Modern armor internal arrays & what defeated them or might

[Damian90]

Times have changed, don't forget about that, right now Russia will reduce active number of tanks to 2000 (T-90A's, T-90's, T-80U's and T-72B's with T-80B's in best condition) and with reserve tanks there will be maybe 6000 max 7000 tanks in Russia, on the other hand US have 8800 to 9000+ M1 tanks, are upgraded to the newest variants like M1A1SA, M1A1FEP and M1A2SEP, even ARNG recieve M1A1AIM v.1 or M1A1SA/AIM v.2, not in such high numbers like US.Army, but still there are more and more of them in units.

China also have small number (~200 to ~500) of ZTZ-99/99A/99A1, the bulk of it's armored corps tanks are ZTZ-96 and ZTZ-96G (~2000 to ~2500) that are IInd.+ gen. tanks.

Numbers are still important, but more important is training, technology, situationall awerness, comunications, control & command of units.

[Yair Iny]

I remember story's at WW2 like soviet tanks crew T-34-76 was fighting against T-V 'tiger', when 76mm soviet gun was not effective far then 500m, to hit tiger in front. but we won that war :-)

What's your point? Of course the USSR won the war, but the Tiger was still superior to the T34 at range, was it not? Would the fighting not have been easier for the Soviets if the T34 WAS able to penetrate the frontal armour of the Tiger at range?

[Damian90]

Not forget also casualties, and it is easier to repair or build new tank than replace well trained crew.

Not to mention that T-34/76 and T-34/85 were not well designed tanks with so many shortcomings, that I would never want to sit in this piece of ****, Yes if I can tell, that after WWII Soviets made many great constructions, I will say that T-34/76 and T-34/85 are crap, nothing more. Bad engine with low life time, weaponary not good as Soviet propagand claims, armor protection is not good as Soviet propaganda claims etc.

Heh I even would rather wan't sit in M4A1(76)W, M4A3W, M4A3E8(76)W "Easy Eight" or in M4A3E2 "Jumbo" than in any T-34, US tank is much safer for crew in mentioned versions, even that PzKpfw. V Ausf.D/A/G...

So it is always better to have a better tank that will protect the crew and give them some chances to survive thanks to armor protecion or protecting crew from after armor perforation effects.

[MikeyD]

There's been some academic theorizing that Tiger and Panther went a long way towards losing Germany the war. What Germany needed was ten thousand simple, basic, robust infantry tanks, not a couple hundred 'marvels of technology'. The Russian army flowed around the limited number of JagdTigers blocking their advance like water flowing around a pebble. Let's state up front that PzIV was a piece of crap, but building a LOT of tanks a little better than a PzIV without the 'techical virtuosity' of a King tiger would've made for a much tougher fight.

That same observation could be applied today. A 'supertank' is not worth anything if the first 45 ton weight class bridge it comes upon stops it cold. For all the 'virtuosity' of Stryker MGS, a rusty old T55 does just as well throwing HE downrange for close infantry support.

[Damian90]

And then again we live in a different times.

And as it is funny... M1A2SEP is in popular advanced and complex machine, but in fact, from mechanical point of view it is simpler than T-72A! Even gas turbine engine is from pure mechanical point of view simpler than Diesel.

So in times we all live, there can't be such clear opinion, that something, even if it looks simpler, because our point of view, tradition, propaganda of manufacterer, in fact is more complex.

So M1128 maybe is a better choice for infantry fire support, even if it looks more complex.

Ok can we back to topic?

