who can kill a modern Main Battle Tank (MBT)?
- Thread starter giangnguyen
- Start date
- Status
There are some problems with ATGMs which make it hard to use them instead of tank guns.
They are slower.
They are more vulnerable to active protection systems.
They are more expensive.
They are bigger (Question of ammo storage).
Modern APFSDS ammo has more armor piercing Power.
ATGMs are a good thing if you want to give infantery, IFVs and other light vehicles the capability to engage armored units. But they are not a good choice if you want to have a main weapon for a tank.
They are slower.
They are more vulnerable to active protection systems.
They are more expensive.
They are bigger (Question of ammo storage).
Modern APFSDS ammo has more armor piercing Power.
ATGMs are a good thing if you want to give infantery, IFVs and other light vehicles the capability to engage armored units. But they are not a good choice if you want to have a main weapon for a tank.
It is true, that any existing comparizon between the world tanks has strong nationalistic aspect, but the fact remain: American MBT phylosofy is drifting towards lighter and agiler FCS concept i.e. more close to so called 'Russian design stile'. The key word now - is MBT with high 'strategic mobility'.gf0012-aust said:
THe Newest ERA like Kontakt-5 or Kaktus, is good against both ATGM and last generation APFSDS sabots. The explosion of ERA brokes the sabots:
http://img164.imageshack.us/my.php?image=obps2lx.jpg
The Active defence systems like Drozd, Drozd-2 or Arena, are ultimative effective against both RPG and high precision munition. Look here: http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/arena.html
Also the US now gonna reduce the budget of Abrams and Breadley modernisation for something like 60 bil$. They need its money for the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and now - with Iran. US have lost time being occupied by 'massive passive armor' phylosophy, and now the american ERA seems to be more massive and less advanced than Russian ERA:
http://img430.imageshack.us/my.php?image=upgradebig9zv.jpg
http://img395.imageshack.us/my.php?image=25fe.jpg
The new russian active protection systems seem to be very capable but I do not believe that they are that effective against the newest APFSDS ammo.
I just do not know how they could be able to test it. The new ammo is up to 200 meters per second faster than the last one. This is a big difference.
I don't like it when people talk about russian equipment as if it is crap but we should not believe everything the russian defence industry tells us.
I just do not know how they could be able to test it. The new ammo is up to 200 meters per second faster than the last one. This is a big difference.
I don't like it when people talk about russian equipment as if it is crap but we should not believe everything the russian defence industry tells us.
The problem with ERA etc is that it fails to protect on volley attacks - it certainly will not protect a tank from a top down or MANPAT popup attack.Waylander said:
In fact, I'd be prepared to argue that nearly all MANPAT's that are LOS and perpendicular in attack will not work against an abrams, chally 2 or Leo2.
we already know that LOS-perp volley attacks on Chally 2's don't work. We also know that volley LOS-perp attacks on M1's don't work.
As much as people can get excited about a new national anti tank weapon - basic physics says that unless there has been a generational development in the warhead charge, that "x" volume of explosive out of a MANPAT smaller than a Javelin isn't going to do the job.
The only way that a NAG (eg) sized weapon is going to kill a current generation MBT is via an opportunity kill or a change in tactics within a specific environment.
The Singaporeans and Israelis train their anti-tank teams for volley and kill boxes. In general, unless the tank commander is unsupported or a moron, he's not going to put his platform into those geographically challenging locations where he can't have clear return fire.
A lot of comments also ignore MBT doctrine. Tanks in most western doctrine scenarios are supported - so a MANPAT team has to contend with supporting infantry, light armour and/or helo support. The notion that MBT's will be running around like the T-72 out of the film "The Beast" is a bit optimistic.
Iraq is a relevant lesson in the sense that in an urban environment all MANPAT attacks have been opportuntiy, controlled kill box situations - and yet none have succeeded. No MANPAT teams in open warfare have managed to kill a Chally 2 or M1 - and thats been against LOS-perp volley attacks.
You may dont believe 2 Russians but u cant be in doubt in what the western experts say, like Robb McLeod's:Waylander said:
"Essentially, when the penetrator touches the rear plate, the front plate guillotines off the first 5 - 6 cm of the rod. For a round such as the 120 mm M829A1 this represents a loss of about 8% of the total mass. More importantly, the nose is blunted. You would not believe how important that sharp point on the penetrator is. The difference in penetration between an equivalent hyper-sonic spike tipped penetrator and a blunt nose one is at least 20% (to a maximum of around 30%)".
http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/era.html
The last gen western type MBT was intended mainly for defensive role: 2 stop the Russian T-xx before La-Manche. The Russian type designed tanks r pretty good for preventive offensive strikes and oversea operations 'cuz their strategic mobility: they r easy can be transported by Il-76, An-125 transport aircrafts. If u want , say, to clear from a foe arrogant civilization some isolated continent with a lot of deserts and green flatlands, and u don’t want use nuke coz u want to keep it for u, thus for that cannot be more appropriated measure that Russian tanks with full equipment. Good-planed and decisive air-descent operation after foe navy annihilation - is what u really need in that case. Something like the Russians did it against Japanese in Kuril islands.
Yeah, something like 15 000-20 000 T-72's, T-80's and T-90'sKAPITAIN said:
Last edited by a moderator:
with the greatest of respect to the Mcleod plug, but that reference is actually 8 years old. the tests he refers to are almost 10 years old.extern said:
as a contemporary treatise on the value of AT weapons and modern armour, its about as useful as comparing an Oliver Perry Class FFG against an Arleigh Burke DDG.
You do realise that since 1997-98 MANPATs and Armour have undergone 3 and 2 generational changes respectively?
I know of tests done by a Black 7 at Aberdeen which demonstrated that long rod penetrators would not penetrate frontal aspects of an M1 at greater than 1500m - and even then the data won't be published.
No western penetration data is made available - and even M60 penetration tests are still classified.
I was involved with a Leo 1 tank upgrade project in the mid to late 1990's and the data we received from the germans is still classified. I know for a fact that Leo 2 A3 data makes McLeods comments completelyu irrelevant.
why do you think that the brits have moved well away from ERA? ERA is a hail mary solution to a tank attack.
as an example of how misleading this info is:
"When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles.
"Richard M. Ogorkiewicz"
In 1999, an M1 double slotted 2 x T-72's at 1500m flank parked - it also did this through a berm. ie it penetrated the berm, passed through the 1st tank and mobility killed the tank also parked next to it. I can think of a german round used on Leo2' A6s (better guns and ammo IMO) that could make absolute mash of a T72 at up to 4500m. A Black7 is also trained to hit a 1sqm target mobile at 3000m - so the chances of double slotting a tank whilst mobile arre very very achievable. 2 x taps from a current gen 120mm round and no amount of ERA is going to help it.
Last edited:
OK, I cant agree with u more, when u speak about what happing with Abrams when it is hit by the newest amrikkan APFSDS – happing nothing. Unfortunately for Abrams' sometimes they have a deal not with US's rods but with the Russians. However, if u want to see what happing with Abrams, when a Russian (not so new) APFSDS hit Abrams (not necessarily its frontal aspect) look here: http://img311.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1332hi.jpg or here http://img442.imageshack.us/my.php?image=post36571092337836thumb5lp.jpggf0012-aust said:
It's not 10 year old antique pics, its some about 3 y old only.
In addition, the T-72 against APFSDS is not the same like APFSDS against T-72 with Kontact-5 ERA, and T-72 Kontact-5 – pretty inferior 2 T-90C with Kaktus ERA. I hope, u understand the difference… If u want total superiority over the Russians, u better should compare Abrams with T-34. It'll be fully persuasive.
Still, the question of whether T-90's can be penetrated by the Abrams' rods or not is fairly theoretical, coz the most of the Abrams' will be destroyed on the range of 4-5 km by Reflex-M guided munitions. It is especially true on the battle theater that distinguish by multiplicity of marvelous plain landscapes and a lot of 1st class highways…
1)extern said:
You do realise that the 1st picture is an Abrams that was destroyed by a multiple IED? 2) You do realise that Abrams don't have A frames?
3) You do realise that the second shot shows a fractured basket and has nothing to do with a penetration of the turret? That is not a rod kill - and it's not a direct fire kill. Its well documented by ex Iraqi tankers that none of them were able to achieve MBT kills be they terminal or mobility. In addition, thats also the armoured bustle storage area - it's armoured on all aspects so that even if the rounds in the bustle cook off - they don't enter the crew compartment.
4) You do realise its the same tank in both photos, the latter one shows the blast area from the IED prior to being towed away. The 3/4 photo is of the tank after recovery and moved away from the IED blast point.
It would pay to link up to TankNet. There are real tankers on that site and they can explain the pictures for you.
The first photo for years has been presented as rod kill when it's an IED - the explosive effects are different. The tank has also been cannibalised post kill.
Finally - penetrators don't cause that kind of entry hole. Anyone who has done ballistics can tell you that.
It would help you to look at how tanks react when hit by a perpendicular attack and an IED.
Last edited:
OK, I see u want more proofs from me, but still didnt u say, which proofs u want. What kind of hole will persuade u, that it was really APFSDS hit?gf0012-aust said:
Anyway, I want to remamber u, that according to amrikkans thamselves (US Today article), @ least 80 Abrams' was destroyed to the condition of 'not for repairing'. (That despite the US had some fold superiority in numbers of the tanks and aviation) Common sence says that @ least some part of this number was APFSDS hits victims. THe Amrikkan generals dont want sincererlly & fair to clear the picture by explaning us the causes of the Abrams losses, what can I do...
Need alot of faith to believe, the free democratic nations, leaded by their wise politicians, which now feverly buy these wonderful and not overly cheap apparata, have the same total advance in number against laser-equipped PLA T-98 & Indian Arena-equipped T-90M.
I know there was a tank engagement in the first gulf war and the Abrams cleaned up the Iraqi tanks with no loss to themselves but i don,t think there was any major tank confrontation in the second war in 2003.
Note of interest i read an article a while ago about american tank killing units that were engaging tanks with 40mm Automatic genade launchers to force the commanders to get down in the tank and shut the hatch then hitting the tank with a TOW from another vehicle which i thought was pretty sly tactics i think the weapons platforms were Humvees.
Shows how vunerable all MBT are in the modern world there are just so many ways to knock them out.
Note of interest i read an article a while ago about american tank killing units that were engaging tanks with 40mm Automatic genade launchers to force the commanders to get down in the tank and shut the hatch then hitting the tank with a TOW from another vehicle which i thought was pretty sly tactics i think the weapons platforms were Humvees.
Shows how vunerable all MBT are in the modern world there are just so many ways to knock them out.
I'm actually having some trouble understanding what you're saying as you're obviously getting excited at my failure to agree with you.extern said:
- APFSDS does not cause that kind of hole.
- thats the same tank photographed from different angles and in different places. the A frame shot is when its been stopped by an IED (IMO), the 2nd frame is after its been towed away from the primary contact area
- the hole in the lower right front is from a HEAT weapon (look at the blast effects)
- the hole to the rear bussle is a separate event - and it's hit the APU triggering a propellant fire
around that date the US did lose 2 abrams tanks from an ambush in a localised sandstorm from Iraqi rebels with an anti-tank gun mounted on the back of a truck. that attack was at less than 200m - and any tank attacked properly at that range will be compromised.
abrams tanks have double armoured bussles so that any hits to the weapons compartment are minimised and has less opportunity to penetrate the crew compartment.
repeat:
- the damage assessment on that tank does not show any explosive effects caused by a rod penetrator.
- the second strike is more than likely by the US on a follow up. Their policy was and still is to destroy the remains of any tank that has no salvagable parts and to destroy completely any equipment that may assist in determining capability. The policy in the first Gulf War was to seal off the area - and irrespective of the amount of damage tow the remains away. They were assigned combat troops to guard the wreckage so as to stop pilfering. This practice as far as I know is still in place.
- where the tanks can't be recovered, then they let sappers do their job, or in the case of a couple of incidents, they used Mavericks to obliterate the wrecks.
Last edited:
I agree that these pictures show no APFDS hits. They look different. APFDS rounds do not cause holes like that.
You should think about why russian tanks are fitted with active-armor systems and western tanks often not.
Look at the IDF. The Israelis are also very good at constructing active protection systems. Their old tanks (Sherman, M60, captured T-XX) are using active system but their newest tank (Merkava Mk.IV) does not.
That is because ERA, etc. are a good and cheap way to give tanks a better protection, escpecially against ATGMs, but they cannot replace a conventional passive armor.
Even the newest active systems have problems with fast APFSDS rounds and the new ammunition is even faster.
You should think about why russian tanks are fitted with active-armor systems and western tanks often not.
Look at the IDF. The Israelis are also very good at constructing active protection systems. Their old tanks (Sherman, M60, captured T-XX) are using active system but their newest tank (Merkava Mk.IV) does not.
That is because ERA, etc. are a good and cheap way to give tanks a better protection, escpecially against ATGMs, but they cannot replace a conventional passive armor.
Even the newest active systems have problems with fast APFSDS rounds and the new ammunition is even faster.
To end this discussion on whether it was a KE....... well read here
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf
Thanks for this. I've just got an email for a reference within Army Times, so it's timely.Bfn42 said:
Hi, buddies!
To dear gf0012-aust:
If I am look excited, I'm very sorry. However I don’t remember any offensive sentences in my language here, but it still can be my (or ur) 'culture bias'. Anyway, I still confident, that I have no cause to be excited or worried, that cannot be said about those in Abrams, who some day will meet T-90…
What do u call 'explosive effects'? Is u r sure APFSDS doesn’t make any collateral damage? Ur sentence 'APFSDS does not cause that kind of hole'… - OK, WHAT kind of hole cause APFSDS, in ur mean? I'd ask now proofs for it from u. Any picture, ah?... I hope, u will not be 'excited' from my question 'because someone doesn't agree with you'.
steve33,
ur "I didn,t think there were any major tank engagements in the Iraq war it was a non event."…
- If that true, the Iraq Company also cannot be a proof for Abrams superiority. Some posts before somebody here educated us about Abrams that 'double slotted 2 x T-72's at 1500m flank parked', didn’t he? Now emerge, that the Americans, was learned by T-72 in the First Iraq Company, tried to avoid any engagement between Abrams' and T-72. Interesting why & is its avoiding proves the 'superiority' of Abrams over T-72 or vice versa?
Bfn42,
Thank u for excellent post! It was really 'timely'. In the page 10 reading: 'the hole of sabot' i.e. APFSDS (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf ). That is the same picture, that I brought before, and what gf0012-aust call unbelievable 'explosive effect' of the APFSDS is still highly visible. Assume you guys don’t believe to one pity Russian, y don’t u believe to the free democratic analysts??
To dear gf0012-aust:
If I am look excited, I'm very sorry. However I don’t remember any offensive sentences in my language here, but it still can be my (or ur) 'culture bias'. Anyway, I still confident, that I have no cause to be excited or worried, that cannot be said about those in Abrams, who some day will meet T-90…
What do u call 'explosive effects'? Is u r sure APFSDS doesn’t make any collateral damage? Ur sentence 'APFSDS does not cause that kind of hole'… - OK, WHAT kind of hole cause APFSDS, in ur mean? I'd ask now proofs for it from u. Any picture, ah?... I hope, u will not be 'excited' from my question 'because someone doesn't agree with you'.
steve33,
ur "I didn,t think there were any major tank engagements in the Iraq war it was a non event."…
- If that true, the Iraq Company also cannot be a proof for Abrams superiority. Some posts before somebody here educated us about Abrams that 'double slotted 2 x T-72's at 1500m flank parked', didn’t he? Now emerge, that the Americans, was learned by T-72 in the First Iraq Company, tried to avoid any engagement between Abrams' and T-72. Interesting why & is its avoiding proves the 'superiority' of Abrams over T-72 or vice versa?
Bfn42,
Thank u for excellent post! It was really 'timely'. In the page 10 reading: 'the hole of sabot' i.e. APFSDS (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf ). That is the same picture, that I brought before, and what gf0012-aust call unbelievable 'explosive effect' of the APFSDS is still highly visible. Assume you guys don’t believe to one pity Russian, y don’t u believe to the free democratic analysts??
- Status