$300 dollar round takes out M1A2

Reactive armor doing what it's designed to do.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


Another possibility that would explain the reason that they would fire on another target in plain view of that tank, maybe they fired on some civilian target within sight of a US tank to be able to say the tank did it?

REally? Reactive armor doing what it's meant to do? err... you do know that they don't tile ERA UNDER THE BUSTLE RACK correct?

Anti tank rockets, Even sophisticated dual charge stand off weapons can be defeated by breaking up the gas jet.

This is why they put the bustle racks around three sides of the turret! it's cheaper than ERA and serves essentially the same purpose breaking up the gas jet by disrupting proper arming distance...

As for the stuff being blown off the tank... it looks EXACTLY like an anti tank rocket hitting a tank in the bustle rack!! probably because that is what is shown.

As far as the OP's comment saying he has a physics degree and understands how weapons work... Well first off of the OP had any sort of degree from a college .... he should get his money back. He has stated in another thread that Israel has not signed a treaty with us so they don't have an ALLEGIANCE with us....

Now there are so many things wrong with that sentence which is a fairly accurate paraphrase of SEVERAL posts where he reiterated this statement like saying it enough would make it a fact. I won't even go into correcting the half a dozen Conceptual, grammatical, syntax, and past tense versus present tense errors that routinely appear in his writings. Nor his infantile sub FAUX news conceptual framework of how HE THINKS the world works.

It would be best for the OP to remember that when LYING about one's credentials and education one must have the INTELLECTUAL horsepower to pull of the lie for it to be worth doing....

He obviously has so little understanding of military arms and how they do what they do as to make it useless for me to continue trying to educate him.

Also just to point this out the rpg 29 is not NEW or top of the line or state of the art and the abilities being ascribed to it in this thread are AMUSING but not REALISTIC. Oh and just because wiki says something is an abrams killer does not mean much of anything. Try fas.org or one of several other great reference sites for reference info. It could really help the general caliber of the posts I have seen in this thread.

So many arm chair mechanized warfare experts in here so little factual information

reply to post by roguetechie

As far as the OP's comment saying he has a physics degree and understands how weapons work... Well first off of the OP had any sort of degree from a college .... he should get his money back. He has stated in another thread that Israel has not signed a treaty with us so they don't have an ALLEGIANCE with us....

Now there are so many things wrong with that sentence which is a fairly accurate paraphrase of SEVERAL posts where he reiterated this statement like saying it enough would make it a fact. I won't even go into correcting the half a dozen Conceptual, grammatical, syntax, and past tense versus present tense errors that routinely appear in his writings. Nor his infantile sub FAUX news conceptual framework of how HE THINKS the world works.

So your trying to insult my intelligence...right, without any basing.
So what was your degree in if any?

This is not a grammar school or English class. I am not being graded for this. So it is a moot point, and no one really cares for your grammar correcting. If you want to go correct grammar go to a college and teach English; if you are capable of it. There is no need for me to correct grammar. You are resorting to ad hominmen attacks which are the sign of a weak argument.

Now there are so many things wrong with that sentence which is a fairly accurate paraphrase of SEVERAL posts where he reiterated this statement like saying it enough would make it a fact

Show me which one of my statements is not a fact. I will be happy to examine it and remove it if it is not a fact. So don't go around insulting people if you your self have nothing to put on the table.

First of all, who is to say the two clips in the video have anything to do with each other? Two seperate camera angles spliced together, or BS? None of us know.

Secondly, that particular RPG looks much different than those they usually show insurgents carrying. How many of these launchers are they said to possess, and how to they compare to the RPG's that they are usually using, the cheaper looking russian ones?

Originally posted by CaptSplatter
I don't know a ton about tanks or armor but I do know the US has been using this type of reactive armor for some time now. I understand it looks bad on the video but lets be honest the OP doesn't know the battle status of this tank after the rocket hit.

The US deploys M1 variants with ERA on the turret/front? Last time I checked, all Abrams units are coated with a depleted uranium-ceramic armor. Any ERA they are deployed with, especially the TUSK variant, does NOT cover the turret.

Take a look at this picture if you don't believe me


There are Russian tanks are fully equipped with several types of ERA though.

sNeakyTiKy-
I don't know, I just find it hard to believe that an RPG can take out out an Abrams.

I do know that the largest RPG (650 or 750 mm) can do some heavy damage to an abrams, especially from behind. I just find it hard to believe that it can actually incapacitate a modern American abrams with all the add ons that they have invested in them. We spend a fortune on this crap....its disappointing to see it destroyed so easily

What is a "650mm" RPG? 650mm = 65cm, and 30cm are in a foot. You're talking about an RPG that has a warhead two feet or more in diameter. Perhaps you are talking about penetration capability?

And the RPG-29 is much newer and more efficient at its job than the 50-some year old RPG-7. RPG-27 was probably designed specifically to defeat chobham armor in the form of a disposable rocket launcher. Tandem-warheads on RPGs are specifically designed for this task.

Hell, look at the RPG-30; it has a two projectiles that fire, the first designed to take the brunt of active protection systems (Which aren't even on Abrams yet as far as I know).

CaptSplatter-
Hell this person gets hit with a RPG and survives. Believe me that tank didn't feel a thing.

It doesn't look like much of an RPG detonation to me.

And it is rediculous to think you can get hit by a functioning RPG and survive as if it is some casual thing. I knew a US soldier during the early Iraq invasion and one of his buddies got smoked by an RPG right beside him.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Although he didn't state it, the 750mm refers to the blast yield at least for the RPG-29 against RHA. Whether he knew that or not, I have no idea.

Regardless, I think it's fairly safe to say the video is a fake. Video quality and lighting don't match and we never actually see what they shoot the RPG at.

Oh, and to me the launcher in the video looks a bit too short to be an RPG-29 but everything else about it seems to match. Almost looks like an RPG-26 to me, but it's hard to tell.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


I don't have much doubt that a cheap weapon COULD possibly take out a 5 million dollar tank.....however....That is not what I see here. I see a video of someone shooting a weapon...then I see an edit to a tank blowing up. There is no continuity here to suggest that it was indeed this weapon that blew the tank up. For all I know the tank was blown up in a U.S. Military War Games Exercise and it was meant to have been blown up. Perhaps they simply got on Youtube...found a video of such an Exercise and then edited it together to appear as if it was their weapon that blew it up as propaganda. Or for that matter it could have simply been a video of a tank being blown up by them, but by a more sophisticated weapon.

I'm just pointing out that this COULD be a propaganda video which was edited together....not that Guerrilla Warfare in general is not effective, because I believe it is or at least can be if done right.

i'm going to have to go with the above poster.

there is no way our guys would not have that kind of information to protect those tanks... if it's 5 million dollars worth. that's also 5 million dollars worth of research being done. this isn't some rinky-dink tank.

i've watched some stuff on the history channel on these tanks what i remember is them just being super powerful.

there is no way that this video can be real in terms of that RPG doing that much damage to an abrams tank

i'm going to have to go with the above poster.

there is no way our guys would not have that kind of information to protect those tanks... if it's 5 million dollars worth. that's also 5 million dollars worth of research being done. this isn't some rinky-dink tank.

i've watched some stuff on the history channel on these tanks what i remember is them just being super powerful.

there is no way that this video can be real in terms of that RPG doing that much damage to an abrams tank

Just curious, as im no expert on the M1A2. It does, or does not have ERA located in the area hit by the RPG?

It looked to me like it exploded outward, along with some ERA panels, then it appears that the barrel of the gun is turning towards the general location of the camera after the explosion and right before the clip cuts. It's hard for me to see for sure, maybe the barrel just came "unhinged". Anyway, when I watched it, it looked to me like the ERA forced the RPG explosion back out and the tank was still operating. The steam coming out the side around the explosion area also a result of the ERA panels detonating outward?

EDIT, oh, also

It may not be fully disabled but it is less than fully operational and battle ready. RPG-29 is designed specifically to defeat ERA. Some people (not you) just skip over my comments without reading what I said earlier when someone mentioned ERA

Have a link on that? I thought ERA was designed specifically to knock out multiphase munitions, by pre-emptively detonating during the first, and disabling the second phase. The level of complexity weapons have nowadays are pretty amazing. Wish we could be creative about something besides killing each other. Wonder what NASA would look like if we dedicated all of our energy on a space program.

Let me guess...........made by the russians and given to crazie iraqies and iranians?

Most of that mess is the reactive armor doing its job. I would bet that the tank returned fire in short order. They would have done better by hitting the tracks.

To my knowledge, Not a SINGLE M1 Abrams has fallen in combat, since it's inception.

The Video doesnt provide enough to proof that this tank was "disabled". I find it very unlikely that a Simple RPG took out an Abrams, this would have happened LONG ago if it was possible.

Edit - sorry, don't want to tip my hand...

Since this thread is about an Abrams tank, I'd like to present everyone here the current "king of all tanks", better put the "daddy of all tanks", the name that started it all:



This girl has 360 protection from RPGs.

It's a beauty! I'll be doing a thread on this beauty soon.

It appears that they used a weak point in many tanks inherent to the design of the turret mechanism.

Remember that the M4 Sherman tanks used a similar approach against the German Tiger tank which was considerably more heavily armored.

A strike at the base on the turret was/is a location where there is a gap in the armor was the only way an M4's peashooter of a cannon could inflict any real damage upon the Tiger tanks especially from a frontal perspective.

The fact that the RPG shooter aimed so carefully using the two others as decoys might imply that this is what he was aiming for, possibly a known weak point ?

Found this article that may be of interest:

There were other threats, as well. In one instance not previously disclosed, an American M1 tank was damaged by an RPG-29, an advanced anti-tank weapon.

www.nytimes.com...

I'm calling fake. This doesn't truly appear to be an RPG 29 despite the naming of the title. The RPG 29 is twice the length of what the Hezzbollah in the video is carrying and the firing mechanism is mounted on the tube itself instead of having a trigger. Based off the source of the video, the inconsistencies in the video, and the high likelihood that this is just enemy propaganda to paint a specific story = Most likely a fake.

reply to post by Mikeyy


Quite a few have actually...

en.wikipedia.org...