David b. From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3148 posts, RR: 6 Posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2031 times:
How well would a MI tank fend if it took a direct hit to the back(where the engine systems and coolers are) by a infantry anti-tank rocket? From what I understand, the vehicle stands up pretty well but the back end does look flimsy.
B757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 25 Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1965 times:
Actually, we've lost 2 M1-A1 because they were hit in the rear by a weapon the Iraqis weren't suppose to have, the Russian built "Kornet" anti-tank missile. This isn't some old piece of Soviet crap. The Kornet went into production in 1993.
The rear of tanks has always been the weakest area. During WWII, Allied Shermans, which blew up if just about anything hit them, had to flank the German Tiger and Panthers in order to get a good shot on the rear armor. This was the only way to have a chance to knock it out. Despite the fact that the M1-A1's were fairly FUBARed, the design worked perfectly and the crew escaped unhurt. The panels designed to blow off if the ammunition detonates did their job and saved the crew. The mistake was moving tanks along without infantry support. All it takes is one guy with a Kornet hiding behind some sand to fry a tank. Also, it happened during the middle of that sand storm last week so visibility totally sucked.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12735 posts, RR: 79 Reply 5, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1929 times:
Am I right in thinking that the M1 has Chobbam Armour (named after the British town where it was developed in the 1970's).
Worrisome about that modern Russian AT missile.
Did you hear about the British Challenger 2 tank that took 70 (yes 70) RPG hits, kept on going and fighting though!
Toady From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 724 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1924 times:
The M1 has Chobham ceramic armour - but, like Challenger, not on the arse end, turret top or hull bottom.
Doesn't suprise me about the Challenger taking those hits. I've seen footage of Chobham vs conventional armour being fired at by a 120mm main armament at very close range - the conventional armour had 5 very neat holes punched through it, the Chobham had 5 dents!
Tsv From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 5 Reply 8, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1914 times:
Is that footage available on video or DVD?
I remember seeing footage (external and internal) of an Abrams taking a hit on the ammunition compartment on one of the Video Ordnance videos (Volume 6 Part 2 "Battle Tank"). The Challenger is also featured on this but I can't recall watching it. Must put it in the video and have a look.
Erj190 From Portugal, joined Dec 2000, 397 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1891 times:
According with the data I have available, the M1A1 and M1A2 tanks indeed have Chobham armor.
The characteristics of that armor, and the way it is applied on the tank are secret. This applies for the M1A1/A2, the British Challenger 2 and the German Leopard 2A1/2A2
All vehicles have their negative points (sometimes all points are negative, like in the Sherman in WW2 or the pre-WW2 Russian tanks).
We don't know how many M1A1 or A2 have been destroyed, hit or damaged, because that is supposed to be classified information. Therefore we only have seen two M1 tanks destroyed, because the Iraqis took the area where they were destroyed, allowing the TV stations to broadcast the images.
At least one of the M1, was hit on the side, which is consistent with the use of more powerful anti-tank ammo, such as the Kornet.
We should remember the Palestinians destroyed some weeks ago a Merkava-II tank just by flaming the engine with a Molotov Cocktail.
I have nevertheless noted, at least twice, glimpse images of very damaged M1's and destroyed UMVEE's, on Sky News.
The lack of information is actually quite comprehensive in a situation of war.
I think the embedded reporters are a tactical problem, instead of a strategic advantage.
Although hit, the M1, is of course, one of the best tanks in the world. As all tanks, it needs infantry support. Without it the tank becomes vulnerable, especially in cities, where it's use is not advisable anyway.
Erj190 From Portugal, joined Dec 2000, 397 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1763 times:
There have been various comparison tests ran by various armies.
The most famous I know, (because it dealt with the supply of one thousand tanks) was held by the army of Saudi Arabia.
The competitors where the M1-A1, the British Challenger-1, the French AMX-30/40 and the Brazilian EE-T1 project.
The British tank and the French tank were soon set aside. The main competition was between the M1-A1 and the EE-T1.
In the end, after all the technical issues had been addressed, the ENGESA EE-T1 from Brazil was declared winner over the Abrahams M1-A1.
The fact that the Saudis had money to buy anything they wanted, and even so, they opted for the Brazilian project, is the best demonstration of which was really the best.
But, the influence the US administration had on the Saudi Royal family ended up deciding, in the end in favor of the US tank.
The Abrahams has in fact a number of faults, and even today there are many voices in the US military that are big critics of the model. The biggest negative point being that while in operation it needs refueling each 12 hours. The equivalent LEOPARD-2-A5, is heavier and better protected than the Abrahams, and in the same conditions needs refueling each 24 hours, because it uses a multifuel 12 cylinder engine, instead of a turbine.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1768 times:
The Abrahams has in fact a number of faults, and even today there are many voices in the US military that are big critics of the model. The biggest negative point being that while in operation it needs refueling each 12 hours. The equivalent LEOPARD-2-A5, is heavier and better protected than the Abrahams, and in the same conditions needs refueling each 24 hours, because it uses a multifuel 12 cylinder engine, instead of a turbine
Years ago when the Swiss Army ran a competition to select the tanks they would buy, it came down to the Leopard II in 1st place and the M1-A1 in second. I know a retired sergeant who was part of the evaluation team, and he said that the M1 would have won, except for its thirst and the requirement for different fuel from the diesel used in all the other vehicles, which required another logistics problem.
But what's this Brazilian tank? Since when does Brazil have any experience with tank warfare?
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1752 times:
I was in a tank batallion, and while they were diesel, our tanks radiator vents on the back were wonderfully cozy on winter manoevers. Especially at the end of the day, as those heavy engines would keep warm a long time, and everyone would fight for the privilege of sleeping on it.
Erj190 From Portugal, joined Dec 2000, 397 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1745 times:
As I have said in my post the EE-T1 was a project, only a reduced number was produced. ENGESA, the manufacturer, spent one hundred million dollars in the development of the project. After the blow, of having won the technical part, but having lost the political issue, the company, found itself in heavy financial trouble and went bankrupt some years later.
ENGESA was one of the largest military vehicle manufacturers in the world.
IT produced the EE-9 cascavel 6x6 90mm gun (Iraq used lots of them in the war with Iran), the EE-T11 URUTU 6x6 Amphibious assault car, the EE-17/18 tank killer, the EE-3 4x4 Scout car, the XLP-10 tracked bridge-layer, the EE-T4 tracked scout car among others. There where other Brazilian manufacturers, such as Bernardini, and also Avibras and Avibras Aerospace. The latest famous for the production of the ASTROS-1/2 and recently ASTROS-3 Multiple Rocket launchers.
Iraq purchased many of them, but the Iraqi leaders were stupid in it's operational use. Some reports say that the "missiles" fired at Kuwait (yes, those that ended up not being SCUDS after all) where no more no less than old ASTROS rockets, fired without the help of their EDT-FILA targeting radar.
I suppose this answers about the Brazilian expertise in tank warfare. (they don't lack knowledge, what they lack is money)