M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

Really this just points further to the importance of APS development vs all types of threats.

Taking large ATGMs is no fun for any tank, even if it happens to hit a part it cannot penetrate.

A few more pics of the Iraqi Abrams

TR1 wrote:Really this just points further to the importance of APS development vs all types of threats.

Taking large ATGMs is no fun for any tank, even if it happens to hit a part it cannot penetrate.

also that monkey models suck monkey b@lls. at least a monkey model t-72 costs half the original, this one is almost like buying the real deal.

magnumcromagnon wrote:
I'm surprised with all the Pentagon R&D funding towards drones, that they haven't thought of just going with a drone Abrams tank, it could be made 20-25 tons lighter with lighter ground pressure, superior mobility and speed and probably could be designed to carry more ammo internally. Makes rather more sense than having a 70 ton tank with high ground pressure, that can still be knocked out by a Kornet.

simple, UGVs are not that mature of a tech yet. First we will see unmanned trucks, then APCs and then finally IFVs and MBTs.
Also, if they are going that route they would have to prepare a lot of ECM equipment- its easy to adapt jammers, etc. from aircraft to ground use.

When you take away the military support structure that usually accompanies our MBT's, the M1 is just like any other tank.

Looking through the BMPD link TR1 posted, these two images grabbed my attention.





Assuming this is the same M1, both images show the left side of the vehicle. There doesn't appear to be damage to the storage bin. IIRC the M1's thickest turret armor extends back to were the smoke launchers are situated, just about were the tarp covers on the second picture. It looks as though the Kornet entered through quite a bit of armor.

This is the first time i see M1 ammo detonation. I suspect the Iraqis were carrying ammo in hull (marked in red)







Source Tarsenko

Tank Abrams M1A2 SEP v3



http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1520326.html

Another proof that the M1 Abrams could be destroyed by RPG. Unfortunetly we don't know in this article if it was by RPG-7, or RPG-16 ? It would be interresting to know. I don't know if in 2003 Iraq army had got RPG-29, but as you can see no need necessary of AT-14 Springham aka Kornet to destroy a western tank. If someone among has more info about this event.




http://gurkhan.blogspot.fr/2016/03/b-1b-72.html

B-1B against the T-72


Not so long ago, in Irkutsk, was published book: Ilya Topchiy "second Iraq war: events, facts, results". Noteworthy is the fact that this is probably the first and only at the moment publication summarizes the disparate materials on this topic and drawing a complete picture. Unfortunately, this book describes are not many concrete examples of individual battles and battle scenes, as might be desired. The more interesting case is described:
" In Al Mandir two tanks of the Ml 'Abram c ", separated from the main force, were destroyed by hitting shells from RPGs in poorly protected housing areas (initially it was assumed that they destroyed from ATGM 9M133 "Cornet", but these data have not been confirmed). Along the way, Iraqis shot down one armored vehicle "Bradley." In response, Americans have a few blows with the bomber B-1B "Lancer" burned two T-72. " Simply delicious!

No, I do not want to say that T-72 was so impregnable that it took to destroy them to use strategic aviation. Moreover, I inclined to think that it was just a random hit a bomb, or else bobmёry already "in progress" had been retargeted to the area in which they operate tanks. But by itself this fact, agree, beautiful! Yankees chase with Diego Garcia, for tyschschi keme strategy to ukandybobit two old tractors, which cost less than the cost of jet fuel burnt ... Direct advertising "semdesyatdvoykam"!

Fat shia militiaman shooting RPG 29 at Abroomz in improbable social shenanigans is the staple of any Abroomz bashing fixture.

KoTeMoRe wrote:Fat shia militiaman shooting...

Fat shia maybe, but this fat shia as you said it is a guy who has balls....and big. It is highly possible that US forced to withdraw from Iraq because of fat guys like him.

Jesus guys chill. Wtf is going on here. Abroomz Hunter is a meme from the Sadr/Quds era vs USA. He was the ultimate troll and gave his life for it. No one belittles his balls (god forbid), just saying that the guy was a notoriety from 2005 to 2008 (when they got him).


This man is responsible for the TUSK update on his own. Vampyr salutes and kicks ass.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
This man is responsible for the TUSK update on his own. Vampyr salutes and kicks ass.

This man is chiefly responsible of US withdrawal from Iraq, they fled like a dog with its dick between its legs. Until -a part of- this video appeared in Youtube -around 2005/2006-, I used to consider that M1 Abrams was invulnerable. Nothing could stop this tank. After I started to realize that US could lie too. I was far to realize how I was cheated. In that time I used to consider that russian/soviet hardware were mere ironsmith. And this Ironsmith could match with modern western hardware. I was very far to realize the huge scale of US lies, and its propaganda.
Furthermore, I don't know what Shia is, what Sunni is, what Xtian is etc...I see a mere iraqi that standed against the illegal occupation of his country by Oligarchy. He was a resistant against US empire, that's all.
Incredible man, incredible video. Thx for adding these images. If you have others, please....

Werewolf wrote:
I love to see them destroyed, it is the most magical thing in this world.

If a thing is sure, your point of view is shared by 4/5 of this world.

Werewolf wrote:
Nothing is indestructable, not even fanboys dreams.

In fact I was jarred by the book of Zaloga -M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural OPERATION DESERT STORM 1991-, that cheated me.

Available here
https://ospreypublishing.com/m1-abrams-vs-t-72-ural
He presented the M1 as something nearly invulnerable, far better than the T-72. In his ugly presentation he omit -we understand why- to present the battle of Phase Line Bullet, where iraqi T-72 performed very well against coalition's tanks . Moreover, the T-72 performed very well too in 1982 against the israeli's Merkava. If we add the recent videos occured in Yemen, where an old 60's era AT-4 Spigot burned an saudi's M1 A2 Abrams, then, there were enough proofs against Zaloga's fantaisies. US won the battle of Kuwait in 1991, because there were no battles. Iraqis were retreating when US cowardly attacked, and slaughtered an army in retreat. Take a look this link :
http://www.countercurrents.org/lagauche280210.htm
During the war in 1999 against Serbia, serbian army expected a ground battle vs US. But US did not dare! They did not dare, because US high responsibles were freightened, they knew very well how a such battle might ended in nightmare meaning a real humiliation for US, worse than Khe Sahn in 1968. Because they were very well aware what is the reality of the US so called superiority. And now, you have many western books that claimed without any proofs the superiority of West against russian's hardware.

Saying this, about the M1, what could I say. Is the T-72 superior than the M1 ? I could not assert it. M1 better than the T-72 ? I could answer regarding electronic area slightly better, maybe the M1's gun -?-. But tell me what is the the usefulness of GPS, in a real ground battle ? U can easily jam it, except if the US attack a stone age army.
Range 4.000 meters for the M1, and 1.800 for the T-72 ? In the ground battle most of the fights occured at less than 1.000 meters. Above, there are the effectives anti tank missiles like the AT-4 Spigot, Tow 2, AT-5 Spandrel. Below 500 meters another nightmare for the tanks are the RPG. In the paper we could say that the M1 seems -not sure- to be slightly superior to the T-72, or T-90, but in the paper only. After that it relies on the team inside the tanks, the context, the motivation, the logistic etc.... More you are trained, better it is. But all tanks are vulnerable including the new Armata. Hence the question is becoming more complex, and it is hard to assert who is better than who, because it depends of several very complex parameters. Let's tell the editors, we do not need propaganda, or fanstaisies, we only expect objectives point of views, not ugly fantaisies for commercial, geopolical purposes whatever it is.

nemrod wrote:US won the battle of Kuwait in 1991, because there were no battles. Iraqis were retreating when US cowardly attacked, and slaughtered an army in retreat. Take a look this link

Coalition won all battles in KSA, Iraq and Kuwait. Khafji and Medina Ridge come to mind. Many more on the list incl. as you mentioned, Phase Line Bullet, where Iraqis were massacred on the field by Meigs' and Riley's boys (Iraq pretty much lost a creme de la creme division in 24 hrs).

Once again, we're talking something Irrelevant here. In Desert Shield/Storm the goal, from the US WAS to obliterate Iraq with all they got. IF you want it was really the perfect set up. Almost no vegetation, no need to get into cities, overwhelming aerial and intelligence superiority and all the time in the world to deploy troops (about 700K in total). And a UN resolution to boot.

Everything that "failed" in desert Storm was made to fail. It had nothing to do with the qualities of the hardware or weapons. Many say, that most night fighting capabilities of the Iraqis were obsolete. Well even if they weren't, the capabilities of the US in electronic surveillance were truly ahead of their time then. The chances were stacked against Iraq, so basically the people put everything against Iraq and its stock, while everyone, bar maybe the Soviet Union would falter to such an onslaught.

KoTeMoRe wrote:Once again, we're talking something Irrelevant here. In Desert Shield/Storm the goal, from the US WAS to obliterate Iraq with all they got. IF you want it was really the perfect set up. Almost no vegetation, no need to get into cities, overwhelming aerial and intelligence superiority and all the time in the world to deploy troops (about 700K in total). And a UN resolution to boot.

Everything that "failed" in desert Storm was made to fail. It had nothing to do with the qualities of the hardware or weapons. Many say, that most night fighting capabilities of the Iraqis were obsolete. Well even if they weren't, the capabilities of the US in electronic surveillance were truly ahead of their time then. The chances were stacked against Iraq, so basically the people put everything against Iraq and its stock, while everyone, bar maybe the Soviet Union would falter to such an onslaught.

Maybe??

You mean definitely, the SU would tear apart this so-called onslaught like it was nothing, and i am excluding nukes here.

Werewolf wrote:
Horse shit, not everything was planed to fail that failed, retarded and non existent discipline among soldiers is one of the reasons of the constant fuck ups. They certainly did not plan to get over 100 abrams wrecked or over 20 Apaches wrecked not to mention the actual death/destruction count of all tanks and helicopters and what not. Despite fighting such an easy war with no problems involved. Flat desert is a dessert.

I searched for several years about the real scale of US losses. But now for evident geopolitical reasons it is classified. The losses -in 1991- must be far higher than announced. Nevertheless US had benefited  real strategic errors of Saddam Hussayn and its staff. This is the most explanation of US success. Iraqi soldiers wanted to resist, but iraqi's high officials did not want.
We could notice from US DoD a certain toast of humour listen :

A total of 23 M1A1s were damaged or destroyed during the war. Of the nine Abrams tanks destroyed, seven were destroyed by friendly fire, and two were purposely destroyed to prevent capture after being damaged.[20] Some others took minor combat damage, with little effect on their operational readiness. Very few M1 tanks were hit by enemy fire, which resulted in no fatalities and only a handful of wounded.

Best than Jerry Lewis's Joke!
Another excerpt
Battle of Phase Line Bullet -involving several hundreds of US tanks, beside several hundreds of IFV Bradley-

Another Bradley (A-36) was first disabled by a 12.7 mm round from an NSVT heavy machine gun...

Hummm interresting news, a simple 12.7 could at least disable an IFV like the Bradley...but just three IFV? Only three ? There were several hundreds, if not more than thousand others were taking part in the combat.... Yes, but impossible is not american !

The contact lasted for about two hours, until the Bradleys, battered by enemy and friendly fire and running out of ammunition, were forced to withdraw.

Two hours only ? the cow boys retreated ? Battle with several hundreds of tanks ? Where were the A-10 ? AH-64 ? F-15 E ? well let's continue...
The losses -amercan hollywood happy end version-

4 Bradley IFVs destroyed and 10 damaged 2 killed 12 wounded...

Obviously, there were all destroyed by this damn of "Friendly fire".    If I remember, in porn convention they have the same expression meaning....But in this case it came from US DoD.

higurashihougi wrote:

We can't expect Iraqi army to stand against the combined arms of U.S. and some other European countries.

Not to mentioned that most of Iraqi weapons were old stuffs, and Iraqi troops morale/training were not extremely good.

In my view, the M1 Abrams is not a bad tank, but it suffers as most the US hardware by an excessive hype. The M1 Abrams could be compared with the T-72, T-80, T-90, Leopard A2, Challenger. But it is not better.  A T-62, or even a T-55 -modernized- could destroy an M1. In my view the M1 has the same problem as the F-15, F-16, F-35, F-22, this hardware in order to win must be engaged in outnumber way in order to win.  I suspect  RPG and Sagger took a toll of US M1, and Saudi, egyptian M-60 in Iraq. In 1991, there were no battles in Kuwait, there were a simple massacre of iraqi soldiers retreating called as "Batlles", except Phase Line Battle where some Iraqi divisions were not in position of retreating, as you can see US could no longer sustain their high losses. But this kind of behaviour, is like a joker, U could use just once.
The battle of Falludjah in 2004 took the first prelude of western rout. 2006 Israelis tanks Merkava IV were decimated -at least 100- by simple anti tank tactics of a mere militia. Sure, the next is following.

GarryB wrote:Heavy machine gun fire will DISABLE any armoured vehicle... even if it cannot penetrate its armour from any direction it can blind the vehicle, damage its weapons and means of communication and also immobilise it by damaging tracks and wheels.

Garry I never doubted this, I try only highlight the stupid arguments of US DoD. U engage several hundreds of tanks, beside several hundreds other armoured vehicles in a very great battle disguised -as US DoD's terminology- in a simple skirmish. At the end U admit that heavy machine could damage your armoured vehicles, but only 3 ? Only 23 M1 Abrams destroyed, and most of them were due to friendly fires, the rest were destroyed by US themselves. With that only few deaths ? It looks like a Zaloga's fantaisies, no ? In fact US DoD take us for fools. The ridicule of the propaganda.

U.S. Marine Corps plans to buy Trophy active protection systems for its M1 Abrams tanks

The Marine Corps plans to buy or lease existing active protection systems (APS) for its M1 Abrams tanks that are vulnerable to proliferating anti-tank guided missiles.

Specifically, the Marine Corps will test the Trophy APS system developed by Israeli defense firm RAFAEL and sold in the United States by DRS Technologies, Lt. Gen. Robert Walsh, deputy commandant of the Marine Corps for combat development and integration, told members of the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on seapower April 13.

Trophy (also known as ASPRO-A) is a military active protection system (APS) for vehicles. It intercepts and destroys incoming missiles and rocketswith a shotgun-like blast. Trophy is the product of a ten-year collaborative development project between the Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and Israel Aircraft Industries’ Elta Group. Its principal purpose is to supplement the armour of light and heavy armored fighting vehicles.

http://defence-blog.com/army/u-s-marine-corps-plans-to-buy-trophy-active-protection-systems-for-its-m1-abrams-tanks.html