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

[gf0012-aust]

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…

read the report - don't look at the pictures - read in particular pages 4. 5 and 6

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'.

No, I get concerned when people make excessive claims with no supporting evidence. That tank was rendered inop by mavericks and 25mm AP-du SABOT - not APFSDS. Read the captions on page 10.

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?

Read up on the Battle of 73 Easting and tell me whether M1's avoided T-72's?

Casualties
Iraqi

• 85 Tanks (mostly T-72s with some (T-55)s)
• 40 Infantry Fighting Vehicles (mainly BMP-2s, MTLBs and BRDMs )
• 39 trucks
• 1 ZU-23
• 1,300 prisoners
• unknown KIA and wounded

US

• 1 M1 tank
• 4 M3 Bradleys
• 7 KIA, most due to friendly fire
• 30 wounded, again, most due to friendly fire

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.

Are you refusing to read the text or are you deliberately misunderstanding it? It was a 25mm AP-DU - an american calibre used to render the tank inop prior to recovery. Please take the time to read the document and not look at pictures in isolation.

Assume you guys don’t believe to one pity Russian, y don’t u believe to the free democratic analysts??

nope, I have no problems with russians or their equipment, I do have a problem with the fact that you still aren't comprehending photos and captions accompanied by a proper analysis. That means that parochial nationalism is colouring an opinion in spite of evidence submitted.

 

[KAPITAIN]

May i add that some russian equipment is ahead of the west and yet some still is behind mainly computer technology.

In terms of metalurgy russia is far more advanced in this field than america and remain the only country to have constructed submarines purely from titanium (even the seawolf isnt made of titanium made from HY130 Steel).

The russian's also have some of the best if not thee best anti ship missile's going, the SS-N-19 shipwreck and SS-N-22 Sunburn are larger more powerful and have longer range and autonomus than harpoon or exocet.

i have researched in depth missiles of the russian navy, a trident is smaller than the SS-N-20 SLBM hence why its only carried by typhoons.

As for tanks airforce i dont know much in that field but i will say russian submarines could be classed as more advanced in some respcts especialy in hydrodynamic efficentcy.

 

[Moroz.ru]

...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…

Abrams will never see T-90 and even Kornet ore Khrisantema missiles on a battlefield. Admin: Inapprop comment deleted Please read the rules about posting behaviour and respect towards countries and their militaries.

I hope these right rules would be used to posts claming that “Russia isn’t smart because don’t waste a lot of money for weapon race” too. OK?
According the rules my phrase become to: Respectable American government and US Army management have chosen clever strategy. Every country have become target to intrude is clamed as the “Resident evil” on the “evil axis”. Than the respectable US organizes international siege and bans modern weapon supplying. Countries and companies suspected at one are tough pressed by smart and respectable US. Invasion become assure safe for excellent equipped US Army. American weapon is advertised in CNN live and get proud label “battle proven!” Good and very respectable business. Am I respectful enough?

...yet some still is behind mainly computer technology...

It’s compensated by smart program algorithms

...Russia is... the only country to have constructed submarines purely from titanium.

By the way, the first titanium submarine was called “Golden fish” because this whole project have cost like Russian Moon program. Speed of GF was 44 knots. After tests its surface was polished like mirror, even welds have become seamless (It was not rubbered).

 

[KAPITAIN]

"Golden fish" was also the name given to the Papa class because they were highly expensive, only one Papa was built.

As for needing a "shark skin" the al'fa class was deemed to dive deeper than torpedos so silence wasnt everything the main factor for this submarine was speed only.

In fact in 1990 an american submarine trailing an al'fa lost contact because it could not keep up with it.

Today russia still has active submarines with titanium hulls but they do become expensive to maintain.

The sierra class are the only submarines today that use full titanium hull construction,the cheaper but more effective units the Akula class use steel.

Admin: this is a topic about tanks - subs belong in the navy section.

 

[extern]

gf0012-aust,
I still remain in conclusion that u misinterpret the content of that reference (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf ). The hits of 25mm AP-du SABOT - they determine about another picture on page 7. Those holes are much lesser in their diameter that the hole from APFSDS, - it is seen pretty good on the picture. However, even they have some little surrounded damage, that u call 'explosive effect' for it.

About the picture on the page 10 they probably say the follow (see page 6):

'Fear of vehicle/technology compromise led to decisions to destroy abandoned tanks
Tanks repeatedly shot by friendly fire, however they NEVER catastrophically destroyed the tanks except in one instance
Took one thermite grenade, one sabot in turret ammunition compartment, and two Maverick missiles to finally destroy the tank.'

- Meaning, they don’t doubt if it is APFSDS (on the pic p 10) or not, but still they do think – it is a 'friendly destroying'.

I still think, it is a bit stupid to hit hollow Abrams by sabots for destroying, coz it doesn't destroy tank indeed. But American soldiers still can be stupid, I must say.

Anyway ur claims that on the picture on page 10 there is 'hits of 25mm AP-du SABOT', is still contradicting to ur own claims that sabot hit cannot have an 'explosive effects'. Or u want to say, 25 mm sabot has such effect but 120 mm DU sabot has not? Apropos, if somebody feel my debate is conducted in inappropriate form, should say it to me for free, but I cannot fall silent, when I see a wrong logic.

Second, ur T-72/Abrams casualties numbers have any sense only if clashes between Abrams and T-72 really happen. However, in such case the sabot hit on the turret can pretty be a result of a foe shot. Oh, boy… How I can prove u my rightness? Seems if I bring u a skull of American tank crewman with Russian APFSDS into, u still will claim it is 'friendly destroying of abandoned soldier'.

OK, let make some interesting conclusion about Abrams vulnerability: 25 mm sabots are pretty enough to penetrate Abrams' turret if it does come from different from the frontal direction. Any objection?

Waylander,
ERA is not a 'cheap way'. ERA - is relative expensive way 2 reduce the weight of the tank. It substitute ANY passive armor in 6:1 weight ratio. It is a difference between the 'eastern' tank phylosophy & the 'western' one: the Russians tank designers believe, too havy tank is VERY bad , coz it reduce its tactic and strategic mobility (transport, bridges etc). The western (and Israeli) designers dont think that, coz they expected to fight in Europe or in little Palestine.

Follow picture pretty proves that Abrams has a big problem with the defence from atop attack. ERA assistance should be very relevant here.: http://gspo.ru/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=4317

 

[gf0012-aust]

gf0012-aust,
I still remain in conclusion that u misinterpret the content of that reference (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf ). The hits of 25mm AP-du SABOT - they determine about another picture on page 7. Those holes are much lesser in their diameter that the hole from APFSDS, - it is seen pretty good on the picture. However, even they have some little surrounded damage, that u call 'explosive effect' for it.

About the picture on the page 10 they probably say the follow (see page 6):

'Fear of vehicle/technology compromise led to decisions to destroy abandoned tanks
Tanks repeatedly shot by friendly fire, however they NEVER catastrophically destroyed the tanks except in one instance
Took one thermite grenade, one sabot in turret ammunition compartment, and two Maverick missiles to finally destroy the tank.'

- Meaning, they don’t doubt if it is APFSDS (on the pic p 10) or not, but still they do think – it is a 'friendly destroying'.

what bit don't you understand? the APU is in the bussle. the APU was hit and creates a fuel spillage within the stowage area.

I still think, it is a bit stupid to hit hollow Abrams by sabots for destroying, coz it doesn't destroy tank indeed. But American soldiers still can be stupid, I must say.

errr, because the whole idea of dropping a thermite or equiv inside the tank is to destroy the inside - its actually standard practice. The Russians did the same in Grozny when the Chechyans made a mess of the T-80's in BUA attacks.

Anyway ur claims that on the picture on page 10 there is 'hits of 25mm AP-du SABOT', is still contradicting to ur own claims that sabot hit cannot have an 'explosive effects'. Or u want to say, 25 mm sabot has such effect but 120 mm DU sabot has not? Apropos, if somebody feel my debate is conducted in inappropriate form, should say it to me for free, but I cannot fall silent, when I see a wrong logic.

what M1's have been hit by 125mm sabots (120mm is US/NATO) - did you read the text?

Second, ur T-72/Abrams casualties numbers have any sense only if clashes between Abrams and T-72 really happen. However, in such case the sabot hit on the turret can pretty be a result of a foe shot.

so you disagree with all the historical records on 73 Easting? - well, what has that fgot to do with my comments? Stop being contrary.

Oh, boy… How I can prove u my rightness? Seems if I bring u a skull of American tank crewman with Russian APFSDS into, u still will claim it is 'friendly destroying of abandoned soldier'.

once again, if you have a problem with that PDF then there is nothing I can do to help you. Where is the russian 120mm in an M1?

OK, let make some interesting conclusion about Abrams vulnerability: 25 mm sabots are pretty enough to penetrate Abrams' turret if it does come from different from the frontal direction. Any objection?

In really simple english. when a round detonates inside an ammo compartment, or when a round triggers a secondary response from spillage (such as a compromised APU on the external bussle next to the ammo compartment) its called an assisted shot.

even the russians call it that, where is there any evidence that a 120mm round caused that kill? it was post event destroyed by own forces with twin mavericks.

its is the standard practice to destroy a tank in theatre if it can't be immediately recovered - the russians did the same in Grozny where they got an absolute hiding from the chechyans.

btw, the Abrams is not my preferred tank, but that is academic to this debate.

please make the effort to understand what I'm typing before responding.

 

[steve33]

Some people who are generally not American seem to have an obsession with being able to knock out Abram tanks but the reality is that all these modern tanks can knock each other out it is just a matter of who gets in first.

There was a friendly fire incident in the 2003 invasion of Iraq involving two Challenger tanks in which two crew members lost there lives and there was talk that the Challenger that was hit lost it,s turret and that shows the power of the guns on these tanks.

And there was a big tank battle in the first Iraq war and the Iraqi tanks got wiped out the shells from t-72 were falling short the Abrams could sit out of range and destroy them.

 

[Bfn42]

Very True, friendly fire was very common in the first gulf war.......not as common but still did happen in the second... I actually came across a link to a few instances in the first GW :




http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_tabh.htm

 

[Waylander]

What Steve33 says is totally right. It is not important if the Tank is a Challenger 2, M1A2SEP Abrams, Leclerc T10, Merkava Mk.IV or Leopard IIA6. All of them are able to knock out each other. I have my doubts if the russian 125mm gun is so capable but their new generation of ATGMs definitely is.
It is much more a question of tactics, logistics and support.
In some maneuvers we were killed by half the number of enemy tanks and on other occasions we wiped out a whole company in 10 minutes.

 

[steve33]

Just read on the fox news website a M1A2 Abram was hit by a roadside bomb and lost it tracks and was set on fire but the crew escaped unharmed.

 

[Bfn42]

Why did you post that? that discussion was ended on the last page.......I'm guessing you didnt see what i had posted?



http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm kind of curious as to the purpose of the thread anyway. After all, there are any number of credible US mil sources that even identify where an M1 is vulnerable. Its not as if its a national secret.

I guess some tangos don't read too much

 

[Bfn42]

Amen to that.......and alot of people get all exited and ask if this/that could kill abrams....

 

[steve33]

gf0012-Australia i have been reading plenty about the weak points on the Abram and yeah they are widly available on the net.

The reason i posted it was because i thought it was releavent to the topic,people had been asking what could take out an Abram.

I don,t get excited about what can destroy an Abram because the Abram is just another modern tank no better than anything else and no worse the simple fact is no weapon of war is perfect and can be destroyed.

 

[Bfn42]

Yeah......but that had already been established...on the last page

 

[extern]

gf0012-aust,
About the interpretation of what is written in above document I prefer 2 stop a dispute, 'coz the text is clean and any person here has enough intelligence I hope 2 understand that as well.

About the results of the clashes between the Syrian and Israeli tanks in Lebanon, relible russian sourses (Russian mil specialist and advisers) say about total advance of T-72 over Merkava with minimum loss. HOwever some myth about allegedly 'superiority' of israeli tanks exists in the west as well. The most part of serious analitical materials about the issue exists only in russian. Thus I give u some israeli refference, in russian however, in which some comparizon between the different theories exists: http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/T72myth.htm U can use Babelfish transtation to read it.

 

[nuke_em]

only the chanllenger and the m1a1 or a2 abrams has a special armor that cannot penetratated or it is theorized and it has been proven in Iraq. I think missile can take out the abrams but it is a wonderful tank

 

[LancerMc]

Yes, you are correct a M1 can be taken out by a missile. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, if it was available, a Maverick missile was used to destroy any disabled M1's that could not be recovered or repaired.

 

[Waylander]

Why does always posts like this show up? :teary
@nuke_em (Great Nick )
What do you know exactly about the armor (Materials, thickness) of the other modern tanks: Leopard IIE, Leclerc T10, Merkava Mrk.IV, Type 90, Type 95, etc.?

 

[nuke_em]

Why does always posts like this show up? :teary
@nuke_em (Great Nick )
What do you know exactly about the armor (Materials, thickness) of the other modern tanks: Leopard IIE, Leclerc T10, Merkava Mrk.IV, Type 90, Type 95, etc.?

The Abrams is protected by a type of composite armor (derived from British Chobham armour) formed by multiple layers of steel and ceramics. It may also be fitted with reactive armor if needed (as in the Urban Survival Kit); however, this modification has never actually been performed. Fuel and ammunition are in armored compartments with blow-off covers to reduce the risk of and protect the crew from cooking off if the tank is damaged. Protection against spalling is provided by a Kevlar liner. Beginning in 1988, M1A1 tanks received improved armor packages that incorporated depleted uranium (DU) mesh in their armor at the front of the turret and the front of the hull. Armor thus reinforced offers significantly increased resistance towards all types of anti-tank weaponry, but at the expense of adding considerable weight to the tank. The first M1A1 tanks to receive this upgrade were tanks stationed in Germany, since they were the first line of defense against the Soviet Union. US tankers participating in Operation Desert Storm received an emergency program to upgrade their tanks with depleted uranium armor immediately before the onset of the campaign. M1A2 tanks uniformly incorporate depleted uranium armor, and all M1A1 tanks in active service have been upgraded to this standard as well. The strength of the armor is estimated to be about the same as similar Western, contemporary main battle tanks such as the Leopard 2. The M1A2/M1A1 can survive multiple hits from the most powerful tank munitions (including 120mm depleted uranium APFSDS) and anti-tank missiles.

the chobham armor is what is was talking about. small arms fire nor other tyoe of projectiles can penetrated it. but a missile obviously can.