IICptMillerII

Pretty much anybody can 'overwhelm local defenses' inside the first 60 hours, from ISIS fighters in pickups to crackpot ranchers hijacking and occupying an isolated federal building. The trick is what come after those first 60 hours. Let's remember the Allied defense strategy during the Bulge offensive. Let them enter the salient, firm up the shoulders to keep them contained, then close the bag once they're all inside. That netted the allies practically all of the German tanks on the Western Front in just a bit over a month.

You'll find your sentiments shared with a lot of people, John. On the one hand there's nothing wrong with dashing at top speed from battle position to battle position, and the reverse in conjunction with the hull-down command can save you, but you're right: It's an outright pain in most other situations and usually turns formation advances that are "shoot and move" into wild traffic jams with rounds only flying in one direction. Inbound. 

Yes, these reports and quotes from experts are doing their jobs. In the military world, you always prepare for the worst case scenario. You always assume the worst. The idea is, if you prepare and train for the worst, then what you encounter in reality won’t be as bad. It’s better if the training you endure is worse than the reality. 
However, you cannot take the worst case scenario and assume it is what would be most likely to happen. That’s why buzzfeed-like sites are so obnoxious. They take an out of context quote and extrapolate on it without having any understanding of either the quote or the subject matter. Most people don’t have time to spend delving deep into real analysis, so they take it at face value. The idea that Russia is capable of running over all of Western Europe is a result from these over generalized articles. It’s not true. 
Again, this is only useful if used as part of a first strike to buy time by causing temporary chaos. Otherwise, it’s pointless. We do not live in a world where if the electricity dies, or GPS fails, everything falls into apocalypse. This notion is completely false, especially in a military sense. Most militaries train and operate in environments where these basic every day luxuries are already absent. This is nothing new, and just because it appears that everyone is over reliant on technology, does not mean everything falls apart when the WiFi dies. 
 
Yes, this can be done in peace time, but most of the information gained is already known. Most countries have a thing called communications and operations security. This means that, when the posture is necessary, things like smartphones are off and stored away from units that need to maintain their security posture. No one leaves the wire with their iPhone. Russia struggled with this when their “volunteers” did not observe this type of security posture, and many of those “volunteers” were tracked through Ukraine. Vice news actually did a rather good piece on this specifically. 

One picture isn't doctrine. I said that ERA can be fitted to the Abrams, and in certain conditions it is, such as TUSK. Its primary purpose is to make an Abrams more survivable in an urban environment. You'll also note that the ERA in CMBS on the Abrams only covers the side armor of the tank, not the front. This is because it is largely unnecessary, because the frontal armor of the Abrams is more than capable of defeating ATGMs, which has been my main point this whole time. 
No, its not. All of those tanks were lost IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT. The reason the Israeli's suffered the casualties they did was because irregular warfare in an urban environment is extremely difficult and will produce high casualties, regardless of what the opponent is armed with. As I also said earlier, RPG-7 warheads are more than enough to mission/outright kill Abrams tanks if fired from the right angle. Further, and I'm repeating myself again, Israeli losses in the Lebanon war were more to do with improper tactics than they were to do with the ATGM threat. 
And again, they only lost 6 tanks, even though at least 50 were hit with varying AT weaponry. 6 for 50 is pretty fantastic odds in a high density urban conflict. Saying that there was some great disaster suffered by the Israeli's is pure fantasy. 
TROPHY will help make tanks more survivable in an urban environment, regardless of the type of AT weaponry being employed against said tank. 
It appears I misremembered the numbers on this one. Russia operates something like 700+ missiles (not launchers) as of current. Despite this, I still stand by my point, that the most advanced ATGMs do not exist in large enough numbers to saturate modern battlefields with, as has been claimed. Even in 2006 Lebanon the Kornet was used exclusively against higher threat tanks due to their relative sparsity.
 
Again, I'll repeat. In an urban environment, a man with a grenade made in 1962 poses a serious threat to a modern tank, yes that includes an Abrams. Or a Molotov cocktail, or any number of other threats. One of the Mk4 Merkava's in Lebanon was destroyed by an IED, despite the fact that the Mk4 had a V hull specifically designed to defend against IEDs. Murphy's law is always a constant in war. And the US not wanting the Iraqi military to have top of the line equipment was a very prudent decision, seeing as how quickly they collapsed in the face of ISIS, and how much of their gear was captured and then used by ISIS. There were a lot of US airstrikes destroying captured US equipment in the past few years.
Composite armor is a general term, not a specific recipe. All of this is dancing around the point anyways. I'll repeat again:
ATGMs pose a threat to tanks. Just as any AT weaponry poses a threat to tanks. 
The threat of ATGMs against Abrams tanks has been GREATLY overexaggerated based on faulty examples that ARE NOT one to one. A Saudi Abrams IS NOT a US Abrams. An Iraqi Abrams IS NOT a US Abrams. Just because the Iraqi's managed to get a lot of their new equipment blown up/captured, does not mean the US would suffer exactly the same fate. Gulf War, OIF and other conflicts all confirm this. 
ATGMs pose a threat, but they are not this so-called dreaded doom that will bring down the West the second they step foot in an ATGM environment. 
While these armor figures give a good ballpark, and the effect in Steel Beasts is realistic (that is, you can clearly see that for most of the frontal profile of an Abrams, it is very hard to penetrate it with HEAT ammunition) do note that they are not 100% accurate. The armor and armor values on the Abrams (and the Challenger and Leopard 2 for that matter) are all still classified. The numbers Steel Beasts is allowed to provide are good generalizations, but they are not exact. 
All of your other points are correct, and speak to what I am trying to say. Not all tanks are made equal. Not all armor is made equal. Just because a tank is listed as having "composite armor" does not mean it has exactly the same armor values as all other tanks with composite armor. 
Oh no, not at all! Always glad to see your input!  I've just lost a bit of patience for people who post consistently with this backwards, dumbed down logic, (you aren't one of them) so I've become more blunt in my responses in general is all.   

Yes, which is why during the Cold War the US Army was forward deployed, whereas nowadays there are only annual rotations sent through Eastern Europe. These forces aren't meant to be forward deployed, they're meant to be a friendly reminder to Russia not to try anything conventional. Russia is not a stupid power run by stupid people. They understand the warning. Again, this isn't some new East vs West armored standoff. It's not Fulda Gap part two. 
Overly choreographed exercises don't count.
You can't cripple infrastructure unless you physically destroy it. Until a cyber attack can destroy highways, runways, burn down crops in the fields, destroy homes and blow up hospitals and schools, cyber attacks will make little if any difference in the long run. They're best use is to cause a few hours of confusion to by time for attacking forces. 
There really isn't. First and foremost, Russia knows that to engage in any overt military acts against neighbor states would ruin them internationally. As I said, the Russians are not stupid. They won't be blitzkrieging anyone anytime soon. Further, its doubtful they even have the capability to carry out a full on large scale conventional military operation, regardless of NATO. The Russian military is quite limited in its capabilities. They are not the Soviets.
Yes
If the deterrent forces were in position, they could stop a determined Russian assault. The amount of hardware a deployed Brigade Combat Team has is more than enough to hold its own. After all, that was the whole reason the BCT was created. Combine that with NATO literally being right there, and its easy to see a handful of BCT's holding their own long enough for support to arrive. 
The Russians aren't stupid. 

Yes, which is why during the Cold War the US Army was forward deployed, whereas nowadays there are only annual rotations sent through Eastern Europe. These forces aren't meant to be forward deployed, they're meant to be a friendly reminder to Russia not to try anything conventional. Russia is not a stupid power run by stupid people. They understand the warning. Again, this isn't some new East vs West armored standoff. It's not Fulda Gap part two. 
Overly choreographed exercises don't count.
You can't cripple infrastructure unless you physically destroy it. Until a cyber attack can destroy highways, runways, burn down crops in the fields, destroy homes and blow up hospitals and schools, cyber attacks will make little if any difference in the long run. They're best use is to cause a few hours of confusion to by time for attacking forces. 
There really isn't. First and foremost, Russia knows that to engage in any overt military acts against neighbor states would ruin them internationally. As I said, the Russians are not stupid. They won't be blitzkrieging anyone anytime soon. Further, its doubtful they even have the capability to carry out a full on large scale conventional military operation, regardless of NATO. The Russian military is quite limited in its capabilities. They are not the Soviets.
Yes
If the deterrent forces were in position, they could stop a determined Russian assault. The amount of hardware a deployed Brigade Combat Team has is more than enough to hold its own. After all, that was the whole reason the BCT was created. Combine that with NATO literally being right there, and its easy to see a handful of BCT's holding their own long enough for support to arrive. 
The Russians aren't stupid. 

