Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[militarysta]

But the most funny story is about T-72 losses during ODS

After ODS war Air Forces and Land Forces briefts claimd that they had destroyed over 800 T-72 when: 400x destoryed A-10, over 200 destoryed Ah-64A, and circa 200 destroyed land forces.

But during 2003 War Iraq Army had 700-800 T-72 tanks! Mirracle? Not exatlcy:
It was changed after Iraq Freedom in 2003 when Iraq military archives where captured and was able to
number all losses.
Iraq import from Soviet Union circa 1038 T-72 tanks, but lost circa 50-60 in Irak-Iran war, before 1991 war Iraq had still circa 950 T-72 tanks. The difrence between 1991 and 2003 is 150-250 tanks.
And those 150-250 tanks is not simple number of the losses in 1991 war becouse T-72M1 had
the problem of availability of spare parts after 1991, and some number of the tanks was withdrawn and used for the honor, and lost in accidents.
More or less - loses in 1991 war was equal to 50-100 T-72 when most of them destoryed land forces.

 

[militarysta]

Back to the Abrams tank.

In case 2003 war and US army present in iraq we had few M1A1 and M1A2 pgotos after huge IED -when turret bustle was destroyed. Hopefully on those photos are visible special armour layout, or armour layers placment and it's thickenss. It give us a lot about those tank protection.

Famous Taji yunkyard M1A2 whit completly destoryed bustle:

And zoomed palce when spacial armour block is mounted inside armour cavity. All is visible on photo:

But the most importnat is this:

what is zoomed part of this photo:

I marked a layers of the armour.

 

[militarysta]

All is visible again, and the only problem was to put this pieces together in one model:

How this work?

Somthing (jet or penetrator) firstly meet 3 deformable plates (those external) - those plates will bend as a whole and and bounce back because of their attachment on the springs. Next "somthing" will meet deformable "shutter" layers (those middle layer) - not only bulging itself but also moving (actually "closing") casue hiting by external moving layer (those 3 deformable plates on the springs) finnaly those "somthing" must go trought simple "sandwich" - 3 havy layers close to the crew/ammo comparment. And penetrate backlate of course. As life shows - it's possible for angle close to asymetric warfare but in typical war scenario (10-30. degree from turret longitudal axis) somthing (penetrator/jet) must overcome "real sawmill" whit LOS close to 1000mm.

IMHO in worst scneario we had:
3 extrenal deformable plates (eacht whit 3 layers) (circa 80mm LOS)
at least 3 "shutter" layers (those middle) (circa 255mm LOS)
3 heavy layers (those close to backplate) (circa 165mm LOS)
thick crew comparment backplate or thin ammo bustle backplate. (10 or 5mm LOS)
for 30. degree from longitudal axis we had: 180mm + 510mm + 330mm + 10/20mm while more then half is active and moving in complelty creazy directions -not only bulging but also moving itself as whole "module".

 

[The Last Stand]

During Afgan war, Soviet Army had the same poor trening as in 1994. That was conscript army, whit soliders after less then 5 month trening. Whit ussaly not very good quality. Of course there was really god trening units: spetznaz, air assult, etc, but most of Army toops are poor treined. So you thesis is wrong - trening and skills where alomust the same in Afgan and firs Chechen war. In both wars scenario was simillar - troops "skils" where better which eacht year of the war. But they started from very low level.


Look at what happened to Egiptian and Syrian armour in Yom Kippur by Israeli 105mm tank guns
ps. what is bigger number 400 or ~2000 hmm?



False statment.


No, Syrian army havn't single T-80 in any variant.


They are 3 known cases when somthing penetrate side M1 Abrams turret armour: 1x AT-4HP 1x RPG-29, 1x unkown, after added TUSK whit XM32 tiles on turret sides we have no single mentioned about penetrated side armour.




Lol, you really havn't bigger idea about what you are writting?
On famous "Highway of Death" from over 1400 destroyed vechicles they are only 14 destroyed Tanks and 14 other armoured vechicles.

Airs Strikes against armoured force generally had faild before 2003. There was not good enought technology. For example:

During Kosovo War NATO air strikes where able to destroy only few serbian tanks.

Firtsly NATO propaganda claims (gen Henry Shelton) that Serbian forces in Kosovo lost in air strikes 120 tanks, 220 IFV, 450 artilery guns and motars.
But then went to Kosovo NATO MEAT (Munitions Effectiveness Assessment Team) comission.
MEAT team had worked in whole Kosovo and studied all wracks and air strikes places and consist that Serbian Army in Kosovo lost in air strikes:
14 tanks,
18 IFV,
20 artilery guns.
ALL: 58 destroyed targets.

In 1991 in Iraq was the same story - Air Strikes had low efectivness:

between 17.01-23.02 1991 when air strikes where started (withut land battle) we had diffrent sources for Iraq losses:

USCENTCOM from februar 1991:
1772 tanks destroyed
948 IFV and armoured vechicles

USCENTCOM from march 1991:
1388 tanks destroyed
929 IFV and armoured vechicles

DIA raport:
579 tanks destroyed
400 IFV and armoured vechicles

CIA raport:
449 tanks destroyed
277 IFV and armoured vechicles

As you can see the ussaly most accurate inteligence raport give 3-4 times smaller values then previous sources.
But it's not enought. After land battle there where sent few research groups to assume how many tergets had been destroyed by air, land and other forces.
One of those gropus had acess to 163 destroyed Iraq tanks from Tawalkana Tank.Div, 12 Tank Div, and 3 Tank Div.
All of those division had fight in Kuwait and Iraq. From 163 tanks there where:
-78 tanks without any damage (abandoned)
-28 tanks where destoryed by Air Strikes
- 57 tanks where destroyed by Land Forces.

