‘Something’ felled an M1A1 Abrams tank in Iraq – but what?

[knightrider4]

I though I'd chime in here and say Ive got a pdf entitled Abrams tank systems Lessons learned Operation Iraqui Freedom 2003 and the short of it is they are damned hard to kill. In one example it took one thermite grenade, two AGM-65 Mavericks and a sabot round in the ammo compartment to destroy a mobility killed Abrams.

 

[shamsi]

Some of the claims of T72s failing to engage M1 hint to their ammo being not upto mark. I have seen reports of training ammo being used by Iraqis. Do American's have a supertank that no nail can scratch? I doubt it.

The fact remains that new weapons might be right around the corner that might trouble the M1 operators a little. I wonder for a 125 MM APFSDS-DU round behaves with the cobham RHA DU mix plate of M1.

Cheers!

 

[Dark Wind]

"No RPG can damage an Abrams myth":

"For example, in a widely-discussed incident, an M1 tank from the 2nd Battalion, 70th Armor Regiment, 1st Armor Division was hit and disabled during a routine patrol on 28 August 2003. The American press, deluded by its own reports of the “invulnerability†of the Abrams, claimed that some kind of “secret weapon†was responsible for the damage. In fact, published photographs clearly show that the offending weapon was none other than a simple RPG. The hollow-charged jet penetrated the side skirt and turret ring and continued into the crew compartment as it disintegrated before finally coming to rest after boring a cluster of craters 30-50 mm deep in the hull on the far side of the tank. The crew was lucky to have suffered only minor shrapnel wounds as the projectile passed through the gunner’s seatback and grazed his flak jacket. On April 2, 2003 an RPG attack from the side disabled another tank by penetrating the turret’s hydraulic drive."

Source: Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST)


"Details of the M1 losses were given, including one where 25mm armour-piercing depleted uranium (AP-DU) rounds from an unidentified weapon disabled a US tank near Najaf after penetrating the engine compartment (which revealed later to be a friendly fire from an M242 Bushmaster auto cannon 25mm used mainly on LAV or Bradleys). Another Abrams was disabled near Karbala after a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) penetrated the rear engine compartment and one was lost in Baghdad after its external auxiliary power unit was set on fire by medium-calibre fire."

Source: Jane’s Information Group


Between the[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica] 03.05.03 and the 04.03.03 (so in almost a month), 8 M1A1 Abrams were lost in Iraq (4 lost in combat, 1 abandonned in hostile zone, 2 "felt" into the Euphrates and 1 by friendly fire).
[/font]And I've read (so not sure) that USA lost about 1/4th of the M1A2 deployed in Iraq.
I think myths work both ways...
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]But the Abrams provides to the crew[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica] excellent chances[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica] to survive attacks.[/font]

NOTHING is invicible. Thinking so is either a lack of technical knowledge, either propaganda to boost the morale of the troops but certainly not the truth.

Using tanks in urban zones has lot of negative side effects... It's like stucking an elephant inside a porcelain store making him fighting lions without breaking anything: hard as hell.
There is no armor worldwide able to claim being invicible (and that could be used in an actual tank)... There are always weak points even smaller or not obvious they definetly exist.

The only thing now for almost every vehicle/aircraft etc... that matters: speed, manoeuvrabilty, counter measures, technology on-board, range of action, "smart design" (e.g. F-22's stealth design) etc...
The "best" way to survive for a vehicle in the battlefield is to avoid taking damage, not trying to sustain maximum damage.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Nobody is suggesting that the abrams is invincible. However I get more than a little irritated at some of the nonsensical statements made when a bit of research would show the flaws in some arguments.

btw, as respectable as Janes is, they are not the be and end all of accuracy. you;d be aware of how many mistakes they have made over the years regarding numerous weapons systems.

somehow I doubt that Janes are going to have better detail about the abrams penetration that the NTC eval at Aberdeen.

The issue of tanks in harms way is not about who can take the most hits, but how they are used and supported. (witness TUSK)

to be blunt, some of the analysis that is offered as fact in here is best left to high school parties rather than offered up as evidence of platform history etc...

has anyone managed to look at the number of tanks committed to Iraq and the ratio of losses.

a little bit of realism is good medicine for the soul. a little bit more intellectual rigour will do wonders for having sensible debate.


btw, the incident of the Bradley penetrating the rear of an abrams could do with some additional support. In 73 Easting a Bradley penetrated a berm and slotted 2 x T72's with her 25mm gun. So clobbering a blue platform in comparison to what was achieved at 73 is rather interesting.

and can people please get the picture that tanks are not invulnerable at all aspects, unless design doctrine decrees it (eg Merkava 3/4). Thats why support doctrine for tanks is critical. eg Aust army works with tanks opposite to the US. If the tank is not protected in the rear by support forces, or support forces have not sanitised the engagement peripherals, then of course the platform becomes vulnerable. it aint rocket science.

the russians have learnt very harsh lessons about tanks in chechnya, like the americans they have revised doctrine and also add on mods - ever noticed how many abrams and russian tanks have been destroyed in full contact engagement in the last 12 months? it's not a hard guess. ever noticed how IED kills on MBT's in Iraq and Chechnya have dropped off to almost non existent in the last 12 months?

there is a reason.

 

[Awang se]

concerning the Ammo storage issues in T series, i think the russian have learn it's lessons. the new generation russian MBT have adopt a bustle design for ammo storage (black eagle). but instead of improving armor design, the russian increase it's tank protection by further reducing it's silhoutte, obviously a cheaper approach then contending with a rather expensive R&D for better armor materials.

 

[gf0012-aust]

concerning the Ammo storage issues in T series, i think the russian have learn it's lessons. the new generation russian MBT have adopt a bustle design for ammo storage (black eagle). but instead of improving armor design, the russian increase it's tank protection by further reducing it's silhoutte, obviously a cheaper approach then contending with a rather expensive R&D for better armor materials.

Hasn't Black Eagle been dropped? I'm sure I read last week that their MBT programme had collapsed.

All of the T55/59/62/72/80 series still have the blow off problem, and unless they redesign the interior completely, it's a design flaw. Redesigning the insides of a hull aren't that easy. Are the Polish conversions modified for the armoury box?

 

[Awang se]

Are the Polish conversions modified for the armoury box?

nope, still there and poise to blow up under some poor asses. there's of course a redesign T-72 with bustle mounted autoloader. but like almost all recent russian programme, it stays as a prototype.

Hasn't Black Eagle been dropped? I'm sure I read last week that their MBT programme had collapsed.

i didn't say the programme running clean and smooth, what i say is that the recent failed programme have seen a major shift from a traditional Russian tank design. it is unfortunate for the russian that they don't realize the flaws when they still a Soviet Union and have plenty of currencies in their veins.

 

[Dark Wind]

I should have said: "invicibility against RPG". The "total invicibility myth" of the Abrams for civilians is still very strong, however daily it is broken...
Of course an RPG won't disable an Abrams if hit on the front, all modern tanks "can do the same". As ex-military I doubt much people are dumb enough to fire in the front of a tank! Even Iraqi militias know weak points of a tank now.

About Jane's information, maybe there was some flaw in its information but in whole it is surely more reliable than US government's propaganda still claiming the Abrams can sustain more damages than what independant analyses/reports say (would you tell your soldiers their tank isn't at all "invicible" as they think?). For example when an Abrams is hit by an RPG, it's something like "it was hit by a weapon of unknown origin but not an RPG" or "never happen before" etc... After a few it becomes more and more boring to hear the same stories.

But of course disabling an Abrams requires a good grenadier plus some luck to really hit the weakest points. It's a good tank but definetly not as good as US armed forces claim.

And I agree on my view US and Russian tanks are still based on the old days of having heavy tanks based on the idea of taking more damages rather than avoiding damage.

 

[driftder]

hmmm...so what did the damage? Some claim that it's a hybrid RPG-type HEAT round with a dart-like penetrator. How true is that? Darn fact that we can't deny is - even after being hit, the crew wasn't hurt, the tank is still serviceable. Now that is one tough hombre.

As for the heated off-line discussions about how invincible tanks are, it's all in the response to it. Air power like A-10s and Apaches will be great if its available. Then tanks of course but with reliable ammo, guns and structure please - a 21st century of a King Tiger 2 would be appreciated . None of that one round in the turret ring and your turret getting a helicopter-effect take off. Don't forget artillery, mines and AT missiles. Last resort - RPG teams and sticky bombs <shudder>.

Basically any weapon can be countered. Just that whether its the right counter. From a infanteer's viewpoint, set me up against a tank thats alone and unsupported any day .

But if its infantry/tank combo, I be wishing for a few tanks, enough AT missiles, plenty of artillery support, minefields and some nice air support that comes when I whistle .

 

[Vigilante]

"No RPG can damage an Abrams myth":

"For example, in a widely-discussed incident, an M1 tank from the 2nd Battalion, 70th Armor Regiment, 1st Armor Division was hit and disabled during a routine patrol on 28 August 2003. The American press, deluded by its own reports of the “invulnerability†of the Abrams, claimed that some kind of “secret weapon†was responsible for the damage. In fact, published photographs clearly show that the offending weapon was none other than a simple RPG. The hollow-charged jet penetrated the side skirt and turret ring and continued into the crew compartment as it disintegrated before finally coming to rest after boring a cluster of craters 30-50 mm deep in the hull on the far side of the tank. The crew was lucky to have suffered only minor shrapnel wounds as the projectile passed through the gunner’s seatback and grazed his flak jacket. On April 2, 2003 an RPG attack from the side disabled another tank by penetrating the turret’s hydraulic drive."

Source: Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST)


"Details of the M1 losses were given, including one where 25mm armour-piercing depleted uranium (AP-DU) rounds from an unidentified weapon disabled a US tank near Najaf after penetrating the engine compartment (which revealed later to be a friendly fire from an M242 Bushmaster auto cannon 25mm used mainly on LAV or Bradleys). Another Abrams was disabled near Karbala after a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) penetrated the rear engine compartment and one was lost in Baghdad after its external auxiliary power unit was set on fire by medium-calibre fire."

Source: Jane’s Information Group


Between the[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica] 03.05.03 and the 04.03.03 (so in almost a month), 8 M1A1 Abrams were lost in Iraq (4 lost in combat, 1 abandonned in hostile zone, 2 "felt" into the Euphrates and 1 by friendly fire).
[/font]And I've read (so not sure) that USA lost about 1/4th of the M1A2 deployed in Iraq.
I think myths work both ways...
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]But the Abrams provides to the crew[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica] excellent chances[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica] to survive attacks.[/font]

NOTHING is invicible. Thinking so is either a lack of technical knowledge, either propaganda to boost the morale of the troops but certainly not the truth.

Using tanks in urban zones has lot of negative side effects... It's like stucking an elephant inside a porcelain store making him fighting lions without breaking anything: hard as hell.
There is no armor worldwide able to claim being invicible (and that could be used in an actual tank)... There are always weak points even smaller or not obvious they definetly exist.

The only thing now for almost every vehicle/aircraft etc... that matters: speed, manoeuvrabilty, counter measures, technology on-board, range of action, "smart design" (e.g. F-22's stealth design) etc...
The "best" way to survive for a vehicle in the battlefield is to avoid taking damage, not trying to sustain maximum damage.

Well....We need to hear the facts from the begining, because the people that design and build the Abraham were bragging that the tank was "INVENCIBLE" AND WAS WORTH THE HEFTY PRICE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS PAY FOR THEM" .... well, now we found out that everything was another wet dream from the Pentagon and a US DLRS 765.37 RPG was able to stop the so call inpenetrable Abraham...I am really happy that no casualties have been reported from any Abraham incidents

 

[gf0012-aust]

Well....We need to hear the facts from the begining, because the people that design and build the Abraham were bragging that the tank was "INVENCIBLE"

no offence, but what a load of rubbish. I've never seen any releases or statements from GD that the abrams is invincible. The only ones I see talking about a tank or a "widget" being invincible are idiotic kids who wouldn't know a tank if it fell on their head.

AND WAS WORTH THE HEFTY PRICE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS PAY FOR THEM" .... well, now we found out that everything was another wet dream from the Pentagon and a US DLRS 765.37 RPG was able to stop the so call inpenetrable Abraham...

well, if you insist on believing statements from people who are unqualified, or have (usually) never served in a military (let alone been shot at by a tank) - then you're bound to make unsophisticated comments. Of course the platform is worth the expense if its better at saving lives than a T-72 etc.

Ever wondered why professional armies make sure that their troops are given the maximum opportunity to survive? Hint - proper training and support means that they're more valuable than the thing their riding in.

I am really happy that no casualties have been reported from any Abraham incidents

For goodness sake - It's not Abraham - its Abrams! I somehow doubt your concern for casualties considering the angle of attack you've taken - which is geared towards the emotional and less factual style of response.