Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Survivability of modern MBTs vs WWII weapons
HeavyD    8/24/2010 1:51:58 AM
Just how invincilbe woule a M1A2, Challenger 2 or Leopard 2 be vs WWII anti-tank weapons? Frontally at 500 meters could anyting dent a modern MBT? How about air-launched rockets? Artillery fire (how close would a 150 - 155mm round need to be to kill a tank or crews if buttoned up?) How about massive bombing efforts - at what proximity would a 500 LB GP bomb kill tank or buttoned-up crew? The Ferdinand/Elephant was vulnerable to mobility kills and to close-in attack with molotov tails, but would that even work against a modern MBT?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
HeavyD       8/24/2010 1:53:10 AM
D'ohh!  Bad dupe post, bad post.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Then and Now...   8/24/2010 12:36:29 PM
Frontally at 500 meters could anything dent a modern MBT?
Probably not, the Bazooka, Panzerfaust, even the 8.8 cm would most likely just "bounce off"
 
However, from side, top, or rear an M-1 or any modern MBT is still vulnerable to attack.  And I'd bet a Hi-velocity ATG like the 7.6 cm (US), or 17 pounder (UK) or 8.8 cm (Ger) or the 8.5 cm (Rus) would still be a threat, as would the Panzerfaust.
 
How about air-launched rockets
Possibly, the 60 pounder hitting the engine compartment of many tanks would still be a threat.  Assuming you could hit it, which was always the problem with A2G rockets.
 
Artillery fire (how close would a 150 - 155mm round need to be to kill a tank or crews if buttoned up?)
As close today as then.  People aren't any more concussion resistant today then they were in 1945...and shells haven't increased in explosive lethality, to be distinguished from overall lethality, that much since 1945.  Bottom-line: the 1945 15.5 cm shell weighed about 45 Kg., the modern 15.5 cm shell weighs about 45 Kg.  Today's explosives are not much more powerful than the 1945 filling, so blast-wise an M-1/M-107 shell of 1945 pretty much equals a modern 15.5 cm shell. Artillery is more lethal today because of increased range, accuracy, and response, plus the addition of bomblets.  But HE Common today is just as much a threat as HE Common of WWII, caliber for caliber.
 
How about massive bombing efforts - at what proximity would a 500 LB GP bomb kill tank or buttoned-up crew?
Sure, again people (crew) don't stand up to blast overpressure any better today than 70 years ago.
 
The Ferdinand/Elephant was vulnerable to mobility kills and to close-in attack with molotov tails, but would that even work against a modern MBT?
Not so much.  Dump flaming gasoline in the engine compartment of the M1/LeClerc/ and the like and the Halon or equivalent fire suppression system will douse the fire.  But get a second load of flaming gasoline into the engine compartment and you are going to burn wiring and hoses, just like you would have in 1945.  Rubber and wiring is rubber and wiring...the only difference is that the US tanks today, are not gasoline-powered, so they are less flammable.  But if the fuel line of a diesel engine is burned thru, AND you expose the diesel to burning gasoline you'll still get a nice fire.  They are HARDER to burn, not non-flammable.
As to mines, an M-1 is just as vulnerable to an AT mine of 1945 as was the Tiger.  Explode 10-15 Kg. of explosive under the track laying system of a tank, and expect that tank to stop.  The difference between then and now is rapidity of deployment (helicopters, aerial bombs, artillery shells, mechanical mine-layers) and sophistication of fuze and warhead.  But tank treads haven't gotten, somehow, "tougher".  You take 10 Kg. of C-4 or 10 Kg. of Comp. B and blow it off under a tank's treads, you'll stop the tank.  Just in 1945 it was harder to get the mine field into place.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Mikko       8/25/2010 2:52:16 AM
Agreed. Yet the only anti-tank measure that I would be worried about as a crew member (of a mysterious Leopard 2 in a WW2 battlefield) would be the AT-mines. Why? They are the only countermeasures that are not absolutely terrified and routed by the invulnerability, accuracy and speed of a modern tank. Well, P-47 -pilots aren't either if I wasn't allowed to take some tracked AA-platforms with me from the future too!
 
Tank crew's confidence could only be negated with an old-fashionded AT-minefield. Otherwise the guys inside were just too happy to rout the opponent or send them running before they were able to deploy any other viable countermeasures.
 
Artillery barrage with 120 mm projectiles and up could also lessen the confidence of the guys inside but I wonder if a FO of the day could ever fix the effect on the tank due to its speed, shock effect and mobility. My Leo 2 crew would know that their only worry are the minefields and would stop at nothing else.
 
(My favorite is to speculate what a mechanized infantry company cound do to mess up Sauron's plans in the War of the Rings, starting from the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, based in Minas Tirith.)
 
 
M
 
Quote    Reply

Othon       8/25/2010 8:53:01 AM
In short:

- at front - almost impossible
- from side and back - quite likely

Quick research - the most powerful anti-tank weapons of WW2:

- Panzerfaust - 220 mm RHA at 60 m max range (HEAT round)
- Panzerschreck - 200 mm RHA at 100 m max range (HEAT round)
- PAK43/KwK43 - 270 mm RHA at 100 m and 200 mm RHA at 1500 m at 0 deg (kinetic round)

Frontal armor of modern 3rd generation tanks is 800-900 mm RHA against kinetic rounds and 1500 mm against HEAT rounds. However side armor is much less thick. I think it is thinner than 250 mm RHA, of course without additional ERA plates now often mounted as asymmetrical armor kits i.e. TUSK. So above toys could penetrate side armor of modern tanks.
 
Quote    Reply

HeavyD       8/25/2010 3:47:12 PM
Thanks for the replies.  It is pretty clear that frontally modern MBT's are invincible although sensors, etc. could be damaged.  I am also assuming that modern tanks, which button-up very tightly with their NBC capability would also have vastly-improved protection from the overpressure and concussion of gravity bombs and artillery shells.  Would a 150/152/155mm HE round bother a tank and/or buttoned up crew at 10 meters?  A 500 lb GP at 50?
 
 
 
Mikko - let's hope your mech company can swap 5.56 for 7.62mm rifles.  Methinks an Orc would hardly blink at the first few 5.56 rounds.  And bringing this thread full-circle, a WWII Elefant and a Middle Earth Olifant both require mass flanking attacks (or a TOW round) to dispatch...
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Mikko    HeavyD   8/26/2010 5:18:14 AM

Thanks for the replies.  It is pretty clear that frontally modern MBT's are invincible although sensors, etc. could be damaged.  I am also assuming that modern tanks, which button-up very tightly with their NBC capability would also have vastly-improved protection from the overpressure and concussion of gravity bombs and artillery shells.  Would a 150/152/155mm HE round bother a tank and/or buttoned up crew at 10 meters?  A 500 lb GP at 50?

I believe the Coalition troop tankers in Iraq and A-stan have a good feel of what a 152 mm HE shell does to an Abrams/Chally when it goes off near it. I understand they have been widely used as IED's dug into ground on roadsides. Russia also might have a good deal of 45-50 year old men with something to say first hand on the subject in general.
 
10 kg chunk of AT-mine going off under the tracks doesn't kill the crew of a MBT but they do suffer from it; losing consciousness or at least focus, ears damaged, maybe broken limbs. This is naturally not first hand info but what I'm taught to expect from an immobilized-by-mine MBT - to be out for a while and start shooting as the dust settles. But as I said this is merely a hunch. 
 
Mikko - let's hope your mech company can swap 5.56 for 7.62mm rifles.  Methinks an Orc would hardly blink at the first few 5.56 rounds.  And bringing this thread full-circle, a WWII Elefant and a Middle Earth Olifant both require mass flanking attacks (or a TOW round) to dispatch...

7.62's of course! My main consideration are air protection from Nazguls, whether dedicating my APC's 12.7 mm AA-guns on them or for land targets; ability to charge into orc formation with APCs and getting back out; and the effect of 81 mm mortar shells in a tight orc formation - killer or a disappointment. An olifant should be an easy prey for 12.7 mm's head on as the rest of the larger beasts.

M
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics