Durability of the M1 Abrams

[Fllflourine]

Should the durability of the M1 Abrams be 9-A or 8-C? I am asking this because I do not think it makes any sense for the M1 to have two separate durabilities, the current one being 9-A normally and 8-C against cutting/piercing strikes.

imo It should be 8-C, as it can shrug off grenades and RPGs from the front and it should be able to tank several tank rounds

 

[Lina_Shields]

First of all, I wonder if we should start changing the rules for kinetic energy of bullets, as the narrower surface area of the tip of the bullet in comparison to the wider surface area of objects it usually makes contact with justifies a higher rating. We did this with rules regarding explosions after all.

Second, 8-C for the M1 Abrams sounds right, as those tank rounds are able to do serious damage to buildings as well as piercing through thick steel like butter.

Let's wait for more input however.

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

should be smallb uilding lvl tbh

i dont see a tank surviving small building level attack without damage

also lina, you can do serious damage to building with even room level shots

you need to damage a lower section/wall to make the rest of the building unstablee and weak....

I'd say small building sounds right

 

[LordXcano]

I think the issue here is that durability is generally split with IRL objects, hence why a bulletproof vest can be stabbed through. Without getting into what a tank can survive (although I've heard of tanks being disabled by pipe bomb) I'd say we'd just label it's durability against stabbing objects as a resistance.

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

where is the source for tank's building lvl dura tho?

 

[EnderShadowr215]

Here it is: http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail-page-2.asp?armor_id=1 so just read it from there.

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

the document is kinda long

so if it says it can survive artillery fire that can destroy buildings.. keep in mind that wall level explosions can destroy buildings with shocks and de-stabalizations


is there a part which quantifies the speed and the mass of the projectile this tank can endure?

 

[EnderShadowr215]

@TLT As in for the RPG-7? It is mainly 115 m/s and the fact it is 40mm as well.

 

[EnderShadowr215]

Also here is this video: https://youtu.be/AUVnNk0aJBE

 

[LordXcano]

"is there a part which quantifies the speed and the mass of the projectile this tank can endure?"

Likely not as the system we use is way over-simplified from real life durability. A certain amount of force on one part of a tank may do nothing but cripple it applied somewhere else.

 

[Lina_Shields]

@TLT: I was thinking the amount of kinetic energy it requires for a tank ammo to pierce through the main armor of the tank. For example, how would the M1 Abrams' armor fare against the Barrett M82, factoring in the surface area of tip of bullet, should be way above Wall level AP?

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

@TLT As in for the RPG-7? It is mainly 115 m/s and the fact it is 40mm as well.

40 mm radius?

assuming iron density, we get 268 grams for the ball

and thus a KE os 1772.7 J

bullet lvl ._.


can someone find the specs for the speed and mass for the kind of high end bullets the tank can survive?

i truely suspect that it will be in the wall to room/small building range

 

[EnderShadowr215]

@TLT No as in Caliber as guns are measured in Caliber.

 

[EnderShadowr215]

I found this however.


M1, M1A1: Burlington composite armor M1A1HA, M1A2: depleted uranium mesh-reinforced composite armor

M1: Hull & turret ― 350 mm / 470 mm vs APFSDS, 650 mm / 700 mm vs HEAT[9][10] M1A1: Hull & turret ― 600 mm vs APFSDS, 700 mm vs HEAT M1A1HA: Hull ― 600 mm vs APFSDS, 700 mm vs HEAT, Turret ― 600 mm / 800 mm vs APFSDS, 1,300 mm vs HEAT

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

can anyone provide me with the masses or something?

 

[EnderShadowr215]

@TLT I can not find the masses, but I will said they have known to tank high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT).

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

oh well at least a range? like does 1 kg sound sane for those bullets?

also wuts their speed?

 

[EnderShadowr215]

@TLT1 These are Rocket Propelled Grenades by the way

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

so basically grenades? those are ranked below megajoules in explosive power iirc

 

[EnderShadowr215]

Yes, TLT1.

 

[Heinkel_Astrea]

IMO we also have to take into account the context of the battle damage, and also the different versions of M1 Abrams that have different basic armor/add-on armor ratings.


For example, is it durability against mission-kill, by which the tank cannot operate anymore, or a total kill which would result in the death of the crew as well?

Mission-kill may not require anything more than a well-placed ATGM that has less explosives than Room level (even tandem-warhead ATGMs often have less than 5 kg TNT, and travel at Subsonic). Total kill of the crew however may require larger shells traveling at Supersonic speeds.


As for different versions, this is what an M1A2 SEP with TUSK modification looks like:




So shall we use the most advanced version of in-service M1 Abrams?

 

[EnderShadowr215]

@Heinkel You are forgetting about the mines right? You know the mine fields

 

[Heinkel_Astrea]

Not really; there would be many ways to skin a cat, as with tanks and almost every man-made weapon.

Just saying that the context of battle damage would matter since an Abrams does not have flat durability against all forms of explosive attack...

Generally though I think most of them would be Room/Small Building level.

 

[EnderShadowr215]

@Heinek Alright as recent M1 tanks has reactive armor as well.

 

[The_Living_Tribunal1]

honestly i dont see it tanking a room+ or a small building level kinetic energy of a proje ctile

 

[EnderShadowr215]

@TLT1 I got the video for it: https://youtu.be/n3cdXJX6i8Q Just skip it to 5:12 here.