(And yes, I have a plane on U.S even though it’s against my moral code as an exception, a desperate attempt to make the lineup more competitive.)
(And yes, I have completely given up and abandoned France for some time. Until Leclerc’s armor is fixed and its missing spall liners are added, it’s just not worth it for me.)
Today I learned, you can only destroy a tank by exploding its fuel and ammo. Remember that tanks can be disabled and abandoned OR destroyed by other means.
Also, yeah. Vehicles get destroyed in combat. So?
Also, in the time that 10 Abrams were destroyed, over 360 russian tanks were.
Also, both fuel and ammo are compartmentalized, so that explosions don’t really affect the crew compartment. I know it’s hard to understand, but that’s how it works.
The M1’s that are being lost in Ukraine aren’t being knocked out through their composite armour.
They’re being knocked out by mines, FPV drones and artillery strikes. These types of weapons do not strike the vehicle where the heaviest armour is located.
Thus it does not matter if they feature export composite armour or not.
No chance, they already put a stop to SEP V4, and I think due to design flaws that is as far as modification allows, since US army are seeing high weight affecting maneuverability on the battlefield and a couple of Ukrainian reported Abrams being stuck.
Was recently reading an Army Science Board Paper. I don’t feel as though the army is particularly pleased with the M1A2 SEP v3 as it stands right now.
The paper certainly did not have many kind words to say regarding the M1A2 SEP v3’s weight:
I mean Royal Army already had this concern, Challengers are so heavy that their suspension couldn’t take it, so unless in operation they will not fully load fuel, ammunition or addition armour. I wonder if further upgrades to ABRAMS is possible.
Yep It would be possible if they could replace its main composite armor with lighter one. Metal foam could be another choice in composite as it is lighter but still has enough protection like steel.
With heavy armor replace then they would just slap advance APS on it and call it a day.
All that while they fielding Abrams X as a replacement (Abrams X does well addressing weight problems on Abrams series.)
I would expect M1E3/ M1A3 to end up like Leclerc SXXI in terms of mass reduction. It might end up about as heavy as M1A2 base or M1A1, but the percent of total mass dedicated to armor will be higher.
Contrary to some agendas being pushed here, there is a significant amount of “dead weight” that the M1E3/M1A3 can be rid of from just heavy internal modifications.
Metal foam is very uncertain tech as large shaped charge projectile will be able to pass through even more easily in comparison to nera, which is the more likely scenario IRL, such as HJ10 and 9M133.
I would have thought they will try and use new composite material and try and cut weight, but overall it requires huge work like a redesign to do much, and I don’t think US have too much budget on the army, especially if they want to go ahead with ABRAMS X.