Jump to content
Gatzby

Limited Alpha 12 Test Oct 10th

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, FlyManRU said:

774168_469479049766721_1215839117_o.jpg1334886791_da19ed28.jpgm1a1-grp-022.jpg

That's a great reference pic. Having stood next to a few different ww2 tanks I'm truely surprised how compact the modern mbt actually is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its worth noting that most cold war era MBT tanks such as the Abrams are not very mine protected actually. There are add-ons and upgrades course, but they were not initially designed for counterinsurgency opererations, but instead to resist a large scale soviet tank offensive on allied ground. That means they were at least originally quite poorly protected underneath, especially from shaped charge explosives because of their thin flat bellies close to the ground. MRAPs were designed with a V shaped hull with lots of air underneath to allow the blast to travel sideways but also offer longer penetration distance for shaped charge explosions. Because in counterinsurgency operations a low profile is less valuable than in an outspoken tank to tank battle, going into a city and such, making MRAPs taller instead likely lowered their susceptibility to IED attacks. So this is why in comparison mraps are taller than some tanks. Though they are still quite tall as you can see from the pictures. :-)

Edited by SpecialAgentJohnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

Its worth noting that most cold war era MBT tanks such as the Abrams are not very mine protected actually. There are add-ons and upgrades course, but they were not initially designed for counterinsurgency opererations, but instead to resist a large scale soviet tank offensive on allied ground. That means they were at least originally quite poorly protected underneath, especially from shaped charge explosives because of their thin flat bellies close to the ground. MRAPs were designed with a V shaped hull with lots of air underneath to allow the blast to travel sideways but also offer longer penetration distance for shaped charge explosions. Because in counterinsurgency operations a low profile is less valuable than in an outspoken tank to tank battle, going into a city and such, making MRAPs taller instead likely lowered their susceptibility to IED attacks. So this is why in comparison mraps are taller than some tanks. Though they are still quite tall as you can see from the pictures. :-)


Facts. That extra bit of empty space acts as yet another level of "armor" so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13.10.2018 at 12:07 PM, Smee said:

With the rallies would like 5 sec ghost on spawn, stop the possible bonanza of kills that could happen on wave spawn.

That's a great idea.I totally agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2018 at 11:12 PM, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

It's not realistic that abrams survives 125 mm sabot dart ammunition from 45 degrees from straight from behind. In the side. The T72 gun is even bigger than the Abrams which has only 120 mm gun. It has a fair chance to survive in the front if you are lucky and it doesn't hit between the turret and the chassi. I know Americans think Abrams is unbeatable but that is generally because it seldom meets MBTs in battle, Americans have air superiority all the time, and better trained crew and much better strategy and infantry support etc, than pretty much any other nation. Tänk warfare is pretty much one shot one kill warfare still. Even if a tank survive a round, stress levels of the crew are often so high that they mess up return fire anyway.

Actually it is realistic that Abrams will survive 125mm shot to the rear. If that was such design flaw, Israelis for example would of never made Merkava tank with engine at the front. The problem with this thought is that false belief, especially spread by Russian vatnik propaganda that Abrams have exposed turbine engine at the rear. That is flawed thought. For one Abrams engine sits cradled behind angled plate with auxiliary power exhaust at the top of it that is seen. In Russia there been widely spread rumors that insurgents shot at that exhaust at Abrams rear and disabled American Abrams tanks left and right in Iraq. Only one rank had been disabled that way with RPG7 rocket and only because faulty fire suppression system failed to put out fire, which eventually spread and burned the tank. The worst most likely to happen if Abrams got shot to the rear of the hull is engine damage and if there is penetration of the engine compartment, is bringing Abrams to the mobility kill, with Abrams other systems still operational but either incapable of moving or temporarily moving before going into a halt. In such situations Abrams have hylon fire suppression system. Entire tank is designed to keep the most important part of it alive. - The crew unlike T series, where crew members are sitting on the pile of explosives. In fact rear hit from 125mm cannon is much more survivable, than the front, due to the Abrams crew being placed closer to the front and having armor between the engine and crew compartment as well.  This is likely to happen to t72 as well, however how the ammo is stored in t72 series tank carousel system (Abrams uses separate compartment at the rear of the turret) and due to the fact is t72 rear is shorter, Jack in the Box effect is more likely to happen to t72b3 if Abrams shot t72B3 to the rear with its 120mm cannon. Also to mention the new 120mm APFDS rounds have greater velocity than 125mm cannon's APFDS of t72b3 and better penetration. While having bigger cannon can be better, but it also reduces round velocity.  Generally to penetrate something you want to go faster and not be bigger, since velocity transfers more energy in joules and the size problem is offset by creating longer ammunition for the tank with more propellant. 

