$300 dollar round takes out M1A2

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.

Vehicles are nothing now.

It's all about anti-vehicle.

Anti-tank
Anti-air
Anti-sub
Anti-carrier

that's what the chinese are focusing on

all u have to do to take out a M1A2 is hit it in the rear with a HVAP (kinetic round).

It probably costs more than $300, but check this out for "mission terminated".

I was watching TV and this invention hit me....
www.abovetopsecret.com...

what 5$ X 24 or so.... Splash an Apache for less than $150 or so....
a ring about 500 yards circular and you got yourself one downed bird.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


Clicking that link is grounds for termination at a lot of companies
I heard some arabs singing and guys wrapped in towels... This is FAIL.

Man, that didn't just destroy the tank, it blew all the clouds out of the sky.
Before 14secs, overcast, afterwards there's blue sky.

reply to post by CaptSplatter


the M1A1 is a very very old tank that each year we change it a little bit. this tank has been improved over the years to great extent. your rocket video shows a hit. no status of the tank after it hit. the turret still on the tank for you people who say its not if you look at last frame in video yes the turret is still in place. as far as the big explosion. reactive armor adds to this explosion. i rem when they came out with a gun that would shoot all the way through the armor of the tank and actually made it in side. a bullet did this. at this time they took the tank and made lots of improvements. you guys do not have enough info on this hit to make any calls. or even judgments. TBH this post should have been on yahoo or some crap

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.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


Whoa, dude... He's not wrong. The turret was indeed still on the tank. Saying it was blown off isn't exaggerating, it's outright lying. You also say it's mission incapable after the hit, even though the video provides no evidence of that.

Also, you're reporting him for making a comparison to a 3 year old and then you call him retarded? He didn not call you a 3 year old directly. Even if he did, that would be the pot calling the kettle black.

You certainly aren't living up to your name in this thread.

Took out a side bin so what ????

Regards
Lee

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

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


After:


It clearly went into the main armor:

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


Come On!
Look at the video.You can clearly see the reactive armor in the frames before the hit.
You can also see the explosive energy of the rocket on the armor is directed outward...

reply to post by flyingfish


This round is designed specifically to defeat reactive armor. It is a tandem warhead. How many times I have to explain. Even if their is ERA, it will defeat it.

Plus the location that it was hit probably does not have reactive armor anyway.

You can't see a heck of a lot in the last pic,other than some black scorched looking area on the tank. No way for you or anyone else to be able to make a sound judjement about the status of the tank. I think you'd be best off admitting you have no clue about the damage that may or may not have been inflicted on the Abrams, as your starting to sound a bit like a petulant child.

I have no idea what your background but pretty clearly it's not military(playing video games doesn't count) so I'd suggest listening to the people who have actual real-world experience. Thus far, it seems that most of those types are of the opinion that the tank is not severely damaged. Sure, it could probably use some repairs and a bit of paint but I don't believe it's been disabled.

reply to post by xxclaro


You don't need military experience to know about military equipment. If an engineer designs a tank, he knows what it is capable of and is not in the military. Military experience is not a prerequisite to knowing how systems operate.

It will need more than paint for your information. It is mission incapable and will have to be serviced.

Okay. here we go.

I was in the Marine Corps, spent years at MCAGCC Twentynine Palms CA as a 2146 TANK MECHANIC. I repaired these so I think I'm capable of saying something here.....

The turret is still intact. My company drove a tank into a waddi in Iraq and took the turret off...I know what it looks like. There is no slip ring visible. Nothing about the turret at all says it is affected.

Secondly, what the hell is this tank crew doing? They're not scanning. Where is the other tank? Tanks always go out in pairs. Haven't you seen TopGun? Never leave your wingman. There is nothing even to suggest that there is a crew inside...

Third, the video is not long enough to complete a damage assessment. From what I can see, it looks pretty damn good. The skirt didn't even fall off FFS....Those arms that hold the skirt legs on aren't that heavy duty. We were simply driving over rough terrain in 2007 and some of them broke.

I don't see the track break.
I don't see the skirts affected.
I don't see the slip ring affected.
I don't see the turret affected.

If anything, I would worry about the concussion the driver suffered if he was in there...
or maybe the drainplate fell off...

it will be a pain for the mechanics though, seeing as the NBC system is right there and is probably in shambles(which isn't a surprise at all)
A2D

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


from:
en.wikipedia.org...

"In May 2008, The New York Times disclosed that an American M1 tank had also been heavily damaged by an RPG-29 in Iraq.

The link

www.nytimes.com...

No doubt did serious damage to the crew and tank.Don't worry Iraq's old news has had plenty of lesson learned.

Once again, you have absolutely no way of knowing that. Your insistence on the matter is starting to sound a bit foolish in the absence of any evidence to prove your theory.

Military experience is not neccesarily a requirement but it certainly helps to have first hand experience in the matters you wish to discuss, especially if you try to pass yourself off as an expert.

I get the impression your very young so your lack of experience can be overlooked, but before you make decisive statements about what DID happen or what IS, you should have some evidence at hand.

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

Does not. The bustle rack on the side of the turret, ESSENTIALLY does the same job as ERA, the slope of the turret also helps deflection of the blast.(BTW, prior service marine corps 2146 tank mechanic served in Iraq, based out of MCAGCC with 1st tanks... just so you know)

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?

Again, no ERA there. What I see is crap from the bustle rack flying everywhere...that's it...the crew will have stored a lot of MRE's, personal items, and their general work tools there...

However, I would like to add that I'm not quite certain where this hits at. If it hits at the slipring, that's a pretty damn vulnerable spot for a tank. It could easily make the tank mission incapable, but I don't know if it'd do anything substantial to the crew.

A2D

My proof is in your total lack of an ability to REFUTE my statement about what we see ACTUALLY happening in the video.

It is NOT era popping as there is NOT ERA ON THAT PART OF THE TANK.

Second dual charge anti tank warheads use radar based proximity fuses to detonate at proper standoff ranges for the gas jet to form which is what punches through the armor....

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...

FACTS:

1. fabric and many composites are invisible to radar while still being SOLID.
2. In order for a modern anti tank warhead to work it MUST DETONATE at a proper standoff distance for the EFP copper gas jet to form. The warhead absolutely MUST detonate in free air (generally they need between 18 inches and a meter or two for proper gas jet formation) There is NO debating this it's a FACT janes fas defensetech defense industry daily and etc all agree.

3. SO we have radar transparent SOLID objects that are taking up an area of cubic space about 2 FEET from the hull of the tank. This creates a situation where what you see in the video happens... The gas jet fails to form and BLOWS the contents of the bustle rack all over the place from overpressure and fragmentation because the gas jet COULD NOT FORM

THe OP continues to refuse to acknowledge this comment because he has NO WAY TO REFUTE this. Further this basic lack of knowledge of how anti tank weapons work and why the video is not impressive (even before getting into the camera trickery and the likelihood of it being fake) is why I have lambasted the OP over and again and questioned his educational background that he claims to have. As he states he has a physics degree and is FAMILIAR with how anti armor weapons do their damage!

Obviously this is not the case. (oh and reporting people because they disagree with you and attacking people with insults when they point out how utterly crap your posts are is not what the mods on this site are here for. If you cannot be bothered to do your research and post STUPID stuff then attack people personally because your FEELINGS are hurt just makes you look sad)