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

[extern]

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!

I am agree with you: when M1A1 gonna fight against T-90, better if it will go with massive helos cover...

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.

I still don't... Did you want to say the passive armor of T-80 is less effective, that the passive armor of the western tanks? May be... I cannot disprove that 100% authentically, but some reasons force me to doubt even in that. Let do some calculations: the internal space of Leo-2A4 is 19,4 cube meters, yeah... Its mass is 55,2 t - that means 1 cube meter of the internal space is defended by 2.84 t of passive armor. Contrawise the internal space of T-80 is only 11.8 cube meters with its mass of 46 t. It is easy to see that the 1 cube meter of T-80's internal space is defended by 3.94 t of passive armor (I calculated ERA as simple passive armor) - much more that on Leo-2A4. The correspondent data for Abrams are not much different from Leo-2A4 I believe.

Apropos, I am usually tied to follow classification of tank defence:
- Passive defence: (1) all kinds of passive armor (steel, ceramics, kevlar, spaced armor etc) (2) ERA
- Active defence: (1) laser jumming systems (Shtora-1/2 etc) (2) kinetic defence systems (Arena, Drozd-2, Trophy etc.)

 

[Waylander]

Ah, ok you decline ERA as passive armor.
I try again to explain what I want to say.

If we would strip T-80 of every ERA like system and of every active defence system than the armor should be less capable than the armor of the M1A2 or Leopard 2A6. If we put ERA and active systems onto both tanks (T-80 and M1A2) than the western one should also have more protection.
I don't want to say that western tanks with just their normal passive armor are better protected than new eastern tanks with ERA like systems.

So the M1A2SEP has the problem of weight. And without ERA like systems the US won't be able to protect all the weak points of this tank in the future, especially in close combat situations. That's why I say that a good mixture of traditional armor and ERA/active systems is the future for the M1 and other western tanks.

Interesting to know that the last batches of the Leopard IIA4 have a better armor despite the fact that they are a little bit lighter than the ones before. So you should not just look at pure weight of armor.

About helo support.
For sure Helo support is better. And vice versa.
The sovjets/russians are not the only ones using combined weapons tactics. It is right that you have to see for what style of combat the Ts have been designed for and I'm the last one who doesn't say that you have to put ths into your formula but western tanks are also not lonesome killers.
We always work together with mechanized infantry, artillery, pioneers and AT-Helicopters from company level upwards.

 

[extern]

Interesting news. Please coments...

Army Newspaper

The Abrams Files
Volume 11, No. 43, May 18, 2006
By Capt Paul Henry

An Australian owned Abrams tank is currently on exhibition at the US Armor Symposium at Fort Knox in Kentucky, showcasing the technological advances of the Australian variant.

The tank is an M1A1 AIM SA (Abrams integrated management situational awareness), one of the most advanced of the Abrams main battle tanks. It is one of only a small number of vehicles in the world of such a configuration, all of which are Australian.

The M1A1 AIM SA features enhancements such as second-generation FLIR, an inertial navigation system in addition to the global positioning system, an auxiliary power unit, infantry/tank telephone, far target locator, and the Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2) battlefield management system. Modified for Australian conditions, the tank has crew cooling fans and a refrigeration unit, and can fit a deep-water fording kit.

The armour package of the Australian Abrams is among the most advanced in the world.
The US Armor Symposium is attended by a large audience of senior US military officers, armoured-vehicle users and procurement personnel. The event is intended to communicate the importance of the newest technology in relation to security, education, training, and awareness for US military members.

The US Army will seek to adopt many features of the Australian variants for introduction to their own Abrams fleet.

 

[Waylander]

I've got three questions about this.

1. What is a "far target locator"? I cannot really imagine what this could be.

2. About the armor. I thought the aussie tanks are overhauled hulls of US Abrams, without DU-armor. So the armor should be less capable than US M1A1(HE)/A2(SEP).

3. It is said that this version can fit a deep-water fording kit. Is an original Abrams not able of crossing deep-water?

PS: A refrigerator os really good! I would have loved one in my tank!!! :frosty

 

[scraw]

I've got three questions about this.

1. What is a "far target locator"? I cannot really imagine what this could be.

2. About the armor. I thought the aussie tanks are overhauled hulls of US Abrams, without DU-armor. So the armor should be less capable than US M1A1(HE)/A2(SEP).

3. It is said that this version can fit a deep-water fording kit. Is an original Abrams not able of crossing deep-water?

PS: A refrigerator os really good! I would have loved one in my tank!!! :frosty

IIRC the US Marines have fording kits, US Army don't.

 

[knightrider4]

Far Target Locater

I believe its intended purpose is that of a laser designator to allow assets such as the Tiger gunship to engage targets with a greater chance of survival. Also useful for to designate targets for LGB's.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I believe its intended purpose is that of a laser designator to allow assets such as the Tiger gunship to engage targets with a greater chance of survival. Also useful for to designate targets for LGB's.

I think they're also Link 16'd which means direct contact with Hornets, Orions, navy assets etc...

