SABOT can't penetrate an M1?
 

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.

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

Its not Reactive however - it is Cobahm.

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.

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

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

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

agree. sounds just to fictitious

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?