Penetrating thick skinned targets?

[Zyklon_B]

With the invention of reactive armor and super alloys found on new Tanks, Is there any possible Rocket or cannon that could be created by a civilian with limited resources?

I know of the new "rail" technology using magnetic fields to propel flechette like projectiles at terminal velocities, but these seem a tad too fragile and expensive for field use or practical construction. Not to mention the vast electricity required.

I did see a television special on a remote controlled robot fitted with a huge explosive device and large copper plate as a projectile. The robot is of course one time use only.

[hodehum]

Shouldn’t this be in improvised weapons or detonation and demolition?

Well to combat reactive armour military anti-tank missiles are now being fitted with dual shaped charges (one destroys the reactive armour blocks while the other penetrates) that are placed at slightly different angles. However I’m not sure how something like this would be improvised, it would most likely have to be placed on the armoured vehicle by hand as a missile system of such design would not really be viable on the civilian market, and good luck placing it by hand :rolleyes: .

The robot you saw was called “Fire Ant”, I believe there was a large post a while ago about this and a lot of the theories about improvising a such device where discussed <a href="http://odin.prohosting.com/~forumtwo/may01/20011117-4-000166.html" target="_blank">here</a>.

It uses a EFP (Explosively Formed Projectile) to defeat armour and is destroyed upon detonation, but I believe they are able to make designs that are reusable now.

[Machiavelli]

Baka. Moving to improvised weapons.

[Anthony]

Doesn't matter what armour tanks have, knock the tracks off and they're still fucked! :)

[Bitter]

Knock off the tracks like Anthony says and shove something down the barrel. It's not only unable to move, it's now unable to do any serious damage. Knocking off the tracks can be a problem, though. The tracks on some of the lighter tanks and APCs look pretty pathetic- the sort of thing you could damage with a hand grenade, although the tracks on something like a challenger or an abrahams would need a large quantity of C-4 or equivalent or a gun of at least 20mm calibre to damage. In the unlikely event of anyone being able to get close enough, there is always the option of spraying over vision slits with a can of paint.

[Anthony]

I still think the old idea has some credit to it - lure the tank into an enclosed area, such as an alleyway in an urban environment, or a wooded area, or highsided lane.

Have on either side, an oil drum of ANFO, or maybe even 5gal bucket would do it is was close enough to the tracks.

Wait for the tank to pass between the drums and detonate them simultaneously. I'm sure the colliding shockwaves would kill the crew instantly. The massive overpressure may well collapse the tank.

Heavy resource usage and certainly not portable, but easily improvised. If you're in a rural farming area, there's going to to be tons of AN and diesel everywhere.

Another possibility is an explosively launched projectile. During WW2 a 1lb iron cube was propelled by 10lbs of TNT. It would penetrate the side of the tank and then bounce around inside turning the crew into cho suey :D . I'm not sure if it would be at all effective against modern tank armour, and 10lbs of TNT a shot is kinda costly.

One thing I've always wondered, is when do fired tank shells arm? If they arm by the rotation of the round as it's fired through the rifling of the barrel, then it should be armed before it leaves the barrel. Thus may be susceptible to a rock jammed in the muzzle :)

I always remember a part of film, or TV program set during WW2. There's a battle going on in an urban environment and a sniper in a clock tower (how cliche). A tank spots the sniper and raises it's gun to blow the sniper away, the sniper sees the inevitable coming and just sort of gives up.

Personally, I'd be running for my life down the stairs... But I did wonder, would it have done any good for the sniper to have fired down the tank's barrel? If not to try and detonate the round in the breach, possible to damage so that it possibly doesn't function properly when fired. Or possibly to simply obstruct the barrel with the fired bullets, possibly detonating the round in the barrel, or splitting the barrel/destroying the round upon firing?

Rather a last ditch attempt at survival than a strategy really :)

[Eliteforum]

Wasn't Saving Private Ryan was it? Was on not long ago on C5.

[Southern Warrior]

Hell, the armor on top of the tank is usually the thinest. Or, you could put a "culvert bomb" in any possible path of an armoured column, and set it of as the armoured vehicle passes over it, blowing off the treads.

[Eliteforum]

<img src="http://bulldogdirect.com/%20photos/install1.gif" alt=" - " /> <img src="http://bulldogdirect.com/%20photos/install2.gif" alt=" - " /> <img src="http://bulldogdirect.com/%20photos/install4.gif" alt=" - " />

Instead of learning how to break through it, learn how to protect it! By "kit car armor"!

<a href="http://bulldogdirect.com" target="_blank">http://bulldogdirect.com</a> - Has more.

<small>[ September 11, 2002, 04:42 AM: Message edited by: Eliteforum ]</small>

[Microtek]

How about using a fairly large amount of heaving explosive such as ANFO to flip the tank onto its back when it drove over the mine.
Lifting a 60 ton tank 4 meters into the air would require 2400 KJ assuming 100 % efficiency. 210 g EGDN with 70 g Mg will supply that much energy. Then you just need to take the inefficiency into account.

[Mr Cool]

50 gallon ANFO drum should do it then!
If I wanted to destroy a tank I'd preferably use an EFP, just because I think they're neat <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> If not, then relatively big charges of a cheap HE like a cheddite or AN based comp to fuck the tracks, and shove one down the barrel too if you can! But I'd imagine that would be very hard to do, assuming that you're trying not to die.
Realistically, I think the best way would be to set mine-like devices (using lots of ANFO) somewhere that you know that tank will go.

[kingspaz]

what about a shaped linear shaped charge land mine? i made a design for one a while back using easy common materials and no metal work tools :) ...i'll upload it when i re-scan it.

[Zyklon_B]

Wouldn't a manhole be perfect for killing a tank? Since in a urban situation the streets are filled with them I would think they would be a perfect place to put a mine. The manhole cover would itself become the projectile penetrating the tank from underneath. A few small drums of ANFO would probably do the job.

Also from this idea I think in a more forest area the same type of setup can be applied. In the middle of the road, a tunnel could be dug and filled with anfo and a large steel or copper plate could be put over the top and the hole could be closed back over with gravel or earth and a triggering device could be improvised using a device deer hunters use to take pictures of deer passing near their location:

<img src="http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/content/Pod/01/00/82/p010082sq01.jpg" alt=" - " />

I am not sure if this device will not funtion on fast moving large vehicles, but it would defenetly also be viable for anti-personel traps or a Home-Made Fire Ant.

[Spudgunner]

That would work, however, whenever anything of a decent size (deer, people, dogs even) went by, you would set off TONS of explosive. Kind of overkill for a deer and makes it rather obvious you were trying to take out a tank. Best way to solve that is either use a pressure switch that is set for anything over 2 tons (for tanks and APCs) or 500 pounds for vehicles, OR, use an infrared motion dector that is set for LARGE amounts of heat that a tank would put out. Otherwise you get a big hole, no explosives left, and you can't even eat the meat of the deer you killed because particles of it have landed three counties over.

Spud

[Mick]

doesn't it seem stupid that one company build a super tank with impenatrable armor, then they release the details of the tank.
so the company next door builds a rocket launcher to defeat next doors tank...
so they build another tank...etc etc etc

has anyone heard of a "monopoly"?

good to see your billions of tax dollars hard at work :D .

[J.T.Ripper]

Firstly this is a really cool thread.
I would take down a tank like an Abraham with paint, petrol,cement, sniper, and 25 pounds of ANFO .

This is a general plan that could be used with variations to certain parts.

first, day or night have lots of people throw water ballons filled with black paint at the tank trying to get the windows. If this seems to risky try luring the tank down an ally way and have garbage bags full or paint hanging so they will burst when the tank tares them.

Second, The tank has hopfully got no vision, and it can't move is main gun because of the ally on either sides.
{the M60 on top is only design flaw with the abrahams a man has to be out side the tank to shoot it.}So they open the hatch to get a man up there maning the gun and directing the tank. sniper shoots him and makes it bloody to add to the panic inside the tank.

Third, the 25 kilo sack of ANFO is used to close the end of the ally the tank has already come down leaving it only one entrance. down the other end.

Fourth, The tank meets a nice deep semi-thick patch of wet cement thats covered with old carpet(or camoflaged to the souroudings).
it goes in and can't move.

Five, hatch is still probebly open pour petrol in and throw in a match. The is a sprinkler system in the tank but the crew will still burn or die from breathing smoke. if the petrol doesn't work drown em out and use the sniper to kill em as they come up for air.

a bit complex but for a small gurilla outfit it shouldn't be that hard to get all that organised.

[A-BOMB]

Trust me the the only thing taking down a M1A3 (abrams) is a M1A3 or a massive excess of explosive like a 1/4ton. I mean they have a a 5-6" layer of of DU/composite/Ti armor, a 120mm main gun, 2 7.62mm m240's a .50 m2 HB on top and some times a mk19 in 40x53mm HV grenade launcher and other goodies. And they can go 60+ mhp with the speed controler disabled and they weigh in excess of 70 tons. Oh and I almost forgot They Can fire the M2 on top from inside.

<small>[ September 12, 2002, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: A-BOMB ]</small>

[Spudgunner]

Wow, a quarter ton eh? 500 lbs is an awful lot (not financially, but just a lot period). Oklahoma city was only like 2 tons and you saw the damage that did, I imagine a hundred pounds SHOULD be sufficient if it were right next to the tank. Then again, I wouldn't know as I have never seen ANFO go off, much less in 50-500 pound quantities.

Spud

[john_smith]

As much as I know, Platter charges have a size limitation. Can't remember exactly what it was, but a manhole cover is far beyond that. However, I guess that a couple of drums of ANFO in a manhole would fuck a tank up badly, Platter or not.

[xoo1246]

Why don't you have a look at kinepaks ftp then, there is a video showing 50lbs going off.
Throwing paint at a modern tank/APC will do little, and a tank crew will avoid urban areas if they don't have to enter, and then infantry and artillery will strike first. A modern tank/APC will see your heat signature at a long distance and if it suspects an ambush it will get of the road, and drive as fast as it can in your direction(trying to run you over)spraying machine gun fire and H.E. shells. A modern tank can take many well aimed hits from shaped charges projectiles(most likely it wont affect it much). Want to se what an AT-mine does to an old civilian vehicle?
<a href="http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47802930/mine01.jpg" target="_blank">http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47802930/mine01.jpg</a>
<a href="http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47802930/mine02.jpg" target="_blank">http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47802930/mine02.jpg</a>
<a href="http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47802930/mine03.jpg" target="_blank">http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47802930/mine03.jpg</a>
<a href="http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47802930/mine04.jpg" target="_blank">http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47802930/mine04.jpg
</a>

Images are from my time in the military(what made me an anarchist), oh, the fools.

Edit: Oh, and if you don't remember, palestinans has destroyed one of the high tech israeli tanks. There has been a post on the subject.

<small>[ September 12, 2002, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: xoo1246 ]</small>

[EP]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"> Fourth, The tank meets a nice deep semi-thick patch of wet cement thats covered with old carpet(or camoflaged to the souroudings). it goes in and can't move.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">I don't think that's a practical method of trapping a tank. First of all, the patch of wet cement would have to be the length of the tank and very deep because those tanks can go through deep water and mud just fine...

***
edit: and you'd have to know the tank was coming so you don't pour it and just have it get hard... You'd probably need multiple cement truck loads, hardly practical for urban warfare.
***

Seems like it would take quite a bit of ANFO to take out a tank because they are hardened on the bottom to protect from mines. The Israeli tanks are called Merkava's, I'll have to look for that thread, I don't remember how it was destroyed.

<small>[ September 12, 2002, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: EP ]</small>

[J.T.Ripper]

Your right about the cement.
You just need some way of traping the tank so you can go to work on it. Im not sure what the abrhams armour is made from but maybe using lots and lots of thermite might be and option. just burn a hole into that section of the tank that hold the shells set one off and there's a deadly chain reaction. or destroy the engine somehow. This won't work on Abraham becasue of there great f***ing design.

check out <a href="http://www.howstuffworks.com/m1-tank.htm" target="_blank">http://www.howstuffworks.com/m1-tank.htm</a>

[Zyklon_B]

Can someone post a link to the Palestinian tank killing thread?

The Palestinians have the advantage of being forced to fight in the streets.

Back on subject, I was told by a person in the military that if a tank has its optical sight damaged, it will be forced to retreat every time. A tank that cannot fight, isn't much of anything.

In this picture you can see the IR/targetting device on the turret of the tank:

<img src="http://www.mainbattletanks.czweb.org/Tanky/m1a2.jpg" alt=" - " />

If you want to atleast remove the tank from the battle feild, you must atleast crack the glass with either sniper fire or heavy machinegun fire, two things a tank would engage first and from LONG distances anyways. If you could pull this off while the tank is at base at night lets say, you could take the tank out of operation for awhile.

Still, not exactly what I was hoping for but I hope this helps some other people interested in this thread.

[vulture]

How about blowing pure oxygen into the tanks air intake? the chemwarfare sensors won't alert for oxygen and the oxygen percentage in the tank will rise steadily. If you manage to get the O2 percentage to above 70%, a little heat or a spark will ignite anything(crews clothes, papers, traces of ammo) in the tank leading to a very hot fire.
Remember the Appolo ground test accident, the crew was in 100% oxygen en burned to cinders.....

[xoo1246]

FAEs commes in mind, so does destroying the tracks with mines and at the same time setting it on fire with a barrel of slow burning napalm.
But I don't know how the ventilation system of a tank works, are there some sort closed system, to protect the crew from sudden overpressure or fires?

[leonvios]

Why not find where a tank is stationed place aim a small pipe at it with a timed trigger system that will fire a metal ball bearing at the tank. The tank will turn its attention to the pipe and maybe the turret as well. Then run up to the other side and place explosives on the other side of the tracks and run or fire some powerful rocket launcher at the tracks to damage them. Or get one or two people to fire at the tank with guns then run down a street where you have some other people there onto of the roof to fire at the tank with home made powerful rockets then through down as many grenades as possible be fore the crew of the tank knows what has happened then the one or two people fires runs around the long way back to the other side of the street and places mine there. Then the tank will try to reverse back out onto the mines and hen they will try to go foreword into more mines so they are trapped then the guys on the roofs if not dead run as well as the people on the ground. (Don’t push your luck if the tank has not been destroyed already).

[vulture]

The M1A2 has an air filter system which screens for chemical or biological agents present in the air and filters them out. Wow, that must be somekind of mini gaschromatography lab with filter systems and all... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

Unless it measures the oxygen percentage, it could be possible to gas the crew by simply replacing the oxygen by N2 or CO2.

EDIT: Anybody consider EMP as a possibility? It's a high tech tank so it's packed with electronics. However, if it is protected against indirect nuclear blast effects or it has a full (no large openings or open structure, faraday principle) metal cage inside an improvised microwavegun (see <a href="http://www.powerlabs.org" target="_blank">www.powerlabs.org</a>) might have no effect. If it penetrates you could maybe cook the crew inside..you would need a very powerful microwave though... :D

<small>[ September 13, 2002, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: vulture ]</small>

[john_smith]

As far as I know, UK and US armies have both tried to develop a guided/heatseeking mortar shell in late 80's, and both actually got it working to some extent, yet the price/efficiency ratio of these sucked, hence no serial production. However, if you don't need the thing to have more range than a block or two (as opposed to 2-3 miles) or to be easily produceable, or idiotproof, and so on, it probably wouldn't be too hard to improvise.
The IR-homing control system could be replaced by a simple model aircraft RC and a miniature wireless surveillance camera. They ain't very expensive, these days (of course, you'd need some sort of amp). Jamming would be a threat, but since RC controlled weapons are rare for this very reason, and your opponent likely wouldn't be aware of your armament (if you're smart :D ), and it'd be a one-off operating at unknown frequency, your chances would be pretty good.
As for the shell, it probably could be done just like a model sailplane, just with smaller symmetrical profile wings/tail and of sturdier metal or GRP construction, and launched either from a spigot mortar, or have a dowel attached like a bottle rocket or anarchist crapbook's shotgun-propelled molotov cocktail.
I guess this would be quite accurate, and could hit a tank on the weaker-armored top of the turret, or even the hatch... :D

[kingspaz]

right, heres the landmine...the writing may be a little hard to read...
just one thing to add is that the explosive should be right up against the right angle section but i drew a gap because i hadn;t considered everything :rolleyes:
<a href="http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/kingspaz/linearshapedchargelandmine.JPG" target="_blank">http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/kingspaz/linearshapedchargelandmine.JPG</a>
copy and paste link.

[MrSamosa]

Here's how the Palestinians took out the Israeli Merkava-3 tank: With a big freaking bomb of blackpowder. Yes, that's right: BLACK POWDER.

In one incident, they lured the tank to the area by ambushing a bus. When the tank came, it ran over the big 110 lbs black powder bomb, and blew the tank to pieces. I'm pretty sure it was blackpowder, that's what I remember reading off HAMAS's website.

However, there have been a few widely-publicized incidents where tanks have been destroyed; i don't think all of them used big big black powder charges...

[ENGINEERKILLER]

The picture that Zyklon posted was taken out at where I am stationed The pod on top is of the commanders thermal image finder and the glass is 3 inches thick and coated with thorium so are all the vision blocks.The abrams has redundant every thing 2 sets of tracks on each side if the electronic sites fail it has a straight optical backup and if that fails the m240 coaxial machine gun becomes the spotting rifle for the 120mm main gun .There is a regular blasting machine to fire the round off if the electricity dies.The breach for the main gun is three inches thick and runs from the breachblock to the trunion which is mounted just inside the three feet of armor thatis the front of the turret hull.The fire extinguisher is a flame sensing automatic halon purge system and that has a backup manual and an extra halon bottle.The nbc system is an overpressure system that just pushes filtered air through the track constantlywith 2 filters and blower motors.The thinnest part of the turret is three inches thick and is over the the main gun ammo rack which is only held in place by 4 bolts so if the ammo goes the rack will give out before the crew compartment can be breached.It can cross a 9 foot trench climb a 4 foot wall it is 12 feet wide and 19 feet long weighs 72 tons combat loaded goes 300 miles on a tank of gas and has a 1,500 horse power diesel turbine engine .
It's sop for the crew not to chamber a round in the main gun until its ready to fire. The HEAT round for the gun is a fin stabilized piezoelectric graze sensitive fuze that is not fully armed until the round leaves the barrel and begins to deaccelerate additionaly the tank has six remote fired WP grenades on each side.Getting a tanker out of his track is like asking him to give up his first born and if the do come out each soldier carries an M-4 and plus the M240s can be dismounted and carried.

[xoo1246]

MrSamosa: Blackpowder? Blew the tank in pieces? The source doesn't feel reliable.
Kingspaz: Wouldn't the mine need some sort of standoff to give better effect? It could easiely be fixed by placing another box on top of the liner, with a thin layer of metal covering the opeing to keep dirt and water out.
Edit: did a fast search and found this.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"> Three IDF soldiers were killed and two more wounded when a tank drove over a land mine on the Karni - Netzarim road in the central Gaza Strip shortly before 7:00 a.m.

Rescue forces had difficulty in freeing the bodies of the victims trapped in the tank.

The families of the fallen soldiers have been informed.

One of the wounded was standing outside of the vehicle, which was escorting a civilian convoy. Both sustained moderate wounds in the blast.

An IDF helicopter evacuated the wounded to Soroka Hospital in Beersheba.

Terrorists hiding in a nearby mosque detonated the powerful 50 kilo (110 pounds) remote-controlled explosive charge beneath the armored vehicle.

The area was closed to traffic as a giant crane was brought to the scene to tow away the remains of the Merkava 3 tank. The force of the explosion reportedly blew the turret off the vehicle.

The attack took place one month to the day after Palestinians blew up a Merkava 3 on the same road, also killing three soldiers.

As in the Feb. 14 attack, the blast went off beneath the $3 million, 60-ton tank, ripping through its relatively vulnerable underbelly, military sources said.

The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Fatah's Aksa Brigades both claimed responsibility.

The DFLP, in a statement released in Damascus, said the attack came in reprisal for recent Israeli military strikes against Palestinian targets.

In the wake of the attack, Palestinian Authority security officials and witnesses said 15 armored vehicles and three bulldozers headed towards the nearby Nuseirat refugee camp and demolished eight houses and a security post.

The armored vehicles also destroyed crops and irrigation systems in the area, the officials said.

Witness Jamal Wahedi, 35, said Israeli troops indiscriminately fired machine guns toward the neighborhood, and that residents were not permitted to retrieve belongings from their homes ahead of the demolitions.

Following last month's attack, the first time a Merkava-3 was destroyed, the army said that its armored units "will learn the relevant lessons" and it spoke of the need to reassess operational practices in the light of the new methods of attack being used by the Palestinians.

Military commentator Ron Ben-Ishai said it was not clear if the army had indeed learned from the experience.

"Apparently not," he said. "Or if it's learned the lessons it hasn't yet implemented them. It needs to be understood that if the army is too sluggish (to adapt) it will take losses. This is bad, very bad."

According to London-based defense publisher Jane's, the Merkava is the only battle tank with the engine in front of the turret, to give the crew extra protection against enemy fire from the front.

The cannon shells are not stored in the turret but inside the hull at the back, and the fuel is also at the rear.

However, the underside of the Merkava, like that of all main battle tanks, is the least protected. This is because the weight must not exceed about 60 tons for the tank to cross bridges and be transported on flatbed trucks
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">More...
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"> The French analysts also note that they, too, not only the Israeli defence planners, are quite surprised that the Palestinians were able to deploy an explosive device which in their estimation had an explosive force of at least 100kg, as it sent the 60-ton tank flying into the air and left an enormous crater, estimated to be over a metre deep and measure several metres in diameter. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"> The army said it was preparing to respond to the attack, which marked the first time a roadside bomb managed to seriously penetrate an Israeli tank's armor in the territories. Even in roadside bomb attacks in Lebanon over the past decade the armor of Israeli tanks has never been hit hard enough to strike an entire tank crew.

Military officials said half an hour before the tank was hit, Palestinians opened fire on a civilian convoy guarded by soldiers and set off a bomb that damaged a bus but caused no injuries. The army sent a tank into the area and a huge bomb exploded under it in what appears to have a planned two-stage gun-and-bomb ambush. Hamas and Fatah claimed responsibility.

The tank was toppled on its side and the turret blown off. The only surviving member of the tank crew was evacuated by helicopter to Soroka Hospital in Beersheba.

Channel Two television reporter Sagi Bashan was lightly injured by shrapnel when Israeli soldiers opened fire on him for trying to circumvent a checkpoint while covering the rescue operation. Basham told the soldiers they did not have the right to stop him from entering the area unless they had a written order from the Southern Command indicating it was a closed military area.

The soldiers said they did not have such an order, so he told them he was going in, got into his car and drove by. They then opened fire.

The bomb, an unusually large and sophisticated one weighing perhaps scores of kilograms, apparently hit the Merkava 3 tank - the most sophisticated and best protected model used by the IDF - at an unusual angle. It thus managed to penetrate the armor, according to an initial army investigation of the incident. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Maybe a large dug down hollow charge?

<small>[ September 15, 2002, 04:15 AM: Message edited by: xoo1246 ]</small>

[vulture]

50 kilo of blackpowder in a strongly confined metal shell could cause a desastrous explosion according to me. Also, if the media says it's blackpowder, they mean something improvised. Thus it could as wel be flashpowder or another highly energetic pyrotechnic mixture.
The heat of 50 kilo pyrotechnic composition escaping all at once from a shell could maybe even melt or vaporize the weak underside of the tank, no?

[kingspaz]

xoo, it is a VERY rough drawing but i think with some improvements such as what you suggested it could have some good potential.

[xoo1246]

Yes, bascily a linear shaped charge with a pressure trigger.
Don't linear shaped charges need a startup distance before they function properly? I would decrease the angle and make it a plate charge.

<small>[ September 15, 2002, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: xoo1246 ]</small>

[Asger]

Again, if one has the possibility to get close to the tank a considerable amount of thermite down the main barrel could be effective. Ofcourse it should be ignited right away.
Or thermite could weld the tracks together with some wheels.
In either case it is the awesome power of the tank itself that will cause its own destruction. Or at least some damage.

[the_unbound]

Actually as far as I can remember from my time in the army is, that you can knock out a tank with only 1 shot with a sniper gun – you have to hit the Exhaust arrangement with the correct projectile ( consisting of uran, wolfram or s.th. like this can’t sure remember). The position from where the shot comes is important, too.
And one has always to keep in mind which type of tank it is and where the thermal image camera is because as soon as they know your position you’ve lost.
We trained it and it works quite good with nearly every tank as long as you know where exactly you have to hit, because it differs from tank to tank.

I think you can't get close enough to the tank and place thermite down the main barrel. In reality it would hardly be possible.

[Anthony]

There seem to have been some rather kewl ideas brough up in this thread...

First let's forget about covering the tank in paint, or trapping it in quick setting cement as this isn't a Home Alone film, not a Willy Coyote production...

Burning the tank with Napalm is unlikely to work, owing to it's huge thermal mass and the fact that it can drive out of a fire.

Burning through the tank with thermite is impractical, even if it could melt the armour, as we're talking about high melting point metals and ceramics here, it would take a large amount of it. The tank crew isn't going to sit still and let you climb on top while your mate tries to hoik a 50kg sack of thermite up to you.

Grenades aren't going to do shit to tank, so throwing them at it from above is going to be a waste of time. If you've got a rocket launcher capable of damaging the tracks, why do you need to divert it's attention with a pipe projector to use it? "Powerful homemade rockets", ah just the kind of technical and practical ideas we need... Modern armour piercing shaped charges have trouble penetrating tank armour, but it's ok, we've got a COB filled with double base taped to an estes...

[zaibatsu]

Anthony, grenades aren't going to do anything from above? What about the shaped-charge hand grenades, with the cone at the base of the grenade? Surely using these would be effective against the top armour of a tank, as it would be attacking some of its weakest armour. However, how its actually going to manage to hit the tank is another matter.

[Eliteforum]

A large tri-grenade sounds like a good idea about now :)

[Bitter]

That wouldn't work either.

[Anthony]

I assumed he was refering to a standard issure frag grenade.

Even with a SC one, I wouldn't depend on it working, there's not a lot of explosive in something typically hand grenade sized and modern armours are darn resilient.

Plus even with a sticky or magentic weapon, what's the odd of it actually attaching properly if you're throwing/dropping it onto the taregt from a height?

[kingspaz]

now what about a rocket from above? with some experimentation i'm sure a decent rocket could be improvised. one capable of penetrating tank armour is unlikely but it would still be useful against light targets such as hummers and civilian vehicles.

