 |
|
M1A1 Abrahams question - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Steel Panthers Series (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=14) +--- Thread: M1A1 Abrahams question (/showthread.php?tid=36428) |
M1A1 Abrahams question - General SP - 08-12-2006 Playing a game against someone in the early 80's. M1A1 in this year is equipped with the 105mm and my counterparts are the T-80's with the 125mm. Unless I am hitting from the rear or side rear the 105 sure cannot penetrate worth crud! Is this why the 120mm was developed. I seem to bounce rounds off like anything. Gary RE: M1A1 Abrahams question - brm_3k - 08-12-2006 The forces involved are unmatched......T80 armour overstated, 105mm penetration understated............. brm_3k RE: M1A1 Abrahams question - Weasel - 08-12-2006 FYI: The 105mm gun could penetrate 300mm of RHA at zero degrees from 1000 meters, the 120mm gun can penetrate 610mm of RHA at 60 degrees from 2000 meters. The 120mm gun is far more leathal, double the armour at double the range with a 60 degree slope! RE: M1A1 Abrahams question - Weasel - 08-12-2006 Futher, here is a site that lists the tank protection level FYI: http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm#1 RE: M1A1 Abrahams question - Grumbler - 08-12-2006 There is a lot involved that just cannot be factored in. For example, in '73, the IDF killed aprox 600 Syrian T-62's. Very few were actually penetrated by the 105 the IDF used. It seems the T-62 had the Fuel tank behind the front armor. Deisel, which would detonate from being compressed by the shock wave of the 105 round. That would send the inner bulkhead flying back into the crew compartment in a sort of spalling. So sortly after being turned into mince meat, the crew would be fried by the hydraulic fluids, unless of course some of the ready rounds detonate, blowing the turret off and spreading the recently minced crew all over the place. Technically, the Hull wasn't penetrated. Dupuy had a chapter on the flaws in Soviet Tank Designs in his "Arab Israeli Wars". So there is more to it then just x penetration vs y armor. In 'Brazen Chariots' Crisp tells about having his Stuart hit in the turret front by a 50L60 ATG at less then 100 meters. The round went thru the turret. In the front and out the back. Murphy can be kind as well as cruel. The Soviets built the T-72 for the express purpose of killing the M-70, which was never produced. They had the plans for the M-70, courtesy of one of our NATO 'allies'. When the Abrams was built, the Soviets didn't have a blueprint to work from, so they had to wing it. Winging it isn't what Socialism is about. Keep in mind too that the congresscritters of that time called the Abrams a boondoggle, waste of taxpayers funds and a 'pork barrel' program. Military 'experts' said the M1 was no improvement over the M-60, and considering the combat range, not near the Tank the M-60 was. So maybe the Soviets bought into that and figured an Engine upgrade to the T-72 was all that was really needed. IIRC, unit cost on the M1 was about 1.7 mill, compared to a brand new M-60 at about 200K. Of course, when the M-60's were upgraded to TTS with the computers and thermal targeting systems, it added about 750K to the cost. So the M1 was actually a deal. Adding the 120 and the DU armor turned into the worlds uberpanzer. Which is Priceless. RE: M1A1 Abrahams question - Duncan - 08-14-2006 Is reactive armour being modelled perhaps? RE:��M1A1 Abrahams question - brm_3k - 08-14-2006 Duncan Wrote:Is reactive armour being modelled perhaps? ERA started on the T80BV in the mid not early eighties. Alex |
){kind=link}