"What will kill an Abrams ?" Topic

Much is made of how tough the Abrams is.

So.. what sort of stuff will kill it fairly reliably ?

Leopard 2A6 main gun ?

T90 ?

Infantry carried ATGM ?

One of those BMP ATGM's fired through the barrel ?

Another Abrams ?

Running out of fuel on the way to McDonalds ?

Depending upon where you hit it an RPG can do a mobility kill but hitting it on the engine. Take a look at the book Thunder Run. The Iraqi's managed to kill one in Baghdad that way. As for an actual kill, I would think a Javelin would do the job.

During the drive to Baghdad, an M-1 took a rpg on the turret side into the ammo stowage compartment resulting in a tremendous explosion as the ammo went up. The engineer officer that told me this, (with pictures), said it was the only time he was scared as he was just behind the tank on the road. Once the fireworks died down, the crew popped the hatches and scampered out, unhurt.
Also know a LT whose tank was hit seven times by rpg's, there are pictures of these also.
It is just a matter of the right ammo, at the right location, at the right range. Some M-1 tankers do not fear the Leo2a6 at any range, unless it has the silver bullet.

As Mike mantioned, hit in in the side, or rear, and you can get a mission kill.

Destroy it once it is immobilized with something as simple as a molotov cocktail.

I imagine ATGM's with a top-down attack capability can pretty much destroy any tank ever made.

I trained on the Javelin weapons system mike Obrian mentioned. As Top Gun was saying, its a top down missile. Fire and forget with more than a two klick range. It will take anything that has a heat signature.

There was footage of an Abrahams mobility killed during 2003; at least some crew were badly injured; wil try to find teh images. I recall that there was quite lively lively discussion on the StrategyPage web site about what weapon system did it; only thing people agreed on was that it was a man portable weapon.

Volcanoes.

IED's (road side Bombs) have taken out one that I know of in Iraq.

I have an Pentagon PowerPoint document that analyzed the then-six combat losses of M-1 Abrams (this does not count the pair that were lost in individual mishaps that put them into water). The RPG kills were the result of fighting in built-up areas where the RPG's hit an unarmored auxiliary power unit (APU) mounted on the engine deck. These APUs were hit by fire from above and they burned – which caused them to melt into the engine compartment where they could not be put out by the internal fire extinguishers.

I think I read that the only actual breach of an M-1 hull was from a 155mm howitzer round buried in the road and detonated remotely – I could be confusing that with a Challenger 2 loss.

Wyatt

A really big dragon. (I saw it in a movie).

During GW1 they were dropping 2000lb bombs off my F16 onto Iraqi armor. I'd assume it would work just as well on an M-1 too.

The World's Funniest Joke – at least it would immobilize it.

What's the russian or chinese for that matter calculation for attacking armour, five times the numbers?
Do you mean totally broken or just stopped? They are designed to be put together again indefinetely with spare parts just ask the Australian Army.

An assassin while it sits in an theatre box?
Mick

Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure

:-)

I'd have thought $10 USD a gallon should be enough to knock it out….

I recall an incident where an unknown weapon put a hole in the side of the turret, creased the TC's seat and exited thru the other side. The last I heard on this they still hadn't identified what it was. It seems that it was a "lucky" shot for the crew as it didn't hit anything but armor and the seat on the way thru, but no one knows what it was. If it had hit the gun and begun ricocheting around in the turret it might have resulted in some major damage.

With the way the Abrams is built, and the way modern weapons work, I don't think your going to see the catastrophic explosion of the tank they way you used to.

Define a kill. Do you want to take the tank out of the immediate fight, put it out of commission for a few days, or totally destroy it? To date, nothing has gone thru the frontal arc armor on an M1. As with any other tank, the armor gets thinner as you move to the rear. Critical areas around fuel and ammo have additional armor. The interior is compartmentalized to drastically improve crew survivability. Hit it in the rear or track and you will probably get a mobility kill, but the tank will be back in action after the mechanics get it for a couple of hours. Get an ammo rack explosion and the tank will probably be out of commission for a few days. A catastrophic kill? Good luck.

