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

[Moroz.ru]

M1A2 Abrams SEP MTB Estimated Armor Protection Levels (2002-2004)
---------------------Kinetic------Chemical (RHA)
Turret---------------940-960------1320-1620
Glacis----------------560-590-------510-1050
Lower Front Hull---580-650-------800-970

Source:http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm

9M119 Reflex-2 (tandem warhead) penetration is approximately 850mm RHA -Two warhead are enough for Abrams become immobile at least.

 

[Moroz.ru]

One more gift for M1A2 is «Хризантема С» (“Hrizantema-S” 9P157-2) based on BMP-3
RHA 1200mm
Laser guided by operator ore self radar automatic guide.
15 missiles
Naval antiship variant is available

 

[Waylander]

Ok, the “Hrizantema-S†9P157-2 seems to be a real threat to modern MBTs. When will it be introduced?
I only found the data of the standard 9M119. I agree that it has enough power to immobilize an Abrams if it hits the right spot at the front.
But as I said a range of 5km looks amazing on paper but normal tank engagements usually take place in ranges from 1km-2,5km (If you are not fighting in Deserts, etc.).
There is another problem with missiles. Let's say that a T-80 tank platoon engages an Abrams platoon at 3km. There is a chance, that the Abrams are able to hit back, before the missiles hit them. But I also think that this new generation of ATGMs increases the killing capabilities of russian tanks.
In the end there is to say that there are enough possibilities to destroy an Abrams (I hate this talking about "the best tank ever, in the world, blablabla...:lul ).
-Modern ATGMs (Like the russian 9P157-2, Kornet, etc.) and new cannons/ammo (Like the L/55 with DM53 ammo for the Leo IIA6) in the front.
-Modern RPGs like the tandem-warhead RPG-7 and PzFst3 from the sides and the rear.
-Artillery, especially with new ammo like SMart.
-Mines and IEDs.
-Airstrikes (Mavericks, Hellfire II, LGBs, AT-X-16).

 

[Moroz.ru]

Respect for interesting reply!
1) Hrizantema-S have been introduced at Ural Expo Arms'2000 fair.
link of fair http://www.ntagil.ru/book/eng/abu_dabi.html

2) Has Abrams the gadget like Arena-E? Arena cans recognize warhead flying to tank and eliminates it.
Data of Arena-E:
Enemy warhead speed 70-700mps
recognize distance 50m
mass 1000-1300 kg
ammunition 22 warhead
Infantry danger radius is 20-30m

But Arena can’t eliminate supersonic missiles (for example, Hrisantema)

Next RPG generation going be equipped (ore already exist now*) by small additional missile launched a bit forward main warhead. First missile blast and generate electric magnetic impulse. Tank Windows become down, tank staff calling to admin, to support etc (it's a joke, really the tank electronic malfunction about 1 sec - enough for the main warhead breakthrough Arenalike system)

* PS Sach gadget is called "Atropus" (calibre-40mm) and used with RPG-7V.

 

[Waylander]

I think it's very interesting to see, that western armys do not use active defence systems that extensively like the russians and the countrys that buy russian material.
I only know about a US Bradley Version, the german PzH 2000 and the Israeli refits of their older M-60 etc.
M3A1:

PzH 2000:

Sabra:



That may be a result of the lack of armor on the T-64/72/80 etc. It's a question of philosophy. The one side (West) trusts in heavy armor. The other side (East) was more in superiorety by shere number. That resulted in smaller tanks, which are cheaper to produce. With the introduction of many modern ATGMs (TOW, Hellfire, Javelin, Spike, etc.) it was necessary for Russia/the SU to invent new ways to protect their tanks.
With the heavy armor of the modern NATO Tanks, there wasn't such a need for more protection.
But the new russian equipment sounds very interesting.

 

[hovercraft]

M1A2 Abrams SEP MTB Estimated Armor Protection Levels (2002-2004)
---------------------Kinetic------Chemical (RHA)
Turret---------------940-960------1320-1620
Glacis----------------560-590-------510-1050
Lower Front Hull---580-650-------800-970

Source:http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm

9M119 Reflex-2 (tandem warhead) penetration is approximately 850mm RHA -Two warhead are enough for Abrams become immobile at least.

maybe some parts or sides of this tanks is to much strong but not all, all tanks of the world have some sensitive sides or parts, even any kind of portable missile is to able to fully damage M1, for example if missile hits on wheels or the chain of the tank, or rear side, etc.

 

[kostas-zochios]

Any tank can be destroyed by aicraft from above by a heavy bomb. I think, to kill an abrams from distance, we need a guided round that actually attack from above. i'm thinking in a line of projectile that is launch from 45+ degrees angle (like mortar or howitzer) with sensors on the front. on the diving run, the seeker activated and seeking a target within intended parameters and dive toward the target.

That sounds like the KRASNOPOL 152mm guided artillery round. What capabillities soes this system have??? In tests with PzH-2000GR of the Greek army it failed because we bought a bad batch...

 

[Waylander]

Maybe you mean SMArt for the german 155mm PzH2000.
It uses multi-mode-sensors (Infrared and milimeterwaves) to detect a target and then atacks with a HEAT warhead from above. Range is 28km.
That is really a killer. I don't know any tank that is able to take a direct hit from a 155mm porjectile from above.

 

[kostas-zochios]

The Greek army does use SMART, but we also obtained KRASNOPOL as a part of the deal for 12 Zuzana (Slovak??) self propelled howitzers,that are now in service in Cyprus.

 

[psyclops]

active/reactive armor

The US Army is either considering or already fielding the Israeli Trophy active protection system for its Strykers, right? Since it's now a General Dynamics product, there's not the Not-Invented-Here Syndrome to worry about. I haven't heard anything about FCLAS in a while; anybody got any updates?

I haven't heard about any casualties from the reactive armor on the Bradleys... But that just means I haven't heard about any. Any operators from the Sandbox on here?

It's my understanding that ERA is a (relatively) cheap and lightweight means to achieve a high level of protection against HEAT warheads, vis a vis the passive layers that the West has used. The Russians back up their ERA (and the Kontakt-5 and Kaktus sound like excellent systems) with good composite armor, and the best estimates I've seen suggest pretty similar levels of protection for late-model NATO and Russian tanks. But the Russian tanks weigh a lot less. A matter of philosophy, I guess, as has been said already.

 

[extern]

Hi! Some pics of hitted Abramses. I think, it may be interesting:

 

[steve33]

No battle tank is perfect and anything can be knocked out if it is hit in the right place but the
Abrams has been outstanding in battle,it,s losses have been minimal and the problem for anyone facing the Abram is getting within range to hit it without getting taken out yourself because you can be sure the Abrams won,t be fighting alone they will have plenty of support.

 

[extern]

No battle tank is perfect and anything can be knocked out if it is hit in the right place but the
Abrams has been outstanding in battle,it,s losses have been minimal and the problem for anyone facing the Abram is getting within range to hit it without getting taken out yourself because you can be sure the Abrams won,t be fighting alone they will have plenty of support.

Nobody can rely on the official information about the Abram's losses in the Iraq company, 'coz the intention to cover the losses is high in any military operation as the part of psyops. There are tens of 'broken' Abramses was taken to US 'for repair'. It pretty can be combat losses.

 

[KAPITAIN]

If i remember correctly when the US tanks kept getting stuck in the sand in desert storm our ancient chiefton tanks had to come and pull them out.

As to killing a M1A1/2 id say a challenger 2 MBT.

 

[steve33]

It really has got to the point with the tanks that are around these days that they are all capable of knocking each other out it is really just a matter of who gets in first.

 

[Wild Weasel]

It really has got to the point with the tanks that are around these days that they are all capable of knocking each other out it is really just a matter of who gets in first.

Exactly. Which means the nation that possesses the best training, C4ISR, logistic support, and technological advancement will win the day.

There is also the train of thought that the era of the MBT has come and gone, like the battleships before WWII. Notice that there is no MBT propsed in the most current publications of the American FCS concept?
And keep in mind that if procurred in high enough numbers, autonomous systems like LOCAAS and Netfires could wipe out an entire nation's MBT fleet in short order.

So, its quite possible that the enitre queston of what beats an Abrams, is null and void.

Question: Who can kill a world-class MBT?
Answer: Everyone.

The question we should be asking, is:
What do we need to replace the modern MBT, and how do we defend it?

 

[agni 2]

indian nag atm can kill m1 abraham

 

[gf0012-aust]

indian nag atm can kill m1 abraham

and the evidence for that is based on what actual tests?

frontal aspect?
sides?
range?
against what RHA level?

my point is that coming up with comments that "my countries weapons can kill that countries platforms" means very little without supporting evidence.

there is substantial evidence of Chally 2's being exposed to multiple RPG-7 strikes and surviving - in one case its touted as surviving in excess of 20 consecutive hits.

unless there are results which are meaningful and show rigorous testing - then it means very little. Any tank can be killed under given circumstances - but that doesn't mean that they're automatically vulnerable to every AT system.

 

[KAPITAIN]

Im with GF0012 on this id love to see that

 

[steve33]

i was watching a programme on the top ten tanks and the Challenger was featured in it and they said that in Iraq one took something like 16 RPG hits and the only damage was that the sight that is on the outside of the tank which the crew use for vision when they are inside was knocked off and they just went back to base it was refitted and they went back out.

It will be interesting to see what vehicles they do come up with in the future,i read somewhere the Americans are looking at a 105mm gun on one of there Stryker platforms and when you think of the new electro armour that the british have developed for there future vehicles which has proven effective against RPG and shaped charge road side bombs and gives you a great amount of protection without the huge weight,it is something like two tonnes of this armour can give the same protection as 20 tons of normal armour.

I also read that the Americans have got new reactive armour for there Bradleys and are developing reactive armour for the Stryker and combined with the anti tank missiles that are available these days and can be fitted to LAV the day of the MBT could well be coming to an end.