Future succesor to M1 Abrams ?

[Raptor 597]

I'd say use the lighter vehicles like the M-5 in WW2 as group attacks and flank speed attacks.

[Howedar]

The M1A2 is the ultimate tank. Yes it heavy but its fast. It has the world's best armor and survivbility rate. To knock it out you have to attack the tracks, get to within 800meters with a 135mm gun, or score a hit on its engine compartment or underside with a AT-2 or AT-3. Notice i didnt say RPG. The RPG is basically a hand grenade attached to a rocket. It will not penatrate an M2 let alone the Depleted uranium armor of the M1.

Light tanks are fesable to be used in conjuntion with a heavy tank or as support to light infantry units such as the 82nd which deployed the sheridan untill the cuts of the 90s. Light tanks take casualties. They are fine if you expect to overwhelm your oppents as in WW2 with the sherman but not if you have geared you military to be a smaller harder hitting force.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. The M1 is a fine tank, quite possibly the best in the world, but its not a Bolo.

[phongn]

The M1A2 is the ultimate tank. Yes it heavy but its fast. It has the world's best armor and survivbility rate.

Both the Challenger 2 and Leopard 2A6 have better armor than the M1A2 SEP.

To knock it out you have to attack the tracks, get to within 800meters with a 135mm gun, or score a hit on its engine compartment or underside with a AT-2 or AT-3.

Who fields a 135mm gun on a tank? For that matter, there are plenty of ATMs that can take it out.

Notice i didnt say RPG. The RPG is basically a hand grenade attached to a rocket. It will not penatrate an M2 let alone the Depleted uranium armor of the M1.

They most certainly are not merely hand grenades attatched to rockets. Weak RPG-7s won't do much, but there are much more powerful varients.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Why do seem to need to be pushing our Army towards super, rapid deployment? In all the recent major conflicts, we have set the tone and timing for the fight. So what if it takes months to get into position to fight?
What good would it do, to rush lightly armored tanks into battle just to fight an enemy that has big, heavy MBT's? Im not saying I dont agree with lighter, more mobile forces, but Im throwing out these questions for discussion. Our we trying to create a new weapon platform for a style of fighting we are not going to engage in anyway?

[Hasler]

First of all 135 was supose to be 125mm on the T-72
Second I have more than a clue of what im talking about. The M1A2 Abrams Main battle tank has depleted uranium armor that is superior to the cobham and reactive armor feilded by the challenger and Leapord. Its armor is rated equal to 21 inches of steel at its thinnest part on the top of the turret.
As for the anti tank missiles First you have to score a hit on the vulnerable portions of the tank Engine compartment Wheel base, or turret hull connection. Second you have to use a large anti-missile as i stated before AT-2, AT-3, Tow, or Tow2. The dragon will not cut it neither will any RPG derivative.

As for the survivability no M1 crew members have been killed in their tank as a result of enemy fire. 16 have been knocked out since being deployed 8 were repaied. half the losses were due to mines one fell in a river when the bridge it was on colapsed the rest were hit by Anti Tank missiles. 3rd ID lost 2 in the sand storms one fell in a ditch and was hit on its underside the other was hit at close range by a Truck mounted AT-3. The others were lost in the area around baghdad
unfortunatly i dont know the specifics of those losses. I watch M1 info closely since Armor is my first choice when i get my commission in two years.

[RedImperator]

The idea is, I suppose, that you might as well go with light because antitank weapons are getting so powerful they can punch through any MBT you throw at them, so you might as well stick a big gun on something light and fast and use your technological edge to kill the big, lumbering enemy MBTs before they can even get in firing range. I get the concept, but I doubt I'll be completely sold on it until someone proves that it works (I guess I'm not the only one thinking of battlecruisers here).

[Hasler]

but the fact is the m1 is very fast. If you pop the governor which most crews do in combat the tank goes 55mph. Even the tow 2 has to get a good hit to knock an m1 out. In the open it just is not going to happen. I said before the new light tank would be good to use in conjuntion with but not as a replacement for the M1. It would be perfect to fill the role the sheridan had before it was discontinued. Im sure the Airborne would be glad to get a tank again.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

First of all 135 was supose to be 125mm on the T-72

Fine. But you should know that due to ammunition, Russian 125mm guns have somewhat inferior penetration than 120mm guns firing Western ammo. And the Iraqis (which is all you've been facing so far) probably don't even have the newest rounds.

Second I have more than a clue of what im talking about. The M1A2 Abrams Main battle tank has depleted uranium armor that is superior to the cobham and reactive armor feilded by the challenger and Leapord. Its armor is rated equal to 21 inches of steel at its thinnest part on the top of the turret.

You are obviously a redshirt, because someone would soon tell you that Technology Caste is less important than final performance in this discussion board. DU is good tank armor, but it can be compensated for by, for instance, a greater thickness of even cheap steel armor.

Of course, any current non-classified estimates are ... limited in accuracy by the fact the real numbers are classified. But if you take common consensus AFAIK, the M1A2SEP is at best roughly comparable to Challenger II and 2A6 (they all rate over 900mm vs KE at their thickest.)

If you got some classified numbers to make your assertion (seeing you claim to be training to be an officer) that's fine. But we won't know about them, and you still cannot just claim a tank's armor is the best on the sole basis it has System A and everybody else doesn't.

As for the anti tank missiles First you have to score a hit on the vulnerable portions of the tank Engine compartment Wheel base, or turret hull connection. Second you have to use a large anti-missile as i stated before AT-2, AT-3, Tow, or Tow2. The dragon will not cut it neither will any RPG derivative.

AFAIK, you really shouldn't put missiles like the AT-2 and the AT-3 in the same SENTENCE as the TOW series. The average Fleyter and Malyutka are 1960s weapons that penetrate maybe 400mm of armor on a good day. They were both originally MCLOS weapons

The TOWs are newer generation weapons, capable of punching through well over IIRC 800mm of armor.

If you want Soviet weapons that can be put in the same sentence as an early TOW, try at least a Konkurs. For a later TOW, try comparing it to the Kornet or Khrizantema.)

The Dragon ain't too great an ATGM, but when put up against the Malyutka, it ain't that bad.

And some modern RPGs actually has the AT-3 beat when it comes to penetrative ability.

As for the survivability no M1 crew members have been killed in their tank as a result of enemy fire. 16 have been knocked out since being deployed 8 were repaied. half the losses were due to mines one fell in a river when the bridge it was on colapsed the rest were hit by Anti Tank missiles. 3rd ID lost 2 in the sand storms one fell in a ditch and was hit on its underside the other was hit at close range by a Truck mounted AT-3. The others were lost in the area around baghdad

Translation, your best actual combat evidence that the M1A2 is the toughest tank in the world comes from being hit by second rate weapons

[Hasler]

Basically the 3 inches on the top of the tank have the same stopping power as 21 inches of steel. The front of the tank is said to be 3-4 ft thick by the tankers that ive talked to but i cant confirm.
The M1 has taken a heat round to the side of its turret from under 1000 yards and survived that is a big hit regardless. The only round with any chance is a DU KE round. With that round you still have to get too close under 1800 yards and hit it in a vulnerable spot the front of the tank is just too well armored. You always have the chance for the lucky under the turret hit. That will kill it but other than that you have to try for the side of the turret.
As for the Armor the DU is the best. Cobham has DU in it but it is a laminant compound. Laminant steel with ceramic and a DU mesh. Reactive works wonders against HEAT but it dosent do much for the KE. The DU handles both just by virtue of its density.
I know for a fact that the M1 will stop a first generation TOW Ive seen the footage. The Army tested the Armor against every AT missile they could find durring dev and the armor held. Yes a Tow 2 is a bitch and a side or rear hit will knock it out as well as a top down hit but for that to happen the tank will have to moving slow and stright. It will most likely impact on the sloped part of the turret and will hurt if it hits any where but the front.

By the way nice attempt at a little destraction by commenting on the fact that ive only been on this board for a short time therfor assuming my experience must be equal to the time ive been on the board and neglecting to realize that i may have been around military equiptment all my life, I have been inside an M1, and I personally know tankers. Fun little inside tidbits like this lets me laugh at publications like janes for their increadible inacuracy.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

I could say more, but you are really on a red-herring.

You failed to answer any of the points. Your basic claim was that the M1A2SEP was the best armored tank in the world. To back it up, all you did was mention DU as if was a sure-fire winner, then your only real life examples were them standing up to second-rate weapons (AT-2? AT-3? Russian antitank rounds probably made in the seventies? And are you sure the Leopard II and Challenger can't do the same?)

When I pointed it out to you, you ignored my points and merely reiterated the toughness of the M1A2SEP. Cute little tidbits, but nothing really surprising.

We all know the M1A2SEP is very tough. But all the knowledge you've demonstrated so far about the Leopard 2A6 and the Challenger II is you know they don't use DU armor and the M1A2 does. You may have more, but you sure ain't showing it.

Your only claim that can even attempt to show M1A2 > 2A6 and Challenger is that it has DU armor. I pointed out that was a fallacy.

To show how it is a fallacy, think of it this way in the Extreme - all else being equal, what would you prefer:
1) 10mm of DU armor
2) 1000mm of RHA armor.

Hopefully, I've demonstrated how DU is no instant winner, though it might well be the best armor. You should look at the overall system. Suppose, for instance, the Challenger II's armor is a LOT thicker. Would that compensate for the lack of DU? It might, you know.

Thus you can't expect to win just by pointing out the M1A2 uses DU. The whole world knows that, and when the common consensus and best guesses of the outside world were made, they DID take that into account!

The M1A2SEP may well be the best tank in the world. May well be the best armored, but the methods you used are fallacious.

[phongn]

Basically the 3 inches on the top of the tank have the same stopping power as 21 inches of steel. The front of the tank is said to be 3-4 ft thick by the tankers that ive talked to but i cant confirm.

The top armor is highly unlikely to be as strong as 21in RHA. I'd like to see a source. As for frontal armor, that's about accurate (in RHA-equivilance).

The M1 has taken a heat round to the side of its turret from under 1000 yards and survived that is a big hit regardless.

What type of rounds? Cheap Iraqi HEAT rounds that no modern military would use? No-one's saying the M1A2 is poorly armored, but you're giving a bunch of unsubstantiated claims.

The only round with any chance is a DU KE round. With that round you still have to get too close under 1800 yards and hit it in a vulnerable spot the front of the tank is just too well armored.

You can indeed penetrate the frontal armor, it's just difficult.

As for the Armor the DU is the best. Cobham has DU in it but it is a laminant compound. Laminant steel with ceramic and a DU mesh. Reactive works wonders against HEAT but it dosent do much for the KE. The DU handles both just by virtue of its density.

No, Chobbam does not have DU in it. It is merely a trade name for a particular British-designed composite armor scheme. The US Army added a DU mesh later to improve performance against KE penetrators. Later varients of Chobbam included DU in it. IIRC, the C2 uses that.

I know for a fact that the M1 will stop a first generation TOW Ive seen the footage. The Army tested the Armor against every AT missile they could find durring dev and the armor held.

You would have a source?

Yes a Tow 2 is a bitch and a side or rear hit will knock it out as well as a top down hit but for that to happen the tank will have to moving slow and stright. It will most likely impact on the sloped part of the turret and will hurt if it hits any where but the front.

Which, of course, is why the US Army uses the TOW-2B more, which is a top-attack warhead. Javelin is also a top-attack munition, IIRC.

By the way nice attempt at a little destraction by commenting on the fact that ive only been on this board for a short time therfor assuming my experience must be equal to the time ive been on the board and neglecting to realize that i may have been around military equiptment all my life, I have been inside an M1, and I personally know tankers.

That is meaningless. People here know tankers too.

Fun little inside tidbits like this lets me laugh at publications like janes for their increadible inacuracy.

Nowhere did we reference Jane's, whose inaccuracy is known on this board.

[phongn]

The idea is, I suppose, that you might as well go with light because antitank weapons are getting so powerful they can punch through any MBT you throw at them, so you might as well stick a big gun on something light and fast and use your technological edge to kill the big, lumbering enemy MBTs before they can even get in firing range. I get the concept, but I doubt I'll be completely sold on it until someone proves that it works (I guess I'm not the only one thinking of battlecruisers here).

Rather than think battlecruisers, think what happened to the world navies after WW2 - armor swiftly disappeared because you could not armor a ship to withstand the various threats they had to handle.

[phongn]

First of all 135 was supose to be 125mm on the T-72
Second I have more than a clue of what im talking about. The M1A2 Abrams Main battle tank has depleted uranium armor that is superior to the cobham and reactive armor feilded by the challenger and Leapord. Its armor is rated equal to 21 inches of steel at its thinnest part on the top of the turret.

I've seen numbers putting both the C2 and L2A6 with thicker frontal armor than the M1A2 SEP. All have excellent protection, of course.

As for the anti tank missiles First you have to score a hit on the vulnerable portions of the tank Engine compartment Wheel base, or turret hull connection. Second you have to use a large anti-missile as i stated before AT-2, AT-3, Tow, or Tow2. The dragon will not cut it neither will any RPG derivative.

Or you use a modern top-attack warhead. Or a modern frontal-attack warhead. TOW-2A is somewhat old by now, and AT-2 and AT-3 are very old.

As for the survivability no M1 crew members have been killed in their tank as a result of enemy fire. 16 have been knocked out since being deployed 8 were repaied. half the losses were due to mines one fell in a river when the bridge it was on colapsed the rest were hit by Anti Tank missiles. 3rd ID lost 2 in the sand storms one fell in a ditch and was hit on its underside the other was hit at close range by a Truck mounted AT-3. The others were lost in the area around baghdad

We are informed about M1 losses. They are indeed quite survivable, but not the end-all be-all of armor weight.

unfortunatly i dont know the specifics of those losses. I watch M1 info closely since Armor is my first choice when i get my commission in two years.

Attending West Point?

[Sea Skimmer]

Basically the 3 inches on the top of the tank have the same stopping power as 21 inches of steel.

That's both impossible and untrue. The top armor of the M1 is RHA steel and a couple inches thick, it wont stop anything much bigger then a cluster bomblets shaped charge.

The front of the tank is said to be 3-4 ft thick by the tankers that ive talked to but i cant confirm.

Looks more like two feet last time I climbed on one, but that was an M1A1.

The M1 has taken a heat round to the side of its turret from under 1000 yards and survived that is a big hit regardless.

The M1 series is very hard to destroy; however knocking one out of action from the flank is easy, anything from an RPG-7 on up will do it. You can do that without it bursting into flames or exploding and its happened quite a few times.

The only round with any chance is a DU KE round. With that round you still have to get too close under 1800 yards and hit it in a vulnerable spot the front of the tank is just too well armored.

Or you can use any one of a dozen top attack and overfly top attack anti tank missiles.

You always have the chance for the lucky under the turret hit. That will kill it but other than that you have to try for the side of the turret. As for the Armor the DU is the best. Cobham has DU in it but it is a laminant compound. Laminant steel with ceramic and a DU mesh. Reactive works wonders against HEAT but it dosent do much for the KE. The DU handles both just by virtue of its density.

Actually heavy reactive armor will snap a long rod penatraitor in half, effectively making the frontal arc of any MBT built in the past couple decades immune to them

I know for a fact that the M1 will stop a first generation TOW Ive seen the footage. The Army tested the Armor against every AT missile they could find durring dev and the armor held.

Anti tank missiles have come a long way since the late 70's. The first generation TOW has maybe half the power of the current direct attack versions for example.

Yes a Tow 2 is a bitch and a side or rear hit will knock it out as well as a top down hit but for that to happen the tank will have to moving slow and stright. It will most likely impact on the sloped part of the turret and will hurt if it hits any where but the front.

Unless its a TOW-2B, which will knock out an M1 quite easily even from the front. The roof cannot defeat explosively forged penatraitors.

By the way nice attempt at a little destraction by commenting on the fact that ive only been on this board for a short time therfor assuming my experience must be equal to the time ive been on the board and neglecting to realize that i may have been around military equiptment all my life, I have been inside an M1, and I personally know tankers. Fun little inside tidbits like this lets me laugh at publications like janes for their increadible inacuracy.

Nice appeal to authority.

[Sea Skimmer]

No, Chobbam does not have DU in it. It is merely a trade name for a particular British-designed composite armor scheme. The US Army added a DU mesh later to improve performance against KE penetrators. Later varients of Chobbam included DU in it. IIRC, the C2 uses that.

Dorchester has DU in it, British government admitted it a year or two ago.

