Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kev2go

Master MBT ammo/Armor Thread ( how it works)

Recommended Posts

the M1 abrams  is incapable of frontally 1 shotting T72B3 Frontal Plate even at point blank range. It takes  loads of shells to kill it.

 

M1 abrams Its is armed with M829A4 ( incorrect ammo but thats a story for another thread) 

 

T72B3 IS equipped with Kontact 5 explosive reactive armor. . the Earlier M829A3 that was introduced in 2003  was already designed to fully negate Kontact 5 and Bypass it by having a Thin Steel Tip in its design, the Thin steel tip would not trigger the ERA and thus Bypass it. The shell is not degraded by ERA, and thus as a Kintetic Energy Penetrator can focus all its Energy On the main  armor.  The closer the intended target the More it will penetrate. It only looses velocity and the Energy Over Distances. But in theory the M892A3 should be able to penetrate  T72B3 beyond 2 km.

 

https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/02/m829a3-apfsds-penetration-power-common.html

 

 

 

Since establishing that Kontact 5 does nothing against it or Newer ammo type we can move on to the topic of main armor.  The Main Hull Armor would not be capable of withstanding the M829A3. All T72B3's are modernized Soviet era T72B's ( most of the production would be the "model 1985" version of the T72B.)

 

 

The T72B had an array composed of  5  steel layers and Air Gaps in between

 

t-72b+glacis+armour.jpg

 

 

t-72b+glacis+armour+view.jpg

 

60mm RHA + 10mm Air Space + 10mm RHA+ 10mm Air Space + 10mm RHA + 10mm Air Space + 20mm RHA + 10mm Air Space + 20mm RHA + 10mm Air Space + 50mm RHA (220mm LOS thickness Total)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This source below goes more in detail

 

It is worth noting that the November issue of the famous Russian Tekhnika i Vooruzhenie 2006 (Журнал Техника и Вооружение) magazine mentions in page 14 that the protection of the 1985 edition of the T-72B is equivalent to more than 550mm against a KE projectile.

  

 

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2-protection-good-indication.html

 

 

 

T72B Turret  ( IRRC also used in T72B mod 89 and Initial T90) 

 

 

t-72b-armor-article_jmo_may2002_4.jpg

 

"Zoom in image to see measurement of layers and armor estimates"

 

main-qimg-9c356f014a996567332c8271ce71c8

 

 

 


 

 

Thus honestly  it  would not be able to be able to stop, let alone shatter or Bounce  Gulf war era M829A1 especially not  M829A3. 

 

 

 

M829A4 on the other hand besides being only available on the M1A2 Sep V3, and not on the M1A1, would in turn be a even more powerful ammo. Its designed to counter Newer Generation  Relikt ERA ( like Found on the T90M, and export proposed T90MS)

 

 

Conclusion:

 

Yes squad is not supposed to be a tank sim, but there are some considerations to make Tank gameplay more Authentic than Just Battlefield Style brawl.ing and pounding until 1 tank finally blows up.

 

This could in a ways help indirectly balance infantry aspect of things.

 

Edited by kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very informative. I would also prefer vehicle battles (not just tank battles) that are deadlier, though I have to say that the devs did an awesome job with the locational damage. It’s amazing disbling the engine of a vehicle with a well-placed shot or trying to repair an engine in the field while under fire. Cook-offs are also great.

 

OP, do you think the autocannons on IFVs are also underpowered?

Edited by fatalsushi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently in Squad, it takes into account multiple things when it comes to penetration - Angle of impact, Angle of armor, Ammunition type etc The armor and components system in Squad now is still in it's early days, and the component system is in it's first iteration, some values are bugged at the moment, resulting in Tanks being 1 shot from frontal hits, and vehicles taking more shots than they should be.

Just Alpha things really.  As the game is developed more, we'll see more elements added to the component system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True but the problem with that is there'll be no balance unfortunately, although i agree with you technically.
Then again, doesn't the relikt ought to provide a higher protection value against Apfsds's in general ?. Cuz they could've then went with a T-90AM instead for the russian forces and use a T-72 without guided missiles for the militia. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2018 at 3:06 PM, -MG said:

True but the problem with that is there'll be no balance unfortunately, although i agree with you technically.
Then again, doesn't the relikt ought to provide a higher protection value against Apfsds's in general ?. Cuz they could've then went with a T-90AM instead for the russian forces and use a T-72 without guided missiles for the militia. 

Actually iy makes sense for balance. With  current service ammunition Both T72B3 and M1A1/A2 would be able penetrate each other, especially at Close range. Neither tank should have to slug it out at point blank ranges.

 

 

Id also point out that in Turn  Shaped Charged Warheads ( either HEATFS tank ammo  or AGTM missiles ) should be round type that be near  useless against MBT Frontal Armor. Most Composite armor arrays offer even better protection in equivalent RHA steel against those Warhead types than they do against Kintetic Energy perpetrators like apfsds. 

