Abrams

[IRG CommandoJoe]

What can destroy an Abrams? Airstrikes, mortars, heavy artillery, what?

[Pablo Sanchez]

Assuming an M1A1, it can be defeated by a lot of things. A man with a bolt cutter and a knife could beat it, if he magically appeared on top of the tank. More realistically, it can be defeated by a properly managed tank of the same era. It's glacis and turret are a little on the thick side to be penetrated by a Russian 125mm piece at range, but the same cannot be said of its side and rear. You can't simplify a tank battle to a single variable.

[Mr Bean]

Allow me

Fire and Lots of it!

[SWPIGWANG]

enough explosives in the right place

or enough KE in the right place

[Wicked Pilot]

I'm sure that parking your Abrams on an active volcano will result in bad things happening.

[starfury]

I'm sure that parking your Abrams on an active volcano will result in bad things happening

that is for sure, exploding magna can't possibly be good for the tank.

[Wicked Pilot]

I'm sure that parking your Abrams on an active volcano will result in bad things happening

that is for sure, exploding magna can't possibly be good for the tank.

Don't let the Iraqis know that. They might try to use volcanos against us. Either that or men with knives and bolt cutters.

[Mr Bean]

Yes, Those Foolish Americans with their Fancy Tanks

Well we have a SECRET WEAPON!

Yes we will use our POINTY STICKS AND HARD ROCKS TO HURT THEM BADDLY YES!

[SWPIGWANG]

Can M1 be modified to mount weapons like the curved barrel MG42 to shoot people close to the tank?

[Pablo Sanchez]

Don't let the Iraqis know that. They might try to use volcanos against us. Either that or men with knives and bolt cutters.

Too late, their agents have already read this page. They are now diverting all of their scientific efforts to volcano creation, and reequipping the Republic Guard with knives and bolt cutters.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

The Abrams already has two anti-infantry machine guns. The only real vulnerable spots of the tank are the top and bottom. And I'm talking about realistic combat conditions. Sure, some commandos might be able to get close enough to open up the hatch and put bombs in it, but I'm talking about conventional attacks. Again, I'm going to quote from "King of the Killing Zone," by Orr Kelly:

"The result, in the case of the M-1, is a tank with its heaviest armor concentrated in a sixty-degree frontal arc. Protection provided ont he back, sides, top, and bottom, while at least as great as that on the M-60 tank, is less than up front. It is safest for a tanker to have his tank and his gun pointing toward the enemy. And if he has to move away, he backs up until safely hidden by the terrain. This distribution of armor has the advantage, for a commander, of keeping his tanks pointed in the right direction.

The direction the turret is pointing does little, however, to protect the tank from top attack, and this is a matter of growing concern. Since the M-1 was originally designed in the 1970s, there has been dramatic progress in development of new weapons designed to hit the top of the tank, where it is weakest. In one system an unmanned drone aircraft flies over a tank formation and drops scores of bomblets. Each little bomb contains a sensor that guides it to the top of a tank. In another system a hidden soldier sends a missle over the battlefield and then looks througha fiber optic filament that connects him to the missile. When he sees a tank, he sends the missile crashing into its top.

The M-1, like all tanks, is also vulnerable to mines, striking from below, and new methods of planting mines-by artillery and aircraft-assure that battlefields of the future will be liberally sown with these deadly devices."

I think this is what prompted the U.S. to focus on air superiority. For example, in Iraq, we destroyed all of their aircraft before we sent in the ground forces. So the Iraqis only had their ground forces left to use against our Abrams tanks. What I'm wondering is how our Abrams will do in Iraq the second time around now that there will be different combat conditions. I wonder if Iraqi forces will have and use weapons that could destroy an Abrams.

[Enlightenment]

k-kills:

Russian 125mm APFSDS rounds from the sides or rear.

Current-generation ATGM from the sides or rear.

Top attack ATGM from any aspect.

Direct hit from 155mm artillery

Direct hit from 500lbs or larger precision guided munition

Overhead hit from 30mm cannon.

Properly placed satchel charge (probably).

Very large antitank mines or prepared explosive boobytraps



Mission kill from being caught in a barrage of antiarmor submunitions (MRLS DPICM et el).

Mobility kill from normal antitank mine.

Mobility kill by 20mm+ cannon fire or small ATGM into the tracks

[TrailerParkJawa]

Of course an M-1 can be killed by another M-1. I would assume the Brits latest tanks is comparable.

In Iraq the big problem was that Iraqi tanks could not see the Abrams at the ranges the Abrams could detect and destroy the Iraqi's.

In close range fighting, a lot of modern tanks can probably take out an Abrams. Mabye not in the dead front, but the sides for sure.

Mines, of course can kill Abrams, or at the least make for a mobility kill.

Never forget that proper crew training and employment can overcome technical deficiencies.

If there is a second war in the Gulf I dont think the Iraqi's are going to have much in the way of new weapons. They will probably try different tactics. ie) city fighting.

[Vympel]

Modern Russian APFSDS 125mm rounds would pose as much as a danger to an M1 Abrams as any other modern tank gun would. Iraqi 125mm rounds didn't pose much of a danger at all- considering they didn't even have any tungsten (despite popular belief, DU is not magic and tungsten can be just as effective).

The simple fact of the matter is you take any modern tank:

- M1A2
- Leopard 2A5
- Challenger 2
- LeClerc
- T-72BM
- T-80U series
- T-90 series

and you will find that they can shrug off their opponents rounds along the frontal arc at range. In the case of the Russian tanks the ability of heavy ERA (known as Kontakts-5) to stop KE as well as HEAT weapons was proven by US Army tests in 1997, and reported by Janes.

It has very little to do with the size of the gun and the thickness of the armor. What it DOES have to do with is TACTICS, and the quantity and quality of opposing enemy forces.

Set up some 100mm MT-12 anti-tank guns in a clever spot and you could kill an M1.

Take a late-WW2 occurence in Prussia on the Eastern Front: a lowly T-34/85 managed to ambush FOUR Tiger II tanks and put a round through the side of each one.

[MKSheppard]

AHAHAHHAHAHAH

Yeah right, and a 120mm DU round fired from an Abrams
at a bogged down Abrams to destroy it...couldn't penetrate
it POINT BLANK in the REAR........

what makes you think shitty soviet guns will be able to kill it
when the M1's own gun couldn't do it?

[Enlightenment]

Yeah right, and a 120mm DU round fired from an Abrams
at a bogged down Abrams to destroy it...

If you're talking about the incident I think you are, then that was a 120mm HEAT round fired into the turret. The overall effect was, as you say, minimal.

An APFSDS round would have been another matter entirely.

[Pablo Sanchez]

If you're talking about the incident I think you are, then that was a 120mm HEAT round fired into the turret. The overall effect was, as you say, minimal.

And for HEAT, range doesn't matter except for accuracy.

An APFSDS round would have been another matter entirely.

IIRC, one of the prime objectives in the design of Chobham armor was to minimize the effectiveness of HEAT weapons.

If the M1A1 had thick enough armor to resist point-blank 120mm APFSDS hits on a 360 degree aspect, it would be effectively immobile. It would make the Maus look like a Pz-II. Don't pull a Manji, Shep.

As for relative toughness, the M1 is definitely one of the toughest tanks around. This means nothing against top-attack munitions, but it's still noteworthy. Then come the latest British and French models, and I'd rank the Russian tanks at the bottom. ERA can only take it so far...

[Azeron]

If the Abrams used a layer of depleted Uranium incorporated into ints chobbam armour, than every other tank on the planet would not be able to directly destroy the abrams, since every other army on the planet uses tungsten rounds instead of the more dense, deadly and effective DU round that american tanks use. As for Next Generation armour. They have been working on a new armour type that can make all current rpgs usless against armour, even light. Basically wha tthey do is use an EM field to send the molten copper away from the armour itself. That will greatly enhance or in ctiy fighting capacity when we can get the heavy armour in there without having to worry about handheld munitions. The prototype they have working seems to leave nothing but singe marks on the paint job. they expect to incorporate such technology in every armour vechile deisgn in 5 - 7 years.

[Akm72]

If the Abrams used a layer of depleted Uranium incorporated into ints chobbam armour,...

It does.

...than every other tank on the planet would not be able to directly destroy the abrams, since every other army on the planet uses tungsten rounds instead of the more dense, deadly and effective DU round that american tanks use.

The British army uses DU rounds as well. But a heavy/fast enough tungusten penetrator could go through DU armour anyway.

[phongn]

If the Abrams used a layer of depleted Uranium incorporated into ints chobbam armour, than every other tank on the planet would not be able to directly destroy the abrams, since every other army on the planet uses tungsten rounds instead of the more dense, deadly and effective DU round that american tanks use.

The M1A1 HA introduced a depleyed uranium mesh in the front to improve its survivability against APFSDS rounds. Various other nations have adopted it as well, though the M1A2 SEP is no longer the most heavily armored tank in the world (L2A6 and C2 have better armor).

Furthermore, while DU rounds are more effective than W rounds, the difference isn't as great as you say. It is slightly less dense than tungsten, but has properties such as self-sharpening which help in penetration.

As for Next Generation armour. They have been working on a new armour type that can make all current rpgs usless against armour, even light. Basically wha tthey do is use an EM field to send the molten copper away from the armour itself.

Not an EM field, just electrical current. When the molten copper slug penetrates the outer skin, it encounters a strong electrical current, vaporizing the slug.

[Admiral Piett]

If the Abrams used a layer of depleted Uranium incorporated into ints chobbam armour, than every other tank on the planet would not be able to directly destroy the abrams, since every other army on the planet uses tungsten rounds instead of the more dense, deadly and effective DU round that american tanks use. As for Next Generation armour. They have been working on a new armour type that can make all current rpgs usless against armour, even light. Basically wha tthey do is use an EM field to send the molten copper away from the armour itself. That will greatly enhance or in ctiy fighting capacity when we can get the heavy armour in there without having to worry about handheld munitions. The prototype they have working seems to leave nothing but singe marks on the paint job. they expect to incorporate such technology in every armour vechile deisgn in 5 - 7 years.

The Chobbam armour protects only the front,a 60° front if I recall correctly.Any attempt to protect the tank on 360° will result in something similar to a Maus,as it has already been said.And the experimental armour you are describing is still a long way off.They have taken ten years to reduce the size of the capacitors necessary for a electromagnetic gun from a warehouse dimension to something that could fit in a vehicle,so do not believe that practical application of this type of stuff are behind the corner.Currently it is only at the lab level.
Stopping a M1A2 is difficult but not impossible:side an rear hits from others tanks,last generation antitank missile on the front,mines,sneaky attacks etc.

[Sea Skimmer]

If the Abrams used a layer of depleted Uranium incorporated into ints chobbam armour, than every other tank on the planet would not be able to directly destroy the abrams, since every other army on the planet uses tungsten rounds instead of the more dense, deadly and effective DU round that american tanks use. As for Next Generation armour. They have been working on a new armour type that can make all current rpgs usless against armour, even light. Basically wha tthey do is use an EM field to send the molten copper away from the armour itself. That will greatly enhance or in ctiy fighting capacity when we can get the heavy armour in there without having to worry about handheld munitions. The prototype they have working seems to leave nothing but singe marks on the paint job. they expect to incorporate such technology in every armour vechile deisgn in 5 - 7 years.

The Chobbam armour protects only the front,a 60° front if I recall correctly.Any attempt to protect the tank on 360° will result in something similar to a Maus,as it has already been said.And the experimental armour you are describing is still a long way off.They have taken ten years to reduce the size of the capacitors necessary for a electromagnetic gun from a warehouse dimension to something that could fit in a vehicle,so do not believe that practical application of this type of stuff are behind the corner.Currently it is only at the lab level.
Stopping a M1A2 is difficult but not impossible:side an rear hits from others tanks,last generation antitank missile on the front,mines,sneaky attacks etc.

IIRC, the frontal arc is the only area to have the full armor thickness, however the turrets sides have half as much Chobbam on them. The rear of the turret and sides of the hull have none.

[Oberleutnant]

Various other nations have adopted it as well, though the M1A2 SEP is no longer the most heavily armored tank in the world (L2A6 and C2 have better armor).

Leopard 2(S) is actually the most heavily armoured Leo 2. What makes 2A6 different from 2A5, is the new main gun and few minor improvements, but the armour protection is the same on those two.

[Alyeska]

This is a story of a Brave little M1A1 that got stuck in the mud in Desert Storm.

During a dark and stormy night (not really) a group of M1A1s were travling and one gets bogged down in the mud. The rest of the tanks decide to move on (Sorry charlie, but they got Beer back at the base!). This lone tank calls for the tow truck (We will be there in 30 minutes or its free or charge!). As it is waiting 3 Iraqui T-72s appear in range (Gee Frank, is that an American tank? Lets go hug it!). The first tank fires, hits the M1A1. (Hey!). The M1A1 did not like this, it returns fire killing the T-72 (OUCH!). Second T-72 fires and hits the M1A1. (Stop annoying me!). The M1A1 returns fire killing the T-72. Third T-72 fires then tries running behind a sand dune. M1A1 is hit, uses thermal vission and sees the T-72 through the sand. Fires through the sand killing the T-72. Now the M1A1 is screaming for support. The tow trucks show up (hey, nice car) with escorting tanks. The trucks can't get the tank out (Gee, you really rutted in didn't you?). So they decide to "scuttle" the tank. First M1A1 fires, nothing. Second M1A1 fires, nothing.

Ok, this brave little Abrams has now been shot 5 times and none of the rounds have penetrated the armor. The 3rd M1A1 fires and manages a lucky angled shot that penetrates the ammo box. The Ammo Box explodes, up and out the explossion hatch while the fire supression system puts the fire out. 2 more tow trucks show up, move the tank out. Crew gets back in the "scuttled" tank and drive it back to base. At base they replace the turret and continue on in the war.

A total of 3 M1A1s were lost in Desert Storm (not including this one), all three to friendly fire.

[Sea Skimmer]

This is a story of a Brave little M1A1 that got stuck in the mud in Desert Storm.

During a dark and stormy night (not really) a group of M1A1s were travling and one gets bogged down in the mud. The rest of the tanks decide to move on (Sorry charlie, but they got Beer back at the base!). This lone tank calls for the tow truck (We will be there in 30 minutes or its free or charge!). As it is waiting 3 Iraqui T-72s appear in range (Gee Frank, is that an American tank? Lets go hug it!). The first tank fires, hits the M1A1. (Hey!). The M1A1 did not like this, it returns fire killing the T-72 (OUCH!). Second T-72 fires and hits the M1A1. (Stop annoying me!). The M1A1 returns fire killing the T-72. Third T-72 fires then tries running behind a sand dune. M1A1 is hit, uses thermal vission and sees the T-72 through the sand. Fires through the sand killing the T-72. Now the M1A1 is screaming for support. The tow trucks show up (hey, nice car) with escorting tanks. The trucks can't get the tank out (Gee, you really rutted in didn't you?). So they decide to "scuttle" the tank. First M1A1 fires, nothing. Second M1A1 fires, nothing.

Ok, this brave little Abrams has now been shot 5 times and none of the rounds have penetrated the armor. The 3rd M1A1 fires and manages a lucky angled shot that penetrates the ammo box. The Ammo Box explodes, up and out the explossion hatch while the fire supression system puts the fire out. 2 more tow trucks show up, move the tank out. Crew gets back in the "scuttled" tank and drive it back to base. At base they replace the turret and continue on in the war.

A total of 3 M1A1s were lost in Desert Storm (not including this one), all three to friendly fire.

Just to be clear, the M1A1's Thermal sighting cant actually see through sand. The crew aimed by watching the heat plum drifting above the dune from the T-72's engine.

I believe two of the friendly fire M1A1 where lost to Hellfire's hitting the engine deck, but I don’t know what got the third one. Anyone know?