Forums of the Megaverse®

Peacebringer wrote:So basically a paint ball gun could stop a tank.

A paintball gun and a lot of balls.

paint guns, huh? .50 cal's....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Sure....

There is a big difference between "possible" and "you really, really, really wouldn't want to do that!" For instance, it is "possible" to fall 30,000 feet and live, but do you want to do that?

http://nortygordytherudeone.blogspot.com/2006/07/worlds-highest-fall.html

Messing with a tank with a .50 cal is possible, but I wouldn't do that if I were you. There are better things to shoot at with a .50 cal than a tank.

The paint thing is pretty hilarious, though! Stupid, but funny.

-STS

But if you make sure those paint balls are adamantium it might stop a tank.

The best thing to do with a .50 cal is wait until the tank thinks it's safe to unbutton up and come outside of the tank.

Then you can pick them off.


And a .50 cal can destroy a tank. You just have to get that .50 cal traveling fast enough, like several times the speed of sound...

hmmm...If I recall correctly the M1 is a fuel monster but has a better weapon system than the challenger.The Merkava normally could have a squad of AT inf.But you said straight armor fight so I went with the Merkava.Call me crazy but I think the Merkava was built for that kind of terrain.

With the engine in front of you to take the hit makes it a nice tank. And the escape hatch in the back is pretty cool too.

I'd say none of these tanks have much to worry about in terms fo frontal armour penetration anyway.

The M1 has been penetrated by as little as 25 mm DU rounds from the rear and RPGs from the side. I'd submit that none of these tanks would still be fully operational after a hit from a 120 m from the flank or rear - though I suspect the crew would survive in all cases.

So it will amount to manoeuvre and tactics at that point. The Merkava is less mobile than the other two tanks which gives it a distinct disadvantage in this field, but really, at this point it's pretty much up to the men, not the machines anyway.

A good book on the M-1 I read years ago was "King of the Killing Zone." It talked about one case in the 1st Gulf War where an M-1 got stucked in the sand. It was attacked by three T-72 and destroyed all of them. They couldn't free it so decided to destoy it in place with another M-1 and after multiple hits from close range still only did minor damage. It was finally freed by tank recovery vehicles and was back in service very shortly after getting a new turrent.

Yes, I am aware of that book too.

I've also read a report on M1 losses in the latest Gulf combats and a 25 mm has gotten through the rear in a friendly fire incident and RPGs have coem throught he side. None of these have been catastrophic kills but mobility kills have resulted.

A 25 mm shell penetrated from the rear? I never heard about that. Could you elaborate more Jefffar. Please. Was it and engine hit? And I take it the RPGs on the sides took out the treads?

My understanding is the 25 mm was a blue on blue incident with a Bradly. Penetrated engine compartment and turret rear. No crew penetration of the crew compartment.

RPG incidents have generally been mobility kills, though in one case the RPG penetrated into the fighting compartment. Fortunately the slug of molten metal didn't hit anyone and didn't damage any equipment. To my understanding the tank was able to keep fighting.

WOW! Any links? I'd love to read that incident! Those guys were lucky!!!!

This is a power point created in 2003 of Abrams performance up to that date, though it doesn't have the RPG incident I'm talking about it's got the Abrams knocked out by a Bradly's 25 mm

Here is the Abrams knocked out by an RPG. This story was written before the source of the attack was confirmed. I was wrong about the tank continuing to fight though.

Jefffar wrote:This is a power point created in 2003 of Abrams performance up to that date, though it doesn't have the RPG incident I'm talking about it's got the Abrams knocked out by a Bradly's 25 mm

Here is the Abrams knocked out by an RPG. This story was written before the source of the attack was confirmed. I was wrong about the tank continuing to fight though.

The 25mm round was from the rear and it was made of Depleted Uranium. It's be rare to find a country, other than the US, that has enough uranium to use as ammo.

What struck me on the Abrams, that while a small weapon, can knock it out, it takes a lot to utterly destroy it. They used a 120mm Sabot round and two Maverick anti-tank bombs to utterly destroy one, to prevent it falling in enemy hands.

The russians have DU ammo, tungsten works almost as good as DU and there are lots of weapons out there with better penetration than a 25 m DUAP round.

The point is none of these tanks are invulnerable. Mobility kills and mission kills are still quite possible even if the catastrophic kill is incredibly difficult.

Thank you for the articles Jefffar. It was nice seeing the RI Arsenal mentioned in the article too. It's part of my home town.

I ran a computer simulation in Steel Panthers: MBT game.

I pit 18 Abrams, 18 Challengers and 18 Merkavas against 18 Abrams, 18 Challengers and 18 Merkavas in an ultimate slug-fest (Penetration-fest?)

Each side had 54 tanks.

One side lost all 54 tanks.

The winning side, here are the total surviving tanks.

Abrams: 16
Challengers: 9
Merkavas: 5

At longer range, it was a ricochet-fest. Most rounds that hit didn't penetrate the armor, (some did, however). When they got into close range with each other, that's when the carnage ensued.

A platoon of Abrams got the drop on two troops of Challengers at near point blank range and just blew the hell out of the Challengers. Every hit penetrated and as a kill, no crew surviving.

An Abrams Platoon and a Merkava Platoon engaged each other at long range. For the Israelis, every one out of every five or six rounds that hit an Abrams would penetrate. For the Americans, it was every four to five rounds hit, one would penetrate. So, in the end, the Abrams won out. Against the Challengers, the Merkavas faired similarly.

I used Merkava 4, the latest tank, which, had more structural points than the Challenger and Abrams.

I think the Abrams would come out ahead.

Jefffar wrote:The russians have DU ammo, tungsten works almost as good as DU and there are lots of weapons out there with better penetration than a 25 m DUAP round.

The point is none of these tanks are invulnerable. Mobility kills and mission kills are still quite possible even if the catastrophic kill is incredibly difficult.

I know the Russians did. They have natural resources coming out of their ears.

There's the aura of invincibility around the Abrams ever since Gulf War '91. Well, for one Arabs suck at war. And two, the targeting system and the skill of the tank crews made certain that few Iraqi t-72 ever had a chance to get a round off at them. And three, Soviet military equipment is designed for attacking, not defending.

Remember that first thrust into Baghdad in Gulf War '03? If Saddam saved some of this tanks and hid them from American air power in the city, he could have launch a massive point blank ambush that would have made every one forget about Black Hawk Down.

Most people, when they see the hull of a burnt out tank, they think of how impressive their military machines are, yet few realize their enemy's weapons are designed to do the exact same thing. We're just a little better at it.

Interesting. Never heard of that one. How accurate is there protrayal of the tanks?

It also doesn't help that the Iraqi T-72s were the "monkey models" that the Soviets used to export to anybody who they didn't think would be putting their tanks to the direct defence of the Soviet Union. Tests done on Warsaw Pact T-72s indicate that their armour was about as good as the western contemporaries, especially when the second generation ERA was used.

I think had Abrams met T-72 first in Europe, the Abrams would not have quite the same reputation as it did.


Incidentally, in the simulation, did you attempt to model the original scenario of a platoon of 4 vs a platoon of 4?

Also, what model of tank scored the most kills?

I agree the close range ambush Abrams vs Challengers would go bad for the Challengers, but the Challenger's greatest strength is it's ability to pick off targets at extreme range.

Have you run the simulation several times to build up an average? One or two lucky tactical situations (ie the ambush of the Challengers) could skew the results.

Aramanthus wrote:Interesting. Never heard of that one. How accurate is there protrayal of the tanks?

For the most part. They tried to make it as accurate as possible. Though, war tends to be very lethal. I had a game in which Yemens were able to stop a Stryker Co. with two 85mm Anti-tank guns. The Marines had lots of air support and even RPVs and still...

I played the Gulf War '91 scenario, the battle of '73 easting, expecting an outcome that produced lots of casualties for the US Army. The scenario played out exactly like the battle did. With the few Iraqi shells bouncing off the Abrams and the Abrams scoring massive direct kills. So I guess it's accurate.

Jefffar wrote:
Incidentally, in the simulation, did you attempt to model the original scenario of a platoon of 4 vs a platoon of 4?

Also, what model of tank scored the most kills?

I agree the close range ambush Abrams vs Challengers would go bad for the Challengers, but the Challenger's greatest strength is it's ability to pick off targets at extreme range.

Have you run the simulation several times to build up an average? One or two lucky tactical situations (ie the ambush of the Challengers) could skew the results.

I didn't want to run the 4x4 scenario because with few tanks, it's a matter of luck. With as many tanks as I could field, I could get a more realistic outcome.

I don't know which tank scored the most kills, but the were averaging three to five each. I first had them fight on pavement that was miles across. Maybe I'll try that next.

I'd like to hear those results after you run it several times for an average. Please keep us posted on this!

I'll do my best, but I should run the scenarios realistically, as you would find them on the battlefield. For instance, in an Israel-American conflict, Israel most likely will not have air superiority, that means some Merkavas will be hit with anti-tank bombs etc.

Cool! Take your time. I'm sure everyone here on this thread will read the results!

For some reason I have a relatively humorous image of thousands of raving infantry charging a tank and getting run over, all the while the driver is realizing that all the guts is starting to wear on the treads.

Colt47 wrote:For some reason I have a relatively humorous image of thousands of raving infantry charging a tank and getting run over, all the while the driver is realizing that all the guts is starting to wear on the treads.

Actually, in the game, Wargasm, you can run over infantry men. On your driver's screen, they make a blood stain that you have to use your windshield whippers to remove.

also, I think the guts would grease the tank: make it run better.

I think that is when you find a nice deep vertical hole to hide in.

Aramanthus wrote:I think that is when you find a nice deep vertical hole to hide in.

Like this?

http://www.deadairpodcast.com/uploaded_ ... 749214.jpg

Not the deep hole I'd jump into! Although I know a few people who'd jump in there. And they'd do it themselves.