- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Here’s what an advanced Russian tank looks like after getting hit with a missile
Posted on 3/28/16 at 9:13 pm to WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot
Posted on 3/28/16 at 9:13 pm to WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot
quote:
I don't know if the the older models had reactive armor or not.
Neither the T-72 or the T-80 originally had reactive armor. However, both models have since been fitted with it in many instances.
BTW... I still want to know when that other guy engaged a T-80 in a tank to tank fight.
1
Posted on 3/28/16 at 9:19 pm to Volvagia
quote:
not like our tanks haven't had reactive armor for nearly 30 years......
The Marines use to have a version of the M-60 with reactive armor. Some of their tank battalions used them in the First Gulf War. But it's since been retired.
As for the Abrams, it did not come with reactive armor. It's armor is a composite known as Chobham. ( LINK)
However, I think in recent years a add-on reactive armor package has been introduced for the Abrams.
Posted on 3/28/16 at 9:24 pm to RedRifle
Sticky Bomb would work.
Posted on 3/28/16 at 9:26 pm to StrangeBrew
quote:
Sticky Bomb would work
Mobility kill at best.
Posted on 3/28/16 at 9:31 pm to Darth_Vader
He didn't say he engaged a T-80 in a tank to tank fight, he said
Maybe there was some decommed tanks sitting on a range somewhere?
quote:
I've shot T-72s and T-80s
Maybe there was some decommed tanks sitting on a range somewhere?
Posted on 3/28/16 at 9:33 pm to Volvagia
quote:
It's not like our tanks haven't had reactive armor for nearly 30 years......
bullshite. The US is 30+ years behind Russia in military technology because Obama.
Posted on 3/28/16 at 9:38 pm to WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot
quote:
He didn't say he engaged a T-80 in a tank to tank fight, he said
quote:
I've shot T-72s and T-80s
Maybe there was some decommed tanks sitting on a range somewhere
I've been on tank ranges from Graf to Hood. There are no old T-80s on them.
The Brits bought a handful after the fall of the Soviet Union and we have brought one over for testing. But that it. I guess its possible he works or worked at Aberdeen.
Posted on 3/28/16 at 9:46 pm to Darth_Vader
Maybe he played Call of Duty
Posted on 3/28/16 at 9:48 pm to RedRifle
quote:
The picture shows the tank from the right side, and the missile impacted the left side of the turret.
The picture conveniently cropped out where the missile hit, and all that matters is it in operational and did it protect the crew.
Posted on 3/28/16 at 9:52 pm to Breesus
quote:
The picture conveniently cropped out where the missile hit, and all that matters is it in operational and did it protect the crew.
That's the thing about tanks. Sometimes when they are "knocked out", it's easy to tell because either it's a blacked and burned husk or the turret is blown off. But that's not always the case. Sometimes the only outward mark on it is where the round penetrated. From a distance or the right angle, the tank can look virtually untouched.
This post was edited on 3/28/16 at 9:53 pm
Posted on 3/28/16 at 10:23 pm to Darth_Vader
I am not a combat veteran but IMO the fact that one of the tank crew had to exit the tank in a fire fight leads me to believe the armor was compromised as you can see him holding his nose and mouth as he gets out. Secondly if there was a sniper there that tank guy would be toast.
Posted on 3/28/16 at 10:40 pm to El Segundo Guy
quote:
retired tanker. I've shot T-72s and T-80s with a sabot depleted uranium round from M1A2s. It blows the whole damn turret off. Their armor sucks.
If Darth posted this, he'd have 1000 downvotes.
Thanks for your service, El.
Posted on 3/28/16 at 10:45 pm to ninthward
quote:
am not a combat veteran but IMO the fact that one of the tank crew had to exit the tank in a fire fight leads me to believe the armor was compromised as you can see him holding his nose and mouth as he gets out. Secondly if there was a sniper there that tank guy would be toast.
They also hit the tank in the worst spot to kill it. The front of the turret is the last place you want to aim. He should have tried hitting it a foot or two lower on the turret ring.
Posted on 3/28/16 at 10:46 pm to RedRifle
Was made in China
Posted on 3/28/16 at 10:48 pm to RedRifle
Apparently Aloha Snackbar is the muzzie equivalent of "WORLDSTAR!"
Posted on 3/28/16 at 10:57 pm to elprez00
quote:
If Darth posted this, he'd have 1000 downvotes.
Spot on! I don't know about the other shite, but when it comes to military, Darth knows his shite. The T-72 and T-80 is a joke compared to the Abrams. People are fricking stupid for believing this bullshite.
Posted on 3/28/16 at 11:13 pm to ByteMe
Thank you for your kind words. As for the T-72, its obsolete. It would have been a match for the M-60 with the outcome coming down to the better crew which 9 out of 10 time would be the American crew.
The T-80 though is a different animal. First off, it was far advanced compared to the T-72. It had advanced fire control and a stabilized main gun which gives it the ability to shoot and hit while on the move, even over rough ground. Its 125mn main gun also was capable of knocking out an Abrams, at least from a flank shot. However it still had the main drawbacks all Soviet tanks had. These were an auto-loader which was slower than the human loaders on American tanks and also limited the tank commander's ability to quickly switch ammo types from one shot to the next. Along with this the T-80's armor was woeful compared to Western tanks like the Abrams, Challenger, and Leopard II. The Soviets believed in sacrificing armor protection in exchange for a low silhouette and maneuverability.
So while a T-80 could knock out an Abrams or other modern Western MBT, it would not be easy and odds are it would die trying.
The T-80 though is a different animal. First off, it was far advanced compared to the T-72. It had advanced fire control and a stabilized main gun which gives it the ability to shoot and hit while on the move, even over rough ground. Its 125mn main gun also was capable of knocking out an Abrams, at least from a flank shot. However it still had the main drawbacks all Soviet tanks had. These were an auto-loader which was slower than the human loaders on American tanks and also limited the tank commander's ability to quickly switch ammo types from one shot to the next. Along with this the T-80's armor was woeful compared to Western tanks like the Abrams, Challenger, and Leopard II. The Soviets believed in sacrificing armor protection in exchange for a low silhouette and maneuverability.
So while a T-80 could knock out an Abrams or other modern Western MBT, it would not be easy and odds are it would die trying.
This post was edited on 3/28/16 at 11:15 pm
Posted on 3/28/16 at 11:37 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
So while a T-80 could knock out an Abrams or other modern Western MBT, it would not be easy and odds are it would die trying.
Exactly. If the Russians don't have the answer, who does? Do people think that we are sitting on our arse and not trying to improve on the Abrams? We have shite that none of us know about.
I edited because I said Soviets instead of Russians. I'm old school.
This post was edited on 3/28/16 at 11:42 pm
Posted on 3/28/16 at 11:39 pm to elprez00
quote:
If Darth posted this, he'd have 1000 downvotes.
Seems like the OT has finally lost its obsession over fricking with Darth
Posted on 3/28/16 at 11:43 pm to biglego
quote:
Seems like the OT has finally lost its obsession over fricking with Darth
I think you misunderstood the post.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News