M1A1, the indestructible Tank?

[Waylander]

Well, the days of tanks as a mean of pure infantry support are over since WW2.
The advances in technology allowed the modern tank to include all three mentioned primary capabilities (protection, mobility, firepower) whereas in the beginning of tank warfare the technology to merge these design features in one vehicle just weren't there.

As for the big gun. It has always been the case that it is a tool for multiple roles and only the fear of the red hordes led to a fixation on AT ammunition in some western designs (not in the east). This is no longer the case. There has never been so many non-AT rounds available to modern tanks than right now.

And why do you talk of bringing a big gun to an infantry fight? Why do you think a modern war will be an infantry war? Light or motorized infantry can't stand against heavy forces in anything but heavy terrain. A HBCT eats a SBCT or an IBCT alive if caught in the right terrain. The gun of the MBT ensures that the spearhead vehicle of a heavy unit has a weapon which is effective against all kinds of ground targets.
The advantage heavy forces offer in favourable terrain are anything but small and will remain so for some time.

And a heavy combined arms brigade doesn't just consist of tanks. It's combined arms for a reason and there is enough other stuff in a HBCT that can kill infantry (Apart from programmable 120mm HEs and coax MGs slaved to a modern FCS...)

 

[IronsightSniper]

What you say might be true in a Conventional war, but it's obvious we aren't going to have much more Cold War-esque battles involving large amounts of arms and armor. If we're talking about America, the future of American wars would be assymetrical, and against a small enemy but heavily armed, in an urban enviornment and at every possible disadvantage to armor. That is really the only reason I see for the push of vehicles like the BMPT, as big, heavy, expensive Combined arms brigades could be simplified to one vehicle.

 

[eckherl]

Tanks are not going away, IFV's will in fact get modular designed heavy overall armor protection thus the new designs that are coming out or envisioned. Wheeled infantry vehicles have a dismal performance level that has been demonstrated in both hot zones that are current, the U.S, Germany and UK both see the need for a tracked infantry hauler that is needed for cross country needs, wheeled armor just cannot keep up and navigate thru open terrian like its tracked counterparts.

APS - every system that I have seen still has some flaws in the designs and need much perfection before being installed on tactical vehicles on a massive scale, Russia by far has the worse designs including Arena, SHTORA is only good for older generation ATGMs, theres a reason why no one has bought onto the Russian band wagon for these systems.

 

[Waylander]

What you say might be true in a Conventional war, but it's obvious we aren't going to have much more Cold War-esque battles involving large amounts of arms and armor. If we're talking about America, the future of American wars would be assymetrical, and against a small enemy but heavily armed, in an urban enviornment and at every possible disadvantage to armor. That is really the only reason I see for the push of vehicles like the BMPT, as big, heavy, expensive Combined arms brigades could be simplified to one vehicle.

Desert Storm was won because the heavy fist of armored combined arms formations smashed the Iraqis. This was no conflict fought mostly in cities.

Iraqi Freedom succeeded because heavy formations (3rd ID) led the deep strike from Kuwait directly to Bagdad. Until then the fight didn't take place in alot of urban areas. Upon reaching Bagdad a armor heavy brigade combat team performed 2 thunder runs into the city with the second being successfull in conquering the city center and bringing the conventional phase of the war to an end. Other actions after that like the heavy fighting in Falluhja relied heavily on armoured support for the lighter formations.

In Afghanistan the fighting also doesn't take place in urban areas but mostly in rural areas. This fight is dominated by motorized infantry and FOBs and is often fought over long distances. Nevertheless heavy armor (Leopard IIA5DK and Leopard IIA6CAN) supports the light elements. Several other rather heavy tracked vehicles also operate in Afghanistan (Warrior, Marder A5, CV9030/35/40) as well as a limited number of dutch and german SPHs (PzH 2000).
For example the different autocannons employed in Afghanistan were often found lacking in penetration and behind cover effect. And using an ATGM everytime you want to blow a hole into a compound wall is rather inefficient.

Thinking that tanks as part of a heavy combined arms force are going away is unrealistic as other formations are not able to deliver the same blow like the conflicts of recent yeas have shown.

 

[STURM]

A few related questions...

Given that no MBT currently can take hits to the top of the turret, irrespective of any add on or applique armour, from top attack AT missiles, why havent many non-NATO armies like India, Pakistan and even some NATO armies replaced their legacy AT wire guided missiles?

I've also been very curious why 120mm guided AT rounds like Stryx and Merlin havent been an export success. Surely this can't be due solely to their price tags?

Are there any Russian top-attack AT missiles in service?

 

[Waylander]

IIRC there are no russian ATGMs employed by ground forces. Some of the missiles employed by helicopters and fast air may very well hit weaker top armor due to the firing platforms.

While 120mm AT mortar ammo is in no great demand this is not the case with artillery. Several 155 and 152mm rounds are in use in some countries. Having another specialised indirect fire AT round may be excessive.
Mortars (even heavy ones are usually not used against armoured targets for anything else than harassment).

