Sherman Tank

The Germans got rid of that doctrine near the start of the war. They had tanks designed to only kill soft targets but it was decided that tanks being, well, not exactly tiny, needed to be able to defend themselves against other big things roaming the battlefield.

 

It happened with frequency that more German tanks were killed on the way to the battle than were killed in battle. During the Normandy campaign, The panzer Lehr Division was effectively reduced to little more than a weak battalon by allied air power before it ever got to Normandy.

 

During the Sicily and Italy allied campaigns, if axis tanks were massed close enough to the coasts...U.S. battleships waiting off-shore took care of them with their 14 - 16 inch guns, after Naval liasons on the ground radioed in their locations. It wasn't pin-point accurate like today's smart bombs, but raining down large artillery shells is one way to dispatch armor without putting your own armor assets at risk in a tank battle.

 

A Battalion of Engineers/Infantry in prepared defensive positions (like a city) is probably the most terrifying opponent for armored units. Tank ditches, mines, rocket launchers, molotov cocktails, and good old fashioned TNT can do a number on armored units in contained areas, especially when combined with artillery/naval artillery.

 

I served in the 1/92nd Artillery in Vietnam and was directly involved on perhaps the only tank v tank battle of the war.

http://www.rjsmith.com/ben-het.html

While the article is from a tank commander addressing the conflict he failed to really mention the artillery involvement which was huge. Combined artillery batteries fired over 2,000 rounds of 105mm and 155mm high explosive on the N Vietnamese tanks which was far more than the US tanks used in the engagement. I was at Ben Het calling in the artillery support and the battle raged for several hours overall.

 

This is true. Tanks are really best suited for open field engagements as oppose to urban combat where they are at a disadvantage to even a few peoople with Molotov cocktails. A M1-A1 Abrams has a tactical advantage in open combat but is a sitting duck on a downtown street if it doesn't have massive infantry support to protect it.

 

That's why Saving Private Ryan was total horse(*)(*)(*)(*) during the last battle when it showed the Germans moving up behind the Tiger tank. Totally against all doctrine.

 

It's also why I laugh at amaueter tacticians who use the several Abrams destroyed in Iraq as proof of their shortcomings. Tanks are just mobile shooting platforms that are very vulnerable without infantry support. I've heard countless stories of how insurgents at first used 50-100lbs of explosives on tanks only to find they didn't work. Eventually they just dug 500-1000lb bombs under the road and literally leveled entire surronding buildings to destroy/knock out Abrams. The movies have given most people false perceptions of tanks.

 

Apparently the newer RPG can also penetrate weaker areas of the Abrams and quite a few have been lost. These newer RPGs can penetrate something like 1500mm of steel.

 

Exactly, the newest models of RPGs can knock out every tank ever made if the range and hit location are correct. Urban environments provide an ample supply of such conditions. The Chechyans taught this to the Russians at Gronzy.

 

I'm pretty sure more Abrams have been lost to IEDs than RPGs.

 

Well, the newer RPG 29 has damaged an M1 in Iraq, but as far as I am aware that is the only tank casualty by a man portable weapon (1 damaged a Challenger 2 in 2006, and another an M1 in 2008 ).

[video=youtube;mCNbiOADfwo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCNbiOADfwo[/video]

And it is not 1,500mm of steel, the penetration is 1,500mm of concrete. It only penetrates 750mm of steel.

 

Very true. So far, no tanks have been lost to RPGs (only 2 damaged, no crew members killed and the tanks were returned to service).