Damascus, Syria - T-72 gets ultra killed, turret flies to space
60 replies, posted
...BF3 got this shit so wrong.
Nice to see the syrian space program is well despite the war.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;40888735]It's their own fault. You don't put tanks in a city without infantry support, You just don't[/QUOTE]
tank knows best
[QUOTE=matreox;40888833]FAR bigger explosion than I thought would be typical for AT. Expected a slightly larger radius than the tank itself as most the energy goes THROUGH the armor? Looked like a god damn vamped HE.[/QUOTE]
Bigger explosion because of all the tank munitions going off at once. Sometimes it cooks off much slower in this horrid example :
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMr5u6wvQgA[/media]
The way the missile was wiggling it's way towards the tank makes it feel like it ought to be accompanied by a slide whistle.
lol i thought that video was funny because the higher voice guy shouting allah ackbar sounded like he just ran off through whatever hallways they were in and started to shout ALLAH ACKBAR all the way down the hallway
What on Earth could they have hit it with? I've never seen anything like it.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40888947]...BF3 got this shit so wrong.[/QUOTE]
But what happens in BF3 is for [i]balancing[/i] :v:
[QUOTE=TAU!;40890557]What on Earth could they have hit it with? I've never seen anything like it.
[/QUOTE]
The ammo obviously
[QUOTE=TAU!;40890557]What on Earth could they have hit it with? I've never seen anything like it.
But what happens in BF3 is for [i]balancing[/i] :v:[/QUOTE]
MEH, to be instakilled by a static object is a con, but considering tanks have every advantage against infantry anyway (takes 4 rpg shots to kill a single one, they can usually run away or heal in time while you take 5 seconds to reload each shot[and not to mention they can murder you immediately]) I don't think anyone would mind too much.
It seems like tanks in Syria are nothing but just giant metal boxes to blow up
I really hope America's tank dont suffer from this kind of ineffectiveness because Im a big fan of tanks
[QUOTE=Jmir 54;40891053]It seems like tanks in Syria are nothing but just giant metal boxes to blow up
I really hope America's tank dont suffer from this kind of ineffectiveness because Im a big fan of tanks[/QUOTE]
AT-Munitions tend to not give a fuck where your tank was made, they are designed to fuck shit up and they do. If the tank survives, you just need to use a bigger warhead
[QUOTE=Akuma_lektro;40890708]The ammo obviously[/QUOTE]
What a brilliant explanation, you should start your own military school and teach only this.
But seriously, I want to know what was used (besides AT ammo) to send that tank into space.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40890770]MEH, to be instakilled by a static object is a con, but considering tanks have every advantage against infantry anyway (takes 4 rpg shots to kill a single one, they can usually run away or heal in time while you take 5 seconds to reload each shot[and not to mention they can murder you immediately]) I don't think anyone would mind too much.[/QUOTE]
...that's exactly what the balancing is, I was being sarcastic. It's good, but gets annoying from time to time, especially if you manage to hit a helicopter with the Javelin, only for it to just get a little smoky. Then you spend a few more pointless minutes trying to take it down when a jet just swoops in and steals the kill from you.
[QUOTE=TAU!;40891595]What a brilliant explanation, you should start your own military school and teach only this.
But seriously, I want to know what was used (besides AT ammo) to send that tank into space.
...that's exactly what the balancing is, I was being sarcastic. It's good, but gets annoying from time to time, especially if you manage to hit a helicopter with the Javelin, only for it to just get a little smoky. Then you spend a few more pointless minutes trying to take it down when a jet just swoops in and steals the kill from you.[/QUOTE]
It seems like the missile hit, and depending on what type of missile it was it shot molten metal into the tank (which quite a few AT rounds do that if i'm not mistaken as a way to disable the tank / kill the crew) but it shot molten metal into where they were storing the ammo for the tank and set it all off at once, hence huge boom
Man war sucks, don't see eye to eye with all the funny ratings of watching people getting blown to bits in some war-torn country.
[QUOTE=Lamar;40891681]Man war sucks, don't see eye to eye with all the funny ratings of watching people getting blown to bits in some war-torn country.[/QUOTE]
Because those tankers weren't brave american soldiers.
[QUOTE=TAU!;40891595]
But seriously, I want to know what was used (besides AT ammo) to send that tank into space.
[/QUOTE]
The tank's ammo went off inside of it.
This is what a T-72 autoloader looks like. That big ring is right under the turret, so when the ammo goes off their proximity to each other and their shape + location blows the main force of the explosion upwards. T-72's are reknown for doing this, it happened loads in the gulf war
[IMG]http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSpyN__6Ogr1fnhk9cfTofWnfK7RwwTvNlMgE6iIf3NRvTC8qsnhQ[/IMG]
Abrams use rectangular ammo stowage bins with blowout panels outside the tank. A hydraulic gate opens so a loader can grab one shell, then closes. If the tank gets hit when its closed the majority of the force is directed externally and the crew is fine. If it explodes while the door is open, well, thats just bad luck
[QUOTE=TheTalon;40888735]It's their own fault. You don't put tanks in a city without infantry support, You just don't[/QUOTE]
The issue with that is, Syrian troops would just get gunned down by dozens of snipers if they were sent in with the tanks iirc
[video=youtube;MPkhhLC1tf8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPkhhLC1tf8[/video]
[editline]4th June 2013[/editline]
Last thing the crew heard
I laughed
at people dying
[editline]3rd June 2013[/editline]
this is terrible
I did the hard work
[url]http://youtubedoubler.com/8uvd[/url]
God is great.
you are watching a few real people die in this video btw, before you hit funny
[QUOTE=Jmir 54;40891053]It seems like tanks in Syria are nothing but just giant metal boxes to blow up
I really hope America's tank dont suffer from this kind of ineffectiveness because Im a big fan of tanks[/QUOTE]
If you have a weapon that can penetrate (for example) an Abrams's armor, then yeah, they are ineffective.
[QUOTE=laserguided;40892095]Because those tankers weren't brave american soldiers.[/QUOTE]
To be fair most people here are Westerners, so they will naturally be more sympathetic to these types of videos where western troops die. I personally am very disturbed by pictures of dead American soldiers, while a picture of a dead Syrian soldier wont really bother me all that much. Its just kind of built in to everyone.
I don't understand the funny's though, that's just being cold.
someone please put a slide whistle on as the rocket flies towards it
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;40888947]...BF3 got this shit so wrong.[/QUOTE]
probably because it's an government tank loaded with 125mm HE-FRAG (since the rebels have almost no tanks), so basically it's a tank loaded with high explosives.
In a BF3 scenario you'd have sabot and other types of rounds that aren't as explosive so the explosion wouldn't be as spectacular.
[editline]5th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;40899549]If you have a weapon that can penetrate (for example) an Abrams's armor, then yeah, they are ineffective.[/QUOTE]
not really, gonna crossquote from an american tanker here
[quote]Depends vastly on the tank, and the weapon strike. I know people who've survived RKG-3 strikes on HMMWVs, assorted RPG strikes on other vehicles. The larger interior volume of US vehicles helps in giving more space, and keeping people and systems away from the point of detonation. So while a penetration might kill the tank/a crewman, there's a smaller chance it'll wipe everyone out handily.
The smaller interior volume of Russian vehicles results in higher losses in the event of a penetration, simply because there's so much crammed into a very tight space. I would argue that in planning the vehicle's protection package, the choice was made to maximize surviving a weapon's strike vs surviving a penetration event, which makes sense given the fairly robust tank (BMP/BMD/BTRs are different problems) armor and active defense packages, while fairly lacking crew ergonomics, internal fire fighting, and component protection on the inside.
So, really it's more of a "penetration will always be bad, but a penetration is more likely to result in more damage inside of a Russian platform. [/quote]
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;40911006]probably because it's an government tank loaded with 125mm HE-FRAG (since the rebels have almost no tanks), so basically it's a tank loaded with high explosives.
In a BF3 scenario you'd have sabot and other types of rounds that aren't as explosive so the explosion wouldn't be as spectacular.
[editline]5th June 2013[/editline]
not really, gonna crossquote from an american tanker here[/QUOTE]
Yea but it was just an example. It works this way most of the time. It did in WW2.
[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;40911218]Yea but it was just an example. It works this way most of the time. It did in WW2.[/QUOTE]
not at all.
There are way more nuances to this argument than you're properly considering, eastern vs. western definitions of penetration (US definition is much less strict than eastern), advances in ammo storage technology (blow out panels, wet storage, location)
all of these have a major effect on crew survivability in event of penetration, and have advanced a lot since WWII
I hate how people post "lul alahuackbar" on threads like these.
So what? They're praying before taking someones life, I think its a really great thing to do.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.