Any ideas? Is the story legit? I know they keep changing the story on crop circles every time someone explains the hoax. Do you think someone really killed one of our tanks this way?

http://www.armytimes.com/print.php?f=1-292236-2336437.php
October 27, 2003

�Something� felled an M1A1 Abrams tank in Iraq � but what?
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 1� 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.

An RPG couldn't "easily" penetrate an M1A1 skirt. Something sounds extremely fishy about this article. I don't recall an M1 being knocked out around Aug. 28, at all. The last M1 I recall is one that was a rollover, and the one before that was an ammunition compartment penetration. (It's designed to be penetrated to save the vehicle/crew)

The "dual" RPG head is designed to defeat reactive armor, obtw. Not Chobham armor.

That's as far as I'm willing to share on this subject, for obvious reasons.

120mm,

With regards Chobham armour...(after a small town in the UK)...I never realised you guys used Chobham on the Abrams...I though you had your own version???

regards,

Pete

Yes, the M1 uses Chobham armor, thought the M1A1 uses depleted uranium in the matrix for density. The Abrams is a very international tank. Brit armor, Rheinmettal 120mm smoothbore from Germany, and a Belgian FN coaxial machine gun.

Peace.

Slightly off topic, but under the heading of "don't underestimate your enemies" is the fact that the first M1s lost in combat were lost to the Iraqis this year. I've said a few times they learned and applied many lessons from the first war, they just couldn't stand up to us in a big fight.

Bob

Bob,

Or maybe they are standing up to us in an even bigger fight?

Regards,

Pete

Hey, Gunny, hate to burst your bubble, but so far we've destroyed all our own M1s so far. Even the one in the article was still Mission Capable. The couple destroyed in the war were maintenance/mobility kills that were destroyed by thermite grenade, tossed in the hatch by the tank commander.

Except for the press, we've been doing a decent job, lately, for the kind of conflict we're in. If we weren't in the restraint mode, we'd be doing a better job killing, but we'd be losing the larger conflict. Fact is, we control most of the country, but the press is trying as hard as they can to win the war for "their side."

Not denying some people have done some dumb stuff, but even as broke-dick the army is, right now, we're not doing bad.

Of course, we'd rather fight them here, than in the US.

About RPGs, What I know about old RPG-75, it could penetrate 480mm of "standard homogenous armor", but there was study about upgrading explosive (changing hexogene with octogene and optimalising shaped charge), then it could penetrate about 620mm (about 24.5") of homogenous armor . . . new russian RPG-7VR can do 750mm, but there was designed some new exclusively for M1A1 DU armor penetrating . . .

Jiri

120mm,
Sir, you could very well be correct, I did some searching and can't find anything on the net except some posts on command-post.com refering to a CNN article, an AP article, and a Reuters article all dated March 26th, 2003, but a search of those sites has yet to turn up any evidence of such articles. I don't keep my back issues of the Marine Times so I can't look there either.

In the posts the tanks were hit from the rear with AT rockets fired from the backs of trucks. The AP article used the word disabled, all others used destroyed. The tanks may have been with the 7th Cav as that is where one officer quoted was from. It seems both were hit in the ammo storage compartment and the damage was listed as catastrophic. My understanding this means a combination of (at least 2): mobility, firepower, or commo is out. Being a leg grunt who started as an Anti-tank Assaultman, if it can't move or shoot back it's destroyed. It may be able to be fixed, but it's out of the battle now.

I don't expect to continue looking into this, if I'm wrong I'll be the first to admit it, but even globalsecurity.org lists 9 M1s as having been "permanent" losses due to battle damage in 1991, something I had never heard before. Being stuck home we don't get the follow-up to the story sometimes.

Good Luck,
Bob

BTW, I don't know if I'd want to see a 60 ton vehicle involved in a rollover.

Hey Gunny, it sounds like you've done yours. Good on you.

