rifle vs. tank

[Jefffar]

Actuall, there's been a confirmed kill of an Abrahams by an Iraqi Insurgent with an RPG-7. The insurgent was using one of the more recently produced rounds and he (wisely) chose not to take on the tankf rom the front. Generally the side armour on a tank is only about half as thick as the stuff on the front. The top, rear and undersides are usually even thinner.

[Jefffar]

It's been confirmed: http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/articles/solved.asp

The Abrahm's armour isnt' reactive, it's composite. The design of the internal structures greatly improves the effectiveness against HEAT projectiles. The layer of depleted uranium helps too.

Still, the Abrahm's armoru isn't uniform. It's thicker (tot he point of virtual impermiability) at the front of the hull and turret. To save on weight it's thinner on the sides, back, underside and top - the areas least likely to get hit in most battle situations . . . but the areas most likely to be hit during a counter-insurgent war.

An interesting solution to the RPG is that employed on the Stryker. The spaced armour detonates the RPG warhead away from the side of the vehicle - thus putting the armour out of the focal point of the blast. http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/art ... _armor.asp