Which, of course, is why the US Army uses the TOW-2B more, which is a top-attack warhead. Javelin is also a top-attack munition, IIRC.

TOW-2B uses over flight top attack, and fires two explosively forged penatraitor downward into the target. Javelin uses a conventional shaped charge, but arcs upward and dives into the roof. It can be switched to a level flight path to hit targets under cover.

[Hasler]

Well i thought i gave enough info to answer your point. The DU armor which is up to 4 ft thick in places is several times as dense as the armor used in the challenger and leapord. That means to have the same protection aforded to the M1 they would have to have armor that was several times thicker. I was assuming that you realized my pointing out the density differance was to make the point that even with slightly thicker Cobham or Reactive the Armor of the M1 is superior. Yes i would take 1000cm over 10 but that large of a differance is not the point.

I will admit i was wrong when I said AT-3s hit M1 i went back and found the Article and it was AT-14s . Once again and RPG-7 will not hurt a MBT.

The Top of the Turret is DU. If you want to see the tow hit watch any tank documentary that includes the dev project of cobham and DU ive seen the footage in at least 3 documentaries.

[RedImperator]

The idea is, I suppose, that you might as well go with light because antitank weapons are getting so powerful they can punch through any MBT you throw at them, so you might as well stick a big gun on something light and fast and use your technological edge to kill the big, lumbering enemy MBTs before they can even get in firing range. I get the concept, but I doubt I'll be completely sold on it until someone proves that it works (I guess I'm not the only one thinking of battlecruisers here).

Rather than think battlecruisers, think what happened to the world navies after WW2 - armor swiftly disappeared because you could not armor a ship to withstand the various threats they had to handle.

Ah, well, see, that's the way PROPONENTS of FCS are thinking.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

I can easily buy a M1 defending successfully against a TOW-1. You don't need to prove that one to me.

I can even buy the M1A2SEP defending successfully against a Kornet if it was a frontal hit (Hell, tests showed even a T-90 with K-5 ERA could do it 100%.) Though if it was an article, I sure would like to read it for myself. I could buy it happening - the estimated CE penetration of Kornet is 1200mm or so and the estimate CE protection of the M1A2 is over 1300mm. I'd be skeptical if that was a side hit, but hey, it could be a deflection thing too (a glancing blow always makes the armor look stronger.)

An RPG-7 probably won't hurt the M1A2 from the front, but there are many variants of the RPG-7, and IIRC they are up to about RPG-29 now.

AFAIK, the M1A2 has DU armor in it, but it is not a SOLID block of DU. It is more like a sheet in the middle. It is still mostly Chobham or other composite. Thus all the Leopard II and Challenger has to do is win over that thin sheet in the middle with extra armor, better Chobham variant or better layout. They don't have to win over your whole 3-4 feet.

I gave you that extreme scenario to show the basic fallacy of your "kill-all DU" strategy. Sure, if both have roughly the same thickness, DU can easily give it the advantage, but now you'd have to prove that there is enough DU in that plate to give it the immense advantage you wanted over other armor.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

The top armor is highly unlikely to be as strong as 21in RHA. I'd like to see a source. As for frontal armor, that's about accurate (in RHA-equivilance).

3 inch at an 80 degree sloped angle can be worth 17 inches by itself. Maybe it is sloped, and it is not plain steel, it might be 21inch RHA equivalent from a frontal attack (high deflection.)

[Howedar]

The DU armor which is up to 4 ft thick in places

LOL! Equivilent to several feet of RHA, maybe.

Sure as fuck there isn't even armor a foot or two thick on the M1.

[Sarevok]

The idea is, I suppose, that you might as well go with light because antitank weapons are getting so powerful they can punch through any MBT you throw at them, so you might as well stick a big gun on something light and fast and use your technological edge to kill the big, lumbering enemy MBTs before they can even get in firing range. I get the concept, but I doubt I'll be completely sold on it until someone proves that it works (I guess I'm not the only one thinking of battlecruisers here).

How about missile tanks ? They can have moderate armor combined with good speed and would weigh no more than LAVs. Missiles can kill any tank so it may be prudent to replace the huge massive main guns with missile launchers. I do not know much about tanks so this is just wishful thinking, I would like the opinion of more well versed experts on armoured combat on the topic.