Old problem on the new tank?

[Billnew]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-03-29-abrams-tank-a_x.htm

Our great heavy tank might be excellent against other tanks but against
people its got the same old problem.

Like most tanks the armor is toughest in front, like the Tiger tanks of WWII
our tank is weak in the rear. But also has poor armor underneath and on top.

These weaknesses are the most comon spot on most tanks. Why have the great minds designing a tank not improved these areas?

The article says the enemy is inteligent. But from what I know of tanks this is an old problem.

It seems that in the 21st century of tanks, and the money we have put into this tank that we could have reduced the weakness.

 

[StromRider]

As you noted the Abrams is a very expensive and heavy tank. To have upgraded the armour in places such as the top, rear, and bottom would have added to both the cost and weight.

If a tank gets too heavy it limits how it can be transported and where it can be deployed. The Abrams is already at the top of the practical weight scale. And the more expensive a weapons system is the more apprehension there can be about putting it in danger.

Tanks can be great in urban warfare for their direct fire ability and phsycological affect but they need infantry support to survive. Tanks do not lead in close ground, that includes urban areas. Infantry must lead and tanks follow giving support. It seems that too often the insurgents are getting in too close to the tanks and able to hit their vulnerable spots. The tanks are outrunning their infantry support which can be very easy to do in a buttoned down tank with very limited visibility while the infantry has to constantly stop and take cover due to small arms fire.

In short, there is not much more protection that can be put on the tanks given weight/cost considerations. Better tank/infantry coordination is required in this type of battle.

 

[Billnew]

Seems like a pair would be better for in city warfare. Each facing different directions.
So the tough side would be to the front and back.
But that still leaves the top weakness.

Didn't they use sandbags to help in Vietnam? Speed in town isn't as important, so the added sand would hurt.
Seems like they could use Kevlar technology to protect the engine and personel. Light
flexible armor.

 

[StromRider]

Seems like a pair would be better for in city warfare. Each facing different directions.

Ever try driving forward in a closed down tank? I can't imagine having to be the tank that would be driving backwards under combat conditions. I know what you are trying to say but tanks have to be mobile and you just can't back up in combat conditions.

Didn't they use sandbags to help in Vietnam? Speed in town isn't as important, so the added sand would hurt.
Seems like they could use Kevlar technology to protect the engine and personel. Light flexible armor.

Sandbags might be of help on the top of the turret and chassis. Additional kevlar might be an option but again you are driving up the cost on an already very expensive vehicle.

No weapons system will ever be perfect. A counter measure will always be found to every defensive measure taken. That seems to be the nature of warfare and weapons development.

 

[inquisitor_11]

Sandbags might be of help on the top of the turret and chassis. Additional kevlar might be an option but again you are driving up the cost on an already very expensive vehicle.

No weapons system will ever be perfect. A counter measure will always be found to every defensive measure taken. That seems to be the nature of warfare and weapons development.

I dare say that sandbags would be more effective and expedient in this situation than kevlar, given the nature of the threat.

Its probably worth pointing out that most top attacks taking place in Iraq are done with RPG's, which I'm sure you realise are NOT new technology. As such its not a threat from evolving technology, but rather simply better employment of existing weapons.If they weren't fighting in built up areas then there'd be no real threat from RPG's used that way.

 

[daveleau]

No weapons system will ever be perfect. A counter measure will always be found to every defensive measure taken. That seems to be the nature of warfare and weapons development.

So true...except for the B-52 of course. The tank is not really designed for urban combat with terror cells. Our military equipment is built to fight other armies, to which it is nearly invincible. Handling of terror cells is normally something done by special ops and the use of a tank in this way is going to accentuate its flaws. I think with the current budgeting changes, the US Army will see some big improvements.

 

[inquisitor_11]

Our military equipment is built to fight other armies, to which it is nearly invincible

Except for those who have specific top attack weapons/sub-munitions or comparable MBT's... or cities and RPG-7's....

 

[daveleau]

Does any army actively employ these? I'm not as up-to-date on weapons that don't affect high altitude targets. I know the terrorists do, but I don't think there is a technology out there that can exploit this in the normal or old-style of army on amry fighting (compared to terrorist tactics).

 

[inquisitor_11]

Yeah, if an army has conventional artillery or artillery rocket systems there are rounds available that have specific AT sub-munitions designed for top attacks. Alot of the newer ATGW's also have a specific top attack capability (e.g. BILL 2). Attack Helo's that have ATGW's are also quite capable of carrying them out (not that they really need to though).

Also, pretty much anyone that knows how to use any SRAAW will know that a top attack is always a good way to go about taking out a tank, the only problem is getting in a position to do that- which is one of the advantages that insurgents in Iraqi cities have.

 

[Zeratul]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-03-29-abrams-tank-a_x.htm

Our great heavy tank might be excellent against other tanks but against
people its got the same old problem.

Like most tanks the armor is toughest in front, like the Tiger tanks of WWII
our tank is weak in the rear. But also has poor armor underneath and on top.

These weaknesses are the most comon spot on most tanks. Why have the great minds designing a tank not improved these areas?

The article says the enemy is inteligent. But from what I know of tanks this is an old problem.

It seems that in the 21st century of tanks, and the money we have put into this tank that we could have reduced the weakness.

? why would u need armor beneatht the tank? jw

 

[inquisitor_11]

You dont really need armour underneath (AT mines will usually blow off a track rather than penetrate the hull), rather its simply a weak spot. As such FE's come up with clever ways to get tanks to expose their underside so you can get an easy kill.

 

[2Timothy2]

No matter what you do, tanks, and all armor, will be at a disadvantage against us foot soldiers in urban terrain. They get the nod in open deserts. heh But then we just call in the AF boys. More armor is not the answer, rather as has been said, tanks should support the infantry, and not get out ahead. Not easy to do, but that's what discipline is all about. In fact, they might be better off going the other direction and making smaller tanks for urban combat.

 

[fdiniz]

peace and love