Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
M1 Tanks  
User currently offlineDavid b. From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3148 posts, RR: 5
Posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2233 times:

How well would a MI tank fend if it took a direct hit to the back(where the engine systems and coolers are) by a infantry anti-tank rocket? From what I understand, the vehicle stands up pretty well but the back end does look flimsy.




Teenage-know-it-alls should be shot on sight
23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineGlenn From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2189 times:

I guess the M 1 would come out A1
M1A1 get it  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineTsv From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2163 times:

So does that mean an M1A2 would come out A2?


"I told you I was ill ..." Spike Milligan
User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 3, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2167 times:

Actually, we've lost 2 M1-A1 because they were hit in the rear by a weapon the Iraqis weren't suppose to have, the Russian built "Kornet" anti-tank missile. This isn't some old piece of Soviet crap. The Kornet went into production in 1993.

The rear of tanks has always been the weakest area. During WWII, Allied Shermans, which blew up if just about anything hit them, had to flank the German Tiger and Panthers in order to get a good shot on the rear armor. This was the only way to have a chance to knock it out. Despite the fact that the M1-A1's were fairly FUBARed, the design worked perfectly and the crew escaped unhurt. The panels designed to blow off if the ammunition detonates did their job and saved the crew. The mistake was moving tanks along without infantry support. All it takes is one guy with a Kornet hiding behind some sand to fry a tank. Also, it happened during the middle of that sand storm last week so visibility totally sucked.



"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2148 times:

All tanks are indeed weakest from the rear.

The idea is to destroy the enemy BEFORE he sees your butt  Smile/happy/getting dizzy so it doesn't matter, but in highspeed warfare that won't always happen.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13195 posts, RR: 77
Reply 5, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2131 times:

Am I right in thinking that the M1 has Chobbam Armour (named after the British town where it was developed in the 1970's).
Worrisome about that modern Russian AT missile.
Did you hear about the British Challenger 2 tank that took 70 (yes 70) RPG hits, kept on going and fighting though!


User currently offlineVictech From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 546 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2127 times:

Am I right in thinking that the M1 has Chobbam Armour

No, the M1A2 has a highly secret active explosive reactive armor.


User currently offlineToady From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 724 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2126 times:

The M1 has Chobham ceramic armour - but, like Challenger, not on the arse end, turret top or hull bottom.
Doesn't suprise me about the Challenger taking those hits. I've seen footage of Chobham vs conventional armour being fired at by a 120mm main armament at very close range - the conventional armour had 5 very neat holes punched through it, the Chobham had 5 dents!


User currently offlineTsv From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2116 times:

Is that footage available on video or DVD?

I remember seeing footage (external and internal) of an Abrams taking a hit on the ammunition compartment on one of the Video Ordnance videos (Volume 6 Part 2 "Battle Tank"). The Challenger is also featured on this but I can't recall watching it. Must put it in the video and have a look.




"I told you I was ill ..." Spike Milligan
User currently offlineToady From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 724 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2107 times:

I'll hazard a guess that the footage is not available. I saw it at the Royal Armoured Corps gunnery school in Lulworth, Dorset.

User currently offlineErj190 From Portugal, joined Dec 2000, 397 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (11 years 5 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2093 times:

According with the data I have available, the M1A1 and M1A2 tanks indeed have Chobham armor.

The characteristics of that armor, and the way it is applied on the tank are secret. This applies for the M1A1/A2, the British Challenger 2 and the German Leopard 2A1/2A2

All vehicles have their negative points (sometimes all points are negative, like in the Sherman in WW2 or the pre-WW2 Russian tanks).

We don't know how many M1A1 or A2 have been destroyed, hit or damaged, because that is supposed to be classified information. Therefore we only have seen two M1 tanks destroyed, because the Iraqis took the area where they were destroyed, allowing the TV stations to broadcast the images.

At least one of the M1, was hit on the side, which is consistent with the use of more powerful anti-tank ammo, such as the Kornet.

We should remember the Palestinians destroyed some weeks ago a Merkava-II tank just by flaming the engine with a Molotov Cocktail.

I have nevertheless noted, at least twice, glimpse images of very damaged M1's and destroyed UMVEE's, on Sky News.

The lack of information is actually quite comprehensive in a situation of war.

I think the embedded reporters are a tactical problem, instead of a strategic advantage.

Although hit, the M1, is of course, one of the best tanks in the world. As all tanks, it needs infantry support. Without it the tank becomes vulnerable, especially in cities, where it's use is not advisable anyway.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (11 years 5 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2055 times:

You also had that Marine M1 that ran off the side of that bridge in the middle of a gunfight.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineTsv From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (11 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1971 times:

Anyone know the winners of that Tank competition (run by Canada I think it is) over the last 20 years or so?


"I told you I was ill ..." Spike Milligan
User currently offlineErj190 From Portugal, joined Dec 2000, 397 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (11 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1965 times:

There have been various comparison tests ran by various armies.

The most famous I know, (because it dealt with the supply of one thousand tanks) was held by the army of Saudi Arabia.

The competitors where the M1-A1, the British Challenger-1, the French AMX-30/40 and the Brazilian EE-T1 project.

The British tank and the French tank were soon set aside. The main competition was between the M1-A1 and the EE-T1.

In the end, after all the technical issues had been addressed, the ENGESA EE-T1 from Brazil was declared winner over the Abrahams M1-A1.

