This from USA Today:
WASHINGTON — The U.S. military’s Abrams tank, designed during the Cold War to withstand the fiercest blows from the best Soviet tanks, is getting knocked out at surprising rates by the low-tech bombs and rocket-propelled grenades of Iraqi insurgents.
In the all-out battles of the 1991 Gulf War, only 18 Abrams tanks were lost and no soldiers in them killed. But since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, with tanks in daily combat against the unexpectedly fierce insurgency, the Army says 80 of the 69-ton behemoths have been damaged so badly they had to be shipped back to the United States. (Related graphic: Upgrading the Abrams tank)
[…]
Commanders say the damage is not surprising because the Abrams is used so heavily, and insurgents are determined to destroy it.
“It’s a thinking enemy, and they know weak points on the tank, where to hit us,” says Col. Russ Gold, who commanded an armored brigade in Iraq and now is chief of staff at the Armor Center.
Because it was designed to fight other tanks, the Abrams’ heavy armor is up front. In Iraq’s cities, however, insurgents sneak up from behind, fire from rooftops above and set off mines below.
A favorite tactic: detonating a roadside bomb in hopes of blowing the tread off the tank. The insurgents follow with rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and gunfire aimed at the less-armored areas, especially the vulnerable rear engine compartment.
Perhaps we should buy some Merkavas. 
The Abrhams was designed to be the best main battle tank (MBT) in the world, and probably is. But when it was desigend the Army’s urban warfare doctrine was quite different from what is now being forged on the ground in Iraq.
In Gulf War I, the M1 performed exactly as designed, as far as this former tanker knows. But GW I was more like the eastern front, or North Africa in WW II than GW II has been.
Apparently, heavey armor is finding a new role in urban combat. Makes sense, really. Damn few civilian buildings other than properly constructed jails and prisons provide much cover from any of the various 120mm rounds used by the M1. However, that new role is far beyond the intened use of the original design. It’s a tribute to the M1 and the original design team that it performs as well as it does.
Comment by Tim Morris — 20050330 @ 1056
Just points up the necessity of using armor in partnership with other arms. (Friendly) Infantry are a tanker’s friend in close quarters. They have complementary capabilities that can cover each other’s weaknesses.
Unfortunately, the reduction in size of the mech infantry squad necessitated by the adoption of the Bradley resulted in fewer boots on the ground for a given sized unit. We short-sheeted manpower in favor of firepower while optimizing for a mechanized battle on a european battlefield.
Obviously that’s not the sort of campaign going on now in Iraq but we don’t have a ready source of infantry units with large headcounts except in some specialty outfits that are necessarily limited in number.
So tanks get stuck in spots where an enterprising sort can damage them, not hard if you know what you’re doing. They do call them the enemy for a reason.
Comment by JSAllison — 20050330 @ 1445
I think something smells with that article. I can find only references to maybe 5 M1A1’s that were actually knocked out. Many have received superficial damage but tanks were not meant to be in urban combat in the first place. My faith in anything that USA Today prints is very limited.
Comment by Chief — 20050330 @ 1802
The M1 is specifically designed for the open battlefield. Fighting in a MOUT opertaion is is devistating but limited in capabilities due to size and maneuverability. I say we should create some armor specifically for urban combat. Large caliber main gun to take out a whole building (155mm short barrelled howitzer maybe). Multiple coax and turrented MGs/ MK19s, and armored all round capable of stopping RPGs, but not nessecarily other tank rounds. Should be small enough to move through smaller streets, and fast enough to move on open countryside. The objective would be to give fire support to assaulting infantry units and destroy build up areas. Hopefully something should come down the line soon.
Comment by CPT LOGGIE — 20050330 @ 2344
It’s interesting that the external telephone is on the upgrade list.
British tanks have had them since the Centurion, a design which dates back to WW2.
I’m not sure how CPT LOGGIE’s ideas would work out. An RPG can punch through a lot of ordinary armour. It sounds like the British AVRE concept with more machineguns, but I can’s see how you can combine all that with small.
120mm HESH is a quite decent building-buster round. Even 105mm HEP would tend to spoil any insurgent’s whole day. But can that sort of round be built to work from the 120mm smoothbore on the Abrams? The tanks which do use it have rifled guns.
Comment by Dave Bell — 20050331 @ 0011
Nah, not Merkavas, if we were going to buy israili armor for urban operations, the achzarit would make more sense: http://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/ArmorMag/ma01/2deployvssurvive01.pdf
Comment by James Agenbroad — 20050331 @ 0638
Do M1s use Chobham armour? British tanks are much tougher, we never lose any to enemy fire but then we don’t use them in urban areas.
Comment by Robin — 20050331 @ 0924
The M1A1/A2 use a steel/depleted uranium composite armor which is supposed to be very comparable to Chobham, although the exact nature of both is highly classified.
