M1A1 HA+ VS M1A2 SEP Armor

[cobrabase]

What changes (if any) have been made to the armor of the new M1A2 SEP VS our old tried and true M1A1 HA+? According to the book (which features Steelbeasts forum member 3-Star btw) by Michael Green and Greg Stewart - the U.S. Army increased the frontal and turret side armor on the SEP.

Any figures used in the sim?

Anyone know if the glacis plate of the forward hull was up-armored?

[Hedgehog]

What changes (if any) have been made to the armor of the new M1A2 SEP VS our old tried and true M1A1 HA+? According to the book (which features Steelbeasts forum member 3-Star btw) by Michael Green and Greg Stewart - the U.S. Army increased the frontal and turret side armor on the SEP.

Any figures used in the sim?

Anyone know if the glacis plate of the forward hull was up-armored?

They glued sheets of plywood to the front?

Not sure of the sure of the armour properties of 13 laminate though.

I heard somewhere its strong enough to stop .50 cal SLAP rounds, but this is unconfirmed.

:biggrin:

[daskal]

What changes (if any) have been made to the armor of the new M1A2 SEP VS our old tried and true M1A1 HA+? According to the book (which features Steelbeasts forum member 3-Star btw)

You mean "M1 Abrams at War" or "Modern US Tanks and AFVs? I have both of these - where is 3-Star featured in there? - I want to check it out.

[Damian90]

What changes (if any) have been made to the armor of the new M1A2 SEP VS our old tried and true M1A1 HA+? According to the book (which features Steelbeasts forum member 3-Star btw) by Michael Green and Greg Stewart - the U.S. Army increased the frontal and turret side armor on the SEP.

Any figures used in the sim?

Anyone know if the glacis plate of the forward hull was up-armored?

Most probably used materials are different, while LOS thickness remains the same.

There were some speculations about how armor structure might have changed.

As far as avaiable official sources says, we know that frontal and side armor was improved, but no details obviously.

However improvement for front hull is very possible. M1 composite armor is semi modular both for turret and front hull beak, and it's replacement is not very difficult.

Of course then again, nobody really knows how good this armor is, well this is for all modern MBT's.

All estimations also used for SB armor model, are only estimations, and might be very far from truth, or very close to it.

Big problem is also a fact that armor configuration was changed several times, two times it was a US Burlington derivative used in M1, M1IP and M1A1, then we have the Heavy Armor Package series where from original M1A1HA which used as we can call it 1st generation, there was 2nd generation (in original M1A2) and 3rd generation from M1A2SEP, from what we know, also modernized M1A1's to standards M1A1SA and M1A1FEP most probably receive this 3rd generation HAP.

But as always, there are some facts and some speculations, so the only fair answer is: yes armor had been improved, but nobody really knows details.

And soon there will be ready another armor upgrade within ECP1 modernization package... if this new armor is not already designed and just waits for the rest of upgrade parts to finish their R&D cycle.:sonic:

[ooCURToo]

Hey Damian,

Thanks for the information. It's very welcomed. Do you mind disclosing more of your sources? I love reading about this stuff.

[Damian90]

Well I use open for public sources mainly, there are not many details but give some general directions where to dig more, although I have some contacts which provides me with some info I can't share, and these are not from US mainly.

One more thing. We should remember that SB armor model is not 100% accurate because of another one, but very important reason - modern composite armors are not passive.

Yeah, that's right, modern composite armors can be a type of reactive armor as well, however without explosive material.

English language nomenlcature describes 3 main types of reactive armors - Explosive Reactive Armor or ERA, Non Explosive Reactive Armor or NxRA, and Non Energetic Reactive Armor or NERA.

Tanks like M1 or Leopard 2, have their composite armor design based on armor designs developed withing a program codenamed Burlington.

At least one of armor developed within this program is called Chobham armor, however officialy non of these armors were ever named or have any codename at all. In documents these were mostly called "special armor".

I doubt that most people here can read in Polish, however a Polish historian Paweł Przeździecki (also known as Przezdzieblo on TankNet forums) have wrote a very interesting article about Burlington program.

