This thread is getting borderline as far as continued longevity is concerned.
Stay on Topic! Its title is: who can kill an M1 Abrams?
the thread is: not military doctrine in general, not political doctrine in general.
Just a small point of fact for those talking about explosives underneath a tank.
A typical IED ranges from 50-500lb of explosives remote or hard wired to go off when the tank traverses over it. There have been very few instances where an Abrams was killed by an IED - in fact the total number lost to IED's since 1999 is less than 5 - out of a total stock of what - some 7000 platforms all up. Armoured vehicles (not just MBT's) are continually tested - to the point of destruction by whats called proximity and contact tests. They're tested with up to 1000lbs of explosives at staged ranges.
The nature of armoured warfare in the main is fluidity - enemies don't have the luxury of setting up tank traps and killing zones with emplaced IED's - thats the province of geurilla warfare. There has been a tactically spectacular failure of IED's anywhere in combat to become tank killers.
eg it took over 30 years before the Israelis lost 1 armoured bulldozer to an IED - and they're less than half the weight of a typical MBT.
Any tank can be killed in the right circumstances - but some of these theoreticals are just plain silly and completely ignore how modern armour is used. For over 55 years it was considered suicide to use MBT's in urban warfare, Chechnya was seen as reinforcing that - and then the Americans showed it could be done by using different tactics.
Its not just the toys - its the tactics - and guerilla warfare does not provide the mass and momentum to kill modern armoured columns as those columns adapt to the threat and have more support than they ever did in the past.
If this thread does not pick up qualitatively it risks being closed.
In fact this topic should look at "who can kill an MBT" rather than "who can kill an Abrams" as the topic is universal rather than discretionary.
Stay on Topic! Its title is: who can kill an M1 Abrams?
the thread is: not military doctrine in general, not political doctrine in general.
Just a small point of fact for those talking about explosives underneath a tank.
A typical IED ranges from 50-500lb of explosives remote or hard wired to go off when the tank traverses over it. There have been very few instances where an Abrams was killed by an IED - in fact the total number lost to IED's since 1999 is less than 5 - out of a total stock of what - some 7000 platforms all up. Armoured vehicles (not just MBT's) are continually tested - to the point of destruction by whats called proximity and contact tests. They're tested with up to 1000lbs of explosives at staged ranges.
The nature of armoured warfare in the main is fluidity - enemies don't have the luxury of setting up tank traps and killing zones with emplaced IED's - thats the province of geurilla warfare. There has been a tactically spectacular failure of IED's anywhere in combat to become tank killers.
eg it took over 30 years before the Israelis lost 1 armoured bulldozer to an IED - and they're less than half the weight of a typical MBT.
Any tank can be killed in the right circumstances - but some of these theoreticals are just plain silly and completely ignore how modern armour is used. For over 55 years it was considered suicide to use MBT's in urban warfare, Chechnya was seen as reinforcing that - and then the Americans showed it could be done by using different tactics.
Its not just the toys - its the tactics - and guerilla warfare does not provide the mass and momentum to kill modern armoured columns as those columns adapt to the threat and have more support than they ever did in the past.
If this thread does not pick up qualitatively it risks being closed.
In fact this topic should look at "who can kill an MBT" rather than "who can kill an Abrams" as the topic is universal rather than discretionary.
