About ERA

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">HEAT fires a cone of metal to armour at speed of less than 6000 m/s. This causes tremendous surface pressure to armour thus causing penetration. This speed is controlled by angles on tip of HEAT round.

The speed of penetrationhole caused by copper cone is approx. 2500-3000 m/s depending on shape tip.

HEAT acts same way when you pour hot water to cold water.<span id='postcolor'>

Not quite true. HEAT (When it is working correctly) forms a shaped charge on the outer plate of the tank and all energy is directed inwards, into a very small space. The cone is rapidly (explosively) expanding gasses. Usually enough to make a real mess of the inside of the tank. ERA acts by setting off a counter-explosion, preventing the shaped charge from forming properly.

Edited for a bit more dertail

[Corp.Pihla 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wardog @ Feb. 12 2002,22:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not quite true. HEAT (When it is working correctly) forms a shaped charge on the outer plate of the tank and all energy is directed inwards, into a very small space. The cone is rapidly (explosively) expanding gasses. Usually enough to make a real mess of the inside of the tank. ERA acts by setting off a counter-explosion, preventing the shaped charge from forming properly.

Edited for a bit more dertail <span id='postcolor'>

I don't know much about penetration, but what I have been told in military, it IS extremly hot metal, which penetrates armor.

And yes, ERA works that way...

[Chernaya Akula 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Feb. 12 2002,16:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well russian tank have allways been the superior ones in the world...

thats funny, ya know the very first russian tanks and the legendary tracks on the T-34 were designed by walter christy.. an american..  

anywho anyone who claims that ANY MODERN tank is better than another is totally talking out of their ass.. all the important things that make or break these tanks is classified.. so nobody here knows which is actually better...  never mind the fact that the T80 and M1A1 are designed to fight totally different kinds of wars..

as for the ERA.. perhaps it will stop a sabot round.. but it will only do it once..   thats always been the major downside of it.. when its hit it explodes.. the next shot will hit the skin of the tank and penetrate...  and with todays fast firing super accurate tanks its pretty much just as easy to hit the target twice as it is once..

lets take a hypothetile tank battle.. T-80 VS M1A1 in the most commin terrain.. which throughout history has been desert..  

now.. desert=long view...  so.. give that the M1A1 has longer range than the T-80 because it favors the SAbot and its 120mm has a higher muzzle velocity than the T-80's 125mm which favors HEAT.. so the abrams would be able to fire at the T-80 before the T-80 could enguage it.. ok..  boom.. sabot rounds hits era BOOM.. sabot round is blown off.. tank lives.abrams still out of range of T-80.. abrams fires again.. boom... no more ERA to stop it.. SABOT hits tank.. tank crew has big problem.

of course the T-80 IS NOT designed to fight this way.. its designed to fight in more gown up hilly areas with shorter view distances.. where it could fire its hopfully 1 shot 1 kill 125mm at ranges it can be effective at.. and in the sudden encounters that take place in such areas.. survicing the first shot can be a metter of winning and loseing because a 2nd shot usually wont occur.. because someone will be dead..

on a side note both the A1 and A2 can be fitted with ERA aswell.. actually anything can.. ERA is just (basically) explosive sandwiched between 2 armor plates.. you can pretty much stick it on anything..  but like I said.. it will only work for 1 shot.

also one very very important thing to remember:

if your side has air superiority.. a tank is the safest place to be..  if your side doesent have air superiority.. or it is contested.. being in a tanks is the LAST place you want to be.  I doubt that ERA or anything else could stop a mach 2 6 foot missle... or a 500 pound LGB...

I remember seeing the footage from the M1A1 cameras... you would see the T-72... it would fire.. a few seconds later you would see its round hit the ground far short of you... you guess what happened next..<span id='postcolor'>

" It is very important to note that while light ERA containers are completely destroyed in the process of detonation, Kontakt-5 sections are not, as their detonation is contained by the outside armor plates. Therefore even after detonation Kontakt-5 sections continue to provide some applique protection. "

[Stag 0]

HESH (favoured by the British) BTW, is even more fun. The fuze is at the rear of the warhead. When the round hits, it forms a "Cow Pat" on the armour which expoldes when the fuze hits the armour. the explosion sends shockwaves through the armour, dislodging a scab weighing about 40lbs or more from the interior wall, which ricochets around the interior.

Of course ERA would be just as effective against this.

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Corp.Pihla @ Feb. 11 2002,23:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not quite true. HEAT (When it is working correctly) forms a shaped charge on the outer plate of the tank and all energy is directed inwards, into a very small space. The cone is rapidly (explosively) expanding gasses. Usually enough to make a real mess of the inside of the tank. ERA acts by setting off a counter-explosion, preventing the shaped charge from forming properly.

Edited for a bit more dertail <span id='postcolor'>

I don't know much about penetration, but what I have been told in military, it IS extremly hot metal, which penetrates armor.

And yes, ERA works that way...<span id='postcolor'>

Thinking about it, I believe part of the armour is vapourised and joins the stream. There's no metal contained in the HEAT shell though, aside from the casing and fuze.

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Chernaya Akula @ Feb. 11 2002,23:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well russian tank have allways been the superior ones in the world...

thats funny, ya know the very first russian tanks and the legendary tracks on the T-34 were designed by walter christy.. an american..  

anywho anyone who claims that ANY MODERN tank is better than another is totally talking out of their ass.. all the important things that make or break these tanks is classified.. so nobody here knows which is actually better...  never mind the fact that the T80 and M1A1 are designed to fight totally different kinds of wars..

as for the ERA.. perhaps it will stop a sabot round.. but it will only do it once..   thats always been the major downside of it.. when its hit it explodes.. the next shot will hit the skin of the tank and penetrate...  and with todays fast firing super accurate tanks its pretty much just as easy to hit the target twice as it is once..

lets take a hypothetile tank battle.. T-80 VS M1A1 in the most commin terrain.. which throughout history has been desert..  

now.. desert=long view...  so.. give that the M1A1 has longer range than the T-80 because it favors the SAbot and its 120mm has a higher muzzle velocity than the T-80's 125mm which favors HEAT.. so the abrams would be able to fire at the T-80 before the T-80 could enguage it.. ok..  boom.. sabot rounds hits era BOOM.. sabot round is blown off.. tank lives.abrams still out of range of T-80.. abrams fires again.. boom... no more ERA to stop it.. SABOT hits tank.. tank crew has big problem.

of course the T-80 IS NOT designed to fight this way.. its designed to fight in more gown up hilly areas with shorter view distances.. where it could fire its hopfully 1 shot 1 kill 125mm at ranges it can be effective at.. and in the sudden encounters that take place in such areas.. survicing the first shot can be a metter of winning and loseing because a 2nd shot usually wont occur.. because someone will be dead..

on a side note both the A1 and A2 can be fitted with ERA aswell.. actually anything can.. ERA is just (basically) explosive sandwiched between 2 armor plates.. you can pretty much stick it on anything..  but like I said.. it will only work for 1 shot.

also one very very important thing to remember:

if your side has air superiority.. a tank is the safest place to be..  if your side doesent have air superiority.. or it is contested.. being in a tanks is the LAST place you want to be.  I doubt that ERA or anything else could stop a mach 2 6 foot missle... or a 500 pound LGB...

I remember seeing the footage from the M1A1 cameras... you would see the T-72... it would fire.. a few seconds later you would see its round hit the ground far short of you... you guess what happened next..<span id='postcolor'>

" It is very important to note that while light ERA containers are completely destroyed in the process of detonation, Kontakt-5 sections are not, as their detonation is contained by the outside armor plates. Therefore even after detonation Kontakt-5 sections continue to provide some applique protection. "<span id='postcolor'>

Yep, but once its gone, it's just simple spaced armour. An APFSDS hitting that same section wouldn't be affected at all.

[teargas 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SpaceAlex @ Feb. 12 2002,17:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well russian tank have allways been the superior ones in the world...<span id='postcolor'>

Hm, we'll see. But they're ugly inside. <span id='postcolor'>

I suspect, you owe one and can easily compare its interior to your Porsche 911?

BTW, what kind of assault rifle you carry when visiting school?

[Akira 0]

When ever I see a thread like this everyone talks of statistics and in very scientific terms.

But you also have to remember one thing....

The ERA may prevent penetration but I guarentee when that projectile hits its going to shake that tank. The crew will be somewhat "non-effective" for a few seconds from the sheer force, and shock of the projectile hitting (making it quite possible for another tank or the same tank to bang it again). And thats not to even mention any systems that may go down due to shock and concussion.

Just wanted to add my two cents

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 11 2002,23:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When ever I see a thread like this everyone talks of statistics and in very scientific terms.

But you also have to remember one thing....

The ERA may prevent penetration but I guarentee when that projectile hits its going to shake that tank. The crew will be somewhat "non-effective" for a few seconds from the sheer force, and shock of the projectile hitting (making it quite possible for another tank or the same tank to bang it again). And thats not to even mention any systems that may go down due to shock and concussion.

Just wanted to add my two cents<span id='postcolor'>

Nice point. In which case, I would think the advantage would go to the heavier vehicle; less prone to be shaken around.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wardog @ Feb. 12 2002,20:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When ever I see a thread like this everyone talks of statistics and in very scientific terms.

But you also have to remember one thing....

The ERA may prevent penetration but I guarentee when that projectile hits its going to shake that tank. The crew will be somewhat "non-effective" for a few seconds from the sheer force, and shock of the projectile hitting (making it quite possible for another tank or the same tank to bang it again). And thats not to even mention any systems that may go down due to shock and concussion.

Just wanted to add my two cents<span id='postcolor'>

Nice point. In which case, I would think the advantage would go to the heavier vehicle; less prone to be shaken around.<span id='postcolor'>

Dunno....

I imagine the advantage would go to the tank with the best shock protection, not necessarily the heaviest. Even the heaviest tank is going to let concussion and shock through...just the nature of being in a steel beast...

I suppose it would also go down to crew training, and reactions. In a war like situation, a crew with more experience (and survived long enough) would be better equiped to handle the effects of the shock. Plus there a myriad (always wanted to use that word) of other factors that are important to a crews survivablity. In the end, ERA protection or no, it comes back down to the crew, speed, and the sturdiness of the tank. Which unfortunately (I just realized) brought us right back to where I joined this thread int he first place. hehehehe

[Sandman 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wardog @ Feb. 12 2002,20:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Thinking about it, I believe part of the armour is vapourised and joins the stream. There's no metal contained in the HEAT shell though, aside from the casing and fuze.<span id='postcolor'>

Thats how it works. Does the word PLASMA mean anything to you guys?

[Chernaya Akula 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wardog @ Feb. 12 2002,20:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well russian tank have allways been the superior ones in the world...

thats funny, ya know the very first russian tanks and the legendary tracks on the T-34 were designed by walter christy.. an american..  

anywho anyone who claims that ANY MODERN tank is better than another is totally talking out of their ass.. all the important things that make or break these tanks is classified.. so nobody here knows which is actually better...  never mind the fact that the T80 and M1A1 are designed to fight totally different kinds of wars..

as for the ERA.. perhaps it will stop a sabot round.. but it will only do it once..   thats always been the major downside of it.. when its hit it explodes.. the next shot will hit the skin of the tank and penetrate...  and with todays fast firing super accurate tanks its pretty much just as easy to hit the target twice as it is once..

lets take a hypothetile tank battle.. T-80 VS M1A1 in the most commin terrain.. which throughout history has been desert..  

now.. desert=long view...  so.. give that the M1A1 has longer range than the T-80 because it favors the SAbot and its 120mm has a higher muzzle velocity than the T-80's 125mm which favors HEAT.. so the abrams would be able to fire at the T-80 before the T-80 could enguage it.. ok..  boom.. sabot rounds hits era BOOM.. sabot round is blown off.. tank lives.abrams still out of range of T-80.. abrams fires again.. boom... no more ERA to stop it.. SABOT hits tank.. tank crew has big problem.

of course the T-80 IS NOT designed to fight this way.. its designed to fight in more gown up hilly areas with shorter view distances.. where it could fire its hopfully 1 shot 1 kill 125mm at ranges it can be effective at.. and in the sudden encounters that take place in such areas.. survicing the first shot can be a metter of winning and loseing because a 2nd shot usually wont occur.. because someone will be dead..

on a side note both the A1 and A2 can be fitted with ERA aswell.. actually anything can.. ERA is just (basically) explosive sandwiched between 2 armor plates.. you can pretty much stick it on anything..  but like I said.. it will only work for 1 shot.

also one very very important thing to remember:

if your side has air superiority.. a tank is the safest place to be..  if your side doesent have air superiority.. or it is contested.. being in a tanks is the LAST place you want to be.  I doubt that ERA or anything else could stop a mach 2 6 foot missle... or a 500 pound LGB...

I remember seeing the footage from the M1A1 cameras... you would see the T-72... it would fire.. a few seconds later you would see its round hit the ground far short of you... you guess what happened next..<span id='postcolor'>

" It is very important to note that while light ERA containers are completely destroyed in the process of detonation, Kontakt-5 sections are not, as their detonation is contained by the outside armor plates. Therefore even after detonation Kontakt-5 sections continue to provide some applique protection. "<span id='postcolor'>

Yep, but once its gone, it's just simple spaced armour. An APFSDS hitting that same section wouldn't be affected at all.<span id='postcolor'>

But. if the M1 for exemple fire first, and nothing 'll happen, the T-90 for exemple 'll fire back or Sabot ou an ATGM, and something 'll happen with the M1, and when the M1 fire back the T-90 Crew 'll turn the Turret so the M1 'll not be able to fire um the same place.. and when he fire, 'll be another negative impact, so the T-90 fire back or a Sabor or a ATGM, and something 'll happen again with the M1........ so the result probaly 'll be a T-90 victory..

Thats my opinion

..................

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sandman @ Feb. 12 2002,01:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Thinking about it, I believe part of the armour is vapourised and joins the stream. There's no metal contained in the HEAT shell though, aside from the casing and fuze.<span id='postcolor'>

Thats how it works. Does the word PLASMA mean anything to you guys?<span id='postcolor'>

Dictionary? I don' need no STEENKING DICTIONARY!!

[Akira 0]

I noticed in most of the pictures that the armor plates are at extreme low angles. Is part of its protection merely deflecting the round off the turret (or other area) much like the M1 does already? Or were these tests done with flat trajectories?

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Chernaya Akula @ Feb. 12 2002,01:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well russian tank have allways been the superior ones in the world...

thats funny, ya know the very first russian tanks and the legendary tracks on the T-34 were designed by walter christy.. an american..  

anywho anyone who claims that ANY MODERN tank is better than another is totally talking out of their ass.. all the important things that make or break these tanks is classified.. so nobody here knows which is actually better...  never mind the fact that the T80 and M1A1 are designed to fight totally different kinds of wars..

as for the ERA.. perhaps it will stop a sabot round.. but it will only do it once..   thats always been the major downside of it.. when its hit it explodes.. the next shot will hit the skin of the tank and penetrate...  and with todays fast firing super accurate tanks its pretty much just as easy to hit the target twice as it is once..

lets take a hypothetile tank battle.. T-80 VS M1A1 in the most commin terrain.. which throughout history has been desert..  

now.. desert=long view...  so.. give that the M1A1 has longer range than the T-80 because it favors the SAbot and its 120mm has a higher muzzle velocity than the T-80's 125mm which favors HEAT.. so the abrams would be able to fire at the T-80 before the T-80 could enguage it.. ok..  boom.. sabot rounds hits era BOOM.. sabot round is blown off.. tank lives.abrams still out of range of T-80.. abrams fires again.. boom... no more ERA to stop it.. SABOT hits tank.. tank crew has big problem.

of course the T-80 IS NOT designed to fight this way.. its designed to fight in more gown up hilly areas with shorter view distances.. where it could fire its hopfully 1 shot 1 kill 125mm at ranges it can be effective at.. and in the sudden encounters that take place in such areas.. survicing the first shot can be a metter of winning and loseing because a 2nd shot usually wont occur.. because someone will be dead..

on a side note both the A1 and A2 can be fitted with ERA aswell.. actually anything can.. ERA is just (basically) explosive sandwiched between 2 armor plates.. you can pretty much stick it on anything..  but like I said.. it will only work for 1 shot.

also one very very important thing to remember:

if your side has air superiority.. a tank is the safest place to be..  if your side doesent have air superiority.. or it is contested.. being in a tanks is the LAST place you want to be.  I doubt that ERA or anything else could stop a mach 2 6 foot missle... or a 500 pound LGB...

I remember seeing the footage from the M1A1 cameras... you would see the T-72... it would fire.. a few seconds later you would see its round hit the ground far short of you... you guess what happened next..<span id='postcolor'>

" It is very important to note that while light ERA containers are completely destroyed in the process of detonation, Kontakt-5 sections are not, as their detonation is contained by the outside armor plates. Therefore even after detonation Kontakt-5 sections continue to provide some applique protection. "<span id='postcolor'>

Yep, but once its gone, it's just simple spaced armour. An APFSDS hitting that same section wouldn't be affected at all.<span id='postcolor'>

But. if the M1 for exemple fire first, and nothing 'll happen, the T-90 for exemple 'll fire back or Sabot ou an ATGM, and something 'll happen with the M1, and when the M1 fire back the T-90 Crew 'll turn the Turret so the M1 'll not be able to fire um the same place.. and when he fire, 'll be another negative impact, so the T-90 fire back or a Sabor or a ATGM, and something 'll happen again with the M1........ so the result probaly 'll be a T-90 victory..

Thats my opinion

..................

<span id='postcolor'>

Only one real way to find out. But if it was me, I know which I'd prefer to go to war in.

[Charlie_McSheenie 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Chernaya Akula @ Feb. 12 2002,22:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well russian tank have allways been the superior ones in the world...

thats funny, ya know the very first russian tanks and the legendary tracks on the T-34 were designed by walter christy.. an american..  

anywho anyone who claims that ANY MODERN tank is better than another is totally talking out of their ass.. all the important things that make or break these tanks is classified.. so nobody here knows which is actually better...  never mind the fact that the T80 and M1A1 are designed to fight totally different kinds of wars..

as for the ERA.. perhaps it will stop a sabot round.. but it will only do it once..   thats always been the major downside of it.. when its hit it explodes.. the next shot will hit the skin of the tank and penetrate...  and with todays fast firing super accurate tanks its pretty much just as easy to hit the target twice as it is once..

lets take a hypothetile tank battle.. T-80 VS M1A1 in the most commin terrain.. which throughout history has been desert..  

now.. desert=long view...  so.. give that the M1A1 has longer range than the T-80 because it favors the SAbot and its 120mm has a higher muzzle velocity than the T-80's 125mm which favors HEAT.. so the abrams would be able to fire at the T-80 before the T-80 could enguage it.. ok..  boom.. sabot rounds hits era BOOM.. sabot round is blown off.. tank lives.abrams still out of range of T-80.. abrams fires again.. boom... no more ERA to stop it.. SABOT hits tank.. tank crew has big problem.

of course the T-80 IS NOT designed to fight this way.. its designed to fight in more gown up hilly areas with shorter view distances.. where it could fire its hopfully 1 shot 1 kill 125mm at ranges it can be effective at.. and in the sudden encounters that take place in such areas.. survicing the first shot can be a metter of winning and loseing because a 2nd shot usually wont occur.. because someone will be dead..

on a side note both the A1 and A2 can be fitted with ERA aswell.. actually anything can.. ERA is just (basically) explosive sandwiched between 2 armor plates.. you can pretty much stick it on anything..  but like I said.. it will only work for 1 shot.

also one very very important thing to remember:

if your side has air superiority.. a tank is the safest place to be..  if your side doesent have air superiority.. or it is contested.. being in a tanks is the LAST place you want to be.  I doubt that ERA or anything else could stop a mach 2 6 foot missle... or a 500 pound LGB...

I remember seeing the footage from the M1A1 cameras... you would see the T-72... it would fire.. a few seconds later you would see its round hit the ground far short of you... you guess what happened next..<span id='postcolor'>

" It is very important to note that while light ERA containers are completely destroyed in the process of detonation, Kontakt-5 sections are not, as their detonation is contained by the outside armor plates. Therefore even after detonation Kontakt-5 sections continue to provide some applique protection. "<span id='postcolor'>

Yep, but once its gone, it's just simple spaced armour. An APFSDS hitting that same section wouldn't be affected at all.<span id='postcolor'>

But. if the M1 for exemple fire first, and nothing 'll happen, the T-90 for exemple 'll fire back or Sabot ou an ATGM, and something 'll happen with the M1, and when the M1 fire back the T-90 Crew 'll turn the Turret so the M1 'll not be able to fire um the same place.. and when he fire, 'll be another negative impact, so the T-90 fire back or a Sabor or a ATGM, and something 'll happen again with the M1........ so the result probaly 'll be a T-90 victory..

Thats my opinion

..................

<span id='postcolor'>

Since when has the abrams become a weak little sissy tank? ever heard of chobham armor?

[Stag 0]

One more thing to consider; the 125mm gun on the latest Russian tank is exactly the same weapon as was used by the Iraquis in the Gulf War. Unless there has been a significant advance in the Conventional munitions available, the Abrams would have nothing much to worry about.

The only untried factor which may be in the Eastern AFV's favour would be its guided missiles, which are not handed out for export, AFAIK.

[Sandman 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Chernaya Akula @ Feb. 12 2002,06:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In addition, thanks to their heavier (15 mm hard steel) front plate, the Kontakt-5 elements are harder to trigger by the precursor charges of tandem warheads, forcing the producers of tandem ATGMs to allocate more mass to precursor charge and, making an MBT more resistant to tandem HEAT warheads, as well.<span id='postcolor'>

Please, tell me where those 15mm hardened steelplates are allocated. Do U mean at the front of the tank?

[digitalcenturion 20]

ERA does not stop a round, it just deflects it. I think...

Methinks the M1A2 and the LEOPARD2A6 are the best tanks for the moment. The T90S/T80U comes close and other tanks like MERKAVA or SABRA i do not know about...

And i always tought that the Chobbham armor of the M1 and other nato tanks was the best?

[Charlie_McSheenie 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DigitalCenturion @ Feb. 12 2002,22:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ERA does not stop a round, it just deflects it. I think...

Methinks the M1A2 and the LEOPARD2A6 are the best tanks for the moment. The T90S/T80U comes close and other tanks like MERKAVA or SABRA i do not know about...

And i always tought that the Chobbham armor of the M1 and other nato tanks was the best?<span id='postcolor'>

Thats what i thought as well, although i'd add challenger 2 to that list personally, its apparently the best armored tank in the world right, has a well snazzy gun and has a lot of cool technology.

could easily take on any russian tank, probably.

[Thehamster 0]

Tanks are soon to become a thing of the past on battlefields what is the point of having tanks when a group of men can destroy an entire tank division with rocket launchers?

[Aaron Kane 0]

K, Ruskie just defended the Abrams. Thats never happened before

But anyways... Does anyone know how good the German King Tiger tank was? I see them sometimes in IL2, but never see them fight, and according to the statistics and background info provided in the game, they'd seem pretty damn good for their time period.

[ran 0]

yes , imagine a tiger 1 two time more armored and ontime slower

[Charlie_McSheenie 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aaron Kane @ Feb. 12 2002,23:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">K, Ruskie just defended the Abrams.  Thats never happened before  

 But anyways... Does anyone know how good the German King Tiger tank was?  I see them sometimes in IL2, but never see them fight, and according to the statistics and background info provided in the game, they'd seem pretty damn good for their time period.<span id='postcolor'>

i was only sticking up for the russian tanks before cos everyone was saying they're crap and nasty. Now it seems like everyone is saying the abrams is crap and nasty i just automatically stand up for the little guy

the king tiger was apparently a very sweet piece of kit, but wasn't really mass produced and stuff, so it didn't see a whole lot of action.

[ran 0]

they've seen the action on the two fronts in very small number