 

[Waylander]

Very nice. Could be very usefull.
The only question is if it is usefull when a tank designates a target for a Tiger if he could just kill the opponent by itself?

 

[knightrider4]

Far Target Locator

I guess the tank can easily hide in a hull down position designate the target, let the gunship fire a hellfire missile and quickly drop down behind cover. I,m reasonably sure that the range of the Far Target Locater is around 8000 meters which allows the Abrams to keep away from the range of most weapons which may cause it concern. Depending on the terrain of course, for example highly effective in open country/deserts.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Very nice. Could be very usefull.
The only question is if it is usefull when a tank designates a target for a Tiger if he could just kill the opponent by itself?

I think its more of an issue of platform sympathy at the co-operative engagement level. eg Tigers are certainly useful for hunter killer teams but also as an overwatch and overmatch capability assuming that the tanks and helos are all operating in the same battlespace. so, in essence its an issue of combined arms capability/networking/co-op engagement. eg Tigers could be used for killing OPFOR MBT support elements while the tanks and AT teams go after the enemy MBT's (or vice versa etc...) So you get greater flexibility in overall response options.

I'd consider UAV's used at a lookdown support level to be a more useful scenario. Predators railed with hellfires could act in concert with the Abrams, or Hornets kitted with JDAMs would all be part of a far more comprehensive battlenet.

either way, whatever platform is Link 16'ed means that any given platform is part of the battlespace comprehension map and can be called upon where approp. If they're cleared for direct comms, then its far easier for local forces to bring in their own battlespace compression etc.....

 

[Waylander]

You could do that but new Ts have a laser warning system. This system is not a real problem if you want to have a first hit capability with your main gun. They are not able to react fast enough if somedy lasers you and 1-2 seconds later the round hits you.
But if you designate a modern T for your Tiger support you have to do that for a longer time than just 1-2 seconds. In this time the turret of the T automatically turns into your direction and the crew is able to maneuver, could use IR-fog and attack you.

 

[gf0012-aust]

You could do that but new Ts have a laser warning system. This system is not a real problem if you want to have a first hit capability with your main gun. They are not able to react fast enough if somedy lasers you and 1-2 seconds later the round hits you.
But if you designate a modern T for your Tiger support you have to do that for a longer time than just 1-2 seconds. In this time the turret of the T automatically turns into your direction and the crew is able to maneuver, could use IR-fog and attack you.

Maybe I haven't articulated clearly enough.

what I'm reinforcing is the issue of battlespace awareness. if you look at a lot of the posts responded to by some of the younger posters, they get all hung up about volumes of platforms and how they go bang - very few comprehend the primary issues of battlespace awareness and logistics.

if you sniff first, and you have battlespace compression in place, then your chances go up.

in absolute real terms, the thing that gives US forces in particular absolute advantage is their overwhelming dominance in situational/battlespace awareness. at that point, if you have the right gear in place, and decent training - then your chances of winning are much greater.

eg, look at the qualification tests for a US MBT Master Gunner, 1sqm hits on a high speed moving target at 2,3,4 km - and they've got to hit them both static and at speed and do it first time at a very high percentage level.

apart from the brits on the salisbury plains range, I'm not so sure that any other nation has the same degree of saturation training for their gunners at this point in time.

In an australian context, Link 16 gives them higher situational awareness - so the issue then is doctrine.

in real and generalised terms, why would you use an MBT to kill another MBT if you're able to use registered artillery (the real king of the battlefield - if you're arty qual'd)

registered arty, MLRS, MLRS-GM, NLOS, battlefield rockets etc are all going to make a mess of an armoured squadron (let alone a massed division) and be able to repeat themselves from 4-40km.

I'm only using the Tiger and Abrams analogy to hilight co-operative oppotunities - I'm not suggesting it as "the option"

 

[Waylander]

Ah, now I get the point.
I totally agree that battlefield awareness is very, very important. That's why I don't understand that the introduction of a battlefield management system into our mechanized formations is so long delayed.
For example in one day during our maneuvers our leading platoon took the wrong turn and the next thing that happened was that the OPFOR crashed into our flanks. Both sides were totally confused and the result was a close quarter combat with lots of friendly fire and nearly no coordinated maneuvering. Lone wolf fighting for every single tank. A good battlefield managment system could have been extremely usefull not to talk of bigger operations.
Ok, we could also have used our GPS but most of the time we work without GPS because our tank commanders shall not forget to orient in the old way.
There are only two risks I see in using battlefield management systems. The first is that you forget to work without the tech. This can be solved by good training.
The second one is more difficult. The commanding officers are more tempted to control everything by themselfes. Especially for an army which uses "Auftragstaktik" (You know the word? I thing it's international) this is a problem.

PS: When I wrote my post #291 I didn't see your post #290. I just answered to knightriders post. That explains why we didn't understand each other.

 

[extern]

I,m reasonably sure that the range of the Far Target Locater is around 8000 meters which allows the Abrams to keep away from the range of most weapons which may cause it concern. Depending on the terrain of course, for example highly effective in open country/deserts.