Not true. Electronic warfare has been around for decades, and the US is actually quite well prepared for it. This is another overblown exaggeration by clickbait articles from places like Popsci and the like. The fact is, the Ukrainians were vulnerable to EW because most of their systems aren't hardened against this, and because they began using unsecured devices (the infamous artillery app being a good example) to communicate, which were easily intercepted. 
As to the effects on command and control, this too has been addressed decades in advance. US doctrine is all about being highly decentralized. Commanders in the field do not need to be in constant contact with the Pentagon in order to function. Further, cyber warfare does not make combustion engines stop, or bullets fail to fire. Land navigation is still taught with a physical map and compass, marksmanship still requires soldiers to hit targets with their personal rifles, etc etc. 
Cyber warfare is more of a first strike type of weapon, like an EMP before a nuclear strike. Its purpose is to confuse and make it difficult to collect immediate intelligence on a large situation, thus giving the attacker the advantage and initiative. Beyond that, its actual battlefield applications are limited. Anything EW/Cyber warfare can disrupt on the battlefield, can easily be overcome by those on the battlefield. 
Also not true. The Russian military is NOT the Soviet juggernaut. For example, todays Russian military has around 500 T-90 tanks. In comparison, the US operates over 4000 Abrams, with about half of those being the M1A2. The only way Russia could hope to outnumber the US alone, disregarding NATO, would be to carry out a lightning strike over the course of 72 hours or so. However it is doubtful whether or not the Russian military in its current state could even do that against a near peer opponent. The US rotates units through Eastern Europe as a deterrent to Russia attempting a quick strike against a neighbor, as they would be close by to respond. They are not there to man the frontier like they did during the Cold War. Its a key difference lost on many. As to the artillery comment, this assumes that only the Russians are using indirect fire, which would not be the case. And again, it is not April 1945 anymore. The Russians don't have hordes of artillery divisions with the express purpose of deleting gridsquares anymore. 
Also, there are plenty of battles in CMBS that are not strictly "balanced." Anyone can make a QB or a battle in the editor, and there is nothing there that forces balance. In fact, a good number of the campaign missions put the player up against very difficult situations.
Again, this is just a regurgitation of a gross generalization that isn't true in reality. The US does not use air power as a crutch. If air power is not available, it does not mean that the West will fall. This is another meme that needs to die. Even in conflicts such as Iraq and Afghanistan where there is total air dominance, the use of tactical air strikes (CAS) is the exception, not the rule. For every firefight that ended with a JDAM strike, or an AC-130 showing up, there are probably 9 firefights that were resolved without the use of air power. 
Also, Russia does not have more 4th generation aircraft than the US, let alone NATO. The Russians operate around 70 Su-35s. That is half the number of F-22s operated by the US, and much fewer than the number of F-15s and F-16s operated by US and NATO countries. Again, this is all based on the false generalization that the modern day Russian military is just as big, powerful, and capable as the Soviets were. It isn't. 
Yes, and before and after the A-10 existed, no one expected the aircraft to be able to cartwheel through enemy air defenses and lay waste to everything it encountered. The US and Coalition forces spent a month reducing the Iraqi military's air force and air defense network before the sky was considered secure. The famous highway of death happened after that month of securing air superiority. Planes are piloted by people, and people generally do not like throwing their lives away in obvious suicide missions. The idea that the knee jerk reaction to any military situation is to throw planes at it has never been the case. In fact, it was tried once in history, during the 1973 Yom Kippur war, and the Israeli airforce suffered massive casualties. Of course, they didn't know they were flying into a highly advanced (for the time) SAM shield. If Russia were to ever do anything, NATO does know they would be operating under a complex, advanced air defense network, and would not just throw planes and pilots to their deaths willy nilly. 

"power grid is offline"
Useless fear mongering and drivel.  In the US, there are thousands of power plants and tens of thousand of substations, etc.  The majority of these run on SCADA and control systems isolated from the web and outside connections.  Any cyber attack might be able to take a couple power plants down for a short period or isolate regions from the interconnections, but it is darned close to impossible to bring the entire national grid down.  The worst that can happen is hitting the right node at the right time might bring a city grid down for a short time.  Even in the worst storms in the US, the majority of people and businesses have their power back on in hours, with a few taking days.  And those storms are significantly more powerful than any cyberattack can possibly be.  The only way to bring a grid down is through massive physical damage.
This is one of those things the press has gotten a hold of and keeps perpetuating the issue.  Should utilities protect themselves and prepare?  Yes, they should.  Should people understand a little more about an issue before perpetuating the fear mongering?  Yes, they should.  I work in the industry and do a lot of work to understand the security issues.  It has been hijacked by security consultants and the intelligence services to scare people and increase budgets...and its worked.
And before someone screams "what about the Ukraine", it was an isolated part of Kiev only and lasted for less than hour.  And that was a nation-state putting significant resources into doing it.  It actually proves my point.  That malware would have to be modified for every SCADA configuration, and that numbers in the tens of thousands.  It would require someone who has a fairly detailed knowledge of the specific devices and configuration of a transmission grid, distribution grid, or power gen source.  Not impossible, incredibly difficult.  I knocking out significant power for a long time an important goal for a large part of a country, physical attack is probably more cost effective.

Unless you're able to fully understand all of the concepts that are detailed in FMs, you're honestly better off not reading them. FMs are very dense, and what is written does not immediately translate into practice. Think of them like textbooks. Without the proper hands on classroom instruction, they are largely useless. 
My advice would be to watch the Jeffrey Paulding videos a few times through, understand what he is saying, and then try to emulate it. Remember, tactics are extremely simple. They have to be, after all they must be understood by terrified, sleep deprived, starving, miserable 19 year olds. The trick is always to keep it simple and not get lost in the nuance. There is a ton of nuance in FMs.
Put simply, all warfare (from the tactical level to the strategic) comes down to the ability to maneuver. You want to move, and prevent the enemy from being able to move. The way you do that is with fire. If you have fire superiority, it means you can move and the enemy cannot. If you can move, you can win. If you can't move, you can't win. Tactics come down to allowing your force to move. Then it's all a matter of dealing with problems as they arise. ATG down the road preventing your tanks from moving? You have to find out how to take it out, so that your forces can maneuver. This is where the nuance comes into play, and its easy to get lost in. Just remember, as long as you are keeping things simple, you can unravel the battlefield. 

Well, with the holidays and then some 3 weeks of subzero temps, I was set back for a bit. It was so friggin' cold in my place I couldn't sit in my little kitchen where my computer is. Probably best I take it slow any way. The last couple times I've done these mods it really burned me out. But I did manage to whack out 276 portraits today (about 8 hours worth of modding). Percentage wise it's low, but work is continuing. Tomorrow is my B-day so I may take that off, don't know yet. Here's a peak at some of what is done.
 

