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

[joeroot]

Ahem, how do you want to throw a grenade down the tube?
That's nothing more than suicide.

well i figure fiber optics camo can be used to sneek around and unless they are outfited with a prox sensor then its suicide

though if you could sneak behind a tank and plant c4 or throw a smoke and do the same couldnt you do it to the front of the tank and close enough to the barrel
if im wrong please tell me i am
but if in hypothetical theory you could sneak that close then why not and then run

 

[Waylander]

Ok, let's first get some things right.

In the open it is close to being impossible to get that close to enemy tank/mech forces.
Tanks don't operate alone. They are used in conjunction with mechanized infantry and most often not in smaller units than company size.
Such a unit is either on the move, engaged in combat or in a position with perimeter defence.

If they are on the move and/or engaged in combat one is not going to sneak close to one. The movement of modern mechanized forces is much too fast and modern optics, TIs and FCS offer much too much situational awareness.
If they are in position one has pickets out which form a perimeter. That can be everything from two dismounts up to an IFV/MBT in a concealed position scanning with optics/TI.

Sich more open terrain orientated missions are still the main focus of tank forces even while urban combat and support missions get more attention due to recent conflicts.

If a tank is engaged in urban combat it is mostly used as a support platform and the infantry performs most of the fighting. And while the tank gives heavy fire support (while maintaining the biggest possible distance) it is screened by friendly infantry.

One might try to sneak into touching distance to a tank and throw some C4 (lots of C4) but it is still suicide.
One might very well loose hundreds if not thousands of own dismounts if one tries that with a well trained and equipped enemy force.

I get the feeling that you get these ideas from games like battlefield 2 or stuff like that...

 

[joeroot]

Ok, let's first get some things right.

In the open it is close to being impossible to get that close to enemy tank/mech forces.
Tanks don't operate alone. They are used in conjunction with mechanized infantry and most often not in smaller units than company size.
Such a unit is either on the move, engaged in combat or in a position with perimeter defence.

If they are on the move and/or engaged in combat one is not going to sneak close to one. The movement of modern mechanized forces is much too fast and modern optics, TIs and FCS offer much too much situational awareness.
If they are in position one has pickets out which form a perimeter. That can be everything from two dismounts up to an IFV/MBT in a concealed position scanning with optics/TI.

Sich more open terrain orientated missions are still the main focus of tank forces even while urban combat and support missions get more attention due to recent conflicts.

If a tank is engaged in urban combat it is mostly used as a support platform and the infantry performs most of the fighting. And while the tank gives heavy fire support (while maintaining the biggest possible distance) it is screened by friendly infantry.

One might try to sneak into touching distance to a tank and throw some C4 (lots of C4) but it is still suicide.
One might very well loose hundreds if not thousands of own dismounts if one tries that with a well trained and equipped enemy force.

I get the feeling that you get these ideas from games like battlefield 2 or stuff like that...

well i dont exactly get it from a game but my own thought and thanks for the info by the way
i thought about how to take out a tank based on its armor, weapon, range, and supporting units

granted with infantry on foot you probably couldnt get close but at the same time in the open you cant use much except a javelin or tow even then if your spotted either your shot up or your blowen up depending on the size unit and urban it would all depend on location of troops

if a tank is being used as a support unit like cover fire or just simply to secure an area after a battle or ambush helping troops orginize and covering them

though i figure it would be better now at this point since nbc and a grenade down the barrel wont work
plant a whole lot of c4 in one area and have a remote detinator and hope the bomb isnt seen and doesnt go off befor trigger is pulled

 

[Waylander]

That's defenitely possible and is done by irregular as well as regular troops.

One might also use a couple of artillery rounds or even a iron bomb buried in the sewerage.
Especially combat engineers seem to have heads which are only filled with thousands of ideas of how to harm the enemy with their toys.

 

[Firn]

Well there is nothing new in that. In WWII the Western allies learned it the hard way that booby traps, mines and all sort of explosives could be almost anything and be anywhere. The key difference between placing a well rigged explosive in a promising location and throwing it on a tanks is one between your live and your death.

 

[joeroot]

Well there is nothing new in that. In WWII the Western allies learned it the hard way that booby traps, mines and all sort of explosives could be almost anything and be anywhere. The key difference between placing a well rigged explosive in a promising location and throwing it on a tanks is one between your live and your death.

well yea true

 

[Waylander]

I really wonder what drives a man to posting a dozen nonsense posts in a forum where he has never been before?

Do such people have too much freetime and a boring life?

 

[Mobius 1]

well i dont exactly get it from a game but my own thought and thanks for the info by the way
i thought about how to take out a tank based on its armor, weapon, range, and supporting units

granted with infantry on foot you probably couldnt get close but at the same time in the open you cant use much except a javelin or tow even then if your spotted either your shot up or your blowen up depending on the size unit and urban it would all depend on location of troops

if a tank is being used as a support unit like cover fire or just simply to secure an area after a battle or ambush helping troops orginize and covering them

though i figure it would be better now at this point since nbc and a grenade down the barrel wont work
plant a whole lot of c4 in one area and have a remote detinator and hope the bomb isnt seen and doesnt go off befor trigger is pulled

US army tank doctrine is to use tanks to assist infantry in attack, in exploting breakthroughs, and as and armored force that engages in tank on tank battles but still is supported by infanty. The tank as it is used by the US Army is used as a tool for infantry to use, mush as an airstike or artillery. However, it has been shown that an ied that is strong enough i.e: four or five 155mm arty shells should have enogh explosive force to destroy any tank no matter how good the armor. Use of a shaped charge explosive mine can and will penetrate the bottom armor of a tank as well. So if you were going to attack and armored convoy, use heavy AT mines.

 

[DavidDCM]

It's rather the other way round. If the terrain doesn't dictate otherwise, it's the tanks who take the lead.

 

[Mobius 1]

In general, the US army uses reconnasance before the tanks advance. However, in most armys trained by the USSR's doctrine, yes the tanks move foward supported by the apcs and infantry after. At Ft Irwin, Califonia, opfor demostrates that reconnasance is necessary, and, whoever wins the reconnasance battle, wins.

 

[DavidDCM]

Reconassaince can also be conducted by non-infantry units like UAV's, planes, recce vehicles, and last but not least, by tanks themselves. The use of tanks does not always necessitate the use of infantry.

 

[kato]

You forgot helos. The principal method for the US Army for area/zone/route reconnaissance in front of an armour spearhead, and one each ACRs used to have about 40 scout and attack helos for.

 

[plasmahawk]

Does a Koronet E - and other ATGM type missles have a better penetration at shorter ranges than longer? Ie at end of its flight, 4km, say... will a missle do less damage than at 1 or 2 or 3? Less fuel inside to burn up etc?

Thanks!
Plasma
In mother russia the forum trolls you!

 

[Mobius 1]

You forgot helos. The principal method for the US Army for area/zone/route reconnaissance in front of an armour spearhead, and one each ACRs used to have about 40 scout and attack helos for.

Exactly

Does a Koronet E - and other ATGM type missles have a better penetration at shorter ranges than longer? Ie at end of its flight, 4km, say... will a missle do less damage than at 1 or 2 or 3? Less fuel inside to burn up etc?

Thanks!
Plasma
In mother russia the forum trolls you!

No, that is only true with projectile weapons because they have more energy to input into the tank and higher penetration capability results. a missile will penetrate the same amount of armor all the time

 

[Waylander]

Don't forget that they US Army is canning their last heavy ARC and convert it into a Stryker Brigade Combat Team. The idea of heavy armored cavalry is dead in the US for now and one may say that the Stryker brigades now carry the cavalry heritage (Would also be a much better name for them than just naming them after a vehicle...).

The air group of the 3rd ARC is going to from the core of a new air "insert right designation" brigade.

I expect UAVs to play an even bigger role in the US when it comes to reconnaissance while taking away some of the responsibilities of the army rotary wing assets allowing them to be used for other tasks.

And as David already said the US is not different than many other countries in that it uses heavy brigade combat teams for the breakthrough and exploitation. That is when terrain allows for a certain degree of mobile operations.
Apart from operations in urban and heavy terrain the US doesn't use tanks as an infantry support asset. One might say that the Stryker MGS is such a vehicle.

 

[eckherl]

Don't forget that they US Army is canning their last heavy ARC and convert it into a Stryker Brigade Combat Team. The idea of heavy armored cavalry is dead in the US for now and one may say that the Stryker brigades now carry the cavalry heritage (Would also be a much better name for them than just naming them after a vehicle...).

The air group of the 3rd ARC is going to from the core of a new air "insert right designation" brigade.

I expect UAVs to play an even bigger role in the US when it comes to reconnaissance while taking away some of the responsibilities of the army rotary wing assets allowing them to be used for other tasks.

And as David already said the US is not different than many other countries in that it uses heavy brigade combat teams for the breakthrough and exploitation. That is when terrain allows for a certain degree of mobile operations.
Apart from operations in urban and heavy terrain the US doesn't use tanks as an infantry support asset. One might say that the Stryker MGS is such a vehicle.

You just may see at least one heavy stay around, but the U.S Army did place another order for a additional estimated 340 Strykers, this will be added to the over 2900 already in place.

 

[PREDATOR]

i did not go through all of the posts here...but i noticed people talking like how T72 would fight with M1... and the thing is IT DEPENDS ON CREW OF T72. If T72 is operated by some primitive silly guerillas or iraqi soldiers or anyone else..and it of cuz will fail...(taking also in account that they dont have air support as well) then of cuz T72 will be destroyed....but that would be wrong to think that T72 is not a serious opponent to Abrams.

If u'd try to use Abrams against russian tank forces i'm 100% sure the result will be quite different. thats it.

 

[Waylander]

You just may see at least one heavy stay around, but the U.S Army did place another order for a additional estimated 340 Strykers, this will be added to the over 2900 already in place.

I thought I have read that the 3rd ACR is going to be converted.
Wasn't it the last heavy ACR in the US Army?

 

[eckherl]

I thought I have read that the 3rd ACR is going to be converted.
Wasn't it the last heavy ACR in the US Army?

Which is the initial plan but that could change or we may resurrect a new unit with strictly heavy punch assets. We shall see.

 

[eckherl]

i did not go through all of the posts here...but i noticed people talking like how T72 would fight with M1... and the thing is IT DEPENDS ON CREW OF T72. If T72 is operated by some primitive silly guerillas or iraqi soldiers or anyone else..and it of cuz will fail...(taking also in account that they dont have air support as well) then of cuz T72 will be destroyed....but that would be wrong to think that T72 is not a serious opponent to Abrams.

If u'd try to use Abrams against russian tank forces i'm 100% sure the result will be quite different. thats it.

How are you 100% sure, can you elaborate a little more please, you sound like you have a vast amount of experience inregards to Russian T series armor and I would like to hear it.