The M60A2 wasn't a bad design in principle. It was simply betrayed by the fact that it's component parts were immature technologies that were ahead of their time and not thoroughly tested at the start of mass production. Had it received an improvement model, this would have been rectified by fixing the combustible cases, updating the Shillelagh and associated fire control software and adding a 20mm secondary weapon. In the future I think this configuration of low profile turret with a gun-launcher system will prevail, but with a coaxial autocannon and ability to fire in high arcs for NLOS and aerial engagements.
yeah
Gay little yeahnagger
UwU
the gun launcher was a dumb idea. just strap on some tows if you want guided missiles
At the time gun launched shit was the new hotness and the Soviets were perceived to be ahead on it. That's why the system we got was rushed as an "answer" to the Soviets, but then the whole concept turned out to be a meme. Much like the Mig31
>the gun launcher was a dumb idea. just strap on some tows if you want guided missiles
Gun/launchers have 1 advantage over external pods, and that's reloading without breaking NBC protection. Whether that's worth the cost, I dunno
The new Panther can have reloads to the ATGM/Loitering munition launcher from under NBC cover. It's an isolated part of the turret.
its not just reloading under NBC protection
its reloading without exposing the loaders to fire
most ATGMs are one-shot attacks because you would need to leave the vehicle to reload, which is not practical in combat
even the bradley, which can reload in the field, is still an awkward process
which requires rotating the turret around and then depressing the launcher into the compartment
theres a reason why the russians never stapled a missile tube on top of their tanks but did eventually develop gun-launched missiles to fire out their main gun
which will probably be the future GL-ATGMs like the israeli LAHAT that can be fired out of existing smoothbore guns
>t.Gets killed by a GLATGM from 5km away
>t. has no ammo load and inaccurate cannon that needs ATGMs to hit anything
And GLATGMs are too weak to kill anything larger than a concrete firehole or an APC anyway.
Get educated retard
Get fucked vatnik shitter and your cope weaponry.
>Anyone that disagrees with me is a vatnik
>Every GLATGM is ineffective because i think so
You are mind broken, take a walk champ.
I'm right and you're wrong and stupid. You're a vatnik and deserve to be shit on.
>N-no u
Retard
>900mm of pen isnt enough
Retard
900mm of pen isn't enough when any modern tank sports upwards of 1000mm of armor against shaped charges.
>Every MBT has 1000m of armor on every angle of the vehicle
Just stop
>my anti-tank weapon can't actually fight tanks, it needs special conditions and situations to be effective
I accept your concession.
Every ATGM used in Ukraine bar a Kornet has less pen than 900mm. Look how many tanks have been lost to ATGMs. Shut the fuck up and get back to war thunder you literal retard.
Every tank in Ukraine is over 3 decades old and is facing mines and top attack ATGMs which don't care about armor.
Most tanks in Ukraine are T-72 derivatives and they barely have 500 mm RHA frontal armor vs shaped charge. Besides ERA. But if it's tandem charge and counters ERA it's over.
Yeah, I'm counting the T-90s as over 30 years old because the last time their armor scheme was updated was in 1985.
>Every tank is 3 decades old
Better tell that to the countless Saudi Abrams that got rekt by ATGMs with less pen than a 9M119M. You also shifted the goal posts from not being able to kill an APC to cant kill any modern MBT through its frontal arc, cope more.
>Facing top attack ATGM and mines
I specifically said lost to ATGMs, should have been more specofic and said not including a Javelin. Given you are a turbo autist back peddling it wouldnt have mattered.
You are being disingenuous and i suspect you havent got a clue about ATGMs or there effectiveness and clearly you assume every tank faces the eneny tank dead on so only the frontal arc can be hit.
Tl:dr GLATGMs has more range than SABOT and kill just as easy as the Kornet/TOW you cannot refute this but will try because autism.
>Better tell that to the countless Saudi Abrams that got rekt by ATGMs
cope.
>You also shifted the goal posts from not being able to kill an APC to cant kill any modern MBT through its frontal arc
ATGM that can't kill a tank without flanking is worthless. There was no goalpost moving.
>I specifically said lost to ATGMs
You've got no stats to back that up. Also, russians being retarded precludes using them as any kind of example.
>Given you are a turbo autist back peddling
Cry me a river, naggermonkey.
>GLATGMs has more range than SABOT
Only if you're inside a worthless soviet tank.
>and kill just as easy as the Kornet/TOW
That's a lie that you made up to cope with using worthless tech.
Didnt read
Concession accepted.
has more range than SABOT
>Only if you're inside a worthless soviet tank.
Can Sabot or HEAT hit anything at 6.8km like we've seen GLATGMS do in Ukraine
>Can Sabot or HEAT hit anything at 6.8km
Why not? If there is such a rarity as a lucky long range ATGM shot then there can be a lucky APFSDS shot too.
Can soviet optics even see a target at 6.8km?
Except a ATGM's hit rate is >90% anything but the very short range.
standard rounds aren't accurate enough at super long ranges and it's more luck
Longest we've seen Russians post videos of is firing HE/HEAT at over 4km and GLATGMS at targest over 6km.
>Except a ATGM's hit rate is >90% anything
Too bad GLATGMs can't penetrate shit, can't fire on the move, take up more space and are more expensive.
>Russians post videos
fuck off you fucking retard. imagine looking up to fucking vatnaggers.
>GLATGMs can't penetrate shit
wut
>Can't fire on the move
retard
>take up more space
A 125mm GLATGM that fits inside a T-64/72/80 autoloader takes up more space then a APFSDS/HE/HEAT round that fits in the same exact space? Complete moron
>more expensive
The only fucking valid point you have
> imagine looking up to fucking vatnaggers.
Hurr durr why would I, someone who is a milautist on a weapon try and look around for inside videos that show of the fire controls of vehicles. Maybe /misc/ is more for you.
>wut
yes, can't pen shit, can't fire on the move, don't improve hit probability if fired from a normal tank and take up more space unless they're absolutely tiny and even more worthless.
>Hurr durr why would I, someone who is a milautist on a weapon try and look around for inside videos that show of the fire controls of vehicles
nagger, don't pretend you're not a braindead vatnagger shill that mindlessly fellates garbage russian tech.
You just repeated yourself like a broken record because you are dumb fucking nagger
Every GLATGM is ineffective because shaped charges depend on the cone diameter for penetration and are incapable of keeping up with modern tank defenses.
The only """GLATGM""" that could work was the XM943, designed and rejected by US for being completely unnecessary and pointless against any current and future threats.
