Jump to content

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


antaress73

Recommended Posts

The T-80UM's sight was not very bad, In the 1990s when the USSR collapsed money was very hard to find and corruption was a lot so they didn't even look into designing it, It wasn't very bad but due to the design being expensive and that development was ceased plus Russia wanted better relations with the west they took in the Catherine thermal. Now the T-72B3 has the SOSNA-U which has multi channel views for the gunner including a new thermal (Russian made) the old sight still remains but that is as a secondary just in case. Saying that Russia didn't develope these things and falls behind America may be true but not by a very large margine in fact Russia has catched up. Also saying that Russia has not made FCS really makes me cringe as the T-64A and so on started getting FCS in the 70s, US started mainly installing thermals in the 80s and now a lot of their gear has thermals but so does Russia and if it doesnt have thermals it has advanced night vision sights. Russia has been developing FCS from early 70s to present I do not understand why you are saying we lack on something. Saying the U.S. budget helps the design is okay but it will only help to a certain area your not gonna put millions into it simply because you dont have to. The T-72 did not have a FCS but sight correction which was decent by standards but the new T-72s being modernized such as the B3 have full Russian equipment and Russian FCS. I do not deny the Abrams is good im just against when people underestimate Russian armor capabilities.

Sosna-U is a Belarusian sight (made by Peleng in Minsk) that utilizes license-produced Catherine thermal imager. AFAIK, the FCS on the B3 was not fully modernized and has been criticized in the Russian military. It is very much a stop-gap, bare bones upgrade pending introduction of Armata.

T-90SM/AM, however, does have a fully modernized FCS. Don't remember, but possibly the AM in game has been given the Catherine XP thermal camera as these are supposed to be produced under license in Russia soon, but this still falls short of the optics in Abrams. But T-90SM/AM does have one fire control advantage over Abrams: the commander has his own laser rangefinder in his panoramic sight.

Edited by akd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the comprehensive awnser Panzersaurkrautwerfer. 

 

I was thinking of the price, not because of the domestic sales but for foreign exports. 

 

Your description of supply and maintenance doctrines and routines with M1 Abrams family tanks sounds very interesting. It sounds not only robust, but also very sophisticated, requiring high professionalism from the personell. No longer you are able to assign "mentally slower" or otherwise lower performing people to supply & maintenance formations, doesn't work that way any longer in modern armies. It's also little unfair that hard working professionals don't necessary get the respect that they deserve. Those people might not risk their lives at same level as front line fighters, but it's a crude fact that no fighting army will not be functional without effective logistic/supply/maintenance chain. Who ever disagrees, can go and ask from Generalfeldmarschall Paulus from the subject.  :rolleyes:

 

My knowledge from tanks is very limited, but I have made a conclusion over the years, that while M1 Abrams family tanks are quite expensive if compared to other rivals, you get overall best "bang for the bucks" with them, especially in the long run and with compatible logistics. Russian tanks are excellent and well thought designs in many ways, but it seems to be that they have been left behind little bit.  

 

And no need to discuss from other Western countries or their tank designs, especially from western europe (Netherlands just sold us to Finland 100 Leopard 2A6s because they don't seem to need them). All the countries seem to have very little interest on investing to improve existing designs or design new models. Russia and United States seem to be most dynamic on that sector. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I do not understand why you are saying we lack on something...

 

Don't feel sorry if your country has been left behind with something like this. Most countries have been left behind more...  :rolleyes:

 

Be proud of that Russia have always produced brave and capable soldiers, and that's a feature to truly respect.

Edited by wee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And no need to discuss from other Western countries or their tank designs, especially from western europe (Netherlands just sold us to Finland 100 Leopard 2A6s because they don't seem to need them). All the countries seem to have very little interest on investing to improve existing designs or design new models. Russia and United States seem to be most dynamic on that sector. 

