Damian90

Some news from USA. It seems that US.Army not only plans to equip all of their M1A2SEP v.1/v.2 fleet with new RWS but also plans new deep modernisation program and it seems that they also wan't more armor upgrades. Here we see M1A2SEP v.2 with new RWS but what is more interesting, there are weigth simulating plates welded to turret front and hull front. These plates are allways welded to tank before new armor package is installed. Also these documents says to us that new armor upgrade is indeed installed: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/wsh2010/16.pdf http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/wsh2011/16.pdf Here also official, aproved US.Army Modernisation Plan for 2012 and beyond. https://www.g8.army.mil/pdf/AMP2012_lq.pdf Very interesting, it seems that US.Army and ARNG active tank fleet is mostly made from M1A2SEP's, numbers of that variant also increased, second variant in active fleet is M1A1SA, older variants quantities are not mentioned.

By the way for M1 tanks hull front armor thickness, how we get to around ~600-700mm. Well I was searching for some pics from factory and get this, a view on front hull special armor cavity backplate, so we know where armor actually ends, and it ends not near the weld line seen over glacis plate.

Well, it is normal for persons that have other primary language than English, try to learn Polish, You this seems to be a very difficult language for westerners. Nothing usefull? Playing in CMSF I was surprised that many games features regarding armored fighting vehicles protection are very close to reality, so data in that thread is usefull.

We slavs are teached that first we should learn and search informations by our own, if we can't find these informations then we ask how things look without talking about how we think how it can look because we know that we can think wrong. Different mentality perhaps. I think that thread include enormous amount of informations about main battle tanks and other armored fighting vehicles that can be used in game, because when You know how tanks are designed, how they should be used or not used you have an edge in that game that is preatty realistic in that term. Heh I playing blue forces knowing what are strong and weak sides of AFV's on both sides, in campaing I actually never lost a tank and very small amount of lighter vehicles. So definetly a good knowledge about AFV's design is usefull.

Christ, learn something first before You wrote such... weird things. Overall most western tanks with 4 man crew have such crew positions configurations. Right side of turret is occupied by gunner sitting just behind frontal armor backplate in front of FCS block, behind him and sligthly abovie gunner is sitting TC (Tank Commander), on the left side of turret there is loader position. So mounted near hatches are TC heavy machine gun and loaders machine gun. Gunner operates an FCS (Fire Control System) of main gun and any coaxial weapon for main gun, also TC have limited possibilities to operate FCS, main armament and it's coaxial armament. Loader operates it's machine gun + it's reloads main gun, reloads coaxial weapons (not all, only inside mounted) + he is additional observer. As for TUSK, in standard configuration TUSK kit have only one additional weapon, an second heavy machine gun mounted outside over gun mantle mask and it is connected to FCS as second bigger calliber coax weapon. However for M1A2SEP variant, a heavy machine gun for TC will be replaced by CROWS-2 remote weapon station with Mk19 Mod3 or M2HB, it is not currently one of TUSK kit elements but a separate element mounted if needed. If You wan't to learn more about main battle tanks, visit this thread: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=90432

I repeated myself from other thread, Yours. So YES, tank optics can be used to detect ATGM launch and even to track it, trully ATGM engine when working at any stage is visible even in older thermal sights. Heh, You can with some luck even see ATGM launch (or even ATGM in flight) with a Mk1 eyeballs.

Do You considered a possibility that crew just saw an fire from ATGM's engine when it was launched? It should not be a big problem to see a flash from launching engine, especially if this is some newer M1 tank variant like M1A1SA or M1A2SEP with 2nd generation FLIR and a new FCS with new optoelectronics that have max zoom 50x (max digital zoom for 13x normal zoom, there is also 25x digital zoom for 13x normal zoom) so this machine have a really nice FCS, better than any tank modelled in game.

It is normal when very big IED will detonate under any vehicle. Hopefully it will not be an photo that I saw allready, and believe me, I saw many of them. PS. That M1 you made a pic, was probably not direct casualty of IED detonation if I understand correctly term "charred", in what year You made that pic? I can suppose that this was a secondary effect when there were no interest in PMCS procedures to secure fuel and other flammabale fluids in tank, so this means higher probability of fire.

M1 series front hull armor thickness. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All modern main battle tanks have FCS or Fire Control Systems that are made from subsytems like wind sensors, laser range finders, gun and sights stabilization, cant sensors etc. So actually modern MBT's not only are capabale to fire accurate when not moving on range of 2600m but also when being on the move at a range up to 4000m there is 80-90% that target will be hit with first shot. Of course many things depends on different FCS used on different tanks, optics quality, gun quality, ammo quality etc.

Seems that I was wrong, upgraded M1A1's have the same FCS with two main sight oculars as M1A2SEP have. Iraqi M1A1M's (downgraded export version of M1A1SA):

You mean EFP charge? Wrong idea, most EFP charges are not effective against tank armor. HEAT warhead is more effective.

Some interesting PDF's. http://www.army.mil/-news/2011/04/05/54409-tankers-go-digital-with-abrams-upgrade/ http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/wsh2010/16.pdf http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/wsh2011/16.pdf http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/wsh2011/108.pdf http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armament/WednesdayReunionDavidSmith.pdf

Still this is plain stupid. Do You know how HEAT warhead even works? By firing a HEAT warhead side ways from the main projectile You can effectively decrease penetration levels of that warhead because it will detonate at not optimal position from the armor, it can be turned about few degrees from the optimal center line etc.

I can try. So firstly I will translate (or at least try Your previous post). In case of Leopard 2 tanks there is an small issue. We know actuall armor thickness (at 0 degrees from turret center line and at 30 degrees from turret center line). What we don't know are what materials were used in armor and what protection they offer. There are many way to estimate. This is the way I choose recently. Leopard 2 turret front: ~840mm at 0 degrees from turret center line, ~740mm at 30 degrees from turret center line. -------------------------------- As we can see we have here both APFSDS's and ATGM's that were fielded before Burlington armor (or similiar) technology was widely used. So they can be treated as answer to recently being fielded Leo2A1 (840-740mm LOS) and first M1 (~740mm LOS at 0 degrees from the turret center line). I think that for such answer we can take 3BM26, 3BM29, 9M11M, 9M112M. Ok, so now we should consider that penetration level of considered ATGM/APFSDS should be enough to perforate frontal armor of Leopard 2 (at that time) and compare it to armor LOS thickness. I will calculate it for Leo2 front armor thickness : ~740mm (840mm is optimal thickness) so we have here something around 0.53 and 0.56 against APFSDS and 0.81 - 0.95 against HEAT. Perhaps this relation between armor penetration values to LOS thickness of Leo2 was there to give a chance for penetrating it's armor. Or it could be attempt to catch with offered by Leo2 armor protection? Anti tank weapons fielded in 1984 should be in development from around 1978. So I will consider the less positive situation for tanks. This means that the higher value was good enough (or not, we don't know that) to perforate Leo2 frontal turret armor. Rest I will translate later.