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

[eckherl]

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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icEgB0EIIn0)
JP223 at 3:40, MW-1 at 3:46. Note that that's in slow motion.


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.

Did you have to aim at least a full football field in length to the front of them. We used to call it pray and spray.:D

[kato]

you realize that

a) a tank won't spot humans by infrared, but by optics usually
b) the tank, unless in close quarters, would spot a human before it comes anywhere nearby
c) a tank turret can turn at 60 degrees per second
d) there's a MG on top of the turret that has a 360-degree fire arc
e) using the main gun on a single human is a waste, that's what a tank carries MGs for

Oh, and throwing a grenade into the barrel, if you can even do that, will only result in the barrel being damaged. Remember that that barrel is over 5 meters long (and you can't really throw the grenade down there with enough force, it's a rather tight affair). Even if you somehow get it down to the chamber, unless the breech block is open there won't be any harm to the crew. With ammo already loaded into the chamber, it depends on the ammo type - APFSDS will result in about zero damage outside the breech, with MP/HEAT-type ammo it depends.

As for hatches, those are supposed to be closed under battle conditions anyway. No more WW2-style throwing-it-through-the-viewslit either, since those have been replaced by fixed optical periscope blocks since the 60s.

Doesn't mean that "close combat" anti-tank infantry tactics aren't still somewhat valid. German infantry trained using pre-fabbed molotovs and hand grenades on tanks as last-ditch tactics (when you run out of anything else...) in the early 90s still - then again the same infantry would have had an expected average war survival time measured in minutes.
Sure, if you accept 80% losses, it's doable. Otherwise, I wouldn't recommend it.

[Yasin20]

ok then so they have new scopes what if there was a sniper to shoot at there scopes disableing there view of the battle field same for the driver first then go for the kill but in a urben area only im not saying todays war where they get killed i get the scopes thing but what if sniper were to shoot at it to disable its view of its enemy around it then a nother soldier comes up to throw it

[kato]

Did you have to aim at least a full football field in length to the front of them. We used to call it pray and spray.:D

The MG3 actually has a AA sight for this purpose. Aim through it by canting the weapon to the side, and you'll automatically get the necessary lead ... in theory :rolleyes:

Of course that AA sight was from WW2 times, and basically had a setting for "slow prop plane" and "fast prop plane"... :onfloorl:

[eckherl]

The MG3 actually has a AA sight for this purpose. Aim through it by canting the weapon to the side, and you'll automatically get the necessary lead ... in theory :rolleyes:

Of course that AA sight was from WW2 times, and basically had a setting for "slow prop plane" and "fast prop plane"... :onfloorl:

That is why I used to tell my tank platoons to fire and seek immediate shelter ie: trees or structures if terrian permiting. The chance of shooting down a fast mover or a attack helicopter with crew served weapons gave you a slim chance. Also the only time that we would engage is if they were sizing us up for a kill, other than that leave them alone and report it to higher command that they are in the area and where they are possibly heading.

[DavidDCM]

ok then so they have new scopes what if there was a sniper to shoot at there scopes disableing there view of the battle field same for the driver first then go for the kill but in a urben area only im not saying todays war where they get killed i get the scopes thing but what if sniper were to shoot at it to disable its view of its enemy around it then a nother soldier comes up to throw it

Even in an urban scenario, where it would even be possible under very special circumstances to hit a tank's sights it would be suicidal. Because if you are the sniper, in order to see the sight, you'll have to get in straight line with it. And if you see the sight, then the sight sees you. And when this happens your life is not much worth anymore.

By the way, please use proper punctuation, your posts are awfully difficult to understand.

@kato: Hope I didn't misunderstand you, but whenever possible the gunner uses his thermal imager as the preferred method of sighting. It's perfectly possible to spot humans with it.

[Yasin20]

i gess theres no other way by just useing an anti tank rocket well i gess i got all my question's answerd

[Waylander]

Thanks Kato for the video. It explained very well the differences between JP-223 and MW-1. :)

During all this talking about trying to throw a grenade into a tank I have one image in my head.
Just imagine one lonely guy jumping out of the bush and starting to run like crazy in order to catch the armored wedge doing an attack by fire on the open field in front of him. :onfloorl:

[wittmanace]

on a sort of related note, i read that some of the highest rates of attrition/ most dangerous job in the IDF has historically been that of the tank commander, in part due to the practice of commanding with the commander out of the hatch. this apparantly caused alot of decapitations, from blasts. so even an arty miss takes out the commander. im not sure if this is still the case, as this was in an osprey book on the 1973 war. anyone know if this is still an israeli practice in armoured warfare (obviously different in the occupied territories.)? notably the book also makes a reference to a specific commander later in the book, whereby the effect of the decapitated body dropping into the tank and the blood meant that the crew abandoned the tank and it was out of action. iirc this was from the 188 barak brigade, on the northern front of course.

