M1 Abrams


April 6, 2003, 02:45 PM
how are the Iraqi folks taking out these tanks? These are supposed to be the baddest mo fos in the world. How many have been disabled? How many have been captured with all the technology and DU rounds on board? I'm not getting any info from the normal BBC, newsmax, WND, etc. Thanks

If you enjoyed reading about "M1 Abrams" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
April 6, 2003, 02:54 PM
Evidently the Abrams fancy-schmancy armor will defeat any single charge projectile.

The Ruskkies develped a 2 charge AT round. First round gets past the good armor and the second charge dings up the interior.

So far no US fatalities inside the tank, but a few have been disabled.

I also heard early on some tanks were disabled by putting an RPG up the tailpipe.

If you get a chance, drop Bush's "soul-mate" Vlad Putin a thank you note.

April 6, 2003, 03:24 PM
It looks like they need to put more armor on the rear of this thing.;)

April 6, 2003, 03:26 PM
I saw the video yesterday on the Abrams that got knocked out. They said it was hit in the engine compartment by an RPG while the 3rd ID was sight seeing in downtown Bagdad. It wasn't destroyed but the crew (unhurt) finished the job since there wasn't a gas station near-by that would take "America Express".:D:barf:

50 Shooter
April 6, 2003, 04:10 PM
The Iraqi's are also using the Russian AT-14 Kornet, I believe that's what took out the first couple of Abrams.


April 6, 2003, 04:18 PM
Would it help to put reactive armor on the Abrams?

April 6, 2003, 04:39 PM
What 50 Shooter said. Newer russian made anti-tank hand held weapons, I believe sold illegally, but what else is new.

Appears this war is a bit different (way different) than the first. Got bad guys behind you sometimes. The M1 is not invincible, but I am not aware of any combat deaths in the first and this Gulf war of Abrams crew members, other than that unfortunate incident where the driver was killed by a sniper and the tank drove off a bridge drowning the crew.

Crew survivability is a big deal in Western MBTs (and Israeli).

Andrew Wyatt
April 6, 2003, 04:55 PM
Would it help to put reactive armor on the Abrams?

you can't support the tank with infantry, then.

Mike Irwin
April 6, 2003, 05:13 PM
"You can't support the tank with infantry, then..."

Sure you can. At least for the first two hits, one to each side... :)

April 6, 2003, 05:43 PM
Rear deck damage from an RPG...

April 6, 2003, 06:05 PM
Call me a non-conformist, but I don't agree with the theoretical notion that "the best way to take out a tank is with another tank." That may work for us for the time being, because our is better than theirs.

Fundamentally, the most leathal opponent of the tank is an airborne threat. On the ground, particularly in a crowded "3-D" environment, well-trained and courageous infantry armed with a moderate-ability AT weapon can wreak havoc on AFVs.

Lucky for us, the Iraqi forces are neither well-trained nor particularly courageous (although I understand that some of them are desperate enough to appear courageous).

April 6, 2003, 06:17 PM
"Baddest mo fo out there" does not translate directly into "invulvnerable."

They'll get a few.


April 6, 2003, 07:17 PM
Unfortunately, there is no effective way to armor the engine compartment that will still allow the ventilation necessary to properly cool the engine. That engine pulls one hell of a load and works hard to do it. It generates a lot of heat that must be dissipated. This is the reason that the engine is in the rear (M113 and 577 apc's have front mounted engine because they generate less heat and can thereby be put in an armored compartment) We don't really expect to be attacked from the rear. Unfortunately, the way we are fighting this war (blitzkrieg style) we are leaving opposition forces behind us and that makes us a little more vulnerable to attack from the rear.

April 6, 2003, 07:39 PM
Tanks will always be vulnerable to infantry, that is why tanks and infantry should always fight together symbiotically with air cover. Either is vulnerable without the other. The tank's job is to break through enemy defenses and allow the infantry to keep advancing on the enemy. The infantry's job is to cover the tank's flanks and rear to keep enemy from sneaking around to take out the tanks with AT missiles .

Tank armor is heaviest in the front, lighter on the sides, even lighter on top, and lightest in the rear. You can't make a tank with the heaviest armor all the way around or it won't be able to manuever or accelerate enough to be effective. It also won't be able to cross bridges or be transported. The Germans found this out to their dismay with the King Tiger in WWII. Their lighter, more manueverable Panther tanks were much more effective.

The real advantage of the Abrams is not it's armor although it is one tough MBT(it's crew's survived direct hits didn't they?). It's the large gun, powerful engine and computerized fire control system. It is very fast, has an extremely long reach and most important can fire very accurately while moving quickly over rough terrain. This makes it able to hit targets hard and effectively while presenting itself as a difficult target if it even gets within the enemy's range.

Like most MBTs, the Abrams likes wide open space. Put this tank in a tight confining area and/or urban combat and you negate many of this tank's advantages.

Agent Z
April 6, 2003, 08:33 PM
I see it also in another light fellows. True we've had a few tanks damaged. one or two beyond repair maybe. But we must keep in mind that despite the fact that they we're hit with 2 charge AT round (that were designed to not only disable a tank but to kill the crew as well) the designers did their jobs well in the fact that not one single person was hurt.

The Abrams was designed to take alot of crap. Even from above. The lessons our designers have learned from this war will in no doubt produce a more extreme battel tank thats near impervious to most anything (except depleted uranium sabots).

God bless The U.S.A
Piss on France!
Piss on Germany
Piss on Turkey
Piss on Canada

My Apologies if the word "piss" is considered to be foul language in this forum.

April 6, 2003, 09:20 PM
reactive armor won't help with the double charge AT weapons....they were designed explicitly to defeat reactive armor.

Tom C.
April 7, 2003, 10:17 AM
The M-1 tank armor will defeat even DU darts. In the last war we shot one of our own tanks by mistake and the DU dart failed to penetrate. We also shot the Iraqi tanks through sand berms, shot two tanks lined up with one shot, etc. Jack in the box. Turret pops up 30 to 50' in the air.
The shoot on the move capability was developed originally for the M-60 tank. The Army wanted to shoot accurately while moving, without stopping to make an accurate shot. Stabilization system developed went into the M-1. Works well. Newer M-1s have digital fire control system. Obviously works well.
In the urban environment, we have started using (practice) bombs filled with concrete to take out tanks, etc, with no colateral damage. A 2000 lb. slug at 500 mph easily penetrates a T-62 or T-72 tank.

April 7, 2003, 10:34 AM
Crew survivability against ATGMs was one of the main priorities when the M1 was designed.

April 7, 2003, 12:16 PM
If I have been following the news correctly, there was one tank crew lost. IIRC, the commander was shot and the M1 actually fell into the river and the crew drowned. The crews of all of the other M1s that were disabled, even the ones hit with the Kornet, got out OK.

Al Thompson
April 7, 2003, 01:56 PM
Anybody have a link for that? I've seen it mentioned, but no source. TIA!

April 7, 2003, 02:06 PM

April 7, 2003, 02:21 PM
Ah, driver not commander. Makes sense now on the reason why it veered off.

Master Blaster
April 7, 2003, 02:53 PM
The tanks best defense is its mobility.

The most vulnerable part is the tracks/ treads, destroy one and the tank cant move, sitting duck without infantry and air support.

April 7, 2003, 04:15 PM
Read in this morning's news where one tank commander took an RPG in the face while in Bagdad. Will post link if I find it again ...

++++++ Here it is:

"An Army staff sergeant was killed and at least six solders wounded during the armored patrol. U.S. forces came under fierce assault by suicide attackers and irregular forces mixed with Republican Guard troops. Most fired AK-47 assault rifles or rocket-propelled grenades. The U.S. soldier died after a rocket-propelled grenade struck him in the face as he stood in the hatch of an Abrams tank."



April 7, 2003, 04:50 PM

THAT has to smart.



Steve in PA
April 7, 2003, 05:33 PM
What a crappy way to go.

I was in a M1 Tank unit (National Guard) for awhile....and those darn TC's sure love to stick their noggins outside the tank alot.

April 7, 2003, 06:22 PM
Is it too hot inside to drive very long with hatches buttoned up? Or is it a visibility thing, the periscopes don't offer enough of a field of view? Can't catch an RPG in the face if your noggin ain't stickin' out of the top of the hatch, right?

April 7, 2003, 06:49 PM
' Saw an interview on the tube with a commander who said the "technical" vehicles (pickup trucks) are indeed one of the more serious threats. Said the problems come when they drive into battle area and a bunch of guys jump out of the back and hide in the bush with RPGs (and/or unmentioned Kornets?).

Bruce H
April 7, 2003, 07:18 PM
No real surprises here. As George Patton said "Anything built by man can be overcome by man".

April 7, 2003, 10:39 PM
Go here for excellent knowledge on the M1 Abrams:


George Hill
April 8, 2003, 06:48 PM
From what I understand, our Tankers are gleening a lot of knowledge from Israeli Tankers... considering they are the only Allies that we have that have been engaging in modern armored warfare. The TC's fight the tanks unbuttoned so they can get a better view and better situational awareness. Unfortunately they suffer a lot of TC casualties. Not many others... just the TC's.
The M-1 is indeed a fantastic machine... but have to admit I favor the Merkava's design. If that tank was just a bit faster - it would be almost perfect.

April 10, 2003, 08:22 PM
Merkava is a fine tank, but our equipment has to be a bit more versatile than what IDF procures.

The IDF doesn't fight from the cold mountains of the Korean DMZ to hot Iraqi desert. Our forces do.

If you enjoyed reading about "M1 Abrams" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!