M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank -> Question...

[capt. apathy]

hit the quote button, then paste the quote between the markers

[Maverick]

Originally posted by newguy2:
Mav,
 The top part of that post was what lynx wrote. The bottom questions was what I asked.
Don't know how to use the quote thing.

Newguy, I posted what I did in regards to the bottom paragraph of your post. No they don't hide the M1's at night.

Mav  

[indian]

The M1A1 has very good reactive armour it can take some pretty heavy hits and drive away. It has been shot with anti tank missle and the armour held. I worked with a guy who was in tanker squad in the Army.  

[Maverick]

Originally posted by indian:
The M1A1 has very good reactive armour it can take some pretty heavy hits and drive away. It has been shot with anti tank missle and the armour held. I worked with a guy who was in tanker squad in the Army.  

Indian,

The M1A1 does not have reactive armor. It has a layered armor named for the inventor I believe, Chobham. It uses hard outer armor sandwiched with soft inner layer and a hard layer beneath that one. The actual composition and number of layers are classified of course. The idea is that the hard outer layer gets penetrated and the soft layer ablates allowing the superheated "jet" of flame from the HEAT round to spread, cutting it's ability to penetrate.

Reactive armor is like the aplique put on earlier tanks by the Isreali's and later the Soviets. This is a plate and explosive sandwich applied to the outside of the original armor like tiles. This defeats the heat round by allowing the explisive in the plate to detonate and dissipate the flame jet from the heat round. Unfortunately it is rather nasty stuff to be around when the tank gets hit. You can see this stuff by looking for tanks that look like they have had tiles or extra plates bolted on them in a pattern. This is usually applied to the turret front and sides as well as the front slope of the turret.

Neither of these armors are proof against the main tank killing round from another heavy tank which is a purely kinetic energy round. In the US we call it a sabot round. It looks like a big crossbow bolt held in a fragmented ring that is loaded in the shell casing. The fragmented ring, or sabot, falls away and the penetrator keeps on going at very high velocity. The penetrator makes a kill by imparting a high degree of heat from friction due to the impact and penetration of the armor. The resulting fragments and molten metal also do a number on the crew and ammo in the tank. Typically the Soviet tanks blow the turret off the hull when they are hit. Tank crewman are taught to continue hitting the target until they can see: (a) fire from the target, (b) a change in the target silhouette, shape or (c) both. If you just rely on a bright flash and think it was killed you could end up being killed by the tank you hit but didn't penetrate. The target, if hit, WILL have a bright flash on impact. It doesn't mean the round went through the armor. It could have been a glancing blow that just scarred the tank and pissed off the crew. If the turret blows off and goes flying in the air you can forget about it and pick another. Half the time they go straight up, turn upside down and drop back on the hull. The shape is very noticably differant. Desert Storm provided many pictures of Soviet made tanks that did that.

Mav

[GRUNHERZ]

Yep many Russian tanks burn real fast and nasty. The real culprit here is their carusel aoutoloader for the 125mm gun. The rounds are exposed inside the tank and there is no crew protection in the form of a seperate ammo compartment and blowout doors as in many western tanks like all the M1 Abrams family. This autoloader is common to the entire T64/T72/T80/T90 series and the related Chinese and former USSR state  production models. The soviet autoloader also had a nasty habbit early on of eating the gunner's right arm as his clothing got caught in the mechanism.

As for M1A1 armor. It was able to resist fire from soviet (iraqi) T72s (125mm gun) and T62s (115mm gun) and T55s (100mm gun).
Most of the hits were on the frontal arc and at reasonably "short" range due to the poor targeting capabilities of the primitive (especially in exports) soviet fire control equipment. However in fairness it must be noted that iraq was NOT providd with the best soviet 125mm ammo, they DID NOT have depleted uranium penetrators but only steel and tungsten types. Another point to add here. In a few instances where the T72s did manage to penetrate M1s in certain vulnerable areas like turret rings and engine exhaust areas I have read that the tank and crews survived. Apparently they reported that any fires and hot gasses from impact were immedialy suppresed by the M1s fire extingusher system and that the crew was able to exit and survive.

The armor on all the soviet tanks in the gulf proved completly inadequate in the face of US 120mm sabot fire. The US 105mm rifled gun as on the M60s proved very very capable against the soviet tanks as well. There are apparently reports of 120mm rounds going thru a sandberm, into the iraqi tanks glacis and straight out the rear. Maybe this was an exaggeration, but verifiable evidence shows that the armor on soviet MBTs used in the gulf war cannot withstand 120mm sabot anywhere from common combat ranges.

From what I know the Taliban only have T54/T55s armed only with ancient 100mm rifled guns. This 100mm gun more or less dates from WW2. I dont think their crews are as "well" traied as thier US counterparts. I wouldnt worry about Taliban tanks.
 
I do belive M1s are vulnerable from top attack HEAT weapons.  Swedish Leopard 2A5s
(Stridsvagn 122) for example have extra applique armor on the turret roof to guard against that. I have read that a favorite tactic of the muslim fighters in the Chechnyan wars was to attack the tops of T72s and T80s with RPGs. These attacks nearly always set the ammo off in these tanks, killing the crew instantly.  This ammo explosion is not a problem in the M1.
Its widely acknowleged M1s can withstand most HEAT fire in the front. Other areas are more vulnerable, but I have no idea how much so. Aparently the fire extinguisher in the Abrams crew area is very effective in combating the hot gasses of impacts and might do well against heat attack. I have read of US APC crews hit by HEAT fire surviving in good numbers as well.

A final note about M1 armor. There is the standard M1A1 with the well known chobbam composite layered armor. However there was a new development used during the gulf war. This was the M1A1 HA (heavy armor). This model featured a new version of chobbam armor with actual depleted uranium armor in the mix. This is said to dramatically increase protection. This type of armor is standard in the M1A2.

[Replicant]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
However there was a new development used during the gulf war. This was the M1A1 HA (heavy armor). This model featured a new version of chobbam armor with actual depleted uranium armor in the mix. This is said to dramatically increase protection. This type of armor is standard in the M1A2.

Yup, Chobham is almost inpenetrable.  It's composite design is still highly classified.  British Challenger 2 use an even later design of Chobham (what with Chobham being designed in Britain, ala Chobham) and it can also be applied to British lighter vehicles with it being 'strapped' on when going into battle.  

I spoke to a few Gulf War vets who were in a tank that had been hit and the only damage they sustained was a scratch on the tank and sore ears!  The noise of being struck looks like the main cause of concern!  

Regards

Nexx

[Vulcan]

Su-37 is airshow fodder. IE It can do some need tricks for a crowd but at the end of the day pulling a 'Cobra' or that fancy forward moving flip is either gonna get you an applause, or a Sidewinder up your 6  

 

Originally posted by Pepe:
I think I missed by 10    How about Su-37?

Cheers,

Pepe

[pugg666]

correct me if wrong, it's been a while since i've read armored cav.
i believe the chobham armor on the m1a1, even though it's only a few inches thick(9-10?) is the equivelant of 30-40 inches of regular armor plate steel.
come on someone has to have a copy of the book lying around somewhere...post the numbers  

[54Ed]

A few comments from someone who has been in the Army for the last 14 years:

1) All US soldiers killed inside their M1 tanks during the Gulf War were killed by friendly fire, usually from the air.  There was no documented instance of a US soldier in a tank killed by Iraqi fire. Some were killed by mines and sniper fire while dismounted.  

2) The limitation of the RPG-7 is range and accuracy.  The max range is about 600 meters, but it's hard to hit a moving target unless you are quite close ... say 100 to 200 meters.  The countermeasure to keep moving and keep mounted infantry near the tanks to deal with any enemy infantry that pop up.  In the open desert, dismounted infantry are at a huge disadvantage, so the infantry stay mounted unless they need to clear out a bunker complex or trench.

3) There are many documented instances of US tanks firing through sand berms and destroying Iraqi tanks.  Usually the Iraqis didn't even know what was hitting them.  In addition, the maximum range of the US main gun was at least 1000 meters further than the Iraqi tanks, so US crews often stopped beyond the enemy's max range and pounded him with impunity.  

4) Discussions of tank-vs-tank fights in Afghanistan are meaningless.  We won't be invading and sending Armored units in there, for many reasons.  This will be a war fought with airpower, special ops units, and proxy fighters (northern alliance).  We would be damned fools to invade with conventional ground forces.

[54Ed]

One fact I forgot to mention:  The M1 series has thermal viewers, not IR.  The M1A2 has two viewers, one for the gunner and one for the tank commander.  This provides a big advantage when engaging multiple targets, since the TC can ID a target and pass to the gunner to engage, then scan for the next target while the gunner is still firing.

One fact the armchair tacticians don't understand yet is digitization.  The US is the only force to completely digitize so far.  That means that M1A2s have computers in their turrets, and can see little icons on a map showing the location of all friendly and known enemy vehicles.  Just imagine if the knights could always view the map screen and radar inputs in the MA, while the rooks and bish had to rely on what they could see visually and what was reported verbally.  Pretty unfair fight, eh?

Yeah, the turbine engine has a huge signature, but the purpose of a tank is not to hide.  Tanks win battles with speed, firepower, and protection, not stealth.  The turbine engines give the tank incredible speed and acceleration, enabling it to defeat the enemy in close battle.

[streakeagle]

Everyone missed a bit of tank trivia from the Tom Clancy book, Armored Cav. He emphasized the effectiveness of the M1A1s armor by repeating a story from Desert Storm:

An M1A1 was stuck in the sand due to mechanical problems. The available vehicles could not tow it away, so rather than risk capture, they decided to destroy it. Another M1A1 fired at it repeatedly with no effect! Finally 1 round detonated the ammo storage in the turret, but the design of the M1 is such that the ammo bins merely blew out and upward with minimal damage to the interior of the tank. An M60 tow vehicle finally showed up and towed the M1 away. The M1A1 eventually received a new turret and was restored to service.

If this story is true, even the M1A1's own 120mm can't get through its front armor. Very impressive.

As for its ability to handle the sand, the Army would never admit to having problems even if it did have them. Bad publicity affects budget decisions. Like so many of the weapons of Desert Storm, the M1A1s are depicted as having met or exceeded all expectations. Everyone should know by now that the Patriot didn't hit a single Scud, that F-15Es failed to locate any Scud launchers at night, and that the British had no problem tracking F-117s on their SAM radars. So do I believe all the hype claiming that the M1 is the best tank ever? Mmmm, it certainly has one hell of a sales pitch going for it. Possibly the first tank ever to see combat and not take a single loss to enemy tanks and infantry. But I still doubt that U.S. propaganda is 100% honest.

By the way, since when is an F-22 as small as a MiG-29?

The F-22 will be the biggest and heaviest fighter to enter USAF service since the Century series (The F-14 is still heavier though). It is about 1 foot shorter than an F-15 and has nearly 2 feet more of wingspan. It is fat as hell to accommodate internal weapons. Its empty weight is listed as 31,670 lbs, greater than the F-15s 29,000 lb class. Takeoff weight in Air-to-Air will probably be 50,000 lbs or more (F-15C is 44,600 lbs). Its max takeoff weight is 60,000 lbs (the Eagle's CFTs give it a much higher 68,000, leave off the extra 10,000 lbs of fuel: 58,000 lbs). Of course it has the power-to-weight, wingloading, and lift-devices to make it maneuverable, but I think it is questionable whether the latest Su-27 variants (I can't keep up with their numbers!) are more or less maneuverable than the F-22. The Su-27 is optimised for maneuverability, not stealth. The only advantage the F-22 has over it in terms of maneuverability is the lame 2-d vector nozzles it uses. A version of the Su-27 has received awesome 3-d nozzles and of course incorporates a canard as well.

I don't know why the US refuses to use canards, the one on the special STOL version of the F-15 made it as or more maneuverable than an Su-27!

I am American and biased toward our planes, but aerodynamically we have no equivalent to the Su-27. The F-18 is underpowered (but otherwise has very similar high AOA abilities). The F-16 can't pull the AOA. The F-15 doesn't have the lift devices needed to even match the F-16/F-18 level of performance. The F-14 is underpowered (that lovely little swing wing and obsolete Phoenix missile system costs a ton of weight). The F-22 is a stealthy extension of the F-15 desing with newer control strategies (vector nozzles) but is in the same size class and compromises its aerodynamic potential fo the sake of its stealth characteristics.

The F-22 was designed in the 80s, flew in the 90s and won't be in service until 2005? What a joke! It will be obsolete before the 1st one ever enters service. Whatever happened to the great US war machine? F-15: spec was released in 1965, it flew in 1973, it entered service in 1975. Done deal! The official F-22 site has the nerve to claim ontime and onbudget. The don't mention how drastically the budget and schedule has been altered over the decades to make those claims true. The Su-27 has been flying since the ealry 80s and will still pose a major threat to the F-22 in combat (neglecting electronic considerations       I am speaking in terms of ACM). But I am not bitter! Where is the McDonnell that cranked out the F-4, F-15, F-18, and AV-8B? I hate the way the aerospace industry has collapsed      

To borrow someone elses answer:

The M1 would shoot both of them down      

[ 09-23-2001: Message edited by: streakeagle ]

[Badger]

For those of you who may want to try the most authentic M1 Abrams and Leopard simulation out there today, I'll refer you to a post I made last month.

Being an old "tanker" out of M4A2E8 Shermans from the 60's, I've always had a fondness for tank simulations. I picked up one called Steal Beasts that I've found to be simply awesome. I think it's a real "sleeper" and probably the best modern tank simulation I've encountered.

I have spent a lot of money over the years on various flight, tank and general war gaming simulations, but none of them have ever retained my interest as much as Steel Beasts. This is a first class simulation dedicated to the serious realism buff and I've thoroughly enjoyed the depth of immersion, terrific A/I and overall sense of strategic real world complexity that the programming team have been able to build into this product. It has a complete multi-player option and I've really enjoyed the on-line sessions with a dozen or so guys.

There's one issue you'll have to get your head around before making a judgment call on this product. The authors began writing this sim in 1996 before the advent of 3d cards, so it runs in 640x480 and a common complaint for newbies is the graphics seem primitive by today's 3d hardware standards. I had trouble at first with this, but once I spent about a week truly learning how masterful the actual simulation is, I began to overlook the older style graphics. The bonus is that it runs on my Sony Laptop without a CDROM for use when I travel on the road and only needs to use the CDROM for upgrades.

Give it a try. If you're into tanks, I highly recommend this one. They have a downloadable demo and the primary site for eSim Games is:
 http://www.esimgames.com/