via Janes..
The armour on five of Iraq's M1A1 Abrams tanks was penetrated by anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) and six helicopters were shot down between 1 January and the end of May, The New York Times quoted an unnamed US official as saying on 13 June.In the above photo the ammo compartment is operating as designed. Its deflecting the blast out and away from the crew so that doesn't excite me much.
The official said 28 Iraqi Army Abrams had been damaged in fighting with militants, five of them suffering full armour penetration when hit by ATGMs. The United States supplied 140 refurbished M1A1 Abrams tanks to Iraq between 2010 and 2012. While they have new equipment to improve situational awareness, they do not have the depleted uranium amour package that increases protection over the tank's frontal arc.
The penetration of a tank's armour by a shaped-charge warhead increases the likelihood of crew casualties, but does not necessarily result in the destruction of the vehicle, especially if it has a dedicated ammunition compartment, as in the case of the Abrams.
However, the US official said the Iraqi Army has problems maintaining its Abrams, suggesting it will struggle to get damaged tanks back into service.
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.
What does concern is the fact that freaking RPG-7's are able to penetrate a MBT.
Here is where I vacillate.
The US Army had the good stuff and those weapons were able to penetrate their tanks...the ones with the DU armor (the briefings said that the anti-tank crews firing the rockets must have had training on where to hit those tanks but still...).
If you can pin a MBT with an RPG then does that mean the IFV concept is dead? Doesn't it make sense to transport infantry to the edge of the battlefield (ala the classic battle taxi or armored personnel concept) and advance on foot instead of transporting them onto the objective and fighting from within the vehicle? Does the USMC need to follow the Army's lead and push ISR assets down to the Battalion level (I'm talking about Predator sized assets not these hand launched systems) so that we can better protect our vehicles from anti-armor teams?
I don't know.
"What does concern is the fact that freaking RPG-7's are able to penetrate a MBT."
ReplyDeleteThe RPG-7 launcher my its self is an simplistic ingenious design, the only need that you have to change is the rocket propelled grenade , new types are longer ranged and have a more powerful warhead then the original rounds from the 60ties
For example : http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk130/thrul2008/munitions_rpg7.jpg
The thermobaric round is said to be as powerful as a 122mm artillery shell. Some newer rounds have a range of 800m, and a range of sophisticated new sights can be mounted.
Heck, even the US is manufacturing a new version :
http://world.guns.ru/grenade/usa/airtronic-usa-rpg-7-e.html
The US sells downgraded arms foreign countries. This is why an RPG-7 was able to penetrate through the armor of the Iraqi M1A1, because the armor was downgraded.
ReplyDeleteThis is the reason why able countries want to develop their own weapons, because they don't want the downgrades that the US imposes on export model arms.
This doesn't mean that US-spec tanks and armored vehicles in US services won't be able to resist an RPG-7 hit, because they can with upgraded armor.
Deletei wasn't clear. the US Army lost M1A1's to RPG-29's. those were the full on, depleted uranium armor models.
Deleteas far as foreign models are concerned, i've heard it said quite a bit but no one has produced documents to back up the claim . the only model of M1 tank that i've seen documentation indicating that it was not full on equal to US standards is the Egyptian models.
which begs the question. why would they or anyone else want M1's if they're detuned when they can get Leopards, LeClercs or some other model that is full strength.
Solomon
Delete> why would they or anyone else want M1's if they're detuned when they can get Leopards, LeClercs or some other model that is full strength.
- Egypt : They bought their M1 with US military aid. US military aid money could be spent only on US arms.
- Iraq : Iraq was basically under a US occupation and the US advisors to the newly formed Iraqi army "advised" them to buy American tanks. The Iraqi government was in no position to decline the US advice back then.
But you are right, the countries buying tanks with their own money and free of American pressures opt for Leopard 2s or build their own.
RPG-7's were penetrating US Abrams tanks in the initial 2003 invasion. This isn't a new issue, or one confined to monkey-model export hardware.
DeleteThe IFV only came about as the result of cold war planners trying to figure out how troops would survive and fight in an NBC-contaminated environment. Without an NBC threat, there's really no reason to concentrate your troops in armored boxes when doing the actual fighting. One doctrine does not fit all.
