Armor thickness question

LOL, do you really think they are telling you the precies number of casualties. You really can't know how many died and what job they had.

And know I'm gonna take you out of your ''no Abrams tankcrew killed'' dream ( ) with the following:

Its true that only 18 Abrams where destroyed during the 1991 Gulf War without any casualties, BUT, from the beginning of the invasion of Iraq, 80 Abrams tanks where so badly damaged that they had to be shipped back to the US for repairs, or some for inspection on why/with what it was damaged.

About that IED or roadside bomb incident, you say they probably survived it because there where no Abrams crewman killed in Iraq. My documents (...) say that there have been atleast 5 Abrams crewman killed by this kind of roadside bombs (at the video i've seen you can even see a big piece of steel breaking from the tank) and atleast 10 more have died because they where riding with hatches open in enemy territory (not smart), so your information seems to be incorrect.

 

Jeffrey wrote:

Tell us the source of your information so we can read it also.

I will try and ignore your inflammatory and insulting comments however I find it interesting that you started posting (with these insulting and hostile statements) about the time that KBO was banned.
Hmm.. Your rhetoric sounds familar. I wonder if a banned person can merely change their name and resubscribe.

 

http://www.afvnews.ca/cgi-bin/web-bbs/w ... read/62043

If you want more just go to www.google.com and type in us abrams casualties

 

KBO got banned, why?
Nice ''theory'', but just like the Abrams crewman casualties you are wrong, and sorry if I insulted you (again) I just want you to stop believing the Abrams is somekind of god on tracks.

BTW, did you start this theory because you can't take it that you where wrong about the casualties? :lol:

 

If that article is correct then my information is out of date. Admittedly it has been awhile since I have read the quotes I mentioned.
*shrug*
It changes nothing really.
Casuaties in war are inevitable. The fact remains that the casualty rate for Abrams tankers is quite low. The commanders killed in the open turret have nothing to do with the Abrams survivability issue and for you to characterize it as "not smart" is as usual "not smart" on yor part.

Unless I find official Army info to the contrary I stand corrected as to the no Abrams crewmembers killed by hostile action comment.

 

Been like 2 year huh, OK, now thats clear than, and ofcourse casualties in war are inevitable, but that wasn't the point

About that ''not smart'' thing, is it smart to keep the hatches open in enemy territory (whole Iraq is enemy territory) imo it isn't, but probably they had a reason to keep them open, maybe it was getting...to hot inside?

 

Inasmuch as the Abrams are operating in an environment for which they weren't designed (doctrine was to avoid built up areas as much as possible) they casualty rate is quite low.

It will be interesting to see how the TUSK upgrade effects that casualty rate.

 

Interesting upgrade, but what does armored grate means?

Any pictures of this upgrade like this armored grate or sideskirts?

I'm sure the overall weight will increase further more, wich will not do any good for its mobility.

 

No need for heavy anti kinetic weapon type armor since the Iraqi's use man portable chemical (shaped charge) weapons almost exclusively.
Anything that detonates the shaped charge prematurely can defeat it so armor needn't be heavy. A grating is a plate with holes or openings (thus lighter) as long as the openings aren't large enough to permit a shaped charge (RPG) to enter it should help protect the rear from RPGs.

 

Ok...

1) Please stop all personal comments, snide remarks, speculation about motives, etc.

2) Grieg, such speculations about who a forum member is should go directly to the Forum Admin, not be posted on the public boards

If somebody is behaving in an inflammitory manner, ignore it. A Moderator *should* pick it up anyway (not always, because we are human too! ). If they don't and / or it bugs you, tell the area Moderator or an Admin.

 

Probably something like shown here:
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1510

Given the gas turbine engine the Abrahms uses, the extra weight will probably only effect mobility in areas of decidedly soft ground.

 

It does make the tank even longer than it already is.

 

If the addition of a couple of feet either way means the tank cannot go down a street, I doubt that the original tank would have gone down that street in the first place. Narrow streets = ideal ambush points for armour, remember.

Oh, on tank commanders looking out of their turrets. It is high-risk / high gain.
Basically it gives you a much much better idea of what is going on (situational awareness is the modern tem, IIRC), but does mean that one guy with a rifle can kill you.

In WW2 it was (If what I remember of what I've read is correct!!) common practice for the better tank commander to have hatches open, preferring 'situational awareness' and a possible bullet in the head to not knowing what is going on outside their tank and probably blundering into an ambush.

 

I have read any situations where people always come up with WWII as a argument, comparing tank casualties with WWII, comparing the number of human casualties in WWII with the casualties in Iraq and than saying, it is not so bad, no ofcourse not, it is not so bad compared to 6 million dead soldiers, I think its wrong to always bring up WWII in modern day fighting.

The commanders of many modern MBT's can look around through periscoops located all around the hatch, or some commanders have the capability to look through there own personnel thermal-sight, so if you think the situation is to dangerous to ride with the hatch open than yu close it, these crewman that died probably thought the situation was safe enough to ride with open hatches.

 

But then by late WW2 most tanks (certainly all German tanks!) has all-round periscope vision.
Have you ever been in a tank and used these periscopes? You really can't see all that much, and looking up (in an urban envionment seeing 1st & 2nd floor windows & rooftops is a must) is quite tricky.

Yes, obviously, in a highly dangerous area (middle of an ambush, bullets flying everywhere, etc) I reckon that any sane tank commander would button down fairly sharpish.

 

Thats another point I remember Ricky, it was about a fight in either Baghdad or Fallujah, A Abrams tank was standing in the middle of a street, the commander turned out of his tank, with his M4 (lol) and started shooting with his M4 :lol: pretty dangerous, when his 30 round magazine was empty he finally used his .50 HMG, pretty dangerous shit, I wonder why he couldn't stay in his tank, hatch closed and let the gunner do all the work with his coax... (and this all was in enemy territory, bullets flying around and between tal building with possible enemies in it)

 

Seems like Britain already got a similair variant of this ''TUSK'' upgrade:

http://img18.echo.cx/img18/139/challeng ... aq25as.jpg

http://img41.echo.cx/img41/9280/challen ... aq10va.jpg

 

Jeffery: It's entirely possible that the TC just got an enormous case of the ass. You can get mad when people are trying to waste you, and that may cause you to do something not entirely rational or smart. Re riding with the hatch open: I definitely agree with the idea that it's a trade-off issue - better visibility/more risk or the alternative. And, if you have less visibility, will there be even more risk? Built-up areas ain't the grandest place for a tank.

 

Isn't it amzing that 60 years after WW2 they still don't learn.

Tusk???

anti HEAT side skirts, phones on the back of tanks, remote control MG's to allows TC's to stay buttoned up are all nothing new.

By the way, I agree that a good TC would stay on top for as long as possable as regardless of what you think, your perception once buttoned up is nothing compared to being to look around. Just look at the the %age of tankers deaths that are TC's.

But yes, I agree that towns are not good tank country and nothing you can do to them will make much difference. They are easily flanked and can be attacked at short range from the side, rear and top.

FNG

 

FNG wrote:

Not new but all have been virtually abandoned in modern MBTs. The kind of battles they were designed to fight haven't materialized and they are being adapted to the changing situation.

Think guns on fighter aircraft. Not new but they had to be "rediscovered "during the Vietnam war. Prior to that time it was thought that missiles alone would be enough for air combat in the future.