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

[giangnguyen]

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

[Blackclaw]

The T-72 can do it from the front if it gets close enough - which is unlikely. On average, the M1a1 can pentrate the armor of a T-72 1000 meters further away than a T-72 can hurt the M1. Most modern antitank weapons can damage it or immobilize it from the side or rear.

[DarkAngel]

well only a well documented battle can prove that
because most countries, particular weapons exporters show their systems to be one fathom ahead of what they really are.
the iraqis downed 2 tanks using TOWS. which TOW they used and how it compares with t 72 firepower, that i dunno.

[giangnguyen]

you're right, the iraqis have knocked out 2 Abrams by TOW missile, but these all tow tanks were attacked from the back, where the protection is not so good as that in the front or side. Frontal or side attack I think is impossible to achieve a kill.

[Gremlin29]

A T 72 is not even in the same league as the M1. They can be taken out of action as mentioned in close quarters and portions of the tank are vulnerable to weapons other than tank fire however crew survivability is quite high. The M1 is not immune to damage, but it is one bad motha. The biggest threat the M1 faces is from air attack, but such a powerful air force and the concept of the combined arms team the US has little to worry about in that area.

[ReVoLt]

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...

[Red aRRow]

Around 4 days ago an American M1 A1 Abrams was destroyed by the Iraqi patriots by using a landmine. I think two of the crew got killed. :cop

I think the Russian Kornet E will disable, if not destroy, the M1.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/kornet/index.html

[The Watcher]

Russian made pg-7vr and the rpg-27 might have killed the tank in Iraq week or so ago.

[AnonymousDoe]

Its not that hard. M1A2s front armor is only around 1000mm. Most modern Anti-Tank missiles or DU round can destroy it

[Winter]

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.

[corsair7772]

The M1A2 is vunerable from air attack.The russians have a couple of missiles fired from SU-39s and stuff which can give hell 2 an M1. Also if a TU-160 drops about a couple of those heavy bombs the russians use to penetrate aircraft shelters on those M1....

[Awang se]

Any tank can be destroyed by aicraft from above by a heavy bomb. I think, to kill an abrams from distance, we need a guided round that actually attack from above. i'm thinking in a line of projectile that is launch from 45+ degrees angle (like mortar or howitzer) with sensors on the front. on the diving run, the seeker activated and seeking a target within intended parameters and dive toward the target.

[gf0012-aust]

The T-72 can do it from the front if it gets close enough - which is unlikely. On average, the M1a1 can pentrate the armor of a T-72 1000 meters further away than a T-72 can hurt the M1. Most modern antitank weapons can damage it or immobilize it from the side or rear.

The M1a2 has twice the range of the T72.

No RPG7's fired at an M1a2 have managed to disable it. Its armour is as good as the Challenger 2

There are currently no other tanks that have the Chobham armour that these tanks use, The Leclerc uses a variation of Chobham but has not been battle tested

[gf0012-aust]

you're right, the iraqis have knocked out 2 Abrams by TOW missile, but these all tow tanks were attacked from the back, where the protection is not so good as that in the front or side. Frontal or side attack I think is impossible to achieve a kill.

No M1a2' have been killed by anti-tank missiles. 1 has been destroyed by a 100kilo IED. But NO tank in the world at this stage could survive from an IED set into the ground like a mine.

[gf0012-aust]

Its not that hard. M1A2s front armor is only around 1000mm. Most modern Anti-Tank missiles or DU round can destroy it

Its not the thickness of the armour - it is the type of armour. M1a2's use a DU armour plate. In 1999 T72's that managed to close up to 1000 ft had their shells literally bouncing off the M1a2's.

DU and Chobham armour has so far withstood all direct hits. The Challenger 2 armour is rumoured to be stronger than the M1a2's

[gf0012-aust]

Any tank can be destroyed by aicraft from above by a heavy bomb. I think, to kill an abrams from distance, we need a guided round that actually attack from above. i'm thinking in a line of projectile that is launch from 45+ degrees angle (like mortar or howitzer) with sensors on the front. on the diving run, the seeker activated and seeking a target within intended parameters and dive toward the target.

To drop any ordinance from the air requires the other force to have air capability. Every war fought since 1989 has demonstrated that the US has had absolute and complete air supremacy. No airforce has survived an air war against the americans.

Warfighting now is completely different to any war waged prior to 1989.

[gf0012-aust]

Russian made pg-7vr and the rpg-27 might have killed the tank in Iraq week or so ago.

No, it was a 100k IED

[gf0012-aust]

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...
In a tank on tank war, the only tank at this stage that can go up against an M1a2 is either another M1aX or a Challenger 2. Both tanks are evenly matched. Possibly a Leclerc but the armour plating is unknown. It is believed to be a "stolen" earlier version of Choham armour.

The best armour in the world is universally recognised as Chobham 3. The Brits are the only ones with it.

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.

A T90 is the last tank I would be sitting in during a modern armoured war.

[Awang se]

A T90 is the last tank I would be sitting in during a modern armoured war

Exactly what i think

[Aussie Digger]

Gf, I think Leopard 2A6 with it's newly upgraded 120mm main gun (L55 I think) plus it's new tungsten penetrator ammunition (DM53) would have the best chance of destroying an M1A2 in a purely tank on tank duel, provided it got the first hit. I don't know how the Leopard's armour would stand up to the 120mm gun on the abrams, but it is supposed to be pretty good these days. However if it's simply a matter of destroying a tank then there's more than one way to "skin a cat". The Abrams is as vulnerable as any other tank to a 'mobility kill'. Once it's track, sprockets or road wheels are destroyed it's not going anywhere and you can then (hopefully) manoevre to destroy the tank from behind or call in artillery. Even an Abrams would not stand up to an artillery bombardment.

[gf0012-aust]

Gf, I think Leopard 2A6 with it's newly upgraded 120mm main gun (L55 I think) plus it's new tungsten penetrator ammunition (DM53) would have the best chance of destroying an M1A2 in a purely tank on tank duel, provided it got the first hit. I don't know how the Leopard's armour would stand up to the 120mm gun on the abrams, but it is supposed to be pretty good these days. However if it's simply a matter of destroying a tank then there's more than one way to "skin a cat". The Abrams is as vulnerable as any other tank to a 'mobility kill'. Once it's track, sprockets or road wheels are destroyed it's not going anywhere and you can then (hopefully) manoevre to destroy the tank from behind or call in artillery. Even an Abrams would not stand up to an artillery bombardment.

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

[gf0012-aust]

AD, on another strategy forum i used the example of MLRS, battlefield rockets, or in future technology a derivative of metal storm technology to counter tanks.

The Leos are untested (and even though I do prefer them for Aust force mix reasons), in a desert theatre or open plain warfare, I see the M1ax having a slight advantage - especially as the M1ax has the longest range firing gun available.

[Red aRRow]

Any tank can be destroyed by aicraft from above by a heavy bomb. I think, to kill an abrams from distance, we need a guided round that actually attack from above. i'm thinking in a line of projectile that is launch from 45+ degrees angle (like mortar or howitzer) with sensors on the front. on the diving run, the seeker activated and seeking a target within intended parameters and dive toward the target.

Actually not a bad idea Awang! The seeker stays inactive for the initial phase and only activates when it has achieved maximum height. Another way could be to use Overfly Top Attack (OTA) technology such as in the Swedish Bofors BILL 2 ATGM which attacks tanks on their most vulnerable part..i.e. the top.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bofors/

[gf0012-aust]

The americans have developed parachute anti-tank cluster bombs.

All of the top down solutions require air dominance and substantial SEAD to work.

The russians used a tactical battlefield rocket to destroy the vehicle that a chechyan commander was using. they vectored the tbr onto comms signals coming from his vehicle. Sensor to shoot time was 10 mins. A TBR is designed to attack hard sites - so it is ideal for anti-tank warfare.

BUT, if the enemy has air dominance, if they can detect missile and rocket launches from space, then that unit is dead before it launches a nother attack. Depeding how far out into the future you want to look, the rocket and/or missile would be destroyed as well. The US has killed 25 Katushya rockets using THED Lasers. The Brits can intercept a 5" shell with one of their PDS missiles.

Once the US deploys a version of THED to aircraft (now touted to be 2005), they will literally have complete dominance of the battlefield.

[Aussie Digger]

Actually Gf as far as I know the M1A2 still uses the American version of the L44 (the gun on the 'old' Leopard 2), except they call it the M256. I doubt if this older gun is better than the new one... I have also seen that the US army is interested in upgrading their M1A2's to mount a version of the L55 on the M1A2. The L55's range now exceeds 5000m's in direct fire mode...

[Aussie Digger]

In relation to the untested part about Leopard 2's, they have been deployed on operations to Bosnia by the German and (I think) Dutch Armies on KFOR duties, I'm not sure if they engaged in any tank on tank combat though. The Leopard 2 would have to be one of the more successful tanks around the world though. It's used by the German, Dutch, Swedish, Greece, Austria, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Spain, Finland and Poland. With's it's superior mobility and deployability, plus the fact that it's much cheaper, Australia would be mad not to acquire it. In saying that, I'll still be happy with any new tank.

[umair]

I have been reading this discussion regarding top attack anti tank devices for quite sometime now.What surprised me is that no one mentioned the STAFF(small target fire&forget) top attack round developed by the US for it's Abrams. Although the programe got cancelled due to escalating procurement costs (and the fact that a new round called TERM was underdevelopment(still is)) it would have proved to be an effective counter to advanced armours such as the Chobham.The staff featured a heat seeker in it's nose and would after firing pop up like any antitank missile.During it's descent the seeker would look for the target's heat signature upon which it had locked on before firing and the controlling fins at the back of the round would adjust it's flight acording to the target's position and movement.Another projected role for the staff was to be used in an anti helicopter role(where in it got replaced by MPATT).
An excerpt from a file I have on different types of tank ammo:
Tank Ammunition - Other ammunition.
Although tanks have traditionally carried HE ( H igh E xplosive)
shells, the Germans and Americans do not field anything but
APFSDS and HEAT for their 120 mm guns. As a result, all anti-
personnel work has to be done with HEAT rounds, which have infe-
rior blast and fragmentation patterns compared to HE rounds of the
same caliber. The Russian tanks, on the other hand, have always
fielded HE rounds, and they form the largest proportion of each
tank's ammunition load. (The current 125 mm HE round is the
OF26 .) This means Russian tanks are far better equipped to tackle
infantry, especially in urban conditions, than any of the NATO armies.
The Swedish Army has a similar ammunition doctrine to the Russian
army, and they field a 120 mm HE round on their Leopard 2s. The
120 mm and 125 mm HE rounds are fast enough and heavy enough
to cause catastrophic damage to lightly armored vehicles, like APCs
and some IFVs, and even MBTs cannot ignore the damage a direct
hit can do to the running gear and optics.
Other ammunition types, like flechette, canister, and smoke
rounds, were all produced for rifled tank guns of previous genera-
tions, but they haven't been fielded for most 120 mm and 125 mm
systems. The US Army is currently developing a 120 mm canister
round for its Abrams tanks, but experiments with an Israeli prototype
of a flechette round proved to be a failure. Smoke rounds simply
haven't been considered important enough to be developed yet.
The US Army has fielded an anti- helicopter round, known as
the M830A1 HEAT- MP- T, or MPAT ( M ulti P urpose A nti T ank), since
1992. This small saboted HEAT round has a muzzle velocity of 1,410
m/ s, to enable it to reach distant targets quickly, and it has a prox-
imity fuse to detonate it when it passes near an airborne target.
When the proximity fuse is switched off, the round can be fired at
ground targets, but the small size of the MPAT warhead means
penetration is less than the basic M830. The US Army partly developed a top-attack round for the Abrams, called the XM943 STAFF, but the pro-
gram was canceled before the round reached production. Work is
continuing on another ambitious smart round program called TERM,
but it will not produce rounds before 2007 at the earliest.

