M1A2 is known for its weak armored pan. Old RPGs had penetrate the pan from side. And the US ERA is just 1st generation like the 1960s russian ERA, but now russians ERA kontakt5, relikt and Kaktus is 3rd generation of ERA about 60% better than Kontakt 1 and reduce KE Ammunition.
All the tests were succesful. None of the attacks were able to penetrate or injure the crew. The last test caused some structural damage but the tank was operational after all this. It was also fully equipped with its normal armaments and fuel. What a monster of a tank.
it might be fuel and ammo exploding but the point is the crew in the cabin is safe. If they survive, a Veteran tank crew can fight another day and possibly turn the tank into an expensive fixed gun placement!
I saw the same footage in a Natural Geographic show. Apparently it's the reactive armour. To be honest, it really doesn't look like it though, it does look like secondaries(fuel and ammo).
that's right m8, any tank, even with the best active protection systems and Armour will be thrown high in the air with massive amount of artillery shells buried underneath it and detonated. with that kind of impact, the crew would die from the injuries they sustain while the tank was thrown about.
those arena and shtora only protect them from incoming rpg, anti tank missile or tow missile, not a life round from tanks such as the sabot round. get it?
that's where the Kontakt-5 came into being. it was design to beat long rod penetrator. a test conducted by US army and Budeswehr show that when a T-72 was protected by this ERA, it's immune to M829 sabot round fired from Abrams main gun.
Both M829A2 AND M829A3 were desinged to defeat the K5 version of the 80s, so I woudn`t be surprised if they both fail to defeat the new type off K5 mounted on T90 which is more than 10 years newer, not even speaking of Relikt (already on the new T90 version) or Kaktus
A Russian export tank is generally a pathetic copy of the version for the Russian homeland. When Syria purchased tanks from Russia only the first couple had the advertised armour package. The rest had much less armour so much they weighed less. Syrians checked the first couple they received and not the rest. Thats part of the reason they did so poorly against the Israeli's.
Simple rule buy Russian, and get ripped off. Kinda funny.
They sell a downgraded version to Warsaw pact country, and they sell double downgraded version to the Arabs. soem of the tanks ERA package was actually a 2 steel plates with clay sandwiched in between.
People reading your comment will believe that there isn't any of quality control on an army, especially when purchasing expensive things like tanks...
If bring in a lot of tanks during any war, you have the risk of losing some of your tanks. In Desert Storm, 23 tanks were damaged out of 1500 tanks and no one died. In Iraq 80 tanks were damaged out of 1100 due the urban envrionment and 0 tank crew deaths until after the invasion. Tanks are always at a disadvantage in an urban envrionment because you don't know where the attack will be.Other than that, that Abrams will keep you alive and has proved it self time and time again. Best tank ever.
M1A1(HA) level, but the rear and side armour is vastly inferior. plus theres ballistic holes in the armour where 25mm can penetrate it FRONTALLY. the newer T-90A is much better,
made out of welded chunks, it should be similarly protected to an M1A2 SEP. without K5. with K5, its superior.
I think that the T-90A with the new welded turret array is ~850mm with K-5 against late 1980s generation APFSDS. To suggest it is about 940mm which is a >40% jump from the base model, I find hard to believe when considering the weight gain was so minimal.
well, consider that the base thickness of the T-72M1 turret walls is 430-450mm RHA steel + 130mm of sand. the T-72B armour must be thicker than this, since its base model is 3 tons heavier, and the turret chins are clearly thicker.i'd say M1A1(HA) level. now the regular T-90 is 46 tons, so the ERA package is about 2 tonnes. but the T-90A... its 48 tonnes.
comparatively, the difference between M1A1HA and M1A2 SEP is 2 metric tonnes as well, but dispersed on a larger surface area.
I can agree with that. My contention was based on the thought that the Armour weight efficiency of the new inserts was worse then the M1A1 upgrade and that a substantial portion of that two tones went to other improvements, including attachments for ERA integration. With out knowing what the inserts are I would say that 850mm is my upper bound estimate and 680 is my lower.
just FYI, newer armour estimates of the M1A1(HA) non-LOS front turret armour thickness is estimated to be 580mm RHAe KE, and 1220mm HEAT. LOS thickness is in the 700mm range but naturally varies depending on the angle.
this is based on the fact that the M1A1(HA) weights 61.3 metric tonnes.
also, only 2289 M1A1HA were made. only 155 of those has been upgraded to HC(AIM) standard.
russia has made 10 000 T-72 tanks of various versions. not sure how much of each though.
I agree that one reason for thinking that the T-90A package probably doesn't offer ~30cm of protection vs M1A1->M1A1 HA only ~13cm.
I think that all current operational M1A1s have the Armour package that includes second generation DU. The M1A1 HA+ and M1A2SEP have different Armour packages.
Right my confusion is that there are 3 DU amour packages. The original on (1988 M1A1 HA)the second generation (1992-1993 M1A1 HA+ M1A2) and (2003 M1A1 SEP M1A1 Aim). My understanding that all Regular army M1A1s have been upgraded at least to the 1992 package. Reserve tanks I couldn't tell you.
Still the only way we know how good a T-90 would be is in the conflict of Georgia and what's been going on in Chechnya. Still one good thing that the Russians can do well is make weapons/tank cheap and reliable and mass produce. I think the Russians have made about 1,000 T-90 while the US has made about 9,000 Abrams.
Only the rare hard to get RPG 7 tandem rounds and above can penetrante an Abrams and only the side armour. Heat rounds won't penetrate the frontal armour of any tank thats why sabot rounds are used with tank guns. Only way to attack a tank with a missile or rocket facing the front of a tank is to hit the top of the tank and ERA is obosolite agaist modern tandem warheads.
for all of those who say an rpg-29 penetrated a challenger2? it PENETRATED THE FRONTAL HULL YOU RETARDS WHICH IS VERY VERY WEAKER THAN THE FRONTAL TURRET.