Edited by Caliell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2018 at 11:34 AM, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

Its worth noting that most cold war era MBT tanks such as the Abrams are not very mine protected actually. There are add-ons and upgrades course, but they were not initially designed for counterinsurgency opererations, but instead to resist a large scale soviet tank offensive on allied ground. That means they were at least originally quite poorly protected underneath, especially from shaped charge explosives because of their thin flat bellies close to the ground. MRAPs were designed with a V shaped hull with lots of air underneath to allow the blast to travel sideways but also offer longer penetration distance for shaped charge explosions. Because in counterinsurgency operations a low profile is less valuable than in an outspoken tank to tank battle, going into a city and such, making MRAPs taller instead likely lowered their susceptibility to IED attacks. So this is why in comparison mraps are taller than some tanks. Though they are still quite tall as you can see from the pictures. :-)

I don't know where you got your info at but I've personally saw Abrams survive driving over 500lb bomb buried in the road. For your information, during Operation Desert Storm AT minefields was the primary defense of Iraqi army against Abrams with hulled down T series tanks behind them. Abrams had no problems driving over those minefields, even without engineer plows. This is simply false statement that Abrams is poorly defended against mines. Also MRAPs main protection against IEDs is not primarily it's height but especially designed hull that diverts IED blast away from the main compartment, not to mention it is designed akin to Lego pieces to be easily replaced (if a wheel gets blown off for example, it can still drive on the other three) and the reality do you see those weird fat antennas on every American military vehicle? Ever wondered what do they do? Those are EW systems, that  make  IEDs activated by radio transmitter (by cellphone for example) or AT radio guided rockets have hard time destroying said vehicles. In real life insurgents even stopped using radio activated IEDs because of it and used either wire or close circuit trip pressure type of activation (not the weight but the tire pressure pushing the electric wires together to complete the circuit).

Edited by Caliell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Caliell said:

I don't know where you got your info at but I've personally saw Abrams survive driving over 500lb bomb buried in the road. For your information, during Operation Desert Storm AT minefields was the primary defense of Iraqi army against Abrams with hulled down T series tanks behind them. Abrams had no problems driving over those minefields, even without engineer plows. This is simply false statement that Abrams is poorly defended against mines. Also MRAPs main protection against IEDs is not primarily it's height but especially designed hull that diverts IED blast away from the main compartment, not to mention it is designed akin to Lego pieces to be easily replaced (if a wheel gets blown off for example, it can still drive on the other three) and the reality do you see those weird fat antennas on every American military vehicle? Ever wondered what do they do? Those are EW systems, that  make  IEDs activated by radio transmitter (by cellphone for example) or AT radio guided rockets have hard time destroying said vehicles. In real life insurgents even stopped using radio activated IEDs because of it and used either wire or close circuit trip pressure type of activation (not the weight but the tire pressure pushing the electric wires together to complete the circuit).

Oooooo i love this everything made in the USA is the best in the universe.Wait where did i heard it also ooo yeah F-117 Nighthawk invisible for the any type of ground radars bomber oo no wait that got seen by the Yugoslav army radar and shot down in the 1999 hmm thats not it.

Not everything made in the USA is the best in the world buddy.

What made you make the MRAPS,the shitload of hummvies blown up and guys killed in them.

