What killed a U.S. tank? Mystery munition knocked out Abrams
- Thread starter Mark Tyson
- Start date
- Status
Zorro
Member
NOT so impressive!
A VERY narrow penetration by a VERY small penetrator.
GOLDEN BB.
High or low and it would have just have been a nuisance.
I probably was a French Weapon.
A VERY narrow penetration by a VERY small penetrator.
GOLDEN BB.
High or low and it would have just have been a nuisance.
I probably was a French Weapon.
T.Stahl
Member
The following is taken from an article in the November issue of the German military journal "Soldat und Technik" (Soldier and Technolgy), titled "Panzereinsätze im zweiten Golf-Krieg" (Operations of Armoured Units during the second Gulf-War).
"The different reports show differing accounts of losses; according to them the losses among armoured vehicles total:
- twelve M1A1 Abrams (8 x US Army, 4 x USMC)
- one M113A1
- one M109A6 Paladin
- one M9
- four AAV-7
- one Challenger 2
- one Scimitar
Additional information about the individual cases:
One M1 was hit by an Hellfire, fired from an AH-1W. One M1 fell from a Bridge in Bagdad after the driver was killed by a sniper. All of the remaining M1s were hit by RPG-7 and RPG-16; the Iraqis fired at the less protected M1's rear. Due to the relatively low ignition temperature (flaming point?) of the cerosene (JP-4?) almost all vehicles caught fire and burned out. ... It's remarkable that according to theses reports no loss happened to due mines. The picture an destroyed M1 ("Cojone EH") next to a mine crater was sometimes interpreted as a mine damage - actually this vehicle is said to have been destroyed by an Iraqi RPG-7. To keep the tank from falling into Iraqi hands, it was bombed by the USAF and later salvaged by allied units.
A total of 151 M1s have been fired at, including the ATGN AT-14 "Kornet"; Syria delivered about twelve launchers and 200 missiles in 2003. The loss of the Challenger 2 was caused by friendly-fire from another Challenger in the vicinity of the Shatt-al-Basra channel. The Scimitar was hit during daytime by an A-10. ..."
"The different reports show differing accounts of losses; according to them the losses among armoured vehicles total:
- twelve M1A1 Abrams (8 x US Army, 4 x USMC)
- one M113A1
- one M109A6 Paladin
- one M9
- four AAV-7
- one Challenger 2
- one Scimitar
Additional information about the individual cases:
One M1 was hit by an Hellfire, fired from an AH-1W. One M1 fell from a Bridge in Bagdad after the driver was killed by a sniper. All of the remaining M1s were hit by RPG-7 and RPG-16; the Iraqis fired at the less protected M1's rear. Due to the relatively low ignition temperature (flaming point?) of the cerosene (JP-4?) almost all vehicles caught fire and burned out. ... It's remarkable that according to theses reports no loss happened to due mines. The picture an destroyed M1 ("Cojone EH") next to a mine crater was sometimes interpreted as a mine damage - actually this vehicle is said to have been destroyed by an Iraqi RPG-7. To keep the tank from falling into Iraqi hands, it was bombed by the USAF and later salvaged by allied units.
A total of 151 M1s have been fired at, including the ATGN AT-14 "Kornet"; Syria delivered about twelve launchers and 200 missiles in 2003. The loss of the Challenger 2 was caused by friendly-fire from another Challenger in the vicinity of the Shatt-al-Basra channel. The Scimitar was hit during daytime by an A-10. ..."
There is obviously a whole lot we don't know here. It had to be a solid projectile, otherwise it wouldn't have gone through the airspace inside the tank, and it likely wasn't DU, so the tungsten idea is good. Shaped charge penetrators are generally made with very soft metals, like copper, so there would be a good deal of copper splattered around, which would be easy to find. Also, a shaped charge, being hot enough to melt the metal, leaves a rather distinct pattern in the remaining metal as it recrystallizes. Not distinct from each other, but distinct from a kinetic penetrator, or a pyrokinetic like DU. DU also would have left particles EVERYWHERE. At the very least, I can guarantee that we know just exactly what it was made of. Everything leaves fragments, and those fragments can be easily identified by a skilled metallurgist. Once we know what the penetrator's makeup was, we can begin to identify it.
The main problem with punching holes in tanks is that you need a great deal of energy to do it. If you've ever seen the actual size of the APFSDS-T penetrator, you'll be amazed that something so small can be pushed so fast. So something had to fire this kinetic penetrator (assuming that we're actually getting the information that I think we are and it isn't a shaped-charge) REALLY fast. That something is likely relatively large. This isn't some hoss AK round.
So, it's either that, or somebody used a really neato laser gun, which, while unlikely, is a really cool thing to think about.
The main problem with punching holes in tanks is that you need a great deal of energy to do it. If you've ever seen the actual size of the APFSDS-T penetrator, you'll be amazed that something so small can be pushed so fast. So something had to fire this kinetic penetrator (assuming that we're actually getting the information that I think we are and it isn't a shaped-charge) REALLY fast. That something is likely relatively large. This isn't some hoss AK round.
So, it's either that, or somebody used a really neato laser gun, which, while unlikely, is a really cool thing to think about.
seeker_two
Member
Maybe some Al-Qaeda reloader that's been experimenting w/ RPG warheads, perhaps?
Wouldn't put it past them. It's not like they're worried about their own personal safety or anything...
Wouldn't put it past them. It's not like they're worried about their own personal safety or anything...
2/70th
I was scimming through past post and came upon this. I was in the 2/70th AR battalion about 3 years ago and boy I am glad to have missed that. Luckily I got out before the ???? hit the fan. But let me one to say the M1A1 is one bad mother.... Shawn
I was scimming through past post and came upon this. I was in the 2/70th AR battalion about 3 years ago and boy I am glad to have missed that. Luckily I got out before the ???? hit the fan. But let me one to say the M1A1 is one bad mother.... Shawn
A Milan would have sucked the crew out the exit hole. Several Milans killed various tanks in Bosnia and the crew did not survive.
A Milan is a full size antitank missile, not a shoulder launched "Hope like hell it works" RPG. If a Milan, TOW, or HOT missile had hit there on the M1A1, it most likely would have been a catastrophic kill. No more Abrams.
Most likely, either a penetrator light cannon round, or a upgraded RPG round.
A Milan is a full size antitank missile, not a shoulder launched "Hope like hell it works" RPG. If a Milan, TOW, or HOT missile had hit there on the M1A1, it most likely would have been a catastrophic kill. No more Abrams.
Most likely, either a penetrator light cannon round, or a upgraded RPG round.
extremefishin00
Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2003
- Messages
- 187
twoblink
Member
Rail Gun.
RevDisk
Member
I doubt it was specifically a APFSDS.
I've worked with anti-tank weapons before. Whatever killed that Abrams wasn't a missile based weapon. At least, not an RPG, MILAN, Javelin, or other conventional missile/rocket weapon. I saw the effects of most of them on Serbian tanks. Most conventional anti-tank missiles/rocket weapons used some variant of the shaped charge.
I'd say a electromagnetic launched projectile, really odd tungsen-composite penetrator, or a plasma/laser weapon. I've seen missile-delivered plasma weapons (missile explodes before reaching target, heats the copper to plasma state), and it sure as heck was more crude than whatever took this tank out.
Electromagnetic weapons (rail guns) are still big toys. You need very big, expensive capacitors. To make one smaller than an RV, you'd need a lot of cash to buy expensive electronics.
Exotic penetrators would be the low-tech opinion. Someone somehow custom designing their own penetrator, put it in a sabot, and launching it at extremely extremely high velocity.
Plasma and laser weapons tend to be crude. This ain't Star Trek. The most advanced plasma state weapon I know is our TOW missile that basically superheats copper to plasma state by explosive charge. I know we were toying around with laser systems mounted on a Boeing 747 to shoot down ICBM's.
My guess, and it's really just a guess... Some country wanted to test out their new classified weapon system on the most advanced tank on the planet. It obviously worked extremely well. That worries me, that there might be more of these damn things out there.
(Note to self, whenever talking to a foreign military using T-34's, never never say "Cool! I never saw one of these before that wasn't burning." )
I've worked with anti-tank weapons before. Whatever killed that Abrams wasn't a missile based weapon. At least, not an RPG, MILAN, Javelin, or other conventional missile/rocket weapon. I saw the effects of most of them on Serbian tanks. Most conventional anti-tank missiles/rocket weapons used some variant of the shaped charge.
I'd say a electromagnetic launched projectile, really odd tungsen-composite penetrator, or a plasma/laser weapon. I've seen missile-delivered plasma weapons (missile explodes before reaching target, heats the copper to plasma state), and it sure as heck was more crude than whatever took this tank out.
Electromagnetic weapons (rail guns) are still big toys. You need very big, expensive capacitors. To make one smaller than an RV, you'd need a lot of cash to buy expensive electronics.
Exotic penetrators would be the low-tech opinion. Someone somehow custom designing their own penetrator, put it in a sabot, and launching it at extremely extremely high velocity.
Plasma and laser weapons tend to be crude. This ain't Star Trek. The most advanced plasma state weapon I know is our TOW missile that basically superheats copper to plasma state by explosive charge. I know we were toying around with laser systems mounted on a Boeing 747 to shoot down ICBM's.
My guess, and it's really just a guess... Some country wanted to test out their new classified weapon system on the most advanced tank on the planet. It obviously worked extremely well. That worries me, that there might be more of these damn things out there.
(Note to self, whenever talking to a foreign military using T-34's, never never say "Cool! I never saw one of these before that wasn't burning." )
I don't have any opinion on what did this, but I recall seeing speculation on another board that this was friendly fire/negligent discharge from a Bradley (25mm AP round?).
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m2.htm
Something to think about.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m2.htm
Something to think about.
RevDisk
Member
25mm "Bushmaster" chaingun won't go through the side armour of a Abrams.
- Status