$300 dollar round takes out M1A2

A 1 dollar bullet can take the life of a person also, and cripple a Rolls Royce.

If that tank wasn't there they would have been more vulnerable to be killed easier.

reply to post by foxhoundone

One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident."

What type of RPG-s were they? Most likely the older RPG-7's which are pretty much useless these days against a MBT.

We are talking about the newer models which came out in the 80's such as the RPG-29 and recently the RPG-30

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by CaptSplatter

 

Yes it may be reactive armor but the RPG-29 is is designed with a TANDEM warhead. What that means it explodes in two sections. First section destroys the reactive armor then the second warhead takes out the main armor.

If you look closely it hit the turret pretty hard and it is now useless. The only thing that may work on it is the 50 caliber. Other than that I see smoke coming out (fuel fire? etc..), the main turret is useless. This tank is out of commission for this mission.

Not quite true..The smoke you see is more than likely coming from the NBC system which is located in precisely the same spot as the supposed RPG strike.

It takes a hell of a lot more force to incapacitate the turret. I can almost guarantee the main gun will still fire, if the loader is coherent enough after the aftershock to put a damn round in the breech that is.

Again, this MIGHT be a mobility kill, depending on how well the hydraulic system fared during the hit. They will still be able to move, undoubtedly, They will still be able to shoot, undoubtedly. And it's in my professional opinion, that they will still be able to traverse/elevate the main gun. In other words, I believe this tank is still mission capable. It may not be 100%, but hell, anyone who's ever done a health check on the DECU knows these things are NEVER 100% anyways, not even straight from DSGS.

edit to add: In the Gulf War, lots of Abrams were hit with tank rounds in their turrets and still maintained the ability to traverse/elevate and fire main gun rounds. This is how they earned the nickname of "indestructible".

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


you've gone from saying this RPG round pretty much blew away the tank from saying an RPG hit the tank but didn't penetrate. Seems your theories have been completely debunked and you're scrambling to remain relevant in this thread.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL

Originally posted by cosmicts

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by byteshertz

 

The tank is rendered usless. Its turrent is literally blown off. I did not say anything happend to the crew. The tank is now mission incapable and will have to be shipped back to the US for repairs. Also we do not know if the crew survived or not. Would you want to sit in that tank and take a hit like that? Tell us how it goes.

If a tank is being shipped back for repairs, how is it protecting ground infantry = mission fail = tank taken out of the mission.

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

um in the video the turret is still on the tank. your assessment of the damage is like a 3 year old trying to explain how the reproductive system works.

I was exaggerating that fact on purpose cause you are too retarted to understand anything. And you will be reported. You just registered today and will be banned soon. You are not providing any counterargument. You have to provide evidence as to which of my statements are false.

And saying I am 3 years old means a three year old just outsmarted you. So which makes you dumber than a 3 year old.

Ok my re-read my post, comprehend, then go get counseling. The evidence is you as in the quotes said the turret got blown off. In the video the countering evidence is clearly in place. So the counter argument is your ability to assess something as simple as to whether a what 2 ton chunk of metal is on top of a vehicle or not was completely wrong. The day I registered does not make you any less retarded.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by warbird03

 

I know more about weapon systems. Look at the threads I have authored. He has been reported. I was exaggerating about the turret. Fact remains it is still mission incapable and will have to be repaired.

Originally posted by h3akalee
Took out a side bin so what ????

Regards
Lee

I would be more than happy to compare your knowledge of weapon systems to mine. For the last 8 years I have designed, tested, and operated weapon systems for the military. Currently I am a civilian and work at lockheed martin in the same area of expertise. My name is cosmicts because that is my level of security clearance, cosmic top secret. I was the military lead on the 7.1r, N3, and A4 aegis bmd systems. What is your background in weapon systems that makes you so much of an expert to be able to assess the turret is blown off and the tank rendered ooc? By the way you can see your report held no water with the moderators what so ever.

Does it look like it stopped at the side bin?
Before:

After:

It clearly went into the main armor:

edit on 26-3-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: inserted images

Originally posted by cosmicts

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL

Originally posted by cosmicts

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by byteshertz

 

The tank is rendered usless. Its turrent is literally blown off. I did not say anything happend to the crew. The tank is now mission incapable and will have to be shipped back to the US for repairs. Also we do not know if the crew survived or not. Would you want to sit in that tank and take a hit like that? Tell us how it goes.

If a tank is being shipped back for repairs, how is it protecting ground infantry = mission fail = tank taken out of the mission.

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

um in the video the turret is still on the tank. your assessment of the damage is like a 3 year old trying to explain how the reproductive system works.

I was exaggerating that fact on purpose cause you are too retarted to understand anything. And you will be reported. You just registered today and will be banned soon. You are not providing any counterargument. You have to provide evidence as to which of my statements are false.

And saying I am 3 years old means a three year old just outsmarted you. So which makes you dumber than a 3 year old.

Ok my re-read my post, comprehend, then go get counseling. The evidence is you as in the quotes said the turret got blown off. In the video the countering evidence is clearly in place. So the counter argument is your ability to assess something as simple as to whether a what 2 ton chunk of metal is on top of a vehicle or not was completely wrong. The day I registered does not make you any less retarded.

So what of your "expertise" can you bring to the table? What advanced knowledge do you possess that none of us here already know. We know an RPG most likely hit it, and it destroyed the side bin boxes. It may or may not have gone into the armor. If the side bins were full with stuff, they may not have gone into the armor. If not full, it may have gone into the armor. Still doesn't change the fact that this tank isnt fully mission capable. Its NBC system got taken out for sure.

And the only one who is retarded is you as you have not been able to place anything that is new to the table.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


I was quite clearly the first one to point out the turret is still there. Also you claim to have a physics degree, I have real world knowledge in the theory, design, and application process of a multitude of weapon systems. I have been in tanks and shot rpg's. There is absolutely no evidence that the tank was rendered out-of-commission on any level. I see nothing more than a scorch mark. Also as many have pointed out it is highly suspect that the camera does not show the tank and rpg in the same frame. You have made nothing but inaccurate statements then name called and threw tantrums at everyone with a shred of common sense that showed you to be incorrect on your assessment.

Also even if you have a physics degree I would not believe one word you said. You flat out said for your job no one cares about grammar. Any work environment you go into cares about proper grammar due to the fact you represent their company. It only takes one horribly written comments from yourself to bring discredit on any company you work for. Especially when not only is your grammar beyond terrible, but your facts are clearly wrong. You have yet to show me your credentials as well, you can have a quantum physics degree which would give you absolutely no knowledge of how advanced rpg, tank, or defense systems work. In closing this thread is obviously over with and hopefully a moderator will skim through and at least give you a warning on posting such rubbish.

reply to post by cosmicts

There is absolutely no evidence that the tank was rendered out-of-commission on any level

Its NBC, or grenade launchers are likely damaged therefore out of commission.

I see nothing more than a scorch mark

Looks like the bins have been ripped apart. Thats way more than a scorch mark. Sorry but your analysis is flawed.

Also as many have pointed out it is highly suspect that the camera does not show the tank and rpg in the same frame.

It may be suspect, but it does not disprove anything really that is in the video.

You have made nothing but inaccurate statements then name called and threw tantrums at everyone with a shred of common sense that showed you to be incorrect on your assessment.

None of my facts are inaccurate. Please point out which ones

Also even if you have a physics degree I would not believe one word you said. You flat out said for your job no one cares about grammar. Any work environment you go into cares about proper grammar due to the fact you represent their company.

I just don't care about grammar on this board.

It only takes one horribly written comments from yourself to bring discredit on any company you work for. Especially when not only is your grammar beyond terrible, but your facts are clearly wrong.

This is not an English class, and please point out which facts are incorrect. I don't have the time to reread my statements and correct every single grammar mistake OK.

You have yet to show me your credentials as well, you can have a quantum physics degree which would give you absolutely no knowledge of how advanced rpg, tank, or defense systems work

It is not necessary to show any credentials, I will not post private information on a public board. I believe you work for LMCO, but it is not necessary for you to prove it. Some may believe it; others will not. I assure you I do have background in physics.

In closing this thread is obviously over with and hopefully a moderator will skim through and at least give you a warning on posting such rubbish.

Warning for what? Stating the facts? I told people I was exaggerating about the turret. None of the other facts I have pointed out are false.

What can you actually state from your video analysis that discredits the video. Lets get to the heart of the matter. Besides the fact that it seems like two different videos put together. What do you have to place on this table that discredits the video?

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by cosmicts

 

There is absolutely no evidence that the tank was rendered out-of-commission on any level

Its NBC, or grenade launchers are likely damaged therefore out of commission.

No evidence the TANK!!!! is ooc. Your argument is the same as saying if I am holding 2 weapons and you knock one out of my hand I am unarmed.

I see nothing more than a scorch mark

Looks like the bins have been ripped apart. Thats way more than a scorch mark. Sorry but your analysis is flawed.

The bins are nothing more than an inconvenience still just a flesh wound from anything we can see from the video.

Also as many have pointed out it is highly suspect that the camera does not show the tank and rpg in the same frame.

It may be suspect, but it does not disprove anything really that is in the video.

I did not say it disproved anything once in any of my posts! I said it looked suspicious.

You have made nothing but inaccurate statements then name called and threw tantrums at everyone with a shred of common sense that showed you to be incorrect on your assessment.

None of my facts are inaccurate. Please point out which ones

Turret is gone, tank is ooc, the round went through the armor, must I continue?

Also even if you have a physics degree I would not believe one word you said. You flat out said for your job no one cares about grammar. Any work environment you go into cares about proper grammar due to the fact you represent their company.

I just don't care about grammar on this board.

Apparently you do not care about thinking before posting either.

It only takes one horribly written comments from yourself to bring discredit on any company you work for. Especially when not only is your grammar beyond terrible, but your facts are clearly wrong.

This is not an English class, and please point out which facts are incorrect. I don't have the time to reread my statements and correct every single grammar mistake OK.

I have pointed these facts out numerous times so far, as have others. Denial does not remove facts.

You have yet to show me your credentials as well, you can have a quantum physics degree which would give you absolutely no knowledge of how advanced rpg, tank, or defense systems work

It is not necessary to show any credentials, I will not post private information on a public board. I believe you work for LMCO, but it is not necessary for you to prove it. Some may believe it; others will not. I assure you I do have background in physics.

Ok, a background in physics still does not constitute having an inkling of knowledge in regards to modern warfare systems. You still have yet to divulge what specific area of physics you are so well versed in. I'm guessing you're still googling to figure it out.

In closing this thread is obviously over with and hopefully a moderator will skim through and at least give you a warning on posting such rubbish.

Warning for what? Stating the facts? I told people I was exaggerating about the turret. None of the other facts I have pointed out are false.

Stating the turret is blown off or the tank is ooc are not facts. Stating what model the rpg launcher is from that camera phone video is not a fact.

What can you actually state from your video analysis that discredits the video. Lets get to the heart of the matter. Besides the fact that it seems like two different videos put together. What do you have to place on this table that discredits the video?

I never tried to discredit the video or claimed it was not authentic. I stated a very obvious conclusion that the rpg and tank not being in the same frame made it look suspect. Once again you try to twists words and deny you are making yourself look more and more foolish. Just admit you are wrong and move on, at this point its your only saving grace...actually it may be to late for that.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Its NBC, or grenade launchers are likely damaged therefore out of commission.

You seem to be trying to twist the argument again. It would appear as more of your assertions are proved wrong you attempt to modify your original argument about the tank being out of commission which it clearly isn't. Damaging the NBC system or smoke grenade launches hardly makes the tank combat ineffective. Therefore the tank is not out of commission as you've been stating for most of this thread.

Looks like the bins have been ripped apart. Thats way more than a scorch mark. Sorry but your analysis is flawed.

But not anywhere close to the turret being ripped off as you originally said, or the tank being out of commission as you have also said.

It may be suspect, but it does not disprove anything really that is in the video.

It also doesn't prove anything especially as this video is obvious propaganda and the insurgents love to edit things. Simple facts.

None of my facts are inaccurate. Please point out which ones

The tank had its turret "literally blown off". hows that for an inaccurate statement

I just don't care about grammar on this board.

You should. Interestingly you use the same argument as everyone else on forums who can't use correct grammar or spell simple things properly. It should be automatic, I don't even have to use a spell check when I write. Any professional person never writes in different styles. I don't write badly on ATS because it's just a board and write well at work because its work. I try to write well all the time, because I have pride in what I'm writing about.

I don't have the time to reread my statements and correct every single grammar mistake OK.

You shouldn't have made those simple errors in the first place, if it was just one or two then maybe people wouldn't care so much, but you have many errors just on this thread alone.

It is not necessary to show any credentials, I will not post private information on a public board. I believe you work for LMCO, but it is not necessary for you to prove it. Some may believe it; others will not. I assure you I do have background in physics.

If you claim something, then yes it is necessary to show your credentials for credibility. Try turning up to a job interview and claiming you have a physics degree and that the interviewer will just have to take your word for it. You'd be laughed out of his office.

I told people I was exaggerating about the turret. None of the other facts I have pointed out are false.

Maybe so, but that was only after people pointed out your glaring exaggeration. You wouldn't have even addressed it if people hadn't pointed it out. You have also stated that the tank was out of commission, which it clearly isn't.
Are these grounds for a warning....NO. you're entitled to your opinion as is everyone. It just seems that you are trying to cling onto some sense that you are still in some way correct about your assertions. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary.....namely the tank was not out of commission and was still combat capable.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
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.

In the context of "rocket-propelled grenades", RPG is a transliteration of , the Russian РПГ or ручной противотанковый гранатомёт (transliterated as "ruchnoy protivotankovy granatomyot"), which translates to the English phrase "hand-held anti-tank grenade launcher". Thus rocket-propelled grenade is a backronym rather than a translation.[2][3]

The first Soviet "RPGs", RPG-40, RPG-43, and RPG-6, were in fact thrown hand grenades, and the acronym stood for ручная противотанковая граната, or "hand-held anti-tank grenade"—obviously not a launcher. The projectile of RPG launchers is similarly designated PG, (PG-7, etc.), which similarly stands for противотанковая граната, "anti-tank grenade".

en.wikipedia.org...

It's a common misunderstanding that they are intended to be infantry grenade launchers but given their armor penetrating capability ( they work well on walls or provide round-the-corner explosive power) they are highly effective weapons in urban combat and thus as often used in this role as the anti tank role. Given how few tanks exists on third world battlefields of the world is no surprise that rpg's are primarly used in the very general anti material way.

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

The export models tends to be decades behind the times ( old Soviet/Chinese stock being sold) but those versions currently deployed by the primary manufacturers are more than able to do their name justice. Remember that the Russians and others are not exclusively dependent on RPG's and that their infantry also employs ATGM's like everyone else. Rpg's used in the intended way ( infantry holding a line and firing in short range defense on IFV's trying to bypass their fighting positions) are most highly effective and will with even a minimum of training gain mobility kills on MBT's thus giving stand off ATGM's, or other weapon systems, the chance to finish them off. As for destroying a MBT that depends on many factors but suffice to say that no tanker in the world will knowingly and willing drive past a RPG position thus giving it the opportunity to take shots at it's side and rear armor. If the best or second best armored tank in the world ( Merkava) can be halted for fear of casualties by a militia armed with RPG's and ATGM's it speaks volumes for the reality that tanks have not become relatively stronger than anti tank defenses.

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

ATGM= Anti tank guided munition.

Cheers,

Stellar

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree

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

I'm pretty sure APS has been combat tested before. Drozd was tested in Afghanistan (along with a lot of other Soviet weapons like Buratinos). I'm pretty sure Trophy has seen action before, in at least Lebannon against Hezballah, hasn't it?

The two big deals concerning APS, that I've seen, seem to be cost and lethality. Quick kill systems present a danger to friendly soldiers in proximity to the tank, especially since they are automatic systems.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

I'm pretty sure APS has been combat tested before. Drozd was tested in Afghanistan (along with a lot of other Soviet weapons like Buratinos). I'm pretty sure Trophy has seen action before, in at least Lebannon against Hezballah, hasn't it?

The two big deals concerning APS, that I've seen, seem to be cost and lethality. Quick kill systems present a danger to friendly soldiers in proximity to the tank, especially since they are automatic systems.

Sorry, my mistake. I was speaking about the quick kill system only when I mentioned that they haven't been combat tested. I should have made that more clear.

Your second statement is also true, but that's not the reason the US Army decided to back out on the Trophy system.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by byteshertz

 

The tank is rendered usless. Its turrent is literally blown off. I did not say anything happend to the crew. The tank is now mission incapable and will have to be shipped back to the US for repairs. Also we do not know if the crew survived or not. Would you want to sit in that tank and take a hit like that? Tell us how it goes.

If a tank is being shipped back for repairs, how is it protecting ground infantry = mission fail = tank taken out of the mission.

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

It's turret was not blown off. It was still there.
I did not see anything other than the rocket hitting the tank.
THIS is what happens when a tank is successfully hit and taken out of action:
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Facefirst


Especially when said tank is loaded with white phosphorous
They wouldn't normally blow up like that with normal ammo.

Originally posted by warbird03
reply to post by Facefirst

 

Especially when said tank is loaded with white phosphorous

They wouldn't normally blow up like that with normal ammo.

is this enough?
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Facefirst


And that's what happens when you pack it full of explosives

reply to post by mad scientist


Yea but this is not a job interview lol. It is a simple board for discussion. I am not applying for a multibillion dollar project where they require those background checks, credit checks, neighbor interviews, old lover interviews, internet history, and credentials. It is a simple discussion board.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by mad scientist

 

Yea but this is not a job interview lol. It is a simple board for discussion. I am not applying for a multibillion dollar project where they require those background checks, credit checks, neighbor interviews, old lover interviews, internet history, and credentials. It is a simple discussion board.

I never said anything different, but if you want people to listen to you, you'd better be able to give them a reason to believe your claims. As for spelling and grammar, well that's something you should have mastered in high school.