Abram drowned crew

[Registration Information]

Does anyone here know about the incident where an Abram went through a bridge resulting in the drowning of the crew? I didn't know about it until now

[FallenAngel]

It was a Marine tank I believe. And I THINK (not 100% sure) it was crossing the bridge when the driver took a sniper round. Turned the tank and it plunged into the water upsidedown. The crew naturally drowned because they couldnt get out.

again, just what I think happened

[JohnJohn]

Does anyone here know about the incident where an Abram went through a bridge resulting in the drowning of the crew? I didn't know about it until now

I feel for every one of them and their families, heck, I feel for everyone lost/injured/involved in this conflict in any way. These people are doing their duty, I love them and support them all the way for what they do and for their courage and sacrifices for each and every one of us, even for the misguided individuals that oppose them, and bash them ;)

[hood]

Yeah, there's a few photos that someone sent in of a flipped Abrams in the User Submitted section. Add water to that and it's pretty horrible. My question though, is how would the driver take a sniper round? Isn't he sitting within the tank, protected from bullets?

[Mal3]

The driver does have a hatch and he needs to see out of the tank. I'll have a look at some Abrams pics...

[Mal3]

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/abrams2.html

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/abrams6.html

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.jpg

These two links go to pics where you can see the driver's hatch. It probably has some kind of periscope, from http://www.fas.org:

"The Driver's station is located at the center front of the hull. The Driver is in a semi-reclined position when his hatch is closed, as it must be whenever the vehicle is in operation. His station is equipped with a standard array of gages and monitors reflecting the condition of vehicle fluid levels, batteries and electrical equipment. The Driver has either three observation periscopes or two periscopes on either side and a central image intensifying ("Starlight") periscope for night vision. The periscopes provide 120 degrees field of view. The Driver's night vision equipment enables the tank to maneuver at normal daytime driving speeds in darkness and in poor visibility conditions such as in the dust and smoke encountered on the battlefield. "[/url]

[yellowking]

And I THINK (not 100% sure) it was crossing the bridge when the driver took a sniper round.
I found this article on the incident at http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=676&ncid=716&e=16&u=/usatoday/20030401/ts_usatoday/5018650 after searching Google news. Here's an excerpt:


What happened to the crew of the Hermes remains unclear. Late Monday, U.S. Central Command in Qatar released a statement that said a preliminary investigation of the incident suggested that the tank's driver was shot and killed before the tank plunged off the unfinished bridge and into the Euphrates.

But no one else in the battalion knew of anyone being shot, let alone the tank's driver, who sits inside the Abrams, protected by armor. The Marines suspected that the crew simply became disoriented in the darkness and drove off the side of the bridge.

Navy divers found the 60-ton tank at the bottom of the river, 20 feet under water. The Abrams rested upside down, and officials on the scene initially reported that the four Marines drowned inside and that their bodies showed no apparent signs of trauma.

[Mal3]

The latest versions of the M1 are more like 70 tons I believe. Amazing...

But I wonder if a well placed sniper shot could take ot a buttoned up driver?

[GazB]

"But I wonder if a well placed sniper shot could take ot a buttoned up driver?"

I don't think so... the viewing devices are periscopic so a bullet couldn't go through the viewing device and hit the driver as he is below the line of the periscope.

I have heard of a tank captain being decapitated when a full sized tank round hit his periscopic sight and reduced the glass optics to a fine powder that blew threw the sight and removed the top of his head, but that was a large very high speed round... not really in the same league kinetically as a sniper round.

[hood]

It was interesting to see a history of the 3rd Armoured Division last night on the History channel. The Sherman tank used in WW2, had armour that was 4 inches thick on the front of the tank. Compare that to the most modern version of the M1 tank which has a protection equivalent to 24 inches against kinetic energy ammunition (APFSDS), and 51 inches against chemical energy warheads (ATGM's and HEAT ammunition).

[GazB]

"Compare that to the most modern version of the M1 tank which has a protection equivalent to 24 inches against kinetic energy ammunition (APFSDS), and 51 inches against chemical energy warheads (ATGM's and HEAT ammunition)."

It is physically about 30cm thick (12 inches).

[Mal3]

Hey, GazB, where can you get hold of such info? I'd really like to know more about the armour on current MBTs.

[gunner]

The driver doesnt allways drive with the tank buttoned up. this crew probably thought they were in a relatively safe area so were driving with the hatches open. this gives the driver a better view. try driving your car with a scuba mask taped to the windshield and the rest of your windows covered. They were probably in a rear area, snipers tend to infiltrate these areas rather than fighting on the frontline.

[PATHFINDER]

according to the Navy Divers (from the original article) none of the bodies showed signs of 'trauma'. Based on that I'm assuming no gunshot wounds.

[grendel]

IMO it would have been unlikely that a sniper was the cause of this tragic incident.

An Iraqi sniper would have either run away or remained hidden (wetting his pants) once he saw the tanks. Just imagine the psychological impact of seeing rumbling, ground-shaking tanks ;) . Tankers are also known to use their main guns when confronting snipers.

Besides, the odds of hitting the driver of a moving tank, kicking dust would be extremely high.

[BiZ]

An Iraqi sniper would have either run away or remained hidden (wetting his pants)

A very arrogant and very very generalised comment. Basically you're stating that even the elite Republican guards best snipers wouldn't dare "have a crack" at any US armoured units? Interesting.....



Just imagine the psychological impact of seeing rumbling, ground-shaking tanks .

When you're cammed up 400+ metres away I can assure you seeing a tank colum rumlbe by isn't a major concern.


Tankers are also known to use their main guns when confronting snipers.

Obviously only if they know/see the location of the incoming fire. Especially in a MOUT situation. You don't cop a round from an unheard location (remember your loud "rumbling" tanks) and the "open up" with suppresive fire on every possible sniper location in the town.



Besides, the odds of hitting the driver of a moving tank, kicking dust would be extremely high.

In formation, as this would have been such as a crossing, tanks move fairly slowly, very easy for a good marksman to go for the Crew Commander or to try for the Driver. Although I don't believe that this is the case with regards to this unfortunate US Marine crew.
Anything could have happened.

I'm not having a go at anyone, just making sure you check your comments before posting certain things.

[Duke]

Looking at Janes, what angle must a sniper be to hit the driver while driving the tank?? Appears to be somewhere near 60 or 70 degrees.

[Mal3]

Not if he's riding unbuttoned, I'd think.