Iraqi M1 Abrams vs Kornet missile [Archive]

View Full Version : Iraqi M1 Abrams vs Kornet missile

Slater

11-02-16, 11:43

For any armor experts herein, did the missile impact ignite the fuel, ammo, or both?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5xKCzdhAC8

daddyusmaximus

11-02-16, 11:53

Averageman

11-02-16, 12:04

That's the ammo in the turret. There are blow our panels on the roof that are designed to fail first. This allows the explosive force and fire to go up and away from the crew. If the ammo door inside was closed, good chance the crew could have survived.

That is the Ammo, after watching it a couple of times now, they may have made the mistake of having something very volatile kept in the bustle rack.
Look closely at it.
That they were skylined was what caused them to get shot. That's a stupid mistake.

FromMyColdDeadHand

11-02-16, 12:21

Not moving didn't help. Was it immobilized or something?

Interesting. First video like that I've seen without an Aloha Snackbar comment.

Digital_Damage

11-02-16, 12:36

Averageman

11-02-16, 12:41

Digital_Damage

11-02-16, 13:16

It helps a lot when you've got the JV team manning them. How many did we lose since Desert Storm?

Last count I had was 141 that were manned by U.S. forces post Iraqi Freedom.

81 were lost or sent back for repair (inoperable) between 2003-2005 alone.

WillBrink

11-02-16, 13:22

That is the Ammo, after watching it a couple of times now, they may have made the mistake of having something very volatile kept in the bustle rack.
Look closely at it.
That they were skylined was what caused them to get shot. That's a stupid mistake.

Well it's Iraqi's manning them so...

It was my understanding the M1 the Iraqi's have was not our top of the line version, not even the armor for obvious reasons of them falling into enemy hands. Via Janes:

"The United States supplied 140 refurbished M1A1 Abrams tanks to Iraq between 2010 and 2012. While they have new equipment to improve situational awareness, they do not have the depleted uranium amour package that increases protection over the tank's frontal arc."

http://www.janes.com/article/39550/iraqi-abrams-losses-revealed

FromMyColdDeadHand

11-02-16, 14:41

Last count I had was 141 that were manned by U.S. forces post Iraqi Freedom.

81 were lost or sent back for repair (inoperable) between 2003-2005 alone.

Is that all due to enemy fire and IEDs?

Averageman

11-02-16, 14:49

crusader377

11-02-16, 14:58

as related to the other thread... this is why MBT's are being fazed out. Even Plebs can take them out with relative ease now, black-market Is plentiful.

6 SABRA's were taken out by them last month too.

No, MBTs are still very viable in part of a combined arms team. The Abrams was hit by a side/rear hit. Where were supporting infantry clearing likely launch sites? All this video shows that tanks are still vulnerable unsupported. Just like they were in WWII especially in built up areas especially against the panzerfaust and German AT guns.

Averageman

11-02-16, 16:01

Sitting on hilltops are a death sentence in a Tank, it's not if, but when.
You can actually get out of a Tank and crawl up with your binos and achieve a lot more with less risk.
There are a million tricks to prevent that, but it takes some time, common sense and skill.

Singlestack Wonder

11-02-16, 16:21

If manned by U.S. troops in U.S. configurations which would include depleted uranium armor as well as reactive armor, no M1 Abrahms would be lost. Iraqi troops (as well as the Turks with their SABRA's) parking tanks in the open with no ground support can expect what the video's show.

Eurodriver

11-02-16, 17:31

Since we're discussing the viability of the MBT.

How equipped is the Russian AF vs US and allied assets in the region?

Digital_Damage

11-02-16, 17:41

I think 141 might be a little high, but getting a good number is going to be difficult as it isn't likely that the .mil want to release it.
Tanks were either repaired on the FOB or evacuated to Kuwait for more extensive repairs.

That is the number of work orders that were received, it is freely available via FOIA. Just googled, and even some of the information is on Wikipedia. Nothing secret about it.

Digital_Damage

11-02-16, 17:42

Is that all due to enemy fire and IEDs?

Could be, details are not given except the type of work performed. That is just the number of work orders for repairs to inoperable equipment.

Digital_Damage

11-02-16, 17:43

daddyusmaximus

11-02-16, 19:32

These idiots were silhouetted on the skyline, just sitting there, (for God knows how long) with no air support, and little or no Infantry support. Nobody was up out of the hatch, the turret wasn't scanning.... They were just sitting there saying shoot me.

