How close does an Abraham have to be to another Abraham to penetrate its front armour and destroy it.
For the purposes of evaluation assume that both tanks are identical M1A2SEP
At what range does the M829A4 round fail to penetrate its target ?
At what range does the armour of the Abraham the fail to protect its crew?
This is a serious thread.
>>29399537
ITT ISIS thinks they captured a non monkey model Abrams and is shitting themselves
>Abraham
>Abraham
>Abraham
>This is a serious thread.
okay
>>29399554
Abram is just a nickname for Abraham
You shouldn't deny your fine american heritage.
>>29399595
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creighton_Abrams
this will be good.
>>29399537
All specifications are merely speculative, they've never revealed the true capabilities of both the cartridge and the armor to the general public, only estimated penetration values of RHA.
In my opinion I think most kinetic penetrators shatter on impact at that range due to the velocity against the chobham armor. BUT, the A3 and beyond have segmented penetrators to defeat ERA, I'm not sure their effect on ceramic composite armor... a lot of it is kept in secret
>>29399686
so its undeadable ?
>>29399595
>Abraham
>not Judeo-Christian heritage :^)
>>29399537
Doesn't penetration depend on weather its a saudi or american pulling the trigger ?
>>29399711
underrated
>>29399696
Drop a 2,000lb JDAM on it, sorted.
>>29399541
>Will get cucked from above as soon as they try and use it in combat, would be better off trying to sell to China.
Can't penetrate the front armor
>>29400088
Is US ammo that bad ?
>>29399537
>Abraham
Steady on there Issac.
Did another T-90 eat a missile in Syria causing vatnik damage control to start up again?
>>29399537
With modern rounds loss of velocity over range is insignificant to penetration, unless we talk about near equal armor and average penetration.
For example most common armor values quoted say M1 with Gen.2 DU inserts has equivalent of 900mm RHA on turret, 600mm at gun mount, 550mm glacis (probably too angled anyway for it to matter) and 580 at lower hull.
M829A3 is estimated to penetrate from 765mm (Tank.net estimation) to 840mm (StealBeasts estiimations) at distance of 2km. Lets go with tanknet values. Assuming constant loss of velocity over range (because why shouldn't it be?), we get:
825mm at theoretical muzzle
795mm at 1km
765mm at 2km
735mm at 3km
705mm at 4km
675mm at 5km
So in the end even difference of 5km won't make bigger difference for chance of penetration than correct (or lucky) shot placement would
>>29399595
>Abram is just a nickname for Abraham
Yes, it started that way about 900 years ago, and it was not the only English language nickname for Abraham that turned into a surname either. Your logic is on the same level as the old funds at the range who call my friend Zack as Zachariah.
>>29400284
you're a little on edge. Do you get worked up at the idea of one of your tanks being compared to another one ?
>>29400611
still a bit jewy though
>>29400243
It's more that they put tons of armor at the front
If they could pen, they would put more armor
>>29399537
http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/200475.html
>>29400629
>I'm not mad, you are!
>>29399541
>burger attempts to damage control saudi m1a2 getting cucked by monkeys
>i-it doenst have du!!!
>>29400368
thanks for the only serious response of the thread
>>29400695
>mfw it really is a monkey model, while Iraqi T-72's were equal to the bulk of Soviet T-72's at the time
>>29400270
You don't know about the deadly saudian Abraham M1 Abrams MBT ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd5t28HkLqk
It can even disguise itself as an AMX Leclerc from the Emirates.
Idk why I even try sometimes.
>>29399696
No tank is invincible. Sure the abram is tough and one of the best, but a kenetic round should be able to penetrate in at least some areas.
>>29399537
I think at less than 100 yards it should be able to cause "catastrophic damage" to the tank if fired at the front armor. Although I'm not sure it will 'penetrate' the armor. Most likely it will cause the sides to collapse and cave the armor in on itself.
>>29399999
just trying to get something useful out of this thread
>>29400797
I feel like it would entirely practical to make one in 5 tanks out of sheet metal.
an EFP will penetrate the armor of an abrams.
>>29402987
>I think at less than 100 yards it should be able to cause "catastrophic damage" to the tank if fired at the front armor.
You're an idiot if at 100 yards you're "unsure" if it would penetrate.
