M1 Abrams in recent conflicts

It sounds like the discussion is suggesting that the M1 is problematic because some get damaged or destroyed. Never thought they were supposed to be a 'silver bullet'. Perhaps it's important to note that 'most' US weapons platforms are designed to work within US doctrine - which includes eliminating the war fighting capacity of the enemy. JSTARS, Helicopters, artillery, C2, etc. seem integral to force projection. Not knocking the M1 just considering that the US Army doesn't send M1's out by themselves. If anything, the M1 and other platforms are probably going to be more survivable with the advent of APS.
 
Last edited:
Not sure why that guy seems to think you need a penetration below the bustle? Most likely the blowout panel itself was penetrated.

AIUI the main cause of M1 bustle rack detonations are FPV drones anyway.
 
Kat Tsun said:
Not sure why that guy seems to think you need a penetration below the bustle? Most likely the blowout panel itself was penetrated.

AIUI the main cause of M1 bustle rack detonations are FPV drones anyway.
Click to expand...
And as long as the ammo door is shut at time of kaboom, the crew sees the "ammo rack fire" alarm and stays inside the tank till it goes out.

I suspect that an ammo racked Abrams can be put back into action in a couple hours.
 
Scott Kenny said:
And as long as the ammo door is shut at time of kaboom, the crew sees the "ammo rack fire" alarm and stays inside the tank till it goes out.

I suspect that an ammo racked Abrams can be put back into action in a couple hours.
Click to expand...

It depends on the ammo load and how many rounds are detonating.

The bulkheads are only rated for something like two (or three or four i.e. "not many") detonations of ammunition rounds at once. If there's a substantial ammo that is hit by a shaped charge, the entire fighting compartment can die, and the bulkheads are only fire rated for a brief period of 20 minutes or so. B/3-66 AR's command tank had something akin to this happen in Desert Storm. Good news is, that if that happens, you don't need to destroy the interior with the thermite grenades at least.

IM propellants make this really unlikely these days tbf, but those are probably a minority of 120mm rounds in inventory still, and didn't exist in 1991 in any case. It would probably take a day or two for BDAR to fix an M1 with destroyed ammo racks from penetration to re-crewing.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Oryx will freely admit that they may be under-counting things by insisting on photo evidence, but missing 50+% seems unlikely.

So 5 of 30 destroyed and another 7 damaged...
Click to expand...
Some recent losses of Ukrainian Abrams have not yet been referenced by oryx, I think.
 
I think this one isn't in the oryx list yet, I'll try to find the source. It is totally destroyed, the side armour totally exploded.
Screenshot_2024-08-26-15-39-16-877_com.twitter.android-edit.jpg
 
Last edited:
For example, the one captured by the Russians and exhibited in Moscow is not on the oryx list, if I'm not mistaken.
I had seen another one destroyed, I'll try to find that.
 
www.oryxspioenkop.com

Attack On Europe: Documenting Ukrainian Equipment Losses During The Russian Invasion Of Ukraine

www.oryxspioenkop.com www.oryxspioenkop.com

The date of the post is 2022 but the information is as up to date as anywhere. The only list equipment losses when they have photographic evidence. It shows 13 M1 'casualties', 6 destroyed, 1 damaged, 6 damaged and abandoned. Whether any of the damaged were recovered by Ukraine isn't indicated. The most recent date I see is three days ago for "6 destroyed", but it doesn't look destroyed to me, though I know nothing about whether a tank is damaged or not.
 
It is worth noting that the 1991 and 2003 major use of Abrams took place against Iraqi units using mainly T55 tanks with much smaller numbers of T62 and T72 tanks plus some others (Yugoslav T74?).
For all their problems Russian units have T64 and T90 tanks plus mines, many different types of ATGW, drones, gunships, Su25 Stormoviks.
The fate of Israeli tanks in various wars from 1973 onwards is perhaps a better guide.
 
Grown wary of the tally gathering on both sides of this Ukraine war.
 
I don't think anyone with a brain thought the M1A1 was "virtually indestructible", and there were never enough of them to make a practical difference. If the tank crew survived, the M1 did its job.

TMA1 said:
Grown wary of the tally gathering on both sides of this Ukraine war.
Click to expand...

Agreed, unless we have something interesting to say about it, all the posts of "a destroyed xxxx" are pointless.
 
uk 75 said:
It is worth noting that the 1991 and 2003 major use of Abrams took place against Iraqi units using mainly T55 tanks with much smaller numbers of T62 and T72 tanks plus some others (Yugoslav T74?).
For all their problems Russian units have T64 and T90 tanks plus mines, many different types of ATGW, drones, gunships, Su25 Stormoviks.
The fate of Israeli tanks in various wars from 1973 onwards is perhaps a better guide.
Click to expand...
War, as was once said, is hardly life insurance. It doesn't matter how great the Abrams is, they are going to be lost in combat. Same applies to aircraft of all types and both sides. Would not surprise me if that many have been lost. Both sides have incurred heavier than expected losses.
Count me among those who wouldn't trust a number from either side right now. "First casualty in war is ..."
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
I don't think anyone with a brain thought the M1A1 was "virtually indestructible", and there were never enough of them to make a practical difference. If the tank crew survived, the M1 did its job.
Click to expand...
Tank's job is to be a tank, not just to let the crew survive cook offs. It helps a lot when there is no cook-off, sure, but ultimately the part of the job not done by the AFV crew will be paid by infantry in blood - at a premium rate.

Right now it seems, that of 3 major western MBTs:
Challenger is (mentally) challenged. Available only in low numbers(as they are anyway), prone to mechanical problems, and very vulnerable.
Soviet(Russian, Ukrainian) tanks, for all their explosive character, at least have thick skin (only engine deck and turret rear are really weak).
Puts big question mark on Challenger 3, too - yes, it'll get safe ammo storage, but numbers situation will get even worse, and other than ammo it's going to be just as big and vulnerable as before.

Abrams - something is very wrong with their protection, as ERA slapping shows. All of them are getting ERAed, eveywhere. They weren't meant to be.
Granted, USMC M1A1s lost their US protection package(at least for the turret front), but replacement one still is a modern package, and the problems are from all directions; furthermore, US package is meant to make most difference for kinetic rods, and this isn't the threat.
On the bright side - much like Bradleys, they seem to be decently available and maintainable, even when in low numbers.

Leopard - 2a4 appears to be just average(expected) - neither good nor especially reliable, but just vulnerable. In a conflict defined by artillery, FPV and ATGMs it just doesn't work that well. Meme-ERA slapping doesn't help all that much, the tank is just big and old.
2a6 and Swedish 2a5, apparently, are in fact decently survivable and hard to finish off...but again, low numbers and they're difficult to keep operational. Also, there's a big suspicion that without chassis upgrade they can't really be meme-ERAed.

Overall, even with all Western help, best Ukrainian tank supplier appears to still be Russia. Both in quality and in quanitity. And while it's easy to chose the worst western-supplied MBT(Challenger), choosing the best is harder - both are far from ideal.
As a design, overall, probably it's swedish 2a5(but numbers and weight margins are a big question mark). As a tank - m1a1. Simply because it's actually maintainable in the field.

But still. Western IFVs have proven themselves. But tanks...
 
Last edited:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
I don't think tanks on either side come out well, they've all proved vulnerable to the above threats.
Click to expand...
All modern tanks are. But Russian/Ukrainian tanks are mechanically reliable(and close to their production base in case of Ukraine), they are thicker, much of their vulnerable surfaces is completely covered by ERA, and they tend to be replaced when lost.
Last part perhaps is the most important, because in positional warfare recovery seems to be a big problem.
 
Ainen said:
Abrams - something is very wrong with their protection, as ERA slapping shows. All of them are getting ERAed, eveywhere. They weren't meant to be.
Click to expand...
Basically the whole concept of "highly mobile tank, that required heavy protection only in front" became obsolete. The roof-hitting missiles, drones and guided artillery shells are much more common opponents for tanks, than enemy tanks firing APDSFS rounds. And supporting infantry against entrenched enemy is much more common function than duelling with enemy armor. To summarize:

* Modern tank must have at least moderatedly efficient protection from all sides, not merely from front

* Modern tank weapon must be optimized for "soft" targets, not for sniping enemy tanks

* Modern tank must be cheap enough to be mass-produced (emphasis on crew survival, since trained crew could not be easily replaced by industrial means)

So either we increase the size and weight of tanks up to 80-100 tons (most likely by using strap-on additional armor modules - so they could be removed to keep tank weight down for transportation), or we switch to massive numbers of very small tanks (which rely mainly on active defenses) that could be easily replaced.

P.S. And by now its kinda obvious, that low-impulse 155-mm gun optimized for firing HE and guided rouns is much more practical than high-impulse 120-mm firing uranium APDSFS. M60A2 "Starship" was actually a step in right direction)
 
Ainen said:
Abrams - something is very wrong with their protection, as ERA slapping shows. All of them are getting ERAed, eveywhere. They weren't meant to be.
Granted, USMC M1A1s lost their US protection package(at least for the turret front), but replacement one still is a modern package, and the problems are from all directions; furthermore, US package is meant to make most difference for kinetic rods, and this isn't the threat.
On the bright side - much like Bradleys, they seem to be decently available and maintainable, even when in low numbers.
Click to expand...
It's getting wrap-around ERA because the threats are 360deg, not in the front 30deg.

Also, IIRC the Abrams armor package is designed to defeat KE, and the primary threat is HEAT.


Dilandu said:
Basically the whole concept of "highly mobile tank, that required heavy protection only in front" became obsolete. The roof-hitting missiles, drones and guided artillery shells are much more common opponents for tanks, than enemy tanks firing APDSFS rounds. And supporting infantry against entrenched enemy is much more common function than duelling with enemy armor. To summarize:

* Modern tank must have at least moderatedly efficient protection from all sides, not merely from front

* Modern tank weapon must be optimized for "soft" targets, not for sniping enemy tanks

* Modern tank must be cheap enough to be mass-produced (emphasis on crew survival, since trained crew could not be easily replaced by industrial means)

So either we increase the size and weight of tanks up to 80-100 tons (most likely by using strap-on additional armor modules - so they could be removed to keep tank weight down for transportation), or we switch to massive numbers of very small tanks (which rely mainly on active defenses) that could be easily replaced.
Click to expand...
Exactly!


Dilandu said:
P.S. And by now its kinda obvious, that low-impulse 155-mm gun optimized for firing HE and guided rouns is much more practical than high-impulse 120-mm firing uranium APDSFS. M60A2 "Starship" was actually a step in right direction)
Click to expand...
That particular gun-launcher was not a good setup. They built a reloadable missile launcher and then tried to make it shoot HEAT rounds. The 152mm HEAT round's recoil would knock out the missile electronics!

The way to do it is to design a gun that can also shoot guided missiles, the way the Soviet 125mm was designed.
 
Scott Kenny said:
That particular gun-launcher was not a good setup. They built a reloadable missile launcher and then tried to make it shoot HEAT rounds.
Click to expand...
True, it wasn't. Still, the general idea was solid and in right direction. I envision low-impulse 155-mm gun with mainly HE shells (maybe even common rounds with artillery - albeit here I'm less sure), and guided missiles/top-hitting guided shells for anti-armor functions.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It's getting wrap-around ERA because the threats are 360deg, not in the front 30deg.

Also, IIRC the Abrams armor package is designed to defeat KE, and the primary threat is HEAT.
Click to expand...
It's getting ERA bricks everywhere, including turret front and sides(parts which are supposed to be rpg-7 proof), again and again. I e. It's not a single overzealous crew anymore.

Qt least a couple of first m1 tanks was killed by apparently kornet frontally, it holds some merit; we don't know where hits happened exactly, but Ukrainians do.
Abrams really holds consequences of penetration very well (though it means next FPV will do the job, especially after jammer will die on a dead tank), but penetrations and disabling damage happen quite easily.

Also, Abrams was primarily designed exactly against HEAT(1973 experience) and was always known to have very high HEAT equivalents. Significant ke was added through 80s and 90s, when it appeared that someone screwed up estimating Soviet tank guns.

Dilandu said:
P.S. And by now its kinda obvious, that low-impulse 155-mm gun optimized for firing HE and guided rouns is much more practical than high-impulse 120-mm firing uranium APDSFS. M60A2 "Starship" was actually a step in right direction)
Click to expand...
I don't understand this 6" fascination. It doesn't add any new groups of targets, nor it decreases ammo use(tank tends to kill everything not armored on first good hit regardless, be it 155 or 90mm gun), just decreases available ammo.
Frankly speaking, I now think 105 is optimal once again.
 
You would really be better served with multi programmable mode firing systems. A soft ejection via gas before the primary missile propulsion boosts the weapon downrange, a la warship practice.

Possible a secondary firing within the breech to clear residue, leaving a baseplate from the round for ejection.
 
Ainen said:
I don't understand this 6" fascination. It doesn't add any new groups of targets, nor it decreases ammo use(tank tends to kill everything not armored on first good hit regardless, be it 155 or 90mm gun), just decreases available ammo.
Frankly speaking, I now think 105 is optimal once again.
Click to expand...
To put it simply, 6-inch HE shell is optimal in terms of destructive power - to - weight ratio. The 105-mm HE is filled with about 2 kg of explosive, with projectile weight 12 kg. The 155-mm HE is filled with about 10 kg of explosive, with projectile weight 47 kg.

I.e. for three times increase in projectile weight, we got five time increase in explosive filling.
 
Dilandu said:
To put it simply, 6-inch HE shell is optimal in terms of destructive power - to - weight ratio. The 105-mm HE is filled with about 2 kg of explosive, with projectile weight 12 kg. The 155-mm HE is filled with about 10 kg of explosive, with projectile weight 47 kg.

