[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Questions about disabling tanks (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 4/11/2006 1:58:35 PM EDT
|
I'm doing a short essay on how shaped charges can be used to disable tanks (inspired by the sticky bomb scene in Saving Private Ryan). I need people who know their tanks to answer these questions: What would be the proper placement of an explosive or shaped charge required to disable or destroy the tracks on a tank? How thick is the armor protecting the engine compartment of the following tanks: 1) Tiger 2) Sherman 3) T-72 4) M1 Abrams 5) Bradley If someone knows what tanks Mexico and China are currently using and the estimated thickness of the armor protecting their engine compartments, I'd love to have that info too. Is Russia still using updated T-72's or have they switched entirely to whatever the replacement is? Are there are any Middle Eastern nations that don't primarily use T-72's? Is there a difference in the thickness of the engine compartment armor on the different Tiger variants from WWII? Could an infantryman or geurilla approach an Abrams from the rear to attach a shaped charge to the engine compartment? I've heard from multiple sources that someone being run over by an Abrams (lying between the treads) would be fried by the exhaust from the engine. Is this true, and would it happen to someone standing in close proximity to the rear of the tank? Also, on a similar note (but probably won't be used in the essay): How difficult would it be for infantry swarming a buttoned-up tank to gain access to the crew compartment? I remember when that guy stole the Bradley and went on a rampage, the cops used bolt cutters to open the hatch and shoot him. Do molotov cocktails still pose a threat to modern tanks, or are they just a nice way of bringing jihadists into the open so they can eat 120mm shells? |
This is the only part I will touch. My Physics professor in HS told us while on an island hopping trek through the south Pacific during the early 1940s that he witnessed Japanese troops swarm 2 Stuart ( he just said light tanks, I assume Stuarts). Apparently they were trying to crack them open. One Stuart dorve about 100 yards away, turned, and literally hosed the infantry off with the coax while the other tank pivoted, exposing all sides. Then they reversed roles. IIRC, tanks usually don't travel alone. |
 The Bradley is not a Tank, it's an Armored Personnel Carrier.Yeah hold on we'll give you classified information on our currently deployed weapons systems  That knock on your door tonigh will NOT be Dominos. 
|
I'm aware of this. This is a hypothetical scenario, along the lines of the scene in Saving Private Ryan. I just decided to do WWII, the Cold War, and the war in Iraq instead of just limiting it to one tank (Tiger) or time period. |
On or about the track, seems reasonable.
Side is about 80mm, top is closer to 25mm.
38mm side hull, 19mm deck.
I have no idea offhand. Don't see why it should be particularly any tougher or weaker than the engine armour on most modern tanks.
I have an idea, but I'm not convinced I should say. Suffice to say both the T-72 and M1 have sideskirts which make planting shaped charges on the side a bit more difficult.
Mexico doesn't use tanks, its biggest guns are ERC-90 armoured cars. Figure about an inch of armour, maybe less. China's latest and greatest is a Type98 variant, but it uses tanks going all the way back to Type-59 (T-55 equivalent). Expect side armour values to be about equivalent to a T-72.
Lots of T-72s still around, though the standard front-line tank is the T-80U/UD. About one division has T-90s last I checked, which is a sort of super-upgrade of a T-72. (Kindof like M48-M60)
Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi: M1 Abrams, M60 Patton UAE: LeClerc Oman: Challenger 2. Jordan: Challenger 1. Israel: Merkava, Maga'ch Qatar: AMX-30 Lebanon: M48A5 Iran's kindof an odd one. M60s, Chieftains, T-72s and Zulquifars which is sortof M60/T72 combo to look at. Bahrain M60A3. The others have T-XXs.
The various MkVIs were about the same. MkVII was a tad bigger on the side.
Sure. Najaf one chap climbed onto the tank and fired his AK into the hatch. But with all the RPGs running around, why would they need to?
He wouldn't be happy. You're going to have some serious guts to let a tank run over you, and he might be burned by the exhaust as it passed over. Depends on how fast the tank's going/how long he's being fried for. Abrams and T-80 use jet engines, so draw your own conclusions about the exhaust.
Depends on if the hatch is open or not, really.
Yes. NTM |
| I stood behind an idling Abrams one time. With the exhaust pointed down (apparently they have shields to point it down or straight back) I couldn't stand within 15' without feeling like I was about to catch fire. I have NO doubt that if they turned the vents and stood on the throttle, I would be baked. |
|
Seems to me that a molotov cocktail would be easier and might work better. Choke out the engine, leave 'em stalled, then hit the crew while they are stuck. This of course assumes that the tank is alone, and does not have a wingman to "clean" him off with a coax. ETA: I see someone mentioned coax cleaning already. |
Agreed. Bradley's engine hood isn't that heavy duty. I wouldn't want to have to open it by hand, though. |
An M5 Stuart tank.  
|
You would be so much better off having the treads roll over you |
| Several weeks ago a video was floating around arfcom of an insurgent that tried to blow up an Abrams in Iraq by running his car loaded with an IED in the back. He failed in a very pathetic and dramatic fashion. You might find the video an interesting view. You might be able to find it with a search or maybe someone will be kind enough to link it. I can't find it now. |
|
The U.S. Army has been at a loss to identify a mystery projectile that penetrated an M1A1 Abrams tank late last year. The round created a pencil-thin entry hole, injured some of the crew inside with limited spalling, and came to a rest in the far side of the hull, after boring a 1.5-2"-deep hole through it. As it passed through the interior of the tank, the projectile, along with its spalling effect, took out enough critical components to disable the M1A1 Abrams tank. Since the start of the war, only two M1A1 Abrams tanks have been taken out of commission by enemy fire, and this was one of them. So, what caused the damage? Prevailing theory is that it was either a... PG-7VR round fired from an RPG-7V launcher, or one of a number of RPG-22 rounds. The RPG-22 is a newer, disposable launcher, developed by the Russians. According to John Roos', who wrote a story about the incident in "Army Times", the experts studying the incident apparently think that the most likely culprit was some kind of improved RPG-22 round, made in either Switzerland or Russia. |
It sucks to open manually...drove a broke one for 2 years but you would be suprised as to what they can take, and if you need to find a scout in the winter, look behind an M1  Why on earth would you write an essay on something that SO many people DONT need to know 
|
WTF dude.  Haven't you heard about our ROP visitor who ended up breaking big rocks into little rocks for spouting off similar information? There is nothing "hypothetical" about the WOT or the ROPers who are trying to kill us. |
On the same lines, when I was in the Navy we used to have discussions about the most effective and/or easiest ways to commandeer a nuclear sub or destroy the reactor plant... |
|
Modern MBTs, such as the T-72M2 (most modernized variant of the 1970s vintage T-72), T-80U, Leopard 3, Challenger MkIV, Leclerc are hard to knock out using a "sticky bomb"; the only thing you would do is knock out the tracks and then the tank becomes a 60 ton pillbox. The only way you could knock out a tank like that would be to use a heavy anti tank missile, like a Hellfire or a javelin, but because of the advance armor these tanks have (Chobham or "Applique" armor on US/ Euro tanks and Reactive Armor on Russian Tanks), a direct frontal hit would damage it, but not destroy it; unles syou aim for the seam between the hull and the turret. American tankers are trained to hit their targets in that area; Russianb tanks have one major (and deadly) flaw; their ammo storage is underneath the turret, a hit on a Russian tank by even a TOW 2B missile would send the turret sky high, destroying the tank. However, American tanks are not indestructible, as proven in Iraq; an IED can disable and in some cases destroy a heavily armored M1A2 by attacking where the armor is thinnest; underneath. Back in WW2, the heaviest operational tank in Europe was the famed King Tiger with a turret that weighed in excess of 28 tons and an overal armor thickness of 100mm, not including the "Zimmerit" or concrete armor added to some of the tanks; a Sherman's 75mm round would simply bounce off the Tiger's thick hide and the Tiger, with it's massive 88mm gun, would slice through the Sherman's thin armor with ease, even at over 1 mile away. The only way to defeat a Tiger, as shown in SPR, was to knock out the tracks with a sticky bomb, then swarm the tank and shoot through the port holes to kill the crew, then lob grenades inside the tank. Usually, the armor on a tank is thickest up front and moderate on the sides, but is thinner in the rear and thinnest in the top and bottom, so an effective way to disable, if not destroy a tank was to attack the thin armor via a top detonating anti tank missile, such as a Javelin or attack the bottom, using a heavy anti-tank mine. |
Kharn |
|
I know EXACTLY how to knock out a Bradley. It has to be dark and raining, you need a 2nd Lieutenant and a sleepy Abrahms driver, and you need the Bradley to be parked with the crew sound asleep. No, it wasn't MY tank or driver, but it WAS my lieutenant.  I'd lay a bet that lieutenants destroyed more M1's than the enemy ever did. 
|
| This is retarded there are Joe's out there putting their lives on the line in these pieces of equipment and your freakin askin how Hadji Jihad can take one out. On a board full of gun loving Americans who want more than for these men to come home alive give me a brake. |
First) Where do most airplanes hang out? Runways stupid! B) You'll need to steal the keys from the pilot ready room. Get a fake pilot ID. III) The pins with the red flags that say "remove before flight", mean what they say. Remove them. Last) If it is a newer F-18, disable the OnStar before take off. |
Good to know I'm on it |
|
I was a 45E/45N (M60A2 and M1A1 Abrams turret mech) in the Army. There is not a Fucking way I'm going to tell you that info.. And this thread contains so much bull shit in disabling them its unreal. OK ill give in.. Get a DAT or CDAT and a muddy road. Boom instant disabled tank! |
| Are you talking about the British Sticky Bomb from WWII, or a satchel charge? Two different critters. The Sticky Bomb (Number 74 Grenade) was a glass sphere filled with semi-liquid explosive, covered in a glue-coated mesh. A fuse was contained in the handle and ignited upon release. The idea was for the user to throw it at the enemy tank, the glass would break upon striking and the explosive would form a "cow-pat" shape and detonate. In use it was discovered that it was very easy to stick the bomb to one's own clothing on the backswing. This left the user in the position of trying to remove the clothing and/or bomb, while keeping a firm grip on the handle. It wasn't very popular with the troops. |
Was this the Gammon bomb? |
|
I'm confused. Someone asks how to disable military equipment and they equal a terrorist. Someone says their tired of the government and tired of immigration and they ask when the revolution is and they get a pat on the back. Makes a hell of a lot of sense. You may also like to pause and consider, when individual #1 gets his wish he will for DAMN sure be asking the same question individual #1 asked, because individual #2 will be the one trying to fight the tank. Arfcommers always give me endless amusement. |
The Gammon bomb was designed as a replacement for the sticky bomb. A Capt. Gammon wanted to make a safer weapon for the troops. Also, the amount of explosives used in a Gammon bomb could be adjusted by the user. |
I was wondering how thick the armor of those bank trucks is and whether or not I could hypothetically disable one using common household cleaning solvents such as AJAX and Draino. Seems like better odds than playing the lottery and easier than working. Hypothetically, of course. It's for a school assignment. No, really, it is.
|