M1A2 vs T-80U

**Praxus** · 19 Oct 03,, 20:52

Holy Christ I think this is his 15th post were he didn't answer what unit he was in.

During the Gulf War the M1A1 Abrams took multiple hits from 125mm HEAT rounds in the front of the tank. All it did was put a dent in the front of the armour.

Ask M21Sniper he knows people that served in the Gulf and saw what happened to the tanks.

**axl** · 19 Oct 03,, 22:28

the iraq used old rounds which have been taken from service within the soviet army during the 1970s. the tanks have been manufactured in czechoslovakia and were make of less powerful materials and lacked armour. training of the crews was never comparable to the us army. but what relationship is there to the t-80u?

regards
axl

www.kampfpanzer.de

**Stinger** · 19 Oct 03,, 22:31

"SSNNNFFFF SSNNNFFFFFF" what the hell is that smell Praxus? it reminds me of what a cattle ranch smells like....

**Praxus** · 19 Oct 03,, 22:44

Bull Shit:D

**Bill** · 20 Oct 03,, 01:58

Why do we even waste our time?

**Sheikh** · 20 Oct 03,, 13:39

Fine Axl, I will give you all that you have stated about Iraqi armour. You have forgotten that American weapons were at least a generation ahead of the Iraqis. American tanks could shot and go while Iraqi tanks could not even think of that. And Axl I truely hope you don't think that a frontal attack on any modern tank with a heat is going to stop it. With the induction of new armour plating, HEATS are slowly becoming Obsolete. It is DU or at least Tungsten which can penetrate the new armours.

By the way Iraqis used T-72 and we were comparing T-80 so how did this conversation go to the Gulf War 1?

M21sniper you are quite right about the M1 working well in the Saudi Arabia. I was just wondering if you know anyone in the armoured division in Saudi Arabia. Could you ask them about the desert sand and maintainence problems?

And would someone be kind enuff to provide us with up to date stats on both the T-80 and M1a2

Thanks

**Bill** · 20 Oct 03,, 17:43

The M-1's had to have their filters changed on a far more regular basis...but that does not mean that their mobility was poor. They were able to traverse the desert at very high speeds quite rapidly. Where they ran into problems was in sand bogs after heavy rains.

So would ANY tank or PC have problems with such terrain.

**axl** · 20 Oct 03,, 19:50

Originally posted by Sheikh
Fine Axl, I will give you all that you have stated about Iraqi armour. You have forgotten that American weapons were at least a generation ahead of the Iraqis. American tanks could shot and go while Iraqi tanks could not even think of that.

never said something else, did i? just added that the iraqi tanks were not comparable to the american ones, the same you said now.

Originally posted by Sheikh
And Axl I truely hope you don't think that a frontal attack on any modern tank with a heat is going to stop it. With the induction of new armour plating, HEATS are slowly becoming Obsolete. It is DU or at least Tungsten which can penetrate the new armours.

heat rounds are not at there end of development. there are tanks rounds available (not in service) which can penetrate much more than 10-15 times the cone diameter. i don't think that any frontal armour is inpenetratable, it just depends on the round. modern heat rounds do not have anymore the copper cone, there are more advanced alloys available.
generally people tent to go for the rha estimates of modern armours. you take the possible incrediences, from some more or less good sources you take the rha equivalentes and make a sum. for alot of rounds the rha penetration is given, so it seems to be easy to compare the rha value of the round with the one of the armour. but there are several points most people miss:
-the interaction of the armour materials is normally not included
-the armour materials are classified, as well as the specific details (there are thousands of types of steel, even rha means nothing)
-to stop a round it needs more material than the max penetration depth of the round (if the max penetration depth is given with 600mm rha you may need 800mm rha to stop it)
-the specific penetration details of each round are different
i don't know what is needed to penetrate what tank frontal (as nobody here knows it). but i would not go and say you can't penetrate.
check the report i posted earlier, they penetrated the m1a1 frontal (its an american report, done by american scientists).

Originally posted by Sheikh
By the way Iraqis used T-72 and we were comparing T-80 so how did this conversation go to the Gulf War 1?

praxus did it

Originally posted by Sheikh
And would someone be kind enuff to provide us with up to date stats on both the T-80 and M1a2

what stats you want?

regards
axl

www.kampfpanzer.de

**Praxus** · 20 Oct 03,, 20:13

praxus did it

What is your point?

The Abrams on the front of the turret armour has 1600mm RHA against Chemical Energy weapons. This is atleast 500-700mm more then Russian HEAT rounds and ATGM warheads. Factor in the angle on which the round hits and the actual protection is probley around 1800mm.

**Bill** · 20 Oct 03,, 20:31

"check the report i posted earlier, they penetrated the m1a1 frontal (its an american report, done by american scientists)."

Maybe in tests...it's never happened in actual combat.

Link?

**axl** · 20 Oct 03,, 20:54

Originally posted by Praxus
What is your point?

he asked a question, i answered

Originally posted by Praxus

The Abrams on the front of the turret armour has 1600mm RHA against Chemical Energy weapons. This is atleast 500-700mm more then Russian HEAT rounds and ATGM warheads. Factor in the angle on which the round hits and the actual protection is probley around 1800mm.

and what calculation you base this values on? what type of materials are used in what structure to reach that number? what is the chemical energy round you mention? not all shaped charges have the same penetration performance. it depends on caliber, cone diameter, cone material, target material, target layout.

@M21Sniper
what do you expect? a frontal penetration of modern armour can be achieved only with modern arms. american tanks haven't really faced modern armour. or do you call the iraqi weapons state of the art?
what link do you want, to the report? don't kn ow if it is available online, maybe you should try a library. don't know how it is in the usa, german army holds alot of scientific material that can be ordered by soldiers.

regards
axl

www.kampfpanzer.de

**Bill** · 20 Oct 03,, 21:18

If the report exists in a state that you were able to read it, then it is on the internet somewhere.

US tanks have never faced modern antitank weapons?

W R O N G.

Unless you consider the M829A1 APFSDSDU and AGM-114 Hellfire as obsolete weapons....

M-1A1HAs in the Gulf were hit by both, and there were no crew fatalities, or catostrophic armor failures in any such case.

Seems to me it's you that should be doing some more research.

**axl** · 20 Oct 03,, 21:31

yes, there are reports. there are reports about kills, there are reports about "nothing happened" and and and. as long as you don't know details about what happened when its difficult to find a conclusion. rumours are rumours, i heard also alot of them. and please don't come with tom clancy now.

reports do not have to be on the internet. ever heard about paper? it's kinda like old fashioned, but in the good old days people wrote or printed on it. we had even machines which were able to make a copy from one paper to another. but yeah, maybe its online somewhere. just try google or whatever.

regards
axl

www.kampfpanzer.de

**Praxus** · 20 Oct 03,, 21:33

and what calculation you base this values on? what type of materials are used in what structure to reach that number? what is the chemical energy round you mention? not all shaped charges have the same penetration performance. it depends on caliber, cone diameter, cone material, target material, target layout.

What are you blabbering on about?

The Abrams is made from steel, DU, Kevlar, and more steel. It is the most heavily armoured tank on the planet.

People think the Leo2A6 has as good armour but the Leo2A6 has a heavy Deisel engine adding a lot of weight to the tank were as the Abrams has a small Gas Turbine and can use that weight in armour.

The Abrams has 1600mm RHA in front turret, it has this much no matter what type of shape charge hits it, but as you say the penetration is determined by the shaped charge.

**Bill** · 20 Oct 03,, 21:37

"as long as you don't know details about what happened when its difficult to find a conclusion. rumours are rumours, i heard also alot of them. and please don't come with tom clancy now."

All of the incidents are clearly documented, whether you want to accept them or not. All it takes is doing the neccesary research to find the AARs for all the incidents in question...none of them are classified anymore. File a FOIAR and you can get them too.

Nowadays, if a report of any substance exists on paper, it exists on the internet as well. If it aint on the internet, it probably don't exist or is classified.