[John Kettler]

Damian90,

Did you see the CIA's own conceptual drawings in the declassified doc? If so, I can tell you there are marked similarities to some of what was on the site you decry, though one is way too high in profile, thus, not typically Russian in design. It does, though, seem to be based on IS-5 as far as turret configuration. http://www.battlefield.ru/en/armors/28-heavy-tanks/39-last-heavy-tanks.html The FST, which I now believe was supposed to have a 140 mm gun, was featured in Time magazine, Defense News on the cover and elsewhere. Have the photocopies to prove it and will provide full citations if desired. BTW, the role playing game Twilight 2000 put out a Soviet Vehicle Guide with an FST rendering which was so close to the intel reports of the time I bought it on the spot and still have it. You can look through it online here. http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=408&it=1&filters=0_0_10115_0_0

As for the Black Eagle or whatever it's called, I honestly don't know what to think, much less believe. It was clear from its initial appearance that important aspects of overall configuration were being hidden, that maskirovka was occurring before our eyes. Official Russian comment was tight lipped, reinforcing speculation that this was a very special and important tank. But now I read that this tank, whatever it actually looks like under the visual screens, isn't even going to be used by Russia and is instead intended exclusively for South Korea. So you can understand my confusion! This is linked from the Russian military export catalog.

http://www.warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=244&linkid=1780&linkname=Black-Eagle-MBT

Speaking of confusion, is there a site in which someone shows all the versions of the M1, with technical details and recognition features? I feel like an idiot when I read all the M1 posts here and don't really follow what's being discussed. I'm more or less okay on the Russian tank side, but still getting used to the Russian nomenclatures, as opposed to what I used during the Cold War, the Air Standards Coordinating Committee (ASCC) ones.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Damian90]

Did you see the CIA's own conceptual drawings in the declassified doc? If so, I can tell you there are marked similarities to some of what was on the site you decry, though one is way too high in profile, thus, not typically Russian in design. It does, though, seem to be based on IS-5 as far as turret configuration. http://www.battlefield.ru/en/armors/...avy-tanks.html The FST, which I now believe was supposed to have a 140 mm gun, was featured in Time magazine, Defense News on the cover and elsewhere. Have the photocopies to prove it and will provide full citations if desired. BTW, the role playing game Twilight 2000 put out a Soviet Vehicle Guide with an FST rendering which was so close to the intel reports of the time I bought it on the spot and still have it. You can look through it online here. http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/produc...=0_0_10115_0_0

Well, preatty much all drawings ae only speculations, I saw pics of some prototypes and one can be classified as FST, just T-80U hull with redesigned turret and 152mm rifled gun. :-)

So FST not nececary looked like these thing in concept arts. ;-)

As for the Black Eagle or whatever it's called, I honestly don't know what to think, much less believe. It was clear from its initial appearance that important aspects of overall configuration were being hidden, that maskirovka was occurring before our eyes. Official Russian comment was tight lipped, reinforcing speculation that this was a very special and important tank. But now I read that this tank, whatever it actually looks like under the visual screens, isn't even going to be used by Russia and is instead intended exclusively for South Korea. So you can understand my confusion! This is linked from the Russian military export catalog.

Object-640 (Black Eagle) program is dead, the only thing from program that survived is turret concept, in fact probably Burlak turret is based on Object-640 design, but it is unknown if it ever been finished and fielded.

Speaking of confusion, is there a site in which someone shows all the versions of the M1, with technical details and recognition features? I feel like an idiot when I read all the M1 posts here and don't really follow what's being discussed. I'm more or less okay on the Russian tank side, but still getting used to the Russian nomenclatures, as opposed to what I used during the Cold War, the Air Standards Coordinating Committee (ASCC) ones.

I can write something for all M1 variants that were fielded.

M1 - basic variant, Burlington armor, 105mm M68A1/L52 rifled gun, 55 main gun rounds stored.

M1IP (Improved Performance) - frontal turret armor thickened from 650mm to 880mm, reinforced suspension, new bigger side turret stowage boxes and added rear turret stowage basket.

M1A1 - 120mm M256/L44 smoothbore gun, redesigned blow-off panels over turret bustle ammo magazine, redesigned CWS (Commander Weapon Station).

M1A1HA (Heavy Armor) - 1st. generation armor with depleted Uranium alloy layers.

M1A1HA+ (Heavy Armor Advanced) - 2nd. generation armor with depleted Uranium alloy layers.

