Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Share

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod on Tue May 31, 2016 5:20 pm

    Militarov wrote:KTD-1 and KTD-2 laser rangefinders were available for T55A in its late production, post 1975. or so. Later various Chinese and North Korean rangefinders became available for possible modernisations.
    Thx for this interresting information. For that reason Iam nearly sure that several M1 Abrams were destroyed just by T-55.

    I don't know whether against a M1 Abrams a simple M-61 vulcan gatling gun with depleted uranium's API amnunitions is not enough. U shoot on the Tank's weakspots and it's done.



    In russian arsenal I did not see much of its Gatling guns with depleted uranium ammunitions.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Tue May 31, 2016 6:54 pm

    1500 to 1700 RHA laughable...If I believe, nothing could engage this specimen ?
    Really ?

    It seems like another Zaloga's joke.

    Of course it is a joke, to state video game simulators armor table source as a "fact" to reality is retarded just like to use Steel Beasts as a source for armor is nothing else but guesstimation by people who have no clue. How could they even have a clue, armor is top secret there are only few people that would even know actual RHAe numbers, even the testers of armor and weapons can only test type of weapon versus armor, different types of weapons with similiar RHA penetration capability will not necessairly do the same penetration equal to each other on composite armor.

    It is very simple, as soon as people come up with armor values of RHAe they are full of shit. They can not know any values, anything is just guesstimation and the other point is that how could you have a RHAe value if composite armor is not an unified concept or design. They work all differently, with different layers, materials, liners, angles, fillers, physical force of bulking or NERA layers or similiar armor. That makes the entire RHAe laughable concept to be picked up by shittalkers in the first place.

    The only true method is Type of weapon penetrates or does not penetrate type of armor at angle x, zone y and its effect on the tank. If tank keeps moving, one of the values was wrong or all off them and the weapon is obsolete, period.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod on Tue May 31, 2016 11:47 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Of course it is a joke, ...just like to use Steel Beasts as a source for armor is nothing else but guesstimation by people who have no clue.
    I understand your concerns. Iam not a fan of games on PC. I never played. I endorse most of your interresting remarks.
    Steal Beasts is an excellent site, as it compiles many relevant informations. Their data came from many sources including Wikipedia, Russian Cannons, Zaloga's books -not the best of course- etc....

    Werewolf wrote:
    ....armor is top secret there are only few people that would even know actual RHAe numbers,

    Yes and no. Yes if it is a secret belonging to a crucial project that is going to be roll out next. But concerning the M1 -A1/A2- Abrams it is no longer a secret. First of all it was exported, and 9 countries have M1 Abrams. 10.000 were built until now.
    Moreover many, many M1 Abrams were destroyed in combat since 1991 until now, and many wreckages are still available. Much of them were abandoned in Iraqi desert. Everyone could see what is the M1 A1/A2 Abrams. But I agree with you the M1 A3 could be still a secret. Furthermore americans did not invent the powder, after all the M1 Abrams is not much more different than Merkava Mk 4, AMX-40 Leclerc, british Challenger, or even the T-62/ -if we remove the US propaganda-T-64/T-72/T-80/T-90. M1 Abrams is simple mass produced tank, not a mysterious black box, if it has 1200 mm of armour and after ? Is it an issue ? U know better than me that it exists everywhere solutions to overcome this armour, in industrial countries not only Russia, UK, France or US but even Serbia, Romania, North Korea, etc... in fact any country that has an industrial potential and could produce ATGM that are able perforate more than 2 meters. Where is the problem ? There are hundreds of M1 Abrams that were burnt, destroyed for while. It is not impossible that many M1 Abrams, Merkava, AMX 40, or even T-72 and T-90 that were destroyed by serbian, north korean, or even romanian anti tank rockets.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Jun 01, 2016 12:12 am

    nemrod wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    Of course it is a joke, ...just like to use Steel Beasts as a source for armor is nothing else but guesstimation by people who have no clue.
    I understand your concerns. Iam not a fan of games on PC. I never played. I endorse most of your interresting remarks.
    Steal Beasts is an excellent site, as it compiles many relevant informations. Their data came from many sources including Wikipedia, Russian Cannons, Zaloga's books -not the best of course- etc....

