"Inside the M1." (XM1,M1,M1A1,M1A2,M1A2 SEP,M1Griz

[FO Seaman]

I was assuming the ammo stowage was open. And the M1A2 SEP has more of a 30% chance of being penatrated.

 

[AlexKall]

I was assuming the ammo stowage was open. And the M1A2 SEP has more of a 30% chance of being penatrated.

Why would it be open? Unless the tank is in loading, which means that the tank probebly got a shot off, or there would be no reason to reload.

 

[Kozzy Mozzy]

I was assuming the ammo stowage was open. And the M1A2 SEP has more of a 30% chance of being penatrated.

I'm totally speculating with these estimates so don't even begin to quote me on this.
The BM-44M gets 660mm at 2km. This enough to penetrate the glacis and lower hull of the M1A2SEP. Though M1A2SEP wouldn't take any damage unless it hit the driver's hatch. So I'd give this a 30% chance of kill against an M1A2SEP

The DM-53 gets 810mm at 2km. This is enough to penetrate the hull of the Abrams and parts of the upper turret. I'd give this a 50% chance of a kill against an M1A2SEP.

The CHARM 3 gets the same as the DM-53 but since it's DU it's after armor effects are more effective. So I'd give it a 60% chance of a kill.

 

[HokieMSG]

also, until the 120mm smoothbore came along, all western tanks used the british 105mm L7 or a similar USA 105mm, and those were rifled. The brits had a 120mm first, and it was the L11 120mm rifled on the Chieftain. So really, if they can shoot APFSDS(like Kozzy Mozzy said), they have no reason to change their main guns. The Americans chose a German main weapon, after they decided to put 120mm on their tanks. I dont know why. anyone knows?

The decision to use the German 120mm smoothbore was purely political. Since the M1 series of tanks was developed and deployed during the height of the cold war, the member nations of NATO decided to standardize everything, weapons systems, ammo, you name it. That would make resupply easier in what planners felt would be a war against time. If NATO forces could hold the BLOC forces long enough to get reinforcments from the US then NATO would have a chance to win. Otherwise NATO would loose to the russian axiom that quantity is a quality all its own. I know that the US planners were looking at upgrading the rifled M68 105mm cannon. This is mainly in response to the russian deployment of reactive armor as well as giving our tanks the ability to hit harder at longer ranges. Don't forget that the russians were fielding 115mm and 125mm cannons in their MBT's at that time and the US and NATO were looking to improve their chances of first hit kills.

One other comment about the use of smoothbore vs rifled cannons. If the penetrator has fins it has less impact on accuracy than if the penetrator doesn't have fins and is fired out of a smoothbore. The un finned rounds have to have the rotational stability imparted by the rifling or their accuracy goes way down. This means HEAT, HESH, MPAT whatever.

Finally, the fact that the US Army has gone back to the rifled M68 with the Stryker MGS is telling also.