Jump to content

4 T-90AMs against 2 M1A2.. open terrain, 2900-3000 meters, frontal slugfest


antaress73
 Share

Recommended Posts

Results: 2 dead M1A2 abrams on fire with 6 out of 8 crew members dead. One dead T-90AM on fire with one crewman dead.

 

Relikt stopped a M829A4 sabot (reactive armor hit), at the strongest point of the turret armor, you could see the block missing.

 

M1A2s were destroyed by lower hull hits and one front turret partial penetration (probably weak spot).

 

I was surprised. First time since ERA was working I was putting those two tanks against each other.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised too. Maybe Lanchester’s law?

 

1) Relikt cannot stop A4 sabot, it could degrades its power, but impossible to stop at all. It should give partial (sometimes total) penetration at the first shot, or at least damage or spalling. If it were A3 sabot, I would agree with that result, but it is A4. It is something wrong.

2) T90's optics are not that good for +2km range battle, even with thermals. It has only x2.7 and x16 sight. If that was within 2km, then I would say there was a small room for Russians. However, it was out of 2km. Abrams SEP x50 magnifying MUST have long range advantage in accuracy.

3) Russian 2 piece KE shell cannot penetrate M1A2 SEP. M1A2 SEP have 960mm turret front (I used Steel Beast pro data) 600-700mm lower hull front. For lower hull front, there is DU(Yeah, depleted uranium) fuel tank inside that part, which works as an additional armor itself for lower hull front. M1A2 SEP's armor is greatly underestimated, or Russian 2 pieced KE is overestimated. 

 

Not sure what happened there. I will do the test by myself soon from 4.5km range, like 10vs10 or 12vs12 and 1:1

Edited by exsonic01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised too.

 

1) Relikt cannot stop A4 sabot, it could degrade its power, but impossible to stop at all. It should give partial (sometimes total) penetration at the first shot, or at least damage or spalling. If it were A3, I would agree with that result, but it is A4.

2) T90's optics are not that good for +2km range battle, even with thermals. It has only  If that was within 2km, then I would say there was a small room for Russians. However, it is out of 2km. Abrams SEP x50 magnifying MUST have long range advantage.

3) Russian 2 piece KE shell cannot penetrate M1A2 SEP.

 

I will do the test by myself soon from 4.5km range.

 

Think the 90AM can pen the central lower glacis at that range.  Not sure about upper, it'd probably be in the partial-penetration area at that range.  

 

Issue is this weird weak-point on the M1A2 turret that I'm not really able to find any info about.  Both should be a mirrored 950~ish KE protection.  

 

Keep in mind that if you just sort of place units facing each other in the map guys, you're not really performing the tests under reasonable conditions :P  They instantly detected each other and quick-draw.  Numbers there are a pretty enormous factor.  Optics are totally removed from the equation under these circumstances, and should be kept in mind.

 

And 4-5km range probably wont end well for the Abrams.  Thats TGM range.  Both tanks shells would have lost so much KE that far out that gun-hits wouldnt be reliable, would they?

 

Overall, I'm glad the ERA is working finally at least!  Thats good news :)

Edited by Nerdwing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think the 90AM can pen the central lower glacis at that range.  Not sure about upper, it'd probably be in the partial-penetration area at that range.  

 

Issue is this weird weak-point on the M1A2 turret that I'm not really able to find any info about.  Both should be a mirrored 950~ish KE protection.  

 

Keep in mind that if you just sort of place units facing each other in the map guys, you're not really performing the tests under reasonable conditions :P  They instantly detected each other and quick-draw.  Numbers there are a pretty enormous factor.  Optics are totally removed from the equation under these circumstances, and should be kept in mind.

 

And 4-5km range probably wont end well for the Abrams.  Thats TGM range.  Both tanks shells would have lost so much KE that far out that gun-hits wouldnt be reliable, would they?

 

Overall, I'm glad the ERA is working finally at least!  Thats good news :)

1) Like I said, inside the lower hull front of the Abrams, there is DU fuel tank, which work as +200-300mm additional protection. It seems the game didn't considered about that.

 

2) x3 / x13 / x25 / x50 magnifying power allows M1A2 SEP to start engaging from at least 4km. If the gunner is experienced veteran, then it can be reached to 4.5~5km. M1A2 SEP is designed for that kind of long range out boxing.

 

3) I can tell about A3 sabot. Based on 2km range, A3 have 800mm penetration, and its 3-parted sabot core is designed to neutralize the reactive armour. Around 4km, penetration power might decrease to 500~600mm, but because A3 can neutralize the ERA, it could be able to at least damage / partial penetrate russian front armor. Now we have A4 in our hands, and it should work against Relikt nicely.

 

I know "everything" can happens on the battlefield, but test is different thing. I also agree that we cannot say M1A2 must win every single battle, but references should be based on realistic representation. We all use those reference data when we make a battleplans.

Edited by exsonic01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No projectile retains its energy forever, even the M829A4.

