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

[Waylander]

It is better. At least their NBC-troops are better as well as their personal gear.
In the end one could drive some mechanized forces through a recently nuked area which I wouldn't do with some 3rd world rag tag militia.

But you are right. If it is an exchange with lots of tactical nukes (maybe with additional sh***loads of C-weapons) like what was expected of a cold war going hot there is not that much one can do to protect the troops.

 

[lobbie111]

anyone see the movie Ironman, one of those Jericho missiles will do...

 

[ltb]

the best way of attacking a mbt is from the top... so in theory the best way of taking one out from an insuregent point of view would be to lure it into a built up area where you could fumulate some sort of way of attacking the uper part of the tank with a shapped charge... a rather large one.

Or away from never never land....get hold or a javalin and knock it off the battle field good and proper ;-)

 

[V4.SKUNK]

US already have TUSK if i'm not mistaken, and it come with RWS.

TUSK is not fitted to every Abrams. When the Brits upgrade Challenger2 they upgrade all of them, not just a handfull.
I have never heard of an Abrams with TUSK operating in Iraq. TUSK has been around for at least 3 years also.

 

[eckherl]

TUSK is not fitted to every Abrams. When the Brits upgrade Challenger2 they upgrade all of them, not just a handfull.
I have never heard of an Abrams with TUSK operating in Iraq. TUSK has been around for at least 3 years also.

There are plenty M1 series tanks operating with some of the Tusk upgrades, and how many Challie 2 are there compared to M1 series.

 

[V4.SKUNK]

There are plenty M1 series tanks operating with some of the Tusk upgrades, and how many Challie 2 are there compared to M1 series.

I think you'll find hardly any M1's have been upgraded with tusk, in fact not a lot of Abrams are even at SEP standard let alone A2 standard.
The US army/marines are very slow at developing the M1.

 

[Waylander]

Getting TUSK in service has nothing to do with wether the Abrams in theater are A1, A1HA, A2 or A2SEP.
And while the TUSK program needed some time to accelerate it seems like the flow of TUSK kits to Iraq is now well established.

 

[eckherl]

I think you'll find hardly any M1's have been upgraded with tusk, in fact not a lot of Abrams are even at SEP standard let alone A2 standard.
The US army/marines are very slow at developing the M1.

I do not know who you are drawing that information from but it is totally false, that I know first hand. Also just like Waylander has mentioned, Tusk doesn`t only belong on a M1A2 SEP, you can place it on any M1 series tank that you choose, which we are doing. I should point out also that we have reduced the number of MBTs needed in theater operations due to better urbanized and convoy escort vehicles arriving in country.

 

[lobbie111]

Anyone familiar with the ATACMS rocket and its anti armour sub munitions, they can hold about 25 I believe and four stabilising fins come out fitted with acoustic and thermal sensors I believe, does anyone have an idea how effective they would be against a large tank platoon, I believe they have several modes the most common being top down...

 

[Water-Man]

The bigger question is being able to get close enough to do it any harm.

 

[kato]

The bigger question is being able to get close enough to do it any harm.

With ATACMS, artillery, rocket artillery or a decent ATGM (Maverick, Hellfire), there's no problem with distance.

 

[Feanor]

So a Maverick could pierce an M1's frontal plate?

 

[Chrom]

So a Maverick could pierce an M1's frontal plate?

Yes. Composite/ERA armor is much less effective against these big HEAT charges than against smaller ATGM's (HEAT vs RHA ratio).

 

[Waylander]

It would be a little bit freaky if people would start to try to armor their MBTs against monsters like Maveriks.

You have your integrated air defence units which should deal with a ground pounder if one comes through your outer AD layers. If they can't deal with it you are toast that's the whole story of combined arms warfare...

 

[Water-Man]

KATO...And what do you think AirForce and/or Navy aircraft will be doing at that time?

 

[Feanor]

Yes. Composite/ERA armor is much less effective against these big HEAT charges than against smaller ATGM's (HEAT vs RHA ratio).

Interesting. So based on that could we figure out it's frontal armor in RHA equivalent?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Interesting. So based on that could we figure out it's frontal armor in RHA equivalent?

big maybe, so a yes and no - the USAF used a pair of Mavericks to destroy an M1 that was deemed irrecoverable. They were top down shots - not frontals.

 

[Waylander]

And one shouldn't forget that the usage of the term RHA itself is very vague as one cannot compare modern composite armor with plain normal RHA as ist reacts different to Chem and KE threats resulting in a different protection as with plain normal RHA.

 

[Chrom]

Interesting. So based on that could we figure out it's frontal armor in RHA equivalent?

There is no single figure. All RHA -equivalent figures given against APFSDS / HEAT projectiles are just generic values, valid for "generic" average HEAT or APFSDS. But every APFSDS or HEAT have its own unique penetration characteristic, and both armor and projectiles designers try to improve its product specifically against
modern threat / armor.

So, for example, modern ATGM may have almost same RHA penetration as 20-years old ATGM, but penetrate composite or ERA armor much better. Same with APFSDS.

Or big ATGM's (Hellfire, Maverick) have almost same RHA penetration as smaller TOW-2 class ATGM's, but behave much better against ERA or composite armor due to much large penetrator diameter and mass.

 

[eckherl]

big maybe, so a yes and no - the USAF used a pair of Mavericks to destroy an M1 that was deemed irrecoverable. They were top down shots - not frontals.

Correct - to stand a 100% certain for vehicle destruction you either have to drill it from the turret top or rear of the vehicle.