M1A1HC (Heavy Common) - 2nd. generation armor with depleted Uranium alloy layers, digital control system for engine, some equipment is common between US.Army and U.S.M.C. tanks.

M1A1D (Digital) - M1A1HC with digital battle management system to keep up with digital battlefield concept, only for two batallions manufactered.

M1A1AIM v.1 (Abrams Integrated Management version 1) - refurbrished older tanks to zero hour condition, after total repair program, some are upgraded by addin FBCB2-BFT system, some don't have it, same with new FCS, other upgrades like AGT-1500C GT engine after TIGER modernisation..

M1A1AIM v.2 or M1A1SA (Abrams Integrated Management version 2 or Situational Awerness) - 3rd. generation armor with depleted Uranium alloy layers, new FCS, FBCB2-BFT system, IInd. gen. FLIR, TIS for CWS, TIP, PDB, digital TNB and HNB, other upgrades like AGT-1500C GT engine after TIGER modernisation, FTL system etc.

M1A1FEP (Firepower Enchancement Program) - 3rd. generation armor with depleted Uranium alloy layers, new comunication system, TIS for CWS, TIP, other upgrades like AGT-1500C GT engine after TIGER modernisation, unofrtunetly I don't know more about this standard.

M1A2 - 2nd. generation armor with depleted Uranium alloy layers, CITV, ICWS, IVIS battle management system, not mounted on all tanks due to software failurse, replaced by FBCB2-BFT/EPLRS.

M1A2SEP v.1 (System Enchanced Program version 1) - 3rd. generation armor with depleted Uranium alloy layers, new FCS, 2nd. gen. FLIR, new air conditioning system, new batteries, AGT-1500C GT engine after TIGER modernisation, FBCB2-EPLRS system, other upgrades.

M1A2SEP v.2 (System Enchanced Program version 2) - As above, but there are some upgrades like HUD in some if not all vision blocks, CROWS-2, other unknown to me upgrades.

All tanks starting from M1A1 can be upgraded with T.U.S.K.-1 or T.U.S.K.-2 Tank Urban Survivability Kit's.

[John Kettler]

Damian90,

Appreciate clarification of Black Eagle's status (was it really for South Korea?), but I hugely appreciate the quick guide to the bewildering sea of M1 versions! Any chance of a labeled set of pics so I can learn to spot them and ID them properly? I can differentiate an M1A2 (by the CITV) from earlier M256 gunned models and spot the Marine versions via the EOCM box, but that's about it. Speaking of M1s, the DTV was one of my dad's projects at Hughes. When did they first put air conditioning into the M1? I know it wasn't in the early ones because they had to add it for the Saudi tank competition. Also, you might find this of interest. It's in my 12:57 a.m. post. Possibly the world's first laser-armed AFV to see combat!

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=87722&page=26

Regards,

John Kettler

[Damian90]

Appreciate clarification of Black Eagle's status (was it really for South Korea?)

No one really knows and probably not for SK, mostly for Russian Army itself, because Omsk needed new contracts for goverment that stopped purchasing T-80U's from them... but Omsk is bancrupt right know and whole tank production is concetrated in Nizhny Tagil.

but I hugely appreciate the quick guide to the bewildering sea of M1 versions! Any chance of a labeled set of pics so I can learn to spot them and ID them properly?

All M1A1 versions looks preatty similiar if not same.

Tanks with FBCB2-BFT got BFT antenna on the right site of main gunners sight, small thing, it is also visible on M1A1SA in CMSF.

M1IP got turret similiar to later models but with old blow-off panels form M1.

M1A2SEP got aircondition unit in back of the turret when in older versions there is EAPU (Externall Auxiliary Power Unit), some v.1 M1A2SEP's got UAAPU in the rear left sponson box where earlier was fuel cell, but idea was droped due to fieldieng new betteries and because due to UAAPU tank take less fuel.

It is really hard to say sometimes if we see M1A1HC or M1A1SA because on many M1A1HC's there are FBCB2-BFT systems mounted and it is just impossible to say at first look what tank we see.

The easiest way to say if we see old basic M1A1 and newer models is serial number on the turret, if there is older tank there will be only serial number, if it is newer model there will be such thing: serial number i.e. 1296U, the U stand for armor with depleted Uranium alloy layers.

I can differentiate an M1A2 (by the CITV) from earlier M256 gunned models and spot the Marine versions via the EOCM box, but that's about it.

Marines use several different versions, slick M1A1's were transfered to training only I think, but I saw pics of some used by Marines, M1A1HA/HA+ are also probably used in small numbers, the most spread variant in Marines use is M1A1HC, all of them will be upgraded to M1A1FEP, but some older variants also use VLQ-6 MCD system, and not all M1A1FEP's got it, so tank used by marines that You seen might be an M1A1FEP, but it could be also older variant.

Heh it is harder to say what variant of M1 we see than in case of Soviet tanks on any other over the world, I just love US OPSEC and desinformation. ;-P

Speaking of M1s, the DTV was one of my dad's projects at Hughes.

Cool, this thing surely helps crews. :-)

When did they first put air conditioning into the M1? I know it wasn't in the early ones because they had to add it for the Saudi tank competition.

Well, for some air conditioning, crews use NBC overpressure air system and special uniforms. The first tanks in US service with true aircondition were M1A2SEP's, but probably older tanks recieve A/C systems also. But priority in upgrade program is armor protection, situational awerness and upgrading tanks mechanical components.

Also, you might find this of interest. It's in my 12:57 a.m. post. Possibly the world's first laser-armed AFV to see combat!

Ahhh. Soviet lasers! Yeah I know some of them, US also have some based on M2 IFV hull, but Russians officialy stayed at lasers that's blind opto-electronics in planes and etc.

But non of them see combat from what I know.

[Flanker15]

Only real visual difference you'll need for the M1 today is the M1A2 has a CITV sticking out of the forward left turret roof and the M1A1 don't.

Look here for nice diagrams of the major models:

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm

[John Kettler]

Damian90,

More M1 groggery! Regarding air conditioning, I'm familiar with the liquid cooled vests, but as you gleaned, I meant proper fighting compartment air conditioning. As for their lasers, the HEL they did! Couldn't resist!

Let's talk about Burlington, which I know as Chobham. This is a Cold War story of a great breakthrough undone by both a clever foe and rude circumstance. It was barely out of development before it was compromised by Gunter Guillame, Willi Brandt's Defense Minister and Russian agent in place. This effectively rendered moot the strenuous Army efforts to protect the secrets of its radical new "special armor," despite such OPSEC drills for cracked open M1 track guards as blankets, tarps, plywood and even thick mud. In a further irony, it turned out that the U.S. had inadvertently undone what should've been a huge armor advantage because of a canceled earlier tank program called the T95, which used siliceous cored armor, just like the later M1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T95

