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

[tntsas]

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....

In a city ,there are lots of tall buildings,i can hide myself in those buildings.
Maybe the infantry will clear the area first,but at that time,my 40mm rocket
is a powerful weapon to them(i can use some mines too).I can aslo wait until the infantry has passed,and after that i come into the place and wait for the tank.

 

[gf0012-aust]

In a city ,there are lots of tall buildings,i can hide myself in those buildings.
Maybe the infantry will clear the area first,but at that time,my 40mm rocket
is a powerful weapon to them(i can use some mines too).I can aslo wait until the infantry has passed,and after that i come into the place and wait for the tank.

are you deliberately ignoring what has been said re this by not only myself, but also waylander about how modern armour works in built up areas in western style military doctrine?

you can go and park on the moon - tanks don't go in unassisted - and their support assets clear the path chosen of all anti-tank elements within range.

you should make the effort to absorb what has been told to you by people like Waylander who have armoured experience.

its not a computer game.

 

[tntsas]

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.

This was a regular war.
The rebells failed because they tried to defend the place while the enermy was strong.The Rusion army knowed there were rebells in the area,so they called air and artillery support.And the Russion used the fire unlimited.

Yes,maybe the tank will get air and artillery support in a regular war,but what about a unregular war?When the army has taken the city ,they need to disperser the army to patrol on the street.Can every team of them get the air and artillery support?If they have,can they fire into every possible enemy position?Remember that they are in a city not a battlefield.
The moderm army cost much in an action.And if they do not get anything valuable,how long will they keep on doing this?

And what i should do is just wait(or run) for the chance in a unregular war..

 

[tntsas]

Can somebody tell me that if the tank can get air and artillery support everytime and everywhere?(for example ,3 years )

 

[gf0012-aust]

Can somebody tell me that if the tank can get air and artillery support everytime and everywhere?(for example ,3 years )

modern militaries work on the principle of combined arms.

before any ground troops are committed, the other assets in the mix will decapitate and compress the capability for an enemy to communicate in the field and will kill its ability to wage set piece battles.

in real terms, once you fracture the cohesion of the enemy force, once you dominate the battlespace then you can choose where and when you seek to dismember its other forces.

war is not just about killing what goes bang - its about killing the logistics of the enemy so that it loses the coherence and capability to engage in a meaningful fashion.

 

[Waylander]

Firing some RPGs onto a checkpoint or detonate an IED under a patrol is really useless against a modern army. Don't just think of the small pictures you see in the news about Iraq. You don't win the war by doing so.
The only thing that could happen is that the political will to fight against guerillas year after year is going down. But if the will remains strong you have no chance.
If you are good you might kill some of your enemies trying to take the city but after some shots you are dead meat.
Even if you are able to shot your 40mm rocket (And hit something!), there is a very big chance of dieing directly after the shot.
Just try to read something about combined arms combat.

 

[DoC_FouALieR]

war is not just about killing what goes bang - its about killing the logistics of the enemy so that it loses the coherence and capability to engage in a meaningful fashion.

Yes, war is about getting an edge on the ennemy, exactly like a player "leads" the game in chess, he forces the opponent to move his pieces where he wants them to be moved, etc etc..

Just try to read something about combined arms combat.

check this about combined arms during urban operations.

I think that during urban war, the most annoying ennemy is not guerilla, but world medias that constantly monitor the action taken by a modern army, thus detering it to employ "big" means like massive artillery fire or carpet bombing due to the fear of civilian casualties.
Since medias are not very represented in tchechenya, the russian army has been free of employing huge destruction means... (like massive BM-21 strikes against one sniper in a building... or fuel/air explosive..)

 

[itanium7000]

Hi all,
Does any of you know any weapon that can probably achieve a kill against the US M1 A2 Abrams? Can the Soviet 125mmm smoothbore gun on the T-72 do that? I have read somewhere that the only weapon that can kill an M1 is the Hellfire missile. Could any one let me know any information on this issue? Many thanks.

Giang Nguyen

Oài, ông anh có tham gia trên TTVNOL không đó? anh quan tâm đến M1 Abrams à? hihi, theo em là cứ đột nhập vô network của cả đoàn nó cho nó bắn nhau chết hết đi.

Comments in English: Oh, do you participate on TTVNOL? You pay attention to M1 Abrams? I think about to destroy M1 Abrams computer network.
PS: thanks for Admin's remind

Admin: The accepted language on here is English. Please rewrite your comments and remember to respond in english in future.

