how do you kill an Abrams?

[Clavicula_Nox]

I recall someone once saying if 'they' had had our equipment and we had theirs (referring to the Iraq invasion) the results would still have been the same. You hand Abrams over to an unmotivated conscript crew who have perhaps only fired two live rounds in their careers, and you hand T72s over to motivated seasoned professionals who know the equipment inside-out and understand combat tactics. THEN see which side has the ubertank!

Yeah. Unfortunately, with the recent approval to sell 280 M1awhatevers to Iraq, we may actually see this in action some day.

[Clavicula_Nox]

What do You mean? What the hell is Abraham? You mean M1? If yes then it is M1 Abrams, after Gen. Creighton Abrams... I hate when people doesen't know what is proper designation and make some strange names. :-/

Abraham was the first Jewish Patriarch and established the covenant, which was passed to Isaac and Jacob.

[gibsonm]

I attacked this Abrams with 6 AT teams - 4 missiles hit and the tank survived unhurt and killed all the assailants.

What sort of "AT teams"?

I'd forget AT-3, AT-14 can often get kills in the "frontal arc" and definitely when flank on.

Just like Shermans Vs Tigers, don't stand in front of it.

Use multiple weapons / tanks to engage from multiple aspects (ideally side and rear) and even better if you can engage at the same time.

[Damian90]

Yeah. Unfortunately, with the recent approval to sell 280 M1awhatevers to Iraq, we may actually see this in action some day.

Iraq as all Arab/Muslim countries will recieve export downgraded "monkey" variants (downgraded armor, APFSDS ammo, etc.), to be more correct M1A1M with digital packadge from M1A1SA + T.U.S.K.-1, right now they use 22 leased M1A1HC's from US.Army, when first M1A1M's will be brought to Iraq in this year, this 22 leased tanks will go back to US.

Abraham was the first Jewish Patriarch and established the covenant, which was passed to Isaac and Jacob.

I know who was Abraham, but some people make mistake and call M1 as Abraham tank, not Abrams as it is correct.

[Lethaface]

How much worse is that Monkey model? I have read that Egypt is and will be modernizing it's Abrams as well. How does it compare to a monkey T-90 like the Syrians have for example?

[Damian90]

All Muslim country's M1's have downgraded armor protection, lower than M1A1HA+/HC and M1A2 level, maybe it is level of M1A1HA maybe between M1A1 and M1A1HA or same as M1A1, preatty hard to make any good estimations, more, no smart head that I know never made such estimations. :-)

APFSDS ammo is also export tungsten alloy penetrator, KEW-A1 or KEW-A2.

As for upgrades for their tanks, this are only digital packadge, and some eqiupment upgrades.

Egyptians just upgrade their M1A1's to M1A2 standard by adding CITV, replacing CWS with ICWS, probably they add better A/C system, + FBCB2 will be added and new FCS, armor will stay the same, also engines will be upgraded under TIGER modernisation program.

Saudi Arabia will made similiar upgrade for their M1A2's to M1A2S standard, it will recieve digital packadge from US M1A2SEP, + major repairs and rebuilds, nothing more.

US have very hard military tech. export law, so not everything is exported even for close allies. Australian M1A1SA's are also export version, downgraded but mutch, mutch better than thouse export ones for Muslim countries.

Also Australian M1A1SA's are hybrids with some equipment used in US.Army M1A1SA's and with some equipment from U.S.M.C. M1A1FEP's.

As for T-90S, Russians don't downgrade them in the same manner as US does, same goes for EU countries, they sell their equipment, sometimes in better variants, more advanced than producers country army use.

In example make comparision between German Leopard 2A6 and Spain Leopard 2A6E.

BTW not many people know, that Spains Leopard 2A6E's are manufactered under licence by US General Dynamics Land Systems Europe not by German Krauss-Maffei Wegmann. :-)

[lomir]

As for T-90S, Russians don't downgrade them in the same manner as US does, same goes for EU countries, they sell their equipment, sometimes in better variants, more advanced than producers country army use.

In example make comparision between German Leopard 2A6 and Spain Leopard 2A6E.

BTW not many people know, that Spains Leopard 2A6E's are manufactered under licence by US General Dynamics Land Systems Europe not by German Krauss-Maffei Wegmann. :-)

Damian90, in fact it was an agreement signed on 1995 between the German and Spanish governments to build the Leopard 2E that were to be assembled in Spain by the then-Spanish company SBS (Santa Bárbara Sistemas), with 60–70 percent of the components manufactured by Spanish companies (SBS the hull and final assebly; Izar the motor; SAPA the APU, transmission, tracks and wheel assembly; AMPER the command and control system (LINCE) and radio-comm; Indra Sistemas together with the German company STN the combat system; etc.). The problem is that the first Leopard 2Es were not manufactured until late 2003 due to the merger between Santa Bárbara Sistemas and General Dynamics previously in the same year 2003,and Krauss-Maffei's reservations regarding the sharing of the Leopard 2's technology with the rival company,manufacturer of the Abrams. Finally, with some production issues in 2006/7, the total production of the 219 Leopard 2E ended in 2008.

Under the same Program Armor 2000 of the Leopard 2E we built the ASCOD (Austrian Spanish Cooperation Development) AFV family (called Ulan in Austria and Pizarro in Spain) that is the product of a cooperation agreement between the Austrian Steyr-Daimler-Puch company and Spanish Santa Bárbara Sistemas (now part of General Dynamics as I said before), and the Tiger attack helicopter manufactured by Eurocopter (a wholly owned subsidiary of European EADS company, that is a merge between DaimlerChrysler Aerospace AG (DASA) of Germany, Aérospatiale-Matra of France and Construcciones Aeronáuticas SA (CASA) of Spain).

So I think that we can't properly say that they were selling their equipment in the same export way the U.S. sell "monkey" tanks to Middle West countries, but they are rather a product of the collaboration between EU companies and very close-allied countries.

Cheers,

Lomir

[Damian90]

Ok I can agree, but the fact is a fact, US military industrie will buy European military industry, this is a matter of time. Germans are defending their industry but they don't have resources to defend it against such behemoth like US military industry.

BAe Systems is also more US company than european.

So I think that we can't properly say that they were selling their equipment in the same export way the U.S. sell "monkey" tanks to Middle West countries, but they are rather a product of the collaboration between EU companies and very close-allied countries.

I think You misunderstanded me. I wan't to say that European countries are more firendly to customer.

It is like this way, No country will ever buy M1 export variant with capabilieties similiar to older M1's with Heavy Armor. But Europe could sell tanks with similiar capabilieties or even better than their own.

Look at UAE Leclerc's, their tanks are in many ways better than French S2 Leclerc's, heh UAE tanks got better armored side hull even than SXXI Leclerc's!

Same goes for Leo2, if customer have enough money, it can buy tanks in Leo2A5S or Leo2A6E/HEL standard, better than German Leo2A6's.

[MikeyD]

APFSDS ammo is also export tungsten alloy penetrator, KEW-A1 or KEW-A2.

I had read a year or two ago the U.S. was pressing forward to retire its DU rounds in favor of tungsten. Its all well and good firing uranium chunks around the countryside (1000 tons estimated strewn around Iraq), but then having to sit in it for 8-10 years afterward isn't half as fun as originally thought. But development programs keep getting funded then cancelled. I've lost track of what's happening.

[Damian90]

Oh please, stop with that BS from eco-idiots!

Tungsten is also heavy metal, toxic as DU or any ohter heavy metal.

More, Tungsten don't offer any superiority over DU.

DU have: self shaprening effect, pirophoric effect, and that is very interesting, at slower velocities it have superior armor penetration performance than Tungsten penetrators flying at extremely high velociety.

M829A3 fired from L44 gun, have superior performance over DM53LKEII fired from L55 gun.

Besides this, in the war I wan't ammo that have extreme, possible lethality, I don't care about what next.

DU is only dangerous when You i.e. eat piece of it.

Here in Poland in WarPac times and PRL, many people have in their garage's hammers made from DU, and there were no problems.

About Iraqi 1991 syndrome, eco idiots manipulate facts, that over battlefields, there were used other dangerous substances, and probably such substances are reason of Gulf War syndrome, not DU.

In 2003 invasion and later, M829A2 and M829A3 rounds were used preatty rare, most common rounds used by M1 crews were M830 HEAT and M830A1 MPAT.

As for new ammo, US works on new AKE or Advanced Kinetic Energy, probably next member of M829 family, some sources claim that it's test designation is M829E4, so when it will be produced it will become M829A4.

Not much known about round itself though.

[nijis]

"DU is only dangerous when You i.e. eat piece of it."

Or breathe it, the theory goes. The danger is not the radioactivity but its supposed propensity to be vaporized by the high temperatures generated on impact. I'm not sure if tungsten has the same properties.

"Here in Poland in WarPac times and PRL, many people have in their garage's hammers made from DU, and there were no problems."

There wouldn't be, unless you fired the hammer through a sheet of hard armor, causing it to form an aerosol.

"Oh please, stop with that BS from eco-idiots!"

DU's effects are documented, albeit controversially, in peer-reviewed literature

http://www.ehjournal.net/content/4/1/17

"In 2003 invasion and later, M829A2 and M829A3 rounds were used preatty rare, most common rounds used by M1 crews were M830 HEAT and M830A1 MPAT."

Most battlefield DU in fact supposedly is fired by the A-10's 30mm autocannon. A-10s knocked out a lot of vehicles in 2003.

"Besides this, in the war I wan't ammo that have extreme, possible lethality, I don't care about what next."

Not these days. Post-war challenges in the defeated nation and recruiting issues also make a difference. Arguably, given the variety of tools at the disposal of the US military for destruction of enemy armor, the PR value of eschewing DU outweights its advantages in combat.

I will grant you that undestroyed enemy armor, firing back at you, has also been shown to be a health hazard. I'm not sure this is the place for a debate on DU, but I did want to point out that the case against its use is not simply "eco-idiocy".

[taccovert4]

While I am sure that the US might "retire" DU penetrators from the "active" inventory for PR reasons, I'm also certain that DU penetrators will be stockpiled in the "inactive" inventory. So that in a major land war with an enemy combatant wielding fully capable modern MBTs the US could up-the-ante so to speak, and bring DU penetrators out of retirement .

