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

[DoC_FouALieR]

The problem is "reaching out and touching it". If this can be achieved, then any tank under those circumstances is a target for salvage.
This highlights precisely the problems tanks encounter in urban combat...

We in France are confronted with a hard doctrinal problem with our Leclerc's tanks (that have been mainly made for a "standard" cold-war type confrontation) during urban combat phases...
So how could we use tanks in general in urban combat at best?

[gf0012-aust]

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.

You're not being a smart arse at all. You've actually restated what has been said frequently on here if not obliquely.

ie professionals discuss logistics while the amateurs discuss the toys.

too often, the more enthusiastic focus on what goes bang, and the "mano on mano" events - which have little basis in reality. its not an XBOX or Playstation computer game, and yet threads often deteriorate to "what goes bang" as being evidence of capability.

[gf0012-aust]

This highlights precisely the problems tanks encounter in urban combat...

We in France are confronted with a hard doctrinal problem with our Leclerc's tanks (that have been mainly made for a "standard" cold-war type confrontation) during urban combat phases...
So how could we use tanks in general in urban combat at best?

I think what it reinforces is the evolution of doctrine. eg Stalingrad and Chechnya are used as stellar examples of why you don;t use tanks in urban warfare or FIBUA. In fact Stalingrad was the primary model to define doctrine on why not to use heavy armour in FIBUA.

What happened though was that you saw doctrine shifts and design shifts that showed that MBT's did have utility as long as they were supported and used differently - and thats a doctrine issue.

eg, look at the Israelis. They picked up the German innovation for not wasting degraded weapons systems and then modifying them for niche needs. They haven't made the same mistakes though of "over niching" capability on a platform. eg the Germans did some excellent iterative platform development on the Panzer III, but came up with some howlers using the Panzer IV. The Israelis have taken a more considered approach but have stayed focussed. eg the Centurion, Sherman, Merkava 3, M1113, BMP, T-6n, T-5n, T-7n series tanks, BTR's etc... The Israelis have been singularly responsible/important in developing niche solutions for heavy armour in urban terrain. Arguably, current MBT developments for urban warfare owe the Israelis a great deal.

the event that changed the perception of a MBT's suitability in FIBUA (or FIBy) was the US Thunder Run through Bagdhad.

if you look at the event itself, is the doctrine that has made it credible. so I don't actually believe that the MBT per se has been compartmentalised due to its design limitations. After all, Chally2, Leo2, Leclerc, M1 Abrams were all designed for a pure armour Kursk style event in the Fulda Gap. The platforms haven't changed in absolute terms, but their doctrine for use has. (although it has led to progs such as TUSK)

[Waylander]

I don't understand why the US halted the TUSK program. The US put so much money into so many high-tech toys but sometimes it seems that they forget the normal GI in the field. Just look at the Humvee armor discussion.

The TUSK would improve the urban warfare capabilities of the Abrams in a good way. Modernizing one or two M1A2SEP btls into TUSK should not be that big problem.

[gf0012-aust]

Interesting excerpt on the doctrine of tanks and their benefit in Iraq. This is from JFQ Issue 39

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1539.pdf (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1539.pdf)


Tanks

The authors interviewed personnel from the U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps, and British army about main battle tanks in Iraq. Without exception or qualification, they praised the performance of tanks, describing them as vital to the quick victory.

The United Kingdom Minister of Defence, Procurement, stated, “Operation Telic [the British designation for Iraqi Freedom] underscored the value of heavy armor in a balanced force.” He also stated that Iraqi Freedom confirmed “protection is still vital” and reemphasized “the effect of heavy armor in shattering the enemy’s will to fight.”

Tanks were further esteemed during Iraqi Freedom for several reasons.

Tanks were highly resistant to fire. The most common Iraqi antiarmor weapon was the rocket-propelled grenade (RPG), especially the Soviet designed RPG–7.

This weapon has both high explosive and shaped charge warheads. The antiarmor shaped charge can penetrate up to 300 millimeters (nearly 12 inches) of solid, rolled homogenous armor plate under optimal conditions, but still failed to penetrate the advanced armor of the Abrams and Challenger 2 in most locations. British army sources stated that one of their Challengers operating near Basra absorbed 15 hits by RPGs with no penetration. The only British Challenger knocked out during the war was accidentally hit by another British tank.

A tank battalion commander in the 3d Infantry Division stated that one of his Abrams took 45 hits from various weapons, including heavy machineguns,
anti-aircraft guns, mortar rounds, and rocket-propelled grenades, with no penetration.

A few Abrams were penetrated by cannons and RPGs, usually in the rear flank or rear of the vehicle. In a few instances, enemy fire broke open the fuel cells of the external auxiliary power unit, allowing fuel to seep into the engine, causing a fire.

No Army or Marine crewman died in an Abrams tank due to enemy fire penetrating the vehicle during major combat operations.

[Cootamundra]

Interesting excerpt on the doctrine of tanks and their benefit in Iraq. This is from JFQ Issue 39

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1539.pdf (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1539.pdf)

No Army or Marine crewman died in an Abrams tank due to enemy fire penetrating the vehicle during major combat operations.

And still some debate the value of our M1 purchase here in AUS! It makes NO sense whatsoever - if we want to have a 'balanced' ARMY that is able to do more than peacekeeping then this capability is a must, just as a good rifle, helicopter, truck or grenade are.

[tntsas]

It is not clever to fight with M1 from front. Caterpillar band is a weakness and i will use a 40mm rocket.

[Waylander]

40mm? I am not sure if the load of a 40mm grenade is big enough.
Despite that the caterpillar is one of the hardest targets to hit. Often enough they are protected by little advances of the landscape.
The other two problems are, as mentioned before, to hit a moving tank on the run with an unguided round and to get away alive after the shot.
Tanks are no lone wolfs. There is a good chance that one of the tanks or IFVs in the group you are attacking sees your fire. And after that it is very hard to get away because there will be much metal in the air.

[tntsas]

I agree with you.
If M1 is not alone,it is hard to destroy them even approach them.
I will hide myself in the city,wait for the chance with my 40mm rocket.

[Waylander]

And while you are sitting in the cities the enemy rolls through your country and occupies every non-urban inch. ;)

[tntsas]

Yes ,the enemy will roll through my country,because i surpose i am a guerrilla will only 40mm rocket.I can aslo surpose i am a Leopard2A6 tank commander，or a Apache attack helicopter.But it is not interesting.

[Big-E]

This thread is getting petty.:p:

[DoC_FouALieR]

I think that the best way to disable a tank like the M1 while I am a guerilla is to dig massive IED under the road and detonate it remotely from a safe and far observation point.
Because when firing an AT-rocket, you give your position and you are not sure to hit the tank in its weak points.

[Bfn42]

Interesting excerpt on the doctrine of tanks and their benefit in Iraq. This is from JFQ Issue 39

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1539.pdf (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1539.pdf)


Tanks

The authors interviewed personnel from the U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps, and British army about main battle tanks in Iraq. Without exception or qualification, they praised the performance of tanks, describing them as vital to the quick victory.

The United Kingdom Minister of Defence, Procurement, stated, “Operation Telic [the British designation for Iraqi Freedom] underscored the value of heavy armor in a balanced force.” He also stated that Iraqi Freedom confirmed “protection is still vital” and reemphasized “the effect of heavy armor in shattering the enemy’s will to fight.”

Tanks were further esteemed during Iraqi Freedom for several reasons.

Tanks were highly resistant to fire. The most common Iraqi antiarmor weapon was the rocket-propelled grenade (RPG), especially the Soviet designed RPG–7.

This weapon has both high explosive and shaped charge warheads. The antiarmor shaped charge can penetrate up to 300 millimeters (nearly 12 inches) of solid, rolled homogenous armor plate under optimal conditions, but still failed to penetrate the advanced armor of the Abrams and Challenger 2 in most locations. British army sources stated that one of their Challengers operating near Basra absorbed 15 hits by RPGs with no penetration. The only British Challenger knocked out during the war was accidentally hit by another British tank.

A tank battalion commander in the 3d Infantry Division stated that one of his Abrams took 45 hits from various weapons, including heavy machineguns,
anti-aircraft guns, mortar rounds, and rocket-propelled grenades, with no penetration.

A few Abrams were penetrated by cannons and RPGs, usually in the rear flank or rear of the vehicle. In a few instances, enemy fire broke open the fuel cells of the external auxiliary power unit, allowing fuel to seep into the engine, causing a fire.

No Army or Marine crewman died in an Abrams tank due to enemy fire penetrating the vehicle during major combat operations.


Best post in this thread yet! Seriously nice find gf!

[robsta83]

When Im a guerilla I will be glad that the M1A1's are on my side. :smokie
Ditto on the Great thread GF, jsut goes to show this massive Anti-Tank campaign (scuse the pun) of the nineties all of sudden well well well, the most effective defense is against 50 cent weapons is Armour.

[Waylander]

Looks like every week somebody finds this thread and says that guerillas with RPG/ATGM killboxes and IED/Mines are able to disable an Abrams.
And always the answer is "Yes for sure, but for what price and how effective is it against massive mechanized forces rolling through your country". ;) :rolleyes:

[DoC_FouALieR]

Looks like every week somebody finds this thread and says that guerillas with RPG/ATGM killboxes and IED/Mines are able to disable an Abrams.
And always the answer is "Yes for sure, but for what price and how effective is it against massive mechanized forces rolling through your country".
Then it seems that nobody learns the lesson of the history... of this thread! ;-)

[tntsas]

If the 40mm rocket is not effective,i can aslo use 120mm anti-tank rocket or antitank guided missile.Attack from the top and hide in the city.
And it is unfair that there are 4 man in a tank but i am only one....

[gf0012-aust]

And it is unfair that there are 4 man in a tank but i am only one....

war isn't supposed to be fair - its supposed to be won at a time and place of your choosing.

apart from the "thunder run" - what makes you think that any tank is going to go into an urban area without clearing a path first?

I gather you aren't familiar with how tanks are supported in some armies....

[Waylander]

Normal operations in urban combat would see light and mechanized infantry formations supported by tanks, artillery and air support.
There is not going to be a lone wolf tank if everything works normal. For sure there might be tanks which were accidently seperated of their comrades but this is an exception.
And one man with an RPG against professional forces is suicide. Even good tank hunter teams using well prepared killboxes are.
Just look at the second battle for Grozny.
The rebells were very good prepared and battle hardened.
The russian infantry pushed forward supported by IFVs and APCs. Behind them there were tanks. During the attack one tank emptied his auto-loader full of HE rounds into every possible enemy position and fell back for reloading with the next one taking its place.
Onto every bigger fortified position the russians directed artillery and air strikes.
This worked well and the rebels weren't able to hold their lines.
For sure a well prepared modern army is able to hold a city against a much bigger opponent but you should forget that guerillas are able to hold a city against a big, modern army which works intelligent (Not like the russians during their first attempt to take Grozny).
And letting the enemy who attacks your country take the land outside the cities just helps him to close in on you and braking your cohesion, support and communication routes.

[tntsas]

war isn't supposed to be fair - its supposed to be won at a time and place of your choosing.

apart from the "thunder run" - what makes you think that any tank is going to go into an urban area without clearing a path first?

I gather you aren't familiar with how tanks are supported in some armies....
In a city ,there are lots of tall buildings,i can hide myself in those buildings.
Maybe the infantry will clear the area first,but at that time,my 40mm rocket
is a powerful weapon to them(i can use some mines too).I can aslo wait until the infantry has passed,and after that i come into the place and wait for the tank.

[gf0012-aust]

In a city ,there are lots of tall buildings,i can hide myself in those buildings.
Maybe the infantry will clear the area first,but at that time,my 40mm rocket
is a powerful weapon to them(i can use some mines too).I can aslo wait until the infantry has passed,and after that i come into the place and wait for the tank.

are you deliberately ignoring what has been said re this by not only myself, but also waylander about how modern armour works in built up areas in western style military doctrine?

you can go and park on the moon - tanks don't go in unassisted - and their support assets clear the path chosen of all anti-tank elements within range.

you should make the effort to absorb what has been told to you by people like Waylander who have armoured experience.

its not a computer game.

[tntsas]

Normal operations in urban combat would see light and mechanized infantry formations supported by tanks, artillery and air support.
There is not going to be a lone wolf tank if everything works normal. For sure there might be tanks which were accidently seperated of their comrades but this is an exception.
And one man with an RPG against professional forces is suicide. Even good tank hunter teams using well prepared killboxes are.
Just look at the second battle for Grozny.
The rebells were very good prepared and battle hardened.
The russian infantry pushed forward supported by IFVs and APCs. Behind them there were tanks. During the attack one tank emptied his auto-loader full of HE rounds into every possible enemy position and fell back for reloading with the next one taking its place.
Onto every bigger fortified position the russians directed artillery and air strikes.
This worked well and the rebels weren't able to hold their lines.
For sure a well prepared modern army is able to hold a city against a much bigger opponent but you should forget that guerillas are able to hold a city against a big, modern army which works intelligent (Not like the russians during their first attempt to take Grozny).
And letting the enemy who attacks your country take the land outside the cities just helps him to close in on you and braking your cohesion, support and communication routes.
This was a regular war.
The rebells failed because they tried to defend the place while the enermy was strong.The Rusion army knowed there were rebells in the area,so they called air and artillery support.And the Russion used the fire unlimited.

Yes,maybe the tank will get air and artillery support in a regular war,but what about a unregular war?When the army has taken the city ,they need to disperser the army to patrol on the street.Can every team of them get the air and artillery support?If they have,can they fire into every possible enemy position?Remember that they are in a city not a battlefield.
The moderm army cost much in an action.And if they do not get anything valuable,how long will they keep on doing this?

And what i should do is just wait(or run) for the chance in a unregular war..

[tntsas]

Can somebody tell me that if the tank can get air and artillery support everytime and everywhere?(for example ,3 years )

[gf0012-aust]

Can somebody tell me that if the tank can get air and artillery support everytime and everywhere?(for example ,3 years )

modern militaries work on the principle of combined arms.

before any ground troops are committed, the other assets in the mix will decapitate and compress the capability for an enemy to communicate in the field and will kill its ability to wage set piece battles.

in real terms, once you fracture the cohesion of the enemy force, once you dominate the battlespace then you can choose where and when you seek to dismember its other forces.

war is not just about killing what goes bang - its about killing the logistics of the enemy so that it loses the coherence and capability to engage in a meaningful fashion.

[Waylander]

Firing some RPGs onto a checkpoint or detonate an IED under a patrol is really useless against a modern army. Don't just think of the small pictures you see in the news about Iraq. You don't win the war by doing so.
The only thing that could happen is that the political will to fight against guerillas year after year is going down. But if the will remains strong you have no chance.
If you are good you might kill some of your enemies trying to take the city but after some shots you are dead meat.
Even if you are able to shot your 40mm rocket (And hit something!), there is a very big chance of dieing directly after the shot.
Just try to read something about combined arms combat. ;)

[DoC_FouALieR]

war is not just about killing what goes bang - its about killing the logistics of the enemy so that it loses the coherence and capability to engage in a meaningful fashion.
Yes, war is about getting an edge on the ennemy, exactly like a player "leads" the game in chess, he forces the opponent to move his pieces where he wants them to be moved, etc etc..

Just try to read something about combined arms combat.
check this (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-06/) about combined arms during urban operations.

I think that during urban war, the most annoying ennemy is not guerilla, but world medias that constantly monitor the action taken by a modern army, thus detering it to employ "big" means like massive artillery fire or carpet bombing due to the fear of civilian casualties.
Since medias are not very represented in tchechenya, the russian army has been free of employing huge destruction means... (like massive BM-21 strikes against one sniper in a building... or fuel/air explosive..)

[itanium7000]

Hi all,
Does any of you know any weapon that can probably achieve a kill against the US M1 A2 Abrams? Can the Soviet 125mmm smoothbore gun on the T-72 do that? I have read somewhere that the only weapon that can kill an M1 is the Hellfire missile. Could any one let me know any information on this issue? Many thanks.

Giang Nguyen

Oài, ông anh có tham gia trên TTVNOL không đó? anh quan tâm đến M1 Abrams à? hihi, theo em là cứ đột nhập vô network của cả đoàn nó cho nó bắn nhau chết hết đi.

Comments in English: Oh, do you participate on TTVNOL? You pay attention to M1 Abrams? I think about to destroy M1 Abrams computer network.
PS: thanks for Admin's remind

Admin: The accepted language on here is English. Please rewrite your comments and remember to respond in english in future.

[tntsas]

Ok i understand,one man can not kill an M1 Abrams with infantry ,fight ,artillery and so on...It is really hard.
I think the title of this thread should be renamed to"who can destroy the whole USA army".

Admin: Please do not edit out admin comments made to your posts - they're there for a reason.

[Waylander]

It is possible but not very likely and it is nearly suicide. ;)
And the title is really a little bit disturbing. As said before by GF0012-aust and others, the problem is touching it and getting away with it, not only the right weapon.



BTW, Chuck Norris is able to kill the whole US Army. :D

[Aussie Digger]

BTW, Chuck Norris is able to kill the whole US Army. :D

Agreed. There is little that Chuck Norris cannot do... :D

[Big-E]

Agreed. There is little that Chuck Norris cannot do... :D

He can't squat twice his body weight... total gym has made him weak.:laugh

[Bfn42]

He can't squat twice his body weight... total gym has made him weak.:laugh



:el :el :el :el I laugh every time I see that commercial.

[tntsas]

I have discussed it with some people in a chinese forum.
I get some new ideas.
one:
The essence of bushfighting is to obscure the borders of civilian and military personals, which will make it impossible to differentiate one from the other. The situation of American troops in Iraq serves an excellent example. The soldiers cannot who are their enemy, and the regard everyone as their enemy, which result in accidental killing of civlian individual. The consequence is that every failure to differentiate civilian personals to military insurgents will cause the increase of enemy. After reaching a threshold, technology will mean nothing, because you will be completed isolated. No system is perfect, any any fault or popential fault will result in an successful attack if you have enough enemy.Of course the civilian should think M1 is a intruder and support the guerrilla,

two:
This one I have posted in the thread. Can every team of the army get the support from the air and the artillery?And are the supports reachable all the time?The supports are very expansive.

three:
Moreover, If you just touch a child's head ,he will kill you with a knife.If you visit a brothel ,she will give you a bomb. Only if you never contact with the native, all people are your enemy .

And i have another question:What is gym?

[Waylander]

First. Your duty as a soldier is to protect the civilians. By hiding behind them the result is the total opposite.

Second. You cannot win a war against an army like the US have. You are killing some GIs with IEDs and RPG ambushes but every time you amass your forces you get punched into the ground like in Falludscha.

Third. During every major operation there is enough artillery and air support. For sure not every patrol has its own support but attacking some lonesome patrols won't win the war.

Forth. You don't win the hearts of the eople as a guerilla by attacking everything, not just miltary objects, and by hiding behind civilians.

The only way of winning a guerilla war is by destroying the political will like in Vietnam. After the Teth offensive the Vietcong was near to collapse but the US were not willing to fight any more so they surrendered.

[.pt]

I agree Waylander, but if its political will, and i´m sorry about the off topic, the US is engaged in Iraq for 3 years now, i think that the people of US might not be so suporting in, say, 5 years from now. On the other hand if the rearming and reorganisation of iraqui armed forces becames a reality, and they can fend for themselves, assuring internal security and stability, then US troops can withdraw and say mission acomplished. But with all this going on with al quaeda, sunites and shiites, and many other factions , who knows who will prevail? we´ll see in 3-4 years from now.

[Waylander]

I totally agree but the topic remains killing a M1.
I just wanted to show that a guerilla war is not the way with which you are able to destroy the US Army with its Abrams. ;)

[killbill2]

I think that the best way to disable a tank like the M1 while I am a guerilla is to dig massive IED under the road and detonate it remotely from a safe and far observation point.
Because when firing an AT-rocket, you give your position and you are not sure to hit the tank in its weak points.
Unless you use a fire and forget, top attack rocket launcher with tandem warheads. But yea you will give up your position. I wonder how big of an IED you'd need? I'd say 20lb of high explosive under the weak floor of the tank will destroy it.
this is a great article it even has some strategies for infantry to target tanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank:shudder

[Waylander]

This article is ok but it also just talks about lonesome tanks or groups og tanks acting in urban areas. The article also forgets to mention the mechanized infantry which works together with the tanks, or better is supported by tanks in urban warfare. It is mentioned before but it seems the author forgot his own words in the passage about infantry AT-tactics. ;)
I don't want to be an infantryman trying to get close enough to a tank to put a mine onto it while IFVs full of infantry are also there. These IFVs are able to fire and obersve into every direction.

[rattmuff]

I bet a swedish "tank buster" IED can do the job!
2 modified tank mines, 10kg(20lbs.) of plastic explosive and place everything under one of thoose metal lids you find in the middle of the roads. Detonate when a tank is just over the lid (by remote or pressure) ... poff! The tank is ****ed up and the crew is screwed. :wah
Swedish conscript has tested this one on a truck..... end of story. :D

[gf0012-aust]

This thread is getting borderline as far as continued longevity is concerned.

Stay on Topic! Its title is: who can kill an M1 Abrams?

the thread is: not military doctrine in general, not political doctrine in general.

Just a small point of fact for those talking about explosives underneath a tank.

A typical IED ranges from 50-500lb of explosives remote or hard wired to go off when the tank traverses over it. There have been very few instances where an Abrams was killed by an IED - in fact the total number lost to IED's since 1999 is less than 5 - out of a total stock of what - some 7000 platforms all up. Armoured vehicles (not just MBT's) are continually tested - to the point of destruction by whats called proximity and contact tests. They're tested with up to 1000lbs of explosives at staged ranges.

The nature of armoured warfare in the main is fluidity - enemies don't have the luxury of setting up tank traps and killing zones with emplaced IED's - thats the province of geurilla warfare. There has been a tactically spectacular failure of IED's anywhere in combat to become tank killers.

eg it took over 30 years before the Israelis lost 1 armoured bulldozer to an IED - and they're less than half the weight of a typical MBT.

Any tank can be killed in the right circumstances - but some of these theoreticals are just plain silly and completely ignore how modern armour is used. For over 55 years it was considered suicide to use MBT's in urban warfare, Chechnya was seen as reinforcing that - and then the Americans showed it could be done by using different tactics.

Its not just the toys - its the tactics - and guerilla warfare does not provide the mass and momentum to kill modern armoured columns as those columns adapt to the threat and have more support than they ever did in the past.

If this thread does not pick up qualitatively it risks being closed.

In fact this topic should look at "who can kill an MBT" rather than "who can kill an Abrams" as the topic is universal rather than discretionary.

[extern]

In fact this topic should look at "who can kill an MBT" rather than "who can kill an Abrams" as the topic is universal rather than discretionary.
I agree... The problem of tanks defence we cannot investigate in deep with investigation of Abrams only. The newest proof for vulnerability of all tank - is the history of the last kidnapping of an israel tankman: his tank was shoted from the rare by RPG, was flamed. Two tankists was dead, one - wounded and one - kidnapped. The cool video about that exist at the israel site Walla. The hole of the RPG is shown on 1' 18'' of the video: http://news.walla.co.il/?w=//937851 (bad connection)

[Waylander]

You think a video is cool?
Two Soldiers are dead, one wounded and one kidnapped! :(

[.pt]

Besides the point the video being "cool" or not.
I opened the link but couldnt see where the video was because i simply cannot read hebrew! any help on this?
.pt

P.S: waylander i agree, videos of destruction, death, etc are distateful, and human misery depicted in graphic detail is anything but cool

[Bfn42]

Wait.....was the Merkava penetrated or not?

[Soner1980]

modern militaries work on the principle of combined arms.

before any ground troops are committed, the other assets in the mix will decapitate and compress the capability for an enemy to communicate in the field and will kill its ability to wage set piece battles.

in real terms, once you fracture the cohesion of the enemy force, once you dominate the battlespace then you can choose where and when you seek to dismember its other forces.

war is not just about killing what goes bang - its about killing the logistics of the enemy so that it loses the coherence and capability to engage in a meaningful fashion.

Chinese army can be modern, but this does not mean that it has also western strategy and tactics. The Chinese ground forces are now started to replace their 100mm MT-12 'Rapira' AT guns with ATGM's. If you hear this, than I would like to know were the Chinese army stays. The Rapira is unable to displace when fired a few shots and will be destroyed after few shots by a professional trained army like the US or other NATO forces. That is the reason that the Cinese people does not know about combined arms tactics and sometimes you also do not need to be combined but it is very handy to get everything on the field mixed with some units. If you play Operation Flashpoint than you know what combined arms is in a roughly game if you do not have a field manual. And if you read the tankers military handbook or a field manual extended than it is clear what combined arms means.

Using a RPG alone waiting for a tank is not a way of fighting. Look to the Palestines that you will see. Nothing happened after many attacks and now Lebanon has been blocked from outside.

Using small groups, e.g. a squad with one MBT and artillery ready for call and a chopper is protecting you from above is a very handy tactic that a few men you can kill a hundred Chechen guerilla's because the chopper can spot enemy forces, and fire their weapons to a single men with its RPG, and a tank can give some close support with it's tank gun and MG, and the infantry can do the job. Sending a single platoon with 50 infantry to the enemy will be ended with death like in Enemy at the gates when the Russians walked to the Germans waiting for them :)

Ofcource their are some guys here who knows better than me. In that case, I love critics!:flame

[extern]

Wait.....was the Merkava penetrated or not?
The answer is positive: it had been penetrated and flamed, the part of its crew was killed (was killed after that - as an option), one - leaved the tank and was kidnapped and one - remain in the tank wounded and survived. As I can understand, the fire prevention system also worked otherwise he could not survive.

Guys, 'cool' means here 'interesting' and 'well mended'. We started to speak about tanks vulnerability, and like somebody heard us and gave us its new information for thinking.

Regards

[buckykat5463]

Hi all,
Does any of you know any weapon that can probably achieve a kill against the US M1 A2 Abrams? Can the Soviet 125mmm smoothbore gun on the T-72 do that? I have read somewhere that the only weapon that can kill an M1 is the Hellfire missile. Could any one let me know any information on this issue? Many thanks.

Giang Nguyen
Simple Kill For Starters: All you need is a 50-cal. sniper rifle and a few armor piercing rounds into the engine compartment. If possible the sabbot round or flacette round by Olin Industries will do the job quite well. Next Question please. Buckykat5463 :sniper :hul :sniper :sniper :sniper

[Waylander]

I really doubt that 12,7mm AP is able to penetrate any part of the Abrams. Not to say it is impossible. ;)

[buckykat5463]

Hi all,
Does any of you know any weapon that can probably achieve a kill against the US M1 A2 Abrams? Can the Soviet 125mmm smoothbore gun on the T-72 do that? I have read somewhere that the only weapon that can kill an M1 is the Hellfire missile. Could any one let me know any information on this issue? Many thanks.

Giang Nguyen
Hello Giang The only other weapon I would need if I failed with the fifty cal. is a twenty millimeter anti-tank weapon. With the chice of rounds. Destroying is not the key disabling and capturing and using for yourself sounds better, And believe me I know about the reactive armors. Twenty millimeter is largest I need. Buckykat5463.

[buckykat5463]

Hello Warriors: What to do about knocking out and Abrams A-2 or A-1. There was never a specific format when you say knockout a tank. Does not matter whose.With a fifty cal. Combined with some of the rounds from Olin Industries the M-1A1, or M-1A2 can be captured. I f you want it crippled no probem. My weapon of choice the twenty millimeter ant-tank gun is my choice with of course my ammo again from Olin Industries. I do not believe in depleted uranium rounds. Far to messy and dangerous to handle. these rounds are the invisible death of a soldier in the field. I take it you want all your Lance CPLS. alive do you not. I am just stating for the record there are wonder munitions allready available without the use of depleted uranium rounds. these are a reprehensible weapon without regard to human life. And the best part they work and far safer to handle without melting yousline or liver from radiation poisoning. If any questions leave with buckykat5463 and I will respond. To many of our politicians have been recklessly handling our fine troops in their efforts with their tours in Enduring Freedom. Godbless and Godspeed fine warriors. Without delays our troops might have have been fairing much better.

[TrangleC]

thats true, but the gun on the m1a2 has a 100m adv over a leo. the leo has to close the gap first.
Really? And how? As far as i know the Abrams still uses the same gun like the old Leopard 2 (a L44 originally designed by Rheinmetall and then lizensed by a us company for the Abrams), while the Leo2A6 was upgraded with the successor model of that gun, a more powerful L55 version.

And by the way, 100m are nothing. It's unlikely anyway that tanks have a shootout at exactly the maximum range of their guns. In reality they will meet at much smaller distance because one surprisingly comes out from behind a forest, a house or a hill and then the reaction time of the crew is more important than anything else, even if both sides knew the estimated position of the oponent from surveilance.

[Waylander]

Sorry, but what do you mean with 20mm AT-gun? Like the weapons used by some IFVs? A recoiless gun? Some kind of RPG? Something totally different?

I would really like to see you at the wrong end of a mechanized assault with nothing bigger than some kind of 20mm weapon. ;)

[swerve]

I really doubt that 12,7mm AP is able to penetrate any part of the Abrams. Not to say it is impossible. ;)

Especially since the company which is supposed to make this wonder ammunition, Olin Industries, hasn't existed since it merged with Mathieson Chemical Company in 1954. There is an Olin Corporation, which has a subsidiary (with a different name - Winchester Ammunition) which makes ammunition . . . but only for rifles, handguns & shotguns, as far as I can see from its website . . . :D

www.winchester.com

[Waylander]

Hehe. :D

I see that the thread has been renamed. Thank you mods. :)

[extern]

I think the importance of tank mobility is underestimated in the West in some degree. If a tank move like this, it is very hard to hit him before it hit you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vglw7d7Y8io&mode=related&search= It is T-80U.

[killbill2]

I think the importance of tank mobility is underestimated in the West in some degree. If a tank move like this, it is very hard to hit him before it hit you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vglw7d7Y8io&mode=related&search= It is T-80U.
I disagree because a self contained infantryman with a man portable anti tank system can take it out without being detected which is what the javelin provides.Anti tank missiles can easily hit moving targets with ease. For example a helicopter runs out of antitank missiles and tanks are rolling in, he can always disengage since they travel at much faster speeds than tanks.

[Waylander]

Believe me mobility is not underestimated.
But you have to find the right mix of mobility and protection. Often enough you are just not able to cruise like a helldriver.
And western tanks are mobile and well protected.
High speed in rough terrain

Here is a little part of a video from one of our training exercises.

http://rapidshare.de/files/25936676/Versuch.mpg.html

There you see that we are also able to bunnyjump around. This happened while we killed the enemy FAC and had to flee from an enemy tank which suddenly appeared at 4-5 o'clock. But this is not normal. Spotting the enemy is much easier while you are not driving so fast.

[Waylander]

Firing an ATGM onto an enemy tank column is not very easy if you don't want to be spotted. Enemy tanks are able to see were the missile comes from and than they are able to use TI for the identification of the infantry team which fired it. You might get away with it but you could also end up too near to MG and 120mm HE rounds.


PS: The helicopter cannot disengange if an APFSDS round hits it. ;) :D

[.pt]

Are these really normal operating speeds in those videos, or something just for the camera?
Will the tracks last long with that kind of treatment? And engaging enemy tanks or APC at those velocity even with stabilised main guns, frirng computers and so on, surely probability of a first hit is degraded, no? Also, i think to hit helicopter with a cannon shot must be difficult,because those things are fast and change direction very easily, and also dont they generaly use a popup profile when engaging tanks?
And when goingtrough rivers or mud holes,cant the optical and IR sights be degraded with mud and water covering them?
.pt

[Waylander]

As I said before, sometimes you need this kind of driving. For example if you have to jump from one fortified poition to another or the enemy shots at you and you have to get some cover. It is also also a normal tactic to waggle while you are under attack.
Like I said in the description my video is normal operation. I think the T-80 video is mostly show but that doesn't mean much.
But you are right if you say that the hitting and spotting capability is decreased.

TIs and optics have no problem with water but if it gets too muddy you should clean the TI during a some battle pause.

[DoC_FouALieR]

The ability to run from one cover to another at full speed while engaging target can be valuable. I know this is possible with the Leclerc MBT (view some videos of training, quite impressive) which can travel at ~40 km/h with the possibility to to fire accurately under 360°.
So I wonder if there are some restrictions while firing on move with the Leo 2 and Abrams, since some people use to say that the Leclerc is the only MBT with this ability, but I strongly doubt they are right.

[Waylander]

The only restriction is the ability of the gun to go up and down without hitting the stoppers (I don't know the right word).
Every tank has a restriction how his gun is able to go up and down. The Ts ability is smaller than the one of M1 and Leo II.
If the terrain is too rough the gun hits the stoppers everytime you have to cross a big hole. So the picture of the gunner is not stable. At the top of the hill it jumps up and down in the hole it jumps down.
The Leo II has no speed restrictions. We hit targets with 60 km/h. And that was with the older analog targeting computer. From A5 on the TC is digital and faster.

(I've got the feeling my english is bad today ;) )

[DoC_FouALieR]

Thanks for the answer.

(But don't worry about your English.. man kann Deutsch sprechen! ;-))

[extern]

Cummulative side direction hitting (Lebanon today):


Please use the ATTACHMENT feature to attach pictures. No external links to other forums, especially when forums are locked down for registered users only. Thanks!

[Waylander]

Two problems.

First, I don't understand the language. (Not even the letters ;) )

Second, it looks like I have to register or something like that to see what you want us to see.

[extern]

Two problems.
First, I don't understand the language. (Not even the letters ;) )
Second, it looks like I have to register or something like that to see what you want us to see.
It was the moderator's notes :D .
I mean the follow pics from Lebanon:

Look, how big is the space volume of Merkava! It is very hard to defend such big volume by armor, I suppose. For opposite, the whole volume of T-80 - is 11 m3. Only the engine/transmission department of Leo-2 is 7.3 m3, isnt it?

[Waylander]

Are there any infos about these pictures. A hole alone says not much about the weapon.
We do not even know if the weapon really penetrated the tank.

[extern]

We do not even know if the weapon really penetrated the tank.
I saw it by TV. The crew was wounded is reported. I saw they were evacuated by medical crew. No dead was if believe to the report. However It remains some space for interpretations.

[Waylander]

Jep, all these AT-weapons are a big problem for zahal.
I saw pictures of Milan ATGMs and RPG-29s.
I think no tank is able to withstand a direkt hit from a Milan in the side.
Poor crew. Best wishes.

[extern]

The Last israeli information: 2 tanks were striked yesterday by improvised explosive devices, 2 tankists were dead. Hizb'alla claims 5 tanks hitted. The role of RPG's and ATGM's is not clear, but it will be right to assume it exists.:flame
Live translation from Israel
national radio http://reka.iba.org.il/
1st Chanal TV http://mabat.iba.org.il/

[MG 3]

another tank blown up in Bint Jbail(southern lebanon). it is reported it was hit on the side. one killed others wounded. and yes they are using a lot more than RPG-7's.

[merocaine]

Ok this is a little of topic but whats the point of using tanks in this kind of battle ?
Is'ent the point to smash through, flank and let the arti and infantry do the work.
The Israelies seem to be using the tanks like armoured pill boxes, this seems to be a step backwards in tank doctirine.
whats the point of using the tank like this? I think there has been a failure of imagination by the israelies. If they want a quick war this is not the way to do it. Hezzbullah seem to be able to feed there troops into the battle without interference or the threat of being flanked and surrounded.
The tank should be speed and mobility, Israei tank doctuirne sucks period.
Welcome to WW1.

I'd like to see Hezbullah trying to draw bead on a tank traveling at 45 k an hour in there rear! use the mobility that the tank offers! It's not like Israel has to worry about air power or heavy arti or enemy tank forces, there fighting light infantry for gods sake and the enemy have a battalion and a half of front line infantry to play with.

[Waylander]

You forget that a Merkava Mrk. III/IV still offers more protection than anything else on the battlefield even when it is not able to use its speed and mobility.
Just imagine how many losses the Israelis would suffer if they would just attack with infantry.
You might see some tanks taking hits but there much more weapons available which would penetrate APCs and IFVs with the tank offering more firepower at long ranges and against fortified positions.
Another reason is that the tanks exist, Why would you not use something which offers so much protection and firepower just because it's not the main task of the tank?
The Merk is also better suited for anti-infantry and urban warfare than most other tanks in the world. Up to three MGs, an 80mm mortar, HE shells, cameras on all sides, room for infantry, etc.

[merocaine]

You forget that a Merkava Mrk. III/IV still offers more protection than anything else on the battlefield even when it is not able to use its speed and mobility.
Just imagine how many losses the Israelis would suffer if they would just attack with infantry.
You might see some tanks taking hits but there much more weapons available which would penetrate APCs and IFVs with the tank offering more firepower at long ranges and against fortified positions.


you misunderstand, I,m sure the Merakava is a fine tank, its the way its being used that I have a problem with. For me the Tank is about mobile operations carried out at speed, not slow grinding attacks.
The Israelies seem to have forgoten what the tank is for.
Its not that the Israels cant use there tank mobility, it seems to me they wont. And to my mind will end up taking more causultys in the long run because they wont take risks in the short term.

This is a quote by a guy called Gary Brecher, he writes for an online newspaper called The Exile, he has nothing but praise for the Merkava but he made those observation about the mind set that went into the tank

So back to the Merkava. A great design, yes. But the whole greatness of the design advertises the weakness of the Israelis: they don't like taking casualties. You're thinking, "Nobody likes it you jerk!" Except that's totally untrue. Lots of places like taking casualties. The Shiites -- they never felt prouder or happier. The Russians under Stalin -- they died crying for joy. All you fucking happy people -- you think everybody's like you? Lots of people want to die. I want to die! There's more like me than like you, you smug bastards.

So for now there's the Pals laying the bodies out and howling proudly, and there's the IDF hunkered down in their Merkavas crunching up cars but not really with the guts to crunch whole populations, whole towns. And if they don't do that, they lose. Killing two or three a day won't do it. That's less than a thousand a year -- pathetic! The Merkava is a way to protect Israeli soldiers more than it's a way to kill Palestinians. See, in that way it's a defensive weapon. Whereas an AK-47, with a Pal standing in the street firing at the Merkava -- the AK is an offensive weapon. Not that it can hurt the Merkava, because it can't. But it says, on camera, "I want to die and to kill." And the Merkava says, "Yikes, you people are crazy, get away from me!"

A tank vs. a rifle is an unequal battle -- but not necessarily in favor of the tank

Ok he's a little crazy and he has funny ideas about what Israel should do to win in the territories, but he has a point.

Another reason is that the tanks exist, Why would you not use something which offers so much protection and firepower just because it's not the main task of the tank?

Because it negates its main advantage, what foot sloggers hate most... speed. Armys crumble when encircled, they can survive a long time agaist a long grinding assault, even if they will lose in the long run

The Merk is also better suited for anti-infantry and urban warfare than most other tanks in the world. Up to three MGs, an 80mm mortar, HE shells, cameras on all sides, room for infantry, etc.

I agree totally its the best tank for this kind of work. Again its how its being employed, slowly inching around, gives the enemy, if there any good, time to breath.

[Waylander]

There are no lines to be crushed through. You won't have any benefits from driving like crazy deep into lebanese territory. The Hizbollah is fighting guerilla style and to fight lonely guerilla squads you have to drive slowly and observe the terrain.
You are also not able to cover your infantry while pushing forward too fast.

If you would push forward very fast the Hizbollah would just wait for you to drive through and than attack the infantry following the tanks.
Against guerillas speed is not a big advantage. Armor protection and firepower are the main factors if you fight against rebells.
Crushing the lines and wreck havoc among the troops behind the line works fine against normal armys but not against rebells.

BTW, this guy is really crazy. Talking about wiping out whole cities. That's nothing more than big style terrorism. And the sentences about red army soldiers loving to die. He should try to learn something about history.:rolleyes:

[merocaine]

wait arent the gurrillas dug into trench systems inside the towns, the israelies keep going on about how elaborate the defences are, the point is, at the moment Hezbullah are fighting to hold terrortory, there not mobile, their fighting in fixed positions. Why not bypass the towns cut off reenforcements and patrol agressively?
While thats going on level the town with airpower and arti and bulldoze the tunnells and trenches.
Be aggressive with the tank its not a pill box.

and if they do attack the following infantry they would be exposed to air power, like in iraq at the moment when the insurgents try to mass together.
Either way your bring them to battle, like I said theres only a finate number of Gurrillias. Against those kind of aggressive attacks no gurrillia can stand up for long.

anyway what do you think of his analysis of the design of the merakava? tanks seem to be your forté.
Against guerillas speed is not a big advantage. Armor protection and firepower are the main factors if you fight against rebells

actully speed is always of the essence no matter who you fight, against Gurrilias if your not quick they slip away. Speed and intel are the key to vicory in any war.

[Waylander]

I agree that the Merkava was developed with the best crew protection in mind. But this happened not because of fear but because of the fact that due to its small population and small country the IDF often enough have to fight out of fortified positions without the ability to use a more mobile defense. Trained crews are also not easy to replace for them so they tried to protect them in the best way they can.
His talks about a guy with a AK is an offensive weapon and the tank not, etc. is pure bullshit. What should the IDF do in MOUT engagements? Level the whole town with cluster bombs and killing all the civilians inside? Leave the tank and kill the rebells with their UZIs because it looks more agressive?
In my opinion he discredits himself by asking for the destruction of towns and whole populations.

What do you gain by bipassing the positions of the Hizbollah? You are able to stop the supplies by using air power.
There is no need to expose the flanks and rear of your tank to RPGs and ATGMs, because this is exactly what happens if you push deep into libanese territory.
It seems like the Hitbollah is well organized. By using tanks to support your infantry you give them the punch to crush every enemy position. The air force is just not able to do this as fast as tanks are. A tank is able to attack within seconds after the enemy opens fire or is detected.

[merocaine]

But this happened not because of fear but because of the fact that due to its small population and small country the IDF often enough have to fight out of fortified positions without the ability to use a more mobile defense. Trained crews are also not easy to replace for them so they tried to protect them in the best way they can.

I thought mobility was the key to Israels sucsess in war? 48' 68' 73' 82', it looks like they have abandoned that principle and prefer to use there tanks as heavly armoured IVF's

What do you gain by bypassing the positions of the Hizbollah? You are able to stop the supplies by using air power.
There is no need to expose the flanks and rear of your tank to RPGs and ATGMs, because this is exactly what happens if you push deep into libanese
territory.


What you gain are troops on the ground in the rear of the Hezbullah fixed positions, a choking off of supplies, why do you think the US sealed Fullugia before moving in?
Air power can't stop guys on mountain bike's, tunnel systems.
Plus there the psycological effect on the enemy when they have been surrounded.
Air power has'ent stopped the Katushas, today 119, the most in one day since the start of the war.

Surely the idea is to manuver, and not fight on the ground of the enemys choosing? what is the point of pushing forward slowly if it gives the enemy the chance to retreat.

By the time the Israelies take the Town of Bint Jbeil, hezbullah will have pulled out, that kind of operation costs men and tanks and allows the enemy to escape.

I still dont understand your point about firepower being more important than speed in combating gurrellas...

By the way I was'ent asking you about his political views I was asking about his view on the Merkava, have they turned the tank into a defencive weapon?
God imagine if the Hezzbullah were armed with top attack anti tank missles, I think a slow and steady advance would be a slaughter.
Looks like they knocked out another couple today by the way....

the way things are going i'd bet on a long fight and a lot more trashed MBT's

[Waylander]

As I said before I really believe the IDF would suffer much more casualties if they would push deep into enemy territory cavalry style.
Tanks are much more vulnerable to enemy fire than. You are not able to locate enemy fire as precisely and the enemy has much more chances of hitting the flanks and rear of your tanks.
While pushing forward not so fast but more steadly you are able to locate enemy fire much faster and direct counterfire much more accurate and faster.
We had much more problems with hidden ATGMs doing a fast attack than while we supported infantry. But we had the opportunity to crush through the lines of a normal opponent, the IDF not.


About this guy. A tank remains an offensive weapon as long as you use it for the offense. It is unimportant if this offense is fast or slow.

[merocaine]

cool clocking off "work" now, so can't talk,but i still think that fear of tank kills will undermine whatever sucess the IDF forces have in forcing Hezbullah back.

I still say a tanks best chance is speed and manoverablity, cause you can never be to armoured. And I dont mean we should all be driving T72's :D

[Waylander]

I agree that speed is necessary especially if you attack heavy enemy forces or normal infantry lines.
But there are also situations where speed is not usefull. Scout operations for example.
The same with anti-guerilla warfare. You want to find the enemy and this is much more easy while you drive slower.

[MG 3]

What we need to understand is that the terrain is different. it is hilliy and most of the deadliest fightion is in an urban envoirnment. so because of these factors the tanhs mobility is of little use. it needs to be noted that the israelies are no engagind company or platoon size formations but 5-10 men. so a tank moving in such a limited space after such a small target, its affectiveness is severly restricted. the only thing that can help israel win is the infantry and that meathod will cost a lot of blood.

[extern]

I should say, Hizballa was successeful on its attempt to draw TzAHAL down to city fighting. Also the israeli cabinet is worry about possibility for widening of the conflict and doesnt allow to army to expand the area of occupation (today new). THus, the tactics of the IDF cannot be verry diferent from what it has just now.

Waylander, the Israeli airforce allready destroied the whole districts in Beirut with their civilians. Destroing of nearly un-populared Bint-Jbeil by tanks adds nothing for the image of Israel, that hardly can be damaged more.

[Waylander]

There is no difference if you attack fotified postitions in houses and in the landscape with infantry/ATGMs or with tanks. The damage is the same. But the tank is faster and better protected.
You have to use something against the rebells.

[extern]

The difference between the israeli soldiers and the hizb'allah fighters is that the lasts are really ready to die in more quantities that the formers. In that meaning Hizb'allah not need tanks at all, because prepearing platoon of gerilla is much cheaper that platoon of tanks. For Lebanon in general is much cheaper to rebuild their country each time after war that feeding strong army with tanks. But it is their democratic choice... Anyway, the tanks remain very good tool for war if the politicians dont involve in tactic decisions IMHO. Tank using has to be developed according to its own rules. On the follow video you can see the Hizb'allah attack against Merkava: http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=6URBD-AU2WQ

[DoC_FouALieR]

On the follow video you can see the Hizb'allah attack against Merkava:
We must have an account to see this video...

And this Merkava seems to resist quite well to the incoming Anti tank rounds...

[extern]

And this Merkava seems to resist quite well to the incoming Anti tank rounds...
How you dicided about it? We not know what happen to the crew and to the tank capability looking this movie. We only see that the tank is un-moving and does not return fire.

Only one thing I can tell you: if the tank commander was upon the turret with its mashin-gun, he is quiet dead.

[merocaine]

I had a feeling israeli tactics's sucked in this confrontation, Israeli ground forces have pulled out of the Bint Jbial area, and seem to be massing in the Gallie panhandle. see the uk guardian and israeli haaretz.

Still feel they should have pushed well behond the town with armoured forces and cut off the trench and bunker systems in the town itself. As it it is their best infantry have taken a bloody nose in house to house fighting in the town.
What must the reserves be thinking.

Tanks were wasted in this role, use your tanks for what they do best, fire and manuver, or dont use them at all.

[Waylander]

Striking deep into enemy territory and cutting Hizbollah supply routes works both ways. You have to send supply convois to your tank units which are vulnerable to the Hizbollah troops you left behind.

I think we just disagree at this point. :)
I don't see the big benefits of using tanks as a mechanized onslought without having a real enemy line to break through.

For political reasons it seems that Israel is not willing to occupy the Lebanon.
On the other hand they want to strike against Hizbollah.
So you just have to go into the cities to destroy the Hizbollah bases and to eliminate its members.
I would not send my infantry into urban areas without tank support especially because the IDF have no kind of IFV which could provide direct heavy support fire.

[extern]

There is an information here about one ATGM attack against Merkava-IV:
"an anti-tank missile slammed into a Merkava Mark 4 Main Battle Tank. One of the soldiers was seriously injured and lost both legs, and another soldier suffered light injuries. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/741131.html July 23, 2006
Unfortunately they didnt say about the direction of penetration.

About the vulnerability of T-72: let take all things in proportion. This tank is not more vulnerable that any contemporal western tank. For example according to american information In the first Gulf War the Americans feared to approach T -72 nearer than on 3000 m, shooting at it tow-2, but they tried not to shoot from their tank MG on the T -72 frontal projection . Also against one T -72, supplied with the Chinese system of laser interferences, they usually directed 2 Abrams' and 1 Breadly (Armor, 1991, May June, p 13-20)

This is confirmed by another American source, according to which only 6% apfsd sabots hit iraqi tanks in the frontal projection of + -45 deg. According to the same source during entire time of the first Iraqi company only 14 T -72 was destroyed by the fire of tanks and ATGM (M Held. Warhead hit distribution on main battle tank in the Gulf War. - J. of Battlefield Techn., v.3, N1, 2000 http://www.argospress.com/jbt/Volume3/3-1-1.htm )
The diagram is from the last source:

[extern]

If you compare between the distribution diagramms of azimut hits in 2WW, 6-Day War, Yom-Kipur war and 1GW, you'll see that in the Gulf War the americans tried to avoid frontal collision with the Iraqi tanks:

[Waylander]

We absorbed many former East-Germany T-72M1 after our reunification.
This was a good opportunity for the Bundeswehr to test the 105mm and 120mm tank guns of our Leopards against them.
120mm HEAT penetrated most of the frontal arc and APFSDS entered everytime/everywhere and often enough it left the turret at the back.

[extern]

APFSDS entered everytime/everywhere and often enough it left the turret at the back.
Which one APFSDS?

[Waylander]

DM33.
Maybe also other prototypes of DM 43/53/63.

[extern]

DM33.
Maybe also other prototypes of DM 43/53/63.
From L44 or L55?

[Waylander]

L55 was not introduced by then (early 90s).
Maybe they tested some prototypes (I would bet on this) but this is no information which is as available as the normal tests.

[extern]

L55 was not introduced by then (early 90s).
Maybe they tested some prototypes (I would bet on this) but this is no information which is as available as the normal tests.
Interesting... I wonder why the Germans started in 90th so big and costly program of tank MG and APFSDS upgrading, if its old guns and round was very enough as you say? A bit strange for me. Can you say more information about the trials?
1) - what type of T-72 was used?
2) with or without ERA?
3) what was the range?
thanks
Some more pictures about tanks problem in the hilly area (Lebanon)

[TrangleC]

Interesting... I wonder why the Germans started in 90th so big and costly program of tank MG and APFSDS upgrading, if its old guns and round was very enough as you say? A bit strange for me.

I think one of the reasons is that the german army isn't allowed to use uranium ammunition for political reasons and knowing that many others will use it in the future, the designers have to find ways to compensate that and to increase the ability to penetrate armour by other ways. One way among others is to have a gun with higher firepower.

[Waylander]

The trials were against T-72M1 without ERA.
We were not sure about the capabilities of next generation of eastern tanks and the next generation of active protection systems. The plus in stability and speed of the penetrator gives the other scientist something to think about. ;)
If you start developing a new system when the old is obsolete it is too late.

Another reason is that with the possibility to equip new Leo IIs and upgrade older ones with the new gun gives the Leo II system an advantage in selling competitions (Like Greece and Spain).

BTW, most people don't know that DU is not a wonder material. The most advantage over wolfram penetrators is not penetration capability but the price. DU is much cheaper especially for countrys who use nuclear power plants.