Abrams tanks down in Iraq
 

http://fishki.net/comment.php?id=13587

RE: Abrams tanks down in Iraq
 

Thanks Eugene!

Seen some of those pics and noted that some pics look worse because parts were stripped. And some of the more devastating damage was from freindly fire.[:o]

Also interesting note, I read a report of one Abrams KO'd by 25mm rounds in the rear. [X(]

RE: Abrams tanks down in Iraq
 

[sm=eek.gif]

RE: Abrams tanks down in Iraq
 

I thought I read somewhere that no Abrams was ever destroyed in combat -- or maybe that was just not destroyed by another tank. Still, the site looks to be in Russian? perhaps -- who would obviously still enjoy a little propaganda and doctored photos at our expense. Still, the lovely lady smaking her own bottom in the pictures next to the Abrams were worthwhile viewing. . .

RE: Abrams tanks down in Iraq
 

That is true of the viewing source is not always friendly, you see videos of the Arabs saying they destroyed a Abrams tank but they cut the video short..reality is the tank keeps going.. I've seen damage from RSB's and anti tank weapons on the Abrams...they handle the damage very well.

I noticed out of those pictures the number of tanks that had fire damage and were being used for spare parts..that is not unusual to see any where if youhave a tank that had a fire due to being hit or a "malfunction" you use what parts that you can off the tank.

There are some of those pictures I thought were stupid.. like the turret sitting on the ground...Ok does this imply the tank was destroyed or was this a spare turret or was the chassis being worked on and the turret removed?

I agree this is propaganda.. last time I checked the Abrams could run the best Russian tank through over and over again.


Mark

RE: Abrams tanks down in Iraq
 

Keep in mind as well, it is still protocal to disable (destroy) your own vehicle if it can not be recovered and likely to enter enemy hands. Some of the Abrams were destroyed in this manner by their own crews.

RE: Abrams tanks down in Iraq
 

What is often forgotten is that the Abrams was not designed for "urban warfare." It's amour is not configured for it. Rather, it's mission was to destroy soviet armor that was rushing across into Europe in a WWIII scenario. It's speed, agility, firepower, and naturally it's frontal armor was the ideal blend for this threat. This also is true for the Leo 2 A series and other NATO MBT's.

Iraq is a totally different scenario in regards to capability and need. Many of these are pictures of M1's that were actually destroyed by other Abrams. This was probably done to prevent sensitive information from falling into the hands of the "insurgents" etc.

But, the biggest killer for the Abrams are those anti tank mines that have been layered in the ground. I can't begin to imagine this ferocious explosion right under the weakest part of the tank! The rear exhaust and side skirts are the major issues as well.

RE: Abrams tanks down in Iraq
 

That is a true statement about the Abrams. They are not designed for urban warfare but rest assured, there is no other tank you'd want along side you in urban combat than the Abrams. More recent was the Isreali/Lebenon conflict and the Merkeva tanks were being disabled in alarming numbers and the Merkeva is supposed to have been a tank that was semi designed around urban warfare. I believe I read a report earlier this year that only 81 Abrams have been disabled by enemy fire since the start of the war in 2003. I think that is a very good track record. There is no armour that can stop a direct hit from a half of ton of ordinance on the side of a road. 3 1/2 years in Iraq and eventually, they will find what stops an Abrams. What they don't show you is the pictures and reports of Abrams that have taken several RPG, bombs, cannon fire and rocket fire and where able to still drive away.
I had heard that there is on the table a design for an Abrams tank called the M1A3??? Anyone heard this?

RE: Abrams tanks down in Iraq
 

That was the case in Desert Storm.

RE: Abrams tanks down in Iraq
 

Many pics depict hit tanks. Some pics are under question.
It is no propaganda, just someone posted pics.
It is not governmental website to consider these pics propaganda.

RE: Abrams tanks down in Iraq
 

Absolutley Digger! I think the Abrams was is suposed to get the TUSK update. Google "Abrams TUSK" for more info!

RE: Abrams tanks down in Iraq
 

I think the source was from Arabs in Iraq--insurgence.. and I think that's how they got to Russia posted.

No offense to our Russian friend..

