2 M1A1 tanks destroy by Iraqi.
-
CNN news just reports,iraqi soldiers fire 2 guided anti-tank milssles and destroyed 2 M1A1 tanks,but no crews inside are hurt.
-
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1704995.php
Iraqis ambush armored column; two Abrams tanks destroyed
No U.S. fatalities; battle marks first time Abrams destroyed by enemy fire -
should be:Originally posted by bcoy:http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1704995.php
Iraqis ambush armored column; two Abrams tanks destroyed
No U.S. fatalities; battle marks first time Abrams destroyed by enemy fire
battle marks first time US admits Abrams destroyed by enemy fire. -
there goes their "invulnerable" tank's reputation....
-
In a war,there sure to have losses wat?Originally posted by Pressure-Forward:CNN news just reports,iraqi soldiers fire 2 guided anti-tank milssles and destroyed 2 M1A1 tanks,but no crews inside are hurt.
i think in the gulf war, there r more then jus 2 tanks begin destroy..
I think that the big new should be if the IraQ drop the US
warship ..
-
If it was hit in the back as claimed, thats understandable. All MBTs have the weakest armor protection at the rear and top of the vehicle.
-
this is a WAR, what did they think it is?
a Cakewalk? -
18 M1A1s were "lost" during the gulf war
9 were nonrecoverables and in most of the cases, it was a friendly fire incident.
"Destroyed" is also a hard term to use for a tank like the Abrams, most likely while the tank has been disabled in some way, it is far from being a non recoverable. The fact that crew survived probably means that the M1A1 was disabled by enemy fire rather then actually destroyed, which will be hard to do because M1 tanks dun burn or blow up when they brew up, thanks to their safety measures.
Not surprised if these tanks were back in action just a few days later. -
kenna backstab of course knocked out lah...
but it hardly looks like a non recoverable kind of damage... wonder if recovery crews are gonna work on them. -
i think its the bloody russia selling those guided-missile to the iraqi. i dont think the RPG can do anything to those Beast (M1)
-
You mean anti-tank missiles? The Iraqis had them long long ago. Russians will be breaking those 101 U.N. resolutions and arms embargoes imposed on them if they do sell them to Iraq. Unless they do so under the table.
-
think you very pro abrams tanks.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:18 M1A1s were "lost" during the gulf war
9 were nonrecoverables and in most of the cases, it was a friendly fire incident.
"Destroyed" is also a hard term to use for a tank like the Abrams, most likely while the tank has been disabled in some way, it is far from being a non recoverable. The fact that crew survived probably means that the M1A1 was disabled by enemy fire rather then actually destroyed, which will be hard to do because M1 tanks dun burn or blow up when they brew up, thanks to their safety measures.
Not surprised if these tanks were back in action just a few days later.
this is the real thing we are talking here
not those "fantasy" computer games' Abrams tanks.
even the tank's maker admit to the fact that it was the first case of
m1a1 tanks being destroyed in combat to date. "destroyed"
any difficulties in knowing wat this word mean?
i do believe that abrams is perhaps one of the best tanks in the world and perhaps one of the safest, but the statement on that they dun burn or dun blown up when hit is crap.
for your information, they won't be back, anymore.
sorry to all those who like abrams.
but sometime i can't really stand the comments some made with regards to the tank. we are living in the real world not some fantasy sort of game. this war in iraq is real. people are dying. it's not some game whereby you can stop the game when you want or input some cheats to enable your euipment to be invincible.
if "destroyed" is a hard word for you,
then jus pls wake up from your game. this is the real thing.
in a war, these sort of things are bound to happen.
and if the US troops are like wat you do percieved them to be, that is, there wouldn't be any equipment destroyed and there wouldn't be lives lost. -
and i'll like to add that i'm not pro iraq
or pro us
or pro war.
all i want is peace. -
Siao, all M1 games always downplay the metal magic that is the Abrams, have you tried any? The M1s there are ridiculusly easy to destroy.
It stands, it dosen't sound like a non-recoverable hit.
"Destroyed" is a word to be used carefully when it comes to describing systems that are extremely survivable. What exactly counts as a destroyed? Ammo brew up? Not likely considering there were several cases of that happening in the gulf war and withing a few hours the tank was back in action following turret replacment. Engine knocked out? Happened before. I think the only way it could be truly considered destroyed if it was in pieces all over the place or burned out to a husk. The fact is, it's extremely hard to destroy an Abrams the way Iraqi tanks go up in, the american crew surviving without serious injury an indication that their tank was relatively intact.
If knocked out of action is considered "destroyed", as it seems in this case, what they consider "destroyed" here is a lot different from what we assumed it. -
agreed. It really depends what between how one interprets the world destroyed and damaged. If the tank was truely destoryed like in the case of the marine Amphibious troop carrier which was blown to bits by RPG, it is impossible that the crew could have not suffered injuries. On the other hand, with the report that the tank crew were not injured. This probably means that the tank was probably damaged and could go back in to action in a short time.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Siao, all M1 games always downplay the metal magic that is the Abrams, have you tried any? The M1s there are ridiculusly easy to destroy.
It stands, it dosen't sound like a non-recoverable hit.
"Destroyed" is a word to be used carefully when it comes to describing systems that are extremely survivable. What exactly counts as a destroyed? Ammo brew up? Not likely considering there were several cases of that happening in the gulf war and withing a few hours the tank was back in action following turret replacment. Engine knocked out? Happened before. I think the only way it could be truly considered destroyed if it was in pieces all over the place or burned out to a husk. The fact is, it's extremely hard to destroy an Abrams the way Iraqi tanks go up in, the american crew surviving without serious injury an indication that their tank was relatively intact.
If knocked out of action is considered "destroyed", as it seems in this case, what they consider "destroyed" here is a lot different from what we assumed it. -
Originally posted by Matlaysia:agreed. It really depends what between how one interprets the world destroyed and damaged. If the tank was truely destoryed like in the case of the marine Amphibious troop carrier which was blown to bits by RPG, it is impossible that the crew could have not suffered injuries. On the other hand, with the report that the tank crew were not injured. This probably means that the tank was probably damaged and could go back in to action in a short time.
The report was by the Army Times, a Military newspaper - they should know the meaning of term of the destroyed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Times
According to its maker and military records, those are the first Abrams to ever be destroyed by enemy fire.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let look into the Abram damages ;
Engine compartment destroy & caught fire - the whole engine etc and the all the drive axles, gears,running track , wiring harness of the WHOLE TANK etc etc etc would have to be replace.
The 120 ammo cooking off / explode, meaning that ammo that explode INSIDE the tank - how much damage will that cause to the tank interior.
Plus with the 0.5 HMG rounds were cook off - fired off - that mean you have 0.5 rounds ricocheting inside the turret itself.
Base on the above, how long do you think would its take to repair the tank to operational condition ?
By the way , I have NOT even comment on the DU amour / radiation issues ! -
You appear to have limited knowlege of the M1A1 series.Originally posted by thomasct:The report was by the Army Times, a Military newspaper - they should know the meaning of term of the destroyed.
Let look into the Abram damages ;
Engine compartment destroy & caught fire - the whole engine etc and the all the drive axles, gears,running track , wiring harness of the WHOLE TANK etc etc etc would have to be replace.
The 120 ammo cooking off / explode, meaning that ammo that explode INSIDE the tank - how much damage will that cause to the tank interior.
Plus with the 0.5 HMG rounds were cook off - fired off - that mean you have 0.5 rounds ricocheting inside the turret itself.
Base on the above, how long do you think would its take to repair the tank to operational condition ?
By the way , I have NOT even comment on the DU amour / radiation issues !
120mm ammo brewing up in the case of a fire is not a problem for the tank. Seperated fireproof and armored turret bustles and blow out panels vent the explosions upwards and out away from the turret. Crew can actually survive quite within the turret while ammo is brewing up, though evacuation during such an event would be problematic as the ammo would mean the deck of the tank is unsafe. Abrams had brewed up several times (in bout 9 friendly fire incidents) in the gulf war after taking friendly GAU-8 and Manverick missiles to the rear, but not in one case was a crew member harmed and in many cases the tank returned to action a few hours later after repairs.
Several other cases had M1A1s trying to destroy bogged down M1A1s stuck in the mud during 1991 with their 120mm guns, attempts to demolish M1A1s always failed and the tanks had to be towed out later when they were examined, to their surprise, to be still functional though the turrets of course, had to be replaced.
The .50cal rounds were cooking off OUTSIDE the turret, that's where they are stored and why some crew could not get outside their tank because they stood a chance of getting hit from a stray. If they cooked off inside, the crew would be dead.
The fuel tank of the tank are armored and self sealing, and the turbine powerpack (which is pretty small with the transmittion taking up most of the space) has fire control features built into it. A hit to the powerpack will work to disable the tank, but not set it on fire.
Unless the Iraqis dropped a 2,000 pound bomb or sent a 155mm through the roof of the M1A1, they would have a lot of problems trying to make sure they are truly destroyed and will not return in a later action.
From what it seems, the Iraqis managed to backstab the Abrams either by ATGMs or anti tank guns to the rear, which is not armored with the chobhamm DU armor, such a hit, either to the ammo bustle or the powerpack would have disabled an Abrams or set it on fire, but hardly caused fatal damage that made it non recoverable.
Reminds me of world war two, when some shermans were "destroyed" in action about four times because each time the allies managed to salvage it and bring it back to action. -
120mm ammo brewing up in the case of a fire is not a problem for the tank. Seperated fireproof and armored turret bustles and blow out panels vent the explosions upwards and out away from the turret.
Known about the " Seperated fireproof and armored turret bustles and blow out panels "
The fact that 120 ammo did explode INSIDE the tank, do you agree?
Are you saying that explosion of at ( unknown) kg. of explosives / propellant or 120 mm cannon rounds WILL NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT on the tank just because it have " Seperated fireproof and armored turret bustles and blow out panels "The .50 cal rounds were cooking off OUTSIDE the turret, that's where they are stored
Yes, the ready to use 0.5 ammo is outside with HMG . Where spare ammo is being stored ??the fuel tank of the tank are armored and self sealing,and the turbine powerpack (which is pretty small with the transmittion taking up most of the space) has fire control features built into it. A hit to the powerpack will work to disable the tank, but not set it on fire.
Base on your above facts, Abram tank WILL not catch fire .
If there is NO fire - Then please so kind to tell us how the 120 mm ammo etc manage cook -off / brew off??
The fact remain the tank was on fire and the fire was hot enough to cook off the 0.5 HMG ammo located outside the turret as you say.Several other cases had M1A1s trying to destroy bogged down M1A1s stuck in the mud during 1991 with their 120mm guns, attempts to demolish M1A1s always failed
Believed that to be one of myths created by the American Spin doctors.
M1A1 with 120 mm cannon fire at bank-point range cannot "destroyed " a M1A1
But some Iraqi with an anti-tank cannon mounted on a "truck?" can "destroyed " 2 Abram tanks .
Army Time is an AMERICAN MILITARY NEWSPAPER, if they say that 2 of their American Abram tanks were destroyed in battle.
Who are we to say otherwise !!!
My orginal question is "how long do you think would its take to repair the tank to operational condition ? "
I have never say that tanks is " scraped metal " !
What You Read Is DEAD , the Real World Is ALIVE. -
Most of your points show your lack of ability to actually comprehend statements before you respond. You appear to be going via your own negative imagination rather then take case studies off things that have happened before. Case in point, most of your arguments go by "can you imagine" or "can you see" type of lines, which are pretty much invalidated esp. when you have demostrated that you know little more about Abrams taking battle damage outside this article.
If you want to know about the real world, I suggest that you actually go read about real world events that have happened and have been recorded before.
What does the real world show? That Abrams had been brewed up and returned to active duty before.
All you read in the article was the "word" destroyed, which as I am trying to point out, can have many multiple meanings for a tank such an the Abrams, which are probably nowhere near as negative as you would like to think.
Of course, the article did not mention anything more then just two Abrams being "destroyed" by enemy fire, which as I have pointed out, highly ambigious given the many damage control measures put in the Abrams and the fact that history has demostrated before that such incidents hardly mean that the tank is destroyed as par said.
As for how long it takes to return the tank to active duty, two points. First it already proves that the better term to use for that incident was "damaged" and invalidates your rabid arguments. Secondly most of the Abrams which suffered friendly fire incidents (in which the tanks suffered all the symptoms you stated that said they should be destroyed) were back out in the field within 48 hours during the gulf war.
Nuff said. -
Originally posted by thomasct:
Again you show your limited understanding of modern armored warfare, choosing to make judgements and sweeping statements before you actually gather more data. From the front and sides, the M1A1 series of tanks sport DU enhanced chobhamm armor that provides very effective protection against kenetic and chemical attacks. The Abrams is effectively invulnerable to most anti-armor threats from the front, and to a lesser extent, the sides.
Believed that to be one of myths created by the American Spin doctors.
M1A1 with 120 mm cannon fire at bank-point range cannot "destroyed " a M1A1
But some Iraqi with an anti-tank cannon mounted on a "truck?" can "destroyed " 2 Abram tanks .
In fact, it has long been a proven fact (one which I need not explain here if you bothered to read up on the subject before blowing your own head off in here) is that there have been multiple instances where M1A1s have being hit by their own 120mm and Iraqi 125mm guns, along with RPGs and even ATGMs. They all failed to penetrate. If this was a lie by spin doctors, it must be one that takes all kinds of conspiracy larger then the X-files to create.
However, one thing that anybody worth his salt in armor (unfortunately not you) would know is that the M1A1 does not have this protection on it's rear sides. And that makes the Abrams vulnerable to threats that hit it from the rear. So while the anti-tank gun on the truck would have bounced off the Abrams like shots from pea-shooters from the front and sides, it would be perfectly capable of penetrating where the Abrams does not sport it's composite armor suite. As would other AT weapons.
That's a matter of journalism. Anyway, if you have read "American Military Newspapers" as much as I did, you know that some of them hardly know what they are talking about, and if you argue this point, you only prove it. But that asides. What I am trying to say otherwise, is that the term "destroyed" in this case is extremely ambigious, but based on what I know the Abrams is capable of, not anywhere near as negative as you would like to think it.
Army Time is an AMERICAN MILITARY NEWSPAPER, if they say that 2 of their American Abram tanks were destroyed in battle.
Who are we to say otherwise !!!
If that is true, how come you are basing your case on what you read off an article, and one which described events in such an vague and ambigious nature as well?
What You Read Is DEAD , the Real World Is ALIVE. ooh blew your own foot off...
Nuff said...
[/b][/quote] -
fyi i dun play computer games that much.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
i prefer to live in the real world.
wat i'm saying is that this
is the real world, not some fantasy.
sincerely i dun really like fantasy but as long as you keep it to
your little world then it would be fine. but this is the real world.
open up your eyes and see.
tanks are being destroyed here.
if the invincible tank that could not be destroyed exisit,
which world are we living in?
your take.
enough said, too. -
[quote]Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
You appear to have limited knowlege of the M1A1 series.
yah, me too.
cause i dun play that kind of games. i didn't even know ALL games downplay their "magic metal" or watever fantasy POS you call it.
and secondly unless you had driven a abrams tank to battle, what you and i know are all information circulating around. so who are you to say we have limited knowledge on the tank?
not unless you tell me you do acually owned one abram tank . oh forget to add,in real life pls hor. -
Found this on the China military forums. -
Unconfirm reports is that one of the crewman has died of his injuries. (New York Times??)
-
halo SingaporeTyrannosaur, welcome to the real world.Originally posted by bcoy:
Found this on the China military forums.