$300 dollar round takes out M1A2

reply to post by warbird03


Beginning of video shot (enhanced): Looks sunny to me!


Right before RPG hit (enhanced): Still looks sunny to me!


No where does the sun hide or does the rpg shot take place under overcast conditions.

We cannot say they didn't simply use 2 cameramen.

So what do you really think? That this was a US army test that was faked, camera shake added?

"It looks like the same street" is nowhere near good enough.

So then show me which street it came from. You have to see the video overall and you can tell that it was shot at pretty much the same location.

3. I already told you, the extreme difference in lighting when the tank is visible.

Give me times on the video to compare. I will do the comparison. I have shown you above, that there is still sun when the tank is being blown up.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


You apparently have a hard time understanding things. Look at a time in the video when the tank is shown. Now look at a time in the video when the men are shown. Now do you see the massive difference in lighting?

So what do you really think? That this was a US army test that was faked, camera shake added?

Something similar to that is just as plausible, if not moreso, than what you want us to believe.

So then show me which street it came from. You have to see the video overall and you can tell that it was shot at pretty much the same location.

No, that's now how it works. You claimed that they're on the same street. You have nothing to back up that claim. It's your responsibility to prove your claims, not mine to disprove them.

reply to post by warbird03

You apparently have a hard time understanding things. Look at a time in the video when the tank is shown. Now look at a time in the video when the men are shown. Now do you see the massive difference in lighting?

Give me both Times on the video so I can do a comparison, I have stated that. There is sunshine when the men are standing, and sunshine when the tank is there. There is no difference in lighting; and what precisely is the nature of the difference in the lighting?

Something similar to that is just as plausible, if not moreso, than what you want us to believe.

So what is the reason that it is more possible that this is a US army test video? Can you give a reason or evidence? It is up to you to show that this is a US army video that was stitched.

No, that's now how it works. You claimed that they're on the same street. You have nothing to back up that claim. It's your responsibility to prove your claims, not mine to disprove them.

I said its the same street, because it came from the same video. I am backing up my statement using the video as evidence. The video you just watched did not show the tank moving to a different street.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


The lighting is so incredibly obvious. If you can't see it, the point is completely lost on you.

It doesn't have to be footage from a US military test. You get too hung up on specifics. They could have used ANY footage of a Abrams getting hit by something.

You cannot use the video to prove it's own legitimacy. I can't believe I even have to tell you that. It's circular logic. Simply because there's 2 clips on he same video doesn't mean a thing.

reply to post by warbird03

The lighting is so incredibly obvious. If you can't see it, the point is completely lost on you.

No it is not obvious. What is the precise nature of this lighting difference? I have already said that auto-level can cause it. You tell me what is different.

They could have used ANY footage of a Abrams getting hit by something.

So where did they get this footage from?

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


That's the whole point, we have no way of knowing where the clip actually came from. Could it be from the same event? There's a small chance even though everything about it says otherwise.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that the video could be at least partially faked and that alone is reason enough to doubt it? Why do you want it to be true so badly that you push assumptions as facts and ignore what doesn't fit your assumptions?

reply to post by warbird03


I am not denying that. There is no evidence of it being faked. Has anyone put down any proof of it being faked? All that is possible is that we see two different cameramen taking the video and it is being stitched.

What we see here is the RPG-29 (supposedly) hitting the tank and destroying the boxes on the side. As far as it entering we do not know, but this tank is still going to need more than just a paint job. It is still not fully 100% mission capable.

There is no lighting difference when the man was holding the RPG and when the tank was hit by the RPG.

There's a small chance even though everything about it says otherwise.

Why is there a small chance that this is valid and a bigger chance that it is fake?

There is actually more chance that it is real as opposed to fake. There is no reason or evidence that this is a fake.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


Once again, all we see is 2 separate clips of a man firing an RPG and a different clip of a tank bein hit by something. The same thing could be thrown together by anybody able to take 15 minutes to follow a tutorial online. They avoided showing the target of the man wih the RPG. Would it have been that difficult for the camerman to move a few feet to the left? What makes more sense, doing that or setting up 2 completely different cameramen?

I noticed you ignored the other half of the post.

reply to post by warbird03


But it still doesn't deny the fact that an RPG hit this tank. I didn't ignore anything.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by warbird03

 

But it still doesn't deny the fact that an RPG hit this tank. I didn't ignore anything.

it is not a fact that an RPG hit the tank. It's a fact that an explosive weapon of some kind was used on the tank. It's a POSSIILITY that an RPG hit the tank.

Look, I've wasted more than enough of my time trying to dispel your illusions and help you deny ignorance. It seems you want to ignore logic and reason though. Until you want to start thinking and acting like somebody who actually did graduate with a physics degree, I'm done here. I've had enough of your circular logic, faulty assumptions and inability to think beyond "The clips are in the same video so they must be from he same encounter. Editig? PREPOSTEROUS!"

reply to post by warbird03


It is more likely that a RPG hit it than any other theories you throw out there. I did not say editing was preposterous. I said it is more likely that these are from the same location and two different cameraman. There is no evidence to support otherwise.

Until you want to start thinking and acting like somebody who actually did graduate with a physics degree, I'm done here

I actually did graduate with a physics degree. You really want to go down that road?

Found this article about the Cr2 that was ambushed in Iraq during desert storm, Kinda sums it all up about the strength of these MBTs, one round kill from a RPG29, me thinks not,



"In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by fourteen rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile.[9] The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident."

Ok, so what if one round doesn't take out.

10 rounds would still only be $3000 vs the $1 mil that took to build that piece of crap.

The problem here is that our tax dollars are being wasted by low IQ engineers who have absolutely no incentive to make good weaponry.

No way in hell can ANY rpg take out ANY main battle tank...even the cheap russian tanks!

You need a tow missle or a sabot round to have any chance. We are talking about depleted uranium hulls with explosive reactive armor added to the mix.

Clearly this is russian propaganda for the rebel fighters!

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
No way in hell can ANY rpg take out ANY main battle tank...even the cheap russian tanks!

That is just a rediculous statement. Bazookas and panzerschreks were used to take out hundreds of tanks in WWII; the technology of RPGs and tanks have evolved side by side ever since. The entire point of an RPG is to provide anti-armor capability on the squad-level.

Mind you that the best modern MBTs (T-80/T-90/Leopard 2/M1A2/Merkerva Mk4/Challenger/Type-98/etc) have a lot of armor and counter measures designed to beat most RPGs... BUT do not confuse "designed to beat" with invincible. If you use an RPG properly and hit specific weak spots, like the tracks/external sensors/gun/fuel tanks, then you can disable an MBT.

Though I must admit that in modern combat, it seems that man-portable ATGMs are better suited to taking out MBTs while RPGs are more effective against more lightly armored targets like APCs.

RPG29 has been encountered and scored a few times around '04-'07. Side and rear are weak points on most armored vehicles.
EFP has similar effect on our armored vehicles, depending on the size/distance of it.
You guys are to freaking paranoid about the nwo or something..
Why don't you guys just ask some tankers or something instead of speculating... yeah, M1s can "eat" IEDs all day, EFP and RPG29 is what gets lucky sometimes.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
No way in hell can ANY rpg take out ANY main battle tank...even the cheap russian tanks!

That is just a rediculous statement. Bazookas and panzerschreks were used to take out hundreds of tanks in WWII; the technology of RPGs and tanks have evolved side by side ever since. The entire point of an RPG is to provide anti-armor capability on the squad-level.

AFAIK bazookas do not equal RPGs! Rocket propelled grenade launchers are basically *grenades* not anti-armor missles. Grenades are good for hitting buildings or armored personel carriers with thin armor protection.

Mind you that the best modern MBTs (T-80/T-90/Leopard 2/M1A2/Merkerva Mk4/Challenger/Type-98/etc) have a lot of armor and counter measures designed to beat most RPGs... BUT do not confuse "designed to beat" with invincible. If you use an RPG properly and hit specific weak spots, like the tracks/external sensors/gun/fuel tanks, then you can disable an MBT.

Perhaps a very lucky shot can disable a main battle tank, but in no way will it destroy it in the classic sense.

Though I must admit that in modern combat, it seems that man-portable ATGMs are better suited to taking out MBTs while RPGs are more effective against more lightly armored targets like APCs.

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

What the hell? Air-to-ground missles are fired from airplanes, not from the ground! Your confused.........

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by warbird03

 

The RPG-30 is entering service soon and the ADS(sic) is still in testing phase. The US denied the trophy system that is used in merkava tanks (I do not know for what reason).

APS are not still in testing phases. Almost every APS(APS, not ADS, ADS is something completely different) out there... trophy, arena, quick kill, and even the 30 year old Russian Drodz system....have passed testing phases in flying colors. (Granted, they haven't been "battle" tested, only home-soil tested.)

The US Gov't only denied the contract because they were in favor of a US "quick kill" contract instead of the Israeli trophy. Also, they sent the quick kill system back into developmental phases because there were significant risks, such as the tandem warheads we've discussed here.

Most hit avoidance systems like quick kill and whatnot are scheduled for delivery and onboard status later this year. Keep in mind, these are only prototypes and probably won't be the real-deal top of the line protection for 3-5 more years....

A2D

@EarthCitizen07
RPG series weapons fire Shaped-charge/HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank) grenades/warheads.
600mm+ after ERA for most modern RPGs, I would not call it a basic grenade sir.

Rocket propelled grenade launchers are basically *grenades* not anti-armor missiles

ATGM stands for anti-tank guided missile. Could be surface or air launched.
Also, losing the main gun, sights, etc renders your vehicle useless.

The_Professional -

These trolls like to piss on you in public.
Don't keep feeding them.
Live to post another day, but don't waste your time with them.

How about we change the subject and drop this one?

The_Professional -
Take control , and don't waste anymore time on these Trolls.

What else do you know?

There's enough hate in this World for you to keep throwing them Trolls food.


The_Professional -

Drop this thread, and come up with another.
Peace where you are I hope.