The myth of the invincible western tanks

[+Gepard 11,303]

If you read the novells of Tom Clancy, or watch the post Gulf War stories in TV you were indoctrinated, that the soviet tanks were all rubbish and the western tanks are all invincible.

The reality is different.

Here some pictures of the invincible M 1 Abrams:

Burned out after a tank killer team throw some handgranades in open hatches. Bad tactics.

Turrent blown off after road bomb strike.

Burned out after an RPG hit the ammo bunkier.

Heavily damaged by RPG, but the inner armour seems to be intact.

Burned out after RPG strike.

On fire.

Completly destroyed and turret blown of after road bomb strike.

Ammo bunker is burning.

Burned out wreck of an M 1 Abrams.

 

But the german Leopard is not better. German media believe it is the best tank of the world and invulnerable. The reality looks different.

Turrent blown off after hit by ATGM.

Completly destroyed after hit in ammo rack, left side of hull front. Turret blown off, ammo rack in back of turret explodes.

Ammo rack in back of turret explodes, tank burned out.

 

Conclusion: There are no unvulnerable and invincible tanks. To believe the own propaganda is deadly.

Edited September 20, 2021 by Gepard

[+whiteknight06604 934]

nothing is invincible, that being said western and eastern tanks were built differently and were meant to be used differently.one on one most eastern tanks were severe underdogs but used en mass in assaults they were effective.the main advantage the west had/has was flexibility of command and and control information dissemination and range/targeting advantages.in short term conflicts that would be a huge advantage. in a protracted slugging match wear and tear and attrition would even things out a bit and numbers would become an advantage.

[macelena 1,070]

Having no clue in general about tanks, from what I've gathered, I think the loopsided casualty figures are not so much about western tanks being that much better, but about better comms, info, crew training and coordination with air support. 

From what I've heard, Leclerc tanks have the best of both worlds. but I'm not so sure if they got APS of some kind, that seems to be the standard to look forward to. 

[+daddyairplanes 10,243]

first and last shots of the Abrams, with the ammo racks burning/burnt out are not a sign of vulnerability but a design feature. it vents the fire and explosion upwards away from the crew and gives a chance to get away when it dies down.

the turret removed shot and the one where its on fire and looks like it was stomped look to me like ones that were hit by 1000-2000lb IEDs. there were enough laying around Iraq between 2003 and 2005 for it to be a not uncommon thing

i wont claim they are invulnerable. saw enough of them in a holding area in Balad in 2005 to not believe cable TV or the technothrillers. but it is pretty rare to hear of a US crew dying in their tank if it doesnt roll over.

[KJakker 901]

You guys might want to check this thread out.

 

[Mike Dora 171]

Nothing is invulnerable, but a lot depends on how the kit is operated.

For example the second pic, of the turret lying on the ground, clearly shows a national flag on the side of the turret - is it Egypt?

So the tanks shown are not necessarily American and German. I wonder who the wrecks in all the other pics belonged to, and how they were using them.

[+Trotski 936]

No such thing an an invincible, or invulnerable Tank, Western Tanks, are more survivable than the Former Soviet, or current Russian Tanks, however, they are designed on two totally different tactical doctrines. The West, had envisioned an assault through the Fulda gap, and therefore developed its armour to counter this, ie, better command and control, better Infantry and air combined operations, the Russians/Warpac had one goal in mind, to get in, defeat, occupy and end the war, therefore their armour is faster, lower, and more numerous. Gunnery is another factor, with possibly the advantage going to NATO, as they needed accuracy and quality, that being said, the Russians, build bloody good kit, and, had the cold war gone hot, the outcome would have been awful, as tac nukes would have come into play, and sorry Gents, but no one wins that particular scenario. Anyhow, Russian Tanks are very good, as good as, if different from Western armour, yes they ergonomics can sometimes leave something to be desired,  but, they worked, very well, did the job, and are still running in armies all around the world, not bad for 1960's/70's tech !!

As a former Cold War Warrior, I am fully aware of how terrible a Soviet invasion would have been, my approximate life expectancy was 24 - 48 hours buying time until the US and NATO could pump bodies into the Theatre of ops. Also, another point, even the Israeli's used Soviet Tanks in the form of the Tiran, that speaks volumes in my book. However, ATGM's will kill pretty much ANY tank, be it Western or Eastern European in origin, so the argument is actually academic, as neither

 side really has a "better" Tank.

To make a droll comment here, it aint the size that counts, it's the way one utilises it that really matters.

Edited September 21, 2021 by trotski00

[Nesher 628]

From what I remember, during the 2nd Lebanon war, an Israeli Merkava 4 tank chased the kidnappers of 2 Israeli soldiers, got hit by 11 RPGs and had no damage taken (they also had active defense)

Another Merkava (4 or possibly 3) tank got on a 150Kg IED, killing all crew members.. nothing in invincible in the end

[Arrow 83]

I admittedly don't know much about West vs East tanks for vulnerability and survivability. I've read some books, but they didn't cover that aspect of tank warfare too well. For a DLC for a video game I have that models the early 80's (ARMA 3 with Global Mobilization add-on) , the German Leopard I is more or less a sitting duck Vs a East German T-55. The key is sitting duck, because if you continually move from cover to cover and quick quick maneuver to put a T-55 in your site and get in a number of hits, you have a far better chance due to the good speed and decent guns. One hit from that T-55 gun though...deadly! I'm guessing that's what some here are alluding to in regards to tactics. It's been a humbling experience for me to play scenarios, because my country used the Leopard I and now uses the Leopard II.

Anyhow, I don't really know if the videogame I'm playing is a much of a realistic representation of actual battlefield conditions. Just that it's been an eye opener, because I'd read a number of sources that until the USSR rolled out the T-72, they didn't have much of a chance in a real tank battle.

Edited October 4, 2021 by Arrow

[+EricJ 4,245]

Arma 3 is a bit abstract when it comes to damage, and frankly not a good approximation of real-world damage and the like. I've had complaints from players about people with vests (think thin vests) soak up bullets from a gun and me trying to fix that issue. I would think Steel Beasts has a better approximation of damage. I'm sure a T-55 csn damage a Leo 1 of course with its main gun, but not kill it outright with just one shot though.

Edited October 6, 2021 by EricJ

[+Gepard 11,303]

On 6.10.2021 at 4:42 PM, EricJ said:

 I'm sure a T-55 csn damage a Leo 1 of course with its main gun, but not kill it outright with just one shot though.

Depends on the ammo. The 100 mm Hohlladungsgranate (HEAT) was able to penetrate 390 mm steel, which is enough to kill Leo 1 and M-60 with one shot. The Unterkaliberpfeilgeschoss (sub caliber darts, APFSsomething in NATO slang) penetrated 310 mm at 1.000 meters distance and 290 mm at 2.000 m. It had not had a problem to destroy a Leo 1 and M-60. With the T-55AM (soviet designation), T-55AM2B (east german designation) the missile Bastion was part of the ammo. Up to a maximum combat range of 4.000 meters this missile could kill all tanks of the late 1980, when used in top attacker mode. Useless against tanks were the Panzergranate (AP) and Splittersprenggranate (HE).

The HESH, HEAT and APFSDS ammo of L-7 gun of Leo-1 and M-60 (okay, the americans called the L-7 M68, but it was mostly the same gun) were able to kill a T-55 at a range of 2.000 meters. But they were not able to penetrate the frontal armour of the T-55AM (T-55AM2B).

The chance to survive of a T-72 depends a lot of the version. It had changed through the years dramatically. There were T-72 version which a Leo 1 could kill at 2.000 meters, while other T-72 versions were nearly unvulnerable in a duell situation at 500 meters distance.

Here some examples how the frontal armour of the T-72 changed through the years: