M1A1, the indestructible Tank?

[M1Brams]

Hi all, just joined and am intrigued on something that i came across.
Been reading up on chobham armor and the M1 Abrams and dont get it, the M1A1 uses a conventional space mix of alloy and ceramics yet can resist several close up T-72 hits during the Gulf war and one famous incident involving a stranded abrams stuck in the mud had to be abandoned and destroyed to prevent it from falling into enemy hands.The Abrams was fired on 4-5 times by another using the M829A1 Sabot round, and couldnt penetrate the tank, then the crew decided to cook off the ammo using thermite grenades .. still running.

Called in 2x AGM-114 hellfire strikes from an Apache.. the tank disabled but the tank frame was totally intact.


Is the M1A1 indestructible? i mean even a sabot round cannot penetrate the Armor despite being fired numerous times is just..:shudder

 

[eckherl]

Hi all, just joined and am intrigued on something that i came across.
Been reading up on chobham armor and the M1 Abrams and dont get it, the M1A1 uses a conventional space mix of alloy and ceramics yet can resist several close up T-72 hits during the Gulf war and one famous incident involving a stranded abrams stuck in the mud had to be abandoned and destroyed to prevent it from falling into enemy hands.The Abrams was fired on 4-5 times by another using the M829A1 Sabot round, and couldnt penetrate the tank, then the crew decided to cook off the ammo using thermite grenades .. still running.

Called in 2x AGM-114 hellfire strikes from an Apache.. the tank disabled but the tank frame was totally intact.


Is the M1A1 indestructible? i mean even a sabot round cannot penetrate the Armor despite being fired numerous times is just..:shudder

Depends on what you decide to lob at it.

 

[IronsightSniper]

Well, I can direct you to some pictures of an Abrams doing the "hat trick", or where there's such a large explosion, the tank's entire turret literally flies off. That was caused by a 15 daisy-linked 152 mm artillery shell IED, however.

As for the Abrams being destroyed by friendly forces, yeah, it was amazing to read about all the hits it took, but it was also balancing to read about how a 100 mm shell destroyed an entire Abrams, by apparently causing a leak in it's engine, which caught on fire, and subsequently damaged the Abrams beyond repair.

As for the Iraqi T-72's, it's a well known fact that the massive tank armada of the Iraqis during the Gulf War consisted of largely outdated tanks, mostly T-55's. The T-72's that were used were monkey models, and were not the standard T-72 of the Russian armed forces. But, the Iraqi Lion of Babylon tanks, which were self-produced versions of the T-72, had plain steel armor and used steel APFSDS projectiles. It's no wonder why they couldn't penetrate the Abrams on certain occassions.

But yeah, if you really want to kill a tank, drop a 2,000 pound bomb on it.

 

[M1Brams]

Well, I can direct you to some pictures of an Abrams doing the "hat trick", or where there's such a large explosion, the tank's entire turret literally flies off. That was caused by a 15 daisy-linked 152 mm artillery shell IED, however.

As for the Abrams being destroyed by friendly forces, yeah, it was amazing to read about all the hits it took, but it was also balancing to read about how a 100 mm shell destroyed an entire Abrams, by apparently causing a leak in it's engine, which caught on fire, and subsequently damaged the Abrams beyond repair.

As for the Iraqi T-72's, it's a well known fact that the massive tank armada of the Iraqis during the Gulf War consisted of largely outdated tanks, mostly T-55's. The T-72's that were used were monkey models, and were not the standard T-72 of the Russian armed forces. But, the Iraqi Lion of Babylon tanks, which were self-produced versions of the T-72, had plain steel armor and used steel APFSDS projectiles. It's no wonder why they couldn't penetrate the Abrams on certain occassions.

But yeah, if you really want to kill a tank, drop a 2,000 pound bomb on it.

yeah i read about it but as you said it was a jerry rig mixed IED with a 152mm shell, that as any is enough to blow or damage seriously any tank.

As for the 100mm shell was that from a tank or arty? if it caused the jet turbine to leak the projectile must have been rear directed or from the top down, where the abrams is lightly armored as with all other tanks.

