???
You do realize if you take more than 22 rounds with the Abrams, the rest gets stored in the right-hand side of the turret?
Those rounds can be detonated if the right turret cheek of the Abrams gets lol-penned, which goes for 3BM42 (the most common round for Russia at ~10.7), 3BM60, L26, L27A1, and of course 120mm DM33:
This can’t be ignored.
The Abrams getting 6 extra rounds for its left-cheek first-stage is nice, but 17 rounds of APFSDS (from my experience) is enough in most cases anyways.
If you were hull-down, you would be better off having that extra ammo in the hull too.
Even if you were to only take 3/4 rounds extra with the M1 Abrams, I’d argue it has the same effect as the 3/4 extra rounds you may take into the the 2A4 – the enemy would just be gambling to one-shot them or (if you already transfered those shells into the first stage) only take out their loader and engine (and maybe the turret basket if you are lucky). At least with the Abrams you would get their gunner and commander (and maybe their turret basket).
I’m surprised you don’t know this.
Spalling number of fragments, penetration, and damage for long-rod penetrators depend on residual penetration of the round.
A shell that has 400mm of RHAe penetration against a piece of armour worth around 400mm RHAe will penetrate but will effectively do no spalling (<50mm of residual penetration):
However, a shell that has 583mm of RHAe penetration against that same piece of armour (worth around 400mm RHAe) will do significantly more spalling (~183mm of residual penetration):
So, the spalling depends on the round’s penetration and the armour it has to go through (which makes sense).
It’s why it seems like APFSDS rounds spall much better with side-aspect and rear-aspect shots.
Lucky you I guess?
Now there will be even more with the introduction of the Terminators, 30mm Freccia, and Ajax.
Ah, so you weren’t talking about fuel tanks absorbing the APFSDS. You were talking about the extra armour behind said fuel tanks.
Incredible. The outer edges (to be fair both are roughly 30% of the LFP) of the giant LFP of the Abrams can stop the second weakest round at 10.7.
Good for it I guess?
Though I’ll give it credit that it does reduce the spall of 3BM42 to that of <50mm of residual penetration:
The 2A4s and Abrams have good gun depression (9 degrees and 10 degrees respectively). The LFP weakspot of the 2A4 is weaker than that of the Abrams’, but its LFP is less pronounced than the Abrams’, and the Abrams’ weakspot gets transferred up to the turret ring, which is much harder to hide than the LFP of the Leopard’s.
Its hull armour is definitely better than that of the 2A4 – I’m not denying that.
But why would you shoot the LFP when you almost always can go for the center mass of its massive, unvarying turret ring though? You quite literally don’t have to account for what angle you’re shooting the weakspot as the crew placement is fixed, and you’re most likely going to get the breech / turret ring / engine if it somehow doesn’t kill all the crew anyways.
Even with the second worst shell at 10.7 (120mm DM23), you can generate so much spall because the Abrams’ turret ring only has ~68mm of RHA:
Anything beyond 468mm of raw RHA penetration (such as 120mm DM33 / L26) can produce maximum spalling, which is when the residual penetration is at 400mm:
But as you can tell already, it’s already overkill.
Want to do the same against the 2A4?
