Abrams Tank Attacked And Destroyed By Insurgents In Iraq

news wires | 11/04/2004 | Outspot

[OutSpot]

Can anyone tell me how the Iraqi insurgents are able to penetrate our invincible Abrams tank?

[OutSpot]

Dam!

[backhoe]

"Something" felled an M1A1 Abrams tank in Iraq - but what?
... tank is marked by a circle in the above photo, showing the damage behind the skirt.
A close-up of the mysterious round’s point of entry. The round penetrated ...
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1010258/posts - 60k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages

Projectile that penetrated M1A1 Abrams Tank still a mystery
... Projectile that penetrated M1A1 Abrams Tank still a mystery Strategypage.com ^
| Oct 31,2003. ... Projectile that penetrated M1A1 Abrams Tank still a mystery. ...
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1012242/posts?page=72 - 37k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages

M1-A1 Abrams: tough to kill, but not invulnerable
... as much attention as the review of the Army's lumbering M1-A1 Abrams tank's performance
in ... I don't know of one instance that the frontal armor was penetrated. ...
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/921019/posts - 73k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages

[armyboy]

WTF! where did they get the weaponry to do this?

[CasearianDaoist]

Well four places I can think of are Russia, China, India, the EU and Israel.

[demlosers]

You cannot tell from those pics if the Abrams tank had its armor penetrated. What I see is a fire on the outer part of the tank. It could have been a Molotov cocktail.

[canalabamian]

"Well four places I can think of are Russia, China, India, the EU and Israel." I'm no math whiz, but isn't this a list of five?

[canalabamian]

Appears to that way to me, too.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

It's in the fourth picture: The strategic XD-15 hyper assault bicycle.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Maybe they penetrated it with a thing called love... /sarcasm

[Steel and Fire and Stone]

It's combat. We will take losses. Equipment is no better nor smarter than it's operators, including the Field Commander (re: how he employs it).

Losses and deaths, though regretable and tragic, are acceptable. Losing the mission is not.

Bush and the JCS had better regroup and rethink the order of battle. We need to recognize that the enemy is Islam, and potentially, all Muslims. The U.S. had better understand the role of Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other countries where support flows from (either directly or indirectly sponsored by their governments), and take direct action to end support to the insurgents. If the battlefield needs to be expanded to win the war, it'd better be done now. If we need to be more ruthless, and engage in less "nation building" to guarantee victory and minimize the returning bodybags, then we need to change our tactics. If we need to double the number of troops in the field, and expand the standing military head counts, then Bush had better NOT be late doing so.

I can't think of anything that would cause me to support a lying, dishonorable, traitor like Kerry. But Bush will lose my support if we're not in this fight to win, if the U.S. will not take the bold steps necessary to win the war.

If we're not in this to win, and win with MINIMUM necessary losses, then better to bail out and let the Kerry Democrats have the country. As a military man, I'm losing my confidence in the Bush team. Election year politics cannot dictate military strategy.

SFS

[CasearianDaoist]

Soory, I added Israel at the end and forgot to update the rest of the sentence. I just got out of bed...give me a break.

[Mr. Buzzcut]

France.

[CasearianDaoist]

It looks like the just hit it with a cocktail. I do not see structural damage.

[konijn]

The attack by dozens of masked gunmen on a police station in a north-western Sunni Muslim area of Baghdad - the first of its kind in the capital - developed into a running gun battle with American soldiers. Elsewhere, a US tank was set on fire on a road west of Baghdad after, according to locals, it was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade fired by a 10-year-old boy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1189821,00.html

[canalabamian]

No worries. Just some Friendly Ribbing (FR)! ; )

[CasearianDaoist]

As I said, The WU. But look at it. I think that someone just hit it with some gasoline. It does not seem structurally damaged. If they had blown the magazine or the engine housing it would look much different.

[Broadside Joe]

At one time (not any more they fixed it) they could get at the engine with RPG's.

[CasearianDaoist]

WU=EU. boy am I sleepy

[Eagle Eye]

Hint: It's not invincible.

[wretchard]

Hit, but recoverable. If there are no crew losses, we should remember the tank can be repaired.

[hershey]

The longer we allow this, the weaker we appear. We need to drop a few MOAB's. That's all they understand.

[Iris7]

Since this Iraq business started I have been hearing a lot of talk about the "invincible" Abrams. I decided to investigate this, because the popular view, that the Abrams was "invulnerable", had to be wrong, as the popular view always is.

Anyway, the bottom line is that the Abrams is pretty easy to take out by someone either lucky or skilled. I will not get any more specific.

I have been quiet about this stuff, since the enemy most certainly reads the Free Republic, but the cat is now out of the bag, the horse has run off, and the milk is spilled.

The very unfortunate reality is that US training and doctrine and the resulting combat hardware are not suited for the current war. The Fallujah operation we have been watching over the last few days has had many casualties without much good effect, very unfortunately. Totally unnecessary American deaths are happening, maybe one half to two thirds of the combat casualties. Very not good. Encourages the bad guys besides.

