M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

Werewolf wrote:

Militarov wrote:
Americans are just claiming that no M1 Abrams was lost to an enemy tank, which is true, same as its true that no F15C to this day was shot down by enemy fighter. Some Abrams tanks were hit by Iraqi T72Ms but none managed to actually destroy them or kill the crew, all were partial penetrations, near missies or penetrations into engine compartment with no hull dmg.

That claim moved on now to "M1" is battle proven and was never destroyed at all, as soon you post pictures they back paddle it was destroyed by airforce and Abrams took several shots from its own and Apache had to destroy it.


The most retarded lies, like any accompaning tanker will not know not to shoot a fucking tank any place but the most protected if he actually wants to destroy it. Even tho i do not believe americans are educated but they certainly are not that stupid either to make such horrible propaganda of how mighty the abrams is, it is like any other tank paperly thin from any other side but the front.

Well you have Internet trolls claiming stuff like "No Abrams was every destroyed" and "No F15 was ever shot", both just half true as they on purpose miss the part "by other tank" and "by other fighter". Or simply half informed people that like to boast as they are Americans.

Many of M1A1/A2 tanks that were "damaged" last 20 years normally would have been counted as hull loss in other armies, but since we are talking about the US it just means they took the fucker back to the US, and spent 3 million to bring it back into service. Or they strap them of all spare parts and place them into storage keeping the inventory number even tho there is not even a T of a tank remaining there.

We will never really know if any M1s were destroyed by T-72Ms, or just how many Abrooms have been lost in action, or if any F-15s have actually been shot-down in an A2A engagement. The fog of war in all of Uncle Sam's conflicts is almost downright impossible to see through due to its massive propaganda organ, new dirty secrets are still coming out today about Vietnam, WWII. All we have at the end of the day are eye-witness accounts from US crews themselves and official publications from American ex-Personnel and analysts, easily susceptible to personal bias. Everything else is, sadly, speculation.

KoTeMoRe wrote:
The two are from Diwaniyah axis, Tank two, sprocket was busted and Iraqis had hit rear deck. Impossible to move them under fire, impossible to get them out one was thermited without much success and the Iraqis burnt it. Then USAF bombed the area. The other had an APU fire from contact and the crew evaced. It was hit with Hellfire. There's also the story of another Abrams hit twice with M1A1 Tank gun then hit again by Hellfire before starting to burn. .... but why not.

It is called propaganda, or the wonderful world of Zaloga!

Militarov wrote:
The Iraq War: A Military History by Williamson Murray has fairly decent list of M1 destroyed units together with their service numbers etc.

Historians, historians, yes....like Zaloga there are tons in US.

Militarov wrote:
...during Battle for Baghdad one destroyed by AA guns ...

An Abrams destroyed by AA gun   ... What is better ? I remember another comic story with AAA, as  a north korean defense minister was supposed to be executed by Kim at several thousand meters by AAA. I ignored an AAA was intended to destroy M1 Abrams. Western press

Militarov wrote:
Americans are just claiming that no M1 Abrams was lost to an enemy tank, which is true,...

Really ?

Militarov wrote:
...same as its true that no F15C to this day was shot down by enemy fighter.

To assert such certitudes I think you have solid proofs.

Militarov wrote:
Some Abrams tanks were hit by Iraqi T72Ms but none managed to actually destroy them or kill the crew, all were partial penetrations, near missies or penetrations into engine compartment with no hull dmg.

 

OminousSpudd wrote:We will never really know if any M1s were destroyed by T-72Ms, or just how many Abrooms have been lost in action, or if any F-15s have actually been shot-down in an A2A engagement. The fog of war in all of Uncle Sam's conflicts is almost downright impossible to see through due to its massive propaganda organ, new dirty secrets are still coming out today about Vietnam, WWII. All we have at the end of the day are eye-witness accounts from US crews themselves and official publications from American ex-Personnel and analysts, easily susceptible to personal bias. Everything else is, sadly, speculation.

Nothing to add, all is said

Kuwait ground operation 1991
Again as I said previously in Kuwait, during the so-called "Liberation of Kuwait", or the supposed ground offensive, there were no battles -except at Phase Line Bullet, but it was in Iraq, and not in Kuwait-, it was mere massacre against retreating soldiers. During several weeks of bombardments, US coalition failed -as usual with Air Force- to destroy in a significative way Iraq army. In front of the growing frustration of US high command and the dangerous incoming stalemate, US high responsibles threatened to use nuclear weapons. Then President Saddam Hussein ordered its army to leave the Kuwait without taking the basic precautions against US. At the February 25, 1991 he ordered to this army not to stay the Kuwait. The "withdrawal order" was given. At this date this is the beginning of the so-called "Liberation of Kuwait". Iraqi army started its retreat, deactivating its very effective AAA. Fatal Error! US launched one of its coward, and barbaric slaughter against an army in retreating phase, unable to fight back. The massacre started by using USAF, with B-52 -read highway of death- F-111 began. After the F-15, F-18, F-16, and the A-10 had followed the bombers.
The rest that was not achieved by the air, was consummate by their "courageous gladiators" inside their M1 Abrams. However US found some unexpected resistance, and ...failed to overcome it.

Battle of Phase Line Bullet the likely scenario.

Americans expected to massacre easily in Iraq too. However, the order of Saddam Hussayn to leave the Kuwait was obeyed in Kuwait, but this order was not valid in Iraq. Iraqis were mostly equipped with T-55, and T-62 and T-72 and obviously the lethal anti tank missiles like AT-3 Sagger, AT-4 Spiggot, AT-5 Spandrel, and RPGs. Americans tried to engage believing a quick victory would be achieved. In front of the fierce resistance of Iraqis they decided to withdraw, and decline to continue, as the AAA were active, the USAF were completely ineffective. In this engagement several hundreds of M1 Abrams were engaged against an unknown number of iraqi tanks. During this engagement americans sent their saudis and egyptians allies to fight the iraqis. This other engagement cost several heavy losses to Iraqis, meanwhile an unknown number of egyptian, and saudis M-60 were destroyed too.

The aftermath
During this engagement several dozens of T-55, T-62, BMP and few T-72 were destroyed, meanwhile several dozens if not hundreds of US, saudis, egyptians tanks -M1, M-60- were destroyed.

My conclusion

It would be interresting to see the supposed-"Gladiator" M1 Abrams in Iraq against T-72, or even T-62. What might be the M1's fate ? Americans decline the fight, when they understood that the fight would be lethal for them. As usual!
As there were no fair battle of tanks it is impossible for me to fairly evaluate what is the real worth of the M1 Abrams. What could I say ? I know that the T-55 was far better than M-48. The T-62 better than the M-60. And T-72 vs M1 Abrams ? It is impossible to know, as this tank was never engaged in a true battle against a comparable tank, in a comparable conditions. Syrian T-62, and T-72 successfully destroyed several M-60 and Merkava in Lebanon's battle of Sultan Yakuub in 1982. It is noteworthy to say that the Merkava is a typical western tank, likely comparable, if not better than the M1 Abrams. However the T-62 smashed several Merkava. I said T-62, and not only the T-72. What would be the result with the T-72 against M1 Abrams ? I supposed -it is a mere assumption- during Phase Line Bullet's engagement T-72 as T-62 destroyed several M1 Abrams, by destroying I mean completly burnt.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Phase_Line_Bullet
http://www.countercurrents.org/lagauche280210.htm

Actually Williamson Murray is great author, he is an actual military historian not random guy writing blog on blogspot, he was teaching on few military schools and actually served himself in Air Force . Try finding his War in the Air: 1914-1945, very nicely written piece, just for an example.

Yes, two were destroyed by direct fire from AA guns fielded by Revolutionary Guard, most likely S-60 perforated into transmission and damaged them beyond operational mobility so crews bailed out, tanks burned out after Iraqis kept hitting them.

Well yeah, there is not a single proof showing that M1 was ever destroyed by an actual enemy tank, i repeat TANK, damaged yes, but none suffered catastrophic destruction or beyond repair damage.

So where exactly F15 was shot down in air to air encounter? I might be missing something but all documented loses were either due to ground fire or mechanical failures. And its not really easy in the US especially to hide losing a fighter aircraft, ppl there love to ask questions and add how they are "voting and paying taxes" and "what to know where their tax money is going". Let alone fact how Military likes to say how they are being underfunded, so losing fighters is what they love the most, so they can cry for more money.

To Militarov
First of all I did not insult you, I respect your pov. I believe in something, you believe in other thing, after all it is not the end of the world. We don"t have the same POV, it is not necessary a bad thing, this a forum to exchange. And it is a simple point of view. I mock mostly of US propaganda, and not you.

Militarov wrote:Actually Williamson Murray is great author, he is an actual military historian not random guy writing blog on blogspot, he was teaching on few military schools and actually served himself in Air Force . Try finding his War in the Air: 1914-1945, very nicely written piece, just for an example.

The US system is by its essence a dictator. More your have a high responsibilities, more it is hard to criticize.

Militarov wrote:
So where exactly F15 was shot down in air to air encounter? I might be missing something but all documented loses were either due to ground fire or mechanical failures.

I've never said an F-15 C was shot down, but I never said it could not exist. US have the monopole of media, they could tell us what they want.

Militarov wrote:
And its not really easy in the US especially to hide losing a fighter aircraft,...

The US system could hide what they want, when they want, and how they want.

Militarov wrote:
...ppl there love to ask questions and add how they are "voting and paying taxes" and "what to know where their tax money is going".

Everywhere people love to ask question, and love the truth. For example I supposed the US taxpayers were very happy of the Bailout, decided H. Paulson, and the establishment to save at first the banks instead of US taxpayers, and US public's interrests. More than anyone in the world the US system is dictator..

Militarov wrote:
Let alone fact how Military likes to say how they are being underfunded, so losing fighters is what they love the most, so they can cry for more money.

US adminstration is able to do what they want if it serves the interrests of the militaro-industrial complex, and the banks. They avoid as long as it is possible to say that a fighter was downed by an enemy fighter. We will discuss Desert Storm air war in another topic. It is exciting too. But just to know, there were a Mig-25 that avoid nearly 20 air to air missiles. The Mig are far to be inferior than US aircrafts.

higurashihougi wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:We will never really know if any M1s were destroyed by T-72Ms

M1 Abarms were destroyed by T-55 shot at the turret flank, and by 25mm bullet at the rear.

Well, according to Garry, it is "perfectly normal", but it means that was possible for T-72M to kick the *** of Abrams.

What I meant to say was we do not know how many were knocked out by Iraqi MBTs officially, and probably never will. Sorry, misworded my sentence.

nemrod wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:
The two are from Diwaniyah axis, Tank two, sprocket was busted and Iraqis had hit rear deck. Impossible to move them under fire, impossible to get them out one was thermited without much success and the Iraqis burnt it. Then USAF bombed the area. The other had an APU fire from contact and the crew evaced. It was hit with Hellfire. There's also the story of another Abrams hit twice with M1A1 Tank gun then hit again by Hellfire before starting to burn. .... but why not.

It is called propaganda, or the wonderful world of Zaloga!

Militarov wrote:
The Iraq War: A Military History by Williamson Murray has fairly decent list of M1 destroyed units together with their service numbers etc.

Historians, historians, yes....like Zaloga there are tons in US.

Militarov wrote:
...during Battle for Baghdad one destroyed by AA guns ...

An Abrams destroyed by AA gun   ... What is better ? I remember another comic story with AAA, as  a north korean defense minister was supposed to be executed by Kim at several thousand meters by AAA. I ignored an AAA was intended to destroy M1 Abrams. Western press  

Militarov wrote:
Americans are just claiming that no M1 Abrams was lost to an enemy tank, which is true,...

Really ?

Militarov wrote:
...same as its true that no F15C to this day was shot down by enemy fighter.

To assert such certitudes I think you have solid proofs.

Militarov wrote:
Some Abrams tanks were hit by Iraqi T72Ms but none managed to actually destroy them or kill the crew, all were partial penetrations, near missies or penetrations into engine compartment with no hull dmg.

 

OminousSpudd wrote:We will never really know if any M1s were destroyed by T-72Ms, or just how many Abrooms have been lost in action, or if any F-15s have actually been shot-down in an A2A engagement. The fog of war in all of Uncle Sam's conflicts is almost downright impossible to see through due to its massive propaganda organ, new dirty secrets are still coming out today about Vietnam, WWII. All we have at the end of the day are eye-witness accounts from US crews themselves and official publications from American ex-Personnel and analysts, easily susceptible to personal bias. Everything else is, sadly, speculation.

Nothing to add, all is said

While the Tank hit repeatedly is clearly propaganda, the tanks stuck from enemy fire and sabotaged is not. Also the hole on the side of the Abrams is not T55, but a Rapira 100mm gun mounted on a truck. Same "Gun on a truck" was said to have nailed another Abrams on the fuel cell.

The images shown are M1A1.

higurashihougi wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:While the Tank hit repeatedly is clearly propaganda, the tanks stuck from enemy fire and sabotaged is not. Also the hole on the side of the Abrams is not T55, but a Rapira 100mm gun mounted on a truck. Same "Gun on a truck" was said to have nailed another Abrams on the fuel cell.

The images shown are M1A1.

Rapira is smoothbore cannon, isn't it ? That means it should use APFSDS instead of APCR, and the hole should have been very small, about 40cm, probably. The hole in the pic is relatively big.

And holes of finned bullet may leave the starfish-shaped traces of the fins.

nemrod wrote:It is called propaganda, or the wonderful world of Zaloga!

Well, Zaloga used to be one of my favourite Western authors, toghether with Glantz and others... however recently his works tend to have a lot of bullshit, for example there are many bullshits in his T-64 article (2015).

Wonder is it the result of event in Ukraina ?

While you're right on the money, that's what the Iraqis captured claimed about the tanks hit. Americans also reckon this. However it's highly improbable that They've used non tungsten HVAP, which in effect would probably be barely distinguishable from APFSDS. For reference, APFSDS puncture on T72.



And same tank before Hellfire.



Hole is actually not that big.

higurashihougi wrote:
Well, Zaloga used to be one of my favourite Western authors, toghether with Glantz and others... however recently his works tend to have a lot of bullshit, for example there are many bullshits in his T-64 article (2015).

Wonder is it the result of event in Ukraina ?

To higurashihougi I PM you

The problem is not only Zaloga, but near all famous authors

Actually Williamson Murray is great author,...

As OminousSpudd they only took back US DoD's communiqués and they gave them a better sentences, draws, and explanations not explain you the truth, but to expose the DoD's views.
If I quote Zaloga's stupidities the T-72 could not perforate the M1, hence could not match. Then let's imagine the T-72 could not perforate the M1, even though it has HEAT' ammunitions that could exceed 1.800 m/s, and syrian T-72 destroyed several Merkavas considered as among western state of the art. The T-72 embedded AT-11 that has more than 3.000 meters' range, and hence could perforate any tank in that time. It is enough for me to stay away of the "historians" of the US system. This is among thousands and thousands western stupidies.

higurashihougi wrote:
And recently Zaloga began to say bullshit about Russian small sizes. I can't believe in my eyes when I read such comments in his T-64 article (2015), I can't believe there is such stupidity like that.

Zaloga's stupidities are famous. As him nothing could penetrate the M1 Abrams. Nothing or almost, I don't know what could he say when he sees this image



As I said, to have a better informations, it is better to stay away of these institutional propagandists agents. We won't learn something with them.

Few words about F-15.

OminousSpudd wrote:...or if any F-15s have actually been shot-down in an A2A engagement...

A thing is sure US lie, because the lie is an important part of the war, as any belligerents lie, US have rights to lie, hence I could not reproach US DoD to hype its propaganda. It is normal.
Moreover, the Mig-23, Mig-21, and Mig-29 are very very effectives aircrafts. Among the best of the world. As the T-72, the AT-3 Sagger, the RPGs, AK-47 I don't see why the Mig are not effectives. Because soviets had a strong technology, and strong know-how.

Furthermore, I forgot to mention this element

The initial night’s work played out better than Coalition air planners had hoped. Instead of the 20–25 aircraft losses some had expected, the early morning air attacks of 17 January suffered the loss of a single F-18, to a Mig-25. 32 Those attacks destroyed Iraq’s integrated air defense system.33 This does not mean the Iraqis were unable to fire unguided surface-to-air missiles at the attackers, or even to turn on their radars occasionally—there simply was no air defense system after the morning of 17 January.

Well if we think as americans, there were no air defense system.

...that attacking aircraft no longer had to fly at low levels to avoid Iraqi missile defenses and radars, but instead where Iraqi anti-
aircraft guns were dangerous...

US acknowledged that anti aircraft guns are very lethal. I was told a couple of years ago that US air fighter bombers had to fly at higher altitude. Because there are no fear of SAM, but the fear of AAA, as US views.
However US DoD admit that at least -I insist on at least-

2 F-15 E
2 F-18
3 F-16 C
1 F-14
1-F-4
few F-111
few Tornado


Were downed by... SAMs those that were supposed to be obliterated, except if they were unguided  
I was not there to identify or confirm F-15 E by C. In my view several F-15 C/E, F-18, F-16 -likely more than severa dozens-, F-14, F-111, F-4, and at least one B-52 were downed by Iraqi air force. As for the supposed gladiator M1 Abrams, the hoax around the F-15 C seems to not resist against the scrutiny of the facts. I could not confirm if the C did not be replaced by E
. A matter of letter!    Accept or not this war was not intended only against the arab' "Unter manner" but mostly, and chiefly  against soviet know how, and ...russian know how too .


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_combat_losses_of_United_States_military_aircraft_since_the_Vietnam_War
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA44530

A very last word about that, iam not here to change the course of the history, Iraq indeed lost the war. Most of its army was obliterated, but...not in the way as US asserted. Moreover the soviet hardware in normal situation gave good results, as it was expected. Soviet hardware was effective. Iraqi soldiers behaved like very well.
If the M1 Abrams seems to be not a bad tank, there is no longer the best, and was never the best, in spite of the US's hype, and brainwashing.

nemrod wrote:To Militarov
First of all I did not insult you, I respect your pov. I believe in something, you believe in other thing, after all it is not the end of the world. We don"t have the same POV, it is not necessary a bad thing, this a forum to exchange. And it is a simple point of view. I mock mostly of US propaganda, and not you.  

Militarov wrote:Actually Williamson Murray is great author, he is an actual military historian not random guy writing blog on blogspot, he was teaching on few military schools and actually served himself in Air Force . Try finding his War in the Air: 1914-1945, very nicely written piece, just for an example.

The US system is by its essence a dictator. More your have a high responsibilities, more it is hard to criticize.  

Militarov wrote:
So where exactly F15 was shot down in air to air encounter? I might be missing something but all documented loses were either due to ground fire or mechanical failures.

I've never said an F-15 C was shot down, but I never said it could not exist. US have the monopole of media, they could tell us what they want.

Militarov wrote:
And its not really easy in the US especially to hide losing a fighter aircraft,...

The US system could hide what they want, when they want, and how they want.

Militarov wrote:
...ppl there love to ask questions and add how they are "voting and paying taxes" and "what to know where their tax money is going".

Everywhere people love to ask question, and love the truth. For example I supposed the US taxpayers were very happy of the Bailout, decided H. Paulson, and the establishment to save at first the banks instead of US taxpayers, and US public's interrests. More than anyone in the world the US system is dictator..

Militarov wrote:
Let alone fact how Military likes to say how they are being underfunded, so losing fighters is what they love the most, so they can cry for more money.

US adminstration is able to do what they want if it serves the interrests of the militaro-industrial complex, and the banks. They avoid as long as it is possible to say that a fighter was downed by an enemy fighter. We will discuss Desert Storm air war in another topic. It is exciting too. But just to know, there were a Mig-25 that avoid nearly 20 air to air missiles. The Mig are far to be inferior than US aircrafts.

I never said you insulted me, so dw.

Wars in Iraq were very extensively covered by media, we would know, there are always leaks. People leaked far less important happenings than famed F15 being shot.

US administration can do alot about media coverage of certain stuff but even they are not miracle workers.

Militarov wrote:

I never said you insulted me, so dw.

Wars in Iraq were very extensively covered by media, we would know, there are always leaks. People leaked far less important happenings than famed F15 being shot.

US administration can do alot about media coverage of certain stuff but even they are not miracle workers.

Just to tell you, I appreciate your contribution too, your ideas, even though we have not always the same POV.

Regards.

A friend of mine that knows very well the situation that is prevailing in Middle East told me that a syrian army's T-62 took out an M1 Abrams belonging to the terrorists dubbed "DAECH".





This news did not surprised me, as I know that the powerful gun -115 mm/ smoothbore- of the T-62 could largely destroy any western tank in a fair combat.

nemrod wrote:A friend of mine that knows very well the situation that is prevailing in Middle East told me that a syrian army's T-62 took out an M1 Abrams belonging to the terrorists dubbed "DAECH".





This news did not surprised me, as I know that the powerful gun -115 mm/ smoothbore- of the T-62 could largely destroy any western tank in a fair combat.

Wouldn't be surprised, armor of export M1s is a joke, SA lost quite a few in Yemen, there was also that time when Iraq tested Kornet against M1 the thing was hauled away with tarp covering the frontal armor so it didn't look good.

AlfaT8 wrote:
Wouldn't be surprised, armor of export M1s is a joke, SA lost quite a few in Yemen,

Whatever it is export version, or authentic US marines' M1 Abrams, the faite might be the same.

AlfaT8 wrote:
...there was also that time when Iraq tested Kornet against M1 the thing was hauled away with tarp covering the frontal armor so it didn't look good.

Even if you admit that the T-62's gun is inefective, let's admit just a few seconds, the soviet/russian its embedded AT-10 Stabber or or  AT-12 Swinger are largely enough to burn any western tank. But I think the U-5TS is largely enough against any western tank nowadays.

AlfaT8 wrote:

nemrod wrote:A friend of mine that knows very well the situation that is prevailing in Middle East told me that a syrian army's T-62 took out an M1 Abrams belonging to the terrorists dubbed "DAECH".





This news did not surprised me, as I know that the powerful gun -115 mm/ smoothbore- of the T-62 could largely destroy any western tank in a fair combat.

Wouldn't be surprised, armor of export M1s is a joke, SA lost quite a few in Yemen, there was also that time when Iraq tested Kornet against M1 the thing was hauled away with tarp covering the frontal armor so it didn't look good.

Export M1 armour is far from a joke. Especially the post IAP ones.

KSA lost quite of them due to its crews being little more than baboons with the gift of speech. All tanks would have faltered in those circumstances. Take the T90's in Syria, great workhorse, definitely not enough for garbage crews.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Export M1 armour is far from a joke. Especially the post IAP ones.

KSA lost quite of them due to its crews being little more than baboons with the gift of speech. All tanks would have faltered in those circumstances. Take the T90's in Syria, great workhorse, definitely not enough for garbage crews.

What I wanted to mean, if a teenager with an RPG-7 could disable an M1 Abrams whatever the crews are marines, or GI's, a fortiori a tank could do more.  It is well known that KSA's M1 Abrams are far to be obsolete as Saudi paid a very expensive price to give enough protection to its crews. The version of KSA's tanks are M1-A2/A3 this is the standard that prevails in US. Saudi Arabia is not a mere ally, this is not Belgium, Poland, or even South Korea. Saudi Arabia more than any other US allies, is among the most important for US, it is a critical issue. Hence US give to Ryadh all state of the arts US hardware, as it was during the Shah's era for Iran.
We know and assume a all russian anti tank missiles are able -at least- to disable any armoured vehicles in the world. This is not what I wanted to highlight.
I assume that terrorists in Iraq have kind of slightly downgraded M1 Abrams, nevertheless the Hull is still M1 Abrams, this is not an M-60. what I wanted to highlight here is the fact that a T-62 is able to take out an M1 Abrams. If the RPG-7 could disable a state of art's western tank, the T-62 or even the T-55 could do more. This is what I wanted to mean.

nemrod wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Export M1 armour is far from a joke. Especially the post IAP ones.

KSA lost quite of them due to its crews being little more than baboons with the gift of speech. All tanks would have faltered in those circumstances. Take the T90's in Syria, great workhorse, definitely not enough for garbage crews.

What I wanted to mean, if a teenager with an RPG-7 could disable an M1 Abrams whatever the crews are marines, or GI's, a fortiori a tank could do more.  It is well known that KSA's M1 Abrams are far to be obsolete as Saudi paid a very expensive price to give enough protection to its crews. The version of KSA's tanks are M1-A2/A3 this is the standard that prevails in US. Saudi Arabia is not a mere ally, this is not Belgium, Poland, or even South Korea. Saudi Arabia more than any other US allies, is among the most important for US, it is a critical issue. Hence US give to Ryadh all state of the arts US hardware, as it was during the Shah's era for Iran.
We know and assume a all russian anti tank missiles are able -at least- to disable any armoured vehicles in the world. This is not what I wanted to highlight.
I assume that terrorists in Iraq have kind of slightly downgraded M1 Abrams, nevertheless the Hull is still M1 Abrams, this is not an M-60. what I wanted to highlight here is the fact that a T-62 is able to take out an M1 Abrams. If the RPG-7 could disable a state of art's western tank, the T-62 or even the T-55 could do more. This is what I wanted to mean.

It's an inanimate object. It will falter because of its use, not of its intrinsic values. There are less people killed on M1114/M1151's than on T72's. That's not because the M1114/1151 are better protected, just they're employed correctly by better trained personnel and according to their doctrine.