    Non of the listed sources has any relevance on armor value, non of them could even have a magical coincidence in being even close to the actual figures, because of the reasons i already have explained. If you like a proper more informative explanation you can ask Mindstorm, most educated person here and everywhere else on such matters.

    nemrod wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    ....armor is top secret there are only few people that would even know actual RHAe numbers,

    Yes and no. Yes if it is a secret belonging to a crucial project that is going to be roll out next. But concerning the M1 -A1/A2- Abrams it is no longer a secret. First of all it was exported, and 9 countries have M1 Abrams. 10.000 were built until now.
    Moreover many, many M1 Abrams were destroyed in combat since 1991 until now, and many wreckages are still available. Much of them were abandoned in Iraqi desert. Everyone could see what is the M1 A1/A2 Abrams. But I agree with you the M1 A3 could be still a secret. Furthermore americans did not invent the powder, after all the M1 Abrams is not much more different than Merkava Mk 4, AMX-40 Leclerc, british Challenger, or even the T-62/ -if we remove the US propaganda-T-64/T-72/T-80/T-90. M1 Abrams is simple mass produced tank, not a mysterious black box, if it has 1200 mm of armour and after ? Is it an issue ? U know better than me that it exists everywhere solutions to overcome this armour, in industrial countries not only Russia, UK, France or US but even Serbia, Romania, North Korea, etc...  in fact any country that has an industrial potential and could produce ATGM that are able perforate more than 2 meters. Where is the problem ? There are hundreds of M1 Abrams that were burnt, destroyed for while. It is not impossible that many M1 Abrams, Merkava, AMX 40, or even T-72 and T-90 that were destroyed by serbian, north korean, or even romanian anti tank rockets.

    The americans like in every war they have been very cautious and very paranoid of their destroyed weapons getting into foreign hands, not that it never happened but they usually try to ensure to get the crucial stuff back. I am sure the chinese had tried or even succeeded in getting some information from iraq, but nothing such as the british and muricans did with getting T-80UE from russia via vassal state Marokko.

    The armor configuration, layers and angles are still pretty much secret to most and without doubt to anyone on any forum. Tanks for export always had and always will have different armor configuration, angles, layers, materials or whatever the developers see necessary to change it to have different values. That does not matter if there are fanboys calling T-72M of iraq equal to soviet T-72's in armor of any version, it is still and always was and probably will never change that the armor is always different same as on Iraqi M1A1 or Saudi M1A2S and it does not matter how often there is someone using the magical word that protects the fanboys internet armschairgeneral virginity status by calling always and everywhere "chobham" and "depleted uranium". Mantras are used by people that know little about it or different materials with superior attributes.

    There is no problem producing such a weapon to destroy 2m of RHA armor, the key to this is feasibility of actually carrying and making such a weapon useful. I doubt a 220mm calibre ATGM that weights 80kg is really feasible or practical to be used on the battlefield. The behind logistics, budget, transportation, maintenance, training, safety, storage and actually finding and equipping plattforms with it makes it horrible to even attempt, not to mention if you have such a calibre ATGM you do not need to make it a HEAT based weapon just stuff it with enough explosives it will crush anything mobile, probably two tanks with one missile if they are close to each other. Just not feasible.

    No T-90 was ever destroyed so far.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod on Wed Jun 01, 2016 12:54 pm

    To Werewolf
    Werewolf wrote:
    None of the listed sources has any relevance on...

    In fact they have any relevance in nearly all. I share your POV. We have the same vision concerning sources. We've already discussed about this issue, the problem is not new. For that reason my wishes is to see next a russian wiki available in all tongues independant of western lies. No one is coming and showed us the truth. It might be too easy. Well there are events resulting in facts. From these facts we took deduction. These deduction are mere assumptions.

    About the M1 Abrams. Americans accept or not, hide or not their so-called secrets, the facts are there :

    A mass product hardware is vulnerable as any other hardware


    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4816
    Points : 4863
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Militarov on Wed Jun 01, 2016 1:06 pm

    nemrod wrote:To Werewolf
    Werewolf wrote:
    None of the listed sources has any relevance on...

    In fact they have any relevance in nearly all. I share your POV. We have the same vision concerning sources. We've already discussed about this issue, the problem is not new. For that reason my wishes is to see next a russian wiki available in all tongues independant of western lies. No one is coming and showed us the truth. It might be too easy. Well there are events resulting in facts. From these facts we took deduction. These deduction are mere assumptions.

