who can kill a modern Main Battle Tank (MBT)?

[Waylander]

Thats not an answer to my question.
Lets quote:
"only the chanllenger and the m1a1 or a2 abrams has a special armor that cannot penetratated..."
Now my question again:
What do you know about the armor of other tanks. For example the german and french armor is not Chobham. It is self developed. Does this makes it inferior to Chobham?

Another quote:
"The M1A2/M1A1 can survive multiple hits from the most powerful tank munitions (including 120mm depleted uranium APFSDS) and anti-tank missiles."

Were does this comes from? When has the Abrams ever been attacked by state of the art AT-missiles or for example a tank with L/55 main gun and modern DM53/63 ammo. In the latest tests with the Chall 2 they found out that the L/55 is able to penetrate round about 30% more RHA than the British L30 with DU-Rounds.

 

[Red aRRow]

I think the M1/A2SEP's (System Enhancement Package) side armour is less than 1/2 inch think around the turret basket..so I'm guessing it won't withstand a sabot shot from close or relatively close range in that area.
Also the rear has no armour and the radiators are 'protected' by 1/2 inch steel slates with spaces in b/w them. A hit there will definitely puncture the radiator.

So just like most of the tanks..the weak areas are at the rear and to the sides.

 

[Waylander]

That's right. Some people from another Tank Btl told me that during an exercise there engine section has been penetrated by a KE-Üb (practicing ammo) through frindly fire from behind. I don't want to sit in a tank that is hit there by normal ammo.

 

[tatra]

Even an AP HMG round may penetrate the engine louvres at the rear of the M1 series. Unlikely to kill it, but still.

 

[Bfn42]

Yes, you are correct a M1 can be taken out by a missile. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, if it was available, a Maverick missile was used to destroy any disabled M1's that could not be recovered or repaired.

Your not paying attention to any of my posts are gfaust for that matter. It took ONE SABOT ROUND, ONE THERMITE(sp?) GRENADE, AND TWO, YES TWO MAVERICK MISSLES. Now here's a few interesting links, one i have posted twice, the other hasn't.


http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf







http://www.usafatoday.com/Folklore/modules/news/index.php?storytopic=53

 

[Waylander]

Another question is if you can compare this "safety kill" with a real combat situation.
Maybe the crew of the M1 would had been already dead before the the second missile was used for example. Those Maveriks, the thermit grenade and the Sabot round were used to make the M1 totally unusefull (Is this the right word?) for the enemy.
In a real combat situation the M1 maybe hit by a modern ATGM and is ready to go again after some minor repairs except the fact that the crew has been killed.

 

[shrub]

tank v tank battles r useless because it defeats th purpose of having tanks wich is to take out the infantry
wich is funny cos the easiest way to take out a tank is to just get th infantry to walk up and chuck some c4 under it
it doesnt matter how thick the armour is on the front and sides cos theres none on the under side

 

[Big-E]

A couple of RPGs aimed at the tracks will knock one out.

 

[Waylander]

@shrub
You should explain how do you think infantry is going to get close enough to get the C4 under a tank. Even in close quarter combat (Which is no normal terrain for tank units especially not without infantry support)
Do you think that tanks always behave like in "Saving Private Ryan"?
Look at some Videos were tanks are shown attacking an enemy position...

@Big-E
That depends on the type of RPG and the direction were it is fired from.

 

[gf0012-aust]

tank v tank battles r useless because it defeats th purpose of having tanks wich is to take out the infantry

Not necessarily - its a country specific doctrine.

wich is funny cos the easiest way to take out a tank is to just get th infantry to walk up and chuck some c4 under it

Whuch is why doctrine is an issue - in the Oz army tanks are supported differently than the way others usually operate. Vietnam is a glaring example of the way Oz tanks were deployed when compared to US tanks. Australian tank support is still provided as an example at Aberdeen of how infantry can be used to support MBT's.

it doesnt matter how thick the armour is on the front and sides cos theres none on the under side

Thats incorrect. Tanks are amoured on the floor, in fact the merkava 3 is considered to be one of the best standard floor armoured MBT's in the world. Its designed to take a hit from an IED. Thats why the Israelis are converting them from tanks to armoured APC/IFV's as they bring the merkava 4 online (which are stronger again)

 

[Waylander]

There are also M Versions of the Leopard IIA6(M) and Strv 122(123) which are especially configured against AT-Mines and IEDs.

 

[LancerMc]

I have been recently reading a new book about M1 tank series talks about the threat of IED'a. The authors of the book incorporate interviews especially from tankers during Iraqi Freedom. In the book, it describes M1's being used to go in a clear IED's because many were small enough not to threaten the tank. Often M1 crews would detonate multiple IED's by running them over or getting close enough to trigger them. The M1 also has superior optics that is used to inspect suspected IED's along roads. While there have been instances of extremely large IED's specifically designed to take out a M1, and no tank can be protected from a large enough IED.

