Militants of the terrorist group “Islamic State”1 (IS1, ISIS3, Daesh) banned in the Russian Federation blew up an American Abrams tank in Iraq. The fate of the crew is unknown; official Baghdad has not yet confirmed the loss of the combat vehicle. The day before, a video of a burning tank appeared on the Internet, and later a video showing the moment of the attack was posted on the Internet.
According to comments, the incident occurred near the Asmid Bridge north of Beiji in Salahaddin province in northern Iraq. Perhaps the tank was involved in the operation to liberate Mosul from IS militants. It was initially reported that the terrorists knocked out the tank using an American-made anti-tank guided missile (ATGM).
Later it was clarified that the Abrams was hit by a TOW, an American heavy anti-tank missile system (ATGM), which has been in service with the US Army since the 1970s. This type of ATGM is considered one of the most common in the world.
“The American TOW destroys the American Abrams. Well, here we are!” — one of the users commented on this incident.
Armed Forces. Forum about weapons and the army
According to the ranking of world tanks prepared by the American agency Forecast International, the best tank currently is the American M1A2 SEP Abrams from the General Dynamics Corporation, which proved itself to be excellent during the Iraq War. In second place is the Israeli Merkava Mk IV tank from Israel Ordnance Corps. He also demonstrated excellent performance during combat operations. In third place is the Japanese Type 90 from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. It was created on the basis of the German Leopard-2, but due to numerous innovations, the Type 90 can be considered the most advanced tank in the world in terms of technology. At the same time, there is no experience of its combat use. For the same reasons, the latest modification of the German tank Leopard-2A6 (manufacturer: Krauss-Maffei Wegmann) took only fourth place. What is noteworthy and quite natural is that there was no place in the ranking for the Russian T-72 and T-90S tanks, which are very actively used in various local wars and armed conflicts. For example, the T-90S has already proven itself excellent in tank battles on the Indo-Pakistani border. Moreover, it is the only tank in the world that has successfully completed test tracks in the Indian Thar Desert and the Malaysian jungle. But most importantly, the compilers of the rating did not take into account the results of military operations during the operation in Dagestan and the Chechen Republic. Here, Russian T-72 tanks and even the “veteran” T-62 tanks far surpassed in survivability the vaunted Abrams used during the aggression against Iraq.
Presented by the Americans as invulnerable and praised beyond measure by the American (and for good money - our) media, the Abrams, however, was successfully hit by outdated Soviet-made anti-tank weapons in service with the Iraqi army. Including from hand-held anti-tank grenade launchers. Mainly the side, rear and top parts of the tank were affected.
In this regard, the author considered it necessary to talk about two of the many combat episodes known to him, in which the high reliability and survivability of Russian tanks was clearly demonstrated.
During the counter-terrorist operation in the North Caucasus region of the Russian Federation, formations and units of both the North Caucasus and other military districts acted as part of the Joint Group of Troops (Forces). In this case, we will talk about the actions of the 506th Guards unit. MSP 27 Guards Motorized Rifle Division of the Volga Military District (since September 1, 2001 - Volga-Ural Military District). This regiment showed itself very well in carrying out combat missions during the first Chechen campaign, from February 1995 to the fall of 1996. Its units also fought competently and selflessly during the second Chechen campaign, including the soldiers of the tank battalion . At the same time, in battles with militants, not only the good training, courage and heroism of military personnel was demonstrated, but also the high reliability and survivability of military equipment was demonstrated.
Thus, at the beginning of January 2000, during the fighting to liberate the city of Grozny, one of the regiment’s assault detachments fought fierce battles in the area of the railway depot. The actions of the motorized riflemen, as expected, were supported by the T-72B tanks of the regiment’s tank battalion. The enemy defended stubbornly and desperately, skillfully using large quantities of anti-tank grenade launchers and even anti-tank systems. Therefore, despite the well-organized and constantly maintained interaction of tanks with infantry, the powerful fire damage inflicted on the enemy by artillery, combat vehicles were still subjected to repeated hits from grenades and even ATGMs.
1.2. Tank T-72B No. 613 is a “comrade” of tank No. 611, both from the 1st tank platoon. The “wounds” of the combat vehicle are clearly visible. Khankala, June 2000
3. Tank 72B No. 611, front view and left side. Prepared to travel to the station for loading onto railway transport and sending to the place of permanent deployment. The turret is turned back and locked, the barrel is additionally secured with a standard tow rope. Traces of active combat activity are clearly visible on the combat vehicle. Khankala, June 2000
4. Tank T-72B No. 611, rear view on the starboard side. Khankala, June 2000
During these battles, the tank with side number 611 from /tr suffered the most. During 2 days of continuous combat operations, this vehicle was hit by 3 Fagot class ATGMs and 6 grenades from RPG-7.
The following parts of the tank were hit.
ATGM - left under the turret (all):
• two - into fuel tanks on the fenders under the turret, which tank crews always kept “dry” during combat operations. The tanks inflated and burst, then the elements of the mounted dynamic protection on the turret were activated, but there was no penetration of the armor;
• one - in the side under the tower; reflected by the activated element of the hinged dynamic protection mounted on the rubber-metal side screens.
RPG-7 grenades:
• one - from above into the commander's hatch of the tower; the cumulative jet pierced the hatch and, without hitting the tank commander, went into the rear wall of the turret;
• two - on the left in the upper frontal part of the tower; neutralized by triggered elements of mounted dynamic protection;
• three - on the side of the hull, 2 on the left and 1 on the right; all are reflected by dynamic protection elements mounted on rubber-metal side screens.
5. The fuel tank on the right fender of tank No. 613, swollen and burst as a result of being hit by a cumulative grenade from an RPG (in a combat situation, as expected, it was empty). This is what the fuel tanks on tank No. 611 looked like in January 2000 after they were hit by an ATGM. Khankala, June 2000
6. “Burn” from an ATGM hitting the dynamic protection of the turret of one of the T-72B tanks. Khankala, June 2000
7. A welded hole from a PG-7 cumulative grenade in the rear hull plate of the T-72B tank No. 623. And no memories... Khankala, June 2000
8.9. Fragments of the left side of the T-72B tank No. 623. Khankala, June 2000
As a result, not a single hit led to the loss of combat effectiveness of the tank, which continuously continued to carry out its combat mission.
This fact was confirmed during the author’s personal conversation with the commander of this tank and the company commander in June 2000. Moreover, the unit commanders confirmed that all other tanks of the battalion were repeatedly hit by ATGMs and rocket-propelled grenades from RPGs, and had explosions from mines and land mines . But all the crews remained alive, and the tanks were combat-ready! After explosions by mines and land mines, the equipment was restored in a short time either by the crews or by military repair agencies, depending on the nature of the damage received.
The photographs taken by the author in the summer of 2000 show tank No. 611 and some others with characteristic traces of the impact of ATGMs and cumulative grenades from various RPGs. The combat vehicles were in a field park in Khankala and were being prepared for transportation by rail to their place of permanent deployment, therefore, many of them have towers turned towards the stern.
I would like to note that on much newer and “invulnerable” American tanks, hits from RPG grenades on the side screens that covered the sides above the road wheels had dire consequences: both the armor screens and the hulls were pierced, after which the tanks, as a rule, burned out.
10. The right fender of one of the tanks of the 2nd tank company. There was also a fuel tank here, destroyed as a result of an RPG grenade hit. The neighboring tank also got it. Khankala, June 2000
A very interesting and illustrative incident occurred with tank No. 623 (2 tr of the same tank battalion). In mid-December 1999, during the fighting in the 15th town of Grozny, one of the units of the 506th Guards. SME received the combat mission to unblock the encircled unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation and ensure its access to the location of our units.
The task was successfully completed. When covering the retreat of a unit of the Internal Troops, tank No. 623 rushed forward into the square and, breaking away from the cover of motorized rifles, acted alone, actively maneuvered and fired intensely and effectively at the enemy, which stunned the militants, inflicted heavy losses on them and significantly contributed to the successful the exit of our units from encirclement. After receiving a radio command to retreat, the tank began to retreat, not in reverse, but turned around.
To cover the retreat, its turret was turned back. Thus, he exposed the enemy to a poorly protected stern. Mistakes in war are never forgiven: the militants immediately opened strong and accurate fire from grenade launchers. As a result, the combat vehicle received 3 hits from anti-tank grenades from an RPG-7 in a short period of time:
• first - in a metal barrel at the stern for additional fuel (in a combat situation on tanks, these barrels were always “dry”). The cumulative jet pierced the barrel, which immediately cracked along the welds, but the tank hull was not pierced
• the second - into the side of the hull; was neutralized by elements of hinged dynamic protection mounted on rubber-metal side screens;
• third - to the lower part of the rear sheet, while the Arab mercenary who was shooting was “cut off” by a machine-gun burst from the tank; the cumulative jet, having pierced the stern sheet, also pierced the lower part of the engine crankcase and “stalled out” at the partition into the fighting compartment.
However, the tank, under its own power, with the engine crankcase broken at the bottom (!), covered another 300 m at high speed and took refuge on a nearby street, to the location of our troops. There the crew stopped the car and quickly left it. The tank crews reported that oil and fuel mist began to appear inside the tank and that a fire and explosion could occur. Soon the engine stalled. But nothing caught fire or exploded. In a short time, the engine was replaced, the inlet hole from the cumulative grenade was welded, and the tank again carried out combat missions with the same crew until its withdrawal from Chechnya.
In general, the tank battalion of the 506th Guards. MSP, which had 31 T-72B tanks on staff, did not have irreparable losses in tanks for 8 months (autumn 1999 - winter and spring 2000) of continuous combat operations on flat terrain, in the city and in the mountainous regions of Chechnya. The only exception was one tank, which constantly and too often “found” mines and land mines, and the crew, accordingly, received shell shock. He was considered “unlucky”, “terribly unlucky” and after another explosion, at the urgent requests of the battalion and regiment command, he was handed over to the repair and restoration battalion to be sent for repairs, with frequent explosions stopped. It is impossible to explain this from a scientific point of view, but this happens in war.
The reasons for the high survivability of Russian tanks are, first of all, the well-thought-out design of combat vehicles, created in accordance with the principles and rules of the Soviet (inherited Russian) tank school. The same applies to subsequent modernizations carried out in accordance with our, Russian, understanding of the further development of armored vehicles.
Along with this, it should be noted that the tanks are manufactured to a fairly high quality. Exactly. Of course, there are shortcomings in the design, and there are also manufacturing defects during the construction of combat vehicles. It doesn't happen without this. But still, this is more an exception to the rule than a pattern. With proper operation and timely maintenance, our military equipment will never let you down.
An important reason for the high survivability of combat vehicles was the fact that during the counter-terrorist operation the technical support for combat operations was well organized and carried out. This made it possible to timely and efficiently service tanks and quickly repair equipment that had received combat damage.
Along with this, the most important reason for the successful use of tanks in the second Chechen campaign, in contrast to the first, is the much higher level of professional training of military personnel. This ensured the correct use of combat vehicles, maintaining close cooperation during combat operations with motorized rifles operating on foot and destroying enemy grenade launchers (priority targets!). The enemy was not allowed to freely fire at the tanks with RPGs and, especially, to hit them in the upper and rear parts of the hull and turret. Engineering support problems were solved in a timely and effective manner, which made it possible to minimize the explosions of combat vehicles on enemy mines and landmines.
Author Author Gennady Zhilin. Photo by the author. World of Weapons No. 2 2006
What is the American tank afraid of? During the Iraq War, the Pentagon lost 80 Abrams.
History knows many examples when the rivalry between two types of weapons, intended only to counteract each other, eventually brought them to completely absurd forms. This was the case with the armor and spears of knights. The armament of mounted warriors, over the course of centuries of evolution, took on a cumbersome form that was unsuitable for real combat operations - the rider was a clumsy, clumsy figure, clad in impenetrable armor and capable only of accelerating on horseback and hitting his opponent’s shield in a tournament with a heavy spear. When such a knight was released onto the battlefield, he, having easily broken through the first ranks of the enemy, found himself practically defenseless against light foot soldiers, who simply pulled him off his horse with hooks and finished him off with daggers. And when small arms appeared, such figures on the battlefield turned into especially convenient targets for arquebuses and muskets.
The same thing happened with modern tanks. At the very beginning of World War II, when the first tank battles took place, a senseless race of armored weapons began along with them. Despite the fact that in reality tanks rarely engaged in fights with each other, when creating new vehicles, designers first of all took into account the characteristics of similar enemy weapons: the tank was taught to fight with the tank. Even during that war, a concept was developed that continues to dominate the minds of tank builders to this day. Tanks began to be equipped with differentiated armor, especially carefully protecting the frontal projection of the vehicle, which was most vulnerable during an offensive. Then the tanks began to be deprived of excess small arms, which, as it seemed to the designers, weakened the armor in the event of a shell hit. All this was done in spite of the experience that tankers acquired in urban battles, where the most dangerous enemy was not enemy tanks, but their infantry, armed with anti-tank grenade launchers.
The same trend continued during the Cold War, when the USA and the USSR looked at each other through the slits of their sights, and each type of weapon was created with the expectation of confronting a specific weapon of a single potential enemy. As a result, both countries, the heir to the Soviet empire, Russia, and the United States, faced the same thing - tanks designed to destroy each other in an open field were vulnerable to fire from partisans armed with old grenade launchers and homemade mines.
After the sadly memorable assault on the city of Grozny on New Year's Eve 1995, when several units of the Russian army were killed under the fire of Chechen militants, the image of Russian vehicles faded significantly. On the contrary, having defeated armadas of obsolete Soviet-made Iraqi tanks in 1991, American M1A2 Abrams earned a reputation as ultra-protected and ultra-reliable vehicles capable of literally wiping out entire tank armies. Meanwhile, the success of the first Iraqi campaign was largely due to the fact that the fighting took place in the desert, and American tankers were supported from the air by helicopters and airplanes.
CRACKED "ABRAMS" ON BAGHDAD STREET. Frame from the Rossiya TV channel, archive
Lenta.ru
One cannot discount the fact that not only the old T-55, but even the completely modern T-72 vehicles were in service with the Iraqi army in their basic modification - without modern means of countering anti-tank weapons, guidance systems, etc. What turned out to be that very demonstrative full-scale war that any military leader can dream of - the enemy of the Pentagon was a large but poorly trained army, unable to maneuver and repel air strikes. Thus was born the myth of the invincibility of the American Abrams tank.
In June 2004, the American rating agency Forecast International placed the Abrams at the top of the tank rating, without including a single Russian (Soviet) vehicle. Let us remind you that the positions in this chart were distributed as follows: the first place was taken by the Abrams, the second place went to the Israeli Merkava Mark IV, the third to the Japanese Type 90, the fourth to the German Leopard 2A6, the fifth to the British Challenger 2 tank. At the same time, agency experts said , that the American tank deserved such a high rating largely due to how it showed itself in the first and second Iraqi campaigns.
Meanwhile, no one still knew how the Abrams actually fought in Iraq in 2003. The Pentagon, which declares transparency of information about military operations in the Middle East, in fact did not publish reports on how the Abrams operated, what losses they suffered and how effective their use was. As during Desert Storm, television news programs were full of the remains of burned-out Tashkents and infantry fighting vehicles, with very few American vehicles interspersed among them. Occasionally, statements from military leaders included phrases that most of the tanks were lost as a result of breakdowns, and those that were knocked out were actually destroyed by the tankers themselves, so that the slightly damaged vehicles would not fall to the enemy.
The M1 Abrams tank was named in honor of the late General Creighton Abrams, commander of US forces in Vietnam from 1968-1972, who once led the 37th Armored Battalion. For its firepower and low noise level from the running engine, the M1 received the nicknames “Beast”, “Dracula”, “Whispering Death”.
In late 2004, a document entitled Lessons Learned (PowerPoint file) appeared on the Internet. Its authors tried to summarize the experience accumulated by American tank crews during the combat operations of the Iraq War. As stated in this report, the Abrams tanks performed at their best - no critical losses were recorded during the battles. “Several tanks were destroyed as a result of “secondary effects” of enemy weapons. Most of the losses were caused by mechanical failures, as a result of which the tanks were either destroyed by the crews themselves or were dismantled by the Iraqis,” the document says. The main conclusion that its authors draw is that “the Abrams tank showed its best side, demonstrating high maneuverability, firepower, and excellent crew protection.”
Considering an explosion of ammunition or a fire in the engine compartment, a weapon that causes such consequences should be called an “effective anti-tank weapon,” which was very skillfully used in battle. And when a tank whose engine has stalled remains in territory captured by the enemy, this means that, on the contrary, it was used extremely ineptly - otherwise it would not have been difficult to fit a repair and recovery vehicle. Such cases were not uncommon in Grozny, but then the actions of Russian military leaders were subject to severe criticism.
On March 30, an undoubtedly sensational article was published on the website of the American newspaper USA Today. In it, for the first time since the start of the current Iraqi campaign, data on the losses of American tanks in Iraq were published. In addition, the author (by the way, this American’s name is Steven Kuznetsov) provided generalized data on how exactly the Abrams were destroyed.
CONSEQUENCES OF THE STORM OF GROZNY. Photo from the website Armor.kiev.ua
Lenta.ru
So, judging by USA Today, since the beginning of the campaign in Iraq, that is, since the spring of 2003, the Pentagon has lost about 80 Abrams tanks in this country, which is 4.5 times higher than the losses in the first Iraq war, when on the battlefield only 18 cars remained. In fact, for a two-year war, 80 units is quite a bit, but if you consider that the Iraqis, unlike the Chechen militants, did not use ATGMs against tanks, but fought only with homemade mines and anti-tank grenade launchers, you will have to seriously doubt the merits "the best tank in the world."
Unfortunately, Kuznetsov’s sources did not disclose more detailed information about how the partisans acted against the Abrams (this is understandable - why explain to the enemies how best to fight their armored vehicles), however, judging by the few photographs, statements of American military leaders, as well as reports press, the main weapon of the partisans still remains mines. Indeed, it is impossible to strengthen a tank indefinitely - after all, you can always bury several hundred kilograms of explosives on the road. If you try, then several tons. And then blow up the armored train.
The situation is more complicated with hand-held anti-tank weapons. As you know, modern guided anti-tank missiles are theoretically capable of destroying any tank. However, according to the Pentagon, not a single newest Russian or other complex is in service with the Iraqi army or the rebels. That does not prevent them from successfully disabling Abrams with the help of relatively primitive RPG-7s equipped with monoblock inactive cumulative grenades.
The Abrams' armor is made using British Chobham technology and consists of two layers of steel, between which there is a filler that includes plates of depleted uranium - this makes it resistant to cumulative projectiles - the cumulative jet burns through only the top layer of armor and disperses between it and the second . However, armor is truly effective only in the front - frontal - part of the vehicle. From the side, and especially in the most vulnerable place of the tank—the lower side of the hull—the Abrams is quite vulnerable to grenade launchers. “This is a smart enemy who knows all the weak points of the tank, knows where to shoot,” is how American Army Colonel Russ Gold, who commanded a tank brigade at the beginning of the Iraq War, described his opponents.
A DASHING RIDING “ON ARMOR” COST THE LIVES OF 10 TANK CLIENTS. Photo by Reuters
Lenta.ru
The standard tactics of Iraqi guerrillas are not much different from how Chechen fighters operate. Apparently, this is the most effective method of destroying a tank: first, a powerful landmine is exploded under it, which immobilizes the vehicle, and then five or six grenade launchers shoot it from several points simultaneously, trying to get into the stern, where the engine compartment is located, and into the side projection, where the armor weaker. At the same time, machine gunners and snipers cut off the infantry accompanying the tank, if there is any.
According to USA Today, in the current war, unlike Desert Storm, 15 military personnel were killed as a result of shelling of military vehicles - five were burned in tanks when they exploded on mines, and ten more were killed while driving while leaning out of hatch. At the same time, however, experts note that, despite all of the above, the Abrams still remains the safest vehicle on the battlefield. The fact is that of the 1,100 tanks stationed in Iraq, almost 800 were attacked at least once by guerrillas. Of these, 80, or only 10 percent, were destroyed. This is not a bad indicator for a combat vehicle, however, the Pentagon is not satisfied with it either.
Of course, the main reason for losses is the tactics of using tanks. During the fighting in Fallujah, the Abrams had to be brought into the city - the militants hiding in the buildings could not be reached with anything other than tank guns (which sounds somewhat strange, given that the Americans were actively supported by aviation). It was in this city that the tankers suffered significant losses.
However, it's not just about tactics. The Abrams, like the latest Russian T-80 and T-90, turned out to be completely defenseless against anti-tank weapons. Now this tank, which has undergone several modernizations, seems to be undergoing another one - counter-guerrilla. During it, the Abrams will receive at least six design changes and additions:
- A machine gun shield will be installed on the turret. The loader can fire from this machine gun if the combat situation does not allow the use of the gun.
- The tank will receive a second machine gun, controlled remotely from the turret. It can be used if the loader for some reason cannot lean out of the hatch. By the way, Russian tanks are already equipped with such a system.
- The engine compartment will be protected by an anti-cumulative grille, which will cause RPG grenades to explode before reaching the armor.
- Additional screens will be installed on the sides to protect the suspension elements and thin side armor.
- A telephone will be installed at the rear so that the infantrymen accompanying the tank can use it to contact the crew.
- Finally, the ammunition supply will include shrapnel ammunition, effective against unarmored vehicles and soldiers. One shot of such a projectile will be equal to 1100 shots from small automatic weapons.
All these innovations, of course, will help tankers avoid the unpleasant consequences of shelling, but how to counter the most effective means of destroying tanks - mines? And will phones and screens be able to help when firing at a tank with the latest ATGMs?So for now, in the confrontation between tanks and anti-tank weapons, tankers are still significantly losing.
Pavel Aksenov
So we met!
The most interesting thing here is how TOW fell into the hands of IS militants. There could be two ways. The first is that the militants recaptured the anti-tank systems in a battle with Iraqi government forces, which, as you know, are armed, trained and supervised by the United States.
The second, also known as the third way. The US transferred TOW to the so-called “moderate opposition” in Syria. And then, according to the same pattern, the rebels were defeated by the Islamic State, and American weapons fell into the hands of terrorists. Or an even more offensive option for the Americans: the “moderates” turned out to be not as moderate as the Pentagon had hoped. Having received American weapons, these so-called “moderates” simply joined the ranks of ISIS. And they began to fire from American ATGMs at American tanks for the sake of their dear souls.
Here are some (mostly malicious and obscene) user comments under the video recording of the incident:
“This has never happened before, and here it is again.” — How can you knock out Abrams? Is he invulnerable? “Didn’t they teach these morons how to dig in a tank?” “I don’t even know whether to be happy or sad here.” - It burns well! — There were three people standing behind me on the left. Perhaps it was part of the tank crew. It is clear that the Americans themselves stepped on the rake, which they carefully laid out throughout the region. But it’s still somehow disgusting to watch and doesn’t bring joy. People are burning...
Etc.
There is also a more detailed analysis of the incident.
“If tanks come from behind, it means the army is doing something wrong. Abrams is a normal tank, in some ways better, in some ways worse than the Russian T-90, but any tank in the world, like the T-90, and the German Leopard, etc. will be blown apart by a hit from an ATGM in the stern. And the fact that Abrams does not have ERA (dynamic protection - approx.), well, let them put it that way, America is a rich country. The fact that there are few photos of the killed Abrams only means that no one seriously opposed them,” writes Pavel Ivanov .
“I would test our modern ATGMs on modern Abrams.” As part of testing, not combat. But, apparently, it will be necessary during hostilities,” another user predicts.
army.mil/
“Western sources wrote about the destruction of tanks using DShKs (heavy heavy machine guns - approx.) in the 90s. And this was not in Afghanistan, but during Desert Storm in the Persian Gulf of 1990-1991, during the operation of the multinational forces to liberate Kuwait and defeat the Iraqi army. There, the Abrams was indeed disabled after being fired upon by a heavy machine gun. The auxiliary power unit mounted on the stern caught fire, after which the engine burst into flames,” writes Sergei Shcherbakov .
Let us note that, for example, in Syria, the so-called “moderate opposition”, which at times cannot be distinguished from terrorists even under a microscope, is already armed with American weapons capable of hitting tanks and planes, experts have mentioned more than once.
“The supply of American weapons to terrorists in Syria is already underway; in particular, it was reported that Syrian opposition fighters have received American portable anti-aircraft systems. Previously, facts were noted of the use of American-made anti-tank missile systems in battles between terrorists and the Syrian government army,” in particular, military expert Igor Korotchenko the Federal News Agency .
"Abrams" against Russian tanks: information warfare and combat reality
The appearance of tanks on the battlefield at the beginning of the twentieth century brought changes not only to the operational art of war, but also to the nature of wars on a local and global scale.
Wars are divided into generations (warfare generations), which differ in the nature of tactics and the use of weapons. Modern tank building has gone through all types of wars and generations. During the First World War, tanks looked more like an exotic weapon, but during the Second World War they turned out to be an indispensable tool, breaking down any layered defense and encircling entire armies.
In the military conflicts of this century, tanks in the capable hands of military leaders have not lost their military significance. American experts and military analysts like to compare military equipment, types of weapons, tactics and operational art when conducting combat operations of various scales - from local to global. Therefore, the focus of criticism of modern tank building has shifted to the search for the appearance of a “tank of the 21st century” - and all the battles are taking place in the fields of information.
Search for a leader
Initially, experts tried to decide on a tank that, in their opinion, would be the basis for the “tank of the 21st century,” choosing the best existing tanks of the 20th century.
Traditionally, the list of leaders included the M1A2 Abrams (USA), Leopard 2 (Germany), Leclerc (France) and Merkava (Israel). Naturally, in order to show them as candidates for absolute superiority, it was necessary to compare them with someone, so it is not surprising that they began to compare them with the Russian T-72, T-80 and T-90 tanks.
True, in these analytical reviews, Russian tanks were selected only from the first serial production, and their subsequent modernization was not taken into account in any way. The result, as they say, was known in advance: tanks from the NATO and Israeli blocs were recognized as the best and conditional prizes were distributed between them.
© flickr.com M1A2 Abrams
The first place in this ranking was taken by the American M1A2 Abrams tank. How could it be otherwise: the United States has the strongest army, which means it also has the best tank. Separately about the Merkava. Due to the many innovations used, the French tank turned out to be expensive, and the Israeli one was specialized - only for fighting in urban conditions.
"Abrams" did not pass the battle test
The wars in the Middle East, in which the superiority of the M1A2 Abrams, according to Western media, was total, showed amazing results with the passage of time and a detailed study of combat episodes.
During the conflicts in this region, it was the Abrams that suffered the greatest not only combat, but also technical losses. The “impeccable” tank turned out to be weak to dust and sand, which slowly and surely spoiled the engines of the steel monsters. In 2005, of the 1,135 Abrams used in Iraq, 530 were sent to the United States for factory repairs, mainly due to problems with the engines.
Combat losses dispelled the myth about the Abrams' impenetrable armor. They were shot down both by Iraqi T-72s in battles near Baghdad airport and by Yemeni partisans from RPG-7s, and from the Kornet ATGMs captured from the Syrian army, militants from international terrorist groups hit them both in the side and in the turret. The US Army command hid the statistics of Abrams combat losses for a long time, but under pressure from evidence that was posted on the Internet in the form of videos and photographs, it was forced to admit them.
Indeed, the Abrams has little chance of withstanding the attack of the Kornet ATGM. The frontal thickness of the armor of the tank hull is 650 mm, the front of the turret is 950 mm, but this did not help the tank much. Dynamic protection did not help either. The Kornet ATGM missile has a tandem warhead. The first charge hits the dynamic protection cell, the second - cumulative - directly affects the tank's armor. The armor penetration of the Kornet missile is 1,300-1,400 mm of armor with dynamic protection. The arithmetic is more than visual.
© flickr.com
An Abrams tank destroyed in Iraq.
Compared to the American tank, our T-90 performed much better in the Middle East. The militants managed to destroy only one T-90 captured from the Syrian army: by blowing up the combat vehicle from the inside when they abandoned it during the retreat. Shooting at a Syrian T-90 with a TOW-2A ATGM showed, on the one hand, the durability of the tank, and on the other, the complete stupidity of the crew, who forgot to turn on the Shtora complex.
