0 $
2,350 $
4,700 $
1,090 $

ISIS Blows Up Abrams Main Battle Tank near Mosul (Video & Infographics)


The ISIS-linked Amaq news agency released a video on October 24 that depicts a destruction of the US-made Abrams M1 main battle tank near the group’s Iraqi main stronghold, Mosul. The battle tank was reportedly blown up with the Kornet ATGM (anti-tank guided missile).

The event took place at the Qarayyah crossroa, south of Mosul.

ISIS Blows Up Abrams Main Battle Tank near Mosul (Video & Infographics)

Click to see the full-size map



Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • pbs01

    blast doors on top of the turret bussel worked as designed. Crew might have survived.

    • chris chuba

      I hope so but it doesn’t look good. That was a pretty good fireball and some ferocious burning afterward and the missile was not providing fuel for that fire. I doubt that the guys in the turret had any chance, maybe if there is a crewmember in the main part of the tank but even there I’d think that air would be in short supply.

      • Ted

        Watching video second time it looks like hatch is open up top, behind top mtd HMG, if so then most likely crew in turret were cooked, Driver may of had a good chance.

      • Nexusfast123

        That is a myth created as marketing PR to sell it to people like the Saudis.

    • Stavros Hadjiyiannis

      The whole tank was lit up like a flare. Can’t see how everything in it wasn’t charred completely.

      • Ted

        The tank uses internal compartments, the ammo is behind turret separate area, behind blast doors. The roof of which is designed to give way to the explosion of the ammo and directs it skyward. The driver is also separate of rest of crew. All areas are well sealed off from one another. The automatic fire suppression would also kick in to try and save crew. That all being said the Kornet is an outstanding weapon, so it is very possible in could penetrate into the turret? Its a tank not a anti tank missile safety capsule. Unless another video shows the inside we would never know? Other tanks have taken similar hits cooked off ammo and crew got out ok. Some they did not.

        • Brad Isherwood

          We saw the Turk M60 upgrade sitting on a hill like it was kings throne.
          2 were wasted in minutes by ATGM.
          Same for Saudi kills on YouTube. ..sitting ducks.

          Unless the Tank just pulled in and ISIS were nearby and surprised.
          The command that position …failed to consider …..that position.

          • Ted

            I would venture to say any tank in production that gets a solid hit by ATM is going to have a very bad day!

            I have seen similar if not the same videos of the Turks Sabre. The newer ATM systems were created to destroy newer versions of tanks and they do that very well. I have also seen videos where tanks have taken hits but survived. Abrams the T90 video and Merkevas in Lebanon. Usually the tanks that survive are taking the hits to the frontal armor, its strongest point, in some cases you see the missiles bounce off and away.

          • Brad Isherwood

            Attack Helicopters like Russia’s with missile jammers going to make the bad day
            Continue for tanks.
            Gulf War vs Saddam was lizard plinking tanks from above. …Not much threat to A 10s.

            Tanks with Air defence cover can grind up an opponent.
            Egypt did that to Israel in 1973 Yom Kippur war.
            Their SAM coverage was limited….so was their offensive which failed when Egyptian
            Armor went out beyond SAM umbrella.

            Both Syria and Egypt chewed up IDF tanks with then Era ATGM and RPG.
            Israel’s Barak Brigade was decimated down to less than 20 tanks…which
            Actually held in a bizarre reality where Syrian Armor passed them and stalled
            An offensive for lack of operations directions.
            IAF fell on the Syrian Armor with Heavy Napalm attack. ..
            Syrian military lost cohesion.

    • The ammunition inside the tank seemed to explode also, so its rather difficult

  • paul

    I don’t have an expert eye but from what I saw the Kornet seemed more
    than a match for the Abrams M1 – the tank looked destroyed to me.

    • VGA

      Well, it got hit at its most weak side, the back.

      Also, important to note that iraqi M1 tanks are much weaker and less modern than current M1 tanks in US service.

      • Just like the WW2 German “King Tiger” tank. The Allies defeated it by hitting it from the rear or bypassing it with superior numbers of their much inferior M4 “Sherman” tank.

        • VGA

          Well, the King Tigers were mostly bombed from the air. The Luftwaffe was practically non-existent in the last couple of years of the war.

    • stabbytheicepic


      Blow out panels did what they were designed to do. Ammo cook off, tank survied and could have been driven away.

    • Tom Tom

      Ah, nah, just a scratch. Rub some dirt on it.

  • Yep, looks pretty destroyed to me – so much for the invincible M1.

    • Nada Troll

      We didn’t sell Iraq the M1A2(SEP) We sold them a different version WE could destroy using the M1A2(SEP) if the need ever arose again.

      • Gary Sellars

        pffftt… butt-hurt Yankistani is upset over the death of another over-priced piece of septic junk…

  • Ted

    Good god, every time one tank is destroyed you get the same crap! Squak about how that’s proof they are junk or proof they are the best! Pure BS! No tank is invincible. They are simply tools, when the SU24 went down I read the same crap about how it proves Russian planes are junk!
    The M1 is for sure one of the best tanks on any battlefield.

    For any fool who would suggest that this proves some great weakness they would be beyond understanding. For an easier understanding, lets just say that is why they call it an anti tank missile!!! If the US Army believed their tank was invincible do you think they would have built 7,000 of the things?

    • Mitic Slobodan

      Dead on.

    • Joseph Scott

      Actually, the F-117’s loss rate during Allied Force is pretty unimpressive when you consider the loss rate for other aircraft types. I read 850 sorties for F-117s, with one lost and two damaged beyond repair. By contrast, plain old F-16s flew 4500 strike sorties with one lost and a debatable number damaged. In other words, the F-117’s loss rate was over 5 times higher than the F-16. Stealth remains a poor substitute for basic manoeuvre performance and agility, and hence, the criticisms of stealth technology has some merit.

      • 888mladen .

        F-16 have hardly been challenged with up to date fully armed combat ready Russian fighters of the 4th generation. All the countries where they have been used are third world counties generally equipped with 3d generation fighters like Syria. Also pilots’ combat readiness has been by order of two digits sorties per year due to sanctions imposed by US and NATO. Here is what happens when F-16 faces a serious challenge by an experienced pilot in the seat of properly armed and maintained equally matched fighter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzpRh6-OS0I

        • Joseph Scott

          Well, I would agree that all of the F-16’s encounters with Russian 4th Gen aircraft (MiG-29s, specifically), have involved very poorly maintained export model aircraft flown by minimally trained pilots mostly used to being directed by ground control, armed with outdated missiles, and can hardly be considered representative of the the aircraft’s capabilities. The Serbian ones had malfunctioning radar, RWR and in some cases even engines. The Iraqi ones were flown by pilots who had literally no idea how to manoeuvre, or any inclination to fight. By all available information, MiG-29s, Su-27s, 30s and 35s have superior manoeuvre envelopes to F-16s, and given comparable avionics, ECM, weapons and most of all pilots, I would expect the F-16 to suffer an unfavourable exchange ratio with any of these. I know that German and American pilots that flew both found the MiGs the better flyers, and preferred their F-16s only because their 1990s western avionics were much better than 1980s Soviet avionics. Obviously, that says little about what the VKS is flying now. By all indications, current Russian avionics are top quality.

          Regarding the Greek Mirage 2000 vs. the Turkish F-16, one engagement doesn’t tell you a lot. Mirages climb faster, and go higher, and have a higher maximum speed, but F-16s have better overall acceleration, and I would expect a better turn rate. Which is better is more a matter of circumstance, avionics and tactics. I wouldn’t expect Mirages to shine against what the Russians are flying these days either. The French managed to lose one to the Serbs in 1995, and considering the much smaller sortie rate, I would be inclined to say that either the F-16 as outfitted by the USAF in 1999 is more survivable operating against an ground-based air defence networks than a French 1995 Mirage 2000. Maybe that was better avionics.

        • Aaforman

          “Turkish F16” is the main issue, as they are no where near the level of a US Block 40+ model, or even a F18 Rhino for that matter

    • 888mladen .

      Serbs have taken down B-2 Spirit of Missouri using low frequency radars and receivers.
      They could have taken more but they were not allowed to just like Syrian air defense was not allowed to take down Zio jet fighters with S-300 because Russia was not happy to escalate the conflict with Zionist entity in the south which is understandable. However a few have been taken down anyway just to send a message to Tel Aviv and they all were F-16s.
      NATO losses in Serbia: http://www.truthinmedia.org/Bulletins2000/tim2000-5-1.html

      • Aaforman

        None of those are reliable sources, even Russia is denying the losses of Israeli F16s you stupid conspiracy theorist

      • Bob Jones

        Only one B2 was ever lost, and it was due to a wind storm in Guam. All registered serial numbers have been accounted for in every conflict. Even modern radar can barely detect the B2, and it only detects it… long wave radar does not produce tracking for weapons. The only way it’s visible to weapons tracking is when it opens up for bombing… which, they typically only do for enough time to dump and run.

  • Freedom_For_All

    Yep , but by US made weapons we sold them …… Evidence that US has and is supplying weapons to ISIS Muslims , which are really just doing what the Quran tells them to do…. Kill unbelievers in the Present Tense in their Blood Cult book ….

  • Kristy Rain

    Right in the slot! just past the ‘click’! thst was an incredible hit! rightbetween the turret and chassis! *BOOM!*

  • Nexusfast123

    Tanks can only survive on the battlefield with anti missile systems and infantry support to suppress missile teams. Without that they are sitting ducks and that includes the latest US version. Its delusional to think otherwise.

    • Shhh

      Well said. ATGM are cheap . A late model tank is $ 7,000,000 but a decent ATGM is only $10,000 to $ 50,000. So 150 to 700 ATGM can cost the same as one tank.


      Completely false. American tank crews are extremely well trained in different techniques and tactics to be the most lethal machine on the battlefield. Are they completely invulnerable? Obviously not, but to say they can ONLY survive on the battlefield with anti tank missile systems and infantry support is an uneducated statement.

      • John Whitehot

        anti tank gunners are trained too. so are tank crews of other countries.

    • charlesjannuzi

      Right foot soldiers are going to run around faster than tanks and dictate where tanks are deployed. LMFAO.

  • Ivan Natividad

    It looks like it was hit from turret bustle mean it was hit in ammunition compartment. They crew could well be still alive and survive inside.

    • Tom Tom

      cooked to a crisp

      • Ted

        Any proof? Was there a follow up video?

  • Loveyou

    USA gave these weapons to Al-Nusra in Syria and Al-Nusra gave it to ISIS. The chicken has come home to roast.

    • john mason

      The Kornet is Russian.

      • Tom Tom

        paid for by U.S.

  • This whole war is a farce. Someone is supplying them with very advanced weapon systems, that was not a firework. But it’s not just the advanced missiles, its even the simple ammunition for their guns. I have no idea where it’s coming from but these rebels cant make it themselves. If the world powers wanted this war over it would have been over years ago. Ammunition doesnt last forever, its heavy to carry and you cant make it yourself. The global arms industry is doing what it does best, selling huge amounts of small arms and ammunition to misguided idiots in the fields and using the war to showcase and test their advanced toys. This war was created by the big boys for whom its just a game. Do the western states truly believe that if their citizens were armed to the teeth similar racial and cultural conflicts would not ignite into a similar civil war? There should be a full trace on that particular weapons manufacture and sale and charges made against whoever let it out of the factory. Its called traceability. I garauntee the pentagon are writing a report up on that incident. In the Afghan war the USthought the majadeen would never be able to use the SAM systems as they had 18 operation steps, but they figured it out a treat.Also, if a majadeen missed 3 times they were executed. What do you think the discipline on these systems is? Who taught him the multiple steps to fire it? In the report it will detail how easy it was fora person to fire and whether they spoke English etc. Its all recorded so they know exactly how to let them into the field in a later date. My guess is that US missile systems come with both English and Arabic instruction manuals these days.

    • Ted

      Just for the sake of, they are not that complex. If you can run a smart phone the weapons are pretty simple. In many cases they do not come with written instructions but instead with pictures posted on them. The instructions are like a comic strip. The shelf life of similar systems are in the 15-20 year range depending on how stored. Small arms ammo? This can last a long time 50 or 60 years not a problem.

      That being said there is no doubt this fire has fuel being poured on it from all angles.

      • Absolutly, but when i said they dont last what i meant is that they get used, they run out. sure their complexity might be simpler, i just saw them on you tube being fired, but they are still complex, you need to assemble them on a stand, pointing in the right direction, with caps off and all that.

        i am not sure that the rebels dont realise that they are being played like pawns. given just enough to encourage them to put up a fight against someone that will mince them all.

  • Shhh

    The ATGM traveled 11 seconds at 800 feet per second or about two or three thousand meters. Maximum Range is 5 kiliometers to 10 kilometers depending on model . It attacked from rear the ideal positions.
    A $20,000 missile took out a 5 million dollar tank.

    • 888mladen .

      8800 feet == 2682.24 m. Kornet max range 5000 m, Kornet-EM 8000 m anti-tank, 10000 m thermobaric.

  • Shhh

    There are tunnel rings surrounding Mosul . . The Abrams tank passed missile crew hidden deep in low recess. The soft ground keeps the Abrams from entering soft sand or it gets stuck. The missile crew attacked from behind. The crew may or may not be killed even though entire ammunition cooked off. The Abrams designed to release explosion of shells externally not into crew compartment.

    • Gary Sellars

      …except if the ATGM ignites HE rounds stored in the bustle. Emergency vents don’t protect the crew against over-pressure from HE rounds detonating against the ammo feed hatches…

      • Shhh

        Thanks .That is interesting.Loss of ammo makes defense difficult as well.

  • Gary Sellars

    They light up nicely…

    It’s a glorious feeling – being able to warm ones hands on a cold desert morning with the hearty radiance from a smouldering Yankistani tank…..

    • Aaforman

      You seem pretty uneducated, it’s clearly an Iraqi model, which means it lacks both DU and Chobham composites, along with the Zeiss optics that set the difference between a US and Iraqi M1 platform. If you did a little research on weapon systems, armor, and fire control, you’d easily accept the M1s superiority

    • Aaforman

      Jesus I only had to look at your profile and already can tell you’re a delusional russiaboo that will say “hehehehehe yenkestenni” since you have no actual arguments backing said claim

  • Aaforman

    While yes, this is an M1A2, it is not a SEP as shown in the article, it is a downgraded model lacking DU or Chobham

  • Tribunal-Orders-Rape

    The missile went straight for the hot engine bay of the tank. Not the ammo bustle of the turret. There is only a very small possibility that the tank crew survived the conflagration.


    This is all kinds of mislead information. For starters; The image displayed is an M1A1 definitely not an M1A2 SEP. Secondly; This is OBVIOUSLY a controlled explosion, stop falling for blatant propaganda.

  • lighthorse16

    ISIS did this? No wild exaltation praising Allah? fyi “Coalition” actors are on the ground in Iraq and I wouldn’t put this past them. If you didn’t already know, the Western and Saudi alliances support, train and arm ISIS.

  • john

    Looks like they hit it in the magazine, which is designed to blow out the back and not into crew compartment. Also, being that its probably not u.s. manned im sure its not equiped with chathem armor…i dont believe we sell that stuff.