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

[gf0012-aust]

There is some rumours in Indonesian newspaper some months ago that Indonesia Armed Forces will be given some of old Leo from Australia (i try to find some link about this but i can't remember where i read the news, sorry).
I think it just purely a rumour, maybe GF and Aussie Digger had a better information about this.

Not sure about whats happening to the Leo's. Some of them are heavily fatigued - so I'm not sure we'd give Indonesia gear thats a bit too worn out.

I know that Indonesia has asked for any Freemantle Class patrol boats that we dispose of, but again, the Navy has indicated that they are heavily used and that they could be almost regarded as unseaworthy.

The RAN is in in the process of helping the IN redesign a green water ORBAT at the Indonesian Govts request. That means we could possibly build some patrol boats as a gift in military aid.

In the past we've given Indonesia Sabres, Nomads, Hercules (re-transfers), Attack class patrol boats etc....

[knightrider4]

I'm pretty sure that Uncle Sam used willie p in fallujha (Iraq). The info can be found on globalsecuriy.org.

[Aussie Digger]

Not sure about whats happening to the Leo's. Some of them are heavily fatigued - so I'm not sure we'd give Indonesia gear thats a bit too worn out.

I know that Indonesia has asked for any Freemantle Class patrol boats that we dispose of, but again, the Navy has indicated that they are heavily used and that they could be almost regarded as unseaworthy.

The RAN is in in the process of helping the IN redesign a green water ORBAT at the Indonesian Govts request. That means we could possibly build some patrol boats as a gift in military aid.

In the past we've given Indonesia Sabres, Nomads, Hercules (re-transfers), Attack class patrol boats etc....

I seriously doubt the Government could afford to give Indonesia our leo's. The political uproar would be enormous. Patrol boats, Nomads etc are fine. They possesses very little ability to be used against "insurgents". Leopard tanks OTOH...

The media would be screaming about Indonesia (and probably Kopassus, as that's Indonesia's only military unit apparently) using "our" tanks against Indonesian subjects. There'd be quite a "hugh and cry" over this I'd imagine.

But we'll see soon enough. Our first Squadron of M1A1's will arrive this year...

[ThunderBolt]

actually, the US, China and Russia use depleted uranium rounds.

where have the US used Phosphorous rounds in the last 25 years?

no not phosphorous rounds phosphorous gerenades.

[pasukangeraktjepat]

I seriously doubt the Government could afford to give Indonesia our leo's. The political uproar would be enormous. Patrol boats, Nomads etc are fine. They possesses very little ability to be used against "insurgents". Leopard tanks OTOH....
You're right, in some of the latest news about Indonesian Armed Forces proposal to buy a new tank it was indicated that we may buy a new tank from Poland (Like Malaysia did).
We may buy a new tank around 2007.

[Matt]

I'm sure that a BRITISH Challenger II could wipe out a Abrams any day!!:)

Plus the fact that our tank crews are the best in the world.:)

Just a shame that the govt have just scrapped 80 of them.:mad:

[oskarm]

You're right, in some of the latest news about Indonesian Armed Forces proposal to buy a new tank it was indicated that we may buy a new tank from Poland (Like Malaysia did).
We may buy a new tank around 2007.

Can you give a source of this info and some more specific information about it?

[Rich]

I'm sure that a BRITISH Challenger II could wipe out a Abrams any day!!:)

Plus the fact that our tank crews are the best in the world.:)

Just a shame that the govt have just scrapped 80 of them.:mad:

Hello to the group. Ive heard glowing reports about Brit tankers from Yank M1 crews for decades. Germans and their Leopards too. Happily we wont ever be fighting our British allies. Besides an enemy doesnt just get hit with the Abrahms. They get the entire air,land,sea juggernaught landing on top of them.

[Berserk Fury]

I haven't read through all 11 pages...so I dunno if I'm repeating anything hear but have you guys considered AT mines?
M1's don't have that much armor under it, or so I think.

[gf0012-aust]

I haven't read through all 11 pages...so I dunno if I'm repeating anything hear but have you guys considered AT mines?
M1's don't have that much armor under it, or so I think.

Abrams have survived multiple IEDs - and single, let alone multiple IEDs are usually higher in yield than mines.

[Pathfinder-X]

Abrams have survived multiple IEDs - and single, let alone multiple IEDs are usually higher in yield than mines.
As far as I'm concerned, those Abrams are either disabled or beyond repair. The most effective way of taking out a tank would be from the top, since the armour is horribly thin in that area compared to the rest of the tank. The top-attack munitions are the way of the future.

[Berserk Fury]

But it's expensive to research the tech and to create the actual weapon vs. IED's and AT mines which are cheap and easy to make.

[Waylander]

But except of Guerilla warfare you never use mines and IEDs without a security force of some kind. For example infantry or IFVs with ATGMs
You cannot compare an AT-mine to a new ATGM. They have very different types of missions.

[Berserk Fury]

Of course you can't compare those two...mission-wise...
you can't even compare the pricetags on each of them
Countries who aren't military powerful/wealthy and need help in repelling attacks from larger countries with more firepower want a cheap mass-produceable weapon rather than a state of the art ATGM which would be produced in very limited quantities compared with IEDs or AT mines and use up far more resources and take up far more time in production and have a slightly higher error rate/ % fail ratio.
That was a long sentence lol

[Waylander]

Thats right, if you look at the situation in Iraq.
But as I said mines and IEDs alone without good AT-Weapons are relatively useless if your country is under a full scale attack.
When you're in the situation to use them effectively like in Iraq your country has already been overrun and you fight a guerilla war.

[wittmanace]

this article is very interesting:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-03-29-abrams-tank-a_x.htm


it suggests rpg casn be effective in certain situation against the abrams......notably the engine is identified as a weak area particularly from above of course

[psyclops]

Sure an RPG is effective against some parts of an Abrams; even the basic PG-7V warhead can penetrate some 330mm of RHA. The PG-7VL can go through 600mm, and the PG-7VR does 600mm behind ERA. It seems to be easier to make a warhead that can go through thick armor than to make armor to stand up to such warheads. Part of the back-and-forth of the arms race, I guess. Anyway, there are always weak spots. I saw a set of pictures on another forum of an RPG penetration of an Abrams turret. It didn't do much of anything on the inside, even though it penetrated right by the gunner's face. Gave the gunner some minor shrapnel wounds, didn't sound like enough to send him anywhere but the battalion medic, and aside from a few scorch marks didn't look like it did much to the equipment inside, either. Penetration and damage are two different things, especially when the thickness of the armor is right at the edge of a warhead's penetration range.

[Waylander]

With spall liners becoming more and more a part of MBTs it is even harder to penetrate a tank AND do serious damage to the crew or equipment inside.

[Moroz.ru]

... don't forget, that the sensors and fire control was still good enough to kill T 72's at ranges where the T 72 could not even see the Abrams, and those were the earleir model Abrams, not the recent more potent variant.

T-72? Why you didn't choose T-34 for demonstrating Abrams superiority?
T-90 has laser guided self-propelled warheads 9M119 shot by cannon. It range is 100 to 5000m. Ore AT-11 (to 4000m). Shooting frequency is 7-8 per minute.
Photo of T-90 jump:
http://tank-t-90.narod.ru/photo_tank/photo-t90-03.html

[Waylander]

Why is everybody so fixed on big ranges?
Do you know how small a tank is at 5000m (Even with new optics)?
And despite the fighting in deserts it is really hard just to get a look at your enemy at 5km. And when the enemy tank is maneuvering you have to have very much luck to hit him.
The 9M119 is able to penetrate 650mm-750mm RHA. That is not nearly enough to get into a M1A2, Leopard IIA6, Merkava Mrk.IV or Leclerc T10.
And what does a photo of a jumping Tank has to do with the killing capability?
I've got plenty pics of jumping tanks, but that's a question of maneuverability.

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/6259/sileoiia42ae.th.jpg (http://img149.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sileoiia42ae.jpg)

[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:
http://img366.imageshack.us/img366/7476/m3a1eraklein3gd.th.jpg (http://img366.imageshack.us/my.php?image=m3a1eraklein3gd.jpg)
PzH 2000:
http://img477.imageshack.us/img477/7721/pzh2000mitreaktivpanzerung6md.th.jpg (http://img477.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pzh2000mitreaktivpanzerung6md.jpg)
Sabra:
http://img455.imageshack.us/img455/5344/isrsabra2ar.th.png (http://img455.imageshack.us/my.php?image=isrsabra2ar.png)


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...:D

[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]

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: http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/459/r23670964760ja.jpg (http://imageshack.us) http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/8495/2099kh.jpg (http://imageshack.us) http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/6145/art206320624xi.jpg (http://imageshack.us) http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/4757/oihy524tl.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[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.

[KAPITAIN]

Ive seen ones where they have fired missiles at challengers and its none next to no damage.

[Waylander]

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.

[agni 2]

:soldier 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.
sorry but my comment should been like thic can it do destroy abrahm and what about merkava tanks:( :( :(

[extern]

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.

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'.

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

[KAPITAIN]

The russian's use the T-90 now dont they?

[Waylander]

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.

[gf0012-aust]

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.

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.

[extern]

...
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.
You may dont believe 2 Russians but u cant be in doubt in what the western experts say, like Robb McLeod's:

"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.

The russian's use the T-90 now dont they?Yeah, something like 15 000-20 000 T-72's, T-80's and T-90's

[gf0012-aust]

You may dont believe 2 Russians but u cant be in doubt in what the western experts say, like Robb McLeod's:

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.

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.

[extern]

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.

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.jpg
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…

[gf0012-aust]

It's not 10 year old antique pics, its some about 3 y old only.

1) ;) 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.

[extern]

...
Finally - penetrators don't cause that kind of entry hole. Anyone who has done ballistics can tell you that.
.
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?

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.

[steve33]

I didn,t think there were any major tank engagements in the Iraq war it was a non event.

[KAPITAIN]

There must have been some i mean there was Scuds fired right at the start.

[steve33]

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.

[gf0012-aust]

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?

I'm actually having some trouble understanding what you're saying as you're obviously getting excited at my failure to agree with you.


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 fireand for the record, I'm not saying that M1's are "invincible" - what I'm saying that damage assessment shows that its not been caused in any way by the weapons you're suggesting.

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.btw, calm down a little - getting over excited just because someone doesn't agree with you does nothing to further yuour argument.

[Waylander]

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.

[Bfn42]

To end this discussion on whether it was a KE....... well read here



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

[gf0012-aust]

To end this discussion on whether it was a KE....... well read here



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.

[extern]

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??

[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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72) with some (T-55)s)
40 Infantry Fighting Vehicles (mainly BMP-2s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP-2), MTLBs and BRDMs )
39 trucks
1 ZU-23
1,300 prisoners
unknown KIA and woundedUS

1 M1 tank
4 M3 Bradleys
7 KIA, most due to friendly fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire)
30 wounded, again, most due to friendly fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 :rolleyes: )
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 :rolleyes: )
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.

[Waylander]

Thats not an answer to my question.
Lets quote:
"only the chanllenger and the m1a1 or a2 abrams has a special armor that cannot penetratated..."
Now my question again:
What do you know about the armor of other tanks. For example the german and french armor is not Chobham. It is self developed. Does this makes it inferior to Chobham?

Another quote:
"The M1A2/M1A1 can survive multiple hits from the most powerful tank munitions (including 120mm depleted uranium APFSDS) and anti-tank missiles."

Were does this comes from? When has the Abrams ever been attacked by state of the art AT-missiles or for example a tank with L/55 main gun and modern DM53/63 ammo. In the latest tests with the Chall 2 they found out that the L/55 is able to penetrate round about 30% more RHA than the British L30 with DU-Rounds.

[Red aRRow]

I think the M1/A2SEP's (System Enhancement Package) side armour is less than 1/2 inch think around the turret basket..so I'm guessing it won't withstand a sabot shot from close or relatively close range in that area.
Also the rear has no armour and the radiators are 'protected' by 1/2 inch steel slates with spaces in b/w them. A hit there will definitely puncture the radiator.

So just like most of the tanks..the weak areas are at the rear and to the sides.

[Waylander]

That's right. Some people from another Tank Btl told me that during an exercise there engine section has been penetrated by a KE-Üb (practicing ammo) through frindly fire from behind. I don't want to sit in a tank that is hit there by normal ammo.

[tatra]

Even an AP HMG round may penetrate the engine louvres at the rear of the M1 series. Unlikely to kill it, but still.

[Bfn42]

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.




Your not paying attention to any of my posts are gfaust for that matter. It took ONE SABOT ROUND, ONE THERMITE(sp?) GRENADE, AND TWO, YES TWO MAVERICK MISSLES. Now here's a few interesting links, one i have posted twice, the other hasn't.


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







http://www.usafatoday.com/Folklore/modules/news/index.php?storytopic=53

[Waylander]

Another question is if you can compare this "safety kill" with a real combat situation.
Maybe the crew of the M1 would had been already dead before the the second missile was used for example. Those Maveriks, the thermit grenade and the Sabot round were used to make the M1 totally unusefull (Is this the right word?) for the enemy.
In a real combat situation the M1 maybe hit by a modern ATGM and is ready to go again after some minor repairs except the fact that the crew has been killed.

[shrub]

tank v tank battles r useless because it defeats th purpose of having tanks wich is to take out the infantry
wich is funny cos the easiest way to take out a tank is to just get th infantry to walk up and chuck some c4 under it
it doesnt matter how thick the armour is on the front and sides cos theres none on the under side

[Big-E]

A couple of RPGs aimed at the tracks will knock one out.

[Waylander]

@shrub
You should explain how do you think infantry is going to get close enough to get the C4 under a tank. Even in close quarter combat (Which is no normal terrain for tank units especially not without infantry support)
Do you think that tanks always behave like in "Saving Private Ryan"?
Look at some Videos were tanks are shown attacking an enemy position... :rolleyes:

@Big-E
That depends on the type of RPG and the direction were it is fired from.

[gf0012-aust]

tank v tank battles r useless because it defeats th purpose of having tanks wich is to take out the infantry

Not necessarily - its a country specific doctrine.

wich is funny cos the easiest way to take out a tank is to just get th infantry to walk up and chuck some c4 under it

Whuch is why doctrine is an issue - in the Oz army tanks are supported differently than the way others usually operate. Vietnam is a glaring example of the way Oz tanks were deployed when compared to US tanks. Australian tank support is still provided as an example at Aberdeen of how infantry can be used to support MBT's.

it doesnt matter how thick the armour is on the front and sides cos theres none on the under side

Thats incorrect. Tanks are amoured on the floor, in fact the merkava 3 is considered to be one of the best standard floor armoured MBT's in the world. Its designed to take a hit from an IED. Thats why the Israelis are converting them from tanks to armoured APC/IFV's as they bring the merkava 4 online (which are stronger again)

[Waylander]

There are also M Versions of the Leopard IIA6(M) and Strv 122(123) which are especially configured against AT-Mines and IEDs.

[LancerMc]

I have been recently reading a new book about M1 tank series talks about the threat of IED'a. The authors of the book incorporate interviews especially from tankers during Iraqi Freedom. In the book, it describes M1's being used to go in a clear IED's because many were small enough not to threaten the tank. Often M1 crews would detonate multiple IED's by running them over or getting close enough to trigger them. The M1 also has superior optics that is used to inspect suspected IED's along roads. While there have been instances of extremely large IED's specifically designed to take out a M1, and no tank can be protected from a large enough IED.

[amqb_az]

with a trotile explosive I can blow up the M1 or any tank including the Isreali tanks. the best way to destroy any kind of tank is using trotile. I have seen Russian tanks blown up by 10 kg trotile in Karabakh war. They were completely destroyed and the whole crew were dead.

[Temoor_A]

During a war, any machine can be destroyed by any powerful explosive solution.

The myth about invincibility of Chobbam Armour should not be taken very seriously. Sure, it is currently the best MBT Armour and will offer good protection from many explosive solutions but it does not means that it cannot be damaged during very intense fighting scenario. Just note that no armour is invincible because during fighting you cannot take things for granted.

During wars, one who hits first is the winner. M1A2 is a very advanced MBT and one of the best in the world. The key to its success is its technology that allows detection of targets from very far distances and then you can fire missiles or powerful rounds that will strike down these targets from far distances with great accuracy. This was the case of superiority during 1991 Gulf War of Abrams MBT's over T-72 MBT's.

If you get dangerously close to an another MBT and the other hits you first with a powerful round during a dog-fight, then you can be dead regardless of the superior armour or whatever.

All MBT's have sensitive spots to be taken advantage by enemies when given the chance. And during intense fire-fights, these spots can get hit many times over for the concerned.

The best thing about Abrams MBT is crew-safety system. I have heard some cases in which Abrams MBT got blown up but crew survived. This is what makes it a true master-piece!

[Soner1980]

One of my older uncles told me that you only need clothing (or the same material of it) to stop a tank. If stop the tank, than it is extremely vulnerable or cannot attack anymore. He sayd to me, just put your jacket in the rear track where it is driven. When your jacket is stuck, then the track will broke out. So, how many clothing you have, the more thanks you can immobilize till you are naked. :D Cheap Turkish solution isn't it?

[Waylander]

That's a legend.
For example you need 3-6 rolls of NATO wire to build a tank trap which stops a Leopard II. And that wire is much more solid than clothes.
Maybe you are able to use S/M-leather clothes for it. ;) :D

[Moroz.ru]

I have seen Russian tanks blown up by 10 kg trotile in Karabakh war.
That was the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan. You could sow Russian made tank not Russian.

2 Soner1980
Modern tactic doesn’t allow single tank riding. In urban battles tanks are supported by troops ore, according Russian tactic, by heavy tank support machine BMPT (T-72 equipped by 30mm gun and multipurpose missiles instead turret). So to go close to tank is almost unreal in battle. It would take a lot of suicide fighters.

BMPT picture is attached

[Waylander]

That's exactly what I always try to say. There is a big killzone around a mixed mechanized unit, even in urban combat areas. For sure urban warfare makes it easier for tank hunter units to use rpgs/Panzerfaust for top attacks or build some tank traps (IEDs, old bombs, etc. under the street) but to go as close to a tank to put something directly onto his hull is nearly suicide if the mechanized units are not dumb.
In open terrain it's impossible up to 99,9% (There is always the possibility of a "lucky shot").
People often don't think about the normal terrain for mechanized units. Just because we always see M1s and Bradleys ind Bagdad, etc. one should remember that that is not normal.
If you just look at some videos were tanks (NATO and ex-Warsaw Pact) are attacking enemy positions you should really fast see that you have no chance to get close to a small platoon sized tank unit (Even when it's operating without the support of mechanized infantry) by foot. The only chance for infantry is to use ATGMs at long ranges, RPGs/Panzerfaust at cloese range and mines/explosives used by pioneers.

PS: I really like the concept of the BMPT. You really see that they learned out of the casualties they suffered in Grozny in the '90s.

[long live usa]

tanks need infantry support in urban combat look at what happened during the battle for berlin when the russians lost 1,990 tanks and armored vehicles,if i was in an urban combat area i would not want to be anywere near a tank

[Soner1980]

Hi there, that was a good technique to demolish a tanktrack: using SM leather hihi...

And about the Russians? They can break Russian tanks but not Russians? Sorry but in the first Chechen war there was a big casualty for the Russian side. I heard from Lebedov that 90,000 Russian boys were butchered there in a very painful way. All Russian mothers were on the battlefield for their boys but they were gone.

But when my older uncle was in service, we speak in the year of the 1960's. Many war experts in Holland say that a tank is worst when infantry is very close to it because they can climb on it and put it on fire or place explosives or use of petrolium to burn the tank like in the battle of Kursk. If you are inside of a tank you can not see the what 2 meter side of you can happen Maybe it is not possible anymore because the battletactics of the NATO has also changed. And also the equipment is better now wich has periscopes to look at close distances. The Dutch army uses the Russian experience in Grozny when the Russian tanks blindly entered the city without of the infantry support wich was full of traps. The Russians underestimated the Chechens. But then maybe it was possible to get close enough to a tank and demolish it tracks, putting SM leather between the track roller :D or something explosive. And now the leassons are learnt by casualties. I have never tried to demolish tracks of a tank because I never was in conflict area's.

The picture of the AFV is very nice. But is the turret also able to aim at close ranges? I'm not a technician, sorry if you feel that my quetions are "Low Educated".