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

[Soner1980]

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

I know about is. The WWII tank battles were ofthen of tank in front and moving slowly to battle position with infantry on it's back. You have posted few seconds earlier a message.

But I had an idea to demolish tracks with a thick jacket putting it on the rear roller to break the track? Is this possible? Many has good idea's like Dominatrix closing or something like that... :D :D :D lol

[Moroz.ru]

http://www.rbs.ru/Exhibition/UralExpoArms/2000/bmpt.htm
BMPT
Tank support combat vehicle

Producer: State-owned Enterprise
"Machine Building Plant "Uralvagonzavod"

The BMPT's hull is the same as that of the T-72 battle tank. It is provided with explosive reactive armor (ERA) on the frontal armor plate, ERA-applied
screens to protect side plates, as well as grilled shields to protect the hull rear. The welded turret is provided with a filler and built-in ERA.

The distinguishing feature of the BMPT combat vehicle is its low-profile turret mounted on a tank chassis. The turret is equipped with up-to-date weapons for defeating antiarmor-capable targets and enabling tanks to advance, leaving close
antiarmor-capable targets for the BMPT to take care of. The BMPT crew consists of five men.

The BMPT armament can effectively defeat both lightly armored ground and aerial targets and heavily armored tank-type ground targets.

Its main armament consists of the 30mm 2A42 automatic gun and coaxially-mounted AG-30 or AGS-17A grenade launcher stabilized in two planes, and the Kornet ATGM system (800 mm RHA)* provided with a semiautomatic jamproof laser-guided system.

The BMPT is additionally armed with two AG-30 grenade launchers or two 7.62mm PKTM machine guns with an electromechanical drive and a day/night sight combined with the Agat-MR optronic sight. The additional weapons are arranged on fenders.

The turret-mounted 7.62mm machine gun provided with an electromechanical drive and the PNK sight serves as an auxiliary weapon. The BMPT has a built-in dozer equipment for digging in. The vehicle can be equipped with the KMT-8 treadway mine plow and the EMT electromagnetic device.

A diesel-electric set rated at 5 kW is installed in an armored compartment on the right fender.

Modernization of the T-72-type battle tanks into the BMPT combat vehicle can change tactics of combat actions and significantly increase fighting efficiency of tank units.

amunition - 900 shells for 30mm guns, 2000 bullets for 7.62, 600 grenades for two automatic grenade launchers

* BMPT can kill an M1A2 Abrams ;)

[Moroz.ru]

By the way, Garry from worldaffairsboard.com has done good job, let me share with you Garry's googling results:

"I made some search on BMPT weapons and combat loads...... it looks quite impressive

The two 2A42 30 mm guns are the same as BMP-2.... should deliver strong fire power of 1kg shells.
http://www.shipunov.com/eng/str/cannons/2a42.htm
There should be two 450 shell belts feeding both. One belt is loaded with Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot and one with HE. The total weight of this would be 900kg for 900 shells. Very interesting the market price of this load is just $6750!
http://www.pmulcahy.com/ammunition/...ammunition.html

I guess that 7.62 machine gun is Kalashnikov.... the load is 2000 bullets

In addition to that 4 Ataka-T ATGMs
http://www.deagel.com/pandora/ataka_mn00163001.aspx
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/at-9.htm

two AG-17 grenade launchers - good area covering weapon.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-...rmy/AGS-17.html
http://www.rusarm.ru/p_prod/army/ags17.htm

The load is 600 grenades - a belt of 300 in each launcher with VOG-17 of VOG-30 rounds
http://www.arcus-bg.com/products/fu..._m_l/print.html

All this looks quite impressive to suppress any infantry and protect tanks from RPG fighters in urban warfare. Two 30mm guns and two separate launchers would put infantry away from tanks!"

[Soner1980]

This is a very innovative design. Never heard of it and now it seems that the war industry must make changes in combat. All for urban warfare. 10 years ago, we were happy if a cannon yould pennatrate modern armor. Now it is important that the AFV is able to destroy tanks, engage infantry, engage air units, give the infantry weapons support and ofcouse to set up a cup of coffee :D The latter is a joke gentlemen.

Again, The Russians are building old T-55 tanks to a BTRT. This is also a good idea to protect soldiers from roadside bomb and RPG-7 from the enemie terrorists. This all was begun with the 220mm TOS Rocket system, later the Russians have push forward with new weapon systems. I will wait when a other type of vehicle will be unveiled.

[extern]

A bit more pictures of BMPT

[Big-E]

How can this kill an M1-A2? I thought the Kornets' laser designator was easily scrambled by the Abrahms upgrades. Can this penetrate its depleted uranium armor?

[Waylander]

Which system of the M1A2SEP is able to scramble laser designators? There is no such system on it.

[Soner1980]

Depleted Uranium is not good for a shaped charge. Uranium melt on about 900 degrees celcius and is only good against APFSDS or KE rounds.

The Kornet would maybe not smash through the turret front armor but it would penetrate from its sides or mabe from the hull front. At least it would damage electronics after it's blast because of the shock wave. But the Abrams can also destroy that vehicle. :p:

[Big-E]

Which system of the M1A2SEP is able to scramble laser designators? There is no such system on it.

Well thats stupid, my car has better ECM than the tank, that sucks!

[Soner1980]

ok, than you can ride with your car on the battlefield... :D :D that's a joke really I'm happy today and saying weird things to people.

But the Abrams is also not good protected for EW. When Turkey has achieved it's request for proposal of the M1A2SEP, only the French Leclerc and the Leopard2A6 stand up against the electronic warfare system. The rest of the tanks were 'lost' and unable to command. Strange, but maybe it is all solved and the later SEP models are protected against it.

Don't forget something, it is not only the active protection systems or the ECM. The Abrams is good armored and is able to withstand impacts from ATGM.

[Waylander]

With a penetration ability of min. 900mm RHA (Maybe more, some source talk about 1000-1200mm for the Kornet E) I would not bet my life on the frontal armor ability to withstand it. ;)

[Big-E]

With a penetration ability of min. 900mm RHA (Maybe more, some source talk about 1000-1200mm for the Kornet E) I would not bet my life on the frontal armor ability to withstand it. ;)

Well I was looking at the armor protection of the M1A1 and it says the turret can withstand 1,320mm-1,620mm against Chemical Energy RHAe. If I'm not mistaken the ATGMs are considered chemical energy. The Kornet is designed to engage light armored vehicles, not heavy MBTs. I don't believe it has the kenetic energy to punch through the heavy parts of the tank. Upon further review of testing of the Kornet I noticed that during trials out of 10 shots fired at a stationary T-80U (at range of 600m) only 4 hit the target. Of those 4 only two penetrated and achieved 850mm as rated as a Chemical Energy hit.

[idreamof2morrow]

such a long thread. did we already talk about the Javelin AntiTank Missle Launcher? i dont think the test has been finished but its a cool weapon to take into fact.

[Bfn42]

I wonder if the abrams...own X-rod ammunition can penetrate another m1

[Moroz.ru]

ok, than you can ride with your car on the battlefield...
:onfloorl:
Good joke!

A BMPT has open architecture, so a Kornet could be replaced by an Igla (antiaircraft missile) ore by Khrizantema 1200mm RHA missiles upon combat demands.
But a BMPT was designed to terminate antitank troops and helicopters. Main Kornet’s purpose is destruction of concrete fire points.

[Big-E]

ok, than you can ride with your car on the battlefield... :D :D

If my car ever ends up on in a hot zone with ATGMs tageted I hope they can't hit a 200mph taget. LOL B/c thats how fast I'd be going!!!

[Moroz.ru]

If my car ever ends up on in a hot zone with ATGMs tageted I hope they can't hit a 200mph taget. LOL B/c thats how fast I'd be going!!!
If you find battle field covered by tarmac, you could become Speedy-fighter.;)

In Russia there is military version of Paris-Dakar rally raid winner track. It’s called KAMAZ 4911. It could raid up to 165 kmph.
http://expo.cps-rt.ru/eng/page-1569.htm

[ODYSSEUS]

what about a Kornet? i think it can defenetely kill a M1A1 Abrams

[extern]

what about a Kornet? i think it can defenetely kill a M1A1 Abrams
The Kornet missile is pretty close to Hellfire, thus why it cant penetrate Abrams' frontal armor??? Surelly yes! there are a lot of pictures from Iraq with Abrams' mistakenly killed by Hellfire.

From the oficial Rosoboronexport catalog:

The 9M133-1 missile with tandem shapedcharge
warhead is lethal to all in-service and
future tanks as well as fortifications and field
installations.
The 9M133F-1 missile with HE warhead features
destructive capability comparable to that
of a 155mm HE-fragmentation round and is
effective against formidable fortifications, light
armoured vehicles and other point targets.
Firing two ATGM types improves the Kornet-
E’s combat capability to defeat enemy armour
and suppress threat weapons.

Mission
The Kornet-E ATGM system is designed to
destroy armoured targets with ERA, fortifications
and weapons in firing positions.
Composition
• 9P163-1 launcher
• guided missiles in TLC
• 1PN79-1 thermal sight
• maintenance equipment and training aids
Features
The weapon features a semi-automatic
countermeasures-resistant laser beam guidance.

Basic specifications
Range of fire, m
day/night 100-5,500/-3,500
9M133-1 armour penetration, mm 1,000-1,200
ERA penetration provided
Missile calibre, mm 152
Weight, kg:
9M133-1 missile in TLC 29
launcher 26
thermal sight 11
Operating temperature range, oC = +-50
http://www.rusarm.ru/p_frame/main.htm

[Waylander]

The Problem with RHA is that there are no definite numbers. Most of what we know about modern armor is more speculation than facts. I may come close to one or the other side but there are not definitely right.
And if there are sources which say that an Abrams has an armor of 1300mm and a Kornet E is able to penetrate up to 1200mm I, as a reserve tanker, would not bet my life on these 100mm. Despite that, the front of an M1A2 doesn't only consists of the turret frontal armor.

[Soner1980]

Millions of dollars are spent to develop anti tank weapons. Why it is not able to destroy a Abrams? If the front is not vulnerable, then the sides will surely. A AFV's best defense is mobility and not the armor or active protection kit. The armor and the active protection kit is only handy when it is not able to move away to a safe and it is the second plan to defeat ATGM's.

Moreover, the Russians must get rid of ERA wich is only a one-time protection and needs more maintenace to re-armor it. If the Russians want a good BMPT then composite armor or multi layered armor is needed to have protection without maintence.

[extern]

If the Russians want a good BMPT then composite armor or multi layered armor is needed to have protection without maintence.
The passive armor of T-90 and T-80 - is multilayered and composite from 80th. I can agree about the need to build up passive defence in the frontal aspects, but I cannot agree if you mean to stop the use of ERA at all. Vice versa we can see the new modification of Abrams with ERA blocks in the lateral aspects. Furthermore the atop aspect you cannot effectively defend without ERA b/c you cannot allow for a tank to be 80 t weight.

[Waylander]

The best defence for a tank is not pure mobility. If this would be right we could just put 120mm into a Leopard I (There are modifications of Rheinmetall which make this happen). It is very maveurable and with the A5 version it is one of the best hunter/killer tanks in service.
But that's not everything.
There are many occasions, especially in non desert environments, were you're just not able to avoid enemy fire. For example as a heavy recon tank platoon or as the leading platoon of the company.
Often enough the enemy than has the first shot. And with a good TC and gunner you're meat without a good frontal armor.

[Soner1980]

Ok it is good to reinforce some places with extra applique armor. Reactive armor is surely not bad, but after it is used up, the protection is gone. And then the tank is easily destroyed if it is hit with the same weapon on the same place.

I always like Russian tank designs. The T-62 in the beginning was also a good design. It was a T-55 with bugs fixed and some additions on it. One innovation was the 115mm smoothbore gun. But it is used very short time (please explain this why) and quickly the T-64 appeared with a new hull and new turret. The turret of the T-64 is very good armored against HEAT warheads but it is not enough to stop new at weapons today. The T-64 and the T-72 has almost the same turret. T-72's armor is spaced armor and inside is a layer of foam, steel and ceramics. Also not the best technique in multi layered technique but it was then a very new development. The Hull of the T-72 is composite I have read in many websites.

The T-80 has glass fibre worked in the front armor (both hull and turret front) and therefore it is more massive armored than the earlier variants. The development of the T-80 makes the other design outdated and are less capable today. Also the T-80 has a wife side of him today: The T-90. It is a tiny design, upgraded T-72. T-90 is also a good upgrade to save your money. Very cheap way to get a up to date MBT with state of the art technologies on it.

But if you look to the M1 series, the armor is more bulky and can sustain heavier impacts. This is because of the composite armor that absorbs KE and CE rounds better and more efficiently. But the fully combat weight of the modern M1A2 is 68,5 tons. And the Russian T-80 can weigh araound 48 or 50 tons. So it is easier to transport it. Ofcourse, the top armor must be armored with reactive armor plates sandwiched with steel with spaces on it to reduce weight. But it is known thar Russian MBT's have lighter armor than expected. The T-72M(1) can be destroyed at 3000 meters with the M256 120mm smoothbore gun with the newest tungsten alloyed APFSDS round. (iraq)

So, if the BMPT is armored with composte armor plates it will also survive in Chechenia and other conflicted urban warfare.

[Soner1980]

The best defence for a tank is not pure mobility. If this would be right we could just put 120mm into a Leopard I (There are modifications of Rheinmetall which make this happen). It is very maveurable and with the A5 version it is one of the best hunter/killer tanks in service.
But that's not everything.
There are many occasions, especially in non desert environments, were you're just not able to avoid enemy fire. For example as a heavy recon tank platoon or as the leading platoon of the company.
Often enough the enemy than has the first shot. And with a good TC and gunner you're meat without a good frontal armor.

I had written this article because many slower tanks are good armored, but it is still able to destroy them because they are easily hit. Like the Sabra, with 48kmph roadspeed and 30kmph terrain speed it is very clumsy on the battlefield. But if it is like Israeli's say about Russian tanks 'Russian tanks drives like sport cars' but it is harder to hit and it can move quicker out trouble.

[Waylander]

There is a big difference between T-72M and T-72M1. The armor of a T-72M1 is better. The T-72M is the export version for non Warsaw Pact states.

Despite that a normal L/44 with DM43 is able to penetrate the frontal turret armor of an T-72M1 and sometimes even penetrates the rear armor too.
These are pictures from former NVA (East-german army) T-72M1 shot on with KE and HEAT. KE entry holes look like a star because of the steering fins. Some of the HEAT shots didn't penetrate the turret when they hit the expanded frontal armor or with too sharp degrees.

These are KE holes:
http://www.militaertechnik-der-nva.de/Aservatenkammer/Beschussversuche/Bild03.gif

HEAT (German MZ) which doesn't penetrated the turret because of the ceramic inlets (Numbers 2 and 7):
http://www.militaertechnik-der-nva.de/Aservatenkammer/Beschussversuche/Bild04.gif

HEAT which entered the turret because it hit where no extra ceramic armor was:
http://www.militaertechnik-der-nva.de/Aservatenkammer/Beschussversuche2/Durchschuss2

I really like this one. HEAT entered the gun. A good example for people who won't believe that modern shots don't bounce of because of the M1A2 type of sloped armor:
http://www.militaertechnik-der-nva.de/Aservatenkammer/Beschussversuche3/Gesamtansicht2.gif

[Big-E]

How about getting back to the Abrams.

[Soner1980]

Thanks for your info about the T-72M and M1 versions. I thought that the M1 was a upgrade of electronics or something. The pictures I already seen when you listed to me about the Turkish leopard2A4 purchase.

Like Big-E has sayd, let's turn back to the Abrams destroyabililty. A T-72 is it able to destroy the M1A2? Some people (on the internet) told that at 1000 meters the 125mm APFSDS can penetrate it's turret front. Without DU munitions. Were the Iraqi T-72's able to penatrate the M1A1's armor if they had a chance?

[Waylander]

Normally a 125mm gun is able to penetrate any tank from the side, rear or above.
The newest version of the 125mm (like in the T-90) squeezes out a few more m/s of muzzle velocitymore and with BM-42 ammo is said to be able to penetrate a M1A2 within 1000m.
If you look at some other battlefields than the Iraq like middle europe or the Kosovo, etc. there are often battlefields with not more than 800m free fire zones.
You should also look at the circumstances the T-64, T-72, T-80, T-90, etc. are build for. They were build for a full integrated divisions with good artillery, mechanized infantry, helicopter, pioneer and AA support and numerical superiority.

[Moroz.ru]

Wow buddies! You are better! I enjoy this topic!
I always like Russian tank designs.
It's nice to read this :rosie I hope that T-95 creators going to excel predecessor’s achievements.
But the fully combat weight of the modern M1A2 is 68,5 tons. And the Russian T-80 can weigh around 48 or 50 tons. So it is easier to transport it.
If a tank lighter than 50-55t , it could be transported on standard four axis railway carriage, for example, from Asian part of Russia to European one and vice versa. Don’t forget about bridges, few of ones could carry 68t behemoth.

2 Waylander How does NATO transport its tanks? By tracks ore by railway? I’ve seen special tank trailer for this.

You should also look at the circumstances the T-64, T-72, T-80, T-90, etc. are build for. They were build for a full integrated divisions with good artillery, mechanized infantry, helicopter, pioneer and AA support and numerical superiority.
Bingo! That’s why you are in my top3 this forum's trust list. Respect!

[Soner1980]

NATO also transport MBT's with railway, but some lighter AFV are still carried by heavy duty trucks. Also in Turkey they are carried by rail. But later the A400 will be available and then it is able to carry from the air :D

I'm sorry to respond before weylander because I will compare my answer with him :p:

But about the T-95, is it real or is the project terminated? The T-95 is also a good tank against the Abrams tank I guess. And what about the Chiorny Oriol or something?

[merocaine]

How about the humble RPG? If you use your brains one rocket will disable or kill
an abrams. With any anti tank wepeon the last place you want to hit is the frontal armour.
Go for the exhast, or the rear deck with anti tank RPG for the best chance of a disable. This has occured in iraq, althought it takes great skill and bravery.
any way this is the weapon that the abrams is going to be facing for the next couple of years.

[Waylander]

This thread is becoming better and better with more realistic members posting here. :)
As said before specially urban warfare gives you many more opinions to kill modern tanks. But you also have to see that after the desaster in Grozny many people said that tanks should never enter cities again. The US and UK forces proved that this is wrong. For sure there are more dangers in cities but if you use them in a clever way (For example I liked the thunder run tactics) they are not close to being worthless.
With good Infantry support there is a big killbox around a mechanized infantry unit with tank support and RPG attacks are more suicide than anything else.
And again I want to say that this is not a normal battlefield for tanks. Full mechanized assaults or a mobile defence are the home of mechanized units.
Than tank hunter teams with ATGMs and RPGs/Panzerfäusten are normally not living for a long time if they have to face a full mechanized assault. I saw that during our maneuvers with AGDUS (Like the MILES system but a little bit more modern).
You maybe hit one or two tanks with your ATGM but than you normally are eliminated. As soon as you see the first ATGM coming in there are too many HE rounds and MG-fire are in the air. That's the point were Tom Clancy's "Red Storm rising" for example is not realistic. It is not that easy to drive with jeeps around, fire one or two ATGMs and than drive to another position and do it again. A russian tank regiment or a NATO tank brigade will not stand by and just look while there are ATGMs in the air knocking out their tanks.
One good tactic of our tank hunter teams was to work closely together with pioneers.
For example a tank platoon entered a minefield and most of the tanks not killed directly by the mines were immobilized. Than our Infantry hiding near by killed them from the side or rear with the Panzerfaust. It is much more easy to kill a tank than because it stands still and most of the crews are confused by running into a minefield and loosing half their tanks.

[merocaine]

But you also have to see that after the desaster in Grozny many people said that tanks should never enter cities again. The US and UK forces proved that this is wrong. For sure there are more dangers in cities but if you use them in a clever way (For example I liked the thunder run tactics) they are not close to being worthless.

I agree good tactics can help negate any weapon system, the russians in WW2 developed massed anti tank fire in kursk to negate the tiger, and the germans simply drove past the margot line in france. Most of the enemies the abrams will face will be gurillas/light infantry in an urban enviroment.
If those troops are willing to take the causalitys(and they would be high) they could try to seperate the infantry from the tanks. To avoid this the tanks would be forced to move at the same speed as the infantry, negating the main advantage of the tank (speed mobility). The tank would be reduced to an amoured pill box. This would rob the commander of the abilty to luanch fast attacks, giving the light infantry the chance to pull back.
Just dont ask me to be the RPG gunner!:D

The key to killing the abrams(or any tank) is to fight it on your own ground at the time of your chosing, that is more effective than any weapon system.
I'm a firm beliver in the man not the weapon, if the iraqis had used the abrams and the americans the T72 i bet the americans would have still kicked ass, better morale, better training, and belief in victory.

[extern]

GOod point, Irishman!
There are a lot of Abrams' also in Egipt. Does smbody really believe they can kick a$$ of the Israelis on say Merkava-1-2?

[Moroz.ru]

But about the T-95, is it real or is the project terminated? The T-95 is also a good tank against the Abrams tank I guess. And what about the Chiorny Oriol or something?
A few flashback before answer
There was 3 tank plants in the USSR
Kharkov (Ukraine) T-64, T-84 present days
Nizhniy Tagil (Russia)- T-72, T-90, R&D of T-95
Omsk (Russia) – T-64, T-80, R&D of Black eagle
Since Russia don’t need tank avalanche present days, that Russia don’t need two tank plant. Nizhniy Tagil’s plant (UralVagonZavod-UVZ) has mach more chances to survive:
1)It produces a lot of civil goods (mainly railway carriages)
2)It is close to main Ural metallurgic centers
3)It has won big Indian tank tender
Russia’s government has chosen the UVZ to develop next MBT’s generation (T-95). This secret project is developed present days and nobody cry around about its details. Last summer T-95 was shown to defense ministry Uvanov while UralExpoArm fair.
Black Eagle was Omsk plant’s last hope. They have tried to found foreign investors but bird of luck has flown away.
But you also have to see that after the desaster in Grozny many people said that tanks should never enter cities again. The US and UK forces proved that this is wrong.
About Grozniy’94/95. It’s a long sadness story. I haven’t words to describe it… I guess generals has planed “tank parade”, power demonstration, something like tank’s invasion to Moscow in 1991 and 1993. But Chechenian have got giant weapon stores and was armed up to teeth.
90’s was really dark age for Russia… I hope that consequences of USSR collapse has gone in past.

[Waylander]

I agree with most of your theories but I don't think that cities will be the major battlefield of the future for the Abrams. Just look at the other countries that may become the future battlefields of the US. Northkorea, Iran, Syria, etc. It is possible (And maybe a fact in some of these countrys) that sooner or later you have to fight against guerillas but before that happens you have to punch your way through the conventional divisions of these countrys in a classic way of mechanized fighting with strong air, naval and intelligence support.
And if I look at how many vehicles have been killed by NATO in serbia I would not bet on the air force clearing the way if the US Army and Marine Corps have to fight in non desert environments.

@extern
Why not? The Egyptians are trained by the US and they also have their own version of national training centre for example. And in the past Egypt was the enemy which nearly forced the IDF to collapse on their run through the sinai peninsula. They came as close to destruction of Israel as no one before or after that campaign.

@Moroz.ru
I know that the main problem of the russians in Grozny was not their equipment but poor intelligence and staffs. But on the other side of the ocean many "experts" than said "A tank should by no means enter a city again".

[Moroz.ru]

I’ve found IMO interesting Garry’s post from other defense forum:
"In 1994 assault of Grozny they indeed made a lot of stupid things which turned to loss of hundreds of armored vehicles of all classes (tanks, BMPs, BTRs, Shilkas).

In 1999 they were smarter...... most of the job was done by dismounted infantry but it was supported by tanks from good distance. Tanks followed infantry on a good distance and shoot enemy over infantry's heads using a "carusel" tactic. This tactic was learned in first assauled and used widelly in second.

Carousel is when one tank comes and shoots HE and HE-FRAG shells fast until it empties its autoloader.... then pulls back for reloading while next starts shooting same time.... with several tanks in each caruosel it created so much shells on enemies positions that Russian infantry could come to good distance to enemy's positions. A two parallel carousels were used on a narrow street and much more on wide squares. Rebels could not hit tanks with RPGs from a distance of 500 meters, at least deliver it preciselly. This assumes that neigbouring houses were cleared by infantry before......

In general tank losses were quite moderate in 2nd assault."

[merocaine]

I don't think that cities will be the major battlefield of the future for the Abrams.

true, its hard not to fight last years battles, and who knows what will happen in the future and where the wars will be.

Carousel is when one tank comes and shoots HE and HE-FRAG shells fast until it empties its autoloader.... then pulls back for reloading while next starts shooting same time.... with several tanks in each caruosel it created so much shells on enemies positions that Russian infantry could come to good distance to enemy's positions. A two parallel carousels were used on a narrow street and much more on wide squares. Rebels could not hit tanks with RPGs from a distance of 500 meters, at least deliver it preciselly. This assumes that neigbouring houses were cleared by infantry before......

Yeah in the city against troops who know what there doing the tank advance has to be slow and steady, against disorganised troops thunder run their ass!

All in all though against another tank you have to go for the abrams, fast well armoured, great gun, and most of all battle tested.

Does anyone know how hard the abrams is to get to the battle field, and to maintain when your on it, how well will it fight at the end of long supply lines?
a little off topic i know

[extern]

How about the humble RPG? If you use your brains one rocket will disable or kill
an abrams. With any anti tank wepeon the last place you want to hit is the frontal armour.
Go for the exhast, or the rear deck with anti tank RPG for the best chance of a disable. This has occured in iraq, althought it takes great skill and bravery.
any way this is the weapon that the abrams is going to be facing for the next couple of years.
Can't agree with you more. Thus I think, the time of 'hevy' MBT with the accent on passive armor is gonna over. The future - with the active protection meajures like Arena, Drozd-2, Trophy etc.

Fortunatly, I'm not single with this thinking:

Active Protective System for Army Future Force
US Army
Fri, 28 Apr 2006, 01:18

WASHINGTON: The United States Army remains committed to providing Soldiers with the best protection technology can provide, according to Maj. Gen. Charles A. Cartwright, program manager for the Future Combat Systems.

As evidence of this goal, the Army’s effort to develop better protection for their mounted Soldiers moved forward in March as the Raytheon Company was contracted to develop the Active Protective System for the Army’s Future Combat Systems program.

Designed as an augmentation to current vehicle armor, the APS is an explosive ballistic countermeasure capability that will dramatically increase vehicle survivability against the spectrum of aerial ballistic threats. The APS is an operationalization of ‘hit avoidance’ technologies that sense incoming threats and employ countermeasures to physically intercept, defeat or deflect them, increasing the survivability of light-to-medium-weight vehicles.

“This is a significant step forward in the FCS program, which remains on coast and on schedule,” says Cartwright. He expects the APS sub-system components to begin current force integration and qualification by the end of 2008.

The estimated $70 million contract will require the APS technology to work with all other relevant systems within FCS. Real-world lessons learned from the Global War on Terrorism are being integrated into the development of FCS, a Soldier-centric, network-enabled program.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker says that FCS is the Army’s key modernization program, and is both the surest and fastest way to provide Soldiers additional tools to address the global missions they have been assigned.

“With FCS, the Army takes advantage of the best-of-industry technologies as soon as they are developed and puts them into the hands of Soldiers in the field,” he said. “This latest approach will get capabilities to our Soldiers sooner, strengthening the current force, while laying groundwork for the force of the future.”
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_005793.php

[Waylander]

I don't think that active defence systems are the ultimate future. And I also don't read this in the article. There will be a mix of active and passive systems.
The main problem of the new western tanks is that by only increasing their passive defence capabilities they become too heavy. Sometimes they already reached this frontier. Look at the Kosovo. We send our Leopard II A5 back home and replaced them with Leopard II A4s because of the bridges there. With the inclusion of modern active protection systems the western states are able to protect their tanks better without going too heavy and without loosing their passive armor capabilities. Especially at the weak points that's a good possibility, we already do that by using an ERA like system on top of our Panzerhaubitze 2000 against bomblets.
Sorry for a little bit off-topic but the T-72M1 (And other T-72 versions) is a good example for that theory. They increased the passive armor by putting some extra ceramic armor onto the turret front. But soon they learned that too many weak points remained and that they were not able to protect them without making the tank too heavy for the needs of the Warsaw Pact army. That's one of the main reasons why they developed so many active protection systems. Naturally western tanks weren't that limited in weight and were able to go on with passive armor. But by now we are at the same point.

[Big-E]

Wow, you guys get off topic quick. Back to killing an M1.

[Waylander]

Why is this real off-topic?
My post was only about the future of the M1. The little story about the T was just an example on how and why active protection systems are going to be implemented into the Abrams. It's a fact that, like every other tank more or less, the Abrams has weak points which are especially critical in urban warfare and that active systems are the only real opportunity to increase the defense capabilities of the M1.
What do you want to hear about? Just what is able to kill an M1A2SEP?
- Artillery from above and directly (Smart ammo especially)
- Rocket artillery from above (With hundrets of bomblets or intelligent missiles)
- Modern eastern gun 125mm/BM-41 ammo combo within under 1000m on the front and at much more range from every other side
- Modern western gun like L/55/DM53-63 ammo combo maybe within more than 1000m on the front
- Modern air to ground missiles like Hellfire II, Maverik, AT-X-16, PARS 3
- Modern ATGMs like Javelin, Spike ER, Kornet E maybe on the front and definitely everywhere else
- Modern double HEAT RPGs, Panzerfäuste, etc. from the everywhere despite the front
- traditional and intelligent bombs
- AT-Mines
- Big IEDs
-Phaser guns :D

Nearly everything in this list has been mentioned before in the thread.
Than look at a battlefield like Pakistan for example (No political offense, just an example and don't think about nukes. I could have used North-Korea for my example but they have not enough modern equipment). Numerical superiority, some high-tec equipment, enough AA equipment and air force capabilities to prevent total US air superiority for some time and enough battlefields with combat ranges under 1000m and good ambush possibilities. That would be a real test for a tank. Going against nasty export T-72s and T-55 under a full air screen and without a real fear of hiding units and enemy artillery comanded by poitical officers is not a real battle test. The french foreign legion also participated in the Gulf War of '91 and they did this with AMX-10C (105mm gun and paper armor)...
I don't want to say that the M1 is a bad tank or not battle tested, but on every occasion were he fought the US would have won also by using M60s.

[idreamof2morrow]

no one here knows about the javelin?

watch this movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjhcjHmhtKk&search=javelin)

its a prototype antitank missle launcher that uses two modes of attack. the speical thing about this is that it incorperates the ability to attack from above. the theory is that the armour on the top of the tank is less than on its sides.

[Grand Danois]

You probably already know this one, but...

More top attack - Bill 2 (mms://qstream-31.qbrick.com/01580/01580_1342_3_wis_l.wmv)

:)

[Waylander]

As you can see Javelin is already part of my list. ;)
Despite that the video you posted is pure show against targets full of explosives and fuel. An ATGM never blows a tank up like this.
This video shows how Javelin is really working. Nevertheless it's deadly:



http://rapidshare.de/files/19193656/Javelin.mpeg.html

[gf0012-aust]

Despite that the video you posted is pure show against targets full of explosives and fuel. An ATGM never blows a tank up like this.
This video shows how Javelin is really working.

It's referred to as an "assisted shot" ie the after effects are assisted by remnants of fuel vapour or volatile open charges so as to exagerate the effects of the kill.

[Waylander]

For example if a T-72 in iraq has been hit into its autoloader he often lost his turret. But crashed into small pieces like this? I really doubt that this would happen.
This is a good example of an assistedt shot (TOW vs. M48).
Seems like the ammo caught fire and begins to burn (Like crackers you break into pieces).
http://www.zippyvideos.com/3340448913188086/tow_vs_m-46_patton./

[gf0012-aust]

For example if a T-72 in iraq has been hit into its autoloader he often lost his turret.

T-72's that have been hit in the loader bustle normally eject the turret as a single unit - it doesn't break up into smaller pieces at all. The overpressure is enough to cause a catastrophic turret "dismount" - but it doesn't generally turn the turret into shrapnel.

[Waylander]

That's what I wanted to say. Sometimes my english might be a little bit hard to understand. ;)
What I also wanted to say is that if a T-72 is hit into it's autoloader it won't break into small pieces like in the video. It is gonna loose its complete turret like you said.

[gf0012-aust]

That's what I wanted to say. Sometimes my english might be a little bit hard to understand. ;)
What I also wanted to say is that if a T-72 is hit into it's autoloader it won't break into small pieces like in the video. It is gonna loose its complete turret like you said.

Your english is still better than my german though.. ;)

[extern]

I'd point to an important circumstance, underline an insufficiency of the regular western view on the possible consequences of Abrams duel with any of big eastern army. The allegedly advantage of Abrams is assumed on the basis of supposed capability of Abrams to open pinpointed fire first on the long distance with its highly accurate and deadly APFSDSs. But this calculation doesn’t take into account the current standard tactics of T-xx Russian regiments. They don’t go to fire line in 'linear' move, but scramble with unpredictable snack-like loops. It means they move with acceleration in the frontal plane that makes highly unlike hitting them with APFSDSs on the distance more than 3 – 3.5 km. Actually 1.5 – 2 sec is pretty enough for object moving 30-35 km/h to change its trajectory in such extent to make faulty any ballistic calculation. From the opposite side – the T-xx ATGMs have not such problem b/c its trajectory can be corrected until the very hitting.

In the short distance T-90 has so lethal weapon that Abrams probably still doesn’t. I mean HE shells… In the minimal consideration, one hit of that is enough to destroy the Abrams' capability to undertake an aiming firing. However, the consequences of hitting Abrams with Russian 125 mm HE seem to be much more dangerous for its crew that usually used to think: the dynamic blow leads to separation of metal pieces from the internal armor surface, that can kill the crew easily. In such case the blast of HE shell upon any surface of Abrams may be pretty enough. From the opposite side Abrams cannot destroy T-90 with its main antitank shells – APFSDS – unlike it is pinpointed just to the crew cabin. In that case the relative little size of T-90 will be his best 'armor'.

Thus I still give to T-90 better chance to be on upper hand (with all other things equal).

[Soner1980]

The only 2 vids are reality: The Bill and the tank with is to go on flame it's like new years eve :D If a tank is penetrated, you won't see burning wood or something. The Javelin wich is shown in the first movie is just a simple wooden mock-up (maquette) and therefore FUBAR.

If the tank has been penetrated, it is often in flames inside because of the gas jet or from heat from the sabot round. Also when penetrated, the turret wil fly because of the pressure inside the tank. A turret is just put on a tank and not mounted on it. A turret can weight about 20 tons and don't need to be mounted anyway, it just can block the turret when hit by smaller ammo what does not penetrate. Like in Kursk when a Tiger was hit by a Russian 57mm ZIS-2 AT canon. The tankers had leaved their Tiger because they tought the tank was to blow but the turret was stuck only.

[gf0012-aust]

I'd point to an important circumstance, underline an insufficiency of the regular western view on the possible consequences of Abrams duel with any of big eastern army. The allegedly advantage of Abrams is assumed on the basis of supposed capability of Abrams to open pinpointed fire first on the long distance with its highly accurate and deadly APFSDSs. But this calculation doesn’t take into account the current standard tactics of T-xx Russian regiments. They don’t go to fire line in 'linear' move, but scramble with unpredictable snack-like loops. It means they move with acceleration in the frontal plane that makes highly unlike hitting them with APFSDSs on the distance more than 3 – 3.5 km. Actually 1.5 – 2 sec is pretty enough for object moving 30-35 km/h to change its trajectory in such extent to make faulty any ballistic calculation. From the opposite side – the T-xx ATGMs have not such problem b/c its trajectory can be corrected until the very hitting.

I don't know who has provided you with information about how US MBTs are not going to be able to deal with erratic manouvre - but they are about 15 years out of date with their knowledge.

I'd suggest that they have no idea about how the US conducts its training and doctrine changes out at Aberdeen, - and they certainly have no idea of what a US Master Gunner has to do to qualify on a tank. If they did, then they would be aware of what size targets and at what range and speeds they're required to score consistent kills. The info certainly isn't coming from someone familiar with those things in the last 7 years (let alone last 15)


In the short distance T-90 has so lethal weapon that Abrams probably still doesn’t. I mean HE shells… In the minimal consideration, one hit of that is enough to destroy the Abrams' capability to undertake an aiming firing. However, the consequences of hitting Abrams with Russian 125 mm HE seem to be much more dangerous for its crew that usually used to think: the dynamic blow leads to separation of metal pieces from the internal armor surface, that can kill the crew easily. In such case the blast of HE shell upon any surface of Abrams may be pretty enough. From the opposite side Abrams cannot destroy T-90 with its main antitank shells – APFSDS – unlike it is pinpointed just to the crew cabin. In that case the relative little size of T-90 will be his best 'armor'.

Again, the fact that whoever is advising you of things like this is unaware of the qualifications required to get MG status shows that their knowledge is far from current. The target size required for an MG to qualify is substantially less than the silhouette mass of an MBT.

Thus I still give to T-90 better chance to be on upper hand (with all other things equal).

I think the danger here is that people also get carried away with thinking that tank battles are likely to be like Kursk, the Golan Heights etc... That is possible but unlikely - but then again 73 Easting and the Thunder Run rewrote the rules on tank application.

The preferred anti-tank weapon in combined arms is not another tank - its a registered weapon or/as well as anti-air.

Whoever is giving you this info is a long way away from understanding modern tank warfare and anti-tank applications. They certainly have no idea how the US qualifies their master gunners - and they certainly have no idea about what the US training methods out at Aberdeen.

tank vs tank roles and tank vs anti-tank roles change with the environment and the latency of the threat (depending on what side you sit). UK, Australian, American, Singaporean, French, Canadian, German tank doctrine is different yet similar - the way that australians use tanks and infantry is very different to US doctrine.

the response is also dependant on how each country uses combined arms. any country massing tanks for an attack in contemp battles is going to lose substantial numbers of those platforms before they come anywhere near another tank.

eg anti-tank rotors, anti-tank fixed wing, HK teams, registered weapons, battlefield rockets, MLRS, cluster weapons etc.... then there are issues of enfilade, defilade, pre-positioning, armour structure, support team structure, geography etc etc.....

Look at europe in the cold war period, the clear doctrine by WARPAC was to prefix armoured strike with battlefield nukes (as just released recently by the polish govts historical records).

NATO was going to use rotor and fixed wing strike to kill armour as it bunched through places like the Fulda Gap, they also intended to have registred weapons zoned on likely approaches. The reason was to blunt armour before it got to a meeting engagement. At that point breaking momentum and breaking mass would give the Leos, Challys and M1's the opportunity to bring faster and more accurate rates of fire to bear. Remember that the early russian 125mm rounds were far less competent than the german 120mm rounds.

tank on tank comparisons are fraught with danger because they ignore the complexity of doctrine and combined arms usage whcih severely influence deployment.

[Waylander]

First you have to understand that in the sovjet army artillery was one of the main tank killers together with T-xx in superior numbers and secondly mechanized infantry with ATGMs and RPGs.

The M1 may be developed to work in every circumstances but its supposed battlefield was western germany. In western germany there are not much battlefields with more than 800m of firing range so if I say that "My tank is able to get you at xxx meters, blabla" it's crap.

Have you ever looked through a tank optic? Within the x12 gunner optic of the Leopard II a tank is very small even at 3000m. At 4000m only real good gunners have real good hitting statistics againts moving targets. At 5000m a tank is so small that you need very much luck to hit it.

And with the introduction of spall liners in modern western tanks shrapnel is not that dangerous if a round doesn't enter the tank.

Just think about something. The sovjet/russian army has its own APFSDS rounds (Which are not that bad if you look at the newest ones). Why do you think they use them? Because of their inferior capabilities against tanks instead of HE rounds? There is no logic in your post! If a big HE round would be able to kill a tank (Or its crew) modern tanks would only field HE rounds. Just think about that.

And as gf0012-aust already said, tank engagements are not like some people may think.
In normal conditions like middle europe (where I trained) engagements between mechanized units are much more about numerical superiority than in deserts.

So every "small" enemy who faces the US or NATO should try to get its mechanized units into close combat. Normally close combat is not good for both sides.

The attacker looses its momentum and conecentrated fire power. The defender loses every advantage over the attacker. I am not able to use artillery or minefields, the kill ratio is going up and tactics, tech, better optics, etc. doesn't really count. The one with more material normally wins. So if both sides would be nearly equal both do not want this to happen.

BUT if there is a country like serbia it is not a good idea staying in defense positions and waiting for the enemy to come.

If I am able to get into close combat fighting many advantages of the western forces are negotiated and I may have a chance to inflict serious damage (Training is one of the main aspects than).

[extern]

gf0012-aust,
I'm of full awareness about the lack of equilibrium in any real fighting condition, and about the intention of NATO to use helicopters against tanks etc. Apropos, the opposite side has sometimes-similar intentions. However, the single way to compare any two devices is laid in "fixation" of maximal broad spectrum of secondary factors and consideration minimal set of the contemplated factors (only one factor in ideal). Thus, our 'mental experiment' (that only we do all the time) must have some rules. The arguments, like 'in any real condition it will be not only tanks against tanks, but something more', - are always right, but they lack productivity. That way we'll not decide which opinion is closer to the truth. I'd try to fix up equally all circumstances, that can be fixed, before touching to debates. Thus, I had offered in my post such 'mental experiment' in the 'ideal condition', when an air support is absent.

And about the helos I should say if they can see and kill the tanks in regiment, the Tunguskas or Tor-1M, defending that regiment, can kill them two times.

Waylander,
I can't agree with you more, when you say that the close tank to tank combat is a possibility, that with high probability may occur in the most of the terrain conditions. I also agree with you , if you say, that close tank-to-tank combat – is a situation, that must be avoided by Abrams, when it is only possible. With that, I must say that fighting on the distance of less than 1000 m gives to T-90 (if it's the enemy) some advance against Abrams. T-90's HE shells are not super accurate, as you know, also because they are delivered from the smoothbore gun. However, after 1st hitting the Abrams will pretty became a 'sitting duck' without optics, and after that it will be only T-90's gunner decision: 'to overkill or not to overkill'. The kill of Abrams by T-90's APFSDSs will be only the question of time from this point of eventuality.

As well, I must say I think last models of Abrams has clearly advance against T-90S (last model) on the distance of fire 1000-2500 m b/c of its more accurate and more deadly APFSDS. However, it can be realized only with certain terrain conditions. About the longer distance I had expressed my opinion in my post before.

[Waylander]

I don't like these thoughts of converting a modern tank into a sitting duck by using tanks with HE rounds or IFVs with 30mm etc.

It is not that easy. Yeah for sure, you may hit the other tank with an HE round and maybe you destroy its primary sight but there is also a secondary sight.

This one is very, very hard to destroy. And within 1000m a qualified tanker needs no new high-tec optic to kill you with a KE round. Just put the manuell trigger at 1000m and...

Despite that I really would like to know from which persons or sources do you know that you should use HE rounds against enemy tanks. Sorry, but this story sounds to me like "Our main AT-round may not be able to penetrate you from the front but we have...uhmm...we have...HE rounds, yeah HE rounds. Harhar now go with that."

Maybe if your KE rounds are crap (Like the Iraqi BM-14, etc.) and you have some HE rounds you may try to use them against tanks and than hope but if I have a new 125mm gun with new ammo I would never try to use HE rounds against tanks. Normally as a tanker I am happy about every first time shot I get and I would not waste it for the, not that big, chance to destroy one of the optics of the enemy.

[gf0012-aust]

gf0012-aust,
I'm of full awareness about the lack of equilibrium in any real fighting condition, and about the intention of NATO to use helicopters against tanks etc. Apropos, the opposite side has sometimes-similar intentions. However, the single way to compare any two devices is laid in "fixation" of maximal broad spectrum of secondary factors and consideration minimal set of the contemplated factors (only one factor in ideal). Thus, our 'mental experiment' (that only we do all the time) must have some rules. The arguments, like 'in any real condition it will be not only tanks against tanks, but something more', - are always right, but they lack productivity. That way we'll not decide which opinion is closer to the truth. I'd try to fix up equally all circumstances, that can be fixed, before touching to debates. Thus, I had offered in my post such 'mental experiment' in the 'ideal condition', when an air support is absent.

And about the helos I should say if they can see and kill the tanks in regiment, the Tunguskas or Tor-1M, defending that regiment, can kill them two times.

Now you can probably understand why Web has a policy of banning "x" vs "y" threads - because they are almost useless as a viable and cogent method of assessing capability.

before anyone pulls any trigger, presses any button, excites some solenoid - the battleplan has evolved in its construct well before then.

to actually even to begin to sensibly discuss tank survivability on the battlefield does at the minimum require an understanding of who the players are. doctrine influences all before platforms become chess pieces.

[extern]

Waylander,
The last progress in explosive development is wonderful. Obviously 155 mm HE round hit from any direction will destroy or disable any modern tank. 125 mm HE will make the same except with the frontal armor. But Even in the last case 125 mm HE will pretty cut the track if hit it. Who said it for me? For example, It's a fact, that HE tank rounds was used by T-72 in Lebanon war. Even in Internet I saw some reminiscences of Russian officer, that was an adviser in Syrian army. He remember that in some cases the turrets of Merkava was literally cut-off after the hit. If you want, I can found its text, but it is only Russian… Future 'Sniper-2' ATGM seems to be also HE – because it is enough and good for weapon commonality. The problems with HE start when it not provides precision hit with the distance more that about 1000 m.

[long live usa]

look at iraq its commical that nearly no tanks were lost most countries dont posses a tank fleet capable of even dealing with an abrams perhaps the t-98 could but they are only in small batch production

[Waylander]

extern
It's right that a 155mm artillery round is going to kill or seriously damage a modern tank but that's much more a question of the weight and not of the power of the HE round.

And if you say that from the side and rear a 125mm gun kills or damages a modern western tank than I believe you. But you could also use KE or HEAT warheads for this. It is not a wonder to get through the side or rear armor of an Abrams, Leo II, Leclerc, etc. You should be able to get through the frontal armor. The chance of hitting a track or destroying an optic is not enough for full scale combined weapons battles.

long live usa
Ok let's have another look at Iraq in '91. (Why does always some people think that this was the ultimate challenge for the Abrams?)
On one side the best what western army could raise M1A1(HE).
On the other side a mixture of old T-55s and some T-72M (Export version with inferior armor, TCs and optics) using very old ammo BM-15 and not at the same training level. They had nealry no intelligence sources, reconaissance, artillery or air support.
The french Foreign Legion attacked the Iraqis by using this nice little vehicle.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/amx10rc_cat3g.jpg

There are enough countrys using tanks which could be able to go directly against the Abrams (T-80U, T-84, T-90, Type 95, etc.).
The problem for these countrys are not the tanks but the lack of ability for real combined warfare of ground troops, together with naval and air force units. Not to talk of intelligence and reconaissance abilitys.

[extern]

extern
And if you say that from the side and rear a 125mm gun kills or damages a modern western tank than I believe you. But you could also use KE or HEAT warheads for this.
Good point! But a big question remain about the frontal armor, that can defend any modern tank against APFSDS and HEAT as well. For example I'll bring for you the results of 1999 tests that proved any of 5 hit APFSDS had penetrated the T-90:

"APFSDS
T-90: ERA-equipped target could not be penetrated. Furthermore, after firing the crew entered the vehicle, activated it and was able to execute the firing sequence.
Without ERA, one round penetrated.
T-80U (data available only for stripped target): One round almost penetrated (3mm hole in the inner lining, no visible equipment damage); two penetrated to 1/2 thickness; one missed the target completely; one hit the gun. etc" http://armor.kiev.ua:8101/fofanov/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html

That mean the probability to destroy any modern tank from first hit is MUCH less then 100%. Thus there is some rational in certain circustances, when the engagement starting from the distance less then 1000-800m, to start using gun from HE. From the 1st hit then you have a good chance to 'invalidize' any modern tank by significantly reducing its battle potential, i.o. words its mobility or/and situation awarenness (optic, radio device, active defence components etc).

Apropos. What you mean happing with the crew when 125mm HE hit their tank? IMHO, at least a few seconds they will enter in some mental "deterioration" or kinda shock before will come back to their job, wouldnt they?

[Soner1980]

I'm sorry but I can't believe that a HE warhead can destroy a tank when hit from front, side or rear. From upper places and of the bottom it can be destroyed. The HE round rips the thin armor apart and will kill or disable the personel. But not that it can do effect to the inside from thicker armored places. Than a TOW missile can also penetrate a M1A2 what the Abrams is built to sustain such attacks. This is my opinion and the Tunguska is a very nice AA vehicle wich must also be produced in Turkey if the Turkish politicians want good AA defence. :)

[Waylander]

Ok, a T-80U was not able to penetrate a T-90 or seriusly penetrate a T-80U (By the way 4 hits out of 5 against a standing target is not that good ;) ).
But the M256 (L/44) with DU ammo and the L/55 with DM63 ammo are more powerfull and faster than the 125mm of the T-80U.
It would be very interesting if there would be tests like yours using western guns, ATGLs and ATGMs.
For sure you will never have a 100% chance of killing a tank with the first hit and if you are not able to penetrate an enemy tank properly within for example 800m you could use your HE rounds.
But the main reason for using them is not that HE rounds are tank killers, the main reason is that the normal AT ammo is not good enough. By using HE ammo you still have the chance to immobilize the tank or destroy an optic or so but that's nothing more than an emergency solution. If the russian tankers would be sure that their chance of penetrating an M1A2SEP or Leopard II A6 with their KE round they would not use HE rounds.

[extern]

Ok, a T-80U was not able to penetrate a T-90 or seriusly penetrate a T-80U (By the way 4 hits out of 5 against a standing target is not that good ;) ).
But the M256 (L/44) with DU ammo and the L/55 with DM63 ammo are more powerfull and faster than the 125mm of the T-80U.
It would be very interesting if there would be tests like yours using western guns, ATGLs and ATGMs.
For sure you will never have a 100% chance of killing a tank with the first hit and if you are not able to penetrate an enemy tank properly within for example 800m you could use your HE rounds.
But the main reason for using them is not that HE rounds are tank killers, the main reason is that the normal AT ammo is not good enough.
Exactly what I say: APFSDS - is not good enough for first hi first kill against any modern tank include, of course, T-90. For example, the frontal armor of T-90 was constructed to defend against any foreign sabots with some additional reserve. With ERA calculated it fits Abrams' frontal armor as well. That's a cause for using HE... Does Abrams have HE rounds?

[Waylander]

No. Abrams has KE, HEAT and MPAT (MultiPurposeAntiTank).
But Challenger has got an HE and an HESH round. There are also swedish and german HE rounds for the Leo II.
The T-90 may be designed to withstand any foreign KE round but I really doubt if it really can withstand modern western rounds.
The designers weren't able to test the tank against it.

[extern]

No. Abrams has KE, HEAT and MPAT (MultiPurposeAntiTank).
But Challenger has got an HE and an HESH round. There are also swedish and german HE rounds for the Leo II.
The T-90 may be designed to withstand any foreign KE round but I really doubt if it really can withstand modern western rounds.
The designers weren't able to test the tank against it.
OK, now we can see, that for Abrams nothing hampers to have some capability to make external damage to the enemy tank apart to penetrate it. Then the Americans also have some questions about sufficiency of APFSDS.

Apropos, Abrams also has HEP rounds, that I should include to the broad HE category. As like as a regular HE, HEP also designed against armored wehicles:

"HEP (High-Explosive Plastic)
HEP is basically a thin metal container filled with a explosive. Upon impact the shell splits and the round splats against the target, much like a wet snowball. A fuze in the base then detonates the charge causing the inside of the targets armor to spall. This round is also effective against bunkers, buildings, and other like targets. 105mm HEP is still in service for the M1, but there are no 120mm versions of this round." http://members.aol.com/panzersgt/theory/Ammo.html

About T-90: it was designed to be defended WITH RESERVE against any contemporal western APFSDS. The Russian designers with the help of russian military intelligence (GRU) know very well the penetrating capability of all APFSDSs. T-90 also has an ability to add some 150-200mm of modular passive armor on the frontal aspect without any change in its design. If they dont do that they are confident in what exists.

T-90 also has HEATs, but its capability to make for Abrams internal damage apart with external is questionable just like as the capability of american HEATs to penetrate T-90: http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/ARM/heat/ammo.html

Ok, a T-80U was not able to penetrate a T-90 or seriusly penetrate a T-80U (By the way 4 hits out of 5 against a standing target is not that good ;) ).
Wrong calculation, sorry: they speek about 14 hits out of 15 shots from one T-80 gun (5+5 on T-90 and 5 on T-80). Also the gun of T-80 was designed to fight with early generation of Abrams as well as early Abrams was designed to fight against T-72. The gun of T-90 - has several improvements with the using of exellent German metalwork equipment. It's intended to be comparable with any western tank MG of the late 90th.

I'm sorry but I can't believe that a HE warhead can destroy a tank when hit from front, side or rear.
And the Americans and Russians do believe in that if they put HE/HEP rounds in their inventory. At least to believe in a severe external damage + some seconds of crew disorientation that give to the opponent a good chance for second shot.

Now you can probably understand why Web has a policy of banning "x" vs "y" threads - because they are almost useless as a viable and cogent method of assessing capability.
Unfortunately we have no any absolute scale for calculating capability of a tank... Then we are compeled to discuss in relativistic categories comparing some tank with another. But obviously you are right if you mean the comparizon has to be made with broad spectrum of aims, tactics and strategies. It cannot be restricted only by tank-to-tank engagements. As well, We can speak about efficiency/vulnerability of Abrams in several types of mil. operations, like 'peace keeping' , 'democratisation', 'WMD prevention efforts', 'preventive pacification' etc.

[Moroz.ru]

The T-90 may be designed to withstand any foreign KE round but I really doubt if it really can withstand modern western rounds.
The designers weren't able to test the tank against it.

As I know, India has done such tests while 300 units tank tender. A T-90 against Abrams rounds at 500m distance. I hope Indian DT forum’s members would kindly provide us by rely info.;)

[Soner1980]

From what I know, the HEP round was developed for the 105mm L7 rifled tank gun by the Royal Ordnance and therefore it was designed to destoy buildings, pillboxes, bunkers, etc.. Also ships were accurately destroyed by the HEP and HESH (squash head).

But today all tanks have spaced armor or spall liners to deflect the way of the penetrator. HEP and HESH was in the late 1950's very effective against tanks. Like in the 1991 gulf war, the British used also HEP and HESH rounds for the Iraqi T-55/Type-59 and T-62 tanks. Ofcourse HE, HESH and HEP are dangerous for the tankers. But it is unable to destroy the latest generation tanks because there are measures taken for such type ammo today. The Leopard-2, M1, Leclerc and other new designs will fire back when hit by HE, HEP or HESH. The sight system is also placed in a good place, like the leopard-2A4, it is only hit when you directly hit the sight. The M1 Abrams' sight system is in a small armored box to protect it and also must be directly hit to destrouy it. Disabling the tank with HESH, HE and HEP is possible and.

[Waylander]

Ok, wrong calculation by me. :)

But remember we (german tankers) never learned to use HE against anything else than infantry groups, bunkers, buildings and weak targets (Jeeps, trucks, etc.). We should not even use MZ (HEAT) against anything larger than a BMP, BRDM, etc. There has to be a reason for that. And the reason is that our testing teams think that a KE round has the best chance to kill or seriously damage an enemy tank from all directions and within all ranges.
With the swedish army it's the same.

For example our new HE round has only been developed because our HEAT rounds are not good enough against infantry, buildings, etc. Because of the space needed for the HEAT warhead the shrapnell and explosion range and power is too small. We never intended to use it against tanks if you have anything else.The UK tankers in Iraq really liked their HE and HESH rounds because of their power against infantry in buildings, etc. We've learned form recent conflicts in Iraq and Grozny.

And with spall liners implemented in many modern tanks the chance of a HE warhead to be effective is much smaller.

[extern]

As I know, India has done such tests while 300 units tank tender. A T-90 against Abrams rounds at 500m distance. I hope Indian DT forum’s members would kindly provide us by rely info.;)
It was classified study but the rumor say that T-90 was tested also against the Arjun's 120mm MG with Israel antitank ammunition. I never heard T-90 armor was worser that Arjun's one, the last is 'havy designed' tank with big German input.

Ofcourse HE, HESH and HEP are dangerous for the tankers. But it is unable to destroy the latest generation tanks because there are measures taken for such type ammo today. The Leopard-2, M1, Leclerc and other new designs will fire back when hit by HE, HEP or HESH. The sight system is also placed in a good place, like the leopard-2A4, it is only hit when you directly hit the sight. The M1 Abrams' sight system is in a small armored box to protect it and also must be directly hit to destrouy it.
- It is very depended from the kind of the explosive and its massa. Anyway, there is a comcensus that 152-155 mm HE or HEP shell is pretty enough to destroy any tank. About 125 mm - there were a lot of studies about this in Russia/USSR and all of them say 125mmHE round causes havy damage for several tank's functions . Look about it on Fofanov's site:

"//125mm HEF-FS rounds are reasonably accurate (maximum acceptable dispersion: 0.23mil) and are roughly equivalent to a 122mm artillery round.
The anti-tank efficiency of HEF-FS rounds is limited, but tests indicate that HEF-FS impact on a tank produces severe mobility kill and very likely firepower kill". http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/ARM/apers/overview.html

Ok, wrong calculation by me. :)

But remember we (german tankers) never learned to use HE against anything else than infantry groups, bunkers, buildings and weak targets (Jeeps, trucks, etc.). We should not even use MZ (HEAT) against anything larger than a BMP, BRDM, etc. There has to be a reason for that. And the reason is that our testing teams think that a KE round has the best chance to kill or seriously damage an enemy tank from all directions and within all ranges.
With the swedish army it's the same.

May be it's difference in 'phylosophy' but in the russian inventory HE rounds take 40% and HEATs - 45%. the remain is for APFSDSs and tank's ATGMs. Also I guess the NATO states follow prepearing fights against T-хх on the long distance only. They are full of determination not to fight against any Russian made tank in close combat ( clever decision considering the power of T-90 MG, I can say :D )
Remember, that the last gen. western tanks was designed as a 'defencive weapon', indended to stop the Russian tank's leap to La-Manche. Indeed - they are mainly antitank weapon...
Contrawise the T-хх serial was from the start intended for offensive ops. Thus the accent was made on their tactical and strategic mobility, an ability to destroy all spectrum of hostile targets from close distance including tanks, cars, peepel, cows and the wonderful evropiann houses...

[Waylander]

For sure the NATO knew that going into close quarter combat against the Warsaw Pact divisions would be suicide but as I said before the main reason for that is not better sovjet tactics or tech.
The real reason is that in a mechanized battle, close quarter combat is a meat grinder. Both sides loose cohesion, battleplans/tactics can't be used any more, tech is not that interesting, defender looses its advantages against the attacker, etc. In the end the one with more material wins.
I saw that every time we got close enough during maneuvers. If the defender spottet us early enough and was able to fall back in good formation and cohesion while fighting we lost. If we were able to close the gap fast enough we overrun them and it could happen that a whole overstrenght company was wiped out within 10min with minimal losses.

I agree that the T tanks have ever been more dedicated to working together with Infantry and support it directly.

[extern]

I agree that the T tanks have ever been more dedicated to working together with Infantry and support it directly.
Now after the last Abrams' upgrade the americans did a big leap in urban adaptation for their tanks, so as in tank-infantry coordination . But the overweight is still limiting their strategic and tactic mobility (if let say they will want to use their tank in a big offensive operation in the countries like Iran or Ukraine). They recognise this problem I think. The fact remains: no one of the new american armored vehicle projects has weight more then 50 t. Put please your mind on ERA adoption:

[Waylander]

The TUSK upgrade has been cancelled for financial reasons.

I agree that weight remains a critical factor and active protection systems are an effective way of protecting the weak spots of a tank without making it too heavy.
But look for Iraq. For example the army tried to use light forces for reconnaissance missions. Very fast they replaced these light forces with Bradleys and Abrams because the light forces lost too many men and material to iraqi ambushes and counter reconnaissance forces.
IMHO the modern western tanks are not too heavy but they reached the limit.

[extern]

But look for Iraq. For example the army tried to use light forces for reconnaissance missions. Very fast they replaced these light forces with Bradleys and Abrams because the light forces lost too many men and material to iraqi ambushes and counter reconnaissance forces.
IMHO the modern western tanks are not too heavy but they reached the limit.
I speak about a possibility to reduce the weight without any decline in tank's defence and firepower. If the Russians could do MBT with <50 t weight with all common 'gadgets', why the Americans (Germans) cannot? I think they can. I'll give you an example: if an aircraft can take 1 Abrams, it could lift instead 1 T-80 and 20 t additional ammunition. It is economy of time and money, isnt it? And if you are not satisfated with the internal autoloader, as on the pics below, you still can do it external, can't you?

[Waylander]

For sure the western tank industry could. But it is much cheaper to upgrade the existing tank fleet than developing a totally new vehicle.

And I really doubt that that a modernized T-80 has the same defence capabilities like an Abrams or LeoII if they would be refitted with extra active protection systems too.

[extern]

I really doubt that that a modernized T-80 has the same defence capabilities like an Abrams or LeoII if they would be refitted with extra active protection systems too.
In vain you do... In 0 degree angle it is the same if considering ERA capabilit. In some specific directions the defence of T-90 and T-80VK/T-80M (modernised) even better that the defence of Abrams and LeoII: for example in the angle of 30gr or from above (ERA and plastic layer). Also the main LeoII' armory (27 rounds) is remain inside the corpus near the tankist without any protection against the blow - just like as in T-xx. In Abrams 6 rounds are remain in corpus - pretty enough to make from the tank thousands of pieces . Look on the picture for explanation:

[Waylander]

I know were the LeoII has its ammo and how much it is. ;)

I think you don't get what I want to say. IF Abrams and LeoIIs would be upgraded with active protection systems like the T-80 and T-90 already have I think they would be better protected than T-xx. I don't say that new western tanks without ERA are much better protected than new russian ones with ERA. I say that they would be if they would have similar active protection systems.

PS: On this picture the drivers seat is at the wrong place:
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=441&d=1147706825

[Darrel_topgun]

Actually, the Hellfire missile (AGM-1148) is also an American hardware. The Hellfire missile system is carried by the OH-58D Kiowa warrior attack helicopter, so if your up against an M1A1 Abrams tank... YOU ARE IN BIIIIIIIIG TROUBLE! YOU AS GOOD AS DEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :gun

[Waylander]

I don't really get what you whant to say? :confused:

Edit: Ok, forget it I just saw your other posts. :rolleyes:

[extern]

The Hellfire missile system is carried by the OH-58D Kiowa warrior attack helicopter, so if your up against an M1A1 Abrams tank... YOU ARE IN BIIIIIIIIG TROUBLE!
I am agree with you: when M1A1 gonna fight against T-90, better if it will go with massive helos cover...
I think you don't get what I want to say. IF Abrams and LeoIIs would be upgraded with active protection systems like the T-80 and T-90 already have I think they would be better protected than T-xx. I don't say that new western tanks without ERA are much better protected than new russian ones with ERA. I say that they would be if they would have similar active protection systems.
I still don't... Did you want to say the passive armor of T-80 is less effective, that the passive armor of the western tanks? May be... I cannot disprove that 100% authentically, but some reasons force me to doubt even in that. Let do some calculations: the internal space of Leo-2A4 is 19,4 cube meters, yeah... Its mass is 55,2 t - that means 1 cube meter of the internal space is defended by 2.84 t of passive armor. Contrawise the internal space of T-80 is only 11.8 cube meters with its mass of 46 t. It is easy to see that the 1 cube meter of T-80's internal space is defended by 3.94 t of passive armor (I calculated ERA as simple passive armor) - much more that on Leo-2A4. The correspondent data for Abrams are not much different from Leo-2A4 I believe.

Apropos, I am usually tied to follow classification of tank defence:
- Passive defence: (1) all kinds of passive armor (steel, ceramics, kevlar, spaced armor etc) (2) ERA
- Active defence: (1) laser jumming systems (Shtora-1/2 etc) (2) kinetic defence systems (Arena, Drozd-2, Trophy etc.)

[Waylander]

Ah, ok you decline ERA as passive armor.
I try again to explain what I want to say. :)

If we would strip T-80 of every ERA like system and of every active defence system than the armor should be less capable than the armor of the M1A2 or Leopard 2A6. If we put ERA and active systems onto both tanks (T-80 and M1A2) than the western one should also have more protection.
I don't want to say that western tanks with just their normal passive armor are better protected than new eastern tanks with ERA like systems.

So the M1A2SEP has the problem of weight. And without ERA like systems the US won't be able to protect all the weak points of this tank in the future, especially in close combat situations. That's why I say that a good mixture of traditional armor and ERA/active systems is the future for the M1 and other western tanks.

Interesting to know that the last batches of the Leopard IIA4 have a better armor despite the fact that they are a little bit lighter than the ones before. So you should not just look at pure weight of armor.

About helo support.
For sure Helo support is better. And vice versa.
The sovjets/russians are not the only ones using combined weapons tactics. It is right that you have to see for what style of combat the Ts have been designed for and I'm the last one who doesn't say that you have to put ths into your formula but western tanks are also not lonesome killers.
We always work together with mechanized infantry, artillery, pioneers and AT-Helicopters from company level upwards.

[extern]

Interesting news. Please coments...

Army Newspaper

The Abrams Files
Volume 11, No. 43, May 18, 2006
By Capt Paul Henry

An Australian owned Abrams tank is currently on exhibition at the US Armor Symposium at Fort Knox in Kentucky, showcasing the technological advances of the Australian variant.

The tank is an M1A1 AIM SA (Abrams integrated management situational awareness), one of the most advanced of the Abrams main battle tanks. It is one of only a small number of vehicles in the world of such a configuration, all of which are Australian.

The M1A1 AIM SA features enhancements such as second-generation FLIR, an inertial navigation system in addition to the global positioning system, an auxiliary power unit, infantry/tank telephone, far target locator, and the Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2) battlefield management system. Modified for Australian conditions, the tank has crew cooling fans and a refrigeration unit, and can fit a deep-water fording kit.

The armour package of the Australian Abrams is among the most advanced in the world.
The US Armor Symposium is attended by a large audience of senior US military officers, armoured-vehicle users and procurement personnel. The event is intended to communicate the importance of the newest technology in relation to security, education, training, and awareness for US military members.

The US Army will seek to adopt many features of the Australian variants for introduction to their own Abrams fleet.

[Waylander]

I've got three questions about this.

1. What is a "far target locator"? I cannot really imagine what this could be.

2. About the armor. I thought the aussie tanks are overhauled hulls of US Abrams, without DU-armor. So the armor should be less capable than US M1A1(HE)/A2(SEP).

3. It is said that this version can fit a deep-water fording kit. Is an original Abrams not able of crossing deep-water?

PS: A refrigerator os really good! I would have loved one in my tank!!! :frosty :D

[scraw]

I've got three questions about this.

1. What is a "far target locator"? I cannot really imagine what this could be.

2. About the armor. I thought the aussie tanks are overhauled hulls of US Abrams, without DU-armor. So the armor should be less capable than US M1A1(HE)/A2(SEP).

3. It is said that this version can fit a deep-water fording kit. Is an original Abrams not able of crossing deep-water?

PS: A refrigerator os really good! I would have loved one in my tank!!! :frosty :D

IIRC the US Marines have fording kits, US Army don't.

[knightrider4]

I believe its intended purpose is that of a laser designator to allow assets such as the Tiger gunship to engage targets with a greater chance of survival. Also useful for to designate targets for LGB's.

[gf0012-aust]

I believe its intended purpose is that of a laser designator to allow assets such as the Tiger gunship to engage targets with a greater chance of survival. Also useful for to designate targets for LGB's.

I think they're also Link 16'd which means direct contact with Hornets, Orions, navy assets etc...

[Waylander]

Very nice. Could be very usefull.
The only question is if it is usefull when a tank designates a target for a Tiger if he could just kill the opponent by itself?

[knightrider4]

I guess the tank can easily hide in a hull down position designate the target, let the gunship fire a hellfire missile and quickly drop down behind cover. I,m reasonably sure that the range of the Far Target Locater is around 8000 meters which allows the Abrams to keep away from the range of most weapons which may cause it concern. Depending on the terrain of course, for example highly effective in open country/deserts.

[gf0012-aust]

Very nice. Could be very usefull.
The only question is if it is usefull when a tank designates a target for a Tiger if he could just kill the opponent by itself?

I think its more of an issue of platform sympathy at the co-operative engagement level. eg Tigers are certainly useful for hunter killer teams but also as an overwatch and overmatch capability assuming that the tanks and helos are all operating in the same battlespace. so, in essence its an issue of combined arms capability/networking/co-op engagement. eg Tigers could be used for killing OPFOR MBT support elements while the tanks and AT teams go after the enemy MBT's (or vice versa etc...) So you get greater flexibility in overall response options.

I'd consider UAV's used at a lookdown support level to be a more useful scenario. Predators railed with hellfires could act in concert with the Abrams, or Hornets kitted with JDAMs would all be part of a far more comprehensive battlenet.

either way, whatever platform is Link 16'ed means that any given platform is part of the battlespace comprehension map and can be called upon where approp. If they're cleared for direct comms, then its far easier for local forces to bring in their own battlespace compression etc.....

[Waylander]

You could do that but new Ts have a laser warning system. This system is not a real problem if you want to have a first hit capability with your main gun. They are not able to react fast enough if somedy lasers you and 1-2 seconds later the round hits you.
But if you designate a modern T for your Tiger support you have to do that for a longer time than just 1-2 seconds. In this time the turret of the T automatically turns into your direction and the crew is able to maneuver, could use IR-fog and attack you.

[gf0012-aust]

You could do that but new Ts have a laser warning system. This system is not a real problem if you want to have a first hit capability with your main gun. They are not able to react fast enough if somedy lasers you and 1-2 seconds later the round hits you.
But if you designate a modern T for your Tiger support you have to do that for a longer time than just 1-2 seconds. In this time the turret of the T automatically turns into your direction and the crew is able to maneuver, could use IR-fog and attack you.

Maybe I haven't articulated clearly enough.

what I'm reinforcing is the issue of battlespace awareness. if you look at a lot of the posts responded to by some of the younger posters, they get all hung up about volumes of platforms and how they go bang - very few comprehend the primary issues of battlespace awareness and logistics.

if you sniff first, and you have battlespace compression in place, then your chances go up.

in absolute real terms, the thing that gives US forces in particular absolute advantage is their overwhelming dominance in situational/battlespace awareness. at that point, if you have the right gear in place, and decent training - then your chances of winning are much greater.

eg, look at the qualification tests for a US MBT Master Gunner, 1sqm hits on a high speed moving target at 2,3,4 km - and they've got to hit them both static and at speed and do it first time at a very high percentage level.

apart from the brits on the salisbury plains range, I'm not so sure that any other nation has the same degree of saturation training for their gunners at this point in time.

In an australian context, Link 16 gives them higher situational awareness - so the issue then is doctrine.

in real and generalised terms, why would you use an MBT to kill another MBT if you're able to use registered artillery (the real king of the battlefield - if you're arty qual'd) :D

registered arty, MLRS, MLRS-GM, NLOS, battlefield rockets etc are all going to make a mess of an armoured squadron (let alone a massed division) and be able to repeat themselves from 4-40km.

I'm only using the Tiger and Abrams analogy to hilight co-operative oppotunities - I'm not suggesting it as "the option"

[Waylander]

Ah, now I get the point. :)
I totally agree that battlefield awareness is very, very important. That's why I don't understand that the introduction of a battlefield management system into our mechanized formations is so long delayed. :mad:
For example in one day during our maneuvers our leading platoon took the wrong turn and the next thing that happened was that the OPFOR crashed into our flanks. Both sides were totally confused and the result was a close quarter combat with lots of friendly fire and nearly no coordinated maneuvering. Lone wolf fighting for every single tank. A good battlefield managment system could have been extremely usefull not to talk of bigger operations.
Ok, we could also have used our GPS but most of the time we work without GPS because our tank commanders shall not forget to orient in the old way.
There are only two risks I see in using battlefield management systems. The first is that you forget to work without the tech. This can be solved by good training.
The second one is more difficult. The commanding officers are more tempted to control everything by themselfes. Especially for an army which uses "Auftragstaktik" (You know the word? I thing it's international) this is a problem.

PS: When I wrote my post #291 I didn't see your post #290. I just answered to knightriders post. That explains why we didn't understand each other. ;)

[extern]

I,m reasonably sure that the range of the Far Target Locater is around 8000 meters which allows the Abrams to keep away from the range of most weapons which may cause it concern. Depending on the terrain of course, for example highly effective in open country/deserts.
'To keep away' - is not just for what a tank has been destined... It would be a bit strange that Far Target Radar equiped on a tank without any weapon with close to 8000m range. I think the answer is: the FTR was installed with the thought of a future weapon upgrade like 12000m range MRM-KE tank launching missile. Apropos, according to a strong rumor Rusia allready has ready such fire-and-forget atop attacking missile with 8000 m range but doesnt push it in ots army to avoid weapon race.

PS: there is a table of Abrams's armor specs :
Designation Year Mass t, Armor hor. proj., мм Steel Mass Equivalent , мм Steel Strength Equivalent (turret q = + 30о, hull q = 0о), мм:
APFSDS ATGM
M-1 1980 54,5 700 430 380 (М829AI) 600…650 (TOW)
IPM-1 1984 55,4 800 490 530…550 (M829AI) 750 (ITOW)
M-1A1 1985 57,15 800 490 530…550 (M829AI) 750 (ITOW)
IPM-1A1 1989 59 850 520 760 (M829AI) 850 (ITOW)
M-1A2 1992 62,5 900 550 870 (M829AI) 1350 (TOW-2A)

[Waylander]

Maybe not for keeping the enemy away but for better battlefield awareness. That is very well needed.
But as I always said this talking about ranges is difficult. Even in the flat countrys of northern germany there are not many battlefields with 1km+ fighting range. There are not many places around the wordl where the range is 5km+. I think not even in Australia. But thats something for the Aussie guys. ;)

[Bfn42]

'To keep away' - is not just for what a tank has been destined... It would be a bit strange that Far Target Radar equiped on a tank without any weapon with close to 8000m range. I think the answer is: the FTR was installed with the thought of a future weapon upgrade like 12000m range MRM-KE tank launching missile. Apropos, according to a strong rumor Rusia allready has ready such fire-and-forget atop attacking missile with 8000 m range but doesnt push it in ots army to avoid weapon race.

PS: there is a table of Abrams's armor specs :
Designation Year Mass t, Armor hor. proj., мм Steel Mass Equivalent , мм Steel Strength Equivalent (turret q = + 30о, hull q = 0о), мм:
APFSDS ATGM
M-1 1980 54,5 700 430 380 (М829AI) 600…650 (TOW)
IPM-1 1984 55,4 800 490 530…550 (M829AI) 750 (ITOW)
M-1A1 1985 57,15 800 490 530…550 (M829AI) 750 (ITOW)
IPM-1A1 1989 59 850 520 760 (M829AI) 850 (ITOW)
M-1A2 1992 62,5 900 550 870 (M829AI) 1350 (TOW-2A)


I really doubt how accurate that info is.

[gf0012-aust]

I really doubt how accurate that info is.

It's not accurate at all.

I was "contracted" to JRA/Tenix during the Leo1 armour upgrade Project and the Bushmaster evaluations, we were given access to Leo1, Leo2 and "internal" (as in NATO cleared) Abrams data.

As well intentioned as people may be when submitting info, the public data available on tanks is often nothing like the real info.

In the above case, we had info available as we were cleared for it at the approp security level, so I know that its wrong.

[killbill2]

Oh for god's sake. A top attack TOW2B,Hellfire from long range(hits top armor when fired from long range),Maverick,LOSAT/Kinectic energy missile family,Javelin,Preadator and any other top attack ATGM with tandem or EPP warheads will destroy it one hit KO. Not to mention Anti tank submunitions,AT mines, and IED's.. Im American but no way in hell is this thing invincible just hard to lay a finger on with all the other support it gets..:rwb

Here you go you'll find quite a lot.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/missile.htm
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/:drunk1

[gf0012-aust]

Oh for god's sake. A top attack TOW2B,Hellfire from long range(hits top armor when fired from long range),Maverick,LOSAT/Kinectic energy missile family,Javelin,Preadator and any other top attack ATGM with tandem or EPP warheads will destroy it one hit KO. Not to mention Anti tank submunitions,AT mines, and IED's.. Im American but no way in hell is this thing invincible just hard to lay a finger on with all the other support it gets..:rwb

Here you go you'll find quite a lot.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/missile.htm
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/:drunk1

I think the thread has derailed from various directions. It originally started from a legacy thread about survivability in Iraq/Kuwait and has migrated from there.

Throughout the progress of this thread various people have indicated that its not invincible - and that its able to be killed with various munitions etc.... The problem is "reaching out and touching it". If this can be achieved, then any tank under those circumstances is a target for salvage. ;)

[Pursuit Curve]

I think the thread has derailed from various directions. It originally started from a legacy thread about survivability in Iraq/Kuwait and has migrated from there.

Throughout the progress of this thread various people have indicated that its not invincible - and that its able to be killed with various munitions etc.... The problem is "reaching out and touching it". If this can be achieved, then any tank under those circumstances is a target for salvage. ;)

Not to ba a smart a**, but the main threat to an abrams isn't so much the direct attack option, but the vulnerability of the logistics and supply line needed to supply the thirsty beast with fuel and ammo.