Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Corps to deploy M1A1 tanks to Afghanistan

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by Tarek Morgen View Post
    Isn't standing near a tank that gets hit dangerous, ERA or not?

    Exactly my point, Tarek.

    I didn't mind operating dismounted with armor support...I just didn't like working up close to them.
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by T_igger_cs_30 View Post
      ok cool, but we would always advise Inf to give us lots of room in an urban enviroment, lots of turning , reversing and turret movement.....same with the intimate support tanks going through an objective never get in front, or to close to the sides.................

      Bingo...exactly what I meant.

      And Z, sometime it made more sense to lead with the tanks...since he had tougher armor than I did. It was always a METT decision as a commander. You would be surprised the towns and swamps I had my attached tank platoon be the lead element on the attack.
      Last edited by Albany Rifles; 20 Jan 11,, 00:46.
      “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
      Mark Twain

      Comment


      • #93
        Those plates look more like spaced armor (like the slat armor on M113's) rather than ERA; I don't see anything behind the plates that would be "explosive".
        "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


        • #94
          Originally posted by S-2 View Post
          Thanks. Useful photos showing something not just along the hull but the turret's flanks as well. Looks like the photos were taken in Baghdad in 2008.
          Commentators say those tiles were designed primarily to defeat EEPs. Two comments/questions: I am not clear on the difference between EEP/HEAT in the mechanics of their operation. Are the difference semantic or real? Pursuiant to the first observation, the part of the turret's flank that the ARAT covered seem to be the part that composite armor does not protect.
          All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
          -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

          Comment


          • #95
            Triple C Reply

            "...Pursuiant to the first observation, the part of the turret's flank that the ARAT covered seem to be the part that composite armor does not protect."

            Our former M-1 tankers would know but it seems the back half of the turret is where the ammo is stored. If correct, then those slats would represent not just protection but also blow-out panels should on-board detonation of ammo occur. It's one thing to have such if ammo is detonated from penetration elsewhere on the vehicle but my assumption would be that most crews would prefer that their vehicle not be penetrated externally from the rear where this ammo sits.

            Sheer speculation on my part and I'll look forward to their thoughts.

            "...I am not clear on the difference between EEP/HEAT in the mechanics of their operation. Are the difference semantic or real?"

            I believe an EFP is a form of shaped charge using chemical energy rather than kinetic energy to achieve penetration. Here's a photo of an improvised EFP from Iraq. The inverted cone shapes the warhead into a molten stream of metal.
            Attached Files
            "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


            • #96
              Originally posted by S-2 View Post
              Our former M-1 tankers would know but it seems the back half of the turret is where the ammo is stored. If correct, then those slats would represent not just protection but also blow-out panels should on-board detonation of ammo occur. It's one thing to have such if ammo is detonated from penetration elsewhere on the vehicle but my assumption would be that most crews would prefer that their vehicle not be penetrated externally from the rear where this ammo sits.
              Correct, as always, S-2.

              The M1A1 has three blow-out panels on the top rear of the turret which, as you pointed out, is where the 120's are stored; the M1A2 simplified this somewhat with two blow-out panels, but they serve the same function (this is the easiest way to tell the difference between the A1 and the A2 from above). There are also blast doors inside the turret that the loader is supposed to keep closed when he's not grabbing a HEAT or a sabot round for the M256.
              "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


              • #97
                hmm nice.
                One thing that I am sure of now is; at least the Taliban have got nothing to scratch this war machine.
                sigpic

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
                  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.
                  Thanks for the info..they don't look that heavy tough.

                  Originally posted by zraver View Post
                  However despite the early failings of the APU and HALON systems
                  Is Halon a fire extinguishing system?


                  And final question..Can anybody tell why those ERA tiles are shaped eliptical in Triple C's post?
                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by S-2 View Post
                    "...Pursuiant to the first observation, the part of the turret's flank that the ARAT covered seem to be the part that composite armor does not protect."

                    Our former M-1 tankers would know but it seems the back half of the turret is where the ammo is stored. If correct, then those slats would represent not just protection but also blow-out panels should on-board detonation of ammo occur. It's one thing to have such if ammo is detonated from penetration elsewhere on the vehicle but my assumption would be that most crews would prefer that their vehicle not be penetrated externally from the rear where this ammo sits.

                    Sheer speculation on my part and I'll look forward to their thoughts.

                    "...I am not clear on the difference between EEP/HEAT in the mechanics of their operation. Are the difference semantic or real?"

                    I believe an EFP is a form of shaped charge using chemical energy rather than kinetic energy to achieve penetration. Here's a photo of an improvised EFP from Iraq. The inverted cone shapes the warhead into a molten stream of metal.
                    EFP is Explosively Formed Penetrator, the copper liner is formed into a hyper velocity projectile. This is an improvement on the older HEAT type.
                    Explosively formed penetrator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                    HEAT is High Explosive Anti Tank, which primarily uses hot gases to cut through armor like a torch.
                    High explosive anti-tank warhead - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                    Last edited by USSWisconsin; 20 Jan 11,, 05:13.
                    sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                    If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Pak Nationalist View Post
                      Thanks for the info..they don't look that heavy tough.
                      We need to make a distinction here: I'm referring specifically to the turret ERA modules. The waist plates on the hull can be lifted by 2 people and are more standardized.
                      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


                      • Originally posted by Pak Nationalist View Post
                        hmm nice.
                        One thing that I am sure of now is; at least the Taliban have got nothing to scratch this war machine.
                        Maybe not yet , at least from long range !

                        Comment


                        • Has there been any documentation of Kornet and/or Metis missiles being used against M1's in Afghanistan and Iraq? Those are what gave us our biggest shock in Lebanon 2006. That and rumors of the AT-15 Khrizantema being deployed to Syria/Hezbollah in 2007.

                          According to Janes Defense Weekly, a Merkava 2B took 7 hits from Hezbollah AT3 Sagger and AT4 Spigot ATGM's and RPG-7/29's on 21 November, 2005. The tank came through intact and the crew survived. Although an older vehicle, it was equipped with a modular armor package. I know the Sagger and Spigot are older weapons, but that's a very good performance.

                          As can be seen from the above, a Merkava 2 from 1982 can survive being hit by missiles from the 1960's, which there is no doubt has been used against the M-1's. But Merkava 4's from 2003/4 don't stand up as well against missiles from 1992/94. So the question needs to be asked, can a M1A1 from 1986–92 survive against missiles from 1991/92?
                          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


                          • Originally posted by tankie View Post
                            Maybe not yet , at least from long range !
                            The only thing else I can think of is digging a big hole in the road and fill it with all the explosives you got. Even this doesn't guarantee a hit;
                            - The mine can be detected.
                            - There are chances that no Abrams will ever passes over it.
                            - An untimely detonation cuz of jamming etc etc

                            A talib must have hell of a luck to blow an abrams up. Exceptions exist everywhere.
                            Last edited by Pak Nationalist; 20 Jan 11,, 13:59.
                            sigpic

                            Comment


                            • Correct , the belly is always the most vulnerable .

                              Comment


                              • This may not guarantee a hit, but one of the only two tanks not repaired and brought back to service after Lebanon 2006 was taken out using a ~300kg IED. On the other hand, a different tank went over a ~150-200kg IED and out of 7 people in the tank, one died and 2 more were lightly injured, which shows you that even the belly can be armored. The Merkava 4 has specially designed belly plates which are slung under the tank
                                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

                                Working...
                                X