M1:depleted uranium, how strong?

1stFreedom

[1stFreedom]

For 20 years the Abrams tank has been the undisputed king of the battlefield.

Over this time the tank has undergone several modifications. The 105 mm cannon was upgraded to 120mm. The armor was changed from Chobram to steel encased depleted uranium.

After almost 20 years in operation, two Abrams have been disabled/destroyed in Iraq. Reports were that technicals using a Kornet AT-14 antitank weapon shot the Abrams in the rear, penetrating the tanks.

The exact situation remains unknown. Some reports were that the missile penetrated the engine vents, while others stated that the engines were fine but the back of the turret was hit.

Is the rear of the turret the Achilles heel of the Abrams? Is the Kornet able to penetrate any part of the tank or just the rear and top?

One would assume that the sloped front of the turret is where the armor is thickest. In the Desert Storm an Abrams was repeatedly hit by Sabot rounds from T-72s at a range of 1000m. Yet the worst damage was a groove on the front of the turret. The turret is indeed a very formidable piece of hardware.

Can the Kornet penetrate the front turret of the Abrams? Is the Armour thick enough to withstand a direct impact?

The Kornet didn't outright destroy the tanks. The crews made it out alive. The design of the M1 gave them enough time to escape.

The question is, can the Kornet defeat an M1 from all angles? If it can, then our tankers may be in serious trouble. If these tanks are expected to lead the charge into the streets Baghdad, then our troops are in trouble. A Kornet fired from a rooftop would surely penetrate the top of an Abrams.

I would assume that the M1 was designed with the idea that the tank is usually facing it's opponent, so the best armor would to be up front. If this is the case, then the Kornet may not be a viable weapon against an attacking M1. Sure, from the rear or side it might do some damage, but from the front it may not penetrate.

I would not gamble with the lives of our tank crews. Since the Achilles heel of the Abrams is now public, it's time to do something about it.

An emergency supply of reactive armor should be sent immediatly to the gulf for distribution. The reactive armor, along with the depleted uranium, should be able to stop the Kornet it it's tracks.

It might not be possible to fit all the tanks with the additional armor, but all that can should be upgraded. It might also turn out that only the rear of the tank needs the additional armor.

I've seen the photos of LAVs and Bradleys with additional armor (Applique? Reactive?. It might be wise to move the armor to the lead and rear M1s so that they can defeat the Kornet. Otherwise, the Kornet may defeat the tanks.

What are your thoughts?

[1stFreedom]

It is alleged that the kornet can defeat reactive armor. If this is the case, then a simple doubling of the reactive armor should be effective.

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

Actually, the reports that I have heard, state the it was a Bradley M3 IFV that was taken out by the AT-16 Kornet. It was reported that the Abrahm was disabled by an RPG to the tread area, destroying one or two of the tread wheels making the tank unusable. I would be a little slower in claiming that the Abrahms is now defeated in the field and cannot be relied on. It still remains the worlds foremost MBT, perhaps its Gulf War record gave us a sense of invulnerability. In Battle, tanks will be lost. Within a city, Tanks without Infantry support are very vulnerable, believe me, we will not repeat the Russian mistake in Grozny.

[snooker]

>>>Bradley M3 IFV that was taken out by the AT-16 Kornet. It was reported that the Abrahm was disabled by an RPG to the tread area, destroying one or two of the tread wheels making the tank unusable.

That's what I heard as well. But it is hard to get a exact picture. I would bet if tanks or bradleys were hit or destroyed they are in some place where they can't be viewed. May not want your casual Russian spy looking them over.

[jimtorr]

The rear and top of a tank have always been the weakest part, throughout the history of the tank. I think the Generals know this, and know a little bit more about the appropriate tactics than we do.

I'll repeat what others have said. There is no weapon in production that can defeat the frontal armor of an M1A2 tank. There are lots of weapons that can defeat the top and rear.

[John H K]

I don't think you really know much about armor.

Tanks are, and always have been, very vulnerable. You should not have had the expectation that the Abrams SHOULD be invulnerable.

Every tank ever made is vulnerable to attack from above, below, and behind.

If a tank was well protected in all those areas, it would be so heavy it couldn't move.

And there's nothing you can to do protect tank treads from attack.

I'm sure pretty much every anti-tank guided missle in the world can destroy or disable an Abrams (and every other tank from the Challenger to the T-72, etc.) from behind. That should be no surprise to anyone.

[CasearianDaoist]

Actually, the Abrams is quickly becoming obsolete. There are newer, better MBTs out there. What we have going for us are the numbers of Abrams, tactics and training. Remember that the majority of Abrams do not have the latest upgrades. This war may prove that the "Future Combat Systems" mafia is wrong and that we need to re-think our future heavy armor strategy. We will need a full field replacement of the Abrams in the 2010 to 2015 timeframe.

