M1A1 HA+ VS M1A2 SEP Armor

[RogueSnake79]

we would need a supercomputer to run SB.

Beyond the understanding of the majority.

[[]_--__[]KITT]

I always cringe whenever I see a picture of the M1 tank from the front.

It looks like it is a tank with plenty shot trap area.

Playing it in SB Pro PE only confirmed this. That wide front gap between the turret and the chassis is just so large.

It always wonders me that they never come out with new turret design for the M1.

But then again my observation is strictly that of a layman.

[lavictoireestlavie]

I wondered about the gap between the turret and hull as well, as my M1A1 gets hit there realitvely often. Maybe changes in the turret/hull design were not deemed necessary because a) the area offered enough protection , or b) the likelyhood of getting hit in that area was statistically insignificant. :confused:

[cobrabase]

I`m also just guessing .... but hell yes ! :sonic:

In THIS update? Well, I HOPE I'm wrong but lets give esim a break.

[Damian90]

All tanks have such weak zone there, and it can't be eliminated in a design with manned turret. Unmanned design is a different story.

As for M1, it's under turret weak zone is somewhat exxagarated.

In fact the turret race ring is protected by relatively thick two piece collar.

This collar have the upper piece covering the turret bottom, and bottom piece protecting the hull turret race ring.

Of course it will not protect against the most modern ammunition, however consider two facts.

Timeline when M1 was designed.

In real world there is not even a single, documented incident, when M1 was hit there and armor was perforated.

So it is efficent enough protection against small arms or autocannons, and probability of hit there is relatively small.

Some problems in SB with it, might be also cause by the imperfection of computer simulations, or that AI is preaty good sniper.

But for example, newer Russian or Ukrainian tanks with welded turrets, also have such gap between turret and hull, visible from the front. This gap is also protected by a form of collar, and also can be hit.

However if someone ask about redesigning, such redesigning of M1 is very possible, in fact I have my own ideas about redesign however as I do not have any capabilities to make a 3d model or drawing, this still sits only in my head.

But there are at least few options for such redesign. The idea for the turret came from one of the M1 prototypes:

If we would put there 120mm gun instead of 140mm, scalled down the turret, use a more compact engine that would provide us capability to lower engine compartment deck and to push turret a bit to the rear we would be also capable to redesign a glacis plate.

Pity that I am unable to visualize my idea, but I am certain many people would like it.

[Volcano]

I wondered about the gap between the turret and hull as well, as my M1A1 gets hit there realitvely often. Maybe changes in the turret/hull design were not deemed necessary because a) the area offered enough protection , or b) the likelyhood of getting hit in that area was statistically insignificant. :confused:

Well, the only time I get hit there regularly is when I am up close and personal with another tank (~500m or less). At that range anything goes and you should be aiming for specific weak points.

I think the reason that area becomes a statistical write off is because if you are engaging the enemy at the standoff ranges the tank was really designed for (~2500-3000m) and as long as you aren't on a massive hill above the battlefield, then the ballistic arc of enemy rounds makes it almost impossible/very unlikely to hit that area unless your tank is tilted rearward (ie. on said massive hill). The rounds usually fall on the front turret or on the steep hull front, but not into the ring. At extremely close ranges where the shot is like a laser beam, it is a different story of course.

Every tank must have a vulnerability of some kind in the front, due to compromises. The trick is making it statically less vulnerable in medium to long range engagements, with point blank engagements being an exception. Some tanks pull this off better than others.

Just my two cents.

[Tjay]

I think the reason that area becomes a statistical write off is because if you are engaging the enemy at the standoff ranges the tank was really designed for (~2500-3000m) and as long as you aren't on a massive hill above the battlefield, then the ballistic arc of enemy rounds makes it almost impossible/very unlikely to hit that area unless your tank is tilted rearward (ie. on said massive hill).

