 120mm 'Silver bullet' rounds from other Abrams which pass straight trough a T-72 or T-80. (Correction: Proper T-72s did not engage Abram tanks in Desert storm Iraq did not use them. They used local models 'Sadda' 'Assad Babil' and diminished export T-72s.) When Abrams tanks had to be abandoned and destroyed when stuck in mud or were disabled (blown track, engine failure) other Abrams were often unable to do so. With the versions after that (M1A1 HA, M1A1 HC, M1A2, M1A2 SEP, M1A2 SEP TUSK) protection has become even better. During Thunder Run (armored assaults into Baghdad) Abramses were hit to up to 15 anti-tank weapons and kept going. The only one knocked out was a lucky shot which hit a drum of fuel at the rear turret. The fuel got into the engine and caused fire. The (uninjured) crew was unable to get it out and had to leave it behind.(Correction: These anti-tank weapons consisted primarily of SPG-9 recoilless rifles and RPG-7 rocket propelled grenade launchers. Later RPG-29s were found more effective against the Abrams even the front armor and accounted for many the losses the Abrams suffered during the war.) As other tanks can't penetrate Abrams the abandoned tank it was taken out with an air strike to prevent it falling into enemy hands. This required 2 Mavericks and a Hellfire (which are very heavy anti-tank missiles). So the Abrams performed very well in an urban environment (which is usually a bad place for tanks) before it even had an urban warfare kit. The Abrams also has ammunition blow-out panels. When the ammunition is hit (which is at the rear turret) these panels blow out forcing the blast upwards instead of towards the crew compartment. Neither Challenger or Leopard 2 have ammunition blow-out panels so an ammunition hit will mean more damage and more injuries. (Correction: Challenger uses separately loaded ammunition, therefore Blowout panels are not needed. Furthermore Abram's blowout panels are rated for 105mm ammunition and should not be considered protection from 120mm cook offs) The Challenger is also very well protected but not as much as the Abrams. Both have a chobham variant but the Chal has no DU in its armor. (Correction: Chobham armor is just another term for composite armor. The Dorchester Mk2 of the Challenger and the RHA + DU armor of the Abrams are not comparable. Dorchester Mk2 contains Tungsten Carbide and a variety of other materials in a different (though also classified) sandwich. However combat experience has shown that DU armor provides no greater protection.) There have been instances where they have been penetrated by other Challengers (freindly fire). The ammo is seperated but there are no blow-out panels. The Challenger 2 can be regarded as the second best protected tank behind the Abrams. (Correction: In light of the original authors misunderstandings about blowout protection, and armor types their conclusion can be disregarded as well. PS Armor was not penetrated HESH creates spalling of the armor but does not penetrate. Furthermore the tank that suffered from the strike was equipped with older armor thus should be considered in the category of the Abrams A1 which suffered many penetrations during the Iraq wars.) The Leopard 2 has advanced composite armor but no chobham variant or DU. It has been deployed to Afghanistan by Denmark and Canada. In a test with a Leopard 2 A5 which was shot by another it required 7 hits. One could argue that more Abrams has been disabled then Challenger 2. This is not a fair comparison as much more Abrams have been deployed then Challengers. When there are more around there is a bigger chance one is hit. (Correction: As per percentage of tanks hit, Abrams have suffered greater causalities. Thus the mention of their losses is still relevant.) The only Abrams destroyed were hit by 500kg IED underneath which would have destroyed everything. In freindly fire between Abrams there were no casualties (even point blank no penetrations at front and sides). In friendly fire between Challengers 2's there was. (Correction: Not a penetration, and the L/44 M256 is not comparable to other MBT weapons and should not be considered proof positive.) It most however be noted that there is a diffirence between the American Abrams and the export Abrams. The export Abrams does not have the DU armor package. So while the US Abrams has better armor for sure, it could very well be that in armor protection the export Abrams is equal or maybe even less then the Challenger 2. Protection: 1. Challenger 2 2. M1A2 SEP Abrams (Correction: I moved the Abrams down a slot to correct the original authors bias and misunderstandings in order to better reflect the actual protection.) 