Based on this tested they assume that in Air Strikes can destoryed circa 160 tanks durign ODS.

Next funny thing was about "Hellfire myth" - firstly USCENTCOM claimed that Ah-64A fired about 5000 Hellfire and destroyed over 600 Iraq tanks. After the war they changed they opinion to: " destoryed 550-600 vechicles - and 10-20% armoured vechicles from that number"
So writing this clearly: not "600 tanks" but 600 vechicles and only 55-120 IFV, SPHs. APC and tanks. Tanks number is not given and "hide" between IFV, SPHs, and APCS in those "55-120) destoryed by Hellfire "hard targets".
Nice - isn't it?

Thanks for answering. I won't be active for a couple of days, this is probably my last post in this week.

 

[Damian]

but what about Soviet Afghanistan war? See how many Soviet Tanks, IFV were destroyed by Mujahideen RPG 7 and mines. This time they were not operated by morons. You understand?

It is funny how a person with such small knowledge about history and armed forces makes such claims.

And did You know that Soviets in Afghanistan never used any kind of modern tank?

Tanks that were used there by Afghan Army and Soviet Army were obsolete T-34/85, T-54, T-55 and T-62 tanks, all of them using simple rolled and cast steel homogeneus armor vurnable to even obsolete RPG's.

Of course some T-55's and T-62's were upgraded with BDD armor which provided additional protection against such threats for turret and hull front, but such vehicles were minority.

There were also a very small number of tanks equipped with "Drozd-1" active protection systems, but no detailed informations about their performance is avaiable.

Maybe educate yourself before making any claims.

Look at what happened to Israeli armour in Yom Kippur by Egyptian infantry armed with AT 3 Sagger.

And which Israeli tank used back then had any kind of modern protection in form of composite armor or explosive reactive armor? Answer is simple, none. All Israeli tanks used back then, had obsolete protection in form of homogeneus rolled or cast steel armor.

Again, educate yourself before making conclusions.

Of course Tanks are hard to destroy completely, but they can be easily disabled. And disabled Tanks can be captured by enemy infantry easily.

Tanks can stay far longer in battle field true and in a short time Helicopter can give a massive punch what tank cant even though staying longer. A Helicopter or an attack aircraft firing auto cannons, missiles and dropping bombs can cause more panic among infantry.

There are many examples that air attack blunted entire armour assault, see at what happened on Longewalla, Highway of Death, but did any one ever see tanks repelling an air attack

And this is a complete nonsense.

 

[Waffen SS]

@Damian and @militarysta yes in Afghan war Soviets used T 54, T 55 and T 62s, but in 1980's they were not obsolete as they are now. RPG 29 today is a deadly anti-tank weapon as RPG 7 was back in 1980's.

Of course today's tanks armour is more developed compared to 1980's but today's infantry anti tank weapons are also developed compared to 1980's.

In Yom Kippur war Israel used M 60 Patton tanks and others, it was a great tank in 1973 probably best.

Today's tanks are vulnerable to today's anti tank weapons, all of this you are making is based on modern tanks performance against 1980's era anti-tank guns.

In 1980 you had T 62, I had RPG 7, now you have M1 Abram I have RPG 29. It is like this.

You guys understand either in Kosovo war or in Gulf war not all air power was dedicated to bomb tanks only. Air force had various task such as bombing of power plants, command post they were not completely only to attack tanks.

Indian Tank captured by Pakistan.

Pakistani Patton tank captured.

Pakistani tanks captured after being damaged. These are all to support my claims.

And for the complete nonsense during Battle of Asal Uttar, some Pakistani M 47 and M 48s were struck in mud or were disabled forcing tank crews to abandon them. Did any one ever see helicopter abandoned?

During 6 day war Israel captured some 100 Egyptian tanks and used them in Yom Kippur war.

For nonsense I gave example where armour assault was blunted by air force, now show me example where Tanks repelled air attack.

 

[militarysta]

@Damian and @militarysta yes in Afghan war Soviets used T 54, T 55 and T 62s, but in 1980's they were not obsolete as they are now

In Soviet Union those tank was obsolete since entire T-72A and T-64B whit multialyerd armour, and completly obsolate couse lack of the ERA protection in compare to the T-64BW and T-72B(W) and T-80BW etc.
In compare to wstern tank those where obsolate in compare to III gen western tank (Leo-2, M1, CR-1)

RPG 29 today is a deadly anti-tank weapon as RPG 7 was back in 1980's.

Bot of them are hoples against tank armour for +/- 30 from hull and turret longitidal axis - it was then and now.
What more - RPG-29 cant preforate modern asymetric warfare armour improwevd as ARAT-2, Street Fighter, ora CAN+ or 2A7. As other hand held AT weapons.

Of course today's tanks armour is more developed compared to 1980's but today's infantry anti tank weapons are also developed compared to 1980's.

Since mass uning Bulinghton style armour hand held AT weapons based on HEAT warhed is in most cases not enought against armour on tanks. Sorry but Burlinghton style armour was far better then most At weapon.

