Reply With QuoteBut it seems that Abrams fire extinguishing system has serious defficiencies, if in numerous cases it is incapable to properly deal with fire as proven on pictures.It seems that You do not even understand the basics on what extinguishing system works and how it is designed, BTW the same system is used in all modern MBT's.
Extinguishing gas (halon or other) is stored in cylinders placed inside a tank. It is obvious that such cylinders have limited quantity of supression gas stored in them. The main goal of such systems is to supress fire as long as possible to give crew time for evacuation and if possible to completely extinguish fire. However in many cases, fuel cables are damaged, thus fuel is leaking constantly in to the fire zone. Somethimes it is possible to extinguish such fire, sometimes not.
It is false. Fuel tanks are not intended to improve protection and they are not displaced in accordance with that. Even if they do, it is not significant today, and in some designs they are a serious defficiency. Do I need to show again and again supposed "advantages" or more directly, defficiencies, of fuel tanks disposition in Abrams and how they help to survival ?You still do not understand. So read carefully. Design is optimized for maximum crew survivability, so every element is based on that principle. Fuel tanks are placed in M1 and many more tanks, for example Leopard 2, or Merkava, because it was discovered during tests that 70mm of fuel provide same protection level as 10mm of steel. It was then concluded that placing fuel tanks in some places, can increase protection levels. It was prooved to be succesfull solution during tests.
So how the **** did you reached to that conclusion ? So that's why they logically placed simple ERA to protect against same monoblock RPG warheads, at level of BMP, because your imaginary thick super composite was not that great, or existant.Once again, what specific area You have in mind, side hull, side turret? Side hull without ERA is weaker protected than side hull with ERA, side turret without ERA is better protected than BMP side turret/hull with ERA, simple as that.
This ERA would give same protection for Abrams, as ERA for BMP. What is hard to understand ? Why it is that way ? Then go learn something about basic function, properties and implementation, it is explained in the article http://www.be-and-co.com/oaf_pdf/oaf01103338.pdfM19 ARAT is normal, multilayer reactive armor, please explain me why it can't be good protection? Because it is used by Americans that You obviously hate?
I am not single minded and I do not hate Western concepts, indeed I am generally interested in the subject.Please tell me why You hate Americans so much? Why You hate west so much to not respect western designs? Because You have typical eastern european inferiority complex to say that everything made in west and especially US is inferior?
To give same result as BMP, or decades old soviet tanks. Objective was the same, there is nothing special about it. Just that on one side that was achieved decades earlier, and the other, the Abrams, reached to that level only now.I think You do not understand. ERA was added to increase weaker protected sides against RPG's and EFP's, nothing more, nothing less. Obviously You seems to be unable to comprehend such simple fact.
And again, any proof, that it reacts against EFPs ? No more baseless assumptions.
Obvious, probably, etc... again assumptions.What? Did You ever saw Combination K drawings and photos and description of Silica Core Armor? It is obvious that Combination K had more similarities to SCA than Burlington. Some for at least one more Soviet armor types, so called "Cellural Casting" insert that was probably used in T-80U/UD.
You do not really understand, and know in detail, your aclaimed Western composite structure, while not having any idea about Soviet developements. Such a strong base for argument...This history is shorter than in US and UK, as proves both articles that I posted, You probably didn't even read them... lousy dunce.
Passive can be understood, as armour, totally passive, or which uses projectile's energy, term can be applied to semi-reactive composite structures, in contrast to Dinamic or reactive which is energic and affects the projectile.You seems to not understand, western composite armors are not passive. This is first thing. Second in articles I provided (with full bibliography support there), it is shown that composite armor like Burlington, could achieve projectile destabilization on it's own. I know that people from where You are have inferiority complex, and will not accept simple fact that in other countries, people are also smart enough to make some things different and better.
Yes, semi-reactive structures can create effects on projectile as destabilisation, etc, but it is very different to what is achieved with reactive element effect on projectile, and even more, with previously destabilised cumulative jet or rod on main armour. It is really complex research, and there are drastic differences, that is why armour developement went throught the way it went, it is reflected in modern tanks, T-90 for example, in a different way but with same concept, Leopard 2, but Abrams lags.
More than advantages it is advertisement, ERAWA descends also from soviet developements. But poles do not understand it's implementation, ERA is effective in certain angles, and for example in PT-91 (T-72M1) with outdated armour structure ERA is placed without giving it any inclination angle (see), contrary to more correct Kontakt placement, which results in drastic loss of effectiveness.For example ERAWA-2, have great advantages over Kontakt-1, one of these advantages is that cassette is not made from simple thin sheet metal, but from thick high hardness steel, thus with layered design it is capable to greatly decrease penetration level of even tandem shaped charge warheads. As tests in Poland prooved, PzF-3T with improved tandem warhead was not capable to perforate steel plate after ERAWA-2. Manufacturer of PzF-3 was greatly surprised with test results. So You see, Soviet Union do not have exclusiveness for doing everything best.
As for anti-tandem properties, it is also cheap advertisement, because certain results can be achieved under certain conditions. ERAWA-2 could have some effect being essentially composed double ERAWA elements (with consequent increase in weight) under some angle, but there is not any proof that such composition will reach claimed performance. In order to have real anti-tandem effect time of interaction must be of atleast 400 microseconds (Kontakt which is not really different in structure, has less than 200 microseconds) So is there any proof that such configuration of ERAWA-2, double ERAWA element, will reliably protect against tandem warheads ? No, only manipulation and advertisement.
Again you show ignorance. You have no idea of how tests and research is performed. Under special conditions, as proximity to target, etc, to simulate several levels of projectile penetration. But you did not know...Very bold statement, especially that in Russia or Ukraine, not even single tank was tested against modern ammunition like DM53, DM63, M829A2 or M829A3. While west multiple times tested these tanks with heavy ERA and data from this tests were usefull in designing ammunition mentioned above.
Of course You can be naive enough to belive that DM43/OFL120F1 is modern ammunition, as it was tested in Ukraine and probably also Russia.
This further proves the point. Being Leopard armour structure similar to your mentioned developements, used in the Abrams, germans still understood it's limitations, as soviets earlier, and realised the concept, with added armour wedges with the function which I explained, similar to ERA.And in the same time, without these NERA wedges, Leopard 2A6 turret was capable to survive fire tests in Greece, only two penetration in weak zones area. German armor is descendant of Burlington armor, same as Heavy Armor from US or Dorchester armor from UK. But yeah, it probably means weakness.
And for you to know, tests are performed that way. For example, T-90 turret protection is also tested clean without ERA elements: see
You again, should stop making assumptions under lack of information, or understanding.
Originally Posted by Damian90
