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

[suleman]

Mystery behind Aug. 28 incident puzzles Army officials

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.

[Revival_786]

Nice article!

[elkaboingo]

were there signs of an explosion near the outer armour? if not it think it was an anti material sniper rifle. it could definitly make i through because tank skirts arent very thick.

[suleman]

cant say anything with surety untill complete report comes out.i am trying to find some more details and post here.

[umair]

Kaboingo could be right if we consider the rifle to be of 20mm calibre.A 20mm anti-material packs a cracker of a punch.

[elkaboingo]

Kaboingo could be right if we consider the rifle to be of 20mm calibre.A 20mm anti-material packs a cracker of a punch.

if it was that i'd like to know how did they get their hands on one. :!:

[gf0012-aust]

Kaboingo could be right if we consider the rifle to be of 20mm calibre.A 20mm anti-material packs a cracker of a punch.

if it was that i'd like to know how did they get their hands on one. :!:

Elkaboingo, you might be right. AFAIK Russian AM weapons are 12.7mm though (which would fit in with the finger sized hole.)

What would be interesting is whether they did a geiger test on it. If its emitting then I would say that it is 12.7 DU round (hence why there is no spalling)

I don't think this is as mysterious as it is being painted.

It's definitely not an RPG7 or 22 because of the impact and terminal effects left inside the tank. It does look like a gold shot though.

[elkaboingo]

yeah rpg is a shaped charge it blows a hole and shoots hot gasses and frags in. this sounds more like a bullet or something.
plus rpg22,29,16 are not nearly as widespread or popular as rpg 7

[gf0012-aust]

Might have an update on this, just checking some other sources. There was an ATM that fired a penetrator rod as part of the second charge.

I'm just checking back on some work I've done in the past but it will take a while to dig up.

[elkaboingo]

i think we're doing a pretty good job since we haven't even seen the tank :smokingc:

[gf0012-aust]

Well, going on a description of the tank wound it is possible to reverse analyse part of the process.

yellow residue makes it a western system, the finger sized entry hole also makes it a penetrator rod (well, most likely).

And yes I have worked on a naval based system that had similar concepts.

So my assessment (FWIW) is either a hi speed 25mm , dual charge rod penetrator, or a swiss dual charge round rod penetrator that has been adapted to be sleeve fired.

happy to be proven wrong, but the outcome narrows down the usual suspects... ;)

[Awang se]

A pencil like DU penetrator with sabot round fired from 20-30mm AA guns. But how they going to conceal the gun.

[gf0012-aust]

A pencil like DU penetrator with sabot round fired from 20-30mm AA guns. But how they going to conceal the gun.

a 20mm rifled weapon could be as short as 2 metres. Not difficult to hide it. The kill range to a human target can be 2km with a decent shooter.

I guess the odd thing is that if it was a penetrator, its an off target to use it on. rods are used on things like surface mines or to "drill" through a protected casing to "get at" whatever is inside. a 12.7mm rod seems a misuse of the weapon. its not as if they were aiming at a driver or the pilot of an A10 etc (titanium bucket).

its still speculation in the end. ;)

[elkaboingo]

[quote="gf0012"]

So my assessment (FWIW) is either a hi speed 25mm , dual charge rod penetrator, or a swiss dual charge round rod penetrator that has been adapted to be sleeve fired.

quote]

where did they these weapons! this is alarming

[suleman]

How these weapons are in iraqi's hands?

[gf0012-aust]

well, thats the hardest thing to work out, I can't imagine its Iraqis. It would have to be outsiders

And that doesn't make sense because all of these trechnologies are not "common". They certainly aren't commonly available.

Which is really very confusing.

[Winter]

well, thats the hardest thing to work out, I can't imagine its Iraqis. It would have to be outsiders

And that doesn't make sense because all of these trechnologies are not "common". They certainly aren't commonly available.

Which is really very confusing.

More mysterious than confusing....

An outside force operating?

[gf0012-aust]

well, I hate these conspiracy theories, but it is outside of the capacity of all the regional encumbents, thats assuming that what I think it is is close to the mark.

OTOH, I could be sprouting absolute crap. :)

[Winter]

OTOH, I could be sprouting absolute crap. :)

Granted.

That risk is unnervingly always present - With everyone.

[umair]

OK! Has anybody thought Iran!(no offense intended)After all it has apretty developed defence industry who knows? :help :?

[gf0012-aust]

The problem with my view is due to a few conditions:

The technology is not commonly available
The technology skills to build and adapt it are hampered by the first point
The signature of the weapon is so distinct that the makers would automatically be invited in by their relevant national security agency to do a please explain.
The residue is a western trait for some weaps
The lack of spalling shows a non explosive outcome, and it indicates a high speed entry that has ricocheted around on exit of the first "plate"
The small entry hole indicates a penetrator, again this is not a normal ordinance feature except for "western" weaps solutions.
It doesn't make sense to use the penetrator part of the solution with an ATGM, ATM, or UGATM, it's an "off" target kill.

Considering all of the above, to me it still has all the signatures of the type of ordinance that I "think" it is.

It creates a lot more questions than answers

[elkaboingo]

you could be right, iran has american weapons

[suleman]

gf0012
u definitely saying some logical things.But if signatures are present then why they had not found the evidence of what hit the tank.This definitely indicates that the weapon does not have any signatures or known type.Again as u said it arises many questions and concerns.

[gf0012-aust]

I would hazard a guess that the forensics on the strike have given them a clue, I'd also bet that until they confirm their own suspicions this event will not surface again in discussions.

It will start to take on urban myth proportions and they will just let it happen.

[Awang se]

I think, the guns is not of Iraqi origin. Remember that if anyone want to test their newly developed weapons, what is the best test if not to one of the best in the world. in this case, an abrams. The lack of law in Iraq and an unprotected border make it easy for the individual to bring this weapon in. remember that the Croatians have developed a 30mm sniper rifle. The shot came through the turret skirt which is a very small window. this required a precise targeting. something the Sniper rifle is design for.

This is a exampled scenario i've come up with :

A russian decide to test their new AT sniper rifled with new AT penetrator round. They see that the Iraq is a best testing ground and there is many Abrams crawling around as a test subject. they put the gun into the diplomatic package and send to the russian embassy in Jordan or Syria (the diplomatic package means it would circumvent checking). at the same time, a Spetsnaz train with this weapon came as an embassy officials. then with this weapon, he sneak pass the border and disguised as a locals. when the chance came, he shoot the guns and see the result and send it back to motherland.

[gf0012-aust]

I agree, its not Iraqi. The only thing I'm willing to say is that the round involved a penetrator rod, even that could land me in the "asylum" for not thinking conventionally... :D

I also don't think its a russian round.

[Awang se]

I agree, its not Iraqi. The only thing I'm willing to say is that the round involved a penetrator rod, even that could land me in the "asylum" for not thinking conventionally... :D

I also don't think its a russian round.

And why is that? don't assume that when it is not western made, then it's not good enough. Remember they do build several system that prove to be far superior then the western made system. Maybe they finaly acquire the western made rod penetrator and decide to copy it for their own use.

[gf0012-aust]

I agree, its not Iraqi. The only thing I'm willing to say is that the round involved a penetrator rod, even that could land me in the "asylum" for not thinking conventionally... :D

I also don't think its a russian round.

And why is that? don't assume that when it is not western made, then it's not good enough. Remember they do build several system that prove to be far superior then the western made system. Maybe they finaly acquire the western made rod penetrator and decide to copy it for their own use.

I'm not suggesting that, I am trying to fit the known outcome into known variables, and if that is the case then it makes the extrapolation even more complicated as the technology wasn't common knoeledge anyway, and the "designer" nation has never been involved in the arms market per se...

[yutong chen]

Maybe some railgun just got invented, and they just tested on a M1.

[gf0012-aust]

Maybe some railgun just got invented, and they just tested on a M1.

no, its a penetrator. look at the original post and the side effects.

there are a number of reasons why it can't be a rail gun, or a laser.

[elkaboingo]

sorry, but somebody fill me in, what is a rail gun? i've heard of it in games but never in real life.

[gf0012-aust]

sorry, but somebody fill me in, what is a rail gun? i've heard of it in games but never in real life.

a rail gun is a gun that launches projectiles using magnetic fields and current instead of consumed fuel. Not only do rail guns not consume any standard fuel, but they accelerate projectiles to a much higher velocity (the figure on the left depicts a rail gun firing a project at extremely high velocity).

The US has rail guns under development, apart from the movies there are no portable or vehicle mounted rail guns in existence.

The mere testing of a rail gun would send of alerts to a raft of interrogation systems - the power consumption is emormous.

There has been a proposal to mount a test bed on a US nuclear ppowered aircraft carrier as that is the only current power source that could provide reasonable rates of fire. another words, it is not at a point of practical deployment

[Awang se]

During my University years way back, one of my friend test his ownmade coilgun. guess what happen? the projectile do move forward alright, but only to the muzzle edge before the projectile suddenly reverse it course and came out from the loading hole at very high speed. it penetrate my friend stomach, 2 25cm thick brick walls and came to rest several cm inside the third wall. luckily the penetrator is about 3mm diameter and it miss a vital organs.

[gf0012-aust]

there was a test done with a nylon warhead, the warhead went through a dozen thick telephone books (approx 10cm thick each)

the problem with rail guns in the past is that there is heavy wear and tear on the "rails" - which i suppose is akin to a barrel wearing out on a howitzer.

the projected catapults for the future CVN are rumoured to be electro magnetically charged - superficially a similar technological process

[Awang se]

Why don't the US use the railgun as a Aircraft launch catapult.