Was the T-72s LOB tanks fitted with ERA? i remember some export versions of the T-72 came with some form of ERA

Is it also safe to say that the Abrams is kinda the strongest tank in a face off battle with other MBT makes such as the T-90R and the Leopard 2? in a scenario whereby each of them engage

EG:

T-90R with Kontakt 5 ERA vs M1A2SEP TUSK
T-90R vs Leopard 2A6?
M1A2 SEP Tusk vs Leo 2A6?

 

[Waylander]

No this vs that threads here...

BTW, weren't the missiles used in the mentioned incident Maveriks.
IIRC they penetrated but as they didn't ignite anything the Abrams looked relatively intact. But if a crew would have been present it would have got shredded by the hollow charge of the Maverik.

Most modern projectiles, be it KE or HEAT, make rather small holes. If the penetrating rod or bolt doesn't ignite something flamable or cooks of the ammo a tank looks intact apart from a small entry whole.

The crew is probably dead meat anyway but such cases cause other problems.
Such dead but relatively intact tanks tend to draw fire from other units passing by. ODS and OIF showed that and it leads to unnecessary ammo consume and wrong contact messages.

 

[IronsightSniper]

yeah i read about it but as you said it was a jerry rig mixed IED with a 152mm shell, that as any is enough to blow or damage seriously any tank.

As for the 100mm shell was that from a tank or arty? if it caused the jet turbine to leak the projectile must have been rear directed or from the top down, where the abrams is lightly armored as with all other tanks.

Was the T-72s LOB tanks fitted with ERA? i remember some export versions of the T-72 came with some form of ERA

Is it also safe to say that the Abrams is kinda the strongest tank in a face off battle with other MBT makes such as the T-90R and the Leopard 2? in a scenario whereby each of them engage

EG:

T-90R with Kontakt 5 ERA vs M1A2SEP TUSK
T-90R vs Leopard 2A6?
M1A2 SEP Tusk vs Leo 2A6?

Yeah, no this vs that threads Although, I should mention that Relikt ERA is going to replace Kontakt-5 soon.


The 100 mm shell, as I remember, came from the cannon of the BMP-3.

Nope, the Lion of Babylons were Iraqi manufactured T-72's, they did not have Kontakt-5.

No this vs that threads here...

BTW, weren't the missiles used in the mentioned incident Maveriks.
IIRC they penetrated but as they didn't ignite anything the Abrams looked relatively intact. But if a crew would have been present it would have got shredded by the hollow charge of the Maverik.

Most modern projectiles, be it KE or HEAT, make rather small holes. If the penetrating rod or bolt doesn't ignite something flamable or cooks of the ammo a tank looks intact apart from a small entry whole.

The crew is probably dead meat anyway but such cases cause other problems.
Such dead but relatively intact tanks tend to draw fire from other units passing by. ODS and OIF showed that and it leads to unnecessary ammo consume and wrong contact messages.

Actually, I am curious as to how a KE projectile is supposed to kill the crew.

 

[Waylander]

A KE rod penetrates the armor of a target by concentrating high kinetic energy on a very small point.

When the armor is penetrated fragments of the penetrator as well as fragments of the armor follow the rest of the KE rod into the crew compartment. So imagine alot of ultra hot shrapnel (as alot of the kinetic energy is transformed into heat and light upon impact) bouncing around in the turret. This shrapnel tends to shred the crew, ignites flammable stuff and probably also hits unprotected ammo.

A hollow charge for example uses a completely different concept but in the end the principle is the same. Upon impact a metal bolt (for example copper) is accelerated so much (by using a hollow charge) that it punches through the armor. Besides the mentioned fragments of the bolt and armor the bolt itself also tends to break upon impact on the armor of the other side of the compartment.

Overpenetration can be an issue. Even more with KEs than with hollow charges. A modern KE hitting an older tank might very well result in the rod coming straight out of the back of the target with much of it's energy left without creating much spall.

But a simple RPG can also have these problems. The recent conflicts have shown that if a lightly armored patrol vehicle (like a humvee) is hit it might very well happen that the only injured person is the unlucky guy sitting right in the path of the bolt while it travels clean through the vehicle.