RE: Abrams tanks down in Iraq
 

The one pic that shows an insurgent with a rocket launcher(in front of destroyed Abrahms) .....looks "photoshopped" to me.
There is a slight border around his entire image

RE: Abrams tanks down in Iraq
 

I,d rather have a Challenger 2 us brits learnt a while ago to get armour upgrades for our tanks and still no losses to enemy fire also the longest kill of any MBT in service not bad for a rifled barrel.
Cheers Ian

RE: Abrams tanks down in Iraq
 

I'm not sure which tanks were included, but I caught a small part of a show on modern tanks that discussed explosive armor. When an incoming round hits the outer layer of armor on the tank, it explodes, so the crew and tank avoid most of the impact.

This is probably old news to you modern armor tread-heads, but I thought it was a cool idea.

Jason

RE: Abrams tanks down in Iraq
 

It's called reactive Armour..

RE: Abrams tanks down in Iraq
 

Well I for one have never been a fan of the M1 and there has been talk that maybe to Army may have DX the M60A3's a bit to fast, this because of the far better MOUT ability that the 60A3's have over the M1 and with enclosed commander's coupla and Blazer Reactive armor would may have lowered MBT losses in theater.

RE: Abrams tanks down in Iraq
 

Whoa! Run-on sentence madness!

What's a MOUT?

RE: Abrams tanks down in Iraq
 

Those pics look a lot like the Leopard PSO, Amuro.

There looks to be a rapid shift in the way armor is used in future operations. I don't know if it's just me, but it seems like the M1's belly will be scraping the ground shortly. [sm=lol.gif]

I want to see a vehicle equipped with it's own 'forcefield' and a system that allows it to track, designate, and lock, several targets in a box at one time and engage them all in quick succession, such as Anti tank helicopters have. And with much quicker missiles!!!

Is there a system already in place? Has it gone even farther than that?

Only the shadow knows.

The new technological advances are mind boggling.

I'm wondering if the 'tank' ,as we know it, is truly obsolete.

RE: Abrams tanks down in Iraq
 

Probably. I'm pretty sure at least the cannon part of current "tanks" will be replaced with different form of weapons, like missiles for example.

Then again, there were people crying about end of tanks since WWII...

RE: Abrams tanks down in Iraq
 

:D That one, I do know: Military Operations on Urban Terraine........city warfare.

Jason

RE: Abrams tanks down in Iraq
 

I think that as long as there are ground forces, there will always be tanks to clear the way for and support them. And as long as there are innocents involved or things that our government wants, there will always be ground forces to go in and do the down and dirty work.

(Just between us, I think tanks will always have a place in warfare because of what the barrel represents for the men in government............I mean, have you ever seen a bigger phallic symbol? ;))

Jason

RE: Abrams tanks down in Iraq
 

I want an RC version of this tank! :D

http://www.starwars.com/databank/veh...g/movie_bg.jpg

RE: Abrams tanks down in Iraq
 

Too much information, CapnCrunch43! :D

RE: Abrams tanks down in Iraq
 

One thing that TUSK upgrade has missed is shortening the barrel, a major hazard when moving in an urban environment.

There was a proposal to do something similar to the Canadian Leopards... http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-leo.htm

This was very interesting, after the failures of the LAV's to do the task they were designed for. Most of the failure (IMHO) was due to the design parameter that they had to be C-130 transportable. And the Canadians do NOT want to be stuck using the Stryker MGS or anything else based on the LAV platform. They'd rather use their old Leopards, as cited in the recent article in Canadian newspapers about the Canadian Army begging the government to let them KEEP their obsolete Leopards (Ottawa Citizen, July 8th, 2006)

Sixty six Canadian Leopards (which began as 1A4's & 1A5's) are still on active service, four are already museum displays (two up the street here in Ottawa at the Canadian War Museum as a C1 and a C2), twenty three were sold to US companies to be used a firefighting vehicles, and twenty-one are range targets. The article makes no mention of the other canadian Leopard-based vehicles like the Beaver bridgelayer and Taurus Armored recovery vehicle.

As of September, twenty of the Leopard C2's of Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians) are supposed to be headed to Afghanistan to provide convoy protection, supporting Canada's Provincial Reconstruction Teams and other organizations equipped with lighter vehicles. (Ottawa citizen, Sept 9, 2006)

Perhaps we can talk Tamiya into re-releasing the Leo 1A4 in light of the ~continued~ use of this venerable design?