Damian90 Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 Damian 90 might've meant XM32 (ARAT II) was 'fielded to late' because we're now packing up to go home. No more city patrols. I believe last month (or was it the month before?) was the first casualty-free month ever. I don't know how frequently Abrams patrols are being conducted in hostile territory these days. Last time I heard Abrams hadn't made it into Afghanistan, perhaps due to its accompanying looooong logistics tail. In iraq M1 crews are sometimes sended with EOD patrols just to not be bored in bases, M1's are equiped with mine rollers and they go to support EOD patrols on mine fields etc. But most of them sit in bases and are maintained. As for Afghanistan, there are some resons, one is You posted, second is that M1's are not needed right know, M1128 MGS are more than enough and they have HE and HEP/HESH ammo more suitabale for situation than ammo used on M1's, but U.S.M.C. sended based on M1 hull... well it is an M1 hull with different turret, and ABV's, they got great and spectacular debiut in A-stan. :-) [EDIT] - Ooops! Damian 90 posted while I was typing. Don't worry, You get my point better than I do. ;-) And something funny from world of tanks, Soviet T-64A's or T-64B's vismoded to some Soviet Sci-Fi film, I hope You like them. ;-P 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 T-84U Oplot-M: I must say that tank is preatty well suited for assymetrical conflicts, Knife-2 ERA is placed not only on frontal turret and hull armor but also as upper side skirt, so it is well protected against RPG's, the only thing it lack's is aditional belly armor. Well You can threat that tank as Ukrainian substitute of T.U.S.K. :-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted January 23, 2010 Author Share Posted January 23, 2010 Damian90, Now I understand what you're saying. Had no idea we'd pretty much ceased operating Abrams in Iraq. As for your English, it's way better than my nil Polish! The T-64 VISMODs are pretty trippy, but yet again, I find myself wondering why SF armor never/seldom seems to blend with the terrain. Still, progress over some fluorescent orange ones I've seen! Enjoying the CIA T-64 doc? That T-84U Oplot-M looks exceedingly well protected. Is that a hunter-killer sight on the turret roof? If not, any idea what it might be? Huge, whatever it is! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 Now I understand what you're saying. Had no idea we'd pretty much ceased operating Abrams in Iraq. Yeah, it seems that HBCT's are sended back to Kuwait and then on ships back to US. As for your English, it's way better than my nil Polish! Hehe it is true, Polish is preatty hard to learn if You don't hear it and learn it from the begining of life. ;-) The T-64 VISMODs are pretty trippy, but yet again, I find myself wondering why SF armor never/seldom seems to blend with the terrain. Still, progress over some fluorescent orange ones I've seen! Maybe some day I will find out in what film they used these tanks, it will be fun to watch it. :-) Enjoying the CIA T-64 doc? I read it a bit, but now I got a session on University here in Toruń, so I will look more at it after session. :-) That T-84U Oplot-M looks exceedingly well protected. Is that a hunter-killer sight on the turret roof? If not, any idea what it might be? Huge, whatever it is! Yeah, it is very well protected, double layer Knife Heavy ERA on turret front. As for that thing on turret, yes, it is CITV or Commander Independent Thermal Viewer, and it is not so huge, maybe it looks like this because Russian and Ukrainian tanks are smaller than western ones. Russians also starts with CITV's, new T-90M is equiped with it. :-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 The T-64 VISMODs are pretty trippy... I noticed that the two multi-barreled cannon (AAA?) do not appear to be able to alter their elevation. Or are they supposed to be something other than guns? Oh well, it's a movie, right? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoex Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 The T-84U also has one of the flattest, squattest turrets I've ever seen. Not easy to even see that thing when it's hull down, never mind hit it. Effective hit area looks to be about a foot and a half in height! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 Turret is normal, as in any other Soviet/Russian/Ukrainian tank. Besides this, such low profile have also disatvantages. You can't depress Your gun in hull down position like in western tanks, so You must expose Your tank more, also turret roof is more exposed to western tanks because their sights and gun are higher. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted January 23, 2010 Author Share Posted January 23, 2010 Damian90, Hadn't factored in the turret size differential in estimating the H/K sight's size and height. You are right about the depression issue in Russian tank design, but you need to understand that there is a big difference in intended operating environment between a U.S. tank and a Russian one. The former is designed for worldwide operations, but the latter is specifically designed to fight on the steppes of Russia where there's very little cover and combat life expectancy is intimately connected with vertical profile. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 Hey, I know that, and of course You have right, western tanks are more... eeee universal (?). Of course it also depends on needs of designers countries, M1 is more offensive tank and Leo2 is more deffensive. Same goes for ex USSR countries designs that are more offensive designs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted January 23, 2010 Author Share Posted January 23, 2010 Damian90, Part of my professional education as a Threat Analyst involved coming to grips with the realization that the Russians simply didn't do things the way we did, a process the West was often slow to grasp. This led to things like yanking people's clearances for daring to suggest an AA-6 didn't have a tail mounted exhaust nozzle, estimating MiG-25 characteristics and engineering based on U.S. practice (big shock when we discovered it was mostly steel,that the engines were immensely powerful, the "backward" vacuum tube radar was EMP proof), assuming the BMP-1's gun was 76 mm or the T-72 mounted a 120 mm, the assumption that U.S. weapon technology was inherently superior (no doubt why were were in crash upgrades after the Falklands War against AS-4s with an IOC of 1962 or the horrible situation we realized were in in the armor-antiarmor field circa 1985). The Russian don't have tanks as big as ours not just because of vertical profile (helped by the autoloader) but because of railroad tunnel width limits. A largely undernourished populace allows designing a smaller tank than the big, beefy Americans require, which reduces the protected volume and thus the vehicle weight. Of course, these things translate directly into deployability. Another factor is design life, which the Russians reckon as 24 hours in combat, whereas U.S. tanks are designed to last for decades and engineered accordingly. This can be clearly seen in Russian peacetime practice where a tank company has one or two vehicles allotted for training, and that's it. Any activity which puts hours on very lifetime limited combat equipment is rigorously controlled and scrutinized, for it is seen as detracting from the ability to use those tanks should war break out. Suvorov clearly addresses this issue in The Liberators, where he talks about the staggering cost of peep-show Operation Dneiper to Red Army combat readiness. So many hours were put on the participating AFVs that most had to be written off and replaced! This kind of thinking and practice are all but unthinkable in the West. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 Well, what I can say, everything what You say is true. :-) Oh one more thing, about smaller tanks in Soviet Union, the one of the main factors was also engine and to be more precise transmission, that are weaker than in west, so vehicles should be also lighter. It seems that also Generals wanted smaller tanks at any cost. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted January 23, 2010 Author Share Posted January 23, 2010 Damian90, Yes, I remember reading about hammers being issued to get recalcitrant transmissions into gear. This during the Cold War. Of course, we should blame the VPK for part of the Russian woes. Seems it ordered the GRU to steal the Chieftain tank engine. Guess what wound up running the T-64? I thought it might be poor Russian copying, but the engine was junk from the start. How did it ever make it through trials in the UK to begin with? Chieftain Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chieftain_tank "The engine is a two-stroke opposed piston design intended for multi-fuel use so it could run on petrol or diesel or anything in between. In practice the engine did not deliver the expected power, and was unreliable, estimated to have a 90% breakdown rate, but improvements were introduced to address this. Primary problems included, cylinder liner failure, fan drive problems and perpetual leaks due to vibration and badly routed pipework." The gun problem, though, as described in The Liberators, was entirely home grown! Wonder how long it took to fix it? Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 Well, if T-64 and T-64A were problematic taks, T-64B was preatty reliabale and most of problems was fixed. As for Chieftaine, well it wasn't a bad tank, but as anything have problems. Hmmm But IRCC I saw some time ago M60A3 armor thickness diagram on 3D model that Dejawolf from TankNet forums and eSim games (autors of SB Pro PE sim) made, and it seems that M60A3 have thicker frontal turret armor than Chieftaine... Well I must search that one. :-) Meanwhile when I searching 3D model with armor estimates, here M60A1/A3 Pheonix: One of two (IRCC) proposed prototypes. Ok I found some interesting info's, made by Dejawolf. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted January 23, 2010 Author Share Posted January 23, 2010 Damian90, Who operates the Phoenix version of the M60, or is it a manufacturer's upgrade still looking for a home? Sure has a lot ERA fitted! Very impressive armor thickness analysis by Dejawolf. Had no idea the ballistic protection was that good! OTOH, the design creates compound armor angling, something I never really thought about seriously, merely noting the M60A1 and M60A3 had good ballistic shaping. What's that translate to in terms of effective frontal range for T-55, T-62, T-64 and T-72, knowing what we now know about actual KE and HEAT types in the inventory, as opposed to the monkey model stuff? Also, forgot to mention earlier that the M1 hit by an EFP pic appears to have suffered the heavy hand of a military censor, in that the actual damage is quite blurred. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 Who operates the Phoenix version of the M60, or is it a manufacturer's upgrade still looking for a home? Sure has a lot ERA fitted! It is upgrade for Jordanian tanks, this one of two proposed upgrades, second have new multilayer laminate armor modules attached to turret + new armor fro front hull + new side skirts. The one on the pic, seems to also have new turret and frontal hull armor. Very impressive armor thickness analysis by Dejawolf. Had no idea the ballistic protection was that good! OTOH, the design creates compound armor angling, something I never really thought about seriously, merely noting the M60A1 and M60A3 had good ballistic shaping. What's that translate to in terms of effective frontal range for T-55, T-62, T-64 and T-72, knowing what we now know about actual KE and HEAT types in the inventory, as opposed to the monkey model stuff? Well I think that T-54/55 series could have serious problems with M60A1/A3, T-62 series should be preatty comparabale, T-64 series and T-72 series are better armored and armed, I rather don't wan't to fight in M60A1/A3 against them in open field. Here You got some ammo estimates: AT Round penetration estimates: (please be aware there is a good margin of error around any of these figures) Israeli/Chinese Type-IIM (new) 125mm 600mm at 2km Chinese Type-II 125mm 550mm at 2km Pakistani Niaza 125mm DU 550mm at 2km Israeli M711 (Romanian CL3254) 125mm tungsten 560mm at 2km (1995) (20:1 L/D) (also imported by India in 1999) Chinese/Pak (old) 125mm tungsten 460-480mm at 2km (1993) Ukraine 125mm Vitiaz round 760mm at 2km (2002) Russian 125mm BM-42M "Lekalo"? tungsten 600-650mm at 2km (200?) Russian 125mm BM-46 "Svinets" DU 650mm at 2km (1991) (22:1 L/D) Russian 125mm BM-42 "Mango" tungsten alloy 500mm at 2km (1986) (16:1 L/D) Russian 125mm BM-32 "Vant" DU 560mm at 2km (1985) (13:1 L/D) Russian 125mm BM-29 DU 470mm at 2km (1982) (12:1 L/D) Russian 125mm BM-26 "Hope" (1983) tungsten alloy 450mm at 2km (extended BM-22 13:1 L/D) Russian 125mm BM-22 "HairPin" (1976) tungsten 430mm at 2km Russian 125mm BM-17 (1972) steel 330mm at 2km (simplified export BM-15) Russian 125mm BM-15/Yugo M88 tungsten carbide slug (1972) 340mm at 2km (version of BM-12 with extended projectile) Russian 125mm BM-12 tungsten carbide slug (1968) 315mm at 2km Russian 125mm BM-9 steel (1962) 290mm at 2km Russian 125mm BK-12 HEAT (1962) 420mm at all ranges Russian 125mm BK-18 HEAT (1980) 550mm at all ranges Russian 125mm BK-29 HEAT (1990) 700mm at all ranges Indian T-2 125mm tungsten 500mm at 2km (1997) (appears similar to ChiCom 125mm round) Iranian 125mm tungsten 470mm at 3km Polish Pronit 125mm tungsten 540mm at 2km (2001) 1990s Polish 125mm tungsten round 460mm at 2km Czech Synthesia 125mm APFSDS-T round 500mm at 2km Slovak TAPNA 125mm APFSDS-T round 530mm at 2km Soviet 122mm BR471B APCBC 162mm at 1km (129mm at 2km) (1945) Soviet 122mm BR-472 APCBC fired from JS-III 191mm at 1km (165mm at 2km) Soviet 122mm BR-472 APCBC fired from T-10M 247mm at 1km (210mm at 2km) Soviet 122mm BM11 APDS fired from T-10M 354mm at 1km, 308mm at 2km (1967) German 120mm DM-13 390mm at 2km (1979) German 120mm DM-23 470mm at 2km (1983) German 120mm DM-33/Japanese JM-33 550mm at 2km (1987) German 120mm DM-43A1/US KEW A1 590mm at 2km (1994) German 120mm DM-53 tungsten 700mm at 2km (1996) German 120mm/L55 DM-53 760mm at 2km (2001) German 120mm DM-63/Israeli M-338 tungsten 680mm at 2km (2006) German 120mm/L55 DM-63 tungsten 720mm at 2km (2006) S.Korean K276 120mm tungsten 700mm at 1km (2004) French 120mm OFL120F1 tungsten 590mm at 2km (1994) French 120mm OFL120F2 DU 647mm at 2km (1997) US M103 120mm APC 221mm at 1000yards; 199mm at 2000yards at 30 degrees UK Conqueror 120mm AP 255mm at 1000 yards; 226mm at 2000 yards (1.8km) UK L-15 120mm APDS round 355mm at 1km/340mm at 2km (1965) UK L-23 120mm tungsten APFSDS round 450mm at 2km (Apr 1983) UK Charm-1 L-26 120mm DU APFSDS round 530mm at 2km (1991) UK Charm-3 L-27 APFSDS 120mm DU 720mm at 2km (1999) UK L-28 120mm APFSDS 770mm at 2km (200X) US M829A3 120mm DU 765mm at 2km (2003) (Russian estimate 795mm) US M829A2 120mm DU 730mm at 2km (1994) US M829A1 120mm DU 610mm at 2km (1991) (Russian estimate 700mm) US M829 120mm DU 552mm at 2km (1987) US M827 120mm tungsten 450mm at 2km (never fielded by US) US Olin GD120 120mm tungsten 520mm at 2km US/Egyptian KEW-A2 120mm tungsten 660mm at 2km South Korean 120mm APFSDS 670mm at 2km Indian 120mm tungsten 650mm at 2km Chinese 120mm tungsten 550mm at 2km Russian 115mm BM-28 DU APFSDS 384mm at 2km (early 1980s) Russian 115mm BM-21 DU APFSDS 330mm at 2km (mid-late 1970s) Soviet 115mm BM-6 steel APFSDS 280mm at 1km, 246mm at 2km (1962) Soviet 115mm BM-3 tungsten carbide APFSDS 270mm at 2km (for original T-64) UK/Egyptian 115mm BD/36-2 APFSDS 460mm at 2km Chinese Type-86 105mm DU 460mm(from "short" 105)/480mm(from "long" 105) at 2km Chinese Type-93 105mm DU 510mm("short")/540mm("long") at 2km Chinese Type-95 105mm DU 580mm at 2km (from "long" Type-83A 105mm) UK T-2 HP 105mm tungsten round 560mm at 2km UK 105mm L-28 tungsten cap APDS 120mm at 60 degrees at 900m, 250mm at 1km (mid-1950s) US/UK 105mm L-36A1/M392 tungsten cap APDS 260mm at 1km (1961) UK 105mm L-52A3 tungsten core APDS 320mm at muzzle, 280mm at 1km, 254mm at 1500m, 240mm at 2km (1973) UK 105mm L-64A4 tungsten APFSDS 310mm at 2km (1982) UK/Pakistani 105mm H6/62 APFSDS 360mm at 2km (1990s) Pakistani 105mm DU APFSDS 450mm at 2km Indian 105mm APFSDS 350mm at 2km French OFL105F2 105mm DU 520mm at 2km (mid 90s) French OFL105G1 105mm APFSDS 350mm at 2km (1981) French OFL105G2 105mm tungsten 440mm at 2km (late 1980s) French OFL105F1 105mm tungsten 250mm at 2km (1981/2) French 105mm HEAT (AMX30) 160mm at 60 degrees Canadian C127 105mm tungsten 460mm at 2km (1992) US M-392A2 105mm APDS 260mm at 1km, 250mm at 1.5km, 225mm at 2km (early 1970s) (Rushed into service after M392 problems in 1973 Arab-Israeli war) US M-728 (UK L-52) 105mm APDS 320mm at muzzle, 280mm at 1km, 240mm at 2km (mid 1970s) US M-735 105mm tungsten APFSDS 330mm at 1km, 300mm at 2km (1978) US M-735A1 105mm DU 370mm at 1km, 350mm at 2km (never deployed) US M-774 105mm DU 375mm at 2km (1981) US FP105/Can C76 105mm tungsten 330mm at 2km (export only) US M-833 105mm DU 440mm at 2km (1984) US M-900 105mm DU 520mm at 2km (1991) Taiwanese TC84 105mm APFSDS 450mm at 2km Mecar 105mm tungsten APFSDS 390mm at 2km German DM-23/Israeli M111/South Afr FS Mk1 105mm tungsten 310mm at 2km or 150mm at 60 degrees (1978) German DM-23A1 105mm tungsten 330mm at 2km (1980s) German DM-33/Israeli M413/Sth Afr FS Mk2 105mm tungsten 380mm at 2km (1984) German DM-63/Israeli M426/Sth Afr FS Mk2 Imp. 105mm tungsten 450mm at 2km (early 1990s) US M456 105mm HEAT 350mm Soviet BM-25 100mm APFSDS 296mm at 2km (late 1970s) [320mm at 1km] Soviet BM-8 100mm APDS 238mm at 2km (1968) [257mm at 1km] Soviet 100mm HVAPDS 200mm at 1km (HEAT 300mm) Soviet BR-412D 100mm APCBC 198mm at 1000m (165mm at 2000m) (post-war) Soviet BR-412B 100mm APBC-T 160mm at 1000m (134mm at 2000m) (1945) Soviet 100mm BK-354M HEAT 280mm (WWII) Soviet 100mm BK-5M HEAT 390mm (1960) Yugoslav M65 100mm APCBC 158mm at 1km; 136mm at 2km (1954) Yugoslav M98 100mm APFSDS 150mm at 60 degrees at 2km Pakistani/Chinese AP-100-2 100mm APFSDS 350mm at 2km (1986) Chinese AP-1 100mm APFSDS 240mm at 2km (1980) Chinese AP-2 100mm APFSDS 290mm at 2km (early 1980s) Romanian BM-412M (M309) 100mm APFSDS 418mm at 2km (1990s) Mecar M-1000 100mm APFSDS 350mm at 2km (1996) US M341 90mm HEAT 300mm (mid 1950s) US 90mm T119 (T41) APBC 152mm at 914m at 30 degrees from vertical US 90mm T119 (T41) APDS 236mm at 914m at 30 degrees from vertical US 90mm T119 (T41) HVAP 223mm at 914m at 30 degrees from vertical US 90mm M3A1 (M46 Patton) APBC 119mm at 1000 yards (913m) at 30 degrees from vertical US 90mm M3A1 (M46 Patton) HVAP 157mm at 914m at 30 degrees from vertical Mecar M-652 90mm APFSDS 180mm at 1km (150mm at 2km) French OFL-90 F1 90mm APFSDS 230mm at 1km (200mm at 2km) (early 1980s) South Korean M-241 90mm APFSDS 230mm at 2km (1984) UK 20pdr APDS 280mm at 1000 yards (913m) [260mm at 1500 yards] Soviet 85mm BR367 APHE 163mm at 1km Soviet 85mm BR365PK HVAP 180mm at 1km; 150mm at 1500m Soviet 85mm BR365K APBC 128mm at 1km (1944) US M93 76mm HVAP 175mm at 1000m, 160mm at 1500m (1945) US T91 76mm (M41) APC 122mm at 914m at 30 degrees from vertical US T91 76mm (M41) HVAP 208mm at 914m at 30 degrees from the vertical Soviet 76.2mm HVAP 61mm at 1km (HEAT 120mm) US 76mm M464 APFSDS 230mm at 2km US 76mm M1A2 (M4 Sherman) APCBC 89mm at 914m at 30 degrees from vertical (WWII) US 75mm M6 (M24 Chaffee) APCBC 77mm at 914m at 30 degrees from vertical (WWII) Fr 75mm POT-51A (Isr M50) 110mm at 1km Soviet 57mm BR-271P HVAP 145mm at 500m Bofors 40mm APFSDS 131mm at 1km 35mm APDS 90mm at 1km Oerlikon 30mm APFSDS 97mm at 