Abrams armor question

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Question RE:Abrams armor question 10/11/2003 10:02:11 AM

BUMP.Also got another question : Would a DU plating between 2 steel plates,with composite armor "on top" of it,AND a heavy reactive armor box bolted on it severly degreade performance of HEAT or APFSDS DU rounds?

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:Abrams armor question 10/11/2003 12:59:17 PM

DU is part of the composite armor matrix, but I don't think you could really describe the M1 as being armored with a sheet of DU between two sheets of steel. On the other hand, precise composition of armor matrices on western tanks is pretty much a state secret for the respective states involved, which makes discussing the particulars rather difficult. That said, M1 armor, without adding reactive armor, has proved extremely resistant to both sabot and HEAT rounds. Ditto the Challenger and, presumably, other western tanks using Chobham/composite sort of armor. The effectiveness of this sort of armor against enemy fire is such that western tanks don't bother with ERA -- even, if I am not mistaken, the Merkava, which is the most protection-centric western tank out there.

Quote Reply

Dancing Johnny RE:Abrams armor question 10/11/2003 7:30:55 PM

With the composite armor of western tanks you don't need reactive armor. I believe there's some sort of ceramic mixed in the armor that is impervious to HEAT rounds. Plus the reactive type armor can be dangerous to nearby troops. It's only good on older tanks with plain steel armor that have no other HEAT protection.

Quote Reply

TankboiKelarius RE:Abrams armor question 10/13/2003 12:09:02 AM

an M1A1 has aproximatly 60% of its surface area covered in Chobam armor, and by no means is Chobam impervious to enemy fire. The frontal armor is 10' thick which is sufficient to stop just about anything thrown at it, while the sides are typically 4-7' thick, depending on where you look at. the sides, top, and rear are still vulnerable to high-end AT weapons, but is still pretty much impervious to RPG fire. The same is true of all western tanks with the possible exception of the MK4

Quote Reply

Question RE:Abrams armor question 10/13/2003 1:02:55 AM

Is there DU in the sides/rear?

Quote Reply

MikkoLn RE:Abrams armor question 10/13/2003 2:47:05 AM

I think this has been discussed through many times before, but I'd still and again like to add that due to the excellent performance against totally obsolent at-measures M1 has achieved unrealistic status of being impossible to destroy. Chobham was, and still is, a great achievement in armour design. Anyhow modern at projectiles and even HEAT-based ATGM's can achieve sufficient performance to guarantee side penetration against tanks like M1 and grant them some degree of possibility to gain also frontal penetrations. And even non-penetrating hits can easily hurt MBT's to greatly decrease their effectiveness by damaging vulnerable and vital components of FC or suspension.

Quote Reply

oldbutnotwise RE:Abrams armor question 10/13/2003 6:42:52 AM

A challenger 1 survived hits from close range by both penatrator and heat rounds during a blue on blue incident in gw1, bearing in mind the superior performance of the 120mm L55 gun, it is likely that it would have suffered less damage from a 125mm as fitted to the lastest T tanks

Quote Reply

B.Smitty RE:Abrams armor question 10/13/2003 7:49:52 PM

The M1 is definitely NOT impenetrable. IIRC, a LOSAT test took the turret off an M1. Also, nowadays, weapons like Javelin, Spike and TOW 2B circumvent the heavy frontal armor.

Quote Reply

Final Historian RE:Abrams armor question 10/13/2003 11:54:21 PM

As I understand it, a new generation of Chobam is in development. I will see if I can find anything out about it.