Discrepancy between 1 and 3 tones is present because i’ve calculated it for edge cases, there is no ballistic reason to use less than 4 cm of uranium inside the armor, and there is no reason to go higher than 12 cm. 12cm seems kinda unrealistic (mostly because the backplate behind is 10cm thick).
As a material engineer i’d use around 6cm of uranium in 3 layers 2 cm thick each. Inbetween of those layers i’d use something softer, copper and steel, aluminium maybe, with steel casing to prevent the radiation exposure of the crew despite the NBC and Spall liners. (yeah it would be present, in Mrads but still, better safe than sorry). This casette would be 12-16cm thick, would be inserted right before the main armor and plating inside would be angled 90 degrees to the existing NERA filler. I don’t have ansys to check it but should give around 540-600mm of KE protection.
Weight reduction, savings, and trade has always been a part of Abrams development.
“While every vehicle is designed to have a space, weight and power (SWaP) margin for incremental improvements, recent up- grades made to the Abrams M1A2 SEPv2 have left little margin for future improve- ments. To alleviate these SWaP constraints, the Army launched the Abrams engineer- ing change proposal (ECP) 1 program, which is designed to buy back SWaP by re- designing and modernizing many elements of the tank.”
Older examples.:
https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/9705/montgomery-9705.html
https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm
" Changes to the M1A2 Abrams Tank contained in the System Enhancement Program (SEP) and “M1A2 Tank FY 2000” configuration are intended to improve lethality, survivability, mobility, sustainability and provide increased situational awareness and command & control enhancements necessary to provide information superiority to the dominant maneuver force. The Abrams Tank and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle are two central components of the dominant maneuver digital force.System Enhancement Program upgrades are intended to:
- improve target detection, recognition and identification with the addition of two 2nd generation FLIRs.
- incorporate an under armor auxiliary power unit to power the tank and sensor suites.
- incorporate a thermal management system to provide crew and electronics cooling.
- increase memory and processor speeds and provide full color map capability.
- provide compatibility with the Army Command and Control Architecture to ensure the ability to share command & control and situational awareness with all components of the combined arms team.
Additional weight reduction, embedded battle command, survivability enhancement, signature management, safety improvement, and product upgrade modifications to the M1A2 will comprise the “M1A2 Tank FY 2000” configuration fielded to units of the digital division beginning in FY 2000."
Notice “Titanium Components*.”
Doesn’t take much to piss of American mains. Just show them that life is not like a Hollywood movie and you can’t win all the time. That should do the trick.
I think Call of Duty has more influence on the kids these days.
I wonder what they are firing at the M1 to test the Armour currently. It has to be far in excess of the latest and greatest form Russia presumably.
Of course, we possible have an issue there. We are presuming that the M1 is even designed to go into battle with another major Nation now. It’s changed from my Late Cold war era. Be interested in the Armour testing stage. I know how it used to be done but it was a long time ago.
Well, considering they are being tailored for Poland and Taiwan in export variants, I’d imagine they assume the possibility of them fighting potential opposing armor from threat nations.
But even the Brits are making changes to the Chally. Do you think the MoD is going to ever try producing more tanks, or do you think they will acquire them from abroad? Do you think Britain will even try to grow its tank fleet again?
I would expect the M829A3/4 and the latest TOW and Hellfire.
That is a very good question and quite a big one a couple of years ago. Much noise was made about the fact UK tanks had to be home grown. Odd because very little else seems to be and there was suggestion of an outcry over buying the M1 over developing a homegrown Chally 3.
The UK army is dwindling at an alarming rate and many of the development centers are long gone.
We had RSRE in my town which was where night vison was basically invented for the UK and tanks were prepped for foreign sales or battle. All gone now it’s a housing estate.
Trouble is “New” has many meanings when it comes to the UK and industry.
I can see the UK Government buying the M1 citing development costs and value for money to the public.
Big issue is where abouts in the M1 can you fit a boiling vessel?
nah leo would be more likely
I would have thought so as a tank man but the Brits being what they are, Could the UK Government get away with a German tank for the British Army? Banging on about WW2 is a national pastime still.
It’s going to need some external stowage. Brits like to carry their clobber :)
Might also be easier to get tanks from the EU. Logistics wise. Less distances, parts and experts are closer.
I totally agree but this is the country that voted to leave the EU, cutting all its links with its trading partners over a false sense of jingoism.
The USA still have a very romantic place in the hearts of many of the Tory voters in the UK. The two world wars and one world cup mentality still very strong. Sounds like we are drifting off topic but believe me we are not, this really could be the reason for not going to Europe for the new MBT even if we should.
The work around might be building a foreign tank here under license…and fitting a boiling vessel.
some British opinions about Abrams
Yes I have read that and its interesting stuff. It’s an argument that has come before the chally 1 and 2 as well.
In actual fact back in my day they lent an M1 to be evaluated by the British Army (only for two days though I believe) about 1989 or 90.
Im struggling to remember the outcomes exactly, think easy access to the batteries was mentioned and the fact they were together. Superb gun sighting, aiming and firing was liked. Ease of operation was mentioned, like you could train a monkey to use an M1. Superb ease of mechanics and the fact they were found to be quite quiet inside and had nice seats.
I think the whines were lack of stowage inside and outside (surprisingly) a hand throttle as opposed to a peddle, mud collecting at the back and possibly throwing tracks and of course no boiling vessel. Open to correction there. Can’t remember what else. Long time ago.
I don’t think the Army themselves would have an issue with the M1 with a few changes.
