Is the tank becoming obsolete?

militarysta

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
2,110
Likes
789
No one is talking of cook off. You are a theoretician at best. Cook of is premature burning of explosive or propellent due to barrel heat.

But have you seen 100 kg of IED exploding under a tank and 40 rounds inside the tank exploding simultaneously ripping off the turret and throwing it off by 100 meters....

How can there be a trace of glorious tank men.....


Most of the time you talk theory only.... cook off ...
Don't be funny. IED and mines are one of lightes things for tnaks on battlefield. Mine under track? Shit happens. IED - well in conventional war there is no time for IED. Sorry -your post is pointless, and you haven't any idea about tanks on battlefield.
 

Bhadra

New Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,756
Country flag
After about 248,158 posts on the subject the conclusion is that Tank has become obsolete ..

and the thread be closed...
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
No one is talking of cook off. You are a theoretician at best. Cook of is premature burning of explosive or propellent due to barrel heat.

But have you seen 100 kg of IED exploding under a tank and 40 rounds inside the tank exploding simultaneously ripping off the turret and throwing it off by 100 meters....

How can there be a trace of glorious tank men.....


Most of the time you talk theory only.... cook off ...
Tanks ammunition "explosion" is proffesionally reffered as ammunition cook-off.

This is because tank ammunition do not explode, but just deflagrate, there are no huge explosions as You think.

But have you seen 100 kg of IED exploding under a tank and 40 rounds inside the tank exploding simultaneously ripping off the turret and throwing it off by 100 meters....
This is the best thing... but I seen such videos where tanks go over 100kg IED's, I seen also aftermacht photos of such incidents, and there were no ammunition explosions like in your fantasy.

Like Militarysta said, You are just a BS generator on this forum. Now like I said, go to Your mom, and be quiet.

After about 248,158 posts on the subject the conclusion is that Tank has become obsolete ..

and the thread be closed...
And where is this conclusion? Listen idiot, GTFO from this forum, I have enough talk with stupid children like You, that when their arguments are false, lies and are without any proof, try to be such authoritarian in how thread ends.

As for now the only proof is that You are just simple smartass moron, poorly educated and without any knwoledge.
 
Last edited:

Bhadra

New Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,756
Country flag
Don't be funny. IED and mines are one of lightes things for tnaks on battlefield. Mine under track? Shit happens. IED - well in conventional war there is no time for IED. Sorry -your post is pointless, and you haven't any idea about tanks on battlefield.
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..
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
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 niggets threats to tanks is IED...

You are an ignorant not to know this..
Go and sit at home...... ignorant man..
In Iraq most MRAP's were destroyed by IED's, most of their crews were killed by IED's, so this makes MRAP obsolete?

Same with other vehicles, so what we should use horses? Yeah maybe a horse will be invurnable to IED!

Oh and definetly we should replace human soldiers... they are also vurnable, they need to be replaced!


But I doubt that You are even capable to comprehend sarcasm... pity that I just can't shoot at You, such parasites like You should be eliminated.
 

Bhadra

New Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,756
Country flag
Ha Ha ..... on an explosion High Explosive burns and not explodes....

That happens only in Poland or Ukraine....
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Ha Ha ..... High Explosive burns and not explodes....

That happens only in Poland or Ukraine....
Both Poland and Ukraine, and especially Ukraine, have very good military scientific institutes that provides proper informations from tests. Also Ukraine is one of the most experienced countries in designing armored fighting vehicles on this planet. So shut up, and maybe You will learn something.


Here is not isolated ammunition cook off inside a tank, where do You see huge explosions?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

average american

New Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
1,540
Likes
441
If I remember right we lost a dozen tanks or less during the Iraq War with no one killed, and about dozen killed and 80 tanks damaged enought send home in the next ten years. We did identify some weak points that are being fixed, there is nothing like a real live war to figure out your problems.
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
If I remember right we lost a dozen tanks or less during the Iraq War with no one killed, and about dozen killed and 80 tanks damaged enought send home in the next ten years. We did identify some weak points that are being fixed, there is nothing like a real live war to figure out your problems.
80 tanks during 2003-2007/2008 period, 20 of them in very bad shape, 60 fully repaired and back in to service.

Some tanks crew lost, some died due to wounds from IED's (broken neck for example), some died due to wounds from small arms (hit when standing in open hatch), no one killed inside vehicle by dedicated anti tank weapon, even if side, top or rear armor was perforated.
 

Bhadra

New Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,756
Country flag
An unconventional explosive detonation by IED by the side or under a tank generates very powerfull detonation and shoch waves which in turn detonates the ammunition inside the tank ripping it apart....

I thought this is a basic environmental awareness the tank experts of Eastern European countries must know..

Just talking about the theory of cook off....where it is not implied...

just cook off.....
 

EzioAltaïr

New Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
257
Likes
74
An unconventional explosive detonation by IED by the side or under a tank generates very powerfull detonation and shoch waves which in turn detonates the ammunition inside the tank ripping it apart....

I thought this is a basic environmental awareness the tank experts of Eastern European countries must know..

Just talking about the theory of cook off....where it is not implied...

just cook off.....
Every weapon has a weakness. The same applies to the light Infantry Combat Vehicles which you suggest should be the standard of armoured divisions.

And are you saying that a guy standing on an IED is safer than the guy in a tank on an IED?
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
An unconventional explosive detonation by IED by the side or under a tank generates very powerfull detonation and shoch waves which in turn detonates the ammunition inside the tank ripping it apart....
This is obviously not truth. You confuse IED with HESH, and HESH needs to literally splash on armor before detonation. This is however ineffective when confronts spaced armor, composite armor, or reactive armor.

Also tanks are prepared to confront IED's by installing additional v shaped belly armor.



Belly armor is visible on this photo, it protects against mines and IED's, it's structure is not known, it might be spaced armor or composite armor type.

I thought this is a basic environmental awareness the tank experts of Eastern European countries must know..
Everything is well known, only You are confusing many things and spreads here Your lack of knowledge.

Just talking about the theory of cook off....where it is not implied...

just cook off.....
I'am not definetly a person who don't know about what he is talking about.
 

Bhadra

New Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,756
Country flag
Then you just do not know the physics of shock waves.....

Inside a tank all shell contain large amount of HE..... Heard of 40 rounds exploding together ??
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Then you just do not know the physics of shock waves.....

Inside a tank all shell contain large amount of HE..... He of 40 rounds exploding together ??

Stop your HESH FESH theory
Oh really?

[video]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fca_1176664204[/video]

Why the ammunition inside a tank not exploded?

And that IED was preatty powerfull. You seems to not understand that shockwaves are ineffective in ammunition ignition. What can ignite ammunition is direct hit by hot penetrator, shaped charge jet, fire, spall etc.

Not some shock waves funny theory.

Listen I completely understand You are butthurt, over ambitious moron with ego bigger than a moon, but just accept the fact You loose any credibility, and You lost discussion.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fadc431531

Here even more powerfull explosion, tanks go in to air and... no ammunition explosion.
 
Last edited:

average american

New Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
1,540
Likes
441
.






M1 Abrams - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Nearly all sources claim that no Abrams tank has ever been destroyed as a result of fire from an enemy tank, but some have certainly taken some damage which required extensive repair. There is at least one account, reported in the following Gulf War's US Official Assessment (scan), of an Abrams being damaged by three kinetic energy piercing rounds. The DoD report indicates that witnesses in the field claimed it was hit by a T-72 Asad Babil. The KE rounds were unable to fully penetrate and stuck in the armor, but because of the external damage it was sent to a maintenance depot. This is the only verified case of an M1A1 put out of action by an Iraqi MBT.[21]

Six other M1A1s were allegedly hit by 125 mm tank fire in the Gulf war official report, but the impacts were largely ineffectual.[22]

M1A1 lost to friendly fire during Operation Desert Storm in 1991.On the night of February 26, 1991, four Abrams were disabled in a suspected friendly fire incident by Hellfire missiles fired from AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, with the result of some crew members wounded in action.[23] The tanks were part of TF 1-37,[24] attacking a large section of Tawakalna Republican Guard Division, their numbers being B-23, C-12, D-24 and C-66. However, C-12 was definitively hit and penetrated by a friendly DU shot[25] and there is some evidence that another Iraqi T-72 may have scored a single hit on B-23, besides the alleged Hellfire strike (see Iraqi T-72 article)."

I know guys that were in TF 1-37 and they all make mention of the friendly DU (Depleated Uranium) shot. After GW I, the Army placed more emphasis on identifying their targets. Especially after they shot 17 Scout Bradleys that were doing recon in front of them.

"Tanks D-24 and C-66 took some casualties as well[26] Only B-23 became a permanent loss. The DoD's damage assessments state that B-23 was the only M1 with signs of a Hellfire missile found nearby.[27]

Also during Operation Desert Storm, three Abrams of the US 24th Infantry Division were left behind the enemy lines after a swift attack on Talil airfield, south of Nasiriyah, on February 27. One of them was hit by enemy fire, the two other embedded in mud. The tanks were destroyed by U.S. forces in order to prevent any trophy-claim by the Iraqi Army."

What they don't tell you is the hard time US Forces had in destroying that tank that was stuck in the mud.

"Further combat was seen during 2003 when US forces invaded Iraq and deposed the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. As of March 2005, approximately 80 Abrams tanks were forced out of action by enemy attacks.[41] Nevertheless, the campaign saw very similar performance from the tank with no Abrams crew member being lost to hostile fire during the invasion of Iraq, although several tank crew members were later killed by snipers and roadside bombs during the occupation that followed. Abandoned Abrams were purposely destroyed by friendly fire to prevent recovery of vehicle or technology. Damages by 25 mm AP-DU, anti-armor RPG fire and 12.7 mm rounds was encountered. But on no occasion did anti-tank guided weapons or anti-tank mines strike the US MBTs.[42]

The most lopsided achievement of the M1A2s was the destruction of seven T-72 Lion of Babylon tanks in a point-blank skirmish (less than 50 yards) near Mahmoudiyah, about 18 miles (29 km) south of Baghdad, with no losses for the American side.[43] However, on October 29, 2003, two soldiers were killed and a third wounded when their tank was disabled by an anti-tank mine, which was combined with other explosives (500 kg, including several 155 mm rounds) to increase its effect. The massive explosion beneath the tank knocked off the turret. This marked the first time deaths resulted from a hostile-fire assault on the M1 tank from enemy forces."

Again, I knew people who were there and they said that the explosion that destroyed that tank was humongus. 500 kilos is 1,100 pounds, not to mention the several 155mm rounds.

"During an early attack on Baghdad, one M1A1 was disabled by a recoilless rifle round that had penetrated the rear engine housing, and punctured a hole in the right rear fuel cell, causing fuel to leak onto the hot turbine engine. After repeated attempts to extinguish the fire, the decision was made to destroy or remove any sensitive equipment. Oil and .50 caliber rounds were scattered in the interior, the ammunition doors were opened and several thermite grenades ignited inside. Another M1 then fired a HEAT round in order to ensure the destruction of the disabled tank. The tank was completely disabled but still intact. Later, an AGM-65 Maverick and two AGM-114 Hellfire missiles were fired into the tank to finish its destruction. Remarkably, the tank still appeared to be intact from the exterior.[44]

On November 27, 2004 an Abrams tank was badly damaged from the detonation of an extremely powerful improvised explosive device. The IED consisted of three M109A6 155 mm shells, with a total explosive weight of 34.5 kg, that detonated next to the tank. The tank's driver received lethal injuries from shrapnel. The other three crew members were able to escape.

On December 25, 2005 another U.S. Army M1A1 was disabled by an explosively formed penetrator IED. The IED penetrated through a road wheel, and hit the fuel tank, which left the tank burning near central Baghdad. One crew member, SPC Sergio Gudino, died in the attack.

On June 4, 2006 two of the four soldiers in an Abrams crew died in Baghdad, when an IED detonated near their M1A2.

Some Abrams were disabled by Iraqi infantrymen in ambushes employing short-range antitank rockets, such as the Russian RPG-7, during the 2003 invasion. Although the RPG-7 is unable to penetrate the front and sides, the rear and top are vulnerable to this weapon. Frequently the rockets were fired at the tank tracks. Another was put out of action in an incident when fuel stowed in an external rack was struck by heavy machine gun rounds. This started a fire that spread to the engine.[2] [3].

There have also been a number of Abrams crewmen killed by sniper fire during times when they were exposed through the turret hatches of their tanks. Some of these attacks were filmed by insurgents for propaganda purposes and spread via the Internet. One of these videos shows a large IED detonating beneath an Abrams and nearly flipping the vehicle, though the tank landed back on its treads and appeared to have suffered no serious damage as it was still mobile and traversing the turret following the attack."

There's no doubt, the Abrams is a bad mo' fo'.

ADDED: No one said they were indestructable. "Forced out of action" could be something as minor as a broken tank tread. They're still one of the best tanks in the world, with the Challenger II and the Merkava coming anywhere close.

Ray is correct about 19Ks worst danger is when they dismount. I know because I helped train loads of them in Urban Ops. Their motto used to be "Death Before Dismount", but that ain't the case no more!

Source(s):

Ex-US Army Cav Scout NCO/Instructor at US Army Armor School
 

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202


Here is a photo showing M1 Abrams left turret bustle magazine after ammunition cook off. As we can see only propelant charges deflagrated, not ammunition explosion. Ammunition visible on photo are M830 HEAT, so they have explosive filler inside.
 

Bhadra

New Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,756
Country flag
Talk of IED blast. You do not know the difference between cook off and blast...
This is what happens to Abrams by IED

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Damian

New Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
4,836
Likes
2,202
Talk of IED blast. You do not know the difference between cook off and blast...
This is what happens to Abrams by IED
But this is a very well known fact what happend to M1 tanks after enourmous IED explosion, there were only 4 or 5 such incidents in Iraq.

But there was not internal ammunition explosion, just pressure of such big IED explosion, thrown turret of the hull.




It is completely normal, that turret was lift of by huge pressure and throw away from hull. But no internal ammunition explosion.
 

EzioAltaïr

New Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
257
Likes
74
Talk of IED blast. You do not know the difference between cook off and blast...
This is what happens to Abrams by IED

I don't get your point. Are you suggesting that we leave tanks altogether, and tell soldiers to walk over IEDs or drive Humvees o'er them? Are you suggesting that this will be safer than a tank?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Articles

Top