the ATGMs they used on our tanks

Status
Not open for further replies.

ahadams

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2003
Messages
639
Location
Missouri
this isn't the most reliable source, but it is worth considering:

original news article

Iraq secretly bought 1,000 Kornet missiles: Pentagon

PTI[ MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2003 10:30:08 AM ]
NEW YORK: Iraqis have secretly bought as many as a thousand Russian-made Kornet anti-tank missiles which are lightweight, very powerful and easy-to-use, Pentagon officials claimed.

The sellers are Ukrainian arms dealers and possibly some entrepreneurial Syrian generals or the Syrian government itself, the officials were quoted as saying by Newsweek. They reportedly sent Baghdad some 500 Kornets in January.

The Kornet anti-tank missiles were used to attack two US tanks, both Abrams M1A1s during the ongoing war in Iraq. The first M1s ever destroyed by enemy fire in battle, they were caught in an ambush of the US Army's 3/7 Cavalry near As Samawah, on the west bank of the Euphrates River.

Two is not a large number and the invading forces have at least 650 tanks in Iraq with more on the way. But US officials, the magazine said, are worried about the skill or "at least the fanaticism" of the guerrilla fighters who sneaked up on the tanks driving a "technical," a jeep, under cover of a sandstorm.

Less than two weeks into the war, the magazine examined whether it started with enough force and whether Operation Iraqi Freedom risks blowing up into a Middle East War.

That scenario, once very remote, is no longer unthinkable, it said. Barring a sudden collapse of the Baathist regime - still a possibility, senior administration officials insist - the war in Iraq is about to get bloodier.

"Somewhere deep in his network of tunnels and bunkers," Saddam Hussein "is convinced he can win," not by defeating superior US forces on the battlefield, but merely by surviving while Islamic rage builds from Cairo to Islamabad, the magazine said quoting a senior US official.

With a show of "shock and awe," American might was supposed to overwhelm the Iraqis and crack Saddam Hussein's regime. Tipped off by a spy in his inner circle, the US military tried to kill him and his sons as they slept with a surprise "decapitation" strike on the first night of the war.

US officials were engaged in delicate secret talks with some of Saddam Hussein's henchmen which appear to have gone nowhere. Saddam Hussein is almost surely alive; the spy, according to a knowledgeable source, has been "compromised," meaning that he is probably dead.

When American soldiers began dying in ambushes from Iraqis pretending to surrender, it didn't take long for Washington officialdom to start leaking exculpatory memoranda.

One CIA memo made available to Newsweek was entitled "Iraq: Potential aRisks in Rear Areas." The paper warned of Saddam loyalists attacking American supply lines with "hit and run tactics" using "RPGs rocket-propelled grenades) and small arms."

The document was widely distributed at the Pentagon, though one intelligence official, Newsweek said, acknowledges that, given Washington's strange hothouse ways, the paper might have been more carefully read at the top if it had been stamped "TOP SECRET" instead of merely "SECRET."

Saddam Hussein's irregulars have adopted tricks from the Somali guerrillas, including firing from behind groups of women and children.

Saddam Hussein will try to increase the American death rate, possibly by ordering his commanders to use bio-chem weapons, the magazine said.
 
"Pocket rocket" tank killers and sandstorm ranges could force us into some extreme defensive policies. We need senior Iraqi leaders to "flip" and get our story out before the Islamic world whips itself into a frenzy against us. Kind of hard to fathom the humanity of a combatant using civilian shields and terrorism to motivate troops/militia.
 
This is getting a little old. Guerilla fighting isn't a secret. Guerilla tactics have been used in many wars. Attacking your enemies supply lines isn't some tactic that only rocket scientists can figure out. I love how the press loves to spin it. Any military worth its salt knows their supply lines are in danger during a conflict.

Your enemy might attack your supply lines with rpg's. And they might not hang around for you to shoot back. Really?

That being said one of the big problems is the iraqi's that are using the general population as human shields. Still I don't think this is a new tactic, just one that denotes a diabolical enemy.
 
Cal4D4: you're right and I believe that's what our psyops boys and girls are doing right now - last I heard the Iraqis are having a difficult time maintaining control of their own commercial radio frequencies.
 
Truth is the first casualty of war. Many give lip service to that, but never understand it.

The truth will come out. That's what we're depending on. :D
 
These missiles are nasty little buggers. They can allegedly penetrate 1200mm of sttel armor with reactive armor on top. They're laser-guided, and have a range of 5km, which is, obviously, far beyond the range of our tank guns. With tanks stuck in a sandstorm (no air cover), one of these missiles on a jeep can really be a problem. Info here.
 
The Kornet is a nasty little booger. It's a laser beam-rider with tandem shaped-charge warheads in the anti-armor version. The first shaped charge sets off the recative armor, neutralizing it; then the second shaped charge goes off sending a plasma jet through 1200 mm of armor. Ugh. :what:

TC
TFL Survivor
 
It's probably a good thing, then, that the M1 doesn't rely on either steel or reactive plates?

Seriously, does anyone know exactly "how destroyed" those two tanks were? I got the implression they were going to go back to the shop and get repaired.
 
They were hit in the rear grill doors (back side of tank) which will destroy the engine. The M-1 has a pretty good fire supression system and I hope it put the fire out quickly. If not the rest of the tank is a goodly mess. The ammo storage compartment is designed to vent explosions so the turret doesn't blow off. Much depends on how/if it burned.
 
From what I can tell, they were indeed both mobility kills. The Chobham armor used on the Abrams is far more effective against shaped charge warheads than reactive armour or any practical thickness of rolled homogenous plate, but I don't think the whole tank is protected in this fashion (it'd be wildly impractical) so there are plenty of rear-arc shots that could disable an Abrams rather handily with a man-portable shaped charge.
 
Any tank of any construction can be disabled by a shot to the rear, roof, or tracks with something as small as a RPG. But last I checked there was no ATGMs in existence that could do much more than scrach the paint of the front or side armor of a M1A1 or M1A2. You might as well throw rocks at those areas of the tank as shoot them with just about any ground-based weapon out there.

The armor on those tanks really doesn't even qualify as Chobham anymore, it is anywhere from 3rd to 5th-generation stuff. Too bad you can't make the whole thing out of it without getting a 150 ton tank. Where are the nuclear-powered hovertanks when you need them? :D
 
How did they destroy these Abram tanks? I thought these tanks were so tough that other tank sabots just bounce off them! I guess they just don't make them like they used to. It's a shame and dissgrace that these were the first Abrams to ever by destroyed. I thought Abrams were supposed to be tough. The tanks the Naz's used int he 40s could survive hits from naval 16" guns!!!!! Lets see the Abams do that.
 
Blain - :) Somewhere iin my stuff, I have a picture of one of Piper's Tigers in Belgium where it ran out of gas. That's a surprisingly big tank - like an M60.

I also know of an ND on a tank range in Germany where a Bradley 25mm got a mobility kill on an M1 through the grill doors. Though it turned the M1 into a pill box, it's pretty much a desperation tactic.
 
The tanks the Naz's used int he 40s could survive hits from naval 16" guns!!!!!

Which Nazi super-tank would that be? And where did you get that information?

A 16" shell from a battleship rifle will turn every AFV ever made into scrap metal. Even assuming they shoot HE instead of AP, that's over a ton of high explosives impacting where the armor on a tank is most vulnerable.
 
Irregular warfare.

The whole concept sickens me since we should be the masters of it. The Red Man has been teaching us the techniques of irregular warfare for centuries and we (as a nation) still tend to forget those lessons. We should have ambush teams waiting for these suckers to come out and *Blam!* Lights out. Survivors would flee into a bigger ambush or kill zone. Maybe I'm being too simplistic about it but you'd think we wouldn't have to relearn how to deal with irregulars again.
 
The Russians are having a yard sale. There's no telling what will turn up next. It's bargains galore for every despot with a large Christmas wish list for serious military hardware. One day, they'll have a "buy one, get one free" sale of tactical nukes.
 
How did they destroy these Abram tanks? I thought these tanks were so tough that other tank sabots just bounce off them! I guess they just don't make them like they used to. It's a shame and dissgrace that these were the first Abrams to ever by destroyed. I thought Abrams were supposed to be tough. The tanks the Naz's used int he 40s could survive hits from naval 16" guns!!!!! Lets see the Abams do that.

I hope you're joking.
 
4v50 Gary,

I really don't mean to sound rude, but what makes you think we aren't dealing with it? What makes you think the military didn't plan for it? Hysterical coverage on CNN?

There isn't any evidence that Iraqi resistance in any form has had any negative effect on overall operations whatsoever. If the U.S. death toll so far wasn't about 1/3 that of Desert Storm, you might be on to something (46 vs about 150). Surprisingly, it looks like "unconventional" tactics have done them less good than I expected. At least so far.
 
I agree with those who noted that they were primarily 'mobility kills, though the second disabled tank (the one where they had to pry the driver's hatch open) also involved a fire reported at the time to have been caused by 'burning propellant' (presumably from a main gun round) though that wasn't explained in the news article.

The note by Al Thompson of the mobility kill by a Bradley chain gun AD points out another issue which is, even dumb :cuss:'s get lucky sometimes. Forget Nazi supertanks, is anyone aware that during WWII the soviet army issued antitank *handgrenades*? They basically looked like a coffee can on a stick. It was a shaped charge which, when thrown into the air over the tank deployed a small drogue chute and (theoretically) landed on the flat "top" surface of the coffee can which lined the shape charge up to penetrate the top of the target vehicle. Now undoubtedly most of the folks who tried this ended up either run over by armor or shot down by it's accompanying infantry, but put enough of them out there and, well, there were actually guys who aced and a few who even double aced with that particular weapon...so never say never...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top