The lower hull at that. The tank was designed to fight hull down in WW3 so the lower hull is only about 700mm vs CE. It was a marginal penetration that didn't cause much internal damage. Any hit on the lower hull of the T-90 etc would have similar results. That said the RPG-29 is a good weapon.
@cr9527 Thank you for pointing that out. I was refering to the Challenger 2 however. AFAIK the front hull of the M1A2 has even greater protection on the left and right sides due to the placement of gas tanks there. I think it is well over 1500mm vs CE and probably greater then 800mm vs KE at those spots.
If that is true then the tank would be very hard to kill from a frontal engagement, with any weapon that doesn't hit around the drivers hatch or turret ring
@cr9527 If the frontal armor of the hull was just empty i would agree but it isn't. there are some armor diagrams at the SB wiki website you can look at to give you an idea (very general) of the armor layout of an early Du version of the M1a1
:-) it would help, but it would still be a difficult job to kill the latest uparmored
M1A2's with the tusk kit. and with the new aktive protection systems they have started fielding its only going to get worse to use rockets or missiles against tanks. a huge ied (100kg+) will do the job for sure, but its not a really effective way of fighting tanks.
pft why are we arguing about tanks, its not like well pilot one anytime soon, it doesnt matter which is better the m1 a2 or the t90 it matters on the tank commander and his crew
I it interesting to note that IS-2 soviet heavy tank was ripping away chunks of tigers and PAnthers.
Heinz Guderian ORDERED his tank crews NOT to engage soviet heavy IS-2 in an open tank vs tank duel, tells you something
Don't even get me started on IS-3, boys.
And NAshhorn is not a tank, but SP artillery,
Wanna hear accounts of SU-152 ripping Tiger's turret off the tank with anti-concrete projectiles boys? OR SU-152 destroying tigers from over 5 km away? feel free to ask.
"Wanna hear accounts of SU-152 ripping Tiger's turret off the tank with anti-concrete projectiles boys? OR SU-152 destroying tigers from over 5 km away? feel free to ask."
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Americans are really stupid, they think that wide armor is everything.....against muslims with RPG-7 (by the way RPG-7 penetrates abrams sides). T90 has ERA, ARENA, SHTORA systems, abrams has nothing close.
NO missles, no active protection......URAN coffin with 4 dead niggers HAHAHAHA
I think in WW2 M1 could by very good tank, not now =))
Coming from a veteran...tanker.. the M1 is the seetest peice of machinery on earth. I dont give a fuck what other tank u go up against soviets..punk as merkava (i'd love to pop one of those) whoever...m1 is the shit will stay the shit for long time...huuaaa
This is right, even the second biggest Airforce in the world which is PLA's Air Force still could not compete with the USAF. Most American would think the F117 and F22 raptor are the major characters because the are powerful "stealth" aircraft. But that is wrong. F18 would be better on firing and another problem that was untold was the F22 could be easily dected by a modern virsion of radar. Infact the only test on F15's. But still the PLA has only got 2500 aircraft the can compete with USAF.
Year, this is right, the M1 Abram can only fire accurately in a range of 1.8kmBut do not tease the T72. The can fire as far as 1.8km and penetrate 810mm armour. Why so many T72 tanks has been lost in Gulf War was a result of using backward, rotten cannon. So it could not exceed any further than 800 meters. T-72 suppose to be a good tank. Another hazard problem was the autoloader. Still installed on the modern Chinese ZTZ-99 and T90. It is another problem that increased the numbers of fatal.
Abrams can easily find solutions for 4km targets, furthest in 1991 was 4400m, penetration is 690mm with M829A2.
Iraqi T-72 in Gulf war was worse than the original T-72 "Ural", so bad it had half the armour value.
T-72 autoloader limits the penetrators rod size, apart from that it's fine. T-90's new loader fixed this. T-80UM2 "Black Eagle"'s loader is meant to be even better.
Even a T-72/T-55 can be beefed up to beat an Abrams, a T-90 is basically just a renamed T-72BM due to the bad rep. the T-72 got in Iraq '91.
Only problem that might hinder the Russian tanks is the tank gun, it's not as accurate as the western counterparts, but the Relikts ERA will probably make up for it.
Also remember that Israel pays for its stuff with US money.
I never stated on whether the T-72 was a good comparison due to its age or not, so your the one taking what I said out of context and in-turn being an idiot.
Also it can only kill from the top and maybe (probably not) the rear.
Yeah the angle of the armor has a major factor on the protection of the crew. The edges of the turret slope down giving more protection to the crew when the turret is hit.
Story of an M48A3 in Hue 1968, Tet Survived 26 RPG-7 hits, crew sustained concussions but no major damage. Marines changed crews and the patrol went on as planned.
It's all about crews, tactics,Murphy's Law, and God.
your a moron iraqies out numbered the united states 10 to 1 and we still beat the crap out of them same in the gulf war they had one of the biggest army and we destoryed them. point is america owns all - American forces are better trained.. also you are over looking the fact that americans controlled the air.. and well a tank vrs a warhog or other tank busters arent going to do too good..
Germany, Sweden, China all three train soldiers better than America.
A single rpg, with a tandem HEAT charge to the upper turret joint or turret ring, will take out almost any tank in the world, two or three as they are usually used is almost guranteed to kill the vehicle.
and a single heat seeking missile or flak cannon, can damage a warthog A-10 but the titanium tub the pilot sits in will protect him, how ever two twin 12.7mm MG's and it is probably going down, or out of commision.
I don't know about Germany or China, but I do know what happened during a mock exercise between Sweedish and American troops in the early 90s and the Sweedish troops didn't enjoy it.
As for IEDs. These exist in many diffirent sizes. I know of at least 1 Abrams being destroyed (with serveral crew members killed) by one which was detonated beneath the vehicle (a weak spot of most tanks). It consisted of a anti-tank mine (as a trigger) with a big load of additional explosives (including several 155mm rounds). Would have knocked out any tank.
Most IEDs are smaller, unable to knock out a tank.
In regards to Chobham. Yes it has been invented in the UK but perfected by the US. One of the improvements which makes it stronger then normal chobham is the addition of steel encased depleted uranium.
This is how it works with NATO allies you use each others inventions and improve it.
So yes the Abrams uses armor originally developed in the UK, and the UK uses American equipment, such as the Apache and Chinook.
With regard to Chobham mate, we now use Dorchester which is the latest and improved version, that together with the applique armour packs forms an armour suite that is superior to the Abrams. Note, I am NOT crowing here or making a big song and dance about it, nor yet am I disrespecting you. Its better. Simple as that.
Sorry 100 nothing is superior to DU encased Chobham I work around it, now for the Brits you all use all kinds of our stuff so lets not get in to a bitching contest over a little bit of armor.
I work round armour too mate, 22 years with tanks. I don't bitch I just state an opinion.Bottom line, when the rounds are flying I know where I'd rather be. Clear ? :)
Agreed. My point is though that the quantity of armour, placement of applique armour packs and composition of armour all in all give the Chally the edge in protection.See my original post. I'm not saying Abrams isn't good, I'm not saying that Chally is a better tank, what I'm saying is that as far as protection goes it is better.
The whole argument of best tank is a circular one. My professed opinion is that the big 3 Leo2,Chally2 and the latest bloc build of Abrams are within a hairs breadth of each other. Crews make the difference. Chally has better protection, Abrams has better GCE, Leo has better power to weight.
yeah its all balanced, but Were hopefully getting tusk for our unit, it has the new Explosive Reactive plates on top of the pasive armor and this will cover, front, side, back, and top. so its going to mess with the scales again.
You're getting TUSK we're getting CLIP, don't you just love the acronyms?. Your point about weight is well made, its a constant balancing act over mobility and armour. Good luck anyway mate.
In regards RPG-7. During operation Thunder run there were Abramses and Bradleys that were hit to up to 15 RPG's without damage. The only Abrams disabled during TR was pure luck. RPG hit the rear turret which set a can of fuel on fire which dripped down into the engine compartment causing engine fire. The crew couldn't get fire out so abandoned and threw a thermite grenade in to prevent it falling in Iraqi hands.
To further knock it out they used airstikes which took 2 Mavericks and a Hellfire!
120mm depleted uranium APFSDS-T rounds (which destroy a T-80U or T-90 at 4km single shot) are unable to penetrate front and side of Abrams. This is best protected tank in the world. Challenger 2, Leopard 2 A6 and Merkava 4 are not far behind.
Chobham was developed in britain, first used on m1 then challenger. Tell me what tank first used chobham armor, everything I have read or seen has been m1. Also, m1 used depleted uranium armor as well. M1 is by far the worlds safest tank to be in.
U know. This is like discussing whats best between Xbox 360 and PS3.. Technology will allways be even, everywhere. The tactics and the determination of those who use it, will be the key to victory, allways.
Ofcourse there are more factors like numbers, Home/away and reason the fight is going on who against who and casus belli.. But u know.. There is no such thing as decisively supperior tech. There is supperior, but thats not supperior enough.
your a moron iraqies out numbered the united states 10 to 1 and we still beat the crap out of them same in the gulf war they had one of the biggest army and we destoryed them. point is america owns all
Oh and some IED's are shape charges so you shouldn't think simple IED's are that great. Any dumbfuck can wire some explosive together and hide in his house next to his kids. Takes a man to come out and fight.
IEDs? Well that all depends on what is used. Like M4xPower said the shape charges they are using are more dangerous. I've been hit by IED's and I laugh after it's over with. You want to be fair? I'll get off my tank and kick some terrorist's ass that a way no one can complain about being fair. HA!
aikidotomy, reactive armor wasnt invented by brits. Chobum armor was. reactive is additional plates u hang on the chobum. And do u know what tank first employed the british made chobum armor? Well it was the abrams, so tehcnically they use our armor.
So we make armour and they're the first to use it, makes it suddenly their armour? Plus you're totally in correct in saying that chobham was first used on American tank, however you could be saying that you Americans made an armour system called "chobum", which I've never heard of; I'll go with the latter.
watched a copper tube take out an armoured vehicle then saw no damage on reactive armour this was invented by the brits nicked by the yanks iraq is you next vietnam
depensd on where it is hit and how concentrated, my uncle drives tanks in Iraq and his friend survived 2,000 pounds, the tank lost both treads and blew off the side paneling on the right but went to get rpaired and was back in action that same year
Dont get me wrong, I think the M1 is a great machine. As long as those guys have the best available protection its a good deal. Money well spent protecting our guys.
LOL. The improvised explosive devices? You mean they didn't wrap a bunch of dynamite in some chicken wire and detonate it with a cellphone? Haha. I think the shaped charges they were using were probably more scientific.
The improvised explosive device?? You mean they didn't wrap some dynamite in some chicken wire and blow it up with a cellphone? I think maybe the shaped charges they were using were probably more scientific.
M1A2 is known for its weak armored pan. Old RPGs had penetrate the pan from side. And the US ERA is just 1st generation like the 1960s russian ERA, but now russians ERA kontakt5, relikt and Kaktus is 3rd generation of ERA about 60% better than Kontakt 1 and reduce KE Ammunition.
Talshet 4 months ago
All the tests were succesful. None of the attacks were able to penetrate or injure the crew. The last test caused some structural damage but the tank was operational after all this. It was also fully equipped with its normal armaments and fuel. What a monster of a tank.
liverallstrong 4 months ago
Do yo know where they tested the armor?
