MBT's

[DRG]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

I hope this might be enough for our ABRAM tanks to warrant the increased protection to include the current versions of the USMC M1A1 tanks as well.


Regards,
Pat

OK, what models get the DU and when ?

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

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.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm
https://books.google.com/books?id=97...abrams&f=false
http://tanknutdave.com/the-us-abrams-series/

What happened to the M1A1HA was simply in the old question of "what's in a name", as the M1/M1A1 tanks got upgraded they simply by numbers overtook the M1A1HA original tanks and just commonly where called the M1A1 or like the current USA version M1A1SA.

Regards,
Pat

Checked the web to include the proverbial Top 10 lists lots using DU rounds but as I thought the ABRAMS is the only one openly showing the use of DU armor.

[Suhiir]

And for armor purposes the USMC M1A1HC is the same as the US Army M1A1HA. There are differences in the vision and computer systems, and as mentioned the USMC uses an ATGM system the Army doesn't.

[DRG]

You've quoted Prado before and I DO understand the desire to have higher armour values and I'm NOT saying there won't be an adjustment but look at the Estimated Armor Protection Levels he posts and you see we aren't all the way into the weeds here

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Yes you know me I do take the time to actually read my refs otherwise I might make myself look real stupid out here something that I hardly ever do!?! I did give you the out and am more concerned and hopefully have made the case for ABRAMS to get the increased survivability to 7 increase. And it's hard for me to sit at my desk and look at the raw data to include comparing the OOB ABRAMS to the better of about 6 contemporary tanks from other OOB's across time. I don't know what calculus is used to drive the armor values for the game. Is an honest reassessment warranted based on what we now either knew/or know about DU armor qualities that's your call and I know it'll be done honestly and within game parameters if you proceed. My feeling is an increase allowing for DU armor is somewhere in the 5% to 8% range but I'm a raw numbers guy so if you take the M1A1HA table 1991 vs M1A1 table 2002 getting an average of the numbers involved and compare them against the first two tables and rounding the differences by % you get the following increase in protection by % from 1991 to 2002...
Turret- KE/+28% HEAT/+20%
Glacis- KE/0% HEAT/+17%
Lower Front Hull- KE/+11% HEAT/+4%

And since you can do anything you want with numbers by taking all of the above %'s you come up with an overall increase in protection of +13% between the M1A1HA of 1991 to the M1A1 of 2002. If you take that 13% increase for that time period (As you would need to recalculate between all the tables.) the range I've offered above might not be too much off in allowing for just the DU armor improvements. The rest would represent steel armor etc. improvements. That time period as already noted would represent the transition from DU armor of the 1st Gen to 2nd Gen.

Well I've done enough damage here for one morning not meant to piss off anyone but I can get a little analytical at times just ask (Or feel sorry for.) CINCLANTHOME and my Co-workers!?!

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

We did add armour increses roughly in that time period but really didn't take DU into account. I have NOT...stressing the word NOT here..... checked this theory yet but my first test will be to look back at the increases we did make and multiply by 2.5 and see how that fits with Prado's estimates. 2.5 being the estimated added density of the DU over normal armour plate steel........then I'll compare those numbers with the results that you suggest....then maybe I'll add them all up and average the whole mess and see what I get

We have from the beginning striven to be fair to all parties with these estimates because the few people who really know how what the protection levels of modern tanks are..........they aren't talking, so all we can do is go with "best guess estimates" (BGE).

Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Besides crunching numbers as I did on those tables as posted,2.5 is the best number I could find for strength over steel armor. We take what source/science info is available and as Don says we just have to do the best we can with it because none of us will be around when and if ever this data becomes declassified. Even with the numbers I used it was based on the average of what was given-we'll never be 100% precise with issues dealing with armor protection and ECM, these are things where there are too many variables associated with them. Things like guns and ammo are more tangible items that are easier to "guess" at because of the proliferation of data out there. Doing a search on DU armor for instance yielded a MUCH HIGHER rate of hits on DU ammo and associated health risks from them then anything to with armor protection data. Sometimes to have to think about these things like a rumor..."If there's smoke out there the truth is somewhere in between." or the less precise "If there's smoke, there must be a fire." depending in what part of the country your from.
Search for yourself you'll see what I'm talking about.

Don thank you and if I can help with the calculus let me know including crunching Prado's tables.

Time to think about work after a walk.

Regards,
Pat

[Imp]

Originally Posted by DRG

You've quoted Prado before and I DO understand the desire to have higher armour values and I'm NOT saying there won't be an adjustment but look at the Estimated Armor Protection Levels he posts and you see we aren't all the way into the weeds here

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm

Unless I am looking at the wrong units all figures are within the ranges he quotes.
If anything turret KE errs to the high end of his estimates.

[Suhiir]

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.

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

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.

That doesn't mean there wasn't penetration just that the the ammo storage baffles were doing what they are supposed to do

and as well if we compare in game Desert Storm era T-72's and their ammo vs game Abrams and their armour you are going to get the historical result. There is no way you get a kill shot on an abrams on the frontal arc and the Abrams can chew through Iraqi T-72's until their ammo runs out