Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-02-2011, 09:19 PM
Lumpy Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 15,561
Minimum weapon to damage an Abrams tank?

It's time for the gaming group I'm in to agree on a new campaign again and we're debating various possibilies. One discussion we've had got bogged down on the subject of tanks and anti-tank weapons (for simplicity's sake we're assuming early twenty-first century level tech). Simply put, what is the minimum gun that will produce some measurable damage on a main battle tank like the M1 Abrams? Would an M2 .50 caliber machine gun at least degrade the armor, or is anything less than 20mm a waste of time? The idea we're shooting (heh!) for is a tank on a mission in which it never encounters any single threat that could destroy it, but it's facing a "nibbled to death by squirrels" scenerio of cumulative damage over days or weeks from light artillery.

Last edited by Lumpy; 03-02-2011 at 09:19 PM. Reason: pselling
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 03-02-2011, 09:41 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 18,730
Shovel.

Dig a sufficient ditch and let it fall in.
  #3  
Old 03-02-2011, 09:48 PM
chacoguy chacoguy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Durango, CO
Posts: 3,624
There's never been an M-! Abrams lost in battle, so there's no real world answer.

I could be wrong.

Last edited by chacoguy; 03-02-2011 at 09:51 PM.
  #4  
Old 03-02-2011, 09:49 PM
Dano83860 Dano83860 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 275
Trouble is if you can get close enough to hit it you are already dead.
  #5  
Old 03-02-2011, 09:54 PM
smithsb smithsb is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: mid-Pacific
Posts: 2,415
Depends on what kind of damage you're talking about. The ability to absorb hits/explosions is classified. Some things to ponder.
1. Penetrate the hull and severely injure or kill the crew.
2. Mobility kill. Tear up a tread or drive gear.
3. Mobility kill. Rear shot damaging the engine.
4. Mobility kill. Triple stack of large anti-tank mines might flip it over on it's side.
5. Obscure things. Dozens of squirrels hitting the observation ports would degrade the crew's ability to see out unless they open up the hatches. Note that hundred of squirrels would be dead in the meantime.
Where are you coming from? Front armor is thickest/robust. You'd need at least a 5-6" diameter shaped charge warhead with a precursor charge to disrupt the reactive armor. Maybe the Russian 125mm sabot tank round could do sufficient damage. Again - classified.

Side attack against the body or turret would take a big diameter anti-tank missile or a Kinetic Energy/ HEAT round in the 100mm diameter and up range. Classified info here also.

From the top or bottom, armor is the thinnest. Some anti-tank missiles either fly a "top attack profile" (Javelin - US) or fire downward self-forging plate projectiles (TOW-2B - US). Helicopter, drone, aircraft fired missiles also do top attack. Anti-tank mines with plate projectiles could be expected to penetrate the bottom armor if sufficient in size.

Rear attack against the engine. An anti-tank round from a grenade launcher might do the trick. Shaped charge would mess up the engine or auxiliary equipment.

Basically small arms and machine guns would make sleeping difficult for the crew but that's about all.
The tank will take itself out of action fairly rapidly due to fuel consumption, mechanical problems (clogged filters), and ammunition shortages. It's going to need fuel pretty much every day if moving. If actively engaging, multiple ammo uploads as well each day.
  #6  
Old 03-02-2011, 09:54 PM
Patch Patch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: In my house
Posts: 1,607
Not a tanker here, but going off my love for tanks the only thing a .50 is going to do is damage periscopes and exterior gear. Your best bet for damage from light cannon would be against the tracks. I know the Abrams' armor is a mix of different materials in layers, but I think you'd have to get something fairly heavy involved to penetrate enough to start compromising the armor over larger areas.
  #7  
Old 03-02-2011, 09:55 PM
Patch Patch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: In my house
Posts: 1,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by smithsb View Post
Where are you coming from? Front armor is thickest/robust. You'd need at least a 5-6" diameter shaped charge warhead with a precursor charge to disrupt the reactive armor.
?? The Abrams doesn't have reactive armor.

ETA: Ah. They have it on the skirts now with TUSK systems.

Last edited by Patch; 03-02-2011 at 10:00 PM.
  #8  
Old 03-02-2011, 09:56 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 18,730
If you threw enough Molotov Cocktails at it could you heat the inside sufficiently to make the crew bail?

Otherwise define what damaging the tank means.

