How protected is the turret roof of an Abrams?
Wasn't it once standard tactic to disable a tank's mobility and then have artillery or aircraft take it out from the relatively thin armor on top?
I don't know of any tank that is well protected from the top, that's why the Javelin has a top attack profile.
>>29801265
>>29801243
An artillery barrage is unlikely to hit the top of a tank. However, artillery can sure as hell stop a tank in its tracks, achieving some sort of kill on those who don't vacate the area.
>>29801243
>How protected is the turret roof of an Abrams?
Google.
>Wasn't it once standard tactic to disable a tank's mobility and then have artillery or aircraft take it out from the relatively thin armor on top?
No.
>>29801243
If I remember correctly it has DU plating but that is it. It will stop shell fragments and Shape chargers from extreme angles but it's very unprotected compare to the newer leopard 2s and Soviet tanks with ERA blocks on the roof. Although it is important to remember most top attack ATGMs will still cut through those ERA blocks like it was nothing. Top tank armor is more for bomblets and maybe an RPG fried from a high angle.
>>29801265
I was mostly watching some documentaries on the Iraq War and also the Iran-Iraq war. I was wondering why, even though they had conventional artillery, they never tried to take out abrams the conventional way by trying to disable their movement and/or lobbing rounds at them from above.
Or for that matter, why don't other forces do this with artillery as well.
>>29801243
>Wasn't it once standard tactic to disable a tank's mobility and then have artillery or aircraft take it out from the relatively thin armor on top?
Only during WW2.
https://youtu.be/CnhlD0HZAm4?t=355
>>29801312
It´s hard to direct-impact a moving vehicle with unguided indirect munitions. You'd need an incredible volume of fire, very small target area and the target being stationary to have any reliable results.
Still, if no other weapon system is effective, what the hell, might as well try
>>29801312
Their artillery didn't last for long. With massive US air superiority, artillery parks didn't last long.
>>29801366
They don't NEED to direct impact it. It's an artillery shell, it causes a rather large explosion. If that goes off near you, you have a decent chance of being tracked, although that's the least of your worries.
>>29801366
That being said, soft-skinned vehicles or vehicles with lighter armour would take significantly more damage even from near hits. The Donbass-conflict showed us that much
>>29801388
Artillery hit tanks in the Gulf War and all it did was damage the baggage on the turret and the MG
>>29801243
That's the reason they say artillery wins wars.
>>29801243
>How protected is the turret roof of an Abrams?
It is armored against DPICM submunitions.
>>29801312
You're implying that Iraqi artillery was actually that responsive.
It really, really wasn't. Much like the rest of their army, they'd only do something if they got express orders right from the iraqi high command and then they'd do what they were told to the letter, no matter if it made sense. Your barrage is hitting empty desert two miles away from the coalition troops you were supposed to bombard becuase they moved? No matter, orders says to shoot at this spot.
Seriously, I'm bafled how anyone was surprised at them getting their shit pushed in by ISIS, US gear or no.
>>29801388
Yea, but that´s just it, the odds of getting hits that are that close are fairly low. Even then it has a low chance of causing significant damage like imobilizing it.
You need a large volume of rounds in a very short period of time in a small space for it to have any reliable effect. A stationary target, reliable co-ordinates, a large battery available for fire and an indirect-fire coordinator that believes that expending that amount of HE-rounds on a very hard-target is a good idea.
Still, it is better than rocks, mortars or just getting killed
>>29801584
>I'm bafled how anyone was surprised at them getting their shit pushed in by ISIS
People were baffled by the fact that a large amount of Iraq's army either chose to not fight (muh sunni/shia alliances) or only existed on paper.
>>29801584
>Your barrage is hitting empty desert two miles away from the coalition troops you were supposed to bombard becuase they moved? No matter, orders says to shoot at this spot.
Hey, to be fair, that sort of mentality worked great in the trenches of the Iran Iraq war.
>>29802425
>You will bomb this position, It does not matter if they move you will bomb it.
>You will hold this position, It does not matter if you are getting bombed you will hold it.
>>29802652
>>You will hold this position, It does not matter if you are getting bombed you will hold it.
>When you hear me blow the whistle, it's over the top lads
>>29801581
Have you ever been in an M1? The roof is barely an inch thick steel plating, whilst DPICM are meant to penetrate 4-5 in. of steel.
>>29805717
You clearly haven't.
>>29801584
>Seriously, I'm bafled how anyone was surprised at them getting their shit pushed in by ISIS, US gear or no.
Well to be fair ISIS had Abu Hajaar, it's kinda hard to compete with that.
>>29806066
>denying this hard
>>29802425
Dude, the Iraqis managed a stalemate. Despite having like three to five times the manpower and aroudn ten times the armor, artillery and air support sorties in most battles.
The only times they made any progress was in attacks pre-planned down to the company level by their high command, with the troops themselves rehearsing the plan several times before the attack - it tended to work a short while becuase the Iraqis threw in a ludicrous superioity in firepower, but once things wen off-script because the Iranians didn't react as predicted, it all ground to a halt.
>>29802652
Oh it gets better.
>The neighbouring battalion just got overrun and those amerians look like they're turning to hit our flank now. Shouldn't we tell someone or do something?
>Nah, orders say we are to defend agaisnt attacks coming from out front, so we keep doing that.
