BEST TANK IN THE WORLD

I wrote this article for another forum, because they seemed to think the same. 

These threads about the RPG-29 and the Kornet being the end-all be-all solution to your anti-tanking needs, and the 'fact' that the M1A2 Abrams and other Western tanks are now obsolete get on my nerves when people repeat the same thing after others have been proven wrong.  Therefore, being bored and all, I decided to write a thread about armour and anti-tank weapons and why the RPG-29 is not an end-all be-all rocket propelled grenade, and why it isn't as simple as 'penetrating into the tank' to knock it out, and subsequently, why Western tank casualties are so low.  I think it would be best to merge a technical perspective and a historical perspective so people can finally realize that because the RPG-7 tore apart Russian armour in Grozny in 1994 it doesn't necessarilly translate into a wonder weapon against Western tanks.  Hopefully, I won't get too many deusch-bags arguing against me with no sources or real knowledge on the topic.  Hope, however, is not my strongpoint.

The RPG-29
The RPG-29 is a recoilless rifle that fires 105mm High Explosive Anti-Tank [HEAT] ammunition.  It's designed with a tandem warhead to defeat explosive reactive armour by initiating the reaction, and then having a second, possibly more precise warhead to now penetrate the armour behind the reactive panels.  Penetration is rated at anywhere from 600mm to 800mm worth of armour after penetration the ERA ( RPG-29 antitank grenade launcher, world.guns.ru).  Penetration depends on how precise the warhead is made, so for the majority I would count on the lower end of the preformance table for obvious reasons.  The RPG-29 is the latest improvement over the infamous RPG-7 which did so much damage to Russian armour in Grozny, 1994.  Janes has reported the RPG-29 in Iraq, although many find this a dubious claim, and it's widespread information that the RPG-29 was given to Hezb'Allah by the Iranians and/or the Syrians.  The majority of hits on Israeli armour have been reproted to come from the RPG-29, and not from the Kornet which is a totally different weapon. 

How a HEAT warhead works...(in a nutshell)
There are a lot of rampant misconceptions on how a HEAT round works, and I hope this clears it up for the majority of people that are users of these forums.  Most of my information comes from an article published in Military Technology, October 1988, and written by Giorgio Ferrari; The "Hows" and "Whys" of Armour Penetration..  Other information comes from Recent Advances in Anti-Armor Technology, Alber W. Horst, et. al.  and The Future Combat System:  Minimizing Risk While Maximizing Capability, by Coll. Brian R. Zahn.  Again, I hope it helps. :)

Ideal penetration is achieved when the penetrator is moving at the speed of sound through its own medium, and the medium of the armour it's penetrating.  At that point penetration becomes hydrodynamic, where the armour, due to the conservation of momentum, begins to react in the same way the penetrator is reacting against it - like a fluid.  HOWEVER, the 'jet' is NOT a fluid - it is a solid, it just begins to act like a fluid.  Neither does it burn through the armour!  Instead, it uses this ideal setting to penetrate using as small of a mass as possible.  The shaped charge is built with an explosive designed around an empty cone, with a detonator behind the cone.  This is lined by a very ductile metal, normally copper, although newer HEAT rounds can be made out of molybdenum and possibly depleted uranium.  The perfect material is gold - and this has been proven.  In any case, the detonation of the explosive is done along a wavefront which should be perpindicular to the armour being penetrated, and is shaped and directed by a wave shaper and a booster at the end of the round.  When this wave front hits the liner the liner begins to collapse inwards, and forms a jet tip which begins to move at exceedingly faster velocities.  Typical jet tip velocities are between 10,000-12,000 m/sec.  The jet base moves at much slower speeds. 

Normally, there are two parts to the now expanded liner.  One is the jet that everone knows about, and the second is the equivalent of an explosive formed projectile - note, the EFP submunitions we all talk about are not the same thing; they follow the same theory, but are specially made through other methods.  However, the jet is moving much faster, and normally the large explosively formed mass is used to exploit the penetration, although it's what is normally found after a HEAT impact (a lot of people mistake this for the jet; it's not!). 

Now you know the bare bones of how HEAT works.  I explained it in three paragraphs.  The people I got this information from explain it in articles that range from five to twenty pages, so obviously it gets much more complex than this.  However, this is sufficient for our needs.

Tank Protection, HEAT and Conclusions about the RPG-29
NOTE:  All armour ratings should be considered as ratings against Chemical Energy [CE], not KE, or Kinetic Energy.  Their KE ratings are much lower.

Let's put all of this into perspective.  The Leopard 2A5 has a maximum thickness of ~2,000mm versus HEAT.  Don't take this as a norm.  It's probably lower, but nevertheless close.  It has a mininum thickness of ~400mm and this is located on the rear turret.  That means, over half the penetration power of an RPG-29 is used to penetrate the rear turret on a good day, and for most of the RPGs about two-thirds of the penetration power!  The more energy the HEAT has to put in to penetrate the less the after penetration effects will be.  That's why HEAT penetrations rarely kill the entire crew of a tank, even if it penetrates it and knocks the tank out of action through a variety of means [might hit one of the electronics, for example].  The M1A2, on the other hand, has a maximum thickness of ~1,620mm and a mininum thickness of ~410mm, so the same issue applies.  I don't have estimates for the Merkava, and admittently these other estimates are old, however they should be in the ballpark of the correct figures so it's irrelevent.  That said, the Merkava Mk. 3 and Mk. 4 should be close to the ratings of both the M1A2 and the Leopard 2A5, or should surpass it.  The Merkava has some very interesting ways of increasing protection in the rear and front without actually increasing the thickness of their armour, which includes strategic placement of their fuel, and other integral parts of the tank.  Whether you like to believe it or not, the Merkava is a very well designed tank.  That said, please I'm not a Zionist.  If you hate me for saying such things about the Merkava please go away and don't go to this thread.  You are not forced to post in it.

Now, let's the take a look at why the RPG-7 was effective against Russian armour at Grozny, in 1994.  The T-72B has a maximum thickness versus CE of ~540mm and a minimum of ~180mm.  With K-1 this is increased to ~880mm and ~180mm, respectively.  The T-80BV has a maximum of ~900mm and a minimum of ~210mm.  Although much lower than their Western counterparts Soviet/Russian tanks are also smaller and lighter, and have less surface area and different turret surfaces to cover.  Irregardless, problems for penetration remain the same.  However, when the entered Grozny they entered as a string of tanks and the Chechens were quick to knock out the first and last vehicles, and then simply began to attack from the rear, and most importantly, from high rise buildings.  It's the same principle the American Javelin anti-tank missile is built around - top turret armour is extremely weak.  It is the weakest point on the visible surface area of the tank.

Knowing this, please stop saying that the RPG-29 will end the age of tanks, and that Western armour "better watch out", because frankly, you don't know diddly squat about what you're talking about.  Furthermore, the issue for RPG-29s gets more difficult with ensuing upgrades, including the usage of slat armour and the new reactive armour the Israelis and the Americans are about to debut [AFAIK, both countries use Israeli technology].  This probably isn't heavy explosive reactive armour, like the Russian K-5, so you can stop claiming that as well - there are various types of reactive armour, and that should be left for another rant.  However, it's probably some form of non-explosive reactive armour or self-limiting explosive reactive armour to avoid dismount casualties.

I'm not saying the RPG-29 is useless, so please don't put words in my mouth - you'd be arguing the straw man.   I am a huge fan of the RPG-29, and I think it's a masterpiece of cheap, effective anti-tank ordnance.  Any guerilla organization, or country, that uses a mix between the Kornet and the RPG-29 is a force to be feared and respected.  You'd be lying if you didn't say that.  However, they are not wonder weapons, and people should really stop saying stupid things about them that simply aren't true. 

Thanks,

Jon, you're friendly Spanish poster.

Originally posted by Alt Gr I never said that RPG-29 is a wonder-weapon, just much better than RPG-7 mainly used by Iraqi terorists against US armor. The whole point was no modern tank can survive, let's say, 3-5 hits from any modern infantry anti tank weapon. And in urban surroundings, if faceing organised and well prepared force, thats likely to happen.

I mentioned infantry support in my earlyer post.

Well, ask Israelis how they now feel about sending tanks and infantry against ambushing hezbolah fighters armed with RPG-29 or even 9M133 Kornet. I think  answer would be  "Bad idea". 14 Merkavas lost and 50 damaged, and Merkava is only modern MBT designed for infantry support and urban combat (power plant in front, rear door, side and top modular armor..etc.)

For tank to operate safe in urban sorrundings the  infantry would  have to clear every building top to bottom and allso take care of the mines/IED's on the road, and in combat situation that's nearly impossible.

What happens  with infantry when their tank cover gets disabled or destroyed? I fore sure wouldn't like to be close when tank get's hit and blows up.

Stick with opened ground.

 

They also used several Swatter and Faggot anti-tank missiles, and I was referring the Israeli 1982 incursion into Lebanon.  It was, however, the Yom Kippur War where after these serious losses in the first two to three weeks of the war that the Israelis reinvented combined arms and almost made Egyptian anti-tank teams obsolete.  It was the combination of heavy armour and APCs that ultimately won the ground war for Israel.  Israeli armoured losses after the first three weeks are seriously lighter than those of the first weeks of the war.  And the point is that none of those twelve missiles actually hit, so just because you are ambushed by 12 missiles does not mean that you will be hit, and it doesn't mean you're going to be knocked out [the Isralies developed tactics where their tanks would zig-zag to confuse the gunners, and it worked splendidly].

Furthermore, only five Merkavas were knocked out, of the fifty hit - the other fourty-five were damaged to various degrees.  The 'Kornet' which was made public by Israel might also be an AT-2, according to some tankers on Tank Net.  All the while, over 500 rockets were fired at Israeli armour, meaning the hit rate was 10%, while the actual kill rate was 1% - evidence that the RPG-29 is not a wonder weapon, and that it doesn't mark the demise of the Merkava. 

What happens  with infantry when their tank cover gets disabled or destroyed? I fore sure wouldn't like to be close when tank get's hit and blows up.

The chances of the tank blowing up are actually extremely small.  The only reason that Soviet/Russian armour 'blow up' is because their tanks don't have blow-off panels given the fact that the ammunition is stored around the turret basket in a casette [for both the CASETTE and KORZINA autoloaders].  Furthermore, the Israeli ammunition on the floor is fitted into armoured baskets, and that in the turret is confined and given a blow-off panel.  The tank itself will not blow-up.  This remains true for all modern Western tanks, and perhaps future Russian tanks [T-95]. 

For tank to operate safe in urban sorrundings the  infantry would  have to clear every building top to bottom and allso take care of the mines/IED's on the road, and in combat situation that's nearly impossible.

Oh, of course, because that has been so true in both Iraq and in Lebanon.  Just because five Israeli tanks were knocked out and between eight and twelve American tanks have been knocked out in three years of occupation duty that doesn't mean that the tank is worthless in urban combat.  The fact that the Merkava can carry dismounts [although originally meant to carry more ammunition], and the TUSK upgrade for the Abrams, will only enhance the tank's preformance in urban combat.  Direct fire support from a tank is crucial in all urban operations, as has been proven since the Second World War.  The mistakes of a few commanders should not set the school of thought.

Originally posted by AltGr I said a thing or two about accuracy of AT-3 missile... And ofcourse the Yom Kippur War was not a good example of urban combat.

But it does disprove the idea that an anti-tank missile is the end of the main battle tank.  It has been disproved time and time again [Yom Kippur War, 1982 Invasion of Lebanon, et cetera].

AT-2 is, as i already said, a radio controled and RPG-29 is fire and forget.

Um, what does this have to do with anything?  The RPG-29 is fire-and-forget only in the way that it cannot be controlled.  Fire-and-forget, however, implies that the missile has its own guidance system - like the Javelin.  Fire-and-forget is not an accurate term for the RPG-29.

The hit rate depends on the operator. So the low hit rate is result of the inexperienced hezbolah fighters.

It also depends on the weapon being used.  The RPG-29 has no guidance system.

So according to your data 50 hits were made and every hit  was a kill or disabeling shot??? That would be great statistic for russian arms industry, actualy that would mean that RPG-29 is a wonder weapon.

Not necessarilly that - but of the 500 weapons the hit/penetration rate was only 10%.

Both Iraq and Lebanon are not what you would call a battlefield of the future.

But it is one that accurately depics the urban fight of the future.  Otherwise, you'd be fighting a conventional military force, where this argument doesn't really apply, and the situation would be much more complex than what we're making it out to be.

What i would like to say is that the one of the world's best armys, and the only superpower both had some problems with their armor in urban combat agains enemy using mostly outdated weapons and poorly trained figters.

This problem isn't a large as you make it out to be.  In three years of occupation we've only lost 8-10 tanks [M1A1s and M1A2s], which is a great achievement given the amount of combat we've seen.  Furthermore, with the new TUSK upgrades, and future Raytheon upgrades, this kill rate is going to go decisvely down.  The anti-tank weapon is not the only weapon that is due to see improvements, after all.

Finegold,

Edited by Cryptic - 15-Oct-2006 at 21:31

Actually as for the M1's quite a few were out of action for 24 hours and more, since while a hit may not kill a tank, or even cause a mob kill, the usually play havoc with all the soft unproteted system, such as the optics and the radios.

Well according to the new rules  we should stick to this threadwether it is about novelties or "oldies but goldies".

IIRC the U.S. Army writes off all it's equipment when it's deployed to a combat theatre. It's considered lost until returned home.

Originally posted by DukeC I Keep in mind that many M1s have been rebuilt throughout their lifetime and sending 80 back to the U.S. to repair damaged armor packages is nothing major.

Can't armour packages be repaired in Iraq?
What is considered repairable damage? Is there any standard procedure to determine is the tank lost or can it be repaired? At least are the tanks so badly damaged that repairs (including shipping) cost more than new tank considered lost?

I thing all M1's are being repared regardless of level of damage and eaven the price of repairs so that the real number of tanks lost is reduced (at least on paper) and the terorist propagand efforts minimised.