Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Modern MBT Question

Discussion in 'Post-World War 2 Armour' started by Boba Nette, Jun 19, 2005.

  1. Boba Nette

    Boba Nette New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2004
    Messages:
    3,142
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago
    via TanksinWW2
    Which modern MBT's have yet to be seriously battle tested?
     
  2. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    All of them...

    Do note that they are all tested with computers and practicial tests to make sure they perfrm well for what they are designed for.
     
  3. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    The only modern MBT as far as I know that has been in any kind of scrap with another modern MBT (I don't really count Abrahms & Challys picking off T-72s as serious battle testing! ;) ) is the unfortunate Challenger 2 friendly fire incident. Oh those trigger-happy Brits... :D
     
  4. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    RPG's and some downscraped T-55 and T-72's (most of them couldn't even take aim on an Abrams/Challenger before it was destroyed) is indeed no serious battle test, I also don't think you can count this friendly-fire incident as a serious battle test, if you do, than its a complete failure as the turret of 1 of the Challengers got blown off :eek:
     
  5. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    but it is surely a complete success!
    The Challenger 2's gun works brilliantly! ;)

    What it proved was that at very close range the sheer impact from the 120mm gun will knock a turret off a tank. I doubt any other tank would have survived a similar encounter.

    After all, somebody pointed out about an Abrahms having to be shot by another Abrahms as it was too damaged to move and in an rea too dangerous to rescue. The shot penetrated the turret, and exploded it. Yes, the blast doors deflected the blast upwards, but I would not have liked to be in the turret at the time...
     
  6. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    Ricky wrote:

    Actually it shows that the blast compartment design of the Abrams allows a catastrophic penetration to occur without compromising the crew compartment. The crew compartment was intact in the Abrams that was destroyed by another Abrams.
    It is a myth that a kinetic energy penetrator transfers enough energy to knock the turret off an MBT. Indeed the turret flys off however it is due to internal explosions resulting from a penetration. Much like the Hollywood myth of pistol or rifle rounds knocking a man into the air, the physics don't add up. Tests have been performed on ballistics dummies and no pistol or rifle round carries much less transfers enough energy to have that effect on a man.
    The Abrams design is AFAIK the only MBT able to take such a catastrophic penetration and have the crew walk away uninjured (though no doubt shaken).
     
  7. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    However, this has not actually (fortunately) been tested in practice
     
  8. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    Strurmtiger wrote:
    IMO the Leo II and the Leclerc have not been battle tested. The Abrams and the Chally II have been battle tested under real world conditions facing the kind of threats they will likely encounter in future conflicts.
    i.e. Man portable weapons and former soviet tanks in the inventory of thirld world countries.
     
  9. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Lets clear something, do we all know that the blast doors are there to prevent exploding ammunition to turn right into the crew compartment?
    If not, they are designed to make sure the ammunition explosion is directed to the air, so it won't hurt anybody.


    What it proved was that at very close range the sheer impact from the 120mm gun will knock a turret off a tank. I doubt any other tank would have survived a similar encounter.

    Maybe, it could also be a shot right into a shottrap on the challenger 2, if so, it is a serious design flaw...
    If the round hits the area between the hul and the turret it will hit the inner ring where the turret is mounted in/on, that will probably cause it to being knocked off.

    The Abrams design is AFAIK the only MBT able to take such a catastrophic penetration and have the crew walk away uninjured (though no doubt shaken).

    Now Grieg, I know you probably love your countr very much but this statement is going a little to far, I have to see any source of that to believe it, because I don't know nothing about that, and if the crew compartment gets penetrated I'm fairly sure the whle crew is dead.

    IMO the Leo II and the Leclerc have not been battle tested.

    So you think there are only 4 modern MBT's in the whole world? :roll: :lol:

    The Abrams and the Chally II have been battle tested under real world conditions facing the kind of threats they will likely encounter in future conflicts.

    Yes, they have been battle tested, but seriously?
    NO, they have yet to encounter a real army, not an army that leave there tanks sitting in the deseert like sitting ducks because they are scared.

    facing the kind of threats they will likely encounter in future conflicts.

    So you think you can compare Iraq with countries like North-Korea and China???

    Haha, if North-Korea was as badly equiped as Iraaq the US had alreayd declare war with them, but the US is scared because in Korean inviroment they will be slain to pieces, North-Korea is a country like Vietnam but than with the RIGHT equipment that can stand up VS the US Abrams tank.

    .e. Man portable weapons and former soviet tanks in the inventory of thirld world countries.

    Old generation RPG's that is, North-Korea or CHina will probably have some better man-portable weapons, and better tanks than does downscraped Iraqi tanks, and Iraq isn't a Third world country, if they always fight VS third world countries they will fight Somalia with there old M-47 tanks ;)
     
  10. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    Jeffrey wrote:

    And your point is?


    My statements are based on my knowledge of the subject not on blind patriotism.
    If you have knowledge of Abrams crewmembers killed by hostile action please provide it.


    No. just that the others aren't significant enough to warrant mentioning. The T-90 might be but it's numbers are limited and the level of Russian technology is behind the west even today.


    In the Gulf War the Iraqi's ahd the 4th largest army in the world. Larger and better equipped (for the most part) than any European nation.

    Your childish tirades against the US are getting tiresome. Grow up.
     
  11. Castelot

    Castelot New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,413
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The eldest daugther of Church
    via TanksinWW2
    ....maybe the really small european nations.
    Actually the european armies that fought in Operation Desert Storm(mostly british and french) made their iraqi counterpart look rather bad.

    The iraqi army of 1991 was large indeed but one should not overestimate sheer numbers.
    It was largely exhausted from 10 years of war against Iran, the loyalty of it's kurdish+shiite soldiers was more than questionable and generally training and morale were very low.
    Also it's planes/tanks were in an alarmingly bad shape, without spare parts available.
     
  12. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    Castelot wrote:

    I assume you mean the British and French forces? Certainly no European army was present. British had an armored division, not sure about the size of the French forces.
    They did make the Iraqi army look bad however you might have noticed they had a lot of help ;) For instance the air campaign that totally neutralized the Iraqi command and control function had a lot to do with it along with 2 US corps sized forces fighting alongside them. It might have been a different story had either Britain of France had to go it alone?


    The Irag/Iran war had been over for 3 years. Saddam had been pumping billions of dollars of oil revenue into military equipment. Nearly all conscript armies from non-democratic countries(any likely adversary) have the same problem regarding the motivation of the individual soldierand the state of the equipment in the Iraqi army from everything I have read, particularly in the Republican Guard divisions was not as you describe.
    Seriously the size of the undertaking, over half a million men, thousands of aircraft, thousands of tanks..what European country could field an army even close to that size and capability?
    I may be wrong about that conclusion. Convince me.
    (anybody have info regarding the capability of France or Britain to field an army of combined arms forces large enough to take on a major beligerant without assisitance?)
     
  13. Castelot

    Castelot New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,413
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The eldest daugther of Church
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes, of course. ;)


    There was 6th armoured division "Daguet" as well as support units, some 12.000 men I think.

    Yes, and surely very much appreciated.

    There too, british and french air forces were part of that campaign.(Not to the same extent as US air force, I know :oops: ).



    Republican Guard were exceptions, I do however not know to what extent Saddam used his guards in the war, I think he kept them back to some degree in order to assure order principally in the shiite area.

    I once read somewhere that it was expected that the turkish army could be in Bagdad in a week if there was a turkish-iraqi war.

    None of course, but that does not mean that iraqi army is bether equipped then them.
    No european country can afford an army of the size you describe, that's why we have NATO....
     
  14. GP

    GP New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    I have to disagree with you on the last part, at least one division was destroyed by the 7 us corp, of which, the 1st uk armourd division was part of.

    See below.
     
  15. GP

    GP New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    27 Feb
    At D+42/G+4, CINCCENTCOM announces U.S. and coalition forces engaged in a climatic "classic tank battle", supported by attack aircraft, with approximately 3 divisions of Republican Guard forces in Iraq near Euphrates Valley. These remnants of Iraq's forces were "boxed in" by a "solid wall" of U.S. forces on their eastern flank, and U.S. and coalition forces, including U.S. Marines, on their southernn flank. Battle ended with loss of 200 Iraqi tanks, 50 armored vehicles and 20 artillery pieces. 29 Iraqi divisions have been destroyed or rendered combat-ineffective.

    Over fifty thousand enemy prisoners of war have been captured. (48,000+ between 24 - 27 February)

    U.S. casualties are 28 KIA. 89 WIA. 5 MIA since start of ground offensive. Overall total: 79 KIA, 213 WIA, 35 MIA, 9 POW. To-date, 3,008 Iraqi tanks (42% of initial inventory), 1,856 armored vehicles (28% of initial inventory), and 2,140 artillery pieces (31% of initial inventory) have been destroyed. General Norman Schwarzkopf details battle plan of OPERATION DESERT STORM. Outnumbered 2-1, with fewer tanks/artillery, facing a heavily-dug in force, preliminary tactics were devised consisting of


    From http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/dstorm/dsfeb.htm

    It is quite accurate.

    The Tawakalna, Medinha and Hammurabi they possibly had been reconstructed but they were destroyed.
     
  16. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    And your point is?

    Read...: Lets clear something, do we all know that the blast doors are there to prevent exploding ammunition to turn right into the crew compartment?

    My statements are based on my knowledge of the subject not on blind patriotism.
    If you have knowledge of Abrams crewmembers killed by hostile action please provide it.


    What are you trying to say?
    I asked you a queastion please anwer it, do you have any source of this situation with this Abrams, because I have the knowledge to say that the whole tankcrew is probably dead when a tankround penetrated it turret.
    Yu don't have much knowledge on the subject, you where also trying to make clear that the US Abrams is the only tank in the world that has the capability to communicate with every unit on the battlefiled with its state of the art equipment, this was also a personnel opinion based on zero evidence, so why should I believe you now, to me it looks alot like patriotism.

    No. just that the others aren't significant enough to warrant mentioning. The T-90 might be but it's numbers are limited and the level of Russian technology is behind the west even today.

    I think there are about 15 to 20 modern MBT's that are highly underestimated, for example the Merkava MK4, some research group even rate it above the Challenger 2.

    In the Gulf War the Iraqi's ahd the 4th largest army in the world. Larger and better equipped (for the most part) than any European nation.

    As they always say, size doesn't matters... you say it is better equipped than any other european nation, please, you must be joking, this is absolutely not true!!!!! not true AT ALL!
    When we already had modern heavy tanks and IFV's they still had old downscraped versions of the BMP, T-55 and T-72, hell, the T-55 and T-72 didn't even have thermal-sights, they still used old night vision sights, before the Abrams could even come into there range of fire they where already destroyed, there was absolutely no sign of a serious battle tested situation, these old downscraped tanks where no match for a Abrams or any other Western tank! Also note that they didn't go any further than the desert, they didn't go into Iraq! Most of there troops where also badly trained etcetcetc, 20 Leopard2a6 tanks can easily destroyed more than 500 Iraqy T-72 tanks if they want, they only have to stay out of there firing range and they may even kill al of there tanks :lol:

    Your childish tirades against the US are getting tiresome. Grow up.

    Where the hell did this come from, nothing to come up with VS this argument, it is true.
    Or is it not true that the US couldn't take Vietnam?
    North-Korea is about the same as Vietnam but than with modern sophisticated equipment, they actually have tanks other than Vietnam! :lol: They also don't have any downscraped tanks like Iraq, they are well maintained and because the have the inviroment of VIetnam and a well trained/equiped army the US doesn't attack them, this country is far more dangerous than Iraq was, and they DO have nucleair weapons, they don't listen to anything the US tells the and still the US doesn't do anything...


    The Irag/Iran war had been over for 3 years. Saddam had been pumping billions of dollars of oil revenue into military equipment.

    I thyink Saddam made some new palaces of this money it definatly did not got near his army, if so they didn't have downscraped equipment and badly payed/trained soldiers.
     
  17. Castelot

    Castelot New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,413
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The eldest daugther of Church
    via TanksinWW2
    [/quote]


    I stand corrected....again.
    That happens so damned often to me.... :angry:
     
  18. Castelot

    Castelot New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,413
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The eldest daugther of Church
    via TanksinWW2
    Of course the equippment and training of the Iraqi army simply did not compare to any european one.
    But Grieg is correct when he says that it would have been hard for any european country or alliance of countries to do Desert Storm without the US, as the size of european armies and above all their power projection capabilities are small if compared to the US.
     
  19. Jeffrey phpbb3

    Jeffrey phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Maybe not Iraqi freedom, but I think a country like Germany had send a army division big enough to deal with the tanks, apc's etc in operation Desert Storm.

    BTW: We where talking about 'Which modern MBT's have yet to be seriously battle tested?' I think we can say non of the modern MBT's ever encountered a strong opponent, I want to see the Abrams and Challenger in a duel with a T-90 or some heavily upgraded T-72 or T-80
     
  20. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I reckon they would still prove superior, but not by as great a margin.

    Please please stop the Vietnam discussion. The US was doing Ok militarily (check the failure of the Tet Offensive) but dumb political decisions (no bombing North Vietnam, send in the conscript army, oh dear people at home don't like their children getting shot so we'd better pull out etc etc) effectively ruined it.
     

Share This Page