Bradley vs T-72

[Az]

The 8.8cm KwK43 fitted to the King Tiger was the most powerful all round tank gun from WWII

What about the 150+mm cannon on the KV-2 ?(was it Mk2? don't remember )

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
Guys, if it makes any difference, the Capt. did say that the 25mm gun did kill the tanks.

He didn't specify frontal kills. The side and rear armor on the T-72 are much thinner, since Soviet design principles generally trade off side protection for mobility. The Abrams just went for brute force horsepower to increase all around protection, and both sides design choices reflected cold war estimates of relative numbers of vehicles engaged. The US expected some infiltration of it's positions, and to make interdiction raids against Soviet supply lines, while the Soviets intended to attack in mass formations, and use overwatch and numbers to make up for weaker side protection.

edit - typo "read" for "rear"

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Azazel

The 8.8cm KwK43 fitted to the King Tiger was the most powerful all round tank gun from WWII

What about the 150+mm cannon on the KV-2 ?(was it Mk2? don't remember )

It was an infantry support tank, with a 152 mm howitzer. The largest WW2 Soviet gun with a dedicated AT round was the 122mm L/43 found on the IS series of tanks and the ISU-122 tank destroyer.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I've read somewhere that frontal armor on an Abrams (and may I interject here that its just so cool to have the same family name) is in the neighborhood of 600-700 mm. That's about two feet, to us ignorant Americans.

That's an estimated equivalence of the real thickness of the Chobham armor compared to face hardened cast steel.

The M1 was designed when CE penetatrators (HESH, HEAT, etc.) were considered the primary AT threat, and Chobham armor was designed specifically to deal with that threat, without the problems associated with reactive armor panels. Later on, KE penetrators reasserted themselves as the tank killer of choice, so the A1 and A2 series of the M1 adds a 30mm DU layer to the front hull, glacis and turret armor, and to the side turret armor.

Armor thicknesses I've seen are:
Front hull: 380mm (+30mm DU M1A1 >)
Glacis: 310mm (+30mm DU M1A1 >)
Front turret: 420mm (+30mm DU M1A1 >)
Side turret: 360mm (+30mm DU M1A1 >)
Side hull: 280mm
Rear: 75mm hardened steel (non-Chobham)
Turret roof: 40mm hardened steel (non-Chobham)

[Kramerman]

interesting... how good is that french MBT, i believe its called like the LeClerc or somethn like that. All i know is that it has a autoloader of some regard, but thats it. IS it anything compared to the challenger, leopard II, or Abrams. And how would the Israeli... err... Merkuva (?)... i dont recall its exact name... anyway how would it compare as well?

Also, for city fighting, i would imagine that some sort of heavily armored AFV with multiple, very well armored machine gun turrets would be effective (in addition to the infantry gun ports), as it would be able to protect the inner personal from just about anything. It woud not have to be fast (as it would merely cruise down city streets, it wouldnt have to manuever in open combat), just extremely well armored, all the way around. Is there some flaw in my thinking, or has the military looked into such a thing (as for years now they have been saying that they are trying to reform the military into a "brush war" force... for urban combat and and such)?
Tho, the Bradlys seem to be doing a pretty good job, both them adn the Abrams seem vulnerable in an urban stuation.

[Ned]

MTG,

"3rd Squadron 7th Cavalry
The commander of the Apache Troop, spoke about a major tank engagement as his crew rumbled along a highway west of Baghdad. Despite being outnumbered, the U.S. group vanquished the Iraqi Republican Guard force within minutes, thanks to superior armed vehicles and devastatingly powerful ammunition. The T-72s were a formidable presence, dug in and well protected behind barriers, anywhere from a range of half-mile to a mile away. "It's different from small-arms and RPGs [rocket-propelled-grenades.] That can be intense, but there is the relative safety of being in a tank. It is quite a different feeling when you are "staring down T-72s dug in, in fighting positions."

The fire fight was forceful but brief. It was 10 minutes of probably the most intense fighting, The main gun rounds from the Iraqi tanks, for the most part, fell short or flew too high, Lyle said. But the U.S. cavalry squadron hit its marks, destroying an estimated 20 or more armored Iraqi adversaries, without the loss of a single U.S. vehicle.U.S. Bradley fighting vehicles, despite being lighter, wiped out some of the Soviet-vintage T-72 tanks, a significant military milestone.

The secret for success? The Bradleys fired smaller shells, but they were of a particularly punishing variety made with depleted uranium, which pierced the armor of the heavier Iraqi vehicles. "I had two Bradleys... One destroyed three T-72s and the other destroyed two," Apache Troop Commander said."

http://www.us7thcavalry.com/ActiveUnits/

[Ned]

I also saw a Bradley take out a tank dug in on the beach with the 3rd ID took the presidential palaces.

[CyberGnu]

Regarding the DP ammo: IIRC, the direct toxicity of the depleted uranium is only an issue is if someone would inhale vaporized metal. The only way that can realistically happen is if someone is inside an armored enclosed spate, such as a tank, when a round penetrates the armor. (The heat from the penetration vaporizes a large portion of the bullet.)

And quite frankly, if you are around to tell about it, you should be pretty damn happy to have survived at all...

The low grade toxicity is another problem, as it might contaminate soil and ground water. The toxicity of depleted uranium is not that much higher than lead or tungsten, however, so that isn't really an issue.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Ned - I've read it. It still doesn't specify the position of the shooters or the targets.

The physics of long rod penetrators is what it is - there's just so much you can do with a given dimension, and the M919 round is limited (it's had to be tweaked a bit in test and development) in that it had to be changed in a couple of ways because the wear on the M242 barrel was so bad that less than 300 rounds of M919 fire would kill the barrel, and accuracy was degraded before that. (M919 is never range fired, it's only combat issue)

Killing Soviet-design armor isn't the issue - it's frontal armor defeat kills that's the issue.

If you look up 73 Easting, which has a lot of detailed data available, you can get a feel for how a cavalry troop will deploy it's M1 and M2 forces.

Most likely, with a mix of 9 M1s and 2 M2s, the M1's are deployed line abreast, with the M2 section slightly trailing on one flank for flank security, and in echelon or column.

You wouldn't put your weakest units in the middle of the formation, and you also generally don't deploy on so narrow a frontage that you have to go for head-on shots. Why go for a 12 o'clock shot at a smaller target with 280mm armor, when you can go for an 11 or 10 o'clock shot at a target almost twice the size horizontally (where firing error is most likely since you're firing on the move), with armor tapering to around 120-140mm?

This is a map of the main force engagement at 73 Easting - notice the deployment of 1 and 3 scout platoons on the flanks, the the illustrated training of the tank guns on 2 and 4 tank platoons. With 9 M1 and 2 M2, you most likely had a smaller scale version of this sort of standard shaking out.

Another possibility is that the M2's used their higher max speed to move up and get flanking shots, or that the T72s attempted to maneuver.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Regarding the DP ammo: IIRC, the direct toxicity of the depleted uranium is only an issue is if someone would inhale vaporized metal. The only way that can realistically happen is if someone is inside an armored enclosed spate, such as a tank, when a round penetrates the armor. (The heat from the penetration vaporizes a large portion of the bullet.)

And quite frankly, if you are around to tell about it, you should be pretty damn happy to have survived at all...

The low grade toxicity is another problem, as it might contaminate soil and ground water. The toxicity of depleted uranium is not that much higher than lead or tungsten, however, so that isn't really an issue.

Here's a couple of useful links on DU issues:

Army Environmental Policy Institute publication

Chapters 4 and 6 are particularly useful.

Dept. of the Army Pamphlet 70048

[CyberGnu]

Yep, pretty much agreed with what I remembered. Follows the general rules of the army, really:

1) Don't get shot
2) If you are shot, try not to die
3) If you succeed, whining about heavy metal toxicity is considered most uncouth

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by Kramerman
interesting... how good is that french MBT, i believe its called like the LeClerc or somethn like that. All i know is that it has a autoloader of some regard, but thats it. IS it anything compared to the challenger, leopard II, or Abrams. And how would the Israeli... err... Merkuva (?)... i dont recall its exact name... anyway how would it compare as well?

The LeClerc is a very different beast to the Challenger/Abrams/Leopard. All tanks are a compromise between firepower, protection and mobility. The Abrams is an attempt to balance all three. The Leopard 2 places a slightly greater emphasis on protection and the Challenger 2 even more emphasis on protection. Having said that the differences between the three are not that great. The LeClerc is a much smaller and more lightly armoured tank and the design philosophy behind it is that a smaller but very mobile tank is less likely to be hit. It therefore has good mobility but much less armour than the other three.

Not getting hit in the first place is usually a good idea but I am not convinced it is a good idea in tank warfare to assume it won't happen. Perhaps a case of the French wanting to be different - a trait that has characterised French military thinking for the past couple of hundred years.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by CerberusIV

Not getting hit in the first place is usually a good idea but I am not convinced it is a good idea in tank warfare to assume it won't happen.

The Merkava was designed by the only country to have fought and won any major tank battles in 30 years (at that time). Their stated design philosophy was that the protection of their tank crews should be paramount. Not for humanitarian reasons, but because their combat experience from short sharp wars had shown that well trained, experienced crews were harder to replace than a tank.

The French appear to have embraced the faulty 'logic' that was exemplified by the development of the Leopard I tank i.e. that mobility was more important than protection for a modern (circa 1980's) MBT. Personally, I always thought that was the wrong concept for NATO forces just as it was for the Israelis.

[TheStinger]

If you are fighting in small areas with no prospect of open fighting protection is going to win over mobility. There must be an argument for mobility if you are fighting in the open.

[SpencerH]

There are benefits to mobility. One can dream about its usefulness during flanking maneuvers and moving from position to position.

The con arguments from my perspective (at that time and now) were simple. What's the biggest tank killer? The aeroplane. Can you envision a tank out running a plane? Arty-fired ICM and vastly improved infantry and helicopter-based AT weapons also negate the tactical benefits of armour mobility (with corresponding loss of protection).

Secondly, a tank that can go even 30mph cross country will leave its supporting infantry way behind it on the battlefield. Believe me, 15-20mph in a M113 crosscountry is a hazardous undertaking. Tanks can just plow through small bumps that can crack tail bones as you hit the seat and heads as you hit the roof when riding in a APC. I understand the Bradleys have safer seating than the M113 but at some point you've got to be ready to dismount so you cant be seat-belted in all (or any of) the time.

So IMO the loss of protection would not be worth added mobility, even in the open

EDIT: that doesnt mean that I think that tanks should be barely mobile pill-boxes, just that the difference between 25-30mph is less valuable than the protection differences.