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

[psyclops]

Kind of like rooting for your favorite sports team, until they play against each other we will never know.

That's a pretty good way of putting it.

 

[Grand Danois]

Allright. The ATGM enthusiasts have had their day.

Here is account (excerpt) from the war in Yugoslavia where the ambushing ATGM crews got their asses handed to them by a squadron af Danish Leopard 1A5's.

The ambushing side was a btn sized Bosnian Serb unit complete with night-vision equipped ATGM, AA artillery used antitank mode, artillery and mortars. They were ambushing the Danish tank squadron in wooded, mountainous terrain.

Note:
"Bøllebank" translates to "thug thrashing" or "hooligan bashing."

Introduction
On the first and second of May 1994, Danish newspapers could publish a quite unusual story. Several Danish tanks stationed in Bosnia as part of the international UN-force had been engaged in fierce fighting against Bosnian Serbs. This episode received national as well as international attention since it was the first time the UN forces in the Balkans (and generally) had used such massive firepower as a response to attacks on its forces. Simultaneously, it was the first time in modern history that the Danish military had participated in something which could only be accurately described as wartime fighting.

...

April 29th 1994
April 29th was full of everyday assignments and routines. This lasted precisely until "Tango 2" – a Swedish manned observation post with 7 solders near the city of Kalesija northeast of Sarajevo on the border to Serbia – radioed at around 10 pm for immediate assistance; they were being shelled (for the 28th time! ).

Squadron commander reports: "We were asked to assist a Swedish observation post outside Tuzla, which was being shelled by artillery and anti-tank weapons. The Danish tank squadron moved out with 7 Leopard tanks and one armoured personnel carrier (APC)". Together with 1st and 2nd platoon (a total of 7 tanks including the "chief tank"), he met with Møller’s track driven armoured personnel carrier in the vicinity of the village of Saraci about 10 kilometers from "Tango 2" to coordinate the mission.

Møller remembers: "Actually, we intended to move up with the tanks because they tend to stop the shooting".

But shortly after all the units had arrived in Saraci with lights on and flags flapping, a grenade hit the ground close to them. The time was 11.15 pm. More grenades followed, and Møller immediately issued orders that the "chief tank" and the 1st platoon of Claus Andresen together with his own carrier should move quickly towards "Tango 2".

After 15-20 minutes under constant fire by the Bosnian-Serb Sekovici-brigade, they reached the village of Kalesija closer to the observation post. A sharp turn forced everybody to reduce speed when 2nd platoon (which was still in position back in Saraci) suddenly reported incoming anti-tank missiles against Møller, the "chief tank" and 1st platoon.

Møller experiences it as an "ugly ambush" when Bosnian-Serbs from camouflaged positions started to shoot at the tanks with anti-tank weapons, and it surprised the Danish soldiers that their attackers were equipped with modern night fighting systems. Møller recalls: "The first missile hit between the two rearmost tanks in 1st platoon, whereas missile number 2 hit the blue factory which I was sheltered by , and exploded so bricks and other stuff rained down on the APC".

The third missile had its course directly towards the rearmost tank in 1st platoon, but the driver managed to stop so the missile hit the road and exploded just ahead of the vehicle. Thoughts that it was all over and that they had to return fire run through the head of driver Little-Andres. He sees that the path behind him is blocked, and it is difficult to orient himself in the darkness.

All that is clearly visible are the many lights from enemy machine cannons and antitank weapons firing heavily against the Danish tanks. At this time he requests air support, but it is rejected. Meanwhile, 1st platoon had continued up the sharp turn towards "Tango 2", so it was solely third tank in 1st platoon (Little-Andres), the "chief tank" and Møller’s vehicle that were now stopped on a very exposed piece of ground. Quickly the third vehicles took partial cover behind buildings while heavy mortar- and artillery fire shelled the area non-stop.

Squadron commander Carsten Rasmussen was in no doubt that the Danish tanks had to return fire if they were to survive the night. He tells: "When we were attacked by anti-tank missiles I thought: ´Enough is enough´, and ordered the tanks to return fire at the missile position". Apparently, at the very same time Møller analyzes the situation and reaches the same conclusion.

He gives the order to Carsten and 2nd platoon in Saraci: "Neutralize the anti-tank positions".

