ITT We Hunt Big Game
Starting off with the OG antitank weapon: The Panzerfaust.
The 'Faust was a simple concept, designed to be a cheap, mass produced antitank weapon for the Volkssturm near the end of WW2. The large, bulbous head contained a large shaped charge warhead. At the ass end of the warhead was a wooden plug with folding spring-steel fins.
The fins were rolled up around the plug, a cardboard cartridge containing black powder was screwed onto the ass end of the plug, and the plug was stuffed into the end of a hollow metal pipe and adjusted to line up with a hammer and firing pin assembly on the tube. When the firing lever was pushed, the firing pin hit a primer in the cardboard cartridge, igniting the black powder, which sent a jet of fire 50 feet back behind the shooter and lobbed the warhead a distance of about 60 meters.
A related, but much less known cousin to the Panzerfaust was the Panzerwurfmine. This was a miniaturized shaped charge warhead turned into a hand grenade.
Antitank grenades are not new, but only received much major publicity when Hadji started using old Soviet RKG-3 antitank grenades against our uparmored Humvees and Strykers in Iraq several years ago.
The Panzerwurfmine was the granddaddy of them all. It had a small but powerful shaped charge with a sensitive contact detonator. This warhead was attached to a long tube, like a stick grenade, that was surrounded by four spring-steel wires attached to cloth fins. When thrown, the wires flip out and stretch the cloth pieces into fins for stable flight. One wire was also attached to a safety pin and yanked it free only when the fins deployed, preventing accidental an heroes.
The PWM was used chiefly by special German tank hunter teams, because it was short ranged and required good aim. For best effect, the grenade was thrown in a high arc, to bring it down on top of the enemy tank where the armor was thinner. This took practice, but was very effective when employed correctly.
The most basic of all ATGMs that had real combat effectiveness is the 9k11 Malyutka (NATO name SA-3 Sagger).
With a firing station consisting of a simple periscope sight attached to a joystick, these missiles were beefy shaped-charge warheads attached to a rocket motor and some control fins. A flare on the tail kept the missile visible in flight while the gunner flew it into the target like a R/C airplane. Control commands were sent to the missile via a pair of thin wires that spooled out behind the missile as it flew. This command scheme was called Manual Command to Line of Sight. State of the art for 1960s tech.
Iran and China both still use the AT-3 in their arsenals, but have upgrade them with more powerful warheads and computer-assisted missile guidance. A good number of them have also been showing up in Syria off and on.
The Sagger gets a bad rap for being hard to steer (there's a simulator game called "9k11" for Android if you want to try) but with a practiced gunner is capable of some impressive kills.
That's all for tonight. Enjoy.
So it's like a poorfag's Javelin
Any good sources on the LOSAT/CKEM?
Javelin is fire and forget. A million times more advanced than that. Its not even a poorman's TOW because those are SACLOS. As a matter of fact, I cant think of a western MCLOS ATGM besides the Japanese MAT.
French SS.10, SS.11, and SS.12, American ENTAC, and the Brits had a couple too. None currently in service though.
/r/ing that one mortar launched, top attack ATGM concept
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
Screw it I'll post the others
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
It is also not a concept, since it's something that they have deployed in some numbers.
Here's the artillery version.
It's a shame that we couldn't take the Hedgehog anti-sub mortar and apply the same concept to the hollow charge spigot mortars (PIATS) that the UK was using at the time.
Good piece on the Sagger
"Soviet ATGMs and October, 1973":
"The CIA’s assessment of the Yom Kippur War "
>Antitank Weaponry. The most effective tank killer in this war was the tank - 90 percent of the Arab tanks and at least 75 percent of the Israeli tanks destroyed during the war were hit by enemy tanks. Antitank missiles such as the Sagger, RPG-7, LAW, and TOW could be countered by appropriate tactics, although they represented a new and dangerous presence on the battlefield.
>Israeli tank losses in the first 24 hours of the war are hard to establish. The Israelis began the war with 250 tanks in the Sinai. Within 24 hours, 150 to 160 of these were out of action, although many were repaired and returned to service within periods of several hours to several days. Some units were almost wiped out. The brigade in the Al Qantarah sector was reduced from 50 tanks to 11 by early morning of 7 October. The major cause of these losses probably was the Egyptian antitank missiles employed from ambush by troops who crossed early and moved five, to ten kilometers inland from the canal. Also effective were antitank missiles fired from the mounds the Egyptians had built along the west bank (see illustration on page 17). These mounds provided Egyptian Sagger and tank crews with a broad field of fire extending into the east bank area. Antitank missiles were the primary cause of Israeli losses in the first two or three days of the war. The Israelis' use of unsupported tanks made them vulnerable to Egyptian infantrymen armed with portable antitank weapons. The Israelis had simply failed to recognize that antitank missiles would require them to change their tank tactics.