Modern spall liners in AFVs reduce the amount of spal which flies around in the crew compartment.

 

[eckherl]

Yeah, no this vs that threads Although, I should mention that Relikt ERA is going to replace Kontakt-5 soon.


The 100 mm shell, as I remember, came from the cannon of the BMP-3.

Nope, the Lion of Babylons were Iraqi manufactured T-72's, they did not have Kontakt-5.




Actually, I am curious as to how a KE projectile is supposed to kill the crew.

As you remember that the projectile came from a BMP 3, maybe you should conduct additional research, no BMP 3 has ever served in a conflict in that region, could you be thinking maybe of a T-55. The only time BMP 3 has been used in a hostile environment was during the Chechen conflicts.

 

[IronsightSniper]

Actually, yus I was wrong on that one, actually, I was wrong in general about an Abrams being destroyed due to a shot from a 100 mm gun or a BMP for that matter. All that happened was that a 73 mm shell from a BMP-1 hit an Abrams, did some damage to the .50 cal machine gun, and wounded one guy. As regards to the 100 mm shell, yes it did come from a T-55, two 100 mm HEAT rounds damaged the Gunner's sight of a an Abrams but that was it.

 

[Go229]

I still wonder why governments don't put remote control apparatus on one example each and fight each other off in an isolated plain. Less speculating, more hard facts. But maybe thats because some countries are scared their tanks that they invested so much in turn out to perform very poorly, losing that "aura of invincibility" that adorn some today.

 

[kato]

Because tanks have a lot more applications - and adversaries - than just fighting other tanks. And there's a whole lot more to an army than just tanks.

 

[Go229]

Yes, but you can find a lot more ways to test it once the concept is proven, and you can use MILES equipped infantry in a built-up area to attack it with live AT weapons, the tank returning fire with MILES lasers. Any scenario can be imagined. Using an RC tank as a mobile target using enemy tactics, the best enemy weapons and creative thinking could lead to a lot more conclusive data, learning and fixing it's weaknesses before the enemy gets a chance to exploit them. Basically you are trying it by combat in the most realistic way possible, and now that RC/Unmanned technology has come a long way it's a much better option. The airforce already uses this concept for it's target training drones. The use and point of it is different, wich is to test weapons systems engaging the drone rather than the drone's survivability.

 

[Waylander]

You are aware that most countries which produce AFVs do perform live fire tests against parts of and against whole AFVs.

Doing that openly would bring nothing new to the table other than that both parties fully expose their weaknesses to the enemy.

What is weird is that it looks like you are actually serious about this...

 

[Toby]

its not realy an indestructible tank like the other guys said just because it looks intact doesnt mean it is intact theres cases of rpg7s taking out an m1 abrams. on the internet you can find combat losses of the m1 friendly and not friendly and theres quite a few. it is one of the better protected tanks but by no means is indestructible . i would say the challanger 2 is the best armored tank in the world with its dorchester but i could be wrong with that.(m1 abrams tusk?)

 

[STURM]

i would say the challanger 2 is the best armored tank in the world with its dorchester but i could be wrong with that.(m1 abrams tusk?)

What about the Merkava 4? The commander's hatch is so thick it's powered by hydraulics because it's too heavy. All in all I think the achilles heel of even the most well protected tanks are the top of their turrets.

 

[Waylander]

The turret hatches of Leopard IIs with additional top armor (Strv 122, E, HEL and PSO) are also opend by hydraulics.

When talking about modern tanks and their ability to absorb enemy fire one has to think about kind of enemy opposition and weapons.

For example the roof armor of the Merk IV and Leopard might save your day against old RPGs and bomblets but won't save you from a top attack ATGM or RPG29 fired from a rooftop.

In a classic duell situation a Leopard II with a KWS II armor upgrade might save your day but when RPGs and ATGMs from different directions are your main thread the IBD upgrade carried by the Leos from Singapure offers better capabilities.

And I haven't even started on the actual employment of armour against different kinds of threats...

Is a war won because somebody fields M1A2 SEPs, instead of Challenger 2Es, Leopard IIA7s, Leclerc T10s, Merkava Mk.IVs, etc? No!

All of them are close enough so that none of them would make a difference in the big picture.

I think it began with Desert Storm. From then on the idea that a tank has to be invincible to be of any good started to spread. And everytime a handfull of modern tanks gets knocked out in a conflict people begin to talk about the end of the tank on the modern battlefield.

That always amazed over the last years. Plain light infantry gets smashed, shredded and bombed to pulk in the thousands in recent conflicts. But nobody starts to talk about their time on the battlefield being over...

 

[IronsightSniper]

Well, the defense of any tank is not how much armor or RHA equilvalency it has. TUSK won't save an Abrams from a top attack ATGM or a RPG from a roof(and don't even mention the tandem charges), thick upper armor won't save a Merkava from a top-attack ATGM that can also penetrate the Merkava's frontal armor. In general, if you want to protect your tank from attack, APS's are the way to go, Russians with their Arena, Israelis with their Iron Fist, and Germany with their AMAP(which is the best I've seen so far). In general, I also believe that Tanks will be obsolete in the future, with Infantry being heavily armed with enough power to destroy a Challenger 2, there's no point in fielding 50 tonnes tanks in the field, instead, it would most likely end up with tanks being converted into Heavily Armored Anti-Personel vehicles like the BMPT.

 

[Waylander]

The idea that Tanks are made obsolete because infantry will carry alot of weapons that will be able to kill tanks is contradictory to your other believe that APS will be the future.

If anything an APS capable of defeating ATGMs is going to enhance the survivability of tanks as KE rods and mines will be the only killers.

Additionally infantry lacks the rate of fire, ammunition, mobility and protection AFVs offer.
In a modern war light infantry is dead meat in anything but heavy terrain (mountains, cities, heavy woods,...). What kind of wonder weapon should that be that gives infantry the mentioned abilities of AFVs.

It is the combination of protection, firepower and mobility which makes a tank so usefull.
In WWII tanks were vulnerable to a miriad of enemy weapons and got lost in the tens of thousands. Nevertheless nobody wanted to abandon them.

 

[IronsightSniper]

Heh, it was kinda contradictory to include APS and Super-Infantry in one sentence, but really, the original point of a tank was to support the infantry, now it's vice versa. We research ever new technologies such as Electro-chemical thermal guns or rail guns just to give our tank's offensive capabilities a boost, but what is the point of putting a really big gun on a tank? The only thing that comes in mind was Anti-tank and Demolision. Such a waste. In my opinion, it's far moar affective to have a vehicle with the same armor as a tank, but with an APS, and weaponary designed for AP warfare. Tank launched ATGMs can disable or destroy tanks these days, so bringing a massive gun to an infantry fight sounds counter intuitive.

 

[Sampanviking]

Heh, it was kinda contradictory to include APS and Super-Infantry in one sentence, but really, the original point of a tank was to support the infantry, now it's vice versa. We research ever new technologies such as Electro-chemical thermal guns or rail guns just to give our tank's offensive capabilities a boost, but what is the point of putting a really big gun on a tank? The only thing that comes in mind was Anti-tank and Demolision. Such a waste. In my opinion, it's far moar affective to have a vehicle with the same armor as a tank, but with an APS, and weaponary designed for AP warfare. Tank launched ATGMs can disable or destroy tanks these days, so bringing a massive gun to an infantry fight sounds counter intuitive.

These are interesting points you raise and maybe relate to things that counter insurgency has perhaps been masking.

There appears to have been a massive amount of mechanisation of ground forces over the last twenty years to the point where; in the event of a "traditional interstate conventional conflict" the vast majority of soldiers now appear as machine operators of one sort or another rather than "combat warriors" of the classic mould. It also seems to be the case that the destruction of armour light or heavy often leaves it attendant operators virtually useless on the battle field.

If this is indeed the case, then this supports a role for the MBT as this fast and remote behemoth rolling across open ground destroying enemy vehicles at maximum range and leaving the attendant infantry to face the cheaper light armour of mechanised light infantry instead.

Given the staggering array of systems that are now mounted on 4 , 6 and 8 wheeled chassis it appears that this is increasingly the idea.