Abrams Side Armor

[12Alfa]

Show me a wide spread use of IED's versus Israeli forces prior 1990's.

I never said anything about wide spread, why are you bring this up?

Merkava was not designed with IED's in mind,

I think all tanks are designed with threat's from below, that would include IED's as they have been know for a long time, otherwise tank bottoms would have no armour.

What is flawed? Saying that the Merkava along with a pic would not survive as other tanks, might be helpful to us here to see another tank taking the same blast, then and only then could one make such a statement, just saying.

Afterall Merkava become also propaganda symbole. And the T-72 is not? :confused:

Then your knowledge is extremely limited unfortunetely.

How would you know that?

Seems pretty arrogant statement,and point to your lack of caring out a discussion that does not adheres to your views. In this regard I will end any further comment, I seen this behavior before unfortunately.:c:

[Damian90]

I think all tanks are designed with threat's from below, that would include IED's as they have been know for a long time, otherwise tank bottoms would have no armour.

They are not. Belly armor is designed to withstand only explosion of rather small charges of some types of mines.

And the T-72 is not?

No. You completely do not mentality of Russians, and even the purpose of designing T-72 in the first place.

In fact if UKBTM engineers would listen to their MoD, T-72 would never been designed. We would have just another variant of different tank, the T-64. But they did not listened.

How would you know that?

I see what you write?

Seems pretty arrogant statement,and point to your lack of caring out a discussion that does not adheres to your views. In this regard I will end any further comment, I seen this behavior before unfortunately.

Many people call me arrogant, only because I do not believe in slogans, or have approach different than most popular opinions, like myth of the Merkava.

But I spent too much of my life up to this day, on analizing different tank designs to believe in such things.

[Eisenschwein]

LOL, fabulous unbeatable outstanding Tanks the Russians build.

Not able to hit 5 out of 5 Targets a 1500, but the Rest must be great ;-)

[Damian90]

LOL, fabulous unbeatable outstanding Tanks the Russians build.

Not able to hit 5 out of 5 Targets a 1500, but the Rest must be great ;-)

About which tanks you talk? Soviet builded many different tanks.

T-72 was not the best of them. Only recently T-72 series received something we can call a real fire control system, earlier tanks had greatly reduced capability in this sense.

However other tanks developed in Soviet Union, had relatively comparable or even better solutions to western tanks of specific era.

For example T-64 and T-64A had comparable fire control system to M60/M60A1 or Leopard 1, while having superior protection and firepower.

The T-64B introduced a real fire control system with laser range finder, and ballistic computer capable to even induct accurate lead on moving targets. Similiar system was installed in T-80B tank. These are tanks fielded in second half of 1970's.

Also there is designed tank commander cupola PNK-4S for T-64B, that provides him with hunter killer capabilities, he can both designate targets for gunner and also take control over main weapon system. PNK-4S is stabilized in vertical and horizontal axis.

T-80U or T-80UD were comparable to M1A1, Leopard 2 or Challenger 1 in second half of 1980's in every aspect.

There is really no logical reason to conclude that all soviet made tanks were bad, only because WarPac countries or other allies and customers of Soviet Union, recieved downgraded export versions of T-72 or older tanks.

In fact this is very dangerous approach to assume that everything developed there is flawed.

And of course I did not seen here anyone claiming that Soviet tanks are fabulous unbeatable outstanding.

[Eisenschwein]

So you ever try to override your Gunner with this Cupola System ? Good Look!

T 64 and T 72 has a FCS, what kind of ? As far I know they have a ballistic calculator not more.....

[lavictoireestlavie]

Here is some information concerning the T-64A fire control system:

German:

http://www.kotsch88.de/f_t-64.htm

English:

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kotsch88.de%2Ff_t-64.htm

Soviet:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=ru&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kotsch88.de%2Ff_t-64.htm

[Damian90]

So you ever try to override your Gunner with this Cupola System ? Good Look!

This is how it is done with some types of commander cupolas developed in Soviet Union.

There is no reason to not believe it works good.

T 64 and T 72 has a FCS, what kind of ? As far I know they have a ballistic calculator not more.....

It depends about which variant you asks.

Original T-64 did not had real FCS, it had fire control with coincidence rangefinder, ballistic calculator and it was very similiar to what we could find in original T-72.

T-64B however have real fire control system designated 1A33, 1A33 is composed from 3 elements, 1V517 ballistic calculator, 1G21 sight with laser range finder and 1B11 wind sensor.

Gun is stabilized by 2E42 stabilization system. There is also one other component of FCS it is 9K112 guidance system for 9M112 GLATGM.

Of course in following years there were developed modifications for T-64B tank in KMDB, the most advanced i T-64BM "Bulat". It's fire control system is made from several components:

Whole FCS is designated 1A43U "Ros".

Gunner have: main sight complex 1G46M "Promin", ballistic calculator 1V528-1, and stabilization system providing error in 0,3 mrad in vertical plane and 0,4 mrad in horizontal plane. Also gunner is provided with thermal sight system T01-K01ER "Buran-E" with TPN-4SR sight.

Commander have: PNK-4SR "Agat" cupola with combined day/night sight and hunter-killer capabilities.

In such configuration, T-64BM have comparable fire control system to Leopard 2A4.

T-72's received comparable or better fire control system only in two variants, T-72B2 and T-72B3, however as for now I do not have detailed informations about them. Both tanks however have replaced passive/active IR night sight with new combined day/thermal sight "Sosna-U", and old main day sight is used as auxiliary sight right now.

Maybe Jarstev can help, his Russian is definetely superior to my, and he probably knows more.

But it really depends on configuration of each Soviet, Russian or Ukrainian tank we talk about.

And there were so many configuration, many not inducted in to service, that to describe whole work of their engineers, we would need to write several incredibly thick books.

[Eisenschwein]

Thx, but sure I know Stefan Kotsch Side. That´s a very good source.

I had 3 Month of service at PzReg 21 with him in 1991.

[Damian90]

There is also something important to note. T-72 was not the most important and the best Soviet tank.

In fact situation looks like this:

The most progressive design bureau was KB-60M later renamed KMDB. Up to late 1970's to early 1980's it was directed by chief engineer Aleksander A. Morozov. He can be described as a genius. Before WWII he was protege and right hand of Mikhail I. Koshkin a chief engineer of the team that created T-34 tank. After Koshkins death, Morozov become chief engineer and continued his work to improve T-34. In later years he also developed T-43 tank, as well as many other prototype vehicles that are very unknown outside former Soviet Union.

At the end of war he developed T-44 tank and later T-54. The last tank he designed was revolutionary T-64. At that point he left further develoment of T-64 to his proteges, and worked on another revolutionary design codenamed Object 450. However this project was to ambitious for late 1960's and early 1970's.

But Morozov legacy is still well cultivated by KMDB design bureau, they were the ones to develop the best medium and main battle tank in soviet union.

There was also other design bureau UKBTM in Nizhny Tagil. During and after the war their role was to test design of other bureaus, and eventually later work on their modernization.

For example designed in KMDB T-54 was later modernized by UKBTM to T-55 standard.

But UKBTM engineers had more ambitions. In Soviet Union, designing a successfull weapon system, meant many state prizes and privilages.

First opportunity was T-62, a further evolution of T-55. As we know it was not the most successfull design. But the work continued and many new tank prototypes based on T-62 were developed by UKBTM. However all of them were inferior to KMDB's T-64.

Another chance appeared when Soviet MoD ordered UKBTM to develop a variant of KMDB's T-64 with simpler V-45/V-46 engine in place of original 5TDF, that was not mature enough back then and somewhat troublesome.

And originally UKBTM did exactly that, prototype was codenamed Object 172.

However quickly was builded second prototype Object 172M, which had not only different engine, but also redesigned turret, hull, different suspension and autoloader, all were further development of design solutions from earlier evolutions of T-62.

Funny thing is however, that T-72 being less advanced than T-64, also was more expensive in production.

So thanks to UKBTM, now Soviet Union needed to divide funding for two separate tank projects which resulted in two similiar tanks, that had different logistical chains.

But this not the end of this insane story.

There were two another design bureaus, LKZ or Leningrads Kirov Plant design bureau that during WWII was reponsible for heavy tanks, and closely connected to it KBTM design bureau from Omsk.

Here was perfomed another work on gas turbine propelled tanks. Again as base design was choosen T-64. However these times modifications to original design were justified after extensive tests of first prototypes at least. And this is how T-80 was created. However T-80 should not be considered as oridinary MBT, but rather sort of replacement for heavy breakthrough tanks.

Thus we had:

High quality, advanced T-64, high quality and relatively advanced (but not in every aspect compared to T-64) T-80, and lower quality, less advanced T-72 also for foreign customers.

Obviously some people in Soviet Union were angry on that situation, I think I read somewhere that Aleksander Morozov seen such situation as unnaceptable and very problematic for industry.

But, this is only a very simplified description of this incredibly interesting story. It is pity that there is not a good single book in english that would properly, with details describe this story.

[MDF]

But, this is only a very simplified description of this incredibly interesting story. It is pity that there is not a good single book in english that would properly, with details describe this story.

Very true.:cry:

[Tjay]

Many people call me arrogant....

And while that is the case you will never be successful in debate or argument. But you WILL make a lot of enemies. You may indeed know a lot about this subject (I can't judge, it's way over my head) but if so you are doing yourself a disservice with your very aggressive attitude and 'ad hominem' attacks.

[Froggy]

And as this thread has no link with SB, May be it should be moved to the ground zero section?

[Red6]

To moderators, I could not answer in one single post, so sorry for writing one after another.

When Merkava was designed, there were no IED's. Insurgency then was a more classical insurgency than what we know today. And mines were allways the same threat for everyone.

Oh, BTW Merkava Mk4 after IED blast, not especially better result than any other tank.

And against what that engine protected? Modern APFSDS? Modern large calliber ATGM? Or even modern large calliber RPG? Obviously not, most such cases are small obsolete RPG's with low penetration capabilities.

Oh and guess what, from construction point of view, there is no engine at front of driver compartment in M2, M113 or Merkava, it is on his right side.

Stop being childish and open your mind for some knowledge.

Blazer not Blaser. And being fielded first does not make it first designed ERA.

But this is not adult approach to discussion. You are not open minded, neither open to any kind of technical or historical knowledge concerning this topic.

Their tanks are not low quality. In fact one of the first tanks with trully modern fire control system was T-64B fielded in 1976. If equipped with PNK-4S commander cupola, it had even real hunter killer capabilities. This is not low quality.

Their design solutions were not flawed, this is another myth. Their philosophy was different.

And hard to call low tech solution for example 9K112 system with 9M112 missile fired from gun tube. This solution actually worked very well compared to US MGM-51 Shillelagh system.

They were also the first ones to design ERA. The idea of counter explosion protecting vehicle came up in USSR during WWII. However as any new idea it needed some development, and they had problems with their own conservative generals.

From the mid 1960's to 1980 they had superioroty in tanks development.

T-64 was first mass produced tank with composite armor. And when it was fielded it was immune from it's frontal 60 degrees arc to any kind of NATO anti tank weapon.

What's the point, we are discussing tanks, not Somialia bazzars.

But Russians also have working active protection systems fielded in significant numbers.

"Drozd-1" was used en masse in their naval infantry units, because they used mostly older tanks that needed active protection.

TSzU-1-7 "Shtora-1" system is standard issue equipment of Russian T-90 and T-90A tanks as well as some subvariants of T-80U tank.

And there are other systems like "Drozd-2" or "Arena".

Also they are continuing to develop new models of active protection systems for next generation of their vehicles.

Ah, so in your opinion combustible propelant charge cases are also flaw of M1A1/A2, Leopard 2, Leclerc, Challenger 1&2, Merkava and so on and on?

And guess what, T-72 also have fuel tanks inside, and these outside even if they will burn, will not harm the tank itself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v3MZErD4kg

T-72 after firing trails, you can see that outer fuel tanks were hit and didn't harm tank.

Also there were tests with T-80U or T-80UD which were hit in exterior fuel tanks, again it did not harm the tank.

If fuel stays outside, vehicle is perfectly safe.

Oh and you probably don't know that UK, US and Israeli scientific research proved that fuel is very good addon protection.

Leopard 2 also have fuel tanks outisde it's hull installed in overtrack sponsons:

http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/3808/kadubleo2paliwo2.jpg

Yellow shows placement of exterior fuel tanks.

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/1010/abrams00.jpg

M1 tanks use fuel also as additional front hull protection, fuel tanks are placed in their own isolated compartments.

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/2624/challenger2hull.jpg

Challenger 2 also have fuel tanks installed inside it's overtrack sponsons that acts like additional protection.

