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

[extern]

The trials were against T-72M1 without ERA.
...
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.
Yeah, I remember, that in USSR even the casing for Rhoentgen equipment was made from DU.

About T-72: the most part of its defence is given by ERA. The previous modernisations was with K5 ERA, but the last is with the newest Relikt ERA that is withstanding good against APFSDS and double-explosion ATGMs. You can see, that T-72 with ERA, unlike Abrams, withstand good against backside RPGs, with no damage for tank fucasualities:

[Waylander]

Earlier generations of ERA didn't stopped the rebells in Grosny.

The main defence of T-72s is still then passive armor, otherwise you could just put some ERA modules onto tin cans with the same effect.
ERA is a good solution to improve the defence of tanks, especially against ATGMs and RPGs, but I really doubt that it is able to match the newest gun/ammo combinations.

[Moroz.ru]

Earlier generations of ERA didn't stopped the rebells in Grosny.Guten Tag, Waylander! :)
AFAIR, first assault of Grozny was planned as power demonstration, like tank marching in Moscow at 1991 and 1993. A lot of ERA bricks were empty, without explosive (It’s Russian pofigism). Then T-80’s with armed ERA held up to 10 RPG shots from front and sides.

[MG 3]

moroz.ru is right. our T-80 have also stood up to 7-10 rpg shots in waziristan. but APC's (M-113) were not so lucky. some that had ERA survived easy.

[extern]

moroz.ru is right. our T-80 have also stood up to 7-10 rpg shots in waziristan. but APC's (M-113) were not so lucky. some that had ERA survived easy.
Contrawise Merkava is relative vulnarable against ATGMs probably also bcz it lacks ERA:

Today news

Two Israeli soldiers were injured - one seriously and another moderately-to-lightly - by an anti-tank missile fired at their tank in the southern Lebanese village of al-Taybeh, the army said.
//...On Thursday, three IDF soldiers were killed by an anti-tank missile attack on their tank. A fourth soldier was killed in a similar attack in the southern Lebanese village of Al-Taybeh. 5 Hizbullah terrorists killed. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286105,00.html

Also Waylander, the T-72/T-80's in 1-st Chechen war was stripped from ERA, in peace complection . Russian army was without strong leadership bcz all political turmoils there.

[Waylander]

Hallo. :)
They were stripped of ERA? That's new to me. But I'm open to learn something new!

I think there has to be a reason for the IDF not suing ERA on their Merks. They have the technology but they don't use it.
The Israelis are not dumb so there has to be a reason for that.

[merocaine]

Did they ever have any?
laminated steel/nickel composite + classified modular, from wikipedia

[Waylander]

As I said not on their Merks.
But on their Sabras, Ma'gachs, etc (It is so difficult to remember those names, so forgive me if I use the wrong ones).
The question is why do they use ERA systems to upgrade their older designs instead of using it to boost their MBT.

[merocaine]

Is it due to weight restrictions? just a guess.
Maybe the areas where the tanks operate make it unfesible.

[merocaine]

on another note just fished this from the guardian web site

"Tamim said they were using a new model of RPG that had a double warhead and that was very effective against Israeli tanks, as well as a type of guided anti-tank rocket."

Tandem war head?

[isthvan]

on another note just fished this from the guardian web site

"Tamim said they were using a new model of RPG that had a double warhead and that was very effective against Israeli tanks, as well as a type of guided anti-tank rocket."

Tandem war head?

tandem warhead is type of warhead that uses shaped charge, there are two separate shaped charge explosive assemblies, one in front of the other, typically with some distance between them.
These may be roughly or exactly the same size, or the front one may be much smaller than the rear one, and intended primarily to disrupt Explosive reactive armor.

[Waylander]

Tandem warhead is not a new thing. For example there are versions of RPG7 and Panzerfaust 3 which use this tech for years.
There is a small warhead in front of the main warhead which should interrupt the ERA.

Edit: Too late.... :D :sleepy3

[extern]

Hallo. :)
They were stripped of ERA? That's new to me. But I'm open to learn something new!
I think there has to be a reason for the IDF not suing ERA on their Merks. They have the technology but they don't use it.
The Israelis are not dumb so there has to be a reason for that.
Yeah... during the 2nd Chechen War the Russians didnt make such mistake and their tank loss for ATGMs and RPGs have been redused drastic.
I think, the Germans are not stupid at least not more that the Jews... But they now go for ERA support for Leo2, dont they?
Apropos, the first 'israeli' ERA 0 'Blazer' - was made by German company and technology.

[Archer]

moroz.ru is right. our T-80 have also stood up to 7-10 rpg shots in waziristan. but APC's (M-113) were not so lucky. some that had ERA survived easy.

Any source for T-80s in Waziristan would be appreciated.

[Waylander]

No they are not going for ERA style systems. Instead of that they are improving the chassis with normal armor.
That is one which let me think of the maybe not so good abilities of ERA systems.
Rheinmetall and KMW did not developed a urban combat Leo II which is protected by ERA modules. I really doubt that these companys (One of the most experienced tank maufacturers in the world) would make a big mistake.

But they invented a new active protection system. I lost the article but I am searching for it. :D

[MG 3]

Any source for T-80s in Waziristan would be appreciated.
dont know about reports. i was there on the ground. sadly we have a nation(civillians) that knows squat bout mil stuff so they dont care or know that what such capabilities in the hands of enemies can do(destroying tanks), so no reporting, all the want to show is political showboating. ill get u guys some pics, aftermaths of RPG and IED strikes.

[Bfn42]

This is some what of an old report and it was sorta discussed earlier in this thread but this is a report from USAF Today:




U.S. News & World Report
June 9, 2003

Washington Whispers

By Paul Bedard

M1-A1 Abrams: tough to kill, but not invulnerable

They call them "lessons learned" reports in the Pentagon, and few are getting as much attention as the review of the Army's lumbering M1-A1 Abrams tank's performance in Iraq. Revered by soldiers as the world's best, the report found that lone Iraqis armed with simple rocket-propelled grenades halted a few Abramses in their tracks. Just like those Battle of the Bulge scenes of GIs firing at the bellies of Nazi tanks, a rocket aimed at the armored skirts on the side and back of the Abrams would occasionally disable the tank. That's led some to question the plan to replace some M1s with lighter and thinly skinned "Stryker" vehicles. But then, the report shown to Whispers also found that the heavy Abrams guzzled more gas than expected. And getting parts to busted tanks was a problem. Still, like the Terminator, it didn't die easily. Some completely disabled tanks were abandoned, and airstrikes were called in to keep the gizmos inside from Iraqi spies. It took a grenade detonated in the crew compartment, a massive tank round, and two precision Maverick missiles just to put one down.

"Here's a 2nd hand account from a Hawg Driver:
"I know the guys who shot the mavericks into that tank- also know guys who fired them into broken down helos so that the Iraqis couldn't get the gizmos inside. Here's a story on the Abrams toughness- the two guys go out there (at night)- the army tells them they want this disabled tank destroyed- it's night, and we don't have targeting pods, so the most precise weapon to use is the maverick (reason we didn't use 30mm) So the two guys put their mavericks into the tank- we all watch the video, you can see the splattered "hot molten ju-ju" when the wingman fired into the tank all over the road- the damn thing looked like it was completely destroyed. The next morning, Fox news has footage of the "destroyed" tank on TV- no shit the thing looked like it had just been painted black- there was no considerable damage- not like when we put a maverick into a Soviet-built tank- the turrets pop off, those things just fall apart. Not the Abrams. The guys who fired the mavericks were pissed that they couldn't destroy it, but damned impressed on the same level. Yes, the thing can be immobilized by well placed shots to vulnerable areas- as for obliterating the thing... I don't think it's possible."