My understanding is the treads are a weak point. Break that and the tank is going nowhere. However, the crew can still swivel the turret and shoot the gun. Is that disabled enough or are we talking totally dead tank?

In which case I go back to the shovel. Tank traps have been a part of warfare since the things were invented. See what the Soviets achieved at Kursk. They built massive (as in a lot) tank defenses around there. Pretty much all done with peasant labor and hand tools. Screwed the Germans pretty well.
  #9  
Old 03-02-2011, 09:59 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 72,184
What's the ventilation like in a tank? Could you get something poisonous or noxious into the crew compartment? Alternately, could you clog up the vents and suffocate the crew?
  #10  
Old 03-02-2011, 10:16 PM
Patch Patch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: In my house
Posts: 1,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
What's the ventilation like in a tank? Could you get something poisonous or noxious into the crew compartment? Alternately, could you clog up the vents and suffocate the crew?
Modern tanks are equipped to survive in a nuclear, biological, or chemical environment. Like any container, close the air vents and you'll eventually kill everyone inside.

It's my understanding that modern western tanks are fairly resistant to Molotov cocktails and the like with automated fire suppression systems.
  #11  
Old 03-02-2011, 10:21 PM
Heyoka13 Heyoka13 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 657
Would there be an 'easy' tweak you could do to the barrel of the gun to insure a misfire the next time they tried to fire a shell?

Like snag it with a chain anchored securely and bend it a little?
  #12  
Old 03-02-2011, 10:23 PM
Patch Patch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: In my house
Posts: 1,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heyoka13 View Post
Would there be an 'easy' tweak you could do to the barrel of the gun to insure a misfire the next time they tried to fire a shell?

Like snag it with a chain anchored securely and bend it a little?
Doubtful.

And don't forget, there's an awful lot on the tank that's going to make your day unpleasant as you try all of this.
  #13  
Old 03-02-2011, 10:33 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 18,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heyoka13 View Post
Would there be an 'easy' tweak you could do to the barrel of the gun to insure a misfire the next time they tried to fire a shell?

Like snag it with a chain anchored securely and bend it a little?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patch View Post
Doubtful.

And don't forget, there's an awful lot on the tank that's going to make your day unpleasant as you try all of this.
My understanding is sticking your finger in a gun barrel is enough to cause the gun to backfire and cause the shooter problems.

Yes, your finger is toast.

That said, if true, doesn't sound like it takes a lot to plug a gun barrel.

Obviously a tank's gun needs more than your finger to plug it up but presumably if you could stuff something down the barrel you might disable the main gun.

Of course pulling that off is another matter. I imagine your chances of dying while trying to stuff something in the barrel of a tank are pretty high.

In theory though, if you pulled it off, you could disable the main gun with mud.
  #14  
Old 03-02-2011, 10:35 PM
chacoguy chacoguy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Durango, CO
Posts: 3,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
My MISunderstanding is sticking your finger in a gun barrel is enough to cause the gun to backfire and cause the shooter problems.
FTFY

Last edited by chacoguy; 03-02-2011 at 10:35 PM.
  #15  
Old 03-02-2011, 10:47 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 18,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by chacoguy View Post
FTFY
So, you point a gun at me, I stick my finger in the barrel (firmly) and you shoot the gun and all that happens is I get my finger blown off (and perhaps part of my hand)?
  #16  
Old 03-02-2011, 10:58 PM
Patch Patch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: In my house
Posts: 1,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
So, you point a gun at me, I stick my finger in the barrel (firmly) and you shoot the gun and all that happens is I get my finger blown off (and perhaps part of my hand)?
Mythbusters covered this. Short answer - yes.
  #17  
Old 03-02-2011, 10:58 PM
Heyoka13 Heyoka13 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 657
Well, we have seen, for instance, tanks in urban settings (Tienanmen Square) and at least occasionally, civilians get close to them.

I am wondering what would happen if a big handful of masonry drill bits was chucked into the gun and then the tank crew attempted to fire it.

Are the barrels rifled? Seems like hardened metal rods might jam it up pretty bad. The shell probably would not detonate, but overpressure in the gun could be a problem, and once you jam a shell in the barrel, the gun is toast.
  #18  
Old 03-02-2011, 11:06 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 18,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patch View Post
Mythbusters covered this. Short answer - yes.
Neat!

