Side Armor of M1 to weak

[thewood]

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

[thewood]

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

[Renaud]

Yea, hard to believe i've been playing CM since the CMBO demo...Wow, i'm getting dated. I wonder why the SEP doesn't have it...I presume because the new FBCB2 panel and ICT got in the way of the old remote control and sight?

Another thing I noticed is that in Elite mode (the only way to play) I noticed a buttoned M1A2 SEP registers "?" marks for friendly vehicles. Does the FBCB2 system tell other FBCB2 systems the vehicle type too? I myself am not clear on that.

ps. Congrats on this new game, the demo is the biggest gaming thrill i've had since playing CMx1 the first time.

[Renaud]

Yea, hard to believe i've been playing CM since the CMBO demo...Wow, i'm getting dated. I wonder why the SEP doesn't have it...I presume because the new FBCB2 panel and ICT got in the way of the old remote control and sight?

Another thing I noticed is that in Elite mode (the only way to play) I noticed a buttoned M1A2 SEP registers "?" marks for friendly vehicles. Does the FBCB2 system tell other FBCB2 systems the vehicle type too? I myself am not clear on that.

ps. Congrats on this new game, the demo is the biggest gaming thrill i've had since playing CMx1 the first time.

[Renaud]

Yea, hard to believe i've been playing CM since the CMBO demo...Wow, i'm getting dated. I wonder why the SEP doesn't have it...I presume because the new FBCB2 panel and ICT got in the way of the old remote control and sight?

Another thing I noticed is that in Elite mode (the only way to play) I noticed a buttoned M1A2 SEP registers "?" marks for friendly vehicles. Does the FBCB2 system tell other FBCB2 systems the vehicle type too? I myself am not clear on that.

ps. Congrats on this new game, the demo is the biggest gaming thrill i've had since playing CMx1 the first time.

[John Kettler]

mocdra,

I have wondered--for decades--how the Russian identified vulnerable portion of the M1 could be anything but a shot trap, especially with the accuracy of today's tank cannon. Pity I don't read Russian!

BFC,

Looks like he's found some fabulous material on advanced armor/antiarmor matters.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

mocdra,

I have wondered--for decades--how the Russian identified vulnerable portion of the M1 could be anything but a shot trap, especially with the accuracy of today's tank cannon. Pity I don't read Russian!

BFC,

Looks like he's found some fabulous material on advanced armor/antiarmor matters.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

mocdra,

I have wondered--for decades--how the Russian identified vulnerable portion of the M1 could be anything but a shot trap, especially with the accuracy of today's tank cannon. Pity I don't read Russian!

BFC,

Looks like he's found some fabulous material on advanced armor/antiarmor matters.

Regards,

John Kettler

[mocdra]

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

The Thickness of the Side Armor is not correct... the Thickness is over one Feet (33 cm) thats are 12 Inch or more. The Frontal Thickness sounds true and matching my analysis.

Heres a Link to a Atop Photo from a m1a2

http://www.arcent.army.mil/cflcc_today/2005/july/images/jul03_08/08_05.jpg

Note the Distance between the Commanders mirror Ring and the Turret Flank. Thats the Armor Thickness !

Thats more than 8 Inches !. The Feet of the sitting Soldier has up to 33 cm. The Foot is shorter than the Distance between Ring and Hull !

By the German Leopard. There are the 8 Inches or less true at the Turret

Do you need more Photos and Draawings of that?

It is true that the Thickness is not the Factor for the Protction but is important after the Armortechnologie and Layout.

What brings the Chobham Armor when it is only 4 inches thick??!

To the Game:

Yesterday i played the Demo a second one.

One Abrams stands with ther Frontal Side against 2 T72 at 150 m Distance. The M1 have withstand 12 or more Direct Turret Hits!. Only the Left Track was damaged by a low Shot.

2 other 300 m distanced M1 moving in 90 ° tio the Enemy where knocked out by the first Hit.

I dont know where the Hits going in.. Hull or Turret. a Side Hull Shot , that is logical then the Tank is knocked out.. by a Turret Hit ?? i am not sure and i believe no every Shot penetrates the Turret Side in Reality..

Greetings

Moc

[mocdra]

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

The Thickness of the Side Armor is not correct... the Thickness is over one Feet (33 cm) thats are 12 Inch or more. The Frontal Thickness sounds true and matching my analysis.

Heres a Link to a Atop Photo from a m1a2

http://www.arcent.army.mil/cflcc_today/2005/july/images/jul03_08/08_05.jpg

Note the Distance between the Commanders mirror Ring and the Turret Flank. Thats the Armor Thickness !

Thats more than 8 Inches !. The Feet of the sitting Soldier has up to 33 cm. The Foot is shorter than the Distance between Ring and Hull !

By the German Leopard. There are the 8 Inches or less true at the Turret

Do you need more Photos and Draawings of that?

It is true that the Thickness is not the Factor for the Protction but is important after the Armortechnologie and Layout.

What brings the Chobham Armor when it is only 4 inches thick??!

To the Game:

Yesterday i played the Demo a second one.

One Abrams stands with ther Frontal Side against 2 T72 at 150 m Distance. The M1 have withstand 12 or more Direct Turret Hits!. Only the Left Track was damaged by a low Shot.

2 other 300 m distanced M1 moving in 90 ° tio the Enemy where knocked out by the first Hit.

I dont know where the Hits going in.. Hull or Turret. a Side Hull Shot , that is logical then the Tank is knocked out.. by a Turret Hit ?? i am not sure and i believe no every Shot penetrates the Turret Side in Reality..

Greetings

Moc

[mocdra]

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

The Thickness of the Side Armor is not correct... the Thickness is over one Feet (33 cm) thats are 12 Inch or more. The Frontal Thickness sounds true and matching my analysis.

Heres a Link to a Atop Photo from a m1a2

http://www.arcent.army.mil/cflcc_today/2005/july/images/jul03_08/08_05.jpg

Note the Distance between the Commanders mirror Ring and the Turret Flank. Thats the Armor Thickness !

Thats more than 8 Inches !. The Feet of the sitting Soldier has up to 33 cm. The Foot is shorter than the Distance between Ring and Hull !

By the German Leopard. There are the 8 Inches or less true at the Turret

Do you need more Photos and Draawings of that?

It is true that the Thickness is not the Factor for the Protction but is important after the Armortechnologie and Layout.

What brings the Chobham Armor when it is only 4 inches thick??!

To the Game:

Yesterday i played the Demo a second one.

One Abrams stands with ther Frontal Side against 2 T72 at 150 m Distance. The M1 have withstand 12 or more Direct Turret Hits!. Only the Left Track was damaged by a low Shot.

2 other 300 m distanced M1 moving in 90 ° tio the Enemy where knocked out by the first Hit.

I dont know where the Hits going in.. Hull or Turret. a Side Hull Shot , that is logical then the Tank is knocked out.. by a Turret Hit ?? i am not sure and i believe no every Shot penetrates the Turret Side in Reality..

Greetings

Moc

[tc237]

Originally posted by Renaud:

...also when you unbutton the loader is not there which is too bad, I wanted to see the loaders M240 fire.

Try using the "Target Light" command. M1A2 shown here with all three MG's engaging.

[tc237]

Originally posted by Renaud:

...also when you unbutton the loader is not there which is too bad, I wanted to see the loaders M240 fire.

Try using the "Target Light" command. M1A2 shown here with all three MG's engaging.

[tc237]

Originally posted by Renaud:

...also when you unbutton the loader is not there which is too bad, I wanted to see the loaders M240 fire.

Try using the "Target Light" command. M1A2 shown here with all three MG's engaging.

[Renaud]

ahhh...nice touch. Loader doesn't unbutton until you use target light.

Wow, that model is just amazing isn't it?

[Renaud]

ahhh...nice touch. Loader doesn't unbutton until you use target light.

Wow, that model is just amazing isn't it?

[Renaud]

ahhh...nice touch. Loader doesn't unbutton until you use target light.

Wow, that model is just amazing isn't it?

[Exel]

The turret configuration of Western tanks is such that from a frontal 30° angle the turret side armor is as thick as the turret front armor. From a higher angle however the side armor is considerably weaker, protecting mostly against smaller caliber weapons.

[Exel]

The turret configuration of Western tanks is such that from a frontal 30° angle the turret side armor is as thick as the turret front armor. From a higher angle however the side armor is considerably weaker, protecting mostly against smaller caliber weapons.

[Exel]

The turret configuration of Western tanks is such that from a frontal 30° angle the turret side armor is as thick as the turret front armor. From a higher angle however the side armor is considerably weaker, protecting mostly against smaller caliber weapons.

[mocdra]

The turret configuration of Western tanks is such that from a frontal 30° angle the turret side armor is as thick as the turret front armor

Yes that is the Main Design for the Western Tanks but some Tanks have thicker Turret Side Armor.

There are the Leclerc the Merkava the korean Type-88 and the M1

Leopard 2(All series),Ariete, Challenger 1 and 2 have the typical smaller Turret Side Armor.

The last Tanks have a Problem in Combat whan the Turret Pos is nearly 90 degrees to the Move Direction.

A opposing Tank Plattoon or Force , that do attack from the front shots first at the Tanks thier facing Turretflanks in the Enemy direction .

In a Stabdard Tank Formation One Tank hat the Turret forward One Turret to the Left One to the Right and one afterly.

At a First Detection and First Shotfrom the Enemy these Tanks with the thiner Turret Side Armor gou earlier a Prob as other Tanks.

In my opinion.. the M1 was designed for such Events to prevent a Knockout due Turret Side Hits.

Greetings

Moc

[mocdra]

The turret configuration of Western tanks is such that from a frontal 30° angle the turret side armor is as thick as the turret front armor

Yes that is the Main Design for the Western Tanks but some Tanks have thicker Turret Side Armor.

There are the Leclerc the Merkava the korean Type-88 and the M1

Leopard 2(All series),Ariete, Challenger 1 and 2 have the typical smaller Turret Side Armor.

The last Tanks have a Problem in Combat whan the Turret Pos is nearly 90 degrees to the Move Direction.

A opposing Tank Plattoon or Force , that do attack from the front shots first at the Tanks thier facing Turretflanks in the Enemy direction .

In a Stabdard Tank Formation One Tank hat the Turret forward One Turret to the Left One to the Right and one afterly.

At a First Detection and First Shotfrom the Enemy these Tanks with the thiner Turret Side Armor gou earlier a Prob as other Tanks.

In my opinion.. the M1 was designed for such Events to prevent a Knockout due Turret Side Hits.

Greetings

Moc

[mocdra]

The turret configuration of Western tanks is such that from a frontal 30° angle the turret side armor is as thick as the turret front armor

Yes that is the Main Design for the Western Tanks but some Tanks have thicker Turret Side Armor.

There are the Leclerc the Merkava the korean Type-88 and the M1

Leopard 2(All series),Ariete, Challenger 1 and 2 have the typical smaller Turret Side Armor.

The last Tanks have a Problem in Combat whan the Turret Pos is nearly 90 degrees to the Move Direction.

A opposing Tank Plattoon or Force , that do attack from the front shots first at the Tanks thier facing Turretflanks in the Enemy direction .

In a Stabdard Tank Formation One Tank hat the Turret forward One Turret to the Left One to the Right and one afterly.

At a First Detection and First Shotfrom the Enemy these Tanks with the thiner Turret Side Armor gou earlier a Prob as other Tanks.

In my opinion.. the M1 was designed for such Events to prevent a Knockout due Turret Side Hits.

Greetings

Moc

[Scott B]

Of possible interest from the latest issue of DefenseNews:

The Tank Is Back

U.S. Army Plans Improved Abrams To Serve Until Mid-Century

By KRIS OSBORN

Reversing earlier plans to retire its M1A2 Abrams tanks, the U.S. Army now plans to upgrade the 70-ton battlefield behemoths, making them more lethal, better protected, more networked — and able to serve through 2050.

In 1998, the Army had all but written off the tank, which cannot go over most bridges and is too heavy to deploy by air.

“We were going to stop producing Abrams in 2005. The line was supposed to go cold,” said an official with the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC).

But the Abrams’ thick skin proved immensely valuable during the Iraq insurgency, fending off enemy tank rounds, rocket-propelled grenades and roadside bombs that crippled lighter vehicles. To prepare the tank for its next decades, the Army is planning improvements.

“If you are going to keep it, the status quo won’t do,” said Rickey Smith, who directs the Capabilities Integration Center Forward at TRADOC.

Early versions of an “M1A3” capabilities development document have traveled from the U.S. Army Armor Center at Fort Knox, Ky., to TRADOC at Fort Monroe, Va., and will soon go to the Pentagon. At this point, the ideas in the document are considered preliminary and not yet official.

The Army intends its 60-tank Heavy Brigade Combat Teams — there are now 30 such units — to work with the Future Brigade Combat Teams that will come on line in 2015, as Future Combat Systems (FCS) vehicles arrive.

“We will have to be compatible with FCS. When FCS comes in, we are gong to have a fleet of Abrams, Bradleys and FCS armored vehicles. The critical thing is to get a communications package so they can talk to each other,” said Pete McVey, vice president of Abrams and derivative programs, General Dynamics Land Systems.

Preliminary work is under way on a more networked Abrams.

“We are working on an integrated computer system. Whatever you do, there is a requirement for integrated engineering,” the effort to build digitized and networked vehicles, said Smith.

Workers in Warren, Mich., are equipping several tanks for tests, giving them B-kits containing FCS-compatible software, computers and communications gear.

The capabilities description document, calls for:

• Lower logistical costs.

• Potentially replacing the M256 smoothbore cannon with the lightweight 120mm cannon being tested for FCS. This could allow an autoloader to lift the burden of the tank’s four-man crew.

• Better propulsion system, road wheels and suspension.

• A track that can go 5,000 miles between replacement. FCS officials are testing new track ideas at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., including band tracks composed entirely or partly of rubbery material.

• Lighter armor and other components to reduce the tank’s weight, making it more mobile with an improved suspension .

“For instance, we are looking at all the cabling in the tank. Coming out of FCS, there is a fiber-optic cable. With that, we could take a ton and a half off of the weight,” said McVey.

“The reason we try to keep the weight down is reliability. The heavier a tank gets, the more pressure there is on the transmission and tracks.”

• Precision munitions that can hit targets 12 kilometers away. The Army’s Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey, which aims to field its Mid-Range-Munition precision round by 2012, is testing two candidates: ATK’s millimeter-wave, kinetic energy round and Raytheon’s round with an infrared camera and laser detector.

“We must incorporate this capability into our heavy fleet if the HBCT is going to effectively fight alongside the FBCT,” said Maj. Gen. Robert Williams, commanding general, U.S. Armor Center, Fort Knox, Ky., in a written statement in Armor magazine, an Army publication.

The chassis, which survived close-range rounds from Russian-built T-72 tanks during the 1991 Gulf War, will remain largely unchanged, McVey said.

Ongoing Upgrade

Meanwhile, the Army is still completing the current upgrade to its Abrams, called Tank Urban Survival Kits (TUSK).

Begun in 2005, the kit adds reactive armor tiles to the sides, rear and top; slat armor; an exterior telephone; a remote weapon station for a .50-caliber machine gun; a gun shield to protect the gunner above the tank; thermal sights for the M240 7.62mm machine gun; and underbelly armor to ward off roadside bombs.

The Army is paying General Dynamics to equip 60 tanks per month in Iraq; General Dynamics earned about $78 million for TUSK work last year.

“We store the kits in-country under the control of the fielding team,” McVey said. “Scheduling is difficult because it involves taking a platoon out for a week or so. We will have to continuously coordinate with the commander.”

I'm sure most following FCS aren't completely surprised by the first part and most following the war already knew about TUSK. I won't comment on the wisdom of the overall idea other than by noting I've already done so elsewhere, but I think some of the TUSK upgrades imply a few things about Abrams' protection outside the frontal arc.

[Scott B]

Of possible interest from the latest issue of DefenseNews:

The Tank Is Back

U.S. Army Plans Improved Abrams To Serve Until Mid-Century

By KRIS OSBORN

Reversing earlier plans to retire its M1A2 Abrams tanks, the U.S. Army now plans to upgrade the 70-ton battlefield behemoths, making them more lethal, better protected, more networked — and able to serve through 2050.

