The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 20, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest
Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Armor Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: M1 battle damage
Artfull-Bodger    9/18/2004 5:08:00 PM
just been on tanknet and been reading a web site , im not going to comment yet have a look and see what you think,
posted 16 Sep 2004 18:00 Log:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I found parts of these two articles to be interesting but its a little annoying to read because the author is trying to prove that the M1 is a bad tank.
link
link


 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2
Gunther    RE:M1 battle damage   9/21/2004 5:08:04 AM
Russian wishful thinking. There still smarting from the Caucuses and want to play mines bigger than yours. We all now the M1 isn't invonrable, but what would you choose to ride in Iraq. The Abrams, or the T-80? Russian armour was chewed up in Chechnya, far worse the US forces in Iraq, even during the worst of OIF. So that doesn't bode well for the survibabilty of Russian armour. Though a suspect crew training has a lot to do with there poor performance. Has anyone got any information on how the T-80s faired in Chechnya? Anyone read Devil Dogs? The account of the Marine 1st Recon in OIF. There's an account in the book of a AT-4 hit on a Iraqi T-72, massive secondary explosions and the turret flew 100 Meter into the Air. Also most of the pictures of knock out tanks show signs of secondary hits. So they appear to have been disabled by American forces, either by other M1s, the engineers or the Airforce.
 
Quote    Reply

MikkoLn    RE:M1 battle damage   9/21/2004 7:12:03 AM
Well the goal seems painfully obvious, but to the name of fairness, I must say that some writings from US authorities or individuals look just the same, only opposite of those shown here. For me, neither of them is a reading I?m looking with a smile in my face. However, all really enthusiastic other end guys should in my opinion have a look of these kind of sites too, to get a better and wider viewpoint basis for their own opinion and knowledge.
 
Quote    Reply

Artfull-Bodger    RE:M1 battle damage   9/21/2004 4:04:16 PM
evryones entitled to thier won point of view, only thing that bothers me about this is the total lack of understanding of the technical details which destroys any credibility that might have existed! would any of our US military colleagues like to pick out the glaring errors in the text?
 
Quote    Reply

joe6pack    RE:M1 battle damage   9/21/2004 4:43:22 PM
"total lack of understanding of the technical details" Well, not being an expert.. But I think it would lend them some credibility if they mentioned that "disabled" (not destroyed) tanks are occasionaly destroyed by their crew if it looks like the tank may fall into enemy hands. I'd geuss that process probably often has something to do with opening up the ammo compartment and tossing something that goes boom into the turret.. Or has been mentioned call on the airforce or another M1 to finish the job. Anyone that goes on about how the US "army" thinks of M1's as being invulnerable, clearly doesn't have a clue.
 
Quote    Reply

boris the romanian    RE:M1 battle damage   9/21/2004 9:24:28 PM
I have a question. It is most probably mike_golf that can answer it but any of you guys can have a go. In GW1 a T-72 managed to penetrate an M1A1 with 3BM-9 or (unlikely seeing as they were in short supply) 3BM-15. It set off the ammunition but the armoured bulkhead saved the crew (and the T-72 was promptly knocked out as the M1A1 had a round left in its gun). What would have happened if the Abrams was penetrated in the same place by 3BM-32. The Iraqis certainly didn't have this DU penetrator but I would like to know if the blow-off panels would have worked with the same effectiveness in the face of the much more sinister heat generated by the pyrophoric DU sabot...
 
Quote    Reply

tankerman    RE:M1 battle damage   9/23/2004 8:15:19 AM
Ill say one thing, our M1 series of tanks are not invincable by any means. joe6pack mentioned about how alot of the abrahms we see destroyed on tv were destroyed by their own crew. thats absolutly right. thermite grenades do the trick quite well. but remember even if the engine is taken out on the abrahms, even if the auxilary hydrolic pump is out, we are still deadly because the tank can still fire main gun rounds and the 240 can be dimounted with a kit. alot of people still believe the warsaw pact myths about how we operate and how our equipment is. they really dont have a clue.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:M1 battle damage - Boris   9/24/2004 12:40:49 AM
Boris wrote: "I have a question. It is most probably mike_golf that can answer it but any of you guys can have a go." Boris, the pyrophoric effects should not make any difference in the proper functioning of the blow off panels. Remember that, theoretically and during proving grounds testing, the blow off panels work whether the tank is hit by a KE or CE round. A TOW missile would create the same sort of heat effects during penetration.
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:M1 battle damage   9/24/2004 1:01:05 AM
The article: "The Coalition tanks also had a considerable advantage in firepower and protection. The powerful 120mm guns of Abrams and Challenger tanks using armor-piercing sub-caliber projectiles with depleted uranium core are capable of piercing the front armor of T-72M at the distance of 2,500 m, and T-55 and T-62 ? at up to 3,500 m." I personally engaged and destroyed a T-72M at a range in excess of 3000 m. Hmmmmmm. The article: "Considering the width of Iraqi roads, a roadside bomb capable of blowing off a 19-ton turret should probably be made of a 500kg air bomb. Obviously, this turret was removed by detonated ammunition." This is not possible and shows a clear misunderstanding of the interior design of the M1. The tank carries 40 rounds, 34 rounds in the turret ammo compartment and 6 in two hull compartments. The two hull compartments are armored and designed to transmit the blast away from the turret. First, those 6 rounds, even they are HEAT rounds, don't have enough explosives to tear the turret off. Second, the storage is designed to direct the explosion away from the turret. Hmmmmmmm The article: "In fact, only 40% of the ammunition load in this tank is stored in the turret protected with blowout covers, while the remaining shells are kept in the hull, like in other tanks. A partially combustible shell-case causes high fire risk with further detonation leading to blowing off the turret." 6 rounds in the hull only makes up 15% of the ammo load out. The magnesium casing, in the conditions in the M1 turret, cannot explode, although they could burn. The article: "In many of the destroyed Abrams tanks hit by RPG-7 AT grenade launchers in the side the hollow-charge projectile protection screens were pierced even by PG-7V grenades" I'm only aware of one M1 that was penetrated by an RPG, and that was a very lucky shot on the flank in a location where the armor is only RHA. The other tanks lost in combat in 3ID were, I believe, disabled mobility kills that were then destroyed in place by the crew. Tankerman can correct me if I'm wrong. Hmmmmmm. The article: "Which will make this overweight tank even heavier. Even two additional tons will reduce the cross-country ability of M1A2 to zero." Uhhhh, come again? The M1A1B-HA and M1A2 weigh nearly the same. We somehow managed to manuever offroad in Iraq just fine. In fact, the vast majority of our manuever was on goat trails and cross country. Hmmmmmmm
 
Quote    Reply

Artfull-Bodger    RE:M1 battle damage, Mike golf   9/24/2004 8:07:37 AM
Lmao, I found the article rather amusing Mike, since when has abrams needed the APU to keep the systems going while the engine is running? I followed a few links and found some other great posts along similar lines , one had a photo of a "destroyed" challenger on it, the challenger was so destroyed the crew were changing the tracks lol! now I know we all suffer from a degree of national pride (just look at the best tanks thread) but I really wish people would keep a sense of perspective!!!
 
Quote    Reply

tankerman    RE:M1 battle damage   9/24/2004 8:08:01 AM
well, I do remember hearing about 2. we all heard about the one with the little hole in the #3 skirt on the right side. well we know how the govt likes to hide things, it kinda looked like a 25mm round. They are DU rounds on the bradley. I dont know much about the other tank but I believe it was in 3-7 cav. Even with some of the mobility losses alot of them were not even from the enemy. sometimes if they are broke beyond repair in the battlefield, you get rid of the tank. One in my company got stuck in a ditch and couldnt get it out even with 2 tanks pulling.
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    RE:M1 battle damage   9/24/2004 8:21:25 AM
Tankerman subtly brings up a great point which I think has been lost on a few posters to these boards. Here we are discussing battle damage to specific tank amongts hundreds of tanks used in a campaign where the Allied force went 700 km in 4 weeks. We are hearing people complaining about a tank which had a battle loss of less than 1 percent!!! What was the battle loss percentage of T-72s? As a great tanker friend of mine would say Hmmmmmm
 
Quote    Reply

mike_golf    RE:M1 battle damage   9/27/2004 12:21:19 AM
The article: "Which will make this overweight tank even heavier. Even two additional tons will reduce the cross-country ability of M1A2 to zero." Me: "Uhhhh, come again? The M1A1B-HA and M1A2 weigh nearly the same. We somehow managed to manuever offroad in Iraq just fine. In fact, the vast majority of our manuever was on goat trails and cross country. Hmmmmmm" I forgot to mention that my company regularly manuevered M1-IP, M1A1B-HA and M1A1C-HA off road and cross country at Fort Stewart, GA. The M1A1C weighs 68 short tons combat loaded, only 1 ton less than the M1A2. Fort Stewart is reknowned for its very swampy, difficult to manuever terrain. Hmmmmmmm.
 
Quote    Reply

tankerman    RE:M1 battle damage   9/27/2004 12:01:13 PM
I can verify the swampiness. if you have a good driver, you wont get stuck. weight doesnt matter as much
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    RE:M1 battle damage-Tankerman   9/27/2004 12:54:54 PM
Vivid memory...Fort Stewart 128 just past the 3 bridges towards RT 119...January 1987...my rifle company is huddles up behind some M1s, trying to thaw out after conducting a dismounted attack through the swamp.....I am shivering thinking about it!
 
Quote    Reply

The commander    RE:M1 battle damage-Tankerman   9/27/2004 3:00:44 PM
Wait what about ground pressure that what really matters right?
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy