Mirrors? Are you sure you're not just seeing the vision blocks? They are somewhat reflective... Never seen anyone put a mirror on a turret before. Could be infrared paint, I've never seen it before so I don't know if it's reflective. Other than that, I'm drawing a blank...
Not really mirrors, I've never seen M1A1 turrets front plate with something taped on. Can't find pictures with reflexive stuff, but here is one with some square thingie on the turret.
Some things you will commonly see on a turret are sensor packages and reactive armor. If there is some sort of glass facing, it is probably a sensor, if it is big painted boxes, its probably reactive armor.
Is this what you are talking about? <center> </center> I think the box you are mentioning on the turret is a network communications device.
The squares in front seem to be too thin to be any kinds of armor. Not sensors either... BBC, in Basra's presidential palace: We are virtually in Saddam's backyard. "nobody here to even say boo to them." Greg Kelly, in Baghdad: we are speaking in Saddam's frontyard.
It's not reactive armor - those are boxy-looking things that are checkered all over the turret... But we don't use that with infantry running around, and especially not in an urban environment (it makes quite an explosion when it goes off). If you're talking about the squares on either side of the gun, that looks like applique armor. Just extra armor plating. If you're talking about the box on the right side of the turret mounted on top, that's a sensor package.
I didn't mean the stuff in the picture was reactive armor, way too thin. I was just mentioning some of the boxy looking stuff that can be found on turrets. I forgot the TOW launcher on th Bradley (retractable) though. re: reactive armor considering the weapons the Iraqis are bringing to bear (mostly RPGs?) it seems like RA would be a good idea, at least away from cities and infantry/unarmored vehicles.
Even for applique armor, aren't they a bit too thin, at least to the eye? The applique armor on the M2's seems to be much thicker.