Projectile that penetrated M1A1 Abrams Tank still a mystery

Strategypage.com ^ | Oct 31,2003

[spetznaz]

October 31, 2003: The U.S. Army is not saying much about the "mystery projectile" that went through the side skirts and side armor of an M-1A1 tank last August 28th. Whatever it was just barely missed the tanks gunner (it went through the back of his seat and grazed part of his flak jacket) and put a pencil size hole nearly 50mm deep into the four inch thick armor on the other side of the tank. The damage may have been done by a projectile, not a shaped charge (which uses a jet of super-hot plasma to burn a hole in armor and put a quantity of plasma and molten metal inside the tank.) No known RPG would do that kind of damage. But some Western anti-tank rockets generate a different kind of plasma jet that might create the kind of damage done. A U.S. 25mm armor piercing shell (fired from the gun mounted on the M-2 Bradley armored vehicle) uses a small penetrator, but that penetrator is of depleted uranium, which burns like a flare once it is inside its target. One major unknown is the large number of portable anti-tank weapons (especially Russian and Chinese models) that have not been tested against the M-1 tank. It's not unusual for new weapons to have unpredictable effects once they are first used in combat. Until the army releases more information, if they have any, the mystery lingers.

[usurper]

Well let’s just be thankful that this golden beebe misted its mark.

[Cicero]

I see that the pictures are linked from Webmutants.com. I'm wondering why the military would release such detailed photos.

[OneTimeLurker]

"Are you part of the blame US first movement? Our government is the root of all evil and is full of conspirators? No other country in the world is capable of developing new technology?
Art Bell awaits you.

P.S. Area 51 gets cold at night. Take a jacket with your tinfoil hat."

You should consider some prescription medication.

[maestro]

?...SYRIAN IMPORTS....Projectile that penetrated M1A1 Abrams Tank still a mystery...?

....naw.....

/sarcasm

(?...Exactly,....where are those three (3) MYSTERY SHIPS of 'SH'.....?)

[1stFreedom]

If it's a small shoulder fired weapon, then my prediction that the tank era is over is true.

Ultimately, high velocity weapons will always beat armor. It's impossible to stop a DU sabot traveling at 3,000 miles per hour with a reasonale amount of armor.

The only countermeasure would be to use energy against energy. An energy "force field" may counter a kinetic energy weapon. Laser energy could disintegrate it in midair.

[maestro]

If it's a small shoulder fired weapon, then my prediction that the tank era is over is true.

Hummmmm..............Horses 'are' coming back?

:-(

[.cnI redruM]

That projectile had two obvious characteristics. 1) A very High Velocity. 2) A low rate of speed.

[.cnI redruM]

Opps, my goof - I meant to say 2) A Relatively Low Temperature.

[Dionysius]

A lucky shot! Hit someplace where there was a weakness. A "chink in the armor" so to speak.

[Jim Cane]

P.S. Area 51 gets cold at night. Take a jacket with your tinfoil hat.

If you take a space blanket, it comes lined with reflective material. Keep you warm or keep out rays - a twofer!

[TexasRepublic]

Spitwad?

[soundbits]

Shields up bump.

[Tallguy]

If it's a small shoulder fired weapon, then my prediction that the tank era is over is true.

That's an easy prediction, but this appears to be the case of a high-velocity sabot. Meaning it was fired from a gun -- which in turn means that it wasn't man-portable.

BTW, there were several documented incidents in Gulf War II where a Bradley accidentally disabled (mobility kill) an M1 while "scratching it's back" with the 25 MM gun. Apparently the 25mm is sufficiently powerful to penetrate the exhaust louvers at the rear of the tank. Perhaps this was a similar shot since the shot placement could not have been better.

[VaBthang4]

Hmmm...this'll be fun to find out.

Trial and Error..

[Gamecock]

That's exactly what I was thinking..

[John H K]

Like a lot of people you have unrealistic expectations about the invulnerability of tanks.

Even in World War II, tanks were destroyed by the thousands on BOTH sides. Yet, it's still the tank era now.

The key thing about tanks is it's fairly easy to disable the tank, but really hard to kill the crew.

I'd still rather be in an M1 than outside of one.

Sorta had the same thing when the Palestinians destroyed a Merkava with some ridiculously enormous (500+ lbs of TNT-equivalent or something) command-detonated mine, and people were wondering if there was a Merkava design flaw or something; the reality is that any tank that would not be vulnerable to a mine that big would have so much armor it would be incapable of moving.

[pfflier]

There there now. You sign up two weeks ago and advocate conspiracy theories. I suspect that you don't know what this site is about or are in it for the wrong reasons.

Disruptors are not welcome.

[VaBthang4]

I'm thinking something along the lines of a .50 rifle from a short to moderate distance. None of the armour here is classified high speed stuff.

Shooter was aiming between the tank & turret and hit low catching a portion of the chassis not sufficiently armour protected.

We'll black belt the problem and fix it.

[VaBthang4]

Look at the angle on the gunners seat ....The angle of attack looks to be elevated. Probably a shooter on a roof or inside a second, third + story room.

[null and void]

depleted U round can do this, but odd it did not spall. Perhaps due to the nature of the Chobham armour

IIRC, the inside of the M1A1 is lined with kevlar matting to absorb spall. I note that the pictures show everything BUT the inside surfaces of the armor...