Shurzen for the Abrams?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Shurzen for the Abrams?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Shurzen for the Abrams?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Shurzen for the Abrams? - 10/13/2004 7:04:53 AM

Huskalator

Posts: 212
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

Very stupid question.

Why don't US AFVs operating in Iraq use a shurzen-like modification to protect from RPGs? It seems they would be effective as most insugents aren't using kinetic rounds to attack our AFVs. Was shurzen just not that effective against propelled grenades in WWII in the first place?

_____________________________

SW Episode 2:Good movie, bad love story

Happiness is the only good. The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others so.

Post #: 1

RE: Shurzen for the Abrams? - 10/13/2004 4:44:47 PM

riverbravo

Posts: 1320
Joined: 1/16/2003
From: Bay St Louis Ms.
Status: offline

I think it has something to do with the reactive armor.The armor that explodes outward when hit by a round.I dont think it would be good to explode out into a metal skirt.

_____________________________

I laugh at hurricanes!

(in reply to Huskalator)

Post #: 2

RE: Shurzen for the Abrams? - 10/13/2004 10:52:31 PM

gunny

Posts: 995
Joined: 3/1/2003
Status: offline

As for the Abrahms, it sort of already has schurzen. The armour is spaced in layers, not solid straight through for that very reason. As for the lighter AFV's, well weight is a problem (somewhat) I know a 12 ton LAV becomes 14 tons when the ceramic upgrade kit is applied. But the upgrade kit does exist, don't know if they use it in Iraq or not. Also Amtraks and m113 now have waffle plates applied to the sides. And Daewoos and Bradleys have an add on front plate, that is being used.
Truth is there is all kinds of extra add ons available. And most AFV's are using them in Iraq from the few clips I've seen. But it is not in the form of skirts sticking 15 inches out from the chasis.
I've never seen reactive armour used by anybody other than israelis and Eastern block countries. Makes the infantry a little nervous when they're doing close tank support

(in reply to riverbravo)

Post #: 3

RE: Shurzen for the Abrams? - 10/13/2004 11:00:52 PM

riverbravo

Posts: 1320
Joined: 1/16/2003
From: Bay St Louis Ms.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gunny
I've never seen reactive armour used by anybody other than israelis and Eastern block countries. Makes the infantry a little nervous when they're doing close tank support

Yea,it was some crap I caught on tv a while back on reactive armor.

Very true,I wouldnt want to be a grunt on the ground around that stuff.

_____________________________

I laugh at hurricanes!

(in reply to gunny)

Post #: 4

RE: Shurzen for the Abrams? - 10/13/2004 11:31:31 PM

Marc von Martial

Posts: 10875
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Bonn, Germany
Status: offline

Sch�rtzen also have the nice tendency to rip of in heavy terrain or urban areas and mix with the tracks and roadwheels

_____________________________

Marc von Martial
instagram stream

(in reply to riverbravo)

Post #: 5

RE: Shurzen for the Abrams? - 10/15/2004 6:47:18 PM

riverbravo

Posts: 1320
Joined: 1/16/2003
From: Bay St Louis Ms.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

Sch�rtzen also have the nice tendency to rip of in heavy terrain or urban areas and mix with the tracks and roadwheels

You guys would know better than us

We prefered sand bags and logs!!

< Message edited by riverbravo -- 10/15/2004 4:47:52 PM >

_____________________________

I laugh at hurricanes!

(in reply to Marc von Martial)

Post #: 6

RE: Shurzen for the Abrams? - 10/15/2004 11:49:54 PM

ancient doctor

Posts: 152
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

I really dont think that M1A2 Abrama can be destroyed be an RPG.It whould be very funny if a 60 ton MBT can be killed by a weapon base in WW2 rocket launchers.

As about AFV Bradley i still remember a film(based on real facts?)that was about that vehicle and how some generals where trying to put it in production while an air force officer was having a hard time by his superior army general only because he wanted Bradley to pass some real test(i still remeber that sheep moment

).The end of film was extremely spectacular.

(in reply to riverbravo)

Post #: 7

RE: Shurzen for the Abrams? - 10/16/2004 3:59:16 AM

dinsdale

Posts: 384
Joined: 5/1/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ancient seaman

I really dont think that M1A2 Abrama can be destroyed be an RPG.It whould be very funny if a 60 ton MBT can be killed by a weapon base in WW2 rocket launchers.

As about AFV Bradley i still remember a film(based on real facts?)that was about that vehicle and how some generals where trying to put it in production while an air force officer was having a hard time by his superior army general only because he wanted Bradley to pass some real test(i still remeber that sheep moment).The end of film was extremely spectacular.

Ahh The Pentagon Wars. Based loosely on the true story of the Bradley. It's gone through armour upgrade and other modifications since, but apparently would have gone into service as a death trap had the Pentagon originally had it's way.

(in reply to ancient doctor)

Post #: 8

RE: Shurzen for the Abrams? - 10/16/2004 5:34:21 AM

Micah Goodman

Posts: 197
Joined: 5/23/2002
Status: offline

quote:

I really dont think that M1A2 Abrama can be destroyed be an RPG.It whould be very funny if a 60 ton MBT can be killed by a weapon base in WW2 rocket launchers.

A Vietnam era RPG couldn�t �kill� an Abrams but it could damage one. Several tanker friends of mine that served in the first Gulf War said they used to drive over Iraqi land mines and suffer minimal track damage. An M1A2 was destroyed by a new Russian RPG during the last invasion. This RPG is of the latest Russian design and was developed after the trade embargo went into effect but the Iraqi�s still had some. I wonder how that happened? <sarcasm> I served on the M1A1 version of the Abrams and I loved it. Hands down it is the best tank in the world. Then they killed it by �improving� it to the M1A2. Blah!

(in reply to ancient doctor)

Post #: 9

RE: Shurzen for the Abrams? - 10/16/2004 9:37:53 PM

ancient doctor

Posts: 152
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Micah Goodman

quote:

I really dont think that M1A2 Abrama can be destroyed be an RPG.It whould be very funny if a 60 ton MBT can be killed by a weapon base in WW2 rocket launchers.

An M1A2 was destroyed by a new Russian RPG during the last invasion. This RPG is of the latest Russian design and was developed after the trade embargo went into effect but the Iraqi�s still had some. I wonder how that happened? <sarcasm>

Well as everybody knows even the best impossed embargo have its holes and as far as ex. soviet weapons are in then i can tell you that there are so many countries with their patents in the world building them that is practically impossible to trace them.After all US equipment also seems to be able to pass throught an embargo.Its not a secret that Iran has atleast 20 F14 of its original 80 purchased in operational status and i doupt(not very strongly thought)that the US goverment has sold them parts.

Anyway did someone heard about the 19 troopers that refuced to obey orders because their vehicles are unarmored and underpowered for the job assigned to them?Jesus,hasnt the Pentagon learned that to send an unarmored version of Humvee or something else in a hostile city can cost lots of lives like what happened in Somalia?
And we are not talking for protection against a 3-4 generation AT missile with top attack capacity here.We are talking about RPG7 which is 30-40 years old model and all US AFV should be protected atleast for that.So why dont they send some Strikers or Bradleys to do the job?

(in reply to Micah Goodman)

Post #: 10

RE: Shurzen for the Abrams? - 10/16/2004 10:04:59 PM

pappasmurf

Posts: 55
Joined: 9/27/2004
Status: offline

The US Army uses reactive armor on the Bradleys and the USMC use dit on the 60 series tank.

The new model RPG-7VR is not a third wolrd produced version. It is as Russian as Gorbachev's birth mark. They were supplied to Syria before the invasion and then quickly shipped to iraq. The question is did Syria act on the orders of Moscow? I would say probably, not becuase the Russians wanted us to lose. There were not enough 7VR's there for that but probably as a real world test agaisnt modern western armor.
I wa spart of the Sword projec tin 92 that sold M1A2's tot he Suadi's. That tank is miles ahead of the M1A1. The new M1A1D (Digitized) has superior electronics to the M1A2 but lacks the hunter-killer features of the M1A2.

In iraq the problem sems to be small penetrating hits in the rear causing fire. I still do not know of a single M-1 series anywhere in the world suffering a hard kill(crew dead) due to a penetrating shot by an anti-armor weapon.

(in reply to ancient doctor)

Post #: 11

RE: Shurzen for the Abrams? - 10/17/2004 11:31:09 AM

ancient doctor

Posts: 152
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

The RPG 7VR isnt a new model IIRC.Its actually a warhead capable of hiting tandem armor(reactive and normal together) and was made when the israelis first created reactive armor as a way to counter the AT threat back in 80s.Most of RPG 7 models have a capacity to penetrate up to 600mm of rolled homogenous steel.RPG and its various modifications have been manufactured by lots of ex. Soviet allies and friends including Iraq which was suppling 3 guns in every platoon.
Now the weapon althought not efficient in open combat is a very good stuff in city terrain which allows stationary targets and ambushes.

As about M1 capability without saying that the tank isnt good dont forget that till now it has only be used against an opponent much inferior in terms of materials/doctrines/tactics/training and thus the results it achived against the Iraqi army as far as i am concerened cant be considered very accurate.I am sure that against a better equiped army with better training casualties of tanks whould have been higher no matter how good is its passive armor and personel-save measures it applies.
After all in the last major purhaces in Europe for modern tanks M1 has not won any of them(Sweden/Spain/Greece).

(in reply to pappasmurf)

Post #: 12

RE: Shurzen for the Abrams? - 10/17/2004 6:45:02 PM

pappasmurf

Posts: 55
Joined: 9/27/2004
Status: offline

1988 is the source I found for the introduction of the 7VR. Iraq did not have it in GW1.

As for the M1 series of tanks. In GW1 the untried unblooded uS Army wich hadn't fought a magor mechanised landwar since may of 1945. Went up agaisnt probably the most batle hardened armored force in the world. They faced tanks still in use by Soviet B class formations and superior to C class formations. The result was a route. here American peace time trianing and supeior doctrine backed by a superior tank ripped through the iraqies like a hot knife through butter. The results were so lopsided that Russia renamed the T-72 to the T-90 to keep up export sales.

Sales to forgien countries are not ana ccurate guage of how good a tank is in combat. rather things like price and peace time sustainability come into play. The M-1 family is epxensive to train in, operate, and fuel.

In Sweden the M1 also proved to not be up to the task as an artic fighter. However the M-1A1D retains the most sophisitcated fire control ( non-hunter killer) of any MBT. The M1A2 still packs more frontal protection than any other tank in the world and has excellent ground speed. The loss of a few tanks to engine hits and 1 penetrating hit in the crew compartment ( still no hard kills) doe snot show a weakness in the tanks overall armor concept any more than losing a tiger to a rear hit by a Shermans 75mm pop gun says the tiger had an armor flaw. No tank can be strong everywhere. Only so much weight can be allocated to protection. Shiftign protection from the front to the side will weaken the front.

if we compare the three leading heavy tanks in the world we see three differing desing concepts.

M-1= Speed and heavy protection to the front
Challanger= massive protection speed is secondary
Leopard= massive turret protection and speed achived by less hull protection.

All three reflect criteria designed to fight the USSR on the cold war battlefeilds. All three attmepted to give a qualitve edge to NATO forces agaisnt the very tanks (T-72) Iraq used in GW1.

(Merkava falls under the desing concept of the Challanger)
(T-80+ and T-90, Leclerc ar enot heavies they are mediums)

(in reply to ancient doctor)

Post #: 13

RE: Shurzen for the Abrams? - 10/17/2004 8:58:55 PM

ancient doctor

Posts: 152
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

1st of all i hope it is clear that nowhere i mention that M1 isnt a good modern MBT.Actually M1/Leo2/Chal.2 were all western efforts to counter the more advanced soviet tanks that entered service after M54/55.When the MBT-70 failed then these countries started their own projects which resulted in these 3 tanks.
In all of them measures taken to increase survaivability for the crew AFTER a hit as well as before were pretty high based on the results Israelis had in their several massive tank combats as well as their overall exp since non of these 3 countries did had any real tank combat exp. after ww2.
Indeed the FINAL purchase of a country does depend on several parameters that have nothing to do with its combat capacity.HOWEVER the combat evaluation is a certain factor BEFORE the other make their point and in NONE of the 3 major purchases(Greece/Sweden/Spain)M1 modifications were 1st in the COMBAT TEST evaluation.In all these case Leo2 was the one that brought the best results when compared with the others including the hunter killer concept.Especially the Greek evaluation for which a have specific data show that in long range fire Leo2 gave much higher accuracy shots during night movement-fire drills,had better mobility and more armor protection as well especially against top attack munitions(as you said) than the others and Greece isnt arctic as probably Sweden is.In Greek case as well M1 price was smaller the Leo2 as well and was offered with a conventional motor and not the fuel thersty one used by USA.In any case all these tanks are worthy opponents in combat.Unfortunatelly it seems that when designed nobody took under consideration the possibility of fighting in city like Iraq now and thus the result of destroying a modern MBT of multi millions with an RPG of several hundred dollars.
As about your statement that Iraqi army was the most experienced battle hardened force is rather over statement.Iraqis were under a total enemy air superiority,with much inferior tactics/equipment/doctrines and a moral atlest douptfull (except few units maybe).All of these hardly make them the opponent you described.

< Message edited by Ancient seaman -- 10/17/2004 7:03:00 PM >

(in reply to pappasmurf)

Post #: 14

RE: Shurzen for the Abrams? - 10/17/2004 9:28:17 PM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

I've got to do some looking around. I thought that the T-90 was a new, cutting-edge design...

Okay, I see it now. The T-90 is indeed based on the T-72 (same 125mm smoothbore, for example), contains some of the enhancements of the T-80, and incorporates some further improvements, particularly in the defensive protection area. Apparently, there is a new design (the one I was thinking of) a "Nizhny Tagil MBT" that has never gone into production due to lack of funding.

< Message edited by pasternakski -- 10/17/2004 2:48:05 PM >

(in reply to ancient doctor)

Post #: 15

RE: Shurzen for the Abrams? - 10/17/2004 11:33:46 PM

pappasmurf

Posts: 55
Joined: 9/27/2004
Status: offline

The T-72 was up gunned and up armored after GW-1. Using the same gun as the t-80 family and more advanced fire control (still inferior to western designs). If you comapre pictures you see that both have a similar layout topside. 5 road wheel pairs with no return rollers ( the T-80 has six with return rollers).

I don't know how the purchase totals for the Leo 2A+ series by Sweden, Spain, and greece but forgien sales for the Abrams are clsoe to 1400 units to four countries. Austrailia, Egypt, Kuwait, and Saudi arabia.

designed nobody took under consideration the possibility of fighting in city like Iraq now and thus the result of destroying a modern MBT of multi millions with an RPG of several hundred dollars.

I will dissagree in that the amount of protection paid to crew survival, amnd armored protection overall. If you look at the location of the M-1's fuel tansk they are used as protection for the engine comaprtment. If a small HEAT type warhead hits these belowe the fule air water line then no explosion or fire. The design flaw seems to be in the buslte rack area where by far the greatest loss of abrams has been due to flaming personel gear and molten metal dripping into the engine comaprtment from above starting fires. A much improved fire supression system is needed.