The MRAP is not indestructible nor is the abrams. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Caliell said:

I don't know where you got your info at but I've personally saw Abrams survive driving over 500lb bomb buried in the road. For your information, during Operation Desert Storm AT minefields was the primary defense of Iraqi army against Abrams with hulled down T series tanks behind them. Abrams had no problems driving over those minefields, even without engineer plows. This is simply false statement that Abrams is poorly defended against mines. Also MRAPs main protection against IEDs is not primarily it's height but especially designed hull that diverts IED blast away from the main compartment, not to mention it is designed akin to Lego pieces to be easily replaced (if a wheel gets blown off for example, it can still drive on the other three) and the reality do you see those weird fat antennas on every American military vehicle? Ever wondered what do they do? Those are EW systems, that  make  IEDs activated by radio transmitter (by cellphone for example) or AT radio guided rockets have hard time destroying said vehicles. In real life insurgents even stopped using radio activated IEDs because of it and used either wire or close circuit trip pressure type of activation (not the weight but the tire pressure pushing the electric wires together to complete the circuit).

Well depends on what you mean of course. There are mine protection upgrade packages that can or maybe always are mounted nowadays but when we are talking the original cold war version I have a hard time believing it being able to sustain a modern shaped charge AT mine if it didn't hit the track or the front but directly in the middle of the belly. Note that a 500 lb bomb is not shape charged so typically wouldn't be a problem. But it is true you likely would need a shaped charge device to penetrate. Although I think most AT mines are.

 

I never said MRAPs main protection is its height. I said main protection is its V shaped hill that deflects the blast outwards while also offering a longer penetration distance if hit underneath. But yes, because it is a bit away from the blast (in contrast to the Abram which on the other hand is so heavy it doesn't matter), most of the non shape charged energy is not concentrated very close to the hull and makes it easier for the vehicle not flip on hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

Quite a few Saudi Abrams got blasted by AT missiles in Jemen recently. Poor tactics but it also shows Abrams isn't indestructible.

The export version of the Abrams has much worse protection compared to the USA version. And yeah, those countries are not known for their smart military tactics in recent history...

Edited by Guan_Yu007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bahrein said:

Oooooo i love this everything made in the USA is the best in the universe.Wait where did i heard it also ooo yeah F-117 Nighthawk invisible for the any type of ground radars bomber oo no wait that got seen by the Yugoslav army radar and shot down in the 1999 hmm thats not it.

Not everything made in the USA is the best in the world buddy.

What made you make the MRAPS,the shitload of hummvies blown up and guys killed in them.

The MRAP is not indestructible nor is the abrams. 

 

First of all I never said that American military vehicles are invincible, but to your mentioned point:

So historically only one F117 that is no longer in service shot down and all because of the pilot's error (pilot opened bomb bays too early and got lighted up by the radar. - This flaw is fixed on latest 5th generation Stealth fighters by having bay open up only upon firing the ordinance).

How many Russian made aircraft had been shot down in comparison during that time? How many historically American 4th generation aircraft in comparison to Russian 4th generation aircraft? Shooting down one F117 only once historically ever, does not mean that is suddenly it is shitty plane. Every military technology become total shit in the wrong hands. This especially seems with incompetent armies like Syrian Arab Army that have to be complimented with Russian Mercenaries, South Vietnamese Army during Vietnam, or Saudi Arabian Army. As for my argument for Abrams, the tank is definitely really good. The funny thing, one American aircraft had been shot down and Serbs acted like they already won the war.

 

6 hours ago, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

Quite a few Saudi Abrams got blasted by AT missiles in Jemen recently. Poor tactics but it also shows Abrams isn't indestructible.

 Saudi Army should be part of Benny Hill comedy shit show. Saudi Arabia is extremely rich, but it is ran on incompetence and corruption, which is the result of Saudi losses. The perfect highlight of Saudi Arabian promotion system for their officer is.

- Be in good graces of the Saudi Royalty or be rich enough to buy your own rank.

The latest Saudi Version of Abrams (VERY IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT SAUDI VERSION "M1A2S" NOT AMERICAN VERSION AND THERE IS HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AMERICAN ABRAMS AND SAUDI ABRAMS) was literally left on the open to be shot up, with Saudis establishing no barriers and no fire support nor overlapping sector positions to cover it.

