.com.unity Forums

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- TO&Es (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=108)

- - MBT's (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=45260)

Quote:

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH (Post 831755)

Besides crunching numbers as I did on those tables as posted,2.5 is the best number I could find for strength over steel armorRegards,
Pat

and how thick are those DU plates Pat?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suhiir (Post 831766)

I'm not so sure ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=-u...20m1a1&f=false

I've also read (tho I can't find the reference) that even with other M1s firing at them it's often taken several hits to destroy disabled M1s.

probably HERE

Is there a REPUTABLE website that gives estimates for the T80 -T-90 line like Prado does for the Abrams ?

Right now ( I'm still checking and still looking at things so everyone please don't get your knickers in a knot)...but I think.....perhaps....where things started to go wrong where armour values are compared was the jump for HEAT front hull protection for the T-80UM and that spilled over into later models and into the T-90. Those vehicles rely on reactive armour which we model but I'm thinking the HEAT values maybe too generous

( this is when everyone on this side of the pond agrees....and everyone on the other disagrees. I'm just going to sit back and watch.......)

In Post #412 my second ref. though it shows written by Henry Wilson copyrighted in 2015 is what appears to be an updated version of Micheal Greens book you referenced with a co-author copyrighted in 2005. I have provided my ref again below see page 48/bottom/under-"Into Combat with the M1A1 HA Tank"/about three paragraphs of reading continuing onto page 49. Not only does he talk about non-penetration hits from Iraqi tanks but friendly fire from our own tanks on the frontal array/or the whole front facing part of the tank.
https://books.google.com/books?id=97...abrams&f=false

It seems when I checked the ref from here it opens to page #49 where you'll find the above info, must be that I copied the ref from that point.

Understand you can't "copy" from these sites due to copyright law.

To your question for me, that I know will be classified however there should I think be "estimated" data out there. So I'll do the best I can.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

This might be it...lower front hull looks about 1" thick as does the add on to the left turret face

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1445525651

Quote:

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH (Post 831772)

In Post #412 my second ref.

post 412 is a good example of why sometimes I loose focus reading your posts

Quote:

Well my posts on the ABRAMS were meant for the new survival rating 7, in my last Post #406 on the ABRAMS, I sought to relay the importance of DU armor as why I listed it on the earlier list in Post #400 of tanks. Consider the ABRAMS in the second criteria I used for listed tanks again for the increased survival rating 7. This has been on my mind for years but I let it go for my own reasons. First DU armor is about 65% - 75% denser then lead depending on the ref. also I've read on average DU is at least 2.5 times stronger by weight as compared to modern MBT Steel armor. So is there room for armor improvement if DU armor was never factored into the ABRAMS tanks in the game. Then I guess the answer is yes.
So to answer your question the first tank to have DU armor was the USA M1A1HA (HA=Heavy Armor with DU added into the tiles.) in June of 1988 assigned to units in Germany (You must remember East Germany was the only Warsaw Pact country to field Soviet manned T-80 tanks.). All previous versions M1/M1A1/M1A1IPIM relied on advanced Steel and Ceramic tiles only. M1/M1A1 would slowly be upgraded to the M1A1HA standard. In months before the Gulf War the USMC would "borrow" 60-80 M1A1HA tanks (Again depending on source.) By late 1995 early 1996 most to all M1A1 tanks would have DU armor tiles installed work was about to finish up on a 2nd Gen DU armor around the same time.
So key points about the refs...
Ref. 1 The armor protection level tables are a key to understanding this DU issue as development of the ABRAMS progresses.
Ref. 2 Page #47 is to the point for this discussion with related battle reports. You also get a really good preview of the book concerning the M1/M1A1.
Ref. 3 Backs up the rest but, what's interesting here is how the M1/M1A1 armor packages affected the UK and Germany armor decisions.

When THIS would be more readable

Quote:

Well my posts on the ABRAMS were meant for the new survival rating 7, in my last Post #406 on the ABRAMS, I sought to relay the importance of DU armor as why I listed it on the earlier list in Post #400 of tanks.

Consider the ABRAMS in the second criteria I used for listed tanks again for the increased survival rating 7. This has been on my mind for years but I let it go for my own reasons. First DU armor is about 65% - 75% denser then lead depending on the ref. also I've read on average DU is at least 2.5 times stronger by weight as compared to modern MBT Steel armor. So is there room for armor improvement if DU armor was never factored into the ABRAMS tanks in the game. Then I guess the answer is yes.

So to answer your question the first tank to have DU armor was the USA M1A1HA (HA=Heavy Armor with DU added into the tiles.) in June of 1988 assigned to units in Germany (You must remember East Germany was the only Warsaw Pact country to field Soviet manned T-80 tanks.). All previous versions M1/M1A1/M1A1IPIM relied on advanced Steel and Ceramic tiles only. M1/M1A1 would slowly be upgraded to the M1A1HA standard. In months before the Gulf War the USMC would "borrow" 60-80 M1A1HA tanks (Again depending on source.) By late 1995 early 1996 most to all M1A1 tanks would have DU armor tiles installed work was about to finish up on a 2nd Gen DU armor around the same time.

So key points about the refs...

Ref. 1 The armor protection level tables are a key to understanding this DU issue as development of the ABRAMS progresses.

Ref. 2 Page #47 is to the point for this discussion with related battle reports. You also get a really good preview of the book concerning the M1/M1A1.

Ref. 3 Backs up the rest but, what's interesting here is how the M1/M1A1 armor packages affected the UK and Germany armor decisions.

and yes I know there are time limits ....that's why I write long posts in my email program first then check them over, check spelling ( sometimes.....) then cut and paste them to the forum when I'm happy with it and that way you don't get locked out of editing and can take all the time you need to write the post..... I can edit anything at anytime and a message appears when it was done ( like this one ) but that function is not available to the average poster

Just saying Pat ..........I have less and less time to take in all the info....RL has been ganging up on me and is getting more complicated so I skim or cut and paste things like this to my "list" for later study but when I do that the web links are usually lost and I DO appreciate the time and effort you make here but sometimes you are giving a thirsty man a drink with a firehose :).and it's hard to take in fully when it's all in a big lump of info

1) I'll try to do better but, I think I'm SLOWLY a little better-maybe!?! :rolleyes:

2) Must remember any of this type (ceramic tile, composite, applique etc.) is like a "stew" of many ingredients are involved (to include fire retardant features.) to make it all work. The prime ingredient seems to fall in the 10mm-30mm (Against imagine that 30mm to lesser AP type rounds.) 60mm thickness is attributed to tiles that have a special alloy aluminum balls inserted into it to further distribute energy and better defeat the warhead. So that 1"-2" thickness overall plus obviously lighter weight might just be in the ballpark. Most modern (and I suspect DU as well) use Tungsten Steel (LEO/CHALLENGER 2/LECLERC and many others.) which is supposed to be almost (a relative term.) as strong as DU. I believe we again use it to a lesser quantity/thickness with DU for the ABRAMS as TUNGSTEN IS VERY EXPENSIVE in comparison to the number of tanks involved. This combination is the edge for the ABRAMS I believe, not a huge one but enough to make a difference I suspect by %. Also we produce/store vast amounts of this material compared to the rest of the world through our weapons and nuclear energy programs as a "waste" by product which DU comes from for ammo and armor use.

3) Same armor tables same source. LEO covers LEO 2A4/5/6.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/T-80U.htm
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/T-90S.htm
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm

A note on these tables, they only consider RHAe (Rolled Homogeneous Armor Equivalent) protection levels against KE and Chemical (HEAT) rounds.

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

P.S. You'll never know when you might find yourself in a BIG desert! :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRG (Post 831770)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suhiir (Post 831766)

probably HERE

Please remember, however, that there is a big difference between "destroyed" in game terms (no longer capable of fighting - these tanks were already at that point) and "totally destroyed" (so nothing falls into enemy hands - as page 104/5 of ref).

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRG (Post 831771)

Is there a REPUTABLE website that gives estimates for the T80 -T-90 line like Prado does for the Abrams ?

These any good?
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/T-80U.htm

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/MBT/t-80u_armor.html

1) There seems to be just a "little" confusion about the armor protection tables I submitted from the armorsite.com website concerning the ABRAMS and later in Post #227 for the LEOPARD 2A4/5&6, T-80UM and T-90/90S. The tables for the ABRAMS and LEOPARDS only take into consideration STEEL armor (RHAe) it does not consider any added composite armor applications i.e. DU for the ABRAMS. I have found general parity between the ABRAMS and LEOPARDS is RHAe as those tanks have developed (And I'm not surprised by this.). Please read the note within the box under those RHAe values as they clearly support my above comments.

2) Concerning the SOVIET/RUSSIAN tanks, they do include in the tables both RHAe and ERA (In those cases KONTAKT-5.) to make up the total armor protection values. Note: Russia has moved from KONTAKT-5 (Though still in heavy use.) to RELICT-9.

3) The ARMATA/or T-14 has something newer in ERA as yet undisclosed officially by name.
http://www.janes.com/article/52464/r...as-new-gen-era

4) This issue that concerns Don to some degree will in some cases some of the Soviet era and current Russian tanks might be "over protected" I do know one thing is for sure neither side of this discussion will be pandered too and a fair and honest review will be done for again both sides of this issue. I think after a cursory review some Russian tanks might benefit due to the ERA in the area of protection against HEAT (Chemical.) rounds.

5) As I've pointed out with my use of the defenseindustrydaily.com (DID) website and can be used as a single sourced site as they always list their sources at the bottom of the article. I don't know PRADO but, I like his work on the Armor Site because he does the same-lists all his refs at the bottom-look at them-he's smart enough to use in country sources, though, KMDB (Kharkiv Morozov Design Bureau (Designer of the T-34, T-64 series and other tanks.) it is now in the UKRAINE.
Ref 1 Main site.
http://morozovkmdb.com/eng/index.php

Ref. 2 is taken from the "Upgrade Packages for Vehicles..." H1 refers to the frontal arc of the hull while H2 covers the side of the tank notice in the below the increase in protection with the added ERA package they offer as part of their T-72 up grade program. Their upgrade program consists of the following T-72 mods they developed the T-72AG, T-72MP and the T-72-120 NATO compliant version also offered below.
http://morozovkmdb.com/eng/body/t72m2.php
http://morozovkmdb.com/eng/body/t72-120.php
http://morozovkmdb.com/eng/body/kbm2.php

But now I digress somewhat, point being sometimes in the "hustle and bustle" (There's a song there.) of our lives we get in a hurry and not only miss things but miss out on things as well, I missed the above KONTAKT-5 item myself until I went back to check on it again earlier. So this goes for me as well!?! :shock: and :doh: but since my work week is now over things will get better. ;)

And here's the song, I just like it. Makes me thankful for a certain someone when I get home! :p
https://video.search.yahoo.com/video...t=mozilla&tt=b

Alright DON, I'll stop now! Good Night for me and well...good day to everyone else!!

Regards,
Pat