TheJBJB710 7 months ago
i couldnt really tell... were these tests successful?
hotpocketpoison 10 months ago
@hotpocketpoison yes. in the last, you would be heavily injured by spalling.
zackhanscom 8 months ago
it might be fuel and ammo exploding but the point is the crew in the cabin is safe. If they survive, a Veteran tank crew can fight another day and possibly turn the tank into an expensive fixed gun placement!
UBiQproductions 1 year ago
well the fuel and rounds are kept seperate from the crew so no matter what they will still be safe
swatteam153 2 years ago
Does the armor ignite because of the extreme amount of friction from the round penetration the armor?
AC130EMPYREAL 2 years ago
no. because of ammo inside the tank or it can ignite if it is hit with HEAT round.....
Sabot don't make fire, just hole ;)
djuravldc 2 years ago
Ummm....OK?! Depleted Uranium is pyrophoric....there's plenty of fire.
Even a Tungsten kinetic penetrator will cause a significant amount of flame.....
EP7878 2 years ago
I saw the same footage in a Natural Geographic show. Apparently it's the reactive armour. To be honest, it really doesn't look like it though, it does look like secondaries(fuel and ammo).
mrjew 2 years ago
@AC130EMPYREAL No. That's an RPG round attempting to burn through.
tommoshuffle13 1 year ago
isnt this classified
TheGatman101 2 years ago
this is back when they were testing it , its been upgraded sense then
one80ds 2 years ago
You cant make it invincible. Assuming this is M1A1, we are still with that tank as M1A2 exists in very small numbers.
A simple IED made from an artillery shell kills any tank if it goes off underneath. It kills the crew, to be precise.
And those fools who think that a 500lb bomb will only scratch the paint, certainly have zero knowledge about it.
The M1 tank is pretty much outdated as weapons were always ahead of armor, we are just lucky that we fight teenage boys who dont have any.
Buuub08 2 years ago
that's right m8, any tank, even with the best active protection systems and Armour will be thrown high in the air with massive amount of artillery shells buried underneath it and detonated. with that kind of impact, the crew would die from the injuries they sustain while the tank was thrown about.
Wast3m 2 years ago
the merkava actually performed really well much better then other tanks would have.
Crazylalalalala 2 years ago
What are you a Zionist?
whatthehell81 2 years ago
hmm, do i believe Jews deserve to have a nation of their own? (which is all that you are actually asking) yes.
but thanx for commenting, even though it has nothing to do with my comment. thx. really.
Crazylalalalala 2 years ago
iT WAS MORE OF AN INSULT
whatthehell81 2 years ago
so you pretty much an idiot. thanx
Crazylalalalala 2 years ago
the weak spots are the turrent top and chasis bottom
adolfhilter 2 years ago
those arena and shtora only protect them from incoming rpg, anti tank missile or tow missile, not a life round from tanks such as the sabot round. get it?
SH0TTYMAD 2 years ago
that's where the Kontakt-5 came into being. it was design to beat long rod penetrator. a test conducted by US army and Budeswehr show that when a T-72 was protected by this ERA, it's immune to M829 sabot round fired from Abrams main gun.
phadil 2 years ago
and thats why the US Army develop the M829A2 and M829A3 to defeat Kontakt-5 armor on the T90.
steelsixpack101 2 years ago
Both M829A2 AND M829A3 were desinged to defeat the K5 version of the 80s, so I woudn`t be surprised if they both fail to defeat the new type off K5 mounted on T90 which is more than 10 years newer, not even speaking of Relikt (already on the new T90 version) or Kaktus
stalingradComando 2 years ago
@stalingradComando
No, M829A3 was designed for K5.
ResiusOnline 1 year ago
A Russian export tank is generally a pathetic copy of the version for the Russian homeland. When Syria purchased tanks from Russia only the first couple had the advertised armour package. The rest had much less armour so much they weighed less. Syrians checked the first couple they received and not the rest. Thats part of the reason they did so poorly against the Israeli's.
Simple rule buy Russian, and get ripped off. Kinda funny.
bluewolf20 3 years ago 4
seems smart to me.
we wouldn't want to arm people who could be our enemies in the future (ex US arming the afghans/Iran.....)
Crazylalalalala 2 years ago
They sell a downgraded version to Warsaw pact country, and they sell double downgraded version to the Arabs. soem of the tanks ERA package was actually a 2 steel plates with clay sandwiched in between.
phadil 2 years ago
ROFL clay to replace explosives. SCAM!
Wast3m 2 years ago
wow i never knew that,thanks!
Wast3m 2 years ago
@bluewolf20 monkey models! ugh!
rexregum 9 months ago
@bluewolf20
People reading your comment will believe that there isn't any of quality control on an army, especially when purchasing expensive things like tanks...
gmlviper 4 months ago
noooo not the 500 pound bomb it will ruin the paint!!!!
vswimnerdvirgo 3 years ago
Actually a 500lb Bomb will blow the tank sky high and turn it inside out....
soberauzzie 2 years ago
nothing can get through ti
panzerputney 3 years ago
wow only 850 mm RHA rating for a T90 frontally?
the M1A2 SEP is 1200 mm RHA rating, and excellent side protection
asianiinvasion 3 years ago
If bring in a lot of tanks during any war, you have the risk of losing some of your tanks. In Desert Storm, 23 tanks were damaged out of 1500 tanks and no one died. In Iraq 80 tanks were damaged out of 1100 due the urban envrionment and 0 tank crew deaths until after the invasion. Tanks are always at a disadvantage in an urban envrionment because you don't know where the attack will be.Other than that, that Abrams will keep you alive and has proved it self time and time again. Best tank ever.
redmustang03 3 years ago
as for the T-90, it depends.
there's actually 3 different T-90s.
the T-90, T-90S, and T-90A.