They also apparently did not set up emergency channels for QRF, Air support (their air support helicopter arrived late and just circled around miles way from the actual combat while Houthis danced all over that overran COP) or artillery strikes.

Saudi Abrams crew wore NO BODY ARMOR and they PLACED NO SECONDARY WEAPONS ON THAT ABRAMS (That Saudi M1A2Saudi did not have any machine guns on the top of the turret). All American tank crews wear body armor as the standard practice.

- This is not how you use the tank, especially in "Combined Arms" doctrine, which Saudis do not seem to understand. Tanks are not meant to be invincible machines by themselves. They are meant to work with supportive elements to be at their full potential, such as infantry or air support, while providing the ground support for other element akin to Roman Legionaire Testudo or Ancient Greek Phalanx formation.

Edited by Caliell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Caliell said:

First of all I never said that American military vehicles are invincible, but to your mentioned point:

So historically only one F117 that is no longer in service shot down and all because of the pilot's error (pilot opened bomb bays too early and got lighted up by the radar. - This flaw is fixed on latest 5th generation Stealth fighters by having bay open up only upon firing the ordinance).

How many Russian made aircraft had been shot down in comparison during that time? How many historically American 4th generation aircraft in comparison to Russian 4th generation aircraft? Shooting down one F117 only once historically ever, does not mean that is suddenly it is shitty plane. Every military technology become total shit in the wrong hands. This especially seems with incompetent armies like Syrian Arab Army that have to be complimented with Russian Mercenaries, South Vietnamese Army during Vietnam, or Saudi Arabian Army. As for my argument for Abrams, the tank is definitely really good. The funny thing, one American aircraft had been shot down and Serbs acted like they already won the war.

 

 Saudi Army should be part of Benny Hill comedy shit show. Saudi Arabia is extremely rich, but it is ran on incompetence and corruption, which is the result of Saudi losses. The perfect highlight of Saudi Arabian promotion system for their officer is.

- Be in good graces of the Saudi Royalty or be rich enough to buy your own rank.

The latest Saudi Version of Abrams (VERY IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT SAUDI VERSION "M1A2S" NOT AMERICAN VERSION AND THERE IS HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AMERICAN ABRAMS AND SAUDI ABRAMS) was literally left on the open to be shot up, with Saudis establishing no barriers and no fire support nor overlapping sector positions to cover it.

They also apparently did not set up emergency channels for QRF, Air support (their air support helicopter arrived late and just circled around miles way from the actual combat while Houthis danced all over that overran COP) or artillery strikes.

Saudi Abrams crew wore NO BODY ARMOR and they PLACED NO SECONDARY WEAPONS ON THAT ABRAMS (That Saudi M1A2Saudi did not have any machine guns on the top of the turret). All American tank crews wear body armor as the standard practice.

- This is not how you use the tank, especially in "Combined Arms" doctrine, which Saudis do not seem to understand. Tanks are not meant to be invincible machines by themselves. They are meant to work with supportive elements to be at their full potential, such as infantry or air support, while providing the ground support for other element akin to Roman Legionaire Testudo or Ancient Greek Phalanx formation.

Yes Abrams is one of the very best tanks out there.

 

F117 was probably a very good plane as well at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2018 at 4:07 AM, Caliell said:

First of all I never said that American military vehicles are invincible, but to your mentioned point:

So historically only one F117 that is no longer in service shot down and all because of the pilot's error (pilot opened bomb bays too early and got lighted up by the radar. - This flaw is fixed on latest 5th generation Stealth fighters by having bay open up only upon firing the ordinance).

How many Russian made aircraft had been shot down in comparison during that time? How many historically American 4th generation aircraft in comparison to Russian 4th generation aircraft? Shooting down one F117 only once historically ever, does not mean that is suddenly it is shitty plane. Every military technology become total shit in the wrong hands. This especially seems with incompetent armies like Syrian Arab Army that have to be complimented with Russian Mercenaries, South Vietnamese Army during Vietnam, or Saudi Arabian Army. As for my argument for Abrams, the tank is definitely really good. The funny thing, one American aircraft had been shot down and Serbs acted like they already won the war.

