Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Corps to deploy M1A1 tanks to Afghanistan

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Pak Nationalist View Post
    Whats the reason i've never seen explosive reactive armor on any M1?
    There is some on the sides of the TUSK upgrade, I believe.

    Comment


    • #62
      Pak Nationalist Reply

      "Whats the reason i've never seen explosive reactive armor on any M1?"

      ERA would disturb its beautiful lines.
      "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
      "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

      Comment


      • #63
        Yes, there are some pieces on the sides of TUSK.
        http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Abra...upg-2005-1.jpg

        But they seem too confident about the turret.
        sigpic

        Comment


        • #64
          Pak Nationalist Reply

          "But they seem too confident about the turret."

          Why do you draw that conclusion?
          "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
          "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Pak Nationalist View Post
            Yes, there are some pieces on the sides of TUSK.
            http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Abra...upg-2005-1.jpg

            But they seem too confident about the turret.
            The turret already has layers of DU and Chobham armor; it's probably the most protected part of the entire tank, hence the ERA on the hull, not the turret. IIRC, the turret has an RHAe of about 1620, well above the protection levels of most MBT's.
            Last edited by Stitch; 19 Jan 11,, 17:51.
            "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

            Comment


            • #66
              @ S-2
              Because I haven't seen any pieces on it.

              Irony is that many other tanks like T90 and al-Khalid have their turets covered but sides left open.
              Last edited by Pak Nationalist; 19 Jan 11,, 05:08.
              sigpic

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Stitch View Post
                The turret already has layers of DU and Chobham armor; it's probably the most protected part of the entire tank, hence the ERA on the hull, not the turret. IIRC, the turret has an EHRA of about 1620, well above the protection levels of most MBT's.
                hmm thats convincing.
                sigpic

                Comment


                • #68
                  Pak Nationalist Reply

                  "Because I haven't seen any pieces on it..."

                  I understand but why would that suggest they're TOO confident?

                  Remember that this series of MBTs have seen more combat than any modern battle tank save the Challenger-and likely more than they when you consider total engagements. There's a significant repository of serious data surrounding this vehicle's performance when struck by enemy ordnance to draw upon.

                  That performance, also, must be weighed by the benefits/risks of operating with ERA. Those risks might include (I speculate) added weight upon the powertrain and possible negative effect on accompanying infantry.
                  "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                  "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    The Merkava 4 turret also has plenty layers of whatever armor composition they use, which I'm sure is some sort of RHA with some ceramic tossed in as well, but the turret is also surrounded by plenty ERA. Does this signify that the IDF cares more about it's crew members than the US Army, or that they have less confidence in their RHA and armor package? No, it just signifies a difference in the philosophy of the builders. Same reason the Merkava's all have the engine and drive train in front and not in back like the M48/M60 and the M1
                    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      bigross86 Reply

                      RHA is a measurement of effective armor thickness based upon slope, composite materials, spacing and other factors (like depleted uranium) to generate a rolled homogenous armor equivalent.

                      That said, it's all classified.

                      "No, it just signifies a difference in the philosophy of the builders."

                      Driven by more factors like threat perception. Sophisticated shaped-charge ATGW warheads likely offer, by far, the greatest threat to Israeli armor at present. Equally, Lebanon really doesn't offer your armor much of a chance to stretch its legs. Weight from added protection in the form of ERA doesn't pay a penalty in lost speed if you can't move fast for other reasons.

                      Another factor seems to be the limited protection afforded by ERA-

                      Magach 7 MBT

                      "...Blazer armor of the previous Magach 6 has been replaced with thick slabs of passive armor, which gives more protection. As a combat account in which salvos of AT-3 Saggers were fired at a Magach 7A in an ambush launched by Hezbollah. Out of the twenty Saggers that hit the tank only two managed to penetrate the roof of the tank which wasn't covered by the applique armor. The ensuing fires were quickly snuffed out by the Nachel Oz fire detection and suppression system thus leaving a surviving crew. An operation analysis was conducted by the IDF in which they discovered that if the tank was protected by explosive reactive armor rather then passive armor nine of the shots would've penetrated the tank..."
                      "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                      "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        From what I understand (classified up the wazoo) the Blazer armor package and what's on the Merkava 4 are universes apart. I do know that a study after Lebanon 2006 showed that when looking at the numbers and statistics of missiles fired Vs missile hits and missile hits Vs tanks disabled/op kill/actual destruction, the numbers showed that if Merkava 3 Baz (Most advanced Merkava 3) were used, the casualties would have jumped by nearly 200%, and by almost 400% with a Merkava 2.
                        Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                        Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          If Americans think their metallurgy is enough to protect their tanks, chances of which are pretty high given the fact that M1s have seen more combat then any other Modern MBT. Then its OK and not "too" confident.
                          However, I don't think a few ERA plates is a heavy burden for a 1500HP tank to carry. If it doesn't damage its own armour...is it?
                          sigpic

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Pak Nationalist Reply

                            "However, I don't think a few ERA plates is a heavy burden for a 1500HP tank to carry. If it doesn't damage its own armour...is it?"

                            Dunno. I'll leave that to one of the tankers here. Not sure what the weight of each slab might be. Not sure how many would be needed to protect the turret. Not sure what optics might be obstructed or endangered.

                            Tanker stuff.
                            "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                            "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              The gunners sight on the Merkava 4 is higher up on the turret than on any of the other models due to the added armor on the turret. As an added bonus, this means that more of the tank can stay in defilade or turret down for much longer while they acquire targets, since only the uppermost portion of the tank is exposed. On the older models, when the gunner's sight is exposed, so is approx. 75% of the turret and cannon, so there is no actual turret down position. There is completely sheltered and hull down.

                              As for the ERA itself, I know that you need a crane to replace an ERA module on the Merkava 4. The smallest of them are a good 50-60cm across and 70cm high. Width I wouldn't be able to tell you. Some of them are even larger.
                              Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                              Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Pak Nationalist View Post
                                If Americans think their metallurgy is enough to protect their tanks, chances of which are pretty high given the fact that M1s have seen more combat then any other Modern MBT. Then its OK and not "too" confident.
                                However, I don't think a few ERA plates is a heavy burden for a 1500HP tank to carry. If it doesn't damage its own armour...is it?
                                The Abrams is already a class 70 load and more armor means more weight which will stress bridges, bridging equipment, transport and further decrease fuel efficency and increase ground pressure.

                                The current US Army move has been to upgrade the FLIR systems and fire control as well as develop extended range muntions so that the Abrams retains the first shot first kill advantage seen in the gulf war. In a COIN setting the Abrams is less well suited since its armor package is oreinted to the front at the expense of the sides. Hence the TUSK upgrade (Tank Urban Survival Kit).

                                However despite the early failings of the APU and HALON systems, the current non-TUSK Abrams is effectively immune to most weapons a man can carry and still expect to get into a decent firing position with some hope of survival. The results from Iraq with its VBIED's and other large explosive and EFP devices has shown the Abrams to be the most survivable vehicle the US possesses and that RPG's are much less of a danger now that the APU failings have been corrected.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X