Quote:
Originally Posted by pdf27
There are trade-offs all over the shop here. Any of the non-inert CR2 ammunition (i.e. everything apart from the APFSDS penetrator) is stored in the main hull, rather than the turret as (I think - if I've got this wrong my arguament falls flat on it's face) is the case with the M1 family. I'm not a tanker, but I would question exactly what chance the crew have of surviving any explosion in the hull big enough to set off the charges inside the armoured bins, even before the charges themselves go off. If any explosion big enough to set the charges off will kill them, blow-out panels are introducing a weak spot to the armour for no benefit.
This line of thinking does not apply to the M1 series, due to the fact that ammunition stored in the turret bustle is inherently much more vulnerable to fire and arguably more likely to kill the crew if it cooked off without the blow out panels being present.
|
You are mistaken here (imho), since the HESH rounds- even if claimed to be non inert, and the charge bins if penetrated still dont vent outside. The fact is that the Abrams hull & turret ammo, both are vented, that makes it arguably the best protected tank in terms of internal ammo crew protection measures.
Quote:
|
Standard CR2 engine is 1200 BHP compared to the 1500 BPH of the M1 series. Weights are pretty comparable. There is an engine upgrade for the CR2 to a 1500 BHP diesel about - it's standard on the 2e variant - but HM Treasury are too tight fisted to pay for it on the standard tanks.
|
IIRC the Chally2 is a bit heavier and the wartime upgrade packages -ERA etc make it heavier still, which is where the production standard Abrams M1A2 has the edge.
Quote:
|
Ummm... I think you're taking a long step on a thin branch here. The three greatest crew protection measures are situational awareness, crew training and armour protection. Two of these are largely independent of the tank, while armour protection is classified and only known to be very good on both tanks. One minor niggle which as I have outlined above may be unnecessary on the CR2 for design reasons seems rather a thin basis to state one is better than the other.
|
Not really- I was speaking of post penetration and bringing tank training is a cop out, when comparing designs alone, since a Brit tanker and an American one are comparable. In terms of SA, the M1A2 has the edge in terms of situational awareness since the commander gets an independent thermal viewer iirc and the latest TUSK upgrade even gives the gunner one on his external MG. If the Chally has these too, I'd be glad to be corrected.
I am yet to come across a deturreted (if the word exists) Abrams, but even the Chally has flipped its lid on occasion (friendly fire, when a HESH round impacted on the turret).
The Abrams basic design means that it can field up armour packages to reduce its vulnerable areas, but its basic design itself ensures that its crew dont have to worry about the ammo cooking off if penetrated and killing them.
I'd say the Chally2 is good, but the Abrams sets the benchmark.