What, roughly, is the downward angle of a sabot round landing on a target at that sort of range please? Maybe the projectile trajectory is as important as its reduced velocity at long range when it comes to lethality - something I hadn't previously considered.

[ooCURToo]

_--__[]KITT;234932']I always cringe whenever I see a picture of the M1 tank from the front.

It looks like it is a tank with plenty shot trap area.

Playing it in SB Pro PE only confirmed this. That wide front gap between the turret and the chassis is just so large.

It always wonders me that they never come out with new turret design for the M1.

But then again my observation is strictly that of a layman.

Is this what we were talking about? I was playing the revised version of Cav To The Rescue Pro PE when my first tank was hit. It sustained damage that only limited the traversing of the turret (heavy damage). I had to revert to steering left/right to aim which allowed me to finish the scenario. Felt like I was manning a Stug. My 2nd tank caught a lucky artillery round.

Edit: That Aussie skin is beautiful. Thanks dpabrams, I can't find too many skins that top your skins.

Edited May 25, 2013 by ooCURToo

[Ssnake]

What, roughly, is the downward angle of a sabot round landing on a target at that sort of range please?

For sabots, for the first eight kilometers or so, using the elevation angle is a good first order approximation for estimating the fall angle. A sabot will lose about 50m/s velocity per 1000m traveled, so at 3000m range you can expect it to be "just" 1500m/s rather than the 1650m/s with which it started. The shape of a ballistic curve in comparison to a parabola is nearly indistinguishable under these conditions.

Of course, early Soviet sabot rounds have a much more dramatic velocity loss, but even then what's said above still applies for the first 2000m.

[[]_--__[]KITT]

I wondered about the gap between the turret and hull as well, as my M1A1 gets hit there realitvely often. Maybe changes in the turret/hull design were not deemed necessary because a) the area offered enough protection , or b) the likelyhood of getting hit in that area was statistically insignificant. :confused:

I think it's the later case that it was deemed statistically insignificant. However the M1 has never really tried in worthy tank Vs tank battle and until then that assumption that the gap offers statistically insignificant risk will remain.

But I'm afraid that in worthy tank battle that gap would prove to pose quite a significant risk for the M1 and is crews. It is basically in the middle of the tank section afterall.

If SB Pro PE could be used as an approximation then it is likely to get hit on average between every 4 or 5-6 shots. That means about 20% chance each time a shot was fired into M1 front facing could in theory disable the tank and potentially killing the crews. Due to this in SB Pro PE I always feel a lot safer in the Leo 2AA6 than M1.(I know someone will mention M1's blast door but that hit would probably kill the crews)

All tanks have such weak zone there, and it can't be eliminated in a design with manned turret. Unmanned design is a different story.

As for M1, it's under turret weak zone is somewhat exxagarated.

In fact the turret race ring is protected by relatively thick two piece collar.

This collar have the upper piece covering the turret bottom, and bottom piece protecting the hull turret race ring.

Of course it will not protect against the most modern ammunition, however consider two facts.

Timeline when M1 was designed.

In real world there is not even a single, documented incident, when M1 was hit there and armor was perforated.

So it is efficent enough protection against small arms or autocannons, and probability of hit there is relatively small.

Some problems in SB with it, might be also cause by the imperfection of computer simulations, or that AI is preaty good sniper.

But for example, newer Russian or Ukrainian tanks with welded turrets, also have such gap between turret and hull, visible from the front. This gap is also protected by a form of collar, and also can be hit.

However if someone ask about redesigning, such redesigning of M1 is very possible, in fact I have my own ideas about redesign however as I do not have any capabilities to make a 3d model or drawing, this still sits only in my head.

But there are at least few options for such redesign. The idea for the turret came from one of the M1 prototypes:

If we would put there 120mm gun instead of 140mm, scalled down the turret, use a more compact engine that would provide us capability to lower engine compartment deck and to push turret a bit to the rear we would be also capable to redesign a glacis plate.

Pity that I am unable to visualize my idea, but I am certain many people would like it.