3. Leopard 2 A6 The Challenger is underpowered. It only has a 1200hp engine compared to 1500hp on Abrams and Leopard 2. The Abrams has better mobility and the Leopard 2 more mobility then Abrams. Winner on mobility. Dutch Leopard 2 reached 110km/h on German training area. Abrams reaches 120km/h with speed limiter removed (but fuel consumption is drasticly increased). (Correction: The Challenger is not underpowered, underpowered implies that it struggles in mobility. It does not. However it does have a less powerful engine. It should be noted that the 1500hp Gas-Turbine is prone to fan sheering and is highly inefficient, future US army tanks will use diesel engines. Finally turning off the engine governor requires work at the motor pool and operating beyond the governed speed will cause damage to the tank. It is highly recommended against by the tanks manual.) Mobility: 1. Leopard 2 A6 2. M1A2 SEP Abrams 3. Challenger 2 Both Abrams and Leopard 2 A6 can destroy a T-90 or T-80U at 4km with a single shot. The Leopard 2 A6 has a better gun but the Abrams has comparable firepower because of DU ammo (just a bit less). (Correction: The difference between tungsten and depleted uranium penetrators is negligible. The difference in force behind the round however from the shorter barrel is not. The challenger 2 is capable of doing the same at 4-5km.) I have no information regarding the Challenger 2 but they want to replace the rifled gun with the German L55 of the Leopard 2 A6 which indicates the firepower is less then the Leo 2 A6. So the Leopard 2 wins with the Abrams following very very close behind. (Correction: The British army evaluated the L55 for a short time, not due to performance requirements but due to ammunition considerations. Ammunition for the L30 was no longer produced and they evaluated adopting a gun with widely available ammunition. Due to the size of the cased 120mm for the L55 however the tank fit less than 10 rounds, instead of the normal 40. The L55 evaluation has since been cancelled and ammunition for the L30 is being produced again. It was never an adoption only an evaluation on a single tank. Information on the L30 is widely available.) Firepower: 1. Leopard 2 A6 2. Challenger 2 (Correction: For the purposes of accuracy, the Challenger and Leopard A6 onward can be consisidered tied. The L30 has much greater range, but the L55 has a greater variety of ammunition. Older leopards however can be considered inferior because they use an L/44.) 3. M1A2 SEP Abrams (Correction: I moved the Abrams down because the abrams uses a 44 caliber gun, with less power Challenger does not win in any of these catagories. Overal I would rank protection as most important as it determines the survival of tank and crew. Abrams is clearly winner here. Second is firepower. Leopard 2 wins here but with a very small margin. In practice its compable. Leopard 2 wins on mobility. I would take any of these tanks to combat. But if I had to pick I would want to be in the Abrams rather then the other 2. So the Abrams is the best tank when judging combat performance. (Correction: See previous corrections. Best mobility focused tank: Leopard 2A4 & A5 [A6, A7 & E are much heavier and less mobile] Best protection focused tank: Challenger 2 Best firepower focused tank: Tie between Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 A6-E
What is was the M1A1 Carbine?
The M1A1 Carbine was an American semi-automatic, gas operated, magazine fed, shoulder weapon designed as a modified varient of the standard M1 Carbine, the difference between the two models is that the M1A1 has a retractable steel wire stock, making it more compact and lighter than the M1 Carbine, while the M1 Carbine had a standard solid wood rifle stock. The M1A1 was issued primarily to American Army paratroopers in Europe due to its light weight, compact wire stock. The M1A1 was fed from a detachable box magazine that contained 15 .30 carbine cartridges, the same as the regular M1 Carbine.
Price of a herbert abrams painting?
Herbert Abrams was a portrait artist who died in 2003. He painted portraits of US presidents. Currently, asking prices on auction sites for an actual Abrams painting are slightly less than 5,000 dollars.
Worlds top 10 tanks in 2009?
This is just my think.. 10 Russia t-90 (it is good to but worse than t-80u- fire is 125mm) 9 japan type 10 (fire and armor is bad but machines are good. 8 Russia t-80u- (fire and armor is better than 10 and 9. fire is 125mm) 7 China type 99 (China's lastest tank. I think fire is 125mm??) 6 Korea k1A1 (Upgrade of K1 120mm ) 5 Israel merkava V ( Many experiment) 4 British Challenger II (Upgrade of Challenger. 120mm) 3 USA M1A2 Abrams SEP ( Maybe it can go to 2 when m1a3 come) 2 Korea K2 black panther (the fire is same [K2 is 120mm L55, Abrams is 120mm L52??]... but armor is more better) 1 Germany Leopard 2A7 (Lastest leopard. 120mm L55)
What the thickest armour on a tank?
Well I'm not entirely sure but the Russian T-72 has 12 inch thick frontal armour however the M1A1 Abrams uses composite materials equivalent to 24 inches. The thickness no longer matters on a tank there are equally strong materials such as that found on the M1A1 Abrams.
