80 M1's destroyed in Iraq

AlexKall - at least in our American culture it makes all the difference in the world if the tank was just knocked out and the crew survived or if the crew was killed and the tank destroyed. Our robust economy can afford to buy a few more tanks but it can't afford to lose many of the top-trained tank crews who've spent more time with their vehicles than most Americans do in any one civilian job.

Knightraptor - It is my understanding that every M1 damaged or destroyed in Iraq has been recovered and either repaired or sent back to America to be scrapped. The 80 number seems to refer to the 80 tanks that where demed unrepairable.
 
TBA Paki - I agree with you 100% and I've said for the past 6 years that the millitary has not been effectively planning for MOUT warfare. The Army has been training the infantry for MOUT but when it comes to the armor and IFVs it seems that instead of adapting the force for the job they've just been hopeing they wouldn't have to put the square peg in the round hole.

I really really think we need a medium or light battle tank that is better suited to the 360 degree close-quarters restricted-mobility field of battle.
 
Something like a tunguska, armed with a light cannon or rockets and 20mm-30mm guns would do the trick in the urban environment i think. It needs to be able to fire at the highest roof tops to things that are only a couple of metres in front of it. ;)
 
I agree with Whispering Death that we need a vehicle especially made for city fighting not only that but infantry with heavy or powered armor if thats posible. And also its the armor crews that are really important, the difference between veteran and recruit is alot.

But I also heard rumors that a new Russian anit-tank weapons was being used by the insurgents that why so many tanks were knocked out. It propbably given to them to test it, anyone heard anything about this?
 
Knightraptor - It is my understanding that every M1 damaged or destroyed in Iraq has been recovered and either repaired or sent back to America to be scrapped. The 80 number seems to refer to the 80 tanks that where demed unrepairable.[/quote]


Er.. I mean, like, say if they just got disabled, and the crew had to abandon the tank, and WE destroyed/disabled it with a hellfire or some other such thing. how many did WE actually take out ourselves just to prevent capture?
 
gladius said:
I agree with Whispering Death that we need a vehicle especially made for city fighting not only that but infantry with heavy or powered armor if thats posible. And also its the armor crews that are really important, the difference between veteran and recruit is alot.

But I also heard rumors that a new Russian anit-tank weapons was being used by the insurgents that why so many tanks were knocked out. It propbably given to them to test it, anyone heard anything about this?

There have been NO kornet missiles found or fired in Iraq. So you're probably speaking of the RPG-29 or it's warhead. No one knows if that's true, it's possible the insurgents got weapons from well equipped chechens.
 
I'd say 80 is a low figure...although either damaged or destroyed is all the same for the current situation...point being that there are 80 tanks missing or 80 more have to be hauled back to Iraq.

Considering the organizational skills of the insurgents I'd say they are doing pretty well...I'm sure taking out an abrams makes you a hero in the evening...let's not forget the abrams is nearly an icon of the US military.
 
I dont see how a third world country could take out that many M1s but I guess there is a possiblity.

That's a pretty narrow minded thing to say. Hasn't history taught you anything. Military "might" doesn't mean invincibility. Just look at WW2 and Vietnam for examples. I won't go into to detail, because it should be blindingly obvious.

So there have been a total of 770 tanks have been attacked. 80 of them have been taken out of action, that's a loss rate of 10.4%. There have been 15 crew deaths, that's a loss rate of .5%. If you take into account that the tanks are being used in urban enviroments where tanks have always been at a disadvantage and that there has been a complete breakdown of the logistics system in Iraq, it isn't bad.

10.4% is an awful percentage. It should be, god willing, much closer to 0%, at least in single figures. 10% of anything is a lot, and when your talking people and machinery, it has a huge knock on effect throughout the entire organisation, namely in morale and esprit de corp.
 
If you take in the fact that it's over 2 years, it's not that bad. There hasn't been any decline in the morale of tankers as far as I know.
 
I think that Vietnam is an effective comparison in a way. We went into Vietnam without the slightest clue how to deal with nonconventional warfare, and we never were as effective as we could have been against the VC's unorthodox tactics. And that comes into play in this situation when we consider the M1. It was designed with conventional battles in mind, and less consideration was put into dual-use against guerilla warfare tactics. We sortof fall back into the same thing over and over again: Planning equipment for a fair fight and not worrying about every contingency.

It wouldn't be a bad idea to take a page from Israel's book and build a tank with a bit better protection. The Leopard II and Merkava both have implemented mine protection and other urban-warfare considerations went into their design. Mine protection should be included in any future MBT design I would think. Even in a convetional battle, that is one less vunerability. It would take a certain amount of redesigning on the M1, but if you have vunerability, I can't see why you wouldn't want to fix it.

It would be interesting to see what can be come up with for a purely urban version of the M1a2. Yet I have to wonder if a MBT is the best possible answer for the needs of urban warfare? Then again, what would be the idea armored vehicle with urban combat as its primary purpose?
 
The abrahms was never designed for urban combat and it's gun is complete overkill for the role. If there were other tanks around, I'd say go for it. Maybe an Abrahms chassis and turret, but with a 30mm Gatling gun form the A10. Should make very light work of anything on the ground - as well as other armoured vehicles.
 
bushpig1998 said:
The abrahms was never designed for urban combat and it's gun is complete overkill for the role. If there were other tanks around, I'd say go for it. Maybe an Abrahms chassis and turret, but with a 30mm Gatling gun form the A10. Should make very light work of anything on the ground - as well as other armoured vehicles.

The 120mm gun is acutally quite good for urban combat. What else are you going to use to blow buildings apart?
 
The M1A1 was made with long range tank battles in mind, hence: Main Battle Tank.

The M1A2 SEP was made with a little bit more urban warfare in mind.

Combat is always shifting and reshaping, in 1940's it was long and medium range battle, 1960's was medium to short range combat, 1980's long range and massive armies, 2000's urban warfare.

Not only that but no M1 has ever been totally, utterly, destroyed in combat. And a M1 chassis with a 30mm is not an anti-infanty or anti-personnel weapon, plus it has 2 tons of recoil and that would rip the gun turret of the chassis, thats overkill. The Bradley has awesome anti-personnel/infantry capabilities, 25mm Chain gun, M240-D coax, M240-B AA gun. The M1A1 and M1A2 SEP are great in urban combat, 120mm, M240-D coax, M2 and M240-B AA guns, the HEAT-MP-T are used to take out buildings, so are the HEAT-T.

The M1 is still a good MBT.
 
Hmmm

Think a M1A1 equip with several Gatlin Guns (Six Tubes) instead of 120mm canon would do good in Urban area?
 
Re: Hmmm

Boobies said:
Think a M1A1 equip with several Gatlin Guns (Six Tubes) instead of 120mm canon would do good in Urban area?

Dunno, still at a disadvantage due to its size and lack of manuvering capability in tight spaces.
 
Re: Hmmm

Boobies said:
Think a M1A1 equip with several Gatlin Guns (Six Tubes) instead of 120mm canon would do good in Urban area?

Gatlin gun is what they used during the Civil War. A Vulcan Cannon is what they use now. A 12x7 or 20mm is not a good urban combat weapon.

The M1A1/A2 SEP is now armed with the XM1028 Canister round for anti-infantry use.

A small caliber minigun like the M134 wound be nice, but ammo jamming and the possiblity of overheating are always a problem and the gun can't be fired remotly due to the possibility of hydrulics jamming when hit and damage to the gun.

Now this is outdated but somthing like this cound be used.

vulcan04.jpg


The M163.
 
That above gun look like a gatling gun to me?

Check:

Cluster of barrels: Yes
Fired in a sequence: I presume that as a Yes
Cluster is rotated: Yes mingun cluster barrels spinn in a clock vice (seen from the front of the gun) rotation, quite fast too. Or is it anti clock vice? I think its clock vice :)
 
Back
Top