47 replies to this topic

[Silentstalker]

Hey everyone,

I have a question (preferably towards people who actually have real life experience with modern combat vehicles). Let's say a tank comes under fire in an urban environment - and it has no infantry support (think T-80's in Grozny, only without the cookout issue). Let's assume it gets immobilized somehow. How much damage can the crew actually repair? Is there anything the crew can do regarding the engine? Can the modern MBT track be switched only by the crew alone? Or is the crew forced to sit inside and wait for rescue without being able to do anything? Can anything be actually repaired without a specialized facility, or are the modern MBT's too complex for that?

[m_bajic]

Silentstalker, on 23 June 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

Let's say a tank comes under fire in an urban environment - and it has no infantry support (think T-80's in Grozny, only without the cookout issue). Let's assume it gets immobilized somehow.

Tank in city without support and immobilized is good as dead.

[Silentstalker]

m_bajic, on 23 June 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:

Tank in city without support and immobilized is good as dead.

Well, not exactly... I remember reading about some Abrams tanks in Iraq, that got immobilized without support and survived (well, the crew did) ridiculous amounts of RPG hits until they got rescued.

[Kvasnikov]

Broken track can be repaired by the crew and on the field, but it will take some time. With hurry it will take about 30-40 min on flat surface from crew of four. Depends a lot how many parts are damaged and needs changing. But this is impossible if the tank is under enemy fire because the crew is exposed during the operation.

What comes to engine, Russian engines are more simple and it's possible for crew to try fixing them. I've seen cases where nonworking engine of T-55 is fixed temporarily with common wire of iron. Unlike German engines in Leo 2 for example which are designed to be replaced by a new one on garage or other facility with cranes and a new engine ready. But ones again: not possible under enemy fire.

Of course it's possible to tow broken tank to safe location and fix it there, but there are dangers in towing too. Crew member(s) are exposed more or less and risk of losing the other tank(or special purpose vehicle) that came to help.

[Bregil]

Kvasnikov has pretty well summed it up. As long as the tank crew has support and is not under fire, they can replace a broken track (they often have 2-4 spares bolted to outside of the tank for that reason.) For anything more severe (especially in a Western tank) you're a sitting duck until help arrives.

Edited by Bregil, 25 June 2012 - 12:52 AM.

[Darlomidge]

Tanks crews are only trained to do basic repairs, such as replacing the tracks. In the middle of a warzone, it's unlikely that anyone would actually attempt this as it's extremely time consuming, and this risk of being killed whilst doing so would be high. Any major repairs however, are dealt with by engineers.

Edited by Darlomidge, 06 July 2012 - 03:11 PM.

[gruntcruncher]

It all depends on which country the tank belongs to and the level of training that crew has. Different doctrine for different countries, some train crews to a minimum of crew repairable tasks and others have more advanced training.

Firstly, if the tank is able to move under its own steam, even its at a snail pace, then it will be told to withdraw and get repaired at a safe location.

If its fully immobilised then the ground situation is assesed, is the enemy close enough and using effective enough fire to make it too dangerous to even attempt crew dismounting? Is the likelyhood of staying in the tank more dangerous than bailing out?

In the Uk all the crew are trained in things such as self recovery using the tow ropes/wires at a troop level (ie flag down another MBT and quickly attach the ropes, then get dragged to a safer location hopefully). Also they are trained to repair the tracks if they get thrown/damaged. Beyond that, depending on what gets damaged or breaks depends on which crewman attempts a fix if any. Drivers can cover some basic faults such as a fuse blown or some such. In the Uk we also have or did have drivers trained to "Driver mech" standard. These guys get more advanced training and can repair quite a few mechanical faults, such as change cat seals and wheel bearings on a roadwheel.

