The REAL M1 Abrams! Chapter 3: Firepower (Part 2 of 6)

[TheCatholic143]

Are hesh rounds more effective than the Sabot against tanks?

[BlacktailDefense]

@TheCatholic143 That's a good question, but there's no conclusive evidence to show which is the better armor killer. Just about every tank model ever knocked-out by an APFSDS round has also been decisively defeated by an APFSDS round.

It's also a tough choice whether to use APFSDS or HESH at a long range as well. APFSDS loses a LOT of penetration over distance while HESH doesn't lose any, but it's extremely hard to hit a moving target at 8km with HESH, relative to APFSDS.

[MarshallJukov]

@BlacktailDefense You rather should say its extremely hard to hit moving target by apfsds at 3km already, and almost impossible with HESH

[BlacktailDefense]

@MarshallJukov I don't know about "almost impossible" --- the Israelis did it on the Golan Heights with monotonous regularity, and the British did it in the Persian Gulf. In fact, the longest-ranged confirmed direct-fire tank kill in history was achieved by a Challenger 1 in 1991, with 120mm HESH at 5110m against a T-62.

An Israeli M51 Super Sherman firing 105mm HESH also scored a tank kill at 11km, though this was with *indirect*-fire.

[MarshallJukov]

@BlacktailDefense We both know that target of Callenger 1 and HESH was immobile.

[Dunnedainn]

I can tell from the music you use in your videos that you play a good number of computer games. XD

The track starting at 1:03 is from Total Annihilation, isn't it?

[BlacktailDefense]

@Dunnedainn That's the title. ;-)

However, I've never actually played that game (I'm mostly a console gamer) --- I just stumbled upon the soundtrack one day, and it sounded good.

[franknbeans4761]

Once again, when proved wrong, you never respond. Just like what happened 5 months ago. Ha.

[BlacktailDefense]

@franknbeans4761 I can't be seriously expected to reply to an average of some 15 comments per-video, spread over 150 videos. Contrary to popular assumption, I have a life.

[franknbeans4761]

@BlacktailDefense Maybe you should properly respond to your videos when you make such wild, ill-informed claims.

When you do respond, and people make valid points, you seem to stop.

Maybe you shouldn't consistently bite off more than you can chew and spread poor information.

[BlacktailDefense]

@franknbeans4761 People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones franknbeans. I still remember your lecture about how the M1 and Leopard 2 were the the product of a single joint project.

[franknbeans4761]

@BlacktailDefense "I still remember your lecture about how the M1 and Leopard 2 were the the product of a single joint project."

Can you refresh me on that? Maybe when I said they were forced into development due to the failure of the MBT-70? But they obviously weren't made together.

[BlacktailDefense]

@franknbeans4761 Actually, that turned out to be texasrangersr1; all_comments?v=0sZUtmDck9Q

It was 7 months, dozens of videos, and hundreds of comments ago.

[franknbeans4761]

@BlacktailDefense Gotcha, no problem. That would be a foolish statement to make.

He had some....interesting things to say.

[PILUPACKSXXX]

Dude you lie... its just because you dont like the abrams!!

sabot rounds penetrate more than HEAT rounds my friend.+heat rounds are obiusly highly effective agiains personel and structures. lier ..... T-90 fanboys

[BlacktailDefense]

@PILUPACKSXXX The US Army's own official penetration rating M830 is for 800mm of RHA Steel, while the M829 APFSDS round can manage 600mm.

The difference is because HEAT rounds more energy-efficient than Sabot penetrators, as a HEAT charge's kinetic energy is *always* formed at the point of impact --- it's like sticking the muzzle of an M1 into another tank's turret and firing a Sabot penetrator into it from an inch away.

[franknbeans4761]

@BlacktailDefense That actually only depends on the HEAT round being used and the APFSDS round being used. In general an American DU APFSDS round like the M829A3 is almost always better than HEAT rounds.

[franknbeans4761]

Also, the Sabot round used by the Abrams uses DU rounds. This is even better than more APFSDS rounds. The DU has properties that actually cause it to self-sharpen in flight and while it hits the target, while other tungsten core rounds become blunt. You could argue that the tungsten could cause spalling but it is unlikely. Not only that but the DU also will create more powder from the round which actually ignites with air causing even more damage.

[BlacktailDefense]

@franknbeans4761 "The DU has properties that actually cause it to self-sharpen in flight and while it hits the target, while other tungsten core rounds become blunt."

DU does indeed naturally possess this property, but new forging techniques for Tungsten Carbide penetrators makes *them* self-sharpening as well.

[franknbeans4761]

@BlacktailDefense As for the Tungsten rounds being changed to have self-sharpening capabilities, it is still something not in wide use by other countries and still not quite as good as the DU's self-sharpening abilities.

