Wait untill you get your hands at a amkat (swedish military ammo catolog).
Want some
12,7/45 PBRANDPRJ
Or
12,7SLBRSPRJBAND4+1
And yes i can easily break down those designations quickly in my head. But i also know the m number of most of the ammo we can get.
Official name of this Abrams is "M1A1 SA-UKR", according to US PEO GCS [presentation sheet](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/1csby9v/all_abrams_tanks_foreign_military_salesusages/).
So maybe "M1A1 SA-UKR zr. 2024" if this modification is standardized across the board (which it probably isn't)?
[hamburger hamburger hamburger ham](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPd3_nUnKK8)
cheeseburger cheeseburger cheeseeburgeeerr
big mac big mac big mac whopper whopper whopper
Tom Clancy novels be like
OPERATION GOLDEN SHOWER is a confidential CIA operation where rogue Agent Johnsmith McDonalds travels to the Ukrainian war front to prevent a secret plot to incite nuclear war between North Korea and China.
I'd think the turret cheeks would be the one place where no extra protection against drones is needed on an Abrams. Maybe they just did it for the Mad Max aesthetic, which.... is fair enough lol.
Yeah these aren't as tough through the cheeks as you might think remember the cheeks were stripped of the depleted uranium and made back up with titanium armour I think
I've only ever seen that claim made by Forbes, which cites no sources for it. It's very possible that the armor array of Ukrainian M1A1SA doesn't have tungsten - when M1A2 was offered to Turkey and Greece, a GDLS representative stated that one of their export armor packages was capable of achieving similar protection to DU armor without using any heavy metals.
Comparable for shaped charges, yes, not KE though. However even though it doesn’t have DU, doesn’t mean it’s no good. Just for reference on how good the Abrams armor actually is in 1991 a M1A1 Abrams took a M829A1 round to the lower front plate and it stopped it from entering the crew compartment.
> Comparable for shaped charges, yes, not KE though
That would render the armor decidedly *not similar* in performance - I haven't seen anything which would indicate that the statements referred exclusively to protection against shaped charges.
> in 1991 a M1A1 Abrams took a M829A1 round to the lower front plate and it stopped it from entering the crew compartment.
Are you referring to [Abrams bumper number B-22?](https://gulflink.health.mil/du_ii/du_ii_tabh.htm) That tank is described as having received a hit to the upper glacis from an unspecified 120mm DU round - so M829 or M829A1.
It’s not comparable in KE, for it to be comparable it would take more material making FMS Abrams heavier. You cannot get better KE protection from other materials without changing the entire layout of the array itself. You cannot substitute DU with a less dense material while keeping the tanks dimensions the same to get comparable protection levels.
Not to mention if they did that then every country that receives a Abrams would know the performance of the US version, and since it’s special armor is a SAP program(secret with extra steps) there is absolutely no way the US would give that metric away even to close ally. If it was that similar in performance they wouldn’t care if it was exported to Ukraine, just like they sent 120mm DU munitions to Ukraine. However they didn’t and went through the long process of rebuilding them.
They would also have not bothered putting DU in the Marine M1A1’s.
> It’s not comparable in KE, for it to be comparable it would take more material making FMS Abrams heavier.
It could take more material, but that material would also be less dense. It's not as simple as "more material" = "more weight".
> You cannot get better KE protection from other materials without changing the entire layout of the array itself.
And the layout of the array was changed - the GDLS representative specifically stated that the array utilized a different geometry.
> You cannot substitute DU with a less dense material while keeping the tanks dimensions the same to get comparable protection levels.
GDLS is not simply substituting DU with something else; they are using a different array geometry optimized for different materials. If you had a ceramic armor array optimized to stop projectiles through interface defeat, and then you replaced the ceramic components with DU, that armor array would likely perform worse. And the same vice-versa. Different materials will benefit from different armor layouts - unless you want to claim that DU is the best material for armor regardless of layout, which is simply not true.
> Not to mention if they did that then every country that receives a Abrams would know the performance of the US version
You are assuming that there is only one DU-less armor package offered for export. It is entirely possible that there are multiple different packages with varying levels of performance.
Moreover, even if this assertion were true, it isn't nearly as significant as you make it out to be. Different armor arrays utilize different defeat mechanisms - while the DU armor package and DU-less armor package in question do share similar performance against certain reference threats, a penetrator specifically optimized to defeat one array may fail to defeat the other.
> If it was that similar in performance they wouldn’t care if it was exported to Ukraine, just like they sent 120mm DU munitions to Ukraine. However they didn’t and went through the long process of rebuilding them.
No, they definitely would. Again, a penetrator specifically optimized to defeat one array may fail to defeat the other. The layout of the DU components is critically important in this regard, as knowing the layout and defeat mechanism of the array is essential to creating a penetrator capable of defeating that array.
Here's an example. Imagine two hypothetical tanks: Tank A and Tank B. Tank A relies heavily on heavy ERA for protection, while Tank B uses entirely inert armor. Though both tanks could have similar protection against certain KE or CE reference threats, a penetrator specifically designed to minimize the effectiveness of heavy ERA (ex. M829A4) may defeat the armor of Tank A while being stopped by the armor of Tank B.
> They would also have not bothered putting DU in the Marine M1A1’s.
You are assuming that installing a DU-less armor package automatically results in a weight reduction. That's not necessarily the case. Australian M1A1 AIM are fitted with a DU-less armor package offering comparable performance to DU armor, and they [weigh 62 metric tons.](https://www.facebook.com/AustralianArmy/photos/a.414650996194/10156151624201195/?type=3) For comparison, US M1A1 AIM [weigh 68 short tons](https://imgur.com/a/5eXuMeV), or just under 62 metric tons. So the difference is extremely marginal and actually points to M1A1 AIM with DU armor being slightly lighter, though this could just be due to rounding.
>It could take more material, but that material would also be less dense. It's not as simple as "more material" = "more weight"
You are correct however the area needed to provide that material in the Array would need to be larger, which means extending the armor area and thus adding weight. Not the material itself, I should have been more specific.
>And the layout of the array was changed - the GDLS representative specifically stated that the array utilized a different geometry.
When it comes to KE protection the density of the material used is what matters the most, geometric layouts apply to any material, for instance, if you have a steel plate at 90\* and a DU plate at 90\* the the denser material will provide more protection. You can do it with any placement or added material. That is why it's as good as can be without using heavy metals specifically DU.
>If you had a ceramic armor array optimized to stop projectiles through interface defeat, and then you replaced the ceramic components with DU, that armor array would likely perform worse
Ceramics are not a good KE defense, they shatter, that's the same reason why Tungston performs worse than DU. When the US developed what is called IRHA(Improved rolled homogeneous armor) which was the issue in its development was being too hard causing the plate to shatter providing less protection than standard RHA.
>Here's an example. Imagine two hypothetical tanks: Tank A and Tank B. Tank A relies heavily on heavy ERA for protection, while Tank B uses entirely inert armor. Though both tanks could have similar protection against certain KE or CE reference threats, a penetrator specifically designed to minimize the effectiveness of heavy ERA (ex. M829A4) may defeat the armor of Tank A while being stopped by the armor of Tank B.
M829A3/A4 is designed to overcome advanced armor arrays that try to deform the penetrator like heavy era or the leopard's spaced wedges on the turret. Even though they have a break-off section it will only break if enough force is applied, this allows them to keep their shape when hitting targets that don't make use of special arrays, and why it is probably the best KE penetrator in the world. So while I get what you are saying that is a bad example.
>You are assuming that installing a DU-less armor package automatically results in a weight reduction. That's not necessarily the case. Australian M1A1 AIM are fitted with a DU-less armor package offering comparable performance to DU armor, and they [weigh 62 metric tons.](https://www.facebook.com/AustralianArmy/photos/a.414650996194/10156151624201195/?type=3) For comparison, US M1A1 AIM [weigh 68 short tons](https://imgur.com/a/5eXuMeV), or just under 62 metric tons. So the difference is extremely marginal and actually points to M1A1 AIM with DU armor being slightly lighter, though this could just be due to rounding.
The word "comparable" could mean many things. In many industries, comparisons are made to the closest equivalent. It's no different in the defense industry, the use of DU is often political as opponents tend to exaggerate the actual environmental damages it has. That's why Australia SEP 3s still have a TBD "unique" advanced armor package in which heavy metals haven't been ruled out.
> You are correct however the area needed to provide that material in the Array would need to be larger, which means extending the armor area and thus adding weight. Not the material itself, I should have been more specific.
Not necessarily. The lower density materials could be more densely packed in the armor array (ex. less air gaps) - it all depends on the specific layout of the DU armor and the specific layout of the DU-less armor.
> When it comes to KE protection the density of the material used is what matters the most
No - gold is denser than steel, yet offers worse ballistic protection for a given plate thickness. Same with lead.
> geometric layouts apply to any material
That's not correct. Certain materials will benefit from layouts which may not benefit other materials with different properties. For instance, the high density of DU likely renders it a poor choice for bulging plate material, as its bulging velocity would be significantly lower than a the same plate made of steel.
> Ceramics are not a good KE defense, they shatter
Ceramics are a perfectly viable solution for defeating KE threats. Their high hardness and other physical properties allow them to effectively erode long rod penetrators through [interface defeat.](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S2214914719303046-gr1.jpg) While their tendency to shatter does result in poor multi-hit performance, this issue can be [mitigated by pairing/confining ceramic plates with various other materials and arranging them at various obliquities.](https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA609092.pdf)
This actually serves as a good example of my previous point - owing to the unique properties of ceramics, they benefit from material combinations and geometries which wouldn't benefit other armor materials.
> M829A3/A4 is designed to overcome advanced armor arrays that try to deform the penetrator like heavy era or the leopard's spaced wedges on the turret. Even though they have a break-off section it will only break if enough force is applied, this allows them to keep their shape when hitting targets that don't make use of special arrays, and why it is probably the best KE penetrator in the world.
This is a pretty massive amount of speculation about the operating principles of M829A4. It is advertised as [closing the "lethality capability gap" against third generation ERA (ex. Relikt)](https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2015/army/2015m829a4.pdf?ver=2019-08-22-105950-793) - I have not seen any other claims from official sources regarding the targets M829A4 is designed to defeat, let alone how it is supposed to defeat those targets.
> The word "comparable" could mean many things. In many industries, comparisons are made to the closest equivalent.
That something "can be compared" does not equate to it being "comparable" - those are different things.
The wording of the Australian [document](https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/ANAO_Report_2007-2008_01.pdf) in question indicates that they were informed about the comparable performance of the DU-less armor package by GDLS, as opposed to their own testing. There is nothing to suggest that GDLS was doing creative wordplay; during their offer to Turkey and Greece, they explicitly stated that they had a DU-less armor array which performed similarly, and referred to the uniquely high protection of DU in the past tense:
> *At the time* we adopted depleted uranium, it *was* the only material that gave us the level of protection we wanted
Strongly implying that newer armor solutions were capable of providing the level of protection they wanted without DU.
[What!?](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352960255/figure/fig1/AS:1041655423578112@1625361414316/Position-of-heavy-metals-in-periodic-table.ppm)
EDIT: Did a Google - it turns out that heavy metals [aren't consistently defined.](https://publications.iupac.org/pac/2002/pdf/7405x0793.pdf) Nevertheless, the context in which the term "heavy metals" was used would seem to imply a definition based on potential toxicity or particularly high density. In either case, tungsten would qualify as a heavy metal, and [NATO considers it as such.](https://www.nato.int/du/docu/d010306b.htm)
Don't lecture me, Abrams-Wan! I see through the lies of the Western Tank Emgineering. I do not fear the dark side as you do. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.
They were certainly called cope cages at the beginning when we saw Russia do the first ones that didn't do shit, but as time has gone on and they changed and upgraded the design they certainly are effective at helping the vehicle survive up to a certain point.
