Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Armor thickness question

Discussion in 'Post-World War 2 Armour' started by Jeffrey phpbb3, Feb 13, 2005.

  1. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Speaking of light armour, here's a little snippet.
    Did you know that the Scorpion CVR(T) family armour is basically the same metal as Dinky toy cars were made from? :lol:
     
  2. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    Modern composite armor's exact makeup is classified however rather than kevlar think of layers of ceramic plates , steel and open spaces. These type armors are excellent versus HEAT (chemical energy) weapons yet not good against kinetic energy penetrators. That's why the Abrams has depleted uranium layers as well(steel encased)...much superior to early generation composite armor (like chobham). Some later generation composite armors also incorporate tungsten.
     
  3. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    If I understand correct there is already a 3th generation Chobam than offers about the same protection as the Abrams.
     
  4. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    No way to know without testing it in battle. AFAIK the Leo II doesn't have Chobham armor of any generation. The Chally II does and the level of protection might be questionable when compared to the Abrams. Sadly A friendly fire incident took the turret off a Challenger II and killed 2 crewmembers not long ago.
     
  5. FNG phpbb3

    FNG phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    But what was it hit by and what range?

    FNG
     
  6. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    Not sure of the range but IIRC it was inside 1k.
    It was another Challenger II that shot it.
     
  7. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    From the news reports I read at the time I got the impression that it was very close indeed - the incident happened during a sandstorm, when one tank saw another looming out of the storm...
    The result of the hit was to knock the turret off, rather than pierce the armour, IIRC.
     
  8. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Don't you think that the designers first test the strenght of the armor in any way possible?
    If we are talking about battle testing that the Abrams armor would be a failure as every Abrams hit with an RPG is burned out because they either hit it on the back of the turret or the back of hull wich immediatly causes an engine fire...

    You are right that the Leopard2 doesn't use Chobam armor, I didn't even talked about the Leopard, I was talking about Chobam armor wich is only fitted on the Challenger, and you said that it is much stronger than early generation Chobam armor, I answered that there is (if i'm correct) already a third generation Chobam armor wich is as strong as the Abrams armor. I think you can say there isn't much difference between the armor of modern western tanks these days, they are all of about the same strenght, the Abrams is no exception. The Leopard doesn't have Chobam armor but it does have some other kind of special ceramics (almost the same as Chobam) combined with add-on armor packages, nothing better and certainly not worse than Abrams or Challenger armor, and ''battle tested'' is not relevant, they can test battles with computers these days and see how it reacts on different kind of attacks from various weapons.
     
  9. FNG phpbb3

    FNG phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Thats the problem with modern tanks, T-90, Abrams, Leopard, Challanger etc.

    There guns are that powerfull at less than 1000 yards I can't see the armour making a dramatic effect like it did in ww2.

    Could you imagine an abrams bouncing an AP shot of a challanger at 250 yards like a Sherman could with a Panther?

    FNG
     
  10. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    If the crew survived it wasn't a failure...
    There is no way that a tank can be armoured enough to withstand engine deck hits (cf T-80s in Grozny) without the decking being so heavy that engine replacement becomes a major task, it's all a trade-off between desired protection levels and maintainability. The Abrams might have had its engine burned out, but it only takes about 20 minutes to bang another one in.
     
  11. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    This statement is nonsense anyway. The situation described has happened only once or twice despite Abrams being struck by hundreds of RPGs. Most RPG hits have zero effect, there are only a few vulnerable spots and an engine fire can result.
     
  12. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Vulnerable spots:

    Ofcourse every sport on a Abrams is vulnerable VS the right kind of weapons, but VS RPG its vulnerable at this points:

    Back of turret (1 shot kill)
    Back of hull (1 shot kill)
    Top (1 shot kill)
    Tracks (1 shot kill, probably)
    sides (1 incident of an RPG kind man-portable weapon that penetrated the side into somekind of hydraulic device)

    Look at this:
    Top, side and rear armor remains susceptible to penetration:
    1: Documented instances where 25mm AP-DU and above ammunition disabled a tank from the rear
    2: Left and right side non-ballistic skirts repeatedly penetrated by anti-armor RPG fire
    3: Cosmetic damage only when hit by anti-personnel RPG fire (...)
    They also say that there is no reported instance of tan hitting an anti-tank mine, but I've seen a video of an Abrams hitting a IED, and it looked like it was about comepltely ripped to pieces, not sure though.

    Whole document: http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Fiel ... ms-oif.pdf

    The situation described has happened only once or twice despite Abrams being struck by hundreds of RPGs.

    Is that because the Abrams is so strong or because most Iraqi's have no idea whats a weak spot on a Abrams and because they can't aim and because they mostly shoot on vehicles like AAV7's, M113, Stryker and humvee's?... I'll pick the second, third and fourth one.
     
  13. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    Jeffrey wrote:

    The website you linked does not support your conclusions. The source for "one shot kills" on your list?


    The 25mm fire that disabled that Abrams was friendly fire of the DU variety.The destroyed tanks shown on that website were deliberately destroyed by other Abrams not by enemy fire.




    Enough explosives will destroy any MBT, without exception. One thing I do know no Abrams crew have died due to hostile action so that Abrams you claim to have seen must have protected it's crew.


    All tanks have vulnerabilities. The invulnerable vehicle is protected by a force field and only exists in science fiction.
     
  14. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    The website you linked does not support your conclusions. The source for "one shot kills" on your list?

    1 shot hit with RPG, its probably over for the crew/tank if it is hit with an RPG at the back hull/turret and the top of the turret, these places are very vulnerable, on the top the armor is only a couple of cm's thick.

    The 25mm fire that disabled that Abrams was friendly fire of the DU variety.The destroyed tanks shown on that website were deliberately destroyed by other Abrams not by enemy fire.

    Only the 2 on page 10, the one is destroyed by the 120mm gun of the Abrams, the other by a Maverick missile.
    To make soething clear, I ain't saying the Abrams M1a2 is a bad tank, I think its a great tank, and admitted, every modern MBT will be disabled if an RPG hits its engine compartment, or back turret or top turret. (The only thing that worries me though ,is the fact that some 30+ year old RPG was able to penetrate the left side of a Abrams and go right trough it, they where lucky there was a hydraulic reservoir at that place, I don't even wanna know what happens if some old russian T-72 places his 125mm round on the side of a Abrams... :eek:)
    But you are trying to saythat the Abrams is something special and is not comparable with other MBT's, thats not true, they are all comparable with eachoter and the Abrams is CERTAINLY not better than MOST other known MBT's.
     
  15. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    One thing I do know no Abrams crew have died due to hostile action so that Abrams you claim to have seen must have protected it's crew.

    I'm wondering how you can posible know that no crewman died in Iraq, there are so many soldiers being killed every day in Iraq, that you can't know that know...
     
  16. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    The Chally II does and the level of protection might be questionable when compared to the Abrams.

    Got some news for you (don't know why I didn't come up witgh this before...), the Challenger 2 doesn't use Chobam armor anymore, it is upgraded so many times that they now call it Dorchester wich is a more advanced form of the Chobam armour, as far as I know the Abrams armor isn't upgraded for years now.
     
  17. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    One question - how do you know this?
     
  18. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    Ricky wrote:

    All US casualties are reported, recorded, analyzed, manipulated , investigated and everything else imaginable by the US Army who keeps meticulous records. Every official and unoffical report I have read about the Abrams in combat has reported that no crewmembers have died as a result of hostile action.
     
  19. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    I also asked that question, there are dying alot of soldiers at the moment in Iraq, Grieg probably has ''contacts'' that tell him the precise number of US casualties and from what units they where...
     
  20. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    Jeffrey wrote:

    Thanks for the news but I already knew that of course. Dorchester armor is the name given to what is upgraded Chobham armor. The Abrams armor was last updated with the steel encased DU AFAIK and it is still more than sufficient at least until the next generation "smart" armor that is being developed is fielded.
     

Share This Page