Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: M1A Abrams vs...
  • Subject: M1A Abrams vs...
Subject: M1A Abrams vs...

Confound these ponies, they drive me to insomnia.

Also, Applejack ftw.


Posted by: raganok99

Posted by: Shaboopi cannon

Posted by: ExcellentSix
I'd much rather be armed with an AK47 than an MA5C


Then my good man, you truly are retarded.


Nope, you don't understand extent of modern weapons compared to UNSC weapons.

In dumbed down version:

UNSC weapons is worse than modern weapons.

Ak-47 is better than MA5C.


...No.

It really, really isn't. Halo is far enough in the future, -blam!- iron sights have become out dated.

Not only that, but the AK-47 is already 70 or so years old, has crap accuracy, and is not as durable as the MA5 series. I might stand by you if you were to say you'd rather have an AK-104. But not a 47.

You guys aren't even taking into account that the MA5C fires its rounds at a particularly high velocity with little/no recoil whatsoever, and fires a slightly larger/different round than the AK, which fires 7.62x39mm ammunition. The MA5C? 7.62x51mm. That's what our M14s and M392s fire.

Not to mention the MA5C has an ammo counter, real handy. It's got a compass, also handy...

Syncs up with your neural interface, surgically installed upon joining the UNSC, eliminating need for iron sights, holographic projection in your eyes is better, it seems. Go crosshairs!

Never seen or heard of an MA5C jamming. Granted, the AK doesn't jam much...

But the AK also has crazy recoil.

I'd also like to mention that the MA5C is ergnomic as all hell, and isn't as cumbersome as the AK to carry around.

But seriously. How many non bullpup designs have you seen in the UNSC anyways? Not many, good sir. Not many.

The UNSC would never use something like the AK. It simply isn't as reliable as the MA5C. I could keep going, but I'm sure I'm interrupting a CoD session.

EDIT: I'd also like to add that it does in fact have concealed iron sights, in case somebody without the implants has to use it. How's that for versatility?

[Edited on 08.02.2011 6:57 PM PDT]

  • 08.02.2011 6:53 PM PDT

XxXD3LuuX3 X luuC1d17YXxX

No one has yet rebuted my statements on the previous pages...

  • 08.02.2011 6:56 PM PDT


Posted by: Makko Mace
No one has yet rebuted my statements on the previous pages...


Nor have they answered my very relevant question about the Abrams.

  • 08.02.2011 7:04 PM PDT

I am alpha, i am omega.

I am the last of the primes.

Wasn't a challenger 1 (same armour as the abrams) destroyed in freindly fire when a tank round from another challenger hit it in1 shot?

I don't think the abrams could take 1 of its own rounds.

  • 08.02.2011 7:07 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Member of Bungie.net for nearly three years, still continuing!

Enjoy what you have and live on.

My gamertag is Elder Bias


Posted by: ferrrari
Wasn't a challenger 1 (same armour as the abrams) destroyed in freindly fire when a tank round from another challenger hit it in1 shot?

I don't think the abrams could take 1 of its own rounds.
'

Do you realize that challenger uses different armor, right?

Wrong, again. Abrams can take multiple hits from other Abram's main cannons. Do you even know what is AFSFSD rounds? Frankly, you don't know.

And Abrams uses different layers of armor: depleted uranium meshes (penerator stopper), reactive armor (making HEAT or HE shells useless), Rh, Chobham, and kevlar meshes (for primary protection).

Armor of Abrams are thick as two feet to three feet! Same as UNSC Frigate's thickness of its armor.

Like I said, do your research.

  • 08.02.2011 7:13 PM PDT

I am alpha, i am omega.

I am the last of the primes.


Posted by: raganok99

Posted by: ferrrari
Wasn't a challenger 1 (same armour as the abrams) destroyed in freindly fire when a tank round from another challenger hit it in1 shot?

I don't think the abrams could take 1 of its own rounds.
'

Do you realize that challenger uses different armor, right?

Wrong, again. Abrams can take multiple hits from other Abram's main cannons. Do you even know what is AFSFSD rounds? Frankly, you don't know.

And Abrams uses different layers of armor: depleted uranium meshes (penerator stopper), reactive armor (making HEAT or HE shells useless), Rh, Chobham, and kevlar meshes (for primary protection).

