It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How strong is the M1M2 armor?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Wierd question perhaps but i really am interested.
What will happen if I have 2 of those MBT's and 1 I fire a HellFire on 1 tank and on the other i fire a TOW missile. Will that be enough to destroy both tanks??


[edit on 7-8-2004 by 187onu]




posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 07:42 PM
link   
First you need to edit your post if you want more people to respond to it cuz it isn't making too much sense. And here are links for the TOW and Hellfire missiles. The armor of the tank dictates if you are going to destroy it or not with one missiles DU armor will withstand more than just regular 3rd world county armor.

TOW

Hellfire



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 08:08 PM
link   
M2A2 is not a tank but an armored personel carrier....if it gets hit by pretty much any ATGM its toast. M-1A2 is probably vulnerable to Hellfire from almost any angle?



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by psteel
M2A2 is not a tank but an armored personel carrier....if it gets hit by pretty much any ATGM its toast. M-1A2 is probably vulnerable to Hellfire from almost any angle?


I doubt think the Hellfire would penetrate the strongest turret front point, but the explosion alone would liquify pretty much anyone in there. A TOW would have sucess against anything other then the turret front, glacis, and maybe lower hull.

A Hellfire would demolish a Bradey, a TOW might now because of it's reactive armor.

[edit on 7-8-2004 by Kozzy]



posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Does any other county besides the US use the Hellfire missile or TOW's? Right now all we have to worry about is RPG's unless we go up against a modern military.


[edit on 8-8-2004 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 06:28 AM
link   
never mind that. i needed to know.
but anyway, do you any links about the armor or how that works?



posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 07:10 AM
link   
More than likely you would destroy it,although it could be reclaimable.
I am told the Russians tried experiementing with impervious armour.Alloys of cobalt,even titanium.
They used a captured German 128mm gun,their best, and a few rounds.
They fired the thing at what they considered point blank,200 or 300 meters. The first teo shots sailed over the tank .
"It s only meant for extreme distance.Aim lower."
The next on skidded off the top of the turret.
"Aim at the treads!"
This one hit the turret dead center.They examinined it. There was a crater and a teensy hole.Not even what a 20mm would make. More like a 14 or 15 mm. So technically it did go through.
But they concluded that it was useless to make super armour.The huge explosion kills the crew. And if only a little bit gets through? You have somebody minus a limb or with a hole in him,bleeding all over the place.You must high tail it to the rear or do what the British do and just chuck him over the side!
And those explosions are nothing compared to HESH with those huge plastic warheads. the 120mm believe it or not was too powerful,you need too much of a safe distance.
Chobam armour? Propaganda. M! titanium? More propaganda.
In fact the Russians could not dispose of these super alloy turrets and just dumped them into a river or lake somewhere,where they still have not rusted out.You cannot dispose of them.


[edit on 8-8-2004 by stgeorge]

[edit on 8-8-2004 by stgeorge]

[edit on 8-8-2004 by stgeorge]

[edit on 8-8-2004 by stgeorge]



posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by 187onu
never mind that. i needed to know.
but anyway, do you any links about the armor or how that works?


Abrams and Challenger armor is Chobham, which is basically steel and ceramic blocks layered on top of each other. The M1A2 SEP uses 3rd Generation Chobham with a DU sheet, while the Challenger uses 4th Generation Chobham, known as Dorchester.



posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 06:55 PM
link   
The TDG books written by Col. John Antal (Armor Attacks: Tank Platoons., The Combat Team, and to a lesser extent, Infantry Combat: The Rifle Platoon) all reveal the professional opinion of a man who as commanded an American tank battalion and trained tankers at the NTC.
Antal's books reveal his belief that artillery, MLRS strikes, mines, possible -minor- advances in ammunition, well placed shots by current ammunition, wire guided missiles, or volley firing or even just repeated hits by inferior tanks or man-portable AT missiles all pose a threat to the M1.

While the M1 is a strong tank, it has only been demonstrated on a large scale during the gulf war. The gulf war was characterized by American forces attacking an under-trained enemy force which lacked initiative and was armed with inferior hardware, on terrain favorable to the American forces.

Nobody knows what would happen...
if: The same enemy siezed the initiative and forced Americans to fight at unfavorable times and locations, perhaps with the enemy having the fire-support advantage as the result of taking the initiative.
if: The enemy conducted ambushes on favorable terrain, forcing the M1 to fight point-blank against combined arms forces.
if: The M1 was forced to fight under contested airspace, or was surprised by the presence of enemy aircraft, where attack helicopters were able to play a role in the enemy plan.



posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 07:02 PM
link   


Does any other county besides the US use the Hellfire missile or TOW's? Right now all we have to worry about is RPG's unless we go up against a modern military.


the UK has hellfires Westy, don't know about anyone else, but we are going to use them on our funky new Apaches



posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 07:58 PM
link   
I read somewhere that the USA tested the M-1A1 with DU armor and penetrated it with Hellfires and M-829A?


The whole idea was to study the effects of the DU armor on damage inside the tank....so they had to be able to penetrate.



posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Stoutman WTF is your problem I was asking a question why do you have to be such a B about it. Damn can you take your head out of your arse.


Antal's books reveal his belief that artillery, MLRS strikes, mines, possible -minor- advances in ammunition, well placed shots by current ammunition, wire guided missiles, or volley firing or even just repeated hits by inferior tanks or man-portable AT missiles all pose a threat to the M1.


Well duh most of those things are a threat to a tank but a thereat doesn't mean it will be destroyed. Repeated hits by inferior tanks... of course even if the tank is from WWII if it hits you 50 times its going to destroy a tank. And The objective of war is not to let those things happen.


While the M1 is a strong tank, it has only been demonstrated on a large scale during the gulf war. The gulf war was characterized by American forces attacking an under-trained enemy force which lacked initiative and was armed with inferior hardware, on terrain favorable to the American forces.


That is the objective of the war to have as much of an advantage as you can who the hell wants a fair war. You have to deny your enemy as much as you can while increasing your chances to win quick, and without much loss of life.


Nobody knows what would happen...
if: The same enemy siezed the initiative and forced Americans to fight at unfavorable times and locations, perhaps with the enemy having the fire-support advantage as the result of taking the initiative.
if: The enemy conducted ambushes on favorable terrain, forcing the M1 to fight point-blank against combined arms forces.
if: The M1 was forced to fight under contested airspace, or was surprised by the presence of enemy aircraft, where attack helicopters were able to play a role in the enemy plan.


Umm sorry to break this to you but who is going to have those advantages? In 91 Iraq had the 4th largest army and over 4.000+ tanks. Yet how long was the war a few days if i remember right. In any future war the US would ensure that it had all of the point you listed above.

[edit on 8-8-2004 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Westy, who is this Stoutman you keep referring too? If it is me, I dont know quite how you thought I had a problem. i answered your question civilly. I merely said:



the UK has hellfires Westy, don't know about anyone else, but we are going to use them on our funky new Apaches


dont see how you got upset at that statement, i answered you!



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 02:03 AM
link   
I keep getting the name mixed up my bad. And I don't like it when other members call me "westy". If you cant for some reason type WestPoint fine the type West or WP23 it will save you one letter



[edit on 9-8-2004 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 07:37 AM
link   
You dont have to destroy the Tank, you just have to kill the crew which is easy to do..



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Tell me the effect of a large explosion on the other side of that armour plate.
I threw a grenade from a bunker and did not care for the effect.

[edit on 9-8-2004 by stgeorge]



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 02:58 PM
link   
cant you go easy on a brother??


to make a story sort, is the tank destroyed after a HellFire missile or TOW missile or not??



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solarity
You dont have to destroy the Tank, you just have to kill the crew which is easy to do..



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 08:27 PM
link   
fine so will it kill the crew or not???



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 09:57 PM
link   
A TOW or Hellfire will probably kill the crew inside or kill most of them. The HE round form the Abrams will burn everything inside the tank to a crisp but the out side remains largely intact.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join