It's a weak part of the tank that gap as you yourself admitted. Whatever protecting that part isn't going to withstand an AP or HEAT hit. The reason you stated the M1 has never been hit in that area is simply because the M1 hasn't really been tried in a worthy tank battle with worthy opponent tank force. Its superior optics compared to its backward opponents made most of the M1 opponents not able to even fire back or even when they do they are random shot in general direction.

[lavictoireestlavie]

Due to this in SB Pro PE I always feel a lot safer in the Leo 2AA6 than M1.

- []_--__[]KITT

Me 2 !:biggrin:

I like the turret ring armor / setup on the the Merkava 1,2,3 and 4 in particular. The turret ring is hidden /buried the front on all vehicles. In case of the Merkava 4 the ring is hidden from the sides as well.

[apelles]

- []_--__[]KITT

Me 2 !:biggrin:

I like the turret ring armor / setup on the the Merkava 1,2,3 and 4 in particular. The turret ring is hidden /buried the front on all vehicles. In case of the Merkava 4 the ring is hidden from the sides as well.

Merkava has a hell of a protection. Very good survivability, but even Merkava isn't invulnerable for example the AT-14.

[[]_--__[]KITT]

- []_--__[]KITT

Me 2 !:biggrin:

I like the turret ring armor / setup on the the Merkava 1,2,3 and 4 in particular. The turret ring is hidden /buried the front on all vehicles. In case of the Merkava 4 the ring is hidden from the sides as well.

Plus they even protect the weak part of their turret rear using that ball chains.

Challenger 2, Merkava 4 and Leopard 2A6 all have excellent turret design for maximized protection. The toughest turret seems (judging from design alone) to be that of Merkava 4.

Leclerc isn't bad either but their optic on the turret takes a prominent and sizeable portion so in combat their primary optic is probably not going to last long.

Merkava has a hell of a protection. Very good survivability, but even Merkava isn't invulnerable for example the AT-14.

Ah 2006 war was quite bad for Israel armored force. I know some people would argue otherwise but let's just say I sort of knew what happened. Just a single hit from those ATGM on the flank of Merkava would disable the tank(sure they can be recovered and fixed but as far as the battle goes they are effectively put out of action). Many many Israelis were disappointed by their tanks in that war. It was a pretty traumatic war too for the many Israelis in it.

Seems active protection for tank is the way to go.

[Tjay]

For sabots, for the first eight kilometers or so, using the elevation angle is a good first order approximation for estimating the fall angle. A sabot will lose about 50m/s velocity per 1000m traveled, so at 3000m range you can expect it to be "just" 1500m/s rather than the 1650m/s with which it started. The shape of a ballistic curve in comparison to a parabola is nearly indistinguishable under these conditions.

Of course, early Soviet sabot rounds have a much more dramatic velocity loss, but even then what's said above still applies for the first 2000m.

Thanks for the info. Unfortunately, I can't see a way of measuring barrel elevation for any particular shot, but for sabot at 2,500m it doesn't appear to be much. So if it arrived on the glacis plate just in front of the turret overhang at whatever that angle is, what would be its behavior? I realise this depends very much on the armour it encounters, and that modern sabot rounds are designed to 'turn' and penetrate armour at even very shallow impact angles, but this thread relates to the MI.

I was initially surprised that the velocity loss per 100m is so low, but not when you consider the frontal area and minimal surface area I guess.

[MAJ_Fubar]

You, know, in all of this, certain design decisions are being ignored. I've yet to lose an M1 to a turret ring hit when it was properly employed on the defense. Neither have I had a Leo pop its top when properly employed on the defense. As both of these vehicle were designed to face ravening hordes of Russian armor this makes sense. This doesn't make them ineffective on the offense, but reflects a decision on the part of the designers to maximize the defensive aspect based on the expected threat.

