I have an interview with a real-life ex-Abrams tank gunner that will be made public shortly.

sweet, looking forward to it.

OK, here it is!

Interview with an Abrams Gunner
http://digitality.emenace.com/milnet/Interview-Beans.htm

My first impression - Not very impressed - his practical experience may be good, but his technical knowledge is somewhat lacking.

APFSDS does not 'vaporise' and suck people through exit holes... It does not kill by overpressure, but by fragmentation (spall from the heavy metal penetrator and from the vehicle armour travelling at high velocity). There were numerous blue on blue incidents where M829/M829A1 penetrated M1A1 and M2A2 vehicles completely when fired from the rear quarters - there were many injuries and some fatalities, but no vaporisations, and very few (or no) full crew losses.

If penetrated T55/Type59/Type69/Type72/T72 were found with no bodies inside after a catastrophic kill, a more likely conclusion would be the vehicle was not crewed at the time of its destruction.

The T64 is unlikely to have been found in Iraq, as this type has never been exported from the USSR.

A T72G is an export version of an early T72. Performance of any weapon against this type is no reliable indicator of performance of the same weapon against a more recent T72 or T80 variant - especially when ERA is considered in addition to the thicker base armour. (T72 armour has increased from ~280mm RHA in the earliest vehicles to 500mm+ with the T72B)

HEAT penetration is dependant to a high degree on the diameter of the warhead (not overall diameter, but the inner diameter inside the warhead case). The M830A1 is a newer weapon than the M830/DM12 that is supplements, but it is smaller, so the trade-off of diameter to efficiency is likely to give rather similar penetration values. The TOW2 is much larger, and is not reliable against the heavy portion of the front armour plus ERA of a late model T72, so it seems unlikely that either the M830 or M830A1 would "deal with it with ease". Side armour, and the weaker portion of the frontal arc not covered by heavy RHA or ERA would be a different matter of course.

T72 vulnerability is high due to around 6 unprotected APFSDS rounds stored in the turret. These have an incremental propellant charge in combustible cases and are recognised by the Russians as a risk in combat - during the second phase of attacks in Grozny these rounds were not carried and immediate post-penetration survivability greatly increased. The stowage of the ammunition and propellant in the turret floor does produce a higher proportion of total losses during fires post penetration - the equivalent fire in an M1 would 'only' gut the engine compartment, fighting compartment and destroy the ammunition stowage compartment, but the vehicle would be recognisable and rebuild-able.

You have some valid points Lieste, but unless you have ever been a real Abrams tank gunner do not belittle what an actual one has written.

The sabot would actually vaporize the crew, creating an atmosphere mich like in an airliner if a small hole was made at altitude. It makes sense. Obviously, it doesn't always behave this way, it depends on penetration angle, impact energy, range to target and type of armor/spall protection on the tank.

Those blue-on-blue incidents that you describe where an Abrams was penetrated by a sabot round does not necessarily resemble the same as when a Soviet tank, etc. is hit. The armor is different and it has much more crew protection measures in place. No doubt the sabot would only liquify the crew if it achieved full penetration through both sides of the vehicle with a certain amount of velocity at that point.

Beans said to me that this would happen, that someone would comment on his answers. But at the end of the day, he's been there. He knows. So unless you have similar experience, please don't make him out to be wrong.

Beans is wrong - vaporisation and ejection is not supported by any of the experimentation or theory. This is a pointless myth that does the rounds from time to time - it is possible that he was told that by someone during his time in service and he honestly believed it to be true, but the described behaviour is farcically improbable.

The US losses included several M2s which were completely perforated through the crew compartments, and destroyed by fires started during the perforation event. The armour on the M2 is much less than that on the T72 - even over the front the M2 has less protection than the side armour of the latter.
The M1 penetrated through the hull side has only a similar level of armour protection to a T72 hit is the same place. It is generally less vulnerable due to differences in fire suppression and protection and separation of propellant from the crew, but by the reasoning given the crews should have been vaporised.

The crew casualties were not complete crews, there were survivors from each, although there were several WIA/KIA per vehicle. A person directly in line with the spall cone will in all probability be unrecognisable - there are many thousands of small fragments, although they lose energy rapidly. The corpse would still be present inside the armour though.
There are a few cases that might result in crew being not present on subsequent examination of a destroyed vehicle:



Turret crew in open hatches might be blown clear by the shock wave, the distances thrown are likely to be small unless there is a catastrophic ammunition deflagration.

Crew trapped in the vehicle may be partially consumed by a catastrophic fire - although I understand that bodies are difficult to destroy completely by fire.

WIA and KIA removed by survivors/medical/graves team already (either friend, enemy or neutral)

Crew survived and bailed out.

Vehicle was abandoned prior to or during the engagement and the empty vehicle was 'killed'. This can include vehicles from 1991 as well as those abandoned during the recent operations.



My assessment of this is that likelihoods increase as the list is followed.

That is immaterial to everything here- modern hyper velocity subcaliber ammunition has been around since T-62/T-55 generation; that's not a documented phenomenon that the crew vaporizes and follows out the exit hole. It's not belittling it to point out what is wrong in it- it's reality.



No it doesn't- and why do you think that would be unique to sabot penetrators alone? Keep in mind that although classified as chemical energy weapons, penetration by HEAT rounds are still achieved purely by kinetic energy- the jet is what is described in continuum dynamics as superplasticized, essentially a solid with exotic characteristics, that is, it has properties described by fluid dynamics- although solid, the jet behaves as if it were a fluid. But guess what? The fastest part of the HEAT jet moves much faster- at around Mach 20+, faster velocity than any sabot will ever achieve (and your subject quotes a speed of 1800 m/s, which is what earlier Soviet ammunition made of Maraging combination steel achieved at short range before bleeding off speed and accuracy at a short distance; the fastest NATO 120mm ammunition doesn't quite reach that velocity). So in other words, if sabot did that, then HEAT would certainly do that.




As Lieste says, you're right in a sense, but for the wrong reasons- there's nothing magic about an Abrams tank that would suddenly make the crew immune from the vaporization effects which occurs in T-series tanks; that's totally arbitrary. T-72 models also sport compound/combination armors; the difference in post penetration effects are due to the storage of the ammunition/propellant charges and fire suppression systems; otherwise, why would a penetration vaporize the crew in a T-72 but not do this in any other armored vehicle? That would imply that physics in a T-72 somehow does not apply anywhere else.




That says something right there- maybe because he has doubts about this himself, or anticipates what reasonable people have debunked in the past. That vaporizing thing going out the exit hole is just Internet schlock. What you tend to see are body parts, pools of blood, crews which look like they've been hit at close range by a large shotgun, or bodies charred. In 1991 in ODS, a gunner in an M2A2 hit by a T-72 was found with basically his guts ripped out: but he wasn't vaporized and sucked out the hole.



He may have been there, but some of the things he says are wrong or incidental; his hit on a BTR-60 between the windshields would have nothing to do with markmanship or the accuracy of the FCS; at that range, the dispersion characteristics mean you could never intentionally duplicate a feat like that even if you wanted to- it's 'lucky,' despite what he says; a Master Gunner would know that, or at least a realistic one would never brag that he achieved that intentionally. You couldn't even discern a BTR-60 at that range (and at night, no less- a target like that would be no more than a blob). If you could resolve images in thermals at that distance, a lot of frats at night likely would have never occured; finally, his references to T-64s, a tank never manufactured for export clients, among other things, are just weird.

Also, there's not a lot of data out there that supports ATGMs fired against coalition tanks; the magic penetration on one M1A1 specimen that got everyone thinking some advanced Russian missile like the Kornet was obtained by the Iraqis was due to the phenomenon that people think that the M1 is invincible; this particular specimen should have been a no-brainer as the penetration was typical for RPG-7V, while the hit location in the lower side hull is entirely possible, as the Abrams is weak there for such a large vehicle.

Lieste and Kontakt5, what experience do you two have with tanks? Are you in/have you ever been in the military? If so, what tanks did you use?

It makes no difference. Factual inaccuracies exist in the article. His being there does not nullify the errors he or you have made in the reporting.

I think I was quite clear explaining where I have a difference of opinion, and I believe my comments to be objective and specific about matters of history, engineering and ballistics.

Yes, I served in the US Army- which adds or changes nothing here, since your sources are wrong, regardless. My being in the Army wouldn't make any false information that I give more correct, or make information true by virtue of that, in other words. No one needs to serve in the armed forces to support the fact that the T-64 was never an export tank, nor was it licensed to manufacture abroad. Sorry, but you're using that as a false cover. In fact, some of the most knowledgeable people I have seen about tanks were never in the Armny, nor served on tanks- they have contributed greatly though, like say Paul Lakowski's modelling and engineering knowledge to Steel Beasts.

You ask Beans if he ever used the US Army's Staff round, and he says he hasn't. There's a good reason for that- it was never manufactured for production. Why didn't you pick up on that- why did you you even bother to ask that if you think you know what's going on here?

I have never claimed to 'know what's going on here'. And I didn't ask the last question as a hostility, but merely trying to get out of you what exactly what your experience was and if we could find some even ground. I asked many of those questions just to see what Beans said, and to confirm stuff that I wasn't sure on.

And Kontakt5, you did actually make a slip-up in this last post of yours. Yes, I'm sure there are some very knowledgeable people that are not in the Army - but only who work for General Dynamics, etc. Who else would have that info? And as far as Steel Beasts goes, you can't use that as an example of what's right and what's wrong. You can never truly do that with any sim.

Besides, there are always differences between what the technical experts and manuals say, compared to real, heat-of-battle, serving crewmen. Things don't always operate the way they should, in reality, no matter what a manual may say. Anyone can read a manual, and you have to make of that what you will, particularly depending on your depth of knowledge and understanding of such subjects. But it is another thing to hear it from a person that has been there, with hands-on experience.

I never intended this to go the way it has done - into an argument - this is right, this is wrong, etc.

I dunno. I've read a lot of books from WW2 about first-hand experiences and such. A common theme in many of their stories are, "they don't tell you this can happen, or this would happen in combat, but it did.." Some are wrong, some are right.

I don't see any particular reason so debate over a soldier's experience. It was his experience. I don't think Flyboy was intending the article to be a "Jane's Reference Book For Tank Combat". When it's over and the last shot has been fired, I think I'll take the soldier's word over someone who hasn't seen it firsthand. I do know one thing, for those who were vaporized by a tank round, they never lived to tell about it.

Yes TerribleTwo, you are spot on with what I was trying to put across. I'm glad you can see what I intended.

You miss the point entirely- that's not a slip up. You are attempting to suggest that no one knows what one is talking about unless they served in the armed forces. Sorry, but that's not true- there are a lot of civilians who have extensive knowledge here- some of the best knowledge base there is, I've talked to them. What you can learn from many of them is far better that what you are saying here about crew vaporizing here. They conduct analysis and work side by side with the military- they are are the ones who build the equipment to specifications, or the ones who have access to information that even military members don't have.



Again, a red herring. The fact is, real world experience does not at all point to 1) equipment which the Iraqis never owned or fielded- T-64 was for a time before arguably the most advanced tank in the world, a T-64 would have been better than anything the Iraqis possessed in 1991 or 2003, particulary their best tanks- export T-72s and the locally manufactured Lion of Babylon T-72 clones they had; no American or coalition unit could ever have encountered one, for very good reason- they never left the USSR. 2) Real world experience absolutely does not point to crew members vaporizing- Lieste and I have explained this to you before. If that were true, it would have been happening since the 1960s with the advent of the T-62 and the 115mm smoothbore with the new discarding sabot ammunition; no conflict has ever shown that in reality- and as far as I know, this false belief didn't really begin to take hold until the Internet generation, until it could be passed around as widespread rumor.

It doesn't make sense even if you think about it- why on earth would that just happen in a T-72; armor thickness and protection levels would be independent of that, since the sudden and violent change of atmospheric pressure would have nothing to do with how thick the armor is once penetrated- in fact, any effects would be worse in thicker armored vehicles- there would be more material to spall off. Light skin and non armored vehicles wouldn't feel the effect as much based on that presumption. You seem to have no answer for why that didn't happen to PCs and infantry fighting vehicles that were hit by friendly or enemy fire- why is that? Why suddenly does physics make a dramatic change and suddenly behave in such an arbitrary way?

Saying that there is a difference between the technical manuals and real world experience is a red herring here- because even real world experience doesn't support what you're saying. Beans said the crew vaporizes, but you went one further to suggest that it would happen in a T-72, while there would be a difference with an M1 or M2; that makes no sense, I assure you, unless the good guys are protected by magic.

Means nothing- again, a red herring that is not supported by any real world account, nor by the science involved insofar as crew vaporizing. That would actually be rather clean if that's what did happen- no mess left over. But a grisly detail for WW2 Sherman crews might have to entail cleaning out the insides of knocked out tanks for body matter and fluids of their former comrades so the tank could be used again. And besides, you're talking about WW2 AP solid shot- the assumption that Flyboy is depositing here is a different thing as modern subcaliber sabot ammunition is a different animal.

Does it even make sense that the crew, his coveralls, tanker boots, CVC helmet (or the Soviet counterpart) would all vaporize and exit out the hole? What is the principle involved which does that? Overpressure? Nope, sorry, that's not what happens. A tanker's biggest fear is burning alive if and when the ammunition storage is touched off. Different tanks have different post penetration survivability, the M1 being among the best, the T-72 being rather poor- but because of configuration of stored ammunition, not because the M1 is magical. On the other hand, an empty tank with ammunition removed is rather inert- you'd still have to worry about spalling, but catastrophic explosions from the ammunition would be removed. Once again, crews don't vaporize in the way Flyboy is explaining. There's at least one M1 tank that is a likely candidate for being knocked out by a T-72 in 1991 in ODS by a side turret penetration; the crew survived, they were certainly not vaporized, the tank itself was eventually consumed by fire. Again- it's not at all consistent or cogent or realistic or coherent to suggest that there is a difference in physics here- the side armor of an M1 is less than the frontal aspect of a T-72. So protection levels have nothing to do with it.

Look- it seems as if you want so badly to believe this stuff that you won't listen to reason. Your intention is not to lie, I know, but you're not doing your audience any favors by misleading them with false information that you believe to be true, either- nor does it do anyone in the armed forces a disservice by telling the truth.

If your purpose is to entertain people by regaling them with sensational hocus pocus, myths and body counts, then by all means, continue doing what you're doing. If you're actually interested in the truth, your article could use some balance. Consider researching a little more. Or not. But come here and say this stuff won't mean you'll get immunity. It's controversial. And wrong.

I think you take this way too seriously. Have you read 'Tanks for the Memories'? The purpose of that book isn't to question the accuracy of those fella's experiences, but simply to put their stories into writing. If they saw a big pink elephant with a swastika firing at them, then it goes into the book. It wasn't the author's intention to question them on their memories and experiences. I read Flyboy's article and I don't see him regurgitating the soldier's experience as the "end all be all" source for technical information regarding modern day tank combat.

The best response would have been, "hey thanks for the article!". Instead what we have is someone wanting to pound their chest on how much technical knowledge they've gained by reading books and scouring the internet. Who really cares??? It's a soldier's experience. More experience than about 99.9% of the people here on this forum have in an M1 tank.



ps. I notice you got a whole 7 posts under your belt. What's your deal anyway?

Oh brother. I have more experience than simply reading books and scouring the Internet- unlike yourself. And again, that's not the point, either.

It's not chest pounding here- which is what you're reducing this down to, if you have nothing to substantial to add, which you don't, which of course doesn't stop you from jumping in. Or otherwise explain the phenomena behind some of the sensationalism going on here. We're talking about what is true and what is not true. If you want to write an article about a particular individual's experience and observations- go right ahead. But there comes a point for whatever reason fiction, half truths and and inaccuracy has crept in- this may be obscure to you, but I recognize it right away. And it's not necessary for what Flyboy is trying to do. I see things like crew vaporization and super duper MPAT and sabots knocking down buildings and I start flagging- I lose interest in something that I have thought about much more than you. I know how it works- if I attempt to clarify something or explain why it's wrong, it makes me out to be the bad guy for no rational reason other than this notion that I'm spoiling all the fun. Personally, I tend to think that inaccuracies and recycled myths tend to detract from things, but not everyone has the same standards, I realize.

But go right ahead- the truth is an inconvenience; all that matters is that people are entertained- all that's left is entertainment once the boring truth is taken out.

Personally I found the article as interesting as any other tank crewman's personal experience. And no one cares about your technical knowledge - they really don't, trust me.

Flyboy, thanks for yet another excellent article.

Well I'm glad you liked it, T2. I'm just sorry about the other readers here.

And for f*ck sake let's just end this now, Kontakt5! Get a life!

Certainly those who live in fantasy land don't care about reality- those people exist, trust me. Certainly your knowledge isn't at issue, either- you don't have any, so instead you try that medieval form of false skepticism to try to argue against reliable observations that the sun doesn't in fact revolve around the earth. The points of what make the accounts in the article entertaining are technical by nature in and of themselves- the article doesn't go much into subjective day to day experiences- meals, the chain of command, interaction with Coalition forces, or anything, but rather goes more into the factual, or objective or technical details of these systems. And that's where it gets weird- ergo, because the article itself deals with technical issues rather than the personal side of experiences, and because those technical issues are contentious, the basis of the article is therefore contentious.

It's not my knowledge alone, either- just to end that pretense. There's a community out there that you probably don't know about or have experience with. It just so happens that on a site that isn't as preoccupied with this subject matter as it is aircraft or more mainstream topics, it appears as if there are one or two madmen rubbing against the grain- for being much more careful.

Adds nothing. Not a defense of your information.

As I've said- you can do what you want. It entertains people, I'm sure, and that seems to be your intention. Deep down, I think you actually understand the contentions in here, but they aren't convenient. If we were talking about aircraft and fighter jets, maybe you'd be more susceptible to something closer to reality. The aircraft fanatics on SimHQ would probably be all over that, and I think you'd then understand the fuss. But tanks are more obscure here, so a glossing over of substance is good enough.

But for your other readers who have more interest than a rather plastic treatment of this, the main points they might be interested are gross inaccuracies and sensationalism. I'm sorry reality bothers you, but that's the way it is. There is no data supporting enemy ATGMS fired on Coalition armor in either ODS or OIF, I would certainly be interested in that if there were- I'd have no reason to deny or suppress the truth if there were. The main culprits have been mechanical breakdowns, friendly fire, IED road bombs, RPGs and recoilless rifle fire- there were about 80 M1 tanks damaged or destroyed, that is, written off or taken out of combat requiring depot level repairs. Crew vaporizing- yeah, right. Like in a Michael Bay popcorn flick or something. Certain 'minor' details are just wrong, like incorrect references to T-64s in Iraq. Others are just obnoxious. These things pile up and start making the article look peculiar. If someone wrote an article that an Iraqi SAM mirv'ed and went into the third engine intake of the F-22 and spat back out again and destroyed the launcher (the F-22 having done that because the F-22 is immune to physics) you'd understandably start to groan. Just so you understand.

But as you wish- we can end it.

Oh yes it does! My tank was hit by a sabot round once and I got sucked right through the hole. To this day I hate squeezing plastic half-empty ketchup bottles `cuz that's just what it sounded like.

Hey look, Kontakt has 10 whole posts and 9 of them are here on this thread touting how great he is.

No one cares Kontakt. I suggest you go back to that "other community".

Well, I suppose 2600 + posts makes you Lord of the Forum at SimHQ- that and 50 cents will buy you a bag of potato chips, your highness. Don't eat 'em all at once. But I reckon few if any of those posts could have anything of value to add here. I just don't gather this is your cup of tea- which is fine, it's not everyone's, but to be clear, you have nothing of value to add. All you're doing is trying to suppress valid points, because you couldn't have any of your own to add.

Some gain wisdom from books,others from real-life experience........and they don't necessarily have to match!

Hmm..somehow we overlooked this one.

Knock of the personal attacks. Debate the issue, that is fine. No more personal attacks.