Military guys, couple of questions about tanks and anti-tank missiles.

This one?

quote:

---

This one?

---

Nope. The one I saw clearly completely destroyed the tank.

I'll try to find it. It was on TV this morning.

Looks like a TOW missile.

quote:

---

I believe the metal slat cages around vital parts of tanks and vehicles are for anti rocket purposes, IIRC.

---

The cages were for rpgs. RPGs have a two blast system, one blasts the rough the armor and the other blasts all the people on the inside. The cage helped trigger the initial blast and allowed the armor to absorb the 2nd strike.


Abrams are beastly and there is a short list of things that will give you the warm and fuzzy when you're on patrol better than a tank. However Abrams were defeated numerous times by homemade EFPs and other IEDs in Iraq, particularly deep buried IEDs.

Tanks aren't becoming obsolete bc of the rockets and such but more so bc combat has moved more to an urban setting where they are sitting ducks.

I've always wanted to frick shite up in a tank, thanks for your service

It really is a 10ft tall gorilla with a chainsaw for a dick. The first time you hear that 120mm go boom, it's something. Now, the first time you're loading and you yell, "up" and the gunner unleashes that hate, you're a-hole will pucker with a quickness.

Gosh, I bet it sounds beautiful. It's the sound of freedom...gets me all excited

quote:

---

Gosh, I bet it sounds beautiful. It's the sound of freedom...gets me all excited

---

No one will look at you funny when your freedom boner is fully engaged.

Another former Abrams Tanker here.

quote:

---

Saw a video today purportedly filmed by ISIS in Iraq destroying an M1-Abrams with an anti-tank missile. Don't know what kind of missile it was.

---

Define "destroying". Did the Abrams burn or was it immobilized? Can you link this video? I ask because just because a tank is hit and you see an explosion, that does not necessarily mean that tank was destroyed.

quote:

---

After watching a bunch of videos last week of tanks being destroyed by missiles and rockets in Syria, it appears tanks are not very safe or effective weapons anymore

---

The tanks you see being used in Syria are old Soviet export-versions of their tanks ranging from the truly ancient T-55 to very outdated T-72. On top of this I can tell from watching the video you linked that Syrian tankers are as piss poor trained as the Iraqi tankers I faced a quarter century ago. Add in the fact most of these engagements are in an urban setting, where tanks have a natural disadvantage, and you can get s false impression that tanks are obsolete.

However, I assure you that even on the modern battlefield, especially one where the foe is a real military force like Russia, the tank still rules the battlefield.

quote:

---

Does the Abrams have any defensive capability against missiles? Is reactive armor effective?

---

I know the army is retrofitting kits onto Abrams now but back in my day as a 19K, we relied simply on our frontal armor. As for reactive armor being effective, it can be. It all depends on the design of the armor and what type of projectile it's trying to defeat.

quote:

---

Are tanks becoming obsolete due to the large number of anti-tank missiles on the battlefield?

---

LOL... no. The first anti-tank weapons appeared on the battlefield virtually at the same time as the tank in WWI. The fact that tanks can be killed on the battlefield does not make them obsolete any more than the fact men can die on the battlefield makes infantry obsolete. Tanks give commanders the ability to carry out mobile strikes on level that infantry alone, even mechanized infantry, simply cannot pull off. Tanks give a commander a force that combines mobility, shock, and firepower that no other force can give. So yes, tanks can and do die. But tanks also do things that no other military force can do.


(I'm sure this post has a litany of typos since it's super late and I'm typing this out on my iPhone. I apologize for this)