Reactive Armor For Abrams?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 08:01 AM
link   
US Army has awarded General Dynamics a contract to produce reactive armor tiles for the Abrams MBT. Does anyone have more information on this? Are these tiles for the TUSK configuration or a different proposal and design?


General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products, a business unit of General Dynamics has been awarded a $30 million competitive contract from U.S. Army Tank Automotive and Armaments Command for the production of reactive armor tile sets to equip Abrams tanks.

Reactive armor that currently equips the U.S. Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle is already saving lives and preventing crippling damage to combat vehicles in Iraq. The system is made up of tiles that fasten to the exterior of the vehicles. Equipped with the General Dynamics' reactive armor, combat vehicles are better able to withstand a direct hit from a variety of anti-armor munitions, including the shoulder-fired rocket propelled grenades that are prevalent in many of today's regional conflicts.

Link




posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   
I read it like this is a separate order to equip tanks that are otherwise not fitted with the TUS kit. This site says that there is a separate order for 505 TUS kits placed and I assume these already include the reactive tiles, so the additional contract you quoted seems to be not part of this delivery.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 05:35 AM
link   
I'm afraid that I just don't get this.

Abrams M1A1 and the M1A2 have Chobham type armour and we all have heard about the Chally 1 that survived 49 RPG, ATGW and tank gun hits without serious damage to it's Chobham armour, during GW1. [If not, search for my previous posts]

More recently in GW2, a Chally 2 was shot to hell but there were no casualties apart from a broken wrist as a 2nd ATGW struck the tank. Only RPG and HMG damage but no penetration.

Most armoured fighting vehicles have one glaring gap in their armour and that is about the track and roadwheel assembly.

The introduction of side-skirts has done little to stop the 3rd or 4th generation of RPGs from penetrating. Indeed Bradley ICFV's are retrofitted with bolt on armour as can Chally 1 and 2 and the Abrams.

Are the makers of your Abrams tank now saying that Chobham and it's derivative Dorchester, are not up to the job, or [as is more likely the case] is this just more taxpayer's money for the military industrialists?

Over to you.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
I'm afraid that I just don't get this.

Are the makers of your Abrams tank now saying that Chobham and it's derivative Dorchester, are not up to the job, or [as is more likely the case] is this just more taxpayer's money for the military industrialists?





Theres nothing in the article that mentions where exactly they are going to apply this reactive armor. The Chobham armor still works on the Abrams, however in a guerilla warfare where its the threat is 360 degrees all around, the Abrams is vunerable, including side, rear and top. This reactive armor contract would make sense having the Abrams equipped with reactive armor for this type of war. I have yet to see any Abrams in Iraq with this system. Only the Bradleys. And o yeah, I wonder why the Challenger 2 tanks have those reactive armor and Chobham as well on the side skirts and front underside.
The Brits don't trust their own armor, before this upgrade they put on?



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Firstly Deltaboy, please be kind enough to re-read my post. In it I said, 'Most armoured fighting vehicles have one glaring gap in their armour and that is about the track and roadwheel assembly.'

I still maintain that. I also know, as does just about everybody else in the world, that tank armour is thinnest on the turret top and at the rear of the tank.

As for reactive armour -
we don't use it. What you see, is bolt on armour 'slabs', much the same as you bolt on to the Bradley and M1A2's. No secret there either unless, you're saying on the Bradley and Abrams, this is reactive?

My post was not meant to be a slur on US technology etc, but more of a genuine enquiry and puzzlement as our UK/US armour is said to be the best in the world.



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
As for reactive armour -
we don't use it. What you see, is bolt on armour 'slabs', much the same as you bolt on to the Bradley and M1A2's. No secret there either unless, you're saying on the Bradley and Abrams, this is reactive?


The Bradleys can be and are equipped with both reactive armor and passive slab armor. If you want to find out more ask. However, you are right on the Challenger 2 having only applique armor and not ERA. I mistaken it for that, since I think of the Bradleys armor appearance, or the old M60s.


My post was not meant to be a slur on US technology etc, but more of a genuine enquiry and puzzlement as our UK/US armour is said to be the best in the world.



No problem there, its just that its in our interest to spend money on improved or add new armor, since you think we should have our tanks both Abrams and Challenger 2s to stay where they are currently at. However the Brits have improved on the Challenger 2 to deal with such type of warfare, like Iraq by adding more armor, while the Abrams still look the same as it is right now.



[edit on 31-8-2006 by deltaboy]

[edit on 31-8-2006 by deltaboy]






[edit on 31-8-2006 by deltaboy]



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   


The reactive armor tiles for Abrams are intented to protect the catterpillar drive assembly, which has been suggested is the most vulnerable part of the tank.

[edit on 31-8-2006 by RedMatt]



posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   
That's a picture of the TUSK configuration, and I think everything in that picture except the reactive armor will become standard in the entire M1A2 fleet.
I only brought this up because I was unsure if the article war referring to the reactive tiles for the TUSK configuration or for a new design.





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join