You want to say that all these tanks are flawed designs? And another surprise, actually many tank designs have similiar design solutions. Oh my, for Red6 they are all flawed designs!

But hey, M113A3 have also external fuel tanks, it is also flawed design? M2 IFV was also planned to have fuel tanks removed from it's interior to external storage box for increased safety and survivability... but probably it was flawed decision? :heu:

UKBTM engineers that created T-72 can be criticized, but not for vehicle survivability, as back then vehicle protection philosophy was to only stop projectile doing harm to crew by using only armor protection.

More advanced approach was researched at KB-60M/KMDB design bureu by Aleksander Morozov and his colegues by projects like Object 450, Object 477 and Object 490.

In late 1980's to 1990's similiar approach was researched at KBTM design bureau with their Object 640 and UKBTM design bureau with their Object 195.

In 1990's through first decade of XXI century, KMDB design bureau also researched safe ammunition storage, creating detachable external ammunition storage and autoloader module for T tanks.

Similiar work was performed in Russian with project of universal turret "Burlak".

A Western MBT with it's ammo, fuel, weapons, commo equipment, power plant, optics etc. is a large vehicle, roughly 12/144 (w) x 31/372 (l) X 9/108 (h) feet/inches. A vehicle this size if it were armored with 18 inches of armor all the way around (a level of armor that would only stop older RPGs, older penetrators at longer distances of 1,600 meters or more) would weigh only 388 tons.

Total armor volume would be: 2,939,328 cubic inches at .2904 pounds per cubic inch = 853,580.8512 US pounds = 387,991.296Kg

Without offering any real protection against modern RPGs, and only marginal protection against APFSDS, you'd have a 388 ton tank, built of very manly steel. If you want to build this tank so it can stop every APFSDS or HEAT round at any range and angle of impact, any mine or IED ever built (IEDs can get very large, into the 500 or even 1000 pounds) out there, the tank would weigh roughly twice that, 776 tons. Yes, with a tank like that, you could drive over the biggest IEDs, and be fine, but I suspect it wouldn't work to well for some reason we still haven't figured out in this forum.

70 tons is about the absolute maximum limit of what a tank can weigh. This figure hasn't changed since WWII with the King Tiger ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II ). It is not without coincidence, that German, US, UK, Israeli etc tank designs generally don't exceed this magical weight limit. There are some special purpose built exceptions, but they are not the norm. Don't waste my time with your Russian WWII BS tanks that were heavier yet. Unless you can miracle your tank over a bridge, or miracle it over the seas on an airplane, or miracle it across a river, miracle it to the shore from a boat, or miracle it down the road on the back of a flatbed (at 70 tons you are already "way" over what is normally allowed), miracle it onto a barge, or miracle it out of the mud once mired, 70 tons is already the outer most limit of what a tank can weigh. To simplify things, we won't even discuss the dimensions of such a vehicle or how small the interior would become when making those trade-offs. Now, let the compromises begin-

Angles, the use of advanced materials, laminates, spaced armor, advanced geometric designs inside the armor, sacrificial design, how a tank handles penetration, and the concept of armoring certain areas of a tank according the to probabilities of hit and the likely specific threat faced (front, vs side, vs. underbelly vs rear vs top) while armoring other areas less, are all compromise solutions. Good armor design includes these tenets to maximize the protection, because the basic limitations of weight and dimensions dictate this be done if you want to have a tank that provides some semblance of protection. A uniform level of armor would actually be a very weak armor all around if you stay within a reasonable weight limit. It doesn't make a tank a bad design to make these compromises, rather it optimizes the characteristics of a vehicles protection based on mutually exclusive variables (armors capabilities vs. weight/dimensions). Now, designing a tank that blows up if hit with an RPG, killing all inside, or designing it to where anyone that can mix together a molotov cocktail can take your tank out, that is bad design, just like the Sherman running on gasoline was a bad design. And yes, quite literally if I were in a city at a TCP or blocking position etc, I would rather sit in an old M60A3 than a T-72. While the M60A3 is surely in a tank on tank battle an inferior tank compared to the newer evolutions of T-72s, in a city where I can get hit from any direction potentially, and the reality is that I am vulnerable, that M60A3 is more survivable (assuming no ADS/ERA on either).

