Jump to content


Photo

Russian tank porn


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#41 Guest_bojan_*

Guest_bojan_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 December 2006 - 0640 AM

...and aimed at the same spot (engine compartment)...

View Post


I hope that you do understand that "hitting same spot" even if you are managing to repeatably aim at it with any current ATGM can be expessed in 0.x%... So no metter if you are aiming at same "spot" (and engine comppartment is a bit bigger then a "spot") you are not going to hit the same spot, so it does not metter realy...

Edited by bojan, 07 December 2006 - 0644 AM.

  • 0

#42 jaro

jaro

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Wargames - Total War series, Steel Panthers (MBT, WW2), Jagged Alliance 1.13 ...etc

Posted 07 December 2006 - 1108 AM

I hope that you do understand that "hitting same spot" even if you are managing to repeatably aim at it with any current ATGM can be expessed in 0.x%... So no metter if you are aiming at same "spot" (and engine comppartment is a bit bigger then a "spot") you are not going to hit the same spot, so it does not metter realy...

View Post



I read somewhere that Hesbollah ATGM operators are quite good with that.It was exactly mentioned that they hit same spot with two missiles within few seconds. And it was posted here on Tanknet few years ago (2000 or 2001, dont remember correct date)
  • 0

#43 Guest_bojan_*

Guest_bojan_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 December 2006 - 1607 PM

I read somewhere that Hesbollah ATGM operators are quite good with that.


No matter how good you are not going to hit neer the same spot except by luck due to the limits in ATGM propulsion and guidance. Ever saw ATGM (expecialy early Soviet ones) in flight?

It was exactly mentioned that they hit same spot with two missiles within few seconds. And it was posted here on Tanknet few years ago (2000 or 2001, dont remember correct date)

View Post


There was I, all alone, only with my knife and hand-grenade pins up the my knees... :rolleyes:

Edited by bojan, 07 December 2006 - 1609 PM.

  • 0

#44 EasyE

EasyE

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 267 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Halifax
  • Interests:Hockey,Tanks

Posted 07 December 2006 - 1805 PM

Anyhow I think that alarm bells should go off when the narrator starts talking about 6 KE rods of M829A2? (DOI 93) power being shruged off at 200m. That and the M1s being able to hardley withstand At-11s.. I mean..come on..
  • 0

#45 Paul G

Paul G

    Masshole

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Blue State
  • Interests:Military stuff, guns & beer, wargaming

Posted 07 December 2006 - 1932 PM

More or less what happened to this Abrams. And your point is?

View Post


The Turret did not blow off due to explosive internal overpressure.
  • 0

#46 Paul G

Paul G

    Masshole

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Blue State
  • Interests:Military stuff, guns & beer, wargaming

Posted 07 December 2006 - 1953 PM

American Tank Porn

3rd ID TF 1-64 Baghdad Thunder Run

Edited by Paul G, 07 December 2006 - 1953 PM.

  • 0

#47 Vasiliy Fofanov

Vasiliy Fofanov

    "Soviet cheering section"

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Paris, France
  • Interests:Computers, Armor

Posted 08 December 2006 - 0840 AM

Re this trials report. Even after all these years, I couldn't independently verify these trials took place (and I could independently verify a great many things in this time...), nor verify that the person ever existed. This looked quite plausible back then but it increasingly looks this was just an elaborate hoax.
  • 0

#48 Irwin_Rommel

Irwin_Rommel

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 447 posts

Posted 09 December 2006 - 0153 AM

Re this trials report. Even after all these years, I couldn't independently verify these trials took place (and I could independently verify a great many things in this time...), nor  verify that the person ever existed. This looked quite plausible back then but it increasingly looks this was just an elaborate hoax.

View Post


Vasiliy,

Regarding the penetration of the T-90 trails that Jaro mentioned, was it against stripped targets or equipped with ERA as your page doesn't indicate that for the T-90.
  • 0

#49 jaro

jaro

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Wargames - Total War series, Steel Panthers (MBT, WW2), Jagged Alliance 1.13 ...etc

Posted 09 December 2006 - 0544 AM

Vasiliy,

Regarding the penetration of the T-90 trails that Jaro mentioned, was it against stripped targets or equipped with ERA as your page doesn't indicate that for the T-90.

View Post



THere is exactly : ATGLs
T-90: RPG-29 produced a total of 3 penetrations.
No other RPG rounds could penetrate even the stripped target.

if i understand it correctly, RPG-29 penetrated ERA protected target 3 times (out of 5 attempts) and no other RPG round was able to penetrate even T-90 without ERA.
for T-80U we have : RPG-29 penetrated 3 times with ERA, all 5 times without ERA.
  • 0

#50 jaro

jaro

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Wargames - Total War series, Steel Panthers (MBT, WW2), Jagged Alliance 1.13 ...etc

Posted 09 December 2006 - 0546 AM

sorry for double post

Edited by jaro, 09 December 2006 - 0549 AM.

  • 0

#51 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,485 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire, England

Posted 09 December 2006 - 0654 AM

You are right, but at least that is better than the challenger before the up armoring and the Leo. By the way, did you hear about the challenger that lost its turret when a fragment interred its fighting compartment and hit its ammo. I think the crew didn't even have time to realize what happened. So turret losing is some how known in western tanks (Except the Abrams). The problem that they didn't face a real enemy to show that in big scale, except for the Merkava in Lebanon.

View Post

Please try to remember your Challenger incidents more accurately.

A blue-on-blue HESH round entered an open hatch on the Challenger whilst it was being resupplied with ammunition. There isn't a tank in the world that would have shrugged such an incident off.

The basic premise presented by Vasily seems correct - unless you completely contain your ammunition outside of the pressure vessel that is the crew compartment, rapid deflagration of that ammunition may well result in the loss of a turret.

David
  • 0

#52 Irwin_Rommel

Irwin_Rommel

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 447 posts

Posted 09 December 2006 - 0720 AM

The basic premise presented by Vasily seems correct - unless you completely contain your ammunition outside of the pressure vessel that is the crew compartment, rapid deflagration of that ammunition may well result in the loss of a turret.

David

View Post


I understand that you are talking about armored casing for the rounds inside the fighting compartment. So if that what you mean, T-90 has this feature and the possibility of turret losing is similar to challenger.

I am sorry if I made a mistake here as I understand challenger way of storing ammo to be inside the fighting compartment, which the pressure vessel in that case.
  • 0

#53 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,485 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire, England

Posted 09 December 2006 - 1608 PM

I understand that you are talking about armored casing for the rounds inside the fighting compartment. So if that what you mean, T-90 has this feature and the possibility of turret losing is similar to challenger.

I am sorry if I made a mistake here as I understand challenger way of storing ammo to be inside the fighting compartment, which the pressure vessel in that case.

View Post

No, Challenger does store main gun rounds in the crew compartment.

In general, charges and HESH are stored below the turret ring with APFSDS rounds stored in the turret- remember, the Challenger gun uses two part ammunition.

The problem with your comment was that it implied a penetrative hit had occurred and that a "fragment" had caused the ammunition to explode. In fact, it was an entire HESH round dropped through an open turret hatch. Regardless of whether any stored ammunition exploded as a result, I submit that any tank, of any generation, would have been badly inconvenienced by such an event.

Except of course for a MerkaGavin ™

David
  • 0

#54 Crazyhorse

Crazyhorse

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hell AKA Camp Shelby
  • Interests:Tanks....... what else is there?

Posted 09 December 2006 - 1758 PM

What all of you fail to understand is the most important factor is the TANKER not the TANK. American tankers are far more highly trained than Russian and at any time on any field on any day could hand them their rears and still have time to eat an MRE.................
  • 0

#55 Crazyhorse

Crazyhorse

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hell AKA Camp Shelby
  • Interests:Tanks....... what else is there?

Posted 09 December 2006 - 1801 PM

The most important factor is the TANKER not the TANK
  • 0

#56 Vasiliy Fofanov

Vasiliy Fofanov

    "Soviet cheering section"

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Paris, France
  • Interests:Computers, Armor

Posted 09 December 2006 - 1904 PM

What all of you fail to understand


Wow. All of us? Really? :huh: Well, fortunately now we've seen the light at last...
  • 0

#57 Irwin_Rommel

Irwin_Rommel

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 447 posts

Posted 13 December 2006 - 0117 AM

No, Challenger does store main gun rounds in the crew compartment.

In general, charges and HESH are stored below the turret ring with APFSDS rounds stored in the turret- remember, the Challenger gun uses two part ammunition.

The problem with your comment was that it implied a penetrative hit had occurred and that a "fragment" had caused the ammunition to explode. In fact, it was an entire HESH round dropped through an open turret hatch. Regardless of whether any stored ammunition exploded as a result, I submit that any tank, of any generation, would have been badly inconvenienced by such an event.

Except of course for a MerkaGavin ™

David

View Post


Thank you for clearing this. So the ammo is separated from the crew like a T-72 with only auto loader ammo. :D

But I still think that ammo ignition in T-90 is minimized to Challenger standards with the new casings for the in fighting compartment ammo. By the way what about Leo 2? As I understand the ammo to be on the driver right hand side. Is it separated from the crew?
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users