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

[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

 

[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....

 

[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.