 

I should also mention that ERA should be one use only once. . IRL once an ERA  blocks actives  against a munition and Explodes ITs gone. Meaning Follow up shots in the same area will only have to content with primary tank armor.

 

This would also make it more balanced against Infantry given tanks wouldn't be as invincible against ANti tank guided weapons employed by Foot solders.

 

 3rd., T90AM doesnt exist. in service. it has never been put to production or T90A's retrofitted to that standard.  Russia has only so far modernized vanilla T90 production tanks, and these received the Designation T90M.  Between the T90 and T90A production the only real difference is that the latter has a welded turret with newer armor composition. T90 Still had a cast Turret like earlier T72B.

 

 

From what i read More powerfull tanks are planned. A T90 variation will be added in the future.

Edited by kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first time we took an Abrams out on Yeho we got up on the bluff and were chewing everything up down in Stepne for a good 15 minutes until finally we got zinged like 3 times with either tank rounds or TOW's to the point where we were at like 2% health and the engine was trashed as well. We babied it up the hill to the radio tower and used the repair kits then limped it back to the base. Pretty epic.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn’t able to at all, clearly you have been testing this in the shooting range. In game it takes around 4, 5, 6, depends on where you hit it. Also, the in game Abrams is an M1A2 not M1A1, for some reason everybody thinks that the in game tank is an M1A1. It says in the recaps what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, nagasuru said:

It isn’t able to at all, clearly you have been testing this in the shooting range. In game it takes around 4, 5, 6, depends on where you hit it. Also, the in game Abrams is an M1A2 not M1A1, for some reason everybody thinks that the in game tank is an M1A1. It says in the recaps what it is.

 

Ah i guess it is an m1a2. 

 

I did find it unusual that an "m1a1" would be using the crows 2 as that would the clearest indicator of m1a2 sep v2. But when searching for information to clarify which variant it was directed towards the squad wiki which someone labeled as m1a1.

 

As an aside irregerldess if ir m1a2  aeries tank shouldnt br using m829a4 unless it's an sep v3

 

 

And if it's an m1a2 sep v2 then it certainly would better protected than most m1a1s  ( although m1a1 sa are reported upgraded with 3rd generstion depleted urnaium)

 

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2018 at 11:23 AM, kev2go said:

 

Ah i guess it is an m1a2. 

 

I did find it unusual that an "m1a1" would be using the crows 2 as that would the clearest indicator of m1a2 sep v2. But when searching for information to clarify which variant it was directed towards the squad wiki which someone labeled as m1a1.

 

As an aside irregerldess if ir m1a2  aeries tank shouldnt br using m829a4 unless it's an sep v3

 

 

And if it's an m1a2 sep v2 then it certainly would better protected than most m1a1s  ( although m1a1 sa are reported upgraded with 3rd generstion depleted urnaium)

 

I

SQUAD wiki is extremely outdated, check the redcaps since July

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2018 at 4:49 PM, kev2go said:

Actually iy makes sense for balance. With  current service ammunition Both T72B3 and M1A1 would be able penetrate each other, especially at Close range. Neither tank should have to slug it out at point blank ranges.

 

 

Id also point out that in Turn  Shaped Charged Warheads ( either HEATFS tank ammo  or AGTM missiles ) should be round type that be near  useless against MBT Frontal Armor. Most Composite armor arrays offer even better protection in equivalent RHA steel against those Warhead types than they do against Kintetic Energy perpetrators like apfsds. 

 

I should also mention that ERA should be one use only once. . IRL once an ERA  blocks actives  against a munition and Explodes ITs gone. Meaning Follow up shots in the same area will only have to content with primary tank armor.

 

This would also make it more balanced against Infantry given tanks wouldn't be as invincible against ANti tank guided weapons employed by Foot solders.

 

 3rd., T90AM doesnt exist. in service. it has never been put to production or T90A's retrofitted to that standard.  Russia has only so far modernized vanilla T90 production tanks, and these received the Designation T90M.  Between the T90 and T90A production the only real difference is that the latter has a welded turret with newer armor composition. T90 Still had a cast Turret like earlier T72B.

 

 

From what i read More powerfull tanks are planned. A T90 variation will be added in the future.

The ABRAMS in game is an M1A2, NOT AN M1A1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, nagasuru said:

The ABRAMS in game is an M1A2, NOT AN M1A1.

 

you dont say. Please read above posts and resposnes

Edited by kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, kev2go said:

 

you dont say. Please read above posts and resposnes

I didn't even mean to post this, I literally said this yesterday, without posting it i thought, wow lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post will be with regards to M1 ABRAMS Armor : There have been serveral variations of armor used in various M1 family

 

BRL-1 (1980) used in original M1.

BRL-2 (1984) used in M1IP and M1A1.

