Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues
Werewolf wrote:There is no big deal in disabling an M1 doesn't matter of its version with even old RPG-7 warheads like were used in Iraq.
This old warheads PG-7 (~300mm RHA) have even destroyed Abrams tanks.
....
nemrod wrote:Werewolf wrote:There is no big deal in disabling an M1 doesn't matter of its version with even old RPG-7 warheads like were used in Iraq.
This old warheads PG-7 (~300mm RHA) have even destroyed Abrams tanks.
....
Thx to all, Iam seeing, and realizing that, Iam among specialists. In fact Iam not a specialists, and untill now, this is the first time I saw these pictures, that never been watched here in Europe, or generally in western countries.
I was very far -untill today - to imagine that a light weapon like RPG could disable a tank.
I realize now, why the US got out from Iraq, and why they are going flee Afghanistan.
I realize that how the propaganda and hype made us idiots. Untill now I believed that M1 Abrams was unbeatable, and this tank was impossible to destroy only by huge bombs inside the road.
In fact now, I realize how the iraqi resistance was so near the victory during the fallujah battle number 1, however, there is not without knowing the new, and the best US had the greatest joker, a weapon that brought to US every victory in arab world. The Joker is Al Qaida.
Al Qaida is here in the goal to divide people into confessional war, leaving US, free hands.
Thx guys for your advises, and remarqs.
It was worth to subscribe in this forum.
Regards.
Its confirmed that there were extremely few RPG-29s in in Iraq and given how many abrams were knocked out its certain that most of them were from RPG-7s and IEDs. Only the extremely heavy and expensive Tusk can have armor martgianlly good against HEAT. It has been confirmed that the M1A2 lacks chobham and only has DU and regular laminated armor not much better than the T-64's. While it may be good against APSFDS, due to the DU's very low melting temperature makes it vulnerable. Not to mention that when burned DU is radioactive and very polluting.TR1 wrote:Not many Abrams have been knocked out in Iraq at all, let alone from old RPG-7s.
And the armor array is most certainly not useless against HEAT.
Can I have source? Rather big number I would say. I know that not all of them suffered irreparable damage, but still.KomissarBojanchev wrote:By 2005 there were 221 knocked out abrams, 15 totaled, 16% of the entire US tank force stationed there.
calripson wrote:Iraqi M1 tanks have downgraded armor. America is not stupid enough to export the same spec tanks they use to a country like Iraq.
calripson wrote:Iraqi M1 tanks have downgraded armor. America is not stupid enough to export the same spec tanks they use to a country like Iraq.
calripson wrote:Iraqi M1 tanks have downgraded armor. America is not stupid enough to export the same spec tanks they use to a country like Iraq.
Depleted Uranium slabs in the turret wouldn't save the crew from a massive 152 mm HEAT charge from a Kornet-E. In fact there can be a case made that domestic armor in M1's are more dangerous towards the crew than export models, because when the turret does get penetrated, the surviving crew members are forced to breath air in the crew space that's full of super-heated depleted uranium particulate/dust that acts even worse on the respiratory system than asbestos. Depleted Uranium in it's solid form isn't that bad to be around, but when turned in to fine dust than it's a totally different story.
In the case of a HEAT warhead powerful enough to penetrate the turret armor, the fine DU dust becomes a triple-whammy anti-personnel hazard, where the fine dust acts like a heavy metal in the circulatory system, and while in the blood stream aggressively emits alpha and beta radiation which outside the body it's harmless, but while inside the body it has extremely carcinogenic effect, and the icing on the cake is that the fine dust is highly flammable, as DU has been known to catch on fire when exposed to extreme air-pressure and air resistance.
Radioactive Tank No 9
comes Limping Home
"RADIOACTIVE" is stenciled on Abrams tanks in these pictures
taken Oct. 13, 2005, in Topeka, Kansas.
Photo: Chris Bayruh
....
Iraqi M1A1M have been penetrated with Kornet-E from front and exist the rear the ammunition detonated crew in turret could not survive. collegeboy16 Thu May 28, 2015 2:21 pm
ironically the isolation from the crew of the AL means they can get away with storing lots of "black days" rounds there.Werewolf wrote:
There is a good reason why no other country uses DU in its armor and even the evil russians who do not give a crap about crew protection refuse to use DU Sabots, not only not to use it in its own country but also do not like having it around lying in tanks around.
max steel wrote:Ok so rpg-30 cant penetrate usa abrams with DU armlr+BL-2 armor but can russian anti-tank weapons like kornet and i dont know how many there are will perform against US abrams ? Ive seen kornet blowing exported abrams though.
RPG-30 still can pierce the abrams ? That's what matter though .
In reality, T-55's 100mm did penetrated Abrams turret side, and Bradley's 25mm did penetrated the rear.Ok so rpg-30 cant penetrate usa abrams with DU armlr+BL-2 armor but can russian anti-tank weapons like kornet and i dont know how many there are will perform against US abrams ? Ive seen kornet blowing exported abrams though.
RPG-30 still can pierce the abrams ? That's what matter though .
Some Russian experts estimated that 30mm BMP can penetrate Abrams from the flank and the rear Cool In reality, T-55's 100mm did penetrated Abrams turret side, and Bradley's 25mm did penetrated the rear.
Challenger 2's front hull was once penetrated by RPG, caused the driver to lost one of its leg. Dunno about Abrams, though.
higurashihougi wrote:According to the below figure RPG-29 hit Challenger 2 roughly at the front edge of the hull. A relatively thick loaction I believe.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YOwHHY57VIE/Tf4lRW-yfcI/AAAAAAAAAHA/Pg_gsC3hOzo/s1600/RPG-29%2Bpenetrate%2BChallenger-2.gif.jpg
T-72/90 side and rear is relatively thin, too, but at least it has a lower, smaller profile at harder to be hit. T-72/90 rear engine is angled while Abrams's rear is straight, and the height of T-72/90 engine chamber is only a half of Abrams chamber.
And that's all thanks to the autoloader and storing the ammunition at the hull behind the tank turret - rather than putting it at the turret bustle.
Western tanks put the ammo at the turret bustle not because it is "safer", but because the length of the ammunition. Unlike Russian, Western propellant is not separated from the warhead and that means it is inconvenient to put the long ammo into the hull. And that means the ammo storage is exposed.
And Abrams turret bustle is thin...
higurashihougi wrote:max steel wrote:Ok so rpg-30 cant penetrate usa abrams with DU armlr+BL-2 armor but can russian anti-tank weapons like kornet and i dont know how many there are will perform against US abrams ? Ive seen kornet blowing exported abrams though.
RPG-30 still can pierce the abrams ? That's what matter though .
Some Russian experts estimated that 30mm BMP can penetrate Abrams from the flank and the rear
Challenger 2's front hull was once penetrated by RPG, caused the driver to lost one of its leg. Dunno about Abrams, though.
A U.S. Army M1A2 Abrams main battle tank has been reportedly shooting another tank during a training exercise at Fort Bliss.
On July 20, an incident with friendly fire occurred at the Fort Bliss training ground in Texas during firing at moving targets.
Some sources reported that one of the “Abrams” tanks, from a distance of 2600m, has shot a tank from his own Cavalry Regiment.
One soldier was injured in an accident when the M1002 multi-purpose training round hit his tank. His tank commander and crew responded quickly to render aid.
https://defence-blog.com/news/army/u-s-army-abrams-shot-another-tank-during-training-exercise.html
GarryB and Werewolf like this post
|
|
|
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
