M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

kvs wrote:The 20 rounds per minute for the autoloader sounds like marketing BS to me.   If you want reliability, then you do not squeeze every last
drop of juice out of the system.   So in the real world, this 20 will never be used.   Russian fire rates under 10 are from systems with decades
of experience but some no-name US company will just nearly triple the fire rate with the snap of the fingers.  Sure.

BTW, the mechanical issues are not size-invariant.   Machine-gunning tank shells is not the same as bullets.

An MBT's main gun optimized for power and precision, like a sniper rifle. It is not a rapid fire weapon.

The carousel autoloader might not have the sheer rate of fire as a bustle autoloader, but its hell of a lot safer.

The Ukrainians should know better. They were exposed to T-80 MBTs that had cyclone filters for the gas turbine engines which automatically cleans itself using vibrations only. Hilarious that Soviet engineers with slide rules could do this while the Americans with the most advanced computing resources can't.

Maybe they should've tapped the Germans for the propulsions too while they were at it. At least the German cats managed to drag themselves on their own power to prepared killzones. The Aybraps can't even make it out of the starting position.

Not that it would be any help if they could. The hohols were issued old and problematic ammo to go with the clapped out 120 mm guns. The M829A3 was a particular caution item at the time of its release due to it maxing out the pressure margins on the 120 mm gun and I doubt the years would have made it any less harsher to fire. The opposite, really.

Regardless of the presence of the heavy metal layer or no, the front hull has 50% less array depth to work with compared to the front turret. The space available on the former is simply not enough to fit an armor package that is anywhere near close to the resistance offered by the latter. And the front turret is already very close run vis a vis the latest deployed anti-armor rounds (except of course the T-14's subcaliber shells ) so realistically there is not much advantage to improving the front hull when they will be penetrated by anything more modern than the 3BM42 shell anyway.

... and keep in mind that GTD1250 has a mechanical dust separator that filters air from particles bigger than can be burned through. It is a different design.

kvs wrote:I am having a hard time reconciling the technical issue with the Abrams in terms of clogging of engine air filters after short periods of operation.
The T-80 gas turbine version does not have this problem or at least I have never heard about it.    It does not make sense why the Abrams would
have a ludicrous handicap (e.g. can't be used in Ukraine, supposedly) but the T-80 doesn't.    Same freaking air + aerosol intake through a filter.
Americans cannot into filters?

Different requirements, one supposes, given how often the same pattern repeats across their equipment. The Americans have never fought a true high intensity conflict with apocalyptic stakes against a highly capable and competent opponent and it shows. Their stuff has never been the most robust even at peace time and to them that is A-ok, because they have tons of resources to paper over those deficiencies in wartime - or so they thought.

You can check the Combat Approval episode concerning restarting GTD1250 production. There is a whole thread about the matter, with a quite detailed presentation of this separator system. How it works. They even make visual presentations showing how effective it is. Impressive stuff, and a great example of superb engineering and mechanics.

The circumstances around the third Abrams casualty is interesting. It suffered one shot to the hull flank that killed the driver and immobilized the vehicle. Another through the turret side to pierce the gun breech and render the tank completely helpless. Mortars then ensure no one escapes the slaughterhouse, not alive.

Efficient, and effective. No wasted motions at all. The mark of real professionals at work.

The thing combines your (?) description of post battle damage analysis, that was pinpoint.
If the drivers hatch is closed - there is close to 100% possibility that all the crew is toasted.

As I have described, M1 construction leaves the driver helpless in most of the battle-risk conditions.
Not only he is being surrounded by non-armored fuel tanks...
He has a hull magazine next by (but they hardly ever load it )
The most important is that the turret rack physically isolates him from evacuating to the back, and use turret hatches.
Even in the most preferable conditions, if the turret is facing back - the passage is a narrow strip of some 40 cm wide and full of cables and pipes.
God speed to evacuate there while the tank is burning, yeykss ...

Big_Gazza wrote:
Video of what is claimed to be the kill shot that took out this M1A1 BBQ/coffin

https://s4.cdnstatic.space/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/abrams2.mp4

original source

Big explosion a few seconds after the 3rd (?) and final ATGM strikes.  HE rounds cooking off in the turret bustle?  If so, the anti-propagation measures weren't worth a hill of beans given that the vehicle was a total loss  

Another wunderflop success for the murkhan trashcan aka King of the Battlefield...

The first two IR blooms is the main gun firing so we know the Abrams turret was attacking the ATGM position head on with its strongest armor facing the threat. Didn't matter. It was a clean piercing hit through the turret face and out the back. The ammo detonated almost all at once a fraction of a second later. Chances of survival are nil.

The Kornet is a beast.

That is correct, it was engaged head on.
Seems like hit in a hull if yu ask me.
Not that it makes a much difference, but I suppose that they do use a hull ammo magazine, not like the US standard. And it just cooked off.

ALAMO wrote:That is correct, it was engaged head on.
Seems like hit in a hull if yu ask me.

Its possible. But explosion's massive and tore through the interior while the hull magazine only holds 6 shells at the most.

Also less likely. The hull ammo magazine is too small a target compared to the turret magazine which is guaranteed to burn with any piercing hit through the turret armor.

ALAMO wrote:Not that it makes a much difference, but I suppose that they do use a hull ammo magazine, not like the US standard. And it just cooked off.

Ukrainian tankers have more experience in armored warfare in their foreskins than what American tankers can manage to scrape together. And that's before you factor in all the stupid lessons they internalized fighting goat fuckers with AKs and RPGs.

Who cares what they think?

Kornet is already an overkill for this version. Konkurs would be just fine.
But lyle has a valid point here.
US tank crews represent the general level of the US society, even less than that considering a whole saga of lacking men for duty that has been common for two decades.
Undereducated folks with messiah syndrome.
On a biblical scale, that I have never experienced with any other people on the planet - only YuSey.
They had issues with understanding simple questions, but being sure they do know all the answers.