Abrams Tank Attacked And Destroyed By Insurgents In Iraq

news wires | 11/04/2004 | Outspot

[templar]

We are establishing an Iraqi government and aiding in that transition.

Sorry rbmillerjr, but a government (any government) is both power and control. And that is exactly what we are trying to establish.

[Jeff Head]

Can anyone tell me how the Iraqi insurgents are able to penetrate our invincible Abrams tank?

Yes. They are not invincible.

[RightWhale]

If the grunts were nearby this should not have happened at all.

That's right, and the armor is there to back up the ground troops, not as some kind of artillery platform.

[MEG33]

#14.."10 year old" info

[Iris7]

A happy Easter to you also, sir.

Thanks on the "about page" stuff. My sense of humor is very strange, I am told, by my wife and children!

I am not qualified on the M1 in any way. My experience with war was long ago.

The combined arms doctrine you explain so clearly seems to me to cover all the bases. It is how I remember things were organized in Viet Nam. I have read Korean War materials describing the same organization. The German armor in WW2 would withdraw if their infantry were separated from them. In the beginning of WW2 the Russians operated tanks and infantry separately, perhaps by accident while under orders to keep advancing no matter what. In any case the combined arms doctrine you describe, if followed, just has to work.

I don't like my people being put into urban combat in Iraq. The equipment and tactics put the troops in excessive danger. Looking for alternatives I find Israeli urban combat technique interesting.

The lads should not be exposed while in vehicles to the effects of directional mines, buried mines, and even RPGs. This last is not impossible with correct armor. The Israelis have a 10 or 15 ton spaced armor system to augment the M113, for instance. Have to redo the suspension, etc. Explosive Reactive Armor is long overdue. (The Russians are good at this, better than the Israelis as I see it.)

I don't think it is necessary to take casualties to reduce a place like Falujah. A tight investment, destruction of utilities and communications, especially water, cutting off all supplies, encouragement of individual "rallying", and responding to small arms fire with artillery sounds about right. Give them a month or two to consider the situation.

Heavy APCs, tanks with all around armor, armored bulldozers, close range heavy artillery, fuel-air explosives, etc. are useful also.

[ExSoldier]

"Explosive Reactive Armor is long overdue."

When I was at the Armor Officer's Advanced Course in 1993, at Fort Knox, KY one of the first things we learned was that the Soviet T-72 was using this reactive armor. The easiest way to defeat it is to simply use the co-ax machinegun to set it off like a string of firecrackers. Peels the stuff right away leaving them naked for the main gun or some grunt with a Dragon or a TOW.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

In Baghdad, an Army tank burns after being attacked
on the Baghdad-Fallujah highway.
Incredibly, valiant American heroes take the time to protect the Iraqi children during this.

 

 GOTTA SEE THIS-WarEndur.Freedom 4/12/04-Abu Ghraib,Fallujah,Mosul ~ Diogenesis  

[festus]

No no no no they used the ASS-15 Mobile Assault Unit....



However its not been real effective for the Jihadi's in Iraq as their supply chain has been disrupted see below....

[PattonReincarnated]

Published reports by the left-leaning biased media indicate a greater than 10-1 kill ratio for the Marines. Under any circumstances, this would be an terrific accomplishment for a military force. Given the urban nature of the current conflict, and the asymetrical attacks by the insurgents, the Marines have done the impossible.

You are right on the mark. I would like to emphasize that the left-leaning biased media have no clue what war is about. This idea of push-button warfare, lauch a few cruise missles and we have victory is the worse thing the Clinton administration ever purpetuated. Clinton's lack of respect for the military and the way to use the military has left an impresson on the American public that we can have clean wars. Unless you call nuclear fallout clean, it is not possible.

One other thing, while I am at it. I don't like this notion that our military should be used for peace keeping and rebuilding missions. Leave those missions to the French military. Our military should do two things - 1.) Kill and break things, and 2.) Practice killing and breaking things. This should be done with the utmost violence, leaving no doubt that when you mess with the USA, you are going to be in for a hurting.

[Iris7]

Firstly I don't claim special expertise in modern armor systems, and probably an expert would find my concerns childish if well meant. I can only plead that I have seen our people wasted in war and truly hate to have to see it happen again.

There appears to have been further developement of ERA in recent years. The Kontact-5 ERA in current use on Russian - Ukrainian MBTs is said to be immune to premature activation by even light cannon (30 mm) fire. Special explosive materials are claimed and the outer steel layer of the steel - explosive - steel sandwich is 15 mm thick instead of 3 mm as in the older system, very sloped, and made of special high tensile steel.

Other active defense measures besides ERA are available that look interesting, also. The ARENA system looks able to stop RPGs and destroy attacking infantry amongst other possibilities.

Here is a piece about ERA taken from http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/ (not a link) written by Robb McLeod, a Canadian (?) academic well known for his writing on the subject of armor and penetrators:

1. Anatomy of Light ERA

The first impetus to develop 'energetic' armours began in the 1960s after the expensive glass and ceramic armours proved defficient. The goal of such research was essentially to use the controlled release of energy to somehow destroy a forming HEAT jet. Logically, most of these ideas utilized the compact chemical energy stored in explosives to push some sort of metal plate into the incoming jet. One early idea incorporated the idea of using explosive 'pills' which were a metal plate backed by a thick layer of explosive. This explosive was confined or tamped by metal sidewalls, thus forming a metal pillbox over the explosive. This setup was then stuck on the surface of a tank and was detonated when the HEAT jet penetrated the cover plate, driving the plate into the jet. This idea was later abandoned by Rafael because the design proved unfeasible due to the large amount of explosive necessary to effect any damage against the jet.

Around 1969, a Norwegian working for Rafael by the name of Dr. Manfred Held discovered the drive-plate explosive sandwich design which later became explosive reactive armour. In this design two rectangular metal plates, referred to as the reactive or dynamic elements, sandwich an interlayer of high explosive. This 'box' is set at high obliquity to the anticipated angle of attack by the HEAT jet, usually 60°. When the jet penetrates the outer plate, the explosive is detonated by the pressures involved and the plates are rapidly forced apart; the acceleration is completed in around 6 us. The orientation of the plates to the explosive detonation front accelerates the front plate upwards in the x-y plane and slightly forwards and conversely forces the rear plate downward and slightly backward. The front plate is moving upward through the path of the jet and it exerts a destabilizing force on it, i.e. there are elastic longitudual waves travelling down the length of the jet. The destabilized jet, i.e. undergoing wave motion, then reaches the rear plate, which is moving in the opposite direction to the original plate. The force exerted by the rear plate is essentially a torque when taken with that of the front plate, and this causes the already destabilized jet to break up into many smaller pieces. These smaller pieces exhibit self-destructive behavoir - namely yaw (the equivalent of the high velocity impact belly-flop) and transverse velocity, which causes them to strike seperate areas of the target's armour.

So what are all the destructive effects visited on HEAT jets by ERA? The largest and most obvious result is the break-up of the jet and rotation of its pieces. There are, however, also some secondary effects that should be kept in mind. The first secondary effect on the jet is mass loss. Essentially, the jet must penetrate (or, in reality, perforate) the ERA plates. While in 'light' ERA these plates are relatively thin, the transverse motion of the plates means that the jet must actually generate a 'slot' rather than a 'hole' in the plates. So if the jet must travel through a 3 mm plate set at 60° with an apparent height of 15 mm, the total amount of armour that must be penetrated is twice that (two plates) or 80 mm. However, since in reality the jet is perforating the plates rather than undergoing radial displacement penetration, this is really more equivalent to 60 mm. Still, it is an important factor. Another important factor is the damaging of the tip of the HEAT jet. The tip of a HEAT jet can be moving in excess of 8 000 m/s, while the outer edges may be closer to 3 000 m/s. The tip of a HEAT jet also acheives initial penetration of the target material, and initiates adiabatic phase penetration (target metal flow). Essentially, the tip of a HEAT jet is the most efficient part of the jet, and it allows the rest of the jet to efficiently pile into the hole it generated and force the armour material out of its path. Removing jet head will reduce the penetration of the jet by 30% or more, even though it is a relatively small part of the jet's mass.

These two secondary effects are actually pretty substantial, contributing as much as 50% to the effect of ERA. Part of the reason for this is that jet breakup - the primary defeat mechanism - is a pretty common phenomena. A HEAT jet is a piece of metal undergoing extremely rapid severe plastic destortion, so any tiny defect in the construction of the cone will be magnified by the enormous forces involved, resulting in critical failure of the material during the formation of the HEAT jet, and hence, some (limited) break-up. It wasn't actually until the late 1970s that we were able to design well constructed cones which would produce a continious jet.

This first generation light ERA generates about 350 - 400 mm RHA worth of protection against large calibre warheads for the vehicle equipped with it. This implies an efficiency multiplier of about 20, which is incredibly high. However, ERA is not some magical shield. It will not completely stop the HEAT jet from a RPG - a backing layer of armour is still necessary to absorb the remains of the HEAT jet.

2. Light ERAs Deployment History

Around 1978 concurrent with the deployment of the M111 'Hetz' APFSDS round, an ERA package called 'Blazer' was produced for the Israeli Defence Force's Mag'lach (M60A1 & M48A3) and Sho't (Centurion) tanks. Later, versions were also produced for Ti-67S (retrofitted T-55) tanks. The package for the Mag'lach massed about 1 000 kg and the package for Sho't massed about 850 kg.

The Israeli application of ERA was rather crude, using large blocks which left large null zones in the armour after detonation. However, it still proved to be quite a marvelous applique during Israel's invasion of Lebannon in 1982.

After the demonstration of ERA in Lebannon, Russian planners deployed their own Kontakt EDZ armour starting with the T-80BV in 1983. Kontakt EDZ was not a copy of Israeli Blazer ERA. Kontakt was developed by the Soviets cocurrently with Rafael's developments, but was not initially fielded because of concerns over safety. This was in 1978. The abbreviation EDZ stands for "Elementy Dinamicheskoi Zashity", this translates into something like "dynamic protection elements". Two types of Kontakt blocks exist, the standard 'brick' as well as the 'wedge' which has only a single fixed reactive element. The wedge is used to cover null zones and it partly relies on the overlap of its neigbouring bricks for its effectiveness. By about 1985 all Soviet model tanks in Grouping Soviet Forces Germany had EDZ packages.

The T-80BV usually carried a 210 - 222 block array of Kontakt EDZ which was layered over the turret front and side, as well as the top. The hull was covered over the glacis and two thirds of the way down the sides. The T-64BV, the other tank in service with GsfG at the time, only carried a 115 block array of charges which provided mainly frontal protection. After front-line forces had been equiped with EDZ, T-72A and T-72B tanks, and later T-62M and T-55AM1 tanks began to receive ERA packages. Unlike the T-64B and T-80B tanks, which usually have the suffix 'V' (vzryvnoi - explosive) added to indicate EDZ such as T-64BV, the T-72 when fitted with EDZ is usually not distinguished in this fashion.

Kontakt EDZ was more advanced than Blazer ERA in a couple respects. Firstly, the blocks are on the order of 40% the size of Blazer blocks, which is considerably more demanding in terms of technology of the explosive interlayer. This also means that the amount of underlying armour exposed after a detonation is less. Secondly, Kontakt is a little more clever in its configuration. The brick is assymetric in its explosive interlayer, meaning that one end is thicker than the other. This induces rotation in the plates as well as separation, and as a result the armour is effective against HEAT jets at a wider variety of angles.

3. Kontakt-5 Heavy ERA

The development of Kontakt EDZ logically led to the development of a later version, called Kontakt-5, which was optimized to be effective not only against HEAT jets, but also APFSDS long rods. It was first deployed around 1985 on the first T-80Us. It is claimed that Kontakt-5 provides about 300 mm RHA equivalent of additional protection against APFSDS rounds, which corresponds to an increase of about 160% over the base armour of the T-80U (~720 mm total).

We've done a lot of work to analyze how effective Kontakt-5 is and by what methods it defeats the incoming APFSDS rounds. The results of the analysis are quite impressive in their own rough and limited way. We assumed that the Kontakt-5 brick was 10.5 cm wide by 23.0 cm long by 7.0 cm thick, with a mass of 10.35 kg. We arrived at a total mass of 2.8 t for the array. We later found out from Steven Zagola's literature that the array is supposed to be around three tonnes, so we were pretty happy. Assuming the use of Semtex for the interlayer, I found that the configuration was most likely a 15 mm plate up front, backed by 35 mm of explosive, and then a 20 mm plate. This assymetrical configuration had improved effectiveness because the APFSDS rod could still 'catch' the retreating rear plate while the front plate would retain a charateristic high velocity. This is completely opposite to the model that the US Army used in the late 1980s to discribe 'heavy' ERA. In their model, the front plate was on the order of 60 mm thick and the rear a standard 5 mm plate. They thought that the thick plate simply moved up into the path of the incoming long rod and forced it to make a 'slot' (thickness x height) rather than a hole (thickness). This is bogus; the front plate would tamp the explosive and would be barely set in motion.

Anyway, back to the point. Without getting into the actual math, after a couple of analyses, we arrived at our conclusion as to what defeat mechanisms were being imployed. These conclusions have not yet been conclusively proved and we hope to do that soon. We assumed that the massive areal density of the long rod perforated the thin plates with relative ease. Actual ablatic penetrator mass loss was set at about 2%. What we found was that we had these two plates, each individually with about 60% the momentum of the long rod penetrator, were moving oppositely up/down to each other, and that the path of the penetrator was such that it was moving between them. The forces exerted on the penetrator are apparently very large, so large in fact that they were in the region of plastic failure for most (read: all) metals. Essentially, when the penetrator touches the rear plate, the front plate guillotines off the first 5 - 6 cm of the rod. For a round such as the 120 mm M829A1 this represents a loss of about 8% of the total mass. More importantly, the nose is blunted. You would not believe how important that sharp point on the penetrator is. The difference in penetration between an equivalent hyper-sonic spike tipped penetrator and a blunt nose one is at least 20% (to a maximum of around 30%). This is mainly because a blunt nose is very inefficient in the initial phase of penetration before the ablatic shear phase can begin. The penetrator has to actually sharpen itself to the optimum Von Karam plastic wave theory shape for penetration of the target material before it can begin radially displacing the target material. This resolves itself in the form of a lot of wasted work and thus penetrator mass. The blunted penetrator also suffers structural damage and more mass loss as a shock wave travels down its length and blows spall off the tail. The main secondary effect of Kontakt-5 EDZ against APFSDS rounds is yaw induced by the front plate before contact with the rear plate is established. The total is about two to three degrees of yaw, which suddenly becomes a lot more in a denser material such as steel. Reduction in penetration due to a 2° yaw is about 6% and it grows exponentially worse from there, and on the 67° slope of the front glacis of the T-64/72/80/90, this is increased to about 15%.

Total loss in penetration amounts to about 2% + 8% + 22% + 6% = 38%, or in other words the penetrator is now only capable of penetrating 62% its original potential. Conversely we could say that the base armour is increased by the factor of the reciprocal of 62%, which is - surprise! - 161%.

So was I surprised by the results? Not really. I had expected penetrator yaw to be the primary defeat mechanism, but otherwise we had verified the effectiveness of Kontakt-5 before it became general public knowledge, which is great bragging rights.

Of course, now the goal is to do a rigorous mathematical proof.


Jane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15:

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION

"Claims that the armour of Russian tanks is effectively impenetrable, made on the basis of test carried out in Germany (see IDR 7/1996, p.15), have been supported by comments made following tests in the US.

"Speaking at a conference on Future Armoured Warfare in London in May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US tests involved firing trials of Russian-built T-72 tanks fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour (ERA). In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles.

"When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles.

"Richard M. Ogorkiewicz"

---

[Iris7]

Turns out http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/ is a link in fact. Didn't realize this feature was working.

If the "light" ERA has a 3 mm hard steel top layer and a rifle caliber projectile strikes at 30 degrees to the surface then the effective thickness is 6 mm not including glance off effects. Have to be pretty close to penetrate it with 7.62 ball, maybe 300 - 500 yards?

I have become interested in armor protection since Iraq began. Wish now I were an expert. Want the lads to get the very, very best chance to return home alive and not maimed. Good men are just so heartbreakingly rare, I hate it, hate it, when we lose one. I feel like they are all my favorite nephews. Want to go over there and take care of them. So young.

[Iris7]

Howdy, Valin.

I notice that you supply no new militarily usefull information yourself! You are a man after my own heart, sticking to the common knowledge when needed. I just can't post anything that might help those people hurt our lads.

[M1Tanker]

RPG-7VR. Brand new RPG. Side hit. The traitor in Ft Lewis, and others in sensitive areas of gov't (the party of People who drive off bridges when drunk....) leaked info like this a while back. The Federation of American Scientists (www.fas.org) also has details on the M1 and other vehicles.

This particular RPG is brand new, but is appearing in Iraq more frequently. There is a video of a 'milita' man carrying one. They are pretty easy to pick out. The launcher is brand new looking (rare for an RPG) and has a telescopic sight (even more rare). The missile is elongated and not the stubby cone we are used to seeing. These weapons are most likely comming from Syria and Iran. Russia and China make them. I would not be surprised to see a French flagged commercial transport ship importing them to the Mid-east.

The big question is: "why don't these countries realize that if we lose here, they will fall to islamofascism shortly???". Russia is fighting them in Chechneya, and losing. China aslo has problems. France is so scared they dodn't know what to do. And Spain...we all know what happened in Spain: Got bombed and chickened out. Guess what Spain, you will be bombed weekly from now on until you either surrender or stand up against these terrorists.

I heard someone say that we are in WWIII and it is just like WWII except that the US and the UK have switched places. The UK is the reluctant ally and the US is the one screaming at the world to stand up against dictators....The rest of the world is just the same as it was. It either is passive with it's head in the sand, or trying to profit from the carnage, or aiding the fascists in hopes of haveing a seat in the "new world order' of Bin Laden, Kim Jung Ill and others like them.

[M1Tanker]

Crew got out. The tank protected them, as advertised. Notice there is little personal gear on the bussle rack (the racks around the back of the tank). Other footage showed the crew still fighting from the burning vehicle. Even without that footage, the lack of gear and the lack of a "destroy in place" bombing suggests that the tank was extracted soon after the fight. The crew still fought from the tank (the 50 CAL was empty and still on the vehicle, which meant the Army was comming back for it).

[in the Arena]

Ha ! The IDF really likes their MBT...there's a little propaganda in this photo...unless the horizon really is a quarter bubble off in that part of the globe... :O)

[archy]

RPG-7VR. Brand new RPG. Side hit. The traitor in Ft Lewis, and others in sensitive areas of gov't (the party of People who drive off bridges when drunk....) leaked info like this a while back. The Federation of American Scientists (www.fas.org) also has details on the M1 and other vehicles.

This particular RPG is brand new, but is appearing in Iraq more frequently. There is a video of a 'milita' man carrying one. They are pretty easy to pick out. The launcher is brand new looking (rare for an RPG) and has a telescopic sight (even more rare). The missile is elongated and not the stubby cone we are used to seeing. These weapons are most likely comming from Syria and Iran. Russia and China make them. I would not be surprised to see a French flagged commercial transport ship importing them to the Mid-east.

Yep. The tandem double-charge PG-7VR warhead can be used in the older RPG-7, 7/D, and 7V launchers, but it only makes sense that the rarer, most effective rounds would go to the most experienced gunners, using RPG14s set up with optical sights or night vision optics. Expect too that a couple of the older launchers will also be fiting the standard PG-7 rounds as concealment for the launch of the round they really want to get through.

And too there's the RPG-29 *Vampir*, another dual-charge tandem nwarhead tank killer. Still likely not capable of taking on an Abrams from the front, but probably deadly from a flank shot.

In 1988 the State Research and Production Enterprise "Bazalt" was the first in Russian and the world practice to solve the problem of creating antitank grenade launcher rounds capable of engaging combined (composite), screened and explosive reactive armor protection through the development of a radically new tandem warhead and a new PG-7VR round comprising this type of WH for firing from the RPG-7V grenade launcher. So far the PG-7VR does not have analogs in the world.

[null and void]

Thanks.

[Atlantic Friend]

Why on Earth would we use a French-flagged cargo to import Russian-made RPGs transiting through Iran ? Iraq's borders are perfect for smuggling them by land. And frankly, I doubt my country would be idiotic enough to 1) arm Iraqi insurgents against the US (plain wrong, and even for the cynical hardliners nothing to gain here) 2) use a FRENCH-flagged ship to play this little game.

[Atlantic Friend]

There's no invincible tank as there were no unsinkable battleships in WW2. The United States, Russia, France, Germany, China and maybe other weapons producers field antitank missiles that can knock off any known tank.

Plus, tanks in a urban environment are very vulnerable because the urban compounds give enemy missile crews great cover to attack, be it with RPGS, Molotov cocktails or state-of-the-art antitank missiles. Think of Stalingrad, 1943 ; Paris, 1944 ; Berlin, 1945. That's why, as another Freeper pointed out, tanks are not supposed to go alone in the streets : they need an escort of infantrymen to scout the place.

[M1Tanker]

You are right. I would say a "neutral" ship like a Panamanian or other Central American flagged ship.

However, you should be asking your leftist gov't why they are doing exactly what you wrote. Why are they working with the Russians to develop improved versions of the T-55, T-62, T-72, and T-80 Main Battle Tanks. Why are they working with the Russians to develop 2nd generation Active Protection Systems like the improved Shtora, Arena, and Drozd? Why are they conducting joint naval maneuvers with China off the coast of Tiawan? Why new FN-FAL rifles are showing up in the hands of Iranian backed terrorists?

And most of all, why did they receive billions of Euros worth of oil contracts (illegally) and bribes from Saddam? Though on this point, the governments of Germany, Russia, China, the UN, and several MPs in the UK are all guilty too. On this I also have to wonder how many Democrats in the US also received oil vouchers from Iraq....

The French gov't, NOT the French People, is doing this, let me make that clear. The French gov't is betraying their people just as they did prior to WWII when the French gov't communicated with NAZI Germany about France having a seat in Hitler's new Europe. They are betraying the French people just as they did when they were the Vichy Gov't under Hitler.

The French gov't is betraying the People of France just as the Clinton gov't betrayed the People of America. My question is: Will the French People be able to see throught the betrayal sooner than the American People saw through Clinton's? And will it be soon enough for France to avoid an incident like 9-11-01?