Here is a link to his article http://www.wceo.wp.mil.pl/plik/file/WBBH/PH-W/PHW_4.pdf page 106 in Acrobat Reader. You can try to use a translator, article is worth to read, as it is not typical article you find in military magazines, but well documented scientific work.

But what is obvious, is that these armor were reactive in nature, and the classical description of British armor called Chobham as based mainly on ceramics in honeycomb structure etc., was nothing more than a pure disinformation.

The Americans received full knowledge about Burlington program, and developed their own special armors under cudenamed Starflower.

The at the time existing Ballistic Research Laboratory prepared two test arrays dubbed BRL-1 and BRL-2, it can be possible that BRL-1 was analog to armor used in original M1 while BRL-2 was analog to armor used later in M1IP and M1A1.

It seems that Germans despite their own research and development, also received some informations about Burlington program, however wat happend later is not known for wider public, if Germans used their own design or design based on Burlington.

But back to subject, the whole phenomena of reactive armor interaction with projectile isprobably very difficult to simulate in a program like SB (which is justified and completely understandible). As current knowledge suggest, during penetration process, penetrator will yaw, bend, it can even broke in to pieces which are easier to stop by armor layers placed deeper inside cavity. Same with shaped charge jet, which will erode, will lost it's continuity (I don't know if this is a good word) etc.

The evolution of vehicles armor protection overall bring us in to a very interesting point, where armor is designed such, that it is literally destroying penetrating projectile, I think that as a side note, very good example of such protection are Ukrainian reactive armors HSCHKV-19 "Knife" and HSCHKV-34 "Duplet", below a video from tests.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTASGFeeE50

What is interesting is that USA bought this armor with 4 T-84 tanks from Ukraine and definetely tested it, I would not be surprised to see in future a US analog for Ukrainian design.

[ooCURToo]

"special armor".

This is my favorite codename. So original.

Also, God bless the UK and their ingenious insight on armor design. May the CR2 live on forever.

[Damian90]

Well if you will be able to translate this article I provided, you might be actually surprised how Burlington program started... I will give you a hint, Mr. Harvey's research and development work on... fuel tanks.

[Marko]

As a tank enthusiast.

I am as excited as any body else that we are getting this beast.

But as a member of soviet VU. I just hope its not some type of uber tank.

We were discussing this at are last meeting. Obviously there is no such thing as an invulnerable tank

I was just wondering if the AT11 Refleks can penetrate the M1A2 Frontal armor.

Hull or turret i know the are a lot of variables when it comes to armor penetration.Angle the Round Hits and so on. If it Cant Penetrate We are going to have to think of ways to deal with this beast.

Wikipedia Estimation for the AT11 refleks.

Penetration: 700–900 mm of RHA

Time of flight to 4000 m : 11.7 s

Time of flight to 5000 m : 17.6 s

[Invader ZIM]

This could certainly be interesting.

It was my understanding that the CE blast from an AT11 125mm round wouldn't have much of a chance against the frontal armor of an M1A2. Isn't that the reason other guided CE rounds like TOW were 152mm to be more effective?

At any rate, I'm interested to learn more about it all.

[Damian90]

First of all 9M119 is definetely overestimated weapon, sometimes praised as some sort of wunderwaffe.

In fact it is relatively simple GLATGM and lacks any capability to efficently be dangerous for the front turret armor (excluding obvious weak zones) of any modern tank, I have even doubts it can be dangerous for the hull front where composite armor is placed.

One more thing, we should remember that penetration capabilities of ammunition provided in most open sources are just advertisements and are far from reality.

For example, RPG-29, most widespread information about it's penetration capabilities is ~750mm RHA after ERA, in reality it is lower, my friend found a brochure from manufacturer, company Bazalt that says it is only >600mm RHA (probably after ERA).

One more thing there, as I said earlier, modern composite armors are reactive by their design, in such case applying here RHA equivalent values might be misleading.

Different types of ammunition, intearacts in different ways with different types of armor protection.

It is a very complex issue and can't be explained in simple ways.

I learned one thing tough, the more I know about this subject, the more aware I am how little I know in fact, and how difficult is to make any estimations which are in the end only a rough idea about the whole deal.

One more thing.

This is not my work, only my friend, but here we can see the efficency of NERA.

And here about how relatively simple protection, might be capable to greatly reduce penetration capabilities.

So all in all I would be carefull with different numbers in estimations, and with ery popular belief that projectile defeated armor.

[Gibsonm]

I was just wondering if the AT11 Refleks can penetrate the M1A2 Frontal armour.

Well it can't penetrate M1A1 (HA).

Refer opportune screenshot in latest BG ANZAC thread.

[Panzer_Leader]

As a tank enthusiast.

I am as excited as any body else that we are getting this beast.

But as a member of soviet VU. I just hope its not some type of uber tank.

Well, as someone who sits firmly in the M1 camp, I will probably never use a Leopard 2A5+ or derivative again just to experience the benefits of a CITV for the TC. Bring on the M1A2 SEP I say!

[Marko]

Well it can't penetrate M1A1 (HA).

Refer opportune screenshot in latest BG ANZAC thread.

I was going to use that as an example.

But like you stated the T-72 may have been to close.

[Gibsonm]

I meant in terms of the gunner "gathering" the missile etc.

Pretty sure as long as it travelled far enough to arm, that the range wouldn't affect warhead performance.

[Damian90]

AFAIK minimum range for 9M119 is 75m.

[Jartsev]

AFAIK minimum range for 9M119 is 75m.

100 meters- otherwise missile will not get into "information beam". Fuse arms faster.

[Assassin 7]

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/208-main-battle-tanks-armour-technology-312.html

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/208-main-battle-tanks-armour-technology-299.html

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=90432&page=14

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/208-main-battle-tanks-armour-technology-193.html

http://g38.picoodle.com/ltd/img38/2/12/23/rossomak2/f_25g5truxmxtm_664e3bc.gif

http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/9715.html, use google translate

http://btvt.narod.ru/4/armor.htm, use google translate

This is interesting to read, see a lot of conversations.

[Damian90]

Oh great, soon my posts will make me "famous"... :roll:

But to be honest man, knowledge about armor protection is changing whole time, so many of the old posts made by me or my... associates might be wrong or outdated, not to mention that a lot of discussion is destroyed by trolls and fanboys forcing "the only one truth".

But back to subject.

There is something I need to ask currently serving US tankers. It is about ARAT ERA. I seen on some recent photos that M1A2SEP's (dunno about modernized M1A1's), have side turret prepared for ERA installation, this is for the M32 ARAT-2 cassettes, however I wonder if it is possible, and if yes if US Army tested such setup, to install on side turret frames, not M32 but M19 ARAT-1 cassettes, or both just like in the TUSK-2 configuration side skirts.

It seems that US Army is happy with ERA and it might end to install ERA as standard element of vehicle protection in near future.

[Damian90]

Not much but interesting, thank you. And gives a lot of thinking. The ARAT is very interesting design. It was developed in cooperation with NII Stali, and it have some resassemblence in general design idea with one of their anti-tandem ERA which was shown on one of their promo videos.

[Invader ZIM]

Actually, I'm sort of curious if we'll get to see additional ERA armor packages for both Soviet and Western designs in the new update.

Will we be able to Arat-1 and Arat-2 on our new M1A2 SEP?

[cobrabase]

You mean "M1 Abrams at War" or "Modern US Tanks and AFVs? I have both of these - where is 3-Star featured in there? - I want to check it out.

They interview him in the California National Guard in there somewhere.

[cobrabase]

Actually, I'm sort of curious if we'll get to see additional ERA armor packages for both Soviet and Western designs in the new update.

Will we be able to Arat-1 and Arat-2 on our new M1A2 SEP?

I'm just guessing but... no chance in hell.

[lavictoireestlavie]

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

[Damian90]

Simplest way to simulate ERA is to give modelled cassettes or modules an RHAe, but on the other hand it is not 100% realistic, just like in case of modern composite armor.

Very problematic issue when you want to keep realism, I suppose that to have everything simulated properly, we would need a supercomputer to run SB.