Weren't mines a big issue in the first Gulf War?

"I recall an incident where an unknown weapon put a hole in the side of the turret, "

I seem to remember that one – but it was through the hull, between two of the road wheels and high. Last speculation that I heard was that it was a new-ish Russian RPG round (not the old RPG7, that is). The pics are still somewhere at Strategypage.

GW1 had an example of trying to destroy an immobilized Abrams with another, and while heavily damaging it, failing to really take it out completely.

I've seen pics of at least one being pretty heavily burnt out, in the rear hull/turret. And there were pics of one that had been hit by an IED of a few 155mm arty rounds stacked together (IIRC) – it had flipped the hull over, and the turret was completely separated and also upside down. Strategypage had them up for a day or so, but took them down at DoD's request.

"I could be confusing that with a Challenger 2 loss."

I think that one was one of our C2s – I recall the initial news reports of the attack. Fortunately it appears either the insurgents lack the ability to repeat the attack or there's a counter for it.

Wasn't there a loss of an M1A1 during Gulf War 1 from blue-on-blue by another M1A1's main gun?

"Define a kill."

Removing the vehicle from effective service for a couple of days would count. A tank repaired in just a couple of days sounds good until you're the one who needs a tank and it's back at the depot having a new engine fitted -- and then all that matters is that you don't have a tank when you need one.

Guring the Gulf wars there were a couple of friendly fire incidents with the Abrams against other Abrams. A shot fired from one tank at another did not penatrate the front armor but another later incident penatrated the side armor but didn't destroy the tank.

The RPG hitting the engine grating apparently has been taken care of as they designed some type of armored slats that now fit over it. A great story about the toughness of the M-1 was in the briefing book of the excellent board game Phase Line Smash about Desert Storm. Apparently an M-1 got bogged down and the unit needed to reach its objective, so it was decided to blow it up and move on. Another M-1 fired at the rear of the disabled M-1 several times(most of the hits didn't go through!) before they decided it was damaged enough to leave it. A few days later a recovery team pulled it out, fixed it and it was ready for action again!

Blowing up the fuel and ammo trucks following somewhere behind the Abrams should have some effect – those tanks tend to gulp fuel a lot.

Griefbringer

i gnash my teeth every time my M1-A1's get destroyed at long range by AT-5s and AT-8s in "realistic" pc games such as Armored Task Force and Combat Mission Shock Force. And it happens a lot. Are the kill rates in these games too high?

Explosively Formed Projectiles (EFP)?

link

The Brits lost a Chally 2 to a blue-on-blue by another Chally 2 – side/rear of the turret, I seem to recall.

Do tanks really 'blow up'? I know the old WW2 footage showed the occasional turret popping (which I believe the BMP and T-72 may still do in a catastrophic hit) and tanks were known to 'brew up', but the increases in fire-suppression systems, spall liners and armour in general would seem to have reduced much of the 'kill' factor to more of a soft kill – immobilise or remove capability to fight.

Try Clancy's book, Armoured Warfare, Pp57-58. It describes how an M1 managed to get stuck and was left behind (with the crew still in it, awaiting recovery). It was then engaged by 3 T-72s, the last one at 400m, which fired an AP round that only grooved the front turret (possibly a poor angle).

When the recovery team arrived, they were unable to remove the tank, so elected instead to put it out of action. v2 rounds from other M1s failed to penetrate. A third round "from a favourable angle" penetrated, causing the ammunition to detonate. However the blowout panels directed the blow upward and the fire suppression systems put it out.

The tank was eventually recovered, the turret replaced and the tank sent back into action.

Quite a lot…

Original BM15 would probably kill an Abrams 50% of the time from under 1000 meters. Over 1000 the BM lost too much velocity due to its large fins. BM-22 would kill it from any combat ranges (well over 2500meters…don't know-same problem as the 15).

AT-5 and AT-8 were much iffyer…. (How is that for a technical term)… The original M1 armor was tuned against heat warheads. Most estimates give it 600-700mm vs heat. Most estimates of the AT-8 and AT-5 warheads were in the same range.

Armor guys I have talked to over the years were not excited about getting hit by any larger Soviet heat warheads. They thought you would probably be ok…. but… better to not get hit. (say 10% chance of a kill?)

IPM1 and M1A1 were better armored and would have less of a chance of getting destroyed… though most of their up-armoring was vs KEP not vs Heat.

Also remember that the AT8 was only deployed for a couple of years to be replaced by the AT11. The AT5 was also improved during the 80s.

I would bet that the M1A1HA would be proof vs both AT8 and AT11 from a standard front shot.

Modern day is harder to judge. Probably only the latest Russian rounds (BM 48?) and latest German rounds will kill the newest Abrams. Most Russian tanks can't even fire the round (well they can if they are hand loaded… they are too long to fit in the old autoloader- a few T90s have the new autoloader).

Modern Heat rounds are a crapshoot. The latest Russian RPG rounds are nasty. They penetrated the front of a Challenger. The Israeli's also got a suprise from the newer Russian ATGM's…. though it was only older versions of the Merkavas that were killed.

Joe Collins

Do tanks really 'blow up'?

To blow up a tank, you would need to cause the ammunition (propellants and possible HE warheads) to explode within a tank. Abrams has an ammo compartment that directs the force of the explosion outwards, so crew should usually manage to escape intact – though their ability to engage other tanks has been diminished significantly.

Similarly, causing the fuel to cause a brew up has got rarer, due to changes in the designs.

Then again, the softest part of the tank has always been the crew inside. And eliminating the crew while keeping the tank functional allows you to capture it. Or if enemy manages to recover it, they will need to get a new crew for it. Trained crews are not an unlimited resource.

Griefbringer

Modern Western tanks don't usually "brew up", but the older T-62s, 72s, 74s, and 80s will burn for awhile. The pictures I've seen from both Gulf Wars come in three varieties:
1) The tank is burned out
2) The turret has been blown clean off and the hull is blackened.
3) There is a small hole on one side of the tank and a larger hole on the other side, with everything inside resembling something similar to charred ground beef.

Flaming clothing will do the job.

In "Thunder Run" there's an account of an M1 being taken out when the ruck sacks on the bustle rack caught fire and flaming debris (socks, underwear, etc.) spread to the engine deck. The result was a mobility kill as the crew repeatedly tried to extinguish the fire to no avail.

The tank in "Thunder Run" was, if I rember correctly, speculated to have been hit by a recoiless rifle in the lower rear hull which probably ruptured the fuel tank and caused a fire in the hull compartment around the engine Pack. This is probably the burned out M1 Wyatt referred too seing pics of. It was also shot by another M1 from the column and straffed by A10s. None of the crew were injured.

When I was at Ft. Knox the largest threats we were taught would be enemy attack helicopters (not a lot of those in Iraq) and Russian ZSUs (not because they would penetrate but they would destroy the optics and could damage the main gun).

It's not the gun of enemy tanks that is the threat, it's the ammunition. It is my understanding that the Russians (Like the US) keep the good stuff for themselves.

I think it is a testament to the incredible survivability of the M1 that there have been so few destroyed.

Ed G.

Oh and for a quick and dirty mobility kill you could pull the fire extinguisher handle on the outside of the hull (if the crew hasn't disabled it). That will choke the engine out with Halon. Not that you could or would want to get that close to a running M1.

Ed G.

I'd try that fire extinguisher trick in a really built-up area, if there weren't a lot of Abrams-friendly infantry around.

I know a couple weapons that will put paid to any AFV up to and including Iowa-class BBs, but getting the NCA to release them is a different story (unless the release rules for conventional strategic weapons are different from nukes). Nothing can survive 200kg impacting at Mach 7, which isn't hard to achieve. The only challenge to that is to make it hit where you want.

A direct hit from the main gun of the Ratte would kill one – and it could probably go toe to toe with a couple of M1A1's – for a while until it was destroyed by airpower – which would take about 5 minutes for the jet to get there with the right munition. Of course – the Germans never built the Ratte!

