French Milan Missile may have Knocked Out U.S. Tank (my title)

The M1A1 Abrams tank is widely acknowledged to be the best tank in the world. It weighs just shy of 70 tons and much of that weight is armor to protect the vehicle and its crew. There are two main threats against a tank: HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) rounds and KE (Kinetic Energy) rounds. To greatly oversimplify, HEAT rounds produce a blob of super-hot molten metal that cuts through armor like a torch; KE rounds have long, slender dart-like projectiles that punch through armor like a bullet. The structural armor of the tank is designed to stop KE rounds and is based on the so-called "Chobham armor" technology developed by the British. This is basically a sandwich of steel and depleated uranium plates, ceramics, and plastic composite honeycomb. When hit by a anti-tank KE projectile, the ceramic and composite components vaporize so violently they actually push an incoming dart back out the way it came in before it is able to fully penetrate the armor plating. Attached to the outside of the M1A1 is a second type of armor called reactive armor, basically boxes of steel plated explosives that are intended to disrupt the molten plasma jets created by HEAT rounds before they can get to the vulnerable structural armor. Obviously the offense-defense aspects of protecting and penetrating tank armor have been given a great deal of thought by the U.S. military and has resulted in the M1A1 having a virtually perfect record as being unstoppable in combat. That is, until last August 28. On that date, something disabled an M1A1 tank in Baghdad, and the U.S. Army is still trying to figure out what it was.

As reported in Army Times: The incident is so sensitive that most experts in the field would talk only on the condition that they not be identified. 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 1½ 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.

"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."

"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.

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."

Yes, the Abrams is actually widely considered the best in the world.

No it´s not. The French believe in their LeClerc, the Israelis in the Merkava, the British in the Challenger, the Germans in the Leopard.. I think you get the picture. I am not aware of the firm you are talking about. All I have is a pdf document with an American study with the Leopard II coming out best (mainly due to the new gun). Everywhere where they had the L2 as a competitor for a new MBT, it came out as the winner (Sweden for instance or Turkey).

In this forum you had better know what you are writing about ... YOUR statements are wrong! Having been a Company Commander in the Berlin Brigade I know how arrogant Germans can be (and wrongfully so), I bought a BMW (Buying Mediocre Work) from a US C.A.T. (Canadian Army Trophy) Commander (he took that company to war not to a game)... those "exercises" are a joke ... and do not NOT in ANY way reflect normal tank crews. Anyways, at that time the US was always winning that exercise. The Germans that went to the our training centers got "smoked" far worse then the Americans and as for the Dutch, they would probably go on strike. I'd like to see how the Dutch or Germans would do on Tank Tables V-VIII. BTW ... that CAT Company Commander killed a Tank Battalion on Medina Ridge during Desert Storm. How do you spell COMBAT EXPERIENCE? You can have the MBT 70 :)

Wow, this is of course a classy statement full of truth. /sarcasm

"Anyways, at that time the US was always winning that exercise"

Which time? Here is some other proof:

"Mit den 3 Panzer-Typen M 48, LEOPARD 1 und 2 erreichtedie deutsche Panzertruppe in den 80er Jahren überdurchschnittliche Ausbildungsergebnisse und eine hohe Einsatzbereitschaft. Von 17 internationalen Schießwettbewerben um die Canadian Army Trophy konnte die deutsche Panzertruppe 10 Wettbewerbe gewinnen und 7 mal den zweiten Platzbelegen."

Meaning: "With the 3 tank types M48, Leopard 1 and 2 the German Tank Crews reached better than average results. Out of 17 CAT Trophys the Germans won 10 and were second in the other 7."

http://www.panzertruppe.com/I_PzTr/PzTr/pztr.html

"For example, German conscript units have won the famous Canadian army trophy in the armored vehicle competition more frequently than has any other NATO nation. The same applies to the Boeselager competition for armored reconnaissance troops. In the evaluation of the Commander, Stabilization Forces (SFOR), German units in Bosnia, also consisting of conscripts with prolonged time of service, are performing as well as the units of professional armies in the field."

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/SF164/forum164.html

I do of course admit that combat experience is VERY VERY important. Just don´t always go along and assume that Americans are best at everything. They are not. Neither are Germans.

Until the late 80s and early 90s the US Army did not handpick crews for CAT nor give the crews unlimited range time. We were told that was normal in the German Army. The Germans would always "deny" that practice. When we did "handpick" crews and handed over Graf to them ... we won. One of the times I went to a real training center, HTA, we rotated right after the first German Army did a "rotation". The OCs were ordered NOT to talk about how poor the German Army did .... the huge limitations that the Germans put on training in Germany clearly impacts poorly on tank crew quality. I hope the Germans are taking their training more seriously. Go to the NTC and see the Regiment deploy in the "Valley of Death". Then watch a rotation of Live Fire in the Northern Area of the NTC (Range 305 at Graf is OK but not the same). The US Army clearly trains it's tank crews better then the Germans or Dutch. Unit and Crew training is the REAL key to making a better tank....not the tank.

When the US Army does "assume" we are the best then we are indeed in trouble. If the After Action Reviews (AARs)at the training centers become nice .... then I'll worry. Most of the Germans I knew would consider the lessons learned at AARs insulting and might even walk out.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.