Mystery Missile Solved

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/default.asp?target=solved.htm ^

[RusIvan]

Below and in the following pages is the official report on the August, 2003 incident in Iraq where the side armor of an American M-1 tank was penetrated by an RPG round. Two members of the crew suffered minor injuries and no serious damage was done to the tank. The weapon used was apparently a Russian RPG warhead specially designed to penetrate composite armor. In 1988 the Soviet Union weapons organization "Bazalt" was the first in the world to develop a antitank grenade launcher round capable of penetrating composite armor, as well as screened armor and explosive reactive armor. This was done with a tandem warhead for the RPG launchers. The new warhead, the PG-7VR, has been widely used, but until the recent incident in Iraq, was not known to have actually penetrated composite armor in combat.

[RusIvan]

Same old again. "Russian" PRG warhead. In 1988 there wasn't Russia but Soviet Union. WHo knows whom USSR delivered those warheads. But anyway PRG round which costs probably around hundred bucks can penetrates heaviest Ambrams sounds amazing and unrealistic.

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
46	Delaware	50.00	1	50.00	23	2.17

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[gortklattu]

$100 warhead on an RPG for a costly tank. Real bummer.

[eno_]

Sometimes counter-countermeasures are very simple. For example, heat-seeking missiles now have two sensors that look for two different parts of the IR spectrum. Flares used to confuse missiles only appear in one part of the IR spectrum. This "tandem warhead" thing sounds plausible.

[zarf]

Please. For every super weapon we create, I'm sure a counter to it is just months in the making.

The only question is does the opposition have the wherewithall to mass produce the counter measure.

[kingu]

The only question is does the opposition have the wherewithall to mass produce the counter measure.

It only takes one to make a news story.

[Johnny_Cipher]

But anyway PRG round which costs probably around hundred bucks can penetrates heaviest Ambrams sounds amazing and unrealistic.

An old saying comes to mind; "It doesn't matter if the stone hits the pitcher or the pitcher hits the stone. Either way, its going to be bad for the pitcher."

Time to start working on some sort of point defense for tanks and/or "reactive reactive" armor, fellers.

[Lazamataz]

Time to start working on some sort of point defense for tanks and/or "reactive reactive" armor, fellers.

Composite armor is 30 years old. That it survived this long on the battlefield is truly amazing. There are weapons on the drawing board (and probably fielded) that can pick up a 60 ton tank and throw it 100 yards. The day of heavy armor is coming to an end. That is the reason America is moving away from a heavy armor backbone, to a mobile, less protected, more offense-oriented force.

[Johnny_Cipher]

The day of heavy armor is coming to an end.

You would think that lesson would have sunk home with the Maginot Line. But, better late than never I suppose.

That is the reason America is moving away from a heavy armor backbone, to a mobile, less protected, more offense-oriented force.

That's one reason I mentioned point defense such as the CIWS on naval vessels earlier. I'm a little surprised that nobody has mounted an R2D2 (or even something like the A-10's Gatling cannon) on at least a few of the lighter/faster land vehicles for point defense.

[Lazamataz]

"The day of heavy armor is coming to an end."

You would think that lesson would have sunk home with the Maginot Line. But, better late than never I suppose.

Indeed. I favor the new American model. If you hit 'em first, you don't need to absorb a blow.

Besides, no armor known can possibly stand before hypervelocity rounds. Hypervelocity rounds are being field tested, I believe.

That's one reason I mentioned point defense such as the CIWS on naval vessels earlier. I'm a little surprised that nobody has mounted an R2D2 (or even something like the A-10's Gatling cannon) on at least a few of the lighter/faster land vehicles for point defense.

Not a reasonable defense against things moving at Mach 6. Maybe you could knock down the odd missile, but that's about it.

[Revelation 911]

JC:or even something like the A-10's Gatling cannon) on at least a few of the lighter/faster land vehicles for point defense.

Laz - help me recall

I remember someone saying those guns on the A-10 collectively recoil as to reduce flight speed of the warthog -

I'd think the same setup on a hummer or other light platform would send it end over end

[Lazamataz]

I do believe you are right, FRiend.

[Lil'freeper]

.

[FreedomPoster]

Ping.

[Blueflag]

The warhead did NOT penetrate composite armour. It penetrated a portion of the hull that was not covered in composite.

It was a bit of a golden BB.

As I recall the facts and photos, The projectile struck the side of the hull below the base of the turret. As I understand the construction of an M1-A1, the warhead only had to burrow through a few inches of steel at that point.

The crew was protected from spalling (spray of molten metal) by the kevlar lining around the crew compartment. The crewman (driver I believe) was spared becasue the projectile pentrated his seat less then an inch behind his back, continued to the other side of the tank, destroyed an electronic console and came to rest.

I seriously doubt this round could penetrate the compisite armour of an M1-A1/A2.

[Blueflag]

FYI ping

[Lazamataz]

I seriously doubt this round could penetrate the compisite armour of an M1-A1/A2.

Don't put a lot of your hopes on Chobham plate any more. It's 25-30 years old.

[Blueflag]

I pulled a bit of a Lazmataz on this one -- I posted before reading the source article.

The projectile did penetrate the side skirt which is 'thin' composite armour.

Now, having admitted to just reading the article, ;-) lemme say this.

The role of heavy armour is not over until the role of heavy armour is voided. The role of heavy armour in a mechanized assault will persist, even if its relative invulnerability does not. (meaning the M1A1 was THE safest place to be, and still is, during an assault against heavily armed defenders.)

From a strategic and tactical standpoint, when you as a commander endeavour to attack and overtake a position and its defending forces, you need a mix of options from infantry to light armour to artillery to heavy armour. Heavy armour (meaning the heaviest on the field of battle) will always have a role in the right battle. Now, I agree that the future battles will need a greater proportion of more agile 'armoured' fighting vehicles (Bradley lights?) BUT the role of the MBT will never disappear from the Army.

That's my opinion. Add $3.50 to it and you have a latte.

[xzins]

Always the best at analysis, Blue. Thanks for what you do.

Sounds like it was a lucky strike.

[edchambers]

I'm a little surprised that nobody has mounted an R2D2 (or even something like the A-10's Gatling cannon) on at least a few of the lighter/faster land vehicles

Actually we did mount these things on M113s for years M163 I think,they looked impressive as hell in demonstrations but were too sensitive to dirt and vibration to be reliable in the field.They would also go through thier entire basic load of ammo, 1000? rds in less than a minute.