[Asger]

Can I just ask a question here :
Is the armour alloy of modern tanks magnetic ?
Is attaching magnetic devices an option at all ?

[zaibatsu]

There was a German WW2 "hand grenade", I use the term loosely. It weighed around 1kg and penetrated between 13 and 15cm of armour. Now, a 1kg hand grenade is a little heavy I think, and this was designed to be placed by hand on the tank <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> However, I think you could rectify this by having the shaped charge grenade stabilised with streamers and having a BP charge to propell it upwards upon contact with the tank (to give it adequate standoff) like the landmines that explode at waist height. However, there would be problems with getting the grenade to land flat on the top of the tank, but I'm sure there'd be ways of fixing that.

While a 1kg grenade would be heavy, I'm confident you could cut that weight down using powerful explosives such as PETN pressed to a high density.

[kingspaz]

any delay at all would result in the grenade angle being altered from flat if landing on an uneven surface. when he grenade flies up it will do so at a non perpendicular angle to the ground and thus tumble, etc. even for a split second this could screw stuff up. generally tanks are not too flat. most russian tanks infact have a hemishperical turret. also the tank surface is litered with irregularities.
<a href="http://www.nemo.nu/ibisportal/5pansar/5index.htm" target="_blank">http://www.nemo.nu/ibisportal/5pansar/5index.htm</a>

[zaibatsu]

True, but the main objective (in my eyes) is to punch a hole through the top into the crew compartment. Then a well aimed FAE/WP incendiary/Chemical weapon could be very effective at taking care of the crew, or at least confuse them. Then you will have time to do more to the tank. While they are confused, blow the tracks. The best air filtration in the world will have a bit of a problem when the seal is broken :) IMO of course.

[Anthony]

How are you going to counter the reactive armour if attacking with a SC?

[nbk2000]

Attack from above with multiple SCs. First one will set of the ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor), the rest will attack the tank armour directly.

You're not likely to get a TK (Total Kill=Tank destroyed and crew dead), but more likely an FK (Functional Kill=Tank immobilized or unable to use its weapons). An FK will do, especially if you can pick off the crew as they try to escape, or use them as bait to lure more of the enemy into an ambush.

A kilo sized SC dropped on the engine compartment would almost certainly immobilize a tank.

[john_smith]

Dropping a SC grenade on a tank would probably work, but only if you have a conviniently placed high-rise building to do it from. And better forget it about placing anything on the tank by hand. Unless the enemies are a bunch of braindamaged idiots they won't send a tank without infantry to watch it's six. Building rockets at home is THE bitch, at least in mmy experience. Too many variables to get everything the same every time. I've never even got one flying straight, let alone hit a target. And you'd still need the building. However, the guided mortar shell described above would theoretically have a good chance of working...I think. If it works it could hit with more accuracy than any $XXX.000 heat-seeker, and you even don't have to be in enemy's visual range to use it. Just place the "mortar" on other side of a building or whatever, launch it, and take over when it has passed it's apogee and starts falling. Building these would be expensive, but not extremely so. And I guess it'd be easier than making good rockets. Just my $(or EUR :D )0.02, any comments welcome.

[vulture]

You can stabilize rockets by making a spudgun/rocket combo.
The rocket is placed in a closed tube with some NC as cannon propellant. (checkout powerlabs) After the rocket leaves the barrel the engine is ignited. This way a high velocity (up to mach 2 atleast) and straight flightpath could be achieved. It's also easily improvised. A 1kg projectile at mach 2+ packs an insane amount of kinetic energy. If you add a charge to counter reactive armor, you could do some serious damage to the weaker parts, especially tracks.

[xoo1246]

You could start by getting into basic rocket theory.
<a href="http://members.aol.com/ricnakk/th_intro.html" target="_blank">http://members.aol.com/ricnakk/th_intro.html</a>
And when you are propperly skilled, has aquired all the materials and done extensive testing you could create an unguided inpact detonated SC rocket accurate up to maybe 100+ meters. And thease Israelian tanks obviously has weak bottoms, so why not use the time to construct a remote controlled or magnetically initated(so you don't blow up other vehicles passing/ doesn't have to rely on a track passing a pressure initiator, only problem is to properly calibrate it) shaped charge mine and ambush the tank. Since I assume we are speaking of things like urban and rural guerilla warfare, where one party has major advantage.
I don't belive in the handgrenade idea, although it might have the capacity you will not able to get close enough. Hitting a moving target with an improvised rocket will not be easy either, it's hard enough when using military unguided rockets.

Another idea is to demolish a bridge as the tank, tanks(!) passes it, that is if they belive the area is clear and they don't check the bridge.
Since the tanks are heavy it might be sufficent to strike a few columns(or maybe a single bearing detail, depending on construction).
<a href="http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47802930/Bridge01.jpg" target="_blank">http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47802930/Bridge01.jpg</a>

<small>[ September 18, 2002, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: xoo1246 ]</small>

[vulture]

Does anyone know how tanks are refueled? Because the fuel reservoir inlet has to be a considerable weak point.
A fast rocket with enough mass could fuck up the tracks without having any explosive onboard. Think of the SABOT round.

[BoB-]

No matter how thick the armor, no matter how good its defense weapons are, a tank can still fall into a 15'- 20' hole in the ground. Since we are talking about urban enviroments, a backhoe should be available to steal. A crew of men, armed with backhoes should be able to dig, and move enough dirt to form several tank traps in a days time.

These giant holes could be used to keep tanks out of certain areas, or the hole can be covered in 2"x4"'s and plywood, then disguised with dirt, gravel, or leaves. The hole could even be covered in cement and/or asphalt, so troops, and LAVs can pass over it.

This is also where napalm, and thermite can now be highly effective. The men would ether leave the tank, or be cooked alive.

[Zyklon_B]

The hole idea seems interesting if you can force a tank to have no choice but to go over it. And if the tank crew is forced to abandon their tank, that means a free tank for you, well if they leave it intact and don't call in air support.

[PYRO500]

And how during a time of war do you think your going to pull a tank out of a 20' hole in the ground?

[Zyklon_B]

Dig a ramp. If you where able to dig the hole I think digging a ramp shouldn’t be impossible.

[EP]

Here is an interesting method of creating anti-tank ditches. Won't work in an urban enviroment however.

<a href="http://www.dres.dnd.ca/ResearchTech/Products/MilEng_Products/RD95008/index_e.html" target="_blank">http://www.dres.dnd.ca/ResearchTech/Products/MilEng_Products/RD95008/index_e.html</a>

[xoo1246]

Check FM 5-250 for more info on tank ditches.

[irish]

EP, that is one very impressive ditch <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> .
it`s a small diameter pipe to make a 8 meter wide trench I see it says that they fill it with nitroparaffin or (mostly) nitromethane .
have any of you had any experiance with nitroparaffin. I didnt see it on mega`s site but I did find this

Irish

sorry kingspaz I dont know why it did that.
----------------------------
link had been removed for screwing with the page layout. to go to what hes talking about try patent number 4925505 - kingspaz

<small>[ September 22, 2002, 08:13 AM: Message edited by: irish ]</small>

[Sparky]

I think it would be much more effective to disguise the anti tank ditch. Or even better, if you can build an underground cave (lots of cities already have huge holes under the sidewalk) then when the tank is crossing, collapse the roof of the cave, and bring the tank down. The turn on the radio jammers and send over some napalm to the tank.

[MrSamosa]

Sorry if I'm suggesting some bizarre impractical idea, but theoretically, railguns could be used to take out tanks.

If you were to build a high quality railgun, comparable to that of the Department of Defense's (yeh, right... but does anyone know how much theirs cost though?). The DoD used high-quality, new materials; but the amature or guerilla almost certainly would not. Therefore, the costs would be greatly reduced. If you have a decent projectile material, surely you could be able to penetrate some thick armor. If not, a projectile moving 4-6 km/sec would still cause considerable damage to a tank.

One big advantage I see is that railguns will allow multiple firings at incoming armor, opposed to one time use explosive charges. The main disadvantage though is that you would need to replace the rails after every few firings, since they tend to warp from the massive magnetic fields. Still, ultimately it should be cheaper and less time consuming than synthesizing insane quantities of high explosives; considering the fact that railguns are hardly one time use weapons.

If one could find a source of the necessary materials, or perhaps improvised them (improvised capacitors, metal workshops to provide the copper rails, etc.), then the guerilla force could set up multiple railgun-turret-weapon-friends to defend a location or town from armor.

Yes, I know railguns and their physics are far more complex than I make them seem, but it's just an idea. :)

<small>[ September 22, 2002, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: MrSamosa ]</small>

[Zyklon_B]

Rail guns need energy, that’s the first major problem I see. Generating enough power right at the time you need it is no easy task, especially in a warfare situation. Secondly, you have to set it up on some sort of turret, figure out a sighting system, and take long shots, further then the range of the tank, cause if you don't, well the tank will spot you and blow you up. Also building a large enough rail gun, getting it to a source of energy strong enough and reliable enough for you to use, all ads up to one big easy to hit target from the air. It isn't a weapon that lends well to practical field carry or even as a booby trap.

Until the technology is better developed it is still not as viable a manner of destroying/disabling a tank, especially not under adverse conditions.

We still have yet to see the military with billion dollar contracts and nuclear power sources to come out with a viable gun.

[vir sapit qui pauca loquitur]

A REALISTIC approach must be made to this subject, as one day you may be the only person that can be called apon to help stop the troops of the NWO (new world order), in order to do this we must analyze the threat. it divides into 4 areas for vehicles

1. LIGHT vehicles (i.e land-rover/hummvee) these are more for transporting troops and acting as weapons carriers (i.e swing-fire for land-rover and tow/stingers/.50cal for hummvee) and are cheap for what the governments usually pay for troop carriers. these offer varing protection from virtually none to up to 7.62/.50 cal fmj for a bolt on system on a hummer. I would advise the simple viet-cong tactic of flushing/drawing the vehicle (or along known travel route) into driving through a trip-wire with hand-grenades strung on the end, the lever being held within a cardboard/steel tube. if the wire is suspended at about radiator height then the grenades will be pulled in towards the side of the vehicle and should take-out the tires and occupants, leaving a (possibly burning) hulk. Caltrops spread across the road would allow for the capture of the occupants if so inclined.
(note that i said inclined, as i would advise no survivors/pow's unless absolutly needed) a quick kill with high-cal weapons into the windscreen (i.e. a good shot with a G3 or AR10) to disable the driver, and if possible the front-seat passenger, and another shooter ready to deal with any pintel-mounted weapon crews.
(i.e 50.cal/mk49 gren)this offers the resistance the ability to use the weapons of the enemy against themselves (fulfilling one of the points from 'the art of war') so much for light vehicles.

2. MEDIUM vehicles. these are lightly armoured transporters that can tote a serious amount of fire-power (90 mm low-pressure cannon or 30mm cannon) the armour is little better then the light vehicles with protection only up to about 20mm (even this being rare), examples of this would be the american LAV,french PANHARD,german FUCHS and the english FV432.
they come in either flavour, tracked and tires. the tire versions i would advise the same approach to light vehicles, maybe with a larger charge (i.e. small beer-keg of anfo/annm and a home-brew cannon)
the tracked version however requires a different approach (duh <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> )
Concrete blocks about 4/5 feet high with steel RSJ'S (rolled steel joists/steel building beams) sticking through, these should be light enough to have 3 or four able to be towed by a truck, this will allow for a lightning-strike against enemy convoys (allowing for opportunities to be exploited) as a lone vehicle that is spotted could trapped if a concerted effort is made with multiple trucks/tank traps)
after the vehicle is grounded, grenades should be used. NOT for destructive purposes but more to stun the crew (quite easy in a big steel box)then either a call can be made to surrender or the cannons can be used (heavy stainless-steel shot from home-brew cannons or from a .50cal rifle at CLOSE range,
like 50 yards using APIT rounds)these are good vehicles to have burning, as the large amount of ammuntion cooks-off easily from the fires usually created from apit rounds. the tank-tracks are flimsy but still need a lot to dislodge (even in ww2 it took a few pounds of plastic to disable) these weigh about 20/30 tons. On another note these vehicles are the lightest to use NBC systems (as they are totally enclosed) so chemical weapons wont work.

3.HEAVY this is the range that is reserved only to the elite countries. always with tracks and is armed with rapid fire cannons (about 30/40mm) these will chew through walls rapidly, and the on-board ATGW's will demolish any building/bunker. these also have the VERY dangerous ability to allow the occupants to fire from inside the vehicle, having 8+ m16's firing is enought to put anyone off. the armour is still far from being that of a true tank, but with reactive armour allows for a greatly enhanced threat (also the reactive amour will shed anyone nearby if caught out in the open when the panels go off). due to these points i would advise the tank-traps in conjunction with a barrel or two of anfo prepared, this could be dropped or if possible it needs to be placed underneath the tanks "belly" as this is the second weakest point on any vehicle (first being the roof/top) it's only due to the direction of a larger proportion of the blast towards the tanks belly that allows an easy kill. The only option i can see is to immobilise and to destroy. Best point to aim for would be fuel tanks or ammunition cases/ATGW rockets (usually armoured so a minimum of a .50 should be employed against this area) the burning fuel will rapidly heat the internal crew compartment to a uncomfortable level, due to the thin nature of the armour used this will only work on light-weight vehicles as true tanks have SO much bulk in the armour department that it would take a _VERY_ long time to get the same effect.

4. SUPER this vehicle type is more common then the HEAVY, as its easy to weld together/cast a big lump of metal into a hull and mount a 105/120mm cannon on the sucker. Personally i would rate this a low threat as they are made purly to destroy other tanks, and as such are poorly made to take on a prepared populace. the only real danger is if they are used as ersatz artillery (against buildings) and as such can destoy fortified buildings in 2 or three hits (see film from ww2 to see effects), these will not be travelling alone and will avoid travelling in narrow streets.
the sheer weight (upto 70 tons for the M1A3 ABRAMS) often destroys weak bridges and makes many roads nearly unusable. the best bet would be to locate likely bridges that these tanks would use and to rig these up for demolition (i have uploaded the military manual onto the ftp for the demolition of bridges if it wasn't there before)
these tanks drink fuel like no-tomorrow and often utilise tank transporters, these are when tanks are particularly vulnerable as rarly do crew travel in the tank (to my knowledge) while being transported. My advise is more to immobilise and use these as bait for the barrels of anfo that you have cunningly hidden all around the avenues of aproach to the tank, then let the troops draw in and BAMBAMBAMBAMBAM!!!!!! you have death-valley, the enemy is extremely unlikely to napalm/bomb the tank or the rescue crew (i advise that the tank "falling" into the ground be made to look like an accident with no assult on the tank, this creates a false sense of security and makes the call for evac easier and may draw out more enemy troops to hit :D the only real way to diable these things is to aim for the optics (e.g night vision/thermal) to reduce effectivness at locating you, the turret-ring (THE MOST vulnerable point on any tank, but thats in comparison to about 400/600mm of steel :p )
so if you happened to have a immobilised tank and a while to spare you could pack a large amount of hi-explosives into the turret ring, it may do something :D if it was an abrams tank then you could place explosives around the blast-off panel on the turret and blow this off, detonating the stash of 120mm rounds. wont do much damage to crew as this is what it is designed to do, but it means that there will be no ammo for the crew to expend on your suicidal asses.

p.s. please dont think of me as KeWl because i suggest the idea of using a "home-brew" cannon, as a well made steel cannon using NC as a propellent, and with some stainless steel shot you may be able to deal considerable damage,
(i guess about 3cm penetration? correct me if wrong) even an improvised HESH (hi explosive squash-head) round would provide LETHAL spalling (metal chunk flying around at high speeds in a confined space <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> )

<small>[ September 23, 2002, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: vir sapit qui pauca loquitur ]</small>

[vulture]

If one is thinking about railguns, why shouldn't we consider induction cooking? :D
Since the tank has alot of steel, a powerful magnetic field could cause the body to heat up fast and hot. Electrical systems will suffer and the tank will be too hot for the crew to be functioning normally. (I've been sitting in an APC once, in regular situations you almost get cooked by the heat and the diesel fumes).

Also, were always talking about penetrating armor by firing high velocity rounds. This way lots of energy will be lost by friction and reactive armor etc. If one would use a projectile which is halted to complete zero when it hit's the tank, it might have more effect. A 20kg round at mach 5 coming to a complete halt in a millesecond liberates an insane amount of energy all at once. The tank will be unharmed the first few seconds after impact, but then the energy can't find a way out anymore resulting in massive damage.
I remember a simulation video of this effect. The tank just vibrated a few secs and then got smashed away like it had been hit by a 90mph train. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

<small>[ September 23, 2002, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: vulture ]</small>

[john_smith]

I still like guided weapons... Maybe a wire-guided missile (like on old french attack choppers, or the original '45 nazi AAM)?

[Anthony]

Induction heating? Let's see...

Specific heat capacity of steel = 450J per kg per *K

So let's say we want to heat the tank up to 100*C (373*K)

(373 x 70 000kg)x450 = 11749500000J = 11750 mega-joules.

Presuming the tank isn't trapped (if it was there are easier ways to diable it!), so let's say we want to heat up within a minute.

11750/60 = 195.83 megawatts of power required. Assumbing that the efficiency of your source is 100% and 100% of the power it outputs is imparted to the tank. Which of course it won't be in reality. Plus of course, the tank would be dissapating energy into the atmosphere, meaning you'd have to pump in even more energy.

I really don't think a railgun would be any more practical...

I was looking at a webpage of a light gas gun t'other day, using a powder charge as propellant, it acheives a muzzle velocity of 8km/sec. Railguns can do better, but not *that* much better!

[vir sapit qui pauca loquitur]

i dont think that its possible to have anything that offers complete inelastic collision (or elastic... its been a while since i did A level physics :p ) wire guided is an idea, but first a high-power HEAT round/warhead for the missle, and then sort out the detonation system (piezo electric maybe?) and if the tank has reactive armour then a probe with a small charge is needed, and to wire guide it...
man that would be one HELL of a project, with a flare in the rear of the missle, servo's for the rudders and a joystick to work it all, and wires long enough....... now i say it it sounds almost possible :D
still i would need a few bits and pieces that are beyond my knowlede to do a wire-guided missile, best bet would be a heavy unguided missile, on a stand alone bipod/tripod.

<small>[ September 23, 2002, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: vir sapit qui pauca loquitur ]</small>

[Zyklon_B]

Wire guided missile? Please, save your money and make a multy launcher with several rockets so you could shoot a cloud of them at the target. Alot of rockets in a confined group would mean the reactive armor could get some, but not all.

[nbk2000]

Why not use the tanks own reactive armor against it?

Small shaped charges are attached to the tanks ERA, limpet mine style, which can be set off at a later time by R/C.

Later times being when enemy troops are near the tank <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> or when the tankers have opened up their hatches in what (they think) is a safe location.

Once the ERAs exploded a few times during inopprotune moments, the enemies infantry will tend to stay away from the tanks for fear of getting killed by the exploding ERA, thus leaving the tanks vulnerable to close up attack.

Also, anyone trying to remove the SC would be risking death, thus making it an unpopular task. :D Getting in or out of a tank could be a very risky proposition. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

[john_smith]

Well, a wire guided missile with an onboard camera could be aimed at some weaker spot of the tank... nah... actually, how much does it take to make the reactive armor go off? These things are directional charges with a detonator and an ignition system, not just packs of high-ex, right? I once heard something about setting off reactive armor with .50 sniper rifles, and then using the RPG-s. It was in Yugoslavia, if I remember correctly. Now, a rocket-propelled grapeshot charge (aka claymore) detonated at a predetermined distance from tank (onboard laser range finder? Shit, $$$ again, maybe parts from old autofocus cameras would do...), followed by SC rocket(s)... hmmm... On the other hand I don't think the reactive armor is the biggest problem at all. It's either having enough power to do considerable damage regardless on what part of tank the round hits, or having the accuracy to go for the weak spots. Hence the whole guided weapons stuff.

[vir sapit qui pauca loquitur]

the reactive armour is actually the simplest idea imaginable, its a lump of insensitive plastic exposives with a 4/5 mm sheet of steel over that. 50 cal will set it off, and so will 7.62mm but im not so sure about 5.56... it might but i wouln't want to do the test. I do know that whenever (and this is a RULE) a tank/apc has ERA, infantry tactics are severly altered to avoid even the slightest risk of fraticide from the armour. As the shrapnel is quite nasty, and what you dont want is your precious men being cut down by your own weapons !

At close range a good shot could pick out the turret ring with an RPG. This area, (as i said) is the weakest on a tank, unfortunatly the easy countermeasure to this method is to have chains hanging over the turret and dangling down, this prematurly detonates the RPG and dissapates the jet from the HEAT round.

[vulture]

Anthony, something's wrong with your calculation. You only need the temperature difference, as the tank hasn't got a temperature of 0K.
So when it's 20C outside and you want to heat it to 100C you multiply it by 80; (80*70000)*450 = 2,52x10^9 J

Also, the tank isn't made of 100% steel, but also of carbon/glassfiber and tungsten alloys with other metals. This would lower the to be cooked mass and the heat capacity. Besides, with induction cooking, you can focus the energy on a certain point.

[chemwarrior]

If I remember correctly, the fuel is kept in the back on the right hand side. A rather large landmine should be able to take out the tank if the explosive is detonated at the right time, and if it doesnt blow the fuel tank, it will likely damage the tracks enough that they would be useless.

[Anthony]

Good point on the temperature, I had overlooked that.

I did consider that the tank is not 100% steel, but simplified. I wouldn't assume that the other materials would lower the overall specific heat capacity, the fuel would raise it, as would anything with aluminium in it.

I suppose we really should take into account the rate at which heat spreads to other parts of the tank away from the aim point. As like you said, the entire tank wouldn't need to heat up to 100*C to raise the crew compartment to this temperature.

But it's all academic really. Even if I was off by a factor of 10 it'd stil be very unfeasible.

[EP]

Another idea worth at least thinking about is aquiring real, weapons-contractor produced AT rockets.

I was looking around at 37mm launcher suppliers and came across a place that sells to law enforcement and carries AT weapons:

<a href="http://www.att-tactical.com/DD.html" target="_blank">http://www.att-tactical.com/DD.html</a>

Suppose you were to "borrow" a few? It would probably be difficult to get them, but once in your possesion, would be far more effective than just about any homemade device.

Military bases would be another potential source. I've heard of F-16 jet engines being stolen ( <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> ) so I would assume a few launchers like an <a href="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m3-maws.htm" target="_blank">M3</a> or a <a href="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m72.htm" target="_blank">LAW</a> would be possible.

Then there is always the international arms black market that we all dream about, yet would probably have no clue how to connect with. At least it's more possible than building a rail gun! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

[MrSamosa]

Hmm...I don't think you all are very creative with my railgun idea <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> . While you may be right on some aspects, simple design changes could dramatically cut costs.

I don't remember what the design is called, I think a "Compound Railgun," but it essentially has two railguns to fire a single shot. That is to say, instead of having two rails at 180 degree angles from each other, they have 4 rails at 90 degree angles. Instead of having 1 power source and 1 capacitor bank for a single railgun, the design would have half the original power source and half the original capacitor bank per rail. Therefore, it is the same amount of electricity flowing at the same speed, but recharge rate is effectively cut in half.

A dense armature could also contribute to the gun's ability to penetrate thick armor. Lead would be ideal.

I brought the question of railgun recharge times to "Mouser" of <a href="http://www.railgun.org" target="_blank">www.railgun.org</a> , he gave me the simple answer that the recharge rate was "negligible." Also, the gun does not necessarily have to charge up and fire WHEN you pull the trigger; as was implied in an earlier post. The operator could charge the weapon when he sights the target, and then fire when ready.

I don't imagine the total costs to be more than an expensive computer; maybe $3,000-$5,000 dollars for a gun using new capacitors (according to Sam Barros' estimate of each cap being $50/piece). The real expenses come from all the experimenting in high-quality labs. Albeit, railguns would still be expensive.

Nevertheless, if you can fire 8 km/sec with a gas rifle, the hell with railguns! If you could give us that link, I'm sure we'd all be very much interested. Hmm, a high explosive charge crashing into a tank at 8/km a sec...think about it. If I know explosives properly (actually, I have very little knowledge of explosives; not really my thing), the impact would be sufficient to set off the high explosive without a blasting cap, no?

[PYRO500]

It's not worth fooling with multiple rails in a rail gun mainly beacuse it is so hard to get even decent efficency with just 2 rails. with 4 rails your going to have more problems and with a decent HV capacitor bank it would discharge faster through 1 set of rails alone. As for as rail gun as an anti tank weapon, I read somewhere a scientist said what a decent rail gun would do to a tank would be like comparing a 44 magnum being shot into a soda can.

[Mick]

the rail gun idea isn't worth entertaining, because it relies on one thing, electricity.
which is more then likly the 1 thing your not going have in a war.

i think everyone seems to be thinking "complex", some of the ideas like wire guided rockets and laser sighted RPSC's are just to complex and rely on to many things that your not going to find in a war.

the best idea i have seen so far is a dirty great big hole.

once you start having vast and elaborate schemes to take down a tank, your fucked. because it only take one little thing to screw up and your whole plan goes out the window.

[PYRO500]

For the most part he's right, a M1A1 Abrams tank is equiped with a 6Kw generator and that translates directly to joules (watts per second) in 6,000 J per second. now lets say they have a relitively small rail gun. say 1 mega joule. 1,000,000/6000=~167S=~ 2.8Min. charging time. For a real large gun assume the cap bank is 30 or so mega joules, not only is this gonna be huge but it's gonna take a while to charge.

<small>[ September 24, 2002, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: PYRO500 ]</small>

[Bander]

I'm not sure if I came up with this or have simply forgoten where I heard the idea, but if one only wishes to disable a tank and remove it's destructive power a simple bolo-grenade setup might work. Just fire the improvised bolo with explosives on the ends at the barrel of the tank. It then wraps around and if you're lucky, dents in the barrel. Of course there's still the machine gun likely to be mounted on top, but they have to come out to use that. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

[john_smith]

@Chemwarrior
Diesel won't blow up in tank. In fact an armored vehicle -escapes me which exactly- has fuel tanks arranged in front of the crew compartment to dissipate the SC jet. And they all have multiple tanks.

@Bander
They don't have to come out, it was somewhere earlier in this thread.

As for the complex stuff, the "mortar shell" I wrote about would be much like a model aircraft. You'd need a 4-channel RC and servos, a wireless surveillance camera (&lt;$100) and an RF amp for the latter. The shell itself shouldn't be too hard to build. Much easier than a wire guided missaile anyway.

<small>[ September 25, 2002, 05:41 AM: Message edited by: john_smith ]</small>

[chemwarrior]

You dont want it to blow the tank up, you merely want to stop the tank in its tracks. Thats how blowing the fuel tank comes into play.

[Eliteforum]

I thought tanks have reserve fuel?

[Anthony]

Here it is:

<a href="http://hitf.jsc.nasa.gov/hitfpub/testing/lightgasguns.html" target="_blank">http://hitf.jsc.nasa.gov/hitfpub/testing/lightgasguns.html</a>

Not exactly portable, but then neither is a railgun. I made a bit of a mistake, MV is up to 7km/sec, not 8km/sec.

Sure you could build a railgun like Sam Barros', but I doubt his will produce more muzzle energy than a handgun round. So in an adaption to pyro500's analogy, it would be like firing a .44 magnum at a tank!

[chemwarrior]

They do have reserve fuel, but its located less than 4 inches from the other tank, and it isnt very well protected.

[kingspaz]

i just think its important to note that statements like the above are not going to hold true for all tanks, only the ones he has experience with or has studied. i think we need to focus on areas which all tanks have in common such as the barrel, turret ring, tracks, etc.

[vir sapit qui pauca loquitur]

If one was prepared to go to extreme lengths, then a few pounds of thermite on the wheels/tracks would immobilise the tank quite well.

I cant particularly think of common faults on tanks, because the designs vary so wildly, as the com-bloc tanks always have auto loaders and ammuniton stored in the hull, this is the main weakness of the T55/62/62/72/80 and all the copies by china, but with western tanks it's a whole new kettle of fish. With the varied design philosophy's of the different nations, the french tank being the most inefficient as the french WOULD have to try and make a "third generation" tank :rolleyes: the abrams and possibly the challenger mk 2 are two contenders for the ultimate tank.

the only hope that you could have is to dig holes/ditches and to harrass the sappers that are sent to bridge these ditches. You could always do what south korea/america has done and deploy the nuclear mine :D apart from this extreme measure only a few barrels of anfo/annm would do the trick, it's what has worked in the past and it would work in the future for anyone that would be willing to try it.

The problem with immobilising a tank is that you now have a machine-gun emplacement with infra-red to spot your stupid asses and able to blow away that pathetic hill in-between you and them (what occured in the golf war with abrams shooting through sand dunes to destroy iraqi T-72's)

[MrSamosa]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"> A 20kg round at mach 5 coming to a complete halt in a millesecond liberates an insane amount of energy all at once.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">- vulture

Continuing this idea, why not use a projectile that instead of penetrating shatters on impact? A possible material could be copper, which is quite easily obtained and molded. Ideally, it will NOT penetrate the armor, and therefore be stopped in a matter of milliseconds which would better utilize its energy; of course, with some of the energy wasted on flying fragments from the shell shattering.

Ideally, you would like to be able to flip the target vehicle onto its side. This is, of course, referring to an armored target that is NOT a 75 ton tank; but rather an armored VIP car or something. However, the trouble arises when you try to fire such a huge shell as would be necessary to cause the said effects. Therefore, a "functional kill", but not necessarily a "total kill."

[Anthony]

The "golf war"? Ah yes, the infamous battle of the 18th hole! :D

Only kidding <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

For an improvised pure KE weapon, I presume we would be using something like a HE propelled, single use weapon? I'd imagine that a reloadable cannon capable of such performance would be hard to build and probably quite large.

[Zyklon_B]

Another Idea I have is getting a old GMC van, placing a few barrels of ANFO and a large metal plate on each side. When a tank passes by it parked by the side of the street it could be remotely set off by a person dressed in plain clothes watching some distance away with a spotting scope. Its would be MUCH easier then any improvised missile, but would only be successfull maybe once or twice since the technique would quickly get out.

Anyone know if there are any rules or regulations that the Army will follow before driving a tank down a certain street or thru any urban environment? This plan would be ruined by infantry moving ahead of the tank to make sure that there are no enemy traps or soldiers ahead. However in a occupied area where tanks just slowly drive around on patrol, this would be quite the anti-tank weapon in my view. Using fairly large shaped charges in vehicles may be the way to go.

There is also making remote controlled cars using actual full sized cars. These could be driven down a street with a dummy in the front seat just to make sure it could get close eneugh for a real kill.

<small>[ September 26, 2002, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: Zyklon_B ]</small>

[hodehum]

Despite extensive searching I have been unable to find any information on an interesting anti-tank mine I read about a while ago. The concept was simple in design, but looked like it had a lot of potential. Basically it consisted of about 4 or 5 tubes containing an explosive (I would assume T.N.T or Tetryl) that where about 3 meters long, each arranged in parallel, atop of which was the detonating pressure plate that was about 2.5 meters long and extended just before the edge of the tubes.

Such a mine would easy to improvise and would have some advantages in an urban built up environment. The mine would be placed perpendicular to the sidewalk and hidden well with debris or other coverings and when the mine is detonated it would stand a good chance of cutting both tracks.

[vir sapit qui pauca loquitur]

this link may be of interest,
<a href="http://angola.npaid.org/minelist_complete_angola.htm" target="_blank">http://angola.npaid.org/minelist_complete_angola.htm</a>

it details nearly all known anti tank and anti personnel
mines and offers the explosive composition and weight and
the detonation method! All in all its a good website to see
how easy it is to create an anti-tank mine (wood mines).
as being honest here, if it came down to martial law then
i think the local chemical supply store would be ransaked to keep me in supply to fight my own war <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> the 50/50 mix of TNT and RDX is within the reach of even me for a few mines, but i'm sure that i'd end up making 100% RDX and maybe a bit of filler from captured munitions (which i would advise anyone to do). On this website it also tells us that the earliest AT mines were simply tank shells (HESH) with a pressure fuse.

Can I add here that tanks ONLY work in conjunction with infantry cover, as that is the way that it has been since the molotov was invented, as the infantry gain heavy weapons capability and the tank gains the protection of many eye's when buttoned up (to ensure against snipers) this has been re-inforced time and time again, as the locals in every city dont take kindly to tanks rumbling through and often grab a few RPG'S and start popping them off at anything that moves. this is a bit disconcerting to even an ABRAMS driver/crew as the tank "rings" after a direct hit, and who knows how unlucky they maybe, a lucky shot or two would leave a tank stranded (and that is what tankers DONT want.

[vulture]

The problem with the KE weapon is that the material should not shatter, melt or even vaporize on impact because much energy get's lost that way. Thus a high density and strong metal with high melting point is required. I'm not going to pay for 20kg of osmium you know... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

[vir sapit qui pauca loquitur]

from what i remember of osmium, wouldn't 20 kg only be the size of a large cigar <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> (i think its about 45kg for a brick-sized lump)

On the subject of K.E. weapons, why not load up an armoured juggernaught (articulated lorry) with a few concrete/steel blocks and get up to speed (about 80mph) and aim it at the tank, and have some form of ejection system to evacuate yourself
(bail out JUST before hitting)i'm not too sure about this, but if a sharpened steel beam was welded into the frame of a heavy ( total weight about 60 tonne)lorry, travelling at about 100kph we would have about 24 MJ of energy crashing into the tank?

i think that we would have a kill even if we didn't destroy the tank, we would have made it functionally inoperable due to damage to the weapons systems. it would be pretty cool to see this :D :D

<small>[ September 26, 2002, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: vir sapit qui pauca loquitur ]</small>

[Eliteforum]

Don't know if it's of any use or not but:

<a href="http://www.emsdiasum.com/ems/chemicals/osmium.html" target="_blank">http://www.emsdiasum.com/ems/chemicals/osmium.html</a>

[vir sapit qui pauca loquitur]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"> (Gr. osme, a smell) Discovered in 1803 by Tennant in the residue left when crude platinum is dissolved by aqua regia. Osmium occurs in iridosule and in platinum-bearing river sands of the Urals, North America, and South America. It is also found in the nickel-bearing ores of Sudbury, Ontario region along with other platinum metals. While the quantity of platinum metals in these ores is very small, the large tonnages of nickel ores processed make commercial recovery possible. The metal is lustrous, bluish white, extremely hard, and brittle even at high temperatures. It has the highest melting point and the lowest vapor pressure of the platinum group. The metal is very difficult to fabricate, but the powdered or spongy metal slowly gives off osmium tetroxide, which as a powerful oxidizing agent and has a strong smell. The tetroxide is highly toxic, and boils at 130C. Concentrations in air as low as 10^7 g/m^3 can cause lung congestion, skin damage, or eye damage. Exposure to osmium tetroxide should not exceed 0.0016 mg/m^3 (8-hour time weighted average - 40-hour work week). the tetroxide has been used to detect fingerprints and to stain fatty tissue for microscope slides. the metal is almost entirely used to produce very hard alloys, with other metals of the platinum group, for fountain pen tips, instrument pivots, phonograph needles, and electrical contacts. The price of 99% pure osmium powder - the form usually supplied commercially - is about $100/g, depending on quantity and supplier. The measured densities of iridium and osmium seem to indicate that osmium is slightly more dense than iridium, so osmium has generally been credited with being the heaviest known element. Calculations of the density from the space lattice which may be more reliable for these elements than actual measurements, however, give a density of 22.65 for iridium compared to 22.661 for osmium. At present, therefore, we know either iridium or osmium is the heaviest element, but the data do not allow selection between the two.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">damm, $100/g !!!!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />
hehehe, 20kg would be 2 MILLION dollars !!

but the tetroxide sounds interesting, i doubt that anyone would test for the poisoning, not with a price from that website of about $30 a gram,

[Anthony]

A lorry would make a very interesting KE weapon. I wouldn't imagine that the armour would be breached, but the shock would almost certainly kill the crew.

If shock damage hadn't taken too much of a toll on the tank's various components and devices, it may even be usaable after capture.

[vulture]

At that density, 20kg of Os would take slightly less than a liter, which could be shaped into an artillery shell like design with a hollow point of another weaker metal to ensure aerodynamics.

The total kinetical energy of 20kg of osmium at mach 5 (340m/s*5)
would be equal to (20*(1700)^2)/2 = 57800 kJ

Now let's assume the projectile comes to a complete halt in 0,01s and 20% of the energy is lost by shattering, friction and heat output:

(57800000*80%)/0,01* = 4,624*10^9 W = 4624 MW <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

Wow, try to pump that into a rail gun!
I think the word wreck for the remains of the tank wouldn't be appropriate here, I would rather use the word "plasmatized" armor... :D

(if I didn't make any calculation mistakes... :confused: )

<small>[ September 26, 2002, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: vulture ]</small>

[Gr3yscale]

Hi everybody, I can finally post :D
been reading the forum for like 3 months.

I heard about a guided mortar that was used to destroy tanks, actually I think it was a rocket, it was remotely controlled on descent.
it was just a big pointly lump of steel with a camera, control system and a boost stage that discarded just before apex was reached.

I think this would be fairly simple to improvise, once you have the transmitters and reciever..

hehe, you could use military (or whatever) band radio to transmit the control signal, as inaudible sound and thereby use their own systems against them, and they wont jam you.....

oh, also, I have to say; why would you try to fight a tank anyway?
put on your sheeps chlothing and hopefully itll leave you alone
why not take out the fuel tanker?
or any type of resupply
or demoralise the crew
OR just not be there when it comes around

oh yeah, wouldnt all that ANFO be better used collapsing a building on top of it? if its an urban setting.
Im just guessing but I think that would be more a efficient use.

I personally will try to avoid confrontations with tanks alltogether
they are lots bigger than me.

[vir sapit qui pauca loquitur]

the military does not use one channel as this would be easy for another army to jam, they use a system known as signal hopping, where the frequency used is changed mulitple times a second (up to 100 times a second for secure lines) so if you can find a way of using the same frequencies (at the same time) then i do belive that you would have the technology to listen in on the transmittions (descrambling)

the reason that we are trying to figure out a way of destroying a tank would be so that if we were ever in the position of martial law
(military becoming the De Facto ruler) and we believed that this was either unfair or was for the reason of rounding certain peoples from the general populace (a'la Gulag time) then we would be able to immobilise/destroy what is the most powerful symbol of modern military might, this in turn _could_ discourage the military from invading further into a city and might save our lives or the lives of our loved ones one day. we prepare therfore we are prepared.

blowing up buildings reduces the places that we might be able to operate in, and i dont think that in a residential zone (with little if any tall buildings) we would be able to use that method. BUT in a commercial/industrial zone that is a valid method.

Also we don't like the idea of waiting for anyone to remove that foot off of our throat, we would rather blow the foot :D (idea of waiting for them to leave) and destroying/immobilising the tanks demoralises the crew, and strains the supply lines as more fuel has to be used to transport that new powerpack/tank track/thermal sight.

and i'm glad to see that my idea might be a good one, but i am concerned as to how we are to get this 20 kg lump up such speeds to hit if the target is moving, as the firing mechanism looks long-winded and complicated. If you could make it recoilless and shoulder portable then you my man are amazing as that would be beyond a doubt an amazing weapon. the us army were experimenting with scramjet hyper-velocity missiles that would do the same thing, the only problem they could see is in the missle/shot passing straight through the target!
and it would be a waste if you were shooting say an apc, thats 2million dollars a shot gone on a half-million machine :D

one idea that i do propose for another thread is: "how would you make a tank" :D as we could take our knowledge from this thread and construct an easy to make vehicle that would protect us and offer a means of attack. a NC powered potato gun firing tungsten rounds would do some mean damage ! We could combine the idea for a remote sniper system and have a turret/remotly controlled gun platform :D

[Gr3yscale]

how do they coordinate the hopping?
embedded signal?
can you give me more info on this system?
do they transmit and recieve all their channels even though they only use one to communicate at any given time?
cause no hopping would be needed to control the shell.

sure, I just meant that easier targets might be plentiful.
if you deprive the tank of an enemy to fight, what can it do?

"shoot the flesh, save the steel" -that dude of MW2 Mercenaries
hehe :)

the weapon I described would be fairly simple, I will give a more detailed description;

3 parts, the launcher, the shell and the controls.

the launcher is just a homemade mortar, simple.

the shell is a chunk of something dense, like whatevers on hand with the tip made of something really hard, stainless steel is readily availiable.
it has a B/W camera and a transmitter + powersource
its guided in descent by fins actuated by standard model aircraft servos and a reciever.
the control signal could be sent on the same band as the video and a single tranceiver used?
thats the head of the shell.
there are also one or two boost stages, which are just pyrotechnic rocket motors that discard after burning.
they can be bought, you need a liscence for the big ones though.

the control system is just a tv screen, transmitter, reciever and control panel, doesnt even have to be portable if you were using the enemy radio, they wouldnt find your control station.

the launchers and shell could be placed anywhere, the best place would be where the smoke and flame of the motor wont be too easily seen.(surprise attack)
like on top of a tall building.
oh theyd also be remotely launched. but they would have to be activated shortly before cause of small battery in the shell.

ok, so its fairly complex but for me this would be easier to make than it would be to aquire any HE by the barrel.
most of the parts are readily availiable, minus the rocket motors, and the penetrating tip might have to be machined somehow.

yeah..

[Anthony]

If you use HE propulsion, IIRC you will get upto a quarter of the explosive's VoD in projectile speed. Unfortunately, that's only going to be about 2km/sec using even the best explosives :(

An existing solution might be on of the so called "super guns". I believe the Iraqi's were playing with some recently. Fair simple and crude in construction would pack enough ME to throw a 100kg shell halfway accros a country. Definitely not portable, nor recoiless though :)

How do existing field guns fare against modern tank armour? Maybe something like a 155mm howitzer? They don't seem to be too uncommon.

BTW, I wouldn't build a tank, I'd buy one and reactivate the gun. Then find some fools - I mean, "crew" and go have some fun :)

[vir sapit qui pauca loquitur]

HAHAHAH ! thats the right idea, i'd want a few of the english FOX armoured cars, the 40 mm cannon is sweeeeeet! it would do a dam lot of damage if APFDS ammunition was used (armour piercing fin stabilised discarding sabot) and its fully automatic (but low rate of fire) heheh, i want one of those :D .

modern howitzers (about 155mm) with some anti-tank ammunition would be devistating, but to my knowledge NO-ONE builds anti tank ammunition (like APFSDS) as they are far too wimpy and expensive to have on the field of battle. they also have a slow rate of fire/and are slow but these would be moot points when that enemy tank gets hit with about 30kg of hi ex !!! i do know that no tank can take a direct hit from a howitzer and survive. The super gun is along the lines of the german air-gun (phnematic (sp)) that, as the shell was moving along the barrel had further charges detonated behind it (very exact timings here as premature detonation would result in LOWER velocities)
the long barrel and multiple charges could have allowed saddam (CIA codename: sand-man :D ) to put satillites into low orbit ! (or reach england with hi-ex) you guess which one he'd do first :rolleyes:

the idea of using a stainless steel penetrator on the guided mortar wont be the best of ideas i believe, along with the low weight, high cost and low speed at point of impact it wont do much.

the military can pin-point radio emissions quite accuratly and when they do trianglulate your position i would think that's cutains for you... the radio hopping is achived by the transmittion from radio A to radio B, A then transmitts a code that is recognised by B and this then codes for what frequencies that they operate on (it is a LONG but mathematically based theorum) so you could brak the code but it would take so long that it's not even an option to your grand children. the sending radio hops to a seperate channel (it does not use any other channel at same time) at a random time, and some new radio's change the scrambling system at every few hops. they work on a restricted range of frequencies (about 100hz range i.e 1000-1100hz) and use sub-channels of these (1000.001hz etc) so you would have to monitor all these channels at the same time and piece them together... not a nice job !

the us army tried something like your mortar, but it was deployed from a 155mm cannon shell, it could listen for tanks/low flying helicopters and it would throw a AT mine at the target :D the thing was called SKAT or SKEETER and about 20 were in a 155mm shell, it was for inteligent minefields, blowing up if infantry came across it, right out of terminator 2 man.....

EDIT: this time i make a bit more sense

<small>[ September 27, 2002, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: vir sapit qui pauca loquitur ]</small>

[Gr3yscale]

I didnt want to decode their transmissions, just use their radios as relays for my signal so they probably wont trace the signal nor jam it. just an idea.

yeah those scout cars are *so* cool.

[MrSamosa]

A big problem I see with guided mortars is their rifling. You DO want the mortars to rifle in the air, to have any hope of accuracy, right? So, when they are coming down, it becomes difficult to control with your model airplane servos. "Right" may not steer the mortar right, "Left" my steer the mortar away from the tank. If this idea is pursued, then this problem must be dealt with.

As for motors for rockets, that is no problem. You don't necessarily have to buy commercially-made ones. In fact, it seems many rocket enthusiasts build their own motors from PVC pipe and a filler. The filler, for high-power rocketry, is usually Ammonium Nitrate based.

I don't know why I didn't think about this before, but rockets do seem the best way to deliver a KE weapon. HAMAS's (You know, the Palestinian guys?) "Qassam-2" rocket is basically just water pipe filled with a propellant, and it carried 11 kg. Their design was very basic, and any rocket enthusiast could find many ways to improve upon it; perhaps to the point that we are able to deliver our beloved 20 kg loads at high speeds?

Hah, a cement lorry ramming a tank would actually be funny, especially if it were effective. That is along the lines of a guerilla tactic... The guerillas commandeer a tractor trailer, go top speed, and ram the thing into the target. Tractor Trailers have amazing saftey systems, so it may not even be necessary to eject. After ramming, the driver (if he is alive) escapes into a get-away vehicle that accompanies the tractor trailer.

<small>[ September 27, 2002, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: MrSamosa ]</small>

[Anthony]

Dispense with the rifling and use fins. Simpler and the thing doesn't spin.

The safety systems aren't that good. I've seen footage of a lorry hitting a bridge pillar at motorway speed and there is *no* way anything in that unit would survive!

[john_smith]

A projectile can't come down at greater speed than it went up (and commercial rocket engines won't help much) so the KE mortar round would need as high or higher muzzle velocity than, say, a tank's main gun to be effective. A mortar capable of such feat probably wouldn't be too different from the 155mm towed howitzer mentioned above :D Neither very portable nor expendable. Also, a mach 5 shell is a bit harder to aim by joystick than a mach 0.5 version, and acceleration during the launch of the former would crush the said off-the-shelf electronics to begin with. I'd go with the SC.

[ENGINEERKILLER]

sincgars. single channel ground air radio systems the radios won't repeat unless you program to do so the radios are timed together and loaded with the same freqs before they are used and this requires a special encryption tool and the radios we use hop somwhere along the lines of 2,000 times a second.
Unless you have alot of indirect fire weapons your chances of being able to drop a round on a moving vehicle is pretty slim.The army has fielded the copperhead which is a laser guided artillery round that can hit a moving tank .Also the w.a.m. wide attack munition wich deploys a antitank mine over anything that meets its criteria for a threat.The problem I see with a tank hole is that the weight of the tank falling in the hole usualy makes a landslide and this gives it way to climb out under its on power and it can climb a 60 degree slope.

[vulture]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"> A projectile can't come down at greater speed than it went up (and commercial rocket engines won't help much) so the KE mortar round would need as high or higher muzzle velocity than, say, a tank's main gun to be effective.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">Not necessarily true. If the mortar round gets shot into the air using normal mortar ammo and is then directed downwards before it reaches apogee and along with that a rocket engine ingnites you could get an amazing bit of speed. Also, making sure the projectile still accelerates till impact, can compensate for too low speed.

Ofcourse the highest achievable speed would be a rocket launched from a jetfighter at mach 1,5, but that ain't exactly improvised...

[vir sapit qui pauca loquitur]

one thing that i have ALWAYS dreamed of was building a
heat-seeker, well after many years of school/university and looong and pointless chats with people who would know the theory of how to do this, i stumbled on to an idea.... IF model rockets can be made to seek the sun (called sun-seeker guidence no-less :rolleyes: ) then why can't I swop some infra-red sensitive receptors for the LDR's that the sun seeker uses, or on failing that use a receptor that seeks something like intense ultra-violet (or if possible a wavelength that the sun does not transmit on) and have some form of laser/emmitter that would "paint" the target. I realise that this is exactly what the military uses. So if i was to build this sun-seeker guidance system, attach it onto a home-made missle launcher (AND the powered fins), with another person "painting" the target with the correct frequency of light i should in theory be able to aim at anything within range with a HIGH probability of hitting said object. this would solve the problem of using highly expensive gear for the control of the mortar, as the targeting team would just call in an "air-strike" :D of sorts, with the laser painting the target... you get the rest

If i had to use LDR's i would just need to attach a flare or such other light source and use it at night.... Or if it was infra-red then i would be the owner of a homemade stinger :D i always knew i was smarter then any IRA techie :p (mind you they did make a few interesting gadgets)

I had another idea relating to the articulated lorry idea, if you were to load up the trailor, wire out the annoying brakes (air-powered) and near to the target you release the trailor and make a 180 and piss off as fast as that lorry can go. The trailor should speed off into the target, with only a small loss in mass and velocity and you can drive away without having another vehicle ready and waiting, and you can drive back to the RV and pick up another trailor!! :D You could carry on until you believe that your ideas have been figured out..

thats when you break out the home-made copper head :p

<small>[ September 28, 2002, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: vir sapit qui pauca loquitur ]</small>

[vulture]

Flares containing PTFE as an oxidizer are used as infrared decoys. Especially at night they should attract heat seekers.

[Gr3yscale]

I had an Idea the other day;

a tripwire.

well, a piece of fishing line strung across a road (or whatever) where a tank is expected to pass, it hangs below barrel level but above cassis level.

when the tank moves into it, it pulls it along, and pulls up a piece of parachord, which pulls up a long bag or tube of HE... onto the turret ring :D

not sure how to detonate it though, electronicly sensing the metal body of the tank? some kind of mechanical system with a magnet?
or more simply, another length of chord on the other end of the bag that activates a det sortof like the things in party poppers, you know?

what do you think?

[Anthony]

Not a bad idea, and pull-string initiation would probably be the easiest and most reliable.

Since we've had ideas like railguns, induction cooking and covering the tank in paint... An adaption to the above idea is to string some *really* sharp cheese wire across the street and use the tank's own driving force to slice itself in half! Ingenious! :D

I think those sun-seekers work because the source they are seeking is so strong. A laser or even a flare isn't a whole lot for what is probbaly a very basic circuit to detect.

[vir sapit qui pauca loquitur]

all you need to do is to boost the sensitivity of the LDR's (if using visable light) or to boost the range of movement to the fins (but not the sensitivity) so that they can track sources over greater arc's.

if i was to improve on the sun-seeker guidance then i would probably use ultra-violet sensors and lasers (it WOULD be difficult to avoid rockets flying at the sun, but common sense would help.

at night it would be easy, as v.little man-made light generates this unwanted wavelength, and the fact that the wavelength is so low means better accuracy when targeting. if i damped the sensitive receptors to a degree, then i would help to reduce the other less-powerful UV sources that might confuse the war-head

I am intending on making this btw, in conjunction with a few friends we have the know how and equipment. but i wanted to get opinions before starting so that any forsee able problems could be side-stepped

[Zyklon_B]

Modern tanks use a 120mm smoothbore cannon. This seems to be the standard for Canada, the USA, and all of Europe. The projectile they fire is similar to a Flechette, it is called a tungsten penetrator. Its ability to kill tanks doesnt have to do with explosives, but high speeds and kinetic energy. It can be assumed that 120mm cannons can take out any tank in the American and European theater, or else they would quickly be phased out.

Further information on the projectiles of modern tanks:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">
The original M829 threw a 9.41 pound (that's 65,870 grains), 1.06" diameter, 24" long, depleted uranium dart at 5480 f/s! The A1 version fired a 10.78 pound dart at 5170 f/s and the current A2 version throws a slightly longer (30") but skinnier (.8") 10.85 pound dart at 5512 f/s. (For you hand loaders, operating pressures of the M829 series are between 74K psi and 96K psi.) The M865 TPCSDS-T (Target Practice Cone Stabilized Discarding Sabot with Tracer) training round throws a 7 pound aluminum dart at 5577 f/s. (This round has a MUCH shorter maximum range than the M829 and can thus be safely fired on most tank ranges.) There is also a US M829E3 round under development that should have even more spectacular ballistics.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"><img src="http://www.atk.com/defense/descriptions/products/images/Sabot%20streak2.jpg" alt=" - " />

This gives some idea of what performance would be required from a homemade or reactivated cannon.

[MrSamosa]

Continuing along the lines of using lots of explosives, Qassam Brigades have blown up another Merkava-3 tank. Here's a snippet from their communique on October 12.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">The Qassam Brigades declare full responsibility for blasting a highly-explosive device weighing 70 kilograms under a Mirkava-3 that was passing in the so-called Netsarim area at 4.30 this evening Saturday 6th Shaaban 1423H – 12.10.2002AD.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">70 Kg of High Explosives! There, that's how you take out a tank <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> . Sorry for simply restating points made earlier in this thread and not offering anything new, but I felt this was relevant to the discussion.

[the resourceless reaperman]

In case it's a brick street you could just put some barrels of AP or ANFO under the surface, put a mine on top and carefully put the bricks back. (use a mine with a high weight tolerance! an anti-tank mine for instance). that should blow the tank to pieces quite nicely since the bottom isn't that densely armored.

[kingspaz]

some barrels of AP?! what the fuck?! if you can make a barrel of AP and not die i'd like to see how you'd get it in a hole without it going off also. the bricked street idea is decent though.
try and think before you post.

[the resourceless reaperman]

Well I don't really know much about explosives, so I just picked something. :rolleyes: I'm more into the theoretical stuff really.

It was more about the idea with the brick street.

Could blackpowder work?

<small>[ October 20, 2002, 05:42 AM: Message edited by: the resourceless reaperman ]</small>

[Machiavelli]

Maybe, if the containment was good enough.
However, one of our local customs on this board is that if you don't know shit about something, you don't post about it, even if it's a question, then it should be visible that you've already researched the topic.
While the brick street idea is ok, the explosive suggestions are crap. Since we are usually discussing things that can cost you everything from fingers or eyes to arms, legs or even your and other person's lifes if they go wrong, we don't take bullshit lightly.
Please try to be more precise in your future posts and keep to stuff you know.

[Zyklon_B]

I was thinking of a system for a mine that would involve using a large steel drum welded into a bottle neck going into a steel pipe. Inside the steel pipe a steel rod fitting the diameter of the pipe is inserted and the end of the pipe is covered with a plastic sheet as to keep debris and rain out of the barrel. The mine would then be filled with an explosive such as ANFO and a trigger device of your choice could be used, be it remote controlled or some pressure plate system. It would then be placed into a hole in the street up to the depth needed to keep the steel pipe only inches from the surface.

When a tank comes along the explosion would propel steel rod at terminal velocities directly under the tank. If one has access to a mill the center of the steel rod can be filled by another explosive and an impact detonation device.

Does this idea seem sound?

[DarkAngel]

Look where the Brit's are working on.

From: <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F08%2F19%2Fnmod19.x ml" target="_blank">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F08%2F19%2Fnmod19.x ml</a>


'Electric armour' vaporises anti-tank grenades and shells
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 19/08/2002)

An electric "force field" for armoured vehicles that vaporises anti-tank grenades and shells on impact has been developed by scientists at the Ministry of Defence.

The "electric armour" has been developed in an attempt to make tanks and other armoured vehicles lighter and less vulnerable to anti-tank grenade launchers such as those used by the Taliban and al-Qa'eda fighters in Afghanistan.

It could be fitted to the light tanks and armoured personnel carriers that will replace the heavy Challenger II tanks and Warrior APCs in one of the two British armoured divisions.

The ubiquitous RPG-7 anti-tank grenade launcher can be picked up for a mere $10 in most of the world's trouble spots but is capable of destroying a tank and killing its crew. When the grenade hits the tank, its "shaped-charge" warhead fires a jet of hot copper into the target at around 1,000mph. This is capable of penetrating more than a foot of conventional solid steel armour.

The new electric armour is made up of a highly-charged capacitor that is connected to two separate metal plates on the tank's exterior. The outer plate, which is bullet-proof and made from an unspecified alloy, is earthed while the insulated inner plate is live.

The electric armour runs off the tank's own power supply. When the tank commander feels he is in a dangerous area, he simply switches on the current to the inner plate.

When the warhead fires its jet of molten copper, it penetrates both the outer plate and the insulation of the inner plate. This makes a connection and thousands of amps of electricity vaporises most of the molten copper. The rest of the copper is dispersed harmlessly against the vehicle's hull.

But despite the high charge, the electrical load on the battery is no more than that caused by starting the engine on a cold morning.

In a recent demonstration of the electric armour for senior Army officers, an APC protected by the new British system survived repeated attacks by rocket-propelled grenades that would normally have destroyed it several times over.

Many of the grenades were fired from point-blank range but the only damage to the APC was cosmetic. The vehicle was driven away under its own power.

Prof John Brown, of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, which developed the Pulsed Power System at its R&D site at Fort Halstead, Kent, said it was attracting a lot of interest from both the MoD and the Pentagon.

With the easy availability of RPG-7 rocket launchers "it only takes one individual on, say, a rooftop in a village to cause major damage or destroy passing armoured vehicles", he said.

But the use of electric armour, which will protect against all shaped-charge warheads including artillery and tank shells, would reduce the threat to zero. --End

Which kind of actions do you have in mind that could be taken to bypass this system?

A double shaped charge warhead could maybe used in some sort of similar fashion like the patent(?) NBK ones posted, about a warhead that can penetrate through a wall using a shaped charge and than pushes out a grenade to cancel the targets inside the room.
Only the 2nd SC is made smaller so it doesn't come in contact with the outer plate.

Or somekind of way to isolate the yet?
A jet from another material than copper that doesn't conduct?

"The electric armour runs off the tank's own power supply."
Maybe that can be used against them, like a special warhead that let the tank run out of power in some sort of way?

An EMP device that can be shot into the tank and makes use of the tanks power suply?(im not into electronics so correct me if it makes no sence)

[Bitter]

How about a cermet penetrator that isn't likely to be vaporized and doesn't conduct electricity ?

[Jacks Complete]

The electric armour is a great idea, and it pisses me off as to how close I had been a few years ago.

Ok, how it works.

When you fire an RPG, it hits the target and explodes. The shaped charge uses a copper disc and explosively forms a jet of molten copper, which is very heavy and burns through the armour. Needless to say, the jet is very conductive. Any molten metal is, even more so than any metal (conductivity is a defining feature of metals).

This system works using a pair of spaced plates of armour, and a high powered capacitor bank. The capacitor bank is charged, and everything is fine. The two plates are separated by either some solid insulator, or an air gap. When the RPG hits, the jet breaks through the first plate, travels across the air gap, and reaches the second plate. At this instant (don't forget that electricity travels at half the speed of light, generally) the circuit is made, and the capacitor bank discharges through the jet of copper. The electromagnetic forces and heating in the jet blow it to bits, and the liquid copper is then splattered on the inside of the air gap, having failed to break through the internal plate. Two hits in exactly the same place would get through, but the odds are very much against you. Two simultaneous strikes might do it, too, as the capacitors might be discharged enough for it to fail to disrupt one of them. Any little strands of copper that bridge the gap are rapidly melted by the repeated firing of the system.

The outer armour would be made thick enough to stop a standard round from bridging the gap. A large enough dent would do the trick, followed up by an RPG, if it was an air gap. I somehow doubt that it is.

As for the rest of this thread, well, some of the ideas here are interesting, to say the least. Mis-guided might be the better description...

Firstly, why does everyone think the top of a tank is the thinest armour? It isn't! Quite the opposite! The soft underbelly of an M1 has a mere 3" of armour in places (like the non-vital areas, and outside the crew compartments) while the top has far more, and blocks of DU or titanium are added if they feel it is needed, as well as reactive armour blocks.

For info, the top of an M1A3 has the equivalent of 850mm of RHA to a KE projectile, and 1300mm+ vs a shaped charge. The front of the tank, which used to be toughest, has 800mm equiv. The M1A2HA (Heavy Armour) had extra DU slabs and RA, and it had 800mm equiv. on the turret, and 750mm on the front.

Note that RHA stands for Rolled Homogenous Armour, and refers to high quality steel armour plate. It is used as the standard measure, since modern armour is far superior, at least 3 times better than plain steel RHA, hence these silly sounding thicknesses.

Modern tanks have radios, and video cameras, and claymore mines, as well as air overpressure systems, etc.

Molotov cocktails won't work against British Army Landrovers, let alone a modern tank. Nor will trying to shoot the vision slits. The machineguns all work from inside the tank, they have overpressure systems to stop NBC, the tracks are pretty solid, they can climb walls, crush houses, blow away other tanks, and any fool running up to one with a can of paint is going to be decorating the wall behind him, whether from the tank or the supportig infantry. Even without local support, the air force could napalm/cluster bomb the area, without much risk to the crew of the tank.

The only way you are going to kill a tank is the blow it to hell with high explosive. Use a low explosive, and flip it, and the crew will be trapped, but then two more tanks turn out with a tank rescue vehicle, and air support, troops, etc. and even if you look like Mother Teressa, you are going to get shot if you walk outside! They right the tank, free the crew, and you get shot while trying to snipe the crew. The tank gets repainted, and it is back a week later. The crew are fine, since they were wearing the safety harnesses provided, and they have specially mounted seats to stop "gunners knee" (where the shock of a hit gets transmitted through the hull and liquidises the bones on the gunners legs below the knee).

Personally, I would go with a half dozen tank rounds or artillery shells turned into mines, buried well, and remote detonated. Spaced them out well, and you blow one when it is in the middle. Then use the others to get the reinforcements.

An idea I had was a rolled thin sheet of plastic explosive, which would be rolled out all the way down a thinish road, spaced for the mines, with charges designed to knock down trees (det cord) or houses (dynamite) along the sides.

Wait for tank #1 to reach either mine 3, 4 or 5, depending on local procedures. Blow it up. Use the other mines to immediately strike the support units and other tanks/vehicles in the area. Now stop. Wait till people start swarming the area, getting out of vehicles, etc. then detonate the sheets of explosive, and the trees/walls come down at the same time. Actually, setting off the sheets a few seconds afterwards would be even better...

That would get most of them. Then use one sniper, at a distance, to take out anyone moving. He would be expendable, though.

[AsylumSeaker]

Apparently a weak spot on the abrams is the turret ring where the turret meets the body. Even then you need AT weaponry. RPGs won't do it.
After watching some movies of some detcord being wrapped around the trunk of a tree and detonated to blow the tree down, I wondered if you could do the same thing around the barrel of the tanks main gun.. but then you would have to climb on top of the tank to do that. Maybe if it was just sitting there you could sabotage it that way.
I say kamakazee a boeing 747 into it. :p

[vulture]

Hmm. Airplanes. RC helicopter or aircraft? Seems alot easier than a RC mortar round.

RC cars with shaped charges to blow off the tracks seems feasible too.

[TreverSlyFox]

Having spent, shall we say, just a little bit of time around the Militia movement this has been discussed for many years along with what the hell do you do against Attack Helos. The general consences is YOU DON'T screw with Armor or Helos, at least not on the battlefield. Unless you have High Explosives and lots of it.

Otherwise you deal with Armor and Helos at their bases, refueling points and repair centers. You destroy their fuel, ammo, repair facilities and crews. The LAST thing you want to do is go up against Armor or Helos on the battlefield.

The crews have to sleep, eat and shit just like anyone else and they don't spend 24/7 in their tanks. That is their weekness and that's when you use your improvised goodies to the most advantage. Don't try blowing up the tank, blow up his refuling truck and ammo dump, kill it's mechanics, waste it's crew at their base. The one weekness modern Armies have is that it takes a lot of supply and support people to maintain one combat soldier in the field. Kill the supply and it's people and you kill the Army.

The Germans blew it in WWII during the Battle of the Bulge when they failed to capture the Fuel Depots, the Armor stopped moving and the attack ground to a halt. The Alies reenforced, the weather cleared and the Air assets had a field day killing stationary Armor that still had full ammo loads.

[AsylumSeaker]

Hrmm. How much weight do you think an RC chopper could carry? If you got the biggest on available.. and removed all the crap it didn't need, like landing gear and the decorations and everything.. you could rig it with a reasonable sized shaped charge couldn't you? And land it on the roof somewhere and detonate it. Wouldn't be difficult. Might need a bit of flying practise.
And then you could make 5 or 6 of these RC shaped charge choppers and have 5 or 6 people attack the tank with a swarm of them. A small swarm, but still..

[xyz]

I don't think you will get a big enough SC onto a model helicopter, it is an interesting idea though.

Treverslyfox, infantry can be effective against helicopters so long as they have some cover/camouflage, what do you think RPGs and Stingers are for?

If you are going to bury a charge like Jack's Complete said, why not just use several hundred Kg (like 500Kg) of ANFO? Who cares if it doesn't have an armour shattering VoD, let's see that tank (and it's crew) remain funtional after being tossed 25m into the air and then coming down again (60 tons of armour, engine, and weaponry is usually not very skilled at landings :) ).

[dana_m_h]

Anyone remember this?: http://www.docsmachine.com/nonPB/mortar.html
This might have a chance to penetrate armor, or at least be able to scare someone in a tank. If fired straight up it could hit a soft spot on top and/or break something. Just a thought. Oh yeah you could also cut the bowling ball in half hollow out the center slightly and then fill it with something to make it heavier or a high explosive and another substance in the middle to make it go off. Again just a thought.

[Jacks Complete]

I think www.docsmachine just got DDoS'd!! (Connection refused) It's getting like Slashdot!

If, however, it is the one I think it is, those bowling balls would just shatter. The tanker would just look for someone to shoot then!

However, full of a fairly high powered explosive, it should go bang. Don't think it would do much to an MBT, but against an APC or light tank, you would probably win.

The problem with RC helicopters is that they are as loud as a chainsaw. So are planes. They cannot carry much weight, either. The solution?

Use a large powered glider. Use the motor to get it high up, then cut the power (or design it to run hard and die) and then just steer it into your target. You could get an extra 300 mph on your explosively formed projectile with a powered dive, I bet.

As for bouncing a tank onto it's roof, that will just piss them off. Sure they are stopped, until another tank (or dozer) rights them. The guys inside wear seat harnesses, as they go over rough ground with crap suspension at 30+mph and hit mines! Lets put it this way - if an armoured limo can let the driver, etc. walk away with cuts and bruises after one gets flipped by a huge mine, what chance have you got of killing a tanker? You can't starve them out, or anything, either, as they will have support, and a radio.

Hell, try it. I just don't see it working.

I have a cool slideshow of a T-72 vs. a Javlin anti-tank missile somewhere, I will dig it up and upload it. It shows how to deal with a tank!

[AsylumSeaker]

I heard from someone who seemed to know what he was talking about that some modern tanks are being given lasers which shoot down missiles before they hit the tank? (!) Can anyone verify this?

Jack - perhaps a tank wouldn't be to bothered by being flipped, but once its on its back you could climb onto its belly and stick some big shaped charges on it or a pile of thermite. Provided you had a whole crowd of people hiding with machetes or something (crowds of people usualy aren't to difficult to gather in the third world countries that america always invades) to watch your back.

People have mainly suggested burrying huge explosive charges of ANFO, etc. How about if you buried a huge shaped charge? More difficult to make, but surley more effective.

[xyz]

A huge shape charge would be very difficult to make and much harder to correctly use than a massive amount of ANFO.

Jack's Complete, I think that 500Kg of ANFO will do more than flip the tank, it will toss it 25 - 50m into the air as if it were a child's toy. It will probably also remove the tracks and any other vulnerable parts while it does this.

Then comes the fun part, the landing :) .

[apathyboy]

I was aimlessly wandering the net when I found mention of a new anti tank missle called LOSAT that works on KE only, no warhead. The technical specs are here (http://www.atk.com/aerospace/descriptions/tactical-propulsion/losat.htm)
I don't know if all of this is workable, but some of the rocketry work on this forum has been pretty impressive. If the tank was close enough, guidance might not even be a problem, especially if you launched a couple of them. There's also a movie of the LOSAT in action at White Sand's site (http://www.wsmr-history.org/LOSAT2.mpeg)

Actually, after seeing that movie again, I think there'd be a substantial minimum range for that thing to get up to 5000 fps, maybe a guidance package would be a good thing

Of course, half the posters here could just make up a nice EFP charge, so I'm not sure which is easier.

[stickfigure]

Recent events in Iraq should be noticed as any credible source of information on defeating an M1A1.
Quote:

October 31, 2003: The U.S. Army is not saying much about the "mystery projectile" that went through the side skirts and side armor of an M-1A1 tank last August 28th. Whatever it was just barely missed the tanks gunner (it went through the back of his seat and grazed part of his flak jacket) and put a pencil size hole nearly 50mm deep into the four inch thick armor on the other side of the tank. The damage may have been done by a projectile, not a shaped charge (which uses a jet of super-hot plasma to burn a hole in armor and put a quantity of plasma and molten metal inside the tank.) No known RPG would do that kind of damage. But some Western anti-tank rockets generate a different kind of plasma jet that might create the kind of damage done. A U.S. 25mm armor piercing shell (fired from the gun mounted on the M-2 Bradley armored vehicle) uses a small penetrator, but that penetrator is of depleted uranium, which burns like a flare once it is inside its target. One major unknown is the large number of portable anti-tank weapons (especially Russian and Chinese models) that have not been tested against the M-1 tank. It's not unusual for new weapons to have unpredictable effects once they are first used in combat. Until the army releases more information, if they have any, the mystery lingers.

In the sort of excited language seldom included in official Army documents, he said, “The unit is very anxious to have this ‘SOMETHING’ identified. It seems clear that a penetrator of a yellow molten metal is what caused the damage, but what weapon fires such a round and precisely what sort of round is it? The bad guys are using something unknown and the guys facing it want very much to know what it is and how they can defend themselves.”

While it’s impossible to determine what caused the damage without actually examining the tank, some conclusions can be drawn from photos that accompanied the incident report. Those photos show a pencil-size penetration hole through the tank body, but very little sign of the distinctive damage — called spalling — that typically occurs on the inside surface after a hollow- or shaped-charge warhead from an anti-tank weapon burns its way through armor.

In the western countries the people have been disarmed so much that it would be near impossible to find a weapon or create one that will fully destroy or disable a MBT. In Iraq civilians were issued military weapons and trained well in advance for urban warfare so it does not supprise me that something like this has popped up. But considering how advanced the M1A1 is it doesn't suprise me that it sustainded little to no damage either.

In Iraq there is a legend of a mythical beast that would come to Baghdad and destroy it, this beast could not be stopped by the hands of man. In this war M1A1's were routinely hit by direct RPG and anti-tank rockets. One tank was hit by at least 8 RPG rounds with them literally bouncing off the front of the turret. Not a single M1A1 was completely destroyed with loss of life to the crew, or in Desert Storm either. Many were disabled but they are always accompanied by backup. Infact this war had a couple of hit to the ammuntion bays which caused them to cook off, again no loss of life and in the words of the crew the blast doors "Worked as advertised".
This legend came to life in the minds of the Iraqi militia men who were plagued by nightmares of the M1A1 to the point that, the US capitalized on this and startred playing recordings of tank movements broadcast from loud speakers near towns and villages the were putting up resistance. They did this nightly until the towns were either invaded or gave up.

Some suggestions like detonating large amounts of charges would work, but that would only take care of a couple at most a few tanks. The US has some where around 3500 M1A1's and A2's in inventory.

here overview of M1 losses in Iraq:

http://www.fireandfury.com/phorum/read.php?f=4&i=839&t=839

[Flake2m]

While the M1A2 abrams tank is the most advanced MBT in use today, it is still vunerable in the same areas like other tanks. The bottom, the top and the arse.
I am surprised the Iraqis didn't try to take out a tank by sticking about 10-20kg of C4/semtex under a manhole cover, wait for a tank to drive over it then BOOM.

The force of the manhole cover being propelled by 10-20kg of high explosives would be enough to either disable the tank by maybe blowing off its tracks or flipping it.

Or why not have a very brave person attach copper linears to the underside of the tank. If the tank was stationary, they could use a diamond tipped drill and screw on the linears, Or use a strong adhesive such as expoxy and glue them on.

There is an old saying "In the battle between warhead and armor, the warhead always wins". So eventually some individual(s) is going to figure out a way to take out a M1 Abrams tank whether the US likes it or not.

[Jacks Complete]

Flake2m,
It doesn't matter how brave/stupid anyone is, they aren't going to win that way. You crawl under a tank, and you get smeared. The tank crews also know well enough not to drive over a manhole cover like a total newbie! Read the report above your post, which credits the lack of losses as much to the support as to the tank itself.

The sad fact is, unless you are a first rate, first-world army, you aren't even going to get to slow the US army down.

[vir sapit qui pauca loquitur]

the russians were developing an anti-anti-tank missle system that featured a large shotgun that was to shoot the incoming round down, along with this they tried mounted flares (as most of the modern ATGM's use a flare on the rear of the missle, multiple flairs just spastify the simple computer)

it would need a very well crafted and heavy home-made shaped charge to harm a modern tank in any way, i can only recommend that a mobility kill is the aim, as tank tracks don't have the same 800 mils of RHA to keep it safe ;)

the turret ring is the weak-point of any tank with a turret (the israeli merkava uses HEAVY chain over the back of the turret over-hang to prematurely set an RPG off) realistically we need to think up a smooth-bore cannon (simgle shot) that might offer some hope of damaging the lighter vehicles.

and for my last comment, the reason that tungsten and DU are used in ballistic penetrators would be due the the unusual property of self-sharpening (fragments broken off from the penetrator only serve to increase the length-to-cross section ratio)

the action is called adiabatic shear banding.
http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/DU-Amorphous-Tungsten-Alloy30jul03.htm

[ossassin]

Jack, I'm confident that the US could be stopped. It wouldn't be easy, and ironically, I think that the American civilians would have the best chance. After all, we've done it before, why couldn't we do it again? It would just take a little old-fashioned American ingenuity. :) Don't get me wrong, though. I support our country in all its indeavors. Hopefully a truly tyrannical US government will be something that only future generations will have to deal with.

[Jacks Complete]

I agree that the only ones that could stop the US Army would be a white, english speaking, western army. This is because the US public would baulk at seeing US troops bombing the shit out of nice folks who talk just like them.

All this talk about stopping the tanks, is, of course (as backed up by recent events) a waste of time. It isn't the tanks you have to stop, it is the A10 that just strafed your house or the AC-130 that howitsered your car (and you) from three miles away, because someone thirty miles away once hear a strange noise from your yard, and thought they saw a man in a turban there once...

You need to knock down the jets, as the moment the US Army even thinks there is might be an ambush, they tend to call in an airstrike, and levels a few city blocks. Then the tanks roll in, and mop up.

See my post in the water cooler for some enlightening stats as to how big an army you will need...

http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50762#post50762

[ossassin]

It was not a racist remark. I was simply stating that the Americans are the ones who tend to change the style of warfare. In order to be victorious against such an army, we would have to do that again.

[Dave the Rave]

I was thinkig about JC´s statement... Surely if the airstrike came, there is no hope to the figthers, but only if the tanks can make their way out.

So, the best way to not receive the little air babies is not allow the tanks to go out. Even if all the tank´s crew is dead, the air strike will not occur, because their senders can think that their boys are still alive.

Back to the 50ties, the hungarians made one revolution agains the red army and their frightening T34, at the time, one of the most spetacular beasties ever made. Of course it haves some drawbacks, like the combustible tank at it´s back, where it can be set on fire by the use of molotov cocktails and such.

Anyway, the hungarians hold the tanks with fake landmines, which the reds don´t disturbed by fear of set of, or splashing grease or heavy oil through the floor, so the tanks can´t "grab" the track, covering the spots with paint, or even droping the eletric cables over the tank, electrocuting all it´s crew.

At least, the M1 is much more an beast that the T34, but it´s still made of steel, and have the same blind spots, so, the hungarian tecnics can be used again. I don´t know, but I think that 20.000 volts, at more than 30 amps can fry anyone inside an tank, whatever NBC defenses it haves.

[vulture]

Do tank gunners have a live round loaded all the time? If you'd find a way to set it off inside the turret...

[Jacks Complete]

Dave the rave,

I doubt you would fry the crew with electric, even in an older tank. How would the electric ever reach the crew? Surely it just goes through the steel hull?

[Dave the Rave]

Vulture, they do have an live round, but it´s only become armed when leaves the barrel, just to prevent it to explode when something is stuck on the barrel. Besides, I think that, due to the high velocityes the round is fired, even if something is stuck through the barrel, the round will clear it´s way...

JC, My grandfather fougth the WWII and after that he fougth on Hungary, Bulgary, Macedonia and some other minnor revolutions against the Reds, and he told me about it. First I tought that was an joke, but I found some old Times magazines and some war correspondent wrote about it.

I think that, if the crew touches any metal part of the tank, that is grounded by itself, the current will flow through their bodies, the same way it will flow through someone who is above an grounded metal object touched by electricity.

At my Country we have portable metal stairs, and many times I electrified myself when over the stair, just because the exposed cable touched the body of the stair.

[vulture]

Vulture, they do have an live round, but it´s only become armed when leaves the barrel, just to prevent it to explode when something is stuck on the barrel. Besides, I think that, due to the high velocityes the round is fired, even if something is stuck through the barrel, the round will clear it´s way...


Sure, but a high velocity round will set off a rather oversized detonator which would then set off the round...

[Dave the Rave]

Nice tougth, but which mouse will put the bell on cat´s neck ? Unless someone wait till the tank moves and then climb it´s back and put the detonator, but someone who can climb the tank can also throw some grenades inside the spots...

[vulture]

I'm not entirely sure, but don't have modern tanks cameras instead of spots?

Kinda defeats the purpose of state-of-the-art armor.

The spots should be only for emergency use.

[Jacks Complete]

Spots => Ports, I think?

Spots would be spotlights, and ports would be where to look out of.

[vulture]

I (and probably Dave) was referring to the ports indeed. Sorry for the confusion.

[Jacks Complete]

vir sapit qui pauca loquitur,

just a note on your post from some time back...

You said about using some kind of heat seeker or laser tracking system for hitting moving targets, with reference to sunchaser rockets.

The military took years to work out how to avoid the expensive prototype missiles taking off after the sun. I can, therefore, tell you one of the ways. If you are using a laser, you want to modulate it, in the same way as an infrared remote control. By doing this, preferably with a non-repeating code (at least over the seconds of the flight time) and have your missile look only towards that, then you will have no problems with sun chasing. However, most modern tanks now have a set of sensors on them which tell the crew when some idiot is targetting them with a laser beam, as well as the direction he is in. Also, since modern tanks have both NIR and thermal imaging equipment, they can both see the beam path (as they are nearly on the axis of the beam, and so see a lot more scattering) and probably you too, in spite of your cammo gear.

If you are going to do it, do it remotely! If you are going to do it safely, do it (at least) 2 steps removed from your fragile ass!

It might be worth starting a thread on heat and guided rocket systems.