How strong is the M1M2 armor?

How strong is the armour? I tried banging on the turret with a hammer.The crew started to panick and came out of the hatch with their arms up!
"Theyre shootin' at me! Don hurt me! Don hurt me!"

stgeorge WTF are you talking about are you trying to be funny? Here is a tip... Its not working! Your ridicules posts is well frankly retarded!

Western armour is pretty good. I have seen a clip of a Warrior IFV accidently driving over a tank mine, setting it off and continuing on it's journey.

Chobham armour is excellent against normal ahells but i wouldn't want it to go against the new swedish NLAW missile...

Originally posted by Kozzy

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

[edit on 7-8-2004 by Kozzy]

ERA on the BRadely only covers the upper half of the APC... I guess the thinking was hulldown escapes from such fire....but not much good out in the open?

A low hit with a TOW probably wouldn't knock the vehicle out, probably just mobility kill it.

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by The Vagabond 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.

Yeah, that's what the Col. meant- that it would take 50 hits but it could maybe happen. Are you insane? We're talking 1 extremely well placed shot at close range. 2 or 3 at the very most. Easily possible if the enemy jumps you at close range and gets the first volley in. At the end of this post you will find a scenario detailing what I mean exactly, so that we can understand eachother.

Originally posted by The Vagabond 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.

Retard! We didn't choose Iraq's terrain. It was not a case of taking all the advantage we can. It was a case of being extremely lucky that the enemy had chosen a crappy place to live and an even crappier way to fight over it. What if Iraq had a REAL army, and attacked during Desert Shield before our forces were in place? What if it had been Iran instead of Iraq (with plenty of mountains)? I'm trying to beat some basic safety rules into your head. You know how there's no such thing as an unloaded gun? Well there's no such thing as an unloaded army!

Originally posted by The Vagabond
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]

Umm sorry to break this to you but Korea would have those advantages.
-A war in Korea would likely start at a time of North Korea's choosing, and result in an initial success for their forces.
-Korea is a mountainous area with no wide open flanks areas and several rivers which almost completely bisect the nation.
-Korea knows that it runs the risk of war with America and has by all odds taken measures to improve air defenses, in addition to the obvious ramifications of Chinese intervention, even if only in the air.
-Korea has a disciplined, motivated, well trained army. They are acknowledged as one of the highest-quality forces in the world. Because their terrain is best suited to heavy infantry and artillery instead of armor and airpower, their technological inferiority is less of a disadvantage.

Korea is likely to be America's Thermopylae, if America behaves as you would Westpoint. At Thermopylae, a few hundred Spartans held off up to a quarter of a million Persians for 3 days, until they were sold out by a traitor. The Persians were great fighters in the open ground, but in a mountain pass where the Persian grunts had to square off with the superior Spartans, who had trained their whole lives for that moment, they were humiliated until they were forced to back off and slowly whittle the Spartans down from a distance with archers. If it hadn't been 250,000 versus less than 1,000, the Persians may never have won.




NOW, for an example of what I would do to humiliate you in battle Westpoint23.
You've got an American tank company. 9 M1A1 with 3 LAV-25s in the lead. I'm commanding a reinforced Iranian mechanized company- 6 second-hand M113s with TOWS (aka M-901A1 Tow Carrier) 6 T-64s, and approximately 50 infantry dismounted and dug in.
My mission is to defend a narrow pass in the Zagros Mtns, enroute to Tehran. I choose to make my stand on the outlet-side, so that you have to engage me up close. The mouth of the pass is 1km wide. the middle .5km is covered by a ditch, not deep or wide enough to be an obstacle to your tanks.

Finally the night arrives, and you enter the engagement area. Your LAVs run for my flanks right away, hoping to get in where the 25mm can penetrate inferior armor. The ditch ignites as soon as they enter the engagement area. Neither side can see through the smoke and flames. The LAVs encounter my infantry and dismount their troops. Now you discover that only your side is blinded by the flames- my troops are using a grid system and spotters to fire through and your LAVs are destroyed. Your tanks enter just behind the LAVs and see what has happened- you have a choice, run the flanks of the ditch, up close and personal with my infantry and their AT-4s, or through the ditch, where the flames hide something your thermal viewing would possibly have revealed- anti-tank mines on the reverse side.
As if to remind you that your decision must be rapid, your XO's tank explodes as my strenuously practiced spotters successfully direct two tanks simultaneously onto his.
You can't afford to show us your flanks, so you rush the ditch. The M113s recieve the word from the spotters and move forward of the ditch on the flanks, firing 6 tows into your company, scoring 3 hits for 2 mobility kills. The third tank is taken entirely out of action as the ammo doors blow out as designed, saving the crew- barely. Two of your tanks successfully take aim and destroy their attackers before the wireguided missiles arrive. My M113s run, but not before 2 more are destroyed. Your remaining 5 remaining tanks cross the ditch, engaging my outdated Russian hardware at 300 yards. There are 5 T-64s and 2 M113s facing you- apparently you got lucky through the flames just as much as I did.
The first tank strikes a mine, suffering a catastrophic kill. You realize what has happened and order your 4 to freeze. You'll slug it out with your inferiors now- there are few options. One of my tanks just happens to find himself on target and gets off the first shot, destroying one of your tanks. My others are not so lucky though, and your 3 remaining tanks fire 3 shots for 3 kills. As you target my remaining targets, they fire their first shots. You get lucky and only one of them gets penetration. Before the last remaining American unit- your tank, can fire, a TOW strikes it broadside from close range killing you.

You have lost an even fight with the Revolutionary Guard because your force and your tactics were insufficient. If only you'd respected the enemy. If only you'd insisted on infantry support to take the highground, or if America hadn't let me rehearse for that battle for a month while the stupid air-war dragged on.

It's only a drop in the bucket of course. America will probably win. But you are dead, and you've taken over 50 innocent men with you. You live on only as a cautionary tale which every West Point officer after you is certain to read.

The final casualty of our battle is technology- the Mobility-killed M1s will soon be captured by my remaining forces. They will probably go to North Korea where the technology can be duplicated and the design can be studied for weaknesses.

Originally posted by Kozzy
A low hit with a TOW probably wouldn't knock the vehicle out, probably just mobility kill it.

Possibly but the lower front hull is not protected or the rear hull & Turret. Besides these panels look like the cover the areas well but thats illusion. The best aspect coverage you get out of ERA is 80% and most are about 50%. This is because the actual ERA element within the box has to be quite a bit smaller than the box itself to avoid 'sympathetic detonation' of adjacent tiles...so even though it looks like nearly 100% coverage on the upper side hull or glacis, its probably about 80% at best. True the gaps inbetween should constitute spaced armor, but this is not much use against ultra modern shaped charges.

Mobility killed M1s are always destroyed, by either the crew (Thermite grenade), another tank, or aircraft.

Mobility-killed M1s are always destroyed when America wins. We don't know for sure that they would be successfully destroyed if they were alone with enemy forces. Would the crew destroy their only shelter and defense while even just the co-ax was still serviceable? Could the word of the enemy victory get back, and the an airstrike be sent and pulled off successfully before an enemy recovery vehicle moved it?
It's certainly not -easy- to get your hands on something America doesn't want you to have. I'll give you that 100 times over. I just dont think its any more impossible than the idea of Americans being beaten in battle.

That of course was my main point- WestPoint is extremely arrogant about US hardware. He annoys non-American members, he embarasses (or at least should embarass) any American who knows even a little bit about military hardware and tactics, and as I said, one of these days he's going to get a North Korean officer promoted.

Originally posted by Kozzy
Mobility killed M1s are always destroyed, by either the crew (Thermite grenade), another tank, or aircraft.

Well, if you want to completely destroy all devices there it takes little pounding.

Fear of vehicle/technology compromise led to decisions to destroy abandoned tanks
Tanks repeatedly shot by friendly fire, however they NEVER catastrophically destroyed the tanks except in one instance
Took one thermite grenade, one sabot in turret ammunition compartment, and two Maverick missiles to finally destroy the tank. Ended up compromising the SAP armor package during the destruction process
Lesson learned – Determine ahead of time what/how much of the tank you want destroyed and train crews to execute mission
Is a sabot in the engine and a thermite grenade in the interior crew compartment enough?

www.strategypage.com...
www.strategypage.com...

Yeah, that's what I was talking about. Now crews know what to do if they're out of the fight.

Vagabond your example of how you would beat me in battle is retarded you don't know what I Would do. Your whole dug in and placed tanks would have been decimated by our air force way before I would even get there. What you think your just going to hang out unnoticed and im just going to come strolling in. Predators, Global Haws their job is to go ahead of our troops spot the enemy call in air strike to clean the enemy out. There for e you loose I win.

one of these days he's going to get a North Korean officer promoted.

Nope one of these days im going to send a north Korean officer to his funeral.

Vagabond your example of how you would beat me in battle is retarded you don't know what I Would do. Your whole dug in and placed tanks would have been decimated by our air force way before I would even get there. What you think your just going to hang out unnoticed and im just going to come strolling in. Predators, Global Haws their job is to go ahead of our troops spot the enemy call in air strike to clean the enemy out. There for e you loose I win.

It is true that american airpower would do damage, but you still must be able to see him (in one way or another). In a mountain pass where elite troops have had extensive time to dig in and camoflage, I doubt airstikes (other than carpet bombing) would do a great deal of damage. Take a look at Tora Bora where taliban held out in an area less than 1km square for ages, despite heavy american bombardment.

[edit on 18-8-2004 by stumason]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
one of these days im going to send a north Korean officer to his funeral.

- give you a little 'frisson' that does it Westy?

Phwooaarrr, eh, eh? Dream on. Are you under 12 or something?

Considering there is no state of war between NK and anyone and that we are all supposed to want to see the matter resolved peacably - considering the likely disasterous outcomes if we don't manage to do this - I suggest you attitude is plain weird Westy.

[edit on 18-8-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

If he wishes to indulge himself in little war fantasies, we should let him. He may well eventually realise the true horror of war, and appreciate not all things should be solved with conflict.

Subject: How strong is the M1M2 armor?

Please stay on-topic and don't get personal.

This is an interesting subject, and I am sure the members will have lots of information and opinions to relate as long as it doesn't get derailed.

American airpower will not always be sufficent. It was clear before the war that the bulk of the IRaqies would not fight but even in instances where they did...USAF claimed certain units 80% destroyed when they had at best eliminated 1/4 and 3/4 remained intact and had to be defeated by the M-1s and Bradelys.

Same thing happened in ODS in 1991. THe number of actual tanks destroyed was a fraction of what was claimed by allied airforces.

Bringing mine and Westie's little discussion back to topic, let me state the obvious.
The M1 is not invulnerable, although it is an outstanding tank.
The only defense which West Point 23 has been able to provide against the description of conditions which make the M1 defeatable is to argue that the M1 would be saved by airpower.
If the M1 is to rely on airpower to fight for it, why are we buying M1s at over 4million a pop? Why not trade several thousand M1s for several hundred fighters- even money. We'd be more maneuverable and faster to deploy then wouldn't we? Apparently the pentagon is on my side here.

The M1 is an outstanding, yet much vaunted piece of hardware. Without serious forward thinking and subsequent equipping and training with a mind towards effective combined arms tactics, the M1 will quickly see it's so far stellar record fade to a more historically precedented level in the face of a competent enemy. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a weapon so invulnerable that it got through a major war without being countered.

Food for though- the LOSING side of WWII started with better tanks, better aircraft, better artillery, better snipers, a near monopoly on rockets, and a widely feared U-boat fleet. For that matter they also started with more effective tactics. You can always make mistakes, get in over your head, and be circumvented by a clever enemy.

One last thing westie: I especially liked the part where you thought you could bomb a tank ditch out of existance. 1. Bombs are expensive. 2. Sorties have to be prioritized. 3. Bombs make holes, not fill them.
As for destroying my tanks... 10-20% casualties is an absolutely stunning success for a 2 month air war (Desert Storm). By contrast, my Drill Instructor (a cannon cocker) once told me that 75-80% of all casualties in the past 100 years of warfare were inflicted by artillery.
(just for trivia by the way- 3 in 10 men to serve overseas during wartime (including rear area troops) in the past 100 years have been wounded or killed. It doesn't pay to be in the bottom 1/3 of anything - a concept you are destined to grasp through harsh experience.)

back to my question, which ya all probably dont remember
lets say i fire a 125mm tank selve (T-90/T-98) at the M1, will it destroy it or kill da crew?

and plz dont type to much iz a punishment for me to read!

Originally posted by 187onu
back to my question, which ya all probably dont remember

lets say i fire a 125mm tank selve (T-90/T-98) at the M1, will it destroy it or kill da crew?

and plz dont type to much iz a punishment for me to read!

With the latest chinese DU APFSDS you can penetrate the M-1A2 in the frontal arc probably out to 2km range.

Russians haven't produced any new APFSDS since the early 1990s. Even the Ukranian APFSDS is better [in theory].....since its known that the chinese buy weapons from the Russians I wonder if the RUssians bought some of the latest DUAPFSDS from the chinese.