Destraex1 Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 A question that is always relevant to a game like this. How many allied tanks succumbed to enemy fire during the wars in the middle east. I have read about Abrams that were disabled, but never really knocked out. Airpower and tactics played a large part, but is it really reasonable to expect an enemy tank in this game to ever knock out an allied one? The British offcourse will be more interesting to play as they did not have access to as much artillery and air support as the americans. I know, I know the americans helped.... but the priorities would have been for their troops. I'm sure we have all read about the disaster that destoyed so many apaches in one battle, but I have never heard of Allied tanks ever being in a mess like that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocalypse 31 Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 There have been Abrams knocked out by IED's, I believe. One was knocked out in 3ID's initial invasion by an unknown weapon that left a small hole in the engine comparment. It caught on fire, and the tank was abandoned. Cojone Eh was the name. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theFightingSeabee Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 I know I've seen at least one M1 tank completely destroyed in Iraq. How many more I do not know. I've also seen one get blown about 20 feet into the air, but don't know if the tank ever was repaired or not. I also know several were taken out in the Persian Gulf War in 1991. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destraex1 Posted August 1, 2009 Author Share Posted August 1, 2009 any from enemy tanks? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Back in 2006 one U.S. source put the number at something like Abrams 60-80 'write-offs', if memory serves. And a tank has to be pretty much toast for it to be a write-off. If it breaks in half they'll try to solder it back together. 'Broken' tanks would go into the hundreds. About the above photo. Abrams have had a nasty habit of spontaneously catching fire. Something like 500 tank fires of all kinds since the vehicle was introduced. the old m60 series didn't have a fraction of that number. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 A Challenger was hit in the open commanders hatch by another Challenger. AFAIK that's the only combat fatality. Standing by to be proved wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destraex Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 nice pics and info. informative. But nobody knows where the incoming fire came from? Was it combat or just ambush style IED, guerilla action. Looking for info here on any effects of enemy heavies like tanks and such. apart from that is there any reliable data? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tc237 Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 It that pic? That happened during the "Thunder Run" in April 2003. I know the TC, they got hit in the right-rear by a 23mm AA round (something like that) that cut a fuel line, the fuel soaked into the air filters that eventually caught fire. I had a tank that had to be a "write off", it hit a mine that blew off one of the roadwheel arms and damaged the shock housing to bad for unit mechanics to fix. Because there were no Depot repair facilities at the time in theater it had to be sent back to the States. Search online for numbers of tanks knocked out, should find it fairly easily. (remember to look for USMC too.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destraex Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 damn, so the rear of an abrams is basically vulnerable to almost any apc or small calibre arty. sound like even an rpg would screw it from the rear. I know tanks are built with an expectation that the front will be the part facing the enemy and that the top and bottom were fairly vulnerable. The rear engine compartment is vulnerable. I just had no idea that the rear armour of a tank was so weak 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tc237 Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 ....I just had no idea.... that is correct 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 A good friend, and former armor officer, was the first one to open my eyes to the weak rear armor. An angry farmer with a sharpened stick and a few curse words could probably put an Abrams out of action OK, maybe not that easy, but as tc237's description aptly stated, all you need to do is rupture a fuel line, cooling system, or a number of other fairly routine things and that's that. At least for the tactical engagement. tc237, regarding your experience, I'm not terribly surprised to hear that what might have appeared to be minor damage resulted in a ticket back home for your trusty mount. You can't put an axel into a crooked housing and hope to have good results Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocalypse 31 Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Back in 2006 one U.S. source put the number at something like Abrams 60-80 'write-offs' Well the great thing (or so I'm told) about the Abrams and General Dynamics is that they havent had to produce a single tank single tank since the late 1980's...Thats right, even the M1A2's are just refurbished M1A1's. Tanks that are blown up are eventually sent back to General Dynamics and used to refurbish other tanks. The same (again, so I'm told) applies to Stykers. Any time a Stryker is hit by an IED or takes serious frame damage it's coded out and used for parts. all you need to do is rupture a fuel line, cooling system, or a number of other fairly routine things and that's that. Thats definitely NOT easy. The rear armor on the Abrams is still pretty thick. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveDash Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Back in 2006 one U.S. source put the number at something like Abrams 60-80 'write-offs', if memory serves. And a tank has to be pretty much toast for it to be a write-off. If it breaks in half they'll try to solder it back together. 'Broken' tanks would go into the hundreds. About the above photo. Abrams have had a nasty habit of spontaneously catching fire. Something like 500 tank fires of all kinds since the vehicle was introduced. the old m60 series didn't have a fraction of that number. Isn't this because of the habbit of putting ammo etc on the outside of the tank? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Field Marshal Blücher Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Also keep in mind that Syria's tank forces are better quality than Iraq's, so we would expect better performance out of them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVulture Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 A question that is always relevant to a game like this. How many allied tanks succumbed to enemy fire during the wars in the middle east. I have read about Abrams that were disabled, but never really knocked out. Airpower and tactics played a large part, but is it really reasonable to expect an enemy tank in this game to ever knock out an allied one? Also bear in mind that this game (marine module, anyway) - unlike Iraq or real-world Syria - features the t-90 which is a pretty even match for the Abrams head-to-head 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destraex Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 i did not know the t90 was an even match..... any data? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 In Iraq there were 100-150 M1's hit and disabled or destroyed, how many written of tanks were? Dunno, but some estimations give less than 150 and more than 90, other give 80 written of tanks and some other sources gives 20. In Iraq there were more than 300-500 attacked tanks, some sources say that there were no tank that was no attacked. We must also remember. GDLS produce on low rate new turrets for old M1 and some M1IP's tanks with old "short" turrets, so new turret's and heavy modernised and modified hulls are become as M1A2SEP's. But GDLS also produce on low rate new hull for, turret's from tanks that were hit by big IED's, such hulls are deformed and occure heavy damage, so these are beyond repair status, so GDLS just produce new hulls. So in the end the only completely written of tanks are tanks that hull's and turret's are completely burned off, so how many tanks were completely written off? Probably under 100 and more than 40-50 tanks from all tanks attacked in Iraq. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 The rear engine grills are same thickness as rear aror/grill in other modern tanks, but M1 grills are heavy angled, so probably small advantage but nothing special. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 real world data on the T-90 is classified, so hard to know just how capable it is. In game, the T-90 is a bit better than the T-72, but still outclassed in head to head matchups against the best NATO tanks, like the M1A2 SEP or the Challenger 2 enhanced. It is more evenly matched in head to head matchups against the older M1s, like the M1A1HC or the USMC's M1A1 FEP which have weaker frontal armour protection. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destraex Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 i guess the point is. when a crew bails or becomes incapacitated thats effective enough enemy fire for me. and in cmsf it means i lose a tank 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 USMC's M1A1 FEP which have weaker frontal armour protection. M1A1FEP is upgrade similiar to M1A1SA so armor is the same, IIIrd. Gen. DU inserts with graphite coating and other armor upgrades, so frontal protection is same as M1A1SA and M1A2SEP, also weight of all three models are same, 63,100kg. Based on newest infos and estimations. M1A1HC M1A1HC was base for M1A2, so both have IInd. Gen. DU inserts and armor upgrades and weight same, 62,000-62,500kg. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Field Marshal Blücher Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Also bear in mind that this game (marine module, anyway) - unlike Iraq or real-world Syria - features the t-90 which is a pretty even match for the Abrams head-to-head Maybe the T-90 used by the Russians is, but the T-90SA export model in the game is little more than an upgraded T-72. I would still expect an M1 or Challenger to beat a T-90SA head on in remotely fair circumstances. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Ehm, T-90 is not more produced, no all production switched to T-90A with welded turret, also for export T-90S and T-90SA have welded turret, besides new turret also hull is completely different. Russians also mentioned that new T-72M1M (upgraded T-72S that is export variant of T-72B) will be produced with welded turret. It also seems that Russians don't produce export tanks with downgraded armor inserts, so it seems that T-90SA have same protection as T-90A. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 M1A1FEP is upgrade similiar to M1A1SA so armor is the same, IIIrd. Gen. DU inserts with graphite coating and other armor upgrades, so frontal protection is same as M1A1SA and M1A2SEP, also weight of all three models are same, 63,100kg. Based on newest infos and estimations. M1A1HC was base for M1A2, so both have IInd. Gen. DU inserts and armor upgrades and weight same, 62,000-62,500kg. maybe in real life, although even then since a lot of the info is classified, it is hard to know, but if you test in the game, you will see the M1A1s have weaker frontal protection than the M1A2s. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 So this is game incorrection. :-) I unerstand this but then again, if we want realistic games we must consider such things. As I said, M1A1HA+, M1A1HC and M1A2 have same armor, M1A1SA, M1A1FEP and M1A2SEP also have same armor. Why? Because it is cheaper and more practical to under modernisation program put same class inserts to armor cavieties. Still armor infos are classidfied but, many smar heads fom tank lovers communities make many estimations based on knowledge: We know some materials that are used, so we can estimate protection basing on their protection values. We know LOS armor thickness. We know angle of armor. We know estimation or ammo penetration values. We also know other things like what armor was used in some variants. So, in fact baseline M1A2 was just M1A1HA+/HC with ICWS, CITV new FCS and IVIS. :-) In same manner M1A1SA/FEP is just M1A2SEP but without some upgrades and other things so it is cheaper, but armor and weight is same. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.