Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dowding on March 30, 2003, 02:42:43 AM
-
Anybody see the footage?
There was significant damage to the armour; they had been clearly immobilzed and the crews had abandoned them. One was on fire. Can an RPG knock out an Abram, or are we seeing Kornet Es?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Anybody see the footage?
There was significant damage to the armour; they had been clearly immobilzed and the crews had abandoned them. One was on fire. Can an RPG knock out an Abram, or are we seeing Kornet Es?
2 Abrams and a Bradley. They were incapacitated, and the crews tried to destroy them before they were abandonded. Enough RPG shots to the grill will take them out.
-
Like I said, they were immobilized.
As for for where they were hit, there was one with a side hit, almost dead centre. The armour was peeled back to a considerable degree.
-
There were hits all over, but those weren't what took the them out. According to the sources I've read, both Abrams were immobilized with multiple shots to the grill. Not that I'm a tank driver.
-
Those were the two tanks that got hit in the engine area by truck mounted kornets. Think the Bradley took one too.
ack-ack
-
I've seen 3 Abrams in that footage, just shown on the BBC. They are definitely unique tanks. One is in a ditch with no descernible damage, another has the armour peeled back on the side and is on fire in the front corner and the last one had consideralble frontal damage but the sides were intact. Not neccessarily the same engagement, of course, but the landscape looked very similar in all shots.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Anybody see the footage?
There was significant damage to the armour; they had been clearly immobilzed and the crews had abandoned them. One was on fire. Can an RPG knock out an Abram, or are we seeing Kornet Es?
According to Soviet Army Field Regulations - RPGs are used mostly to "finish" immobilized tanks...
I don't know about modern disposable RPG-21, but RPG-7 (what defenders probably have) is definetly unable to make serious damage to Abrams.
IMHO that tanks look like they were damaged on landmines or were abandoned after mechanical malfunctions.
-
The tanks were hit by mortar fire, also.
-
U.S. tanks have depleted Uranium "reactive" armor. In essence, the armor explodes outward as the incoming round explodes inward, cancelling the force of the blow. The armor is divided into sections or plates. Once one section is hit, it's reactive capability is spent. If it gets hit again in the same area by an RPG or a mortar, damage will be done.
Let's remember fellas, this is a war. People and vehicles will be lost... However, if you take a tally of coalition losses vs. enemy losses, I think there's a clear picture being painted here... Saddam's days are numbered.
-
Reactive armor is not something built in to the armor on M1 tanks. If you see lots of little boxes on a tank, that's reactive armor. If you don't see those little boxes, there's no reactive armor. Look for pics of marine M-60s a few years back and you should find what I'm talking about. I've never seen them fitted to M1s.
I don't mean to be harsh, but we have enough "experts" misinforming the public about weapon capabilities on TV, let's try to be sure we know what we're talking about OK?
edit: LOL who am I kidding, this is the O' Club. :)
-
Originally posted by GrimCO
U.S. tanks have depleted Uranium "reactive" armor. In essence, the armor explodes outward as the incoming round explodes inward, cancelling the force of the blow. The armor is divided into sections or plates. Once one section is hit, it's reactive capability is spent. If it gets hit again in the same area by an RPG or a mortar, damage will be done.
I can tell you several ways to penetrate "active protection". There are no things that can't be broken, damaged or blown up. More to say, since early 80s Soviet antitank weapons are designed to deal with active armour. Back in college in 91 we calculated possible weapon effectiveness against it. It was on 2nd year of education.
IIRC "dynamic" armour in the US first was introduced on M1A3. It is called "integrated", but it can be removed. On Soviet tanks it can be seen easily, little boxes that cover armour and look like "crocodile skin".
-
Originally posted by ZOSO
Reactive armor is not something built in to the armor on M1 tanks. If you see lots of little boxes on a tank, that's reactive armor. If you don't see those little boxes, there's no reactive armor. Look for pics of marine M-60s a few years back and you should find what I'm talking about. I've never seen them fitted to M1s.
M1s have active armour "built in", but I still don't understand how it is done. Maybe integrated into that flat streens?
-
ZOSO,
I suggest you check out this website detailing the armor of the M1A1 tank. They ALL have this reactive armor...
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/index.html
-
I served on M1s for four years. M1 tanks do not have reactive armor. Nowhere in that article does it say that they do. I think maybe you're confused about the blow out panels they talk about which is something completely different. If the ammo compartment is hit, the panels above the compartment blow off allowing the explosion to go out the top of the turret rather than into it. That's not reactive armor.
