Originally Posted by mmarsh

I think the role of the tank will change. If Iraq proved anything, it proved that even the best MBT like the Abrams can be destroyed by the simplest of ways, such as strapping 2 155mm shells together, and attaching a detonator.

I would like to see a source for this as well please.
A direct hit of a 155mm shell may disable a tank, but just detonating one or two sounds a bit unlikely to me (unless you're very (un)lucky)...

Originally Posted by Redleg

I would like to see a source for this as well please.
A direct hit of a 155mm shell may disable a tank, but just detonating one or two sounds a bit unlikely to me (unless you're very (un)lucky)...

As requested by REDLEG and BULLDOGG. 3 Sources provided.



^^^^^^^^^^^^
http://www.pbase.com/bander/image/61666698

This is Jon's tank after it hit an IED in the summer of 2005. He was not in the tank at the time, and his crew got out safely. They had hit other mines without serious damage, especially in 2003-2004 when they were in Anbar Province. The insurgents started to "daisy-chain" artillery shells together and that's what purportedly destroyed this Abrams. The fuel cell was ruptured and the tank was incinerated. I gave Jon a Canon 510 before he left for this second tour and he had a buddy snap this shot.


And another Link from another incident...


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...10/85616.shtml

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- A roadside bomb destroyed a U.S. battle tank patrolling southwestern Baghdad on Monday, killing two American soldiers and wounding four others, the military said.

The blast destroyed the Abrams tank, the military said, suggesting that the bomb was enormous. The Abrams is one of the heaviest armored vehicles in the U.S. arsenal.



VIDEO OF ABRAMS BEING DISABLED/DESTROYED by IED (cannot tell for sure, but you can see big chunks of debris flying off so the damage was likely extensive).


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5e3_1176013329

I seem to recall some threads on tanknet (I think) debating whether a tank can be classified as "destroyed" or not as some people think that as long as the tank can be repaired it cannot be classed as destroyed, whereas others say destroyed can be understood as being unavailable for a few months.

Either way, theres always gonna be arguments on what counts on being destroyed etc, probably best to be more specific about the damage done to a tank, how long it takes to repair, whether it has to be repaired in another theatre etc.

Main thing is that the crewmen in the buggered abrams got out safely

(link to tanknet thread)
http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=18894

Thanks MMarsh and fair comment from you Jequirity. On this subject, ie "destroyed" tanks, I usually defer to the DoD. I was in a heavy maintenance battalion so I've spent more than a few hours up close and personal with this beast. I would like to ferret out how many arty shells they daisy chained to take this baby out.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

Dean, I don't see where there was a "fire in the fighting compartment". Can you enlighten me as to where you are reading that?

Bulldogg quoted:
On December 25, 2005 another M1A2 was disabled by a roadside bomb that left the tank burning near central Baghdad. One crew member, Spc. Sergio Gudino, died in the attack.

Perhaps I am wrong, but the only way for the crewman to be dead and the tank burning is if the armour had been breached. Now, there is a possibility that the fuel tank was burning and that the crewman was killed by the concussive effects of the IED, but either way, the tank was burning and out of action.

You also quoted:
On June 4, 2006 two out of four soldiers died in Baghdad, Iraq, when an IED detonated near their M1A2.

Again, if the two men were tank crewmen, (as is implied) then the only real possibility that I can see for 2 dead crewmen is that the armour was breached. In addition, due to the fact that three of the four crewmen are stationed in the fighting compartment, logic seems to dictate that the IED breached the fighting compartment, killing the two men inside. The other was probably saved by the anti-spall liner.

Again, dead crew, breached tank, it is also out of action for the time being.

The M-1 is a good tank. But keep in mind that no tank is invincible, and no tank can stand up to an enemy that has access to semi sophisticated weapons and a bit too much time. The Israelis found that out long before the Lebanon war when a Merkava ran over three heavy antitank mines that had been stacked one on top of the other. It killed 3 of the 4 crewmen and gutted the tank, as well as flipping it right over. Many people consider it the best protected tank in the world. But it, as well as the M-1, the Leo 2 or other tank can be defeated. Both the Iraqis and Hezbollah have proven that.

Dean.

As requested by REDLEG and BULLDOGG. 3 Sources provided.

Thanks, but I really can't see anywhere in those sources that an Abrams was destryed by just two art shells.
Several together might do the trick but just two shouldn't do that kind of damage, unless you're very "lucky"....

Originally Posted by Redleg

Thanks, but I really can't see anywhere in those sources that an Abrams was destryed by just two art shells.
Several together might do the trick but just two shouldn't do that kind of damage, unless you're very "lucky"....

I should clarify myself. My point was merely to state that arty shells were being jury rigged to destroy tanks, I did not actually mean to comment on the specific amount of explosives needed to do so. On that point, I readily concede that your are much more knowledgeable than I, so I wont even try to dispute you.

The reason I said "2" was because I had read a description of the typical type of IAD they were finding in Iraq consisted of arty shells (often 2x155mm shells bound with duct tape and a simple detonator) and that these type of contraptions had resulted in the destruction/disabling of several Abrams.

Whether specifically two shells were used in the destruction of the Abrams I cannot say for sure. I defer that to the experts, although the fact that the terrorists are daisy chaining explosives would imply that more that 2 explosive devices are being used.

Details are important..

Originally Posted by Dean

Perhaps I am wrong, but the only way for the crewman to be dead and the tank burning is if the armour had been breached.

Again, if the two men were tank crewmen, (as is implied) then the only real possibility that I can see for 2 dead crewmen is that the armour was breached.

Thank you for clarifying your line of reasoning Dean.

Here is the more probable scenario...

Armour was not breached, they weren't buttoned up.

The driver and the commander have the option to be exposed for greater field of vision, essential in an urban environment. This also exposes their head and upper torso to blasts and small arms fire.

Another important fact..
In Bosnia our peacekeepers found that when hit by an AT missile, such as the (AT3 Sagger) and the RSV burned through, the only thing that saved the troops and crew was that they were "buttoned up" as the RSV had somewhere to go and leave the inside of the vehicle.
This would also be aplicable to the Stryker and the Bradly I would imagine.
The Abrams might be built to take a direct hit by a sagger?

As stated by BD before though, the better vantage point up top is very important in urban inviroments and is SOP, atleast in our Armour units.