A-10 gun vs M1 Abrams tank

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TRUMPHENT

Golden Member
Jan 20, 2001
1,414
0
0
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
The armor on an M1 is very strong.

There was once a comparison argument of a company of M1's vs. a Battleship over on Warships1.com.

General consensus was, the battleship's 16" AP shells would not penetrate the Abram's armor. They would flatten the tank, and the concussion would ruin it an everyone inside, but they said the armor would not yield to the 2700lb shell.
Then they said that the Abram's gun COULD penetrate the turrets on the BB. Even though they're around 18" thick.

I found it hard to believe, but if true, that means the M1 has some tough armor.

Oh, and this scenario was at a range the tanks would be able to reach the battleship.....obviously the BB would never get in close enough to expose itself to tank fire. But if it was, its shells would have a flat trajectory, therefore they'd have to defeat the Abrams' armor where it is the toughest.

So as far as the A10's gun, I don't think it would SHRED an M1, but it would penetrate enough to kill it. Only takes one round getting inside the tank and everyone in there is pulp.


Important info for the many exciting battleship vs tank tactical situations that every commander must face. In the real world high explosive rounds like those fired by the battleship are essentially useless against tanks. The problem with conventional explosives is that a huge majority of the explosive force is wasted. Far more of the power explodes away from the target than into it. That is exactly the reason why the A10 was even built. It's EXTREMELY difficult to knock out a tank with explosives. Modern tank killing weapons are mostly kintetic-energy penetrators like the depleted uranium slug or the sabot round. Even the best shaped charge explosives are fairly ineffective against modern tanks and can be defeated with reactive armor. The way to knock out a tank is to pierce the skin rather than blow it up, a pinprick rather than a punch.


I am quite convinced that a direct hit from a battleship maingun would utterly destroy an M1 series tank. Having said that, that will never happen. Even if the battleship hit the M1 with high explosive rather than armor piercing munitions, the tank would be gone. A training round from a BB would be enough to destroy a tank if it ever made a direct hit.

Tanks, by design don't float and battleships are not land vehicles. An engagement between the two is pure fantasy. Oh well, I am a big fan of BB history and a former M1 tanker.
 

pavester

Senior member
Oct 4, 2005
295
0
0
this is a 30mm round without the "DU". Its a dummy and is used in the ah-64 its the same as the hog maybe a little shorter but the same round.
its in comparison to a 30-06 and .22

30mm vs 30-06 vs .22
 

Pocatello

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
9,754
2
76
The A-10 is a great counter-insurgent airplane, it can loiter over the battlefield for a longer period of time than any modern fighters like the F-16, and it's not as vulnerable as a helicopter. Ironically, the air force brass wanted to put the A-10 out of service ever since the gulf war of 1991, but everytime there is any action, the A-10 is always at the front. I don't know if the Air Force has a replacement for the A-10, these airplanes will be out of service once the spare parts are gone.
 

Jon855

Golden Member
Mar 24, 2005
1,214
0
0
Originally posted by: Pocatello
The A-10 is a great counter-insurgent airplane, it can loiter over the battlefield for a longer period of time than any modern fighters like the F-16, and it's not as vulnerable as a helicopter. Ironically, the air force brass wanted to put the A-10 out of service ever since the gulf war of 1991, but everytime there is any action, the A-10 is always at the front. I don't know if the Air Force has a replacement for the A-10, these airplanes will be out of service once the spare parts are gone.

:(
 

sciwizam

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2004
1,953
0
0
Originally posted by: pavester
this is a 30mm round without the "DU". Its a dummy and is used in the ah-64 its the same as the hog maybe a little shorter but the same round.
its in comparison to a 30-06 and .22

30mm vs 30-06 vs .22

:shocked::shocked::shocked:
 

Pacfanweb

Lifer
Jan 2, 2000
13,155
59
91
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Important info for the many exciting battleship vs tank tactical situations that every commander must face. In the real world high explosive rounds like those fired by the battleship are essentially useless against tanks. The problem with conventional explosives is that a huge majority of the explosive force is wasted. Far more of the power explodes away from the target than into it. That is exactly the reason why the A10 was even built. It's EXTREMELY difficult to knock out a tank with explosives. Modern tank killing weapons are mostly kintetic-energy penetrators like the depleted uranium slug or the sabot round. Even the best shaped charge explosives are fairly ineffective against modern tanks and can be defeated with reactive armor. The way to knock out a tank is to pierce the skin rather than blow it up, a pinprick rather than a punch.
BB's have 2700lb armor piercing rounds. Also have 1900lb HE.

Either one would take out a tank. Point was, the military geeks on that discussion pretty much thought that even a 2700lb AP shell wouldn't actually penetrate the M1's frontal armor.
It would completely flatten the tank, but the armor wouldn't give.
And I was responding to those who were saying the M1 wasn't very heavily armored.

And yes, even the tank's own anti-tank rounds don't really explode...they put a relatively small hole in the opposing tank, and the sabot that gets through that hole is what kills the crew and makes things a general mess.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
33,055
12,445
136
Originally posted by: Howard
Originally posted by: Slimline
That is nucking futs!! Depleted Uranium ammo? That sounds expensive and hard to come by?
I doubt it. A lot was used in the Gulf War.

i think the A10 ammo is expensive - i know the shells are kept instead of disposed (partly to use as ballast for the plane)
 

nissan720

Senior member
Dec 3, 2004
433
0
0
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: Pocatello
The M1A1 has a few vulnerable spots, like the top is less heavily armored than the front. The M1A1 is one of the most armored tank in the world, hence one of the heaviest, if not the heaviest, but it's also one of the fastest.
It should be since its powered by frickin' jet engine.

Almost a jet engine - a gas turbine instead though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#Mobility

The tank can be fueled with diesel fuel, kerosene, JP-4, any grade of MOGAS (motor gasoline), or JP-8 jet fuel
 

Buck Armstrong

Platinum Member
Dec 17, 2004
2,015
1
0
What about the M82 armor-piercing sniper rifle? I know it punches right through armored vehicles like the BMP, helicopters, trucks, etc. Can it penetrate an M1A1?
 

fireontheway

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2003
1,480
0
0
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
Originally posted by: Howard
Originally posted by: Slimline
That is nucking futs!! Depleted Uranium ammo? That sounds expensive and hard to come by?
I doubt it. A lot was used in the Gulf War.

i think the A10 ammo is expensive - i know the shells are kept instead of disposed (partly to use as ballast for the plane)

I forgot to add that the Abram's sabot penetrator is made of DU also.
 

LordMorpheus

Diamond Member
Aug 14, 2002
6,871
1
0
Originally posted by: Tick
M1A1's aren't very heavily armored. In many ways they are the sniper rifle of tanks. Shoot first, hit first.

There was a story from Desert Storm 1 - an M1A1 got stuck, with no relief vehicles nearby and the other tanks couldn't pull it out, so they decided to destroy it - it took a fairly large number of close range well placed shots from other M1A1's and none of them did crippling damage - eventually a few haulers showed up and managed to pull it out - it had to go back for repairs but it wasn't destroyed.
 

pavester

Senior member
Oct 4, 2005
295
0
0
no maybe the armor around specific parts around the engine but no where else

IRT "What about the M82 armor-piercing sniper rifle? I know it punches right through armored vehicles like the BMP, helicopters, trucks, etc. Can it penetrate an M1A1"
 

imported_Pablo

Diamond Member
Jan 20, 2002
3,714
1
0
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Proletariat
http://www.jetpix.com/webfiles/a10.jpg

is that big hole under the cockpit the main gun?

That "big hole" is the 30mm cannon.

Captured Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters referred to it as 'the silent gun'. The rounds hit their target before the target can hear the report of the gunfire.

:Q

Silent? Have you ever heard an A-10 fly? It's loud! I've never heard the gun fire IRL, though...
 

CVSiN

Diamond Member
Jul 19, 2004
9,289
1
0
Originally posted by: Aquaman
Just wondering if the A-10 30mm depleted uranium guun can penatrate the M1 Abrams tanks?

I remember hearing stories of how indedstructible the M1 is and how powerful the 30mm DU cannon is.

Cheers,
Aquaman

thats what its designed to do...
it will flat out demolish a Abrams tank..
those shells cut through armor (even reactive) like butter..
Until you see what the A-10s gun can do you really cannto fathom the destructive power it possesses
 

Tu13erhead

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
3,238
0
76
Originally posted by: Pablo
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Proletariat
http://www.jetpix.com/webfiles/a10.jpg

is that big hole under the cockpit the main gun?

That "big hole" is the 30mm cannon.

Captured Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters referred to it as 'the silent gun'. The rounds hit their target before the target can hear the report of the gunfire.

:Q

Silent? Have you ever heard an A-10 fly? It's loud! I've never heard the gun fire IRL, though...

I was at a ski mountain yesterday getting ready to strap on my skis, heard a REALLY loud noise, looked up and sure enough, it's an A-10. Then, about 10 seconds behind comes a second one, seemingly quiet until it got over us. Would have been cool to see them from the top of the mountain, since they were below the summit level.

Man, I miss airshows.
 

CVSiN

Diamond Member
Jul 19, 2004
9,289
1
0
Originally posted by: Pablo
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Proletariat
http://www.jetpix.com/webfiles/a10.jpg

is that big hole under the cockpit the main gun?

That "big hole" is the 30mm cannon.

Captured Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters referred to it as 'the silent gun'. The rounds hit their target before the target can hear the report of the gunfire.

:Q

Silent? Have you ever heard an A-10 fly? It's loud! I've never heard the gun fire IRL, though...

you dont hear it while its coming at you at high speed...
and the gun is pretty loud.. sounds like a very loud BRRRRRRRRP noise.. even its 20mm cousins are pretty loud when firing.
can hear them over the engines clearly.
 

skyking

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
22,704
5,824
146
Originally posted by: Tu13erhead
Originally posted by: Pablo
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Proletariat
http://www.jetpix.com/webfiles/a10.jpg

is that big hole under the cockpit the main gun?

That "big hole" is the 30mm cannon.

Captured Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters referred to it as 'the silent gun'. The rounds hit their target before the target can hear the report of the gunfire.

:Q

Silent? Have you ever heard an A-10 fly? It's loud! I've never heard the gun fire IRL, though...

I was at a ski mountain yesterday getting ready to strap on my skis, heard a REALLY loud noise, looked up and sure enough, it's an A-10. Then, about 10 seconds behind comes a second one, seemingly quiet until it got over us. Would have been cool to see them from the top of the mountain, since they were below the summit level.

Man, I miss airshows.
I was working in the southern WA cascades in the 90's, right on one of the low level training routes. It was a favorite training route for whidbey Is A-6's, but one time I looked up and here comes an F-111 really low, way lower than the A6's usually travel.
He goes behind this impossibly small hill, reappears, pops about 15 degreees nose up and does a barrel roll at 400 feet or so:)


 

xeno2060

Golden Member
Nov 8, 2001
1,518
4
81
DEPLETED URANIUM ARMOUR

The M1A1 tank incorporates steel encased depleted uranium armour. Armour bulkheads separate the crew compartment from the fuel tanks. The top panels of the tank are designed to blow outwards in the event of penetration by a HEAT projectile. The tank is protected against nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) warfare.

One L8A1 six-barrelled smoke grenade discharger is fitted on each side of the turret. A smoke screen can also be laid by an engine operated system.
Chobham spaced armor (ceramic blocks set in resin between layers of conventional armor) resolved the problem of protection versus mobility.
 

marvdmartian

Diamond Member
Apr 12, 2002
5,442
27
91
Originally posted by: Slimline
That is nucking futs!! Depleted Uranium ammo? That sounds expensive and hard to come by?

Not really all that hard to come by. "Depleted" uranium is nothing more than the (if I remember the numbers right) 98+% of natural uranium that's left over after it's enriched for nuclear reactor fuel. Likely this is the stuff they're getting as a by product of enrichment for the reactors the navy uses in it's subs & surface ships (just a guess, but hopefully considered an educated one......the navy uses enriched uranium for their reactors, while civilian power plants don't enrich their fuel hardly at all).

Uranium, when it's pulled from the ground, is <2% (think it might even be less than 1%, but that memory is 25 years old (from my days learning how to operate navy nuclear reactors), and a little fuzzy! :roll: ) of U-235, which is the material that will actually fission in a nuclear reactor. The remaining material is different isotopes, mostly U-238, which also is radioactive, but not nearly so much as U-235, and will not sustain a nuclear reaction in a reactor adequately enough to use it (think of it like the difference between putting normal unleaded gasoline in your car, versus 120 octane avgas). Let's face it too, the navy doesn't want to be refueling their ships & subs every 5 years, and enriching the uranium allows them to go upwards of 20+ years between refuelings. :)

So what happens to the remainder of that uranium? Some is used for shielding high radiation sources, like what are used in radiography cameras (remember that uranium is close to 1-1/2 times as dense as lead, so makes a better shield for gamma radiation than lead would), where the radiography source is so highly radioactive that the small amount of radiation put out by the U-238 is small potatoes, comparitively speaking. Some is used for ballast in various vessels, and some is used for armor and armor-piercing shells.

How safe is this stuff?? Let's put it this way......I've held a chunk of it in my hand for about 5 minutes, and I'm still typing with 2 hands! :laugh: Radioactively speaking, you could pretty much walk around with a chunk of this stuff in your pocket all day long, every day for a year, and not exceed the annual radiation exposure limits that congress has set for you, by law. The real danger with this stuff would be if you inhaled it (then the alpha radiation would be penetrating to the vital organs, where it can't do that from outside your body), if you ingested it (think heavy metal poisoning, like little kids eating leaded paint chips)........and, of course, if some big honking 30mm shell tipped with this stuff slams into your body at 1000fps!! :shocked: There is some concern with the vast amount of DU that's been used in the middle east in the past decade and a half, but that's more due to the ingestion/inhalation concerns than the radiation concerns.

Bottom line? The government pretty much has a vast supply of this stuff, and since it's a byproduct of reactor fuel enrichment, the cost is negligable. It's super-dense, it's relatively safe to be around, and it's not radioactive enough to bother you unless you put it INSIDE your body (so it's even pretty useless to use for a "dirty" bomb).

Okay......that's my lesson.......hope ya enjoyed it! ;)
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Not a contest, the Abrams would be toast. What makes the Abrams superior to other tanks in the world is NOT the armor. The Abrams has more speed, more range and better gun stablization so that it can acquire and destroy targets before the targets can see the Abrams. The Abrams wins tank-to-tank battles over tanks like the T-72 by being better in just about every regard EXCEPT the armor. The chain gun on an A10 will shred M1A1 armor like a chainsaw going through aluminum foil.

Where do you people get your information?
A T-72 has better armor than an M1A1?

Laughable.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: LordMorpheus
Originally posted by: Tick
M1A1's aren't very heavily armored. In many ways they are the sniper rifle of tanks. Shoot first, hit first.

There was a story from Desert Storm 1 - an M1A1 got stuck, with no relief vehicles nearby and the other tanks couldn't pull it out, so they decided to destroy it - it took a fairly large number of close range well placed shots from other M1A1's and none of them did crippling damage - eventually a few haulers showed up and managed to pull it out - it had to go back for repairs but it wasn't destroyed.

I would think if a crew is going to destroy a tank they do it with C4 from the inside and not with tank gund from the outside.