Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 90

Thread: U.S. Army To Congress: No New Tanks, Please

  1. #61
    Senior Member EdisonTrent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damian90 View Post
    Nope, at least not me. But seriously, You not like it, not read it, if someone will be interested enough to read this hard and agressive discussion then such person should not complain.
    You know that also applies to you Just replace your stuff with pyth3's idiotic dribble.

  2. #62
    Senior Member Damian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,624

    Default

    You know that also applies to you Just replace your stuff with pyth3's idiotic dribble.
    Of course it also applies to me. However there is a difference between me and this "person", I do not criticize military equipment due to my political belifes, likes and dislikes, but try to use constructive criticism. But I admit that sometimes when I have contact with such persons, bear me a little nervous and constructive criticism is difficult.

  3. #63

    Default

    Stop bickering over something that obvious and irrefutable each and every time. That brings nothing positive. I think.

  4. #64

    Default

    And still Damian continues to post pictures without the correct context. Even in your own pictures it can be seen result of hit in vulnerable zone, tank is burnt completely, not intact.
    Also to note that fire propagation in tank has particularly bad result, due to distribution of fuel: link
    Attachment 175071


    As you see former soviet tanks are much better protected from sides than M1 is:
    Attachment 175072

    T series tanks which for example saw action in Chechnia were proven to be much better protected, sides, and taking multiple hits and even penetrations.
    For example

    Insufficient protection of the Abrams was proved and later aknowledged, with installation of add on armour. Of course there are several flaws, as that is in the level of decades old protection, and also, arrives the question if tank can really take all that weight. In theory it is not correct to compare tanks which are from different time period, but here ironically the former are better protected.

    I will elaborate more when I'll can, or if they allow me here...

    And again, stop this BS about M1 being not top level, nothing is perfect but M1 looks much better in such important terms as survivability (state of the art frontal protection, and best crew protection, also on idividual level of each crew man), firepower (most advanced APFSDS ammunition, new types of ammunition in development to further improve) and electronics (best electrooptics providing high resolution image and high zoom levels for better target finding, identification and aiming at long ranges + state of the art BMS system and embedded vehicles diagnostic system) than any other MBT, the real problem is only powerpack in terms of fuel efficency, but it is also not that big problem after TIGER modernization program of AGT-1500C (and there is huge difference between engine before and after this modernization) and adding APU or Hawker Battery pack.

    Of course I do not expect that You will be capable to understand this anytime in Your life.
    All of this is just your wishfull thinking. There is nothing state of the art and it starts to lag in many aspects. Outdated concept of armour structure, outdated engine which will be replaced (or should), failed attempt at firepower improvement (innability to install license produced RH L/55 or M256E1). FCS is nothing better than of the rest of modern tanks, while lacking some aspects, weight limiting upgrade potential and overprice... More importantly, this is reflected in the lack of exports despite strong promotion.

  5. #65
    Senior Member Damian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,624

    Default



    Again, because You seems not to understand.

    And still Damian continues to post pictures without the correct context.
    Context is crew and vehicle survivability, M1 proved to offer better overall survivability in case of armor perforation for both crew and vehicle itself.

    Even in your own pictures it can be seen result of hit in vulnerable zone, tank is burnt completely, not intact.
    This tank didn't burn completely due to hit from enemy projectile. It is "Cojone Eh" tank, it was hit by SPG-9 and immobilized, due to task force not being capable to recover it, it was ordered to be destroyed by igniting it's ammunition magazines with opened blast doors, however even this not destroyed vehicle in sufficent way, task force commander ordered that vehicle must be completely destroyed. Rear turret was hit by APFSDS from another M1, later it was hit by 2x AGM-114 and 1x AGM-65 + 1x JDAM, still vehicle did not ended in pieces, this what means it still was greatly intact. Learn english.

    Also to note that fire propagation in tank has particularly bad result, due to distribution of fuel: link
    Attachment 175071
    Yeah right, and not isolated fuel tanks in crew compartment in T-xx series is definetly better solution? Maybe in Your alternative reality, BTW crew from this tank survived also.

    T series tanks which for example saw action in Chechnia were proven to be much better protected, sides, and taking multiple hits and even penetrations.
    For example
    With dynamic protection over weakly protected side armor... M1 crews needed to fight without such comfort for a long time, so they achieved much more.

    Insufficient protection of the Abrams was proved and later aknowledged, with installation of add on armour. Of course there are several flaws, as that is in the level of decades old protection, and also, arrives the question if tank can really take all that weight. In theory it is not correct to compare tanks which are from different time period, but here ironically the former are better protected.
    As we can see, armor was upgraded where it needed to be upgraded, at sides, and it is completely normal situation, I do not know what You want to proove here, Your stupidity?

