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.
