Table Of Content

ARMORED WARFARE: Acceptable M1 Losses April 10, 2003: The U.S. M1 Abrams tank has again proved, this time in Iraq, that it is a very effective, and largely invulnerable, combat vehicle. However, during fighting in Iraq, several have been damaged, mainly through hits in known areas of vulnerability. These are on the side and rear of the tank, where hits are relatively rare, and too much additional weight would result if thicker armor were installed there. The M1A2 tank already weighs 70 tons. The disabling hits were in the engine exhaust. The power plant is a gas turbine, and there's a lot of hot air that has to be pumped out. Iraqis drove up behind an M1 and got off a shot in the exhaust grill with an RPG. This damaged the engine and stopped the tank. Several other hits have been scored, from the side, in the ammunition storage area at the rear of the turret. This part of the turret is designed (quite successfully) to take a hit that would penetrate the thin armor, detonate the ammo (the shell propellant) and leave the crew unharmed. Blow out panels allow the force of the explosion to vent away from the forward part of the turret, where the crew is. This system has worked successfully several times. It is possible to protect the rear and side portions of the tank by using Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA.) But tests with ERA have shown it to be a questionable advantage. When ERA goes off to defeat a shell or missile, the people inside the tank hears a loud sound similar to being inside a bell when it is rung. The crew is disoriented for a while, and the exploding ERA can injure any infantry close to the tank and damage equipment on the outside of the tank. So, for the moment, the losses are considered "acceptable." April 9, 2003: Sharp-eyed armor experts will notice that some of the US M-113 armored personnel carriers in Iraq are sporting Vietnam-era ACAV (Armored Cavalry) shield kits for their commander's cupola and the side gunners'. While it's impossible to tell exactly where these relics came from, a reliable source recently checked the "back 40" behind a National Guard armory and found shield-shaped holes in the snow where he remembered seeing some ACAV kits rusting away a few months ago. While circumstantial evidence at the moment, it's just further proof that the "Legacy Force" is far from irrelevant. - Adam Geibel April 8, 2003: Russia has been very active in developing workable tank defenses against anti-tank guided missiles. But no one is buying. ARENA active protection system was developed in 1993 and is still looking for sales. The system uses a radar that covers 300 degrees around the tank (leaving a dead zone in the read). When the radar spots a anti-tank missile coming, one of several shotgun like devices on the tank fires, and damages the missile to the extent that it's shaped charge warhead does not work properly, or the missile misses entirely. There is also a cheaper passive system, SHTORA-1, that detects laser guidance beams hitting the tank and disrupts the laser guidance with flares or an aerosol cloud. The sales problem is mainly one of cost/benefit. An ARENA system weighs a little over a ton and costs over $200,000. The nations that are most in need of these systems, can't afford them. And the wealthier nations, like the U.S., have tanks that are already well armored and have not had bad experiences with expensive anti-tank missile systems. The passive systems are lighter and cheaper, but still not an impulse item. Meanwhile, the Russians are continuing work on these systems because they realize that, in the not-so-distant-future, they will be cost effective. Every year, cheaper and deadlier anti-tank missiles appear on the market. All it will take is a few U.S. M-1 tanks getting toasted by anti-tank missiles and the Russians will have more orders than they can handle.