How To Kill An Abrams! (Supposably)

DarthOne

☦️
How To Kill An Abrams! Russian 'Experts' Issue A Guidebook On Where & How To Destroy The US Main Battle Tank


By Tanmay Kadam

January 27, 2023


An image has resurfaced on social media showing vulnerabilities of the American-made M1 Abrams Tanks with instructions on where to hit the tank and using what weapons.

US President Joe Biden, on January 25, pledged to send 31 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, apparently to pursue or put pressure on German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to supply Leopard 2 tanks to the war-ravaged country.

"And today, I'm announcing that the United States will be sending 31 Abram tanks to Ukraine, the equivalent of one Ukrainian battalion," Biden said in the presence of Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken.

Biden said, "this is about helping Ukraine defend and protect Ukrainian land. It is not an offensive threat to Russia."

As of present, which variant of the M1 Abrams will be sent to Ukraine, whether the M1A1 or the M1A2, has not been specified.


As recently reported by EurAsian Times, the reaction from Russia to the US decision to send Abrams to Ukraine has been critical yet calm. There seems to be confidence within the Russian leadership that Abrams will not pose a significant strategic threat.

"If a decision to transfer M1 Abrams to Kyiv is made, American tanks without any doubt will be destroyed as all other samples of NATO military equipment," said Russian ambassador to the United States, Anatoly Antonov. He issued this warning a day before President Biden pledged the heavily armored tanks to Ukraine.
It seems that Moscow has been expecting the provision of Western tanks to Ukraine for some time, considering the recent appointment of Russian Chief of Staff General Valery Gerasimov, a tank expert, as the Ukraine war commander, perhaps in anticipation of an imminent 'tank war' in Ukraine.


In another sign of Russian preparedness to take on the Western tanks, in particular the US-made Abrams tanks, an image is being floated around by Russian netizens that depict vulnerable sections of an Abrams tank and contain a set of instructions on how to engage these tanks.


Where to hit Abrams

The image seen above is quite old and famous within the Russian blogosphere, accompanied by a detailed write-up of how to destroy or damage an Abrams tank.

Guidelines To Destroy M1 Abrams Tanks
In the diagram, there are many instructions, with the first one recommending hitting at guidance systems or the tank's main gun with small arms or/and machine guns.

The second instruction is to hit the large gap between the hull and turret, while the third instructs to hit the bay on the sides of the hull, which can be pierced even using the older grenades for the RPG-7 grenade launcher like the PG-7, PG-7V, PG-7 VM grenades.

The above instructions are based on the assertion that the M1 Abrams, both M1A1 and M1A2 models, are highly protected in the frontal section but not as well armored in the side and rear sections.

Also, Russian-language reports recommend hitting the fuel tank, located in the front section on both sides of the driver. This burning fuel is expected to fall into the engine compartment, causing the engine to catch fire and explode.

However, for situations like this, the M1 Abrams has a fire extinguisher system for the engine compartment, reportedly comprising two bottles and a couple of portable fire extinguishers.

Apart from that, Russian commentators also suggest using the landmines to blow up the M1 Abrams, which would be a very cost-effective solution.
For example, in October 2003, an Abrams tank was disabled by an anti-tank mine in Iraq, combined with other explosives and several 155mm artillery rounds to increase its effect.

The explosion underneath the tank knocked off the turret and resulted in the death of two American soldiers, marking the first time deaths had occurred from a hostile assault on the M1 tank.

To counter landmines, the M1s are equipped with a mine plow to push mines out of the tank's path, clearing the way for other armored vehicles to follow.

File:Abrams tank with mine plow.jpg


A US Army M-1A1 Abrams main battle tank equipped with a mine plow (Wikimedia Commons)

Furthermore, Russian commentators also provide some recommendations to ambush a column of tanks, such as creating special teams of 'armor-piercers,' including a machine gunner and a sniper, to protect against infantry covering an enemy tank.

Notably, the Russian army did not employ foot infantry with its main battle tanks in Ukraine, which was the reason behind such heavy tank losses for Russia, as Colonel Rajendra Bhaduri (retd), an Armored Corps officer, previously pointed out to another correspondent with EurAsian Times.
"It was puzzling, amateurish, and surprising. Both foot infantry and tanks complement each other, and the Russian logic in using their tanks this way is mysterious," Bhaduri said.

Therefore, Russia would do well to factor in foot infantry in Ukrainian tank assaults, considering Ukraine has learned from the Russian mistake.
Also, the Russian military is recommended to carefully select places for ambushes that would cut off escape routes for the armored column.

In urban areas, the netizens recommend using several teams placed at different levels, including in basements and on the first or third floors of buildings, to simultaneously fire around five to six shots using RPGs from different directions, targeting the top, flanks, and the rear section of the tank.

I'm posting this out of curiosity about how effective and plausible some of the proposed tactics would actually be at taking down an Abrams tank. As I am not expert on the Abrams. Or really on tanks in general outside of the very basics.


Some of the suggestions in question for the article that looked plausible to my non-expert opinion:

The second instruction is to hit the large gap between the hull and turret, while the third instructs to hit the bay on the sides of the hull, which can be pierced even using the older grenades for the RPG-7 grenade launcher like the PG-7, PG-7V, PG-7 VM grenades.

The above instructions are based on the assertion that the M1 Abrams, both M1A1 and M1A2 models, are highly protected in the frontal section but not as well armored in the side and rear sections.

Apart from that, Russian commentators also suggest using the landmines to blow up the M1 Abrams, which would be a very cost-effective solution.
For example, in October 2003, an Abrams tank was disabled by an anti-tank mine in Iraq, combined with other explosives and several 155mm artillery rounds to increase its effect.

Furthermore, Russian commentators also provide some recommendations to ambush a column of tanks, such as creating special teams of 'armor-piercers,' including a machine gunner and a sniper, to protect against infantry covering an enemy tank.

In urban areas, the netizens recommend using several teams placed at different levels, including in basements and on the first or third floors of buildings, to simultaneously fire around five to six shots using RPGs from different directions, targeting the top, flanks, and the rear section of the tank.
 
Last edited:

Scooby Doo

Well-known member
In Theory they can work but probably very difficult to pull off, their are counters to those listed counters and if you're fighting an Abrams you're likely going to be dealing with American Personnel and American tactics.

They wouldn't exactly give you time to set up, if they did they're also likely to scout out the mines before hand so really only a RPG ambush could work but it'd also have a lot of skill in aim and luck making sure it gets a critical hit.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Lots of general anti-tank advice. Too general, seems like more of a morale booster for Russian mobiks to make them not scram when they see a western tank.
For one i would not want to be the guy firing old model RPGs (and with TUSK addon armor even the new ones) at the side of an Abrams, also the turret, unlike in eastern tanks, has composite armor sections extending to sides, so yeah, that suggestion is seriously bad.
But hey, the dumb mobiks should be brave and shoot anyway, may hit a track or break a sensor, and if the tank shoots back, oh well, guess there's gonna be another mobilization wave after the "elections".
So guess one could call this the "Neo-Imperial Russian Guardsman's Uplifting Primer".
 
Last edited:

DarthOne

☦️
In Theory they can work but probably very difficult to pull off, their are counters to those listed counters and if you're fighting an Abrams you're likely going to be dealing with American Personnel and American tactics.

