ARMOURED CARS

A preliminary investigation revealed that two members of the United Arab Emirates military
came under hostile automatic weapon fire while operating an armored 2005 Toyota Land
Cruiser. This vehicle had been re-configured as an “armored” vehicle by a private
corporation in the United Arab Emirates after delivery from Toyota. This extremely
expensive process (approximately $100,000.00) was performed on two hundred (200)
similar vehicles operated by the United Arab Emirates military in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
other hazardous locations throughout the world.

While operating in an undisclosed location in Iraq, this vehicle sustained damage when it
came under enemy fire while on patrol. Two projectiles and a number of bullet fragments
penetrated the interior of the vehicle during the shooting incident. The driver sustained a
serious bullet wound to his left chest area while the front passenger was reportedly
unharmed. The vehicle was removed from service in Iraq and subsequently returned to Abu
Dhabi via military transport for forensic examination.

Preliminary Investigation

The vehicle was stored outdoors in a secure compound in Abu Dhabi and remained in its
original condition after the shooting incident. Assisting the authors in the investigation was a
member of the Abu Dhabi military Special Forces who had personal combat experience
operating similar vehicles in war zones located in Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan. The vehicle
was visually inspected and photographed using generally accepted crime scene techniques
to document its condition.

The initial examination began with a documented inspection of the exterior of the vehicle
(Figure 1). The location of each bullet impact on the exterior of the truck was noted. Twenty-
four bullet impacts on the vehicle were counted, including strikes located on the front left
tire, left front fender, driver’s door, right rear quarter panel, rear doors, left rear quarter
panel, and roof.

Additionally, bullet impacts were noted on the bullet resistant glass located in the
windshield, driver’s door, left rear passenger door, right rear side window and in the right
rear door. The bullet resistant glass defeated all of the bullet strikes and none of the
projectiles penetrated into the vehicle’s interior.

The following digital images (Figures 2 through 4) illustrate the locations of the bullet impact
marks and the extent of the damage to the vehicle during the incident:

The left side of the vehicle exhibited a total of thirteen (13) bullet impact points. These
included:

1-bullet hole in the front tire (A);

1-bullet hole in the left front fender (penetrating the engine compartment and severing the
fuel line, incapacitating the engine of the vehicle); (B)
3-bullet holes in the driver’s door; (C)
2-bullet impact marks on the driver’s side window; (D)
1-bullet hole in the “B pillar” between the doors; (E)
1-bullet impact mark on left side passenger window adjacent to the “B pillar” of the vehicle;
(F)
3-bullet impact marks to the left rear window ;(G) and
1-bullet hole in the left rear quarter panel (H).

The rear of the vehicle exhibited nine (9) bullet impact marks. These included:

5-bullet holes in the left rear door; (I)

3-bullet holes in the right rear door; (J) and
1-bullet impact mark on the right rear window (K).

NOTE: Unlike the side doors, the rear doors were not armored to permit access to a pair of
pull down jump seats in the rear cargo area. A hinged steel tail gate was installed for
protection in this area. It was designed to be lifted into place before the doors were closed
in order to shield the passengers from projectiles striking the area below the bullet resistant
rear windows.

The right side of the vehicle exhibited only one (1) bullet hole (X) and a series of impacts
indicating the bullet traveled along the rear quarter panel and exited just over the right rear
wheel. (See large arrow)

The roof of the truck exhibited one (1) bullet hole which struck the vehicle just behind the
top of the front windshield. This projectile was defeated by the armor plating installed in the
roof of the vehicle.

Additional photographs were taken of the vehicle, including close-ups of the impact sites
and additional visible damage to the truck. Due to the excessive heat of the Abu Dhabi
desert, the vehicle was moved under a portico for the remaining portions of the
investigation. An assessment of the armor installed in the vehicle was undertaken as the
next step in the investigation.