[meenie]

The high speed, mobile, army is very hard to beat in a pitched battle against another force where the targets are plentiful. The Rommel and Patton model of armored warfare is incompatible with urban warfare. In urban warfare, the GI with the hand grenade and individual weapon with the support of an occasionable mortar round is the best you can do.

[been_lurking]

The Fallujah operation we have been watching over the last few days has had many casualties without much good effect, very unfortunately. Totally unnecessary American deaths are happening, maybe one half to two thirds of the combat casualties.

Your statement smells of an agenda.

Published reports by the left-leaning biased media indicate a greater than 10-1 kill ratio for the Marines. Under any circumstances, this would be an terrific accomplishment for a military force. Given the urban nature of the current conflict, and the asymetrical attacks by the insurgents, the Marines have done the impossible.

[vbmoneyspender]

The Fallujah operation we have been watching over the last few days has had many casualties without much good effect, very unfortunately.

What's the basis for this statement. My understanding is that we have lost less than 10 Marines in retaking Fallujah, which is a city with a population of 300,000. I'd like you to point to a battle in the past where an armed force attacking a city of a similar size took less casualties than our Marines have taken in recapturing Fallujah?

[Army Air Corps]

"WU=EU. boy am I sleepy"

No, it was a Freudian slip. WU = Wussy Union.

[Poodlebrain]

Not true, infantry supported by armor is more effective in urban combat than infantry without armor support. The armor provides much more concentrated firepower for pinning opponents and allowing the dismounted infantry to maneuver. As well as providing covering fire, the tank is also capable of dispensing smoke to provide concealment for the maneuvering infantry.

I would gladly trade the effect of a mortar round for the effect of a tank main gun round in urban combat. The plentiful cover available is usually proof against the shrapnel from mortar rounds, but not so from the blast effects of direct fire from a tank's main gun.

An infantry company supported by a tank platoon is a formidable force in urban terrain. The tanks are more vulnerable to close range attacks, but the infantry and its fighting vehicles should be able to limit any attacks to frontal attacks which are least prone to success.

[SLB]

BTTT.

[Finalapproach29er]

A Tom Hanks, W.W.II "sticky-bomb"?

[Batrachian]

Abrams tanks are, and always have been, vulnerable at the rear. That's no secret. There's no real armor there, only relatively thin plate steel. Toss a bomb on the back deck, or hit the exhaust grill with an RPG, and you'll take out the engine, and probably set the fuel on fire as well. The crew will escape, because they're well protected, but the tank will be out of action. Eventually the Army will come back and tow it away and fix it if it can be fixed. I doubt the Iraqis have anything to tow away a 70 ton tank.

A few M1s where lost during the initial combat phases of Operation Iraqi Freedom in the way I described. It's painful for an old Armor guy like me to see, but that's what happens when you let the enemy get behind you.

[boris]

They can kill Israeli Merkva tank--considered the best tank in the world--or close to it.

The terrorists take an old water heater and fill it with 200 kg of C-4, bury it in the road and set it off underneath the tank by remote control when the tank rolls over it.

--Boris

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

 From CPA briefing, 4/09, latest posted transcript -- 

 

GEN. KIMMITT: ... I would say it's a gross mischaracterization to suggest that the entire country is at war, that the entire country is now under the grips of combat.  I think we can take a look at the map and see that currently there are some small, localized contact, such as here in al Kut, down here in An Nasiriyah, a little bit in Baghdad.   But to suggest that somehow, that the 27 million people of the country of Iraq are currently in the midst of a war, that just isn't the case.

            Is it spreading?  I would ask those who want to attack the coalition or attack Iraqi government facilities or attack Iraqi police stations in any number to take a very close look at how quickly we were able to reposition a coalition force of over 1,000 soldiers, approximately two to three dozen combat vehicles and extensive air power in a very, very short period of time.  That ought to be a very clear lesson that if, in fact, somebody has the idea -- perhaps in Arupa (ph) or over here at Samawa or up here at Tikrit -- that they want to start another set of violence, another set of engagements, that the coalition, with its 130,000-plus members, and the Iraqi security forces, with their 200,000-plus police, ICDC and Iraqi armed forces, has the flexibility, the capability to move anywhere in this country and put down that violence.  So watch very carefully

Q     (Through interpreter.)  This is to General Kimmitt.  You spoke about the 120,000 American or coalition forces here.  Can you   tell us exactly how many of the coalition forces are engaged in the areas of Fallujah and al-Mahdi militias?  And there are reports, journalistic reports they say about the destruction of convoys and movements.  You have not told us about the losses on the coalition side.

GEN. KIMMITT:  With regards to how many of our forces are involved in Fallujah and some of these other operations, a very, very small percentage; probably -- oh, I'd estimate somewhere on the order of a brigade-and-a-half worth of forces are directly involved in combat operations at this time in terms of ground maneuver forces. And that's a very small percentage of what's available to be drawn upon here in Iraq should we need to move forces from one sector to another.  Now I may be a little bit off on that estimation.  It may be a little more, perhaps two-and-a-half brigades, but nonetheless whether it's one and a half or two and a half, that is a very, very small percentage of the available combat force here in the country.

.........GEN. KIMMITT:  You're right, but the numbers are very, very small.  We continue to lose small numbers of Humvees on a daily basis, partially damaged by IEDs and such, and I think we had today some fuel trailers that were blown up.  But as a percentage of the total force -- I'm not certain that we have lost any tanks.  I'm not certain that we have lost any Bradley Fighting Vehicles.  I have no report that we've lost any light armored reconnaissance vehicles as part of any of these operations.  I suspect that you may have been reading accounts from some of the more extremist websites, more extremist publications that would suggest somehow that there have been large losses, but   those just don't square with the facts.  I'll see what I can find out in terms of the actual numbers and get them to you tomorrow.

(Briefing slides not yet posted.)

[F14 Pilot]

The question is who or what country is giving them Anti-Air, Anti-Tank weapons?

[LS]

Well, one of my ROTC students showed me a sequence from the U.S. army deliberately trying to destroy an Abrams: it took TWO direct hit sabot rounds; two thermite grenades, and the thing still didn't blow up. After another 3-4 direct hits, it finally blew up. I'm suspicious of this.

[nuconvert]

Iran ? That would be my guess

[verity]

Nothing that is man-made is invulnerable!

[blackie]

Be Ever Vigilant!

We are winning ~ the bad guys are losing ~ trolls, terrorists, democrats and the mainstream media are sad ~ very sad!

~~ Bush/Cheney 2004 ~~

[Godfollow]

Um... that makes five...

[Diverdogz]

Dam?

[F14 Pilot]

Iran's Mullahs!

[norton]

"Election year politics cannot dictate military strategy."

True, but fighting in a densley populated area means either being very careful - slow and as precise as possible - or killing off a lot of bystanders who you'd rather have pacified than dead and bewailed by their neighbors.

These people are not going to love us but unless you advocate pulling out and carpet bombing the cities there aren't a lot of options.

House to house is the most dangerous combat you can undertake and any piece of equipment can be taken down. [This is not the first M1 shown going up - I'd be a lot more interested in how many of the crew got out OK]

[PISANO]

We need to recognize that the enemy is Islam

Not in our lifetime. Unless some PDB or other secret FINDING describes it that way (it will then become PUBLIC of course) there is NO WAY this will ever be stated publically and as you can tell from our tactics in Fallujah and elsewhere, POLITICS, once again and as is USUAL, dictate the happenings on the battlefield and HENCE, the results.

Is there any doubt that we could pacify any city, or country in a matter of hours IF our Military commanders were told, "PACIFY NOW" using extreme measures as you GENERAL see fit. The ONLY requirement is to LOSE as few of OUR men doing it and KILL as many as the ENEMY as possible. Civilian casualties are not a concern and do this as quickly as possible.

Well it is only a dream it will never happen that way again. WWII is the past and we are so far ahead of everyone, Militarily, that COMPASSION has entered our strategic and tactical military thought process. We never do a bombing run UNLESS and UNTIL all nearby possible civilian casualties are eliminated or minimized to the extent that puts our troops in MORE dangerous situations than would otherwise be necessary.

It stinks, but it is a fact and as frustrating as it is, it will NOT change, unless or until we suffer an NBC attack on our shores.

[norton]

"An infantry company supported by a tank platoon is a formidable force in urban terrain. The tanks are more vulnerable to close range attacks, but the infantry and its fighting vehicles should be able to limit any attacks to frontal attacks which are least prone to success."

Valid point, and should add that large part of the infantry task would be to protect the tanks. Tanks provide firepower and/or shock when and where needed. They do not hang around making targets of themselves because they are mechanical objects, symbolic objects, and expensive objects that can be taken out even by simple break-down.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Treadhead Ping

[fso301]

Kid with the RPG was propably on the overpass, shot down and hit the engine compartment.

[archy]

It's in the fourth picture: The strategic XD-15 hyper assault bicycle.

You could be closer than you know.

[Happy2BMe]

Jihad warriors got one of our Abrams M1 tanks - ping.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

I have been quiet about this stuff, since the enemy most certainly reads the Free Republic, but the cat is now out of the bag, the horse has run off, and the milk is spilled.

So now you are going to give lessons on tank busting?

Being quiet was a good decision.

[Happy2BMe]

Does that thing really exist (the XD-15)?

[archy]

Anyway, the bottom line is that the Abrams is pretty easy to take out by someone either lucky or skilled. I will not get any more specific.

I have been quiet about this stuff, since the enemy most certainly reads the Free Republic, but the cat is now out of the bag, the horse has run off, and the milk is spilled.

Correct. Any tanker who's maintained his vehicle under the desert conditions at the NTC or in Iraq knows one weakness the enemy could have exploited. And there was that turncoat arrested at Ft Lewis who had been attempting to sell details of Abrams vulnerability to Al-Quieda or Iraqi intelligence...who may not have been the only one.