[gf0012-aust]

There have been a number of AT systems recently cancelled. The question is always whether they have been replaced by a higher priority project that surpasses the capability of the cancelled system.

The americans don't tend to cancel such weapons projects without good cause

[Revival_786]

I have read from a couple of sources that Saudi Arabia has 315 M1 Abrams? Are they any good?

[gf0012-aust]

I have read from a couple of sources that Saudi Arabia has 315 M1 Abrams? Are they any good?

If you want to look at it on a purely subjective basis, without being nationalistic, without taking an east/west, unbeliever/believer view, then the M1ax is clearly the best in the world at this stage

1) Has the longest stabilised gun range on the fly
2) Can apply consistent shots at speed, and has demonstrated it consistently by killing t-72's, T80'2 and T-90's at ax range
3) Has an armour rating that renders it fairly safe with a substantial number of RPG/ATG's
4) Has a proven loading system
5) Has the highest kill rate of any tank in the last 20 years
6) Is an evolving platform

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

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

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

Anything else is theory without substance.

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

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

[Awang se]

M1Ax; the performance Suit the price tag well.

it's good, but it's not entirely invincible, like every weapon in the world can't destroy it. I still want to know what kind of weapon destroy the two "bonecrusher" M1. It was clearly a single shot kill. Is it true that it was KORNET-E ATGM?

[gf0012-aust]

M1Ax; the performance Suit the price tag well.

it's good, but it's not entirely invincible, like every weapon in the world can't destroy it. I still want to know what kind of weapon destroy the two "bonecrusher" M1. It was clearly a single shot kill. Is it true that it was KORNET-E ATGM?

AFAIK it was a 100kilo IED. It was set in the ground and detonated remotely

[Awang se]

Do you have the picture of the damage tanks? I wish to make an assesment.

[Red aRRow]

There are pictures of destroyed M1A1 tanks in Iraq in the Gallery section. Check under the Wars section in 'Gulf War. I can upload more pictures there if you want.

[corsair7772]

Waisay how do u tell wether the crews dead or not?
u chk the compartment area?

[Awang se]

In Most cases the, the crew survive. In most of the picture, assesing from the damages, the tank were immobilize first. I saw some effort to penetrate the turret from the rear and side. there is a clear hit mark by HEAT fire.

[gf0012-aust]

came across this on a post war assessment of the GW. (Australian Defence Studies Centre on Land Warfare)

".... a captured Iraqi battalion commander wryly commented:
‘On 17 January [1991], I started with thirty-nine tanks. After thirty-eight days of aerial attacks, I had thirty-two [tanks], but in less than twenty minutes with M1A1 [Abrams main battle tank],I had zero’

it would be interesting to know what tanks he had in his battalion..

[Aussie Digger]

T72's GF. That quote is also discussed in Tom Clancy's "Armoured Warfare". Cheers.

[Fascist Fitz]

With regard to the previous discussion on the new tanks for Australia, i am complete agreement with Aussie Digger...not getting the Leopard 2's would be quite stupid. The race was refined to 3 main competitors, the L2, Abrams, and the Challenger 2. The challenger was knocked out, leaving the Abrams and L2. Looking at those two alone, the L2 is really not that far behind the Abrams in capabilities, and the infrastrucure and support systems for the Abrams need to be much larger than the L2.

just from this poin tof view, Australia has to get the L2's, as whilst well organised, we simply do not have the logistical capabilities to cope with the Abrams. This is possibly why no other country except the US uses the Abrams, becausr they have the support and massive budget to be able to handle it. Also, the germans have always managed to do pretty well for themselves in terms of military equipment in the past...they were at the cutting edge for a while there in WW2, and whilst the Cold War halted this for a while, the fabelled German efficiency and design prowess can now be called back into action...I'm backing that the Aussies get the L2!!!

[gf0012-aust]

The Leo2 A6 is generally considered to be the equal of the M1a2. Even amongst american tankers there is a healthy respect for it.

If we go the Leo route we are likely to pick up Leo2 A4's which are slightly downgraded.

[rapiergunner]

gf002 trust me the armour on the m1 doesnt even conpare with chally 2 look at op telic how many wagons were lost compared with the yanks problem with the yanks was they never up armoured
:cop

[Revival_786]

What type of M1 Abrams does Saudi Arabia have? Probably a downgraded version of the US M1 Abrams (I think the "A2" comes into play here). Is there a big difference between the two? :)

[Aussie Digger]

Hey RapierGunner? Is that you're actual (or former) profession? Rapier Gunners in the Australian Army used to go by the grandiose official title of "Air Defence Missilemen"... Always sounded kind of funny to me...

[gf0012-aust]

gf002 trust me the armour on the m1 doesnt even conpare with chally 2 look at op telic how many wagons were lost compared with the yanks problem with the yanks was they never up armoured
:cop

It's intereresting over the last few weeks how many yank master gunners I have spoken to who are saying the same. they can't give much detail (due to classification issues etc) but they have all (3 of them) been confirming what you just said.

[Gremlin29]

Regarding the Op Telic mention, I'd be curious to know what the loss ratio is between Challenger and M1?

Ultimately which tank is actually "better" than the other is a pointless arguement. Neither is worth a darned without infantry support. And if your infantry aren't highly mechanized you are really minimalizing any MBT's abilities. It also remains to be said that none of these tanks have any real countermeasures against serious aerial attack either. Hellfires will make Swiss Cheese out of any of the state of the art AFV's let alone LGB's and so forth. And as a point of interest, a 13 year old kid with a molotov cocktail can take out the M1, Challenger, Leo II, etc.

[Revival_786]

What type of M1 Abrams does Saudi Arabia have? Probably a downgraded version of the US M1 Abrams (I think the "A2" comes into play here). Is there a big difference between the two? :)

[gf0012-aust]

Regarding the Op Telic mention, I'd be curious to know what the loss ratio is between Challenger and M1?

Ultimately which tank is actually "better" than the other is a pointless arguement. Neither is worth a darned without infantry support. And if your infantry aren't highly mechanized you are really minimalizing any MBT's abilities. It also remains to be said that none of these tanks have any real countermeasures against serious aerial attack either. Hellfires will make Swiss Cheese out of any of the state of the art AFV's let alone LGB's and so forth. And as a point of interest, a 13 year old kid with a molotov cocktail can take out the M1, Challenger, Leo II, etc.

Actually the swiss version of the Leo2A6 is top armoured and has an ERA capability. It's the only top armoured western MBT that I know of.

[Gremlin29]

True, however I am unaware that this variant is actually capable of defending against Hellfire or 500 pound LGB's?

[gf0012-aust]

I'm not too sure I'd want to be inside anything that a 500 pounder was intending to drill through - or a hellfire. ;)

The swiss might build the toughest banks, but I'm not sure they also qualify for building the toughest tanks...

[tankboy]

hi,im a for crewman on a original m1 tank and it was very capable itself.im sure the newest version is just awesome i wish i was still in the service so i could experience its capabilities.can the m1tank or its newest variations be knocked out?well ofcourse it can,just like anything.now im talking tank vs tank here,the m1 or any of the newest verions can knock out another tank beyond visual range with its thermal vision sights,so it can knock the other tank out before the enemy can see the m1 tank.in the first gulf war,no m1s were knocked out by the enemy.the only ones destroyed were from friendly fire.just like most tanks a top attack or rear attack and to a degree a side attack are its most vulnerable spots,that is why as a tanker we never showed our assend to the enemy

[gf0012-aust]

as I said before, one of my associates was a master gunner in an M1, was involved in its development, and also was involved in assessing potential enemy tanks (even the possibility of rogue controlled M1's, Challys and Leo's). He still is absolutely convinced of the capability of the M1.

He's made a few comments about foreign tanks rolling up at Aberdeen and not asking any questions as to where they got them from. The SAS managed to extract significant amounts of equipment through the Mujihadeen and in other areas such as Muslim controlled Croatia. The SAS apparently would "shop to order"

He's not in the habit of talking much about his past, but he certainly gets animated when he talks about trials they ran with "enemy gear".

[Awang se]

Is it possible to protect the top area of the tank?

[gf0012-aust]

Is it possible to protect the top area of the tank?

It is, The Swiss Leos and UK Chally 2's are top armoured. Western tanks are moving away from reactive armour as its not seen as beneficial as it was in the past.

As a last resort ERA can be used (especially on older less protected AFV's) but there has been mods made like skeleton skirts etc that are added to the tank perimeter - there doesn't seem to be any reason as to why skeletal skirts wouldn't work on the turrets etc... - just a bit unweildy and might compromise some fields of view.

The US has been using skeletals on some of their strykers in Iraq and none have been lost to RPG's etc since the retro fit. (to date)

[Aussie Digger]

Shields that detonate RPG type weapons away from the main armour of the vehicle work very well and have done so for 30 odd years, since the Brits (I think) came up with this idea for use in Northern Ireland. I'm not sure that they would be of any use against hardened penetrator type weapons, (although I'm not sure if there are too many "handheld" type hardened penetrator weapons around at the moment only HEAT or HESH rounds, still this is a nice cheap way of adding protection to a lightly armoured vehicle... Even "armoured" landrovers have withstood RPG's with metal screens fitted.

[echo4bravo]

hey all....im new to the site,
anyways i came across some pics the other day of a destroyed m1 with the turret blown off sitting about 50 ft away from the hull. the story goes, the tank rolled over 3 AT mines in succession, thus blowing the turret off and destroying the tank and killing severel crew members (may they rest in peace). now is this possible? can AT mines destroy an m1 like that? or is it just another internet tall tale? the pics looked authentic and im 100% positive it was an M1.

[Winter]

hey all....im new to the site,
anyways i came across some pics the other day of a destroyed m1 with the turret blown off sitting about 50 ft away from the hull. the story goes, the tank rolled over 3 AT mines in succession, thus blowing the turret off and destroying the tank and killing severel crew members (may they rest in peace). now is this possible? can AT mines destroy an m1 like that? or is it just another internet tall tale? the pics looked authentic and im 100% positive it was an M1.

Were the pics in the DefenceTalk Gallery? Probably not...If so, then is a link possible?

We also have some related discussions:

http://defencetalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=755
http://defencetalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=258

[echo4bravo]

no i did not find them here i found a thread on another site but the DoD made them pull them off the site but there was a post and a link to a russian website that had the pics i have the pics and could post them but they might get pulled again i dont think they have been cleared for release or something to that effect. if its alright with the mods and i can figure out how to do it ill post them

[Red aRRow]

I think I had the pictures on my hard disk. But I can't find them in the gigabytes of pictures that reside on my hard drive. echo4bravo just upload the pictures in the Gallery section of this website under the Gulf War title. Then you can link them from this forum and we can have a discussion.

cheers.

[echo4bravo]

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

[WebMaster]

echo, please put those pics in a zip file and email to Admin@defencetalk.com

I will upload them manually for you since GF libraries need to be reinstalled on the server.

Thanks, Enjoy!

[WebMaster]

here are the pics

http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/albums/US_Army/hull.jpg

http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/albums/US_Army/turret.jpg

And if anyone else having trouble uploading, just hang on until the problem is fixed. It should be very soon!

[Awang se]

I think hand held AT kinetic missile is possible. I do have a few ideas rattling in my head right now.

[gf0012-aust]

I think hand held AT kinetic missile is possible. I do have a few ideas rattling in my head right now.

I was under the impression that this tank had been killed by 3 stacked IED's.

[Awang se]

It's not related to the picture. i just say i got an idea on how a kinetic missile can be develope.

[gf0012-aust]

It's not related to the picture. i just say i got an idea on how a kinetic missile can be develope.

Ok, well, on that point the US have been developing scramjet powered anti-tank munitions.

mach5-mach7 kinetic kill would be a nightmare for any tank crew

[Awang se]

I think i see it. is it the one that was launch from the humvee right? a LOSAT if i'm not mistaken.

[gf0012-aust]

The LOSAT is a diff solution. This technology hasn't been released yet.

The problem with kinetic-energy rounds is that lose about 160kps velocity over 2 kilometers, due to drag. This kinetic energy declines with the square of the velocity, so an armor penetration capability falls off at extended ranges.

The advantage of a scramjet propelled round is that it can sustain the velocity and maintain that penetrating power all the way to its target.

If you consider the fact that a standard M829A2 kinetic-energy round using a finned “dart” penetrater pierced two Iraqi T-72 tanks parked side-by-side, then a scramjet solution would have been even more devestating.

These rounds are travelling at Mach 5 at peak velocity - a scramjet solution could realise a Mach 7 kill - at a greater distance.

The longest recorded kill is 5km by a Challenger 2 on a T72. That means that at almost the end of its flight path there was still sufficient kinetic energy to destroy that tank. Imagine if that shell still had all it energy intact like what a scramjet round can offer.

Its also why the bulk of other militaries aren't looking at PGM gun fired rounds - there are better solutions in place.

Personally I think if you want to have an on board anti-air role, then the Israeli AAM pods are a better idea. The Aust army trialled recessed cannisters on our ASLAV's in the late 1990's, but they weren't seen as essential kit.

As you can tell, I'm not a big supporter of rifled PGM's on an MBT. ;)
Armour is part of a force cohort, hence I believe that anti-air capability should be part of the force structure on the move, not part of a dedicated platform, like an MBT. Stick you Chaparral, Crotales etc on your IFV/AFV's and let the tanks focus on being tanks.

It boils down to an issue of theatre if not battlefield doctrine though.

[Awang se]

the round still need tank gun to fire it right? what i really want is a lightweight kinetic AT weapon, preferably hand held. are there any yet?

[echo4bravo]

well correct me if me wrong but if that tank was destroyed by some sort of penatrating round would there not be secondary explosions and alot of heat and fire? i dont see any evidence of too much heat, it looks like the turret was ripped off the tank. the turret basket is probably still sitting in the tank, well whatever happened it must have been pretty horrific.

[Awang se]

Yep, i agree. it seem like it was cut off by a samurai sword instead by explosion. it is way to clean.

[gf0012-aust]

well correct me if me wrong but if that tank was destroyed by some sort of penatrating round would there not be secondary explosions and alot of heat and fire? i dont see any evidence of too much heat, it looks like the turret was ripped off the tank. the turret basket is probably still sitting in the tank, well whatever happened it must have been pretty horrific.

It was an IED, 3 AT mines were stacked on top of each other and fired concurrently. The overpressure could have popped the turret - it was definitely not an ATM.

No tank would have survived that. The interesting thing is that the armoured compartments that separate the crew from the ordnance were supposed to be intact - so no secondary explosions

[goran]

Serbian new m84-ab1 can kill M1 ,with 125mm gun.