Therefore, it is not entirely clear whether Carsten - in clear and legitimate self-defence – was ahead of Møller to open fire, or Carsten just followed the Colonel’s order and simply implemented it. Either way, concentrated fire was now unleashed towards the enemy, and at a great distance Erik Kirk’s 2nd platoon in Saraci neutralized those bunkers that had fired the anti-tank weapons. But firing immediately continued from other positions.

While under fire, Møller and co. in Kalesija opened fire against the positions around the mountain Vis (called "Sugar Top"), and the two vehicles from 1st platoon that made the turn earlier managed to fight their way to the Swedish observation post. Platoon commander Claus Andresen was under fire from the Zvornik-brigade, but returned it, and the two tanks eventually take position at "Tango 2" in case of renewed shelling.

Down in Kalesija, the shelling and firing abates. Møller remembers: "We managed to get two tanks through to the observation post, and then they stopped shooting". Rasmussen and Møller agree to wait a short while before starting to pull out of the city and heading back to Saraci and 2nd platoon. They were barely out of the city before all the positions on Vis opened fire at them with renewed intensity.

Møller thought: "This is too much!"

2nd platoon was ordered to return fire and cover the pullout, an order the tanks accomplished by constantly firing a huge amount of grenades against enemy positions for about 15 minutes.

Møller’s group reached Saraci unharmed as Jacob, the gunner in 2nd platoons 2nd vehicle, fired a final grenade that seemed to cause a major explosion on impact. At about 1.00 am, the last Danish tank was pulled out from Saraci, and everybody – except the two vehicles at "Tango 2" that actually remained there for several days - made it safely back. Carsten Rasmussen sums up the relief of coming back to Camp Gønge unharmed: "The happiness that we came back alive was far greater than the worry about having killed somebody".
Danish Leopard in Tuzla airport

"The Mouse Ate the Cat": After Action
And the Danish tank had caused casualties. During the 2 hours of fighting, they fired a total of 72 105 mm rounds, of which 44 were brisant, 9 phosphor and 19 armour piercing. It was later clear that the previously mentioned last grenade had hit an unprotected ammunition supply that caused huge explosions – and probably a large number of casualties.

Shortly after the clash, the Bosnian Serbs reported the loss of 9 men. But other sources estimate it to around 150 soldiers having been killed and a similar number wounded. The Danes themselves suffered no casualties, although Møller got himself a "long-distance-shave " by a fragment, and one of the vehicles was actually hit. Right after the incident, there was wide concern that it would escalate attacks on the UN-forces in Croatia and Bosnia, especially from the Bosnian Serbs.

"By responding to the Serbs' fire, we destroyed the relationship of trust we the previous months patiently had built ", said Møller to American reporters shortly after the episode.

And in the following months, the UN placed some restrictions on Damson’s activity in order to avoid further escalation of the situation. But on April 29th it was – as Møller phrased it – "the mouse that ate the cat".

History and meaning
"Operation Bøllebank" has been viewed as important for several reasons. On one hand, there exists an understanding that "it was the real beginning of a new Danish defence policy where Danish military was to be sent on international missions with heavy military equipment and orders to strike back resolutely if attacked". Whether this is the case is open for discussion.

But here, almost 11 years on, it is clear that "Bøllebank" indeed was the first time in many years that Danish soldiers had seen battle. As it turned out, it was by no means the last time. In "Operation Amanda" on October 26th 1994 – also in Bosnia – 3 Danish tanks fired 21 grenades against Bosnian Serbs’ near Gradacac north of Tuzla in order to retake a UN- observation post. A more recent example could be the Danish F16s in Afghanistan that in late 2003 were believed to have killed as many as 200 members of Taleban and al-Qaeda.

Still, it seems clear that something unusual happened on April 29th 1994, and as mentioned at the beginning it was quickly noted in the Danish newspapers and editorials. A sense of pride and satisfaction over the Danish soldiers’ resolute and effective response in a situation where many Danish lives could have been lost was quite widespread.

Political scientist Ole Wæver observed: "The jingoistic tone of the reporting as well as statements by the Minister of Defence and other politicians indicated pride in the Danes' finally exhibiting a bit of macho behaviour after months of humiliation by the Serbs. Danes seemed little concerned by the fact that our soldiers were using armed force; on the contrary, they were rather proud of it".

The historical perspective played an important role here. In "Bøllebank", the Danish military won the biggest battle since the Second World War, and the incident is therefore a milestone in Danish military history. At the same time, it was noticed around the world and rekindled in a way respect for the little country’s defence forces.

