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

Modern MBT Question

Discussion in 'Post-World War 2 Armour' started by Boba Nette, Jun 19, 2005.

  1. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    What evidence leads you to the conclusion that the Abrams is more likely to suffer ammo hits?
     
  2. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Because the ammo in Chally is stored down in the hull and studies have shown (see Ogorkiewicz, Simpkin etc) that the first 0.7 m of height of an AFV is generally concealed by "ordinary" terrain.
    The fact that tanks tend to have thicker armour on the turret also indicates that turret hits are expected to be more likely (especially so since firing from hull down is preferred - current conflict in Iraq notwithstanding - neither vehicle was designed with that sort of "war" in mind).
    Tank gets hit in turret, ammo in turret, ammo gets hit.
    Tank gets hit turret, ammo in hull, ammo does not get hit.
    Simple.
    This is specifically why Chally has the ammo stored below the turret ring.
     
  3. GP

    GP New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    [quote="Grieg]
    A good case could be made that the Challanger and crew destroyed in the friendly fire incident would have survived had not the ammo inside the crew compartment ignited.[/quote]

    Now I know you are joking, you really had me going. You really do have a dry sense of humour.
     
  4. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

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

    Faulty logic IMO. If the damage was confined to the area directly behind the penetration you might have a point but it isn't necessarily. Notice that the ammo in the hull of the Challenger was ignited despite being a considerable distance from the hatch. If the crew compartment is penetrated there is a good chance that the ammo will be ignited.
    In two part shells where the propellant isn't inside a casing how is it stored?
     
  5. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Which holds for turret or hull hits. Is there a point here?
    As stated in the report the round hit the commander's hatch (which was open) and threw fragments downwards (~2 metres, hardly a "considerable distance") into the turret and the ammo stowage...
    The propellant is in a wet stowage system to prevent (under "normal" conditions) ignition due to hits. As previously stated.
    As you say, your opinion, not that of British tank designers or the operational analysts.
    The chances are that the turret will take hits before/ rather than the hull, and the wet stowage is designed to minimise ammo ignition.
     
  6. GP

    GP New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    For a person who claims to be a well trained marine you are incredibly militarily naive.

    The explosive in a HESH round is quite powerful and therefore 2 metres is not a very great distance. the turret height is 2.49 metres, the ground clearance is 0.5 metres. Then you claim this to be a conciderable distance.

    As you claim to know, HESH does not penetrate so under normal instances this willset off neither the propellant nor the shell. For a KE round to ignite it will have to make contact or cause heating for a period of time.

    You really aren't joking are you.

    Why do you keep talking about the speed of the KE rounds?
     
  7. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

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

    For a person that has been warned twice about making personal attacks you are incredibly persistent.
    In the context of being inside a tank 2 meters is a considerable distance. In fact it's about as far from a potential penetration as one can be while still being inside the tank. My comments were in regard to the weakness of the Challenger in stowing the ammo in the crew compartment. These comments weren't confined to HESH. In fact a Challenger isn't likely to be attacked with HESH. Far more likely when one looks at potential adversaries would be a KE penetrator or a shaped charge device. The destruction of the Challenger by the HESH rounds merely serves to illustrate that ammo stowed inside the crew compartment is vulnerable.
    A jet from a shaped charge weapon or a long rod penetrator that penetrated the tank would be likely to set off the ammo just as well as the explosive from the HESH round did in the case in point.

    FYI long rod penetrators and shaped charge weapons both ofteh spew molten metal around inside an AFV when it penetrates.
     
  8. Gryle

    Gryle New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    The Leo always was light on armour, advances in ammo technology and the fact that the AS1s are going to be around 30 years old before they are retired does mean this was to be expected.

    They have given good service though, and I like the look of them. :)
     
  9. Gryle

    Gryle New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    I wouldn't, and I don't think anybody else would either, expect you to vouch for it's accuracy, but two simple errors and some misleading implications in such a short quote do cast some doubt on whether anything it says can be fully trusted.

    Oh I agree, having the ammo seperated from the crew is best. I just dispute that this was the killer feature of the Abrams over any other choices, and suggest that the purchase was politically driven to the point that the US could have been using say some sort of 120mm gunned M60s and they still would have been bought over the Challenger 2 or Leo.

    The CR2 loss I can't really say, I would suspect that a 120mm HESH dropping though, or detonating on, an open turret hatch sadly would probably kill at least the turret crew through blast/over pressure. The bin the hold the bagged charges are probably more resistant to these effects than a human body, and if they went up...
     
  10. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    But, as has been stated, in this case it wasn't a penetration. And I submit that the fragments reaching the stowed propellant would (likely) have been much larger than if a penetration had occurred (or, if considering HESH, much hotter), giving a higher thermal load to the stowed propellant. I also suspect that the detonation wasn't caused so much by fragments as the fact that the interior of the vehicle would very probably have been included in the initial fireball of the HESH round going off.
    And, as has also been stated, ammo hits on below-turret-ring stowage are less likely, with the added advantage of a more homogenous armour envelope on the turret, as opposed to designed-in weak points which the M1 has.
     
  11. GP

    GP New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    [Edited by Moderator]

    As you can see I did mention it. As YOU pointed out they have kelar to protect against this. that is why I wrote about the rounds penetrating close to or providing heat for a prolonged period. AS you should know modern tanks have fire supresion systems to tackle this.

    Now for tanks protection, using your argument of why would America alter Chobham armour and make it worse, therefore it is better. Then the Dorchester armour used by Challenger 2 is more recent. After learning from Chobham and your armour, why would we develope a second armour not as good wen we could save developement cost and buy from America.

    Challenger 2 is the most protected tank, QED.



    It seems strange that others such as Roel can argue agains me and we can still be civil.

    Before you go on about your 4 years in the USMC, I have spent more time with US military than you have served.
     
  12. GP

    GP New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Grieg you still haven't answered why you keep comparing Muzzel velocities.
     
  13. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I go away for 3 days and look what happens. :angry:

    GP, if you are still around, I don't care how much Grieg irritates you - KEEP IT CIVIL

    I say 'if you are still around' as GP PM'd me to say that he has left the Forum, and asked me to say goodbye to all.

    Now, please, can we continue with the rational debate.
     
  14. Man

    Man New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,457
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Norway
    via TanksinWW2
    Members come and go.



    :(
     
  15. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Unfortunately it seems that increasingly the more experienced and knowledgable members going...
     
  16. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Sadly yes.

    Any bright ideas please PM to an admin
     
  17. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

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

    Your comment inplies that I provoked GP into his childish insults and personal abuse (some of which has been removed). However it's not me but my opinions that GP has a problem with. When he couldn't successfully discredit my opinions he resorted to the schoolyard bully tactic of attacking me personally. He has done this in the past and the mild warnings he received only encouraged him to continue. Slap on the wrist warnings without penalties are useless.
     
  18. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I'm sorry that it seems that way.
    I do know from his PMs (and the more insulting stuff that I edited from his post) that he gets easily irritated by you when debating with you - I suppose it is a 'personality clash'. The message was directed squarely at him with this knowledge in mind.

    I apologise if it appeared to give a false impression.
     
  19. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    This is enough to provoke someone who is already edgy. You should keep that in mind, Grieg, even though it is obviously GP who crossed the line here.
     
  20. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    Lol..I take note of the fact that someone is being insulting and abusive and that is provocation? I'm sure he will be encouraged by this attitude of the Admin. If you ban me for being provocative you might even be able to persuade him to return...lol
    After all do you really need any Americans on these forums..they tend to speak their minds and sometimes even disagree with the incestuous little clique...how boorish can you get? ;)
     

Share This Page