Houthi-Saleh Alliance Destroys Saudi M1 Abrams Tank in Najran (Video)

Donate

A video, showing a process of destruction of the Saudi M1 Abrams tank with an anti-tank guided missile of the Houthi-Saleh alliance in Saudi Arabia, has been published online.

Houthi-Saleh Alliance Destroys Saudi M1 Abrams Tank in Najran (Video)

Photo: YouTube / Yemen Voice

A video, showing a process of destroying of the Saudi M1 Abrams main battle tank with an anti-tank guided missile of the Houthi-Saleh alliance, has been published online. Reportedly, the tank was destroyed near the Al-Hiljah military base, located in Najran region of Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, according to last reports, positions of the Saudi-backed militants, stationed in Ta’iz and Hajjah provinces of Yemen, were heavily pounded by the Houthi-Saleh alliance. As a result, several Saudi mercenaries were killed, while their military hardware was destroyed.

At least five Saudi fighters were killed in Ta’iz and Hajjah, while one their armored vehicle was destroyed at the same areas. Another military vehicle of Saudi militants was destroyed in the surrounding areas of the Midi desert in Hajjah province, where two Saudi fighters also lost their lives in clashes with the Houthi-Saleh forces. Reportedly, other five Saudi mercenaries were also killed during an exchange of fire with the alliance in Saleh district, located to the east of Ta’iz city.

At the same time, artillery and missile units of the Houthi-Saleh alliance launched a series of attacks on positions of Saudi fighters in the southern part of Dhubab. As a result, a number of Saudi-backed militants were killed in the attacks.

On Monday, the Al-Masira TV-channel reported, citing unnamed local Yemeni military sources, that seven Saudi fighters lost their lives during attacks of the Houthi-Saleh alliance on Ab’ar and Salah regions, located in the eastern parts of Ta’iz. Reportedly, the alliance’s forces also launched attacks on the northern parts of the al-Mahdaf military base and al-Madresa village, as well as on Kars Joubah, located in Jizan province in southern Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, gathering centers of Saudi fighters, stationed in the southern parts of Zabab city near Bab al-Mandab, were blown up by artillery units of the alliance. It was not reported about the number of casualties of the Saudi side.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Ahmed K Hurmizyar

    it seems like a Bradly more than a tank

    • Nigel Maund

      I don’t think it matters very much; an Abrams would have been destroyed in any case as proven by Iraqi models blown up by ISIS near Mosul in recent weeks. The Russians have been working strenuously on this problem as their T72’s were hammered by TOW’s in the Syrian campaign and even the upgraded T90’s have been seriously damaged. Hence, T90’s are receiving extra protection in the form of exploding armour. The new Armata will be much more difficult to destroy. I was intrigued to see the German Leopard 2’s have also been hammered by TOW’s around Al Bab. Once presumes the German’s are similarly addressing this issue.

      • John Whitehot

        that’s not a sure thing at all. Basically any ATGM fielded today can destroy an IFV (like the one in the vid, there seem to be 9 men exiting the vehicle after the hit) from the front if employed correcly. Tanks are very different, the Abrams is not a tin can at all and it’s basically proved by vids shown around the web – most destroyed M1s have received hits to the side or the rear of the turret and hull, very rarely to the front, where the vehicle is mostly armored.

        • Nigel Maund

          Thanks John agreed! The Germans employed the same tactic with their Panzershrecks and Panzerfaust weapons in WW2 against Russian and Allied tanks getting in close and hitting them in the sides and rear, where the armour is at it thinnest. I see the Saudi’s have lot quite a few M1 – A2’s to the Houthi’s with TOW’s in Yemen, so they are vulnerable where you have indicated. The Russians now emply all round reactive armour to protect against the impact of these weapons.

  • Kell

    Yep was thinking the same, Bradley or maybe LAV rather than M1

  • Dusty J Shadle

    If any tank were given to the Iraqis, it would have resembled the old model before the advanced armor and larger gun were used. No depleted uranium composite armor just hardened steel and a less powerful engine. I know Russian military research likely can defeat the armor with some special man portable atgm technology, but there is no way they would even hint at it before actually having had to use it in combat with American forces.
    Bottom line, it’s a fear tactic.

    • chris chuba

      So you are saying that the export version of the M1 Abrams is junk but not the ones used by the U.S. has better armor. Okay but why should any country buy the U.S. made Abrams? They might as well buy the Russian T90, probably a lot more bang for the buck.

      • Dusty J Shadle

        No, not junk, they would still meet NATO specs, but they wouldn’t be as heavily armored or have the newest in electronics, sights, soft kill or communication technology. And buying from the Russians would be the same. Why sell a weapon as good as your own if there’s an even chance that it may be used against you, either by capture or traitors. The T90 has several variants also, and I’m sure one is intended for export. I’m not sure they have reached that stage since the tank is still rather new. It only became official in 1993. Most countries have a basic tank and other weapons of war that will be sold to a non NATO country, so that’s one of the few perks. Sweden, the Netherlands and Denmark all use a version of the leapard 2A- made by Germany. Excellent tanks, Italy and France have their own tanks. The French LeClerc is said to be great too. I’m more impressed by Japanese and south Korean tanks. Smaller, lighter, and about as tough. This could be a resurgence of light tanks. We have a few on the boards too. I’d imagine that gun systems are being worked on. Putting a 120mm cannon in a smaller hull and turret would be touchy. Recoil systems are heavy and crew survival is very important. 40 tons seems to be the new target. Seeing as how a 70 ton tank makes bridges fall apart and really doesn’t help in wet situations.

    • Nigel Maund

      Thanks Dusty. I can assure you the use of depleted is never risk free. I was the top nuclear scientist for a major company and the US use of the A10 warthog with depleted uranium ammunition was one of the chief causes of serious illness and cancers among Allied troops returning from Gulf Wars 1 and 2. Its one very nasty metal when it gets into the body. The U 235 is never totally used up with 30 – 40% remaining in the ammunition, so its very dangerous stuff; see this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium. When it hits armour at high velocity it vaporizes as a cloud of micro – particles and spreads out in the desert sands as toxic dust. This is then becomes airborne especially in the Harmatan winds at the change of seasons from winter to summer and can then be ingested via the lungs. Even 0.3% U 235 is very dangerous to human beings and the ammunition should be banned by international convention.

      • Dusty J Shadle

        I’ve suspected that could be a cause of the “gulf war sickness” in both armor and weapons. My dad suggested that the NBC equipment would likely be calibrated to see emissions off of weapons and armor as ambient background readings and only a few would know the truth. I know that he has never trusted the government since he enlisted in April 1968 and discharged from the army in 1973. He saw lots of experimental weapons come down the tubes and they never stop coming. He suggested the use of molybdenum in composite armor plates but knowing it’s not as readily available, why waste DU? People are disposable to most large nations and cheaper than technology. I find it odd that people are currently both disposable and invaluable for some tasks only because of out mobility and problem solving. Both of which are becoming more and more closer to being equalled and eclipsed with technology.

        • Nigel Maund

          Dusty, I’m also an experienced mineral geologist and can assure you moly does not pose any major risks compared to 0.3% U235 in depleted uranium ammunition this is 3000 ppm (parts per million) or over 200 times what is considered safe. This material would be radiating at very unsafe levels around attacked armour and vehicles and moreover it vapourised on impact with the armour plate of tanks and is widely dispersed at microdroplets which become airborne in the desert wind / sandstoms and then is ingested through the lungs and digestive system. Medically it’s a complete nightmare. If the US and allied troops understood this they’d go bloody ballistic.

  • Nigel Maund

    These TOW type anti – tank missiles are very effective. Previous videos I have seen of a Russian version of these TOW’s against M1- A2’s belonging to Iraq resulted in spectacular destruction. Very interesting indeed. One wonders what the Russians may have up their sleeves they’re wisely not releasing outside the Russian forces and keeping very quiet about; especially as the international bankers – corporatists who control the US and their puppets such as the Clintons and McCain are hankering for war with Russia by any means possible. Even Trump is being manipulated to go along with the narrative and agenda – frightening! I don’t think we have long to go before the neocons create a massive false flag event in Ukraine or Estonia.

    • Dusty J Shadle

      It’s a mess. I know trump doesn’t want war, but it’s mostly a shadow government controlling things. Crazy but true. I dislike the international bankers and their puppets just as much as Putin. We can’t be free with their interference.

  • ‘Ol Woodenshoe

    Yes, this is a very poor quality video,! not that I expected a Hollywood quality type, and it’s pretty hard to make out much detail. But it appears to be painted in a sand colored finish to me, and I seem to see a T.O.W. launcher box on each side of what is probably a turret which then would indicate it to be a Bradley Fighting Vehicle which has very thin penetrative type armor. In fact I think it might be aluminum, though most have been retrofitted with reactive armor, but they still do not possess anywhere near the resistance to anti-armor projectiles that the M1-A2 and A3 have. Also there are no secondary explosions which if it were an Abrams, we would see the burst panels at the rear of the turret give way to vent any flames from the main gun ammunition is stored or flames from the fuel and there is none of that.

  • ‘Ol Woodenshoe

    Also I see no date anywhere on the video or in this report, which tends to weaken any credence to its accuracy or proper identification.

  • Salahudin Ghafoor

    is this true? Or another fake news by almasiera.