This was all I was able to come up with as far as pics. It's only a model, but you get the idea. Those little tiles around the turret are the reactive armor.
http://www.cueballweb.com/~worktop/reviews/m60_turret_assembly.html
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I can tell you several ways to penetrate "active protection". There are no things that can't be broken, damaged or blown up. More to say, since early 80s Soviet antitank weapons are designed to deal with active armour. Back in college in 91 we calculated possible weapon effectiveness against it. It was on 2nd year of education.
IIRC "dynamic" armour in the US first was introduced on M1A3. It is called "integrated", but it can be removed. On Soviet tanks it can be seen easily, little boxes that cover armour and look like "crocodile skin".
Is there a topic you don't consider yourself to be the leading expert in?
-
ZOSO,
Perhaps you didn't read close enough... here's a quote from the website, seems pretty clear to me...
DEPLETED URANIUM ARMOUR
The M1A1 tank incorporates steel encased depleted uranium armour. Armour bulkheads separate the crew compartment from the fuel tanks. The top panels of the tank are designed to blow outwards in the event of penetration by a HEAT projectile. The tank is protected against nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) warfare.
-
Originally posted by ZOSO
I served on M1s for four years. M1 tanks do not have reactive armor. Nowhere in that article does it say that they do. I think maybe you're confused about the blow out panels they talk about which is something completely different. If the ammo compartment is hit, the panels above the compartment blow off allowing the explosion to go out the top of the turret rather than into it. That's not reactive armor.
This was all I was able to come up with as far as pics. It's only a model, but you get the idea. Those little tiles around the turret are the reactive armor.
http://www.cueballweb.com/~worktop/reviews/m60_turret_assembly.html
Zoso, I suppose each tile is a single element?... If so - Soviet designs can take much more hits. The elements are of the size of matchbox.
-
I just explained how those panels work. Did you not read my post?
-
ZOSO,
Being that you served on M1's for 4 years. I am positive that you would know what you are talking about...
My apologies
-
Originally posted by GrimCO
ZOSO,
Perhaps you didn't read close enough... here's a quote from the website, seems pretty clear to me...
DEPLETED URANIUM ARMOUR
The M1A1 tank incorporates steel encased depleted uranium armour. Armour bulkheads separate the crew compartment from the fuel tanks. The top panels of the tank are designed to blow outwards in the event of penetration by a HEAT projectile. The tank is protected against nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) warfare.
Depleted Uranium has nothing to do with dynamic armour. It's no more then a small addition to get armour steel with nessesary characteristics. I don't think it's pure Uranium. If it is - then I understand why Abrams weights 2 times more then Soviet tanks with equal armour and artillery.
-
Boroda,
Do you think about this stuff while you're standing in the bread line?
-
The M1 does not have reactive armor, the panels above the turret as ZOSO pointed out are "Blowout Panels", nothing but steel.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Is there a topic you don't consider yourself to be the leading expert in?
Agriculture and Brazilian history are not my favourite topics :)
I have studied in Moscow High Technical College for 4 years (though didn't finish :(), depatrment name "Physics and technology of ecplosive and impact processes". Translated into normal language - warhead design.
My military speciality there, at Military department, was S-200 SAM technical division. You know, in many Soviet colleges and Unis since second year you have one day of military education weekly, and when you graduate you become a reserve lt.
-
Now if we can only get them to stop calling Bradleys "Tanks". :)
-
Originally posted by ZOSO
Now if we can only get them to stop calling Bradleys "Tanks". :)
Hampden Academy, baby.
-
Originally posted by GrimCO
Boroda,
Do you think about this stuff while you're standing in the bread line?
Bread lines again.
I wonder if it was a part of mandatory US school education for kindergartens?
-
ZOSO,
I stand corrected on the M1's not having reactive armor. But at least I know a Bradley isn't a tank.... LOL
-
Boroda,
You trying to tell me you've never stood in a bread line in Russia?
-
Turn on TV in the 90's, that's all you saw.
Lines for bread and toilet paper.
-
like the lines at the unemployment office now here?
-
BREAD lines!? Who told you this!
There could be lines for butter of sausage in the 80s, maybe for toilet paper sometimes, but Bread is a basic food. I don't remember any lines for bread in my whole life, not counting 3-5 persons in rush hours.
-
Bread line or no breadline Boroda everyone knows the shortage of essential consumer goods that all communist countries had. I lived in one and I still remember, so laugh about all you want now - but that doesnt change facts from before.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Bread line or no breadline Boroda everyone knows the shortage of essential consumer goods that all communist countries had. I lived in one and I still remember, so laugh about all you want now - but that doesnt change facts from before.
GH, there is a fundamental difference between Bread and any other thing. It's what makes me so angry.
-
I know what you mean, but it was a joke. :)
BTW please take down that picture which shows you as a human being, it makes hating you more difficult.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
2 Abrams and a Bradley. They were incapacitated, and the crews tried to destroy them before they were abandonded. Enough RPG shots to the grill will take them out.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/39027000/rm/_39027111_najaf1935_hanrahan_vi.ram (http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/39027000/rm/_39027111_najaf1935_hanrahan_vi.ram)
Here's the footage - which one's the Bradley? They all look like tanks to me. Not 100% sure #3 is an Abrams though.
-
Boroda,
Let me make one thing clear. I am in NO WAY making fun of having to stand in line for food. My grandparents had to do it during the depression in the United States. I don't wish this fate on any human being.
The point I was trying to make is that Communism fell on it's own. It's a poor choice of government that had no chance of working, with which I'm sure you'll agree.
I don't hate the Russian populace or have any contempt toward them whatsoever. I wish nothing but economic prosperity for your country.
It's just your anti-United States sentiment at all costs that creates my skepticism toward your comments.
-
Grim, what does Communism have to do with three destroyed Abrams? And anyway why bust Boroda's chops about "bread lines?" I read this thread twice and didn't read any anti- US statements from Boroda- but I did read a few anti-Boroda statements from you.
Perhaps you can quote what Boroda has said in this thread which you consider to be "Anti-American." Really, I missed it.
-
Airhead,
It's not this one post... Do a search and read into some of his other posts...
-
Yes GrimmCO, but in this thread you made an unprovoked attack on him for no reason at all. Thanks to yourself and Martlet, a perfectly reasonable discussion on armour etc degraded into Boroda bashing session.
What point did that serve?
Thanks for the info Boroda and ZOSO. Interesting stuff.
-
Reactive armour is a block of explosives that is fused to explode when hit by a HEAT warhead and there for disrupt the penetration jet of the HEAT warhead.
Depleted uranium armour is an extremly dense sheet of metal that is like a face hardening I believe. It is meant to increase the resistance to KE weapons like sabot rounds.
The abrams and Challanger use composite "cholbam" armour to defeat HEAT rounds instead of active armour. Composite armour has sheets of different density metals that allow the penetration jet of the heat war head to seek the path of least resistance there for speading sideways as it hits softer layers instead of continuing through the next hardend layer. Such materials cannot be cast apperenlty. So when you see the modern western tanks with slab like armour construction that is what your seeing.
-
From what I was told in college - active armour is effective against sabot (sub-caliber AP) runds too. The main goal was to "shift" the sabot so it's velosity vector will not be directed parallel to the axis of the "bar" (Russian word "lom" :) slang), so the old hard sabots will break and new "soft" will lose it's penetration effect.
In the 80s there already existed twin HEAT shells, with first small charge dealing with avtive armour and/or screens and then main sharge penetrates main armour.
That Israelis who invented dynamic protection were really smart :)
-
BTW Boroda,
If you ever visit the United States in the Florida area, you too have a place to stay here with my family and I, and I sincerely mean that.
In no way am I holding anything against you personally because of your political views, as much as I disagree with them. I would love to show you the hearts of my family and the vast majority of Americans... We are a decent, honest people with the best of intentions and you are welcome in my home anytime.
-
Dowding,
Get over it... I had enough of it in other forums and will not apologize for it... If Boroda can express his opinions unrelated to a forum thread, he should be man enough to expect the same. And I believe he is.
-
Originally posted by GrimCO
Boroda,
You trying to tell me you've never stood in a bread line in Russia?
Maybe he used to be the member of the party elite (CPSU) :D
-
Bread lines is a term, and does not meant that one stood in line for "bread", but for any consumer good.
Dowding: Waaaaaaaah. Grab your sign, and go stand in front of Windsor. You pop your head in every time you think you can get away with your anti american crap. You, Baroda, Blitz, Straffo.
The jealousy burns. It's not my fault you were born in some third rate country. You are one of those people that is so jealous of what other people have, they do anything to lessen it. Guess what? Not buying. Go sulk in your own misery. Regardless of your jabs, America is, and will always be, the best nation on earth.
I know it, and in places you try to hide, you know it. Deal with it.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Dowding: Waaaaaaaah. Grab your sign, and go stand in front of Windsor. You pop your head in every time you think you can get away with your anti american crap. You, Baroda, Blitz, Straffo.
Yeah, Dowding- what Martlet said. You, Baroda, Blitz and Straffo are lousy Americans. :mad:
-
I'm so very sorry for questioning the relevance of a link between bread queues and the armour used on Abram tanks.
Perhaps you could expand on the point? Did the Soviets start using bread for armour on their new tanks and that's why there was an apparent national shortage?
I demand to be told!
On a side note, I really don't see why there was a need to denigrate Boroda. It seems like he does have some knowledge in this area.
As for the jealousy line - heard it all before and it simply doesn't wash. No, really. And I don't think there was anything anti-American about my post - point out where that isn't the case or we'll just conclude you were talking bollocks. Good day.
-
Mea culpa, Airhead, mea culpa! I have a visa card and everything - I also spend lots of money on crap I don't need, and even went and bought coffee in a Star Bucks on Satruday. I am trying. :D
-
any of you "engineers' know how many T-72's have been destroyed so far? BMP's?,how many arty?, how many iraq troops killed , wounded, surrendered?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I've seen 3 Abrams in that footage, just shown on the BBC. They are definitely unique tanks. One is in a ditch with no descernible damage, another has the armour peeled back on the side and is on fire in the front corner and the last one had consideralble frontal damage but the sides were intact. Not neccessarily the same engagement, of course, but the landscape looked very similar in all shots.
The tank in the ditch wasn't hit by hostile fire. The tank went into the ditch when the driver took evasive maneuvers to avoid the ambush and hostile fire and drove into the ditch.
Jordi posted the story of that action on another newsgroup and when I get home, I'll go ahead and post it here.
Ack-Ack
-
wasnt there a "bread for armor" deal back in the 80's???
:D
-
Something dosen't seem quite right with that story. If the first M1 Abrams were actually lost in combat it would be on the front page of every news organization in the Western World (With France leading the way) yet I've seen nothing. Not to say something didn't happen but more M1's have been lost to driving accidents than combat (zero).
-
There have been no M1s 100% destroyed, but there have been several M1s penetrated by enemy fire. Some had to be abandoned or destroyed.
-
I was just wondering if bread is ejected from the turret when a T-72 is destroyed
-
From Debka... take it with a grain of salt, but this is just a bit of what they're saying:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Their most effective weapon was one unanticipated by US tank troops: a Russian-made Kornet AT-14 ATGM laser wire-guided anti-tank missile....
The missile and instructors for its use, DEBKAfile intelligence sources report, were provided by an old friend of Saddam Hussein, President Aleksander Lukashenko of Belarus. It was sent to over through Iraq’s primary smuggling route across Syria.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Abrams are getting whacked, it's reasonable that it is a Kornet that is doing it.
-
Saw an interview with a Marine General who was talking to the reporter as a bunch of Marines were bringing sacks of food out from a building previoulsy occupied by Iraqi officers (apparently to distribute to starving locals, hearts and minds comes back).
Anyway, the General made a comment about some bridges nearby that were very valuable to the coalition as about "ten Marines died taking those bridges". He then made a comment where if you were to go up to those bridges you would see Marine vehicles "shot up pretty good".
Im not surprized the western media isnt showing any video of coalition losses. Not that I disagree with not doing so. Its pretty obvious to me that we have a hard fight going on and its only going to get worse. Perhaps much worse.
The flip side of this whole operation is that the futures military leaders are learning the trade in the best way. Under fire and getting shot up. Its going to be a neccessary skill in the years and decades ahead.
-
a Russian-made Kornet AT-14 ATGM laser wire-guided anti-tank missile....
Lol
I must be missing something. Why would you have a laser wire guided missle?
Laser guiding is a wire-less technology..thats one of the reasons you do it.
-
Yeah, I wondered about that too, but I really don't know much about Kornet except that it'll hurt an Abrams.
As I said at the top... it's Debka. After you read them a while, you see that their are mistakes but that once in a while there's a pearl in the pile of BS.
-
Maybe its a laser range finder. The Russians have a tank that shoots some type of defense when it is being 'painted' by a laser. Think it fires some type of canister shells in a 360 degree arc in order to destroy incomming missles.
-
Actually we have dazzlers on the abrams now too. Ill try to find a picture of a recently KO'd abrams in Iraq that shows the device. Apparently this one was either hit by a hellfire (oops) or kornet. Either way the abrams is in remarkably good shape for being hit by such weapons.
-
(http://www.network54.com/Realm/braunark2/m1he.jpg)
Here it is. The dazzler is the box on the front left top of the turret - this is NOT an M1A2 with the CITV.
-
Red cross camo! How dare the US forces pretend to be an NGO!? :D
-
To see the photo, you'll have to go to http://www.network54.com/Realm/braunark2/m1he.jpg in its own window. Question: why is the turret turned to the rear? Was the tank hit from behind and the gunner tried to swing the main gun around?
Also, it looks like the tank is in a secure area - like it was abandoned and capable of being repaired or parts salvaged.