T-90 is T-72B-level BDD armour+cast RHA steel,
with added K5 ERA. the T-72B front armour is
M1A1(HA) level, but the rear and side armour is vastly inferior. plus theres ballistic holes in the armour where 25mm can penetrate it FRONTALLY. the newer T-90A is much better,
made out of welded chunks, it should be similarly protected to an M1A2 SEP. without K5. with K5, its superior.
dejawolf 3 years ago
I think that the T-90A with the new welded turret array is ~850mm with K-5 against late 1980s generation APFSDS. To suggest it is about 940mm which is a >40% jump from the base model, I find hard to believe when considering the weight gain was so minimal.
EasyEs 3 years ago
well, consider that the base thickness of the T-72M1 turret walls is 430-450mm RHA steel + 130mm of sand. the T-72B armour must be thicker than this, since its base model is 3 tons heavier, and the turret chins are clearly thicker.i'd say M1A1(HA) level. now the regular T-90 is 46 tons, so the ERA package is about 2 tonnes. but the T-90A... its 48 tonnes.
comparatively, the difference between M1A1HA and M1A2 SEP is 2 metric tonnes as well, but dispersed on a larger surface area.
dejawolf 3 years ago
I can agree with that. My contention was based on the thought that the Armour weight efficiency of the new inserts was worse then the M1A1 upgrade and that a substantial portion of that two tones went to other improvements, including attachments for ERA integration. With out knowing what the inserts are I would say that 850mm is my upper bound estimate and 680 is my lower.
EasyEs 3 years ago
just FYI, newer armour estimates of the M1A1(HA) non-LOS front turret armour thickness is estimated to be 580mm RHAe KE, and 1220mm HEAT. LOS thickness is in the 700mm range but naturally varies depending on the angle.
this is based on the fact that the M1A1(HA) weights 61.3 metric tonnes.
also, only 2289 M1A1HA were made. only 155 of those has been upgraded to HC(AIM) standard.
russia has made 10 000 T-72 tanks of various versions. not sure how much of each though.
dejawolf 3 years ago
scratch that. army-technology says that around 50 000 T-72 tanks has been built.
dejawolf 3 years ago
I agree that one reason for thinking that the T-90A package probably doesn't offer ~30cm of protection vs M1A1->M1A1 HA only ~13cm.
I think that all current operational M1A1s have the Armour package that includes second generation DU. The M1A1 HA+ and M1A2SEP have different Armour packages.
EasyEs 3 years ago
no, wrong. M1A1(HA) is the abrams variant with DU armour. and there's 2289 of those.
before that, 2374 vanilla abrams was made, and 3280 M1A1.
i know a guy who worked in the US army reserve, and his tank was a non-DU variant.
that was in 2006, although his tank was decommisioned and he was reassigned as infantry.
it could be that all the older tanks were simply scrapped, so that all that remains is the more modern variants.
one source i found states there's only 4393 M1A1s left.
dejawolf 3 years ago
Right my confusion is that there are 3 DU amour packages. The original on (1988 M1A1 HA)the second generation (1992-1993 M1A1 HA+ M1A2) and (2003 M1A1 SEP M1A1 Aim). My understanding that all Regular army M1A1s have been upgraded at least to the 1992 package. Reserve tanks I couldn't tell you.
EasyEs 3 years ago
Still the only way we know how good a T-90 would be is in the conflict of Georgia and what's been going on in Chechnya. Still one good thing that the Russians can do well is make weapons/tank cheap and reliable and mass produce. I think the Russians have made about 1,000 T-90 while the US has made about 9,000 Abrams.
redmustang03 3 years ago
guys da M1A1 has some sick ass armor. my uncle was in 1 and he was shot at by several rpgs and they barely made a dent in the armor
nos103 3 years ago
2 m1a1 shooting each other head on will survive :P
but I heard the rear or the sides where quite alot more vulnerable
newphew92 3 years ago
Top attack missile.
Need I say more?
Dudtz 3 years ago
Only the rare hard to get RPG 7 tandem rounds and above can penetrante an Abrams and only the side armour. Heat rounds won't penetrate the frontal armour of any tank thats why sabot rounds are used with tank guns. Only way to attack a tank with a missile or rocket facing the front of a tank is to hit the top of the tank and ERA is obosolite agaist modern tandem warheads.
YouFucked2 3 years ago
for all of those who say an rpg-29 penetrated a challenger2? it PENETRATED THE FRONTAL HULL YOU RETARDS WHICH IS VERY VERY WEAKER THAN THE FRONTAL TURRET.
stg44rulz 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SO SUCK MY COCK BITCHES
stg44rulz 3 years ago
The lower hull at that. The tank was designed to fight hull down in WW3 so the lower hull is only about 700mm vs CE. It was a marginal penetration that didn't cause much internal damage. Any hit on the lower hull of the T-90 etc would have similar results. That said the RPG-29 is a good weapon.
EasyEs 3 years ago 2
it took off the drivers leg. other than that, eveyrone was fine.
dejawolf 3 years ago
@EasyEs
Actually, the lower hull of an M1A2 SEP has been estimated to be 650mm vs KE, and 970mm vs CE.
cr9527 6 months ago
@cr9527 Thank you for pointing that out. I was refering to the Challenger 2 however. AFAIK the front hull of the M1A2 has even greater protection on the left and right sides due to the placement of gas tanks there. I think it is well over 1500mm vs CE and probably greater then 800mm vs KE at those spots.
If that is true then the tank would be very hard to kill from a frontal engagement, with any weapon that doesn't hit around the drivers hatch or turret ring
EasyEs 6 months ago
@EasyEs
I think those figures would only fir the turret of the Abrams.
cr9527 6 months ago
@cr9527 If the frontal armor of the hull was just empty i would agree but it isn't. there are some armor diagrams at the SB wiki website you can look at to give you an idea (very general) of the armor layout of an early Du version of the M1a1
EasyEs 6 months ago
How hard would you cry if somehow insurgents could lay their hands on RPG-29. Oh, how hard would you cry.
