"Tanks?" Topic

Is the age of the tank over?

I don't have a firm opinion on this issue, but it sure seems like the new anti-tank missiles as well as cheap drones could make them obsolete. How would a first rank military deal with this problem?

The panzarfaust didn't make Sherman's obsolete.
At the moment the technology seems to be against the tank but their will be weapons manufacture's who will be looking at this problem and coming up with a solution.

Would upward facing reactive armor on the top surfaces of a tank defeat the Javelin missile?

Tanks will remain and will probably come back into there own as new technologies mature.

Also bear in mind a lot of Russia's problems aren't to do with the tank concept but rather insufficient or entirely absent infantry protection and poor deployment. Also there have been a couple of photos which seem to suggest a 'Flames of War' approach to lining up for an attack.

"Would upward facing reactive armor on the top surfaces of a tank defeat the Javelin missile?"

Couldn't hurt ERA reactive armour would help

Too many times someone posts that the Tank is no longer useful. As pointed out by others here the short answer is NO.

I was a Light & Mech Inf Officer during the Cold War, '79-'90. So I have a "hands on" working knowledge of this topic.

Better tech gave us the Javelin and better tactics and tech will make/made the MBT/AFV more survival. E.g. the M1A1 TUSK, M2A3 Bradley, etc.

The MG did not make Infantry obsolete. Tactics and tech had to evolved to deal with the mass introduction of MGs. Albeit it took time for the higher ranking leaders to figure out these tactics, etc.

We fight combined arms warfare, most 1st World forces do, and have done this for a long time. The Combined Arms Tm is Tanks, Infantry, FA … includes Gunships and CAS of course. Plus, ADA, CEs, etc. Armor is a critical part of the Combined Arms warfare.

If one makes that revelation based on what is going on in the Ukraine. That the MBT is obsolete that would be incorrect. The Russian military did not perform anything like combined arms as we all believed they would. As I have said before they were poorly trained, motivated, supplied, supported and lead. So that made a weapon like the Javelin even more effective.

So again short answer is NO.

FYI- Drones considered generally as air support/power. And it a newer weapon to the combined arms team. And it attacks from the air obviously …

Couldn't hurt ERA reactive armour would help

Well the armor has to be a certain thickness for obvious reasons to mount ERA bricks/boxes. They blow up when hit by an AT round, etc. The armor on the top of the turret is not that thick. It is one of the thinner armor on an MBT/AFV. That is one reason why the Javelin was designed to attack on the top.

So to used ERA you may have to thicken the top armor. But an AFV, especially an MBT is pretty heavy already. So that may not be workable. Heavy means moves slower, less maneuverable, higher MPGs, etc.

ERA is generally a good idea in many case. But they may have to come up with something else. They are talking about Slat/Turkey Cage armor may be a "fix" ?

E.g. We sandbagged our M113 APCs based on experiences from Vietnam. It was a quick fix.

The cycle is Measure – Countermeasure – Counter-Countermeasure … repeat.

So IMO and many others the AFV/MBT is still very useful. But as we see if you don't use combined arms, proper use of terrain, etc. You get what is happening now to the "once vaunted" Russian Army.

Legion 4
How extreme is the blow back
Could the explosion be directed in some way?
Maybe mounted on top of the slat armour?

When I see an attack by a U.S. combined arms task force defeated, with charred M-1s strewn about the battlefield and AH-64s going down in flames, then yes, I will agree that the age of the tank is over. Until then, making proclamations based upon a second rate military power with average equipment and poor operational training doesn't really provide enough evidence.

He proclaimed nothing he merely asked a question.

How extreme is the blow back
Could the explosion be directed in some way?
Maybe mounted on top of the slat armour?

When ERA came about, IIRC, the IDF came up with it. And we had a classified briefing on it in '87 (?). We were only told what we had to know. So I really can't answer those off the top of my head without research, etc. That may still be classified ?

But the blow back would be pretty good considering the size of the bricks. If they used a small ERA charge on the top, it might not be that effective.

The explosion is directed out as the armor acts like a "block" to channelize the blast out. And in many cases the tank armor is sloped where the ERA is.

Slat armor is not that heavy. It is primarily used to stop HEAT rounds, e.g. an RPG, etc. So I don't know if putting ERA on top of Slat would be practical or even could be done ? Plus I really don't think Slat armor would be that effective vs. a Javelin HEAT round, which obviously bigger than an RPG. IIRC, the Javelin has a double charge. One to takeout the ERA and the other to penetrate the actual armor. link

From the link :

The Javelin counters the advent of explosive reactive armor (ERA). ERA boxes or tiles lying over a vehicle's main armor explode when struck by a warhead. This explosion does not harm the vehicle's main armor, but causes steel panels to fly across the path of a HEAT round's narrow particle stream, disrupting its focus and leaving it unable to cut through the main armor. The Javelin uses two shaped-charge warheads in tandem. The weak, smaller diameter HEAT precursor charge detonates the ERA, clearing the way for the much larger diameter HEAT warhead, which then penetrates the target's primary armor.

But some good thinking out of the box. But even making thicker armor on the top and ERA. The Javelin "double charge" would defeat that. Wish we had the Javelin, but all we had for man packed was the M47 Dragon and M72 LAW at Plt level. ☹ Thank God for the AT Co. with TOWs !

However, you generally see ERA on the Front and Side hull and/or the Front & Side of the turret. Which are some of the most well armored areas on an MBT. So from that observation it has to be pretty thick to mount ERA.

aegiscg47 +1

The tech will keep on coming and tanks will evolve. Some as robots someday – they are in the works.

However, you generally see ERA on the Front and Side hull and/or the Front & Side of the turret. Which are some of the most well armored areas on an MBT. So from that observation it has to be pretty thick to mount ERA.

I do recall a story about something like a Scorpion being used in a display, think it was something like the Festival of Remembrance at the Royal Albert Hall, which required a bit of pyrotechnics. Thunder flash or similar placed somewhere convenient around the turret IIRC. I think it was done a couple of times for the rehearsal and the performance and that deformed the armour plate. So yeah a minimum thickness required, though I would assume that would be entirely proportional to the strength of charge in the ERA.

I'd also assume that cladding a tank in ERA is a none trivial addition of weight.

Slat is only effective against RPGs and similar weapons that contact the target, and then only if the round hits between the slats. If it hits the slats itself it is likely to work as advertised. Slats are also made ineffective if you fill up the space between the armour and the vehicle with stuff (such as kit bags, sandbags etc ) It is totally ineffective against a standoff detonating weapon such as Javelin. ERA works by blowing the front plate through the path of the jet (also works for long rod penetrators), the "blast" itself has little effect. ERA needs a firm foundation on which to sit so that the back plate resists the blast of the explosive.

Some sort of active directed defence like phalanx perhaps.

Pardon my ignorance, but if the territory that tanks are to operate in must first be secured by infantry then what purpose do said tanks serve?

Tortella +1 Yes, tech & tactics have to evolve or you get WWI again.

ROUWetPatchBehindTheSofa +1

deformed the armour plate. So yeah a minimum thickness required,

I'd also assume that cladding a tank in ERA is a none trivial addition of weight.

Yes I'd think that is very true.

Slat is only effective against RPGs and similar weapons that contact the target, and then only if the round hits between the slats. If it hits the slats itself it is likely to work as advertised.

Yes, generally that is what it was designed for. Dealing with the massive use of RPGs in Iraq, etc. Rarely would they be attacked by MBTs.

Slats are also made ineffective if you fill up the space between the armour and the vehicle with stuff (such as kit bags, sandbags etc ) It is totally ineffective against a standoff detonating weapon such as Javelin.

Yes, the crews of Slat armor would know that. Maybe learning the hard way. But I'd think they be taught the +s & -s of Slat armor. And yes the 2.5 miles of the Javelin really makes it a stand off weapon. Plus as I mentioned … even making thicker armor on the top and ERA. The Javelin "double charge" would defeat that. Wish we had the Javelin, but all we had for man packed was the M47 Dragon and M72 LAW at Plt level. ☹ Thank God for the AT Co. with TOWs !

The RPG, M72 LAW and even the M47 Dragon is not really a standoff weapon with the range of a Javelin. The Dragon's max range is about 1000ms … the later Improved Dragon was rated at 1500ms. If you don't kill that AFV it will be on top of you very quickly. AFVs generally can move faster than you can run. Been there done that … in training at Benning in '79.

Plus the Javelin is fire & forget. The Dragon is wire-guided, and must be kept on the target. Similar to the Russian Sagger. So if the gunner is taking fire and flinches, the missile may miss the target. This does not happen with the Javelin. The link I provided in my above post has a article about the Javelin. Again we never had that when I was on Active Duty. The AT-4 was just being introduced a year or so before I was ETS'ing[getting out of the Army]. I had my Mech Co. trained in the classroom on it. But by the time I rotated out we never got to live-fire. My replacement probably did that …

ERA needs a firm foundation on which to sit so that the back plate resists the blast of the explosive.

Yes as I said … The explosion is directed out as the armor acts like a "block" to channelize the blast out. And in many cases the tank armor is sloped where the ERA is.

that tanks are to operate in must first be secured by infantry then what purpose do said tanks serve?

Tanks provide mobile fire support for the Infantry and in turn the Infantry provides support against enemy Infantry with AT weapons, etc. When they dismount. They work as a team with FA and even Gunships & CAS in support. Or even Naval supporting fires.

The Infantry moves with the Tanks in APCs, IFVs, or on the back deck of the MBT. Based on terrain and situation, the Infantry in AFVs or even dismounted may move in front of the MBTs or vis versa. Again both supported by mortars, FA and possibly Gunships & CAS. Plus maybe Naval fire support.

The Infantry can go places AFVs, e.g. MBTs, APCs, or IFVS can't. E.g. swamps, marshes, inside structures, mountains, etc.. But based on the terrain and situation the AFVs could still provide fire support. However, in some cases dismounted Infantry may not get Armor support. For a number of reasons, etc. So Infantrymen like when I was in the 101, are trained to operate independently. With fire support provide by Mortars, FA, and maybe Gunships & CAS. Or Naval fire support.

Mortars, FA etc. may be used first to suppress likely or known enemy positions. Then the Infantry & Tanks advance together. With guns blazing, or fire & movement or advancing to contact, etc. Or if they are taking fire they can also call in Mortar, FA, etc. support.

This is basically the way combined arms works. So to take away tanks you loose a key weapon of the team. Using modern mobile combined arms. Even thought Infantry can operate without armor at times in closed terrain, etc., using fire support from indirect fires, etc. Again based on terrain & situation.

Combined Arms/US Army Airland Battle Doctrine is broadly based on the German "blitzkrieg" tactics. Tanks, Infantry, FA, CAS, etc. working together.

Watch this link – a pretty good demonstration of combined arms in action. link

A pretty good discussion/short history of combined arms, etc. – TMP link

An active defense module – read as "miniature CIWS" – is already being looked at. As lasers mature in tech, it is possible a laser based system would overtake a gatling-version pretty soon. Missiles aren't carrying armor, so really we are talking shotgun rounds….

Yea, I'm surprised Russian tanks, and/or American and others don't already have active defense systems now, given how much they cost, and the high-threat environment they operate in.

Israel supposedly has this already, and it works.

I imagine others are working on it.

I'm not at all an armor expert: I've seen model kits of T-90 tanks (and relatives) modeled with ERA bricks on top of the turret, along with all the usual places. What purpose would that serve? It wouldn't stop a Javelin, so what's the deal? Incorrect modeling?

I thought the Soviets originally invented reactive armour, but after experimenting with it unsuccessfully, dropped the idea. The Israelis later perfected it, and deployed it quite successfully.

I hear the French might be using non explosive reactive armour, which not only would make supporting infantry a bit happier, but that type of armour is also more effective against dual warhead weapons. No idea whether it would defeat a Javelin.

Lastly, I might add that in really nasty environments, that god forbid would ever occur, such as persistent chemical or high radiation environments, a tank would be more survivable and operational than infantry.

I'm not at all an armor expert: I've seen model kits of T-90 tanks (and relatives) modeled with ERA bricks on top of the turret, along with all the usual places. What purpose would that serve? It wouldn't stop a Javelin, so what's the deal? Incorrect modeling?

I never saw any AFVs with ERA on top of the turret ? But as you can see we discussed the pluses & minuses a bit …

"Well the armor has to be a certain thickness for obvious reasons to mount ERA bricks/boxes. They blow up when hit by an AT round, etc. The armor on the top of the turret is not that thick. It is one of the thinner armor on an MBT/AFV. That is one reason why the Javelin was designed to attack on the top."

"So to use ERA you may have to thicken the top armor. But an AFV, especially an MBT is pretty heavy already. So that may not be workable. Heavy means moves slower, less maneuverable, higher MPGs, etc. But even making thicker armor on the top and ERA. The Javelin "double charge" would defeat that."…

But it could be done I'd think to put ERA on the top of the turret? Would be based on the considerations we have discussed and probably more. You have pic ? Was it ERA or something else, e.g. sandbags ? As I said we "sandbagged" our M113s. AFAIK the armor was not thick enough for ERA. Plus they were slowly being replaced by M2 Bradleys in Infantry and M3s in Scout units. As noted the M2A3 Bradley did have ERA, IIRC … As well as the M1A2 TUSK, IIRC …

From a link I posted above :

The Javelin counters the advent of explosive reactive armor (ERA). ERA boxes or tiles lying over a vehicle's main armor explode when struck by a warhead. This explosion does not harm the vehicle's main armor, but causes steel panels to fly across the path of a HEAT round's narrow particle stream, disrupting its focus and leaving it unable to cut through the main armor. The Javelin uses two shaped-charge warheads in tandem. The weak, smaller diameter HEAT precursor charge detonates the ERA, clearing the way for the much larger diameter HEAT warhead, which then penetrates the target's primary armor.

*Tony

I thought the Soviets originally invented reactive armour, but after experimenting with it unsuccessfully, dropped the idea. The Israelis perfected and deployed it quite successfully.

That may be true. The Russians are quite "inventive" with their AFVs. And yes the IDF perfected it and used it very effectively.

the French might be using non explosive reactive armour, which not only would make supporting infantry a bit happier, but that type of armour is also more effective against dual warhead weapons. No idea whether it would defeat a Javelin.

Did not know about the French "N-ERA"? Very interesting … And yes how would it work vs. the Javelins "duel warhead" I don't know either ? " …

persistent chemical or high radiation environments, a tank would be more survivable and operational than infantry.

Very true, AFVs have an over pressure system, etc. in the event of Chem WMDs IIRC. The crews also wear a "Pro-mask"/"Gas mask" that hooks up to the AFVs over pressure system, etc. Much better than our Infantry Pro-mask in the long run.

And yes the armor of most AFVs would provide some protection from Rads. I'd think so as well.

The Infantryman's MOPP suit[i.e. chem protective suit] … not so much vs. Rads. Another good reason they make a lot of Infantrymen … 😏😉😮

I've seen some Russian tanks with it on the top, front area of their turrets.

Useful for protection from RPGs fired from above, as in city fighting.

> *I never saw any AFVs with ERA on top of the turret ?*

Really? They are very common. For example, in these very boards someone shared pics of 3D printed T-64 tanks with ERA bricks all over them, including a good chunk at the top of the turret, around hatches, etc: TMP link

Well that is interesting … From what I had studied/seen ERA was not used on top ! I may have just learned something !

Just went to that link ! Beautiful models & terrain !

I'll have to do more research on this Top ERA ! I did say it was possible, but I never have seen it – "But it could be done I'd think to put ERA on the top of the turret? Would be based on the considerations we have discussed and probably more." … 😔 <hangs head in shame>

Excellent article on ERA – link

The ERAs are often mounted on the areas which are most likely to hit like the front part of the hull, the entire turret, side skirts covering the tracks etc.

It says the entire turret ! So I learned something !

Here's a GHQ T-72 with ERA on the top of it's turret. link I must spend more time on modern weapons than sci-fi !!!!

But still, to use explosive reactive armour the tank must have adequately thick armour to protects its crew from the blast. However ERAs pose significant threat to other infantrymen near the tank as when an ERA explodes, its upper plate breaks into fragments which are lethal enough to give fatal injuries to nearby infantrymen.

Well at least I was right about adequate armor thickness … 😏😎 And yes, Infantrymen do not want to be anywhere the front of the tank when it fires it's main gun. And now the threat of getting frag'd by ERA.

So no more Tank talk ?

"And yes the armor of most AFVs would provide some protection from Rads. I'd think so as well. "

Cold War-modern tanks, yes; they are specifically designed to have NBC protection. Even so, many such systems may not have been maintained or tested for some time.

Older tanks – well, there are numerous abandoned ISU-152s in the contaminated zone at Chernobyl.
Their Soviet masters sent them in to demolish certain structures and told the crews the armour would protect them, but it turned out that was a furphy.

Cold War-modern tanks, yes; they are specifically designed to have NBC protection. Even so, many such systems may not have been maintained or tested for some time.

Yes, that is what I thought. IIRC, our M60A1s and M1IPs had some NBC protection. I'm not so sure about our M113s, probably not. Way back in the '80s … It's much different now in most cases, AFAIK. Our MOPP Suits … with a "modicum" of protection … well better than nothing …☹