Quote:
Originally Posted by zraver
neither did the Soviets, the last sabot produced by the USSR could not defeat an M1A1HA from the front. The Russian's did not get a sabot that could match western performance until the 3BM42M produced for the T-90 Vladimir with the improved autoloader.
The Kornet does not have the warhead to defeat an Abrams from the front. In fact only top down ATGM's or very big air launched (Maverick) or hypersonic (Hellfire) missiles can do it from the front on a level plane. From the front the Abrams is as close as anything ever has been to unstoppable. That does however come at a price the Abrams is exceedingly vulnerable from the top, sides and rear. The Abrams was designed dafter all to put its front to the enemy and either charge in (V/VII corps NATO counter attack) or engage in standoff fire (defensive war vs the Soviets assault).
|
Numbers that I've read could be wrong, but this is what they are
Protection against CE, RHA equivalents:
M1-------->Turret & Glacis:700-800
M1A1----->Mantle: 990 Turret: 800 Glacis:510-800
Lower front hull: 570-790
M1A1HA-->Turret: 1080-1320 Glacis:510-800
Lower front hull:800-900
M1A2----->Turret: 1310-1620 Glacis:510-1050
Lower front hull:800-970
M1A2SEP->Turret: 1320-1620 Glacis:510-1050
Lower front hull:800-970
Kornet---> 1200 under ERA
I could have gotten bad numbers, and I have never sat in the turret of an Abrams as a Kornet hit, so I don't know first hand. But from those numbers, it seems reasonable to me, depending on the model and shot placement in the front, that a Kornet could penetrate and Abrams. Perhaps your first hand experience contadicts. If so, I'd like to hear more.