Armor of Abrams are thick as two feet to three feet! Same as UNSC Frigate's thickness of its armor. http://www.bungie.net/Forums/createpost.aspx?postID=64033723& amp;act=reply

Like I said, do your research.

My child who do you think made chobham armour??? IT wasn't america.

Chobham armour = Abrams, challenger 1

Hell the challenger 2 uses an upgraded version of chobham as its armour.

  • 08.02.2011 7:16 PM PDT

XxXD3LuuX3 X luuC1d17YXxX

The frontal plate is the thickest part of the tank, a lot depends of where the round hits. IE that testing you refered to yet never cited.

Also, Raganok you just got told.

[Edited on 08.02.2011 7:19 PM PDT]

  • 08.02.2011 7:18 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Member of Bungie.net for nearly three years, still continuing!

Enjoy what you have and live on.

My gamertag is Elder Bias


Posted by: ferrrari

Posted by: raganok99

Posted by: ferrrari
Wasn't a challenger 1 (same armour as the abrams) destroyed in freindly fire when a tank round from another challenger hit it in1 shot?

I don't think the abrams could take 1 of its own rounds.
'

Do you realize that challenger uses different armor, right?

Wrong, again. Abrams can take multiple hits from other Abram's main cannons. Do you even know what is AFSFSD rounds? Frankly, you don't know.

And Abrams uses different layers of armor: depleted uranium meshes (penerator stopper), reactive armor (making HEAT or HE shells useless), Rh, Chobham, and kevlar meshes (for primary protection).

Armor of Abrams are thick as two feet to three feet! Same as UNSC Frigate's thickness of its armor. http://www.bungie.net/Forums/createpost.aspx?postID=64033723& amp;act=reply

Like I said, do your research.

My child who do you think made chobham armour??? IT wasn't america.

Chobham armour = Abrams, challenger 1

Hell the challenger 2 uses an upgraded version of chobham as its armour.



Yes, but there is one problem: Abrams uses different types of armor imbedded in layers of armor. Like I said, depleted uranium meshes, RH armor, kevlar meshes, reactive armor AND chobham armor.

And please do not call me a child, it is demeaning and it makes your argument void. I am merely having intelligent discussions here but apparently many people lack of common sense to do some research before making posts.

  • 08.02.2011 7:20 PM PDT

XxXD3LuuX3 X luuC1d17YXxX

By the way the Abrams does not have 3 feet of armor, that is what you get for using wikipedia.

You have just commited immense hypocrisy. And proven you actually know nothing about tanks and warefare. I am now done with this argument.



I am actually laughing out loud btw. It's a tank not a god damn battleship, although now I know why you thought it was so 90mm proof. LOL!

[Edited on 08.02.2011 7:25 PM PDT]

  • 08.02.2011 7:24 PM PDT

I am alpha, i am omega.

I am the last of the primes.


Posted by: raganok99

Posted by: ferrrari

Posted by: raganok99

Posted by: ferrrari
Wasn't a challenger 1 (same armour as the abrams) destroyed in freindly fire when a tank round from another challenger hit it in1 shot?

I don't think the abrams could take 1 of its own rounds.
'

Do you realize that challenger uses different armor, right?

Wrong, again. Abrams can take multiple hits from other Abram's main cannons. Do you even know what is AFSFSD rounds? Frankly, you don't know.

And Abrams uses different layers of armor: depleted uranium meshes (penerator stopper), reactive armor (making HEAT or HE shells useless), Rh, Chobham, and kevlar meshes (for primary protection).

Armor of Abrams are thick as two feet to three feet! Same as UNSC Frigate's thickness of its armor. http://www.bungie.net/Forums/createpost.aspx?postID=64033723& amp;act=reply

Like I said, do your research.

My child who do you think made chobham armour??? IT wasn't america.

Chobham armour = Abrams, challenger 1

Hell the challenger 2 uses an upgraded version of chobham as its armour.



Yes, but there is one problem: Abrams uses different types of armor imbedded in layers of armor. Like I said, depleted uranium meshes, RH armor, kevlar meshes, reactive armor AND chobham armor.

And please do not call me a child, it is demeaning and it makes your argument void. I am merely having intelligent discussions here but apparently many people lack of common sense to do some research before making posts.


1. It's a joke, lighten up...

2. You say i lack common sense, yet you belived the abrams used diffrent armour from the challenger 1...

3. Ye theres all those other peices of armour, But chobham armour is the thing thats going to stop a proper round. kevlar meshes aren't going to do much. also you know reactive armour only works once?

  • 08.02.2011 7:24 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Member of Bungie.net for nearly three years, still continuing!

Enjoy what you have and live on.

My gamertag is Elder Bias


Posted by: Makko Mace
The frontal plate is the thickest part of the tank, a lot depends of where the round hits. IE that testing you refered to yet never cited.

Also, Raganok you just got told.


What? I was simply wrong on minor thing about Chobham armor, that's all.

And here's quote from a site about abrams's armor durability

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.

Another quote:



In the Gulf War, Abrams tanks survived multiple hits at relatively close ranges from Iraqi Lion of Babylon tanks and ATGMs


And frontal hull and turrets are thick as 52-64 inches while ENTIRE hull of Abrams is thick as 37-38 inches. Also notice one thing about depleted uranium plating/meshes are 1.7 more denser than the lead and depleted uranium armor is be equivalent to 24 inches (610 mm) of RH armor.

  • 08.02.2011 7:26 PM PDT

XxXD3LuuX3 X luuC1d17YXxX

He thought Abrams armor was three feet thick.

*checks wikipedia*

*sees the three foot number which is grossly inacurate*

*leaves thread laughing*

  • 08.02.2011 7:26 PM PDT

I would like to be a Mythic Member, or a mod.

REALLY BAD. I believe I deserve it, I am very loyal to the dear Bungie forums and want to keep everything in tip-top shape. Its always a real pleasure to be on the forums and I want to be recognized here.

Interesting facts, I find it funny modern day tanks can beat the scorpion.

  • 08.02.2011 7:26 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Member of Bungie.net for nearly three years, still continuing!

Enjoy what you have and live on.

My gamertag is Elder Bias


Posted by: Makko Mace
By the way the Abrams does not have 3 feet of armor, that is what you get for using wikipedia.

You have just commited immense hypocrisy. And proven you actually know nothing about tanks and warefare. I am now done with this argument.



I am actually laughing out loud btw. It's a tank not a god damn battleship, although now I know why you thought it was so 90mm proof. LOL!


I recall that I do not use wikipedia at all.

Um... 90 mm shells is useless to Abrams, its fact. Do your research then we'll speak.

And, if you have proof against 3 feet thick, then SHOW ME.

I use this website. Main Battle Tank- M1 M1A1 and M1A2

[Edited on 08.02.2011 7:32 PM PDT]

  • 08.02.2011 7:29 PM PDT

@accordingto343

Your one stop shop for all of 343's fabulous errors and ridiculous notions in the Halo lore.

Rag, you expect the new people of the Universe Forum to have standards such as backing up their statements and civility?

  • 08.02.2011 7:34 PM PDT

XxXD3LuuX3 X luuC1d17YXxX

I have sitting before me The Illustrated Guide to Tanks of the World

The Abrams armor's thickness is listed as classified.

How ever it has the armor thickneses of 230 some tanks, the highest of which is 10 inches, most MBT's seem to have an armor thickness of 5-10 inches, the N@tzi super heavy tank had armor of 8 inches and still wieghed 188 tons. And that was good old steel not depleted uranium.


Christ, I can't believe you actually thought that.

[Edited on 08.02.2011 7:36 PM PDT]

  • 08.02.2011 7:35 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Member of Bungie.net for nearly three years, still continuing!

Enjoy what you have and live on.

My gamertag is Elder Bias


Posted by: DecepticonCobra
Rag, you expect the new people of the Universe Forum to have standards such as backing up their statements and civility?


I guess not, then.

So I'll just ignore those statements made by new people at universe forums who don't back up its claim and statements.

By the way, Abrams wins against Scorpions. Rhino, Abrams wins. Grizzly? I don't know. We need more canon info about it before comparing against Abrams.

  • 08.02.2011 7:36 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Member of Bungie.net for nearly three years, still continuing!

Enjoy what you have and live on.

My gamertag is Elder Bias


Posted by: Makko Mace
I have sitting before me The Illustrated Guide to Tanks of the World

The Abrams armor's thickness is listed as classified.

How ever it has the armor thickneses of 230 some tanks, the highest of which is 10 inches, most MBT's seem to have an armor thickness of 5-10 inches, the N@tzi super heavy tank had armor of 8 inches and still wieghed 188 tons. And that was good old steel not depleted uranium.


Christ, I can't believe you actually thought that.


Do you realize that's old information? In back of time, they didn't have technology to do complex armoring and complex and powerful engines to propel heavy tonnage tanks that is using new armor types. Usually, new armor types such as depleted uranium, RH and chohabm armor is more heavier than just plain steel.

  • 08.02.2011 7:38 PM PDT

XxXD3LuuX3 X luuC1d17YXxX

Wow, I can't get over that you thought it was a battleship. Jesus, well at least your arguments make a little more sense in retrospect.

  • 08.02.2011 7:38 PM PDT

XxXD3LuuX3 X luuC1d17YXxX

Yes I'm sure that the Abrams has defied the laws of phyisics thus making depleted uranium lighter than steel.

*claps*

  • 08.02.2011 7:39 PM PDT

52,000 kills in Halo 2 and more legendary playthroughs in CE than you can imagine. I am truly a God.
.................................,-;;-=-,_____
,-------------------------.___/-----i````````'\--`\ .
|-------------xvxvxvxvxvxv--o-~~~~~~o--,\======
|_______|_o_./``/--/`;````~----------------~`
....................../_/`` BR-55

There is no such thing as an M1A3 Abrams...

[Edited on 08.02.2011 7:40 PM PDT]

  • 08.02.2011 7:39 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Member of Bungie.net for nearly three years, still continuing!

Enjoy what you have and live on.

My gamertag is Elder Bias


Posted by: Makko Mace
Wow, I can't get over that you thought it was a battleship. Jesus, well at least your arguments make a little more sense in retrospect.


Look, bub.

I mis read the information, I didn't meant that Abrams had 3 feet thick.

And most of battleships as I recall, only have armor plating of a feet to a feet and half thick.

I find it funny that you thought battleship had 3 feet thick...

  • 08.02.2011 7:43 PM PDT

XxXD3LuuX3 X luuC1d17YXxX


Posted by: raganok99

Posted by: Makko Mace
Wow, I can't get over that you thought it was a battleship. Jesus, well at least your arguments make a little more sense in retrospect.


Look, bub.

I mis read the information, I didn't meant that Abrams had 3 feet thick.

And most of battleships as I recall, only have armor plating of a feet to a feet and half thick.

I find it funny that you thought battleship had 3 feet thick...



Yes my mockery of your idiocy was definatley presented as a scientific fact.

  • 08.02.2011 7:45 PM PDT
  • gamertag: rcolem
  • user homepage:

Yes..there is. It's a tank.Its used in the military. Today. Not 2552. lol
@Elite assassin 1

[Edited on 08.02.2011 7:46 PM PDT]

  • 08.02.2011 7:45 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Member of Bungie.net for nearly three years, still continuing!

Enjoy what you have and live on.

My gamertag is Elder Bias


Posted by: Makko Mace

Posted by: raganok99

Posted by: Makko Mace
Wow, I can't get over that you thought it was a battleship. Jesus, well at least your arguments make a little more sense in retrospect.


Look, bub.

I mis read the information, I didn't meant that Abrams had 3 feet thick.

And most of battleships as I recall, only have armor plating of a feet to a feet and half thick.

I find it funny that you thought battleship had 3 feet thick...



Yes my mockery of your idiocy was definatley presented as a scientific fact.


Awww, how cute. Calling me idiot because of making a small mistake of mis reading the info about Abram's armor's thickness?

Nonethless, my point still stands.

Abrams wins against Scorpion. Abrams wins against Rhino. We can't exclude Grizzly due to lack of canon information. So we'll have to wait and see.

Just ask ExcellentSix, he'll for sure, agree with me.

[Edited on 08.02.2011 7:50 PM PDT]

  • 08.02.2011 7:49 PM PDT