[extern]

No they are not going for ERA style systems. Instead of that they are improving the chassis with normal armor.
And what that new massive panels from the sides of last upgraded Leo2, do youno ? I mean, what kind of armor: Chobham, NERA, NxRA or even Combination K?

[Waylander]

The only thing you are ever going to hear from german tank engineers about their armor is "That is is multi-material type of armor". ;)
You get nearly every infos about the Leo you want but not a bit about the armor.

The turret of the M1 might not been flown away when the Mavs hit it but I would not like to sit in it because the Mavs penetrated it and I really doubt a crew would have been spared.

[extern]

The only thing you are ever going to hear from german tank engineers about their armor is "That is is multi-material type of armor". ;)
A 'multi-material type of armor" may be ERA as well.
:D

[Waylander]

Ok I asked my dictionary and the right translation for what I wanted to say is multi-layered.
They normally say it is not steel, it is not chobham, it is not bad. ;)

There have never been non-classified infos about german armor except that it is a mix of some different materials.

[Waylander]

I finally found the article of the new active protection system from Diehl (Germany)

"07/21/2006



Diehl's Vehicle Protection System Tested Successfully



In the presence of high-ranking representatives of the Federal Ministry of Defence, the Bundeswehr as well as international armed forces, Diehl BGT Defence´s AWiSS active protection system successfully defeated a rapidly approaching MILAN anti-tank missile.

The autonomously operating demonstrator system, deployed on a Leopard 2 main battle tank, was able to automatically detect the threat in time, to precisely track the missile and to neutralize it through controlled ignition of a fragmentation grenade. The remaining fragments as well as the MILAN´s shaped charge no longer posed any danger to the battle tank.

The trial performed at the test range of the Federal Office´s of Defense Technology and Pro-curement technical agency 91 in Meppen in June demonstrated the successful combination of sensors, battle management computer and directed launcher as the main components of AWiSS. The test represents an important milestone in the development of active systems for enhanced vehicle self-protection. Next to battle tanks, potential applications include particularly military and special vehicles equipped with basic protection against mines, explosives and small calibre projectiles. In this category AWiSS provides additional protection against widespread rocket-propelled grenades and modern missiles. Due to its rapid reaction time, AWiSS is also suited for operation in urban terrain occurring frequently in today´s international missions. AWiSS offers 360° comprehensive protection and is capable of engaging ballistic projectiles as well.

In view of today´s state of activities, currently funded by an R&T-contract of the Federal Office of Defense Technology and Procurement, the AWiSS system could be available on the market in two to three years ensuring enhanced protection of vehicle and crew."

Source: http://www.diehl-bgt-defence.de/index.php?id=545&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=573&tx_ttnews[backPid]=538&cHash=16169fb8e3&L=1

[merocaine]

Waylander or Extern,

Gentlemen your expertise please,


"At around 1:40 P.M., an IDF Merkava tank was struck by an explosive device in the village of Aita al-Shaab in the western sector. The tank's four crew members were killed instantly. The IDF is still investigating the source of the explosion. The kind of damage sustained by the tank (its turret was blown off) appears to indicate that the vehicle was hit by a large explosive device, but a senior Northern Command officer told Haaretz on Wednesday night that it was more likely that the Merkava had been hit by an anti-tank missile.

IDF troops in the area reported seeing the missile in flight."

Lifted from Haaretz an Israeli paper this morning. The IDF confirmed that the Hezzbullah have Metis anti tank missles, they also suspected they had Kornets obtained Via syria, do you think a Metis could have caused this damage? or are we looking at a Kornet?
Or just a big IED?

cheers

[andrei]

The hezbollah certainly seems to be able to destroy a few tanks every day. EVen the mighty Merkawas are blown up either by hidden explosives or by modified Saggers.

[extern]

do you think a Metis could have caused this damage? or are we looking at a Kornet?
Or just a big IED?
Both Kornet and Metis can penetrate Merk3 and Merk4 but with different probability. According to opinion of russian experts, the probability of penetration from frontal direction for Merk4 with Kornet will be about 70%. With Metis it looks to be some less. However it most brobably was Merk3 coz it is from reserve unit.

In any case the Israeli source now speak about Kornet:

Tank destroyed by missile

Four soldiers were killed before noon Wednesday after an antitank missile fired by Hizbullah gunmen hit and destroyed an IDF tank in the village of Aita al-Shaab. The soldiers' families have been notified of their death.

The tank that was struck belonged to the 847 reserve brigade, which has been operating in the sector under the command of the Carmeli reserve brigade. IDF sources reported that immediately after the attack the tank caught fire and soldiers were unable to approach it.

IDF sources assessed that a Kornet-type missile hit the tank, probably from close range. The fire that had erupted in the tank led officials to believe that the tanks' fire extinguisher system had failed to function. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3288870,00.html

However, no kornets were captured before now. The most AT weapon of Hizballa are Fagot ATGM, RPG-29 and Malyutka (Sager).
About RPG-29 see here: http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl04-e.htm

[merocaine]

Thank you Extern very informative

[extern]

Correction: the last info says it was Merk2 yesterday. It was blowout after hitting and fire.

[Waylander]

I did not know that they use Merk 2 for the Lebanese operation. :confused:
Seems stupid to me, because there should be enough 3 and 4 available for a operation of this size and I also just saw 3 and 4 on pictures.
However the Kornet and other ATGMs seem to work well in there. Good terrain for ambushes I think. Hizbollah is said to be well trained and they are definetely motivated.
I really think many countrys give them some new toys for testing.

[extern]

I did not know that they use Merk 2 for the Lebanese operation. :confused:
The first losed on IED israeli tank in current Lebanon war also was Merk2. The same It blowouted.

Today Hezballah clames 13 destroyed tanks but no confirmation from the Israeli side.

Anyway there are some pics of hitted Merks. Also a pic of captured Hezb's TOW antitank missiles and the pic of probably first documented use of Trophy active protection system.

[Zaphael]

One wonders how exactly Hezbollah gets their hands on Tow Missiles huh?

[Waylander]

I think one of the main problems of the Israelis is the raid tactic itself. During a massive conventional tank aussault disabled and seperated tanks would soon be save behind the lines and the attached combat engineers, medics, logistics, etc. are able to reach the tank.
During these raids you are just not able to take cover behind your own lines especially not if you are in the leading position.

I saw that during some maneuvers. While the attacker had many mobility kills, technical failures or wounded personal most of its tanks where not destroyed completely. While during short small scale raid/heavy scout attacks, of not more than platoon size, the leading tank faced a well defended position or ambush. The tanks took hits and there was no tank line coming to roll over this spotted position so they were easy prey for the enemy while retreating under fire.
There is not always artillery or air support available as fast as you need it during such an occassion.

[merocaine]

However the Kornet and other ATGMs seem to work well in there. Good terrain for ambushes I think. Hizbollah is said to be well trained and they are definetely motivated.
I really think many countrys give them some new toys for testing.


This is great advertising for the Russians, those Kornets are going to be selling like hot cakes.

[B.Smitty]

One wonders how exactly Hezbollah gets their hands on Tow Missiles huh?

They were sold to Iran back in the day and Iran gave them to Hezbollah.

[Grand Danois]

They were sold to Iran back in the day and Iran gave them to Hezbollah.

Then why does the date on the container say 2001?

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=640&d=1155231923

[B.Smitty]

Then why does the date on the container say 2001?

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=640&d=1155231923

Excellent point.

Are we sure these are captured rounds and not just photos of Israeli warstocks?

[Grand Danois]

Excellent point.

Are we sure these are captured rounds and not just photos of Israeli warstocks?

My first thought certainly was that it is Israeli warstock... the picture simply does not show captured hezbollah kit.

[Waylander]

This is great advertising for the Russians, those Kornets are going to be selling like hot cakes.

Is there a country out there which is able to pay for Kornets or other modern ATGMs and don't has them? (Despite of germany :mad: :( :) )

[Boolag]

Is there a country out there which is able to pay for Kornets or other modern ATGMs and don't has them? (Despite of germany :mad: :( :) )

Heh NewZealand recently ordered a number of javerlin ATGW's + launchers from the states to provide a credible anti-tank defence in peace-keeping situations..We probably woulda got more gear for the same price if the govt had bought russian..But the Aussies bought the same weapon + our countries try to achive commonality of gear most of the time..+ we're on a buy USA/Aussie binge at the mo..Pity we aint gettin MBTs like them..It'd be nice to see Abhrams trundling out of burnham on a regular basis : )But utterly unlikely, i know.

[merocaine]

Heh NewZealand recently ordered a number of javerlin ATGW's + launchers from the states to provide a credible anti-tank defence in peace-keeping situations..We probably woulda got more gear for the same price if the govt had bought russian..But the Aussies bought the same weapon + our countries try to achive commonality of gear most of the time..+ we're on a buy USA/Aussie binge at the mo..Pity we aint gettin MBTs like them..It'd be nice to see Abhrams trundling out of burnham on a regular basis : )But utterly unlikely, i know.


who's going to attack peace keepers with tanks!!!

I looove anti tank tank weapons though, for the price of a second hand volkwagon golf I have just totalled your multi million pound state of the art tank!!!

Its interesting though, offensive weapons always cost so much more than defensive systems.

[extern]

"Konkurs in Levant'. Naturmorte. Author unknown. :D http://warfare.ru/?catid=261&linkid=1771

[Waylander]

You do not always have to have peacekeeping missions like in A-Stan.
Just take Kosovo as an example. There was a reason why we entered with many Leopard 2A5.
There is the possibility that you have to do peacekeeping missions in puffer zones between two potent enemies.

[Boolag]

Excactly, Dear waylander...!!
NZ peacekeepers in Bosnia were confronted with Serb Armour on at least one occasion i believe, If they had needed to engage the only Anti-armour weapons in the Kiwi inventory were the Karl-Gustav RCL and the M72 LAW...even against a serb modified T-55(for example) the odds are less than favourable..

The only armour the Kiwis had there were Scimitars on loan from the British army + they managed to raid and disarm a serb military facility simply by taking them by complete surprise..The serbs had PLENTY of heavy weapons on hand including tanks..and these light tanks rock in at top speed And secure the place without a shot being fired...Cos the serbs WERE NOT expecting it to happen+had no time to react..It coulda gone very differently if the Serbs had been ready for them..
(according to legend, the NZ army's old Scorpions used to tear down the desert road at Waiourou at round 110+/Kph..they used to pass moving tour buses at that speed all the time)


The morale is it dosent matter how big or brutal your tank is..If the enemy dosent have the means to open your tin then they're dog-meat Wether it be a modern M-1A2 or ancient MK-IV Male...your armour will still have the same effect..

[Waylander]

The Leopard 2A5 also fired warning shots with their main gun above the croud.
Should be very impressive. ;)
During the intervention in Kosovo nobody knew if the serbians really would stand still while the peacekeeping tropps moved into Kosovo.

During this time the Danish army had the idea to put big coax lights onto their tanks. It lets cool down some heads if you know that a Leo is lighting you up wih its main gun.

[merocaine]

NZ peacekeepers in Bosnia were confronted with Serb Armour on at least one occasion i believe, If they had needed to engage the only Anti-armour weapons in the Kiwi inventory were the Karl-Gustav RCL and the M72 LAW...even against a serb modified T-55(for example) the odds are less than favourable

There you go, I stand corrected.
How come the German army doesent have modern anti weapons?!

[Bfn42]

What about the HOT...or the Pnf 3 with those tandem warheads?

[Boolag]

Does anyone remember the Bar mine as used by the british army???
1980's books about NATO used to show them being laid by landrovers + fv432's.
are they still a credible anti-tank weapon?

[Bfn42]

well doesn't the fv432's use MILAN's?

[Waylander]

It is not like that we have no ATGMs.
We have HOT and Milan. We also have the mentioned Panzerfaust 3 (Not an ATGM) and there is a new version of it with a digital optic which helps you targeting.
But these ATGMs are not state of the art.
We are searching for a new one and it looks like it is going to be Eurospike but Milan ER is still not out of the competition.
PARS 3 for our Tigers is also near to introduction.
And it is said to say that there is no ATGM integrated into our Puma IFV. Maybe when Eurospike/Milan ER is available this changes.
I don't like the idea of an IFV without some AT-capabilities.

[caksz]

Western MBT is lacking ERA right ? With the Current conflicts , is there a Possibility western MBT will be install with ERA ? as a standard built ... correct me if im wrong :p , what will be a solution for MBT to survive ATGM ? extra 10 tons of armor :( ?

[DoC_FouALieR]

Western MBT is lacking ERA right ? With the Current conflicts , is there a Possibility western MBT will be install with ERA ? as a standard built ... correct me if im wrong :p , what will be a solution for MBT to survive ATGM ? extra 10 tons of armor :( ?

No, development of Hard Kill protection system will do the job..
And by the way, the Léo 2 A6 isn't fitted with some kind of reactive add-on armor?

[Waylander]

No, there's no ERA system.
But we use ERA on our Panzerhaubitze 2000 on the top against counterfire bomblets.

[extern]

what will be a solution for MBT to survive ATGM ? extra 10 tons of armor :( ?
1) Active protection systems (Arena, Shtora, Trophy, Iron Fist) 2) ERA on the sides and top.

[Waylander]

I also think that a mixture of active protection systems and classic passive armor will be the future.
Not only one special systems but a mixture of both.

[extern]

No, there's no ERA system.
But we use ERA on our Panzerhaubitze 2000 on the top against counterfire bomblets.
May it be CLARA (Composite Lightweight Adaptable Reactive Armour) ERA of Dynamit Nobel Defence GmbH and Verseidag-Indutex GmbH on composite plastic Ultrax, huh?

[Waylander]

I don't know, but here are some pics with and without camo.
Normally this armor is not installed because of maintenance and safety benefits.

[KGB]

Does the Merkava employ any APS or ERA? By hindsight it would have been obvious that the most likely threat Israeli armor would be facing would be IEDs and ATGMs. Its neighbors's tanks are a generation older aren
t they?

[Waylander]

They are using some kind of APS and a laser jammer. I forgot the name but I am searching for it.
The IDF answered the question why they do not use their ERA systems on their Merks with the answer that ERA is not very usefull against modern tandem warhead ATGMs and normal armour together with APS is the only protection against modern ATGMs.

[psyclops]

Although the Merkavas are able to fit APS, so far none have been employed AFAIK due to funding restraints. This may change in light of recent events, and we may start seeing some Trophy systems in addition to the jammers we've seen in some pictures. No Merkavas have been fitted with ERA (operationally at least), but maybe they'll consider putting it on their Mk 2s now. The Mk 3 Dor Dalets and Mk 4s seem to have done pretty well overall.

[Waylander]

I think a saw a picture of an APS (Maybe Trophy) in action but I might be wrong.
I'm going to do some recon. :)

[erikjm71]

Depends on what type of kill, mobility or catastrophic. Mobility meaning it cant move but still shoot and function. Catastrophic meaning completely destroyed. Also experience of the crew. No an abrams is not completely indestructable, but it will take a heck of a weapon system to do any damage.
We can have all kinds of opinions but until we have a full scale mechanized war tank vs tank we may never know. M1s in Iraq are being primarily used in support of MOUT(military operations urban terrain) operations, in case you haven't noticed the insurgency does not have tanks. The M1 has never really been pushed to the limit in tank vs tank warfare. Desert storm is where they were put to use in total warfare. Yes they were highly succesful against soviet T-series tanks but not top of the line. Since then the M1 until Iraq has been taking it easy, in the Balkans they were just being used for patrols,checkpoints and a show of force.
Unless we have an all out war with a country that has a serious tank like the Merkava,T-90, challenger,leopard, lecerc and so forth we may never know. In desert storm M1s were hit by other M1s because of the fratricide problem. So we can say that heat or sabot round from the abrams can take out an M1. Well guess what, the main gun on a merkava can fire the same round as an abrams. So if a merkava is using the same round as an abrams, then what is going to determine what tank is better?
The survivability and crew experience are probaly the main factors. Speed,manueverability are other important factors. Given todays current world situations alot of countries are using there armor in low intensity conflicts and guerrila wars in stead of full scale war. The recent conflict with Israel and Hezzballoh is a prime example. A conventional army(IDF) with one of the most sophistaced tank in the world(merkava4) going up against a militia with no armor. Details are sketchy but somemerkavas destroyed wheter catstrophic or mobility I dont know but they were pitted against russian anti take weapon systems. Any enemy well entrenched in favorable terrain for them is going to make it difficult for tanks. Especially with out support, such as infantry protecting flanks, artillery support, engineers breaching and so forth. Abrams are running into problems with AT weapons in Iraq, the previous responses to this thread have explained this.
Conclusion, unless every country with a serious tank all agree to put there tank up against another and have some type of elimination tournament to determine the biggest baddest tank we will never know. Now a days tanks are being destroyed by AT weapons and landmines, not other tanks. You dont have to destroy a tank to pieces to stop a tank, obstacle, denying terrain can be just as effective depending on the situation. So if we go to war with the Israelis than we can hope to learn which is better the Merkava or Abrams.
So unless we want every country witha good tank to go to war against each other we can just wonder. Kind of like rooting for your favorite sports team, until they play against each other we will never know.

[psyclops]

Kind of like rooting for your favorite sports team, until they play against each other we will never know.

That's a pretty good way of putting it.

[Grand Danois]

Allright. The ATGM enthusiasts have had their day. :)

Here is account (excerpt) from the war in Yugoslavia where the ambushing ATGM crews got their asses handed to them by a squadron af Danish Leopard 1A5's.

The ambushing side was a btn sized Bosnian Serb unit complete with night-vision equipped ATGM, AA artillery used antitank mode, artillery and mortars. They were ambushing the Danish tank squadron in wooded, mountainous terrain.

Note:
"Bøllebank" translates to "thug thrashing" or "hooligan bashing."

Introduction
On the first and second of May 1994, Danish newspapers could publish a quite unusual story. Several Danish tanks stationed in Bosnia as part of the international UN-force had been engaged in fierce fighting against Bosnian Serbs. This episode received national as well as international attention since it was the first time the UN forces in the Balkans (and generally) had used such massive firepower as a response to attacks on its forces. Simultaneously, it was the first time in modern history that the Danish military had participated in something which could only be accurately described as wartime fighting.

...

April 29th 1994
April 29th was full of everyday assignments and routines. This lasted precisely until "Tango 2" – a Swedish manned observation post with 7 solders near the city of Kalesija northeast of Sarajevo on the border to Serbia – radioed at around 10 pm for immediate assistance; they were being shelled (for the 28th time! ).

Squadron commander reports: "We were asked to assist a Swedish observation post outside Tuzla, which was being shelled by artillery and anti-tank weapons. The Danish tank squadron moved out with 7 Leopard tanks and one armoured personnel carrier (APC)". Together with 1st and 2nd platoon (a total of 7 tanks including the "chief tank"), he met with Møller’s track driven armoured personnel carrier in the vicinity of the village of Saraci about 10 kilometers from "Tango 2" to coordinate the mission.

Møller remembers: "Actually, we intended to move up with the tanks because they tend to stop the shooting".

But shortly after all the units had arrived in Saraci with lights on and flags flapping, a grenade hit the ground close to them. The time was 11.15 pm. More grenades followed, and Møller immediately issued orders that the "chief tank" and the 1st platoon of Claus Andresen together with his own carrier should move quickly towards "Tango 2".

After 15-20 minutes under constant fire by the Bosnian-Serb Sekovici-brigade, they reached the village of Kalesija closer to the observation post. A sharp turn forced everybody to reduce speed when 2nd platoon (which was still in position back in Saraci) suddenly reported incoming anti-tank missiles against Møller, the "chief tank" and 1st platoon.

Møller experiences it as an "ugly ambush" when Bosnian-Serbs from camouflaged positions started to shoot at the tanks with anti-tank weapons, and it surprised the Danish soldiers that their attackers were equipped with modern night fighting systems. Møller recalls: "The first missile hit between the two rearmost tanks in 1st platoon, whereas missile number 2 hit the blue factory which I was sheltered by , and exploded so bricks and other stuff rained down on the APC".

The third missile had its course directly towards the rearmost tank in 1st platoon, but the driver managed to stop so the missile hit the road and exploded just ahead of the vehicle. Thoughts that it was all over and that they had to return fire run through the head of driver Little-Andres. He sees that the path behind him is blocked, and it is difficult to orient himself in the darkness.

All that is clearly visible are the many lights from enemy machine cannons and antitank weapons firing heavily against the Danish tanks. At this time he requests air support, but it is rejected. Meanwhile, 1st platoon had continued up the sharp turn towards "Tango 2", so it was solely third tank in 1st platoon (Little-Andres), the "chief tank" and Møller’s vehicle that were now stopped on a very exposed piece of ground. Quickly the third vehicles took partial cover behind buildings while heavy mortar- and artillery fire shelled the area non-stop.

Squadron commander Carsten Rasmussen was in no doubt that the Danish tanks had to return fire if they were to survive the night. He tells: "When we were attacked by anti-tank missiles I thought: ´Enough is enough´, and ordered the tanks to return fire at the missile position". Apparently, at the very same time Møller analyzes the situation and reaches the same conclusion.

He gives the order to Carsten and 2nd platoon in Saraci: "Neutralize the anti-tank positions".

Therefore, it is not entirely clear whether Carsten - in clear and legitimate self-defence – was ahead of Møller to open fire, or Carsten just followed the Colonel’s order and simply implemented it. Either way, concentrated fire was now unleashed towards the enemy, and at a great distance Erik Kirk’s 2nd platoon in Saraci neutralized those bunkers that had fired the anti-tank weapons. But firing immediately continued from other positions.

While under fire, Møller and co. in Kalesija opened fire against the positions around the mountain Vis (called "Sugar Top"), and the two vehicles from 1st platoon that made the turn earlier managed to fight their way to the Swedish observation post. Platoon commander Claus Andresen was under fire from the Zvornik-brigade, but returned it, and the two tanks eventually take position at "Tango 2" in case of renewed shelling.

Down in Kalesija, the shelling and firing abates. Møller remembers: "We managed to get two tanks through to the observation post, and then they stopped shooting". Rasmussen and Møller agree to wait a short while before starting to pull out of the city and heading back to Saraci and 2nd platoon. They were barely out of the city before all the positions on Vis opened fire at them with renewed intensity.

Møller thought: "This is too much!"

2nd platoon was ordered to return fire and cover the pullout, an order the tanks accomplished by constantly firing a huge amount of grenades against enemy positions for about 15 minutes.

Møller’s group reached Saraci unharmed as Jacob, the gunner in 2nd platoons 2nd vehicle, fired a final grenade that seemed to cause a major explosion on impact. At about 1.00 am, the last Danish tank was pulled out from Saraci, and everybody – except the two vehicles at "Tango 2" that actually remained there for several days - made it safely back. Carsten Rasmussen sums up the relief of coming back to Camp Gønge unharmed: "The happiness that we came back alive was far greater than the worry about having killed somebody".
Danish Leopard in Tuzla airport

"The Mouse Ate the Cat": After Action
And the Danish tank had caused casualties. During the 2 hours of fighting, they fired a total of 72 105 mm rounds, of which 44 were brisant, 9 phosphor and 19 armour piercing. It was later clear that the previously mentioned last grenade had hit an unprotected ammunition supply that caused huge explosions – and probably a large number of casualties.

Shortly after the clash, the Bosnian Serbs reported the loss of 9 men. But other sources estimate it to around 150 soldiers having been killed and a similar number wounded. The Danes themselves suffered no casualties, although Møller got himself a "long-distance-shave " by a fragment, and one of the vehicles was actually hit. Right after the incident, there was wide concern that it would escalate attacks on the UN-forces in Croatia and Bosnia, especially from the Bosnian Serbs.

"By responding to the Serbs' fire, we destroyed the relationship of trust we the previous months patiently had built ", said Møller to American reporters shortly after the episode.

And in the following months, the UN placed some restrictions on Damson’s activity in order to avoid further escalation of the situation. But on April 29th it was – as Møller phrased it – "the mouse that ate the cat".

History and meaning
"Operation Bøllebank" has been viewed as important for several reasons. On one hand, there exists an understanding that "it was the real beginning of a new Danish defence policy where Danish military was to be sent on international missions with heavy military equipment and orders to strike back resolutely if attacked". Whether this is the case is open for discussion.

But here, almost 11 years on, it is clear that "Bøllebank" indeed was the first time in many years that Danish soldiers had seen battle. As it turned out, it was by no means the last time. In "Operation Amanda" on October 26th 1994 – also in Bosnia – 3 Danish tanks fired 21 grenades against Bosnian Serbs’ near Gradacac north of Tuzla in order to retake a UN- observation post. A more recent example could be the Danish F16s in Afghanistan that in late 2003 were believed to have killed as many as 200 members of Taleban and al-Qaeda.

Still, it seems clear that something unusual happened on April 29th 1994, and as mentioned at the beginning it was quickly noted in the Danish newspapers and editorials. A sense of pride and satisfaction over the Danish soldiers’ resolute and effective response in a situation where many Danish lives could have been lost was quite widespread.

Political scientist Ole Wæver observed: "The jingoistic tone of the reporting as well as statements by the Minister of Defence and other politicians indicated pride in the Danes' finally exhibiting a bit of macho behaviour after months of humiliation by the Serbs. Danes seemed little concerned by the fact that our soldiers were using armed force; on the contrary, they were rather proud of it".

The historical perspective played an important role here. In "Bøllebank", the Danish military won the biggest battle since the Second World War, and the incident is therefore a milestone in Danish military history. At the same time, it was noticed around the world and rekindled in a way respect for the little country’s defence forces.

One example says that "´Operation Bøllebank´ gave us credit; after that there were pictures of our tanks hanging in the Pentagon". Nationally, the battle resulted in a similar popularizing effect, and in the defence-system itself it has taken on an almost mythological meaning.

Perceptions like "the Danish soldiers in Bøllebank saved thousands of lives in Tuzla, they raised the nations’ esteem and created new norms for military engagement under the UN" , have played a vital part in creating a more positive attitude towards the military and its missions and personnel among the Danish population. In spite of all this praise , the involved soldiers haven´t received military decorations or medals of bravery.

Back in 1997, the Danish Defence investigated the case, but concluded that the "effort was not evaluated to such a high degree of bravery that it should entitle those present to decoration". The following year, Møller and Kirk were honoured with "Ebbe Muncks Prize of Honour" and praise from the Queen for having that kind of "responsibility, judgement and will of action the Danish soldiers showed in a very critical situation".

...

The entire account can be read here:

http://www.milhist.dk/post45/boellebank/boellebank_uk.htm

[psyclops]

I remember reading about that operation; the Danes did very well. Am I reading the article right, that no ATGMs hit the Leopards? One sentence said that one vehicle was hit, but did not say by what, and the first three missiles it described hit the road or a building, right? Sounds like they took a helluva lot of arty and mortar fire.

[Grand Danois]

I remember reading about that operation; the Danes did very well. Am I reading the article right, that no ATGMs hit the Leopards? One sentence said that one vehicle was hit, but did not say by what, and the first three missiles it described hit the road or a building, right? Sounds like they took a helluva lot of arty and mortar fire.


IIRC the single direct hit wasn't from an ATGM, but probably from an AA gun used in antitank mode. But the tanks got bruised by all that shrapnel flying around.

[Waylander]

Nice work.
But they were lucky (And trained well) that no ATGMs hit them. The Leo I is a very good hunter/killer tank but it really lacks armor.
I have much respect for danish tankers. The partner battallion of my old tank unit was also from Denmark. I never trained with them only met them on other occasions but I heard some nice storys. :)

[steve33]

Note of interest the Abrams Tanks are getting reactive armour,the same that is being used on the Bradleys.

[Waylander]

Source? Pictures?
If you mean the TUSK upgrade for MOUT, this is cancelled due to budget restrictions.

[TrangleC]

Saw this too:

http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/Reactive_Armor_for_Abrams_Tanks_20060829.php

[steve33]

It will be interesting to see how it performs against shaped charge roadside bombs which are a huge threat even to the Abram tank.

