ThatSEPguy Posted August 13, 2024 Posted August 13, 2024 The Arat 1 panels are thin enough to not have an effect on the frontal profile of the M1 Abrams while making it much stronger against modern threats without increasing the weight a significant amount
ThatSEPguy Posted August 19, 2024 Author Posted August 19, 2024 23 hours ago, Roman Alymov said: The SUPER abrams lol 😂
ThatSEPguy Posted August 20, 2024 Author Posted August 20, 2024 3 hours ago, Tim Sielbeck said: Or Abrams with Ukrainian TUSK. Wouldnt Ukrainian tusk be nizh and arat 1?
Tim Sielbeck Posted August 22, 2024 Posted August 22, 2024 I don't know enough of what is available to Ukraine as far as equipping vehicles like that.
Stuart Galbraith Posted August 22, 2024 Posted August 22, 2024 On 8/20/2024 at 7:07 PM, ThatSEPguy said: Wouldnt Ukrainian tusk be nizh and arat 1? I dont know anything about Arat 1, but yes, any upgrade programme they were undertaking prewar (Most notably T64BM and AMT) seemingly received Nozh or Nizh or whatthehellever. Strange stuff, western armour experts were saying prewar it cant possibly work the way its claimed.
Mighty_Zuk Posted August 30, 2024 Posted August 30, 2024 On 8/13/2024 at 9:02 PM, ThatSEPguy said: The Arat 1 panels are thin enough to not have an effect on the frontal profile of the M1 Abrams while making it much stronger against modern threats without increasing the weight a significant amount You can go about it in many different ways. My opinion? If you take a hit, it'll damage not only the ERA but also the standard armor. Then you have to replace 2 things. But without ERA, you're only replacing one thing. If the added bonus protection from ERA is really important, the desired solution is then to change the base armor itself. But overall I think it was a mistake to make armor on the Abrams non-modular. I prefer the Merkava approach in this aspect. If it's damaged, you can just replace the whole block much more quickly, and let specially trained personnel with better equipment repair or recycle these while you're set on another task. Thankfully the trend is definitely in that direction. One more thing I don't like about ERA and why I think manufacturers capable of higher quality products also don't use them too much - is the false sense you get from using them. If it's not damaged but you think it may be - you're overly cautious. If it's damaged but you think it's not - you're overly confident. Combat soldiers need to balance caution with confidence. And I think a type of armor that's gone in one hit is definitely not going to help with that. An APS which has multiple shots, and more passive armor types - do help, as they have multi-hit capability. One of the downsides of the Merkava's armor layout is that externally it may appear busted. But at least most of that surface there can still take some more hits.
AETiglathPZ Posted December 29, 2024 Posted December 29, 2024 Hmmmm.. Ok, so what happens when your tank takes a good dive with the ERA present and smacks into a ditch? Back in the Hood, Ft. Hood, we were at one of the ranges doing a combined arms exercise at night. I was in the loaders position. Tank takes a dip and the front bottoms out. I go flying toward the gunner's position. Maybe stopped by the gun, idk. My RPG's, rape-prevention-goggles (army prescription eyeglasses), still maintains momentum and crashes somewhere by the gunner. One of the arms breaks on the glasses but we are fine and have a good laugh. Similar event happened to a corporal that I knew during NTC SEP-OCT93. He had some busted rips from that. Putting explosives at a common point of impact if you hit the right rut in the trail sounds exciting.
bojan Posted December 29, 2024 Posted December 29, 2024 Explosives in ERA (well, not all, Noz being offender) do not detonate from artillery shell fragments impacts, no way they are going to detonate on impact with ground.
On the way Posted January 2 Posted January 2 Wasn't the SEP program supposed to negate the use of ERA through the use of depleted uranium armor?
Manic Moran Posted January 14 Posted January 14 On 8/18/2024 at 4:26 PM, Roman Alymov said: So the lads in Detroit are obviously keeping an eye on what Ukraine is doing, and to quote one person, most of what the Ukrainians are doing to the M1 counts as emotional support modifications which either are not particularly beneficial, or have no positive effect whatsoever. They've even started pulling the track pads off on the assumption that they will get more grip.