Today's tanks are vulnerable to today's anti tank weapons,

No, they are not. They are dozens of examples when tank was higt immune against AT weapons.

Did any one ever see helicopter abandoned?

No, they just go down and crash. Like between 22 and 23 march 2003 during Karbala battle when whole Ah-64 regiment was stoped, pined, and moved away losing 2 Ah-64 and have damage over 16 helos. By simple AA based on ZUR-23 and KWPT-14,5mm

During 6 day war Israel captured some 100 Egyptian tanks and used them in Yom Kippur war.

But Yo have no idea in what circumstanses those tanks where captured. Those tanks was lost by Egiptian during panic windrawn.

now show me example where Tanks repelled air attack.

from nonsense to nonsense: 22/23 march 2003 when Madina mech.infanty regiment in Karbala city hold whole AH-64 regiment attack, and shoot down 2 Ah-64 and damage over 16 other helos.

 

[Waffen SS]

@militarysta I know, but remember Mujahideens only used RPG 7, not RPG 22 or RPG 18 which were more powerful.

Can RPG 22 destroy T 72 and T 80?

Dozens of example where tank survived from modern anti-tank guns? Show me one. M1 Abrams or Challenger 2 hit by RPG 29 in Iraq and Afghanistan still returned? Note they were hit only for 1 times, even in 1980's Mujahideens used at least 3 RPG 7 man to attack a tank. In first Russia-Chechnya war T 80's were hit by 7 or 8 RPG 7s. Show me an example where a M1 Abram or a Challenger 2 survived multiple RPG 29 hits?

In 1967 Egyptians fled because of panic true but what caused it? Total Israeli air superiority. Operation Moked. So if tanks are better then they could have used Tanks for opening strike in 6 day war, why they did not?

Why Egyptians tried to advance under cover of SAM umbrella in Yom Kippur war?

For 2003 Karbala city Apaches were actually intended to attack T 72 tanks, where actually they were not, 1 Apache immediately crashed after take of because it's pilot was disoriented. Most damage to Apaches were done by small arms fire from Iraqi soldiers hiding in houses in civilian area. In fear of Collateral damage Apaches were hesitant to return fire. And also note those Apaches that were damaged managed to return base, if they were tanks, probably those would be disabled and then captured by Iraqi infantry, like the photos I posted.

Tanks are outdated today, Tanks was an excellent weapon in WW1 to break dead lock of Trench, but as soon as hand held anti tank guns appeared tanks became very much vulnerable.

 

[Damian]

yes in Afghan war Soviets used T 54, T 55 and T 62s, but in 1980's they were not obsolete as they are now. RPG 29 today is a deadly anti-tank weapon as RPG 7 was back in 1980's.

T-54/55 and T-62's were obsolete in 1980's.

How I hate layman like you that have absolutely no knowledge about subject they try to discuss.

Of course today's tanks armour is more developed compared to 1980's but today's infantry anti tank weapons are also developed compared to 1980's.

Seriously, I don't know even how to comment such stupidity...

In Yom Kippur war Israel used M 60 Patton tanks and others, it was a great tank in 1973 probably best.

No, M60 was not the best tank in 1973. There was a better design and more modern, like T-64 or T-72.

You only show incompetence and ignorance here.

Today's tanks are vulnerable to today's anti tank weapons, all of this you are making is based on modern tanks performance against 1980's era anti-tank guns.

Oh really? And how do you know that? Especially that you show nothing more than increasing lack of knowledge and all your posts are just filled with idiotic claims typical for layman.

In 1980 you had T 62, I had RPG 7, now you have M1 Abram I have RPG 29. It is like this.

No, it is not like this, and you have even problems with understanding basic reality.

You guys understand either in Kosovo war or in Gulf war not all air power was dedicated to bomb tanks only. Air force had various task such as bombing of power plants, command post they were not completely only to attack tanks.

And even if they would be ordered to attack only tanks, their efficency would be low.

But this is typical stereotype that air forces and all these arogant "fly boys" are so superb in fighting against ground forces.

And for the complete nonsense during Battle of Asal Uttar, some Pakistani M 47 and M 48s were struck in mud or were disabled forcing tank crews to abandon them. Did any one ever see helicopter abandoned?

How old are you? 5? Because level of your intelectual capabilities seems to be very low by making such comparrisions.

And guess what, Yeah, I seen in Iraq abandoned AH-64 after it was hit by small arms fire.

But there is more, you know why helicopters are rarely abandoned genius? Because when they fly, and are shot down, mostly not much is left after they hit ground.

Which means that it is far easier to completely lost a god damn expensive flying rotor than a ground armored fighting vehicle.

Which means that AFV's are cheaper, more survivable, easier to maintain and repair, have capabilities to attack, defend and hold ground, which is important because we humans live on ground, and everything important for us is here on the ground.

I know, but remember Mujahideens only used RPG 7, not RPG 22 or RPG 18 which were more powerful.

Mujahedins used variety of RPG's, from RPG-7 to RPG-18 and RPG-22 and other types. And no, RPG-18 is not more powerfull than RPG-7.

Christ, you lack basic knowledge in any kind of discipline it seems, be it knowledge about tank, helicopters or hand held anti armor weapons.

Dozens of example where tank survived from modern anti-tank guns?

