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

[Waylander]

extern
It's right that a 155mm artillery round is going to kill or seriously damage a modern tank but that's much more a question of the weight and not of the power of the HE round.

And if you say that from the side and rear a 125mm gun kills or damages a modern western tank than I believe you. But you could also use KE or HEAT warheads for this. It is not a wonder to get through the side or rear armor of an Abrams, Leo II, Leclerc, etc. You should be able to get through the frontal armor. The chance of hitting a track or destroying an optic is not enough for full scale combined weapons battles.

long live usa
Ok let's have another look at Iraq in '91. (Why does always some people think that this was the ultimate challenge for the Abrams?)
On one side the best what western army could raise M1A1(HE).
On the other side a mixture of old T-55s and some T-72M (Export version with inferior armor, TCs and optics) using very old ammo BM-15 and not at the same training level. They had nealry no intelligence sources, reconaissance, artillery or air support.
The french Foreign Legion attacked the Iraqis by using this nice little vehicle.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/amx10rc_cat3g.jpg

There are enough countrys using tanks which could be able to go directly against the Abrams (T-80U, T-84, T-90, Type 95, etc.).
The problem for these countrys are not the tanks but the lack of ability for real combined warfare of ground troops, together with naval and air force units. Not to talk of intelligence and reconaissance abilitys.

 

[extern]

extern
And if you say that from the side and rear a 125mm gun kills or damages a modern western tank than I believe you. But you could also use KE or HEAT warheads for this.

Good point! But a big question remain about the frontal armor, that can defend any modern tank against APFSDS and HEAT as well. For example I'll bring for you the results of 1999 tests that proved any of 5 hit APFSDS had penetrated the T-90:

"APFSDS
T-90: ERA-equipped target could not be penetrated. Furthermore, after firing the crew entered the vehicle, activated it and was able to execute the firing sequence.
Without ERA, one round penetrated.
T-80U (data available only for stripped target): One round almost penetrated (3mm hole in the inner lining, no visible equipment damage); two penetrated to 1/2 thickness; one missed the target completely; one hit the gun. etc" http://armor.kiev.ua:8101/fofanov/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html

That mean the probability to destroy any modern tank from first hit is MUCH less then 100%. Thus there is some rational in certain circustances, when the engagement starting from the distance less then 1000-800m, to start using gun from HE. From the 1st hit then you have a good chance to 'invalidize' any modern tank by significantly reducing its battle potential, i.o. words its mobility or/and situation awarenness (optic, radio device, active defence components etc).

Apropos. What you mean happing with the crew when 125mm HE hit their tank? IMHO, at least a few seconds they will enter in some mental "deterioration" or kinda shock before will come back to their job, wouldnt they?

 

[Soner1980]

I'm sorry but I can't believe that a HE warhead can destroy a tank when hit from front, side or rear. From upper places and of the bottom it can be destroyed. The HE round rips the thin armor apart and will kill or disable the personel. But not that it can do effect to the inside from thicker armored places. Than a TOW missile can also penetrate a M1A2 what the Abrams is built to sustain such attacks. This is my opinion and the Tunguska is a very nice AA vehicle wich must also be produced in Turkey if the Turkish politicians want good AA defence.

 

[Waylander]

Ok, a T-80U was not able to penetrate a T-90 or seriusly penetrate a T-80U (By the way 4 hits out of 5 against a standing target is not that good ).
But the M256 (L/44) with DU ammo and the L/55 with DM63 ammo are more powerfull and faster than the 125mm of the T-80U.
It would be very interesting if there would be tests like yours using western guns, ATGLs and ATGMs.
For sure you will never have a 100% chance of killing a tank with the first hit and if you are not able to penetrate an enemy tank properly within for example 800m you could use your HE rounds.
But the main reason for using them is not that HE rounds are tank killers, the main reason is that the normal AT ammo is not good enough. By using HE ammo you still have the chance to immobilize the tank or destroy an optic or so but that's nothing more than an emergency solution. If the russian tankers would be sure that their chance of penetrating an M1A2SEP or Leopard II A6 with their KE round they would not use HE rounds.

 

[extern]

Ok, a T-80U was not able to penetrate a T-90 or seriusly penetrate a T-80U (By the way 4 hits out of 5 against a standing target is not that good ).
But the M256 (L/44) with DU ammo and the L/55 with DM63 ammo are more powerfull and faster than the 125mm of the T-80U.
It would be very interesting if there would be tests like yours using western guns, ATGLs and ATGMs.
For sure you will never have a 100% chance of killing a tank with the first hit and if you are not able to penetrate an enemy tank properly within for example 800m you could use your HE rounds.
But the main reason for using them is not that HE rounds are tank killers, the main reason is that the normal AT ammo is not good enough.

Exactly what I say: APFSDS - is not good enough for first hi first kill against any modern tank include, of course, T-90. For example, the frontal armor of T-90 was constructed to defend against any foreign sabots with some additional reserve. With ERA calculated it fits Abrams' frontal armor as well. That's a cause for using HE... Does Abrams have HE rounds?

 

[Waylander]

No. Abrams has KE, HEAT and MPAT (MultiPurposeAntiTank).
But Challenger has got an HE and an HESH round. There are also swedish and german HE rounds for the Leo II.
The T-90 may be designed to withstand any foreign KE round but I really doubt if it really can withstand modern western rounds.
The designers weren't able to test the tank against it.

 

[extern]

No. Abrams has KE, HEAT and MPAT (MultiPurposeAntiTank).
But Challenger has got an HE and an HESH round. There are also swedish and german HE rounds for the Leo II.
The T-90 may be designed to withstand any foreign KE round but I really doubt if it really can withstand modern western rounds.
The designers weren't able to test the tank against it.

OK, now we can see, that for Abrams nothing hampers to have some capability to make external damage to the enemy tank apart to penetrate it. Then the Americans also have some questions about sufficiency of APFSDS.

Apropos, Abrams also has HEP rounds, that I should include to the broad HE category. As like as a regular HE, HEP also designed against armored wehicles:

"HEP (High-Explosive Plastic)
HEP is basically a thin metal container filled with a explosive. Upon impact the shell splits and the round splats against the target, much like a wet snowball. A fuze in the base then detonates the charge causing the inside of the targets armor to spall. This round is also effective against bunkers, buildings, and other like targets. 105mm HEP is still in service for the M1, but there are no 120mm versions of this round." http://members.aol.com/panzersgt/theory/Ammo.html

About T-90: it was designed to be defended WITH RESERVE against any contemporal western APFSDS. The Russian designers with the help of russian military intelligence (GRU) know very well the penetrating capability of all APFSDSs. T-90 also has an ability to add some 150-200mm of modular passive armor on the frontal aspect without any change in its design. If they dont do that they are confident in what exists.

T-90 also has HEATs, but its capability to make for Abrams internal damage apart with external is questionable just like as the capability of american HEATs to penetrate T-90: http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/ARM/heat/ammo.html

Ok, a T-80U was not able to penetrate a T-90 or seriusly penetrate a T-80U (By the way 4 hits out of 5 against a standing target is not that good ).

Wrong calculation, sorry: they speek about 14 hits out of 15 shots from one T-80 gun (5+5 on T-90 and 5 on T-80). Also the gun of T-80 was designed to fight with early generation of Abrams as well as early Abrams was designed to fight against T-72. The gun of T-90 - has several improvements with the using of exellent German metalwork equipment. It's intended to be comparable with any western tank MG of the late 90th.

I'm sorry but I can't believe that a HE warhead can destroy a tank when hit from front, side or rear.

And the Americans and Russians do believe in that if they put HE/HEP rounds in their inventory. At least to believe in a severe external damage + some seconds of crew disorientation that give to the opponent a good chance for second shot.

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.

Unfortunately we have no any absolute scale for calculating capability of a tank... Then we are compeled to discuss in relativistic categories comparing some tank with another. But obviously you are right if you mean the comparizon has to be made with broad spectrum of aims, tactics and strategies. It cannot be restricted only by tank-to-tank engagements. As well, We can speak about efficiency/vulnerability of Abrams in several types of mil. operations, like 'peace keeping' , 'democratisation', 'WMD prevention efforts', 'preventive pacification' etc.

 

[Moroz.ru]

The T-90 may be designed to withstand any foreign KE round but I really doubt if it really can withstand modern western rounds.
The designers weren't able to test the tank against it.

As I know, India has done such tests while 300 units tank tender. A T-90 against Abrams rounds at 500m distance. I hope Indian DT forum’s members would kindly provide us by rely info.

 

[Soner1980]

From what I know, the HEP round was developed for the 105mm L7 rifled tank gun by the Royal Ordnance and therefore it was designed to destoy buildings, pillboxes, bunkers, etc.. Also ships were accurately destroyed by the HEP and HESH (squash head).

But today all tanks have spaced armor or spall liners to deflect the way of the penetrator. HEP and HESH was in the late 1950's very effective against tanks. Like in the 1991 gulf war, the British used also HEP and HESH rounds for the Iraqi T-55/Type-59 and T-62 tanks. Ofcourse HE, HESH and HEP are dangerous for the tankers. But it is unable to destroy the latest generation tanks because there are measures taken for such type ammo today. The Leopard-2, M1, Leclerc and other new designs will fire back when hit by HE, HEP or HESH. The sight system is also placed in a good place, like the leopard-2A4, it is only hit when you directly hit the sight. The M1 Abrams' sight system is in a small armored box to protect it and also must be directly hit to destrouy it. Disabling the tank with HESH, HE and HEP is possible and.

 

[Waylander]

Ok, wrong calculation by me.

But remember we (german tankers) never learned to use HE against anything else than infantry groups, bunkers, buildings and weak targets (Jeeps, trucks, etc.). We should not even use MZ (HEAT) against anything larger than a BMP, BRDM, etc. There has to be a reason for that. And the reason is that our testing teams think that a KE round has the best chance to kill or seriously damage an enemy tank from all directions and within all ranges.
With the swedish army it's the same.

For example our new HE round has only been developed because our HEAT rounds are not good enough against infantry, buildings, etc. Because of the space needed for the HEAT warhead the shrapnell and explosion range and power is too small. We never intended to use it against tanks if you have anything else.The UK tankers in Iraq really liked their HE and HESH rounds because of their power against infantry in buildings, etc. We've learned form recent conflicts in Iraq and Grozny.

And with spall liners implemented in many modern tanks the chance of a HE warhead to be effective is much smaller.

 

[extern]

As I know, India has done such tests while 300 units tank tender. A T-90 against Abrams rounds at 500m distance. I hope Indian DT forum’s members would kindly provide us by rely info.

It was classified study but the rumor say that T-90 was tested also against the Arjun's 120mm MG with Israel antitank ammunition. I never heard T-90 armor was worser that Arjun's one, the last is 'havy designed' tank with big German input.

Ofcourse HE, HESH and HEP are dangerous for the tankers. But it is unable to destroy the latest generation tanks because there are measures taken for such type ammo today. The Leopard-2, M1, Leclerc and other new designs will fire back when hit by HE, HEP or HESH. The sight system is also placed in a good place, like the leopard-2A4, it is only hit when you directly hit the sight. The M1 Abrams' sight system is in a small armored box to protect it and also must be directly hit to destrouy it.

- It is very depended from the kind of the explosive and its massa. Anyway, there is a comcensus that 152-155 mm HE or HEP shell is pretty enough to destroy any tank. About 125 mm - there were a lot of studies about this in Russia/USSR and all of them say 125mmHE round causes havy damage for several tank's functions . Look about it on Fofanov's site:

"//125mm HEF-FS rounds are reasonably accurate (maximum acceptable dispersion: 0.23mil) and are roughly equivalent to a 122mm artillery round.
The anti-tank efficiency of HEF-FS rounds is limited, but tests indicate that HEF-FS impact on a tank produces severe mobility kill and very likely firepower kill". http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/ARM/apers/overview.html

Ok, wrong calculation by me.

But remember we (german tankers) never learned to use HE against anything else than infantry groups, bunkers, buildings and weak targets (Jeeps, trucks, etc.). We should not even use MZ (HEAT) against anything larger than a BMP, BRDM, etc. There has to be a reason for that. And the reason is that our testing teams think that a KE round has the best chance to kill or seriously damage an enemy tank from all directions and within all ranges.
With the swedish army it's the same.

May be it's difference in 'phylosophy' but in the russian inventory HE rounds take 40% and HEATs - 45%. the remain is for APFSDSs and tank's ATGMs. Also I guess the NATO states follow prepearing fights against T-хх on the long distance only. They are full of determination not to fight against any Russian made tank in close combat ( clever decision considering the power of T-90 MG, I can say )
Remember, that the last gen. western tanks was designed as a 'defencive weapon', indended to stop the Russian tank's leap to La-Manche. Indeed - they are mainly antitank weapon...
Contrawise the T-хх serial was from the start intended for offensive ops. Thus the accent was made on their tactical and strategic mobility, an ability to destroy all spectrum of hostile targets from close distance including tanks, cars, peepel, cows and the wonderful evropiann houses...

