"Tank armor in the 80's?" Topic

I was wondering how much armor the common tanks in the 80's had in RHA equivelent?

I've read that the original M1 had something around 450mm, with the T-80 around 350mm. Would this be accurate? I would assume that the Challenger has similar armor to the Abrams, while the Leopard 2 and AMX-30 probably have the weakest armor of the bunch. Is my line of thinking correct?

I ask because I've been looking at many rulesets to play with, and it seems that the armor values vary wildly.

Check out the Fistful of TOws egroup. In the files section there is a discussion of effective armour values for exactly what your after in a PDF IIRC. You'll find these rules might suit your needs.

Rolf

Well, the turret front of an M1 is close to 3 feet thick. Of course then there are the composites and classified stuff inside

If you would like the millimeter stats, try to get a copy of the old Timeline Micro Armor rules "Close and Destroy", very very accurate.

By the mid-80s, armor/anti-armor specialists in the intelligence community had all but given up on trying to use RHA equivalency as any sort of meaningful comparison. As Saber6 indicates, the "good stuff" designed to provide protection against both kinetic and chemical energy projectiles had made it a whole different ball game.

Yep, because wargamers "need" something hard and fast to use, wargames rule writers and their tank enthusiasts have some up with data for the games. Doesn't mean the data gives any reflection of reality. I'm quite happy to use very broad categories of offensive and defensive capability, as in GZG's "Dirtside II", since my background leads me to believe that any data generated for wargames is just false detail, as well as to understand that there are other factors involved which no miniatures rules are likely to model.

Your mileage may vary.

Allen

"By the mid-80s, armor/anti-armor specialists in the intelligence community had all but given up on trying to use RHA equivalency as any sort of meaningful comparison."

In the early 90s, when I was involved with tank R&D, it was still being used. Some US intelligence captain was court martialled for releasing a pile of figures on NATO RHA equivalents and penetration to Janes Defence Weekly or some other defence periodical.

I used to play a lot of Challenger, Challenger 2 and Challenger 2000. But after the gulf war I think you would have to rewrite these and other rules to take account of what we know about the relative survivability of the tanks involved. I saw something on TV about the number of T72s which lost their turrets due to hits setting off amunition in the auto loader.

"In the early 90s, when I was involved with tank R&D, it was still being used."

Some people still insisted on using it, as telling them "apples and oranges" wasn't acceptable. Doesn't mean the numbers reflected reality; they were produced to keep people happy.

"Some US intelligence captain was court martialled for releasing a pile of figures on NATO RHA equivalents and penetration to Janes Defence Weekly or some other defence periodical."

Exactly, Tim. Anyone who knew what the assessed equivalencies were wouldn't be talking about them. The corollary is that anyone who published them (in a game system) didn't know what they were!

Take for example the T-80. There is a T-80 at Yuma Proving Ground, purchased from the Ukraine. It is still intact. *If* a T-80 had been acquired at any point for destruction testing (the only way to develop credible armor penetration data), anyone who knew about it wouldn't talk about it. If no T-80s had been tested to destruction, there would be no credible penetration data.

Anyone care to reveal information which they know from special access programs? Didn't think so.

Allen

Some US intelligence captain was court martialled for releasing a pile of figures on NATO RHA equivalents and penetration to Janes Defence Weekly or some other defence periodical.

He should have released it to the NY Times and called it "whistle blowing".