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

[Soner1980]

Millions of dollars are spent to develop anti tank weapons. Why it is not able to destroy a Abrams? If the front is not vulnerable, then the sides will surely. A AFV's best defense is mobility and not the armor or active protection kit. The armor and the active protection kit is only handy when it is not able to move away to a safe and it is the second plan to defeat ATGM's.

Moreover, the Russians must get rid of ERA wich is only a one-time protection and needs more maintenace to re-armor it. If the Russians want a good BMPT then composite armor or multi layered armor is needed to have protection without maintence.

 

[extern]

If the Russians want a good BMPT then composite armor or multi layered armor is needed to have protection without maintence.

The passive armor of T-90 and T-80 - is multilayered and composite from 80th. I can agree about the need to build up passive defence in the frontal aspects, but I cannot agree if you mean to stop the use of ERA at all. Vice versa we can see the new modification of Abrams with ERA blocks in the lateral aspects. Furthermore the atop aspect you cannot effectively defend without ERA b/c you cannot allow for a tank to be 80 t weight.

 

[Waylander]

The best defence for a tank is not pure mobility. If this would be right we could just put 120mm into a Leopard I (There are modifications of Rheinmetall which make this happen). It is very maveurable and with the A5 version it is one of the best hunter/killer tanks in service.
But that's not everything.
There are many occasions, especially in non desert environments, were you're just not able to avoid enemy fire. For example as a heavy recon tank platoon or as the leading platoon of the company.
Often enough the enemy than has the first shot. And with a good TC and gunner you're meat without a good frontal armor.

 

[Soner1980]

Ok it is good to reinforce some places with extra applique armor. Reactive armor is surely not bad, but after it is used up, the protection is gone. And then the tank is easily destroyed if it is hit with the same weapon on the same place.

I always like Russian tank designs. The T-62 in the beginning was also a good design. It was a T-55 with bugs fixed and some additions on it. One innovation was the 115mm smoothbore gun. But it is used very short time (please explain this why) and quickly the T-64 appeared with a new hull and new turret. The turret of the T-64 is very good armored against HEAT warheads but it is not enough to stop new at weapons today. The T-64 and the T-72 has almost the same turret. T-72's armor is spaced armor and inside is a layer of foam, steel and ceramics. Also not the best technique in multi layered technique but it was then a very new development. The Hull of the T-72 is composite I have read in many websites.

The T-80 has glass fibre worked in the front armor (both hull and turret front) and therefore it is more massive armored than the earlier variants. The development of the T-80 makes the other design outdated and are less capable today. Also the T-80 has a wife side of him today: The T-90. It is a tiny design, upgraded T-72. T-90 is also a good upgrade to save your money. Very cheap way to get a up to date MBT with state of the art technologies on it.

But if you look to the M1 series, the armor is more bulky and can sustain heavier impacts. This is because of the composite armor that absorbs KE and CE rounds better and more efficiently. But the fully combat weight of the modern M1A2 is 68,5 tons. And the Russian T-80 can weigh araound 48 or 50 tons. So it is easier to transport it. Ofcourse, the top armor must be armored with reactive armor plates sandwiched with steel with spaces on it to reduce weight. But it is known thar Russian MBT's have lighter armor than expected. The T-72M(1) can be destroyed at 3000 meters with the M256 120mm smoothbore gun with the newest tungsten alloyed APFSDS round. (iraq)

So, if the BMPT is armored with composte armor plates it will also survive in Chechenia and other conflicted urban warfare.

 

[Soner1980]

The best defence for a tank is not pure mobility. If this would be right we could just put 120mm into a Leopard I (There are modifications of Rheinmetall which make this happen). It is very maveurable and with the A5 version it is one of the best hunter/killer tanks in service.
But that's not everything.
There are many occasions, especially in non desert environments, were you're just not able to avoid enemy fire. For example as a heavy recon tank platoon or as the leading platoon of the company.
Often enough the enemy than has the first shot. And with a good TC and gunner you're meat without a good frontal armor.

I had written this article because many slower tanks are good armored, but it is still able to destroy them because they are easily hit. Like the Sabra, with 48kmph roadspeed and 30kmph terrain speed it is very clumsy on the battlefield. But if it is like Israeli's say about Russian tanks 'Russian tanks drives like sport cars' but it is harder to hit and it can move quicker out trouble.

 

[Waylander]

There is a big difference between T-72M and T-72M1. The armor of a T-72M1 is better. The T-72M is the export version for non Warsaw Pact states.