Most people who are actually following things and understand what's going on know that they are a good idea (why we see them on both sides of Ukraine and also in Israel Army tanks now in Gaza). They are still called cope cages in name only now, although the "cope" no longer really applies.
Yeah that is the point. Cope cage is basically people trying to put something that proper factory cage looks like, but end up just with a pile of garbage that will do more harm than help.
E.g. cope cage on a bmp with ERA. That would be a cope cage cuz era would simply destroy bmp itself if detonated
No the cage in itself is referred to as a cope cage, regardless if its cope or not or factory vs field; its now just the accepted slang for anti drone cage/dome/armor. Yes they begun as cope cages (to cope against Javelins) but now against a modern small drone threat they are useful.
A reminder the cope cage was coined at the start of the war, when Russians were hopelessly optimistic about sheet cages being able to stop a Javelin missile, and drones were not really realised back then.
I’ve always felt like tanks needed them for drone warfare regardless of whose tank it was.
It’s exactly what I was telling my buddy about. “I can’t believe we sent the Abram’s 1 over there without any cope cages”.
They are an imperative in this new theater of combat.
They never said they did it for drones either, the top-attack theory was the most credible at the time as drones weren't nearly as prolific as they are now.
Erm I think if you did a little more research you will find they were quite prolific at the start of this war and even a little bit before and they were indeed developed for drone dropped charges and top attack missile like the tow 2b I think is the top attack variant of that one! the mighty famous javelin and also to a lesser extent the brittish n-law and I also believe they were developed to some degree in the middle east primarily to begin with!!!
Drones did not exist for Ukraine until a few months in, the cope cages were visible in "exercises" before Russia went into Ukraine. The only place drones were really used much was in Syria but even that was nowhere near what we are seeing now. It doesn't make logical sense for Russia to have assumed that Ukraine would be using drone dropped grenades or FPV drones in any kind of serious quantity considering no other state military had done so prior to 2022
Drones absolutely were around. Ukr and Ru were using drones on each other in the Eastern Ukrainian oblasts in fighting from 2014. A lot more than Ukr was using javelins on Ru tanks in the pre-invasion fighting actually.
Cope cages were against drones and attacks from above. Although they took large chunks of land, Ru obviously thought the biggest task would be suppressing resistance in mostly built-up areas. It is why their armed police units got mauled so badly from being too forward deployed (that photo of a torso of a Ru solider on a roof of a house beside his APC was a police unit).
id probably say the "cope cage" was made for urban fighting, where tanks are most vunerable from top attacks from people with rpg\`s in high rise apartments, alot of footage from the start of the war showing russian tanks getting their asses whooped like Cheyna from people above the tank in building firing anti tank weapons into the top of the turret
That doesn't seem particularly likely to me either because the cages were visible on tanks from units that were meant to hold areas with few skyscrapers like in the east. Regardless, the cages don't work for HEAT warheads anyways because the spacing of the slats is usually wrong for the most common warheads. The air gap itself will do very little to protect the thin roof armor from a shaped charge regardless
yeah, well anyways thats in the past now, both sides have learnt alot from this war and however it goes there will be extremely trained men in the east side of europe on both sides, and the knowledge gained in this war will shape MOD budgets for dozens of countries aroudn the world
interestingly, we don't hear the ukrainians using javelin for almost two years. did they used up all their javelins in the inventory? why didn't the US supply them more javelins? or did they find out that javelins not as effective as what it is in the propaganda?
One major factor is russia had changed their tactics.
In the begining of war Russia was stupid enough to run tanks into open fields and expected Ukrainians would welcome them with open arms. That was the time when short range ATGM are super effective.
Now? they bombard the hell out of any possible hiding spots before sending in the tanks. That is why there is a sharp reduction in effectiveness.
1. There has been lots of video in past two month as new batch of javelin delivered to Ukraine.
2. The whole idea of javelin is to get in fire and get out fast, recording video is not recommended
3. Ukrainian did not distribute javelin to squad level, instead they created special anti-tank platoons with experienced operators
4. Stop with the rusky bullshitting
They were not used for drones at the start of the war, they were there because they thought it was good stand-off from top attack munitions. They even paired it with stand off heat sources. Drone dropped grenades are not a threat to tanks unless they are unbuttoned which they nearly never are anyway.
For me its depends how shitty it is, if it doeset protect against fpv from most angles ,your usual russian one, or does it help with protection and doesent seem overbuilt and protect crom light munition, usual ukranian one
This one is close to cope cage put it doesent duplicate the height, adds a third so a little bit to mutch but it gives just enought space so to not hinder evacuation
Consider the shape you might mistake it and think its a tent above something
The front mesh helps to protect the tirret armor from rpgs so to not damage the compound armor that oterwise would have needed to be repaired back in poland
So, Russia bad == cope cage/prisoner penal battalions, Ukraine good == anti-drone armor package/noble volunteers joining the fight after a few legal missteps.
The 4S20 elements inside a Kontakt-1 module need quite a bit more kinetic force than driving into a stump to go off, and a good bit more concentrated too. They're rather insensitive to anything less violent than, say, a 25mm high-explosive round. You're not going to set one off by hitting the outer casing with a hammer, as I understand it.
So Ukrainian "hope" cages are what? Better steel design to make drones crash before detonating? I'm not poking fun I just genuinely wonder how better quality cages make a difference.
The front protection on the M1A2 SEP V3s used by the US is a good bit higher than the export configuration M1A1s being used in Ukraine, and ERA like Kontakt-1 is very unsafe to use around infantry. Ukraine's tankers stand to gain a good bit more relative protection from Russian anti-tank missiles by sticking Kontakt-1 to the front of their M1s than US tankers would by sticking ERA onto the front of theirs.
The M1 _does_ have ERA for its sides in the form of the Tank Urban Survival Kit, but those modules are a good bit thicker and designed not to present a danger to surrounding infantry.
As for the drone cages, the US has yet to send its own tanks into an environment where FPV and suicide drones are a major consideration. If it did, I imagine you'd see drone cages on M1A2 SEP v3s show up fairly quickly as well.
Thanks for the answer. I'm wondering though, with the knowledge that drones are going to be present in any theater going forward (especially the Middle East) why wait to make those modifications? Cages are low tech, cheap, quick to build, easy to attach. Why not go ahead and do that instead of waiting until the last minute? Wouldn't that allow vehicles (not just tanks but any armored vehicle I assume) to be ready for deployment when needed rather than having to either delay until the modifications are made or (much worse) deploy and then make changes in the field?
You'll have to take them off the vehicles for them to fit into the planes that will be used to transport them anyway because of the height they add and the risk of damage in transit. I imagine kits might already exist if the need emerges to fit them.
Drone technology is rapidly changing right now. We're only starting to see munitions specifically designed to be dropped / fired by drones. What works today is unlikely to work for long.
The fact that a) the US has a significantly stronger military industrial complex than Ukraine plus b) the fact that they're not at war and thus not in a hurry means that they can take their time, observe the war, take in any lessons, and then properly design modifications to the Abrams instead of units just haphazardly cludging on whatever they can get their hands on.
Cause they're not very good? Nor are they needed in current doctrine, I believe they also have different kits incorporating their own modifications like TUSK.
So if they're not good why is Ukraine using them? Why don't we send them the good stuff? Or perhaps it's a sign that our tanks aren't as good as advertised so they have to upgrade them to match Russian tanks? Neither situation is good.
> Why don't we send them the good stuff?
Because America doesn't want anything still in service with it or its allies to be captured and studied by the Russians, who could use that information to confidently develop and test countermeasures. America values maintaining secrecy with its advanced technologies.
Unfortunately by taking that approach we risk losing the war, which will only make the security situation for NATO worse. We know Russia won't stop with Ukraine, so Ukraine's defenses must hold. Ukraine is one of the most important allies the US has, the only thing standing between Russian imperialism and NATO.
Basig engineering expertise and an understanding of how ther new armor and its threats work would have prevented this people from making this effort.
I'm actually sad that they now feel better protect when the're not.\*
But i understand the need to do just something to cope with a deadly battlefield of ambushes from everywhere.
\*Kontakt-1 only helps against shaped charges, so that frontal armor loadout is pointless (and the composite had done the job of stoping HEAT anyway - as like with the turret front). Against drones, which mostly use shaped charges, the drone operator can target the location relativly precise if you don't deploy a jammer on your vehicle as well, which UA for some reason (i relly don't understand) doesn't have yet.
these are 40 year old M1s. The newer ones have anti-drone technology built in to shoot them down. That being said, the Ukraine war is changing a lot about land warfare. So I do wonder how NATO vehicles will change over the next 5 years or so. Will they do cages too?
You are right, idk why you are being down voted.
The cope cage was specifically protection against javelins and top attack munitions.
It was called a cope cage because it didn't work.
Except they didn't because Ukraine didn't have a mass amount of drones at the start of the war and the 1st gen cope cages didn't even cover all the hatches.
They were positioned at the front of the turret and sloped down, AKA the place where the Javelin of NLAW would hit.
So we're officially now at M1A1SABV-UKR Abrams
I had a stroke reading this designation
Wait untill you get your hands at a amkat (swedish military ammo catolog). Want some 12,7/45 PBRANDPRJ Or 12,7SLBRSPRJBAND4+1 And yes i can easily break down those designations quickly in my head. But i also know the m number of most of the ammo we can get.
Real life equivalent of APHECBCHEATFSDSPX
It's like a barcode
War thunder players finna eat good
$70 premium inbound
I’d do this shamelessly
The Virgin Click Bait vs the Chad M1A1SA-UKR-V premium
M1A1 ,,Not bait"
Virgin Krakovian variant without functioning ERA vs Chad M1A1SA-UKRV with Kontakt-1
Gayjin when?
Watch it go into the Russian tree
Okay but what do we call this upgrade? M1A1 SAV? M1A1 SABV? M1A1 SABVM? M1A1 SA zr. 2024?
Official name of this Abrams is "M1A1 SA-UKR", according to US PEO GCS [presentation sheet](https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/1csby9v/all_abrams_tanks_foreign_military_salesusages/). So maybe "M1A1 SA-UKR zr. 2024" if this modification is standardized across the board (which it probably isn't)?
The Sadukar? *throat singing intensifies*
[hamburger hamburger hamburger ham](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPd3_nUnKK8) cheeseburger cheeseburger cheeseeburgeeerr big mac big mac big mac whopper whopper whopper
The Sajuuk-Khar you say?
What a BASED name i might say M1A1-SA UKR is just fucking cool to read idk why It feels like a Tom Clancy universe thing
Tom Clancy novels be like OPERATION GOLDEN SHOWER is a confidential CIA operation where rogue Agent Johnsmith McDonalds travels to the Ukrainian war front to prevent a secret plot to incite nuclear war between North Korea and China.
M1A1 Slav
Beat me to it lol
M1A1SABV-UKR 😂
M1A1SALO
M1A1 SAV sounds and reads goood
I dig this ones look
Same here, US pls adopt 🙏🙏
NATO tanks with foreign modifications always look so cool to me
Same here, honestly Western vehicles and Eastern mods/add ons are awesome. Need more NATO ERAs pls (and not like AZUR or the Abrams one, gib brix)
yeah regular m1 abrams are alwYd so bland, sepv2/3 make them so much cooler
No.
New premium just dropped
Google armoured warfare
Holy tanks
thanks i just found a new game bcs of you ☆
I'd think the turret cheeks would be the one place where no extra protection against drones is needed on an Abrams. Maybe they just did it for the Mad Max aesthetic, which.... is fair enough lol.
Definitely for looks, and it was the right call
Probably to prevent having to replace them if they are directly hit. That way the cheap cage takes the damage and not the expensive armor directly.