One example says that "´Operation Bøllebank´ gave us credit; after that there were pictures of our tanks hanging in the Pentagon". Nationally, the battle resulted in a similar popularizing effect, and in the defence-system itself it has taken on an almost mythological meaning.

Perceptions like "the Danish soldiers in Bøllebank saved thousands of lives in Tuzla, they raised the nations’ esteem and created new norms for military engagement under the UN" , have played a vital part in creating a more positive attitude towards the military and its missions and personnel among the Danish population. In spite of all this praise , the involved soldiers haven´t received military decorations or medals of bravery.

Back in 1997, the Danish Defence investigated the case, but concluded that the "effort was not evaluated to such a high degree of bravery that it should entitle those present to decoration". The following year, Møller and Kirk were honoured with "Ebbe Muncks Prize of Honour" and praise from the Queen for having that kind of "responsibility, judgement and will of action the Danish soldiers showed in a very critical situation".

...

The entire account can be read here:

http://www.milhist.dk/post45/boellebank/boellebank_uk.htm

 

[psyclops]

I remember reading about that operation; the Danes did very well. Am I reading the article right, that no ATGMs hit the Leopards? One sentence said that one vehicle was hit, but did not say by what, and the first three missiles it described hit the road or a building, right? Sounds like they took a helluva lot of arty and mortar fire.

 

[Grand Danois]

I remember reading about that operation; the Danes did very well. Am I reading the article right, that no ATGMs hit the Leopards? One sentence said that one vehicle was hit, but did not say by what, and the first three missiles it described hit the road or a building, right? Sounds like they took a helluva lot of arty and mortar fire.

IIRC the single direct hit wasn't from an ATGM, but probably from an AA gun used in antitank mode. But the tanks got bruised by all that shrapnel flying around.

 

[Waylander]

Nice work.
But they were lucky (And trained well) that no ATGMs hit them. The Leo I is a very good hunter/killer tank but it really lacks armor.
I have much respect for danish tankers. The partner battallion of my old tank unit was also from Denmark. I never trained with them only met them on other occasions but I heard some nice storys.

 

[steve33]

Note of interest the Abrams Tanks are getting reactive armour,the same that is being used on the Bradleys.

 

[Waylander]

Source? Pictures?
If you mean the TUSK upgrade for MOUT, this is cancelled due to budget restrictions.

 

[TrangleC]

Saw this too:

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/Reactive_Armor_for_Abrams_Tanks_20060829.php

 

[steve33]

It will be interesting to see how it performs against shaped charge roadside bombs which are a huge threat even to the Abram tank.

 

[extern]

Israeli armour fails to protect MBTs from ATGMs

Alon Ben-David JDW Correspondent
Tel Aviv

* Forty-five per cent of the Israel Defence Force's (IDF'S) MBTs hit by Hizbullah ATGMs during the fighting were penetrated
* Active and retired IDF armour officers have criticised the tactics used during Operation 'Change of Direction' in Lebanon

An analysis of what is perceived to be the most significant encounter between Western main battle tanks (MBTs) and Russian-made anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) during recent fighting in Lebanon shows that new Israeli armour, including explosive reactive armour (ERA) suites, has not succeeded in reducing penetration rates in its MBTs.

Forty-five per cent of the Israel Defence Force's (IDF's) MBTs hit by Hizbullah ATGMs during the fighting were penetrated.

Out of 50 IDF Merkava Mk 2, 3 and 4 MBTs hit, 21 were penetrated. Eleven of the incidents resulted in no fatalities while 10 incidents resulted in 23 crew casualties. During the fighting, the IDF encountered a wide variety of Russian- and Iranian-made ATGMs, including the Kornet-E 9P133, claimed to be able to penetrate 1-1.2 m of armour protected by ERA; the Metis-M 9M131, equipped with a tandem high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead; the 9K113 Konkurs (AT-5 'Spandrel'); the 9K111 Fagot (AT-4 'Spigot') and the tandem warhead RPG-29 rocket-propelled grenade.

"In the 1973 war, when the IDF armour was taken by surprise by the capabilities of Russian-made 'Sagger' ATGMs, the penetration ratio was 60 per cent of the total number of hits, mostly resulting in killing all four crewmen," a senior IDF source told Jane's. "At the time, most MBTs had oil-based hydraulic systems, which would inflame upon impact, while the ammunition had no secured storage compartments, both contributing to the deadly results.

"Since then, armour has improved parallel with the threats," added the source. "In the 1982 Lebanon war, when we were operating the Merkava Mk 1 MBT, the penetration ratio was 45 per cent. That ratio remained unchanged, but the developed Merkava armour prevented higher casualty rates."

Both active and retired IDF armour officers have criticised the tactics used during Operation 'Change of Direction' in Lebanon, claiming that the small tank formations had increased exposure of MBTs to ATGMs and had not utilised the tanks' capabilities.

"We were familiar with the threats and not surprised by their penetration capabilities," said the source. "We had identified the problem some five years ago and went ahead with developing APSs [armour protection systems], which we consider now as essential to our MBTs."

Indeed, Israel's Ministry of Defence has ordered Rafael Armament Development Authority to complete development of its Trophy APS and prepare for mass production.

In addition, Israeli Military Industries was asked to accelerate testing of its Iron Fist APS for future evaluation by the IDF.

"As the Trophy is a more mature system, we could begin procurement one year from now," said the source. "As other systems will mature, we could examine them as well."

While the Merkava Mk 4 MBT was designed to carry an APS, the IDF is now examining the compatibility of older Merkava models to also be equipped with an APS. "We consider it [APS] a 'must' that should be installed in all of our MBTs," added the source.
JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY - AUGUST 30, 2006

 

[Big-E]

32 pages... why is this thread still open?

 

[Waylander]

Because we all love the guys coming up every month and saying that they would hide in a building with a RPG and blow the hell out of every mechanized formation.

 

[KGB]

The success of the Saggers in the Yom Kippur campaign was due to a unique tactical situation. Previous conflicts led the IDF to deploy tanks relatively alone while the Egyptians deployed sagger crews in unexpected density. The egyptian commander was not sure he could get enough tanks across the pontoon bridges in time to stem the expected counterattack. The IDF suffered heavy losses but after increasing their APC ratio from 1:1 to 1:3 and using artillery preparation they compensated.

Paraphrased from "A history of blitzkreig"by bryan perret

 

[Lelik Rus]

1) Has the longest stabilised gun range on the fly

very nice. now let's think how 2 tanks are just standing against each other and firing. Battle speed and maneurability are stupid things...
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
against Iraq, Siria and so on. I.E. against soldiers that threw down the weapon just when they had seen ANY tank from the other side. Very effective comparison

3) Has an armour rating that renders it fairly safe with a substantial number of RPG/ATG's
From the front side. Like Merkava. But I've read that new russian anti-tank missile perform a maneuvr that not only attack a vulnerable parts of the tank but also make helpless any action against the missile
4) Has a proven loading system
That's right
5) Has the highest kill rate of any tank in the last 20 years
Again, who was an opponent? German tanks in ww2 were unbeatable in Europe before they had contacted with t34. As you probably do not know, Guderian has learned much from trainings in Lipetzk in 1939 with russian tankists.
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) [/QUOTE]


All that have menioned above is concern head to head battle. in this case m1 has an advantage, no coments. But it's hard to imagine mass head-to-head attack now.
You're talking only about armor and weapon - but tank is a SPEEDY weapon. That's why T-tanks are much lighter and faster than analogues. With such a powerfull cover like su34 and mi28(ka52) operations could be much faster

 

[Waylander]

Except of deserts and very open planes you do not ride a thunder attack like hell with 60-70 km/h.
While driving like crazy it is very hard to maintain cohesion and formation.
And a good formation is much more usefull than pure speed.

 

[Lelik Rus]

Although tank isn't F-1 car t-90's max speed close to 90 km/h. And it's hard to agree with a statement that there's no place for a speedy strike.
As for precisious shooting seems like there was an information about specially constructed system for t90 to provide shooting with a high accuracy on 80-85 km/h. I'll try to find out and inform about it

 

[Waylander]

With my Leo I reached more than 90 km/h.
But that's not the point.
On how many tank maneuvers have you been were tanks drove with 80-90 km/h?
Not on excibition shows or commercial dog'n'pony shows. Normal training maneuvers.
And pure speed has nothing to do with hitting accuracy. Terrain is the main point.
And there is just not much terrain were you are able to drive at high speed, obererve the terrain, maintain cohesion and formation.

I agree that there are some occassions where you need high speed for a short time but they are more rare than you might think.
And there are more than enough occassions were armor protection is much more needed than. For example as the leading element or as a heavy recon element, during a full scale attack against a fortified position, etc...

 

[Lelik Rus]

Man you're obviously right I just tried to mention a difference in a mind of constructing between ,for exampamle, abrams engineers and ours. When abrams conception leads to higher weight and long range shooting, t-90 offers much higher speed and maneurability instead. Suggestions about real situation aren't so simple and, of course, varies from one country to others. in ww2 Guderian made a huge strike from Kharkov to Stalingrad because terrain was like a desert - in a modern war with the same quantity of tanks and planes he would cover much more terrain.

 

[merocaine]

I'm going to weight in here!
Of Course your not going to zoom around at 90km an hour all the time on the battle field, but the tank is designed for deep penetration.
If your tank relays on a hugh support train (most modern western MBT's) your ablity to penetrate is curtailed.
The T series of Tanks was designed around the soviet doctrine of Deep penetration, hugh armoured formations operating in an opponents rear, speed and low fuel consumption were the most important factors in a tanks design.

NATO tanks on the other hand were designed as defensive tools, surviblity, and firepower were the main stays of there design.
The T series and the Nato Tank have different doctrinal approaches to there use on the battle field.

I often feel there is still a hangover from the Gulf war in all discussions about the two kinds of Tank. Abrams won convincingly. You cant argue with that.
But the comparision is unfair, the T 72's went into battle in a kind of death or glory ride without air cover or air support, there Tanks 15 years out of date, and mostly deployed in a static role. The were lambs to the Slaghter.

The T series were never designed to operate in such a role.

In mass battles of manouver the T series of tanks is better adapted, in battles of attrition, tank on tank the Nato Tank will come out on top.

Idealy if there had been a shooting war between the Warsaw pact and NATO, the T Series would never have engaged the Western MBT in a tank on tank engadement, fighter bombers, grads, heavy arti and hinds, would have done that for them, and the T's would have poured through the gaps thown in the lines. Masses of T's would cut supply lines in the rear and disrupt communications. The T was never designed for a slugging match, they were designed for a battle plan.

To sum up the T series is the last tank I would want to be in a tank on tank engadgement with a modern western MBT, for the one reason, it was'ent designed for that role.
Which at the end of the day was why saddams armoured formation were chewed up.

 

[Lelik Rus]

I'm going to weight in here!
Of Course your not going to zoom around at 90km an hour all the time on the battle field, but the tank is designed for deep penetration.
If your tank relays on a hugh support train (most modern western MBT's) your ablity to penetrate is curtailed.
The T series of Tanks was designed around the soviet doctrine of Deep penetration, hugh armoured formations operating in an opponents rear, speed and low fuel consumption were the most important factors in a tanks design.

NATO tanks on the other hand were designed as defensive tools, surviblity, and firepower were the main stays of there design.
The T series and the Nato Tank have different doctrinal approaches to there use on the battle field.

I often feel there is still a hangover from the Gulf war in all discussions about the two kinds of Tank. Abrams won convincingly. You cant argue with that.
But the comparision is unfair, the T 72's went into battle in a kind of death or glory ride without air cover or air support, there Tanks 15 years out of date, and mostly deployed in a static role. The were lambs to the Slaghter.

The T series were never designed to operate in such a role.

In mass battles of manouver the T series of tanks is better adapted, in battles of attrition, tank on tank the Nato Tank will come out on top.

Idealy if there had been a shooting war between the Warsaw pact and NATO, the T Series would never have engaged the Western MBT in a tank on tank engadement, fighter bombers, grads, heavy arti and hinds, would have done that for them, and the T's would have poured through the gaps thown in the lines. Masses of T's would cut supply lines in the rear and disrupt communications. The T was never designed for a slugging match, they were designed for a battle plan.

To sum up the T series is the last tank I would want to be in a tank on tank engadgement with a modern western MBT, for the one reason, it was'ent designed for that role.
Which at the end of the day was why saddams armoured formation were chewed up.

All that I've heard about merkava-t72 comparison, mig21-fantom and so on. NEVER and never. Ferdinand Porshe was also thinking Tiger is the best tank. Everyone knows what happened. who's consider t72 as an abram's opponent? Iraqi as a good soldier? These dummies were even worse than egiptians, probably because egiptians have battled against Israel under our officers
Actually right now Uralvagonzavod has mudernized t72 to M1 specification that is very close to t90C - with a new 1200-1500 hp engine, new anti-tank missiles up to 5000 m range, new system of shooting management and some other features. But the main news are about T95 that will get some stealth technology and, as a CEO of UVZ said, this tank will be practically invisible for the radar systems. Unfortunatelly I have failed in getting more information or some picts.