Argus Posted January 16 Posted January 16 On 1/15/2025 at 9:34 AM, Manic Moran said: So the lads in Detroit are obviously keeping an eye on what Ukraine is doing, and to quote one person, most of what the Ukrainians are doing to the M1 counts as emotional support modifications which either are not particularly beneficial, or have no positive effect whatsoever. They've even started pulling the track pads off on the assumption that they will get more grip. Being told by some remote authority is all very well, but sometimes lessons need to be learned the hard way I suppose.
bojan Posted January 16 Posted January 16 Some are emotional support (ERA on front turret and lower front hull), some are even dangerous (ERA on 25mm thick roof), but addition of side (where ARAT is missing) and glacis ERA looks to be sensible solution.
LeeWalls Posted January 18 Posted January 18 (edited) On 1/14/2025 at 4:34 PM, Manic Moran said: So the lads in Detroit are obviously keeping an eye on what Ukraine is doing, and to quote one person, most of what the Ukrainians are doing to the M1 counts as emotional support modifications which either are not particularly beneficial, or have no positive effect whatsoever. They've even started pulling the track pads off on the assumption that they will get more grip. One could easily underestimate the import of "emotional support" modifications could one not? I mean if I really do believe the magic charm is going to protect me I just might fight a bit more courageously (although not necessarily more wisely). Heck it might even keep me from just promptly deserting at the first opportunity.... Edited January 18 by LeeWalls
FatOtaku Posted January 26 Posted January 26 On 1/17/2025 at 7:32 AM, bojan said: Some are emotional support (ERA on front turret and lower front hull), some are even dangerous (ERA on 25mm thick roof), but addition of side (where ARAT is missing) and glacis ERA looks to be sensible solution. I'm not sure if the ERA on the front turret and the lower front hull is for emotional support since, according to those crews, chemical warheads have penetrated these two places pretty easily. While I'm not confident in this, the export armor they got is said to be similar to the US armor in the late 1980s. I'm not surprised that some ERA helps a lot with its chemical protection.
bojan Posted January 26 Posted January 26 ATGMs (Kornet and Vikhr) that will penetrate M1 turret front are all tandem charge and will not be affected by K1* ERA much. Older ones that will be affected by K1 ERA (Fagot, Konkurs) have penetration too low to penetrate even '80s level of armor. *As for mounting Noz in K1 containters - it is stupid idea, since explosive used in Noz will be activated by impact of anythng 12.7mm and larger and should not be done.
Sinistar Posted January 30 Posted January 30 even if there is no overmatch in the case of the RPG armed drones across the frontal arc generally the copter type drones are often maneuverable enough that they can stop and turn circles until the operator at his leisure locates the most optimal point which bypasses the front anyway even still penetrating through cage armors if the warhead is powerful enough or is a cumulative type the first or second drone might be enough to immediately disable or start a fire in the powerpack which gradually starts to burn out the vehicle or continue the attack with more drones until the coup de grace which before even that the crew has already abandoned the tank as it begins to smoke and it is effectively a mission kill it virtually makes no difference- t-80 / leopard 2 / m1 tanks usually there is a mobility kill with a few drones hitting the engine or something near to that which starts to smoke and heat and flames begins to spread into the engine
FatOtaku Posted Wednesday at 06:48 PM Posted Wednesday at 06:48 PM (edited) I do wonder why there hasn't been any news about them trying to mix the smoke launcher with buckshots to kill drones. IIRC the smoke launcher is indeed multi-purpose, right? Edited Wednesday at 06:50 PM by FatOtaku
bojan Posted Wednesday at 09:37 PM Posted Wednesday at 09:37 PM Detection is the main issue with drones, engaging them is way easier. SGDs with buckshot do not solve detection and would suck at engaging them.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now