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

[Waylander]

And don't forget about Egypt.
They might have a peace contract with Israel but this might only last until the US friendly regime there changes like it happened in the Iran.

[oskarm]

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.

You are wrong. Leos, M577, M113, Fauns and so on went 10. Armored Cavalry Brigade. http://www.10bkpanc.sow.mil.pl/index.htm This Brigade is now subordinated to 11. Armored Div. http://www.2kz.mil.pl/11dkpanc/34bkpanc.htm

Northeast Corp http://www.mncne.pl/ includes 12. Mechanized Division. http://www.12dz.mil.pl/index.php?id=3 Now it is the biggest polish Div consisting of 5 Brigades. But soon its Armored Cav Brig will be joined with 12. Mech Brig. And this brigade will be fully equipped with Rosomaks (AMV-360P).

Sorry for OT

[Waylander]

I thought the Leos were given to you because of some required NATO standards and to make the cooperation easier between the units which are supposed to work together under NATO command.
Would be logical to attach the Leos to units which should work together with our units.

[oskarm]

Yes you are right. When Poland has recived Leos the 10th Arm Cav Brig (Polish) was subordinated to 7th Arm Div (German) and it was a part of Fast Reaction Corp. But as far as I know, the 7th Div was disbanded.

[PlasmaKrab]

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).
Sorry guys, but how does stopping the production in a five-years frame mean "canning the Merkava" altogether? Remember that the production has been running since 1978 or so, maybe it is time to switch to something else? There are still scores of non-upgraded Merkava Mk2s and possibly Mk-1s used by Tsahal, which would equate to the US Army still running a couple of divisions on IPM1s. Upgrading them doesn't require putting up newbuild tanks day in, day out.

There are between 1500 and 2000 Merkavas produced, as far as I can tell, and that should be enough for Israel, given their current strategical situation. The sheer idea that some Israeli officials actually consider putting their tank fleet to a lower priority level may sound like a glimmer of hope in the current grim situation, meaning that open warfare with neighbouring countries is less a risk than 30 years ago. OK, that could also mean that they already own enough of them to beat the armies of the whole Middle East to pulp hands down... which they basically do.

[extern]

Remember that the production has been running since 1978 or so, maybe it is time to switch to something else?
Now they are not planning tank production at all. TsAHAL decided there is no place for tanks in the future battlefields. Only the hevy ICVs 'Namer' and the light weeled ICVs 'Mantakit' will be in production. Look at the full hebrew text of that article in the Israeli 'Globes Mag': http://uploaded.fresh.co.il/2006/09/29/89333031.pdf http://uploaded.fresh.co.il/2006/09/29/90807022.pdf (the file exceed 100 kb limit).

[Wooki]

Sorry guys, but how does stopping the production in a five-years frame mean "canning the Merkava" altogether? Remember that the production has been running since 1978 or so, maybe it is time to switch to something else? There are still scores of non-upgraded Merkava Mk2s and possibly Mk-1s used by Tsahal, which would equate to the US Army still running a couple of divisions on IPM1s. Upgrading them doesn't require putting up newbuild tanks day in, day out.

There are between 1500 and 2000 Merkavas produced, as far as I can tell, and that should be enough for Israel, given their current strategical situation. The sheer idea that some Israeli officials actually consider putting their tank fleet to a lower priority level may sound like a glimmer of hope in the current grim situation, meaning that open warfare with neighbouring countries is less a risk than 30 years ago. OK, that could also mean that they already own enough of them to beat the armies of the whole Middle East to pulp hands down... which they basically do.

The point is that the MBT has had the upper hand for a few years now, but the pendulum is swinging back to the anti armor technologies. This is not the time to stop or even plan to stop development of armor technologies.

cheers


w

[Waylander]

That'S the point. Maybe if they would have pushed the development and implemention of Trophy like systems in the past there would be a discussion about the worth of ATGMs.

[PlasmaKrab]

Probably Israel is hitting the same point in the research trend curve that the US and most western countries were at about ten years back, where heavy armor was out of fashion and light networked forces were all the rage.
I don't mean that the Israeli R&D is lagging behind, far from it, but the local conditions have made that this priority shift wasn't as quick as on the European theater.

Possibly the recent Lebanon campaign led the IDF top brass to consider more Rumsfeld-like campaigns for the future, with highly-mobile elite infiltrated infantry supported by huge air assets?

Talking about anti-armor, there is also more and more talk about KE missile technology. The LOSAT somewhat proved the worth of the concept, the CKEM is nearing definition, and gun-launched prototypes are being trialed. This kind of systems, though not ideal, gives a severe kick in the mouth to systems like composite armour, reactive armour, electric armour, and explosive active protection like Arena and Trophy.

[extern]

‘Something’ felled an M1A1 Abrams tank in Iraq – but what? http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292236-2336437.php

[Pursuit Curve]

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

Well, if you ask the Canadian Armed Forces about the LAV performance in Afghanistan, surviving RPG and IED for examlp, as well as VIED, I think you would get a ringing endorsement. The criticism of any weapon platform must be kept in context. Would an LAV III perform well against heavy ATGM? Probably not. But there are not many IFV, AFV or MBT that can give 100 percent protection.

[Grand Danois]

‘Something’ felled an M1A1 Abrams tank in Iraq – but what? http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292236-2336437.php

Hasn't this one been discussed earlier in this thread?

[swerve]

Hasn't this one been discussed earlier in this thread?

Bah. Going round in circles. I'm going back to trying to read 18th century Danish Kirkebøger. :unknown

[Grand Danois]

Bah. Going round in circles. I'm going back to trying to read 18th century Danish Kirkebøger. :unknown

Doing a bit of genealogy, eh? IIRC the Kirkebøger are available on the net, so I guess you read Danish... ;)

[swerve]

Doing a bit of genealogy, eh? IIRC the Kirkebøger are available on the net, so I guess you read Danish... ;)

Yes, tracing my ancestors. Looking at Nyborg, early C18 right now. As for reading Danish - well, sort of. I'm OK when it's printed modern Danish, but I'm struggling with old handwriting + unfamiliar abbreviations + archaic spelling. Bad enough when it's in English, but when you add in a language which I don't understand well, it's bloody hard. The frustrating thing is that I don't actually need translations, it's the initial reading that's screwing me up.

[Grand Danois]

Yes, tracing my ancestors. Looking at Nyborg, early C18 right now. As for reading Danish - well, sort of. I'm OK when it's printed modern Danish, but I'm struggling with old handwriting + unfamiliar abbreviations + archaic spelling. Bad enough when it's in English, but when you add in a language which I don't understand well, it's bloody hard. The frustrating thing is that I don't actually need translations, it's the initial reading that's screwing me up.

Well, most Danes would have problems reading written Danish of the past, I think. But you have your fun set out for you. :)

[Soner1980]

Yes I know about this. It's not a new thing but here is my story:

According to the Turkish Hurriyet news paper, the bullet is made of a special kind of metal and first tested to penetrate of normal steel plate. The tests taked place in Siberia, I don't remember it anymore wich city but it seems that Russia has started this kind of research after the year 2000 and now that the research will give it's fruits. Also, this kind of bullet can shot by a simple AK-47 auto rifle without any modification. Also, the gunner knows the most weakest place of the tank and pierced some couple of inches inward and disabled the tank from inside without any explosion. So the other crew members doesn't notice that some crewmembers are wounded or even killed.

The danger of spreading this kind of ammo is also very dangerous to the allied forces. Russians producing cheap solutions of a couple of dollars and the coalition spends milions of dollars to kill one such a sniper. Now this is what I call a war.

[Pursuit Curve]

Doing a bit of genealogy, eh? IIRC the Kirkebøger are available on the net, so I guess you read Danish... ;)

Jeg kan godt nok laese danske ogsa....:O)

[Grand Danois]

Jeg kan godt nok laese danske ogsa....:O)

Det er da ret pudsigt, at der er så mange der kan det! ;)

But we're derailing the thread. :D

[Pursuit Curve]

Det er da ret pudsigt, at der er så mange der kan det! ;)

But we're derailing the thread. :D

I know, this has to be the longest running thread in Defense Talk History!

På gensyn, og kan du ha det rigtig godt.

[Waylander]

Ah again there it is.
The wonder weapon against a M1A2SEP. :nutkick
:rolleyes:

[aaaditya]

by the way can someone tell me how exactly does an applique armour function in the protecting the under side of a heavy main battle tank,also can a couple of 25 kg claymore mines detonatedi n a pile under a battle tank track cause enough damage to destroy the tank and kill its crew.

[Grand Danois]

Ah again there it is.
The wonder weapon against a M1A2SEP. :nutkick
:rolleyes:

That is what this thread is about, right...?



Claymores are very specialised antipersonel mines. There are much better options than that.

[Pursuit Curve]

by the way can someone tell me how exactly does an applique armour function in the protecting the under side of a heavy main battle tank,also can a couple of 25 kg claymore mines detonatedi n a pile under a battle tank track cause enough damage to destroy the tank and kill its crew.

Claymore mines do not weigh 25 kg, and if that is what you would use to take on a tank....well, I leave it up to your imagination!

[Waylander]

What do you want to hear?
Against well performed mine cicles a tank brigade has many problems as long as these minefields are secured by a potent AT and infantry force.
That is nothing new.
It is a very important part of our combined arms doctrine.
But just remember.
The rebells just don't need to kill some tanks on lonely patrols...


Often enough this thread looks like a "I am able to cripple the mighty M1A2SEP" thread.

@Grand Danois
I really like your kind of posts even if it comes to mud battles like in this thread.
Denmark is much nearer to me than most of germany these days. ;) :)

[Grand Danois]

@Grand Danois
I really like your kind of posts even if it comes to mud battles like in this thread.
Denmark is much nearer to me than most of germany these days. ;) :)

So, you've got your mittens on a Danish girlfriend (or what) ?

[Pursuit Curve]

What do you want to hear?
Against well performed mine cicles a tank brigade has many problems as long as these minefields are secured by a potent AT and infantry force.
That is nothing new.
It is a very important part of our combined arms doctrine.
But just remember.
The rebells just don't need to kill some tanks on lonely patrols...


Often enough this thread looks like a "I am able to cripple the mighty M1A2SEP" thread.

@Grand Danois
I really like your kind of posts even if it comes to mud battles like in this thread.
Denmark is much nearer to me than most of germany these days. ;) :)


Yeah, I know, there are many what ifs on this thread, maybe we should start a new thread called "Who can Kill the Who can Kill an Abrams Thread" !! :)

[Waylander]

:D
A gentleman never speakes about his wifes! ;)

But to be serious demark is much nearer to than bavaria in terms of kilometers and thinking.
Kiel is not that far away from denmark and I do more like the danish way of live than the sothern german one. :)
Not to talk of the sister unit of my btl. Mad drinkers but nice tankmen! :cool: :D

[Grand Danois]

I thought the Bavarians were mad drinkers too. Oktoberfest and all that.

Fascinating that you like our lifestyle.

Cheers

[Waylander]

For sure they know how to make beer but they are too conservative.
Too many small villages with too many old school persons.
The north of germany is much more liberale than the south.
If Bavaria could vote for the future of germany the german wall would rise again and we would be much less liberale than before.

I really like the way of living in denmark but your beer is too expensive.
Carlsberg tastes good but your taxes on alcohol are ludicrous :D

[Grand Danois]

Yes, beer is too expensive. Carlsberg is good, but if you get the chance you should try out the beers from some of the microbreweries. Now, that's good beer.

The taxes on liqour are heavy, but then again much less than in Sweden! Anyway, I do mostly in single malts, which means taxes does not make up for most of the price.

Another positive thing is that we have good taste in tanks. ;)

[gf0012-aust]

:D
A gentleman never speakes about his wifes! ;)

But to be serious demark is much nearer to than bavaria in terms of kilometers and thinking.
Kiel is not that far away from denmark and I do more like the danish way of live than the sothern german one. :)
Not to talk of the sister unit of my btl. Mad drinkers but nice tankmen! :cool: :D

Interesting observation. From all my dealings with germans and danes (and I have a german based business associate so I get there quite a bit) I would have said that danes are far more like middle to northern germans. (ie north of hanover/ladenburg/mannheim line...)

danes are far more relaxed and friendly than southern germans IMV.

funnily enough, my business partner jokingly refers to danes as nth western germans, one of my danish associates referred to germans as south eastern danes. ;)

maybe I'm meeting the wrong germans.... :rolleyes:

[Waylander]

That's what I ment but I just forgot a "me" in my sentence. :o

The right sentence was supposed to be like this:
"But to be serious demark is much nearer to ME than bavaria in terms of kilometers and thinking." :)

[Andrei_bt]

A T90 is a T72-BU with an uprated gun. Even with reactive plates it will not survive a tank on tank duel. (see Iraq 1999). It has been proven to be vulnerable to TOW, Hellfires, Dragons, Milans and Javelins.

TOW, Hellfires, Dragons...

It is more correct to differentiate T-72-s, as the are of many tipes.
The above mantioned T-72-s of Iraq, which were velnurable to most end 80-th era ATGM/rounds is 70-th technology. And it is no surprase it is destroyed by modern ammunition of that time.
But after that the T-72 changed serveral , modification - T-72, T-72A, T-72B (it has 3 different passive armour upgrades without changing the designation), T-72BM, T-72BU (later a early version of T-90 with cast turret), T-90A (version with welded new turret).

The protection from basic variant improoved about 3 times.

BTW, T-72 (basic version can not be penetrated by Dragon and basic TOW missile).


On the photo below - a T-72 of Iraqi army hit by dragon, it was painted after hit, the hole, without penetration ramained on the turret. Later tha tank was captured and scraped.

[Andrei_bt]

There was 3 tank plants in the USSR

Yes, 3 main plants.
But plant does not mean a design beurough which designs it.

Kharkov (Ukraine) T-64, T-84 present days
Nizhniy Tagil (Russia)- T-72, T-90, R&D of T-95
Omsk (Russia) – T-64, T-80, R&D of Black eagle

Omsk (Russia) never produced T-64, also it never designed T-80 (designed in Leningrad)

[Waylander]

To be a little more precise.
Which TOW version is not able to penetrate which T-72 version?

[DoC_FouALieR]

Must be the first version of TOW missile, with a single shaped charge.

[Waylander]

I know that during tests our TOWs penetrated ex east german T-72M1.
But I am not able to find what kind of TOW they used.
I go on searching or it. :)

[19kilo]

i have the pics of the destroyed m1 with the turret blown off but i cant seem to upload them if any one can help let me know i am curious to find out how this tank was destroyed.
i get this error when i try
-PHP running on your server does not support the GD image library, check with your webhost if ImageMagick is installe-
they are staanderd jpeg pics

The only reason that I became a member on this site is because I was there on the day of October 28, 2003. I can't stop thinking about what I saw that day. I don't know why but I want to see the pictures. Since that day I have thought about it everyday. So, I would appreciate if who ever has the pictures would send them to my email at bartcha1@yahoo.com If you have any questions about what happen, I'll answer what I can. Thank You...

[Chrom]

TOW, Hellfires, Dragons...