Despite that a normal L/44 with DM43 is able to penetrate the frontal turret armor of an T-72M1 and sometimes even penetrates the rear armor too.
These are pictures from former NVA (East-german army) T-72M1 shot on with KE and HEAT. KE entry holes look like a star because of the steering fins. Some of the HEAT shots didn't penetrate the turret when they hit the expanded frontal armor or with too sharp degrees.

These are KE holes:
http://www.militaertechnik-der-nva.de/Aservatenkammer/Beschussversuche/Bild03.gif

HEAT (German MZ) which doesn't penetrated the turret because of the ceramic inlets (Numbers 2 and 7):
http://www.militaertechnik-der-nva.de/Aservatenkammer/Beschussversuche/Bild04.gif

HEAT which entered the turret because it hit where no extra ceramic armor was:
http://www.militaertechnik-der-nva.de/Aservatenkammer/Beschussversuche2/Durchschuss2

I really like this one. HEAT entered the gun. A good example for people who won't believe that modern shots don't bounce of because of the M1A2 type of sloped armor:
http://www.militaertechnik-der-nva.de/Aservatenkammer/Beschussversuche3/Gesamtansicht2.gif

 

[Big-E]

How about getting back to the Abrams.

 

[Soner1980]

Thanks for your info about the T-72M and M1 versions. I thought that the M1 was a upgrade of electronics or something. The pictures I already seen when you listed to me about the Turkish leopard2A4 purchase.

Like Big-E has sayd, let's turn back to the Abrams destroyabililty. A T-72 is it able to destroy the M1A2? Some people (on the internet) told that at 1000 meters the 125mm APFSDS can penetrate it's turret front. Without DU munitions. Were the Iraqi T-72's able to penatrate the M1A1's armor if they had a chance?

 

[Waylander]

Normally a 125mm gun is able to penetrate any tank from the side, rear or above.
The newest version of the 125mm (like in the T-90) squeezes out a few more m/s of muzzle velocitymore and with BM-42 ammo is said to be able to penetrate a M1A2 within 1000m.
If you look at some other battlefields than the Iraq like middle europe or the Kosovo, etc. there are often battlefields with not more than 800m free fire zones.
You should also look at the circumstances the T-64, T-72, T-80, T-90, etc. are build for. They were build for a full integrated divisions with good artillery, mechanized infantry, helicopter, pioneer and AA support and numerical superiority.

 

[Moroz.ru]

Wow buddies! You are better! I enjoy this topic!

I always like Russian tank designs.

It's nice to read this :rosie I hope that T-95 creators going to excel predecessor’s achievements.

But the fully combat weight of the modern M1A2 is 68,5 tons. And the Russian T-80 can weigh around 48 or 50 tons. So it is easier to transport it.

If a tank lighter than 50-55t , it could be transported on standard four axis railway carriage, for example, from Asian part of Russia to European one and vice versa. Don’t forget about bridges, few of ones could carry 68t behemoth.

2 Waylander How does NATO transport its tanks? By tracks ore by railway? I’ve seen special tank trailer for this.

You should also look at the circumstances the T-64, T-72, T-80, T-90, etc. are build for. They were build for a full integrated divisions with good artillery, mechanized infantry, helicopter, pioneer and AA support and numerical superiority.

Bingo! That’s why you are in my top3 this forum's trust list. Respect!

 

[Soner1980]

NATO also transport MBT's with railway, but some lighter AFV are still carried by heavy duty trucks. Also in Turkey they are carried by rail. But later the A400 will be available and then it is able to carry from the air

I'm sorry to respond before weylander because I will compare my answer with him :

But about the T-95, is it real or is the project terminated? The T-95 is also a good tank against the Abrams tank I guess. And what about the Chiorny Oriol or something?

 

[merocaine]

Humble rpg

How about the humble RPG? If you use your brains one rocket will disable or kill
an abrams. With any anti tank wepeon the last place you want to hit is the frontal armour.
Go for the exhast, or the rear deck with anti tank RPG for the best chance of a disable. This has occured in iraq, althought it takes great skill and bravery.
any way this is the weapon that the abrams is going to be facing for the next couple of years.

 

[Waylander]

This thread is becoming better and better with more realistic members posting here.
As said before specially urban warfare gives you many more opinions to kill modern tanks. But you also have to see that after the desaster in Grozny many people said that tanks should never enter cities again. The US and UK forces proved that this is wrong. For sure there are more dangers in cities but if you use them in a clever way (For example I liked the thunder run tactics) they are not close to being worthless.
With good Infantry support there is a big killbox around a mechanized infantry unit with tank support and RPG attacks are more suicide than anything else.
And again I want to say that this is not a normal battlefield for tanks. Full mechanized assaults or a mobile defence are the home of mechanized units.
Than tank hunter teams with ATGMs and RPGs/Panzerfäusten are normally not living for a long time if they have to face a full mechanized assault. I saw that during our maneuvers with AGDUS (Like the MILES system but a little bit more modern).
You maybe hit one or two tanks with your ATGM but than you normally are eliminated. As soon as you see the first ATGM coming in there are too many HE rounds and MG-fire are in the air. That's the point were Tom Clancy's "Red Storm rising" for example is not realistic. It is not that easy to drive with jeeps around, fire one or two ATGMs and than drive to another position and do it again. A russian tank regiment or a NATO tank brigade will not stand by and just look while there are ATGMs in the air knocking out their tanks.
One good tactic of our tank hunter teams was to work closely together with pioneers.
For example a tank platoon entered a minefield and most of the tanks not killed directly by the mines were immobilized. Than our Infantry hiding near by killed them from the side or rear with the Panzerfaust. It is much more easy to kill a tank than because it stands still and most of the crews are confused by running into a minefield and loosing half their tanks.

 

[merocaine]

Rpg

But you also have to see that after the desaster in Grozny many people said that tanks should never enter cities again. The US and UK forces proved that this is wrong. For sure there are more dangers in cities but if you use them in a clever way (For example I liked the thunder run tactics) they are not close to being worthless.

I agree good tactics can help negate any weapon system, the russians in WW2 developed massed anti tank fire in kursk to negate the tiger, and the germans simply drove past the margot line in france. Most of the enemies the abrams will face will be gurillas/light infantry in an urban enviroment.
If those troops are willing to take the causalitys(and they would be high) they could try to seperate the infantry from the tanks. To avoid this the tanks would be forced to move at the same speed as the infantry, negating the main advantage of the tank (speed mobility). The tank would be reduced to an amoured pill box. This would rob the commander of the abilty to luanch fast attacks, giving the light infantry the chance to pull back.
Just dont ask me to be the RPG gunner!

The key to killing the abrams(or any tank) is to fight it on your own ground at the time of your chosing, that is more effective than any weapon system.
I'm a firm beliver in the man not the weapon, if the iraqis had used the abrams and the americans the T72 i bet the americans would have still kicked ass, better morale, better training, and belief in victory.

 

[extern]

GOod point, Irishman!
There are a lot of Abrams' also in Egipt. Does smbody really believe they can kick a$$ of the Israelis on say Merkava-1-2?

 

[Moroz.ru]

But about the T-95, is it real or is the project terminated? The T-95 is also a good tank against the Abrams tank I guess. And what about the Chiorny Oriol or something?

A few flashback before answer
There was 3 tank plants in the USSR
Kharkov (Ukraine) T-64, T-84 present days
Nizhniy Tagil (Russia)- T-72, T-90, R&D of T-95
Omsk (Russia) – T-64, T-80, R&D of Black eagle
Since Russia don’t need tank avalanche present days, that Russia don’t need two tank plant. Nizhniy Tagil’s plant (UralVagonZavod-UVZ) has mach more chances to survive:
1)It produces a lot of civil goods (mainly railway carriages)
2)It is close to main Ural metallurgic centers
3)It has won big Indian tank tender
Russia’s government has chosen the UVZ to develop next MBT’s generation (T-95). This secret project is developed present days and nobody cry around about its details. Last summer T-95 was shown to defense ministry Uvanov while UralExpoArm fair.
Black Eagle was Omsk plant’s last hope. They have tried to found foreign investors but bird of luck has flown away.

But you also have to see that after the desaster in Grozny many people said that tanks should never enter cities again. The US and UK forces proved that this is wrong.

About Grozniy’94/95. It’s a long sadness story. I haven’t words to describe it… I guess generals has planed “tank parade”, power demonstration, something like tank’s invasion to Moscow in 1991 and 1993. But Chechenian have got giant weapon stores and was armed up to teeth.
90’s was really dark age for Russia… I hope that consequences of USSR collapse has gone in past.

 

[Waylander]

I agree with most of your theories but I don't think that cities will be the major battlefield of the future for the Abrams. Just look at the other countries that may become the future battlefields of the US. Northkorea, Iran, Syria, etc. It is possible (And maybe a fact in some of these countrys) that sooner or later you have to fight against guerillas but before that happens you have to punch your way through the conventional divisions of these countrys in a classic way of mechanized fighting with strong air, naval and intelligence support.
And if I look at how many vehicles have been killed by NATO in serbia I would not bet on the air force clearing the way if the US Army and Marine Corps have to fight in non desert environments.

