General Main Battle Tank Technology Thread:

Werewolf wrote:

I have no clue; but it is very doubtful that any handheld posses the power to go through the LFP of an A2 Abrams, Glacis of a T-90A etc.

They will go through all LFP of chassis, they are the weakest part of all tanks from the frontal projection. The RPG-28 will certainly go through, not to mention it will screw up most turret armor since, lot of people base their knowledge still on very old, almost ancient by todays standards, of how HEAT weapons can penetrate composite armor. Your knowledge is based on MONO bloc HEAT rounds, having reduced performance against composite armor. BRL was devestate by Tandem HEAT round with the same rated RHA penetration value, but the precursor weakened the composition and protective capabilities of the BRL armor and eased the way of the main charge to penetrate more than a similiar mono-bloc HEAT round did before.

The export Abrams all use BRL-2 armor (no such thing as "Chobham", as I have stated before), last used by the original M1A1 for US model Abrams.

A1 HA, HC, A2, and A2 SEP all use a new armor package; called Heavy Armor Package. It includes Depleted Uranium, but is a different composite vs. Burlington to begin with. It should perform far better.

"With ease" is a dubious statement, because neither shot landed on an area with large amounts of armor. One went through the side-turret, and one penetrated the turret-roof, that doesn't show much.

IMHO, RPG-30 couldn't penetrate the LFP/turret of an export Abrams with BRL-2. Maybe the turret ring or mantlet, though.

Nobody knows a thing about the upcoming armor package; called Next Generation Armor Package (NGAP). Based on what I know about INB's ceramic research, it will probably use a modified version of SiC, that is cheaper to produce and a little better performing. Some people are thinking it will ditch DU all together, but that would be unlikely.

That constant praising of DU is, highly overrated and inferior to ceramics, which are not only lighter, safer to handle without any health issues, not incendiary from spalling, no protective anti radiation equipment needed to change armor plates, much easier to replace and also have slightly higher protective capabilities. Ceramics aren't that expensive anymore, they are constantly used in body armor and available in different grades, qualities and shapes for aircrafts, body armor and vehicles.

The LFP of an Abrams is the thickest section of the hull, and by a large margin too. It seems to vary between low and high 600's (mm) depending on where it is hit, in LOS thickness. - That is for the A2. 

Tandem's are not some magic for-sure penetration....thing. The secondary charge is very small, and everything considered, the main charge will still be the one dealing with ceramics and the DU. Even against the non-DU Abrams....

DU is not a replacement for ceramics, hence why HAP also includes them. It is there to provide high-density, which basically means it acts like a lot more steel than its' thickness in DU. 

Ceramics are still expensive in comparison to steel.

Mike E wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

I have no clue; but it is very doubtful that any handheld posses the power to go through the LFP of an A2 Abrams, Glacis of a T-90A etc.

They will go through all LFP of chassis, they are the weakest part of all tanks from the frontal projection. The RPG-28 will certainly go through, not to mention it will screw up most turret armor since, lot of people base their knowledge still on very old, almost ancient by todays standards, of how HEAT weapons can penetrate composite armor. Your knowledge is based on MONO bloc HEAT rounds, having reduced performance against composite armor. BRL was devestate by Tandem HEAT round with the same rated RHA penetration value, but the precursor weakened the composition and protective capabilities of the BRL armor and eased the way of the main charge to penetrate more than a similiar mono-bloc HEAT round did before.

The export Abrams all use BRL-2 armor (no such thing as "Chobham", as I have stated before), last used by the original M1A1 for US model Abrams.

A1 HA, HC, A2, and A2 SEP all use a new armor package; called Heavy Armor Package. It includes Depleted Uranium, but is a different composite vs. Burlington to begin with. It should perform far better.

"With ease" is a dubious statement, because neither shot landed on an area with large amounts of armor. One went through the side-turret, and one penetrated the turret-roof, that doesn't show much.

IMHO, RPG-30 couldn't penetrate the LFP/turret of an export Abrams with BRL-2. Maybe the turret ring or mantlet, though.