ArtypNk 3 years ago
:-) it would help, but it would still be a difficult job to kill the latest uparmored
M1A2's with the tusk kit. and with the new aktive protection systems they have started fielding its only going to get worse to use rockets or missiles against tanks. a huge ied (100kg+) will do the job for sure, but its not a really effective way of fighting tanks.
arasaka2020tm 3 years ago
at 0.55 is that a direct hit on the M1?
kuyakev 3 years ago
pft why are we arguing about tanks, its not like well pilot one anytime soon, it doesnt matter which is better the m1 a2 or the t90 it matters on the tank commander and his crew
Godsjudgement12 3 years ago
I it interesting to note that IS-2 soviet heavy tank was ripping away chunks of tigers and PAnthers.
Heinz Guderian ORDERED his tank crews NOT to engage soviet heavy IS-2 in an open tank vs tank duel, tells you something
Don't even get me started on IS-3, boys.
And NAshhorn is not a tank, but SP artillery,
Wanna hear accounts of SU-152 ripping Tiger's turret off the tank with anti-concrete projectiles boys? OR SU-152 destroying tigers from over 5 km away? feel free to ask.
9K58 3 years ago
"Wanna hear accounts of SU-152 ripping Tiger's turret off the tank with anti-concrete projectiles boys? OR SU-152 destroying tigers from over 5 km away? feel free to ask."
Yes
boobtuber06 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Abrams has armor from URAN, URAN-shells, Crew of 4 person will be without children. Only lead-pants will help HAHAHAHA
kibabiba 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Americans are really stupid, they think that wide armor is everything.....against muslims with RPG-7 (by the way RPG-7 penetrates abrams sides). T90 has ERA, ARENA, SHTORA systems, abrams has nothing close.
NO missles, no active protection......URAN coffin with 4 dead niggers HAHAHAHA
I think in WW2 M1 could by very good tank, not now =))
kibabiba 3 years ago
i have seen a m1a1 take 20 rpg7 hits, lol. the only thing it did was dammage the traks :)
guitar231 3 years ago 2
Shut the fuck up.
You don't know what you're talking about. M1A2 has superior aromor to a Russian T90.
Cuz Chobham armor owns ERA armor any day.
futuremarine1812 3 years ago
Chiobham owns ERA? Why did Challenger get destroyed by a single hit of RPG-29 FRONTALLY?
Chibham is no match for composite armor TOGETHER with heavy russian K5 or Kaktus or Relikt ERAs
9K58 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
it pentrated the frontal hull you fucktard!!
stg44rulz 3 years ago
you communist cock sucking piece of shit
stg44rulz 3 years ago
Coming from a veteran...tanker.. the M1 is the seetest peice of machinery on earth. I dont give a fuck what other tank u go up against soviets..punk as merkava (i'd love to pop one of those) whoever...m1 is the shit will stay the shit for long time...huuaaa
megatron0357 4 years ago
an Abrams has never been destroyed by another tank so stfu rusbp, you know nothing, go learn more.
asianiinvasion 4 years ago
thats because the americans used air assault on iraq tanks and now they have none left.
however the abrams tanks have been blown up by the most basic RPG explosives
HaterStaZ 3 years ago
with u.s air power a war with th u.s whould be a short one if we were out in the open
gammabeta23 4 years ago
This is right, even the second biggest Airforce in the world which is PLA's Air Force still could not compete with the USAF. Most American would think the F117 and F22 raptor are the major characters because the are powerful "stealth" aircraft. But that is wrong. F18 would be better on firing and another problem that was untold was the F22 could be easily dected by a modern virsion of radar. Infact the only test on F15's. But still the PLA has only got 2500 aircraft the can compete with USAF.
wuyunchi 4 years ago
ONLY old Soviet shells shot in Iraq on Abrams.
Russian have stopped these shells to use in 1973.
Abrams lateral armor easy crush old RPG-1 and RPG-2.
Abrams power-plant which ensures the functioning into electronics is easily destroyed even by a large-caliber machine gun.
T-90
Merkava
Leo-2
are better.
rusbp 4 years ago
In regards to protection and firepower the Challenger II is better, series has the furthest shot of 5100m in Gulf 1991, versus a static T-72.
otester 4 years ago
Year, this is right, the M1 Abram can only fire accurately in a range of 1.8kmBut do not tease the T72. The can fire as far as 1.8km and penetrate 810mm armour. Why so many T72 tanks has been lost in Gulf War was a result of using backward, rotten cannon. So it could not exceed any further than 800 meters. T-72 suppose to be a good tank. Another hazard problem was the autoloader. Still installed on the modern Chinese ZTZ-99 and T90. It is another problem that increased the numbers of fatal.
wuyunchi 4 years ago
Abrams can easily find solutions for 4km targets, furthest in 1991 was 4400m, penetration is 690mm with M829A2.
Iraqi T-72 in Gulf war was worse than the original T-72 "Ural", so bad it had half the armour value.
T-72 autoloader limits the penetrators rod size, apart from that it's fine. T-90's new loader fixed this. T-80UM2 "Black Eagle"'s loader is meant to be even better.
otester 4 years ago
is interesting to note that several panther and tigers blew it up t34 and shermans from about 4km and 5km distance away.
DERZWERGE11 3 years ago
Furthest T-34 = Tiger E (88mm L\56) @ 3900m
Furthest IS-2 = Nashorn (88mm L\71) @ 4600m
IIRC the Nashorn shot was only beaten in Gulf War I, 5100m by the Challenger against a T-72M. Abrams furthest was 4400m against a T-55/T-72.
otester 3 years ago
one more time....
its a big difference between tanks T72 and T55 against modern Abrams.
T90
Leopard
T80
Merkava
this 4 tanks are better than Abrams.
rusbp 3 years ago
Even a T-72/T-55 can be beefed up to beat an Abrams, a T-90 is basically just a renamed T-72BM due to the bad rep. the T-72 got in Iraq '91.