    About the M1 Abrams. Americans accept or not, hide or not their so-called secrets, the facts are there :

    A mass product hardware is vulnerable as any other hardware


    Thing is that some of the destroyed Abrams pics that we have were destroyed by own airforce or US crews after tracks were damaged and they had to retreat, or went out of ammunition/fuel. In first Gulf War for an example Janes once reported that USAF did prevention airstrikes on 7 Abrams tanks and 2 were destroyed by own crews via thermite explosive charges.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod on Wed Jun 01, 2016 1:18 pm

    Militarov wrote:...Janes once reported that USAF did prevention airstrikes on 7 Abrams tanks and 2 were destroyed by own crews via ...
    Are U realizing the scale of Janes's insanities! Sorry but Janes has none credibility as most of western press. In war period none of western press news says truth. Nothing! They lie.
    Iam sure that iraqi anti-tanks missiles took out many western coalition tanks, including US M1 Abrams besides egyptian, saudis's M-60, as Hizbollah did in 2006 against Israeli's Merkava. The anti tank missiles used by iraqis were AT-4 spiggot. But these informations are written off, hence censored.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3566
    Points : 3601
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Wed Jun 01, 2016 1:50 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    nemrod wrote:To Werewolf
    Werewolf wrote:
    None of the listed sources has any relevance on...

    In fact they have any relevance in nearly all. I share your POV. We have the same vision concerning sources. We've already discussed about this issue, the problem is not new. For that reason my wishes is to see next a russian wiki available in all tongues independant of western lies. No one is coming and showed us the truth. It might be too easy. Well there are events resulting in facts. From these facts we took deduction. These deduction are mere assumptions.

    About the M1 Abrams. Americans accept or not, hide or not their so-called secrets, the facts are there :

    A mass product hardware is vulnerable as any other hardware


    Thing is that some of the destroyed Abrams pics that we have were destroyed by own airforce or US crews after tracks were damaged and they had to retreat, or went out of ammunition/fuel. In first Gulf War for an example Janes once reported that USAF did prevention airstrikes on 7 Abrams tanks and 2 were destroyed by own crews via thermite explosive charges.

    The two are from Diwaniyah axis, Tank two, sprocket was busted and Iraqis had hit rear deck. Impossible to move them under fire, impossible to get them out one was thermited without much success and the Iraqis burnt it. Then USAF bombed the area. The other had an APU fire from contact and the crew evaced. It was hit with Hellfire. There's also the story of another Abrams hit twice with M1A1 Tank gun then hit again by Hellfire before starting to burn. I think that's fantasy but why not.

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4816
    Points : 4863
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Militarov on Wed Jun 01, 2016 2:01 pm

    nemrod wrote:
    Militarov wrote:...Janes once reported that USAF did prevention airstrikes on 7 Abrams tanks and 2 were destroyed by own crews via ...
    Are U realizing the scale of Janes's insanities! Sorry but Janes has none credibility as most of western press. In war period none of western press news says truth. Nothing! They lie.
    Iam sure that iraqi anti-tanks missiles took out many western coalition tanks, including US M1 Abrams besides egyptian, saudis's M-60, as Hizbollah did in 2006 against Israeli's Merkava. The anti tank missiles used by iraqis were AT-4 spiggot. But these informations are written off, hence censored.

    Its not really censored, we know that 23 M1A1s were knocked out of combat in 1991. 14 of which were returned into service. What we do not know are the details of each incident where they were damaged or destroyed, we know like half of those.

    Two Abrams were destroyed in 2003. during Battle for Baghdad one destroyed by AA guns and one by an ATGMs, Also during operations in Najaf 2 M1s were severely damaged and abandoned, probably after hits from RPG-18, they burned out, crew bailed out from both and sprayed oil inside the combat compartment.

    The Iraq War: A Military History by Williamson Murray has fairly decent list of M1 destroyed units together with their service numbers etc.

    Americans are just claiming that no M1 Abrams was lost to an enemy tank, which is true, same as its true that no F15C to this day was shot down by enemy fighter. Some Abrams tanks were hit by Iraqi T72Ms but none managed to actually destroy them or kill the crew, all were partial penetrations, near missies or penetrations into engine compartment with no hull dmg.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Jun 01, 2016 6:49 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    Americans are just claiming that no M1 Abrams was lost to an enemy tank, which is true, same as its true that no F15C to this day was shot down by enemy fighter. Some Abrams tanks were hit by Iraqi T72Ms but none managed to actually destroy them or kill the crew, all were partial penetrations, near missies or penetrations into engine compartment with no hull dmg.

    That claim moved on now to "M1" is battle proven and was never destroyed at all, as soon you post pictures they back paddle it was destroyed by airforce and Abrams took several shots from its own and Apache had to destroy it.


    The most retarded lies, like any accompaning tanker will not know not to shoot a fucking tank any place but the most protected if he actually wants to destroy it. Even tho i do not believe americans are educated but they certainly are not that stupid either to make such horrible propaganda of how mighty the abrams is, it is like any other tank paperly thin from any other side but the front.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3566
    Points : 3601
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Wed Jun 01, 2016 6:59 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Americans are just claiming that no M1 Abrams was lost to an enemy tank, which is true, same as its true that no F15C to this day was shot down by enemy fighter. Some Abrams tanks were hit by Iraqi T72Ms but none managed to actually destroy them or kill the crew, all were partial penetrations, near missies or penetrations into engine compartment with no hull dmg.

    That claim moved on now to "M1" is battle proven and was never destroyed at all, as soon you post pictures they back paddle it was destroyed by airforce and Abrams took several shots from its own and Apache had to destroy it.


    The most retarded lies, like any accompaning tanker will not know not to shoot a fucking tank any place but the most protected if he actually wants to destroy it. Even tho i do not believe americans are educated but they certainly are not that stupid either to make such horrible propaganda of how mighty the abrams is, it is like any other tank paperly thin from any other side but the front.

    Once again, it is not as much lies as it is a different paradigm. The Abrams was seldom exposed to urban warfare in GW1. It was also enjoying brutal awareness superiority in both GW's. Bring down the suite that protects it and the tank will not be more difficult to kill than the T-72. Give the defending side enough tools (God only knows what carnage would have happened had the Iraqis the scores of ATGM even the YEMENIS HAD).

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4816
    Points : 4863
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Militarov on Wed Jun 01, 2016 7:00 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Americans are just claiming that no M1 Abrams was lost to an enemy tank, which is true, same as its true that no F15C to this day was shot down by enemy fighter. Some Abrams tanks were hit by Iraqi T72Ms but none managed to actually destroy them or kill the crew, all were partial penetrations, near missies or penetrations into engine compartment with no hull dmg.

    That claim moved on now to "M1" is battle proven and was never destroyed at all, as soon you post pictures they back paddle it was destroyed by airforce and Abrams took several shots from its own and Apache had to destroy it.


    The most retarded lies, like any accompaning tanker will not know not to shoot a fucking tank any place but the most protected if he actually wants to destroy it. Even tho i do not believe americans are educated but they certainly are not that stupid either to make such horrible propaganda of how mighty the abrams is, it is like any other tank paperly thin from any other side but the front.

    Well you have Internet trolls claiming stuff like "No Abrams was every destroyed" and "No F15 was ever shot", both just half true as they on purpose miss the part "by other tank" and "by other fighter". Or simply half informed people that like to boast as they are Americans.

    Many of M1A1/A2 tanks that were "damaged" last 20 years normally would have been counted as hull loss in other armies, but since we are talking about the US it just means they took the fucker back to the US, and spent 3 million to bring it back into service. Or they strap them of all spare parts and place them into storage keeping the inventory number even tho there is not even a T of a tank remaining there.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Jun 01, 2016 8:31 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Americans are just claiming that no M1 Abrams was lost to an enemy tank, which is true, same as its true that no F15C to this day was shot down by enemy fighter. Some Abrams tanks were hit by Iraqi T72Ms but none managed to actually destroy them or kill the crew, all were partial penetrations, near missies or penetrations into engine compartment with no hull dmg.

    That claim moved on now to "M1" is battle proven and was never destroyed at all, as soon you post pictures they back paddle it was destroyed by airforce and Abrams took several shots from its own and Apache had to destroy it.


    The most retarded lies, like any accompaning tanker will not know not to shoot a fucking tank any place but the most protected if he actually wants to destroy it. Even tho i do not believe americans are educated but they certainly are not that stupid either to make such horrible propaganda of how mighty the abrams is, it is like any other tank paperly thin from any other side but the front.

    Well you have Internet trolls claiming stuff like "No Abrams was every destroyed" and "No F15 was ever shot", both just half true as they on purpose miss the part "by other tank" and "by other fighter". Or simply half informed people that like to boast as they are Americans.

    Many of M1A1/A2 tanks that were "damaged" last 20 years normally would have been counted as hull loss in other armies, but since we are talking about the US it just means they took the fucker back to the US, and spent 3 million to bring it back into service. Or they strap them of all spare parts and place them into storage keeping the inventory number even tho there is not even a T of a tank remaining there.

    The propaganda is still propaganda, it does not matter if it was destroyed by some other tank or not. The weapons iraq had were all outdated and far inferior to any other Soviet tank operator, especially countries that are not 3rd customer middle eastern without new type of ammunition, training and better tank division structure, let alone the Soviet Union or todays Russian tank brigades.

    IT does not matter, old warheads of PG-7 and Malyutkas have turned them already to an early grave let alone if you even believe half of the "got stuck" or "abondoned" and then was "destroyed by airforce" it is still a horrible concept of a tank if you have to waste your own ammunition on your own hardware just because it gets "stuck" on a frequent basis. They canibalized dozens over dozens of tanks just to have half of them repaired but both of those were counted as "repaired" non as destroyed. Damaged tank that never gets repaired but canibalized is a destroyed tank, period.

    OminousSpudd
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 825
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 21
    Location : Nelson, New Zealand

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  OminousSpudd on Wed Jun 01, 2016 8:40 pm

    We will never really know if any M1s were destroyed by T-72Ms, or just how many Abrooms have been lost in action, or if any F-15s have actually been shot-down in an A2A engagement. The fog of war in all of Uncle Sam's conflicts is almost downright impossible to see through due to its massive propaganda organ, new dirty secrets are still coming out today about Vietnam, WWII. All we have at the end of the day are eye-witness accounts from US crews themselves and official publications from American ex-Personnel and analysts, easily susceptible to personal bias. Everything else is, sadly, speculation.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod on Wed Jun 01, 2016 10:06 pm

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    The two are from Diwaniyah axis, Tank two, sprocket was busted and Iraqis had hit rear deck. Impossible to move them under fire, impossible to get them out one was thermited without much success and the Iraqis burnt it. Then USAF bombed the area. The other had an APU fire from contact and the crew evaced. It was hit with Hellfire. There's also the story of another Abrams hit twice with M1A1 Tank gun then hit again by Hellfire before starting to burn. .... but why not.
    It is called propaganda, or the wonderful world of Zaloga!

    Militarov wrote:
    The Iraq War: A Military History by Williamson Murray has fairly decent list of M1 destroyed units together with their service numbers etc.
    Historians, historians, yes....like Zaloga there are tons in US.

    Militarov wrote:
    ...during Battle for Baghdad one destroyed by AA guns ...
    An Abrams destroyed by AA gun  Very Happy ... What is better ? I remember another comic story with AAA, as  a north korean defense minister was supposed to be executed by Kim at several thousand meters by AAA. I ignored an AAA was intended to destroy M1 Abrams. Western press Twisted Evil

    Militarov wrote:
    Americans are just claiming that no M1 Abrams was lost to an enemy tank, which is true,...
    Really ?

    Militarov wrote:
    ...same as its true that no F15C to this day was shot down by enemy fighter.
    To assert such certitudes I think you have solid proofs.

    Militarov wrote:
    Some Abrams tanks were hit by Iraqi T72Ms but none managed to actually destroy them or kill the crew, all were partial penetrations, near missies or penetrations into engine compartment with no hull dmg.
    Shocked   Question

    OminousSpudd wrote:We will never really know if any M1s were destroyed by T-72Ms, or just how many Abrooms have been lost in action, or if any F-15s have actually been shot-down in an A2A engagement. The fog of war in all of Uncle Sam's conflicts is almost downright impossible to see through due to its massive propaganda organ, new dirty secrets are still coming out today about Vietnam, WWII. All we have at the end of the day are eye-witness accounts from US crews themselves and official publications from American ex-Personnel and analysts, easily susceptible to personal bias. Everything else is, sadly, speculation.

    Nothing to add, all is said thumbsup

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod on Wed Jun 01, 2016 11:23 pm



    Kuwait ground operation 1991
    Again as I said previously in Kuwait, during the so-called "Liberation of Kuwait", or the supposed ground offensive, there were no battles -except at Phase Line Bullet, but it was in Iraq, and not in Kuwait-, it was mere massacre against retreating soldiers. During several weeks of bombardments, US coalition failed -as usual with Air Force- to destroy in a significative way Iraq army. In front of the growing frustration of US high command and the dangerous incoming stalemate, US high responsibles threatened to use nuclear weapons. Then President Saddam Hussein ordered its army to leave the Kuwait without taking the basic precautions against US. At the February 25, 1991 he ordered to this army not to stay the Kuwait. The "withdrawal order" was given. At this date this is the beginning of the so-called "Liberation of Kuwait". Iraqi army started its retreat, deactivating its very effective AAA. Fatal Error! US launched one of its coward, and barbaric slaughter against an army in retreating phase, unable to fight back. The massacre started by using USAF, with B-52 -read highway of death- F-111 began. After the F-15, F-18, F-16, and the A-10 had followed the bombers.
    The rest that was not achieved by the air, was consummate by their "courageous gladiators" inside their M1 Abrams. However US found some unexpected resistance, and ...failed to overcome it.

    Battle of Phase Line Bullet the likely scenario.

    Americans expected to massacre easily in Iraq too. However, the order of Saddam Hussayn to leave the Kuwait was obeyed in Kuwait, but this order was not valid in Iraq. Iraqis were mostly equipped with T-55, and T-62 and T-72 and obviously the lethal anti tank missiles like AT-3 Sagger, AT-4 Spiggot, AT-5 Spandrel, and RPGs. Americans tried to engage believing a quick victory would be achieved. In front of the fierce resistance of Iraqis they decided to withdraw, and decline to continue, as the AAA were active, the USAF were completely ineffective. In this engagement several hundreds of M1 Abrams were engaged against an unknown number of iraqi tanks. During this engagement americans sent their saudis and egyptians allies to fight the iraqis. This other engagement cost several heavy losses to Iraqis, meanwhile an unknown number of egyptian, and saudis M-60 were destroyed too.

    The aftermath
    During this engagement several dozens of T-55, T-62, BMP and few T-72 were destroyed, meanwhile several dozens if not hundreds of US, saudis, egyptians tanks -M1, M-60- were destroyed.

    My conclusion

    It would be interresting to see the supposed-"Gladiator" M1 Abrams in Iraq against T-72, or even T-62. What might be the M1's fate ? Americans decline the fight, when they understood that the fight would be lethal for them. As usual!
    As there were no fair battle of tanks it is impossible for me to fairly evaluate what is the real worth of the M1 Abrams. What could I say ? I know that the T-55 was far better than M-48. The T-62 better than the M-60. And T-72 vs M1 Abrams ? It is impossible to know, as this tank was never engaged in a true battle against a comparable tank, in a comparable conditions. Syrian T-62, and T-72 successfully destroyed several M-60 and Merkava in Lebanon's battle of Sultan Yakuub in 1982. It is noteworthy to say that the Merkava is a typical western tank, likely comparable, if not better than the M1 Abrams. However the T-62 smashed several Merkava. I said T-62, and not only the T-72. What would be the result with the T-72 against M1 Abrams ? I supposed -it is a mere assumption- during Phase Line Bullet's engagement T-72 as T-62 destroyed several M1 Abrams, by destroying I mean completly burnt.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Phase_Line_Bullet
    http://www.countercurrents.org/lagauche280210.htm

    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4816
    Points : 4863
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Militarov on Wed Jun 01, 2016 11:27 pm

    Actually Williamson Murray is great author, he is an actual military historian not random guy writing blog on blogspot, he was teaching on few military schools and actually served himself in Air Force Smile. Try finding his War in the Air: 1914-1945, very nicely written piece, just for an example.

    Yes, two were destroyed by direct fire from AA guns fielded by Revolutionary Guard, most likely S-60 perforated into transmission and damaged them beyond operational mobility so crews bailed out, tanks burned out after Iraqis kept hitting them.

    Well yeah, there is not a single proof showing that M1 was ever destroyed by an actual enemy tank, i repeat TANK, damaged yes, but none suffered catastrophic destruction or beyond repair damage.

    So where exactly F15 was shot down in air to air encounter? I might be missing something but all documented loses were either due to ground fire or mechanical failures. And its not really easy in the US especially to hide losing a fighter aircraft, ppl there love to ask questions and add how they are "voting and paying taxes" and "what to know where their tax money is going". Let alone fact how Military likes to say how they are being underfunded, so losing fighters is what they love the most, so they can cry for more money.


    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod on Wed Jun 01, 2016 11:54 pm

    To Militarov
    First of all I did not insult you, I respect your pov. I believe in something, you believe in other thing, after all it is not the end of the world. We don"t have the same POV, it is not necessary a bad thing, this a forum to exchange. And it is a simple point of view. I mock mostly of US propaganda, and not you. welcome

    Militarov wrote:Actually Williamson Murray is great author, he is an actual military historian not random guy writing blog on blogspot, he was teaching on few military schools and actually served himself in Air Force Smile. Try finding his War in the Air: 1914-1945, very nicely written piece, just for an example.
    The US system is by its essence a dictator. More your have a high responsibilities, more it is hard to criticize.


    Militarov wrote:
    So where exactly F15 was shot down in air to air encounter? I might be missing something but all documented loses were either due to ground fire or mechanical failures.
    I've never said an F-15 C was shot down, but I never said it could not exist. US have the monopole of media, they could tell us what they want.

    Militarov wrote:
    And its not really easy in the US especially to hide losing a fighter aircraft,...

    The US system could hide what they want, when they want, and how they want.

    Militarov wrote:
    ...ppl there love to ask questions and add how they are "voting and paying taxes" and "what to know where their tax money is going".

    Everywhere people love to ask question, and love the truth. For example I supposed the US taxpayers were very happy of the Bailout, decided H. Paulson, and the establishment to save at first the banks instead of US taxpayers, and US public's interrests. More than anyone in the world the US system is dictator..

    Militarov wrote:
    Let alone fact how Military likes to say how they are being underfunded, so losing fighters is what they love the most, so they can cry for more money.

    US adminstration is able to do what they want if it serves the interrests of the militaro-industrial complex, and the banks. They avoid as long as it is possible to say that a fighter was downed by an enemy fighter. We will discuss Desert Storm air war in another topic. It is exciting too. But just to know, there were a Mig-25 that avoid nearly 20 air to air missiles. The Mig are far to be inferior than US aircrafts.


    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2129
    Points : 2244
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  higurashihougi on Thu Jun 02, 2016 5:16 am

    OminousSpudd wrote:We will never really know if any M1s were destroyed by T-72Ms

    M1 Abarms were destroyed by T-55 shot at the turret flank, and by 25mm bullet at the rear.

    Well, according to Garry, it is "perfectly normal", but it means that was possible for T-72M to kick the *** of Abrams.




    OminousSpudd
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 825
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 21
    Location : Nelson, New Zealand

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  OminousSpudd on Thu Jun 02, 2016 7:08 am

    higurashihougi wrote:
    OminousSpudd wrote:We will never really know if any M1s were destroyed by T-72Ms

    M1 Abarms were destroyed by T-55 shot at the turret flank, and by 25mm bullet at the rear.

    Well, according to Garry, it is "perfectly normal", but it means that was possible for T-72M to kick the *** of Abrams.
    What I meant to say was we do not know how many were knocked out by Iraqi MBTs officially, and probably never will. Sorry, misworded my sentence.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3566
    Points : 3601
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Thu Jun 02, 2016 8:52 am

    nemrod wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    The two are from Diwaniyah axis, Tank two, sprocket was busted and Iraqis had hit rear deck. Impossible to move them under fire, impossible to get them out one was thermited without much success and the Iraqis burnt it. Then USAF bombed the area. The other had an APU fire from contact and the crew evaced. It was hit with Hellfire. There's also the story of another Abrams hit twice with M1A1 Tank gun then hit again by Hellfire before starting to burn. .... but why not.
    It is called propaganda, or the wonderful world of Zaloga!

    Militarov wrote:
    The Iraq War: A Military History by Williamson Murray has fairly decent list of M1 destroyed units together with their service numbers etc.
    Historians, historians, yes....like Zaloga there are tons in US.

    Militarov wrote:
    ...during Battle for Baghdad one destroyed by AA guns ...
    An Abrams destroyed by AA gun  Very Happy ... What is better ? I remember another comic story with AAA, as  a north korean defense minister was supposed to be executed by Kim at several thousand meters by AAA. I ignored an AAA was intended to destroy M1 Abrams. Western press  Twisted Evil

    Militarov wrote:
    Americans are just claiming that no M1 Abrams was lost to an enemy tank, which is true,...
    Really ?

    Militarov wrote:
    ...same as its true that no F15C to this day was shot down by enemy fighter.
    To assert such certitudes I think you have solid proofs.

    Militarov wrote:
    Some Abrams tanks were hit by Iraqi T72Ms but none managed to actually destroy them or kill the crew, all were partial penetrations, near missies or penetrations into engine compartment with no hull dmg.
    Shocked   Question

    OminousSpudd wrote:We will never really know if any M1s were destroyed by T-72Ms, or just how many Abrooms have been lost in action, or if any F-15s have actually been shot-down in an A2A engagement. The fog of war in all of Uncle Sam's conflicts is almost downright impossible to see through due to its massive propaganda organ, new dirty secrets are still coming out today about Vietnam, WWII. All we have at the end of the day are eye-witness accounts from US crews themselves and official publications from American ex-Personnel and analysts, easily susceptible to personal bias. Everything else is, sadly, speculation.