Nobody knows a thing about the upcoming armor package; called Next Generation Armor Package (NGAP). Based on what I know about INB's ceramic research, it will probably use a modified version of SiC, that is cheaper to produce and a little better performing. Some people are thinking it will ditch DU all together, but that would be unlikely.

That constant praising of DU is, highly overrated and inferior to ceramics, which are not only lighter, safer to handle without any health issues, not incendiary from spalling, no protective anti radiation equipment needed to change armor plates, much easier to replace and also have slightly higher protective capabilities. Ceramics aren't that expensive anymore, they are constantly used in body armor and available in different grades, qualities and shapes for aircrafts, body armor and vehicles.

The LFP of an Abrams is the thickest section of the hull, and by a large margin too. It seems to vary between low and high 600's (mm) depending on where it is hit, in LOS thickness. - That is for the A2. 

Tandem's are not some magic for-sure penetration....thing. The secondary charge is very small, and everything considered, the main charge will still be the one dealing with ceramics and the DU. Even against the non-DU Abrams....

DU is not a replacement for ceramics, hence why HAP also includes them. It is there to provide high-density, which basically means it acts like a lot more steel than its' thickness in DU. 

Ceramics are still expensive in comparison to steel.

Wrong, HEAT precursors have shown in tests against burlington armor that they have managed to penetrate enough amount of armor to actually weaken the core of the armor among them used for tests with ceramics, that have degrated their protective performance even before the main charge which is the bigger, not the smaller one, could put to use.

I wasn't talking about ceramics vs steel, but ceramics versus DU, they are far superior overall than DU and denser aswell which is the important factor for its purpose of use. There is a good reason why no one else uses DU, it has no purpose, much better alternatives, better designs and certainly a lot better tanks on the market for less costs while being on higher shelf of technological level and protection.

Care to list a source or two? Like I said; precursors are too weak to have a significant effect on an armor array. At best it might get through a layer or two of steel or ceramics.

This is funny. *I'm not talking about steel, I'm talking about DU. HAP uses ceramics AND DU, they don't replace each-other, they compliment each other*.

Ceramics denser then DU  

SiC and Alumina are multiple times *less dense* than steel, and steel is under *half* as dense as DU. Do the math.

Ceramics provide hardness, and the "grinding" effects against jets.

DU provides density.

Mike E wrote:Care to list a source or two? Like I said; precursors are too weak to have a significant effect on an armor array. At best it might get through a layer or two of steel or ceramics.

This is funny. *I'm not talking about steel, I'm talking about DU. HAP uses ceramics AND DU, they don't replace each-other, they compliment each other*.

Ceramics denser then DU  

SiC and Alumina are multiple times *less dense* than steel, and steel is under *half* as dense as DU. Do the math.

Ceramics provide hardness, and the "grinding" effects against jets.

DU provides density.

I think it is the hardness that is the key here. Even though DU is denser it is soft like butter when compared to the right ceramics.
Metal projectiles literally spread like a fluid when they hit the ceramic but will burrow into the DU, which is a metal itself. This is
an important feature of ceramics.

I'd say the same thing, but the density of DU takes a lot of energy to get through

As mentioned, ceramics and DU are two different materials with two different roles.

The advantages of DU here is, it is damn cheap. Nuclear reactors of countries like U.S. and Russia created tons of it.

In the case of density, I prefer vonfram. It is better than DU, although it is expensive.

Tungsten is great, but it needs to be an alloy to have acceptable ballistic performance, which effectively means it will end off being less dense.

Mike E wrote:M1A2 SEP v3 is coming in a few years, and I'd largely identical to the v2 with the addition of a new armor package.

"M1A3", or as I call it, the "Next Abrams", is a new vehicle that retains the chassis, and only the chassis, from the A2. It is scheduled to be ready in 2027.

RPG-30 would struggle against the frontal armor of any current MBT. Like all handhelds, it is best used against the side hull and turrets.

