Burnt Abramses

[Kingpin]

There is always many pics of different soviet made armor destroyed on the web. And always hard to find some destroyed Us armor. Let's bring some justice. Here is some destroyed or captured US vehicles. Many of these pics are well known, but anyway...

http://www.iraqwar.ru/show_image.php?id=629


This one is very interesting 'cause i see RPG gunner on the first plan

http://www.iraqwar.ru/show_image.php?id=619


Baghdad, beginning of April

http://www.iraqwar.ru/show_image.php?id=618

http://www.iraqwar.ru/show_image.php?id=620

http://www.iraqwar.ru/show_image.php?id=622

http://www.iraqwar.ru/show_image.php?id=623


Near Nassiriya

http://www.iraqwar.ru/show_image.php?id=624


This one is not actually destroyed. It is abandoned by its crew in defensive position.

http://www.iraqwar.ru/show_image.php?id=626


And again this tank with Iraqi reporter

http://www.iraqwar.ru/show_image.php?id=625


Abandoned too. Locked and loaded. Just stick in the trench.

http://www.iraqwar.ru/show_image.php?id=627


Usual problem for Abrams - engine fire.

http://www.iraqwar.ru/show_image.php?id=628


RPG hit under Nassiriya

http://www.iraqwar.ru/show_image.php?id=630


Completely burnt near Baghdad

http://www.iraqwar.ru/show_image.php?id=631


This one was disabled and than destroyed by US Forces (see hole from ATGM on the turret)

http://www.iraqwar.ru/show_image.php?id=633

http://www.iraqwar.ru/show_image.php?id=635

http://www.iraqwar.ru/show_image.php?id=637


Centcom said that they destroyed this helicopter near Najaf. But it was seen several days later in Baghdad

http://www.iraqwar.ru/show_image.php?id=708


Destroyed US APC in Nassiriya

http://www.iraqwar.ru/show_image.php?id=709


And one more

http://www.iraqwar.ru/show_image.php?id=710

[MolliG]

http://www.iraqwar.ru/show_image.php?id=619

Woah! :o How did that happen? Iraqis or Coalition air power*?

*I don't mean a Blue on Blue incident, but a planned attack to stop 'certian' people getting their hands on a juicy M1A2.

:)

[Rantanplan]

I can't Imagine that you can knock out an Abrams with an old Soviet RPG.

But I heard during the War that the Iraqis own some TOW, MILAN and some Chinese Anti Tank Rockets.

Can anybody confirm this?

[spoonman]

i've seen the very first pic before, and if that rpg guy isn't photoshopped in i'll eat my shoe. the vehicle was obviously not on the frontline when the photo was snapped, the machinguns have been stripped off, the turret is turned around in transport mode, and i bet the laser sight on the end of the muzzle is removed too.

[spoonman]

I can't Imagine that you can knock out an Abrams with an old Soviet RPG.

But I heard during the War that the Iraqis own some TOW, MILAN and some Chinese Anti Tank Rockets.

Can anybody confirm this?

you can if you get a side or rear hit near the engine compartment. as for use of TOW and MILAN missles, i've heard all they had was RPG's but the majority of the hits were on the rear exhaust. usually resulting in the disabling of the vehicle.

[HumanShield]

http://www.iraqwar.ru/show_image.php?id=629


This one is very interesting 'cause i see RPG gunner on the first plan


If you ask me the whole thing looks kinda fake...it may just be me but the rest of the tank looks to intact around the "impact" area. The side armor next to the hole looks to clean/not burnt. And the one next to it looks like it has been edited. And the wheels for the tracks also have no burn mark. And the rear gear (dont know correct name) on the tank looks very pixelated. And yea...that rpg gunner has to be edited in.

[Helly]

http://www.iraqwar.ru/show_image.php?id=619

Woah! :o How did that happen? Iraqis or Coalition air power*?

*I don't mean a Blue on Blue incident, but a planned attack to stop 'certian' people getting their hands on a juicy M1A2.

:)

That's "Cojone EH", the same tank in pictures 10, 13, 14 & 15. It took an RPG hit in the turret, setting a fuel cell on fire (see picture 10). It was later abandoned and was the subject of a coalition airstrike right after to avoid it falling into enemy hands intact. A couple of Mavericks and then some. Details can be found here (http://www.phoenix158.org/iraq/Documented%20Coalition%20Losses.cfm).

~Helly

[Helly]

http://www.iraqwar.ru/show_image.php?id=629


This one is very interesting 'cause i see RPG gunner on the first plan


If you ask me the whole thing looks kinda fake...it may just be me but the rest of the tank looks to intact around the "impact" area. The side armor next to the hole looks to clean/not burnt. And the one next to it looks like it has been edited. And the wheels for the tracks also have no burn mark. And the rear gear (dont know correct name) on the tank looks very pixelated. And yea...that rpg gunner has to be edited in.

The RPG gunner is fake but the damage to the tank isn't. The damage is to the non-ballistic side skirt which can be easily penetrated by anti-armor RPG rounds. No damage to the armored "insides" 'coz you need more than an RPG round to penetrate those.

As for the lack of burn marks, anti-armor high-explosive rounds don't really create a large fireball. Those are only for movies. ;-) In the real world, only secondary explosions do that (HE round hitting stored ammo, for example). Sabot rounds leave even cleaner holes. If you look at picture no. 13 (that of Cojone EH), pay attention to the clean hole in the turret. Really clean. There were reports that a couple of sabot rounds from other Abrams tanks were fired on Cojone EH just to be sure. :-)

~Helly

[HumanShield]

Yea i know that this big explosions are for the movies. But i dont know, i do alot of digital editing of pictures. And for some reason it just doesnt look right to me....but it probably is. Ohh well

[budanski]

Most of the Abrams were disabled by the enemy and then finished off by coalition forces with sabot rounds and hellfires to prevent equipment in enemy hands. No recorded destroyed by the enemy. Notice the crater around one where they used JDAMs to destroy the tanks.

[Fargin]

http://www.iraqwar.ru/show_image.php?id=629


This one is very interesting 'cause i see RPG gunner on the first plan


If you ask me the whole thing looks kinda fake...it may just be me but the rest of the tank looks to intact around the "impact" area. The side armor next to the hole looks to clean/not burnt. And the one next to it looks like it has been edited. And the wheels for the tracks also have no burn mark. And the rear gear (dont know correct name) on the tank looks very pixelated. And yea...that rpg gunner has to be edited in.

The RPG gunner is fake but the damage to the tank isn't. The damage is to the non-ballistic side skirt which can be easily penetrated by anti-armor RPG rounds. No damage to the armored "insides" 'coz you need more than an RPG round to penetrate those.

As for the lack of burn marks, anti-armor high-explosive rounds don't really create a large fireball. Those are only for movies. ;-) In the real world, only secondary explosions do that (HE round hitting stored ammo, for example). Sabot rounds leave even cleaner holes. If you look at picture no. 13 (that of Cojone EH), pay attention to the clean hole in the turret. Really clean. There were reports that a couple of sabot rounds from other Abrams tanks were fired on Cojone EH just to be sure. :-)

~Helly

How do you figure the pics a fake?

[hendrix33]

http://www.iraqwar.ru/show_image.php?id=629


This one is very interesting 'cause i see RPG gunner on the first plan


If you ask me the whole thing looks kinda fake...it may just be me but the rest of the tank looks to intact around the "impact" area. The side armor next to the hole looks to clean/not burnt. And the one next to it looks like it has been edited. And the wheels for the tracks also have no burn mark. And the rear gear (dont know correct name) on the tank looks very pixelated. And yea...that rpg gunner has to be edited in.

The RPG gunner is fake but the damage to the tank isn't. The damage is to the non-ballistic side skirt which can be easily penetrated by anti-armor RPG rounds. No damage to the armored "insides" 'coz you need more than an RPG round to penetrate those.

As for the lack of burn marks, anti-armor high-explosive rounds don't really create a large fireball. Those are only for movies. ;-) In the real world, only secondary explosions do that (HE round hitting stored ammo, for example). Sabot rounds leave even cleaner holes. If you look at picture no. 13 (that of Cojone EH), pay attention to the clean hole in the turret. Really clean. There were reports that a couple of sabot rounds from other Abrams tanks were fired on Cojone EH just to be sure. :-)

~Helly

How do you figure the pics a fake?

(WOAH! Lot's of quoted quotes :o )

I think the meaning of 'fake' was not the content, but the presence of the RPG. The entry-hole in the tank seems to be larger than one caused by an RPG, especially considered the advanced protection of the Abrams.

[Trigger]

Even if it's not 'faked' i.e. 'Photoshopped', that pic could have been taken any time after the tank was abandoned, thus the RPG gunner in the foreground. He may not have even been around when the damage took place.

[hood]

That rpg guy is seriously photoshopped. the lighting on the tank, and the lighting on the dude are very different. the obvious compression artifact difference from jpeg compression of the guy vs. the tank is also very different. the color on the tank is crystal clear while the guy is very washed out. I could keep going about focus etc but there's no question it's blatantly photoshopped.

This however is completely real and ain't nobody gonna tell me different!

http://www.militaryphotos.net/media/33576luvu_w.jpg

[He219]

rofl rofl rofl

Nice one, Hood!

I'll have the Strawberry 'Bomb' Pop, please!

[Helly]

I think the meaning of 'fake' was not the content, but the presence of the RPG. The entry-hole in the tank seems to be larger than one caused by an RPG, especially considered the advanced protection of the Abrams.

The damage was to the non-ballistic side skirt. Those are impervious to small-arms fire (even to grenade blasts) but not to armor-piercing high-caliber rounds or anti-tank RPGs.

~Helly

[rtwpsom2]

regarding the RPG gunner pic, the rpg gunner is fake but the damage is not, this was the very first Abrams lost due to enemy action. It took an RPG in the tracks and damaged a road wheel. The enemy action was very intense and the unit was ordered to move on and abadnon the vehicle. It was strippped and destroyed.

The one being tipped over was named "Cojone Eh!" and it was lost during the very first run on baghdad. The Abrams had several fires due to the air filters overheating and catching fire. The marine unti attempted to tow it but had to leave it due to enemy action. It was destroyed then abandoned. Shortly after the Iraqi's tried and failed to overturn Cojone Eh, an A-10 hit it with two Maverick ATGMs to complete the detruction. The Iraqi recovery vehicle was also destroyed. Here is a pic Cojone Eh shortly after catching fire:
http://www.armorama.com/modules/photopost/data/500/1336m1a1fire2.jpg

[salt6]

What looks like a hole on the hull is the return roller support mount.









http://www.iraqwar.ru/show_image.php?id=629


This one is very interesting 'cause i see RPG gunner on the first plan


If you ask me the whole thing looks kinda fake...it may just be me but the rest of the tank looks to intact around the "impact" area. The side armor next to the hole looks to clean/not burnt. And the one next to it looks like it has been edited. And the wheels for the tracks also have no burn mark. And the rear gear (dont know correct name) on the tank looks very pixelated. And yea...that rpg gunner has to be edited in.

The RPG gunner is fake but the damage to the tank isn't. The damage is to the non-ballistic side skirt which can be easily penetrated by anti-armor RPG rounds. No damage to the armored "insides" 'coz you need more than an RPG round to penetrate those.

As for the lack of burn marks, anti-armor high-explosive rounds don't really create a large fireball. Those are only for movies. ;-) In the real world, only secondary explosions do that (HE round hitting stored ammo, for example). Sabot rounds leave even cleaner holes. If you look at picture no. 13 (that of Cojone EH), pay attention to the clean hole in the turret. Really clean. There were reports that a couple of sabot rounds from other Abrams tanks were fired on Cojone EH just to be sure. :-)

~Helly

How do you figure the pics a fake?

[FallenAngel]

The one being tipped over was named "Cojone Eh!" and it was lost during the very first run on baghdad. The Abrams had several fires due to the air filters overheating and catching fire. The marine unti attempted to tow it but had to leave it due to enemy action. It was destroyed then abandoned. Shortly after the Iraqi's tried and failed to overturn Cojone Eh, an A-10 hit it with two Maverick ATGMs to complete the detruction. The Iraqi recovery vehicle was also destroyed. Here is a pic Cojone Eh shortly after catching fire:
http://www.armorama.com/modules/photopost/data/500/1336m1a1fire2.jpg

Sounds good, only one thing I found thats wrong. There weren't any Marines in Baghdad when this happened- at least none that I know of. (Those crew members are wearing 3rd Inf. Div. patches. ) The 1st Marine Div. was 2-3 days behind the 3rd ID entering Baghdad

[JohnJohn]

in order not to look like more of an ass I have removed my post. Muahahaha....

still looks like a drawing to me. oh well, I'm wrong and you're right ;)

[rtwpsom2]

to Fallen Angel: Doh! Thanks for pointing that out, you are right it is not a Marine Abrams and if I had checked my references I would have remembered that.

to John John: Yes it is a real tank I have the General Dynamics AAR for the Abrams losses and this one is listed as the first to be disabled and abandoned.

Rob

[JohnJohn]

yes, I have edited my post accordingly :)

still look at it, it is so pixellated and really does look like a drawing. I can't read any of the markings on it, and to the rear of the tank and the background it really begins to look like a drawing. The shading and reflection of light on different parts of the tank(such as the main gun and rear) really makes it look fake :cantbeli:

[rtwpsom2]

Sorry, I don't try to be a ****head, it just happens sometimes. It does look fake and I am sure it was photoshopped a little to bring out the detail, but this was a real tank, maybe the picture is faked a little to make it better for propaganda.

Rob

[Uncle Sam]

Just because we have the most advanced equipment in the world, does not mean it is indestructable. Yes they were tore up, but, I'll bet my left arm, that the occupants of the tanks walked away from them. Now how many T-72 drivers and crew can say that? Probably not many. Most of the tank hits are in the track, which I'm pretty sure is a weaknes for any Tank. No RPG can penetrate the reactive armor of our main battle tank. Thanks

[rtwpsom2]

Only four men have died in an Abrams due to enemy action. They were driving over a bridge when a sniper killed the driver. The tank went over the edge into a river and the other three crewmen drown. These are the only known combat deaths for Abrams crewmen. And it has Chobham Armor, not reactive, but we knew what you meant.

Rob

[hendrix33]

I think the meaning of 'fake' was not the content, but the presence of the RPG. The entry-hole in the tank seems to be larger than one caused by an RPG, especially considered the advanced protection of the Abrams.

The damage was to the non-ballistic side skirt. Those are impervious to small-arms fire (even to grenade blasts) but not to armor-piercing high-caliber rounds or anti-tank RPGs.

~Helly

Well, I've seen a few RPG-7's and other shaped charge impacts on armoured steel during my service. This seems to me the imact of HEAT shaped charge, while the smaller holes are fragments of the forward part of the warhead.

To my opinion, the impact point marked green is the main point of pentration of a liner jet, while the point marked green is a secondary fragment from the liner, the warhead's cover, or the side skirt.

The large hole seems to be too big for a fragment of any sort, not to mention a fragmentation hit had to go past the skirt.

http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/users/3f5b99bc_93fb/bc/My+Documents/__hr_closeup+on+HEAT+hole.jpg?bfU55W_AfFXdhDvg

[JohnJohn]

Only four men have died in an Abrams due to enemy action. They were driving over a bridge when a sniper killed the driver. The tank went over the edge into a river and the other three crewmen drown. These are the only known combat deaths for Abrams crewmen. And it has Chobham Armor, not reactive, but we knew what you meant.

Rob

Rob where are you located? These men were from here at 29 Palms MCAGCC.

[rtwpsom2]

Missouri, Kansas City to be precise.

[Kingpin]

Just because we have the most advanced equipment in the world, does not mean it is indestructable. Yes they were tore up, but, I'll bet my left arm, that the occupants of the tanks walked away from them. Now how many T-72 drivers and crew can say that? Probably not many. Most of the tank hits are in the track, which I'm pretty sure is a weaknes for any Tank. No RPG can penetrate the reactive armor of our main battle tank. Thanks

As for T-72 - yes, it have weak spots but don't forget, that when we talking about Abrams damage - it was in general done with small arms (RPGs, mashine guns) while T-72 were destroyed with direct hits of high caliber shells, ATGM and so on.

Some information about T-72 vs small arms can be found on sites dedicated to Chechnya. In general it was very dificult to destroy T-72 (with the crew) using RPGs. It requires usually takes 6-7 RPGs hits to disable and then to put on fire T-72. In many cases crew were able leave T-72 unharmed. Most cases of deaths of russian tankers in Chechnya were not from tank destruction but from enemy fire when leaving disabled tank.
Weak spot of T-72 is the engine compartment from the top side - hits in this area can completely destroy tank, escpecially if ammunition cooked off. This fact made this tank vurnerable in street fighting. But on the open ground with air cover it is still very good opponent

[Kingpin]

About T-72 survivability. Use online translator for this (it produces very stupid translations, but what can i do? :) )

http://otvaga.narod.ru/Otvaga/wars0/wars_10_1.htm

http://otvaga.narod.ru/Otvaga/wars0/wars_10_2.htm

http://armor.kiev.ua/ptur/azt/getman.html

[flanker7]

I 've done a little search about the photo which shows an RPG gunner in front of a destroyd Abrams. The damage on the tank is real, however the guy with the RPG is not actualy there. The actual pose with the RPG is from a Fedayeen parade in Baghdad prior to the war. I 've seen the photo in a greek defense magazine and it shows a bunch of Fedayeen showing off all wearing black uniforms and balaclavas.