who can kill a modern Main Battle Tank (MBT)?
- Thread starter giangnguyen
- Start date
- Status
I was under the impression that this tank had been killed by 3 stacked IED's.Awang se said:
Ok, well, on that point the US have been developing scramjet powered anti-tank munitions.Awang se said:
mach5-mach7 kinetic kill would be a nightmare for any tank crew
Re: who can kill an M1 Abrams?
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.
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.
echo4bravo
New Member
Re: who can kill an M1 Abrams?
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.
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.
Re: who can kill an M1 Abrams?
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
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.echo4bravo said:
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
Re: who can kill an M1 Abrams?
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.
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?goran said:
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.
Re: who can kill an M1 Abrams?
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!
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!
Re: who can kill an M1 Abrams?
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.
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.PLA2025 said:
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.PLA2025 said:
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.PLA2025 said:
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
New Member
Re: who can kill an M1 Abrams?
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.
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!giangnguyen said:
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.
Re: who can kill an M1 Abrams?
An unsupported or inappropriately supported tank is not going to do well anywhere...
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.Pursuit Curve said:
An unsupported or inappropriately supported tank is not going to do well anywhere...
Pursuit Curve
New Member
Re: who can kill an M1 Abrams?
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.
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.gf0012-aust said:
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
New Member
Re: who can kill an M1 Abrams?
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.goran said:
- Status