@extern
Why not? The Egyptians are trained by the US and they also have their own version of national training centre for example. And in the past Egypt was the enemy which nearly forced the IDF to collapse on their run through the sinai peninsula. They came as close to destruction of Israel as no one before or after that campaign.

@Moroz.ru
I know that the main problem of the russians in Grozny was not their equipment but poor intelligence and staffs. But on the other side of the ocean many "experts" than said "A tank should by no means enter a city again".

 

[Moroz.ru]

I’ve found IMO interesting Garry’s post from other defense forum:
"In 1994 assault of Grozny they indeed made a lot of stupid things which turned to loss of hundreds of armored vehicles of all classes (tanks, BMPs, BTRs, Shilkas).

In 1999 they were smarter...... most of the job was done by dismounted infantry but it was supported by tanks from good distance. Tanks followed infantry on a good distance and shoot enemy over infantry's heads using a "carusel" tactic. This tactic was learned in first assauled and used widelly in second.

Carousel is when one tank comes and shoots HE and HE-FRAG shells fast until it empties its autoloader.... then pulls back for reloading while next starts shooting same time.... with several tanks in each caruosel it created so much shells on enemies positions that Russian infantry could come to good distance to enemy's positions. A two parallel carousels were used on a narrow street and much more on wide squares. Rebels could not hit tanks with RPGs from a distance of 500 meters, at least deliver it preciselly. This assumes that neigbouring houses were cleared by infantry before......

In general tank losses were quite moderate in 2nd assault."

 

[merocaine]

I don't think that cities will be the major battlefield of the future for the Abrams.

true, its hard not to fight last years battles, and who knows what will happen in the future and where the wars will be.

Carousel is when one tank comes and shoots HE and HE-FRAG shells fast until it empties its autoloader.... then pulls back for reloading while next starts shooting same time.... with several tanks in each caruosel it created so much shells on enemies positions that Russian infantry could come to good distance to enemy's positions. A two parallel carousels were used on a narrow street and much more on wide squares. Rebels could not hit tanks with RPGs from a distance of 500 meters, at least deliver it preciselly. This assumes that neigbouring houses were cleared by infantry before......

Yeah in the city against troops who know what there doing the tank advance has to be slow and steady, against disorganised troops thunder run their ass!

All in all though against another tank you have to go for the abrams, fast well armoured, great gun, and most of all battle tested.

Does anyone know how hard the abrams is to get to the battle field, and to maintain when your on it, how well will it fight at the end of long supply lines?
a little off topic i know

 

[extern]

How about the humble RPG? If you use your brains one rocket will disable or kill
an abrams. With any anti tank wepeon the last place you want to hit is the frontal armour.
Go for the exhast, or the rear deck with anti tank RPG for the best chance of a disable. This has occured in iraq, althought it takes great skill and bravery.
any way this is the weapon that the abrams is going to be facing for the next couple of years.

Can't agree with you more. Thus I think, the time of 'hevy' MBT with the accent on passive armor is gonna over. The future - with the active protection meajures like Arena, Drozd-2, Trophy etc.

Fortunatly, I'm not single with this thinking:

Active Protective System for Army Future Force
US Army
Fri, 28 Apr 2006, 01:18

WASHINGTON: The United States Army remains committed to providing Soldiers with the best protection technology can provide, according to Maj. Gen. Charles A. Cartwright, program manager for the Future Combat Systems.

As evidence of this goal, the Army’s effort to develop better protection for their mounted Soldiers moved forward in March as the Raytheon Company was contracted to develop the Active Protective System for the Army’s Future Combat Systems program.

Designed as an augmentation to current vehicle armor, the APS is an explosive ballistic countermeasure capability that will dramatically increase vehicle survivability against the spectrum of aerial ballistic threats. The APS is an operationalization of ‘hit avoidance’ technologies that sense incoming threats and employ countermeasures to physically intercept, defeat or deflect them, increasing the survivability of light-to-medium-weight vehicles.

“This is a significant step forward in the FCS program, which remains on coast and on schedule,” says Cartwright. He expects the APS sub-system components to begin current force integration and qualification by the end of 2008.

The estimated $70 million contract will require the APS technology to work with all other relevant systems within FCS. Real-world lessons learned from the Global War on Terrorism are being integrated into the development of FCS, a Soldier-centric, network-enabled program.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker says that FCS is the Army’s key modernization program, and is both the surest and fastest way to provide Soldiers additional tools to address the global missions they have been assigned.

“With FCS, the Army takes advantage of the best-of-industry technologies as soon as they are developed and puts them into the hands of Soldiers in the field,” he said. “This latest approach will get capabilities to our Soldiers sooner, strengthening the current force, while laying groundwork for the force of the future.”
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_005793.php