US Army Abrams Tank on Fire in Baghdad. No Comment From the Military.

[leftchick]

It doesn't look good.





Huge flames come out of a U.S. army Abrams battle tank, ieast of Baghdad, Iraq, Friday, March 10, 2006, after a large explosion set fire to it. The U.S. military had no immediate information on the incident and on casualties. (AP Photo/Hadi Mizban)

[0007]

1. It does look nasty. I hope all persons are safe and sound.

[obreaslan]

2. Nothing to see here....

Move along. No Civil War here, no way. LOOK! A blond girl just disappeared!!!!

...Fox News will return after these messages from McDonald's.

[wakeme2008]

8. didn't you get the memo... Red headed girl this quarter

[Teaser]

3. Do you see the treads dangling behind it?

geez

[leftchick]

4. I was wondering about that...

and given the blackout of information there are probably casualties.

[Zech Marquis]

5. my god...

it takes some serious explosive power to do THAT kind of damage on an M1 battle tank...if a full crew were onboard at the time, I don't know how many would have survivied that one

[Swamp Rat]

6. Oh CRAP! I hope everyone got out of the tank OK!

[sofa king]

7. Wow, that doesn't happen very often.

Prior to this disaster of a war no M1 Abrams had ever been destroyed in combat (except by friendly fire). No crew had ever been killed inside of an Abrams. At least, that's what "they" said.

Several have now been destroyed in Iraq. One story (which quickly disappeared) claimed that the driver of one was shot when his head was out of the hatch while crossing a bridge, which caused the tank to roll over the side and into the river, killing most of the crew.

But when there's a couple of million really pissed off people staying awake at night figuring out how to destroy one of those things, someone's going to come up with a good idea sooner or later. I hope the crew made it out safe this time.

[leftchick]

9. how many soldiers are in a tank?

I hope they all got out.

[underpants]

17. 4

driver-in the front actually. They ride almost horizontal to the ground

in the turret

gunner-in front of and below the Tank Commander
the TC-tank commander (highest rank usually an E6 and above)
and the loader (usually the lowest rank)

the TC and the loader are directly below the hatches. The gunner has to wait for at least the TC to get out. For the driver to get out the turret has to be turned around I think into the retrograde position.

That being said I think they had more time than you would expect. In this sort of situation time goes slower than it would normally seem to. Best wishes to them of course.

[leftchick]

20. that sounds claustrophobic

I could never handle that. I am hoping they all escaped unharmed. It seems as though they ditched the tank afterward? I don't see US personnel around it.

[sofa king]

22. You know there's something else to be said...

The M1A2 is a main battle tank; the MBT's primary purpose is to confront and defeat other tanks on the battlefield. Being used as an anti-infantry/terror weapon is its secondary purpose and its design compromises the secondary purpose in order to best meet the first. It's too wide, too heavy, and its barrel turns in too big a circle for fighting in cramped city streets; it also tears up road surfaces and wears out tracks fairly quickly. One might even argue that one of George Patton's Rennault tanks from 1918 could do the job better.

Now that I think of it, I'm somewhat surprised that we haven't taken a page out of the Germans' book in Iraq. No, I don't mean setting up a puppet government or exploiting the nation's natural resources or setting the monetary exchange rate artificially high in favor of the occupying nation--we're doing all that already. But in France, the Germans snapped up all those burned out and abandoned French tanks and put them back to use as anti-infantry weapons for the occupying forces. That allowed their own MBTs to go off and start another war somewhere else. I guess General Dynamics didn't agree to the idea.

[underpants]

29. Maybe all the old Iraqi tanks are too crispy at this point

I really can't see Gen.Dynamics NOT wanting to build more M1's.

Good point about the M1-I get the feeling that they are more for leading infantry into streets and a general presents. I have seen some footage of the M1s firing into buildings and such. I think they are adapting quite quickly.

[Aristus]

24. Yeah, I crewed an M1A1 tank in the Gulf and you're right;

In order for the driver to get out, the turret has to be traversed over to the rear of the tank. And not just the rear, but precisely over one of the rear light assemblies. This is because of the position of the entryway of the driver's position or "driver's hole". When the driver is in position, a heavy wire-mesh grating closes behind him to protect him from the traversing of the turret. Nice, but if the tank goes up in flames and the fire-suppression system has either malfunctioned or failed to put out the flames, the driver is in big trouble. Even the gunner has an easier time of it once the tank commander has exited. He can just reach up to the TC's hatch and haul himself out. If the TC is conscientious, he'll help pull him out. The driver is pretty much on his own in an emergency.

[underpants]

28. Fire

if there is a fire and suppression system kicks in won't the driver have a hard time breathing? Fire suppression in the Bradley that I was in basically was a chemical that sucked all the oxygen out of the area.

Just asking.

I was a gunner in a Bradley in a Scout troop-Division recon. I got there just after the border (Germany) "closed". Those tanks do ride smooth but then compared to a Bradley the race to Dakar withOUT shocks would be a smooth ride.

[Aristus]

30. You're right about the fire-suppression system sucking all the

oxygen out of the air. Theoretically, all the crew members should be out of the track within seconds of the first blast of fire suppressive; a crew member then releases the second blast from a pull-handle on the hull of the tank. In practice, well, the tank is difficult to get out of under the best circumstances. I'm glad I never had to find out the hard way...in combat.

