My guess is our friends the Russians sold them some of their Kornet E missles. http://www.army-technology.com/projects/kornet/
What killed a U.S. tank? Mystery munition knocked out Abrams
- Thread starter Mark Tyson
- Start date
- Status
Malone LaVeigh
Member
I wonder if some of the DU we shot their way is being remilled and sent back.
chevrofreak
Member
.50BMG RAUFOSS round?
cookhj
Member
could've been a variant of a platter charge. it would've had to have been a small diameter platter (maybe 3 or 4 inches) and a good amount of demo behind it. a shaped charge warhead could've done it as well, but there would've been a good amount of blast markings around the hole in the outter hole. however, the jet from a shaped charge blast probably wouldn't have penetrated that far into the tank, that's why i suggested some type of platter charge.
Orthonym
Member
I thought Copperhead was a guided artillery projectile, with fins and wings.
Langenator
Member
Shaped charge warhead, such as those used on RPGs, the US AT-4, and pretty much all of the world's ATGMs, destroy tanks usually by hitting something inside the tank that will burn and/or explode. The warhead creates a stream of superhot gas and metal, about the diameter of a pencil or your pinky finger, which burns through things. If this stream hits something like the tanks fuel or ammuntion, that something catches fire and maybe explodes, killing the tank. It can also hit the engine, causing that to burn, disabling the tank and possibly causing the fuel tank to blow.
The M1 is well compartmentalized-fire in the engine won't get to the crew compartment, and the ammo stowage is designed so any explosion is directed up and away from the crew, and, as noted in the article, has a very effective fire suppression system. This tank will probably be repaired and back in the fight once the techies finish examining it to determine what penetrated it.
I'm somewhat skeptical of the shaped charge though, because the Chobham composite armor used on the M1 is supposed to be extremely effective-much more so than steel-at defeating shaped charge warhead. Something about ceramics and composites that disperse the thermal energy. Maybe some sort of self-forging-fragment warhead.
The M1 is well compartmentalized-fire in the engine won't get to the crew compartment, and the ammo stowage is designed so any explosion is directed up and away from the crew, and, as noted in the article, has a very effective fire suppression system. This tank will probably be repaired and back in the fight once the techies finish examining it to determine what penetrated it.
I'm somewhat skeptical of the shaped charge though, because the Chobham composite armor used on the M1 is supposed to be extremely effective-much more so than steel-at defeating shaped charge warhead. Something about ceramics and composites that disperse the thermal energy. Maybe some sort of self-forging-fragment warhead.
Copperhead is a fin guided artillery round. Well, Actually Laser guided, fin stabelized. Don't think they are firing to much Arty over there now. BG's that is. Basicly if I read this right, It sounds like it could be a version of a sabot round designed to be sholder fired. Hmmmm. An updated AT-4 even. With lower velocity than a tank round which would explain the minor injuries. Very interesting. Then again it could be the new S&W .50 assault revolver with gold bullets.
OEF_VET
Member
rick_reno, here is a link to the story, as published in The Army Times:
Pencil thin, but able to stop a tank.
WT,
Yeah, the CSM carries his own weapon, but you wouldn't expect him to walk around by himself would you? As the DivArty CSM, it's his job to take care of all the enlisted soldiers in the 101st DivArty. That requires him to do a lot of driving around. By Army policy, there has to be a MINIMUM of two vehicles to go anywhere. It's probably three or four given the situation on the ground in Iraq. There has to be someone else in those other vehicles. It just so happens SPC Zinger is a SAW gunner assigned to that detail.
As for the Copperhead, it is an artillery-delivered, guided munition, fired from 155mm howitzers and guided to its' target by a Forward Observer with balls of steel, using an AN/TVQ-2 G/VLLD. (Ground / Vehicular Laser Locater Designator) The range for both the Copperhead and the G/VLLD are classified, although the Army will say that the Copperhead is effective to a range in excess of 12 miles. This wasn't a Copperhead though, as the Copperhead would have made a much larger hole and the firing of an artillery piece by any Iraqis would have brought forth such vengence from the American Army, that it would have been impossible to keep it off the news wires.
Frank
Pencil thin, but able to stop a tank.
WT,
Yeah, the CSM carries his own weapon, but you wouldn't expect him to walk around by himself would you? As the DivArty CSM, it's his job to take care of all the enlisted soldiers in the 101st DivArty. That requires him to do a lot of driving around. By Army policy, there has to be a MINIMUM of two vehicles to go anywhere. It's probably three or four given the situation on the ground in Iraq. There has to be someone else in those other vehicles. It just so happens SPC Zinger is a SAW gunner assigned to that detail.