[TomB]

I'm sure pretty much every anti-tank guided missle in the world can destroy or disable an Abrams

I agree with your post, along with the fact that there must be a differentiation between "disable" and "destroy". The fact that none of the crew was seriously injured or killed implies that the tanks were disabled, not destroyed. Although in close-quarters fighting such as we are hearing about in some of the towns in central Iraq, ANY tank is at least a bit vulnerable.

[green team 1999]

the rear,or the tracks ,that is the only possible explanation and weak points for most tanks

[Born to Conserve]

An uncle who was a tank captain in WWII told me they used to hang anything they could find over the Sherman's 'armor' -- cut boilerplate, old treads, logs, whatever they could find. It was very effective against HE rounds.

Then they hid and waited for the German tanks to break down, and viola, victory!

[Servant of the Nine]

I'm sure pretty much every anti-tank guided missle in the world can destroy or disable an Abrams (and every other tank from the Challenger to the T-72, etc.) from behind. That should be no surprise to anyone.

Yes. Nothing could carry enough armour all over. The M-1 is designed with blow out pannels on the Ammo Storage, and partitioning seperating the ammo and the engine/fuel from the crew, so that a hit in the rear may knock the tank out of commision, but is unlikey to injure the crew or destroy the tank.

A hit that puts an M-1 out of operation untill overhauled, without hurting the crew, will blow the turret of T-72 100 meters into the air and trash the crew beyond recognition

SO9

[Newbomb Turk]

Although disabled I doubt if these tanks are out of comission for good. most likely strike was an RPG to the track pad area which blows the track apart. It can be short tracked until recovery or repair is possible.

Armor is allways vunerable to close in hits by missles and Rpg's this is nothing new. Crews train to watch all sides of the vehicle (360 degrees security ).

[xm177e2]

A Kornet is not the biggest fear in Baghdad; bombs about 100kg remotely detonated would be the Iraqis best weapon, because they could be used from a distance, and could wipe out squads of soldiers as well as armored vehicles. Expect to see a hell of a lot of these in Baghdad.

[1stFreedom]

>>I don't think you really know much about armor.

I know more then you give credit for.

>>Tanks are, and always have been, very vulnerable.
You should not have had the expectation that the Abrams SHOULD be invulnerable.

If you have ever read any of my other posts, you'd know I belive that the age of [manned] tanks is nearly passed. Also, tanks don't do a very good job against the likes of bigger missiles like the Maverick and Hellfire.

>>Every tank ever made is vulnerable to attack from above, below, and behind.

That isn't entirely true. The new Isreali tank has extra protection on the bottom since many of their tanks were destroyed via mines.

>>If a tank was well protected in all those areas, it would be so heavy it couldn't move.

The M1 is well protected from the rear, which is why the ammo cooked off but the crew survived. There are two layers of armor in the rear, one on the outside, and one in between the crew and the rounds.

My questions really have to do with the armor on the front of the turret. I've read technical specifications on tank armor and its rated protection. Granted, the specs I read are over ten years old, but at the time NO shoulder fired weapon could penetrate the M1. The armor was too "thick" in terms of the protection it provided. (Not the same as the actual thickness, it's more like a rated thickness or strength). The data I read did not indicate the specific strength of the armor in all areas of the tank, so I assume that the specs were from the most protected part.

>>I'm sure pretty much every anti-tank guided missle in the world can destroy or disable an Abrams (and every other tank from the Challenger to the T-72, etc.) from behind.

I would suspect that newer antitank rounds can penetrate the rear, but the older ones can't.

[MonroeDNA]

My thoughts are that you are a soviet agent, fishing for information.

[1stFreedom]

ROFL.

Nah, just thinking that we should do a battle field upgrade on the Abrams if the Kornet can penetrate it from all angles, especially head on.

[MonroeDNA]

Loose lips sink ships.

[MonroeDNA]

Why do you want to chat about where best to disable an Abram's tank?

Your timing is questionable.

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

Are you refering to the Russian T-99 and the Brand new Chinese MBT. Neither of them have the armor that the M1A2 HE has, the Depleted Uranium armor that the Abrahms fields is infinitly better than anything currently fielded and arguably against anything in the pipeline. In 1991, the Russian T-72s, and T-80s that the Iraqis fielded were supposed to be some of the best MBTs in the world, they were destroyed in droves, even by obsolete M60A2s. I don't believe the LeClerc or Challenger 2 are equals of the Abrahms and the T-90 isn't.

[1stFreedom]

Ok, this is getting silly.

Obviously, a weakness has been discovered and has been made public. WE don't know exactly what it is, but you can bet the enemy does.

My post has to do with how we can add improvise on the battlefield to add protection just in case it's needed.