The problem is that the Abrams and the Challenger II where designed for frontal assaults against other tanks. They carry heavy armor up front, medium armor on the sides, and lighter armor in the rear and over the engines.
Opposition forces in Iraq exploit this by allowing the tank to pass, and attacking from the rear.
Interestingly, this is the same tactic Patton used to defeat the Tigers with his much lighter Shamans. Save for that he was generally the one moving, while the Tiger (a very slow tank) remained stationary.
Comment by Kevin L. Connors — 20050331 @ 1043
I say we should create some armor specifically for urban combat.
Well, maybe you’re right. But as a historian I can’t help think of one historical parallel: the German need for the same thing during grueling urban warfare in places like Stalingrad. The result was a few impressive AFV’s called the Sturmpanzer, the big ones the Brummbaer.
But the real problem was that the German army needed these vehicles in the first place: sending elite units to get ground up in Stalingrad was a mistake, and the Brummbaer was a band-aid.
Is it possible our Army could be doing its mission in a very different way, thus obviating the need to send M-1s into side streets and alleyways in the first place? Building a few rolling blockhouses — the better to fight the enemy on his terms — seems a sub-optimal solution.
Comment by stickler — 20050331 @ 2055
Although the idea of impenetrable armor is tantalizing, it is a fools quest. Mobility has to be sacrificed for survivability, or survivability has to be sacrificed for mobility. That’s why vehicles like the Stryker, no relation to SGT Stryker, are designed around mobility and CREW survivability, not on vehicle survivability.
On another note, we in the military need to learn how to propagate and expound upon the truth in the media…for example: Yep, the Abrams is a quarter century old, and no longer suited to the war at hand. This is exactly why we need a dramatic increase in military spending in order to fight current and future conflicts. Our troops have performed magnificantly in adapting the Army we have to the fight at hand, but we owe them our best efforts in giving them the Army they want.
Comment by steve — 20050401 @ 0237
Steve, as a great man once said, “you go to war with the army you have…”
As a resident liberal I would suggest negating the need for M1s in urban areas by tackling the root cause of the insurgency: unemployment, poverty and resentment towards the occupation. I would, but I’d probably just get slated for it.
I’ve never been in the military but as a civilian I was always under the impression that heavy armour is totally unsuited to urban combat.
Comment by Robin — 20050401 @ 1036
You CAN use armor effectively in an urban environment…but you have to use it as a combined arms effect. Nothing a grunt loves more than the hummm of an Abrams or Bradley behind you when your pinned down by machine gun fire.
I’m not talking about getting rid of the abrams entirely, it has its role. But I would like to see an armored vehicle that has a hell of alot of fire support for assaulting infantry squads. It doesn’t need to have super armor, but it needs to stop RPGs and keep on ticking. or at least get out of the way.
Comment by CPT LOGGIE — 20050401 @ 1130
And give it a diesel engine. I never understood why the M1 alone has a gas turbine. I guess it is powerful, but if you need to refuel twice a day and change air filters all the time it strikes me as a serious drawback. Diesel-powered tanks like the Challenger or Leopard are not that slow.
The same goes for ships. Many navies use combined diesel / gas turbine propulsion, the diesels for range and the turbines for speed. The US Navy uses gas turbines all the time. Are there no manufacturers of marine diesels in the US?
I am really puzzled by that - maybe someone can enlighten me?
Comment by werner — 20050401 @ 1427
The gas turbine gave the M1 an acceleration rate not matchable by then-current diesel powerplants, it was also quieter and took up less room than an equivalent diesel (though increased fuel consumption tended to balance that off). Tank design has been, and will always be, a balancing act. The M1 was designed to serve a fighting doctrine and it has been shown to do so quite well.
In the past the Armor branch has played with a plethora of specialty vehicles for just about every purpose imaginable. You can see a lot of the prototypes gathering dust and pigeon-poo at Ft Knox or Aberdeen Proving Grounds. Over time though, we’ve tended towards preferring to field a smaller number of more generalist designs and coming up with ad hoc solutions in the field to special needs rather than cluttering up the supply system with large numbers of low density vehicle (each with their own repair parts lists, manuals, special tools, etc.).
Infantry and tanks work well together in built-up areas and working with Bradleys, Strykers, LAVs and such can increase the auto-weapons firepower (which was one of the intentions behind the Bradley in the first place). To my knowledge we don’t have a general purpose HE round though there have been several specialty rounds recently fielded that may seve in their stead (I was always fond of giant shotgun shells, myself).
Anyway, if M1s seem more vulnerable in city fighting, I’d be looking at the 6 man squads that come with Bradleys as opposed to the 11 man mech squads of the past. If I had to guess, I’d say that I suspect that Marine M1s may not be quite as vulnerable since the Marine infantry squads are still in that 11-15 person range.
Comment by JSAllison — 20050401 @ 1501
As far as the phone goes… I can just see it now - going into battle an infantryman picks up the phone on the back of an M1… and gets a voicemail system.
“All operators are busy at this time, so please leave a message. We will transfer you to the voice mail system.”
(30 seconds of 60’s muzak pass)
“Thank you for contacting the M1 Support Line. Please listen closely, because the menu has changed. Also, take not that you will not be able to input any numbers until after you have listened to the complete menu. Attempting to shortcut the menu will restart the entire dialog, so it’s essential you listen carefully to avoid any mistakes. Please listen to the entire menu, and wait for the tone before you press any numbers or the menu will restart.
Press 1 to leave a message requesting fire support against an armored stationary target. Press 2 to request fire support against an unarmored stationary target. This includes buildings, but not unarmored vehicles either moving or unmoving. Press 3 to request fire support against an unarmored vehicle.
Press 4 to request medical support for light wounds. This includes punctures and abrasions, but not bullet wounds. Press 5 to request medical support for severe wounds, including bullet wounds. Press 6 to put in an after-battle pizza order. Tonight’s Special - Two Giant Pepperoni Pizzas and two 2-liter beverages of your choice for only $5, delivered to your unit by the AAFES Running Chef.
Press 7 to request fire support against an armored vehicle up to 10 tons, or 6 wheels, but NOT on tracks. Press 8 to request fire support against an armored tracked vehicle up to 10 tons. Press 9 to reque…… (clik) bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…..All operators are busy at this time, so please leave a message. We will transfer you to the voice mail system.”
At which point, the phone gets mysteriously removed from the back of the tank. Gee. The tank must have been maneuvering in tight spaces and backed up… (grin)
J.
Comment by JLawson — 20050401 @ 2024
Well, the aricle would lead you to believe that damn near every M1 that every got within range of an urban area ias a sitting duck, but sites like ARMOR-GEDDON show that is false; remember, the cloud makes the headlines, not the silver lining. I would bet that by destroyed, the report fails to differentiate between a complete loss of a vehicle, and one that is knocked out bet recovered and refitted for action at organic level maintenance support.
The article points out that there are already solutions in the works for what are, in the end, easily fixed weaknesses. Furthermore, if they were huge show-stoppers, the tankers themselves would have been throwing extra sandbags, etc where it was really needed, soldiers always believe in doing it and asking forgiveness than waiting for permission.
I do know most of them want a sidearm for close in defense, the Germans and IDF use Uzi’s, the Tankers might have musket like M16’s, or the shorter M4, either one is too unwieldy to use from a tank. Tankers should have a real pistol, and like theri predecessors, a submachine gun should be part of the tank’s armament for the crew.
THe gun shields for the TC and Loader’s MG’s will be a big improvement to surviveabilty. I’d almost expect the Commander’s Cupola from the M48/M60 series to return if it can be done cheaply enough.
The return of the “Beehive” AP round is no surprise, and the HE rounds are not bad for bunker busting from what I have been told, but a specialize round like the old High Explosive Pressure (HEP) round would be useful in urban combat as well.
SOmeone rightly pointed out that iunfantry support is a must for armor, but the Fallujah AAR’s point out that the Army’s tanks were also working alongside the Marine dismounts squads, which are larger than Us ARmy Mech INf squads. We will kmix and match our way out of this as well, that’s why we have practiced joint ops for years. THe return of the phone so the dismounts can direct tank fire will be a plus, as well.
Anyone who wants to get a great concise look at armor on the battlefield should look up Ralph Zumbro’s books “Tank Sergeant” and “Tank Ace”.
THe armor is Chobham, but layers of DU were added in later models for more protection.
As for fuel, I believe the M1 series is all multi-fuel, and I have seen them refuel off of JP4 or JP8, so I belive that is not the issue in engine fires after a hit, atomize anything flammable in a turbine engine, it’s gong to burn.
Something the article barely touches on is that M1 crewmen will survive nearly anything, and I will bet that the casualty figures he cites are from rollovers, including the ones into canals leading to death by drowning, as well as those resulting from crewmen being shot because they are too far out of the hatch. (they call recommend name tag defilade for a reason.)
The Merkava is a great tank, but if you look at the AAR’s from Israel’s fights in Lebanon, you will see the IDF lost tanks for about the same reasons we have in Iraq.
The article is actully bet than I usually expect from reporters who can’t even be bothered to open Jane’s.
THe Merkava
Comment by SFC SKI — 20050402 @ 0251
JP8 is the armywide fuel. JP8 is basically a filtered diesel. You can use it in tanks, trucks, generators, aircraft and cooking burners (except the old M8 burner which runs off mogas). You can throw a lighted match into JP8 and it’ll go out….no massive flames you see on TV and such. M1s have a very high crew survivability rate. I talked to some of the tanker guys in falluja when they got back to Germany. Yeah..the tank was knocked out and they were shook up a bit…but they lived.
Comment by CPT LOGGIE — 20050402 @ 1014