    Nothing to add, all is said thumbsup

    While the Tank hit repeatedly is clearly propaganda, the tanks stuck from enemy fire and sabotaged is not. Also the hole on the side of the Abrams is not T55, but a Rapira 100mm gun mounted on a truck. Same "Gun on a truck" was said to have nailed another Abrams on the fuel cell.

    The images shown are M1A1.

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2129
    Points : 2244
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  higurashihougi on Thu Jun 02, 2016 10:47 am

    KoTeMoRe wrote:While the Tank hit repeatedly is clearly propaganda, the tanks stuck from enemy fire and sabotaged is not. Also the hole on the side of the Abrams is not T55, but a Rapira 100mm gun mounted on a truck. Same "Gun on a truck" was said to have nailed another Abrams on the fuel cell.

    The images shown are M1A1.

    Rapira is smoothbore cannon, isn't it ? That means it should use APFSDS instead of APCR, and the hole should have been very small, about 40cm, probably. The hole in the pic is relatively big.

    And holes of finned bullet may leave the starfish-shaped traces of the fins.



    nemrod wrote:It is called propaganda, or the wonderful world of Zaloga!

    Well, Zaloga used to be one of my favourite Western authors, toghether with Glantz and others... however recently his works tend to have a lot of bullshit, for example there are many bullshits in his T-64 article (2015).

    Wonder is it the result of event in Ukraina ?

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3566
    Points : 3601
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:18 am

    higurashihougi wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:While the Tank hit repeatedly is clearly propaganda, the tanks stuck from enemy fire and sabotaged is not. Also the hole on the side of the Abrams is not T55, but a Rapira 100mm gun mounted on a truck. Same "Gun on a truck" was said to have nailed another Abrams on the fuel cell.

    The images shown are M1A1.

    Rapira is smoothbore cannon, isn't it ? That means it should use APFSDS instead of APCR, and the hole should have been very small, about 40cm, probably. The hole in the pic is relatively big.

    And holes of finned bullet may leave the starfish-shaped traces of the fins.



    nemrod wrote:It is called propaganda, or the wonderful world of Zaloga!

    Well, Zaloga used to be one of my favourite Western authors, toghether with Glantz and others... however recently his works tend to have a lot of bullshit, for example there are many bullshits in his T-64 article (2015).

    Wonder is it the result of event in Ukraina ?

    While you're right on the money, that's what the Iraqis captured claimed about the tanks hit. Americans also reckon this. However it's highly improbable that They've used non tungsten HVAP, which in effect would probably be barely distinguishable from APFSDS. For reference, APFSDS puncture on T72.



    And same tank before Hellfire.



    Hole is actually not that big.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  nemrod on Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:21 am

    higurashihougi wrote:
    Well, Zaloga used to be one of my favourite Western authors, toghether with Glantz and others... however recently his works tend to have a lot of bullshit, for example there are many bullshits in his T-64 article (2015).

    Wonder is it the result of event in Ukraina ?
    To higurashihougi I PM you Very Happy

    The problem is not only Zaloga, but near all famous authors

    Actually Williamson Murray is great author,...

    As OminousSpudd they only took back US DoD's communiqués and they gave them a better sentences, draws, and explanations not explain you the truth, but to expose the DoD's views.
    If I quote Zaloga's stupidities the T-72 could not perforate the M1, hence could not match. Then let's imagine the T-72 could not perforate the M1, even though it has HEAT' ammunitions that could exceed 1.800 m/s, and syrian T-72 destroyed several Merkavas considered as among western state of the art. The T-72 embedded AT-11 that has more than 3.000 meters' range, and hence could perforate any tank in that time. It is enough for me to stay away of the "historians" of the US system. This is among thousands and thousands western stupidies.

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2129
    Points : 2244
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  higurashihougi on Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:50 am

    To be fair the frontal hull and turret of Abrams is thick, and it is hard to penetrate it. But the remaining is really thin.

    The reason is that Abrams is big and heavy already, it will be too heavy if more armour is added to flank and rear. Meanwhile, Russia minimize the size of a tank, accept more cramping for survivability and armour.

    And recently Zaloga began to say bullshit about Russian small sizes. I can't believe in my eyes when I read such comments in his T-64 article (2015), I can't believe there is such stupidity like that.

    RIP my old Zaloga image. I used to be one of his fan.

    OminousSpudd wrote:What I meant to say was we do not know how many were knocked out by Iraqi MBTs officially, and probably never will. Sorry, misworded my sentence.

    My bad, too. I misread your comment.

    @Kotemore: thanks.

    Sponsored content

    Re: M1 Abrams Discussion Thread:

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 8:49 pm


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 06, 2016 8:49 pm