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

Status
Not open for further replies.

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Re: who can kill an M1 Abrams?

Aussie Digger said:
Gf, I think Leopard 2A6 with it's newly upgraded 120mm main gun (L55 I think) plus it's new tungsten penetrator ammunition (DM53) would have the best chance of destroying an M1A2 in a purely tank on tank duel, provided it got the first hit. I don't know how the Leopard's armour would stand up to the 120mm gun on the abrams, but it is supposed to be pretty good these days. However if it's simply a matter of destroying a tank then there's more than one way to "skin a cat". The Abrams is as vulnerable as any other tank to a 'mobility kill'. Once it's track, sprockets or road wheels are destroyed it's not going anywhere and you can then (hopefully) manoevre to destroy the tank from behind or call in artillery. Even an Abrams would not stand up to an artillery bombardment.
thats true, but the gun on the m1a2 has a 100m adv over a leo. the leo has to close the gap first.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
AD, on another strategy forum i used the example of MLRS, battlefield rockets, or in future technology a derivative of metal storm technology to counter tanks.

The Leos are untested (and even though I do prefer them for Aust force mix reasons), in a desert theatre or open plain warfare, I see the M1ax having a slight advantage - especially as the M1ax has the longest range firing gun available.
 

Red aRRow

Forum Bouncer
Awang se said:
Any tank can be destroyed by aicraft from above by a heavy bomb. I think, to kill an abrams from distance, we need a guided round that actually attack from above. i'm thinking in a line of projectile that is launch from 45+ degrees angle (like mortar or howitzer) with sensors on the front. on the diving run, the seeker activated and seeking a target within intended parameters and dive toward the target.
Actually not a bad idea Awang! The seeker stays inactive for the initial phase and only activates when it has achieved maximum height. Another way could be to use Overfly Top Attack (OTA) technology such as in the Swedish Bofors BILL 2 ATGM which attacks tanks on their most vulnerable part..i.e. the top.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bofors/
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Re: who can kill an M1 Abrams?

The americans have developed parachute anti-tank cluster bombs.

All of the top down solutions require air dominance and substantial SEAD to work.

The russians used a tactical battlefield rocket to destroy the vehicle that a chechyan commander was using. they vectored the tbr onto comms signals coming from his vehicle. Sensor to shoot time was 10 mins. A TBR is designed to attack hard sites - so it is ideal for anti-tank warfare.

BUT, if the enemy has air dominance, if they can detect missile and rocket launches from space, then that unit is dead before it launches a nother attack. Depeding how far out into the future you want to look, the rocket and/or missile would be destroyed as well. The US has killed 25 Katushya rockets using THED Lasers. The Brits can intercept a 5" shell with one of their PDS missiles.

Once the US deploys a version of THED to aircraft (now touted to be 2005), they will literally have complete dominance of the battlefield.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Re: who can kill an M1 Abrams?

Actually Gf as far as I know the M1A2 still uses the American version of the L44 (the gun on the 'old' Leopard 2), except they call it the M256. I doubt if this older gun is better than the new one... I have also seen that the US army is interested in upgrading their M1A2's to mount a version of the L55 on the M1A2. The L55's range now exceeds 5000m's in direct fire mode...
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Re: who can kill an M1 Abrams?

In relation to the untested part about Leopard 2's, they have been deployed on operations to Bosnia by the German and (I think) Dutch Armies on KFOR duties, I'm not sure if they engaged in any tank on tank combat though. The Leopard 2 would have to be one of the more successful tanks around the world though. It's used by the German, Dutch, Swedish, Greece, Austria, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Spain, Finland and Poland. With's it's superior mobility and deployability, plus the fact that it's much cheaper, Australia would be mad not to acquire it. In saying that, I'll still be happy with any new tank.
 

umair

Peace Enforcer
Re: who can kill an M1 Abrams?

I have been reading this discussion regarding top attack anti tank devices for quite sometime now.What surprised me is that no one mentioned the STAFF(small target fire&forget) top attack round developed by the US for it's Abrams. Although the programe got cancelled due to escalating procurement costs (and the fact that a new round called TERM was underdevelopment(still is)) it would have proved to be an effective counter to advanced armours such as the Chobham.The staff featured a heat seeker in it's nose and would after firing pop up like any antitank missile.During it's descent the seeker would look for the target's heat signature upon which it had locked on before firing and the controlling fins at the back of the round would adjust it's flight acording to the target's position and movement.Another projected role for the staff was to be used in an anti helicopter role(where in it got replaced by MPATT).
An excerpt from a file I have on different types of tank ammo:
Tank Ammunition - Other ammunition.
Although tanks have traditionally carried HE ( H igh E xplosive)
shells, the Germans and Americans do not field anything but
APFSDS and HEAT for their 120 mm guns. As a result, all anti-
personnel work has to be done with HEAT rounds, which have infe-
rior blast and fragmentation patterns compared to HE rounds of the
same caliber. The Russian tanks, on the other hand, have always
fielded HE rounds, and they form the largest proportion of each
tank's ammunition load. (The current 125 mm HE round is the
OF26 .) This means Russian tanks are far better equipped to tackle
infantry, especially in urban conditions, than any of the NATO armies.
The Swedish Army has a similar ammunition doctrine to the Russian
army, and they field a 120 mm HE round on their Leopard 2s. The
120 mm and 125 mm HE rounds are fast enough and heavy enough
to cause catastrophic damage to lightly armored vehicles, like APCs
and some IFVs, and even MBTs cannot ignore the damage a direct
hit can do to the running gear and optics.
Other ammunition types, like flechette, canister, and smoke
rounds, were all produced for rifled tank guns of previous genera-
tions, but they haven't been fielded for most 120 mm and 125 mm
systems. The US Army is currently developing a 120 mm canister
round for its Abrams tanks, but experiments with an Israeli prototype
of a flechette round proved to be a failure. Smoke rounds simply
haven't been considered important enough to be developed yet.
The US Army has fielded an anti- helicopter round, known as
the M830A1 HEAT- MP- T, or MPAT ( M ulti P urpose A nti T ank), since
1992. This small saboted HEAT round has a muzzle velocity of 1,410
m/ s, to enable it to reach distant targets quickly, and it has a prox-
imity fuse to detonate it when it passes near an airborne target.
When the proximity fuse is switched off, the round can be fired at
ground targets, but the small size of the MPAT warhead means
penetration is less than the basic M830. The US Army partly developed a top-attack round for the Abrams, called the XM943 STAFF, but the pro-
gram was canceled before the round reached production. Work is
continuing on another ambitious smart round program called TERM,
but it will not produce rounds before 2007 at the earliest.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Re: who can kill an M1 Abrams?

There have been a number of AT systems recently cancelled. The question is always whether they have been replaced by a higher priority project that surpasses the capability of the cancelled system.

The americans don't tend to cancel such weapons projects without good cause
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Revival_786 said:
I have read from a couple of sources that Saudi Arabia has 315 M1 Abrams? Are they any good?
If you want to look at it on a purely subjective basis, without being nationalistic, without taking an east/west, unbeliever/believer view, then the M1ax is clearly the best in the world at this stage

1) Has the longest stabilised gun range on the fly
2) Can apply consistent shots at speed, and has demonstrated it consistently by killing t-72's, T80'2 and T-90's at ax range
3) Has an armour rating that renders it fairly safe with a substantial number of RPG/ATG's
4) Has a proven loading system
5) Has the highest kill rate of any tank in the last 20 years
6) Is an evolving platform

No other tank has demonstrated "live" kill ratios to the same level

Until everyone elses fav tank choice goes up in actual combat against an M1aX then it is speculation and wishful thinking. The tank isn't invincible, but in any current tank on tank battle in the last 20 years they have not been bested.

I'm taking a pure analytical view here, on actual combat, actual history and known circumstances.

Anything else is theory without substance.

I think you'll find that the Saudis are more than happy with their performance

(I'll qualify all of this and say that it is not the tank I prefer) :)
 

Awang se

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
M1Ax; the performance Suit the price tag well.

it's good, but it's not entirely invincible, like every weapon in the world can't destroy it. I still want to know what kind of weapon destroy the two "bonecrusher" M1. It was clearly a single shot kill. Is it true that it was KORNET-E ATGM?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Awang se said:
M1Ax; the performance Suit the price tag well.

it's good, but it's not entirely invincible, like every weapon in the world can't destroy it. I still want to know what kind of weapon destroy the two "bonecrusher" M1. It was clearly a single shot kill. Is it true that it was KORNET-E ATGM?
AFAIK it was a 100kilo IED. It was set in the ground and detonated remotely
 

Red aRRow

Forum Bouncer
Re: who can kill an M1 Abrams?

There are pictures of destroyed M1A1 tanks in Iraq in the Gallery section. Check under the Wars section in 'Gulf War. I can upload more pictures there if you want.
 

Awang se

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
In Most cases the, the crew survive. In most of the picture, assesing from the damages, the tank were immobilize first. I saw some effort to penetrate the turret from the rear and side. there is a clear hit mark by HEAT fire.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Re: who can kill an M1 Abrams?

came across this on a post war assessment of the GW. (Australian Defence Studies Centre on Land Warfare)

".... a captured Iraqi battalion commander wryly commented:
‘On 17 January [1991], I started with thirty-nine tanks. After thirty-eight days of aerial attacks, I had thirty-two [tanks], but in less than twenty minutes with M1A1 [Abrams main battle tank],I had zero’

it would be interesting to know what tanks he had in his battalion..
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Re: who can kill an M1 Abrams?

T72's GF. That quote is also discussed in Tom Clancy's "Armoured Warfare". Cheers.
 

Fascist Fitz

New Member
Re: who can kill an M1 Abrams?

With regard to the previous discussion on the new tanks for Australia, i am complete agreement with Aussie Digger...not getting the Leopard 2's would be quite stupid. The race was refined to 3 main competitors, the L2, Abrams, and the Challenger 2. The challenger was knocked out, leaving the Abrams and L2. Looking at those two alone, the L2 is really not that far behind the Abrams in capabilities, and the infrastrucure and support systems for the Abrams need to be much larger than the L2.

just from this poin tof view, Australia has to get the L2's, as whilst well organised, we simply do not have the logistical capabilities to cope with the Abrams. This is possibly why no other country except the US uses the Abrams, becausr they have the support and massive budget to be able to handle it. Also, the germans have always managed to do pretty well for themselves in terms of military equipment in the past...they were at the cutting edge for a while there in WW2, and whilst the Cold War halted this for a while, the fabelled German efficiency and design prowess can now be called back into action...I'm backing that the Aussies get the L2!!!
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Re: who can kill an M1 Abrams?

The Leo2 A6 is generally considered to be the equal of the M1a2. Even amongst american tankers there is a healthy respect for it.

If we go the Leo route we are likely to pick up Leo2 A4's which are slightly downgraded.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top