About Western/NATO tanks in game.

[Damian90]

This topic is about western tanks and reality/realism.

First.

About versions, armor, etc.

In other topic's i made some infos, mostly things from smart guy's from TankNet.

About M1's.

First.

There are 5 basic variants in game.

M1A1HC (Heavy Common) a more advanced derivative of M1A1HA (Heavy Armor), II gen. Multilayered laminate armor with DU inserts. Common version for US.Army and U.S.M.C., still there are some differences, TIP in Marines tanks, DWFK also in this version, also different smoke granade launchers and other minor equipment.

M1A1HC is a base for baseline M1A2, both have same armor protection.

Front turret: 880-900mm RHAe vs. KE, Glacis: 560-590mm RHAe vs. KE, Lower Front Hull: 580-650mm RHAe vs. KE/Front turret: 1310-1620mm RHAe vs. CE, Glacis: 510-1050mm RHAe vs. CE, Lower Front Hull: 800-970mm RHAe vs. CE.

Additional Note: Lower Front Hull protection can be bigger, there are reported many hit's in this area, also for RPG-29's, no perforation's reported, probably only dep penetration's.

There are also other variant's, M1A1HA+ (Heavy Armor Advanced) is simple M1A1HA but with armor inserts of M1A1HC/M1A2, dunno if it's still in use in active unit's.

Additional Note nr.2: Baseline M1A2's are not in service any more, all are transeferd to ANAD (Anniston Army Depot) and LATP (Lima Army Tank Plant) and wait to upgrade into M12SEP v.2. This is because of big difficulties with old electronic packadge, mainly IVIS, now it will be replaced by FBCB2 and BFT.

M1A1SA and M1A2SEP also have same armor protection, not confirmed but US.Army and ARNG will be unificating it's fleet to only two type's, so this is logical that under modernisation program both recive same armor. Beside this in known info's both weight i same, approx 63,100kg.

M1A1HC and M1A2 weight's approx 62,500kg or something about 62,000kg.

M1A1SA and M1A2SEP armor estimations:

Front turret: 940-960mm RHAe vs. KE, Glacis: 560-590mm RHAe vs. KE, Lower Front Hull: 580-650mm RHAe vs. KE/Front turret: 1320-1620mm RHAe vs. CE, Glacis: 510-1050mm RHAe vs. CE, Lower Front Hull: 800-970mm RHAe vs. CE.

Additional Note nr.3: Some sources say that armor protection in frontal turret arc increased to 1000mm RHAe vs. KE (probably also vs. CE), probably. Many reports suggest that inserts was completely changed after Iraq lessons learned. Maybe this is also for increased protection on side turret armor. From what we know CR warheads with penetration level of 500mm RHA can perforat side turret armor, so upgrade is possible.

Turres frontal and side armor LOS thickness.

Front: 870-900mm.

Side: No less than 300-350mm on full side armor lenght.

Note: Frontal turret is angled in both axis, so this can mean additional protection in strictly forward hit, also increase protection i.e. 30 deegres hit angle. U.S.M.C. M1A1FEP weight's same as US.Army M1A1SA and M1A2SEP, so conclusion is it have same armor.

Picture:

Note: Red frontal armor, Blue Side armor. Original weld lines are incorect, i made better ones, based on real photos from outside and inside turret.

Side hull armor protection.

In all M1's side hull protection can be sliced to two parts.

First is over driver compartment, driver seats in the center of hull and on both side there are two big fuel cells. Both builded as honeycomb structure that acts like an armor.

Side armor protection in this part:

5cm layered heavy balistic skirt's, empty space for drive train, act's like an airgap, probably more than 5-8cm side RHA armor, maybe even some lyered armor? No reports about perforation from RPG's, one perforation from EFP, mobility kill and fuel cell fire (mainly because there were some air in fuel cell, no KIA's or WIA's, tank only slightly damaged.), inner thick RHA plate. Estimated protection against CE is 900mm RHAe.

Rest are additional 5cm layered side skirt's to the half of hull and then thin sheet metal non balistic skirt's. Side hull armor, approx 5cm to 8cm RHA plate.

Basic protection against odler and smaller RPG's and autocannons up to 40mm with modern ammo, but 40mm with modern APFSDS can perforate it (and this means for any other modern tank) in very close range (~less than 800m i suppose).

M1A1HC have basic FCS known from M1A1 and M1A1HA/HA+. M1A2 newer, maybe less advanced primal version of FCEU.

M1A1SA and M1A2SEP same FCS FCEU, both II gen. thermal's. M1A1SA have also TI sight for TC's CWS.

All ammo in all 120mm gun M1's are stored in two magazines.

This two mags are isolated from the rest of the tank by armored bulkheads and sliding armored doors (only one electro-hydraulic operated, rest manually) and blow-off/out panels.

No reported crew causalties from ammo cook-off. In fact, if there are no engine fire and tank is operational, crew can drive back or even fight if one of magazines (36 M1A1's/38 M1A2's turret bustle, 6 in rear hull) are not cook-off.

Now standard ammo layout is.

M829A2 or M829A3 APFSDS rounds, M830 HEAT or M830A1 MPAT or both used in one time. In COIN also M1028 Canister rounds are used.

Future upgrade will be Data Link for gun and FCS to operate M1111 MRM-CE/KE ATGM (range 12km, top attack mode), AKE (Advanced Kinetic Energy) Probabale designation M829E/A4 and AMP (Advanced Multipurpose) but no known probabale designation.

Still used engine are AGT-1500C 1500HP engine, now after TIGER upgrade program.

Probabale future engines? LV-100-5 GT, also 1500HP, GD-833 Diesel (tested, licence version of MB-833 EuroPowerPack), AVDS-1790 Diesel upgraded to generate 1500HP.

M1 version's.

M1 (MBT Block 1);

M1IP (Improved Performance);

M1A1 (MBT Block 2 minus);

M1A1HA (Heavy Armor);

M1A1HA+ (Heavy Armor Advanced);

M1A1HC (Heavy Common);

M1A1D (Digital, or Delta);

M1A1AIM v.1;

M1A1SA a.k.a AIM v.2;

M1A1FEP (Fire Enchanced Program);

M1A2 (MBT Block 2);

M1A2SEP (System Enchanced Program) v.1;

M1A2SEP v.2.

Prototypes:

M1A2HA (Heavy Armor) Prototype only, program start the same time wen M1A2SEP start's, maybe they make them as one in final stage of development;

MBT Block 3 prototypes: TTB (Tank Test Bed), unmanned turret, crew in armored capsule in hull front, 120mm main weapon, CATTB (Continuous Advanced Tank Tes Bed) 120-140mm main weapon, heavy armored, new engine, probably Diesel, new track's and suspension.

And i think that's all about M1 :-), next will be FV4034 Challenger 2. :-)

[Damian90]

BTW, if someone can give me a good pics of tank models in game from front, side's, rear and top viev i can make even more accurate lines for armor. :-)

Thank's BFC for excellent models.

Oh and i only have 1.08 version and i can't pache it right now, so i wait untill I have enough money for basic game and modules, so sorry that i can't make this pics by myself. :-)

[slug88]

Very informative, thanks! I'd love to see something similar for the T-90.

[Damian90]

Yes of course, I can make an T-72/90 family of tanks history and other usefull info's, but I need time, and first will be FV4034 as I said.

So when i have some time i make CR2 and then something about OPFOR side tanks, but i don't promise any thing. ;-)

[Clevinger]

Could you write something about the Leclerc ?

[Damian90]

Yes I can. :-)

But please, give me some time, maybe i wright something today, but later and not to much.

[Damian90]

Now about FV4034 Challenger 2.

It's basic armor protection is comparabale with M1. We can even take into discussion that in NATO are few different tank design schools.

British and US with heavier armored tanks (LOS thickness and Heavy Metal elements in armor inserts), German with good armored and slightly more mobile tanks, but armor is thinner and without heavy metal elements in armor inserts, France have very similiar design school to Germany but Leclerc has thicker frontal turret armor than Leo2 and completely different inserts designs. Oh and Italian Ariete C1 seems to be most lightly armored NATO IIIrd. gen. MBT, but from what i know there were some armor upgrades.

FV4034 Challenger 2 Dorchester (II gen. Chobham) armor is placed in cavieties: Front turret armor, side turret armor and glacis plate (in this case M1 has opposite solution, multilayer laminate armor in Lower Front Hull and Glacis plate as 100-150mm highly angled RHA plate but M1 have also fuel cell that acts like armor on both sides of drivers station, Dorchester is placed in the same manner in CR2 so protection here is same).

Lower Front Hull is protected by signe or two RHA plates, if variant two, with air gap in beetwen or simple ceramic matrix. (Proof? CR2 was perforated over there by RPG-29, only one tank and driver only WIA, in other hand many M1's were hit in this area, no perforation reported, on the other hand i.e. in Sadr City there were plenty of RPG-29's and many perforated side and rear armor of M1's).

