Follow this bullet's journey through an armored vehicle

Now i'm convinced that the abram tanks are crap.
you'll understand why after looking at this site.

Bullet

Saw this months ago. AFAIK, it's the only known instance of this occuring.

Anyway, it's not indicative of the Abrams being poorly designed, somebody just made a better tank killer.

Makes you wonder... a russian rail gun? That round had a lot of energy.

Originally posted by ArcAngel
Makes you wonder... a russian rail gun? That round had a lot of energy.

Or it was an extremely lucky shot.

I doubt the Russkies decided to give the Iraqis a single railgun with a single round.

na a rail gun would have a hell of a lot more power and the exit hole when it first hit would be massive

I think this is more of a defect type thing then some weakness in the M1A1's over all. The M1A1 is among the finest tanks in the world.

It has hit by an RPG with a special soviet Sabot round. The HE impact disables the M1's armor and pushes the sabot at an enormous rate of velocity. So fast that the exterior coating of the round actually melts through the armor and plate that it encounters I heard they have enough inertial energy to punch through up to four feet of solid steel.

Although not produced in great numbers, and of unknown qty being exported to the middle east. More likely is that weapons cache from the soviet occupation of afghanistan that were left behind have made there way to Iraq thanks to the Terror network.

But overall I think it was a lucky shot on the "weak" point of the tank.

Originally posted by SilQ
Now i'm convinced that the abram tanks are crap.
you'll understand why after looking at this site.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I think this is more of a defect type thing then some weakness in the M1A1's over all. The M1A1 is among the finest tanks in the world.

M1A1 Crap? Maybe, but they're still the best tank in the world.

DeltaChaos

[Edited on 22-4-2004 by DeltaChaos]

afriad not sonny the challanger is the best becuase it doesnt cost as much and is much faster

Originally posted by devilwasp
afriad not sonny the challanger is the best becuase it doesnt cost as much and is much faster

True, True! I was looking for the Challenger2 max effective range to compare to the M1A1, but since it fires a round of identical caliber, I assume it's the same, maybe better. The range doesn't seem to be published.

To correct myself, I'll say that the M1A1 is the best tank in the world of the tanks that we have to worry about!

Good one!
DeltaChaos

In order for a round to do that, it needed to have been launched with extreme heat and energy, notice the burns at the first entry points.

Also for it to pierce, tank armor, flak jacket, iron, metal, steel, and still make it to the other side of the tank had to have been fired from a rail gun of great magnitude for the bullet constitently stayed on its original coarse.

Abrams tanks are one of the best tanks out there, I highly doubt this was done by a simple assault rifle.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by devilwasp
afriad not sonny the challanger is the best becuase it doesnt cost as much and is much faster

Challenger IS NOT FASTER THAN ABRAMS!!!

looks like some kinda new weapon !
mabye theres another force at work here ?
i mean it would be an excellent place to test new weapons in combat

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
In order for a round to do that, it needed to have been launched with extreme heat and energy, notice the burns at the first entry points.

Thats why its a perfect example of a HE Sabot Armor penetrating round.

The HE contact blast is only use to defeat the M1's reactive armor plating, using a conical type charge the sabot round is "forced" through the molten impact point.

Originally posted by longbow
Challenger IS NOT FASTER THAN ABRAMS!!!

True. M1A1 topspeed is 41.5 MPH. Challenger2 is 59.? KPH. 41 MPH = about 65 KPH.

But this only means that the Abrams could make it to the objective faster. Which is important, but really has no bearing on combat, because the Abrams can't be moving any faster than 15 mph to fire. Oh, and the fact that they NEVER retreat!

DC

[Edited on 22-4-2004 by DeltaChaos]

Originally posted by robertfenix
Thats why its a perfect example of a HE Sabot Armor penetrating round.

The HE contact blast is only use to defeat the M1's reactive armor plating, using a conical type charge the sabot round is "forced" through the molten impact point.

But I don't think it hit the DU skirt, did it? I was under the impression that the round somehow avoided contact with the skirt, and that's why the penetration shot of the skirt wasn't shown...

I don't know who would have 20mm armor piercing HE rounds over there, either...

If the round bypassed the DU skirt, it could've been a simple 20mm AA round. They tried to keep the Abrams as light as they could, so under those skirts, there isn't much...

DC

[Edited on 22-4-2004 by DeltaChaos]

Originally posted by DeltaChaos

Originally posted by longbow
Challenger IS NOT FASTER THAN ABRAMS!!!

True. M1A1 topspeed is 41.5 MPH. Challenger2 is 59.? KPH. 41 MPH = about 65 KPH.

But this only means that the Abrams could make it to the objective faster. Which is important, but really has no bearing on combat, because to fire, the Abrams can't be moving any faster than 15 mph to fire. Oh, and the fact that they NEVER retreat!

DC

I was just trying to say that Challenger is not faster than Abrams. Nothing else. And to the people who are saying "abrams is crap" because it's armour has been penentrated - there are no better armored tanks than ABrams and Challenger in the whole world - including Leo, Leclerc, Merkava and russian models.

[Edited on 22-4-2004 by longbow]

it was a RPG round, a Soviet HE-AP-Sabot round, probably hit from a +30 degree elevation on the tank. The round hit the top edge of the Armor Side Plate and penetrated behind the track sidewall.

If you dig around on this topic you will find evidence to suggest that this was a rather lucky shot (with regards to the hit location) by an anti-tank rocket propelled grenade. When I first read the reports of this incident I thought that it was possibly a "friendly fire" situation involving a directed energy weapon, rail-gun, or some other gee-whiz technology, but further reading and the application of "Occum's Razor" leads me to the conclusion that it was probably the more mundane cause. If the forces engaging US armor had access to a weapon capable of consistantly defeating the M1A1's protection, why aren't they using it more often? Instead, I think that they are relying on anti-tank weapons like the Russian RPG7, RPG18 or, at the most exotic, an RPG-22.

SEFOP (SElf FOrging Projectile)
Some newer antiarmor weapons incorporate a relatively new variant on HEAT that different sources call SEFOP (SElf FOrging Projectile), SFF (Self Forging Fragment) EFP (Explosively Formed Projectile) that shoots a solid or semisolid slug of metal at 6 to 8 kilometers per second rather than a jet of molten metal. The metal slug is unaffected by reactive armor and can travel up to 100 meters, or possibly more in some cases, before it disintegrates due to air friction. Weapons using the SEFOP principle have already been used in combat; the smart submunitions in the CBU97 cluster bomb used by the US Air Force and US Navy in the recent Iraq war use this principle, and the US Army is reportedly experimenting with precision guided artillery shells using this principle under Project SADARM (Seek And Destroy ARMor). It seems a natural enough principle to adapt to wire-guided and laser-guided antitank missiles and short-range antitank rockets, as well (and rumor has it that a SEFOP round for the Russian RPG7 antitank rocket is being manufactured for export by Oerlikon in Switzerland as we speak).

RPG7 with VR grenade

want a bet ! it (v) well is !
and a lot cheaper