[extern]

Israeli armour fails to protect MBTs from ATGMs

Alon Ben-David JDW Correspondent
Tel Aviv

* Forty-five per cent of the Israel Defence Force's (IDF'S) MBTs hit by Hizbullah ATGMs during the fighting were penetrated
* Active and retired IDF armour officers have criticised the tactics used during Operation 'Change of Direction' in Lebanon

An analysis of what is perceived to be the most significant encounter between Western main battle tanks (MBTs) and Russian-made anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) during recent fighting in Lebanon shows that new Israeli armour, including explosive reactive armour (ERA) suites, has not succeeded in reducing penetration rates in its MBTs.

Forty-five per cent of the Israel Defence Force's (IDF's) MBTs hit by Hizbullah ATGMs during the fighting were penetrated.

Out of 50 IDF Merkava Mk 2, 3 and 4 MBTs hit, 21 were penetrated. Eleven of the incidents resulted in no fatalities while 10 incidents resulted in 23 crew casualties. During the fighting, the IDF encountered a wide variety of Russian- and Iranian-made ATGMs, including the Kornet-E 9P133, claimed to be able to penetrate 1-1.2 m of armour protected by ERA; the Metis-M 9M131, equipped with a tandem high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead; the 9K113 Konkurs (AT-5 'Spandrel'); the 9K111 Fagot (AT-4 'Spigot') and the tandem warhead RPG-29 rocket-propelled grenade.

"In the 1973 war, when the IDF armour was taken by surprise by the capabilities of Russian-made 'Sagger' ATGMs, the penetration ratio was 60 per cent of the total number of hits, mostly resulting in killing all four crewmen," a senior IDF source told Jane's. "At the time, most MBTs had oil-based hydraulic systems, which would inflame upon impact, while the ammunition had no secured storage compartments, both contributing to the deadly results.

"Since then, armour has improved parallel with the threats," added the source. "In the 1982 Lebanon war, when we were operating the Merkava Mk 1 MBT, the penetration ratio was 45 per cent. That ratio remained unchanged, but the developed Merkava armour prevented higher casualty rates."

Both active and retired IDF armour officers have criticised the tactics used during Operation 'Change of Direction' in Lebanon, claiming that the small tank formations had increased exposure of MBTs to ATGMs and had not utilised the tanks' capabilities.

"We were familiar with the threats and not surprised by their penetration capabilities," said the source. "We had identified the problem some five years ago and went ahead with developing APSs [armour protection systems], which we consider now as essential to our MBTs."

Indeed, Israel's Ministry of Defence has ordered Rafael Armament Development Authority to complete development of its Trophy APS and prepare for mass production.

In addition, Israeli Military Industries was asked to accelerate testing of its Iron Fist APS for future evaluation by the IDF.

"As the Trophy is a more mature system, we could begin procurement one year from now," said the source. "As other systems will mature, we could examine them as well."

While the Merkava Mk 4 MBT was designed to carry an APS, the IDF is now examining the compatibility of older Merkava models to also be equipped with an APS. "We consider it [APS] a 'must' that should be installed in all of our MBTs," added the source.
JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY - AUGUST 30, 2006

[Big-E]

32 pages... why is this thread still open?

[Waylander]

Because we all love the guys coming up every month and saying that they would hide in a building with a RPG and blow the hell out of every mechanized formation. :D

[KGB]

The success of the Saggers in the Yom Kippur campaign was due to a unique tactical situation. Previous conflicts led the IDF to deploy tanks relatively alone while the Egyptians deployed sagger crews in unexpected density. The egyptian commander was not sure he could get enough tanks across the pontoon bridges in time to stem the expected counterattack. The IDF suffered heavy losses but after increasing their APC ratio from 1:1 to 1:3 and using artillery preparation they compensated.

Paraphrased from "A history of blitzkreig"by bryan perret

[Lelik Rus]

1) Has the longest stabilised gun range on the fly

very nice. now let's think how 2 tanks are just standing against each other and firing. Battle speed and maneurability are stupid things...
2) Can apply consistent shots at speed, and has demonstrated it consistently by killing t-72's, T80'2 and T-90's at ax range
against Iraq, Siria and so on. I.E. against soldiers that threw down the weapon just when they had seen ANY tank from the other side. Very effective comparison

3) Has an armour rating that renders it fairly safe with a substantial number of RPG/ATG's
From the front side. Like Merkava. But I've read that new russian anti-tank missile perform a maneuvr that not only attack a vulnerable parts of the tank but also make helpless any action against the missile
4) Has a proven loading system
That's right
5) Has the highest kill rate of any tank in the last 20 years
Again, who was an opponent? German tanks in ww2 were unbeatable in Europe before they had contacted with t34. As you probably do not know, Guderian has learned much from trainings in Lipetzk in 1939 with russian tankists.
6) Is an evolving platform


No other tank has demonstrated "live" kill ratios to the same level

Until everyone elses fav tank choice goes up in actual combat against an M1aX then it is speculation and wishful thinking. The tank isn't invincible, but in any current tank on tank battle in the last 20 years they have not been bested.

I'm taking a pure analytical view here, on actual combat, actual history and known circumstances.

Anything else is theory without substance.

I think you'll find that the Saudis are more than happy with their performance

(I'll qualify all of this and say that it is not the tank I prefer) :)[/QUOTE]


All that have menioned above is concern head to head battle. in this case m1 has an advantage, no coments. But it's hard to imagine mass head-to-head attack now.
You're talking only about armor and weapon - but tank is a SPEEDY weapon. That's why T-tanks are much lighter and faster than analogues. With such a powerfull cover like su34 and mi28(ka52) operations could be much faster

[Waylander]

Except of deserts and very open planes you do not ride a thunder attack like hell with 60-70 km/h.
While driving like crazy it is very hard to maintain cohesion and formation.
And a good formation is much more usefull than pure speed.

[Lelik Rus]

Although tank isn't F-1 car :) t-90's max speed close to 90 km/h. And it's hard to agree with a statement that there's no place for a speedy strike.
As for precisious shooting seems like there was an information about specially constructed system for t90 to provide shooting with a high accuracy on 80-85 km/h. I'll try to find out and inform about it

[Waylander]

With my Leo I reached more than 90 km/h. ;)
But that's not the point.
On how many tank maneuvers have you been were tanks drove with 80-90 km/h?
Not on excibition shows or commercial dog'n'pony shows. Normal training maneuvers.
And pure speed has nothing to do with hitting accuracy. Terrain is the main point.
And there is just not much terrain were you are able to drive at high speed, obererve the terrain, maintain cohesion and formation.

I agree that there are some occassions where you need high speed for a short time but they are more rare than you might think.
And there are more than enough occassions were armor protection is much more needed than. For example as the leading element or as a heavy recon element, during a full scale attack against a fortified position, etc...

[Lelik Rus]

Man you're obviously right :) I just tried to mention a difference in a mind of constructing between ,for exampamle, abrams engineers and ours. When abrams conception leads to higher weight and long range shooting, t-90 offers much higher speed and maneurability instead. Suggestions about real situation aren't so simple and, of course, varies from one country to others. in ww2 Guderian made a huge strike from Kharkov to Stalingrad because terrain was like a desert - in a modern war with the same quantity of tanks and planes he would cover much more terrain.

[merocaine]

I'm going to weight in here!
Of Course your not going to zoom around at 90km an hour all the time on the battle field, but the tank is designed for deep penetration.
If your tank relays on a hugh support train (most modern western MBT's) your ablity to penetrate is curtailed.
The T series of Tanks was designed around the soviet doctrine of Deep penetration, hugh armoured formations operating in an opponents rear, speed and low fuel consumption were the most important factors in a tanks design.

NATO tanks on the other hand were designed as defensive tools, surviblity, and firepower were the main stays of there design.
The T series and the Nato Tank have different doctrinal approaches to there use on the battle field.

I often feel there is still a hangover from the Gulf war in all discussions about the two kinds of Tank. Abrams won convincingly. You cant argue with that.
But the comparision is unfair, the T 72's went into battle in a kind of death or glory ride without air cover or air support, there Tanks 15 years out of date, and mostly deployed in a static role. The were lambs to the Slaghter.

The T series were never designed to operate in such a role.

In mass battles of manouver the T series of tanks is better adapted, in battles of attrition, tank on tank the Nato Tank will come out on top.

Idealy if there had been a shooting war between the Warsaw pact and NATO, the T Series would never have engaged the Western MBT in a tank on tank engadement, fighter bombers, grads, heavy arti and hinds, would have done that for them, and the T's would have poured through the gaps thown in the lines. Masses of T's would cut supply lines in the rear and disrupt communications. The T was never designed for a slugging match, they were designed for a battle plan.

To sum up the T series is the last tank I would want to be in a tank on tank engadgement with a modern western MBT, for the one reason, it was'ent designed for that role.
Which at the end of the day was why saddams armoured formation were chewed up.

[Lelik Rus]

I'm going to weight in here!
Of Course your not going to zoom around at 90km an hour all the time on the battle field, but the tank is designed for deep penetration.
If your tank relays on a hugh support train (most modern western MBT's) your ablity to penetrate is curtailed.
The T series of Tanks was designed around the soviet doctrine of Deep penetration, hugh armoured formations operating in an opponents rear, speed and low fuel consumption were the most important factors in a tanks design.

NATO tanks on the other hand were designed as defensive tools, surviblity, and firepower were the main stays of there design.
The T series and the Nato Tank have different doctrinal approaches to there use on the battle field.

I often feel there is still a hangover from the Gulf war in all discussions about the two kinds of Tank. Abrams won convincingly. You cant argue with that.
But the comparision is unfair, the T 72's went into battle in a kind of death or glory ride without air cover or air support, there Tanks 15 years out of date, and mostly deployed in a static role. The were lambs to the Slaghter.

The T series were never designed to operate in such a role.

In mass battles of manouver the T series of tanks is better adapted, in battles of attrition, tank on tank the Nato Tank will come out on top.

Idealy if there had been a shooting war between the Warsaw pact and NATO, the T Series would never have engaged the Western MBT in a tank on tank engadement, fighter bombers, grads, heavy arti and hinds, would have done that for them, and the T's would have poured through the gaps thown in the lines. Masses of T's would cut supply lines in the rear and disrupt communications. The T was never designed for a slugging match, they were designed for a battle plan.

To sum up the T series is the last tank I would want to be in a tank on tank engadgement with a modern western MBT, for the one reason, it was'ent designed for that role.
Which at the end of the day was why saddams armoured formation were chewed up.

All that I've heard about merkava-t72 comparison, mig21-fantom and so on. NEVER and never. Ferdinand Porshe was also thinking Tiger is the best tank. Everyone knows what happened. who's consider t72 as an abram's opponent? Iraqi as a good soldier? These dummies were even worse than egiptians, probably because egiptians have battled against Israel under our officers
Actually right now Uralvagonzavod has mudernized t72 to M1 specification that is very close to t90C - with a new 1200-1500 hp engine, new anti-tank missiles up to 5000 m range, new system of shooting management and some other features. But the main news are about T95 that will get some stealth technology and, as a CEO of UVZ said, this tank will be practically invisible for the radar systems. Unfortunatelly I have failed in getting more information or some picts.

[merocaine]

. But the main news are about T95 that will get some stealth technology and, as a CEO of UVZ said, this tank will be practically invisible for the radar systems. Unfortunatelly I have failed in getting more information or some picts.

whats the T-95 developed from? is it a completely new design?

[Waylander]

I would never claim Operation Desert Storm as an example that western tanks are superior to eastern designs.

If I look at some simulations and the numerical advantages of WarPac forces, not only in tanks and men but much more in terms of artillery, I would not bet on NATO being able to hold the position.
Retreating while under constant pressure and fire and maintain cohesion while doing so is one of the most difficult tasks for mechanized forces and ones the red forces managed to close the gap between their leading elements and the retreating force they would have begun to crush their way through NATO lines with no technical advantage could have saved NATO.

These AT-missiles are nearly not usefull at 5000m if the optic of a T is not upgraded dramatically. Not to talk of the difficulties finding a direct line of sight at 5000m. (As said before deserts and open planes are something special.)

[merocaine]

If I look at some simulations and the numerical advantages of WarPac forces, not only in tanks and men but much more in terms of artillery, I would not bet on NATO being able to hold the position.
Retreating while under constant pressure and fire and maintain cohesion while doing so is one of the most difficult tasks for mechanized forces and ones the red forces managed to close the gap between their leading elements and the retreating force they would have begun to crush their way through NATO lines with no technical advantage could have saved NATO.

That is one battle that would have been incredible to have lived through.

My point was more that the different tactical doctrines employed by the warsaw pact and NATO make it difficult to compare the MBT's on a like for like bases.

I would never claim Operation Desert Storm as an example that western tanks are superior to eastern designs.

I know, but a lot of people do!

does anybody know, as a matter of interest, what the reletive tank strenghts would have been on the north german plane?

[Waylander]

I don't know definite numbers but the percentage would have been min. 1:3 to 1:5. Not very nice if you are sitting in a NATO tank. We had problems to counter a 1:2 advantage during some maneuvers and we had more mechanized infantry. During WWIII we would have had nothing more of anything.
And the north german plane might be good tank ground but also there the normal fighting range is within 1,5-2 km and less.
So much about sniping NATO tanks with tube launched ATGMs.

Looks like this. It's a picture of Bergen training area.

[merocaine]

So much about sniping NATO tanks with tube launched ATGMs.


The more I think about tank mounted ATGMs, the more they sound like an achknowlagement that in tank on tank combat the T series is out classed.


I don't know definite numbers but the percentage would have been min. 1:3 to 1:5.

God it would have been a close run thing.

[Waylander]

That's right.
And much more concerning (As if more than 40000 sovjet tanks were not concerning enough ;) ) was their numerical advantage in tube artillery (traditional and self propelled) and MLRS which was if I remember correctly round about 1:8.
One of the key points during the simulated attacks was that if the reds were able to pinpoint your first line correctly they were able to direct the firewall directly upon you. Covered by this the sovjet forces were able to close the gap very fast and go into the infight which is horrible for every defender because technic is not very important but just pure numbers. And the kill'o'meter is going through the skye.
On the other hand if you are able to fool the attacker and he directs his fire onto the wrong position it could result in a turkey shooting.

