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: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2007 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Sure you don't see RPG-29s in Iraq, and agreed equally that they wo;t go through the frontal armour of a Challenger II in any case.

My points is that RPGs can still go through side/rear/engine deck armour and that such tanks are certainly not invulnerable. And thinking they are is extremely dangerous.

Having said that, the Challenger II does appear to have a much better record in Iraq than the Abrams, but although I've seen an analysis of the Abrams which have been hit, I haven't seen anything on the Brit side. They're just too modest, I suppose



posted on May, 7 2007 @ 12:17 PM
link   
The following link is to a thread I used on my forum, Military Power, which is about anything and everything military. I used it as a graphic example as to what can happen if you tell the wrong people too much. (Basically trying to keep all of the members following OPSEC)




WARNING: GRAPHIC AND NOT FOR EVERYONE



posted on May, 7 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SwitchbladeNGC
The following link is to a thread I used on my forum, Military Power, which is about anything and everything military. I used it as a graphic example as to what can happen if you tell the wrong people too much. (Basically trying to keep all of the members following OPSEC)

WARNING: GRAPHIC AND NOT FOR EVERYONE


Sorry for being flippant, bit I guessed I missed the graphic post or something! Are you saying that those pics were GRAPHIC?

If so, you guys are easily traumatised. I've seen worse in Northern Ireland! Shame about the crew though.

But seriously, you simply cannot overstate the need for personal security too much.

Having said that, how are you expected to move from one OP to another along a fixed route? We had this problem in Northern Ireland, where there wasd only one way out and one way back in to a position.

Very hard to hunker hull down in a tank or APC/Lannie/Humvee when entering/exiting a base.



posted on May, 7 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
Sorry for being flippant, bit I guessed I missed the graphic post or something! Are you saying that those pics were GRAPHIC?

If so, you guys are easily traumatised. I've seen worse in Northern Ireland! Shame about the crew though.


Well, for one, I made it a separate thread on my forum because I don't have age restrictions (at least not yet) and some younger members may be traumatized by pictures and details such as that, so I just wanted to be careful. I figured most of the people here on ATS probably wouldn't feel that it was graphic, but just to be on the safe side I labeled it as such.



posted on May, 7 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Wembley do you have any combat experiance have you ever been involved with any operations using the challenger 2 ?

I ask you this due to the fact that you seem to be more in the know than those who have actually served in and alongside the said vehicles.

Statistic's and information on the internet mean very little at all but first hand experiance do.

I would say that unless you actually know what you are talking about you atleast try and gain the fact's or atleast some evidence to support your claim's.

All it look's like to me is you are trying to get some sort of rise with your post's.

And that is indeed pretty sad.

If i am wrong please prove me so.

Regard's
Lee



posted on May, 8 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by h3akalee
Wembley do you have any combat experiance have you ever been involved with any operations using the challenger 2 ?

I ask you this due to the fact that you seem to be more in the know than those who have actually served in and alongside the said vehicles.

Statistic's and information on the internet mean very little at all but first hand experiance do.


Sorry, I certainly didn't mean to give that impression.

However, I do know a bit about the Challenger's armour, and it's good but it's not not magic - certainly not from all angles. And I know more about advanced shaped charges, which are getting progressively better.

I'm glad that Challenger losses have been so low, but that doesn't make it the last word.



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 07:14 AM
link   
This subject will not go away and quite rightly so.

There is an article in a well known military magazine (reasonably priced @ £2.50 and available from all good newsagents) that delves in to this very subject.

The piece is entitled 'Armour pierced' and goes into some detail and also confirms what I said in reply to a question from another poster, about the Warrior, that the two incidents are linked.

Lt Col Stratford-Wright said (and I paraphrase) that IEDs across Iraq have been sophisticated for a number of years.

He also says that Newspapers are having a great debate about [the] systems being used against armour - linking them to a certain 3rd country.

Col Stratford-Wright states emphatically that 'that is Media speculation' as MOD has never confirmed or denied the use of a certain type of projectile.

The Colonel also confirms that the driver suffered serious injuries to his legs and another crewman had been lightly wounded in the ambush.

The attacks on the Warrior and Chally were almost exactly the same, the IED being command detonated underneath the vehs in question.

I hope this clears up any misconception that the Warrior or Chally 2 were penetrated from above the hull.



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 07:21 AM
link   
can't really do much about an underneath penetration though, apart from bulking it up with more armour. That though will add to the weight beyond which is acceptable, so you have to make a trade off.

better intel and recce might help cut down incidents, but the AT mine or IED has been around for decades and if they haven't solved it by now, they probably won't.



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
can't really do much about an underneath penetration though, apart from bulking it up with more armour. That though will add to the weight beyond which is acceptable, so you have to make a trade off.

better intel and recce might help cut down incidents, but the AT mine or IED has been around for decades and if they haven't solved it by now, they probably won't.

Electric armour will solve the problem of shaped charges. The electricity essentially disintergrates the copper, much like when a fuse blows when the current gets too strong.



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wembley

Sure you don't see RPG-29s in Iraq, and agreed equally that they wo;t go through the frontal armour of a Challenger II in any case.

My points is that RPGs can still go through side/rear/engine deck armour and that such tanks are certainly not invulnerable. And thinking they are is extremely dangerous.

Having said that, the Challenger II does appear to have a much better record in Iraq than the Abrams, but although I've seen an analysis of the Abrams which have been hit, I haven't seen anything on the Brit side. They're just too modest, I suppose


Whoa back up there...you must note, that although less chally-2s have been destroyed in iraq, there are WAY fewer chally-2s in Iraq in the first place. I dont think that you can call that a better record.



posted on May, 12 2007 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackWidow23

Originally posted by Wembley

Sure you don't see RPG-29s in Iraq, and agreed equally that they wo;t go through the frontal armour of a Challenger II in any case.

My points is that RPGs can still go through side/rear/engine deck armour and that such tanks are certainly not invulnerable. And thinking they are is extremely dangerous.

Having said that, the Challenger II does appear to have a much better record in Iraq than the Abrams, but although I've seen an analysis of the Abrams which have been hit, I haven't seen anything on the Brit side. They're just too modest, I suppose


Whoa back up there...you must note, that although less chally-2s have been destroyed in iraq, there are WAY fewer chally-2s in Iraq in the first place. I dont think that you can call that a better record.
There is roughly 300 Chally 2's in Iraq, it may be less now. I know at the start of the war they sent 395 over.



posted on May, 12 2007 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Thats virtually all of them.

I would imagine that most are now back in the UK/Germany, mind you.



posted on May, 12 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Altogether at 2003 there were 397 Chally's. Probably 3/4's will be back in Germany/UK. I know they are getting upgraded soon as well.



posted on May, 12 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
He also says that Newspapers are having a great debate about [the] systems being used against armour - linking them to a certain 3rd country.

Col Stratford-Wright states emphatically that 'that is Media speculation' as MOD has never confirmed or denied the use of a certain type of projectile.

The Colonel also confirms that the driver suffered serious injuries to his legs and another crewman had been lightly wounded in the ambush.


The business about whether Iran is supplying EFPs continues, though it is clear that in at least some instances they are being made in workshops in Iraq.

The idea of an EFP being used from underneath is unusual, because the range is so short - as I recall, EFPs need a certain amount of distance to form. Maybe a shaped charge is more likely?



posted on May, 31 2007 @ 02:00 AM
link   
OpsecNGC said:



The following link is to a thread I used on my forum, Military Power, which is about anything and everything military. I used it as a graphic example as to what can happen if you tell the wrong people too much. (Basically trying to keep all of the members following OPSEC)


... so by debunking the story of a an RPG danaging the tank we here at ATS have sent a message back to The Shia militia that the mine used on that tank works and we have also helped identify the major weak spots of the Chally2.

Good show old chaps.



posted on May, 31 2007 @ 02:09 AM
link   
A tank going OVER a well, mine (OK I know it literally isn't one), and the people inside surviving? That's pretty amazing in my opinion.

Nice work Challenger 2 designers.



posted on May, 31 2007 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by sy.gunson
OpsecNGC said:



The following link is to a thread I used on my forum, Military Power, which is about anything and everything military. I used it as a graphic example as to what can happen if you tell the wrong people too much. (Basically trying to keep all of the members following OPSEC)


... so by debunking the story of a an RPG danaging the tank we here at ATS have sent a message back to The Shia militia that the mine used on that tank works and we have also helped identify the major weak spots of the Chally2.

Good show old chaps.


Er there so far there is no information on this thread that cannot be pulled up on the internet or other sources within a few minutes. The Shia Militia are well aware of the weak spots on a tank. The people of Iraq have been fighting wars for a hell of a long time.

The Shia already have this knowledge for one reason - They are out there fighting every day and they witnessed the incident. They were the people who did the damage. They don't need us to tell them what they did



posted on May, 31 2007 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Regarding your views on OPSEC OpsecNGC, pretty useless here on ATS/BTS because apart from a couple of guys like Paddy, mopst of us have no usefull info for any enemy - real or imagined.

Any info people like myself have, is [in my case] out of date and not 'current', as they say. Nothing I post within these pages can be of operational use to an enemy - real or imagined.

As Paddy said in his post above, everything a terrorist, guerilla, freedom fighter or insurgent wants, can be found, downloaded or purchased on the internet.

'Nuff said.



posted on Jun, 1 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
Regarding your views on OPSEC OpsecNGC, pretty useless here on ATS/BTS because apart from a couple of guys like Paddy, mopst of us have no usefull info for any enemy - real or imagined.

Any info people like myself have, is [in my case] out of date and not 'current', as they say. Nothing I post within these pages can be of operational use to an enemy - real or imagined.

As Paddy said in his post above, everything a terrorist, guerilla, freedom fighter or insurgent wants, can be found, downloaded or purchased on the internet.

'Nuff said.


First and foremost, The only reason I posted that link to begin with was because the images (and story behind them) were closely associated with the topic of this thread (though it was an American tank, not a British one). And the only reason I brought up OPSEC was to tell you a little about the link before you actually went there.

As for OPSEC being useless here, with the number of members this site has, I'm sure more than one or two people know things that are not easily found elsewhere, though, I was in no way implying that members of ATS were not following it nor that I thought that it was imperative that everyone here know and follow it. If you look back at my previous post, OPSEC was only mentioned with reference to my site (which most of the people on there do have information that could be dangerous in the wrong hands).

Sorry for the tangent, but it just seemed I needed to clarify some things from some of the other posts.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join