realistic abrams vs t72

[Bradley Dick]

I think another thing to consider about our armored superiority is this: Depleted Uranium. Those rounds that even the Bradleys have on board that may or may not have made me sterile. Quite lethal.

[Commissar]

Heh, there's something the Navy would love: motion wave gun.

[Battlefront.com]

Hey, DU rounds are perfectly safe unless you're licking the holes they poked through enemy armor! So says Uncle Sam, therefore it must be true.

On a serious note, whether DU is safe to handle or be around or not, they certainly are lethal. As I understand it 120mm DU rounds are being phased out, correct?

Steve

[mocdra]

I have earlier noticed that goes anything wrong with the Armor of the M1

Please note my Facts about the Armor of the m1 in the Game...

Im am sure that a t72 never take out a M1 with a Hit at the Turret Flanks!.eventually at close in Range of 100m but not more

In the first Campaign Mission i have took m1 knockouts coming from defending T55 at 250m from 60 Degrees at the Left Side. The Shells hit the Turret Side Armor..

That is really NOT realistic.

The Gun of the t55 has as much lower Muzzle Velocity and older Ammunition than a modern faster Smooth Bore Gun.

here the link to the Topic in this Forum about the armor discuss.

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002204

Greetings

Moc

[ August 08, 2007, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: mocdra ]

[Michael Withstand]

A T72 can easily knock out(penetrate) an M1 from the sides or the rear even the front that is at the lower hull of the front.

On one to one basis obviously the M1 has got the advantage by far but the Russian(Soviets) never intended the T72 to fight on one to one basis. That's why they designed for a much cheaper tank than the US(a T72 costs only a third of M1). Their intention was to attack their enemy(US and allies-NATO) with much superior overwhelming numbers. So a T72 or any other Soviet tanks was never meant to fight an M1(or any other US tanks) on one to one basis while the US opted for superior tank and superior training to counter the threat of the Soviet tanks.

There was a case with a Challenger 2 (British most armored tank) in Iraq which was penetrated by an RPG from the front(RPG-29 hit the lower hull of the front side). The driver lost his leg and his comrades were wounded. Mind you that not only it is the most armored tank fielded by the British(most likely it is one of the most armored tank in the world) but it was protected by the newest type of Chobham(RHA armor-US) armor(as every Challenger 2 participating in Iraq does).

Look at the Lebanon war. The Israeli underestimated their opponent resolve and weaponry and overestimated their tanks capabilities and they had a bitter disappointment over their tanks after the 2nd Lebanon war.

In short don't think any tank is so superiorly protected that it is invincible. They are only man-made. Tank technology has always been in a head-to-head competition with anti armor technology(ever heard A-10? ICM munitions, tank destroyer, ATGM, HEAT munitions). Sometimes temporarily the tanks are winning the race but only for a time then the anti-armor tech catches-up with the tank technologies. For a tank to remain effective it must be at least a step ahead than the anti-armor technologies.

Tanks are just one of men creation and the same men have also created the counter-weapons for them which are just as effective. Now you know why there's no longer active Battleships in any Navy. Mind you for a time they seemed invincible and was a sound and effective weapon-platform. Now they are gone, eclipsed by the superior modern weapon technologies(modern torpedoes and sensors, nuclear-tipped SSM missiles) and other weapon platforms( for example nuclear submarines, most importantly aircraft carriers ).

Just my 2 cents.

[ August 08, 2007, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: Michael Withstand ]

[Pandur]

DU rounds are perfectly safe unless you're licking the holes they poked through enemy armor

hehe, funny way to put it

as far as a physician told me, as steve suggested, the urnanium "debris" and dust wich is in, on top and around the vehicle is the danger.

not any form of radiation.

when you breath the dust you get it in your lungs, and there also "depleated" uranium is still uranium and causes "mucho" damage.

[i heared about big "plastic" bags the US have wich "should"(never saw it befor thats why i ask) be put over, more or less, any vehicle wich was shot at with DU, to hinder people from breathing this stuff and crawling around in all the urnaium littered dust...is this tru!?]

maybe talked to dead, but iam allready done.

[Kwazydog]

For those interested, below are a couple of photos that demonstrate just how vulnerable an M1 is from the rear hull.

The top image shows the rear exhaust area under normal conditions, and the bottom shows it when open for maintainence. As you can see, the only armor between the outside world and the rather delicate turbine engine around those slat armor panels which around 10mm or so thick. Its probably fair to say that even the Tiger tank had more rear hull protection overall

One RPG in this area is going to do significant damage, which is one of the reasons slat armor is being developed for the M1s rear hull.

Photos are from the below site, which has some great shots -

http://ipmslondon.tripod.com/armourreferencearticles/id20.html

[Battlefront.com]

mocdra,

Im am sure that a t72 never take out a M1 with a Hit at the Turret Flanks!.eventually at close in Range of 100m but not more

This does not appear to be true. I followed your other thread for a while, but we are not convinced. A better case will have to be made before we change any data comes to a different conclusion.

