How To Kill An Abrams! (Supposably)

[Scottty]

If it gets taken out, the tank still has one round, machineguns, mobility, and the damage is absolutely repairable.

Yes of course. But if what the tank was out there to do depended on having more shells than just that one, it's a mission-kill.

They do have a pretty quickly closed door to the ammo storage that is only opened for very brief time.

Please tell me that they do not have to pull a new shell out of a cupboard and load it in each time before firing!
At the very least, they should have one shell already loaded, as you implied above.
The sequence should be see a target, shoot, then immediately reload, not see a target, load, and then shoot.

 

[Marduk]

Yes of course. But if what the tank was out there to do depended on having more shells than just that one, it's a mission-kill.

It is, but not a bad one. It's much easier to mission kill a tank than to destroy it, and it's not even as bad as a mobility kill, which will lead to actual kill or abandonment if not well supported. Getting smacked with any decently big HE weapon, even if old, can mission kill a tank worse with damage to sensitive and very expensive optics.

Please tell me that they do not have to pull a new shell out of a cupboard and load it in each time before firing!

Yes, that's the idea with the "cupboard". As you can see, it doesn't take that long.

At the very least, they should have one shell already loaded, as you implied above.
The sequence should be see a target, shoot, then immediately reload, not see a target, load, and then shoot.

Depends on the situation. For one it's better to have the gun empty if you don't know what the target is going to be, imagine having a APFSDS loaded but turns out you have to shoot at a ATGM team.

 

[Scottty]

Depends on the situation. For one it's better to have the gun empty if you don't know what the target is going to be, imagine having a APFSDS loaded but turns out you have to shoot at a ATGM team.

Assuming, of course, that the "target" is going to let you take your time selecting munitions.
I can imagine scenarios where it would be better to be able to immediately shoot out something, even if it's not exactly the right thing, then to have to delay even those brief seconds to load.

 

[Marduk]

Assuming, of course, that the "target" is going to let you take your time selecting munitions.
I can imagine scenarios where it would be better to be able to immediately shoot out something, even if it's not exactly the right thing, then to have to delay even those brief seconds to load.

Well this video is from training i think so it's not reflective of much. Sometimes, yes. But the other side often has the same problem. Against soft targets in immediate threat range Abrams has 2-3 machineguns that work fine for suppressive fire, outside of their range its only tanks or ATGMs. If its a tank yes, whatever works, for ATGMs a kinetic round is kinda worthless, though what most people don't know is that most ATGMs take a lot of time to arrive from longer ranges, like 10 to 20 seconds, and the tank has plenty of time to fire smoke, load or fire a HE round or move behind an obstacle, and in many older models guidance can be disrupted by attacking the launcher.

 

[Husky_Khan]

I guess more specifically...

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.

This would be hard to do in the current terrain that people are fighting in. Most of the terrain is open fields with tree lines. You'd have to wait for the armored attack to roll up to your tree line really, really close.

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.

Minefields are already in place so its like... Yeah Sure Thanks... They Already Know That. A more reasonable solution would be, landmines eliminate the tank then to prevent the tank from being recovered, you suggest how to intercept recovery vehicles... or suggest drones or Krasnopol rounds hitting the top rear of the tank to eliminate the now disabled tank so its not recoverable.

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.

Even in the failed attacks Ukrainian tanks have moved forward with mounted infantry support in IFV's and APC's and even Humvees. Machine Guns would die as soon as they expose themselves. They'd have to wait for the infantry to dismount but then you still have armored vehicles to deal with the entire time. You'd need even more 'armor-piercers.'

I think more multiple ATGM use is probably the best way to deal with Abrams since they don't really have Active Protection Systems. Maybe the Slavic ERA goblins can mitigate that though, who knows.

 

[49ersfootball]

Yeah it's general anti-tank advice I feel.

Military tanks I'm assuming this discussion thread is about correct ?

 

[Husky_Khan]

Military tanks I'm assuming this discussion thread is about correct ?

Landships actually.

Landship (Civ5)

Back to the list of units Tank unit of the Modern Era. Upgrades from the Cavalry. Requires Oil. Common abilities: Can Move After Attacking No Defensive Terrain Bonuses The Landship is the first tank in the game - a heavily armored vehicle armed with short-range cannons whose powerful engines...

civilization.fandom.com

So cute!

 

[49ersfootball]

Landships actually.

Landship (Civ5)

Back to the list of units Tank unit of the Modern Era. Upgrades from the Cavalry. Requires Oil. Common abilities: Can Move After Attacking No Defensive Terrain Bonuses The Landship is the first tank in the game - a heavily armored vehicle armed with short-range cannons whose powerful engines...

civilization.fandom.com

So cute!

Loving me some of these military landships!

 

[Zachowon]

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?

It can basically take anything.
JP8 is nice and technically jet diesel but.
Yeah.
It can take a lot

300 Gallons of Fuel for 8 Hours

M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank - Specifications

www.globalsecurity.org

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.

SHORADs are going to be in place at the fuel spots, add in the fact that there are probably going to be plenty fo fuel cans with the views to fill up when needed with enough to keep them going.

Targeting logistics isn't always easy.

 

[DarthOne]

It can basically take anything.
JP8 is nice and technically jet diesel but.
Yeah.
It can take a lot

SHORADs are going to be in place at the fuel spots, add in the fact that there are probably going to be plenty fo fuel cans with the views to fill up when needed with enough to keep them going.

Targeting logistics isn't always easy.

No but it’s often less difficult than taking on an armored spearhead.

 

[Zachowon]

No but it’s often less difficult than taking on an armored spearhead.

But you have ti get past a lot of forces to get there

 

[Tiamat]

Just a few other observations:


Attacking, or trying to attack the moving logistics convoys that supply the armored spearheads is a concept that dates back to WW2. It can be done, and during the Cold War both sides trained for it with CAS aircraft and artillery strikes, and now there is an increasing emphasis on drones. However a lot of that still hinges on who controls or is actively contesting the airspace with aircraft and AD assets, and while drones are becoming more prevalent, the technology to disable and shoot them down is also proliferating as well, such is the nature of conflicts.


While the Abrams has of course the 120mm cannon, as @Husky_Khan noted the Abrams typically carries at least 3 machineguns. The main gun's coaxial M240 7.62mm machinegun, the other M240 mounted at the loader's hatch position (along with a gunshield on more recent models) that he can optionally use if he's not busy loading, and also act as an extra set of eyes for the crew if needed, and the M2 .50 cal at the commander's station. In more recent models including M1's equipped with TUSK, the M2 .50 is mounted in a CROWS or similar remote-operated turret system above the commander, sometimes with several smoke grenade launchers attached. I've also heard of another option being considered for the commander's station for a remote system consisting of a twin mount, one M2 .50 cal. and an MK-19 40mm grenade launcher, though I don't know if or when it's been implemented yet. In addition, some modern M1's are now mounting an additional remote fired M2 .50 cal. machine gun coaxial with the main gun, in addition to the coaxial M240, presumably to use against light vehicles and structures (including humans).

Basically, the M1 Abrams carries a lot of machine guns, which are bad for enemy infantry and light vehicles. If an enemy sapper get to close to or on one, a jargon used by some American tankers is "delousing" where they'll spray their buddies tank with 7.62mm machine gun fire to kill said sappers.


I don't know what the personal arms loadout would be for Ukrainian tankers, but while it's common for US Army tankers to at least carry pistols and several rifles for defense, sometimes the equipment loadout can get crazy. "The Chieftain", a former US Army tanker over on Youtube related a story about their personal weapons loadout during the Iraq war:

"Sign for each of your 9mm pistols. Good, now also sign for your grenades. Now, sign for two M4 carbines, and two M16A2's, one with the 40mm M203 grenade launcher. Sign also for your M249 SAW machine gun. Also, sign for your 12-gauge shotgun (Note: Probably a pump-action Mossberg or Remington from the sound of it). Oh, and sign for your bayonets." The loadout was for a reason though: If you have to abandon your tank due to code out or mission kill, be ready to fight your way out. I spoke to a couple other tankers who had similar stories. Which leads to one other thing:


While hitting and potentially blowing up the ammo boxes (which are armored, btw) can code out or mission kill an Abrams, the secondary explosions will still vent out and away as mentioned, and most likely the blast door will still be in place. This allows the crew to escape, and the tank can be hauled back for repairs. Below is a video of a test on an Abrams utilizing the blowout panels and blast door.




Again, it needs to be emphasized, the crew will likely survive and their morale will be better thus so, and the tank can be repaired. This is hugely important, as compared to most Russian made tanks that seem to double as both fiery coffins and cosmonaut vehicles when hit.

 

[Zachowon]

Every soldier is a rifleman.
We all Qual on rifle.
Be it cook, admin, Intel, driver