Matrix Games Forums

I'm certainly no expert on the technical issues, but is there a reason why T-80B has better armor protection than the M1A1?



sube imagenes


Does the advanced composite armor "level 4" provides Abrams with some additional protection or is it already included in the 33/15 values of it's armor protection?

The numbers are the calculated frontal armor and yes the T-80 is slightly better in value enough to tick over one more point. The ACA 4 is additional protection versus HEAT warheads. What I'm looking at and going to have to review is why the T-80B has no ACA value as well. Always something to fix. [;)] Thanks for the post!

Hmmm, according to what I've found the M1A1 turret had a value of 600 mm vs APFSDS and 900 mm vs HEAT while T 80B 500 mm vs APFSDS 650 mm vs HEAT. These are the values from wiki but I've found simmilar information in few other sources.

The calculation also looks at the hull value. Granted sources vary. M1A1 kinetic 600mm frontal is more inline with the HA upgrade version which would have a 42-43 type PF rating. Source data I am looking at show the M1A1 450 turret front and 490 hull were the HA version is 580/680 with the additional DU liners. If you have some other published data sources showing better/new info let us know. We are always interested in updating source info.

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldw ... Abrams.php

M1: 450 mm vs APFSDS, 650 mm vs HEAT
M1A1: 600 mm vs APFSDS, 900 mm vs HEAT
M1A1HA: 600/800 mm vs APFSDS, 700/1,300 mm vs HEAT



The only book I own on the subject is M1 Abrams vs T-72 by Steven J.Zaloga. According to him, there is no unclasified data from US official sources ( the book is from 2009 ). He quotes the Soviet estimates which are:

M1A1:

Hull vs APFSDS 600mm; Hull vs HEAT 700mm; Turret vs APFSDS 600mm; Turret vs HEAT 700mm

M1A1HA:

Hull vs APFSDS 600mm; Hull vs HEAT 700mm; Turret vs APFSDS 800mm; Turret vs HEAT 1300mm

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin
Source data I am looking at show the M1A1 450 turret front and 490 hull were the HA version is 580/680 with the additional DU liners. If you have some other published data sources showing better/new info let us know. We are always interested in updating source info.

This sounds more like T-72M1 than Abrams. According to Zaloga the T-72M1 protection would be:

Hull vs APFSDS 400mm; Hull vs HEAT 490mm; Turret vs APFSDS 380mm; Turret vs HEAT 490mm

A few words about composite armor for Soviet tanks. Many peoples think and I found it in the different games that more number in tanks title (T-64, 72, 80) means more values for armor, fire control and others, but it's not right!

FC:RS have the simple values for composite armor and it's very easy to use this values in terms of real armor generations:

T-72 - no composite armor in turret (ACA0)
T-64, T-64A, T-72A, T-80, T-80B - first generation (ACA1), very simple composite armor
T-64B, T-72B - second generation (ACA2), new material and structure
T-80U - last generation (ACA4)

I just want to say that the Abrams doesn't weigh 20-30 tons more than a T80 because they have the same armor rating. Clearly in weight alone one can draw the conclusion that the Abrams has a much better armor rating. And that before tech. Just saying. I remember in transition school from M60A3's to IP M1's I was reading the information plate in the turret. 27 tons for the turret. A T80 is only 45 tons.

ORIGINAL: SKeeM

I just want to say that the Abrams doesn't weigh 20-30 tons more than a T80 because they have the same armor rating. Clearly in weight alone one can draw the conclusion that the Abrams has a much better armor rating. And that before tech. Just saying. I remember in transition school from M60A3's to IP M1's I was reading the information plate in the turret. 27 tons for the turret. A T80 is only 45 tons.

Good point. Only T-80U in theory was offering simmilar protection to the Western third generation tanks.

Let use the simple arithmetic [:)]

M1A1 - 57.2 tons weigh and 19.7 m^3 armored volume
Т-80B - 42.5 tons weigh and 11.8 m^3 armored volume

and now calculate weight per unit volume:

M1A1 - 57.2 / 19.7 = 2.9 tons/m^3
T-80B - 42.5 / 11.8 = 3.6 tons/m^3

As I wrote earlier, the question which tank the best is more political (propagandistic) than technical

Yea well that math didn't help the Iraqies out to much? Did it? Not one M1A1 Abrams was destroyed by a T72.

Not one T-80B was destroyed by a M1A1 [X(]

ORIGINAL: Alex1812

Let use the simple arithmetic [:)]

M1A1 - 57.2 tons weigh and 19.7 m^3 armored volume
Т-80B - 42.5 tons weigh and 11.8 m^3 armored volume

and now calculate weight per unit volume:

M1A1 - 57.2 / 19.7 = 2.9 tons/m^3
T-80B - 42.5 / 11.8 = 3.6 tons/m^3

As I wrote earlier, the question which tank the best is more political (propagandistic) than technical

Alex, as we all know simple math doesn't tell the story. Simple math forgets about ERA, ATGM's, DU penetrators, etc...

The age old question of which one is better is totally opinion based.

Good Hunting.

MR

oh, I do not try to compare the tanks. I really think that the best tank is the tank with good crew and good support

I just noticed that if you are using weight to compare tanks protection, it does not work [:)]

To Alex's point, the density of the armor on the T-80 appears to be greater. Now to MR's point, simple math does not tell the whole story. We are working with some of the better estimates analysis we can. There is no exact science here since the military is not going to deal out classified data on actual configuration or performance of the hardware.

For SKeeM, don't use the Gulf War as a yardstick for measuring Soviet armor capabilities. The Iraqi tanks had steel AP rounds and low grade armor materials with their tanks. Your yardstick will end up only a foot long. [:D]

Bringing up Desert Storm as an example doesn't work really since the Iraqis were fielding only "poor man's" export versions of T-72, while the majority of their tanks were T-55's and it's derivates. From the other hand, the Iraqi video of destroyed Abrams doesn't prove anything either - some of the images feature the same machine few times, some of them were abandoned by the crews and destroyed afterwards by the Allied air force, most of them were damaged by IED's.

Having said this, after giving it a little of thought, since there is no credible data of the tank armor protection, we can argue all we want, but will never be able to get to any definite conclusions. In my opinion, in the game the NATO tank protection values are the lowest estimates while the Soviet values are the highest estimates. Which doesn't mean they are wrong - they are just estimates and they make the game more competitive for both sides, which is good.

I don't want the game to be competitive based on possible faulty data.

I agree with Katukov assessment of the M1A1 values being to low, I have posted similar arguments concerning the Challenger 1 values.

But I could be wrong, as there is no definitive data available.

So I trust that the team who have produced such a great game, to also use the most accurate data they can find.

But I hope they are open to being corrected if they are shown sources which provide alternative values, such as provided by Katukov.

Thanks for all your efforts.

There is no question we are open to being corrected. We've made numerous changes to the data base. But if worst comes to worst and you don't convince us you can simply make the changes to the data base and play with the values you think they should be.

Good Hunting.

MR

Maybe you just should add "freedom launcher" or "democratic layer of armor" to the m1a1 and everyone is happy finally

I remember reading somewhere that the tanks like t72b abd m1a1 have very similar protection levels from the front, even some people say that t72 had better protection. Its the ammo that diffirentiates these tanks but only post 1990 or so, not during the 80s IMO.

Are you able to change the values once in the database which will then reflect in all scenarios, or individually for each scenario.

Have not used the editor before.

Many thanks.