    Tank on photo have multilayer dynamic protection. M19 cassettes with several reactive layers + additional M32 cassetes with one additional reactive layer. I do not see here anything outdated, it is just advanced light dynamic protection against shaped charges (also tandem) and EFP's.

    There is nothing state of the art and it starts to lag in many aspects.
    Stop with this Your anti american hate speech.

    Outdated concept of armour structure,
    Nothing outdated here. Actually after recent research in British and US history of R&D of composite armors, we currently know that Burlington armor was far more advanced in it's working mechanism and overall design than any Soviet composite armor design at that time. In fact Burlington cintrary to Combination K and similiar Soviet armors had dynamic nature, in fact it was a dynamic protection without explosive reactive material, however there was R&D work on it's variant with internal explsoive reactive materials, how they ended, nobody really knows because nobody without proper clearence do not know what variant of Burlington was fielded in the end, and there were far more variants of that armor that many people can imagine.

    However in the second half of 1980's each NATO country being big tanks developer, US, UK, Germany and France departed from the original Burlington program and started to work on their own developments, but based on Burlington program experiences. And so US ended with Heavy Armor Package, that currently is in it's 3rd generation, UK ended with Dorchester armor, Germany with it's improved armor on later Leopard 2 tanks, and France with it's own variation.

    There are of course other advantages of Burlington. It was discovered during R&D program, that effectiveness of protection depends on armor package volume, it means it's thickness, but thickness itself is not most important here, no, the real reson is that in bigger cavity, it is possible to place more layers of special armor, thus increasing time when projectile is affected by multiple layers of armor.

    After comparing photos and drawings of Soviet armors and western solution, it was obvious that Burlington and it's "descendants" have advantage of many more layers standing in path of penetrator at the most predictible it angles. In case of T-72B it is max 5 layers, in T-80U/UD with so called "cermetal" pakcage, it is also around 4 to 5 layers. If we compare this to known photos and drawings of western type composite armors, we can see that there are actually space for many more layers.

    Of course the main disadvantage of western solution is bigger size and weight, advantage is high protection of frontal composite armor without need to use any support in form of explosive reactive armor. Soviet designers had a dillema. How to increase protection without increasing size and weight of vehicle, as in many previous threads I said it, I say it again, the only obvious solution was dynamic protection in form of explosive reactive armor.

    However such protection have disadvantages. No multihit capability, there is explosive material, it is not very dangerous but ERA can damage any valuable part of tank.

    outdated engine which will be replaced (or should)
    It will be replaced, the only problem with AGT-1500C is fuel efficency, nothing more, accept this.

    failed attempt at firepower improvement (innability to install license produced RH L/55 or M256E1).
    The primitive increasing firepower by increasing lenght of gun barrel is just... primitive, the same problem is with increasing calliber.

    In first case we decrease vehicle mobility and there is another problem, stabilization sometimes can't handle the increased weight of barrel and forces that acts on longer barrel. Also longer barrel means that it is far more difficult for vehicle to manouver. In case of increasing calliber we increase weight of both gun and ammunition and decrease quantity of stored ammunition.

    There are however solutions much more usefull. First is to improve ammunition itself, for example materials, so without replacing armament we can achieve similiar levels of armor penetration with older weapon. Second thing is to improve propellant charges. Every of these points were achieved with M829A3 and will be further upgraded with M829A4.

    Next step is to replace classic propelant charge with Electro Chemical Thermal Gun (ECT). It will also improve vehicle and crew survivability. However the main problem to be solved is how to transfer liquid propelant material in to main gun breach.

    FCS is nothing better than of the rest of modern tanks,
    Of course that FCS with highly precise stabilization system, with top line electrooptics in Your alternative reality is not better.

    Who needs 2nd generation FLIR with high resolution imaging additionaly cleared by electronics to give very clear thermal image, something that other MBT's do not have.

    Also who needs besides basic 3x and 10x zoom, additional 3x 6x, 13x, 25x and 50x zoom with digital image processing for cleared image, that is usefull for finding, identify targets at long range and also provide better aiming at longer ranges. I seen how target in tanks sight look with standard for most tanks 10x or 13x zoom, it is small dot, not try to aim in that dot when it is moving. Higher magnification in sights provides better precision in aiming, thus increasing first hit probability.

    while lacking some aspects, weight limiting upgrade potential and overprice...
    Quality is expensive, and it is immposible to reduce weight everywhere, of course instead we can sacrifice crew side protection and crew survivability by decreasing vehicle size and order crew to literally sit on ammunition. I showed photos of effects in such design solutions.