I.e. for three times increase in projectile weight, we got five time increase in explosive filling.
Click to expand...
But all the same targets(volumes) are reliably one-clicked (cleaned, demolished, put out of action) by 105. I. e. this technical optimum comes at effect of effeu engagements per ammo rack, which is absurd; better leave it to brigade artillery.

More destruction per shell is just not that needed for general direct fire vehicle, IMHO.

And for specialist assault breacher I'd rather aim for low impulse thin projectiles of much higher caliber(180-240), be it for demolition charges, assault thermobaric, etc etc.

Maybe something like heavily armored 2s4 offspring with direct fire capability.
 
Ainen said:
But all the same targets(volumes) are reliably one-clicked (cleaned, demolished, put out of action) by 105. I. e. this technical optimum comes at effect of effeu engagements per ammo rack, which is absurd; better leave it to brigade artillery.
Click to expand...
Actually no. Practical experience demonstrated, that 120-mm shell usually is not enough to one-hit a concrete bunker or suppress a firing position in city building. On the other hand, 152-mm and 155-mm shell usually do the job just fine.

Ainen said:
And for specialist assault breacher I'd rather aim for low impulse thin projectiles of much higher caliber(180-240), be it for demolition charges, assault thermobaric, etc etc.
Click to expand...
Their problem is very limited range, which made their use in field battle quite problematic.
 
Ainen said:
Tank's job is to be a tank, not just to let the crew survive cook offs. It helps a lot when there is no cook-off, sure, but ultimately the part of the job not done by the AFV crew will be paid by infantry in blood - at a premium rate.

Right now it seems, that of 3 major western MBTs:
Challenger is (mentally) challenged. Available only in low numbers(as they are anyway), prone to mechanical problems, and very vulnerable.
Soviet(Russian, Ukrainian) tanks, for all their explosive character, at least have thick skin (only engine deck and turret rear are really weak).
Puts big question mark on Challenger 3, too - yes, it'll get safe ammo storage, but numbers situation will get even worse, and other than ammo it's going to be just as big and vulnerable as before.

Abrams - something is very wrong with their protection, as ERA slapping shows. All of them are getting ERAed, eveywhere. They weren't meant to be.
Granted, USMC M1A1s lost their US protection package(at least for the turret front), but replacement one still is a modern package, and the problems are from all directions; furthermore, US package is meant to make most difference for kinetic rods, and this isn't the threat.
On the bright side - much like Bradleys, they seem to be decently available and maintainable, even when in low numbers.

Leopard - 2a4 appears to be just average(expected) - neither good nor especially reliable, but just vulnerable. In a conflict defined by artillery, FPV and ATGMs it just doesn't work that well. Meme-ERA slapping doesn't help all that much, the tank is just big and old.
2a6 and Swedish 2a5, apparently, are in fact decently survivable and hard to finish off...but again, low numbers and they're difficult to keep operational. Also, there's a big suspicion that without chassis upgrade they can't really be meme-ERAed.

Overall, even with all Western help, best Ukrainian tank supplier appears to still be Russia. Both in quality and in quanitity. And while it's easy to chose the worst western-supplied MBT(Challenger), choosing the best is harder - both are far from ideal.
As a design, overall, probably it's swedish 2a5(but numbers and weight margins are a big question mark). As a tank - m1a1. Simply because it's actually maintainable in the field.

But still. Western IFVs have proven themselves. But tanks...
Click to expand...
The present generation of Western MBTs have thick skin too, the fundamental problem is this threat of large numbers of cheap munitions that can choose their approach and aim for a weak point. There simply are not enough counters to those munitions around. We've seen the same thing happen to a great many modern Russian tanks including the latest T-90s. The only difference is the crew is somewhat more likely to get out of the Abrams alive due to different ammo stowage arrangement for the main gun.

I'd have to disagree with the assessment the Challenge 2 is an unreliable tank. The problem is that even the British Army's force of them is small to start with, and how many were the Ukrainians given? Less than two dozen? How much of the necessary logistics support have them been given for those specific tanks? Almost certainly not enough. For whatever reason the Brits didn't seem to send them any of the additional armor packages that are available. Even the early-2000s era kits would have been somewhat helpful.

As for ERA being added *everywhere* to the Abrams some of that might be a force of habit at this point. I doubt even the latest model of Kornet could penetrate the front turret of an M1A2 SEP or M1A1 SA with the latest armor package, but we don't know for sure what standard of M1A1 the Ukranian ones are. If a Kornet could penetrate it's unlikely some Kontakt-1 bricks would change anything since they aren't going to do much against a tandem-charge warhead. But if that ERA does stop a kamikaze drone or something else with a simple HEAT warhead it means no time has to be spent later repairing damage to armor array, so that might have some value.

Many of the Ukranian Leopard 2s seem to be 2A4s and the only additional armor they've gotten is whatever the Ukrainians themselves have welded on.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom