Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The new Japanese tank the TK-X

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   




The second video shows their tank in comparison with the Abrams used in Iraq. Don't know Japanese, but I think they are saying that their tank is IED proof and can fight in urban areas while protected from RPGs, etc. Looks like the Leopard tank in appearance.




posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 07:36 PM
link   
thanks for the videos deltaboy.... it looks pretty solid, i'm no expert on tanks but it looks like its well armored and got plenty of technology to keep everything wired up.

raptor1



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   
IMHO this will be one the best Western tank, with Leclerc catching up soon.

Tanks with out an autoloader are not tank on the modern battlefield.

Trying to manually reload and fire the weapon while the tank is cross country is a deadly hazard, it’s as simple as that.

Merkava got busted by Russian ATGMs, Abrams still gets basic RPG-7s through, so did the Chally2, Leo is a defensive tank, and the entire MBT designation is a completely made up classification which was necessary to approve the budgeting for obsolete mammoth tanks which should have passed into history after WWII.

There are only two classes of modern thanks medium and heavy. Heavy tanks are absolutely useless in anywhere but on flat firm ground, simply because their ground pressure severely limits their maneuverability, ability to cross difficult terrain, and they require MASSIVE logistical support with out which they simply turn into a useless heap of metal.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 04:53 AM
link   
The US stuck with breechloaders because auto-loaders were more dangerous in operation and would leave the ammunition too exposed causing a personnel risk, that is the same for US Artillery.

RPG-7's may have had a lucky hit now and then disabiling an Abrams or 2 but they would never penetrate the glacis or frontal armor, I also am starting to doubt that EFP actually did penetrate Abrams tanks but that has been the word.

The Leopard 2A6 is still the world's most sophisticated tank being closely followed by the Challenger II and the M1A2 SEP.

I'd like to see your sources about RPG-7's punching through the Abrams' armor, I could only see a AP round punch through maybe the top but other than that I highly doubt it, IEDS (double stacked AT mines) and EFP (Explosively formed penetrators) have been more dangerous to modern MBT's in asymetric warfare of today's battlefield.



posted on Mar, 3 2008 @ 07:54 AM
link   
One trade off with auto-loaders is the reduced number of rounds you can carry. The Russians generally do better here as they have designed there tanks from the ground up to have auto-loaders, where western proposed auto-loader designs are a modification of an existing tank.

How much you think this matter depends on your view of tactics and use. For example the british sees there tanks as more than just tank killers so a higher number of rounds is more important.

The main advantage for an auto-loader in artillery is for shoot and scoot and for the US I believe the set-up and take-down times M109 was to long for an auto-loader to have any benefit. The latest upgrades for M109 have greatly improved the times though.

The APU was a major weakness on the Abrams which has been removed with SEP upgrades, (more battery capacity in the hull instead)

Let's avoid RPG7 Abrams, Chally debate on this thread as it goes nowhere



posted on Mar, 4 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by GrOuNd_ZeRo
 



The US stuck with breechloaders because auto-loaders were more dangerous in operation and would leave the ammunition too exposed causing a personnel risk, that is the same for US Artillery.


Actually it’s exactly the opposite.

Manually loaded guns became obsolete in the 50s.

Some of the relatively harmless problems are powder gasses contamination of the crew compartment, which requires continues ventilation to evacuate the exec gasses.

While Leo does cope with it quiet well, Chally and Abrams get really stuffy during firing.

Biggest problem is the loading procedure it self. It’s a very dangerous job, taking a live shell and loading it. Loaders are trained and constantly drilled on how to secure a dropped shell. Manual loading only allows firing over smooth terrain and at low speeds, other wise the loader faces all kinds of dangers, starting from dropping the shell, not securing the fire blast doors of the magazine, and the worst of it is getting hurt by the guns recoil if he does not get into position in time.

Auto loaders on the other hand contain gas spillage and vent it outside of the compartment, load shells safely and quickly, having the ability to load any shell at commanders choosing quickly, being able to fire and reload while at speed on rough terrain, and other numerous advantages.

Manually loaded guns became obsolete as a concept back in the 50s, and as a design back in the 60s.


RPG-7's may have had a lucky hit now and then disabiling an Abrams or 2 but they would never penetrate the glacis or frontal armor, I also am starting to doubt that EFP actually did penetrate Abrams tanks but that has been the word.


While to my knowledge basic RPG-7 never scored a penetrsating hit on the frontal glacis, they do bust the side of the hippo all the time.

The last time a checked over a hundred of Abrams tanks were destroyed/disabled in Iraq, and while IEDs/EFPs are used, they are used together with RPG teams.

While the initial blast stalls out the turbine, the RPG teams finish the disabled tank.

A whole bunch of pictures and videos are floating around the net, here’s a result of a quick search, so just pay attention to the classic RPG impact and penetration points.

Classic RPG hits;

This one got lucky and went right between the slats;

[img] foto.mail.ru...[/img]

Side hit;



Bustle hit, again right between the slats, resulting in a loss of the entire tank, casualties are unknown;

[img] u.foto.radikal.ru...[/img]

Side hit, total loss;

[img] img.lenta.ru...[/img]



The inside of the penetrated side panel, total loss;

[img] cdn.liveleak.com...[/img]

RPG hit, total loss to fire;

[img] armor.kiev.ua...[/img]

[img] r.foto.radikal.ru...[/img]

Abrams turret blow clean off;

[img] www.almanacwhf.ru...[/img]

Side turret hit, total loss. But conflicting info, some sources say the crater was from a bomb dropped to destroy damaged tank, some say the crater is from an IED and the whole from the SABOT round;

[img] www.almanacwhf.ru...[/img]

The wreckage of the one that got the turret blown off;

[img] www.almanacwhf.ru...[/img]

Another classic side hit, total loss;

[img] www.almanacwhf.ru...[/img]

IED+RPG, total loss, massive fire;

[img] images.newsru.com...[/img]

The remains;

[img] upload.wikimedia.org...[/img]

[img] www.almanacwhf.ru...[/img]

Text sources;


According to an unclassified Army report, the mystery projectile punched through the vehicle’s skirt and drilled a pencil-sized hole through the hull. The hole was so small that “my little finger will not go into it,” the report’s author noted.

The “something” continued into the crew compartment, where it passed through the gunner’s seatback, grazed the kidney area of the gunner’s flak jacket and finally came to rest after boring a hole 1½ to 2 inches deep in the hull on the far side of the tank.

As it passed through the interior, it hit enough critical components to knock the tank out of action. That made the tank one of only two Abrams disabled by enemy fire during the Iraq war and one of only a handful of “mobility kills” since they first rumbled onto the scene 20 years ago. The other Abrams knocked out this year in Iraq was hit by an RPG-7, a rocket-propelled grenade.

Experts believe whatever it is that knocked out the tank in August was not an RPG-7 but most likely something new — and that worries tank drivers.


www.discourse.net...

Well there was no mystery there, upon examination of the photos it was a classic RPG penetration whole, all there’s to it.


US Armor in Operation “Iraqi Freedom”


Protection

The Abrams tank armor system was not really put to the test during military operations in Iraq. There were virtually no reported hits on the highly protected frontal arc or on the “heavy” ballistic skirts; all tank losses to enemy fire were defeated from the top, side and rear. Iraqi soldiers had clearly familiarized themselves with the capabilities of American tanks during operation Desert Storm and avoided engaging them in direct battle. For example, there were no reported cases of anti-tank guide missiles (ATGM) being fired at any US army vehicle. At the same time, Iraqi resistance fighters, whose ranks were bolstered by scores of trained Iraqi soldiers, have clearly learned to exploit the vulnerabilities of the US systems. They managed to destroy up to 20 enemy tanks even with their antiquated light anti-tank weapons, mostly Soviet rocket-propelled grenades such as the RPG-7 or its Chinese and Egyptian variants, with rounds developed in the 1970s-early 1980s. The results of combat operations show that the side armor of the Abrams tank is completely inadequate to fire from light anti-tank weapons, including older generation weapons, making these tanks unsuitable for operations in built-up areas.

For example, in a widely-discussed incident, an M1 tank from the 2nd Battalion, 70th Armor Regiment, 1st Armor Division was hit and disabled during a routine patrol on 28 August 2003. The American press, deluded by its own reports of the “invulnerability” of the Abrams, claimed that some kind of “secret weapon” was responsible for the damage. In fact, published photographs clearly show that the offending weapon was none other than a simple RPG. The hollow-charged jet penetrated the side skirt and turret ring and continued into the crew compartment as it disintegrated before finally coming to rest after boring a cluster of craters 30-50 mm deep in the hull on the far side of the tank. The crew was lucky to have suffered only minor shrapnel wounds as the projectile passed through the gunner’s seatback and grazed his flak jacket. On April 2, 2003 an RPG attack from the side disabled another tank by penetrating the turret’s hydraulic drive.

The side protection of the M1 turret is also inadequate. On 7 April 2004 an anti-tank RPG penetrated the side of the turret resulting in serious wounds to two crew members. The top of the tank is equally vulnerable, and even the glacis was easily defeated by anti-tank weapons. For example, on April 10, 2004 a tank was hit on the right side of the glacis by an RPG fired from an overpass and destroyed. Additional measures designed to increase protection for the Abrams tank have showed mixed results. Halon firefighting gear has proven largely ineffective. Practically all secondary fires resulting from enemy fire, engine breakdown or overheating destroyed the tank completely. For example, the 7 April attack noted above ignited the tanker’s personal effects attached to the outside of the turret, and since the crew had abandoned the vehicle, the fire was left unchecked, while on 10 April, fuel leaked out of a damaged fuel tank and ignited. Externally stored items, including on one occasion an external auxiliary power unit (EAPU), caught fire on several occasions and led to catastrophic losses. On the other hand, the vulnerability caused by externally stored items only underlined the wisdom of storing ammunition in a separate compartment protected by blast doors, which contained fires and saved the crew when the main rounds ignited.


mdb.cast.ru...

Those would be the blast doors which the loader has to open and close every time he loads the shell, and if the tank gets hit when he’s loading, the ammo will cook off.

Here are some videos of RPG attacks from both perspectives.

Here are the Iraqis;

www.liveleak.com...

Here’s the result;

www.liveleak.com...

RPG-7 doing what it does, all there’s to it.



posted on Mar, 4 2008 @ 07:32 AM
link   

The Leopard 2A6 is still the world's most sophisticated tank being closely followed by the Challenger II and the M1A2 SEP.


Nope, actually French Leclerc and Japanese Type 90 are the most advances, sophisticated and capable of the Western tanks.

Type 90 has the most sophisticated electronics, Leclecr is the fastest Western tank with 27 hp per tonne for its total 55 tonne weight, all while both have AUTO loaders, and both are with in the actuall MEDIUM tank weight class, Type 90 is 50 tonnes.


I'd like to see your sources about RPG-7's punching through the Abrams' armor, I could only see a AP round punch through maybe the top but other than that I highly doubt it, IEDS (double stacked AT mines) and EFP (Explosively formed penetrators) have been more dangerous to modern MBT's in asymetric warfare of today's battlefield.


See above, there’s plenty of info out there, especially about the only APU design that was not under the main armor.

Not to mention that during the 1st Iraq war, all of the first 350 units delivered immediately broke down because the turbines could not handle the sand.

Abrams in a FrankenTank, it’s basically a kit put together with British armor, German gun, helicopter turbine, the list goes on.

Actually the first time Abrams went into combat was 1982.

It was during training of Syrian tank crews on their new T-72s, right before Israel attacked Syria.

T-72 column was moving around a small hill, and noticed a column of 3 unknown tanks 800 meters out.

Those tanks immediately assumed a line formation and opened fire first.

The first shell impacted but did not penetrate the leading T-72, but from a strong dynamic hit it stalled its engine.

Second enemy tank fired almost at the same time as the first, and struck the 2nd T-72 in the hull, disabling the engine, and the crew suffered mild contusions.

Syrian T-72s opened fire on the far right enemy tank, and then on the one to the left of it, burning both of them.

Two SABOT rounds were fired with in 7 seconds, both scoring turret hits.

The remaining enemy tank took cover behind two destroyed units, and attempted to recover the wounded and the dead.

The rescue attempt was cut short by the coax fire from the T-72.

After picking up what ever wounded they could, the surviving tank immediately retreated.

When T-72 crews got out to inspect the tanks they just destroyed, they could not identify them.

They were trained to identify the expected Centurions, M60s and the new Merkavas, yet the tanks the just engaged and destroyed were completely unknown to them.

Also the uniforms of two dead crewmen were not Israeli. The tried to tow one of the tanks to home base, but after calculating the remaining fuel, and having to tow one of their own tanks they decided to report the location to the CP and recover them later.

The crew of the tank that was hit first managed to restart the engine and they made it home under their own power.

The trip back took three times longer then they calculated, so they managed to get back only by night fall, and when the recovery team was dispatched the next morning, as expected the destroyed tanks were already recovered by Israeli forces, leaving a lot of tracks from recovery vehicles.

Upon debriefing of the T-72 crews, to the surprise of the entire staff they identified the brand new Abrams M1 and its 105mm gun.



posted on Mar, 6 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Iskander the idea that an RPG-7 warhead went through the armor of an Abrams is just stupid. That report is ridiculous. The warhead itself disintegrates during impact and its the shaped charge that penetrates.

As to the report that hundreds of Abrams tanks have been damaged or disabled during the war - no big deal. Why? Break a tread and the tank's disabled (and damaged). But it gets recovered and repaired. So yeah - probably thousands of Abrams have been damaged or disabled during the way, if you look at it that way.

Yeah MBTs are massive and logistics hogs. But there's still nothing better so far for ground assault, so they're here for now.

As for the loader, they're still important and handy. For one, you can unload or exchange types of loads. For two, a fourth man comes in handy on tank maintenance. And now you ask what's so big about tank maintenance. Well drive an Abrams for a day and then you have half a day of fixing # - and all of it's stupid heavy. Oh yes one section of track weighs 180 pounds and that entire track must be tightened every freaking day and just pray it doesn't come off. And # gets heavier at the end of the day, too. And it's not hard to handle ammo. And as for high speed, well, all that high speed # is great for the driver but for the turret crew it's intolerable anyway even if they're not loading. It's not like tanks drive into battle at 42 mph - ever. Anyway, peace.



posted on Mar, 7 2008 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by kaiheitain
 



Iskander the idea that an RPG-7 warhead went through the armor of an Abrams is just stupid.


Why do you feel the need to state the obvious?


That report is ridiculous. The warhead itself disintegrates during impact and its the shaped charge that penetrates.


That’s where I don’t follow you, you disregard the official report as ridiculous because you assume it claims that the warhead it self penetrated the armor and not the shaped charge warhead?

I recommend you re-read the report, because it seems that you misinterpreted the information presented.


As to the report that hundreds of Abrams tanks have been damaged or disabled during the war - no big deal. Why? Break a tread and the tank's disabled (and damaged). But it gets recovered and repaired. So yeah - probably thousands of Abrams have been damaged or disabled during the way, if you look at it that way.


No, not really, because it all costs us more then we can afford. Over a 100 units have been a total loss, and others sucking precious resources dry on maintenance and massive fuel requirements for the tanks them selves, and their enormous support system.


Yeah MBTs are massive and logistics hogs. But there's still nothing better so far for ground assault, so they're here for now.


Nope, as a perfect example, Type 90 does not require the massive support that Abrams does. Most diesel powered MBTs are much easier to maintain then turbine powered tanks.

As for ground support, it’s not the role of the MBT, other nations developed various system specifically for ground support.


As for the loader, they're still important and handy. For one, you can unload or exchange types of loads. For two, a fourth man comes in handy on tank maintenance.


Come on, auto loaders do that faster, better, and safer. As for tank maintenance, it depends on the fundamental design of the vehicle in question. When it comes to the Abrams, the loader is not going to do much for that massive turbine which needs a crane to lift it out of the engine bay.


And now you ask what's so big about tank maintenance. Well drive an Abrams for a day and then you have half a day of fixing # - and all of it's stupid heavy. Oh yes one section of track weighs 180 pounds and that entire track must be tightened every freaking day and just pray it doesn't come off.


With the Abrams all true, and that’s exactly why other nation made a calculated choice not to exceed weight limits, because it simply initiates a chain reaction of maintenance nightmare.

Just make the comparison for your self, live tracks durability of the Leclerc, Type 90 and Ts verses the Abrams.


And # gets heavier at the end of the day, too. And it's not hard to handle ammo. And as for high speed, well, all that high speed # is great for the driver but for the turret crew it's intolerable anyway even if they're not loading. It's not like tanks drive into battle at 42 mph - ever. Anyway, peace.


Well, then the French, Japanese and Israelis are just stupid to follow the Russians by making the auto loaders a basic requirement for their MBTs.

Have a good one.

edit:bracket


[edit on 7-3-2008 by iskander]



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 08:21 AM
link   
That report's from some Russian source - so I doubt it's true. If an RPG7 could penetrate into the turret through the side armor, um... no - pretty much impossible.

As far as the tank not doing well in urban combat, well um this is really surprising probably but uh - MBTs aren't designed for urban combat. So, uh - no #.

Well we'll see how good those other MBTs fare next to Abrams next time one of those countries invades Iraq. Then we can compare notes. As far as I can tell Abrams drove to Baghdad in under three weeks and took care of the job. Let's compare that to the Japanese tanks... Oh wait - we can't.

Can't argue with success, either.



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 08:55 AM
link   
There has been alot of discussion about the RPG-7 and RPG-29 ; and i am firmly of the belief the chally 2 hit was an RPG-29 , but both myself and sikander disagree on this



do a search for a good few threads including a somewhat heated discussion about arena (which btw can intercept missiles but not tank rounds)



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by kaiheitain
 



That report's from some Russian source - so I doubt it's true. If an RPG7 could penetrate into the turret through the side armor, um... no - pretty much impossible.


It's not just "some" Russian source, it's Russian equivalent to Janes. Take the time and actually look into what you are deciding to speculate about, all of the info is right there.



Moscow Defense Brief.


PUBLISHER
Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies

CAST began publication of Moscow Defense Brief in 2004. The principle aim of this publication is to present Russian perspectives on security and defense issues to readers beyond Russia's borders. Moscow Defense Brief serves as a comprehensive and reliable source of public information and unbiased analysis on all aspects of Russia's policy and activities in the security and defense spheres. The magazine is an important resource for foreign governments, policy makers, industrialists, political and economic experts, and researchers interested in Russian and/or CIS affairs. The content of Moscow Defense Brief is provided by CAST staff, in cooperation with affiliated experts and journalists from Russia and other CIS countries.


mdb.cast.ru...

The details on Mikhail Barabanov,
Editor-in-chief of Moscow Defense Brief;


Our publication combines the unique perspective of leading Russian experts with the knowledge and expertise of Russia's most prominent and fiercely independent arms export and defense industry watchdog: the Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies.

Since 1997 CAST has established a reputation for informed and objective analysis of the Russian defense industry through its flagship publication Eksport vooruzheniy (Arms Exports), regular commentary published the Russian and international press, and consultation services to government and industry.

This unbroken track record of continual, independent work gives CAST a uniquely authoritative voice in the Russian defense world.


mdb.cast.ru...

If you care to doubt something, have the self respect to inform your self on the topic instead of blindly ignoring readily available and clearly presented information.

ATS = DENY IGNORANCE.


As far as the tank not doing well in urban combat, well um this is really surprising probably but uh - MBTs aren't designed for urban combat. So, uh - no #.


Wrong, modern tanks ARE designed to operate in urban environment. Merkava is a perfect example, not to mention continues developments and modifications of the Russian MBTs including BMPT, active protection systems, (Arena, Shtora), next gen ERA systems (Kontakt, Kaktus, Relikt, etc), the list goes on.

The information in this very thread about Japanese TK-X clearly states that its modified extensively to operate in urban environment.


Well we'll see how good those other MBTs fare next to Abrams next time one of those countries invades Iraq. Then we can compare notes.


LOL! You you sh!tting me?


As far as I can tell Abrams drove to Baghdad in under three weeks and took care of the job. Let's compare that to the Japanese tanks... Oh wait - we can't.


So DRIVING on paved roads all the sadden establishes capability of a tank? Get real, there was no resistance to speak of, all while Abrams had to stop and wait for its support entourage to feed its fuel guzzling turbine and switch out its tracks.


Can't argue with success, either.


LOL! Yeah, and the measure of that success is the ability to move!

Abrams was literally the only tank with out under armor APU and exposed tank commander station.

Even the first American tanks of WWII had armored tank commander copulas with an integrated .30 cal.

Not to mention that Abrams turret hatches open BACKWARDS instead of forward, thus exposing the crew to sniper fire, which is clearly evident on numerous Iraqi insurgent attack videos.



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 



There has been alot of discussion about the RPG-7 and RPG-29 ; and i am firmly of the belief the chally 2 hit was an RPG-29 , but both myself and sikander disagree on this


I just know the logistic side of the arms trade, and until I see RPG-29 rounds/boxes/tubes with their serials, they are not being used.

During every military operation enemy weapons constantly get captured by all of the parties involved, and to this day not a single RPG-29 round/tube was recovered in Iraq.

Until that happens, RGP-29 use in Iraq is an urban legend/excuse, and not established fact.

At the same time NUMEROUS videos of combined IED/RPG-7 insurgent attacks are readily available, and simply by going with available facts, Abrams?Chally losses are not from RPG-29s, but from the above mentioned ambush tactics, unless off course somebody can produce ANY kind of evidence contrary to the facts available.

In an case, the blast pattern of tandem warhead RPG-29 is completely different from the well known spread of the RPG-7.

Picture tells a thousand words, and every single picture I've posted above show classic RPG-7 hits, and NOT tandem warhead RPG-29.

I seem to remember that we went to Iraq to get Saddam's WMDs, yet they were simply not there, does anybody else rememberer why we're in officially occupying Iraq?

Same thing with RPG-29, until I see one being used, it's simply a plant.



posted on Mar, 11 2008 @ 05:20 AM
link   
The TK-X reminds me of Merkava.



posted on Mar, 11 2008 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by iskander
 


you do know the RPG-7VR is tandem warhead don`t you
and is in use - so the spread as you say is not quite so conclusive/



posted on Mar, 11 2008 @ 08:30 AM
link   
New MBTs are 'designed' for urban combat? I'm sure close-quarters threats are taken into consideration, (and what tank producer is going to say, 'Our tanks are useless in urban environments?) but as far as an MBT (tank made to take on other tanks) they are at their weakest in urban environments and close-quarters engagements. I don't care who makes them.



posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Back on Topic: the hulls looks like a modified Abrams, the rear of the tank totally looks like an Abram as do the screens inside.

The Turret looks like a mix of a LeCarc and Leo with a hint of Mercava, the cannon looks like a japanese version of the Rhienmetal 120mm, the tracks look very nice.

Does anyone know japanese so they can translate what is being said in the videos?



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Char2c35t
 



Back on Topic: the hulls looks like a modified Abrams, the rear of the tank totally looks like an Abram as do the screens inside.


Not even close. It’s an entirely different hull, different dimensions, much lower weight, and different power plant, in short, completely different from the Abrams.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
reply to post by Harlequin
 

Picture tells a thousand words, and every single picture I've posted above show classic RPG-7 hits, and NOT tandem warhead RPG-29.


You realize that the RPG-7V2 has a tandem warhead right? And a classic RPG-7 does not have the ability to penatrate the armour on a modern main battle tank.

Classic 330 mm armour pnetration
PG-7VL 600 mm
PG-7VR 750 mm

The M1A2 has 1320-1600 mm of armor protection against HEAT type rounds eh?



The Abrams is protected by Chobham armor, a further development of British "Burlington" armor. Chobham is a composite armor formed by spacing multiple layers of various alloys of steel, ceramics, plastic composites, and kevlar, giving an estimated maximum (frontal turret) 1320-1620 millimeters of RHAe versus HEAT (and other chemical energy rounds) and 940-960 mm versus kinetic energy penetrators.[2]


Yeah maybe knock of a tread but not defeat the main armor eh? Comeon man do a little research. Far more likely that the RPG-29 was used as the Soviets are just an eager to test thier new weapons as anybody and the following:

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2007/05/13/nmod13.xml

So I realize you want to see an film of an insurgent firing the sucker, but you will have to live with the above. But really does it matter?



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
IMHO this will be one the best Western tank, with Leclerc catching up soon.

Tanks with out an autoloader are not tank on the modern battlefield.


Yes the Soviet tanks with thier autoloaders faired so well against the M1's
Where exactly do you get your information :shk: And the leClerc? Based on what exactly? its stellar combat record? Im mean I do realize that it was the bad boy of peacekeeping in Kosovo, but really now
I will say that you are amusing in your own sort of way.



Trying to manually reload and fire the weapon while the tank is cross country is a deadly hazard, it’s as simple as that.


Hmm the US seems to have NO issue with the practice and could have added an autoloader if there was ANY advantage to the practice but chose NOT to. The rate of fire is almost the same.



[edit on 3/16/08 by FredT]









 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join