One of the most meaningful upgrade of M1 Abrams should be replacing the gas turbin with diesel engine. Other upgrades should be application of ERA and spaced armour, actually in tank armour I prefer spaced armour and ERA than DU. And the thickness of side and rear amour should be taken care of. Russia estimated that 30mm gun of BMP can penetrated the side and rear of Abrams. But the problem here is Abrams is damn heavy, I wonder if we can put additional armour on it.

Mike E wrote:Care to list a source or two? Like I said; precursors are too weak to have a significant effect on an armor array. At best it might get through a layer or two of steel or ceramics.

This is funny. *I'm not talking about steel, I'm talking about DU. HAP uses ceramics AND DU, they don't replace each-other, they compliment each other*.

Ceramics denser then DU  

SiC and Alumina are multiple times *less dense* than steel, and steel is under *half* as dense as DU. Do the math.

Ceramics provide hardness, and the "grinding" effects against jets.

DU provides density.

Do not remember the source and haven't saved it on my hard drive unfortunatley, will post it if i find it.

You do not know the composition of any tank and i highly doubt any version of Abrams has used ceramics after use of DU.

I meant harder not denser.

higurashihougi wrote:One of the most meaningful upgrade of M1 Abrams should be replacing the gas turbin with diesel engine. Other upgrades should be application of ERA and spaced armour, actually in tank armour I prefer spaced armour and ERA than DU.

There is no point in any of those upgrades. 

A diesel engine would weigh more, and take up more space. In fact, it is estimated that the vehicle would gain no more range, because the fuel cells would have to be shrunken. Not only that, but the tank couldn't run of anything but diesel, and the engine would lose a massive amount of torque, which would undoubtedly slow it down. 

Then there is cost issues, and the fact that the engine bay would need to be modified. It would be a downgrade more than anything.

TUSK/TUSK 2 already adds ERA to the most vulnerable section; the sides. The vehicle already weighs enough, and tbh, it doesn't need ERA frontally. 

Same with spaced armor, which just makes the vehicle that much larger.

max steel wrote:Ok so rpg-30 cant penetrate usa abrams with DU armlr+BL-2 armor but can russian anti-tank weapons like kornet and i dont know how many there are will perform against US abrams ? Ive seen kornet blowing exported abrams though.

RPG-30 still can pierce the abrams ? That's what matter though .

US Abrams uses HAP, any DU-equipped model does. 

I'd expect Kornet to penetrate the LFP and Turret of any exported Abrams, and possibly the LFP of a US Abrams (A2 SEP v2). 

RPG-30 could penetrate the side hull, but same goes for any other tank as Garry noted. Armata is, IMHO, the only exception if reactive armor is included, maybe the Oplot-M with layered Duplet too.

GarryB wrote:firing at the front of an Abrams if you climb a few stories in a building or fire from above you should be able to penetrate the frontal armour of the abrams with late model RPGs.

The Glacis is ~50 mm thick and the turret roof half that, so you are correct. In fact, a rod could easily pass through the Glacis if fired down by only 10 degrees or so, with HEAT it might require a little more.

higurashihougi wrote:And Abrams turret bustle is thin...

Well, certainly for the roof. The sides are equal to what the rest of the turret is, so close to 400 mm in thickness. The rear is probably thin.

kvs wrote:Density is not the only variable. Energy of the incoming projectile is actually the primary factor. Since DU is soft, a high energy
projectile will burrow through it even if it melts completely itself. A ceramic layer underneath a DU layer would be ideal. There
also has to be a gap between the outer DU layer and the ceramic layer to allow the semi-molten projectile to spread out on
impact with the ceramic."

You are correct. I have heard that the DU layers are located in the same area as HHS plates used in Burlington, which means they might be backed by ceramics and other materials as well.

Can you compare Merkava-IV with its trophy defense with M1 ABRAMS and can RPG-30 bust Merkava-IV ?

Werewolf wrote:
Do not remember the source and haven't saved it on my hard drive unfortunatley, will post it if i find it.

You do not know the composition of any tank and i highly doubt any version of Abrams has used ceramics after use of DU.

