Will the battle tank become obsolete?

KJ said:
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.
Click to expand...

The M1 uses Depleted Uranium Armor, so it is more difficult for a HEAT Round to pass into the Crew Compartment.

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:
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.
Click to expand...
Disable is one thing, but I/we were talking about destroying, and that's a completely different story in my opinion.. :smil:

I could certainly see a couple of ways to disable/immobilize an Abrams by using a single M107 as an IED as well.
 
Disabled vs. Destroyed

It 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 http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/favourite-tank-t2332.html). 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/military/systems/ground/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.
 
bulldogg said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... In many scenarios, this is very probable. I must admit that I did jump to my conclusion when you stated that the deaths were due to an IED detonation. I guess I need a bit more info. But then again, all of the other contributions to this thread have pretty much answered the question.... unfortunately.

Dean.
 
weed said:
It 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 http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/favourite-tank-t2332.html). 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/military/systems/ground/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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Redleg said:
Disable is one thing, but I/we were talking about destroying, and that's a completely different story in my opinion.. :smil:

I could certainly see a couple of ways to disable/immobilize an Abrams by using a single M107 as an IED as well.
Click to expand...

They seem to have a fondness for using artillery shells with the occasional AT mine attached also, which was the case pictured. No one made it out alive in this one.:-(
 
Last edited:
there are ways of handling IEDs and by anyhow the charges we are talking about here are large enough to sink a battleship.
 
SHERMAN said:
there are ways of handling IEDs and by anyhow the charges we are talking about here are large enough to sink a battleship.
Click to expand...

Yes - strap a couple of 122mm howitzer HE rounds on a anti tank mine and it will destroy any land vehicle that is out there.

They have added approximetely 1.5 tons worth of belly armor for the M1 series Tusk program. And electronic devices that are currently deployed in Iraq seem to be doing a better job in locating them and self destructing them.
 
Hey! Hope you don't mind if we just kinda plow your village! Thank you for your cooperation!
Man, what do you do in an urban environment? Surely the civilians would have seen any IED be planted, right? Or that dusty car everyone seems to be avoiding...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top