M1A1HA less survivable frontally than 3/4s?

[stormrider_sp]

I was doing some ballistics tests using different T-90s rounds against M1A1HA positioned at different ranges and angles (frontal, 3/4, sideways) and to my surprise I noticed that it is less survivable when hit frontally than at 3/4s. I'm not talking about lucky neck hits, but squarely on the front glacis. Is this expected? I understand that WW2 tanks like the big Tiger I and its boxy shape fared better against AP rounds at 3/4s, but I always thought that modern tanks were designed to be more survivable frontally. The tested rounds were BM-46, BM-42, BM-32 and BM-29 (The BM-46 being the deadliest). The ranges were 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500 and 3000m. The Abrams status was "Impotent" which allow them to keep their turrets centered on the attacking T-90.

 

Edited November 15, 2019 by stormrider_sp

[dejawolf]

11 minutes ago, stormrider_sp said:

I was doing some ballistics tests using different T-90s rounds against M1A1HA positioned at different ranges and angles (frontal, 3/4, sideways) and to my surprise I noticed that it is less survivable when hit frontally than at 3/4s. I'm not talking about lucky neck hits, but squarely on the front glacis. Is this expected? I understand that WW2 tanks like the big Tiger I and its boxy shape fared better against AP rounds at 3/4s, but I always thought that modern tanks were designed to be more survivable frontally. The tested rounds were BM-46, BM-42, BM-32 and BM-29 (The BM-46 being the deadliest). The ranges were 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500 and 3000m. The Abrams status was "Impotent" which allow them to keep their turrets centered on the attacking T-90.

 

it's due to the gun breech area being less protected than the chins. 

soviet tanks suffer from the same issue. it's generally an area that is difficult to protect in tanks due to the moving parts. 

a few vehicles have managed it brilliantly however, particularly the leopard 2A5 is an example of how to best protect the gun area on a tank. 

[Gibsonm]

8 minutes ago, dejawolf said:

it's due to the gun breech area being less protected than the chins. 

soviet tanks suffer from the same issue. it's generally an area that is difficult to protect in tanks due to the moving parts. 

a few vehicles have managed it brilliantly however, particularly the leopard 2A5 is an example of how to best protect the gun area on a tank. 

 

Except he specified:

 

20 minutes ago, stormrider_sp said:

but squarely on the front glacis.

 

 

Not the turret front.

 

Edited November 15, 2019 by Gibsonm

[dejawolf]

12 minutes ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Except he specified:

glacis

 

Not the turret front.

 

 

right. well, that's just a matter of LOS thickness. the abrams glacis is already extremely sloped, over 80 degrees. And at 3/4, the thickness approaches ridiculous values, which in most cases would cause even APFSDS rounds to ricochet. 

as an example, between 80-86 degrees, an 80mm thick plate will have a LOS thickness from 460 to over 1100mm.

Edited November 15, 2019 by dejawolf

[stormrider_sp]

10 hours ago, dejawolf said:

 

right. well, that's just a matter of LOS thickness. the abrams glacis is already extremely sloped, over 80 degrees. And at 3/4, the thickness approaches ridiculous values, which in most cases would cause even APFSDS rounds to ricochet. 

as an example, between 80-86 degrees, an 80mm thick plate will have a LOS thickness from 460 to over 1100mm.

That explains, thank you.