Picture of damage to M1A1 in Iraq

[Tanzy]

An M1A1 Abrams tank with the 1st Armored Division was hit by enemy fire in Baghdad at 5:20 a.m. on Aug. 28. The paper in the photo covers the hole

The hole in the M1A1 Abrams tank is marked by a circle in the above photo, showing the damage behind the skirt.

A close-up of the mysterious round’s point of entry.

The round penetrated the turret well to reach the inside of the tank.

The round passed through a nuclear, biological, chemical hose inside the tank behind the gunner’s seat and bent the basket.

The projectile then tore a hole in the gunner’s seat.

The round pierced the left kidney area of the gunner’s flak jacket. According to the damage report, “The gunner said it felt like someone hit him in the back with a hammer.”

The round then crossed “under the breech and hit the safety guard,” the report said. The photo shows the entry side of the safety guard.

The round then exited the safety guard.

Next, the projectile slammed into the turret networks box

[Tanzy]

The round then pierced the breaker panel on the tank

The mysterious projectile finally buried itself in the hull of the M1A1 Abrams tank on the opposite side from where it entered. The hole is 1½ to 2 inches deep.

For the benefit of those who are interested by were not at the dinner table.

October 27, 2003

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

Mystery behind Aug. 28 incident puzzles Army officials

http://www.armytimes.com/print.php?f=1-292236-2336437.php

By John Roos

Special to the Times

Shortly before dawn on Aug. 28, an M1A1 Abrams tank on routine patrol in Baghdad “was hit by something” that crippled the 69-ton behemoth.

Army officials still are puzzling over what that “something” was.

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.

Mystery and anxiety

Terry Hughes is a technical representative from Rock Island Arsenal, Ill., who examined the tank in Baghdad and wrote the report.

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.”

Nevertheless, the Abrams continues its record of providing extraordinary crew protection. The four-man crew suffered only minor injuries in the attack. The tank commander received “minor shrapnel wounds to the legs and arms and the gunner got some in his arm” as a result of the attack, according to the report.

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.

The soldiers of 2nd Battalion, 70th Armor Regiment, 1st Armor Division who were targets of the attack weren’t the only ones wondering what damaged their 69-ton tank.

Hughes also was puzzled. “Can someone tell us?” he wrote. “If not, can we get an expert on foreign munitions over here to examine this vehicle before repairs are begun? Please respond quickly.”

His report went to the office of the combat systems program manager at the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command in Warren, Mich. A command spokesman said he could provide no information about the incident.

“The information is sensitive,” he said. “It looks like [members of the program manager’s office] are not going to release any information right now.”

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.

Spalling results when an armor penetrator pushes a stream of molten metal ahead of it as it bores through an armored vehicle’s protective skin.

“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.

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.

An RPG-7 can penetrate about 12 inches of steel — a thickness far greater than the armor that was penetrated on the tank in Baghdad. But the limited spalling evident in the photos accompanying the incident report all but rules out the RPG-7 as the culprit, experts say.

Limited spalling is a telltale characteristic of Western-manufactured weapons designed to defeat armor with a cohesive jet stream of molten metal. In contrast, RPG-7s typically produce a fragmented jet spray.

The incident is so sensitive that most experts in the field would talk only on the condition that they not be identified.

One armor expert at Fort Knox, Ky., suggested the tank may have been hit by an updated RPG. About 15 years ago, Russian scientists created tandem-warhead anti-tank-grenades designed to defeat reactive armor. The new round, a PG-7VR, can be fired from an RPG-7V launcher and might have left the unusual signature on the tank.

In addition, the Russians have developed an improved weapon, the RPG-22. These and perhaps even newer variants have been used against American forces in Afghanistan. It is believed U.S. troops seized some that have been returned to the United States for testing, but scant details about their effects and “fingerprints” are available.

Still another possibility is a retrofitted warhead for the RPG system being developed by a Swiss manufacturer.

At this time, it appears most likely that an RPG-22 or some other improved variant of the Russian-designed weapon damaged the M1 tank, sources concluded. The damage certainly was caused by some sort of shaped-charge or hollow-charge warhead, and the cohesive nature of the destructive jet suggests a more effective weapon than a fragmented-jet RPG-7.

A spokesman for General Dynamics Land Systems, which manufactures the Abrams, said company engineers agree some type of RPG probably caused the damage. After checking with them, the spokesman delivered the manufacturer’s verdict: The tank was hit by “a ‘golden’ RPG” — an extremely lucky shot.

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.”

John Roos is editor of Armed Forces Journal, which is owned by Army Times Publishing Co.

[Tanzy]

I made a mistake when I confused this with another incident involving French missiles. The weapon here is probably a 'golden' RPG that just got lucky and hit the tank in the vulnerable 'armpit' area. Either way, this RPG-7VL or VR are both produced after 1991 therefore Russia sold weapons to Iraq violating UN sanctions too.

Mystery Projectile Explained

Strategypage

The "Mystery Projectile" that caused the penetration of an M-1 tanks side armor was probably a Russian RPG-7V or similar type light anti-tank rocket with a HEAT warhead. What caused the damage appeared to be an improved version with wave shaper in the HEAT warhead. The pictures of the penetration show classic HEAT warhead circular flash and light material splash (aluminum or similar from outer warhead casing) in a roughly circular area and at between 500 - 800 mm radius around the penetration hole. It also seems as if the entry hole on the skirt plate has a ragged and enlarged hole. This is consistent with wave shaped warheads that do not have optimal performance at point of impact as the jet is still being focused. In pictures 2-5 there is virtually no spalling around the inside exit hole and immediately adjacent interior equipment. Only items directly in penetration path has been punctured or splashed with molten copper (see gun guard picture). It appears as if the jet was disrupted and started deflagrating by interior components spaced effect and material compositions. The last picture shows residual heat discoloration on the switch box, which is typical of molten metal heat transfer and short-circuit effects as can be expected when you send conductive liquid or particles into an electrical box.

The damage done is similar in appearance to that done to other armored vehicles that have been penetrated by an RPG-7. In this case, the round hit one of the few areas on the side of the tank that was vulnerable to penetration by an RPG round.

[sinner]

this is shocking enuf

[tfrancis]

From what I know, as the interior of the tank is made up of mostly steel, a fragments from the RGP will keep bounching until it hits a soft body (like Radio set, Human body.

Quite unlucky for the solider to get hit as most of the time the round will hit the delicate equipment that is installed in the tank.

[Tanzy]

Flechettes from APFSDS or 'Sabot' rounds ricochet in the tank but shaped charges don't. It's quite hard to bounce molten metal don't you think?

[tfrancis]

Hmm, Have'nt thought of that. Has seen a sabot round before and it is shape just like a dart. Anyway the information is what i got from the Armor officers.

[bawater]

isn't the molten metal method used for the A-10 tankbuster's bullets.

i'm sure u can find 9mm RR(recoiless Rifle) rounds that will do the same thing.

(9mm has a smaller width than you little finger)

Very mobile ambush usage by infantry or a tank killer team.

A sabot round would have to come from an iraqi tank - and since M1's don't travel alone in enemy territory i think they would have spotted the tank.

[tfrancis]

The US tanks in Iraq are supported by helicopters during the Iraq war, it is the spot any ambush. But you cannot really see a 2 man anti-tank unit hidden in the sand from the air.

[Tanzy]

isn't the molten metal method used for the A-10 tankbuster's bullets.

i'm sure u can find 9mm RR(recoiless Rifle) rounds that will do the same thing.

(9mm has a smaller width than you little finger)

Very mobile ambush usage by infantry or a tank killer team.

A sabot round would have to come from an iraqi tank - and since M1's don't travel alone in enemy territory i think they would have spotted the tank.

The 30mm Avenger cannon on the A-10 are kinetic rounds. They are just Depleted Uranium tipped solid slugs moving at really high velocity.

I don't think a 9mm Recoiless gun exists. 9mm sounds more like a pistol round. The Carl Gustav Recoiless gun used by the SAF is 84mm. Anti-tank weapons are pretty deadly nowadays. If a Milan with the new warhead hits the M1A1 on the same spot, all the crew will be dead.

Ja. A 'sabot' can only come from a tank. The damages in the tank also doesn't correspond to a flechette type projectile since the 'thing' had a straight trajectory through the vehicle. Looks really like a H.E.A.T. type shaped charge.