$300 dollar round takes out M1A2

Originally posted by Mikeyy
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.

I've said it many times on ATS and I'll say it again;

This is due to US tactics, not their technology. US engaged Iraqi forces mostly at night because the Americans had much better night vision/thermal equipment. Plus the US used its airforce and attack helos to take out the bulk of Iraqi armor.

It's not a matter of Abrams vs T-72 Asad Babil = invincible abrams.

I would like to see an Abrams encounter Kornets, Refleks, Khrizantema, or even air launched Vikhr ATGMs.

Here is info on the Khrizantema alone (which happens to be my favorite ATGM, btw):

" Khrizantema was designed to deal with current and future generations of main battle tanks, such as the M1A2 and Leopard 2 and can also be used to engage slow and low flying aerial targets like helicopters[1]

When guided using the a laser, targets need to be continually illuminated, a sensor in the rear section enables the missile to ride the laser beam to the target, this is a SACLOS guidance system. The guidance system allows two missiles to be fired at two separate targets at once with one missile guided by laser and the other by radar[2]. Each missile carries a tandem HEAT with a reported penetration of 1100–1250 mm RHA behind explosive reactive armour (ERA)[4], alternatively a thermobaric warhead can be carried to engage soft-skinned targets, fortifications and manpower[3].

The manufacturer claims that three 9P157-2 tank destroyers are able to engage 14 attacking tanks and destroy at least sixty percent of the attacking force.[1] The dual guidance system ensures protection against electronic countermeasures and operation in all climatic conditions, day or night. NBC protection is provided for the crew (gunner and driver) of each 9P157-2 in addition to full armour protection equivalent to the standard BMP-3 chassis and entrenching equipment.[wikipedia article]"

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


lol Agree I have been trying to explain this since PAGE 3!!!

For the record I am NOT prior service however I am involved in engineering and am working on some armor design projects of my own. (Mostly because my younger brother is currently in the corps and I want to kit him up with the best armor and gear I can develop after doing my research and coming to the conclusion that so much of the current issue equipment could be ORDERS of MAGNITUDE better)

Because of this though, I have spent several man MONTHS of research in the last few years gathering all the information I can on what the current state of the art is and the basic engineering concepts behind current design engineering. And as I've been trying to say over and over again the whole point of the bustle rack is to provide protection to areas of the tank that the weight budget cannot be found to armor conventionally. And because of the nature of modern anti armour weapons and the way they fuze said weapons putting racks of gear on the outside (or fuel however fuel works as armor in a different way) "fools" the fuze into thinking there is still free air and that the hull is the only solid object in front of it.

This results in the weapon detonating IN the gear and the copper not gasifying which in effect causes the metal that should create the gas jet to serve as a blast deflector causing it to fan out and away from the tank.

Thank you for providing a second voice saying the same thing I am.

reply to post by roguetechie

As I've explained twice previously in the thread... this is WHY THEY PUT THE BUSTLE RACKS AROUND THE SIDES AND REAR OF THE TURRET! and it's also why they keep them full...

I showed in the picture there is nothing on the racks. So it went straight through the tank. Since it doesn't even have ERA their, it makes it much more likely that the damage was more than what we see.

As he states he has a physics degree and is FAMILIAR with how anti armor weapons do their damage!

You should quit complaing about peoples educational background and start worring about the facts on this thread. I asked members if their was ERA on that section. They said no. If you look at the pictures their is nothing on the racks. Therefore the round went straight to the armor. From the looks of it, their was nothing in the rack.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


Obviously you don't understand. You see the bars right...Those obviously don't have any track pads or anything like that hanging from them, which is kind of odd because that's typically how they're set up but whatever....it doesn't matter. The stow box is what is crucial here. That thing will be packed full of crap. It's not just an empty box. Then, past the box, is the sloped region of the turret, which again, helps to deflect the blast.

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


But we aren't sure if there is a stow box or if it is full or not.
I know that rack is for stuff, but I dont see any box, and we dont know if it was full.[



Is there a stow box? Doesn't seem like it

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Agree2Disagree

 

But we aren't sure if there is a stow box or if it is full or not.
I know that rack is for stuff, but I dont see any box, and we dont know if it was full.[

Is there a stow box?

edit on 26-3-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)

Absolutely there is a stow box. Go back to the black and white layout of the tank with the labels. You see the 3 horizontal bars enclosing the stowage box. The turret armor is always sloped. There isn't a single area of the turret that is flat like the outside of that stowage box. If there is a crew in that tank, that box will be filled with all kinds of [snip] ranging from MRE's to wrenches to psp's....

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


Ok I checked the bw diagram i put up. I understand that their is a rack their, and yes I see the box. But does it verify that this box was full with that stuff that you said. It may have been it might not have been. How good is that stuff you said it blocking a dual/tandem RPG

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
A - Its main gun looks out of commision, only the 50 cal may work
B - It might get its occupants to safety if the engine isnt destroyed, or leaking.

Basically it comes down to, the main turret is out of commission, rendering the tank useless for its original mission

BTW, a tank only has to move to still be considered mission capable in most circumstances....the crew has weapons...

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


The ONLY reason this tank WOULDN'T have anything in the stow box, is if the crew were doing an inventory....

NOW, why would they be doing an inventory right there?? That's absolutely right, they wouldn't.

A2D

edit to add: I'm not sure about the efficiency of blocking a dual tandem warhead, but I'm confident in the engineers design. They designed it like that so that the turret wouldn't take the blunt force of the explosion, which I''m almost certain is the case.

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


Maybe, maybe only if there are no other enemy tanks that required the use of the main gun.

There was some noob poster who stated that not a single m1 tank has been lost to enemy forces in the Iraq war..you need to educate him otherwise I will.

Well the shooter didnt aim at the right section. Should he have aimed at the tank tracks?

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Agree2Disagree

 

Maybe, maybe only if there are no other enemy tanks that required the use of the main gun.

There was some noob poster who stated that not a single m1 tank has been lost to enemy forces in the Iraq war..you need to educate him otherwise I will.

Well the shooter didnt aim at the right section. Should he have aimed at the tank tracks?

edit on 26-3-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)

Depends, there are multiple types of tank kills. Total kill, which this obviously isn't. Mobility kill, which I don't think this is either, and maneuvaribilty kill, which is the most likely in this case.

As for other enemy tanks, highly unlikely. I think (from what I remember) there was only one tank battle the entire time we've been in Iraq and that was with the initial push. (and that wasn't much of a battle)

As far as losing tanks, yes, it has happened. The underbelly of the tank is pretty vulnerable. Those things are like 45mph heavily armed turtles.

Not giving any advice, but I'd nip it in the butt. JP-8 makes a wonderful combustant.

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


Yea most everyone knows the best place to usually hit it is in the rear engine compartment, as these were designed to be fighting other tanks head on, that's why the armor there is very little.

Someone did post a link about a rpg-29 ripping into the tank. It was able to penetrate the armor but I think the tank was fine.

The thing is that usually its not just one RPG hitting a tank. It is an RPG team that usually strikes. There is one story of a challenger tank being hit by 60-70 of the cheaper rpg-7's. In my opinion the rpg7 wont be able to penetrate, but a good hit from a rpg-29 will penetrate the abrams.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


I'm not even sure if I'm at liberty to be discussing this in all seriousness.

But, I am relatively certain even the rpg29 will not penetrate the abrams.
Even if it CAN, it's only a short amount of time until the US deploys a quick kill system much like Russia's ARENA...and then...well, rpg's will be pretty much useless.

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


I have read reports that the rpg-29 can penetrate the less defended areas. There are actually new systems designed to defeat the active protection of the tank like trophy. These rpgs already exist in that it uses a dual rpg. Basically the RPG shoots two rounds at the same time; the lead round is the decoy round, and it is taken out, leaving the main round to take out the tank. I don't know the name of the rpg, but I know that it is in existence and even the active systems wont make a difference because the RPG sector is already ahead of them.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


They'd probably have to shoot three, seeing as how there are always ATLEAST two tanks around....

Both tanks with interceptors would be able to defeat both ATGM's....even if launched simultaneously....

A2D

oh I do so love how the OP is very underhandedly showing a still from a portion of the video where the ROCKET has not YET HIT...

Now if you look at the actual frames where the tank is hit the bustle racks are FULL with green bags and etc.

The fact that in one part of the video the racks are empty and then when the rocket hits the racks are FULL should clue you into the authenticity of the vid! I have mentioned this in other posts BTW and the OP refuses to do anything but cherry pick individual things out of my post which he can then thoroughly misuse to somehow, IN HIS MIND, "prove" his point.

And your education is pretty obviously sub par as:

1: You actually believe the video is real
2: You think the tank was DESTROYED (that was your original assertion)
3. You don't know how Anti tank weapons actually work
4: You absolutely refuse to answer each point in ANY of my posts one by one and provide your rationale for why they are wrong. (because you can't)

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


Yea possibly. But buying a set of 50 rpgs to take out one tank is a lot cheaper for the opposing forces. I think this is still a overwhelm the system type of guerilla warfare. These RPGs are really really cheap and even one right hit will be problematic.

They will also probably aim at the Active defense system trying to knock it out.

reply to post by roguetechie

And your education is pretty obviously sub par as: 1: You actually believe the video is real 2: You think the tank was DESTROYED (that was your original assertion) 3. You don't know how Anti tank weapons actually work 4: You absolutely refuse to answer each point in ANY of my posts one by one and provide your rationale for why they are wrong. (because you can't)

Two pages back I show a before and after shot picture.

What is your education level? I have a professional degree. What do you have? Once again this has nothing to do with background or education level, so leave persona attacks out of it.

Yes I do know how AT weapons work.

I have been answering all posts, which of your questions do you need answered, ask me right now.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


Please allow me to clarify something here. Where the RPG hit the tank is exploding armor. It is designed to blow an impact away from the tank and that is exactly what is did. There may have been some minor track damage and no one inside was likely hurt. I bet if the video were to continue you would see the turret turn and give those guys some taste of real pain. I use to drive one.
Seeashrink

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


The only problem with that is...guerrila warfare requires the use of SURPRISE tactics.

If they have an rpg strike team assembled but have to carry that many rpgs...they're going to get noticed.

A2D