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

[merocaine]

cool clocking off "work" now, so can't talk,but i still think that fear of tank kills will undermine whatever sucess the IDF forces have in forcing Hezbullah back.

I still say a tanks best chance is speed and manoverablity, cause you can never be to armoured. And I dont mean we should all be driving T72's

 

[Waylander]

I agree that speed is necessary especially if you attack heavy enemy forces or normal infantry lines.
But there are also situations where speed is not usefull. Scout operations for example.
The same with anti-guerilla warfare. You want to find the enemy and this is much more easy while you drive slower.

 

[MG 3]

What we need to understand is that the terrain is different. it is hilliy and most of the deadliest fightion is in an urban envoirnment. so because of these factors the tanhs mobility is of little use. it needs to be noted that the israelies are no engagind company or platoon size formations but 5-10 men. so a tank moving in such a limited space after such a small target, its affectiveness is severly restricted. the only thing that can help israel win is the infantry and that meathod will cost a lot of blood.

 

[extern]

I should say, Hizballa was successeful on its attempt to draw TzAHAL down to city fighting. Also the israeli cabinet is worry about possibility for widening of the conflict and doesnt allow to army to expand the area of occupation (today new). THus, the tactics of the IDF cannot be verry diferent from what it has just now.

Waylander, the Israeli airforce allready destroied the whole districts in Beirut with their civilians. Destroing of nearly un-populared Bint-Jbeil by tanks adds nothing for the image of Israel, that hardly can be damaged more.

 

[Waylander]

There is no difference if you attack fotified postitions in houses and in the landscape with infantry/ATGMs or with tanks. The damage is the same. But the tank is faster and better protected.
You have to use something against the rebells.

 

[extern]

The difference between the israeli soldiers and the hizb'allah fighters is that the lasts are really ready to die in more quantities that the formers. In that meaning Hizb'allah not need tanks at all, because prepearing platoon of gerilla is much cheaper that platoon of tanks. For Lebanon in general is much cheaper to rebuild their country each time after war that feeding strong army with tanks. But it is their democratic choice... Anyway, the tanks remain very good tool for war if the politicians dont involve in tactic decisions IMHO. Tank using has to be developed according to its own rules. On the follow video you can see the Hizb'allah attack against Merkava: http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=6URBD-AU2WQ

 

[DoC_FouALieR]

On the follow video you can see the Hizb'allah attack against Merkava:

We must have an account to see this video...

And this Merkava seems to resist quite well to the incoming Anti tank rounds...

 

[extern]

And this Merkava seems to resist quite well to the incoming Anti tank rounds...

How you dicided about it? We not know what happen to the crew and to the tank capability looking this movie. We only see that the tank is un-moving and does not return fire.

Only one thing I can tell you: if the tank commander was upon the turret with its mashin-gun, he is quiet dead.

 

[merocaine]

Waylander re earlier debate

I had a feeling israeli tactics's sucked in this confrontation, Israeli ground forces have pulled out of the Bint Jbial area, and seem to be massing in the Gallie panhandle. see the uk guardian and israeli haaretz.

Still feel they should have pushed well behond the town with armoured forces and cut off the trench and bunker systems in the town itself. As it it is their best infantry have taken a bloody nose in house to house fighting in the town.
What must the reserves be thinking.

Tanks were wasted in this role, use your tanks for what they do best, fire and manuver, or dont use them at all.

 

[Waylander]

Striking deep into enemy territory and cutting Hizbollah supply routes works both ways. You have to send supply convois to your tank units which are vulnerable to the Hizbollah troops you left behind.

I think we just disagree at this point.
I don't see the big benefits of using tanks as a mechanized onslought without having a real enemy line to break through.

For political reasons it seems that Israel is not willing to occupy the Lebanon.
On the other hand they want to strike against Hizbollah.
So you just have to go into the cities to destroy the Hizbollah bases and to eliminate its members.
I would not send my infantry into urban areas without tank support especially because the IDF have no kind of IFV which could provide direct heavy support fire.

 

[extern]

There is an information here about one ATGM attack against Merkava-IV:
"an anti-tank missile slammed into a Merkava Mark 4 Main Battle Tank. One of the soldiers was seriously injured and lost both legs, and another soldier suffered light injuries. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/741131.html July 23, 2006
Unfortunately they didnt say about the direction of penetration.

About the vulnerability of T-72: let take all things in proportion. This tank is not more vulnerable that any contemporal western tank. For example according to american information In the first Gulf War the Americans feared to approach T -72 nearer than on 3000 m, shooting at it tow-2, but they tried not to shoot from their tank MG on the T -72 frontal projection . Also against one T -72, supplied with the Chinese system of laser interferences, they usually directed 2 Abrams' and 1 Breadly (Armor, 1991, May June, p 13-20)

This is confirmed by another American source, according to which only 6% apfsd sabots hit iraqi tanks in the frontal projection of + -45 deg. According to the same source during entire time of the first Iraqi company only 14 T -72 was destroyed by the fire of tanks and ATGM (M Held. Warhead hit distribution on main battle tank in the Gulf War. - J. of Battlefield Techn., v.3, N1, 2000 http://www.argospress.com/jbt/Volume3/3-1-1.htm )
The diagram is from the last source:

 

[extern]

If you compare between the distribution diagramms of azimut hits in 2WW, 6-Day War, Yom-Kipur war and 1GW, you'll see that in the Gulf War the americans tried to avoid frontal collision with the Iraqi tanks:

 

[Waylander]

We absorbed many former East-Germany T-72M1 after our reunification.
This was a good opportunity for the Bundeswehr to test the 105mm and 120mm tank guns of our Leopards against them.
120mm HEAT penetrated most of the frontal arc and APFSDS entered everytime/everywhere and often enough it left the turret at the back.

 

[extern]

APFSDS entered everytime/everywhere and often enough it left the turret at the back.

Which one APFSDS?

 

[Waylander]

DM33.
Maybe also other prototypes of DM 43/53/63.

 

[extern]

DM33.
Maybe also other prototypes of DM 43/53/63.

From L44 or L55?

 

[Waylander]

L55 was not introduced by then (early 90s).
Maybe they tested some prototypes (I would bet on this) but this is no information which is as available as the normal tests.

 

[extern]

L55 was not introduced by then (early 90s).
Maybe they tested some prototypes (I would bet on this) but this is no information which is as available as the normal tests.

Interesting... I wonder why the Germans started in 90th so big and costly program of tank MG and APFSDS upgrading, if its old guns and round was very enough as you say? A bit strange for me. Can you say more information about the trials?
1) - what type of T-72 was used?
2) with or without ERA?
3) what was the range?
thanks
Some more pictures about tanks problem in the hilly area (Lebanon)

 

[TrangleC]

Interesting... I wonder why the Germans started in 90th so big and costly program of tank MG and APFSDS upgrading, if its old guns and round was very enough as you say? A bit strange for me.

I think one of the reasons is that the german army isn't allowed to use uranium ammunition for political reasons and knowing that many others will use it in the future, the designers have to find ways to compensate that and to increase the ability to penetrate armour by other ways. One way among others is to have a gun with higher firepower.

 

[Waylander]

The trials were against T-72M1 without ERA.
We were not sure about the capabilities of next generation of eastern tanks and the next generation of active protection systems. The plus in stability and speed of the penetrator gives the other scientist something to think about.
If you start developing a new system when the old is obsolete it is too late.

Another reason is that with the possibility to equip new Leo IIs and upgrade older ones with the new gun gives the Leo II system an advantage in selling competitions (Like Greece and Spain).

BTW, most people don't know that DU is not a wonder material. The most advantage over wolfram penetrators is not penetration capability but the price. DU is much cheaper especially for countrys who use nuclear power plants.