LUCASWILLEN05

Also this https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/abrams-dieselization-project-a-modest-proposal/

Some interesting thoughts on he Abrams engine issue here - although the military professionals here will probably know all of this already http://g2mil.com/abramsdiesel.htm

Agreed. Particularly given the cost of developing and producing the T-14 including setting up the production lines might well prohibit lge numbers of these tanks any time soon although one cabnnot rul out an eventual phasing out of T-72 models for either T-90 or possibly T-14

While not wanting to stray too far away from the original issue which was the high cost of MBTs we are in a situation reminiscent of the Cold War but with a key difference. This is now a multipolar international system more like the pre WW2 system. \We do not need ro get into detailed debate/analysis f this here though - and I am certain most, if not all of us are familiar with the geopolitics and he current international situation

Thanks for the info on fuel. What, in your professional opinion, would happen to the gas turbine engine if you tried to run it on diesel fuel? Maybe you could get away with it once but, as you say. the Australians found hat they required increased servicing Regarding the T-14 budget, as we both agree is likely to be the issue for the Russians https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/02/14/russias-t-14-armata-tank-may-feature-a-fatal-flaw.aspx Likely the result might be smaller high tech tank fleets. In 2014, after budget cuts. Britain only had 227 Challenger II http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/british-army-has-just-227-tanks-left-after-spending-cuts-1442463

Well. let's just say that running your car on the wrong type of fuel s not generally advisable. Trying to run Abrams on diesel probably would not do the gas turbine engine much good although it will probably work or a while at least ;https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/13042/why-do-jet-engines-use-kerosene-rather-than-gasoline

Probably for the same reason that running your car (regularly) on the wrong type of fuel is also a sub optimal decision

I guess it depends how good he much hyped T-14 turns out to be. As you say though actually building a new tank now probably isn't a good idea. But we should a last be thinking about it on the drawing boards, Maybe the next tank would be designed around lasers/particle beam weapons or, as you say, rail guns. Likely this technology is some way off yet though

Also there is the question of setting up the production lines and training the workers. The length of tme it took to get the T90 into service may be a good indicator of the time frame and numbers of T-14 we can expexct. At most perhaps 1000 by the mid 2020s

Yes I have heard of these issues as well. The reliance on aviation fuel and the high fuel consumption rates are certainly problems. Of more concern however is whether the Abrams can continue to retain its' lead given technological developments in gunnery, armour and ATGMs. What happens when Russia develops top attack capable missiles or instance? Trophy and similar point defense systems will help but sooner or later Abrams will meet its' natural limits. This might not be a problem now but i a couple of decades this will likely change. Given the time it takes to develop a new MBT thinking about what will be needed in he 2030s or 2040s is clearly a good idea. It is also possible that the Russians or Chinese make a technological breakthrough sooner than that

Being overly complacent is, historically, a bad idea. Arguably this is a mistake the IDF made prior to the Yom Kippur War. In consequence, while hey did still win the war they paid for it with heavy casualties. The danger is that complacency may have a similar result in the event of a war with Russia or China. There probably won't be time to upgrade the Abrams in a relatively short high intensity conflict which most people assume will be the most likely scenario. Yes the upgrades might be enough to handle such a war but eventually the M1A2 will need to be replaced either by an M1A3 or with something else

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-armata-t-14-tank-vs-americas-m-1-abrams-who-wins-13825

Trouble is that there has not been a real mechanized conflict between peer level opponents in which the US has been involved for several decades. The two Gulf Was don't really count for this because Iraqi forces, even the Republican Guard were outclassed in terms of both their technology (the RG used T-72M, T-72M1 and T-72G against M1A1 in Desert Storm and the M1A2 in Iraqi Freedom) A war with Russia in Ukraine would be a war fought by peers, not a second rate Arab army. Look at the difference between Syrian T-72s in CMSF (and even the export version of the T90) and what we see in CMBS. In football (soccer) terms Iraq was the Second Division. Russia on the other hand is among the top teams of the Premier League - as is the US of course :-)

True. Also, in peace time the bean counters are in the driving seat. According to this there were plans for an M1A3 but these were shelved in 2009 due to budget cuts This fiscal factor may well be a significant part of the reason for the current hiatus in AFV developmment https://www.thebalance.com/the-abrams-tank-next-generation-3345048 On the other hand it is interesting to compare and contrast Russian tank development. They seem to have spent a coupe of decades and several prototype developments to get to the current T-14 model. Whether the T-14 is just another in the line of prototypes that will not go into mass production remains to be seen http://taskandpurpose.com/why-russias-new-tanks-are-a-wake-up-call-for-the-us/ Meanwhile China continues tank development with the MBT-3000 http://www.military-today.com/tanks/mbt_3000.htm As you say Mike doctrine (and training) are. as important as technology. Also the international situation must be a major factor. Only a real threat of war as in the 1980s will provide a real urgency for tank development

How do you see the future of the M1A2? Armorgunner this may be your field of expertise

Hmm, maybe if the much hyped Armata turns out to be all it is cracked up to be and there were to be a war the M1A2 might find itself in trouble without he time being available to upgrade or replace, That said there is likely still room to upgrade. and apparently there is this to replce Bradleythis http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ground-combat-vehicle-gcv/ Maybe an M1A3 MBT? But maybe not any time soon due to budget? http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1a3.htm

interesting video

That#s why I would avoid another Middle East title for now Instead maybe look at Asia (Sino/Pakistan v India or a Second Korean War) Or expand the Black Sea game considerably. The latter is probably easiest but Asian scenarios would be completely new ground

More recently there were skirmishes along the India - Pakistan border https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India–Pakistan_border_skirmishes_(2014–2015)

I forgot about the Sino - Vietnamese war although it seems China did not perform particularly well. I assume you mean these border clashes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_conflicts_1979–90

http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2012/04/11/the-india-us-china-pakistan-strategic-quadrilateral/

There are limited options for a Chinese invasion of India 1 Via Bhutan 2 Possibly via Burma but this seems least likely to me 3 Via Jammu and Kashmir in co-operation with Pakistan 4 A combination of the above (probably 1 and 3) Even so one suspects there would be some challenging terrain problems for both sides. But an interesting and balanced fight which is different from previous BF offerings. As indicated earlier there would have to be some form of US intervention but I would prefer this to be limited to largely infantry forces (eg 82nd Airborne, 101st Air Mobile) backed with US Marine to pack an armour punch. Unfortunately I would not expect this game any time soon despite the Docklam Stand Off

A lot of interesting info there That said I doubt Pakistani tanks are any better and Pakistan has not performed well against India either in 1965 or 1971 Chinese equipment might be at least as good as India but China has not fought a war since 1962 and therefore may lack combat experience. The Himalayas also form a difficult natural barrier along much of the LOC

I would love to see a game on India v China and Pakistan. We would probably have to have some form of US involvement (airborne/light infantry types + Marines - heavy forces probably don't get there in time to matter.. Maybe call it Battlefront: Line of Control? I doubt BF would ever produce this though : -(

Not exactly relevant to BS or SF but an interesting video nevertheless It would be great if BF did a game covering the India - Pakistan-China area although US military involvement here might be a little tricky to do in a plausible way, Nevertheless there are tanks like the Arjun and the T-90S for India, Pakistani Al Khalids and T-80UD and of course the PLA's tank fleet. An interesting variety of terrain varying from the Himalayan mountains to the plans of the Punjab