As for the gunnery performace at night. I would have to see that to bleeive it. I was part of a crew that scored a 970 out of a posible 1000 on a table 8 range at night. We got docked 30 points becuase our TC hit his CHMG target before we stopped as the range called for. It is a standing order(or was until 95 when I got out) on Ft Hood ranges that shooting the pop up tagets support 2x4 boards out from under them was an article 15 offence. This was happening with regularity and deliberately as showmanship and it **** the ranges down. I am talking about hitting a piece of wood as wide as your hand at 2000M while moving.

(in reply to pasternakski)

Post #: 16

RE: Shurzen for the Abrams? - 10/18/2004 10:33:54 AM

ancient doctor

Posts: 152
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline

The T-72 series have multiple variations,a lot of them been modifications of local goverments sometimes with western tech instead of the "official" Soviet upgrades.Still T-72 is a tank with lot less capacity than any modern western MBT even more an upgraded version of them like M1A1/2.As about the Soviet 125mm tank gun which is used almost the same since T-62/64(?)i can tell you that it is concidered a very poor for its caliber performer.Israelis during Yom Kippur and later had no problem to outgun soviet made 125mm equiped tanks with the good old 105mm western guns that M-60 versions and Merkava 1 had.
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia bought their tanks after GW1 and i think they could hardly refuse the US to buy their weapons since their freedom was based on the presence and fight of US led coalition.Just imagine what whould have happened if Saudis or Kuwait have bought Leo2 immidiately after GW1.Same for Egypt which bought and manufactured them during the time when Egypt left its pro-Soviet position and had joined pro-US policy much after Camp David agreement.Therefore i think it was more the matter of back stage political games than anything else.Australia which recently bought 2nd hand M1A1 did that because of their low price and the close relationship they have with US in the present moment plus that they will be able to better use and support them during common operations with US army since it wont be such a big logistic burden with their help.
Greek contract althought with a huge political game behind had a very tough combat trial for the tanks that participated and the end result was that Leo2 gave better results in the end list.I will try to find specific data but for know i will tell you that 1 of the most important tests was fire in ranges bigger than 2 Km during night while the tank was moving and Leo 2 had the best accuracy and hit results from all of the tanks participating.
I will find more specific stuff and put them here.
As about thre general armor protection theme,well as i said before all of these tanks are well protected in generall giving great deal of help for the safe of crew.That doesnt change the fact that a multi million dollar MBT is destroyed by a multi hundred dollar RPG which is hardly cost effective for the tanks users.In any way M1 has served well for a long time and till FCS enter service it will continue to be in the 1st line.

(in reply to pappasmurf)

Post #: 17

RE: Shurzen for the Abrams? - 10/21/2004 10:30:02 PM

tanker4145

Posts: 190
Joined: 4/19/2004
Status: offline

The M1A1 has some of the best armor in the world. I know of many a tank that has been hit by RPGs and they don't do much unless they get a lucky hit. One tank took two to it's side on patrol (that RPG gunner was good, hitting a tank moving 30mph twice in30 seconds). It barely chipped the paint on the side and you had to look close to see it. One did hit a gun mantle and messed up the main gun, but everyone in side was fine and the tank kept rolling. Of course, it also depends on the type of RPG and where it hits. Every tank has some vulnerabilities.

I also saw a tank that had been hit by some type of long rod penetrator to the side of the turret. There was a hole about 8 inches deep less than an inch in diameter. The only thing is the armor cause the round to curve upwards so it didn't penetrate. It only got about 2 inches deep.

There's also a tank in the gulf war that was broke down and took on 3 Iraqi tanks and was hit twice I believe but destroyed all three of the enemy with no serious damage. It's somewhere on the web. Of course I can't remember if they were T-55's or T-72's, which makes a difference, but either way a tank being stationary and ambushed taking on three enemy tanks, getting hit twice, and coming out on top is impressive.

As for the Bradley's, you'll see they have some type of reactive armor on. Look closely at them on the news. The Strykers have slatted armor cages that seem to work pretty good. The Army is even saying it's the best vehicle in Iraq. Of course, it can't hurt they aren't deployed to the worst spots like Sadr city.

(in reply to ancient doctor)

Post #: 18