The fact that the Saudis had money to buy anything they wanted, and even so, they opted for the Brazilian project, is the best demonstration of which was really the best.

But, the influence the US administration had on the Saudi Royal family ended up deciding, in the end in favor of the US tank.

The Abrahams has in fact a number of faults, and even today there are many voices in the US military that are big critics of the model. The biggest negative point being that while in operation it needs refueling each 12 hours. The equivalent LEOPARD-2-A5, is heavier and better protected than the Abrahams, and in the same conditions needs refueling each 24 hours, because it uses a multifuel 12 cylinder engine, instead of a turbine.


User currently offlineTsv From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (11 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1964 times:

The one I'm thinking of is an annual (?) NATO (?) competition run by the Canadians. Can't recall what it is called. Must do a bit of research.



"I told you I was ill ..." Spike Milligan
User currently offlineLHMark From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 7255 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (11 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1962 times:

Well, whatever the Saudisactually purchased, I have a feeling it would have been M1s doing the lion's share of their defense.


"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (11 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1970 times:

The Abrahams has in fact a number of faults, and even today there are many voices in the US military that are big critics of the model. The biggest negative point being that while in operation it needs refueling each 12 hours. The equivalent LEOPARD-2-A5, is heavier and better protected than the Abrahams, and in the same conditions needs refueling each 24 hours, because it uses a multifuel 12 cylinder engine, instead of a turbine

Years ago when the Swiss Army ran a competition to select the tanks they would buy, it came down to the Leopard II in 1st place and the M1-A1 in second. I know a retired sergeant who was part of the evaluation team, and he said that the M1 would have won, except for its thirst and the requirement for different fuel from the diesel used in all the other vehicles, which required another logistics problem.

But what's this Brazilian tank? Since when does Brazil have any experience with tank warfare?

Charles


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 17, posted (11 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1957 times:

The diesel is more fuel efficent then the turbine but much heavier.

Besides there is one advantage to the turbine on the Abrams.

If it is wet day in the field it makes a very handy blow dryer for your gear.

Everything is nice and toasty.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineToady From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 724 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (11 years 5 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1956 times:

Tsv, the competition you're thinking of is "The Canadian Army Trophy" - or CAT.

http://www.3ad.org/cat_teams/default.htm


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (11 years 5 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1954 times:

L-188,

I was in a tank batallion, and while they were diesel, our tanks radiator vents on the back were wonderfully cozy on winter manoevers. Especially at the end of the day, as those heavy engines would keep warm a long time, and everyone would fight for the privilege of sleeping on it.

Charles


User currently offlineErj190 From Portugal, joined Dec 2000, 397 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (11 years 5 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1947 times:


As I have said in my post the EE-T1 was a project, only a reduced number was produced. ENGESA, the manufacturer, spent one hundred million dollars in the development of the project. After the blow, of having won the technical part, but having lost the political issue, the company, found itself in heavy financial trouble and went bankrupt some years later.

ENGESA was one of the largest military vehicle manufacturers in the world.
IT produced the EE-9 cascavel 6x6 90mm gun (Iraq used lots of them in the war with Iran), the EE-T11 URUTU 6x6 Amphibious assault car, the EE-17/18 tank killer, the EE-3 4x4 Scout car, the XLP-10 tracked bridge-layer, the EE-T4 tracked scout car among others. There where other Brazilian manufacturers, such as Bernardini, and also Avibras and Avibras Aerospace. The latest famous for the production of the ASTROS-1/2 and recently ASTROS-3 Multiple Rocket launchers.

Iraq purchased many of them, but the Iraqi leaders were stupid in it's operational use. Some reports say that the "missiles" fired at Kuwait (yes, those that ended up not being SCUDS after all) where no more no less than old ASTROS rockets, fired without the help of their EDT-FILA targeting radar.

I suppose this answers about the Brazilian expertise in tank warfare. (they don't lack knowledge, what they lack is money)


User currently offlineRacko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4856 posts, RR: 20
Reply 21, posted (11 years 5 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1931 times:

Who won the CAT competition in '91? The year 89 was somehow dominated by the Leopard 2.

User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13195 posts, RR: 77
Reply 22, posted (11 years 5 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1907 times:

Not a tank I know, but the news tonight had a British Warrior APC which had a RPG round buried in the additional armour fitted at the sides, the crew said another RPG had bounced off the front.

User currently offlineTsv From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (11 years 5 months 3 days ago) and read 1861 times:

"The diesel is more fuel efficent then the turbine but much heavier."

Would definitely take the MTU over the Avco any day.



"I told you I was ill ..." Spike Milligan
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Women Driving Tanks posted Fri Sep 15 2006 05:21:08 by BaylorAirBear
Highest Court In New York Tanks Gay Marriage posted Thu Jul 6 2006 15:59:09 by Dougloid
French Tanks Captured In Afghanistan! posted Sat Sep 4 2004 09:58:26 by L-188
Sux To Be This Tanks Crew posted Sun May 4 2003 22:50:36 by Galaxy5
US Tanks, Jubilant Iraqi's In Downtown Baghdad posted Wed Apr 9 2003 15:10:59 by Alpha 1
M1 Tanks posted Wed Apr 2 2003 07:52:58 by David b.
Tanks At Heathrow posted Wed Feb 12 2003 18:16:16 by Gc