[eckherl]

on a sort of related note, i read that some of the highest rates of attrition/ most dangerous job in the IDF has historically been that of the tank commander, in part due to the practice of commanding with the commander out of the hatch. this apparantly caused alot of decapitations, from blasts. so even an arty miss takes out the commander. im not sure if this is still the case, as this was in an osprey book on the 1973 war. anyone know if this is still an israeli practice in armoured warfare (obviously different in the occupied territories.)? notably the book also makes a reference to a specific commander later in the book, whereby the effect of the decapitated body dropping into the tank and the blood meant that the crew abandoned the tank and it was out of action. iirc this was from the 188 barak brigade, on the northern front of course.

Yes it can be a dangerous job, you still have tank commanders, tank plt leaders and company commanders that will fight their units or tanks while exposed, it makes them feel like that they can get a better picture of the battle especially during the movement to contact phase,you have special formations that you would move your units in ie: combat wedge, death bell, herring bone and over watch just to name a few, it takes alot of practice to move your units fully exposed let alone buttoned up. With modern FCS, land navigation devices and countermeasure devices it does make the job fighting in the buttoned up mode a whole lot better especially with the flatscreen sighting systems, they tend to eliminate the tunnel vision syndrome. I would also like to add that it is not only artillery barrages that a tank crew needs to be concerned with but that pesky sniper can be a major pain also, the standard norm when taking indirect fire is to button up, this is what most tank crews train to do because of two reasons, shrapnel and possible chemicals.

[erik]

If you had to ask me, maybe a Leopard II, Challenger II, or a T-90, but other than that... Except maybe a few anti-tank rounds... Really nothing...


Do you think a chinese type 99 culd have a good chans to knck it aut ??

[erik]

If you had to ask me, maybe a Leopard II, Challenger II, or a T-90, but other than that... Except maybe a few anti-tank rounds... Really nothing...

a type 99 perhaps

[Falstaff]

Thanks Kato for the video. It explained very well the differences between JP-223 and MW-1. :)

During all this talking about trying to throw a grenade into a tank I have one image in my head.
Just imagine one lonely guy jumping out of the bush and starting to run like crazy in order to catch the armored wedge doing an attack by fire on the open field in front of him. :onfloorl:

The picture that comes to my mind is the one of me sitting in a Bundeswehr lecture room viewing 20+ year old slides showing a brave German soldier standing on the roof of a destroyed building throwing a molotov on the top of a T-55 :rolleyes: And don't forget, you have to hit the vents... Pesonally I wouldn't mess with a MBT without proper equipment.

[Waylander]

At least one should be prepared to attack tanks with improvised material but as it has been said already this is only a last chance.

I can only recommend the old Wehrmacht training movie "Männer gegen Panzer" (Just search on youtube, it's divided into three parts). Very interesting movie about close combat of infantry vs tanks during WWII.
It even comes with attached english subtitles.

[Falstaff]

Very interesting stuff indeed, although today you would have to show a "Smoking kills" sign before and after the movie ;)
Would be interesting to see how such a movie would look like today. Seems the means have evolved but are still the same as today: Grenades, panzerfaust, mines, smoke grenades and anti-tank guns. One thing that instantly comes to my mind is that probably today's MBTs are much more mobile and probably won't stop so gently so that you can conveniently attach a hollow charge to it.

BTW, would a molotov on the vents have impact on a modern tank at all?

[ROCK45]

Do unguided rockets such as S-8 types have much effect on main battle type? I assume not against the front armor but could a volley from the side or top do damage?

Thanks


The S-8 system is the main caliber weapon in the class of unguided aircraft rockets and can solve a variety of aircraft missions.

The following types of S-8 rockets are operational today:

* S-8KOM with HEAT fragmentation warhead;
* S-8BM with concrete-piercing (penetrating) warhead;
* S-8DM with fuel-air explosive warhead;
* S-8-OM with illuminating warhead;
* S-8PM with chaff warhead.

http://www.rbs.ru/vttv/99/firms/applphys/e-s8.htm

[Awang se]

have you heard? an RPG-29 was claimed to penetrated a frontal armor of a Challenger 2 MBT!! note "frontal", not side or rear but front, the best protected part of any tanks. the thing went through an ERA protected frontal glacis armor of the tank and kill it's driver, Trooper Sean Chance.

[ROCK45]

I didn't know that bit of information dealing with ground warfare topics I'm very much a newbie. I follow mainly aviation related items I only just started following this topic. I'll look up RPG-29, thanks

[Falstaff]

have you heard? an RPG-29 was claimed to penetrated a frontal armor of a Challenger 2 MBT!! note "frontal", not side or rear but front, the best protected part of any tanks. the thing went through an ERA protected frontal glacis armor of the tank and kill it's driver, Trooper Sean Chance.

It didn't kill him, he lost one of his feet (as can be read here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/13/nmod13.xml)). According to the article, the ERA somehow failed, but it remains unclear whether it simply didn't work or wasn't effective enough. Perhaps one of the pros here knows more about the incident. Eckherl?

[ROCK45]

I found these pretty quickly the first article is interesting and I see that this weapons is very dangerous. Worse it seems cheap and basically coming from Syria blocking shipments would be useful if possible. I realized that blocking weapons of this size is very difficult and can come from many sources.

RPRPG-29: The Great Equalizer
At the beginning of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, the main Israeli concern was a report that Hezbollah possessed Russian Kornet antitank missiles. However, it has been the RPG-29 that is stolen the show. These man-portable lightweight weapons are powerful enough to destroy the Merkava tank, which is reputed to be the most thoroughly armored tank in the world. According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Hezbollah acquired significant numbers of the RPG-29 from Syria, and the weapon has been a major source of Israeli casualties in the conflict.
The RPG-29 Vampir with the tandem HEAT (high explosive anti-tank) PG-29V tandem charge warhead was developed by Russia in the late 1980s in response to the development of tanks having explosive reactive armor. The weapon is designed to actuate explosive armor with a first shaped charge, while a second charge is reserved to penetrate the tank's hull. The Soviet army received the RPG-29 in 1989. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, these weapons could be found in almost all of the former Warsaw Pact nations.
The strategic importance of the dramatic battlefield effectiveness of the RPG-29 cannot be underestimated. The Iraqi resistance has not had access to significant quantities of RPG-29s because they were not readily available in the international weapons market until after post-Gulf War sanctions were applied to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. However, Syria and Iran possess large inventories of these weapons. Certainly, the Pentagon must be taking note of the effectiveness of these weapons against the Israeli forces in south Lebanon when considering the possibility of a military confrontation with Iran or Syria. In fact, the calculus of occupying any potentially hostile country has been significantly shifted. If the occupying forces can no longer rely on armored vehicles to engage militants or to travel, the price of occupation in terms of casualties will be much greater. This necessarily impacts countries like the United States and Israel more than it would countries that place a lesser value on the lives of their soldiers. In other words, the unexpected effectiveness of the RPG-29 is a severe blow to the West. It is the great equalizer. For $500 per launcher and $250 per missile round, a militant group can purchase a light, mobile weapon that is easy to conceal and that can reliably destroy a main battle tank that costs millions of dollars.
The long-term implications for Israel are even more significant. If

Link to full story
http://searchingforthetruth.typepad.com/searching_for_the_truth/2006/08/rpg29_the_great.html

Other links I found
RPG-29 antitank grenade launcher (USSR / Russia)
http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl04-e.htm

New RPG-29 and RPG-27
http://www.strategypage.com/military_photos/2004614.aspx

[Waylander]

Haven't we talked about this incident just recently in one thread?
I just can't remember where... :o

The lower frontal part of the Challi 2 hull is indeed not on of the strongest points and exactly because of that they decided to give it additional protection by adding ERA tiles.
As you said it is now the question if the ERA has malfunctioned or was defeated by the tandem warhead of the RPG-29.
After this incident the brits began to test additional passive armor on this part which would replace the ERA tiles.

Nowadays infantry has better AT weapons available. Modern ATGMs give them some good long range fire power which was something infantry in WWII totally lacked. Modern weapons like RPG-29 or PzFst 3 IT-600 also give them impressive short range AT firepower.
Modern AT-mines like the DM-12 PARM 1also give some interesting additional capabilities to the infantry

But it is right that tanks also have become more maneuverable. During WWII the big beasts were often enough less mobile while the mobile ones were easier to penetrate. These days the heavy armored MBTs are nearly the most mobile vehicles on the battlefield.

In the end the infantry of today can realy much more on their integrated portable AT systems which negates the need for such direct attacks on tanks to some degree while in the other hand they lost even more ground to the armored forces when it comes to mobility.

[ROCK45]

Back to my question a few posts back are unguided launched rockets effective against main battle tanks. I don't know if there designed the same way as RPGs, do they have enough push or brute strength to damage a modern designed main battle tank? Do helicopters need a true anti-tank missile type like an Hellfire to destroy a modern battle tank?

Thanks

[eckherl]

It didn't kill him, he lost one of his feet (as can be read here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/13/nmod13.xml)). According to the article, the ERA somehow failed, but it remains unclear whether it simply didn't work or wasn't effective enough. Perhaps one of the pros here knows more about the incident. Eckherl?

Its amazing what circulates on the internet.:rolleyes:

It was indeed a RPG 29 that managed to penetrate the front hull, the full report is a classified document but I will state that the ROMOR ERA package was designed with a pretty good performance level of protection against shaped and tandem style warheads, there is a pretty good chance that there was indeed a defect in the ERA package at the penetration point. There will be a upgrade to the primary armor protection level in this area, something that may of been neglected during the initial design phase of Challenger 1 and 2. Also they have gone to a newer generation ERA package that is currently getting fielded that should offer even better protection levels on the sides of the vehicle.

Something that the rest of you should take into consideration is the difficult task of actually placing any type of a ERA package on the lower front slope of a tank hull due to what that vehicle will experience hitting trees, rocks, structures and other different types of battlefield debris that gets in its way.

Hope that this may help shed some light Falstaff and ROCK45 :)

[eckherl]

Do unguided rockets such as S-8 types have much effect on main battle type? I assume not against the front armor but could a volley from the side or top do damage?

Thanks


The S-8 system is the main caliber weapon in the class of unguided aircraft rockets and can solve a variety of aircraft missions.

The following types of S-8 rockets are operational today:

* S-8KOM with HEAT fragmentation warhead;
* S-8BM with concrete-piercing (penetrating) warhead;
* S-8DM with fuel-air explosive warhead;
* S-8-OM with illuminating warhead;
* S-8PM with chaff warhead.

http://www.rbs.ru/vttv/99/firms/applphys/e-s8.htm

Well - the article clearly states that the S8- ROM is intended for the use of armor, if you attack a tank from the rear and punch at the turret top or rear, or go for the engine deck then you could in fact stand a pretty good chance of a penetration, due to armor thickness. You have to compensate some where on tanks due to weight issues.

[playman43]

To Kill A Mbt You Need To Be Very Close Or Be Air Born ,rpgs Will Kill Anything With Just Armor Plate But Are Pretty Usless Against Chohbam This Was Proved Not To Long Ago When A Challenger Became Stuck And Came Under Sustained Rpg And Small Arms Fire No Crew Casualties And The Tank Was Recovered Intact

[Mod Edit] First, welcome to the forum.

To make your posts more readable, & encourage others to pay attention to them, might I suggest that you not begin every word with a capital letter?

BTW, reading the forum rules is always recommended for new members - http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php

pji
[/Mod edit]

[eckherl]

Here is a couple of photos showing the latest upgrade to the front hull armor on Challenger 2, problem resolved.

[Waylander]

One thing I always wondered when seying these photos. What are these warning signs for?

Are they just because of the test or do they want to protect something I just don't see?

[eckherl]

One thing I always wondered when seying these photos. What are these warning signs for?

Are they just because of the test or do they want to protect something I just don't see?

If your making reference to the red and yellow placards I think that they use them for visibility purposes for passing automobiles.

[Waylander]

Jup, I mean the yeelow/red ones.

For cars?
Are they part of the normal outfit when Challis do a roadmarch. I thought these pics are from testing sites.

[eckherl]

Jup, I mean the yeelow/red ones.

For cars?
Are they part of the normal outfit when Challis do a roadmarch. I thought these pics are from testing sites.

I really do not know if it is a standard practice, one photo shows them on a vehicle driving on a road while the other photo shows what looks like the same road a upgraded Challie is driving without them.:confused:

[Waylander]

Ok, we have enough brits here. Somebody has to know it.

ANSWER!!!! :D ;)

[eckherl]

@waylander

Did you see this, RWS with either 7.62 or 12.7, they will most likely go with one of these systems for Challie.

[Waylander]

IIRC they already have a 12.7mm RWS in service with the Challis asigned to the Army of the Rhine since some time.

I really admire the British ability to quickly adopt new technologies and react to new situations with their Challi fleet.

They seem to be fast when it comes to introducing new upgrade packages for their tank fleet.

[eckherl]

IIRC they already have a 12.7mm RWS in service with the Challis asigned to the Army of the Rhine since some time.

I really admire the British ability to quickly adopt new technologies and react to new situations with their Challi fleet.

They seem to be fast when it comes to introducing new upgrade packages for their tank fleet.

I guess that they are quick, maybe the U.S could learn something from them.:( How long has the 12.7 version been on the tanks in Germany.

[Awang se]

I guess that they are quick, maybe the U.S could learn something from them

US already have TUSK if i'm not mistaken, and it come with RWS.

http://www.3ad.com/history/cold.war/feature.pages/scans/m1a2.update.1.jpg

[lobbie111]

Can someone tell me how the new LAW MBT (NLAW?) Rates in terms of tank busting ability looks a pretty good package, its basically a BILL 2 with a simple guidance mechansim. The way the guidance mechanisim works is by foucsing on the target with an aimpoint for three seconds and it plots a predicted line (PLOS) so as to get moving targets although if the tanks stops youve wasted a missile (it fires on that predicted path of the tank)...Thoughts?

[ranComdr]

as said else where it depends

I heard a tank being disabled with an old heavy rpg.

....

also firing two light missles can do the job as one sets of the explosive armour, and the second comes in for the kill

or so I heard

[Feanor]

Nuke it :)


Ok smilies aside, seriously. If it's a major armored spearhead that's heading for you, nuking it is the simplest and most efficient solution.

[Waylander]

That applies to a lot of military problems one might encounter... :D

[Feanor]

Surprisingly enough you're right (EDIT: no offense meant). It's the simplest way of dealing with most large (and I mean in physical land coverage :) ) problems. A powerful first world army isn't any better then third world child soldiers, if nukes are dropping like snowflakes during a blizzard.

[Waylander]

It is better. At least their NBC-troops are better as well as their personal gear.
In the end one could drive some mechanized forces through a recently nuked area which I wouldn't do with some 3rd world rag tag militia.

But you are right. If it is an exchange with lots of tactical nukes (maybe with additional sh***loads of C-weapons) like what was expected of a cold war going hot there is not that much one can do to protect the troops.

[lobbie111]

anyone see the movie Ironman, one of those Jericho missiles will do...

[ltb]

the best way of attacking a mbt is from the top... so in theory the best way of taking one out from an insuregent point of view would be to lure it into a built up area where you could fumulate some sort of way of attacking the uper part of the tank with a shapped charge... a rather large one.

Or away from never never land....get hold or a javalin and knock it off the battle field good and proper ;-)

[V4.SKUNK]

US already have TUSK if i'm not mistaken, and it come with RWS.

http://www.3ad.com/history/cold.war/feature.pages/scans/m1a2.update.1.jpg


TUSK is not fitted to every Abrams. When the Brits upgrade Challenger2 they upgrade all of them, not just a handfull.
I have never heard of an Abrams with TUSK operating in Iraq. TUSK has been around for at least 3 years also.

[eckherl]

TUSK is not fitted to every Abrams. When the Brits upgrade Challenger2 they upgrade all of them, not just a handfull.
I have never heard of an Abrams with TUSK operating in Iraq. TUSK has been around for at least 3 years also.

There are plenty M1 series tanks operating with some of the Tusk upgrades, and how many Challie 2 are there compared to M1 series.

[V4.SKUNK]

There are plenty M1 series tanks operating with some of the Tusk upgrades, and how many Challie 2 are there compared to M1 series.

I think you'll find hardly any M1's have been upgraded with tusk, in fact not a lot of Abrams are even at SEP standard let alone A2 standard.
The US army/marines are very slow at developing the M1.

[Waylander]

Getting TUSK in service has nothing to do with wether the Abrams in theater are A1, A1HA, A2 or A2SEP.
And while the TUSK program needed some time to accelerate it seems like the flow of TUSK kits to Iraq is now well established.

[eckherl]

I think you'll find hardly any M1's have been upgraded with tusk, in fact not a lot of Abrams are even at SEP standard let alone A2 standard.
The US army/marines are very slow at developing the M1.

I do not know who you are drawing that information from but it is totally false, that I know first hand. Also just like Waylander has mentioned, Tusk doesn`t only belong on a M1A2 SEP, you can place it on any M1 series tank that you choose, which we are doing. I should point out also that we have reduced the number of MBTs needed in theater operations due to better urbanized and convoy escort vehicles arriving in country.

[lobbie111]

Anyone familiar with the ATACMS rocket and its anti armour sub munitions, they can hold about 25 I believe and four stabilising fins come out fitted with acoustic and thermal sensors I believe, does anyone have an idea how effective they would be against a large tank platoon, I believe they have several modes the most common being top down...

[Water-Man]

The bigger question is being able to get close enough to do it any harm.

[kato]

The bigger question is being able to get close enough to do it any harm.

With ATACMS, artillery, rocket artillery or a decent ATGM (Maverick, Hellfire), there's no problem with distance.

[Feanor]

So a Maverick could pierce an M1's frontal plate?

[Chrom]

So a Maverick could pierce an M1's frontal plate?

Yes. Composite/ERA armor is much less effective against these big HEAT charges than against smaller ATGM's (HEAT vs RHA ratio).

[Waylander]

It would be a little bit freaky if people would start to try to armor their MBTs against monsters like Maveriks.

You have your integrated air defence units which should deal with a ground pounder if one comes through your outer AD layers. If they can't deal with it you are toast that's the whole story of combined arms warfare... ;)

[Water-Man]

KATO...And what do you think AirForce and/or Navy aircraft will be doing at that time?

[Feanor]

Yes. Composite/ERA armor is much less effective against these big HEAT charges than against smaller ATGM's (HEAT vs RHA ratio).

Interesting. So based on that could we figure out it's frontal armor in RHA equivalent?

[gf0012-aust]

Interesting. So based on that could we figure out it's frontal armor in RHA equivalent?

big maybe, so a yes and no - the USAF used a pair of Mavericks to destroy an M1 that was deemed irrecoverable. They were top down shots - not frontals.

[Waylander]

And one shouldn't forget that the usage of the term RHA itself is very vague as one cannot compare modern composite armor with plain normal RHA as ist reacts different to Chem and KE threats resulting in a different protection as with plain normal RHA.

[Chrom]

Interesting. So based on that could we figure out it's frontal armor in RHA equivalent? There is no single figure. All RHA -equivalent figures given against APFSDS / HEAT projectiles are just generic values, valid for "generic" average HEAT or APFSDS. But every APFSDS or HEAT have its own unique penetration characteristic, and both armor and projectiles designers try to improve its product specifically against
modern threat / armor.

So, for example, modern ATGM may have almost same RHA penetration as 20-years old ATGM, but penetrate composite or ERA armor much better. Same with APFSDS.

Or big ATGM's (Hellfire, Maverick) have almost same RHA penetration as smaller TOW-2 class ATGM's, but behave much better against ERA or composite armor due to much large penetrator diameter and mass.

[eckherl]

big maybe, so a yes and no - the USAF used a pair of Mavericks to destroy an M1 that was deemed irrecoverable. They were top down shots - not frontals.

Correct - to stand a 100% certain for vehicle destruction you either have to drill it from the turret top or rear of the vehicle.

[eckherl]

There is no single figure. All RHA -equivalent figures given against APFSDS / HEAT projectiles are just generic values, valid for "generic" average HEAT or APFSDS. But every APFSDS or HEAT have its own unique penetration characteristic, and both armor and projectiles designers try to improve its product specifically against
modern threat / armor.

So, for example, modern ATGM may have almost same RHA penetration as 20-years old ATGM, but penetrate composite or ERA armor much better. Same with APFSDS.

Or big ATGM's (Hellfire, Maverick) have almost same RHA penetration as smaller TOW-2 class ATGM's, but behave much better against ERA or composite armor due to much large penetrator diameter and mass.

For Pakistan scrambling a few years back for Tow 2B purchases says alot for that missiles performance, I think that you will find that most Western heavy ATGMs are designed for either top attack or ERA penetration performance.

[Chrom]

For Pakistan scrambling a few years back for Tow 2B purchases says alot for that missiles performance, I think that you will find that most Western heavy ATGMs are designed for either top attack or ERA penetration performance. There is no question in that. As i said, every developer try to adjust against modern threat / armor. I just pointed out what very heavy ATGM's have disproportionally better penetration against ERA or composite armor versus they RHA penetration values.

TOW 2B is surely very capable modern ATGM, but i doubt it have same "raw" performance against ERA or composite armor as old Maverick.

[lobbie111]

What would a bofors 40mm APFSDS do to an MBT, or their 3P round it seems they would be great rounds against an MBT especially the 3P I've seen it go through 150mm reinforced concrete and blow up the other side...

[Waylander]

To the front a 40mm APFSDS would not harm even older MBTs but it is a fair assumption that it would punch through the sides and back of normal MBTs and even the increased protection of some of the newer urban warfare kits should have problems with it.

If for example a CV90 suddenly faces an MBT his only chance is laying a smoke screen (hopefully IR smoke) and drive backwards like hell.
A burst of 3P rounds might add some confusion and may even get a lucky hit on some optics.
Nevertheless a IFV is in really big trouble if he suddenly faces an MBT without own support near by. (Exceptions are missile ambushes by an ATGM-capable IFV)

[lobbie111]

I was more thinking of putting the 3P round in a LAW style grenade launcher, the individual soldier can carry 5-10 of these (2.5kg shell) plus a 2.5kg launcher, make it recoiless (back of the shell blows out) with a muzzle on the back to allow for confined spaces shooting. Extremly good in urban warfare, may even able to achieve limited guidance one day. Time function settings mean you can destroy pretty much anything infantry will come across. I don't doubt that a CV90 is up the preverbial creek without a paddle in fact its probably better to bail out in that situation.

[kiddo123]

One acronym.....L.A.W....

or anyone whos brave enough can leap them selves onto the tank...lift the hatch fire a few rounds into there with an MP-5 and then toss a HE......

traditional way of course......:rolling

or strap a sticky bomb onto the tank.....:rolling

[Waylander]

I was more thinking of putting the 3P round in a LAW style grenade launcher, the individual soldier can carry 5-10 of these (2.5kg shell) plus a 2.5kg launcher, make it recoiless (back of the shell blows out) with a muzzle on the back to allow for confined spaces shooting. Extremly good in urban warfare, may even able to achieve limited guidance one day. Time function settings mean you can destroy pretty much anything infantry will come across. I don't doubt that a CV90 is up the preverbial creek without a paddle in fact its probably better to bail out in that situation.

Carrying 5-10 of these launchers? That's 25kg for the shells alone not including the carriage and the launcher. That's alot.

If one wants to use some kind of launcher for urban warfare I would still prefer a Panzerfaust 3-T (Or IT-600 if one wants some guidiance capabilities), a RPG-7V or a RPG-29.
These weapons give you the ability to defeat even the upgraded protection of urban warfare kits which is not something I would expect from a 3P round.

BTW, how do you think you implement a 40mm 3P round which is fired by a Bofors 40mm/L70 into a LAW style launcher? This would be a total new round and couldn't be called 3P anymore.
And a round HE round with proximity/time fuzed modes is always going to have less armor piercing capabilities than a specially developed modern AT-tandem warhead.

[kato]

Carrying 5-10 of these launchers? That's 25kg for the shells alone not including the carriage and the launcher. That's alot.

4 rounds would be possible - identical weight to a PzF3 round, with the launcher at identical weight.

A 40mm recoilless wouldn't have anywhere near the speed and impact energy of a similar shell fired from a 40mm/L70, and hence a lot less armor penetration.

There's a reason HEAT was developed, and there's a reason recoilless rifles became bigger and bigger over time.

[Waylander]

Yeah, but not 10 rounds... ;)

And because of the fundamental differences between an autocannon round and a recoilless round I wrote that one needs to develop a totally new round for a LAW style weapon.

[kay_man]

how much damage would a recoilless gun ......say shoulder fired or a bigger one mounted on a jeep do to amodern tank like t-80 /t-90 .

how does a recoiless gun compare to an RPG (latest 1) damage wise?

[lobbie111]

I was saying ten rounds between a squad, I can see how I portrayed that as confusing, my bad... May I direct you attention to this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyAl9qK3Rlg

this is what I meant with the 3P shell, hell of a lot of recoil, although I do acknowledge that there is a big difference in power.

Another suggeestion, someone mentioned thermite grenades in another thread, how effective are they at cutting through armour?

[Waylander]

I was saying ten rounds between a squad, I can see how I portrayed that as confusing, my bad... May I direct you attention to this...

Ah yes, sorry for confusing that. I really thought you want to give one trooper some additional 20+kg to carry around. :)

this is what I meant with the 3P shell, hell of a lot of recoil, although I do acknowledge that there is a big difference in power.

Another suggeestion, someone mentioned thermite grenades in another thread, how effective are they at cutting through armour?

I still don't get why you are so fascinated by the 3P round for serious AT work. This round is good for soft and light armored threats as well as against flying targets but it's performance is well behind a modern APFSDS when it comes to armor penetration.
Or do I get something totally wrong and 3P is also the designation for a totally different kind of projectile fired from this monster gun in the video?

One just won't get the same amount of penetration even with this monster compared to a modern big RPG/Panzerfaust.
And a Panzerfaust should also have better secondary capabilities. The fuze can remain in the warhead and you get a good round against structures and with special bunkerfaust rounds you can even get a specialized anti-bunker round.

Thermit grenades are used for self destrcution of the tank. One places it right next to the remaining ammo and then barkes the hell out of it. They are hot as hell and the tank should catch fire (and with it the remaining ammo).
So this is special equipment for the crew and nothing for AT-teams.

[lobbie111]

I was also assuming that you are using the APFSDS round for MBT's and 3P for LAV's to medium stuff, how about hybrid APFSDS round with thermite or some type of explosive material in the centre?

Have you seen the 3P working, goes right through reinforced conrete detonates on the other side destroying the bunker, one round multiple purposes here is the video you all might like to see

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKdwuOxYRI4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq_y6kkDO7Y

Don't take me for a youtube freak or anything, they are good examples of bothe the APFSDS and 3P rounds in action, if you are stuck for time watch the first one its better.

[Waylander]

I know how 3P rounds work.
And it is defenitely a really good round for a 40mm armed vehicle.

But it is still the inferior weapon if one wants to equip the infantry.
You don't get the same power out of portable gun system like one gets out of high-pressure vehicle mounted guns.
And with this the armor piercing capability is seriously inferior to a modern tandem warhead deliverd by RPG like weapons.

And a Bunkerfaust round is defenitely more destructive against enemy structures than a single 3P round. And while IFVs have the luxury to be able to put a lot of rounds into one target infantry doesn't.

[lobbie111]

Point proven thanks Waylander, you must admit however if the Panzerfaust/Bunkerfaust had the same functions of the 3P it could only add the the weapons capability.

[Waylander]

Sure a time or sensor fuzed round would add some new capabilities.

I am not sure but I think someone developed a time fuzed warhead for the RPG-7. IIRC it was mostly designed to attack low flying helicopters.

[lobbie111]

I heard that the mujahadeen used RPG's as flak against russian helicopters but it was really ineffective. Are there any in-service KE AT missiles in existense.

[Waylander]

There was a program for a KE-ATGM in the US not long ago (dammit my memory is soooo bad...:o) but I think it got axed or at least halted.

[lobbie111]

Yes I know the one your talking about it, LOSAT, yeah it was canned, for good reason, missiles were huge and expensive, not a bad effort though...

[Waylander]

Aaaah, yes that's the name. :)

IMHO very fast ATGMs with some sort of ECM in it could get very interesting when active protection systems get more mature and more widespread.

[kato]

The LOSAT launcher was also almost bigger than the HMMWV it sat on...

As for the RPG-7 and time-fuzing: against helicopters these were shot with either hit-to-kill, or even less effective, by putting the rocket next to the helo at the very point it automatically self-destructed (920m iirc).

As for Bunkerfaust and 3P capability... the Bunkerfaust was developed for behind-defilade effect. For other explosive applications at similar short ranges, the squad would still have a 40mm grenade launcher anyway.

[Waylander]

Nevertheless I expect that with a Panzerfaust 3-IT-600 one can throw the explosives alot farther than with a 40mm GL.
Give it a time fuze and maybe one can take out some positions which are hard to hit with a 40mm GL.

Nevertheless you are right that it is only a nice to have and not an important capability.

[lobbie111]

There is a smaller version coming out (of the LOSAT) that will be designed for use on the FCS its a much smaller missile, It will be very interesting indeed especially if given an airburst charge to detonate inside the tank. I can't remember what it's called however.

Any chance of some sort of top down 40mm grenade? maybe a little solid stage that kicks in during terminal flight? it would have to be bigger than your average M203 grenade, but would still be able to fire from an M203, if its only used to imobilise the tank. (would have to be guided somehow)

[papazulu4]

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

Giang Nguyen


KORNET-E (with the antitank warhead)

[Feanor]

KORNET-E (with the antitank warhead)

Hehehe. Molotov cocktail. Up the jaxie, multiple ones all over the comms and turret, in the hatch if it's open, in the treads (as many as humanely possible). Even if the tank is still semi-operable, the crew will be cooked alive.

[Waylander]

And is as much suicide as trying to put some C4 onto the tank.

Tanks aren't that slow anymore and while it may be possible during urban warfare or when you catch a tank in heavy wood it is close to impossible in relatively urban terrain.

[Feanor]

Of course. But since we're out discussing all the ways there are I thought I might as well toss that out there.

[Waylander]

And I think we had it before here on some of the 45 pages. ;)

BTW, does anybody really train for such close attacks against MBTs?
I know that it is not done in the Bundeswehr since some time and I would be surprised if any other NATO-country is still doing it.

What about Russia or other countries? (I am not talking about some rag tag militia out of thr 3rd world which might do some stunts like this from time to time...)

[lobbie111]

Actually its 46, I think the general consensous it these days tanks are never left alone so there is no need to practice close attacks.

[Chrom]

And I think we had it before here on some of the 45 pages. ;)

BTW, does anybody really train for such close attacks against MBTs?
I know that it is not done in the Bundeswehr since some time and I would be surprised if any other NATO-country is still doing it.

What about Russia or other countries? (I am not talking about some rag tag militia out of thr 3rd world which might do some stunts like this from time to time...)

I believe there is no training for that in russian army except very basic training to not fear tanks close by. RPG and ATGM are weapons of choice. Molotov cocktail in general is very ineffective against modern armor, i dont think any army train for it now.

[eckherl]

There is a smaller version coming out (of the LOSAT) that will be designed for use on the FCS its a much smaller missile, It will be very interesting indeed especially if given an airburst charge to detonate inside the tank. I can't remember what it's called however.

Any chance of some sort of top down 40mm grenade? maybe a little solid stage that kicks in during terminal flight? it would have to be bigger than your average M203 grenade, but would still be able to fire from an M203, if its only used to imobilise the tank. (would have to be guided somehow)

I wouldn`t count on the LOSAT, performance levels have been rather dismal and we do have better guided projectiles that are cheaper and give better performance.

[lobbie111]

I wouldn`t count on the LOSAT, performance levels have been rather dismal and we do have better guided projectiles that are cheaper and give better performance.

CKEM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Kinetic_Energy_Missile) aka Compact Kinetic Energy Missile, its a prototyped concept for FCS so yes there probably isnt much chance of it going through but it is around.

[eckherl]

CKEM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Kinetic_Energy_Missile) aka Compact Kinetic Energy Missile, its a prototyped concept for FCS so yes there probably isnt much chance of it going through but it is around.

This one does have potential but here is a couple of others for you that also stand a good chance.

[lobbie111]

This one does have potential but here is a couple of others for you that also stand a good chance.

Hmm... promising what is their contry of origin? I have just had another brilliant brainwave when it comes to anti tank projectiles, is it possible to make a hollowpoint KE missile that deforms in soft lead with tungsten carbide jagged edges? so it literally cuts through the armour? once it goes through the crew don't have a chance. I ask not just if it would be effective but if its allowed under UN law?

[Waylander]

What is hollowpoint? My dictionary is clueless about it.

If I understand it right you want the KE missile to have sharp egdes (made of some tungsten or DU alloy) so it can cut through the armor.
I don't see the advantages compared to a traditional shaped KE arrow (self sharpening if it is a good one).

The heat created during an impact as well as the armor and the rest of the penetrator entering the tank should be enough to give the crew a headache.

[lobbie111]

this is going to take a while, a hollowpoint is a roand that deforms on impact and expands at least twice its size if not more.

On impact it does this (http://www.remington.com/images/products/ammo/centerfire/corelokt_mushroom.jpg) (on the exposed lead I want to put the tungsten carbide)

My theory is that more surface area that the force hits with the cutting area the better and bigger the penetration is

[Waylander]

Ah, ok that's a hollowpoint round. I expected it but I was not sure. Thanks for the explanation. :)

But I have to say that it won't work very well against armor. Your eestimation that the more armor hit the better is wrong.

One wants to concentrate the impact power of a KE penetrator onto an area as small as it gets. By doing this the energy of the impact is concentrated on one point.
It os relatively simple and may very well be explained by using a traditional crossbow as an example.
Heavy crossbows can penetrate a relatively heavy metal plate with good bolts. The more sharp and stable this bolt is the more metal one can penetrate. If one uses a not very pointed and soft bolt it is not going to penetrate the same amount of metal.

A KE penetrator is not much more than a very big and heavy bolt. Because of this self sharpening KEs are best what one can currently find on the market. They ability to stay pointed during the penetration is a big plus as it keeps the impact energy focused onto one point instead of diverting it to a bigger part of the armor.

I hope this is understandable even with my limited english. Technical explanations are often enough a little bit difficult because normally I just don't need these words. :)

[lobbie111]

Very comprehensivly explained :)

In my mind a KE penetrator just goes straight trough how does it actually take down the tank? I assume it fragments after hiting the opposite wall

[Waylander]

If a whole is punched into the tank than alot of metal fragments come through this whole.
These fragments consist of the remnants of the penetrator itself as well as parts of the armor.
You can imagine what alot of high speed metal fragments do to the crew and interior of a tank...
Additionally these fragments tend to be extremely hot because alot of the impact energy is converted into heat. Thus an ammo explosion or another kind of fire is also a tipical result of a hit by a KE.
Usually we call what happens during impact Trefferblitz---> impact flash because if one hits a target with a KE it results in a flash (the impact energy converted into heat and light).
This phenomen helps tank crews to indentifiy impacts on enemy tanks even if the air is full of smoke and debris.

[lobbie111]

Thanks for the explanation, never had faith in KE penetrators but now I do, if you hit the tank in the turret would this also effect the driver?

So what we can look at per se, is some type of high pressure man portable device that is capable of firing a APFSDS round the equivalent to at least 105mm at best 120mm