Are there any registered combat losses of M1 Abrams tanks to enemy tanks?
Are there any registered combat losses of M1 Abrams tanks to enemy tanks?
Kayden Cruz
Jack Jenkins
Unless the Houthis or ISIS have gotten really lucky while I wasn't paying attention, no.
There have however been losses to ATGMs, but not of US crewed tanks.
There have been losses of US crewed Abrams, but only to IEDs.
There have been fatalities inside US Abrams from RPG-29s, but in both cases, the tank was able to drive back to base under its own power, with the original crew.
Sorry for going into so much detail, but there are dedicated Abrams shitposters on /k/.
Camden Mitchell
Amazing to think that the M1 Abrams is over 30 years old now. I wonder if depending on the next president, a new main battle tank will be designed.
Aiden Gray
Probably not. A new MBT is pretty low on the list of priorities in the sort of counterinsurgency war America is likely to be facing in the next 2 decades or so. You'll probably only see a new MBT if someone starts posing a credible threat to American military/economic hegemony. China's the best candidate, but even for them, I'm not really seeing it happen.
Easton Phillips
>but there are dedicated Abrams shitposters on /k/.
can i get an amen?
Ayden Parker
ask /k/
Jaxson Reed
I'm not sure there's that much to improve on honestly.
The formula of three man turret, one man driver, and less than 100 tons seems to work pretty well.
I don't think there's anything to keep the DoD from just playing the Ship of Theseus game with upgrade packages for a while.
After all, the USAF still uses the B-52, and aerospace is a much more dynamic field than armor.
William Stewart
You see, if you bring this up on /k/, there's one guy who will constantly post pictures of burnt out Abrams and claim that they were US Abrams destroyed in combat.
In reality, the US will frequently JDAM their own tanks because it isn't feasible to recover them during a major offensive, and they don't want it falling into enemy hands.
There are enough people on /k/ with oddly specific fixations that you start to recognize them after a while.
Like that guy here who's obsessed with the 1960 presidential race.
Jackson Long
I don't think there are any recorded losses period.
Those things are pretty much impossible to kill.
Angel Clark
The main problem with the abram seems to be its massive fuel consumption. Not a problem for us now, but what if in a large scale conflict supply lines were temporarily severed?
Michael Robinson
it's just a good, solid tank
Juan Cruz
Getting replaced by 2040.
That is if election faggotry doesn't fuck with the B-21 procurement process.
Joshua Harris
vs tanks? Not that I know of.
Heres Iraq and the Saudis getting some tanks blown up.
youtube.com
youtube.com
Hooah!
I don't see it happening.
Gavin Lopez
General Dynamics is working on a drop-in diesel powerplant.
See, the "M1 Abrams" that exists in the future might bear little resemblance to the one we use today.
The DoD loves to slowly change every part of a system instead of drawing up a new system from scratch.
Christian Thomas
>Like that guy here who's obsessed with the 1960 presidential race
Hey, fuck you Kennedy lover.
Eli Hall
>General Dynamics is working on a drop-in diesel powerplant.
Jaxson Wright
>Are there any registered combat losses of M1 Abrams tanks to enemy tanks?
There have been exactly as many registered combat losses of M1s in tank vs tank engagements, as there have been tank vs tank engagements against equal peers: 0.
Facing off garbage-tier Iraqi crews in dated T-62s or shitty export-version T-72Ms, that lacked any kind of modern ammunition is no challenge at all. Even AMX-30Bs were good enough for that.
If we'd have seen M1 vs T-64B or M1A1 vs T-80BV/U action, with US crews facing Soviet crews we'd have something to talk about.
Sebastian Hill
Kinda related.
I've heard some crews died later of cancer because of the depleted uranium armor.
Anyone know anything about this?
Joseph Parker
>depleted uranium armor
I thought it was the shells that used depleted uranium?
Jeremiah Jenkins
depleted uranium is also used in Abrams composite armor
Bentley Rodriguez
>B-52.
>Going on to B-21.
How are bombers and aircraft named? Is there a system?
Josiah Ward
The B-52 was named for the year of its first flight, I've no idea about the B-21.
Levi Davis
21st century
Aaron Watson
RIP in peace fat worm man. This dude was my childhood.
Parker Perry
Did we not at least lose some due to mechanical difficulties and accidents? Such as falling down a ditch where they couldn't get out, and had to be scrapped ala white phosphorous grenades?
janes.com
Plus, not quite "official" but more direct losses:
>At least one video has emerged showing an Abrams 'brew up' after being hit by an ATGM during fighting this year in the western province of Al-Anbar. Militants operating in Al-Anbar have also released images of numerous attacks on other Abrams tanks, including ones involving a 9K11 Kornet ATGM, RPG-7 rocket-propelled grenade launchers, and a M70 Osa rocket launcher. The latter is a Yugoslavian weapon that has been widely used by insurgents in neighbouring Syria, but is rarely seen in Iraq.
Granted, with Iraqi's driving them. The Iraqi's apparently are having a hard time maintaining the M1's we gave them (no surprise).
More officially:
quora.com
>553 Abrams tanks have been taken out of combat. At least 14 of them destroyed outright by enemy action. 23 M1A1s were destroyed in the Gulf War. This included 7 to friendly fire and 2 destroyed that had previously been disabled (to prevent them falling into enemy hands).
Julian Fisher
Never heard anything about that except people on the Internet asking about it.
Seems to be a myth.
Jose Miller
He's isn't dead
Julian Harris
Dun think the sorta radiation the armor puts off is a problem unless you ingest or inhale the material. Which I suppose, could happen, if the tank was damaged, and you were on the outside.
The shells, however, are a constant contamination problem, whenever civilians dig them up, or stupid soldiers try to take them home as souvenirs.
They don't all have that armor though, and when they do, it's only on the forward plates.
Hunter Anderson
...
Hudson Powell
The armor of the tank is sealed. An Abrams is a sealed environment unless penetrated.
Even if penetrated you'd need to bask in the radiation for a long ass time and probably just inhale radioactive dust.
The amount of radiation given off by DU is almost entirely blocked by your skin. You'd need to either absorb its weak levels of rads for years or use DU as an accent to your salad to get cancer from it.
Cooper Rivera
>Even if penetrated you'd need to bask in the radiation for a long ass time and probably just inhale radioactive dust.
That was the concern. Otherwise, yeah, should be fine - but it's a possibility - if the tank is hit, some of that shit is going to disintegrate and go into the air.
Also, I think some models use ablative armor, which would more or less guarantee it being a problem for friendlies near the tank, or even the crew, when getting out. Dunno if they use ablative armor on the DU plates though.
Blake Stewart
Not exactly.
Uranium as a thing isn't very radioactive unless you're talking about specific isotopes. It is however, heavy metal which means that it's toxic by default.
Tinfoilhats obviously miss this fact.
Camden Morales
Sounds like a rumour. They would need inhale a lot of that armor which doesn't sound really really realistic.
Perhaps they've got it from Cr(VI) containing paint that used to be used on on tanks
Xavier Gomez
I suppose that's part of the problem with war - when you're making killing machines, you don't really pay attention to whether they are toxic or not.
In a war zone, there's gotta be so many toxic particles from god-all-knows-what flying in the air, that it's no wonder "Gulf War Syndrome" and the like happen and people come home with all manner of physical problems, on top of the psychological ones.