CR2 ammo is stored:

a)APFSDS in racks in turret bustle;

b)HESH below turret ring in racks;

c)Propelant charges for ammo in armored bins.

About thouse bins, there are armored enough to prevent spall to ignite propelant charges but, KE penetrator, shaped charge jet or intensive interior fire could ignite propelant charges, besides this, KE penetrators, shaped charge jest, fire or spall can ignite HESH rounds stored below turret ring in crew compartment and then something like these happens:

(1st from 3 FV4034's knocked out in Iraq, F-F casualty, two HESH rounds, one get in by TC hatch, ignited HESH rounds and propelant charges, two crew members dead, another two was outside the tank and survived)

FV4034 have new FCS, derivative of US FCS used on M1A1SA/FEP and M1A2SEP.

TC has CIV (Commander Independent Viewer) without thermals. I don't know whether

British Army use on tanks system similiar to US FBCB2 and BFT.

CR2 has less powerfull engine than comparabale NATO tanks but thanks to great suspension in terrain it can move as fast as M1, Leo2 or Leclerc, on the road is slightly slower.

CR2 weight approx 62,000-62,500kg.

Armor estimations:

Front turret: 920-960mm RHAe vs. KE, Glacis: 660mm RHAe vs. KE, Lower Front Hull: 590mm RHAe vs. KE/Front turret: 1450-1700mm RHAe vs. CE, Glacis: 1000mm RHAe vs. CE, Lower Front Hull: 860mm RHAe vs. CE.

*Remember, estimations are based upon distance (only for KE), anlge of hit, ammo cababilities, materials from ammo and armor is made and etc.

LOS Thickness of turret front is same as in M1's starting from M1IP (firts model with "Long" Turret), 870-900mm, side same 300-350mm, glacis cavieties for Dorchester, much thicker than M1's glacis, 150-200mm (but protection is almost same in this place in both tanks).

From known sources we know that as M1's use DU heavy metal elements in armor inserts (and in my opinion not only DU, but maybe also WHA/Tungsten or something else) CR2 use WHA/Tungsten elements.

CR2 use two types of addon armor kits.

First, in "telic" variant, so called "WarFighter" kit, with Dorchester or Chobham/Burlington armor modules replacing side skirt (basic side skirt don't have heavy balistic elements like in US, German and French tanks) and, ROMOR-A ERA covering Lower Front Hull, no it's Replaced by so called "StreetFighter" kit, wih new side armor modules (probably Dorchester and Israeli ERA/NERA mix) for hull and turret, and bolt on addon Dorchester module covering Lower Front Hull + Slat armor in rear side hull and turret and rear hull and turret.

Turret top in CR2 is even much thicker than in M1's, and basic Leo2's (not modern versions, derivatieves of TVM Maximum prototype and Leo2A6EX prototype), but don't expect that it survive 93mm RPG. ;-)

So, i think for right now it's enough, maybe more later or next day. :-)

[Damian90]

BTW, about this pic of firts kocked out CR2.

This shown you look a tank after ammo cook-off, and remember, Leo2 (27) and Leclerc (18) have also unprotected ammo in the hull, so after ammo cook-off they will look preaty same. Remember that only M1 have all ammo in isolated ammo compartment's with armored bulheads, armored sliding doors and Blow-off/out panels.

In Iraq US lost (that means beyond repair status and written off) ~100-150 (I think less than 150 and more than 80) M1's, reasons are mainly bigger IED's and intensive engine fire + 4 to 5 M1's after underbelly explosion of so called "Overkill" IED, it's very big IED, so tanks after that look like this one:

This M1A1HC or M1A1SA was without T.U.S.K. kit, IED was very big, hull so heavily damage that it was written off, turret in better shape will be repaired and get a new hull (upgraded hull of older variants or completely new produced by GDLS).

Of course there were many M1's after ammo cook-off but the bigest damage was completely destroyed turret bustle (in this cases tank was in intensive fire and such tanks are also written off because beyond repair status) but no M1, ever lost his turret by ammo cook-off, only 4 to 5 tanks after Overkill IED's.

No you see how important is design were ammo is stored in isolated ammo compartment's with armored bulheads, armored sliding doors and Blow-off/out panels.

[akd]

Are you sure that tank burned? I see no evidence of fire.

[Damian90]

What tank? M1 or CR2?

I meant that not this M1 but many other was burned and this was main reason why these tanks were written off, but thouse 4 (or 5) M1's that ran over Overkill IED's were not burned, and CR2 is definetly burned.

