India's MBT: Arjun and its standing among Tanks

[Chrom]

We were you using DU armor inserts way before the M1A2 came on the block, also we did not decide to place DU insert plates because we ran out of room to add additional composite armor, if needed we could very well do this.

If you look at M1A2, you'll notice there is not that much space to add armour. Addiding another 0.3-0.4 m of armor would be very difficult on some places. It is very well known fact what light composites offers much, much better per-weight protection than steel or even heaver DU. Actually, even banal wood is better than steel or DU in that regard. The only problem - you'll need 5m of wood to replace 0.5m of steel. Clearly unacceptable for AFV. But this is just example.

If you examine the question more, you'll find every example where DU inserts are used share one common cause - the intention to save space.
DU is almost 2.5 times more dense than steel - that basically means 2 times less space required for DU inserts than for steel inserts.

 

[eckherl]

If you look at M1A2, you'll notice there is not that much space to add armour. Addiding another 0.3-0.4 m of armor would be very difficult on some places. It is very well known fact what light composites offers much, much better per-weight protection than steel or even heaver DU. Actually, even banal wood is better than steel or DU in that regard. The only problem - you'll need 5m of wood to replace 0.5m of steel. Clearly unacceptable for AFV. But this is just example.

If you examine the question more, you'll find every example where DU inserts are used share one common cause - the intention to save space.
DU is almost 2.5 times more dense than steel - that basically means 2 times less space required for DU inserts than for steel inserts.

We did not place DU inserts on the M1A1 Heavy or A2 models entirely due to space savings benefits, also there is still room to grow on the front and sides of the turret, problem is the amount of vehicle weight that would be added.

 

[Chrom]

We did not place DU inserts on the M1A1 Heavy or A2 models entirely due to space savings benefits, also there is still room to grow on the front and sides of the turret, problem is the amount of vehicle weight that would be added.

I repeat for 10th time - 1 kg of steel offers better protection than 1kg of DU. You can ask any specialist for that. 2.5 m of steel offer better protection than 1m of DU.

There are some addidional benefits gained when you sandwich DU plates inside steel sheets due to alternate dencity (much like rubber plates between steel sheets, etc) - but this benefit still did not outweight weight disadvantage.

 

[eckherl]

I repeat for 10th time - 1 kg of steel offers better protection than 1kg of DU. You can ask any specialist for that. 2.5 m of steel offer better protection than 1m of DU.

There are some addidional benefits gained when you sandwich DU plates inside steel sheets due to alternate dencity (much like rubber plates between steel sheets, etc) - but this benefit still did not outweight weight disadvantage.

And which specialist would that be, and you just answered some of which I was getting at with your second paragraph. Du inserts are used to off set the performance of certain projectiles. What - do you think that the U.S is a bunch of idiots when it comes to armor protection.

Again - whoever states that we cannot add extra armor protection on the M1A2 is not making a correct statement.

 

[Chrom]

And which specialist would that be, and you just answered some of which I was getting at with your second paragraph. Du inserts are used to off set the performance of certain projectiles. What - do you think that the U.S is a bunch of idiots when it comes to armor protection.

Again - whoever states that we cannot add extra armor protection on the M1A2 is not making a correct statement.

It is not the question what it is absolutely impossible to do in any cirumstance, but taking another 0.3-0.5m ADDIDIONAL armour causing so much problems what it is better to use slightly inferior DU (compared to common composite armor or steel).

Note, every country since 80x use DU as penetrator. Yet only USA use DU as armour, and only on M1 serie where space is even more of concern than already huge weight.

 

[eckherl]

It is not the question what it is absolutely impossible to do in any cirumstance, but taking another 0.3-0.5m ADDIDIONAL armour causing so much problems what it is better to use slightly inferior DU (compared to common composite armor or steel).

Note, every country since 80x use DU as penetrator. Yet only USA use DU as armour, and only on M1 serie where space is even more of concern than already huge weight.

Due to the health and environmetal risks associated with a potential battle kill is what has kept everyone else from using it, destroyed M1s with Du plating have to be handled quite differently versus other destroyed vehicles.

What composite material is currently fielded that offers better density and protection levels over Du plates. Even Russia has stated that M1 series tanks with this protection level is a challenge with their current KE projectiles.

 

[Chrom]

Due to the health and environmetal risks associated with a potential battle kill is what has kept everyone else from using it, destroyed M1s with Du plating have to be handled quite differently versus other destroyed vehicles.

