M-1A1 Not Invincible?

iohkus · Post by **iohkus** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 5:14 am

interesting read

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/def ... ystery.htm

an unknown projectile penetrated right through the armor of the tank, scrapping the back of the gunner's flak jacket and ripping through some parts inside the tank, what's unusual is the size of the penetration it created which was really small, 7 pics in there

bring on the page long replies hammer and menno

Menno · Post by **Menno** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 6:46 am

Haha, well I promise it won't be a page.

The M1 Abrahams isn't invincible by any means. There are a few places you could hit an M1 to disable/destroy it.

I am by no means a weapons expert, especially when it comes to tanks, but the weapon that pierced the armor of the M1 could have been a new type of Rocket Propelled Grenade that the Russians have been working on (I believe it's called the RPG-22, though I could be severely mistaken; the one's that are currently used most are the RPG-7 variety). It was either that or some type of a DU (Depleted Uranium) round. Most, if not all, M1 tanks have DU armor (which is extremely hard and dense) so the only way to effectively pierce it is by firing a DU round. To give you an example, its why Iraqi Russian tanks during the first Gulf War barely pierced the DU armor of most of the M1's, because their tanks didn't fire DU rounds (which is conversely why the Iraqi tanks were pulverized by the M1's DU ammuniton).

There's also a possibility that it could have just been a lucky shot; those one-in-a-million type of things. Anyway, those are my three best guesses, but again I'm not munitions expert so don't take what I say for gospel.

Hammer · Post by **Hammer** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 6:50 am

I don't care.

iohkus · Post by **iohkus** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 6:51 am

you're pretty much dead on menno, going through the site somemore they actually solved the whole thing :

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/def ... solved.htm

edit: the rpg in question, depleted uranium tip and all:

on a side note:

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 1:26 pm

Ha ha he douses the entire thing in gasoline, then acts surprised when it blows up?

Forty-six & Two · Post by **Forty-six & Two** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 4:33 pm

Hammer wrote:I don't care.

why not?

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 5:23 pm

You should have made a thread called America not invincible so we could talk about 9/11 again.

Silver · Post by **Silver** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 8:01 pm

No you shouldn't. In the end, everyone loses anyway.

T51b · Post by **T51b** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 9:58 pm

My best friend is a 19K Armor Crewmember on an M1A1 tank.

He says for the most part RPG-7 and 9s will just explode off the side of the armor, hardly leaving a scratch on the paint.

But he said the 2 most weakest points of the tank are right between the drivers compartment and turret and the very back where the exhaust is.

He said 3/7 Cav lost 2 M1A1s in Iraq in that manner; both took a shot to the rear and due to a fear of engine fire they were evacuated then bombed by USAF planes so Iraqis wouldn't get them.

Silver · Post by **Silver** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 10:30 pm

Where 2 of those M1A1's on TV live with those Iraqi's on Al Jazeera?

Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD · Thu Nov 20, 2003 1:21 am

Menno wrote:Haha, well I promise it won't be a page.

The M1 Abrahams isn't invincible by any means. There are a few places you could hit an M1 to disable/destroy it.

I am by no means a weapons expert, especially when it comes to tanks, but the weapon that pierced the armor of the M1 could have been a new type of Rocket Propelled Grenade that the Russians have been working on (I believe it's called the RPG-22, though I could be severely mistaken; the one's that are currently used most are the RPG-7 variety). It was either that or some type of a DU (Depleted Uranium) round. Most, if not all, M1 tanks have DU armor (which is extremely hard and dense) so the only way to effectively pierce it is by firing a DU round. To give you an example, its why Iraqi Russian tanks during the first Gulf War barely pierced the DU armor of most of the M1's, because their tanks didn't fire DU rounds (which is conversely why the Iraqi tanks were pulverized by the M1's DU ammuniton).

There's also a possibility that it could have just been a lucky shot; those one-in-a-million type of things. Anyway, those are my three best guesses, but again I'm not munitions expert so don't take what I say for gospel.

what the hell?
major countries still use DU ammo even though it fucks up everything it touches?

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 2:07 am

Sad but true. Case in point: Gulf War. Tons of DU ammo used. Everything in area fucked up permanently. No one in America gives a shit except the soldiers who fought there, touched the ammo, and now have eight types of cancer. The Pentagon won't even admit that it's hazardous (they use the old "insufficient data" routine).

iohkus · Post by **iohkus** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 4:01 am

Also atoga wasn't that what caused some Canadian peackeepers from Bosnia/Sarejevo to get fucked up perma?

I read/heard something about DU shells all over the campsites they were forced to sandbag and set up

Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD · Thu Nov 20, 2003 6:04 am

atoga wrote:Sad but true. Case in point: Gulf War. Tons of DU ammo used. Everything in area fucked up permanently. No one in America gives a shit except the soldiers who fought there, touched the ammo, and now have eight types of cancer. The Pentagon won't even admit that it's hazardous (they use the old "insufficient data" routine).

i thought the government was smart enough not to use DU after the Gulf but i guess not.

T51b · Post by **T51b** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 6:09 am

Whats funny is that the M1's armor is made out of DU. I feel bad for my best friends children, if he ever has any...

Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD · Thu Nov 20, 2003 6:11 am

a tank with DU armor would be a glorified microwave cooking nice little roasted tank crew.

Menno · Post by **Menno** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 7:03 am

Haha, now this outrage is funny. I completely expected this once I put Depleted Uranium in my previous response. Over four major studies have been conducted, one by the World Health Organization, and it did not find Depleted Uranium to be as hazardous as claimed.

Here are four seperate links, each one confirming that DU doesn't pose a signifacent health risk in most cases.

European Union: http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europ ... um.health/

United Nations [The organization most of you love and trust]: http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europ ... index.html

World Health Organization: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

NATO: http://www.nato.int/du/home.htm

Have any of you ever used /fired depleted PLUTONIUM items/projectiles? Think about it before you answer. The answer is YES. Depleted plutonium is commonly referred to as LEAD, which is why it is poisonous to come in contact with it repeatedly. Nobody seemed to care about that for over 200 years, where we've been firing depleted plutonium at each other. If we were to ingest lead dust, it would be detrimental too. It's been used heavily since the Civil War, and WWI and WWII, where a large part of the globe was bombarded with munitions that contained lead. The DU debate is another topic that has been blown way out of proportion. If you wipe your butt with enough colored toilet paper, you can develop rectal cancer too. Do you guys know that when you piss traces of Uranium are released in the urine? Maybe we shouldn't piss anymore either! Our sewers are infested with radioactive material!

Depleted Uranium has been in use for well over 20 years. Is Depleted Uranium the safest substance in the world? Of course not. Like any substance, if ingested in large quantities it could make you very sick. Intake alot of Vitamin C and you'll get very sick also. Depleted uranium is what's left over after the production of enriched uranium. It is radioactive but less so than natural uranium. That's why it's called "depleted." This uranium is poisonous in the way lead and other heavy metals are poisonous. Ill effects are triggered by ingestion, not by mere proximity. Explosions created by depleted uranium projectiles can create particles, and if inhaled in significant doses, the particles would be harmful. The thing is because DU and it's particles are so dense, it's very "heavy", thereby making it very difficult to inhale. And unless you visited a bomb-site and started consuming the soil with your hands, you're at an extremely low risk. Same with drinking water. Because it's dense, it sinks to the bottom making it difficult to drink in large quantities.

There was alot of talk about DU during Kosovo, and there were alot of claims that DU was the cause of making a portion of the peacekeepers ill with cancer. One of those groups affected was the Italians, but they disclosed after a period of studying the matter closely that their military personnel's cancers were in line with the rest of the Italian population; basically the whole thing was overblown. However, there were some cases of radioactive contamination during the Kosovo conflict, but that was mainly due to the fact that some of the heavy bombs contained Plutonium (not depleted), which is highly radioactive. That of course is a legit concern. But there's no direct evidence that suggests DU is the cause of these serious issues.

To give you my own personal example, a good friend of my father's who served in the first Gulf War has a piece of DU shrapnel in his thigh (from a friendly-fire incident). This was about 13 years ago, and he's had it in his thigh ever since (for some reason it can't be removed or it could lead to amputation or something, forgot the specific reason). He's well over 45 now, and has had two children since then, both of which are perfectly normal. Remember, this is with DU embedded into his thigh! Technically, he's the segment of the DU exposed population that's most at risk from ill side effects. Yet he's had none. Iraq (under Saddam Hussein) harped repeatedly that DU was the cause of so many numerous birth defects (lets disregard the fact that he never properly maintained all his chemical munitions), but this was mainly due to the fact that he didn't want them to be used against his tanks when the second war would erupt. When offered by the Red Cross and other health organizations to investigate the matter, Hussein declined and wouldn't permit them into the country. US tanks absolutely shredded the Iraqi tanks because of DU munitions fired from tanks; he'd be an idiot not to try and stop them from being used against him again.

I mean in a nutshell, DU is a way overblown issue. It is not completely safe by any means, but it's safer than a great deal of the substances used regularly today.

iohkus · Post by **iohkus** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 7:09 am

ok gg ^ , kthxlock.

T51b · Post by **T51b** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 8:18 am

Well at 91W School at Ft Sam Houston they taught us prolonged exposure to DU could cause harm.

I mean, being a 19K driving around encased in DU for 20 years could probably be detrimental to ones health...

Menno · Post by **Menno** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 8:26 am

T51b wrote:Well at 91W School at Ft Sam Houston they taught us prolonged exposure to DU could cause harm.

I mean, being a 19K driving around encased in DU for 20 years could probably be detrimental to ones health...

Yes they do teach that. Most of the precautions if I remember correctly are basic measures, like washing your hands properly after exposing yourself to DU materials for an extended amount of time, etc.

Haha, having a wife for 20 years can be detrimental to a man's health also, but we can't go banning that can we? Hmmm, or can we?