Abrams Tank
FO Seaman
Active member
Padre said:
Like where? The engine on any tank is a weak spot, the roof on any tank is a weak spot, the underbelly on every tank is weak.
No Abrams has been totally taken out, maybe damaged or disabled but not destroyed.
They claim that the left side of the turret is weak, but thats only because the NBC system takes up some room in the armor. It's just as thick and protecting.
I give you a few reasons why your military might have picked the Abrams,
Speed: 45MPH (Governed)
Top Speed: 60MPH (Not Governed)
Engine: Avco-Lycoming AGT 1500HP Multi-Fuel Turbine
Acceleration (0-20MPH): 7 seconds
Power to Weight Ratio: 25HP/Ton
Cruising Range: 375 miles
Main Armerment: M256 120mm Smoothbore
Main Armerements Range: 2.8 miles
Secondary Amerments:M240 7.62mm coaxial, M240 7.62mm on skate mount, M2 .50cal on skate mount
Armor: Chobham with Depleted Uranium
Fuel Capacity: 498 gal
TIS: 2nd Generation FLIR
Quoting from www.globalsecurity.org
masterblaster
Active member
M-1
the only weak spot that I have heard of is the exhaust pipes. If an RPG hits the end of the pipe and slides up it before it blows, you can destroy the engine. The ammo has blow out plates so it the ammo burns, the gas is not exhausted into the turret, therefore the crew is uninjured. This happened a few times, In Iraq this time, the worst trouble has been tanks sliding into canals and sinking. the only tank lost in the first gulf war was the crew's fault. The m-1 pulled up besides a burning Iraqi tank and the thing blew up setting our tank on fire. dumb.
the only weak spot that I have heard of is the exhaust pipes. If an RPG hits the end of the pipe and slides up it before it blows, you can destroy the engine. The ammo has blow out plates so it the ammo burns, the gas is not exhausted into the turret, therefore the crew is uninjured. This happened a few times, In Iraq this time, the worst trouble has been tanks sliding into canals and sinking. the only tank lost in the first gulf war was the crew's fault. The m-1 pulled up besides a burning Iraqi tank and the thing blew up setting our tank on fire. dumb.
FO Seaman
Active member
Re: M-1
Nope. Nine where destroyed, all by mines. The M1 has an armored ammo stowage compartment with blow-off panels in the rear of the turret, the ammo is ejected out of the tank, and the explosion is vented, a Halon system is then activated to extingish any remaining fires.
Now I don't know where you got the exhaust pipes from, the M1 doesn't have pipes, it has a grill. I don't think any U.S. tank has had exhaust pipes, they usually have exhaust vent grills.
masterblaster said:
Nope. Nine where destroyed, all by mines. The M1 has an armored ammo stowage compartment with blow-off panels in the rear of the turret, the ammo is ejected out of the tank, and the explosion is vented, a Halon system is then activated to extingish any remaining fires.
Now I don't know where you got the exhaust pipes from, the M1 doesn't have pipes, it has a grill. I don't think any U.S. tank has had exhaust pipes, they usually have exhaust vent grills.
Missileer
Active member
I'm still repairing a few CITV Gen 1 systems so there are a lot still in the field. The Marines have quite a few Gen 1s in their M1 s. I don't think there is enough improvement in the display to justify the cost of converting to Gen 2. Plus Gen 1 is more hardened than 2. But to the point, if there were many weak spots, there would have been more killed than has been.
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
The Abrams is good but value for the money I am surprised that Aus did not follow India's lead with purchasing the T-90. As of yet there is still no ATGM capability for the Abrams and its a tad more expensive. I am sure this purchase was more than nominally influenced by political pressure to help prop economies up amongst allies. Nothing wrong in that I suppose. I would like to see the T-90 get battle tested so there can be a better source of comparison between it and its American brother.
Whispering Death
Active member
I like the abrams a lot but I like the Challenger 2 the best.
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
CadSea, I was talking about the ATGM system, not the defenses. The Russians use it for variety of options. What if you don't have LOS? Then that 2.6 mile range is pretty useless. It gives you one more tool for your three man crew to dismantle the enemy. Nothing wrong with one more tool eh? Its like saying, nah, I don't need any grenades this M4A1 carbine has a longer range and I'm dead on with it mate. It won't hurt, it can only help.
FULLMETALJACKET
MilForum Bad Apple
its funny me and a few friends were discussing this tank just the other day and with a history teacher that served in the army, tanks are becoming obselete, a helicopter can take a tank out with out the tank even seeing it...
mmarsh
Active member
Cadet Seamen
I seem to remember that a Abrams was destroyed by a wire guided AT missile (thought to be an AT-6) fired from the back of a technical about 1 mile away, hitting the tank on the right side. This was back in 2003 in the advance toward Baghdad.
Also there was another mystery in Iraq. An Abrams was disabled by "something" the only damage was a hole about a nickel in diameter in the right side of the Abrams armored shirt just above the 1st wheel. Saw this on CNN, at the time there were unable to explain what it was.
I seem to remember that a Abrams was destroyed by a wire guided AT missile (thought to be an AT-6) fired from the back of a technical about 1 mile away, hitting the tank on the right side. This was back in 2003 in the advance toward Baghdad.
Also there was another mystery in Iraq. An Abrams was disabled by "something" the only damage was a hole about a nickel in diameter in the right side of the Abrams armored shirt just above the 1st wheel. Saw this on CNN, at the time there were unable to explain what it was.
Armyjaeger
Active member
I thought the purpose of incorporating T-90 with ATGM capability was due to the inaccuracy of the main gun at longer ranges. :?
Some things are worth mentioning here, the flight speed of a missile launched from T-90 is relatively slow in comparison to a sabot round, for the missile to reach a range let's say 3000 meters would take over 8 seconds ( correct me if Im wrong) so alot can happen in 8 seconds like the enemy using countermeasures against the missile and they're probably LOS type all of them so gunner would have to keep constant aim at the target dunno if that's possible at high cross country speeds :?
The only countermeasure against a sabot is the heavy armor.
Some things are worth mentioning here, the flight speed of a missile launched from T-90 is relatively slow in comparison to a sabot round, for the missile to reach a range let's say 3000 meters would take over 8 seconds ( correct me if Im wrong) so alot can happen in 8 seconds like the enemy using countermeasures against the missile and they're probably LOS type all of them so gunner would have to keep constant aim at the target dunno if that's possible at high cross country speeds :?
The only countermeasure against a sabot is the heavy armor.
FO Seaman
Active member
mmarsh said:
Yes, that is very true. In the testing trials the U.S. Army fired every possilbe Soviet AT and ATGM at the M1 from all angles. When they fired at the flanks and sides the rounds penetrated but the crew entered the vehicle and drove away after fixing some minor track damage.
I can also explain this, having the full story. The round had penetrated a weak armored area in the turret neck area, the round entered the area on the loaders side (left), drilled through his seat, skining the loaders chciken vest, riocheted off the ammo stowage door to the roof and then buried itself into the turret floor. The reason the tank was "disable" was the round cut some wires upon entering the turret and cut power.
A kit is currently being put together to help stop this from happening again.
sleepyscout
Active member
A M1 Abrams near ramadi had 500lb of PE4 detonated under it and didn't even lose track. Like most modern main battle tanks sacrifices are made on how much armor is on each side. There are vulnerabilities on all major armored vehicles in the world its just knowing were they are located, the abrams is no different.
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
Here's something that just crossed my mind. I never served in armour and those I know who did never experienced or knew someone who experienced this.
What is it like for the crewmen inside when 500lbs of HE go off under yer belly? Or when a 125mm sabot rounds makes solid contact?
And second in this same tank, CadSea, that they tested the rounds on. You said the crewmen repaired it then got in and drove off. If these crewmen had been inside would they have been killed or injured? To what extent?
As an aside... I have heard of some documentary-like footage of testing sabot rounds on an old M60 Patton with goats inside. The narrator claims the force of the penetration of the round created an increased atmospheric force inside the sealed turret which crushed the goats bodies and the exit created a vaccum which sucked them out a very small hole virtually liquifyting them in the process.
What is it like for the crewmen inside when 500lbs of HE go off under yer belly? Or when a 125mm sabot rounds makes solid contact?
And second in this same tank, CadSea, that they tested the rounds on. You said the crewmen repaired it then got in and drove off. If these crewmen had been inside would they have been killed or injured? To what extent?
As an aside... I have heard of some documentary-like footage of testing sabot rounds on an old M60 Patton with goats inside. The narrator claims the force of the penetration of the round created an increased atmospheric force inside the sealed turret which crushed the goats bodies and the exit created a vaccum which sucked them out a very small hole virtually liquifyting them in the process.