Author Topic: M1A2 Abrams versus T-72S (Read 1783 times)

Numbers · « **on:** July 22, 2011, 10:48:14 AM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams#Armor
"The Abrams is protected by armor based on the British-designed Chobham armor.
Chobham is a composite armor formed by spacing multiple layers of various alloys of steel, ceramics, plastic
composites, and kevlar, giving an estimated maximum (frontal turret) 1,320–1,620 millimetres (52–64 in) of RHAe
versus HEAT (and other chemical energy rounds) and 940–960 mm (37–38 in) versus kinetic energy penetrators.
...
The added protection from the depleted uranium armor is believed to be equivalent to 24 inches (610 mm) of RHA."

How to kill Abrams from the large distance using T-72S (Iran has 500+ T-72S)?

T-72 has to penetrate 2,230 mm (of RHA) for HEAT round and 1,570 mm (of RHA) for AP round.
Well current T-72S rounds can not do it. Only new HEAT ATGM round with multiple shaped charges can do it.

But assuming T-72S has only BM-22 AP Sabot (APFSDS) rounds with 380 mm (of RHA) penetration, it can:

1) Hit Abrams' main gun at its turret starting point. With disabled gun Abrams is harmless.

2) Hit Abrams' trucks from front. Abrams can not move after that and infantry can finish it off with RPGs.

3) Hit Abrams' driver position, that has less armor thickness than the turret. AP may bounce inside killing
the crew.

4) Hit Abrams' commander window tower, allowing AP round to bounce inside killing the crew.

5) Hit Abrams from the side or back, aiming at the turbo jet engine, setting it aflame.

6) Hit Abrams tank from front with heavy flamethrower, and ignite tank's ammunition. (I know T-72 has no
flamethrower).

Future improvements of T-72S.

To further increase lethality of T-72S rounds, longer AP rounds should be developed and T-72S auto loader should
be modified to deal with longer AP rounds. Perhaps longer AP rounds that are similar to US M829A3 with length of 920 mm.

To develop HEAT ATGM that has multiple shaped charges. That will also mean tha auto loader should be modified to
deal with longer HEAT ATGM rounds.

You need 4 x 600 mm (RHA penetration) = 2,400 mm (RHA penetration) of 4 shaped charges in single HEAT ATGM round.

comandantecarlos · « **Reply #1 on:** July 22, 2011, 11:56:51 AM »

Very simple. T72 armor armor should be strengthened. At large distances from the M1 gun Deploy ineffective against it. They would have fought a close battle. The odds will be equal.
For example:


Israel's second main battle tank: The Sabra Mark III	Small \| Large


M60T Sabra tank in Turkey	Small \| Large


Merkava 4 Gun, Sabra M60A1 Tank by IMI, Israel Military Tech Exhibition 2008 -5	Small \| Large


ALTAY TANK	Small \| Large

nomad · « **Reply #2 on:** July 22, 2011, 01:26:14 PM »

This is an excellent post showing the flexibility in thinking in terms of tank warfare and also tank upgrades . I think T 72 also has high potential to be modified into various forms cheaply . Investment in entire production line of tank very expensive and good alternative where cheaper labour is available may be to buy and modify . I like to say two things about symmetry and also superiority .

Symmetry is not identity . Symmetry describes a situation when two opposing units , both possess the same range of quality but this quality do not exist in the same amount ( unlike identity) . For example all tanks have armour , but some armour are thinner . And some tanks ( with thin armour ) are faster . The question of superiority is usually decided by actual situations . If two opposing units in targetting each other , become targets themselves and have equal chance of destroying the opposing number as being destroyed then these units ( either SW or AW ) have equal streangth , otherwise they are either inferior or superior . Identical forces have always the same chance (probability ) of kill or be killed . Also I must say that training and motivation is also a strong determinant of superiority .