 
Mord.

This trash meme needs to die.
Comparing export model Abrams, crewed by completely inexperienced crews, being used willy-nilly with little tactical rhyme or reason DOES NOT EQUAL how M1A2 Abrams would perform in a full on conventional conflict, used properly by decent crews. 
Also, this whole "ATGMs are muh dangerous!" meme also needs to die. The Abrams tank, Challenger tank, and Leopard 2 tank were all SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED with NEW armor (Chobam, composites, etc) to DEFEAT ATGMs. ATGMs are largely USELESS against these types of tanks. Export models of these tanks DO NOT HAVE this composite armor. This is why they are so vulnerable to ATGMs in places like Syria and Iraq. Well that and they could not be handled more poorly in those situations as well. 

This. Fire is a feature that would take an absurd amount of time to code and get right, especially when you consider all the dynamics that would have to be applied. At the end of the day it just isn't worth all the time and effort it would require. Besides, there are better features that can be worked on than fire.

This. Fire is a feature that would take an absurd amount of time to code and get right, especially when you consider all the dynamics that would have to be applied. At the end of the day it just isn't worth all the time and effort it would require. Besides, there are better features that can be worked on than fire.

Unless you're able to fully understand all of the concepts that are detailed in FMs, you're honestly better off not reading them. FMs are very dense, and what is written does not immediately translate into practice. Think of them like textbooks. Without the proper hands on classroom instruction, they are largely useless. 
My advice would be to watch the Jeffrey Paulding videos a few times through, understand what he is saying, and then try to emulate it. Remember, tactics are extremely simple. They have to be, after all they must be understood by terrified, sleep deprived, starving, miserable 19 year olds. The trick is always to keep it simple and not get lost in the nuance. There is a ton of nuance in FMs.
Put simply, all warfare (from the tactical level to the strategic) comes down to the ability to maneuver. You want to move, and prevent the enemy from being able to move. The way you do that is with fire. If you have fire superiority, it means you can move and the enemy cannot. If you can move, you can win. If you can't move, you can't win. Tactics come down to allowing your force to move. Then it's all a matter of dealing with problems as they arise. ATG down the road preventing your tanks from moving? You have to find out how to take it out, so that your forces can maneuver. This is where the nuance comes into play, and its easy to get lost in. Just remember, as long as you are keeping things simple, you can unravel the battlefield. 

Unless you're able to fully understand all of the concepts that are detailed in FMs, you're honestly better off not reading them. FMs are very dense, and what is written does not immediately translate into practice. Think of them like textbooks. Without the proper hands on classroom instruction, they are largely useless. 
My advice would be to watch the Jeffrey Paulding videos a few times through, understand what he is saying, and then try to emulate it. Remember, tactics are extremely simple. They have to be, after all they must be understood by terrified, sleep deprived, starving, miserable 19 year olds. The trick is always to keep it simple and not get lost in the nuance. There is a ton of nuance in FMs.
Put simply, all warfare (from the tactical level to the strategic) comes down to the ability to maneuver. You want to move, and prevent the enemy from being able to move. The way you do that is with fire. If you have fire superiority, it means you can move and the enemy cannot. If you can move, you can win. If you can't move, you can't win. Tactics come down to allowing your force to move. Then it's all a matter of dealing with problems as they arise. ATG down the road preventing your tanks from moving? You have to find out how to take it out, so that your forces can maneuver. This is where the nuance comes into play, and its easy to get lost in. Just remember, as long as you are keeping things simple, you can unravel the battlefield. 

Unless you're able to fully understand all of the concepts that are detailed in FMs, you're honestly better off not reading them. FMs are very dense, and what is written does not immediately translate into practice. Think of them like textbooks. Without the proper hands on classroom instruction, they are largely useless. 
My advice would be to watch the Jeffrey Paulding videos a few times through, understand what he is saying, and then try to emulate it. Remember, tactics are extremely simple. They have to be, after all they must be understood by terrified, sleep deprived, starving, miserable 19 year olds. The trick is always to keep it simple and not get lost in the nuance. There is a ton of nuance in FMs.
Put simply, all warfare (from the tactical level to the strategic) comes down to the ability to maneuver. You want to move, and prevent the enemy from being able to move. The way you do that is with fire. If you have fire superiority, it means you can move and the enemy cannot. If you can move, you can win. If you can't move, you can't win. Tactics come down to allowing your force to move. Then it's all a matter of dealing with problems as they arise. ATG down the road preventing your tanks from moving? You have to find out how to take it out, so that your forces can maneuver. This is where the nuance comes into play, and its easy to get lost in. Just remember, as long as you are keeping things simple, you can unravel the battlefield. 

One picture isn't doctrine. I said that ERA can be fitted to the Abrams, and in certain conditions it is, such as TUSK. Its primary purpose is to make an Abrams more survivable in an urban environment. You'll also note that the ERA in CMBS on the Abrams only covers the side armor of the tank, not the front. This is because it is largely unnecessary, because the frontal armor of the Abrams is more than capable of defeating ATGMs, which has been my main point this whole time. 
No, its not. All of those tanks were lost IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT. The reason the Israeli's suffered the casualties they did was because irregular warfare in an urban environment is extremely difficult and will produce high casualties, regardless of what the opponent is armed with. As I also said earlier, RPG-7 warheads are more than enough to mission/outright kill Abrams tanks if fired from the right angle. Further, and I'm repeating myself again, Israeli losses in the Lebanon war were more to do with improper tactics than they were to do with the ATGM threat. 
And again, they only lost 6 tanks, even though at least 50 were hit with varying AT weaponry. 6 for 50 is pretty fantastic odds in a high density urban conflict. Saying that there was some great disaster suffered by the Israeli's is pure fantasy. 
TROPHY will help make tanks more survivable in an urban environment, regardless of the type of AT weaponry being employed against said tank. 
It appears I misremembered the numbers on this one. Russia operates something like 700+ missiles (not launchers) as of current. Despite this, I still stand by my point, that the most advanced ATGMs do not exist in large enough numbers to saturate modern battlefields with, as has been claimed. Even in 2006 Lebanon the Kornet was used exclusively against higher threat tanks due to their relative sparsity.
 
Again, I'll repeat. In an urban environment, a man with a grenade made in 1962 poses a serious threat to a modern tank, yes that includes an Abrams. Or a Molotov cocktail, or any number of other threats. One of the Mk4 Merkava's in Lebanon was destroyed by an IED, despite the fact that the Mk4 had a V hull specifically designed to defend against IEDs. Murphy's law is always a constant in war. And the US not wanting the Iraqi military to have top of the line equipment was a very prudent decision, seeing as how quickly they collapsed in the face of ISIS, and how much of their gear was captured and then used by ISIS. There were a lot of US airstrikes destroying captured US equipment in the past few years.
Composite armor is a general term, not a specific recipe. All of this is dancing around the point anyways. I'll repeat again:
ATGMs pose a threat to tanks. Just as any AT weaponry poses a threat to tanks. 
The threat of ATGMs against Abrams tanks has been GREATLY overexaggerated based on faulty examples that ARE NOT one to one. A Saudi Abrams IS NOT a US Abrams. An Iraqi Abrams IS NOT a US Abrams. Just because the Iraqi's managed to get a lot of their new equipment blown up/captured, does not mean the US would suffer exactly the same fate. Gulf War, OIF and other conflicts all confirm this. 
ATGMs pose a threat, but they are not this so-called dreaded doom that will bring down the West the second they step foot in an ATGM environment. 
While these armor figures give a good ballpark, and the effect in Steel Beasts is realistic (that is, you can clearly see that for most of the frontal profile of an Abrams, it is very hard to penetrate it with HEAT ammunition) do note that they are not 100% accurate. The armor and armor values on the Abrams (and the Challenger and Leopard 2 for that matter) are all still classified. The numbers Steel Beasts is allowed to provide are good generalizations, but they are not exact. 
All of your other points are correct, and speak to what I am trying to say. Not all tanks are made equal. Not all armor is made equal. Just because a tank is listed as having "composite armor" does not mean it has exactly the same armor values as all other tanks with composite armor. 
Oh no, not at all! Always glad to see your input!  I've just lost a bit of patience for people who post consistently with this backwards, dumbed down logic, (you aren't one of them) so I've become more blunt in my responses in general is all.   

This. Fire is a feature that would take an absurd amount of time to code and get right, especially when you consider all the dynamics that would have to be applied. At the end of the day it just isn't worth all the time and effort it would require. Besides, there are better features that can be worked on than fire.

One picture isn't doctrine. I said that ERA can be fitted to the Abrams, and in certain conditions it is, such as TUSK. Its primary purpose is to make an Abrams more survivable in an urban environment. You'll also note that the ERA in CMBS on the Abrams only covers the side armor of the tank, not the front. This is because it is largely unnecessary, because the frontal armor of the Abrams is more than capable of defeating ATGMs, which has been my main point this whole time. 
No, its not. All of those tanks were lost IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT. The reason the Israeli's suffered the casualties they did was because irregular warfare in an urban environment is extremely difficult and will produce high casualties, regardless of what the opponent is armed with. As I also said earlier, RPG-7 warheads are more than enough to mission/outright kill Abrams tanks if fired from the right angle. Further, and I'm repeating myself again, Israeli losses in the Lebanon war were more to do with improper tactics than they were to do with the ATGM threat. 
And again, they only lost 6 tanks, even though at least 50 were hit with varying AT weaponry. 6 for 50 is pretty fantastic odds in a high density urban conflict. Saying that there was some great disaster suffered by the Israeli's is pure fantasy. 
TROPHY will help make tanks more survivable in an urban environment, regardless of the type of AT weaponry being employed against said tank. 
It appears I misremembered the numbers on this one. Russia operates something like 700+ missiles (not launchers) as of current. Despite this, I still stand by my point, that the most advanced ATGMs do not exist in large enough numbers to saturate modern battlefields with, as has been claimed. Even in 2006 Lebanon the Kornet was used exclusively against higher threat tanks due to their relative sparsity.
 
Again, I'll repeat. In an urban environment, a man with a grenade made in 1962 poses a serious threat to a modern tank, yes that includes an Abrams. Or a Molotov cocktail, or any number of other threats. One of the Mk4 Merkava's in Lebanon was destroyed by an IED, despite the fact that the Mk4 had a V hull specifically designed to defend against IEDs. Murphy's law is always a constant in war. And the US not wanting the Iraqi military to have top of the line equipment was a very prudent decision, seeing as how quickly they collapsed in the face of ISIS, and how much of their gear was captured and then used by ISIS. There were a lot of US airstrikes destroying captured US equipment in the past few years.
Composite armor is a general term, not a specific recipe. All of this is dancing around the point anyways. I'll repeat again:
ATGMs pose a threat to tanks. Just as any AT weaponry poses a threat to tanks. 
The threat of ATGMs against Abrams tanks has been GREATLY overexaggerated based on faulty examples that ARE NOT one to one. A Saudi Abrams IS NOT a US Abrams. An Iraqi Abrams IS NOT a US Abrams. Just because the Iraqi's managed to get a lot of their new equipment blown up/captured, does not mean the US would suffer exactly the same fate. Gulf War, OIF and other conflicts all confirm this. 
ATGMs pose a threat, but they are not this so-called dreaded doom that will bring down the West the second they step foot in an ATGM environment. 
While these armor figures give a good ballpark, and the effect in Steel Beasts is realistic (that is, you can clearly see that for most of the frontal profile of an Abrams, it is very hard to penetrate it with HEAT ammunition) do note that they are not 100% accurate. The armor and armor values on the Abrams (and the Challenger and Leopard 2 for that matter) are all still classified. The numbers Steel Beasts is allowed to provide are good generalizations, but they are not exact. 
All of your other points are correct, and speak to what I am trying to say. Not all tanks are made equal. Not all armor is made equal. Just because a tank is listed as having "composite armor" does not mean it has exactly the same armor values as all other tanks with composite armor. 
Oh no, not at all! Always glad to see your input!  I've just lost a bit of patience for people who post consistently with this backwards, dumbed down logic, (you aren't one of them) so I've become more blunt in my responses in general is all.   

One picture isn't doctrine. I said that ERA can be fitted to the Abrams, and in certain conditions it is, such as TUSK. Its primary purpose is to make an Abrams more survivable in an urban environment. You'll also note that the ERA in CMBS on the Abrams only covers the side armor of the tank, not the front. This is because it is largely unnecessary, because the frontal armor of the Abrams is more than capable of defeating ATGMs, which has been my main point this whole time. 
No, its not. All of those tanks were lost IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT. The reason the Israeli's suffered the casualties they did was because irregular warfare in an urban environment is extremely difficult and will produce high casualties, regardless of what the opponent is armed with. As I also said earlier, RPG-7 warheads are more than enough to mission/outright kill Abrams tanks if fired from the right angle. Further, and I'm repeating myself again, Israeli losses in the Lebanon war were more to do with improper tactics than they were to do with the ATGM threat. 
And again, they only lost 6 tanks, even though at least 50 were hit with varying AT weaponry. 6 for 50 is pretty fantastic odds in a high density urban conflict. Saying that there was some great disaster suffered by the Israeli's is pure fantasy. 
TROPHY will help make tanks more survivable in an urban environment, regardless of the type of AT weaponry being employed against said tank. 
It appears I misremembered the numbers on this one. Russia operates something like 700+ missiles (not launchers) as of current. Despite this, I still stand by my point, that the most advanced ATGMs do not exist in large enough numbers to saturate modern battlefields with, as has been claimed. Even in 2006 Lebanon the Kornet was used exclusively against higher threat tanks due to their relative sparsity.
 
Again, I'll repeat. In an urban environment, a man with a grenade made in 1962 poses a serious threat to a modern tank, yes that includes an Abrams. Or a Molotov cocktail, or any number of other threats. One of the Mk4 Merkava's in Lebanon was destroyed by an IED, despite the fact that the Mk4 had a V hull specifically designed to defend against IEDs. Murphy's law is always a constant in war. And the US not wanting the Iraqi military to have top of the line equipment was a very prudent decision, seeing as how quickly they collapsed in the face of ISIS, and how much of their gear was captured and then used by ISIS. There were a lot of US airstrikes destroying captured US equipment in the past few years.
Composite armor is a general term, not a specific recipe. All of this is dancing around the point anyways. I'll repeat again:
ATGMs pose a threat to tanks. Just as any AT weaponry poses a threat to tanks. 
The threat of ATGMs against Abrams tanks has been GREATLY overexaggerated based on faulty examples that ARE NOT one to one. A Saudi Abrams IS NOT a US Abrams. An Iraqi Abrams IS NOT a US Abrams. Just because the Iraqi's managed to get a lot of their new equipment blown up/captured, does not mean the US would suffer exactly the same fate. Gulf War, OIF and other conflicts all confirm this. 
ATGMs pose a threat, but they are not this so-called dreaded doom that will bring down the West the second they step foot in an ATGM environment. 
While these armor figures give a good ballpark, and the effect in Steel Beasts is realistic (that is, you can clearly see that for most of the frontal profile of an Abrams, it is very hard to penetrate it with HEAT ammunition) do note that they are not 100% accurate. The armor and armor values on the Abrams (and the Challenger and Leopard 2 for that matter) are all still classified. The numbers Steel Beasts is allowed to provide are good generalizations, but they are not exact. 
All of your other points are correct, and speak to what I am trying to say. Not all tanks are made equal. Not all armor is made equal. Just because a tank is listed as having "composite armor" does not mean it has exactly the same armor values as all other tanks with composite armor. 
Oh no, not at all! Always glad to see your input!  I've just lost a bit of patience for people who post consistently with this backwards, dumbed down logic, (you aren't one of them) so I've become more blunt in my responses in general is all.   

While the Israeli's have long been an ally of the West, that does not mean they were given access to the same technology and equipment as NATO states were during the Cold War. This means that what the Israeli's designed was their own, and not a derivative of US, UK, and German tank designs. The reason I mention these 3 NATO nations specifically, is because these three nations worked together during the 1960s-70s to develop tanks that all shared similar traits. Chobham armor is one of these traits, along with other advances in armor technology. All of these advances were primarily aimed at increasing the survivability of tanks against ATGM threats, as during the 60s-70s ATGMs fielded by the Soviets were outmatching NATO armor capability. The new generation of tanks jointly developed by these three nations were all designed to defeat Soviet ATGMs. 
Just because the Israeli's had a hard time with ATGMs in 1973, does not mean they had the capability to design new tanks with armor that could effectively defeat ATGMs. As I said, this armor technology was not shared with the Israeli's when it was devised and put to use in the early 80's.
In the 2006 Lebanon war, the Israeli's were using the Merkava tank, which does incorporate some Israeli designed composite armor. During the conflict, a grand total of 50 Merkava tanks (primarily the Mark 2s and 3s) were hit by ATGMs. Only 6 of these were fully destroyed. The source I'll provide here is a wiki link, but there are many cited sources to back up the blurb. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava#2006_Lebanon_War
Its also important to note that this was irregular warfare in an urban environment. A base RPG-7 warhead is enough to punch through the top hatches on the M1A2 Abrams if fired from above or at other appropriate angles. This further reinforces what I said about TROPHY. TROPHY isn't meant to save tanks from frontally impacting ATGMs in a Fulda Gap style armored engagement, it is designed to protect the more vulnerable parts of tanks from complex geometry in urban warfare settings. Yes, it has an application in large scale conventional armored conflict, but its primary purpose is for urban settings. 
As an additional note, some analysts propose that the primary reason Israeli tanks were lost was due to bad tactics at the time, and not due to overly vulnerable tanks. 
All of this is to say, the M1A2 SEPv2 Abrams is extremely survivable against ATGMs in a conventional conflict. In dense urban warfare, tanks always have been and likely always will be extremely vulnerable to a multitude of both low and high tech threats, to include ATGMs, but this can be mitigated by employing proper tactics, and further bolstered by systems like TROPHY to pick up the slack where tactical lapses are made. 

I typed out a long response to this but the forum deleted it when I tried to copy another quote, so I'll summarize by saying that you are wrong. TROPHY is intended to protect tanks in urban environments from infantry held AT weapons being fired from complex geometries (like from above/below) and is supposed to supplement the tanks defenses. 
Otherwise this type of statement shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of the subject matter, and employs a type of backwards logic I despise. "Why does a tank need armor at all? After all, a tank is supposed to shoot things, not get shot." I'm not going to take the time to riddle this fallacy out back to logic, so all I will say is that this line of thinking has no merit whatsoever. Further, ERA has been absent from the Abrams for decades now, even though it was applied to Patton tanks in the Gulf War. Why? Because the Patton tank did not have the composite armor of the Abrams. Even further, in CMBS Abrams have ERA only on the side armor to help defend against the most modern and lethal ATGMs, which only exist in double digit numbers. Currently deployed Abrams to Eastern Europe do not have this ERA applied. 
Exactly. To add, these export tanks also lack the same sophisticated optics as well, meaning they do not have the same level of situational awareness that M1A2 SEPv2 Abrams have.
 
I agree. Even if an ATGM cannot kill a tank outright, it may be able to damage external systems, immobilize the tank, and cause other issues. The best defense is of course not to be engaged at all, and the second best defense is to be able to survive if you are engaged. Why give the enemy a chance to get lucky if you can avoid it?
It would appear that this is a more rational gripe with what is depicted in game. In my opinion, the reaction times of the Abrams is realistic for the following reasons. Engagement ranges in CMBS are primarily short to medium, and is to say within a few hundred meters out to around 2km. At these types of ranges, it is VERY easy to spot ATGM teams that have just fired. Between the large, hot missile, and the infrared signatures of the team that fired them, they are not terribly hard to spot. Keep in mind the SEPv2 Abrams has a x50 zoom. Couple all of this with the LWR the Abrams comes with in CMBS, and its not hard to understand the quick reaction times. 
All that said, I would not be opposed if there was a tweak to the TacAI logic that slightly reduced the reaction time. More importantly, I very much want a variant of the Abrams without LWR, as I cannot stand how the LWR functions in game, but thats a different conversation. 

