Corps to deploy M1A1 tanks to Afghanistan

[zraver]

[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.

No that parts of the bustle rack storage construction, non-protective, its where we store our gear and pogy bait. No real reason to armor the bustle against anythign heavier than light cannon fire. No lives at risk so throw the weight of armor forward to form a protective cup around the crew.

Dealing specifically with those rounded tiles called the arat, they might be NxERA tiles. Round and angled to deflect fused weapons like ATGM/RPG warheads backed by a lot of rubber for maximum sheer potential.

PN,

Is Halon a fire extinguishing system?

Yes, the early APU's had a habit of taking damage and leaking fuel into the engine compartment, as did over penetrating hits to the rear fuel storage tanks. Both of which would ignite off the engines thermal radiation. The HALON system would steal the fires air supply but not its ignition source. Once the HALO cleared out the heat would re-ignite the fire.

Something most people don;t know is that the Abrams uses its fuel tanks as armor. A fully fueled Abrams is a lot harder to set on fire than one with near empty tanks.

[zraver]

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

The Russians use thick rubber skirts hung off the hull front to trip tilt-rod mines before the crew compartment.

[tankie]

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

True Ben , however the belly is still the most vulnerable , BUT tanks , dont use roads all the time so to plant an IED would take good tactics and guesswork from the tallies to lay an extensive type of minefield , not that it cant be done ,but i dont know how tanks will be deployed in A/G , long range snipers from safe ground ? or the advance to contact role ?

[Pak Nationalist]

Speaking of Merkava...I personally think its world most beautiful tank with a unique look.

Check this video series:


All the remaining episodes and parts are on the youtube..do watch them.

[tankie]

Speaking of Merkava...I personally think its world most beautiful tank with a unique look.

Check this video series:


All the remaining episodes and parts are on the youtube..do watch them.

Pak Sarzameen

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



Well this vid answers your statement ref Abrahms , ALL tanks are vulnerable mate . Its how / which role they are used .

[Pak Nationalist]

Check this one....


In this they interview two fighter groups who destroyed merkavas.
1st one did it by attacking the belly..typical.
And second group put an RPG-7 in its rear(engine exhaust).

[dave lukins]

With all this extra armour come extra weight. How do these tanks tackle bridges and crossings?

[zraver]

With all this extra armour come extra weight. How do these tanks tackle bridges and crossings?

It depends on the type of bridge. A Modern highway bridge isn't a problem, rural bridges can be if what its bridging can't be forded. The US introduced the M104 Wolverine with a 26m class 70 scissors bridge to suplant the older M60 AVLB but production has stopped for now at 44 units.

[Pak Nationalist]

Z, I don't know how shallow the rivers are in Afghanistan.
But in some military videos i've seen tanks crossing the rivers without bridges by going into water, greatly submerged sometimes. Can you put some light on this?

[JCT]

Z, I don't know shallow the rivers are in Afghanistan.
But in some military videos i've seen tanks crossing the rivers without bridges by going into water, greatly submerged sometimes. Can you put some light on this?

Most modern tank models come equipped with a fording kit. You button up the tank, assemble the fording kit, and drive along the bottom of the river until you reach the other side. The snorkel kit brings fresh air to your engine and returns the engine exhaust. Of course, you hope that your engineers conducted an accurate survey of the river and that the river isn't deeper than your snorkel, or that there isn't any big hole that they missed. It'd really ruin your day.

Lighter armored vehicles can actually swim across, although some are better than others at this.

[S2]

Zraver Reply

"Dealing specifically with those rounded tiles called the arat, they might be NxERA tiles."

So what are those tiles across the back flank of the turret protecting?

[zraver]

"Dealing specifically with those rounded tiles called the arat, they might be NxERA tiles."

So what are those tiles across the back flank of the turret protecting?

it looks like they only extend partially past the crew area. If you mark the location on a the turret and then look at a top down pic of the tank where the hatches provide a refrence to where the crew actually is you'll see the tiles are over the crew areas.

PN,

Z, I don't know shallow the rivers are in Afghanistan.
But in some military videos i've seen tanks crossing the rivers without bridges by going into water, greatly submerged sometimes. Can you put some light on this?

A lot of non-turbine powered tanks have deepwater fording kits that allow tanks to drive across the bottom on rivers. The Abrams doesn't. IIRC there was a fording kit but tis not in use. The Abrams has shallow fording only. The driver pumps up an inflatable seal and then slowly crosses the ford. The seal is designed to ressist the bow wave not actually submerge.

[T_igger_cs_30]

Z, I don't know how shallow the rivers are in Afghanistan.
But in some military videos i've seen tanks crossing the rivers without bridges by going into water, greatly submerged sometimes. Can you put some light on this?

Swimming and crossing rivers submerged with armour has always been an aspiration, and whilst a lot did have swimming/fording equipment produced the reality was it is totally impracticle. The preporation time is very lengthy, and the unpredictability huge.
So whilst possible, and promoted heavily in the cold war era, especially by the soviets the films seen were very controlled.

[Gun Grape]

A lot of non-turbine powered tanks have deepwater fording kits that allow tanks to drive across the bottom on rivers. The Abrams doesn't. IIRC there was a fording kit but tis not in use. The Abrams has shallow fording only. The driver pumps up an inflatable seal and then slowly crosses the ford. The seal is designed to ressist the bow wave not actually submerge.

The Marine Corps M-1s have a deep water fording kit.

[USSWisconsin]

Swimming and crossing rivers submerged with armour has always been an aspiration, and whilst a lot did have swimming/fording equipment produced the reality was it is totally impracticle. The preporation time is very lengthy, and the unpredictability huge.
So whilst possible, and promoted heavily in the cold war era, especially by the soviets the films seen were very controlled.

I've seen some interesting footage of this, Soviet tanks with ~6 meter chimney like pipes attached to the turret hatch, it looked pretty spooky for the crew. I can imagine them all struggling to climb up that tube if something went wrong, or the tube being broken off and ...