$300 dollar round takes out M1A2

Actually no ... I'm talking about the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS GREEN FREAKING BAGS PLAINLY VISIBLE being blown to pieces as the round hits that are NOT THERE in the before pictures... that is what I'm talking about...

the fact that you FAILED to notice that when you've been posting stills to "prove" your point the whole time scares me really.

Or that in some frames the sky is clear and in others the sky is OVERCAST....

Even charlie sheen would say DUH LOSING!

reply to post by roguetechie


The bags or whatever is blown to bits is inside the metal box which was inside the rack. That is why you cannot see them. The box was blown to bits and whatever was in it was also destroyed. How is that fake?

See box with stuff in it, this was what was blown:



Now how is that fake?

I am talking about the final shot when the round hits. Not the video where they show the guy.

UM>... NO

You can PLAINLY SEE THE BAGS BEFORE THE WARHEAD HITS!!

I appreciate that you are talking fast to avoid admitting your COLOSSAL errors... but give me a break here guy. You are just plain sad at this point.

Edit to add: Yes I know what pictures of an abrams look like and I know what the video shows... how about you go watch the vid again and realize you can PLAINLY see the gear before the round hits but not earlier in the vid... Just like how the sky is clear in some parts of the vid and not in others...

I'm done now... obviously you are not here in search of the TRUTH but to PUSH AN AGENDA.... not that you do a good job at it but that is what you're here to do. I will rest assured knowing that I have made my point and shown ATS at large what you are really about.

Originally posted by roguetechie
UM>... NO

You can PLAINLY SEE THE BAGS BEFORE THE WARHEAD HITS!!

I appreciate that you are talking fast to avoid admitting your COLOSSAL errors... but give me a break here guy. You are just plain sad at this point.

Point out precisely where are the bags that you see, which magically repearred. Post a picture of the bags before the shot circled. All I see is boxes on the side of the turret. Then the RPG hits. Then the boxes are destroyed.

See no bags, just boxes:


Please circle on this image where are the bags you see.

So do you admit that their are already RPGs with APS defeating in production already. Your m1a2 is toast haha

My m1a2?

OH I see you think I like the abrams.... Honestly I think the abrams is sub par on many many levels but armor protection IS NOT ONE OF THEM! What I am not in favor of however is people disseminating information that is false while claiming to be experts.

The fact that you Cannot actually ADDRESS my concerns and will DO ANYTHING to avoid addressing the points I have made is very telling.

The video is a chopped together fake, but the hit that is shown would still not have been fatal or even disabling. I stand behind the various assertions I've made.

As far as the APS counter APS weaponry situation... I will reserve judgement until israel invades somewhere again and we get to see whether the armor guys or the RPG guys are ahead in the race. In my personal opinion EVERYONE is exaggerating or out and out LYING right now about the capabilities of APS and the weapons built to counter them. The fact that you keep trying to CHANGE what the debate is about rather than answer me says it all though.

Originally posted by roguetechie
My m1a2?

OH I see you think I like the abrams.... Honestly I think the abrams is sub par on many many levels but armor protection IS NOT ONE OF THEM! What I am not in favor of however is people disseminating information that is false while claiming to be experts.

Which of my claims is false?

The fact that you Cannot actually ADDRESS my concerns and will DO ANYTHING to avoid addressing the points I have made is very telling

I have discredited your concerns. I have shown you that their are no bags on the tank. Just boxes. The video was probably stitched together by two different camera men, but the tank that got hit was not fake.

As far as the APS counter APS weaponry situation...I will reserve judgement until israel invades somewhere again and we get to see whether the armor guys or the RPG guys are ahead in the race

anti-APS RPG technology is already one generation ahead of APS.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


Alright, the tank getting hit was not fake. What we don't know though is what actually hit the tank. Could it have been an RPG? Sure, it's possible. It's far more likely though that they edited 2 videos together to make it appear that they took down an Abrams with that single RPG. As I've said before twice now (and you've ignored each time), they don't actually show the man with the launcher and the tank in the same shot. The lighting and video quality is different. Also, they'd likely want to get as much footage as possible of a definite tank kill to use for propaganda instead of a few seconds of smoke and then cutting it off if they had really just killed a tank.

Originally posted by warbird03
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

 

Alright, the tank getting hit was not fake. What we don't know though is what actually hit the tank. Could it have been an RPG? Sure, it's possible. It's far more likely though that they edited 2 videos together to make it appear that they took down an Abrams with that single RPG. As I've said before twice now (and you've ignored each time), they don't actually show the man with the launcher and the tank in the same shot. The lighting and video quality is different. Also, they'd likely want to get as much footage as possible of a definite tank kill to use for propaganda instead of a few seconds of smoke and then cutting it off if they had really just killed a tank.

A single RPG did hit. Whether it was the RPG-29 that was being held by the guys hand we do not know for sure.

Even if they don't show the man with the launcher, what do you think hit the tank? A shoe? Also the guy with the camera stands at two different positions and not directly behind the exhaust for obvious reasons. Their may have been two cameramen their, but fact remains that an RPG hit the tank.

Exactly!

Not that it matters, no matter what you say the OP will try to tell you that you're wrong or just ignore what you say and then post a comment saying he has refuted what you posted (like him saying it enough will make it true)

Honestly this whole thread has disappointed me so much with the sub par caliber of 99% of the posts throughout.
The only reason I have been posting is to try and bring some reality into an otherwise amazingly ridiculous thread.

reply to post by roguetechie


You still have not answered my questions. You have refuted nothing. Look at my previous post directed at you.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL



It would seem that many people have pointed out massive errors in your statements. You originally said that the turret was "literally" blown off, it obviously wasn't. It is blatantly obvious to everyone except yourself that 2 different tanks were involved, one with luggage and one without.
You claim the RPG-29 penetrated the turret when it can only penetrate in perfect conditions 750mm of RHA when the Abrams turret is rated at between 1300-1600mm RHA.
As for claiming to have a physics degree you have applied no knowledge of physics to explain how the round could have penetrated Also, as others have pointed out your grammar and spelling are terrible.........college graduate? If you say so.
Also the RPG-30 has not entered production, it has just finished its testing.

Looks like war to me.
Is that what it is?

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL

Originally posted by warbird03
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

 

Alright, the tank getting hit was not fake. What we don't know though is what actually hit the tank. Could it have been an RPG? Sure, it's possible. It's far more likely though that they edited 2 videos together to make it appear that they took down an Abrams with that single RPG. As I've said before twice now (and you've ignored each time), they don't actually show the man with the launcher and the tank in the same shot. The lighting and video quality is different. Also, they'd likely want to get as much footage as possible of a definite tank kill to use for propaganda instead of a few seconds of smoke and then cutting it off if they had really just killed a tank.

A single RPG did hit. Whether it was the RPG-29 that was being held by the guys hand we do not know for sure.

Even if they don't show the man with the launcher, what do you think hit the tank? A shoe? Also the guy with the camera stands at two different positions and not directly behind the exhaust for obvious reasons. Their may have been two cameramen their, but fact remains that an RPG hit the tank.

No, we don't know that an RPG did hit it. It could have been any number of explosives. To me, the clip of the tank being hit looks like the kind of footage the military uses when they conduct weapon tests for things like aircraft weapons, which is what I think that particular clip came from. Do I have proof? No, but neither do you. As I also said before, the video is inconclusive at best.

Originally posted by mad scientist
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

 

It would seem that many people have pointed out massive errors in your statements. You originally said that the turret was "literally" blown off, it obviously wasn't. It is blatantly obvious to everyone except yourself that 2 different tanks were involved, one with luggage and one without.
You claim the RPG-29 penetrated the turret when it can only penetrate in perfect conditions 750mm of RHA when the Abrams turret is rated at between 1300-1600mm RHA.
As for claiming to have a physics degree you have applied no knowledge of physics to explain how the round could have penetrated Also, as others have pointed out your grammar and spelling are terrible.........college graduate? If you say so.

Also the RPG-30 has not entered production, it has just finished its testing.

edit on 27-3-2011 by mad scientist because: (no reason given)

I told you I was exaggerating about the turret

750 mm of RHA after it has destroyed the ERA. Since that section did not have ERA, it may have gone deeper

Yes I am a college graduate with a physics degree, and I have already taken English comp and all required classes. This is not an English class, nor am I being graded, so I do not care about measly grammar.

The RPG-30 was set to enter into Russian forces in late 2008, early 2009 from what I read. Its already way past that so I would say its already in.

reply to post by warbird03


At most what is most likely is the RPG-29 hitting it because that is the origin of the video, it may have been two cameramen and the video stitched together, but it is MORE LIKELY, that it is the rpg hit than a weapons test.

US weapons test would have the camera mounted AND steady, as it would be required for detalied analysis. Plus in a live test the tank would not have crew in it lol, so you claiming it is a US test is clearly a fail.

Originally posted by warbird03

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL

Originally posted by warbird03
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

 

Alright, the tank getting hit was not fake. What we don't know though is what actually hit the tank. Could it have been an RPG? Sure, it's possible. It's far more likely though that they edited 2 videos together to make it appear that they took down an Abrams with that single RPG. As I've said before twice now (and you've ignored each time), they don't actually show the man with the launcher and the tank in the same shot. The lighting and video quality is different. Also, they'd likely want to get as much footage as possible of a definite tank kill to use for propaganda instead of a few seconds of smoke and then cutting it off if they had really just killed a tank.

