Talk:Comparison of the T-90A and M1A2 Abrams/@comment-192.136.15.178-20130927194937/@comment-24.59.137.239-20150219022608

I agree. Exept for the TARDEC engineers and other people with a need to know basis and a secret security clearance, no one knows the construction of the armor surrounding the turret of the M1A2. And it is undoubtedly modified as new designs come available. The M1A2, like its earlier iterations, is designed to have its armor boxes opened. The accuracy of balistic weapons accuracy inherently falls off with range, even with computers and great rangefinders, so adding another 1000 meters would not necessarily give proportional returns on kill probability. Obviously the pK for a hit falls off pretty fast for an attempt on a moving tank. If 5,000 meters is a required operational capability, a guided missile might be a better investment. The US TOW has a range of approximately 3,500 meters, so any proposed design for 5,000 meters would probably be a much heavier missle. Something in the class of the HELLFIRE would work. It has an operational range of 5 miles from an air launch platform, somewhat less in a ground to ground role. Success for a hit from a missile is pretty much constant with range, and the fact that the target is moving isn't as much a factor as it is for a gun. This missile has already been adapted for ground launch mode for the coastal defense of Norway and experimentally from U.S. light vehicle platforms.

Lastly, superiority of secondary armament, especially machine guns in no way offsets deficiencies of main armament.