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

[eckherl]

I'm not sure JP223 actually "fires" the submunitions though. Could be that they're just gravity-dropped out of the opened chutes of the dispenser?
(with the two settable dispension patterns achieved by altering the "opening pattern")

MW-1 uses pyrotechnic charges to actually "launch" the submunitions to the sides, grenade-launcher style.
The sideways launching of course allows the aircraft to fly even lower in an attack run.

YouTube - Tornado GR1/IDS tribute
JP223 at 3:40, MW-1 at 3:46. Note that that's in slow motion.


We used the regular Tornado and F-16 overflights over our base for AA MG training with blank ammo
Well, not at treetop level, but at around 200 feet above the base - since we were on a mountain, and they were regularly coming in at about 2000 feet above the plains below.

Did you have to aim at least a full football field in length to the front of them. We used to call it pray and spray.

 

[kato]

you realize that

a) a tank won't spot humans by infrared, but by optics usually
b) the tank, unless in close quarters, would spot a human before it comes anywhere nearby
c) a tank turret can turn at 60 degrees per second
d) there's a MG on top of the turret that has a 360-degree fire arc
e) using the main gun on a single human is a waste, that's what a tank carries MGs for

Oh, and throwing a grenade into the barrel, if you can even do that, will only result in the barrel being damaged. Remember that that barrel is over 5 meters long (and you can't really throw the grenade down there with enough force, it's a rather tight affair). Even if you somehow get it down to the chamber, unless the breech block is open there won't be any harm to the crew. With ammo already loaded into the chamber, it depends on the ammo type - APFSDS will result in about zero damage outside the breech, with MP/HEAT-type ammo it depends.

As for hatches, those are supposed to be closed under battle conditions anyway. No more WW2-style throwing-it-through-the-viewslit either, since those have been replaced by fixed optical periscope blocks since the 60s.

Doesn't mean that "close combat" anti-tank infantry tactics aren't still somewhat valid. German infantry trained using pre-fabbed molotovs and hand grenades on tanks as last-ditch tactics (when you run out of anything else...) in the early 90s still - then again the same infantry would have had an expected average war survival time measured in minutes.
Sure, if you accept 80% losses, it's doable. Otherwise, I wouldn't recommend it.

 

[Yasin20]

ok then so they have new scopes what if there was a sniper to shoot at there scopes disableing there view of the battle field same for the driver first then go for the kill but in a urben area only im not saying todays war where they get killed i get the scopes thing but what if sniper were to shoot at it to disable its view of its enemy around it then a nother soldier comes up to throw it

 

[kato]

Did you have to aim at least a full football field in length to the front of them. We used to call it pray and spray.

The MG3 actually has a AA sight for this purpose. Aim through it by canting the weapon to the side, and you'll automatically get the necessary lead ... in theory

Of course that AA sight was from WW2 times, and basically had a setting for "slow prop plane" and "fast prop plane"... nfloorl:

 

[eckherl]

The MG3 actually has a AA sight for this purpose. Aim through it by canting the weapon to the side, and you'll automatically get the necessary lead ... in theory

Of course that AA sight was from WW2 times, and basically had a setting for "slow prop plane" and "fast prop plane"... nfloorl:

That is why I used to tell my tank platoons to fire and seek immediate shelter ie: trees or structures if terrian permiting. The chance of shooting down a fast mover or a attack helicopter with crew served weapons gave you a slim chance. Also the only time that we would engage is if they were sizing us up for a kill, other than that leave them alone and report it to higher command that they are in the area and where they are possibly heading.

 

[DavidDCM]

ok then so they have new scopes what if there was a sniper to shoot at there scopes disableing there view of the battle field same for the driver first then go for the kill but in a urben area only im not saying todays war where they get killed i get the scopes thing but what if sniper were to shoot at it to disable its view of its enemy around it then a nother soldier comes up to throw it

Even in an urban scenario, where it would even be possible under very special circumstances to hit a tank's sights it would be suicidal. Because if you are the sniper, in order to see the sight, you'll have to get in straight line with it. And if you see the sight, then the sight sees you. And when this happens your life is not much worth anymore.

By the way, please use proper punctuation, your posts are awfully difficult to understand.

@kato: Hope I didn't misunderstand you, but whenever possible the gunner uses his thermal imager as the preferred method of sighting. It's perfectly possible to spot humans with it.

 

[Yasin20]

i gess theres no other way by just useing an anti tank rocket well i gess i got all my question's answerd

 

[Waylander]

Thanks Kato for the video. It explained very well the differences between JP-223 and MW-1.

During all this talking about trying to throw a grenade into a tank I have one image in my head.
Just imagine one lonely guy jumping out of the bush and starting to run like crazy in order to catch the armored wedge doing an attack by fire on the open field in front of him. nfloorl:

 

[wittmanace]

on a sort of related note, i read that some of the highest rates of attrition/ most dangerous job in the IDF has historically been that of the tank commander, in part due to the practice of commanding with the commander out of the hatch. this apparantly caused alot of decapitations, from blasts. so even an arty miss takes out the commander. im not sure if this is still the case, as this was in an osprey book on the 1973 war. anyone know if this is still an israeli practice in armoured warfare (obviously different in the occupied territories.)? notably the book also makes a reference to a specific commander later in the book, whereby the effect of the decapitated body dropping into the tank and the blood meant that the crew abandoned the tank and it was out of action. iirc this was from the 188 barak brigade, on the northern front of course.

 

[eckherl]

on a sort of related note, i read that some of the highest rates of attrition/ most dangerous job in the IDF has historically been that of the tank commander, in part due to the practice of commanding with the commander out of the hatch. this apparantly caused alot of decapitations, from blasts. so even an arty miss takes out the commander. im not sure if this is still the case, as this was in an osprey book on the 1973 war. anyone know if this is still an israeli practice in armoured warfare (obviously different in the occupied territories.)? notably the book also makes a reference to a specific commander later in the book, whereby the effect of the decapitated body dropping into the tank and the blood meant that the crew abandoned the tank and it was out of action. iirc this was from the 188 barak brigade, on the northern front of course.

Yes it can be a dangerous job, you still have tank commanders, tank plt leaders and company commanders that will fight their units or tanks while exposed, it makes them feel like that they can get a better picture of the battle especially during the movement to contact phase,you have special formations that you would move your units in ie: combat wedge, death bell, herring bone and over watch just to name a few, it takes alot of practice to move your units fully exposed let alone buttoned up. With modern FCS, land navigation devices and countermeasure devices it does make the job fighting in the buttoned up mode a whole lot better especially with the flatscreen sighting systems, they tend to eliminate the tunnel vision syndrome. I would also like to add that it is not only artillery barrages that a tank crew needs to be concerned with but that pesky sniper can be a major pain also, the standard norm when taking indirect fire is to button up, this is what most tank crews train to do because of two reasons, shrapnel and possible chemicals.

 

[erik]

If you had to ask me, maybe a Leopard II, Challenger II, or a T-90, but other than that... Except maybe a few anti-tank rounds... Really nothing...

Do you think a chinese type 99 culd have a good chans to knck it aut ??

 

[erik]

If you had to ask me, maybe a Leopard II, Challenger II, or a T-90, but other than that... Except maybe a few anti-tank rounds... Really nothing...

a type 99 perhaps

 

[Falstaff]

Thanks Kato for the video. It explained very well the differences between JP-223 and MW-1.

During all this talking about trying to throw a grenade into a tank I have one image in my head.
Just imagine one lonely guy jumping out of the bush and starting to run like crazy in order to catch the armored wedge doing an attack by fire on the open field in front of him. nfloorl:

The picture that comes to my mind is the one of me sitting in a Bundeswehr lecture room viewing 20+ year old slides showing a brave German soldier standing on the roof of a destroyed building throwing a molotov on the top of a T-55 And don't forget, you have to hit the vents... Pesonally I wouldn't mess with a MBT without proper equipment.

 

[Waylander]

At least one should be prepared to attack tanks with improvised material but as it has been said already this is only a last chance.

I can only recommend the old Wehrmacht training movie "Männer gegen Panzer" (Just search on youtube, it's divided into three parts). Very interesting movie about close combat of infantry vs tanks during WWII.
It even comes with attached english subtitles.

 

[Falstaff]

Very interesting stuff indeed, although today you would have to show a "Smoking kills" sign before and after the movie
Would be interesting to see how such a movie would look like today. Seems the means have evolved but are still the same as today: Grenades, panzerfaust, mines, smoke grenades and anti-tank guns. One thing that instantly comes to my mind is that probably today's MBTs are much more mobile and probably won't stop so gently so that you can conveniently attach a hollow charge to it.

BTW, would a molotov on the vents have impact on a modern tank at all?

 

[ROCK45]

Rockets

Do unguided rockets such as S-8 types have much effect on main battle type? I assume not against the front armor but could a volley from the side or top do damage?

Thanks


The S-8 system is the main caliber weapon in the class of unguided aircraft rockets and can solve a variety of aircraft missions.

The following types of S-8 rockets are operational today:

* S-8KOM with HEAT fragmentation warhead;
* S-8BM with concrete-piercing (penetrating) warhead;
* S-8DM with fuel-air explosive warhead;
* S-8-OM with illuminating warhead;
* S-8PM with chaff warhead.

http://www.rbs.ru/vttv/99/firms/applphys/e-s8.htm

 

[Awang se]

have you heard? an RPG-29 was claimed to penetrated a frontal armor of a Challenger 2 MBT!! note "frontal", not side or rear but front, the best protected part of any tanks. the thing went through an ERA protected frontal glacis armor of the tank and kill it's driver, Trooper Sean Chance.

 

[ROCK45]

Rpg-29

I didn't know that bit of information dealing with ground warfare topics I'm very much a newbie. I follow mainly aviation related items I only just started following this topic. I'll look up RPG-29, thanks

 

[Falstaff]

have you heard? an RPG-29 was claimed to penetrated a frontal armor of a Challenger 2 MBT!! note "frontal", not side or rear but front, the best protected part of any tanks. the thing went through an ERA protected frontal glacis armor of the tank and kill it's driver, Trooper Sean Chance.

It didn't kill him, he lost one of his feet (as can be read here). According to the article, the ERA somehow failed, but it remains unclear whether it simply didn't work or wasn't effective enough. Perhaps one of the pros here knows more about the incident. Eckherl?

 

[ROCK45]

I found these

I found these pretty quickly the first article is interesting and I see that this weapons is very dangerous. Worse it seems cheap and basically coming from Syria blocking shipments would be useful if possible. I realized that blocking weapons of this size is very difficult and can come from many sources.

RPRPG-29: The Great Equalizer
At the beginning of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, the main Israeli concern was a report that Hezbollah possessed Russian Kornet antitank missiles. However, it has been the RPG-29 that is stolen the show. These man-portable lightweight weapons are powerful enough to destroy the Merkava tank, which is reputed to be the most thoroughly armored tank in the world. According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Hezbollah acquired significant numbers of the RPG-29 from Syria, and the weapon has been a major source of Israeli casualties in the conflict.
The RPG-29 Vampir with the tandem HEAT (high explosive anti-tank) PG-29V tandem charge warhead was developed by Russia in the late 1980s in response to the development of tanks having explosive reactive armor. The weapon is designed to actuate explosive armor with a first shaped charge, while a second charge is reserved to penetrate the tank's hull. The Soviet army received the RPG-29 in 1989. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, these weapons could be found in almost all of the former Warsaw Pact nations.
The strategic importance of the dramatic battlefield effectiveness of the RPG-29 cannot be underestimated. The Iraqi resistance has not had access to significant quantities of RPG-29s because they were not readily available in the international weapons market until after post-Gulf War sanctions were applied to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. However, Syria and Iran possess large inventories of these weapons. Certainly, the Pentagon must be taking note of the effectiveness of these weapons against the Israeli forces in south Lebanon when considering the possibility of a military confrontation with Iran or Syria. In fact, the calculus of occupying any potentially hostile country has been significantly shifted. If the occupying forces can no longer rely on armored vehicles to engage militants or to travel, the price of occupation in terms of casualties will be much greater. This necessarily impacts countries like the United States and Israel more than it would countries that place a lesser value on the lives of their soldiers. In other words, the unexpected effectiveness of the RPG-29 is a severe blow to the West. It is the great equalizer. For $500 per launcher and $250 per missile round, a militant group can purchase a light, mobile weapon that is easy to conceal and that can reliably destroy a main battle tank that costs millions of dollars.
The long-term implications for Israel are even more significant. If

Link to full story
http://searchingforthetruth.typepad.com/searching_for_the_truth/2006/08/rpg29_the_great.html

Other links I found
RPG-29 antitank grenade launcher (USSR / Russia)
http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl04-e.htm

New RPG-29 and RPG-27
http://www.strategypage.com/military_photos/2004614.aspx