Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian AT missiles vs M1 Abraams

    Share
    avatar
    nemrod

    Posts : 820
    Points : 1318
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Russian AT missiles vs M1 Abraams

    Post  nemrod on Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:07 pm

    During the 2006 summer, we've seen how the russians'weapons are efficient. How the russian Kornet, inflcted a heavy loss to the one of the top western's main battle tank aka Merkava -in hebrew God's chariot-.
    Does it exist in russian anti tank missiles a harware that can disable M1 Abrams ?

    Best regards.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5563
    Points : 5575
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian AT missiles vs M1 Abraams

    Post  TR1 on Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:34 pm

    Why not? Abrams is not magically better armored then Merkava (if we average the numbers and angles out).

    Take an old Konkurs, hit either tank in the rear quadrant of the hull or the turret, and the crew won't be pleased.

    Merkava did pretty good in 2006 btw. I guess only people who thought it was invincible were shocked that it could be damaged heavily.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18633
    Points : 19189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian AT missiles vs M1 Abraams

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jan 01, 2013 2:02 am

    The only tank design I have ever heard of that actually tried to get all round 360 degree armour protection was the German Maus... a 180 ton tank...

    Its armour was about 250mm thick from all horizontal angles and it would have been a serious problem for land based vehicles to tackle... but its mobility was pathetic... 6 miles an hour at top speed a single aircraft bomb or rocket likely would have damaged it enough to make it ineffective.

    It is interesting that the modern T-90 is a similar weight to a WWII Panther, though exceeding its performance in all parameters, while the new T-99 is likely to be similar in weight to a KV-1 at about 50-54 tons and again the difference would be fairly significant.

    Standard modern tanks are designed to be protected from the enemies main gun and standard anti armour weapons from the front 60 degrees... ie about 30 degrees from directly front on left and right. The side armour is generally designed to stop cannon fire from IFVs (ie 30mm), while the rear protection is usually enough to stop standard HMG fire. Most tanks can be defeated with light cannon fire to the rear of the vehicle. The rear of the turret is often a weak spot too... note the Panther had a particularly weak rear turret... but with a moving tank such a target is fleeting and difficult to hit reliably.

    Most vehicles also have weakpoints even in their heavy frontal armour and generally the front turret has been found to be the most often hit area of a tank and therefore is often the most heavily armoured area on most tanks.

    The armata tank however has most of its armour on the hull front because its turret above the turret ring where a shell hit would pass through does not contain crew or ammo, so an APFSDS or HEAT round would make a narrow hole in and a narrow hole out and likely destroy everything it actually passes through but do little other damage.

    Regarding your question the Kornet-EM, the Krisantema, and the Hermes and Vikhr-M would all be serious threats to any model Abrams from the front. Most of the other anti tank missiles like Metis-M1 and Konkurs and Faggot would be seriously dangerous from the side or rear and could inflict serious damage.

    Of course even from the front a burst of 14.5mm HMG fire could blow off a track and immobilise the vehicle.

    In terms of hand held weapons the RPG-28 is a very potent weapon, as is the RPG-29 and the new RPG-31 and RPG-32 would both be problems, while the 105mm rounds for the RPG-7 would also be serious threats in close.

    Regarding aircraft delivered weapons, top attack cluster munitions have been a serious threat since the mid 1980s, and they can also be delivered by land based rocket artillery, while the Kh-25ML and family of weapons would also be a threat with its 90kg warhead coming in at mach 2+ while the 317kg shaped charge warhead of the Kh-29 family of weapons was originally designed to undermine heavy concrete structures like dams and heavy bridges and would leave a big hole no matter what armoured target it hit (including the MAUS)... it would also be very effective against naval targets. Other than that even relatively small aerial bombs would be able to shatter the optics and kill the crew or any tank.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5266
    Points : 5471
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian AT missiles vs M1 Abraams

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Jan 01, 2013 2:41 am

    There is no big deal in disabling an M1 doesn't matter of its version with even old RPG-7 warheads like were used in Iraq.

    This old warheads PG-7 (~300mm RHA) have even destroyed Abrams tanks.

    For the enemy it doesn't matter if they only disable an Abrams or destroy it as long they achieve one of those that the enemy can't represent any threat to own forces, anymore.