>>29406979
Considering how potent the estimated values of armored protection are on one of these things, it's not completely unreasonable to say it may not penetrate, not to mention it took 2 shots to scuttle one during the initial invasion.
>>29399537
Isn't the M829A4 insensitive? and from what rumors I have heard is that the A4 doesn't have that much greater pen than the A3 how ever is much better at punching through newer and more advanced ERA.
Pic kinda related.
>>29408962
>>29408962
Insensitive (as in insensitive munitions) means explosives that are difficult to set off by impact or heat, the M829A4 is a kinetic penetrator so it has no explosives. Your picture is a segmented penetrator.
I assume you are referring to the assertion by a certain blogger that M829A3/A4 have a 'sacrificial' steel tip to counter ERA, based on one of ATK's patents.
>>29407172
these shots hit side and rear of turret. And they still had to call airstrike to finish the job, because damage was insufficient
What's more none of 1991 FF incidents incluided frontal penetration, it was only side and rear that got pierced, and it was mid-80's M1's, with no DU, that go shot.
What is an Abraham tank
>>29402987
What is an Abram tank, I have never heard of that one either.
>>29399537
The barrel has to be touching the other tank. Otherwise it won't work
>>29402987
I think the closest thing to an unkillable tank via other tanks of the era would be the Iosif Stalin 7 (IS-7) which couldn't even penetrate its own armor with its 130mm cannon.
>>29399537
Theoretically it doesn't matter. Some places on the front are less than 400ERHA and could be penetrated by pretty much any modern RPG. Statistically and in practice, its probably next to impossible without either the best ammunition in production and being at point blank.
>>29399541
Not really such a thing as a monkey model abrams, at least not in the same way as a Russian t-72 export version.
>>29399686
This is a pretty fair assesment, however I doubt anyone outside of the US has A3 ammo. That being said, the ceramics aren't enough to really defeat pretty much any modern warhead these days and the tank's armor would be relying on the NERA to defeat the warhead. So if the americans stripped most of that out then the tank would be much more vulnerable to penetrators.
>>29399916
Why would China want one? Didn't the DOD just reveal China had hacked into all our modern airplane programs? And what, they don't have the ability to replicate a 30 year old tank?
>>29400657
>>29400695
>>29400764
Where do these dog-dirt tier posters come from? Yes, it can be penetrated from the front, theoretically. No, it doesn't have DU (probably). No, its not really a monkey model, in fact in all likelihood it was in service with the US military and has just been stripped of certain pieces of gear, and no, even the few Iraqi T-72's that were made in the USSR and not homemade copies were "monkey models" using literal RHA and without even ceramic or fiberglass turret inserts.
The general armor layout on the frontal arc is impenetrable by any tank fired round, although repeated hits or specific angles at close enough range are theoretically penetrable.
Some of the more powerful anti tank missiles could more than likely frontally penetrate the tank as well. At close range the hull itself could also be penetrated although I find it unlikely.
The gun is a specific weak point and could be penetrated frontally at range by a lot of things. A direct hit on the turret ring would easily penetrate as well, but that would require 99% luck and 1% skill to pull off at close range, let alone at normal combat ranges.
This is talking the M1A2 with its DU of course. Without the DU the frontal hull is still quite tough and basically impenetrable at anything but close range in most areas but the turret is far more vulnerable. The side turret armor is extremely thin without the DU.
Why do people design tanks to kill other tanks?
whats the point of that when ATGM's are quite cheap & can be far more easily scaled up than a cannon
Greater range, can penetrate anywhere on the tank, can be mounted vertically in the tank so its fully protected.
Then add a 40mm or 50mm autocannon for dealing with every threat that isn't an MBT
>>29411803
ATGMs don't have staying power.
MBTs do.
ATGMs aren't highly mobile.
MBTs are.
ATGMs die to rifle fire.
MBTs don't.
ATGMs can be easily defeated by soft and hard kill systems.
Tank shells can't.
ATGMs take a significant amount of time to set up and reload.
MBTs don't.
ATGMs aren't generally good at being fired while on the move.
MBTs are almost as accurate on the move as they are stationary.
MBTs are fucking scary.
MBTs can provide direct fire support.
MBTs can be used as artillery.
MBTs can kill other MBTs.
MBTs can carry a lot of ammo of different kinds for different threats.
MBTs are reliable and proven concepts that still work in the modern battlefield.
>>29411824
>>29411803
>but it's still an MBT it just fires missiles now!
No. If you make a missile platform you make a missile platform. It's not a tank anymore. Missiles are just far less versatile than a gun is. A missile is a niche weapon, a gun can point at anything it wants ded and make it ded.
You can put a missile launcher on anything to counter a specific threat. You can't put a 120mm general purpose fuck you on anything that's not a tank, and if you're gonna put 120mm's of fuck you on something, you might as well armor it to fuck so that it can stay around raising hell and high water for a long time.
>>29399595
ISIS stop bullshitting us. We will tell you a lot but it will mostly be self contradictory. Better to search elsewhere.
>>29411853
tank is made a tank by the armor
not by the cannon.
>>29411824
>ATGMs die to rifle fire.
ATGM protected by the tanks armor does not
>ATGMs can be easily defeated by soft and hard kill systems.
Not "easily", and KE missiles would move faster than a cannon shot every time.
>ATGMs take a significant amount of time to set up and reload.
Thats a programming & electronics thing, not mandatory.
>MBTs can provide direct fire support.
>MBTs can be used as artillery.
Both these things are better provided by a large caliber mortar, not a high velocity cannon who's only purpose is killing other tanks.
>MBTs are reliable and proven concepts that still work in the modern battlefield.
There has not EVER been a modern battlefield to prove any concepts.
>>29411901
>high velocity cannon who's only purpose is killing other tanks
That's not what the MBT's gun is nor has it ever been the purpose. In fact, the whole concept of an MBT was around the idea of having one tank to kill everything instead of a dedicated tank killer, a dedicated infantry killer, and a halfway between tank.
Why have a bunch of tanks good at some things when you can have one tank good at everything.
That's what the MBT is.
>>29411928
Thats nonsense
The concept of an MBT is to replace the whole tank force with a heavy tank w/ tank killing cannon.
The fact it needs to be able to kill enemy tanks puts a lower limit on velocity & size.
The doctrine of a "one size fits all" MBT has never been tested, and would likely prove deficient in a real war.
>>29412057
t. 20 year old whose most relevant battlefield experience comes from Wargame.
>>29399541
Iraqi M1A1M are not "monkey models" (lower quality by design), but per-DU M1A1s (produced between 85 and 87) refubrished to zero hours condition, and fitted with different communication equippment.
Their armor isn't downgraded, it's just 30 years old.
To put it into perspective, it's as if you pulled late-70's T-72 out of reserve storage, and expected it to survive all shit T-90 can, because they're technically different models of same tank
>>29412072
t. retard who ignores that the army has had its programs to produce new vehicles/weapons killed numerous times
ATGM's can outrange tanks & engage without LOS
>>29412057
>The doctrine of a "one size fits all" MBT has never been tested
America did in in 60's, when M60 replaced both M48 and heavy M103 tanks. M48s were rebuilt to be more similar to M60s (most importantly in type of fuel used, engine, road range etc), so they could operate along them, without bringing them down, while M103's were given to Marines, because it's Marines thing to use shit no one else wants anymore.
>>29399537
IT'S
ABRAMS
>>29412076
>late-70's T-72 out of reserve storage
A fucking T-72A?
It cannot survive what a T-72 from 1985 can or 1989. And those things cant survive what T-90A can survive.
>>29412126
ATGMs can also be evaded, jammed, destroyed in flight, and generally protected against in ways you can't protect against a sabot. They're also a lot more expensive, significantly larger meaning you carry less ammo making protracted engagements difficult if not impossible to maintain against a sizeable enemy force, and an ATGM designed to defeat heavy armor would be pretty bad at engaging dug in enemy infantry or enemy infantry in general, necessitating a secondary weapon specifically for them thus running into the problem of storing ammo for the secondary weapon system and supplying it.
Guns work. They work well. They work against anything that's not a jet aircraft or a warship. Missiles are good, great even, but you can put a missile on anything. Why put them on one of the only weapon platforms that can mount a big fucking gun?
>>29412182
So good point you made.