In 1998, the Army had all but written off the tank, which cannot go over most bridges and is too heavy to deploy by air.

“We were going to stop producing Abrams in 2005. The line was supposed to go cold,” said an official with the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC).

But the Abrams’ thick skin proved immensely valuable during the Iraq insurgency, fending off enemy tank rounds, rocket-propelled grenades and roadside bombs that crippled lighter vehicles. To prepare the tank for its next decades, the Army is planning improvements.

“If you are going to keep it, the status quo won’t do,” said Rickey Smith, who directs the Capabilities Integration Center Forward at TRADOC.

Early versions of an “M1A3” capabilities development document have traveled from the U.S. Army Armor Center at Fort Knox, Ky., to TRADOC at Fort Monroe, Va., and will soon go to the Pentagon. At this point, the ideas in the document are considered preliminary and not yet official.

The Army intends its 60-tank Heavy Brigade Combat Teams — there are now 30 such units — to work with the Future Brigade Combat Teams that will come on line in 2015, as Future Combat Systems (FCS) vehicles arrive.

“We will have to be compatible with FCS. When FCS comes in, we are gong to have a fleet of Abrams, Bradleys and FCS armored vehicles. The critical thing is to get a communications package so they can talk to each other,” said Pete McVey, vice president of Abrams and derivative programs, General Dynamics Land Systems.

Preliminary work is under way on a more networked Abrams.

“We are working on an integrated computer system. Whatever you do, there is a requirement for integrated engineering,” the effort to build digitized and networked vehicles, said Smith.

Workers in Warren, Mich., are equipping several tanks for tests, giving them B-kits containing FCS-compatible software, computers and communications gear.

The capabilities description document, calls for:

• Lower logistical costs.

• Potentially replacing the M256 smoothbore cannon with the lightweight 120mm cannon being tested for FCS. This could allow an autoloader to lift the burden of the tank’s four-man crew.

• Better propulsion system, road wheels and suspension.

• A track that can go 5,000 miles between replacement. FCS officials are testing new track ideas at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., including band tracks composed entirely or partly of rubbery material.

• Lighter armor and other components to reduce the tank’s weight, making it more mobile with an improved suspension .

“For instance, we are looking at all the cabling in the tank. Coming out of FCS, there is a fiber-optic cable. With that, we could take a ton and a half off of the weight,” said McVey.

“The reason we try to keep the weight down is reliability. The heavier a tank gets, the more pressure there is on the transmission and tracks.”

• Precision munitions that can hit targets 12 kilometers away. The Army’s Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey, which aims to field its Mid-Range-Munition precision round by 2012, is testing two candidates: ATK’s millimeter-wave, kinetic energy round and Raytheon’s round with an infrared camera and laser detector.

“We must incorporate this capability into our heavy fleet if the HBCT is going to effectively fight alongside the FBCT,” said Maj. Gen. Robert Williams, commanding general, U.S. Armor Center, Fort Knox, Ky., in a written statement in Armor magazine, an Army publication.

The chassis, which survived close-range rounds from Russian-built T-72 tanks during the 1991 Gulf War, will remain largely unchanged, McVey said.

Ongoing Upgrade

Meanwhile, the Army is still completing the current upgrade to its Abrams, called Tank Urban Survival Kits (TUSK).

Begun in 2005, the kit adds reactive armor tiles to the sides, rear and top; slat armor; an exterior telephone; a remote weapon station for a .50-caliber machine gun; a gun shield to protect the gunner above the tank; thermal sights for the M240 7.62mm machine gun; and underbelly armor to ward off roadside bombs.

The Army is paying General Dynamics to equip 60 tanks per month in Iraq; General Dynamics earned about $78 million for TUSK work last year.

“We store the kits in-country under the control of the fielding team,” McVey said. “Scheduling is difficult because it involves taking a platoon out for a week or so. We will have to continuously coordinate with the commander.”

I'm sure most following FCS aren't completely surprised by the first part and most following the war already knew about TUSK. I won't comment on the wisdom of the overall idea other than by noting I've already done so elsewhere, but I think some of the TUSK upgrades imply a few things about Abrams' protection outside the frontal arc.