As far as the tanks are concerned, the news doesn't do a good job of using language. I'm still looking into it, and up to now, I've found some info that leads me to believe that "something" penetrated an M1A1 on the date in question. The problem is that noone knows what it is, and based upon our understanding of the armor, it was weird, so is definitely noteworthy.

The two 7th CAV M1s in Baghdad that were destroyed were probably hit and had ammo compartment breaches/engine compartment penetrations by 25mm rounds, fired by a Bradley. Neither one was destroyed, though because we were afraid to leave a crew to watch them, we thermited them. I don't know why we had insufficient assets to recover those vehicles.

The penetration in question was not technically destroyed, and no crewmembers were seriously wounded or killed. The M1 is cunningly designed to be really resistent to weapons penetration, while the ammunition, engine and fuel can be destroyed, without injuring the crew.

I find it intriguing that a shoulder fired weapon could have penetrated the M1 crew compartment, even through the side armor. Of course, I'm more intrigued because I'm no longer crewing one in "Indian Country", it could be an alarming development, if true.

Pete,
You could well be right. I dropped back into the old mode of thinking of war as conventional, not political or economic. Since the Ba'ath Party couldn't defeat us conventionally they are using a guerrilla campaign to defeat our political will.

120mm,
Sir, like I said we don't get the follow-up too often, the news has moved to something "new". Original reports claimed an AT-14 Kornet (I said rocket, should have said missle) knocked out 2 tanks in March. If it turned out to be blue on blue we still have a lot of work ahead of us. And yes, the M1 is very well designed to protect the crew at the expense of the vehicle.

Good Luck,
Bob

Bob,

I think the interesting question is whether we are seeing some pre invasion stratergy being played out, or some hastly cobbled together post invasion plans with no real forward planning.

Regards,

Pete

My son in law was a driver in one of the tanks that was knocked out. Sustained a broken nose. The ammo compartment was hit and cooked off the ammo stored there. They exited the M1 under heavy fire but no one was hit.

Gents,

Where are the exits on an M1A1? Do the crew have to exit out the top or do they doors on the bottom or rear like on some other designs?

Pete

I'll see if I can get my son in law to join us here and answer some of your questions. Give me a day or two to find out.

Pete,
I think you have to assume a guy like Saddam has a plan to regain power in the event of a coup. How much modification needs to be done to such a plan in the event of outside occupation is unknown until you know the plan, but the first step is having the plan. My guess is this guerrilla campaign is planned and coordinated from the top with help from Islamicists and internal/external hired thugs.

There IS great progress being made by our forces and our in-country allies, and some of what is going on is not part of the total package plan from the Ba'ath party. But any chaos only helps them so they have no desire to stop it.

Bob

The exits on the M1 are out through the hatches. It is a bad vehicle for the driver to try to get out of, especially if the hull goes underwater, as has happened, from time to time.

The old belly hatch on the M60 and prior tanks is kind of neat, until you hit a mine.

Peace

Getting back to the original topic...
120mm, would a HEAT round hold "together" well enough to penetrate like this? The entrance hole looks a lot like those I've seen from HEAT rounds, but to travel so far in a straight line with little evidence of "expanding" leads me to believe this was some form of kenetic energy round.

Bob

I'm also intrigued about that. Kind of makes you wonder what caused it.

On the Russians: Some of their stuff shows true genius from time to time. I'm starting to suspect that this might be one of their better jobs.

Does any body produce a DU sabot round for something like a .50 Barrett or the Russian equivilent?

I wonder if Iraq is being used as a testing ground by some third party like the former USSR?

I believe we did similar things in Afghanistan when the Soviets were there...

Regards,

Pete

Pete E: I belive there was some (maybe experimental) DU core 14.5x114 rounds. Maybe, I will try some in my Mosin rifle. DU "is not so hard" to get so maybe I will cast some bullets and test it on steel plate :-).

Jiri- I would really, really appreciate it if you could do that. If you would do some scientific-style results, that would be cool. A tip - try some with the point forward, try some with the base forward, and try some with a cylindrical slug. That way you could eliminate the effects on bullet shape on your tests.

In WWI the Germans took some bullets made from Wolfram (tungsten) and tried them point first, and they failed to penetrate. However, once they reversed the bullets and fired them base-first, penetration was very good.

Thanks.

Pete E 120mm
Is the makeup of Chobam armor still covered by
need to know? I have heard the term and know it is something special invented by the English,but what the hell is it?
The only times I was ever in a tank was behind the National Guard Armory in Huntsville Texas.
We used to sneak in and play in the tanks,I believe they were M-60's.
It was 1962 we were 12 and the base security was
Ah "lax". Different times.Also, Col. Walkers son was with us. Anyway ,inquiring minds want to know, if it is ok to do so.

120mm: It is not so hard to get DU (I mean UO3), which could be "not so easy at all" reduced to metalic DU. Problem is that handling DU (which is alfa emmiter) could be very illegal. Of course there is UO3 in a lot of school labs but still you are going to sticky water. I have access to lathe so I can turn my own sabbots, I belive teflone could be good for that reason. I can try it also in CZ52 pistol in 7.62x25mm caliber.

Jiri

I stumbled across a monograph on uranium alloys. If I can get it copied, I'll post details. According to this article, uranium and its alloys are valuable in projectiles, not because of density or hardness alone, but because of the way they behave on impact. The alloys fail under stress in a way that makes them self-sharpening. I think it called this behavior adiabatic shear banding. In any event, typing "uranium projectile adiabatic" (not in quotes, though) in a yahoo! search turns up lots of studies and some interesting pictures showing what a DU projectile does on impact.

H. C.

I think I figured a way to penetrate an M1, using a chemical energy projectile. I'm not certain how to make it into a reliable weapon system, and I'm not going to share it with the group, as much as I like this group. Loose lips sink ships, dontcha know.

I'm going to speculate that this was a prototype, until the results are released to the general public. I'm fairly confident in the science involved.

120mm : What do you mean with chemical energy projectile ? Is it something like shaped charge unles metal is not changed to plasma but it is throw very high speed ? (appologize please my stupid english terminology). What I know about modern shaped charges ? Look at this picture, left one is by 30g (493gr) shaped charge of CL-20 (HNIW) and right one 30g of PBXN-5, CL-20 did 7" of steel plates, so imagine what can do 300g or 3 kg in RPG or missile . . .

To 120MM:
Don't want to tread on a minefield but can you answer or comment on this:

quote:

---

It is hard to figure withnout exact numbers, but according to Vasiley Fofanov's site (http://armor.vif2.ru/) the Russiam 125mm 3VBM8
APFDS DU round will penetrate 680mm RHA at 2000m. IIRC, the M1 was considered about 400mm RHA equivalent vs KE and the M1A1HA and M1A2
are estimated at 600-700m RHA vs KE.
So a 125mmn DU will kill a M1 with chobham at normal battle ranges, but it had better get real close against HA or shoot from the side

---

Does anyone know what the penetration profile signature would be from the 125mm? Surely less than 125mm - probably a lot less - but how small would it be? Just curious if the Iraqis could possibly have had one.
And BTW, many thanks to all of you there both for what you have done and what you are doing.
God Bless.

And a bit more - same somg, different verse. Still doesn't answer the question re pentration signature.

quote:

---

HEAT is an entirely different matter .. a HEAT warhead consists of a *very* precisely-machined hollow cone of high explosive,
wide-part-forward, with a *very* precisely-machined inner lining of copper. The angle of the cone is a function of the distance of the impact-sensor in the nose of the warhead, such that when the warhead hits, the explosive cone's energy is transferred into making the copper lining a very tightly aligned pencil-like jet,
focussed precisely on the armor being penetrated. It is specific to anti-tank munitions (eg, "High Explosive Anti-Tank").
Spaced armor (one layer up front, to set off the warhead, and one layer a ways back, to give the jet time to defocus, without having to carry the extra mass of armor in the in-between space)
is somewhat effective against HEAT. Almost all modern MBT's have spaced armor, and almost all the rest are refitted with reactive (explosive) armor. To counter these counters, some countries have devised dual-warhead HEAT munitions (ie, one warhead to penetrate the outer layer, and the other on a slight time-delay to penetrate the inner layer). The Hellfire missile, carried by the Apache and some other US platforms, is a dual-warhead HEAT munition.
By some estimates (since the precise composition, configuration, and effectiveness of the Chobham armor are guarded secrets), the
Russian AT-15 150mm dual-warhead HEAT missile would be capable of defeating the M1A2's chobham armor on its frontal arc. I don't remember the exact mass of its warheads offhand, but iirc it's in the ballpark of 50kg (sum of both).
HESH ("High Explosive Squash-Head") is considered an inferior alternative to HEAT as an anti-tank munition. A HESH warhead is comprised of a malleable mass of plastic high explosive, with a detonator in its base, enclosed in a thin outer shell. When the HESH round hits its target, the explosive splats against it and
spreads thin, somewhat resembling a cow-patty. The detonator hits last, and the spread-out explosive transmits a wide, sharp shock
wave through the impacted surface. It was invented as a way of destroying concrete fortifications, but it was accidently found to
be very effective against tanks with homogeneous (not spaced or laminated) armor, since the shock wave passes through the armor without penetrating it, and causes "spall" (little bits of metal
broken off the inside armor surface) to kill the crew. It was pretty neato at the time, but advances in armor overtook it very quickly. The US doesn't have a HESH munition, but some NATO
countries do, the UK in particular. The Scorpion light tank, which has a very small and low-pressure main gun, carries HESH munitions as a matter of course -- it's still a great round for destroying hardened buildings, and lightly-armored or old-armor vehicles too, if you don't have anything better (there are lots and lots of old russian T-55 tanks rolling around the world, and HESH would be effective against them).
Just for the sake of completeness, I should note that HEAT is widely considered inferior to a good APFSDS round fired from a high-pressure main gun. America has metric buttloads of depleted
uranium sitting around, which just happens to make really great penetrator rods for APFSDS munitions, which are simple kinetic energy weapons (ie, you fire the long, thin, saboted penetrator rod and make it go really fast, and when it hits the target it (hopefully) penetrates the armor). Making a good armor against a good APFSDS is harder than making a good armor against HEAT.
The potential advantage I was thinking of, when asking about using really big HESH to kill an M1A2, is that HESH munitions are cheap and easy to make. They don't require the precise machining you need to make HEAT. Precise machining is relatively cheap and available in rich, advanced America, but harder to come by in the countries where the M1A2 would be deployed. (And America has a nasty tendency to bomb facilities in those countries which can do
such precise machining.)

---

Please note the reference to the operation of HEAT round - Could this have been what was used on the M1????

Many questions, one e-mail answer. Jiri - chemical energy rounds are any rounds that penetrate or kill using an explosion, while kinetic rounds are inert and kill with "pure" kinetic energy. I have noticed a language problem between Americans and everyone else, when talking about weapon systems this way, so I understand the miscommunication potential.

Regarding the M1 penetration in question. I wouldn't trust anyone's numbers on the 125mm Russian kinetic round. The problem is production vs. theory. The 120mm Rheinmetall doesn't have a very good kill history on M1s, so I doubt the 125mm, which has some serious design and production problems could do the job, plus, I think we would've found the tube they did the trick with, PLUS, any kinetic round which managed to work up enough oomph to penetrate the armor would've cause all sorts of chaos to the associated structure and interior of the tank.

Here is a "scrubbed" version of how I would penetrate the armor on an M1 in the fashion illustrated, and you must realize that I am not privy to M1A1 armor construction. I am just a very curious person.

HEAT rounds depend on one projectile formed in a single explosion, and that projectile is either molten or hardened, depending on which type of HEAT round it is. I would build a similar round, which consisted of a continuous charge, which would go off for as long as it took to burn through the armor. Of course, you'd need something to make the round "stick" to the armor long enough to do the job, which would then be a "hit or miss" proposition and then, once you expended the round on the armor, it could do very little damage to the interior. What it would do is make the crewmen lose confidence in their equipment.

There used to be a process called thermite welding that worked similarly in industry, but I'm unaware if it is still commonly used.

Basically, we're talking about a portable plasma cutter that uses some form of metal instead of water vapor, and some form of explosive instead of a conventional power supply.

If that is true, I'm questioning how useful it would be as a military weapon.

120, Interesting idea. Now, I played with some thermite in high-school chemisty, (had a great teacher, too bad she can't teach that stuff anymore) and I can attest to it's ability to burn through things. We set some up on a cement block once, and it burned through the block! Now, I don't know what the composition of Chobham armor is, don't want to know. (Yes, our military has it's secrets, and I'm OK with that. In a war, they're called advantages.) But I would hazard a guess that Thermite would eventually burn through it. The problem is, like you started, making it "stick". But even that's not what took out that M1, because there was "something" that flew through the inside of the tank. Thermite doesn't do that, so it brings us back to, "What killed this M1A1?" If you guys figure it out, great! If too many "other" guys figure it out, that's not so great.

Thank you for placing yourself "in harm's way" and doing the job no-one wanted to do. Take care of yourself over there, we want you back in one piece.

Rick

I've seen the photos. I've also seen discussions on other forums. I'm convinced it was a garden-variety RPG that made a lucky shot. Look at the pic of the tank exterior. It has tape over the first entry hole. Notice that only an inch or so of the tape is on the skirt. This leads many to believe that the round penetrated steel above the skirt or steel casing at the top the DU skirt.

120mm- How did an airplane mechanic come to know so much about the M1's armor compostion? Isn't that kind of information distributed on a Need To Know basis?

LDO, my friend, it was a long journey, but I went from farm kid, to college student, to armor officer, to intel officer, to corporate management type, to car accident and loooooong recovery, to the job I wanted since I was a young child, that of restoring antique airplanes. I'm still in the reserves throughout the civilian timeframe, and that brings me to Iraq right now.

I still only know what is public knowledge about the M1 armor system, and really can't give away any "Need to Know", because I really don't know anymore than anyone else, but I do have a very inquisitive mind and an interest in science, especially weapons technology.

As far as the "lucky shot", I just might buy that, all things considered. And if it IS a new weapon system, and something penetrated, my system would still work, as the warhead could be engineered to have a final stage that unleashes a shaped charge, which would be rather small, but might penetrate the armor.

Thanks for your interest.

It wasn't any chemical energy weapon.

It was Burt Gummer's new .22/50BMG wildcat. He was shooting at a Shreiker that was dislodged by our operation. But he had a little problem with over-penetration.

You know how Burt likes his penetration...

Ahh, thermite. Very hot stuff! It's used a lot for field splices of railroad track sections and large steel cables. You put the ends of the two items in a form and hit it with thermite to fuse them together and give them the final shape desired.

It could be used to melt through armor, but you'd have to make it stick, as mentioned earlier, plus you'd have to push it through the material. It works on gravity when left to its own devices, so it would need a push from behind in order to force the reaction through in the correct direction. Plus, I'm not sure it would work fast enough to melt its way through as part of a projectile. It doesn't cut like a knife in my experience - but that's only 'safe' industrial uses... maxman

I sent this thread to a metallurgist friend who works with depleted uranium and other such exotic stuff. His response was "It was hit by friendly fire. It's real and it's real classified. The Army just won't own up to it". He added "I read this thread closely and these guys know their shit but they are treading on some very classified stuff and don't be surprised if the FBI shows up on your door if it goes on."

[ 12-05-2003, 10:24: Message edited by: Dr. Duc ]

Hmmmm. Sniff, sniff... Now what is that odd smell? It smells somewhat of the excrement of a male bovine creature.

I'm currently cowering in my hootch, waiting for the black helicopters to arrive.

The last FBI type that came in my door was driving a Ford.