[akd]

Nevermind, I see what you are saying.

[Damian90]

My english isn't to good so this can be reason of some misunderstandings, sorry about that. :-)

[Damian90]

Ok, so for know, BLUEFOR in game have only M1 and CR2, i can wright something about their most potent opponent.

T-90SA is export variant of T-90A, T-90A is completetly different tank than T-90.

T-90A is more common to very advanced prototype tank, Object-187 than T-72B, from T-72B evolved baseline T-90, not produced right now.

T-90A and T-90SA have welded turret that have frontal armor in same thickness over it's full lenght, in Russian tanks with cast turret's frontal armor in some places is very thnin in other very thick.

I think this is the best to shown you what i mean.

T-90A with new armor inserts, T-90 with Relective plates inserts and T-80UK with cellural castings inserts.

Frontal turret armor LOS thickness is 600-650mm (in case of cast turrets in most thickest place) + K-5 ERA.

Leopard 2A4, Leopard 2A5/A6 frontal turret base armor is 600-650mm LOS max! Side turret armor is 200-250mm LOS max over crew compartment, and over turret bustle only 100-150mm LOS max and only RHA plate.

So frontal protection of Russian tanks is probably same as Leo2A5/A6.

But we must remember that russian tanks turrets are more angled than German one's and protectd by K-5 ERA so some shot's especially in gun mantle area will probably end by perforation, but other only end as deep penetratons if shot will be strictly from the front of the turret. Side and rear turret armor is very thin when we compare it to wesern tanks, simple RHA plate, no more than 50-80mm LOS. From closer range M242 25mm with modern APFSDS M919 can perforate it, not to mention 30mm Mk.44 and other 30mm guns or such monster as 40mm Bofors L70. :-)

There are only estimations for T-72B Model 1988 (called also T-72B(M))/ early T-90: Front turret 420-750-920mm RHAe vs. KE, glacis 670-710mm RHAe vs. KE, Lower Front Hull 240mm RHAe vs. KE/Front turret 580-1050-1340mm RHAe vs. CE, glacis 990-1070mm RHAe vs. CE, Lower Front Hull 380mm RHAe vs. CE

Well, I think that these estimations are slightly over estimated but who know, maybe it's not so far from true.

Here to compare it to Leo2A4, Leo2A5 and Leo2A6.

Leo2A4: Turret 590-690mm RHAe vs. KE, Glacis 600mm RHAe vs. KE, Lower Front Hull: 600mm RHAe vs. KE/Turret 810-1290mm RHAe vs. CE, Glacis 710mm RHAe vs. CE, Lower Front Hull 710mm RHAe vs. CE.

Leo2A5: Turret 850-930mm RHAe vs. KE, Glacis 620mm RHAe vs. KE, Lower Front Hull: 620mm RHAe vs. KE/Turret 1730-1960mm RHAe vs. CE, Glacis 750mm RHAe vs. CE, Lower Front Hull 750mm RHAe vs. CE.

Leo2A6: Turret 920-940mm RHAe vs. KE, Glacis 620mm RHAe vs. KE, Lower Front Hull: 620mm RHAe vs. KE/Turret 1730-1960mm RHAe vs. CE, Glacis 750mm RHAe vs. CE, Lower Front Hull 750mm RHAe vs. CE.

Here I think that Leo2A5/A6 are also slightly over estimated, reports give us some hints.

Late production 2A4's have armor incresed vs. KE in front of turret to 700mm RHAe, German 2A5's and 2A6's have probably inserts from this late 2A4's + empty inside, thin sheet steel and rubber wedge armor on turret, this armor is mainly stand-off for CE + it helps deflect KE rounds.

So we can assumpt that German 2A5's and 2A6's have KE protection in front turret ~800-850mm RHAe vs. KE.

The more advanced versions, derivatieves of TVM Maximum and Leo2A6EX prototype have new armor inserts, so they are probably at same protection level as M1A1HA+/HC and M1A2 and also Leclerc or, in more optimistic variant on level of M1A1SA/FEP and M1A2SEP and also FV4034 Challenger 2.

Ok, so enough for know. :-)

[LuckyStrike]

Thanks for this info very interesting.

[Damian90]

Well I only wan't to say that these is not necessary true, these infos can be very close to true or can be completely false.

But types of armor inserts in Russian tanks are true, I have photo showing empty armor cavieties in T-72B turret and ame turret but with placed armor inserts.

Photos are on my PC and nowI witing from my other computer, so later i can show you all how it's look. :-)

[Webwing]

Awesome stuff! Thanks.

-

[dan/california]

Chapter and verse, with footnotes! Thats how to make a point.

[Damian90]

Ok I tested demo version, and i must say that, FV4034 Challenger 2 (with enchanced armor) is a tough mother****er!

I stop counting RPG's hitting on one of my CR2 after 15! Hit's were on side's, front, some even on rear.

It was even capabale to destroy 4 T-72M1's, but after that big RPG or ATGM disabled it, crew was killed by enemy infantry.

Shame we can't test and compare to it M1A1SA and/or M1A2SEP with T.U.S.K.-I (shame that in game there is no T.U.S.K.-II kit ;-))

But then again, I have strong feeling that optics, tracks and other vurnabale systems and things are to vurnabale, but maybe it's only my feeling, also frontal armor in these... ehm I don't know how to call thise, ehm statistic's? You know, with green, red + or X, are to low, yeah I know what I say some time ago, that it is a bit less protected over frontal arc turret area than M1A1SA/FEP/M1A2SEP, but hey, it is really only minor less protected, but still on same protection level class.

Ok I hope this is not the most horrible english that you people seen in your life. :-)

[Flanker15]

Shame we can't test and compare to it M1A1SA and/or M1A2SEP with T.U.S.K.-I (shame that in game there is no T.U.S.K.-II kit ;-))

Why not? Just give one side one and the other side the other.

[Damian90]

Ha yeah I know that, but I mean in Demo version, I have also full 1.08 version but it is from one of Polish games magazine and I can't patch it, also I don't have money right now to buy full version that can be patched (and also both modules) so I need to wait until i get the cash. ;-)

[-Eddie-]

I did it already, over rough terrain, 8 CR2s Enhanced vs 8 M1A2 SEP TUSKS, CR2s won.

[Damian90]

With such machines everything depends on tactics.

You operate Brits or Yanks?

If Brits do you flank enemy? Do M1A2SEP's flanked your tanks?

In reality M1A1SA/FEP and M1A2SEP have slightly better protection over frontal arc, so if US tanks are are faced front to enemy and god save enemy + digin, well this will be blodd bath, same for CR2 if it's fight against less advanced tanks.

But all modern tanks just can't survive side shot to hull or turret even uparmored, even old 100mm APFSDS or APDS can perforate side armor of modern tanks.

So importand thing, never ever give enemy even one occasion for side shot.

With CR2 is also one problem, Glacis protection of M1 and CR2 is preatty the same, only center part of glacis where driver seats is less protected (sides in CR2 are 600mm vs. KE same for M1 I suppose, CR2 have there Dorchester inserts cavieties, M1 fuell cells that acts similiar and are simekind of armor).

But then again, Lower Front Hull is less protected in CR2, so there is need for these uparmors, in "Telic" version there is ROMOR-A ERA, in "enchanced" version an Dorchester bolt on module.

So as I said, when such great machines fight agains each other, everything depends on tactics, and luck, what are hit/impact of rounds angle, where they hit, what kind of ammo is used (M829A2 and M829A3 are primary 120mm APFSDS rounds in US arsenal and M829A2 is slightly better than L27A1 CHARM-3 120mm APFSDS used as primary AP round in CR2, M829A3 is probably the most powerfull 120mm APFSDS used today, it have even more penetration level fired from an L44 gun than DM-63 fired from L55 gun). So yeah, it is fair said that mostly it depends on luck.

Can I know how many CR'2 you loose? :-)

[Other Means]

I did it already, over rough terrain, 8 CR2s Enhanced vs 8 M1A2 SEP TUSKS, CR2s won.

It's close, but in my tests the M1A2s shade it due to higher ROF.

But it's as close as makes no odds really.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

I would expect CR2 Enhanced vs M1A2 SEP to go down primarily to luck and player skill.

BTW, there's not much point in using TUSKs if you're fighting tanks, is there? I'm kind of fuzzy on what the TUSK is, but AFAIK it's mainly designed to help deal with RPGs and things like that.

[Smaragdadler]

I would expect CR2 Enhanced vs M1A2 SEP to go down primarily to luck and player skill.

BTW, there's not much point in using TUSKs if you're fighting tanks, is there? I'm kind of fuzzy on what the TUSK is, but AFAIK it's mainly designed to help deal with RPGs and things like that.

TUSK = Tank Urban Survival Kit:

You are of course right. TUSK improvements are for urban warfare. The Leopard 2 equivalent would be the Leo 2 PSO-UrbOps: