US tanks useless?

"These people are hardcore," Capt Robert Bodisch told Reuters news agency.

"A man pulled out from behind a wall and fired an RPG (rocket-propelled grenade) at my tank. I have to get another tank to go back in there."

IF RPG's can get into the US army's tanks. Why send them to iraq? Why not use heavy amoured ones?

Thats a very good point. I thought the americans had some of the most advanced battlefield technology there is and yet their tanks keep getting destroyed or put out of commision and their heli's go down like Monica Lewinsky. I may be way off here, but arent the american tanks equiped with reactive armour to combat the threat of RPG's?

One of the most dangerous and pervasive threats facing American and British troops in combat zones is a primitive grenade launcher that only sets your typical terrorist back about $10.

The Anglo-American defense against this no-tech threat: an electrical force field that's costing hundreds of millions of dollars to develop.
www.wired.com...

MEMBERS: Do not simply post news articles in the forums without comment. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of current events, please post the first paragraph, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item.

[edit on 9-11-2004 by Banshee]

The M1A1 can't be taken out by RPG. Nor Bradleys. Hum-V's and other light vehicles can be RPG'ed. Electromagnetic armory is BS, too much energy to actually work in the field. Ultrasonic armor is the key.

[edit on 9-11-2004 by DrHoracid]

shouldnt this be in weaponry? tanks are far too vunerable in urban envirments, that is why the US needs more condensed and operatable nano tech armor so they can go around the cities safely. tanks are only good in open fields and places with little cover so you blow them up better

I bet there was a russian bbs or something that had the same conversation about the Hind gunship when the Afgans started shooting stingers at it..

We haven't started to even see trouble yet...wait till this gets out in the main stream..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Having better tech, only give the illusion of an easier fight, I think we would be better to approach this "conflict" as though we had lesser weapons. Having a stategy of fighting a more superior adversary would probably make us do things differently.

Bentov

Originally posted by DrHoracid
The M1A1 can't be taken out by RPG. Nor Bradleys. Hum-V's and other light vehicles can be RPG'ed. Electromagnetic armory is BS, too much energy to actually work in the field. Ultrasonic armor is the key.

[edit on 9-11-2004 by DrHoracid]

above: M-1A1 destroyed by RPG ambush. Successful attacks are scored at stationary targets, primarily from side or rear attacks, at the less protected parts of the tanks

Russian BTR-80 APC fitted with cage armour, to protect againsg RPGs in ChechnyaIn post war Iraq, RPGs have caused over fifty percent of U.S. soldiers killed in action. In Iraq, the US Army is using reactive armor to protect the Bradley M2, while the new Stryker APC is using an interim Slat Armor until the new add-on plate armor will be delivered in 2005.

www.defense-update.com...

[edit on 9-11-2004 by Thinker]

[edit on 9-11-2004 by Thinker]

[edit on 9-11-2004 by Thinker]

The reactive armour solution is a very sensible option: both Russians and Israelis have been using it for quite some time (the IDF was the first to use them operationally during operation "Peace in Galilee" back in 1982) and it resulted in a much improved protection against RPGs. A good interim solution is a simple netting: the British are currently using them on their Warrior APCs and, while not as effective as reactive armour, it can truly help the AFV survive a direct hit. But the main solution lies in a better training in urban warfare: I've heard that Israeli officers arrived in Baghdad recently to "advise" US officers in this difficult art. The IDF has been developing this difficult art for at least twenty years now: it requires a perfect combinations of infantry, AFVs, armoured bulldozers with gunships and aircrafts providing "on demand" suppressing fire. Heavy artillery is used only as "ultima ratio". They developed it so well that during the last two years of Intifada a single AFV was lost to the enemy (an Achzarit APC destroyed by an interred charge). US troops, despite the heavy lessons learnt during the "Gothic Serpent" operations,don't seem to fully understand that the success of urban warfare lies in a strict co-operation between the various arms and not in sheer firepower. Also, the "top brass" apparenlty failed to understand that during urban combat it is paramount to improve the protection of the AFVs used and that "soft skinned" vehicles should be kept out of the harm's way as long as possible. These lessons, again, were learnt during "Gothic Serpent" and the various Israeli and Russian operations involving urban warfare. But, hey, I am not a West Point graduate, you know...

Originally posted by Thinker
"These people are hardcore," Capt Robert Bodisch told Reuters news agency.

"A man pulled out from behind a wall and fired an RPG (rocket-propelled grenade) at my tank. I have to get another tank to go back in there."

IF RPG's can get into the US army's tanks. Why send them to iraq? Why not use heavy amoured ones?

this isn't the only vehicle that is not armored enough a big story here in Oklahoma USA a sheet metal company made and donated labor free to customize sheets of 1/2 steel , that was bought out of the pockets of humvee soldiers to take back to Iraq for the use on vehicles

Netting and spaced armour were first used in WW2, by the Brits and the Germans. Detonate a shaped round early and the explosive force and liquid metal "jet" expend themselves on thin air, not armour.
Look at high security compounds around the world, they have cheap chain-link fencing, not to keep people out, to catch RPGs.
If you haven't got mesh or applique create your own. Eighth Army Shermans looked a mess, spare track, wheels, equipment slung all over them to add layers of material to counteract light at-weapons.
US tanks in North Africa looked like they were on the parade ground. They hadn't had the chance to learn harsh lessons. By D-Day they had.

I'm surprised that something as small as an RPG7/B40 can kill an M1A1, even from behind, Bazookas couldn't kill Tigers. But a Bradley, not that hard, no APC has enough armour, they're not big enough to carry it. That's why M113s travel with the rear door cracked, so it can't be over-pressured.
Wouldn't want to be in a Russian APC, not with the fuel tanks in the rear doors!

Horacid, you need to stop your driveby postings that try to denounce the topic without any link or info. Just because you say something is wrong doesn't make it so. Try using google if you are at odds with a topic, before posting. You'll be surprised with what you'll learn.

RPGs can indeed destroy an M1A1, as we can clearly see. There are also videos floating around the net which show how a simple RPG can disable the M1A1 crew without necessarily destroying the M1A1 itself. Once the crew is injured and unable to carry out their combat duty, the M1A1 is basically useless.

[edit on 10-11-2004 by cargo]

it really sucks when your 2million $$ vehicles is disabled by such an inexpensive weapon..(it looks like the M1 is salvagable...possibly an engine fire...which has melted the rubber in the wheels, thats why the tank is so low to the ground. )
unfortunaltly u.s. commanders seem to be very unit or organizationaly biased. 'we don't need such and such..my boys can handle this..'

no matter how you slice it..urban combat is messy and expensive in equipment and lives....
does anybody have any stats on equipment losses in Iraq?????

This should be in the weapons thread but its here....so.....

The quote said the RPG was fired AT the guys M1...nothing about going INTO it. THey sent another tank INTO the position where the fire came from. Normal supportive tactics for armour URban warfare or otherwise. Trust your mates and dont get distracted from what YOU are doing if possible.

Nothing is invincible, and nobody ever a said the M1 was. But it is supposed to be more survivable in battle and it is. But the M1 survivability means the crew usually lives to fight another day or at the very least go home (I think some used to refer to it as the golden bb wound.....hurt, but home intact) and most have been repairable.

I seem to remember reading US tank crews in Vietnam were somewhat impressed with the Australian Army Centurion Vs providing close fire support. The US M-48s and early M-60s were vunerable to the RPGs yet the Cents' just seemed to (usually) shake off swarms of them.

I would say in the process of disabling this tank in the pic a lot of insurgents probably died, just as a lot of VC died to kill a Cent....and we only lost a couple.

Other possibilities for these burn out M1s

Large IEDs........roadside bombs and car suicide car bombers. Devices large enough to destroy a 62 ton MBT.....there is nothing that can survive these except maybe the like of NORADs command bunker.

Denial of Assets........the policy that puts lives above equipment.....the US practices the policy that if a AFV or soft skin vehicle gets immobilized in a hot zone, if they cannot assure the IMMEDIATE security of the area and only the EVENTUAL security of it, they will destroy the immobilized equipment in situ rather than risk leaving weapons, rounds, comms gear and other equipment and supplies to be stripped by insurgents or thier supporters (a 120mm round buried round up in the road makes a great tank killer if its wired to an anti tank mine)......where the other choice would be to expose recovery engineers to hostile fire.

Its the reason a US Apache put a hellfire round into a disabled Bradley in Baghdad a few months ago. The insurgents had a localised short term superiority, the Army evacuated the casualties and pulled back to a secure position, before calling in a Apache to write off the Bradley,its weapons and equipment before insurgents could strip it. Unfortunately the dumb schmuk supporters came out to celebrate and the vehicle and paid the price too, along with an Al Jazera reporter.

Bad luck and timing. Catch 22. You see more and have a better awareness of the situation around you if you have the hatch open and poke your head out of the turret (than you would see through a vision slit or vid camera). You only do it when its safer, but in an Urban war it came become unsafe without warning. It doesnt matter how good your armour is if someone can sneak close enough to throw a grenade or satchel charge through an open hatch.

When concerned GIs and Marines start sending home photos of M-1 and Bradley graveyards like the Israeli pictures of the hundreds of Arab tanks they collected after the Six Day and Yom Kippur wars, then start really worrying. Theres enough to worry about especially for those with loved ones without imagining the worst.

Cheers.

[edit on 10-11-2004 by craigandrew]

Originally posted by DrHoracid
The M1A1 can't be taken out by RPG. Nor Bradleys. Hum-V's and other light vehicles can be RPG'ed. Electromagnetic armory is BS, too much energy to actually work in the field. Ultrasonic armor is the key.

[edit on 9-11-2004 by DrHoracid]

What kind of government propoganda have you been fed? That America's almighty? The fact is that one good RPG shot at the engine would blow the entire tank up.

Blackout....you are both wrong to a point....you perhaps less so.....the other (forgive me I forgot your handle) read like a sales brochure for imagined future defence tech.

The M-1 is proven "more safer" to attack all round including rear and underneath, but it is not invunerable.....I would rather be in one, than a T-72 or a T-80 if I came under attack.

I imagine there might be a few GIs and Marines still around willing to write a testimonial to that effect.

Cheers.

First guys ran around and punched each other in the face.

Then, guys started throwing rocks, and if someone got too close they switched to a club.

Then, guys started wearing some stuff to blunt the trauma of rocks and clubs.

Then, guys made arrows that go through the armor.

Then, guys made better armor, so that it was nearly impossible to kill someone with a rock, club, or arrow, so they had to use swords.

Then, guys made bullets, which go through armor.

Then, they made vehicles that are bulletproof.

Then, bullets got bigger until no infantry could shoot a bulletproof vehicle (tank).

Then, infantry got shaped charge rockets (Panzerschrek)

Then, tanks got tougher.

Then, infantry got guided missiles and RPGs and SMAWs.

Then, tanks got even tougher with electroplating and anti-missile laser arrays.

Then, infantry developed armor that resists all kinetic impact.

Then, tanks were obsolete because infantry was a tank.

Then, infantry run around with armor and monopikes and laserswords and hack each other to pieces.

Can't wait for the last one.