Understanding Vehicle Armor and Bullet Resistant Glass

The following information will assist the reader to better understand the ballistic principals of
both vehicle armor and bullet resistant glass. These days, an examiner doesn’t have to
travel to a war zone to be exposed to casework involving civilian armored vehicles.
Executives, celebrities, criminals and the extremely affluent all choose to travel around
American cities inside of vehicles which have been armored in some way. It is very
plausible that in the future a number of firearm examiners will be called upon to perform a
shooting reconstruction of one of these vehicles.
Bullet Resistant Glass

Bullet resistant glass is created by adding a sheet of polycarbonate material between two
layers of glass during the laminate process. Polycarbonate is a tough plastic used for a
variety of applications but its main advantage is incredible strength combined with light
weight. Polycarbonate is nearly unbreakable and just one-sixth as heavy as glass.
Polycarbonate is often known by the brand name Lexan, Tuffak or Cyrolon. [1]

Laminated glass is produced using a heat and pressure process, sandwiching a flexible
interlayer between layers of glass. Laminated glass has the advantage over standard glass
in that it will not shatter because the interlayer is not subject to the same brittle failure as
standard tempered glass. Bullet resistant glass is designed to withstand bullets depending
on the thickness of the glass and the type of weapon being fired at it.

Armor

An armored motor vehicle is one which has been reinforced with armored plating to protect
the vehicle and its occupants from gunfire, explosives, and other hazards. These plates are
typically installed by attaching them directly to the frame of the vehicle after the upholstery
has been removed. Ballistic plates are installed in the roof and floor of the passenger
compartment and around the engine for additional protection. An illustration showing some
of the installation points of ballistic materials in a typical armored vehicle is shown in Figure
6. These dense metal or ceramic plates stop projectiles by fragmenting and/or deflecting
them away from the occupants of the vehicle. There are a range of uses for armored
vehicles, with the bulk of armored vehicles around the world being used by militaries and
governments. It is also possible to purchase such vehicles for private use, although they
tend to be quite expensive.

An armored vehicle can be obtained in one of two ways: by specifically ordering an armored
vehicle, or by outfitting an existing vehicle with armored plates. Several car companies
make armored vehicles which range from models only available in armored configurations
to models which are available armored or unarmored, depending on the need. Many
existing vehicles can also be armored with the assistance of a specialty company.

In addition to thick metal or ceramic plates, an armored vehicle usually includes a range of
other safety measures. For example, tires are typically reinforced and the glass in the
vehicle is typically bulletproof. Many armored vehicles have highly advanced steering and
braking systems which allow the driver more control over the car. These systems help to
compensate for the increased weight of the car and are sometimes designed to make the
car as maneuverable as possible, since getting out of a dangerous situation is usually a
critical need, even if the vehicle is armored against potential threats.

Armor Specifications

Many corporations around the world design and install bullet resistant systems for private
use armored vehicles. Trucks manufactured by Toyota are extremely popular world-wide
and a variety of systems have been installed in vehicles of this class. Different types of
bullet resistant materials are installed after the vehicle has been manufactured with different
levels of protection guaranteed by the companies installing the protection.

Typical installations as advertised by the International Armoring Corporation® of Ogden,

Utah [2] include the following vehicle modifications:

Level of Protection - Base Armor Ballistic Specifications for an IAC Level 5 (Level B-6):
HIGH POWER RIFLE DEFEAT. Penetration protection for the following calibers:

• .357 Magnum (fmj, coned bullet, or soft core), 10.2 g, 425 ms / 158gr. 1450 fps
• 9mm luger (fmj, round nose or soft core), 8 g., 381 ms / 124gr. 1250 fps
• .44 Magnum (fmj, flat nose, or soft core), 15.6 g, 460 ms / 240gr 1510 fps
• 7.62 X 39mm, 9.3g, 713ms / 145 gr., 2,430 fps
• 7.62 X 39mm, 7.9g, 822 ms / 123 gr., 2,697 fps
• 7.62 x 51mm M80 (fmj - or soft core), 9.5 g, 830 ms / 147 gr., 2,700 fps
• 5.56 x 45 (fmj, pointed bullet, soft core, SS109), 4 g, 950 m/s, / 62gr. 3116 fps
General Armoring Specifications

Glass areas: Windshield, rear doors and side glass will be removed and replaced with
bullet-resistant transparent armor multi-layer glass and polycarbonate inner layer to prevent
spalling upon ballistic impact. Glass will be curved and contoured to retain the appearance
of the original glass. All transparent areas will be B6+/NIJ III+.

Windows: Driver door window is operable.

Vehicle Body: Doors, pillar posts, side panels, kick-panels, firewall, and headers (laterals)
will be armored with ballistic composite material or ballistic steel in accordance with defined
standard of defeat.

Roof: Armored with ballistic composite material in accordance with NIJ III standards at 30
degree angle protection.

Floor: Floor areas will be armored with multi-ply rigid ballistic fragmentation material molded
to form fit contours of floorboards and panels.

Vehicle Structured Modifications: Reinforcement of pillar posts and hinges, high-pressure

heavy-duty shocks, and upgrade of suspension to include HD torsion bars and polyurethane
bushings. Hardened plastic door risers installed on all doors.

Fuel Tank: Ballistic fragmentation blanket.

The subject vehicle in this case had been upgraded locally with a similar system. Externally,
as shown in the submitted images, the vehicle shows no apparent modifications. A visual
examination of the interior of the truck confirms that additional panels and steel plates had
been attached to the roof, floor, frame and doors of the vehicle and concealed by re-
installed upholstery. The weights of the four side doors are noticeably heavier than an
ordinary vehicle due to the additional weight of the bullet resistant glass and armored
panels. The side bullet resistant windows operated normally.

Determining the Reason for Failure

The next step in this investigation was to attempt to determine which bullet impacts
penetrated into the passenger compartment of the truck. Each bullet impact was identified
by a sequential numeral and marked with adhesive scales. Any secondary bullet holes or
impact marks were recorded and determined to correspond to bullet holes on the exterior of
the vehicle.

Next, standard ballistic trajectory rods were carefully inserted into each bullet hole. In this
case, determination of the position of the shooter was considered unnecessary because of
the known movement of the vehicle during the incident. It should be noted that the impacts
to the left side of the truck exhibited angles that indicated the firearm was held (possibly
supported) perpendicular to the vehicle. Moreover, the angle of the shots that struck the
rear of the vehicle indicated the driver likely accelerated away from the shooting scene as
the gunfire erupted.

NOTE: The bullet hole in the roof of the truck has remained unexplained in this scenario
unless a second shooter was located above the vehicle at the time of the incident. This
information was not provided to the authors.

Projectile Penetration

Inspection of the interior of the vehicle uncovered a number of points of impact as well as
visible damage to the passenger compartment. At that time, we concluded that two
projectiles and a number of fragments penetrated the vehicle. The most obvious damage
was caused by the projectile penetrating the rear door and culminated with a projectile
(steel core) deeply embedded into the windshield (Figure 7).

This steel core was a component of a bullet that struck at the bottom of the left rear door.
The bullet perforated the door and passed under the piano hinge of the rear lift gate before
fragmenting into two pieces (jacket and core).

The jacket portion embedded itself in the rear seat and was recovered during the
investigation. The core perforated the rear seat and the front driver’s side seat before
striking the windshield with enough force to embed itself in the bullet resistant glass of the
windshield.

This projectile was determined to not have caused the injury to the driver. This conclusion
was based on its trajectory and the position of the bullet wound on the left side of the
driver’s chest.

As previously reported, a fold down metal lift gate consisting of approximately ½” of steel
was added for protection to the rear cargo area. This gate was operated using a heavy duty
piano type of hinge and was locked into place on both sides of the cargo compartment. Two
fold down jump seats were used for additional passengers in this area. Additional protection
was provided by tinted bullet resistant glass installed in both doors.

Figures 8 through 10 illustrate the path of the bullet after entering the vehicle.

Passing under the tailgate hinge, the bullet struck the steel plate mounted under the cargo
area and deflected up into the rear seat (Figure 8).

The core and jacket separated at this point and the jacket was embedded in the seat back.
The steel core perforated the back seat and continued into the front seat (Figure 9).

The core perforated the front seat back in an area which could have caused a serious injury
to the driver of the vehicle (Figure 10).

The projectile passing through bullet hole #6 was determined to have struck the bullet
resistant glass of the left rear window at a shallow angle and deflected into the “C pillar” of
the truck’s frame. After impacting the armor at the driver’s side C pillar, the bullet
fragmented into two pieces and deflected forward towards the driver via a gap between the
armor and the interior of the pillar.

These fragments entered the vehicle’s interior through a narrow gap between the armor
panels installed on the C pillar and were embedded in the insulation and plastic (see
arrows) on the interior surface (Figure 11).

It was determined that this was not the projectile/s that struck the driver due to the bullet’s
fragmentation and lack of discernable penetration into the driver’s area of the truck’s interior
Small fragments of the bullet’s jacket were recovered from the insulation.

The projectile passing through bullet hole #5 was determined to be the actual bullet causing
the shooting injury (Figures 12 through 14). Trajectory analysis revealed that the bullet
struck and perforated the “B pillar” and continued into the passenger compartment of the
truck striking the driver. This was considered to be extraordinary since ballistic armor was
installed directly over this part of the “B pillar” interior. Additional examination of the area
was necessary to determine how this projectile defeated the protective covering plate. After
removing the upholstery covering the armor, it became obvious to us how this occurred:

Practical accommodations must be made regarding the safety of the vehicle during the
armor installation process. Ignoring the seat belt restraint system could lead to serious
injury to passengers of the vehicle during incidents not involving gunfire. This restraint
system had priority during the installation of the vehicle’s armor.
In this case, a 1 1/8” long by 1” wide hole was drilled into the steel plate armor at the
location where the driver’s shoulder restraint was bolted into the frame of the truck. This
anchor bolt was then secured into the “B pillar” according to the manufacturer’s
specifications.

Incredibly, the bullet penetrated the B pillar at an angle allowing it to miss the attached steel
armor, passed through the small hole drilled into the steel (Figure 14), effectively missing
the anchor bolt assembly (See arrow) and then struck the driver causing his injury.

NOTE: The driver was wearing military grade body armor at the time of the incident. The
bullet struck his body in a location not protected by his body armor.

Conclusions

Armored SUV’s similar to the subject vehicle in this case are designed to defeat projectiles
fired from a variety of different small arms calibers. The caliber of the bullets striking this
vehicle was determined to be consistent with the standard 7.62 x 39mm cartridge. Although
an injury occurred in this case, it’s a fact that all rounds that struck portions of the vehicle
protected by bullet resistant glass or ballistic armor panels were defeated. Bullets impacting
these areas were either deflected away from the vehicle, fragmented, or were completely
stopped by the installed protection.

This case is unique in that three projectiles actually penetrated past the vehicle’s protection
with one causing serious physical injury to the driver. Based on the number of apparent
bullet impacts (twenty-five (25) with three (3) bullets penetrating into the interior of the
truck), the failure rate was approximately 12%. This percentage of protection “failures”
seems high, especially to an individual relying on a vehicle’s armor protection for their
safety.

The shot placement in this case appeared to be controlled, burst fire. An almost horizontal
shot pattern is recognized as being consistent with the shooter controlling his shots and
keeping this automatic firing weapon on target. It appears that the shot pattern was initiated
at the front left tire and continued along the left side while the vehicle accelerated away from
the threat. The shots continued striking the rear of the truck as it sped away from the attack.

In the opinion of the authors, steps can be taken to lessen the possibility of protection
failures in similarly armored vehicles. A number of these were reported to the client in this
case including the following:

• It was suggested to change the method of securing the shoulder harness portion of the
seat belt system to the frame of the vehicle by using an alternate fastener. A possible
solution would be to weld the shoulder harness anchors directly to the B and C pillar’s
armor, removing the possibility of a projectile passing around a securing bolt.
• Another suggestion was to narrow the gaps between the ballistic panels and the vehicle’s
frame, especially near a window frame. Bullets striking at a shallow angle on the bullet
resistant windows have an increased ability to travel along the frame of the vehicle and
enter through even the smallest of gaps.

• Choosing an existing option of having armor installed in the engine compartment would
prevent projectiles from entering this area. In this case, the fuel line was severed, causing
the vehicle to eventually stall. This could have resulted in a life threatening situation, such
as an engine fire or having to exit the vehicle while still under fire.

• In order to avoid sudden tire deflation, which could cause the vehicle to stop or a loss of
control for the driver, a solution of equipping this vehicle with run flat tires was suggested for
the protection of its occupants. In this incident, one bullet punctured the left front tire
causing it to go flat.

• Finally, a solution to the bullet’s incursion at the hinge of the steel lift gate in the rear of the
truck might be an additional narrow ballistic panel attached to the corresponding area of the
back doors. This would solve the vulnerability without adding excessive weight to the doors.