"M1 not so invulnerable?" Topic

Curious as to comments on this:

link

I think the author is Russian, and the English is awful, but he seems to claim:

"More noticeable was the clashes between the M1A1 and the Iraqi T-72 in the Iraqi air force base Saman, which is 300 kilometers east of Baghdad. According to the Russian military attache in Iraq Colonel V. Potsalyuka in that battle the Americans lost 68 tanks, most of it was his own, "Abrams".

South American tank units irrevocably lost a little more than 50 tanks "Abrams". Notwithstanding the significant an advantage over the enemy, who at the theater were in the main outdated standards, such as the T-54/55/62, a number of lost vehicles can be considered huge. Especially since the last time environmentalists they say that in the Arabian desert, the site of the fighting, scattered about 20,000 uranium cores from tank guns, threatening environment environmental disaster.

Mathematics can be a straightforward method to calculate how many munitions had on any of the 500 wrecked T-72, T-55 hardly used so expensive shells. "Abrams" did not meet the assigned him the title of "the most impenetrable and secure the tank", the initial approval of the Western press about what was lost none tank, later they were the same and refuted."

I've seen this page several years ago, think there was significantly less tanks lost in tank battle itself, than during city fights later on, where a number of M1 was lost to multiple RPG shots. I've seen videos with burning Abrams, but they were in better shape than on pics above.
To my mind Merkava holds the title of the most secure tank for its crew anyway…

I've seen some reports where a fuel bladder was perforated and ran into the engine deck, then igniting.

"According to the Russian military attache in Iraq Colonel V. Potsalyuka in that battle the Americans lost 68 tanks, most of it was his own, "Abrams". As evidence of this in Moscow "classified" were sent photos of destroyed M1."

I am going to go ahead and call it bull poop.

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.

-From an instructor at the US Armor School.

Far cry from 50+

Plus the fact that m1 has blowout planets and well isolated crew compartment. So the tank may look fumarate but the crew is fine and the tank can be overhauled and returned to service.
Now if a Soviet tank takes a bit the crew is literally sitting on top of several hundred kilograms of exposed explosives nothing to bury.

How many M1s were in operation there? i.e. as a percentage of vehicles present what is 50 losses in real terms?

Are we talking 50-68 'lost' due to a variety of things (shed track, stuck in mud, broke down, overheated due to combination of Arabian sun and turbine heat) as opposed to 'destroyed by enemy tank/RPG fire'?

Or do we think the 50-68 'losses' are just made up figures for domestic internal warm feelings?

it seems that 68 figure includes friendly fire, engine ignition, mines and direct combat losses. Expert opinion is that only several were lost by tank fire.

YouTube link

ok, it is in Russian but it has more truth than the page you've found. Also explains a bit why the kill/lose ratio with Abrams/Iraqi tanks was like 400/several ;)

I was sent the link for comment, was just curious how it fitted with extrapolated knowledge

typical statistics. Gross manipulation of the numbers.

Yes, several Abrams have been killed in combat. More have been written off as irrecoverably stuck.

IIRC, the numbers for Abrams killed by another tank is ~3. Had about that many more killed by RPGs. And had a LOT more killed by thousand-pound IEDs.

Most crew casualties were due to IEDs. Second loss was tanks turning turtle and killing the TC who was out of the hatch.

I suspect large IEDs would be the major culprit for losses.

They were using huge bomb shells, and other explosive caches to take out a lot of our armor.

Here is some interesting anecdotal info on M1A1s in service with the Iraqi army currently:

link

Most interesting bit: RPG-7 can kill an M1A1.

Is that RPG? It refers to images of RPG, Kornet ATGM and M70 Osa, but only seems to state losses due to shaped charge ATGMs.

The M1A1 used in Desert Shield/Storm is not the same armor composition as M1A2, M1A1 HA. The missiles have improved and Russia has supplied the advance missiles/RPGs, including improved warheads. Getting a 'kill' with RPG/missiles to hit the engine and then it is disabled is a tactical kill. It can be recovered and then new components/engine installed. As for enemy troops/ISIS getting on board and throwing an explosive in the turret is another weakness of the training and tactics of the Abrams force commander.

The Merkava IV is probable the most survivable for crew, yet RPG 18? have be able to have 'tactical kills' in Lebanon several years ago. It used to be invulnerable…or not comments on previous Merkava models.

Is the Abrams still capable and effective in the terms of the doctrine of use, in the attack, defense and pursuit of the enemy? In Europe, if Ukraine or Turkey situation expanded and the US was compelled to intervine, how would the Abrams do? How about against the T-90, T-90s, the Armata, etc? Certainly in 3-5 year time frame, is there anything to change that would affect the relative capability of the Abrams? How about 10-15 years in the future?

Getting a 'kill' with RPG/missiles to hit the engine and then it is disabled is a tactical kill. It can be recovered and then new components/engine installed.

As this is a forum dedicated to tabletop miniatures battles I imagine that for most of us "tactical kill" is what matters most. AFV recovery and repair is beyond the scope of miniature wargame rules and probably limited to strategic level boardgames as found on BGG.

But your point is well taken and I believe is a key driver for what I call "armor inflation" in modern gaming.

Obviously armor protection has evolved over the years but a lot of those advances have primarily benefited crew survival and the ability to recover and repair battle damaged AFVs. For example, MRAPs certainly enable crews to survive IED blasts that would kill them if in a Humvee. But the MRAP and crew are still tactical kills even if outwardly intact.

In miniature wargame rules this leads to Super Tanks being rated for armor protection that mostly covers only a few key areas. As one former Abrams commander told me while play testing our upcoming game, "Rush of Battle", "You can't protect the entire vehicle. The engine needs to breathe and exhaust heat, tracks and road wheels aren't made from Chobham armor, and reactive armor reacts once. Anything can kill a tank, it's just a matter of time and luck."

This doesn't mean that a .50 cal. should be able to kill a T-72 in the context of a game. But modern autocannons do in fact pose a small threat to the flanks and rear of even the best current MBTs. And most ATRLs can cause a tactical kill even on the best protected AFV.

Our solution is to focus less on armor alone and to consider a broader level of protection. So it's not just "penetration value vs armor composition, thickness, and angle". It's also about how long even the best MBT might withstand a barrage of lesser projectiles before succumbing to a mobility or tactical kill.

A 120mm high velocity round is still the best tank killer but even the most advanced Abrams can't sit idle while a 30mm autocannon chews into its engine compartment, tracks, and road wheels. And you don't need a detailed hit location system to represent these effects.

"And you don't need a detailed hit location system to represent these effects".

Perhaps not, but it is still nice to have, anyway.