 

Yeah don't know if that was a wise move by my government, selling of those tanks. From one point of view I don't see Netherlands active in a full spectrum armoured conflict all by itself (so why have them), on the other hand the knowledge of operating a tank battalion can be important to retain for one never knows what the future brings. It is said we are keeping some tank crews that train with tanks leased from Germany, for what that's worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Lol, Your "assertion" have so many wrong data, that I'm not even bothering with. The most funny part is "T-90's turret only wihout ERA have +850mm" I didn't even read anymore from this part. Are you sure about that? You better to check your reference clearly again, because if that is true, that T-90 is might be made up of XCOM alien materials.

 

Even the most thickest part of CAST + Ti BDD turret have maximum around 600mm expected. So please don't bring your tank fantasy data to here. 850mm protection without ERA? What a fantasy tank it is. ERA included KE 850 CE 1100+ is the proper one.  

Edited by exsonic01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sosna-U is a Belarusian sight (made by Peleng in Minsk) that utilizes license-produced Catherine thermal imager. AFAIK, the FCS on the B3 was not fully modernized and has been criticized in the Russian military. It is very much a stop-gap, bare bones upgrade pending introduction of Armata.

T-90SM/AM, however, does have a fully modernized FCS. Don't remember, but possibly the AM in game has been given the Catherine XP thermal camera as these are supposed to be produced under license in Russia soon, but this still falls short of the optics in Abrams. But T-90SM/AM does have one fire control advantage over Abrams: the commander has his own laser rangefinder in his panoramic sight.

Designed from Belarus but also built in Russia, More information on the FCS can be found on Russian sites, The T-90AM has new stuff but its not being bought the Armata which will enter service by 2016 is being bought which has newer generation armor, New sophisticated FCS and ect. But sadly this tank cannot be put in the game because it will be revealed in may 9 parade this year. 

 

Also I want to see where you think the FCS is bad I want to see some proof for the Catherine thermal site being bad also on the SOSNA-U being bad too, Saying is easy I can say that the Abrams has a german smoothbore cannon based fail gun but obviously thats not true it fires the world's most powerful sabot. And I don't deny it. Same thing for people saying the T-72 sucks because the Abrams whiped the floor with it in Iraq, This is not true either as these were models made in Iraq and the best T-72 they had was T-72M(export model). But back on I would like it if you showed me about these claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't feel sorry if your country has been left behind with something like this. Most countries have been left behind more...  :rolleyes:

 

Be proud of that Russia have always produced brave and capable soldiers, and that's a feature to truly respect.

The thing is all this things they are saying have no evidence backed behind it im not saying M1 abrams is bad at all, Just Russian tanks arent getting what they deserve in fact most things these guys are saying are western sources and not Russian while I get my information on western tank from western sources and get my information on Russian tanks from Russian sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Saying that Russia didn't develope these things and falls behind America may be true but not by a very large margine in fact Russia has catched up.  Also saying that Russia has not made FCS really makes me cringe as the T-64A and so on started getting FCS in the 70s, US started mainly installing thermals in the 80s and now a lot of their gear has thermals but so does Russia and if it doesnt have thermals it has advanced night vision sights. Russia has been developing FCS from early 70s to present I do not understand why you are saying we lack on something.

 

Russian optics, and computing are all largely derivative of western designs, or if entirely Russian origin tend to be significantly less capable compared to peer systems.  There's not much professional dispute of this reality.  

 

Re: Fire Control Systems

 

Fire control systems are not optics.  There's been fire control systems as long as there's been tanks.  If we're going to argue how long a country has been building tanks equals ensured capability, we are all rightly and truly screwed because the Brits and the French have been doing it for almost a 100 years.  

 

The key failing of Russian FCS type systems is largely in the electronics/computing.  Western tanks could take advantage of the various advances in computing, miniaturization, and somesuch to make FCSes that were far more robust, smaller, and more capable in terms of data input (see adjusting crosswind, gun tube temperature, and similar variables on Russian vs US tanks).  To this end the Russian inferiority in this sort of system makes however long the Russians have been building FCSes irrelevant, they simply are not as modern in key areas.

 

Additionally passive/active night vision is vastly inferior in terms of spotting targets at range.  It's why the US has moved to composite thermal-night vision type optics for infantry, conventional night vision is better for something like walking through a building at night, while thermal is much better at finding targets at range, which is to say thermals are the relevant optics for tanks vs other vision enhancement tools.

 

 

I do not deny the Abrams is good im just against when people underestimate Russian armor capabilities.

 

Nor am I underestimating it.  It's got reasonable anti-armor capabilities, good surviability compared to peer tanks, and the only real threats it faces are high tier NATO equipment like the M1, Leo 2, Challenger, or the most advanced ATGMs available.  It just isn't on the same level as much more advanced, much more expensive tanks.

 

 

 

Saying is easy I can say that the Abrams has a german smoothbore cannon based fail gun but obviously thats not true it fires the world's most powerful sabot

Only it's the 120 MM gun that is so terrible that it represents the overwhelming majority of NATO tank cannons these days.  It's pretty handy.  Russian optics on the other hand represent the step up from things offered for sale to the police department, but don't compare to more modern systems.

 

 

I was thinking of the price, not because of the domestic sales but for foreign exports.

 

This is certainly a factor. However the raw price is deceptive.  Many countries recieve either sharp discounts or have some sort of weirdo-trade deal with the vehicles.  The Australasian M1A1s came at a pretty sharp discount in exchange for other things (like increased basing rights for US troops, commitment to more joint training, several pallets of Fosters etc)

 

I seem to recall the Finnish F-18 deal involved a US agreement to buy some amount of reindeer meat.  You only really get into cash for tanks with the Russians.

 

This is not intended as an offense mind you.  Think of it more like, the only folks who really aren't able to use diplomacy to get discount tanks, are the sorts that could not possibly afford M1s or Challengers at sticker price.

 

 

 

Your description of supply and maintenance doctrines and routines with M1 Abrams family tanks sounds very interesting

 

The increasing complexity of military equipment almost demands you have a very sophisticated logistics and maintenance unit.  This is something professional armies are better able to leverage, as you retain a much higher number of these mechanics, and let me tell you, someone who's been fixing M1s/M2s for the last decade or so is a sight to behold (I had one diagnose an engine fault over the radio based on a crewman's description of the noise it was making).

 

You're almost safer with conscript/inexperienced tankers vs conscript/inexperienced maintainers.  

 

 

 

And no need to discuss from other Western countries or their tank designs, especially from western europe (Netherlands just sold us to Finland 100 Leopard 2A6s because they don't seem to need them). All the countries seem to have very little interest on investing to improve existing designs or design new models. Russia and United States seem to be most dynamic on that sector. 

It also has a lot to do with the changing priorities of the west.  When the M1, Leo 2, and Challengers were all built, there was a distinct possibility of a large continental war in Europe within a few months of downward spiral relations.  The Dutch could reasonably expect to be up to their eyebrows in communists, and having tanks was a reasonable choice.  

 

Now?  It's debatable but the immediacy of the threat is gone, which makes it easier for politicians to make military cuts to make up for budget shortfalls/buy off the electorate with benefits.  

 

As the case is however, the M1, Leo 2, Challenger 2 all are still seeing current updates with a good chance that their respective services will be able to continue to upgrade them into the 2020's at the least.

The reason the Armata is a big deal is the potential of the T-72/90 series was more or less tapped out in the early 2000s.  The ability to upgrade them much further is limited (see the T-72B3's ambivilent reception, the T-90AM's still lagging pretty far behind expectations).  Of course I'm still doubtful we'll see an Armata on time and in service.  It's a heck of thing to be in the hands of Russian soldiers in 2016, and common service by 2017 with literally no idea of what it even looks like.  

 

I do have to wonder if it'll be like the various top shelf planes and rifles from the 90's, and we'll see two or three Armata battalions with the remainder operating the T-90/T-72 models. Seems more reasonable and the two tier thing is nothing new to the Russians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chally 2 was penetrated from the front by an RPG-29 here is a test showing the T-90 (base model from 1992) and the T-80U(1985) surviving these shots http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html 

Even the ERA stripped targets survived for the T-90. But if you remember the ERA equipped Challenger 2 was penetrated from the front by a RPG-29

Also I still don't understand why you keep saying the T-90s FCS is bad, It gets its FCS from experiences of T-64-T-80UM, Would you mind getting sources that show the Catherine being bad? If there is even a recorded source like that.

Edited by VladimirTarasov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something doesn't need to be bad, but can still be of less quality then something else. For example my car a VW Polo from 2006 is a good car, but when compared to a Porsche Carrera GT there is quite some difference ;-)

Although, from cost effective viewpoint my VW Polo beats the Porsche all day considering I use it for commuting to work which is some 30km from my house. The T-72 was never designed to be like a Porsche, but rather a VW. The current Abrams M1A2 SEPv2 is something different. 

Edited by Lethaface
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your link doesn't exist.

 

Re: Challenger 2

 

It was a magic bullet sort of strike (the round struck the ground and skipped into the almost bottom of the hull from my understanding, so no ERA, and not in an area well armored on any tank), and not typical of RPG capabilities.  If it'd come head on vs effectively up from the ground, it would not have been effective, and even at that, the strike damaged the tank, but it was still more or less functional.

 

Re: FCS

 

T-64 was good for its time because everyone was using transistors.  T-80 started to slip because it was still using technology based on the finest the 70's could offer vs then modern electronics.  Russia has never managed to catch up in terms of computing and electronics, which is why they're content using the CATHERINE based systems vs having an original home grown design.  

 

You can look at the sales brochure posted earlier.  CATHERINE only claims vehicle identification out to a little over 2 KM without upgrade, which is well short of recorded identification/kill distances accomplished by Abrams and Challenger type tanks.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chally 2 was penetrated from the front by an RPG-29 here is a test showing the T-90 (base model from 1992) and the T-80U(1985) surviving these shots http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html

Even the ERA stripped targets survived for the T-90. But if you remember the ERA equipped Challenger 2 was penetrated from the front by a RPG-29

These trials were not real. The website author (Fofanov) has admitted they are probably made up and that the name it was provided to him under appears to have been a fictional person, but he does not update his site for many years now.

Also, the Challenger was penetrated in the lower front hull (or bottom hull even; it was a fluke shot). T-90 would be penetrated in lower front hull also.

Catherine FC is a Gen II thermal sight. Most western tanks are now using Gen II+ / Gen III thermal sights. That is simple objective fact. That doesn't mean it is crap, just behind in technology. Russian military is well aware of this, and Catherine FC for their tanks is a stop-gap measure.

There is a lot more crossover between Russian and English language specialist sites on armor than you think. Anything interesting on Otvaga and other sites makes its way almost immediately to tank-net and other English-language forums. In fact, the information that Russian ground forces were dissatisfied with the bare-bones "modernization" of the T-72B3 comes straight from Otvaga, if I recall correctly. It is not some secret lair of knowledge that only you can interpret for us.

Edited by akd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, Your "assertion" have so many wrong data, that I'm not even bothering with. The most funny part is "T-90's turret only wihout ERA have +850mm" I didn't even read anymore from this part. Are you sure about that? You better to check your reference clearly again, because if that is true, that T-90 is might be made up of XCOM alien materials.

Even the most thickest part of CAST + Ti BDD turret have maximum around 600mm expected. So please don't bring your tank fantasy data to here. 850mm protection without ERA? What a fantasy tank it is. ERA included KE 850 CE 1100+ is the proper one.

We are talking here about T-90A / T-90SM welded turret. As I already noted, such high LOS armor thickness is only achievable in a very small area of turret and only from 0 deg. But it is the sort of thing that in CM "slug fest" tests where you line up tanks and have them shoot at eachother will result in an occasional failure to penetrate.

http://imageshack.com/i/0at90ajj

http://imageshack.com/i/g961276028j

Edited by akd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just felt like posting to say these threads are super interesting, particularly enjoy panzwersourkrautwerfer's writing style (and sense of humor).

 

Have limited time for gaming lately (and presumably for the next 18 years or so) but instead of starting up the game I come on the forums for a 'quick peak' and up learning about all kinds of interesting things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your link doesn't exist.

 

Re: Challenger 2

 

It was a magic bullet sort of strike (the round struck the ground and skipped into the almost bottom of the hull from my understanding, so no ERA, and not in an area well armored on any tank), and not typical of RPG capabilities.  If it'd come head on vs effectively up from the ground, it would not have been effective, and even at that, the strike damaged the tank, but it was still more or less functional.

 

Re: FCS

 

T-64 was good for its time because everyone was using transistors.  T-80 started to slip because it was still using technology based on the finest the 70's could offer vs then modern electronics.  Russia has never managed to catch up in terms of computing and electronics, which is why they're content using the CATHERINE based systems vs having an original home grown design.  

 

You can look at the sales brochure posted earlier.  CATHERINE only claims vehicle identification out to a little over 2 KM without upgrade, which is well short of recorded identification/kill distances accomplished by Abrams and Challenger type tanks.  

No it was a direct hit onto the glacis, from what I read just now. Also lets not forget france didnt sell some export model catherine it sold catherines that the Russian MOD ordered it to, And I doubt it can see 2KM to identify on Russian tanks I mean that makes no sense you're acting as if Russian MOD is stupid... The Russian BURAN-MATIS thermal can Detect at 7KM where as the Buran-Catherine can detect at 12KM Recognition is 4KM for Buran matis and Buran catherine is 5KM It can identify fully at 2.5 KM both of them, And under adverse weather it is 2KM. Now in European geography you don't need more then 4KM at most. And this is for Ukrainian upgrades, The Russian one has even more capabilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These trials were not real. The website author (Fofanov) has admitted they are probably made up and that the name it was provided to him under appears to have been a fictional person, but he does not update his site for many years now.

Also, the Challenger was penetrated in the lower front hull (or bottom hull even; it was a fluke shot). T-90 would be penetrated in lower front hull also.

Catherine FC is a Gen II thermal sight. Most western tanks are now using Gen II+ / Gen III thermal sights. That is simple objective fact. That doesn't mean it is crap, just behind in technology. Russian military is well aware of this, and Catherine FC for their tanks is a stop-gap measure.

There is a lot more crossover between Russian and English language specialist sites on armor than you think. Anything interesting on Otvaga and other sites makes its way almost immediately to tank-net and other English-language forums. In fact, the information that Russian ground forces were dissatisfied with the bare-bones "modernization" of the T-72B3 comes straight from Otvaga, if I recall correctly. It is not some secret lair of knowledge that only you can interpret for us.

Im not saying that western thermals suck I know they are at a higher level then what is on Russian tanks BUT that does not make the Russian tanks obsolete. Because the thermals on Russian tanks are not bad they are good and they are enough for European geography,

Edited by VladimirTarasov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are genuine russian produced thermal matrices with resolutions well into what current NATO standart demands, however they are not retrofitted to current T-72B3/90A fleet due to costs of production. MoD's dissatisfaction with B3 upgrade is a little like complaining that cheap detergent doesn't compare to expensive detergent in its washing capabilities. T-72B3M demonstrates what could have been done, but wasn't paid for.  

 

I don't get this whole T-90A vs M1A2 SEP v2 debate. One for one, it's finest mid-late 90's tech vs finest late 00's tech money can buy. What does feel underperforming though is the armoring on the T-90's, which I think some of the videos of lateral .50 cal penetrations demonstrated on this board.    

Edited by BTR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are genuine russian produced thermal matrices with resolutions well into what current NATO standart demands, however they are not retrofitted to current T-72B3/90A fleet due to costs of production. MoD's dissatisfaction with B3 upgrade is a little like complaining that cheap detergent doesn't compare to expensive detergent in it's washing capabilities. T-72B3M demonstrates what could have been done, but wasn't paid for.  

 

I don't get this whole T-90A vs M1A2 SEP v2 debate. One for one, it's finest mid-late 90's tech vs finest late 00's tech money can buy. What does feel underperforming though is the armoring on the T-90's, which I think some of the videos of lateral .50 cal penetrations demonstrated on this board.    

The T-72B3M will be bought this year from what I have read and in big numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All T-72B3M seems to do is add a commander's panoramic sight and a new engine (and drivetrain, I think) to the T-72B3 package. Both were needed, but it is still only a partial modernization. The tank still has poor protection and only partially modernized FCS. Whether B3M will be bought in large numbers...we'll see. Last I heard 50 were on order. Might be a waste with Armata around the corner.

T-90 side armor is being looked at. Seems a likely bug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it was a direct hit onto the glacis, from what I read just now.

Get a better source.

Also lets not forget france didnt sell some export model catherine it sold catherines that the Russian MOD ordered it to, And I doubt it can see 2KM to identify on Russian tanks I mean that makes no sense you're acting as if Russian MOD is stupid... The Russian BURAN-MATIS thermal can Detect at 7KM where as the Buran-Catherine can detect at 12KM Recognition is 4KM for Buran matis and Buran catherine is 5KM It can identify fully at 2.5 KM both of them, And under adverse weather it is 2KM. Now in European geography you don't need more then 4KM at most. And this is for Ukrainian upgrades, The Russian one has even more capabilities.

The capabilities of the Catherine FC thermal camera are detailed in the brochure linked earlier. The Catherine FC TIs installed in Russian tanks are no better or no worse. It is a Gen II thermal imager.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

B3M adds drive-train OS alike the one on BTR-MDM/BMD-4M. I've got no knowledge on FCS improvements, but in terms of protection, slapping Relikt on instead of Kontact is a bit like APS for M1's. The tech is readily available, but there isn't a particular drive to field it in large amounts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thread, typical of most M1x vs T-xx in that everyone has statistics and data that they're getting off the internet and therefore it must be true.

 

Pretty much everything you see open source on the internet, whether it is US, Russian, British, whoever, is all best-guess based on speculation. Most of the systems on any of these tanks are classified when it comes to their real technical specifications. There might be pieces/parts that are declassified or have been compromised because somebody got hold of them and now it is no longer classified, but most stuff is still classified.

 

I've been to the Lima tank plant and even though I had a clearance at the time, I wasn't allowed to go into the part of the factory where they were installing the armor on the turret. The US has been working on the technology for that armor for 35+ years and have been performing a lot of tests over the years and the technology is constantly evolving in response to tests and speculation about Russian kinetic and ATGM technology.

 

You can take out a measuring tape and measure the thickness of the armor on the front turret of an M1 but they refer to "effective thickness", which is far greater than the real thickness and is based on the armor technology.

 

Nothing is "bullet proof". There was an M1 in Iraq a few years ago that got penetrated in the side of the hull by a .50 cal SLAP round and the round went into the crew compartment and struck the back of the gunner's seat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Nothing is "bullet proof". There was an M1 in Iraq a few years ago that got penetrated in the side of the hull by a .50 cal SLAP round and the round went into the crew compartment and struck the back of the gunner's seat.

Although I agree with just about everything you said about the classification, I do not believe the story about the .50 cal SLAP going through, that sounds a bit fake were speaking about a tank here.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...