Does the armor reaction you speak of used to negate the force of the explosion, this has me interested.

 

Um, no, the M1's armor does not explode. It is capable of being equipped with Reactive Armor, which is as you describe, but I don't know that it's very common. It could be, but I don't know. In either case, reactive armor is an add-on bit of equipment that is normally not used. I would imagine its use in urban environments is limited, based on the additional collateral effects of setting off more explosives in a crowded environment. Generally, the M1's armor is something called "Chobham Armor" which is a classified mix of layers of metal, ceramic, and other things.

For Kyushin, reactive armor functions by disrupting the formation of the molten jet of copper used by a shaped charge to penetration armor. The actual amount of explosive in a shaped charge is relatively small...all the lethality comes from the jet of metal. If you prevent it from forming properly, the weapon won't hurt the tank. The explosion from the reactive armor disrupts the jet formation. Obviously, however, you don't want to be a guy on foot nearby when this happens.

Also, topic title edited b/c I can't stand looking at the word "Missle"

 

Here's a link explaning Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA). The Abrams has not needed this, but the Army has used it on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and the Marines have used it on some of their landing and their M60A1 Patton tanks. It was developed by the Israelis, who have used it extenssively on their Pattons and M113 armored personel carriers. The Russians/Soviets have used a versio nof this as well on their tanks. It's charecterized by the body of the vehicle being essentially surrounded by what look like boxes., as in the picture of an Israeli Patton below.

Same style tank without ERA

 

 

the M1 may be badass but the siege tank owns all

 

The M-14 has gone through such test as well. And wait until the H&K X series rifle to come out. I got a chance to test fire that first hand.

 

A little more from my Colonel friend:

"Had a little more time to read through the posts. Here's some more
information:

The driver's primary method of entering or exiting the tank is through the
turret, not the driver's hatch. The hatch is equipped with 4" thick
periscopes called vision blocks. When you see the vision blocks on the front
slope of the hatch, the driver's head is actually about a foot below the
hatch itself in a fully reclined position (think Lazy Boy recliner in the
maximum laid back position). The only way to penetrate the hatch would be to
fire down from a rooftop, and only if the turret wasn't overhanging the
driver's hatch (turret would have to be 90 degrees to the right or left).
The driver has the safest spot in the tank.

Trying to blow out the track with an RPG would be sort of like trying to
blow out a bulldozer's tracks with a shotgun loaded with buck shot. There
will be some superficial damage to the track surface, but the RPG has a
concentrated blast that would not destroy the track itself.

If one track was disabled, a tank can still travel forward for a limited
time using the power of the other side track. As long as no turn is needed,
it can travel straight for a little bit. The tank weighs 63 tons combat
loaded and has a crew of 4. The other 3 crewmen have control of .50 caliber
and 7.62mm machine guns. Anyone brave enough to close to within arms reach
of the tank would receive hundreds of rounds of machine gun fire.
Additionally, tanks do not operate alone. Other tanks can fire at
approaching personnel as well.

There have been several tanks destroyed by bombs, normally several 155mm
artillery rounds buried under the road and command detonated by a person
watching the spot. Not exactly cheap explosives available to the general
public. While that video shows the tank going in the air, it did not disable
the tank or kill the crew.

The armor on an Abrams is not reactive. It is Chobam armor made of secret
materials and covered with a depleted uranium mesh (very dense, hard metal)
and encased in steel. There is a reactive armor add on called TUSK or Tank
Urban Survivability Kit. It adds reactive armor tiles to the side and a bar
armor over the engine grill to protect against RPG attacks.

The main method of attack is the command detonated bomb (called IED or
improvised explosive devise). Not many will try to take a shot at a tank
with an RPG and live."

 

a customer of mine got just got back from a 15 month tour over there. he was the leader on these boats that actually carry these disabled tanks through the gulf down to qutar (don't think i spelled that right) where they have a "abrams tank chop shop"

he mentioned to me that they ship them fully covered up so the insurgents cannot see the weak spots on the tanks. he had seen tanks that were fully burned up but showed no signs of missle fire to ones that got hit "just in the right spot"

so i think goes both ways, but you are correct in saying, the media, doesn't really bring this issue up

 

I kind of feel vindicated now after all of the people calling me a moron.

Yes, and anti-tank missile could damage a M1, but not an RPG unless you have a very lucky shot.

 

The AK is a darn good rifle but those videos are pure BS.

Cleaning and how the gun handles not being cleaned is the key here. In all the tests in the video there was no real test to that.

1. Water test: water removed from the gun before it could create rust.
2. Dirt test: Gun picked up with barrel pointing down. Should have been barrel up to force some dirt into it.
3. Hummer test: C'mon! The gun is steel and the wheels are rubber, other than possibly scratching the handle against the rocks what damage did they expect to inflict on the gun?