Ford Vs Abrams..... Ford zero!!

Outbackjack · 21-10-2007, 01:15 AM

http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/200...86_ntnews.html

TEaaron · 21-10-2007, 01:27 AM

Lmfaoooo

mik · 21-10-2007, 01:33 AM

the falcon guy was lucky it was`nt the tank driver that was intoxicated and crashed into him.

FrogInASock · 21-10-2007, 02:35 PM

One wonders if the tank will have a little Falcon shilouette painted on the turret.

opto · 21-10-2007, 03:22 PM

Im sure it will buffout, of the Abrahms tank.

SB076 · 22-10-2007, 04:52 PM

Apparently he was trying the pitt maneuover but couldnt locate the rear axle

Bucket · 22-10-2007, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by opto

Im sure it will buffout, of the Abrahms tank.

Buff what out? I'd be surprised if it left a scratch ;)

aye you · 22-10-2007, 10:39 PM

who needs the Pitt manouver, hit it anywhere, effect will be the same

Bent8 · 22-10-2007, 11:59 PM

since when has the Aussie army been using the US made Abrams??...they should have stuck with the German Leopards, much better tank and no depleted uranium in the armour panels!!...

aye you · 23-10-2007, 09:42 AM

the switch over was made about 6 months ago i think

XR Martin · 23-10-2007, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bent8

since when has the Aussie army been using the US made Abrams??...they should have stuck with the German Leopards, much better tank and no depleted uranium in the armour panels!!...

Which is why its the best protected tank there is.

Quote:

The M1A1/M1A2 can survive multiple hits from the most powerful tank munitions (including 120 mm depleted uranium APFSDS) and anti-tank missiles. In the Persian Gulf War, Abrams tanks survived multiple hits at relatively close ranges from Iraqi T-72s and ATGMs. M829A1 "Silver Bullet" APFSDS rounds from other M1A1 Abrams were unable to penetrate the front and side armor (even at close ranges) in friendly fire incidents as well as an incident in which another Abrams tried to destroy an Abrams that got stuck in mud and had to be abandoned

elusiverunner · 23-10-2007, 12:00 PM

There is not depleted uranium armour in the Australian Abrams Tanks !!

Homer1 · 23-10-2007, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bent8

since when has the Aussie army been using the US made Abrams??...they should have stuck with the German Leopards, much better tank and no depleted uranium in the armour panels!!...

You're joking right??? Our old Leopards were obsolete 10 years ago! The Abrams is considered the best battle tank in the world in terms of firepower and survivability. Its a proven machine in combat. BTW export variants don't have depleted uranium armor.

cowboy · 23-10-2007, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bent8

since when has the Aussie army been using the US made Abrams??...they should have stuck with the German Leopards, much better tank and no depleted uranium in the armour panels!!...

Apparently the idea of changing over to the Abrams is to have Aust troops trained in their use. In the event of war these crews will be sent into drive for the Americans who are struggling for crew numbers. A very big, very heavy and very very thirsty tank the Abrams. The Leopard struggled with the aust heat up north, was designed for arctic type climates. Feel free to correct me anyone, been a long time since I left the military.

J_Tank · 23-10-2007, 05:18 PM

While Leopard in laters forms is undeniably a good vehicle ours' have been around for some time. M1 is fat and thirsty, but then it sounds a lot like my Falcon...

. It does however allow us in a combat situation to be resupplied by US columns as ordnance, fuel is the same. Similar to standardising of NATO munitions. Also probably a political trade off, every time we sign a deal with an European defence contractor we have to buy something 2nd hand from the Yanks!

Bent8 · 23-10-2007, 09:54 PM

Quote:

You're joking right??? Our old Leopards were obsolete 10 years ago! The Abrams is considered the best battle tank in the world in terms of firepower and survivability. Its a proven machine in combat. BTW export variants don't have depleted uranium armor.

The 120mm "Smoothbore" main gun on the Abrams is made by Rheinmetall in Germany...the latest Leopard 2A6 sports the long barrel version of this gun which is more accurate, runs a 1500hp diesel which runs cooler and can operate the turret electrically with the engine off...the M1A2SEP's run a 1500hp gas turbine which light's up the thermals like a Christmas tree!!..

In regards to the use of DU in battle, the US army actually made an archive video about the hazards of depleted uranium in the battlefield...there are apparently extensive "cleanup" procedures that have to be followed after combat to sanitize the area for troop insertions...

The US Army is now using this stuff in 50 cal machine guns!! (in one friendly fire incident, the 50cal DU rounds actually punched thru the rear of an Abrams at close range!!)

Anyways, depleted uranium is NOT depleted at all, it's still very deadly when inhaled, ask the 1000's of US troops who are suffering from it because of Gulf War 1 and 2...sure it punches through just about anything but when it does the tiny particles that are released into the air are NOT safe to breathe.

It's good to know the Aussie variants don't have DU armour...Chobham armour is more than adequate in the modern battlefield and there's always reactive armour which the US army uses on the M2's...

normxb · 24-10-2007, 01:15 AM

Wow OBJ ,
You dig up some interesting stuff , I bet the guy in the Falcon was happy the tanks were "Stopped" , wouldn't have been much left if they were "on the go"

Wonder how he felt when he sobered up ? bet he needed a "new pair of Undies"

Norm

XR Martin · 24-10-2007, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bent8

The 120mm "Smoothbore" main gun on the Abrams is made by Rheinmetall in Germany...the latest Leopard 2A6 sports the long barrel version of this gun which is more accurate, runs a 1500hp diesel which runs cooler and can operate the turret electrically with the engine off...the M1A2SEP's run a 1500hp gas turbine which light's up the thermals like a Christmas tree!!..

In regards to the use of DU in battle, the US army actually made an archive video about the hazards of depleted uranium in the battlefield...there are apparently extensive "cleanup" procedures that have to be followed after combat to sanitize the area for troop insertions...

The US Army is now using this stuff in 50 cal machine guns!! (in one friendly fire incident, the 50cal DU rounds actually punched thru the rear of an Abrams at close range!!)

Anyways, depleted uranium is NOT depleted at all, it's still very deadly when inhaled, ask the 1000's of US troops who are suffering from it because of Gulf War 1 and 2...sure it punches through just about anything but when it does the tiny particles that are released into the air are NOT safe to breathe.

It's good to know the Aussie variants don't have DU armour...Chobham armour is more than adequate in the modern battlefield and there's always reactive armour which the US army uses on the M2's...

Depleted Uranium is not as bad as the media puts out....

Quote:

Depleted uranium is not classified as a dangerous substance radiologically, though it is a potential hazard in large quantities, beyond what could conceivably be breathed. Its emissions are very low, since the half-life of U-238 is the same as the age of the Earth (4.5 billion years). There are no reputable reports of cancer or other negative health effects from radiation exposure to ingested or inhaled natural or depleted uranium, despite much study.

However, uranium does have a chemical toxicity about the same as that of lead, so inhaled fume or ingested oxide is considered a health hazard. Most uranium actually absorbed into the body is excreted within days, the balance being laid down in bone and kidneys. Its biological effect is principally kidney damage. WHO has set a Tolerable Daily Intake level for U of 0.6 microgram/kg body weight, orally. (This is about eight times our normal background intake from natural sources.) Standards for drinking water and concentrations in air are set accordingly.

Like most radionuclides, it is not known as a carcinogen, or to cause birth defects (from effects in utero) or to cause genetic mutations. Radiation from DU munitions depends on how long since the uranium has been separated from the lighter isotopes so that its decay products start to build up. If thorium-234 (half-life 24 days), protactinium-234 (half-life 1 minute) and U-234 have built up through decay of U-238, then Th-234 and Pa-234 will give rise to some beta emissions and U-234 is an alpha emitter. On this basis, in a few months, DU is "weakly radioactive" with an activity of around 40 kBq/g quoted. (If it is fresh from the enrichment plant and hence fairly pure the activity is 15 kBq/g, compared with 25 kBq/g for pure natural uranium. Fresh DU from enriching reprocessed uranium has U-236 in it and more U-234 so is about 23 kBq/g.)

In 2001 the UN Environment Program examined the effects of nine tonnes of DU munitions having been used in Kosovo, checking the sites targeted by it. UNEP found no widespread contamination, no sign of contamination in water of the food chain and no correlation with reported ill-health in NATO peacekeepers. A two-year study by Sandia National Laboratories in USA reported in 2005 that consistent with earlier studies, reports of serious health risks from DU exposure during the 1991 Gulf War are not supported by medical statistics or by analysis.

Thus DU is clearly dangerous for people in vehicles which are military targets, but for anyone else - even in a war zone - there is little hazard. Ingestion or inhalation of uranium oxide dust resulting from the impact of DU munitions on their targets is the main possible exposure route. See also Appendix and WHO fact sheet on DU