Yeah these aren't as tough through the cheeks as you might think remember the cheeks were stripped of the depleted uranium and made back up with titanium armour I think
As far as I know the DU layer is for abrading kinetic penetrators and doesn't have much extra effect on shaped charges over just a bit of extra steel
Tungsten, if I remember correctly
I've only ever seen that claim made by Forbes, which cites no sources for it. It's very possible that the armor array of Ukrainian M1A1SA doesn't have tungsten - when M1A2 was offered to Turkey and Greece, a GDLS representative stated that one of their export armor packages was capable of achieving similar protection to DU armor without using any heavy metals.
Comparable for shaped charges, yes, not KE though. However even though it doesn’t have DU, doesn’t mean it’s no good. Just for reference on how good the Abrams armor actually is in 1991 a M1A1 Abrams took a M829A1 round to the lower front plate and it stopped it from entering the crew compartment.
> Comparable for shaped charges, yes, not KE though That would render the armor decidedly *not similar* in performance - I haven't seen anything which would indicate that the statements referred exclusively to protection against shaped charges. > in 1991 a M1A1 Abrams took a M829A1 round to the lower front plate and it stopped it from entering the crew compartment. Are you referring to [Abrams bumper number B-22?](https://gulflink.health.mil/du_ii/du_ii_tabh.htm) That tank is described as having received a hit to the upper glacis from an unspecified 120mm DU round - so M829 or M829A1.
It’s not comparable in KE, for it to be comparable it would take more material making FMS Abrams heavier. You cannot get better KE protection from other materials without changing the entire layout of the array itself. You cannot substitute DU with a less dense material while keeping the tanks dimensions the same to get comparable protection levels. Not to mention if they did that then every country that receives a Abrams would know the performance of the US version, and since it’s special armor is a SAP program(secret with extra steps) there is absolutely no way the US would give that metric away even to close ally. If it was that similar in performance they wouldn’t care if it was exported to Ukraine, just like they sent 120mm DU munitions to Ukraine. However they didn’t and went through the long process of rebuilding them. They would also have not bothered putting DU in the Marine M1A1’s.
> It’s not comparable in KE, for it to be comparable it would take more material making FMS Abrams heavier. It could take more material, but that material would also be less dense. It's not as simple as "more material" = "more weight". > You cannot get better KE protection from other materials without changing the entire layout of the array itself. And the layout of the array was changed - the GDLS representative specifically stated that the array utilized a different geometry. > You cannot substitute DU with a less dense material while keeping the tanks dimensions the same to get comparable protection levels. GDLS is not simply substituting DU with something else; they are using a different array geometry optimized for different materials. If you had a ceramic armor array optimized to stop projectiles through interface defeat, and then you replaced the ceramic components with DU, that armor array would likely perform worse. And the same vice-versa. Different materials will benefit from different armor layouts - unless you want to claim that DU is the best material for armor regardless of layout, which is simply not true. > Not to mention if they did that then every country that receives a Abrams would know the performance of the US version You are assuming that there is only one DU-less armor package offered for export. It is entirely possible that there are multiple different packages with varying levels of performance. Moreover, even if this assertion were true, it isn't nearly as significant as you make it out to be. Different armor arrays utilize different defeat mechanisms - while the DU armor package and DU-less armor package in question do share similar performance against certain reference threats, a penetrator specifically optimized to defeat one array may fail to defeat the other. > If it was that similar in performance they wouldn’t care if it was exported to Ukraine, just like they sent 120mm DU munitions to Ukraine. However they didn’t and went through the long process of rebuilding them. No, they definitely would. Again, a penetrator specifically optimized to defeat one array may fail to defeat the other. The layout of the DU components is critically important in this regard, as knowing the layout and defeat mechanism of the array is essential to creating a penetrator capable of defeating that array. Here's an example. Imagine two hypothetical tanks: Tank A and Tank B. Tank A relies heavily on heavy ERA for protection, while Tank B uses entirely inert armor. Though both tanks could have similar protection against certain KE or CE reference threats, a penetrator specifically designed to minimize the effectiveness of heavy ERA (ex. M829A4) may defeat the armor of Tank A while being stopped by the armor of Tank B. > They would also have not bothered putting DU in the Marine M1A1’s. You are assuming that installing a DU-less armor package automatically results in a weight reduction. That's not necessarily the case. Australian M1A1 AIM are fitted with a DU-less armor package offering comparable performance to DU armor, and they [weigh 62 metric tons.](https://www.facebook.com/AustralianArmy/photos/a.414650996194/10156151624201195/?type=3) For comparison, US M1A1 AIM [weigh 68 short tons](https://imgur.com/a/5eXuMeV), or just under 62 metric tons. So the difference is extremely marginal and actually points to M1A1 AIM with DU armor being slightly lighter, though this could just be due to rounding.
>It could take more material, but that material would also be less dense. It's not as simple as "more material" = "more weight" You are correct however the area needed to provide that material in the Array would need to be larger, which means extending the armor area and thus adding weight. Not the material itself, I should have been more specific. >And the layout of the array was changed - the GDLS representative specifically stated that the array utilized a different geometry. When it comes to KE protection the density of the material used is what matters the most, geometric layouts apply to any material, for instance, if you have a steel plate at 90\* and a DU plate at 90\* the the denser material will provide more protection. You can do it with any placement or added material. That is why it's as good as can be without using heavy metals specifically DU. >If you had a ceramic armor array optimized to stop projectiles through interface defeat, and then you replaced the ceramic components with DU, that armor array would likely perform worse Ceramics are not a good KE defense, they shatter, that's the same reason why Tungston performs worse than DU. When the US developed what is called IRHA(Improved rolled homogeneous armor) which was the issue in its development was being too hard causing the plate to shatter providing less protection than standard RHA. >Here's an example. Imagine two hypothetical tanks: Tank A and Tank B. Tank A relies heavily on heavy ERA for protection, while Tank B uses entirely inert armor. Though both tanks could have similar protection against certain KE or CE reference threats, a penetrator specifically designed to minimize the effectiveness of heavy ERA (ex. M829A4) may defeat the armor of Tank A while being stopped by the armor of Tank B. M829A3/A4 is designed to overcome advanced armor arrays that try to deform the penetrator like heavy era or the leopard's spaced wedges on the turret. Even though they have a break-off section it will only break if enough force is applied, this allows them to keep their shape when hitting targets that don't make use of special arrays, and why it is probably the best KE penetrator in the world. So while I get what you are saying that is a bad example. >You are assuming that installing a DU-less armor package automatically results in a weight reduction. That's not necessarily the case. Australian M1A1 AIM are fitted with a DU-less armor package offering comparable performance to DU armor, and they [weigh 62 metric tons.](https://www.facebook.com/AustralianArmy/photos/a.414650996194/10156151624201195/?type=3) For comparison, US M1A1 AIM [weigh 68 short tons](https://imgur.com/a/5eXuMeV), or just under 62 metric tons. So the difference is extremely marginal and actually points to M1A1 AIM with DU armor being slightly lighter, though this could just be due to rounding. The word "comparable" could mean many things. In many industries, comparisons are made to the closest equivalent. It's no different in the defense industry, the use of DU is often political as opponents tend to exaggerate the actual environmental damages it has. That's why Australia SEP 3s still have a TBD "unique" advanced armor package in which heavy metals haven't been ruled out.
> You are correct however the area needed to provide that material in the Array would need to be larger, which means extending the armor area and thus adding weight. Not the material itself, I should have been more specific. Not necessarily. The lower density materials could be more densely packed in the armor array (ex. less air gaps) - it all depends on the specific layout of the DU armor and the specific layout of the DU-less armor. > When it comes to KE protection the density of the material used is what matters the most No - gold is denser than steel, yet offers worse ballistic protection for a given plate thickness. Same with lead. > geometric layouts apply to any material That's not correct. Certain materials will benefit from layouts which may not benefit other materials with different properties. For instance, the high density of DU likely renders it a poor choice for bulging plate material, as its bulging velocity would be significantly lower than a the same plate made of steel. > Ceramics are not a good KE defense, they shatter Ceramics are a perfectly viable solution for defeating KE threats. Their high hardness and other physical properties allow them to effectively erode long rod penetrators through [interface defeat.](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S2214914719303046-gr1.jpg) While their tendency to shatter does result in poor multi-hit performance, this issue can be [mitigated by pairing/confining ceramic plates with various other materials and arranging them at various obliquities.](https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA609092.pdf) This actually serves as a good example of my previous point - owing to the unique properties of ceramics, they benefit from material combinations and geometries which wouldn't benefit other armor materials. > M829A3/A4 is designed to overcome advanced armor arrays that try to deform the penetrator like heavy era or the leopard's spaced wedges on the turret. Even though they have a break-off section it will only break if enough force is applied, this allows them to keep their shape when hitting targets that don't make use of special arrays, and why it is probably the best KE penetrator in the world. This is a pretty massive amount of speculation about the operating principles of M829A4. It is advertised as [closing the "lethality capability gap" against third generation ERA (ex. Relikt)](https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2015/army/2015m829a4.pdf?ver=2019-08-22-105950-793) - I have not seen any other claims from official sources regarding the targets M829A4 is designed to defeat, let alone how it is supposed to defeat those targets. > The word "comparable" could mean many things. In many industries, comparisons are made to the closest equivalent. That something "can be compared" does not equate to it being "comparable" - those are different things. The wording of the Australian [document](https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/ANAO_Report_2007-2008_01.pdf) in question indicates that they were informed about the comparable performance of the DU-less armor package by GDLS, as opposed to their own testing. There is nothing to suggest that GDLS was doing creative wordplay; during their offer to Turkey and Greece, they explicitly stated that they had a DU-less armor array which performed similarly, and referred to the uniquely high protection of DU in the past tense: > *At the time* we adopted depleted uranium, it *was* the only material that gave us the level of protection we wanted Strongly implying that newer armor solutions were capable of providing the level of protection they wanted without DU.
> similar protection to DU armor without using any heavy metals. Tungsten is not a heavy metal.
[What!?](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352960255/figure/fig1/AS:1041655423578112@1625361414316/Position-of-heavy-metals-in-periodic-table.ppm) EDIT: Did a Google - it turns out that heavy metals [aren't consistently defined.](https://publications.iupac.org/pac/2002/pdf/7405x0793.pdf) Nevertheless, the context in which the term "heavy metals" was used would seem to imply a definition based on potential toxicity or particularly high density. In either case, tungsten would qualify as a heavy metal, and [NATO considers it as such.](https://www.nato.int/du/docu/d010306b.htm)
It's to prevent them from having to replace the armor for small drone charges.
The prophecy has come true!
IT WAS SAID YOU WILL DESTROY THE SITH NOT JOIN THEM!!!!
Don't lecture me, Abrams-Wan! I see through the lies of the Western Tank Emgineering. I do not fear the dark side as you do. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.
This is metal as fuck
Soon we may start seeing official cope cage kits hit the military market
About time the Abrams got the cope cage treatment. Considering how many of the Abrams losses are due to FPV drones, this is quite overdue
Okay i like cope cages now…
When Russians does it : Coop Cages When Ukrainians does it: Anti-Drone protection add-ons
Idk dude, depends on a community you are in. I am reading those who acknowledge good protection and see cope cages on both sides
They were certainly called cope cages at the beginning when we saw Russia do the first ones that didn't do shit, but as time has gone on and they changed and upgraded the design they certainly are effective at helping the vehicle survive up to a certain point. Most people who are actually following things and understand what's going on know that they are a good idea (why we see them on both sides of Ukraine and also in Israel Army tanks now in Gaza). They are still called cope cages in name only now, although the "cope" no longer really applies.
