The M1A2 Abrams: The Last MBT?

[Sea Skimmer]

They need the same range profile as a Hellfire, the Hellfire is saving fuel during the "fly-down" process as it is a ATG.

Hellfire was meant to be fired from ultra low level, and a lofting flight profile is selectable. Its not saving any fuel for its flight compared to a ground launched missile.

A Hellfire equivalent needs to boost itself up to a decent height, before it can drop down.
But it would in fact need a smaller warhead.

As i said, Hellfire also needs to climb before diving, its not a normal situation for the launching heilcopter to be a couple thousand feet above ground level.

I allready posted that the system is effective for the cost, but not effective in general, as there are far more allready exsisting weapon systems that excell(sp?) in the AT department.

Such weapons systems include a couple dozen ATGM designs.

I have to disagree on the trainig part and to some degree on the operation cost part. Trainig will cost as much as MBT training as combat maneuver routines will/must be included as they are operating IN the MBZ.

You're driving a lighter vehicle around and likely with a smaller crew, that's a major saving right off the bat. And while good tank gunnery requires firing a rather large number of rounds in training, missile crews have proven quite successful in combat despite most of them having never fired a missile at practice. That's the advantage that comes from a guided weapon. New autonomous missiles can only improve that.

Otherwise you could just shoot FF AT warheads with you artillery and have a better cost/effectivness ratio.

The problem with those artillery delivered submunitions is they only destroy the engine, unless that causes a major fire the vehicle can probably be repaired, and fairly quickly. Those muntions also aren't very cheep, and the accuracy is only around 50% under ideal low wind conditions.

Mate, you assume that they will have a strong position, and i do not have to understand that.

Thats nice. I see alot more anti tank missile projects around then new tank designs, and I see the US Army trashing heavy tanks because its own missiles can pierce clear through front to back of an M1AHA.

On the other hand i quiet clearly understood that you have not marketed a MC as MBT replacement. Please do not assume i am an incompetent idiot.

I don't think that acutally, however when you keep talking about how missile carriers aren't tank replacements the issue becomes confused.

To your latest post.

The 3.16 mio. $ Bradley is the unmodified upgradeless pure variant. That means a MC will even with less armour/mobility be in the same range.

That cost already includes a FLIR and twin TOW system, which is all an effective tank destroyer needs. It however also includes a turret with 25mm chain gun and a hull big enough to hold seven infantrymen. The missile carrier can delete both of those things and save a considerable amount of weight. That makes it cheaper and gives the potential to make it smaller and better protected with the same materials. Please do explain why having fewer costly and weight consuming features will give it less protection and mobility.

The Chechens didnt destroyed MBTs with RPG fire, they laid ambushes on frequently used routes and immobilized them. After that they either waited for the crew to come out or placed AT mines under them which were rigged to detonate via a simple cord pull (they did it on routes were that was indeed a possibility).

That is simply wrong. They may well have done that often, but in the 1994-95 battle for Grozny the Russian army had units suffer catastrophic losses RPG's,. espically among the first tank regiments to arrive which lacked sufficient infantry supported

I have to agree that i (or you) have no idea how well a MC would be armoured. But if it should be a light armoured vehicle like the Bradley (or even less), then it runs in real danger from ANYTHING on the field to be destroyed. Heck, even mortar explosions in a 50m radius would cripple them.

You really don't know what you're talking about. A twenty-ton Strykers armor is proof against an 155mm shell burst at 15 meters, and artillery shells throw out far more dangerous fragments then mortar bombs. At 50 meters the only mortar a Bradley might fear is a Russian 2S4, a 240mm weapon. The Bradley is by no means light anyway, it weighs nearly as much as some main battle tanks.

[SWPIGWANG]

I have a question though. While an ATGM vehicle might offer some new capacities like lugging LOSATs around, how should such an vehicle be used?