Do you have a link to the episode? (I believe you...I just want to see them do it)
  #19  
Old 03-02-2011, 11:09 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 18,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heyoka13 View Post
Are the barrels rifled?
IIRC the Abrams was upgraded to the smooth-bore rifle.
  #20  
Old 03-02-2011, 11:10 PM
Der Trihs Der Trihs is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patch View Post
It's my understanding that modern western tanks are fairly resistant to Molotov cocktails and the like with automated fire suppression systems.
That came up in the earlier tank thread about why they are used against protests; it was mentioned that yes, they have fire suppression systems that make them more difficult to hurt that way than older tanks. But enough fire will cause the fire suppressant system to run out, naturally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heyoka13 View Post
Are the barrels rifled?
Earlier versions were rifled, later versions are smoothbore.
  #21  
Old 03-02-2011, 11:12 PM
Heyoka13 Heyoka13 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 657
How about a bag of ammonium nitrate fertilizer packed in the barrel?

They fire the gun, the shell detonates 10 pounds of explosive AHEAD of itself in the barrel.

Kerblooey!
  #22  
Old 03-02-2011, 11:15 PM
Heyoka13 Heyoka13 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 657
Crap,

It occurs to me the fertilizer won't be contained like the breach of the gun is. The explosion will just blow out the end of the barrel, followed closely by the shell.

You'd need something heavy in the barrel on top of the ammonium nitrate.
  #23  
Old 03-02-2011, 11:25 PM
Ranchoth Ranchoth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: The Brink
Posts: 11,281
You've got a coaxial machine gun mounted with the main gun, though. The attacker could get sprayed off if they tried to get to the muzzle of main gun...assuming they could even reach it!

(Say, uh, does this thread remind anyone else of the old Saturday Night Live "Desert Storm press briefing" sketch? "I have time for two more questions. Yeah? " "Yes, Farud Hashami, Baghdad Times. Where are your troops, and can I go there and count them? ")
  #24  
Old 03-02-2011, 11:30 PM
Patch Patch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: In my house
Posts: 1,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Neat!

Do you have a link to the episode? (I believe you...I just want to see them do it)
You'll have to sort through this five part series to see which clip has it. I believe it starts at the very end and continues into the rest of the series.
  #25  
Old 03-02-2011, 11:32 PM
Rick Rick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 16,451
I gallon of gasoline + 1 match
  #26  
Old 03-02-2011, 11:33 PM
Patch Patch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: In my house
Posts: 1,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranchoth View Post
You've got a coaxial machine gun mounted with the main gun, though. The attacker could get sprayed off if they tried to get to the muzzle of main gun...assuming they could even reach it!

(Say, uh, does this thread remind anyone else of the old Saturday Night Live "Desert Storm press briefing" sketch? "I have time for two more questions. Yeah? " "Yes, Farud Hashami, Baghdad Times. Where are your troops, and can I go there and count them? ")
Damn near peed myself watching that sketch.

Don't recall the book, but they covered a Marine armored unit escaping the initial Chinese assault. The Chinese troops tried repeatedly to destroy by firing up the barrels of the tanks, in the hopes of either detonating the shells inside or getting lucky and getting rounds in when the breach was open. They weren't successful.
  #27  
Old 03-03-2011, 12:04 AM
Rhythmdvl Rhythmdvl is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Shakedown Street
Posts: 12,948
Maybe if you had enough bananas (and cajones).
  #28  
Old 03-03-2011, 12:34 AM
Declan Declan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Barrie , Ontario
Posts: 5,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
It's time for the gaming group I'm in to agree on a new campaign again and we're debating various possibilies. One discussion we've had got bogged down on the subject of tanks and anti-tank weapons (for simplicity's sake we're assuming early twenty-first century level tech). Simply put, what is the minimum gun that will produce some measurable damage on a main battle tank like the M1 Abrams? Would an M2 .50 caliber machine gun at least degrade the armor, or is anything less than 20mm a waste of time? The idea we're shooting (heh!) for is a tank on a mission in which it never encounters any single threat that could destroy it, but it's facing a "nibbled to death by squirrels" scenerio of cumulative damage over days or weeks from light artillery.
I'd start with a five inch gun and work up from there.

Declan
  #29  
Old 03-03-2011, 06:48 AM
kferr kferr is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: 51.3180N, 0.7300W
Posts: 2,108
Where is the 'gas cap' on a tank? Could you sneak up and dump in a bunch of water or fine grit to clog the filters and/or damage the engine?
  #30  
Old 03-03-2011, 07:51 AM
Machine Elf Machine Elf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 10,262
Could you "blind" the tank crew by spraying the tank with some kind of obscurant? If the periscopes/cameras/windows are all covered with ink, the tank crew can't drive anywhere or respond to threats without opening a hatch, thus exposing their fleshy parts to enemy fire.
  #31  
Old 03-03-2011, 08:01 AM
Hermitian Hermitian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,837
Man, this thread heavy on guesses, low on info.

Check out this Brief. I have no ability to fact check it.

Last edited by Hermitian; 03-03-2011 at 08:01 AM.
  #32  
Old 03-03-2011, 08:02 AM
Lumpy Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 15,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by smithsb View Post
Basically small arms and machine guns would make sleeping difficult for the crew but that's about all.
That's what we're talking about- where does a gun (as far as tanks go) stop being "small arms" and starts being artillery? Maybe a .50 caliber only dings the armor; does a 20mm chip out pockmarks? Does a 25mm crater the armor or crack plates? The main gun on the A-10 Avenger (a.k.a. "Warthog) is 30mm, and that definitely is something tanks have to worry about.

The idea is that the tank is continually taking forlorn-hope shots from underarmed opponents and while no single shot has any real hope of taking the tank out, the tank is slowly getting beat up.

Last edited by Lumpy; 03-03-2011 at 08:05 AM.
  #33  
Old 03-03-2011, 08:12 AM
Patch Patch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: In my house
Posts: 1,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post
Could you "blind" the tank crew by spraying the tank with some kind of obscurant? If the periscopes/cameras/windows are all covered with ink, the tank crew can't drive anywhere or respond to threats without opening a hatch, thus exposing their fleshy parts to enemy fire.
You can replace periscopes from inside the tank.
  #34  
Old 03-03-2011, 08:17 AM
Machine Elf Machine Elf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 10,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patch View Post
You can replace periscopes from inside the tank.
How many have they got? Or are you talking about retracting the 'scope to clean it, and then reinstalling it?

If they're replacing them, then eventually they'll run out.

If they're cleaning them, then maybe an acid attack, or some kind of etchant that permanently damages the optics.

Either way, they would be at least temporarily blinded, presenting an opportunity for a more close-up attack that might be able to damage other systems.
  #35  
Old 03-03-2011, 08:21 AM
bump bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 15,100
I seem to remember that in OIF, a RPG round penetrated the side hull armor of an Abrams.

I suspect that from the sides and rear, M1s aren't nearly as invulnerable as they seem to be frontally. I'd bet that many (most?) infantry AT weapons would penetrate if fired from those angles. They'd definitely penetrate the top of the tank.

Problem is, we generally don't send tanks unsupported by infantry into areas where infantry could easily get shots on the sides and rear.
  #36  
Old 03-03-2011, 08:25 AM
Patch Patch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: In my house
Posts: 1,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
That's what we're talking about- where does a gun (as far as tanks go) stop being "small arms" and starts being artillery? Maybe a .50 caliber only dings the armor; does a 20mm chip out pockmarks? Does a 25mm crater the armor or crack plates? The main gun on the A-10 Avenger (a.k.a. "Warthog) is 30mm, and that definitely is something tanks have to worry about.

The idea is that the tank is continually taking forlorn-hope shots from underarmed opponents and while no single shot has any real hope of taking the tank out, the tank is slowly getting beat up.
The problem is a tank isn't uniformly protected. You're not taking out an M1A2 Abrams from the front, as the armor there is over 2 ft thick. But a Bradley's 25mm will take one out from the rear as the engine compartment isn't as well protected. Your light weapons will go 'ping ping ping' from the front, and will take out the tank from the rear. A-10's aren't just hitting the sides and rear of tanks, they're hitting the top as well, which makes them deadly. Because of the variation in armor thicknesses, your story goes from "we can't touch it" to "well, it's dead, now what" fairly quickly.

How much damage can the main armor matrix of an Abrams take before it begins failing? Who knows? The military won't tell, so we have to guess on such stuff and frankly, there's no data on which to make a guess.
  #37  
Old 03-03-2011, 08:26 AM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 16,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post
Could you "blind" the tank crew by spraying the tank with some kind of obscurant? If the periscopes/cameras/windows are all covered with ink, the tank crew can't drive anywhere or respond to threats without opening a hatch, thus exposing their fleshy parts to enemy fire.

It's not intended to mock you.... But the more I read the thread, the more I have the mental picture of a Tex Avery cartoon, with droopy putting his finger into the gun barrel, splashing the tank with a bucket of ink, etc...
  #38  
Old 03-03-2011, 08:46 AM
Machine Elf Machine Elf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 10,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
It's not intended to mock you.... But the more I read the thread, the more I have the mental picture of a Tex Avery cartoon, with droopy putting his finger into the gun barrel, splashing the tank with a bucket of ink, etc...
I freely confess that a lot of what I know about tanks comes from playing Battlezone some 30 years ago.

FWIW, the thread has shifted from "what's the minimum weapon that will damage a tank" to "how can we stop a tank without anti-tank weapons" - at which point your only option is to get creative and hope for the best (while expecting to die).
  #39  
Old 03-03-2011, 08:56 AM
SenorBeef SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 26,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
That's what we're talking about- where does a gun (as far as tanks go) stop being "small arms" and starts being artillery? Maybe a .50 caliber only dings the armor; does a 20mm chip out pockmarks? Does a 25mm crater the armor or crack plates? The main gun on the A-10 Avenger (a.k.a. "Warthog) is 30mm, and that definitely is something tanks have to worry about.
The A-10 isn't much of a threat to modern tanks. The early era tanks it was meant to destroy had critically weak top armor that the 30mm rounds woul penetrate, but subsequent generations were beefed up. It's still useful as an anti-vehicle weapon - but not against modern tanks so much.

That's the thing about armor - if you don't penetrate it, you tend not to hurt it at all. You could ping a 20mm gun off the side of a tank all day and not hurt it. Something generally either penetrates or doesn't, and if it doesn't, no harm done. I don't actually know what would happen in extreme cases (say a 75mm recoilless rifle being fired at one over and over) - I suppose if you could hit it in the same spot you'd eventually weaken the armor, but there's not a lot of real world experience with this sort of thing since it's a pretty implausible scenario.
  #40  
Old 03-03-2011, 08:57 AM
Malthus Malthus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 17,865
How about luring the tank into attempting to cross a deep hole covered by camoflage netting? Would that trap a tank?
  #41  
Old 03-03-2011, 09:01 AM
The Great Sun Jester The Great Sun Jester is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 13,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
IIRC the Abrams was upgraded to the smooth-bore rifle.
By "rifle" do you mean "barrel"? I thought "smooth bore" and "rifle" were mutualy exclusive.
  #42  
Old 03-03-2011, 09:12 AM
Musicat Musicat is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sturgeon Bay, WI USA
Posts: 19,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post
Could you "blind" the tank crew by spraying the tank with some kind of obscurant? If the periscopes/cameras/windows are all covered with ink, the tank crew can't drive anywhere or respond to threats without opening a hatch, thus exposing their fleshy parts to enemy fire.
The problem with many of these ideas reminds me of the "How do you bell the cat?" children's story. While plugging up a gun barrel might work, you have to expose yourself an awful lot to do it.

Remember when the mice got together and decided that they could save their collective assess if only they knew the cat was coming, and a bell around the collar would be ample warning. All agreed; problem solved. Next question, "Who will put the bell on?"
  #43  
Old 03-03-2011, 09:15 AM
Sailboat Sailboat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 11,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
That's what we're talking about- where does a gun (as far as tanks go) stop being "small arms" and starts being artillery? Maybe a .50 caliber only dings the armor; does a 20mm chip out pockmarks? Does a 25mm crater the armor or crack plates? The main gun on the A-10 Avenger (a.k.a. "Warthog) is 30mm, and that definitely is something tanks have to worry about.
The presentation Hermitian linked to mentions one being penetrated in the rear armor by a 25mm DU (depleted uranium) round. Two things I take away from that information: that must have been a US Bradley AFV, so either a friendly-fire accident or an attempt to destroy a disabled tank; and if the latter, the one hole implies penetration was unusual, as a 25mm cannon would normally fire many rounds.

I have no cite, but I recently read that, although for a long time no M-1 had been destroyed by penetrating enemy fire, two M-1s have now been lost to penetrating fire. What I read did not specify how (which may even be classified), but the author spent a lot of time talking about Kornet anti-tank missiles. I also read that in numerous attempts to destroy M-1s that they were abandoning, US forces were unable to penetrate, or in some cases penetrated only after multiple attempts, the newer armor supplemented by depleted uranium mesh, even at point-blank range using tank main guns. That's really impressive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
The idea is that the tank is continually taking forlorn-hope shots from underarmed opponents and while no single shot has any real hope of taking the tank out, the tank is slowly getting beat up.
If you haven't already, you should watch The Beast.
  #44  
Old 03-03-2011, 09:23 AM
Scumpup Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13,183
I bet you could destroy one by suspending two enormous logs from rope slings and releasing them to simultaneously swing down and hit the tank from the sides.
  #45  
Old 03-03-2011, 09:28 AM
Heyoka13 Heyoka13 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 657
OK, thinking out of the box here, take crescent wrenches and a socket set and just start taking the tank apart.
  #46  
Old 03-03-2011, 09:29 AM
Sailboat Sailboat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 11,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by smithsb View Post
Basically small arms and machine guns would make sleeping difficult for the crew but that's about all.
I suppose you could try to lure a tank into a trap of soem kind by pinging small arms off the turret on the assumption it would drive over to where the shooting came from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smithsb View Post
It's going to need fuel pretty much every day if moving. If actively engaging, multiple ammo uploads as well each day.
One interesting point made in the presentation Hermitian linked to was that while in hostile country, the need to constantly traverse the turrets impacted maintenance and fuel consumption.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
If you threw enough Molotov Cocktails at it could you heat the inside sufficiently to make the crew bail?
No cite, but I recently read that an M-1 set on fire during urban fighting was abandoned without recovering the driver's body (too hot to go in there). When the wreck was recovered hours later, the driver was found alive and unhurt, having been protected by the automatic fire suppression system (and, I'd guess, by bottled oxygen) inside the flaming wreck.

So I conclude it would take a lot of flammable material to achieve this on an Abrams.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
In which case I go back to the shovel. Tank traps have been a part of warfare since the things were invented. See what the Soviets achieved at Kursk. They built massive (as in a lot) tank defenses around there. Pretty much all done with peasant labor and hand tools. Screwed the Germans pretty well.
Yeah, the belt of fixed defenses (including anti-tank ditches, prepared gun posiions, and mines) was a hundred miles deep at Kursk.
  #47  
Old 03-03-2011, 09:29 AM
Heyoka13 Heyoka13 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 657
Oh, damn, it's METRIC!


  #48  
Old 03-03-2011, 09:31 AM
Malthus Malthus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 17,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heyoka13 View Post
OK, thinking out of the box here, take crescent wrenches and a socket set and just start taking the tank apart.

To expand - drive up in a truck labelled "roadside tank repair"?
  #49  
Old 03-03-2011, 09:32 AM
Machine Elf Machine Elf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 10,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicat View Post
The problem with many of these ideas reminds me of the "How do you bell the cat?" children's story. While plugging up a gun barrel might work, you have to expose yourself an awful lot to do it.

Remember when the mice got together and decided that they could save their collective assess if only they knew the cat was coming, and a bell around the collar would be ample warning. All agreed; problem solved. Next question, "Who will put the bell on?"
A cat is pretty good at detecting, and defending against, attackers approaching from pretty much any direction.

Is the same true of a tank?

Can a tank crew shoot at individual soldiers approaching from the sides or rear? Can the tank crew respond rapidly if it's an ambush (e.g. a soldier jumps out from behind a tree as the tank rolls by, and splatters it with ink)? What's the small-caliber machine gun like on a tank? Is it a remote-controlled thing that might take a second or two to whirl around and zero in on such an attack, or is it a tank crew member who pops out of a hatch with a handheld weapon? If the former, does it have a limited range of elevation, such that it might be difficult to target a soldier standing/crouching right next to the tank?
  #50  
Old 03-03-2011, 09:33 AM
Sailboat Sailboat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 11,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malthus View Post
To expand - drive up in a truck labelled "roadside tank repair"?
Chicks! The mechanics should be hot chicks in tank tops (duh!). From what I've seen of soldiers, the crew might be happy to let them crawl around, bending over gearboxes and handling tools.

This could work!
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:08 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017