PDA

View Full Version : Can an RPG damage a M1 Abram tank?



instantmilkshake
06-22-2004, 02:35 PM
Besides hitting it from behind, can a direct frontal or side hit can penetrate its armor?

Abolith
06-22-2004, 02:49 PM
not being a tanker (and Navy to boot) I would say from behind yes, Sides maybe and front not a chance....but hey what the hell do i know ......

RomanS
06-22-2004, 02:56 PM
it depends on what RPG you are talking about.

There are 6 kinds out there.

From RPG-7 to RPG-29 Vampir (this one can)

instantmilkshake
06-22-2004, 03:00 PM
That kinda sucks, I guess no tank is impervious to anti-tank missiles. :|

Herrmannek
06-22-2004, 03:02 PM
it depends on what RPG you are talking about.

There are 6 kinds out there.

From RPG-7 to RPG-29 Vampir (this one can)
To be exact every of RPG AT kinds can damage Abrams or even kill -but chances to do that vary and mainly depends from spot where they hit or amounts of previous hits tank got(Top hits, back hits, under skirts hits, and less damaging forward hits)... There are also antipersonel RPG rounds without enough power to do any serious damage to tank maybe excluding damaging optics/sights/antenas etc... Important factor is also state of the hatches if they were open cruew can be severly wounded even tank will survive without damage....

Operation Ivy
06-22-2004, 03:55 PM
A typical RPG-7 almost has no chace of penetrating the frontal armor

Herrmannek
06-22-2004, 04:07 PM
A typical RPG-7 almost has no chace of penetrating the frontal armor

Who wants to stand in front of M1? :)

instantmilkshake
06-22-2004, 04:20 PM
A typical RPG-7 almost has no chace of penetrating the frontal armor

Who wants to stand in front of M1? :)

That guy in the video!

Mongrel
06-22-2004, 05:36 PM
Somewhere in the Video and pics section of this board is a topic 'RPG vs M1' it had some intersting pics. Now I can't find them. :(

M.

BlackRain
06-22-2004, 07:05 PM
I rather we not discuss how to damage M1 tanks with weapons used by terrorist during a period of War.

OPSEC

You dont know who might be reading this forum.

Bombtrack
06-22-2004, 07:41 PM
A typical RPG-7 almost has no chace of penetrating the frontal armor

Who wants to stand in front of M1? :)

That guy in the video!

rofl

ArtofPain
06-22-2004, 07:45 PM
it depends on what RPG you are talking about.

There are 6 kinds out there.

From RPG-7 to RPG-29 Vampir (this one can)
Lets count: RPG-1, RPG-2 (both 150-200 mm AP), RPG-7 (with PG7-VR granade - 700 mm of armour after RA), RPG-16"Grom" (300 mm), RPG-18 "Mukha"(150 mm), RPG-22 "Netto"(200 mm), RPG-26 "AGlen'"( 220 mm), RPG-27 "Tavolga" (350 mm), RPG-29 "Vampire"(650-750mm)

FallenAngel
06-22-2004, 07:46 PM
I rather we not discuss how to damage M1 tanks with weapons used by terrorist during a period of War.

OPSEC

You dont know who might be reading this forum.

True....but then again it doesn't take a genius to figure out which spots on a tank have less armor than others.

instantmilkshake
06-22-2004, 07:48 PM
Question,
if I'm correct the new Russian tanks use reactive armor, how come we don't use that?

ArtofPain
06-22-2004, 07:51 PM
Question,
if I'm correct the new Russian tanks use reactive armor, how come we don't use that?
Not only NEW! ;) From T-64 B Russian tanks have special details to mount RA blocks. I saw it myself! :lol:

Midav
06-22-2004, 07:56 PM
Question,
if I'm correct the new Russian tanks use reactive armor, how come we don't use that?

Always wondered that myself.

Bradleys are getting reactive armor and perhaps M1's may start getting fit with them as well.

LordHalbert
06-22-2004, 07:57 PM
What I understand about reactive armour is that it's more effective against HEAT (chemical explosive) projectiles - like most RPGs and TOW missiles.

The reason the M1 tanks dont have reactive armour is because they were designed primarily to fight other tanks where the main threat is kinetic weapons (SABOT rounds). The M1s have depleted uranium armour and other "classified" materials - probably composites.

Now, reactive armour does not protect you against SABOT rounds !!!

In some ways, the M1 is not well suited for urban combat.

If I was designing an uban combat tank, I would make a few changes:
* Add more armour to sides and rear and top with less emphasis on frontal armour. Reactive armour all around.

* Have 2 independent capulas allowing "Buttoned" firing of .50 machine guns and grenade launchers

* Main gun must be able to ellevate beyond 45 degrees to fire up if need be. Main gun barrel must be shorter for operation in tight alleys.

* Main gun rounds must be designed for urban combat, flechettes, ball bearing rounds, and HE explosive cluster rounds.

OB Kenobi
06-22-2004, 08:31 PM
Question,
if I'm correct the new Russian tanks use reactive armor, how come we don't use that?

We use it on Bradleys and Strykers.

I thought the Abrams already had a layer of built-in reactive armor though?

Btw, those looking for the pictures and info about RPG damage to Abrams', here it is:

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf

LordHalbert
06-22-2004, 08:46 PM
You're wrong, the M1 Abrams does NOT have reactive armour.

instantmilkshake
06-22-2004, 08:51 PM
What I understand about reactive armour is that it's more effective against HEAT (chemical explosive) projectiles - like most RPGs and TOW missiles.

The reason the M1 tanks dont have reactive armour is because they were designed primarily to fight other tanks where the main threat is kinetic weapons (SABOT rounds). The M1s have depleted uranium armour and other "classified" materials - probably composites.

Now, reactive armour does not protect you against SABOT rounds !!!

In some ways, the M1 is not well suited for urban combat.

If I was designing an uban combat tank, I would make a few changes:
* Add more armour to sides and rear and top with less emphasis on frontal armour. Reactive armour all around.

* Have 2 independent capulas allowing "Buttoned" firing of .50 machine guns and grenade launchers

* Main gun must be able to ellevate beyond 45 degrees to fire up if need be. Main gun barrel must be shorter for operation in tight alleys.

* Main gun rounds must be designed for urban combat, flechettes, ball bearing rounds, and HE explosive cluster rounds.

Great ideas, too bad the military has too much red tape and politics.

Mongrel
06-22-2004, 08:57 PM
Black rain wrote:
"I rather we not discuss how to damage M1 tanks with weapons used by terrorist during a period of War. "

I agree, but I'm sure the bad guys already know this stuff.
Who do you think they bought the RPGs from?

Besides if the Tanks were deployed with infantry (all the time) like they should be there would be allot less dead tanks.
:cantbeli:

Sayeret
06-22-2004, 09:14 PM
I might be wrong but I heard that reactive armor is pretty expensive so they only want to use it on certain vehicles like APCs and tanks. I don't think the stryker is being given any reactive armor.

Operation Ivy
06-22-2004, 11:50 PM
Well reactive armor is butt ugly that why we dont have it, cause we all no its about the looks ;) :D

GazB
06-23-2004, 04:08 AM
Now, reactive armour does not protect you against SABOT rounds !!!

Wrong.

3rd gen and newer ERA is effective against Sabot rounds.

ERA is not expensive. It is a slab of HE between two metal plates.

The Weak areas on the Abrams would be the same as on any tank... the lower front hull armour, the point where the gun sticks through, and of course the join between turret and body is a problem from the front. Equally for a mobility kill to allow infantry to place charges on it either track could be taken out from the front, side or rear.

The Side of the hull and turret will be designed to stop light automatic cannon (20-30mm) calibre rounds only and the rear will stop rounds of HMG power only. The belly and roof will be vulnerable to most anti tank weapons, therefore very urban areas where weapons fired from above are particularly dangerous.

These are not trade secrets and apply to pretty much any tank.

With DU rounds most tanks can even be penetrated from the sides from cannon as shown with the 25mm apds from the bushmaster cannon penetrating T-55s.

Some tanks have serious weaknesses in some areas... for example the Panther tank from WWII had a particularly weak rear turret and could be killed at most combat ranges by direct hits there. The M1 carries ammo in the rear turret area to seperate it from the crew, but a hit from a decent round of RPG-7 ammo should penetrate the armoured seperation door too which would be very dangerous for the crew.

The Iraqis seem to have very few modern RPG-7 rounds so the US troops seem to be getting off lightly.

(Afghans with similar weapons couldn't penetrate T-62s that were up armoured from the front in the 1980s either).

Herrmannek
06-23-2004, 04:13 AM
Well reactive armor is butt ugly that why we dont have it, cause we all no its about the looks ;) :D

Polish one is well fited in comparsion to others bricks and looks quite nice

http://www.army.lt/armor/gallery/P20.jpg

http://www.army.lt/armor/gallery/P22.jpg
http://arms.host.sk/tanks/twardy.jpg

VorpalDoom
06-23-2004, 04:32 AM
hmmm.. guess what the abrams with a shorter barrel, more even armoring, nice turning radius, and such is...?
oh, right, the bradley and the marine LAV...

bah, armor... just put a few billion dollars into that anti-missle laser system, throw one ontop of a tank, and you're set. test versions for f/a18s shot down a 155mm howitzer round. gotta love that. i say, give it 50 years untill killing a soldier is as hard as completely blowing up an abrams (damn near impossible)

Sayeret
06-23-2004, 04:48 AM
I have a question about the M1 Abrams. I'm not sure if this is true, its sounds pretty stupid but in this link

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf

on page 5 it said that several M1 Abram tanks were destroyed by thier EAPU material or packaged POL products being hit by small arms fire which caused them to drip into the tank's engine compartment and caught the tank on fire. Can anyone explain how that is possible and if the tank could be disabled by small arms fire then why they don't just protect EAPU material or packaged POL products.