[gf0012-aust]

Serbian new m84-ab1 can kill M1 ,with 125mm gun.

A Cane Toad can kill a Crocodile - so whats your point? where is the evidence that an M84AB1 can kill an M1? an A1? a SEP-D? In what scenario?

The priority is to kill tanks by CAS - not with another tank. Thats why the A-10's are on a SLEP to have them last until 2028.

[pingpong]

what do you guys think of china's T-98 ?

[PLA2025]

only a hellfire missile? who told you that BS???
any modern anti-tank launchers like the German Panzerfaust 3 can penetrate any MBT fielded today even the M1A2!
In the battle you cannot expect that your enemy only attacks you from the front. War is merciless!

[gf0012-aust]

only a hellfire missile? who told you that BS???Unless you've been living in a cave since 1991, I'd suggest that you've ignored the numerous stills and movies that are available of Hellfires fired by both Helos and A-10's at tanks.

any modern anti-tank launchers like the German Panzerfaust 3 can penetrate any MBT fielded today even the M1A2!And the proof of that lies in what empirical examples? Are you suggesting that the US military are going to abandon successful doctrine and expose M1's into combat where they're unsupported at the rear - as thats about the only spot that you're going to get a kinetic kill. All of the M1's mobility killed have been destroyed by IED's. If a pancake of 155mm shells won't kill an M1A2 - explain to me how an Armbrust with a lower energy rating is going to do it from the frontal aspect.

In the battle you cannot expect that your enemy only attacks you from the front. War is merciless!
And thats why tanks go in supported. It's an issue of doctrine. Considering the fact that the Americans rewrote the way that war was fought in 1991 - and caused every modern country to go through an RMA (including the Chinese) - then I think that the US might have relevant battle doctrine experience at present.

I'm curious as to what countries you think demonstrate the same capability of combined arms envelopment at the intercontinental or even transcontinental level? There aren't that many qualifiers.

[Pursuit Curve]

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

Well, like all MBT's the real vulnerablity for a M1 Abrams is Urban Warfare, that is where the Abrams cannot exploit its out ranging of almost all contemporary Russian MBT's. The achilles heal for the Abrams is its optics, and most vulnerable is its air intake for its turbine engine, if you can get close enough, and there are no infantry or IFV's around to gun you down, simply throw a tarp over the back decking, you block the air intake, stall the turbine, and then you got a mobility kill on the beast, but of course while you are jumping up and down for joy at your hard earned victory, it traverses its turret and "BOOMB", good night irene!

Seriously speaking, lots of RPG, aimed at the optics and treads, maybe, just maybe if your lucky, you will blind him, or better yet, blow a tread off.

[gf0012-aust]

Well, like all MBT's the real vulnerablity for a M1 Abrams is Urban Warfare, that is where the Abrams cannot exploit its out ranging of almost all contemporary Russian MBT's. The achilles heal for the Abrams is its optics, and most vulnerable is its air intake for its turbine engine, if you can get close enough, and there are no infantry or IFV's around to gun you down, simply throw a tarp over the back decking, you block the air intake, stall the turbine, and then you got a mobility kill on the beast, but of course while you are jumping up and down for joy at your hard earned victory, it traverses its turret and "BOOMB", good night irene!

Seriously speaking, lots of RPG, aimed at the optics and treads, maybe, just maybe if your lucky, you will blind him, or better yet, blow a tread off.

Ever seen the movie "The Beast"? How to give a lone tank nightmares at night. The lesson being of course that lone tanks are few and far between and not practising proper supported arms doctrine.

An unsupported or inappropriately supported tank is not going to do well anywhere...

[Pursuit Curve]

Ever seen the movie "The Beast"? How to give a lone tank nightmares at night. The lesson being of course that lone tanks are few and far between and not practising proper supported arms doctrine.

An unsupported or inappropriately supported tank is not going to do well anywhere...

That was my point actually, the combined operations team currently being practised has left few if any oppurtunities to isolate armour, but I do recall the first american "visit" in Baghdad, it was when they had taken one half of the city, and the americans decided to do a drive through the other side with bradley's and abrams, there was one abrams that was left behind. of course it was knocked out by the americans, but these few chances do occur.

I personally would not want to stare down a abrams, and Australia has made a wise choice of kit.

But the point I raised regarding urban warfare is germaine to this discussion, with the majority of the worlds populations moving to urban centres, future warfare will not be on the rolling plains with 10 kilometers of unobstructed view, therefore the abrams will be at its most vulnerable, as will any MBT, namely with bad guys not only shooting in the horizontal, but the vertican, donwards on the upper plating, from very close up and personal. Ask any infanteer, where would they rather face enemy armour? Answer, in the streets where his main gun can't traverse because of hard obstructions.

[Pursuit Curve]

Serbian new m84-ab1 can kill M1 ,with 125mm gun.

Goran, with all due respect, we will presume that the M84 sneaks up on the Abrams, disguised as a real tank ( It is after all a T72) then we will let it get off the first round, well, after your auto loader is inserting the second propellant round, you will be drilled through and through by at least 2 APDS fin stabalised uranium penetrator rounds.

[gf0012-aust]

But the point I raised regarding urban warfare is germaine to this discussion, with the majority of the worlds populations moving to urban centres, future warfare will not be on the rolling plains with 10 kilometers of unobstructed view, therefore the abrams will be at its most vulnerable, as will any MBT, namely with bad guys not only shooting in the horizontal, but the vertican, donwards on the upper plating, from very close up and personal. Ask any infanteer, where would they rather face enemy armour? Answer, in the streets where his main gun can't traverse because of hard obstructions.

Agree wholeheartedly . btw, whats your philosophical opinion of TUSK in lieue of this discussion?

[Pursuit Curve]

only a hellfire missile? who told you that BS???
any modern anti-tank launchers like the German Panzerfaust 3 can penetrate any MBT fielded today even the M1A2!
In the battle you cannot expect that your enemy only attacks you from the front. War is merciless!

Actually PLA, an Abrams that had to be abandoned in Iraq absorbed at least 2 oint blank 120 mm sabot rounds from another Abrams, and it took 2 AGM 65 Maverick HEAVY missiles to destroy it, so you want to face it with a PZ3?

[Pursuit Curve]

Agree wholeheartedly . btw, whats your philosophical opinion of TUSK in lieue of this discussion?

Gf, you will have to educate me here, what is TUSK? ( I will always ask such silly questions, afterall, I am a civillian :)

[gf0012-aust]

Gf, you will have to educate me here, what is TUSK? ( I will always ask such silly questions, afterall, I am a civillian :)

http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/10_10/national_news/33782-1.html

happy reading!

[Pursuit Curve]

http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/10_10/national_news/33782-1.html

happy reading!
\Well, thank you for the information GF, just one question, the new kit has reactive exploseive armour, while at the same time an infantry link for a squad commander to communicate ( correct me if I am wrong, but that was last used on the M48/60 series tank, I believe in the sixties?)

Now philosophically speaking, the last place I would want to be is around an abrams, as a squad guy, when someone hits the Abrams with an RPG, or maybe a 50 cal round, sets off the reactive armour, kills or wounds all the protective infantry with the reactive going off.

Again, I may be a laymen in these matters, but wow, what a trade off.
I have a suggestion, take the old leopard hulls, or better yet old crusaders, put a short barrelled or sawn off 105 or 120 mani gun, armour it up with roof protection, and shazzam! you got one mean motha of a assault vehicle for urban warfare situations.

What do you think?

[Pursuit Curve]

\Well, thank you for the information GF, just one question, the new kit has reactive exploseive armour, while at the same time an infantry link for a squad commander to communicate ( correct me if I am wrong, but that was last used on the M48/60 series tank, I believe in the sixties?)

Now philosophically speaking, the last place I would want to be is around an abrams, as a squad guy, when someone hits the Abrams with an RPG, or maybe a 50 cal round, sets off the reactive armour, kills or wounds all the protective infantry with the reactive going off.

Again, I may be a laymen in these matters, but wow, what a trade off.
I have a suggestion, take the old leopard hulls, or better yet old crusaders, put a short barrelled or sawn off 105 or 120 mani gun, armour it up with roof protection, and shazzam! you got one mean motha of a assault vehicle for urban warfare situations.

What do you think?

Whhops, I meant to say Centurion, not Crusader LOLOLOL

[gf0012-aust]

Well, thank you for the information GF, just one question, the new kit has reactive exploseive armour, while at the same time an infantry link for a squad commander to communicate ( correct me if I am wrong, but that was last used on the M48/60 series tank, I believe in the sixties?)No, most western tanks still provide direct hard comms links externally mounted.

Now philosophically speaking, the last place I would want to be is around an abrams, as a squad guy, when someone hits the Abrams with an RPG, or maybe a 50 cal round, sets off the reactive armour, kills or wounds all the protective infantry with the reactive going off.All depends on environment - and comms links back to the tank don't have to be hard wired. eg the Aust M1's will be Link16'ed to all other major wired assets, that means that they can talk to Hornets, Guided Missile Frigates, Orions or get data feeds from UAV's etc.... Boucing data back to ground troops won't necessarily be a major issue.

Again, I may be a laymen in these matters, but wow, what a trade off.
I have a suggestion, take the old leopard hulls, or better yet old crusaders, put a short barrelled or sawn off 105 or 120 mani gun, armour it up with roof protection, and shazzam! you got one mean motha of a assault vehicle for urban warfare situations.

What do you think?

Already been done. ;) There are a few short barreled mules running around that are designed for breeching etc... It's what triggered TUSK IIRC.

[gf0012-aust]

Whhops, I meant to say Centurion, not Crusader LOLOLOLNo harm in using old rope for new tricks ;)

AFAIK China still has some T-34's they use in the north west as dug in "gate guards".

[Pursuit Curve]

No, most western tanks still provide direct hard comms links externally mounted.

All depends on environment - and comms links back to the tank don't have to be hard wired. eg the Aust M1's will be Link16'ed to all other major wired assets, that means that they can talk to Hornets, Guided Missile Frigates, Orions or get data feeds from UAV's etc.... Boucing data back to ground troops won't necessarily be a major issue.



Already been done. ;) There are a few short barreled mules running around that are designed for breeching etc... It's what triggered TUSK IIRC.

This raises a another question GF, Would it not maybe be better to perhaps reincarnate the good old fashioned turretless assault gun AKA Schturm or SU
series of vehicle in the west? Maybe along the same lines as the Swedish S series of vehicle.

But, in the combined arms role, the main prupose is to get the infantry safely into the buildings to sweep the area, and I still do not feel comfortable with the ERA armour protection, I realise that there has been alot of midnight oil burned over this. Is there any modular, expendable armour applique that could do the same job, and not kill friendlies at the same time?