1km 30mm L14A3 tungsten APDS 63mm at 1km 2A42 30mm AP-I 44mm at 1km 2A42 30mm APDS 62mm at 1km New 2A42/2A72 30mm APFSDS 79mm at 1km 25mm APFSDS DU 75mm at 1km Oerlikon 25mm tungsten APFSDS 77mm at 2km 25mm APFSDS 56mm at 1km 25mm M919 DU APFSDS 30mm+ at 60 degrees at 2km 25mm M791 APDS 33mm at 60 degrees at 1km; 28mm at 60 degrees at 2km 20mm APDS DM-63 44mm at 1km (1988) 20mm APDS DM-43 40mm at 1km (1982) 20mm HVAP for Rh-202 gun 34mm at 1km 12.7mm API 19mm at 500m Still this estimations have some mistakes, but I don't have time, knowledge etc. to correct them. Also, forgot to mention earlier that the M1 hit by an EFP pic appears to have suffered the heavy hand of a military censor, in that the actual damage is quite blurred. Did I miss something? :-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted January 23, 2010 Author Share Posted January 23, 2010 Damian90, Sorry! I totally botched the M1 eaten by an EFP reference. The pic is here, courtesy of one Damian in his May 4, 2009 post. http://208.84.116.223/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t26751.html The list of antiarmor projectiles is simply astounding to me and frighteningly illustrates the severe gap in performance between Russian projectiles of the period and our own, with the U.S. on the short end. Some simple comparisons tell a scary tale. I selected 1985 when the 120 mm M256 armed M1A1 (not HA) first hit IOC and almost the entire U.S. force (less 152 mm M551 Sheridans and M60A2) has the L7A1 105 mm M68 gun. Russian 125mm BM-32 "Vant" DU 560mm at 2km (1985) (13:1 L/D) Russian 125mm BK-18 HEAT (1980) 550mm at all ranges vs. US M-833 105mm DU 440mm at 2km (1984) US M456 105mm HEAT 350mm (four different versions, last has graze action fuze) Russian 115mm BM-28 DU APFSDS 384mm at 2km (early 1980s) Russian BK-4 HEAT 490 mm Soviet BM-25 100mm APFSDS 296mm at 2km (late 1970s) [320mm at 1km] Soviet 100mm BK-5M HEAT 390mm (1960) Of course, this without factoring in the TLGM family (Fair use) http://www.warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=314&linkid=1772&linkname=Tanks-and-armament T-55A T-62 T-72S T-80U/T-90S BMP-3 MT-12 Gun Firing range, m 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 4,000 5,000 Hit probability 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 Firing mode stationary stationary stationary stationary, on the move stationary, on the move stationary Penetration behind reactive armour, mm 650-700 650-700 800 800 650-700 650-700 Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 Ah the post on TankNet is My. :-) I found these pics long time ago. I dont see them in the link, but if these are pics I think they are, the tank was only damaged, EFP heavily damaged side skirts and lightly damaged side turret armor. As for ammo, yeah, well 105mm ammo was uncapabale to be dangerous for frontal turret armor of newer Soviet tanks, but there is a good news, frontal armor was vurnabale, such vurnabale that Soviets quickly retrofitted older tanks with additional armor plate welded to glacis plate and later production tanks havem thicker glacis plate, also 105mm ammo was capabale to perforate armor over weak zones. When M900 and M900A1 were fielded, situation wasn't such bad. But until fielding M1A1 with 120mm M256/L44 US haven't any advantage in ammo and weaponary, when US fielded M1A1HA whole NATO have finaly tank superior to soviet designs + in the same year Germany fielded Leo2A4's with new turret and probably hull armor. Well, we can be now happy that finally NATO designs are comparabale and in most terms superior to other countries designs. Oh, and my personal opinion, I think that NATO in cold war times before Reagan starts his reforms, have this problems with land forces, that Air forces and Navy were more funded, this was the reason why NATO waited until 1979-1980's to field first III rd. generation tanks with multilayer laminate armors and other goodies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted January 23, 2010 Author Share Posted January 23, 2010 Damian90, Thought it might be you, but I wasn't sure. I didn't list a 120 mm data set because I wasn't sure what the U.S. actually used in the M1A1 prior to the XM829. IOC put only a small formation (would guess a battalion) into play, opposed by a huge force armed with 125 mm guns. M1HA was a crash program to "get well" after the horrifying revelations we've been discussing. This is why V Corps was looted of its best tanks prior to the "Hail Mary" of Desert Storm. The U.S. was afraid the vanilla M1s might get eaten alive by Iraqi T-72s. Knowing what we know now, seems eminently reasonable to me! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 Oh I have a question, about preposition stocks. Did US build in stocks repair facilities capabale to upgrade tanks armor? In Saudi Arabia prior ODS all M1A1's were upgraded to M1A1HA standard. I also heard that some M1IP's were used in Iraq in 91 but these were not combat used, just were there, rest of M1IP's stayed in SA. BTW it seems that US will send more equipment to preposition stocks in Israel, this means also armor, I wonder how many M1's are stored in Israel, any idea? About M829, there was also M827, but never fielded. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted January 23, 2010 Author Share Posted January 23, 2010 Damian90, If you're asking about POMCUS, not so far as I know. Was unaware any M1A1 upgrades to M1A1(HA) were done in Saudi Arabia, but Zaloga's Osprey book M1 Abrams does indicate an upgrade was done on 765 M1A1s, just not where. Also of interest is Marine use of M1A1(HA)s and that not all the M1A1s used in Desert Storm were M1A1(HA)s. http://books.google.com/books?id=-ugxN7VKWiEC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=M1A1s+upgraded+to+M1A1(HA)+in+saudi+arabia&source=bl&ots=w_jtjnK-dA&sig=4wt Section E 1 here at GulfLink says M1 to M1A1 upgrades were done in Dammam, but says no DU welding was involved. Color the discussion confusing! http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_tabg.htm#TAB%20G_DU%20Exposures%20in%20the%20Gulf%20War Are you sure we're talking about prepositioned U.S. tanks in Israel? This article suggests the U.S. is/was trying to kill the Merkava program. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/3094 Testimony regarding Army Prepositioned Stocks, three of which are at unspecified locations in SWA as APS-5. Israel is explicitly IDed as one of the benefactors. http://armedservices.house.gov/comdocs/openingstatementsandpressreleases/108thcongress/04-03-24johnson.html APS-5 is in Qatar and Kuwait for sure, but we're still missing one set. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/aps-5.htm Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 As far as I know, all M1A1's used in gulf in 1991 were M1A1HA's, some were older M1A1's upgraded to this standard, some were M1A1HA's from the start. So this means that slick M1A1's were upgraded in Saudi Arabia (there was time for transport equipment, materials and personell to do that, or tanks were upgraded before sending them to Saudi Arabia. One way or another. Hmmm today it seems that almost all M1A1's got DU armor layers, I saw pics of ARNG M1A1's and side serial number on the turret have U letter... but I also saw some M1A1's used by Marines for training without U on the end of serial number... so probably in some cases there are still some M1A1's waiting for upgrades. Hey and thanks, these links are interesting, especially M1IP with cammo typical for NTC tanks. :-) BTW, what M1A1 variant is used by NTC today? I know that these tanks are sometimes vismoded but it is possible that these tanks are not slick M1A1's but some "Heavy" variant? Oh and about stocks in Israel, this is completely new news in our military press, it seems that US wan't to send more equipment and ammo to stocks in Israel, there is mentionet that equipment means also unofficialy armored vehicles so probably tanks and IFV's, so US hold in Israel some number of M1's and M2's? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted January 23, 2010 Author Share Posted January 23, 2010 Damian90, Here's a thread on NTC M1s, complete with two pics of VISMOD M1A1s used by OPFOR there. Info's quite recent. See Gino's and Robert's posts here. http://www.armorama.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=SquawkBox&file=index&req=viewtopic&topic_id=149867&page=1 This says M1A1s--30 of them, dubbed "Krasnovian variant tank." Obviously, this may not be current. /Training_Center5688.aspx'>http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ARCHIVE/2005/JULY/Pages /Training_Center5688.aspx This also says M1A1s and has a splendid analysis of potential OPFOR MRB formations and the conduct of the direct fire engagement. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_00-3_ch1.htm Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 Ok thanks for info's. :-) Unfortunetly second link is corrupted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted January 24, 2010 Author Share Posted January 24, 2010 Damian90, Let's fix that! http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ARCHIVE/2005/JULY/Pages/Training_Center5688.aspx M1A1 KVT at NTC http://www.armorama.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=SquawkBox&file=index&req=viewtopic&topic_id=152093&page=1 Good close shot here, but you'll need to register. Column 1, Row 3, also apparent KVT pair in Column 4, Rows 4 and 5. http://www.trackpads.com/gallery/member.php?uid=355&protype=1 Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted January 27, 2010 Author Share Posted January 27, 2010 Damian90, Here's the AGM-124a Wasp missile I worked on for both threat characterization and countermeasure studies. The briefing I gave was so comprehensive that I not only had answers for all the questions the customers hadn't even asked yet, but the Branch Chief for Target Signature and Image Metrology at what was then the Army's Foreign Science & Technology Center (FSTC) wanted to recruit me. The Wasp missile would these days be called a Brilliant Munition and was the cutting edge of technology, being sent out in autonomously hunting swarms, within which the missiles talked to each other so that only one missile went after each tracked AFV, wheeled vehicles being automatically ignored. FSTC got involved because it came up with an ingenious way to use scale models to predict target glint at millimeter wave (MMW) frequencies by aluminizing 1/35th scale models then illuminating them with a laser and mapping the bright spots. This told us what the seeker was likely to zero in on, and that got fed back into the seeker development program. In turn, the seeker work led to my opportunity to play TC on an M48A5 Hughes bailed from the National Guard and looked at with all kinds of seekers from a tower overlooking a local reservoir next to the plant. Hughes won the contract, but Wasp was never built, I think because of the high cost associated with such a revolutionary weapon. It was in watching the barely briefed Wasp warhead test film that I learned how little it took with composite armor to change assured penetration into no hope of piercing the armor array at all. By barely briefed, we weren't told how thick it was, what it was made of other than what we could see of the array elements or even what tank it was supposed to represent! http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-124.html Lucked out, a thread with a guy (djcross) whose company built the Wasp warhead. Says it had a tantalum liner and pierced (wait for it) 9 feet of Class A armor plate! http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?p=1516130 A good description of the overall weapon concept, what was to carry it and more. http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=3062.0 Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.