Better trained crew + turret defilade position + Infantry and air support = different story... most of the time.

Tanks still have a place on the battlefield when dealing with enemy tanks or in Infantry support, but you still have to use them correctly. Even so, not a single weapon system on the planet, NOTHING, is indestructible. Every weapon system can be taken out by something. The tank is a balancing act between protection, firepower, and mobility. While it is much better protected than a truck, APC or MRAP, it still has to be mobile, so it can't be made everything proof. Let's see the crew of the Kornet, pick up and displace their weapon system as far, and as quickly, as the M1. What level of crew protection do you think the missle crew had? Probably take them out with a 1911.

I love it when someone says something is obsolete just because one gets taken out by the enemy. It's war. This is what war does. It kills people and breaks their stuff. Even it the crew does everything right, they can be targeted and/or hit by some lucky bastard.

daddyusmaximus

11-02-16, 19:38

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3La6u6lI8k

ABNAK

11-02-16, 19:43

Now being a former grunt I might not have the "big picture" of blow-off panels and such, but I don't think ANYONE crawled out of that tank.

daddyusmaximus

11-02-16, 19:50

Don't even know if the tank was manned just sitting there like that, but it was a survivable hit.

Averageman

11-02-16, 19:54

Now being a former grunt I might not have the "big picture" of blow-off panels and such, but I don't think ANYONE crawled out of that tank.

Yeah, it is survivable, you're going to need some new shorts, but as long as the ammo doors and hatches were closed, they will make it.

williejc

11-02-16, 20:37

Tank on a hill reminds me of certain foolish blackout decisions made by us during WW2. German submarines sunk 175 merchant ships along the East Coast and 47 in the Gulf of Mexico. Many were highlighted against a "bright" coastline. The subs were hunting from the surface at night and sunk the unarmed or lightly armed merchant ships with cannon or torpedoes. Reasons given for no blackouts: business leaders objected; fear of alarming citizens. The Gulf ships were primarily oil tankers carrying crude or finished product to or from refineries in Louisiana and Texas. The attacks were close to shore, and the explosions were spectacular. Google for specifics.

Mr. Goodtimes

11-02-16, 20:42

Averageman

11-02-16, 20:53

It's crazy anyone could have survived that. It looks like there's literally molten metal shooting out the top like a water fountain. I wonder what kind of magic the ammunition magazine is made out of.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's propellant from the 120 rounds.
The design allows the pressure to be diverted outward and upward. The doors inside are "Double Locked" as in they go closed then locked.
It's still going to ring your bell.

Singlestack Wonder

11-02-16, 21:32

except a lot had been....

Outstanding record in my opinion:

"Nearly all sources claim that no Abrams tank has ever been destroyed as a result of fire from an enemy tank, but some have certainly taken some damage which required extensive repair. There is at least one account, reported in the following Gulf War's US Official Assessment (scan), of an Abrams being damaged by three kinetic energy piercing rounds. The DoD report indicates that witnesses in the field claimed it was hit by a T-72 Asad Babil. The KE rounds were unable to fully penetrate and stuck in the armor, but because of the external damage it was sent to a maintenance depot. This is the only verified case of an M1A1 put out of action by an Iraqi MBT.[21]

Six other M1A1s were allegedly hit by 125 mm tank fire in the Gulf war official report, but the impacts were largely ineffectual.[22]

M1A1 lost to friendly fire during Operation Desert Storm in 1991.On the night of February 26, 1991, four Abrams were disabled in a suspected friendly fire incident by Hellfire missiles fired from AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, with the result of some crew members wounded in action.[23] The tanks were part of TF 1-37,[24] attacking a large section of Tawakalna Republican Guard Division, their numbers being B-23, C-12, D-24 and C-66. However, C-12 was definitively hit and penetrated by a friendly DU shot[25] and there is some evidence that another Iraqi T-72 may have scored a single hit on B-23, besides the alleged Hellfire strike (see Iraqi T-72 article)."

I know guys that were in TF 1-37 and they all make mention of the friendly DU (Depleated Uranium) shot. After GW I, the Army placed more emphasis on identifying their targets. Especially after they shot 17 Scout Bradleys that were doing recon in front of them.

"Tanks D-24 and C-66 took some casualties as well[26] Only B-23 became a permanent loss. The DoD's damage assessments state that B-23 was the only M1 with signs of a Hellfire missile found nearby.[27]

Also during Operation Desert Storm, three Abrams of the US 24th Infantry Division were left behind the enemy lines after a swift attack on Talil airfield, south of Nasiriyah, on February 27. One of them was hit by enemy fire, the two other embedded in mud. The tanks were destroyed by U.S. forces in order to prevent any trophy-claim by the Iraqi Army."

What they don't tell you is the hard time US Forces had in destroying that tank that was stuck in the mud.

"Further combat was seen during 2003 when US forces invaded Iraq and deposed the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. As of March 2005, approximately 80 Abrams tanks were forced out of action by enemy attacks.[41] Nevertheless, the campaign saw very similar performance from the tank with no Abrams crew member being lost to hostile fire during the invasion of Iraq, although several tank crew members were later killed by snipers and roadside bombs during the occupation that followed. Abandoned Abrams were purposely destroyed by friendly fire to prevent recovery of vehicle or technology. Damages by 25 mm AP-DU, anti-armor RPG fire and 12.7 mm rounds was encountered. But on no occasion did anti-tank guided weapons or anti-tank mines strike the US MBTs.[42]

The most lopsided achievement of the M1A2s was the destruction of seven T-72 Lion of Babylon tanks in a point-blank skirmish (less than 50 yards) near Mahmoudiyah, about 18 miles (29 km) south of Baghdad, with no losses for the American side.[43] However, on October 29, 2003, two soldiers were killed and a third wounded when their tank was disabled by an anti-tank mine, which was combined with other explosives (500 kg, including several 155 mm rounds) to increase its effect. The massive explosion beneath the tank knocked off the turret. This marked the first time deaths resulted from a hostile-fire assault on the M1 tank from enemy forces."

Again, I knew people who were there and they said that the explosion that destroyed that tank was humongus. 500 kilos is 1,100 pounds, not to mention the several 155mm rounds.

"During an early attack on Baghdad, one M1A1 was disabled by a recoilless rifle round that had penetrated the rear engine housing, and punctured a hole in the right rear fuel cell, causing fuel to leak onto the hot turbine engine. After repeated attempts to extinguish the fire, the decision was made to destroy or remove any sensitive equipment. Oil and .50 caliber rounds were scattered in the interior, the ammunition doors were opened and several thermite grenades ignited inside. Another M1 then fired a HEAT round in order to ensure the destruction of the disabled tank. The tank was completely disabled but still intact. Later, an AGM-65 Maverick and two AGM-114 Hellfire missiles were fired into the tank to finish its destruction. Remarkably, the tank still appeared to be intact from the exterior.[44]

On November 27, 2004 an Abrams tank was badly damaged from the detonation of an extremely powerful improvised explosive device. The IED consisted of three M109A6 155 mm shells, with a total explosive weight of 34.5 kg, that detonated next to the tank. The tank's driver received lethal injuries from shrapnel. The other three crew members were able to escape.

On December 25, 2005 another U.S. Army M1A1 was disabled by an explosively formed penetrator IED. The IED penetrated through a road wheel, and hit the fuel tank, which left the tank burning near central Baghdad. One crew member, SPC Sergio Gudino, died in the attack.

On June 4, 2006 two of the four soldiers in an Abrams crew died in Baghdad, when an IED detonated near their M1A2.

Some Abrams were disabled by Iraqi infantrymen in ambushes employing short-range antitank rockets, such as the Russian RPG-7, during the 2003 invasion. Although the RPG-7 is unable to penetrate the front and sides, the rear and top are vulnerable to this weapon. Frequently the rockets were fired at the tank tracks. Another was put out of action in an incident when fuel stowed in an external rack was struck by heavy machine gun rounds. This started a fire that spread to the engine.[2] [3].

There have also been a number of Abrams crewmen killed by sniper fire during times when they were exposed through the turret hatches of their tanks. Some of these attacks were filmed by insurgents for propaganda purposes and spread via the Internet. One of these videos shows a large IED detonating beneath an Abrams and nearly flipping the vehicle, though the tank landed back on its treads and appeared to have suffered no serious damage as it was still mobile and traversing the turret following the attack."

C-grunt

11-03-16, 04:47

Tanks in real warfare, not an occupation, are rolling death machines. Read my accounts in the other thread.

Digital_Damage

11-03-16, 08:03

Outstanding record in my opinion:

"Nearly all sources claim that no Abrams tank has ever been destroyed as a result of fire from an enemy tank, but some have certainly taken some damage which required extensive repair. There is at least one account, reported in the following Gulf War's US Official Assessment (scan), of an Abrams being damaged by three kinetic energy piercing rounds. The DoD report indicates that witnesses in the field claimed it was hit by a T-72 Asad Babil. The KE rounds were unable to fully penetrate and stuck in the armor, but because of the external damage it was sent to a maintenance depot. This is the only verified case of an M1A1 put out of action by an Iraqi MBT.[21]

Six other M1A1s were allegedly hit by 125 mm tank fire in the Gulf war official report, but the impacts were largely ineffectual.[22]

M1A1 lost to friendly fire during Operation Desert Storm in 1991.On the night of February 26, 1991, four Abrams were disabled in a suspected friendly fire incident by Hellfire missiles fired from AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, with the result of some crew members wounded in action.[23] The tanks were part of TF 1-37,[24] attacking a large section of Tawakalna Republican Guard Division, their numbers being B-23, C-12, D-24 and C-66. However, C-12 was definitively hit and penetrated by a friendly DU shot[25] and there is some evidence that another Iraqi T-72 may have scored a single hit on B-23, besides the alleged Hellfire strike (see Iraqi T-72 article)."

I know guys that were in TF 1-37 and they all make mention of the friendly DU (Depleated Uranium) shot. After GW I, the Army placed more emphasis on identifying their targets. Especially after they shot 17 Scout Bradleys that were doing recon in front of them.

"Tanks D-24 and C-66 took some casualties as well[26] Only B-23 became a permanent loss. The DoD's damage assessments state that B-23 was the only M1 with signs of a Hellfire missile found nearby.[27]

Also during Operation Desert Storm, three Abrams of the US 24th Infantry Division were left behind the enemy lines after a swift attack on Talil airfield, south of Nasiriyah, on February 27. One of them was hit by enemy fire, the two other embedded in mud. The tanks were destroyed by U.S. forces in order to prevent any trophy-claim by the Iraqi Army."

What they don't tell you is the hard time US Forces had in destroying that tank that was stuck in the mud.

"Further combat was seen during 2003 when US forces invaded Iraq and deposed the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. As of March 2005, approximately 80 Abrams tanks were forced out of action by enemy attacks.[41] Nevertheless, the campaign saw very similar performance from the tank with no Abrams crew member being lost to hostile fire during the invasion of Iraq, although several tank crew members were later killed by snipers and roadside bombs during the occupation that followed. Abandoned Abrams were purposely destroyed by friendly fire to prevent recovery of vehicle or technology. Damages by 25 mm AP-DU, anti-armor RPG fire and 12.7 mm rounds was encountered. But on no occasion did anti-tank guided weapons or anti-tank mines strike the US MBTs.[42]

The most lopsided achievement of the M1A2s was the destruction of seven T-72 Lion of Babylon tanks in a point-blank skirmish (less than 50 yards) near Mahmoudiyah, about 18 miles (29 km) south of Baghdad, with no losses for the American side.[43] However, on October 29, 2003, two soldiers were killed and a third wounded when their tank was disabled by an anti-tank mine, which was combined with other explosives (500 kg, including several 155 mm rounds) to increase its effect. The massive explosion beneath the tank knocked off the turret. This marked the first time deaths resulted from a hostile-fire assault on the M1 tank from enemy forces."

Again, I knew people who were there and they said that the explosion that destroyed that tank was humongus. 500 kilos is 1,100 pounds, not to mention the several 155mm rounds.

"During an early attack on Baghdad, one M1A1 was disabled by a recoilless rifle round that had penetrated the rear engine housing, and punctured a hole in the right rear fuel cell, causing fuel to leak onto the hot turbine engine. After repeated attempts to extinguish the fire, the decision was made to destroy or remove any sensitive equipment. Oil and .50 caliber rounds were scattered in the interior, the ammunition doors were opened and several thermite grenades ignited inside. Another M1 then fired a HEAT round in order to ensure the destruction of the disabled tank. The tank was completely disabled but still intact. Later, an AGM-65 Maverick and two AGM-114 Hellfire missiles were fired into the tank to finish its destruction. Remarkably, the tank still appeared to be intact from the exterior.[44]

On November 27, 2004 an Abrams tank was badly damaged from the detonation of an extremely powerful improvised explosive device. The IED consisted of three M109A6 155 mm shells, with a total explosive weight of 34.5 kg, that detonated next to the tank. The tank's driver received lethal injuries from shrapnel. The other three crew members were able to escape.

On December 25, 2005 another U.S. Army M1A1 was disabled by an explosively formed penetrator IED. The IED penetrated through a road wheel, and hit the fuel tank, which left the tank burning near central Baghdad. One crew member, SPC Sergio Gudino, died in the attack.

On June 4, 2006 two of the four soldiers in an Abrams crew died in Baghdad, when an IED detonated near their M1A2.

Some Abrams were disabled by Iraqi infantrymen in ambushes employing short-range antitank rockets, such as the Russian RPG-7, during the 2003 invasion. Although the RPG-7 is unable to penetrate the front and sides, the rear and top are vulnerable to this weapon. Frequently the rockets were fired at the tank tracks. Another was put out of action in an incident when fuel stowed in an external rack was struck by heavy machine gun rounds. This started a fire that spread to the engine.[2] [3].

There have also been a number of Abrams crewmen killed by sniper fire during times when they were exposed through the turret hatches of their tanks. Some of these attacks were filmed by insurgents for propaganda purposes and spread via the Internet. One of these videos shows a large IED detonating beneath an Abrams and nearly flipping the vehicle, though the tank landed back on its treads and appeared to have suffered no serious damage as it was still mobile and traversing the turret following the attack."

Not sure where you are getting this, But I'm guessing this is from the infamous 02/91 WO leak.

That only covers one shipment, over one month period.

During the early part of the conflict, the Iraqi army was still using conventional KE. When they switched to DU KE, the work orders started flooding in. It was simply too late at that point to resupply their armor units. Those home grown 72's had no sophisticated targeting systems, intentionally engaging them at night. They have lost a large number of units to portable systems, IED's, ETC far more effective.

KalashniKEV

11-03-16, 08:21

crusader377

11-03-16, 09:07

That's 100% exactly what our tank crews do also.

The difference between then and now- proliferation of the Kornet.

I think it all boils down to using good solid combined arms tactics. Same things happened in the Yom Kippur War in 1973. The IDF grew over reliant on its Armor and Air Force and initially paid a very heavy price by Egyptian AT-3 Sagger teams. The Israelis had to change tactics and better employ infantry and artillery in the fight which minimized the threat. Same thing happened countless times in WWII. Tanks unsupported die if they face a competent opponent using employing the combined arms fight.

Averageman

11-03-16, 13:52

That's 100% exactly what our tank crews do also.

The difference between then and now- proliferation of the Kornet.

I'm sorry, but you are very wrong about that.

KalashniKEV

11-03-16, 13:59

I'm sorry, but you are very wrong about that.

Seen it.

C-grunt

11-03-16, 14:10

Seen it.

We'll you served with some poorlyrics trained tankers.

KalashniKEV

11-03-16, 14:29

We'll you served with some poorlyrics trained tankers.

I've seen Infantry all-bunched-up too.

My own guys. Trained them myself.

I told them, "Yo, spread it out."

The whole MMQB "JV/Stupid/Monkey" Iraqis getting killed by the enemy is absurd.

It's a thirty second clip, not counting the spinning RT logo. You don't know the circumstances around that engagement, or anything about the situation. I don't either.

I do know that while Armor Branch is lame to us, in Iraq, the coolest thing you can be is a Tanker (going all the way back to the Ba'ath Era and before).

It's also reasonable to assume that the crew of that vehicle didn't want to die that day... and there's even a strong possibility that they may have had more time fighting a tank in combat than the combined experience of one of our crews- being as they live on the battlefield, and are already "home."

FromMyColdDeadHand

11-03-16, 15:04

KalashniKEV

11-03-16, 15:26

KEv,

Why is it that you can have soldiers from foreign countries, in their own country, who may have been exposed to this their whole lives, but are less skilled in combat than US troops, that may have had just basic army training? Our gear has a lot to do with it, but is it just better institutionalized learning and organization structure?

It's not a question of grid square, language, or flag.

Lapses of individual soldier discipline happen. Lapses of unit discipline happen. They happen in our Army (even in elite units). They happen in other Armies. They happen in the companies we work for. It's human weakness.

You don't know if that was a momentary halt, a scoot up and peek, or he ran out of gas and dismounted (M1A1s consume fuel at a completely stupid rate). Maybe he was acting in accordance with everything he knew about the AO and simply fell victim to a new TTP or threat- oh, wait... he obviously did.

Within my Brigade AO in the year of our Lord 2005, we saw the proliferation of the RKG-3 anti-tank hand grenade. It changed the way we operated after it's introduction. A few guys had to die before we changed our TTPs. One guy I know lost the front half of his foot. Probably if you saw one of the insurgent vids from back then you might call him JV, speculate on his training or experience, and say he was doing something dumb when he got got.

He probably was. You know who else was? The vast majority of everyone who received a purple heart.

Low flying Soviet Hind pilots were not "stupid" or "JV" or "lazy" in Afghanistan either- they just hadn't adjusted their TTPs to the new threat.

Averageman

11-03-16, 18:14

Seen it.

The low end of your observed scale is not to be taken as the norm is it?
I'm just saying that I have seen stupid and that stupid isn't the norm, nor is it the school or the experience solution. It is an abnormal occurrence and in this case, has been caught on tape.
Yes, there are unusual occurrences, abnormal situations that are outside the level of the collective experience of a particular Tank Crew, but they do not warrant the broad brush denigration of an entire branch or the worthiness of a piece of equipment.
I have seen some amazing things in my 35 years of experience with Armor, this was just a clear cut case of Hardware being so far in front of Software that it was deadly.

KalashniKEV

11-03-16, 18:50

Yes, there are unusual occurrences, abnormal situations that are outside the level of the collective experience of a particular Tank Crew, but they do not warrant the broad brush denigration of an entire branch or the worthiness of a piece of equipment.

Dude, are you correcting... yourself?

Averageman

11-03-16, 19:40

No, I am explaining how an untrained and unexperianced crew gets hit with a missile.
That I have seen a Ranger tabbed Infantry Lieutenant throw a frag through a doorway and count One-Two-Three so fast he essentially counted to two and ended up being blown out backwards out the very door he "opened" doesn't mean that example is the norm for all Infantry, nor does it mean UAV's can replace them.

KalashniKEV

11-03-16, 20:33

No, I am explaining how an untrained and unexperianced crew gets hit with a missile.

Eh. You are trying to "OC" real world events and provide the backstory to support your comments.

Who says they weren't in the BSA and the guy was a local national food vendor who didn't get searched? Maybe they just finished clearing a major sector and there were friendlies everywhere except where the missile was fired?

The second half of your post alludes to this.

There exist a series of blackmail photos of hard chargin' KalashniKEV doing the Stevie Wonder and eventually falling asleep behind the gun after many continuous hours of planning, briefing, briefing again to IA, executing soft siege, and eventually clearing a large part of Hawijah.

Untrained and unexperianced (sic)? Nope.

Just a momentary lapse of individual soldier discipline.

I don't have 35 years experience, but I'm not on LiveLeak searching "Juba's Greatest Hits" and calling out dudes as JV and talking about chinstrap defilade on the gun though...

Cagemonkey

11-03-16, 20:41

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3La6u6lI8kI concur with your assessment. Thats for making it clear and simple.

crusader377

11-03-16, 21:57

End of the day, we really don't know the back story regarding the M1 kill by the Kornet.

Could it have been poor tactics and a poorly trained crew: Possibly

Could it have been a good crew that after several days of operations let their guard down to fatigue or simply a lapse of discipline: Possibly

Could the ISIS fighter on the other end simply used good tactics and picked a good launch position: Possibly

Could the M1 simply run out of fuel due to poor logistic support: Possibly

Could the M1 crew did everything right but their luck simply ran out: Possibly

RioGrandeGreen

11-03-16, 23:22

In 1987 we were at NTC and our LT's tank took a direct hit from another M1 in the rear engine compartment by the exhaust panel. It was hit by supposedly by an 105mm old stock war round. I guess the gunner was using his thermal sight and the exhaust (900+ degrees) looked liked a heated target.

I was the gunner on the platoons sergeant tank at the time. I was busting some serious caps downrange to the advancing Russian horde when my TC suddenly called a cease fire on the net. He told me to jump in the TC's hatch. I watched this short, stocky E-7 jump down from the M1 and go the LT's tank and pull the halon fire extinguisher handle on the side of the tank. He was yelling to the LT to get the hell out because he had been hit! Finally they LT heard him and unassed the tank. My best friend was the driver and said his warning lights lit up like a Christmas tree.

The 105mm round went into the engine from the rear by the exhaust panel and into the transmission. The engine went automatically into protective override and did not respond to the driver. The crew was shaken up but unhurt. The tank did it's job and protected its crew. If it would have hit the rear turret ammo, who knows.

Big investigation followed and rumor had it that it was the first time an M1 had been hit in actual combat conditions.

jpmuscle

11-03-16, 23:28

Fwiw I find this discussion most intellectually stimulating.

Also the tech that goes into these things is awesome.

crusader377

11-04-16, 09:54

Here are a few other interesting videos worth discussing.

T-90 in Syria hit by a FSA TOW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1Zp37Kdr5Y

Looks like the T-90 survived the hit but was probably badly shaken.

Older Turkish M-60 destroyed by unknown ATGM.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DgBhr3uZtE

Israeli Merkava tank hit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMayU-dk_0w

In the case of the Merkava and the T-90 both tanks the crew survived and the tanks were probably recoverable. Both designs are newer tanks and seem to be able to take hits reasonably well over their frontal arc. Older tanks like the M60 simply aren't survivable for the crew or vehicle against modern weapons without heavy modifications to the armor.

I still think tanks have a place on the modern battlefield but perhaps the very tank heavy formations like modern U.S. heavy divisions (1 to 1 ratio between tank and infantry battalions) isn't the way to go. Perhaps our armored units need to start looking modernized versions of late WWII German Panzer division with a ratio of 1 tank battalion supported by 2 or even 3 infantry battalions Or perhaps the Russians are on to something in developing a tank support vehicle like the BMPT which is better equipped to fight infantry while still maintaining heavy armor protection ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuU2ZiZLcjM ).

I don't know have any of the answers to this but it is definitely an interesting debate.

nova3930

11-04-16, 11:58

Surprised nobody has yet mentioned the fact they apparently let the infantry AT team get BEHIND them. Not nearly as much armor on the ass end and sides as the front.......

daddyusmaximus

11-04-16, 13:27

Mentioned. It's called Infantry support. They had little or none.

Keep in mind there are no defined lines in this kind of conflict.

Slater

11-04-16, 13:30

Wonder how the Kornet compares to our later generation TOW's?

Aries144

11-04-16, 14:24

RT derp derp hard-liner propaganda. I bet they're contrasting this vid with the one of the T-90 taking a badly-aimed TOW that hit the front turret ERA, too.

The Abram's better ammo storage is what's really showcased in that video, lol. They fail to realize or acknowledge that, while the Abrams crew could have survived, a similar angle hit on the turret of one of their brand new T-90s would have puréed the crew and likely touched off the ammo as well, resulting in a nice flaming turret pirouette. Fireworks with crunchy crew streamers and confetti.

crusader377

11-04-16, 17:03

Wonder how the Kornet compares to our later generation TOW's?

Although both missiles are in the same class of weapon (Heavy ATGM) and both are highly effective, if I had to make a educated guess, I would say the Kornet is more effective for two reasons. First, it is simply larger and carries a bigger warhead. A Tow2B warhead weighs around 6.25kg and a Kornet is 7KG or 10KG depending on the missile. Second, the Kornet is a newer design. The TOW was originally designed to take the T-62, T-64, and early t-72 threat and although it has been upgraded to deal with the later model T-72s and T-80s, the latest T-90s may be too much for a TOW to deal with. The Kornet is a later design and was built to combat the M1, Leopard 2, and Challenger threat which are newer and better protected tanks than the vehicles the TOW was intended to deal with.

Todd00000

11-05-16, 04:01

as related to the other thread... this is why MBT's are being fazed out. Even Plebs can take them out with relative ease now, black-market Is plentiful.

6 SABRA's were taken out by them last month too.
The USMC had an M1 that was hit with a large number of RPGs, they had a bustle rack event like in this video, fuels tanks ruptured, engine fire, and track pads on fire. The crew survived and the tank was back in action in a few days.