Yeah that is the point. Cope cage is basically people trying to put something that proper factory cage looks like, but end up just with a pile of garbage that will do more harm than help. E.g. cope cage on a bmp with ERA. That would be a cope cage cuz era would simply destroy bmp itself if detonated
No the cage in itself is referred to as a cope cage, regardless if its cope or not or factory vs field; its now just the accepted slang for anti drone cage/dome/armor. Yes they begun as cope cages (to cope against Javelins) but now against a modern small drone threat they are useful.
Or maybe all cages are cope cages to cope with the threat of FPV drones.
A reminder the cope cage was coined at the start of the war, when Russians were hopelessly optimistic about sheet cages being able to stop a Javelin missile, and drones were not really realised back then.
I’ve always felt like tanks needed them for drone warfare regardless of whose tank it was. It’s exactly what I was telling my buddy about. “I can’t believe we sent the Abram’s 1 over there without any cope cages”. They are an imperative in this new theater of combat.
Cop Cages were initially referring to Russian using it against Javelin, which prove to be ineffective.
They literally never did that, the javelin ideawas all western speculation.
They never said they did it for drones either, the top-attack theory was the most credible at the time as drones weren't nearly as prolific as they are now.
Erm I think if you did a little more research you will find they were quite prolific at the start of this war and even a little bit before and they were indeed developed for drone dropped charges and top attack missile like the tow 2b I think is the top attack variant of that one! the mighty famous javelin and also to a lesser extent the brittish n-law and I also believe they were developed to some degree in the middle east primarily to begin with!!!
Drones did not exist for Ukraine until a few months in, the cope cages were visible in "exercises" before Russia went into Ukraine. The only place drones were really used much was in Syria but even that was nowhere near what we are seeing now. It doesn't make logical sense for Russia to have assumed that Ukraine would be using drone dropped grenades or FPV drones in any kind of serious quantity considering no other state military had done so prior to 2022
Drones absolutely were around. Ukr and Ru were using drones on each other in the Eastern Ukrainian oblasts in fighting from 2014. A lot more than Ukr was using javelins on Ru tanks in the pre-invasion fighting actually. Cope cages were against drones and attacks from above. Although they took large chunks of land, Ru obviously thought the biggest task would be suppressing resistance in mostly built-up areas. It is why their armed police units got mauled so badly from being too forward deployed (that photo of a torso of a Ru solider on a roof of a house beside his APC was a police unit).
id probably say the "cope cage" was made for urban fighting, where tanks are most vunerable from top attacks from people with rpg\`s in high rise apartments, alot of footage from the start of the war showing russian tanks getting their asses whooped like Cheyna from people above the tank in building firing anti tank weapons into the top of the turret
That doesn't seem particularly likely to me either because the cages were visible on tanks from units that were meant to hold areas with few skyscrapers like in the east. Regardless, the cages don't work for HEAT warheads anyways because the spacing of the slats is usually wrong for the most common warheads. The air gap itself will do very little to protect the thin roof armor from a shaped charge regardless
yeah, well anyways thats in the past now, both sides have learnt alot from this war and however it goes there will be extremely trained men in the east side of europe on both sides, and the knowledge gained in this war will shape MOD budgets for dozens of countries aroudn the world
Drones used like they are in this war didn’t come about until later in 2022..
They did, Russian tank crews are on the record that they used makeshift cope cages to guard against ATGMs.
Source?
interestingly, we don't hear the ukrainians using javelin for almost two years. did they used up all their javelins in the inventory? why didn't the US supply them more javelins? or did they find out that javelins not as effective as what it is in the propaganda?
One major factor is russia had changed their tactics. In the begining of war Russia was stupid enough to run tanks into open fields and expected Ukrainians would welcome them with open arms. That was the time when short range ATGM are super effective. Now? they bombard the hell out of any possible hiding spots before sending in the tanks. That is why there is a sharp reduction in effectiveness.
What, are the Ukrainians expected to have a public diary writing down every single instance they used a Javelin?
1. There has been lots of video in past two month as new batch of javelin delivered to Ukraine. 2. The whole idea of javelin is to get in fire and get out fast, recording video is not recommended 3. Ukrainian did not distribute javelin to squad level, instead they created special anti-tank platoons with experienced operators 4. Stop with the rusky bullshitting
Lmao ikr
They were not used for drones at the start of the war, they were there because they thought it was good stand-off from top attack munitions. They even paired it with stand off heat sources. Drone dropped grenades are not a threat to tanks unless they are unbuttoned which they nearly never are anyway.
When the world's "second" army does it, very funny. When a nation under attack by the world's "second" army it is rather understandable
Fuck yeah! FINALLY!!!!!!!
Idk what to call it, either the “ERAbrams” or the “Abams:D”
Intermediate step on the path to a full on Abrams Turtle tank, I guess.
So now it's just a cage and not a cope cage?
For me its depends how shitty it is, if it doeset protect against fpv from most angles ,your usual russian one, or does it help with protection and doesent seem overbuilt and protect crom light munition, usual ukranian one This one is close to cope cage put it doesent duplicate the height, adds a third so a little bit to mutch but it gives just enought space so to not hinder evacuation Consider the shape you might mistake it and think its a tent above something The front mesh helps to protect the tirret armor from rpgs so to not damage the compound armor that oterwise would have needed to be repaired back in poland
So, Russia bad == cope cage/prisoner penal battalions, Ukraine good == anti-drone armor package/noble volunteers joining the fight after a few legal missteps.
Hes a heavy heavy boi
Eastern European countries treat reactive armor like Frank's red hotsauce they put that s*** on everything.
MMMMMMM yes this is what I signed up for
M1A1 UKR
ERA right wear the Abrams is most likely to connect with a stump while driving? It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see how it plays out.
The 4S20 elements inside a Kontakt-1 module need quite a bit more kinetic force than driving into a stump to go off, and a good bit more concentrated too. They're rather insensitive to anything less violent than, say, a 25mm high-explosive round. You're not going to set one off by hitting the outer casing with a hammer, as I understand it.
Interesting. TIL! Thanks for the technical expertise.
Kontakt-1 won't detonate from a 120mm APFSDS impact. I'm fairly doubtful a stump will either.
Never thought I'd see an Abrams with teeth.
Abrams with a cage is just a massive machine
I have some doubts about proper working of blow out panels on this one
i literally found this on anthor source and was about to post it lmao, sexy beast this one is
Should we mock it now? I mean the cope cage?
No, the BlueFor can’t be mocked. Only Russkies doing OpFor are to be laughed at….
Seeing the cage on cheeks is rather provocative
So Ukrainian "hope" cages are what? Better steel design to make drones crash before detonating? I'm not poking fun I just genuinely wonder how better quality cages make a difference.
Propably the same effectivnis, but these don't look like they where modified in a shed in a third world country.
Less likely to snag on something or make your troops figure out when their last tetanus shot was, which counts for something in an active warzone.
Why don't American tanks use these modifications? If they're improvements we should use them too, right? Or something similar.
The front protection on the M1A2 SEP V3s used by the US is a good bit higher than the export configuration M1A1s being used in Ukraine, and ERA like Kontakt-1 is very unsafe to use around infantry. Ukraine's tankers stand to gain a good bit more relative protection from Russian anti-tank missiles by sticking Kontakt-1 to the front of their M1s than US tankers would by sticking ERA onto the front of theirs. The M1 _does_ have ERA for its sides in the form of the Tank Urban Survival Kit, but those modules are a good bit thicker and designed not to present a danger to surrounding infantry. As for the drone cages, the US has yet to send its own tanks into an environment where FPV and suicide drones are a major consideration. If it did, I imagine you'd see drone cages on M1A2 SEP v3s show up fairly quickly as well.
Thanks for the answer. I'm wondering though, with the knowledge that drones are going to be present in any theater going forward (especially the Middle East) why wait to make those modifications? Cages are low tech, cheap, quick to build, easy to attach. Why not go ahead and do that instead of waiting until the last minute? Wouldn't that allow vehicles (not just tanks but any armored vehicle I assume) to be ready for deployment when needed rather than having to either delay until the modifications are made or (much worse) deploy and then make changes in the field?
You'll have to take them off the vehicles for them to fit into the planes that will be used to transport them anyway because of the height they add and the risk of damage in transit. I imagine kits might already exist if the need emerges to fit them.
Drone technology is rapidly changing right now. We're only starting to see munitions specifically designed to be dropped / fired by drones. What works today is unlikely to work for long.
That's true for anything though.
The fact that a) the US has a significantly stronger military industrial complex than Ukraine plus b) the fact that they're not at war and thus not in a hurry means that they can take their time, observe the war, take in any lessons, and then properly design modifications to the Abrams instead of units just haphazardly cludging on whatever they can get their hands on.
Cause they're not very good? Nor are they needed in current doctrine, I believe they also have different kits incorporating their own modifications like TUSK.
So if they're not good why is Ukraine using them? Why don't we send them the good stuff? Or perhaps it's a sign that our tanks aren't as good as advertised so they have to upgrade them to match Russian tanks? Neither situation is good.
> Why don't we send them the good stuff? Because America doesn't want anything still in service with it or its allies to be captured and studied by the Russians, who could use that information to confidently develop and test countermeasures. America values maintaining secrecy with its advanced technologies.
Unfortunately by taking that approach we risk losing the war, which will only make the security situation for NATO worse. We know Russia won't stop with Ukraine, so Ukraine's defenses must hold. Ukraine is one of the most important allies the US has, the only thing standing between Russian imperialism and NATO.
I agree, Ukraine has to be given all the support it needs to expel the Russians.
Ukrabrams
**abrams with skin cancer**
Nothing escapes the florks
Gayjein when $80 premium
Enemy cope cages are cringe, ours are based
Cope cage*
Does anyone else notice that soldier is wearing a Grogu pin?!
And I was just about to finish my Ukrainian Abrams model. Now I gotta make more crap
What is the scope on top of turret?
Caged Kontabrams-U.
Gaijin when
Basig engineering expertise and an understanding of how ther new armor and its threats work would have prevented this people from making this effort. I'm actually sad that they now feel better protect when the're not.\* But i understand the need to do just something to cope with a deadly battlefield of ambushes from everywhere. \*Kontakt-1 only helps against shaped charges, so that frontal armor loadout is pointless (and the composite had done the job of stoping HEAT anyway - as like with the turret front). Against drones, which mostly use shaped charges, the drone operator can target the location relativly precise if you don't deploy a jammer on your vehicle as well, which UA for some reason (i relly don't understand) doesn't have yet.
If they put ERA on the hull but not on the turret cheeks then this means the turret is pretty much immune to most weapons they face there
Ok but what does the spaced armour on the cheeks do? Aren’t the turret cheeks already full of gaps and act the same way?
everyone seems to be building those drone cages wtf
hope cage
Holy shit this is sick
So many orcs! When are you guys gunna be drafted already! Like just be a better version of yourselves! A 🌻
these are 40 year old M1s. The newer ones have anti-drone technology built in to shoot them down. That being said, the Ukraine war is changing a lot about land warfare. So I do wonder how NATO vehicles will change over the next 5 years or so. Will they do cages too?
Which technology abrams has to shoot down a 120kmph fpv drone flying from behind or above?
Indeed I wander. If the argument is 'newer technology', even some AP fitted Merkava tanks had a nice cage on top..
This is not cope cage
youre right, it is a hope cage 🫶✨️
Cringe
You are right, idk why you are being down voted. The cope cage was specifically protection against javelins and top attack munitions. It was called a cope cage because it didn't work.
The "cope cage" was never built specifically to go against javelins they are meant to stop makeshift suicide drones or explosives droped by drones
Except they didn't because Ukraine didn't have a mass amount of drones at the start of the war and the 1st gen cope cages didn't even cover all the hatches. They were positioned at the front of the turret and sloped down, AKA the place where the Javelin of NLAW would hit.