Here's another idea. build a railgun facilities in orbit and use it as a surface bombardment platform. Imagine the devastation below.

[Awang se]

Could the railgun be the future satellite delivery means into the orbit? considering the satellite is strong enough to withstand hundreds, maybe a thousands G during launch.

[gf0012-aust]

Why don't the US use the railgun as a Aircraft launch catapult.

Here's another idea. build a railgun facilities in orbit and use it as a surface bombardment platform. Imagine the devastation below.

re aircraft launch - thats what is happening with the use and development of the electromagnetic catapult.

re orbital platform - I think that was one of the ideas that was suggested a few years ago when the US put out requests to its allies for new military technologies. It was discussed at one conference I went to in 2000.

[gf0012-aust]

Could the railgun be the future satellite delivery means into the orbit? considering the satellite is strong enough to withstand hundreds, maybe a thousands G during launch.

eventually I imagine that it could, at this stage I think the payload issues would restrict its use.

[Awang se]

Back to topic

The yellow residue, is that tungsten?

[gf0012-aust]

partially

[Winter]

I recall recently reading up about this, after the Army investigation into the incident was released. They found the perpetrator to be a unusual modified form of RPG, earlier dismissed as being capable of penetrating armour composite, or related to that effect.

I cannot recover where I read it. Possibly StrategyPage?

[gf0012-aust]

Yep, 'tis strategypage. Long Rod penetrator of unknown origin.

[Awang se]

Probably the previous Iraqi R&D produce something with abrams in mind.

[gf0012-aust]

Probably the previous Iraqi R&D produce something with abrams in mind.

It's regarded as either Russian or Swiss

[Awang se]

That's one of my options too. U might want to refer to my previous post in this thread. The fact that there is only one case here make me think that it is maybe a test prototype, probably by the outside elements. If it is the Iraqi oppositions who launch the attack, then i expect another cases to emerged shortly after this one.

[gf0012-aust]

That's one of my options too. U might want to refer to my previous post in this thread. The fact that there is only one case here make me think that it is maybe a test prototype, probably by the outside elements. If it is the Iraqi oppositions who launch the attack, then i expect another cases to emerged shortly after this one.

I should qualify it that no one has mentioned the swiss in any of the reports that are running about. I'm taking a long shot that its swiss as I believe that they are the only ones with the current design available to be modified

[Red aRRow]

I thought it was a Russian Kornet E. However seeing no burnt residue anywhere on the structure compels me to think otherwise.

[gf0012-aust]

I thought it was a Russian Kornet E. However seeing no burnt residue anywhere on the structure compels me to think otherwise.

Certainly all the responses I've seen discount a Kornet or derivative.

[rister]

RPG-7 AT and MEP: a system with anti-tank and anti-structure capabilities

Today’s military battles and operations take place in a variety of environmental situations. Often difficult terrain or confined urban situations confront the soldier with adversaries hiding in buildings, behind sand-bags or other structures. Thus protected it is difficult to effectively fight this enemy.



This is especially evident in LIC (Low-Intensity-Conflict) and MOUT (Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain) operations where there are additional space, confinement and collateral damage considerations to be considered. On the other hand todays’ soldier, whose mobility is key to success is still faced with heavily armoured MBT’s (Main Battle Tanks), AIFV (Armoured Infantry Fighting Vehicles) and APC’s (Armoured Personnel Carriers), which need a powerful shape charge to achieve penetration. Man-portable anti-tank weapons with conventional shape charges often lack the penetration capability to destroy a MBT. The ideal solution would be a warhead capable of defeating both target types described above.

RUAG Land Systems Warhead Division considers this as very difficult for shoulder fired systems due to weight and cost reasons. We therefore propose a different approach: one warhead for the anti-structure targets and one warhead for anti-tank missions. This solution has been fully developed for the RPG-7 launcher. Both proposed warheads have outstanding capabilities which will be highlighted in the next paragraphs.

RPG-7 AT

The shape charges developed and manufactured in RUAG’s premises are more powerful than any other and can therefore develop a penetration capability which is sufficient to destroy a MBT but still be small and light enough to fit on a man portable system. Even against MBT’s with ERA (Explosive Reactive Armour) the tandem warheads of RUAG such as the one for the RPG-7 will have a destructive effect.
RUAG disposes also of patented manufacturing processes. This also adds to the truly superior performance of the shape charges. Iso-static pressing and shrink-fit assembly of our warheads guarantee that the perforation capacity of the shape charge is always the same over the complete temperature range. These manufacturing processes will also yield a far better penetration at long stand-offs.