[BlacktailDefense]

@franknbeans4761 "You could argue that the tungsten could cause spalling but it is unlikely."

Back-spalling it produced at least as much by a vehicle's own armor as by a penetrating projectile. That's why Spall Liners were developed.

[franknbeans4761]

@BlacktailDefense That is why I said it could cause spalling. Not be the spalling if I am understanding you correctly. And the Abrams does have Spall Lining.

[BlacktailDefense]

@franknbeans4761 "Not only that but the DU also will create more powder from the round which actually ignites with air causing even more damage."

This "Pyrophoric Effect" would also occur on a Tungsten-based APFSDS penetrator, by simply putting a Magnesium jacket on it, much like a Full-Metal Jacket lead rifle bullet is wrapped in Copper.

[franknbeans4761]

Although the Sabot round is not the best against targets that are not tanks, it can be useful when trying to flush out enemy troops from large buildings. The round will penetrate through many walls and send fragments flying throughout the buildings. It was used by the Russians in the 1991 Soviet coup d'etat attempt.

[BlacktailDefense]

@franknbeans4761 "Although the Sabot round is not the best against targets that are not tanks, it can be useful when trying to flush out enemy troops from large buildings."

Firing Sabot penetrators into buildings is prohibited in most circumstances by the US military, because they have a tendency to over-penetrate structures. Those 40lb DU lances fly over 5 miles at Mach 3, you know.

[BlacktailDefense]

@franknbeans4761 "Although the Sabot round is not the best against targets that are not tanks, it can be useful when trying to flush out enemy troops from large buildings."

It's still a MASSIVELY weak and inefficient anti-structure weapon than HE, HESH/HEP, or APAM. Sabot penetrators make a tiny entrance and exit holes in concrete, because they're designed to penetrate large quantities of *Steel* and produce just enough back-spall to kill a few men in an tiny space; not shatter structure walls.

[franknbeans4761]

@BlacktailDefense Yes, I was simply referring to the possibilities of the APFSDS round. It is fairly limiting but can still be partially useful. Only to an extent of course. It is still limiting in general though and that is in fact a problem with the Abrams, although it is still not a significant problem.

[BlacktailDefense]

@franknbeans4761 "It was used by the Russians in the 1991 Soviet coup d'etat attempt."

The reason for that is most likely due to the hardened structures that tanks were firing into. Most of the government and military buildings in the Soviet Union were built and/or reinforced to endure much worse than tank fire, so a Sabot round was probably the only option Soviet tanks had to punch-through; there were no HESH rounds in the Red Army inventory.

[franknbeans4761]

@BlacktailDefense Actually some people say it could of even been an accident, but it still worked none-the-less and is an example of other ways the round can be used.

[minionator1]

the sabot works on everything that has more than 2cm steel amor and if u want to knock out a unamored vehicle u just aim for the motorblock its a small target and u might need 2 or 3 shoots but it works

[BlacktailDefense]

@minionator1

Perhaps against armored vehicles, but nothing else.

And as it happens, targets other than armored vehicles are the norm in all wars past, present, and future.

[TankNutJohn89]

Nice, how you call the M829A3 an "very expensive" bullet.

It's actually not so expensive as the German DM53, and it penetrates over 100mm

more RHA. Which Tank Ammo comes close?

[BlacktailDefense]

@TankNutJohn89

The point was that the M829-series APFSDS has no other application than destroying armored vehicles.

Against personnel, for example, it really is just a bullet... that costs thousands of dollars.

[voy303]

@BlacktailDefense No shit, that's the point of the round, to take out tanks.

[BlacktailDefense]

@voy303 The same goes for HEAT, MPAT, and every long-ranged guided round developed for use in the M1. However, tank-on-tank battles are the exception, not the norm.

Meanwhile, there's NO SOLUTION for defeating the structures, fortifications, and scattered personnel in the open that M1s have engaged in battle, still are, and will always face in the future. Because of these limitations, the US is practically the only nation with tanks that are ineffective against anything but other tanks.

[MarshallJukov]

@TankNutJohn89

It penetrates more Rolled Homogenous Steel - may be - but not COMPOSITE armor with NERA structure that was created EXACTLY to turn DU round effects into disadvantage that makes it 10-20% LESS effective against it. Germans intended to be first who would meet waves of REAL Soviet tanks - and thats why they keeping wolframium carbide rounds despite they are much more expencive.

[TankNutJohn89]

@MarshallJukov: The German DM53 fired from a longer Cannon penetrates less than the M829A3 DU

from the Short Cannon, with lower Speed. At BlacktailDefense: I bet the German DM53 Tungsten

costs even more, isn't as powerfull as the DU Ammo & is MORE Expensive, and uneffective against

other Enemys, like every SABOT.

[MarshallJukov]

@TankNutJohn89

Do you hear me or not? I said that it penetrates MORE of ALL-STEEL monolyth armor plate - but its LESS effective against COMPOSITE armor - aspecialy that of Non-Explosively Reactive Armor structure like on T-72B

Uranium has TWICE lower melting point, TWICE lower tensile strenght and its unique penetration achieved through so called pyrophoric effect that gives it "self-sharpening" during ablatic shear phase. And its working OPPOSITE way against NERA

[MarshallJukov]

@TankNutJohn89

Besides relatively low velocity decreaces chances of M829A3 to hit a moving tank at all.

Plus - longer rod more vulnerable to ERA, and thus its slower too - it allows ERA to interact with rod for longer timeframe - additionaly increacing loss of rod length due backspalling. In fact M829A3 even less effective againt such ERA as 4S23 (Relikt) than its shorter predecessors or also shorter DM53 rounds

[EasyEs]

@TankNutJohn89 I would say though that RHA penetration is not well known for these rounds. The M-829A3 was developed IIRC after the USA got their hands on a T-84 with a welded turret and K5 ERA, giving them a good understanding of what was then the best protected eastern tank in service. I don't know if the DM-53/63 is a good a round to fire against an heavy ERA covered target. Might be better vs RHA though

[TankNutJohn89]

@EasyEs: These are SABOT's, there isn't a better Ammuniton to fight against other Tanks.

[EasyEs]

@TankNutJohn89 oh I am well aware of this fact I can assure you. I agree with the larger point of the firepower series done by Blacktaildefense that the M1A1/A2 are in dire need of a good HE round. Even though the Abrams is probably safe across the frontal arc from just about any ATGM including the At-14/15, lack of a good HE round means that those surprise shots from the sides can't be dealt with in a speedy way.

[FaUsT491]

waltham's the real deal, being the son of a retired marine gunnery sergeant (22 years) and having spent many years overseas amongst marines i can tell he is (or was haven't read through the comments completely) a service member. You guys are like scientists going off spread sheets and third hand information to come to these conclusions. Until you change its tracks, serve on it, and fight it in it you honestly don't know it. Going into the corps in may and GUESS WHAT? ARMOR CREWMAN so blow me

[BlacktailDefense]

@FaUsT491 Gee, THAT was diplomatic, and so full of information to disprove my claims... not.

Try again, smart gut --- oops! I meant, "experienced" guy.

[Waltham1892]

I have not idea who created this video, but I can tell you with certainty they've never served on a tank.

What facts aren't wrong are presented incorrectly, with no understanding of tactics, logistics, doctrine, or threat forces.

And yes, I've served on a tank crew, commanded a tank, a platoon, a company, and been in the Bn S-3 shop.

[BlacktailDefense]

@Waltham1892

Wow, a Appeal From Authority Fallacy with no information within to support it --- you've left no doubt in any viewer what one has to believe to believe in the M1.

In fact, in doing so, you paint a VERY ugly picture of the US Army's "...understanding of tactics, logistics, doctrine, or threat forces".

Yep, that's what happens when a Whoppertanktard opens their mouth.

[Waltham1892]

Before we start what is certain to be a very short conversation, perhaps we should share are expertise.

I attended the enlisted armored vehicle crewman's course (1980), Armor BNOC (1983), AOBC (1987), JOMC (1987), Plt Ldr (1987), XO (1990), First Gulf War (1991), CO (1992), Asst S-3 (1995), AOAC (1996).

So, what you call a fallacy is actually training and experience.

So, what video games have you played which make you an expert in armor? Roll any good saving throws recently, boy?

[BlacktailDefense]

@Waltham1892

No citing you career, as opposed to EVIDENCE, is a Fallacy... unless you happen to be an M1A2 Abrams that talks, that is.

All the training and experience in the world doesn't make an M1A2 lighter than 72 short tons at combat weight.

[Waltham1892]

Let us turn your arguement around for a moment. Are you a talking M-1? Have you ever been in one, crewed one, fought from one?

No? Then let us move on.

Did you know the Israeli's use APDS in urban warfare? They found that the 120mm HEAT didn't pack enough filler to do the job so they use APDS to weaken walls and follow it up with HEAT.

Did you know that in a Mech CAT fighting dismounts goes the the mounted infantry and arty and not tanks?

Wanna roll a saving throw, boy?

[BlacktailDefense]

@Waltham1892

"Let us turn your arguement around for a moment. Are you a talking M-1? Have you ever been in one, crewed one, fought from one?"

Have you ever been inside a Yugo GV?

"Did you know the Israeli's use APDS in urban warfare? They found that the 120mm HEAT didn't pack enough filler to do the job so they use APDS to weaken walls and follow it up with HEAT."

The use APERS and APAM rounds in MOUT, not APDS.

[BlacktailDefense]

@Waltham1892

"Did you know that in a Mech CAT fighting dismounts goes the the mounted infantry and arty and not tanks?"