Therefore I think we must think and encourage each other to think that our Tank forces despite not being identical to enemy tanks , do infact have symmetry and with training and motivation have superiority .

comandantecarlos · « **Reply #3 on:** July 22, 2011, 01:51:07 PM »

I'm only talking about technical things. The military tactics of warfare is a different matter.
Example: M60 is cast towers. The T72 is cast turret. If the M60 towers cast reinforced ceramic and steel elements, the T72 also. The T72 = 43 tonnes, M1 = 63 tonnes. A good base T72. What is not good: Instruments, ammo in the tower during, the low-power engine.

nomad · « **Reply #4 on:** July 22, 2011, 01:59:29 PM »

I understand you are talking about the actual tanks . .....Now when it comes to this differences in quality such as difference in speed or Ammo storage , then we have to think are this differences significant in the performance of tank or not . If they are significant then , this leads to inferior performance . This inferior performance may be possible to compensate with either superior training or superior numbers or both . The most likely answer if this differences can not be technically overcome is then to opt for superior numbers . Infact we see examples of symmetric systems with significant difference , but deciding factor becomes numerical superiority .

comandantecarlos · « **Reply #5 on:** July 22, 2011, 03:55:49 PM »

It must be assumed that staff training is the same. It is very important that there is no enemy air dominance. Air dominance is forbidden without the deployment of tanks. It is important in my opinion: Detection (day and night) (I think the most important) (here, the biggest problem with the T72, not to mention the U.S. network-based data flow is a huge advantage in battle), first-shot accuracy and effect (the second most important), protection, mobility. Ergonomics. They think the main directions of development.
My favorite.

comandantecarlos · « **Reply #6 on:** July 22, 2011, 04:29:41 PM »

http://btvt.narod.ru/3/omsk_turret.htm

"T-72 tanks and their variants, including T-90 no longer meet modern requirements on the following basis: in today's domestic and foreign armor, including the "Leclerc", "Abrams," modifications "Leopard 2" significantly improved protection frontal projection. The effectiveness of armor-piercing shells, in response to increased protection, also increased due to the increase mainly to the active part of the sabot core, made of metal of high density, such as depleted uranium, as well as by giving a higher initial velocity of the projectile through the use of more powerful charge. In autoloader T-72 to place such elongated shells, the more unitary shots, it is not possible."

comandantecarlos · « **Reply #7 on:** July 22, 2011, 04:43:20 PM »

example T72: Type99a2

Ayyash · « **Reply #8 on:** July 22, 2011, 04:58:51 PM »

Numbers:

I'd doubt any tanker who claimed they would be able to drop a round from a 2A46 into any of those critical areas you mentioned like the commanders cupola, drivers hatch, or gun mantlet. It's the same reason infantry aren't taught to shoot their enemy in the eye. Sure, that might be their most vulnerable spot but that degree of accuracy just isn't possible.

Ich · « **Reply #9 on:** July 22, 2011, 06:11:48 PM »

Some years ago i had an idea how to stop an Abrams M1A2: With a thermobaric bomb, delivered by a missiles with a proximity fuse. It is not for damaging the tank, it is for killing the men inside. Cause of the air intake of the gas turbine, first the nebulized burning gas comes with it heat into the tank, and second the oxigene in the tank will be consumed rappidly by the fire. And the gas turbine will no longer function so the tank will stop immediately -> an easy target for some RPG in the back.

Numbers · « **Reply #10 on:** July 23, 2011, 10:01:37 AM »

to Ayyash:

1) T-72S can shoot laser guided HEAT ATGM which is very accurate. So you can shoot critical areas of enemy tank easily.

2) T-72S has a laser range finder so can aim AP Sabot rounds more accurately. Abrams can only be killed by hitting its critical areas.

to Ich:

3) Modern tanks have Nuclear Biological Chemical (NBC) protection, so air intake might be filtered throuch coal filter. And it is impossible to burn the Abrams or T-72 crew through filtered air intake by Aluminium Thermobaric powder (that is ignited later by delayed fuse).

4) It is also impossible to poison NBC protected tank by toxic gas or nuclear radiated dust.

Ich · « **Reply #11 on:** July 23, 2011, 11:49:13 AM »

Quote from: Numbers on July 23, 2011, 10:01:37 AM

to Ich:

3) Modern tanks have Nuclear Biological Chemical (NBC) protection, so air intake might be filtered throuch coal filter. And it is impossible to burn the Abrams or T-72 crew through filtered air intake by Aluminium Thermobaric powder (that is ignited later by delayed fuse).

Yes, thats true. But a thermobaric bomb will consume ALL the oxygene in this area, so the tank cant "breath" and the gas turbine "eat" the oxygene inside the tank till no oxygene is there anymore. This will bring the gas turbine to stop working. Thermobaric bombs also called "Vacuum Bombs".

Numbers · « **Reply #12 on:** July 23, 2011, 12:33:09 PM »

Quote from: Ich on July 23, 2011, 11:49:13 AM

Yes, thats true. But a thermobaric bomb will consume ALL the oxygene in this area, so the tank cant "breath" and the gas turbine "eat" the oxygene inside the tank till no oxygene is there anymore. This will bring the gas turbine to stop working. Thermobaric bombs also called "Vacuum Bombs".

NBC protection means that crew compartment is completely sealed off from outside world and turbine engine. Otherwise tank turbine might have sucked toxic gas inside the crew compartment as Abrams turbine has air intake from outside (at the tank rear).

So there is no air leaks between tank's turbine and crew compartment. Crew compartment is even pressurised to repel radiated dust and poison gases entering via bearings and joints.

comandantecarlos · « **Reply #13 on:** July 23, 2011, 01:17:02 PM »

The termobarikus weapon is a good idea. However, the thin armor on the tank at the top of the tower. The most advanced missile attack from top.. The first such weapon was the Swedish BILL


Bofors - BILL 2 - Anti-Tank Guided Weapon	Small \| Large

Ich · « **Reply #14 on:** July 23, 2011, 04:57:18 PM »

Yes, nice antitank. Maybe better fire and forget.

Ayyash · « **Reply #15 on:** July 23, 2011, 05:59:53 PM »

Quote from: Numbers on July 23, 2011, 10:01:37 AM

to Ayyash:
1) T-72S can shoot laser guided HEAT ATGM which is very accurate. So you can shoot critical areas of enemy tank easily.
2) T-72S has a laser range finder so can aim AP Sabot rounds more accurately. Abrams can only be killed by hitting its critical areas.

Numbers

Neither of these abilities give the required level of accuracy to be able to reliably aim at and hit specific points on a tank like the drivers hatch, or the commanders cupola.

For example, take a look at the casualties during the Gulf War in 1991. The reason why the majority of US tanks were incapacitated by friendly fire is that it was very difficult for the TC, looking through thermal imagers, to make out friend from foe at the extreme range. Now, imagine trying to discern something that is only 70 cm across (such as a hatch) from the same imagery. It would be almost impossible. On top of that, imagine trying to aim at something like that with the FCS found within a T-72. A very steep, steep challenge if you ask me.

Missiles do give a fair degree of long-range accuracy, but it's still nowhere close to the level you are describing. At most, the operator would be able to choose what general face the missile hit - like the face, the hull sides, the turret sides, that sort of thing.

It's also worth mentioning that missiles are extremely expensive compared to traditional tank rounds and are only deployed sparingly. Traditionally, they aren't even used at anti-tank weapons. (though that's not necessarily universally true).

It's not impossible to hit these key vulnerable locations, but I'd wager to say that the majority of this would come down to basic luck more then anything. The question is whether or not this is a reliable strategy that can be used every time. I don't think it is because there are too many variables and too slim of a chance for it to work.

-----

I'm of the opinion that top-attack munitions are one of the better ways to defeat the armour arrays found in tanks like the M1A2+ but is still available to nations without the need to truly re-invent a new armoured vehicle.

Numbers · « **Reply #16 on:** July 24, 2011, 08:50:41 AM »

Quote from: Ayyash on July 23, 2011, 05:59:53 PM

Numbers

Neither of these abilities give the required level of accuracy to be able to reliably aim at and hit specific points on a tank like the drivers hatch, or the commanders cupola.

For example, take a look at the casualties during the Gulf War in 1991. The reason why the majority of US tanks were incapacitated by friendly fire is that it was very difficult for the TC, looking through thermal imagers, to make out friend from foe at the extreme range.

Ayyash,

That is the case during the night time. During the day time T-72S has optical lense sight (in visible light spectrum) that can zoom in onto Abrams, clearly giving gunner a close up look at enemy tank's specific areas. So gunner can zoom in and clearly aim at any part of Abrams tank.

Though I am not sure if night time gunner sight can do the same.

Ich · « **Reply #17 on:** July 24, 2011, 10:09:02 AM »

Quote from: Numbers on July 23, 2011, 12:33:09 PM

NBC protection means that crew compartment is completely sealed off from outside world and turbine engine. Otherwise tank turbine might have sucked toxic gas inside the crew compartment as Abrams turbine has air intake from outside (at the tank rear).

So there is no air leaks between tank's turbine and crew compartment. Crew compartment is even pressurised to repel radiated dust and poison gases entering via bearings and joints.

Numbers, this doesnt arise. As far as i know there are no oxygentanks inside the M1A2. So if a thermobaric bomb blasts above the tank, all things that function with oxygene stop cause of loss oxygene. And if the filtersystem normally let oxygen in, so also it let oxygene out ^^ So the resulting vacuum after explosion suck the air/oxygene out of the tank. And cause of the M1A2 isnt that "waterproof", the air/oxygene will be sucked out over different places....hmm, a NBC-Tank that isnt waterproof? Wtf?

Numbers · « **Reply #18 on:** July 24, 2011, 10:23:54 AM »

Quote from: Ich on July 24, 2011, 10:09:02 AM

Numbers, this doesnt arise. As far as i know there are no oxygentanks inside the M1A2. So if a thermobaric bomb blasts above the tank, all things that function with oxygene stop cause of loss oxygene. And if the filtersystem normally let oxygen in, so also it let oxygene out ^^ So the resulting vacuum after explosion suck the air/oxygene out of the tank.

Except NBC Air Filter and Air Pump system might slow down oxygen loss significantly. Saving the crew.
Air Pump might not even work in opposite (oxygen out) mode.

I do not know exactly, just thoughts.

Ayyash · « **Reply #19 on:** July 24, 2011, 06:11:43 PM »

Quote from: Numbers on July 24, 2011, 08:50:41 AM

Ayyash,

That is the case during the night time. During the day time T-72S has optical lense sight (in visible light spectrum) that can zoom in onto Abrams, clearly giving gunner a close up look at enemy tank's specific areas. So gunner can zoom in and clearly aim at any part of Abrams tank.

Though I am not sure if night time gunner sight can do the same.

Perhaps at extreme close ranges, but that would probably be it.

For instance, the South African Ratel with it's 90 mm gun was able to disable early T-XX series tanks by sneaking up behind them and shooting them in their engine compartment and turret ring. But this could only occur at absolute point-blank range which I think is more a strategy of last resort then anything else.

I'm also not too convinced of the quality of the gunners TBD-K1 combined with the 1A40-1. It's essentially an 8x monocular with a reticle projected onto it - that's it. With the exception of the LRF, everything else is input by the operator and calculated manually.

nomad · « **Reply #20 on:** July 24, 2011, 07:40:55 PM »

To make a sharp shooter , you need pair of eyes and lots of practice . Tank crew skill is a quality of the tank and it can compensate for other area of tank such as X magnification or armour etc ......


Bob Munden -- Impossible 200 Yard Shot	Small \| Large


Bob Munden World fastest Gun Record	Small \| Large

Ayyash · « **Reply #21 on:** July 24, 2011, 07:46:13 PM »

Sorry, but trick shots with handguns are a lot different from using the FCS on a T-72. While it is true that crew training is often more of a factor then simple equipment comparisons, there is a limit to what one can do.

nomad · « **Reply #22 on:** July 24, 2011, 07:53:12 PM »

I saw a TV programme about a civil era parrot gun that beat a modern artillery in hitting target ! Honest .


Live Fire With a Civil War Cannon	Small \| Large

Ayyash · « **Reply #23 on:** July 24, 2011, 08:00:39 PM »

I don't see how that is related to the topic at hand.

nomad · « **Reply #24 on:** July 24, 2011, 08:10:59 PM »

Well let me explain . The speed and acurracy of firing and also range of firing are a function of the skill of the shooter . I think this examples are perfect analogy , even proof of this statements . The ability of the equipment is only one factor in the performance of the system altogether . What inferiority may exist in one equipment can be overcome by skilled used of that equipment . Either we have to accept that crew skill is important or not . You seem to reject this altogether ! This is the part I don't see ! However simulations exist that allow for increased performance . The examples of tank on tank warfare in most modern war is few for comparison , especially those that exist in situations where there is symmetry .