Iraq bomb penetrates British tank

Originally posted by SKUNK2
Fritz did the chally driver loose his legs???

I searched the web but didn't find that info.
To my knowledge the incident with the warrior ifv was a seperate attack to the chally, the chally only got bombed 2 weeks ago.
US troops took a huge loss too today

23 soldiers killed.
Some of the bombs iraq is using are getting powerful. First with the Warrior(Most heavily armoured Nato apc) and the Chally(Most heavily armoured Nato tank).

I love the aproach you guys have to this. Here's how I see this argument;

chally armor destroyed but atleast the driver survives
So you just lost something that's worth how much $$$ and you make the big fuss about the soldier surviving - while how many ground troops die daily?

Some of the bombs iraq is using are getting powerful.
Sorry, they're getting too powerfull? Who let them? Because we controlled the wespons they had befor right? Or maybe we did who knows.

Every time some vehicle gets blown to bits in iraq the solution always seems to be "put more armor on it". I've watched a CNN program a few years back when they were b*tching about the fact that a humvee is too vulnerable to RPGs and what could be done to make it withstand hits from an RPG? Freaken struggle against reality there, it's supposed to be a bloody car not an apc. Now you want more armor on a challenger....right. Some things (casualties) are just unavoidable, and while I do apreciate how much the british and the US army does to try and keep it's troops alive some things are just rediculous.

Regards,
Maestro

You really have to love "experts" who say things like this:

Professor Michael Clarke, from King's College's Defence Studies centre, said the Challenger 2 tank's armour was usually "inviolable".

He said: "Most of the things on a battlefield are not much of a threat to a tank, usually.

Time to hand back that Phd Prof. Clarke.

[edit on 2-5-2007 by Retseh]

For these kind of buried mines one can only really counter them with perhaps some form of electrical jamming like an EMP coil ahead of the armoured vehicle.

The Isrealis use old Centurions with their turrets removed replaced with remote controlled machine guns in urban conflicts. The emphasis needs to shift from protecting a turret with a big 120mm gun to a machine gun platform with spaced armour underneath aswell.

Of course as we all know the real answer in Iraq is never going to come from a military solution.

Was the Armour (as in the Dorchester armour) actually penetrated?

My understanding is that the underbelly, as fritz stated, is not armoured, almost certainly it doesn't have Dorchester armour underneath as ordinarily it wouldn't be needed.

trying to find out now what armour the belly has, but as you can probably appreciate, that sort of info is hard to find....

I have seen a British media report that the damage was caused by an RPG. Unless it was buried facing vertically, it's hard to understand the claim.

Iran has been furnishing Shia millitias with the Nafez RPG HEAT warheads which can penetrate 500mm armour.

Iran's Parchin Missile industries is also supplying the tandem heat RPG-7 to Iraqi insurgents.

Originally posted by sy.gunson
I have seen a British media report that the damage was caused by an RPG. Unless it was buried facing vertically, it's hard to understand the claim.

Iran has been furnishing Shia millitias with the Nafez RPG HEAT warheads which can penetrate 500mm armour.

Iran's Parchin Missile industries is also supplying the tandem heat RPG-7 to Iraqi insurgents.

To date, no Chally 2 has been damaged by any RPG, ATGM or other device, except this IED.

(to explain, by "damaged" I mean penetrated/knocked out...obviously they would have superficial damage or maybe lose a track)

There are many examples of Chally's being in the middle of a firestorm of small arms, RPG and ATGM, coming out unscathed at the end.

Ok let me add my 10 pence worth as i am fully trained on this vehicle.

Ok so firstly it appear's that the main blast was received underneath the vehicle.

Now im not giving much away here but its pretty common on most MBT's for this area to have the least armor protection. Infact very little at all.

Now moving on to the fact that the driver is still alive and god bless him and his family clearly shows that the vehicle is indeed one of the best MBT's around at this moment in time.

All those talking about this driver in less than a respectfull manner should take 5 minutes to just realise that the driver's of these vehicles are the newest member's of any regiment.

This should further tell you he is only a very young man and again should make you think about what you are saying.

P.S when an RPG hits a chally 2 all you hear is the sound of it bouncing off kind of like 2 sauce pan's banging together lol.

An RPG once found its way into a friend of mine's fuel pannier there was minimal damage.

Regards
Lee




[edit on 3-5-2007 by h3akalee]

Look, to put the question to rest;

The vehicles main armour wasn't penetrated by an RPG or anything else. It was the underside of the vehicle that was damaged, most likely by a command detonated or magnetically influenced IED. It is extremely unlikely that the Iraqis have easy access to anything that poses a direct threat to the main armour on a modern tank.

Challys (and all other commonly used tanks) are vulnerable on the underside. This is common knowledge and was exploited by the insurgents. It does not take a massive amount of brain power to determine that this is the most accessable method of threatening this vehicle with the resources available. Indeed, it is surprising that they haven't done it sooner.

My thoughts are with the young lad and his family.

This is the article which I read:

www.dailymail.co.uk... /articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=450477&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490

The driver Sean Chance lost three toes and was able to reverse the tank away from the site. Apparently the story is based upon an interview with the tank driver's brother.

Originally posted by sy.gunson
This is the article which I read:

www.dailymail.co.uk... /articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=450477&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490

The driver Sean Chance lost three toes and was able to reverse the tank away from the site. Apparently the story is based upon an interview with the tank driver's brother.

Having read the article you linked to, I am amazed that an RPG which incidentally, has a percussion fused warhead, bounced off a Warrior and penetrated a Chally 2.

The Rocket Propelled Grenade is exactly that. It is a shaped charge grenade which detonates when it's nose plug fuse strikes any solid object.

I have fired the RPG [twice] and have been amazed at what this nasty first generation AT round can do.

Even a glace or a graze is usually sufficient to detonate the warhead and on that basis, I seriously doubt that this guy lost his toes because of an 'RPG'.

Yeah, right. An RPG penertrating a Chally AFTER bouncing (means it was going even slower)... Not likely.

Seeing as this is the Daily Mail AND almost every other report says it was an IED, I'm going to chalk this down to inept reporting.

Im shure there is a certain arming range even for a RPG.

Like a range for affective damage ect i can say this i know a lot of lad's who were in tanks over in iraq.

And when the RPG hit there tank's they simply bounced off or did no damage at all.

That is a fact.



[edit on 4-5-2007 by h3akalee]

I don't doubt that. There is a famous instance of a disabled Challenger being hammered by RPGs and a Millan missile with no effect for half an hour.

The report however mentions the tank commander sighting the incoming projectile.

When I first heard the story it sounded like a bar mine with a shaped charge rather than an RPG. If that were the case (that it was a shaped charge mine) then the damage might have been worse.

It may be inept reporting, but why is the Army silent on the real cause ?

Is there no official report yet on the cause of the explosion ?

[edit on 4-5-2007 by sy.gunson]

Originally posted by sy.gunson


It may be inept reporting, but why is the Army silent on the real cause ?

Is there no official report yet on the cause of the explosion ?

Well, you don't want to confirm to the insurgency exactly how to disable a Chally now, do we?

Originally posted by sy.gunson
This is the article which I read:

www.dailymail.co.uk... /articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=450477&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490

The driver Sean Chance lost three toes and was able to reverse the tank away from the site. Apparently the story is based upon an interview with the tank driver's brother.

From the description of the injuries, it would appear that this is another underside penetration, possibly after a deflection. A penetration anywhere else on the drivers compartment would have caused injuries to other parts of the drivers body. As has been mentioned, the deflection was probably caused by the RPG (assuming that is what it was) being fired from close range therefore not having time to arm itself. By the time it impacted the tank, the warhead had armed and was able to penetrate. Speed of the missile is of little consequence, as the RPG penetrates due to a shaped charge, not velocity. Saying that, the RPG arms between 10 and 20 metres from point of launch, so the firer must have been within this range for this theory to be workable.

Saying that, the Daily Mail is notorious for sensationalising anything that will even remotely put the government, notibly the MoD, in a poor light. It will actively seek out and pay for "witnesses" from, shall we say, less than accurate sources. I would take any information from this source with a pinch of salt to say the least.

"It is extremely unlikely that the Iraqis have easy access to anything that poses a direct threat to the main armour on a modern tank. "

It depends what you mean by 'main armour': RPGs can and will go through the side/rear armour of any tank at the right point. Hell, 25mm Bushmaster rounds were penetrating Abrams armour from behind in friendly fire incidents.

Frontal armour is still safe from this particular threat.

Originally posted by Wembley

"It is extremely unlikely that the Iraqis have easy access to anything that poses a direct threat to the main armour on a modern tank. "

It depends what you mean by 'main armour': RPGs can and will go through the side/rear armour of any tank at the right point. Hell, 25mm Bushmaster rounds were penetrating Abrams armour from behind in friendly fire incidents.

Frontal armour is still safe from this particular threat.

Challenger 2s have been struck in the sides rear by countless RPGs in Iraq, and none have penetrated. Theoetically there my be some weak points, but the fact remains that this does not happen in the real world. The only real threat to armour in these areas (apart from another tank) is an AT missile along the lines of Milan/Javlin/Sagger. RPGs just don't cut it for AT jobs any more.

Originally posted by PaddyInf
Challenger 2s have been struck in the sides rear by countless RPGs in Iraq, and none have penetrated. Theoetically there my be some weak points, but the fact remains that this does not happen in the real world. The only real threat to armour in these areas (apart from another tank) is an AT missile along the lines of Milan/Javlin/Sagger. RPGs just don't cut it for AT jobs any more.

I have to disagree. A vanilla RPG-7 warhead might not be that useful against MBTs, but later warheads and later RPGs can do a lot more. I'm not sure about 'countless' RPGs, I think the case may have been overstated. Any rear or engine deck hits survived?

And later weapons liek the RPG-29 will do 750mm++ penetration - and that's almost 20 years old now.

Originally posted by Wembley
I have to disagree. A vanilla RPG-7 warhead might not be that useful against MBTs, but later warheads and later RPGs can do a lot more. I'm not sure about 'countless' RPGs, I think the case may have been overstated. Any rear or engine deck hits survived?

And later weapons liek the RPG-29 will do 750mm++ penetration - and that's almost 20 years old now.

I know of the incident of which he speaks and the Chally sat there for almost an hour, taking several RPG hits, small arms fire and a suspected Milan type ATGM hit as well.

The RPG-29 you speak of can 750mm penetration on ERA, but Dorchester armour isn't ERA. It's still classified as to what it's made up of, but on top of this exceptional armour is placed ERA blocks as well. I highly doubt a 1980's Soviet RPG could penetrate the armour on a Chally 2, although it is of course not impossible.

Originally posted by Wembley

Originally posted by PaddyInf
Challenger 2s have been struck in the sides rear by countless RPGs in Iraq, and none have penetrated. Theoetically there my be some weak points, but the fact remains that this does not happen in the real world. The only real threat to armour in these areas (apart from another tank) is an AT missile along the lines of Milan/Javlin/Sagger. RPGs just don't cut it for AT jobs any more.

I have to disagree. A vanilla RPG-7 warhead might not be that useful against MBTs, but later warheads and later RPGs can do a lot more. I'm not sure about 'countless' RPGs, I think the case may have been overstated. Any rear or engine deck hits survived?

And later weapons liek the RPG-29 will do 750mm++ penetration - and that's almost 20 years old now.

The 750mm penetration is against steel plate, not armour and certainly not against reactive armour. I've heard that it will do 600mm against ERA, which I'm dubious about. The external cage fitted to the outside of the majority of british armoured vehicles will defeat the majority of tandem warhead weapons before the missile even hits the main armour. Any way, the majority of RPGs in Iraq are much older and cheaper designs such as the RPG 7 or RPG 16. I have certainly never encountered a RPG 29 during numerous searches or contacts, but have found loads of RPG 7s.

"Countless", as I'm sure you are know, is a figure of speach. There have been dozens of RPG attacks on Challengers that I'm aware of. These attacks are happening with such frequency that they no longer rate reporting. Indeed I can recall at least 10 during my last tour of Iraq (a 6 month period). These were all over the vehicles. In one instance there were 8 recorded hits on the front, side and rear armour of one tank and the vehicle survived with limited damage! There have only been 2 Challys knocked out in Iraq by insurgents, and these are the two already mentioned. Actually, the second one wasn't really knocked out as there was only limited penetration.