 

[amqb_az]

with a trotile explosive I can blow up the M1 or any tank including the Isreali tanks. the best way to destroy any kind of tank is using trotile. I have seen Russian tanks blown up by 10 kg trotile in Karabakh war. They were completely destroyed and the whole crew were dead.​

 

[Temoor_A]

During a war, any machine can be destroyed by any powerful explosive solution.

The myth about invincibility of Chobbam Armour should not be taken very seriously. Sure, it is currently the best MBT Armour and will offer good protection from many explosive solutions but it does not means that it cannot be damaged during very intense fighting scenario. Just note that no armour is invincible because during fighting you cannot take things for granted.

During wars, one who hits first is the winner. M1A2 is a very advanced MBT and one of the best in the world. The key to its success is its technology that allows detection of targets from very far distances and then you can fire missiles or powerful rounds that will strike down these targets from far distances with great accuracy. This was the case of superiority during 1991 Gulf War of Abrams MBT's over T-72 MBT's.

If you get dangerously close to an another MBT and the other hits you first with a powerful round during a dog-fight, then you can be dead regardless of the superior armour or whatever.

All MBT's have sensitive spots to be taken advantage by enemies when given the chance. And during intense fire-fights, these spots can get hit many times over for the concerned.

The best thing about Abrams MBT is crew-safety system. I have heard some cases in which Abrams MBT got blown up but crew survived. This is what makes it a true master-piece!

 

[Soner1980]

One of my older uncles told me that you only need clothing (or the same material of it) to stop a tank. If stop the tank, than it is extremely vulnerable or cannot attack anymore. He sayd to me, just put your jacket in the rear track where it is driven. When your jacket is stuck, then the track will broke out. So, how many clothing you have, the more thanks you can immobilize till you are naked. Cheap Turkish solution isn't it?

 

[Waylander]

That's a legend.
For example you need 3-6 rolls of NATO wire to build a tank trap which stops a Leopard II. And that wire is much more solid than clothes.
Maybe you are able to use S/M-leather clothes for it.

 

[Moroz.ru]

I have seen Russian tanks blown up by 10 kg trotile in Karabakh war.

That was the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan. You could sow Russian made tank not Russian.

2 Soner1980
Modern tactic doesn’t allow single tank riding. In urban battles tanks are supported by troops ore, according Russian tactic, by heavy tank support machine BMPT (T-72 equipped by 30mm gun and multipurpose missiles instead turret). So to go close to tank is almost unreal in battle. It would take a lot of suicide fighters.

BMPT picture is attached

 

[Waylander]

That's exactly what I always try to say. There is a big killzone around a mixed mechanized unit, even in urban combat areas. For sure urban warfare makes it easier for tank hunter units to use rpgs/Panzerfaust for top attacks or build some tank traps (IEDs, old bombs, etc. under the street) but to go as close to a tank to put something directly onto his hull is nearly suicide if the mechanized units are not dumb.
In open terrain it's impossible up to 99,9% (There is always the possibility of a "lucky shot").
People often don't think about the normal terrain for mechanized units. Just because we always see M1s and Bradleys ind Bagdad, etc. one should remember that that is not normal.
If you just look at some videos were tanks (NATO and ex-Warsaw Pact) are attacking enemy positions you should really fast see that you have no chance to get close to a small platoon sized tank unit (Even when it's operating without the support of mechanized infantry) by foot. The only chance for infantry is to use ATGMs at long ranges, RPGs/Panzerfaust at cloese range and mines/explosives used by pioneers.

PS: I really like the concept of the BMPT. You really see that they learned out of the casualties they suffered in Grozny in the '90s.

 

[long live usa]

tanks need infantry support in urban combat look at what happened during the battle for berlin when the russians lost 1,990 tanks and armored vehicles,if i was in an urban combat area i would not want to be anywere near a tank

 

[Soner1980]

Hi there, that was a good technique to demolish a tanktrack: using SM leather hihi...

And about the Russians? They can break Russian tanks but not Russians? Sorry but in the first Chechen war there was a big casualty for the Russian side. I heard from Lebedov that 90,000 Russian boys were butchered there in a very painful way. All Russian mothers were on the battlefield for their boys but they were gone.

But when my older uncle was in service, we speak in the year of the 1960's. Many war experts in Holland say that a tank is worst when infantry is very close to it because they can climb on it and put it on fire or place explosives or use of petrolium to burn the tank like in the battle of Kursk. If you are inside of a tank you can not see the what 2 meter side of you can happen Maybe it is not possible anymore because the battletactics of the NATO has also changed. And also the equipment is better now wich has periscopes to look at close distances. The Dutch army uses the Russian experience in Grozny when the Russian tanks blindly entered the city without of the infantry support wich was full of traps. The Russians underestimated the Chechens. But then maybe it was possible to get close enough to a tank and demolish it tracks, putting SM leather between the track roller or something explosive. And now the leassons are learnt by casualties. I have never tried to demolish tracks of a tank because I never was in conflict area's.

The picture of the AFV is very nice. But is the turret also able to aim at close ranges? I'm not a technician, sorry if you feel that my quetions are "Low Educated".