RPG-7 MEP

The RPG-7 MEP (Modular Explosive Penetrator) offers a very effective and cost-efficient means to deliver fragments and blast behind a protection regardless of the battlefield scenario facing the modern warfighter.

http://www.copybook.com/images/publications/ArmedInt/articleimages/ruag25.jpg
RPG-7 MEP

MEP is the ideal infantry weapon combining anti-structural and anti-armour ability to defeat a range of targets from light armour, bunkers, barricades and helicopters, defensive installations, radars, CP structures and buildings, MEP is ideally placed to defeat all of these target types with no collateral damage, meaning that there is no explosion which could harm the shooter or people outside the target of interest.. The penetration capabilities are really unique: 25 cm double reinforced concrete, a triple-brick wall, 120 cm of sandbags and 50 mm of Aluminium or 12.5 mm of RHA will be penetrated, before delivering the blast and fragments.

http://www.copybook.com/images/publications/ArmedInt/articleimages/ruag26.jpg
25cm double reinforced concrete target

MEP is a slow flying penetrator based on new penetration mechanics. After the penetration of the armour or structure, MEP will explode, delivering an effect spectrum which is today mainly based on fragments and enhanced blast. The possibility to use the MEP technology as a wall breacher is also given.

The solution proposed by RUAG gives the unique possibility not only to defeat any modern MBT by enhancing the penetration capabilities of the RPG-7 to an extent that has been impossible up to now, but also to give this weapon completely new possibilities in operation. And this without having to retrain the soldiers on a new system or to buy new launchers or a new system. These developments will help to keep the RPG-7 system in service for quite a few years.

[Vigilante]

Nice article!

Perhaps no so nice for the tank crew and definitively not nice for US taxpayers, how much money did we pay for this tank ? Does it suposed to take on old T70 soviet tank at point range or perhap another Bull from the military complex:mad:

[Dark Wind]

Hi guys, new here :) ! I've read a bit this thread and I don't think anyone covered it could be the Croatian RT-20: AM Sniper rifle, caliber: 20x110mm Hispano mostly (yes same ammo used in some AA guns or the WWII Spitfire IX).
I think it has been used in this case using API (Armor piercing incendirary) ammunition.

I think it could happen that some countries got some of them. But I doubt a lot of them are available, it's not the usual rifle available anywhere...
Plus firing this little fellow needs a good shooter.

[Nautilus]

I've got a Discovery Channel video here portraying the Abrams as the best tank worldwide. Pity only its armor is too weak to protect it from small caliber penerators. One's gotta wonder what damage a standard size anti tank round could do. Then there is the fact that it needs gas rather than fuel...

Good but probably not the best ;)

[knightrider4]

I,m certainly no expert but if your not safe in an Abrams your not safe in anything.

[Dark Wind]

I,m certainly no expert but if your not safe in an Abrams your not safe in anything.

No tank worldwide has a special armor allowing it to be invicible. Nor the M1 Abrams, or the Russian T80 or even the French Leclerc. If tanks were "invicible" they'd not need any support and a war could be won by sending only armors.

In our era most of militias/armies can get efficient weapons to cause severe damages to any kind of armor. That's why they need support.

And yes: you're safe nowhere...

[Vigilante]

No tank worldwide has a special armor allowing it to be invicible. Nor the M1 Abrams, or the Russian T80 or even the French Leclerc. If tanks were "invicible" they'd not need any support and a war could be won by sending only armors.

In our era most of militias/armies can get efficient weapons to cause severe damages to any kind of armor. That's why they need support.

And yes: you're safe nowhere...

Well many generals in the pentagon were flapping their mouth about the so call invencible tanks and invencible Gunship helicopters but the reality is that many of our soldiers have paid with their life and many taxpayers have been rip off at the end we get bull s#*t and excuses....:mad:

[gf0012-aust]

Lets calm down and have a little reality check before making comments about the vulnerability of the abrams.

a few pertinent real facts for some of you to digest:


no abrams have been killed by MANPATs in the frontal or side sectors
there are documented reports of abrams and chally 2's taking multiple MANPAT strikes (in once instance over 20) and surviving the encounter
the small penetration event did not result in a mobility kill - the crew were not event disabled and the tank was fully functioning - it penetrated below a side skirt to the rear
there are documented events where abrams were engaged by multiple T-72's within 2000m and were not disabled. a few of these were at the battle of 73 Easting
all abrams kills to date have been from pancaked IED's - if anyone thinks that an RPG has anything remotely similar to the collective effect of packed 500lb IED's, then they need to go back and study basic chemistry let alone undertake a UXO course. ;)
there are over 9000 abrams built, how many have been killed by tanks? (0) how many have been killed by single RPG attacks? (0) how many have been killed by multiple RPG attacks as the prime assault weapon? afaik (0), how many have been killed by follow up attacks of RPG's after primaried from an IED attack? (0) - the tanks have been killed by the IED's, the RPG attacks were ineffective but good for moral courage, but did little to contribute to the event itself.

why does anyone think that the iraquis used IED's as tanktraps? pretty simple really, a 500lb bomb has far greater chances of killing an MBT than a MANPAT.

A lot of the discussions in here so far about this event have been based on enthusiasm more than an attempt to look at actual facts. The latter is a lot more beneficial to quality debate than the former.

Some of the comments posted need to be tempered and people make an attempt to understand how explosives in these situations have actually worked. Contributing to urban myths and fairy stories may be energetic and fun, but fails the "serious debate" test.

[Nautilus]

I'd say the Abrams track record largely stems from the fact that its been used against old tanks with poorly trained & experienced crews. No surprise it looks good ;)

The fact that a rather small round was able to penetrate it should be worrying. Next time it could hit more sensitive parts on the inside.

To my knowledge the Leclerc's design leans towards mobility and not armor. The Leopard II or Mercava III probably make for a better comparison in this case.

[gf0012-aust]

I'd say the Abrams track record largely stems from the fact that its been used against old tanks with poorly trained & experienced crews. No surprise it looks good ;)

old tanks at 2000m can still cause considerable hurt - there are more than idolated examples of groups of T-72's ganging up on abrams numerically at close quarters and getting swiped rather dramatically.

The fact that a rather small round was able to penetrate it should be worrying. Next time it could hit more sensitive parts on the inside.that shot did a cooks tour inside the hull with no damage. the compartment has spall liners as well. in real terms when you see where it went in, then it was a lucky shot. it couldn't have done any other damage as the cabin area is isolated from the armoury - the only other tank with the same degree of internal protection is the Chally2. The Leclerc doesn't have an armoured storage box. There have been repeated examples of abrams taking hits in the ammo box with no result - they are pretty well the most solidly built of all the current generation tanks. (leclerc and merkava 3 don't have the same degree of protection.

To my knowledge the Leclerc's design leans towards mobility and not armor. The Leopard II or Mercava III probably make for a better comparison in this case. No, different design philosophy, esp Merkava 3/4. No offence, but going on Leclercs track record with one of its arab customers indicates poor robustness and uptime. There are some other glaring examples in its procurement and proofing history that don't place it in a good light. The Chally 2 is a better example, but then again, its considered to also be better armoured.

for the uninformed, the majority of smoke and flame shots that Al Jazeera shows of burning Abrams are actually abrams with ruptured fuel lines - the compartments and armour boxes are actually intact. In fact IIRC a master gunner has indicated to me that less than 6 tanks have been irretrievably lost. the burners have also been recovered and engine packs rebuilt or installed.


The argument that they were old tanks in specious, T-72's can still cause damage. Of copurse training gives you an edge, but where apart from aberdeen and salisbury are you going to drag out examples of other nations with similarly complex and focussed training regimes? Sooner or later its irrelevant. If you fight at a disadvantage, then welcome to war.

[Nautilus]

I am not argueing that a T72 can do damage but neither Afghanistan nor Iraq possesed numbers of tanks great enought to 'gang up' on Abrams tanks. Not like they drive around by themselves.

Actually, I didn't bring the Leclerc into the discussion - I only said that it doesn't have heavier armor than the Abrams. However, you bring up its 'poor uptime and robustness' but below you mention Abrams on fire because of ruptured fuel lines. How does that fit?

Are there any pictures available showing the hole that was shot into the Abrams?

[gf0012-aust]

I am not argueing that a T72 can do damage but neither Afghanistan nor Iraq possesed numbers of tanks great enought to 'gang up' on Abrams tanks. Not like they drive around by themselves.

73 Easting - The Iraqi T-72's outnumbered the Abrams 6-7:1

Actually, I didn't bring the Leclerc into the discussion - I only said that it doesn't have heavier armor than the Abrams. However, you bring up its 'poor uptime and robustness' but below you mention Abrams on fire because of ruptured fuel lines. How does that fit?

What main tank is invulnerable to RPG's in the engine compartment? The issue with the Abrams and Chally 2 are:

greater degree of armoured protection in the rear meaning that a rear attack may be less catastrophic. in the case of Leclerc (as an example, the Govt reduced the end build due to reliability issues and kept the build rate in the sub 600 mark. The Abrams has 12-13k of all variants made. Continuous improvement and battlefield testing dictates that oen will be better in areas over the other. Its an expected process. As for Leclercs arab client, they were offered another 120 at cost and refused the order - they've had reliability problems that are legion within that community.