 

 

Hmm i really wonder why thy stopped making them any more hmmm i also do wonder would thy have stopped making it if it was not shot down.

Its not just one my friend.And its that arrogance that the Americans have is why thy lost the planes.And if the Americans are all that good and mighty why are thy not in Iraq anymore,why are thy not in Vietnam why are thy not in Afghanistan.Because its costly to police the world against people that will not and cannot be oppressed.For a small country like Serbia and people fighting against the NATO bombings even the little things matter (such is downing of the invisible kick ass F-113 at that time)

And i am sure you have a counter argument about every singe thing we say on here against the Abrams or anything made in the USA.

Pilot error,Abrams are made less as good for exports and so on and on and on.

The thing you need to know about the T-72 in iraq that fought your beloved Abrams where tanks that had old shells that where not even in use in at that time SSSR as far as i know.

As the other guy says i will just keep watching the Houthis' killing the Abrams,just the people no army training people fighting against the Saudi's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone try the new v12 play test they did yesterday for a few hours? Still very buggy but playing on the desert map with the new sound effects and other new content was frickin awesome. I was driving a btr and my gunner and I were scared to death with the enemy tanks rolling around. We got hit by a lat in the city, which busted out engine, and I got outside with the hammer and was pounding on the hull trying to fix it while my gunner was trying to keep the infantry at bay. It was the most intense stuff I’ve experienced in this game.

 

The new UI has some very good features, like the option to show the fob radius, but there's a lot of redundancy and some clutter. I feel it could be streamlined a lot more.

Edited by fatalsushi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't try out new playtest but watched some streams... Really liked what they did with map in this one. Maybe i missed something first time, but now, map is not so colorful and distracting. Fireteams colors are now dots instead of full color? That is very cool improvement (unless it was option even the first time but i somehow missed it).

 

It would be cool to be done same way to radio comm signatures (the one that pops out when somebody is talking to you). IE, squad chat is mostly green with one bar of team color at beginning of signature or something like that... or maybe, always green except team letter that is in color.

Edited by Disco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2018 at 3:42 AM, Caliell said:

I don't know where you got your info at but I've personally saw Abrams survive driving over 500lb bomb buried in the road. For your information, during Operation Desert Storm AT minefields was the primary defense of Iraqi army against Abrams with hulled down T series tanks behind them. Abrams had no problems driving over those minefields, even without engineer plows. This is simply false statement that Abrams is poorly defended against mines. Also MRAPs main protection against IEDs is not primarily it's height but especially designed hull that diverts IED blast away from the main compartment, not to mention it is designed akin to Lego pieces to be easily replaced (if a wheel gets blown off for example, it can still drive on the other three) and the reality do you see those weird fat antennas on every American military vehicle? Ever wondered what do they do? Those are EW systems, that  make  IEDs activated by radio transmitter (by cellphone for example) or AT radio guided rockets have hard time destroying said vehicles. In real life insurgents even stopped using radio activated IEDs because of it and used either wire or close circuit trip pressure type of activation (not the weight but the tire pressure pushing the electric wires together to complete the circuit).



giphy.gif

Edited by SlumLord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018-10-18 at 12:37 PM, Caliell said:

Actually it is realistic that Abrams will survive 125mm shot to the rear. If that was such design flaw, Israelis for example would of never made Merkava tank with engine at the front. The problem with this thought is that false belief, especially spread by Russian vatnik propaganda that Abrams have exposed turbine engine at the rear. That is flawed thought. For one Abrams engine sits cradled behind angled plate with auxiliary power exhaust at the top of it that is seen. In Russia there been widely spread rumors that insurgents shot at that exhaust at Abrams rear and disabled American Abrams tanks left and right in Iraq. Only one rank had been disabled that way with RPG7 rocket and only because faulty fire suppression system failed to put out fire, which eventually spread and burned the tank. The worst most likely to happen if Abrams got shot to the rear of the hull is engine damage and if there is penetration of the engine compartment, is bringing Abrams to the mobility kill, with Abrams other systems still operational but either incapable of moving or temporarily moving before going into a halt. In such situations Abrams have hylon fire suppression system. Entire tank is designed to keep the most important part of it alive. - The crew unlike T series, where crew members are sitting on the pile of explosives. In fact rear hit from 125mm cannon is much more survivable, than the front, due to the Abrams crew being placed closer to the front and having armor between the engine and crew compartment as well.  This is likely to happen to t72 as well, however how the ammo is stored in t72 series tank carousel system (Abrams uses separate compartment at the rear of the turret) and due to the fact is t72 rear is shorter, Jack in the Box effect is more likely to happen to t72b3 if Abrams shot t72B3 to the rear with its 120mm cannon. Also to mention the new 120mm APFDS rounds have greater velocity than 125mm cannon's APFDS of t72b3 and better penetration. While having bigger cannon can be better, but it also reduces round velocity.  Generally to penetrate something you want to go faster and not be bigger, since velocity transfers more energy in joules and the size problem is offset by creating longer ammunition for the tank with more propellant. 

Some of this is not true. Apparently bigger gun is always better for velocity (kinetic energy) as well otherwise they would make guns smaller of course. I mean even if it didn't even go faster you could make round slightly bigger to pack more punch. The science behind this is that sabot rounds can collect more explosive gases behind their "sabots" which are things keeping a much lower caliber round in place. Bigger gun means more combustible material at the end of the dart pushing things even faster. Imagine how long the round would have to be to pack the same amount of explosives if the round was just an inch wide like the dart itself! That being said I am not saying T72 cannon or round is better than Abrams, probably not, but still bad enough for an Abrams to be severely damaged when hit from the rear. Every tank crew out there also knows never to expose the rear of the tank because it always much less protected than the front and sides. This is because tanks like these were designed to keep a low profile facing danger direction, fire a shot, go into safety then come back up. Urban warfare is very dangerous for a tank because it is so easy to sneak up from behind or even on top which is even worse often.

 

Putting engine at the front would mean engine is more protected at the expense of the crew having less material between them and the back. It is a design decision that doesn't have to be bad. The risk might be higher for the engine to break down on front hit possibly. On the other hand if you have penetration at the front crew wouldn't be happy anyway. 

 

Here they talk about an Abrams with the turret being blown off clean by an AT mine and up to 500 lbs explosives. Also about a mobility kill by only 30 mm Armour piercing. Also RPGs can also typically cause mobility kill if lucky shot on the tracks:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_M1_Abrams

 

I wouldn't want to go mine sweeping AT mines in any tank. The reason they did that was because they did not have a better option and after all the Abrams is very survivable still. Especially with mine protection upgrades which I talked about not existing on the cold war era first version tanks. Even If you don't have penetration and tank just goes 1-2 m up in the air you risk being quite severely beaten up. Especially the loader because he is standing up and risk having the gun back end coming down on him.

Edited by SpecialAgentJohnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

Some of this is not true. Apparently bigger gun is always better for velocity (kinetic energy) as well otherwise they would make guns smaller of course. I mean even if it didn't even go faster you could make round slightly bigger to pack more punch. The science behind this is that sabot rounds can collect more explosive gases behind their "sabots" which are things keeping a much lower caliber round in place. Bigger gun means more combustible material at the end of the dart pushing things even faster. Imagine how long the round would have to be to pack the same amount of explosives if the round was just an inch wide like the dart itself! That being said I am not saying T72 cannon or round is better than Abrams, probably not, but still bad enough for an Abrams to be severely damaged when hit from the rear. Every tank crew out there also knows never to expose the rear of the tank because it always much less protected than the front and sides. This is because tanks like these were designed to keep a low profile facing danger direction, fire a shot, go into safety then come back up. Urban warfare is very dangerous for a tank because it is so easy to sneak up from behind or even on top which is even worse often.

 

Putting engine at the front would mean engine is more protected at the expense of the crew having less material between them and the back. It is a design decision that doesn't have to be bad. The risk might be higher for the engine to break down on front hit possibly. On the other hand if you have penetration at the front crew wouldn't be happy anyway. 

 

Here they talk about an Abrams with the turret being blown off clean by an AT mine and up to 500 lbs explosives. Also about a mobility kill by only 30 mm Armour piercing. Also RPGs can also typically cause mobility kill if lucky shot on the tracks:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_M1_Abrams

 

I wouldn't want to go mine sweeping AT mines in any tank. The reason they did that was because they did not have a better option and after all the Abrams is very survivable still. Especially with mine protection upgrades which I talked about not existing on the cold war era first version tanks. Even If you don't have penetration and tank just goes 1-2 m up in the air you risk being quite severely beaten up. Especially the loader because he is standing up and risk having the gun back end coming down on him.

The thing about tank main gun calliber you wrote maybe is logical but its not that good or true.

Just remember WW2 how thy all started from smaller caliber main guns and went to larger ones like the 152mm guns and even  maybe bigger not sure now.

But for some reasons like ammo storage,pressures,accuracy and so on and on thy all got back on two simple callibers like 120mm smoothbore and 125mm.

The bigger calliber or hier velocity dose not mean you will penetrate a tank with sloped armmor or this new type of armor defenses and all. 

And i am sure there is no protection in the world that will keep any tanks track on it if it hits a mine the only mines Abrams can go over and do not take any damage are infantry mines.

AT mines are not that much made this days do destroy a tank as much as cripple him as much as possible so the crew cannot fix it but wait for the recovery crew to come and tow it.And the exposure of a tank standing still is the worst there is it is the same as a tank going in urban combat as you wrote.

Edited by Bahrein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bahrein said:

The thing about tank main gun calliber you wrote maybe is logical but its not that good or true.

Just remember WW2 how thy all started from smaller caliber main guns and went to larger ones like the 152mm guns and even  maybe bigger not sure now.

But for some reasons like ammo storage,pressures,accuracy and so on and on thy all got back on two simple callibers like 120mm smoothbore and 125mm.

The bigger calliber or hier velocity dose not mean you will penetrate a tank with sloped armmor or this new type of armor defenses and all. 

And i am sure there is no protection in the world that will keep any tanks track on it if it hits a mine the only mines Abrams can go over and do not take any damage are infantry mines.

AT mines are not that much made this days do destroy a tank as much as cripple him as much as possible so the crew cannot fix it but wait for the recovery crew to come and tow it.And the exposure of a tank standing still is the worst there is it is the same as a tank going in urban combat as you wrote.

Higher kinetic enery means higher penetration yes. Ek=(1/2)mv^2. A Sabot round should be as dense, hard and fast as possible. Having more than 125 mm cannon on a tank is highly impractical and probably very difficult to load and can carry less rounds etc. 120 mm was chosen because it was deemed big enough and offered some of the other advantages I mentioned. Initially Nato officials were very concerned about the 125mm higher caliber gun though, but with the tank itself being inferior and maybe the munitions (I don't know this) I think worries were quickly settled that the Abrams was the better tank.

Edited by SpecialAgentJohnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

Higher kinetic enery means higher penetration yes. Ek=(1/2)mv^2. A Sabot round should be as dense, hard and fast as possible. Having more than 125 mm cannon on a tank is highly impractical and probably very difficult to load and can carry less rounds etc. 120 mm was chosen because it was deemed big enough and offered some of the other advantages I mentioned. Initially Nato officials were very concerned about the 125mm higher caliber gun though, but with the tank itself being inferior and maybe the munitions (I don't know this) I think worries were quickly settled that the Abrams was the better tank.

Yeah i understand that.

Its the time where the tanks had bigger and smaller caliber and becouse of that thy are settled between this two. 

I only think that this modern days the only upgrades that can be in a tank its his shells that it can fire not the higer or smaller calliber.

And i am one of thous that dose not believe that the Abrams is a better tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×