It is more correct to differentiate T-72-s, as the are of many tipes.
The above mantioned T-72-s of Iraq, which were velnurable to most end 80-th era ATGM/rounds is 70-th technology. And it is no surprase it is destroyed by modern ammunition of that time.
But after that the T-72 changed serveral , modification - T-72, T-72A, T-72B (it has 3 different passive armour upgrades without changing the designation), T-72BM, T-72BU (later a early version of T-90 with cast turret), T-90A (version with welded new turret).

The protection from basic variant improoved about 3 times.


Moreover, on the example of the last Israel compaign we can see what supposely most protected between western tanks - Merkava 4 - is also vulnerable to same 70-80x ATGM's - Fagot, TOW, Konkurs, etc. I wouldnt bet what M1A2 fare any better in these conditions. Any modern tank have weakened zones, and most western tanks have smaller arc of "best" protection when russian T-style tanks. Besides, the original Abrams - M1 - was hardly better armor protected when same era T-72. Again, i wouldnt drive any conclusion relating current M1A2HE on that basis.

[suddendeath]

hello i agree gf0012-aust is right an 100kilo ied is difficult for a tank to survive especially if planted on the road armour is thinnest at the bottom if not the explosion would destroy the tank the force of impact will kill the tank crew interstingely this concept was used during 1965 indopak war by pakistan lacking anti tank weapons sorry if its off topic
cheers!!

[DefConGuru]

a few well placed RPG 29s if you're gonna be fighting a low intensity conflict are problems. Otherwise most tandem warheads launched from pretty much anything can take out a tank, a tank has to rely on manueverability and spot the target first and take it out.

[wittmanace]

i heard an anecdote of a british challenger 2 being taken out by an rpg 29 in 2006 in al ammarah, iraq. ill look for more reports of this tonight and post them if i find them, but has anyone else heard of this incident or of other instances where rpg 29's have penetrated the frontal armour in iraq or lebanon?

[Chrom]

The armour on an M1A2 is extremely capable. You're looking at a very small minority of systems capable of disabling it in just one or two shots.

If you mean frontally and in average case (not counted weakened zones) - then yes. From sides or back just about every anti-tank weapon can achieve reliable kill against M1A2.

Btw, T-90 have pretty much same gun as T-72, so T-72 should perform almost as well given modern ammo and disregarding FCS. Still i doubt T-90 (or Leo2 for that matter) can penetrate M1A2 frontally (non-weakened zones), same as M1A2 vs T-90A frontally.

[wittmanace]

here is the story reported in the telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/13/nmod13.xml



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/05/13/nmod13big.gif


so seems there is now more than one confirmed incident of this on the challenger 22, penetrated in the frontal arc by an rpg 29.

[Waylander]

This is maybe the reason why the Brits are testing a new Challi upgrade where the ERA on the front is replaced by composite armor.

I would bet that the tandem warhead of a RPG-29 results in some problems defeating it with ERA and the Brits are now going the safe way.

[Chrom]

This is maybe the reason why the Brits are testing a new Challi upgrade where the ERA on the front is replaced by composite armor.

I would bet that the tandem warhead of a RPG-29 results in some problems defeating it with ERA and the Brits are now going the safe way. Might well be the case. On the other hand, advanced HEAT warhead types also work very well against composite armor. And thats not even counting inherit ERA advantage which gives 3-4 times better protection than some size and weight composite armour. Even 1st-gen ERA (french type) useally provide similar protection as same size and weight composite armor against tandem warheads.

All in all, thats pretty funny. USA and Germany propose ERA in new upgrades, France testing composite armor instead of ERA, russians seems to just develop new ERA generations... Anyone can find something for own taste :)

[wittmanace]

given that the rpg 27 and rpg 29 both have the same listed after era penetration with tandem warheads, and that the rpg 27 is one use, disposable unlike the rpg 29, does it not make more sense for the insurgents to use the former, given the anticipated lower life expectancy of their fighters? is the rpg 27 therefore significantly cheaper? i understand hezbollah going for units that are re-usable, given engagements such as bint jbeil, but in iraq i would assume the opposite need to be the case, no?

[Chrom]

given that the rpg 27 and rpg 29 both have the same listed after era penetration with tandem warheads, and that the rpg 27 is one use, disposable unlike the rpg 29, does it not make more sense for the insurgents to use the former, given the anticipated lower life expectancy of their fighters? is the rpg 27 therefore significantly cheaper? i understand hezbollah going for units that are re-usable, given engagements such as bint jbeil, but in iraq i would assume the opposite need to be the case, no?

Might be the case, but insurgents use what they got.

[eckherl]

This is maybe the reason why the Brits are testing a new Challi upgrade where the ERA on the front is replaced by composite armor.

I would bet that the tandem warhead of a RPG-29 results in some problems defeating it with ERA and the Brits are now going the safe way.

Good post Waylander, this says alot on modern western designed tanks primary armor layout versus the sole ERA approach.

[Chrom]

Good post Waylander, this says alot on modern western designed tanks primary armor layout versus the sole ERA approach.

Noone uses "sole ERA aproach". The advantages of ERA are so great what ERA could be well used in conjuction with common thick composite armour as seen in T-xx serie (or Chally serie also)

[Waylander]

Might well be the case. On the other hand, advanced HEAT warhead types also work very well against composite armor. And thats not even counting inherit ERA advantage which gives 3-4 times better protection than some size and weight composite armour. Even 1st-gen ERA (french type) useally provide similar protection as same size and weight composite armor against tandem warheads.

All in all, thats pretty funny. USA and Germany propose ERA in new upgrades, France testing composite armor instead of ERA, russians seems to just develop new ERA generations... Anyone can find something for own taste :)

Were do we propose ERA in new upgrades?
Puma up to protection level C as well as the proposed PSO version for the Leo have no ERA.
The only vehicle which uses ERA is the PzH2000 on it's top against bomblet.

And as I said the Brits are going away from ERA for protection against high threat AT-weapons and go back to composite armor.
The Israelis are also using ERA only for their older and lighter vehicles and don't implement it onto their Merkava chassises.

France and the US also only have it as a protection for the rear part of their MBTs and for the overall protection of the Bradley.
And they only say that it protects these vulnerable parts against older basic RPGs and not against new ones like RPG-7V or RPG-29.

There is a fundamental difference between the east and the west about where ERA is usefull and where not.

[mic of orion]

thats true, but the gun on the m1a2 has a 100m adv over a leo. the leo has to close the gap first.

NO it ain't,. M1A21 uses very same gun as Leo 2A4-A5 use, Leo 2A6 has better gun than M1A2, I mean longer range, and higher penetration due to the high muzzle velocity. BTW, M1A2 uses L44 German made gun, Challenger 2 has also chosen new L55 gun for its upgrade, to give them a longer range, 4000m- 4500m .

Leo 2A6 can take out M1a2 as can Leclerc and Challenger 2, for others I won't comment, but I think Merakva 4 could also take M1A2 if it can come close enough, but than Merakva 4's are armed with Lahat missile this perhaps can give them advantage.

BTW, T90's are also armed with atgm's. It is all relative.

At the back, M1A2 is quite vulnerable, has only 250-300mm worth of armor protection which can stop up to 100mm rounds, but it won't stop modern ATGM's or modern tanks hitting the tank at the back.

M1A2 has ammo bustle and turret and ammo bustle are separated by 50mm thick plate which gives additional 250mm armor protection, ammo bustle is designed to blow upwards in case tank gets hit from behind. Outside the turret at the back there is also a storage basket in which M1A2 has additional equipment carried externally, this also gives some protection at the back, I'd say about 50-100mm at most, but can disable any atgm, as atgm would need to penetrate storage basket first, than ammo bustle and than the crew compartment, and this has never happened to M1A2.

This experience has thought few other countries, Israel, Croatia and UK and now Challnager, Merakva and M95 Degman all incorporate this feature, soon, Leo 2A6 and Leclerc will also add this, as it is quite cheap way of protecting their tanks in all vulnerable spots.

M1A2 has about 250-300mm armor protection on top of its turret, so anything that can penetrate this kind of thickness can destroy the tank outright.

There is a limit as to how much protection you can put on tank before the tank becomes to heavy and to slow.

Challenger 2 which I think has best armor protection is rather bad example of poor cross country performance and excessive wight of the tank.

Tank still uses Old 1200hp engine, no wonder it is slow :) :D

anyways, I've been going on and on...

[gf0012-aust]

NO it ain't,. M1A21 uses very same gun as Leo 2A4-A5 use, Leo 2A6 has better gun than M1A2

well, yes it does - and you've actually confirmed why it does.

it depends on which Leo2 derivative you are talking about. absolute barrel length and ord determine the length of flight outcome.

early Leo2's were outranged by the A2's.

[mic of orion]

well, yes it does - and you've actually confirmed why it does.

it depends on which Leo2 derivative you are talking about. absolute barrel length and ord determine the length of flight outcome.

early Leo2's were outranged by the A2's.

I should have been more precise,

Leo 2A6 has better gun than M1A2, at least when it comes to muzzle velocity, range, but Swedes said that L44 is more stable than L55, but than Brits have come with the solution to that problem ...

Anyways, Leo 2A4 are only ones I'd consider old, never seen Leo 2A1-3, not sure any army has these. Leo 2A4 uses L44 same gun used by M1A2.

[eckherl]

NO it ain't,. M1A21 uses very same gun as Leo 2A4-A5 use, Leo 2A6 has better gun than M1A2, I mean longer range, and higher penetration due to the high muzzle velocity. BTW, M1A2 uses L44 German made gun, Challenger 2 has also chosen new L55 gun for its upgrade, to give them a longer range, 4000m- 4500m .

Leo 2A6 can take out M1a2 as can Leclerc and Challenger 2, for others I won't comment, but I think Merakva 4 could also take M1A2 if it can come close enough, but than Merakva 4's are armed with Lahat missile this perhaps can give them advantage.

BTW, T90's are also armed with atgm's. It is all relative.

At the back, M1A2 is quite vulnerable, has only 250-300mm worth of armor protection which can stop up to 100mm rounds, but it won't stop modern ATGM's or modern tanks hitting the tank at the back.

M1A2 has ammo bustle and turret and ammo bustle are separated by 50mm thick plate which gives additional 250mm armor protection, ammo bustle is designed to blow upwards in case tank gets hit from behind. Outside the turret at the back there is also a storage basket in which M1A2 has additional equipment carried externally, this also gives some protection at the back, I'd say about 50-100mm at most, but can disable any atgm, as atgm would need to penetrate storage basket first, than ammo bustle and than the crew compartment, and this has never happened to M1A2.

This experience has thought few other countries, Israel, Croatia and UK and now Challnager, Merakva and M95 Degman all incorporate this feature, soon, Leo 2A6 and Leclerc will also add this, as it is quite cheap way of protecting their tanks in all vulnerable spots.

M1A2 has about 250-300mm armor protection on top of its turret, so anything that can penetrate this kind of thickness can destroy the tank outright.

There is a limit as to how much protection you can put on tank before the tank becomes to heavy and to slow.

Challenger 2 which I think has best armor protection is rather bad example of poor cross country performance and excessive wight of the tank.

Tank still uses Old 1200hp engine, no wonder it is slow :) :D

anyways, I've been going on and on...

You are incorrect as to why Challenger 2 has gone with a L55, here is why:

1. Getting out of the use of DU projectiles.
2. NATO compatable gun and ammunition.
3. Thermal bending issues with current barrel in hot climates, and yes rifling can play a factor in this.

You are incorrect stating that the L55 offers Leo2A6 better penetration performance over a M256 hunkered in a M1A2, its all about the ammunition.

How do you know that a Challenger or Leopard 2 series can penetrate the frontal armor on a M1A2 or that a M1A2 can do the the same to either, that comment was nothing more than pure speculation on your part.

You are trying to state that TA - 50 and other field gear located in a turret bustle rack could detonate shaped charge warheads, got any examples where this happened.

Why do you think that the Challenger 2 is the best protected tank in the world care to elaborate on how you came to that conclusion.

[mic of orion]

You are incorrect as to why Challenger 2 has gone with a L55, here is why:

1. Getting out of the use of DU projectiles.
2. NATO compatable gun and ammunition.
3. Thermal bending issues with current barrel in hot climates, and yes rifling can play a factor in this.

You are incorrect stating that the L55 offers Leo2A6 better penetration performance over a M256 hunkered in a M1A2, its all about the ammunition.

How do you know that a Challenger or Leopard 2 series can penetrate the frontal armor on a M1A2 or that a M1A2 can do the the same to either, that comment was nothing more than pure speculation on your part.

You are trying to state that TA - 50 and other field gear located in a turret bustle rack could detonate shaped charge warheads, got any examples where this happened.

Why do you think that the Challenger 2 is the best protected tank in the world care to elaborate on how you came to that conclusion.

to late for me, it is 3 in the morning here, as to the storage basket, it wouldn't stop the shape charge or anything sort, but would slow it down, and make it less capable, so when it does penetrate main hull at the back of the tank, it would be stooped before it penetrates crew compartment, so crew can get out unhurt.

Unfortunately this would not work with the tank round, 120-125mm, these would go through in to the crew compartment as well.

But best way to kill tank is from the top, and it is only way to kill tank like M1A2, Leo 2A6, Leclerc or Challenger 2,

There is so little distinction between these 4 tanks, it is all up to the crew of the tank, how good and well trained they are.

As to penetrative power of the Challenger or M1A2 getting knocked off, well Challenger 2 did take another Challenger in a friendly fire, I think it was a frontal hit, happened in 2004 I think, there was a court case here in London about it.

And it sometimes happens in wars, friendly fires are inevitable things.

PS, it is all relative, we are all making assumptions here....

[eckherl]

to late for me, it is 3 in the morning here, as to the storage basket, it wouldn't stop the shape charge or anything sort, but would slow it down, and make it less capable, so when it does penetrate main hull at the back of the tank, it would be stooped before it penetrates crew compartment, so crew can get out unhurt.

Unfortunately this would not work with the tank round, 120-125mm, these would go through in to the crew compartment as well.

But best way to kill tank is from the top, and it is only way to kill tank like M1A2, Leo 2A6, Leclerc or Challenger 2,

There is so little distinction between these 4 tanks, it is all up to the crew of the tank, how good and well trained they are.

As to penetrative power of the Challenger or M1A2 getting knocked off, well Challenger 2 did take another Challenger in a friendly fire, I think it was a frontal hit, happened in 2004 I think, there was a court case here in London about it.

And it sometimes happens in wars, friendly fires are inevitable things.

PS, it is all relative, we are all making assumptions here....

Yes - turret/ hull tops along with the rear end are weak in armor protection on tanks.

Yes - all four tanks are very capable killing machines, can I add the Merkava in on this list also.

Yes - Armor crewman training is a very important factor.

Do you know how that Challenger was hit and what type of round was used, I think that you will find that it was not a frontal hit, in this certain case because you mentioned that it is in the court system.

Is it your impression that shaped charge warheads with stand off spikes/tandem warheads are effected by muzzle velocity performance during the impact phase when hitting a target.

Also what did the Swedes find unstable with the L55, was it a certain type of ammunition that was fired or was it the FCS.