The main point with the abrams is that none have had secondary kills due to an initial instrusion into the engine area. burst fuel lines burning is not the same as killing a tank. the crew may evacuate, but that doesn't necessarily equate to the platform being mobility killed. One of the more famous Al Jazeera shots is actually fuel lines but the tank is not dead. Looks spectacular to the uninformed, but is not so interesting when proper analysis is done.

getting shot in the clacker is an issue of local force management - as all tanks are vulnberable in the rear to various degrees. Probably the best in the rear aspect is the merkava 4, but the design philosophy is due to different usage doctrine. No other tank emphasises rear protection like the Israelis.

Are there any pictures available showing the hole that was shot into the Abrams?

There were some on the net ages ago, but they'vew dropped out. the pic was of a small hole - thats why some assumed it was a large cal AP gun, when in all likelihood it was a long rod.

No offense meant, but I'd like to see how any other tank would fair after being shot up the freckle with a brace of RPG's. having seen what happens to a T-72 when it's hit in the turret by a 105mm round, I can assure you that life would be interesting getting slotted by a 120mm fired by an Abrams, Chally2, Leo2A4/5/6

Whats missed by quite a few is that ruptured lines in non compartmentalised tanks usually results in an unhappy outcome for the crew - exploding rounds, or fuel spillage makes life uncomfortable - in the case of the T-72 the round bucket is under the crew, so a hit in the mantle has a tendency for the whole tank to brew up - and the turret normally does a short hang-glider impersonation. The resultant explosion means no crew get out alive. Western tanks take a different design approach. focus is on protecting the crew as much as possible.

[knightrider4]

I though I'd chime in here and say Ive got a pdf entitled Abrams tank systems Lessons learned Operation Iraqui Freedom 2003 and the short of it is they are damned hard to kill. In one example it took one thermite grenade, two AGM-65 Mavericks and a sabot round in the ammo compartment to destroy a mobility killed Abrams.

[shamsi]

Some of the claims of T72s failing to engage M1 hint to their ammo being not upto mark. I have seen reports of training ammo being used by Iraqis. Do American's have a supertank that no nail can scratch? I doubt it.

The fact remains that new weapons might be right around the corner that might trouble the M1 operators a little. I wonder for a 125 MM APFSDS-DU round behaves with the cobham RHA DU mix plate of M1.

Cheers!

[Dark Wind]

"No RPG can damage an Abrams myth":

"For example, in a widely-discussed incident, an M1 tank from the 2nd Battalion, 70th Armor Regiment, 1st Armor Division was hit and disabled during a routine patrol on 28 August 2003. The American press, deluded by its own reports of the “invulnerability” of the Abrams, claimed that some kind of “secret weapon” was responsible for the damage. In fact, published photographs clearly show that the offending weapon was none other than a simple RPG. The hollow-charged jet penetrated the side skirt and turret ring and continued into the crew compartment as it disintegrated before finally coming to rest after boring a cluster of craters 30-50 mm deep in the hull on the far side of the tank. The crew was lucky to have suffered only minor shrapnel wounds as the projectile passed through the gunner’s seatback and grazed his flak jacket. On April 2, 2003 an RPG attack from the side disabled another tank by penetrating the turret’s hydraulic drive."

Source: Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST) (http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/1-2005/ac/us_armor/?form=print)


"Details of the M1 losses were given, including one where 25mm armour-piercing depleted uranium (AP-DU) rounds from an unidentified weapon disabled a US tank near Najaf after penetrating the engine compartment (which revealed later to be a friendly fire from an M242 Bushmaster auto cannon 25mm used mainly on LAV or Bradleys). Another Abrams was disabled near Karbala after a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) penetrated the rear engine compartment and one was lost in Baghdad after its external auxiliary power unit was set on fire by medium-calibre fire."

Source: Jane’s Information Group (http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw030620_1_n.shtml)


Between the 03.05.03 and the 04.03.03 (so in almost a month), 8 M1A1 Abrams were lost in Iraq (4 lost in combat, 1 abandonned in hostile zone, 2 "felt" into the Euphrates and 1 by friendly fire).
And I've read (so not sure) that USA lost about 1/4th of the M1A2 deployed in Iraq.
I think myths work both ways...
But the Abrams provides to the crew excellent chances to survive attacks.

NOTHING is invicible. Thinking so is either a lack of technical knowledge, either propaganda to boost the morale of the troops but certainly not the truth.

Using tanks in urban zones has lot of negative side effects... It's like stucking an elephant inside a porcelain store making him fighting lions without breaking anything: hard as hell.
There is no armor worldwide able to claim being invicible (and that could be used in an actual tank)... There are always weak points even smaller or not obvious they definetly exist.

The only thing now for almost every vehicle/aircraft etc... that matters: speed, manoeuvrabilty, counter measures, technology on-board, range of action, "smart design" (e.g. F-22's stealth design) etc...
The "best" way to survive for a vehicle in the battlefield is to avoid taking damage, not trying to sustain maximum damage.

[gf0012-aust]

Nobody is suggesting that the abrams is invincible. However I get more than a little irritated at some of the nonsensical statements made when a bit of research would show the flaws in some arguments.

btw, as respectable as Janes is, they are not the be and end all of accuracy. you;d be aware of how many mistakes they have made over the years regarding numerous weapons systems.

somehow I doubt that Janes are going to have better detail about the abrams penetration that the NTC eval at Aberdeen.

The issue of tanks in harms way is not about who can take the most hits, but how they are used and supported. (witness TUSK)

to be blunt, some of the analysis that is offered as fact in here is best left to high school parties rather than offered up as evidence of platform history etc...

has anyone managed to look at the number of tanks committed to Iraq and the ratio of losses.

a little bit of realism is good medicine for the soul. a little bit more intellectual rigour will do wonders for having sensible debate.


btw, the incident of the Bradley penetrating the rear of an abrams could do with some additional support. In 73 Easting a Bradley penetrated a berm and slotted 2 x T72's with her 25mm gun. So clobbering a blue platform in comparison to what was achieved at 73 is rather interesting.

and can people please get the picture that tanks are not invulnerable at all aspects, unless design doctrine decrees it (eg Merkava 3/4). Thats why support doctrine for tanks is critical. eg Aust army works with tanks opposite to the US. If the tank is not protected in the rear by support forces, or support forces have not sanitised the engagement peripherals, then of course the platform becomes vulnerable. it aint rocket science.

the russians have learnt very harsh lessons about tanks in chechnya, like the americans they have revised doctrine and also add on mods - ever noticed how many abrams and russian tanks have been destroyed in full contact engagement in the last 12 months? it's not a hard guess. ever noticed how IED kills on MBT's in Iraq and Chechnya have dropped off to almost non existent in the last 12 months?

there is a reason.

[Awang se]

concerning the Ammo storage issues in T series, i think the russian have learn it's lessons. the new generation russian MBT have adopt a bustle design for ammo storage (black eagle). but instead of improving armor design, the russian increase it's tank protection by further reducing it's silhoutte, obviously a cheaper approach then contending with a rather expensive R&D for better armor materials.

[gf0012-aust]

concerning the Ammo storage issues in T series, i think the russian have learn it's lessons. the new generation russian MBT have adopt a bustle design for ammo storage (black eagle). but instead of improving armor design, the russian increase it's tank protection by further reducing it's silhoutte, obviously a cheaper approach then contending with a rather expensive R&D for better armor materials.

Hasn't Black Eagle been dropped? I'm sure I read last week that their MBT programme had collapsed.

All of the T55/59/62/72/80 series still have the blow off problem, and unless they redesign the interior completely, it's a design flaw. Redesigning the insides of a hull aren't that easy. Are the Polish conversions modified for the armoury box?

[Awang se]

Are the Polish conversions modified for the armoury box?

nope, still there and poise to blow up under some poor asses. there's of course a redesign T-72 with bustle mounted autoloader. but like almost all recent russian programme, it stays as a prototype.

Hasn't Black Eagle been dropped? I'm sure I read last week that their MBT programme had collapsed.

i didn't say the programme running clean and smooth, what i say is that the recent failed programme have seen a major shift from a traditional Russian tank design. it is unfortunate for the russian that they don't realize the flaws when they still a Soviet Union and have plenty of currencies in their veins.

[Dark Wind]

I should have said: "invicibility against RPG". The "total invicibility myth" of the Abrams for civilians is still very strong, however daily it is broken...
Of course an RPG won't disable an Abrams if hit on the front, all modern tanks "can do the same". As ex-military I doubt much people are dumb enough to fire in the front of a tank! Even Iraqi militias know weak points of a tank now.

About Jane's information, maybe there was some flaw in its information but in whole it is surely more reliable than US government's propaganda still claiming the Abrams can sustain more damages than what independant analyses/reports say (would you tell your soldiers their tank isn't at all "invicible" as they think?). For example when an Abrams is hit by an RPG, it's something like "it was hit by a weapon of unknown origin but not an RPG" or "never happen before" etc... After a few it becomes more and more boring to hear the same stories.

But of course disabling an Abrams requires a good grenadier plus some luck to really hit the weakest points. It's a good tank but definetly not as good as US armed forces claim.

And I agree on my view US and Russian tanks are still based on the old days of having heavy tanks based on the idea of taking more damages rather than avoiding damage.

[driftder]

hmmm...so what did the damage? Some claim that it's a hybrid RPG-type HEAT round with a dart-like penetrator. How true is that? Darn fact that we can't deny is - even after being hit, the crew wasn't hurt, the tank is still serviceable. Now that is one tough hombre.

As for the heated off-line discussions about how invincible tanks are, it's all in the response to it. Air power like A-10s and Apaches will be great if its available. Then tanks of course but with reliable ammo, guns and structure please - a 21st century of a King Tiger 2 would be appreciated :D. None of that one round in the turret ring and your turret getting a helicopter-effect take off. Don't forget artillery, mines and AT missiles. Last resort - RPG teams and sticky bombs <shudder>.

