‘Something’ felled an M1A1 Abrams tank in Iraq – but what? [Archive]

View Full Version : ‘Something’ felled an M1A1 Abrams tank in Iraq – but what?

front

10-29-2003, 04:55 PM

October 27, 2003

‘Something’ felled an M1A1 Abrams tank in Iraq – but what?
Mystery behind Aug. 28 incident puzzles Army officials

http://www.armytimes.com/print.php?f=1-292236-2336437.php

By John Roos
Special to the Times

Shortly before dawn on Aug. 28, an M1A1 Abrams tank on routine patrol in Baghdad “was hit by something” that crippled the 69-ton behemoth.

Army officials still are puzzling over what that “something” was.

According to an unclassified Army report, the mystery projectile punched through the vehicle’s skirt and drilled a pencil-sized hole through the hull. The hole was so small that “my little finger will not go into it,” the report’s author noted.

The “something” continued into the crew compartment, where it passed through the gunner’s seatback, grazed the kidney area of the gunner’s flak jacket and finally came to rest after boring a hole 1½ to 2 inches deep in the hull on the far side of the tank.

As it passed through the interior, it hit enough critical components to knock the tank out of action. That made the tank one of only two Abrams disabled by enemy fire during the Iraq war and one of only a handful of “mobility kills” since they first rumbled onto the scene 20 years ago. The other Abrams knocked out this year in Iraq was hit by an RPG-7, a rocket-propelled grenade.

Experts believe whatever it is that knocked out the tank in August was not an RPG-7 but most likely something new — and that worries tank drivers.

Mystery and anxiety

Terry Hughes is a technical representative from Rock Island Arsenal, Ill., who examined the tank in Baghdad and wrote the report.

In the sort of excited language seldom included in official Army documents, he said, “The unit is very anxious to have this ‘SOMETHING’ identified. It seems clear that a penetrator of a yellow molten metal is what caused the damage, but what weapon fires such a round and precisely what sort of round is it? The bad guys are using something unknown and the guys facing it want very much to know what it is and how they can defend themselves.”

Nevertheless, the Abrams continues its record of providing extraordinary crew protection. The four-man crew suffered only minor injuries in the attack. The tank commander received “minor shrapnel wounds to the legs and arms and the gunner got some in his arm” as a result of the attack, according to the report.

Whatever penetrated the tank created enough heat inside the hull to activate the vehicle’s Halon firefighting gear, which probably prevented more serious injuries to the crew.

The soldiers of 2nd Battalion, 70th Armor Regiment, 1st Armor Division who were targets of the attack weren’t the only ones wondering what damaged their 69-ton tank.

Hughes also was puzzled. “Can someone tell us?” he wrote. “If not, can we get an expert on foreign munitions over here to examine this vehicle before repairs are begun? Please respond quickly.”

His report went to the office of the combat systems program manager at the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command in Warren, Mich. A command spokesman said he could provide no information about the incident.

“The information is sensitive,” he said. “It looks like [members of the program manager’s office] are not going to release any information right now.”

While it’s impossible to determine what caused the damage without actually examining the tank, some conclusions can be drawn from photos that accompanied the incident report. Those photos show a pencil-size penetration hole through the tank body, but very little sign of the distinctive damage — called spalling — that typically occurs on the inside surface after a hollow- or shaped-charge warhead from an anti-tank weapon burns its way through armor.

Spalling results when an armor penetrator pushes a stream of molten metal ahead of it as it bores through an armored vehicle’s protective skin.

“It’s a real strange impact,” said a source who has worked both as a tank designer and as an anti-tank weapons engineer. “This is a new one. … It almost definitely is a hollow-charge warhead of some sort, but probably not an RPG-7” anti-tank rocket-propelled grenade.

The well-known RPG-7 has been the scourge of lightly armored vehicles since its introduction more than 40 years ago. Its hollow-charge warhead easily could punch through an M1’s skirt and the relatively thin armor of its armpit joint, the area above the tracks and beneath the deck on which the turret sits, just where the mystery round hit the tank.