Needs 3 layers of ERA, a 10 inch turret skirt, a dual .50 and four stinger missiles. Easy to do.
Otherwise tank is fine.
Starship with the armor upgrades from M60A3 RISE would be kino.
Anon thats called ERA
what does the A in ERA stand for anon?
she's an absolute fuck house
Christ...is that a fucking lamp?
It's an infrared projector for the night vision system. Shit used to be a lot bigger.
It's the AN/VSS-1 Xenon Searchlight. It had both visible light and IR mode, switched by rotating an IR filterinto the optical path, and some narrow/wide beam selection. Similar in concept to Soviet Luna IR searchlight, but bigger, heavier, more versatile and packing significantly more power. Old tanker types on the internet claim it could damage your eyesight in either visible or IR modes and even heat up canned rations.
Typically used in pairs, one tank illuminating, other firing, frequent position changes a must, but you could also bounce the beam off of low clouds and illuminate a large area etc.
Fun fact: what spurred the development of the 'moonlight' gen1 night vision in US was the observation during the Hungarian revolution that soviet tanks lacked IR searchlights, leading the observers to believe soviets had the night vision tech that doesn't require illumination, a "night vision gap" that lead to the rapid development of the image intensification tubes that remain the basis of even the newest night vision devices today. Meanwhile, the soviet tanks without headlights turned out to miss them simply due to the negligence and disrepair.
sounds like the time they thought the Mig-25 foxbat was a supe fast, super maneuverable fighter due to its massive wings
kickstarting an arms race that lead to the F-15 that could outfly any potential soviet next-gen fighter
but it turned out the giant wings on the mig-25 was because it was just very heavy
Entire cold war is just a story of US "uncovering" a "gap", putting money into fixing it and then discovering that the gap wasn't real in the first place.
There was a tank gap, night vision gap, missile gap, fighter gap, cruiser gap, another missile gap and so on, and i'm not even getting into the 80s when the MIC had become so completely unhinged they started inventing new soviet tech on their own out of existing projects just to secure more funding.
It worked though
That it did. The 80s were a bit too much for me, though, particularly because they had the gall to make the most graceful and elegant depictions of soviet weapons to be seen in the process. They don't deserve this and i'm quite salty about it.
The Soviets were ahead in some niche areas like composite armor, but I don't recall ever hearing about armor gap.
It was during the 50s when US were fearing soviets rushing their positions with masses of IS-3s that never materialized. This was the primary reason for trying to field their own heavy tanks and developing HEAT-FS tank ammunition that was specifically designed to defeat that.
>HEAT-FS tank ammunition that was specifically designed to defeat that.
in the only meeting between IS-3s and pattons, they found out
>IS-3s had deep gashes in them from HEAT, but didnt penetrate
>but it didnt matter, since the IS-3s got destroyed by flank shots since they were too blind to react
Well M431 or whatever T number it was called in the 50s was specifically designed to defeat the IS-3 and improved the fusing angles, velocity and penetration over the initial HEAT-FS - M348.
So what youre saying is weapons development is the result of a cuck/humiliation complex on the part of the MIC
Just trying to stay ahead of their foe.
Gen 1 night vision required an infrared light source to work. Invisible to the naked eye but a big ass spotlight under nods.
yeah (i agree)
MBT-70 was the upgrade OP. and it still sucked.
Honestly the big fuckoff HE/Hesh would be pretty good now in modern Ukraine war setting to just demolish fortifications
yeah a bmp 3
What I find curious is how "Soviet" the design of the starship and mbt70 are, with low profile, autoloader and gun launched missiles.
The pentagon of the time was concerned about a possible tech gap. That's why these concepts were explored.
Considering these gun-launched missiles appeared long before soviet ones did, T-64 with its autoloader was virtually unknown the only thing remains is the low profile, which is not really that original or soviet in the first place.
Convergent design, same goals, same limitations, we just decided it was a bad idea.
The starship didn't have an autoloader. I agree it does seem very Soviet though in design.
Here you are
Finally, a tank for monke.
Fucking christ i cant imagine what it must be like to ride around in that thing. I feel like you could easily develop claustrophobia after a long enough period of time inside.
Akshually it's not worse than T-72. Both crew members (driver and gunner-commaner, two man crew) sit in the turret, and they have about same space as in T-72. Tank is lower height but there is no carousel under crew, autoloader is between crew members, so same height for crew seats.
Actually very cute vehicle concept. Not sure for tank but fo recon armor vehicle with height less than standing man can be very interesting.
The M551 and M60A2 had four man crews.
You left out the most Soviet thing of all:
>152mm cannon
Yeah (I disagree)
yeah (no opinion)
The Starship was too far ahead of its time.
Now, in 2023, the world is finally ready for the M1A3 Abrams Starship with autoloaded NLOS missile gun and integrated spotter drones. We will see over-the-horizon tank combat before 2040.
Wouldn't that be just a fancier self-designating SPG?
How would it self designate over the horizon?
>integrated spotting drones
I'M GONNA COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM
>assassinate the haters of the Starship
>give the high-ranking fans of the Starship more lobbying power
>let the technology mature, US tank doctrine now revolves around the 152mm gun-launcher
>9/11 is prevented as a result
Sir I have 5 hours in War Thunder I'd just shoot the capola and you're done!
>low profile turret
>high fire arcs
Is anyone gonna tell him?
It's unironically the most beautiful cold war tank ever made and I regularly make unironic actual ziggers seethe and rage with its big dick Shillelagh round penetrating their shitboxes easily.
I am reborn
Was that the version on the modified hull with adjustable hydro suspension? It was supposed to get a roof auto cannon too.
almost looks like AI art.
Russians followed a similar design concept with a BMP-3, except it actually works and is correctly designated as an IFV and not a tank
>except it actually works
Dont be obtuse, its not a good IFV, but its weaponry works for its intended role. The black hole that was the US obsession with barrel fired missiles singlehandedly set back US armour development by 20 years and resulted in the abomination that is the M60A2, the waste of space that is the M551, and the collapse of the MBT-70. If not for the rest of NATO, specifically the UK and Germany, US armour development wouldnt have caught up at all and they'd likely have been stuck with a 90mm unstabilised M60 with a coincidence rangefinder into the 1990s, and no M1, just this freakshit.
The M103 should have just been improved upon.
Yeah that was kind of theoretically fairly decent, but only strictly in a certain role-providing defensive fire support on the eastern front, but its reliability, range, and mobility were all awful. The L7105mm and British APDS with tungsten caps and later monolitihic tungsten penetrators were also able to perform, at the time, not too dissimilarly to the 120mm, and without having excessive fumes entering the turret, or needing 2 loaders firing at only 5 rounds per minute. The reasons it was moved away from were the same reason that the UK moved away from the very similar Conqueror (which actually also used a derivative of the same gun). The M60, which was a stopgap, did have its own problems, but with upgrades based on developments from the UK it does end up being much better.
Anglo countries seem like they have a weird trend of half assing a good concept then rushing it into production then just moving to a totally new design instead of just correcting a mostly good product after it's in service. The Chieftan is another good example. Middle Eastern countries just ordered a version with a laser rangefinder and a better engine which solved the majority of it's problems. Also the M103A2 that the US marines used fixed many of the problems of the earlier versions.
The Chieftain was actually the very first tank to include a laser rangefinder from the mk3 (1970), and it was a very revolutionary and advanced design for 1967. Reclined driver seat, regenerative steering, commander-gunner, 120mm rifled gun with a thermal sleeve, which only required one loader and could manage 10 rounds per minute, and monolithic tungsten APDS. Plus the mantletless turret, extreme angles and sloping, as well as armour thickness which gave it the best protected turret for an NATO MBT. Problem was that NATO issued a requirement for multifuel engines in 1957, so the UK cant use a petrol V8, so chieftain is rushed ahead with an unproven multifuel engine, and then this engine ends up being underpowered, unreliable, and an all-round fucking disaster. While NATO quickly and quietly ditches the multifuel requirement as a result.
What's wrong with the BMP-3? I think it's pretty smart to have a low velocity cannon on your ifv, and the thing is stupidly mobile, which seems to be the most important feature in contemporary warfare.
The low velocity cannon with an autoloader has a similar explosive carousel inside the vehicle to the soviet tanks and adds very little over the autocannon, cutting into its ammo capacity and internal space for the benefit of possibly taking on some fortifications that 30mm couldn't destroy. It was there because of the buerocratic insistence on having it there, same reason as why BMP-1 was still being produced after BMP-2 and in greater numbers despite being a shit outdated design.
BMP-3 is also worse for dismounts than BMP-1/2 because they have to climb over the engine and out of the hatch on top to get out, as the soviets couldn't manage to design it with a door in the back of it. Later on russians remade that thing so it could actually be used for troop transport in the "dragoon" version but that one never made it into production.
The fire control system is super outdated, basically a shitty stabilizer and a laser range finder with no ballistic computer or anything.
The armor also is shitty, only slightly improving the protection of the front with a spaced plate while the sides are still just as vulnerable as they were on the previous variants.
Basically, there's little good about it and all the hype comes from it being the newest, most expensive soviet IFV despite it actually improving on very little compared to the previous ones.
The 100mm is pretty handy for long range support fire though.
The penetration usually criples the tank though, so having them wait for the second shot doesn't seem to be a huge benefit. I guess we'll see after the Ukraine war if the crew survivability features result in significant improvements in crew retention.
>The 100mm is pretty handy for long range support fire though
30mm would have all the range you'd need it you designed it right, in a proper rigid mount and with proper tolerances that allow it to actually hit things at a distance. the only thing that would have more range is the ATGM but with how much size it takes up and how much it costs it was never viable for the soviets anyway and i doubt the soviet optics allow accurate fire at that range using anything anyway.
>The penetration usually criples the tank though
the point is to save you your crew so you don't have to spend months training a new one to pilot a tank. the trained crews and pilots are the biggest bottleneck in an attrition war, especially highly experienced and skilled ones.
The Chinese seem to think that having a mortar/low velocity cannon is more beneficial than an autocannon, especially as you can't use the latter for indirect fire. Also, usually when a tank gets penned even if some of the crew survives they tend to receive too many injuries to fight again.
This was with surviving mines right? That is pretty useful, but I am not sure it's worth the increase in vehicle height.
>The Chinese seem to think that having a mortar/low velocity cannon is more beneficial than an autocannon
the chinese are retarded.
>Also, usually when a tank gets penned even if some of the crew survives they tend to receive too many injuries to fight again.
You're talking out of your ass.
>That is pretty useful, but I am not sure it's worth the increase in vehicle height
One doesn't follow the other here. The increased height is there because the vehicles are designed to fit someone other than malnourished toddlers.
Autocannon is much better than a low velocity cannon for greater volume of fire at range faster and more accurately, autocannons are funnily enough also more effective against armoured targets with modern 30mm APDS and APFSDS, which can penetrate >100mm RHA at 1000m.
Losing the entire crew (and bearby unfortunates) in a fiery ball is very bad both for retaining trained manpower, retaining your population, and for morale both in the army and at home. A crew will often abandon the tank after a successful penetration, they may be wounded, one or two may die, but a 100% chance of being sent to the moon is not good. Similar story with IFVs, you want the majority of the passengers and crew to survive a mine or penetrating hit. You can accept one or two will die, but losing an entire squad is not a good outcome, and soviet vehicles dont really work towards mitigating this, especially as they're very cramped, have exciting ammo+fuel placements, and arent very easy to exit.
I don't doubt that an autocannon is better for long range firesupport, but I find it a bit hard to believe. Do you have any trials showing that? Furthermore, if that is the case why are Russians currently dragging t55s to the front as fire support vehicles instead of using their plentiful BMP2s?
Also, while you're right about crew retention, I do wonder how often partial crews manage to make it back home, instead of just being shot as they dismount, or getting captured.
>I guess we'll see after the Ukraine war if the crew survivability features result in significant improvements in crew retention.
We've already seen that in praises the survivors sing for Bradley after going through situation where there wouldn't be anyone left to listen to in a BMP.
An IFV has two roles:
1) Weapon platform to fight infantry
-Volume of Fire
-Accuracy of Fire/FCS+Range
-Ammunition capacity
-Ability to engage additional targets (other IFVs etc)
-Situational Awareness
2) APC
-Carry Capacity
-Speed
-Surviveability- Armour, likelihood of passengers surviving a hit, Ease of exit
So take the BMP3.
1) Weapon Platform:
Volume of Fire=good:
-low velocity 100mm-ok
-30mm autocannon-good
-3 machine guns-good
-8 ATGMs-good
Ammunition Capacity=good/adequate:
-40x100mm+8 ATGMs=good
-500x30mm=adequate
-2000x7.63(x3)=adequate
Accuracy of Fire=adequate for 1987, ok-ish currently:
-Partial tabiliser+LRF=good for 1987, but...
-No ballistic computer or targeting aids-bad
-Ballistic computer+auto track+crosswind sensor+thermal+full stabiliser+ CITV added from 2005 for BMP3M-decent currently
-Rate of fire of the 30mm is too high+poor manufacturing standards leading to irregular bore placement-which leads to severe gun wobble+innacuracy- very bad
-No GPS.
Ability to engage additional targets decent/somewhat inadequate:
-ATGMs (A-10)-decent for 1987, somewhat inadequate today vs modern tanks. Still effective vs older tanks+IFVs generally. Cannot reliably be used on the move, although can in theory (as proved in egypt trials).
-30mm AP-T decent for 1987, somewhat inadequate today, but still serviceable.
2)APC
Capacity-decent:
-7+3-decent
Speed-decent:
-72 km/h (road)
-45 km/h (off-road)-in comparison a warrior does 50 km/h.
Surviveability-Bad:
-Engine is in the back, crew have to climb over the engine at the back to get out, crew cannot just exit out of a door at the back. Ease of exit is poor.
-Passengers are akwardly located, with 2 on either side of the gunner, and 5 in the back.
-Aluminium construction, steel welded on over the front. Resistant to 30mm over front at range. Vulnerable to HMGs from the sides and rear. Vulnerable to HE, HEAT, Mines, bombs. Surviveability is overall low, some resistance from front.
*Additional to surviveability
-Carousel autoloader for unneccessary 100mm-bad
-stored ammo for unneccessary 100mm-bad
-no composite add-on armour-bad
-fuel tank in front of driver-actually an improvement over the bmp-1 and 2 tbf. And its self sealing.
-ERA very recently avaliable-debatable effectiveness for weight+single use.
It was a bad design in principle because what differentiates it from a normal M60, which itself was a stopgap tank which relied on heavy and incrimental upgrades to bring it up to standard, is the weapon system. And the weapon and guidance system were bad, therefore the tank variant based around it was bad. In addition to problems with all elements of both the missile and the guidance system, the ATGM couldnt be fired on the move, and using propellant charges to launch the missile out of the breech caused misfires, and the breech itself often wouldnt close properly. The number of missiles was also very limited, and the missile was extremely slow. What makes it a terrible tank, is the massive waste of not only money it represented, but also lost development. The US obsession with missiles contributed to the failure of the MBT-70 programme, and set back US conventional projectile development by 20 years. Theres a reason that the M60 uses a british gun, and that the M1 uses british design features, british armour and a german gun. If not for this and things like it, you'd have had the MBT-70, and probably apfsds in the 1970s.
>The US obsession with missiles contributed to the failure of the MBT-70 programme
MBT-70 had way worse issues than missiles. They could've easily scrapped the missile system entirely and just use regular ammo and this wouldn't have fixed half the issues with the tank. It was massively expensive and over budget, the design was lightened so much that the armor sucked, the tank gave the driver nausea, the german-designed autoloader worked poorly, the combustible ammo cases were poorly designed and prone to deformation and misfires, not to mention the turret-throwing potential similar to soviet tanks and the whole mess of metric-imperial conflicts that nearly made the US-German unified production meaningless and the tanks of each country incompatible. Most of these things probably could've been fixed with time and money but it's a good thing they dropped it. M1/Leopard ended up doing everything it could've done if it was fixed, for much cheaper and with fewer issues.
>and probably apfsds in the 1970s
M735 APFSDS was originally designed for the MBT-70 and was adapted to the 105mm caliber later on.
The success of the M1 was largely reliant on non-US programmes though. The M1 was able to use not only british chobham, but a proposed british design for using it, and benefit from earlier british developed technologies/designs such as the commander hunter-killer system and the reclined driver seat, plus it used the german smoothbore 120mm rather than any US designed gun. Really the M1 is less a US tank and more a NATO tank, whereas it should have been something more independently designed, if so much effort hadnt been pissed away into the shilleagh missile and the MBT-70, such as perhaps actual US composite instead of completely abandoning those silicone panels intended for the M60.
M735 APFSDS was developed in the late 70s and not as part of the MBT-70 project, which was cancelled in 1971. The germans were also responsible for the development of the conventional gun in the original programme.
Its true that there were a lot of issues with the MBT-70, including the idiotic metric-imperial difference, and shoving in too many unproved and new technologies would've probably fatally undone it. However the US refusal to use a conventional gun (or engine) is part of what really killed it as a project, if they'd gone with a conventional gun then they'd have probably been able to field an actual tank without the gigantic cost bloat, although its probably fortunate that they didnt, as it wasnt a very good design in the first place. What is impactful is that this project left the US reliant on the M60 for the foreseeable future, and this lack of conventional development during the MBT-70 programme involved the US putting theirs on pause from the 1960s through to the end of the programme. In addition to not pursuing armour programmes The only real benefit of US involvement in the programme is that the missile autism was actually finally abandoned.
>The M1 was able to use not only british chobham
I haven't actually seen any non-journo source stating that M1 actually used chobham. BRL armor for the M1 was designed in BRL, as the name implies.
>the commander hunter-killer system
This didn't appear until the M1A2 of the early 90s, not really characteristic of the M1 Abrams of the cold war.
>plus it used the german smoothbore 120mm rather than any US designed gun
M1 used M68 105mm cannon until M1A1.
>M735 APFSDS was developed in the late 70s and not as part of the MBT-70 project, which was cancelled in 1971
M735 was the projectile for the MBT-70 gun with very minor changes to it, essentially the same design. It was called XM578 back then.
> if they'd gone with a conventional gun then they'd have probably been able to field an actual tank without the gigantic cost bloat
the cost bloat is to blame on the hydropneumatic suspension and the electronics for the entire fire control more than anything, and missile control was just a part of it.
The gun was functional without the missile, even if it was needlessly large, bulky and heavy as the result.
>Chobham
Anon...BRL (Burlington) is a designation for Chobham...Chobham is the informal name for the armour (As thats where it was developed in the 1960s), of which Burlington is one type adapted for use by the US.
Although what is notable is that every M1 up until the M1A2 SEP V.2, including the M1A1 HC, has used the same basic chobham armour package for the hull as the original M1s in 1978 (~300-320mm vs KE), as well as the lack of any armour on the upper part of the upper glacis-which is only 38mm of RHA.
>Hunter-Killer
No, you're confusing it with CITV, although in a world where it didnt have hunter-killer, that would be pretty embarrassing. HK was standard on the Chieftains introduced in 1966, and had existed since the Conqueror in 1955.
>105
The 105 was a British gun anon, the smoothbore 120 was the German gun, neither are American. The run of using the 105 (1978-1985/6) was fairly limited compared to the 120mms, which are in use from 1985 to today. Although such a lag is notable considering that the Leo2 had a 120mm in 1979, and that the M1 was intended to have a 120mm and its turret was designed to accomodate it.
>M735
XM578 was the conventional projectile for the 152mm launcher. M735 was developed in the late 1970s for the 105 (long after the failure of the MBT-70). Before the M735 all US tanks used the L52.
>cost bloat
The hydropneumatic suspension is one of the few positive things to come out of it and was one of it's key features, yes that contributed to a lot of the costs, but the failure of a gun (plus the american engine) and its targeting systems was extremely significant, and the gun was outright bad and caused fundamental divergences with the German aims and design team. If the Americans had just gone with the german proposals (and not insisted on using metric values randomly), then they'd have had a workable tank.
>BRL (Burlington)
You're a fucking idiot. BRL stands fort Ballistic Research Laboratory, the place that developed and tested M1's armor arrays.
>every M1 up until the M1A2 SEP V.2, including the M1A1 HC, has used the same basic chobham armour package for the hull as the original M1s
wrong.
>~300-320mm vs KE
as if you could become even less credible by quoting RHA numbers for complex arrays.
>he lack of any armour on the upper part of the upper glacis-which is only 38mm of RHA
It's angled at like 85 degrees. There's no projectile that won't bounce from that.
>The 105 was a British gun anon
M68 is a US designed gun with a number of differences from the L7, which it is a derivative of.
>XM578 was the conventional projectile for the 152mm launcher
You're an idiot. XM578 IS the M735, with the tiniest of cosmetic changes.
>yes that contributed to a lot of the costs, but
It was literally the biggest driver of cost of the tank. You can screech about the gun and the engine but this won't change the fact that the issues with the tank came from elsewhere.
>If the Americans had just gone with the german proposals
Germans couldn't even get the autoloader to work right, lol. So much for their proposals.
>BRL
Wrong, how silly can you be? Burlington is Chobham, find a single source which claims that Chobham isnt used on the M1.
>Wrong
Wrong, go find a source to disprove me, the armour improvements have only been to the turret up to the SEP V.2, albeit addition of DU armour to the hull is only confirmed for the V.3. The RHA numbers are quoted by official documents as tested against long rod penetrators.
The US army confirmed that as of 2006 only five (5) M1A2 had DU armour in the hull, which were all tank school vehicles. https://imgur.com/RICBNmE
>wont bounce
A 125mm HE shell would blow it in anon, and modern apfsds actually will go through it.
>M68
British, yes.
>XM578
No, youre a spastic. XM578 was used in the launcher of the M60 and MBT-70. That is adaped in the late 70s to create a 105mm, it isnt the same.
>find a single source which claims that Chobham isnt used
Not how burden of proof works, you worthless retard.
>go find a source to disprove me
again, kys you disingenous shit.
>A 125mm HE shell would blow it in
no it won't.
>and modern apfsds actually will go through it
definitely won't.
>British, yes.
Retarded, yes.
>XM578 was used in the launcher of the M60 and MBT-70
And the projectile is nearly exactly the same. Are you so braindead that you cannot read?
Well you're the first person who has ever boldly contradicted every single fucking source in existence which says that the M1 uses chobham, so if perhaps you have a source for your profoundly individual enlightenment then nows the time to share it you blithering fucking dipstick.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/us-abrams-tanks-for-ukraine-will-lack-top-secret-armour-6h9jnlfk6
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1988/03/15/tougher-tank-armor-developed-by-pentagon/82ced69e-60e6-4279-a31d-2ff9cae33e1f/
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/armor-composite.htm
https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/chobham-armour-9781472855268/
I've posted two sources for frontal protection
and i'll post a third, which is from the Department of The Army, Request to Amed License SUB-1536. - ML060590665
>No it wont
>modern apfsds
It may stop an 80s apfsds, but do you unironically think that a modern >600mm pen apfsds wont go through a 38mm RHA plate? You really think that this is the case? Especially considering the Germans and Swedes didnt share your conclusions and actually uparmoured this part of the Leo 2 from 50mm HHA with 45mm of NERA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQHSlZfjbng (this represents a cold war penetrator like 3BM42)
>retarded yes
Adopted by all of NATO for 30 years including the US? Very retarded indeed.
>Projectile was the same
Well one was a 152mm and one was a 105mm, and it takes several years to actually develop the 105mm one.
>all some journo secondary sources
As expected from a spastic that doesan't know what BRL stands for.
notice how it doesn't fuse on the armor plate like you claimed? that's exactly the way it's supposed to work.
>do you unironically think that a modern >600mm pen apfsds wont go through a 38mm RHA plate?
Yes. It works the exact same way as the tank roof, has about the same thickness and angle - it simply bounces any projectile coming at it.
>Adopted by all of NATO for 30 years including the US?
M68 isn't brititsh you retarded spastic.
>Well one was a 152mm and one was a 105mm
Do you know what a saboted round is? Of course you don't, you worthless retard.
Secondary sources which quote military figures, what source, exactly, do you want? What source is good enough for you? And what source, exactly, do you have to contradict the universal acknowledgement that the US was given chobham armour and used it on the M1? It must be very special, considering you wont share it and you are the only one who has learned about it, as well as this big disinformation campaign which has been running since the 1970s to convince everyone otherwise.
A museum? https://www.fdmuseum.org/exhibit/m1-abrams-tank/
A defence news site?
https://www.defenceprocurementinternational.com/features/land/why-the-west-may-be-willing-to-risk-revealing-its-tank-secrets-to-russia
A book?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Chobham-Armour-British-Armoured-Development/dp/1472855264
The House of Commons minutes about giving it to the Americans?
House of Commons, Debates of 11 November 1976, vol. 919 cc272-3W
It doesnt fuse on the hull plate in some of those scenarios no, but it fuses on the turret/turret ring and the explosion still breaches the glacis roof and kills the driver.
No it doesnt work the exact same way, it doesnt simply bounce any projectile, it didnt stop the projectile in the video. The angle of the ufp is 80*, the critical ricochet angle of the modelled apfsds was 83*, and therefore it could penetrate. Most modern apfsds has a ricochet angle higher than 80*, and again, in combat conditions at range its even less likely that the critical ricohcet angle would be reached even for older apfsds.
M68 is the L7, and therefore British.
Mongoloid. If it was "the same" then it wouldnt have taken several years after the end of the programme to design it.
>The angle of the ufp is 80*
its about 82, just enough to stop 115mm and very early 125mm, but not modern ones
but its not really an issue since the UFP when viewed on the level is less than a foot high and would represent something like 10% of its presented surface area
and if the tank is hull down, or there is a wall in the way, then you arent going to see it at all and youre going to fire at the turret
so its kind of a niche vulnerability that only occurs as a fluke
I mean, all NATO tanks like to engage from a hull-down position, which is why the emphasis is on turret armour protection, but thats not always an option. Its a small vulnerability, but a vulnerability nonetheless, especially as its adjecent to the turret and its around the centre-mass of the tank, which is why it was addressed in the Leo2, which had a similar armour scheme with a 50mm plate for the glacis roof. I'm frankly not sure if it was addressed with V.3 or V.4.
The house of commons minutes are a primary source. If you have a better source that says otherwise, for the third time, feel free to share it. Chobham originally involved ceramics, therefore BRL and its subsequent iterations likely all contain ceramics.
Not an argument
Yes that source aligns with what i am saying, they had to adapt the technology from the 152mm for use in the 105mm and they used a new alloy, XM753 is first tested in 1974, which is several years after the end of the MBT-70 project, its not "the same" round. Nor was it a very good one.
>The house of commons minutes are a primary source.
And it doesn't state that M1 uses chobham, in fact the opposite since M1 didn't use ceramics. It also states that british armor was designed in cooperation with BRL instead.
Do you have a source for the M1 not using ceramics? And even if it doesnt use cermaics, of which i am not at all convinced, it is still derived from the original burlington in its layout and should still be considered a chobham type armour.
The source states that chobham was shared with the Americans. You are very ready to criticise my sources, but i am yet to see you provide a single source of any nature to back up a single thing that you have claimed.
Nonetheless, here is another one; "King of the Killing Zone" by Orr Kelly p 117-140, which explicitly states that BRL is a derivative of Burlington.
Spastic, the saddle sabot *is* the majority of the new shell, as well as the obvious fact of a completely different shell size. What was kept was only the core sub-projectile, which was quickly abandoned for the M774, which has an entirely new DU sub projectile .
>Do you have a source for the M1 not using ceramics?
This is the original M1 layout. It's just NERA and plain steel.
>And even if it doesnt use cermaics, of which i am not at all convinced, it is still derived from the original burlington in its layout
You've literally made it up you retarded turd.
>but i am yet to see you provide a single source of any nature to back up a single thing that you have claimed.
You're not capable of reading your own sources so i don't expect you to read mine either.
>here is another one; "King of the Killing Zone" by Orr Kelly p 117-140, which explicitly states that BRL is a derivative of Burlington.
Do you expect to actually back that up, or just throw page numbers from random books into nowhere?
>Spastic, the saddle sabot *is* the majority of the new shell
This is cope. You're now backtracking when i maintained from the start that the entire projectile was directly transferred.
>What was kept was only the core sub-projectile
Aka, the fin stabilized dart.
That looks like a lot like a chobham armour array. That source doesnt specify any materials, as its heavily redacted, i'd post the entire pdf but PrepHole wont let me.
No, i gave you yet another source for it being derived from burlington, which was "King of the Killing Zone" Orr Kelly, p117-140. You asked for another source, so you got one, i cant find an original US army procurement primary source for using chobham which explicitly uses the word 'chobham', and you wont accept the parliament source. You are still yet to provide a source.
The entire projectile was not directly transferred, just the core sub-projectile.
The penetrator is the same, the rest is not, therefore its a different shell, look at the image i posted previously of the XM578, and compare that to a M735.
>That looks like a lot like a chobham armour array
No it doesn't. Chobham uses nylon, ceramics and titanium.
>No, i gave you yet another source for it being derived from burlington, which was "King of the Killing Zone" Orr Kelly, p117-140
I'm not going to buy a fucking book to check if you're lying or not homosexual. Fuck you and your bullshit fake "evidence".
>i cant find an original US army procurement primary source for using chobham which explicitly uses the word 'chobham'
because there isn't one, duh. there are only retarded journalists and idiots like you who call any NERA chobham as they don't know better, despite getting shit on for their lies every time you bring your retarded opinions up.
>You are still yet to provide a source
You don't prove a negative, you idiot. The only connection between BRL and british armor you've demonstrated was the cooperation on a british array in the late 80s, long after M1 was developed.
>The entire projectile was not directly transferred, just the core sub-projectile.
Nope. You're twisting words like a slimy homosexual here. The entire saboted rod, fins and all was copied, including the teardrop-shaped tungsten core and the aluminum shell around it. You're a lying homosexual that's been lying about the tungsten alloy composition too.
Well the chobham type 2 uses plastic and steel, idk where you're getting "nylon" and "titanium" from, although burlington almost certanly contained ceramics. Chobham is an NERA arragement, and its very distinctive.
You ask for evidence, you refused all newspaper articles and museum articles and news sites, it isnt on US army sites, the declassified US documents just call it "special armour", so i have to give you a book. You've clearly put no effort into looking for it because you can read it for free online on the Internet Archive.
You are yet to provide a source because you dont have any, this is all in your head, you have nothing but acting like a spoiled child. I've provided multiple sources, you've provided nothing, i presume you're either monumentally stupid or acting in bad faith, or both.
The fucking sabot is different homosexual.
>Well the chobham type 2 uses plastic and steel
When was it developed and what connection does it have with NERA?
>idk where you're getting "nylon" and "titanium" from
From your own sources you worthless shit eating bitch.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/armor-composite.htm
>Chobham armor is basically a laminate armor, with ceramic, steel and titanium sandwiched together between ballistic nylon.
>You ask for evidence, you refused all newspaper articles and museum articles and news sites
Aka, retarded journalist drivel. Go spam your dailymail dogshit elsewhere.
>You've clearly put no effort into looking for it
Says the nagger who can't read his own sources.
>You are yet to provide a source because you dont have any
>"Prove me a negative or ur a child reeeeee".
No.
>The fucking sabot is different
Good thing i never claimed otherwise you strawmanning slimy bitch.
I at no point used that as a source, it doesnt provide its own sources, and the chieftain burlington feasibility report provides images which explicitly list steel and plastic, so presumably it refers to a different earlier or different form of chobham. Ultimately it doesnt really matter, because what makes chobham chobham is the arrangement of thin non-reactive materials sandwiched with RHA, in a large number of layers, with air gaps between them. Ceramic or plastic or something more exotic, still chobham style armour.
Accept the source or fuck off, read nagger read, you dont like sources, i graciously find you more, you dont like those, i find you more, you dont like those, i find you a fucking book which you can conveniently read for free online and you stll fucking refuse, meanwhile you havent provided a single thing to back yourself up, you fucking child. And the onus is on you to provide a source when you're insisting on a version of reality which is completely divorced from what is currently accepted on no grounds other than "trust me bro" and "prove me wrong", then refusing to accept or read the fucking sources provided. Actual child behaviour.
Yes you did you stupid little nagger.
>I at no point used that as a source
then why spam links you don't read?
>the chieftain burlington feasibility report provides images which explicitly list steel and plastic, so presumably it refers to a different earlier or different form of chobham
Why is your every source relying on your "presumably" or "probably"? Can't you provide any concrete evidence without inventing it on your own based on your delusions?
>Ultimately it doesnt really matter, because what makes chobham chobham is the arrangement of thin non-reactive materials sandwiched with RHA
That's NERA. All sources quote chobham as having ceramics first and foremost.
>Accept the source or fuck off
cry about it nagger, your useless flailing to find any garbage you can stretch around your idiotic fantasies won't convince anyone.
> find you more, you dont like those, i find you a fucking book which you can conveniently read for free online
link the book then, i'm not doing your job for you. i checked orr kelly's name and he's not a military historian of any kind but another journalist that has no business writing books, btw. this seems to be a common trend among your sources - they're written by idiots for idiots.
>And the onus is on you to provide a source when you're insisting on a version of reality which is completely divorced from what is currently accepted
You're literally throwing a tantrum because your childish fantasy isn't accepted. The fact that US armor was designed in US by a US organization and carries that organization's name is self-evident.
The armor layout of M1 is literally based on the MBT-70. The only thing changed was the thickness and the NERA filling.
>All sources quote chobham as having ceramics first and foremost.
Outdated sources. Stop quoting Zaloga books from 30 years ago.
Chobham is NERA.
>And even if it doesnt use cermaics, of which i am not at all convinced, it is still derived from the original burlington in its layout and should still be considered a chobham type armour.
It's derived from MBT-70 in its layout, with spaced armor around the entire turret, this time filled with NERA to protect against shaped charges that became a priority after the Yom Kippur war.
Chobham *is* the spaced armour and NERA. The M1 is a fresh design from the MBT-70, and wasnt a direct continuation from it, the army made up requirements for it and worked from there. There were plans for the M1 to not exceed 45 tonnes and to rely on a similar spaced armour arrangement, which would've looked more like the Leo 2A4, until it set itself on using chobham armour. I'm going to have to find an image of the armour layout of the Leopard 2 B variant in order to show you now, but the armour of the M1 is distinctively and recogniseably Chobham.
>Chobham *is* the spaced armour and NERA
Nope.
>The M1 is a fresh design from the MBT-70, and wasnt a direct continuation from it
MBT-70 is literally the basis for the M1 design and the primary inspiration. The same applies to the Leopard 2.
>the armour of the M1 is distinctively and recogniseably Chobham.
You repeat this falsehood ad nauseam but it's just you inventing terms to stroke your worthless ego and fellate yourself.
No, the XM-1 is a completely new design. Get a source homosexual.
The Leopard 2's main design inspiration is the Leopard 1 "Keiler" prototype, the MBT-70 derived "Eber" was ultimately abandoned.
I repeat this truth ad-nauseam until it goes into your thick fucking skull. You can whinge all you want, but i have sources which prove me right, and you have nothing but this inane fucking complaining about it contradicting some imaginary truth only you are aware of and the source of which you refuse to share with anyone else.
Both the M1 and Leo 2 widely used technology from MBT-70. This is widely covered and recognized.
>I repeat this truth ad-nauseam
Well it's still just as fake as it was the first time.
>but i have sources which prove me right
they fit you, rags written by idiots that have nothing to do with any military affairs, let alone tank development.
used technology from=/=were based on
Your level of willful ignorance is actually astounding, go read even a tiny amount about what you're trying to talk about for fucks sake.
I've wasted too much time on you, read even a tiny amount before posting again.
You could've just admitted you're wrong by reading at least some of the links you were spamming and finding out that your retarded delusions have no basis. You've wasted my time by repeatedly lying about anything you could consieve just to stroke the battered ego of your worhthless militarily inept nation.
>Yes that source aligns with what i am saying, they had to adapt the technology from the 152mm for use in the 105mm and they used a new alloy
Nope, it states that the new alloy with higher density was used in XM578 while M735 was created by adding a new saddle sabot to the XM578 projectile. Do you refuse to read things you refer to on purpose or is this a medical condition you have?
Is your reading comprehension really this bad?
>. The XM578 cartridge used a tungsten alloy that was slightly denser than the British alloy, consisting of 97.5 percent tungsten and 2.5 percent binder, which had a density of 18.5 gm/cc.
>Picatlnny Arsenal responded to this tasking by utilizing the technology gained in the 152nwn Program - specifically the subpEojectile - and adapting it to the 105mm Gun by means of a saddle sabot.
Are you going to have a nice day now? You should.
>Its a small vulnerability, but a vulnerability nonetheless
its about on par with the weakened triangular drivers port on the T-72
in that its a weakpoint, but not one that can realistically be taken advantage of by the enemy except in exceptional situations
about the only time it might be an issue is if its going down hill and making it a wider target, but everything including infantry are more vuilnerable going down hill in any case
>Chobham originally involved ceramics, therefore BRL and its subsequent iterations likely all contain ceramics.
the special armor on the M1 baseline was a steel backing plate, a classified material, an exterior plate, followed by a thick NERA array and the external steel plate
the sandwiched material is probably the ceramic material, since its of similar construction to the steel-textolite-steel armor on soviet tanks
while the turret is known to have ditched that layout since the 90s with DU armor, the lower front plate is unknown when or if it ever had it removed until the M1A2, since even before DU was installed they had reformulated the layout of the internal armor to improve KE protection but its vague how it was done
>its about on par with the weakened triangular drivers port on the T-72
actually T-72 is much, much worse. for the T-72B upwards of 50% of both turret and hull projections are vulnerable to obsolete threats that predate the tank by years. T-72, directly alike the T-64 is quite primitive design that's poorly adopted for housing composite armor and is closer to the fully steel tanks that preceded it in layout. It is similar to the T95 that anon referenced above, for example.
It's rather interesting that the T64 was the first tank with composite armor, but that it still kept the curvy shape of earlier cast iron tanks. Also, maybe the Soviets planned to cover those weak spots with ERA.
T-64 was the first serial/adopted tank with composite armor. T95 had silica armor back in the late 50s. They kept the curvy shape because adding the composite was an afterthought to an existing all-steel tank design with an already finished layout.
They didn't plan for ERA because they never actually engaged with the idea until they saw Israelis use theirs in the early 80s.
Yeah i suppose so, although its much broader than the driver port weakspot on the T-72, and could easily result from near misses to the turret. I just have higher expectations for a NATO MBT compared to that shitbox. Especially when so much effort has been put into uparmouring its turret. At the end of the day i suppose the M1 was intended as the best tank for a certain budget and weight, rather than the best tank outright. But it is quite a broad weakspot and is a notable one for what is, currently, a relatively well armoured tank with the SEP V.3.
What exactly do you mean by the 'special armour'? As there have been several versions of burlington, and then the three different DU versions. Where are you getting the source for this composition? I'm familiar with the un-annotated declassified one which shows the internal layout of the lfp and the side armour on the M1,but it doesnt speak as to materials. (The one showing a chobham style armour array with some kind of backing plate containing hollows)
>At the end of the day i suppose the M1 was intended as the best tank for a certain budget and weight, rather than the best tank outright.
This cannot be stressed enough. Original M1 cost something like one third of the projected MBT-70 cost and about double that of the M60A3 if i remember the numbers right.
>backing plate containing hollows
It's actually a spacer/mounting plate that holds the NERA array in place.
>which quote military figures
lol
>what source, exactly, do you want?
a primary source. your own link describes chobham as nothing alike the armor M1 was using since M1 didn't have either ceramics, titanium or nylon in the array, just steel and rubber. you don't actually read your own sources and prefer to just screech about your own retarded delusions while crying about mean americans and the genius british.
>M68 is the L7
Keep acting retarded, you're making my job easier.
>If it was "the same" then it wouldnt have taken several years after the end of the programme to design it.
It was the same projectile, they just needed to design a new sabot that would work in the rifled 105mm gun effectively.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m578.htm
>It doesnt fuse on the hull plate in some of those scenarios no, but it fuses on the turret/turret ring and the explosion still breaches the glacis roof and kills the driver.
Sure, i suppose this could theoretically be a viable threat if 125mm HE could ever actually hit anything like a tank.
>No it doesnt work the exact same way, it doesnt simply bounce any projectile, it didnt stop the projectile in the video.
a video doesn't accurately simulate reality, it's only an approximation. it's not a real test.
>The angle of the ufp is 80*, the critical ricochet angle of the modelled apfsds was 83*
Are you seriously arguing over a single degree of difference here?
the closer an angle is to horizontal, the more benefit each additiona degree has
so by the time you hit 80+ degrees, differences of half a degree can make the difference between penetrating or not
a single degree of difference is a variation on a bumpy road, that's how insignificant it is. if there is any amount of elevation or the tank is anywhere close to a hull down position then the entire upper glacis is completely covered by the lower glacis and isn't even visible.
>a single degree of difference is a variation on a bumpy road, that's how insignificant it is
under normal circumstances it would be
but as you approach 90 degrees, it becomes more and more significant
its an exponential function, while angles close to vertical have virtually no effect, even small angular differences close to horizontal have pronounced effects
you're splitting hairs over what amounts to a statistical error at this point.
Why would 125mm HE not be able to hit a tank? Theres a video of a tank being hit by HE in ukraine.
True it doesnt completely accurately simulate reality, but it is pretty accurate when it just has to simulate based on known data and functions, and its just simulating against HHA, not composite-which can behave in funny manners and which is classified.
3 degrees, but even half a degree of difference here is the difference between a penetration or a non-penetration, as the thickness of armour is not enough to actually stop a long-rod tungsten penetrator, it relies on the angle being severe enough to cause it to bounce off. It was sufficient for 115mm apfsds for which it was designed to counter (which would always bounce off as their critical angle was like 78*), but its somewhat of a weakspot against 125mm apfsds.
Because it's a slow, crude projectile flying out of a crude, inaccurate gun.
>3 degrees
one degree actually. you already corrected yourself.
>but even half a degree of difference here is the difference between a penetration or a non-penetration
therefore this difference is largely random as it's not reproductible in normal conditions.
NTA but for other lurkers I'm really going to drive this home and reiterate that the other anon here
is right and Chobham just caught on when talking about the original Burlington arrays. Since the original BRL arrays the U.S. moved on to the Heavy Armor Package variants. The newer SEPV3 has allegedly has an NGAP array. There's 100% an NEA armor package as well but that's just new mine protection kits - though I've seen it represented as the actual armor array before.
AFAIK there isn't a source that's just going to tell you the exact materials however there is tons of stuff on DTIC about using ceramics in armor. Silicon carbide and aluminum oxide were two that stick out in my mind. Back to the Abrams Special Armor, despite not having a direct source about it using ceramics, based on other publications I'd say its pretty likely the mystery material is a ceramic. IIRC it was found that the ceramics were generally just as good at KE protection as RHA but also were more efficient against CE and prior to DU plating this was probably the way to go. There was tons of research into ceramic steel backplate combinations specifically and it had it's advantages and disadvantages.
I don't get the complaint that turret throwing is bad, since if you get penned the crew is dead anyways.
Penetration doesn't immediately kill the crew if your tank is designed properly and has good spall liners, meanwhile a catastrophic ammo detonation will likely shred everyone who hasn't escaped the tank regardless of where he is.
>if everything was different instead of how it was then x would be true
Fascinating insight OP
It's impossible to overstate how important having trained crews is. You can make a new tank in a week, it's not rocket science but you cannot train a good crew in less than a few months. It's irrelevant for russians who never had any well trained crews but for anyone else not having trained crews will lead to you losing the second tank faster than you lost the first, making any kind of buildup of forces unsustainable no matter the material cost and you end up looking like this.
like a bradley?
bigger gun = gooder
Anon,congrats on breaking the multiversal barrier.Here in this universe we had a thing called T95.It was a prototype medium tank made in the 50s with composite armor(fused silica+steel) and a smoothbore gun that fired APFSDS.
The very existence of a tank with those before the M60A2 was made makes it a stupid idea.Same goes for the MBT-70.
Starship and Sheridan were neat
>The M60A2 wasn't a bad design in principle. It was simply betrayed by its poor design
AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHhHHHHHHHHH THERE"S A SKELETON iN MY SCREEN
Skeletons aren't real
>immature technologies that were ahead of their time and not thoroughly tested at the start of mass production.
Thanks goodness the US Military never made that mistake again.
>gigantic mini-turret on top of the main turret
>low profile
wat?