Iraqis destroy 2 Abrams tanks; loss is first in its 20-year history

Army Times ^ | March 25, 2003 | Sean D. Naylor

[Diddley]

Army Times/Mansfield News Journal (Ohio)

EAST BANK OF THE EUPHRATES RIVER, Iraq - Two American M1A1 Abrams tanks were destroyed Tuesday by fire from what officers believe was an Iraqi truck-mounted anti-tank gun. It was the first time an Abrams has been destroyed by enemy fire in its 20-year history.

But the Abrams preserved one important record: All eight crewmen survived without serious injury. No crew member has ever died in an Abrams because of enemy action. The two tanks were lost as the 3rd Infantry Division's 3rd Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment pushed to within 80 miles of Baghdad Tuesday night. The squadron had been in a running, 24-hour battle, crashing through repeated ambushes as it raced north. Along the way, another Abrams rolled into a ditch and was lost.

The two tanks saw tracers from behind them and were maneuvering to return fire when, within seconds of one another, each took hits from their rear and burst into flames. As ammunition exploded, the crewmen of Troop B scrambled to safety.
Officers at the scene described the tanks as ``catastrophic losses.''

During the first Persian Gulf War, nine Abrams tanks were damaged by mines but were repaired. Charles Lemons of the Patton Museum of Cavalry and Armor at Fort Knox, Ky., said that two or three Abrams were "put out of action" by friendly fire during that war.

[Diddley]

There have been conflicting stories/posts on this.
I don't know if the Army Times is any more accurate than other media.
It is hard to believe that a truck-mounted machine gun could take out two M1A1s.
The casualty record is great.

[Diddley]

machine gun = anti-tank gun

[battousai]

Well it said truck mounted anit-tank gun, so maybe a small artillary piece rather than a mahcine gun, and on the rear weaker armor of the Abrams it might have been powerful enough to get through.

[Servant of the Nine]

Later reports, as of two hours ago describe the tanks as disabled but not destroyed. The implication from Ted Koppell on ABC who is with the unit was that they were repairable, though probably not in the field.

SO9

[denydenydeny]

CNN said they were TOW missiles.

[atomic conspiracy]

The very large air vents on the rear of the Abrams tank, required for the turbine engine, are a significant weak point, but there is really no alternative. Diesel engines of equivalent power (1500hp) require cooling vents that are nearly as large, and the engines themselves are much bulkier and heavier, significantly reducing the weight available for armor.

[OOPisforLiberals]

Wow. That's...shocking. The Abrams is such an overwhelming force, its difficult to imagine one being damaged, much less taken out. A modern day Bolo.

Impressive that the ammo-explosion containment buffers saved the crew, though!

[SlickWillard]

Bump.

[John H K]

The Abrams is such an overwhelming force, its difficult to imagine one being damaged

Every tank ever built is very easy to destroy if you can attack it from behind, below (large mine) or overhead. If those areas were as well armored as the front, they wouldn't be able to move.

Haven't quite seen the media panic and hand-wringing I expected for the first Abrams losses.

Anyway, point is, tanks are FAR more vulnerable than people think...even the best tanks in the world (Abrams and Challenger). Particularly in more built up areas. In a city fight infantry is protecting tanks more than tanks are protecting infantry.

Nice thing about tanks is that they can be destroyed and the crew survives...it's routine for a tank unit that loses 1/2 its tanks in combat but only have 10-15% of their men killed.

[InABunkerUnderSF]

Question: Is the 7th cav. of the 3rd ID the same unit as the 7th cav. of the 1st cav. of Viet Nam and Korea, which is to say THE 7th cav.?

[Diddley]

I don't know that.

[Diddley]

. . . it's routine for a tank unit that loses 1/2 its tanks in combat but only have 10-15% of their men killed.

That is good to know.

[Diddley]

Impressive that the ammo-explosion containment buffers saved the crew, though!

I agree.

[John H K]

More likely Russian (Sagger) or French (Milan) anti-tank missles I would think. I'd doubt CNN would have a clear idea, though I didn't see the original report.

[goldstategop]

Two tank losses in nearly 7 days is an impressive record along with the fact none of their crews died. Some people read too much into bad news from the war front. All bad news should be as good as this.

[BurbankKarl]

LIVE ON CNN...

they are running the Karbala Gap in the sandstorm.

[Hugin]

Question: Is the 7th cav. of the 3rd ID the same unit as the 7th cav. of the 1st cav. of Viet Nam and Korea, which is to say THE 7th cav.?

Yep, Custer's old regiment. I don't think it's actually part of the 3rd ID. Cav regiments are seperate units, though they are often assigned to support an infantry div.

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

You are right, the Rooskies have been furnishing the Iraqis with them. I now hope the Russians suffer greatly in Chechnya for their back stabbing treachery.

[Diddley]

All bad news should be as good as this.

Absolutely.

[MCFujiTanker]

USA Today reported that these were "Grill Door" shots, some how the Iraqi's got behind them. Looks like some 4th echelon maintenance to me (just replace the pack (engine)). I had M48A3's that had the RPG holes plugged up. M1A1...great Tank...no one was killed!! Semper Fi!!