Tank v Tank in Syria. - General

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;38341387]Those tanks can't take much can they?[/QUOTE] Not when the drivers area or the ammo get destroyed on the first hit, they can't.

"Penetration!"

[QUOTE=AtomicWaffle;38344640]"Penetration!"[/QUOTE] My little brother and his friends are playing world of tanks. When his friend mentions that something has good penetration, my brother sometimes puts on porn to show him what "real penetration is like"

[QUOTE=C0MMUNIZT;38341553]Surplus russian shit.[/QUOTE] As if any other tank could really bet on surviving a frontal shot by T-72.

[QUOTE=kazookie;38344820]My little brother and his friends are playing world of tanks. When his friend mentions that something has good penetration, my brother sometimes puts on porn to show him what "real penetration is like"[/QUOTE] You sure they are just friends?

[QUOTE=smurfy;38345125]You sure they are just friends?[/QUOTE] Yeah, he has a girlfriend, and there are often more friends of my brother there at the same time. It's the way he acts when he's around with more people at the same time. Trying to stay in alpha mode when other cool people can see him.

[QUOTE=Orkel;38340185][URL]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8a0_1350964779[/URL] somewhat related. driver starts up the engine, gets hit a second later right at where he's sitting you can see one of the crew escape from the turret aswell, doubt the driver survived tho[/QUOTE] Two crewmembers escape. One of them is covered by the tree, but you can see part of his body and head as he gets out. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/2GCJL.jpg[/IMG]

Allau Akbar

Is Al's Snackbar like the middle eastern mcdonalds. They talk about it in every video.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;38344959]As if any other tank could really bet on surviving a frontal shot by T-72.[/QUOTE] Front is where the toughest armour usually is, although at that distance it might not be enough but I really couldn't tell.

"Every body bail out!"

[QUOTE=Orkel;38340551]Also this [url]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=925_1345837153[/url] Guy has balls of steel. Runs right up to a T-72, shoots an RPG at almost point blank range through the turret which blows up the ammo inside a couple of seconds later[/QUOTE] Pretty sure the general agreement has been that the RPG round hit the tank, but did only minor damage. The later explosion is the car next to the tank.

"Enemy T-72, 500 Meters, Left."

[QUOTE=TAU!;38338345]This again? It's just like when English speaking people say "Jesus Christ!" or "Oh my god!" Stop with this shit, because you people are literally starting to sound like a mountain of broken records.[/QUOTE] It's only strange because those phrases are used more sparsely. And its taken in vain

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;38344959]As if any other tank could really bet on surviving a frontal shot by T-72.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Abrams_Pics/M1A2-TUSK-upg-2005-1.jpg[/IMG] This guy wouldn't give a fuck ^ [IMG]http://www.sg.hu/forumkepek/2011_01/t90mm1.jpg[/IMG] P. Sure that this guy(T-90A) wouldn't give a fuck about a T-72 hitting it either. ^ Edit: [img]http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/Images/Chall206.jpg[/img] This guy would also eat the T-72 for breakfast ^ [img]http://www.denstoredanske.dk/@api/deki/files/69601/=Holland_Leopard_2A6.jpg[/img] This guy also has a hard time finding shits to give ^ They're just all using outdated tanks and the hand-held launchers have caught up.

A T-72 could still easily kill any of the tanks you posted. It's more about the ammunition type being used and who gets the shot off first

[QUOTE=Aman VII;38350811]A T-72 could still easily kill any of the tanks you posted. It's more about the ammunition type being used and who gets the shot off first[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure it was established that modern MBT's are nigh indestructible, especially in tank to tank combat vs antiques like the T-72. I don't think that a single Abrams was lost during the Iraqi tank battle, which consisted of primarily T-72s.

[QUOTE=SirKillsAlot;38351419]I'm pretty sure it was established that modern MBT's are nigh indestructible, especially in tank to tank combat vs antiques like the T-72. I don't think that a single Abrams was lost during the Iraqi tank battle, which consisted of primarily T-72s.[/QUOTE] Consisted of monkey export model T-72s , crews with barely any training who simply dug in their tanks and used them as pillboxes, and a lack of any true modern ammunition. A T-72 with modern ammo and a crew who actually knows how to use it can still take out MBTs. There's a large difference between 40 year old shells and 10 year old ones [editline]7th November 2012[/editline] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/125_mm_smoothbore_ammunition[/url] [editline]7th November 2012[/editline] That is of course assuming best case scenario (for the T-72s loadout). I'm not sure up to what tier of ammo Russia exports for tank shells specifically but I know they export various handheld launchers that can take out Abrams and what not.

[QUOTE=Orkel;38340551]Also this [url]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=925_1345837153[/url] Guy has balls of steel. Runs right up to a T-72, shoots an RPG at almost point blank range through the turret which blows up the ammo inside a couple of seconds later[/QUOTE] "That one didn't go through"

[QUOTE=SirKillsAlot;38351419]I'm pretty sure it was established that modern MBT's are nigh indestructible, especially in tank to tank combat vs antiques like the T-72. I don't think that a single Abrams was lost during the Iraqi tank battle, which consisted of primarily T-72s.[/QUOTE] Ahahaha, nope. Modern MBTs are indestructible when they face ragheads with RPG-7s who on top of that can't really aim them. Pretty much all of modern tank combat (T-72 being already included into that) is "first to hit a shot wins". [editline]7th November 2012[/editline] T-72s 125mm ATGM rockets the modern versions of tank are armed with penetrate up to 800mm of armor with ERA, and up to 870mm of conventional armor. The main gun HEAT shells penetrate up to 800mm of armor as well. The best version of M1A2 Abrams is rated for up to 800mm protection against HEAT on front hull (yes, including accounting for ceramics composite and whatnot). The crew of T-72 would have to aim properly, but it would easily go through and cook them like turkeys.

[QUOTE=Bbarnes005;38340130]The tank that fired the shot seemed to be a T-72 while the one that was destroyed looked like it could've been a T-54/55 or a T-62. But neverless, the video is pretty chilling.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure that the firing tank was T-62, the profile is higher than T-54's. I think they both were T-62's. (Would love to know what versions they were, Ob'yekt 166 is much more powerful compared to the original model) Also it seems that the tank on the receiving end started immediately turning the turret to face the attacker, but stopped suddenly. Or was it knocked on that angle by force of impact? [QUOTE=carcarcargo;38341387]Those tanks can't take much can they?[/QUOTE] Even old T-62 series tanks pack a respectable punch. There's no tank in the world that would survive taking a round from what is considered point-blank range in today's standards.

I doubt they were 64s. Those were considered "too advanced" to be exported. Are you sure you're not thinking of 62s?

[QUOTE=Apache249;38353809]I doubt they were 64s. Those were considered "too advanced" to be exported. Are you sure you're not thinking of 62s?[/QUOTE] Oh whoops, you are right. It's a typo.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;38353080]Ahahaha, nope. Modern MBTs are indestructible when they face ragheads with RPG-7s who on top of that can't really aim them. Pretty much all of modern tank combat (T-72 being already included into that) is "first to hit a shot wins". [editline]7th November 2012[/editline] T-72s 125mm ATGM rockets the modern versions of tank are armed with penetrate up to 800mm of armor with ERA, and up to 870mm of conventional armor. The main gun HEAT shells penetrate up to 800mm of armor as well. The best version of M1A2 Abrams is rated for up to 800mm protection against HEAT on front hull (yes, including accounting for ceramics composite and whatnot). The crew of T-72 would have to aim properly, but it would easily go through and cook them like turkeys.[/QUOTE] I wholeheartedly agree that MBT's aren't indestructible , but I definitely wouldn't call armor irrelevant. And to say that rounds would easily penetrate is a an aberration, imo. (That's not saying that it couldn't) [URL]http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm[/URL] According to this website and Wikipedia, M1A2s are rated up to 1620mm RHAe on the turret face; and up to 1050 RHAe on the glacis against HEAT, and this doesn't appear to include ERA. Also "up to 800mm" means that the range is probably point blank and I severely doubt engagements will ever get that close for an Abrams. Also I'm skeptical as to whether the Russian 125mm ATGM could achieve 800mm of penetration with ERA on it, especially since ERA is specifically used in some instances to defeat rockets and missiles. [editline]7th November 2012[/editline] Also it's worth mentioning that during Desert Storm, M1s did survive frontal friendly fire hits.

[QUOTE=Billiam;38354422]I wholeheartedly agree that MBT's aren't indestructible , but I definitely wouldn't call armor irrelevant. And to say that rounds would easily penetrate is a an aberration, imo. (That's not saying that it couldn't) [URL]http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm[/URL] According to this website and Wikipedia, M1A2s are rated up to 1620mm RHAe on the turret face; and up to 1050 RHAe on the glacis against HEAT, and this doesn't appear to include ERA. Also "up to 800mm" means that the range is probably point blank and I severely doubt engagements will ever get that close for an Abrams. Also I'm skeptical as to whether the Russian 125mm ATGM could achieve 800mm of penetration with ERA on it, especially since ERA is specifically used in some instances to defeat rockets and missiles. [editline]7th November 2012[/editline] Also it's worth mentioning that during Desert Storm, M1s did survive frontal friendly fire hits.[/QUOTE] 1. Range has no effect on penetrative force of HEAT shells and shaped charges in general. It affects kinetic penetrators (like SABOT). 2. The ATGM has a tandem warhead - first charge which blows off era and second which hits the same spot, afterwards and eats through the armor. This renders ERA practically useless.

[QUOTE=Tudd;38338325]Why must they keep saying "Allah Akbar?" I mean I get why they do it, but sometimes they sound like a broken record.[/QUOTE] Because it's the only words you recognize it sounds like a broken record to you. In Japanese, I only recognize the word "desu", which means if I ever hear something in Japanese then that word sticks out to me.

[QUOTE=Billiam;38354422]Also "up to 800mm" means that the range is probably point blank and I severely doubt engagements will ever get that close for an Abrams. [/QUOTE] HEAT kinda doesn't care about point blank or long range. Once the shell hits, it itself is the thing that does the damage. Unlike APDS which relies on kinetic energy (which diminishes at range), HEAT relies on its explosion and resulting jet. WW2 era Panzerfausts flew really slow and had a range of 50-100 metres yet their HEAT charges could destroy even the heaviest tanks. [editline]7th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Awesomecaek;38354834]1. Range has no effect on penetrative force of HEAT shells and shaped charges in general. It affects kinetic penetrators (like SABOT). [/QUOTE] ffffffffffffffffffuck

It's okay Orkel you did good :v:

[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;38341129]Think about this guys, How long has it been since the very last Tank on Tank battle?[/QUOTE] Gulf War I

[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;38383010]Gulf War I[/QUOTE] Gulf war II: Return of democracy. Ghost battalion fucked shit up then too.