"which begs the question. why would they or anyone else want M1's if they're detuned when they can get Leopards, LeClercs or some other model that is full strength."
DeleteGood question Solomon
To answer it, there is a reason why many countries DONT buy and operate Abrams tanks. The only ones that do are ones that have forged dirty deals with the United States (such as Saudi Arabia receiving Abrams tanks to pay off ODS debt). Besides australia, who operates only a tiny number of abrams tanks, the only ones that do are fucked up oil dictators and crony allies to US big oil.
What are other countries buying? and why?
Leo 2s- a quality, very reliable, and cost effective system
T-90s- Inexpensive, very reliable, high mobility
T-72- Inexpensive, very reliable, simple/robust.
Or finally, they're testing/producing their own indigenous models.
Its also telling that Saudi Arabia was going to buy the Leo2A7 (designed for MOUT/low intensity operations), but probably wont get them due to objections from the German government. Why is this important? because Saudi Arabia knows that with its oil production decreasing, and the house of Saud being in a particularly perilous situation, and neighbors all around them either in civil war or teetering on collapse, they're in for a deep swim in the shit pool and need as much as possible to preseve order.
The T-90 is a good tank. Its not a great tank but for the price, its a great workable solution.
DeleteAs regards cross country mobility, it does get left behind by the 65 ton Arjun which is essentially an Indian Leopard 2.
In gun accuracy, agaiin the Arjun Trumps it.
In flanking manouveres, again the Arjun trumps the T-90.
The Arjun also has a much better Fire control system and sights for the gunner and commander.
And it also has that extra +5 degrees of elevation and -2 degrees of Main Gun Depression. You;ll need gun depression when trying to lob HE rounds at basement openings. And you'll need elevation to get to the rooftops.
Having riden in both the Arjun and the T-90 and the T-72, believe me....the Arjun is a class apart. Much much more stable firing platform for that main gun even over broken terrain.
But, the T-90 still holds its own, atleast in exercises. How true it holds in combat is yet to be seen. Ditto for the Arjun.
@notruescotsman, it is my understanding that there isnt a single defence deal that isnt dirty. Unless you are a Scandinavian School Teacher, the Defence Trade is dirty all over. BAE should know.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how long gonna take to these dudes lose their su-25 and the mil mi28.
ReplyDeleteI think most of the times where we see tanks blown-up by RPG teams there is a lack of infantry support. From what I've read of the Iraqi M1 losses, the crew weren't buttoned up and were engaging with hatches open.
ReplyDeleteSinai in 1973, Grozny in 1994, Irag in the 2000s, Lebanon in 2006, Syria 2010-onwards, Iraq 2014 on. When you rush in tanks without infantry dismounted and screening against other infantry panzer-jaeger teams, this is what you get.
Tanks are designed to take on other tanks primarily. They are not designed to spot anti-tank teams.
And I think in this regard, the Russians are far more advanced in counter-measures to anti-tank tactics and weapons than the West . Laser warning receivers, active measures, IR counter-measures, slew-to-cue weapons, armor skirts, reactive armor. Then there are the anti-infantry BMPT tanks designed specifically for taking out ATGW teams.
the biggest thing the US has added in protection to tanks is slat-armor. We keep talking about active-measures we can add to our vehicles like the IDF does, but we haven't done it yet.
You need layers of active and passive countermeasures in addition to sound combined arms tactics for protecting tanks. the US has stalled in terms of tank development. We can't expect to hide behind DU and slat armor while AT weaponry keeps advancing.
Where would battalions launch/land/maintain Predator drones? And with so many new AT weapons being able to fire from enclosed spaces, they can stay under cover and out of sight of drones.
Situational awareness with new battle information systems, Millimeter-wave ground radars, fast slew-to-cue weapons, dazzler lasers, need to be added to the mix of countermeasures.
The Abrams doesn't play so well with infantry close-in, as its turbine engines will cook anyone standing just behind its rear, or on the engine deck. The new ones have an infantry phone bolted to the turret (because it can't go on the rear), but this is still a pain to use.
DeletePoint being, the Abrams was never designed for the types of operations it's asked to undertake these days. It's also maintenance-intensive, in an F-35 way. Something like 50-60% of the Army's vehicle maintenance budget is spent to keep them running.
