Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

$300 dollar round takes out M1A2

page: 17
9
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
What kind of RPGs hit it. This video is not an RPG-7, it is much more advanced than that. and 70 RPG-29 hits on a challenger would certainly be catastrophic.


Probably right, but what tank crew is just going to sit there and allow 70 RPGs to hit it? I have a hunch that the tank, the other tanks in his platoon, and any mech infantry in the area are going to be spoiling the aim of those 70 guys with RPGs.




posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
The concusion would have killed them all



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Basrah was a hell-hole a few years back. I'm talking dudes cutting through the fence, and walking IDF from the inside. Brits did a damn good job cleaning it up.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
OP is not a tanker I can tell that from his comments. Having served in a tank battalion in the S2 (intelligence) I can tell you that what you have seen in this video is reactive armor blowing up and the second charge in the RPG-29 flashing over the steel skinned DU Armor. The material you see flying around is the ballistic cloth and resin material that the skin of the ERA system is made from. The tank armor can be seen as the smoke clears to still have its shape. The tank was scorched and it rang the bell for the tankers inside but that turret clearly is starting to turn towards the shooter's position at the end of the video.

What is known in MI circles that the M1A2 is vulnerable from that upgraded RPG in the rear of the tank and in the side skirting area on the sides. It will not breach a M1A2 turret from any angle so that was a wasted round that likely drew return fire from the tank.



posted on Nov, 14 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Devestator
The concusion would have killed them all


Of an RPG hitting the armor of an M1? Not hardly.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


maybe the torrent dont work anymore but that tank can still drive and run those insurgents over. M1A1 vs flesh mob.......tank wins, dont need a big gun when you can run ppl over.




On a more serious note, the exact amount of munitions that can take a tank out is classified,even the location of the most vulnerable part is classified, the armor that the abrams uses is the best there is, our friends the Brits have always made great armor. Id say the soldiers inside are alive, just becuase the outer part of the armorplate were blown off does not make this tank useless, the torrent is still on the tank after the impact. If i were to give the tank a visual evaluation ( im no expert) id say the torrent cant move as freely as it once could, and there is def some other issues but im not impressed by the video.
If these weapons were so efficient then why are they placing bigger and bigger IEDs, our armor is tough and there normal meathods were mostly ineffective against our tanks, and we can shoot back when they fail and nine our of ten times we win the firefight...this is why IEDs are there choice for effectively killing, destroying and disableing our vehicales and men/women.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by wayouttheredude
 


Im so glad someone with facts backed up my blabbering.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by wayouttheredude
 


I do not deny the ERA exploding, also even if they did return fire there is no evidence of it in the video. The fact that the video exists is tantamount evidence to the fact that the freedom fighters after they destroyed the tank went home and ate pop tarts and uploaded the video.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
RPG-29 fires projectiles with tandem (two-stage) warheads. Side always has weak armor, on any tank out there. Mobility kill, as stated earlier.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by wayouttheredude
 


I do not deny the ERA exploding, also even if they did return fire there is no evidence of it in the video. The fact that the video exists is tantamount evidence to the fact that the freedom fighters after they destroyed the tank went home and ate pop tarts and uploaded the video.

that's no evidence for sure.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by wayouttheredude
 


I do not deny the ERA exploding, also even if they did return fire there is no evidence of it in the video. The fact that the video exists is tantamount evidence to the fact that the freedom fighters after they destroyed the tank went home and ate pop tarts and uploaded the video.

Did you just really call them freedom fighters ??



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by kaskad
 


Of course, what else would they be? They are fighting for freedom and oppression against an occupying and invading enemy.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   
Dude, don't even start. I spent a few months in/around Baghdad this year. I've seen these assh**es blow up innocent people and found "murder holes" all over the freaking place.
Freedom fighters my fuc**ng as*...



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


it didnt take it out. that's the armor exploding out to meet the round to keep the tank from getting destroyed. besides rpg's aren't powerful enough to knock out modern tanks anymore...it would have to be a depleted uranium round traveling at almost four thousand feet per second and theres no way an rpg round can travel that fast
edit on 17-11-2011 by Zanbaktouofknowledge because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
If you are talking about hull breach/frontal hits, than you are most likely correct.
Everything else is a fair game.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
I think that would have just pissed of the tank crew. It looked like only the cargo box on the side got blown off meaning all the crew's personal belongings and stuff but it probably didn't penetrate the turret. If it had, the blast plates on the top would have blown to dissipate the energy of the exploding rounds away from the crew.

The armor on M1 Abrams tanks is made from Chobham armour which is designed to dissipate the energy from shaped charged rounds like the one used in this video.


Chobham armour

Chobham armour is the name informally given to a composite armour developed in the 1960s at the British tank research centre on Chobham Common, Surrey, England. The name has since become the common generic term for ceramic vehicle armour.

Although the construction details of the Chobham Common armour remain a secret, it has been described as being composed of ceramic tiles encased within a metal matrix and bonded to a backing plate and several elastic layers. Due to the extreme hardness of the ceramics used, they offer superior resistance against shaped charges such as high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds and they shatter kinetic energy penetrators. Only the M1 Abrams, Challenger 1, and Challenger 2 tanks have been disclosed as being thus armoured. Despite being a British invention, for financial reasons the armour type was first implemented on the American tank.

Due to the extreme hardness of the ceramics used, they offer superior resistance against a shaped charge jet and they shatter kinetic energy penetrators (KE-penetrators). The (pulverised) ceramic also strongly abrades any penetrator. Against lighter projectiles the hardness of the tiles causes a "shatter gap" effect: a higher velocity will, within a certain velocity range (the "gap"), not lead to a deeper penetration but destroy the projectile itself instead.[1] Because the ceramic is so brittle the entrance channel of a shaped charge jet is not smooth — as it would be when penetrating a metal — but ragged, causing extreme asymmetric pressures which disturb the geometry of the jet, on which its penetrative capabilities are critically dependent as its mass is relatively low. This initiates a vicious circle as the disturbed jet causes still greater irregularities in the ceramic, until in the end it is defeated. The newer composites, though tougher, optimise this effect as tiles made with them have a layered internal structure conducive to it, causing "crack deflection".[2] This mechanism using the jet's own energy against it, has caused some to compare the effects of Chobham to those of reactive armour. This should not be confused with the effect used in many laminate armours of any kind: that of sandwiching an inert but soft elastic material such as rubber, between two of the armour plates. The impact of either a shaped charge jet or long-rod penetrator after the first layer has been perforated and while the rubber layer is being penetrated will cause the rubber to deform and expand, so deforming both the back and front plates. Both attack methods will suffer from obstruction to their expected paths, so experiencing a greater thickness of armour than there is nominally, thus lowering penetration. Also for rod penetrations, the transverse force experienced due to the deformation may cause the rod to shatter, bend, or just change its path, again lowering penetration.

Wiki

About the only thing that can kill a modern tank nowadays is another tank firing a Sabot round. If you're luckey and hit it just right, you may disable the tracks with a shaped charge round but, its best to save them for the armored personel carriers and Bradley fighting vehicles.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 

Not really, tanks always operate in conjunction with infantry ... chances are the infantry mopped them up after they gave away their position by firing at the tank.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ChrisF231
 


there is no evidence to demonstrate this fact.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   
You're still at it "professional"? .... Bro, let this thread die a natural death and stop necrobumping it...and please stop arguing with Soliders and Marines that were actually in the field with Abrams when you have no 1st hand experience with it...It's really quite insulting.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by ChrisF231
 


there is no evidence to demonstrate this fact.


Ok, If I film myself dropping a drinking glass off the roof of my house onto the driveway, but I cut the camera off before it hits...a reasonable person would understand that the chances of it breaking upon impact are far greater than the chances of it putting a dent in my driveway.

Just as Soliders and Marines who have been in the field can tell you what probably became of Mr. RPG. Simply because you haven't been in the field and don't understand things doesn't mean everyone else is ignorant.

Who trolls their own thread!?!....Seriously.






top topics



 
9
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join