bobby

http://the3party.com/index.php?subac..._from=&ucat=4&

__________________
"Life goes on,within you,and...with out you !" xoxoxoo

Mondak

That would be a tasty treat for an M1A2

__________________
All truth passes through three stages:
First it is ridiculed
Second, it is violently opposed and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788-1860)

jorgelito

Whoa!! That thing sure can cruise and pretty manueverable too. I liked the part where it pulled a "Dukes of Hazzard" and caught air.

The_Dunedan

My connection won't let me view the vid, but the T-80 series is quite impressive, IMO fully the equal of the M1. It mounts a more powerful gun which probably outranges the M1's 120mm with the FSDSAP round, and handily outranges it with the barrel-launched ATM setup. That ATM can also be used against helicopters and low/slow-flying fixed-wing aircraft. Whether the T-80s armor suite is enough to defeat the M1's main gun is still unknown, of course, but I'm betting that the glacis plate and sides, at least, are capable of such a stop. ERA, of course, makes HEAT rounds a much dicier proposition, which limits one's ammo choice to FSDSAP. Anyone know how effective the explosive component of ERA is at stopping penetrators? Depending on the ERA's effectiveness, it might even be proofed against our penetrator rounds up to fairly close range.

Gotta remember that the M1's performance against Iraqi T-72s was no an example of what would happen even against Russian T-72s, to say nothing of the T-80/90 series tanks. Saddam's tanks were obsolete the day they were sold, under-armoured, and using defective ammunition. Lots of their FSDSAP was found to be loaded with half-charges of propellant and steel penetrators. No wonder they sucked so hard! A Russian crew in a modern tank such as the T-80 or T-72M (Ukraine) would be a very different opponent.

jorgelito

You know I wonder, is the armored cav, the tank unit a bit outdated in post-cold war warfare and tactics?

I'm trying to imagine a scenario the US or any other army would use it in an open battlefield setting.

North Korea? Iran? China?

I saw some Israeli tanks in "action" this summer at the border with Lebanon but even then, the tanks aren't really a primary function are they? Mostly lumbering through the streets to shell buildings and such. There weren't divisions of tanks battling it out in the desert. I can't really imagine any scenario these days where that would take place: 10,000 tanks duking it out in an open plain. Maybe in the Great Southern Plain of China but that just seems insane cause so much would have to happen for that situation to take place.

Are the Russian tank crews still up to speed these days? It would seem that their training etc has slowed considerably in the past 15-20 years since the collapse.

debaser

Just for the record, an M-1A1 Would eat a T-80's lunch. The M1A2 SEP would then proceed to kick it's teeth in, steal it's lunch money, and have rough sex with it's mom.

No comparison between the platforms at all.

The only tank worth a damn that the Russians have is the T-80UM2, and to date they have been able to afford to build about 3 of them. Wow.

__________________

Deltona Couple

The ERA on the M1 Abrams tank is pretty wonderfull stuff. It is fully capable of resisting HEAT rounds and most Armour piercing rounds. Everything that was shown in the video, the Abrams is fully capable of doing, and HAS been doing for many years longer than the T-80.

Actualyl tank warfare is still used in warfare. Durring Desert Shield/Desert Storm campaign it was the initial assault used durring battle-line penetrations. The liberation of Kuwait was done by only 18 M1 Abrams, against over 40 T-72s. The M1's never received a single damaged unit, while obliterating the opposing forces. The only M1 that was damaged was by accidental friendly crossfire. The M1 is still a formidable unit. Remember that we have constant upgrades being made on the units, and only MAJOR upgrades will have a model change. Currently the highest performer is the M1A3 Main Battle Tank. But there are many upgrades that were made to the A2 before the MAJOR change for creating the A3. I am not even sure if we have the A3 in production yet, I think it is still a prototype.

__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

The_Dunedan

There's no doubt that the Russians have been playing catch-up with regards to tanks for years. The T-72 was and remains a deathtrap in its' original configuration, and the early T-80s had teething problems with the gunsighting equipment.

