I will prepend this question by saying that I have no idea how the star safety rating system in the U.S. works, so if this question for some reason isn’t even applicable to an Abrams tank, please explain why.
How many stars would it get?
I see the top speed is listed as 45mph (considering other tech specs of the tank are still classified I wonder if that’s conservative), can it ram a building at this speed? What would it feel like for the tankers? What would happen if two Abrams’ ran into each other head on full speed, fatalities?
I’m hesitant to wade into GQ territory, but I know a former tank commander. He said guys got hurt in them all the time, a lot of head injuries, owing to the cramped quarters full of pointy metal bits. For that matter, he said that Humvees were incredibly dangerous since they tipped over a lot, so it’s more an issue of the sorts of training these vehicles are involved in rather than their inherent safety.
That said, the Abrams weighs 67 tons, or roughly 45 mid-size sedans. Crash tests wouldn’t faze it.
If we’re talking about a brick house, the tank would drive straight through it and barely slow down. Most barriers won’t do much against the inertia of a 65+ ton tank.
If, hypothetically, the tank ran into an immovable object and came to a screeching halt, the Soldiers inside would suffer the effects of a 45 mph collision with no airbags. They have helmets, but still… ouch.
If two tanks ran into each other, the Soldier suffers a 90 mph collision. Double ouch.
The parameters of the test are presumably those of the NTHSA crash testing program: running into a fixed deformable barrier at 35 mph, having a 3,000 lb. barrier run into the side of the vehicle at 38.5 mph, and moving the vehicle sideways into a pole at 25 mph.
Well the apparent lack of seatbelts (based on steronz’s post) will have to hurt the Abrams’ crash ratings.
Looking at theNHTSA website it seems the 5 star system is based on how the vehicle performs compared with others in its class, with a 3 star rating being average and a 5 star rating being much better and 1 star much worse. There’s also this little tidbit:
[QUOTE=NHTSA]
Overall vehicle score and frontal crash ratings should ONLY be compared to other vehicles of similar size and weight.
[/QUOTE]
Given the Abrams is sui generis it’d have to get a 3-star rating on all tests - as the average performer in a class of one. At least until a bunch of Merkavas, LeClercs, Chieftains and T-90s get run through the same tests.
Oh and I’d love to see the test rig that can push a MBT sideways into a metal pole at 25mph.
The driver is reclined and pretty safe in his hole. The newbies that are made to be drivers don’t understand that the little bump he just felt turned the crew in the turret into mush. No seatbelts. Everything metal and unforgiving. And the tank commander and loader are often standing. I think the safety rating would be pretty low.
Maybe it’s a little off topic or tangental, but my dad told me that he drove a Humvee at one time and that it’s handling was terrible compared to an ordinary civilian road car.
Everywhere as far as I know. Barring any weight rescriction and size constraints. I have certainly driven M1s on public streets. Military vehicles do not have to follow local registration or equipment laws. No plates, no inspection stickers.
For the most part it does not make sense to do so. Very expensive in fuel costs. An inexperienced driver can tear the hell out of some asphalt. It makes more sense to trailer the tank to where it needs to go train.
A) depends on the deformability of the “deformable barrier.” If it’s designed to be significantly deformable by the average passenger car, it’ll be obliterated by the the 67-ton Abrams.
B) a 3000-lb barrier run into the side of the 134,000-lb Abrams won’t generate appreciable accelerations for the crew.
C)Moving the Abrams sidways into a pole? How tough is the pole? If it’s the average creosote-soaked telephone pole, the pole will lose and the crew probably won’t notice the impact.
However, theft and destruction of property are still illegal regardless of whether or not the vehicle stolen or used as an instrumentality to commit destruction of property is street legal or not. That is, whether or not it is street legal is not a substantive element of the offenses.
No more so than any large off road vehicle. It drives like a truck not a car. And the armored ones are very heavy so that has to be taken into consideration. I’m not sure where the idea upthread came from that they are prone to rollover. They have a very wide wheelbase and are very stable. Much more than any jeep or SUV. Rollovers happen due to severe terrain especially at night under blackout conditions. They can routinely go over terrain that most civilian off road vehicles can’t.
Two tanks colliding at 45 mph does not result in the equivalent of a 90 mph crash, it is the equivalent of a 45 mph crash. I know, it sounds crazy, but it’s true.
Yes thats my point. I am unaware of any laws prohibiting driving tanks on the road. It is very rarely practical to do so. The only time I have done so is in parades or going to and from same.
This is not correct. The two tanks in this case go from 45 mph to 0 mph. The soldiers in the tanks experience a 45 mph collision not a 90 mph collision.