Does the M1 still use hydraulic turret traverse and gun elevation gear? If so, causing a rupture in the fluid line could provide fuel for brewing up the vehicle. Though you still have to find a way to get in the tank first.

I saw a PPT presentation showing an M1A1 that was allegedly knocked out by 23mm holes in the engine compartment. I saw pics of another that had been flipped over by an IED, and one that was possibly knocked out when an RPG round hit the commander's open hatch resulting in some of the blast being directed down into the crew compartment.

Also, any top down system such as the Javelin or Hellfire will knock it out too.

I understand the RPG that penetrated the Chally2 hit the dozer attachment lug, rather than being a clean penetration of the armour array it was a fluke. Still, it shows these things happen

From what I see/read, keeping the tank away from a mechanic for few hours should kill it.

I don't know if it was mentioned already but comm wire would kill a tank; well at least gum up it's tracks.

I think the issue with older Russian tanks (particularly T72's) blowing their turrets off was mainly to do with the design.

The auto loader was crap because in order to work is had to keep a live round outside the protective ammo compartment, while you were firing another round.

There was also a main fuel line that run around the circumference of the turret base. Since this was the place where most people aimed, there was a high incidence of any impacting hit rupturing and then detonating the main fuel supply.

Wasn't this one of the reasons why the insurgents kept hitting all those fuel trucks in 2003/2004? Those tanks are gas hogs, and if you manage to reduce the amount of available fuel, you reduce the effectiveness of the tanks.

Hobbybox….

Actually no on the T72s. The T64-T90 store rounds outside the autoloader… outside any protection…. When penetrated these rounds burn. Eventually the autoloader goes up. So, it isn't the autoloader having one round exposed…. it is a bunch of other rounds unprotected in the hull.

Sovs in Chechnya learned to go into combat with just the rounds in the autoloader. Much less chance of a brew-up on penetration.

Joe Collins

MMmmmmm soviet tanks blow up when hit??? So, the crews chopped up corpses are cremated after death…….Doesn't seem that it really matters if the tank burns or not--if it is destroyed/immobilized that is what matters…

Doesn't seem that it really matters if the tank burns or not--if it is destroyed/immobilized that is what matters

On the longer term, tank burning or not affects whether it can be recovered, repaired and put back to use.

Griefbringer

Getting back to wargaming, whether the tank burns/brews up or not after major penetration is of little relevance to most tactical wargames. It is out of action for the purposes of the game either way. As Griefbringer notes, it may be of more relevance in a wargame campaign.

I worked at Al-Suaba back in '05 loading ships and there was an M1 on the pier that had been supposedyltaken out by an IED. It was a complete burned out hulk.

From what I had heard, a large IED went off and nailed somewhere inthe pak area…. which both cut the very flammable hydrolic fluid lines AND the fire suppression system controls.

Within something like two seconds, the Ammo went. IIRC, someone said the ammo door was open at the time and well… you get one dead tank and crew.

The crew never knew what hit them.

So yeah…. they can be taken out. But its damn hard and sometimes, the golden BB happens.

On the longer term, tank burning or not affects whether it can be recovered, repaired and put back to use.

Getting back to wargaming, whether the tank burns/brews up or not after major penetration is of little relevance to most tactical wargames.

I would suggest that it is of MAJOR importance. If you may only suffer an immobilisation hit, then you will take a tactical risk fairly easily. If you are likely to suffer an agonising death in flames if it goes wrong, that same tactical risk might look a trifle less inviting, no?

Try comparing playing paint ball and playing bullet ball with the same nominal objectives. Do you seriously think that the same decisions would be made?

Wasn't there reports of Challenger-2s taking multiple (in the 20s, one being a Milan) RPG hits during GW2 C.Q.B and sustained only superficial damage to the vision & sighting equipment on the turrets. Also, any M.B.T can be knocked out (Do you think that a M1 would have an easy time against a Callenger-2 or Leopard 2a6) There is no such thing as an invincible tank. Though Chobham/Dorchester (British development) armour goes a long way in the survivability both crew and tank.

Paul