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]

hatches

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]

...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]

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]

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.