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.

 

Iraq bomb penetrates British tank

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 07:16 AM
link   
It looks as if a Chally 2 has been penetrated by a road side IED using a shaped charge as the warhead. Here's a link:

news.bbc.co.uk...

Had to happen sooner or later and as the government spokesman said, the Chally 2 is designed to fight other tanks and [are] not suited to urban operations.

I think it is the case that so called 'insurgents' are now using sophisticated weaponry in order to defeat our tanks.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 08:02 AM
link   
No one is safe now. It doesn't matter how much protection our tanks have now. The driver of the chally was injured too. Mind you it's a good job the Challenger is supposed to be getting armour upgrades for urban combat.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 09:52 AM
link   
The driver hasn't died, so our tanks are still the best.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   
You've GOT to be kidding me.
"The driver hasn't died so our tanks are still the best"?! Give it up Ineedhelp. This isn't about who has the best tanks, or a "Our tanks are better than your tanks" thread. This is an upgrade to the weapons being used against tanks in Iraq, and it's going to make things that much more dangerous for our tankers.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Well
hang on there, will you?

Ineedhelp, your comment (The driver hasn't died, so our tanks are still the best) is not worthy of you.

Zaph, Chally 2 has Dorchester Armour, an upgraded Chobham.

The problem was and as far as I am concerned is, the soft underbelly of the tank. You can protect the upper hull and reinforce the chasis as much as you want, but the area beneath the hull, can only have just so much armour.

Apparently a Warrior ICFV was totally destroyed minutes earlier by a similar device and 4 squaddies died. Of course the Warriors are not heavily armoured like an MBT.

I remember once in the Province in the 70s, when a Pig was totally destroyed by a large milk churn IED and hurled 800 metres down the road by the blast.

This incident though, has proved once again, that armoured vehicles of any type, are not suited to urban operations.

It is high time that those who send our forces into danger, provide them with the correct tools to do the job.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   
I agree completely fritz. Tanks should NOT be used in urban warfare situations. Not in any long term capacity. The real problem with uparmoring them for this type of situation is the weight. It would be great to have more bottom armor, but then we start losing them because they're too slow to get out of situations. Although if we're going to leave them there, we need to do SOMETHING to give them more protection.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I was kind of waiting for this to come.
Shaped charge IEDs are very easy to manufacture and if you upscale the basic desing found in for example a HEAT round. you can blow a hole to a battleship. This propably wasn't a sophisticated weapon at all, most likely a shaped big lump of "insert your choise of explosives" paired to a thin disc of copper... after you get the design right (took a suprisingly long time by iraqis) it's a matter of testing until you get the timing right to hit a tank.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   


The driver hasn't died, so our tanks are still the best.


OMG you are kidding me right? Oh to hell with the injured Driver, UK Tanks are still the best, erms get ur head out of ur backside, This has shown that the Challenger tank in vinreable to roadside bombs, no matter how much armour it has...

My question would be, where are they getting these weapons from, so they can penetrate the tanks armour, first of all, and remember this is the frist time this has happened so, whats gonnahappen withdraw all challenger tanks from the field? Or keep them rolling....

Cuase now insrugents have seen that they can damage a tank how many more attacks is there gonna be on those tanks?



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I agree completely fritz. Tanks should NOT be used in urban warfare situations. Not in any long term capacity. The real problem with uparmoring them for this type of situation is the weight. It would be great to have more bottom armor, but then we start losing them because they're too slow to get out of situations. Although if we're going to leave them there, we need to do SOMETHING to give them more protection.


Tanks are still useful for urban combat, the problem is the unproper use of them. Thats why its better to have infantry included along with the tanks.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   
'My question would be, where are they getting these weapons from, so they can penetrate the tanks armour, first of all, and remember this is the frist time this has happened so, whats gonnahappen withdraw all challenger tanks from the field? Or keep them rolling.... '

Firstly friend, let's get this news item in to some kind of prospective. The Chally 2's Dorchester armour was NOT penetrated by a shaped charge IED. The armour was and is intact.

As I understand it, this type of IED was either remotely detonated by LOS command wire or by an 'off route' type of device.

In the former case, the firer would have had to have been in close proximity to the device to ensure its detonation, even if a mobile 'phone was used as a detonator.

The 'off route' type of IED requires the tank in question to break an invisible wire that when broken, causes an electrical circuit to collapse, thus detonating the device.

In either case Spencerjohnstone, it was the Chally's underbelly - the bit below the glascis plate that was penetrated. This illustrates why the poor driver lost his legs when he was recovered from the vehicle.

This is what I believe could have happened though as usual, there is much speculation as to what actually occured.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I've never seen any evidence beyond simple logic -- so I won't go out looking for any at this exact moment -- Though Iran, I would imagine, may've been the supplier.

Despite what several posters here have written, the type of explosive needed to penetrate a tank, especially at some of the recent efficiency's, is quite advanced.

Simply a thought.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 07:39 PM
link   
This is really sad, if you're going to outfit a tank for urban combat, at least have it rigged right and with sufficient infantry support. Tanks are good bullet magnets and will help divert much of the fire from small arms, infantry would help with finding the IEDs ahead of time and disabling them before the vehicles reach them.

I say get rid of vehicles all together(for urban warfare I mean), the best idea would be to equip infantry with exo suits that can haul heavier equipment and massive amounts of ammo at an increase of mobility and capability.

If only DARPA would hurry it up with it!

Shattered OUT...



posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You've GOT to be kidding me.
"The driver hasn't died so our tanks are still the best"?! Give it up Ineedhelp. This isn't about who has the best tanks, or a "Our tanks are better than your tanks" thread. This is an upgrade to the weapons being used against tanks in Iraq, and it's going to make things that much more dangerous for our tankers.



perhaps hes trying to overcompensate for something.


I agree with your post 100 per cent...



posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
the injured driver

Aren't you glad that he's alive? The tank's armour has been penetrated, but he's alive.

[edit on 24-4-2007 by INeedHelp]



posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 01:33 AM
link   
The point I, and he, and several people have been trying to make is that your "He didn't die, so our tanks are still the best" comment was inappropriate and in the wrong place. Yes we're glad he didn't die, but this isn't about who has the best tanks, this is about a new threat to ANYONE in a tank, no matter who it belongs to.



posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Fritz did the chally driver loose his legs???

I searched the web but didn't find that info.
To my knowledge the incident with the warrior ifv was a seperate attack to the chally, the chally only got bombed 2 weeks ago.
US troops took a huge loss too today
23 soldiers killed.
Some of the bombs iraq is using are getting powerful. First with the Warrior(Most heavily armoured Nato apc) and the Chally(Most heavily armoured Nato tank).



posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   
SKUNK2, unfortunately I believe he has lost both legs.

This was what the BBC were reporting yesterday after the event though to be honest, I can find no evidence anywhere in the press and of course the MOD seems quite dumb on the subject.



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Sad to see this evolution in roadside bombs. Canada recently purchased Leopard2A6M tanks with additional mine protection for using them in Afghanistan. Looks like all tanks need better mine protection these days.



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaSeitz
Sad to see this evolution in roadside bombs. Canada recently purchased Leopard2A6M tanks with additional mine protection for using them in Afghanistan. Looks like all tanks need better mine protection these days.


I'm sorry DaSeitz, but I don't think this is a case of the so called insurgents using standard roadside bombs. To penetrate the Dorchester armour on a Chally 2 or Chobham armour of the Abrams M1A2, something more potent is obviously called for.

If I were an insurgent or dissafected member of the former Saddam's Republican Guard and I was fighting street by street against modern tanks, I would be making IEDs from standard artillery anti-tank gun rounds, using their shaped charge warheads and penetrators.

Alternatively, I would be manufacturing IEDs incorporating HESH or HEAT rounds because at 'contact' range, they would almost certainly penetrate most tanks.



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Indeed, not standard roadside bombs, which is why I wrote "evolution in roadside bombs". There must be huge numbers of shaped charge warheads left from Saddams army finding their way to anyone willing to buy them.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join