Why the M1A1 tank is not effective in Irak insurgency war?

Answer 1

Today's modern tanks were designed with the Cold War and a Warsaw Pact/Soviet enemy. The tanks were made to with stand Kursk style tank battles were the front slope and armor thickness were all important from incoming tank shells and anti-tank missiles. Tanks were also designed for quick movement (the M1A1 Abrams can do 70mph) and lightning strikes in OPEN territory such as fields and plains.

The battles in Iraq aren't open battles. They are being decided by IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) that essentially serve as landmines which have long been a tank's nemesis. Also, the few pitched battles that do take place have occured in heavily urbanized areas which take advantage of weak spots on a tank's armor by providing the enemy with exceptional cover and vantage points.

Unless someone who is actually there can contradict me, I would actually much rather be in an additionally armored APC such as a M2 Bradley rather than a cumbersome M1 Abrams tank. With this said, the only cure for IEDs is infantry detection and this is probably why we see such high casualty rates from these devices.

Answer 2

The tanks job is to destroy other tanks and enemy hard points. In an insurgency war there are no tanks and few hard points so it doesn't make sense to use the M1A2 Abrams. It cost too much to maintain and move other vehicles like the Bradley can do the job more economically. It should also be noted that tankers don't like street warfare as anybody can sneak up behind you and shoot you in the back or side from a window or behind a wall or even from manhole covers. Thus why risk losing a 5 million dollar tank and it's crew doing a job it isn't meant to do.

Answer 3

The M1A1 Abrams is heavily armored at the front and sides, but is lightly armored at the top and bottom. This tradeoff is necessary because if you designed an invincible tank, it wouldn't be able to move at all. This also means it can be defeated by land mines and those IEDs which are commonly used by the insurgents. They can also be defeated by Soviet RPG-7s, which can penetrate the tank's armor if it hits at the top. Plus Iraq's urban environment makes it difficult for the tank to maneuver, resulting in it being a sitting duck for the enemy.

Answer 4

Well... note that is designated a "Main Battle Tank" !! As others have pointed out... it was designed for open area tank-on-tank battles !!

That big MAIN GUN isn't really suited for shooting at people !! And since it's an "insurgency"... we're trying NOT to just blow entire buildings away !!

The simplest analogy would be it's like using a shotgun to kill flies... on your cow !!

Answer 5

The US military is bad at predicting future wars, forces were designed to fight a communist Russia in open battle, the M1A3 is the newest version of the Abrams tank but it is still designed for open field combat. If it fires it main round at an Iraqi structure the round ends up going straight through it and a few more buildings as well.

Answer 6

It is not effective in close combat situations such as urban environments. Besides, a main battle tank is great for projecting dominance and during an occupation but the US is working alongside the Iraqi government, not usurping it.

When assisting the government it is best to not project force and look like an occupational force.

Answer 7

It would be effective if, by chance, it happened upon an incident. But the tank can be seen and heard coming (if you were an insurgent and knew this tank was coming or nearby, would you continue to act up?)

Answer 8

Tanks in general are more suited to conventional warfare as opposed to gorilla warfare or insurgencies. Where the people are the prize, destruction should be kept to a minimum.

Answer 9

kinda hard to drive a tank, and have it actually be usable down city streets.
Plus... I could see the bitching now if it was used to blow away an insurgent...

Answer 10

The same reason German Mark IVs were useless in the rubble of Stalingrad....urban warfare.