Um... no. Deinfelty not.Originally posted by: Pocatello
The M1A1 doesn't have any reactive armor. Supposedly the designers thought that the Abrams tanks don't need it. Most modern main battle tanks don't have reactive armor, just the older tanks such as the M-60 and the T-72.Originally posted by: Wuffsunie
Conventional RPGs will do dick to an Abrams. The reactive armor will keep them from penetrating.
What's being used is likely this one missile the Russians developed for this exact purpose during the cold war. I can't recall what they're called. They work by being consisting of two specially shaped charges. The first blows through the reactive armor, the second blows through the lighter stuff below and then into the inside, likely taking out the tank. They look very similar to conventional RPGs.
The M-60s with reactive armor were mostly retrofitted Isreali tanks, and the T-72s that had it were essentially early generation T-80s. "Some modern tanks such as the T-72 and the M60 use a one piece cast steel turret and hull which are produced by giant molds, others use welded together plates."
Link to see differences.
I will grant you that you're technically right on the M1's not having reactive, though what they have is damned close. Chobham armor is a composite design that disperses the energy and heat of an explosive hit in the same way that reactive armor does. But, not having an explosive element to it, it can't technically be called reactive.
In the end, you're playing with semantics. M60's and T-72's were never designed to hold reactive armor, but they have been fitted with mounting points for it. M1's typically don't have it, but what it does have does the same job.
Way more in depth speculation than I want to bother with here.
BTW, any chance for a link for where you saw a Bradley with the stuff installed? I know they have the mounting points all over, but never with the armor actually on there