However in a situation where a crew is under fire, thier safest and best option usualy is to batten down and wait for freindles to secure the area. If securing the area is unlikely, then they will get recovered in situ but again this depends on the danger involved with having people on the ground no matter how short the time is, exposed to effective enemy fire. The local commander will have assessed the situation and will either call for recovery or deem the area too unsafe and so will have the crew extracted from the stricken tank and either leave it there or call for it to be destroyed. This call will be based on the likelyhood the tank may be captured or hopefully the area may become secured later. If recovery is called for then this involves the REME (Royal Mechanical and Electrical Engineers) element coming forward with the recovery asset, hitching up to the vehicle and hauling it off to a secured area for repair.

Prior to any recovery, contact would have been made with the tank in trouble to determine if recovery or a possible fast fix by a mechanic is the better option (oddest one I had was while we were engaged with rebels in Al Ammarh in Iraq 2004. The driver of a Warrior AFV reported his handbrake was jammed on solid and he was unable to move. I was in the repair/recovery varient just behind him. I deemed it to be fastest if i had a quick look at his brake connections in the powerpack compartment. A simple matter of throwing open the cover and peeking in. I spotted the fault, the brake linkage was out of adjustment and had travelled past the point of no return on its cam. A quick whack with a screwdriver and hammer sorted it out. Whole thing from getting the report to fixing it took less than 5 minutes).

If its damaged tracks/running gear that has caused the tank to be immobilised then an assesment has to be made. A thrown track can be a complete ba*tard at times as the tank can get its self completly jammed up if it traps the track between the hull and running gear. It can be so bad that the only way to un jam the tank is to use explosives (specialy made shape charge explosives designed to instantly cut the tracks apart) or oxy acetalyne cutters. If this is the case and the area cannot be secured, then the tank will be abandoned as it cannot be recovered until the tracks are cut and its not something that can be done quickly. As long as theres nothing trapping the stuck tank then recovery can take place in a matter of just a few minutes. If the tank is completly stuck, as in beyond that which another tank using straight forward tow ropes or bars would not have sufficiant engine power or traction to move the other tank. Then a full scale recovery using 1 or more recovery assets with powerful winches would be required and that takes a hell of a lot longer.

Again the immediate situation dictates the abandon/recover/ self repair decision. However as far as the crew carrying out repairs goes, its usualy a case of getting on the radio and getting the specialists on the job as fast as they can.

http://vimeo.com/27207658 this is a link to a Very brave man who had to carry out tank on tank recovery while underfire in afghanistan. His situation was a very nasty one to be in, well worth the watch even though it means having to endure that canadian accent.

Edited by gruntcruncher, 06 July 2012 - 05:14 PM.

[Chillin1248]

Like the guy above me said, it really depends on the army and the training.

In the Israeli army for example, even in the infantry were taught how to hook up a tank for towing, etc.

[gruntcruncher]

Remembered another link that gives you some idea of the difficulties of recovering/repairing armoured vehicles in battle, esp urban warfare.

http://recoverypnp.n..._honours-h1.htm

As for the first citation, for SSgt lyndhurst, its a shame the officer who wrote the citation completly failed to mention the other members of the recovery crew who were exposed even more directly and for longer in enemy fire. Thats the wicked way honours and awards work sometimes. SSgt Lyndhursts driver, who was exposed to danger far more, later became my driver some years later when we were both in Afghan. His version of events are somewhat different to many of those I have read.

I recall a mate of mine who won a mention in despatches in Iraq 2004.

He and his crew were called to recover a bogged down warrior IFV, stupid sods managed to drive into a sewerage ditch.  My mate, Cpl Mason (Perry) turned up in his Warrior FV513 and began to connect the two vehicles together, when out of the blue they were attacked by dozens of Iraqi gunmen, armed with ak's and rpgs. Cpl mason was between the 2 vehicles along with another man, in total there were 3 men in the crew, the third being the driver. Cpl Mason and his merry band successfully fought of the enemy using only thier SA80's. Once it was safe to do so they finished connecting the two IFV's, Cpl Mason opened the back door of the bogged down IFV as part of a mandatory check and found the entire crew and infantry section still on board. He had some choice words for thier reluctance to leave the vehicle during the fight. on his return back to base I saw the hits his vehicle had taken from small arms fire. It was of some concern to all of us just where the rounds had managed to penetrate an alleged armoured vehicle.

Its funny as mechanics and recovery mechanics are classed as second line troops, or as first line troops prefer to say"REMFS" (rear echelon mother f**kers). Yet every patrol, every operation/mission that was deployed on Op Telic 4, there was REME support vehicles right there with them. Be it in Challenger armoured recovery vehicles or in warrior repair/recovery varients. These vehicles are lightly armed and while sharing some similar armour, have severe weakspots due to the nature of the fitments to them. Oh and on Telic 4 non of the support vehicles had any operational armour packs or nose cones fitted. The excuses why they did not get the uparmour ranged from, you wont ever get close enough to the enemy or the extra weight would mean you could not do your job etc, etc. All total bullshit ofc. 8 years later and the repair recovery varients now have the same up armour as the fighting varients.

Top tip, If you want to completly screw up a tank squadron or armoured infantry company. Shoot there repair/recovery assets first. You wont have to blow any other wagons up as within a short period of time the remainder of the vehicles will breakdown, get stuck. Its know that one of the roles of Spetnaz during the cold war, was on the event of a fullscale war, to locate and destroy british REME workshops. REME varient vehicles were apparently listed as higher priority targets than gun tanks or infantry carriers. Which kind of points to the importance of the role of the repair and recovery assets.

Edited by gruntcruncher, 07 July 2012 - 12:23 AM.

[Silentstalker]

Thank you gruntcruncher for the insight into the tank world, much appreciated

[smith841]

Gruntcruncher sounds like an ex-REME man to me, maybe I'm wrong. As an ex-tank commander in the British Army I can give you a little insite into what the tankcrews themselves can do if their tank gets damaged. Firstly concerning tracks: if you are still under fire then basically you are stuck. You can try sticking left or right but you really don't know the state of the tracks cause you are buttoned down inside. Obviously if the heat is off then you can get towed or call up Gruntcrunchers guys!!

Modern tanks are full of electrical/electronic equipment. Even though they are manufactured to military specs my experience is that things can go wrong with the electrics even under normal use, never mind if the tank has taken a hit. For essential 'fighting' systems in the tanks there are backups in place. E.g. electrical turret traverse and gun elevation have hand cranking backups. The turret and hull electrics are seperate but if the turret electrics fail there is an "OMG" switch that transfers hull battery power to the turret. Firing the main armament is normally done via the trigger assembly to the gunners left hand. If this does not work then there is a manual button on the side of the gun (if memory serves me right). Modern tanks have sofisticated gun control systems with very complex gun sights. These sights are also vulnerable. The gunner has a backup (simple) sight that looks like a telescope and gives him a simple magnified view of the target.

When the computer/electronic gun systems fail the crews can fall back on what is know as 'scheme gunnery'. Commander estimates range to target (if laser rangefinder is out of action) and provides aiming corrections manually with HE or HESH rounds. With APFSDS you aim again on the center of the observed target mass.

Down below with the oily rag driver there are 2 electric generator motors on board (the generator attached to the main engine and the seperate electrical generator motor). With this seperate generator motor the main engine can also be started hydraulically if there isn't much power in the batteries.

[CauldronBorn]

Kvasnikov, on 23 June 2012 - 11:30 PM, said:

What comes to engine, Russian engines are more simple and it's possible for crew to try fixing them. I've seen cases where nonworking engine of T-55 is fixed temporarily with common wire of iron. Unlike German engines in Leo 2 for example which are designed to be replaced by a new one on garage or other facility with cranes and a new engine ready. But ones again: not possible under enemy fire.

Of course it's possible to tow broken tank to safe location and fix it there, but there are dangers in towing too. Crew member(s) are exposed more or less and risk of losing the other tank(or special purpose vehicle) that came to help.

But then, it takes a Bergepanzer to tow the Leo into the next cover where the crew replaces the entire engine within 30mins by using the Bergepanzers own crane and the replacement engine it brought. Cause the engine is a complete module. Changing the engine of a T-72 for example takes 97 man-hours cause they cramped everything into the hull to save space which means you have to disassemble the eninge into its parts...

Getting rid of "damaged" engine:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=P_4MoDz0ki0

Gruntcruncher sums it up perfectly. I may add:

NATO tanks (at least German ones) and field maintenance services/units are designed to get the tanks back into safety, either repair them in the field (= behind the frontline) or send them back to the depot/factory to get as many tanks as possible as fast as possible back into action again. Which kinda makes sense when you are facing the onslaught of the red hordes from the east...

Soviet approach was different: A tank's task is to attack. That's the reason it has only one gear backwards (for parking). It isn't designed to back off and evade fire. If it gets hit, well, there are dozens more of them coming. If the tank survives it will get picked up by rear echelon troops later and they will try to fix it or salvage it. No need to get it into action as fast as possible cause they got plenty of other cannon fodder...

Edited by CauldronBorn, 21 August 2012 - 02:41 PM.

[LandyDave]

I'm an ex reme recy mech. I was a fluffy hook though so I don't know jack all about MBTs . I put a fair few CVR (T)s on the back of my Foden. Between smith and grunt you get the jist of it. The trouble is a thrown track can be anything for a 10 minute job to a 3 hour job. It depends what the track does after it leaves the drive wheels. If its a coiled half melted mess sometimes you need to cut is off with the arc air gauger fitted to the crarrv or use PE.

Tanks do not go alone anywhere. Armour always has infantry support, air support and of course REME support. Essentially every fighting unit will have repair and recovery vehicles to match you vehicles it fields. THEY ARE ON THE FRONTLINE JUST LIKE THE FIGHTING TANKS.

The Warrior varient has a fake 30mm gun!

[gruntcruncher]

Your showing your age Mr Smith. The hydraulic start function was on Chieftain, they dropped it when they built Challenger as it was unreliable and added weight/ used up space.

Yes I was REME, an A mech and served with cav and mech inf units.

The OMG switch Mr Smith refers to was only ever supposed to be used in an emergency and was lockwired. Yet every time we came to check it the lockwire was cut as the lazy crew used it to enable turret function in barracks if they had flattened the turret batteries by not switching the master switch off....bastadiches. If ever something went wrong we always assumed that 99.99% of the time it was the squishy biological components that operated the vehicles fault.

Ohh a fluffy mech, I'm afraid Fodens retired now LandyDave, its the new MAN recovery truck in use. They came in just as I left the forces so no idea how they are in comparison. We were still using Fodens until Herrick 7 and they changed for MAN's on Herrick 8.

The Reme repair/recovery warrior variant has a 7.62mm chain gun fitted. Its the RE FOO's warrior variant that has a fake 30mm.

I watched either the Ukrainian or Russian (memory fades so not sure which it was) tank demo team engineers repair their T80 (the one with a gas turbine engine fitted) with amusement one night. Ended up giving them a hand to lift out the gearbox using our CRARRV's crane. This was during the Greek army tank sales trials in 1998. It took them all night to get the gearbox out. The fault was the steering unit, the tank was unable to turn left. Which was funny to watch as they had to complete a firing on the move trail with no left turn. They managed it but it was comical due to the crew having to take huge right turns to move through the area. As for the gas turbine, not many moving parts to go wrong but if it did break they were screwed as nothing simple broke on them and it looked a complete c**t to fix.

[Tigger3]

gruntcruncher, on 26 August 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

The Reme repair/recovery warrior variant has a 7.62mm chain gun fitted. Its the RE FOO's warrior variant that has a fake 30mm.

Ooooooh don't get us Sappers mixed up with Dropshorts lol.

They promised us a version of Warrior at one time, but cost savings meant we kept out biccie boxes. No need for the turret and a HIAB version per troop would have been nice.

[gruntcruncher]

Tigger3, on 27 August 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:

Ooooooh don't get us Sappers mixed up with Dropshorts lol.

They promised us a version of Warrior at one time, but cost savings meant we kept out biccie boxes. No need for the turret and a HIAB version per troop would have been nice.

Oop's sorry finger slip, RA FOO wagon, not RE. RE not trusted to have Warriors. Get back in your Frog and yes I was a Frog mech as well -.- got the hydraulic oil lungs to prove it.

I wonder if any other country managed to come up with a worse abortion of an armoured veh than the brits did with the frog.

Edited by gruntcruncher, 27 August 2012 - 12:32 AM.

[Sean473]

gruntcruncher, on 27 August 2012 - 12:29 AM, said:

Oop's sorry finger slip, RA FOO wagon, not RE. RE not trusted to have Warriors. Get back in your Frog and yes I was a Frog mech as well -.- got the hydraulic oil lungs to prove it.

I wonder if any other country managed to come up with a worse abortion of an armoured veh than the brits did with the frog.

Wth is a frog?

[Tigger3]

gruntcruncher, on 27 August 2012 - 12:29 AM, said:

Oop's sorry finger slip, RA FOO wagon, not RE. RE not trusted to have Warriors. Get back in your Frog and yes I was a Frog mech as well -.- got the hydraulic oil lungs to prove it.

I wonder if any other country managed to come up with a worse abortion of an armoured veh than the brits did with the frog.

I liked my Frog, they did take a bit of looking after and the crew did tend to develop an oiley complexion.

http://www.tanknutda...ent/article/470

FV180 Combat Engineer Tractor CET (commonly called the Frog). Originally an armoured swimming, digging machine. It proved very versatile in its service and had a very low ground pressure (useful when they were in the Falklands).

Crew of 2 who face one way for road driving but opposite ways for digging (both crew man have driving controls).


Towing Giant Viper mine clearing line charge

4 Tonne Crane (always dubious about that as we always used two ALA's when we had no Coles or Mk5 Bridging cranes).


Carrying Class 60 trackway, lays from the bucket

Just leaving the water with floatation kit and rocket assisted earth anchor fitted


Firing the anchor

Maxi Fascine, lays from the bucket

Edited by Tigger3, 27 August 2012 - 01:51 PM.

[gruntcruncher]

Tigger3, on 27 August 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

I liked my Frog, they did take a bit of looking after and the crew did tend to develop an oiley complexion.

The Frog is the FV180 Combat Engineer Tractor. A swimming, digging, crane, track layer, fascine layer, engineering vehicle. Now been replaced in the Royal Engineers.

http://www.tanknutda...ent/article/470

DAMN, shows how old that film was, it was a cent they parked into the hole the CET dug out.

It was one horrible vehicle to work on. Eagle straight 6 engine (out of a foden), steering box was a modified 432 one, gearbox with chocolate brake bands they found on mars and a hydraulic system that leaked constantly. R2D2 Airfilter housing and the NBC system pinched out of a 432 as well. I never saw Terrier thankfully.

[Tigger3]

gruntcruncher, on 27 August 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

DAMN, shows how old that film was, it was a cent they parked into the hole the CET dug out.

It was one horrible vehicle to work on. Eagle straight 6 engine (out of a foden), steering box was a modified 432 one, gearbox with chocolate brake bands they found on mars and a hydraulic system that leaked constantly. R2D2 Airfilter housing and the NBC system pinched out of a 432 as well. I never saw Terrier thankfully.

Well it was a sales pitch as the RAC had got rid of their Cents by the time the Frog entered service and we did not have the ex  RA 105mm Cents (105 AVRE) at the time either.