Triple C

The US old tank vets I have talked to, and the reference books that I have read, states that the US Army was disatisfied with 105mm but considered it a viable weapon. Did they expect plenty of flank and top shots from defensive positions?

__________________
What benefits the body is called medicine; what benefits the soul, discipline.
-Augustine of Hippo

Catalan

I don't know about the M774 - the Ares 75mm gun was able to achieve similar penetration. I think that there were rounds that could penetrate the majority of Soviet armor at the time (given that at any give time the majority of armor is made-up of older designs), and there were some rounds that could penetrate Soviet armor like the T-72, but I think that the 120mm was required to penetrate Soviet tanks equipped with light ERA (K-1).

I don't know too much about penetration expectations of 105mm rounds. I do know that right now there is a 105mm round on the market (APFSDS) that can penetrate right under 500mm of steel equivalent, so based on that I don't know what could realistically be expected from American, or Israeli, 105mm rounds.

__________________
If you enjoy modern military history then join modernwarstudies.net!

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i2...bees/siggy.png

zraver

No they expected volley fire ambushes from the front. To save money the orignal M1's were equipped withthe 105mm as it was still effective agaisnt the bulk of Soviet armor and newer stuff could be dealth with the TOW's. Later as missile receeded in importance and the full capabilites of the new 120mm guns were apreciated the m1 was re-gunned and the rest is history.

Soviet protection claims are also highly over rated base don real world performance. Grozny, Bosnia, and Iraq beign prime examples. In thes epalces weapons that knocked out T-72's proved totally ineffecitve vs Abrams

Archer

Sorry, but I think you are stretching there..in Grozny, the russians faced dedicated hunter killer teams, were crowded in narrow alleys with piss poor tactical awareness, and were subject to repeated shots at vulnerable areas..turret tops, engine decks, vision blocks..
If the US were to be as tactically unsound as the russians were in grozny-1, face trained opponents, and finally be caught under overpasses, high rises from which RPGs rained down, I doubt the Abrams would do much better.
Lastly - Iraq saw obsolete russian tanks, and Bosnia..well were there any modern units even there?
Its but now that russian and ukrainian tanks are recieving thermal imagers ad the like which the west takes for granted. Though in terms of armour KE rounds, the west is still ahead.

__________________
Karmani Vyapurutham Dhanuhu

My bow is stretched for its task

Stan187

Don't forget, also, that Grozny was not supposed to be an assault from the beginning, they didn't even expect a fight. They were just marching in as a show of force. A great number of tanks had no one in them but the driver.

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

zraver

in Iraq the US has faced dedicated hunter killer teams, to little avail. However in ODS Abrams were hit dozens if not hundreds of times by atgm's to no effect. Yet missiles of a similar technology base used by Israel vs Syrian tanks were very effective, as were IDF 105mm rounds. In Bosnia formerly federal Yugoslav tanks found thier way into the hands of various (mostly serb) militias and when used as tanks did not do very well and ended up being employed as direct fire artillery until taken out by NATO airstrikes or forced to withdrawl.

No where have Russian tanks lived up to claimed protection levels, nor can they hope to match MBT's. Penetrating shots lead to flying frying pans a problem not associated with bustle rack storage or the super massive armor of tanks like the Chally 2.

On another note, no matter how good or how poor the US 105mm rounds were, The bulk of Soviet 125mm rounds until the late 80's were nearly worthless vs the Abrams past 1500m due to the bore riding sabot design.

Catalan

Regardless of the chances of an Abrams being hit over a T-72 (in the same situation) there should be absolutely no doubt that the Abrams is much more survivable. According to an article published in the Armed Forces Journal in 1987 it says that the 105mm NATO gun could penetrate all existing Soviet tanks to varying degrees, but penetration was not 'ensured' - unfortunately, although the article refers to the proliferation of ERA in the late 80s on Soviet armor in Central Europe, it doesn't say how well existing NATO 105mm ammunition could penetrate the T-80 (classified at the time?), but using the values I have for the T-80U a modern 105mm APFSDS can just penetrate the T-80U. Nevertheless, at the time the Americans were working on replacing their 105mm armed M1s with the 120mm armed M1A1s (taking some time for replacement).

Stan187

Can you expand on that a little? I don't know why exactly bore riding sabot designs can't penetrate past 1500m, maybe you could explain. What is deficient in the design, and how does it differ from current/American designs?

zraver

Thee are two types of sabot designs

1- Spool style, a spool shaped boot (sabot) cups the penetrator which never never touches the bore itself. This allows the dart to have smaller fiuns and keep more of its energy for longer.

2- Bore Riding Style, a simple disk catches the propellant blast pushing the penetrator which has large fins riding the bore of the barrel to stabalize the round. Once the round exits those large fins create massive drag that rapidly slows the round down.

125mm APFSDS Ammunition

omon

i realy don,t get why ppl wpuld compare 43 tons tank to 61 tonns tank in terms of protection, 20extra tonns adds a lot of protection. no wonder adrams can get hit and survive, same as compearing siderblock building to a reiforced high strenght concrette buiding. no contest.
i have no doubts abrams better protected and equiped than t 72, just look at the price tag.

Stan187

Omon I've been saying ever since joining WAB that comparing Western MBTs and Russian (kinda of medium) tanks is inherrently an apples/oranges comparison.

Stan187

Thanks Zraver! The Fofanov site is very informative.

omon

you are right, russians, i bet have something good enough to kill abrams, but it isn,t t 72.,

Catalan

Arguably, until the M1A1HA and M1A1HA+ Soviet tanks were near to the protection of Western tanks, even considering the weight differences. According to Russian sources the T-90 is just as well armored as the M1A2 (but the armor they say the M1A2 has is lower than what Western sources say for the M1A2). I think the Russians had a big advantage with the advent of heavy ERA until the Americans designed the M289A2 which could defeat heavy ERA (and now the United States uses the M289A3).

zraver

The T-80UM2 Black eagle with the 2A46M-5 with the improved cassette style autloader firing the BM-48 should be able to penetrate at least occasionally and the T-90's that have been retrofitted with an improved carosel autloader to fit the BM-42M like wise might be able to penetrate.But only if thier estimates of the Abrams protection leves and claimed penetration match up. If they are even 10% off on either one then its a good chance they can't.

me I want my rounds to have over kill when my ass is on the line.