Lord Harmes Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Hey there... I have just beening watching a US Abrams tank on Sky News get RPG'd in Iraq. It seems to have been badly damaged because there are some nasty images of the bloodied crew bailing out. This lead me to wonder how much better armour on tanks is??? If Abrams are being taken out by RPGs.. then could a Tiger do the same? And how would say a Tiger or panther stand up to LAWs or RPGs???? Anyone know??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Harmes Posted April 9, 2004 Author Share Posted April 9, 2004 Oops.. i mean't BEEN not beening! Erm.. and LED not lead. durr 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave H Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Aren't you overlooking the fact that offensive weapons have also improved in the last 60 years? A modern RPG isn't the same as a WW2-era bazooka. A Tiger or Panther would be dead meat for modern anti-tank weapons. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Harmes Posted April 9, 2004 Author Share Posted April 9, 2004 I'm not over looking the technological progress... just asking if anyone can guage the advance??? Hence the "how much has it progressed" part of the question! So perhaps someone might know what percentage of improvement on penetration would an RPG have over a ww2 panzerfaust? Or how does the manufacture of armour and materials differ between modern tanks and WW2 tanks??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakovski Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Originally posted by Lord Harmes: I'm not over looking the technological progress... just asking if anyone can guage the advance??? Hence the "how much has it progressed" part of the question! So perhaps someone might know what percentage of improvement on penetration would an RPG have over a ww2 panzerfaust? Or how does the manufacture of armour and materials differ between modern tanks and WW2 tanks??? I think the answer to all those questions would be about the length of several books. Armor has increased enormously, both in thickness and in protective value per thickness, but of course AT weapons have progressed as well. Do you mean which has progressed more? Anyway, I'm surprised to hear an RPG did much to an Abrams and especially surprised the crew bailed. Unless there was a fire or some such it seems that it would be much safer in the tank, even immobile, than on the street. Anyone have more info on this incident? Is the footage on the net somewhere? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Some_God Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 The tank was on fire. I saw it on CNN. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Armor and weapons have both improved, but one thing hasn't changed: don't take armor into dense or urban terrain without strong infantry support! I have learned this lesson viscerally in CM. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 The old Russian T54/T55 series is considered laughably old fashioned nowadays but 60 years ago in WWII it would've been an unstoppable überweapon. 100mm bow armor sloped at 60 degrees, turret front without a shot trap, 100mm main gun, torsion bar suspension, an overall profile a fraction of a Panther's. But then again it looks like the vast majority of armor fielded by the U.S. nowadays is just armored hummers. Nothin' to write home about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 This is more for the general forum, isn't it? Not giving too much detail here but the M1 tanks' outside hull is not made of Chobham armor exclusively. And other parts rely on their high angles for their protection and can probably be penetrated if you hit them on a right angle, for example from above vertical onto the driver plate. Modern infantry AT weapons with HEAT warheads penetrate between 400 and 700mm steel equivalent. The Chobham armor used on modern Western tanks resists stronger against HEAT than HE, but if you are lucky enough you can get into such a tank with a RPG. However, for normal situations an M1-class tank has substantially more a meter of steel equivalent armor from the front and half of that to the side, against HEAT. Resistance against kinetic energy shot is less, but the Tiger still penetrates only 150-160mm maximum, so it won't do any good against an M1 so matter where and how you hit it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 If you think about what a Maus would look like on a modern battlefield... 188 tons 1080 or 1200 hp engine length 10,09 metres, width & height 3,6 metres strongest armour 250mm main armament 128mm L/55 gun, Pzgr.40/43 penetrates 178mm at 2000m Then compare it to a Leopard 2... 55 tons 1500 hp engine length 7,7m, width 3,7m, height 2,8m strongest armour equivalent of 700mm steel plate vs. AP and 1000mm steel vs. HEAT main armament 120mm L/44, penetrates something like 450mm at 2000m RPG's haven't progressed so much, a LAW has only 50 % more penetration power than Panzerfaust but range is greatly improved and size is smaller. But then again, nobody expects infantry to use RPG's for destroying MBT's frontally in these days, it's the job of ATGM's. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Some_God Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 No one ever talks about how to take out an Abrams tank. I cant seem to find out how to do it. BTW Im an Iraqi Insurgent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 I forgot to mention this was about the tank killed in August. The tank this week hasn't been penetrated. Unbuttoned crew was hit and equipment stored on the outside was set on fire. [ April 09, 2004, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 If you want to look at a quick resource for unclassified penetration information, you could download the demo of MajorH's TacOps game and look at the unit information in it. It's available here at the BFC site. You might also decide you like that game, too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Originally posted by Some_God: No one ever talks about how to take out an Abrams tank. I cant seem to find out how to do it. BTW Im an Iraqi Insurgent. Bury about 500 kilos of HE in the roadbed where the tanks are known or expected to travel, then command detonate it when one of them passes over. But then, you already knew that, didn't you? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakovski Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Originally posted by redwolf: Resistance against kinetic energy shot is less, but the Tiger still penetrates only 150-160mm maximum, so it won't do any good against an M1 so matter where and how you hit it. Out of curiosity, does anyone know how the old 88 could be made to perform using modern ammunition? Doesn't the use of DU and so on contribute substantially to the huge penetration values today? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakovski Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: Bury about 500 kilos of HE in the roadbed where the tanks are known or expected to travel, then command detonate it when one of them passes over. But then, you already knew that, didn't you? No, no, no! You dig a deep pit in the road and then crawl into it with and old 500lb. aerial bomb (be sure to insert the detonator!). Then, when the convoy rolls over, whack the end with a hammer. Worked wonderfully for the Japanese, I hear... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 "...does anyone know how the old 88 could be made to perform using modern ammunition?" The 90mm gun on the old M48 was just about equivalent to the 88 and the U.S. used the Brit-invented APDS-type round to boost penetration. I'd be genuinely surprised if someone out there hasn't marketed a high performance long rod APFSDS round for the 90mm gun. One interesting bit. Someone (Mecar? Cockrill?) is producing a medium-pressure low recoil 90mm gun for light vehicles that has progressive pitch rifling just like the Tiger I's 88. And I believe that light 90mm gun fires a APFSDS round with a tungsten penetrator weighing 2 or three pounds. It probably has penetration stats rather close to the classic 88. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 The Palastinians make a sort of directed-explosive bomb. A quick explosive 'throws' a slowly/powerful explosive at a tank. Its a road side command detonated bomb. The effect on the tank crew and vehicle will put it out of commision. Not through penetration but sheer impact/concussion. To use it in a urban environment usually knocks down buildings along the street and makes a road block and destruction that can be blamed on the Tankers. You dont need that big a bomb (size overall) and it can be built into the buildings themselves. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Harmes Posted April 9, 2004 Author Share Posted April 9, 2004 So am i right in believing that Chobham armour was first developed for the British Cheiftan tanks? And how does the Abrams compare to the Challenger 2??? i've been searching for images of the tank that got hit the other day... but can't find a thing!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K_Tiger Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 I read some days ago about an incident in Iraq, that a Abrahams was pennetrated by a unidentified Weapon. They sayed, that a Hole from 7mm was made on the entry (they didnt mention the side of the tank) and the Bullet or whatever did exit on the other side of the tank. Did someone have further information? An elektromagnetic Weapon "Railgun" comes to mind....but even the USA did not field such a Weapon....maybe the Chinese tested something new in Iraq? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yacinator Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 no u r doing it all wrong! u hide by the road then when the tank drives by u jump on it shoot the guy thats sticking out of the turret and throw in a fire grenade 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 An elektromagnetic Weapon "Railgun" comes to mind....but even the USA did not field such a Weapon....maybe the Chinese tested something new in Iraq? ??? Since when is China at war with the US? Even if they (or anyone) had such a fanciful weapon, wouldn't it be smarter to test it on a parked tank at home? Maybe I'm missing the joke here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Put any tank in an urban environment where the bad guys can get clean side, top & rear shots and you have a multimillion dollar toaster. Ask the Russians in Chechnya. Hell, ask our guys in Iraq. Tanks are not ideal for combat in built-up areas. We use them because they can throw a lot of lead and protect what's in them better than most things...but they weren't designed for that role as rolling city roadblocks/bunkers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Originally posted by K_Tiger: I read some days ago about an incident in Iraq, that a Abrahams was pennetrated by a unidentified Weapon. They sayed, that a Hole from 7mm was made on the entry (they didnt mention the side of the tank) and the Bullet or whatever did exit on the other side of the tank. Did someone have further information? An elektromagnetic Weapon "Railgun" comes to mind....but even the USA did not field such a Weapon....maybe the Chinese tested something new in Iraq? That is the incident from August I was talking about. Stinking normal RPG HEAT. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakovski Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Originally posted by redwolf: Stinking normal RPG HEAT. Was that the final verdict on the "mystery weapon"? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.