According to the news the other day an M1 was taken out by an RPG. Showed a picture of it burning. That is rather scary, that a main battle tank can be destroyed by an RPG.
Peter.

It has weak spots...

umm, I dont think so.... not a single RPG round. What the news says, and what happened are probably not the same thing. an RPG might take a tread off, but its not going to kill our MBT

Agreed, it does have weak spots, and the treads are one of them. But an RPG 2, or RPG 7 is not capable or taking out something with 'reactive armor' or penetrating the multi-layered construction of it's hull. I have fired a RPG 7 and it does deliver a pretty effective "punch". Well, it did hit the dirt quite hard, because I missed what I was aiming for. But maybe it was a lucky shot (from high up...through the commanders hatch) But most likely it was a heavy mine or an updated Soviet 'Swatter' or 'Swagger' missile. Those things are everywhere.

On the news a few days ago, they videoed a disgruntled arab type firing what appeared to be a tube launched anti-tank missile of some description. It almost looked like a shoulder fired Kornet-E - Iraq is supposed to have a few. In any event, I doubt a RPG does anything more than makes a lot of noise and chips the paint...

I have 11 years on M1 tanks. A RPG WILL NOT penetrateany of the hull or turret armor (except the top of the turret which is about 1.5" thick) But if the bonehead shooting the RPG was to put it into the grill doors (center back end) he would most definately take out the engine, fuel cells, etc... Yes it would kill the tank but the crew would definately survive quite nicely. The M1 was the first tank designed for crew survivability. Even a direct hit in the ammo compartment would not kill the crew as they are built to take hit there and have "blow off" panels to direct the explosion out of the turret.

M1 - I have been to Lima Ohio where the M1A2 is manufactured. The proving grounds are impressive and the performance for a 68 ton vehicle is impressive to say the least. The depleted uranium/ceramic armor is about the toughest stuff around. I would imagine the crew must feel largely invincible is such a machine.

I have never been to Ohio to the plant. I have spent time at Aberdeen PG doing evaluatiopns and testing. Personally I would take the M1A1 over the M1A2 or A2 SEP. I love the CITV (commanders independant thermal viewer) on the A2's but the rest of the crap they put in there is too blasted touchy. All that unnecessary equipment makes it very difficult to use the tank to its full effectiveness. The A1 is a far superior tank to fight with. IMO. If they would just slap the CITV on a A1 it would be perfect.

The composie armor is known as Chauvam (spelling?) after its Brittish heritage. They actually designed the armor and 120mm smoothbore main gun. The Germans and a few others share the same gun and armor.

As to feeling secure in a M1? It makes you feel tougher than Superman!

As thesaying goes: "If you aint CAV, you aint ****!)

M1tanker, the correct spelling is Chobham. It works by providing an internal ceramic honecomb that disapates the hot gas jet generated by the Monroe effect - supposedly it would take a warhead north of 200mm to defeat it and considering that all of the various payloads for the RPG's are considerably less, I find the report highly doubtful. Even the HEAA warhead for the army SMAW won't penetrate into the interior. BTW, the british didn't design the gun, Rheinmetall in Germany did. It was originally designed for the leopard2. When they did the upgrade to the A1, they switched from a rifled 105 to a smoothbore 120.. THe british still use a rifled gun in 120mm, due to the Armor corp. fondness for HESH rounds. As far as I know France, Italy, Canada, and Germany all use the Rheinmetall gun. You mentioned the A1 SEV, is this the so called "product, improved" Abram's? the one that was supposed to get a new turret design so it could accept future gun upgrades?

Toolmaker

Thank you for setting me straight on the German heritage of the 120mm gun. I knew that and let my fingers get ahead of my brain. I am glad that is straight and I am not passing on false info.

I started on M60A3's which had the same gun and breach as the straight M1. I have been on every variant on the XM1, M1, M1IP, M1A1, M1A1 Heavy Commons, and the M1A2.

The M1A2 SEP was just being fielded to one battalion of 4th ID at Ft Hood in the late summer of 2000. I was in 1st Cav and didnt get to see the SEP much except for some demonstrations and a short familiarization of it. From what I understand it has a much better night vision sight system and improved primary sight. Plus a lot of other electronic upgrades to the IVIS and Fire Controls, and pulse jet system. Still the same chassis, engine, and gun.

Any M1A1 can be readily upgraded to the A2. When the A1 was being built the plans for the A2 were on the table so the A1's were designed with that upgrade in mind.

I believe the turret gun system you are thinking of is the Armored Gun Vehicle. I have been out of armor for acouple years and have no idea where they are with that new toy.

point of clarity, the Merkava (sp?) was the first tank to put crew survival ahead of the tanks' own, with the forward mounted engine, it could take a hit, and keep the crew alive.

From the way we were tought is that the whole reason for the forward engine in the Merkava is for troop room in the rear. The Merkava was designed by a tanker though and that is a first.

It may interest you gentleman that the Palistiians finally took out their first Merkava a couple of months ago. all it took was a homemade mine with something like 600lbs of explosives. The crew however escaped unharmed All that effort and so little to show for it.

Toolmaker

600 lbs of explosives



I dont think even the A could take that kind of a hit



M1, you may be right about that, I'm not a mech guy, thats just what I've been told, you'd be in a far better place to say, thought maybe you'd just forgotten bout the merk is all

Dark Paladin, check out the picture I sent you in an e-mail. It is of an Abrams that was hit by an RPG-7.



Crew was not killed, but the tank was destroyed.



DaMan

Here's the site for that picture. It WAS an RPG-7 that did a bit over a year ago.

http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/2028/password/sort/1/size/medium/cat/501/page/

DaMan

Like I said to begin with. A RPG wont hurt a M1 unless you put it right into the grill doors. If that happens the whole thing goes.

the picture says it was scuttled, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you have to be above the M1 to get a shot at the engine right? in that picture I see nothing they could have used to elevate themselves with..... How do you know it was an RPG?

Paladin - Don�t get suckered into daman�s lies. He has been busted all over this forum for fabricating documentation. He is about as believable as Baghdad Bob.

YOU seriously think an RPG could do that much damage to a tank? I don't think so. YOU must be the US's answer to BBBruce.



Why don't you Liberals stay on the Politics page, where you can spout off about all the things that you think you know, with authority to all the idiots that are dumb enough to believe you.



DaMan of what? .

Well I started this thread and it seems to have degenerated already. Here is a quote from Jane's Defence Weekly (do a search on google):
Abrams tank showed 'vulnerability' in Iraq

Tim Ripley JDW Correspondent

The US Army's M1 Abrams main battle tank (MBT) top side, and rear armour "remains susceptible to penetration" and needs improving, according to the Tank and Automotive Command's (TACOM) Abrams programme manager office (PM Abrams).

In a report into the US Army's principal MBT's performance during Operation 'Iraqi Freedom', however, PM Abrams said the tank's frontal turret and hull armour continues to provide excellent crew protection.

"The tank performed extremely well providing excellent manoeuvre, firepower and overall crew protection", concluded the report, which has been seen by JDW. "Engines typically outlived expectancies and transmissions proved to be durable."

PM Abrams personnel deployed forward with US Army divisions during the war and collected first-hand feedback from tank crews to compile the report. There were "no catastrophic losses due to Iraqi direct or indirect fire weapons," but several tanks were destroyed due to secondary effects attributed to Iraqi weapon systems. US Army sources told JDW that the report was only "preliminary observations" rather than a definitive study and more work was continuing to further refine the exact causes of US tank losses in Iraq. Other US Army sources report that 14 Abrams tanks were damaged and two destroyed during the war.

Most M1 losses were attributed in the report to mechanical breakdown, or vehicles being stripped for parts or vandalised by Iraqis. There were "no reported cases" of an anti-tank guided missile being fired at any US Army vehicle.

Details of the M1 losses were given, including one where 25mm armour-piercing depleted uranium (AP-DU) rounds from an unidentified weapon disabled a US tank near Najaf after penetrating the engine compartment. Another Abrams was disabled near Karbala after a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) penetrated the rear engine compartment and one was lost in Baghdad after its external auxiliary power unit was set on fire by medium-calibre fire.

Left and right side non-ballistic skirts were repeatedly penetrated by anti-armour RPG fire, according to the report, but only cosmetic damage was caused when they were struck by anti-personnel RPG rounds. There were no reported hits on ballistic skirts and no reported instance of US tanks hitting an anti-tank mine. Turret ammunition blast doors worked as designed. In one documented instance where a turret-ready ammunition rack compartment was hit and main gun rounds ignited, the blast doors contained the explosion and crew survived unharmed except for fume inhalation.

Peter.

Peter - Great info. As expressed in the report you provided - �destroyed� and �disabled� are two vastly different propositions.

Hello;
I don't know about the "invincibility" of the M 1, but I saw the tv footage. It was on fire and they were removing a severely wounded crewman from the turret. The fire appeared to be on the off side of the turret and fairly high up. Apparently other crew members were wounded as well.
Grizz

If this is the M1 that was torched about a week ago, we saw reports from CNN that it was Molotov cocktails from the overpasses above. Of course, CNN being what it is...
I work as an maneuver O/C with a number of light infantry O/C's who either shake their heads or point fingers when a tank gets destroyed. As a career tanker I tell them that no system is invulnerable, be it a tank or an IBA. Every system has weak points, which is why we are supposed to use teamwork to cover those weak points.