USA & USMC M1A2 Abrams

[jaymz]

Yes I know the Abrams has been done in canon but it was a just a minor stat block so this is alittle more in depth I think.


The M1 Abrams is a main battle tank produced in the United States. The M1 is named after General Creighton Abrams, former Army Chief of Staff and Commander of US military forces in Vietnam from 1968 to 1972. It is a well armed, heavily armored, and highly mobile tank designed for modern armored ground warfare. Notable features of the M1 Abrams include the use of a powerful gas turbine engine, the adoption of sophisticated composite armor, and separate ammunition storage in a blow-out compartment for crew safety. It is one of the heaviest tanks in service, weighing in at close to 68 short tons (almost 62 metric tons).

The M1 Abrams entered U.S. service in 1980, replacing the 105 mm gun, full tracked M60 Patton main battle tank. It did, however, serve for over a decade alongside the improved M60A3, which had entered service in 1978. Three main versions of the M1 Abrams have been deployed, the M1, M1A1, and M1A2, incorporating improved armament, protection and electronics. These improvements, as well as periodic upgrades to older tanks have allowed this long-serving vehicle to remain in front-line service. The M1A3 is currently under development. It is the principal main battle tank of the United States Army and Marine Corps, and the armies of Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Australia, and in 2010 Iraq. The M1 Abrams is anticipated to be in U.S. service until the 2050s, approximately 70 years after entering U.S. service.




Model Type - M1A2 Abrams
Class - Main Battle Tank
Crew - 4


SDC By Location

Main Body 1500
Turret 700
120mm Cannon 400
Tracks (2 sets) 300 ea
Track Wheels (18) 150 ea
.50 cal Machine GUn 100
7.62 Machine Gun (2) 60 ea

AR - 18, Main Hull and Turret stops all small arms and rifle fire upto and including .50 cal. but is vulnerable to weapons with a PV of 8+ such hig powered large (.50 cal and up) armour piercing Anti-material rifles. Tracks and machine guns are more susceptible to damage from machine gun fire needing pv of 6+


Speed

Ground - 67.7 kph over the road (42 mph), 48.3 kph off-road (30 mph)
Range - 465 km


Statistics

Height - 2.44 m (8 ft) with ground clearance of 0.43 m (1.6 ft)
Length - 9.77 m gun forward (32.04 ft), 7.93 m body (26.02 ft)
Width - 3.66 m (12 ft)
Weight - 61.3 metric tonnes (67.6 tons)

Cargo - Minimal survival gear and personal weapons
Power System - Honeywell AGT1500C multi-fuel turbine engine
Cost - 6.21 million dollars US


Weapons

Weapon Type - 120mm smoothbore Cannon (1 turret mounted)
Primary Purpose - Anti-Armour
Range - 4 km direct fire, 8 km indirect fire
Damage - 1d6x100+100 HE
3d4x100 HEAT
2d4x100+100 A/P
1d4x100+100 FRAG with a blast radius of 25ft
Rate Of Fire - 3 per melee
Payload - 40 rounds
Bonuses - na

Weapon Type - .50 cal machine gun (1 copula mounted)
Primary Purpose - Anti-Infantry
Range - 1500m
Damage - 1d6x10+10 per round, use burst rules
Rate Of Fire - equal to gunners attacks, fires only bursts
Payload - rounds
Bonuses - NA

Weapon Type - 7.62 machine gun (2, 1 Pintle mount, 1 coxial)
Primary Purpose - Anti-infantry
Range - 1000m
Damage - 6d6 per round, use burst rules
Rate Of Fire - equal to gunners attacks, fires only bursts
Payload - rounds
Bonuses - NA


Bonuses and penalties

+2 strike ranged with main gun


Systems of Note

Thermal Vision
Night Vision
Targeting System for main gun
Combat Computer
Stabilized Main Gun (can fire while moving)
NBC Protection


References Used

Wikipedia

[Anthar]

Good, but which of the weapons is the coaxial machiine gun?

[jaymz]

Good, but which of the weapons is the coaxial machiine gun?

Actually if you look a t a pic of the M1a2 now it has two pintle mounte Mgs the .50 and a 7.62. A second 7.62 is coazial to teh main gun apparently....I'll edit the above to say the .50 is on a copula.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... parent.png

[Gamer]

The stats fit for a standard M1a2 just fine -tho its just me but I disagree with the .50 penetration bit.

That last image is for the TUSK field kit upgrade not the latest standard M1A2 model.
The TUSK field kit can fit on the M1A1 and A2 models so it is a bit different.
For the TUSK to be depicted better you would need to list the Protector 151 remote weapon turret and thermal weapon sight for the commanders .50, stats for the Loaders Armored Gun Shield and thermal weapon sight for the loaders 7.62.
There also is an optional Counter Sniper/Anti-Materiel Mount m2 .50 mounted on main gun and linked to gunners ballistic computer and has own xenon spotlight, listed as an optional extra coaxial weapon.
Fluff addition
The Infantry phone mounted in rear.
Commanders 360 camera system.
Drivers rear camera.
added armor
Slat armor on the rear
Reactive armor skirts
You wouldn't have to change the stats have above at all, could just list the TUSK addons and the added area sdc and ARs as the TUSK field kit upgrade.

[jaymz]

The stats fit for a standard M1a2 just fine -tho its just me but I disagree with the .50 penetration bit.

That last image is for the TUSK field kit upgrade not the latest standard M1A2 model.
The TUSK field kit can fit on the M1A1 and A2 models so it is a bit different.
For the TUSK to be depicted better you would need to list the Protector 151 remote weapon turret and thermal weapon sight for the commanders .50, stats for the Loaders Armored Gun Shield and thermal weapon sight for the loaders 7.62.
There also is an optional Counter Sniper/Anti-Materiel Mount m2 .50 mounted on main gun and linked to gunners ballistic computer and has own xenon spotlight, listed as an optional extra coaxial weapon.
Fluff addition
The Infantry phone mounted in rear.
Commanders 360 camera system.
Drivers rear camera.
added armor
Slat armor on the rear
Reactive armor skirts
You wouldn't have to change the stats have above at all, could just list the TUSK addons and the added area sdc and ARs as the TUSK field kit upgrade.

Ok just to be clear:

a) the stats are fine for the baseline M1A2
b) you think a .50 cal should be able to damage the Abrams
c) in order to portray the picture (to be honest it was hte first one I found to show there was a 7.62 on the turret ) I need to make a few additions to be the TUSK upgrade
d) I need to add just a fe minor things to the Sensors and Equipment section.

That sound about right?

[Gamer]

A) yes
B) Heck no, I disagree with this

but is vulnerable to weapons with a PV of 8+ such hig powered large (.50 cal and up) armour piercing Anti-material rifles.

that you have in your stats, unless you are considering the APU, the sponson boxes, vision block, antennaes and the like to be whats covered under "vulnerable", but not listed.
C) if you want to portray a TUSK yes, but if you don't and just want a M1A2 no matter.

Just thought I'd point out that picture wasn't a standard M1A2 and the differences in case you'd be interested.

[jaymz]

Ok so the 8+ pv weapons shouldn't be able to damage the Abrams?

[Gamer]

What I think is nothing less than PV 9+ should have the potential to damage it as the 14.5 mm KpVs I've seen firing on and hitting M1a1 and M1a2s overseasa did nothing more than cosmetic damage and showed the crew just who to remove from the gene pool next, which was nothing less than spectaclularly to say the least.
But that's just my observation, I really haven't seen anything less do anything to one but get the shooter killed moments later.

Also a correction forget about my note on the APU auxillary power unit being vulnerable I forgot the SEP upgrade moved them under armor.

An aside:
I'm not used to the PV value of Palladium so had to look it up again as I'm probaly yet another person who doesn't like the Compendium of modern weapons or uses it.
No offense to PB but it wasn't very well researched in my opinon and that's all I'll say on that subject.

[jaymz]

What I think is nothing less than PV 9+ should have the potential to damage it as the 14.5 mm KpVs I've seen firing on and hitting M1a1 and M1a2s overseasa did nothing more than cosmetic damage and showed the crew just who to remove from the gene pool next, which was nothing less than spectaclularly to say the least.
But that's just my observation, I really haven't seen anything less do anything to one but get the shooter killed moments later.

Also a correction forget about my note on the APU auxillary power unit being vulnerable I forgot the SEP upgrade moved them under armor.

An aside:
I'm not used to the PV value of Palladium so had to look it up again as I'm probaly yet another person who doesn't like the Compendium of modern weapons or uses it.
No offense to PB but it wasn't very well researched in my opinon and that's all I'll say on that subject.

*makes notes* ok I'll edi tthat first chance I get.

On an up side, the CoMW is better than then weapons when listed in teh SDC gameworlds so at least its an improvment

[Peacebringer]

I don't think a 12.7mm round or 14.5mm round can penetrate an Abrams' armor; unless it was traveling several times the speed of sound, but current MGs don't have that velocity...yet.

.50cal rounds can damage tank optics...only on a really lucky hit. It would probably scare the crap out of the commander to have is optics blinded. Could affect moral. However, a paint ball gun would be more effective. If the commander or loader were outside of the tank firing their MGs, then a 12.7mm or 14.5mm round would do some considerable damage against them even if they had helmets and flak vests on. The rounds would tear through them and though may not kill them, they would reduce the RoF for the tank when they buttoned up due to wounded crew.

Also, incendiary rounds could be effective: causing grease fires and engine fires, thereby causing a mechanical break down of the vehicle; reducing it from a mobile tank to a bunker that can be taken out with infantry or artillery.

Second use, would be to use the heavy MGs at a range longer than the 7.62mm Co-axil can go, forcing the crew to use the heavy .50cal to hit them, or use their 120mm rounds if they had any HE with them. I suppose you could use a Depleted Uranium round against a MG nest at long range; but I doubt they'd get a first-shot kill. It would take several rounds before they score a direct hit with a 120mm DPU round against a guy with a MG. It's be a waste of money.

The best use for a 12.7mm MG against and Abrams is to fire on it and let the Abram's crew think you're an idiot for trying to destroy a tank with a MG, all the while, the T-80s are sneaking to the Abram's flank, looking to blow holes into the M1 Abram's Side and rear armor.

[Jefffar]

I suppose it should be pointed out - that in order to engage Serbian M-84 tanks (modified T-72s, much less protection than the Abrams) the Croatians developed a rifle firing a 20 mm cannon round.

They weren't intending to take out the tank - just it's well-protected night vision scope.

[Arnie100]

Nicely done! Now if someone can do the Stryker or the LAV-25 (hint, hint)...please?