Steve

[Beastttt]

Yamato was in on the fight against Taffy 3(jeep carriers and their escorts)near San Bernadino straits

the DD's and DE's made a DAMN good showing going up against the Yamato's task force along with a few aircraft from the CVE's

the Japanese should have crushed Taffy 3

instead they sank 1 DD and 1 CVE(don't have all my books on hand so doing this from memory)

I think 1 japanese Ca was damaged

but the Japanese really should have done better

Originally posted by Becket:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kieme(ITA):

by the way Yamato could have had its moment durin the battle of Leyte gulf...

How? Yamato did see combat there, right?

To me, the usefulness of the ship is best exemplified by its role at Midway: hundreds of miles behind the action. </font>

[Beastttt]

more like in the 30's with General Billy Mitchell

and what he showed what air power could do to a warship

the first practical example was the Brits vs the Italians at Toronto harbor

2nd was the Japanese vs the USA at Pearl harbor

Originally posted by Becket:

Yeah, but Yamato was made obsolete on 12/7/41 - or really earlier, I suppose, since it was built for the wrong war. Extra iron wasn't really going to help the Japanese position by the time the ship sank.

Had the war that the designers of Yamato planned for ever occurred - a straight up "decisive battle" between dreadnoughts - there is little doubt that it would have been very effective. AFAIK, nothing in the US naval arsenal pre-Iowa could even dent it (excluding air assets), but I am no naval grog.

[thewood]

I think Dorosh will take exception to Italian ships in Toronto harbor (harbour).

[ August 08, 2007, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: thewood ]

[Michael Withstand]

A side/rear turret hit by a T72 will certainly kill the M1. .

M1 with DU armor is excellent at withstanding hits from the frontal side(front turret, upper hull) only.

[stoat]

Originally posted by Beastttt:

Yamato was in on the fight against Taffy 3(jeep carriers and their escorts)near San Bernadino straits

the DD's and DE's made a DAMN good showing going up against the Yamato's task force along with a few aircraft from the CVE's

the Japanese should have crushed Taffy 3

instead they sank 1 DD and 1 CVE(don't have all my books on hand so doing this from memory)

I think 1 japanese Ca was damaged

but the Japanese really should have done better

Misplaced discussion of WWII naval combat! I enjoy this kind of thing, because so many people know so little about it, this being a land warfare forum, and a Europe and Africa based one at that.

Yes they should have crushed the escort carrier force. But as you said, timely action be escort ships saved the balance of the tiny flattops. There were actually a sizable number of American aircraft present, namely the FM2 Wildcat, the version of the F4F produced for service on CVWs. Most of these were armed only with their .50 cal MGs, and as such could only strafe the Japanese ships. In the ensuing action, one CVE, one DD, and two DEs were sunk. Some of the Japanese ships took damage, but the escorts were more effective in forcing the Japanese to maneuver than they were in actually delivering blows. It was the torpedoes fired by the USS Heerman that forced Yamato to run directly away from the battle for 10 minutes. Yamato did hand out some punishment, albeit primarily with her 6 inch secondaries. But of course, by this juncture BBs were good for little more than ship to shore bombardment and as floating AA batteries for the fast carrier task groups.

[Kieme(ITA)]

Originally posted by thewood:

I think Dorosh will take exception to Italian ships in Toronto harbor (harbour).

LOL, it's Taranto !!!

That was a nice one!

[Achim]

The game need more balance, give the syrian guys some Yamamoto ships (they can hide them in houses or on rooftops or use them as car/ship bombs).

Endless options.

[Michael Withstand]

If you want balance you got the wrong game pal What do you expect in a US Vs Syrian conflict themed wargame. It's like Roman empire fighting the Jewish Kingdom in biblical time.

Want balance how bout NATO Vs Warsaw pact?

Nato forces being outnumbered at least 3 to 1 and it's a balanced game. That was the case in cold war.

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Michael Withstand:

What do you expect in a US Vs Syrian conflict themed wargame. It's like Roman empire fighting the Jewish Kingdom in biblical time.

Reminds me of the campaign scenario where you get two (2!) platoons of M1s and a platoon of M2s. I thought to myself: "What can possibly hurt a force like that!", and started to advance.

Half a minute later one platoon of M1s was burning ... :eek:

I have to admit, that I started the scenario again after that!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Achim]

Originally posted by Michael Withstand:

...

Want balance how bout NATO Vs Warsaw pact?

Nato forces being outnumbered at least 3 to 1 and it's a balanced game. That was the case in cold war.

Give them Yamamoto ships too

The game balance in CMSF is perfect. It show the problem that a high tech army has, if they fight against unconventional forces.

The hight tech force can win every battle, but anyway they can loose the war.

[tc237]

Originally posted by Kieme(ITA):

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

I think Dorosh will take exception to Italian ships in Toronto harbor (harbour).

LOL, it's Taranto !!!

That was a nice one! </font>

[Yardstick]

nice fanny pack.

[mocdra]

A T72 can easily knock out(penetrate) an M1 from the sides or the rear even the front that is at the lower hull of the front

The Rear is true but it is on every Tank right..

The Turret and Hull Rear of the M1 is one of the Achilles Points next to the Hull Flanks,the Turret Roof and the Notch beetween Hull and Turret.

and

A side/rear turret hit by a T72 will certainly kill the M1. .

M1 with DU armor is excellent at withstanding hits from the frontal side(front turret, upper hull) only

Upper Hull.. Not right Lower Hull Yes there is it true... The Armor Plate where the Driver has its Hatch is relatively thin .Thinner as at the Challenger 2 and Leopard 2, but the Target area at the M1 have a small hitable Arc from the Front

Then i repeat it now again.. Side Turret Armor is Chobhamn of the newest Gen and 35- 45 cm thick ( 20 cm or less by the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2).

The Turret Side Armor is at the back Section ( where the Ammunition is stowed) thin. Here it has 2 Inch or less.. The Ammu Bunker must broke when a Ammunition Explusion occures.

The Crew room has much more Side Armor !.

In the Iraq War some T72 hits M1 from the Turret Sides witout Penetration at 200 m Distance !

The Rounds gets deflectet or struck trough the Half of the Turret Side Armor( 20 cm) !

I search the Report and post it then here.

and

There was a case with a Challenger 2 (British most armored tank) in Iraq which was penetrated by an RPG from the front(RPG-29 hit the lower hull of the front side). The driver lost his leg and his comrades were wounded. Mind you that not only it is the most armored tank fielded by the British(most likely it is one of the most armored tank in the world) but it was protected by the newest type of Chobham(RHA armor-US) armor(as every Challenger 2 participating in Iraq does

The Challenger 2 is worse armored (specally at the Turret Sides )as the M1. That is Fact. Shot woth a RGP 7 at the Turret Side and the Crew get a new Airhole!. This Tank has better Protection at the upper Front Hull but not more.

The Challenger in Use in Urban warfare is the Hell for the Owner of these Tanks, because there are much more Tank Losses possible as by Use of an m1 or Merkava Tank.

[ August 09, 2007, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: mocdra ]

[Renaud]

There are videos of M1 armor tests floating around out there showing a clean penetration by a 100mm AT gun (fired point blank) into the crew compartment at a 90 degree angle to the turret side. It was a full-diameter hole with lots of daylight coming in (from the in-turret camera).

I don't know if this is still true, but in OPFOR type training all simulated hits from any angle by AT3+ or 125mm on the M1 (or any vehicle for that matter) are considered instant catastrophic kills (using MILES). This is the only intelligent way to train: assume the worst.

I do believe that M1's should be more vulnerable to damage from multiple 125mm or ATGM hits on the front aspect...there's just a whole lot of exposed and relatively fragile equipment poking out. The MRS, crosswind sensor, GAS, main site, CITV, tracks, MG's, gun tube, cupola, not to mention hits jamming the turret traverse/elevation. The possibility of 'critical' hits is not incosiderable, there is a big shot trap between turret and top front hull, a large and vulnerable drivers hatch, etc. Every frontal shot should have at least a few percent chance of taking the M1 out completely, at least triple that of damage to something. The thing is, we don't have any real experience of M1's receiving large volumes of hits on the front arc (or any arc). Generally, the M1's always hit fast and first before the enemy can find the range or even get off a shot. This was especially true in the 100 hours of ODS. Take the battle of 72 Easting for instance.

I believe the M1 would fare far worse if hit with a large volume of ATG/ATGM fire on the front than is currently modeled in the game. We have to assume that experienced or well-trained enemy gunners will target the obviously vulnerable areas if they are close enough.

[Tofke]

here, a good link to compare modern tank armor

http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm#1

[Kieme(ITA)]

One big problem related to modern armor is that we don't have so many information as we have about older armor.

We simply cannot be sure about M1 restistances since:

-we don't have perfect informaton of what it's made of

-we don't have full access to all tests made by US army about this matter

-we cannot access large statistics data about this matter

-we don't have good reference on armor-vs-gun confrontation all-around (apart some data taken from Desert Storm)

Since in any case there's too much speculation and too many information are desumed or presumed I think that actual game conditions are quite good.

Maybe in the year 2080 people will know something we actually ignore or don't know.

[Petrus58]

I wasn't aware that a Challenger 2 was penetrated by an rpg - my understanding was that it was a massive ied that penetrated underneath.