I don't think it is a stretch to say that modern MBTs in general are vulnerable to attacks by modern ATGMs. That is, after all, their design focus. I think the main lesson to be learned is doctrinal, it doesn't expose a flaw in the design of the Abrams, just a lack of discipline and training with IA armor crewmen and a failure to implement proper combimed arms tactics to support armored vehicles in urban engagements. These shortcomings of armored vehicles are nothing new and combined arms strategy has been and will continue to be reflective of the various strengths and weaknesses of the elements encompassed by the term.

>>11002
Let's give credit where credit is due. The Kornet is an effective and expensive ATGM. During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Kornets were used by some groups of Iraqi special forces to attack American armored vehicles, disabling at least two Abrams tanks and one Bradley armored troop carrier in the opening week of the war.

In October 1994, the KPB Instrument Design Bureau introduced the Kornet (AT-14) ATGM system. The Kornet was developed introducing a laser beam-riding missile with automatic command-to-line of sight (SACLOS) guidance. The operator simply has to keep the sight on the target to ensure a hit. The laser beam-riding system is also less vulnerable to countermeasures. The Kornet was specifically designed to replace the Konkurs, which has been in service with the former Soviet and Russian armies for over twenty years.

The AT-14 Kornet is a wire-guided missile system. In such a system, the missile literally pulls a thin wire along behind it as it moves toward its target. Those who fire the Kornet control it by keeping the sights of their launcher trained on the target. That way, the missile can be guided at moving targets like tanks and armored troop carriers. As a direct-fire weapon, the missile travels in a straight line, rather than in an arc, as it would with mortar or howitzer artillery. Direct fire is considered more effective than indirect-fire weapons like the mortar artillery because the person who is firing the weapon can see the target himself, rather than relying on forward troops to spot and provide information on where the target is. But the need to keep a Kornet launcher's sights locked on the target means that it must remain stationery after it has fired. After a Kornet missile has traveled 3.5 kilometers, the guidance wire has completely uncoiled and breaks. The missile then becomes erratic, no longer able to lock onto the target. Another disadvantage of wire-guided missiles is that they cannot be fired over trees, power lines, telephone lines, or water. That's because the wire will snag and break, or will malfunction, disabling the guidance system.

The AT-14 Kornet has a range of 3.5 kilometers. The Kornet, which has a claimed ability to penetrate 1100 to 1200 millimeters of steel armor protected by explosive armor, provided a formidable antitank weapon system. However, even with the improved capabilities the Kornet has over earlier systems, an ATGM with all-weather, day or night, immunity to countermeasures, and fire and forget capabilities was still highly desired. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/at-14.htm

Here's a 8-launcher Kornet-EM (export D model) on a GAZ Tigr, displayed at MAKS 2011.

GAZ Tigr (Russian: Тигр and English: Tiger) is a Russian 4x4, multipurpose, all-terrain infantry mobility vehicle manufactured by GAZ.

Kornet-D/EM
In 2011, the Tula Instrument Design Bureau demonstrated an upgraded Kornet-EM antitank missile system. Two such units were mounted on a modified chassis of the SPM-2 Tigr. The machine is equipped with two retractable launchers for 8 missiles and gunnery equipment (remote weapons control with screens to display images from the sighting systems), as well as 8 additional missiles. Currently, this antitank system is being tested at Kapustin-Yar. Presumably, "Cornet-D" is the official Russian Armed Forces name, while "Kornet-EM" is the export name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAZ_Tigr

A rather expensive option for your truck.

During the 2010 Interpolitex exhibition, the Tigr-M was announced. It featured a new YaMZ-534 diesel engine, a new armored hood, air filter installation, an increase in the number of rear passenger seats (from 8 to 9)and the replacement of the bicuspid rear hatch with a large square hatch.

Currently, the Tigr-M is being mass-produced and supplied to the Russian Army.

The composite armor of the M1 Abrams was a tremendous improvement over the M60 tank. Thick steel with layers of ceramic, Kevlar, and even depleted uranium make the Abrams a tough nut to crack. You pretty much have to shoot her in the ass with something substantial or use a king-hell ATGM like a Hellfire missile to take her out.

In May 2008, it was reported that an American M1 tank had also been damaged by an RPG-29, which uses a tandem-charge high explosive anti-tank warhead to penetrate explosive reactive armor (ERA) as well as composite armor behind it, in Iraq. The U.S. considered the RPG-29 threat to American armor high and refused to allow the newly formed Iraqi Army to buy it, fearing that it would fall into the insurgents' hands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams

- On the road to Baghdad, a US Marine Corps (USMC) M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank (MBT) lay destroyed after a firefight with Iraqi troops, during Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. 2003

The RPG-29 (NATO designation: Vampir) is a Russian rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) launcher. Adopted by the Soviet Army in 1989, it was the last RPG to be adopted by the Soviet military before the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. The RPG-29 has since been supplemented by other rocket-propelled systems, such as the RPG-30 and RPG-32 "Hashim". The RPG-29's PG-29V tandem-charge warhead is one of the few warhead systems that has penetrated the hulls of Western composite-armored main battle tanks in active combat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-29

Just adding this to the mix

http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-military-equipment-breakdown-2014-7?op=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HJ-8

Also, Some anti-tank missiles deliberately strike down from above to penetrate the thinner top armor (vid related), so armor type and thickness on the front may not matter, alot depends on what they hit the M1 with and where.

We know M1's could withstand hits from Iraqi tanks in the Gulf War 1, so it's not like they are total crap.

Not concerned yet until details of how the M1's were taken out are discovered.

  >>11010
derp.

actually looking at the aftermath of the Attack, there weren't to many dead Iraqi's lying around.

There was a combination of AT and IEDs including a massive one that trapped a Abrams.

It performed 1000x better than the human meat cookers called t55 and t72's.

we have entered the stage were active defense measures are needed. Its to easy to make ATGM and AT weapons to defeat MBTs.

We already dealt with this during the Iraq war. EFPs, IEDs, ATGMs, RPG 29,18,7s. That's why we built the TUSK. The abrams performed well, compared to the disaster that was the Bradly in that war.

>>11008
>Thick steel with layers of ceramic, Kevlar, and even depleted uranium make the Abrams a tough nut to crack. You pretty much have to shoot her in the ass with something substantial...

I seem to recall a story from the Gulf War where an Abrams had a fire during a "thunder run" into Baghdad, so the crew abandoned the tank to hitch a ride with a Bradley. Once clear, another Abrams rolled up and put a round into the immobile Abrams's ass. Allegedly, nothing happened. According to the testimony in the report, multiple shots were required to render it inoperable (and before resigning themselves to putting further rounds into the tank, there was serious consideration to towing it back for repair instead).

>>11013

I remember that story, but they weren't shooting it in the pooper, rather the turret front, trying to destroy everything inside IIRC.

Interestingly enough, some sketchily-acquired info I sourced from Russia a while back analysing our M1A2s when they first came out made a particular point that we Yankee American Pigdogs had biased armor protection on the Abrams almost completely to the frontal arc. The report made specific mention of the M1A2 having the weakest rear and top armor out of all NATO tanks. But the highest protection from frontal HEAT impacts of any tank in the world at the time.

Which makes sense. To American thinking "If your enemy is behind you shooting into your ass, you fucked up somewhere. If the enemy is above you shooting into your skull, the Air Force fucked up somewhere. If the enemy is in front of you shooting you in the face, well you can shoot back, now can'tcha Sally? Don't fuck up this combined-arms shit and it ain't no problem!"

'Murrika

>>11013

http://archive.gao.gov/d31t10/145879.pdf

TL;dr

14 damaged in direct combat
9 destroyed

7 destroyed were from friendly fire (we are our own worst enemy, hurr)
2 intentional destruction to prevent capture/use

A large amount of the damaged tanks were also intentionally damaged due to various reasons, moreso than actually being stopped by getting shot at.

Several tanks took frontal hits with minimal effects, some drove through anti-tank minefields with minimal damage to boot.

One abrams took 2 rounds from a T-72 at 2km, one skipped and one lodged in the tank. "OH ITS GAME TIME NOW ASSHOLE" Boom. no mo T72.


They also pot-shot T-72's with Sabot rounds through berms, using the thermal signature of the exhaust plumes as indicators of where enemy tanks might be residing... and getting kills doing it too.

>>11018
I was always curious how tough those things were.

So lets briefly catalog what weapons have been known to defeat the Abrams armor thusfar:

RPG-29 Vampir
>14lb warhead/rocket motor assembly. Probably 6-10lbs of that is warhead explosives.
>Tandem shaped charge using a 66mm precursor and a 105mm main.
>500m max effective range
>Estimated 750mm RHA penetration, or 600mm against ERA.
>Known to have penetrated: Challenger II at the front hull seam, Abrans turret side, Abrams hull rear.
>Not known if the tanks hit were M1A1s, M1A2s, or if they possessed TUSK.
>Notables: The main warhead of the Vampir appears to be a standard PG-7V warhead. The -29 may merely add the precursor warhead and a new launch system for improved accuracy.

9M133 KORNET Anti-Tank Guided Missile
>15.4 lbs tandem shaped charge warhead, ~150mm.
>Estimated penetration, 1000mm RHA with or without ERA.
>Laser beam riding SACLOS guidance with automatic target tracking.
>Maximum effective range: ~5km
>Known to have pentrated: Multiple Israeli Merkava III and IV tanks counting four catastrophic kills, M1A1 and M1A2 variant Abrams (penetration locations unknown, no K-kills but disabled).
>Notables: Kornets were easily defeated by Israels TROPHY active protection system in the ongoing Gaza scrap.

IEDs and EFPs.
>No known specs, all custom built.
>Likely daisychained 155mm artillery shells and EFPs with a warhead diameter meeting or exceeding 450mm.

>>11018
>drove through anti-tank minefields with minimal damage to boot.

seriously you guys has no bullshit detector at all

>>11059

Older Soviet AT mines are hilariously bad against a modern tank. 1: They're pressure-plate types, so the tank has to actually drive one of its tracks over the thing. 2: The amount of explosives in them would be lucky to knock the track off an M60, let alone the latest Abrams. And 3: Those mine types cause almost no damage to the lower hull or belly anyway. With a lot of luck, they'll break a track and that's all. Without any luck, the tank will just keep right on cruising.

The modern mines use magnetic sensors or, if they're cheapo, a tilt-rod detonator. They'll also blast a directional explosion up into the belly of the tank, getting inside through the thin bottom armor and fucking it up.

>>11002
>The question remains though: Does it really matter?
These haven't even been in serous combat since that time. IMHO, as latest conflicts show, they were demoted to mere support vehicles because the mere destruction of the American tank has more impact on public image of the military, rather than military itself. Now that you can't say they're American because they're in the hands of different people, the answer is - it doesn't really matter.

>>11016
>Don't fuck up this combined-arms shit and it ain't no problem!
That's right, but it doesn't go very well with all that hit-and-run tactics they're facing when fighting against ISIS. It's just happens simply because there's no alternative, and while you can't precisely say that it the reason they suck, that is why why MBTs in USSR were created as medium tanks, rather than heavy ones - versatility.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHOWPdnsjCw

Although, unfortunately for both types, even the conflicts of 90-s showed that development of man-portable anti-tank weapons mitigated the difference between them in limited warfare.

>>11012
>It performed 1000x better than the human meat cookers called t55 and t72's.
You don't actually realize that you are comparing 40 y.o. tech to 20 y.o. tech, but honestly, every time somebody mentions it, one can simply state that this is the weak argument.

Didn't an Abrams get KO'd in Iraq at one point back in like 05-07 time frame by an EFP?

>>11062
2007. New Baghdad. 2-3 incidents. RPG-29s. Clearly IRGC-QF.

I've seen the Trophy at work on an RPG and I know it also handled Saggers, Kornets and Metis.

Of course the unwanted effect is that they've learned to identify the Trophy system and don't bother shooting their missiles at them, instead saving them for older vehicles.

>>11009
Not to shit on the RPG-29 but it can only penetrate about 30 inches of RHA. Compare the 30 inch raw penetration of Vampire with RPG-28 Cranberry having 45inch naked RHA penetration, an ability to take out modern tanks from the front arc if the gunner is brave enough.
The main "modernization" of the Vampire was making the tube reusable and breech loaded for increased rate of fire for those mile range bombardments by anti personnel warheads.

This is 30 inch:
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

This is 45 inch:
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

RPG-29 is by no means the ultimate RPG, it's just the one that gets exported to shitholes like Iraq. The Russian military uses far more potent stuff, things that can trick Trophy, predetonate TUSK ERA, and then penetrate enough to kill any modern tank from the side.
US military really needs to stop measuring itself against export or obsolete hardware, and then saying "oh we're totally fine we had low casualties".

>This is 45 inch:
>|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
*fixed

>>11785

There's only 5 countries in the world with 1st rate military tech development, the US, Russia, France, Germany, and Israel. Everybody else buys from them, gets hand-me-down production templates, or reverse engineers knock-offs.

None of these 5 will ever go to war with each other again, nor will they sell said first line materiel to anyone who is going to war with any of them.

First rate stuff will always sit on the sidelines for 20 years until it's export grade, then get downrated and sold, while the second newest stocks go into their own service use, already outclassing the stuff from 3 runs ago.

It's called "planned obsolescence".

>>11787

No, I didn't forget about, but purposefully left out countries that manufacture under contract for those entities, such as Belgium and Sweden. Not for lack of ability to do the research, but for lack of need save for as an export market, which fulfills domestic requirements as well, since they're mostly reliant on external on security agreements.

>>11787
I'd argue only USA and France have completely indigenous production for army, air force and navy.

Even Russia occasionally buys ships or tech from foreign companies if it's cheaper than manufacturing it themselves.

>>11794
What about China?

>>11795
A significant portion of their active arsenal is foreign origin.

The overriding point is that there's no reason to have domestic only production. America does it because they have so much money they don't know what to do with it all. France does it for hardheaded prideful reasons.

In reality a country can only benefit by having a controlled influx of foreign arms.

>>11794
>completely indigenous production for army, air force and navy.
I very much doubt that, unless, of course, it's special kind of policy I never heard of. With modern industrial chain you can't be sure that every component of your hardware has been produced in the same country - even for the military. You can only argue about real proportions of that, if it's functionality depends on indigenous production for more than 50%, then the product is indeed "domestic".