 

[Waylander]

For sure the NATO knew that going into close quarter combat against the Warsaw Pact divisions would be suicide but as I said before the main reason for that is not better sovjet tactics or tech.
The real reason is that in a mechanized battle, close quarter combat is a meat grinder. Both sides loose cohesion, battleplans/tactics can't be used any more, tech is not that interesting, defender looses its advantages against the attacker, etc. In the end the one with more material wins.
I saw that every time we got close enough during maneuvers. If the defender spottet us early enough and was able to fall back in good formation and cohesion while fighting we lost. If we were able to close the gap fast enough we overrun them and it could happen that a whole overstrenght company was wiped out within 10min with minimal losses.

I agree that the T tanks have ever been more dedicated to working together with Infantry and support it directly.

 

[extern]

I agree that the T tanks have ever been more dedicated to working together with Infantry and support it directly.

Now after the last Abrams' upgrade the americans did a big leap in urban adaptation for their tanks, so as in tank-infantry coordination . But the overweight is still limiting their strategic and tactic mobility (if let say they will want to use their tank in a big offensive operation in the countries like Iran or Ukraine). They recognise this problem I think. The fact remains: no one of the new american armored vehicle projects has weight more then 50 t. Put please your mind on ERA adoption:

 

[Waylander]

The TUSK upgrade has been cancelled for financial reasons.

I agree that weight remains a critical factor and active protection systems are an effective way of protecting the weak spots of a tank without making it too heavy.
But look for Iraq. For example the army tried to use light forces for reconnaissance missions. Very fast they replaced these light forces with Bradleys and Abrams because the light forces lost too many men and material to iraqi ambushes and counter reconnaissance forces.
IMHO the modern western tanks are not too heavy but they reached the limit.

 

[extern]

But look for Iraq. For example the army tried to use light forces for reconnaissance missions. Very fast they replaced these light forces with Bradleys and Abrams because the light forces lost too many men and material to iraqi ambushes and counter reconnaissance forces.
IMHO the modern western tanks are not too heavy but they reached the limit.

I speak about a possibility to reduce the weight without any decline in tank's defence and firepower. If the Russians could do MBT with <50 t weight with all common 'gadgets', why the Americans (Germans) cannot? I think they can. I'll give you an example: if an aircraft can take 1 Abrams, it could lift instead 1 T-80 and 20 t additional ammunition. It is economy of time and money, isnt it? And if you are not satisfated with the internal autoloader, as on the pics below, you still can do it external, can't you?

 

[Waylander]

For sure the western tank industry could. But it is much cheaper to upgrade the existing tank fleet than developing a totally new vehicle.

And I really doubt that that a modernized T-80 has the same defence capabilities like an Abrams or LeoII if they would be refitted with extra active protection systems too.

 

[extern]

I really doubt that that a modernized T-80 has the same defence capabilities like an Abrams or LeoII if they would be refitted with extra active protection systems too.

In vain you do... In 0 degree angle it is the same if considering ERA capabilit. In some specific directions the defence of T-90 and T-80VK/T-80M (modernised) even better that the defence of Abrams and LeoII: for example in the angle of 30gr or from above (ERA and plastic layer). Also the main LeoII' armory (27 rounds) is remain inside the corpus near the tankist without any protection against the blow - just like as in T-xx. In Abrams 6 rounds are remain in corpus - pretty enough to make from the tank thousands of pieces . Look on the picture for explanation:

 

[Waylander]

I know were the LeoII has its ammo and how much it is.

I think you don't get what I want to say. IF Abrams and LeoIIs would be upgraded with active protection systems like the T-80 and T-90 already have I think they would be better protected than T-xx. I don't say that new western tanks without ERA are much better protected than new russian ones with ERA. I say that they would be if they would have similar active protection systems.

PS: On this picture the drivers seat is at the wrong place:
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=441&d=1147706825

 

[Darrel_topgun]

Hellfire Missile

Actually, the Hellfire missile (AGM-1148) is also an American hardware. The Hellfire missile system is carried by the OH-58D Kiowa warrior attack helicopter, so if your up against an M1A1 Abrams tank... YOU ARE IN BIIIIIIIIG TROUBLE! YOU AS GOOD AS DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :gun

 

[Waylander]

I don't really get what you whant to say?

Edit: Ok, forget it I just saw your other posts.