Tank Hatches

[Ronin]

Thought I might tap into some of the actual military knowledge here. You see in the movies guys ripping open tank hatches and tossing in a frag. I got to believe in real life, even with a crowbar that it would be damn near impossible, with the hatch secured. Am I correct?

[headquarters]

they can be locked from the inside by a manual bolt in most cases - at least the few hatches I have had hands on experience with.

Even with tools you would have a hard time /use a lot of time popping the hatch.

Of course - careless mechie types and armoured bullywagon types can forget the lock in their eagerness to run over yet another enemy combatant on foot. I suppose its possible then to rip it open and throw the frag inside.

[dragoon500ly]

It is called a combat lock. In its simplest form it is a piece of metal that is moved into position to physically block the movement of the latch, eg the
M-113's rear ramp hatch lock. The upper grill doors on a M-48/M-60 are combat locked with a simple one-inch bolt that is screwed in.

On a tank you have to squeeze a locking lever to unlock and then rotate the physical lock to undo the hatch. In addition, most tank hatches do not have an external handle to pull open, the sole exception being the loader's hatch, which is the normal means of entry into a tank.

On older tanks, such as the M48/M60-series, the loader's hatch has a mount for a periscope to be mounted. If the hatch is locked from the inside and the periscope is not mounted, a hammer can be used to pop the 'scope cover open and then someone can reach in operate the latch.

As for the Hollywood staple of someone pulling the hatch open to chuck a grenade in....IRL our hero would be busy trying to stuff everything back in after the self-inflected hernia.

But there is a way to get a grenade into the turret. Tanks, when "buttoned up" have a serious lack of close in vision. Tank commanders are normally trained to ride with their hatch open and their head sticking out so that they can better see what is going on around them. A couple of infantrymen in the right spot can shoot the TC and then throw a grenade into his hatch. But what do you do if the TC is buttoned up?

The best answer, is to use one of the various man-portable rocket launchers, LAAWs, Vipers, Carl Gustav, RPGs etc, to get a shot into a vulnerable spot, prime spots would be the track, the rear of the tank hull (engine shot), or if you are above the tank, a round into one of the hatches. If you lack a antiarmor weapon, a satchel charge would be the next best choice. Wedging one of these in the gap between the turret and the hull will distort or even lift the turret right off of its turret ring, jamming the turret at the very least and maybe, getting onboard ammo to explode (before trying this in IRL, please get the maximum amount of insurance and list me as your beneficiary!). Tankers, needless to say are very watchful for anyone carrying a satchel charge.

Another old stand by is to use a flame weapon such as a Molotov Cocktail or even a flamethrower. This might have worked in WWII, but modern tanks are designed with run-off points to drain the flaming material away from the tank. When I was at Fort Knox, part of the officer's training course included a demonstration where we dropped a couple of Molotov's onto the back deck of a M-60A1....it was an utter waste of time and fuel.

Hope this helps!

[Ronin]

Interesting, thanks.
Had a thought about the molotovs. I though part of the reasoning of using them was that the smoke and burning fuel, chokes out the motor. Depriving it of oxygen. Causing it to stall out. Effectively a mobility kill. Does it not work that way at all? Another thought. I could seen that maybe working on a diesel. But what about the turbine engines, like the Abrams uses. They suck a lot of air I would imagine. So would that make it better or worse? Assuming it works like that at all.

[dragoon500ly]

Its more a matter of scale than anything else. In its classic form, a Molotov is a glass container containing, roughly, a liter of gas/oil mix. On its own, its not enough to kill the engine or crew. Like I mentioned earlier, modern tank designs do take into account the use of a Molotov and run-off points are provided. Tank crews are also trained to exit the area and get away from the fire.

Portable flamethrowers use a mix that tends to stick to things. But again, the design helps protect from the fire.

Best choice would be an attack aircraft that dumps a load of naplam on the tank. Drop enough and you will get the effects you are looking for, but in today's military, its a wasteful use of a combat aircraft to kill a single tank by that means. A Maverick missile, a Rockeye cluster bomb or even Copperhead or 155mm HE would be a more efficient choice.

The air intake on the Abrams is protected by two things, the large size of the turret helps shield the air intake from a direct hit and the intake has three pieces of armor that are angled slightly in and 'lipped" to drain towards a run-off point. Tests were run at Fort Knox and Aberdeen Proving Grounds during the developmental workup and the flame weapons used had little effect.

The primary purpose of any flame weapon is more mental than it is physical. Flame scares the bejesus out of any one, especially when you see someone deliberately trying to burn you. It is this very instinctive fear that has lead to the near absence of flame throwers on the modern battlefield. The reaction of the enemy to pour as much fire as possible at the operator. A Marine Corps study conducted after WWII confirmed that the most hazardous position in the Corps was a flamethrower operator in a island assault, his expected life span was measured in minutes.

[Ronin]

Very interesting. Thank you for the informative posts

[LBraden]

Well, there was that case of the disabled Challenger II, if I recall it ended up being hit by 5 RPG-7's, one "Heavy" man portable AT missile, multiple calibre round hits and the only injury was the loaders hand during egress of the tank after the rest of the platoon arrived.

[dragoon500ly]

Right out of Desert Storm, a M-1A1 got bogged down in a sand marsh and its unit left it for a follow-up unit to recover.

While the tank crew was waiting, they spotted three Iraqi T-62s moving up. The Iraqis apparently thought the tank had been abandoned because they approached to within 1,500 meters without firing a shot. The Abrams fires and knocks out the trail T-62. The remaining two fire back, striking the US tank once on the turret front. The TC fired his first salvo of smoke grenades and switched to thermals.

As the T-62s approached, the M-1 fired again, knocking out the second T-62. The Iraqis got another round off and struck the turret again. M-1 gets off a third round and destroyed the last T-62 at a range of 800 meters.

Later, the follow-on unit tries to recover the tank and failed to do so. The decision was made to combat demo the M-1A1. The contents of a satchel charge are spread around the turret, the ammo doors are left open and the engineers touched off the demo charge.

Some four days later, the original tank company moves back through the area and recovers the M-1A1. Its driver started the tank and drove it back into Saudi Arabia.

The tank was shipped back to the states for examination and later rebuilt at Anniston Army Depot and reissued to the Marine Corps.

[Adm.Lee]

I just read about something like this last night.

"Despite the practical invincibility of the Army's armored vehicles, they endured one tragic incident on 15 August [2004]. During a firefight, a militiaman climbed onto one of the tanks and fired into an opening in the turret lid, killing the tank commander and the gunner. The fast-thinking driver threw the tank into reverse and crashed it into a building, covering the tank-- and its attacker-- with debris. The driver and loader escaped. When reinforcements arrived, they destroyed the enemy position from which the militiaman came and retrieved the tank." (The battle of an-Najaf, August 2004 / Francis X. Kozlowski, p.31)

The tank was from (or attached to) 1-5th or 2-7th Cavalry, supporting the 11th MEU during the fight to clear al-Sadr's militia from the center of Najaf.

"Thereafter, Marine rifle platoons helped provide 360-degree security around the tanks and tracks as the vehicles pursued their missions."

Seems the cavalry battalions were short on dismounts?

[Legbreaker]

Makes you wonder why armour was deployed into a confined area without infantry support doesn't it?

[HorseSoldier]

Yeah, that's tough -- you can combat lock for security and give up situational awareness, or stay up in the hatches with situational awareness but increased vulnerability. Covering infantry, as noted, is the solution, provided they're available and you're not getting so much small arms fire that they're suppressed (which, to be fair, would have to be a whole lot if an MBT couldn't snatch back fire superiority -- or the ROE is too restrictive to allow the tank to be effective).

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

...or the ROE is too restrictive to allow the tank to be effective).

And if that the case they're nothing more than a very expensive bluff there only to scare the plebs.

[Raellus]

During 4th ID's "Thunder Run" into downtown Baghdad in 2003, an M1A1 was knocked out by a probable RPG hit to the engine deck. It started an engine fire that the on-board fire suppression systems couldn't control, nor could dismounted crewmen using old-fashioned hand-operated fire extinguishers. The crew had to abandon it and it was totalled by another M1 firing APFDS rounds into it at close range (from behind).

Methinks a solid Molotov hit on the engine deck would be enough to disable most MBTs. Tank engine decks are not completely armored over. There are lots of grilles and vents into which burning liquid can drip, igniting all those juicy flammables one finds in a large gas/diesel engine.

As for dropping frags in the turret hatches... as someone else already pointed out, a lot of tank commanders like to pop up to get a better view of the battlefield and I bet a lot of them are too stressed, or green, or lazy to probably button down every time they go down into the turret. Also, I'm sure I've seen some commanders' turret covers that lock into a kind of intermediate position where it's down enough to provide cover from arty airbursts but still leaves a small opening for 360 degree viewing.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Also, I'm sure I've seen some commanders' turret covers that lock into a kind of intermediate position where it's down enough to provide cover from arty airbursts but still leaves a small opening for 360 degree viewing.

The Australian M113s have exactly that on the commanders turret although it's hinged at the rear so would probably only allow about 300 degrees. Could probably just turn the turret a little to get that last bit...

[Ronin]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Methinks a solid Molotov hit on the engine deck would be enough to disable most MBTs. Tank engine decks are not completely armored over. There are lots of grilles and vents into which burning liquid can drip, igniting all those juicy flammables one finds in a large gas/diesel engine.

Well like Dragon said, modern MBT are designed to counter this. But perhaps, I would say this might be effective on older models. T-55, T-62/64, M48, and so on. Of course since the Soviets made use of this tactic in WWII. Perhaps they planned for this, and designed accordingly.

[dragoon500ly]

The armor protection of a tank is far from universal. In rough order, the thickest armor is on the turret front, hull front, turret sides, forward hull sides, turret rear, rear hull sides, turret top, hull bottom, hull rear.

Think of a 45 degree arc centered on the front of the tank, this is the area protected by the thickest armor thinning down towards the rear with the tail end of the tank protected by the least amount of armor.

Tankers are taught to keep a watchful eye to the flanks and rear when buttoned up. But with a four man crew focused on fighting and moving their tank, they can't watch all sides. This is why tanks are so vulnerable in MOUT fighting. There are simply too many ways of taking a pot shot at a tank that is not observed by the crew.

There is a story of a platoon of M-60A1s during the Panama Invasion that were ordered into a barrio after some of Noreiga's soldiers. One of the tanks had been hit by a dud RPG round and had backed around a corner and linked up with a platoon of light infantry. Th TC dismounted and held a 2-minute class on the use of the rear telephone hook-up on the tank. The squad leader would spot targets and the tank would use its 105mm to blow holes through buildings to allow the grunts access and to take out strong points.

It was so nice (NOT!) to read about how much institutional knowledge was lost, ignored or simply ignored because it was "old school" during the recent fighting.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

The armor protection of a tank is far from universal. In rough order, the thickest armor is on the turret front, hull front, turret sides, forward hull sides, turret rear, rear hull sides, turret top, hull bottom, hull rear.

Think of a 45 degree arc centered on the front of the tank, this is the area protected by the thickest armor thinning down towards the rear with the tail end of the tank protected by the least amount of armor.

Tankers are taught to keep a watchful eye to the flanks and rear when buttoned up. But with a four man crew focused on fighting and moving their tank, they can't watch all sides. This is why tanks are so vulnerable in MOUT fighting. There are simply too many ways of taking a pot shot at a tank that is not observed by the crew.

There is a story of a platoon of M-60A1s during the Panama Invasion that were ordered into a barrio after some of Noreiga's soldiers. One of the tanks had been hit by a dud RPG round and had backed around a corner and linked up with a platoon of light infantry. Th TC dismounted and held a 2-minute class on the use of the rear telephone hook-up on the tank. The squad leader would spot targets and the tank would use its 105mm to blow holes through buildings to allow the grunts access and to take out strong points.

It was so nice (NOT!) to read about how much institutional knowledge was lost, ignored or simply ignored because it was "old school" during the recent fighting.

If every rumor I heard about the US 7th Light Infantry Division operations in Operation Just Cause are half true. The 7th Light is responsible for most of their own casualties from poor tactics and planning. Such as assaulting a building with entry teams from both ends simultaneously.

Never trusted a person that was taught at Planet Ord.

[dragoon500ly]

LOL! Tell me about it!

Just Cause was not one of the 7LIDs greater moments. I've talked to people who were assigned to the old 193rd Infantry Brigade and the comments about the light fighters are, brutal.

And I keep hearing rumors that a barracks on one of the US bases was targeted by the 7LID after they had received enemy fire from there....

It must be something in the water out at Ord!

[ArmySGT.]

Israeli style tank hatch

[Legbreaker]

That's not a hatch, that's just his helmet!

[bobcat]

interesting fact. tank hatches are very heavy. some TC's might forget to lock them in place when moveing. this gets interesting when the tank suddenly stops.

[dragoon500ly]

Good point, and while this may be valid on World War II designs, modern AFVs have an automatic lock that secures the hatch when fully open. The Israelis developed the first three position hatch (the orden hatch) that allowed the TC to partially open his hatch (and have better protection from fragmentation and small arms). The orden was slightly modified for use on the M-48A5 and was further refined for use on the M-1 series.

A lot of people complain about the three position hatches, some of the comments mention about how slow it is close, since the auto lock will catch on the partial position. In my own experience, this was never a problem, provided the TC held the lock in the disengaged position throughout as well as the grab bar and dropped, rapidly!

The most dangerous item on the M-1 TCs coupla is the breech of the Ma Deuce...especially if the driver dimes his brakes and the TC isn't holding own!

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Good point, and while this may be valid on World War II designs, modern AFVs have an automatic lock that secures the hatch when fully open. The Israelis developed the first three position hatch (the orden hatch) that allowed the TC to partially open his hatch (and have better protection from fragmentation and small arms). The orden was slightly modified for use on the M-48A5 and was further refined for use on the M-1 series.

A lot of people complain about the three position hatches, some of the comments mention about how slow it is close, since the auto lock will catch on the partial position. In my own experience, this was never a problem, provided the TC held the lock in the disengaged position throughout as well as the grab bar and dropped, rapidly!

The most dangerous item on the M-1 TCs coupla is the breech of the Ma Deuce...especially if the driver dimes his brakes and the TC isn't holding own!

im just going of the latest issue of PS. seems the've been having problems with that of late.

[dragoon500ly]

The brakes or the TC's slamming their faces into the machine gun?

If its the brakes, they first noticed issues back in Desert Storm, a lot of the problem was simple dust contamination, there was a replacement seal that fixed the problem...haven't seen a copy of PS recently...

As for the TCs getting slammed...you rapidly learned to always brace yourself in the hatch and to ride with one arm resting on your forward vision block, holding your map, but ready to grab onto something. You also took the time to train your driver.

The brakes were also touchy on the M-1, but really was getting used to just how little foot power was needed to stop the tank. When the M-1 first came out, you were coming from M-60A1/A3s...and on those beasts you had to slam the brake just as hard as possible in order to get them to stop.

[Graebarde]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

LOL! Tell me about it!

Just Cause was not one of the 7LIDs greater moments. I've talked to people who were assigned to the old 193rd Infantry Brigade and the comments about the light fighters are, brutal.

And I keep hearing rumors that a barracks on one of the US bases was targeted by the 7LID after they had received enemy fire from there....

It must be something in the water out at Ord!

My son was ending his first term at the time, stationed in Panama with the 1-508th. They rotated Light Fighters/Marines in before the incursion (as my son points out "we were already there so it was NOT an invasion" LOL). He said they (LF) had fire fights with howlers and fireflys in the jungle at night.

As for coordination with light fighters and tanks, it could have been some unit OTHER than 7LID that interacted with the tanks. The boys in 193IB were ALL light fighters, as was the eighty-douches once they were feet on the ground. But it was easy to ID the 7LID with their 'cool' ghillie net helmet covers.

FB

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Graebarde

My son was ending his first term at the time, stationed in Panama with the 1-508th. They rotated Light Fighters/Marines in before the incursion (as my son points out "we were already there so it was NOT an invasion" LOL). He said they (LF) had fire fights with howlers and fireflys in the jungle at night.

As for coordination with light fighters and tanks, it could have been some unit OTHER than 7LID that interacted with the tanks. The boys in 193IB were ALL light fighters, as was the eighty-douches once they were feet on the ground. But it was easy to ID the 7LID with their 'cool' ghillie net helmet covers.

FB

The stories that I've heard from people who were stationed in the old canal zone have that the 7LID were more than a bit trigger happy. The official records all mention that they received enemy fire and replied with the least possible force. But there are too many stories making the rounds that have the Bayonet Division operating with a very, very loose version of the ROE. How true are the stories? I don't know, wasn't there, but I hear these stories from people that I consider to be reliable.

As for the M-60 platoon, it was supposed to have been troops from the 193rd IB.

[Matt W]

Recommendation: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1483831/

There's a movie called "Lebanon" about the experiences of an Israeli tank crew in the 1982 war.

Some critics compared it to "Das Boot" in showing how unpleasant and uncomfortable life is when you're fighting from inside a metal box. (and how little you can see of the outside world)

[Tegyrius]

Necropost, but this seemed the most relevant of several threads on the topic. I recently ran across this article on visibility and situational awareness in AFVs:

https://www.tanknology.co.uk/post/afv-sa

The later part of the article gets into some technological solutions that would not be available in the T2k timeline. Overall, though, it's a good look at the difference between typical RPG/wargame battle maps in which everyone has complete awareness of the battlefield and the realities of restricted fields of view, limited information and communication, and fog of war.

- C.

[.45cultist]

A Thermite grenade or two and tape or sandbags might open a hatch, if the crew doesn't use the muzzle blast of the 120MM to injure or kill the attackers.
I read somewhere it could be lethal up to 60 feet away.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by .45cultist

A Thermite grenade or two and tape or sandbags might open a hatch, if the crew doesn't use the muzzle blast of the 120MM to injure or kill the attackers.
I read somewhere it could be lethal up to 60 feet away.

When I was on active duty (the 70s-80s) I only saw thermite grenades at one point. They simply are not that common an issue.
You'd have better luck with a satchel charge and several sandbags, but the best effect you might get is dislodging the coupla, maybe.
Your best bet would most likely be to use a LAW or RPG and hit the hatch from above and allow the jet to wreck havoc on the crew.