[Grand Danois]

The Danish Defence Intelligence Service declassified their Threat Assessment Reports for the period 1965-1991 and put them on the internet.

They cover the areas Denmark was expected to fight in ie Schleswig-Holstein, Baltic Sea, Denmark and the North Atlantic. They contain just about everything from force numbers, tentative evaluation of new WARPAC systems, expected mobilisation schedules (NATO+WARPAC), doctrine, fifth column activity and whatnot. It's pretty awesome reading, especially when compared with the opened archives in the former Eastern Block countries.

They say pretty much the same as Waylander. 1:5 to 1:3 in tanks, almost parity in infantry and air power (in this sector).

[merocaine]

I know you hate this guy but this is a good article on the soviet tank armies

http://www.exile.ru/2005-April-08/war_nerd.html

[Waylander]

It is still planned that a danish mechanized brigade should work together with my old brigade (PzBrig 18 "Holstein") in case of war, even if it is not very likely to happen. :)

[Grand Danois]

It is still planned that a danish mechanized brigade should work together with my old brigade (PzBrig 18 "Holstein") in case of war, even if it is not very likely to happen. :)

It's quite hard to figure out what is going on these days. ;)

Was the Danish-German Corps (2-3 divs) from the Cold War days changed to Danish-Polish-German Corps now? And Danske Division has now gotten a Lithuanian Brigade formally attached to it. How is that going to work out... :rolleyes:

[Waylander]

Jup, that's right.
The equipment should be no problem because the plish brigade consists of the material we gave to them some years ago.
I don't know how good the organization is nowadays.

[Lelik Rus]

whats the T-95 developed from? is it a completely new design?

Nothing more than I had written above. Even in our forums where some serious specialists are talking about new weapons. All that we know is that UVZ has already been working on tests. It means the structure is clear and some new information will appear soon.

[extern]

Merkava tank production
to stop within four years.
Leaders of the project decided that the benefits do not justify the cost of the product.
Amnon Barzilai 28 Sep 06 16:21
The IDF has decided that the Merkava tank production line will be shut down within four years. "Globes" reports that the decision to stop production of the tank, one of the most expensive projects in the history of Israel's military industries and the pride of the army, was made shortly before the outbreak of the war in Lebanon. Leaders of the project decided that the benefits do not justify the cost of the product.

During the fighting in Lebanon, the Merkava tanks sustained serious damage from antitank rockets fired by Hizbullah militants. The tank, which has been boasted as having the best protection in the world, and which was designed for classic tank on tank battles, was not impervious to the rockets. 500 rockets were fired at Israeli tanks, 47 Merkava tanks were hit (two more were hit by roadside bombs) and 33 IDF soldiers were killed.

Senior officials both inside and out of the military are critical of the tank's function in the war and of its economic necessity over the years. They question whether Israel should continue to invest in tanks as the central ground forces player. Several defense establishment figures believe that the tank is no longer appropriate for the modern battlefield.

The prestigious project, which began in 1969 as an idea by Major General Israel Tal and has continued ever since, has cost about $7.5 billion dollars according to an IDF assessment while Ministry of Finance officials estimate its cost closer to $10 billion. Thousands of workers across the country are employed in production of the tank and its systems, and are liable to be hurt by the cessation of the project. http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000137768&fid=942

[Waylander]

Great.
Their Chief of Staff (Former Pilot) thought that an air campaign would solve all their problems and after this didn't work they send some lonely tank packs and bad trained reservists into the arms of a well prepared and equipped militia.
And now they think the tank worked not like it should? :dodgy

[TrangleC]

If i understand the article right, they already made that decision before the Lebanon war.
It indeed is questionable whether a small country like that needs it's own tank industry. It's not like Israel would be isolated from the rest of the world and would really depend on producing everything on their own, like South Africa was.

Nevertheless it is a pity, because the Merkava was quite extraordinary among modern MBTs.

[Waylander]

Ah, bad reading of me.
Nevertheless the criticism of the Merkava seems too much to me.
I agree that a small country like Israel might not need to have an own tank program.
But in the end the development costs of the Merk program till now are sunk costs.

[Wooki]

Merkava tank production
to stop within four years.
Leaders of the project decided that the benefits do not justify the cost of the product.
Amnon Barzilai 28 Sep 06 16:21
The IDF has decided that the Merkava tank production line will be shut down within four years. "Globes" reports that the decision to stop production of the tank, one of the most expensive projects in the history of Israel's military industries and the pride of the army, was made shortly before the outbreak of the war in Lebanon. Leaders of the project decided that the benefits do not justify the cost of the product.

During the fighting in Lebanon, the Merkava tanks sustained serious damage from antitank rockets fired by Hizbullah militants. The tank, which has been boasted as having the best protection in the world, and which was designed for classic tank on tank battles, was not impervious to the rockets. 500 rockets were fired at Israeli tanks, 47 Merkava tanks were hit (two more were hit by roadside bombs) and 33 IDF soldiers were killed.

Senior officials both inside and out of the military are critical of the tank's function in the war and of its economic necessity over the years. They question whether Israel should continue to invest in tanks as the central ground forces player. Several defense establishment figures believe that the tank is no longer appropriate for the modern battlefield.

The prestigious project, which began in 1969 as an idea by Major General Israel Tal and has continued ever since, has cost about $7.5 billion dollars according to an IDF assessment while Ministry of Finance officials estimate its cost closer to $10 billion. Thousands of workers across the country are employed in production of the tank and its systems, and are liable to be hurt by the cessation of the project. http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000137768&fid=942
Now, that really is interesting. Here we have tanks making a come back (of sorts) against the wheeled vehicle "LAV is all" types in Iraq and Israel are talking about pulling the plug.

Curious...

cheers

W

[Waylander]

I think as always money is the big player in here.
The Lebanon operation is just a good excuse for them to save it.
Or do you think that Canada, Belgium, etc. thought really about military needs before they decided to eliminate their heavy armor? (And as you said in the case of Canada changed their mind)
Heavy armor is just expensive to operate.
It is the same here in the bigger european countrys. The politicians look for ways to save money in their armed forces and because the tanks are not involved in constant operations like the light infantry they think they don't need them.

[Wooki]

I think as always money is the big player in here.
The Lebanon operation is just a good excuse for them to save it.
Or do you think that Canada, Belgium, etc. thought really about military needs before they decided to eliminate their heavy armor? (And as you said in the case of Canada changed their mind)
Heavy armor is just expensive to operate.
It is the same here in the bigger european countrys. The politicians look for ways to save money in their armed forces and because the tanks are not involved in constant operations like the light infantry they think they don't need them.

I haven't had time to look at it in detail, but I would tend to agree. Israel is one nation that shouldn't drop its tank fleet. And canning the Merkava when it has finally reached the stage that its designer intended 30 years ago??

Which also brings up the point that the merkava was designed to be improved in increments. Going about making a vehicle that way is expensive on paper (but less expensive then replacing your tank fleet with new every 10 years to match the planned upgrade process).

I'm not Israeli, but it would appear to be a foolish decision.

cheers

W

[LancerMc]

If Israel only had to worry about terrorists, MBT's wouldn't really be needed. Israel instead still has to worry about Syria, Iran, and is still technically at war with Saudi Arabia. The need for MBT's will continue for a number of years until a solid peace comes to the Middle East.