Side Armor of M1 to weak

[Redwolf]

Unless I've been out of the loop for too long, there has only been a single case of a clear RPG penetration of the sides of the M1. And that was only slightly hurting one crewmember and the crew disembarked because there was enough protection and no enemy fire around after the RPG hit. If there had been a bigger fight, this vehicle had been able to fight on with no problems.

The other "knockouts" are mostly from stuff outside the tank but attached or sticking to the tank catching fire.

Having said that, there's no question that a 125mm DU round from Soviet made guns can penetrate the sides.

[Redwolf]

Unless I've been out of the loop for too long, there has only been a single case of a clear RPG penetration of the sides of the M1. And that was only slightly hurting one crewmember and the crew disembarked because there was enough protection and no enemy fire around after the RPG hit. If there had been a bigger fight, this vehicle had been able to fight on with no problems.

The other "knockouts" are mostly from stuff outside the tank but attached or sticking to the tank catching fire.

Having said that, there's no question that a 125mm DU round from Soviet made guns can penetrate the sides.

[Redwolf]

Unless I've been out of the loop for too long, there has only been a single case of a clear RPG penetration of the sides of the M1. And that was only slightly hurting one crewmember and the crew disembarked because there was enough protection and no enemy fire around after the RPG hit. If there had been a bigger fight, this vehicle had been able to fight on with no problems.

The other "knockouts" are mostly from stuff outside the tank but attached or sticking to the tank catching fire.

Having said that, there's no question that a 125mm DU round from Soviet made guns can penetrate the sides.

[mocdra]

Unless I've been out of the loop for too long, there has only been a single case of a clear RPG penetration of the sides of the M1. And that was only slightly hurting one crewmember and the crew disembarked because there was enough protection and no enemy fire around after the RPG hit. If there had been a bigger fight, this vehicle had been able to fight on with no problems.

the RPGs took more Damage in some Attacks

A few Abrams knocket out by RPG 7 Turret Rear Hits. The Tanks burning out after that.

Pic Links to that...

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/3/3c/300px-B-23-1991.jpg

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=69838.

Links to the Pic with the 12,7 mm Bullet Damagethat penetrates the Side Hull Armor

http://www2.beareyes.com.cn/jpic/1/2005/05/20050507_134450_1.jpg

http://static.htka.hu/mp/cikkek/modern_pancelosok/rpg.gif

Or Shots from above at the Turret Roof are deadly for the Crew and somtimes the Tanks burning out.

Then the American Army was not ready for City Fights against single armed Groups and Guerellia Warfware. They drove there Tanks, equipped and designed for open Field Battle in the Streets of Bagdhad ot other Cities an Towns without awareness and the possibility for even asymetrical Guerellia Warfware and Morale taking Needle attacks against their Armored and Mobile Forces.

The wrong Tactics ans Equiptment was first noticed after the first heavy losses of Personal and Vehicles.

They uparmored thier Vehicles with ad on Armor and Sang Bags. After a vew Time a Tank Urban Survival Kit "TUSK" was developed on the Emergency of the assymetrical City Warfware.

Link to the TUSK for the Abrams.

http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/tusk.htm

http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/uploads/large/OCPA-2005-03-09-165522.jpg

Note the Armor Upgrades mainly for the lower Hull!.That shows where the mainly Weakness is.

The German Tank Designers have developed a similar better Thing for Urban Areas for the Leopoard 2 bevore the Iraq War happened

Called Leopard 2 PSO

http://fprado.com/armorsite/Leo2_Pics/Leo2pso-02.jpg

http://www.basier.de/leo.html

http://www.defense-update.com/products/l/Leopard-PSO.htm

Greetings

Moc

[mocdra]

Unless I've been out of the loop for too long, there has only been a single case of a clear RPG penetration of the sides of the M1. And that was only slightly hurting one crewmember and the crew disembarked because there was enough protection and no enemy fire around after the RPG hit. If there had been a bigger fight, this vehicle had been able to fight on with no problems.

the RPGs took more Damage in some Attacks

A few Abrams knocket out by RPG 7 Turret Rear Hits. The Tanks burning out after that.

Pic Links to that...

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/3/3c/300px-B-23-1991.jpg

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=69838.

Links to the Pic with the 12,7 mm Bullet Damagethat penetrates the Side Hull Armor

http://www2.beareyes.com.cn/jpic/1/2005/05/20050507_134450_1.jpg

http://static.htka.hu/mp/cikkek/modern_pancelosok/rpg.gif

Or Shots from above at the Turret Roof are deadly for the Crew and somtimes the Tanks burning out.

Then the American Army was not ready for City Fights against single armed Groups and Guerellia Warfware. They drove there Tanks, equipped and designed for open Field Battle in the Streets of Bagdhad ot other Cities an Towns without awareness and the possibility for even asymetrical Guerellia Warfware and Morale taking Needle attacks against their Armored and Mobile Forces.

The wrong Tactics ans Equiptment was first noticed after the first heavy losses of Personal and Vehicles.

They uparmored thier Vehicles with ad on Armor and Sang Bags. After a vew Time a Tank Urban Survival Kit "TUSK" was developed on the Emergency of the assymetrical City Warfware.

Link to the TUSK for the Abrams.

http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/tusk.htm

http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/uploads/large/OCPA-2005-03-09-165522.jpg

Note the Armor Upgrades mainly for the lower Hull!.That shows where the mainly Weakness is.

The German Tank Designers have developed a similar better Thing for Urban Areas for the Leopoard 2 bevore the Iraq War happened

Called Leopard 2 PSO

http://fprado.com/armorsite/Leo2_Pics/Leo2pso-02.jpg

http://www.basier.de/leo.html

http://www.defense-update.com/products/l/Leopard-PSO.htm

Greetings

Moc

[mocdra]

Unless I've been out of the loop for too long, there has only been a single case of a clear RPG penetration of the sides of the M1. And that was only slightly hurting one crewmember and the crew disembarked because there was enough protection and no enemy fire around after the RPG hit. If there had been a bigger fight, this vehicle had been able to fight on with no problems.

the RPGs took more Damage in some Attacks

A few Abrams knocket out by RPG 7 Turret Rear Hits. The Tanks burning out after that.

Pic Links to that...

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/3/3c/300px-B-23-1991.jpg

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=69838.

Links to the Pic with the 12,7 mm Bullet Damagethat penetrates the Side Hull Armor

http://www2.beareyes.com.cn/jpic/1/2005/05/20050507_134450_1.jpg

http://static.htka.hu/mp/cikkek/modern_pancelosok/rpg.gif

Or Shots from above at the Turret Roof are deadly for the Crew and somtimes the Tanks burning out.

Then the American Army was not ready for City Fights against single armed Groups and Guerellia Warfware. They drove there Tanks, equipped and designed for open Field Battle in the Streets of Bagdhad ot other Cities an Towns without awareness and the possibility for even asymetrical Guerellia Warfware and Morale taking Needle attacks against their Armored and Mobile Forces.

The wrong Tactics ans Equiptment was first noticed after the first heavy losses of Personal and Vehicles.

They uparmored thier Vehicles with ad on Armor and Sang Bags. After a vew Time a Tank Urban Survival Kit "TUSK" was developed on the Emergency of the assymetrical City Warfware.

Link to the TUSK for the Abrams.

http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/tusk.htm

http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/uploads/large/OCPA-2005-03-09-165522.jpg

Note the Armor Upgrades mainly for the lower Hull!.That shows where the mainly Weakness is.

The German Tank Designers have developed a similar better Thing for Urban Areas for the Leopoard 2 bevore the Iraq War happened

Called Leopard 2 PSO

http://fprado.com/armorsite/Leo2_Pics/Leo2pso-02.jpg

http://www.basier.de/leo.html

http://www.defense-update.com/products/l/Leopard-PSO.htm

Greetings

Moc

[Redwolf]

Your photos are all from that one incident I mentioned, at least the ones that show a penetration and not a randomly burned out tank, except the one that clearly shows mechanical damage instead of a HEAT penetration.

[Redwolf]

Your photos are all from that one incident I mentioned, at least the ones that show a penetration and not a randomly burned out tank, except the one that clearly shows mechanical damage instead of a HEAT penetration.

