Here is a 🧵 of 25 seperate M1 Abrams Destroyed in the Iraq War.
1/25
M1A2 SEP, Armor Ghetto/A33 of 3-67AR. Destroyed by supermassive IED, October 28, 2003.
2 KIA
1 WIA
Baqubah.
1/11
A small🧵 on fundamental issues with M1A1SA Abrams (and most models).
The Abrams comes with fundamental design issues especially in the modern day again drones. These vary from fuel locations, lack of armor in these areas and around the ammo and the tanks sheer size.
A Thread on all major variants of Abrams and their service dates within the US Military.
(certain sub models excluded)
XM-1 Chrysler, 1979 (tested only)
A 🧵on an M1A1AIM Abrams marked C12 in 4-64AR. Or to be exact, Two M1A1AIMs marked C12. Both knocked out, 6 months apart, both were recorded and both were damaged the same way.
I’m throughly confused as to why the rear fuel tanks of all these tanks are literally blown out.
I’ve never seen this before in all the Iraq photos at least consistently like what’s been seen in Ukraine.
Another US Abrams tank goes down by the Russian Front
Note: the absence of protective caging indicates that Ukraine is in a frenzy desperately sending expensive western tanks into battle without any protection.
Remember the North Korean "Armata at home", M2020? We now know from the Russians () that it's officially called Cheonma-2 ("천마-2호")
#ArmoredWarfare
#TankswithAW
@wackleeb0
Nope my dear Russian friend. Blow up panels works with 120mm and it ua it works extremely well. Damaged fuel tank is only a blackness on the armor :) yes one m1 were hit at 90* to the side of the but no one was hit because driver was extremely lucky because only his seat was dama
1/5 A small 🧵on US Abrams combat "losses" to RPG-29s. Specifically 3 tanks belonging to Delta Company 2-69AR.
All 3 tanks were hit in close proximity of each other within a period of 17 days.
Total casualty count is 10, 2 of which were KIA.
*only video 3 is confirmed*
5/14 For the most part, these weren't homemade EFPs. The Iranians were shipping in pre fabricated curbs with EFPs that could be set off by an IR signature or manual trigger. The only way to tell them apart from any other curb, was a quarter sized hotspot where the sensor was.
10/14 The effect was almost immediate. The EFP attacks almost immediately halted against tanks fitted with them, the units intelligence assets later confirmed that the insurgents saw the modifications and chose not to potentially waste high quality EFPs on them.
14/14 This ends my small thread on this subject, I contacted the boys in the unit at the time intrigued by the photos I had seen and was immediately put in contact with the lead "designer," who provided this invaluable information. He wishes to remain private.
The Abrams pictured here is a M1A2 SEP V2 (2020?). It’s fitted with the LP CROWS.
There’s like a 99% chance this tank is from 1st Armored Division which is currently forward deployed in Poland.
Holy shit learn some basic tank ID.
3/14 Within the first few months of their stint in Baghdad, the unit had lost at least 3 tanks to EFPs. These EFPs were deliberately aimed, and detonated just below the No 1 and No 2 skirts. The insurgents were aiming for fuel tanks and drivers.
2/14 The unit had taken some losses in their initial 03 deployment. One tank, A33, was destroyed by a supermassive IED in arguably the most damaged attack of its kind in the war. The unit was no stranger to Iraqi ingenuity by 2005.
1/14 3-67AR deployed to Iraq a second time in 2005, equipped with the first M1A2 SEPs to see service in the Army they were one of the most up to date armor units. There was a problem though, all models of Abrams in theater shared the same weaknesses no matter how old.
4/14 Luckily, no drivers in the unit were killed from this, though a driver in 1-64AR around this time had one penetrate his fighting compartment, killing him. Multiple tanks were caught on fire and knocked out, sometimes directly outside their FOB at the time.
9/14 The modifications came in two variations.
The first was a hanging system, easily seen here. The tiles were simply strapped to the skirts. The second was a full bracket and mounting piece that was welded into the skirts and held the tiles firmly.
8/14 Upon soldiers in the unit suggesting using said BRAT on the tanks, the Battalion Commander showed extreme trust in his subordinates, allowing them to begin modifying the tanks.
7/14 While their names will be kept private, soldiers within the unit were looking for a solution.
The solution was found on their Bradleys. The units Bradley's had taken hits from EFPs, their BRAT ERA proving highly effective at warding off these attacks.
6/14 This caused serious issues for the unit, they could only maneuver their tanks at about 5-10mph while doing QRF missions. Soldiers that needed their help were dying, and they were losing tanks in the process just to get there.
2/11
To start the tank is full of Fuel. We are talking 504 Gallons of Diesel/JP-8 and an extra 3 gallons of fuel in the EAPU.
Leopard 2A5 as an example holds somewhere over 320 Gallons of fuel, leaving less throughout the whole vehicle interior.
11/14 Soon after the attacks stopped, they began occurring again to a unit on the opposite side of Baghdad. The soldiers in 3-67 shared their knowledge and techniques to the other unit, giving them the ability to also ward off the attacks.
9/11
The sheer size of the tank also allows it to be a much easier detected and impacted target. A drone that may miss a T72s turret by a foot would instead smack easily into the Abrams.
This applies to any munitions fired at it as well.
12/14 Eventually the attacks picked back up, this time though they were aimed at the turrets, not a single tank in the unit was lost to a burn down from then on. The effects of no longer worrying about them was almost immediate, the QRFs could maneuver at 30-40mph again.
3/11
Half of the Abrams' fuel is stored in the rear, 248 Gallons, approximately 104 Gallons of that being essentially un protected in the rear sponsons.
This presents an issue with fuel fires which popped up often in Iraq.
(unprotected fuel is mostly mirrored)
13/14 Supposedly, the technique was tested in the development of TUSK, achieving at least a 70% defeat rate against Mark 0 Iranian EFPs. Sadly this modification never made it into TUSK, though it seems these types of attacks lessoned over the years.
4/11
officially these rear sponsons can be penetrated without serious issue, the problem is that the fuel tanks aren't self sealing, and if they catch fire they're going to burn. Sometimes they'll burn the whole tank down with them.
11/11
The vehicle roof overall is mostly unprotected from top attack and lacks the ability to fit ERA in these areas leading to ease of penetration.
Any penetration to the ammo as said before essentially destroys the tank, though the crew can survive.
*Some photos used are not from the unit, are from their previous deployment or are from their stateside training time.*
I would like to thank
@toadmanstanks
for consolidating so many pictures, and the soldiers of the Hound Battalion for the info.
5/11
The front fuel tanks are much better protected but still have their own issues.
-No top protection
-No side protection below the skirts
These tanks while separated from the fighting compartment, usually burn the vehicle down as well.
RPG penetration from above is shown.
6/11
The front tanks combined hold roughly 255 Gallons of fuel, they're both also connected to each other to allow equalization and gradual flowing between the tanks leading to the potential of both burning if one is caught on fire.
8/11
Now you have to also consider belly penetrations from multiple stacked AT mines. Unless TUSK is fitted which then should only protect the frontal fuel tanks.
Fires started by said belly penetrations have a destruction rate of almost 100%
10/11
The Ammo while protected from the sides well enough, totally lacks armor on top and from the rear, allowing for easy penetrations of munitions into that area.
Cookoffs that result have a tendency to melt the bustle and would destroy the engine.
7/11
The EAPU by itself holds 3 gallons that are not connected to any central fuel line.
If it is set alight it has the chance to choke out the engine, the air intake of which is placed directly below it, and potentially even sieze up the engine or set the air filters on fire.
2/13 In this footage, you can see both the Tank Commander and Loader outside the hatch. The insurgents emphasized the sudden disappearance of both, luckily both Soldiers survived. Sadly, the TC suffered a grievous headwound. I will let the Gunners words tell the story.
1 million views and almost doubled my follower count.
Just to let everyone new here know, this is a very basic form of content for my research I prefer not doing. It gets eyes on it though, which has been made very obvious by this thread massively out performing my others.
Here is a 🧵 of 25 seperate M1 Abrams Destroyed in the Iraq War.
1/25
M1A2 SEP, Armor Ghetto/A33 of 3-67AR. Destroyed by supermassive IED, October 28, 2003.
2 KIA
1 WIA
Baqubah.
1/13 December 13, 2007. While on patrol through Baghdad. The order of march was C12-HQ PLT Humvee-C11. While maneuvering. C12 was struck by an EFP on its right side. Minor damage was caused to the tank, power was temporarily knocked out and the tank started leaking fuel.
Small, not too in depth thread as this is what my normal content looks like. I'm not an analyst or historian, just a tanker with a very specific job I've chosen to do in my free time. Thank you for viewing.
9/13 Unlike the last time though, all the crew were safe and the TUSK absorbed a lot of the hit. The tank did take damage to its turret composites though, almost suffering a neck shot.
The M1A2 section is pretty bad. The tank did not show up in 1986, that's roughly when development kicked off. It was finished around 1992 when the Kuwaitis I believe started testing it and was fielded in 1993 with 3-8CAV being the first unit to use it.
3/13 The tank was sent to a depot yard, having suffered damage to the actual composites, it was a unit level write-off and in need of overhaul stateside. The next few slides are just images of the damage.
8/13 This was until June 26, 2008. The new C12 suffered the same fate as the previous one, damage to the right hand side from an EFP while on patrol. This video was recorded, and dated just like the prior. Taken from a car in front of the tank, just like the previous time.
12/13 Soon after, the unit pulled two replacement M1A1AIMs to compensate for the losses. One can be seen here, the 2nd C13, photographed a few months later.
I will also be doing a thread sometime soon hopefully about EFPs and their affects on tanks. Have some close up photos of a couple of different vehicles though not too many.