Just as the B-70 threat led to the MiG-25 FOXBAT, so too did the T95 trigger a Russian response, HEAT projectiles designed to defeat it. We found out about them because they became obsolete in Russia and, per Suvorov, now eligible for export. This old Russian ammo wound up in Arab hands, in turn passing to Israel from capture during the Yom Kippur War. In the early 1980s, our specialists got their hands on some via Israel and began to do some tests. Great was the consternation when it was found that the Army's marvelous M1 could be frontally killed--by a PT-76! Nor were the campers happy when it was found that U.S. static testing was understating actual HEAT penetration because Russian HEAT was designed to incorporate the dynamic effects of its in-flight velocity, something static testing hid. And we haven't even gotten into what the Russians were doing with broadband obscurants, SFWs (Sensor-Fuzed Weapons) and a staggering array of laser-guided munitions. We can get into that stuff later. This was the beginning of a series of horrible shocks, which came to a head in the 1985 Defense Science Board Summer Study, whose conclusion was that our armor was woefully inadequate, ditto our tank killing means, ditto our ability to identify correctly and respond to Russian armor and antiarmor developments. This is why the XM829 and M1A1HA were crash developed and fielded; why M1s in the Desert Storm "Hail Mary" were all replaced by M1A1HAs rushed from V Corps before the offensive commenced; why the TOW went in very short order from TOW to ITOW to TOW2 (brother George, then in the 2/11 ACR on the IGB was told: "If you see one of these, then you're going to war"), the TOW2a and TOW2b (I was there at Hughes, and people were in shock, worse after ERA), why Dragon was first improved, then replaced by Javelin; why the LAW was first improved, then dropped for the AT-4. Basically, only two antitank missiles were assessed by the DSB as still viable: Hellfire, which was subsequently massively tweaked, and Maverick, another Hughes product, which was so grotesquely powerful (173 lb. shaped charge) no armor of the period (and probably even now) could defeat it. We used to joke in Operations Analysis that the warhead was only there in case it missed, and we weren't kidding. Our Weapon Analyst computed the KE to be about 80% of a 16" shell. I saw footage of an M60 M/K-killed by an inert IIR (Imaging Infra Red) Maverick. It completely smashed in the engine compartment and set the tank ablaze. Had it been combat loaded, it would've exploded. Noted and now departed AFV collector Jacques Littlefield somehow got the carcass years later and was restoring it at the time of his death. Saw it up close on a program covering AFV collectors, and the engine compartment was an utter ruin, with maybe two components actually salvageable. You have now had the short course on why the U.S. went the way it did in both armor and antiarmor. It was desperate, very expensive game of catchup ball.

In places, though, we're still way behind. For example, we're just now getting into aluminized enhanced blast effect explosives, with associated implications for HEAT warheads. The Pentagon admitted the Russians had these way back in the late 1980s in the final issues of Soviet Military Power and the later Russian Military Power. For quite some time, the same held true of thermobaric weapons. Certainly, the U.S. has nothing to rival the TOS-1 Buratino.

http://www.military-today.com/artillery/tos1.htm SLUFAE's hardly in the same league and is an obstacle breacher rather than a weapon per se. http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/slufae.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[Damian90]

There are at least one more difference on turret.

TC cupola, in M1/M1A1's it is CWS or Commander Weapon Station with M2HB, it can be fired from inside, cupola is powered and has IRCC 3x sight, now it is equiped also with TIS or Thermal Imagination Sight.

M1A2 got ICWS or Improved Commander Weapon Station, cupola have more and bigger vision blocks that improve situational awerness, but because of instalation of big dispalys for CITV and FBCB2-EPLRS cupola is fixed not powered with traverse mechanism, so M2HB is on flex mount and can be operated only from the outside. This is why M1A2SEP's recieve in this year (probably) CROWS-2 remote weapon stations.

[Damian90]

Let's talk about Burlington, which I know as Chobham. This is a Cold War story of a great breakthrough undone by both a clever foe and rude circumstance. It was barely out of development before it was compromised by Gunter Guillame, Willi Brandt's Defense Minister and Russian agent in place. This effectively rendered moot the strenuous Army efforts to protect the secrets of its radical new "special armor," despite such OPSEC drills for cracked open M1 track guards as blankets, tarps, plywood and even thick mud. In a further irony, it turned out that the U.S. had inadvertently undone what should've been a huge armor advantage because of a canceled earlier tank program called the T95, which used siliceous cored armor, just like the later M1.

Burlington armor use only in small % ceramics as we can assumpt today, but it still was optimised only to protect against HEAT warheads and max 115mm APFSDS ammo.

M1A1HA used still Burlington but with added 1st. gen. DU alloy layers, later versions used completely new armor, probably similiar to Dorchester armor used on FV4034 Challenger 2.

There is some funny thing with Burlington adoption by US, when Brits came with it, some US general, or someone said "oh no, not again this ceramic piece of ****", IRCC. ;-)

But Brits said that this is something else, and idea was adopted by US.

Just as the B-70 threat led to the MiG-25 FOXBAT, so too did the T95 trigger a Russian response, HEAT projectiles designed to defeat it. We found out about them because they became obsolete in Russia and, per Suvorov, now eligible for export. This old Russian ammo wound up in Arab hands, in turn passing to Israel from capture during the Yom Kippur War. In the early 1980s, our specialists got their hands on some via Israel and began to do some tests. Great was the consternation when it was found that the Army's marvelous M1 could be frontally killed--by a PT-76! Nor were the campers happy when it was found that U.S. static testing was understating actual HEAT penetration because Russian HEAT was designed to incorporate the dynamic effects of its in-flight velocity, something static testing hid. And we haven't even gotten into what the Russians were doing with broadband obscurants, SFWs (Sensor-Fuzed Weapons) and a staggering array of laser-guided munitions. We can get into that stuff later. This was the beginning of a series of horrible shocks, which came to a head in the 1985 Defense Science Board Summer Study, whose conclusion was that our armor was woefully inadequate, ditto our tank killing means, ditto our ability to identify correctly and respond to Russian armor and antiarmor developments. This is why the XM829 and M1A1HA were crash developed and fielded; why M1s in the Desert Storm "Hail Mary" were all replaced by M1A1HAs rushed from V Corps before the offensive commenced; why the TOW went in very short order from TOW to ITOW to TOW2 (brother George, then in the 2/11 ACR on the IGB was told: "If you see one of these, then you're going to war"), the TOW2a and TOW2b (I was there at Hughes, and people were in shock, worse after ERA), why Dragon was first improved, then replaced by Javelin; why the LAW was first improved, then dropped for the AT-4. Basically, only two antitank missiles were assessed by the DSB as still viable: Hellfire, which was subsequently massively tweaked, and Maverick, another Hughes product, which was so grotesquely powerful (173 lb. shaped charge) no armor of the period (and probably even now) could defeat it. We used to joke in Operations Analysis that the warhead was only there in case it missed, and we weren't kidding. Our Weapon Analyst computed the KE to be about 80% of a 16" shell. I saw footage of an M60 M/K-killed by an inert IIR (Imaging Infra Red) Maverick. It completely smashed in the engine compartment and set the tank ablaze. Had it been combat loaded, it would've exploded. Noted and now departed AFV collector Jacques Littlefield somehow got the carcass years later and was restoring it at the time of his death. Saw it up close on a program covering AFV collectors, and the engine compartment was an utter ruin, with maybe two components actually salvageable. You have now had the short course on why the U.S. went the way it did in both armor and antiarmor. It was desperate, very expensive game of catchup ball.

In places, though, we're still way behind. For example, we're just now getting into aluminized enhanced blast effect explosives, with associated implications for HEAT warheads. The Pentagon admitted the Russians had these way back in the late 1980s in the final issues of Soviet Military power and the later Russian Military Power. For quite some time, the same held true of thermobaric weapons. Certainly, the U.S. has nothing to rival the TOS-1 Buratino.

http://www.military-today.com/artillery/tos1.htm SLUFAE's hardly in the same league and is an obstacle breacher rather than a weapon per se. http://www.designation-systems.net/d...p4/slufae.html

I agree, US have many shortcomings, even first M1's were not ideal, but in the end, all weapon systems were improved, some lessons were learned, in ODS and OIF there were even more lessons learned, such as T.U.S.K. development.

Ok, now i wan't to see only one thing, what US will come up with M1A3 and GCV program. :-)

[John Kettler]

Flanker15 and Damian90,

Thanks! Good to know we caught up with the T-64 when it comes to remote operated HMG--finally! Now, that didn't take long, did it? I found an online Secret NIE for the T-64, but somehow lost it. Grr!

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

I found a lengthy list of which countries have DU ammunition in service and what the designators are.

http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/i/21.html#12

From the above, a, to me at least, staggering amount of data and visuals on Russian 125 mm KE projectiles, including a bunch with DU. Regarding the DU aspect, the open source info here, obviously once Top Secret, fully confirms some very scary things I heard in the mid 80s.

http://www.russianarmor.info/Tanks/ARM/apfsds/ammo.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Damian90,

Found it! The Soviet T-64B Tank: An Updated Assessment

http://www.faqs.org/cia/docs/26/0000498140/THE-SOVIET-T-64B-TANK:-AN-UPDATED-ASSESSMENT-%28SW-84-10069X%29.html

This one, sadly, has substantial redactions. Even so, a great deal of useful material remains, including the assessments of armor protection vs. KE and HEAT, gun performance, early estimates of the AT-8 SONGSTER characteristics and much more. I think it would be instructive to go back and compare this 1984 assessment with what's now available. Drill to read it is as for other CIA FOIA docs.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Damian90,

Blundered across this while trying to find something else. The level of technical detail in this Wiki is astounding. Indeed, this is the most I've seen on Chobham armor--ever, and that includes when I held security clearances. I find the footnote sources to be most meaty. Regrettably, not a one is available online. Believe they're called print sources!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour

Regards,

John Kettler

[MikeyD]

The latest issue of AFV News arrived with an overview of recent (depressing) U.S. armor development projects and an overview of recent Abrams upgrades. One line struck me as odd, though. Discussing the TUSK upgrade "...all 505 Abrams tanks in Iraq should now have them." 505? Some years ago I thought the number of serving Abrams in Iraq was closer to 1,000. Assuming the article was penned pre-drawdown of U.S. forces, that implies a 50% attrition rate.

[John Kettler]

MikeyD,

Fascinating! Any idea how many earlier M1s have gone through the ground up rebuild and massive upgrade? That might be worth comparing to official loss numbers. After all, the ones being rebuilt are, I believe, first blown up, since there's no other source of M1s.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Dietrich]

Discussing the TUSK upgrade "...all 505 Abrams tanks in Iraq should now have them."

I'm by no means an armor grog, let alone a modern armor grog, but isn't "all 505 Abrams tanks in Iraq should now have [the TUSK upgrade]" not unlike saying the expectation is that Abrams are going to be employed in urban[-ish] environments a lot more? (Are USMC Abrams included in this 505?) Or does that statement simply mean that these tanks should have already received the TUSK upgrade (which would have made them more useful tactically)?

[John Kettler]

Dietrich,

I think you're right, but MikeyD's issue is that the total quantity of M1s in theater is little over half of what he remembers should be there. Am fairly positive the Marine M1s aren't in the count because TUSK is an Army program. Yes, definitely Army, TACOM. No idea what the Marines are doing.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/street-fighters-m1-abrams-tusk-tank-conversions-updated-02546/

Regards,

John Kettler

[Damian90]

In second half of 2008 and to 2010 all M1 tanks in Iraq have been equiped with T.U.S.K.-1 and T.U.S.K.-2 kits.

In 2009 there were less than 500 M1 tanks in US.Army, rest have been send back to US, even destroyed or damaged ones.

US completely lost probably only 20-50 tanks that were completely burned down, such tanks are beyond repair status.

Tanks after big IED's are partially lost, turret is always only lightly damaged, hull if it have deformed belly structure is scraped and GDLS produce new hull in their low rate production program, I know this from one guy that have acces to info's and He is probably employee of GDLS Lima Army Tank Plant.

Also there is new turrets low rate production, because old M1's and M1IP's turret's can't be upgraded to newer standard, it is needed to produce new turrets, hull's of older variants can be upgraded though.

U.S.M.C. M1's are really interesting, mostly the only parts of T.U.S.K. kit we can seen on them is additional belly armor, armored shield for loader MG station and TIS for CWS. But I've heard from good informed guy, that there were seen tanks equiped with full T.U.S.K. kits, in iraq it was rare view but probably U.S.M.C. just adopt kit slower than Army.

BTW in known pics, M1A2SEP's in Iraq are not equiped with full T.U.S.K -2 kit's, here how full kit looks:

And details of XM19 and XM32 ARAT-2:

It looks like XM32 cassettes are moveabale, from known sources these casettes are also ERA, so tanks with T.U.S.K. have double ERA protection, it was designed to boost protection against EFP's and tandem HEAT warheads.

But XM32 cassettes also can be something else than ERA, GI's doesen't tell much about XM32's.

[John Kettler]

Damian90,

You amaze me! Maybe BFC should hire you, seeing as how you are so up on modern armor and related matters? Mind if I ask where you're from and how you come by such formidable knowledge?

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that both the box structures and the things that look like Roman legionary shields are both ERA. Is that right? If so, my guess is that the curved ones are built around Detasheet or something similar, with just enough oomph to ruin a precursor charge but not stop a primary warhead event--that after busting up the standoff probe/missile nose first. And so the armor-antiarmor game continues!

What did you think of the goodies I discovered? I certainly NEVER expected to read that level of detail about Chobham armor on Wiki (was pretty much resigned to never knowing much about it), and I thought the T-64B doc was a real find, excisions notwithstanding. Was fascinated to see all the info on 125 mm KE projectiles. Again, well beyond what I ever saw in my military aerospace days--especially the DU projectiles!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Damian90]

You amaze me! Maybe BFC should hire you, seeing as how you are so up on modern armor and related matters? Mind if I ask where you're from and how you come by such formidable knowledge?

I'm from Poland, and I am just 20 years old guy with passion and good "mentors". ;-P

My info's are from TankNet some Russian/Ukrainia sites (here is better to be carefull, Russians and Ukrainians have tendency to overestimate their tanks and underestimate western ones), from one very good informed military journalist from Poland (BTW if everything will go good, my first article will see light in Polish military press, and it is about M1A1SA and M1A2SEP by the way. ;-)), rest are my own observations and logical conclusions, sometimes I also have good discussions with friends and we made such things like diagrams of armor protection that I post here. Rest informations are from currently serving or retired tankers. But remember, not all from My info's can be true or even close to true, so the best way, is to be carefull.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that both the box structures and the things that look like Roman legionary shields are both ERA. Is that right? If so, my guess is that the curved ones are built around Detasheet or something similar, with just enough oomph to ruin a precursor charge but not stop a primary warhead event--that after busting up the standoff probe/missile nose first. And so the armor-antiarmor game continues!

Maybe, well this is all what mentioned journalist dig up form GI's, but it could be something else. Well, ERA or not side protection have an boost in protection and this is anything we can be cartain in 100%.

What did you think of the goodies I discovered? I certainly NEVER expected to read that level of detail about Chobham armor on Wiki (was pretty much resigned to never knowing much about it), and I thought the T-64B doc was a real find, excisions notwithstanding. Was fascinated to see all the info on 125 mm KE projectiles. Again, well beyond what I ever saw in my military aerospace days--especially the DU projectiles!

Well, I would be carefull with Wikipedia, Burlington armor and all modern multilayer laminate armors are not using ceramics in such quantitives as we think earlier, there must be something else, much better than ceramics... well nothing is certain yet, but from what I know, ceramics have many shortcomings and from what I've seen on photos, most armors are layers of metal alloys plates with air gaps or something between them, not nececarry ceramics.

And about T-64B, well, until fielding M1A1 (I'm not so sure here), M1A1HA, Leo2A4 (bath from 1987-88 and later) and maybe, but only maybe FV4030 Challenger 1, NATO haven't any tank better armored than T-64B and T-80B and when Soviets fielded T-80U and T-72B only M1A1HA offered significant better protection over frontal arc.

[Damian90]

Leo2A4 (bath from 1987-88 and later)

Oopss! I mean batch, sorry. ;-P