It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Weak spot on the Abrams

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   
We have discovered some spots on the abrams that are susceptible to attack but id like to point out another possible weak spot. If you look at the back you can see a large bustle hanging back about a foot above the top of the hull. I believe that if a modern RPG with a good anti armor round were to be placed in the back of the tank at the back of the turret under the turret the turret would be penetrated possibly causing the rounds to cook off. Any thoughts?




posted on May, 4 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Trust me in saying that any fault found in the Abrams armour has been discovered before. There are no "new" discoveries.

[edit on 5/4/05 by jetsetter]



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tony238
We have discovered some spots on the abrams that are susceptible to attack but id like to point out another possible weak spot. If you look at the back you can see a large bustle hanging back about a foot above the top of the hull. I believe that if a modern RPG with a good anti armor round were to be placed in the back of the tank at the back of the turret under the turret the turret would be penetrated possibly causing the rounds to cook off. Any thoughts?


*sarcasm*

OMG, AN RPG COULD PENETRATE THE REAR OF AN ABRAMS!!!??!?!

Seriously, this is nothing new. Actually, the equipment stored on the bustle rack acts as a shield, increasing stand off from RPG attack by quite a bit

[edit on 4-5-2005 by Kozzy]



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Not to be rude, but:
1) who is "we"?
2) when did "we" figure out that the Abrams had a weak point in its rear?
3) "we" [us military freaks] at ATS already knew this.


Greetings and welcome.




seekerof

[edit on 4-5-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Indeed, there was a big stink on a double shaped charge RPG warhead that nailed at least 2 Abrams a long time ago, this isn't new. Nothing is absolutely invulnerable, but I'd rather be in an Abrams or Challenger than some others.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   
If an abrams can still function with all crew after it's ammo explodes, i think i would take the abrams over a guy in a foxhole with a RPG



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   
if its all its charges and ammo exploded, then no, the crew would not survive and the turret would most likely be blown off.

Anyway, remember, you dont need to destroy the tank, you only need to kill the crew with is much easier that killing the whole tank


Fraser

[edit on 5-5-2005 by Solarity]


M6D

posted on May, 5 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   
if all the charges and ammo exploded (on a abrams) then yes, the crew would survive and the turret most deffintely would not blow off

remember..blast pannels, thats all you need to know



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solarity
if its all its charges and ammo exploded, then no, the crew would not survive and the turret would most likely be blown off.

Anyway, remember, you dont need to destroy the tank, you only need to kill the crew with is much easier that killing the whole tank


Fraser

[edit on 5-5-2005 by Solarity]


Are you kidding? All modern western tanks have their ammo stored in their bustle rack, completely seperated from the crew. If it explodes, it gets vented up out the blast panels and away from the crew.



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 12:29 AM
link   
OPSEC.

You shouldn't be asking these sorts of questions. I don't know who you are, but I am VERY suspicious.



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 07:30 PM
link   
THere is a report of an Abrams in GW1 that had its ammo exploded by enemy fire. They were still able to track and destroy the enemy tank after it happened... obviosuly used the ammo "in the gun"... and all crew members were unharmed.

THe weak points of any tank are usually the turret ring



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 07:55 PM
link   
I think we already knew that the back of the Abrams is vulnerable to penetration at close ranges. However if you find a picture of the "urban" Abrams, which are Abrams with more armor the spot your talking about is a bit more protected.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   
I think i had pdf which could explain some lossepoint of abram this pdf is about M1A2 in iraqi

M1A2



posted on May, 14 2005 @ 04:01 AM
link   
Even so, the back of the Abrams can protect the CREW WEEEEELLLLL!!!!



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   
If I will u, u better shift house. Government agents of U.S going to look for u. U GOT TROUBLE in exposing their weakness on the net



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Ha ha ha ha


Another weakness of America!!!


Will you find such weak spots on the Black Eagle? NO!!

Why? Because Russia is the best!!!!!!



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 11:11 PM
link   
There are no weak spots on the Abrams that arent the same on every other tank on the planet.

The Abrams still has the best combat record in the history of tank warfare.

Oh yes, and any "weak" spot in only an issue when the tank is being used in ways it was not designed for: urban combat. And they have a bolt on kit that fixes that.

Again, other tanks may look great on paper, but as long as they are sittling idle looking pretty, they may as well be garbage, in the mean time, the Abrams is out in actual combat dominating its enemies...

[edit on 29-4-2006 by skippytjc]



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc

Again, other tanks may look great on paper, but as long as they are sittling idle looking pretty, they may as well be garbage, in the mean time, the Abrams is out in actual combat dominating its enemies...

[edit on 29-4-2006 by skippytjc]


Eh , humm , the point of weapons is to maintain security. In the case of national security, the best weapon is the one that doesn't have to be used. Its served and succeeded at its primary purpose.


The ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu said it best " The supreme excellence is not to win a hundred victories in a hundred battles, but to defeat the armies of your enemies without ever having to fight them."



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
There are no weak spots on the Abrams that arent the same on every other tank on the planet.

The Abrams still has the best combat record in the history of tank warfare.

Oh yes, and any "weak" spot in only an issue when the tank is being used in ways it was not designed for: urban combat. And they have a bolt on kit that fixes that.

Again, other tanks may look great on paper, but as long as they are sittling idle looking pretty, they may as well be garbage, in the mean time, the Abrams is out in actual combat dominating its enemies...

[edit on 29-4-2006 by skippytjc]


Leopard 2a6 is the best, and thats official.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Russian soldier
Will you find such weak spots on the Black Eagle? NO!!

Umm, two things here: bravado has its own shortcomings, as does a number of "weakspots" on the Black Eagle. Bet.
Those alleged no "weakspots" on the Black Eagle will become blazingly apparent once the Black Eagle enters into its first modern head-on combat or urban envirnoment, which it has yet to have done. I am looking forward to the day that Russia finds the balls again to enter an actual combat environment but it seems to still be licking its wounds from the buttwhopping it received at the hands of those Afghan tribal warlords.




Why? Because Russia is the best!!!!!!

The Russian glory days have long passed; they ended in 1991.
The Black Eagle remains a non-serial produced piece of military hardware, along with loads of other fabulously flaunted technology demonstrators. Till then, the "best" remains to be relative.







seekerof

[edit on 30-4-2006 by Seekerof]




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join