    More importantly, this is reflected in the lack of exports despite strong promotion.
    Obviously in pythp3 alternative reality lack of exports means that tank is useless. Definetly general Israel Talk will agree that his creation is probably useless pile of metal, because by pythp3 classification, the only sucessfull design is that one being most succesfull on export market. What is most interesting his beloved design like T-90MS or BM Oplot do not have any big export success either, this means that they are pile of useless junk pythp3? Or this are Your double standards and proove of Your hate towards US, probably they teached You this in school when unkle Khrushchev was rulling in great empire?

    What is more interesting even M1's for export were manufactured in much bigger quantities than for example Leopard 2.

    1,721 M1's vs 1,164 Leo2's originally builded for exports, not sold from German or Swiss/Netherlands stocks as cheap second hand tanks, not new builds like in case of M1 series.

    Only approx 975 T-90 tanks were sold to this day around the world (manufactured by UVZ and licence manufactured in India).

    So it seems that export of M1 don't look that's bad at all, especially that 1,721 means only new builded tanks, without 199 sold from US stocks.

    Obviously pythp3 You can try to fight with reality but anyone can check that data in internet or any serious publication about these veicles.

  6. #66
    Member SpudmanWP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    849

    Default

    The Reactive armor upgrades to the M1 series (whether as part of TUSK or not) were a measure to reduce/eliminate the chance of mobility kills in tight urban environments due to the close proximity and proliferation of RPGs.

  7. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damian90 View Post


    Again, because You seems not to understand.



    Context is crew and vehicle survivability, M1 proved to offer better overall survivability in case of armor perforation for both crew and vehicle itself.

    Better in what context ? Because as showed, fire propagation in tank after a hit in vulnerable zone, or whatever the reason, results in complete loss, even if it is not inmediate. Or anyway be left out of combat and abandoned, for example, ignition of bustle ammunition , makes the tank no combat worth, because of peculiar storage.


    This tank didn't burn completely due to hit from enemy projectile. It is "Cojone Eh" tank, it was hit by SPG-9 and immobilized, due to task force not being capable to recover it, it was ordered to be destroyed by igniting it's ammunition magazines with opened blast doors, however even this not destroyed vehicle in sufficent way, task force commander ordered that vehicle must be completely destroyed. Rear turret was hit by APFSDS from another M1, later it was hit by 2x AGM-114 and 1x AGM-65 + 1x JDAM, still vehicle did not ended in pieces, this what means it still was greatly intact. Learn english.
    It is you who does not understand. You call a destroyed and burnt tank intact ? Certainly you have a different understanding of that word. It could be in "single piece", but that is very different from intact. And it is not only that what matters, tank was not combat worth since the first hit. You should know that there are many ways of neutralising an armored vehicle, not just complete destruction, that is no mature way of thinking.

    Yeah right, and not isolated fuel tanks in crew compartment in T-xx series is definetly better solution? Maybe in Your alternative reality, BTW crew from this tank survived also.
    That picture shows what effect has fire propagation in the Abrams.

    With dynamic protection over weakly protected side armor... M1 crews needed to fight without such comfort for a long time, so they achieved much more.
    Some tanks are decades older and despite of that fared much better and are more protected, so what was achieved in the Abrams?

    As we can see, armor was upgraded where it needed to be upgraded, at sides, and it is completely normal situation, I do not know what You want to proove here, Your stupidity?
    It again proves the insignificance of all your guesses and statements, of how "thick" or "better protected" the tank was because you only made that up, when after their experience in combat they just added reactive armour cassetes to give protection level of decades older soviet tanks, of mid 80s.

    Tank on photo have multilayer dynamic protection. M19 cassettes with several reactive layers + additional M32 cassetes with one additional reactive layer. I do not see here anything outdated, it is just advanced light dynamic protection against shaped charges (also tandem) and EFP's
    .
    So again this baseless guesses, without any understanding of discussed subject properties.

    Nothing outdated here. Actually after recent research in British and US history of R&D of composite armors, we currently know that Burlington armor was far more advanced in it's working mechanism and overall design than any Soviet composite armor design at that time. In fact Burlington cintrary to Combination K and similiar Soviet armors had dynamic nature, in fact it was a dynamic protection without explosive reactive material, however there was R&D work on it's variant with internal explsoive reactive materials, how they ended, nobody really knows because nobody without proper clearence do not know what variant of Burlington was fielded in the end, and there were far more variants of that armor that many people can imagine.

