M1 A2 Abrahams Main Battle Tank VS ATST

vakundok · Post by **vakundok** » 2003-02-25 03:16am

Vympel wrote:No, guided projectiles for tanks do exist and in the near future (say 10 years from now) tanks will have over-the-horizon munitions for destroying other tanks- but it won't be the M1. The Abrams had it's TERM version cancelled.

Thanks! As I wrote I am not an expert. Does the Abrams have "over the horizont area effecting weapons"? If yes, whether could they take out an AT-ST? And can the Abrams scout out something over the horizont at all?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-25 03:21am

vakundok wrote:Stupid, moron and dumb? Because I canot write and read a foreign language without problems? Well, it is your opinion. I accept it.

No, because you take things out of context and ignore their intent and then try to act innocent. It doesn't seem like a linguistic problem; you seem quite proficient when you're trying to seize upon hidden intents of sentence fragments taken out of context, after all.

vakundok · Post by **vakundok** » 2003-02-25 03:28am

Darth Wong wrote:So? An AT-ST does not have to worry about ballistics or wind, and as we've seen in the movies, they seem to be able to increase the apparent velocity of their visible "bolt" depending on the range (look at how quickly the AT-AT max-firepower shot reached target from 17.28km away in TESB). It probably has greater accuracy at that range, which means it's more likely to hit, which means it's more likely to kill. As I said, the biggest problem is the unlikelihood of such a long-range confrontation.

So, then what does mean "It" and "that range" in the sentence "It probably has greater accuracy at that range ..." of this context? I read them as "The AT-ST" and "17.28km away" but it seems I made a mistake ...

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-02-25 07:57pm

No verses arguments in PSW. Moved to OSF, although the HOS was tempting...

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-02-25 08:10pm

While the T-90 has the AT-11 Sniper ATGM (Anti-Tank Guided Missle). The M1A2 has no guided missle.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-02-25 08:13pm

The Abrams will own an AT-ST in almost every combat situation. For starters the Abrams will see the AT-ST easier and have an easier time targeting because of the AT-STs target profile. Furthermore the Abrams will have its main gun in line to begin with while the AT-ST must get its gun up high enough to fire. If they fight in slightly hill like terrain the tank will win almost every time. Same with an urban enviroment. On flat ground the AT-ST *might* be able to win. Given what we have seen on the AT-ST it will be be blown to pieces by the main gun of an Abrams.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-02-25 08:22pm

vakundok wrote:
Vympel wrote:No, guided projectiles for tanks do exist and in the near future (say 10 years from now) tanks will have over-the-horizon munitions for destroying other tanks- but it won't be the M1. The Abrams had it's TERM version cancelled.
Thanks! As I wrote I am not an expert. Does the Abrams have "over the horizont area effecting weapons"? If yes, whether could they take out an AT-ST? And can the Abrams scout out something over the horizont at all?

The XM1007 TERM round can reach over the horizion, max range is 8 kilometers. However it was both canceled while in development for cost, and requires a forward designator and target locator. The M1A2 has no over the horizion sensor ability.

At short range the thermal sights can see hot exhausts gases rising above low obstacles but where talking sub kilometer for that, and I doubt the AT-ST's power cells put out as much heat as a turbine or diesel pack.

The longest range tank on tank hit was 5200 meters, by a British Challanger tank in the Gulf.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-25 10:13pm

Alyeska wrote:... On flat ground the AT-ST *might* be able to win. Given what we have seen on the AT-ST it will be be blown to pieces by the main gun of an Abrams.

Of course. No one has contested that; it's obvious that the AT-ST is a, as jegs2 put it, an AT-Humvee, and clearly not heavily armoured enough to take hits from a 120mm smoothbore. I was only bringing up the point that the approach matters, since the AT-ST may have an edge in a long-range confrontation.

vakundok · Post by **vakundok** » 2003-02-26 04:13am

Sea Skimmer wrote:The M1A2 has no over the horizion sensor ability.

So, I try to summarize:
1. They are not in the same category.
2. They can kill each other. (Maybe it would require a longer charge period to the AT-ST but I think it could do it.)
3. There is no battle between them while they are over the horizont. The AT-ST may be able to locate the Abrams but unable to fire on it with the main guns. (The capability of the grenade/missile launcher is still a question since we did not see it in action.) The Abrams would be able to at least accidentaly hit the AT-ST, but it canot locate the AT-ST.
4. When they are just get into visual range, the M1 has a slight edge (for only an extremely short period of time) since it can see and hit the AT-ST while the main guns of the AT-ST still don't have LOS to the M1.
5. When they are in visual range the question canot be decided.

I think on rugged terrain the AT-ST has the advantage that it can crouch and use obstacles as a cover and able to emerge, fire and lurk back in no time.

vakundok · Post by **vakundok** » 2003-02-26 04:14am

Ouch! The topic has been moved.