Issue with US Tanks (M1A2)

[SUBS17]

 

I "head on" as even a good hit with a new PG-7VR and PG-7VL in side or rear will knock out a M1 in real life.

 

LMAO I doubt that very much, even if you shot an M1 in the rear armour all you'll do is piss the crew off with an RPG7. An M1A2 SEP would probably nail you a second later.

[SUBS17]

In the second Gulf War a disabled M1 could not be recoved so a second M1 fired a depleted uranium round into the front of the disabled tank from close range. The round did not penetrate. A lowly Vikhr is not going to destroy an M1, but could disable the tracks or engine if the hit from the sides or rear.

 

 

Is that the one that was stuck in a swamp I heard they fired more than one round at that tank and could not destroy it.

[GGTharos]

RPG-7's have indeed managed to take M1's out of combat.

 

Two incidents that I recall: One time it hit the AUX fuel tank which started a fire, destroying the tank. Another one, the jet penetrated into the crew compartment and injured some of the crew.

 

AFAIK the RPG-7 however has never been directly responsible for even so much as a mobility kill in the sense that the round itself does not appear to have enough power to outright stop an M1. SHooting it in the M1's face will only accomplish attracting its ire, and shooting up the sides is a little bit of a toss up. If you can hit the top grill, things might be different.

[RIPTIDE]

RPG-7's have indeed managed to take M1's out of combat.

 

Two incidents that I recall: One time it hit the AUX fuel tank which started a fire, destroying the tank. Another one, the jet penetrated into the crew compartment and injured some of the crew.

 

AFAIK the RPG-7 however has never been directly responsible for even so much as a mobility kill in the sense that the round itself does not appear to have enough power to outright stop an M1. SHooting it in the M1's face will only accomplish attracting its ire, and shooting up the sides is a little bit of a toss up. If you can hit the top grill, things might be different.

I think current losses from IED's, RPG's and other sort of action is about 150-200 irrecoverable in the Iraq theatre. Not a lot really, but still significant. Many more were damaged to various degrees.

 

Interestingly, during the Summer Lebanon war these newer tandem type RPG's were a lot of hassle for the Israelis.

[slug88]

LMAO I doubt that very much, even if you shot an M1 in the rear armour all you'll do is piss the crew off with an RPG7. An M1A2 SEP would probably nail you a second later.

 

You sure about that?

 

PG-7VR penetration: 600mm RHA

 

The PG-7VR is a tandem charge RPG warhead designed to penetrate up to 600 mm rolled homogeneous armour equivalence of explosive reactive armor and the conventional armor underneath.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PG-7VR

 

 

Now, I couldn't find armor values for M1 sides or rear, but I found values for frontal armor:

 

(M1A1HC, M1A1HA, M1A1D)

Turret vs CE: 1,320mm - 1,620mm RHA

Glacis vs. CE: 510mm - 1,050mm RHA

Lower Front Hull vs CE: 800mm - 970mm RHA

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm

 

So, according to those sources, the lowly RPG-7 has a shot of penetrating an M1A1HC frontally, nevermind the flanks. Obviously these sources aren't all that conclusive (all the values are estimates), but there you go.

 

Furthermore:

 

This weapon has been showing up in use by Iraqi insurgents and is claimed by some sources to have once achieved a mobility kill against an M1 Abrams hitting the left side hull next to the forward section of the engine compartment, protected by Chobham armour. It penetrated a fuel tank, flooding the compartment with fuel. Whether a standard RPG-7 warhead would have had the same effect or would have been rendered ineffective by the side skirt is unclear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PG-7VR

 

So if that account is correct, the warhead is certainly capable of penetrating the tank's armor and damaging internals.

Edited July 8, 2010 by slug88

[RIPTIDE]

nahh. You need to consider the PG-29V. ;) Never mind the 7VR. Thats for amatuers. 7 series is for poorly funded insurgents. Any self respecting insurgents will be sporting the 29 series. :P

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551418/MoD-kept-failure-of-best-tank-quiet.html

The front of the M1 Abrams, at maximum weight is lined with the composite armor which included the DU plates. DU is serious business, and I doubt the 7 series would get through.

Edited July 8, 2010 by RIPTIDE

[slug88]

nahh. You need to consider the PG-29V. ;)

 

Indeed:

 

In 2007, British officials confirmed that an RPG-29 round penetrated the frontal ERA and hull of a Challenger 2 tank during an engagement in al-Amarah, Iraq, wounding a crew member.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-29

[SUBS17]

Are the Russian tanks so inferior compared to Western ones?

 

Back in the Cold war the Soviet tanks were mass produced with the idea being to make cheap armored vehicles in large numbers to overwelm NATO forces. NATO tanks were designed to fight in small numbers against a numerically superior enemy which is why accuracy and survivbility were incorporated into their designs. NATO tanks are much heavier and carry more armour plus the ammunition storage is designed with crew survival in mind such as with blow out panels etc. Export T72s/T80s are not as heavily armoured as the Soviet tanks and don't have the more complex weapons and electronics. So most tank battles involving western armoured vehicles have only been up against export versions. Now days I think the Russian tanks are comparable with western ones with their electronics and guns although they still have much less armour than western tanks 46ton compared to 70 ton.

[RIPTIDE]

Indeed:

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-29

It injured more than one, and blew off part of a foot.

[SUBS17]

nahh. You need to consider the PG-29V. ;) Never mind the 7VR. Thats for amatuers. 7 series is for poorly funded insurgents. Any self respecting insurgents will be sporting the 29 series. :P

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551418/MoD-kept-failure-of-best-tank-quiet.html

The front of the M1 Abrams, at maximum weight is lined with the composite armor which included the DU plates. DU is serious business, and I doubt the 7 series would get through.

 

The 29 is my weapon of choice in Arma domination ACE EAST vs US vehicles.:thumbup:

 

Then of course I fix the M1 and use it against the AI.:D

[RIPTIDE]

Back in the Cold war the Soviet tanks were mass produced with the idea being to make cheap armored vehicles in large numbers to overwelm NATO forces. NATO tanks were designed to fight in small numbers against a numerically superior enemy which is why accuracy and survivbility were incorporated into their designs. NATO tanks are much heavier and carry more armour plus the ammunition storage is designed with crew survival in mind such as with blow out panels etc. Export T72s/T80s are not as heavily armoured as the Soviet tanks and don't have the more complex weapons and electronics. So most tank battles involving western armoured vehicles have only been up against export versions. Now days I think the Russian tanks are comparable with western ones with their electronics and guns although they still have much less armour than western tanks 46ton compared to 70 ton.

Yes, but Soviet doctrine did not allow for full frontal tank battles. The Soviets doctrine provides for artillery and aviation to take out tank formations and NOT tanks . If a confrontation ends up tank vs tank too often, then somebody was not doing their job.

Edited July 8, 2010 by RIPTIDE

[SUBS17]

You sure about that?

 

PG-7VR penetration: 600mm RHA

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PG-7VR

 

 

Now, I couldn't find armor values for M1 sides or rear, but I found values for frontal armor:

 

(M1A1HC, M1A1HA, M1A1D)

Turret vs CE: 1,320mm - 1,620mm RHA

Glacis vs. CE: 510mm - 1,050mm RHA

Lower Front Hull vs CE: 800mm - 970mm RHA

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm

 

So, according to those sources, the lowly RPG-7 has a shot of penetrating an M1A1HC frontally, nevermind the flanks. Obviously these sources aren't all that conclusive (all the values are estimates), but there you go.

 

Furthermore:

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PG-7VR

 

So if that account is correct, the warhead is certainly capable of penetrating the tank's armor and damaging internals.

 

I think that was a lucky shot 100s of those things have probably been used against M1s and have not taken them out.

[slug88]

I think that was a lucky shot 100s of those things have probably been used against M1s and have not taken them out.

 

I'm sure the RPG-7 was fired hundreds (if not thousands) of times against the M1, but to judge the ability if the PG-7VR warhead, we would need to know how many of its type ever actually hit an M1, and where. Remember, the PG-7VR is a (relatively) newer T-HEAT warhead and much more powerful than other rounds fired from the RPG-7. All we know is that one has penetrated an M1's side armor in the past.

[GGTharos]

Yep. This is penetration under perfect conditions. The maverick, with an even heavier warhead had trouble with the M-1. The only way you'll get frontal penetration with this weapon is to hit a soft spot, either coax mount or GAS directly or the driver's hatch. The sides are reasonably well protected because some of the elements there should allow the structure itself to act as spaced armor.

 

If you try an RPG in the face of an M-1, you're dead. Shoot from above or hide, period.

 

You sure about that?

 

PG-7VR penetration: 600mm RHA

 

[GGTharos]

Not to mention nukes.

 

On the other hand, it's not like the blues were going to do tank-on-tank either if they could help it ... AH-1's, AH-64's, A-10's, all of those aircraft had one purpose: Think out those packs. The west wasn't lacking in arty either.

 

Yes, but Soviet doctrine did not allow for full frontal tank battles. The Soviets doctrine provides for artillery and aviation to take out tank formations and NOT tanks . If a confrontation ends up tank vs tank too often, then somebody was not doing their job.

[slug88]

Yep. This is penetration under perfect conditions. The maverick, with an even heavier warhead had trouble with the M-1. The only way you'll get frontal penetration with this weapon is to hit a soft spot, either coax mount or GAS directly or the driver's hatch. The sides are reasonably well protected because some of the elements there should allow the structure itself to act as spaced armor.

 

If you try an RPG in the face of an M-1, you're dead. Shoot from above or hide, period.

 

Don't disagree with any of that. My point was simply that, according to those figures, frontal penetration is theoretically possible, and based on this flank and rear penetration should also be (theoretically) possible. Basically I'm saying that if I were in an M1 and i saw an RPG-7 gunner pop up on a flank at close range, I might not be too terribly worried, but I wouldn't be laughing my arse off either :). And I fully admit that it took a lot of conjecture based on very vague data to get to that opinion, but I think it's somewhat reasonable given the data in this thread so far.

[GGTharos]

I imagine you'd be throwing everything in your M4 at him :D

I agree that, just 'cause you're in a tank it doesn't mean you don't care if you're hit.

[sobek]

The maverick, with an even heavier warhead had trouble with the M-1.

 

I'd like to hear more about that. Are you sure that was a maverick? What aspect?

[RIPTIDE]

Not to mention nukes.

 

On the other hand, it's not like the blues were going to do tank-on-tank either if they could help it ... AH-1's, AH-64's, A-10's, all of those aircraft had one purpose: Think out those packs. The west wasn't lacking in arty either.

What in bold?

 

Nevermind, you're falling into the blue vs red trap again. This isn't a penis measuring thread. ;)

[RIPTIDE]

 

If you try an RPG in the face of an M-1, you're dead. Shoot from above or hide, period.

We've already seen where a '29 round has penetrated a Challenger 2 full frontal and injured 3 crew. We can agree a 7 will not be a major concern in the front, but a 29 is clearly a problem. IN practice, if you read my link the guy in the tank said he just saw the launch and then his foot was blown off. If the RPG'er misses, then he might be screwed if he has insufficient cover.

The RPG-29 in future conflicts will be more and more prevalent as it replaces the RPG-7 as the manportable AT weapon of choice for a lot of these hot spots.If I was a tank designer I would pay very close attention to its use and employment considering the MoD coverup.

Edited July 9, 2010 by RIPTIDE

[GGTharos]

Thin out those packs.

 

What in bold?

 

Nevermind, you're falling into the blue vs red trap again. This isn't a penis measuring thread. ;)

[GGTharos]

Yeah, we've seen one round out of who-knows-how-many penetrate the thinner armor around the driver. I suggest reading about the circumstances of this if you can indeed find'em, I don't know if they're still out there.

 

In practice, the vast majority of RPGs bounced right off of those MBTs. That is, unless you're a sucker for conspiracies ;)

 

We've already seen where a '29 round has penetrated a Challenger 2 full frontal and injured 3 crew. We can agree a 7 will not be a major concern in the front, but a 29 is clearly a problem. IN practice, if you read my link the guy in the tank said he just saw the launch and then his foot was blown off. If the RPG'er misses, then he might be screwed if he has insufficient cover.

The RPG-29 in future conflicts will be more and more prevalent as it replaces the RPG-7 as the manportable AT weapon of choice for a lot of these hot spots.If I was a tank designer I would pay very close attention to its use and employment considering the MoD coverup.

[RIPTIDE]

Yeah, we've seen one round out of who-knows-how-many penetrate the thinner armor around the driver. I suggest reading about the circumstances of this if you can indeed find'em, I don't know if they're still out there.

 

In practice, the vast majority of RPGs bounced right off of those MBTs. That is, unless you're a sucker for conspiracies ;)

The vast majority of RPG's were legacy 7 series. I'm interested in the newer '29 series and like I've said they'll become more common place in future years,

 

I don't suffer conspiracy theories, but I do note when a simple RPG penetrates ERA tiles and then Clobham armor AFTER it glanced off an APC... or so they say.

[GGTharos]

According to certain rumours it didn't penetrate ERA. It ricocheted (yes, those darned HEAT jets can do that) and penetrated the bottom armor. The exact point of penetration is not mentioned, only that it hit right where it had to to take the poor driver's 3 toes off.

[GGTharos]

I'll see what I can find. I don't recall the specifics well - it was the tank that they decided to destroy in the field and took multiple rounds, in the end they went inside with thermite.

 

I'd like to hear more about that. Are you sure that was a maverick? What aspect?