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

Army Times ^ | 11/3/04 | John Roos

[stylin_geek]

Yeah, I agree such a weapon might be worrisome, but, what, exactly, happens when a sabot round fired by one of our tanks hits the turret on a opposing tank? (read somewhere that even if a 20 ton tank were completely invulnerable to the round, the kinetic energy alone contained in the round would be enough to make it tumble) (I'm going from memory, so please be gentle if I am wrong)

[glorgau]

even if a 20 ton tank were completely invulnerable to the round, the kinetic energy alone contained in the round would be enough to make it tumble

Probably a 20 ton tank wouldn't have enough armor to stop the sabot round. It would probably go through both sides and out.

[Ogmios]

And suck the crew out the hole as it exited. Icky!!

[MindBender26]

(read somewhere that even if a 20 ton tank were completely invulnerable to the round, the kinetic energy alone contained in the round would be enough to make it tumble) (I'm going from memory, so please be gentle if I am wrong)

If energy made target tank tumble, it would make firing tank tumble too. Sabot round must penetrate to "kill" although knocking off a track or wheel creates a "mobility kill" (an immobile tank is generally useless.)

Semper Gumby

[colorado tanker]

Archy's thread pretty well examines this. It does look like some kind of kinetic energy round. Since we didn't see this during the active campaign, I gotta think it was fired from a coalition weapon or something Russian brought in through Syria after the war.

What is strange is that the story is just now hitting the mainstream press, two months after the event. I guess it fits with the media's present quagmire campaign.

[Joee]

Concur! However, the U.S. has been working on this for years. I'm sure the package is now much more field usable than it's original. Who knows what the rest of the world has come up with. I'm sure open to other opinions.

[stylin_geek]

Sorry, I should have explained, if one of our current tanks were to fire a sabot round at a 20 ton tank that was impervious to the round, the 20 ton tank would tumble, due to the amount of kinetic energy contained in the round.

[MindBender26]

Sorry, but completely incorrect myth. Think of the physics involved: "equal and opposite reactions." In order to have the energy to tumble a tank, the fired projectile would have to be fired with enough energy to timble the firing tank.

It's like the old myth of the "knockdown" power of a rifle or pistol round. Simply an old wives tale.

[stylin_geek]

Not if the tank firing the round weighs in at almost three times the theoretical tank.

[MindBender26]

Still no. Old wives tail. The typical 120mm round would have to be traveling about 46,000 mph to impart enough energy, and that's assumimg no energy loss due to round disfigurement, total energy transfer, no loss of velocity due to air resistance, no energy absorbtion of hit vehicle's suspension....

[MindBender26]

Also, look at the angles involved. You would need about 720,000 foot-pounds of energy transfered to enemy tank in about 1/4000 of a second, pushing the wrong way from a lever standpoint (probably about a 3 to 1 lever loss) That would take about 15,709,091 horsepower to flip a tank, even with 100 % energy transfer, no slipage, etc.

There is a lot of horsepower in the few pounds of gunpowder in a tank shell, but nowhere near 15 million horsepower.

[Publius6961]

I would guess the launcher would be of the electro magnetic type, capable of over 6000 FPS. I know the US is testing such. The projectile ??? I haven't a clue.

OK. I'll say it.

Depleted uranium?
French? German?

[archy]

Laser!" No, I don't think so, as a projectile was involved.

There are laser-pumped propulsion systems that function by ablating [*boiling*] the base off a projectile to create ejected mass for reactive energy for propulsion. Most such theoretical models involve large payload carriers intended for travel outside Earth's atmosphere. But that's not to say authoritatively that such technology couldn't be applied to a smaller and simpler projectile within the Earth's atmosphere. More details *here.*

-archy-/-

[archy]

OK. I'll say it.

Depleted uranium?

French? German?

VERY unlikely. Had that been the case, the unit's chemical/biological/radiological warfare officer and NCO would have caught it right away with Geiger counter, Radmeter or other radiological monitoring equipment. And most Soviet and Eastern European kinetic energy projectiles use a tungsten-carbide penetrator dart rather than DU.

Much more likely: a Miznay-Shardin effect, self forging copper shaped charge liner, essentially a white-hot copper teardrop that passes through steel and DU armor like an icepick through a wicher chair.

-archy-/-

[archy]

You would need about 720,000 foot-pounds of energy transfered to enemy tank in about 1/4000 of a second, pushing the wrong way from a lever standpoint (probably about a 3 to 1 lever loss) That would take about 15,709,091 horsepower to flip a tank, even with 100 % energy transfer, no slipage, etc.

There is a lot of horsepower in the few pounds of gunpowder in a tank shell, but nowhere near 15 million horsepower.

Now factorv in 40 to 50 rounds of High Explosive Plastic and High Explosive-Anti Tank shaped charge warheads stored iside the Abrams turret, with warhead charges of around 45 pounds of RDX high explosive each.

Rework your numbers and see if you can figure the effect of a little over a ton of high explosive sympathetically detonating. It appears the turret blow-off panels were indeed blown free, and that venting of the blast may be what saved the lives of the two crewmen who survived.

If you don't have horsepower/erg figures for RDX, use those for TNT and add around 15%.

-archy-/-

[MindBender26]

Awchie....

The Q was, would a sabot round that did not penetrate the armor than "flip" a tank? No way.

It's not even close.

It's like the old hunters' story about a round "knocking down" a deer. It wouldn't knock down a deer if it didn't knock down the hunter who fired the round in the first place.

PS, Is it me or are the liberal journalists getting more outlandish in their "coverage?"

[archy]

Awchie....

The Q was, would a sabot round that did not penetrate the armor than "flip" a tank? No way.

It's not even close.

It's like the old hunters' story about a round "knocking down" a deer. It wouldn't knock down a deer if it didn't knock down the hunter who fired the round in the first place.

Whatever hit that Abrams, whether a APFSDS *Sabot* projectile, either of DU or Soviet-practice titanium alloy, or a chemical energy Monroe-effect HEAT jet or self-forged MS projectile, struck with enough force to set off the vehicle's Halon fixed fire extinguisher system. Accordingly, the impact almost certainly generated enough heat to cause the detonation of either a single HE or HEAT round, or, if the loader's access panels were open, the entire tank's ammo supply.

What's interesting is that the projectiles' propellent charges, fuel, hydraulic fluids, the crew and other inflammible items inside did not ignite, as is generally the case when a HEAT warhead jet penetrates a tanks interior. Neither does the characteristic spalling of a HEAT or HESH strike appear in the pics of the main gun's breech shield; the sheet metal has been pierced by a few stray fragments, but that's it.

A sabot round that didn't penetrate migfht or might not detonate the ammo aboard, which could then *fli* the tank. But I've never seen a tank hit with one that wasn't penetrated, I have seen two in a row that both were, with the penetrator dart passing through the front slope, driver, turret , firewall, power pack and back grillm then to do the same to the following T62 under tow. I've also seen a too hastily aimed sabot round that missed the enemy tank center and instead hit the portside track, holing the track, werecking the front sprocket, then passing through every one of the roadwheels, and out the track in back. Neither burned, but everyone inside both tanks died.

PS, Is it me or are the liberal journalists getting more outlandish in their "coverage?"

Partly a result of too many know-nothing *military affairs reporters* and the practice now of *imbedding* reporters where they're told to go rather than where they might best report the stories they know how to follow best. A journalist wha's a former tanker might find himself assigned to a medical detatchment, for instance.

Accordingly, my own editor and myself have been working on something a little more creative for almost a year now, so far without result. But we shall see.

[MindBender26]

Did you see the piece, I think it was MSNBC, where a convoy was pinned down under a concrete overpass? Photog, who was an RVN vet, said he was about 10 seconds away from picking up an M-60 when some Apaches arrvied!

[Squantos]

My SWAG is a simple AT-4 Spigot........As to TNT vs RDX. TNT is a one (1) on the relative equalivancy scale and simple RDX is a one point three four (1.34) for yer figuring.......:o)

Monroe effect is a shape charge and Misznay-Schardin effect is the platter charge BTW.

Stay Safe !