Karrar MBT l Updates, News & Discussion

[VEVAK]

Where do you get the claim that U.S IFVs had more Tank kills than MBTs?

It's not a claim! It's a fact! U.S. IFV had more Iraqi Tank Kills in 2003 than the Abrams!

This was a lesson learned in 1991 by the U.S. when they sent Bradly's upfront as scouts 1st off in terms of weight Bradly's weigh less than half of that of an Abrams & cost less to operate in terms of fuel

Also, regular cheap tank rounds could not guarantee the outcome of the battle so they had to rely on smart rounds that cost as much as an ATGM so in 2003 on the ground ATGM's became the main Tank Killers because not only did they have a faster reaction time but newer ATGM had greater range and made less noise when launched

Also, by 2002 the U.S. had full control of most of Iraq's Air Space so in 2003 most tanks were taken out by Air via fighter jets & helicopters and after that it was special forces armed with ATGM's so by the time Bradly's came up not much was left

 

[Aryzin]

Where did you hear that VEVAK jan? U.S. ARMY has no issues whatsoever with fuel consumption, especially when at war. I never was a tanker but been a Brad's crew in various capacity and we run our stuff basically 24/7 non stop. Fuel and maintenance were readily available and if we had a breakdown we usually could fix it in the field. Brads aren't meant to fight heavy armor. They certainly can use TOW to engage enemy target. My gunner, took one target in 3 seconds. That's from identification to round on the way. That was old ODS version of Brads.I thought that was freaking good but we practiced all the time, we had realistic training, drills, rehearsals and more.

 

[eagle2007]

Vevak,

Not sure what you're talking about concerning "smart" tank shells. As of today, the only "smart" aka guided munitions used by tanks are ATGMs launched via the cannon. While this technology has been tinkered with by the US (see MGM-51) in the past, they're not in widespread use. Russia/USSR on the other hand has been widely produced since the 70s. The Israelis also developed the similar LAHAT. After the failure of the MGM-51, the US largely abandoned the idea of cannon-launched missiles.

If you're talking about various kinds of KEP (kinetic energy penetrators) shells, I wouldn't necessarily call them "smart", though they were truly game-changers when they first introduced into widespread use decades ago. While they do certainly cost more than more traditional HEAT/HE shells, they're nowhere NEAR as expensive as ATGMs.

For example, the M829A4, the latest variant of 120mm depleted uranium shells, cost ~ $10K each. On the other hand, typical US ATGMs (TOWs & Javelins) cost $60K / $150-200K (depending on order size) each respectively. That makes KEP shells, even those using exotic material like depleted uranium, is MUCH more cost-effective than relying too heavily on ATGMs.

As to whether Bradleys out-did Abrams in tank kills in the 2003 Gulf War, I've spent several hours hunting in vain for any sources to verify that idea, but no luck. There's no doubt the Bradleys definitely 'got some', but how much isn't clear. I have seen this claim on the net before but always as Army folklore. Unfortunately, the Army rarely publicizing such stats (assuming they bothered to collect it at all).

 

[AmirPatriot]

As to whether Bradleys out-did Abrams in tank kills in the 2003 Gulf War, I've spent several hours hunting in vain for any sources to verify that idea, but no luck. There's no doubt the Bradleys definitely 'got some', but how much isn't clear. I have seen this claim on the net before but always as Army folklore. Unfortunately, the Army rarely publicizing such stats (assuming they bothered to collect it at all).

@VEVAK If there was anyone that could have proven you right, it was eagle. But he couldn't. I'm afraid you're wrong.

The whole concept of sending IFVs ahead of Main Battle Tanks with depleted uranium armour is not sound anyway.

several hours

!!!

 

[eagle2007]

AmirPatriot,

Hey, if I've got the time, I can do some serious internet-mining.

UPDATE:

Vevak's claim is specifically about the 2003 Iraq War and I found nothing concerning their performance against Iraqi armor. I suspect this is due to the simple fact that overall, there were no major clashes of US and Iraqi armor during that conflict. There were sporadic engagements but nothing like the major armor battles in the 1991 Gulf War (credit where it's due, the Iraqis certainly tried to stop US armor, but were clobbered). Most of the information I found about Bradley performance during the 2003 conflict was about the aftermath, aka their performance during the insurgency. A large number of Bradleys were taken out by IEDs and their losses helped usher in the greater use of MRAPs.