As for the Copperhead, it is an artillery-delivered, guided munition, fired from 155mm howitzers and guided to its' target by a Forward Observer with balls of steel, using an AN/TVQ-2 G/VLLD. (Ground / Vehicular Laser Locater Designator) The range for both the Copperhead and the G/VLLD are classified, although the Army will say that the Copperhead is effective to a range in excess of 12 miles. This wasn't a Copperhead though, as the Copperhead would have made a much larger hole and the firing of an artillery piece by any Iraqis would have brought forth such vengence from the American Army, that it would have been impossible to keep it off the news wires.
Frank
Last edited:
Blackhawk 6
Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2003
- Messages
- 439
Based on what I have read, it appears that A consensus is forming that the weapon responsible was an RPG-7VL.
Last edited:
RustyHammer
Member
Aliens ..
50 Shooter
member
gun-fucious
Member
dust devils
or mayhaps Enkidu's revenge
or mayhaps Enkidu's revenge
Marko Kloos
Moderator Emeritus
The damage described is similar to the terminal effects of a German-French MILAN anti-tank missile. The Russians copied the MILAN for one of their own ATGM designs; maybe the bad guys have a stash of those "Milanski" around.
There are pictures of this over at the Strategy Page
According to the article, "[e]xperts believe that whatever knocked out the tank in August was not an RPG-7, but most likely something new — and that worries tank drivers."
While an RPG could penetrate the area under the skirt, the plasma jet wouldn't have acted like that. The jets tend to break up when exposed to air spaces after formation, which is one of the reasons for spaced armor. Here, the round penetrated and then stayed together, with sufficient energy to penetrate both sides of the safety guard around the breach and punch into the opposing side of the hull.
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
Penetrating the side armor of an M1 through the skirts isn't very impressive... the heavy-duty armor is in the hull front and the turret front & sides. I'm sure lots of conventional, widely available weapons out there could penetrate an M1 on a side shot. The M1-series were only ever nigh-invulnerable in the frontal hull and turret arcs. That's by design, otherwise the thing would weigh at least 100 tons.
The front armor skirts are classified armor packages, but the rear skirts are just steel IIRC. In either case, the thickness of the armor on the sides (even if it is a Chobham-esque side bit that takes the hit) isn't thick enough to make it 100% proof vs. all current anti-tank warheads.
Bottom line is, the article is non-news.
The front armor skirts are classified armor packages, but the rear skirts are just steel IIRC. In either case, the thickness of the armor on the sides (even if it is a Chobham-esque side bit that takes the hit) isn't thick enough to make it 100% proof vs. all current anti-tank warheads.
Bottom line is, the article is non-news.
I read Mk VII's link - interesting...
but -
And I see that the German military (among others) have a mess of these things.
Keep your friends close - and your enemies closer. I wonder who's who.
-Andy
but -
I wonder when it (these - they) were delivered to the culprit(s).
And I see that the German military (among others) have a mess of these things.
Keep your friends close - and your enemies closer. I wonder who's who.
-Andy
Langenator
Member
IIRC, the KGB stole the design and the Soviets built their own version. Not sure if that was the (Soviet) AT-4 ATGM or the AT-7. The latest version ofthe AT-7, the AT-13, also features a tandem charge warhead.
blades67
Member
My bet is that if it was a MILAN, it came through Cyprus.
Orthonym
Member
Solid tungsten penetrator, obviously going vewwy, vewwy fast:
Might there be a single-minded, obsessive wildcat-cartridge-developer-with-a-really-good-machine-shop over there in Iraq somewhere, the same kind of romantic bad*ss all of us here imagine ourselves to be?
Might there be a single-minded, obsessive wildcat-cartridge-developer-with-a-really-good-machine-shop over there in Iraq somewhere, the same kind of romantic bad*ss all of us here imagine ourselves to be?
Dilettante
Member
Good enough to machine tungsten??
What kind of equipment is needed for that?
Where are they getting tungsten from, anyway?
Doesn't sound like the work of a single romantic, unless they have access to the old government's weapons caches anyway.
What kind of equipment is needed for that?
Where are they getting tungsten from, anyway?
Doesn't sound like the work of a single romantic, unless they have access to the old government's weapons caches anyway.
- Status