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.

 

Follow this bullet's journey through an armored vehicle

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 03:41 PM
link   
i'm gonna agree with robertfenix's idea of it being the sabot round. that sounds highly plausible, and that's exactly what those rounds were designed to do.

it was either that, or just and EXTREMELY lucky shot.




posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by robertfenix
it was a RPG round, a Soviet HE-AP-Sabot round, probably hit from a +30 degree elevation on the tank. The round hit the top edge of the Armor Side Plate and penetrated behind the track sidewall.


It wasn't an RPG. It may have been a soviet HE-AP Sabot round, but there is no RPG round like that. An RPG is a grenade on a rocket.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
want a bet ! it (v) well is !
and a lot cheaper


What are you talking about? I cannot understand your sentences.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 03:45 PM
link   
the challanger is a lot better and if u cant read my sentances then i sugest u go back to school



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaChaos

Originally posted by longbow
Challenger IS NOT FASTER THAN ABRAMS!!!
True. M1A1 topspeed is 41.5 MPH. Challenger2 is 59.? KPH. 41 MPH = about 65 KPH.

But this only means that the Abrams could make it to the objective faster. Which is important, but really has no bearing on combat, because to fire, the Abrams can't be moving any faster than 15 mph to fire. Oh, and the fact that they NEVER retreat!

DC


no, its 35mph for the challenger..almost 42 mph for an abrams.



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
no, its 35mph for the challenger..almost 42 mph for an abrams.
Yeah. That's what I said...



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
the challanger is a lot better and if u cant read my sentances then i sugest u go back to school


Why should chalenger be "a lot better"? About its price : is it not about 4 mil.?



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 03:56 PM
link   
dang ur right! then wait a min ! that TV show lied to me! lieing (V)'s !!
sorry i got misinformation



posted on Apr, 22 2004 @ 07:26 PM
link   
It was just an RPG round with a more advanced warhead. All tanks are vulnerable to these warheads. Especially when they are tandem particulated jets.There is a rummor that the RPG-29 has a DU liner shaped charge.

PS; No DU armor in the skirting of any tank. Only on front turret.

[Edited on 22-4-2004 by psteel]



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow

Originally posted by devilwasp
the challanger is a lot better and if u cant read my sentances then i sugest u go back to school


Why should chalenger be "a lot better"? About its price : is it not about 4 mil.?

nope thats the abrahm and the parts for the ma1 cost more than the tank itself !
the challanger can do the same job but its cheaper



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by psteel
PS; No DU armor in the skirting of any tank. Only on front turret.


Bradleys and M1A1s have DU plates that attatch to the skirts. That is the purpose of the bolts you see on them. I know. They're heavy.

The thing about RPG and Sabot rounds. Sabot is a thin coating of a soft metal on a round designed to help take up rifling as it travels through a barrel. The RPG has no barrel, and there for no rifling, thus there will never be an RPG Sabot round. Besides that, the velocity of an RPG is about 950mps. Any muzzle velocity less than about 1100mps, and rifling will be ineffective to produce rotation of the round.

DC



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 01:25 PM
link   
There is another extensive ATS thread on this topic, complete with lots of external links and photos.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I can't speak to the composition of tank armor, but I do know this about sabot rounds: the sabot (shoe) allows a gun to fire a projectile of diameter significantly smaller than the bore. It is just a spacer to match the internal dimension of the gun barrel. The M1A1's 120mm M256 smoothbore cannon, by definition, has no rifling. The penetrator is stabilised in flight by fins just like fletching on an arrow.



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spectre
The M1A1's 120mm M256 smoothbore cannon, by definition, has no rifling. The penetrator is stabilised in flight by fins just like fletching on an arrow.


Yes. They are discarding sabot flechette rounds. That definition of sabot is also correct. Sabot is also a spacer. In the case of the Abrams HEAT round, the sabot discards and falls away in flight, exposing the explosive that eventually drives a gaseous metal 'rod' through enemy armor. What kills the personnel inside the enemy vehicle is not the impact, but the metal in gaseous form invading the cabin, superheating it and displacing all oxygen immediately, causing people to incinerate and implode simultaneously.

WAR! It's Faaaantastic!

DC



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by robertfenix
it was a RPG round, a Soviet HE-AP-Sabot round, probably hit from a +30 degree elevation on the tank. The round hit the top edge of the Armor Side Plate and penetrated behind the track sidewall.

An RPG round?

Think what you are saying, it was definitly a round from an assault rifle, but dependent on the velocity and volume the launcher had, it had to be of some kind of rail gun.

Now I do not think the Russians could have done this because they would not be able to mass produce rail guns let alone produce all those new Tu-60's, the Russians have better things to spend on then on rail guns, like sams or more defense, or funds for improving their economy and political status in the world.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 05:04 PM
link   
shattred it couldnt have been a rail gun firstly they would have used something better than a bullet on a rail gun
secondly a rail guns exit point would be massive
and frankly u need at least a car battery or two on ur back to actually get some speed on the projectile



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaChaos

Originally posted by psteel
PS; No DU armor in the skirting of any tank. Only on front turret.


Bradleys and M1A1s have DU plates that attatch to the skirts. That is the purpose of the bolts you see on them. I know. They're heavy.


DC


Sorry but there is no DU armor on the skirts . The side armor on the Bradelys are just steel and polyurethan I even have a diagram of it. THe replacement is plain 3cm hard steel. The Battle skirts on the M-1 were designed back in the 1970s before DU and are reportedly 5cm thick with a medium sandwiched between two 1cm steel plates [The medium has been described as peanut butter in consistance]. This is essentially a bulging plate which were big back then. Effective enough it should result in about 36/23cm + 2d reduction in penetration.

The round that produced this damage was probably nothing more than a RPG-7VR or L . There was no assault rifle???? Where does that come from.



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Sating the abrams are crap because they have 1 SINGLE HOLE in its armour near the tread, which isnt as strong, is like saying the PSG-1 sucks just because the shooter missed a target going 45 miles per hour



posted on Apr, 24 2004 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
shattred it couldnt have been a rail gun firstly they would have used something better than a bullet on a rail gun
secondly a rail guns exit point would be massive
and frankly u need at least a car battery or two on ur back to actually get some speed on the projectile

Umm devil are you aware it does not matter the size othe bullet, it depends on the velocity and volume of the weapon and bullet, it was a 7 mm assault round (in my opinion) and it had to have been shot out of a weapon with enough force that the bullet stayed on its current coarse through the entire tank.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Apr, 24 2004 @ 07:31 PM
link   
that is not an entry way for and RPG. notice the multiple holes in some of the pics in the interior... an shaped charge penatrating would lose power and become smaller, not making multilpe holes as it got further into the tank. there is a good report in the first Iraq war of a disabled Abrams, stuck in the mud, taking 1 or 2 rounds from a T-72 and then 4 rounds from another Abrams in an attemt to destroy it. didn't work..they did pull it out and replaced the turret. allegedly no penatration from under 600 yards to the front. (sorry, no link, in a reference book I have)
any boby know what the thickness of the armour is iin that area?? i'm sure there is no 'special' armour in that area since the armour is so heavy. maybe everything but the front is made of 'regular' 2-4 inch steel.
I know there are other lthreads about this...my opinion is a 'new' test weapon probably fielded by the russians. they always seem to be looking into, what AMERICANS feel is wasted tech.



posted on Apr, 24 2004 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Ive seen some shaped charge holes that do conform to this level, and the mulitple holes in the single case could easly be spray from spall or secondary projectiles.

It simple there is not a KE round that could produce this level of penetration and have that small a hole.Besides from what I read copper residue was detected in the penetration hole . This makes it almost certain it was a copper shaped charge. The armor resistance on the side hulls of most tanks is not that great and easly penetratable by modern HEAT warheads.

'Okams razor' people.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join