And as usual money plays a role. Modern ATGMs like Javelin, Spike and Hellfire are expensive as is special artillery ammunition.

India for example isn't even able to get new field and self propelled artillery into service. And they might very well think that their current AT capabilities are sufficient.

Pakistan is even more broke and might be happy to be able to use a local designs.

 

[STURM]

I think it's a bit ironic how armies are spending millions to up armour their MBTs yet there is currently no answer for dealing with top attack missiles like Spike, Javelin, Hellfire and Ingwee or even shoulder mounted weapons like the RPG-29, LAW 80 or the Apilas fired from above. I see no current solution, it would be in-practical to make the tops of turrets any thicker and current APS's are not foolproof.

Pakistan is even more broke and might be happy to be able to use a local designs.

I think their main ATGW apart from the TOW 1 is still the Bhaktar Shikan [Red Arrow copy]. I was told many years ago by someone from the company that they were developing a tandem head version.

 

[Waylander]

I had the baktar in mind when I wrote that.

Currently there is no pressing need in the west to react on top attack missiles, as it is mostly the west fielding them.

As adding more armor to the turret roof is impractible we just have to wait for APS to reach maturity. It's not as if western MBTs are really under a constant threat and dying by the hundreds because of top attacks.

 

[eckherl]

A few related questions...

Given that no MBT currently can take hits to the top of the turret, irrespective of any add on or applique armour, from top attack AT missiles, why havent many non-NATO armies like India, Pakistan and even some NATO armies replaced their legacy AT wire guided missiles?

I've also been very curious why 120mm guided AT rounds like Stryx and Merlin havent been an export success. Surely this can't be due solely to their price tags?

Are there any Russian top-attack AT missiles in service?

Russia is in the process of designing a top attack missile system, may end up being a modified Konkurs set up, but other than this no they have been rather slow in designing something due mainly to cost issues.

Also research India's latest missile system industrial name Nag, this is a true fire and forget top attack system that is either man portable or vehicle mounted. Production should start soon if not already.

 

[eckherl]

I think it's a bit ironic how armies are spending millions to up armour their MBTs yet there is currently no answer for dealing with top attack missiles like Spike, Javelin, Hellfire and Ingwee or even shoulder mounted weapons like the RPG-29, LAW 80 or the Apilas fired from above. I see no current solution, it would be in-practical to make the tops of turrets any thicker and current APS's are not foolproof.

I think their main ATGW apart from the TOW 1 is still the Bhaktar Shikan [Red Arrow copy]. I was told many years ago by someone from the company that they were developing a tandem head version.

It is possible to install lighter armor to hull and turret tops, polymers and ceramics have come along ways, but still rather expensive for this type of application.

Tandem version of Red Arrow would be the 8E model and it is rather impressive.

 

[eckherl]

I had the baktar in mind when I wrote that.

Currently there is no pressing need in the west to react on top attack missiles, as it is mostly the west fielding them.

As adding more armor to the turret roof is impractible we just have to wait for APS to reach maturity. It's not as if western MBTs are really under a constant threat and dying by the hundreds because of top attacks.

But this is now everyones emphasis when designing newer missile systems, that being top attack, the game never ends when it comes to designing better means of destroying armor. makes things interesting for us.

 

[Waylander]

If the new APSs coming out in the next years are really worth their money they could become real game changers.

Kinetic weapons suddenly become much more important again. And the infantry looses alot of the improved AT-hitting power it aquired over the last decades.

Additionally helicopters might find themselves in a rather shitty position. Their ATGMs may also become useless if not fired in volleys which is not very economic.

As these systems will be really expensive ATGMs won't go aways as there will still be plenty of vehicles which won't have them. Not to talk of poorer countries fighting each other.

Suddenly you are on a battlefield were ATGMs as a thread are severely reduced and where direct fire with heavy high speed KE penetrators, saturation with submunition artillery and mines are the only way to really stop an armoured assault.

In assymetrical theaters of operations the OMFs might be forced to rely solely on IEDs/mines agains which also would be a huge advancement.

Right now I think that the Russians while being pioneers in that area lost the race. AFAIK there are no new APS in the making an ARENA as well as SHTORA are not advanced enough for the modern battlefield.

It will be interesting to see the first combat usage of the new APS systems which are in development.
Right now I expect that Israel with it's Trophy/Iron Fist combination might be the first to use them in large scale. They seem to be willing to wait for such results before they decide which system (or mix) will be adopted for future use.

The German AWiSS and AMAP-ADS as well as the US Quick Kill are also good candidates to see action in some hotspot in order to save different kinds of vehicles from RPGs and ATGMs.

Interesting times we live in...

 

[STURM]

Thank you you for the feedback. Very much appreciated

Something else I've always been curious about..... In every Janes directory of MBTs/AFVs, everytime there is a listing for pacticular vehicles fitted with 76mm Wegmann smoke grenade launchers, it's always mentioned that these launchers launch either smoke or anti-personel/fragmentaion grenades. So my question is, how many armies actually launch anti-personel/fragmentaion grenades from their Wegmann launchers? And do smoke grenade launchers apart from Wegmann ones fire non-smoke grenades?

Couple of off-topic questions :

Has the Heer adopted the 3 platoon tank system or are its MBT platoons still made up of 4MBTs?

Do the T-54/55, T-80, T-90 and T-84 have a hull escape hatch like the T-72?

Tandem version of Red Arrow would be the 8E model and it is rather impressive.

If I had to guess, the single warhead of the Bakthar Shikan/Red Arrow would have the same the penetrating performance as TOW 1. In dont know of anyone who operates the Bakthar Shikan besides Pakistan and Malaysia. In 1996 Raids magazine ran a feature about a Bosnian anti-tank team, equipped with Red Arrow, that were successful against
T-54's/55s [no surprises here].

 

[THE INVENTER]

It really depends on what you've got and when do you have it. As you have seid before that the tank could be distroyed by its weak area its hatch is. The perfect tool of destruction is the
FGM-148. The best part is that it requires a well trained crew to fire it, so not just anyone can use it. It was one know as the AAWS-M but as it pasted the POP testing, It became what it is today. The Javelin's on board computer is loaded with pre-downloaded guidence system that turned the FGM in to a fire and forget missile. The FGM-148 can even be set to laser guidence just like the TOW. Although the Javelin is overall better than the TOW the TOW is feilded to more troops because it is cheeper than the Javelin. So in the end its up to you, personal I like the Javelin more. If your think about using the AWiSS or the APS there nothing more than a 40mm grenade. You might as well us Metal Storm, which is alot more affective than the AWiSS or the APS

 

[Waylander]

The Javelin is a pure fire and forget weapon. There is no man in the loop or external guidance (i.e. laser designation) but only the IR-seeker of the missile.

A normal TOW is also not laser guided. It's a Wire guided missile just as the name hints.

And the TOW remains in service as it's employment is different. It has a much longer range (up to four klicks) and so it's role differs from that of the Javelin.

As for your sentences about AWiSS and APS. I have no idea how metal storm fits in all of this. And maybe you should know that APS stands for Active Protection System while AWiSS is an APS which is in deelopment.

 

[IronsightSniper]

Although I do agree with most of what you have pointed out Waylander, but as far as I see it, as long as Infantry do not intervene, a guy slabbing a few bricks of C4 onto the back of a tank would do the job, so yeah, when APS tech matures and are fielded widely, we'd have to go back to the basics in AT warfare.

 

[Bonza]

Although I do agree with most of what you have pointed out Waylander, but as far as I see it, as long as Infantry do not intervene, a guy slabbing a few bricks of C4 onto the back of a tank would do the job, so yeah, when APS tech matures and are fielded widely, we'd have to go back to the basics in AT warfare.

But infantry do intervene, that's what combined arms warfare is all about. Also I don't think it would be an easy task to hand-deliver C4 to a hostile tank, it's not as though it'll be a static target if it's in a threat area, and those things can move bloody fast. In addition and as I stated at the beginning, a modern army isn't going to deploy tanks into a threat area without infantry support. Situationally such an attack might be (very rarely) applicable, but I would think it's neither practical nor effective enough to be considered a useful tactic.

 

[Waylander]

As Bonza said. It's not like you will find a lonely tank standing idly in an alley waiting for the heroic infantryman to deliver his package of C4.

Tanks do not operate alone. In the open infantry is fair game. And tanks do operate so fast that infantry needs the 1:100,000,000 golden bullet chance to catch one. And then the infantryman trying to do this gets hosed down by the accompanying tanks and IFVs.

In urban combat one might be lucky. But there the ratio of tanks to infantry in a combined arms unit is very onesided due to the supporting role a tank performs in urban combat. So any suicide guy trying this has to evade lots of infantry and still catch a tank.

Such thinks didn't even happen in Iraq and there tanks may have been more vulnerable to such thinks than in a real symetric war.

And yeah, APS will be more of a problem for light infantry than for heavy formations. The heavy formations will still have their high pressure guns to kill enemy vehicles but the light formations will find their AT-capabilities against an advanced enemy diminished. That is until someone starts to field maneuvering ATGMs with integrated ECM and chaff/flares. The old game of offensive and defensive technology.

 

[STURM]

Although I do agree with most of what you have pointed out Waylander, but as far as I see it, as long as Infantry do not intervene, a guy slabbing a few bricks of C4 onto the back of a tank would do the job,

Reminds me of Panzer-Grenadiers on the Eastern Front jumping on T-34 with stick grandes and explosives.

 

[Kevin123]

1. M1A1 can be destroyed by Javelin, RPG-29, RPG-30, Kornet. There are proven cases in the Iraq war how Abrams and Challenger 2 was destroyed by RPG-29 . Also lets not forget that Abrams tanks got their fame by destroying huge numbers of outdated Iraqi T-72 with poor tank crew training.

2. Lets think if someone would even think that M1A1 is indestructible if it would have faced Leopard-2, T-90, Challenger-2 , Merkava with a well trained tank crew.