And there are any modern anti-tank guns? Hey, hello in XXI century, there are no modern anti-tank guns.

Show me one. M1 Abrams or Challenger 2 hit by RPG 29 in Iraq and Afghanistan still returned?

Oh, there were at least 2 M1A1/M1A2 tanks hit by RPG-29 and RPG-29 did not affected them. And there is more, even several other side hits to the hull and turret had minor effect on vehicle and only damaged it, and there was only one KIA tank crew member after RPG-29 hit, men was unlucky and was on direct path of shaped charge jet.

Note they were hit only for 1 times, even in 1980's Mujahideens used at least 3 RPG 7 man to attack a tank.

Wow, it shows rather weak efficency of RPG-7 even against old tanks which not have armor capable to stop it's warheads.

In first Russia-Chechnya war T 80's were hit by 7 or 8 RPG 7s.

Which again shows rather weak efficency of RPG-7.

Show me an example where a M1 Abram or a Challenger 2 survived multiple RPG 29 hits?

Why should I show you anything? You are making ridicuolous claims, and you should find a proof where any of these tanks did not survived multiple hits.

I say more, because you have problems with logical thinking, you don't know that RPG-29's are rather rare type of equipment, and not very handy either, RPG-29 is bulky and heavy.

Why Egyptians tried to advance under cover of SAM umbrella in Yom Kippur war?

And you think that SAM's protect only tanks? There are objects more vurnable to air attacks than AFV's, for example trucks, or infantry.

For 2003 Karbala city Apaches were actually intended to attack T 72 tanks, where actually they were not, 1 Apache immediately crashed after take of because it's pilot was disoriented. Most damage to Apaches were done by small arms fire from Iraqi soldiers hiding in houses in civilian area. In fear of Collateral damage Apaches were hesitant to return fire. And also note those Apaches that were damaged managed to return base, if they were tanks, probably those would be disabled and then captured by Iraqi infantry, like the photos I posted.

And AH-64's were unable to complete their tasks, why, because of small arms fire. Tanks and other AFV's don't have such problems, in fact the most effective type of forces used in Iraq, were armor-mechanized formations equipped with tanks and other AFV's.

Tanks are outdated today, Tanks was an excellent weapon in WW1 to break dead lock of Trench, but as soon as hand held anti tank guns appeared tanks became very much vulnerable.

Typical for civilians that are not even close enough to military.

Guess what military thinks? They do not agree with you and people similiar to you.

In fact for example US Army and USMC commanders, preffer to have heavy armor than drones. In fact they see that drones are usefull only in logistical support roles, and they don't want to hear about replacing tanks with any kind of ground or aerial armed drones.

Same in Israel, where IDF decided that they will manufacture more Merkava Mk4M tanks.

And there is more. Because you see, real world militaries that have real life experiences on battlefield, have a very different view than armachair generals like you.

And they see tank as very vlauable asset on today and future battlefield.

Now deal with it, as this is reality, not your wet fantasy about "super air power" that does not exist in real world.

 

[militarysta]

@militarysta I know, but remember Mujahideens only used RPG 7, not RPG 22 or RPG 18 which were more powerful.

No, RPG-22 and RPG-18 are not more powerfull then RPG-7. All is depand on type of granade and SC warhed.

Dozens of example where tank survived from modern anti-tank guns? Show me one. M1 Abrams or Challenger 2 hit by RPG 29 in Iraq and Afghanistan still returned?
examples:

LiveLeak.com - RPG-29 "Vampyr" vs M1 Abrams. (comments)
look data: 2008/4/7 - those day no single US tankers where killed in M1, and no M1 tank where destroyed or heavy damage.
More or less - those hit RPG-29 granade in frontal armour was completly stupid westing RPG granade.

LiveLeak.com - Unrealised strange attack for Kta'ib Hezbollah Hitting Abrams tank with RPG-29 in Umm Al-Kebr area in Bagdad 13.05.2008
again data: 2008/5/13
And you can check on pages whit US fallen solder if some tank crews was killed those day. Answer is no.
RPG-29 hit in lower front hull - tank was not destroyed, and crew not damage. In fact no perforation

Show me an example where a M1 Abram or a Challenger 2 survived multiple RPG 29 hits?

RPG-29 was ratehr rare. I can show axmaples when M1 had 7-12 hist form RPG-7 whit no effect, or Challenger have 2-3 Milan ATGM hit and dozen RPG hits and still -no effect.

, but as soon as hand held anti tank guns appeared tanks became very much vulnerable.

Agian -false stasment

 

[Sovngard]

I have a couple of questions about the Abrams armor package through its evolution

- With the exception of the adding of depleted uranium, does the M1A2 still use the British-made Burlington armor americanized by the Ballistic Research Laboratory (Starflower program) ?
- Is it true that the turret sides of the M1A2 SEP would have depleted uranium ?
- M1A1 and M1A2 lower front hulls will be able to withstand from a RPG-29 ? Because apparently only the sides of the M1 Abrams had been put to the test against RGP-29 in Iraq.

 

[Waffen SS]

@Damian exactly what are you talking about do you know? It looks like you have blind confidence on Tanks.

T 62 was of course one of best tank in 1980's how ever it was not obsolete just like RPG 7 was not best anti-tank gun in 1980's, RPG 22 was rarely used by Mujahideens, bulk of their anti-team was made by RPG 7.

For 1980's in 1987 Indian army T 72 was hit by RPG 7 in Sri Lanka and was disabled.

In Vietnam war, 1960's one of best tank M 48 Pattons, Sheridans were frequently hit by RPGs and were destroyed. Now say M 48 was not best 1960's tank.

T 54 and M 48 are quite similar and same generation.

You need to know by what RPG 7 Viet Cong destroyed US and South Vietnamese tanks, using that exact RPG 7 Mujahideens destroyed Soviet tanks in 1980's.

Same RPG 7 against same generation tanks, similar result. RPG 7 faced M 48 in Vietnam and in Afghanistan they faced T 62.

And for 1980 different tank, different anti tank compared to nows, it is reality. If it is not similar do you advise us to use WW2 era rifles?

Tanks developed so did anti-tank guns. In WW2 it was Bazooka, later it became RPG now Javelin.

For Kosovo, note I am not saying air power can do every thing, we are talking about Tank's importance not infantry.

For tank captured, listen captured tanks from enemy can be used again. Meaning after being damaged if you leave tank enemy can recover it and use it again. There are many examples where capture tanks from enemy were used again, as Helicopters go down enemy cant recover them, that's what I meant.

None of modern tanks can survive multiple RPG 29 or 32 hits.

Only fools expect a tank to explode after a single RPG hit so your statement to prove RPG 7 weak is not valid.

For Karbala war, did Iraq have sufficient modern anti-tank guns? Iraqis used RPG 7 as main, if they used RPG 29 and still US Mechanized infantry was best then you could say that. Mujahideens had sufficient modern anti tank compared to 1980's, see result.

Comparing light Drones with tanks?? If they compared Tank with A 10 or Apache then that I would consider.

 

[Waffen SS]

Here I am not talking about RPG 7 @militarysta.

Why do you compare M1 Abram with old RPG 7? Of course M1 Abrams can survive multiple RPF 7 hits, RPG 7 cant penetrate Chobham armour. Compare it with RPG 29 or 32.

Dont expect if you hit a tank with RPG then tank will be blown to pieces as you hit with 18" Naval guns. RPGs can disable tank, which type of MILAN they were? Were they of ER variant?

Tanks have weak spot, to get best result you need to hit that point and it depends on training. You will hit frontal armour of M1 with RPG 7 then say look nothing happened it is

Of course in Yom Kippur war Egyptians did not deploy their SAMs only to protect tanks as all Israeli planes were not only dedicated to attack Tanks.

 

[militarysta]

Here I am not talking about RPG 7 @militarysta.

Why do you compare M1 Abram with old RPG 7? Of course M1 Abrams can survive multiple RPF 7 hits, RPG 7 cant penetrate Chobham armour. Compare it with RPG 29 or 32.

how old are you? 16? 18?

I post here two video when M1 was hit by RPG-29 and exatly nothing happen. What more -they are datas on videos -you can checkt on dozen american sites about fallen soilders in Irak that in those two dates no single US tanker was killed or wounded in action. It's ovbious proof that both of those attack had faild.

RPG-29 and other is not wunderwaffe -in fact it's penetration level is like circa 152mm 1960 warhed (710mm RHA) stopped by tested erly Bulington armour. Only advantage is 105mm warhed, and precursor. It's nothing suprise that modern tak can survibe sucht hit, or multihits -it's one of the special features of the Burlinghton armour (multihit capability).

Dont expect if you hit a tank with RPG then tank will be blown to pieces as you hit with 18" Naval guns. RPGs can disable tank,

Of course not. You really havn;t bigger idea about tank, AT weapons and behind armour effect. It makes this discusion difficult cous your knowledge is rather small :/

 

[militarysta]

I have a couple of questions about the Abrams armor package through its evolution

- With the exception of the adding of depleted uranium, does the M1A2 still use the British-made Burlington armor americanized by the Ballistic Research Laboratory (Starflower program) ?

Propably it's pure USA solution but based on orginal Bulrington solution.

- Is it true that the turret sides of the M1A2 SEP would have depleted uranium ?

Yes, Damian find decuments about this.

- M1A1 and M1A2 lower front hulls will be able to withstand from a RPG-29 ? Because apparently only the sides of the M1 Abrams had been put to the test against RGP-29 in Iraq.

Yes, M1 lower front hull sucesfull protect against RPG-29. It's cased by two resons:
a) special armour is circa 650-700mm thick
b) fuel tanks inside M1 hull give a lot of exelent protection against HEAT jet. In fact only small part fort hull is not protectedf by almoust 1,3m fuel tank -it's place when driver is sitting. But whole protection is greate.

 

[Damian]

exactly what are you talking about do you know?

Let's put it straight kid.

I'am studying on one of main military academy's in my country, I want to work in ministry of defence in my country. Military is my passion from time I was a little kid. I educate myself especially about armored fighting vehicles and armor-mechanized warfare by more than a decade.

So yeah, I need to know, I want to know, and I do everything I can do know.

It looks like you have blind confidence on Tanks.

No, my opinion is backed up by what the most experienced army's have to say, their decisions as well as history of wars in XX and early XXI century.

Real soldiers, that risk their lifes have very high opinion about tanks and see them as very usefull tools to minimize own casualties and complete tasks they have.

It is complete opposition to stupid armchair generals like you, that probably never see a tank or helicopter in person.

T 62 was of course one of best tank in 1980's how ever it was not obsolete just like RPG 7 was not best anti-tank gun in 1980's, RPG 22 was rarely used by Mujahideens, bulk of their anti-team was made by RPG 7.

Now I am serious... are you stupid or only pretend to be stupid?

T-62 was 1960's design, it was a further evolution of T-54/55 which was late 1940's design, how it was not obsolete in 1980's?

For 1980's in 1987 Indian army T 72 was hit by RPG 7 in Sri Lanka and was disabled.

So what? India was just export customer of Soviet Union, you received downgraded export variant of the T-72, not to mention that you didn't even had dynamic protection for these tanks like all export customers of SU.

In 2003 AH-64 was disabled by small arms fire and needed to land in field, was captured by Iraqis.

This is the same low level argument like yours.

In Vietnam war, 1960's one of best tank M 48 Pattons, Sheridans were frequently hit by RPGs and were destroyed. Now say M 48 was not best 1960's tank.

In 1060's the best tank was Soviet T-64. And M48 by that time was obsolete.

As for M551, but what you are talking here about? M551 was a light tank, it's armor was designed only to protect against small arms fire because this vehicle was designed to be air dropped on parachute, which means to reduce it's weight for acceptable level, armor protection needed to be sacrificed.

No shit, you are really that dumb aren't you?

T 54 and M 48 are quite similar and same generation.

You need to know by what RPG 7 Viet Cong destroyed US and South Vietnamese tanks, using that exact RPG 7 Mujahideens destroyed Soviet tanks in 1980's.

Same RPG 7 against same generation tanks, similar result. RPG 7 faced M 48 in Vietnam and in Afghanistan they faced T 62.

But you dumb moron, both T-55 and M48 use a simple, obsolete, homogeneus steel armor which does not provide any protection against even the simplest shaped charge warheads.

Modern tanks use composite armor and dynamic protection, which provides level of protection higher than capabilities of shaped charges that have practical size and weight to be used in battle conditions.

Is something such simple, so hard to be understanded by such poorly educated and silly fellow like you?

Tanks developed so did anti-tank guns. In WW2 it was Bazooka, later it became RPG now Javelin.

What? Bazooka, RPG and Javelin are not anti-tank guns blockhead, bazooka is RPG or rocket propelled granade, Javelin is ATGM.

For tank captured, listen captured tanks from enemy can be used again. Meaning after being damaged if you leave tank enemy can recover it and use it again. There are many examples where capture tanks from enemy were used again, as Helicopters go down enemy cant recover them, that's what I meant.

No, you can't reuse captured tank, just like you can't reuse captured helicopter.

Modern tank is far more complex machine than primitive tanks used by Pakistanis and Indians during their wars.

Without a proper training and understanding, you would not be capable to use a fire control system.

None of modern tanks can survive multiple RPG 29 or 32 hits.

Really, and how do you know this?

Because you played some computer game kid?

Hahaha, damn, I can't believe he is so stupid!

Only fools expect a tank to explode after a single RPG hit so your statement to prove RPG 7 weak is not valid.

Because they don't explode in your favorite computer game?

Guess how RPG gunners are trained in real army...

For Karbala war, did Iraq have sufficient modern anti-tank guns? Iraqis used RPG 7 as main, if they used RPG 29 and still US Mechanized infantry was best then you could say that. Mujahideens had sufficient modern anti tank compared to 1980's, see result.

Listen you idiot, RPG-7 is RPG, rocket propelled granade launcher, same or RPG-29, these are not anti-tank guns.

Jesus Christ, you don't even know how weapons are classified do you?

And hey, Iraqi insurgents were using RPG-29's, and still were incapable to pose any serious threat for American tanks. So yeah, my statement is valid.

Comparing light Drones with tanks?? If they compared Tank with A 10 or Apache then that I would consider.

But A-10 will be withdrawn from service soon, as osbolete, while there will never be many AH-64's, US Army don't like to pay for such overexpensive tool. Just compare the numbers, there is less than 1000 AH-64's in US Army and ARNG service, and there is more than 4000 M1A1 and M1A2 tanks in active service both in US Army and ARNG and approx 8000 total.

Why do you compare M1 Abram with old RPG 7? Of course M1 Abrams can survive multiple RPF 7 hits, RPG 7 cant penetrate Chobham armour. Compare it with RPG 29 or 32.

There is no such thing as "Chobham" armor you uneducated kid, true codename is "Burlington", this is first thing.

Second is that he compared to RPG-29, and RPG-29 was incapable to perforate frontal armor.

Dont expect if you hit a tank with RPG then tank will be blown to pieces as you hit with 18" Naval guns. RPGs can disable tank, which type of MILAN they were? Were they of ER variant?

"Do not teach father how to make kids" as we say in our country. Me and Militarysta have much greater knowledge and expertise on this subject than you.

And it does not matter what variant of Milan ATGM it was really. Challenger 2 that was hit by this ATGM and approx 50 different types of RPG's, was immobilized, and Iraqis were capable to fire at it from any direction, still they were incapable to kill crew or destroy a tank.

Tanks have weak spot, to get best result you need to hit that point and it depends on training. You will hit frontal armour of M1 with RPG 7 then say look nothing happened it is

In real battle it is very difficult to hit a weak zone, real world is not a computer game... christ, children these times are so damn stupid, and they think they can teach adults how to do everything.

Of course in Yom Kippur war Egyptians did not deploy their SAMs only to protect tanks as all Israeli planes were not only dedicated to attack Tanks.

No shit Sherlock!

[

 

[Waffen SS]

how old are you? 16? 18?

I post here two video when M1 was hit by RPG-29 and exatly nothing happen. What more -they are datas on videos -you can checkt on dozen american sites about fallen soilders in Irak that in those two dates no single US tanker was killed or wounded in action. It's ovbious proof that both of those attack had faild.

RPG-29 and other is not wunderwaffe -in fact it's penetration level is like circa 152mm 1960 warhed (710mm RHA) stopped by tested erly Bulington armour. Only advantage is 105mm warhed, and precursor. It's nothing suprise that modern tak can survibe sucht hit, or multihits -it's one of the special features of the Burlinghton armour (multihit capability).

In 2007, in August from Wikileaks a M1 Abram was heavily damaged by RPG 29 fire, caused 3 WIA. In September 5, 2007 RPG 29 hit caused 1 KIA and 2 WIA.

Of course not. You really havn;t bigger idea about tank, AT weapons and behind armour effect. It makes this discusion difficult cous your knowledge is rather small :/

The mention of 18" Naval gun I did because Damian said RPG 7 is weak when he quoted my statement about each T 80 hit by 7 or 8 RPG 7s. How stupid was that statement so I made it.

 

[Waffen SS]

@Damian

So you need to understand no country can field only current weapon. Like Indian army has T 90, in case of War, Indian army will not only use T 90 but also T 72. You need to understand current USAF cant field only F 22 and F 35s all though they are best USAF now has. You cant deploy only your best equipments. RPG 29 was not in 1980's. RPG 7 was not very advanced either like T 62. For more example M1A1 is inferior to M1A3 but US army does not only operate M1A3s. So all though T 62 was not of 1980's dont expect Soviets would only use T 80's or T 72's.

India did not receive monkey models of Soviet weapons so your accusation of low quality T 72 is not valid, even if so then why Russian T 72's were disabled by RPG 7? At least Russian T 72's were not downgraded version.

Well, for Vietnam war look majority of Viet Cong anti tank team had RPG 2, RPG 7 was best 1960's anti-tank gun just like T 64 and M 60 were best tank in 1960's. So according to your obsolete 1960's M 48's were hit by obsolete RPG 2's and suffered heavy losses.

I know Sheridan was light tank and it also faced heavy damage in light explosions.

1 question why US use light Sheridans? Because heavy M 48 often got struck in mud which again shows mobility of tanks depend on terrain Helicopters dont have this problem.

For M 48 and T 55 I know they use steel armour but they also faced less powerful RPG 7s not powerful AT 4 or M 72 LAWs(compared to RPG 7)

Bazooka, RPG 7 are infantry carried tube type weapon than has ability to destroy tanks. Dont think in WW2 perspective of anti-tank guns like German Pak 38 or modern Soviet T 12.

Because they don't explode in your favorite computer game?

In fact the games I played there tanks explode, but actually tanks dont explode. Play Call Of Duty Modern Warfare or Operation Desert Storm, hit a BTR 60 or T 72's with a RPG 7 it explodes.

But A-10 will be withdrawn from service soon, as osbolete, while there will never be many AH-64's, US Army don't like to pay for such overexpensive tool. Just compare the numbers, there is less than 1000 AH-64's in US Army and ARNG service, and there is more than 4000 M1A1 and M1A2 tanks in active service both in US Army and ARNG and approx 8000 total.

Who told you A 10 will be retired soon? A 10 will see service up to 2040.

Listen you idiot, RPG-7 is RPG, rocket propelled granade launcher, same or RPG-29, these are not anti-tank guns.

Jesus Christ, you don't even know how weapons are classified do you?

And hey, Iraqi insurgents were using RPG-29's, and still were incapable to pose any serious threat for American tanks. So yeah, my statement is valid

You know threat posed by RPG 29 was so high that US army refused Iraqi army army to buy RPG 29's cause they feared they may go into insurgent hands.

In real battle it is very difficult to hit a weak zone, real world is not a computer game... christ, children these times are so damn stupid, and they think they can teach adults how to do everything.

The anti-tank fire was directed at the least armoured points of the vehicles.

T-80 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Damian]

So you need to understand no country can field only current weapon. Like Indian army has T 90, in case of War, Indian army will not only use T 90 but also T 72. You need to understand current USAF cant field only F 22 and F 35s all though they are best USAF now has. You cant deploy only your best equipments. RPG 29 was not in 1980's. RPG 7 was not very advanced either like T 62. For more example M1A1 is inferior to M1A3 but US army does not only operate M1A3s. So all though T 62 was not of 1980's dont expect Soviets would only use T 80's or T 72's.

No you dumb brickhead.

US Army neither operates any M1A1's these days, neither M1A3's (as it still do not exist).

This is first thing. Second thing I do not care about what USAF would use, and neither I am arogant and ignorant like you, to pretend I know better what they would use.

As for Soviets, they had ill military industrial complex that was designing and manufacturing 3, very similiar tanks in the same time (T-64, T-72 and T-80) that had similiar operational capabilities but different logistical chains. It was a complete nonsense, which should never be repeated.

As for Indian Army, if your decision makers would think in economical way, they would focus manufacturing on T-90S only, and create pure tank fleet to reduce costs of vehicle life cycle, eventual upgrades etc.

India did not receive monkey models of Soviet weapons so your accusation of low quality T 72 is not valid, even if so then why Russian T 72's were disabled by RPG 7? At least Russian T 72's were not downgraded version.

You moron, you don't even know how Soviets restricted their export customers. Yes T-72M1 was a low quality, downgraded export model of the T-72A.

And how many Russian T-72B's were disabled in Chechnya? There were incidents where T-72B survived multiple hits from different RPG's, during one incident, T-72B with overheated engine that was immobilized, survived approx 20 hits.

Well, for Vietnam war look majority of Viet Cong anti tank team had RPG 2, RPG 7 was best 1960's anti-tank gun just like T 64 and M 60 were best tank in 1960's. So according to your obsolete 1960's M 48's were hit by obsolete RPG 2's and suffered heavy losses.

Listen you dumb brickhead. RPG-7 is not anti-tank gun, it is RPG, rocket propelled granade launcher.

As for the rest of this babble talk... I can't believe that you are homo sapiens sapiens.

1 question why US use light Sheridans? Because heavy M 48 often got struck in mud which again shows mobility of tanks depend on terrain Helicopters dont have this problem.

Helicopters have other problems, like vurnability, high maintnance needs, are damn expensive, crews need a lot of training, and if there is malfunction in air, then there is small chance that you will be able to recover helicopter after it hits ground... not to mention about crew.

And why US used M551's? Because they could, because there were airborne units in Vietnam, and these airborne units used M551's as their fire support vehicles.

For M 48 and T 55 I know they use steel armour but they also faced less powerful RPG 7s not powerful AT 4 or M 72 LAWs(compared to RPG 7)

So what they were less powerfull... A typical PG-7 can penetrate ~300+ mm of homogeneus steel armor.

Oh and BTW, M72 is not more powerfull than RPG-7, in fact it uses smaller, less capable warhead, M136 AT-4 also use 84mm warhead, while RPG-7 uses overcalliber warheads which have better penetration characteristics.

Bazooka, RPG 7 are infantry carried tube type weapon than has ability to destroy tanks. Dont think in WW2 perspective of anti-tank guns like German Pak 38 or modern Soviet T 12.

So why you use term anti-tank gun in your posts when refering to RPG-7 and this type of weapons?

Because you are so dumb?

In fact the games I played there tanks explode, but actually tanks dont explode. Play Call Of Duty Modern Warfare or Operation Desert Storm, hit a BTR 60 or T 72's with a RPG 7 it explodes.

So you base your knowledge on stupid computer games?

Indeed sir, your are the dumbest of all dumb people!

Holy shit, I hope I will be able to work today, I can't stop to laugh.

Who told you A 10 will be retired soon? A 10 will see service up to 2040.

USAF with it's decisions. Each year there is less and less squadrons active with operates these aircrafts, and USAF really wants to get rid of them, as they are older and older, which means it is more and more expensive to maintain them.

But hey, what you can know about weapon systems lifecycle economy, when your knowledge is based on stupid computers games.

You know threat posed by RPG 29 was so high that US army refused Iraqi army army to buy RPG 29's cause they feared they may go into insurgent hands.

Of course it was a serious threat, but not nececary for MBT's, there were other, less armored vehicles like MRAP's, Strykers etc. used in theater and were much more vurnable to RPG-29 than MBT's.

The anti-tank fire was directed at the least armoured points of the vehicles.

T-80 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aha, Wikipedia is your source?

Learn Russian and read some good book, instead of creating your "knowledge" on stupid computer games and Wikipedia.

 

[Waffen SS]

For A 10 thunderbolt, USAF considers close ground support as annoyance. USAF more concentrates on strategic bombing and air superiority than close ground support. USAF is not willing to provide adequate ground support that's why Army and Marine corps have their own aviation wing consisting light attack helicopters.

So USAF wants to get rid of A 10, but Army opposed it, they even said if USAF retires A 10 then army will have their own A 10.

My statement contradicts with video games(Tanks explodes in game, in reality not) so it indicates I dont depend on games.

I use the term as anti tank cause it is short.

As for Indian Army, if your decision makers would think in economical way, they would focus manufacturing on T-90S only, and create pure tank fleet to reduce costs of vehicle life cycle, eventual upgrades etc.

Indeed Indian army is phasing out T 72's many of them are unreliable, they insist more on T 90 and Arjun.

Helicopters have other problems, like vurnability, high maintnance needs, are damn expensive, crews need a lot of training, and if there is malfunction in air, then there is small chance that you will be able to recover helicopter after it hits ground... not to mention about crew.

Do you mean Tanks dont have maintenance cost?

In 2007 cost AH-64A: $20M (2007)
AH-64D: $18M (2007)[

And M1 Cost US$6.21 million (M1A2 / FY99)[4] Estimated in 2012 as US$8.58 million (with inflation adjustment)

LiveLeak.com - 2 APACHES KILL A PLATOON OF TALIBAN

Can tanks act like this so quickly?

Of course Helicopters are more vulnerable but I have a way add some chobham armour or Bullington armour, it may decrease maneuverability but the it will add more protection like WW2 il-2 "flying tank."

M 72 is better tank killer than RPG 7.

For T 72B it came in 1985, how can you compare this with 1960's RPG 7? Compare it with 1980's anti-tank missiles like MILAN.