Could you repeat that with more coherent grammar?

[Waltham1892]

Sorry, my mistake. I forgot you have no experience or training. Add water and stir expertise must not be what its cracked up to be.

Today's study words are:

Mech = mechanized

CAT= Combined Arms Team

Arty = Artillery

If I used any other words or concepts you don't understand, please let me know.

[BlacktailDefense]

@Waltham1892

I asked you to un-garble your sentence, not to translate every abbreviation in it.

"If I used any other words or concepts you don't understand, please let me know."

And yet ANOTHER Appeal From Authority Fallacy. Though I'm sure your indoctrination makes you more credible than evidence.

[Waltham1892]

Lets face it kid, you consider yourself an expert in a field in which you have no training or experience. You are an internet based illusion of expertise.

The "facts" you cite are nothing more than factoids held to gether by your uniformed opinion.

The standards you set for proof is one that you can not reach.

You are a 25 year old blowing smoke and with every posting it becomes more evident,.

Now, son, is there anything else you want to tell me about armor or armor doctrine?

[BlacktailDefense]

@Waltham1892

"Lets face it kid, you consider yourself an expert in a field in which you have no training or experience.  You are an internet based illusion of expertise."

Oops, you did it again --- an Appeal to Authority Fallacy! You're a broken record, all you can do is talk about how your importance somehow makes contrary evidence invalid.

"You are a 25 year old blowing smoke and with every posting it becomes more evident,."

Sucks to lose an argument to a civilian in public, doesn't it?

[Waltham1892]

Let me ask you a simple question you will most likely refuse to answer:

I've noticed that you have not mentioned the source of your expertise. So, from where did you aquire your expertise and how extensive is it?

I'm betting its all websites, right?  Maybe the odd book or model kit?

And for whose winning or losing, I'm comfortable with my position at the moment. I've got the high ground and the weight of fire.

By the way, if you have any questions of me, send them down range son.

[BlacktailDefense]

@Waltham1892

"So, from where did you aquire your expertise and how extensive is it?"

A lot of books, magazines, websites, and several serving and retired military contacts. You can't learn everything at the NTC.

"And for whose winning or losing, I'm comfortable with my position at the moment. I've got the high ground and the weight of fire."

The "high ground" in a debate isn't avoiding the issue. For example, which is more effective against structures; HEAT, or HESH?

[Waltham1892]

So, you've read magazine articles. How nice.

"You can't learn everything at the NTC"

Yes, in fact you can. Thats why they have the NTC. Big money saver having officers read wikipedia, but the Army is hung up with "hands on" experience.

"HEAT or HESH"

Since you have no experience with either, I can tell you anything and you'd have no way of knowing the difference. By the way, HESH is English and not compatible with the M256. You didn't know that? Hmmm.

[MarshallJukov]

@Waltham1892

He didn`t asked you is HESH compatible with M256 or not - he asked you which is more effective for demolition - HESH or HEAT. Personaly i add there HEFRAG too. Just answer to the point warrior - we don`t interested in listening which great person you are.

[Waltham1892]

My point is the question reveals his ignorance. There is no US HESH round so the question can not be answered.  Also, the question ignores the logistics, FCS, and training implications of adding a new round to a tanks basic load.

Its a fan-boy type question, like his ilk who aregue about batman v. spiderman.

Lastly, I'm not passing myself off as great. My history is the normal progression for a mid-career officer. However, it is somewhat better than fan-boy status.

[MarshallJukov]

@Waltham1892

Sorry but you not revealing his ingnorance - you just reveal your own arrogant stupidity - no offense.

He didn`t told about US HESH rounds but about M1`s glaring impotence againt infantry and fortifications.

M1 simply had it next to zero

[Waltham1892]

Wow, nerds do travel in groups don't they...

The M-1 is not the only vehicle the US Army fields. An Armor unit would engage dismounted infantry with M-2's of the attached infantry, whose 25mm's are better than our 120's against dismounts.

Failing that, I've got the the Bn's mortor platoon; Div Arty firing DPICM; the Av Bde with chain guns and rockets; Tac Air with CBU's, or I can supress with fire and roll past them.

You guys don't even know what you don't know.

[MarshallJukov]

@Waltham1892

The only nerd here is you - thats fact.

Because this Bradley`s 25mm peashooter is just rediculous and has painfuly slow rate of fire. Which kind of shit Bradley is perfectly described in Blacktail`s other videos. In addition you can compare this lumbering deathtrap with BMP-3

As for your "mortar platoons" e t c you only confirm our point - M1 EXTREMELY underpowered LOL))) If you want to talk about MLRS artillery i will gladly reveal for you how underpowered US inventory here too

[MarshallJukov]

@Waltham1892

P.S. Russian tanks use 3VOF-36 HEFRAG round which is 23kg projectile filled with A-IX-2 explosives (2 times more powerfull than TNT) and SMART DETONATOR which can detonate it at any desired point of traectory up to 13km

THAT is ultimate anti-infantry capability for a tankl- don`t you think?