On the Abrams turret the gun mantlet and the recessed area beneath it have much lower armor values than the large flat areas to either side. This seems to be characteristic of the turret armor layouts on many modern tanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No projectile retains its energy forever, even the M829A4.

On the Abrams turret the gun mantlet and the recessed area beneath it have much lower armor values than the large flat areas to either side. This seems to be characteristic of the turret armor layouts on many modern tanks.

 

This I agree with :)  But the slabs on each side are homogenized I thought.  The gun/mantlet though, as said, is the Abrams most notorious weakspot.

Edited by Nerdwing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If thats an issue, then I cant find anything to justify it being ingame using sources I've seen.  It should be mirrored in terms of protection, both at over 950mm KE protection.  I'm not doubting the results ingame are happening, I'm questioning whether they should be happening for that particular area being struck  :P

 

Are you sure you arent thinking of the Leopard 2, with its somewhat-notorious weaker right-turret facing?

Edited by Nerdwing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the slabs on each side are homogenized I thought.

I think they are in the game as well. I know someone posted that they had seen one of them get penetrated by a T-90, but that was almost certainly a random "weak point" penetration. Normally that area is impenetrable to anything in the game, even other Abrams tanks.

And BTW, before anyone gets too worked up, the Abrams does have better spotting ability than the T-90AM. It probably has better spotting than any vehicle in the game under most circumstances. But the T-90 isn't a slouch and the highly random nature of CMx2's spotting model means aNY individual matchup will be mostly a crap shoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No projectile retains its energy forever, even the M829A4.

On the Abrams turret the gun mantlet and the recessed area beneath it have much lower armor values than the large flat areas to either side. This seems to be characteristic of the turret armor layouts on many modern tanks.

 

I never said "forever"

 

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/39363-tank-guns-ammunition-23.html

 

You can see how A3 contains its power w.r.t travelling distance, because Abrams can shoot ultra fast cannon. Remind that the KE penetration is proportional to the speed, A3 and A4 should be around decent level around 4 km distance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Like I said, inside the lower hull front of the Abrams, there is DU fuel tank, which work as +200-300mm additional protection. It seems the game didn't considered about that.

2) x3 / x13 / x25 / x50 magnifying power allow M1A2 SEP to start engaging at least 4km. If the gunner is experienced veteran, then it can be reached to 4.5~5km. M1A2 SEP is designed for that kind of long range out boxing.

3) I can tell about A3 sabot. Based on 2km range, A3 have 800mm penetration, and its 3-parted sabot core allow to neutralize the reactive armour. Around 4km, penetration power might decrease to 500~600mm, but because A3 can neutralize the ERA, it is able to at least damage / partial penetrate russian front armor. Now we have A4 in our hands, and it should work against Relikt nicely.

I know "everything" can happens on the battle field, but test is different.

Your assertion that A4 must penetrate or partial penetrate every part of T-90AM armor at any range is unsupportable. There are parts of the T-90 turret array that are 840+mm LOS alone behind the ERA. The new penetrators don't "neutralize" heavy ERA making it a total non-factor. They sacrifice a small percentage of penetration in order to avoid losing a larger amount of penetration due to destabilization. But would you feel safe in a tank where only 20% or less of overall frontal area has any decent chance to stop M829A4?

You do not seem to understand actual configuration of M1A2 hull front. There are fuel tanks behind the front armor array to the sides. You cannot simply add +200-300mm protection to all of hull front. Looks at the Steel Beasts diagram linked above. It is best out there and deemed "close enough" by those who should know.

A small, uncontrolled test like this tends to indicate nothing more than luck is a factor and **** happens. I've test M1A2 v. T-90AM under controlled circumstances many times (and Vanir many times more) and the Abrams comes out ahead by a very strong factor. If anything, the T-90 armor might be slightly underrated currently in the game (probably in specific locations).

My experience (or at least impression based on testing over many builds) for 0 deg. match-up at 1000-2000m:

If either tank hits the other in the weak area around the gun mount and driver's hatch, there will be a penetration. Abrams often survives these penetrations, T-90 not so much.

If T-90 hits Abrams lower front hull, there is strong chance of penetration or partial penetration, but without a lot of retained energy. If Abrams hits T-90 lower front hull, T-90 explodes. Penetrations to the outer side of the upper and lower front hull may very well be considered generally inert as I haven't seem them inflict much damage (i.e. the front armor is penetrated but crew compartment is not.) I'm pretty sure CM considers a penetration into the fuel tank a penetration, whereas the Steel Beasts schematic is only considering penetrations into the crew compartment.

If T-90 hits Abrams upper front hull, there is usually not a penetration unless hitting the drivers hatch area. If Abrams hits the T-90 upper front hull, there is usually a penetration, often with total destruction.

If T-90 hits the main front turret armor array on the Abrams, there is only occasionally a partial penetration (which may be confined to a specific area of the array). If Abrams hits T-90 turret main array there is a good chance of penetration or at least partial penetration, but not with a lot of retained energy.

Roof hits are too complex to summarize.

Edited by akd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay... I stand corrected, both sides of the front slabs of the turret are homogenous. My mistake. I got two penetrations on that right side at 600 mettres because of the angle. The T-72B3 was  slightly to the side, which means that the russian sabot hit the right turret slab twice at a 90 degrees angle. If you're totally in front of the tank, those slabs are angled from your perspective and you need to punch through much more armor (960mm). That's good design. But the T-72B3's position negated that angle and hit the slab twice... with full penetration each time. I dont know what's the real thickness of those slabs but they must be like 700-750mm when hit at a 90 degree angle so it's realistic. So if you're slightly to the left or to the right of an M1A2, you could penetrate the slabs on the front turret at 1500 meters or more. You now know what to do (maneuver if you can to get that shot angle and use 2-1/3-1 advantage to gain that room for maneuver)

Edited by antaress73
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the penetrations were of the lower side hull for those tanks... (the frontal turret was another episode) protection is very weak there. It went through for both  tanks and exited on the other side. One exploded (with four immediate fatalities) and the other caught fire with 2 fatalities and two uninjured crewmen. No powerful sabot has ever penetrated a very vulnerable part of an M1 so we dont know. That episode of the "unable to penetrate our own armor" was in the first gulf war and some put it in doubt. Come on, a silver bullet not getting through the sides ? Or the front turret at an angle like I talked about earlier ?  They didnt try very hard. On a sidenote,  I've seen a pic of an M1 with a huge hole on those famed front turret slabs from a maverick (they destroyed it so it couldnt fall into Iraqi hands) 

Edited by antaress73
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say the M1 was invulnerable. The anecdote I am referring to occurred in the 2003 war and involved a tank that had been immobilized (hit in the rear buy a Recoil-less rifle and later had to be destroyed) Frontal shot failed to do the trick. That's all. Man, people get so defensive. And yes, I'm sure a maverick would penetrate the "famed armor". Big difference between a maverick warhead and a kinetic round at over 1 k

Haven't seen the new ammo or armor tested against eachother so we don't know. All I know is that off all the M1s lost to enemy fire, the crew survived in the vast majority. Of course, none were killed by a kinetic round as far as I know.

Also, I have never said the turret armor or sides were impenetrable... Nor the frontal armor...just that the frontal armor is a very tough nut even with DU.

This is for the M1a2 but not the SEP

M1A1HC, M1A1HA, M1A1D

Against Kinetic Energy

(in mm of RHAe)

Turret

800 - 900

Glacis

560 - 590

Lower Front Hull

Edited by mikeCK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol. No sweat. It's hard to read tone into postings ya know. Anyhow. It's an interesting outcome and NATO has a habit of under estimating Russian equipment at times. The performance of the AA-11 vs AIM-9m for one. From the looks of things, we may get a real life "test" here in a few months unfortunately

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised too. Maybe Lanchester’s law?

 

1) Relikt cannot stop A4 sabot, it could degrades its power, but impossible to stop at all. It should give partial (sometimes total) penetration at the first shot, or at least damage or spalling. If it were A3 sabot, I would agree with that result, but it is A4. It is something wrong.

2) T90's optics are not that good for +2km range battle, even with thermals. It has only x2.7 and x16 sight. If that was within 2km, then I would say there was a small room for Russians. However, it was out of 2km. Abrams SEP x50 magnifying MUST have long range advantage in accuracy.

3) Russian 2 piece KE shell cannot penetrate M1A2 SEP. M1A2 SEP have 960mm turret front (I used Steel Beast pro data) 600-700mm lower hull front. For lower hull front, there is DU(Yeah, depleted uranium) fuel tank inside that part, which works as an additional armor itself for lower hull front. M1A2 SEP's armor is greatly underestimated, or Russian 2 pieced KE is overestimated. 

 

Not sure what happened there. I will do the test by myself soon from 4.5km range, like 10vs10 or 12vs12 and 1:1

wow, the T-90s thermals have ability to see up to 5 km and more, Its proven in trials the T-90 can hit tank sized targets with its ATGM with atleast 90% accuracy to 5 KM which is its MAX range. The T-90AM should have the ESSA thermals and newer optics which would allow it to see even further then the T-90As. The T-72B3s and the T-90As have almost similar capabilities only which the T-72B3 falls behind in armor when compared to T-90A. The T-90As armor is layered many times ontop of that new versions of K5 are installed on it, The T-90A has a very armored turret in the front but it has thin armor on the back sides which the Abrams also has. And also the A4 may be very powerful but at real engagement ranges 2100-3000 meters it has a chance of bouncing or loosing its full power where as the T-90's Refleks ATGM missile can hit up to 5 KM without bouncing and is guided. I dare the Abrams to have any penetrating power to the T-90 at 5KM. Im not saying the Abrams is bad but its not a god weapon either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...