SABOT can't penetrate an M1?

[SUBMAN1]

Found this true story on another site and found it interesting that the M1 can stand up to this amount of fire. This particular M1 was from the 24th Mech Div.

This one went around so much, even Tom Clancy picked this one up and wrote an article about it.

-S

During their advance into Iraq it was raining heavily, and there was a really bad mud hole that a particular M1 drove into. Somehow the M1 got stuck. And stuck REALLY BAD. So the rest of their unit moved on and these guys waited for an armored recovery vehicle to tow them out.

So here they are, stuck in a mud hole, in the middle of Iraq ... in an M1. The story doesn't specify which version, but if must have been at least an M1A1 version, since it had a 120mm gun.

Suddenly, over the hill come three (3) Iraqi T-72 tanks that decided to charge right at the stuck tank and open fire! The first T-72 fired a HEAT round that hit the frontal turret armor ... but did no damage.

The M1 returned fire with a SABOT round, hitting the T-72 in the turret ... blowing the turret clean off the vehicle! By this time, the second T-72 also fired a HEAT round at the M1. It also hit the front turret ... and also did no damage.

The M1 returned fire again, with another SABOT round. This time also killing the T-72 (it doesn't say how it died, just that it did). The third T-72, now only 400 meters away ... lets loose with a 125mm SABOT round of its own! It only grooves the front armor plate. This time, the third T-72 decided to bug out and run for cover.

The 3rd T-72 made it behind a nearby sand berm to hide. The M1 spotted the exhaust plume of the engine exhaust spewing up from behind the berm. Guessing where the T-72 was using the thermal sight, the M1 fired another SABOT round ... through the sand berm ... hit and destroyed the last T-72!

But wait, it's not over yet ... By this time, the crew of the M1 is EXTREMELY AGITATED and yelling at everyone on the radio to come help them. Shortly another M1 equiped unit showed up. These guys had M88 tank recovery vehicles with them. They used both M88's, but couldn't pull the damn tank free! Apparently it was stuck for all time ...

So they figured they would just blow it up and move on. So the other M1's (using their own 120mm guns) firing SABOT rounds, at almost point blank range, fire twice at the tank. Both bounce off the armor. So they move around some to get a really good impact angle. So they fire a 3rd SABOT round into it. Finally ... a penetration and a tremendous explosion!

Hold on ... wait. The explosion was vented by the ammo compartment blowout panels, and the fire suppression system killed the fire. It isn't destroyed yet! Dang it, it just won't die!

Well, by this time, they have a virtual tank 'blowing up party' going on and several more M88's arrive. So they try to pull the damn thing out one more time! Finally they drag it out! The book doesn't mention just how many pulled on it before it came free.

So they go examine the tank and find that's it's still operational! The only problem is that the sights are out of alignment from the ammo cooking off. And of course, they have no ammo storage anymore. So they bring it back to the divisional repair yard. The turret was pulled off, replaced with a new one and back into the war the tank went! The damaged turret was sent back to the US for analysis.

[ASWnut101]

What can you say? Reactive armor on those things is amazing. :yep:

[SUBMAN1]

What can you say? Reactive armor on those things is amazing. :yep:

Its not Reactive however - it is Cobahm.

[gnirtS]

Which in Iraq now they've worked out how to penetrate using various methods.

Both Chobham and reactive has now been breached using shaped, multiple charge weapons by the people there.

[bradclark1]

The quantity of M88's needed makes it a total bull**** story and 120mm sabot at point blank range is going to penetrate.

[gnirtS]

The iraqis are using daisy chained artillery shells a lot at the moment and its very effective.

[XabbaRus]

I've heard this one before and I think it si an old war story. that sounds good but didn't happen.

[I-25]

agree. sounds just to fictitious

[Heibges]

If that's from the First Gulf War I think it is a true story. The Iraqi's did not have top of the line tank ammunition during the First Gulf War, and I doubt the Second also.

I actually saw a picture from the First Gulf War with a training sabot warhead stuck into the side skirt of an M1.

But the thing about the 2 88's not being able to recover the tank is a little dubious. If the tank was Turret Depth Mired I believe it is 6 times heavier so the 88's would have to overcome 420 tons of resistance. If the M1 could move its track you cut it in half, so 210 tons. If the M1 can be pulled back out the way it came, you cut it in half again so 105 tons. 2 88's would be able to recover the tank I think.

I don't believe they would let them blow up the tank just because it was stuck.

[fatty]

Contrast this tale with the disabling of the M1 by 25mm rounds to the engine compartment or the unit destroyed by a fire started when small arms fire struck externally stowed equipment. I wonder why the friendly tankers weren't using HEAT to wreck the M1 since they seemed to be wanting a spectacular explosion.

[Letum]

What can you say? Reactive armor on those things is amazing. :yep:

Reactive armor only works well against low-velocity, high-explosive ammunition such as shaped charges. (AFAIK)
Reactive armor is slowly becomeing a thing of the past as it is replaced by new physical and electronic armors.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Found this true story on another site and found it interesting that the M1 can stand up to this amount of fire. This particular M1 was from the 24th Mech Div.

This one went around so much, even Tom Clancy picked this one up and wrote an article about it.

Honestly, I thought TC created this story. Anyway, we are actually currently in a generation of tanks that are quite invulnerable to sabot and HEAT, at least from the front. Look up the latest circulating estimates for armor and AP performance of sabot rounds. We're back to the days when if you want to penetrate you need to get some kind of weak spot.

Tank Protection Levels (http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm)

[SUBMAN1]

Found this true story on another site and found it interesting that the M1 can stand up to this amount of fire. This particular M1 was from the 24th Mech Div.

This one went around so much, even Tom Clancy picked this one up and wrote an article about it.
Honestly, I thought TC created this story. Anyway, we are actually currently in a generation of tanks that are quite invulnerable to sabot and HEAT, at least from the front. Look up the latest circulating estimates for armor and AP performance of sabot rounds. We're back to the days when if you want to penetrate you need to get some kind of weak spot.

Tank Protection Levels (http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm)

I'm at home now so i can post a link, but i will try and find it. I am sure it said he picked it up 'after' the fact.

-S

[Skybird]

Found this true story on another site and found it interesting that the M1 can stand up to this amount of fire. This particular M1 was from the 24th Mech Div.

This one went around so much, even Tom Clancy picked this one up and wrote an article about it.

Honestly, I thought TC created this story. Anyway, we are actually currently in a generation of tanks that are quite invulnerable to sabot and HEAT, at least from the front. Look up the latest circulating estimates for armor and AP performance of sabot rounds. We're back to the days when if you want to penetrate you need to get some kind of weak spot.

Tank Protection Levels (http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm)
If it is the story I think it is, then it is from "Into the Storm", which was written by Clancy together with Gen. Franks. The incident is real, then, but is being told in many different versions around the net now. the book is a very substantial, impressive look at the war of 91 from a commander's viewpoint, and what was on mind of subordinate commanders during the ahead-the-timetable advance of Frank's corps. Franks wrote some hundred pages, basing on his own experiences and thoughts he had back then. The parts by Clancy are - well, ehem, Clancy-like. Compared to Franks he does not so much know what he is writing about. highly recommended for the non-clancy parts of the book.

Penetration ability cannot be simply judged for SBAOT per se. The different kinds of SABOT ammunitions developed over the years by the major developers US, Germany and Russia vary considerably in their destructive potential. Like the Leo2, the M1 is said to have formidable damage reducation capabilities and survivability, and the M1s of the year 91 had slighty better armour than the Leo2A4s, which may have changed now with the new A5, and A6EX. It is imaginable that at close range a SABOT round will simply pass through a tank like the M1, and eventually simply do that and nothing else, but I wouldn't bet money on that, and wouldn'T expect to see that often. However, the part that says that shots got deflected I believe to be untrue - not at that close distance. at point blank range I expect every SABOT round to penetrate chobham armour, no matter how shallow the impact angle is. If it will get stuck before reaching the interior, or hit a part where it doesn'T do damage - that is the question. Usually it is not solid object (left of the penetration rod) anyway that reaches the tank'S interior, but just kind of burning gas that expands explosively.

German and American gunners are trained to keep the crosshairs on the centre of mass. In the stress of battle, nobody wants to lose a shot by fiddling around with the aiming control too long, and the targets, at the preferred shooting range, are simply not big enough in the optics to make precise aiming for certain parts of a moving vehicle that fires back a reasonable practice. However, aiming for vulnerable parts of a tank is being done at closer ranges. Tanks crews in Holland and Denmark carry diagrams that mark the motor compartments and vulnerable spots from front and side view, for every hostile tank model. I assume Americans and Germans and others have the same kind of diagrams available.

It is fair to say that most modern tanks like M1A3 and Leo2A6 have close to non-penetratable frontal turret armour concerning any kind of missile, SABOT or HEAT. However, expect accumulating damage when being hit repeatedly, and estruction if getting hit oine time too often, or receiving that lucky hit (from the other guy's perspective). there is two reasons why NATO tanks train to fight within a ceratin frame of ranges. At longer ranges their guns can'T rwach the enemy, while Russian special ammunitions can engage (and kill!) tanks at ranges of up to 5500m. Below that range, even inferior Russian SABOT (inferior is relative here) can become lethal for tanks, for they will arrive with too much kinetic energy on their target. But somewhere in the middle, when Russian tanks don't use that special ammo anymore (it is in principle guided mini-missiles fired from the gun and travelling slowly), but switch back to their own (lighter) SABOTs (that travel at higher speeds than Western SABOT), the advantage of Western armour, more precise aiming systems, and better punch from the ammo, meet the russian system when it is the weakest: when they are still not close enough to be as precise as wetsern tanks, and their SABOT still has not that punch than their Westn counterparts already have. Maximum lethality, minimum vulnerability.

Invulnerability is relative and depends a lot on what one is doing with a tank, and how it is manouvering. Always keep in mind that latest generations of small "toys" like the RPG-7 can KILL any tank if handled and aimed accordingly and not shooting at the front turret. They can kill from the rear, and eventually from the side as well.

[P_Funk]

Holycrap Skybird.:o

You wanna just write an essay and let Tom Clancy mark it?:cool:
You know alot about tanks, and you're not just a homer either. You got your bases covered.:yep:

How do you answer that essay?

[baggygreen]

I've heard the same story - i think there is exaggeration to it, but its a good one!

Skybird... who the hell is denmark and hollands enemies these days?? no more tanks through the fulda gap (sp?)...

[Oberon]

So....what happened with the Challenger II that got breached a few weeks back? What sort of shaped charges are the militants using now? And how do they deploy them? Is it a hidden charge in a box or something along a well patrolled route and remotely detonated?

[Skybird]

Holycrap Skybird.:o

You wanna just write an essay and let Tom Clancy mark it?:cool:
You know alot about tanks, and you're not just a homer either. You got your bases covered.:yep:

How do you answer that essay?
I am no pro. I just spend some years listening in places where real tankers talk. ;)

[Skybird]

I've heard the same story - i think there is exaggeration to it, but its a good one!

Skybird... who the hell is denmark and hollands enemies these days??
Vehicles considered to be hostile: :D
http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5359&d=1177293643
(black spots: most vulnerable spots, grey squares: engine compartements)

[gnirtS]

So....what happened with the Challenger II that got breached a few weeks back? What sort of shaped charges are the militants using now? And how do they deploy them? Is it a hidden charge in a box or something along a well patrolled route and remotely detonated?

Daisy chained artillery shells, 6 i believe.

You dont need shaped charges if you have a big enough bomb.


Detonation is sometimes electronic triggered but more often than not its manual detonated via a long wire and the people doing it retreat under the confusion.

[I-25]

Reactive armor only works well against low-velocity, high-explosive ammunition such as shaped charges. (AFAIK)
Reactive armor is slowly becomeing a thing of the past as it is replaced by new physical and electronic armors.

The effectiveness of Kontakt-5 ERA was confirmed by tests run by the German Bundeswehr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr) and the US Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army). The Germans confirmed that in tests, the K-5, mounted on older T-72 tanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72_tank), 'shattered' their 120mm DM-53 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DM-53&action=edit) penetrators, and in the US, Jane's IDR's Pentagon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon) correspondent Leland Ness confirmed that "When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DU) penetrators of M829 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M829) APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kontakt-5

[Heibges]

The true capabilities of US, and what the US knows about Russian ammunition is Top Secret.

[tycho102]

That's an interesting idea. There is also work on a capicator system that uses a current surge to vaporize the metal penetrator.

Don't know about the original story, though. Sounds like there is some bs in there.

[HM.Medico]

Sounds like BS to me, A SABOT shell, point blank, would blow anything to hell. Hands Down.

[bradclark1]

i think there is exaggeration to it.....
Just a little.......

[baggygreen]

But thats what makes a good story:D :D

[ASWnut101]

*straying off topic*

I always thought that the M1's had Reactive Armor only. Did they change it or has it (The other stuff) always been there?

[Tchocky]

US Army doesnt go in for reactive armour, as far as I know. They use Chobham (a kind of applique) on the M1

I could be very wrong here

[fatty]

*straying off topic*

I always thought that the M1's had Reactive Armor only. Did they change it or has it (The other stuff) always been there?

Chobham has been around longer than the M1, so I don't think it was changed.

TUSK does add some reactive armour to the skirt.

[SUBMAN1]

*straying off topic*

I always thought that the M1's had Reactive Armor only. Did they change it or has it (The other stuff) always been there?
Chobham has been around longer than the M1, so I don't think it was changed.

TUSK does add some reactive armour to the skirt.

Yep - I've heard for city fighting, they have added a reactive skirt to the M1. Not sure if it is in the field yet though. It is just an added layer of protection.

-S

[Heibges]

When the US Marines and some National Guard Units deployed to the First Gulf War, they had M-48A5's with reactive armor.

[ASWnut101]

US Army doesnt go in for reactive armour, as far as I know. They use Chobham (a kind of applique) on the M1

I could be very wrong here

I know Bradley's have them (M2A2/M3A2's) (Reactive Armor) and I think the Strikers have it too. I also found out that the "Chobham" armor is "ceramic plates sandwiched in between conventional steel armor.

[Skybird]

The real composition of chobham armour is secret. It is a reasonable guess that it includes spcial steewl, ceramics, but synthetic materials as well. The americans may also use DU. The way and geometric pattern in which the different structures are meshed with each other (cell-structures) often is assumed to play a role, too, but that is secret, too. The armour is produced in flat tiles that at least in the early past cannot be bend neither in production, nor afterwards, that's why Western tanks looks so flat-shaped, with sharp edges. Especially older Russian tanks depend a lot on rolled steel, that's why the turrets are looking so round and more soft in their silhouettes.

I haven't checked the book again, it has 600 pages I think, but I think the original story is true in so far that a stuck tank was discovered by three Iraqi T72 which immediately opened fire, and hit the Abrams repeatedly. Nevertheless the M1 was still fully functional and shot twice, killing two vehicles immediately. The third tank tried to escape and hid behind a dune. the M1 gunner located it via TIS (the hot engine exhaust gas was tell-taling!), made a reasonable guessing, and fired blindly through the dune where he assumed the mass of the tank was sitting, and killed the T72. that is the vesion of the sory that I did now. the M1 later was recovered, the turret replaced, and it then joined operations again (which is remarkable since the battle just took four days).

Anopther incident from that war is this story: during the tank battle at Basra (sometimes referred to as the greatest tank battle in history - I can't judge if that is true), in a flat terrain area, two T-72 happened to be positioned in a straight line, seen from an M1 who was firing at the first T72. The projectile had so much energy that it passed right through the first T72 and killed it, the remains of the not completely desintegrating penetrator rod exited the hull on the other side, hit the second tank and killed that one also. I am not sure, but the firing distance was clearly below 1200m - at least that number flashes up in my memory. Maybe it even was shorter.

The use of uranium in ammunition really makes a difference, and at ranges beyond 1500 meters really adds some 20-25% of range (at same destructive power), compared to the tungsten projectiles used by the Germans (both tanks use the same german 120mm cannon). The material is heavier, has a higher density and thus delivers a tougher kinetic punch, it also desintgertaes a bit later, so the rod has a nastier penetration power. The american ammunition during 91 was called "silver bullet", for that reason, it was able to penetrate almost everaything the Iraqis showed up with. However, there is so much small details and information collected over the years and indicating that using such ammunition is not as harmless as the army tries to make it appear that I think it will be banned by the Amricans sooner or later (probably later: talking about many, many years).

The Germans use tungsten for the penetrator rod, and every couple of years show of with another leading design that sets another benchmark for conventional SABOT ammunition. The projectiles (SABOT)travel with around 1550-1650 meters per second. HEAT is significantly slower, and is fired in steeper arches, that's why using SABOT is more forgiving concenring small aiming errors of the gunner when estimating ranges). The Russians, due to the large tank force they must support, use more cheap steel projectiles, which are differently shaped and lighter in weight. they compensate by higher muzzle velocity and inititial travel speed. However, due the the lower weight, the fast decline of travel speed, and not quite as sophisticated aiming devices and optics, over longer rnages their ammo is not quite as lethal as that of wetsern tanks. Below a certain range, however, they are as lethal as an M1 or Leo2. I would set that value somewhere around or slightly below 2000m. But hey, that's just my own guess.

[Godalmighty83]

being protected against sabot's seems to be little help at the moment. the challenger 2 that was hit by the roadside bomb* was protected by chobham 2 armour, a bit better then the generation used by the m1 but considerably more expensive.

the 'electric' charged armour being developed by the same folk who brought you chobham 1/2 is simply to stop shaped warheads slugs it wont help at all against such high energy kinetics of current road-side bombs.

incidently the place that makes/researches the stuff is all of 10 miles away from me at the moment.




*if you can call a artillery barrage gaffa-taped together a 'bomb'

[bradclark1]

The bottom line is you make better armor, they make better penetrators and everything is more expensive. Thats why there will never be another world war, because it's just not affordable anymore.

[Skybird]

Polish Sf-writer Stanislav Lem once wrote a short ironic trilogy, one part of it was entitled "Weapon Systems of the 21. century." In it he said that in the middle of the 21. century the US Air Force would consist of three planes only. :lol:

[Heibges]

And also, Russian Tank Design and American/Western Tank Design couldn't be more different. You would have thought we fought two different enemies in WWII, rather than both of us fighting the Germans.