America has the sexiest tanks

[Gunther]

A tank and a grunt can hold a piece of ground. Sit on it all day long and not have to leave. An Airplane can loitter overhead until he needs to RTB for fuel. There are no airplanes that can hold a piece of ground.

To say the M1 is obsolete is like saying the internet is past its time. No one has use for the internet any more.

The M1 is by far the finest most superior Main Battle Tank in the world. Onle a few tanks in the world have the same composite armor it has and only one tank in the world has Depleted Uranium Ammunition--which is the only thing that can penetrate the M1's armor. The best an RPG can do to an M1 is kill exposed crewmembers and/or knock out a track. As far as penetrating the armor. Take a hike! not going to happen.

[betasoldier]

A tank and a grunt can hold a piece of ground. Sit on it all day long and not have to leave. An Airplane can loitter overhead until he needs to RTB for fuel. There are no airplanes that can hold a piece of ground.

To say the M1 is obsolete is like saying the internet is past its time. No one has use for the internet any more.

The M1 is by far the finest most superior Main Battle Tank in the world. Onle a few tanks in the world have the same composite armor it has and only one tank in the world has Depleted Uranium Ammunition--which is the only thing that can penetrate the M1's armor. The best an RPG can do to an M1 is kill exposed crewmembers and/or knock out a track. As far as penetrating the armor. Take a hike! not going to happen.

Eh, RPG's HAVE penetrated the M1's armor in Iraq, however, in all honesty I don't think that those were the one's with the newest version of its DU composite armor because it was in an article about the troops over there complaining about not having the most up to date things.

[demonseed]

Yes there have been a few cases of RPG's penetrating the armor on an M1, however most of these can be attributed to luck, not a weakness on the tank.

As you said beta, having the added reactive armor added to the outside of the tank help alot. But as soon as the piece of armor gets hit, its gone and needs replaced upon return to the nearest base. Each tank also goes through alot of stresses throughout its service life. If these tanks aren't entered into some kind of replacement plan that exchanges rebuilt one for older active ones (these programs currently exist in the USMC and USA) bad things can happen. Stress fractures happen regularly on heavy vehicles and welding them fracture back DOES NOT restore armor integrity, possibly allowing armor penetration upon being hit by a round.

But as Gunther said, our M1's are RPG proof, minus crazy hits in a weak spot as discussed above or coming in through an open hatch. The M1 tank has been proven to take hits from other Russian tanks (Desert Storm) and suffer no troop loss of life. But in so saying, we must next discuss RPG's affect on the key functionality of the M1A1. There are as you said beta, many weak spots on a tank based on its design. For example, you might hear tankers complain that they get their track blown off by a simple RPG and they must spend a few hours "walking track" to get their tank mobile again. Or, the M1's engine sits in the back and has little to no armor protecting it. An RPG could penetrate it and take the M1 offline until fixed. You could also puncture the Barrel of the 120mm cannon making the tank one heavy as machine gun platform until the cannon is repaired. And of course all the hatches are weak spots but I haven't heard of too many hajji's climbing on the tank and firing on the hatch itself yet.

In conclusion I will concur with Beta on the fact that the M1 has been penetrated on a few occasions, but one would have to look at many factors of each case to determine the reason the RPG penetrated as this is not normal. I'll tell you what, any tanker you talk to should hardly have any fear of RPG's...however, he should fear the current IED's that are using 155mm howiter rounds and 1,000 lb bombs as the explosive device. These, detonating under a tank, are more than enough to destroy our vehicles and soldiers/Marines inside, period. I've seen a few pics of some of our tanks obliterated from said devices..not pretty.

[demonseed]

Also, to answer your question on the styker's....yes they are attempting a new anti-weapons system to go on the stryker. It's basically like you said beta, a gun that will track and shoot incoming high speed projectiles.

Speaking of which, I can't believe the speed at which they fielded the Stryker's...it's armor was nowhere near the required capabilities it was supposed to be. GD has been squaeking the last few programs by the skin of their teeth and we as the warfighters, accept subpar vehicles since we need them to replace our aging weapons platforms. That whole cage that was welded onto all the Strykers that makes the vehicle look as if Gypsies live in it...was designed due to the flaws in the armor that still allowed RPG penetration. The armor also had (don't know if they fixed it) a huge flaw in its design when rounds could penetrate to around the center of the armor panel itself, getting to the core and starting a fire that spread from armor panel to armor panel like a chain of dominoes being tipped over. The worst thing about that kind of fire is that the vehicles fire extinguishing system could put it out so you needed real firefighting equipment, like the stuff found on our runways.

Anyway, I just wanted to comment on the Strykers since you said something about it beta. When I first started working on the EFV program (also designed by GD) they had Strykers under test, working right next to me at Aberdeen Proving Grounds. Neat looking but fielded too fast in my opinion. Should have extended the program another 2-3 years for max effect. But overall, the vehicle brings alot to the table, all stations have command and control capabilities (FBCB2, or Blue Force Tracker), GPS systems for current position updates, armor protection, and mobility. Still reminds me of our LAV's, just an updated platform.

[Gunther]

Reactive Armor is a piece of explosive like TNT or C4 attached to the exterior of the hull on pieces of U-shaped steel brackets that position the explosive approximately 4"-6" away from the Hull. Several of these small explosive packages cover the entire exposed surface of the hull and/or Turret of the MBT. Soviet T-80 MBTs employed this form of reactive armor as well.

TOW, Sagger and other Anti-Armor guided missiles have an elongated tip on the nose of the projectile. This tip has a shape charge which is intended to punch a hole in the armor of a vehicle which will allow the explosive in the main body of the missile to penetrate and do the real damage to the armored fighting vehicle (AFV). Reactive armor acts like a shield with the intent of detonating the shape charge in front of the projectile and causing an explosion to push the main body of the projectile away from the AFV thereby rendering the AT missile useless.

When one of the explosive packages has done its job, there is now a hole in the reactive armor of that tank. Like Demonseed says, if that explosive package is not replaced, there is a weak spot in the armor. If an AT gunner is lucky or "good" at what he is doing, he might be able to put a missile into the same place where the previous round just destroyed a piece of reactive armor. The chance of getting a second round in there is meager but if enough explosive packages are removed through detonations, the chance of success goes up.