The M1 uses sacrificial armor on the turret rear (ammo bunker), rear of hull (engine), and fuel cells on the side of the driver. I would rather be hit into the rear of the hull by a RPG, than hull side. Though the tank will possibly shut down on me (depending on what gets hit), the crew will be OK. Between the rear armor, and inner hull there is too much "crap" and distance. That jet rapidly loses penetration with distance. As to the fuel cells, they are behind a ballistic skirt, followed by a hollow space, possibly road wheels or track (depending on exactly where hit), an outer hull, and then the plastic fuel cells that are basically in an encased box. They are hard to set afire (no air) even when they are penetrated or if the outside is set afire, and then they are still separated from the crew compartment by another inner hull. Do you see what's happening here? Outer hull, inner hull, and everything flammable and explosive is sandwiched between those and because of that, things that can go boom, or burn can actually add to the protection of the crew. This is different from placing a thin skinned fuel tank that can catch on fire with WP arty, a Molotov cocktail, etc on the rear exposed, or having ammo stored the way it is on a T72. The ammo bunker turret rear of an M1 actually provides protection.

Even vehicles specifically designed to deal with mines and IEDs (MRAP for example) are destroyed by them, but they still provide a much higher degree of protection and statistically are more likely to have the occupants walk away. The Israeli's and South Africans were dealing with a mine and IED threat long ago, while Western Europe and the US were thinking about how to fight an armor on armor battle, on the flat rolling plains of Western Europe (home turf) where a mine and IED threat was limited. The Merkava isn't invincible, but he had a uniformly greater level of underbelly armor compared to Leo and M1, and has a slightly V shaped hull. Furthermore, the drive train components were designed to where repair would be easier and the vehicle can be turned around quicker when it is damaged form an IED/mine. Much of the US mine resistant technology is based on South African designs and this includes the MRAP, Cougar, Buffalo and Husky.

The point in discussing the Balkans, or Somalia was that ATGMs and RPG style weapons are everywhere and advanced ones proliferating. You denied this. Point made, you believe what you want on this as well.

[Assassin 7]

The M1 uses sacrificial armor on the turret rear (ammo bunker), rear of hull (engine), and fuel cells on the side of the driver. I would rather be hit into the rear of the hull by a RPG, than hull side. Though the tank will possibly shut down on me (depending on what gets hit), the crew will be OK. Between the rear armor, and inner hull there is too much "crap" and distance. That jet rapidly loses penetration with distance. As to the fuel cells, they are behind a ballistic skirt, followed by a hollow space, possibly road wheels or track (depending on exactly where hit), an outer hull, and then the plastic fuel cells that are basically in an encased box. They are hard to set afire (no air) even when they are penetrated or if the outside is set afire, and then they are still separated from the crew compartment by another inner hull. Do you see what's happening here? Outer hull, inner hull, and everything flammable and explosive is sandwiched between those and because of that, things that can go boom, or burn can actually add to the protection of the crew. This is different from placing a thin skinned fuel tank that can catch on fire with WP arty, a Molotov cocktail, etc on the rear exposed, or having ammo stored the way it is on a T72. The ammo bunker turret rear of an M1 actually provides protection.

What!!! now I heard it all. Dude just stop while your ahead. Have you ever replaced a fuel cell? have you ever seen inside the front 2 bulkheads going to the fuel cell? Ammo bunker? what the heck are you talking about, must be the hull ammo compartment. The Hull Ammo compartment you have 3 blowout panels 1 on top and 2 on the bottom. The blowout panels are only if those 6 rounds in the hull ignite. do you even know what's is separating the turret basket from the power pack compartment? just a bulkhead that is half an inch and a sound suppressor plate. that's it. You are out of your mind if you would rather be hit in the rear than the front of the tank. As a former tanker "19K" I would rather be hit from the front, like we are trained to fight. Turn our armor towards the enemy. Do you even know what Theory of operations is for the Abrams? Maybe you need to find out and read it.

[Red6]

The M1 uses sacrificial armor on the turret rear (ammo bunker), rear of hull (engine), and fuel cells on the side of the driver. I would rather be hit into the rear of the hull by a RPG, than hull side. Though the tank will possibly shut down on me (depending on what gets hit), the crew will be OK. Between the rear armor, and inner hull there is too much "crap" and distance. That jet rapidly loses penetration with distance. As to the fuel cells, they are behind a ballistic skirt, followed by a hollow space, possibly road wheels or track (depending on exactly where hit), an outer hull, and then the plastic fuel cells that are basically in an encased box. They are hard to set afire (no air) even when they are penetrated or if the outside is set afire, and then they are still separated from the crew compartment by another inner hull. Do you see what's happening here? Outer hull, inner hull, and everything flammable and explosive is sandwiched between those and because of that, things that can go boom, or burn can actually add to the protection of the crew. This is different from placing a thin skinned fuel tank that can catch on fire with WP arty, a Molotov cocktail, etc on the rear exposed, or having ammo stored the way it is on a T72. The ammo bunker turret rear of an M1 actually provides protection.

What!!! now I heard it all. Dude just stop while your ahead. Have you ever replaced a fuel cell? have you ever seen inside the front 2 bulkheads going to the fuel cell? Ammo bunker? what the heck are you talking about, must be the hull ammo compartment. The Hull Ammo compartment you have 3 blowout panels 1 on top and 2 on the bottom. The blowout panels are only if those 6 rounds in the hull ignite. do you even know what's is separating the turret basket from the power pack compartment? just a bulkhead that is half an inch and a sound suppressor plate. that's it. You are out of your mind if you would rather be hit in the rear than the front of the tank. As a former tanker "19K" I would rather be hit from the front, like we are trained to fight. Turn our armor towards the enemy. Do you even know what Theory of operations is for the Abrams? Maybe you need to find out and read it.

Nope- I no little.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Red6

[Assassin 7]

Just a tank I am familiar with, a little bit.

I was talking about the turret rear.

This tank looks familiar are you sure you didn't get these pictures off the internet? Just because you have a picture doesn't mean anything. All this shows is that an abrams got hit with a projectile. Did it go all the way through? were are the inside pictures from this tank?

[Red6]

The M1 uses sacrificial armor on the turret rear (ammo bunker), rear of hull (engine), and fuel cells on the side of the driver. I would rather be hit into the rear of the hull by a RPG, than hull side. Though the tank will possibly shut down on me (depending on what gets hit), the crew will be OK. Between the rear armor, and inner hull there is too much "crap" and distance. That jet rapidly loses penetration with distance. As to the fuel cells, they are behind a ballistic skirt, followed by a hollow space, possibly road wheels or track (depending on exactly where hit), an outer hull, and then the plastic fuel cells that are basically in an encased box. They are hard to set afire (no air) even when they are penetrated or if the outside is set afire, and then they are still separated from the crew compartment by another inner hull. Do you see what's happening here? Outer hull, inner hull, and everything flammable and explosive is sandwiched between those and because of that, things that can go boom, or burn can actually add to the protection of the crew. This is different from placing a thin skinned fuel tank that can catch on fire with WP arty, a Molotov cocktail, etc on the rear exposed, or having ammo stored the way it is on a T72. The ammo bunker turret rear of an M1 actually provides protection.

What!!! now I heard it all. Dude just stop while your ahead. Have you ever replaced a fuel cell? have you ever seen inside the front 2 bulkheads going to the fuel cell? Ammo bunker? what the heck are you talking about, must be the hull ammo compartment. The Hull Ammo compartment you have 3 blowout panels 1 on top and 2 on the bottom. The blowout panels are only if those 6 rounds in the hull ignite. do you even know what's is separating the turret basket from the power pack compartment? just a bulkhead that is half an inch and a sound suppressor plate. that's it. You are out of your mind if you would rather be hit in the rear than the front of the tank. As a former tanker "19K" I would rather be hit from the front, like we are trained to fight. Turn our armor towards the enemy. Do you even know what Theory of operations is for the Abrams? Maybe you need to find out and read it.

Ok-

Edited March 14, 2014 by Red6

[Red6]

This tank looks familiar are you sure you didn't get these pictures off the internet? Just because you have a picture doesn't mean anything. All this shows is that an abrams got hit with a projectile. Did it go all the way through? were are the inside pictures from this tank?

My pics.

Unless you know someone else that was part of RFCT OIF1 and 2 and decided to take pics.

[Red6]

The M1 uses sacrificial armor on the turret rear (ammo bunker), rear of hull (engine), and fuel cells on the side of the driver. I would rather be hit into the rear of the hull by a RPG, than hull side. Though the tank will possibly shut down on me (depending on what gets hit), the crew will be OK. Between the rear armor, and inner hull there is too much "crap" and distance. That jet rapidly loses penetration with distance. As to the fuel cells, they are behind a ballistic skirt, followed by a hollow space, possibly road wheels or track (depending on exactly where hit), an outer hull, and then the plastic fuel cells that are basically in an encased box. They are hard to set afire (no air) even when they are penetrated or if the outside is set afire, and then they are still separated from the crew compartment by another inner hull. Do you see what's happening here? Outer hull, inner hull, and everything flammable and explosive is sandwiched between those and because of that, things that can go boom, or burn can actually add to the protection of the crew. This is different from placing a thin skinned fuel tank that can catch on fire with WP arty, a Molotov cocktail, etc on the rear exposed, or having ammo stored the way it is on a T72. The ammo bunker turret rear of an M1 actually provides protection.

What!!! now I heard it all. Dude just stop while your ahead. Have you ever replaced a fuel cell? have you ever seen inside the front 2 bulkheads going to the fuel cell? Ammo bunker? what the heck are you talking about, must be the hull ammo compartment. The Hull Ammo compartment you have 3 blowout panels 1 on top and 2 on the bottom. The blowout panels are only if those 6 rounds in the hull ignite. do you even know what's is separating the turret basket from the power pack compartment? just a bulkhead that is half an inch and a sound suppressor plate. that's it. You are out of your mind if you would rather be hit in the rear than the front of the tank. As a former tanker "19K" I would rather be hit from the front, like we are trained to fight. Turn our armor towards the enemy. Do you even know what Theory of operations is for the Abrams? Maybe you need to find out and read it.

There is a difference between a mobility kill and a catastrophic kill. Hit in the front you keep fighting and driving, that's ideal.

Yes, you want the front towards the enemy. Can you control everything that the bad guys do? Can you see everything all around you in a city?

The idea of a machine being sacrificial isn't new.

[Assassin 7]

My pics.

Unless you know someone else that was part of RFCT OIF1 and 2 and decided to take pics.

Actually I do know guys that was part of RFCT in OIF 1 and 2. I was part of 3ID 2/69 Armor. We took hits from RPG's to the side of our turrets with no penetration. Did that projectile go through to the crew compartment?

[Assassin 7]

There is a difference between a mobility kill and a catastrophic kill. Hit in the front you keep fighting and driving, that's ideal.

Yes, you want the front towards the enemy. Can you control everything that the bad guys do? Can you see everything all around you in a city?

The idea of a machine being sacrificial isn't new.

No you can't see everything all around you, but as a platoon of 4 tanks we fought off the enemy just as well in a urban environment. I was also deployed back to Ramadi Iraq in 2005, where we fought in a urban environment using M1A1 HA's. So yes you can fight in urban areas with a tank. I did it and so did all the tanker's in my platoon. This is no excuse. If it wasn't for the abrams I wouldn't be here today. here is my picture. This tank rolled in protective mode for 2 miles back to the FOB. My TC and I had concussions and the driver and loader was the only one that could act at that time.

[Red6]

This tank looks familiar are you sure you didn't get these pictures off the internet? Just because you have a picture doesn't mean anything. All this shows is that an abrams got hit with a projectile. Did it go all the way through? were are the inside pictures from this tank?

So, have you found the pic yet on the Internet?

[Red6]

Actually I do know guys that was part of RFCT in OIF 1 and 2. I was part of 3ID 2/69 Armor. We took hits from RPG's to the side of our turrets with no penetration. Did that projectile go through to the crew compartment?

No penetration.

1-37 had a tank in Karbala take 16 hits in April/May 2004.

The point is that the tank uses the concept of sacrificial armor, it's nothing new.

[Assassin 7]

So, have you found the pic yet on the Internet?

Yes on Tanknet

[Red6]

No you can't see everything all around you, but as a platoon of 4 tanks we fought off the enemy just as well in a urban environment. I was also deployed back to Ramadi Iraq in 2005, where we fought in a urban environment using M1A1 HA's. So yes you can fight in urban areas with a tank. I did it and so did all the tanker's in my platoon. This is no excuse. If it wasn't for the abrams I wouldn't be here today. here is my picture. This tank rolled in protective mode for 2 miles back to the FOB. My TC and I had concussions and the driver and loader was the only one that could act at that time.

I guess I'm not that knowledgeable.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Red6