you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 2 years ago (5 children)

What's filling all that extra space? Is it way more armored?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

    It’s mostly just large. 4 crew instead of 3 and an auto-loader, and they focus on extra thick composite armor instead of a mix of that and reactive armor. And meanwhile, the t-72’s an extension of old Soviet philosophy that a smaller tank was that much harder to hit, so everything’s packed as tight as possible, while you could almost have a small cookout in the abrams.

    /Edit - And as mentioned elsewhere, the abrams is stupidly heavy at this point and has even gained something like 20 tons over the years. A smaller, lighter tank has less problems crossing softer terrain and getting over rickety bridges.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Does all that composite armor stand up to more modern kinetic rounds and tandem warheads? Surely they get some benefit from it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago*

    That’s one of those things where it’s really hard to tell. They all claim different capabilities but the proof is classified (and even somewhat untested). Composite will give you almost no-gap coverage though, and any nearby folks will be happier if you aren’t waltzing around with outward facing explosives all over your tank. But, many Abrams in Iraq added reactive armor all over the less protected sides to help counter RPG’s, so…

    I’d mainly say it’s just easier to retrofit an older tank with ERA blocks than it is to design and produce a whole new one with thicker integrated armor.

  • source
  • parent