Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Powerslide

American tanks

Recommended Posts

What you guys are saying an abrams tank survived a hit from one of its mates M829E3 depleted uranium rounds??

Gimme da report tounge_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was the old M829 'Silver Bullet'.

I'm sure the story's in Clancy's Armoured Cav (never read it, personally). . .

I know you're thinking. . . Clancy's a mouthpiece (I agree), but the stories in that book are true accounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See when I called it the M829 Silver Bullet, people yelled at me and said a T55M1 from the 50s had a more powerful shell. What I can say to that is, damn communists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they were telling you an untruth then.

Yes, there have been several DU rounds.

2 for the 105mm (the current is the M900)

4 for the 120mm

M829 (silver bullet)

M829A1

M829A2

M829E3 (not in service yet)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

?

The M829E3 (like all the others) is a rod of a Depleted Uranium [uranium-234 (0.001%) Uranium-235 (0.2%) Uranium-238 (99.8%)] and Titanium alloy. It also (usually) contains uranium-236 (approximately 0.0003%) and trace amounts of plutonium, neptunium, americium and fission products (according to UN investigations of sites where it was used in Iraq and Kosovo, and also according to the NRC).

The rod itself is sharpened at the leading edge, and has fins for stabilization at the trailing edge. in the casing, it is wedged into a set of Sabots, which allow it to fit the 120mm barrel.

sabot.jpg

This image shows the sabot separating from the DU penetrator after leaving the barrel.

As you can see, the APFSDS (Armour Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot) round is a physically inert dart containing no explosive. Its penetrative action is entirely kinetic.

The M829E3 is pretty much the same round as the previous versions, it simply has improvements in its alloy composition and inflight stability, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sigma6:

That same report from Clancy stated that the Abrams in question took out a iraq T72 by shooting through a sandberm, having previously destroyed another two iraq T72s.

Gimme a break, that's ridiculous.

As far as memory serves me right the stuck Abrams was shoot repeatedly from behind at under 500 yards into the turret rear, hitting the ammution stock and detonating it. However the blow out pannels prevented any damage to the crew compartment.

As far as Clancy goes the Abrams was hauled away refitted with another turret and put into action again.

This whole story is highly questionable, neither is any unit or location closer specified, nor are there any wittnesses quoted. I would call this whole story a urban myth.

But back to Topic: Your US tank pack is outstanding!

PS: Nice pic of that Sabot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]Not with M829E3. First hit always fatal. M829A2 - the second hit is fatal. On interestng thing - M1 can survive M829 hit...

Sounds accurate to me. . .

You might recall a story in which the M1A1HA was unable to be destroyed by one of its platoon-mates to avoid capture in 1991. . .

But I said about M1 ;) M1A1HA as you know is much better protected. M829 could penetrate front turret armour of M1, with M1A1HA it would be hard task.

I also recall a story from last year, when one Abrams (M1A2?) damaged near Bagdad (seen in many News - stuck on a speedway with burning engine room, later with Iraqis around wreck) was first set on fire (.50 ammo in turret for better effect), then hit by another Abrams, eventually destroyed from air. Russian tank for today have better "self destroy" systems.

About those powerfull Russian shells from 1950s... Maybe if we consider energy values, old, slower but heavier bullets had more energy (just after fired). Modern Russian APFSDS have also more energy than Western round (so are more powerfull in energy category), but this not mean are also more powerfull (in penetration ratio category). So there is something true on mentioned oppinion, but it easily leads to overinterpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That same report from Clancy stated that the Abrams in question took out a iraq T72 by shooting through a sandberm, having previously destroyed another two iraq T72s.

Gimme a break, that's ridiculous.

This is perfectly feasable. Considering that the dense DU "bolt" is travelling close to 1000 m/s its gonna go through a whole lot of stuff before it comes to rest. And you must remember that the Iraqi T-72's were indgenously made "Asad Babyl" tanks, which are inferior to the current T-72.

There have been reports, and documents on how the APFSDS rounds have been found serveral km on the other side of these tank berm sand walls, and there have been reports of M1's using their thermal viewers to look through the enemy tank berms then shooting at the tanks behind them. Remember, the round is designed to penetrate nearly a metre of steel/armour, so several metres of sand and dirt isnt going to be much of a challenge now, it it wink_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I'm not sure which story Tannethel is talking about, but I have heard the story of the M1's shooting through sandberms in several books on the first Gulf War.

It definitely is plausible especially consider the capabilities of thermal sights and the DU rounds.

Sigma commented before on the very poor quality of the armor on the early model T-72's that Iraq used.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The story i was refering too is found in Tom Clancys "Amored Cavalry", in the Part describing the M1Abrams, chapter "Amored systems of the U.S. Army"

To cut it short a M1A1HA Abrams of the 24.ID in Desert Storm got stuck in quicksand or slick (my copy is german and here it's Schlamm). Three Iraq Al Asul or whatever the name of those was pop up and start shooting the stuck Abrams, he takes 2 HEAT and a Sabot hit on Turret front from roundabout 500 yards. No apparant damage is done, which is perfectly fine with me. Two of the iraqi tanks are destroyed by the Abrams the third turns tail and hides behind a dune, where he is also struck by a sabot from the Abrams, shooting through this very dune. (Deatmeat got me convinced it's possible to shoot through a dune to some extend, but I'd still consider that a lucky shoot taking into account the gunner had only some exhaust fumes to guess the position of the presumeably moving iraqi tank).

So far so possible. Now for me the fairy tale begins.

2 M88 ARVs show up and try to tow the abrams free, they fail.

Another group of Abrams shows up and yet another unified attemp of the Abrams and the M88s fails.

So It's deceided to disable the stuck Abrams. 3 shots of M829 Sabots where fired on the turret. Two didn't penetrate the third struck the Ammo stock setting it ablaze but fire extinguisher and blow out pannels on turret top prevented any further damage. The assembled crowd of crews (stuck Abrams, 2 M88, uncertain number of additional tanks) is clueless what to do next, when all of sudden another 2 M88s make their appearance. With 4 M88 they tow the Abrams clear. After sending the Abrams back to a maintaince point, where the turret gets replaced it's send back to battle.

There are better means to disable a vehicle than shooting at it's turret. Especially considering the amount of experts on the scene.

Rather place a APFDS from the rear into the engine and some explosives into the crew compartment, destroying valuable equipment.

I won't disagree with the blowout panels preventing fatal damage nor a halon fire extinguisher killing the ammo burn, that's what this equipment is meant for.

There seem some blue on blue incidents have taken place during Desert Storm so it's possible something similar happened but the somewhat "odd" circumstances Clancy describes make it a fairy tale to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about this :

M1_1.jpg

M1_2.jpg

M1_3.jpg

M1_4.jpg

M1_5.jpg

Quote[/b] ]M1 Abrams tank disabled by Iraq roadside explosion

In-Depth Coverage

By Jim Mannion

An M1 Abrams tank was disabled in Iraq by a roadside explosion for the first time in an incident that killed two crew members and wounded a third, US military spokesmen said Wednesday.

Little information was available on the extent of damage or the type of explosive device used in the attack late Tuesday about 40 kilometers (25 miles) northeast of the town of Balad.

But it was another sign of the growing effectiveness of the attacks against even the most heavily armored US forces.

"Two soldiers from the 4th Infantry Division were killed and one was wounded when their tank hit an unidentified explosive device," the US military said in a statement.

One of the dead was identified as Sergeant Michael Paul Barrera, 26, of Von Ormy, Texas. He was with the division's 3rd Battalion, 67th Armor Regiment.

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.

The 4th Infantry Division has the latest model of the tank, the M1A2 SEP, which weighs 69.5 tonnes, is armed with a 120mm main cannon and is equipped for digitized communications.

"It is the most heavily equipped, and heavily armored main battle tank that the US has ever put out in the field, and supposedly can protect those inside fairly well," said Patrick Garrett, an analyst with GlobalSecurity.Org, a private research group.

"If it is true that a tank was damaged to this sort of extent resulting in fatalities by a simple roadside bomb, depending on whatever size it was, that does not bode well for the future of the occupation," he said.

"That really does prove there is no safe place for American soldiers," he said.

The incident also raises questions for the Stryker, the new wheeled armored vehicle that the army has made the centerpiece of its efforts to make its armored forces lighter and more rapidly deployable.

The Stryker has been scored by critics as too lightly armored to withstand rocket-propelled grenade fire. Its advocates say it makes up for it with advanced communications, greater mobility and precision firepower.

The army plans to deploy its first Stryker brigade to Iraq in the spring.

The thing is in pieces , how big a bomb could do this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing is in pieces , how big a bomb could do this?

Well the m1 amour is the weakest on the top and bottom of the tank so you wouldn't need a terribablly powerful bomb (comparing if you hit the front of the tank) to do that much damage.

I suprised the ammo compartment didn't blow up since the turrent was blown out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the raports say that was 3 AT mines put one on the other or something like Palestynian FUGAS that killed the M1

BTW Sigma in the pack of your new tanks the Abrams has an M829E3 and the Russian tanks as the best ammo use the BM-32 and BM-42.So why you can't do the same thing as in Abrams give the T-80,-90 the new Russian ammo wich is now in the testing stage BM-44 rock.gif Could you do this because this would be a very god opositor for the M829E3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to acecombats source the tank was turned over by the force of the explosion, sadly killing two crewmembers and injuring the others.

The pics seem to be taken during the salvage of the abrams, so I'm not even sure that turret came lose before.

There is also no picture of the underside to check if the blast even penetrated through the floor. But seriously i doubt that.

Likewise it looks as if the turret cage has been welded away.

That the ammo didn't went up is because all main gun ammo is stored in this amored compartment in the turret. The hatch between the ammo store and the innerspace of the turret should whitstand a explosion of the ammo as long as the blast doors/vents on top work. Regardless of this the hatch would also have shielded the ammo from a internal explosion, which i doubt has taken place.

In a Leopard2 that same blast might have blown the tank apart since to the left of the driver in the hull there is a ammo store.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not really believe in this story about destroying two T72s with one round that penetrated one and hit other. Even "soft turret" Asad Babyls have steel armour, if APFSDS pierced through front and rear turret armour possibly it have no more power to penetrate next tank`s protection. If it hit hull, the chance is smaller - must add to armour engine, probably auto-loader and gun basis. It is also hard to believe that after destoying one T72 APFSDS round still had shape and was stabile and was not fragmented.

But there is some possibility of destroying two tanks with one shot. In 1991 there was a situation, when Abrams was set on fire by near explosion of T72. So maybe this is what happened with two T72.

Decapitation of Abrams? No modern tank can survive giant bottom explosion. Even without bottom armour penetration and ammo blow up chances for crew are small. Quake kills, just like it happened with few Merkavas.

da_ofp_man, any info about BM44? Lenght, diameter? I know only that it penetrate more than 500 mm RHA at 2000 meters... how much more?

If not much more, it is rather opositor for M829A1, not for round M829E3 - hit=instant death in Sigmas addon - and even not for M829A3 - ~650mm/2000m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when those destroyed abrams images were first leaked, a US Army official in the Public Relations department politely threatened a US website to remove the images or risk the website being shut down, stating that the images had been leaked without the required military approval and knowledge.

I'm not sure if it matters know, but it's just a little info as to how the US army was trying to cover up its vulnerabilities.

I beleive the website in question is hidden amongst the military humour thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure I read somewhere that there was armour in development that could take up to 2 AT mines detonated beneath it before it failed.

There was a vehicle being designed for the SAS, roughly resembling the BRDM that supposedly used this anti - AT mine technology as well as being as nimble and quick as a four wheel drive buggy.

I believe sand played an important part of the design rock.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's really rather pointless for all of you to be dissing first hand accounts of the M-1 tank in combat. None of you are tank experts and none of you can seriously refute the testimony of published accounts. Simply posting "I doubt it happened" isn't promoting a point of view, it's flat-out ignoring the facts.

If the facts say that if an M-1 shot two T-72s at once, then I'm willing to bet it really happened. Sure, it may not have been at a 2000m range, but in the dark at 500m I'm very willing to believe that an M-1A1 can kill two Asad Babyls in one shot.

And as for shooting through a sand berm - I definately believe that. Having been to Kuwait, I know what those kinds of sand berms look like. They're not huge Saharan dunes that swallow up entire civilizations. The sand berms over there, at least the biggest I ever saw, were rarely over 2m in height at maybe 5m thick. Last I checked, sand wasn't very dense. I find it totally believeable that a 40mm DU penetrator could burn a whole through one of those and knock out a T-72 on the other side. Sure, it might not have been a catastrophic kill. Hell, the round may have bounced off the turret for all I know, but if the crew bailed out of that otherwise operable T-72, it still counts as a kill in my book.

If you guys have no experience with tanks, or even a moderate level of understanding, why are so many of you arguing about armor levels and penetration capabilities? Sigma has put a lot of time and effort into his armored vehicle values and instead of challenging them in a reasonable manner, many of you are using conjecture and personal beliefs to try and argue a point that isn't being made.

Sorry if I'm being harsh, but it is really difficult to read this thread with all the crap flying around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hellfish6, I guess you have those mentioned experience and moderate level of understanding, to write here own beliefs (and even definately beliefs)? Maybe you are military expert? Armour constructor? Nevermind, please, do not mislead frases "In my opinnion", "I believe" or "I think that" with total ignorancy and arguments just taken from air.

I would not say a word about penetration capabilities and armour level if I never saw it somewhere. No the question is where. Publications of S. Zaloga have comparable value (maybe better) than Clancy`s. Authors from military tech periodicals usually also use some sources, not only just imagine. I guess that armour constructors, who write a books that "non-expert" can read, use some good datas too.

High velocity penetrators are fragile. There is a possibility that when piercing materials with different thickness (and also ERA armour) it would crumble. Becouse of there was, as I mentioned, situation with one tank set on fire by explosion of other, there was a possibility, that this coused destroying of two Iraqis tanks. Story about "one shot two kills" sounds more like a myth (but maybe happened, who knows? Hellfish6?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Publications of S. Zaloga have comparable value (maybe better) than Clancy`s.

Zaloga and Clancy compared. . . that's a good one. . .

Steve Zaloga is pretty much the world's de facto expert on tanks.

Clancy is a (entertaining, to be sure) novelist specializing in military fiction.

While Clancy can sometimes be a source of info or stories (though I've found him to be flat-out wrong on many occasions, and often with an almost propagandist angle), where there might be a dispute between information from these two (though why anyone would consider Clancy a legitimate source is beyond me) I'm going to take Zaloga every time.

Quote[/b] ]High velocity penetrators are fragile. There is a possibility that when piercing materials with different thickness (and also ERA armour) it would crumble. Becouse of there was, as I mentioned, situation with one tank set on fire by explosion of other, there was a possibility, that this coused destroying of two Iraqis tanks. Story about "one shot two kills" sounds more like a myth (but maybe happened, who knows? Hellfish6?).

The entire purpose of 'Heavy' ERA (like K5 or Kaktus) is to cause penetrators to shatter or dull, and yes, a dulled or shattered penetrator is simply no good to anyone. It's not going to go through the advanced composite armour of tanks mounted with 'Heavy' ERA.

The thing is, I have no trouble at all believing that a 120mm DU round might go through two T-55s in a row (since they have demonstrated that they have more than enough energy to both enter and exit T-55 tanks apparently unhampered. It would seem to me that if you placed two T-55s side-by-side (though why you would stupidly do this begs a question) that an M829A1 would likely just continue on through the second one.

That established, it seems reasonable also that since the armour on the Asad Babyl is: a: not *much* thicker (compared to what the M829A1 can penetrate) than that on the T-55, and b: made of poor quality steel in any case, that since it's also been shown that the 120mm DU penetrator can both enter and exit this vehicle also apparently unhampered, that it might at least enter a second one (it doesn't have to exit it to kill it).

Now. . . just because it seems reasonable doesn't mean it happened, but the fact of the story's existence and the fact that it's *apparently* possible would seem to make it likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey sigma, I could use your help at some point, I'm writing a clancyesque book, you can find an updated version here:

www.devgru.org/mspencerfiles/cr116.rtf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Hellfish6, I guess you have those mentioned experience and moderate level of understanding, to write here own beliefs (and even definately beliefs)? Maybe you are military expert? Armour constructor? Nevermind, please, do not mislead frases "In my opinnion", "I believe" or "I think that" with total ignorancy and arguments just taken from air.

Having spent six years in the Army as an infantryman in mechanized, light and air assault units, I think my general knowledge of vehicles and warfare (especially as it concerns the US Army) is greater than an average person, yes. And if you'll note - I never expressed my beliefs. I merely said that people who don't know anything about what they're talking about might want to defer to published accounts.

If a book tells me that an M-1 killed two T-72s at one time, I'm going to believe that book before I believe someone who has no solid background. I'm not saying that you are wrong and that the book is right, I'm saying that the book is a lot more credible than you are and the book probably had to undergo a research check before it got published. You, I imagine, don't have a bunch of researchers checking your facts.

Quote[/b] ]High velocity penetrators are fragile. There is a possibility that when piercing materials with different thickness (and also ERA armour) it would crumble. Becouse of there was, as I mentioned, situation with one tank set on fire by explosion of other, there was a possibility, that this coused destroying of two Iraqis tanks. Story about "one shot two kills" sounds more like a myth (but maybe happened, who knows? Hellfish6?).

I don't like Tom Clancy, so I don't have his book in front of me. I am willing to bet that he has a source in his footnotes or end notes that back up his claim that an M-1 killed two tanks with one shot. I will research this "myth" and let you know what I find out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×