You could bring it into contact with live high-voltage power lines!
Stop with the T-72 as a top line battle tank. The Soviet top line tank was the T-64 concurrently with the T-72. The T-72 was for lower echelon units and export to include rights to construct locally. Most Iraqi T-72’s were locally manufactured and of inferior quality.
Penetration of armor types and other capabilities are highly classified. Anything you see published is someone’s guess.
The Lockheed LOSAT can defeat even the Abrams’ DU armor.
What is the point of having advanced tanks? You blow the treads off, it is helpless. they are like those 1920s battleships-expensive to build and operate, useless in combat, and vulnerable to advanced weapons. Why not convert them to robotic operation? then at least, you don’t risk the crew’s lives.
The Soviet T72 was okay, but as you observed the T72M series was the “export” model. The T90-series is basically a fancied-up T72, redesignated because the T72 came away from the Gulf War with such a horrible reputation.
Are we talking abouttanks made of wood?
An ordinary dumb bomb when dropped close enough will do it - does not even need to hit.
Again, I am mostly interested in what could the Balkan countries (except Greece) do in my example? They don’t have Javelines, A-10’s or anything similar.
They have T-72’s, old Soviet AT guided missiles, the newest are the AT 7 and AT 10 Metis in the Bulgarian army, but they are still too old to do any damage to modern tanks, unless you hit a sweet spot, here is the equipment list of the Bulgarian army, which is maybe the strongest by equipment quality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_equipment_of_the_Bulgarian_land_forces
The Turkish air force is many times stronger than all Balkan countries airforces united (around 200 F-16’s for example, while in the Balkans, Serbia and Bulgaria have downgraded export Mig 29’s, combined maybe 10-15 in working order, they do have ground attack aircraft too, but if you don’t have air superiority, they’re useless) , the only good thing in the Balkans inventory would be the S-300 of the Bulgarian army, which still wouldn’t be enough to fight with +200 F-16’s.
Bottom line, Turkey has air superiority, 350 Leopard 2 tanks and Balkans has Soviet equipment from the 80’s, some of which is downgraded export variants, any way the Balkans could stop the Turks from invading them? As I said the scenario is of course unrealistic, but I am interested in how big of a change does a modern MBT actually make, since they cost so much.
Notice that in nearly all scenarios mentioned, you need one of two things, or both: 1) adequate concealment on land and no pesky enemy infantry to allow you to sneak up on a tank, or let the tank come close enough for you to fire your AT rocket, or 2) have the air all to yourself so you can drop all sorts of bombs and missiles on the enemy tanks.
Aside from the risk of getting hit by enemy fire, a tank will not necessarily come close enough to you, unless you’re its objective. Without air superiority, you will not be able to bring your helicopters anywhere near enough to launch your missiles.
So if the enemy has control over the air, has softened the ground up ahead enough with artillery, and with infantry support, his tanks are invincible. In a nuclear battlefield, it’s even more acute: no airplanes above you, no infantry alive. It’s just tank-to-tank.
A Saudi Abrams was recently destroyed in Yemen using what is probably a Tosun anti-tank guided missile:
Heavy tanks are useless in the Balkans. The bridges are too weak, roads too narrow and the terrain is just no good for tanks.
One man in a ditch with a magnetic bomb can stop a tank - sure he has to be a bit of a nutter, but history shows us that that part of the world is not short of nutters.
Heavy tanks are yesterday’s toy. A modern army needs to be fast and light on it’s feet.
Try taking a Balkan city with enemy main battle tanks lurking in every alley and camouflaged with rubble.
I seem to remember a thread on the Dope where we had a former Abrams tanker contributing. He mentioned that it was surprisingly easy to lose a track during abnormal maneuvers. Another poster asked if the tracks could be derailed with a bundle of rebar put through the big sprocket at the corners of the tank and the former tanker thought it was very possible. Will do some searching to see if I can dig it up.
Unless your talking about how do infantry take down a modern tank, be where it aint. Its probably easier to foul their fuel supply at source, than it is to take down one of them. Given time, go old school and dig a tiger trap, if the tank is going fast enough when it goes down, the crew are probably gonners when they hit bottom, fill in the hole and move on.
Immobilizing a tank is not so difficult with many man portable weapons. And that is an effective goal, if the tanks are the leading edge without enough support. A blitzkrieg sort of attack. I believe that Germany had a tactic called hedgehog or hedgerow? Man portable weapons to immobilize but not actually destroy the massive numbers of Russian tanks that they expected to face. Falling back while thinning out the number of tanks advancing. An immobile tank that is now behind the advancing front line is useless. The crew should start digging it in in case the line comes back and it can then be a pillbox.