Abrams armor question

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

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4

lquam RE:Abrams armor question 3/9/2004 7:29:52 PM

"The armor in the skirts is even more highly classified. If that armor is breached every soldier who may have seen the breach must be detained until debrief by special intelligence teams can be done." It's bowling shirts man. Rayon, '50s bowling shirts. Impervious to washing machines and HEAT rounds. They're dug out of landfills where they refuse to decompose. Those bowling shirts will be around long after are cities have fallen and roaches rule the planet. --Len

Quote Reply

mike_golf RE:Abrams armor question 3/9/2004 7:56:27 PM

lquam wrote: "It's bowling shirts man. Rayon, '50s bowling shirts." I was laughing pretty hard when I read this. You might be right too. Those things are pretty scary. I remember my dad wearing his for his "bowling league", which I suspect was his excuse to get out and drink beer with the other sergeants without getting in trouble with mom! If they could stand up to hotdogs loaded with every condiment known to man and cheap beer at the bowling alley I'm pretty sure they could stand up to a HEAT round!

Quote Reply

gezza RE:Abrams armor question 7/6/2004 8:24:41 PM

DU armour provides a backing plate function only (although this is useful). Having a tungsten carbide backing plate is around 83% as effective (which the Australian version is set to have)and reduces the weight by a good couple of tonnes or so. Turret wise, Im hopeing that the M-1A1 has some kind of composite armour on the turret sides. I saw a pic during the Iraq offensive which seemed to show a non-critical shot to the right turret flank and the commanders hatch which was just above it wasn't blown out, so that looked promising. I know there's a weight issue with armouring up the hull sides but I would find it a little silly to design an MBT that has nothing short of excellent frontal armour (which the M-1A1 and above most certainly has) and yet having it so that the commander,gunner and/or loader can easily have there heads/torsoe vapourised by a shaped charge RPG through the side of the turret.

Quote Reply

PuckaMan RE:Abrams armor question 7/6/2004 8:57:47 PM

The Abrmas is also probably the most crew survivable tank out there at the moment (the C2 may be too), the Austalian selection of the Abrams was base heavily on crew survivablity - the armoured blast door for the ammo compartment is a damn sight better than the Leo 2, which is open magazine likee the Leo1. That reason, as well as network centric capable and great package price helped swing the deal in favour of the mighty beast. Pucka

Quote Reply

mike_golf RE:Abrams armor question - gezza 7/6/2004 11:17:05 PM

gezza wrote: "DU armour provides a backing plate function only (although this is useful)." Since the composition, design, functionality and effectiveness of DU armor is highly classified please provide a credible source for this statement. I believe I am the only person on this board today who can say that he has ever had the appropriate clearance and need to know to have detailed knowledge leading to be able to make statements like this, and due to laws and non-disclosure agreements I will only talk about common public knowledge.

Quote Reply

oldbutnotwise RE:Abrams armor question - gezza 7/7/2004 8:42:09 AM

Mike, I have heard unofficially that an agreement has been signed to allow the US to manufacture the lastest generation Chobbam, have you heard anything?

Quote Reply

lightningtest RE:Public M1A1 Peneration Pics in AAR by 2/70 Armor Battalion, 1 AD 7/7/2004 9:50:55 AM

If you havn't already - see this sites galley page - Mystery Missile Solved Pics show results of "RPG-X" jet which penerated skirt, hull wall, turret ring and burried itself in far side hull wall. The side skirt clearly did not significantly disrupt the jet. Have later versions of the M1 got much better skirt armour and/or has this particular type of RPG done something not commonly expected by those who are in the know? Is it more likely an American made weapon has done this?

Quote Reply

MikkoLn RE:Public M1A1 Peneration Pics in AAR by 2/70 Armor Battalion, 1 AD 7/7/2004 1:59:53 PM

What the warhead has done isn't something that I'm surprised of. And most of those I've talked about aren't either. If the projectile is - what it's at this particular case has with most certainity been - newer generation than basic RPG-7, these kind of penetrations might not be unlikely to occur. But like this particular case, if I recall right, the major hindrance of these hand held weapons is that there wouldn't necessarily be major damage, and the tank can easily remain totally combat capable. Making up the needed penetration performance isn't very hard and all the major world players have that knowledge and equipment. Making up needed damage inflicting performance, power beyond penetration, is however very difficult and none have solved that problem efficiently yet (heavier weapons might be limited solution, but they haven't been used widely yet). That is a big difference between ATGM's and small portable at (of course light weapons seem to be generally also much more unpredictable by their performance and can't reach their optimal figures at the scale most ATGM's). And also one of the things why all light at-assets should rely on multiple and well directed fire on single target whatever the ordnance.

Quote Reply

mike_golf RE:Abrams armor question - gezza 7/7/2004 3:08:50 PM

I have heard the same thing unofficially. I would say that the unofficial/public information doesn't surprise me. Not sure what it will mean long term though. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4