A10 vs Abrams tank?

[SenorBeef]

IIRC, the T72B has a top armor equivelant to 300mm of RHA, so I would imagine the Abrahms has at least that, probably significantly better. Wiki lists Gau-8 penetration at 38mm at 1000 yards (seems a bit on the low side to me), I assume for a 90 degree hit but it doesn’t say. Coming in at a 10 degree dive actually makes for a poor ballistic angle against the top armor - armor effectively doubles in performance for every 30 degrees you are hitting it off center. If the rounds are hitting the top armor at like 60 degrees off at 1000 yards, you’re looking at 38mm worth of penetration on 900mm thick armor (estimating T-72B equivelant at 60 degrees). Not only that, but it’s easy to glance at that steep an angle.

Those estimates actually seem somewhat conservative in favor of the A-10 to me.

[SenorBeef]

That’s top turret armor, btw. The hull is more vulnerable and engine kills in particular are very possible.

This is where I get 300mm equivelant for T72B turret btw, if I’m understanding that page correctly. I don’t quite fully understand everything it says.

[Dissonance]

I suspect that you are misreading it; I don’t see a value for the turret top, just turret side and rear

Side turret ranges from 40-60cm thick near front thinning to ~ 15-20cm around back. This is probably half and half cast/STEF thus the KE armor is 0.66 while the HEAT armor is 0.77. The effective KE armor ranges from 40cm narrowing quickly to 26cm and 10-13cm around back.

The turret is more heavily armored than the hull,

The side hull is 6cm thick rolled steel but the lower side hull around the wheels is probably only 2cm thick
…
The rear armor is unlikely to be more than 4cm

It’s a safe assumption that top armor is at best equal to the rear armor and almost certainly less.

[SenorBeef]

The light blue value on the top of the turret corresponds to

“44-48cm LOS x 0.66 [Steel/STB] = 29-32cm KE plus K-5 where present = 48±6cm KE
44-48cm LOS x 0.77 [Steel/STB] = 34-37cm HEAT plus K-5 where present = 70±16cm HEAT”

It seems logical to me to interpret the blue as the top of the turret. Red is the mantle, yellow the turret front, and green the turret sides.

[LSLGuy]

@xtisme

I think the British Challenger series and Germany Leopard II series of tanks also use Chabum armor. As noted by other posters, the thinnest (and least deflective) armor is going to be on top of the tank, so they are as vulnerable to hits from above as the M1 is. I don’t think that there is any more advanced armor on a fighting vehicle than Chabum…not that I’ve heard of anyway, so protection wise they are all pretty close.

-XT

For “Chabum” above we should all read “Chobham” as in Chobham armour - Wikipedia

[XT]

Ah, thanks…wasn’t sure how it was spelled and didn’t try to Google it since I was posting from my phone. Appreciate it.

ETA: Don’t see the Leopard II listed, so might have been wrong about that as well.

-XT

[Mekhazzio]

500mm is out of bounds, that page is referencing the upper curve of the turret side (they’re very round). That aside, this actually is one of the few areas where Russian tanks have the advantage, because experiences in Chechnya, particularly the “guy with RPG on top of building” got them sticking reactive armor all over their tanks, including the roof.

The roof armor estimates I’ve seen for the M1 and Leopard 2 tend fall within the 30-50mm range, aka Very Thin. Even in the ‘slathered with reactive armor’ best case scenario, you won’t get more than 200mm or so. There’s just no purpose, from the view of the Cold War scenarios these vehicles were made for, to put armor somewhere that it’s not likely to ever be useful, and trying to proof against heavy aircraft missiles would be futile.

The Israeli Merkava is supposed to have the beefiest roof protection of the generation, owing to their greater focus on urban combat, but I’ve never seen a number put forward. They take anything that might be viewed as a national security secret pretty seriously over there.

[Dissonance]

@SenorBeef

It seems logical to me to interpret the blue as the top of the turret. Red is the mantle, yellow the turret front, and green the turret sides.

If you hover your mouse over the diagram it reads front armor diagram. The light blue isn’t the turret roof; it’s the top of the frontal turret armor thickness. 300mm RHA equivalent is a foot of armor. The turret has the thickest armor from all angles compared to the hull and it’s only 40-60cm near the turret front thinning quickly to 15-20cm at the rear. Compared to this the side hull is 6cm with the rear hull unlikely to be more than 4cm. The roof and the belly of tanks are almost always the thinnest armor; based on these numbers I doubt the turret roof is more than 10cm max and the hull roof 3cm max.

[Capitaine_Zombie]

@xtisme

I think the British Challenger series and Germany Leopard II series of tanks also use Chabum armor. As noted by other posters, the thinnest (and least deflective) armor is going to be on top of the tank, so they are as vulnerable to hits from above as the M1 is. I don’t think that there is any more advanced armor on a fighting vehicle than Chabum…not that I’ve heard of anyway, so protection wise they are all pretty close.

-XT

I thought Chobham armor’s main weakness was precisely sustained fire (over a greater protection against missiles). No?