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

[Waylander]

As I said before, sometimes you need this kind of driving. For example if you have to jump from one fortified poition to another or the enemy shots at you and you have to get some cover. It is also also a normal tactic to waggle while you are under attack.
Like I said in the description my video is normal operation. I think the T-80 video is mostly show but that doesn't mean much.
But you are right if you say that the hitting and spotting capability is decreased.

TIs and optics have no problem with water but if it gets too muddy you should clean the TI during a some battle pause.

 

[DoC_FouALieR]

The ability to run from one cover to another at full speed while engaging target can be valuable. I know this is possible with the Leclerc MBT (view some videos of training, quite impressive) which can travel at ~40 km/h with the possibility to to fire accurately under 360°.
So I wonder if there are some restrictions while firing on move with the Leo 2 and Abrams, since some people use to say that the Leclerc is the only MBT with this ability, but I strongly doubt they are right.

 

[Waylander]

The only restriction is the ability of the gun to go up and down without hitting the stoppers (I don't know the right word).
Every tank has a restriction how his gun is able to go up and down. The Ts ability is smaller than the one of M1 and Leo II.
If the terrain is too rough the gun hits the stoppers everytime you have to cross a big hole. So the picture of the gunner is not stable. At the top of the hill it jumps up and down in the hole it jumps down.
The Leo II has no speed restrictions. We hit targets with 60 km/h. And that was with the older analog targeting computer. From A5 on the TC is digital and faster.

(I've got the feeling my english is bad today )

 

[DoC_FouALieR]

Thanks for the answer.

(But don't worry about your English.. man kann Deutsch sprechen! ;-))

 

[extern]

Cummulative side direction hitting (Lebanon today):


Please use the ATTACHMENT feature to attach pictures. No external links to other forums, especially when forums are locked down for registered users only. Thanks!

 

[Waylander]

Two problems.

First, I don't understand the language. (Not even the letters )

Second, it looks like I have to register or something like that to see what you want us to see.

 

[extern]

Two problems.
First, I don't understand the language. (Not even the letters )
Second, it looks like I have to register or something like that to see what you want us to see.

It was the moderator's notes .
I mean the follow pics from Lebanon:

Look, how big is the space volume of Merkava! It is very hard to defend such big volume by armor, I suppose. For opposite, the whole volume of T-80 - is 11 m3. Only the engine/transmission department of Leo-2 is 7.3 m3, isnt it?

 

[Waylander]

Are there any infos about these pictures. A hole alone says not much about the weapon.
We do not even know if the weapon really penetrated the tank.

 

[extern]

We do not even know if the weapon really penetrated the tank.

I saw it by TV. The crew was wounded is reported. I saw they were evacuated by medical crew. No dead was if believe to the report. However It remains some space for interpretations.

 

[Waylander]

Jep, all these AT-weapons are a big problem for zahal.
I saw pictures of Milan ATGMs and RPG-29s.
I think no tank is able to withstand a direkt hit from a Milan in the side.
Poor crew. Best wishes.

 

[extern]

The Last israeli information: 2 tanks were striked yesterday by improvised explosive devices, 2 tankists were dead. Hizb'alla claims 5 tanks hitted. The role of RPG's and ATGM's is not clear, but it will be right to assume it exists.:flame
Live translation from Israel
national radio http://reka.iba.org.il/
1st Chanal TV http://mabat.iba.org.il/

 

[MG 3]

another tank blown up in Bint Jbail(southern lebanon). it is reported it was hit on the side. one killed others wounded. and yes they are using a lot more than RPG-7's.

 

[merocaine]

Ok this is a little of topic but whats the point of using tanks in this kind of battle ?
Is'ent the point to smash through, flank and let the arti and infantry do the work.
The Israelies seem to be using the tanks like armoured pill boxes, this seems to be a step backwards in tank doctirine.
whats the point of using the tank like this? I think there has been a failure of imagination by the israelies. If they want a quick war this is not the way to do it. Hezzbullah seem to be able to feed there troops into the battle without interference or the threat of being flanked and surrounded.
The tank should be speed and mobility, Israei tank doctuirne sucks period.
Welcome to WW1.

I'd like to see Hezbullah trying to draw bead on a tank traveling at 45 k an hour in there rear! use the mobility that the tank offers! It's not like Israel has to worry about air power or heavy arti or enemy tank forces, there fighting light infantry for gods sake and the enemy have a battalion and a half of front line infantry to play with.

 

[Waylander]

You forget that a Merkava Mrk. III/IV still offers more protection than anything else on the battlefield even when it is not able to use its speed and mobility.
Just imagine how many losses the Israelis would suffer if they would just attack with infantry.
You might see some tanks taking hits but there much more weapons available which would penetrate APCs and IFVs with the tank offering more firepower at long ranges and against fortified positions.
Another reason is that the tanks exist, Why would you not use something which offers so much protection and firepower just because it's not the main task of the tank?
The Merk is also better suited for anti-infantry and urban warfare than most other tanks in the world. Up to three MGs, an 80mm mortar, HE shells, cameras on all sides, room for infantry, etc.

 

[merocaine]

You forget that a Merkava Mrk. III/IV still offers more protection than anything else on the battlefield even when it is not able to use its speed and mobility.
Just imagine how many losses the Israelis would suffer if they would just attack with infantry.
You might see some tanks taking hits but there much more weapons available which would penetrate APCs and IFVs with the tank offering more firepower at long ranges and against fortified positions.

you misunderstand, I,m sure the Merakava is a fine tank, its the way its being used that I have a problem with. For me the Tank is about mobile operations carried out at speed, not slow grinding attacks.
The Israelies seem to have forgoten what the tank is for.
Its not that the Israels cant use there tank mobility, it seems to me they wont. And to my mind will end up taking more causultys in the long run because they wont take risks in the short term.

This is a quote by a guy called Gary Brecher, he writes for an online newspaper called The Exile, he has nothing but praise for the Merkava but he made those observation about the mind set that went into the tank

So back to the Merkava. A great design, yes. But the whole greatness of the design advertises the weakness of the Israelis: they don't like taking casualties. You're thinking, "Nobody likes it you jerk!" Except that's totally untrue. Lots of places like taking casualties. The Shiites -- they never felt prouder or happier. The Russians under Stalin -- they died crying for joy. All you fucking happy people -- you think everybody's like you? Lots of people want to die. I want to die! There's more like me than like you, you smug bastards.

So for now there's the Pals laying the bodies out and howling proudly, and there's the IDF hunkered down in their Merkavas crunching up cars but not really with the guts to crunch whole populations, whole towns. And if they don't do that, they lose. Killing two or three a day won't do it. That's less than a thousand a year -- pathetic! The Merkava is a way to protect Israeli soldiers more than it's a way to kill Palestinians. See, in that way it's a defensive weapon. Whereas an AK-47, with a Pal standing in the street firing at the Merkava -- the AK is an offensive weapon. Not that it can hurt the Merkava, because it can't. But it says, on camera, "I want to die and to kill." And the Merkava says, "Yikes, you people are crazy, get away from me!"

A tank vs. a rifle is an unequal battle -- but not necessarily in favor of the tank

Ok he's a little crazy and he has funny ideas about what Israel should do to win in the territories, but he has a point.

Another reason is that the tanks exist, Why would you not use something which offers so much protection and firepower just because it's not the main task of the tank?

Because it negates its main advantage, what foot sloggers hate most... speed. Armys crumble when encircled, they can survive a long time agaist a long grinding assault, even if they will lose in the long run

The Merk is also better suited for anti-infantry and urban warfare than most other tanks in the world. Up to three MGs, an 80mm mortar, HE shells, cameras on all sides, room for infantry, etc.

I agree totally its the best tank for this kind of work. Again its how its being employed, slowly inching around, gives the enemy, if there any good, time to breath.

 

[Waylander]

There are no lines to be crushed through. You won't have any benefits from driving like crazy deep into lebanese territory. The Hizbollah is fighting guerilla style and to fight lonely guerilla squads you have to drive slowly and observe the terrain.
You are also not able to cover your infantry while pushing forward too fast.

If you would push forward very fast the Hizbollah would just wait for you to drive through and than attack the infantry following the tanks.
Against guerillas speed is not a big advantage. Armor protection and firepower are the main factors if you fight against rebells.
Crushing the lines and wreck havoc among the troops behind the line works fine against normal armys but not against rebells.

BTW, this guy is really crazy. Talking about wiping out whole cities. That's nothing more than big style terrorism. And the sentences about red army soldiers loving to die. He should try to learn something about history.

 

[merocaine]

wait arent the gurrillas dug into trench systems inside the towns, the israelies keep going on about how elaborate the defences are, the point is, at the moment Hezbullah are fighting to hold terrortory, there not mobile, their fighting in fixed positions. Why not bypass the towns cut off reenforcements and patrol agressively?
While thats going on level the town with airpower and arti and bulldoze the tunnells and trenches.
Be aggressive with the tank its not a pill box.

and if they do attack the following infantry they would be exposed to air power, like in iraq at the moment when the insurgents try to mass together.
Either way your bring them to battle, like I said theres only a finate number of Gurrillias. Against those kind of aggressive attacks no gurrillia can stand up for long.

anyway what do you think of his analysis of the design of the merakava? tanks seem to be your forté.

Against guerillas speed is not a big advantage. Armor protection and firepower are the main factors if you fight against rebells

actully speed is always of the essence no matter who you fight, against Gurrilias if your not quick they slip away. Speed and intel are the key to vicory in any war.

 

[Waylander]

I agree that the Merkava was developed with the best crew protection in mind. But this happened not because of fear but because of the fact that due to its small population and small country the IDF often enough have to fight out of fortified positions without the ability to use a more mobile defense. Trained crews are also not easy to replace for them so they tried to protect them in the best way they can.
His talks about a guy with a AK is an offensive weapon and the tank not, etc. is pure bullshit. What should the IDF do in MOUT engagements? Level the whole town with cluster bombs and killing all the civilians inside? Leave the tank and kill the rebells with their UZIs because it looks more agressive?
In my opinion he discredits himself by asking for the destruction of towns and whole populations.

What do you gain by bipassing the positions of the Hizbollah? You are able to stop the supplies by using air power.
There is no need to expose the flanks and rear of your tank to RPGs and ATGMs, because this is exactly what happens if you push deep into libanese territory.
It seems like the Hitbollah is well organized. By using tanks to support your infantry you give them the punch to crush every enemy position. The air force is just not able to do this as fast as tanks are. A tank is able to attack within seconds after the enemy opens fire or is detected.

 

[merocaine]

But this happened not because of fear but because of the fact that due to its small population and small country the IDF often enough have to fight out of fortified positions without the ability to use a more mobile defense. Trained crews are also not easy to replace for them so they tried to protect them in the best way they can.

I thought mobility was the key to Israels sucsess in war? 48' 68' 73' 82', it looks like they have abandoned that principle and prefer to use there tanks as heavly armoured IVF's

What do you gain by bypassing the positions of the Hizbollah? You are able to stop the supplies by using air power.
There is no need to expose the flanks and rear of your tank to RPGs and ATGMs, because this is exactly what happens if you push deep into libanese
territory.

What you gain are troops on the ground in the rear of the Hezbullah fixed positions, a choking off of supplies, why do you think the US sealed Fullugia before moving in?
Air power can't stop guys on mountain bike's, tunnel systems.
Plus there the psycological effect on the enemy when they have been surrounded.
Air power has'ent stopped the Katushas, today 119, the most in one day since the start of the war.

Surely the idea is to manuver, and not fight on the ground of the enemys choosing? what is the point of pushing forward slowly if it gives the enemy the chance to retreat.

By the time the Israelies take the Town of Bint Jbeil, hezbullah will have pulled out, that kind of operation costs men and tanks and allows the enemy to escape.

I still dont understand your point about firepower being more important than speed in combating gurrellas...

By the way I was'ent asking you about his political views I was asking about his view on the Merkava, have they turned the tank into a defencive weapon?
God imagine if the Hezzbullah were armed with top attack anti tank missles, I think a slow and steady advance would be a slaughter.
Looks like they knocked out another couple today by the way....

the way things are going i'd bet on a long fight and a lot more trashed MBT's

 

[Waylander]

As I said before I really believe the IDF would suffer much more casualties if they would push deep into enemy territory cavalry style.
Tanks are much more vulnerable to enemy fire than. You are not able to locate enemy fire as precisely and the enemy has much more chances of hitting the flanks and rear of your tanks.
While pushing forward not so fast but more steadly you are able to locate enemy fire much faster and direct counterfire much more accurate and faster.
We had much more problems with hidden ATGMs doing a fast attack than while we supported infantry. But we had the opportunity to crush through the lines of a normal opponent, the IDF not.


About this guy. A tank remains an offensive weapon as long as you use it for the offense. It is unimportant if this offense is fast or slow.