One reason the Merkava performed poorly in Lebanon, besides inadequate infantry support, is due to the fact that it is a defensive tank. The Merkava's hull encompasses a very large internal volume, something difficult to protect, while its turret is monstrously hard. Including the engine as part of the frontal hull armor points to a vehicle meant to be dug in and fought as a semi-mobile pillbox. Again these are design choices driven by experience and the expected threat. The Merkava is solid, but like all tanks, it must be used in a way that maximizes its strengths while minimizing its weaknesses.

[Ssnake]

Thanks for the info. Unfortunately, I can't see a way of measuring barrel elevation for any particular shot, but for sabot at 2,500m it doesn't appear to be much.

In the coming Steel Beasts Pro PE 3.0 you can read the angle (in mil) from the Leopard 2's ballistic computer control panel if you switch the central display selector switch to the "Aufsatz" position. 17.778 mil are the equivalent of one degree (6400 : 360) [... for Finnish, Russian, and Swedish fire control systems it's 17.5 per degree (6300 : 360)].

Example: The age old 125mm BM-9 (the one with high velocity drop etc.) has a superelevation angle of just 5 mil (=0.286°) for a 3000m range (see here).

So if it arrived on the glacis plate just in front of the turret overhang at whatever that angle is, what would be its behavior? I realise this depends very much on the armour it encounters, and that modern sabot rounds are designed to 'turn' and penetrate armour at even very shallow impact angles, but this thread relates to the MI.

Modern sabots will almost never ricochet. Measured from the surface normal, the impact angle needs to be above maybe 85...86° for a chance that the penetrator rod will not "bite" into the armor material. 30 years ago the angle may have been as high as 75° (but still that's a far cry from the 60° that were the norm for (full bore) AP shots during WW2 and the first two post-war decades).

So, in your given example, it will simply bore itself into the glacis plate which typically forms an angle that is insufficient for ricochet. A typical impact angle (again, measured from surface normal) would be in the 82...78° range.

Depending on how close the impact point is to the turret ring/upper end of the glacis plate the sabot might then continue to perforate the gear ring of the turret which might result in a turret jam (or at least cause evil sounds of metal grinding metal). Most likely there will be a "behind armor debris cloud" rapidly expanding into the crew compartment, showering the crew with burning metal particles and therefore causing a lot of pain and bleeding. Combine this with the likely effect of temporary blinding from the impact flash and probably also eardrum and/or lung ruptures from overpressure. Secondary effects could be a puncturing of hydraulic hoses that connect the gun elevation cylinders with the central hydraulic slip ring at the turret floor center, flooding the crew compartment with flammable hydraulic oil fluid (dispersed as an oil spray, or aerosol, with a very high surface to volume ratio, favoring rapid deflagration). This might get ignited by the burning metal sparks - or the fire gets suppressed by the halon bottles discharging into the vehicle interior. Depending on whether the tank is buttoned up, the severity of injury, eventual loss of consciousness, the halon in the air will absorb most of the oxygen, leaving the crew with whatever oxygen is stored in their blood as the last reserve to open the hatches or even to dismount the vehicle ... or to eventually suffocate inside if neither bleeding nor fire will kill them.

More details?

[Tjay]

Thanks Nils. So a hit in that area will behave 'conventionally', and the 'shot trap' objection to that design (and similar designs) is therefore invalid - yes? No further details of the effect of such a shot on the crew required - thank you.

[dejawolf]

Depending on how close the impact point is to the turret ring/upper end of the glacis plate the sabot might then continue to perforate the gear ring of the turret which might result in a turret jam (or at least cause evil sounds of metal grinding metal). Most likely there will be a "behind armor debris cloud" rapidly expanding into the crew compartment, showering the crew with burning metal particles and therefore causing a lot of pain and bleeding. Combine this with the likely effect of temporary blinding from the impact flash and probably also eardrum and/or lung ruptures from overpressure. Secondary effects could be a puncturing of hydraulic hoses that connect the gun elevation cylinders with the central hydraulic slip ring at the turret floor center, flooding the crew compartment with flammable hydraulic oil fluid (dispersed as an oil spray, or aerosol, with a very high surface to volume ratio, favoring rapid deflagration). This might get ignited by the burning metal sparks - or the fire gets suppressed by the halon bottles discharging into the vehicle interior. Depending on whether the tank is buttoned up, the severity of injury, eventual loss of consciousness, the halon in the air will absorb most of the oxygen, leaving the crew with whatever oxygen is stored in their blood as the last reserve to open the hatches or even to dismount the vehicle ... or to eventually suffocate inside if neither bleeding nor fire will kill them.

More details?

well, this is the absolute worst case scenario.

in the abrams, the control handles are connected directly to the traverse motor, with hydraulic lines running down into the turret slip ring to the hydraulic reservoir in the rear hull. and the majority of the hydraulic lines are located below the turret ring except for a single tube that runs to a hydraulic gauge near the turret roof, a hydraulic accumulator to the left of the GPS, as well as a line to the ammunition door. for the above scenario,

you'd have to hit the turret ring on the Left side looking from the front.

on the loaders side, there's a much lower chance of a fireball, but the sheer volume of spall and debris from the turret ring is not going to make for a happy loader, along with the chance of slower moving spall particles rebounding on turret surface and wounding the TC/gunner. overpressure from the round is likely going to cause crewmembers to pass out, leaving the tank vulnerable for a second shot.

[Assassin 7]

In the coming Steel Beasts Pro PE 3.0 you can read the angle (in mil) from the Leopard 2's ballistic computer control panel if you switch the central display selector switch to the "Aufsatz" position. 17.778 mil are the equivalent of one degree (6400 : 360) [... for Finnish, Russian, and Swedish fire control systems it's 17.5 per degree (6300 : 360)].

Example: The age old 125mm BM-9 (the one with high velocity drop etc.) has a superelevation angle of just 5 mil (=0.286°) for a 3000m range (see here).

Modern sabots will almost never ricochet. Measured from the surface normal, the impact angle needs to be above maybe 85...86° for a chance that the penetrator rod will not "bite" into the armor material. 30 years ago the angle may have been as high as 75° (but still that's a far cry from the 60° that were the norm for (full bore) AP shots during WW2 and the first two post-war decades).

So, in your given example, it will simply bore itself into the glacis plate which typically forms an angle that is insufficient for ricochet. A typical impact angle (again, measured from surface normal) would be in the 82...78° range.

Depending on how close the impact point is to the turret ring/upper end of the glacis plate the sabot might then continue to perforate the gear ring of the turret which might result in a turret jam (or at least cause evil sounds of metal grinding metal). Most likely there will be a "behind armor debris cloud" rapidly expanding into the crew compartment, showering the crew with burning metal particles and therefore causing a lot of pain and bleeding. Combine this with the likely effect of temporary blinding from the impact flash and probably also eardrum and/or lung ruptures from overpressure. Secondary effects could be a puncturing of hydraulic hoses that connect the gun elevation cylinders with the central hydraulic slip ring at the turret floor center, flooding the crew compartment with flammable hydraulic oil fluid (dispersed as an oil spray, or aerosol, with a very high surface to volume ratio, favoring rapid deflagration). This might get ignited by the burning metal sparks - or the fire gets suppressed by the halon bottles discharging into the vehicle interior. Depending on whether the tank is buttoned up, the severity of injury, eventual loss of consciousness, the halon in the air will absorb most of the oxygen, leaving the crew with whatever oxygen is stored in their blood as the last reserve to open the hatches or even to dismount the vehicle ... or to eventually suffocate inside if neither bleeding nor fire will kill them.

More details?

So what your saying is that a spark can ignite FRH fluid?

http://www.qclubricants.com/royco/royco_770.htm

[jazjar]

Well it is called Fire Resistant Hydraulic fluid for a reason...

