Who's on top?

oz codger

Active member
A question for the more expert than me.

In the arena of tank and anti-tank, who has the ascendancy? (currently and historically) I have the feeling that anti tank does but my knowledge is limited and my late brother, a 'Centurion' commander of a troop of 3 tanks, would never accept my opinion.
 
Your brother would have a good point as I can not think of a single battle where an armoured thrust was ever stopped by anti-tank weapons alone.

One exception would have been Operation Lüttich which saw a German offensive effectively stopped by anti-armour although they were mainly APC's stopped by airpower, another may be the Yom Kippur War and the Egyptian recapture of the Sinai which employed the efficient use of anti-armour protected by significant anti-air elements.

Essentially I think anti-armour weapons are more effective these days but could not be relied on to stop a large mass of armour so at this stage I would put my money on the tank as long as it had adequate air support.
 
I served in an anti-tank unit and I will say it depends on the terrain. There are terrains not suited for armor units. In the woods, the mountainous terrain, and in urban areas. The armor units can face some difficulties in terrains like that. Especially if they operate without infantry support, but they rarely do. Modern MBT's have excellent detection capabilities and can reach out and touch the enemy in distances beyond the reach of the majority of anti-tank weapon. If the tank is not hindered by the terrain, it will probably be able to defeat the infantry's anti-tank units, or at least making the life hard for the infantry.

There is one military offensive that might can be used as a reference for when anti-tank units were effective against armor forces. I am thinking about the armed conflict between Hezbollah and the Israelis in 2006. The Israelis deployed tank units into southern Lebanon. The terrain in southern L isn't suited for armored warfare and the H capitalized on that
 
Thank you for the responses, and I realize that comparing a 2018 anti-tank with a 1980 tank is unfair and confusing.

But I wonder just how it is with say a T14 or T90 against the latest 'Javelin or RPG29 etc. Like wise a M1A2 against the latest anti-tank.

OC
 
It depends on where the tanks you mentioned are hit. The Javelin hits the top of the tank where it has weak armor so it will probably be out of action. Modern MBT's may also save the crew even if the tank itself is out. If the anti-tank munition hits the ammunition on board the tank, the crew will probably not survive the hit. The Abrams tank tries to direct the effect from a hit to its storage compartment away from the crew, so they might survive even if the tank doesn't.

There are active protection systems on some of the tanks today, the Israelis call their system Trophy and the Russians call their system Arena. I am some what skeptical toward those systems. The Israelis have lost tanks in Gaza to old RPG7 and the Russians have lost tanks in Georgia and Ukraine. Another weak points of tanks are the engine and the tracks. Any damage to those will immobilize the tank and a tank that doesn't move is in grave danger for a second hit.

Tanks work pretty well in an open terrain where they can use their detection systems and engaging the enemy on distances suited for the tanks, and when the tanks don't need to rely on roads for their own movements. Their supply lines usually need roads

Tanks always work with other units and preferably with protection of their own air force. The anti-tank units main purpose is to slow down the enemy's tank units and the anti tank units cannot really attack, but the anti-tank units can provide with fire support to those units attacking the enemy
 
Thanks,

"weak points of tanks are the engine and the tracks. Any damage to those will immobilize the tank and a tank that doesn't move is in grave danger for a second hit."

Which prompts yet another question, in a tank (M.4)? vs tank (Panzer.6.)? battle is there a doctrine of disabling the tank via tracks or engine, thus making him a stationary target? I believe that it was said that it took 6 US/Russian tanks to knock out a 'Tiger'.

OC
 
The weakest points of any tank are the rear, the sides, and the top while the thickest armor is in the front. The Allied armor forces tried hit the Panzer 6 at the rear or the sides. The Allied/Russian tank units were forced to get close and preferably behind the German tanks. That was rather dangerous and the allied forces took casualties on the way in.

It is much easier to hit the chassis of tanks than trying to hit their tracks, especially when the tanks are moving and when they are between several hundred meters or even a km or more from your own position. If the opponents tank units can be channeled into a limited area, anti-tank mines can be used with pretty good efficiency. The mines will destroy the leading tanks tracks, creating decent road blocks and the anti tank units can engage the remaining tanks, IFV's and other units. The terrain that can allow a direct approach toward the tracks is the the urban terrain, but still better to kill the tank with hitting the chassis or the turret. A tank with its tracks damaged can still fire its main gun, machine guns, and communicate with other units. What we did to avoid casualties was to always move after the first round fired, regardless if we operated from our vehicles armed with an anti-tank gun or with the Carl Gustav anti tank weapon. I preferred the first option, much easier to regroup with a vehicle than with a CG, which meant running from fire position to fire position. The CG weights about 13 kilograms, and every fire team was forced to carry the ammunition for it, our personal weapons and our personal equipment

Interesting your brother (I am sorry for the loss of your brother) was a commander of a troop of Centurion tanks. I have had Centurion tanks in my sights a few times. The Swedish army also had Centurion tanks in the mid 1980s.
 
Last edited:
Thanks,

"weak points of tanks are the engine and the tracks. Any damage to those will immobilize the tank and a tank that doesn't move is in grave danger for a second hit."

Which prompts yet another question, in a tank (M.4)? vs tank (Panzer.6.)? battle is there a doctrine of disabling the tank via tracks or engine, thus making him a stationary target? I believe that it was said that it took 6 US/Russian tanks to knock out a 'Tiger'.

OC

I cant give you the Western tank thinking against German armour but I do have some information on Russian thinking...


The following report is a literal translation of a portion of a Russian publication concerning the most effective methods of fire against German tanks.

For the successful conduct of fire against enemy tanks, we should proceed as follows:
a. Manner of Conducting Fire for the Destruction of Enemy Tanks
(1) While conducting fire against enemy tanks, and while maneuvering on the battlefield, our tanks should seek cover in partially defiladed positions.
(2) In order to decrease the angle of impact of enemy shells, thereby decreasing their power of penetration, we should try to place our tanks at an angle to the enemy.
(3) In conducting fire against German tanks, we should carefully observe the results of hits, and continue to fire until we see definite signs of a hit (burning tanks, crew leaving the tank, shattering of the tank or the turret). Watch constantly enemy tanks which do not show these signs, even though they show no signs of life. While firing at the active tanks of the enemy, one should be in full readiness to renew the battle against those apparently knocked out.
b. Basic Types of German Tanks and their Most Vulnerable Parts
The types of tanks most extensively used in the German Army are the following: the 11-ton Czech tank, the Mark III, and the Mark IV. The German self-propelled assault gun (Sturmgeschütz) has also been extensively used.

In addition to the above-mentioned types of tanks, the German Army uses tanks of all the occupied countries; in their general tactical and technical characteristics, their armament and armor, these tanks are inferior.
(1) Against the 11-ton Czech tank, fire as follows:




(a) From the front--against the turret and gun-shield, and below the turret gear case;
(b) From the side--at the third and fourth bogies, against the driving sprocket, and at the gear case under the turret;
© From behind--against the circular opening and against the exhaust vent.
Remarks: In frontal fire, with armor-piercing shells, the armor of the turret may be destroyed more quickly than the front part of the hull. In firing at the side and rear, the plates of the hull are penetrated more readily than the plates of the turret.


(2) Against Mark III tanks, fire as follows:



(a) From the front--at the gun mantlet and at the driver's port, and the machine-gun mounting;
(b) From the side--against the armor protecting the engine, and against the turret ports;
© From behind--directly beneath the turret, and at the exhaust vent.
Remark: In firing from the front against the Mark III tank, the turret is more vulnerable than the front of the hull and the turret gear box. In firing from behind, the turret is also more vulnerable than the rear of the hull.


(3) Against the self-propelled assault gun, fire as follows:



(a) From the front--against the front of the hull, the drivers port, and below the tube of the gun;
(b) From the side--against the armor protecting the engine, and the turret.
© From behind--against the exhaust vent and directly beneath the turret.


(4) Against the Mark IV, fire as follows:



(a) From the front--against the turret, under the tube of the gun, against the driver's port, and the machine-gun mounting;
(b) From the side--at the center of the hull at the engine compartment, and against the turret port.
© From behind--against the turret, and against the exhaust vent.
Remarks: It should be noted that in firing against the front of this tank, the armor of the turret is more vulnerable than the front plate of the turret gear box, and of the hull. In firing at the sides of the tank, the armor plate of the engine compartment and of the turret, is more vulnerable than the armor of the turret gear box.

They also produced a report on the Tiger 1 (Panzer 6)

http://lonesentry.com/articles/ttt_tigervulnerability/index.html
 
Last edited:
Sorry fellas, another couple,

does a disabled engine cut the power supply to turn the turret to engage a target?

And in the case of a 'Mekava', the turret has a big gap from the outer edge down to the hull surface, can a HE round in that gap dislodge the turret? Indeed in any tank for that matter?

Monty's last post has the commander aiming for the drivers port, such a small point to aim at from a kilometre or more! I am amazed at just how many factors a commander has to keep in mind.
 
Sorry fellas, another couple,

does a disabled engine cut the power supply to turn the turret to engage a target?

And in the case of a 'Mekava', the turret has a big gap from the outer edge down to the hull surface, can a HE round in that gap dislodge the turret? Indeed in any tank for that matter?

Monty's last post has the commander aiming for the drivers port, such a small point to aim at from a kilometre or more! I am amazed at just how many factors a commander has to keep in mind.

I don't think so, we need a tanker to answer that.

The gap between the hull and the turret is a weak point of a tank. A hit there can damage the hydraulics of the turret. Depending on the hit, the heat from it can also weld the turret to the hull. The older versions of the Merkava tanks had chains hanging from the turret to interfere the incoming round. As from an anti tank stand point, it's much better to engage tanks from the side and hit them where you can. To aim at weak points is almost impossible. The tanks operate in numbers and with infantry. To engage them when they are driving right against you is really dangerous, even if you hit the tanks. The surviving tanks, infantry units, and maybe artillery spotters will see the back blasts from our weapons. Missiles are also very visible to the enemy.

I have read the obituary of the tank so many times and I have heard it a lot of times too, and yet the tanks are still around. Shall we put the tank on the endangered species list?
 
I never tired of telling my brother that tanks and submarines were mobile coffins!

They still are, but the crew of a tank can jump out and run.

I wanted to join the tank units, but I am too tall for being inside a tank. If I am sitting at the driver's site, I couldn't close the hatch. The gunner's site worked pretty good, but I could barely move sitting there.
 
Saw a clip the other day of a a couple of T-72 stopped somewhere in Syria. One was hit by a projectile and immediately black smoke plumed out the top hatch. The commander appeared to be blasted out by the pressure inside the hull and he survived, but within 3 or 4 seconds of impact the blast of flame was 30 feet high. Five seconds later it was all over.

OC
 
Saw a clip the other day of a a couple of T-72 stopped somewhere in Syria. One was hit by a projectile and immediately black smoke plumed out the top hatch. The commander appeared to be blasted out by the pressure inside the hull and he survived, but within 3 or 4 seconds of impact the blast of flame was 30 feet high. Five seconds later it was all over.

OC

Russian tanks (T64, T72, T80, T90, and the latest Armata) have an auto loading system. The ammunition is stored around the turret in the hull if you understand what I mean. A hit can ignite the ammo with severe consequences. The Russian tanks have lesser protection than their western counterparts, they weigh mush lesser than Western MBT's, but that doesn't mean Western tanks cannot be destroyed.

The French Leclerc has an auto loader too. My favorite is the Merkava when it has room for an infantry squad. Turkey has developed a new tank, the Alay or something like that, they developed it with the South Koreans and it looks like their K2 Black Panther
 
OK, another OT one, What did they do with the crew after such an event, did they have special troops to do the 'dirty work'?

And what happened to the crew of an upturned tank? Saw a pic of one that had been upside down since 1973.

Do not answer if you do not wish!
 
OK, another OT one, What did they do with the crew after such an event, did they have special troops to do the 'dirty work'?

And what happened to the crew of an upturned tank? Saw a pic of one that had been upside down since 1973.

Do not answer if you do not wish!

I can only relate to other mass casualty situations. There are special trained people doing things like that. Their main task is to identify the dead and give them a proper funeral. The military wants to get their fallen back and put a huge effort into it. There are still searching groups out looking for the fallen from the dual world wars. There are always missing service men out there. They might have been blown up so badly so more or less nothing remain. That may explain the majority of the missing from the First World War.

I don't know what happened to the crew of the tank you are referring to
 
I never tired of telling my brother that tanks and submarines were mobile coffins!

You may be surprised, my understanding is that tank crews had a far lower mortality rate than infantry even during WW2 and survivability has only increased since then.

There was a general rule of thumb that said 1 dead and 1 wounded for every tank lost in action.

There are some reported American statistics that point to 3% of US KIA vs 18% for infantry.
 
Reaching back to my days with 5th Battalion Queens regiment, the anti tank gun at our disposal was the (1) 66 fire and throw away, (2) 84 mm Carl Gustav and (3) 120 mm Mobat. (4) 120 mm Wombat.

Basically the 66 could take out most (1970's) Soviet Armour provided the firer was close enough, the 84 was more effective (or so we were told) and the 120 mm Mobat for longer ranges. They were supposedly good bits of kit in their day but I'd warrant well out of date now. The only time I can remember an 84 used in combat was during the Falklands invasion, a Royal Marine nearly sank an Argentine warship with one, he hit it below the water line and hit the bridge. The captain got his ship out of range rather quickly.

The Mobat was towed behind a Land Rover, the Wombat was carried on the back of a Land Rover.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top