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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by motionknight
Leopard 2a6 is the best, and thats official.


“Official”? By whom? You, me, or grandma down the street?
The Leo 2A6 has not been combat proven, and the “best” is a relative term, what’s the Leo “best” for, speed, armor, firepower or crew comfort?

I consider the overall best tank to be one that is able to protect its crew and that is still able to destroy the enemy in unimaginable numbers. To date there have been very few modern tanks that have proven this ability through real battles, and sadly for you the Leo is not on of them.

[edit on 30-4-2006 by WestPoint23]




posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Abrams is regularly being disabled by a 12.7 MG or a .50 cal sniper rifle.

By hitting a completely unprotected compressor assembly the power to the turret is severed and the Abrams turns into a heavily armored bulldozer.

It's exactly how the Abrams gets ambushed in Iraq and why US supplied .50 cal Barretts have been transferred from Afghanistan to Iraq by Al-Qaeda.

With a single shot the sniper disables the turret and RPG crews burn the hull.

Russian soldier, I find your approach to be inflammatory and unproductive.


It's exactly the kind of misguided patriotism that turns valid discussions into rants.


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.


Seekerof, what's that about? Balls, combat environment? Buttwhopping? You mean like Nam?

Other then the fact that it's exactly what's happening with US troops in Iraq right now, Russians have been fighting with Chechen's since the 90s. Where have you been man?


M6D

posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   
US supplied barett 50's in the hands of insuragants eh? where did you pull this from? where is the proof for this? infact, i havent even heard anything LIKE this!



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
Abrams is regularly being disabled by a 12.7 MG or a .50 cal sniper rifle.

By hitting a completely unprotected compressor assembly the power to the turret is severed and the Abrams turns into a heavily armored bulldozer.


Can we have some sources describing this “unprotected compressor assembly” and perhaps a news report or two about these “regularly” occuring cases. Thanks in advance.

[edit on 30-4-2006 by WestPoint23]


M6D

posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
good point to, last time i heard no abrams was taken out beacuse of the 'unprotected' compressor, they got taken out because an auxilary unit on the back of the tank was hit and would leak on to the engine causing a fire that couldnt be extinguished. and that APU on the back was hit by an RPG! not this supposed barrett 50's that these insurgants apprently have.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Weak spots all taks got them

You can take out pretty much any tank on the planet be it a M1A2, Blackeagle, Challenger, Leo whatever with a simple home made properly thickened moltov cocktail to a tanks rear engine deck.

When the engine compenets and engine coolant reaches temperatures of burning petrol along with a bunch of other nasty effects it would have Electrical connections, fan belts etc.. being damaged its going to be a bad day for the tanks engine.

Theres a good chance that would produce a mobility (M) kill on a tank. Thats not going to kill the crew in this day and age but it will render the tank pretty much useless until they do a engine fix or swap.

Of course you need the balls to run up to a MBT with little more then a flaming bottle in your hands.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Considering my record on ATS forums I sure wish that by now I wouldn't be forced to prove everything I say.


US supplied barett 50's in the hands of insuragants eh? where did you pull this from? where is the proof for this? infact, i havent even heard anything LIKE this!



WASHINGTON – More than a decade ago, the U.S. government sent 25 high-powered sniper rifles to a group of Muslim fighters in Afghanistan that included Osama bin Laden, according to court testimony and the guns' maker.

The rifles, made by Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Inc. of Tennessee and paid for by the government, were shipped during the collaboration between the United States and Muslims then fighting to drive the Soviet Union from Afghanistan.



multimedia.belointeractive.com...


U.S. Gun Industry Armed Osama bin Laden's Terror Network: Al Qaeda Bought 25 Barrett 50 Caliber Sniper Rifles

"Super Guns" Can Down Helicopters, Defeat Armored Limousines, Destroy Aircraft at Terminals, Ignite Fuel Tanks, All From 1,800 yards

Violence Policy Center Report Documents Sale, Details Terror Potential

WASHINGTON, DC— The U.S. gun industry sold at least twenty-five 50 caliber sniper rifles to Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden's terror network, a study released by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) today reports. The study, Voting From the Rooftops, details the tremendous power of the Barrett M82A1 50 caliber sniper rifles— which U.S. Marines used in the Gulf War to knock out Iraqi armored vehicles from 1,750 yards away—and the gun's potential use to commit terror acts that could cause enormous casualties. The Barrett sniper rifle has spawned a bourgeoning market for these types of weapons that are becoming cheaper, lighter and more widely available. There are known to be at least fifteen 50 caliber sniper rifle manufacturers—nearly double the number of companies that were manufacturing and marketing 50 calibers to civilians in1999.

"We can be shocked, but not surprised that the gun industry would sell these dangerous military weapons to Al Qaeda," said the study's author, Tom Diaz, VPC's senior policy analyst. "These 50 caliber sniper rifles are ideal tools for terror and assassination."



www.vpc.org...



www.marinetimes.com...

The info 12.7/.50 power loss hits on Abrams I picked up from some T90 video.

I don't have the links at hand, so make the effort and try to find them for your selves.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   
How much RHA can this sniper rifle penetrate?



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   

How much RHA can this sniper rifle penetrate?


As always it all depends.

Tungsten perpetrators have been used in anti-tank rifles since WWI, so feel free to start digging there.

Anti-tank and anti-material large caliber rifles have been extensively used in WWII, so by far they are nothing new.

US started using .50 cals in mid 80s while other nations used large caliber rifles since the turn of the 20 century.

So it's kind of common knowledge to harden all essential tank systems against anti-material rifles.

Abrams was designed to fight a straight Cold War tank battle and did not factor in the urban element, while everybody else learned their lessons in WWII.

en.wikipedia.org...

WWII Japanese 20mm anti-tank;

en.wikipedia.org...:AT_rifle_Type_97_1.JPG

Soviet 14.5mm;

en.wikipedia.org...
TRS_41.jpg

Finnish 20mm;

en.wikipedia.org...

US Barrett XM-109 20mm;

www.military.com...

South African 20mm;

world.guns.ru...

Croatian RT-20 20mm;

world.guns.ru...

Tacktics;

www.lonesentry.com...


Until recently PTRD-41 could be purchased by general publick in Canada and US.

www.marstar.ca...

This one is my favorite so far;

world.guns.ru...

That's just one mean sob.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Iskander while your link was interesting it was not about a .50 cal BMG, all the speculation centered around some new shaped charged RPG. However even though a .50 cal can damage and or destroy the sights used by the crew and perhaps the tracks I doubt it could destroy the engine compartment much less penetrate the hull of a MBT. At least not with the ball round so widely proliferated.


Originally posted by iskander
Considering my record on ATS forums I sure wish that by now I wouldn't be forced to prove everything I say.


Don't take it personally, its just common practice on ATS to post a link or source about the information you're presenting. The exceptions are when members are talking about a subject or topic that they’ve have had first had experience in and there really isn't any source with that information. However there are very few people on here with that kind of knowledge and respect.


Originally posted psteel
How much RHA can this sniper rifle penetrate?


That depends obviously on the range to target, gun, and on the type of round used.



The most regularly used round of .50 caliber ammunition is called the "ball." According to the U.S. Army, ball ammunition is so powerful it can penetrate one inch of concrete, six inches of sand, and 21 inches of clay at a range of 1,640 yards. At a range of 38 yards it can penetrate an inch of armor plate and 16 inches of log wall. Armor-piercing and incendiary ammunition is another basic .50 caliber round which the U.S. Army uses against armored aircrafts and lightly armored vehicles. The armor piercing incendiary rounds are tipped with phosphorous that explodes on impact and burns at 3,000 degrees. These rounds will ignite almost any fuel they encounter, and if shot into a tree will set the tree on fire.

Link


Here's a good link detailing the several different rounds fired by a .50 BMG and their various penetration capability.

Link

Related Sources

Link

[edit on 30-4-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Here's an Austrian Steyr AMR / IWS 2000 which fires a 15.2mm APFSDS round.


WS 2000 is wery formidable weapon. It fires 20 gramm (308 grains) tungsten dart (fleschette) with muzzle velocity of 1450 meters per second (4750 fps). At 1000 meters this projectile will penetrate a 40 mm of RHA (rollded homogenous steel armour) and will result in serious secondary fragmentation effect behind the armour. That said, it will penetrate two walls of any modern APC at one kilometer range. The trajectory is very flat and does not rise higher than 800 mm above the line of sight when fired to 1000 meters. The cartridge is of somewhat original design, and has plastic case with steel head and base. The projectile is concealed within a plastic sabot.


world.guns.ru...



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
So it's kind of common knowledge to harden all essential tank systems against anti-material rifles.

Abrams was designed to fight a straight Cold War tank battle and did not factor in the urban element, while everybody else learned their lessons in WWII.


Why continue to slam the Abrams when you haven’t show us that any have been disabled or killed by .50 Cal rounds? Nor have you for that matter shown that all the other tanks designed around the same time offered any significant higher levels of protection against .50 Cal rounds and or urban combat as you claim.

[edit on 30-4-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   
iskander, your link did no good for anyone, it only said that .50 caliber Barrett rifles were sold to Al Queda for the Soviet Union invasion of Afghanastan. It in no place(that I have read, maybe I have misread) says that Insurgents in Iraq are armed with these rifles and are using them. Nor does it confirm any kills with .50 caliber Rifles. A .50 caliber will not kill anyone inside an Abrams, now if you land the perfect shot, it can DISABLE the tank.

Yes, sometimes, disabling it is all you need to do, agreed. Especially for Tanks such as the Abrams and it's glorious battle record. Trying to kill the crew just isn't worth the effort, all you can do is disable it from combat at best. The Abrams is just way too tough for that.

Just be glad that Al Queda never got any Anti-material rifles.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Why continue to slam the Abrams when you haven’t show us that any have been disabled or killed by .50 Cal rounds? Nor have you for that matter shown that all the other tanks designed around the same time offered any significant higher levels of protection against .50 Cal rounds and or urban combat as you claim.


What is this some school playground?

I'm not slamming anything and I don't have to prove a damn thing, I'm not a child.

If you're lazy or ignorant it's not my problem.

Chevy Suburban is rather difficult to park down town, because it is a suburban vehicle, not an urban vehicle.

Abrams was designed to duel with other tanks in open field, not to operate in European theater and various urban environments.

Since WWII Russians/Germans/French/Israelis etc have been tucking in all of the guts because they know what happens when a tank gets ambushed in cramped spaces.

Why don't you reach out by your self and learn something for your self before doubting other people, it's only civilised.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
What is this some school playground?

I'm not slamming anything and I don't have to prove a damn thing, I'm not a child.


Yup, you sure aren’t acting like one, if you want to claim something about the Abrams, which you have several times on here, you better back it up or don't post it at all, word are cheap.


Originally posted by iskander
Abrams was designed to duel with other tanks in open field, not to operate in European theater and various urban environments.


Of course it was, and it does it quite well I might add. However that still does not prove that it offered less protection in urban combat and or from Anti-Material Weapons then its contemporaries at the time did, as you originally claimed.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
What is this some school playground?

I'm not slamming anything and I don't have to prove a damn thing, I'm not a child.


Yup, you sure aren’t acting like one, if you want to claim something about the Abrams, which you have several times on here, you better back it up or don't post it at all, words are cheap.


Originally posted by iskander
Abrams was designed to duel with other tanks in open field, not to operate in European theater and various urban environments.


Of course it was, and it does it quite well I might add. However that still does not prove that it offered less protection in urban combat and or from Anti-Material Weapons then its contemporaries at the time did, as you originally claimed.

[edit on 30-4-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Actually, the original M1 was designed to fight on the fields of Europe. It wasn't designed for desert combat. The M1A1 would later be properly modified for those types of engagement.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   

iskander, your link did no good for anyone, it only said that .50 caliber Barrett rifles were sold to Al Queda for the Soviet Union invasion of Afghanastan. It in no place(that I have read, maybe I have misread) says that Insurgents in Iraq are armed with these rifles and are using them.



So what you're saying is that I'm just making all this stuff up then right? It must be what you're saying, unless I didn't get that right.

The fact that Al Quada is using US supplied Barretts in Afghanistan against US troops and also transferred a number of units to Iraq was all over the news about a year or two ago.

The whole thing about night scopes, how CIA trained Afghans to assassinate Soviet officers and how the same people now pick of US troops.


Nor does it confirm any kills with .50 caliber Rifles. A .50 caliber will not kill anyone inside an Abrams, now if you land the perfect shot, it can DISABLE the tank.


Alright I'll start looking again but it's the last freaking time I'll be put in this situation. I'm sick and tired of this juvenile "I won't believe till you prove it" crapp. My wife is 34 years young and she keeps saying how silly it is of me to spend my time on this forum arguing with stubborn kids.

She's got a point but at least I'm not fuzzing bear and watching the tube to decompress.



Yes, sometimes, disabling it is all you need to do, agreed. Especially for Tanks such as the Abrams and it's glorious battle record. Trying to kill the crew just isn't worth the effort, all you can do is disable it from combat at best. The Abrams is just way too tough for that.


It is exactly what I said, 12.7/.50 cal MG/rifle is able to disable the Abrams by hitting an unprotected system destruction of which cuts the power, which then naturally makes it an easy target for RPG crews.

Not to mention making a it vulnerable against the heavy 12.7 MG of the enemy tank.

How much clearer can I make that?


Just be glad that Al Queda never got any Anti-material rifles.


Was I speaking in English earlier or it something personal with you?

Other then weapons we're not aware of, Al Queda has 25 Barrett US supplied anti-material rifles, what is so hard to grasp here?



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian soldier
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!!!!!!


Hhaha very funny!! *sarcasm* The black eagle would be easily killed by an A10 or apache so shut up. We all know the The top is vulnerable.........javelin and TOW(top attack with tandem warheads/EPP)!!!!!

Russias weaknesses......poor economy and cant even afford to feed or train their troops right!!!!!!!!
Please stop insulting countries and contribute to the thread please otherwise you're just being a parasite. The abrams is combat proven and has the guts to fight in urban warfare its called a TUSK kit. The weak spots wont be as vulnerable with the tusk on. We all know hat happened in 1989-1991 and the afghani warlords a poorly trained military group making russia run away like kittens oh my! And we destroyed those guys with LESS TROOPS!!!
Dont feel too bad im not trying to get personal just pointing out the facts before you go overboard there buddy
no one disses old glory in front of me!!!

[edit on 30-4-2006 by urmomma158]


[edit on 30-4-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Now lets get back to the topic and avoid any personal remarks. I will post tommorow if i have the chance good night.
nice post seerkeroff!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join