A single RPG did hit. Whether it was the RPG-29 that was being held by the guys hand we do not know for sure.

Even if they don't show the man with the launcher, what do you think hit the tank? A shoe? Also the guy with the camera stands at two different positions and not directly behind the exhaust for obvious reasons. Their may have been two cameramen their, but fact remains that an RPG hit the tank.

No, we don't know that an RPG did hit it. It could have been any number of explosives. To me, the clip of the tank being hit looks like the kind of footage the military uses when they conduct weapon tests for things like aircraft weapons, which is what I think that particular clip came from. Do I have proof? No, but neither do you. As I also said before, the video is inconclusive at best.

I've been following this discussion, and that is a bad cop-out. It is clearly combat footage taken by rebels, not of a weapons test. I have seen many videos of both.

What do the insurgents have to gain by fabricating videos? A main reason why they videotape their attacks is so they can review the damage in order to improve their tactics; releasing the videos in order to promote the resistance is secondary.

This looks like 2 videos mashed together.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL

I told you I was exaggerating about the turret

You shouldn't exaggerate because it destroys your credibility at the very start and brings into question ulterior motives for posting this thread.

750 mm of RHA after it has destroyed the ERA. Since that section did not have ERA, it may have gone deeper

Most websites quote the primary charge as 650mm, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and stated 750mm and both stats are under ideal conditions. The precursor charge would barely have aided in the penetration of the armour as it is only meant to set off the ERA. Even as you state "it may have gone deeper", 1300-750 = 550mm difference. That is not just a little deeper that's almost twice the rated penetration. Assuming the weaker 1300mm RHA armour is on the side of the turret and not 1600mm.
So I say again it did not penetrate the turret armour.

Yes I am a college graduate with a physics degree, and I have already taken English comp and all required classes. This is not an English class, nor am I being graded, so I do not care about measly grammar.

I'm curious which college and what type of physics degree. As far as your spelling and grammar are concerned, in the professional world where I reside, your obvious mistakes wouldn't get you very far at all. You may say that "This is not English class", well it mightn't be, but your lack of attention to simple things (which is an obvious reflection on how you conduct yourself in the real world) such as grammar makes you come across are less than professional and someone who shouldn't be taken too seriously.

The RPG-30 was set to enter into Russian forces in late 2008, early 2009 from what I read. Its already way past that so I would say its already in.

All sources pretty much say this, "The RPG-30 has cleared its testing program and is waiting to be included in the Russia state arms procurement program as of November 2008."

Which means that it hasn't entered production just that the design is ready for production. No where does it state it has entered production.
These assumptions of yours from the tank being destroyed to the RPG-30 being in production which are clearly not backed up by facts are what make your arguments weak.

I remember my guitar teacher telling me years ago. Don't ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME. In this case it's just you.

reply to post by mad scientist

I'm curious which college and what type of physics degree

Not gonna tell personal private information. Not only that this is not my professional resume that I am applying for a job. Believe me I know how to write, I just don't care about it on this forum, nor should it matter to anyone. Also my profession doesn't care about grammar mistakes unless it is something official/big deal, which it isn't most of the time.

So I say again it did not penetrate the turret armour.

It probably didn't penetrate that side, but if you hit the Abrams from more vulnerable spots and multiple at a time which is usually the case, it will penetrate.

Which means that it hasn't entered production just that the design is ready for production. No where does it state it has entered production.

Even so, it is still about to enter production, testing has been cleared, and its been 3 years since then. This is already one step ahead of active protection systems.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by warbird03

 

At most what is most likely is the RPG-29 hitting it because that is the origin of the video, it may have been two cameramen and the video stitched together, but it is MORE LIKELY, that it is the rpg hit than a weapons test.

US weapons test would have the camera mounted AND steady, as it would be required for detalied analysis. Plus in a live test the tank would not have crew in it lol, so you claiming it is a US test is clearly a fail.

edit on 27-3-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)

Your missing a key point here. They say it's an RPG-29 hitting the tank. The launcher he's holding doesn't look like an RPG-29 to me, it looks too short. Regardless, we have absolutely no way of knowing if the clip of the RPG launching and the clip of the tank being hit are actually connected in any way. With the absence of any connection between them other than being told by somebody on the internet that they are, you are making a faulty assumption. It really doesn't matter where the footage of the tank being hit actually comes from, the point is that it is not from the RPG we see in the video. It's just as simple as looking at the lighting conditions, they're completely different. We really can't say what it is that most likely hit the tank because there's just so many different explosives available. Do you know how easy it is to use a computer to add shaking to a video? It takes all of 5 minutes to do.