    Also there are footage of insurgents with RPG-29 who destroyed the first Abrams and probably the second too.

    avatar
    nemrod

    Posts : 820
    Points : 1318
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: Russian AT missiles vs M1 Abraams

    Post  nemrod on Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:49 pm

    Werewolf wrote:There is no big deal in disabling an M1 doesn't matter of its version with even old RPG-7 warheads like were used in Iraq.

    This old warheads PG-7 (~300mm RHA) have even destroyed Abrams tanks.
    ....

    Thx to all, Iam seeing, and realizing that, Iam among specialists. In fact Iam not a specialists, and untill now, this is the first time I saw these pictures, that never been watched here in Europe, or generally in western countries.
    I was very far -untill today - to imagine that a light weapon like RPG could disable a tank.
    I realize now, why the US got out from Iraq, and why they are going flee Afghanistan.

    I realize that how the propaganda and hype made us idiots. Untill now I believed that M1 Abrams was unbeatable, and this tank was impossible to destroy only by huge bombs inside the road.

    In fact now, I realize how the iraqi resistance was so near the victory during the fallujah battle number 1, however, there is not without knowing the new, and the best US had the greatest joker, a weapon that brought to US every victory in arab world. The Joker is Al Qaida.
    Al Qaida is here in the goal to divide people into confessional war, leaving US, free hands.

    Thx guys for your advises, and remarqs.
    It was worth to subscribe in this forum.

    Regards.

    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5266
    Points : 5471
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian AT missiles vs M1 Abraams

    Post  Werewolf on Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:11 pm

    nemrod wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:There is no big deal in disabling an M1 doesn't matter of its version with even old RPG-7 warheads like were used in Iraq.

    This old warheads PG-7 (~300mm RHA) have even destroyed Abrams tanks.
    ....

    Thx to all, Iam seeing, and realizing that, Iam among specialists. In fact Iam not a specialists, and untill now, this is the first time I saw these pictures, that never been watched here in Europe, or generally in western countries.
    I was very far -untill today - to imagine that a light weapon like RPG could disable a tank.
    I realize now, why the US got out from Iraq, and why they are going flee Afghanistan.

    I realize that how the propaganda and hype made us idiots. Untill now I believed that M1 Abrams was unbeatable, and this tank was impossible to destroy only by huge bombs inside the road.

    In fact now, I realize how the iraqi resistance was so near the victory during the fallujah battle number 1, however, there is not without knowing the new, and the best US had the greatest joker, a weapon that brought to US every victory in arab world. The Joker is Al Qaida.
    Al Qaida is here in the goal to divide people into confessional war, leaving US, free hands.

    Thx guys for your advises, and remarqs.
    It was worth to subscribe in this forum.

    Regards.



    No tank is invincible and thise light weight RPGs are by far stronger than the side armor of any existing tank.
    Even very old models have no big trouble to break the side or rear armor of any existing tank, as long they don't use ERA.
    Tanks only have composite armour at front and sides of turret not the hull.

    You could even destroy every existing tank with an very old T-55 with old rounds to the side or rear armor.

    And like in every scenario doesn't matter Chechnya,Iraq,Afghanistan,Vietnam or any battlefield where tanks are used in urban warfare they attract the most of the enemies interest to just destroy it.Tanks are very vulnerable in urban warfare even more vulnerable than lighter armored IFVs which weaponary suites more for such environments.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2539
    Points : 3419
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russian AT missiles vs M1 Abraams

    Post  Vladimir79 on Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:46 am

    Disabling a modern tank is easy, knock the tracks off. Destroying one where everyone inside dies is another story. T-90 in Chechnya took 7 RPG-7 hits and still kept the crew safe. Yeah it was a loss, but keeping the crew alive is the main purpose of that armour and Western tanks do that as well.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18633
    Points : 19189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian anti tank missiles vs US/western tanks

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jan 11, 2013 9:33 am

    The biggest threat to the crew of an armoured vehicle is the detonation of its ammo and/or fuel, and unfortunately it has been an area of weakness on Soviet tanks.

    It is not that the Soviet tanks were poorly armoured or equipped, it was the positioning of ammo and fuel in places that were vulnerable leading to low crew survival rates when penetrated.

    The whole concept of the T-90SM/AM and the armata and kurganets and boomerang designs is to improve troop and crew safety by separating weapons and ammo and fuel from the various crew compartments of the different vehicle types.

    The Abrams has faults... it is very heavy, and expensive, but it is designed to protect its crew... and it does a good job of that generally.

    Having said that they have not really been as severely challenged as the ex soviet vehicles have... ie Iraqi T-55s against Abrams in Desert Storm had little chance, while Abrams tanks in Afghanistan face a difficult enemy but one that lacks capable modern AT weapons.

    If the Soviet Union still existed and they were supplying the Iraqis and Afghans then the Abrams would have been in serious trouble... as would their Apaches etc.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1444
    Points : 1605
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Russian AT missiles vs M1 Abraams

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Fri Nov 29, 2013 8:53 pm

    TR1 wrote:Not many Abrams have been knocked out in Iraq at all, let alone from old RPG-7s.
    And the armor array is most certainly not useless against HEAT.
    Its confirmed that there were extremely few RPG-29s in in Iraq and given how many abrams were knocked out its certain that most of them were from RPG-7s and IEDs. Only the extremely heavy and expensive Tusk can have armor martgianlly good against HEAT. It has been confirmed that the M1A2 lacks chobham and only has DU and regular laminated armor not much better than the T-64's. While it may be good against APSFDS, due to the DU's very low melting temperature makes it vulnerable. Not to mention that when burned DU is radioactive and very polluting.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1444
    Points : 1605
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Russian AT missiles vs M1 Abraams

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Fri Nov 29, 2013 8:59 pm

    By 2005 there were 221 knocked out abrams, 15 totaled, 16% of the entire US tank force stationed there.
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2056
    Points : 2050
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Russian AT missiles vs M1 Abraams

    Post  Regular on Fri Nov 29, 2013 9:49 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:By 2005 there were 221 knocked out abrams, 15 totaled, 16% of the entire US tank force stationed there.
    Can I have source? Rather big number I would say. I know that not all of them suffered irreparable damage, but still.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1444
    Points : 1605
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Russian AT missiles vs M1 Abraams

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Fri Nov 29, 2013 10:04 pm

    151 abrams knocked out during invasion-http://www.wnd.com/2003/05/18885/

    80 destroyed by Iraqi insurgency 2005-http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-03-29-abrams-tank-a_x.htm?POE=click-refer

    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5563
    Points : 5575
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian AT missiles vs M1 Abraams

    Post  TR1 on Fri Nov 29, 2013 10:11 pm

    Uh no. 150 were HIT.

    Not knocked out.

    Plenty were nailed by RPG-7s, and most of the time the damage was either negligible, or well-within economically feasable repair status.
    Crew being killed is a good indicator of this as well.

    calripson

    Posts : 139
    Points : 162
    Join date : 2013-10-26

    Iraqi Monkey Model M1

    Post  calripson on Thu May 28, 2015 2:46 am

    Iraqi M1 tanks have downgraded armor. America is not stupid enough to export the same spec tanks they use to a country like Iraq.
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1488
    Points : 1514
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Russian AT missiles vs M1 Abraams

    Post  Zivo on Thu May 28, 2015 2:56 am

    calripson wrote:Iraqi M1 tanks have downgraded armor. America is not stupid enough to export the same spec tanks they use to a country like Iraq.

    And Kornet-E has downgraded performance... So, we have downgraded Kornets punching clean through downgraded M1's.


    I'd bet domestic Kornets can punch through domestic M1's all the same.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4514
    Points : 4673
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Russian AT missiles vs M1 Abraams

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Thu May 28, 2015 3:27 am

    calripson wrote:Iraqi M1 tanks have downgraded armor. America is not stupid enough to export the same spec tanks they use to a country like Iraq.

    Depleted Uranium slabs in the turret wouldn't save the crew from a massive 152 mm HEAT charge from a Kornet-E. In fact there can be a case made that domestic armor in M1's are more dangerous towards the crew than export models, because when the turret does get penetrated, the surviving crew members are forced to breath air in the crew space that's full of super-heated depleted uranium particulate/dust that acts even worse on the respiratory system than asbestos. Depleted Uranium in it's solid form isn't that bad to be around, but when turned in to fine dust than it's a totally different story.

    In the case of a HEAT warhead powerful enough to penetrate the turret armor, the fine DU dust becomes a triple-whammy anti-personnel hazard, where the fine dust acts like a heavy metal in the circulatory system, and while in the blood stream aggressively emits alpha and beta radiation which outside the body it's harmless, but while inside the body it has extremely carcinogenic effect, and the icing on the cake is that the fine dust is highly flammable, as DU has been known to catch on fire when exposed to extreme air-pressure and air resistance.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5266
    Points : 5471
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Comparing Tanks 2

    Post  Werewolf on Thu May 28, 2015 3:50 am

    calripson wrote:Iraqi M1 tanks have downgraded armor. America is not stupid enough to export the same spec tanks they use to a country like Iraq.

    Well it is still on M1A1 niveau which was never that high not higher than T-80U and even tho it is downgraded armor or just not HA version it is still far not enough to withstand 1200mm RHAe penetrator. The real problem here is not the armor nor the penetrator itself but the circumstances of reality, like lot of people have claimed before that the hatches to the ammunition bustle are not closed all the time because the loaders are either lazy or want quick reloading time and such penetration has either set off the ammunition of open door or the penetration itself has punched ahole through the door. The only other theory is that those doors are very thin and the ammunition that was cooked off, was not just the propellant which has far lower brisants then HE warheads MPHE warheads which actually when set off they detonate they do not burn away like propellants do, since americans have no other ammunition then Sabots and Canisters loaded in much lower numbers and less often actual HEAT (MP-AT) rounds. Not sure if Iraq has acquired some other NATO ammunition of actual full calibre HE-Frag ammunition.


    Depleted Uranium slabs in the turret wouldn't save the crew from a massive 152 mm HEAT charge from a Kornet-E. In fact there can be a case made that domestic armor in M1's are more dangerous towards the crew than export models, because when the turret does get penetrated, the surviving crew members are forced to breath air in the crew space that's full of super-heated depleted uranium particulate/dust that acts even worse on the respiratory system than asbestos. Depleted Uranium in it's solid form isn't that bad to be around, but when turned in to fine dust than it's a totally different story.

    In the case of a HEAT warhead powerful enough to penetrate the turret armor, the fine DU dust becomes a triple-whammy anti-personnel hazard, where the fine dust acts like a heavy metal in the circulatory system, and while in the blood stream aggressively emits alpha and beta radiation which outside the body it's harmless, but while inside the body it has extremely carcinogenic effect, and the icing on the cake is that the fine dust is highly flammable, as DU has been known to catch on fire when exposed to extreme air-pressure and air resistance.

    Here have posted it already twice and post it again. Depleted Uranium armor in M1's getting sealed by US when shipped back to US, because radioactive materials are toxic and are prohibited to be transported through the country without being treated, sealed or decontaminated.

    http://rense.com/general75/limp.htm

    Radioactive Tank No 9
    comes Limping Home

    "RADIOACTIVE" is stenciled on Abrams tanks in these pictures
    taken Oct. 13, 2005, in Topeka, Kansas.
    Photo: Chris Bayruh


    ....



    There is a good reason why no other country uses DU in its armor and even the evil russians who do not give a crap about crew protection refuse to use DU Sabots, not only not to use it in its own country but also do not like having it around lying in tanks around.
    avatar
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 22
    Location : Roanapur

    Iraqi M1A1M have been penetrated with Kornet-E from front and exist the rear the ammunition detonated crew in turret could not survive.

    Post  collegeboy16 on Thu May 28, 2015 2:21 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    There is a good reason why no other country uses DU in its armor and even the evil russians who do not give  a crap about crew protection refuse to use DU Sabots, not only not to use it in its own country but also do not like having it around lying in tanks around.
    ironically the isolation from the crew of the AL means they can get away with storing lots of "black days" rounds there.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Russian AT missiles vs M1 Abraams

    Post  max steel on Sat Sep 26, 2015 10:11 am

    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 .
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2119
    Points : 2212
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Russian AT missiles vs M1 Abraams

    Post  higurashihougi on Sat Sep 26, 2015 12:00 pm

    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 .

    Some Russian experts estimated that 30mm BMP can penetrate Abrams from the flank and the rear Cool In reality, T-55's 100mm did penetrated Abrams turret side, and Bradley's 25mm did penetrated the rear.

    Challenger 2's front hull was once penetrated by RPG, caused the driver to lost one of its leg. Dunno about Abrams, though.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18633
    Points : 19189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian AT missiles vs M1 Abraams

    Post  GarryB on Sat Sep 26, 2015 2:31 pm

    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 .

    Of course they can penetrate any tank including the new armata tank if you hit from the side or rear.

    Some Russian experts estimated that 30mm BMP can penetrate Abrams from the flank and the rear Cool In reality, T-55's 100mm did penetrated Abrams turret side, and Bradley's 25mm did penetrated the rear.

    Challenger 2's front hull was once penetrated by RPG, caused the driver to lost one of its leg. Dunno about Abrams, though.

    Said before and will say again any tank should have frontal armour to stop enemies most powerful weapons but any structure will have weak points so even that is not guaranteed for every case... 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.

    From sides and rear you should be able to penetrate most of the time even with hand held weapons.
    avatar
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2119
    Points : 2212
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Russian AT missiles vs M1 Abraams

    Post  higurashihougi on Sat Sep 26, 2015 3:43 pm

    According to the below figure RPG-29 hit Challenger 2 roughly at the front edge of the hull. A relatively thick loaction I believe.

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YOwHHY57VIE/Tf4lRW-yfcI/AAAAAAAAAHA/Pg_gsC3hOzo/s1600/RPG-29%2Bpenetrate%2BChallenger-2.gif.jpg

    T-72/90 side and rear is relatively thin, too, but at least it has a lower, smaller profile at harder to be hit. T-72/90 rear engine is angled while Abrams's rear is straight, and the height of T-72/90 engine chamber is only a half of Abrams chamber.

    And that's all thanks to the autoloader and storing the ammunition at the hull behind the tank turret - rather than putting it at the turret bustle.

    Western tanks put the ammo at the turret bustle not because it is "safer", but because the length of the ammunition. Unlike Russian, Western propellant is not separated from the warhead and that means it is inconvenient to put the long ammo into the hull. And that means the ammo storage is exposed.

    And Abrams turret bustle is thin...
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5266
    Points : 5471
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian AT missiles vs M1 Abraams

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Sep 26, 2015 4:01 pm

    higurashihougi wrote:According to the below figure RPG-29 hit Challenger 2 roughly at the front edge of the hull. A relatively thick loaction I believe.

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YOwHHY57VIE/Tf4lRW-yfcI/AAAAAAAAAHA/Pg_gsC3hOzo/s1600/RPG-29%2Bpenetrate%2BChallenger-2.gif.jpg

    T-72/90 side and rear is relatively thin, too, but at least it has a lower, smaller profile at harder to be hit. T-72/90 rear engine is angled while Abrams's rear is straight, and the height of T-72/90 engine chamber is only a half of Abrams chamber.

    And that's all thanks to the autoloader and storing the ammunition at the hull behind the tank turret - rather than putting it at the turret bustle.

    Western tanks put the ammo at the turret bustle not because it is "safer", but because the length of the ammunition. Unlike Russian, Western propellant is not separated from the warhead and that means it is inconvenient to put the long ammo into the hull. And that means the ammo storage is exposed.

    And Abrams turret bustle is thin...

    The Low front plate of the chassis is the weakest part and much weaker on Challanger 2 than on other tanks, because it uses just a RHA steel plate. Later they used ERA for it to give better protection and appareantly tried to replace it with add armor bricks of composite. Anyway, looking at performance of 90mm HE-Frag rounds fired against T-55 RHA steel will have problems dealing with such rounds, the armor was cracked on several locations and the thin RHA plate of Chally 2 would have been effected also pretty bad with relative low technology means.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3753
    Points : 3852
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    RPG-30 still can pierce the abrams?

    Post  kvs on Sat Sep 26, 2015 5:28 pm

    higurashihougi wrote:
    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 .

    Some Russian experts estimated that 30mm BMP can penetrate Abrams from the flank and the rear Cool In reality, T-55's 100mm did penetrated Abrams turret side, and Bradley's 25mm did penetrated the rear.

    Challenger 2's front hull was once penetrated by RPG, caused the driver to lost one of its leg. Dunno about Abrams, though.

    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.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian AT missiles vs M1 Abraams

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:43 pm