Science Breakthrough: Plate Armor is Heavy

[karloss01]

this makes me ashamed to live near leeds.

Also logically unless on a horse I would think knights would be used defensively so they didn't need to waste energy going to the enemy. just throwing that in.

 

[Hagi]

Meh, they probably got a decent bit of data from all the movement recordings.

I figure this is just the funny press release.

 

[Dalek Caan]

Not even when they are skilled in Heavy Armour? Pretty sure then it would be fine to carry around that heavy plate.

 

[Kargathia]

The bottom line is simply this: The Abrams is very far from invincible and it's success has less to do with its ability to deflect and absorb damage than the simple fact that the Abrams has never been used in a battle against a significant, prepared, and technologically equivalent foe.

Somehow I find it strangely funny that right now these multi-million toys are standing around because their enemy has found a way to win the war without ever firing a shot at them.

And still you're hoping for some "real" war, where you can prove all that gun porn has a use.

this makes me ashamed to live near leeds.

Also logically unless on a horse I would think knights would be used defensively so they didn't need to waste energy going to the enemy. just throwing that in.

"Logically", and "Medieval French Knights" don't exactly fit in one sentence. Tactically they were mostly used as a battering ram, but it's also important to consider that all these knights were like little kids fighting to be the first in the playground.

Throughout the hundred-years war the English happily kept proving that it's all too easy to slaughter a bunch of knights who are just thinking about personal glory.

 

[Findlebob]

One thing they forgot abot, most knights were trained from childhood to wear their armour like a second skin.

 

[Thumper17]

We give these people money to do this?

 

[TornadoADV]

This same trend holds true today. A modern Main Battle Tank (Like the M1 Abrams), from the right angle, has several feet of advanced composite armor protecting it from enemy fire. In spite of this, a single anti-tank projectile, fired by a small team of infantry, are more than capable of destroying the tank and killing its crew. Thus why you see tanks in modern warfare most commonly used in pitched battle in open terrain: because their defensive edge means little in the face of well designed weaponry.

You've obviously never seen what the Abrams can absorb damage wise, even before the models as old as the A1 (mostly known for replacing the 105mm with the 120mm). Getting a mobility kill on an Abrams turns it into a very angry pillbox with 360 arc coverage.

To put it simply, the Abrams is able to resist almost anything in even our arsenal short of a GBU-28 through the top armour and keep the entire crew alive.

The list of things that can destroy the Abrams (truncated) that is only included in the US land arsenal:

105mm Howitzer (HE) round
155mm Artillery (Many variants)
Javelin
TOW
Various Mortars
AT-4 (Improbable but not impossible)
Various Anti-Tank mines (not presently used)
30mm Cannon (Multiple impact, especially if delivered on some location other than the glacias plate)
Various calibers and types of cannon rounds of different calibers (105+)

Things that can cause significant damage or disable an Abrams:

Various 40mm grenade rounds (HEDP for example)
Anti-Material Weapons (M82 for example, largely a threat against the electronics suite)
AT-4
Heavy Machine Gun Fire (Same as the anti-material rifle. No real threat of a kill in most circumstances but such a weapon is easily capable of delivering damage to an Abrams that would result in a significant degradation of its combat capabilities until repaired)
Anti-personnel mines (Largely a threat against mobility)

What you have to realize is that the Abrams', like that of any tank in the world, is designed around the premise that it will be able to face a target head on. The vast bulk of the armor on the vehicle is thus reserved for protecting the front leaving comparatively thin RHS armor to protect the rear, bottom and even parts of the top of the vehicle. This means that penetrating the armor on these locations is comparatively easy as you'll find that said armor is, in places, only a few inches thick. At close enough range, there are plenty of relatively low power (with respect to modern equivalents) tank rounds that are more than capable of defeating the Abrams front armor.

Beyond the possibly of a legitimate kill of the vehicle (which is shockingly easy with any of a number of widespread anti-tank missile systems), a great many infantry portable weapons are capabale of damaging an Abrams in some capacity that degrades it's ability to fight. This can include things as simple as damaging a tread (rendering the vehicle immobile), to igniting the external fuel tanks on the vehicle (which can easily result in the vehicle's destruction) or even damaging the fancy electronic gizmos that are, by necessity, on the outside of the tank. These same gizmos are, as much as anything else, responsible for the absurd increase in lethality that modern MBTs have over those in use decades ago.

Yes, a tank is relatively hard to kill, but all it takes is one good hit to disable or destroy it. This is largely the reason why infantry still has a role in modern warfare (mobility also helps in this regard): an infantry squad can take several casualties before they are no longer considered a combat effective unit. Complex terrain simply favors infantry over armor. The widespread use of various ATM systems simply reinforces this age old lesson of warfare.

And, incidentally, the effectiveness of the Abrams owes less to any superiority of design than it does to the effective application of combined arms along with various force multipliers. Effective fire finding radar mean that US counter-battery fire is incredibly effective. Total air superiority means that enemy formations and command and control are disrupted long before combat actually engages. Yes, fancy electronics mean that the Abrams can fight at ranges where older tanks would struggle to put steel on target much less make a legitimate kill and the fantastic protection (Which is, incidentally, not even best in the world by any stretch) certainly make it a hard target to kill.

But, an immobile tank is a dead tank unless there are significant friendly assets to support the vehicle. Yes it can defend itself, but such is of little use when something as minor as anti-tank rounds from an infantry portable mortar could easily be zeroed onto the vehicle. The bottom line is simply this: The Abrams is very far from invincible and it's success has less to do with its ability to deflect and absorb damage than the simple fact that the Abrams has never been used in a battle against a significant, prepared, and technologically equivalent foe.

You're so funny in how incorrect you are in what can actually kill an Abrams. I'm sure you're well aware of the one Abrams that was mobility killed behind enemy lines and they tried to scuttle it with everything including the Abrams' own Silver Bullet SABOT to the rear with multiple point blank shots to multiple Mavericks and GAU-8 Avenger runs from CAS Thunderbolt IIs to practically no effect. They simply settled for waiting a bit and retreving it with a Grizzly.

The Abrams was soley design around the concept of being outnumbered by Soviet T-64s and T-80s at least 3-5:1 and coming out on top in pitched battle. The M1A2 SEP (Much less with TUSK improvements to cut down on mobility kill risk) has the best defensive package of any tank in the world.

The main gun of the Abrams can penetrate >1300mm of RHA. The rear armor of an Abrams has 1000m and the effectiveness of kinetic kill devices degrade over distances, that is a bit of a key figure to know).

What you have to understand is that yes the armor is very thick. But the top, rear and bottom are comparatively thin. Modern ATM systems (and systems launched from aircraft) are designed to exploit this weakness by attacking these points. Additionally, while the electronics package on the Abrams is armored, it is comparatively light meaning it is vulnerable to anti-material fire. Is it easy to get a kill with the 30mm cannon? Nope - the volume of fire you'd have to put onto a target in order to achieve a kill is absurd. Is it likely that the AT-4 could penetrate the armor of an Abrams? Again, the answer is no as there are few locations on the vehicle that the warhead can penetrate. But this does not mean the tank is immune to such things.

And, for the record, a host a munitions have been used effectively against similarly armored vehicles to the Abrams that are far lighter than the GBU-28, a weapon who's kinetic energy alone is sufficient to punch through 30+ feet of reinforced concrete that is backed with nearly 700 lbs of high explosives. These include a variety of aircraft launched anti-tank missiles, GBUs, and vehicle launched anti-tank missiles.


Furthermore, my previous points remain. The Abrams effectiveness stands because it has only been employed in conflicts where the US has an enormous edge. It has never had to engage well equipped, prepared and trained foes. It has never had to operate in a theater without air superiority. It has never had to operate in an environment where enemy artillery was effective. Yes the Abrams is an incredible machine and yes it is a world class Main Battle Tank, one that I would easily say is a match for any other tank in the world. But that does not mean it is invulnerable. There are a shocking number of weapons around the world that can defeat it's armor that are in widespread use. Hell, I've seen relatively small (but well placed) roadside bombs destroy an Abrams.

So, if I understand you correctly, your issue is that it's part of a combined arms military. I would agree that makes it hard to judge it's capabilities as a pitched battle tank killer like the World War 2 days.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

The bottom line is simply this: The Abrams is very far from invincible and it's success has less to do with its ability to deflect and absorb damage than the simple fact that the Abrams has never been used in a battle against a significant, prepared, and technologically equivalent foe.

Somehow I find it strangely funny that right now these multi-million toys are standing around because their enemy has found a way to win the war without ever firing a shot at them.

And still you're hoping for some "real" war some time, where you can prove all that gun porn has a use.

They certainly still have their uses. There is of course a known problem with the US Military: it was designed with the assumption that we would, at some point, engage in a shooting war with the Soviet Union. This means that it is unfortunately difficult to quickly project significant power on the ground. The largest transport plane we have can only transport a single Abrams. Thus why the Stryker was developed. Sure, in a slugging match against well equipped armor it is at a significant disadvantage but it does offer far more flexibility when it comes to moving military power around.

 

[TimeLord]

Well Brotherhood Power Amour only weighs 45 pounds. I guess that's progress right?

 

[Kargathia]

The bottom line is simply this: The Abrams is very far from invincible and it's success has less to do with its ability to deflect and absorb damage than the simple fact that the Abrams has never been used in a battle against a significant, prepared, and technologically equivalent foe.

Somehow I find it strangely funny that right now these multi-million toys are standing around because their enemy has found a way to win the war without ever firing a shot at them.

And still you're hoping for some "real" war some time, where you can prove all that gun porn has a use.

They certainly still have their uses. There is of course a known problem with the US Military: it was designed with the assumption that we would, at some point, engage in a shooting war with the Soviet Union. This means that it is unfortunately difficult to quickly project significant power on the ground. The largest transport plane we have can only transport a single Abrams. Thus why the Stryker was developed. Sure, in a slugging match against well equipped armor it is at a significant disadvantage but it does offer far more flexibility when it comes to moving military power around.

You're still thinking one step behind reality right now. The problem is not how fast you can get your toys around, the problem is that in the internet age Clausewitz is more viable than ever.

They don't need to win their war on the battlefield when the weakest part of the US military is public opinion.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

So, if I understand you correctly, your issue is that it's part of a combined arms military. I would agree that makes it hard to judge it's capabilities as a pitched battle tank killer like the World War 2 days.

In short, yes. The operational capability of the Abrams has simply never been tested against an equal foe and, I would hope at least, never will. The vulnerabilities I listed that the vehicle has have been true for the history of tank warfare. No one has ever succeeded in making an unkillable tank or even a tank. It turns out that it is simply easier to poke a hole in something than it is to keep it from happening. Especially if that something is expected to move around under its own power.

 

[silasbufu]

Wow those UK researchers are pretty smart. I'm pretty sore my country is not that smart. Durr durr derp

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

You're still thinking one step behind reality right now. The problem is not how fast you can get your toys around, the problem is that in the internet age Clausewitz is more viable than ever.

They don't need to win their war on the battlefield when the weakest part of the US military is public opinion.

Public opinion didn't stop the deployments from happening in the first place. Public opinion did not save the lives of an estimated 1 million Iraqi citizens. Sure, public opinion will eventually end this war just as public opinion ended countless other conflicts before the age of the internet. But I would point out that manipulating the opinion of the masses is something people do on both sides of the equation.

And, while I do not often agree with using military power to resolve a problem (a realization I came to after being in the military), I can recognize the value of having a more mobile force. Better to show up in a week with a division of strykers than in a month with a division of Abrams. The fundamental problem that was "solved" by the Stryker was simply that there was no middle ground between heavy units (Armor and Mechanized infantry) and light units (light infantry such as airborne units). What you could get in a hurry wasn't much in the grand scheme of things and the big things take a long time to show up. Thus why there was a months long buildup in the middle east before the first gulf war and this second attempt (though there were political reasons that exacerbated the first).

 

[Kargathia]

It turns out that it is simply easier to poke a hole in something than it is to keep it from happening.

Or as somebody once famously worded it after his assassination attempt failed: "They have to get lucky every time, we have to get lucky just once".

You're still thinking one step behind reality right now. The problem is not how fast you can get your toys around, the problem is that in the internet age Clausewitz is more viable than ever.

They don't need to win their war on the battlefield when the weakest part of the US military is public opinion.

Public opinion didn't stop the deployments from happening in the first place. Public opinion did not save the lives of an estimated 1 million Iraqi citizens. Sure, public opinion will eventually end this war just as public opinion ended countless other conflicts before the age of the internet. But I would point out that manipulating the opinion of the masses is something people do on both sides of the equation.

And, while I do not often agree with using military power to resolve a problem (a realization I came to after being in the military), I can recognize the value of having a more mobile force. Better to show up in a week with a division of strykers than in a month with a division of Abrams. The fundamental problem that was "solved" by the Stryker was simply that there was no middle ground between heavy units (Armor and Mechanized infantry) and light units (light infantry such as airborne units). What you could get in a hurry wasn't much in the grand scheme of things and the big things take a long time to show up. Thus why there was a months long buildup in the middle east before the first gulf war and this second attempt (though there were political reasons that exacerbated the first).

Public opinion always was a powerful influence on war, but since the Vietnam war one thing quite dramatically changed: whether you're winning the war on the field is almost irrelevant. Technically both Vietnam and Afghanistan are soundly being won, but in both cases the war for public opinion is being lost as the enemy just won't stop fighting.

But to get closer to the original topic: there is quite a bit of an analogy between the development of the Stryker, and the role of cavalry in late medieval times, and all the way up to the Napoleontic wars.
The closest equivalent would be that of the lancers, who quite successfully traded the protection armor offered for mobility, speed, and economic effectivity.

 

[GraveeKing]

How useful to know.....
So where's the article on scientists researching the most useless shit ever instead of finding cures for cancer, STDs or just genetically coding my cat so it's floofier?

 

[Capt MacGregor]

SCIENCE!!!

 

[TornadoADV]

You're still thinking one step behind reality right now. The problem is not how fast you can get your toys around, the problem is that in the internet age Clausewitz is more viable than ever.

They don't need to win their war on the battlefield when the weakest part of the US military is public opinion.

Public opinion didn't stop the deployments from happening in the first place. Public opinion did not save the lives of an estimated 1 million Iraqi citizens. Sure, public opinion will eventually end this war just as public opinion ended countless other conflicts before the age of the internet. But I would point out that manipulating the opinion of the masses is something people do on both sides of the equation.

And, while I do not often agree with using military power to resolve a problem (a realization I came to after being in the military), I can recognize the value of having a more mobile force. Better to show up in a week with a division of strykers than in a month with a division of Abrams. The fundamental problem that was "solved" by the Stryker was simply that there was no middle ground between heavy units (Armor and Mechanized infantry) and light units (light infantry such as airborne units). What you could get in a hurry wasn't much in the grand scheme of things and the big things take a long time to show up. Thus why there was a months long buildup in the middle east before the first gulf war and this second attempt (though there were political reasons that exacerbated the first).

I would of massively preferred the M8 MGS over the Stryker anyday. The Stryker doesn't seem to be being used as the mobile cav it's meant to act as when it's tethered to the main manuevering force. That is to say, we are fighting World War 2 with Digital Age technology. The only force that seems to have changed in the that matter is the Air Force. But the Battlespace concept of interconnected combat units seems to finally be filtering down into our armoured forces, even if Land Warrior seems to have fallen on it's face for Infantry forces.

But as far as the Abrams goes, it goes the furtherest in addressing the typical issues of mobile tank warfare. the Leopard 2A6 may be easier on logistics, but I'll pick the Abrams over it every single time.

 

[SilentBobsThoughts]

NO SHIT SHERLOCK.




Seriously, today makes me super cringey to say I'm British :/ First the Americanism thread now this ><

 

[Savber]

Heavy armor leads to lesser mobility due to heavier weight.

Wow.. that information just blew my mind. -_-

 

[Dyp100]

Pretty sure these studies are mostly BS.

They don't take a lot of things into account.

Also you think having the weight distrabused around your body would be better than all on ya back, but you know, whatever.

Not like I've seen profesionals talk about this or whatever, mmmnope...