John Kettler Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 This thread's main post addresses the disturbing discovery that two M1 kills previously thought to be by the Iraqis were "own goals" via 25mm DU, to include turret rear penetrations of the ammo stowage, resulting in detonation of same. This is personally interesting to me in that my now retired brother observed an incident in which an M1 (at Graf?) loaded with live ammo shot its fellow tank smack in the tush at point blank range--and nothing happened. Both tanks remained fully operable, no one was hurt, etc. After reading this, I'd say someone at Graf was very lucky. Has the Abrams had any rear armor added since the 2 "own goals" described here? http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-1401.html Regards, John Kettler [ May 08, 2008, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool breeze Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 doesnt seem to explain more than a tiny fraction of it but maybe the rod penetrators are too stressed and still destabilized at point blank range? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted May 9, 2008 Author Share Posted May 9, 2008 cool breeze, Perhaps. I just realized that maybe the difference is that the sabot didn't have time to strip off properly from the tank projectile. If so, I think that could explain much, seeing as how driving the core plus sabot through the back end would take a lot more energy than just penetrating with the long rod core. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 The TUSK program does include the addition of slat-type armor to the rear quarter of the Abrams. This is the only upgrade to the rear armor that I know of. This wouldn't offer additional protection against kinetic penetrators, though. From what I have seen, the 120mm APFSDS seperates from the sabot very quickly -- within a few tens of meters of the muzzle. So I would think that this is an unlikely explaination for the M1-on-M1 incident, unless it happened at *extremely* close range. I dunno. Wierd sh*t happens sometimes. It's like that WWII story of the Stuart that got hit in the turret side by an 88, and ended up with two very nice 88mm wide portholes in the turret, and no other damage. Assuming we're talking about APFSDS, it may be that the round so overmatches the Abrams rear armor that it went right through, and out the side armor or something without hitting anything important. Very unlikely, but certainly not impossible. Cheers, YD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 Originally posted by John Kettler: cool breeze, Perhaps. I just realized that maybe the difference is that the sabot didn't have time to strip off properly from the tank projectile. If so, I think that could explain much, seeing as how driving the core plus sabot through the back end would take a lot more energy than just penetrating with the long rod core. Regards, John Kettler John...you're making me hot with all this nasty talk! You little scamp! Mord. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool breeze Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 Good idea John Kettler. that make more sense. Have sabots ever been defeated by slat armor? Seems to me like it could happen, turn or bend the rod just right. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handihoc Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 Mord, he's also at it in another thread, called Lee, what is . . . ? Example: 'what is that thing with two apparent sets of "wings" behind the scope of the bottom shooter.' He really is a naughty boy! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1A1TC Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 Originally posted by cool breeze: Good idea John Kettler. that make more sense. Have sabots ever been defeated by slat armor? Seems to me like it could happen, turn or bend the rod just right. Very unlikely. A SABOT can go though a berm, penetrate a tank, then kill a tank behind the first one. I doubt a small piece of metal can deflect it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwazydog Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 Originally posted by YankeeDog: The TUSK program does include the addition of slat-type armor to the rear quarter of the Abrams. Actually I believe that has been dropped from the official kit. Dan 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted May 9, 2008 Share Posted May 9, 2008 Gee, sounds like this is something you've been researching, KwazyDog. . . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 M1A1TC, Very unlikely. A SABOT can go though a berm, penetrate a tank, then kill a tank behind the first one. I doubt a small piece of metal can deflect itPut a couple of BTRs next to each other in CM:SF and fire at them with an Abrams at a right angle. If you do that enough times you'll likely find that one shot will kill both BTRs The friendly fire incident originally attributed to Iraqi AA gun fire was officially clarified by the military ages ago. Unfortunately, the news sometimes takes a while to get around. I know I've corrected that one a few times here myself! From what we can tell the TUSK program has been broken down into various implementation phases (perhaps 3 in total). The likely cause for this is cost. Better to have 3 tanks outfitted with some extras than one with all the bell's and whistles. Seeing how hard it was to get the initial batch funded I think this is a wise move. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted May 10, 2008 Author Share Posted May 10, 2008 YankeeDog, The one you cite is quite real, and is either in TANKS FOR THE MEMORIES or one of the related Interviews from the same tank battalion. The Stuart popped around the corner and was drilled transversely clean through the turret sides, hurting no one, damaging nothing other than the turret sides and greatly enhancing turret ventilation and the crew's motility! A quick reverse order got the tank out of the line of fire before another shot could be fired. Talk about lucky! http://www.tankbooks.com/ cool breeze, A long rod penetrator is immensely strong in compression but very weak in sheer. Thus, theoretically if it hit an armor slat markedly off center, it might cause the penetrator to break up. What's certainly true is that Kontakt 5 ERA is designed specifically to attack the vulnerability in sheer of the long rod penetrator, while still providing excellent protection vs. HEAT. Decades ago, I saw the tank damage and loss analysis for the 1967 War, before long rod penetrators. Two things stood out. Those brackets, lifting eyes, headlight guards and such festooning tanks to this day could and did cause APDS to deflect and often prematurely detonated HEAT rounds. Therefore, I think a long rod penetrator striking these or something similar (your slat) on the side of the penetrator might deflect and/or break it up. If what's behind that point of impact happens to be, say, vertical armor on an APC, it might not buy you anything and could, in fact make things much worse. Would you prefer one uniform ~40mm hole or several larger ragged ones? M1A1TC, The Graf incident took place with the victim tank and the firer not more than a tank length or so apart and right behind the victim tank. Thus, I seriously doubt the sabot had time to separate from the core. In turn, this should've significantly degraded its terminal ballistics. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.