Huh, interesting little thing here. I've seen and read lots about the Abrams' involvement in both the gulf wars and I've never heard of these HOT turreted LAVs.

Maybe because the M1 could target and engage such LAVs at longer distances than they could? This was the case with the T-72 where the first time the enemy armor would know the Ambrams' where near was when the shells started hitting them. I'd imagine turreted LAVs would make even easier targets.

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

Huh, interesting little thing here. I've seen and read lots about the Abrams' involvement in both the gulf wars and I've never heard of these HOT turreted LAVs.

Maybe because the M1 could target and engage such LAVs at longer distances than they could? This was the case with the T-72 where the first time the enemy armor would know the Ambrams' where near was when the shells started hitting them. I'd imagine turreted LAVs would make even easier targets.

Dear Member,

I know a Marine who came against the HOT/Panhard during the 1991 breaching operation in Kuwait. The problem is the target the Abrams has to engage if the Panhard is in a hull down position with just the turret showing. It is an extremely narrow target to aim for. The window the gunner aim out of is only 12 inches across and about 18 inches high. As stated I have info on it some place and will try and scan and upload it later. You will see what I mean. The only down side of the turret is it has no night vision ability and relies on illumination by a mortar team or a rocket team to engage at night. the major reason the French turned it down for the collapsable four round MEPHISTO launcher that could be reloaded under armor mounted on the VAB 4X4 armored vehicle. More expensive but completely protects the crew when in a hull down position and gives the ability to engage at night.

Jack E. Hammond

I don't have any real data on these weapons. From what I have been able to discover surfing the net, HOT turreted LAVs were rather thin skinned so far as an armored vehicle is concerned. They were subject to penetration and pingponging of shrapnel inside the vehicle compartment from a simple glancing blow from an armor piercing rocket or shell (45 degree to 90 degree). Hitting an open vision slot was not necessary to take them out. As far as how they would have fared against any of the armored vehicles we employed in Iraq, I have been unable to come across any definitive information.

Originally Posted by Chief Bones

I don't have any real data on these weapons. From what I have been able to discover surfing the net, HOT turreted LAVs were rather thin skinned so far as an armored vehicle is concerned. They were subject to penetration and pingponging of shrapnel inside the vehicle compartment from a simple glancing blow from an armor piercing rocket or shell (45 degree to 90 degree). Hitting an open vision slot was not necessary to take them out. As far as how they would have fared against any of the armored vehicles we employed in Iraq, I have been unable to come across any definitive information.

Dear Member,

Most vehicles fitted with an ATGW in the antitank role are thin skin or lightly armored (eg the Marine's Hummer with TOW and the M113 with the Norway's TOW turret. They are not intended to take direct hits. Only protection against aritllery air burst and near hits. They engage main battle tanks at extreme ranges and the further the range the less accurate the main cannon is. Yes hitting a completely exposed tank at 4000 to 5000 meter is possible for today's MBTs but not a target the width and length of a bath towel. ATGW missiles, unlike cannons, are accurate from the minumum range to their maximum range. And they use concealment and ambush and in most cases if possible hull down or they drive from the reverse slope to the top and fire and duck down before they can be engaged. The Marines could not figure it out in 1991. A Panhard/HOT vehicle dug in with just its small turret about the ground could have caused havoc at the various breaching points of the berms. And they could have engaged at night by just having a few dug in mortars to provide illumination. And at 5000 meters they would been extremely difficult to engage by tanks. The main tactic would have been massive artillery fire with air burst.

Jack E. Hammond

In response to your response mr. Hammond.

You would surely not dispute the fact that the Iraqis had considerable time to dig in during both American-Iraqi wars. Yet the T-72 proved overmatched in its contest with the M1 tank even when heavily dug in to its greatest defensive strength. Would it not then be wrong to surmise that the same fate to befall the T-72s came to the less able and less armored HOT turreted LAVs?

In short, surely if the MBT of the Iraqi Army couldn't survive the M1, then an LAV would stand no chance.

But I thought the HOT missile has longer range than both the M1 and the T72. So how come they didn't score any kills?

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

In response to your response mr. Hammond.

You would surely not dispute the fact that the Iraqis had considerable time to dig in during both American-Iraqi wars. Yet the T-72 proved overmatched in its contest with the M1 tank even when heavily dug in to its greatest defensive strength. Would it not then be wrong to surmise that the same fate to befall the T-72s came to the less able and less armored HOT turreted LAVs?

In short, surely if the MBT of the Iraqi Army couldn't survive the M1, then an LAV would stand no chance.

Dear Member,

The Iraqi T-72s did not perform well because of three reasons: 1. Many were disabled or destroyed in the month long air campagin; 2. the Iraqis adopted a tactic of digging their tanks behind berms instead of hull down -- ie the Abrams just shot through the berms into the tank behind it; 3. The APDS-FS rounds were designed and manufactured in Iraq because Saddam had a big head and wanted his one arms industry. US Army officers in articles in ARMY have stated that if the Iraqi T-72s had been firing Russian made APDS-FS rounds they would have lost a number of Abrams. But instead an Iraqi T-72 got within a few hundred feet of the rear of an Abrams and with three shots could not penetrate the crew compartment (ie it did disable the Abrams though).

Finally, light armored vehicles are not intended to go ManO-E-ManO with MBTs in slugging match no more than a destroyer would with a battleship. It is more like a sniper with a rifle killing the tank commander in an open hatch. They fire long range antitank missiles from armored vehicles where the only target for an enemy tank is a small turret which is one hard to spot at long range and two even harder to hit. Any tanker or extanker will tell you the same.

Jack E. Hammond

Originally Posted by Mohmar Deathstrike

But I thought the HOT missile has longer range than both the M1 and the T72. So how come they didn't score any kills?

Dear Member,

That use to be true. But with modern fire controls now on tanks this is becoming less and less. Durning the Gulf War 1991 a British Challenger took out an Iraqi T-62 at over 7km if I remember correctly. The problem is that against an ATGW vehicles small turret the best around is HE. But the larger diameter HE rounds are no where as accurate at long range as the APDS-FS rounds. But hitting a small antiarmor vehicles turret at 4 to 5km w ith an APDS-FS round is like threading a needle. The Russians to counter NATO ATGW vehicles (ie HOT and TOW missiles) developed radio controlled HE rounds that were fired from the T-72s main cannon. The Israelis today hae developed 105mm and 120mm laser homing rounds for the same role.

Jack E. Hammond

Originally Posted by jackehammond

Durning the Gulf War 1991 a British Challenger took out an Iraqi T-62 at over 7km if I remember correctly.

Longest tank-tank kill was a Challenger 2 in Operation Iraqi Freedom that killed the enemy tank at just over 2 miles.

Well, there is always the JANES Defence weekly where you all can read up on!