I noticed some people saying that these tanks were just damaged, but I found a link to the story........
"The two tanks saw tracers from behind them and were maneuvering to return fire when, within seconds of one another, each took hits from their rear and burst into flames. As ammunition exploded, the crewmen of Troop B scrambled to safety.
Officers at the scene described the tanks as ``catastrophic losses.''
Catastrophic losses doesn't sound like you could just repair the engine and drive the thing into battle.......
These missiles are able to penetrate 3.9 feet of armor......very dangerous weapons indeed.....
One last note. These missiles weren't even developed until 1994......fairly new technology, and obviously pretty effective......
"The two tanks saw tracers from behind them and were maneuvering to return fire when, within seconds of one another, each took hits from their rear and burst into flames. As ammunition exploded, the crewmen of Troop B scrambled to safety.
Officers at the scene described the tanks as ``catastrophic losses.''
Catastrophic losses doesn't sound like you could just repair the engine and drive the thing into battle.......
These missiles are able to penetrate 3.9 feet of armor......very dangerous weapons indeed.....
One last note. These missiles weren't even developed until 1994......fairly new technology, and obviously pretty effective......
Originally posted by: Jmman
I noticed some people saying that these tanks were just damaged, but I found a link to the story........
"The two tanks saw tracers from behind them and were maneuvering to return fire when, within seconds of one another, each took hits from their rear and burst into flames. As ammunition exploded, the crewmen of Troop B scrambled to safety.
Officers at the scene described the tanks as ``catastrophic losses.''
Catastrophic losses doesn't sound like you could just repair the engine and drive the thing into battle.......
And being hit, bursting into flames and having ammunition explode inside the tank doesn't exactly lend itself to the crew being able to survive. But every member of the crew got out fine. So it makes you wonder about the accuracy of the story.
That's a surprise! Even T-72 has it as an option. I guess, somebody desided not to outfit M1A1's with the full protection (expecting rocks and total capitulation I presume).
Anyway, I've uses older version of Kornets and I can say that it's a damn good and effective budget weapon (like AK-47/74 and RPG). The best price to performance ratio to my knowledge.
As for the origin of the weapons... I won't be surprised if they cam from Russia with a few stops along the way. Neither I will be surprised if official goverment has nothing to do with that. You see, the valuable lesson Russia has learned after losing the cold war is that Money is a King. And russian businesmen are notorious for striking the stinky deals with whoever is ready to pay. Hey, they are still selling arms and ammo to Chechens under table despite nationwide outrage. As they say in there: "Money has no smell".
I watched a show on the discovery channel and they were testing a shaped charge explosive. It was pretty neat, the charge was actually a disc of copper surrounded by explosives and contained in a steel shell with a hole in it. They placed the charge up to numerous steel plates to see how much it could penetrate. When the explosives fired, they compressed the copper disc and it extruded through the hole in the steel shell. This extrusion of aluminum, they said, it very abrasive and it cut through several steel plates with ease. They seperated the steel plates afterwards and showed the copper extrusion, it was a slug that just cut right through the steel. Pretty interesting how it worked.
the M1 tank is made so that the turret ammo comparment can completly exploded and not kill the crew as long as the ammo doors are closed. they have built in weak points.
the tank is driveable without a turret, so unless fire or exposion gets into the hull the tank is not a total lose.
the tank is driveable without a turret, so unless fire or exposion gets into the hull the tank is not a total lose.
I wish I would have linked to that article I found. They said they was a large hole punched clear through the armor.....they also said there was a warning issued to all troops in the theater to be on the lookout for these launchers and try to capture one. They obviously want to fly one to Russia and ask them about it.....
Emos
Golden Member
- Oct 27, 2000
- 1,989
- 0
- 0
The M1-A1 ammunition is stored in a compartment separate from the crew and is protected by a set of blastdoors. IIRC if the ammo compartment is breached the explosion is vented out through two hatches in the top of the turret, thus permitting the crew to escape.
I hear so many different versions of what happened on the news I don't know what to believe. Every news service wants to be the first one to break the news, so the story is often inacurrate.
The other day I'm watching the news and they said that 1,000 Iraqi tanks and vehicles were advancing towards US forces. By the end of the day, that story fizzled out into a limited number of troops moving around. I don't know what to believe.
The other day I'm watching the news and they said that 1,000 Iraqi tanks and vehicles were advancing towards US forces. By the end of the day, that story fizzled out into a limited number of troops moving around. I don't know what to believe.
I'm trusting on my memory here so bear with me if I get a minor fact wrong.
The shaped charge is based on what is known as the Monroe effect. Rock quarry miners long ago noticed that often there was an indention of the lettering on the blocks of explosives left on the face of the rock after blasting. Interesting but no one did anything with it. During WWII some Swiss? inventors let Britain know that they had come up with a way to defeat German tank armor using a small shell. The British went to the demonstration and since one of them had done his homework deduced that they were just applying the Monroe effect and if they could do it so could the British. They soon came up with some anti-tank rounds based on the theory and they worked fairly well. One problem was soon found, the effect of a spinning projectile dispersed the flame jet and thus limited the penetration. One group actually worked on a nonspinning projectile fired out of a rifled barrel by attempting to have free spinning copper bands for sealing, it didn't work well. The "shaped charge "application did find it's way into shells for the bazooka and the British piat. This is IIRC why the main gun on the Abrams is a smoothbore.
Ian Hogg is the reference for that information I believe.
yes the main gun in the M1A1/M1A2 is a smooth bore, not rifled like the older M60/m1 105mm cannons.
the reason for this so they can shoot many more different types of ammo
the reason for this so they can shoot many more different types of ammo
In other words, when a post is made that makes what you wrote look factually incorrect, it's because of different versions of the news. I get it.
Colt45
Lifer
- Apr 18, 2001
- 19,721
- 1
- 0
kornet-e
edit: these ones are intresting too, little less range and penetration, but more portable.
konkurs & metis
edit: these ones are intresting too, little less range and penetration, but more portable.
konkurs & metis
No, wrong.
Did being an abrasive little slut come naturally or did you learn it from your mother?
Can someone in the know please confirm when these "Kornet E's" were first produced and whether they were exported before the '91 UN arms embargo? I think this would be quite a critical point in the arguement.
Cheers,
Andy
Cheers,
Andy
Fair enough. If they sold it against the UN embargo then they deserve to get flak for it. Is it also possible though that it was sold to another nation - who then sold it to Iraq for an inflated price? Its a tangled web we weave...
Cheers,
Andy
Russia's pretty strapped for cash so I'd imagine that they'd have no problem selling it directly to Iraq. Or it could be that the Russian companies took it upon themselves to make a buck by selling it illegally to Iraq. And Syria would be more than willing to sell this stuff to Iraq... it could come from anywhere. When someone has money and someone else has a product, money will change hands one way or another.
the USA sold weapons to the afghani mujahedin when russians were there. what makes anyone think russia would have any problem selling some weapons to iraq?
I believe these were sold to Syria, not directly to Iraq. Evidently they sold 1000 of these to Syria.....
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter