Armor: November 12, 2002


While the U.S. currently has some 7,000 of the best, combat proven tanks in the world, new anti-tank weapons that have yet be used in combat present serious threats to even the M-1 tank. These "new" weapons aren't even new, they have been around for one to three decades and are widely available. The trackbuster mine is a 2-3 pound device that is small, but powerful enough to blow the track off a tank. This will not destroy a tank, but will put the vehicle out of action for hours, or days, until the track is replaced. These mines are cheap and can be delivered by artillery, or placed by hand. Traditional anti-tank mines (what will destroy tanks, but weigh 30-40 pounds) caused 20 percent of American tank losses in Europe during World War II. 

Top attack missiles are simply new warheads on existing anti-tank missiles. As the name implies, the new warhead detonates when the missile flies over the tank, penetrating the thinner armor on top. These have been around for two decades, but have so far seen most action in a long string of successful tests. 

SADARM, or "sensor fused munitions" are 1980s era weapons that are popped out of an artillery (or mortar) shell or artillery rocket, or a bomb container, and drift to ground, using a built in radar and heat detector to find a tank and then attack it with a top attack warhead. The Russians have a version of their own, MOTIV-3M, for sale to all with hard currency. 

Just because these weapons have not been used in combat, doesn't mean they won't work. All these new weapons have passed test after test for decades. There haven't been that many tank battles in the last twenty years, and it's just a matter of time before the bad guys (say, Iraq) gets there hands on some of this stuff (if they haven't already) and uses it. The United States plans to counter these weapons by fighting a fast moving battle and using air power and artillery to destroy most enemy artillery before they can use SADARM or track busters. But eventually, most senior Pentagon officials believe,  M-1s will encounter these weapon, and get knocked out. 

And that is why American armored troops are having a hard time getting money for an M-1 replacement. The Pentagon may be wrong (wouldn't be the first time), but they are down on MBT survivability and looking for future alternatives.


Article Archive

Armor: Current 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 



Help Keep Us Soaring

We need your help! Our subscription base has slowly been dwindling. We need your help in reversing that trend. We would like to add 20 new subscribers this month.

Each month we count on your subscriptions or contributions. You can support us in the following ways:

  1. Make sure you spread the word about us. Two ways to do that are to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
  2. Subscribe to our daily newsletter. We’ll send the news to your email box, and you don’t have to come to the site unless you want to read columns or see photos.
  3. You can contribute to the health of StrategyPage. A contribution is not a donation that you can deduct at tax time, but a form of crowdfunding. We store none of your information when you contribute..
Subscribe   Contribute   Close