61 replies to this topic

[Bismarck]

Heres a lil something about M1A2
SPECIFICATIONS - M1A1 / M1A2 ABRAMS MAIN BATTLE TANK, USA
M1A2
Crew 4 - driver, commander, gunner, loader
Weight 69.54 tons
Dimensions
length with gun forward 387 inches
turret height 93.5 inches
Width 144 inches
ground clearance 19 inches
ground pressure 15.4 p.s.i.
Propulsion gas turbine engine, 1500 horsepower
Transmission hydrokinetic transmission, 4 forward gears, 2 reverse gears
Power-to-weight ratio 21.6 hp/ton
Performance
maximum governed speed 42 m.p.h.
speed cross country 30 m.p.h.
Speed, 10% slope 17 m.p.h.
speed 60% slope 4.1 m.p.h.
Acceleration 0 to 20 m.p.h. in 7.2 seconds
Range 265 miles cruising
obstacle crossing
Vertical 42 inches
Trench 9 feet
main armament 120 mm smooth bore cannon, M256
coaxial Weapon 7.62 mm machine gun, M240
Loader's Weapon 7.62 mm machine gun, M240, on skate mount
Commander's weapon 0.50 calibre machine gun, M2, on powered rotary platform
nbc protection: 200 SCFM, clean cooled air


I love this thing

[link.the.first]

Needs the machine guns ingame.

[Karlos Vandango]

no the m1a2 has a lmg next to its main gun
this cant be done in the sage engine (i thinnk)

so the soultoin make the m1a2 garrasoinable by putting a rnager in there and walla u got a tank with a mehince gun

[link.the.first]

An Act of War had a machine gun mounted on the main Abrams turret.

Even if this is used, I would still agree that it should be garrisonable.

Edited by link.the.first, 30 August 2005 - 10:35 PM.

[Bob]

An Act of War had a machine gun mounted on the main Abrams turret.

Even if this is used, I would still agree that it should be garrisonable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Project Raptor used to have a machine gun on the T-72 tank, but it was removed. I'm guessing that the unit was too powerful to some people. Not that I agree with that conclusion. I think the machine guns would be great for the M1A1, Tiger (or other), and the T-90 tanks.

The machine guns don't have to be super powerful or anything. At this point anything would be better than what we have now, where an M1A2 has to sit there and fire multiple cannon shots at a single enemy infantry soldier in order to kill it.

As for a garrisonable tank, if your talking about a single ranger, then I could probably buy that somewhat, even though it would still take some time for a single ranger to kill an enemy soldier. So, I don't really see much of a time savings with that idea.

But, if you go beyond one ranger garrisoned in a tank, then I think that it would subtract from the realism of the game. I mean how many garrsionalbe M1A2s have you seen out there that were meant to hold three or more regular infantry soldiers, in addition to full tank crew? None. Why? Because the M1A2 is a tank, not an APC.

[link.the.first]

I was thinking two.

[Bob]

Now I know I'm probably nit picking here, but consider this:

'The M1 has a crew of four. The driver sits centered in the hull and forward of the turret, while the loader, gunner and tank commander occupy the turret, with the loader situated to the left of the main gun and the gunner and tank commander sitting in tandem on the right side...

... The M1 has two turret access hatches, mounted side by side, in the middle of the turret roof. The loader's hatch, located on the left side, is equipped with a pintle mounted M240 7.62mm machine gun. The hatch itself is equipped with a single vision periscope on a rotating base. When not in use, the drivers AN/TVS-2 sight may be used in the loader's hatch vision block. The tank commander's hatch is ringed by vision periscopes and the Commander's Weapon Station cupola is equipped with an M2 HB caliber .50 machine gun. The M2 may be fired while the commander is "buttoned up" but the commander must be exposed to reload the weapon. The CWS can be reconfigured to fire an M240 as a replacement weapon.'

So my question is this. While in battle, if the driver's driving, and the loaders loading, and the gunners aiming and firing the main cannon, and the commanders on his gun. Who's firing at the second machine gun position or hatch?

See my point. You really can't continuously fire the cannon, and at the same time fire from the second machine gun position, unless you have an extra man garrisoned in the tank. And to the best of my knowledge (and I very well could be wrong here) you can't stuff a fifth person into a The M1A2.

---

Note: Quote above from:
http://www.globalsec...nd/m1-intro.htm

[Vanguard]

You can with Autoloaders, but those can jam, and are fairly usless IMO.

[link.the.first]

If theres one machine gun fixed on the turret the gunner could operate that because the main gun and the machine gun point in the same direction anyway.

I think I saw something similar to the commander's position on the sides of the tank. It looked like a pair of hatches with big machine guns on it. These would likely not have access to the main crew area, but they probably have room to duck under their hatches for a minute if they need to.

Autoloaders are getting less and less likely to jam with new technology. Those would work for the USA.

[Bob]

Raises Hand

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As long as there's no middle finger only on that raised hand, then by all means, be my guest and ask a question.

[Karlos Vandango]

Raises Hand

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As long as there's no middle finger only on that raised hand, then by all means, be my guest and ask a question.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

lol bob

[link.the.first]

Are you reading that off my sig? Cuz that's a line from Stargate.

[Karlos Vandango]

i dont watch weried space programs or things that revolve around 1 thing

[link.the.first]

Stargate is a good series unless you really, really don't like scifi. Most of the time they arent actually in space and a lot of the older episodes dont involve any type of energy weapon.

[Karlos Vandango]

nahh i just hate wacthing sci fis

[link.the.first]

This might change your mind. Ever seen it?

[Karlos Vandango]

yea i seen it i got board after 5 mins i was waiting for the simpsons to come on

[link.the.first]

oh

[Karlos Vandango]