OOB 024 -- US Army -- M1A2 Abrams

[Marcello]

"The Cr2 doesn't have ERA."

Wait a minute. All I can find there is "new generation of appliqu� armour", which is a pretty generic description. It does not say whether ERA is included or not.
If those boxes on the lower hull front aren't ERA tiles they certainly look like them.

[Listy]

trust me on this, they're not. There's pictures of RPG's embedded in them.

The attachment is a Picture of a Cr2 that got brewed up in a blue on blue incident when a HESH round went down the CO's hatch. The tank has obviously burned, and yet the armour panels are still in one piece.

[Marcello]

I cannot see the picture, I get the usual file not found. Still it would not rule out ERA. For a start if it is ERA it is an enclosed design, like Kontakt-5, rather than Kontakt EDZ style flying plates. So even if there is something stuck in the outer layer it does not mean that it does not work like ERA inside. Then it is not supposed to detonate as soon as something sneeze at it, for obvious reasons. It may well be non sensitive enough to resist some amount of fire.

[Marek_Tucan]

IIRC the Russians have put once a show for the press where they did ignite the fuel cells over the fenders on a T-80U (or were that Ukrainians? Same difference in fact) and the tank remained fully operational, the ERA also didn't go off IIRC.
This being said, I frankly dunno what that thing on CR2 front is. It looks like ERA but so can NERA look like so I am waiting till somebody discloses the Truth(tm)

[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'�s 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...)

[Djuice]

Im pretty sure that the CR2 has ERA fitted to the lower front hull. Same with the CR1 during GW1.. Side Hull/Turret are Chobham Applique armour..

[SGTGunn]

Hi,

As a former M1 Abrams crewman (I've been a driver, gunner and commander) I can state quite unequivocally that the Abrams has no difficulty accurately engaging moving targets while on the move. The current Tank Table VIII (M1 individual crew qualification table) includes engaging moving and evasive targets while on the move at ranges in excess of 1500m. For example - to score 100% on an engagement against a moving & evasive tank @ 1700m, a stationary APC at 1100m and moving troops at 500m - while the M1 is moving, the crew must engage and achieve a 1st round hits on all three targets in 8 seconds or less per target for M1A1 and 6 seconds or less per target with the M1A2 (obscuration time is deducted).

Now, I'm not saying that's easy - and certainly not every crew gets 100% on every engagement like this - but it happens ,and most crews can pull off 90%+ pretty regularly (8 & 11 seconds respectively). I've done it a few times myself - I've never shot a perfect table VIII (that's 10 different engagements each 100%)I've got a few in the 900s.

Adrian

[DRG]

SGTGunn

It's always nice to hear from someone who has "been there, done that" It's a refreshing change from those with opinions based on books and the internet.

Would you care to comment on the top armour protection issue brought up earlier in this thread ? I am quite willing to alter OOB unit specs from what we have now when presented with good information and information from someone who has actually climbed in and out of one on a regular basis is an always welcome addition.

FYI the Challenger 2 top armour is also high. It may be too high......or not....... same as the numbers for the later Abrams so if their are any Chally 2 crewmen out there it would be nice to hear from you as well

Don

[SGTGunn]

Believe it or not, in my 4 years on the M1 I never once saw any published specs on armor thickness - presumably they were/are classified above my level. That being said, it's pretty easy, standing in the loaders hatch, to see how thick the turret roof armor is - which is to say not very. 40mm seems about right to me, though it may have actually been thinner. When the M1 was designed, there was no top attack ATGM threat, so I honestly don't think roof armor was a serious consideration. Just thick enough to keep out artillery I suspect. Sorry I don't have a more definitive answer.

Adrian

[DRG]

Any spall liners or anything "Kevlarish" on the inside turret roof?

You say "M1" are you specifically refering to the early Abrams or would this also include experience with the later models? The specs in the game from a "M1 Abrams" is steel 5 which matches pretty close to your eyeball observation. Later models in the game show more protection so is your experience mostly with the early versions ?



Don