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.

 

Modern Day Tanks

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 02:43 AM
link   
WTF is this on the T-98

www.china-defense.com...

its that little cameria thing near the person on the right




posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by W4rl0rD
Btw chinawhite, DU rounds are actually quite safe compared to other ammunition, just that it is still uranium, thats why people think that it is dangerous. Of course, inhailing uranium particles are dangerous, but that is a problem with all other ammuntion too. Other than that, DU emits less radiation than a banana.


So, DU penetrators are actually quite safe, and with proper handling, there will be little or no problems with them.
edit on 15/6/05 by W4rl0rD]


As Westpoint said, the problem with DU penetrators arise when they are being shot/hit. The second desired effect of the DU above its density is that it burns with intense heat, virtually melting the crew, and even the internal structures. Thats one of the reasons why many of the Iraqi tanks look so completely collapsed without really having exploded. However I am not sure whether the DU armor burns up, too.

It is true that the radiation the DU emits is very low, sometimes below natural radiation, which is one of the main arguments for the supporters of DU use. It also only emits alpha rays, which are known to be dissipated after a few milliters in human skin. But the problem with the Uranium powder is that it will very slowly chemically alter itself to an unharmful material, unlike organic or more reactive materials. The rests of Uranium and Uraniumoxide settle down in pulverized form or can be carried away by a normal wind, so they spread out very much and pose a threat for years to come. They can be inhaled or swallowed and will end up in the most vital organs like the kidneys, the liver or the lungs.

There the particles have two effects: the first is simple poisoning, since DU is a poisonous metal. The second effect is that the now resident Uranium will constantly emit radiation all over the fragile organs, a radiation that normally wouldnt get so deep into the body.

Personal opinion: Used DU almost certainly is a great threat to anyone that gets in contact with its leftovers, no matter what reasons or incorrect comparisons have been made by the pro DU fraction.

[edit on 17-6-2005 by Lonestar24]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Btw FIN, the BMP-3 is actually a troop transport which has been fitted with a tank gun, yet still weighs only around 20 tons. This gives it a huge firepower boost over the other IFVs like the Bradley in a 1 on 1 situation. Of course, one of the problems with the BMP is that it is thin skinned, and vunerable to even RPGs.

For the case of DU, I do not know a lot about this, and we could all argue until the cows come home, but what I believe is that DU is a lot safer than normal rounds (tungsten or lead) before being fired or when kept properly, but after it melts, there is some radiation left over. Of course, I won't be surprised if the Iraqis were actually breathing in broken up DU particles, in which case is a problem with all ammuntion, and DU rounds actually lessen this effect... Then, after the shell explodes, there are Gamma and Beta rays emmited? How exactly does this happen?

And Chinawhite, that pic links to a stupid yellow picture with an arrow. Next time, try saving it and uploading it yourself to an image uploading host. Try www.imageuploads.net..., it gives 10MB free upload space without irritating ads and stuff asking you to pay.



[edit on 17/6/05 by W4rl0rD]



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Yeah, thank's for telling me... It's a pitty that uit's vournerable to RPG... but i still like more the Bradley because of it's machine gun... (tank-killer)...



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by W4rl0rD


Arjun (Has significantly less armor than thought,around T-80's armor.)
KE - Turret: 500-570 Glacis: 410
HEAT - Turret: 650-830 Glacis:730



the creator of the site says, tht all figures are estimation. how accurate can they be? not only for the Arjun but the other tanks as well.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Why is the Merkava’s barrel like 3 feet long? Is there an advantage in having a long or medium size barrel compared to a short one?

More accurate....



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   
The French Leclerc MBT has a longer barrle than the American or German tanks, and although it uses the same NATO standard ammo, it gets a slighty higher muzzle velocity because of this, its also a giant tank to begin with, so it doesnt really effect it in terms of weight.

I wonder what westerners will think of the "Black Eagle" T-80 conversion, since it has the enlarged, western style turret, and "2nd Generation ERA" that defeats long rod penatrators, or so they say.

The standard Bradley has really weak alumnium armor with little steel, and the "extra" armor steel and composite plates have become almost standard on it to increase resistance to RPGs, though it makes it less than the quoted speed and more weight.

Im not sure if there are any "add-on" armor kits for the BMP series.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by chinawhite
 


Actually the Russians were completely unprepared for when the Germans attacked, they were always cut off and surrounded so they were out numbered.

Learn2history



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by W4rl0rD
 




M1A2 Abrams

www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 07:43 AM
link   
someone mentioned the T-64

When it came out it was, on paper, the greatest in the world, most frontal armor, biggest gun 125 mm, autoloading gun= small turret. Once fielded though it had so many buggy problems that its crews called it the "iorn coffin". I am sure their combat performance would have been poor.

I would also like to point out a feature of the latest Korean K1 tank, it has a hydropneumatic suspention that when at rest in a fighting position, it can "squat" or lower itself a foot or so. Not only that, this feature of the suspention can be biased front and rear allowing the angle of the tank to be raised or lowered, this allows increased or decreased elevation of the main gun, over that allowed by the turret. This feature is obviusly important in Korea's mountainus terrain.

Voltar



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Has anyone ever put these Western Tanks against each other? It would make for Great TV if expensive once they shot at each other.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   
The Russians would have to be hard up to go against the Abrams. The Russian tank might be an excellent tank but hasn't been proven yet. And even it is proven the Russians will have to train.

The key to any fighting equipment is training. If you have the best Mig fighter in the world that isn't going to save you if you go against someone that can react with extreme knowledge in fighting.

Israel back in 67 and 71 is an excellent example of ass kicking defense to those that attacked their small country. All the other countries that attacked them got their asses kicked big time. Remember it is not so much the equipment then it is the person with the equipment and how to use it in split second response plus more advantage if the equipment is proven and more advanced.........



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raideur
The standard Bradley has really weak alumnium armor with little steel, and the "extra" armor steel and composite plates have become almost standard on it to increase resistance to RPGs,


think again.
those are reactive armor plates. much better then "extra" armor steel and composite plates.
www.defense-update.com...

www.defencetalk.com...

The US military has 35 different weapons that it has designed and deployed to kill armor, and nine more such weapons systems are in development.

Tank on tank is use only when the enemy has inferior armor. IE iraq and even then we busted them with air power for a month.

if the enemy has tank that are equal you 'find them. fix them and flame them'

You find them with UAVs, JSTAR, Real time satellite
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

You fix them and flame them with artillery and air.
www.strategypage.com...
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.globalsecurity.org...
video.aol.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.globalsecurity.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

After that you send in the tanks to mop up.

War is never fought fair,

[edit on 16-10-2008 by ANNED]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join