[Redwolf]

Your photos are all from that one incident I mentioned, at least the ones that show a penetration and not a randomly burned out tank, except the one that clearly shows mechanical damage instead of a HEAT penetration.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

Unless I've been out of the loop for too long, there has only been a single case of a clear RPG penetration of the sides of the M1. And that was only slightly hurting one crewmember and the crew disembarked because there was enough protection and no enemy fire around after the RPG hit. If there had been a bigger fight, this vehicle had been able to fight on with no problems.

The other "knockouts" are mostly from stuff outside the tank but attached or sticking to the tank catching fire.

Having said that, there's no question that a 125mm DU round from Soviet made guns can penetrate the sides.

This is what I was talking about

The RPG-7 is of course a HEAT based round

So everything I said about armour thickness goes out the window because the armour has a completly different rating against HEAT weapons

Abrams armour is a composite materials and not every layer is uniform thickness all the way around the tank

So that means while the steel layer may be 100mm (just to pull a number out of thin air) the RHA layer may only be 50mm and thus have a completly different rating against HEAT weapons

Its a extremly complex matter

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

Unless I've been out of the loop for too long, there has only been a single case of a clear RPG penetration of the sides of the M1. And that was only slightly hurting one crewmember and the crew disembarked because there was enough protection and no enemy fire around after the RPG hit. If there had been a bigger fight, this vehicle had been able to fight on with no problems.

The other "knockouts" are mostly from stuff outside the tank but attached or sticking to the tank catching fire.

Having said that, there's no question that a 125mm DU round from Soviet made guns can penetrate the sides.

This is what I was talking about

The RPG-7 is of course a HEAT based round

So everything I said about armour thickness goes out the window because the armour has a completly different rating against HEAT weapons

Abrams armour is a composite materials and not every layer is uniform thickness all the way around the tank

So that means while the steel layer may be 100mm (just to pull a number out of thin air) the RHA layer may only be 50mm and thus have a completly different rating against HEAT weapons

Its a extremly complex matter

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

Unless I've been out of the loop for too long, there has only been a single case of a clear RPG penetration of the sides of the M1. And that was only slightly hurting one crewmember and the crew disembarked because there was enough protection and no enemy fire around after the RPG hit. If there had been a bigger fight, this vehicle had been able to fight on with no problems.

The other "knockouts" are mostly from stuff outside the tank but attached or sticking to the tank catching fire.

Having said that, there's no question that a 125mm DU round from Soviet made guns can penetrate the sides.

This is what I was talking about

The RPG-7 is of course a HEAT based round

So everything I said about armour thickness goes out the window because the armour has a completly different rating against HEAT weapons

Abrams armour is a composite materials and not every layer is uniform thickness all the way around the tank

So that means while the steel layer may be 100mm (just to pull a number out of thin air) the RHA layer may only be 50mm and thus have a completly different rating against HEAT weapons

Its a extremly complex matter

[mocdra]

So everything I said about armour thickness goes out the window because the armour has a completly different rating against HEAT weapons

Thats right.

A homogenous thick Steel Plate of 700 or 900mm is very useless aginst a Heat Rounds of any Kind.

Only the Composition of different Armor Materials that destroys an divert the Heat Jet or diffuse it, bevore the Jet can affect the Main Armor Plate ( Slat Armor, Reactive Armor, Multiple Layer Armor, Spaced Armor etc) is effective against these Munitions.

The Leopard 2a6 has Spaced and Multiple Layer Armor in additional triangular Modules at the Chobham armred Turret Front that protects from Shaped Charge or Heat Warheads.

The Russians have somtimes very heavy Combinations

f Reactive Armor, Spaced and Muliple Layer Armor and Composite Armor at one Turret Front !.

No Nato Tank has a similar massive comosition og Armor Technics at once

First the Armor Modukes with ERA m Sopaced and Muktiple Laysr Armor.. then the Main Composite Turret Armor !.

Link to this impressive Thing...

http://www.btvt.narod.ru/4/armor.htm

http://www.btvt.narod.ru/1/armor_world/armor_world2.htm

then a next interesting Thing is there.

The Russians habe found a ballistic Hole in the Abrams Frontal Zone..

The Gun Mounting and the upper Hull Plate where the Drivers Hatch is located.

http://www.btvt.narod.ru/4/t-90vsabrams.htm

The Same for the Leopard

http://www.btvt.narod.ru/4/bars_leopard/80u_vs_leo2.htm

Greetings

Moc

[mocdra]

So everything I said about armour thickness goes out the window because the armour has a completly different rating against HEAT weapons

Thats right.

A homogenous thick Steel Plate of 700 or 900mm is very useless aginst a Heat Rounds of any Kind.

Only the Composition of different Armor Materials that destroys an divert the Heat Jet or diffuse it, bevore the Jet can affect the Main Armor Plate ( Slat Armor, Reactive Armor, Multiple Layer Armor, Spaced Armor etc) is effective against these Munitions.

The Leopard 2a6 has Spaced and Multiple Layer Armor in additional triangular Modules at the Chobham armred Turret Front that protects from Shaped Charge or Heat Warheads.

The Russians have somtimes very heavy Combinations

f Reactive Armor, Spaced and Muliple Layer Armor and Composite Armor at one Turret Front !.

No Nato Tank has a similar massive comosition og Armor Technics at once

First the Armor Modukes with ERA m Sopaced and Muktiple Laysr Armor.. then the Main Composite Turret Armor !.

Link to this impressive Thing...

http://www.btvt.narod.ru/4/armor.htm

http://www.btvt.narod.ru/1/armor_world/armor_world2.htm

then a next interesting Thing is there.

The Russians habe found a ballistic Hole in the Abrams Frontal Zone..

The Gun Mounting and the upper Hull Plate where the Drivers Hatch is located.

http://www.btvt.narod.ru/4/t-90vsabrams.htm

The Same for the Leopard

http://www.btvt.narod.ru/4/bars_leopard/80u_vs_leo2.htm

Greetings

Moc

[mocdra]

So everything I said about armour thickness goes out the window because the armour has a completly different rating against HEAT weapons

Thats right.

A homogenous thick Steel Plate of 700 or 900mm is very useless aginst a Heat Rounds of any Kind.

Only the Composition of different Armor Materials that destroys an divert the Heat Jet or diffuse it, bevore the Jet can affect the Main Armor Plate ( Slat Armor, Reactive Armor, Multiple Layer Armor, Spaced Armor etc) is effective against these Munitions.

The Leopard 2a6 has Spaced and Multiple Layer Armor in additional triangular Modules at the Chobham armred Turret Front that protects from Shaped Charge or Heat Warheads.

The Russians have somtimes very heavy Combinations

f Reactive Armor, Spaced and Muliple Layer Armor and Composite Armor at one Turret Front !.

No Nato Tank has a similar massive comosition og Armor Technics at once

First the Armor Modukes with ERA m Sopaced and Muktiple Laysr Armor.. then the Main Composite Turret Armor !.

Link to this impressive Thing...

http://www.btvt.narod.ru/4/armor.htm

http://www.btvt.narod.ru/1/armor_world/armor_world2.htm

then a next interesting Thing is there.

The Russians habe found a ballistic Hole in the Abrams Frontal Zone..

The Gun Mounting and the upper Hull Plate where the Drivers Hatch is located.

http://www.btvt.narod.ru/4/t-90vsabrams.htm

The Same for the Leopard

http://www.btvt.narod.ru/4/bars_leopard/80u_vs_leo2.htm

Greetings

Moc

[tc237]

mocdra,

There are a few problems with the links you posted.

1: Is from the first gulf war, notice the bumper number and date in the link B-23 1991--http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/3/3c/300px-B-23-1991.jpg

2: Those pics are of a tank in 1-64AR 3ID, named El Cajone, damaged during the famous Thunder Run when it took fire through the rear grill doors that burst a fuel line, the crew and everything was evacuated from the tank and it was latter destroyed by US forces to prevent it's capture. I know the Tank Commander personally. (some of you might remember watching this live on CNN)

3: Another tank from 3ID, A23 3-69AR, looks like an RPG penetrated the skirt and destroyed the main hydraulic reservoir. The tank would still be operational, but the turret would have to be traversed manually. It takes about 3 hours to change out for a new reservoir.

4: The link also says ".....rpg.gif" so it isn't 12.7mm

Anyway I don't want to get into a rant, all I can go off of is 14 months of riding a tank in Baghdad, I know that ain't worth a damn when talking tatics and equipment here, so I'll go back to playing.

edit: the TUSK is a concept, AFAIK the only TUSK elements deployed is the Loaders M240 shield.

I've never seen an M1A1/2 with the ERA on the side.

Oh, the ballistics hole is known as a "trap shot" most tanks are vunerable between the gun mantle and hull.

[ August 02, 2007, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: tc237 ]

[tc237]

mocdra,

There are a few problems with the links you posted.

1: Is from the first gulf war, notice the bumper number and date in the link B-23 1991--http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/3/3c/300px-B-23-1991.jpg

2: Those pics are of a tank in 1-64AR 3ID, named El Cajone, damaged during the famous Thunder Run when it took fire through the rear grill doors that burst a fuel line, the crew and everything was evacuated from the tank and it was latter destroyed by US forces to prevent it's capture. I know the Tank Commander personally. (some of you might remember watching this live on CNN)

3: Another tank from 3ID, A23 3-69AR, looks like an RPG penetrated the skirt and destroyed the main hydraulic reservoir. The tank would still be operational, but the turret would have to be traversed manually. It takes about 3 hours to change out for a new reservoir.

4: The link also says ".....rpg.gif" so it isn't 12.7mm

Anyway I don't want to get into a rant, all I can go off of is 14 months of riding a tank in Baghdad, I know that ain't worth a damn when talking tatics and equipment here, so I'll go back to playing.

edit: the TUSK is a concept, AFAIK the only TUSK elements deployed is the Loaders M240 shield.

I've never seen an M1A1/2 with the ERA on the side.

Oh, the ballistics hole is known as a "trap shot" most tanks are vunerable between the gun mantle and hull.

[ August 02, 2007, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: tc237 ]

[tc237]

mocdra,

There are a few problems with the links you posted.

1: Is from the first gulf war, notice the bumper number and date in the link B-23 1991--http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/3/3c/300px-B-23-1991.jpg

2: Those pics are of a tank in 1-64AR 3ID, named El Cajone, damaged during the famous Thunder Run when it took fire through the rear grill doors that burst a fuel line, the crew and everything was evacuated from the tank and it was latter destroyed by US forces to prevent it's capture. I know the Tank Commander personally. (some of you might remember watching this live on CNN)

3: Another tank from 3ID, A23 3-69AR, looks like an RPG penetrated the skirt and destroyed the main hydraulic reservoir. The tank would still be operational, but the turret would have to be traversed manually. It takes about 3 hours to change out for a new reservoir.

4: The link also says ".....rpg.gif" so it isn't 12.7mm

Anyway I don't want to get into a rant, all I can go off of is 14 months of riding a tank in Baghdad, I know that ain't worth a damn when talking tatics and equipment here, so I'll go back to playing.

edit: the TUSK is a concept, AFAIK the only TUSK elements deployed is the Loaders M240 shield.

I've never seen an M1A1/2 with the ERA on the side.

Oh, the ballistics hole is known as a "trap shot" most tanks are vunerable between the gun mantle and hull.

[ August 02, 2007, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: tc237 ]

[Renaud]

2. Text display of hit results.

Funny thing is, I turned off CMx1 detailed armor hit messages almost immediately and played without them for 5+ years...just destroyed my sense of immersion to see giant neon descriptions of hits floating above the tanks.

Regarding the M1 side armor...IIRC I compared the side armor in an M1A1 'heavy' to the front and the front armor looks to be an incredible 30" inches thick...of course there might be styrofoam peanuts in there for all I know. The side turret however is only about 6-8 inches thick. As others have noted thickness is hardly the sole indicator of protection. The top is incredibly vulnerable, only 1" steel.

I only have the demo right now but I noticed the buttoned M1 commander does not seem to be able to use his M2 when really it is intended to be used that way (remotely operated). Maybe the right situation hasn't appeared. You would in fact rarely use it from outside the hatch because the sights and control is downstairs...also when you unbutton the loader is not there which is too bad, I wanted to see the loaders M240 fire.

Is it just me or are the GI voices and verbiage copied directly from CMBO?? That cracked me up. I guess you have to cut expenses somewhere.

ps. Love the demo...the scenario could be more interesting, but you can't have everything.

[Renaud]

2. Text display of hit results.

Funny thing is, I turned off CMx1 detailed armor hit messages almost immediately and played without them for 5+ years...just destroyed my sense of immersion to see giant neon descriptions of hits floating above the tanks.

Regarding the M1 side armor...IIRC I compared the side armor in an M1A1 'heavy' to the front and the front armor looks to be an incredible 30" inches thick...of course there might be styrofoam peanuts in there for all I know. The side turret however is only about 6-8 inches thick. As others have noted thickness is hardly the sole indicator of protection. The top is incredibly vulnerable, only 1" steel.

I only have the demo right now but I noticed the buttoned M1 commander does not seem to be able to use his M2 when really it is intended to be used that way (remotely operated). Maybe the right situation hasn't appeared. You would in fact rarely use it from outside the hatch because the sights and control is downstairs...also when you unbutton the loader is not there which is too bad, I wanted to see the loaders M240 fire.

Is it just me or are the GI voices and verbiage copied directly from CMBO?? That cracked me up. I guess you have to cut expenses somewhere.

ps. Love the demo...the scenario could be more interesting, but you can't have everything.

[Renaud]

2. Text display of hit results.

Funny thing is, I turned off CMx1 detailed armor hit messages almost immediately and played without them for 5+ years...just destroyed my sense of immersion to see giant neon descriptions of hits floating above the tanks.

Regarding the M1 side armor...IIRC I compared the side armor in an M1A1 'heavy' to the front and the front armor looks to be an incredible 30" inches thick...of course there might be styrofoam peanuts in there for all I know. The side turret however is only about 6-8 inches thick. As others have noted thickness is hardly the sole indicator of protection. The top is incredibly vulnerable, only 1" steel.

I only have the demo right now but I noticed the buttoned M1 commander does not seem to be able to use his M2 when really it is intended to be used that way (remotely operated). Maybe the right situation hasn't appeared. You would in fact rarely use it from outside the hatch because the sights and control is downstairs...also when you unbutton the loader is not there which is too bad, I wanted to see the loaders M240 fire.

Is it just me or are the GI voices and verbiage copied directly from CMBO?? That cracked me up. I guess you have to cut expenses somewhere.

ps. Love the demo...the scenario could be more interesting, but you can't have everything.

[Battlefront.com]

Remember guys... anything from GW1 is completely out of date. Anything from OIF is modestly out of date. Anything from Iraq today is moderately out of date. Why? Iraqis are using largely 2nd rate and substandard rockets. The newer types, which we know Syria has and is buying a lot more of, should be able to penetrate the side of an Abrams.

Renaud,

Nice to see you! The reason the M2 isn't used remotely is the Demo has the M1A2 SEP Abrams. They do not have remote weapons station for the M2. The M1A1 models do. TUSK adds that funcationality back, but TUSK isn't simulated in CMx1. When we got to the "point of no return" on what vehicles to add, the TUSK project was not yet funded. IIRC it has been funded now but the rollout of kits is going to be rather slow.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Remember guys... anything from GW1 is completely out of date. Anything from OIF is modestly out of date. Anything from Iraq today is moderately out of date. Why? Iraqis are using largely 2nd rate and substandard rockets. The newer types, which we know Syria has and is buying a lot more of, should be able to penetrate the side of an Abrams.

Renaud,

Nice to see you! The reason the M2 isn't used remotely is the Demo has the M1A2 SEP Abrams. They do not have remote weapons station for the M2. The M1A1 models do. TUSK adds that funcationality back, but TUSK isn't simulated in CMx1. When we got to the "point of no return" on what vehicles to add, the TUSK project was not yet funded. IIRC it has been funded now but the rollout of kits is going to be rather slow.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Remember guys... anything from GW1 is completely out of date. Anything from OIF is modestly out of date. Anything from Iraq today is moderately out of date. Why? Iraqis are using largely 2nd rate and substandard rockets. The newer types, which we know Syria has and is buying a lot more of, should be able to penetrate the side of an Abrams.

Renaud,

Nice to see you! The reason the M2 isn't used remotely is the Demo has the M1A2 SEP Abrams. They do not have remote weapons station for the M2. The M1A1 models do. TUSK adds that funcationality back, but TUSK isn't simulated in CMx1. When we got to the "point of no return" on what vehicles to add, the TUSK project was not yet funded. IIRC it has been funded now but the rollout of kits is going to be rather slow.

Steve

[thewood]

Steve, you just made the case of why you should have done WW2. Pretty static research...just kidding.