OOB 024 -- US Army -- M1A2 Abrams

[Jan]

as far as i know, top turret armor are usually not more than 15-25cm thick.

About Strv-122, it have more protection on some part of the turret (crew hatch and around crew position, no protection over rear turret). I've no figures for teh Merkava.

I think that such top turret add a bit crew survivability versus aerial bomblet, mortar, etc. but not verus top attack atk missiles.

Some tests have demonstrated that last ATK missiles like russian Kornet are actually overkilling existing tanks since RPG29 are sufficent to pierce actual tanks in their most protected part. RPG are also lighter and more widespread.

cheers,

Jan

[Marek_Tucan]

Jan said:
as far as i know, top turret armor are usually not more than 15-25cm thick.

Shouldn't that be milimeters?

AFAIK M1 Abrams in all incarnations is 5cm HHS RHA, T-72 has some 5,5cm (cast), Leo2 I have with 6cm thick roof in my tables... Older generation tanks have generally some 20-30mm, wwII and post-WWII ones even as little as 10mm in some cases.

Plasmakrab's idea to use AP for EFP projectiles is good IMO. Pity I didn't get it myself whiloe dealing with MRM KE/CE for my US OOB yesterday...

[Marcello]

"Some tests have demonstrated that last ATK missiles like russian Kornet are actually overkilling existing tanks since RPG29 are sufficent to pierce actual tanks in their most protected part."

I have my doubts that the RPG-29 can take pierce the front turret of the latest western MBTs. Hull front may be possible (IIRC some time ago a Challenger in Iraq was knocked out by a RPG-29 penetrating the lower hull front), but not turret. Weren't those tests performed on T-80Us and such anyway?
Besides RPGs are relatively short range weapons and the RPG-29/27 and high end RPG-7 rounds are neither that widespread nor cheap.

"I mean, prior to the Strv-122 and Merkava-3, was there anything else to it than thick steel plate, even in tanks of the Leo2/M1A2 generation?"

To counter what threat? The soviets were not awash in top attack weapons AFAIK. They had something but it was not anything worth sacrificing much weight over.

"I think that such top turret add a bit crew survivability versus aerial bomblet, mortar, etc. but not verus top attack atk missiles"

Preventing your tank from being destroyed by a couple of HEAT bomblets with a penetration of maybe 10 cm each seems a good investment today.

[Marek_Tucan]

There was Abrams recently hit in Iraq by "top attack" RKG-3M grenade. It hit the ammo compartment and ammo went off, two crew members (supposedly unbuttoned at the time) suffered 3rd degree burs.

[mr_clark]

well and that might be another problem with the large flat turrets of the M1s. An AT-Grenade is not likely to fall off...

[Marek_Tucan]

mr_clark said:
well and that might be another problem with the large flat turrets of the M1s. An AT-Grenade is not likely to fall off...

Given that RKG-3 is triggered by impact, it'd trigger all the same.

[thatguy96]

Marek_Tucan said:
There was Abrams recently hit in Iraq by "top attack" RKG-3M grenade. It hit the ammo compartment and ammo went off, two crew members (supposedly unbuttoned at the time) suffered 3rd degree burs.

Were the crew supposedly injured in the resulting ammo explosion? For this to happen in the M1, a crewman would have to have been in the process of retrieving a round from the magazine. Otherwise they should be protected by a blast door and the compartment is designed to divert the explosion upward away from the crew.

[Marcello]

I suspect that they simply had their heads exposed. The grenade landed on the ammo magazine, triggered the conflagration of the rounds stored, the panel popped as designed and the flames reached them.

[Marek_Tucan]

@Marcello: That's also my understanding of the incident.

It did not take long for the colonel to discover an important member of that family –Sgt. Shermander Jackson. Jackson, a 24-year-old Brundidge, Ala., resident was serving as a tank commander with 2nd Tank Battalion and was wounded in Fallujah, Iraq, Feb. 7. Jackson’s face, hands and arms were severely burned when a RKG-3 anti-tank grenade hit both of his tank’s 120mm ammunition magazines causing 34 rounds to ignite from the intense heat. The hooded balaclava he wore protected most of his head, leaving a perfect circle of second and third degree burns on his face.

http://www.marforres.usmc.mil/News/2...AMC_mag41.html

[mr_clark]

thatguy96 said:
Were the crew supposedly injured in the resulting ammo explosion? For this to happen in the M1, a crewman would have to have been in the process of retrieving a round from the magazine. Otherwise they should be protected by a blast door and the compartment is designed to divert the explosion upward away from the crew.

Also take into account that for using the turret MGs the vehicle commander would need to open it's hatch. If there's enemy infantry nearby I guess it'Äs likely he would like to give additional firepower to the vehicle this way.
Now I'd say in the worst case the ammo cooking up through the release vents the fire could suffocate the whole crew by 'sucking up' the air from the turret compartment. (not to mention the serious internal burns from flaing air in the lungs...)