[DefConGuru]

given that the rpg 27 and rpg 29 both have the same listed after era penetration with tandem warheads, and that the rpg 27 is one use, disposable unlike the rpg 29, does it not make more sense for the insurgents to use the former, given the anticipated lower life expectancy of their fighters? is the rpg 27 therefore significantly cheaper? i understand hezbollah going for units that are re-usable, given engagements such as bint jbeil, but in iraq i would assume the opposite need to be the case, no?

Another attempt to sound useful again in vain. Their life expectancy is actually quite higher than 1 or 2 uses and these rpg 27/29 variations are made in countries like Iran and China where making the disposable systems costs more and is useless to a guerilla operation to carry a platform that expires after one use. Same case for Hezbollah, IRA, LTTE, etc., re usable and 3rd party/captured weapons is key for them.

[Waylander]

And here we go again.

The same statements over and over again.
Nobody really knows (Or better nobody is writing it down here) how much protection modern tanks have.
Be it Leopard II, Merkava, Abrams, Challenger, whatever.

And the Swedes did not think that the L/55 is unstable.
There were several reasons for it. They would have needed to incorporate it later as it was not ready by the time, it would have been more expensive (And the Strv122 is already not very cheap) and they were sceptical about the higher boresighting rate.

Nowadays we know that this is not a problem and that the L/55 is actually more accurate than the L/44. At least when used with upgraded Leopard II (Might also come partially from upgraded FCS).

BTW, the in 2004 the Challi managed to circle a HESH directly into the open hatch of the other Challi. A really nasty friendly fire accident.

In the end I can only say that there are so many things on a battlefield which can damage or destroy a modern MBT. But there are also a lot of situations were a tank is the best platform for the job.
That's it. Sometimes I get the feeling that people need to learn again that in a war one usually loses tanks. That's normal and nobody with some clue ever tried to build the invincible tank or stated to have it.

[extern]

M1A2 has ammo bustle and turret and ammo bustle are separated by 50mm thick plate which gives additional 250mm armor protection, ammo bustle is designed to blow upwards in case tank gets hit from behind. Outside the turret at the back there is also a storage basket in which M1A2 has additional equipment carried externally, this also gives some protection at the back, I'd say about 50-100mm at most, but can disable any atgm, as atgm would need to penetrate storage basket first, than ammo bustle and than the crew compartment, and this has never happened to M1A2. In the tank with man powered loading the crew never can be fully separated from the rounds. Anyway one must open it for inserting the round to the gun. If the blow occures at that time, no ammo bustle would help.

[Waylander]

Which is still better than that what happens when the ammo in the carussel of a T series tank gets a hit... ;)

I like the approach of the Leclerc when it comes to autoloading and the one of the Merkava for manual loading (Besides the small ready ammo rack of just 10 rounds in the Merkava IV).

There the connection between crew compartment and ammo compartment is minimized.

[eckherl]

@mic of orion

I have to agree Waylander, Still would like you though to answer three questions for me, (your spin on it)

1.What did they do to fix the unstable issue using L55 on Challie 2.
2. interested in knowing how the court case is going in regards to the Challie incident.
3. Would still like your personal take on shaped charge warheads performance on impact.

[Waylander]

1. I have to say that I do wonder about the statement that the Brits had to fix anything. The rest of the L/55 users (We, the Netherlands, Greece and Spain) reported no stability problems during field duty.
maybe it was a Challi specific problem? :unknown
A much bigger problem is going to be the onepiece ammo.

2. The last thing I read was that they were not sure if the RPG just rendered the ERA ineffective, ERA just didn't ignited or the RPG hit a weak point between two ERA parcells.

3. I think that if one wants to protect against modern shaped charges one has to use good old passive armor because there is always the possibility that your ERA is just ineffective against a modern tandem-warhead.
And even a normal shaped charge is defenitely not going to care for any stuff carried in the bustle rack.

[extern]

Which is still better than that what happens when the ammo in the carussel of a T series tank gets a hit... ;) .
It's perfectly true in the low intensity war scenario when the medical care and the evacuation of crew from the suffered tank is timely enough. In a big tank to tank engagement of rather equal forces the evacuation and medical care is never can be sufficient. the shoked and injured tankmen who still leave the compartement will faced the machinguns of T-72's/Al-Khalids ets ( and believe me it's f@king good machine!) instead of mecifull medical crew. In conclusion: they all die. The only difference, the T-series tank crew doesnt suffer... So in such tactical scenario it's better put the ammo in the most defended part of the tank, ie at the center of compartement.

The last thing I read was that they were not sure if the RPG just rendered the ERA ineffective, ERA just didn't ignited or the RPG hit a weak point between two ERA parcells.
The passive armor is probability working too. Any AP munition has tables of effectiveness with the probablity of penetration on the different range. Anyway you will not refuse the anti-RPG grids only because it works in 50-60% of cases, will you.

[Waylander]

But even with cages we are talking about the mentioned 50% probality to help against shaped charges.

And we are talking for example about a Rucksack hanging next to your main armor...
It just doesn't help.

And sorry but this here is just plain wrong.
It's perfectly true in the low intensity war scenario when the medical care and the evacuation of crew from the suffered tank is timely enough. In a big tank to tank engagement of rather equal forces the evacuation and medical care is never can be sufficient. the shoked and injured tankmen who still leave the compartement will faced the machinguns of T-72's/Al-Khalids ets ( and believe me it's f@king good machine!) instead of mecifull medical crew. In conclusion: they all die. The only difference, the T-series tank crew doesnt suffer... So in such tactical scenario it's better put the ammo in the most defended part of the tank, ie at the center of compartement.


Maybe you should just think about it again...
As if every crew with a disabled tank gets machinegunned nearly instantly.
Just some facts to think about. Your side is on the offensive.

- Your tank gets disabled and you have some wounded personal. The offensive goes on and friendly follow on forces take care of you. Who is going to machinegun you then?

- The confusion allows you to leave your tank and evade. During a full scale tank battle it is not that unusual that the gunners of both sides have better things to do than waste time on some dismounted crewmembers.

- You are in a defensive position. Your side wins. Your tank gets disabled during the fight. You get out and take cover. If needed medics are coming for you.

- You loose your fight and have some seriously injured personal. You give up and become POW. Or does people with T-series tanks automatically machinegun everybody...?

-...

BTW, armored medical support is implemented on company level...

[extern]

The medical support in any big war is unsufficient per definition. Also they are under the hostile fire too. The blow-up panel explosion means tank mobility or functionality kill, injured crew. The big number of screaming men on the battlefield only averts the attention of a commander from the goal of the battle. You need at least two male nurses to help and evacuate one crewman. Can you understand Waylander that it's impossible to avoid the loss of the medical crews too. They cannot be covered against PKT/KPVT/KORD fire if they really gonna make their job seriousely. Do you really think about significant captivities percent in eventual groung conflict between India and Pakistan aor between Iran and US?

[eckherl]

The medical support in any big war is unsufficient per definition. Also they are under the hostile fire too. The blow-up panel explosion means tank mobility or functionality kill, injured crew. The big number of screaming men on the battlefield only averts the attention of a commander from the goal of the battle. You need at least two male nurses to help and evacuate one crewman. Can you understand Waylander that it's impossible to avoid the loss of the medical crews too. They cannot be covered against PKT/KPVT/KORD fire if they really gonna make their job seriousely. Do you really think about significant captivities percent in eventual groung conflict between India and Pakistan aor between Iran and US?

Hey Extern its been awhile.

Have you seen alot of combat Extern, do you know what type of training U.S soldiers recieve for this issue, do you have a full understanding of our logistical set up for armored units. Also to clear this up for me, is Russian tankers trained to kill wounded or shell shocked enemy soldiers on the battlefield.

[Chrom]

The medical support in any big war is unsufficient per definition. Also they are under the hostile fire too. The blow-up panel explosion means tank mobility or functionality kill, injured crew. The big number of screaming men on the battlefield only averts the attention of a commander from the goal of the battle. You need at least two male nurses to help and evacuate one crewman. Can you understand Waylander that it's impossible to avoid the loss of the medical crews too. They cannot be covered against PKT/KPVT/KORD fire if they really gonna make their job seriousely. Do you really think about significant captivities percent in eventual groung conflict between India and Pakistan aor between Iran and US?
I dont understand what are you trying to tell. Tank without blow-up panels are also not 100% guarantied death for crew inside - so there will be just as much injured crew. In that sense blow-up panel is certainly an advantage.

There is another problem with some blow-up panels realisation - in some cases they moved ammo from high-protected hull & turret to somewhat less protected blow-up storage, thus making ammo more vulnerable. In that case we should evaluate if such trade-off is justyfied.

[extern]

Hey Extern its been awhile.

Have you seen alot of combat Extern, do you know what type of training U.S soldiers recieve for this issue, do you have a full understanding of our logistical set up for armored units. Also to clear this up for me, is Russian tankers trained to kill wounded or shell shocked enemy soldiers on the battlefield.Unfortunately I have no seen Chechen Wars. Then I lived in Israel before coming back. I can give you an example from my Middle East expirience however. It was at autumn 2000, just after Second intifada started. The FATH or Tanzim fighters attacked our outpost at the road Jerusalem-Gush-Etzion and cut-off the traffic between the capital and the Jewish settlements southern of it. That time I was mobilized in 'miluim' (the Israeli reservist sevice) as a "medical officer" or military doctor if you want and my little unit provided med. help for events at this road and Bethlehem checkpoint simultaneousely. I had the paramedic (woman), 7 or 8 nurse (only two between them were men) and two transports. So, with these forces I had to garantee medical help for the wounded Israeli soldiers and if need for captured and civiliance too, but OK listen further... We received the call with information about two wounded, but our group waited 2 hours till the sniper duel at the point was over. During this time one of the wounded died from the bleeding. I still speak about super 'lucky' situation, good roads, short distances, mobilized infrastructure.

Other part of my annually service in reserve were exersises with the medical company of an Israeli tank division. Yes, we had the higly trained evacuation teams with the vehicles, though the evacuation from the battlefield remain the crucial point in all this calculation. However the first 'gold hour ' is a decisive time for the seriousely (but not lethal) wounded, and it can be problematic. I understand that it's may be very important psychologically to be sure for the soldiers the medical help is ensured, but if realistically thinking the effectiveness of all these measures in a big war is diminished. If the evacuation cannot enter battlefield during 2-3 hours (what I expect in the worse scenario), the medical help has only limited point.

Coming back to our topic: the blow-up panels reduce the number of killed but can rise the number of wounded and shoked (due to superficial placement of the rounds and their bigger vulnerability). Thus their effectivenes as a 'life saver' is depended of the medical help quality and early evacuation. And I can find you number of tactical scenarios where the life expectance of the survived ammo blow-up tankmen is short.

[Chrom]

Coming back to our topic: the blow-up panels reduce the number of killed but can rise the number of wounded and shoked (due to superficial placement of the rounds and their bigger vulnerability). Thus their effectivenes as a 'life saver' is depended of the medical help quality and early evacuation. And I can find you number of tactical scenarios where the life expectance of the survived ammo blow-up tankmen is short.
Yes, they effectivenes is certainly depended of situation. F.e. if tank is surrounded by hostiles and crew cant leave it at all - they effectivity is 0. But in other cases they will still reduce casualities. Even if some of crew will die later, some will surivive. Plus by all accounts.

[eckherl]

Unfortunately I have no seen Chechen Wars. Then I lived in Israel before coming back. I can give you an example from my Middle East expirience however. It was at autumn 2000, just after Second intifada started. The FATH or Tanzim fighters attacked our outpost at the road Jerusalem-Gush-Etzion and cut-off the traffic between the capital and the Jewish settlements southern of it. That time I was mobilized in 'miluim' (the Israeli reservist sevice) as a "medical officer" or military doctor if you want and my little unit provided med. help for events at this road and Bethlehem checkpoint simultaneousely. I had the paramedic (woman), 7 or 8 nurse (only two between them were men) and two transports. So, with these forces I had to garantee medical help for the wounded Israeli soldiers and if need for captured and civiliance too, but OK listen further... We received the call with information about two wounded, but our group waited 2 hours till the sniper duel at the point was over. During this time one of the wounded died from the bleeding. I still speak about super 'lucky' situation, good roads, short distances, mobilized infrastructure.

Other part of my annually service in reserve were exersises with the medical company of an Israeli tank division. Yes, we had the higly trained evacuation teams with the vehicles, though the evacuation from the battlefield remain the crucial point in all this calculation. However the first 'gold hour ' is a decisive time for the seriousely (but not lethal) wounded, and it can be problematic. I understand that it's may be very important psychologically to be sure for the soldiers the medical help is ensured, but if realistically thinking the effectiveness of all these measures in a big war is diminished. If the evacuation cannot enter battlefield during 2-3 hours (what I expect in the worse scenario), the medical help has only limited point.

Coming back to our topic: the blow-up panels reduce the number of killed but can rise the number of wounded and shoked (due to superficial placement of the rounds and their bigger vulnerability). Thus their effectivenes as a 'life saver' is depended of the medical help quality and early evacuation. And I can find you number of tactical scenarios where the life expectance of the survived ammo blow-up tankmen is short.

It is unfortunate that you did not serve or see the Chechen wars, personally I think you are fortunate not being involved in that conflict because of the destruction and loss of life on both sides. Is it possible Extern that a lucky hit could occur with the ammunition door open, yes it could happen but that would be a small percentage, of course you will have a attrition rate of the amount of wounded that you could lose, but with proper training and the protection offered by the blow out panels this will offer you a lower attrition rate. I know of many circumstances where the blow out panels have contributed to saving a tank crews life, and you know that the biggest fear that a tank crewman has and the percentage of tank crew deaths is contributed to fire, you being a combat medic in a armor unit should know this.

Extern - I have always enjoyed and learned from your posts and I will state that I had alot of respect for you, learning what I just did from the above post from you, I will state that I have even more respect. I think that both of us can agree that combat is ugly and very unpredictable and if we have to send men and women into combat that we should strive to give them the best protection possible, with the blow out panels that are currently fielded on the M1 series even though not perfect, they are alot better than what is currently in use by the majority of tanks that are out there.

[eckherl]

1. I have to say that I do wonder about the statement that the Brits had to fix anything. The rest of the L/55 users (We, the Netherlands, Greece and Spain) reported no stability problems during field duty.
maybe it was a Challi specific problem? :unknown
A much bigger problem is going to be the onepiece ammo.

2. The last thing I read was that they were not sure if the RPG just rendered the ERA ineffective, ERA just didn't ignited or the RPG hit a weak point between two ERA parcells.

3. I think that if one wants to protect against modern shaped charges one has to use good old passive armor because there is always the possibility that your ERA is just ineffective against a modern tandem-warhead.
And even a normal shaped charge is defenitely not going to care for any stuff carried in the bustle rack.

That will be interesting for British tankers going with a one piece tank round, they haven`t had that experience since operating Centurions. This has to litterly tear their guts out going to Germany for a gun and bullets for it due to pride.:D

Could it be that where the RPG round impacted that this was indeed a weak spot due to possible damage to that certain section, you and I know that the front hull can take a beating if you have a careless driver, also the Brits have always been quite concerned about the protection level in this area, they even had this type of armor package positioned on the Challie 1.

I really doubt that the British would hunker in place a different gun that they will most certainly have to make some major turret modifications to without conducting a extensive test on that gun.

[Waylander]

@Eckherl
One problem for the brits is also that their ammunition supplier closed it's doors.

It will defenitely be interesting to see their loading times. They constantly claimed that they are not slower with their two piece rounds than other crews with one piece rounds.
So now they should be able to load a DM63 every 2 seconds. :D

I always wondered about the vulnerability of the ERA at that lower hull position.
One often enough rams this part into the earth.
Maybe ERA placed there suffers from malfunctions due to the rough treatment.

[Waylander]

@Extern
I highly honor that you did your duty.

But as somebody familiar with armored warfare and the medical support armored units get you should know that there are several possible situations where a crew, which survived an ammo explosion because of blowout panels, may get away.

Let's just take one of the examples I gave to you.

One company attacks enemy positions and is able to thrwo the enemy back to the next position. During this attack one tank gets a hit into the ammo storage.
Without blowout panels the crew is dead no matter what.
With blowout panels the crew is wounded or maybe not even that. Due to the fact that the battle moved on this crew can no disembark and wait for follow on forces or for medical support.

For sure there is also the possibility that one is defending a position and gets shot into the ammo storage. If your comrades are not able to hold the position you get killed or end up as a POW.

And I can assure to you that, during an intense tank battle, no TC is going to care for a dismounted crew as long as they don't act openly hostile.

For example in a Leopard II one can leave the tank through the emergency exit at the botton within cover of the tracks and maybe one manages to evade into a nearby wood.

In the end I think nobody stated that blowout panels are going to be a 100% life safer but they are enhancing your chances of getting away and that's what counts.

[Chrom]

BTW, take a look at http://www.niistali.ru/pr_secure/br_dz_light.htm
scroll down :)

They also state what new BMP-3 with new ERA retains amphibious ability.

[extern]

Thanks eckherl. Thanks Waylander!
I hope nobody here thinks I totally reject overall blow-up panels effectiveness. I dont it from the start of this discussion. However this device as any other has to have its limitations, and I only try to understand what is them. I'm sure we can be in consensus that one wounded always better that one dead, cannot we. But if the ratio is 2 to 1 , our conclusion might be different due to abovementioned limitation of the medical aid. My specific question is: what situation on the battlefield may become the blow-up panels isolated storage extremally vulnerable? I recognise follow threats:

1) Saturation of the battlefield with auto-cannon fire, become the standard equipment of the most light armored vehicles and helos (the UCAVs are on the doorstep). The tank's turret storage and the lateral blow-up panels are highly vulnerable in the face of the auto-cannon 23 - 45 mm shells from the incoming traverse angles 35 grad and more. I'm not sure about KPVT 14.5 mm machinegun AP munition that according to the official information take on 20 mm armor steel on 20 grad angle.

2) High density of enemy (or even fraternal) arti fire. Casset element and big splitters normaly arent able to penetrate the compartment armor, still are to do it with less defended tank storage.

All these treats are something that you cannot prevent with known active protection measures. The additional passive defence for the tank storage is also limited due to structural limitations, something that is true at least for the current tank models with such panels (Abrams, Merk-IV). So in parallel with its benefits we obviousely have an additional point of vulnerability for those models.

Let's just take one of the examples I gave to you.

One company attacks enemy positions and is able to thrwo the enemy back to the next position. During this attack one tank gets a hit into the ammo storage.
Without blowout panels the crew is dead no matter what.
With blowout panels the crew is wounded or maybe not even that. Due to the fact that the battle moved on this crew can no disembark and wait for follow on forces or for medical support.

- It's just what hapen in reality. I donno you saw it or not: the Hizballa video about clash with Israeli tanks at South Lebanon valley during Leb-II war. There we can see one Israeli tank hit with (probably) Cornet and starting smoking. The other one is coming and puting the smoke screen. We dont see what exactly happen there, but can guess the remained in life crewmen of the hit tank - those who still could move - went to the second Merkava's back hatch and were evacuated. Here the crucial points of their survival were 1) the existance of rear hatch (BTW only Merkava has it) and 2) the ability of other tanks to stop their job and help to the wounded. No evacuation team could do it in those circumstances. I can only wounder what could be if other tanks were occupied with the battlefield.

Of course in the worse situation the thought about the wounded friends waiting for help can push a tank batalion to fight fiercer for ending the enemy sooner. But not allways it depends only of them... IMO in such circumstances it may be better have one tank lost with its crew dead instead of two wounded crews with two disabled tanks.

[extern]

BTW, take a look at http://www.niistali.ru/pr_secure/br_dz_light.htm
scroll down :)

They also state what new BMP-3 with new ERA retains amphibious ability.Hi Chrom!
This page exists in English too :) http://www.niistali.ru/pr_secure/bmp_en.htm
THey used styrofoam sa a filler for making its upgrade floatable.
More interesting they offer an ERA kit for Abrams :) http://www.niistali.ru/pr_secure/br_dz_light.htm#4

BTW, the Russian page about Relict ERA is completely new though has no English analog: http://www.niistali.ru/pr_secure/br_dz_relikt.htm

[Waylander]

Extern, you state again a very special possibility. The deep raids of the Merks in Lebanon have been something very special and as I stated there is a whole bag full of other possibilities where the wounded crew might be in a better situation.
That the Merk has the backdoor is nice but in other armies these tanks would have been accompanied by IFVs which are also able to evacuate wounded crews.

I seriously doubt that artillery shells are able to penetrate the turret top and there are even uparmoured versions of some tanks available which increase the protection even against bomblets.

That modern autocannons can be a problem if they can get into your rear is normal and nothing special.
And I just don't see why the turret sides of a tank with blow out panels should be more vulnerable than that of a tank without them?

Another point is that even if the crew is dead there is a high possibility that one can get the tank back into service after some repairs.
A tank which suffered from a catastrophic ammo explosion is gone and is not going to be seen back in active service.

[Chrom]

Hi Chrom!
This page exists in English too :) http://www.niistali.ru/pr_secure/bmp_en.htm
THey used styrofoam sa a filler for making its upgrade floatable.
More interesting they offer an ERA kit for Abrams :) http://www.niistali.ru/pr_secure/br_dz_light.htm#4

BTW, the Russian page about Relict ERA is completely new though has no English analog: http://www.niistali.ru/pr_secure/br_dz_relikt.htm Ya, thats why i linked russian version. English one is incomplete.

[eckherl]

@Eckherl
One problem for the brits is also that their ammunition supplier closed it's doors.

It will defenitely be interesting to see their loading times. They constantly claimed that they are not slower with their two piece rounds than other crews with one piece rounds.
So now they should be able to load a DM63 every 2 seconds. :D

I always wondered about the vulnerability of the ERA at that lower hull position.
One often enough rams this part into the earth.
Maybe ERA placed there suffers from malfunctions due to the rough treatment.

So they will need to for sure go the German Route for big bullets when it comes to tank slayers. And you are right, the Brits always seemed to defend their maingun loading times, makes you wonder why they do not do very well at CAT gunnery events.:unknown just kidding. it will be real interesting to see the ammunition set up for the loader and ammo storage arrangement, and I wonder what Oman will do because of this.

[wittmanace]

eckherl, is there somewhere you know of that i can find all the past winners of the CAT? ive been looking online and only find reference to the 87 event really...any info on the past events would be much appreciated

[eckherl]

eckherl, is there somewhere you know of that i can find all the past winners of the CAT? ive been looking online and only find reference to the 87 event really...any info on the past events would be much appreciated

I would think that there is a wall of glory posted at Graf gunnery range. That would be neat information to know. Waylander or KATO - do you know how we could get this information. We finally had our first moment of glory in 1987 and you would of thought that the U.S Army had won the Super Bowl.:)

[TPF]

Personally I don't think that Western tanks use enough ERA. It incredibly light and offers really good protection. In 1991 the U.S. found that their LRP rods could not penetrate the upgraded Kontak-5 ERA which lead to the development of new LRP. Also, supposedly Kontat-5 protected a T-90 tank against all 5 Kornet ATGM's and 3 of 5 RPG-29 rounds. Thus you can see protection makes a huge difference.

Also, for top protection, light ERA or even non-explosive reactive armor can be applied to the turret roof. Combined with an APS this would allow really good protection versus EFP's and bomblets. Really no MBT can protect itself versus Hellfire or other top attack rounds with physical armor, that protection has to come from APS systems.

[shimmy]

IN a major confrontation, one where sides are close to equal, \cCan't sensored fused munitions and/or small desity munitions destroy tanks very efectively?

[onslaught]

IN a major confrontation, one where sides are close to equal, cCan't sensored fused munitions and/or small desity munitions destroy tanks very efectively?

If the sides are equal, then you have to worry about enemy air defenses from the ground and air. The CBU-97 did well in Iraq but the US had air superiority. If both sides have enough technology and money to build CBU-97's, then they should be able to detect and shoot down the planes that carry them. Not only that, the CBU-97 can release 40 "skeets" which independently hit a target, but there's no way for the skeets to communicate with each other. In other words, Several skeets may target the same tank, meaning that you won't get as many kills with one bomb.

[adal]

a 500-1000 pound bomb should wipe the tank out.
the t90 challenger,leopord,type95 should do the trick maybe the al khalid tank? not sure about that one

[lonelytoad]

:rolleyes: I dunno what capacity needed for a weapon system to destroy M1A2 because I have no idea that the protection level of its front armor. Here is a few feature about China HJ-9A ATGM and a pic that I collected from public press. Its warhead's Penetration capacity is 1200mm RHAe plus reactive explosive armor. The effective range is more than 5.5 km. I also saw a pic showing that a 2-member crew operate a portable version. The pic below is one of the earlier version, HJ-9

Hope someone tell me if it works.

PS. could any one do me a favor to recommend me a website with military dictionary or glossary. An English one is enough. It is a hard work to search every single term for translation all the time. Thanks a lot.:)

[Yasin20]

THE best weapon out there that i know is the soldier it can come at from any corner at any and just quickly jump on that tanks turret and put a grenade in the hach killing the crew inside it meaning the tank would be just disabled

[eckherl]

THE best weapon out there that i know is the soldier it can come at from any corner at any and just quickly jump on that tanks turret and put a grenade in the hach killing the crew inside it meaning the tank would be just disabled

Wow - you sound like you talk with some experience.:onfloorl:

[Yasin20]

hahaha what do i need 2000 posts just like you to be experienced

[kato]

Since people have mentioned the CBU-97 awhile ago, i'm gonna go with MW-1. Can't argue with 4,704 top-attack anti-tank submunitions firing from 112 launchers.

[merocaine]

THE best weapon out there that i know is the soldier it can come at from any corner at any and just quickly jump on that tanks turret and put a grenade in the hach killing the crew inside it meaning the tank would be just disabled


go get em tiger...

[eckherl]

hahaha what do i need 2000 posts just like you to be experienced

Oh no Yasin - I get my experience listening to the likes of people like you.;)

[Waylander]

I always wondered how effective a low level attack by 2 Tornados with MW-1s over an armored column may be.

I remember that the Brits had problems when they used their JP-233 during Desert Storm because they had to fly in a straight line for too long.
And the Sovjets had a lot of AAA and close range SAMs available for their units. I could Imagine that they would also have managed to get a lot of metal into the air in the path of the Tornados.
Ok, if the Tornados are successfull it would probably result in a shredded brigade. This weapon is really fearsome.

@Yasin20
Ok, maybe I paraphrase Eckherls question. ;)
What makes you think that your idea is something else than ritual suicide during 99,9% percent of possible situations.

[Aussie Digger]

THE best weapon out there that i know is the soldier it can come at from any corner at any and just quickly jump on that tanks turret and put a grenade in the hach killing the crew inside it meaning the tank would be just disabled

What if the "hach" is shut?

hahaha what do i need 2000 posts just like you to be experienced

No, a clue.

[eckherl]

I always wondered how effective a low level attack by 2 Tornados with MW-1s over an armored column may be.

I remember that the Brits had problems when they used their JP-233 during Desert Storm because they had to fly in a straight line for too long.
And the Sovjets had a lot of AAA and close range SAMs available for their units. I could Imagine that they would also have managed to get a lot of metal into the air in the path of the Tornados.
Ok, if the Tornados are successfull it would probably result in a shredded brigade. This weapon is really fearsome.

@Yasin20
Ok, maybe I paraphrase Eckherls question. ;)
What makes you think that your idea is something else than ritual suicide during 99,9% percent of possible situations.


I think with the European landscape that about the time that the Soviets heard and seen them that it would be to late. The problem that they faced in Iraq was the bareness of the land mass that they had to fly in. With all the ADA that the Soviets had our pilots were worried to a point that all enemy ADA assets that were identified on the battlefield had top priority for being taken out. It is a awsome spectacle to watch a pair of Tornados or other fast movers blowing by overhead at tree top level when you can catch a glimpse.

[kato]

I remember that the Brits had problems when they used their JP-233 during Desert Storm because they had to fly in a straight line for too long.
And the Sovjets had a lot of AAA and close range SAMs available for their units. I could Imagine that they would also have managed to get a lot of metal into the air in the path of the Tornados.


I'm not sure JP223 actually "fires" the submunitions though. Could be that they're just gravity-dropped out of the opened chutes of the dispenser?
(with the two settable dispension patterns achieved by altering the "opening pattern")

MW-1 uses pyrotechnic charges to actually "launch" the submunitions to the sides, grenade-launcher style.
The sideways launching of course allows the aircraft to fly even lower in an attack run.

YouTube - Tornado GR1/IDS tribute
JP223 at 3:40, MW-1 at 3:46. Note that that's in slow motion.

It is a awsome spectacle to watch a pair of Tornados or other fast movers blowing by overhead at tree top level when you can catch a glimpse.
We used the regular Tornado and F-16 overflights over our base for AA MG training with blank ammo :D
Well, not at treetop level, but at around 200 feet above the base - since we were on a mountain, and they were regularly coming in at about 2000 feet above the plains below.

[Yasin20]

What if the "hach" is shut?



No, a clue.

i dont know what happens if the soldier throws the grenade into the main gun would any thing happen to it will it kill the loader inside or destroy the ammo i dont know i mean

[Yasin20]

I always wondered how effective a low level attack by 2 Tornados with MW-1s over an armored column may be.

I remember that the Brits had problems when they used their JP-233 during Desert Storm because they had to fly in a straight line for too long.
And the Sovjets had a lot of AAA and close range SAMs available for their units. I could Imagine that they would also have managed to get a lot of metal into the air in the path of the Tornados.
Ok, if the Tornados are successfull it would probably result in a shredded brigade. This weapon is really fearsome.

@Yasin20
Ok, maybe I paraphrase Eckherls question. ;)
What makes you think that your idea is something else than ritual suicide during 99,9% percent of possible situations.

why is it a suicide a tank can not detect a soldier like it would detect other vehicles out there its like as the human been has the same heat signature then a humen bean i mean can a human been run faster then a turrets gun i remember even whaching top gear in one episode where a challenger was trying to gun down a but its gun was just to slow for it man plus a soldier is a smaller target then a tank