However, the T-80 is not the T-72. It may lack the M1's ultradense ceramic armor, but its' own armor suite is nothing to sneeze at. Again, we don't know (and probably won't know for sure) how well the T-80's armor performs against the M1's FSDSAP round, especially since Russia and the US remain two of only half a dozen or so nations which use Depleted Uranium in their FSDSAP penetrators. However, since the M1's 120mm main gun -is- capable of defeating the Chobham armor, it's a safe bet that the T-80's 125mm gun is similarly capable.

The T-80 -probably- can't match the M1 for speed. The Abrahms is still, if I'm not mistaken, the fastest tank in the world. The T-80, like the M1, utilizes a gas-turbine engine, although the Ukrainian versions switched to a diesel. The T-80 is also significantly smaller (thus harder to hit) than the M1, which further increases the advantage offered by the (probable) range advantage of its' 125mm gun.

We also don't know how good the T-80's fire-control systems are in combat conditions. The Russians have always built superbly accurate guns, but their optics have never been quite up to snuff as far as ground-based hardware goes.

The Russians seem to be moving away from the T-80, though, thanks to a disappointing performance in Chechnya. Urban warfare is, was, and always will be a tanker's nightmare, and the T-80 was something of a letdown. It proved especially vulnerable to dead-vertical RPG rounds fired into the top of the turret. However, even the newest dual-warhead RPG rounds cannot, to my knowledge, penetrate the glacis plate or sides. The T-90 is apparently being adopted as a replacement.

But of course, we'll probably never get to see such a battle; nobody else has the Abhrams, and the only other tank which features roughly identical armament is fielded by the British, who also aren't likely to go loaning 'em out. So, barring Iran suddenly acquiring a boatload of T-80s or -90s within the next couple of years, we're probably never gonna be able to find out for sure.

jorgelito

Hmmm....that's what's interesting to me. The future role of the armoured cav.

Yes I remember the tank's role in the Iraq campaigns along with the problems associated with desert warfare: sandstorms, sand in the treads, the intense heat. I am also aware of the overwhelming success of the tanks against Saddam's "Lion of Babylon" which amounted to nothing more than target practice. MI Abrams is the top tank I believe but that really wasn't my question.

Rather, I am rethinking warfare in the post-9/11 era. I think battlefield tactics have to drastically change if they haven't already.

Idunno, just armchair generaling anyways.

Slims

Tanks are still very important, but for battles between first-world countries they will necessarily be de-emphasised because modern man-portable anti-tank weapons are nearly impossible for a tank to stop.

They are fire and forget, have a range of over 2500 meters (max actual range isn't published), have a two-stage shape charge to defeate reactive armor, and will automatically attack the top of any vehicle it is fired at (unless the operator selects a direct attack).

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

Ch'i

I still prefer Canada's new T1000 line.

Deltona Couple

I keep hearing about this "gas turbine" engine, and I think people are getting the wrong impression. The Abrams does not run on just regular "gasoline" It operates on JP-8 Jet fuel, not regular unleaded...lol. The GOVERNED speed of the Abrams is 45 MPH. But with minor work is capable of 60 to 65 MPH speeds.
Also, one MAJOR advantage the Abrams has over the T-80, and any other tank out there as well, is MTA, or Mobile Target Aquisition. This system allows the main gunner to find a target, laser range, prep and fire, while the Commander is simultaneously targeting and ranging a second target. Immediately after the Gunner fires, the Abrams will rotate the turret, lock in, and change elevation as required, while the loader is loading the next round. The Commander also has an override system. Example: Gunner is facing forward with turret, and is targeting an enemy unit. The commander, in his separate range finder sees an enemy unit to the right, who is about to fire. The Commander can override the gunners target, and the computer will lock on NEW target and fire. NO other tank in production is capable of this.

__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

desal75

The likelyhood of a large scale tank battle taking place in the near future are probably slim barring some sudden shift of the world political climate.

But, tanks and armored cavalry will remain the primary offensive ground weapon of modern armies for some time. A couple hundred tanks rolling at full speed supported by mounted infantry is a difficult thing to stop as long as commanders avoid fixed defenses or urban centers.

A tank isn't well suited for defense or grinding, close quarters battles but no other land based weapons system can so swiftly move into someone elses back yard.

__________________
The Man in Black fled across the desert and the Gunslinger followed.

Deltona Couple

We should also remember, that just because CURRENT warfare is pretty much limited to urban conflict, doesn't mean that FUTURE combat won't be different.

__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

blade02

Agreed. My personal belief is that a lot of what we see as the current style of war fare is simply the way we CHOOSE to fight. At any time we could just stop caring about trying to be the "good guys" and just go back to strategic bombing, mass barages on urban centers, role in with tanks to flatten anything left standing, etc. Just because we have the ability to accurately hit select targets and minimize collateral damage doesn't mean we have to.

Deltona Couple

Of course unfortunately I have to say that "political correctness" is the WORST thing in warfare. I hate seeing so many people out in public screaming to bring our military home, while holding signs saying we aren't "finishing" the war quick enough. I think in alot of cases, if we just untie the hands a little, we could get alot more done, quicker, with less casualties. I know I will get blasted by no less than a half dozen people for that statement, but I believe it to be true. I say roll in the tanks and artillery and get things over and done with, or tell the people there, do it yourself, we are leaving!

__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

debaser

To blade02: If we aren't trying to be the good guys, then why bother fighting at all.

To Deltona: We don't need to kill more people in Iraq, we need to kill the right ones. Unfortunately we are fighting the war completely the wrong way, but it's not so much that our hands are tied as it is our culture not being able to adapt to the conditions. Anyway this a discussion for another thread.

To get us back on topic I will reiterate that the T-80 is a piece of crap. Yes, it looks cool jumping over berms, but the Russians love jumping thier tanks over stuff in demos. It distracts from the fact that they haven't made a serious fighting tank since the T-34.

__________________

Deltona Couple

See? I knew SOMEONE would blast me about my comment.lol. It's my opinion, and I am sticking to it. I in no way was suggesting that we wipe out civilians, but the problem lies in the fact that they enemy is a bunch of cowards who hide in civilian locations. This makes it "hand tying" when we can't enter some of the places we need to. By the time we secure permission, the enemy has left to find another hole to be a coward in.

__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

jorgelito

I'm not "blasting" you but I do want to ask about tactics. Trying to keep the topic at hand relevant to the tank. Originally, I questioned whether the tank was still relevant from a tactical standpoint in today's world. Others pointed out maybe not now, but maybe in the future.

Going from your previous comment, how do you find tanks to be useful in your view?

Aren't tanks kind of vulnerable in urban environments? - anti-tank measures and all that.

Slims

Tanks are vulnerable in urban environmments...but less so than a light infantry soldier.

Tanks and infantry support each other, you can't get rid of either one since both have their jobs to do.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

jorgelito

How has anti-tank measures kept up? That would be a critical factor I would assume.

I can't remember exactly but I seem to recall that shoulder-fired anti-tank guns etc did very well in recent battles (Israel-Lebanon?). This summer when I was in Israel, I made it up to the Lebanese border and watched tank convoys roll into Lebanon. I think the Lebanese (Hizbollah) did manage to take out some of the tanks though.

Given the reluctance for some armies to put "boots on the ground", I would think then that tank warfare would be more difficult to implement.

desal75

In some instances a main battle tank can be just as much of a psychological weapon. To a small group of lightly armed soldiers the presence of a squad of tanks has to be the most frightening thing in the world.

__________________
The Man in Black fled across the desert and the Gunslinger followed.

ggadgit

Sorry been in tanks, the M1 is much better at crew survivabilty, I would not like to be in any tank that has the rounds in the turrent, having the rounds stored behind an armored shutter with blow off panels is a very good thing, look at the pics from desert storm and notice how many of the tanks have the turrent blow off.

The_Dunedan

True, but those are T-72's, which earned their "jack-in-the-box" reputation due to an unsecured turret ring and unsegregated ammunition. The T-80 and T-90 both utilize full segregation and blowout shutters, and the only opening between the magazine and the fighting compartment is just large enough for the autoloader.

And realistically, storing the ammunition in the hull vs the turret isn't going to matter anyway once shit starts cooking off. The T-72 tried to get around that by storing the ammo in the hull, under the floor, behind the thick armor of the tank's glacis-plate and sides. Didn't work. Didn't matter. Blowout panels are what really save lives these days, IMO.

Deltona Couple

Actually the ammunition for the Abrams IS stored in the turret, but behind protective plating as stated before. The trick is that the rounds are pointed OUTWARD from the turret, meaning that even if the powder were to "cook-off", the projectile would penetrate AWAY from the crew compartment.

As far ac tactics, yes, current anti-tank weapons are a concern for armored vehicles of ALL types, it is almost unheard of for a group of Abrams to be singles. Usually even in urban warfare, they travel in groups of 3 or more, depending on the assigned task. This makes it difficult for the enemy to sucessfully attack all tanks without getting torn apart themselves. Remember, it is the EXTREMESTS that want to martyr themselves. Most of the enemy want to LIVE, so by attacking a tank with a single anti-tank weapon, then getting mowed down imediately after is NOT what they want. So yes, tanks in unban situations is a good idea. Also as mentioned tanks make EXCELLENT shields agains small arms fire when troops are traveling WITH the tanks, as is most of the case.

Lets take a basic "tour" through town. The idea is to root out and find possible enemy personel in town. An assault group would contain 3 tanks, 5 HMMWV with 50 cal and TOW capability and somewhere in the area of 20 Marines in the HMMWV and on foot. (the limited troops is for an emergency getaway, all troops MUST be able to fit inside all vehicles) Durring the sweep, 5 to 7 Marines do a house by house sweep as the collumn moves up the road, evenly spaced. So no matter WHERE the enemy tries to attack, they can't take out the entire group, they will have to try and seclude them. If they take out the front HMMWV, then the following tank can push it out of the way as needed to provide vehicular travel for all units behind it. Same for the rear, if they take out the rear HMMWV, then the tank in FRONT of it can back up, pushing IT out of the way. Its not a PERFECT system, but VERY well devised. Now if they were to take out one of the tanks, there are enough OTHER tanks to STILL provide a means of escape. Does this help in understanding the use of tanks in an urban conflict?

__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

jorgelito

Yes it does, thanks. I really enjoy learning and discussing the tactical aspect of weaponry.

Deltona Couple

CMON GUYS! I love talking about tanks! Keep this thing going, anyone got specific questions about the Abrams?...lol...I guess I am fascinated by the thing, I sure loved working on them!

__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

The_Dunedan

Well, the big problem tanks have in urban warfare is visibility. Once they button up, every tanker in the world is basically blind. The driver has a scope, the gunner usually has a scope and the gunsight, and the commander has either a 360-degree rotating scope or a panoramic setup, as in the M1. Usually, the commander also has the ability to utilize the primary gunsight. If those viewports and periscopes get damaged, they can be replaced, but the tank only carries so many spares. This is another of the "dirty little tricks" that the Chechens got so good at; shoot out the 'scopes and for them to be replaced until the tank runs out of spares, usually after only two or three shots. This forces the driver to blindly follow instructions from the commander , who may be having to see the battlefield through the gunner's sight. And visibility isn't great, on any tank, using the periscopes in any case. That and the limited maneuverability afforded by built-up areas make urban fighting every tanker's nightmare. Add a good, modern ATM system or RPG-29 crew, and any tanker in the world would begin to have a very, very bad day. As Greg said, the effectiveness and range of modern ATMs and ATRs is beginning to force what will probably be a major change in armored-warfare doctrine among first-world powers.

The recent Lebanon War showed that even a modern tank like the Merkava, with its' excellent reputation for crew survivability, is vulnerable to modern man-portable AT weapons. Even the unguided RPG-29 has no trouble penetrating the Merkava's armour, which suggests that it would perform well againse Russian, European, and American tanks as well. The Javelin, as Greg said, is badass beyong reason, and the Russian equivalents are pretty nasty as well. Urban environments make it very easy to pick a firing position which attacks a tank's weak points, the stern and the top of the turret, which further increases the tank's vulnerability.

And really, it's performance against ATM/R's that counts. We're never going to refight Kursk; none of the major powers are (currently) crazy enough to start trading punches with each other, and neither are they selling their weapons to countries likely to war against each other. Saudi Arabia and Ukraine are not going to start throwing, so we're unlikely to see an M1/Black Eagle duel anytime soon. The new "armor race" will be to develop armor capable of defeating increasingly powerful man-portable AT weapons, IMO.

jorgelito

Great post Dunedan, this is what I wanted to kind of get into a bit. It is exactly these types of asymmetries that are interesting to me to explore.

The Israeli incursion into Lebanon is perfect example. But what about a balanced tank convoy?

EX: Tanks, APC's and infantry combined with some air support (helicopters)?

Or is that too "bulky" and still vulnerable? I am assuming in the urban warfare scenario, un-uniformed personnel with rifles, machine guns, AK-47s and RPGs etc in teams and all over the place. Snipers in buildings, mobile units on jeeps, that sort of thing. So like one dude jumps out and shoots off an RPG then ducks into a building or whatever. Grenades too I suppose or IEDs would be used. Are IED's powerful enough to damage a tank significantly?

I think there are a couple of plausible large scale tit-for-tat tank battles but only if the engagement of their context actually occurred.

1. Iran - if the US invaded Iran, air strikes and missile barrages are not enough. Still have to penetrate into the interior right? So, I am assuming the armored cav would have to be the main thrust of a ground assault. Say 2-4 tank divisions (does that sound right?) obviously with support personnel.

2. N. Korea - If the fit hits the shan and the US has to move against the NKoreans, then an invasion plus occupation would seem likely (although the diplomatic front seems to be improving). Most likely, aerial strikes and missile strikes to knock out the NK artillery and electronic systems. No way would the US cross the DMZ, too heavily mined. Invasion force would have to come by sea. Assuming the aerial strikes did their jobs, then the US and presumably South Koreans, would own the skies and proceed with ground invasion to take out nukes and Kim Jong Il. 2 tank divisions should suffice right?

3. China - this would be an utter nightmare I believe. If the US had to go to heads with the Chinese, I believe the US would win but at enormous cost, maybe even a Pyrrhic victory. It's such a big country, hard to control. Might be able to take the coast and that's it.

I was in Israel this summer and was able to get to the border with Lebanon where I ran into a tank convoy. The soldiers were nice and let me take pictures. I also went to the tank museum as well. If there are tank aficionados then I will post some pics.

debaser

A lot of what The_Dunedan refered to has been dealt with with the Armys urban warfare doctrine. We do not allow top and ass shots on our tanks in a proper urban warfare environment (ie a "hot" war).

In Iran we would run into about as much trouble with tanks as we did in Iraq, the real threat would be the multitude of cheap unguided AT weapons that would find their way into un-uniformed hands. The Iranians have learned from Iraq.

We could MILIC our way through the DMZ in minutes, and after a short roughing up, the NK C3 nodes would be all but useless, rather an easy victory, if you don't mind them leveling Seoul with artillery while we kick their ass.

China, um yeah...
Lets just say Tank for tank they are not a threat, it is the huge preponderance of numbers they possess that makes for a sticky situation.

Of course the point is moot, we are still the only nation in the world that can truely project force, meaning that we will attack when it is advantageous to us, or not attack at all.

I for one would love to see your pictures, jorgelito.

__________________