A-10 gun vs M1 Abrams tank

[Triumph]

In my fairly educated experience, today's armor is outmatched by today's weapons. It takes ALOT of armor steel to defeat even non-AP armor. There are different grades of armor steel, but taking a swag at it, you probably need 2 inches of hard steel to defeat a .50 cal AP round. The M1 has incredible armor from the front, and the top and bottom are probably significantly better than the armor on say a Bradley. But a 30 mm bullet is more than double the size of a .50 cal round and likely going faster. And there are alot of bullets! I'm pretty sure that even the DU armor on the top of an M1 is going to be outmatched by the A-10's cannon.

 

[fireontheway]

Originally posted by: Genx87

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.

:laugh:

 

[Vich]

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

 

[mercanucaribe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium Nasty stuff...

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Triumph
In my fairly educated experience, today's armor is outmatched by today's weapons. It takes ALOT of armor steel to defeat even non-AP armor. There are different grades of armor steel, but taking a swag at it, you probably need 2 inches of hard steel to defeat a .50 cal AP round. The M1 has incredible armor from the front, and the top and bottom are probably significantly better than the armor on say a Bradley. But a 30 mm bullet is more than double the size of a .50 cal round and likely going faster. And there are alot of bullets! I'm pretty sure that even the DU armor on the top of an M1 is going to be outmatched by the A-10's cannon.

You can increase the effectiveness of armor by sloping it at an angle.
Ballistic tests of a Tiger vs Panther were a good indication of this. The Tiger was bigger, heavier, and had thicker armor but nearly no slope. The Panther resembled the T-34 and could take more direct hits without a failure.

 

[AMCRambler]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Bootprint

Originally posted by: Proletariat
http://www.jetpix.com/webfiles/a10.jpg

is that big hole under the cockpit the main gun?

The gun is under the body, what you might be looking at is the air-to-air fuel receptical.

If he's looking at the same thing I'm looking at, he's looking at the 30mm cannon. More pics of it here:

http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/1050452/1/49963538

EDIT: Looks like we weren't. I just saw what he's referring to as the big hole.

Nah you were right, I thought the hole directly under the cockpit was either some sort of radar/detection device or refueling thingie.

In the pic I posted it just looks like a big hole. Its actually a seven barreled gun :Q

That hole looks to me like it's got a Forward Looking Infrared(FLIR) sensor in it.

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: Proletariat
http://www.jetpix.com/webfiles/a10.jpg

is that big hole under the cockpit the main gun?

no the big hole in that particular pic is a refueling port for aerial refueling...
the big black circle UNDER the aircraft is the gun..

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Triumph
In my fairly educated experience, today's armor is outmatched by today's weapons. It takes ALOT of armor steel to defeat even non-AP armor. There are different grades of armor steel, but taking a swag at it, you probably need 2 inches of hard steel to defeat a .50 cal AP round. The M1 has incredible armor from the front, and the top and bottom are probably significantly better than the armor on say a Bradley. But a 30 mm bullet is more than double the size of a .50 cal round and likely going faster. And there are alot of bullets! I'm pretty sure that even the DU armor on the top of an M1 is going to be outmatched by the A-10's cannon.

You can increase the effectiveness of armor by sloping it at an angle.
Ballistic tests of a Tiger vs Panther were a good indication of this. The Tiger was bigger, heavier, and had thicker armor but nearly no slope. The Panther resembled the T-34 and could take more direct hits without a failure.

Sure but you don't always know where the threat is coming from. Fly in low on an M1 and you can hit the sides of the turret almost dead on.

 

[EXman]

We are talking about Cobra Commanders plane right?

 

[OrganizedChaos]

Originally posted by: EXman
We are talking about Cobra Commanders plane right?

way to bump a dead thread :thumbsup:

 

[Aquaman]

Blast from the past

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[otispunkmeyer]

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.

think of the pressure spread though, a big shell like that acts over a larger area, the larger the area the less pressure is exerted, though the transfer of momentum would ruin everyone inside.

these 30mm DU rounds won't be bowling anyone over from the impact, but their relatively small surface area probably means they exert more pressure on the armour

 

[Mardeth]

Hmm I wonder if Molotovs cocktails would be effective. And are T-90s a threat to M1A1?

 

[CaptnKirk]

One of the tricks in taking out a tank with Depleted Uranium rounds is to go for the engine compartment and fuel tank areas.
Since the rounds are pyrophoric (ignigte during fragmentation) as they penetrate the shell, they set
the POL (Petroleum, Oils, & Lubricants) on fire. The fluids expand as they heat up, spilling out
and engulfing the vehicle in a flaming fuel fire. Not a nice area to be confined inside of,
especially with DU fragments ricocheting around inside.

The Copperhead and Hellfire rounds from rockets and artillary perform a simular ignition process when they hit.
A copper pellet inside the penetrator round is compressed and heated into a plasma, and when the arrmor is breached
by the shaped charge's focus - it injects a stream of 5,000 degree copper plasma inside the tank.
Again - overheat & ignite the fuels & oils, and incinerate the occupants.

And then there's the Javelin
Check out the Videos - and enjoy your tank ride.

 

[IronWing]

No scientific spirit at all around here? Let's find out. If one of you can get an A-10 and someone else the tank, I'll bring the lawn chairs.