Comments on: Abrams Destroying IED by Driving Over It

By: MisterLemons

MisterLemons — Wed, 07 Jan 2015 01:44:38 +0000

Alright, people here seem to be in a ramble about the subject and as someone being ‘well informed’ about the the vehicle seen in this video (M1A2 SEP), I figured I could shed some light on the subject.

First off, anyone who has any experience in the thing would know that the crew can get pretty cockey when driving it around. It’s 68.5 imperial tons of the best the U.S. (and other countries; german gun, british chobham) has to offer in armor and technology. The tracks are WELL constructed and have been know to run over anti-personnel mines just to see if there are actually any there to begin with. I kid you not, the tank has been used to check for mines by simply driving over them.

Second. The commander had his head well out of the hatch for visibility reasons which would signify that they had no idea what was about to happen. I know a guy who thought it would be a great idea to pop his fully protected head (Helmet and noise canceling headset) out of the hatch when the main gun was fired. He described the results as “2 minutes of nothing but ears ringing”. So any part of yourself is not going to be beyond the armor if you know shit is about to go down, especially explosives. As for the driver, loader, and gunner, I bet they were aware that it happened but were rather unimpressed by the volume and shock of the explosion from inside the hull.

Third, as the the survivability of the tank. I found a video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHJgfco6VNY

By the looks of it, the worst done to the tank was a gun hydraulics failure and MAYBE damage to the suspension. As for the crew, bruised badly as there are no seat belts so they definitely felt that one. Nothing that can’t be repaired in under a week. What you witnessed was said 68 friggen TONS of armor flying 10 or more feet off the ground by an explosive simply going off near it. If that doesn’t make you question the doubt some have of the vehicle, nothing will.

Anyway, I hope this has helped the subject come to a conclusion.

By: Harold Biondo

Harold Biondo — Tue, 06 Jan 2015 19:14:49 +0000

Who told you that? ISIS? haha
No M1A2s have ever been knock out, damaged yes, but not destroyed. Which is easy when you’re only facing Russian crap.
On top of that, the Challenger II has only suffered two destroyed units. And it is often said to be a better all round tank (not saying it isn’t I don’t know, don’t kill me Brits!) than the Abrams

By: Its_Matra

Its_Matra — Tue, 06 Jan 2015 13:35:02 +0000

You’d be wrong http://www.vpc.org/press/0110snip.htm

Also at what point did I say the Taliban knocked one out? The Iraqis knocked several out… also… go back to Call of Duty, the RPG-15 is far more common in the field

By: Its_Matra

Its_Matra — Tue, 06 Jan 2015 13:31:22 +0000

A large caliber round is capable of penetrating and destroying an ‘unprotected’ compressor assembly which severs the power to the turret, as thus turns the Abrams into a heavily armored tractor.

There is a full report on the findings of the M1A1 from the gulf war that has it in… can’t find the link to hand. There are no examples of the above happening in combat but there is record of an Abrams knocked out because an auxilary unit on the back of the tank was hit by a large caliber round (50 cal) and leaked on to the engine causing a fire that couldn’t be extinguished – ergo – knocked out

I’d consider knocking out the turret as disabling ;)

By: ThatOneMichaelKid

ThatOneMichaelKid — Tue, 06 Jan 2015 09:25:11 +0000

Because they are in a TANK! If I had a tank I would fucking drive over shit like that.

By: ThatOneMichaelKid

ThatOneMichaelKid — Tue, 06 Jan 2015 09:23:29 +0000

What the fuck are you smoking? You do realize how tank armor works right, especially modern day tank armor? (Usually 1000mm+ effective thickness). The M1A2 is completely impervious to a RPG-7, let alone a measly .50. When did the taliban start using a .50 round anyways? Aren’t all their DsHk HMGs 7.62?

By: ThatOneMichaelKid

ThatOneMichaelKid — Tue, 06 Jan 2015 09:17:08 +0000

Because the explosion won’t do shit to the tank. No grenade wasted. Plus most of the explosion was contained (under the tank).

By: ThatOneMichaelKid

ThatOneMichaelKid — Tue, 06 Jan 2015 09:15:54 +0000

Doubt it blew the track apart. Compared to popular believe tracks are rather tough to withstand this very thing. Enough explosives maybe, but enough to blow up the tracks would also be enough to penetrate the bottom of the tank.

By: ThatOneMichaelKid

ThatOneMichaelKid — Tue, 06 Jan 2015 09:13:45 +0000

Those who base all comments using knowledge gleaned from video games should read this. 100% right on man. I just wanted to add, unlike in a more “realistic” FPS, say Battlefield. An RPG-7 won’t do jack shit to an Abrams. Earlier versions the only plane it could be damaged was by blowing off the read drive wheel which had no armor over it. Now they do and are completely impervious to them. This information coming from a gunner who served with these vehicles, also happens to be my WoT clan leader. Current IEDs may be able to do harm, no idea how much force the belly of it could take. There was a video of T-55s engaging insurgents and one of them drove over a shaped charge which killed the crew. The explosion was was also very small, not even half the size of this one.

By: kasius67

kasius67 — Tue, 06 Jan 2015 08:03:02 +0000

Why not just shooting on it ? …