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

[suddendeath]

hello i agree gf0012-aust is right an 100kilo ied is difficult for a tank to survive especially if planted on the road armour is thinnest at the bottom if not the explosion would destroy the tank the force of impact will kill the tank crew interstingely this concept was used during 1965 indopak war by pakistan lacking anti tank weapons sorry if its off topic
cheers!!

 

[DefConGuru]

a few well placed RPG 29s if you're gonna be fighting a low intensity conflict are problems. Otherwise most tandem warheads launched from pretty much anything can take out a tank, a tank has to rely on manueverability and spot the target first and take it out.

 

[wittmanace]

i heard an anecdote of a british challenger 2 being taken out by an rpg 29 in 2006 in al ammarah, iraq. ill look for more reports of this tonight and post them if i find them, but has anyone else heard of this incident or of other instances where rpg 29's have penetrated the frontal armour in iraq or lebanon?

 

[Chrom]

The armour on an M1A2 is extremely capable. You're looking at a very small minority of systems capable of disabling it in just one or two shots.

If you mean frontally and in average case (not counted weakened zones) - then yes. From sides or back just about every anti-tank weapon can achieve reliable kill against M1A2.

Btw, T-90 have pretty much same gun as T-72, so T-72 should perform almost as well given modern ammo and disregarding FCS. Still i doubt T-90 (or Leo2 for that matter) can penetrate M1A2 frontally (non-weakened zones), same as M1A2 vs T-90A frontally.

 

[wittmanace]

here is the story reported in the telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/13/nmod13.xml



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/05/13/nmod13big.gif


so seems there is now more than one confirmed incident of this on the challenger 22, penetrated in the frontal arc by an rpg 29.

 

[Waylander]

This is maybe the reason why the Brits are testing a new Challi upgrade where the ERA on the front is replaced by composite armor.

I would bet that the tandem warhead of a RPG-29 results in some problems defeating it with ERA and the Brits are now going the safe way.

 

[Chrom]

This is maybe the reason why the Brits are testing a new Challi upgrade where the ERA on the front is replaced by composite armor.

I would bet that the tandem warhead of a RPG-29 results in some problems defeating it with ERA and the Brits are now going the safe way.

Might well be the case. On the other hand, advanced HEAT warhead types also work very well against composite armor. And thats not even counting inherit ERA advantage which gives 3-4 times better protection than some size and weight composite armour. Even 1st-gen ERA (french type) useally provide similar protection as same size and weight composite armor against tandem warheads.

All in all, thats pretty funny. USA and Germany propose ERA in new upgrades, France testing composite armor instead of ERA, russians seems to just develop new ERA generations... Anyone can find something for own taste

 

[wittmanace]

given that the rpg 27 and rpg 29 both have the same listed after era penetration with tandem warheads, and that the rpg 27 is one use, disposable unlike the rpg 29, does it not make more sense for the insurgents to use the former, given the anticipated lower life expectancy of their fighters? is the rpg 27 therefore significantly cheaper? i understand hezbollah going for units that are re-usable, given engagements such as bint jbeil, but in iraq i would assume the opposite need to be the case, no?

 

[Chrom]

given that the rpg 27 and rpg 29 both have the same listed after era penetration with tandem warheads, and that the rpg 27 is one use, disposable unlike the rpg 29, does it not make more sense for the insurgents to use the former, given the anticipated lower life expectancy of their fighters? is the rpg 27 therefore significantly cheaper? i understand hezbollah going for units that are re-usable, given engagements such as bint jbeil, but in iraq i would assume the opposite need to be the case, no?

Might be the case, but insurgents use what they got.

 

[eckherl]

This is maybe the reason why the Brits are testing a new Challi upgrade where the ERA on the front is replaced by composite armor.

I would bet that the tandem warhead of a RPG-29 results in some problems defeating it with ERA and the Brits are now going the safe way.

Good post Waylander, this says alot on modern western designed tanks primary armor layout versus the sole ERA approach.

 

[Chrom]

Good post Waylander, this says alot on modern western designed tanks primary armor layout versus the sole ERA approach.

Noone uses "sole ERA aproach". The advantages of ERA are so great what ERA could be well used in conjuction with common thick composite armour as seen in T-xx serie (or Chally serie also)

 

[Waylander]

Might well be the case. On the other hand, advanced HEAT warhead types also work very well against composite armor. And thats not even counting inherit ERA advantage which gives 3-4 times better protection than some size and weight composite armour. Even 1st-gen ERA (french type) useally provide similar protection as same size and weight composite armor against tandem warheads.

All in all, thats pretty funny. USA and Germany propose ERA in new upgrades, France testing composite armor instead of ERA, russians seems to just develop new ERA generations... Anyone can find something for own taste

Were do we propose ERA in new upgrades?
Puma up to protection level C as well as the proposed PSO version for the Leo have no ERA.
The only vehicle which uses ERA is the PzH2000 on it's top against bomblet.

And as I said the Brits are going away from ERA for protection against high threat AT-weapons and go back to composite armor.
The Israelis are also using ERA only for their older and lighter vehicles and don't implement it onto their Merkava chassises.

France and the US also only have it as a protection for the rear part of their MBTs and for the overall protection of the Bradley.
And they only say that it protects these vulnerable parts against older basic RPGs and not against new ones like RPG-7V or RPG-29.

There is a fundamental difference between the east and the west about where ERA is usefull and where not.

 

[mic of orion]

thats true, but the gun on the m1a2 has a 100m adv over a leo. the leo has to close the gap first.

NO it ain't,. M1A21 uses very same gun as Leo 2A4-A5 use, Leo 2A6 has better gun than M1A2, I mean longer range, and higher penetration due to the high muzzle velocity. BTW, M1A2 uses L44 German made gun, Challenger 2 has also chosen new L55 gun for its upgrade, to give them a longer range, 4000m- 4500m .

Leo 2A6 can take out M1a2 as can Leclerc and Challenger 2, for others I won't comment, but I think Merakva 4 could also take M1A2 if it can come close enough, but than Merakva 4's are armed with Lahat missile this perhaps can give them advantage.

BTW, T90's are also armed with atgm's. It is all relative.

At the back, M1A2 is quite vulnerable, has only 250-300mm worth of armor protection which can stop up to 100mm rounds, but it won't stop modern ATGM's or modern tanks hitting the tank at the back.

M1A2 has ammo bustle and turret and ammo bustle are separated by 50mm thick plate which gives additional 250mm armor protection, ammo bustle is designed to blow upwards in case tank gets hit from behind. Outside the turret at the back there is also a storage basket in which M1A2 has additional equipment carried externally, this also gives some protection at the back, I'd say about 50-100mm at most, but can disable any atgm, as atgm would need to penetrate storage basket first, than ammo bustle and than the crew compartment, and this has never happened to M1A2.

This experience has thought few other countries, Israel, Croatia and UK and now Challnager, Merakva and M95 Degman all incorporate this feature, soon, Leo 2A6 and Leclerc will also add this, as it is quite cheap way of protecting their tanks in all vulnerable spots.

M1A2 has about 250-300mm armor protection on top of its turret, so anything that can penetrate this kind of thickness can destroy the tank outright.

There is a limit as to how much protection you can put on tank before the tank becomes to heavy and to slow.

Challenger 2 which I think has best armor protection is rather bad example of poor cross country performance and excessive wight of the tank.

Tank still uses Old 1200hp engine, no wonder it is slow

anyways, I've been going on and on...

 

[gf0012-aust]

NO it ain't,. M1A21 uses very same gun as Leo 2A4-A5 use, Leo 2A6 has better gun than M1A2

well, yes it does - and you've actually confirmed why it does.

it depends on which Leo2 derivative you are talking about. absolute barrel length and ord determine the length of flight outcome.

early Leo2's were outranged by the A2's.

 

[mic of orion]

well, yes it does - and you've actually confirmed why it does.

it depends on which Leo2 derivative you are talking about. absolute barrel length and ord determine the length of flight outcome.

early Leo2's were outranged by the A2's.

I should have been more precise,

Leo 2A6 has better gun than M1A2, at least when it comes to muzzle velocity, range, but Swedes said that L44 is more stable than L55, but than Brits have come with the solution to that problem ...

Anyways, Leo 2A4 are only ones I'd consider old, never seen Leo 2A1-3, not sure any army has these. Leo 2A4 uses L44 same gun used by M1A2.

 

[eckherl]

NO it ain't,. M1A21 uses very same gun as Leo 2A4-A5 use, Leo 2A6 has better gun than M1A2, I mean longer range, and higher penetration due to the high muzzle velocity. BTW, M1A2 uses L44 German made gun, Challenger 2 has also chosen new L55 gun for its upgrade, to give them a longer range, 4000m- 4500m .

Leo 2A6 can take out M1a2 as can Leclerc and Challenger 2, for others I won't comment, but I think Merakva 4 could also take M1A2 if it can come close enough, but than Merakva 4's are armed with Lahat missile this perhaps can give them advantage.

BTW, T90's are also armed with atgm's. It is all relative.

At the back, M1A2 is quite vulnerable, has only 250-300mm worth of armor protection which can stop up to 100mm rounds, but it won't stop modern ATGM's or modern tanks hitting the tank at the back.

M1A2 has ammo bustle and turret and ammo bustle are separated by 50mm thick plate which gives additional 250mm armor protection, ammo bustle is designed to blow upwards in case tank gets hit from behind. Outside the turret at the back there is also a storage basket in which M1A2 has additional equipment carried externally, this also gives some protection at the back, I'd say about 50-100mm at most, but can disable any atgm, as atgm would need to penetrate storage basket first, than ammo bustle and than the crew compartment, and this has never happened to M1A2.

This experience has thought few other countries, Israel, Croatia and UK and now Challnager, Merakva and M95 Degman all incorporate this feature, soon, Leo 2A6 and Leclerc will also add this, as it is quite cheap way of protecting their tanks in all vulnerable spots.

M1A2 has about 250-300mm armor protection on top of its turret, so anything that can penetrate this kind of thickness can destroy the tank outright.

There is a limit as to how much protection you can put on tank before the tank becomes to heavy and to slow.

Challenger 2 which I think has best armor protection is rather bad example of poor cross country performance and excessive wight of the tank.

Tank still uses Old 1200hp engine, no wonder it is slow

anyways, I've been going on and on...

You are incorrect as to why Challenger 2 has gone with a L55, here is why:

1. Getting out of the use of DU projectiles.
2. NATO compatable gun and ammunition.
3. Thermal bending issues with current barrel in hot climates, and yes rifling can play a factor in this.

You are incorrect stating that the L55 offers Leo2A6 better penetration performance over a M256 hunkered in a M1A2, its all about the ammunition.

How do you know that a Challenger or Leopard 2 series can penetrate the frontal armor on a M1A2 or that a M1A2 can do the the same to either, that comment was nothing more than pure speculation on your part.

You are trying to state that TA - 50 and other field gear located in a turret bustle rack could detonate shaped charge warheads, got any examples where this happened.

Why do you think that the Challenger 2 is the best protected tank in the world care to elaborate on how you came to that conclusion.

 

[mic of orion]

You are incorrect as to why Challenger 2 has gone with a L55, here is why:

1. Getting out of the use of DU projectiles.
2. NATO compatable gun and ammunition.
3. Thermal bending issues with current barrel in hot climates, and yes rifling can play a factor in this.

You are incorrect stating that the L55 offers Leo2A6 better penetration performance over a M256 hunkered in a M1A2, its all about the ammunition.

How do you know that a Challenger or Leopard 2 series can penetrate the frontal armor on a M1A2 or that a M1A2 can do the the same to either, that comment was nothing more than pure speculation on your part.

You are trying to state that TA - 50 and other field gear located in a turret bustle rack could detonate shaped charge warheads, got any examples where this happened.

Why do you think that the Challenger 2 is the best protected tank in the world care to elaborate on how you came to that conclusion.

to late for me, it is 3 in the morning here, as to the storage basket, it wouldn't stop the shape charge or anything sort, but would slow it down, and make it less capable, so when it does penetrate main hull at the back of the tank, it would be stooped before it penetrates crew compartment, so crew can get out unhurt.

Unfortunately this would not work with the tank round, 120-125mm, these would go through in to the crew compartment as well.

But best way to kill tank is from the top, and it is only way to kill tank like M1A2, Leo 2A6, Leclerc or Challenger 2,

There is so little distinction between these 4 tanks, it is all up to the crew of the tank, how good and well trained they are.

As to penetrative power of the Challenger or M1A2 getting knocked off, well Challenger 2 did take another Challenger in a friendly fire, I think it was a frontal hit, happened in 2004 I think, there was a court case here in London about it.

And it sometimes happens in wars, friendly fires are inevitable things.

PS, it is all relative, we are all making assumptions here....

 

[eckherl]

to late for me, it is 3 in the morning here, as to the storage basket, it wouldn't stop the shape charge or anything sort, but would slow it down, and make it less capable, so when it does penetrate main hull at the back of the tank, it would be stooped before it penetrates crew compartment, so crew can get out unhurt.

Unfortunately this would not work with the tank round, 120-125mm, these would go through in to the crew compartment as well.

But best way to kill tank is from the top, and it is only way to kill tank like M1A2, Leo 2A6, Leclerc or Challenger 2,

There is so little distinction between these 4 tanks, it is all up to the crew of the tank, how good and well trained they are.

As to penetrative power of the Challenger or M1A2 getting knocked off, well Challenger 2 did take another Challenger in a friendly fire, I think it was a frontal hit, happened in 2004 I think, there was a court case here in London about it.

And it sometimes happens in wars, friendly fires are inevitable things.

PS, it is all relative, we are all making assumptions here....

Yes - turret/ hull tops along with the rear end are weak in armor protection on tanks.

Yes - all four tanks are very capable killing machines, can I add the Merkava in on this list also.

Yes - Armor crewman training is a very important factor.

Do you know how that Challenger was hit and what type of round was used, I think that you will find that it was not a frontal hit, in this certain case because you mentioned that it is in the court system.

Is it your impression that shaped charge warheads with stand off spikes/tandem warheads are effected by muzzle velocity performance during the impact phase when hitting a target.

Also what did the Swedes find unstable with the L55, was it a certain type of ammunition that was fired or was it the FCS.

 

[DefConGuru]

given that the rpg 27 and rpg 29 both have the same listed after era penetration with tandem warheads, and that the rpg 27 is one use, disposable unlike the rpg 29, does it not make more sense for the insurgents to use the former, given the anticipated lower life expectancy of their fighters? is the rpg 27 therefore significantly cheaper? i understand hezbollah going for units that are re-usable, given engagements such as bint jbeil, but in iraq i would assume the opposite need to be the case, no?

Another attempt to sound useful again in vain. Their life expectancy is actually quite higher than 1 or 2 uses and these rpg 27/29 variations are made in countries like Iran and China where making the disposable systems costs more and is useless to a guerilla operation to carry a platform that expires after one use. Same case for Hezbollah, IRA, LTTE, etc., re usable and 3rd party/captured weapons is key for them.

 

[Waylander]

And here we go again.

The same statements over and over again.
Nobody really knows (Or better nobody is writing it down here) how much protection modern tanks have.
Be it Leopard II, Merkava, Abrams, Challenger, whatever.

And the Swedes did not think that the L/55 is unstable.
There were several reasons for it. They would have needed to incorporate it later as it was not ready by the time, it would have been more expensive (And the Strv122 is already not very cheap) and they were sceptical about the higher boresighting rate.

Nowadays we know that this is not a problem and that the L/55 is actually more accurate than the L/44. At least when used with upgraded Leopard II (Might also come partially from upgraded FCS).

BTW, the in 2004 the Challi managed to circle a HESH directly into the open hatch of the other Challi. A really nasty friendly fire accident.

In the end I can only say that there are so many things on a battlefield which can damage or destroy a modern MBT. But there are also a lot of situations were a tank is the best platform for the job.
That's it. Sometimes I get the feeling that people need to learn again that in a war one usually loses tanks. That's normal and nobody with some clue ever tried to build the invincible tank or stated to have it.