They wouldn't exactly give you time to set up, if they did they're also likely to scout out the mines before hand so really only a RPG ambush could work but it'd also have a lot of skill in aim and luck making sure it gets a critical hit.
Lots of general anti-tank advice. Too general, seems like more of a morale booster for Russian mobiks to make them not scram when they see a western tank.
For one i would not want to be the guy firing old model RPGs (and with TUSK addon armor even the new ones) at the side of an Abrams, also the turret, unlike in eastern tanks, has composite armor sections extending to sides, so yeah, that suggestion is seriously bad.
But hey, the dumb mobiks should be brave and shoot anyway, may hit a track or break a sensor, and if the tank shoots back, oh well, guess there's gonna be another mobilization wave after the "elections".
So guess one could call this the "Neo-Imperial Russian Guardsman's Uplifting Primer".

Since you two have given the most detailed responses, what would you suggest instead?

(Besides another tank or an air strike)
 

Scooby Doo

Well-known member
Since you two have given the most detailed responses, what would you suggest instead?

(Besides another tank or an air strike)
Disable their gas supply lines, Tanks take a LOT of fuel. Easier target to damage (imagine blowing up a few gas lines) or sabotage instead of fighting a tank head on lol

Of course this doesn't help in the immediate short term only long term but imo it'd be pretty effective.
 

The Whispering Monk

Well-known member
Osaul
Disable their gas supply lines, Tanks take a LOT of fuel. Easier target to damage (imagine blowing up a few gas lines) or sabotage instead of fighting a tank head on lol

Of course this doesn't help in the immediate short term only long term but imo it'd be pretty effective.
This is why the Army runs drills fairly constantly between their logistics forces and armor.
 

Tiamat

I've seen the future...
How To Kill An Abrams! Russian 'Experts' Issue A Guidebook On Where & How To Destroy The US Main Battle Tank



I'm posting this out of curiosity about how effective and plausible some of the proposed tactics would actually be at taking down an Abrams tank. As I am not expert on the Abrams. Or really on tanks in general outside of the very basics.


Some of the suggestions in question for the article that looked plausible to my non-expert opinion:

Yep, basic anti-tank tactics. It's not BAD advice, per se, though simplified, and you need to take in account a few factors:

One, that image and instructions aren't groundbreaking, it's same advice some fellows in Russia were only too happy to quietly pass along to some other fellows in the Arab world, which was unironically widely shared on some Arab TV news channels I remember seeing back in the day. It was originally based on what intel the Russians, oops, Soviets were gathering back during the days of Cold War One when the Abrams started replacing the M60 Pattons in Germany and elswhere, and really started wanting to know more when the Abrams basically slaughtered the Iraqi tank fleets wholesale during Gulf War One, especially at battles like 73 Easting.


It's a known fact the M1 tank is NOT invincible. No tank is, and the US Army crews that man their tanks know that and drill regularly on what to do when an Abrams gets "coded out", IE gets immobilized or damaged by a hit to an extent it can't properly function. It however, is a very survivable tank that has it's own fire-extinguisher system as mentioned, and more importantly, unlike most Soviet/Russian tanks, it carries it's ammo behind blast doors with blowout panels that literally does as it's says, lets the ammo detonate outwards instead of inwards and potentially killing the crew. Unlike most Soviet/Russian tanks that have all the ammo exposed in a bustle around the turret ring to accommodate the cannon's autoloader, which is why you see so many Soviet/Russian tanks literally having their turrets flung upward into the sky in a "jack in the box effect", as it was coined by US Army tankers when they watched Soviet issued tanks detonating in such a fashion during Desert Storm.


It's easy (relatively at least, maybe not as much so for Ukraine) to replace tanks, and most Abrams tanks that get coded out can actually be hauled back and repaired. Tank crews on the other hand, with all the training and experience involved, are NOT so easily replaced.



As pointed out, tanks should not be used alone, they should always have infantry, or rather mechanized infantry in APC's or AFV's accompanying them. Why the Russians somehow forgot this after Cold War One...I have no idea. o_O Thing is, the US Army, or rather the US Military puts a huge emphasis on combined arms. It's not just Abrams you're facing. If it were the US Military you'd be facing indirect fire from artillery and mortars, air attacks by helicopter gunships and CAS (Close Air Support) aircraft that often work in tandem with armored units, and of course infantry alongside autocannon-and-machine-gun-equipped APC's and AFV's who will be busy protecting the flanks, checking hidey holes for potential ambushes and laying down suppressive fire against enemy infantry. Caveat of course, the Ukraine military doctrine is different and they seem to put more emphasis on drones on the battlefield. I'd be curious to see how they employ their Abrams. Thing is, last I checked the Ukrainians thus far are only getting 31 or so Abrams. The U.S. has thousands more of various current and older models sitting in storage. The U.S. alone produced more than 7000 Abrams last I checked.


The recommendation for using anti-tank teams in urban areas sounds pretty similar to tactics from WW2, along with some tactics that ironically used by Chechen rebels in Grozny against the Russian army. The Chechens though were fond of using two RPG teams in tandem with one shooting at a spot on an exposed Russian tank to detonate the ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor) paneling, and the follow up team would shoot at the same spot that was now exposed potentially penetrating the armor. This took a good amount of skill, timing and some luck though. I've seen no Abrams utilizing ERA as they can be a danger to nearby friendly infantry, but US versions do have the TUSK option that Marduk mentions that increases the protection significantly.




Thing is, anti armor teams operating in such environments still need at least decent training, sharp eyes and learn to work effectively with the other teams in order to ambush said armor. And they need more than a few snipers and machine gunners to cover them. Assuming they're concealed, once they've fired off their rounds, they've exposed their location to the other tanks and infantry and need to displace quickly as they'll likely be under fire. And don't forget, unlike most other older Russian tank models with the exception of newer variants and refits, the Abrams has thermal optics that can pick up heat sources, including the humanoid variety and most importantly can see through smoke and foliage. The point is, the Russians need lots of training to pull this off, and you can't get that with mobiks that are only given a week of training, if that before getting rushed to the front lines.
 
Last edited:

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Question: would the blowout panels be a vulnerable point to target from outside the tank?
Kinda. Though less than the top part of any other tanks (see how Javelin and NLAW work), as that's a section specifically meant to be exploded away if the compartment behind it gets penetrated and exploded which is what will happen in that case. If a tank without blowout panels get hit in that section, the whole tank will often go kaboom.
 

DarthOne

☦️
True but I have the feeling it'll be easier to target the fuel supply if you don't have an abundance of man power and anti tank rockets to take on a tank and its escorts imo.
Jumping back to this, doesn’t the Abarams need some sort of special fuel for its engines? Something like jet fuel if I remember right?
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Jumping back to this, doesn’t the Abarams need some sort of special fuel for its engines? Something like jet fuel if I remember right?
No, it has a gas turbine, the least picky kind of engine a tank can have.
US military runs them on kerosene based jet fuel to ease logistics and maintenance, but in wartime conditions it can be fed gasoline, diesel, marine diesel, or even fucking pure ethanol, though in some parts of the world the last option may lead to surprise fuel shortages so better not.
 

Scooby Doo

Well-known member
Fuel Consumption
A tank will need approximately 300 gallons every eight hours; this will vary depending on mission, terrain, and weather. A single tank takes 10 minutes to refuel. Refueling and rearming of a tank platoon--four tanks--is approximately 30 minutes under ideal conditions.
  • 0.6 miles per gallon.
  • 60 gallons per hour when traveling cross-country
  • 30+ gallons per hour while operating at a tactical ideal
  • 10 gallons basic idle
  • A mine plow will increase the fuel consummation rate of a tank by 25 percent
300 Gallons of Fuel for 8 Hours



https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/cs-css-heavy-expanded-mobility-tactical-truck-hemtthemtt-extended-service-program-esp/#:~:text=M978A4 Tanker:-,GVWR: 64,000 pounds (72,500 with armor),Bulk fuel capacity: 2,500 gallons
Looks like this is the usual thing carrying fuel and it carries 2,500 Gallons


So if you destroy one of those fuel trucks you're cutting off fuel for 8 Tanks, or operation for almost forty hours. Imo it'd be easier to send a drone to blow up the truck then try and ambush a Tank.
 