I must have forgotten that you were a Scout, underpants; that was a group of guys I really respected. I thought they were crazy field-fanatics, but I respected them.

[txwife]

32. Everyone is ok

Actually, the driver is normally the lowest rank, followed by loader, then gunner, and TC.
The tank that was destroyed was part of my husband's company, and he was one of the first to arrive after the IED hit the tank. The crew was able to exit the tank before it caught on fire...it seems that the fire was just an after affect of the IED going off. It happened near Sadr City, and things really haven't calmed down since... Thankfully everyone is unharmed...tanks can be replaced, our soldiers can't!

[Divernan]

10. Got a link for the photos? Did AP not include some text?

nt

[leftchick]

12. here is the Yahoo photo link

the only text is the caption. http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/1479/im:/060310/481/bag...

[Trevelyan]

11. We need to do more about REALLY supporting our soldiers

They can't speak out so we must speak for them and continue going to Vets sites like Veterans for Peace who have an very good Impeachment petition citing Nurenburg law and to find out about Vets problems.

The soldiers are the ones who protect us and we must protect them from the Bush/Cheney cabal's attempts to destroy our military.

[Vinca]

13. Who are you going to believe? Rummy or your lying eyes?

He says Iraq is hunky dory and the only problem is the media getting their reporting wrong. Our poor soldiers.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

31. how come nobody reports the countless Abrams that aren't on fire?

we'll bring you that story when Fox's fair and balanced coverage returns after this message from Lexus.

[HamdenRice]

14. I think the first was in Gaza ...

This is kind of a educated guess, but I vaguely remember a few years ago a news report that Palestinians had figured out how to destroy Israeli tanks in Gaza, and I believe that the US supplies M1s to Israel.

Just more evidence that the Palestinianization of Iraq is proceeding under the neo-cons.

[leftchick]

15. I think the Pentagon is doing some covering of the tanks vulnerabilities

page missing at the link....

Defense Review - Mystery Projectile Kills M1A1 Abrams Tank, Crew ...The US Army has been at a loss to identify a mystery projectile that penetrated an M1A1 Abrams tank late last year. The round created a pencil-thin entry ...
www.defensereview.com/article491.html - 34k - Cached - Similar pages

[leftchick]

16. The US Army Has lost 21 M1 Abrams Tanks in Iraq....

Another article on vehicle losses in Iraq no longer available. I had to copy from a wing nut site...

Title: Military vehicles, and lives, take a beating in Iraq
Source: Salt Lake Tribute
URL Source: http://www.sltrib.com/search/ci_3513955
Published: Feb 20, 2006
Author: Joe Galloway
Post Date: 2006-02-20 10:01:40 by GO65
9 Comments


<snip>

A little-known cost is in vehicles lost in combat. Just for the U.S. Army alone that number has reached nearly 1,000. The cost for replacing those totally destroyed vehicles and overhauling thousands more worn out by heavy use totals $9 billion in this year's proposed defense budget and in the off-budget emergency wartime supplemental budget Congress passes twice each fiscal year.

Since the Iraq combat operations began in the winter of 2003, the Army has lost 20 M1 Abrams tanks; 50 Bradley fighting vehicles; 20 Stryker wheeled combat vehicles; 20 M113 armored personnel carriers; 250 Humvees; and some 500 Fox wheeled reconnaissance vehicles, mine clearing vehicles and heavy- and medium-transport trucks and trailers.

The bulk of these losses in tracked and wheeled vehicles were to the ubiquitous improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, that the insurgents employ to such deadly purpose.

To that equipment toll, for both Afghanistan and Iraq, add 27 Apache attack helicopters; 21 Blackhawk utility helicopters; 23 Kiowa Warrior assault helicopters; and 14 big Chinook cargo helicopters.

Only 17 of the helicopter losses are counted as combat downings.

The rest were destroyed in accidents.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Heard on NPR that the crew escaped.

Looks like the "failed insurgency" is getting more efficient.

[catmandu57]

19. I doubt that report is true

For a couple of reasons, it was probably a buried artillery shell that did the tank in, and two, npr has became a shill the last couple of years if they told me the sun was shining I'd have to look outside.

[leftchick]

21. it was a roadside bomb...

A U.S. tank burns after it was hit by a roadside bomb in Baghdad March 10, 2006. U.S. troops sealed the area immediately after the blast, residents near the area said. REUTERS/Thaier al-Sudani

[sofa king]

23. My god, how big a roadside bomb does THAT have to be?

Those things are specifically designed to be impervious to near-misses and non-penetrating shot. I think you would need a truly enormous amount of explosive to set one afire.

[leftchick]

25. when you think about it..

there is way more than an enormous amount of High Explosives, think TONS, floating around Iraq thanks to dimbulb.

Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq

The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.

[Selatius]

26. They double and triple stack roadside bombs now

When you run over something like a landmine or an artillery shell converted to be an IED, you're sometimes not just running over one but two or even three at the same time. They did this when we started up-armoring our humvees, and the result is they invented an IED that could cripple even a tank. God help you if you're just in a humvee because your vehicle is going to be torn in half by something that large.

[mattclearing]

27. It was on the news this morning.

Haven't heard anything since.

Figures.