M1A2 SEP V3 Not Invincible from Front vs T-90 AM! Have Vid Proof

[John Kettler]

There seems to be an incorrect perception that the Abrams can't be killed frontally. ChrisND showed unmistakably in his vid series, though, that you can clobber it. RUS 5 on US 4, frontal, US force already spotted by other RUS units. T-90 AM line is hulldown and begins firing from 700 meters.  US disaster begins at 2:16.

 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[Vanir Ausf B]

Thanks for the revelation, John.

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118648-russian-optics-and-spotting-in-general/?p=1592349

[HUSKER2142]

Honestly I don't trust that in a forehead the M1A2 tank Abrams can sustain at distance to 1000 meters hit from APFSDS (3BM42/3BM44, 3BM42M/3BM44M, 3BM46/3BM48, 3BM59, 3BM60).

 

Честно я не верю что в лоб танк М1А2 абрамс может выдержать на растоянии до 1000 метров попадание из БОПС  (3БМ42/3БМ44 , 3БМ42М/3БМ44М , 3БМ46/3БМ48 ,  3БМ59 , 3БМ60 ) .

 

 

 

 

P.S. 

 

Hello, I have a question to the development team:

Where do you get information about the performance characteristics of armored vehicles & weapons (including munition and armor).

 

 

Quote

Здравствуйте , у меня вопрос к разработчикам . Откуда вы черпали информацию о тактико-технической характеристике бронетехнике и вооружения , к этому относится боеприпасы и  бронирование .

 

 

I apologize for my bad English.

Edited March 6, 2015 by HUSKER2142

[Nerdwing]

Honestly I don't trust that in a forehead the M1A2 tank Abrams can sustain at distance to 1000 meters hit from APFSDS (3BM42/3BM44, 3BM42M/3BM44M, 3BM46/3BM48, 3BM59, 3BM60).

 

 

Flat part of the turret could resist, maybe.  But at 1km, the entire hull is vulnerable (and needless to say the below-mantlet weak spot)

[Vanir Ausf B]

Honestly I don't trust that in a forehead the M1A2 tank Abrams can sustain at distance to 1000 meters hit from APFSDS (3BM42/3BM44, 3BM42M/3BM44M, 3BM46/3BM48, 3BM59, 3BM60).

The Abrams has a very thick forehead

 

Abrams LOS resistance is over 900mm on the front turret side panels. 3BM42M/3BM44M Mango is a mid-80s projectile that only penetrates about 500mm at 2000 meters so it would have no chance.

 

Where do you get information about the performance characteristics of armored vehicles & weapons (including munition and armor).

Good luck with that! They don't even tell us beta testers.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[John Kettler]

Vanir Ausf B,

 

Your rapier thrust home! Clearly, my reading comprehension wasn't good after being up nearly 24 hours when I read the stuff at your link. Additionally, I wish I'd remembered to put this vid up right after I first saw it. I do recall saying something about it in another thread some time back.

 

HUSKER2142,

 

Please provide particulars on engagement parameters. Who spotted who first, who was moving and all that other good stuff. I absolutely don't understand the part where the T-90 AM turned away to the right, completely exposed its flank, then fired on the run.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[antaress73]

Probably they get some data from the Jane's reference books

[Stagler]

Honestly I don't trust that in a forehead the M1A2 tank Abrams can sustain at distance to 1000 meters hit from APFSDS (3BM42/3BM44, 3BM42M/3BM44M, 3BM46/3BM48, 3BM59, 3BM60).

 

 

 

 

P.S. 

 

Hello, I have a question to the development team:

Where do you get information about the performance characteristics of armored vehicles & weapons (including munition and armor).

 

 

Quote

 

I apologize for my bad English.

 

'Murica!

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Of course.  Is impossible tank of massive expense, weight, and battlefield record of being pretty hard to kill is as good as advertised!   Must be 'murica.  Now let me tell you about this T-72 with fuzzy dice in the turret and how it's pretty much the king of murder mountain.  

[agusto]

The video you posted John shows that while the Abrams may not be invulnerable, it is still really hard to kill from the front at 700m.

 

The first volley at 3:02 resulted in 4 hits, 1 penetration.

2nd volley at 3:13: 4 hits, 2 partial penetrations.

3rd volley at 3:25: 4 hits, 2 partial penetrations, 1 armor spalling.

4th volley at 3:35: 3 hits, 1-3 partial pentrations.

 

So out of 15 hits, 1 resulted in a pentration, 5-7 resulted in partial penetrations and 1 resulted in armor spalling. That is still pretty much in favor of the Abrams. If you did the test the other way round, with Abrams tanks firing at T-90s at 700m, the Abrams would probably achieve penetrations with every hit and all T-90s would be destroyed after the 2nd volley, possibly even after the first. To me there is no doubt that the Abrams armor, while certainly not impenetrable, is significantly superior to that of any other tank in CMBS.

[John Kettler]

agusto,

 

I've been up for ages right now, so am not at all mentally sharp, but I think if you watch both sides of the engagement, you'll find the Russians did a lot more damage, a lot faster, than simply looking at the "as seen from the T-90AM" visible damage results show. On the other end? In mere seconds, there pretty much isn't an Abrams platoon left. That side of things starts about 5:00.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited March 6, 2015 by John Kettler

[animalshadow]

HUSKER2142,

 

Please provide particulars on engagement parameters. Who spotted who first, who was moving and all that other good stuff. I absolutely don't understand the part where the T-90 AM turned away to the right, completely exposed its flank, then fired on the run.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

 

I'm not a HUSKER2142, but I'll answer - this was a test run, Abrams had target armor LOS 10m, so they couldn't shoot back and T90 was rolling around trying to penetrate Abrams from different distance, so this test wasn't about who spots who first, it was T90s in-game gun vs M1A2 armor at different ranges.