 

[tntsas]

Ok i understand,one man can not kill an M1 Abrams with infantry ,fight ,artillery and so on...It is really hard.
I think the title of this thread should be renamed to"who can destroy the whole USA army".

Admin: Please do not edit out admin comments made to your posts - they're there for a reason.

 

[Waylander]

It is possible but not very likely and it is nearly suicide.
And the title is really a little bit disturbing. As said before by GF0012-aust and others, the problem is touching it and getting away with it, not only the right weapon.



BTW, Chuck Norris is able to kill the whole US Army.

 

[Aussie Digger]

BTW, Chuck Norris is able to kill the whole US Army.

Agreed. There is little that Chuck Norris cannot do...

 

[Big-E]

Agreed. There is little that Chuck Norris cannot do...

He can't squat twice his body weight... total gym has made him weak.:laugh

 

[Bfn42]

He can't squat twice his body weight... total gym has made him weak.:laugh

:el :el :el :el I laugh every time I see that commercial.

 

[tntsas]

I have discussed it with some people in a chinese forum.
I get some new ideas.
one:
The essence of bushfighting is to obscure the borders of civilian and military personals, which will make it impossible to differentiate one from the other. The situation of American troops in Iraq serves an excellent example. The soldiers cannot who are their enemy, and the regard everyone as their enemy, which result in accidental killing of civlian individual. The consequence is that every failure to differentiate civilian personals to military insurgents will cause the increase of enemy. After reaching a threshold, technology will mean nothing, because you will be completed isolated. No system is perfect, any any fault or popential fault will result in an successful attack if you have enough enemy.Of course the civilian should think M1 is a intruder and support the guerrilla,

two:
This one I have posted in the thread. Can every team of the army get the support from the air and the artillery?And are the supports reachable all the time?The supports are very expansive.

three:
Moreover, If you just touch a child's head ,he will kill you with a knife.If you visit a brothel ,she will give you a bomb. Only if you never contact with the native, all people are your enemy .

And i have another question:What is gym?

 

[Waylander]

First. Your duty as a soldier is to protect the civilians. By hiding behind them the result is the total opposite.

Second. You cannot win a war against an army like the US have. You are killing some GIs with IEDs and RPG ambushes but every time you amass your forces you get punched into the ground like in Falludscha.

Third. During every major operation there is enough artillery and air support. For sure not every patrol has its own support but attacking some lonesome patrols won't win the war.

Forth. You don't win the hearts of the eople as a guerilla by attacking everything, not just miltary objects, and by hiding behind civilians.

The only way of winning a guerilla war is by destroying the political will like in Vietnam. After the Teth offensive the Vietcong was near to collapse but the US were not willing to fight any more so they surrendered.

 

[.pt]

iraq

I agree Waylander, but if its political will, and i´m sorry about the off topic, the US is engaged in Iraq for 3 years now, i think that the people of US might not be so suporting in, say, 5 years from now. On the other hand if the rearming and reorganisation of iraqui armed forces becames a reality, and they can fend for themselves, assuring internal security and stability, then US troops can withdraw and say mission acomplished. But with all this going on with al quaeda, sunites and shiites, and many other factions , who knows who will prevail? we´ll see in 3-4 years from now.

 

[Waylander]

I totally agree but the topic remains killing a M1.
I just wanted to show that a guerilla war is not the way with which you are able to destroy the US Army with its Abrams.

 

[killbill2]

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.

Unless you use a fire and forget, top attack rocket launcher with tandem warheads. But yea you will give up your position. I wonder how big of an IED you'd need? I'd say 20lb of high explosive under the weak floor of the tank will destroy it.
this is a great article it even has some strategies for infantry to target tanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank:shudder

 

[Waylander]

This article is ok but it also just talks about lonesome tanks or groups og tanks acting in urban areas. The article also forgets to mention the mechanized infantry which works together with the tanks, or better is supported by tanks in urban warfare. It is mentioned before but it seems the author forgot his own words in the passage about infantry AT-tactics.
I don't want to be an infantryman trying to get close enough to a tank to put a mine onto it while IFVs full of infantry are also there. These IFVs are able to fire and obersve into every direction.

 

[rattmuff]

I bet a swedish "tank buster" IED can do the job!
2 modified tank mines, 10kg(20lbs.) of plastic explosive and place everything under one of thoose metal lids you find in the middle of the roads. Detonate when a tank is just over the lid (by remote or pressure) ... poff! The tank is ****ed up and the crew is screwed. :wah
Swedish conscript has tested this one on a truck..... end of story.