[Waltham1892]

No, I don't think any round gives a tank company an definitive anti-infantry capability, and I don't think a Russian Officer would believe that it does either.

The best anti-infantry capability a tank company can have is cross-attached infantry platoon.

Each combat arms branch is an inter-dependant member of a whole, with unique capabilities and liabilities.

A student of the force of arms understands that while a fan-boy is confused by it...

[MarshallJukov]

@Waltham1892

LOL)) Then you need to get back into history class and look into istory of WW2))) in REALITY 95-98% of the time the only enemy tanks deal with is INFANTRY and FIELD ARTILLERY

M1 simply has NOTHING to deal with them effectively!))

And sorry - infantry platoon attached to M1 have greater risk to die from M1 itself than from enemy actions. BESIDES - a single 3VOF-36 from opposing say T-72B will turn this platoon into SMOKING MINCEMEAT

[Waltham1892]

Again, ignorance speaks...

The US has been running combined arms companies since Korea. We ran them in the first Gulf War, I know, I was there as a Tank Company Team XO.

We suffered no loses because our M-1's handled the tank threat while the mounted infantry displaced entrenched dismounts.

You may also notice that the Russians lost a lot of armor in Chechnya because their armor operated out of close support with infantry.

History has proven you wrong, sorry. Reality is hell.

[MarshallJukov]

@Waltham1892

Sorry but its your ignorance speaks - you do know that US army is not the only who uses combined warfare don`t you?))) In particular Russian combined wasfare provides MUCH greater firepower both with infantry handheld weapons, artllery (aspecialy MLRS), SAMs, Airborne infantry e t c))

M1 DID suffered losses in Fallujah where they was sent WITHOUT any significant infantry support and where they showed glaring impotence amplified by fact that no tank designed to fight in a city!

[MarshallJukov]

@Waltham1892

Speaking about 1994 AMBUSH in Grozny - there WAS infantry support but they all was surronded and terrorists used ROOFS and BASEMENTS to aim in the weakest spots - still lossed wasn`t hundreds like circulating ober internet but 27 tanks. Its just proves that NO MBT designed to fight in a city - Merkava in Lebanon 2006 proved it again.

Whole story does NOT dismiss M1 glaring impotence to deal with infantry - ASPECIALY anti-tank infantry that OUTRANGES M1 TWICE with modern ATGM

[MarshallJukov]

@Waltham1892

And just to make it straight - you are not the only military in YT as you may guess man. Personaly i spent 8 montg in Checnya and saw some actions, so you can free me from your stupid dick measuring and GET TO THE FACTS ok?

[Waltham1892]

I've spent my adult life with soldiers, and I know a soldier when I'm speaking to one. You are not a soldier and you've never seen combat outside of a video game.

I can handle someone who who is ignorant, I can even handle someone who boasts, but a coward trying to pass themselves off as a hero I can not stand.

Don't bother responding, I've blocked your account.

[MarshallJukov]

@Waltham1892

Are you dumb or what - i just said to you that i SPENT 8 MONTHS in CHECNYA in 2000-2001 and you babbling here about my videogame experience LOL)))

Listen dummie - I DON`T GIVE A FUCK where your life at all - and i DON`T GAVE A FUCK that you blockecd me LOL)) Because i never intended to spend any second of my life sending PM to such dumb dumb troll as you)))

We just humiliated you with FACTS while all you can is to babble about your useless person LOL))) Get lost))))

[MarshallJukov]

@BlacktailDefense

Seems like you just rammed into another "dashing veteran swordsman" eh? LOL)))

[BlacktailDefense]

@MarshallJukov

I can't say for sure if he's the real deal or not, given that this is the internet (heck, a lot of people falsely claim to be soldiers *in-person*), but it doesn't matter one way or another --- the subject of the video his comments are posted on is the M1's weaponry, which he so far hasn't said much about.

One thing he DOES talk a lot about is his career; I'm sure it's quite impressive, but it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the M1 has the right stuff.

[looneyspender]

Just FYI - HEAT does NOT produce 10, 000 degree temperatures. No chemical reaction can do that. It also does not evaporate copper, it simply melts it and the temperature of the narrow copper stream is about 1000 celsius.

Cheers.

[Ag3nt0fCha0s]

I have to wonder - if one of these sabot rounds passes within a metre of me at whatever speed (I think mach 8?) it goes, doesn't the force of it's passage knock me over?

[BlacktailDefense]

@Ag3nt0fCha0s

Possibly --- you would be massively wounded, and likely die quickly (if not immediately), so the knock-down force would be the least of your concerns.