    However in the second half of 1980's each NATO country being big tanks developer, US, UK, Germany and France departed from the original Burlington program and started to work on their own developments, but based on Burlington program experiences. And so US ended with Heavy Armor Package, that currently is in it's 3rd generation, UK ended with Dorchester armor, Germany with it's improved armor on later Leopard 2 tanks, and France with it's own variation.

    There are of course other advantages of Burlington. It was discovered during R&D program, that effectiveness of protection depends on armor package volume, it means it's thickness, but thickness itself is not most important here, no, the real reson is that in bigger cavity, it is possible to place more layers of special armor, thus increasing time when projectile is affected by multiple layers of armor.

    After comparing photos and drawings of Soviet armors and western solution, it was obvious that Burlington and it's "descendants" have advantage of many more layers standing in path of penetrator at the most predictible it angles. In case of T-72B it is max 5 layers, in T-80U/UD with so called "cermetal" pakcage, it is also around 4 to 5 layers. If we compare this to known photos and drawings of western type composite armors, we can see that there are actually space for many more layers.
    This is again nothing but your whisfull thinking and erroneous intepretation of reality (because you know nothing of the subject).

    Yes, Abrams concept of armour composition is outdated, atleast, has no much perspective left. Decades ago it was concluded, that with the sophistication of anti-armour weapons, so called passive armour (composite, semi-reactive structure) had limited potential of growth, as it would imply an increase of dimensions and weight until a point where it is no longer worth. So protection should be composed not only of a passive part, but also a "dynamic" part which affects the projectile prior to the interaction with the main armour. That was realised in Soviet Union with developement of integral ERA components for tanks, and a sophisticated composite semi-reactive structure. For example, a desestabilised APFSDS projectile just is in no condition to perforate the armour, after interaction of semi-reactive elements.

    That concept was also realised in Western countries, for example German Leopard is equipped with additional armour wedges which perform a similar function, thought they are more limited in performance.

    But Abrams armour concept has no more perspective left in comparison, so it will further lag in protection in the future.

    However such protection have disadvantages. No multihit capability, there is explosive material, it is not very dangerous but ERA can damage any valuable part of tank.
    With that statement you prove again ignorance of the subject. If you think that Western composite armour structure which uses semi-reactive materials has much better multi-hit capability, you are wrong.

    For example in Merkava IV tank, the entire armour module goes down after a single cumulative hit. It fares worse than much older Kontakt equipped soviet tanks, where a vulnerable zone is left only after interaction of specific ERA cassetes with no more consequence.

    It will be replaced, the only problem with AGT-1500C is fuel efficency, nothing more, accept this.
    It should have been replaced for over a decade.

    The primitive increasing firepower by increasing lenght of gun barrel is just... primitive, the same problem is with increasing calliber.

    In first case we decrease vehicle mobility and there is another problem, stabilization sometimes can't handle the increased weight of barrel and forces that acts on longer barrel. Also longer barrel means that it is far more difficult for vehicle to manouver. In case of increasing calliber we increase weight of both gun and ammunition and decrease quantity of stored ammunition.

    There are however solutions much more usefull. First is to improve ammunition itself, for example materials, so without replacing armament we can achieve similiar levels of armor penetration with older weapon. Second thing is to improve propellant charges. Every of these points were achieved with M829A3 and will be further upgraded with M829A4.
    Increase in firepower if you want to have perspectives, is made on two ways, increase of muzzle velocity, and increase of caliber. Both involve sophistication and developement of new guns. This is being realised in most countries in different ways, for example in Germany L/44 gun was seen as limited already, and muzzle velocity increase comes from more gun lenght where projectile is propelled for a longer time. In Russia apart from larger calibre, increase in firepower is realised with a new 125mm gun 2A82 which gives higher muzzle velocity with the use of more powerfull propellants. US attempted to adopt L/55 german gun, but due to technical problems plan failed. Increase in firepower also comes along with deveopement of new projectiles, which happens in every country, so what is your point ? That by itself is not a solution. But you again will contradict the rest of the world...

    Of course that FCS with highly precise stabilization system, with top line electrooptics in Your alternative reality is not better.

    Who needs 2nd generation FLIR with high resolution imaging additionaly cleared by electronics to give very clear thermal image, something that other MBT's do not have.

    Also who needs besides basic 3x and 10x zoom, additional 3x 6x, 13x, 25x and 50x zoom with digital image processing for cleared image, that is usefull for finding, identify targets at long range and also provide better aiming at longer ranges. I seen how target in tanks sight look with standard for most tanks 10x or 13x zoom, it is small dot, not try to aim in that dot when it is moving. Higher magnification in sights provides better precision in aiming, thus increasing first hit probability.
    Yes, FCS is modern but not any better to what is offered in the rest of the world. For example lacks features as automatic tracking, integration with APS alert and countermeasures, control of guided rounds, etc.

    Quality is expensive, and it is immposible to reduce weight everywhere, of course instead we can sacrifice crew side protection and crew survivability by decreasing vehicle size and order crew to literally sit on ammunition. I showed photos of effects in such design solutions.
    It is hard to believe that quality is expensive when a tank which compared to another has not any advantage, while costing several times more. Compared either with Leopard 2 or with T-90, which for some reason are much more succesfull at the arms market.

    Obviously in pythp3 alternative reality lack of exports means that tank is useless. Definetly general Israel Talk will agree that his creation is probably useless pile of metal, because by pythp3 classification, the only sucessfull design is that one being most succesfull on export market. What is most interesting his beloved design like T-90MS or BM Oplot do not have any big export success either, this means that they are pile of useless junk pythp3? Or this are Your double standards and proove of Your hate towards US, probably they teached You this in school when unkle Khrushchev was rulling in great empire?
    What is all that nosense ? T-90MS which is much newer, was demonstrated recently, what is your point ? T-90 dominates the market already.

    What is more interesting even M1's for export were manufactured in much bigger quantities than for example Leopard 2.

    1,721 M1's vs 1,164 Leo2's originally builded for exports, not sold from German or Swiss/Netherlands stocks as cheap second hand tanks, not new builds like in case of M1 series.
    Also curious thing is that the US also promotes old tanks from stocks for refurbishment and export, yet nobody wants them and goes for old Leopards instead, because they are not up to level when compared ? More deficient maintainance and operation ? More expensive without being that reflected in technical characteristics, or others?

  8. #68
    Senior Member Damian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,624

    Default

    Better in what context ? Because as showed, fire propagation in tank after a hit in vulnerable zone, or whatever the reason, results in complete loss, even if it is not inmediate. Or anyway be left out of combat and abandoned, for example, ignition of bustle ammunition , makes the tank no combat worth, because of peculiar storage.
    Obviously You are not capable to understand something such simple, that crew is most important element of tank, that it is much easier, cheaper and faster to repair or build new tank to replace lost one, than to train new crew.

    Every tank crew member can thank idiots like You that make decisions to design tanks without safe ammunition storage, because of idiotic argumentation.

    It is you who does not understand. You call a destroyed and burnt tank intact ? Certainly you have a different understanding of that word. It could be in "single piece", but that is very different from intact. And it is not only that what matters, tank was not combat worth since the first hit. You should know that there are many ways of neutralising an armored vehicle, not just complete destruction, that is no mature way of thinking.
    After first hit, tank was still capable to move, engine was not damaged, however due to hit, fuel cable from one of fuel tanks was ruptured, and fuel leaked to engine compartment and started to burn, fire was not dangerous, but automatic extinguishers were engaged, however due to constant fuel leak they were not able to extinguish fire, and computer just shut down engine for safety. Crew then tried to extinguish fire but due to constant attacks to their position, task force commander ordered vehicle to be left behind and destroyed.

    And yes, even after such punishment, ammunition cook off, engine compartment fire, vehicle structure was intact, even if vehicle itself can be classified as destroyed. It only prooves how tough is this tank.

    That picture shows what effect has fire propagation in the Abrams.
    God, You are really stupid You know. Show me a tank that left behind with engine compartment fire or any interior fire will look better.

    Some tanks are decades older and despite of that fared much better and are more protected, so what was achieved in the Abrams?
    Talk with complete moron... Where better protected? Only by adding ERA over weaker protected areas they are better protected? Are You kidding me?

    It again proves the insignificance of all your guesses and statements, of how "thick" or "better protected" the tank was because you only made that up, when after their experience in combat they just added reactive armour cassetes to give protection level of decades older soviet tanks, of mid 80s.
    They added much better ERA than these Soviet tanks from mid 80's. Did You saw M19 cassette inside? I posted photos, this is far more advanced light ERA than 4S20 Kontakt-1.

    So again this baseless guesses, without any understanding of discussed subject properties.
    What baseless guesses? There are photos of these cassettes internal layers. I understand completely that when You lack any arguments, as any low IQ idiot, the only thing You have to say is some BS.

    This is again nothing but your whisfull thinking and erroneous intepretation of reality (because you know nothing of the subject).
    God... and You know something about this subject? What do You know? Completely false estimations made in Soviet Union based on completely passive Combination K that was used as a substitute to calculate Burlington protection levels while Combination K itself was analog to SCA armor not Burlington that was far more advanced.

    Yes, Abrams concept of armour composition is outdated, atleast, has no much perspective left. Decades ago it was concluded, that with the sophistication of anti-armour weapons, so called passive armour (composite, semi-reactive structure) had limited potential of growth, as it would imply an increase of dimensions and weight until a point where it is no longer worth. So protection should be composed not only of a passive part, but also a "dynamic" part which affects the projectile prior to the interaction with the main armour. That was realised in Soviet Union with developement of integral ERA components for tanks, and a sophisticated composite semi-reactive structure. For example, a desestabilised APFSDS projectile just is in no condition to perforate the armour, after interaction of semi-reactive elements.
    You still seems to not understand. Burlington and it's descendants were far more advanced than any Soviet composite armor, several reasons why.

    First volume of composite, US and UK worked on composite armors for much longer time than Soviets ever imagined such protection. Soviets choose completely false way, similiar to SCA armor that was not good enough and not adopted by US, Combination K is surprisingly similiar to SCA concept of non metallic insert in RHA/CHA cavity.

    Soviets made another mistake, cast turret armor that protection levels are by 5 to 15 % smaller than RHA.

    Western designers based their armor on high hardness materials with non energetic reactive elements. Later to these high hardness materials were added high density materials like heavy metal alloys. In case of Soviet armor we not only have less protective cast structures of turrets, but also filler itself was not something special, we had or Combination K where turret filler was mostly cast alluminium alloy with corrundum spheres, or simple steel plate + rubber + steel plate inserts. T-80U/UD have better perspectives to achieve level of protection offered by M1A1HA, but it was achieved only with 4S22 Kontakt-5 added to basic armor.

    Where is problem, problem is with armor volume (thickness) and number of armor layers standing in path of projectile. It is just because turret geometry and volume of special composites, Soviet tanks were not capable to achieve the same level of protection like western MBT's with composite armor alone.

    That concept was also realised in Western countries, for example German Leopard is equipped with additional armour wedges which perform a similar function, thought they are more limited in performance.
    Of course, You have a source from ballistic tests that say, these wedges "are more limited in performance"? No You don't have.

    But Abrams armour concept has no more perspective left in comparison, so it will further lag in protection in the future.
    As again, You have any official ballistic tests data, that will proove Your statements... oh wait I know, Your guru is Sergei Suvorov, man who didn't even know a true story behind "Cojone Eh" incident, and claimed that it was engine malfunction fire, not battle damage... yeah, he is definetly "great" "specialist".

    http://www.wceo.wp.mil.pl/plik/file/WBBH/PH-W/PHW_4.pdf

    Page 106, article by Paweł Przeździecki that made great work in finding in archive documents, history of research and development of Burlington ("Chobham") armor. However anyone needs to translate it on it's own from Polish to English.

    http://www.wceo.wp.mil.pl/plik/file/WBBH/PHW3_tresc.pdf

    Page 112, another of his article, about eralier development of special armors developed by UK and US during and directly after WWII.

    Maybe this will educate You... ignorant.

    With that statement you prove again ignorance of the subject. If you think that Western composite armour structure which uses semi-reactive materials has much better multi-hit capability, you are wrong.
    Oh I'm not wrong. Multi hit capability was one of the problems to be solved during R&D of Burlington, it is mentioned in article that link I posted above. This problem was solved, only eastern literature is very poor on this subject.

    For example in Merkava IV tank, the entire armour module goes down after a single cumulative hit. It fares worse than much older Kontakt equipped soviet tanks, where a vulnerable zone is left only after interaction of specific ERA cassetes with no more consequence.
    Merkava Mk4 armor modules have different design than Burlington armor and it's descendants. The key to the problem is design of cavity, Merkava Mk4 do not have cavitys for composite armor, modules have only very thin covering layer, not thick RHA plate covering it like in case of semi modular armors of western tanks.

    It should have been replaced for over a decade.
    Only because You say so? I should slap You in the face right now for such arrogance. Maybe get out of Your hole and talk with some tank crews serving on M1's instead spreading here You technological Chauvinism.