This trash meme needs to die.
Comparing export model Abrams, crewed by completely inexperienced crews, being used willy-nilly with little tactical rhyme or reason DOES NOT EQUAL how M1A2 Abrams would perform in a full on conventional conflict, used properly by decent crews. 
Also, this whole "ATGMs are muh dangerous!" meme also needs to die. The Abrams tank, Challenger tank, and Leopard 2 tank were all SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED with NEW armor (Chobam, composites, etc) to DEFEAT ATGMs. ATGMs are largely USELESS against these types of tanks. Export models of these tanks DO NOT HAVE this composite armor. This is why they are so vulnerable to ATGMs in places like Syria and Iraq. Well that and they could not be handled more poorly in those situations as well. 

While the Israeli's have long been an ally of the West, that does not mean they were given access to the same technology and equipment as NATO states were during the Cold War. This means that what the Israeli's designed was their own, and not a derivative of US, UK, and German tank designs. The reason I mention these 3 NATO nations specifically, is because these three nations worked together during the 1960s-70s to develop tanks that all shared similar traits. Chobham armor is one of these traits, along with other advances in armor technology. All of these advances were primarily aimed at increasing the survivability of tanks against ATGM threats, as during the 60s-70s ATGMs fielded by the Soviets were outmatching NATO armor capability. The new generation of tanks jointly developed by these three nations were all designed to defeat Soviet ATGMs. 
Just because the Israeli's had a hard time with ATGMs in 1973, does not mean they had the capability to design new tanks with armor that could effectively defeat ATGMs. As I said, this armor technology was not shared with the Israeli's when it was devised and put to use in the early 80's.
In the 2006 Lebanon war, the Israeli's were using the Merkava tank, which does incorporate some Israeli designed composite armor. During the conflict, a grand total of 50 Merkava tanks (primarily the Mark 2s and 3s) were hit by ATGMs. Only 6 of these were fully destroyed. The source I'll provide here is a wiki link, but there are many cited sources to back up the blurb. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava#2006_Lebanon_War
Its also important to note that this was irregular warfare in an urban environment. A base RPG-7 warhead is enough to punch through the top hatches on the M1A2 Abrams if fired from above or at other appropriate angles. This further reinforces what I said about TROPHY. TROPHY isn't meant to save tanks from frontally impacting ATGMs in a Fulda Gap style armored engagement, it is designed to protect the more vulnerable parts of tanks from complex geometry in urban warfare settings. Yes, it has an application in large scale conventional armored conflict, but its primary purpose is for urban settings. 
As an additional note, some analysts propose that the primary reason Israeli tanks were lost was due to bad tactics at the time, and not due to overly vulnerable tanks. 
All of this is to say, the M1A2 SEPv2 Abrams is extremely survivable against ATGMs in a conventional conflict. In dense urban warfare, tanks always have been and likely always will be extremely vulnerable to a multitude of both low and high tech threats, to include ATGMs, but this can be mitigated by employing proper tactics, and further bolstered by systems like TROPHY to pick up the slack where tactical lapses are made. 

While the Israeli's have long been an ally of the West, that does not mean they were given access to the same technology and equipment as NATO states were during the Cold War. This means that what the Israeli's designed was their own, and not a derivative of US, UK, and German tank designs. The reason I mention these 3 NATO nations specifically, is because these three nations worked together during the 1960s-70s to develop tanks that all shared similar traits. Chobham armor is one of these traits, along with other advances in armor technology. All of these advances were primarily aimed at increasing the survivability of tanks against ATGM threats, as during the 60s-70s ATGMs fielded by the Soviets were outmatching NATO armor capability. The new generation of tanks jointly developed by these three nations were all designed to defeat Soviet ATGMs. 
Just because the Israeli's had a hard time with ATGMs in 1973, does not mean they had the capability to design new tanks with armor that could effectively defeat ATGMs. As I said, this armor technology was not shared with the Israeli's when it was devised and put to use in the early 80's.
In the 2006 Lebanon war, the Israeli's were using the Merkava tank, which does incorporate some Israeli designed composite armor. During the conflict, a grand total of 50 Merkava tanks (primarily the Mark 2s and 3s) were hit by ATGMs. Only 6 of these were fully destroyed. The source I'll provide here is a wiki link, but there are many cited sources to back up the blurb. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava#2006_Lebanon_War
Its also important to note that this was irregular warfare in an urban environment. A base RPG-7 warhead is enough to punch through the top hatches on the M1A2 Abrams if fired from above or at other appropriate angles. This further reinforces what I said about TROPHY. TROPHY isn't meant to save tanks from frontally impacting ATGMs in a Fulda Gap style armored engagement, it is designed to protect the more vulnerable parts of tanks from complex geometry in urban warfare settings. Yes, it has an application in large scale conventional armored conflict, but its primary purpose is for urban settings. 
As an additional note, some analysts propose that the primary reason Israeli tanks were lost was due to bad tactics at the time, and not due to overly vulnerable tanks. 
All of this is to say, the M1A2 SEPv2 Abrams is extremely survivable against ATGMs in a conventional conflict. In dense urban warfare, tanks always have been and likely always will be extremely vulnerable to a multitude of both low and high tech threats, to include ATGMs, but this can be mitigated by employing proper tactics, and further bolstered by systems like TROPHY to pick up the slack where tactical lapses are made.