WT Forums

October 27, 2003

‘Something’ felled an M1A1 Abrams tank in Iraq – but what?
Mystery behind Aug. 28 incident puzzles Army officials

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.

Jack adds, goddamn this could be serious. Any ideas? Moi is hoping not a directed energy type weapon.

Whatever it was it would be better if the Iraqi Jihadi's didn't have them.

Interesting article, thx EZ.

<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0>

lets jsut pray its not a laser or plasma weapon

MK-84-2000lbs of game ending power

Sounds like an improved HEAT warhead.

<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0>

[quote]
Whatever it was it would be better if the Iraqi Jihadi's didn't have them.

Interesting article, thx EZ.

---------

No problemo. Tis the WEB, it's fun to share and moi was sure you would reply. I had read it had hit a landmine in other articles. This article was a real eye opener.

Jack

[url="http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/default.asp?target=missile_mystery.htm"]Photos of the Abrams in question[/url]

That was no RPG/HEAT anything. It maintained it's integrity through numerous panels and airgaps.

I sniff a cover-up.

<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0>

Like, "friendly fire" cover-up?

Doesn't the Bradley have a 25mm DU AP round? Would the penetrator have been small enough to make this type of penetration? Kinda wierd for it to have only been one round if it was from a Bradley

Overkill??? I'd kill a fly with a howitzer if I had one.

_________________
\"One of you is gonna fall and die, and I'm not cleaning it up\"

How about one of those Super high speed spikes or darts that I have seen I in (Avation Leak) mag.There did not seem to have been the tell tale signs of the plasma jet that sets the tanks ablaze the round just burnt thru both sides.

live to wrench,wrench to live and 727's do truly suck

_________________
Press one for English, Press two to disconect untill you do.

I thought this was a SABOT from the begining, but I couldent believe they couldent ID it as such. That hose that is ripped rather than burnt makes me believe that a sabot is exactly what it was. Looks like it split into 2 large fragments once it got inside.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Entry point is MUCH too small for an M829 series LRP(Long Rod Penetrator).

The M829 had a 40mm LRP, the A1 and A2 27.5mm LRPs, and the A3 a 22.5mm LRP.

The entry hole on the Abrams was so small the guy said "I couldn't even put my little finger in it".
Besides, the near TOTAL lack of spalling does not fit the known damage profile of a Sabot or a HEAT.

So like the experts, i am baffled.

<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0>

I know your gonna laugh... but what about a diamond tip? I don't have a clue how any one would have made a sabot out of one but isn't the damage profile as believable as someone shooting lasers at our tanks?

Overkill??? I'd kill a fly with a howitzer if I had one.

_________________
\"One of you is gonna fall and die, and I'm not cleaning it up\"

A diamond tip penetrator would be quite effective, but it would still spall the armor on penetration.

The only way to have no spalling is for the penetrated armor to be vaporized in the process.

I had thought only a laser would do that, but apparently there is something else.

<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0>

I find some errors in this report if not assumptions..

Number 1 they assume it was a penetrator "style" round.
Number 2 they never state if the vehicle was moving or parked.
Number 3 they make no statement if carbon or "explosive" residue was found.
Number 4. their is no comparison of angles between. point of entry, Airgap and follow on object impacts.

With the claim of a perfect concentric hole and no axes deviance.

I think this was very well a parked vehicle that took a beamed energy hit. If i'm not mistaken, someone waited in ambush for the right time and place for the ideal Test shot. If i was going to employ a laser and i did not want the target analysis to find this out. then my ideal shot would be on a parked target. That was oblivious to being targeted. Any foriegn power could of seen this opportunity and deployed into an lowkey non threat location to conduct their test, and then dissapear with their tech data. Or hid it in place, made the phone call "Hey Boss I mobility killed an M1" Succesful test program completed.

This would prevent first off, a vehicle underway to change the annealing penetration of the laser, secondly it would prevent any signature of co-sin error or concentric shift of the target (slitting).

I think this M1 was ambushed in a well planned and calculated low threat sector deployment, It wouldnt suprise me if we had left some M1 abrams behind during Gulf war 1 and the weapon makers used it to studdy its hull, Metalergy and other factors relevent for designing a M1 killer type weapon.

Any foriegn power would want this knowledge. Russia, North korea, China. They want the ability to negate a massed U.S. Armor attack.

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

Yeah, but all the 'portable' lasers around now are as big as a Humvee.

And they seem to be too low powered in the 100kw range to be able to eat through that much armor.

I agree though, the article is far from forthcoming in many respects. On purpose, i'm sure.

<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0>

that hose breach still looks like a physicle fracture to me. What does that hose do? Looks like low pressure air, if it were high pressure it could fracture itself like that after DEW damage.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

After looking at the last few photos, it makes you wonder...

Here's what the article accompanying the pictures says:

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>No <b><i>known</i></b> RPG would do that kind of damage.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
(Known is the key word there.)

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>But some Western anti-tank rockets generate a different kind of plasma jet that might create the kind of damage done.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>A U.S. 25mm armor piercing shell (fired from the gun mounted on the M-2 Bradley armored vehicle) uses a small penetrator, but that penetrator is of depleted uranium, which <u>burns like a flare</u> once it is inside its target.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
(Isn't necessarily the type of damage seen in the photos.)

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>One major unknown is the large number of portable anti-tank weapons (especially Russian and Chinese models) that have not been tested against the M-1 tank.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The things that bother me (aside from the obvious point that something DID this to an M-1) about this whole scenario are:

1) The "projectile" left a 50-mm hole in the armor from the inside of the tank. Why can't they probe the hole (or cut it apart, etc.) to see if there's any remaining piece of the "projectile"?

2) Energy weapons (lasers, etc.) don't "bounce" unless reflected off a mirrored surface. If it was a high-powered laser or something similar it would've eaten straight through the Abrams, in one side and out the other. No bouncing from place to place, going through a flak jacket and a breaker panel and such.

3) The 'splatter effect' in the later photos. Whatever made those holes, be it molten metal from a previous ricochet, or plasma from the projectile itself, or whatever else, was extremely hot. Also, even though it was in such a small spread, you'd think that at least ONE member of the crew would've been hit by some of this, instead of just the <i>back</i> of the gunner's seat getting "grazed" by it.

I dunno... there's GOT to be more to this than the military's letting on. I guarantee they have at least a good idea of what did this, and they either don't want to let the cat out of the bag to worry people, or they're freakin' out now.

Hell, for all we know it could've been one of OUR weapons that they were field-testing...

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Maybe the US Army is pulling a joke on the "Rest of World" militaries.... "Hey look what something did to one of our "INVINCIBLE" tanks... we don't know what it was, boy I hope you guys don't run into it."


ok maybe not

but it'd be funny as hell.

Overkill??? I'd kill a fly with a howitzer if I had one.

_________________
\"One of you is gonna fall and die, and I'm not cleaning it up\"

Here's a wild thought. How about a combination of both a high energy beam and a projectile? I've heard of scientists using laser energy to physically move objects. Maybe in this case a small projectile was propelled by a beam of electromagnetic radiation. Any thoughts on this? Maybe a type of Rail gun?

Yea maybe Luke and his light saber took it out. Think of it this way the Army knows what took it out and do you think that they are going to tell the world what it was "NOT". It was most likly some thing that we sent at it and the crew must have done something real good in a past life or something like the right planets where aligned and the round just burnt thru

live to wrench,wrench to live and 727's do truly suck

_________________
Press one for English, Press two to disconect untill you do.

while I am facinated by this topic, one must be amazed at how well the tank did hold up against this new weapon. NO soviet t-72 sytle turrent ejections. No massive fires.

In fact the tank looks repairable.

Mudd if this was truly a laser type weapon could this not easily be negated by giving the armour some sort of reflective properties. Preventing the beam from being able to penetrate.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>It was most likly some thing that we sent at it <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Are we having active tank battles in Iraq? I dont think so. Having a "special squad" of something or other seeing a tank and assuming it was enemy and then blasting it with some sort of wonder weapon seems like something CNN would dream up, new weapons are tightly controled at first. The idea that this was "one of ours" is pretty ludicris. Los Alamos can get an M-1 hulk anytime they want for testing. This thing apparently came in fairly level which means it was local/short range with nothing in the way, no buildings, no sand dunes etc. If it was foreign in nature I would think maybee Chinese rather that Russian( russians can probly lay thier hands on M-1s for testing, I dont think the Russians would risk an incident like this under these circumstances). BUT this does have a high "creep factor" to it.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.