Not only do we lack the active protection systems, but excluding M1 TUSK, which ISN"T standard, the M1 didn't even have reactive armor until recently. The US had a means to equip it with these measures, but didn't for a variety of reasons.
DeleteThe most glaring deficiency of the m1 is its weak anti-infantry/anti-obstacle means. HE and HESH rounds exist for the Rheinmetall 120mm cannon, although the US has a disease called NIH-syndrome (not invented here!), and they introduced the HE-OR-T, which is a modified HEAT round and still vastly inferior as a obstacle clearance round.
because god forbid, you actually convince tankers that their more likely purpose on 21st century battlefield is to support infantry and destroy emplacements, not go toe to toe with hypothetical advanced Soviet battle tanks (which dont exist).
While I am not aware of the effectiveness of the M1 against Infantry or that particular piece of ammunition, any tank developer that ignores the "PBI (Poor Bloody Infantry) Effect" is doomed. Any military that uses tanks alone without infantry support is also doomed.
DeleteThe purpose of a Tank Corpsman is to tear a nice gaping hole in the enemy defence. It is first and foremost a Break Out weapon to be used like the tip of a spear if i can use that heavily used phrase. What a tank does after you capture a country and try to pacify it is a Secondary Role. Untill our generals basically change the way wars are fought, the Tank will always be a Break Out Weapon.
I don't think RPG-7s are much of a threat to MBTs, in Iraq British Challanger IIs were able to survive over 80 hits from them from all angles without any penetrating, one of them took out some sort of periscope or gun sight but the tank just shrugged them off. Even with the American Abrams's armor supposedly being inferior to that of the Challenger I doubt that it'd be at much of a risk.
ReplyDeleteThe Challenger is exceptional in this regard.
DeleteBullshit . Very basic 60's RPG can cut trough cca 350mm of solid rolled steel armor, newer models cut trough 500mm and in tandem versions era+500mm ,tank armor might be thick in frontal sector but anywhere else you are looking at far less thinckess much of the armor is quite thin maybe 100mm but spaced (turret sides) ,problem with RPG and luck of many tankers is that it needs to score a hit at a good angle for the cumulative warhead to do its work. So when you go babling about 80 hits its ither complete bulshit or none connected which seems unlikely Challenger being a square box, a solid hitwith a modern RPG will penetrate just about every area but the frontal armor on hull and turret.
DeleteAmerican operated M1s and Challengers both have Chobham ceramic armor, the earliest variants of which are supposedly 5x as effective as rolled steel. The Challenger II's Dorchester armor was put into service ten years after the earliest model so it can be assumed that it is more than 5x as effective as comparable rolled steel (Dorchester armor is supposedly 5x stronger than the original ceramic armor). So even if the turret sides were 100mm thick it is still highly unlikely that even the most powerful RPG could penetrate,
DeleteThat's also negating how the properties of the ceramic tiles shatter HEAT warheads. On balance however it's also ignoring Chobham armor's poor multiple hit resistance.
The M1 and Chally 2 have different armor. Regardless of what wikipedia says and what tankers say, they DONT have the same armor!
Delete"composite armor" and "Chobham armor" are different but are frequently interchanged because nobody examines the differences in detail. Chobham armor is composite, yes, but not all composite armor is Chobham.
The M1 uses laminate steel. Steels of varing densities, hardness, etc. Later generations incorporated depleted uranium, which is conceptually flawed on its own, but that is a entirely different beast that deserves its own thread.
Chobham is similar, except it uses ceramic layers, which is particularly useful to "absorb" shaped charges like RPGs.
Back in 1989, I read where some American soldiers were exploring an abandoned Soviet army base in the former East Germany. On a barracks wall they saw a large poster with an M1 on it with the title: "How to Kill an Abrams". and showing all the vulnerable points.
ReplyDeleteIFVs tend to come in two flavours.
ReplyDeleteIn the normal doctrine, soldiers from inside it.
In the UK doctrine, soldiers always dismount and the IFV supports them
Fighting from them is pretty much a dead concept in my opinion, and has been for a while, that the Israelis felt they needed the Namer to move around a battlefield, let alone fight on one evidence enough for me. But they face some pretty extreme challenges
Fighting with them is a much bigger question, would a proper Infantry Support Tank and a proper APC work better? Possibly
How sustainable either is given the vulnerability of the vehicles is, pretty dire.
"which begs the question. why would they or anyone else want M1's if they're detuned when they can get Leopards, LeClercs or some other model that is full strength."
The reason why people might be hesitant to sell their best, is the worry that the kit will find its way in to a third party's hands, if you sell pakistan 100 fighter radars, they might let chinese technicians play with them.
One of the reasons for the failure of the maginot line was France built a mini line in Czecholovakia, which the German army practiced blowing up.
But as you say, theres a lot of people selling tanks, so its a buyers market, and if one side wont sell it, the other probably will
I dont think its a case of detuned, so much as not being the deluxe sports pack.
Tanks are pretty modular, and if you are on a budget, its easy to cut corners.
Steel is cheap and armour ceramics are not, if cost is a factor, its easy to skimp, not to mention laser range finders, night sights, infra red, and decent ammunition, although obviouly only the armour is directly relevant to this.
There are several ways to "kill" a tank with an RPG-7. The simplest way is to blow the tracks to create a "mobility kill" followed by wave after wave of grenades to a single point. RPG-7s do come with a shaped inverted cone penetrator option which if used enough will defeat any armor. They aren't particularly accurate rounds though, so it generally takes more than insurgents have on hand, generally.
ReplyDeleteTanks will always get lost. The key is to build them with balance. Building them so expensive that you can't afford to lose them is a mistake. As an aside, you already know how I feel about the M-1. How do you really defeat M-1s? Wait a few days, cut off their fuel. Their logistics needs are staggering. Their time between failures: ditto. Meanwhile...it might not be as survivable and have lots of flaws, but the T-72 (used as an infantry tank and not to fight other tanks (Rommel) can chug along for a much longer time with much less logistics and maintenance. Oh, and most other tanks show up to the fight with an affordable, HE-only round as opposed to U.S. M-1 tank ammo that was meant to gouge the American tax payer. As for the M-1 ammo storage, its survivability was based on 105mm ammo and is at higher risk with 120 ammo (only certain rounds can be put in certain containers). And really, the M-1 has trouble when people that can read and write operate it (us). Monkey-see, monkey-do training for a bunch of illiterates makes the M-1 significantly less capable. I would be curious to see how many of them are abandoned because the 2 or 3 guys in a unit who were the sharpest dull tools in the bag, had left or were otherwise occupied.
ReplyDeleteI feel the same way you do about the M1. It is designed to kill hypothetical advanced armor (what sovietologists were conjuring up in their vivid imaginations during the 1980s) and is too tank-centric. Tanks need to be able to support infantry in addition to engaging armor. Solomon has vehemently disagreed with my comment before, which deserve repeating, "homo-erotic tank-tard fascination with tank on tank combat in Kursk-like struggles".
DeleteIll also add that the Iraqi army's choice to acquire them was absolutely fucking stupid. They would have been far better off with the more practical and reliable T72, with reactive armor and anti-personnel/anti-obstacle-centric ammunition loadouts, than the M1. Much cheaper to maintain and operate as well (especially among the iraqi army which is well known for its illiteracy and incompetence).
In regards to Eric's response, I think some of you need to read this: http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars
ReplyDeleteThe US needs to start building and deploying simpler more cost effective to operate weapons systems. The list of systems from land, to air, to sea, that are "draining" the operating budgets dry is appalling.
ReplyDeleteThis isnt the first time American Tanks have been lost while being operated by untrained/semi-trained people.
ReplyDeleteFor that matter, this also isnt the first time Russian/Soviet tanks have also been lost while being operated by the same untrained/semi-trained people.
I am sure even Jordan lost some of its mighty Centurions in the Arab-Israeli conflict. What is abundantly clear is that.Tanks are useless unless a Military actually knows how to use them. France did not know how to use tanks in WW2 and look what happened. Soviet Union forgot their Mechanized Philosoply due to Stalins Officer purge and look what happened there.
This isnt a matter of ATGM's and RPG's penetrating tanks but a matter of how they are being used and under what circumstances. Even the bulk of German WW2 tanks were machine gun Panzer 1's and light cannon 2's. Easy meat for the Char 1B's and the excellent French 75mm field gun. But look what happened in the end.
Its not the equipment, its the untrained army left to fend for itself waaaay too soon. Before it could mature.
Just remember one thing................Since the inception of warfare, since the day one person picked up a rock and threw it at another........Offence has always been better than defence. The weapon has always had an edge over the armor. Sword vs Chain/Lorica Segmentata etc. Bullets vs Kevlar etc. Hit repeatedly, armor will give way the same as rock giving way to water if you are a geology buff.
ReplyDeleteAnd to this day, the ability to hit has been more than the ability to withstand.
IFVs and tanks will always be able to be taken out somehow, by something, that doesn't mean soldiers should drive around in tin cans, armour-vs-arms development is a constant race. Now existing vehicles like the Abrams, Challanger and CV9040s have held up quiet well against the older ATGMS, and most loses are due to ambushes in urban areas and improper technical usage (i.e. leaving hatches open and other stupid stuff).
ReplyDeleteAgainst the newer ATGMs probably not-so-much, but keep in mind there range in a portable version is limited, pretty much relegating them to urban warfare, and they are effective due to top-down attacks, in response fleet operators need to procure active-defence systems, to restore the balance. When you get into the urban area, then you dismount the infantry, maybe... When you are in open-fields, the IFVs/tanks are king.
Keep in mind that there are many cases where IFVs like the Cv9040 and tanks like the challanger have done really well against ATGMs, and these vehicles
Its bassically saying that the enemy has new weapons, which make ours not so good anymore, and choosing whether to not have any weapons, or to get newer ones to counter theirs. Defence is a constantly evolving industry.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIm skeptical of the RPG7 claim. Even with the newest warhead, the RPG7 has demonstrated that it is unable to penetrate modern armor due to its smaller shaped charge (HEAT) warhead, which modern laminated steel (such as the Abrams) is designed to defeat.
DeleteProbably newer generation RPGs. I know the RPG29 is a particularly deadly piece of equipment that CAN squash a Abrams.
It does nothing to undue the credibility and viability of IFVs or MBTs. When those tools are properly employed, even in urban warfare, they are devastating against infantry. Any crippled M1 or modern tank can be caught on fire with enough properly placed RPGs behind its engine compartment. Since the Abrams uses a delicate gas turbine usually fed by 500 gallons of gasoline, the result of fire hazard is undeniable. Its use of hydraulic motors to traverse its turret is also a disadvantage of the M1 (modern tanks utilize electrical drives; this is because Israel found out that a significant number of tank casualties were due to hydraulic fluid related burns).
The disadvantages of the vehicle coupled with the sheer incompetence of its crews yields bad results. The crews, more than the vehicle, are at fault.
That might be the case for frontal armor but 70+% of the tank armor is bellow 100mm thick and has no ceramics . A good angle hit of the RPG will still imobilise tank or kill a crewman ,crews are just lucky that 90+% of the RPGs encountered so far were fired by rag tag enemy with no proper training on the system or the job of tank killing.
DeleteThere is a video on youtube of a RPG-30 team penetrating a US Army Abrams tank turrret.
DeleteThe similar warhead in a RPG-29 should do the same. However look at weight. The PRG-7 weighs 7kg. A RPG-29 weighs 18.8 kg.
So in the end we have migrated from 10-15 ton APCs and are now pushing up to 30 ton APCs. This has required enemy infantry to move from a 7kg anti-tank rocket to a 18.8kg anti-tank rocket. So yes everything has gotten bigger but that is to the west's advantage because we can build more powerful engines, people have not changed.
Compare only the weight and the type of the warheads !
DeleteNot the whole system.
That is definitely true mr T. Many people erroneously call the Abrams armor "chobham" (even the armor community), when it is just laminated steel with a DU "net", which is weaker against shaped RPGs than real chobham armor as defined as being interlaced with ceramic.
DeleteI know that newer RPGs will penetrate a Abrams, especially the 29. Im not sure about the newer ones, but i imagine them to be only more effective, being particularly designed to defeat reactive armor.http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/11/20/rpg-30-unveiled-the-m1-abrams-killer/
This is just a sign that with increased sophistication of hand held launchers, active protection tech will have to kick it into double time because armor will lose its decisive edge.
Why would people buy the Abrams ?
ReplyDeleteActually, the reasons to buy Abrams are a lot more than you think. Some genuine reasons, some bad. Lets list them out-
1.) I dont think anyone out there has the power to match or better the US FMS and the terms of finance offered if the Americans are actually interested in making a sale.
2.) The LeClerc stopped production on France after a limited number were built. I dont even think that project broke even. Could be wrong but it takes immence effort to re-start a defunct factory and hundreds of component contractors in France.
3.) The German Leopard 2 is combat untested. Sure it was in Afghanistan, but no where near the experience that the Abrams, Challenger and the T-72 have seen.
4.) The Abrams isnt going anywhere until the 2040's atleast. Thats an incredibly long tech. tree from the country which has the highest chances of going to war every now and then. All that experience mated with a prolonged tech tree.
5.) The US is amongst the very few countries out there who make tanks in profitable numbers. Their chief tank plant is still huffing and puffing out refurbished tanks and other mod jobs. The experienced hands are still there. The Abrams is still cheaper to produce in USA than the Arjun is to produce in India.
6.) With US equipment comes the reliability of spares for decades. Think about it- many an American platform gets ignored on this regard- C130, Chinooks, Huey/Iroquois, M-16, M14, P-3 etc.
7.) If you actually buy enough weapons from the USA, you will get the ultimate goal. The ability to form a Lobby and legally bribe US congressmen (Israel). How cool is that.
8.) Monkey Export versions or not, that tank still looks like an effective fighting vehicle.
9.) Quality.
Since the Challanger and LeClerc (which is very expensive, but otherwise allegedly a very good tank) are out of production, this really only leaves the Abrams and Leopard from the west, with the Altay (turkey), Arjun (india), T10 (japan) and T72/90 (russia) as the only real options.
DeleteI would look at the indian/turkish ones, the Japanese would probably be good (and lighter) but cost more and their continued support be less certain, if you were dirt poor and had little experience, the T72/90s would probably be very good, especially if you can get some factory refurbed units, and they have good protection systems. They all have their pros and cons, but the american and german ones are probably the most expensive to buy, operate and maintain...... The Altay is probably very similar, up there with the Challanger/Abrams/Leopard but for much less.
I cant help but feel that Iraq would have been much better off with the cheap and dirty, but easy to maintain and field in large numbers approach of the relatively more reliable T-72/90.
People don't buy Abrams unless its part of military aid package,they rather stick to Leopard if they can
Delete1. You forgot Merkava. Whether or not Israel wants to export Merkava (or anyone wants to buy one is another subject). This is one tank that's currently in production and suitable for austere condition. Plus a room at the back!
Delete2. Again with Israel, it's not about the crate but the person behind the crate. How many wars in the past have attacking arab army attacked Israel with newer, more sophisticated tanks and in vast quantities. Look what happened to them? Israel had old tanks but their gunnery was second to none. Their tank officers knew what to do. During Yom Kippur, they were outnumbered but their mechanics and fitters patched and fixed up damaged and destroyed tanks.
You can have the best, newest and most dangerous tanks in your arsenal but if you don't a have a good tank crew inside, you're toast.
@Mr.T-
Delete"People don't buy Abrams unless its part of military aid package,they rather stick to Leopard if they can"..........This just proves the 1st point i mentioned. The financials of FMS make them very viable.
@Mark Kram-
On the Merkava, it is my understanding, and i could be wrong that the USA doesnt want Israel to push the Merkava into the export market. They recently did put up the Merkava on some Defence Expo for export but thats very recent.
The Leopard 2 is a good tank, but its controled by finniky politicians deriving votes from a population that is Anti-war. That is a very bad condition for exports. Gone are the days of the German Type209 Submarine which was built specifically for exports and sold left right and center.....no questions asked.
If I remember it correctly, the Iraqi M1 Abrams is a downgraded version, thus it is not similar to the ones used by US military.
ReplyDelete