Only problem that might hinder the Russian tanks is the tank gun, it's not as accurate as the western counterparts, but the Relikts ERA will probably make up for it.
Also remember that Israel pays for its stuff with US money.
otester 3 years ago 2
LOL :)
t90 is a new tank, new weapons, new mechanical and electronical parts.
about guns:
1. russian gun work by laser targeted rockets.
2. russian gun has an automatical reloader.
us gun shoot by similar shilds.
us gan still has manual reloader by human.
rusbp 3 years ago
"this 4 tanks are better than Abrams."
u seriously dont know shit man
Sir0wnzAl0t 3 years ago
T72 is 35 yeras old.
don be idiot.
30years old RPG easy crush Abrms but cant do nothing against T80 or T90.
rusbp 3 years ago
I never stated on whether the T-72 was a good comparison due to its age or not, so your the one taking what I said out of context and in-turn being an idiot.
Also it can only kill from the top and maybe (probably not) the rear.
otester 3 years ago
right!!! the best gun ARE always GERMANS!!!
even hk had to improve the m16!
but u r teribly wrong about the merkava and the t 90.
DERZWERGE11 3 years ago
yep and the first fsked up country that decides to do tank vs tank against us then we'll see how "bad" it is.
poonjoo 4 years ago
Yeah the angle of the armor has a major factor on the protection of the crew. The edges of the turret slope down giving more protection to the crew when the turret is hit.
jack16895 4 years ago
Story of an M48A3 in Hue 1968, Tet Survived 26 RPG-7 hits, crew sustained concussions but no major damage. Marines changed crews and the patrol went on as planned.
It's all about crews, tactics,Murphy's Law, and God.
kimber1964 4 years ago
Different placement, additions, whatever. DU mesh, makes it a fighting chance.
ERA, was first used on the M48, then the M60 put out of service after Storm, and recommissoned for OIF on the M1.
The strength is not just based upon Chobham, but the angle of the armor aswell.
The Abrams concept was based on range not protection alone.
kimber1964 4 years ago
Chobham for the US, Dorchester for the UK, Same thing.
kimber1964 4 years ago
tusk and slip will be ustopable agians future wars
1stamerica1st 4 years ago
2/3 ACR Fox TRP Tanker
HollowayPi 4 years ago
Aieeyah fucker
UStanker3dACR 4 years ago
Alright, so how many of you have actualy served on a tank?
Tankerpaul223 4 years ago
Me M1A2 SEPv2 ftw
UStanker3dACR 4 years ago
your a moron iraqies out numbered the united states 10 to 1 and we still beat the crap out of them same in the gulf war they had one of the biggest army and we destoryed them. point is america owns all - American forces are better trained.. also you are over looking the fact that americans controlled the air.. and well a tank vrs a warhog or other tank busters arent going to do too good..
madal434 4 years ago
madal is that addressed to me?, please make it clear if it is, and then explain WHY.
l00sehead 4 years ago
Germany, Sweden, China all three train soldiers better than America.
A single rpg, with a tandem HEAT charge to the upper turret joint or turret ring, will take out almost any tank in the world, two or three as they are usually used is almost guranteed to kill the vehicle.
and a single heat seeking missile or flak cannon, can damage a warthog A-10 but the titanium tub the pilot sits in will protect him, how ever two twin 12.7mm MG's and it is probably going down, or out of commision.
Tallerdude 4 years ago
I don't know about Germany or China, but I do know what happened during a mock exercise between Sweedish and American troops in the early 90s and the Sweedish troops didn't enjoy it.
randomjsa 4 years ago
Well when you go against the most "powerful"
army in existence you probably wouldn't, not to mention the US was coming out of a war, when the Swedes were, not.
Tallerdude 4 years ago
No, No and maybe just as good.
$60 of welded steel made into a screen takes the RPG out of the picture.
I dont think A10s will be flying in anit aircraft protected areas!
By the way
Army Combat Engineers Clear The Way!
ramairgto72 4 years ago
As for IEDs. These exist in many diffirent sizes. I know of at least 1 Abrams being destroyed (with serveral crew members killed) by one which was detonated beneath the vehicle (a weak spot of most tanks). It consisted of a anti-tank mine (as a trigger) with a big load of additional explosives (including several 155mm rounds). Would have knocked out any tank.
Most IEDs are smaller, unable to knock out a tank.
NationalSniper 4 years ago
In regards to Chobham. Yes it has been invented in the UK but perfected by the US. One of the improvements which makes it stronger then normal chobham is the addition of steel encased depleted uranium.
This is how it works with NATO allies you use each others inventions and improve it.
So yes the Abrams uses armor originally developed in the UK, and the UK uses American equipment, such as the Apache and Chinook.
NationalSniper 4 years ago
With regard to Chobham mate, we now use Dorchester which is the latest and improved version, that together with the applique armour packs forms an armour suite that is superior to the Abrams. Note, I am NOT crowing here or making a big song and dance about it, nor yet am I disrespecting you. Its better. Simple as that.
l00sehead 4 years ago
Sorry 100 nothing is superior to DU encased Chobham I work around it, now for the Brits you all use all kinds of our stuff so lets not get in to a bitching contest over a little bit of armor.
majormayhem1 4 years ago
I work round armour too mate, 22 years with tanks. I don't bitch I just state an opinion.Bottom line, when the rounds are flying I know where I'd rather be. Clear ? :)
l00sehead 4 years ago
K you got a few years on me, but you know what I am trying to say Chobam, or DU Chobam its still going to stop the projectile.
majormayhem1 4 years ago
Agreed. My point is though that the quantity of armour, placement of applique armour packs and composition of armour all in all give the Chally the edge in protection.See my original post. I'm not saying Abrams isn't good, I'm not saying that Chally is a better tank, what I'm saying is that as far as protection goes it is better.
l00sehead 4 years ago
The whole argument of best tank is a circular one. My professed opinion is that the big 3 Leo2,Chally2 and the latest bloc build of Abrams are within a hairs breadth of each other. Crews make the difference. Chally has better protection, Abrams has better GCE, Leo has better power to weight.
l00sehead 4 years ago
yeah its all balanced, but Were hopefully getting tusk for our unit, it has the new Explosive Reactive plates on top of the pasive armor and this will cover, front, side, back, and top. so its going to mess with the scales again.
majormayhem1 4 years ago
You're getting TUSK we're getting CLIP, don't you just love the acronyms?. Your point about weight is well made, its a constant balancing act over mobility and armour. Good luck anyway mate.
l00sehead 4 years ago
Ty bro, nice talking to you, keep in touch.
