This is really interesting, I wonder if the weapon is a new type of RPG or something more bizarre like a rail gun. Clearly this is not any sort of Iraqi technology-- could the Russians be providing help to the insurgents? 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.” 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. “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. 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. The incident is so sensitive that most experts in the field would talk only on the condition that they not be identified. http://www.armytimes.com/print.php?f=1-292236-2336437.php
Could have been a lucky shot it says near the bottom of the article with an ordinary RPG. They've been shooting M-1's with Abrams so much with RPG-7's you figure one of them would get lucky at some point. OTOH, all of the shooters are probably dead.
The M1A2 and its Chobham armor is nearly impervious to anything but a direct hit from a heavy penetrator round. I think it is some kind of new Russian anti-tank rocket and was likely sold to them despite the arms embargo, just like all those NVG's we found that were of extremely recent Russian vintage.
No tank is uniformly protected with armor, generally they are much more heavily armored on the front and sides than the rear or top, heavy as the Abrams is, it has vulnerabilities as well. I heard we also added depleted uranium armor in the 90's, not sure if all older tanks got upgraded, though. Also, no tank could survive the old 155 shell in the ground trick we taught to the mujahadin. From the article: "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."
The Chobham is some SERIOUS stuff--high-strength ceramics, now layered with depleted uranium. I wonder why the Army wants to stay away from "reactive armor" for the MIA2? Your tread-head brothers in the Corps have it on retro-fited M-60s. Reactive armor almost completely negates a shaped warhead round by creating a small explosion when the round hits, not letting it create the penotrating vacum that scalds the inside of a tank. Sherman drivers in WWII would put rucksacks, spare-treads, tents and any rigging they could find on their turret to break-up the smooth lines of steel and disrupt a shaped-charge detonation. Hope the gurus figure out who is packin' this stuff--I don't want our boys there; but if they are, get 'em the intel on this "mystery weapon"
Can somebody explain how this projectile could make such a small hole that could disable the entire tank? I always thought RPGs made large holes about the size of a fist through armor.
A shaped charge warhead penetrates armour by creating a super-hot "plasma" jet that punches through the armor and spews molten metal through out the compartment or a tank or APC. The hole isn't that large on the outside, on the inside it opens up as the metal on the interior wall is melted and spewed-away by the high-pressure stream plasma stream--like a cutting torch. That might be where you are thinking of a larger "fist-sized" hole.
Interesting point. The USMC got rid of its last M-60A3's back when I was in in the Corps and now have the Abrams as well, but with no reactive armor. The Israelis, clever devils, invented the armor, but I don't think it can be used on skirts where that tank was hit. From what I've read, it is quite heavy as well and since Abrams are already weighty beasts, I can understand why they would avoid it.
Really? I thought the Corps was still sporting thoose suped-up M60's--I have a fondness for the M60, a close friend of my Dad's was a '60 commander in Vietnam and in Europe. He would give me pictures, practice rounds with no powder, full tactical books written in the 60's about how to take on Soviet-bloc armor brigades(complete with drawings ). You are definitely right about the weight though--I didn't consider that.
Why would the Russians use a "secret" weapon in such a small campaign. Why not save it for a time when it could be more critical to their survival.
They're either in the scrapyard, offshore as reefs or were given to some other country. They are obsolete, they are hard to maintain and they are not fast enough to keep up with modern warfare. The Corps got their first Abrams in the Gulf War and now they have nothing but M1A1's.
