Jump to content

Invincible M1A2 Abrams?


Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Neepster:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by fritzthemoose:

I think they did not only compare against the russian and chinese tanks but also against the Leopard, Leclerce, Challanger Typ-90 Merceva and so on

Hmm... ok, that makes a bit more sense, but given that we hopefully won't be fighting the French, the Brits, the Isrealis or the Germans, I hope it doesn't matter smile.gif </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the M-1 excels precisely on the score of frontal arc armor, certainly compared to anything Russian. (Leopard II and best Brit or Israeli stuff is same league, though). It also has the most advanced sensors and ballistic computers, though some of the best western European models match that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JasonC:

Actually, the M-1 excels precisely on the score of frontal arc armor, certainly compared to anything Russian. (Leopard II and best Brit or Israeli stuff is same league, though). It also has the most advanced sensors and ballistic computers, though some of the best western European models match that.

according to some stuff i found on the net the m1 protection level is less than leopard II, challanger and some other western ones. as for the russians it looks like their armour overall is a little bid less but they do have a much lower siluette.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

metalbrew,

This one

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/at4spigot.htm

Wiki seems to underrate the penetration of the warhead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M111_Fagot

Missile looks like this (inset pic).

http://www.warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=261&linkid=2429

Anyone notice the thermobaric version of the SAGGER at www.warfare.ru ?

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flanker15,

You couldn't pay me enough to be in even an M1A2 tank under that kind of fire. Would imagine the driver's day would be ruined, vision blocks blown in, etc., by the detonations. Inert TOWs did that to M103 heavy tanks using nothing but pure KE, requiring major reinforcement on what were crewed range targets. Nor do I see how turret traverse and gun functioning could remain unaffected by hits there. If that's supposed to be an AT-4, BTW, somebody blew it. The missile shown is an AT-3.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
The reason for the downgrade was seeing two Challenger 2's knocked out by RPG-29s. The Challenger 2 uses a similar armor to the Abrams, but there are slight differences in the properties and composition.

Ehhh... this is a mistake, FV4034 on Lower Front Hull doesen't have Dorchester armor but a one or two simple RHA plates, if two, in beetwen are air gap os simple ceramic matrix, nothing advanced (this the reason for ROMOR-A ERA and now bolt on Dorchester armor module), Dorchester are in Glacis plate, in M1 opposite, Lower Front Hull is a thick cavietie with special laminate multilayer armor with DU inerts, in Iraq several M1A1SA's and M1A2SEP's was hit in frontal turret and Lower Front Hull, no perforations of armor were reported.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably the best tank in the world (with the possible exception of the Leopard 2A6)

I'm reminded a few countries have opted for an 'enhanced armor' Leopard 2A6, Greece comes to mind. That means all the other nations are operating with an 'un-enhanced' armor package. Germany didn't opt for "Chobham" armor due to expense and maintenance difficulties. I haven't heard what other 'armor technologies' they are using, so I can't guess what the armor equivalence may be. Leopard 2A6's 'superiority' may be only on the training range, or in relation to the rare full-up armor package.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only countries that use Chobham/Burlington are US and UK, German's use simpler Perforated steel armor later enhanced by some rubber, other non metal materials.

German Leo2A5's and Leo2A6's have same base armor as Leo2A4 (probably, nothing certain), Swedish Leo2A5S/Strv122's have origins in TVM Maximum prototype, where KWS-II upgrade for German tanks have origins in TVM Minimum. From TVM Maximum there were designed also Leopard 2A6EX, later it's derivatives Leopard 2A6HEL and Leopard 2A6E.

But Greeks and Sweden's reported some problems with new turrets, probably cracking welds or something like that, still not much data though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never understood, especially with today's precision tank fire control systems, how the "T" on the M1 series could be anything but a great shot trap. I wonder, too, what HE, or better yet, HEP would do if it got to the base of the turret and detonated. Believe I'd stay out of the tank during that experiment!

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never understood, especially with today's precision tank fire control systems, how the "T" on the M1 series could be anything but a great shot trap.

Because modern FCS's are not so precise as people think. Of course they add a tank crew a great accuracy but don't get in to super precise fire control systems myths from Discovery Channel. ;-)

I wonder, too, what HE, or better yet, HEP would do if it got to the base of the turret and detonated.

Minor damage and probably spall in case of HEP/HESH, to blow turret off the hull you need overkill IED, 4 to 5 M1's run over this monsters and lost turrets, hulls were badly damaged, structural damages make them over economic reasons to rebuild them, so probably turret will go to the old modernised M1IP's hulls or even older basic M1's hulls, there were rumors that GDLS built for these turrets new hulls, same for tanks with badly damaged hulls after smaller IED's.

Believe I'd stay out of the tank during that experiment!

Hmm, crew will be probably badly wounded, maybe even KIA's in some cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my shot from the previous post:

1 or 5 hits to that location

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/613/cmsf1lp8.jpg

The missiles traveled below the barrel and hit just above the turret ring below the barrel mantle.

Yes, clearly an AT-3

ORD_AT-3_9M14_Batey_ha-Osef_Museum_Israel_Bukvoed_GFD1-2_lg.jpg

Here's a picture of the AT4:

9m111_333.jpg

According to this site, it only has 400mm of penetrating power, whereas the same site gives the AT4 500-600mm.

Still, you would think a number of hits in the same place would do some damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damian90,

In WW II, gunnery was already good enough to permit such things as ricocheting AP projectiles off the Panther's mantlet and down through the roof armor of the driver's/radio operator's compartment. That's why the Panther G sported that chin at the base of mantlet. If that was doable then, with relatively crude weaponry and downright primitive fire control, why shouldn't a competent operator be able to put a round smack into the "T" zone? After all, trajectories are markedly flatter, dispersion's greatly reduced, and rangefinding has improved dramatically.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of weak zone in M1 is very small, it's only gun mantlet, the visible part of turret ring and glacis area over driver compartment (+ lower front hull in this place for modern APFSDS's from small distance). Sometimes also turret "glacis" but is angled and thick enough to protect from frontal hits.

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
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...