Tank Survivability c. 2000 and Tank Transporter Question

[Raellus]

First, some musings; then, my question.

With the the relative paucity of hi-tech ATGMs and launching platforms like helis and fixed wing tac-air, MBTs that made it to 2000 would have a better chance of hanging around than they would have had prior to, and shortly after the TDM. ATGM (and aircraft) production would have pretty much stopped after late '97. I imagine that most of what was produced before then would have been used up by the Battle of Kalisz.

LAWs and RPGs (not including tandem warhead versions) are not as deadly to modern MBTs as ATGMs. Abrams and Challenger tanks in Iraq have both survived multiple RPG hits relatively unscathed. Unless you can hit a chink in the armor (literally), the most you can hope for is a mobility kill. With slatted armor and improvised supplemental armor (tank tracks, welded on armor plates, sandbacks, chains, etc.), the chances of surviving an RPG or LAW hit are even better. I figure than most reactive armor would have been used up by 2000. Really, the biggest threat to an MBT in 2000 would be AT mines, another MBT, or the rare AT gun.

Anyway, those are just a few of my thoughts. MBTs would be very rare by 2000, but, IMO, they would be a lot harder to kill then too.

Here's my related question. I'm trying to find some info about modern U.S. and Soviet/Russian tank transporters and I haven't come across much. My Google searches are turning up mostly info on WWII tank transporters. The modern ones I've found are mostly European made. I figure a few of you know something about this topic. I hear that road marches are hell on tracks and that, whenever and wherever possible, tanks are moved around on rolling stock and/or truck trailers to spare them wear and tear. It's odd that I'm having so much trouble finding info/pics on modern U.S. and Russian tank transporters. Help!

Thanks.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Here's my related question. I'm trying to find some info about modern U.S. and Soviet/Russian tank transporters and I haven't come across much. My Google searches are turning up mostly info on WWII tank transporters. The modern ones I've found are mostly European made. I figure a few of you know something about this topic. I hear that road marches are hell on tracks and that, whenever and wherever possible, tanks are moved around on rolling stock and/or truck trailers to spare them wear and tear. It's odd that I'm having so much trouble finding info/pics on modern U.S. and Russian tank transporters. Help!

In the mid-1970's, the US adopted the M746 tractor and M747 trailer. The trailer could support 120,000 lbs and the tractor towed the loaded trailer at 38 mph. My photo shows it loaded with an M60 tank.I don't know if the Abrahms is carried by a new vehicle or an updated M746/747.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by copeab

In the mid-1970's, the US adopted the M746 tractor and M747 trailer. The trailer could support 120,000 lbs and the tractor towed the loaded trailer at 38 mph. My photo shows it loaded with an M60 tank.I don't know if the Abrahms is carried by a new vehicle or an updated M746/747.

Paul has info on a few, The M-1000 HET (under US trailers) is used for the M1 Series I believe.

[Webstral]

Of course, anyone with a scrap of determination is going to figure out a way to move their tanks. Tractor trailers are limited to 40 tons on US highways (I believe), but there are plenty of trailers out there that can carry more. Adapting a civilian trailer for carrying a tank represents a challenge, but as long as the trailer can handle the weight the adaptations are more about getting the tank on the trailer securely.

40th Infantry Division in California faces this issue. I don't know whether any proper tank carriers were available when the division moved from Oregon to Camp Roberts; we might imagine, though, that an infantry division made technically mechanized by scrounging AFV might also have to make due to improvised tank carriers.

I won't bring up Thunder Empire here, other than to remark that 111th Brigade doesn't have any real tanks; ergo, finding suitable trailers for the Ridgways and M113s is going to be a far lesser challenge than that facing any formation with M1s to move.

Webstral

[cavtroop]

To your first point, the biggest threat to an MBT in 2000 would be availability of POL (Petroleum, Oil and Lubricants), followed by parts, fuel and ammo. I imagine you'd see more than a few MBT's abandoned (and destroyed in place by their crews), as they could no longer find parts, or lubricants, or ammo, or distill enough fuel, etc.

And Kato is right, the M1 is transported on the roads by the HET, and also via rail.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The MAZ535 and MAZ537 truck has formed the basis for Soviet and WTO tank transporters for many years, still in use today in some places or in an updated form.

Tank Transporter MAZ-537G with MAZ/ChMZAP-5247G Semitrailer
http://ebook30.com/history/history/1...mitrailer.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAZ-535
http://translate.googleusercontent.c...iqN2pgh_iy4ivg google translation of Russian site
http://translate.googleusercontent.c...kCXW_qslAcVNPQ google translation of Russian site
http://www.military-today.com/trucks/maz_537.htm
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...ing_tanks.JPEG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAZ-7310 updated version
http://translate.googleusercontent.c...rz7eEm9DBvobMQ google translation of Russian site, latest tank transporter
http://translate.googleusercontent.c...j9tYn61-_RdnGQ google translation of same Russian site, this one's about the trailers

Can't say much for NATO transporters but I believe Paul Mulcahy has them on his site

[kato13]

Semi OT

Somewhere I have a list of how much railroad rolling stock is needed for every type of US battalion. I believe it was a planning document for NTC transport logistics.

If anyone is interested, let me know and I can dig it up.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by cavtroop

To your first point, the biggest threat to an MBT in 2000 would be availability of POL (Petroleum, Oil and Lubricants), followed by parts, fuel and ammo. I imagine you'd see more than a few MBT's abandoned (and destroyed in place by their crews), as they could no longer find parts, or lubricants, or ammo, or distill enough fuel, etc.

And Kato is right, the M1 is transported on the roads by the HET, and also via rail.

Point well taken. For the record, I was referring to "active" threats but I agree with your assertion. Broken down tanks in enemy controlled or disputed territory would probably be destroyed in place, if a heavy recovery vehicle wasn't on hand to tow it out of harm's way. On the other hand, in friendly territory, broken down tanks that couldn't be fixed would probably be cannibalized for spares for other tanks and not destroyed outright.

THANKS guys, I knew I came to the right place for TT info!

Apparently, the M746/747 could haul an M1 but not without hurting itself in the process.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Point well taken. For the record, I was referring to "active" threats but I agree with your assertion. Broken down tanks in enemy controlled or disputed territory would probably be destroyed in place, if a heavy recovery vehicle wasn't on hand to tow it out of harm's way. On the other hand, in friendly territory, broken down tanks that couldn't be fixed would probably be cannibalized for spares for other tanks and not destroyed outright.

THANKS guys, I knew I came to the right place for TT info!

Apparently, the M746/747 could haul an M1 but not without hurting itself in the process.

Well for the most part any anti-tank weapon regardless the if it the old LAW or RPG to newer weapons would have to be considered as a lethal threat to any tank. This is mainly due, to the fact that any tank still operational would have already had taken a beaten, so there are more points that could be more expose than they had before the war.