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

[DoC_FouALieR]

The problem is "reaching out and touching it". If this can be achieved, then any tank under those circumstances is a target for salvage.

This highlights precisely the problems tanks encounter in urban combat...

We in France are confronted with a hard doctrinal problem with our Leclerc's tanks (that have been mainly made for a "standard" cold-war type confrontation) during urban combat phases...
So how could we use tanks in general in urban combat at best?

 

[gf0012-aust]

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.

You're not being a smart arse at all. You've actually restated what has been said frequently on here if not obliquely.

ie professionals discuss logistics while the amateurs discuss the toys.

too often, the more enthusiastic focus on what goes bang, and the "mano on mano" events - which have little basis in reality. its not an XBOX or Playstation computer game, and yet threads often deteriorate to "what goes bang" as being evidence of capability.

 

[gf0012-aust]

This highlights precisely the problems tanks encounter in urban combat...

We in France are confronted with a hard doctrinal problem with our Leclerc's tanks (that have been mainly made for a "standard" cold-war type confrontation) during urban combat phases...
So how could we use tanks in general in urban combat at best?

I think what it reinforces is the evolution of doctrine. eg Stalingrad and Chechnya are used as stellar examples of why you don;t use tanks in urban warfare or FIBUA. In fact Stalingrad was the primary model to define doctrine on why not to use heavy armour in FIBUA.

What happened though was that you saw doctrine shifts and design shifts that showed that MBT's did have utility as long as they were supported and used differently - and thats a doctrine issue.

eg, look at the Israelis. They picked up the German innovation for not wasting degraded weapons systems and then modifying them for niche needs. They haven't made the same mistakes though of "over niching" capability on a platform. eg the Germans did some excellent iterative platform development on the Panzer III, but came up with some howlers using the Panzer IV. The Israelis have taken a more considered approach but have stayed focussed. eg the Centurion, Sherman, Merkava 3, M1113, BMP, T-6n, T-5n, T-7n series tanks, BTR's etc... The Israelis have been singularly responsible/important in developing niche solutions for heavy armour in urban terrain. Arguably, current MBT developments for urban warfare owe the Israelis a great deal.

the event that changed the perception of a MBT's suitability in FIBUA (or FIBy) was the US Thunder Run through Bagdhad.

if you look at the event itself, is the doctrine that has made it credible. so I don't actually believe that the MBT per se has been compartmentalised due to its design limitations. After all, Chally2, Leo2, Leclerc, M1 Abrams were all designed for a pure armour Kursk style event in the Fulda Gap. The platforms haven't changed in absolute terms, but their doctrine for use has. (although it has led to progs such as TUSK)

 

[Waylander]

I don't understand why the US halted the TUSK program. The US put so much money into so many high-tech toys but sometimes it seems that they forget the normal GI in the field. Just look at the Humvee armor discussion.

The TUSK would improve the urban warfare capabilities of the Abrams in a good way. Modernizing one or two M1A2SEP btls into TUSK should not be that big problem.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Interesting excerpt on the doctrine of tanks and their benefit in Iraq. This is from JFQ Issue 39

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1539.pdf


Tanks

The authors interviewed personnel from the U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps, and British army about main battle tanks in Iraq. Without exception or qualification, they praised the performance of tanks, describing them as vital to the quick victory.

The United Kingdom Minister of Defence, Procurement, stated, “Operation Telic [the British designation for Iraqi Freedom] underscored the value of heavy armor in a balanced force.” He also stated that Iraqi Freedom confirmed “protection is still vital” and reemphasized “the effect of heavy armor in shattering the enemy’s will to fight.”

Tanks were further esteemed during Iraqi Freedom for several reasons.

Tanks were highly resistant to fire. The most common Iraqi antiarmor weapon was the rocket-propelled grenade (RPG), especially the Soviet designed RPG–7.

This weapon has both high explosive and shaped charge warheads. The antiarmor shaped charge can penetrate up to 300 millimeters (nearly 12 inches) of solid, rolled homogenous armor plate under optimal conditions, but still failed to penetrate the advanced armor of the Abrams and Challenger 2 in most locations. British army sources stated that one of their Challengers operating near Basra absorbed 15 hits by RPGs with no penetration. The only British Challenger knocked out during the war was accidentally hit by another British tank.

A tank battalion commander in the 3d Infantry Division stated that one of his Abrams took 45 hits from various weapons, including heavy machineguns,
anti-aircraft guns, mortar rounds, and rocket-propelled grenades, with no penetration.

A few Abrams were penetrated by cannons and RPGs, usually in the rear flank or rear of the vehicle. In a few instances, enemy fire broke open the fuel cells of the external auxiliary power unit, allowing fuel to seep into the engine, causing a fire.

No Army or Marine crewman died in an Abrams tank due to enemy fire penetrating the vehicle during major combat operations.

 

[Cootamundra]

Interesting excerpt on the doctrine of tanks and their benefit in Iraq. This is from JFQ Issue 39

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1539.pdf

No Army or Marine crewman died in an Abrams tank due to enemy fire penetrating the vehicle during major combat operations.

And still some debate the value of our M1 purchase here in AUS! It makes NO sense whatsoever - if we want to have a 'balanced' ARMY that is able to do more than peacekeeping then this capability is a must, just as a good rifle, helicopter, truck or grenade are.

 

[tntsas]

It is not clever to fight with M1 from front. Caterpillar band is a weakness and i will use a 40mm rocket.

 

[Waylander]

40mm? I am not sure if the load of a 40mm grenade is big enough.
Despite that the caterpillar is one of the hardest targets to hit. Often enough they are protected by little advances of the landscape.
The other two problems are, as mentioned before, to hit a moving tank on the run with an unguided round and to get away alive after the shot.
Tanks are no lone wolfs. There is a good chance that one of the tanks or IFVs in the group you are attacking sees your fire. And after that it is very hard to get away because there will be much metal in the air.

 

[tntsas]

I agree with you.
If M1 is not alone,it is hard to destroy them even approach them.
I will hide myself in the city,wait for the chance with my 40mm rocket.

 

[Waylander]

And while you are sitting in the cities the enemy rolls through your country and occupies every non-urban inch.

 

[tntsas]

Yes ,the enemy will roll through my country,because i surpose i am a guerrilla will only 40mm rocket.I can aslo surpose i am a Leopard2A6 tank commander，or a Apache attack helicopter.But it is not interesting.

 

[Big-E]

This thread is getting petty.:

 

[DoC_FouALieR]

I think that the best way to disable a tank like the M1 while I am a guerilla is to dig massive IED under the road and detonate it remotely from a safe and far observation point.
Because when firing an AT-rocket, you give your position and you are not sure to hit the tank in its weak points.

 

[Bfn42]

Interesting excerpt on the doctrine of tanks and their benefit in Iraq. This is from JFQ Issue 39

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1539.pdf


Tanks

The authors interviewed personnel from the U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps, and British army about main battle tanks in Iraq. Without exception or qualification, they praised the performance of tanks, describing them as vital to the quick victory.

The United Kingdom Minister of Defence, Procurement, stated, “Operation Telic [the British designation for Iraqi Freedom] underscored the value of heavy armor in a balanced force.” He also stated that Iraqi Freedom confirmed “protection is still vital” and reemphasized “the effect of heavy armor in shattering the enemy’s will to fight.”

Tanks were further esteemed during Iraqi Freedom for several reasons.

Tanks were highly resistant to fire. The most common Iraqi antiarmor weapon was the rocket-propelled grenade (RPG), especially the Soviet designed RPG–7.

This weapon has both high explosive and shaped charge warheads. The antiarmor shaped charge can penetrate up to 300 millimeters (nearly 12 inches) of solid, rolled homogenous armor plate under optimal conditions, but still failed to penetrate the advanced armor of the Abrams and Challenger 2 in most locations. British army sources stated that one of their Challengers operating near Basra absorbed 15 hits by RPGs with no penetration. The only British Challenger knocked out during the war was accidentally hit by another British tank.

A tank battalion commander in the 3d Infantry Division stated that one of his Abrams took 45 hits from various weapons, including heavy machineguns,
anti-aircraft guns, mortar rounds, and rocket-propelled grenades, with no penetration.

A few Abrams were penetrated by cannons and RPGs, usually in the rear flank or rear of the vehicle. In a few instances, enemy fire broke open the fuel cells of the external auxiliary power unit, allowing fuel to seep into the engine, causing a fire.

No Army or Marine crewman died in an Abrams tank due to enemy fire penetrating the vehicle during major combat operations.

Best post in this thread yet! Seriously nice find gf!

 

[RubiconNZ]

Way Back When

When Im a guerilla I will be glad that the M1A1's are on my side. :smokie
Ditto on the Great thread GF, jsut goes to show this massive Anti-Tank campaign (scuse the pun) of the nineties all of sudden well well well, the most effective defense is against 50 cent weapons is Armour.

 

[Waylander]

Looks like every week somebody finds this thread and says that guerillas with RPG/ATGM killboxes and IED/Mines are able to disable an Abrams.
And always the answer is "Yes for sure, but for what price and how effective is it against massive mechanized forces rolling through your country".

 

[DoC_FouALieR]

Looks like every week somebody finds this thread and says that guerillas with RPG/ATGM killboxes and IED/Mines are able to disable an Abrams.
And always the answer is "Yes for sure, but for what price and how effective is it against massive mechanized forces rolling through your country".

Then it seems that nobody learns the lesson of the history... of this thread! ;-)

 

[tntsas]

If the 40mm rocket is not effective,i can aslo use 120mm anti-tank rocket or antitank guided missile.Attack from the top and hide in the city.
And it is unfair that there are 4 man in a tank but i am only one....

 

[gf0012-aust]

And it is unfair that there are 4 man in a tank but i am only one....

war isn't supposed to be fair - its supposed to be won at a time and place of your choosing.

apart from the "thunder run" - what makes you think that any tank is going to go into an urban area without clearing a path first?

I gather you aren't familiar with how tanks are supported in some armies....

 

[Waylander]

Normal operations in urban combat would see light and mechanized infantry formations supported by tanks, artillery and air support.
There is not going to be a lone wolf tank if everything works normal. For sure there might be tanks which were accidently seperated of their comrades but this is an exception.
And one man with an RPG against professional forces is suicide. Even good tank hunter teams using well prepared killboxes are.
Just look at the second battle for Grozny.
The rebells were very good prepared and battle hardened.
The russian infantry pushed forward supported by IFVs and APCs. Behind them there were tanks. During the attack one tank emptied his auto-loader full of HE rounds into every possible enemy position and fell back for reloading with the next one taking its place.
Onto every bigger fortified position the russians directed artillery and air strikes.
This worked well and the rebels weren't able to hold their lines.
For sure a well prepared modern army is able to hold a city against a much bigger opponent but you should forget that guerillas are able to hold a city against a big, modern army which works intelligent (Not like the russians during their first attempt to take Grozny).
And letting the enemy who attacks your country take the land outside the cities just helps him to close in on you and braking your cohesion, support and communication routes.