Last edited:

DarthOne

☦️
No, it has a gas turbine, the least picky kind of engine a tank can have.
US military runs them on kerosene based jet fuel to ease logistics and maintenance, but in wartime conditions it can be fed gasoline, diesel, marine diesel, or even fucking pure ethanol, though in some parts of the world the last option may lead to surprise fuel shortages so better not.
Well, nice to know I wasn’t entirely wrong about that I suppose. :p
 

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling Accountant
Well, the Abramses sent to Ukraine have their DU inserts removed, so their armor is not all that special, as Saudi and Iraqi crews found out the hard way. In Yemen Houthis managed to knock out Abrams tanks with flank shots from regular RPG-7 rounds, while ISIS fighters in Iraq are known to have taken them out with flank shots from M-79 Osa. Though it is to be expected that Ukrainians would use them more competently than Iraqis and Saudis. Also wouldn't be surprised if ERA goblins decided to upgrade the sides.

On the front side the Ukrainian Abrams tanks will be vulnerable to tank fire along with Konkurs and Kornet missiles. And there are also drones and Krasnopol, for top attack.

Another issue of survivability is whether the crews will trust the hull ammo storage or will go in battle with just the ammo in the turret, as several Leopards and Challengers were lost to hull ammo storage detonations so far.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Well, the Abramses sent to Ukraine have their DU inserts removed, so their armor is not all that special, as Saudi and Iraqi crews found out the hard way. In Yemen Houthis managed to knock out Abrams tanks with flank shots from regular RPG-7 rounds, while ISIS fighters in Iraq are known to have taken them out with flank shots from M-79 Osa. Though it is to be expected that Ukrainians would use them more competently than Iraqis and Saudis. Also wouldn't be surprised if ERA goblins decided to upgrade the sides.
Well no one has invented indestructible tracks, and immobilized tank crews often abandon the vehicle, especially if unsupported. Doubt about Houthis using regular old RPG rounds.
Also didn't see Saudi and Iraqi ones having TUSK or any other ERA.
On the front side the Ukrainian Abrams tanks will be vulnerable to tank fire along with Konkurs and Kornet missiles. And there are also drones and Krasnopol, for top attack.
Doubt it. Houthis notably fire their ATGMs at the side or rear, never saw them firing one at the front.
Krasnopol is not a real top attack munition, it's just a laser guided 152mm artillery shell, not unlike the retired in favor of GPS guided Excalibur Copperhead from the 70's. That's gonna mess up any tank wherever it hits.
Another issue of survivability is whether the crews will trust the hull ammo storage or will go in battle with just the ammo in the turret, as several Leopards and Challengers were lost to hull ammo storage detonations so far.
99% they won't use it. Challengers and Leopards have most of their rounds in hull storage so not using it is a huge loss. Abrams uses hull storage only for 6, so who cares.
 

Scottty

Well-known member
Founder
Kinda. Though less than the top part of any other tanks (see how Javelin and NLAW work), as that's a section specifically meant to be exploded away if the compartment behind it gets penetrated and exploded which is what will happen in that case. If a tank without blowout panels get hit in that section, the whole tank will often go kaboom.

If that's where the ammo is stored, successfully hitting that section would put the tank's main gun out of action even if it did it no direct damage.

Also.. don't they have to open that area from inside the tank to reload?
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
If that's where the ammo is stored, successfully hitting that section would put the tank's main gun out of action even if it did it no direct damage.

Also.. don't they have to open that area from inside the tank to reload?
If it gets taken out, the tank still has one round, machineguns, mobility, and the damage is absolutely repairable.
They do have a pretty quickly closed door to the ammo storage that is only opened for very brief time.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top