T-90AM: from best to best
The experience of wars in the Middle East had different effects on tank building in our country and in NATO countries. Russian tank builders, based on combat experience, upgraded the T-72 tank to the T-72B3M version, and the T-90 tank to the T-90AM version. Foreign colleagues also modernized the vehicles, but things didn’t work out for them, and the production of tanks itself stopped in 2008-2010. Therefore, I will continue the story about Russian tanks.
After modernization, the Russian T-90AM is equipped with modern protective systems: anti-cumulative lattice screens and active (KAZ) and dynamic (KDZ) protection systems. The tank received the Afghanit active protection complex and the Relikt dynamic protection complex. The resistance of our tank's armor to cumulative ammunition has been doubled, and the resistance to sub-caliber armor-piercing shells has been increased by one and a half times.
It’s worth talking about “Relic” separately. This modular and universal KDZ can be installed on any previously mass-produced Russian tank, starting with the T-72. Unlike the Kontakt-5 complex, replacement of failed Relikt KDZ modules can be done directly in the field. In addition, our new dynamic protection complex made it possible to unify the protection of all tanks in service with the Russian army.
The armor of our tanks is still strong. Today it is a multi-layer “pie” of rolled homogeneous steel and combined armor. For example, the upper frontal part of the T-72B tank is a six-layer assembly! Naturally, the composition of the layers is kept secret, but, as the experience of combat operations in Syria has shown, the T-72B turned out to be the most durable on the battlefield.
© mil.ru
Russian tank T-90AM.
The T-90AM is still inferior in engine power to the Abrams and Leopard-2, but superior to foreign tanks in terms of fire performance - accuracy and range of hitting targets. Thus, the T-90AM can conduct targeted fire day and night at a distance of up to 5 km, and the Leopard-2, which took the palm from the Abrams, only up to 3 km.
Mathematical modeling of the oncoming battle of tank companies (10 T-90AM tanks against 10 M1A2 Abrams tanks) showed that, starting ATGM firing at a distance of 5 km, our tankers manage to hit up to 50-60% of enemy tanks before they reach the firing range 2-2.5 km.
In terms of rate of fire, I will voice one little-known fact: at one of the demonstrations before foreign delegations, the T-90 gunner hit seven targets located at a distance of 1.5 to 2.5 kilometers in 54 seconds. Moreover, the T-90 fired at a speed of 35 km/h. The previous achievement belonged to the German Leopard-2 tank.
© flickr.com
German tanks "Leopard-2".
Naturally, the result was influenced by the presence of an automatic loader in the T-90. But Leopard-2 also had a certain advantage, because he demonstrated his rate of fire without moving. If Leopard 2 had been moving, its rate of fire would have been clearly worse. The secret lies in the time it takes to prepare an aimed shot: an experienced German gunner, when shooting on the move, spends about 15 seconds on each shot, and 9-10 seconds when shooting from a standstill.
Revolutionary T-14 "Armata"
If the modernized T-90AM was just “unpleasant news” for foreign specialists, then the new Russian T-14 Armata tank struck them down on the spot. At first they did not believe that such a tank existed. Then they tried to find similar projects in the KB archives in order to accuse “Russian hackers” of stealing secrets. Alas…
Unable to come up with a better idea, the West tried to fend off our development with information about a new tank - the MBT Revolution. But, in fact, it turned out to be a deep modernization of the Leopard-2A4 tank. Behind it, the Leopard-2A7+ tank appeared in the information war arena with an improved ammunition load of armor-piercing finned sabot shells. Then... And then the foreigners simply gave up and recognized the T-14 as a revolutionary solution in tank building.
© kremlin.ru
Revolutionary T-14 "Armata".
The T-14 "Armata" is the only tank in the world that combines an armored capsule for the crew, an uninhabited turret (combat module) and active dynamic protection that intercepts all types of known anti-tank ammunition.
For this purpose, the tank has the Afganit KAZ and the Malachite KDZ. A radar with an active phased array antenna installed on the tower detects missiles and shells flying towards the tank, and a special program on the on-board computer ensures their interception at a safe distance in automatic mode.
The main armament of the tank at the moment is the 2A82-1M smoothbore 125-mm cannon, which is controlled remotely. Its firing range reaches 7 km, rate of fire is 12 rounds per minute. At this stage, our designers decided to develop the 125 mm caliber for now, which has not yet fully revealed its full potential, and left the 152 mm gun in reserve.
© militaryarms.ru
Features of the T-14 "Armata" tank.
The T-14 upset NATO strategists so much that they were lost in finding an alternative to it, and meanwhile we are already preparing a set of 100 Armatas for testing.
Tests as close as possible to real combat
Everything that I said about modern tanks, naturally, is also an element of information warfare. True, with a small caveat. The fact is that recently in the field of defense construction in Russia, words are less and less at odds with deeds. Because we test all the performance characteristics of weapons and military equipment in practice.
Practice distinguishes the original product from its clone, which can repeat the entire geometry of the original, but during a real battle turn out to be a useless piece of hardware. Military acceptance, state testing program and experimental military operation are the three stages that all weapons entering the Russian army go through.
Tough tests, as close as possible to combat ones, test the strength of any of our military equipment, and I am not sure that foreign military equipment would pass all these stages. Yes, and Syria only confirmed this.
This is precisely what distinguishes our information about tanks, supported by facts and practice, from foreign information, supported, as a rule, only by beautiful advertising.
New in blogs
Over the years of wars in the Middle East, waged with the direct or indirect participation of the United States, American warriors have lost a lot of different equipment - from jeeps to airplanes, but most interesting, perhaps, are the losses of tanks.
It is known that the Yankees present their Abrams as the best tank in the world - the most protected, powerful, accurate. It goes without saying that selling the Abrams with such and such marketing support and the “indestructible” status was very successful. However, the Yankees warmed their hands here too without much grace: they pushed outdated and/or defective tanks around the world.
As a result, the government forces of the Middle East countries that signed the agreement on military-technical cooperation found themselves in an unenviable position. Not only did the “spontaneously” emerging Islamist groups act surprisingly intelligently, not inferior to, or even superior to, legitimate armies, but also the “reliable Abrams”, which privates and generals almost prayed for, began to burst from hits even from outdated RPGs (meaning hand-held anti-tank grenade launchers in general) and ATGM (anti-tank missile system).
Below is a selection of the most interesting defeats of American tanks in the deserts and cities of the Arab world.
• In the first couple of pictures, the Abrams gets hit in the turret, and within a split second it’s blazing like a match. The crew obviously did not survive.
• In the second pair of pictures, the tank, with a cloth stretched over it, gets penetrated into the side, and is also blazing with ammunition.
• The third pair is one of the most interesting. From a very long distance, the missile hits the upper plane of the tank's turret or hull. The result is quite logical - the ammunition rack detonates, spraying splashes of hot metal around the tank.
• The fourth pair of photos is one of the most famous. These are some of the first frames of the defeat of the Abrams, and in them the “general” stands with the less protected part of the enemy, and predictably rises like a torch to the heavens.
• And finally, the fifth pair. Perhaps the most spectacular shots from the collection. The Abrams, apparently abandoned by its previous owners, is undermined by a controlled landmine. Although, however, it is possible that the crew was inside, and the “peculiarities” of the Arab crews again did their job.
Konstantin Valentinovich Sivkov, Doctor of Military Sciences, analyst, columnist for the Military-Industrial Courier, agreed to comment on this fact.
Troops friendly to the states continue to suffer losses, not only in manpower, but also in armored vehicles. How can you comment on the fact that according to reports from the field, American tanks are not performing well?
To begin with, the question is how to use them. For example, we know that when the Americans fought against Iraq, the T-72s, which now demonstrate very high efficiency in battles against terrorists, were quite seriously inferior to the Americans. The fact is that American tanks are intended for the European Theater of Operations, with a gas turbine propulsion system that is demanding on the environment. They are also optimized for combat with tanks - Soviet and Russian. In particular, they do not have classic high-explosive fragmentation shells, like ours. They have universal shells, which, depending on the type of fuse installation, can be used as HE or cumulative - AP. At the same time, these shells are quite effective against tanks, and when it is used as a HE, against manpower, it is of limited effectiveness.
The tanks that the Americans supplied to Iraq were not modified. These are the first models that did not receive additional equipment for urban combat. The Iraqi military is not well prepared for urban combat, and what's more, they are not very eager to fight. The situation there is such that tanks are burning under the attacks of ISIS anti-tank missiles, including American ones, and hand-held anti-tank grenade launchers are also effective in close combat. Therefore, outdated Abrams tanks demonstrate low efficiency.
As for losses, urban combat is close combat. In such a battle, support from aviation and field artillery is impossible, due to the fact that the dispersion of ammunition is measured in tens of meters. The affected area of ammunition weighing 220, 250 or 500 kg reaches hundreds of meters. That is, if there is close combat and a blow is struck to the house for which friendly and enemy troops are fighting, then both will be destroyed. It is simply impossible to fire artillery when there is close combat and the distance between troops is ten or two meters. And in close combat, the ISIS troops are significantly superior to the Iraqi troops, and in terms of their level of combat training they are comparable to American special forces, and therefore the losses there are large. They literally bite into every home.
Consequently, the Iraqi army, no matter how the instructors trained it, was never able to establish interaction at the tank-infantry level?
Iraqi soldiers purely psychologically view the current government as American proxies, as a puppet government, and they are not eager to lay down their lives for this power. It is worth noting that many officers and generals who came from the defeated Saddam army are fighting as part of ISIS, and they demonstrate good training there. Why does ISIS now have a fairly high level of operational leadership? Because people who were trained in Soviet military educational institutions are now actually leading the fighting there.
So, at the moment, the ISIS field command is the heirs of Soviet-Iraqi cooperation?
Yes, and it should be noted that our Soviet military scientific school demonstrates a higher level than the modern American one can now offer.
Source: nnm.me
About the losses of Abrams tanks
One of the main heroes of the latest armed conflicts in the Middle East was the American-made M1 Abrams main battle tank. These vehicles have participated and continue to participate in various wars and are operated by several countries, due to which they regularly appear in press reports and become a kind of symbol of conflicts. However, the “role” of a symbol is not necessarily associated only with victories. There were often reports of the death of Abrams tanks under certain circumstances. The topic of destroying such armored vehicles is of particular interest and deserves careful consideration. The main tanks of the M1 Abrams family have been produced and operated since the late seventies. Over the next few decades, a number of new modifications of the armored vehicle were created, differing from each other in the composition of weapons, electronic equipment, protection, etc. The creation of new systems for these tanks is still ongoing. Over three and a half decades of service, Abrams tanks of the American army and the armed forces of other countries managed to take part in several armed conflicts. The debut of this technology took place during the Gulf War in the early nineties. In the 2000s, American tanks returned to Iraq to participate in a new war. In addition, they managed to work in Afghanistan. Currently, the M1A1 of the Saudi Arabian army is used in battles in Yemen.
M1A1 Abrams tanks in Iraq, 1991. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Like any other military equipment, the Abrams family of tanks were not immune to losses. At the beginning of 1991, tanks were involved in Operation Desert Storm, and already suffered their first losses in mid-February. The second conflict in Iraq, which began in 2003, also ended with the loss of a noticeable number of tanks. The available information allows us to study the situation with the losses of tanks of the M1 family and draw certain conclusions.
"Desert Storm"
Initially, information about the losses of American armored vehicles in the war with Iraq was not published. Only some time after the end of the conflicts, information about the results of the battles in terms of damage and losses of armored vehicles became public knowledge. According to these data, 21 M1A1 Abrams tanks were damaged or lost during the fighting, and several tank crews were wounded. In addition, one crew member of the armored vehicle died in battle.
The first incident involving the Abrams was a mine explosion of a B-31 tank from the TF 1-5 unit, which occurred on February 19, 1991. The explosion damaged the chassis and power plant. On February 24, another tank was blown up by a mine, but minor damage allowed it to be quickly returned to service. During these two incidents, the crews were not injured and continued to serve.
B-23 tank of TF 1-37 attacked by an AH-64 helicopter, February 1991. Photo by Wikimedia Commons
On the night of February 26, the tanks of TF 1-37 of the 1st Armored Division, advancing on the Tavakalna division positions, mistakenly became the target of AH-64 Apache helicopters, which led to serious damage to the equipment and injuries to the crews. Vehicles numbered B-23, C-12, C-66 and D-24 were targeted by Hellfire missiles and were damaged. In addition, one tankman from the B-23 crew, two from the D-24 and three from the C-66 were wounded. According to some reports, the C-12 was also fired upon by armor-piercing shells from its side, and the B-23 became the target of Iraqi tank crews, as a result of which it caught fire. Subsequently, the B-23 tank was written off due to the impossibility of restoration, and the remaining three vehicles were sent for repairs.
Also, during the battles with the Tavakalna division, three tanks of the TF 4-8 unit of the 3rd Armored Division were damaged. During enemy fire, some external components of the B-24 and C-12 tanks were damaged. In the case of the latter, one tanker was injured. In addition, the C-24 was the victim of “friendly fire”, which resulted in damage to external components and the gun.
On the same day, five tanks of TF 1-41 of the 2nd Armored Division, which participated in the battles on the Norfolk Line, were damaged. At the same time, the B-22 was fired upon by armor-piercing shells based on depleted uranium, but did not receive any internal damage, although one tanker was wounded. The A-31 and A-33 suffered various hull damage from TOW missiles or armor-piercing shells. Three A-33 tank crews were wounded. The A-14 tank was hit by a uranium shell and caught fire, injuring three crew members. Also on February 26, the only death of a tanker occurred. The B-66 was hit by a grenade launcher and then received three hits from armor-piercing shells. As a result, the ammunition detonated. Three tankers escaped, but received various injuries.
The consequences of friendly fire on the night of March 21, 2003. Collage Artofwar.ru
On February 27, the 197th Brigade of the 24th Infantry Division lost three tanks participating in the attack on Talil airfield. One of them was immobilized by enemy fire, the other two were stuck in the mud. The armored vehicles abandoned by the crews were shot by the allies and did not become enemy trophies. On the same day, the command tank HQ-66 of the TF 4-64 unit of the same division in the Basra area was fired upon by a 100-mm anti-tank gun. No one was injured, but minor repairs and replacement of the gunner's sight were needed. Literally the next day the tank returned to service. On March 2, an A-22 tank from TF 4-64 was fired upon by an Iraqi T-72 and caught fire, followed by detonation of its ammunition. One tanker was wounded.
During the fighting in Iraq, two dozen American tanks received various damage, and several were destroyed. A characteristic feature of those events is a large number of minor damages that were repaired in a matter of hours or days. In addition, there is no information about the destruction of Abrams by Iraqi tanks during battles, which may be due to the use of outdated tank ammunition.
The relatively small losses of US Army tanks may have several explanations. First of all, this is the short duration of the battles: the active ground operation using tanks lasted only a few weeks. In addition, the weakening of the Iraqi army due to massive air strikes had an impact. Also an important factor was the superiority of the American armed forces in the field of intelligence, command and control and communications. Finally, we should not forget the uniquely large number of erroneous strikes against friendly or allied forces, which also affected M1A1 tanks and significantly reduced the proportion of losses or damage from enemy fire.
"Iraqi Freedom"
In March 2003, an international coalition led by the United States again invaded Iraq, this time with the goal of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. The military operation, during which the coalition fought with the Iraqi army, ended in the late spring of that year, but subsequently the NATO military had to fight guerrilla and terrorist movements for several years, as well as try to establish a peaceful life.
A tank destroyed on April 3, 2003 after evacuation. Photo: Forum.guns.ru
Abrams tanks played a large role in Operation Iraqi Freedom and subsequent events. They actively participated in various clashes with the enemy and were one of the main strike forces of the coalition. Naturally, there was some damage and loss. However, official data on this matter have not yet been published. Only in February 2005, the head of the Pentagon's armored vehicle department, General Terry Tucker, said that by this time 80 tanks had been returned to the United States for repairs. 63 vehicles are subject to repair, and the remaining ones will probably never return to service. No other details were made public. For this reason, specialists and the interested public had to independently search for data and process scattered information.
The first damage to an M1A1 Abrams tank during the new war occurred at the very beginning - on the night of March 21, 2003. A platoon of tanks from the 1st Battalion of the 1st Marine Division provided cover for Kuwaiti troops on the border with Iraq. In addition, AH-1W attack helicopters were patrolling the area. The pilot of one of the helicopters became disorientated and mistook one of the Abrams for an approaching Iraqi tank. A Hellfire missile with a high-explosive fragmentation warhead was launched. The missile damaged the side screen and chassis of the armored vehicle. The side was not penetrated, but one of the tankers was injured. According to some reports, the damaged tank was not subsequently repaired, but was used as a source of spare parts.
On March 25, an American column of armored vehicles from the 7th Cavalry Regiment of the 3rd Infantry Division in the Najaf area walked through a sandstorm and was ambushed. The turret of the B-24 tank was hit by two anti-tank grenades, but the vehicle did not suffer any noticeable damage. Shortly thereafter, the tank accidentally came under fire from an M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle, which punctured the rear hull and turret. A fire started in the ammunition stowage, forcing the crew to abandon the vehicle. The B-23 tank followed and was also hit (the exact circumstances are unknown). Eight tankers were successfully evacuated and were picked up by infantry fighting vehicles. The burned tanks remained on the battlefield and were used by Iraq for propaganda purposes. Soon the Americans evacuated them.
Let's Roll tank ambushed on April 4, 2003. Photo by Wikimedia Commons
On March 25, a tank with the call sign Hermes from Company C of the 1st Tank Battalion of the 1st ILC Division was crossing the river. Euphrates fell from the bridge and lay at the bottom, tower down. For the first time in the years of operation of M1A1 tanks, the entire crew was killed. A few days later the armored vehicle was pulled out.
On April 3, the 2nd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division lost a tank numbered B-52. During the attack on the Saints objective, this vehicle moved ahead and fought with enemy infantry. The crew spent all the ammunition of the coaxial machine gun, which is why the commander had to fire from an anti-aircraft gun. Continuing the battle, the commander was wounded twice in the arm. Soon the rear part of the tower, where the auxiliary installation was located, was damaged by enemy fire. The latter caught fire, but the crew continued moving and did not leave the battle. The APU fire led to a fuel spill and a main engine fire. Only after this the crew left the car, which was later sent for repairs. No one was injured except the commander.
The next day, two tanks of the 2nd battalion of the 1st ILC division were knocked out. The battalion was moving along Highway 6 in the direction of Baghdad, but due to a command error, it took the wrong turn and was ambushed. The tank of the commander of Company C, call sign Let's Roll, was immobilized during the battle, after which the enemy damaged the external fuel tank with a rocket-propelled anti-tank grenade. Fuel spilled, ignited and entered the engine. Another tank of the battalion received similar damage.
Cojone Eh tank, damaged and caught fire on April 5, 2003. Photo: Forum.guns.ru
On April 5, the Cojone Eh tank from the 64th Tank Regiment of the 3rd Infantry Division was lost. While participating in battles in the suburbs of Baghdad, the tank was damaged by enemy artillery. After the shell hit, the fuel from the onboard tank caught fire, and the fire soon spread to the engine. The crew of the vehicle and other tankers attempted to put out the fire, but were unable to do so within 20 minutes. The battalion commander ordered that everything needed be taken from the tank and abandoned, continuing the offensive. After all the necessary things were taken away, a couple of grenades were thrown into the fighting compartment, and the rear of the turret was fired upon from another tank. The ammunition burned out and knocked out the roof panels. Soon after this, Iraqi propaganda tried to use the destroyed tank, to counter which it was fired at by aircraft missiles. The car was later pulled to the side of the road. The subsequent fate of Cojone Eh is unknown. This tank was the last Abrams lost during battles with Iraqi forces.
Guerrilla warfare in Iraq
On May 1, 2003, the American leadership announced the end of hostilities in Iraq. The army has completed its tasks, destroyed the enemy's armed forces and is now moving on to patrolling the occupied territories and other work. However, the end of the fighting did not allow us to completely get rid of losses. The war actually turned into a guerrilla form, which is why the NATO coalition continued to suffer losses in manpower and equipment. Guerrilla and terrorist groups began to regularly attempt attacks on columns, bases, etc., belonging to coalition troops, including the United States. During these actions, among other things, Abrams tanks of all combat modifications suffered.
On August 28, 2003, B Company, 2nd Battalion, 70th Armor Regiment, 1st Armored Division, was on patrol in Baghdad. One of the tanks was fired from hand grenade launchers. The grenade hit the starboard side, pierced the screen and damaged the turret ring. One tanker was slightly wounded.
The remains of an M1A2 SEP tank that was blown up by an IED on October 28, 2003. Photo: Forum.guns.ru
On October 28, an M1A2 SEP tank of the 67th Tank Regiment of the 4th Infantry Division in the area of Baakuba was blown up by an improvised explosive device. The driver and commander were killed, the gunner was seriously wounded, but survived. The charger was not in the car. According to the gunner's testimony, the IED consisted of two 155 mm shells and 160 kg of explosives. The powerful explosion seriously damaged the hull and chassis, and tore off the turret. The tank was not restored.
Events in Fallujah led to new battles and new losses. On April 7, 2004, the Abrams of C Company, 1st Tank Battalion, 1st Marine Division, led the charge and moved ahead of their infantry. Taking advantage of this, the enemy grenade launcher fired and caused minor damage to the turret. The tank commander decided to respond to the enemy with fire from an anti-aircraft machine gun. At the same time, a second shot from a grenade launcher occurred. The grenade hit the hatch cover, causing the commander to be seriously wounded, while the gunner and loader received minor injuries. Despite the damage to the hatch, the tank soon returned to service.
On April 10 in Baghdad and on August 16 in Sadr City, two tanks were hit with grenade launchers. No one was killed, but the crews were injured. On November 22, a tank transporter with an Abrams on a semi-trailer was blown up by an IED in Baghdad. Both vehicles burned down and two servicemen were injured.
The torn off turret of a blown up tank. Photo: Forum.guns.ru
On August 30, September 16, November 11 and December 25, five American tanks were blown up by improvised explosive devices in different parts of Iraq. Thus, in August and September, the armored vehicles were completely destroyed, and on September 16, two tank crews were killed and two were wounded (the turret flew off the tank during an explosion). Also in September, another tank was damaged, which was going to the aid of a damaged one and was also blown up by an IED. In this case, one person was killed, one was wounded, and the tank was subsequently recovered. In the November incident, one tanker was killed and two were wounded. The tank could not be restored. The December explosion had the same results.
According to reports, there were several more attacks in 2006 in which tanks were hit by explosive devices. They occurred on March 10 (the tank caught fire, the crew was not injured), April 9 (the crew was alive, the tank was lost), July 15 (3 wounded, the tank could not be restored), July 18 (the tank burned down, one tanker unsuccessfully jumped onto a mine during evacuation and died), August 3 (tank burned during evacuation), August 15 (tank burned), September 18 (tank burned, 5 servicemen injured), December 8 (tank lost, 1 wounded) and December 19 (tank presumably lost, 1 lost).
Also in 2006, there was one case of a M1A2 SEP Abrams tank being hit by a grenade launcher (October 9), as a result of which the vehicle burned out, but the crew escaped. On May 11, there was a second case of the death of a tank along with its entire crew. When crossing the river near the town of Karma, a tank of the 2nd tank battalion of the 2nd ILC division fell into the water.
M1A2 tank, shot down on the road to Baghdad airport, April 10, 2004. Photo Forum.guns.ru
During the first half of 2007, there were six explosions of Abrams tanks by improvised explosive devices, most of which resulted in the loss of equipment. In addition, several tank crews were injured. On February 17 of the same year, a convoy of vehicles was ambushed in Fallujah, as a result of which an M1A1 tank caught fire and four crew members were wounded.
The most recent loss of US tanks in Iraq dates back to 2008. On January 30 and April 8, two tanks were blown up by IEDs. Several people were injured, the equipment burned out and could not be restored.
It is easy to see that during direct combat operations in the spring of 2003, American troops lost a minimal number of tanks. During the fighting, Iraqi troops were unable to inflict noticeable damage on the enemy, which predetermined the outcome of the war. It can be assumed that the reasons for this were the same as in the case of the 1991 battles. Superiority in technology, intelligence, communications, management, etc. had an effect. As a result, during the battles, including the battle for Fallujah, less than a dozen tanks were put out of action, some of which were soon repaired and returned to service.
The remains of a tank that was blown up by an IED on September 16, 2005. Photo: Forum.guns.ru
American armored units suffered much greater losses after the end of the main battles, when the enemy switched to guerrilla tactics. As a result of the use of IEDs and the organization of ambushes, the Iraqi armed forces managed to inflict heavy losses on the enemy. In addition, it should be noted that the use of explosive devices significantly reduced the likelihood of tanks returning to service after repairs.
Conflicts of recent years
The Middle East is still turbulent, and the Abrams are not out of work. After the victory over S. Hussein, the United States began to form a new Iraqi army, which received a large amount of American-made military equipment, including tanks of the Abrams family. In 2014, this technique again took part in battles, but could no longer boast of effectiveness.
After the emergence of the terrorist organization “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant” (banned in Russia), Iraqi troops tried to resist it, but were unable to hold the offensive. As a result of this, the terrorists got a large amount of equipment, including American-made tanks. Some tanks were demonstrably blown up or fired upon using various types of anti-tank systems, after which video recordings of such “operations” were used by terrorists for propaganda purposes. For obvious reasons, such incidents cannot be considered in the context of combat effectiveness and combat losses. Nevertheless, the published footage is of some interest from the point of view of studying the processes that occur when armored vehicles are damaged by one or another anti-tank weapon.
The result of an IED explosion, March 10, 2006. Photo: Forum.guns.ru
Currently, a coalition led by Saudi Arabia is fighting in Yemen. The Arabian army is armed with M1A1 Abrams tanks, which actively participate in combat operations. Unfortunately, detailed information about the use of this technique and losses, as well as the circumstances of the losses, is not yet available. From time to time, the parties to the conflict publish various videos filmed during the fighting. For example, on August 24 last year, a video was published showing the destruction of two Abrams tanks using anti-tank systems. According to some reports, Soviet-made Bassoon systems were used. As can be seen in these recordings, such weapons, when used correctly, are capable of effectively and efficiently destroying armored vehicles.
Results
Over three and a half decades, several thousand Abrams tanks were built in several modifications. In addition, since the beginning of the nineties, several dozen similar armored vehicles have been lost in battles. Quite expectedly, despite all the laudatory reviews, the Abrams tanks did not become fundamentally invincible and invulnerable. Like other military equipment, they can also be damaged and die. Therefore, the question of the reasons for the destruction of equipment still remains relevant.
Considering the two wars in Iraq, one can notice that the greatest successes and the smallest losses of tanks occurred during the period of full-fledged open combat operations. When fighting enemy ground forces “in an open field,” American tanks show good results and cope with their assigned tasks. Due to the support of aviation, reconnaissance, etc. tank performance results are getting even better. This is exactly what happened in February 1991 and in the spring of 2003.
Composition of the TUSK complex. Figure Wikimedia Commons
However, already in the summer of 2003 the situation changed noticeably. The tanks had to master non-standard “professions”: they accompanied convoys, conducted patrols and solved other tasks that were not typical for them. In response, the enemy began organizing ambushes and using improvised explosive devices. As a result, the losses of manpower and equipment in “peacetime” quickly became equal to the combat ones, and then exceeded them.
In the context of tanks, all these events are proof of a well-known truth: without special equipment, a tank cannot operate effectively in cities or other populated areas. In urban areas, armored vehicles become easy targets for grenade launchers. In addition, tanks have extremely limited resistance to explosive devices, especially powerful ones, which further increases the risks in modern local conflicts.
To be fair, it should be noted that based on the results of the combat operations, American tank builders took action and developed a set of additional TUSK equipment, with the help of which it is proposed to increase the survivability of M1A1/A2 Abrams tanks in urban environments. Such equipment is already being purchased, but has not yet been tested in real conflicts. It is quite possible that such equipment will reduce the risks for equipment and its crews, but it will no longer help to return lost vehicles and dead people. Therefore, all interested parties should study and take into account the American experience, and also use it in their new developments and strategies.
Based on materials from the sites: https://globalsecurity.org/ https://defense-update.com/ https://armyrecognition.com/ https://defenseindustrydaily.com/ https://vestnik-rm.ru/ https: //artofwar.ru/
Detailed description of tank losses in Iraq in 2003-2008: https://artofwar.ru/p/ponamarchuk_e/text_0300.shtml
