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

[extern]

The trials were against T-72M1 without ERA.
...
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.

Yeah, I remember, that in USSR even the casing for Rhoentgen equipment was made from DU.

About T-72: the most part of its defence is given by ERA. The previous modernisations was with K5 ERA, but the last is with the newest Relikt ERA that is withstanding good against APFSDS and double-explosion ATGMs. You can see, that T-72 with ERA, unlike Abrams, withstand good against backside RPGs, with no damage for tank fucasualities:

 

[Waylander]

Earlier generations of ERA didn't stopped the rebells in Grosny.

The main defence of T-72s is still then passive armor, otherwise you could just put some ERA modules onto tin cans with the same effect.
ERA is a good solution to improve the defence of tanks, especially against ATGMs and RPGs, but I really doubt that it is able to match the newest gun/ammo combinations.

 

[Moroz.ru]

Earlier generations of ERA didn't stopped the rebells in Grosny.

Guten Tag, Waylander!
AFAIR, first assault of Grozny was planned as power demonstration, like tank marching in Moscow at 1991 and 1993. A lot of ERA bricks were empty, without explosive (It’s Russian pofigism). Then T-80’s with armed ERA held up to 10 RPG shots from front and sides.

 

[MG 3]

moroz.ru is right. our T-80 have also stood up to 7-10 rpg shots in waziristan. but APC's (M-113) were not so lucky. some that had ERA survived easy.

 

[extern]

moroz.ru is right. our T-80 have also stood up to 7-10 rpg shots in waziristan. but APC's (M-113) were not so lucky. some that had ERA survived easy.

Contrawise Merkava is relative vulnarable against ATGMs probably also bcz it lacks ERA:

Today news

Two Israeli soldiers were injured - one seriously and another moderately-to-lightly - by an anti-tank missile fired at their tank in the southern Lebanese village of al-Taybeh, the army said.
//...On Thursday, three IDF soldiers were killed by an anti-tank missile attack on their tank. A fourth soldier was killed in a similar attack in the southern Lebanese village of Al-Taybeh. 5 Hizbullah terrorists killed. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286105,00.html

Also Waylander, the T-72/T-80's in 1-st Chechen war was stripped from ERA, in peace complection . Russian army was without strong leadership bcz all political turmoils there.

 

[Waylander]

Hallo.
They were stripped of ERA? That's new to me. But I'm open to learn something new!

I think there has to be a reason for the IDF not suing ERA on their Merks. They have the technology but they don't use it.
The Israelis are not dumb so there has to be a reason for that.

 

[merocaine]

Did they ever have any?
laminated steel/nickel composite + classified modular, from wikipedia

 

[Waylander]

As I said not on their Merks.
But on their Sabras, Ma'gachs, etc (It is so difficult to remember those names, so forgive me if I use the wrong ones).
The question is why do they use ERA systems to upgrade their older designs instead of using it to boost their MBT.

 

[merocaine]

Is it due to weight restrictions? just a guess.
Maybe the areas where the tanks operate make it unfesible.

 

[merocaine]

on another note just fished this from the guardian web site

"Tamim said they were using a new model of RPG that had a double warhead and that was very effective against Israeli tanks, as well as a type of guided anti-tank rocket."

Tandem war head?

 

[isthvan]

on another note just fished this from the guardian web site

"Tamim said they were using a new model of RPG that had a double warhead and that was very effective against Israeli tanks, as well as a type of guided anti-tank rocket."

Tandem war head?

tandem warhead is type of warhead that uses shaped charge, there are two separate shaped charge explosive assemblies, one in front of the other, typically with some distance between them.
These may be roughly or exactly the same size, or the front one may be much smaller than the rear one, and intended primarily to disrupt Explosive reactive armor.

 

[Waylander]

Tandem warhead is not a new thing. For example there are versions of RPG7 and Panzerfaust 3 which use this tech for years.
There is a small warhead in front of the main warhead which should interrupt the ERA.

Edit: Too late.... :sleepy3

 

[extern]

Hallo.
They were stripped of ERA? That's new to me. But I'm open to learn something new!
I think there has to be a reason for the IDF not suing ERA on their Merks. They have the technology but they don't use it.
The Israelis are not dumb so there has to be a reason for that.

Yeah... during the 2nd Chechen War the Russians didnt make such mistake and their tank loss for ATGMs and RPGs have been redused drastic.
I think, the Germans are not stupid at least not more that the Jews... But they now go for ERA support for Leo2, dont they?
Apropos, the first 'israeli' ERA 0 'Blazer' - was made by German company and technology.

 

[Archer]

moroz.ru is right. our T-80 have also stood up to 7-10 rpg shots in waziristan. but APC's (M-113) were not so lucky. some that had ERA survived easy.

Any source for T-80s in Waziristan would be appreciated.

 

[Waylander]

No they are not going for ERA style systems. Instead of that they are improving the chassis with normal armor.
That is one which let me think of the maybe not so good abilities of ERA systems.
Rheinmetall and KMW did not developed a urban combat Leo II which is protected by ERA modules. I really doubt that these companys (One of the most experienced tank maufacturers in the world) would make a big mistake.

But they invented a new active protection system. I lost the article but I am searching for it.

 

[MG 3]

Any source for T-80s in Waziristan would be appreciated.

dont know about reports. i was there on the ground. sadly we have a nation(civillians) that knows squat bout mil stuff so they dont care or know that what such capabilities in the hands of enemies can do(destroying tanks), so no reporting, all the want to show is political showboating. ill get u guys some pics, aftermaths of RPG and IED strikes.

 

[Bfn42]

This is some what of an old report and it was sorta discussed earlier in this thread but this is a report from USAF Today:




U.S. News & World Report
June 9, 2003

Washington Whispers

By Paul Bedard

M1-A1 Abrams: tough to kill, but not invulnerable

They call them "lessons learned" reports in the Pentagon, and few are getting as much attention as the review of the Army's lumbering M1-A1 Abrams tank's performance in Iraq. Revered by soldiers as the world's best, the report found that lone Iraqis armed with simple rocket-propelled grenades halted a few Abramses in their tracks. Just like those Battle of the Bulge scenes of GIs firing at the bellies of Nazi tanks, a rocket aimed at the armored skirts on the side and back of the Abrams would occasionally disable the tank. That's led some to question the plan to replace some M1s with lighter and thinly skinned "Stryker" vehicles. But then, the report shown to Whispers also found that the heavy Abrams guzzled more gas than expected. And getting parts to busted tanks was a problem. Still, like the Terminator, it didn't die easily. Some completely disabled tanks were abandoned, and airstrikes were called in to keep the gizmos inside from Iraqi spies. It took a grenade detonated in the crew compartment, a massive tank round, and two precision Maverick missiles just to put one down.

"Here's a 2nd hand account from a Hawg Driver:
"I know the guys who shot the mavericks into that tank- also know guys who fired them into broken down helos so that the Iraqis couldn't get the gizmos inside. Here's a story on the Abrams toughness- the two guys go out there (at night)- the army tells them they want this disabled tank destroyed- it's night, and we don't have targeting pods, so the most precise weapon to use is the maverick (reason we didn't use 30mm) So the two guys put their mavericks into the tank- we all watch the video, you can see the splattered "hot molten ju-ju" when the wingman fired into the tank all over the road- the damn thing looked like it was completely destroyed. The next morning, Fox news has footage of the "destroyed" tank on TV- no shit the thing looked like it had just been painted black- there was no considerable damage- not like when we put a maverick into a Soviet-built tank- the turrets pop off, those things just fall apart. Not the Abrams. The guys who fired the mavericks were pissed that they couldn't destroy it, but damned impressed on the same level. Yes, the thing can be immobilized by well placed shots to vulnerable areas- as for obliterating the thing... I don't think it's possible."

 

[extern]

No they are not going for ERA style systems. Instead of that they are improving the chassis with normal armor.

And what that new massive panels from the sides of last upgraded Leo2, do youno ? I mean, what kind of armor: Chobham, NERA, NxRA or even Combination K?

 

[Waylander]

The only thing you are ever going to hear from german tank engineers about their armor is "That is is multi-material type of armor".
You get nearly every infos about the Leo you want but not a bit about the armor.

The turret of the M1 might not been flown away when the Mavs hit it but I would not like to sit in it because the Mavs penetrated it and I really doubt a crew would have been spared.

 

[extern]

The only thing you are ever going to hear from german tank engineers about their armor is "That is is multi-material type of armor".

A 'multi-material type of armor" may be ERA as well.