Best Regards.
Mayhem.
majormayhem1 4 years ago
In regards RPG-7. During operation Thunder run there were Abramses and Bradleys that were hit to up to 15 RPG's without damage. The only Abrams disabled during TR was pure luck. RPG hit the rear turret which set a can of fuel on fire which dripped down into the engine compartment causing engine fire. The crew couldn't get fire out so abandoned and threw a thermite grenade in to prevent it falling in Iraqi hands.
To further knock it out they used airstikes which took 2 Mavericks and a Hellfire!
NationalSniper 4 years ago
This is M1A2 not M1A1.
Very nice video.
120mm depleted uranium APFSDS-T rounds (which destroy a T-80U or T-90 at 4km single shot) are unable to penetrate front and side of Abrams. This is best protected tank in the world. Challenger 2, Leopard 2 A6 and Merkava 4 are not far behind.
NationalSniper 4 years ago
all is fair in love & war ??? not of arab origin
aereb 4 years ago
Chobham was developed in britain, first used on m1 then challenger. Tell me what tank first used chobham armor, everything I have read or seen has been m1. Also, m1 used depleted uranium armor as well. M1 is by far the worlds safest tank to be in.
phishinguy2000 4 years ago
Yes? But still gets fucked by RPG-v7..
U know. This is like discussing whats best between Xbox 360 and PS3.. Technology will allways be even, everywhere. The tactics and the determination of those who use it, will be the key to victory, allways.
Ofcourse there are more factors like numbers, Home/away and reason the fight is going on who against who and casus belli.. But u know.. There is no such thing as decisively supperior tech. There is supperior, but thats not supperior enough.
Staatssicherheit 4 years ago
JEULOS RUSSIAN SCUM ur just mad u aint got the money to field a military force to compete with other armys
caleb233 4 years ago
lol you stupid jew.
ThatEvilGuy 4 years ago
Dude, that doesnt look like an Abrams, just puting that in, I don't have time for much else.
icer190 4 years ago
dude, 120% sure, that's Abrahms
skyfrank 4 years ago
Clearly an Arams- know your AFV'S!
dansterrrr 4 years ago
Even a grenade or molotov cocktail will make the tank non-operational, the crew scramble to get out. U'r lucky the Iraqies were'nt prepared.
aereb 4 years ago
your a moron iraqies out numbered the united states 10 to 1 and we still beat the crap out of them same in the gulf war they had one of the biggest army and we destoryed them. point is america owns all
hialeahkiko 4 years ago
Oh and some IED's are shape charges so you shouldn't think simple IED's are that great. Any dumbfuck can wire some explosive together and hide in his house next to his kids. Takes a man to come out and fight.
imajiveturkey 5 years ago
IEDs? Well that all depends on what is used. Like M4xPower said the shape charges they are using are more dangerous. I've been hit by IED's and I laugh after it's over with. You want to be fair? I'll get off my tank and kick some terrorist's ass that a way no one can complain about being fair. HA!
imajiveturkey 5 years ago
aikidotomy, reactive armor wasnt invented by brits. Chobum armor was. reactive is additional plates u hang on the chobum. And do u know what tank first employed the british made chobum armor? Well it was the abrams, so tehcnically they use our armor.
phishinguy2000 5 years ago
So we make armour and they're the first to use it, makes it suddenly their armour? Plus you're totally in correct in saying that chobham was first used on American tank, however you could be saying that you Americans made an armour system called "chobum", which I've never heard of; I'll go with the latter.
VlexoNetwork 4 years ago
watched a copper tube take out an armoured vehicle then saw no damage on reactive armour this was invented by the brits nicked by the yanks iraq is you next vietnam
aikidotony 5 years ago
It would depend on the size of the device. If they used 2000 lbs of explosive material, no tank in the world could survive.
ejwalsh877 5 years ago
depensd on where it is hit and how concentrated, my uncle drives tanks in Iraq and his friend survived 2,000 pounds, the tank lost both treads and blew off the side paneling on the right but went to get rpaired and was back in action that same year
USMCInfantry 5 years ago
Dont get me wrong, I think the M1 is a great machine. As long as those guys have the best available protection its a good deal. Money well spent protecting our guys.
ejwalsh877 5 years ago
There is a video of an abram that got hit with sn ied and not even a scratch was on it.
cameron0113 5 years ago
that is a toy
H0s0n 5 years ago
yeah but they didnt tryout the ieds
socalkev 5 years ago
LOL. The improvised explosive devices? You mean they didn't wrap a bunch of dynamite in some chicken wire and detonate it with a cellphone? Haha. I think the shaped charges they were using were probably more scientific.
M4xPower 5 years ago
The improvised explosive device?? You mean they didn't wrap some dynamite in some chicken wire and blow it up with a cellphone? I think maybe the shaped charges they were using were probably more scientific.
M4xPower 5 years ago
all land vehicles are no match with ieds... just for sure...
alyou 5 years ago
i have to agree some ieds have a lot of impact.
carlosb1 5 years ago