$300 dollar round takes out M1A2

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 03:52 AM
link   
To the OP, why do you have so many threads on how to destroy US weaponry , If it's not a thread on downing an F117 then it's a thread on how to defeat a F22 or how an RPG blew up an Abrams. Until this thread I thought you were just obsessed , but now after this thread I can tell you are fairly ignorant in this field and have no real world 1st hand understanding of how things work (everything you know is from reading something someone else published) It's the difference between me (and every other Marine in the world) making 500 yard hits on a man sized target with an M16A2 with Iron sights, and you reading in wikipedia that the rifle isn't effective at that range & then spouting it as fact. If you honestly believe that an RPG can penetrate the armor of an Abrams , there really isn't much I can tell you that will change your mind...I don't even have to debunk this, your own video does it for me! I don't know what country you're from, but It's quite obvious that you envy our military hardware! Your ignorance can't be denied.

Is the Abrams invincible?... certainly not... Will an RPG take out an Abrams?.... Less than Likely.

edit on 25-3-2011 by EyesWideShut because: video fail




posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by EyesWideShut
 


Dude I am not ignorant of how weapons work. I just present the facts that is all. I am an American and am just showing weaknesses in our systems that need to be addressed before we put any faulty equipment out their.

The F117 thread I made because I was curious as to how our plane was shot down. I wanted to know it myself, so I did the research.

BTW I live close to jersey, maybe even jersey, so don't rag. You are probably at Fort Dix am I right?

So tell me how I am ignorant? Are you telling me that this abrams is fully battle functional? I am sure the crew is fine, but I think the tank is not fully battle functional. If the RPG hit the rear in the engine compartment its out for good. Tell me how what I am saying is ignorant. Which statement of mine is ignorant?

I am trying to show that the Abrams is not an effective weapon in urban combat. There needs to be another system devised for this type of urban combat environment, and its not the abrams. So you post a video of a tank drivng over an ied. Tanks have also been lost to IEDs as well.

The video you just watched isn't on wikipedia. Where did I use wikipedia on this thread? Not anywhere. So it seems that you are the ignorant one.



Is the Abrams invincible?... certainly not... Will an RPG take out an Abrams?.... Less than Likely.


You have to specify which type of RPG, where the hit is and how many hits. There are times when a RPG-27 could disable a tanks mission as in this case. There will be other times when it will walk away. This is just one battle we lost. It is war, get over it.
edit on 25-3-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by EyesWideShut
 

Found this on Daily telegraph (UK) reference a Challenger 2s armour breach in Iraq, in which one trooper was seriously injured and two others traumatised.. The weapon used was an RPG 29 the most powerful at that time in the hands of insurgents, having watched the video i do not believe that this was the RPG that was used in the attack on the Abrams, and the crew was probably concussed and able to do a follow up, (hopefully), Here's a snippet from the newspaper relating from the troopers account of the incident,

"Daz [another crew member] and I looked at each other in slight disbelief - after all, what could possibly breach a CR2's [Challenger's] armour?"

Tpr Chance's mother Kay, 49, from Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, said her son had been told that the Challenger was the best in the world and essentially impenetrable to any weapons the insurgents possessed...

We (ATS) need to find out the type of weapon used and then have a better picture of the conclusion of the RPG attack.

Just reviewed the RPG attack on the video, and low and behold just as the two spotters move out of screen shot to the left there is another Abrams sitting facing the insurgents, Now i know a few "tankers" and they are a smart lot, Chances after the proverbial WTF they got a kill hence the cropped video, IMO...

A few stats on the RPG29

Caliber: 105 mm barrel; 65/105mm warheads
Type: rocket booster
Overall length: 1850 mm ready to fire; 1000 mm disassembled for transportation
Weight: 12.1 kg unloaded, with optical sight; 18.8 kg loaded and ready to fire
Effective range: up to 500 m
Armour penetration: ERA plus more than 600 mm RHA



edit on 25-3-2011 by foxhoundone because: review of vidio and more info



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by EyesWideShut
 


BTW I live close to jersey, maybe even jersey, so don't rag. You are probably at Fort Dix am I right?


No, there are no Marines at Fort Dix, the ARMY has Forts, the Marine Corps has Camps... and If you were in Jersey guess what?... You'd still be ignorant in this subject. (as you just displayed)




So tell me how I am ignorant?


I never called you ignorant, I said you were ignorant in this subject




Are you telling me that this abrams is fully battle functional?


Yes



I am sure the crew is fine, but I think the tank is not fully battle functional. If the RPG hit the rear in the engine compartment its out for good.


The round hit right above the treads on the side of the tank, the engine is not located there.



Tell me how what I am saying is ignorant.


I did already




Which statement of mine is ignorant?


Most of the statements you've made in this thread




I am trying to show that the Abrams is not an effective weapon in urban combat.


You haven't done it yet



So you post a video of a tank drivng over an ied.


I did, you posted "If an RPG hit the rear in the engine compartment it's out for good" The video shows a tank taking a hit from underneath by an IED which looked to have a larger charge than the RPG yet it continued to function.



Tanks have also been lost to IEDs as well.


I'm not disputing that, I'm disputing the case you made of an RPG "blowing the turret off of an Abrams in the OP"




The video you just watched isn't on wikipedia.


Obviously



Where did I use wikipedia on this thread?


That's inconclusive



You have to specify which type of RPG


The one in your video



where the hit is and how many hits


We're talking about the same video correct? It seemed to be 1 RPG and the video showed where it hit... please don't turn this into a hypothetical about if the angle was right and it happened to go into the barrel of the main gun, or If the tank stood there while 27 RPG's hit the same exact spot, lets try to remain grounded in reality here!




There are times when a RPG-27 could disable a tanks mission as in this case.


Not having 1st hand knowledge of the tanks mission makes this statement purely speculatory




There will be other times when it will walk away.


Tanks don't walk





This is just one battle we lost.


1 tank getting hit by an RPG is far from a battle , and I don't know how you'd be able to tell if it was won or lost if you didn't know the missions objective.



It is war, get over it.


Very easy to say from the comfort of your home



edit on 25-3-2011 by EyesWideShut because: Gremlins



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by byteshertz
 


So you are saying that this tank is fully capable of carrying on its mission that it was designed to do? The crew might now have to escape outside and will be vulnerable to sniper fire if they are around.

When I said turret blown off I meant that the turret is most likely useless.

We do not know if it penetrated or killed anyone. Fact remains that this tank is taken out of the equation and will not be able to provide and infantry support.



I think you are presuming a lot. The way it looks to me is that the tank would still be mobile even if the turret (which remained in place after the blast) was immobilized. The crew would definitely be shook up but the armour would most likely have protected them. We would need to see a clip for the next 20-30 seconds to make any actual determination.

In my opinion, the tank and it's crew were fine after the hit.
edit on 25-3-2011 by palg1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   
BLAH BLAH BLAH

reactive armor is what you saw.....


did I just guess 90% of the replys? I realy don't care........



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by byteshertz
 


The tank is rendered usless. Its turrent is literally blown off. I did not say anything happend to the crew. The tank is now mission incapable and will have to be shipped back to the US for repairs. Also we do not know if the crew survived or not. Would you want to sit in that tank and take a hit like that? Tell us how it goes.

If a tank is being shipped back for repairs, how is it protecting ground infantry = mission fail = tank taken out of the mission.
edit on 25-3-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)

I'm not sure if anyone has said this yet but, that doesn't mean the tank is useless. It might have saved the crew's lives.. and sure the tank is jacked now but those kids might be able to go home.
edit on 25-3-2011 by MurrayTORONTO because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
I'm really no expert, to the point that I shouldn't really be wading in on this, but......

It looks to me like the round hit on the top of the tracks, on the upper skirt (I didn't see any ERA panels there, it didn't have the TUSK upgrade?), almost certainly not a kill per se, but likely to have immobilised the tank (probably only until it could be towed out and re-tracked).

It's a crappy angle and the shot is carefully edited to cut away before the dust and smoke settles, so it's impossible to accurately asses damage from that shot - however, as far as I know, the only tank crew fatalities in suffered by the U.S in Iraq have all been due to IEDs and a regrettable number of accidents (tanks rolling etc).

Feel free to correct me, but that really doesn't look like it resulted in a kill. The crew probably spent the next week saying "SAY WHAT?" to everyone, while suffering headaches, but I doubt the round breached the crew compartment or even gave a work out to the spall liner.

As for whether the tank was usable to be fought as a pillbox after a hit like that, I guess it would depend on whether the turret ring was damaged at all. I understand that is the weakest part of the system, and the round looked to have hit near(ish) to it, but whether the angles would have allowed either the warhead, shockwave or stress transmitted through the hull to damage it is essentially unknowable from that vid imo.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
I am going to have to agree with the OP. Those warheads are shape charged and designed to peirce armor. I believe everyone in that tank was probably killed from peices of the tank exploding and over 2000 degrees F inside the tank.....Believe it or not tanks dont take hits very well from things like that.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
I have to say that the potential for greater kills and the portability and price make this an ideal guerilla warfare tool.
There is no disputing the troopies in the abrams would certainly have suffered a WTF was THAT? moment at the very least, and perhaps nosebleeds or earbleeds and ringing sounds in their heads.
The tank would probably able to function after the blast at some level by the look of it.
STILL>>>>>>Point well taken.....
The RPG29 is NOT the state of the art in man portable anti armour weaponry though is it?
Then there are truck and jeep(hummer) mounted missile systems as well.....
What the OP has opened in terms of worm cans is extremely valid.
This bears closer examination and perhaps a little digging...
Suppose the M1 Abrams is top of the line in MB tanks.....
What portable (reasonably so guerilla type) weaponry would they fall prey too?
It could prove a costly mistake to assume some jerkwater ragtag force of irregulars icapable of countering MBtanks.In fact it was the Sagger anti armour missiles which foiled the last Lebanon invasion by Isreal to a (to a large extent....)
We cannot just sit on our laurels as owners of the top MBT in the world, and not expect that there would be many different countries who were working feverishly to develope counter measures to them.....

To this end it would be very interesting to me personally (and maybe U too)
to see some form of comparisons of siilar systems available world wide to the various factions and forces it mat be contemplated the M1s would be arrayed against.
Also as in the case of the F117 shoot.
We have got to expect that smart soldiers everywhere will always try to use the available firepower in the optimum ways that are available to them to obtain maximum performance and ultimate self survivablility in any conflict.

The F 117 story bears an excellent lesson for anyone who has eyes to see it.
Not only, that but it has application to each and everyone is terms of life skills application and perserverance in the face of great odds.As well as making the best of what you have to accomplish your ulimate puepose. either in war or life.
Tho we wanted him dead, Ho Chi Min was always a perssonal hero of mine, and an inspiration to me in my life.
It is rare these days to see such intelligent applicatin of dedication,comon sense, and focus.
Back to the MBTs, there is merit in this weapon(RPG) and we would be smart to take its strngths and weaknesses into account in future conflicts with guerilla forces.
Out of curiosity id like to find out how our own US Marines man portable rockets stack up against the M1 Abrams.I have a feeling theyd be ineffective as well.(unless maximised by circumstance.
We have a selection of smaller ones do we not?
Then there is the recoiless rifle, which may actually be ineffective against the Abrams.
But other countires may have better.
This sagger anti armour missile of russian design may be a contender too.
Now youve brought the subject up OP, i find it is a little but fascinating to behold.
The fact that a simple man portable weapon could nullify and even defeat such firepower with relative economy and efficiency means there will be many more of these type of weapons comming along in future.
We certainly have to contemplate our own weaknesses and our enemies strengths botn in personal dedication,and weapons available.
edit on 25-3-2011 by stirling because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by EyesWideShut

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by EyesWideShut
 





I never called you ignorant, I said you were ignorant in this subject


You have to show me which of my facts are ignorant on the subject and I will retract my statements



Are you telling me that this abrams is fully battle functional? Yes


Well this argument goes both ways, none of us can prove either way. I say it is not battle functional, you say it is.



The round hit right above the treads on the side of the tank, the engine is not located there.


I know that is not where the engine is, that is why I gave an example of "if it had hit"



Tell me how what I am saying is ignorant. I did already


Which statement of mine is ignorant, show me which facts of mine are not true. I will reassess the situation.



Which statement of mine is ignorant? Most of the statements you've made in this thread


You cant just make a blanket "most" statement. You have to provide evidence as to which of my facts are incorrect. You are saying my facts are wrong but you are not showing me how they are wrong. If i mistook a fact please do show me.




I did, you posted "If an RPG hit the rear in the engine compartment it's out for good" The video shows a tank taking a hit from underneath by an IED which looked to have a larger charge than the RPG yet it continued to function.


This just shows your lack of understanding of IEDs vs HEAT rounds. they both serve different functions and have different modes of operation. I did not post a video of a IED taking out a tank. I posted a video of a RPG-29 round taking out a tank.




I'm not disputing that, I'm disputing the case you made of an RPG "blowing the turret off of an Abrams in the OP"


I may have exaggerated that, but the fact remains this isn't just a "scracth on the paint" type of situation



Where did I use wikipedia on this thread? That's inconclusive


Actually no where



You have to specify which type of RPG The one in your video


I told you which RPG was used in the video. There are numerous different types. It is up to you to find out if sometimes the RPG-29 can get lucky as it did in this video.




There are times when a RPG-27 could disable a tanks mission as in this case. Not having 1st hand knowledge of the tanks mission makes this statement purely speculatory


Do you have first hand knowledge that this tank is fully functional?




This is just one battle we lost. 1 tank getting hit by an RPG is far from a battle , and I don't know how you'd be able to tell if it was won or lost if you didn't know the missions objective.


You can tell by what is the function of a tank.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
The original video is not conclusive anyways that the shoulder fired rocket is the one that hit the tank. This could have been edited because it is not one seamless video of shot vs. hit.

So basically all of the arguments that this RPG took out a tank are not valid without a continuous shot. To me, it doesn't even look like the same video, the coloring is different between the "shot" that is filmed from inside a car to the actual "hit".



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
There is no proving either point and both are getting moot.
Why not quit bitching and see if we could dig up some pertinent information regarding the working pricipal presented in the OP either pro or con but not personal...........
Who wants to read all the crud compared to the point of the discussion at hand which is in fact a cruciaal point to contemplate in all its ramifications...
vis a vs the Op origonal contention, and also the extended projection to other comparable systems available to our enemies....which after all IS the point.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by byteshertz
 


The tank is rendered usless. Its turrent is literally blown off. I did not say anything happend to the crew. The tank is now mission incapable and will have to be shipped back to the US for repairs. Also we do not know if the crew survived or not. Would you want to sit in that tank and take a hit like that? Tell us how it goes.

If a tank is being shipped back for repairs, how is it protecting ground infantry = mission fail = tank taken out of the mission.
edit on 25-3-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)


I was an M1 tanker. I see tactical mistakes that I do not want to elaborate on which would alert the enemy. That tank is not useless and that round did not penetrate the armour.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by EyesWideShut
 


Third Column

These posts are exactly why the internet will not be free in the future.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
its 2 videos dubed, why is their 2 angels?



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
With tank armor getting better weapons makers will have to look beyond projectile or missile weaponry to disable a tank, or its crew.

Perhaps sound frequency weapons, EMP weapons, advanced Thermite bombs, or bigger/ more dangerous rockets among others.

Could you electrocute a tank with electricity?

Thinking out of the box stuff. Don't hate.

edit on 25-3-2011 by star in a jar because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Analyze76
 


Tactical mistakes? Like taking a tank into an urban area and looking the wrong way tactical mistakes? lol
I thought tank tactics for dealing with an urban area were to find somewhere nice with a good view and level it, then send in the infantry?

I may be taking the mickey here, but this thread has gotten way too heated for discussion of about 5 secs of video that doesn't show much more than a cloud of dust and smoke. I guess it is pretty par for the course, far too many septics on this forum seem to treat any comment on their military / toys as a slur on their mother's and sister's honour.

Oh, and I believe / agree with you when you say that's not a kill, but in your judgement ( as a former tanker) is it likely to have crippled or damaged the vehicle enough to warrant it's being removed from operations, or is it still good to go even after a hit like that? If it's the latter then a big hand to the guys who built that tin can.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I would almost guarantee you that the tank is still entirely functional. Of course, lucky shots do happen and it's possible that the tank suffered incapacitating damage. There is no perfect armor system, so it happens. Nothing to get all worked up about like you seem to be. They're tough, but they're not invincible.

Notice how they cut the video short of actually being able to see what shape the tank is in? Most likely because if they let you get a better view you'd see that there wasn't actually that much damage. People like these would be thrilled to get a kill on a "state of the art" vehicle from the US with a single shell and they would want to show it off.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by warbird03
 


Your not breaking that armour





top topics
 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join