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.