[Pursuit Curve]

No harm in using old rope for new tricks ;)

AFAIK China still has some T-34's they use in the north west as dug in "gate guards".

Hey, there was a auto wrecking yard in downtown Toronto, Canada, that was doing a big business in 1967 selling Surplus Canadian Centurion parts to a certain country in the middle east. in fact, if you flew an airplane over that yard, you would swear that you were looking at the worlds largest discount tank yard! No word of a lie, right in downtown Toronto.

Have the Australian Army taken possession of the Abrams yet? What are the plans for disposal of the Leopards you have currently?

[MilSpex]

Its not the thickness of the armour - it is the type of armour. M1a2's use a DU armour plate. In 1999 T72's that managed to close up to 1000 ft had their shells literally bouncing off the M1a2's.

Are we talking 1999 or 1991 here? A couple of people have been talking about a 1999 engagement? what happened in 1999?

[WAR]

Well a lot of aspects covered in the earlier posts by the learnered members.
In Pakistan specific environment, I would say that no missile or system needed to destroy M1 Abraham Tank. Why? Because, in harsh climatic conditions, it fails to deliver. Its computer system is not compatible with the severe conditions prevalent in the desert areas of Bahawalpur etc. In the eighties, Pakistan was very serious to induct these Tanks in Pak Army inventory. The then President of Pakistan, Late General Zia ul Haq himself went to Bahawalpur in summer to witness its performance, along with US Ambassador and other high level military and civil officers of both US and Pakistan. After demo, it was decided not to induct these tanks, owing to its performance in Pakistan-specific environment.
Unfortunately, it was President's last official engagement, as on his return to Islamabad after witnessing the demo, his VVIP C-130 (Airforce One) crashed after few minutes of take-off.

[Pursuit Curve]

Well a lot of aspects covered in the earlier posts by the learnered members.
In Pakistan specific environment, I would say that no missile or system needed to destroy M1 Abraham Tank. Why? Because, in harsh climatic conditions, it fails to deliver. Its computer system is not compatible with the severe conditions prevalent in the desert areas of Bahawalpur etc. In the eighties, Pakistan was very serious to induct these Tanks in Pak Army inventory. The then President of Pakistan, Late General Zia ul Haq himself went to Bahawalpur in summer to witness its performance, along with US Ambassador and other high level military and civil officers of both US and Pakistan. After demo, it was decided not to induct these tanks, owing to its performance in Pakistan-specific environment.
Unfortunately, it was President's last official engagement, as on his return to Islamabad after witnessing the demo, his VVIP C-130 (Airforce One) crashed after few minutes of take-off.

Well, The Abrams preformed well enough in the harsh desert environment during Desert Storm, and if the weather is too severe for the Abrams to operate, I would say it is safe to say that any weapon system will be even more disabled in the same harsh climate, don't forget, that the sensors and fire control was still good enough to kill T 72's at ranges where the T 72 could not even see the Abrams, and those were the earleir model Abrams, not the recent more potent variant.

General Zia ul Haq was killed by a bomb in his Herc, wasn't he?

[WAR]

Yes, General Zia was killed in his Herculis along with US Ambassador, and top military brass of both US and Pakistan. The bomb exploded soon after the take-off.
The inquiry conducted by various forums are still "Classified". The people are still waiting and anxious to know as to who was responsible for this terrorist act.
However, a number of rumours and "Controlled Leaks" are there to have some idea as to what happened. Some take them seriously, while others as gossip.

[dday]

Would a Javilin???

[pasukangeraktjepat]

What are the plans for disposal of the Leopards you have currently?
There is some rumours in Indonesian newspaper some months ago that Indonesia Armed Forces will be given some of old Leo from Australia (i try to find some link about this but i can't remember where i read the news, sorry).
I think it just purely a rumour, maybe GF and Aussie Digger had a better information about this.

[ThunderBolt]

The US army not only uses great tanks but also great ammo. They used this special type of round that was uranium tipped, its great for penerating armour but has side effects to it. They used it in Fallujha, this radioactive stuff causes birth defects, i don't know if any of you have heard of this or not.

[KGB]

I think you're referring to depleted uranium (DU) rounds. They're really dense, hard darts that are of smaller caliber than the tank's cannon, thus they have a casing or SABOT which allows the tank's cannon to concentrate all the propellant power onto the small round. This penetrates enemy armor thorugh sheer mass x acceleration. The A-10 warthog uses these rounds too I believe. At extreme ranges the damage is supposed to be reduced by air friction slowing the round down, but I think it doesn't get stopped by reactive armor. I'm not sure about the exact threat the DU slugs cause to the environment but I wouldn't be surprised if not a lot of data exists. Not a lot of pregnant women driving tanks in the US army I imagine;)

[ThunderBolt]

Yes i am talking about those rounds and it doesn't have to be women to cause birth defects, i read that it actually affected men who shot it and those who were shot at, US also used phosphorus gerenades which should be illegal but enough arguments have been made on it.

[gf0012-aust]

Yes i am talking about those rounds and it doesn't have to be women to cause birth defects, i read that it actually affected men who shot it and those who were shot at, US also used phosphorus gerenades which should be illegal but enough arguments have been made on it.

actually, the US, China and Russia use depleted uranium rounds.

where have the US used Phosphorous rounds in the last 25 years?