>The Israelis realized quickly that events had made their tactics obsolete, and they adopted new ones designed to overcome the Sagger antitank missile. One tactic was to designate one tank in each formation to watch for the launch of these missiles and to warn the others. Often this would give them time to take cover. The Israelis also found that, if they fired at the point of launch, they could distract the missile controller and cause the missile to go astray, because the Sagger is wire guided and has to be controlled until it hits its target. Another technique was to fire at places likely to conceal missile launchers, but this wasted ammunition. In the end, the Israelis rediscovered that the best all-around results came from using a coordinated tank infantry-team: the infantry defended the tanks against missile-carrying enemy infantrymen, while the tanks defended the Israeli infantrymen against enemy tanks and provided fire support.
>In accounts immediately after the war, however, the effect of the antitank missiles was exaggerated. Detailed information now available indicates that in the whole war the Israelis lost approximately 500 tanks; among them 119 disabled units………. at least 6 percent but no more than 25 percent, were killed by Saggers.
Robot 05, swedish anti ship missile launched from the Viggen.
Not really AT, but manual optical guidance non the less.
How effective are molotov cocktails against modern tanks? What is the best recipe for one you would use to take on a tank?
Serbs have a sagger upgrade with a massive warhead for troop support.
Not at all effective.
To kill a modern armored vehicle with molotovs you need to find one thats isolated, sneak within a few yards of it, then rush it with like 40 guys at the same time. Even then that would only work on wheeled vehicles with burnable tires, not on tanks.
How about humvees and such? Is there anything a molotov could do besides hopefully destroy some tires?
This is a good thread and all but the thumbnail in the catalog looked like a niggerdick.
And what if someone just stuffs their boots in air intake? Or shoots the optical equipment?
Or better yet, shoving mud down the cannon so it backfires and explodes
>what if someone sucks out all the fuel and tank stops
>checkmate atheists tanks are vulnerable to mouths
Well fuck me sideways, MBT have just become obsolete to an army of fag lips soldiers wearing gucci heeled boots.
Humvees are easier, theyre often not buttoned up and smoke can choke out the crew. Still one molotov wouldnt cut it, youd need a team of dudes.
Disregard >>548117 He must be mentally handicapped.
Tank engines, like any other chemical engine, require an oxidizer to operate. Tanks, just like cars, bikes or trucks, get their oxidizer from the oxygen in the air. When you start a fire near the engine air intake, you can essentially starve the engine and cause it to stop.
Of course modern tanks can run off the batteries for some time, but the tank WILL stop moving, which gives you more time.
While this works for cars (nice way to prevent someone from driving away) air intakes on tanks are fuckhuge. Try finding a boot big enough for pic related.
You would need a lot of mud, and once you get THAT close you can just knock on the top hatch with your pistol and demand the commander to surrender, or you will weld the tank open and force him to.
Molotovs are cheap, available and have at least throwing range. They are better than nothing and require less effort to make than a thrown shaped charge / shaped charge mine.
>How effective are molotov cocktails against modern tanks? Not much since all of them are sealed for NRBC warfare/snorkeling.
It might do… something if you land it on the air intake. Subsequently.
>What is the best recipe for one you would use to take on a tank?
More liquid than gelatinous to hope the flammable liquid reach something important through the air intake.
>To kill a modern armored vehicle with molotovs you need to find one thats isolated, sneak within a few yards of it
Well that always was how molotovs where supposed to be used.
>How about humvees and such?
Depends on the humvee, early ones piss easy, it's like a regular car. New up-armored ones, unless you land it right on the open roof hatch, it's gonna be much harder to burn it out, but you will still fuck it up by throwing one on the hood (but you won't harm the crew).
>Or shoots the optical equipment?
That does work to some extent.
>And what if someone just stuffs their boots in air intake?
M1s have a "kill crew" button that you can use from outside the hull.
If you can get to it…
If an MBT is buttoned up even hitting it with multiple napalm bombs or a flame fougasse wouldnt do anything.
>Well that always was how molotovs where supposed to be used.
How about attaching a molotov to a black powder rocket made from pipe? There is much development to be done with improvised rockets
Oh man you've got lots to learn about rocket candy and the local farm store.
pick one, it never engaged tanks
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
How dead are tanks in ww3?
Actually modern tanks, including the Abrams, are quite vulnerable to fire. All but one of our Abrams tanks lost in the 2003 Iraq invasion were lost to the same cause: Burning fuel leaking from the EAPUs getting into the engine compartment.
The EAPU is a big external generator box on top of the turret that is used to power the electronics without having to run the engine and guzzle fuel. In one case, one of these EAPUs was shot up with a 14.5mm HMG and burning generator fuel caught the entire tank ablaze. In another case, the tank was covered with TA-50 belonging to the soldiers accompanying it. This got caught on fire and burning cloth debris lit the engine up.
A large molotov like the ones used in the Iran Iraq war by partisans (a 1gal glass jug filled with kerosene, diesel fuel, and household sulfuric acid to eat through seals was used to good effect against T72s) busted on top of the engine deck would probably cripple an Abrams in short order. The engine compartments aren't hermetically sealed, and there will naturally be all kinds of flammable residue, grease, and meltable hoses and electric wiring in there. If the engine starts to burn it may get hot enough to ignite the jet fuel, in which case the whole tank goes up.
The replacement for the MCLOS ATGM was a missile that used a computer assisted guidance package. Using the TOW as an example, the firing station has two cameras on it - a wide-angle, low magnification camera, and a camera with variable zoom. With MCLOS, when the missile is fired, the gunner has to fly the missile down into his line of sight. Then he keeps the crosshairs of the sight on the target, while steering the missile to the center of the crosshairs using the joystick. Like lining up the front and back sights of a rifle on a moving target.
SACLOS (Semiautomatic Command to Line of Sight) uses this wide-angle camera to "catch" the missile after firing, and steers it into view of the narrow-lens zoom camera. This camera can see the flare or IR strobe light in the tail of the missile, is bore-sighted to the crosshairs on the aiming optic, and the computer automatically controls the missile to keep it in the center of the crosshairs. With SACLOS, all the gunner has to do is fire, and then keep the target in the center of the crosshairs until the missile impacts the target. This is the most common system of ATGM guidance today.
Tanks are still a big part of convential warfare.
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
Dont conflate the burgermobile and its nigger rigged upgrades with tanks in general.
Every other tank can be doused in diesel and lit while maintaining mission readiness. See 18:20, its not even a new technology.
>M1s have a "kill crew" button that you can use from outside the hull.
I'm curious ro learn more about this, is it a system intended to "scuttle" the tank or some sort of fire prevention/control system that incidentLly doesn't play nice with the humans inside?
It shuts off fuel flow to the engine, its a safety feature meant for use in emergencies.
However if you use it and wedge a potato in it so the handle stays open, the tank is basically useless. Its a 70 ton paperweight.
Nah you can activate the Halon extinguishers from outside to gas the crew.
Neat the portside left quarter, behind the tread skirt, is a red T-handle. Pulling this activates the Halon gas fire-extinguishing system inside the tank.
It's supposed to be used by the tank crew if they're forced to bail out because of a fire. But there's nothing stopping it from being yanked while the crew is buttoned up inside, assuming you can get close enough to do it.
Pls post pics, for research purposes of course :^)
>Actually modern tanks, including the Abrams, are quite vulnerable to fire. All but one of our Abrams tanks lost in the 2003 Iraq invasion were lost to the same cause: Burning fuel leaking from the EAPUs getting into the engine compartment.
>The EAPU is a big external generator box on top of the turret that is used to power the electronics without having to run the engine and guzzle fuel. In one case, one of these EAPUs was shot up with a 14.5mm HMG and burning generator fuel caught the entire tank ablaze. In another case, the tank was covered with TA-50 belonging to the soldiers accompanying it. This got caught on fire and burning cloth debris lit the engine up.
The exposed EAPU is only an issue on M1A1's and baseline M1A2's, the M1A2 SEPv2 has the UAAPU or a series of Hawker batteries in place of the left-rear fuel sponson.
Yup. All someone has to do is crawl up to it, gas the crew (which will undoubtedly unlock the hatches trying to leave), and gain a perfectly working tank.
Repeat after me:
BEST TANK DESIGN EVAAAARRR.
Well the reason it has an outside fire extinguisher button is because they do tend to catch fire fairly often.
EAPU is a step up from the fuel bladders they use to simply pile on top of them to give it more autonomy…
its the halon system for the engine compartment you niggers
It's 33 years older and not fire and forget. It's was also so cheap even when new that it was issued in the tens of thousands and can be fired without 2 hours a paperwork justifying its use.
Its latest variant is a decent poor mans Kornet.
5km range and 1m RHA penetration after ERA.
When working normally it's automated and it activates compartment by compartment.
That's the emergency manual release meant to be used by the crew of the vehicle if the system is failing (after leaving the tank obviously), it activates all the extinguishers, trying to save the tank from catastrophic fire.
It's a perfectly fine idea on paper, of a fairly standard design on all sorts of equipment/buildings, packing such systems.
And to be fair as much as we deride the burgers for it all it does is sparing the enemy a grenade.
Any tank that has enemy infantry close enough to touch it unhindered is fucked, that's probably what the thought process was and it's not wrong.
>BEST TANK DESIGN EVAAAARRR.
I honestly don't understand those faggots. Except for the gas turbine, there is literally nothing special or extraordinary about the M1A and wether the turbine is actually superior to a "normal" diesel engine is very much up for debate anyway.
A turboshaft designed and built from the ground up would result in a far, far more functional and lower maintainance engine able to take just about anything liquid that burns as fuel. Turboshafts have a much higher power density than piston engines, but they also have a much harsher power curve, making it really inefficient have the turboshaft geared to the driveshaft, it needs either a hydraulic or electric system in between which is where the negatives come in.
>far more functional and lower maintainance engine able to take just about anything liquid that burns as fuel.
You know that tank diesels are multi-fuel too?
>it needs either a hydraulic or electric system in between which is where the negatives come in
Or you could govern the engine for the RPM at which it's most efficient, then control your thrust with a variable pitch propeller.
>variable pitch propeller
Disregard that, I'm an idiot that thought this was the AHRLAC thread.
I'm pretty sure the US will find a way to future proof their M1A2's by adding VPP capabilities.
The ontos is more of a "fuck gooks hiding behind objects"-weapon than an anti-tank weapon.
>All these faggots thinking about tanks
Submit to the BAC (big air-power cock)
>All someone has to do is crawl up to it
Wasn't the single biggest lesson learned from the first Chechen War that tanks are useless without supporting infantry precisely because of all the shit that can be done if the enemy can get within arms length of a tank?
Russians learned that in Finland, English, French, and Germans learned that in WWI, Japs learned this in China, Ameri-kuns had some close calls in the Philippines and Nippon.
This is almost 100 years old knowledge.
>waste 100.000$ missile and 100.000$ of fuel in SEAD/AWACS/CAP/CAS planes, plus many hundreds of men for maintenance and logistics just to kill a 50.000$ tank
>your entire attack can be denied by a single guy with a 10.000$ MANPADS, or bad weather
>able to take just about anything liquid that burns as fuel.
That went out the window with JP8.
Actually it's rifles length of a tank, about 500m.
Recent insurgent experience is why everyone is building tanks with more pintle mounts. The idea is to shoot RPG teams before they shoot you, because there's no real defense against such a cheap and effective weapon.
>>waste 100.000$ missile and 100.000$ of fuel in SEAD/AWACS/CAP/CAS planes, plus many hundreds of men for maintenance and logistics just to kill a 50.000$ tank
You're SEVERELY overestimating the cost of missiles and fuel and SEVERELY underestimating the cost of the average MBT with this statement. The AGM-65 Maverick maxes out at $100k per missile with variants being cheaper and most MBTs that would be threatened by it are much more expensive than $50k.
>>your entire attack can be denied by a single guy with a 10.000$ MANPADS, or bad weather
MANPADS are only effective in certain situtations and are outranged by most air-to-ground missiles. Also bad weather isn't a deterrent.
Requesting design plans for homemade shaped charge warheads.
Between autonomous vehicles mowing down pedestrians and jihadis turning trucks into terror weapons, there exists a definitive need for the means by which citizens can defend themselves from automotive assault.
What weapons exist that can stop a charging Buick, yet still be reasonably carried on the person? Would a vehicle powered by electricity, with its redundant hub motors and explosive power supply, be more or less difficult to stop compared to one powered by an internal combustion engine?
are you retarded?
You aim just a little low on the windshield with a CC pistol you idiot. But I will humor you with a meme answer known as a three pound plastic tube of dead tank in the form of an ancient rifle grenade with a nigger rigged rocket motor strapped to its ass.
I think electric cars would be harder to stop because a bullet through a battery will likely just kill a couple of cells while a bullet through an engine will kill it dead.
The battery is also generally a harder target with most manufacturers making them low and flat.
Laws of physics would fuck you over if the speed of the vehicle is higher than 20mph probably. Would recommend either being alert or running between something like a structural support of a building.
>Would a vehicle powered by electricity, with its redundant hub motors and explosive power supply, be more or less difficult to stop compared to one powered by an internal combustion engine?
You probably can't shoot out the battery in a situation like that hell the location for the battery would vary no?. Maybe if you knew the attack in advance then you could hack it possibly but that's possible. Such actions prob be pre-planned
apples and oranges
bullet through battery should be compared to bullet through fuel tank, which if its self sealing does no damage, and is also low and flat.
bullet through engine should be compared with bullet through electric motor.
The difference is there is generally 4 electric motors and they are small targets.
Knocking out any 2 wouldn't really worry the car.
Production electric vehicles most often have the battery mounted in the floorpan, which is obviously going to be practically impossible to take out.
An ICE isn't going to be much easier. Even if you're carrying something hard hitting enough to punch a hole in the engine block, it can still run on the remaining cylinders long enough to fuck your day up. Taking out the radiator does nothing in this situation, as it would take a solid several minutes for the engine to overheat and even longer for it to start sustaining damage. Even hitting a fuel line wouldn't be enough; residual pressure could keep it going for quite a while as well. The only thing that would immediately stop it dead is getting lucky enough to hit and break the timing components (belt/chain/gears), but that's not an easy thing to accomplish. Even then, a several thousand pound vehicle hurtling towards you still has a metric fuckton of inertia.
>tl;dr: don't bother, just run away
"Sweat saves blood, blood saves lives, but brains save both"
Any armored vehicle can be taken out of action for further destruction or intact capture by the proper use of a concealed anti-tank trench(useful on gravel/dirt roads innawoods).
The trench walls have to be steep enough to keep a tank from climbing out, and deep enough to plug the main gun in it's fall. Preferred to bury the whole tank so the earth is above the machineguns, but at the cost of moving more earth and more trench wall reinforcing.
It might even be
possible practical to tunnel under a paved road and remove enough dirt for the road to collapse under the weight of a MBT, but leave enough so the pavement doesn't sag or collapse under its own weight.
I'm no engineer so feel free to correct me if this idea can't work.
It can work in the same way spitting on a tank enough will cause it to rust.
To disable a single tank using your """"method""""" would require 10-15 men digging for half a day probably.
And i don't understand why you think that the tank driver or commander can't use their fucking eyes to see the obvious trench you've dug infront of them.
And you spend all this time digging this trench only to get spotted by a recon vehicle, your entire units position given away and the tanks just start lobbing HE at you from 1.5 km away where they can't even see your trench.
<It might even be possible practical to tunnel under a paved road and remove enough dirt for the road to collapse under the weight of a MBT, but leave enough so the pavement doesn't sag or collapse under its own weight.
Are Americans really this stupid?
What do you fucking think the whole point of war is? It's to take other people stuff, why are you suggesting destroying the infrastructure of a country that you're trying to take over for the possibility of maybe disabling a single tank for maybe a day before they repair it.
>To disable a single tank using your """"method""""" would require 10-15 men digging for half a day probably.
What about using the science of Barnes Wallis in a smaller scale? Instead of digging a trench, use an artillery strike to create a series of big enough craters. Of course, this too has several problems.
Are you that crazy hungarian i've heard about recently?
If i can just fire artillery at the ground to make holes for tanks to fall in to………..
why wouldn't i just fire the artillery at the tanks?
>What weapons exist that can stop a charging Buick
Mandatory remote off switch with access from police and NSA.
>inb4 driving is right not privilege
There are ground penetrating munitions that do exactly that, although an anti-tank mine is probably hundreds of times more effective.
Pic related is a type of bar mine, when it explodes it diagonally cuts a line across the tanks treads, damaging several wheels as well. This puts a stop to a tank a lot more effectively than a hole in the ground, which any other tank can pull it out of with a winch.
A single rocket truck brigade can deploy 600 of these mines in seconds. They disperse fairly well due to flettner action, and when camouflaged are very hard to see. If a single tank loses their treads on this, the entire enemy army might pause to assess/demine its path.
>It can work in the same way spitting on a tank enough will cause it to rust.
See German anti-tank strategies of ww1. They dedicated a lot of manpower(more digging than I'm proposing) to building anti-tank trenches and capturing British armor."b-but Germany lost ww1". Britain won because of her navy, without its superiority, Germany would have won in the west like they did in the east.
>To disable a single tank using your """"["]method""""" would require 10-15 men digging for half a day probably.
Work all day building defenses now so you don't have to deal with as much expensive enemy firepower.
>And i don't understand why you think that the tank driver or commander can't use their fucking eyes to see the obvious trench you've dug infront of them.
I said "well concealed", are you so autistic that I have to explain that well concealed means you can't tell it's a trap by looking at it.
>And you spend all this time digging this trench only to get spotted by a recon vehicle, your entire units position given away and the tanks just start lobbing HE at you from 1.5 km away where they can't even see your trench.
I never said this strategy isn't situational. It's for defending in advance, such as behind forward ambush sites beginning with propper mines.
>What do you fucking think the whole point of war is? It's to take other people stuff, why are you suggesting destroying the infrastructure of a country that you're trying to take over for the possibility of maybe disabling a single tank for maybe a day before they repair it.
It's if you have everything they need for an ambush except weapons that can pierce MBT armoractive protection is becoming more common, so "just use ATGMs" is not an excuse. You still need manpower and rations though. You can save the little explosive you have not building an IED and dig out a shinny new MBT. With how much infrastructure gets destroyed in wars anyway, it's not much of a cost if you only build these traps on forested and mountainous roads on the frontier after war is declared (behind the more quickly established ambush units and road blocks).
Unless you can make the craters have near vertical side walls, the tank will probably be able to climb out. Even if it could be done with artillery, the explosive would be better saved on making mines. However, if a mine has to be built under hard rock and you don't have other rock breaking equipment, making holes with explosives would be useful. Landing artillery on enemy roads from a distance could also be useful for baking up traffic.
A tank stuck in a deep hole(earth above the machine guns) cannot be winched out, it has to be dug out. It can't fight back if it's stuck in said hole. If it hits a mine, it's also has to be repaired, which complicates capturing and using said tanks. The use of mines is for slowing down a force, at-trenches allow capturing tanks for counter attacks, forcing the enemy to be more cautious with their tanks than normally.
>I would love it if some random government man had control over my moving vehicle
>this cannot possibly backfire
Situational awareness, two functioning legs, and fuckton of adrenaline.
>To disable a single tank using your """"method""""" would require 10-15 men digging for half a day probably.
>implying this is a problem for a well organized army
>expecting anything else from sweden
Modern tanks can't be captured, they have lock out devices that's why ISIS couldn't drive the dozens or so Abrams they captured without also capturing the crew and making them talk… in the end most were blown up for propaganda and the enemy is likely to airstrike or artillery a stationary target to avoid precisely that. Besides the frontlines in modern conflicts move so fast that doing such things is impossible, not enough time to dig out the trapped tanks and fix them for your own use.
Seriously there are much better ways to capture tanks, I don't know why we're going for the most expensive option. Easier ways to kill them too…
>WWI as an example
Oh come on! That worked when tanks moved at the speed of smell, with troops having days of warning before tanks got to pre dug trenches because everyone was doing trench warfare. Even then the driver only saw his controls and was being directed by the commander who was himself blinded by smoke within and outside the tank.
There's no way that's working on a modern tank, any more than molotovs would work. Unless they are Israelis, so blase about the value of a tank because best goys will replace them at a 1:1 rate for free.
>It won't work.
>Image shows the concept working.
Agreed this method would not be effective to capture a tank, but you could certainly disable them. You seem to have the mind this is something that is done in the middle of the battle, and that's not what anyone is saying. These are defensive preparations. Hostile tanks located elsewhere in your state? Dig some trap trenches just in case. Maybe the tanks show up, maybe they don't. That's how it works sometimes.
Please, give us the easier ways for guerrillas to kill tanks. Without access to modern anti-armor weaponry the best you could do is blow the treads off, and that still leaves the tank live and capable of counterattack. It would help, but it's not going to be a final solution.
>doesnt read a post
>responds to an image
I already countered the arguments you have in this post.
If you wish to capture a tank, there are easier methods. Like killing everyone at a tank base or infiltrating it, getting into the tanks and then driving out with them… assuming you have codes, which a guerilla army with compatriots in the military would have.
If you wish to disable a tank, there are easier methods. Like anti tank mines, which are easy to set up, cheaper, less visible, movable, and kill with a greater certainty. They aren't difficult to make.
If you dig a pit years prior, the enemy will know where they are, and be able to build bridges, fill them in, or avoid them. Also this is a rebel situation, where would you build the pits? If you're thinking of militia compounds prior to fighting and you want some fortification you can move and which can't be filled in or crossed with a bridge… use czech hedgehogs. Or makeshift concrete fortifications, dig a foot deep circular pit, place a plastic barrel in it, ram a steel shaft through the bottom of it so some is peeking out into the barrel, and fill with concrete. They can still trap tanks by lifting their tracks off the ground or snagging their hull.
If you really wish to dig a pit, use a McNaughton mine to dig a camouflet. It is simpler, faster, and has a measure of surprise at least.
I would add that capturing a tank is useless unless you capture the whole logistics train that feeds it, and the dozens of other vehicles that ensure the tanks are protected against asymetric attacks. I can't for the life of me discover a valid use for a MBT that a rebel faction fighting against its government would have.
We're not talking about capturing a tank we're talking about disabling it for which a pit works fine. It doesn't need to be dug years prior, do you know anything about trenching? It could be done a day prior. Hell a bit of machinery and you could dig a suitable trench in eight hours. Also I addressed that blowing off the tracks (mines) would be more effective but not always within local capability. Also, the McNaughton mine just uses explosives to make the trench. If trenches don't work, McNaughton mines don't work. Except they very much do work, both of them. The McNaughton just provides a higher level of concealment. Posters above addressed the need to conceal the anti-tank pits. If visibility is your worry then the hedgehogs and other above ground barriers are poor choices.
>Modern tanks can't be captured, they have lock out devices
Good to know, though intact tanks are still a valuable ammo/explosive/equipment dump if they don't cook off.
Mines meant to blow off the tracks don't end the fire power of the tank(which is very important as a part of an ambush) it's an inconvenience, but not as inconvenient as having to replace the tank's main gun barrel. These mines can safely be disarmed by mine clearing kits for tanks anyway, still slowing down the tanks though.
Mines meant to blast through the bottom of the hull with shear force involve x hundred lbs of high explosive(may not be easy to come by or transport in the woods) still need you to dig a pit for the bomb, but infantry can't participate in the ambush up close(it should be close to threaten ambush victims with friendly fire if they call artillery support/CAS) attacking lighter vehicles because of the dangers the blast presents. Still, a go-to choice for achieving catastrophic kills on any vehicle without putting infantry in combat.
EFPs seem like promising all-around at-mines, but several modern tanks have already been hit with EFPs in Iraq and it's been: "The driver lost a foot, but was still able to back to base…". If you were to use EFPs you're self, you would be a damn fool to expect it to reliably knock out the whole turret crew in one lucky shot. And even if you do, it would retreat. EFPs get put in the same category as track destroying mines: no complete destruction, only causing damage and slow down, but more difficult to make and a real threat to the internals of target tank.
The at-ditch is not the best for option for slowwing down vehicals with the treat of damages, though it can do that in case you have no more high explosive. It can't kill the crew or tank as a whole on its own. It is a part of a method in completely destroying any tank when parred with an ambush.
>guerrillas shouldn't dig at-ditches and disguise them as intact road to ambush military vehicles, they should haul x hundred lbs of concrete innawoods to build toblerones that their enemy can see from a half a mile away.
If I were a tank commander on a narrow highway in a place where I wasn't concerned about collateral damage to the tree line, and I saw an obvious road block, well, it's air/artillery/mortar/all-of-the-above strike time. Nothing left of those potential ambushers now :^). Concrete barriers are for long term border defense, they do what mines do but are harder to destroy and not as prone to collateral damage or friendly fire, while being slower to install and probably more expensive. Hidden at-ditches are for setting up an ambush a day-week in advance or longer if the trap's disguise is maintained, but wouldn't make sense for long term defense: long term uselessness of roads, erosion slowly degrades trap disguise and trap performance, maybe it makes the rest of the road erode faster too. at-ditches are situational, but that doesn't make them useless.
You're right. The more I think of it, the more it seems a captured MBT is only useful to a professional army for scrap and inspection of enemy equipment disregarding the main gun performance, of course :^), and the sum of the parts that can be unbolted, unscrewed, or otherwise ripped of in >5 minutes is probably more valuable to guerrillas than the tank as a whole.
Dude, >>563595 is just using critical theory because he's on his period.
What are those sci-fi looking towers in the background? looks like something from simon
>We're not talking about capturing a tank we're talking about disabling it
I patiently went over disabling, capturing, preventing the motion of, and even digging pits. Why are you ignoring what I said?
If you're not going to read my posts what's the point…
They look like ordinary cooling towers to me.
Everyone read your posts, and your final position makes little sense. The only question posited was will a trench disable a tank. The answer is most obviously yes, yet you continue to act like it's no. It's not that I didn't read your post; it's that I read your post and your position is wrong. You've gone over it time and again and yet you still come to the same erroneous conclusions.
>he doesn't know about the west German fallback lines
What a fucking faggot.
Basically the west Germans knew that they would get shafted once the soviets pushed their tanks across the border, however they had a defined border and could predict the most likely routes the enemy would take across major roads and rivers to advance across the Rhine and towards NATO headquarters.
Bridges were built with immediate destruction in mind, and roads had so called "Sprengschächte" built into them, where the road was actually a concealed bridge and would only require a small explosive to be incapable of supporting more than a light vehicle.
With a few simple preparations and one guy who simply pushes an explosive charge into a hole and triggers it directly after the war breaks out you can take out most major bridges and block strategically important roads which either forces the enemy to set up pontoons (which takes some time and allows you to organize your defensive lines around them), or to follow a few select routes you didn't blow up (which funnels all of their forces into a neat trap you set up years in advance).
I am not surprised that you Americans don't know about this, you didn't give a fuck about Germany during the cold war. It was there to serve as a nuclear battlefield for you. Look up the Zebra Pakete.
Basically a bunch of small nuclear bombs the US wanted to place in the Fulda gap and set off as soon as WWIII broke out. Not even a consideration for the German civilians in the area.
The question was will digging a trench be a good way to destroy or capture a tank, its evaluation as an idea. I gave alternatives that were superior, for both destroying and capturing, in the context of asymmetric warfare.
You would have got that, had you read the posts.
Even if you can take out the engine, all the haji has to do is put his foot down on the clutch. If he was going fast enough he'll keep going fast enough.
Not that burgers would understand.
Anyone have any video of the IRA's PRIG in action?
Warhead was basically a soup can filled with plastic explosive, and it could fuck up a land rover no problem. I wonder how a similar design would fare against the MRAP every police department has now.
>What weapons exist that can stop a charging Buick, yet still be reasonably carried on the person?
M72 LAW, absolute dogshit anti-tank weapon but against unarmored vehicles and shit like humvees/MRAPs it would stop them dead.
What's special about it is that its backed up by American Logistics. Which means there's a lot of them, and its never far from fuel and spare parts.
MRAP wouldn't give a fuck unless you actually made a shaped charge.
Nice get my dude.
MRAPs are very weak against attacks from above, they're only designed to defend against IEDs.
For those in here saying that tanks are vulnerable to fire, what do you think of the possibility of using thermobaric grenades or rockets against them (assuming they don't get picked off before impact by APS)? Could the wave of heat and pressure from a fuel-air charge travel through even heavily protected intakes and set the tank's engine ablaze/cook off the ammo, or would it just suck the oxygen away and temporarily stop the engine like starting a normal fire near the intake?
I'd also like to hear about the feasibility of other, similar ideas, as this could apply to basically anything that can seep into the intake of any vehicle that uses atmospheric oxygen as the oxidizer for its fuel. Supposing you could get a chemical that would ignite petrol on contact, or a wide-area directed-energy weapon that does the same, you could destroy any gasoline-powered vehicle at any time, forcing everyone to complicate their designs and add tons of weight by having to have a second, separate system to handle non-atmospheric oxidizer, or else move to all-electric vehicles, and a mass switchover on that scale would take years, if not decades. Anyone who could do this would be able to reduce most battles to infantry-only battles.
>attacking a tank base is not only a defensive strategy, but less risky than digging a hole and retreating or defending
>tank mines are cheaper and more accessible than a hole in the road
>militants will dig holes it takes a day to make years prior to the attack
>a band of rangers innawoods will have immediate access to concrete teeth or steel hedgehogs and both would be inconspicuous
>producing and carrying around a bomb to dig holes for you is simpler than using a shovel and elbow grease
All of your proposed methods imply easy access to infrastructure and/or being in a professional army; the anon's proposition is a poor man's tank-killer when you have nothing to kill a tank with but time. It's war, there is going to be a point when the ideal tank-stopper won't be available, or the costs of deploying it are unacceptable (i.e. attacking an enemy position to steal their tanks), so a cheaper solution is used. I'm telling you, not much is cheaper and simpler than digging a pit.
tl;dr: it's not the beat-all strategy, but it doesn't cost much to try
Somehow I have hard time imagining that your firecracker is going to do much against a vehicle designed to work in environments where battlefield nuclear weapons were about as common as rain-showers in England.
>Molotovs are cheap, available and have at least throwing range. They are better than nothing
No, that's quite the opposite of it. Atleast without molotovs one probably wouldn't even get the brilliantly idiotic idea of trying to attack a tank with something that requires you to get within 3 kilometers of that said tank. Especially when basically all that's required for your molotovs to stop working is some iron wire and half hectare worth of small tree branches or bushes tied around the engine air intake. Hell, you could just do that shit with laundry baskets. Or plastic bottles even.
There is plenty, but most were retired in 80's or by early 2000's when it comes to more sophisticated vehicle mounted versions that were essentially SACLOS missiles in practice.
ENTAC was French system as well. All US MCLOS missiles turned out into failures (with exception AGM-12 Bullpup air to surface missile), and once it had become clear that how fucked up US designs were, they simply licensed French designs. British missiles you mentioned were Vigilant and Swingfire. Vigilant was used by US military as well, since 'muhreens are special snowflakes they had to select something different than Army.
With delay fuse can filled with plastic explosive could act as HESH warhead. Aside from underside armor, armored Land Rovers bongs used in NI were more or less MRAP's. Enough armor to protect from small arms fire. Most MRAPs now are wrapped cage armor to protect from RPG's so that would prevent contact with main armor.
>they have lock out devices
Sure thing anon. (LOL)
>that's why ISIS couldn't drive the dozens or so Abrams they captured
Yeah, no, it was the lack of spare parts and fuel situation. But you tell yourself whatever.