An RPG-7 can penetrate about 12 inches of steel — a thickness far greater than the armor that was penetrated on the tank in Baghdad. But the limited spalling evident in the photos accompanying the incident report all but rules out the RPG-7 as the culprit, experts say.

Limited spalling is a telltale characteristic of Western-manufactured weapons designed to defeat armor with a cohesive jet stream of molten metal. In contrast, RPG-7s typically produce a fragmented jet spray.

The incident is so sensitive that most experts in the field would talk only on the condition that they not be identified.

One armor expert at Fort Knox, Ky., suggested the tank may have been hit by an updated RPG. About 15 years ago, Russian scientists created tandem-warhead anti-tank-grenades designed to defeat reactive armor. The new round, a PG-7VR, can be fired from an RPG-7V launcher and might have left the unusual signature on the tank.

In addition, the Russians have developed an improved weapon, the RPG-22. These and perhaps even newer variants have been used against American forces in Afghanistan. It is believed U.S. troops seized some that have been returned to the United States for testing, but scant details about their effects and “fingerprints” are available.

Still another possibility is a retrofitted warhead for the RPG system being developed by a Swiss manufacturer.

At this time, it appears most likely that an RPG-22 or some other improved variant of the Russian-designed weapon damaged the M1 tank, sources concluded. The damage certainly was caused by some sort of shaped-charge or hollow-charge warhead, and the cohesive nature of the destructive jet suggests a more effective weapon than a fragmented-jet RPG-7.

A spokesman for General Dynamics Land Systems, which manufactures the Abrams, said company engineers agree some type of RPG probably caused the damage. After checking with them, the spokesman delivered the manufacturer’s verdict: The tank was hit by “a ‘golden’ RPG” — an extremely lucky shot.

In the end, a civilian weapons expert said, “I hope it was a lucky shot and we are not part of someone’s test program. Being a live target is no fun.”

John Roos is editor of Armed Forces Journal, which is owned by Army Times Publishing Co.

Mortimer

10-29-2003, 06:36 PM

hope it was a lucky shot and we are not part of someone’s test program

yeah i bet the Russians are testing out some of their new gear.

Argyll

10-29-2003, 06:38 PM

Were there any traces of wire around to denote a MRATGW(Medium Range Anti Tank Guided Weapon) such as the MILAN or the Russian version(can't remember the designation),both these weapons optically guided,hence the wires ,reason I ask is that back in the beggining of the War the Royal Irish seized what looked very much like 2 MILAN Firing posts,and that will take out an MIA1/A2,if it's hit in the right place,especially with the K115mm shaped warhead.

Ratamacue

10-29-2003, 06:39 PM

Sounds like a goddamn rail gun.

Argyll

10-29-2003, 06:48 PM

Rail Gun?
You seriouss,are you talking about these weapons that fire 16" shells like 40 miles?
Nope this was something that the person who fired it had to have LOS(line of Sight ) to the tank,probably fired from a defilade position.I'm sticking to my Wire guided theory,if I also remember when I was doing my MILAN DC's cadre in Netheravon SWW,we fired the K115 as it had just come into service,this had an entry hole no bigger than a 50p,maybe smaller,certainly no bigger than a quarter for you US chaps!!

Andyman

10-29-2003, 07:03 PM

that sounds like some scary **** man. Good thing the crew wasn't badly injured.

Ratamacue

10-29-2003, 07:09 PM

I wasn't serious Argyll. I said rail gun because of how far it was able to go into the tank.

marktigger

10-29-2003, 07:15 PM

is it spigot the russian copy of milan (obtained from syria after france sold them to syria to defennd them from the israelis in the 80's)

Haiw

10-29-2003, 07:25 PM

first one to say 'french weapons' gets the cliché award :P

...

10-29-2003, 07:26 PM

I can't believe they cleared this for public release.

Argyll

10-29-2003, 07:31 PM

No it begins with a K...................Kornet.that's it!!
The Russia/Ukraine denied selling them to the Iraqis!!

http://uk.srd.yahoo.com/S=11111254:WS1/R=4/K=Anti+Tank+Missiles/*-http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/SciTech/iraq_kornetFAQ030327.html

http://srd.yahoo.com/S=95996573:D1/CS=95996573/SS=95998202/*http://www.shipunov.com/shipunov-e/atgw/atgw/kornet.htm

http://uk.srd.yahoo.com/S=11111254:WS1/R=3/K=++Kornet+Anti+Tank+Missiles/*-http://www.army-technology.com/projects/kornet/

...

10-29-2003, 07:45 PM

There are some pictures of the damage in the hard copy of the Marine Corps Times (probobly the same in the Army version) they don't seem to be on the net, though.

front

10-29-2003, 08:06 PM

Thanks for the links on the Kornet Argyll.

"According to military experts, the anti-tank version of the Kornet can penetrate up to 3.9 feet of armor and can be launched from as far away as 5,500 yards."

Jesus Christ.

cheers

front

koster

10-29-2003, 08:16 PM

Its not a Kornet, nor a Fagot, if you'll get hit by a Kornet, you are dead, the fire extinguishers won't save you.
Most likely it was a PG-7VL (the PG-7VR is too rare, so, there is no way some ra** could get it) rocket fired from an RPG-7V.
btw, I've seen some of those old pictures, and the hole is too small for PG-7vr, or Kornet (9M133.)
and besides, if Ukranice supposedly sold 5000 of Kornet missiles to Irak, then, there would've been hell of a lot more destroyed/desabled M1's.
just my 2c ;)

EDIT: my mistake, the media says that its 500 missiles, not 5000.

California Joe

10-29-2003, 08:25 PM

The US makes a 5 inch Gun round for use on Arleigh Burke Class destroyers called an ERGM that'll go 65 miles. Not that that has anything to do with this...

GazB

10-29-2003, 10:18 PM

Kornet is in the same class as TOW or HOT. The Russian missile in the class of Milan is Fagot (a Russian word meaning Bassoon... a wind musical instrument) and has the NATO designation of AT-4 Spigot. ie 2-25.km range with a similar launch post design.

"Rail Gun?
You seriouss,are you talking about these weapons that fire 16" shells like 40 miles? "

A rail gun is a set of coils that electricity is pumped through to generate an magnetic field, which is used to accelerate a projectile at very high speeds and is not related to Railway mounted conventional artillery used During WWI and WWII like the Paris gun.

(A good example of a railgun is the weapon in Quake that fires slowly but has blue spirals and an almost instant speed of projectile.)

The RPG-22 mentioned in the article is basically a scaled up M72 LAW except of rather larger calibre... ie 93mm vs 66mm. It is a light disposable weapon that can be made ready to fire simply by pulling a pin... the rubber end covers don't need to be removed, and it doesn't need to be extended to fire.

martinexsquaddie

10-30-2003, 04:58 AM

its probably not MILAN although the Iraqis have lots of milan they probably don't have the latest K155 rounds. There not the most compact of weapons. Plus you can really tell when ones fired. nearly 2k of ornagen plastic control wire will give the game away :)

Chris196

10-30-2003, 06:45 AM

An M1A1 Abrams tank with the 1st Armored Division was hit by enemy fire in Baghdad at 5:20 a.m. on Aug. 28. The paper in the photo covers the hole
http://www.armytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/102303tank01.jpg
The hole in the M1A1 Abrams tank is marked by a circle in the above photo, showing the damage behind the skirt.
http://www.armytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/102303tank02.jpg
A close-up of the mysterious round’s point of entry.
http://www.armytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/102303tank03.jpg
The round penetrated the turret well to reach the inside of the tank.
http://www.armytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/102303tank04.jpg
The round passed through a nuclear, biological, chemical hose inside the tank behind the gunner’s seat and bent the basket.
http://www.armytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/102303tank05.jpg
The projectile then tore a hole in the gunner’s seat
http://www.armytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/102303tank06.jpg
The round pierced the left kidney area of the gunner’s flak jacket. According to the damage report, “The gunner said it
felt like someone hit him in the back with a hammer.”
http://www.armytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/102303tank07.jpg
The round then crossed “under the breech and hit the safety guard,” the report said. The photo shows the entry side of the safety guard.
http://www.armytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/102303tank08.jpg
The round then exited the safety guard.
http://www.armytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/102303tank09.jpg
Next, the projectile slammed into the turret networks box
http://www.armytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/102303tank10.jpg
The round then pierced the breaker panel on the tank.
http://www.armytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/102303tank11.jpg
The mysterious projectile finally buried itself in the hull of the M1A1 Abrams tank on the opposite side from where it entered. The hole is 1½ to 2 inches deep.
http://www.armytimes.com/content/editorial/editart/102303tank12.jpg

Argyll

10-30-2003, 06:51 AM

Wow!!
Now these pics are pretty dramatic!!
Theory No 2!!!
Super velocity Round fired from an "Anti Material" Rifle?
I've read somewhere that these are like mini sabot rounds,but whatever this was Its defiantely worth getting worked up about that's for sure!

ShotOver

10-30-2003, 07:07 AM

Some kind of new Airsoft gun, crazy Iraqi kids.

Mr Gently Benevolent

10-30-2003, 09:07 AM

When I first read the post I thought shaped charge warhead using the newer molybdenum liner but after seeing the damage yep I would say sabotted flechette. The Steyer AMR 5075 when undergoing trials sent a 36 gram/ 1.25 ounce flechette through 40mm of rolled and face hardened armour at 800 meters, its not likley to be a Steyer but maybe an up graded Gepard type weapon. You anti tank people out there will know much more than me but I would expect to see a lot more spatter and scorching inside the tank if a shaped charge was used.

RED33wspc

10-30-2003, 01:35 PM

From the pic's that is not a shaped charge. If you notice the sixth picture down the seat is not burned. A shaped charge's molten metal would have set the seat material on file or left a noticeable burn mark on it, I would think. To me it looks like a solid object went thru the seat. Also notice the fuse box has a large amount of damage not one hole that would be expected from a shaped charge. My explanation would be the following. If you look at the new 50 cal round from Norway (I can't think of the spelling, Rousuff or something like that ). where you have a high explosive AP round. If you take that of tech knowledge and apply it to a larger round like a 23mm or larger you might see that type of penetration. Just a thought.

Mr Gently Benevolent

10-30-2003, 02:09 PM

Does anyone remember the 20mm single shot rifle made by a company in Utah, US I saw a reveiw of it once but cannot remember any other details

If you are interested in Raufoss ammo try these sites:

www.biggerhammer.net/barret/raufoss/

www.nammo.com

Mr. Nielsen

10-31-2003, 08:37 AM

Perhaps a bypassed BMP-2 with a 30mm gun?

Seraphim

10-31-2003, 09:59 AM

Maciek

10-31-2003, 01:46 PM

Maciek

10-31-2003, 01:53 PM

50cal

http://www.nammo.com/medium_calibre/gfx/20.jpg

MP is functioning about 20 - 30 cm inside the target giving approximate 20 fragments through the 1,25 mm steel plate.

woot woot woot

Maciek

10-31-2003, 01:56 PM

50 cal. MP NM140
Penetration 11 mm Armour in 45o at 1000 m
Fragmentation Approx. 20 effective fragments after hitting 2 mm Dural

Too small to penetrate Abrams side

Fliptape

10-31-2003, 02:13 PM

if it was a SABOT the probobly would have found sabot shrapnel inside the tank, and the ricohcets would have done serious damgae to the crew

RED33wspc

10-31-2003, 04:25 PM

I am not suggesting that it was a 50 cal. I am saying that the same type of round as the rasufoss but in a larger caliber. As far as setting of the fire suppressions system, I do not know how it works so I do not know what is needed to set it off. I also do not know why there was not more fragmentation of the projectile in the vehicle. The projectile did buried its self in the far side which would eliminate it bouncing around and injuring the crew. I am no expert. Just calling them as I see them.

Mr Gently Benevolent

10-31-2003, 04:36 PM

Fliptape the sabot would have separated from the flechette / penetrator before it hit the target unless it was fired at very close range even then the sabot would have seperated from the penetrator outside the tanks hull.
I am no expert, but I have seen a lot of witness plates and test rigs for anti tank weapons and shaped charges.

budanski

11-06-2003, 11:45 PM

Mystery Projectile Explained
Strategypage (http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=htarm.htm)
The "Mystery Projectile" that caused the penetration of an M-1 tanks side armor was probably a Russian RPG-7V or similar type light anti-tank rocket with a HEAT warhead. What caused the damage appeared to be an improved version with wave shaper in the HEAT warhead. The pictures of the penetration show classic HEAT warhead circular flash and light material splash (aluminum or similar from outer warhead casing) in a roughly circular area and at between 500 - 800 mm radius around the penetration hole. It also seems as if the entry hole on the skirt plate has a ragged and enlarged hole. This is consistent with wave shaped warheads that do not have optimal performance at point of impact as the jet is still being focused. In pictures 2-5 there is virtually no spalling around the inside exit hole and immediately adjacent interior equipment. Only items directly in penetration path has been punctured or splashed with molten copper (see gun guard picture). It appears as if the jet was disrupted and started deflagrating by interior components spaced effect and material compositions. The last picture shows residual heat discoloration on the switch box, which is typical of molten metal heat transfer and short-circuit effects as can be expected when you send conductive liquid or particles into an electrical box.

The damage done is similar in appearance to that done to other armored vehicles that have been penetrated by an RPG-7. In this case, the round hit one of the few areas on the side of the tank that was vulnerable to penetration by an RPG round.

ibstolidude

01-08-2004, 02:25 PM

A shaped charge's molten metal would have set the seat material on file or left a noticeable burn mark on it, I would think. To me it looks like a solid object went thru the seat. Also notice the fuse box has a large amount of damage not one hole that would be expected from a shaped charge.

Actually a stand off shapecharge can leave multiple holes...especially the further it penetrates.

Here is a standoff shaped charge.
http://www.digitalstar.com/stolidude/OriginalImages/279684ORIG.JPG

Here is before the point of impact:
http://www.digitalstar.com/stolidude/images/279670.JPG

the point of impact/entrance:
http://www.digitalstar.com/stolidude/OriginalImages/279682ORIG.JPG

the exit before:
http://www.digitalstar.com/stolidude/images/279683.JPG

the exit as you can see it is highly fragmented comapred to the entrance:
http://www.digitalstar.com/stolidude/OriginalImages/279680ORIG.JPG

similiar from ontop of the engine block produced similiar results.
http://www.digitalstar.com/stolidude/images/279685.JPG

Now I do not pretend to know what caused the damage, but do not assume that a shape charge will not have fragmentation and create nice clean holes. I am no EOD/Demo dude but my limited knowledge tells me this much.

Operation Ivy

01-08-2004, 02:47 PM

such a sad story :(

Kitsune

01-08-2004, 03:17 PM

I frankly do not understand what the big deal is?

An RPG-7 can penetrate about 12 inches of steel — a thickness far greater than the armor that was penetrated on the tank in Baghdad.

The projectile hit the tank at a specific spot (between tower and body). It penetrated the Tank...but a usual RPG 7 would have done the same. So it was just a lucky (or unlucky, depends on your point of view) shot.

What's the reason for the excitement? Its understandable that one wants to identify an enemy weapon, but there is no reason to assume that this weapon is more dangerous than a normal RPG 7.

:cantbeli:

GazB

01-09-2004, 12:41 AM

ibstolidude

01-09-2004, 09:56 AM

"I frankly do not understand what the big deal is? "
I agree.
Even the facts given are interesting:
"An RPG-7 can penetrate about 12 inches of steel "
Early model RPG-7 rounds could penetrate 300mm of steel... current models penetrate over 600mm (ie 24 inches).
Also the RPG-22, which replaced the RPG-18... the latter being a slightly larger calibre version of the LAW (66mm) has been replaced itself. Current model disposable RPGs are RPG-26 and RPG-27.
All tanks can be penetrated from the side or rear by most descent AT weapons. - I don't think any of it is "a big deal". But none the less someone posted erroneous information stating that a shaped charge will make a single nice clean whole that punches in one side and out the other....that is not entirely accurate.

pAt

01-09-2004, 10:10 AM

maybe a new type of round for the RPG? something like a SABOT round maybe?

2Sheds_Jackson

01-09-2004, 11:03 AM

I'd agree that this isn't really a big deal.

It just seems like the M1 has developed a reputation as being indestructible & anything that can stop it must be of nearly supernatural origin. Hey, everybody gets a lucky shot in once in a while. I wonder if they have checked the armor material of the hull to verify it's in spec.

You never know, maybe the contractor was short on meeting payroll & made that one out of cheap aluminum or something ;)

Merik

01-09-2004, 06:05 PM

Perhaps a bypassed BMP-2 with a 30mm gun?

Thats exactly what I have been thinking. Some jackass probably jury-rigged a 30mm BMP gun onto the back of some pickup truck.

GazB

01-09-2004, 10:49 PM

"Thats exactly what I have been thinking. Some jackass probably jury-rigged a 30mm BMP gun onto the back of some pickup truck."

Hmmm, If I had strapped a 2A42 cannon on the rear of a truck and decided to take on an M1A2 I think I'd be firing rather more than one shot.

I also think I'd try a less risky shot at the rear of the tank or attempt something less dependant on luck like blow off a track.

"It just seems like the M1 has developed a reputation as being indestructible & anything that can stop it must be of nearly supernatural origin. Hey, everybody gets a lucky shot in once in a while. I wonder if they have checked the armor material of the hull to verify it's in spec. "

hahahahaha.. you start of by suggesting that the M1 has just a reputation for being indestructible, and then you seem to find the need to make up excuses like it was a lucky shot or the armour on that particular tank might have been low quality.

The simple fact is the side and rear of all tanks is vulnerable... even with the best materials there is no tank on earth that has 600mm armour protection all round. The onyl vehicle I have heard of that tried for all round protection was the German WWII prototype called the Maus. It had 250mm armour all around... and weighed 180 tons!!!! It was driven at its maximum speed of 6mph by its two 500hp engines through a village and smashed every window with the vibration. It was mechanically very unreliable and incredibly underpowered. Its main gun was enormous and it had a secondary gun mounted in the turret next to the main gun that was the larger 88mm gun designed for the Tiger II (ie much larger than the 88mm Flak gun or the 88mm gun fitted to the Tiger I).

In real combat it couldn't leave the road, it couldn't cross a bridge, and it would have been aircraft bomb meat.

Merik

01-09-2004, 11:59 PM

Hmmm, If I had strapped a 2A42 cannon on the rear of a truck and decided to take on an M1A2 I think I'd be firing rather more than one shot.

I also think I'd try a less risky shot at the rear of the tank or attempt something less dependant on luck like blow off a track.

Yeah but your not the one doing the shooting, so why would you want to spend more time shooting at the tank when you know thats time that the tank also turns its turret around.

GazB

01-11-2004, 06:06 AM

"Yeah but your not the one doing the shooting, so why would you want to spend more time shooting at the tank when you know thats time that the tank also turns its turret around."

Well let me put it this way. Removing a 2A42 gun from a BMP-2 and strapping it to anything and have it still work is not an easy task. It is still only a 30mm cannon... not some death ray. They didn't have the new APDS 30mm rounds the Russians use so we are talking 20mm armour penetration at a 60 degree angle at 700m. Would you use that against a MBT if it could and would only fire one round? It would be much easier to use an RPG-7. Considering where it got hit it might even have been a LAW. They state that a standard RPG could easily have penetrated where it hit and gave the penetration as 12 inches then a LAW could have done the job too.

oldsoak

01-11-2004, 06:21 AM

Maybe we should talk of tanks in terms of surviveability of the crew rather than the indestructability of the machine. Bugger the machine, this pink sack that is me wants to be able run away in one piece !
rgds

OldRecon

01-11-2004, 06:37 AM

Definitely looks more like a dense metal penetrator penetration than a shaped charge penetrator from the look of the penetration crater.
Also one can see how the penetrating charge splits off fragments as it hits new obstacles along its course. Especially during the later parts of its flight before coming to a stop.
If so tank-crews can at least take heart in that it the projectile may penetrate the tank, but will carry too little energy to do much damage to crews unless someone is hit directly.
Though the charge in question obviously is quite powerful, it's also obvious that besides good marksmanship one would also need quite a bit of luck to make such a hit. Taking into account that the target probably was moving at the time.

Javehn

01-11-2004, 06:43 AM

Indeed , that's a strange story . The "clean" insert holl , more or less "clean" out holl , holls inside indicate that it's sort of "Ping - Pong" round .

It can't be any rounds fired by tank , they would destroy the tank . It can't be Sabot based on launcher - no launcher in the world could get the sabot rocket flying on it's needed high speed velocity . It's also not any 30mm and so on rounds , they would never travel so much inside the tank . They also have to leave fragmentations . Not mention , that in order to penetrate the tank with 30mm , you would have to be very excellent sniper , or lucky , doing that with just one shot .

I have heard of Launchers using new type warheads , that supposed to penetrate inside the vehicle , travel inside , get bounced from the walls , killing everybody inside that way . That can be that sorta ATGM .

On debriefing about that matter ( there were 2 tanks on that mission ) , the commander of second tank recognized the fire point 100 m away from them . Some people speculate it was the RGP-29 . Some say it was RPG -22 .

OldRecon

01-11-2004, 07:06 AM

If it had been a shaped charge, I would more or less expect the energy to "fan out" on the other side of the penetration like a mirror immage of the charge that caused the penetration.
Like the charge that caused the penetration in the first place in itself is a mirror immage of the way the explosives of the charge is stacked (in a v-cone shape) before the shaped charge is set off.
From the splinter pattern of the penetration it seems the penetrating charge have been keeping together as a single mass for quite a while, before starting to split off fragments.
Taking into account the pyrotechnical qualities of Uranium based penetrators when striking an object, it appears to me like the tank was penetrated by a dense metal penetrator made based on tungsten alloy rather than Uranium.

Sabre

01-11-2004, 09:15 AM

I, too, don't understand what the fuss is about. I don't know enough about individual weapon characteristics to comment on what it could be, but in general terms it is not at all unthinkable that an M1 could be seriously damaged in this way. If the other M1 that was damaged was hit by a bog standard RPG7, then I wouldn't be surprised if the newer generation tandem warhead or larger calibre RPG's could knock an M1 out.

Having said that I don't understand what the fuss is about, I do have an idea, but it's nothing to do with a sudden threat of a new missile. It has to do with the realisation of the vulnerablity of the M1. it is true that the M1 has had very few losses to enemy fire over the last 20 years, but consider its use over that time.

What wars has it been deployed in? answer: the Gulf War and the Iraq War. What have the majority of engagements been? answer: long distance contacts in billiard-table terrain at night with extensive air support. ie: perfectly suited to western sights and air superiority.

The M1 has never really been exposed before to 'real' hostile fire (no offence meant to those who have served in them in the above wars and whose efforts are greatly respected by myself). What I mean is that in the GW, we engaged the Iraqis first with air power, then with MLRS and finally at long range in the desert with M1s. They had no chance and no inclination to fire back at <300m with RPGs, as they would have been obliterated (if they hadn't been already). in the Iraq war, the first part was much the same. it was only later in the towns and villages that we realised our 'luck' at the minimal resistance. a fact that is reflected in the few cases of strikes on US tanks/AFVs.

In a war in close terrain, against a determined, well-trained and equipped army, the losses would have been much greater. thankfully we have never had to see that.

HMMcrewchief

01-12-2004, 01:07 AM

I am leaning towards Argyll's theory. The impact photo shows very little exterior damage. But damn that thing had some power behind it. Also the projectile did not mushroom all the holes look similar in size. Hope it is not a sign of things to come. One luck gunner though, close real close.

GazB

01-12-2004, 03:20 AM

It could have been a self forging fragment (SFF).
(ie a large heavy disk of metal with a large HE charge behind it. the explosive accelerates the disk toward the target at such high speed the disk itself is distored into a more aerodynamic shape, which hits the target at enormous velocity... often fom above. The most common use of such warheads is for cluster munitions from rocket launched or aerial launched weapons.

But as I said before who cares? The place it hit even an old model RPG would have penetrated. I would only worry if it could do the same from a frontal hit.