It's not a very cost-effective anti-personnel weapon though...

7.62mm Ball: $0.30

.50BMG Ball: $5

40mm HE-FRAG: $10(?)

M892A2: $8500

Bayonet Thrust: Free

Also, the muzzle velocity of an M829-series APFSDS is only about Mach 3 --- but bear in mind that there's a *40lb mass* moving at that speed!

[Ag3nt0fCha0s]

@BlacktailDefense

How would it massively wound me from passing by me without touching me? *confused*

[BlacktailDefense]

@Ag3nt0fCha0s

*facepalms*

Sorry, I misread your question. I'm not sure if it could wound you by just passing you, but the turbulence could be enough to knock you down.

In the Vietnam War, there were accounts of passing RPG rockets nearly sucking people out of vehicle hatches. Granted, RPG rounds aren't Sabot Penetrators (the size, weight, speed, and aerodynamics are different --- and a rocket spews-out thrust), so this example may not be applicable.

[Ag3nt0fCha0s]

@BlacktailDefense

Don't sweat it, it's not as big a mistake as putting a jet engine in a tank...

I'M LOOKING AT YOU, T80!

Thanks for the explanation btw, I was wondering, I couldn't decide what would happen. Kinda had a mental image of being sucked into the wake of the projectile and carried behind it for 100 metres or something stupid, lol.

[Keh0ol]

@Ag3nt0fCha0s the blast wave would most likely kill you

the sabot shells flying your way are another concern

the speed you're looking for is mach 5 for DU rounds (about 1500 m/s)

tungsten rounds such as the DM 63 travel at speeds close to mach 6 (close to 1800 m/s)

[boobtuber06]

For anyone in the know: What would be the effects if a sabot round was fired at a tank w/o any fuel or ammo contained in said-tank?

[BlacktailDefense]

@boobtuber06

That depends entirely upon where the M1 is hit. If it's a rear hit, back-spall (a shower of armor fragments) would waste the Powerpack; most Sabots in service today of 100mm bore or larger can do this.

Back-spall from a center-mass, side-on hit would spall into the Fighting Compartment, pretty much slicing the crew to ribbons.

If the enemy can firer from above (such as from the crest of a hill) and hit the roof... well, the roof of nearly every tank is only an inch or two thick.

[boobtuber06]

@BlacktailDefense You know- when I was in grade-school watching the Desert storm conflict unfold on television, the ground offensive depicted these burning funeral pyres of Russian-made T-72s with their lids turned up. I used to think it was the massive overpressure produced by the huge velocity of the round's penetration into the tanks armor that caused  the catastrophic turret separation; I never thought that it was overpressure by its own ammo.

[BlacktailDefense]

@boobtuber06

Sabot rounds do create lots of overpressure when they penetrate armor, but it takes something much more powerful to lift a 20-ton turret off a tank --- like, say, 40+ propellant charge cylinders, 2000 7.62mm bullets, 400 12.7mm bullets, 15 HEAT rounds, and 10 HE-FRAG rounds exploding all at once.

[BlacktailDefense]

@boobtuber06

As for the M1's frontal armor, the good news is that this part of the tank has the highest probability of defeating a Sabot, especially with DU in it. The bad news is, anything strong enough to actually penetrate the M1's frontal armor will spall that DU into the Fighting Compartment... and the crew.

Not only is DU poisonous and radioactive, but it's also Pyrophoric (think of burning Magnesium), and has a lower melting point than steel, so a fireball will overlap the spalling.

[Cokecanninja]

OK, so no anti-personal rounds. It has three machine guns, and you can add a another. No breaching rounds either. This tank weighs 72 tons. If it rammed something at 20MPH it would generate ~132,336 pounds of force. Not to mention if it rammed something at 40MPH....

[BlacktailDefense]

@Cokecanninja

It would have close to within Satchel/Molotov range --- and approach over open ground, possibly driving over mines and/or tank traps.

As awesome as Tank Ramming is, it's not a good idea to rely on it too much.

[VickersIndependent]

@BlacktailDefense Don't forget tank ramming is also foolish as doing so would wreck the radio ariels and damage the gunner's and commander's sights. Not to mention the fact that debris may enter the muzzle and cause damage to the gun.

[RenegadeTheOnlyone]

fofanov(dot)armor(dot)kiev(dot­)ua

an excelent page about russian tanks, armor and tank ammunition.

Thought you might check it out if you already didn't.

[BlacktailDefense]

@RenegadeTheOnlyone

As a matter of fact, that's one of my primary references for Soviet/Russian armor (thanks for your recommendation all the same!).

One interesting detail that can be gleaned from his data is that 125mm Smoothbore guns have been gradually increasing in Tube Life since the 1960s (they started just 300 rounds, but the latest models endure 1200). Compare to the 120mm M256, which was promised to endure 1000, but never delivered more than 600, and now wears-out after as few as 50.

[TheCatholic143]

Hey blacktailDefense, how much can an m829a3 round can penetrate? PLZ ANSWER!

[BlacktailDefense]

@TheCatholic143

I know for a fact that it can penetrate up to at least 600mm of RHA Steel, about the same as the M830A1 MPAT.

The best armor-penetrating round for the M1 was the M830 HEAT (800mm), but production ceased some 15 years ago, and the US military's current policy is to use them up in training and combat (to make room for the MPAT).

[TheCatholic143]

OOO, nothing happens when a sabot round hits a building, well it makes a very small hole. See what I did there? lol

[BlacktailDefense]

@TheCatholic143

That's the idea.

Against a target that doesn't have a thick metal hide and a confined interior, Sabots don't really do much.

Using Sabots against apartment buildings is like trying to cut-open a shoebox with an acupuncture needle.

[TheWWWdotFRAUDS]

I have a doubt, i was reading some gulf war reports where they claim the M1 gun sometimes wasnt able to penetrate the T72M armor at the distances the army claimed, because the army used a lot of DU rounds, more than the number of AFV'S fielded by the iraqi army.

you have researched alot and probably can solve my doubt, its this claim fake or the M1 gun isnt as powerfull as claimed or the US army shoots expensive DU just for fun?

[BlacktailDefense]

@TheWWWdotFRAUDS I've been told that DU rounds actually penetrate Composite Armor less easily than Tungsten rounds, but I don't have data to back-up that claim yet.

Also, the best armor-piercer in the M1's arsenal is the M830 HEAT round, which penetrates 800mm of RHA Steel (compare to 600 for the M829A1 DU APFSDS), and it's less expensive than APFSDS rounds as well ($1033, versus $8500 for the current Tungsten M829A3, that *still* doesn't penetrate as much steel as the M830).

[Keh0ol]

@BlacktailDefense actually DU is at current speeds still a better penetrator than tungsten composite

however it is said that once projectiles reach speeds of around 2000 m/s and upwards the difference will be negligible due to the shock resistance of most tungsten composites compared to DU

[SamuraiPenguinStudio]

Hey! It's a track from Total Annihilation. Just past one minute. ^_^v

[BlacktailDefense]

Good ear, SamuraiPenguinStudio!

[VickersIndependent]

I discovered that barrel thermal sleeves on tanks have a special purpose ;the Merkava IV for example. This Merkava has unique barrel staps;you can see them on nearly all IDF tank barrels. It is intended to increase the gun's accuracy; by preventing distortion of the tube from continued firing in adverse weather conditions. Wheras the M1 has no such sleeve in sight.

[BlacktailDefense]

You know, I just thought of something --- maybe the lack of a Thermal Sleeve is the reason the M256 has such a short tube life?

They only last up to 600 rounds to a tube, but it normally ends up being tossed-out after firing 400 rounds. In continuous combat, M256 tubes have been written-off after just 50 shots.

Even considering the bigger "bang" of the M256 over the M68, that's still an awfully short tube life.

[kamphwagon1]

@BlacktailDefense Yeah a thermal sleeve would help ,but the real culprit here is high pressures,and high flame temps,a larger bore with lower pressue would increase sabot effecency ,example a 220 swift will shoot a45grn ,5.56 mm bullet to the 4000+ ft per second with a chamber pressure some what over 55.000 cup with low barrel life,the same bullet in a sabot in a 30-06 at 50.000 cup will do the same thing with less barrel wear & heat than a 30 cal bullet in the 06 .

[BlacktailDefense]

@kamphwagon1 That's an interesting observation, but the quality of the tube and ammunition is likely a factor as well.

I know for a fact that the tube life of 125mm guns has steadily increased, even as they became more powerful. For example, the 2A26 (T-64) had a tube like of just 350 shots, but the current 2A46M-2 (T-90) and onward are rated for 1200 shots.

Likewise, Britain's 120mm L11A5 (Chieftain) had a tube life of 500 shots, but the L30 (Challenger 2) lasts through 700 shots.

[kamphwagon1]

@BlacktailDefense Well things like crome lineing help tube & barrel life,well enginered proplents also help as they cause 90% of the wear on barrels due to eroison,the flame temps actually melt a small amount of metal with every shot,I don't know who General Dynamics gets their proplent from,but I'm srue Eueropean loaded 120s will give better tube life,with powder makers like Vita Vuori ,the premier maker of howitzer & small arms powder,and the German RWS company.

[BlacktailDefense]

@kamphwagon1 The M256 is already chrome-lined, and it hasn't changed much since the 1980s, so the main problem is probably it's ammunition.

The problem is also even worse than it appears at first; according to "Army Targets Age Old Problems with New Gun Barrel Technologies" (Jan 1, 2004), M256 tubes have been exhausted after just 50 shots.

It gets even better --- since then, the newest generation of US 120mm shells have DOUBLED the power of their propellant charges.

[kamphwagon1]

@BlacktailDefense I think you meen doubleing the amount of proplent here,and changeing the burning rate,anyway if the burning speed of the powder remained the same it would raise the breech pressure 200% above the origional loading,not takeing in account for the new longer sabot,not acounting for twice as much powder,a slower powder will place more heat in the tube over a fireing cycle it's no wonder the shoot out is as low as 50 rnds!

[BlacktailDefense]

@kamphwagon1 There's a couple more things that my last reply didn't have room for.

First, while the M1 is made by GDLS, the M256 is a product of Rheinmettal, and the ammo is made by ATK. This setup doesn't necessarily lend itself to poor products, but with the results of the M256 and it's ammo, you have to wonder if they're all on the same page.

Also, another dirty little secret is that this ammo, in practice, is NOT compatible with any other 120mm guns (more details in a later chapter).

[kamphwagon1]

@BlacktailDefense Well actualy I don't think they are on the same page ,if you have to double the powder carge to acheive the desired velocity,it's absurb if your shooting sabots,your better off going to a larger bore,and dispersing the heat& eroroision over a larger area. Most likely the reason of non compatible ammo is more sabot protruding out of the case mouth,also the other guns may not be able to handle the higher breech pressure,as this gun has pretty much reached it's practical limits

[Keh0ol]

@BlacktailDefense the m256 is produced in the US under license of rheinmetall

rheinmetall has no actual control over the quality of the barrel

however the ones produced in germany and used on the leos are performing formidable

[BlacktailDefense]

@Keh0ol

Smoothbore guns have a long history of poor barrel lives, due largely to the linear bore friction and sharp acceleration of the projectiles they fire (properties inherent to Smoothbore weapons), so they generally have short tube lives.

There are some exceptions to this rule, such as the 125mm 2A46M's 1200-round tube life, but most Smoothbore guns are good for only about 400 shots. By contrast, the Rifled 105mm/52 L7's tube endure 1000 rounds, and the 90mm/40 M41's tube endures 1500.

[BlacktailDefense]

@Keh0ol

On the other hand, it's probably more accurate to compare the 400-round Tube Life of the L/44 to the L11A5 and L30, which are the only modern Rifled guns in the same bore class as the L/44.

The L11A5 (Chieftain, Shir, Khalid, Challenger 1, Arjun, etc.) has the same Tube Life of 400 rounds, but lacks the chromium-lined bore of the L/44. However the L30 (Challenger 2, Vickers Mk.VII) has this, along with Polygonal Rifling, and the result is a Tube Life of 700 rounds (a 75% advantage).

[VickersIndependent]

@BlacktailDefense Why not apply both the polygonal rifling and the chrome lined bore to the M68 105mm gun? Wouldn't that also bring up tube life significantly,possibly enough to match the 2A46M's life? Also with the improvements in 105mm ammuniton,it seems preposturios that the M256 120mm is actually going proverbialy and literally backwards in endurance.

[BlacktailDefense]

@VickersIndependent

That's an idea I've had before, but the tricky thing is finding a manufacturer who;

1- Has free funding to test the idea.

2- Has the technology and tooling to make an L7 clone with a lined, Polygonal-Rifled bore.

3- Is willing to invest both 1 and 2.

4- Doesn't have the rest of the defense establishment twisting their arm not to try it (120mm guns and ammo are MUCH more profitable, and the big manufacturers who have all the biggest lobbyists don't want outside competition).

[umt1cardiff]

@BlacktailDefense The thermal sleve is used to stop "Barrel Bend " ie if a small wind is blowing from one direction the barrel would be cooler on that side therfore the barrel will bend in that direction , and, at the range sabot is used at it will make the difference between a first round hit or not .

[DemonHide]

Oho, so there's more than 3 types available, eh? Of course, outta the 5 you've got 4 that are still in production. I'm sure there's one that's almost never used. So I guess it would come down to that, but I can't wait to see the next vid!

[BlacktailDefense]

They're all well-used in Iraq (except for APFSDS, which even the US military admits isn't a good support round), including the old M830.

The attitude toward the M830 is that the faster they're used-up, the faster MPAT can take it's place. It's unfortunate, because M830 is pretty much the best round the M1 shoots --- it has a bigger warhead than the M830A1 MPAT, and M830 HEAT penetrates more armor than ANY Sabot round yet built.

[kamphwagon1]

@BlacktailDefense I don't quite understand why they couldn't use a folding fin driveing band like the russians use instead of the sabot fixed fin for HEAT rnds. the Russians get exclent acuracy with this set up,the only drawback is you couldnt seat the round below the neck inside the case,I gusse 2 part ammo does have some advantages