HAP 1st generation (1987/1988) used in early production M1A1HA.

HAP 2nd generation (1990) used in late production M1A1HA as well as new M1A1HC and M1A2.

HAP 3rd generation (1999/2000) used in M1A1SA, M1A1FEP, M1A2SEPv1 and M1A2SEPv2

NGAP/NEA (2017+) used in newest M1A2SEPv3.

EAP (?) used in all export variants for Arab states.

 

Honestly much harder to estimate given the composition  has been protected off in the M1 series, in the M1A2 especially being much newer tank But heres whats known:

 

 

M1 Abrams (1980) - Burlington 1  

 

Us designation for the British Based Choboham composition  This variant is the only one were Armor composition is known and has accurate enough estimates.

 

This sort of armor is considered NERA ( non explosive reactive armor) 

 

To quote definition of NERA and how it works overall

 

https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2017/01/early-m1-abrams-composite-armor.html

 

 Chobham armor, is a type of composite armor developed in the United Kingdom by the FVRDE from the late 1960s onwards. It consists of a number of sandwich plates - also called biscuits - which are mounted in a spaced configuration. It is understood that these sandwich plates work as a type of non-explosive reactive armor (NERA), by using an elastic interlayer located between two metal plates (usually steel or alumininum). On impact the rubber will compress to the point of maximum compression, until expanding again and bouncing back. This will move more material into the path of penetration and also shatter thin and fragile projectiles, such as the shaped charge jets created by high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warheads commonly used on anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs). Essentially NERA works like explosive reactive armor, but with a lot less plate movment, as it only reuses the energy from the impacting projectile, instead of using an external energy source (such as the detonation of an explosive layer) to move the metal plates.

 

 

 

basically the Armor composition constitutes of layers of steel with Air Gaps with pieces of rubber fit in between  the steel plates together.

 

haNd12m.jpg

 

 

F5nVTZU3.jpg

 

 

 

 

cRZZya1.jpg

 

 

17hetbP2.jpg

 

 

XI0Ga1F.jpg

 

 

These diagrams of the vanilla M1 originate from a  declassified CIA document

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP91B00390R000300220014-8.pdf

 

 

 

M1 Armor estimates:

 

 for turret ; 400mm vs Ke , 750mm vs HEAT

 

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP85T00757R000100080007-6.pdf

 

 

CM8kmPS.jpg

 

 

Hull  380mm vs KE, and 520-600mm vs HEAT.

 


 

 

M1IP ( 1984) and M1A1 ( 1985) - Burlington  2

 

 

comment_RuSVsdMT28AvofDWHeYpsSKZgirqPXpl

 

 

From whats  composition of NERA basically exactly like Burlinton 1. The change was To increase armor the Turret of the interim  M1IP and later M1A1 production were merely  lengthened ( known as long turret relative to original m1's shorter one)  in order to fit more NERA layers . Armor was only impoved in the turret. no changes to hull armor or sides.

 

 

Protection  estimate vary,  of the turret  between 500-550mm vs KE on the turret.,  and 700mm vs HEAT.

 

 

M1A1 HA (1988) -  HAP Gen 1 

 

This is where armor estimation and knowledge on composition goes into the greater unknown, but there are still some images that give insight.

 

 All that we really know is that M1A1 HA introduced Depleted uranium  inserts within the already existing composition for the Frontal aspects,  Turret and Front Hull.  

 

 

based on some images of  damaged/ maintenance the Side of M1A1 HA   turret  there is some sort of newer NERA array for the turret sides.

 

 

M1A1HA%2520%2520type%2520II%2520armour%2

 

 

more_travel_img

 

M1A1 HC ( 1990) , M1A2 Abrams ( 1992)- HAP gen 2

 

Second generation deplted Uranium. very vague, unknown if armor compilation further changed or simply different type of Uranium plate inserts.

 

 

Whilst not with regards to the US crewed M1A2 there is a document with regards to export M1A2 protection sourced from  a leaked  Swedish document about Swedish Tank trials pf the 1990s (  M1A2 export , Vs T80U, Vs Leopard 2a5 vs Leclerc) 

 

Note Export M1A2 did not have  any DU armor inserts. but armor composition is changed/ Improved with something else ( presumably tungsten inserts)  given to the  Initial made with Burlington 2, would have superior protection 

 

VKiFHGC.jpg

 

 

image.png.daa3560fbd0ccd7b61c9a4d4efa83b

 

 

FV0hbeO.png

 

 

 

Rl2l8YR.png

 

Turret protection vs KE 700mm , Heat protection ( on average amount of surface) is rated  up to 1000mm  against HEAT projectiles.

 

 

M1A1 SA, M1A2 SEP V1,  M1A2 SEP V2 - HAP Gen 3

 

3rd generation depleted Uranium armor.

 

 

Edited by kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×