If used in the defensive role, I don't see it as being much better than dug in infantry equiped with ATGMs as well. Such an vehicle seemed to be designed with less than great armor and its weapons aren't exactly verstile, making them probably less effective than MBTs on attack. The only use for the vehicle I can think of is as some sort of mobile defense to seal off any enemy armor breakthoughs.

[Sea Skimmer]

I have a question though. While an ATGM vehicle might offer some new capacities like lugging LOSATs around, how should such an vehicle be used?

If used in the defensive role, I don't see it as being much better than dug in infantry equiped with ATGMs as well.

Infanry missiles take time to set, and tend not to do well when the enemy calls in artillery. Equally importantly, a vehicle mounted system has far more ammuntion and can use far more powerful missiles, manpacking say a TOW launcher and missiles isn't somthing easily done.

Such an vehicle seemed to be designed with less than great armor and its weapons aren't exactly verstile, making them probably less effective than MBTs on attack. The only use for the vehicle I can think of is as some sort of mobile defense to seal off any enemy armor breakthoughs.

They make for devastatingly effective defenses, particularly at extended ranges were tank guns may not be effective, three kilometers is about the limit for accurate tank gunnery, the British record setting 5 kilometer shot was a stationary tank shooting at a stationary tank on the open desert, while even a decade old TOW-2 is accurate to the end of its nearly 4 kilometer range. Against tanks in heavy reactive armor, large ATGM's may be the only effective defence, as such protection can only be defeated by either an overflight top attack missile or a direct attack anti tank missile with a very large tandom warhead. No tank gun and ammunition combination in service can currently destroy a mere T-72 with heavy ERA.

In the attack they can provide overwatch fire support and the ability to instantly create an effective defence against enemy counter attacks. Tanks can do that too, but tanks also need alot more logstical support and so being able to avoid keeping fleets of them on your flanks is always good.

[CRUCIBLE]

Hellfire was meant to be fired from ultra low level, and a lofting flight profile is selectable. Its not saving any fuel for its flight compared to a ground launched missile.

As i said, Hellfire also needs to climb before diving, its not a normal situation for the launching heilcopter to be a couple thousand feet above ground level.

I totally agree on this. A Helicopter launched ATGM uses level flight for usually 3km+ ranges. But a Ground based Hellfire equivalent, needs to ascend first to a height of at least 200m then level flight, then it can drop down. The ascend is using much more fuel than a pure level flight.

But i dont have the opinon that you need the same amount, yep you will need less fuel for it plus a smaller warhead and that will bring down the cost to about 50k $ maybe less.

I

Such weapons systems include a couple dozen ATGM designs.

Exactly (never stated otherwise). That is the point. Why are they introduced now? Remember, we do not see them as MBT relacements. But the different gouvernments see them as such.
They are maybe worthwhile as an addition, despite the allready exsisting designs. But we were at least discussing, if they could be a replacement. (uhmm and i supose the derailing come from my side... )

You're driving a lighter vehicle around and likely with a smaller crew, that's a major saving right off the bat. And while good tank gunnery requires firing a rather large number of rounds in training, missile crews have proven quite successful in combat despite most of them having never fired a missile at practice. That's the advantage that comes from a guided weapon. New autonomous missiles can only improve that.

Point taken. But the more improved the warhead will be, the more will the price tag skyrocket for a single missile.

The problem with those artillery delivered submunitions is they only destroy the engine, unless that causes a major fire the vehicle can probably be repaired, and fairly quickly. Those muntions also aren't very cheep, and the accuracy is only around 50% under ideal low wind conditions.

We are not talking about the same thing here. The Paragliding-Subammunition Shell is indeed not very accurate at high wind conditions (but still at 80% at low wind conditions).
The direct guided AT shell is a more expensive (indeed at 40k Euro/shell), but has the same characteristics as a missile, just without the need for a high amount of fuel, as the main delivery goes via artillery.

I don't think that acutally, however when you keep talking about how missile carriers aren't tank replacements the issue becomes confused.

If my comments were confusing i have to aologize for it.

That cost already includes a FLIR and twin TOW system, which is all an effective tank destroyer needs. It however also includes a turret with 25mm chain gun and a hull big enough to hold seven infantrymen. The missile carrier can delete both of those things and save a considerable amount of weight. That makes it cheaper and gives the potential to make it smaller and better protected with the same materials. Please do explain why having fewer costly and weight consuming features will give it less protection and mobility.

Yes, it can save weight, thus reducing the cost. But you have to agree that the FLIR and the targeting system for the TOW are not really expensive. On the other hand, a MC woul need a more sophisticated targeting system and enough space for Missiles (using up Inf transport place). So only thing that would really fall away would be the Cannon and the turret. And i agree that this would reduce the costs for it.

That is simply wrong. They may well have done that often, but in the 1994-95 battle for Grozny the Russian army had units suffer catastrophic losses RPG's,. espically among the first tank regiments to arrive which lacked sufficient infantry supported

I have to apologize, i didnt read or heared about the Grozny incident. So, if the killed of MBTs with RPGs there, its ok. Thank god they had no lightly armoured vehicles there, like say a MC.

You really don't know what you're talking about. A twenty-ton Strykers armor is proof against an 155mm shell burst at 15 meters, and artillery shells throw out far more dangerous fragments then mortar bombs. At 50 meters the only mortar a Bradley might fear is a Russian 2S4, a 240mm weapon. The Bradley is by no means light anyway, it weighs nearly as much as some main battle tanks.

Wrong. I served over 2 years in the 121st. Airborne Mortar unit till they made us osolute and we were divided on other units. We were using a 120mm Mortar and light armoured vehicles (means, no MBTs)broke up under even non-direct hits.
We had the great pleasure on 3 training shootings, to use the mortars against obsolute stripped down MBTs and IVFs (electronics and engine were removed).
The IVFs were absulte inoperable and the MBTs were up to 40% immobilized (track hits).
And we didnt even used air-burst ammunition.

That Artillery fire against moving targets is a game of luck is another matter. But If it hits, its down.

[Vympel]

Just a note, Russian MBT losses in Chechnya to RPGs were accentuated by the stripping of their reactive armor before they went into battle, out of fear for the accompanying infantry (who were too few and poorly trained). Second time around, losses were considerably less.

In the Grozny incident Skimmer refers to, it wasn't just tanks that were lost- also BTRs and BMPs, and even 6 2S6 Tunguskas- it was a killing zone because they just marched straight in, didn't even know where they were going, stopped in a square or some such, and were ambushed from all directions and destroyed in detail. Not many got out of that.

[Sea Skimmer]

I totally agree on this. A Helicopter launched ATGM uses level flight for usually 3km+ ranges. But a Ground based Hellfire equivalent, needs to ascend first to a height of at least 200m then level flight, then it can drop down. The ascend is using much more fuel than a pure level flight.[/quote]

That makes the assumption that a heilcopter would be launching from 200 meters to begin with, that is very high for an attack heilcopter to be flying above ground level in combat. It is not an exaggeration to sya that they often are below the height of surrounding trees.

Exactly (never stated otherwise). That is the point. Why are they introduced now? Remember, we do not see them as MBT relacements. But the different gouvernments see them as such.
They are maybe worthwhile as an addition, despite the allready exsisting designs. But we were at least discussing, if they could be a replacement. (uhmm and i supose the derailing come from my side... )

What I saw you doing, or at least what people might perceive your statements to be was basically saying that anti tank missile carriers has little point. That is not the case and that was what I wanted to correct.

Point taken. But the more improved the warhead will be, the more will the price tag skyrocket for a single missile.

Not really, shaped charges aren't very expensive to make nor is adding a tandom warhead to defeat reactive armor.

We are not talking about the same thing here. The Paragliding-Subammunition Shell is indeed not very accurate at high wind conditions (but still at 80% at low wind conditions).

Moving or stationary targets?

The direct guided AT shell is a more expensive (indeed at 40k Euro/shell), but has the same characteristics as a missile, just without the need for a high amount of fuel, as the main delivery goes via artillery.

Those shells are nice. Though some designs have been outright rejected for service or can only be used under restricted conditions becasue theres no telling what they might lock onto. Thats the advantage of a missile and direct fire in general, you know what your shooting at and won't be wasting rounds.

Yes, it can save weight, thus reducing the cost. But you have to agree that the FLIR and the targeting system for the TOW are not really expensive. On the other hand, a MC woul need a more sophisticated targeting system

I fail to see why, most current missile carriers have an inferior fire control setup as it is.

and enough space for Missiles (using up Inf transport place).

Not an issue, at least with our M2 example, as the M2 Bradley can already carry seven TOW missiles besides its infantry. So that infantry space can be removed, I don't think theres going to be any real need for more missiles then that. And in any case even a couple extra reloads wouldn't need nearly as much space as seven soliders.

So only thing that would really fall away would be the Cannon and the turret. And i agree that this would reduce the costs for it.

Incorrect as I've mentioned above

I have to apologize, i didnt read or heared about the Grozny incident. So, if the killed of MBTs with RPGs there, its ok. Thank god they had no lightly armoured vehicles there, like say a MC.

They did, I doubt theres a peice of armor in the Russian military that wasn't destroyed at some point in those battles. It is notable though that the Russians found the ZSU-23 and Tunguska's to be highly effective in the fighting despite the armor on both being only about 14mm thick. For alot of fighting simply having somthing thats bullet and fragment proof is all you need.

Wrong. I served over 2 years in the 121st. Airborne Mortar unit till they made us osolute and we were divided on other units. We were using a 120mm Mortar and light armoured vehicles (means, no MBTs)broke up under even non-direct hits.

There's a kind of massive difference between a shell exploding right alongside or a few meters away from a vehicle and one landing fifty meters away.

We had the great pleasure on 3 training shootings, to use the mortars against obsolute stripped down MBTs and IVFs (electronics and engine were removed).
The IVFs were absulte inoperable and the MBTs were up to 40% immobilized (track hits).
And we didnt even used air-burst ammunition.

An obsolete Marder model isn't very well protected; espically not on the flanks or rear, and the armor would be fairly brittle after several decades. Same basic story for the Leopold Ones I'd assume you were shooting at. But anyway, I never said they'd be immune to direct hits or a very near miss, only that at fifty meters such rounds aren't going to do very much of anything. Just consider the fact that at a few meters range nearly half the fragments of an exploding shell or mortar bomb will be striking the target, while if you move that target out to fifty your looking at a far smaller percentage of hits with most going wide or over the thing.

That Artillery fire against moving targets is a game of luck is another matter. But If it hits, its down.

I'm quite aware of that. But a hit is very different from somthing landing 50 meters away.

[CRUCIBLE]

Sea Skimmer.

I agree now with nearly everything .

And i have to agree too, that the way i have spoken up, could be laid out wrong. After all, i am not a native english speaker (old apologize, i know).

To clear this up. I never had the intention to say a MC was absolutly worthless. It has its place as a specialist, and it would be very effctive as such.
But a MC is not a MBT replacement in my eyes.

Just some things.

Paragliding Ammo - 80% against "slow" moving targets (20km/H)

Target Practice - Armour was in ecxellent condition not rotted away. We had the usual German vehicles (Leopard 1, Marder, Fuchs, even 2 Wolf), some "very" old Russian vehicles (BMPs of all sorts, T-72) and some American (2 Bradleys in good armour condition).

Mortar fire- A light armoured vehicle at 50m of a shell hit will suffer severe damage to all outside attachments + locomotion unit. They do not have to pierce armour, but we saw it on 9 out of 10.
Results with Air Burst ammunition would have been far better, as they detonate about 20m-25m about ground level, that combined with the thin top armour can be messy.

Btw, it was a very interesting discussion. And i am happy to be able to indeed discuss something military related with someone.
As most people have the tendency to dwell in their home nation bias.

Tanks for this good open discussion based on facts. I learned something.
And that is always good.

[Sea Skimmer]

Sea Skimmer.

I agree now with nearly everything .

And i have to agree too, that the way i have spoken up, could be laid out wrong. After all, i am not a native english speaker (old apologize, i know).

Some of the best sources I've run into don't speak English as a first language.

To clear this up. I never had the intention to say a MC was absolutly worthless. It has its place as a specialist, and it would be very effctive as such.
But a MC is not a MBT replacement in my eyes.

Just some things.

Paragliding Ammo - 80% against "slow" moving targets (20km/H)

Useful to know, now lets gets some 300kph M5 BMW's out on the test range and make the best car commercial ever.

Target Practice - Armour was in ecxellent condition not rotted away.

Well you wouldn't be able to tell if it had gone brittal from sight.

We had the usual German vehicles (Leopard 1, Marder, Fuchs, even 2 Wolf), some "very" old Russian vehicles (BMPs of all sorts, T-72) and some American (2 Bradleys in good armour condition).

I'm afraid I'm not familer with that the Wolf is in the German army, could you elaborate ?

Mortar fire- A light armoured vehicle at 50m of a shell hit will suffer severe damage to all outside attachments + locomotion unit. They do not have to pierce armour, but we saw it on 9 out of 10.

I have to say I find this extremely surprising, I've had a USMC gunner tell me that the Corps considered mortars and artillery firing unitary shells to be effective anti armor weapons, but only if hits where within 5-10 meters. But perhaps there standard was to knock out the main armament of a tank, and not just disable it. Still 50 meters seems like a very long distance.

Results with Air Burst ammunition would have been far better, as they detonate about 20m-25m about ground level, that combined with the thin top armour can be messy.

Yes, I'm aware of that much

Btw, it was a very interesting discussion. And i am happy to be able to indeed discuss something military related with someone.
As most people have the tendency to dwell in their home nation bias.

Want HAB membership? One of our top men is an Australian obsessed with the Russian military.

Tanks for this good open discussion based on facts. I learned something.
And that is always good.

Yes it is.

[CRUCIBLE]

Well you wouldn't be able to tell if it had gone brittal from sight.

Youre right, but we had on one occasion 2 Krauss Maffay engíneers at place, who stayed after dismatling some of the more sensitive units to filmed the firing and the results on their tanks. They confirmed that the Armour, in this case, of 2 Leopards 1, 2 Marder, and one of the Bradleys was in very good to good condition. Btw, no reactive plating on anything, mind you.

I'm afraid I'm not familer with that the Wolf is in the German army, could you elaborate ?

Heh, a Wolf is just a small Jeep, in which we transported the Mortars and Ammunition. Its the standard vehicle, like the Humvee is for the US.
Those got the worst beating as you may guess.

I have to say I find this extremely surprising, I've had a USMC gunner tell me that the Corps considered mortars and artillery firing unitary shells to be effective anti armor weapons, but only if hits where within 5-10 meters. But perhaps there standard was to knock out the main armament of a tank, and not just disable it. Still 50 meters seems like a very long distance.

Indeed, to realy knock out/destroy an armored vehicle you need some hits very close (10m is sufficient), for a MBT you need one direct hit with non air-burst ammunition. But the effective taking out of any armoured vehicle, is to immobilize them and destroy all attachments (sensory, comm, wedge mirriors, guns and so on). After that you just need to pump out two to four salvos of a mortar unit (5 mortar/unit) to physically destroy everything.
Just if you want, as those vehicles wont move anywhere and wont shoot anything after the first, immobilizing salvo.

To explain, one pattern of a salvo of 120mm mortars covers a 250m time 100m area. This is the death zone (for Inf) as EVERYTHING on two legs is dead in there. Up to the 50m mark for a single shell, stone walls are easily pierced by some fragments. 100m further in every direction is the "You could be lucky zone" as the fragments tend to spread out too far now.
In the 250m x 100m area, vehicles will loose ALL outside attachments (plus the lucky piercings). One 120mm shell is beaking up to 1500-2000 pieces of fragments (layered casing). So the lucky one is not rare at all.

The pierced armour on the light armoured vehicles surprised me too. Well they were NOT swiss chees, but even on first glance you could see 1 to 3 holes. These punctuations came from the small fragments, which tend to pierce and then ricochet inside the cabin. That was the case on one Marder and one Bradley were you could see it very good as we took a look after one salvo.
Btw, if we had such a nice target, we were the first to shoot at it. After that came the LARS and MARS units to have their fun. After that shooting we could go out and collect "trophies" of some vehicles. Fist sized.

Want HAB membership? One of our top men is an Australian obsessed with the Russian military.

Uhmm, i saw it over time in many sigs, but could you elaborate please?


P.S. Sorry for derailing this thread into a mortar explanation....

[Sea Skimmer]

Uhmm, i saw it over time in many sigs, but could you elaborate please?

It's a private forum and usergroup in which we have this sort of discussion; we also destroy the illogical mecha scum and there anti effectiveness combat units. The glorious Heavy Armor Brigade has also created the most over gunned and bloated military industrial complex ever. THE GREAT LEADER of course rules it with an armor clad fist.

You're also entitled to join the usergroup/[private forum The Mess, which is for former and serving military personal only. Though its moderator isn't around very much these days so I'm not sure if you could get in right now, I don't know if they have reassigned his powers to someone else temporarily.

[Vympel]

You know, Great Leader, we should all just cut and paste that one and just post it whenever someone asks the question. It can be like a pre-played propaganda tape!

[CmdrWilkens]

In anycase, that protectiong saved the crew and if it had been a Stryker, I doubt anyone would walk away from it.

If it had been a Stryker it probably could have gotten out of there, since the first hit on the wheels wouldn't disable it, while the Challenger II was immobile at once from a track hit.

Not neccesarily the time to interject but the damn thing isn't a Stryker no matter what the Army wants to call it. Its a damn LAV, either an LAV-25, LAV-LOG, LAV-C2, LAV-AD, or an LAV-AT. The Marine Corps had 'em first an no amount of fancy renaming (ohhh "Stryker" vehicles) will change that. Sorry its just a pet peeve of mine.

Anyway I think the best example of why the MBT is going to be around for a while can be found on the first assault waves hitting Baghdad, IIRC they pulled off a damn fast strike through the city to the airport with only one vehicle disabled (and then destroyed by our own fire to rpevent capture). With the sheer number of hits they were taking I think it proves the concept, but that's my two cents.

[Sarevok]

Hellfire was meant to be fired from ultra low level, and a lofting flight profile is selectable. Its not saving any fuel for its flight compared to a ground launched missile

I heard there is a LOAL (Lock on After Launch) mode for the Hellfire. The missile climbs and waits for the aircraft to relay target data.

[Sea Skimmer]

I heard there is a LOAL (Lock on After Launch) mode for the Hellfire. The missile climbs and waits for the aircraft to relay target data.

It climbs and then pitches over and looks for a laser reflection as normal. It doesn't wait for any form ofsignal from the launch aircraft.

[Sea Skimmer]

Not neccesarily the time to interject but the damn thing isn't a Stryker no matter what the Army wants to call it. Its a damn LAV, either an LAV-25, LAV-LOG, LAV-C2, LAV-AD, or an LAV-AT. The Marine Corps had 'em first an no amount of fancy renaming (ohhh "Stryker" vehicles) will change that. Sorry its just a pet peeve of mine.

Thats just fucking stupid, the Swiss and Canada had the thing first by far and called it somthing different, and the marines made fewer changes by far then the Army did when it designed the Stryker. Or I have becomeconfused and Strykers have 25mm chaingun turrets while the USMC has IVIS in its LAV-25 which have suddenly gained several tons of weight. You better stop calling your Harriers AV-8's as well.