$300 dollar round takes out M1A2

this might be or not be the tank in the video but the words speak for them selves the tank was battle ready with little to no harm www.freerepublic.com... from the link

Shortly before dawn on Aug. 28, an M1A1 Abrams tank on routine patrol in Baghdad “was hit by something” that crippled the 69-ton behemoth. Army officials still are puzzling over what that “something” was.

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.

i call bs on the video being real. like other posters before me i think it was edited.

look at the screen shot from 14 sec into the video. this is right when the shot was fired, right behind the guy with the rpg
no way the guy with camera got into place to film the tank.
this is nothing but propaganda, two different pices of film.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by 46ACE

 

I don't see any return fire. I see an RPG disabling a tank. The tank crew made the tragic error of using a tank not equipped with TUSK or Trophy round defeating system. So still fail.

Yes I know what ERA is. This round is specifically made to DEFEAT ERA. what don't you guys understand. You guys throw out terms like reactive armor not knowing that their are systems designed to circumvent it.

You guys crack me up.

edit on 25-3-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)

You implied it was an RPG like a simple rambo movie "RPG7-" The29 appears to be a anti-tank armor penetrator.
And since there is always a "tit for tat" counter;counter; counter measure race going on;. you stopped "the race" to to point out an antitank weapon possibly damaged a tank?I saw an explosion upon impact (which is precisely what reactive armor does) not secondary explosions like the magazine blowing out( I think they have blowout panels to direct any magazine explosion outside the crew compartment.

or was not an RPG 29 but the 27 as seen here www.strategypage.com... the point is there is no kill of the tank.

um not sure if anyone said this, but how can anyone be sure the picture of the tank and the guy firing are in any way from the same time? there is a cut, I could do this with a movie editor in like 2 minutes.

Here's a hot tip if you are worried about big dollar equipment: you want to stop a $60 million dollar tank? you kill every $100,000 fuel tanker before it ever reaches the base with a $ 5.00 .50bmg tracer round.Soon the leviathans never leave the barn..: :

Every thing has "weakness" and the more technically sophisticated the more things in the supply chain have to be100% on time and reliable.

added as an afterthought:
Someone(?) is famously quoted: "For the want of a nail: a shoe was lost. For the want of a shoe; a horse was lost . For the want of a horse; a knight was lost. For the want of a knight; a lance was lost. For the want of a lance a battle was lost. For the want of a battle; A WAR Was lost.For the want of a war; A country (kingdom,fiefdom?) was lost... "for the want of a nail"...
Point being even if a $300 anti- tank rocket "might" take out an expensive tank and crew a 30 cent rifle bullet might have shot the"rocketeer" in the minutes before.

Regardless of the disputed tank kill,therte are some other similar weapons.
Sagger.Kornet,and a few more .....Whats to stop the substitution of oneof these?
The results may be different.
For what it is worth wikipedia l;ists rpg 29 as an abrams killer.

Clever editing thats all....mixed with explosive armour.

I too call BS on this video. If tanks were this vulnerable the US army would have none left in Iraq.

img413.imageshack.us...

An image I found of a different Abrams. It took an RPG-27 hit square in the side. The engine was a little damaged, but the turret was still able to rotate and fire and the crew was unharmed.

problem solved; just because tanks & apc's can be hit with rpg's doesn't mean wars should be fought with no tanks at all.

note: if you see a problem, look for ways to solve it instead of complaining.

Originally posted by roguetechie
I find it deliciously ironic how the OP has chosen the sobriquet of "The professional" when every thread he posts highlights his utter and total lack of understanding on a myriad of subjects...

4. If you are going to criticize the military or anything else it's ALWAYS important to do your homework and get your facts straight to avoid looking like a scaremonger or just plain moron.

Thanks

Yes I am a professional. Thanks for noticing. The turret thing you are talking about, I corrected my statement if you read the entire thread.

Which lack of understanding can you point out? I have a degree in physics, I know how weapons operate.

reply to post by 46ACE


I specifically stated in my first post it was an RPG-29 (could be a -27). I never mentioned it was a RPG-7. A RPG-7 has virtually 0 chance of getting through.

I did not state this was a RPG-7

man..I just started reading this..its like the blind leading the blind...

this is a kill shot on a tank..

what kind? I dont know..probably a t72 or t80..

when the ammo magazine goes..its done..the hit alone without the ammo going off would have taken out at least the TC and gunner..

..come on

reply to post by loves a conspiricy


wow..M1A1s have DU armor...designed in Chobam (sp) England..its alot better agaist HEAT rounds..the CRS on the top of the tank is still just as weak as any other tank...everyone needs to go read a book or join as a 19L MOS I think it is...wow...

a standard russian variety tank..just like a M60 without reactive armor cant compete with the armor on a M1..

read...

Going back and watching this video again, it's pretty clear to me that the clip of the RPG being fired and the clip of the tank being hit aren't even at the same time of day. Look closely and you'll see the cameraman during the firing is inside either a building or a car looking out a window in a building, while in the clip of the tank being hit there's no sign of anything like that. They never show the launcher and the tank at the same time.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by 46ACE

 

I specifically stated in my first post it was an RPG-29 (could be a -27). I never mentioned it was a RPG-7. A RPG-7 has virtually 0 chance of getting through.

I did not state this was a RPG-7

Looking back You are correct; my apologies; I saw "RPG" and was not familiar with the 27/29. I was startled to see an obviously anti-armor rocket for something designated "RPG"( "rocket propelled grenade.").

My mistake entirely being as it seems to be "yourday in the barrel" I didn't need to add that. Sorry; Regrets...

Originally posted by 46ACE
Looking back You are correct; my apologies; I saw "RPG" and was not familiar with the 27/29. I was startled to see an obviously anti-armor rocket for something designated "RPG"( "rocket propelled grenade.").

Hi Ace, ( )

"RPG" is a transliteration ( news to me too, don't worry) but in Russian it does actually mean 'hand held rocket propelled grenade'; their original function was always anti vehicular/armor but since they were so easy to deploy and easy to use with substantial accuracy Russian assault ( in classic meeting engagement being able to put explosives on target on the run tends to make the other guys run the other way) infantry were always going to use them in the general anti anything role!

The movie industry abuse of these weapons as good for little more than launching 'grenades' has little to do with reality...

My mistake entirely being as it seems to be "yourday in the barrel" I didn't need to add that. Sorry; Regrets...

Sad that the people who actually bother to apologise tend to be those who make excusable one's! Thanks for owning up.

Stellar

Edited video. I see someone firing an RPG and then a cut to *something* hitting the tank. There is no evidence that the clip of the tank being damaged is from the same video and thus the same weapon. Are we to believe that in a war situation, they had multiple camera angles, one camera zoomed in on the tank and another on the guy firing the weapon? Nice propaganda video.

reply to post by Blazer


Plus, as I said before, the lighting is completely different between the 2 clips.

reply to post by warbird03


see my post 15 above yours, this is 14 sec into video and directly behind the guy firing the rpg.
you can see the head rest of the car seat, also if you look at my post on page four youcan see a tank
across the street from their position, i wonder if the tank i circled fired on them and this is just spliced together,
video.