We Aussies are about to replace our Leopard AS1 tanks with the American Abrams tank. Is it true though, that the Abrams tank has lots of weak spots, and these are being exploited by Iraqi insurgents who have claimed a few Ab tanks with just small armaments?

I have seen on the TV news shots of an Abrams taken out with an RPG.

Originally Posted by Padre

We Aussies are about to replace our Leopard AS1 tanks with the American Abrams tank. Is it true though, that the Abrams tank has lots of weak spots, and these are being exploited by Iraqi insurgents who have claimed a few Ab tanks with just small armaments?

Like where? The engine on any tank is a weak spot, the roof on any tank is a weak spot, the underbelly on every tank is weak.

No Abrams has been totally taken out, maybe damaged or disabled but not destroyed.

They claim that the left side of the turret is weak, but thats only because the NBC system takes up some room in the armor. It's just as thick and protecting.

I give you a few reasons why your military might have picked the Abrams,

Speed: 45MPH (Governed)

Top Speed: 60MPH (Not Governed)

Engine: Avco-Lycoming AGT 1500HP Multi-Fuel Turbine

Acceleration (0-20MPH): 7 seconds

Power to Weight Ratio: 25HP/Ton

Cruising Range: 375 miles

Main Armerment: M256 120mm Smoothbore

Main Armerements Range: 2.8 miles

Secondary Amerments:M240 7.62mm coaxial, M240 7.62mm on skate mount, M2 .50cal on skate mount

Armor: Chobham with Depleted Uranium

Fuel Capacity: 498 gal

TIS: 2nd Generation FLIR


Quoting from www.globalsecurity.org

During the Gulf War only 18 Abrams tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage: nine were permanent losses, and another nine suffered repairable damage, mostly from mines. Not a single Abrams crewman was lost in the conflict. There were few reports of mechanical failure. US armor commanders maintained an unprecedented 90% operational readiness for their Abrams Main Battle Tanks.

the only weak spot that I have heard of is the exhaust pipes. If an RPG hits the end of the pipe and slides up it before it blows, you can destroy the engine. The ammo has blow out plates so it the ammo burns, the gas is not exhausted into the turret, therefore the crew is uninjured. This happened a few times, In Iraq this time, the worst trouble has been tanks sliding into canals and sinking. the only tank lost in the first gulf war was the crew's fault. The m-1 pulled up besides a burning Iraqi tank and the thing blew up setting our tank on fire. dumb.

Originally Posted by masterblaster

the only weak spot that I have heard of is the exhaust pipes. If an RPG hits the end of the pipe and slides up it before it blows, you can destroy the engine. The ammo has blow out plates so it the ammo burns, the gas is not exhausted into the turret, therefore the crew is uninjured. This happened a few times, In Iraq this time, the worst trouble has been tanks sliding into canals and sinking. the only tank lost in the first gulf war was the crew's fault. The m-1 pulled up besides a burning Iraqi tank and the thing blew up setting our tank on fire. dumb.

Nope. Nine where destroyed, all by mines. The M1 has an armored ammo stowage compartment with blow-off panels in the rear of the turret, the ammo is ejected out of the tank, and the explosion is vented, a Halon system is then activated to extingish any remaining fires.



Now I don't know where you got the exhaust pipes from, the M1 doesn't have pipes, it has a grill. I don't think any U.S. tank has had exhaust pipes, they usually have exhaust vent grills.

I'm still repairing a few CITV Gen 1 systems so there are a lot still in the field. The Marines have quite a few Gen 1s in their M1 s. I don't think there is enough improvement in the display to justify the cost of converting to Gen 2. Plus Gen 1 is more hardened than 2. But to the point, if there were many weak spots, there would have been more killed than has been.

The Abrams is good but value for the money I am surprised that Aus did not follow India's lead with purchasing the T-90. As of yet there is still no ATGM capability for the Abrams and its a tad more expensive. I am sure this purchase was more than nominally influenced by political pressure to help prop economies up amongst allies. Nothing wrong in that I suppose. I would like to see the T-90 get battle tested so there can be a better source of comparison between it and its American brother.

I like the abrams a lot but I like the Challenger 2 the best.

As an Australian, i would think it would be awesome to be a crewman for an M1abram MBT. I would feel safe inside it for sure.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

The Abrams is good but value for the money I am surprised that Aus did not follow India's lead with purchasing the T-90. As of yet there is still no ATGM capability for the Abrams and its a tad more expensive. I am sure this purchase was more than nominally influenced by political pressure to help prop economies up amongst allies. Nothing wrong in that I suppose. I would like to see the T-90 get battle tested so there can be a better source of comparison between it and its American brother.

Do you mean ATGM defenses or an ATGM sytem on the tank?

If the later, why put an ATGM system on a tank thats range is 2.6 miles?

Now if you mean defenses, the USMC has an Electronic Jamming System on their M1A1's that leads the missile away from the tank.