On the other hand, I did find some evidence of high kills of Bradleys vs Iraqi tanks during the 1991 Gulf War. Again, I couldn't find any "total kills" but I was able to find stats for one specific unit that used Bradleys, the 2nd Cavalry Regiment. This unit claims 159 Iraqi tank kills by the end of the conflict, a 1/3 of which likely achieved during the Battle of 73 Easting (in which they fought alongside M1 Abrams). There are also several somewhat vague claims of of the Bradleys out-doing the Abrams in tank kills during the 1991 conflict (Global Security.com and a site called "Tank Nut Dave") but neither have specific numbers and are vaguely worded.

For example:

Global Security.org claims that in the 1991 Gulf War, the Bradleys took out more Iraqi ARMORED VEHICLES than the Abrams did. Problem is, "armored vehicles" would mean kills against APCs, IFVs, and tanks.

Then, someone linked that GS page on the Bradley's Wikipedia page, but reworded it to specifically claim the Bradleys killed more Iraqi tanks than the Abrams.

Conclusion: I suspect this talk of Bradleys achieving more tank kills comes from the 1991 Gulf War, and could very well be true but I can't find any official Army sources/reports/references to state that, let alone provide stats to back it up. The only sources of this claim seems to be vague statements on third-party websites.

Let me be clear though, I'm not discounting the idea of ATGM-equiped IFVs being useful, far from it. Such vehicles are real "force-multipliers", capable of dishing out a lot of pain from a single, small(ish) package. The Bradleys are effectively both traditional IFVs (capable of carrying troops and able to support them against various light-armor threats) and tank-destroyers. A single Bradley could dismount 6-7 soldiers, engage & take out other APC/IFV with their 25mm cannon, and engage main battle tanks with a twin TOW launcher (with 7 rounds on board).

In fact, the Soviets didn't have a real equivalent to this kind of force multiplication until the development of the BMP-3, which while a very different design, has many of the same capabilities (dismounting troops, taking on light armor using the coaxil 30mm cannon and engaging heavier armor with the 9M117 Bastion missile and their 100mm cannon).

 

[Arminkh]

AmirPatriot,

Hey, if I've got the time, I can do some serious internet-mining.

UPDATE:

Vevak's claim is specifically about the 2003 Iraq War and I found nothing concerning their performance against Iraqi armor. I suspect this is due to the simple fact that overall, there were no major clashes of US and Iraqi armor during that conflict. There were sporadic engagements but nothing like the major armor battles in the 1991 Gulf War (credit where it's due, the Iraqis certainly tried to stop US armor, but were clobbered). Most of the information I found about Bradley performance during the 2003 conflict was about the aftermath, aka their performance during the insurgency. A large number of Bradleys were taken out by IEDs and their losses helped usher in the greater use of MRAPs.

On the other hand, I did find some evidence of high kills of Bradleys vs Iraqi tanks during the 1991 Gulf War. Again, I couldn't find any "total kills" but I was able to find stats for one specific unit that used Bradleys, the 2nd Cavalry Regiment. This unit claims 159 Iraqi tank kills by the end of the conflict, a 1/3 of which likely achieved during the Battle of 73 Easting (in which they fought alongside M1 Abrams). There are also several somewhat vague claims of of the Bradleys out-doing the Abrams in tank kills during the 1991 conflict (Global Security.com and a site called "Tank Nut Dave") but neither have specific numbers and are vaguely worded.

For example:

Global Security.org claims that in the 1991 Gulf War, the Bradleys took out more Iraqi ARMORED VEHICLES than the Abrams did. Problem is, "armored vehicles" would mean kills against APCs, IFVs, and tanks.

Then, someone linked that GS page on the Bradley's Wikipedia page, but reworded it to specifically claim the Bradleys killed more Iraqi tanks than the Abrams.

Conclusion: I suspect this talk of Bradleys achieving more tank kills comes from the 1991 Gulf War, and could very well be true but I can't find any official Army sources/reports/references to state that, let alone provide stats to back it up. The only sources of this claim seems to be vague statements on third-party websites.

Let me be clear though, I'm not discounting the idea of ATGM-equiped IFVs being useful, far from it. Such vehicles are real "force-multipliers", capable of dishing out a lot of pain from a single, small(ish) package. The Bradleys are effectively both traditional IFVs (capable of carrying troops and able to support them against various light-armor threats) and tank-destroyers. A single Bradley could dismount 6-7 soldiers, engage & take out other APC/IFV with their 25mm cannon, and engage main battle tanks with a twin TOW launcher (with 7 rounds on board).

In fact, the Soviets didn't have a real equivalent to this kind of force multiplication until the development of the BMP-3, which while a very different design, has many of the same capabilities (dismounting troops, taking on light armor using the coaxil 30mm cannon and engaging heavier armor with the 9M117 Bastion missile and their 100mm cannon).

I was wondering the other day if they mounted this:

on this:

They would have a killer in their hands. It is a very small and agile vehicle, hard to track and shoot by a tank specially in an uneven plain while having ATGM launcher with object tracking capacity, enables it to fire its missiles on the run. It lends itself well to IRGC's asymmetric tactics

 

[Hack-Hook]

I was wondering the other day if they mounted this:


on this:

They would have a killer in their hands. It is a very small and agile vehicle, hard to track and shoot by a tank specially in an uneven plain while having ATGM launcher with object tracking capacity, enables it to fire its missiles on the run. It lends itself well to IRGC's asymmetric tactics

that's just a technical demonstration , it need a lot more refinement and development to reach its true potential and can be used in actual combats.

 

[Bahram Esfandiari]

In fact, the Soviets didn't have a real equivalent to this kind of force multiplication until the development of the BMP-3, which while a very different design, has many of the same capabilities (dismounting troops, taking on light armor using the coaxil 30mm cannon and engaging heavier armor with the 9M117 Bastion missile and their 100mm cannon).

The Soviets pioneered the Infantry fighting Vehicle concept in the mid 1960s with the BMP-1 which was able to transport troops into battle, Provide direct fire support for the troops using its 73mm gun and 7.62mm coax and deal with MBT treat with its 9M14 Malyutka ATGWs. No other vehicle at that time had these 3 capabilities.

 

[Malik Alashter]

I was wondering the other day if they mounted this:

This is something.

 

[eagle2007]

Bahram Esfandiari,

Indeed, the BMP-1 was as ground-breaking AFV to be sure. In fact, the appearance of the BMP-1 was one of the primary triggers for the Bradley's development.

Sadly, it was also flawed (fuel tanks that doubled as doors, difficult to operate ATGM, and a main armament that had a heavy punch but slow reaction time/limited practical range. Some of these problems were addressed with the BMP-2 (main armament and ATGM).

The loss of a heavy-hitting cannon with the BMP-2 was then rectified in the design of the BMP-3, which aimed to achieve all the elements the BMP-1 had championed in a modern package. This required a total redesign, with the BMP-3 retaining almost nothing from its predecessors. Two cannons (one fast firing, one heavy-hitting), a built-in ATGM capability (no external reloading necessary), better armor and hull design, and thanks to a new engine, no loss in mobility.

 

[SOHEIL]

 

[VEVAK]

Vevak,

Not sure what you're talking about concerning "smart" tank shells. As of today, the only "smart" aka guided munitions used by tanks are ATGMs launched via the cannon. While this technology has been tinkered with by the US (see MGM-51) in the past, they're not in widespread use. Russia/USSR on the other hand has been widely produced since the 70s. The Israelis also developed the similar LAHAT. After the failure of the MGM-51, the US largely abandoned the idea of cannon-launched missiles.

If you're talking about various kinds of KEP (kinetic energy penetrators) shells, I wouldn't necessarily call them "smart", though they were truly game-changers when they first introduced into widespread use decades ago. While they do certainly cost more than more traditional HEAT/HE shells, they're nowhere NEAR as expensive as ATGMs.

For example, the M829A4, the latest variant of 120mm depleted uranium shells, cost ~ $10K each. On the other hand, typical US ATGMs (TOWs & Javelins) cost $60K / $150-200K (depending on order size) each respectively. That makes KEP shells, even those using exotic material like depleted uranium, is MUCH more cost-effective than relying too heavily on ATGMs.

As to whether Bradleys out-did Abrams in tank kills in the 2003 Gulf War, I've spent several hours hunting in vain for any sources to verify that idea, but no luck. There's no doubt the Bradleys definitely 'got some', but how much isn't clear. I have seen this claim on the net before but always as Army folklore. Unfortunately, the Army rarely publicizing such stats (assuming they bothered to collect it at all).

Don't worry where I get my info from the fact is at the end of the day in 2003 ATGM's used by Special Forces & Bradley's killed more Iraqi tanks than the Abrams

Also what you call ATGM fired from Tanks I call smart round because although they also use rockets for propulsion but still they use a small explosion for initial takeoff and this causes noise

I'm not saying Abrams were useless! They were very useful and did many things but their main use was NOT to go after Iraqi tanks! The Abrams came into play once they got into Urban areas to bring down walls and hitting building where enemy troops were hiding in and they did take out many regular vehicles and some APC but NOT MANY TANKS!
US doesn't want to admit this fact because it's not in their benefit to do so

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Impressive work

 

[eagle2007]

Vevak,

Oh I'm not going to worry about where you got your "facts", since your inability to back them in anyway shape or form disqualifies them as facts and just makes them "claims" and nothing more. Should you provide us with something more tangible, that will change things but for the moment, "claims" they shall remain.

I was only attempting to see if your claims about the Bradleys kill record was correct or not, for which I found absolutely nothing concerning the 2003 Iraq War (contrary to what I found for the 1991 Gulf War). If we're just talking about total ATGMs kills vs kills by Abrams, that's a whole other question entirely.

Concerning the "smart rounds". Here the rub. From how your described them before, it makes it clear you were talking about "smart rounds" fired from tanks right? See below for context:

Also, regular cheap tank rounds could not guarantee the outcome of the battle so they had to rely on smart rounds that cost as much as an ATGM so in 2003 on the ground ATGM's became the main Tank Killers because not only did they have a faster reaction time but newer ATGM had greater range and made less noise when launched

Here was my original point: US doesn't use tank-fired "smart rounds"/cannon-fired ATGMs. In fact, the only time the US had tank-fired weapons of that kind was the M60A2 and M551 Sheridan Light tank (both used the MGM-51). The M60A2 was phased out of service back in 1980 (it was a failure) and the M551 fired a handful of rounds in 1991 War and was retired by the 2003 War. The Abrams has never had a "smart round" as you describe it. There have been ideas for such in the past (Israeli LAHAT, the XM-1111) but neither were/are in use by the US let alone used in combat. The Abrams use "plain old" tank shells, nothing too fancy (except the depleted uranium of course..).

So, what exactly were these "smart rounds" you were referring to again?

 

[VEVAK]

Vevak,

Oh I'm not going to worry about where you got your "facts", since your inability to back them in anyway shape or form disqualifies them as facts and just makes them "claims" and nothing more. Should you provide us with something more tangible, that will change things but for the moment, "claims" they shall remain.

I was only attempting to see if your claims about the Bradleys kill record was correct or not, for which I found absolutely nothing concerning the 2003 Iraq War (contrary to what I found for the 1991 Gulf War). If we're just talking about total ATGMs kills vs kills by Abrams, that's a whole other question entirely.

Concerning the "smart rounds". Here the rub. From how your described them before, it makes it clear you were talking about "smart rounds" fired from tanks right? See below for context:



Here was my original point: US doesn't use tank-fired "smart rounds"/cannon-fired ATGMs. In fact, the only time the US had tank-fired weapons of that kind was the M60A2 and M551 Sheridan Light tank (both used the MGM-51). The M60A2 was phased out of service back in 1980 (it was a failure) and the M551 fired a handful of rounds in 1991 War and was retired by the 2003 War. The Abrams has never had a "smart round" as you describe it. There have been ideas for such in the past (Israeli LAHAT, the XM-1111) but neither were/are in use by the US let alone used in combat. The Abrams use "plain old" tank shells, nothing too fancy (except the depleted uranium of course..).

So, what exactly were these "smart rounds" you were referring to again?

DARPA is developing self guiding bullets so if your under the delusion that the U.S. doesn't have guided tank shells then your way off! Just because they don't advertise something it doesn't mean they don't have them!

It's common sense if you have laser guided & GPS guided Artillery shells & your on the path of developing self guided bullets does it really make sense to you that you wouldn't have guided rounds on a multimillion dollar tank? Clearly they do but admitting that you do means your allies who purchase these tanks would want them too and that is a tech US may not want to share!
Russian & Chinese tanks can fire ATGM's do you think the US is just going to stand still and have other tanks have an upper hand especially where they know ATGM's have the upper hand? Clearly NOT!

What I know for a fact is that on the ground ATGM's used by US Special Forces & IFV killed more Iraqi tanks in 2003 than the Abrams did! That is something I know FOR A FACT! so what you think means nothing to me!

Another thing I know for a fact is that in 1991 Bradly's that were sent out as scouts showed how valuable ATGM's were against other tanks in Tank combats
There ATGM's could better see and target the enemy with a faster reaction time and since ATGM's made less noise it increased their survivability and they could better hit moving targets

This doesn't make Tanks useless! As I said they were used to take out walls and with shotgun like pellet round they did a lot of damage and did take out some Iraqi tanks but taking out Tanks in large Tank vs Tank battles was NOT their responsibility and it was not what the US intended for them in the 2003 invasion and ATGM had far more Tank kills than the Abrams and that is a FACT you can take to the bank!