[dejawolf]

the control handles are connected directly to the traverse motor. what are you talking about? the Hydraulic lines? or signals? The Hydraulic lines are only connected to the Manual Handle, not the Gunner or Commanders handles. The Signals are sent to the gyros first then the servos and then the GTD and finally back to the TNB. The accumulator that is next to the GPS is the Manual Accumulator. The primary is located on the left side of the gun.

I meant the control handles are bolted onto the traverse motor right in front of the gunner.

so unlike on the leopard 2A4, where the traverse motor is on the loaders side, there's no need to have additional lines going from the left of the turret to the right.

[Assassin 7]

I meant the control handles are bolted onto the traverse motor right in front of the gunner.

so unlike on the leopard 2A4, where the traverse motor is on the loaders side, there's no need to have additional lines going from the left of the turret to the right.

Ok I can understand, There are 2 mounts the one for the manual and gunner's handles that mount to the turret and the turret roof and the other mount is for the motor and the servo. The 2 mounts are side by side.

[ooCURToo]

_--__[]KITT;234982']The reason you stated the M1 has never been hit in that area is simply because the M1 hasn't really been tried in a worthy tank battle with worthy opponent tank force.

And which modern tank HAS been tried in a "worthy" tank battle? I've seen several statements on the SB forums about the M1 not being tried and true in certain aspects but what tank has? When has the Leo2 ever fought in any tank battle (I'm serious I may have simply not heard or read about a Leo2 vs T-xx)? I think a lot of designs on both of these modern western tanks has not been put through the rigors of a "worthy" tank battle and an argument can be made in favor of one tank vs the other.

M1 - has never been tried in a "worthy" tank battle.

Leo2 - has never been tried in any tank battle.

If I had to go to war in a Leo2 or a M1 I don't think I would mind being put in one vs the other. Either way I'm in a damn good tank.

(And I'm off my soap box. Please feel free to take it.) :wink:

[[]_--__[]KITT]

And which modern tank HAS been tried in a "worthy" tank battle? I've seen several statements on the SB forums about the M1 not being tried and true in certain aspects but what tank has? When has the Leo2 ever fought in any tank battle (I'm serious I may have simply not heard or read about a Leo2 vs T-xx)? I think a lot of designs on both of these modern western tanks has not been put through the rigors of a "worthy" tank battle and an argument can be made in favor of one tank vs the other.

M1 - has never been tried in a "worthy" tank battle.

Leo2 - has never been tried in any tank battle.

If I had to go to war in a Leo2 or a M1 I don't think I would mind being put in one vs the other. Either way I'm in a damn good tank.

(And I'm off my soap box. Please feel free to take it.) :wink:

But you're missing the point I'm saying other tanks don't share that rather sizeable gap in their mid front facing. That gap usually spells the end of the tank in SB Pro PE while Leo 2A5 or Strv 122 is pretty well protected in their front facing. It has been non issue so far simply because there hasn't been any worthy tank vs tank battle. Other comparable tanks don't seem to share this issue at least not in SB Pro PE

The reason for that sizeable gap is because the engine in M1 is raised at the rear so the turret needs to make room for that raised/elevated surface at the rear so it can turn 360 degree.

If they can make the engine a little smaller then voila! No more gap at the front. So even the designers knew it was presenting a weak spot in the front facing and clearly they didn't want it but it was a compromise forced by the size of the engine. The choice was either that or elevating the entire tank chassis and they chose compromising the turret protection. It also clearly pointed that the M1 wasn't probably designed at first with that larger engine it is now equipped with.

(soapbox, hmm none of my comment was political I'd think so you can stay in it )

[ooCURToo]

Suppose the driver likes that gap in order to get out?

I have no other reasonable arguments.

_--__[]KITT;235045']

(soapbox' date=' hmm none of my comment was political I'd think so you can stay in it )[/quote']

I was using it in an American slang. Sorry.