Jump to content


Abrams tank!


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
56 replies to this topic

jdtherocker #1 Posted Feb 23 2011 - 18:18

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 13946 battles
  • 11,241
  • Member since:
    01-19-2011
Hey guys have ever heard of these abrams tanks there actually pretty decent looking check them out.

Irish_Cdn_Lad #2 Posted Feb 23 2011 - 19:00

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 10024 battles
  • 118
  • [BLAZ] BLAZ
  • Member since:
    11-17-2010
Need to add linky or pics

jdtherocker #3 Posted Feb 23 2011 - 19:01

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 13946 battles
  • 11,241
  • Member since:
    01-19-2011

View PostIrish_Cdn_Lad, on Feb 23 2011 - 19:00, said:

Need to add linky or pics
heres the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams

Ogopogo #4 Posted Feb 23 2011 - 19:41

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 19104 battles
  • 5,983
  • [NTR] NTR
  • Member since:
    07-15-2010
For the topic description "best us tank in my opinion" I would change it if you can, as it is the only MBT in service now. Being the best when you are the only one is not that big a deal.

Hovertank #5 Posted Feb 23 2011 - 19:54

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 10668 battles
  • 423
  • [RDDTX] RDDTX
  • Member since:
    10-28-2010
Indeed.

IronsightSniper #6 Posted Feb 24 2011 - 00:41

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 1879 battles
  • 472
  • Member since:
    01-18-2011
Anyone want to see some pictures off of another forum of the possible M1A3?

Ultramarine212 #7 Posted Feb 25 2011 - 04:10

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 3598 battles
  • 355
  • [-SG-] -SG-
  • Member since:
    10-24-2010

View PostIronsightSniper, on Feb 24 2011 - 00:41, said:

Anyone want to see some pictures off of another forum of the possible M1A3?

Go for it.

gergar12 #8 Posted Feb 26 2011 - 06:01

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 158 battles
  • 144
  • Member since:
    12-24-2010
bad engine

thejoker91 #9 Posted Feb 26 2011 - 06:20

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 13798 battles
  • 5,571
  • [RELIC] RELIC
  • Member since:
    09-23-2010
Too bad they decided to put a gas-turbine for an engine.

Ogopogo #10 Posted Mar 02 2011 - 01:43

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 19104 battles
  • 5,983
  • [NTR] NTR
  • Member since:
    07-15-2010

View Postthejoker91, on Feb 26 2011 - 06:20, said:

Too bad they decided to put a gas-turbine for an engine.

Indeed...

Its worst feature is the fact it GUZZLES gas....... well it doesn't stray to far from normal American vehicle design...... (joking d:)

gergar12 #11 Posted Mar 02 2011 - 02:52

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 158 battles
  • 144
  • Member since:
    12-24-2010
:Smile_honoring:

SweetTransvestite #12 Posted Mar 02 2011 - 05:11

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 2 battles
  • 215
  • Member since:
    12-22-2010

View PostIronsightSniper, on Feb 24 2011 - 00:41, said:

pictures off of another forum
5 bux it's tanknet

View PostOgopogo, on Mar 02 2011 - 01:43, said:

Indeed...

Its worst feature is the fact it GUZZLES gas....... well it doesn't stray to far from normal American vehicle design...... (joking d:)
Although to be honest the tolerances for fuel are somewhere between "everything that burns" and "everything," and actually made multi-fuel much more viable, considering it was that or the Leyland L60 (lol) in 1980. This advantage is really lost nowadays since diesels really have caught up with the AGT1500.

skullorz #13 Posted Mar 02 2011 - 05:27

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 4726 battles
  • 65
  • Member since:
    09-01-2010
M1A3 Abrams will feature a much more efficient Diesel Engine.

Mechanize #14 Posted Mar 02 2011 - 12:52

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 1241 battles
  • 2,233
  • [NDP] NDP
  • Member since:
    08-04-2010

View PostSweetTransvestite, on Mar 02 2011 - 05:11, said:

5 bux it's tanknet


Although to be honest the tolerances for fuel are somewhere between "everything that burns" and "everything," and actually made multi-fuel much more viable, considering it was that or the Leyland L60 (lol) in 1980. This advantage is really lost nowadays since diesels really have caught up with the AGT1500.

To be fair it also has an edge in acceleration and the fact it runs very quiet compared to similar sized diesel engines.

aidenpryde50 #15 Posted Mar 07 2011 - 19:21

    Private

  • Players
  • 36 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    03-06-2011
The only drawback it how much fuel it uses and that is it. Period. Using any other engine other than a turbine would degrade it.

IronsightSniper #16 Posted Mar 08 2011 - 00:45

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 1879 battles
  • 472
  • Member since:
    01-18-2011
For referencing, the M1A2 Abrams has a fuel efficiency of about 0.53 MPG (443 l/100 km) compared to 1.1 MPG (213 l/100 km) on the Leopard 2A6 and 0.96 MPG (245 l/100 km) on the T-90S. The Leopard has about the same horsepower engine but of course, is twice as fuel efficient.

skullorz #17 Posted Mar 08 2011 - 03:38

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 4726 battles
  • 65
  • Member since:
    09-01-2010
Fighter pilots still mark their kills, even if its a fighter jet or a regular propeller plane. It still matters either way, its a kill against a Main Battle Tank. War's not about being fair, unless its a limited war ofcourse.

Will_of_Iron #18 Posted Mar 11 2011 - 01:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 21851 battles
  • 3,164
  • [TF-A] TF-A
  • Member since:
    03-06-2011
my picture, lol :)

jdtherocker #19 Posted Mar 11 2011 - 01:47

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 13946 battles
  • 11,241
  • Member since:
    01-19-2011

View PostWill_of_Iron, on Mar 11 2011 - 01:23, said:

my picture, lol :)
lol! nice is that an abrams or do you just want to damage me?

Will_of_Iron #20 Posted Mar 11 2011 - 02:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 21851 battles
  • 3,164
  • [TF-A] TF-A
  • Member since:
    03-06-2011

View Postjdtherocker, on Mar 11 2011 - 01:47, said:

lol! nice is that an abrams or do you just want to damage me?

m1a2 true and true, at least, that's what google told me it was when I got the pic