Comments on: Strong Tank

By: ScotCop

ScotCop — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 10:42:22 +0000

I thought that would be obvious to set the facts straight and stop miss information spreading it was maybe posted one and half years ago but never the less its still incorrrect and i was _still_ referred to this website regarding information on the M1A1 by google on its first search page at least people that view this topic in the future will not go away thinking the M1A1 is protected with Chobham armour…..

By: incognito

incognito — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 16:09:27 +0000

Wikipedia is constantly edited. This entry was originally posted a year and a half ago, back in November 2004. Wikipedia has most likely changed between then and now. What is the end result you are looking for?

By: ScotCop

ScotCop — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 16:01:38 +0000

“Yes, and he credited and linked the source too. So?”

No he didnt as the composition of Chobham armour is secret and only the British MoD knows what the composition is it was never released to the US Army as far as i know.

The M1 Abrams is according to official sources presently protected by silicon carbide tiles.

The below part was edited in and is untrue its no where stated on wikipedia.org

“To date, only 5-10 Chobham-protected tanks have been defeated by enemy fire in combat, including an M1 that was hit by an RPG-7 in the Second Gulf War; no crewmembers of either the M1 or Britain’s Challenger II have been killed as a result of armour penetration.”

Check for you’re self.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Sun, 26 Feb 2006 18:33:54 +0000

Yes, and he credited and linked the source too. So?

By: xxdeetsxx

xxdeetsxx — Sun, 26 Feb 2006 17:34:09 +0000

you managed to copy and paste that whole thing from wikipedia

By: citizensmith

citizensmith — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 00:12:15 +0000

surely a tank’s critical function in battle lies in it’s mobility..you may have state-of-the-art reactive composite armour to protect the crew and the vehicle as a whole..but what about it’s tracks?? if you could score a hit against these with something like an RPG and get the vehicle to shed a track, then you immobilize the vehicle and i doubt you’d get many volunteers to go outside with a toolbox..

By: SimonW

SimonW — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 11:23:54 +0000

Chobham and Dorchester Armour is only manufactured in one place – Cyclops Works in Sheffield, England. They are made in batches of 5 sheets. For every 5 sheets made they destroy at least 3 in testing it’s strength. If one sheet fails – the whole batch is destroyed. This level of quality control is why such tanks as the Abrams and Challenger can stand up to such a beating. As provel by the Abrams in the Thunder Run battle for Baghdad. In fact thoughout the history of armoured warfare no tank has ever endured that level of pounding without failure. However, it would be interesting to know how they would have survived had the Iraqi’a had modern weapons like LAW and TOW.

By: Phadil

Phadil — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 07:14:50 +0000

i’ve read a proposal from one of the student in university in malaysia about a type of armour that use the combination of Carbon and aluminium form under extreme heat.

By: incognito

incognito — Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:26:19 +0000

I’ve always thought the Leopard 2′s new angled armor is shaped funny. The top angle is logical , but the bottom angle into the hull looks like it can act as a shot trap. But it must be there for a reason.

As a side note, the Germans seem to like to name their tanks after cats: Tiger, Panther, Tiger 2, Leopard, Leopard 2.

Western tank designers seem to give more thought to crew survivability. The frying pan turret designs like the T-72/64/55 haven�t really changed since WW2, just in shape. Since they don�t compartamentalize their ammo, it�s probably why most pictures you see of destroyed Iraqi tanks have the turret blown clear off. After a hit, the interior catches fire, and the main gun ammunition detonates. Sucks to be the crew of those tanks.

By: Stevely

Stevely — Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:09:05 +0000

BTW, the crew survivability of Western tanks depends on much more than just the armor: spall liners on the inside armor surface, automatic fire suppression systems, and armor and fuel compartmentalization designed to direct the blast from secondary explosions away from the crew compartment and out of the vehicle.

By: Stevely

Stevely — Tue, 23 Nov 2004 21:05:16 +0000

All modern Western (and for that matter, Russian) tanks use some sort of composite armor, which is more or less an arrangement of steel plates with a gap between a front and rear plate filled with ceramics and other exotic materials. Later versions of the M1A1 and now A2 are supposed to have depleted uranium as part of the protective mix. In any case, the exact composition is classified. That type of armor was developed at Chobham first by the British so the name has stuck to armor of this type.
You can take it to the bank that the Leo II has composite armor.

By: Fred

Fred — Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:08:04 +0000

Dammit.

I was going to refer you all to the “Home Despot” parody site for your M1 shopping needs, but apparently it’s vanished.

I believe the LeoII uses “Chobham type” armour, which given it’s looks, seems likely.

By: incognito

incognito — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:30:38 +0000

We’ll put it on the Chicagoboyz armory wish list.

By: j.scott barnard

j.scott barnard — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:03:28 +0000

Can we get one of these M1A1′s?

By: John F

John F — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:54:14 +0000

All British Army tanks are equpped with weapons grade marmite :)

By: incognito

incognito — Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:28:55 +0000

Yes, Chobham indeed.

By: Fred Boness

Fred Boness — Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:29:33 +0000

That’s Chobham armour.

By: Michael Hiteshew

Michael Hiteshew — Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:34:03 +0000

I’m under the impression that the armor was developed by a British firm. (In which case I guess I should spell it ‘armour’. Don’t know if contains any ‘aluminium’, which is apparently an element found only in the British isles, like Marmite).