'To keep away' - is not just for what a tank has been destined... It would be a bit strange that Far Target Radar equiped on a tank without any weapon with close to 8000m range. I think the answer is: the FTR was installed with the thought of a future weapon upgrade like 12000m range MRM-KE tank launching missile. Apropos, according to a strong rumor Rusia allready has ready such fire-and-forget atop attacking missile with 8000 m range but doesnt push it in ots army to avoid weapon race.

PS: there is a table of Abrams's armor specs :
Designation Year Mass t, Armor hor. proj., мм Steel Mass Equivalent , мм Steel Strength Equivalent (turret q = + 30о, hull q = 0о), мм:
APFSDS ATGM
M-1 1980 54,5 700 430 380 (М829AI) 600…650 (TOW)
IPM-1 1984 55,4 800 490 530…550 (M829AI) 750 (ITOW)
M-1A1 1985 57,15 800 490 530…550 (M829AI) 750 (ITOW)
IPM-1A1 1989 59 850 520 760 (M829AI) 850 (ITOW)
M-1A2 1992 62,5 900 550 870 (M829AI) 1350 (TOW-2A)

 

[Waylander]

Maybe not for keeping the enemy away but for better battlefield awareness. That is very well needed.
But as I always said this talking about ranges is difficult. Even in the flat countrys of northern germany there are not many battlefields with 1km+ fighting range. There are not many places around the wordl where the range is 5km+. I think not even in Australia. But thats something for the Aussie guys.

 

[Bfn42]

'To keep away' - is not just for what a tank has been destined... It would be a bit strange that Far Target Radar equiped on a tank without any weapon with close to 8000m range. I think the answer is: the FTR was installed with the thought of a future weapon upgrade like 12000m range MRM-KE tank launching missile. Apropos, according to a strong rumor Rusia allready has ready such fire-and-forget atop attacking missile with 8000 m range but doesnt push it in ots army to avoid weapon race.

PS: there is a table of Abrams's armor specs :
Designation Year Mass t, Armor hor. proj., мм Steel Mass Equivalent , мм Steel Strength Equivalent (turret q = + 30о, hull q = 0о), мм:
APFSDS ATGM
M-1 1980 54,5 700 430 380 (М829AI) 600…650 (TOW)
IPM-1 1984 55,4 800 490 530…550 (M829AI) 750 (ITOW)
M-1A1 1985 57,15 800 490 530…550 (M829AI) 750 (ITOW)
IPM-1A1 1989 59 850 520 760 (M829AI) 850 (ITOW)
M-1A2 1992 62,5 900 550 870 (M829AI) 1350 (TOW-2A)

I really doubt how accurate that info is.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I really doubt how accurate that info is.

It's not accurate at all.

I was "contracted" to JRA/Tenix during the Leo1 armour upgrade Project and the Bushmaster evaluations, we were given access to Leo1, Leo2 and "internal" (as in NATO cleared) Abrams data.

As well intentioned as people may be when submitting info, the public data available on tanks is often nothing like the real info.

In the above case, we had info available as we were cleared for it at the approp security level, so I know that its wrong.

 

[killbill2]

Oh for god's sake. A top attack TOW2B,Hellfire from long range(hits top armor when fired from long range),Maverick,LOSAT/Kinectic energy missile family,Javelin,Preadator and any other top attack ATGM with tandem or EPP warheads will destroy it one hit KO. Not to mention Anti tank submunitions,AT mines, and IED's.. Im American but no way in hell is this thing invincible just hard to lay a finger on with all the other support it gets..:rwb

Here you go you'll find quite a lot.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/missile.htm
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/:drunk1

 

[gf0012-aust]

Oh for god's sake. A top attack TOW2B,Hellfire from long range(hits top armor when fired from long range),Maverick,LOSAT/Kinectic energy missile family,Javelin,Preadator and any other top attack ATGM with tandem or EPP warheads will destroy it one hit KO. Not to mention Anti tank submunitions,AT mines, and IED's.. Im American but no way in hell is this thing invincible just hard to lay a finger on with all the other support it gets..:rwb

Here you go you'll find quite a lot.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/missile.htm
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/:drunk1

I think the thread has derailed from various directions. It originally started from a legacy thread about survivability in Iraq/Kuwait and has migrated from there.

Throughout the progress of this thread various people have indicated that its not invincible - and that its able to be killed with various munitions etc.... The problem is "reaching out and touching it". If this can be achieved, then any tank under those circumstances is a target for salvage.

 

[Pursuit Curve]

I think the thread has derailed from various directions. It originally started from a legacy thread about survivability in Iraq/Kuwait and has migrated from there.

Throughout the progress of this thread various people have indicated that its not invincible - and that its able to be killed with various munitions etc.... The problem is "reaching out and touching it". If this can be achieved, then any tank under those circumstances is a target for salvage.

Not to ba a smart a**, but the main threat to an abrams isn't so much the direct attack option, but the vulnerability of the logistics and supply line needed to supply the thirsty beast with fuel and ammo.