cannon launched atgms have been fielded by plenty of countries. or do you mean strictly us versions? in the wars we've been in, there hasn't really been any need to extend the range of the abrams, has there? either you're in an insurgency and it's a close-quarters affair, or you're in ods and you've got a buttload (technical term) of air support providing that for you. seems like a ce warhead is more appropriate anyway, since you're not going to able to maintain your velocity over that distance
he's the mike sparks of the us army, even though i bet he never served, claiming the abrams lacks chobham armor, or the bradley only has an 1inch of aluminum
Oh god, return of the Dragon guidance method... POP POP POP! At least its flying under its own energy and not using the same explosive charges to propel it... ugh...
There are plans underway for the Bundeswehr to field the LAHAT, and it's already been demonstrated on the Leopard 2; articles . j anes . com/articles/Janes-Defence-Industry-2005/LAHAT-fired-from-Leopard-2 . html
I was referring to the MRM, a 30-year-old+ project now designated the XM1111 --- it's still experimental, despite the passing of three decades and passing of three *eras* of warfare (the Cold War, the Post-Cold War era, and the War on Terror). Contrast that with the LAHAT, which Israel fielded way back in 1993, and is now being used by Romania, India, and Germany. That the US Army hasn't been using the LAHAT since the mid-1990s says a lot about the priorities of it's "leadership".
dude just leave him alone, he's clearly biased about his opinion, which is his right, but the facts are that one source says the abrams does this so it must be true? he also claims that the abrams armor is just laminated steel over DU, when he stated the both the t55am and cheiftan were better tanks i just started laughing, his dare to compare series are a hoot though, most of his claims come from a report written in 1990. abrams+ m1111 FY2013 and integrated into the m1a3
yeah i saw he banned you from commenting on his slideshows, his "Dare to Compare" series are a joke, why yes the cheiftan is a better MBT than the abrams, even though the chieftan was a very unreliable machine, most of his "facts come from a 1990 POGO report, written before gulf war 1 when many in the military did question the tank cause of it's cost, he also compares it operating costs not to contemporary tanks, but to mainly the m60a3
Very showy, but the fact that this technology has been in the works for over 30 years without seeing any operational service indicates it's all show and no go. That, and the KE version was cancelled years ago.
anyway this thing with the others like it for example XM93 are all cancelled no any AT will ever be develop for the M1 Abrams that's very sad if it goes against the T-90MS from 5km it's M829A3 will be completely useless and it won't have a powerful AT to destroy his enemy from this distance meanwhile the T-90MS 9M119 Reflex will penetrate the M1 Abrams armor because of it's penetration 900mm RHAe
you said all that crap as if the Russians would had the upper hand in long distance engagements, they will NOT, the optics on their tanks are utter shit, yeah, they may have ATGM with longer range, but their sights simply cannot keep up, in order to fire their ATGM they have first to identify and acquire a target, and the french sights and FCS in their tanks allow them to only do that in distances far below 3000 meters in daylight conditions...
![[말티푸]걸음아 날 살려라~🐶](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Yt6NLp0hNVc/mqdefault.jpg)
cannon launched atgms have been fielded by plenty of countries. or do you mean strictly us versions? in the wars we've been in, there hasn't really been any need to extend the range of the abrams, has there? either you're in an insurgency and it's a close-quarters affair, or you're in ods and you've got a buttload (technical term) of air support providing that for you. seems like a ce warhead is more appropriate anyway, since you're not going to able to maintain your velocity over that distance
he's the mike sparks of the us army, even though i bet he never served, claiming the abrams lacks chobham armor, or the bradley only has an 1inch of aluminum
@BlacktailDefense It's all about funding. Im sure the army had bigger priorities, I would assume.
Oh god, return of the Dragon guidance method... POP POP POP! At least its flying under its own energy and not using the same explosive charges to propel it... ugh...
There are plans underway for the Bundeswehr to field the LAHAT, and it's already been demonstrated on the Leopard 2;
articles . j anes . com/articles/Janes-Defence-Industry-2005/LAHAT-fired-from-Leopard-2 . html
I was referring to the MRM, a 30-year-old+ project now designated the XM1111 --- it's still experimental, despite the passing of three decades and passing of three *eras* of warfare (the Cold War, the Post-Cold War era, and the War on Terror). Contrast that with the LAHAT, which Israel fielded way back in 1993, and is now being used by Romania, India, and Germany. That the US Army hasn't been using the LAHAT since the mid-1990s says a lot about the priorities of it's "leadership".
dude just leave him alone, he's clearly biased about his opinion, which is his right, but the facts are that one source says the abrams does this so it must be true? he also claims that the abrams armor is just laminated steel over DU, when he stated the both the t55am and cheiftan were better tanks i just started laughing, his dare to compare series are a hoot though, most of his claims come from a report written in 1990. abrams+ m1111 FY2013 and integrated into the m1a3
yeah i saw he banned you from commenting on his slideshows, his "Dare to Compare" series are a joke, why yes the cheiftan is a better MBT than the abrams, even though the chieftan was a very unreliable machine, most of his "facts come from a 1990 POGO report, written before gulf war 1 when many in the military did question the tank cause of it's cost, he also compares it operating costs not to contemporary tanks, but to mainly the m60a3
Very showy, but the fact that this technology has been in the works for over 30 years without seeing any operational service indicates it's all show and no go. That, and the KE version was cancelled years ago.
anyway this thing with the others like it for example XM93 are all cancelled no any
AT will ever be develop for the M1 Abrams that's very sad
if it goes against the T-90MS from 5km it's M829A3 will be completely useless
and it won't have a powerful AT to destroy his enemy from this distance
meanwhile the T-90MS 9M119 Reflex will penetrate the M1 Abrams armor
because of it's penetration 900mm RHAe
Hahahaha that's cute, did you knew that the projectile of the footage hit that T72 in movement while being at 8000 meters of distance...
you said all that crap as if the Russians would had the upper hand in long distance engagements, they will NOT, the optics on their tanks are utter shit, yeah, they may have ATGM with longer range, but their sights simply cannot keep up, in order to fire their ATGM they have first to identify and acquire a target, and the french sights and FCS in their tanks allow them to only do that in distances far below 3000 meters in daylight conditions...
This is a certified 2023 technology moment Xd