What composite material is currently fielded that offers better density and protection levels over Du plates. Even Russia has stated that M1 series tanks with this protection level is a challenge with their current KE projectiles.

Yes, M1A2+ types have very strong frontal armour (Allthought probably not stronger than t-90...). But not becouse some very effective high-tech armour compostions - no, simply becouse of very thick armour and very heavy weight.

I got a chance to ask a good professional about reason USA fielded DU armour, and how it compares to some other types of composite armour. Here is the answers:

1. Even simply polyuritan is about 3 times more effective (per-weight) against APFSDS and HEAT than steel. Modern long-rod penetrators and HEAT warheads penetrate such armour a bit better, but still polyuritan remains much more effective that steel. The only problem is quite large space such filling takes.

2. DU is used in form of small thin sheets inside steel bricks to form NERA arrays. These DU sheets "explode" when APFSDS dart touches it due to its dencity, and debris reflects from steel encasing back to APFSDS/HEAT dart.

3. Such armour with DU inserts is about as effective (both per-weight and per-space) as armour with corrundum inserts (ex. T-64b) - but DU is much cheapers. DU is waste from weapon/reactor uranium, so it costs virtually nothing.

4. It have one drawback - increased toxity & radioactivity upon penetration. Quite bad for crew inside tank.

5. Common composite filling such as polyuritan or more advanced materials are still more effective per-weight than such NERA arrays. But, as i said, takes much large space.

 

[eckherl]

Yes, M1A2+ types have very strong frontal armour (Allthought probably not stronger than t-90...). But not becouse some very effective high-tech armour compostions - no, simply becouse of very thick armour and very heavy weight.

I got a chance to ask a good professional about reason USA fielded DU armour, and how it compares to some other types of composite armour. Here is the answers:

1. Even simply polyuritan is about 3 times more effective (per-weight) against APFSDS and HEAT than steel. Modern long-rod penetrators and HEAT warheads penetrate such armour a bit better, but still polyuritan remains much more effective that steel. The only problem is quite large space such filling takes.

2. DU is used in form of small thin sheets inside steel bricks to form NERA arrays. These DU sheets "explode" when APFSDS dart touches it due to its dencity, and debris reflects from steel encasing back to APFSDS/HEAT dart.

3. Such armour with DU inserts is about as effective (both per-weight and per-space) as armour with corrundum inserts (ex. T-64b) - but DU is much cheapers. DU is waste from weapon/reactor uranium, so it costs virtually nothing.

4. It have one drawback - increased toxity & radioactivity upon penetration. Quite bad for crew inside tank.

5. Common composite filling such as polyuritan or more advanced materials are still more effective per-weight than such NERA arrays. But, as i said, takes much large space.

Sorry Chrom, but this is not how DU is used on the M1 series tanks if I am understanding your explanation correctly. And I beg to differ on the effectiveness of poly as a Russian filler against DU or other advanced projectiles. Also now Russia is making statements that the T-90 has the same protection level as a M1A2, sounds like some of the guys from Tank net are having some fun.

Here is a couple of photos showing additional armor placed on a M1 series, its got a big gun also.

 

[Wooki]

Sorry Chrom, but this is not how DU is used on the M1 series tanks if I am understanding your explanation correctly. And I beg to differ on the effectiveness of poly as a Russian filler against DU or other advanced projectiles. Also now Russia is making statements that the T-90 has the same protection level as a M1A2, sounds like some of the guys from Tank net are having some fun.

Here is a couple of photos showing additional armor placed on a M1 series, its got a big gun also.

Hey, love the big metal box with the hoola hoola shirt Eck... where did you get that shot? Is that a viking in the back ground as well?

cheers

w

 

[eckherl]

Hey, love the big metal box with the hoola hoola shirt Eck... where did you get that shot? Is that a viking in the back ground as well?

cheers

w

Hey Wooki

Don`t tell me that you havent seen these before.
interesting breech block and recoil mechanism is sported in this proto type puppy. Here is a top view.

Yes - that is a Viking.

 

[Wooki]

Hey Wooki

Don`t tell me that you havent seen these before.
interesting breech block and recoil mechanism is sported in this proto type puppy. Here is a top view.

Yes - that is a Viking.

Nope. But that is the same breech locking mechanism used on the crusader. Now there is a platform that should have been fighting in the ghan. Talk about a "what if".

and I meant to write "skirt", not "shirt"... one of these days I will take a typing course.

cheers

w

 

[eckherl]

Nope. But that is the same breech locking mechanism used on the crusader. Now there is a platform that should have been fighting in the ghan. Talk about a "what if".

and I meant to write "skirt", not "shirt"... one of these days I will take a typing course.

cheers

w

So they have placed a gravitational/recoil drop breech block on the Crusader, that would be a big chunk of steel, but it is supposed have a higher rate of fire over the PZH2000 by a couple of rounds per minute. It is too bad that it will not get fielded.

I actually loaded up the wrong tank turret photo , it needs to go to this little gem that ended up back on the drawing boards. I will have to comb thru my archives and find the bloody thing. This breech is actually for a 105mm gun designed to fire the hot rod M900 round.

 

[pounce]

Chrom wrote;
“Yes, M1A2+ types have very strong frontal armour (Although probably not stronger than t-90...). But not because some very effective high-tech armour compositions - no, simply because of very thick armour and very heavy weight.”

I’m very dubious of the above claim. The T 90 is simply the T72BM which due to the poor showing of the T72 and T72M1(aka T72A) in the Gulf got a name make over. Now the polyurethane filler used while effective against shaped charges bears no impact on the penetration capabilities of a sabot round. The T90 on armour alone (with ERA) has a turret RHA of between 5.4-7cm. The M1A1HA as deployed to the Gulf in 1991 had a turret RHA of between 6-8cm. (Which was 17 years ago)

I’ll accept that the Shtora defensive aids will make a difference. However and a big however is when it comes to the fight a tank which weights almost 20 tonnes more than its opponent is usually going to be better protected than its smaller rival. The T90 belongs to the T72 line a line which hasn’t a good track record in taking hits. The M1 has a far better track record.
Lastly the one overriding factor in warfare which is almost never mentioned is training. It’s alright having all the gear and no idea. But trained troops will always defeat untrained troops. The Germans did it in 1940, The Israelis did it in 1967/73 and the Yanks did it in 1991/2003. Even when using outdated equipment they will still prevail.

Facts on paper are one thing real life is something else.

 

[Chrom]

Chrom wrote;
“Yes, M1A2+ types have very strong frontal armour (Although probably not stronger than t-90...). But not because some very effective high-tech armour compositions - no, simply because of very thick armour and very heavy weight.”

I’m very dubious of the above claim. The T 90 is simply the T72BM which due to the poor showing of the T72 and T72M1(aka T72A) in the Gulf got a name make over. Now the polyurethane filler used while effective against shaped charges bears no impact on the penetration capabilities of a sabot round. The T90 on armour alone (with ERA) has a turret RHA of between 5.4-7cm. The M1A1HA as deployed to the Gulf in 1991 had a turret RHA of between 6-8cm. (Which was 17 years ago)

polyurethane filler is effective against both APFSDS and HEAT. T-90A frontal armor WITHOUT ERA estimated to 750-850 RHA. Besides, T-72B got almost 1.5 times thicker frontal armour than T-72M1 - 250-380mm vs 500-550. If you want do draw ANY conclusion about T-90A on the basis of T-72 - then i'll start talking about M1A2 on the basis of M1...

I’ll accept that the Shtora defensive aids will make a difference. However and a big however is when it comes to the fight a tank which weights almost 20 tonnes more than its opponent is usually going to be better protected than its smaller rival.

All things being equal - yes, should be better protected. But the main USSR achievment here is what things ARE NOT EQUAL on these tanks. T-xx serie have only half interior armoured volume compared to M1xx serie , yet only 1.5 times lower weight. Guess which tank have really thicker armour here....

The T90 belongs to the T72 line a line which hasn’t a good track record in taking hits. The M1 has a far better track record.
Lastly the one overriding factor in warfare which is almost never mentioned is training. It’s alright having all the gear and no idea. But trained troops will always defeat untrained troops. The Germans did it in 1940, The Israelis did it in 1967/73 and the Yanks did it in 1991/2003. Even when using outdated equipment they will still prevail.

O.O. Ok, lets send T-90A against M1 with impotent 105mm gun and then draw conclusions about M1A2. Shall we?

Training... we speak about russian vs american tanks, no? If you want to speak about USA vs Iraq or Israel vs Egypet battles - thats entirely another matter.

Facts on paper are one thing real life is something else.

Yes, real life is something else.

Now, we have fairly good & proven estimations of T-72, T-72B, T-80B/U/UD armour. We have fairly good estimations of M-60 and early M1 series. We can well see what counterporary T-xx serie tanks have BETTER armour than M-xx serie tanks - be it M-60xx or M-1xx. This is really, well, reality.

P.S. Eckherl, i dont know if you understand me right. Either way, bring something substancial to discussion. I mean, any fact. Any, resonable argumented, number.

 

[gf0012-aust]

P.S. Eckherl, i dont know if you understand me right. Either way, bring something substancial to discussion. I mean, any fact. Any, resonable argumented, number.

It might be prudent to reserve your comments when speaking to some of the professionals.

eg, one of the respondents is a master gunner, another does actually have involvement with armour development and in materials science with new armour technologies.

You should also appreciate that internal volume has to be defined. Some do it inner shell and no furnishings, others assess it on furniture included as the platform is deployed with furniture as std rather than a completely evacuated state. Thats because other equipment and furnishings are actually built in as part of the crew self protection as well as operational requirement. (Merkava being a good example of this). Trying to extrapolate relative thickness due to subtraction of internal volume against exterior mass and weight is completely eroneous. Add in the fact that RHA is also meaningless and you can start to see why RHA baselines based on thickness is just plain foolish (albeit a brave attempt to assign some form of comparative relativity).

I've yet to see any publicly available data on the M1A2 that reflects reality. Thats based on the fact that I was involved in the early stages of the Leopard upgrades and we had access to a variety of tank parameters so as to test some german add-on armour (not reactive).

 

[pounce]

Crom writes;
“polyurethane filler is effective against both APFSDS and HEAT”

Actually from the information I have at hand it isn’t. While the Super Dolly Patton turret is supposed to be effective to the tune of 950mm against HEAT, that figure drops down to 520mm against APFSDS. The T72A turret fielded figures of 560mm and 500mm respectively. As you undoubtedly know polyurethane is used in order to inhibit the chemical jet utilised by HEAT weapons to penetrate armour. For everything else the space in the T72 armour is filled with metal spheres. (Export tanks have that gap filled with sand)

“O.O. Ok, lets send T-90A against M1 with impotent 105mm gun and then draw conclusions about M1A2. Shall we?”

Sir, I think you will find that the 105 gun based on the Cent and Merkavas took out the first T72s in 1982. In fact while I don’t have the info immediately at hand I’m sure that 105mm armed M60 took out T72 as well.

“Training... we speak about russian vs american tanks, no? If you want to speak about USA vs Iraq or Israel vs Egypet battles - thats entirely another matter.”

No sir, I referred to the standard of training that Western Troops use as a datum. Just for the info. Egyptian troops in 1973 were trained to a very high standard. Even the IDF admits to that. I give credit were credit is due.

“Now, we have fairly good & proven estimations of T-72, T-72B, T-80B/U/UD armour. We have fairly good estimations of M-60 and early M1 series. We can well see what counterporary T-xx serie tanks have BETTER armour than M-xx serie tanks - be it M-60xx or M-1xx. This is really, well, reality.”

If you believe that, then that is your prerogative. However the many pictures I have of Russian armour in bits and the lack of western Armour in the same predicament paints an entirely different picture for me. Now I must run as my CO needs me to sort out his computer. Typical Rupert.

 

[Chrom]

It might be prudent to reserve your comments when speaking to some of the professionals.

eg, one of the respondents is a master gunner, another does actually have involvement with armour development and in materials science with new armour technologies.

And? If i'm wrong - please prove it. Just telling "you are wrong" carry exactly zero information for anyone and bring exactly nothing to discussion.

You should also appreciate that internal volume has to be defined. Some do it inner shell and no furnishings, others assess it on furniture included as the platform is deployed with furniture as std rather than a completely evacuated state. Thats because other equipment and furnishings are actually built in as part of the crew self protection as well as operational requirement. (Merkava being a good example of this). Trying to extrapolate relative thickness due to subtraction of internal volume against exterior mass and weight is completely eroneous. Add in the fact that RHA is also meaningless and you can start to see why RHA baselines based on thickness is just plain foolish (albeit a brave attempt to assign some form of comparative relativity).

Define internal volume as you wish - T-xx serie have only half of M1xx serie. IF you think i'm wrong here - prove it. The general drawning of both tanks are publicity available. But alas, it is well known basic fact.

And no, internal volume / weight ratio give very good explanation why T-xx serie have better armour than M-60x and M1xx serie while being lighter. I repeat, NOW we know pretty well M-60 and early M1 series armour figures. We know T-72x, T-80x armour figures. We can compare and draw some conclusion based on facts, and not just opinions.

While i agree what general RHA fugures generally is a bit misleading - but this is best we can do without presenting long table with every APFSDS shell type against every armour combination under every angle.

I've yet to see any publicly available data on the M1A2 that reflects reality. Thats based on the fact that I was involved in the early stages of the Leopard upgrades and we had access to a variety of tank parameters so as to test some german add-on armour (not reactive).

If you want facts, lets concentrate on early M1xx and T-xx serie. These we can compare. Then we can give some prediction how later "unknown" M1A2 and T-90A upgrades relates to each other.

 

[Chrom]

Crom writes;
“polyurethane filler is effective against both APFSDS and HEAT”

Actually from the information I have at hand it isn’t. While the Super Dolly Patton turret is supposed to be effective to the tune of 950mm against HEAT, that figure drops down to 520mm against APFSDS. The T72A turret fielded figures of 560mm and 500mm respectively. As you undoubtedly know polyurethane is used in order to inhibit the chemical jet utilised by HEAT weapons to penetrate armour. For everything else the space in the T72 armour is filled with metal spheres. (Export tanks have that gap filled with sand)

“O.O. Ok, lets send T-90A against M1 with impotent 105mm gun and then draw conclusions about M1A2. Shall we?”

Sir, I think you will find that the 105 gun based on the Cent and Merkavas took out the first T72s in 1982. In fact while I don’t have the info immediately at hand I’m sure that 105mm armed M60 took out T72 as well.

1. Most experts agree what no single T-72 tank was killed during 1982 campaign by APFSDS. T-72 never encountered Merkava in the battle. Several T-72 tanks were destryed by ATGM's ambush - and thats it.

If you search a bit, you'll find why T-72A in russian army recived 20mm aplique armour in early 80x and about 105mm APFSDS (М111 aka M735) test. Best western APFSDS to date was barely able to penetrate T-72A frontal armour, and only in half cases. I dont even speak about T64B/T80x and T-72B armour... Now, if you want to tell us what same APFSDS will be able to penetrate T-90A amour - i cant help here. Admin: Text deleted. That response was totally unacceptable. You have been on here long enough to know what is expected of members.

“Training... we speak about russian vs american tanks, no? If you want to speak about USA vs Iraq or Israel vs Egypet battles - thats entirely another matter.”

No sir, I referred to the standard of training that Western Troops use as a datum. Just for the info. Egyptian troops in 1973 were trained to a very high standard. Even the IDF admits to that. I give credit were credit is due.

I dont understand you. Are you suggesting what Egypt troops and commanders were just as good trained as Israel ones? BTW, the very some Israel soldiers prised very high T-62 tanks.

“Now, we have fairly good & proven estimations of T-72, T-72B, T-80B/U/UD armour. We have fairly good estimations of M-60 and early M1 series. We can well see what counterporary T-xx serie tanks have BETTER armour than M-xx serie tanks - be it M-60xx or M-1xx. This is really, well, reality.”

If you believe that, then that is your prerogative. However the many pictures I have of Russian armour in bits and the lack of western Armour in the same predicament paints an entirely different picture for me. Now I must run as my CO needs me to sort out his computer. Typical Rupert.

Yes, i believe that becouse i have seen very good drawning, know some tests made, and rely on some very well known experts computing based on these drawings. They do it openly. Anyone can check. And whese facts do you believe? Some rumors?

P.S. Iran-Iraq war is a good example of 2 equally trained sides. This unique war can really spot a light on T-62/T-72 vs M60 and Chieftain. Should we discuss this encounter?

 

[pounce]

Crom Good afternoon, I’ve returned from trying to sort out the COs computer and am able to give your post my full attention.

“Most experts agree what no single T-72 tank was killed during 1982 campaign by APFSDS. T-72 never encountered Merkava in the battle. Several T-72 tanks were destryed by ATGM's ambush - and thats it.”

In June 1982 Syria had around 250 T72 and T72M tanks in her inventory. The 82nd Armoured Brigade contained most of the T72s deployed to Lebanon. In an attempt to relieve the besieged 1st Armoured Division the 82nd were pressed forward. The Israeli had anticipated the move and in a brief ambush by Merkava tanks and M113 Nagmash tank destroyers armed with TOW the unit (The 82nd ) was stopped. Total losses for the campaign were 19 T72 to Merkava and 11 to TOW missiles from the M113 and AH-1 Cobras. The Markava armed with a 105mm gun firing the new M111 APFSDS had no difficulty penetrating The T72s armour..
Now here is the sting in the tale. During the Operation Peace for Galilee, the Israeli 362d Tank Battalion on the 10th/ 11th of June 1982 lost 8 Magach-4s in the town of Sultan Yakoub. Those tanks which were paraded to the worlds press also included a quantity of the new 105mm M111 ("Hetz" or "arrow") armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) ammunition. The Russians took delivery of those 105mm rounds and in secret testing which took place at Kubinka in 1982 the Russians shot up the latest variant of the T72 the T72A ((Obiekt 174) This live-fire testing confirmed that the Mill Hetz round was able to penetrate the T-72A's glacis armour, but not the tank's turret frontal armour. Because of this the Soviets went back to the drawing board and came up with the T-72B1 (Aka Super Dolly Patton) which instead of 3 layers of armour (of the T72A) had 5 layers. In other words it was the penetration capabilities of the 105mm APFSDS (used in Lebanon) which lead to the up armouring of the T72A versions to the T72B standard.

Then you just intentionally flaming.

Sir, I am 46 years of age and have worn the uniform of my country for the last 27 years. I study history in order to understand the present. Why should I disregard historical fact which tells the truth when subscribing to emotional content paints a false picture? A picture I should add which will only lead to the untimely deaths of those foolish enough to follow me into battle. (Mind you at my age I usually end up following them) At no time have I posted in an attempt to flame. But merely to discus the subject at hand. If you feel that I am incorrect then you are free to say so. But to try and say I am flaming on this board does you no justice. I’m not the most knowledgeable on AFVs and such but if you should peruse my pictures on this site you’ll see I make a hobby of going around and visiting as many Tank museums/Tank Parks/Exercises as possible in which to improve my lot.

 

[eckherl]

polyurethane filler is effective against both APFSDS and HEAT. T-90A frontal armor WITHOUT ERA estimated to 750-850 RHA. Besides, T-72B got almost 1.5 times thicker frontal armour than T-72M1 - 250-380mm vs 500-550. If you want do draw ANY conclusion about T-90A on the basis of T-72 - then i'll start talking about M1A2 on the basis of M1...
All things being equal - yes, should be better protected. But the main USSR achievment here is what things ARE NOT EQUAL on these tanks. T-xx serie have only half interior armoured volume compared to M1xx serie , yet only 1.5 times lower weight. Guess which tank have really thicker armour here....
O.O. Ok, lets send T-90A against M1 with impotent 105mm gun and then draw conclusions about M1A2. Shall we?

Training... we speak about russian vs american tanks, no? If you want to speak about USA vs Iraq or Israel vs Egypet battles - thats entirely another matter.


Yes, real life is something else.

Now, we have fairly good & proven estimations of T-72, T-72B, T-80B/U/UD armour. We have fairly good estimations of M-60 and early M1 series. We can well see what counterporary T-xx serie tanks have BETTER armour than M-xx serie tanks - be it M-60xx or M-1xx. This is really, well, reality.

P.S. Eckherl, i dont know if you understand me right. Either way, bring something substancial to discussion. I mean, any fact. Any, resonable argumented, number.

Chrom - all you do is rant and rave about how great the Russians are and how bad and misleading the U.S is. You have not brought anything to the table inregards to Russian T series tanks to convince me that they are superior over current western tanks, all this information that you are basing your conclusions on are coming from propaganda sites owned by Russians and you have not proven your facts, and all you seem to be doing is trolling for sensitive information inregards to Western armor. If you do not take anything that I have to say worth while then so be it, I am not out to impress anybody on this site. Again - name the pro who stated to you the armor configuration of a M1A2, is he Russian, if it isn`t a big secret could you share your diagrams, or are you going to be like Harkonnen from tank net and make statements with no substance and keep flashing the same old Russian web site. And I think that @Pounce is just trying to have a friendly discussion with us why are you showing hostility towards him, prove him wrong, who are the experts that state the IDF has only destroyed T-72s with Tow missiles versus maingun rounds, this has been a ongoing debate on the real truth behind this story and I doubt that you will really learn the truth to it.