    Increase in firepower if you want to have perspectives, is made on two ways, increase of muzzle velocity, and increase of caliber. Both involve sophistication and developement of new guns. This is being realised in most countries in different ways, for example in Germany L/44 gun was seen as limited already, and muzzle velocity increase comes from more gun lenght where projectile is propelled for a longer time. In Russia apart from larger calibre, increase in firepower is realised with a new 125mm gun 2A82 which gives higher muzzle velocity with the use of more powerfull propellants. US attempted to adopt L/55 german gun, but due to technical problems plan failed. Increase in firepower also comes along with deveopement of new projectiles, which happens in every country, so what is your point ? That by itself is not a solution. But you again will contradict the rest of the world...
    Oh if these are only options then You are very primitive form of life. There are other options, You can increase muzzle velocity by using more powerfull propelant charges, You can increase penetration by improving penetrator design, etc. etc. etc.

    Of course such primitive life forms like You are not capable of comprehend even such simple solutions.

    Yes, FCS is modern but not any better to what is offered in the rest of the world. For example lacks features as automatic tracking, integration with APS alert and countermeasures, control of guided rounds, etc.
    Autotracker is not something needed, it can be integrated however, same APS. Guiding module for GLATGM's was allready integrated for tests, it will be integrated when ammunition will be ready for mass production. Control module for programmable ammunitions was allready integrated, it is used by USMC M1A1's in Afghanistan.

    It is hard to believe that quality is expensive when a tank which compared to another has not any advantage, while costing several times more. Compared either with Leopard 2 or with T-90, which for some reason are much more succesfull at the arms market.
    If success on arms market is the only thing You can write here then maybe stop writing anything.

    What is all that nosense ? T-90MS which is much newer, was demonstrated recently, what is your point ? T-90 dominates the market already.
    T-90 do not dominates market, as is prooved by numbers I provided, more M1A1's and M1A2's that were complete new builds not tanks from stocks were sold than T-90's in any variant.

    Also curious thing is that the US also promotes old tanks from stocks for refurbishment and export, yet nobody wants them and goes for old Leopards instead, because they are not up to level when compared ? More deficient maintainance and operation ? More expensive without being that reflected in technical characteristics, or others?
    I completely understand that primitive life form have problems with comprehend the facts, but US sold many more new builded tanks than Germany or Russia after the end of cold war. Why nobody wants tanks from stocks? There are many reasons, price, economic situation, or political reasons. Why Leopard 2 become so popular in Europe? Answer is simple, politics, not because it was better, as tests in US and UK prooved that Leo2 have serious problems with armor protection integrity (not quality) and have way too big and way too many weak zones over it's frontal armor surface.

    So, we can agree that Leopard 2 success is strictly political... as in case of any other weapon system, because hopefully even primitive life form is not naive enough to belive that success in exports are because of technical specification of vehicle, instead in Malaysia winner would be T-90 or T-84 not PT-91M.

  9. #69
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Smooth as a porcupine.
    Posts
    25,066

    Default

    This is like watching Mike Tyson beat the hell out of a punching bag.

  10. #70
    Senior Member Steak-Sauce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Liberating Lingor
    Posts
    10,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C.Puffs View Post
    This is like watching Mike Tyson beat the hell out of a punching bag.
    It's everytime the same crap with Damian90 and pythp3. Once these two butt into a tank thread, it goes down in flames.

  11. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damian90 View Post
    M60 tanks are no more in US Armed Forces Service, what left here and there are probably some M60A1, M60A3 and M60A3TTS. Wikipedia claims that 400 of them are in storage for some State Defence Forces but I do not know if this is true or false.

    If the post Cold War drawdown had not occurred, freeing up all those M1s, it's likely that the Guard/Reserve and the Marines would have gone in on the M60A4 together.
    Also, I doubt that anyone is holding any Armor for the SDF's. Most of those are not even equipped with small arms.

  12. #72
    Senior Member Damian90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,624

    Default

    If the post Cold War drawdown had not occurred, freeing up all those M1s, it's likely that the Guard/Reserve and the Marines would have gone in on the M60A4 together.
    I doubt, more likely to reduce costs and logistic chain stress, more M1's would be manufactured. When Army/Marines would be fielding Block II variants (M1A1 and later M1A2), then ARNG/Reserve would have been completely equipped with Block I variants (M1, M1IP). When Army/Marines would be fielding Block III variants (M1A3), then ARNG/Reserve would have been partially equipped with Block I and Block II variants.

    The original production plan for US Armed Forces, was to field 12,000 Block I and Block II tanks followed by Block III somewhere in the early to mid 1990's.

    Also, I doubt that anyone is holding any Armor for the SDF's. Most of those are not even equipped with small arms.
    IMHO, these tanks are just registered but not in operational condition = junk.

  13. #73
    Senior Member flanker7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    cyprus
    Age
    37
    Posts
    8,839

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steak-Sauce View Post
    It's everytime the same crap with Damian90 and pythp3. Once these two butt into a tank thread, it goes down in flames.
    Never ending post with endless quotes. A quota must be imposed. 2 paragraphs max and 1 quote of each other plus a link

  14. #74

    Default

    the endless quote is quite the usual stuff in other forums, i don't mind, as long as it is informative

    Quote Originally Posted by flanker7 View Post
    Never ending post with endless quotes. A quota must be imposed. 2 paragraphs max and 1 quote of each other plus a link
    yeah funny two entirely [*******#ffffff]not[/COLOR] different things can provide the same amusement value

    This is like watching Mike Tyson beat the hell out of a punching bag.

  15. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damian90 View Post

    After first hit, tank was still capable to move, engine was not damaged, however due to hit, fuel cable from one of fuel tanks was ruptured, and fuel leaked to engine compartment and started to burn, fire was not dangerous, but automatic extinguishers were engaged, however due to constant fuel leak they were not able to extinguish fire, and computer just shut down engine for safety. Crew then tried to extinguish fire but due to constant attacks to their position, task force commander ordered vehicle to be left behind and destroyed.
    Oh, what a surprise, due to special disposition a single first hit will cause serious fire propagation, and what is more, shows defficiency of fire extinguishing system.

    God, You are really stupid You know. Show me a tank that left behind with engine compartment fire or any interior fire will look better.
    That is not the point. Point is that the Abrams as shown is more susceptible to have fire initiated after a hit due to it's arrangement, and that fire propagation is more difficult to deal with and has worse consequences.

    Talk with complete moron... Where better protected? Only by adding ERA over weaker protected areas they are better protected? Are You kidding me?
    I know that your technical knowledge base, science, physics, is worse than school level, but just instead of saying nosense and proving your ignorance atleast read something of the subject if you try to show interest on it.
    Read this article: http://www.be-and-co.com/oaf_pdf/oaf01103338.pdf
    It is in part advertisement but all based on technical research and facts.

    Indeed, even BMP ligthly armoured sides with ERA are better protected than that of the Abrams. Only now they started to equip it with ERA developed for lighthly armoured infantry vehicles, which says much about it's level. This is comparable to decades older soviet tanks.

    They added much better ERA than these Soviet tanks from mid 80's. Did You saw M19 cassette inside? I posted photos, this is far more advanced light ERA than 4S20 Kontakt-1.
    Again baseless claim with no understanding and only guesses. So where is your statement of the Abrams having superior protection, while needing ERA as lightly armoured infantry vehicles. Now is same as decades older soviet tanks. Tells much about it's protection level.

    God... and You know something about this subject? What do You know? Completely false estimations made in Soviet Union based on completely passive Combination K that was used as a substitute to calculate Burlington protection levels while Combination K itself was analog to SCA armor not Burlington that was far more advanced.
    You have failed completely, mostly because you made all that history up. Of course you know **** about technical subject, despite that you make stupid baseless guesses.

    Soviets had a longer history in composite armour use and sophistication. You do not understand anything about materials, semi-reactive interaction, etc. That is researched by proffessionals, and not stupid assumptions.

    Composite armour had similar sophistication level in terms of use of semi-reactive materials, but soviets realised that apart from just passive protection it is needed to damage or affect the projectile before it interacts with main armour. Do you know, for example, how significant is destabilisation effect on cumulative jet, or APFSDS when it interacts with semi-reactive structure, or a modern composite ? In some cases difference is critical, for example when ERA effect on projectile is so powerfull that it is just unable to penetrate against even an outdated composite array, for example
    makes even an old T-72M to reach a very good protection level, after ERA effect round as M829A2 is incapable to defeat it's outdated armour composition.

    Western countries also realised that and implemented it, as Germany, thought in a different (and more limited) way: link
    Of course, You will now also contradict all research, and decisions of the rest of the world, because Abrams is special, same as with propulsion (diesel which M1 will get instead of outdated turbine), firepower increase invloving adoption of new gun, in Russia, Germany, even USA tried, going against your special logic.

    Of course, You have a source from ballistic tests that say, these wedges "are more limited in performance"? No You don't have.
    Said in a general sense, semi-reactive interaction is always less energic and limited, than that of explosive reaction. For initiation you can read the article which I posted.
    If you want to discuss subject, atleast get some technical education.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •