| |
| | Post 61 | |
| U of B and B Alumnus | Quote:
I'd say as a former Engineer that I could disable even an M1 with a single 155mm Shell used as an Improvised Mine, but I've never done it. Redleg, I'll shoot you a PM as to the how, I wouldn't want to give any bad people any ideas (as if they needed any help).
__________________ Last edited by Gator; May 21st, 2007 at 16:43. Reason: Added note to Redleg. | |
| |
| | Post 62 | |
| The fire is everything... ![]() | Quote:
![]() I could certainly see a couple of ways to disable/immobilize an Abrams by using a single M107 as an IED as well. | |
| |
| | Post 63 |
| Primus Pilus | There is no SOP for building an IED. They use whatever they can find.
__________________ Infantry leads...... |
| |
| | Post 64 |
| Optio | Post; Disabled vs. DestroyedIt seems that one point is being missed in this whole debate--the crew! Sure, an Abrams can be destroyed, name one military vehicle that can't be destroyed. An Abrams can be disabled with a hand grenade if you know what you're doing. Depending on where you look, the estimate of destroyed Abrams in Iraq ranges from 20 to over 200. But look at the pictures of these "destroyed" tanks(some more here Favourite tank). Notice that the gun tube is usually over the back deck. That is a standard crew drill for bailing out of the tank, it gives the driver an alternate escape route through the turret. The damage couldn't have been that bad if they had time to traverse the turret around to the back. In mmarsh's picture, that tank's main gun ammo ready rack exploded(that twisted piece of metal on the back is the rest of it) but the crew got out safely. With over 8,000 Abrams series tanks in the US arsenal(http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...d/m1-intro.htm), replacing a tank isn't much of a problem. It's a lot harder to replace a highly trained and proficient crew. The most important part of a tank is it's crew, and if they get out, it doesn't matter how bad the tank is damaged. The terrorists may get some good footage of a tank blowing up for their propaganda videos, but they'll have another Abrams knocking at their door with a pissed-off crew as soon as a replacement tank arrives. And a crew that has faith in the survivability of his equipment is a very powerful weapon. |
| |
| | Post 65 | |
| Centurion | Quote:
Dean. | |
| |
| | Post 66 | |
| Tribuni Angusticlavii | Quote:
Just to clairify. The M1 Abrams main focus when being concived aside from blowing up lots of USSR tanks, was crew survivability, exactly what you explaining. Exactly why it has an ejecting ammo rack, why it has a Halon system, why it has 18in (speculated) of frontal armor, why the Abrams has numerous backup systems. There is one thing more valuable to the Us Army Armor Corps than it's tanks, and thats its crews. The reason the Us only has 8,000 M1's and the number remains the same is that every M1 was built to be rebuilt. Oh, BTW 8,000 is not how many are being used, just what the US has produced. There are 2,000 IPM1's sitting on Ft.Knox rusting away waiting for upgrading.
__________________ F.O. Seaman CAP/USAFAUX DoA/DHS Administration Officer Golden Armor Composite Squadron, 15077 Fort Knox, Kentucky 40121 ![]() | |
| |
| | Post 67 | |
| Optio | Quote:
Last edited by Pale Rider; December 24th, 2007 at 20:33. | |
| |
| | Post 68 | |
| Milforum Moderator ![]() | Quote:
__________________ The only people I like besides my wife and children are MARINES. Col. Oliver North USMC | |
| |
| | Post 69 |
| Tribuni Angusticlavii |
__________________ LeEnfield Rides again |
| |
| | Post 70 | |
| Optio | Quote:
Last edited by Pale Rider; December 24th, 2007 at 20:33. | |
| |