Basically any weapon can be countered. Just that whether its the right counter. From a infanteer's viewpoint, set me up against a tank thats alone and unsupported any day :D.

But if its infantry/tank combo, I be wishing for a few tanks, enough AT missiles, plenty of artillery support, minefields and some nice air support that comes when I whistle :rolleyes:.

[Vigilante]

"No RPG can damage an Abrams myth":

"For example, in a widely-discussed incident, an M1 tank from the 2nd Battalion, 70th Armor Regiment, 1st Armor Division was hit and disabled during a routine patrol on 28 August 2003. The American press, deluded by its own reports of the “invulnerability” of the Abrams, claimed that some kind of “secret weapon” was responsible for the damage. In fact, published photographs clearly show that the offending weapon was none other than a simple RPG. The hollow-charged jet penetrated the side skirt and turret ring and continued into the crew compartment as it disintegrated before finally coming to rest after boring a cluster of craters 30-50 mm deep in the hull on the far side of the tank. The crew was lucky to have suffered only minor shrapnel wounds as the projectile passed through the gunner’s seatback and grazed his flak jacket. On April 2, 2003 an RPG attack from the side disabled another tank by penetrating the turret’s hydraulic drive."

Source: Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST) (http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/1-2005/ac/us_armor/?form=print)


"Details of the M1 losses were given, including one where 25mm armour-piercing depleted uranium (AP-DU) rounds from an unidentified weapon disabled a US tank near Najaf after penetrating the engine compartment (which revealed later to be a friendly fire from an M242 Bushmaster auto cannon 25mm used mainly on LAV or Bradleys). Another Abrams was disabled near Karbala after a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) penetrated the rear engine compartment and one was lost in Baghdad after its external auxiliary power unit was set on fire by medium-calibre fire."

Source: Jane’s Information Group (http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw030620_1_n.shtml)


Between the 03.05.03 and the 04.03.03 (so in almost a month), 8 M1A1 Abrams were lost in Iraq (4 lost in combat, 1 abandonned in hostile zone, 2 "felt" into the Euphrates and 1 by friendly fire).
And I've read (so not sure) that USA lost about 1/4th of the M1A2 deployed in Iraq.
I think myths work both ways...
But the Abrams provides to the crew excellent chances to survive attacks.

NOTHING is invicible. Thinking so is either a lack of technical knowledge, either propaganda to boost the morale of the troops but certainly not the truth.

Using tanks in urban zones has lot of negative side effects... It's like stucking an elephant inside a porcelain store making him fighting lions without breaking anything: hard as hell.
There is no armor worldwide able to claim being invicible (and that could be used in an actual tank)... There are always weak points even smaller or not obvious they definetly exist.

The only thing now for almost every vehicle/aircraft etc... that matters: speed, manoeuvrabilty, counter measures, technology on-board, range of action, "smart design" (e.g. F-22's stealth design) etc...
The "best" way to survive for a vehicle in the battlefield is to avoid taking damage, not trying to sustain maximum damage.


Well....We need to hear the facts from the begining, because the people that design and build the Abraham were bragging that the tank was "INVENCIBLE" AND WAS WORTH THE HEFTY PRICE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS PAY FOR THEM" .... well, now we found out that everything was another wet dream from the Pentagon and a US DLRS 765.37 RPG was able to stop the so call inpenetrable Abraham...I am really happy that no casualties have been reported from any Abraham incidents :confused:

[gf0012-aust]

Well....We need to hear the facts from the begining, because the people that design and build the Abraham were bragging that the tank was "INVENCIBLE"

no offence, but what a load of rubbish. I've never seen any releases or statements from GD that the abrams is invincible. The only ones I see talking about a tank or a "widget" being invincible are idiotic kids who wouldn't know a tank if it fell on their head.


AND WAS WORTH THE HEFTY PRICE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS PAY FOR THEM" .... well, now we found out that everything was another wet dream from the Pentagon and a US DLRS 765.37 RPG was able to stop the so call inpenetrable Abraham...

well, if you insist on believing statements from people who are unqualified, or have (usually) never served in a military (let alone been shot at by a tank) - then you're bound to make unsophisticated comments. Of course the platform is worth the expense if its better at saving lives than a T-72 etc.

Ever wondered why professional armies make sure that their troops are given the maximum opportunity to survive? Hint - proper training and support means that they're more valuable than the thing their riding in.

I am really happy that no casualties have been reported from any Abraham incidents :confused:

For goodness sake - It's not Abraham - its Abrams! I somehow doubt your concern for casualties considering the angle of attack you've taken - which is geared towards the emotional and less factual style of response.