M1-A1 Abrams: tough to kill, but not invulnerable

U.S. News- Washington Whispers ^ | 06/09/03 | Paul Bedard

[Pokey78]

They call them "lessons learned" reports in the Pentagon, and few are getting as much attention as the review of the Army's lumbering M1-A1 Abrams tank's performance in Iraq. Revered by soldiers as the world's best, the report found that lone Iraqis armed with simple rocket-propelled grenades halted a few Abramses in their tracks. Just like those Battle of the Bulge scenes of GIs firing at the bellies of Nazi tanks, a rocket aimed at the armored skirts on the side and back of the Abrams would occasionally disable the tank. That's led some to question the plan to replace some M1s with lighter and thinly skinned "Stryker" vehicles. But then, the report shown to Whispers also found that the heavy Abrams guzzled more gas than expected. And getting parts to busted tanks was a problem. Still, like the Terminator, it didn't die easily. Some completely disabled tanks were abandoned, and airstrikes were called in to keep the gizmos inside from Iraqi spies. It took a grenade detonated in the crew compartment, a massive tank round, and two precision Maverick missiles just to put one down.

[Bogey78O]

We only lost a couple of them. I'd say that's the hallmark of an excellent weapon.

[Thebaddog]

Nobody has a better one. The big dog stays, in my opinion.

[demlosers]

Not once was the M1's frontal armor penatrated.

[dts32041]

How many crew members where killed as a result of a catistrophic hit?

[Thunder 6]

At the recent US Army Armor Conference at Ft. Knox, it was briefed that the army expects the Abrams to remain in service in some capacity until 2030 or so.

regards,

[Criminal Number 18F]

The "lumbering" M1 is speed-governed to something like 45 MPH -- cross country. disable the governor and it'll hit 70 on a road.

The wretched Stryker is vulnerable to everything on the battlefield bigger than rifle calibre. Heavy small arms can mob-kill it by shredding the tires. It's very vulnerable to mines and IEDs, and it has a huge signature on the battlefield.

But now, Shinseki is going, and the Stryker is vulnerable to common sense. While lightening some heavy units may make sense, so far the Stryker Brigades have been made from light infantry units. This was Shinseki's vision of an all-armored Army.

Strykers are too heavy for low-intensity conflict, like Afghanistan and what remains in Iraq, and too light for high-intensity conflict, like the battles that shredded those couple of Abrams (think any of the crew would be alive if they were in those tin coffins instead of a real tank... hell, no).

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[joesnuffy]

Top of the line tank....
Like the A-10 and the Cobra Helicopter....needs to stay in the inventory...
never replace something that is a classic...just to take a chance on something new and unproven...
Go with what works

[Thunder 6]

"...so far the Stryker Brigades have been made from light infantry units."

Actually, the first Stryker BDE (3d BDE, 2ID) was an Armor BDE when it began the conversion. Small point, but 3/2, and the PA ARNG BDE were/are mechanized. The others (1/25, 2 ACR(L) 172d, and 2/25) are light BDEs.

You are dead on about the speed of an M1A1... ;)

regards,

[thegreatbeast]

It may be hard to take down from the front but that leaves 3 sides vulnerable to attack.
And by the losses we have been taking lately, we may have to notch up the operation in Iraq. Police mode is making us too vulnerable.

[Shooter 2.5]

No crew members were killed during a firefight or hit from a anti-tank rocket. We almost lost one driver when he had trouble extracting himself from a burning tank.

We did lose an entire crew by drowning when an Abrams was driven off a bridge.

[ozzymandus]

The best tank in the world is not invulnerable?? I didn't realize there was such a thing as an unkillable tank. Keep it!

[Archangelsk]

Not once was the M1's frontal armor penatrated.

Chobhom armor and a well designed front glacias will do that for you.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

At the recent US Army Armor Conference at Ft. Knox, it was briefed that the army expects the Abrams to remain in service in some capacity until 2030 or so.

The life expectancy of any weapons system is dependent primarily upon the counter systems of its nation's adversaries. Although it may be in front line service for another decade, in my opinion fifty years for any ground based platform is wildly optimistic.

China set to field World's Most Powerful Tank

[AlaskaErik]

The life expectancy of any weapons system is dependent primarily upon the counter systems of its nation's adversaries. Although it may be in front line service for another decade, in my opinion fifty years for any ground based platform is wildly optimistic.

The B-52 entered service 48 years ago. Those still in service are 40 years old and they are expected to remain in service until 2040, and possibly even beyond that. Granted, it's not ground-based, but no reason why the M1A1 can't be around that long.

[Panzerfaust]

I think you'll find this link very informative. Great report, with pictures, on M1 survivability in recent Iraq war. It is a powerpoint presentation and takes a bit of time to download, but well worth it if you are interested in the M1

http://www.sftt.org/PPT/article05242003a.ppt

[xm177e2]

may be hard to take down from the front but that leaves 3 sides vulnerable to attack.

5 sides. Remember, combat takes place in three dimensions (and the best anti-tank rockets are the top-attack variety).

[Ronaldus Magnus]

In both cases the underlying issue is in maintaining superiority. The B-52 is only successful in theaters where air superiority can be maintained by fighter aircraft and ground forces (as many of the former residents of the Hanoi Hilton can attest). The tank generally has the primary responsibility for obtaining battle field superiority and is therefore much more vulnerable to obsolescence. If tactics were to change to the point where air based ground attack aircraft were tasked with obtaining and maintaining battlefield superiority, then fielding an antiquated tank might be more acceptable. In that scenario, however, a main battle tank will no longer be required (as the "Stryker Likers" would advocate).

[LibKill]

It's a keeper.

At least until we get the MKI BOLO. :)

[centurion316]

You are correct, but a small point of clarification on this issue might be in order, especially in light of the astounding lack of factual information that has accompanied this debate over the last few years. I know that this isn't news to you, but might be helpful to others:

The 3d Bde, 2d Infantry Division was the first brigade to convert to the Stryker oganization. At the time of its conversion, it was organized as a tank heavy mech brigade, two M-1 Abrams equipped tank battalions, and one M-2 Bradley equipped mech battalions. Just prior to conversion, one of the tank battalions was exchanged for a light infantry battalion with the 1st Bde, 25th Infantry Division, now converting as Stryker Brigade #2. So, conversion of the first Stryker Brigade resulted in the loss of 44 M-1 tanks from the rolls of the Active Army (tank battalions are smaller these days). Conversion of the second Stryker Brigade (1/25 Inf Div) also resulted in a net loss of 44 M-1 tanks. Total = 88 M-1 tanks.

The remaining four brigades slated for conversion, including the 56th Bde, PA National Guard do not have any M-1 tank battalions assigned.

Bottom line is that we are beefing up the light force, not standing down the heavy force - at least for now. Objective Force will eventually replace the M-1 and M-2, but far down the road, as you point out.

I'm sure that the PM Abrams briefing on M-1 performance must have been shown at the Armor Conference. The Abrams tank held up very well. So did the Bradley. M113s, USMC AAV's, and LAV-25s did not fare so well. Stryker would have fallen somewhere in between, depending on whether it included applique armor. Heavy force still first choice in a real gunfight, but Stryker would have come in real handy in Northern Iraq to reinforce 173d Abn Bde. Big problems trying to get TF1-63 deployed and supported. I would have signed up for a Stryker Bde up there in a New York minute.

Full spectrum force for full spectrum missions - I hope people quit taking cheap shots at Shinseki and get on with making the Army more lethal, more deployable, and more sustainable. Appreciate your voice of reason in the midst of this babble.