US Army M1A1 Destroyed by IED...

[I-Hate-Hulse]

I hope these aren't Fatas but I found some stunning photos of a 69 ton M1A2SEP (the latest and greatest variant) completely destroyed by Iraqi insurgents:



"Military spokesmen in Washington and Baghdad said it was the first time the army's main battle tank had been disabled by a roadside explosion since Iraqi opposition forces have begun targeting US convoys and patrols with so-called improvised explosive devices.

A US defense official, who asked not to be identified, said an improvised explosive device detonated as the tank rolled over it.

The force of the blast caused the behemoth to roll over an embankment, which is what killed and injured those inside, the official said."

Apparently 3 artillery shells or anti-tank mines were placed on top of each other and detonated as the M1 passed over.

Rest of the pics are here: Linkety-Link

(Warning: slow load times. The rest of the site seems a little crackpot-ish but the photos look real enough, combined with a GlobalSecurity report would seem to give it some legitimacy )

Unreal. The M1 has earned a reputation for being lethal and tough but this clearly illustrates the outcome of the classic battle between armor and bigger warheads....

[CaptainCrunch]

Actually this has very little to do with the argument of warhead versus armour.

The top and bottom armour isn't very heavy and actually defeatable. three large charged artillary charges or three anti-tank mines will provide plenty enough energy to tip a tank.

The side, front and rear armour is pretty tough to defeat especially when you consider that its reactive armour.

A sabot round would probably achieve burn through. A conventional anitank or heat round would not penetrate.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Point taken CC, bad analogy on my part. I should have phrased that more in terms of how the toughest of armored objects has its vulnerabilities.

Some interesting research here.... apparently some M1's have fallen to more advanced weaponry... including some shaped charge rounds, not sabot...

Another Magic Bullet Theory

"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.

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."

[BlackArcher101]

I don't know, but looking at those other photos, something just doesn't seem right between the story and the pictures.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by I-Hate-Hulse@Nov 9 2004, 11:44 PM
Point taken CC, bad analogy on my part. I should have phrased that more in terms of how the toughest of armored objects has its vulnerabilities.

Some interesting research here.... apparently some M1's have fallen to more advanced weaponry... including some shaped charge rounds, not sabot...

Another Magic Bullet Theory

"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.

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."

What your describing sounds an awful lot like a Sabot round. A pencil thin super dense projector destroys its target by hitting it with the force of a 70 mph truck collision spread over the area of a pencil.



The M1A2 armour is the most advanced tank armour in the world but it can still be defeated, just not consistantly.

The Russians were selling sabot rounds like crazy because they can be fired from almost any tank on the planet, and are the weapon of choice when going after armour.

antitank ammo

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by BlackArcher101@Nov 9 2004, 11:49 PM
I don't know, but looking at those other photos, something just doesn't seem right between the story and the pictures.

Looks right to me. The mines exploded under the tank. Defeated the bottom armour, over pressured through the crew compartment and launched the turret.

[Mightyfire89]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Nov 9 2004, 07:29 PM
Actually this has very little to do with the argument of warhead versus armour.

The top and bottom armour isn't very heavy and actually defeatable. three large charged artillary charges or three anti-tank mines will provide plenty enough energy to tip a tank.

The side, front and rear armour is pretty tough to defeat especially when you consider that its reactive armour.

A sabot round would probably achieve burn through. A conventional anitank or heat round would not penetrate.

The front, side and rear armour on an abrams isn't necessarily reactive armour...it can be fitted with it, but the actual main body of the vehicle isn't made of it.

And don't kid yourself, the armour on the bottom of these tanks, while nowhere near as thick as on the front, is still pretty damn thick. It would take a helluva blast to knock one of these things over...the M1 A2 variety of the tank weighs almost 70 tons. Three garden variety blast mines detonated simultaneously wouldn't budge one of these monsters.

Whatever did this was packing a huge amount of explosive energy.

[peter12]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch+Nov 9 2004, 07:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaptainCrunch @ Nov 9 2004, 07:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BlackArcher101@Nov 9 2004, 11:49 PM
I don't know, but looking at those other photos, something just doesn't seem right between the story and the pictures.

Looks right to me. The mines exploded under the tank. Defeated the bottom armour, over pressured through the crew compartment and launched the turret. [/b][/quote]
I heard the new Russian T-90 took the crown for most protected tank.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by peter12+Nov 10 2004, 01:56 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (peter12 @ Nov 10 2004, 01:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Looks right to me. The mines exploded under the tank. Defeated the bottom armour, over pressured through the crew compartment and launched the turret.

I heard the new Russian T-90 took the crown for most protected tank. [/b][/quote]
I don't believe that the T-90 is any better armoured than the M1A2, I think when they talk about defense they're talking about the Shtora-1 self defense system which is an advanced infrared jamming system which makes it tough to target by conventional means, a laser proximity warning system and a grenade launching system to make an opaque smoke system.

Whats really unique about this tank is that it has a huge 125 mm gun coupled with the ability to gun launch the 9m119 relek antitank rocket which was designed to defeat the reactive armour on the M1a2

The T-90 still has several key problems.

they still use the auto loader as oppossed to the American use of a person as a loader. The auto loader is still slow and it can jam the gun

Its cross country speed is 45 KM/h which is markedly slower than the M1, and the Isreali Merkova (sp?) tank

The other problem is the fact that the fuel line for field fueling traverses around the turret mating collar which means that a hit around the turret will guarantee a dead tank.

The T-90 was suppossed to be a stop gap tank while the Russians produced the Nizhny Tagil which has been delayed by budget issues. The Tagil had a 152 mm main gun which is the most powerful tank cannon ever made. It was suppossed to be nearly impervious to any battlefield weapon on the first hit . One unique design of this tank is that the gun turret is unmanned and not accessable by the crew.

It was going to be designated as the T-95

The Russians hope that the T-95 will revolutionize the science of tanks like the T-34 did in WWII