[Hairy Pie]

Mikey D said:

I recall someone once saying if 'they' had had our equipment and we had theirs (referring to the Iraq invasion) the results would still have been the same. You hand Abrams over to an unmotivated conscript crew who have perhaps only fired two live rounds in their careers, and you hand T72s over to motivated seasoned professionals who know the equipment inside-out and understand combat tactics. THEN see which side has the ubertank!

Is it possible to model this in the editor/quick battles, i.e. giving the blue side the worst possible trained/motivated crews, and the reds the best?

Could be interesting!

[Dietrich]

Indeed it is possible. Just give the Blue tanks' experience to Green and their leadership and motivation values to -1 or -2; then set the Red tanks' experience at Veteran and their leadership and motivation values at +1 or +2.

[Damian90]

But remember also about technical side of this problem. It is still not good idea to attack blue tanks from frontal arc within safe manouvering angles of 30-35 degrees from center line of hull and/or turret, even if crew is green, without experience and with poor motivation. Besides this their ammo still be capabale to perforate armor of most of red tanks, maybe besides this equipped with Kontakt-5 ERA, IRCC with poor equipment quality blue will have older ammo? In case of US tanks it will be M829A1, still very capabale round, I think from the frontal arc, from all red tanks only T-90SA will be immune to it.

[Ryujin]

But remember also about technical side of this problem. It is still not good idea to attack blue tanks from frontal arc within safe manouvering angles of 30-35 degrees from center line of hull and/or turret, even if crew is green, without experience and with poor motivation. Besides this their ammo still be capabale to perforate armor of most of red tanks, maybe besides this equipped with Kontakt-5 ERA, IRCC with poor equipment quality blue will have older ammo? In case of US tanks it will be M829A1, still very capabale round, I think from the frontal arc, from all red tanks only T-90SA will be immune to it.

In theory, the idea is to not take hits in the first place. The difference in crew training would probably have a greater effect in environments larger than that of CMSF (4km and a handful of tanks is a very small and limited head on scenario for armor). Not to mention the skill level of the crew in CMSF does not reflect tactics and coordination.

The M1 would still obviously have the advantage in a fair fight (two tanks slugging it out). However the point is that the fight would probably not be fair, the more skilled crews in T-72s would, spot coordinate, react, utilize combined arms, and maneuver better, allowing for engagements on their terms (T-72s firing the first shots within their effective ranges, probably on the flank). This would be sufficient to kick the crap out of the M1s, but to say the results would be exactly the same does seem a bit optimistic in my non expert opinion.

Didn't bradleys kill the most enemy tanks in Desert Storm? If true, that'd be a pretty good example... not even a tank, has to ambush and shoot first.

[Damian90]

In theory, the idea is to not take hits in the first place. The difference in crew training would probably have a greater effect in environments larger than that of CMSF (4km and a handful of tanks is a very small and limited head on scenario for armor). Not to mention the skill level of the crew in CMSF does not reflect tactics and coordination.

The M1 would still obviously have the advantage in a fair fight (two tanks slugging it out). However the point is that the fight would probably not be fair, the more skilled crews in T-72s would, spot coordinate, react, utilize combined arms, and maneuver better, allowing for engagements on their terms (T-72s firing the first shots within their effective ranges, probably on the flank). This would be sufficient to kick the crap out of the M1s, but to say the results would be exactly the same does seem a bit optimistic in my non expert opinion.

Yes of course, but side hits also doesen't mean that You perforate armor, important is armor thickness, materials, ammo, ammo quality, angle of hit, many, many things, so it is always difficult to fight against better equipment, even if You have better tactics, training, motivation.

As I said earlier, tanks is combination of technology, and crew (their training, tactics and motivation), it must be treated as a system, the crew is integral part of a tank, tank is integral part of crew.

Didn't bradleys kill the most enemy tanks in Desert Storm? If true, that'd be a pretty good example... not even a tank, has to ambush and shoot first.

Yes but ou need to know why, this was due to at that time, M2's got better TIS than M1's, currently TIS in M1's and M2's is same quality, 2nd generation FLIR.

So at ODS M2's got just greater distance of finding targets and identify them.

Common tactic was Hunter-Killer teams, where M2's were Hunters that were finding targets and then give M1's know-how where are enemy's so M1 were Killers.

[dan/california]

And the Iraqis had no thermals to speak of, so the Bradleys could engage with Tow at very long range with near impunity. Very favorable terrain for long range ATGM as well. When one side can't even see what is killing them the fight doesn't last long.

[Erwin]

Where can we buy DU hammers? Sounds great!

[Damian90]

Maybe some are still somewhere in Poland or other ex WarPac countries. I only know that such hammers were being used by civilians at thous times, dunno what is situation now.

DU is also used as counterweight in civilian passenger planes.

[Erwin]

I can just see DU products being a marketer's dream lol.

[scottie]

We're going to have this same discussion with Tigers in Normandy

YIP cannot wait to have that discussion. Tigers on the go again , awesome .