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

[Waylander]

I don't think that active defence systems are the ultimate future. And I also don't read this in the article. There will be a mix of active and passive systems.
The main problem of the new western tanks is that by only increasing their passive defence capabilities they become too heavy. Sometimes they already reached this frontier. Look at the Kosovo. We send our Leopard II A5 back home and replaced them with Leopard II A4s because of the bridges there. With the inclusion of modern active protection systems the western states are able to protect their tanks better without going too heavy and without loosing their passive armor capabilities. Especially at the weak points that's a good possibility, we already do that by using an ERA like system on top of our Panzerhaubitze 2000 against bomblets.
Sorry for a little bit off-topic but the T-72M1 (And other T-72 versions) is a good example for that theory. They increased the passive armor by putting some extra ceramic armor onto the turret front. But soon they learned that too many weak points remained and that they were not able to protect them without making the tank too heavy for the needs of the Warsaw Pact army. That's one of the main reasons why they developed so many active protection systems. Naturally western tanks weren't that limited in weight and were able to go on with passive armor. But by now we are at the same point.

 

[Big-E]

Wow, you guys get off topic quick. Back to killing an M1.

 

[Waylander]

Why is this real off-topic?
My post was only about the future of the M1. The little story about the T was just an example on how and why active protection systems are going to be implemented into the Abrams. It's a fact that, like every other tank more or less, the Abrams has weak points which are especially critical in urban warfare and that active systems are the only real opportunity to increase the defense capabilities of the M1.
What do you want to hear about? Just what is able to kill an M1A2SEP?
- Artillery from above and directly (Smart ammo especially)
- Rocket artillery from above (With hundrets of bomblets or intelligent missiles)
- Modern eastern gun 125mm/BM-41 ammo combo within under 1000m on the front and at much more range from every other side
- Modern western gun like L/55/DM53-63 ammo combo maybe within more than 1000m on the front
- Modern air to ground missiles like Hellfire II, Maverik, AT-X-16, PARS 3
- Modern ATGMs like Javelin, Spike ER, Kornet E maybe on the front and definitely everywhere else
- Modern double HEAT RPGs, Panzerfäuste, etc. from the everywhere despite the front
- traditional and intelligent bombs
- AT-Mines
- Big IEDs
-Phaser guns

Nearly everything in this list has been mentioned before in the thread.
Than look at a battlefield like Pakistan for example (No political offense, just an example and don't think about nukes. I could have used North-Korea for my example but they have not enough modern equipment). Numerical superiority, some high-tec equipment, enough AA equipment and air force capabilities to prevent total US air superiority for some time and enough battlefields with combat ranges under 1000m and good ambush possibilities. That would be a real test for a tank. Going against nasty export T-72s and T-55 under a full air screen and without a real fear of hiding units and enemy artillery comanded by poitical officers is not a real battle test. The french foreign legion also participated in the Gulf War of '91 and they did this with AMX-10C (105mm gun and paper armor)...
I don't want to say that the M1 is a bad tank or not battle tested, but on every occasion were he fought the US would have won also by using M60s.

 

[idreamof2morrow]

no one here knows about the javelin?

watch this movie

its a prototype antitank missle launcher that uses two modes of attack. the speical thing about this is that it incorperates the ability to attack from above. the theory is that the armour on the top of the tank is less than on its sides.

 

[Grand Danois]

You probably already know this one, but...

More top attack - Bill 2

 

[Waylander]

As you can see Javelin is already part of my list.
Despite that the video you posted is pure show against targets full of explosives and fuel. An ATGM never blows a tank up like this.
This video shows how Javelin is really working. Nevertheless it's deadly:



http://rapidshare.de/files/19193656/Javelin.mpeg.html

 

[gf0012-aust]

Despite that the video you posted is pure show against targets full of explosives and fuel. An ATGM never blows a tank up like this.
This video shows how Javelin is really working.

It's referred to as an "assisted shot" ie the after effects are assisted by remnants of fuel vapour or volatile open charges so as to exagerate the effects of the kill.

 

[Waylander]

For example if a T-72 in iraq has been hit into its autoloader he often lost his turret. But crashed into small pieces like this? I really doubt that this would happen.
This is a good example of an assistedt shot (TOW vs. M48).
Seems like the ammo caught fire and begins to burn (Like crackers you break into pieces).
http://www.zippyvideos.com/3340448913188086/tow_vs_m-46_patton./

 

[gf0012-aust]

For example if a T-72 in iraq has been hit into its autoloader he often lost his turret.

T-72's that have been hit in the loader bustle normally eject the turret as a single unit - it doesn't break up into smaller pieces at all. The overpressure is enough to cause a catastrophic turret "dismount" - but it doesn't generally turn the turret into shrapnel.

 

[Waylander]

That's what I wanted to say. Sometimes my english might be a little bit hard to understand.
What I also wanted to say is that if a T-72 is hit into it's autoloader it won't break into small pieces like in the video. It is gonna loose its complete turret like you said.

 

[gf0012-aust]

That's what I wanted to say. Sometimes my english might be a little bit hard to understand.
What I also wanted to say is that if a T-72 is hit into it's autoloader it won't break into small pieces like in the video. It is gonna loose its complete turret like you said.

Your english is still better than my german though..

 

[extern]

I'd point to an important circumstance, underline an insufficiency of the regular western view on the possible consequences of Abrams duel with any of big eastern army. The allegedly advantage of Abrams is assumed on the basis of supposed capability of Abrams to open pinpointed fire first on the long distance with its highly accurate and deadly APFSDSs. But this calculation doesn’t take into account the current standard tactics of T-xx Russian regiments. They don’t go to fire line in 'linear' move, but scramble with unpredictable snack-like loops. It means they move with acceleration in the frontal plane that makes highly unlike hitting them with APFSDSs on the distance more than 3 – 3.5 km. Actually 1.5 – 2 sec is pretty enough for object moving 30-35 km/h to change its trajectory in such extent to make faulty any ballistic calculation. From the opposite side – the T-xx ATGMs have not such problem b/c its trajectory can be corrected until the very hitting.

In the short distance T-90 has so lethal weapon that Abrams probably still doesn’t. I mean HE shells… In the minimal consideration, one hit of that is enough to destroy the Abrams' capability to undertake an aiming firing. However, the consequences of hitting Abrams with Russian 125 mm HE seem to be much more dangerous for its crew that usually used to think: the dynamic blow leads to separation of metal pieces from the internal armor surface, that can kill the crew easily. In such case the blast of HE shell upon any surface of Abrams may be pretty enough. From the opposite side Abrams cannot destroy T-90 with its main antitank shells – APFSDS – unlike it is pinpointed just to the crew cabin. In that case the relative little size of T-90 will be his best 'armor'.

Thus I still give to T-90 better chance to be on upper hand (with all other things equal).

 

[Soner1980]

The only 2 vids are reality: The Bill and the tank with is to go on flame it's like new years eve If a tank is penetrated, you won't see burning wood or something. The Javelin wich is shown in the first movie is just a simple wooden mock-up (maquette) and therefore FUBAR.

If the tank has been penetrated, it is often in flames inside because of the gas jet or from heat from the sabot round. Also when penetrated, the turret wil fly because of the pressure inside the tank. A turret is just put on a tank and not mounted on it. A turret can weight about 20 tons and don't need to be mounted anyway, it just can block the turret when hit by smaller ammo what does not penetrate. Like in Kursk when a Tiger was hit by a Russian 57mm ZIS-2 AT canon. The tankers had leaved their Tiger because they tought the tank was to blow but the turret was stuck only.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'd point to an important circumstance, underline an insufficiency of the regular western view on the possible consequences of Abrams duel with any of big eastern army. The allegedly advantage of Abrams is assumed on the basis of supposed capability of Abrams to open pinpointed fire first on the long distance with its highly accurate and deadly APFSDSs. But this calculation doesn’t take into account the current standard tactics of T-xx Russian regiments. They don’t go to fire line in 'linear' move, but scramble with unpredictable snack-like loops. It means they move with acceleration in the frontal plane that makes highly unlike hitting them with APFSDSs on the distance more than 3 – 3.5 km. Actually 1.5 – 2 sec is pretty enough for object moving 30-35 km/h to change its trajectory in such extent to make faulty any ballistic calculation. From the opposite side – the T-xx ATGMs have not such problem b/c its trajectory can be corrected until the very hitting.

I don't know who has provided you with information about how US MBTs are not going to be able to deal with erratic manouvre - but they are about 15 years out of date with their knowledge.

I'd suggest that they have no idea about how the US conducts its training and doctrine changes out at Aberdeen, - and they certainly have no idea of what a US Master Gunner has to do to qualify on a tank. If they did, then they would be aware of what size targets and at what range and speeds they're required to score consistent kills. The info certainly isn't coming from someone familiar with those things in the last 7 years (let alone last 15)

In the short distance T-90 has so lethal weapon that Abrams probably still doesn’t. I mean HE shells… In the minimal consideration, one hit of that is enough to destroy the Abrams' capability to undertake an aiming firing. However, the consequences of hitting Abrams with Russian 125 mm HE seem to be much more dangerous for its crew that usually used to think: the dynamic blow leads to separation of metal pieces from the internal armor surface, that can kill the crew easily. In such case the blast of HE shell upon any surface of Abrams may be pretty enough. From the opposite side Abrams cannot destroy T-90 with its main antitank shells – APFSDS – unlike it is pinpointed just to the crew cabin. In that case the relative little size of T-90 will be his best 'armor'.

Again, the fact that whoever is advising you of things like this is unaware of the qualifications required to get MG status shows that their knowledge is far from current. The target size required for an MG to qualify is substantially less than the silhouette mass of an MBT.

Thus I still give to T-90 better chance to be on upper hand (with all other things equal).

I think the danger here is that people also get carried away with thinking that tank battles are likely to be like Kursk, the Golan Heights etc... That is possible but unlikely - but then again 73 Easting and the Thunder Run rewrote the rules on tank application.

The preferred anti-tank weapon in combined arms is not another tank - its a registered weapon or/as well as anti-air.

Whoever is giving you this info is a long way away from understanding modern tank warfare and anti-tank applications. They certainly have no idea how the US qualifies their master gunners - and they certainly have no idea about what the US training methods out at Aberdeen.

tank vs tank roles and tank vs anti-tank roles change with the environment and the latency of the threat (depending on what side you sit). UK, Australian, American, Singaporean, French, Canadian, German tank doctrine is different yet similar - the way that australians use tanks and infantry is very different to US doctrine.

the response is also dependant on how each country uses combined arms. any country massing tanks for an attack in contemp battles is going to lose substantial numbers of those platforms before they come anywhere near another tank.

eg anti-tank rotors, anti-tank fixed wing, HK teams, registered weapons, battlefield rockets, MLRS, cluster weapons etc.... then there are issues of enfilade, defilade, pre-positioning, armour structure, support team structure, geography etc etc.....

Look at europe in the cold war period, the clear doctrine by WARPAC was to prefix armoured strike with battlefield nukes (as just released recently by the polish govts historical records).

NATO was going to use rotor and fixed wing strike to kill armour as it bunched through places like the Fulda Gap, they also intended to have registred weapons zoned on likely approaches. The reason was to blunt armour before it got to a meeting engagement. At that point breaking momentum and breaking mass would give the Leos, Challys and M1's the opportunity to bring faster and more accurate rates of fire to bear. Remember that the early russian 125mm rounds were far less competent than the german 120mm rounds.

tank on tank comparisons are fraught with danger because they ignore the complexity of doctrine and combined arms usage whcih severely influence deployment.

 

[Waylander]

First you have to understand that in the sovjet army artillery was one of the main tank killers together with T-xx in superior numbers and secondly mechanized infantry with ATGMs and RPGs.

The M1 may be developed to work in every circumstances but its supposed battlefield was western germany. In western germany there are not much battlefields with more than 800m of firing range so if I say that "My tank is able to get you at xxx meters, blabla" it's crap.

Have you ever looked through a tank optic? Within the x12 gunner optic of the Leopard II a tank is very small even at 3000m. At 4000m only real good gunners have real good hitting statistics againts moving targets. At 5000m a tank is so small that you need very much luck to hit it.

And with the introduction of spall liners in modern western tanks shrapnel is not that dangerous if a round doesn't enter the tank.

Just think about something. The sovjet/russian army has its own APFSDS rounds (Which are not that bad if you look at the newest ones). Why do you think they use them? Because of their inferior capabilities against tanks instead of HE rounds? There is no logic in your post! If a big HE round would be able to kill a tank (Or its crew) modern tanks would only field HE rounds. Just think about that.

And as gf0012-aust already said, tank engagements are not like some people may think.
In normal conditions like middle europe (where I trained) engagements between mechanized units are much more about numerical superiority than in deserts.

So every "small" enemy who faces the US or NATO should try to get its mechanized units into close combat. Normally close combat is not good for both sides.

The attacker looses its momentum and conecentrated fire power. The defender loses every advantage over the attacker. I am not able to use artillery or minefields, the kill ratio is going up and tactics, tech, better optics, etc. doesn't really count. The one with more material normally wins. So if both sides would be nearly equal both do not want this to happen.

BUT if there is a country like serbia it is not a good idea staying in defense positions and waiting for the enemy to come.

If I am able to get into close combat fighting many advantages of the western forces are negotiated and I may have a chance to inflict serious damage (Training is one of the main aspects than).

 

[extern]

gf0012-aust,
I'm of full awareness about the lack of equilibrium in any real fighting condition, and about the intention of NATO to use helicopters against tanks etc. Apropos, the opposite side has sometimes-similar intentions. However, the single way to compare any two devices is laid in "fixation" of maximal broad spectrum of secondary factors and consideration minimal set of the contemplated factors (only one factor in ideal). Thus, our 'mental experiment' (that only we do all the time) must have some rules. The arguments, like 'in any real condition it will be not only tanks against tanks, but something more', - are always right, but they lack productivity. That way we'll not decide which opinion is closer to the truth. I'd try to fix up equally all circumstances, that can be fixed, before touching to debates. Thus, I had offered in my post such 'mental experiment' in the 'ideal condition', when an air support is absent.

And about the helos I should say if they can see and kill the tanks in regiment, the Tunguskas or Tor-1M, defending that regiment, can kill them two times.

Waylander,
I can't agree with you more, when you say that the close tank to tank combat is a possibility, that with high probability may occur in the most of the terrain conditions. I also agree with you , if you say, that close tank-to-tank combat – is a situation, that must be avoided by Abrams, when it is only possible. With that, I must say that fighting on the distance of less than 1000 m gives to T-90 (if it's the enemy) some advance against Abrams. T-90's HE shells are not super accurate, as you know, also because they are delivered from the smoothbore gun. However, after 1st hitting the Abrams will pretty became a 'sitting duck' without optics, and after that it will be only T-90's gunner decision: 'to overkill or not to overkill'. The kill of Abrams by T-90's APFSDSs will be only the question of time from this point of eventuality.

As well, I must say I think last models of Abrams has clearly advance against T-90S (last model) on the distance of fire 1000-2500 m b/c of its more accurate and more deadly APFSDS. However, it can be realized only with certain terrain conditions. About the longer distance I had expressed my opinion in my post before.

 

[Waylander]

I don't like these thoughts of converting a modern tank into a sitting duck by using tanks with HE rounds or IFVs with 30mm etc.

It is not that easy. Yeah for sure, you may hit the other tank with an HE round and maybe you destroy its primary sight but there is also a secondary sight.

This one is very, very hard to destroy. And within 1000m a qualified tanker needs no new high-tec optic to kill you with a KE round. Just put the manuell trigger at 1000m and...

Despite that I really would like to know from which persons or sources do you know that you should use HE rounds against enemy tanks. Sorry, but this story sounds to me like "Our main AT-round may not be able to penetrate you from the front but we have...uhmm...we have...HE rounds, yeah HE rounds. Harhar now go with that."

Maybe if your KE rounds are crap (Like the Iraqi BM-14, etc.) and you have some HE rounds you may try to use them against tanks and than hope but if I have a new 125mm gun with new ammo I would never try to use HE rounds against tanks. Normally as a tanker I am happy about every first time shot I get and I would not waste it for the, not that big, chance to destroy one of the optics of the enemy.

 

[gf0012-aust]

gf0012-aust,
I'm of full awareness about the lack of equilibrium in any real fighting condition, and about the intention of NATO to use helicopters against tanks etc. Apropos, the opposite side has sometimes-similar intentions. However, the single way to compare any two devices is laid in "fixation" of maximal broad spectrum of secondary factors and consideration minimal set of the contemplated factors (only one factor in ideal). Thus, our 'mental experiment' (that only we do all the time) must have some rules. The arguments, like 'in any real condition it will be not only tanks against tanks, but something more', - are always right, but they lack productivity. That way we'll not decide which opinion is closer to the truth. I'd try to fix up equally all circumstances, that can be fixed, before touching to debates. Thus, I had offered in my post such 'mental experiment' in the 'ideal condition', when an air support is absent.

And about the helos I should say if they can see and kill the tanks in regiment, the Tunguskas or Tor-1M, defending that regiment, can kill them two times.

Now you can probably understand why Web has a policy of banning "x" vs "y" threads - because they are almost useless as a viable and cogent method of assessing capability.

before anyone pulls any trigger, presses any button, excites some solenoid - the battleplan has evolved in its construct well before then.

to actually even to begin to sensibly discuss tank survivability on the battlefield does at the minimum require an understanding of who the players are. doctrine influences all before platforms become chess pieces.

 

[extern]

Waylander,
The last progress in explosive development is wonderful. Obviously 155 mm HE round hit from any direction will destroy or disable any modern tank. 125 mm HE will make the same except with the frontal armor. But Even in the last case 125 mm HE will pretty cut the track if hit it. Who said it for me? For example, It's a fact, that HE tank rounds was used by T-72 in Lebanon war. Even in Internet I saw some reminiscences of Russian officer, that was an adviser in Syrian army. He remember that in some cases the turrets of Merkava was literally cut-off after the hit. If you want, I can found its text, but it is only Russian… Future 'Sniper-2' ATGM seems to be also HE – because it is enough and good for weapon commonality. The problems with HE start when it not provides precision hit with the distance more that about 1000 m.

 

[long live usa]

look at iraq its commical that nearly no tanks were lost most countries dont posses a tank fleet capable of even dealing with an abrams perhaps the t-98 could but they are only in small batch production