Is the tank becoming obsolete?

[Bhadra]

Damain

you are just adamant to believe that if such large explosion can rip the tank into pieces, the 40 odd round inside tank will remain unexploded ????

In fact the major damage to the tank is caused by IED by causing detonation of ammunition inside a tank which can throw tank hull as far as 100 m away making a joke of it....

Well I have seen it on ground happening...

your theory may go for a supper...

 

[Damian]

Damain

you are just adament ti believe atht if such large explosion can rip the tank into pieces the 40 odd round inside tank will remain unexploded ????

In fact the major damage to the tank is caused by IED by causing detonation of ammunition inside a tank which can tank hull as far as 100 m away making a joke of it....

Well I have seen it on ground happening...

I do not belive, I know that 40 rounds won't explode just because IED exploded under a tank.

Photos shows reality, in M1 series, even if turret was lift from hull by huge explosion and landed several meters away from tank, not internal ammunition explosion occured.

No internal explosion of stored ammunition inside a tank.

Magach 7C after IED, no ammunition explosion, and ammunition is not safe stored in this tank.

Another M1 after huge IED, no internal ammunition explosion.

You really want to fight with reality?

 

[Bhadra]

I do not belive, I know that 40 rounds won't explode just because IED exploded under a tank.

Photos shows reality, in M1 series, even if turret was lift from hull by huge explosion and landed several meters away from tank, not internal ammunition explosion occured.

Magach 7C after IED, no ammunition explosion, and ammunition is not safe stored in this tank.

Another M1 after huge IED, no internal ammunition explosion.

You really want to fight with reality?

No internal explosion !! so you counted the rounds after the explosion and after such a state of tank ??

You must be kidding me or joking in Polish...

No internal explosion of stored ammunition inside a tank.

 

[Bhadra]

Thank you Damain and Akim..

I could not learn any thing from your falsehood posts today...
Good night or good day...

 

[Damian]

No internal explosion !! so you counted the rounds after the explosion and after such a state of tank ??

No, in case of M1 I can tell You if there was internal explosion or not by look at the turret and hull. In the hull blow off panels are on their place, so not hull ammunition detonation. Turret is also intact.

Blow off panels are still in their places, so there was no ammunition explosion, detonation, deflagration.

No internal explosion of stored ammunition inside a tank.

Yes, this is obvious for anyone who have even slightest idea about tanks design.

Thank you Damain and Akim..

I could not learn any thing from your falsehood posts today...
Good night or good day...

Maybe more respect to Akim kid, he was a soldier, and he knows more about tanks, than You.

As for my posts or anyone else. Yes I'am completely aware that if reality contradicts with your fantasy, then it is reality fault that it's not supporting this fantasy of yours.

 

[EzioAltaïr]

No internal explosion !! so you counted the rounds after the explosion and after such a state of tank ??

You must be kidding me or joking in Polish...

No internal explosion of stored ammunition inside a tank.

You've got to be kidding. You can tell quite easily, since there's much lesser charring and damage than there should be if the ammo blew up.

 

[Bhadra]

yah, in the second photos yoy can see low explosive cartridges intact as it only burns and does not explodes but show me an intact tank main gun round.

you can not... it is your ego which is arguing...

 

[Damian]

yah, in the second photos yoy can see low explosive cartridges intact as it only burns and does not explodes but show me an intact tank main gun round.

you can not... it is your ego which is arguing...

Where did I said that ammunition will be intact if it will have contact with fire?

Besides this what photo You have in mind? Because nowhere on the photos with M1 tanks I can see ammunition laying around.

 

[Bhadra]

You've got to be kidding. You can tell quite easily, since there's much lesser charring and damage than there should be if the ammo blew up.

Explosion does not causing charring burning causes it... explosion causes deformation...

so far damadge is concerned, the bloody hull being thrown so much away will shake your nut...

 

[Damian]

Explosion does not causing charring burning causes it... explosion causes deformation...

so far damadge is concerned, the bloody hull being thrown so much away will shake your nut...

Same or even worse effects can be observed on vehicles lighter than tanks.

In fact what can save crew is weight of a tank. I seen lighter vehicle thrown like toys, and even without armor perforation caused by IED, people inside died, because of broken necks and such wounds, when vehicle landed.

So I would preffer to sit in a tank than anything else on battlefield. Of course I mean modern and properly designed tank.

And You didn't answered, on what photo You see ammunition laying around?

 

[EzioAltaïr]

Explosion does not causing charring burning causes it... explosion causes deformation...

so far damadge is concerned, the bloody hull being thrown so much away will shake your nut...

And are you saying that an internal explosion of 40 HE rounds, would not rip apart the tank, and just make one or 2 holes, and throw away the turret? Despite the fact that most tanks blow up with just 2 of these rounds?

 

[EzioAltaïr]

Explosion does not causing charring burning causes it... explosion causes deformation...

so far damadge is concerned, the bloody hull being thrown so much away will shake your nut...

BTW, you said you want heavy tanks to be replaced with light IFVs, so.... if an IED did this to a TANK, what will a HE round do to an IFV?

 

[Damian]

BTW, you said you want heavy tanks to be replaced with light IFVs, so.... if an IED did this to a TANK, what will a HE round do to an IFV?

You know that replacing tanks with lightly armored IFV's will make work for enemy actually easier?

Lightly armored fighting vehicle can be destroyed even by HE round fired from a tank gun.

What is worser for these lightly armored vehicles, for example modern programmable HE ammunition can even penetrate armor of older tanks.



Photos from tests of AMP (Advanced Multi Purpose) 120mm HE ammunition with programmable fuze. As we can see very effective ammunition, also against such targets like T-55. Such ammunition can easy destroy any lightly armored fighting vehicle, and is far more dangerous for crew inside than shaped charge or kinetic energy weapons because instead of only piercing through armor, it also explodes inside vehicle, killing everyone inside.

Just think what this round can do with a lightly armored IFV or APC with crew inside.

 

[Bhadra]

BTW, you said you want heavy tanks to be replaced with light IFVs, so.... if an IED did this to a TANK, what will a HE round do to an IFV?

For that one RPG is sufficient....

But here we are talking about asymmetrical warfare not conventional battles where enemy would not probably put 100 kg IEDs being uneconomical...
That is why vehicles like Stryker are plus 30 tons...

 

[Bhadra]

And are you saying that an internal explosion of 40 HE rounds, would not rip apart the tank, and just make one or 2 holes, and throw away the turret? Despite the fact that most tanks blow up with just 2 of these rounds?

I am saying the contrary and Damain is saying there is no explosion of internal ammunition..

 

[Damian]

For that one RPG is sufficient....

But here we are talking about asymmetrical warfare not conventional battles where enemy would not probably put 100 kg IEDs being uneconomical...
That is why vehicles like Stryker are plus 30 tons...

Stryker is less thant 20 tons in basic variants, and less than 30 tons in DVH up armored variant. So don't lie.

Not to mention that Stryker is interim vehicle, US Army will replace it in front line service with heavy GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle.

For example this proposed by BAe.

There is also something like this as a concept of GCV.

And these are eventuall alternatives.

Nobody really takes Stryker as something promising to be main infantry transporter. Mainly because it will be unable to be better protected both against IED's as other threats.

 

[Bhadra]

Stryker is less thant 20 tons in basic variants, and less than 30 tons in DVH up armored variant. So don't lie.

Not to mention that Stryker is interim vehicle, US Army will replace it in front line service with heavy GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle.

For example this proposed by BAe.

There is also something like this as a concept of GCV.

And these are eventuall alternatives.

Nobody really takes Stryker as something promising to be main infantry transporter. Mainly because it will be unable to be better protected both against IED's as other threats.

Why do not you produce one rather than throwing your mechanic spanner...

and did not I bid good day or night to you ???

 

[militarysta]

I am saying the contrary and Damain is saying there is no explosion of internal ammunition..

Becouse you ----in idiot there is indeed no explosion of internal ammunition.
Even in Merkava Mk.IV hit its stupid ammo layout there was no explosion of internal ammunition after even 100kg IED. KIA in tank WIA in takn but no explosion of internal ammunition becouse moder ammo is ignit ussaly. You obious make mistake and thing that outaded 125mm ammo for 1970 or outadet 120mm ammo will by explode after hit like on Bolywood/Holywood films. Sory - it's not. And even old crapy T-72B in second chechen war could survive IED or mine.
It's relly hard to blow-out the modern tank whit modern ammo.

In Iraq most of the tank casulties were by IED.....

Most of the wars where tanks are being employed today are asymetric wars like in Afghanistan...

In Afghanistan the biggets threats to tanks is IED...

what happens to a tank when an IED exploded under its belly ???????

You are an ignorant not to know this..
Go and sit at home...... ignorant man..

IED is now the only thing able to destroy tanks in A-stan and Iraq.
RPG-7 was not able to do that, ATGM Milan fired in A-stan not able.

 

[Damian]

Why do not you produce one rather than throwing your mechanic spanner...

and did not I bid good day or night to you ???

? Can someone translate this babble on some human language?

As a side note.

http://www.bctmod.army.mil/news/pdf/2013 Army Equipment Modernization Plan.pdf



Here is US Army Equipment Modernization Plan 2013 and beyond. As we can see nobody there says that there will be no more heavy tracked vehicles. In fact US Army is focusing on tracked vehicles:

1) M1 Abrams deep modernization + possible replacement,
2) GCV IFV program,
3) Light AMPV tracked vehicle to replace M113.

And there is only single wheeled armored fighting vehicle, Stryker.

So US Army is definetly not seeing an end to heavy tracked combat vehicles, but in fact, see them as more important than wheeled vehicles like Stryker.

So what's next Bhadra? You will say that US Army command should listen to You?

 

[Damian]

Oh really, and when did You used any credible source? As anyone can see I use official and credible sources, I do not back my arguments with empty words like You.