First Abrams Combat Losses [Archive]

JohnJohn

03-29-2003, 02:29 AM

Even the T-72 can take out an Abrams if it can get a shot off in time. Our armor is not invincible, not by a long shot. I am not surprised that we lost vehicles, but that doesn't mean that the Abrams isn't the best main battle tank, well, other than the 4th ID's M1A2 series main battle tank that is :D

It isn't the tanks or guns that make us the best, it is the men and women that make all this possible. Give the Iraqis all the technology they want, we will still prevail :)

The tanks came under RPG fire, the crews admitted before that if they took a direct RPG hit it would be disasterous ;)

I am just greatful that our soldiers were able to pull through and fight on, any casualty is one too many. I love my country and my servicemen, they are the greatest and I wish them the best and a great victory. America is with them ;)

GazB

03-29-2003, 06:15 AM

The only tank ever designed with all round armour (250mm thick) was the Maus (Mouse). A German design that weighted 180 tons and had a tops speed of 6mph.

All the other tanks ever made have their heaviest armour to the front of the hull and turret. Generally a well designed tank will have armour that resists its main enemy's tanks main gun in this area from all but close range. From the side of the hull and turret armour is usually sufficient to protect the vehicle from light cannon fire (ie 20-30mm) while the rear is usually only protected from 50 cal fire (plus the mass of metal that is the engine). The Hull bottom and hull and turret roof are also generally very lightly protected.
One of the reasons the Russian tanks did so badly in Grozny... apart from the fact that the enemy had been in their army and had been trained on their tanks and therefore knew the weak points, was that in built up areas firing from basements or above ground floors in buildings means that RPG shots at sides, rears and tops... places where all tanks are vulnerable. Turret roofs and hatches are not 300mm thick and even the most pathetic ancient 77mm RPG round can penetrate that... modern 105mm RPG rounds can double that to over 600mm.

96B

03-29-2003, 10:08 AM

The M1 Abrams is the best tank on the planet, but just because its the best doesnt mean it cant be taken down. It still appears to be largely in tact despite the one side and if I am not mistaken the crew survived right?

budanski

03-29-2003, 10:08 AM

wow. I've read of Iraqi tank rounds bouncing off the Abrams in the first Gulf War. But to read that an RPG round took out this one is a shock.

Lobo

03-29-2003, 12:25 PM

A projectile, now thought to be a rocket-propelled grenade, hurtled with the force of a freight train into the back of the tank commanded by Sgt. 1st Class Curtis Anderson, 38, of Sacramento, Calif

The back of the tanks are always they weak point. That explain that a RPG could knock out an Abrams tanks. That's something no MBT in the world are ready for.

By the way, Russian tanks in Chechnya were destroyed in street ambushes were salvos of RPG were shot from all angles. They let the Russian tanks get into the streets of Grozni and then the hell rose.

A last note. Last night Spanish TV showed images from the Iraqi TV. They show an Abrams in a ditch, and another one with the forward side of the right track burning. (An AT landmine?).

Zoomie

03-29-2003, 05:30 PM

One other thing that could of been a major factor, was that the Iraqi with the RPG was really close to the tank.

Lobo

03-29-2003, 09:17 PM

This is one of the Abrams showed in Iraqi TV:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39025000/jpg/_39025895_tank_tv203body.jpg

Lobo

03-29-2003, 10:23 PM

Another Abrams showed in Iraqi TV:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/milstuff/tanknet/AbramsBBC1.jpg

GazB

03-29-2003, 10:32 PM

One other thing that could of been a major factor, was that the Iraqi with the RPG was really close to the tank.

HEAT rounds are not effected by the range at which they hit a target. Unlike solid armour penetrators like sabot rounds HEAT rounds do not require velocity for penetration.

The fact that they are calling it a nonpenetrating hit suggests this was a "Spall" kill. When a round almost penetrates armour but not quite the shockwaves can make the armour inside the vehicle opposite the impact point flake off and bounce at high speed around the inside of the vehicle. These flakes can kill or injure crew and damage or ignite stored ammo. (remember although the ready to use ammo is stored in a protected area in the turret bustle the rest of the ammo is in the hull... this latter ammo was probably hit by fragments of the tanks own armour and the ammo propellant may have burned.)

yellowking

03-30-2003, 12:30 AM

Would a HEAT round that failed to penetrate cause spalling?

My understanding was that in Grozny, rebels were killing tanks with salvos of RPGs hitting the same vulnerable spot. It still seems surprising that a single RPG can reliably take out an Abrams. Perhaps I am believing our own propoganda?

papabear

03-30-2003, 04:41 PM

Newsweek article mentioning the loss of the Abrams and the anti-tank capabilities of the Iraqis:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/892871.asp?0cv=CA01

GazB

03-30-2003, 10:38 PM

"Would a HEAT round that failed to penetrate cause spalling? "

I don't see why not. Gas travelling 6-7km/s that doesn't weigh the 7-8kgs that an APFSDS round can have a very similar effect as the difference in weight is made up for in the difference in speed... don't be fooled HEAT rounds do penetrate kinetically too.

"My understanding was that in Grozny, rebels were killing tanks with salvos of RPGs hitting the same vulnerable spot."

...no, just volley launches to ensure a kill. From the rear or the side or above most tanks are vulnerable. Many shots to the rear of a tank will just take out the engine. So if you want to ensure a kill you have to hit it a few times. In this case one lucky hit was enough to make the tank unservicable... multiple hits would probably have just killed the crew. Multiple hits are also required for use against vehicles with ERA to ensure penetration.
If you look at the placement of the hit on the abrams it is far enough forward to have missed the engine... forward of the engine is the space where the lower part of the turret is and where extra ammo is stored in the hull... ie people and ammo... the place where you normally want to hit in war time. The fact that is wasn't a fully penetrating hit might have saved the crew. A flake of metal (spall) ricocheting around inside a tank will not make ammo blow up. Breaking open ammo might start a fire however as the propellant is a huge fire hazard. Out in the open that wouldn't be too much of a problem but inside a tank (or ship or submarine) fire is a very serious danger. Once the detonators get to a certain temperature they will detonate. If the RPG had fully penetrated and the super hot plasma beam had hit ammo then it might have exploded straight away.

A more modern warhead for the RPG or more powerful weapon (like a Metis-M or Kornet etc) would probably have killed the crew.

Smoothie104

04-02-2003, 01:04 PM

http://www.*******.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=focusIraqNews&storyID=2495400

Apogee

04-02-2003, 09:49 PM

I read something that 2 of the Abrams that were lost were actually taken out by anti-aircraft weapons on the back of pickup trucks, very similar to the technicals you saw in Mog. Apparently the word has gone around 3ID and 7th Cav, and they came up with a fix for the problem.

GazB

04-03-2003, 02:31 PM

Just looking at the pictures posted above I very much doubt it was an anti aircraft weapon. The days of heavy calibre AA guns like a German 88 are over. The only AA gun you might find on the back of a (iraqi)pickup truck would be a Zu-23 twin 23mm cannon. This would be dangerous for light vehicles like the Strikers and humvees, but would have to get very close and behind an abrams before doing any serious damage and even then I doubt it could do much more than smash optics and ruin tracks.

Smoothie104

04-03-2003, 02:41 PM

http://www.*******.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=focusIraqNews&storyID=2495400

asmith555

04-03-2003, 03:19 PM

The M1 has a turbine engine, the same as a jet. The rear of the tank is the exaust end of the turbine. If a shaped charge such as an RPG was shot into the exaust duct it would actually be inside the engine. I dont know for sure if this is what happened but it would make sense.

budanski

04-16-2003, 11:42 PM

Rapidly Adapting Tanks

April 16, 2003: The realities of combat can drive the ponderous American military's acquisition cycle down from years to weeks. The most-recent example saw the Lima Army Tank Plant shipping 20 sets of steel louvers to Iraq, designed to fit over the vents in the rear of M1A1 tanks and allow sufficient air flow while deflecting missiles or grenades. This was a direct response the 3/7 Cavalry losing two M1A1 tanks to suspected AT-14 "Kornet" Antitank missiles on March 25th. The engineers at Lima immediately began working around the clock to find a "fix" for the weak spot (the exhaust and air intake vents at the rear hull).*

Sand can be just as much of a tank-killer as missiles, but now with the M1 Pulse Jet Air Cleaner, engine filter cleaning happens automatically while the tank is on the move. The filter doesn't have to be changed for months. During Gulf War I, the soldiers had to stop to clean out the air filters on the M1 tanks every 15 miles.

The Minneapolis-based Donaldson Company began building automated air cleaners for Army tanks in 1995 and now makes a filtering machine that constantly removes dirt and dust from M1 tank engines. These turbine-powered filters can suck a substantial amount of sand from a turbine engine in a matter of hours (without requiring a tanker to do the labor). - Adam Geibel

GazB

04-17-2003, 06:15 AM

Mal3

04-17-2003, 09:51 AM

hehehehe... if it was an AT-14 Kornet why would they bother firing it at the rear of an M1A1... with a 1,200mm penetration of RHA it could penetrate the front of an M1A1 and probably an M1A2 as well...

Doesn't matter how great your weapon is, also aim for your enemy's weakest spot. Overkill just isn't enough.

On the other hand, I'll concede that the M1A1/M1A2 are among the very best MBTs in the world. But best? Isn't that a term best reserved for armchair speculants? (oops, that's me I guess... :roll: )

The latest versions of the Leopard 2 could probably just as well be termed "best". Of course, there are a lot of things to be considered for a MBT and just looking at a spec sheet will not determine how well one will fare in war. Perhaps the Merkava 4 or Challenger 2 would actually be better when push came to shove?

GazB

04-18-2003, 08:49 AM

"Doesn't matter how great your weapon is, also aim for your enemy's weakest spot. Overkill just isn't enough. "

Yes, I quite agree, but my point was that if it was a Kornet then it wouldn't have failed to penetrate fully from a side hit. The fact that it failed to penetrate from the place it hit suggests a weapon with an armour penetration of 300-350mm... with the side skirts plus track and partial interference from the wheels that protection would be around 350mm equivelent, which suggests the weapon that hit it was an early RPG. (modern 105mm RPG rockets have figures of wel over 600mm of RHA).

I gotta admire the Merkava 4, the Challanger 2, and the Leopard 2A6. They are my fav tanks at the moment, though the Leclerc and the various Abrams versions are very good too of course.

Mal3

04-18-2003, 01:07 PM

What I'm wondering is, aren't most cutting edge AT missiles top attack today?

How much front armour does the M1A1 have? 600mm of steel/ceramic honeycomb and DU? That would be more or less effective than Steel and reactive?

I think the Leclerc is pretty neat. Dont' think I'd take it over a Leopard 2 but the Leclerc has such power and is fairly lightweight making it very mobile. Main flaw would be the 3 man crew I think, but the Leopard is probably much better protected and more reliable also...

GazB

04-20-2003, 04:34 AM

I've seen footage of them cutting out sections for the Abrams and the guy narrating at the time says the armour is a foot thick... or 300mm.

(it is called Chobham armour, which is designed to be much more effective against HEAT or long rod kinetic attack than standard homogenous armours like RHA).

Mal3

04-20-2003, 01:26 PM

Yes, the Chobham is British, am I not right? I think it's somehow a composite of layered ceramics and steel?

GazB

04-21-2003, 01:40 AM

Yes... I've heard Ceramics, Tungsten rods, plastics and many other exotic materials in a secret combination.
The Challenger 2 uses a more advanced combination that is supposed to be even better.

Mal3

04-21-2003, 12:34 PM

At least I've read that the Challenger 2 is the best protected tank in the world. Bit slow, but otherwise it seems an excellent piece of kit.

FallenAngel

04-21-2003, 03:08 PM

Coham armor also has some depleted uranium in it....or so that's what I hear.

Gotta love that Russian reactive armor though. Who'd have thought you could protect a tank by covering it with explosives. Genius :D

Mal3

04-21-2003, 05:10 PM

I don't think DU is a part of the Chobham make up, but at least M1A1 and later versions of the Abrams (correct me if I'm wrong please) have a layer of steel encased DU in addition to the Chobham.

GazB

04-21-2003, 11:54 PM

"Coham armor also has some depleted uranium in it....or so that's what I hear. "

Nope... The M1A1 had Chobham armour... the M1A2 had the DU armour added.

"Gotta love that Russian reactive armor though. "

The Israelis thought of it first... though apparantly the first Russian version was not a copy and use a different operating principle...

"I don't think DU is a part of the Chobham make up, but at least M1A1 and later versions of the Abrams (correct me if I'm wrong please) have a layer of steel encased DU in addition to the Chobham."

Almost right... the main difference between the M1 and the M1A1 was the change from the 105mm to the 120mm gun... all abrams have chobham armour... the DU armour was first added on the M1A2 (M1A1HA).

Duke

04-22-2003, 05:17 PM

The M1 family of tanks never had Chobham Armor. The US developed its own armor and this armor and Chobham is very similar. Also, Chobham is a composite of steel plates and ceramics witout DU.

"Almost right... the main difference between the M1 and the M1A1 was the change from the 105mm to the 120mm gun... all abrams have chobham armour... the DU armour was first added on the M1A2 (M1A1HA)." Wrong Gazb...
The M1 was fitted for both the 105mm or M68E1 and the 120mm M256, but the Army choose the M1A1 to use the M256, never fielded the M68E1. Again no the M1 never had chobham. The main difference is the suspension, NBC thats Nuclear Biological and Chemical system, and the armor. I'm reading through the M1A2 manual and in the history section doesnot mention M1A1HA and also Janes doesnt mention that model. So I guess you should mean M1A1 since that was when the DU was added.

Listing Talking Points is bogus.

GazB

04-23-2003, 05:01 AM

hahahaha
Next you'll be telling me the 105mm gun of the early M1s and the M60 tanks were American....

The 105mm in the M1 and the M60 were manufactured in the US and were British designed guns.
Just the same as the Barretta pistols the US uses are made in the US but are Italian designs.

Chobham armour is used on US Abrams... all of them... that is why all Abrams tanks have the same slab sided appearance as the Challanger and Chalanger 2.

Unlike the rounded appearance of the M60s.

Duke

04-23-2003, 04:01 PM

Look up the facts. How do you say idiot in New Zealand?? Oh yeah, idiot. Cite your info.

GazB

04-25-2003, 12:16 AM

Gee... sources... how about:

"Considering the time that was necessary for
maturation of new technologies that
were incorporated in the M1, such as the
gas turbine engine and the British-developed
Chobham armor, the FCS represents
a much higher and riskier performance
step than the M1 was at the time, in
comparison to the M60-series Patton
tank."

Part of a discussion to design a next gen US tank from FAS.org

The pdf is called 1fcs98.pdf and the title of the article is:
The Future Combat System (FCS):
A Satellite-fueled, Solar-powered Tank?
by Asher H. Sharoni and Lawrence D. Bacon.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm

"The hull and turret are protected by advanced armor similar to the Chobam armor developed by the British Ministry of Defense. "

The difference between the US Chobham armour is that in later models they add DU, which the British did not use.

"Look up the facts. How do you say idiot in New Zealand?? Oh yeah, idiot. Cite your info."

As you seem to like name calling and cannot hold a simple discussion with any self control I will not bother looking up any more sources for you...

Oshkosh1070

04-25-2003, 01:52 AM

The M1 and early versions of the M1A1 have Chobham armor protecting them, Later versions of the M1A1 known as the M1A1HA had the chobham armor suplemented or replaced with steel encased depleted uranium mesh because depleted uranium armor has superior protection against long-rod penetrating sabot rounds. Because of this armor the M1A1HA and later M1A2 and M1A2 SEP tanks are probably the best protected tanks in the world. What know one has hilighted about these 5 or so abrams that were disabled in Iraq is that in all likely hood the crews excaped unharmed from there tanks and the tanks were not destroyed rather disabled by broken tracks or engine fires but in some cases may have been completely destroyed by coalition forces because recovery was not immediately available. One characteristic that provides additional protection to the Abrams crews and makes it safer for them than most other tanks in the world in addition to the armor is that the ammunition is stowed seperate from the crew behind armored doors, something that is not a characteristic on the either the Challenger 2 or the Leapard 2. This means that if a round does penetrate the crew compartment that the entire crew won't be killed in secondary explosions caused by ammunition cooking off. In addition to the armor the Abrams tanks fire depleted uranium ammunition which has better penetrating characteristics than tungsten because it is for one, more dense and secondly as the depleted uranium penetrator forces its way through armor it becomes sharper giving it greater penatration over tungsten which can deform like a lead projectile. A lot is said about the Abrams tank being significantly heavier than its counterparts and that this is a big drawback. I think there is a very strong argument that this is its greatest asset because this additional weight translates into additional armor protection. The incidents in Iraq concerning the disabling of the Abrams with RPG's did highlight a weakness of the Abrams, but hopefully the army will learn from it and retrofit all the Abrams with the protective coverings it has designed for the air intakes. Anyway, my two cents on the issue.
Oshkosh1070

GazB

04-25-2003, 03:19 AM

First of all any tank can be taken out with mines or immobilised by simply destroying its tracks.

Before I stated the M1A2 or the Challanger 2 has the best armour I'd want to know what sort of improvement the new second gen chobham armour the Chalanger 2 was fitted with was like.

During Swedish tests they narrowed the field down to the M1A2 and the Leopard 2A5. The Leopard seemed to have shot better than the Abrams though the Abrams offered better SA.

I doubt the difference between them is really that much and the Leopard is lighter... what is the point of having a pretty tank if you need to include finding bridges that can support a 70 ton tank into your battle plans let alone having to buy new aircraft capable of transporting them, and upgrading your bridging equipment etc etc.

stuntman

04-25-2003, 03:38 AM

spier

04-25-2003, 01:37 PM

Although I have the least knowledge here my comment is to (I think) gazs 2 who stated that the "Challenger 2 has the best armor" how do you explain the friendly fire incident when a challenger2 fired on another one and it killed 2 because the turret flew right of with a side shot I beleive! How do you explain that? Im not poking fun at I am truly curious! thx! The Strv.122 has got the best armor, and the Chally2 got hit on the side between the turret and hull. No known tank can resist a 120mm DU penetrator to the side.

Duke

04-25-2003, 03:16 PM

Im sorry I hurt your feelings GazB. Get over it! in the real world thats what happens when someone talks dribble. In your citation it calls US M1 armor "similar" not exactly the same. They are differerent.

GazB

04-25-2003, 10:30 PM

"(I think) gazs 2 who stated that the "Challenger 2 has the best armor""

No, I actually said:

"Before I stated the M1A2 or the Challanger 2 has the best armour I'd want to know what sort of improvement the new second gen chobham armour the Chalanger 2 was fitted with was like. "

"how do you explain the friendly fire incident when a challenger2 fired on another one and it killed 2 because the turret flew right of with a side shot I beleive!"

The Turret generally flies off when ammo detonates... some seem to think this only happens to old Russian tanks but it is actually a common occurance amongst tanks that have been hit hard and had ammo explode inside the tank. The impact alone cannot possibly remove the turret in this case. If you take a little common sense here... if firing a round doesn't knock the turret off, how can being hit by that same round after the round has travelled a distance do it?
During WWII when the Russians were deciding which gun to fit in their Stalin series tanks (ie JS-1 and JS-2 etc) they found that the 100mm naval gun they could use had better penetration, but that the 122mm gun had a better HE round and even if it couldn't penetrate the turret of a panther it could blow its turret off. (The 122mm gun was also closer to mass production status than the 100mm gun). In this case if you fitted the 122mm gun of the JS-3 into a panthers turret that was otherwise unaltered then the recoil would blow the turret off the panther tank...

A hit on the turret ring is what most gunners aim for from the front as it is the most vulnerable point of any tank.

Duke
"Im sorry I hurt your feelings GazB. Get over it! "

My feelings weren't hurt. I don't care what you would like to call me, your opinion is not important to me.
You lack of personal self control shows me you are rather immature and emotional and it is not worth my time finding information just for you... that is all. It wasn't a hissy fit. It was merely me stating that you are not worth the effort discussing serious topics with.