The news last night showed Iraqi army tanks rolling toward Mosul, when an ISIS suicide bomber in a pickup truck collided with one of the tanks and then detonated.
Question: Would this have done any appreciable damage to the tank? During the collision, the tank (probably weighing 100,000+ pounds) appeared unmoved. OTOH, the truck could have been loaded with 1000+ pounds of explosives. My guess is no armor penetration, but could the blast wave have rocked the tank severely enough to damage it or injure the crew within?
Tanks are designed to withstand direct hits from armor-penetrating shells, which I believe would deliver more punch to a smaller area of the tank’s surface and armor. AFAIK, the only thing that has a chance of stopping a modern battle tank is a truly huge explosion, like a 500-pound shaped-charge shell, or an anti-tank sabot round, which attempts to drive a nail four feet long through the crew and engine compartment. The late cold war strategy for stopping Russian tanks en masse was high-radiation tactical nukes.
I’d bet the crew was shaken up and possibly out of effective action for a time, but I doubt the tank was stopped in battle terms.
The answer is, it depends. It certainly can take out important bits of the tanks which will render it non-mission capable. The treads, engine and optics are more vulnerable than the buttoned up crew. If the tank isn’t buttoned up overpressure from a big explosion could be a big problem.
One official stat from 2005 (2 yrs into the Iraq War) for US tanks was that 80 M1 tanks had been destroyed or badly damaged by all causes enough to require depot repair (though mostly the latter*). 5 crew members had been killed inside those tanks due to roadside bombs, 10 more partly exposed in open hatches. Even modern tanks often operate with the commander partly exposed, when any big explosion nearby could cause death or injury no matter how strong the tank is. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-03-29-abrams-tank-a_x.htm
*tank loss stats tend to be murky, it was true even in WWII, between tanks knocked out of action but repairable and those totally destroyed. And some pictures/videos from Iraq of destroyed US tanks are ones disabled and abandoned then destroyed by US forces. They were still lost, but it’s hard to gauge the effect of insurgent weapons in directly destroying them. Some US accounts say no M1’s were destroyed by enemy action in the Iraq War and later Iraqi (and then captured ISIS) M1 total losses where the first. But some specific accounts seem to describe total destruction by enemy action of at least a few US manned M1 series tanks.
“before 2014 no M1’s had been destroyed by enemy action”
And a tank on the move, with the crew not thinking they’re engaged, may not be buttoned up.
Also, isn’t the commander often standing up at his station through the turret hatch? (Again, when not engaged.) In that case, he’s pretty exposed to blast and fragmentation.
I’m sure we have some actual tank driver types on the board. Hopefully they’ll be along to share experience-based insights.
The losses of tanks by IEDs were mostly if not all due to bombs buried under the road or EFPs. The floor armor of a tank is much thinner than the front or the sides. EFP (explosively formed projectile) is an IED version of a sabot round. Both are much different scenarios than a truck driving up to a tank.
I was an armor officer for 7 years. There are others with more experience than me around here.
Visibility is very poor inside a tank. The tank commander will often trade safety for situational awareness.
There are significant risks to the tank commander not being buttoned up. Do I understand correctly that this is usually outweighed by the utility of seeing potential nearby threats and opportunities? If so, are there some helmet display-based ways in the works to enable the tank commander to have much of the information he’d have buttoned out while staying within the turret? Say, a cheaper version of the F-35 helmet?
Are there some psychological or career-based reasons why commanders may tend to be buttoned out more often than is optimal?
In the situation I described, the tank would have had 30-60 seconds to observe the approach of the pickup truck; presumably they would have taken the opportunity to button up and hunker down in anticipation of a probably suicide bombing.
video here, with collision/detonation around t=30s. The news last night had a better zoom on the area of interest, but I can’t seem to find that right now.
It looks like at least one other tank tried firing on the pickup, and that the tank that the pickup eventually collided with also fired on it, but both missed. Loach, I know that second-guessing in a situation like this is iffy at best, but if the tank crew are buttoned up, would they be able to fire on a pickup truck moving at high speed with a machine gun?
First, absolutely shitty gunnery. I’ll take most of the near misses on a moving target with the fire control of the vehicles it’s most likely to be. Take a look at the vehicle that takes the hit at the 17 second mark in this copy of the video. "Gunner, HEAT, Clouds!!! :smack:
I’m not entirely sure it’s a tank. From what I can see going full screen on this video of the event there’s a BMP and HMMWV running. That motivated me to take a screen capture and blow it up. The turret looks too small for one of the T-55s or T-72s that the IA had in service although I can’t entirely rule that out. It’s pretty clearly not one of the M1A1s the IA has in service. If I had to bet I’d say BMP-1. It’s not Hollywood so I can’t magically blow it up with perfect resolution to see if there are troop doors on the back of the hull or smoke grenade launchers on the rear of the turret.
If it is a BMP, a 13.2 ton Infantry Fighting Vehicle is going to be less rugged than a main battle tank.
The VBIED bounces off and rolls to a stop a short distance away. That helps. It does make me wonder how they triggered it.
Like Loach pointed out the effects are going to be variable. Explosions are freaky and it was a big one. Any turret crew riding open hatch (on the T-55 that could have included the loader) had plenty of time to drop down. If nothing else it needs some good crew level TLC before I’d fully trust it.
That is a much cleaner video. I concur that is a BMP not a tank. I was going under the assumption that we were talking about an Abrams. No way that truck gets anywhere near American troops. They were lined up like it was a live fire range and had plenty of time to take out the truck.
The possible outright losses (irreparable damage to enemy action) of M1 series tanks to IED’s described in sources seem to have been from EFP IED’s. But unless you have a source other than general personal authority, it would seem less clear that KIA among crews, especially the 2/3’s quoted in that article early in the war that were semi-exposed personnel, would necessarily have been weapons which defeated the armor of the tank. A big blast near a tank can kill crew members without penetrating armor, same as aerial bombs killing tank crews in WWII without defeating the tank’s armor.
Depending on the tank, it’d have to be a pretty big apple. The M1 uses a gas turbine; gas turbines tend to run very lean, which means they move a lot of air for the amount of power they make. Take a look at the picture on that page; I’m pretty sure the big square duct in the center is the exhaust.
There are no cites because the military will not release how equipment is destroyed. A quick open source check of videos from Iraq will show that maybe most of those casualties occurred when large buried IEDs went off rather than VBIEDs which exploded next to them.
)