I meant harder not denser.

Thanks in advance...

And neither than you, in fact you probably know less given your statements.

"highly doubt any version of Abrams has used ceramics after use of DU" - INB has always, always supplied ceramics for the Abrams. With BRL-1/2, with HAP, and soon with NGAP. There is absolutely nothing even suggesting otherwise, other than biases, of course.

max steel wrote:Can you compare Merkava-IV with its trophy defense with M1 ABRAMS and can RPG-30 bust Merkava-IV ?

Trophy has receievd upgrades that might it capable of engaging multiple targets within a very short period of time; it could, and would, deal with the RPG-30. Even Arena-3 could, technically, engaging the decoy and real munition.

RPG-30 could probably penetrate the glacis or LFP of a Merkava 4, but there's no way it could actually reach the crew compartment (because it is front engined). The side hull armor would be vulnerable, because it is said to be ~100-150 mm thick depending on the location. Rear hull armor is actually really, really thick, I doubt it could be penetrated by a -30.

As for the turret and roof - No, unless it finds a low thickness area of which there are a few.

ohk so it means you need proper anti tank weapons only to bust any tank including israelis merkava . After Hezbollah encounter with MerkavaIV back in 2006 we haven't seen it much in action . Tank wasn't destroyed but i read it was damaged . I don't know why RPG-30 was hyped then  

Mike E wrote:Thanks in advance...

And neither than you, in fact you probably know less given your statements.

"highly doubt any version of Abrams has used ceramics after use of DU" - INB has always, always supplied ceramics for the Abrams. With BRL-1/2, with HAP, and soon with NGAP. There is absolutely nothing even suggesting otherwise, other than biases, of course.

Of course i can't but i wasn't claiming exclusiveness for armor composition like you did and denied T-90A the use of ceramics and is nothing else but a T-72B armor composition...

Based on your own statements you seem not to be less biased than anyone else.

Mike E wrote:Trophy has receievd upgrades that might it capable of engaging multiple targets within a very short period of time; it could, and would, deal with the RPG-30. Even Arena-3 could, technically, engaging the decoy and real munition.



As for the turret and roof - No, unless it finds a low thickness area of which there are a few.

That has first to be proven if Trophy can engage in such a short period of time to intercept the RPG-30. They have claimed it but so far the RPG-30 wasn't exported not even in russian service for a long time.

RPG-30 could probably penetrate the glacis or LFP of a Merkava 4, but there's no way it could actually reach the crew compartment (because it is front engined).

And that argument fails again, it does not matter for the dozens of time. If the engine is dead, the tank is dead. Mission accomplished.

Werewolf wrote:Of course i can't but i wasn't claiming exclusiveness for armor composition like you did and denied T-90A the use of ceramics and is nothing else but a T-72B armor composition...

Based on your own statements you seem not to be less biased than anyone else.

Mike E wrote:Trophy has receievd upgrades that might it capable of engaging multiple targets within a very short period of time; it could, and would, deal with the RPG-30. Even Arena-3 could, technically, engaging the decoy and real munition.



As for the turret and roof - No, unless it finds a low thickness area of which there are a few.

That has first to be proven if Trophy can engage in such a short period of time to intercept the RPG-30. They have claimed it but so far the RPG-30 wasn't exported not even in russian service for a long time.

RPG-30 could probably penetrate the glacis or LFP of a Merkava 4, but there's no way it could actually reach the crew compartment (because it is front engined).

And that argument fails again, it does not matter for the dozens of time. If the engine is dead, the tank is dead. Mission accomplished.

How again did I "claim exclusiveness for armor composition" for the T-90A, like you assert? 

Once again; there's no evidence suggesting the T-90A did use ceramics, and in fact, it would be an odd decision given the slope profile of the Glacis.

This picture looks to prove my point;


It shows that the vehicle uses NERA, because of the armors' deformation. You can see a decent amount of spacing, which indicates the NERA sections have been spent (there's no room in the glacis for large spacing mind you).

This picture is of a different arrangement (1987);


But it gives you an idea of how little room there would be for spacing, and how the metal sections could deform. 

No evidence for it + pictures proving it doesn't = T-90A doesn't use ceramics in the glacis.

Trophy received an update specifically to improve response times. If Arena-3 can already....then Trophy with an update certainly can. 

If the engine is dead, the tank can still fire its' main gun, the tank can still fire machine guns, the tank can still communicate with other units, the tank can still support a crew... That's "mission accomplished"? 

Mike E wrote:

Werewolf wrote:Of course i can't but i wasn't claiming exclusiveness for armor composition like you did and denied T-90A the use of ceramics and is nothing else but a T-72B armor composition...

Based on your own statements you seem not to be less biased than anyone else.

Mike E wrote:Trophy has receievd upgrades that might it capable of engaging multiple targets within a very short period of time; it could, and would, deal with the RPG-30. Even Arena-3 could, technically, engaging the decoy and real munition.



As for the turret and roof - No, unless it finds a low thickness area of which there are a few.

That has first to be proven if Trophy can engage in such a short period of time to intercept the RPG-30. They have claimed it but so far the RPG-30 wasn't exported not even in russian service for a long time.

RPG-30 could probably penetrate the glacis or LFP of a Merkava 4, but there's no way it could actually reach the crew compartment (because it is front engined).

And that argument fails again, it does not matter for the dozens of time. If the engine is dead, the tank is dead. Mission accomplished.

How again did I "claim exclusiveness for armor composition" for the T-90A, like you assert? 

Once again; there's no evidence suggesting the T-90A did use ceramics, and in fact, it would be an odd decision given the slope profile of the Glacis.

This picture looks to prove my point;


It shows that the vehicle uses NERA, because of the armors' deformation. You can see a decent amount of spacing, which indicates the NERA sections have been spent (there's no room in the glacis for large spacing mind you).

This picture is of a different arrangement (1987);


But it gives you an idea of how little room there would be for spacing, and how the metal sections could deform. 

No evidence for it + pictures proving it doesn't = T-90A doesn't use ceramics in the glacis.

Trophy received an update specifically to improve response times. If Arena-3 can already....then Trophy with an update certainly can. 

If the engine is dead, the tank can still fire its' main gun, the tank can still fire machine guns, the tank can still communicate with other units, the tank can still support a crew... That's "mission accomplished"? 

OMG... of course the glacis does not use ceramics, there is no tank that uses such armor composition for its hull, only and exclusively for turret.

And if a tank is a mobility kill, crew usually bails out, they panic, everyone would panic in such a situation. A sitting duck that can't maneuver is a dead duck, yes Mission accomplished. If a sitting duck shows that the occupants are still alive who do you think has the better chances of completley fucking the other up?

Ugh, lol? Seems to me like the Abrams and Leopard 2 would both use ceramics in the hull and turret. Heck, the Leo Revo. uses ceramics in the side skirt panels now.

In regards to your second statement, you're going 100% off of speculation and opinion. Maybe you'd "bail out and panic", doesn't mean they would. Leaving the tank would be the worst thing to do, if surrounded.

T-90A's probably doesn't use ceramics either, it is said to be NERA as well. That doesn't mean it cant.

Mike E wrote:Ugh, lol? Seems to me like the Abrams and Leopard 2 would both use ceramics in the hull and turret. Heck, the Leo Revo. uses ceramics in the side skirt panels now.

In regards to your second statement, you're going 100% off of speculation and opinion. Maybe you'd "bail out and panic", doesn't mean they would. Leaving the tank would be the worst thing to do, if surrounded.

T-90A's probably doesn't use ceramics either, it is said to be NERA as well. That doesn't mean it cant.

T-90A uses composite armor and NERA is just applique armor that was integrated into the armor, there is no such thing as NERA armor only.

Yes, there is. Technically it is called NxRA, AFAIK, but it acts just like NERA.

Tell me how a rubber/steel/spacing composite isn't...

Mike E wrote:There is no point in any of those upgrades.

There is.

Mike E wrote:A diesel engine would weigh more, and take up more space. In fact, it is estimated that the vehicle would gain no more range, because the fuel cells would have to be shrunken. Not only that, but the tank couldn't run of anything but diesel, and the engine would lose a massive amount of torque, which would undoubtedly slow it down. 

Sincerely, I disagree.

Gas turbin engine only has high effeciency in high level of working. In low level of working, the effeciency drastically decreases and fuel consumption drastically increases.

Tanks not always run on maximum speed. There are instances that they have to move at medium speed, or low speed. And Abrams's gas turbin will become a disaster.

People only use gas turbin when they hadn't manage to develop a strong diesel engine yet. T-80 gas turbin was used but didn't last for very long. Today Russia and Ukraina have de facto abandoned gas turbin due to the fact that they all have strong diesel engine.

Not only that, but the tank couldn't run of anything but diesel

Armata, T-72, T-80 and T-90 diesel engine can use several kinds of fuel.

A diesel engine would weigh more, and take up more space. In fact, it is estimated that the vehicle would gain no more range, because the fuel cells would have to be shrunken.

T-72, T-80, T-90, T-84, Armata engines have higher [[power : volume]] ratio than Abrams. Put 3 6TD engine together they will be as big as one Abrams gas turbin, but totally they will have 3000-4000hp compared with 1500 hp of Abrams.



Armata engine has only 1/2 the height of Abrams gas turbin. But it has 1500hp and can run with multifuel, from diesel to ethanol.

And by the way there will be 1800hp Armata engine.

http://in.sputniknews.com/russia/20150925/1015823565.html

Mike E wrote:Same with spaced armor, which just makes the vehicle that much larger.

Larger but not heavier. ERA and spaced armour is created to significantly reduce the penetration power of the projectiles without significantly increase the tank's weight and armour.

And by the way I prefer ERA and spaced armour rather than DU.

Mike E wrote:

higurashihougi wrote:And Abrams turret bustle is thin...

Well, certainly for the roof. The sides are equal to what the rest of the turret is, so close to 400 mm in thickness. The rear is probably thin.

The side armour of ammunition is quite thicker than top and rear, but not very thick. B41 aka RPG-7 put a hole in it.



And even if it is thick, it will cost a significant additional weight and material. Meanwhile since T-64/72/80/90 put the ammunition in the hull, below the turret, it saves up a lot of weight, and the ammo is less exposed.

Mike E wrote:Tungsten is great, but it needs to be an alloy to have acceptable ballistic performance, which effectively means it will end off being less dense.

Density of Vonfram is only slightly higher than uranium. But vonfram is tough, hard and heat resistant, meanwhile DU is soft and has lower melting point. When the penetrator collides with the target, the high energy of the collision can significantly increase the temperature of the penetrator, it can melt or increase the volume of the penetrator, and when the volume increases => contact size increases => pressure decreases => penetrating power decreases.

So that means, the penetrator with very high melting point provides significant advanrages. Vonfram's melting point is 3422 degree Celsius, significantly greater than uranium (1132 degree). Meanwhile Uranium carbide ceramic is heat resistant, but then the density is lesser.

The greatest advantages of DU is the price. DU is cheap and very available, while vonfram is very expensive.

Ukrane Arm Security Report 2015 - Photo
09.27.2015 23:11:19

More Here: http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/Modern/20150922/








Nice tank missle

That invented parasitic language hurts my eyes, that Latin i and genuine russian cyrillic words next to this inventions, just absurd.

higurashihougi wrote:There is.

Gas turbin engine only has high effeciency in high level of working. In low level of working, the effeciency drastically decreases and fuel consumption drastically increases.

Tanks not always run on maximum speed. There are instances that they have to move at medium speed, or low speed. And Abrams's gas turbin will become a disaster.

People only use gas turbin when they hadn't manage to develop a strong diesel engine yet. T-80 gas turbin was used but didn't last for very long. Today Russia and Ukraina have de facto abandoned gas turbin due to the fact that they all have strong diesel engine.

Armata, T-72, T-80 and T-90 diesel engine can use several kinds of fuel.

T-72, T-80, T-90, T-84, Armata engines have higher [[power : volume]] ratio than Abrams. Put 3 6TD engine together they will be as big as one Abrams gas turbin, but totally they will have 3000-4000hp compared with 1500 hp of Abrams.



Armata engine has only 1/2 the height of Abrams gas turbin. But it has 1500hp and can run with multifuel, from diesel to ethanol.

Larger but not heavier. ERA and spaced armour is created to significantly reduce the penetration power of the projectiles without significantly increase the tank's weight and armour.

And by the way I prefer ERA and spaced armour rather than DU.

The side armour of ammunition is quite thicker than top and rear, but not very thick. B41 aka RPG-7 put a hole in it.



And even if it is thick, it will cost a significant additional weight and material. Meanwhile since T-64/72/80/90 put the ammunition in the hull, below the turret, it saves up a lot of weight, and the ammo is less exposed.

Density of Vonfram is only slightly higher than uranium. But vonfram is tough, hard and heat resistant, meanwhile DU is soft and has lower melting point. When the penetrator collides with the target, the high energy of the collision can significantly increase the temperature of the penetrator, it can melt or increase the volume of the penetrator, and when the volume increases => contact size increases => pressure decreases => penetrating power decreases.

So that means, the penetrator with very high melting point provides significant advanrages. Vonfram's melting point is 3422 degree Celsius, significantly greater than uranium (1132 degree). Meanwhile Uranium carbide ceramic is heat resistant, but then the density is lesser.

The greatest advantages of DU is the price. DU is cheap and very available, while vonfram is very expensive.

Like....what? 

Which is why the US has added APU's and advanced fuel management controllers to the AGT-1500. Sure it will still consume more fuel than a diesel at lower speeds, but not by a whole lot. 

Actually, it is kind of funny....because the M1's engine generates the most torque below maximum RPM, so at lower speeds, it will be faster to accelerate if needed. And in regards to efficiency, look above. 

US has had multiple successful diesels before, during, and after the Abrams' development cycle. The decision to use a turbine was mostly political, but it had advantages as well. 

Any of the large diesels can run other fuels; at significantly reduced power and high fuel consumption. It also doesn't help the their ECM's wouldn't be optimized for other fuels. All while turbines can basically run anything that is flammable at little to no consequence. Heck, the old Turbine car of the 1960's ran on perfume.

HP/volume is far too generalized in this case. The AGT-1500 has a higher hp/weight than all but the A-85-3A, torque higher than all but the -3A, and in reality; is smaller than the diesel rumored to replace it. 

Don't forget; I'm not comparing the AGT to Russian diesels, I'm comparing it to the MTU series engine that *would* replace it.

Spaced armor still adds weight and size; because it is still armor. In the case of the M1A2; its' armor is already massively thick, so there simply is no room for spacing, unless you are suggesting they lower the actual armor thickness.

ERA covering the front of an Abrams would add another 3 tonnes, or more. 

It is estimated to be 400 mm, which is obviously thick for turret and bustle side armor. It getting penetrated by an RPG doesn't change the thickness.

Ammunition isn't exposed in the hull of a T-64/T-72? lol, what about all the ammunition cook-offs? The only way hull-storage can be successful, is if it is completely isolated and protected ala Armata. 

Tungsten alloys are a better form of armor than DU, sure, but that's not what I'm talking about. In sheer density, DU comes out on top.

Mike E wrote:Ammunition isn't exposed in the hull of a T-64/T-72? lol, what about all the ammunition cook-offs? The only way hull-storage can be successful, is if it is completely isolated and protected ala Armata. 

I never say that you cannot hit T-xx ammo. Yes, you can hit the ammo of T-xx, of course. But it is less exposed in T-xx than in Western tanks. Put it in the hull, covered by many things, less likely to be hit...

People has been finding many ways to reduce the impact of ammo explosion. But still, the ammo is something should be covered and hidden as much as possible.