M1 Abrams questions

i heard 4 in golf 1. no stats from rereun ver. 2. of course you can totally destroy one. no armor is perfect and i hope our guys never have to face the shark or any other hotshit aircraft. there was one that got the shit knocked out of the front. they thought the driver was dead after th boom and fire, but when it cooled a couple of hours later, they pulled the driver out who wondered what took so long. they are bmf tanks, but anything can be destroyed.

A few. Most of the time tanks are written off it is due to a catastrophic event (e.g. the ammo detonates) or fire. Fire changes the molecular composition of the steel and other materials used in the armor weakening its integrity.

All told we have probably written off 20 or so, most of them during OIF due to IEDs or fires.

Cookie Sewell

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote in news:abaae73b-e707-4b85-95b7- snipped-for-privacy@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:

Anything in tank vs tank? I guess I'm trying to divine the kill ratio, x number of Abrams vs x * 100 of bad guy tanks.

Still 20 is pretty remarkable.

This article states that the first Abrams destroyed by enemy fire occured during OIF, and that all Abrams damaged during DS were returned to service. These particular Abrams were believed to have been taken out by a truck mounted AT gun.

This article claims that no Abrams has been lost to fire from an enemy tank, either in DS or OIF.

They're internet articles and are thus subject to being truthful, not entirely correct, exaggeration, falsehood, lies, outright fantasy, practical joke run amok, Microsoft upgrade... you get the point.

WmB

According to the tankers I know NO Abrams has ever been lost to enemy tank fire -- there are a lot of claims from Iraqis and fellow traveler pro-Soviet writers like Sergey Suvorov but no actual losses, period.

One tank was lost during Desert Storm when it smoked a T-72 and then pulled up next to the burning tank looking for more Iraqis. The T-72 detonated and showered it with burning fuel which the crew could not extinguish so they bailed out and the tank was a loss. That's about as close as it comes.

Some were lost to ATGM and RPG fire in OIF, all rear shots.

Cookie Sewell

on 6/20/2009 1:51 PM (ET) Gray Ghost wrote the following:

I don't have numbers of Abrams vs Iraqi tanks, but it was said on a Military channel program that the Bradley IFV smoked more Iraqi tanks than the Abrams.

Somehow I doubt that -- for example, B Company 4th Tanks USMC took out

34 out of 35 T-72s in less than 14 minutes in one engagement, and the Battles of 73 Easting and Medina Ridge were won mostly by Abrams gunfire at 2000-3000 meters in limited visibility conditions.

Cookie Sewell

Here's a quote, although it was for the first Gulf war in 1991, which is probably what I heard on TV. From:

"The Bradley saw extensive action in the Persian Gulf War of 1991, accounting for more enemy tanks destroyed than that of the M1 and M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank systems. On the flip side, of the twenty Bradley's lost in the conflict, a whopping 17 were due to friendly fire accidents. As such, identification measures were put into place to curtail these incidents in future engagements".

I'm looking for a more official site, but a number of unofficial sites report this.

Speaking of Bradleys, have you seen this? Ooops.

willshak wrote: : : Here's a quote, although it was for the first Gulf war in 1991, which is : probably what I heard on TV. : From:

Not exactly a reliable source you provide there. Not to mention that the History Channel is one of the most reliable sources there is. Of SNAFU's.

Now, I have seen a somewhat different quote, and that quote makes a whole lot more sense:

"During the Gulf War, the Bradleys destroyed more Iraqi ARMOR than the M1 Abrams."

Still, I would be a lot happier to see actual numbers.

Bruce

I've yet to hear a TV commentator who could tell the difference between a "tank" and an APC, especially since the latter starting sporting turrets.

(kim)

the number of lgm's sighted here go up as the budget and iq's go down. the tweekers can see flocks of them invading mc dumbells.

Well then - you'll be pleased to know that French "battleships" have the Sea of Japan and the Horn of Africa covered. Heard that bit of precision reporting last month. Battleship sightings by the press are nothing new of course. In fact, the yearly increase in sightings appears to be in direct relation to the yearly increase in public school funding.

WmB

WmB wrote: : : Well then - you'll be pleased to know that French "battleships" have the Sea : of Japan and the Horn of Africa covered. : Heard that bit of precision reporting last month. : I am actually not so annoyed by that bit of usage, as I can easily see battleship being used to indicate a generic warship. Since anything with tracks must be a "tank", so must any warship be a "battleship".

Now, why are the Frogs covering the Sea of Japan?

Bruce

Probably trying to get under the DPRK missile arc.

WmB

snipped-for-privacy@realtime.net (Bruce Burden) wrote in news:Z4X%l.4123$Uq5.2125 @newsfe23.iad:

OK, so basically we have no Abrams KIA by action of an adversary AFV. How many adversary AFVs is it estimated that Abrams has put down? Mostly Iraqi I'm guessing. Mostly T-55s and T-72s with a smattering of T-62s for variety.

I particularly like the Iraqi tanks when the turrets fly off. I call them pop tops, my boy gets a giggle out of it.

Frank

On another note, the Army announced the plans to develop the M1A3 by

2014 and field the M1A3 by 2017