>>29412193
You could put a recoilless rifle on anything too
>>29412212
Yes? You could?
>>29412225
Yes, you literally could put a 120mm recoilless rifle on anything
The whole concept of an MBT is flawed thinking, and it shows because the US hasn't won a war since it adopted it.
>>29411679
I thought weapons > armor so why cant we make a tank gun that can penetrate frontal armor
>>29412278
>120mm recoilless rifle is the same thing as a 120mm smoothbore cannon
Stop talking about things you don't know about.
>oh wow you're a fucking dumbass
Haha go away Vlad. Or Duke Wellington. I don't care you're stupid and ignorant either way.
>>29412294
Well we kind of did. Since the Abrams wasn't expecting to go up against any Leopard 2s and anything with a T in front it was proven to be quite penetrable there wasn't really any push to upgun the Abrams. So the Ruskies made the Armata which is *impenetrable by western guns so who knows, maybe we'll see an upgun.
But the biggest advances have been in ammunition, not gun caliber. The guns we use today are pretty much the same thing we've had for 40 years, what prevented them from being used back then was inability to handle the recoil which is why the first Abrams had the 105mm cannons instead.
Or something was wrong with the 120mm we use today, I don't really remember the specifics. The gun worked but not on the original Abrams.
*Russians are compulsive liars
>>29411853
It's hilarious that everytime i see /k/ they switch between :
>multi-role is SHIT! jack of all trades, master of none! we need a specialized platform for everything!
and
>specialized weapon systems are SHIT! logistics wins wars! having dozens of different weapon systems is a logistics nightmare and multi-role weapons can handle threats well enough that it's not worth the downsides of specialization!
>>29412076
so why did we sell our ally 30 year old MBTs that couldn't survive modern AT threads?
>>29411824
>ATGM
>Not mobile
Give me a well drilled light infantry battalion with current gen ATGM's, some good trucks and some appropriate terrain and they will delay the advance of a armored division.
>>29412420
>different people have different opinions
Personally, I find that both work really well.
MBTs are a jack of all trades thing, except that they're really good at pretty much everything they set out to do. But needlessly replacing a weapon system that works for muh missiles is retarded and shows a complete lack of understanding of the role of an MBT and exactly what missiles are for.
>>29412424
>ally
lol
>modern AT threats
Because they're facing rebels and 3rd world shitholes, not credible threats. I mean, obviously they're credible threats to them, but that's cause they're shit. And they'd lose these tanks even if they were fucking Baneblades. Arabs a shit.
>>29412438
So you're saying they need to set up beforehand?
That's my point. ATGMs fill a good role and are invaluable but you can't charge into an enemy with an ATGM platoon they'd get shredded before they could fire off a single missile.
>>29412449
The israelis made ATGM tanks
ITT ISIS makes a thread in /k/ to figure out what they got and instead /k/ does what they do best and starts an arguement
>>29412505
So did the Russians.
>>29412278
>you literally could put a 120mm recoilless rifle on anything
Yes, they could. You know why they're didn't? Because lower recoil and weigth are only things it's better with, while beign significantly inferior in terms of kinetic energy, range and accuracy.
120mm L6 recoiless
Fires shell at 460m/s.
It takes more than 4 seconds to travel 1000m.
Effective range is 1100m.
Maximum firing range is about 1.6km
120mm M256 smoothbore gun
Fires MPAT shell at 1410m/s.
It takes less than 1 second for it to travel 1000m
Effective range aganist moving targets is 3km.
Maximum firing range is unknown, Army safety regulations require at least 10km of clears space behind targets when M830A1 is beign used.
>>29412420
To be honest though, the jack of all trades thing is harder in the F-35 because weight is such a huge deal on aircraft. I do think the F-35 would've gotten less flak if they called it a fighter which can carry bombs instead of calling it multirole.
>>29411493
You really shouldn't complain about other posters while displaying a lack of knowledge.
>>29412564
Jack of all trades is far easier in aircraft and we have been doing it since at least Vietnam.
>>29412505
It's more of a missile carrier rather than a tank. It's not a frontline AFV like an MBT.
>>29412541
>Effective range aganist moving targets is 3km
This based on the old technology in Gulf War era Abrams tanks that ballistic computers would only compensate a solution to 3km. The FCS can shoot much further than that now.
>>29412438
>light infantry battalion
>vs a Division
You have literally no idea, what a combined arms battalion is made up of hugh? Or any idea the size or composition of any of the forces you listed? Armored divisions aren't just tanks and bradleys, they have a metric fuck load of infantry too. Your "battalion" would be wiped the fuck off the planet fast as fuck if it fought a division of anything.
>>29412193
This guy knows what he's talking about. Need I remind /k/ ATGM's are terrible for tank application. They serve a niche in being light flankable or ambush weapons, but that's about it. You're exposed, the missile is slow as fuck, you have no protection besides the cover you are next to and can't utilize anyway while the missile is in flight, composite armor can defeat thousands of milimeters of RHA penetetration, ATGMs are fucking retarded.
>>29411901
>KE missiles
Are you the same idiot from the T14 Mememata thread? KE Missiles are failed technology and aren't in use.
>Not "easily"
even though they fly 5 times slower then kinetic shells, and even basic evasive manevers when you see it coming throw off the tracking.
> only purpose is killing other tanks
more wrong spergyness
>ot EVER been a modern battlefield to prove any concepts
Except every tanks like the Abrams, Chally, Leo, etc have been in of course.
this thread is retarded just like the last
>>29413577
what's the range of modern FCS anyway?
Only thing I've heard is that FEP Abrams could target things at maximum range of (cancelled) XM-1111 shell, bringing range of SALH mode on pair with Fire and Forget mode, which is about 12km.
That means different rangefinder at least, as one used in M1A1 had 200m - 9995m range
>>29413577
KE missiles were never put into production because the US had no need for them.
They are not a "failed technology".
Everything other than Main battle tanks can be killed with much smaller cannons.
Spending an under 250k$ missile to kill a 5-10 million dollar tank + crew is a trade anyone will make.
>>29399537
i read about a mobility killed M1 taking multiple shots from another M1 that was trying to destroy it
>>29412438
>>29411824
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_1
1.take this and improve it
2.???
3.Profit
why dont they just fire nuclear shaped charges from tanks
>>29414219
because muh geneve
>>29414219
they had actually used depleted uran penetrators.
>>29414166
whats the point of combined arms why not just have more tanks? lol
>>29414289
I'm not talking about kinetic penetrators, I'm talking about a Davy Crockett with a tungsten or something alike cone strapped to it.
>>29414278
What about anti matter? : ^ )
>>29414332
Lol I dunno man.
Maybe it is cool to do combined arms?
>>29399595
>Abram is just a nickname for Abraham
Nigga what?
ayy-brahm
ayy-brah-ham
Totally the same thing.
>>29414130
M1A1HA, Cojone Eh.
>SPG-9 hits the engine, setting it on fire.
>it also blows up fire extinguishing system, so tank is fucked.
>crew unsuccessfully tries to put out fire with handheld extinguishers
>they decide to scuttle it.
>they had no demo at hand, so they lock open turret rack, scatter some rounds on floor and fire M830 in side armor.
>penetration, but not enough damage
>well, fuck, fire next one directly into rack
>it blews rack, but fire dies out too soon
>give up
>call airstrike
>2 Mavericks later, tank is ready for beign left behind
>>29399537
>Abraham
>This is a serious thread.
Ok.
>>29399595
The M1 Abrams was named after General Creighton Abrams.I really wish people would stop shitting on it.It's a good tank with a relatively long service record.
>>29414773
>It's a good tank
You've just summoned the vatniks, my friend. Brace yourself for the eventual dump of ded abram pics.
![M1A2-Layout[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/p9DwIjl.png "M1A2-Layout[1].png")
>>29399537
the american basic version of the M1A2 has around 750mm or so armor max so if this guy is correct when it comes to penetration >>29400368 that means another abrams can kill one at a 2 kilometer range. And keep in mind that that is if it shoots its strongest armor. If they hit a weakspot they should be able to take it out from double that range
>>29399616
no, really. abrams is just latinized abraham
>>29413577
>KE Missiles are failed technolog
I wasn't aware budget cuts equated failed tech.
>>29413879
~4.5k for a sabot on a moving target
>>29415047
Cavity depth is not how you measure effective protection given by 'composite' armors.
